X 
 
 i/^ 
 
THE 
 
 FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS 
 
 AN EXAMINATION 
 
 ARCHBISHOP GIBBONS S " FAITH OF 
 OUR FATHERS." 
 
 BY / J^ 
 
 The Rev. EDWARD J.'^TEARNS, D.D., 
 
 Examining Chaplain of the Diocese of Easion. 
 
 AUTHOR OF "the AFTERPIECE TO THE COMEDY OF CONVOCATION," " BIRTH AND NEW 
 / BIRTH," ETC. 
 
 *^Frojn the beginning it luas not so." — St. Matt. xi.x..S..^..**^,^ 
 
 \o/^ 1879/ 
 
 XT \T Vs^>/Y 1879; ^^/j 
 
 New York : •;./> ^^ , , , . v^V/ 
 
 THOMAS WHITTA K E R , 
 
 2 AN") 3 Bible House. 
 
 1S79. 
 

 :^''.v 
 
 Copyright, ,879, by T. \Vh 
 
 ITTAKER. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 Introduction i 
 
 I. The Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, etc 7 
 
 II. Unity of the Church 7 
 
 III. Holiness of the Church 17 
 
 IV. Catholicity 27 
 
 V. Apostolicity 32 
 
 VI. Perpetuity of the Church 46 
 
 VIL Infallible Authority of the Church 47 
 
 VIII. The Church and the Bible 61 
 
 IX. The Primacy of Peter 112 
 
 X. The Supremacy of the Pope 142 
 
 XI. Infallibility of the Popes. . .' 167 
 
 XII. Temporal Power of the Popes 179 
 
 XIII. Invocation of Saints. 188 
 
 XIV. Sacred Images 204 
 
 XV. Purgatory and Prayers'for the Dead 218 
 
 XVI. Civil and Religious Liberty 238 
 
 XVII. Charges of Religious Persecution 261 
 
 XVIII. Grace — The Sacraments — Original Sin — Baptism — Its 
 
 Necessity— Its Effects — Manner of Baptising 277 
 
 XIX. Confirmation 283 
 
 XX. The Holy Eucharist 286 
 
ii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 XXI. Communion under One Kind 301 
 
 XXII. The Sacrifice of the Mass , , 305 
 
 XXIII. Religious Ceremonies. 311 
 
 XXIV. Ceremonies of the Mass — The Missal — Latin Language — 
 
 Lights— Flowers — Incense — Vestments. 314 
 
 XXV. Penance 322 
 
 XXVI. Indulgences 359 
 
 XXVII. Extreme Unction 361 
 
 XXVIIL The Priesthood 362 
 
 XXIX. Celibacy of the Clergy 363 
 
 XXX. Matrimony 367 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The preparation of the following pages, undertaken 
 at the earnest request of the Assistant Bishop of Mary- 
 land, has been a task of no little difficulty, owing to the 
 character of the work under examination. I thought I 
 knew something of the windings-in-and-out of Roman 
 controversialists ; but the Archbishop's book, in this 
 respect, goes beyond any that has fallen under my 
 observation. The unscholarly way, too, in which he 
 cites his authorities, particularly on important points, 
 makes it exceedingly difficult to follow him up. For 
 instance, on page 245 we have the Reference, *' Blue- 
 Laws'' (!) ; on page 252, '' The Ottoman and Spanish 
 Empires, by Leopold Ranke ;'' on page 371, '' Systema 
 Theol. " (of Leibnitz), *' Remarques sur TOlympe" (of 
 Voltaire), '* Emile" (of Rousseau); and, on other 
 pages, a score or two of other, similar, references ; in 
 every instance, without chapter and verse. I do not 
 complain of his citing authorities at second hand ; but 
 he should at least let us have chapter and verse of the 
 
VI PREFACE, 
 
 original, as given by his second-hand authorities, when 
 those authorities are of his own Communion. 
 
 But slovenhness of Reference is not by any means 
 the worst fault of the book. Let the reader turn to 
 pages 113 and 114, 336-338, 341, 342, of what follows, 
 and read what I have there laid before him, and . • • 
 
 But the pity of it, lago ; the pity of it 1 
 Easton, Maryland, June, 1879. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The ''little volume," as it styles itself, which is 
 here brought under review, and which, according to 
 the imprint on the title-page of the copy now lying be- 
 fore me, has already, though given to the public less 
 than two years ago, reached its *' fortieth thousand," 
 is as remarkable for what it does not contain, as for 
 what it does. Though its ** object," as stated in the 
 preface, is, *' to present in a plain and practical form, 
 an exposition and a vindication of the principal tenets 
 of the Catholic Church," meaning thereby the Church 
 under the headship of the bishop of Rome, I have 
 been able to detect, in the course of a careful reading 
 and re-reading of the book, not so much as even an al- 
 lusion to the Roman doctrine of Justification ; the 
 briefest and barest mention of works of supererogation 
 and the '' Treasury" of the merits of the saints, not a 
 syllable of any special invocation of the Virgin Mary 
 as distinguished from the other saints ; and only nine 
 lines — six of them tv^^o hundred and thirty-three pages 
 apart from the other three — of ** exposition and vindi- 
 cation" of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed 
 Virgin ! 
 
 Here is absolutely all that I can find, from beginning 
 to end of the four hundred and thirty-three pages, on 
 what are commonly called Works of Supereroga- 
 tion : '* An indulgence is simply a remission in whole or 
 in part, through the sicperabzindant merits of Jesus 
 
2 IXTRODUCTION. 
 
 Christ and Jiis saints, [italics mine], of the temporal 
 punishment due to God on account of sin, after the 
 guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted" (p. 
 385). '* Those, however, who contributed nothing [to 
 the completion of St. Peter's], shared equally in the 
 treasury [italics mine] of the Church, provided they 
 complied with the essential conditions for gaining the 
 indulgence'' (p. 391). 
 
 Who would gather from this *' exposition and vindi- 
 cation," that the merits of the saints — that is, the good 
 works they have done over and above what they are re- 
 quired to do — form a *' treasure," of which the Pope 
 holds the key, and which he can set over to the ac- 
 count of those, on earth or in purgatory, who have not 
 done so much as is required of them, and thereby sup- 
 ply to them what they lack ? 
 
 And here is all that I can find, in the whole four 
 hundred and thirty-three pages, on the Immaculate 
 Conception : '* In the doctrine of the supreme power 
 of Peter, as the visible foundation of the Church, we 
 have the implied assertion [italics his] of many rights 
 and duties which belong to the centre of unity. In the 
 revelation of the supereminent dignity and purity of 
 the Blessed Virgin, there is implied her exemption 
 from Original Sin, etc., etc." (p. 30). '' Hence Pascal 
 truly says that man is a greater mystery to himself 
 without Original Sin, than is the mystery itself. 
 
 ** The Church, however, declares that the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary was exempted from the stain of Original 
 Sin by the merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ ; and 
 that, consequently, she was never for an instant sub- 
 ject to the dominion of Satan. This is what is meant 
 by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception" (p. 263). 
 
 Here is the whole *' exposition and vindication,'' and 
 coupling it with the absolute silence of the book on 
 any special veneration of the Virgin above that of the 
 other saints, and contrasting it with the well-known 
 
IX TR OD UC TION. 3 
 
 and universal practice of the Roman Church, we may 
 well say, We have here the tragedy of Hamlet with 
 the part of Hamlet left out. Evidently, the Archbishop, 
 writing, as he is, to Protestants, keeps in mind the 
 saying of the wise man. Surely^ in vain is the net spread 
 in the sight of any bird ! I commend his prudence, but 
 would much rather be able to commend his candor. 
 To be open and aboveboard is best, in the long run, 
 even as a matter of policy ; and even if it were not, it 
 ought to commend itself to a Christian man, not to say 
 an Archbishop and Metropolitan. 
 
 But I fear that straightforwardness is not a charac- 
 teristic of the Archbishop ; for, I am sorry to say, I 
 have detected him in a gross and glaring misrepresen- 
 tation of Luther's teaching on communion under one 
 kind, leaving oat in the first line of his citation two 
 words on which the whole hinges, and stopping short 
 of the end of the sentence, when if he had gone on and 
 completed it, and given the next paragraph, his read- 
 ers would have seen that he was making Luther teach 
 exactly the contrary of what he did teach. 
 
 But Luther was ''a heretic.'' How is it with the 
 Catholics ? the real ones, I mean, of the olden time ; 
 not the new-fangled Roman ones ? Does the Arch- 
 bishop treat them any better ? No ! for, again I am 
 sorry to say, I have detected him in a garbling of St. 
 Basil, in what purports to be a continuous and consec- 
 utive quotation from the Regiilce Breves — lumping into 
 one continuous paragraph sentences that are only 
 twenty four folio pages (of the Benedictine edition) 
 apart from each other, and stopping short, in the first 
 part of the quotation, with a period, where St. Basil 
 puts a comma, because to have given the rest of the 
 sentence, which could have been done in half a dozen 
 lines, would have defeated the purpose for which the citation 
 was made! The proof of this will come in due time.* 
 
 "' See chapters xxi. and xxv. 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Archbishop's '* Introduction" begins : '* My 
 Dear Reader — Perhaps this is the first time in your 
 life that you have handled a book in which the doc- 
 trines of the Catholic [meaning thereby the Roman] 
 Church are expounded by one of her sons/' No, it is 
 7iot the first time. Had it been, I might have been 
 surprised at the Archbishop's treatment of Luther and 
 St. Basil ; but having already handled more than one 
 such book, I was prepared for such misrepresentations 
 and garblings, and set m3^self to ferret them out. The 
 two above referred to may serve as specimens ; there 
 are plenty more, as we shall see, before we get 
 through. 
 
 ** There is no Freemasonry," says the Archbishop 
 (p. 13), ** in the Catholic [meaning the Roman] Church ; 
 she has no secrets to keep back." And yet he ** keeps 
 back" the Roman doctrine concerning Justification, — 
 concerning the three ** Holy Orders" of the ministry, 
 priests, deacons, and subdeacons, instead of bishops, 
 priests, and deacons, — concerning the special worship 
 \hyperdtilid) of the Virgin above that of the other saints ; 
 rather a significant *' keeping back," for which, how- 
 ever, the Archbishop is responsible, and not the ac- 
 credited teachings of his Church. 
 
 '' And in coming to the [Roman] Church," continues 
 the Archbishop (p. 15), '*you are not entering a 
 strange place, but you are returning to your Father's 
 home. The house and furniture may look odd to you. 
 But it is just the same as your forefathers left it three 
 hundred years ago." 
 
 If this were true, the question would be whether 
 they had cause to leave it ; whether the house was 
 tenantable to one who valued his soul's health too much 
 to expose it to a spiritual malaria worse than the physi- 
 cal one of the Pomptine marshes. But it is 7iot true. 
 
 / For, in the first place, otir forefathers did not leave it. 
 
 I On the contrary, they remained where they were ; 
 
IXTRODUCTION, S 
 
 where they had been from the beginning ; in the old ^ 
 historic Church of their fathers. VThey merely shook : 
 off a usurpation which king after king had conspired 
 with pope after pope to fasten upon them, but against 
 which they had, struggled, century after century, 
 unsuccessfully, till, in the good providence of God, 
 conspiring king and pope became contending king 
 and pope, and the wrath of man was made to praise 
 God, and the Church (in the end) to have her own 
 again. And, in the second place, the ** house'' is not 
 the same that it was when the usurper's grasp was 
 taken off from the Church of England's throat. Then, 
 and for thirty years thereafter, the two Churches had 
 the same creeds, the Apostles,' the Nicene, and the 
 Athanasian. But in 1564 Pope Pms IV. set forth a 
 new creed that has ever since gone by his name, wit- 
 nessing thereby to its own novelty. Verily, the 
 ** house" is not ** just the same" that it was three hun- 
 dred and odd years ago. It is not even the same that 
 it was twenty-five years ago. Then Padre Vigil was 
 ** a good Catholic" though he denied the Immaculate 
 Conception. But within a year thereafter he became 
 ** a bad Catholic," not from any change in him on that 
 point (for there was none), but because the ** house" 
 had got adrift, while he kept to his moorings. Nay, 
 it is not the same that it was ten years ago. For Bol- 
 linger, and Rheinkens, and Hertzog, were ** good 
 Catholics" then, though they denied the Infallibility of 
 the Pope ; but they are '' bad Catholics" now, not 
 from any alteration in their faith upon that point (for 
 it has not altered by the breadth of a hair), but be- 
 cause the *' house" is changed, and thev won't change 
 with it. And yet, the Archbishop has the assurance to 
 tell us that the '* house" is *' just the same" that it was 
 in the time of our forefathers. Verily, he must think 
 poorly of our reasoning powers, if he expects us to be- 
 lieve him ; too poorly, one would think, to wish to 
 
6 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 proselyte us. For what accession, even to a society of 
 feeble-minded persons and idiots, could such reasoners 
 be? 
 
 Having thus disposed of all that needs disposing of 
 in the Archbishop's Introduction, I now proceed to 
 consider, chapter by chapter, the rest of the work. 
 Some of the chapters can be dispatched in few words : 
 others will require a fuller handling. 
 
THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE BLESSED TRINITY, THE INCARNATION, ETC. 
 
 The first Chapter of the Archbishop's ''little vol 
 lime," as might be conjectured from its title, has noth- 
 ing in it calling for observation, and I make mention of 
 it, therefore, merely for convenience' sake, that the 
 numbering ot my chapters may correspond to that of 
 his. 
 
 The principal marks or characteristics of the true 
 Church," says the Archbishop, in the concluding para- 
 graph, quoting from the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan 
 Creed, ''are, her Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and 
 Apostolicity, to which,' ' he continues, though without 
 the warrant of the creed, " may be added the Infalli- 
 bility of her teaching and the Perpetuity of her exist- 
 ence. I shall treat," he adds, " successively of these 
 marks. ' * 
 
 In the order of this treatment, I propose to follow 
 him. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 "By unity," says the Archbishop, " is meant that 
 the members of the true Church must be united in the 
 
8 THE FAITH OF OCR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 belief of the same doctrines of revelation, an^^i in the 
 acknowledgment of the authority of the same pastors. 
 Heresy and schism are opposed to Christian unity. By 
 heresy, a man rejects one or more articles of the Chris- 
 tian faith. By schism, he spurns the authority of his 
 spiritual superiors'' (p. 21). 
 
 The Catechism of the Council of Trent puts it some 
 what differently : '' So vast a multitude, scattered far 
 and wide, is called one, for the reasons mentioned by 
 St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians : ' Qne Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism.' This Church," it adds, 'Tias 
 also but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, 
 Christ, whom the Eternal Father ' hath made head 
 over all the Church, which is his body ;' " and then 
 it goes on, in the next breath, to speak of another, a 
 '' visible" one, the " successor of Peter" (Part I., Ar- 
 ticle ix., T II, Donovan's Translation. Baltimore: 
 John Murphy). * 
 
 How there can be *' but one," and that o^e** invisi- 
 ble," and yet, another, and that one '' visilple," is not 
 very easy to see ; especially when taken in connection 
 with another statement of the same catechism, to wit, 
 that ** the Church consists principally of two parts, the 
 one called the Church triumphant, the other the 
 Church militant ;" and that these are not two Churches, 
 but **two constituent parts of one Church; one part 
 gone before, and now in the possession of its heavenly 
 country ; the other, following every day" (Pt. I., Art. 
 ix.,l7). 
 
 Change ''triumphant" to ''expectant" (for the 
 " part gone before" is not yet triumphant, and will not 
 be till the Resurrection), and we have a true descrip- 
 tion of the one Church, with its one Head, and that 
 Head invisible ; invisible, because, like the part of the 
 Body which is nearest to it, it is " gone before," 
 passed " within the veil" (Heb. 6 : 19, 20). ^ 
 
 But is not the part that is " militant here on earth'* 
 
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, 9 
 
 one ? Yes ! One with an organic unity ; but not 
 necessarily with a brotherly unanimity. Brothers ought 
 to be brotherly ; but they are not always ; and yet 
 they do not thereby cease to be brothers. The organic 
 tie remains. 
 
 ** Brothers are brothers evermore." 
 
 There are manifold illustrations of the organic unity 
 of the visible Church, each illustrating some one aspect 
 of that unity. 
 
 The Church is one, as the Masonic fraternity is one. 
 Now the unity of this latter is a visible unity, '* known 
 and read of all men ;'' and yet it has no ecumenical 
 head, but only a national head to each national organi- 
 zation. Plainly, then, a visible earthly head is not 
 necessary to the visible unity of the Visible Church. 
 Perhaps it is on this account that the Roman Church 
 is so sp':cially hostile to Freemasonry. She can have no 
 liking for a society w^hose very existence is a standing 
 proof of the possibility of visible ecumenical unity with- 
 out a visible ecumenical head. 
 
 The Church is one, as the race is one. The first 
 Adam is the head of the race ; of the part that has 
 gone before, as Avell as of the part still on earth ; and 
 it has no other head. The second Adam is the head 
 of the Church ; of the part still on earth, as well as of 
 the part that has gone before ; and it has no other head. 
 
 The Church is one, as the family is one. Though 
 '' two of us in the churchyard lie," and the other five 
 are parted, it may be, for all of this life, yet still '' we 
 are seven ;" and these seven are one ; and this one 
 family 'has one head and only one ; for husband and 
 wife are one. In like manner, the Church, '' the whole 
 family in heaven and earth,'' is one ; and it has one 
 Head, and only one. 
 
 But must not '' the members of the true Church" be 
 ''united in the acknowledgment of the authority of 
 
10 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the same pastors?" They should be vinited in the 
 acknowledgment of the same ministry, to wit, the 
 Apostolic ; but it is the misfortune, rather than the 
 fault, of the many in this land, and large numbers in 
 the motherland, that they are not. The ** true 
 Church" draws a broad line of demarcation between 
 those who knowingly and wilfully create a schism, and \ 
 those who unwittingly slide into it, or are born and 
 reared in it. She claims as her own every baptized 
 man and woman and child. She does not excommu- 
 nicate those Avho by the misfortune of their birth and 
 education are in formal but not wilful schism. She 
 leaves that to the false parent, the stepmother, Rome. 
 *' Peter" may '* begin to curse and to swear ;" the 
 Church of Christ, Catholic in truth and not in pre- 
 tence, has a different way of w^inning back those of her 
 children who have strayed from her fold ; the way of 
 the Mother in those beautiful lines of the Greek An- 
 thology, so exquisitely translated by Samuel Rogers : 
 
 ** While on the cliff with calm delight she kneels, 
 And the blue vales a thousand joys recall, 
 See, to the last, last verge her infant steals : 
 
 Oh fly ! yet stir not, speak not, lest it fall ! 
 Far better taught, she lays her bosom bare. 
 And the fond boy springs back, to nestle there." 
 
 Even the stepmother Rome can, when it suits her pur- 
 pose, make allowance for what she calls invincible ignor- • 
 ance, Som^ of her children better her instructions. 
 Said the late Bishop Wilberforce to his servant-girl, 
 '* How is it, Bridget, that you are so attached to me, 
 and yet you beheve that I shall go to hell when I 
 die ?" ** Oh, I dont believe it." '' But how am^I to be 
 saved ?" '' You'll be saved by your invincible higno- 
 rance." Bridget's heart was better than her head: 
 Rome's heart is worse, I fear, than its head ; and that 
 is saying a great deal. 
 
 But must not '* the members of the true Church 
 
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. ii 
 
 be ** united in the belief of the same doctrines of reve- 
 lation ?" So far as those doctrines are articles of faith, 
 Yes ; so far as they are outside of the faith, No. 
 What, then, is the faith ? The Catechism of the 
 Council of Trent — that '' Catechism which," says the 
 Council (Sess. 24, de Reform, c. 7), '' Bishops will 
 take care to have faithfully translated into the vernac- 
 ular language, and expounded to the people by all pas- 
 tors" — shall give the answer to this question, an an- 
 swer which the Archbishop is estopped from finding 
 fault with : 
 
 '' Our predecessors in the faith have very wisely re- 
 duced them [viz. *'the truths revealed by Almighty 
 God"] to these four heads — The Apostles' Creed — The 
 Sacraments — The Ten Commandments — and The 
 Lord's Prayer. The Creed contains all that is to be 
 held according to the discipline of the Christian faith, 
 whether it regard the knowledge of God, the creation 
 and government of the world ; or the redemption of 
 man, the rewards of the good and the punishments of 
 the wicked. . . . The first, then, and most im- 
 portant points of Christian faith are those which the 
 holy apostles, the great leaders and teachers of the 
 faith, men inspired by the Holy Ghost, have divided 
 into the twelve articles of the Creed : for as they had 
 received a command from the Lord 1j go forth ' into 
 the whole world,' as his ambassadors, and preach the 
 Gospel to every creature (2 Cor. 5 : 18, 19, 20 ; Mark. 1 
 16 : 15), they thought proper to conpose a form off 
 Christian faith, ' that all may speak and think the same 
 thing ' (i Cor. 1:10); and that amongst those whom 
 they should have called to the unity of faith, no schisms 
 should exist ; but that they should be perfect in the 
 same mind, and in the same spirit. This profession of 
 Christian faith and hope, drawn up by themselves, the 
 Apostles called a 'symbol/ either because it was an 
 aggregate of the combined sentiments of all ; or be- 
 
 \ 
 
12 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 cause, by it as by a common sign and watchword, they 
 might easily distinguish false brethren, deserters from 
 the faith ' unawares brought in ' (Gal. 2:4), ' who 
 adulterated the word of God ' ( 2 Cor. 2:17), from 
 those who had pledged an oath of fidelity to serve 
 under the banner of Christ" (Preface, ^T[ 14 and 17). 
 
 The Apostles' Creed, then (whether we accept this 
 account of its origin or not), contains all that is neces- 
 sary to be believed as a requisite to everlasting salva- 
 tion. We might infer this from the fact that it is the 
 baptismal creed, and the further fact that it is the only 
 creed we examine the Christian on when we visit him 
 in his last sickness and commend his parting spirit 
 *' into the hands of its faithful Creator and most merci- 
 ful Saviour ;" for, surely, that which is sufficient for 
 the beginning and the end of the Christian life, is suffi- 
 cient for the whole course of it. As to the Nicene 
 Creed, the Church accepts it as a legitimate develop- 
 ment and amplification of the teaching of the Apostles' 
 Creed, and as such she teaches it to her children, and 
 expects them to ''grow up into it," — an expectation 
 which is justified by the result ; but she does not im- 
 pose it on them as a condition of salvation. As to the 
 Creed of Pope Pius IV., she regards it as in no sense a 
 development or amplification of, but rather an unsightly 
 patch sewed on to, the old historic creed. It is not an 
 amplification ; for to amplify is ''to place a subject in 
 some way in a clearer light" (Andrews' " Freund's 
 Lexicon," sub voc, ampltfico) ; not to add a new sub- 
 ject. Neither is it a development ; for what is there 
 in the Apostles' Creed that could be developed into 
 the supremacy of the Roman Church as the Mother 
 and Mistress of all Churches ?"^ He that could develop 
 the former into the latter, or into any other of the arti- 
 cles of the creed of Pope Pius, could develop a bee- 
 moth into a behemoth, or even a horse chestnut into a 
 chestnut horse ! 
 
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 13 
 
 Nor has this patchwork development stopped here. 
 Even within our own day, we have had two new arti- 
 cles tacked on to the old creed by the Roman Church. 
 And yet the Archbishop has the assurance to tell us 
 that '' her creed is now identical with what it was in 
 past ages*' (p. 2j). How does he make this out? 
 Thus : 
 
 ** But it may be asked, is not this unity of faith im- 
 paired by those doctrinal definitions which the Church 
 has promulgated from time to time ? We answer : 
 No new dogma, unknown to the apostles, not con- 
 tained in the primitive Christian revelation, can be ad- 
 mitted (John 14 : 26 ; 15:15; 16 : 13). For the apos- 
 tles received the whole deposit of God's word, accord- 
 ing to the promise of our Lord : ' When he shall come, 
 the spirit of truth, he shall teach you all truth.' And 
 so the Church proposes the doctrines of faith, such as 
 they came from the lips of Christ, and as the Holy 
 Spirit taught them to the apostles at the birth of the 
 Christian law — doctrines which know neither variation 
 nor decay. 
 
 '* Hence, wlienever it has been defined that any 
 point of doctrine pertained to the Catholic faith, it was 
 always understood that this was equivalent to the 
 declaration that the doctrine in question had been re- 
 vealed to the apostles, and had come down to us from 
 them, either by scripture or tradition" (pp. 28, 29). 
 
 Let us hold the Archbishop to this, and see where it 
 will land him. Within the memory of many of us, for 
 it dates back less than a quarter of a century, ** it has 
 been defined" that the Immaculate Conception of the 
 Virgin Mary '* pertains to the Catholic faith." It fol- 
 lows from the Archbishop's declaration above cited, 
 that it alwa3^s did pertain to it. It Avas therefore a 
 part of *' the Catholic faith" at the time of the Council 
 of Trent. And 3^et, at that time, the Dominicans and 
 
14 THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS, 
 
 Franciscans were at swords' points upon it, and so con- 
 tinued to be, down almost to our own day. Why did 
 not the infallible Pope interpose, when a word from 
 him would have settled the controversy ? Why did he 
 leave the Church in uncertainty about it for three hun- 
 dred years ? This is a question that I shall defer till I 
 come to the question of Infallibility. At present it con- 
 cerns me only to ask. Where is the boasted *' admira- 
 ble unity that exists in matters of faith ?" (p. 28). Or 
 rather, Where zvas it, at the Council of Trent, and for 
 a quarter of a millennium thereafter ? For as, accord- 
 ing to the Archbishop (p. 74), the Roman Church is 
 *' to-day'' '' more united, more compact, and more vig- 
 orous than ever she was before," it follows that before 
 *' to-day" she was less ** vigorous," less ''compact," 
 less ''united." How has the "admirable unity" of 
 *^' to-day" been brought about? By cutting off those 
 who, like DoUinger, profess the same faith "to-day" 
 that they professed yesterday, and decline to change 
 with the changing infallible Church. Verily, a com- 
 pendious way of securing unity ! Change, yourself, 
 and then cut off those that won't change with you, 
 and it takes no ghost to tell that those who remain will 
 be united. But what is such a unity worth ? Cole- 
 ridge tells of a man who was " content to think with 
 the great Dr. Paley," and to whom he retorted, " Man 
 of sense. Dr. Paley was a great man ; but you do not 
 think, at all !" So it is with the rank and file of the 
 Roman communion, in the matter of new-fangled arti- 
 cles of faith. They do not think at all ; they let the 
 Pope do their thinking for them, and when he changes, 
 presto, they change with him. 
 
 But the Archbishop will have it that there is no 
 change; only "a more explicit declaration'' of Avhat 
 was previously " implicitly, less clearly, not so earnestly 
 proposed," because there was then "no contrary 
 teaching to render a more explicit declaration neces- 
 
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, 15 
 
 sary" (pp. 30, 31). He, very conveniently keeps out 
 of sight, what, nevertheless, he well knows to be the 
 fact, that for the greater part of the last three hundred 
 years, there lias been, in the matter of the Immaculate 
 Conception, ** contrary teaching" on the part of the 
 Dominican low church, in opposition to the Francis- 
 can high church, and therefore, on his own showing, 
 occasion *' for a more explicit declaration;" 3^et, till 
 within the last quarter of a century, no such declara- 
 tion forthcoming. 
 
 In pursuing this subject, the Archbishop devotes 
 three or four pages to what may be called a sermon, 
 on the text, '* A revealed truth frequently has a very 
 extensive scope, and is directed against error under its 
 many changing forms. Nor is it necessary that those 
 who receive this revelation in the first instance, should 
 be explicitly acquainted with its full import, or cogni- 
 zant of all its bearings. 
 
 A very good text, but a very inconsequent sermon ; 
 for neither of the two doctrines *' defined" by the late 
 Pope, can come under this category. Surely, if there 
 is *' occasion" now for the explicit belief of the Immac- 
 ulate Conception, and the Infallibility of the Pope, 
 there was equal occasion for it in the beginning. 
 Think of a Church having an Infallible Pope at her 
 head for eighteen hundred years, and all that time not 
 knowing that he was infallible ! Nay, allowing her 
 children to deny his infallibility freely up to the year 
 of grace 1870, and then for the first time excommuni- 
 cating them for such denial ! A man of plain practical 
 common sense would suppose that if the Church had 
 already got along for eighteen hundred years without 
 knowing that the Pope was Infallible, she could get 
 along another eighteen hundred years without know- 
 ing it ; and further that if a doctrine so *' important if 
 true," had, to say the least, not been certainly known 
 to be true by the Church, it could not possibly be true. 
 
1 6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 But more of this when we come to the chapter on In- 
 fallibility. 
 
 In conclusion, unity depends on historic continuity. 
 In the words of another, ** It is not because the Church 
 is Episcopal or Presbyterian ; because it worships with 
 or without a Liturg}" ; nor for any other peculiarity 
 of doctrine or organization, that it is said to be the 
 Church that our Lord * purchased with his ow^n 
 blood \ 'gave himself for ; ' ' that he might sanctify 
 and cleanse it, and present it to himself without spot, 
 or w^rinkle, or any such thing.' But it is on account 
 of identity or sameness with the Church spoken of in 
 the Scriptures, that we can apply these things to any 
 modern body professing to be Christians. The great 
 point of our inquiry has been identity of origin. The 
 same vine can never grow from several different [orig- 
 inal] roots.'' (''Church Identified," by the Rev. W. 
 D. Wilson, D.D. New York, 1850 ; pp. 238, 239.) 
 
 I have interpolated the word ''original," because 
 the Church is a sarmentose vine, sending out "run- 
 ners" in all directions, and these runners striking root 
 in every soil, and, when firml}^ rooted, retaining the 
 common life even when severed from the parent stock. 
 A sect, on the other hand, is, as the name implies, an 
 attempt to propagate the vine by a cutting ; a mode of 
 propagation for which no provision was made in the 
 original constitution of the vine. 
 
 The writer above quoted compares the Church's his- 
 tor}^ to "a stream rolling on to the ocean." His de- 
 scription of the stream is very graphic : " From some 
 elevated point we may see its course through the lapse 
 of ages. Mountains enclose it on both sides. Here a 
 rock rising in rugged barrenness, there an island, cov- 
 ered with verdure and beauty, separate, for a time, its 
 waters into several channels, each pursuing its circui- 
 tous course to a union with that from which it was 
 separated. Perhaps the last that the eye can see will 
 
THE HOLINESS OE THE CHURCH. I'/ 
 
 be deltas extending their dividing influence into the 
 very bosom of the ocean. The separation between the 
 East and the West in the eleventh century is one such 
 division. The Reformation is another. These may 
 prove islands in a stream yet to be reunited ; or the 
 river may empty itself by different mouths into eter- 
 nity. But whether separate channels flowing round 
 rock and island, or separate mouths flowing into the 
 same ocean, the stream is one and the same. Beyond 
 the mountains flow others that have started from other 
 fountains, and flow in different channels. The geo- 
 grapher never confounds the one with the other. 
 Their identity is never mistaken." 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 With the greater part of what the Archbishop says 
 respecting the holiness of the Church I cordially agree ; 
 but there are some things that cannot be permitted to 
 pass unchallenged; notably his estimate of the '' books 
 of piety" within his own communion, as compared 
 with those outside of it. ''Who," he asks, '' can read 
 without spiritual profit such works as the almost in- 
 spired 'Following of Christ,* by Thomas a Kempis ; 
 the ' Christian Perfection' of Rodriguez ; the ' Spir- 
 itual Combat' of Scupoli ; the writings of St. Francis 
 de Sales, and a countless host of other ascetical au- 
 thors ?" (p. 38). 
 
 Had the Archbishop stopped here, I should have 
 contented myself with suggesting that there was some 
 base metal mingled with the fine gold in most of these 
 writers, and that the asceticism in their writings might 
 
t8 the faith of our FORE FA THERS, 
 
 have been somewhat lessened with advantage ; for 
 ** bodily exercise profiteth little" (i Tim. 4 : 8). 
 
 But he goes on : '' You will search in vain outside 
 the Catholic [meaning the Roman] Church for writers 
 comparable in unction and healthy piety to such as I 
 have mentioned." 
 
 Evidently, the Archbishop, in his ''search," has 
 never come across such works as Bishop' Andre wes* 
 '* Devotions," Jeremy Taylor's *' Holy Living and 
 Dying," Bishop Wilson's '* Sacra Privata," Scougal's 
 ** Life of God in the Soul of Man," '* and a countless 
 host of other" devotional, if not ascetical writers ; or 
 else he is not a good judge of " unction," and '* healthy 
 piety." 
 
 He excepts one book, however, from this general 
 disparagement ; but he does it with a salvo. *' I do not 
 speak," he says, *' of the * Book of Common Prayer,' 
 because the best part of it is a translation from our 
 Missal." There is a slight mistake here. The best 
 part of the prayer-book, outside of what comes from 
 holy scripture, is a translation from the early Greek 
 Liturgies. Perhaps, however, the Archbishop thinks 
 those Liturgies are a translation from '* our Missal ;" 
 like the honest Methodist, who, dropping in at a book- 
 seller's in North Charles Street, Baltimore, some five- 
 and-thirty years ago, and, while waiting his turn to 
 be served, taking up what proved to be a prayer-book, 
 and happening to open at the communion office, after 
 looking at it in blank astonishment for some moments, 
 exclaimed in unfeigned amazement, ** Why, this is 
 taken from the Discipline !" 
 
 At the opening of this chapter, the Archbishop gives 
 the reason why the Church is called holy, to wit, be- 
 cause it is ''a society founded by our Lord Jesus 
 Christ for the sanctification of its members ;" an ob- 
 ject, however, which it accomplishes but in part ; for, 
 adds the Archbishop, *' we cannot close our eyes to the 
 
THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 19 
 
 painful fact that too many of them, far from living up 
 to the teachings of their Church, are sources of melan- 
 choly scandal" (p. 42). But this does not militate 
 against the holiness of the Church. It is holy in idea, 
 and, so far as this idea is realized in the lives of its 
 members, they are holy, not merely in profession — 
 which all are — but in deed and in truth. 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, *' the Church, walking in 
 the footsteps of her divine Spouse, never repudiates 
 sinners, nor cuts them off from her fold, no matter how 
 grievous or notorious may be their moral delinquen- 
 cies ; not because she connives at their sin, but because 
 she wishes to reclaim them. She bids them never to 
 despair, and tries, at least, to weaken their passions, 
 if she cannot altogether reform their lives 
 
 " We know, on the other hand, that sinners who are 
 guilty of gross crimes which shock public decency, 
 are virtually excommunicated from Protestant commu- 
 nions'* (p. 43). 
 
 The Archbishop refers to the parable of the Wheat 
 and Tares, in justification of the course of the Roman 
 Church as contrasted with that of *' Protestant Com- 
 munions.'* But that parable does not justify retaining 
 in the fold ** scandalous" sinners; sinners ''guilty of 
 gross crimes which shock public decency." The case 
 of the incestuous person at Corinth is a case in point. 
 The Corinthian Church, like the Roman of the pres- 
 ent day, had failed to '' repudiate" the sinner. Hence 
 the apostle wrote to them (i Cor. 5 : 2, Rhemish Ver- 
 sion), ** And you are puffed up ; and have not rather 
 mourned, that he might be taken away frorn among y oil, 
 that hath done this deed." The Archbishop, how- 
 ever, represents the apostle as simply reproving the 
 transgressor : *' St. Paul," he says, '' calls the Church 
 of Corinth a congregation of saints (i Cor. i), though 
 he reproves some scandalous members among them" 
 (i Cor. 5) : ** To deliver such a one to Satan for the 
 
20 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in 
 the day of our Lord Jesus Christ," (i Cor. 5 : 5, 
 Rhemish Version), that is, to cast him out of the fold, 
 for the time being, into the world, the kingdom of 
 Satan, ''the terrible and greatest pvinishment, " says 
 the '' annotation" of the Rhemish Version on this pas- 
 sage, ''in the world, yea, far passing all earthly pain 
 and torment of this life, and being a very resemblance 
 of damnation," is, to say the least, a very singular way 
 of " reproving" him ! 
 
 The truth is, while the Roman communion goes to 
 one extreme in this matter, and some of the Protestant 
 communions to the other, even excluding from the 
 fold for lack of certain " experiences," and " frames," 
 the holy Catholic Church in this land, following the 
 example of the apostle, excludes from communion for 
 scandalous offences, and for those only. 
 
 I am glad to see that the Archbishop admits that re- 
 formation was needed three hundred years ago. " It 
 cannot be denied," he says, "that corruption of mor- 
 als prevailed in the sixteenth century to such an extent 
 as to call for a sweeping reformation, and that laxity 
 of discipline invaded even the sanctuary" (p. 45). If 
 the Roman Church, all along the previous centuries 
 had followed the example of the apostle in the case of 
 the Corinthian Church, would the " corruption of 
 morals" in the sixteenth century have required " a 
 sweeping reformation ?" 
 
 But how is it with the riinctecnth century ? Is there 
 no reformation needed now ? Judging from what I 
 read in newspapers of reputation and standing, it seems 
 to me that there is need of a very " sweeping reforma- 
 tion" in a part, at least, of the " holy Roman Church" 
 in the United States of America, and that a very im- 
 portant part ; a part dignified with the headship of a 
 cardinal. I take the following from the Southern Church' 
 man of December 19th, 1878 : 
 
THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 2i 
 
 ''A GRAND AFFAIR. 
 
 '' The Roman Catholics have built a magnificent ca- 
 thedral in the city of New York ; but some $200,000 
 were needed to finish the interior and to make it *church- 
 like/ to have great marble altars and paintings and 
 statues of the Virgin and the saints, and to purchase 
 silk and fine linen and jewelry for the priests who were 
 to minister at the costly altars in the costly building. 
 But $200,000 are not to be had for wishing, nor for 
 that matter, in hard times, for the asking. So what do 
 the Cardinal and other dignitaries but permit a grand 
 fair to be held in the unfinished cathedral, a fair in 
 which we hear there was a bar open for the sale of 
 whiskey and ale and other drinks, and there were 
 rafHes and gambling of various kinds, so that one has a 
 right to ask, ' Is this temple dedicated, or to be dedi- 
 cated, to God or the devil ? ' for it is evident the devil's 
 work has been going on and in the most excited man- 
 ner. But as a reporter of the Evening Post visited the 
 cathedral we must permit him to tell us what he saw in 
 one spot : 
 
 '* * A young priest, near what looked like a small 
 round gambling table at the Catholic Fair yesterday, 
 Avas surrounded by some bright boys, whose average 
 age was about eight years. Some young girls swelled 
 their number. * Number four,' called out the priest, 
 as the arrow, which had been turning on its pivot to 
 the centre of the table, stopped over a section of the 
 surface marked '' four." There were twelve sections in 
 all, and on each one of them lay a cent contributed by 
 a boy or girl. The reporter counted eighteen boys 
 who were standing around the table shouting, snap- 
 ping their eyes, watching the revolving arrow and yell- 
 ing when it stopped. ** Number four," cried out the 
 priest. " I declare, that is a lucky number. Why, 
 
2 2 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 it*s been 'four/ two or three times/* He picked up 
 six cents, one after the other, from the table, and 
 handed them to the boy who had deposited a cent on 
 number four. The remaining six cents, which lay on 
 the other six sections of the surface of the table, he put 
 into his pocket. 
 
 *' * ** Now, who's next?" he asked with earnestness. 
 ** Who will have number four this time ?'' A little fel- 
 low with handsome deep black eyes and rich dark hair 
 stretched out his hand and placed a cent on number 
 four. Others followed him, the priest meanwhile exhort- 
 ing- them to do so. A pretty maid offered a cent, 
 which he put on number twelve. '* Yours is number 
 twelve, little girl — remember, number twelve. Now I 
 want one for number three,'' he said ; ''give me a cent 
 for number three." 
 
 " ' " Lend me a cent," demanded a brown-haired, 
 hot-cheeked boy of a companion who had just won six 
 cents. " Lend me a cent, will you ?" Lie was excited 
 and bankrupt. 
 
 *' ' " Here," said the successful player, and handed 
 him one of the six that he held in his fist. 
 
 *' * " What's my number?" screamed a boy. 
 
 " * " Number two, and don't forget it," replied the 
 priest. *' If it stops at that number, remember, you 
 get six cents." 
 
 *' * '' I am number five," shouted another boy. 
 
 " 'The sections w^ere nearly full at last. Almost 
 every section had a cent on it, and the time approached 
 for revolving the arrow. One boy, unable to restrain 
 himself, tried to start it. 
 
 " ' " Hold on !" yelled the priest. " Fill up. I'll do 
 the twisting. One cent more. Remember, if you have 
 luck you win six cents. One cent more," and he 
 looked searchingly over the surging, tossing sea of lit- 
 tle faces. 
 
 " ' Another boy borrowed a cent, which was quickly 
 
THE HOLINESS OF THE CHUI^CH. 23 
 
 put in place. The priest '' twisted " the arrow. It spun 
 around rapidly, then slowl}', then very slow^ly, and then 
 stopped — over number six. It wasn't '' four '' this time, 
 and the face of the boy who had tried *' four " on the 
 priest's recommendation fell. But his seventeen com- 
 rades became possessed by their excitement. They 
 crowded around the priest, tipped the table half over, 
 almost knocked down a bust of the late Pope, and 
 climbed upon each other's backs. 
 
 ** * " Hold on, you rascals," screamed the priest, who 
 was picking up from the table his own share of the 
 money ; *' hold on, there ; let me get my six ; that's all 
 I care for." When he had got his six he began the call 
 for fresh investments, and the previous scenes were 
 repeated. ' 
 
 '' Cardinal McCloskey expressed the opinion no 
 harm was being done. So the reporter asked Father 
 McGlynn, the pastor of St. Stephen's Roman Church, 
 what he thought of it : 
 
 ** * I should like to ask you one more question. When 
 at the cathedral fair, I observed a small round table, at 
 which a young priest stood, surrounded by a dozen or 
 more eager boys. The table was marked off into 
 twelve triangular sections, the apex of each triangle 
 being at the centre of the table's surface, where was 
 inserted a pivot, on which an arrow turned. The sec- 
 tions were numbered i, 2, 3, and so on up to 12, and on 
 each one of them lay a cent, contributed by the boys. 
 The priest gave the arrow a rapid turn, and when it 
 stopped he picked up six of the cents and handed them 
 to the boy who had contributed the cent that had lain on 
 the particular section over which the head of the arrow 
 had stopped. The other six cents he kept for himself. 
 I noticed that the boys were pretty eager in the sport 
 and that the priest's exhortations to them were ear- 
 nest and successful. Now, was there any harm in 
 that ? ' 
 
24 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 *' This question (says the Indepcndcni) was rather a 
 poser for the casuistry of Father McGlynn ; but, on 
 the whole, he thought that the matter involved was a 
 ' question of taste/ and, since cathedrals must be built, 
 and the money must be obtained to build them with, 
 and the money can't be forced out of the people, it 
 must be coaxed out of them, and this table, with its 
 twelve numbers and revolving arrow, and the priest to 
 run the machine, was one of the Avays of doing the 
 coaxing, and that ' the church winks at some things 
 that confessedly are not among the most approved 
 means of sanctification. ' The matter of fact is that this 
 table, as rigged up and manipulated by the ' young 
 priest,' is as perfectly a gambling machine as was ever 
 invented. 
 
 ** All this gambling, drinking, and folly done in the 
 name of the Lord ; and done under the protection of a 
 cardinal bishop and priests and the faithful of the one 
 only Holy Catholic Apostolic Church !'' 
 
 What is this but the murder of the moral nature of 
 the boys ? No wonder Father Curtis in his late lecture 
 in Baltimore, on Things Idont Understand, put church 
 fairs in that category. They are bad enough at best ; 
 and, as generally conducted, and especially as con- 
 ducted in the above-mentioned instance, ought to be 
 abhorred of all Christian people. 
 
 But this is not all. In the Clmrcli Jonrnal of January 
 4th, 1879, I fii^d a communication from ** A Catholic 
 Priest" to The Interior, of Chicago, from which I ex> 
 tract the following : 
 
 ** I have read with some interest the extract from 
 your paper quoted and commented on by the Catholic 
 Review of December 8th, and beg leave to say a few 
 words on some of the positions of your contem- 
 porary. 
 
THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCir. 25 
 
 *' I. The CatJiolic Reviezv wishes its Protestant friends 
 to understand that, at the present moment, the new 
 cathedral of New York does not differ from ' any large 
 hall, or any unfinished building within the four bound- 
 aries of America,' or, I presume it would not hesitate to 
 add, from any beer or rum shop within the same area. 
 I do not know Avhat our Protestant friends may think 
 of the Rcviciv s opinion on this matter, but I am well 
 persuaded that the Catholic community of New York 
 will not accept this language of this self-constituted 
 champion. And to put this matter beyond all dispute, 
 we have only to refer to that ancient splendid rite 
 of the Catholic Church on the blessing and laying 
 of the corner-stone of a church to be built. [He then 
 goes on to describe the '' rite/* as used at the laying 
 of the corner stone of the cathedral by Archbishop 
 Hughes in 1854]. I am not aware that large halls or 
 other buildings intended for profane uses have such 
 blessings invoked upon them. 
 
 '' 2. The Interior has charged, and the Catholic Re- 
 view has not denied, that ' beer, ale, wine, whiskey, gin, 
 and all kinds of liquors were sold and drunk ' in the 
 new cathedral of New York during the fair. The Re- 
 view affects to believe that it is only ' foolish, canting, 
 hypocritical Puritanism ' that has declared itself scanda- 
 lized by the sale of these beverages at the late fair ; but 
 I must be permitted to tell the Reviezu that large num- 
 bers of Catholic Christians, both lay and clerical, re- 
 membering the sublime language of the Roman pontifi- 
 cal by which the ' place ' of the new cathedral was 
 set apart forever to God, and the cross — the sigmiui 
 saliitis — set up, and the corner-stone blessed and laid in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have 
 been greatly shocked, not to say grossly scandalized, 
 at witnessing ' the place destined ' for God's service 
 turned into a vulgar bar-room, dealing out to all 
 comers ' beer, ale, wine, whiskey, gin, and all kinds of 
 
25 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 liquors.' . . . The example of those six weeks 
 is enough to put hack the cause of temperance in 
 New York — I may say in the whole United States 
 — for ten years. . . , Even though the late fair 
 were held in a profane place or building, I still 
 hold that the Church authorities should not have lis- 
 tened to the least suggestion looking to the sale and 
 use of intoxicating drinks for the furtherance of this ob- 
 ject. Such a tolerance on their part would be offensive 
 to pious ears ; how much more so when the bar 
 occupied the place of the ' sign of salvation ' ? . . . 
 
 . . ** I regret exceedingly to be obliged to speak 
 with such plainness on this painful subject, and I 
 call the attention of the Catholic body to it solely in 
 the fondest hope that the like example will never again 
 be set in New York, or in any diocese of these United 
 States — an example which, notwithstanding the good 
 disposition of the people of New York, has greatly 
 shocked their religious sense, and lessened the respect 
 for the Catholic religion which its venerable history 
 and magnificent edifices are well calculated to inspire." 
 
 The significance of all this is that the course of pro- 
 cedure above described has been resorted to with the 
 sanction of a Cardinal-Archbishop, the hignest digni- 
 tary of the Roman Church in this land, and for the 
 completion of his own cathedral. It reminds one of 
 the means resorted to by Pope Leo X. for the comple- ; 
 tion of St. Peter's, a subject on which I may have 
 something to say when I come to the chapter on Indul- 
 gences. 
 
 ** A gentleman informed me," says the Archbishop 
 — and he might, I think, more creditably to himself, 
 unless he could have given particulars, have left it un- 
 said — ''that he never saw a poor person enter an Epis- 
 copal Church which was contiguous to his residence" 
 
 (p. 43). 
 
 Who was the gentleman, and where was his resi- 
 
CATHOLfCirY. 27 
 
 dence ? Give us chapter and verse. The Episcopal 
 Church has, in common with many of its neighbors, 
 besides its other sins, that of the unchristian pew-sys- 
 tem to answer for ; but she has never, that I am aware 
 of, gone so far as to have not only pews but also locks 
 on the doors of tliose pews^ as has, or had a few years 
 ago, and I presume has still, the Archbishop's own 
 cathedral !^ ''They that live in glasshouses" — and so 
 forth. 
 
 But to come back from the Archbishop's digression 
 to the subject of his chapter, and to conclude my re- 
 marks on it. 
 
 While the Roman Church '' never repudiates sin- 
 ners, nor cuts them off from her fold, no matter how 
 grievous or notorious may be their moral delinquen- 
 cies," any delinquency in what she calls the faith, any 
 rejection of, or hesitation about, her patchwork addi- 
 tions to the creed, is visited with speedy excision from 
 her fold. To controvert, in this latter half of the nine- 
 teenth century, a dogma that might have been, and 
 actually was, freely controverted throughout the 
 seventeenth and eighteenth, is, in her estimation, worse 
 than the grossest and most notorious moral delinquen- 
 cies ! 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CATHOLICITY. 
 
 ' The word Catholic, or Universal," says the Arch- 
 bishop, '* signifies that the true Church is not circum- 
 scribed in its extent, like human empires, nor confined 
 to one race of people, like the Jewish Church, but that 
 
 " The pews in Cardinal McCloskey's new Cathedral are under lock 
 and key. 
 
28 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 she is diffused over every nation of the globe, and 
 counts her children among all tribes and peoples and 
 tongues of the earth." 
 
 Stop with the word *' globe," in the above, and 
 change '' diffused" into diffusible, and the definition 
 will be correct ; what follows is out of place in a defi- 
 nition. The actual local extent of a Church at any 
 particular moment of time has nothing whatever to do 
 with the legitimacy of its claim to be *'the Catholic 
 Church." Was the Church of Christ any the less ** the 
 Catholic Church" of the creed before the day of Pen- 
 tecost, than after it; any the less *'the Catholic 
 Church" before St. Peter admitted Cornelius and his 
 household into it, than after their admission ; any the 
 less ** the Catholic Church" before the *' wonderful 
 conversion" of St. Peter, than after that conversion, 
 and the wonderful results that followed thereupon, 
 even to the ends of the earth ? If so, how comes it 
 that according to the Archbishop's ** tabular state- 
 ment," on page 65, the '' Catholic Church" had, for its 
 '' Place of Origin" ** Jerusalem," for its '' Founder," 
 ** Jesus Christ," and for its '' Year," '' thirty-three?'' 
 
 When the **Arian schism" (p. 73), **soon after its 
 rise, spread rapidly through Europe, Northern Africa, 
 and portions of Asia" : When '' it received the sup- 
 port of immense multitudes, and flourished for awhile 
 under the fostering care of several successive emper- 
 ors" : When " Catholic bishops were banished from 
 their sees, and their places were filled by Arian in- 
 truders" : When *'the Church which survived the 
 sword of Paganism seemed for awhile to yield to the 
 poison of Arianism" : When, in short, it was Athana- 
 siiis cofitra niuridum — did the all but universal defec- 
 tion make what remained any the less, in the Arch- 
 bishop's estimation, *' the Catholic Church" of the 
 creed ? 
 
 When *' the faith was lost in Sweden" (p. 74), 
 
CATHOLICITY. 29 
 
 "through the influence of its king, Gustavus Vasa" — 
 When ** Denmark conformed to the new creed through 
 the intrigues of King Christian IT' — when '' Catho- 
 licity was also crushed out in Norway, England, and 
 Scotland'* — when, in short, *' Ireland alone, of all the 
 nations of Northern Europe, remained faithful to the 
 ancient Church'' — was what was left, after these whole- 
 sale defections, any the less, in the Archbishop's esti- 
 mation, ** the Catholic Church " of the creed, on ac- 
 count of them ? 
 
 And if all the nations of the earth, except Spain, 
 were to revolt against the Pope, and every individual 
 in those nations were to refuse allegiance to him, and 
 the Pope himself were to remove his See from Rome 
 to Madrid, as John XXII. removed his from Rome to 
 Avignon, and as St. Peter is said to have removed his 
 from Antioch to Rome, would the Church in Spain 
 be, any the less, in the Archbishop's estimation, *' the 
 Catholic Church" of the creed ? 
 
 And if not, if, on the contrary, the exigencies of the 
 Archbishop's position would compel him to answer all, 
 or any, of these question in the negative, why does he 
 /^/^ into the definition of *' Catholic," as employed in 
 the creed, an actual local universality, that has no busi- 
 ness to be there ? 
 
 And if, in the contingency last supposed, the Pope 
 were to summon the Spanish prelates to meet in coun- 
 cil at Madrid, and they were to respond to the sum- 
 mons, would the council thus assembled be any the 
 less in the Archbishop's estimation, an Ecumenical 
 Council, than the late *' Council of the Vatican ?" And 
 if not, why does he parade the numerosity and poly- 
 ethnicality of this latter council ? Is he not well aware 
 that the Council of Constantinople, A.d. 381, which 
 accepted and enlarged the Nicene Creed, and which is 
 universally acknowledged to have been an Ecumenical 
 Council, was composed of one hundred and fifty Orien- 
 
30 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 tal bishops, with not a single Western bishop or repre- 
 sentative of a Western bishop among its members ? 
 Really, it is time to have done with such clap-trap. 
 
 And what but clap-trap is that story (p. 55) of 
 ** European emigrants" from '' sunny Italy,*' who 
 found themselves at home in the '* Cathedral" at Rich- 
 mond ? Where slioitld a Roman in religion find him- 
 self at home but in a Roman Church ? Would not a 
 Chinaman, landing in San Francisco find himself at 
 home in the first joss-house he chanced to enter ? 
 Would not ''a number of" Russian ''emigrants" ar- 
 riving in New York, find themselves at home in the 
 Greek Church under Father Bjerring ? And Father 
 Bjerring is a welcome guest ; while the Cardinal- 
 Archbishop in New York, and his brother Metropoli- 
 tan in Baltimore, are ecclesiastical intruders. The 
 Roman Church has no mission to preach the creed of 
 Pope Pius anywhere. Tridentine Romanism is an in- 
 trusion even in Rome itself. 
 
 '' That the Roman Catholic Church alone deserves 
 the name of Catliolic,'' says the Archbishop, ''is so evi- 
 dent, that it is ridiculous to deny it" (p. 51). And yet 
 he devotes eight pages to the proof of it ! Surely, if 
 it is ridiculous to denv it, it is equally ridiculous to at- 
 tempt to prove it. Think of a high dignitary, for want 
 of earnest occupation, gravely setting himself to prove 
 what it is ridiculous to deny ! ! ! And the proofs, 
 themselves ! Let us look at a specimen or two. 
 
 " Ours is the only Church which adopts the name as 
 her official title." 
 
 Is this so ? The creed of Pope Pius begins : " I, N., 
 believe and profess wdth a firm faith each and all of the 
 articles contained in the creed which the holy Roman 
 Church adopts — to wit :" Surely, this looks very like 
 the "official title." But, granting the Archbishop's 
 claim, what follows ? The Baptist Church is the only 
 Church which adopts " Baptist" as her official title : 
 
CATHOLICITY. 31 
 
 IS she therefore the only Church that baptizes ? The 
 Winebrennerian Church, whose habitat is in central 
 Pennsylvania and western Maryland, is the only Church 
 which adopts ** The Church of God" as her official 
 title : is she, therefore, the Church of God ; and the 
 only Church of God? But, ''We have possession, 
 which is nine-tenths of the law." Well ! and haven't 
 the Baptists and the Winebrennerians, possession?" 
 
 ** Should a stranger ask one of them to direct him 
 to the Catholic Church, they [he ?] would instinctively 
 point out to him the Roman Catholic Church" (p. 52). 
 
 Well ! and if the same stranger, going into a New 
 England village, were to ask the first person he met to 
 direct him to the Orthodox Church, he would infalli- 
 bly, if not '' instinctively," point out to him the Trini- 
 tarian Congregational Church. Is that Church, there- 
 fore, orthodox ; and the only orthodox Church ? 
 
 And this is what the Archbishop expects to pass for 
 argument !" I commend to his consideration a saying 
 of Coleridge : ''A philosopher's scientific language, 
 compared w^ith his ordinary language, is as his astro- 
 nomical clock, compared with his watch ; he sets the 
 latter by the town clock, or the Dutch clock in his 
 kitchen ; not because it is right, but because his neigh- 
 bors, or his cook, go by it." — Quoted from memory. 
 
 '' If they '* (the Protestant Episcopalians) '' think that 
 they have any just claim to the name of Catholic, why 
 not come out openly and write it on the title-pages of 
 their Bibles and prayer-books?" 
 
 * If I ask an Irishman, "Are you a Republican?" and he answers, 
 " No, I am a Democrat;" have I a right to say that, by his own confes- 
 sion, he is not a Republican in the sense in which the word is used in 
 Article iv., section 4, of the Constitution of the United States ? Just as 
 little have I a right to say of an American who, to the question, " Are you 
 a Catholic?" answers, " No, I am a Protestant," that, by his own con- 
 fession, he is not a Catholic in the sense in which the word is used in the 
 Apostles' creed. The Archbishop's argument from the popular use of 
 the word Catholic^ is ineffably silly. Of course, he sees through it, but 
 he thinks his readers won't : else he wouldn't use it. 
 
32 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS, 
 
 When the Roman authorities will '* come out openly 
 and write it on the title-pages of their Bibles" and Mis- 
 sals and Breviaries, I will answer that question. At 
 present, I content myself with the remark that I have 
 lying before me the Breviary in Latin, with the im- 
 print, Bellovaci, and that the title is Breviaritint Ro- 
 manum ; and the Missal, translated into English by 
 Bishop England, and that the title is *' The Roman 
 Missal •/' and that in the title-page of neither of them, 
 nor in that of any copy ot the Douay Bible, or of the 
 Rhemish Testament, that has fallen under my observa- 
 tion, does the word Catholic occur. 
 
 I remark, in conclusion of this chapter, the Church 
 of the Creed and of the Bible is Catholic, as the Ma- 
 sonic fraternity is Catholic ; that is to say, it is not 
 for one nation, but for all nations. A Mason anywhere 
 is a Mason everywhere, and is received as such. A 
 Catholic anywhere is a Catholic everywhere. Time 
 was when he was received as such ; if he is not so 
 now, it is the fault of the bishop of Rome, and he must 
 answer for it. '' Where is the flock that was given 
 thee, thy beautiful flock ? What wilt thou say when 
 he shall punish thee ?"'^ 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 APOSTOLICITY. 
 
 The Archbishop opens his chapter on Apostolicity 
 with a statement that has no foundation in fact, to 
 wit, that ** in the creed framed in the first Ecumenical 
 Council of Nicaea, in the year 325, we find these 
 words : * I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic 
 
 * Jer. 13 : 20, 21. 
 
APOSTOLICITY. 2>Z 
 
 Church.' " It simply is 7iot true that in the creed 
 framed by that council, in that year, we find these 
 words, or any words like them. The creed in ques- 
 tion ends with the words, '' And in the Holy Ghost." 
 All that follows (except t\\Q Jilioque, ''and the Son") 
 was added by the Council of Constantinople, fifty-six 
 years later. Had the Archbishop said, *' in the 
 Nicene Creed," I should not have called attention to 
 the inaccuracy, because that is very commonly called 
 (for brevity's sake) the Nicene Creed, which is more 
 correctly designated as the Nicasno-Constantinopoli- 
 tan. But the Archbishop is not consulting brevity. On 
 the contrary, he is ushering in a formal quotation, with 
 all the *' pomp and circumstance" of authority. His 
 statement is that the creed with the words in question in 
 it was framed atNicsea, in 325 ; and this statement, like 
 a good many other statements of his, in this and subse- 
 quent chapters, has no foundation in fact. It is true the 
 inaccuracy is of no importance as respects the subject 
 of this chapter ; but it is of the highest importance as 
 respects the trustworthiness of the Archbishop, for it 
 is part and parcel of an habitual, if not systematic, 
 looseness and inaccuracy and (in more than one in- 
 stance) worse than inaccuracy of statement or citation. 
 The Archbishop rightly holds that the '' holy Catho- 
 lic Church" of the Creed must be Apostolic in Doctrine 
 and Ministry; and he claims this Apostolicity exclusively 
 for the Roman Church. He gives a list, in ** parallel 
 lines" (he means columns), of ten points of doctrine in 
 which what he calls the ** Catholic Church" agrees 
 with, and what he calls ** Protestant Churches" differ 
 from, the ''Apostolic Church ;" but as every one of 
 these (except the fourth, which refers to women 
 preaching, and which, therefore, I am not concerned 
 with) is treated by him more or less at large, in subse- 
 quent chapters, I shall consider them when I come to 
 those chapters. At present, I confine myself to his claim 
 
34 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 of Apostolicity in Ministry as belonging to the Roman 
 Church, and not belonging to the Anglican. 
 
 *' The Anglican or Episcopal Church," he says (p. 
 62), '' owes its origin to Henry VIII. of England. 
 The immediate cause of his renunciation of the Roman 
 Church [mark that ; the Archbishop himself says, ''of 
 the Roman Church ;" not, of the Catholic Church] 
 was the refusal of Pope Clement VII. to grant him a 
 divorce." This is simply not true ; for Lingard, the 
 Archbishop's own historian (the '' Abridged Library 
 Edition" of whose '* History of England" is advertised 
 by ** Murphy & Co." on the fly-leaf of the Archbishop's 
 book, under the head of ** Standard Catholic Books)," 
 says, in the history itself (Henry VIII., Chapter III., 
 1534, March 23d, on which day the decision in the case, 
 which had been pending before Clement since Decem- 
 ber i6th, 1527, was reached), that ''the kingdom was 
 severed by legislative authority from the communion of 
 Rome [observe, he does not say, from the Catholic 
 Church], long before the judgment given by Clement 
 could have reached the knowledge of Henry." And 
 he states in a foot-note that the royal assent to this leg- 
 islative act was given March 30th, and adds : " It was 
 not possible that a transaction in Rome on the 23d 
 could induce the king to give his assent on the 30th." 
 I quote from the " new edition, as enlarged by Dr. 
 Lingard shortly before his death." What could induce 
 the Archbishop so recklessly to falsify history ? But 
 more of this when we come to the chapter on Matri- 
 mony, where it is again introduced, and where it prop- 
 erly belongs. 
 
 I turn to the other assertion of the Archbishop, to 
 wit, that the Anglican Church " owes its origin to 
 Henry VIII." For this, he quotes D'Aubigne (who, 
 however, as quoted, merely says, " there is a close re- 
 lationship between these two divorces," viz., that of 
 England from the Pope, and that of Henry from 
 Catherine), and "Bishop Short, an Anglican histo- 
 
APOSTOLICITY. 35 
 
 rian," who says (§ 201), '' the existence of the Church 
 of England as a distinct body, and her final separation 
 from Rome, may be dated from the period of the di- 
 vorce." But the Archbishop himself must admit that 
 Bishop Short's statement is xiot true ; for the ''final 
 separation" did not take place till after the death of 
 *' Bloody Mary." 
 
 But what does the Bishop mean by '* distinct ?" Evi- 
 dently, independent ; for, that the Church of England 
 was all along a distinct body in the same sense in which 
 the Galilean Church, and the Spanish Church, were 
 distinct bodies, the whole course of the history shows ; 
 and he says expressly (§ 51), '* It will not perhaps be 
 necessary to say much of the steps by which the erro- 
 neous doctrines of the Church of Rome gradually over- 
 spread that of England \' and again (§ 119), (speaking 
 of the assertion of VViclif, '' that the elements did after 
 consecration continue to possess their original natures 
 of bread and wine"), '' The decree with which this 
 delivery of his opinion was followed in Oxford (Lewis, 
 319 ; Wilk. Cons., iii.: 170), is probably the first formal 
 determination of the Church of Efiglan'd in the case." 
 
 So, then, even in the opinion of Bishop Short, so far 
 back as the time of Wiclif, more than a hundred and 
 fifty years before the divorce of Henry VIII., the 
 Church of England was in existence as a body ''dis- 
 tinct" enough to make ''a formal determination" on 
 so important a subject as transubstantiation. It was 
 not, therefore created hy Henry VIII. It was the same 
 old Church in his day that it was in Wiclif 's, only 
 older by a century and a half ; and it continued the same 
 through the reign of Edward into that of *' Bloody 
 Mary," Cardinal Pole himself being witness. '' In con- 
 sequence of a royal message," says Lingard (Mary, 
 Chapter II., 1554; November 28th), ''the lords and 
 commons repaired to the court ; and, after a few words 
 from the chancellor, Pole, in a long harangue, returned 
 
3^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. ' 
 
 them thanks for the act which they had passed in his 
 favor, exhorted them to repeal, in Hke manner, all the 
 statutes enacted in derogation of the papal authority, 
 and assured them of every facility on his part to effect 
 the reimion of the Church of England with that of Rome. 
 The chancellor, having first taken the orders of the 
 king and queen, replied that the two houses would de- 
 liberate apart, and signify their determination on the 
 following morning. 
 
 ** The motion for the reunion was carried almost by 
 acclamation ;" and ** on the following day'' complete 
 absolution for the past was given by the cardinal, and 
 a '* Te Deum was chanted in thanksgivmg for the 
 event/' For this, Lingard gives, as his authorities, 
 *' PoH, Ep. v. App. 315-318; Foxe, 91; Journal of 
 Commons, 38." 
 
 The Church of England, then, having been the same 
 under Henry VIII. that it had been all along, and 
 having preserved its continuity, through the reign 
 of Edward, under the primacy of Cranmer, and 
 through the reign of Mary under the primacy of Car- 
 dinal Pole, did it preserve that continuity under Eliza- 
 beth, and has it preserved it down to our day ? Rome 
 practically says, No ! But she has never ventured to 
 commit herself to a formal declaration upon it. The 
 whole question turns on the validity of the consecra- 
 tion of Archbishop Parker, the successor of Cardinal 
 Pole. The following account is from Lingard himself ; 
 it will be found in the note at the end of vol. vii., pp. 
 293, 294, '' First American," from the last London edi- 
 tion. Philadelphia : Eugene Cummiskey, 1827 : 
 
 ** The facts that are really known are the following : 
 The Queen, from the beginning of her reign, had de- 
 signed Parker for the archbishopric. After a long 
 resistance he gave his consent : and a conge d'elire 
 was issued to the dean and chapter, July i8th, 1559. 
 He was chosen i\ugust ist. On September 9th the 
 
APOSTOLICITY. 37 
 
 queen sent her mandate to Tunstal, Bishop of Dur- 
 ham, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Pool of Peterborough, 
 Kitchin of Llandaff, Barlow, the deprived bishop of 
 Bath under Mary, and Scory of Chichester, also de- 
 prived under Mary, to confirm and consecrate the 
 archbishop elect. (Rym. xv., 541.) Kitchin had con- 
 formed ; and it was hoped that the other three, who 
 had not been present in Parliament, might be induced 
 to imitate his example. All these, however, refused 
 to officiate ; and in consequence the oath of supremacy 
 was tendered to them (Rym. xv., 545) ; and their refusal 
 to take it was followed by deprivation. In these cir- 
 cumstances no consecration took place ; but three 
 months later (December 6th), the queen sent a second 
 mandate, directed to Kitchin, Barlow, Scory, Cover- 
 dale, the deprived Bishop of Exeter under Mary ; 
 John, SufTragan of Bedford ; John, Suffragan of Thet- 
 ford, and Bale, Bishop of Ossory, ordering them, or 
 any four of them to confirm and consecrate the arch- 
 bishop elect ; but with an additional clause, by which 
 she, of her supreme royal authority, supplied what- 
 ever deficiency there might be according to the statutes 
 of the realm, or the laws of the Church, either in the 
 acts done by them, or in the person, state, or faculty 
 of any of them, such being the necessity of the case and 
 the urgency of the time. (Rym, xv., 549). Kitchin again 
 appears to have declined the - office. But Barlow, 
 Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins, Suffragan of Bed- 
 ford, confirmed the election on the 9th ; and conse- 
 crated Parker on the 17th. The ceremony was per- 
 formed, though with a little variation, according to the 
 ordinal of Edward VI. Two of the consecrators, 
 Barlow and Hodgkins, had been ordained bishops ac- 
 cording to the Roman pontifical, the other two accord- 
 ing to the Reformed Ordinal. (VVilk. Con. iv. 198.) Of 
 this consecration on the 17th of December, there can 
 be no doubt." 
 
38 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 In a subsequent edition, the one I have already 
 quoted from, and which contains the avithor's latest 
 revision, there is a long note of over six closely-printed 
 pages, in the Appendix, taking the same ground, and 
 answering objections. One objection was that the 
 official register, containing a full account of the con- 
 secration, was a forgery. '' But there was nothing," 
 says Lingard, '*to countenance such a supposition. 
 The most experienced eye could not discover in the 
 entry itself, or the form of the characters, or the color 
 of the ink, the slightest vestige of imposture." And 
 '' if external confirmation were wanting, there was the 
 archbishop's diary," and '* the Zurich letters, in which 
 we find Sampson informing Peter Martyr" of the con- 
 secration. 
 
 Another objection was, that, according to the re- 
 gister. Barlow was the *' consecrating prelate," and 
 that, though he had been elected bishop, while on a 
 mission in Scotland, in the reign of Henry VIII., there 
 was no record of his consecration. '' Still," says 
 Lingard, *' the absence of proof [of consecration] is no 
 proof of non-consecration. No man has ever disputed 
 the consecration of Gardiner of Winchester ; yet he 
 was made bishop while on a mission abroad, and his 
 consecration is involved in as much darkness as 
 that of Barlow. When, therefore, we find Barlow 
 during ten years, the remainder of Henry's reign, con- 
 stantly associated as a brother with the other conse- 
 crated bishops, summoned equally with them to parlia- 
 ment and convocation, taking his seat among them ac- 
 cordmg to his seniority, and voting on all subjects as 
 one of them, it seems most unreasonable to suppose 
 without direct proof, that he had never received that 
 sacred rite, without which, according to the laws of 
 both Church and State, he could not have become a 
 member of the Episcopal body." See Appendix A. 
 
 Another objection was that Parker's consecration 
 
APOSTOLICITY. 39 
 
 was *' illegal, through the defect of jurisdiction in his 
 consecrators, and the illegality of the ordinal according 
 to which he had been consecrated." In regard to this, 
 Lingard, in the body of his work (Elizabeth, Chap. 
 IV., 1559 ; August 1st), says : *' By the revival of the 
 twenty-fifth of Henry VIII., it was made necessary, 
 that the election of the archbishop should be con- 
 firmed,"^ and his consecration be performed by four 
 bishops [in possession of Sees]. But how were four 
 bishops to be found, when by the deprivation of the 
 Catholic prelatesf there remained in the kingdom but 
 one lawful bishop [/. ^., bishop in possession of a See], 
 he of LandafT ? Again, the use of the ordinal of Ed- 
 ward VI. had been abolished by Parliament in the last 
 reign, that of the Catholic [Roman] ordinal by Parlia- 
 ment in the present ; in what manner then was Parker 
 to be consecrated, when there existed no form of con- 
 secration recognized by law ? Six theologians and 
 canonists were consulted, who returned an opinion 
 that in a case of such urgent necessity, the queen 
 possessed the power of supplying every defect through 
 the plentitude of her ecclesiastical authority, as head 
 of the Church. In conformity with this answer a com- 
 mission with a sanatory clause was issued (Rym. XV, : 
 549) ; and four of the commissioners, Barlowe, the de- 
 prived Bishop of Bath, and Hodgkins, once suffragan 
 of Bedford, who had both been consecrated according 
 to the Catholic pontifical, and Scory, the deprived 
 Bishop of Chichester, and Coverdale the deprived 
 Bishop of Exeter, who had both been consecrated ac- 
 cording to the reformed ordinal, proceeded to confirm 
 the election of Parker and then to consecrate him after 
 the form adopted toward the close of the reign of 
 Edward VI." 
 
 * Prior to the rupture of Henry with Rome, elections of Bishops had to 
 be confirmed by the Pope. 
 
 •f They had been deprived for refusing to take the oath of supremacy. 
 Kitchin, of Landaff, took the oath and retained his Sec. 
 
40 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 What the queen undertook to do by the ** sanatory- 
 clause" was to suspend, for the particular occasion, the 
 operation of two acts of Parliament, that of the twenty- 
 fifth of Henry VIII. above mentioned, and that under 
 Mary, abolishing the reformed ordinal. In doing this, 
 she usurped the authority not as has been alleged, 
 '* of Almighty God," but of Parliament, whose func- 
 tion clearly it is to suspend former acts of Parliament. 
 For this act she was responsible to Parliament, and 
 Parliament subsequently, as admitted by Lingard in the 
 fourth paragraph of the long note before mentioned, 
 condoned and validated it. 
 
 There is but one other objection mentioned in the 
 note of Lingard, and in this he seems to think there is 
 some force ; the objection, namely, that whereas in 
 the present office for the consecration of a Bishop in the 
 Church of England (which, hoAvever, dates back only 
 to the time of Charles II.) the form at the laying on of 
 hands runs, '* Receive the Holy Ghost, /c?r the office 
 and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed 
 unto thee by the imposition of our hands. In the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 Amen. And remember that thou stir up," etc., the 
 part in italics was not in the ordinal of Edward, by 
 which Parker was consecrated, and that therefore the 
 consecration was invalid, as not specifying the office 
 to which he w^as consecrated. 
 
 To this I answer, first, that the office is specified in 
 other parts of the service, particularly in the presenta- 
 tion of the candidate, which was in these words : 
 ** Rev. Father in God, we offer and present unto you 
 this pious and learned man, to be consecrated arch- 
 bishop."^ 
 
 * See the whole accountof the Consecration, in the original Latin of the 
 Lambeth Register^ in ih^ Appendix to Haddan's ** Apostolical Succession." 
 I add, Bishop and Archbishop are the same 07'de7% and therefore require 
 but one consecration. When one already a Bishop is made Archbishop, 
 he is not consecrated again, either in the English, or in the Roman 
 Church. But Parker was not bishop, but only priest. 
 
APOSTOUCITY, 41 
 
 I answer, second, that if the lack of specification of 
 office in the form is fatal to the consecration of Parker, 
 then it is equally fatal to that of the Roman Bishops ; 
 for neither is there any specification of office in the 
 form in the Roman Pontifical : it is simply, Accipe spir- 
 ititm sanctum, ** Take the Holy Ghost,'' the ver}^ 
 words of Edward's ordinal ; and then follows the 
 prayer, Be propitious, etc. But, say the advocates of 
 Rome, a man must be a Priest before he can be made a 
 Bishop, and X\\^ form for ordaining Priests in Edward's 
 ordinal is insufficient, because it does not contain the 
 words, *' Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, 
 and to celebrate masses for the quick and dead." I 
 answer, first. Neither does the for7n by which St. 
 Peter was ordained ; for it and the formoi Edward's 
 Ordinal are identical. They both run. Receive the Holy 
 Ghost; Whose sins, etc. I answer, second, Parker was 
 ** chaplain to Anne Boleyn" (Lingard, Elizabeth, 
 Chap. IV., 1559, August 1st), and w^as therefore or- 
 dained Priest by the Roman form, the only one in use 
 under Henry VIII. 
 
 But, it is said, the consecration was invalid for want 
 of the Papal sanction. If so, the consecrations of the 
 Bishops of the Greek Church are invalid. But Rome 
 admits their validity. 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, *' the very name you bear, 
 betrays your recent birth ; for who ever heard of a 
 Baptist or an Episcopal, or any other Protestant 
 church, prior to the Reformation ?" 
 
 The Church of our Fathers bears the same name now 
 that it bore hundreds of years before the Reformation, 
 and has continued to bear ever since, to wit, the Church 
 of England, Dupin, the famous " Doctor of Sorbonne, 
 and Regius Professor of Divinity at Paris," nearly 
 two hundred years ago, opens the seventh chapter. Cen- 
 tury XI., of his ** Compendious History of the Church" 
 with the question, '' In what state was the Church 
 
42 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 of England, and what passed there in the eleventh cen- 
 tury ?" And more than six hundred and fifty years 
 ago, to wit, A.D. 121 5, it was officially so designated ; 
 for the very first article of '' Magna Charta'* (see 
 Jacob's Law Dictionary) reads : '' The Church of Eng- 
 land shall be free, and all ecclesiastical persons enjoy 
 their rights and privileges." It was the Church of 
 England then, and it is the Church of England now ; it 
 was **free" then; it is ''free" now. The ''Episco- 
 pal" Church in the United States is its legitimate off- 
 spring, recognized by it as such. Its name of " Epis- 
 copal," therefore, does not ''betray' its "recent 
 birth ;" nor is that birth " recent" in any other sense 
 than that in which the birth of every Church, the Ro- 
 man itself not excepted, in a recently discovered coun- 
 try is recent. 
 
 " The Catholic Church [meaning the Roman], on the 
 contrary, can easily vindicate the title of Apostolic, 
 because she derives her origin from the Apostles. 
 Every Priest and Bishop can trace his genealogy to the 
 first disciples of Christ with as much facility as the 
 most remote branch of a vine can be traced to the main 
 stem" (p. 6j^, 
 
 So far as this is true (for it is 7tot true that it can be 
 done with as much facility), it is equally true of the 
 Anglican Church. 
 
 " There is not a link wanting in the chain which 
 binds the humblest Priest in the land to the Prince of , 
 the Apostles" (p. 6^), 
 
 That is more than the Archbishop or any other man 
 knozvs, even be he infallible pope ; but then it is more 
 than he needs to know, to make out the ecclesiastical 
 descent of the Priest from the Apostle. For, in the first 
 place, we know that St. Paul said to St. Timothy (2 
 Tim. 2:2), " The things that thou hast heard of me 
 among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faith- 
 ful men, who shall be able to teach others also." And 
 
APOSTOLICITY. 43 
 
 we believe that St. Timothy, being himself a '' faithful 
 man/' did commit the same to other '' faithful men ;" 
 and these, being themselves ''faithful men," did, for 
 the same reason, commit the same to other ''faithful 
 men ;" and they to others ; and so on, down to our 
 day. If not, why not ? When and where was there 
 any break in the transmission ? " Ohy somewhere, in the 
 dark ages f And what was the characteristic of those 
 dark ages ? " Why, me7t were great sticklers for the out- 
 zvard in religion, to the disparageme?tt of the ifiward, " So 
 then the break in the outward took place, according to 
 these objectors, at the very time when men. were the 
 greatest sticklers for the outward ! Not very likely. 
 At any rate, it is mere conjecture on their part. Not 
 one of them has ever been able to put his finger on a 
 broken link, and say, Here it is ! The advocates of 
 Rome have, indeed, professed to think they have 
 found one in Archbishop Parker. Some of them may 
 have been innocent enough really to think it. If so, they 
 are fit companions {teste Lingard) for Mark Twain's 
 " Innocents Abroad." 
 
 In the second place, the provision in the early 
 Church for guarding against the introduction of un- 
 worthy persons into the Ministry, has also effectually 
 guarded against any danger to the Succession, by a 
 broken link, here and there, if any such there have 
 been ; the provision, namely, requiring a Bishop to be 
 consecrated by at least three Bishops — " at all events, 
 two" (Council of Nice, Canon 4) — a provision that has 
 been, with rare exceptions, scrupulously kept to. The 
 consecration of Archbishop Carroll, the first Bishop of 
 the Roman communion in the United States, was one 
 of these exceptions. He was consecrated by only one 
 Bishop. His consecration, however, was as valid, 
 though not as regular, as if it had been performed by 
 three. All the Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 
 the United States have been consecrated by three or 
 
44 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 more Bishops. The first, Bishop Seabury, was conse- 
 crated in Aberdeen, November 14th, 1784, by the Bish- 
 ops of Aberdeen and Ross and Moray. The next two, 
 Bishops White and Provost, were consecrated in Lam- 
 beth Chapel, February 4th, 1787, by the Archbishops 
 of Canterbury, and York, and the Bishops of Bath and 
 Wells, and Peterborough ; and the fourth. Bishop 
 Madison, at the same place, September 19th, 1790, by 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury and two other English 
 Bishops. By these four the fifth. Bishop Claggett of 
 Maryland, was consecrated in Trinity Church, New 
 York, September 17th, 1792. And thus was begun the 
 line of American Consecrations, which has been kept 
 up ever since, and, by the grace of God, ever shall be, 
 to the end of time. The present Bishop of Maryland 
 had four Bishops to consecrate him ; three of these had 
 each three consecrators, and the other had four ; so 
 that, going back only two steps, if the same Bishop had 
 not, in some instances, taken part in more than one of 
 these consecrations, the Bishop of Maryland would 
 have traced his succession through thirteen Bishops ; 
 as a matter of fact, he traces it through ten, any one 
 of whom being a validly consecrated Bishop, his conse- 
 cration is valid. And as the number increases (except 
 so far as modified by the same Bishop having part in 
 more than one consecration) in geometrical progression 
 at every step, going back step by step, Ave shall find at 
 the tenth step at least a thousand Bishops, every one of 
 whose consecrations must have been invalid, to invali- 
 date his : by such a concatefiation (not by a single chain) 
 does he go back to "the Prince of the Apostles.'' If 
 ' ' a three-fold cord is not easily broken, ' ' how must it be 
 with a three-times-three-fold, a three-times-three-times- 
 three-fold, and so on ? 
 
 The concatenation by which the two extremes are 
 connected may be illustrated by comparing it to a 
 shawl of network suspended by one of its corners. You 
 
APOSTOLTCITY. 45 
 
 may cut a hundred meshes, here mid there, and still 
 the connection of the lower corner with the vipper 
 will remain ; to sever it, you must cut in some one di- 
 rection, entirely across the network. 
 
 The upper corner may represent St. Peter, or St. 
 Paul, or any other of the Apostles ; the lower corner 
 any Bishop of the present day ; the intermediate 
 meshes, or rather intersections of meshes, the interme- 
 diate Bishops through whom the succession is claimed 
 to have been transmitted. You may sever a hundred 
 meshes in the middle portion of the network, repre- 
 senting the Bishops of the middle or dark ages, and 
 still the connection of the Bishops of the present day 
 with the Apostles remains intact. 
 
 '' And although on a few occasions there happened 
 to be two or even three claimants for the chair of 
 Peter, these counter-claims could no more affect the 
 validity of the legitimate Pope than the struggle of 
 two contestants for a seat in Congress could invalidate 
 the title of the lawful representative'' (pp. 6j, 68). 
 
 Very true. But how was it to be decided who was 
 the *' legitimate Pope ?" For, as only the '' legitimate 
 Pope" is infaUible, the decision between the rival 
 claimants must be infallible, and therefore must be 
 made by an infallible tribunal. But more of this when 
 we come to the chapter on Infallibility. 
 
 The two remaining paragraphs will be considered 
 when we come to the chapter on the Supremacy, 
 where they properly belong. 
 
 I have confined myself, as I proposed in the outset 
 of my remarks on this chapter, to Apostolicity in Min- 
 istry, because the question of Apostolicity in Doctrine 
 is involved in the several doctrines claimed by the 
 Archbishop to be Apostolic, and which will come up 
 for consideration in my remarks on the several chap- 
 ters in which they are treated. I will therefore merely 
 remark here that the Church of England has the same 
 
46 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Creeds now that she had, and that Rome had, before 
 the separation ; neither more nor fewer ; and that if 
 Rome has more now, it is because she has added, since 
 then, the twelve articles of Pope Pius IV., and the two 
 of Pope Pius IX. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 The Archbishop, wiser (at least in his own estima- 
 tion) than the Creed, puts Perpetuity among the *' shin- 
 ing marks" for" '' distinguishing between the true 
 Church and false sects" (p. 21). But how it is to dis- 
 tinguish between them, I cannot see. Doubtless the 
 Catholic Church is to be perpetual ; but it does not fol- 
 low that every part of it is to be perpetual. The seven 
 Apocalyptic Churches were parts of the Catholic 
 Church, yet their '' candlestick" has been removed 
 ''out of his place." The Church of St. Cyprian and 
 St. Augustine was a part of the Catholic Church, yet it 
 has long since ceased to be. And so the Roman Church 
 (which is only a part, even in her own estimation, of 
 the Catholic Church, else she could not be, as she 
 claims to be, in the Creed of Pope Pius, '' the Mother 
 and Mistress of all Churches," since, in that case, there 
 would be no other Churches for her to be Mother and 
 Mistress of) may cease to be, and yet the perpetuity of 
 the Catholic Church remain intact.- On the other 
 hand, the Greek Church, v/hich the Archbishop looks 
 upon as a '* false sect," is at least the equal thus far, 
 in the matter of perpetuity, of what he calls the Cath- 
 olic Church, but what might with more propriety be 
 called the Tridentine, and bids fair to outlast it. For 
 what he quotes De Maistre as saying of Protestantism 
 
///FALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 47 
 
 (p, 75), may with at least equal truth, be said of Tri- 
 dentinism, '' it must subsist until it perishes, just as an 
 ulcer disappears with the last atom of the flesh which 
 it has been eating away. {Du Papc^ 1. 2, c. 5.)" 
 
 There is a '' plentiful lack" of logic, or even the sem- 
 blance of logic, in this part of the Archbishop's '' little 
 book,'' notwithstanding the chapter extends through 
 thirteen pages. He must have put Perpetuity among 
 the ** shining marks of the Church," to give himself 
 the opportunity of "airing his rhetoric." I have no 
 ambition to take the wind out of his sails. He is evi- 
 dently bound for '' Cowes and a market." He might 
 have spared himself the risk of that venture. The only 
 market for such merchandise is at Rome. 
 
 CHAPTER Vn. 
 
 INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Another *' shining mark" of the Church, though 
 not contained in the creed, is, according to the Arch- 
 bishop, her '' Infallible Authority.'' 
 
 ** That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age, 
 is denied by no Christian. We never question the 
 truth of the Apostles' declarations ; they were, in fact, 
 the only authority in the Church for the first century. 
 The New Testament was not completed till the close 
 of the first century. There is no just ground for deny- 
 ing to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century 
 in which we live, a prerogative clearly possessed by 
 those of the first, especially as the divine Word no- 
 where intimates that this unerring guidance was to die 
 with the Apostles" (p. 83). 
 
 There is an unmistakable '* intimation" in St. John, 
 14 : 25, 26, that//^/i- guidance was ** to die with" them : 
 
48 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 *' These things have I spoken unto you, being yet pres- 
 ent with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy 
 Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall 
 teach you all things, and bring all things to your remem- 
 brance^ whatsoever I Jiave said nnto yon,'' The part I 
 have italicized, confines the promise to the Apostles ; it 
 is physically impossible that it should be fulfilled to 
 their successors. The Archbishop himself admits, fur- 
 ther on, that it was confined to them : ** The infallibil- 
 ity of the Popes does not signify that they are inspired. 
 The Apostles were endowed w^ith the gift of inspira- 
 tion, and we accept their vv^ritings as the revealed w^ord 
 of God. 
 
 *' No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope 
 is inspired, or endowed with divine revelation properly 
 so called" (pp. 140, 141). 
 
 And in the preceding chapter : 
 
 ** Peter, it is true, besides the prerogatives inherent 
 in his office, possessed also the power of working mir- 
 acles, and the gift of inspiration. These two latter 
 gifts are not claimed by the Pope, as they were per- 
 sonal to Peter, and by no means essential to the gov- 
 ernment of the Church. God acts toward his Church 
 as we deal with a tender sapling. When we first plant 
 it, we water it, and soften the clay about its roots. 
 But when it takes deep root, we leave it to the care of 
 Nature's laws. In like manner, when Christ first 
 planted His Church, He nourished its infancy by mir- 
 aculous agency ; but when it grew to be a tree of fair 
 proportions, He left it to be governed by the general 
 laws of his Providence'' (pp. 128, 129). 
 
 Exactly so ! And Infallibility is ;2^/ embraced in '' the 
 general laws of his Providence." On the contrary, 
 those laws commit the child, in infancy, to the teach- 
 ing of the mother, and she is admitted to be fallible ; 
 and afterward to the teaching of the Pastor and his 
 subordinates, and he also is admitted to be fallible ; 
 
INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, 49 
 
 and, once a year, or so, to the teaching of the Bishop 
 or Archbishop, and even he is admitted to be fallible. 
 There the learner stops, not one in a thousand ever 
 seeing, let alone hearing, the infallible Pope, or having 
 need to see him or hear him. 
 
 What the Archbishop says in the last of the above- 
 quoted paragraphs is a complete answer to the argu- 
 ment involved in his allegation that '' God loves us as 
 much as he loved the primitive Christians ; Christ died 
 for us as well as for them ; and we have as much need 
 of unerring teachers as they had'' (p. 83). 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, quoting such passages 
 as, *' Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations," '^He 
 that heareth you, heareth me," etc., '' From these 
 passages, we see, on the one hand, that the Apos- 
 tles and their successors have received full powers to 
 announce the Gospel ; and on the other, that their hear- 
 ers are obliged to listen with docility, and to obey not 
 merely by an external compliance, but also by an in- 
 ternal assent of the intellect. If, therefore, the Cath- 
 olic Church could preach error, would not God Him- 
 self be responsible for the error ? And could not the 
 faithful soul say to God with all reverence and truth : 
 *' Thou hast commanded me, O Lord, to hear Thy 
 Church. If I am deceived by obeying her, Thou art 
 the cause of my error" (p. 86). 
 
 The Archbishop shall answer himself : '' They" — the 
 priests under the Old Testament — '* were the deposi- 
 taries of God's la vv% and were its expounders to the peo- 
 ple. ' The lips of the priest (Mai. 2 : 7) shall keep 
 knowledge, and they (the people) shall seek the law at 
 his mouth, because he is the angel (or messenger) of the 
 Lord of Hosts' " (p. 95). 
 
 '* He" (Christ) " commands them to obey their con- 
 stituted teachers, no matter how disedifying might be 
 their private lives. ' Then said Jesus to the multi- 
 tudes and to his disciples, The Scribes and Pharisees 
 
so THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 sit upon the chair of Moses. All things therefore 
 whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do' '' 
 
 (p. 96). 
 
 *' From this passage [Deut. 17:8-12], it is evident 
 that in the Hebrew Church the High Priest had the 
 highest jurisdiction in religious matters. By this 
 means, unity of faith and worship was preserved 
 among the people of God. 
 
 '' Now the Jewish synagogue, as St. Paul testifies, 
 was the type and fi_gure of the Christian Church ; for, 
 (i Cor. 10 : 11) ' all things happened to them in fig- 
 ure' " (p. 115). 
 
 ** When our Saviour, the Founder of the New Law, 
 appeared on earth. He came to lop off those excres- 
 cences which had grown on the body of the Jewish 
 ecclesiastical code, and to purify the Jewish Church 
 from those human traditions which, in the course of 
 time, became like chaff mixed with the wheat of sound 
 doctrine. For instance. He condemns the Pharisees 
 for prohibiting the performance of works of charity on 
 the Sabbath day, and in the twenty-third chapter of 
 St. Matthew He cites against them a long catalogue of 
 innovations in doctrine and discipline" (pp. 206, 207). 
 
 ** From these passages" — to repeat, mutatis imitan- 
 dis, the paragraph cited above from page 86 of the 
 Archbishop's ''little volume"^ — "we see, on the one 
 hand," that the Jewish priests *' received full powers 
 to announce" the Law; '* and on the other, that their 
 hearers were obliged" to *' observe and do" all things 
 whatsoever they should say unto them. '' If, there- 
 fore, the" Jewish ''Church" did "preach error" — 
 as we are assured by the Archbishop that she did, even 
 to the extent of "a long catalogue of innovations in 
 doctrine and discipline" — was not " God himself," ac- 
 cording to the Archbishop, " responsible for the error ? 
 And could not the faithful (Jewish) soul" have said 
 '* to God with all reverence and truth : Thou hast 
 
INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH 51 
 
 commanded me, O Lord, to hear Thy Church (the 
 Jewish). If I am deceived (as I certainl}^ have been) 
 by obeying her, Thou art the cause of my error." 
 
 What does the Archbishop think of tfiat ? Does he 
 think it '' reverent" and '' truthful ?" Yet it is just as 
 *' reverent," and as ''truthful," in the mouth of the 
 Jew, as it would be, in the case supposed by the Arch- 
 bishop, in the mouth of a Christian. 
 
 So much for the Archbishop's rcditctio ad absurditm ; 
 if it proves the infallibility of the Catholic Church, it 
 proves the infallibility of the Jewish Church also. Yet 
 the Jewish Church was not only fallible ; it actually 
 failed. 
 
 '* From what has been said in the preceding pages, 
 it follows that the Catholic Church cannot be re- 
 formed. . . 
 
 '' My meaning is, that the Church is not susceptible 
 of being reformed in her doctrines. The Church is 
 the work of an Incarnate God. Like all God's works, 
 it is perfect. It is therefore incapable of reform" 
 (p. 91). . ^ 
 
 The Archbishop's argument is, An infallible God 
 cannot create a fallible Church. He m.ight as well 
 argue that an infallible God cannot create a fallible 
 man. We know that an infallible God ^/<^ create a fal- 
 lible Church, to wit, the Jewish ; the fact, therefore, 
 that the Catholic Church Avas created by an infallible 
 God, is no proof that she is herself infallible. All 
 God's works are, indeed, ''perfect." Adam, as he 
 came from the hand of his Maker, was perfect, though 
 fallible. The Catholic Church, as she came from the 
 hand of her Maker was perfect, whether fallible or in- 
 fallible. This argument of the Archbishop, therefore, 
 on which he evidently plumes himself, is the baldest 
 paralogism. 
 
 " It is a marvellous fact worthy of record, that in the 
 whole history of the Church, from the nineteenth cen- 
 
52 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 tury to the first, no solitary example can be adduced to 
 show that any Pope or General Council ever revoked a 
 decree of faith or morals enacted by any preceding 
 Pontiff or Council" (p. 92). 
 
 It would be '' marv^ellous" to its, if it were a fact. 
 But why marvellous to the Archbishop, seeing, if his 
 theory of Infallibility be true, it must be a fact ? But 
 it is 7iot a fact, nevertheless ; it is a marvellous — no, 
 not a marvellous — fabrication, or repetition of a fabrica- 
 tion, of the Archbishop's. Jan US in his work on 
 '* The Pope and the Council" (English Translation, 
 Rivingtons, London, Oxford, and Cambridge ; Scrib- 
 ner, Welford & Co., New York, 1869, pp. 51-77), 
 gives repeated instances of Pope against Pope, Council 
 against Council, Pope against Council, Council against 
 Pope, with the authorities on which he rests his state- 
 ments. I shall content myself with giving the well- 
 known instance — well known to the student of Ecclesi- 
 astical History — of Pope Vigilius and the Fifth General 
 Council, and the equally well-known instance of Pope 
 Honorius and the Sixth General Council ; and I shall 
 give them in the language of one of the Archbishop's 
 own historians, Dupin, the famous Doctor of the Sor- 
 bonne and Regius Professor of Divinity at Paris, al- 
 ready referred to. The first of these instances will be 
 found in Chapter V., Century VI., of his '' Compen- 
 dious History of the Church," and the second in Chap- 
 ter III., Century VII. : 
 
 '' While the Council was thus preparing to condemn 
 the three Chapters, Pope Vigilius gave his Opinion in 
 Writing to the Emperor, as he had promised him. 
 [Here follows an account of the contents of the *' Writ- 
 ing" winding up with,] In fine, he exhorts the Em- 
 peror to let Things go in the same Terms which that 
 Council [of Chalcedon] had left them in, and by his 
 Apostolical Authority forbids anything to be said or 
 advanced contrary to what he had decided touching the 
 three Chapters. 
 
INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 53 
 
 '' O. Were the Deliberations of the Council stopp'd 
 by this Judgment of the Pope ? 
 
 '' A. No : The Emperor caused the Examination of 
 the Affair to be continued ; and in order to oppose the 
 Authority of Vigilius to Vigilius himself, he caused 
 three Letters of Vigilius to be read in the seventh Con- 
 ference, in which he formally approves the Condemna- 
 tion of the three Chapters, and condemns them himself. 
 [Then follows an account of the decision of the Coun- 
 cil against the three Chapters, etc.] 
 
 '' Q. What became of Pope Vigilius after thi^ Deci- 
 sion ? 
 
 '' A, Justinian [the Emperor] gave Orders that his 
 Name should not be put in the Dypticks,^ and sent him 
 into Exile. This Pope, always inconstant, according 
 to his Custom, soon changed his Opinion and Resolu- 
 tion. On the 9th of December he wrote a Letter to 
 Eutychius, in which he blames his own Conduct in re- 
 fusing to assist at the Council, and retracts what he had 
 written in Defence of the three Chapters, which he con- 
 demned in very strong Terms, pronouncing an Ana- 
 them.a against those that defended them. This Letter is 
 not the only Act by which Vigilius approved the Decis- 
 ion of the fifth Council ; he made a very ample Consti- 
 tution! by which he authentickly condemned the three 
 Chapters." 
 
 So much for Vigilius. I will merely add that the 
 ''three chapters" were condemned as being tainted 
 with the Nestorian heresy, and that therefore the error 
 of Vigilius — for, as he was alternately on each side, he 
 must have been in error on one side or the other — was 
 on a matter of faith, 
 
 * Commonly written Diptych ; the catalogue of saints which was re- 
 hearsed in the Greek Liturgy. 
 
 f " An authoritative ordinance, regulation, or enactment ; especially 
 one made by a Roman emperor, or one affecting ecclesiastical doctrine 
 or discipline." — Webster. 
 
54 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 To come to Pope Honorius^ and the Sixth General 
 Council : 
 
 *' O. What Order was observed amono-st the Patri- 
 archs m that Council ? 
 
 ''A. The Pope's^ Legates held the first Rank; 
 George Patriarch of Constantinople the second ; 
 In the 4th Meeting they read the Letters of 
 Pope Agathon, and those of the Council of Rome. 
 In fine, in the seventeenth Meeting, held 
 the i6|h of September, 68 1, at which the Emperor as- 
 sisted, they published a Decision, by which they ap- 
 proved Pope Agathon's Letter, and the Decision of 
 the Council of Rome. . . . This decision was 
 approved by all the Bishops of the Council, who pro- 
 nounced an Anathema against the old and new Hereticks, 
 and in particular against Honorius, who is always 
 reckoned amongst the Monothelite Patriarchs, and com- 
 prized in the same Condemnation. 
 
 *' Q. Yow do not doubt then but Honorius was con- 
 demned in that Council ? 
 
 *'A. The Acts of the Council prove it, and there is no 
 appearance of their having been falsified, as Baronius 
 pretended without any foundation. The Council 
 acnowledg'd the Condemnation of that Pope in their 
 Letter, the Emperor declares it in his Edict, Leo II., 
 Agathon's Successor, says it in three Letters, the whole 
 Roman Church declared it in the forms of the Oaths 
 which they made the Popes take, from the holding of 
 this Council, and the two following General Councils 
 make mention of the condemnation of Honorius. 
 
 '' Q. But tell me, I beseech you, do you believe that 
 this Pope was condemn'd in this Council as a Heretick ? 
 
 ** A. He is put in the same Rank by this Council, with 
 
 * Honorius had been dead forty years, and in that short time no less 
 than nine Popes had succeeded him, the last of whom, Agathon, was 
 Pope at the time of the meeting of the Council. 
 
INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 55 
 
 Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, who are evidently con- 
 demn'd as Hereticks ; he is included in the same Ana- 
 thema, namely, as having taught the same Impieties, 
 and the same Errors. Therefore we cannot doubt of 
 the Councirs having condemn'd him as a Heretick. 
 
 '' Q. Do you think he was a Heretick ? 
 
 ** A. It appears b}^ his Letters that he was in the same 
 Sentiments with Sergius, and that he plainly main- 
 tained the same Points the Monothelites did ; the one, 
 that we ought not to say either that there is one or 
 two Operations in Jesus Christ ; the other, that we 
 ought to say there is but one Will in Jesus Christ. 
 Theodorus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and the other 
 Monothelites did not say more ; therefore the Council 
 had reason to put him in the same Rank, and 'tis in vain 
 to go about to excuse him from having maintained that 
 Error. ' ' 
 
 Here we have by the testimony of an unimpeachable 
 witness, of the Archbishop's own Communion (who 
 has drawn from the original fountains), the Fifth Gen- 
 eral Council condemning Pope Vigilius, and Pope 
 Vigilius condemning himself ; the Sixth General Coun- 
 cil (presided over by Pope Agathon's legates and fol- 
 lowing up the previous action of the Roman Council 
 held by Agathon himself) condemning and anathema- 
 tizing Pope Honorius, and Pope Leo 11.''^ and *' the 
 whole Roman Church" joining in the condemnation and 
 anathematization. And yet the Archbishop has so 
 mean an opinion of our knowledge of the veriest rudi- 
 
 * " Anathematizamus. , . . nee non et Honorium, qui hanc 
 apostolicam ecelesiam non apostolicse traditionis doetrina lustravit, sed 
 profana proditione immaeulatam subvertere conatus est [We ana- 
 thematize. . . . also Honorius, who did not purify this apos- 
 tolic church with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but by a profane 
 prodition (i.e., treachery — mark the play upon the words) attempted to 
 subvert it hitherto immacluate]. — Leo II. Epist. ad Constant. Imp. ap. 
 Mansi. xi. 731." Sec this and other citations in Gicseler, § 128, Notes 14, 
 15, and 17. 
 
S6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 ments of Ecclesiastical History that he has the assur- 
 ance to put on solemn *' record" the deliberate asser- 
 tion that ''in the whole history of the Church, from 
 the nineteenth century to the first, no solitary exam- 
 ple can be adduced to show that any Pope or General 
 Council ever revoked a decree of faith or morals en- 
 acted by any preceding Pontiff or Council I" Brass 
 was the current coin of the elder Rome, and those old 
 Pagans made shift to rub along w^ith it ; but the Rome 
 of to-day must bring us not so base a metal, if she 
 expects to buy us over; not even "40 Thousand," 
 no, nor 40 Hundred Thousand, siicJi sesterces will 
 suffice. 
 
 The Archbishop argues the Infallibility of the Cath- 
 olic Church from the Apostolic Commission (St. Matt. 
 28 : 19, 20 ; St. John 20 : 21-23), from St. Matt. 16 : 18, 
 C' and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" — 
 which is a promise of perpetuity, not of infallibility), 
 and from Eph. 4 : 11-14, laying particular stress on the 
 Avords, '' Behold, I am with you." But he answers 
 himself in the same breath ; for, he goes on : '' These 
 words, ' I am with yoit,' are frequently addressed in 
 Sacred Scripture, by the Almighty, to his Prophets 
 and Patriarchs" (p. 88). If, then, they prove the infal- 
 libility of the Catholic Church, they prove the infalli- 
 bility of the Jewish Church also ; wiiich is proving a 
 little too much, seeing the Jewish Church was not only 
 fallible, but by the testimony of the Archbishop him- 
 self, as we hav^e already seen, did actually err, even to 
 the extent (p. 207) of '' a long catalogue of innovations 
 in doctrine and discipline." 
 
 '' But," says the Archbishop, '' mark the consequen- 
 ces that follow from denying it. If your church is not 
 infallible, it is liable to err, for there is no medium be- 
 tween infallibility and liability to error. ... If 
 so, you are in doubt whether you are listening to 
 truth or falsehood. If you are in doubt, you can have 
 
INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THF CHURCH. 57 
 
 no faith, for faith excludes doubt" (p. 89). Does it? 
 What does the Apostle mean, then, when he says 
 (2 Cor. 5 : 7), '' We walk by faith, not by sight? The 
 two are evidently put by him. in antithesis. As evi- 
 dently, sight, as here used by him, excludes doubt. If, 
 then, faith also excludes doubt, where is the antithesis ? 
 
 Again, religious faith is possessed of a moral quality ; 
 it has its seat in the heart, '' If thou believest with 
 all thine heart, thou may est." '' V/ith the heart man 
 believeth unto righteousness" (Acts 8 : 37 ; Rom, 10 : 
 10). But Infallibility, in the Archbishop's use of it, in- 
 volves absolute certainty, and there can be no moral 
 quality in our belief of that of which we are absolutely 
 certain. If the Archbishop were to deny, .or doubt, 
 that two and two are four, or that the sum of the three 
 angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, I 
 should consider that doubt, or that denial, as spring- 
 ing not from " an evil heart of unbelief," but from a 
 mind off the hinges. 
 
 '* There can be no faith in the hearer unless there is 
 unerring authority in the speaker" (p. 89). Is this so ? 
 Let us see. Either the Archbishop knozvs that there 
 is *' unerring authority" in the Church, or he does not 
 know it. If he does not know it, then, according to 
 his o^vn argument only six lines above in the same par- 
 agraph, he does not know, when he is listening to her, 
 whether he is *' listening to truth or falsehood." If 
 he does know it, then his reception of her teachings is 
 not faith, but ** sight," that is, knowledge ; there is no 
 moral quality in that reception, any more than in his 
 reception of the truths of Arithmetic and Geometry 
 above mentioned : he simply walks by sight, not by 
 faith, contrary to the example of St. Paul and his fel- 
 low Christians, who walked *' b}^ faith, not by sight." 
 It is not true, then, necessarily (as the Archbishop repre- 
 sents it), that ''faith excludes doubt." It may, or it 
 may not ; that depends on its strength. Knowledge ex- 
 
5^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 eludes doubt ; but it excludes faith (religious faith) 
 also. Hence in that world where we shall know as 
 we are known, faith is lost in sight, as hope, also, is 
 swallowed up in fruition. 
 
 *' You admit infallible certainty in the physical sci- 
 ences, why should you deny it in the science of salva- 
 tion?'* (p. 89). For the same reason that we deny it 
 in the moral sciences, which are akin to the *' science 
 of salvation," whereas the physical sciences have no 
 kinship with it, '' The mariner, guided by his com- 
 pass, knows amid the raging storm and the darkness of 
 the night, that he is steering his course directl}^ to the 
 city of his destination" (p. 89). He does not '' know" 
 it ; he believes it ; and his faith, though it does not 
 '' exclude doubt," is, on the Vv^hole, a safe guide. But 
 there have been instances of ships wrecked through 
 some attracting substance built into the ship, it may 
 be, near the compass, unnoticed by the builder, and 
 unknown to the mariner. 
 
 " And is not an infallible guide as necessary to con- 
 duct you to the city of God in heaven?" (p. 89.) I Avill 
 consider that question in the next chapter. 
 
 The Archbishop is very much exercised about a sen- 
 tence in one of the '* Homilies of the Church of Eng- 
 land," which ''says that the Church ' lay buried in 
 damnable idolatry for eight hundred years and more ' " 
 (p. 84). I will match it with more than one from the 
 Lord himself, by the mouth of his prophets Ezekiel and 
 Jeremiah : ''In the day when 1 chose Israel. . . . 
 I said unto them, . . , defile not yourselves with 
 the idols of Egypt. . . . But they rebelled against 
 me, . . . neither did they forsake the idols of 
 Egypt. . . . Yet also I lifted up my hand unto 
 them in the wilderness, . . . for their heart went 
 after their idols. . . . When I had brought them 
 into the land [of Canaan] . . . there they pre- 
 sented the provocation of their offering. . . . Are 
 
INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 59 
 
 ye polluted after the manner of your fathers ? . . . 
 ye pollute yourselves with all your idols even unto this 
 day" (Ezek. 20 : 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 28, 30, 31). '' Behold, 
 I will give this city into the hand of the Chaldeans, 
 . . with the houses upon whose roofs they have 
 offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink-offer- 
 ings unto other gods, to provoke me to anger. For 
 the children of Israel and the children of Judah have 
 only done evil before me from their youth : for the 
 children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with 
 the work of their hands, saith the Lord. For this city 
 hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of 
 . my fury from the day that they built it unto this day" 
 (Jer. 32 : 28-31) ; considerably over *' eight hundred 
 years and more." And as to the entireiiess of the cor- 
 ruption, read what Isaiah, a hundred and fifty years 
 earlier, says in the first chapter of his prophecy, par- 
 ticularly in the fifth and sixth verses : '' The whole 
 head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole 
 of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness 
 in it ; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores." 
 Surey, if all tliis did not break the continuity of the 
 Jewish Church, then neither did all that break the con- 
 tinuity of the Christian Church, and therefore the 
 '' issue" raised by the Archbishop between '' the per^ 
 sonal veracity of our Saviour" and that *'of the Re- 
 formers," is no issue at all. *' Christ," says the Arch- 
 bishop, quoting the declaration about ''the gates of 
 hell" (St. Matt. 16 : 18), *' makes here a solemn predic- 
 tion that no error shall ever invade His Church ; and 
 if she fell into error, the gates of hell have certainly 
 prevailed against her" (p. 84). Christ does nothing of 
 the kind. He simply promises that His Chvirch shall 
 continne to the end of the world ; and if the idolatry 
 charged did not, and could not, as we have seen it 
 could not, break the continuity, the promise stands un- 
 affected, even though the charge be true. 
 
6o THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 Having thus disposed of the Archbishop's logic in 
 this chapter, I shall conclude with a specimen of his 
 rhetoric, merely interpolating, in brackets, enough to 
 make it consistent with the facts of the case : 
 
 *' Children of the Catholic [meaning Roman] Church, 
 give thanks to God for having made you members of 
 that communion in which you are preserved [as Vigi- 
 lius and Honorius were] from all errors in faith, and 
 from all illusion in the practice of virtue. . , , You 
 are a part of that universal communion which has no 
 ' High Church ' and ' Low Church ' [only Francis- 
 cans, and Dominicans, at swords' points on what, bemg 
 now, always has been, an article of faith — for the faith 
 never changes — to wit, the Immaculate Conception] ; 
 no ' New School ' and ' Old School' [only Jansenists 
 and Jesuits, at swords' points on Predestination and 
 Free Will ; and a host of other ists and isms ! '' Only 
 that, and nothing more !"] for you all belong to that 
 School which is ' ever ancient and ever new.' [That 
 must be an IrisJi School !] You enjoy that profound 
 peace and tranquillity [" solititdinem faciunt, PACEM <?/- 
 pellant,'' which maybe freely rendered, *' Order reigns 
 in Warsaw !" ^] which springs from the conscious 
 possession of the whole truth [by the Infallible Pope, 
 who deals it out to you in driblets, twelve articles in 
 1564, one in 1854, another in 1870, and another — when? 
 — and thereby saves you the trouble and responsibili- 
 ty (?) of doing your own thinking]. Well may you ex- 
 claim : ' Behold how good and how pleasant it is for 
 brethren to dwell together in unity' " (p. 90). 
 
 The only analogue of the Archbishop's *' unity" that 
 I can think of, is to be found in Barnum's ''Happy 
 Family ;" but I pity the poor animals when I think 
 what they must have gone through, in learning to re- 
 
 * The Russian General's announcement of the putting down of overt 
 aspirations after freedom of thought and action. It well translates Taci- 
 tus. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 6i 
 
 novmce the exercise of the faculties that God had given 
 them. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 The purpose of the Archbishop in this chapter is to 
 disprove the right of private Christians to interj^ret the 
 Scriptures for themselves. In opposition to the Arch- 
 bishop, I assert not only the right but the duty of every 
 Christian, however humble, to interpret the Scriptures 
 for himself, studying them diligently, with prayer for 
 the illumination of the Holy Ghost, and availing him- 
 self of every means accessible to him, including the 
 Church and the Ministry, of getting at their true 
 meaning. 
 
 ''The Jews," says the Archbishop (pp. 94, 95), 
 *' never dreamed of settling their religious controver- 
 sies by a private appeal to the word of God.'' And in 
 proof of this he cites a part of Deuteronomy 17 : 8-12, 
 which relates to civil suits and criminal prosecutions 
 that could not be settled privately, including among them, 
 of course (since the Jewish Government was a Theo- 
 cracy), matters pertaining to religion. This would have 
 been at once apparent, if the Archbishop had cited the 
 whole of the five verses, or even the first half of the first 
 of them, namely, the eighth, which runs thus : '' If there 
 arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between 
 blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between 
 stroke and stroke,'' or, as the Archbishop gives it — for 
 he cites this further on, in the chapter on the primacy 
 (p. 114), '' If there be a hard matter \n judgment be- 
 tween blood and blood, cause aiid cause, leprosy and lep- 
 rosy , ^ . . . thou shaft come to the priests of the 
 levitical race, a7id to the judge,'' etc. I have italicized 
 
62 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 certain words, to draw the reader's attention to them 
 as showing w^hat questions they are that are to be de- 
 cided by the priests and tlie judge. Even in the par- 
 agraph under consideration, enough is cited to show 
 that they are ** hard and doubtful" matters, but not 
 enough (the Archbishop is too arch for that) to show 
 what the matters are, namely, cases between man and 
 man that strike at the being of so.ciety, and that must, 
 therefore, be determined by a tribunal of last resort, 
 which, however, is no more necessarily an mfallible 
 tribunal, than '' the Supreme Court at Washington" 
 is, to ''the Chief Justice" of which the Archbishop 
 in the chapter on the Infallibility of the Popes (p. 144) 
 compares the ''Sovereign Pontiff." Such a tribunal 
 every society, civil or religious, necessarily has ; it 
 could not continue in being, without it. But what is 
 there in all this to prevent "Jews," or Christians, 
 from " settling their religious controversies by a pri- 
 vate appeal to the word of God," any more than there 
 is in the jurisdiction of the " Supreme Court," afore- 
 said, to prevent people from " settling," as they often 
 do settle, their secular differences by a private appeal, 
 under the aid and advice of judicious and friendly 
 counsellors, to the law of the land ? And what is there 
 in it to prevent " Jews," or Christians, from leaving a 
 vast number of their religious controversies — those, 
 namely, that do not strike at the being of the Church 
 — unsettled ? The truth is, the mania of Rome for 
 " settling" things — a mania which possesses also some 
 Protestant Sects, though, in this respect, they are get- 
 ting wiser, while she is getting more foolish — has 
 unsettled all western Christendom, and broken it up 
 into contending sects, the end whereof who can fore- 
 see ? Rome must be always dabbling in the mud. 
 " Controversies" that had been going on under her 
 very nose from the twelfth to the eighteenth century, 
 salva fide et salva ecclesia, she must " settle" in the 
 
THE CHURCH AXD THE BIBLE. ^2> 
 
 nineteenth. Another settling awaits her ; a settHng 
 with the Cathohc Church, and with the head of the 
 CathoHc Church, and not till then will the peace of 
 Christendom come. 
 
 '* But when our Redeemer abolished the old law, 
 and established his Church, did he intend that his gos- 
 pel should be disseminated by the circulation of the 
 Bible, or by the living voice of his disciples ? This is 
 a vital question. I answer most emphatically, that it 
 was by pleaching KLO^Y. that* he intended to convert the 
 nations, and by preaching alone they wei^e converted'' (p. 
 
 98). ". . 
 
 Here again, as in so many other instances, past and 
 
 to come, the Archbishop shall answer himself — for 
 
 '* liars" are not the only persons that *' need to have 
 
 long memories ;" sophists are in the same category, 
 
 — and shall do it '' most emphatically." 
 
 In the chapter on matrimony, the Archbishop, in 
 opposition to those who from the clause, '* except it be 
 for fornication," in St. Matt. 19 19, argue the lawful- 
 ness of divorce a vinculo matrimonii for that cause, 
 quotes and comments upon St. Mark 10: 11, 12, St. 
 Luke 16 : 18, and i Cor. 7 : 10, 11, in which there is no 
 su:h exception, and adds : 
 
 '' We must therefore admit that, according to the re- 
 ligion of Jesus Christ, conjugal infidelity does not war- 
 rant either party to marry again, or we are forced to 
 the conclusion that the vast nnmber of Christians whose 
 knoivledge of Christiaiiity zvas derived SOLELY from the 
 teachings of Saints Mark, Luke, and Paul, were imper- 
 fectly instructed in their faith" (p. 427). 
 
 It is the zvritten '' teachings" that the Archbishop 
 here refers to, for he has just quoted those written 
 teachings on this point, and he is drawing an i7iference 
 from them ; for he says, '' We must therefore admit," 
 etc. His argument may be paraphrased thus : *' We 
 must not suppose that the Bible was always, as it is 
 
64 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 now, a compact book, bound in a neat form. It was 
 for several eentitries in scattered fragments, spread over 
 different parts of Christendom,'' (p. loo.) '' The Gos- 
 pels and Epistles were addressed to particular persons 
 or particular churches." (p. 98.) St. Matthew's Gos- 
 pel was addressed to the * ' Christians of Palestine. ' ' (p. 
 427.) ** For many years after the Gospels and Epistles 
 were written, the knowledge of them was confined to 
 the churches to which they were addressed." (p. 102.) 
 wSt. Matthew's Gospel, therefore, being confined *'for 
 many years," if not *' for several centuries," to the 
 Jewish Christians, the '* vast number" of gentile Chris- 
 tians must have '' derived" their '* knowledge of Chris- 
 tianity solely from" one or more of the other Gospels 
 or of the Epistles. 
 
 Let the reader noAV compare the paragraph quoted 
 above from page 427, especially the part I have italicized, 
 with the italicized part of the paragraph from page 98, 
 and he will see that the Archbishop has *' most emphat- 
 ically'' answered himself."^ It isn't the first time that 
 we have seen this 
 
 *' engineer 
 Hoisc wiUi his own petur," 
 
 and it won't be the last. The truth is, the Archbishop 
 is wrong both ways ; it was not by preaching alone, 
 nor by the Bible alone, that the nations were to be con^ 
 verted and built up in the faith, but by both together, 
 and as fast and as far as the successive portions of thd 
 New Testament came into existence and became acces- 
 sible, they went with and followed up the living voice 
 of the preacher ; the very purpose for which they were 
 written. 
 
 * Should the Archbishop undertake to quibble on the word " conven- 
 ed," and say that the nations were converted before the Gospels or Epis- 
 tles were written, that won't help him unless he is prepared to maintaiii 
 that they were to be " converted " by preaching alone, and after that, to 
 be " built up in their most holy faith " by the Bible alone. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 65 
 
 What says St. Luke? *' Forasmuch as many have 
 taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of 
 those things which are most surely believed among us, 
 even as they delivered them unto us, which from the 
 beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the 
 word ; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect 
 understanding of ail things from the very first, to write 
 unto thee in order, most excellent Thophilus, that thou 
 mightest know the certainty {aacpaXnav, freedom from 
 error) of those things wherein tnou hast been in- 
 structed" — literally, '* catechized." (St. Luke i : 1-4.) 
 
 It is plain, then, that the office of Scripture was to 
 authenticate the spoken word ; to fix Tradition, and 
 hand it down in a safe channel, instead of trusting 
 so precious a deposit to the treacherous memory of 
 successive generations. The very statement of the 
 Roman doctrine of tradition, to wit, an esoteric tradi- 
 tion, {disciplina arcani,) transmitted orally through a 
 select few who alone should have the custody of it, is 
 enough to condemn it. It is the ** Church," the whole 
 Church, not a clique within it, still less a Roman clique, 
 least of all a Vaticano-Tridentine clique, that is *Vthe 
 pillar and ground of the truth." 
 
 '' Until the religious Revolution of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury," says the Archbishop, ** it was a thing unheard of 
 from the beginning of the world, that people should be 
 governed by the dead letter of the law, either in civil 
 or ecclesiastical affairs." (p. 99.) 
 
 Certainly it was '* unheard of," and it is still, except 
 by the Archbishop. * ' He is the only one who has got the 
 ?iews,'' and he makes as much parade over it as some 
 enterprising purveyor for the press sometimes does 
 when he has stumbled upon an equally trustworthy item, 
 
 ** What is the use," says the Archbishop, '' of your 
 preaching sermons and catechizing the young, if the 
 Bible at home [meaning thereby '' the dead letter" of 
 the Bible] is a sufficient guide for your people ? The 
 
66 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 fact is, you Reverend gentlemen contradict in prac- 
 tice what you so vehemently advance in theory/' (pp. 
 99, loo.) 
 
 '* The fact is/' you, Most Reverend Sir, either mis- 
 apprehend our position, or else wilfully misrepresent it. 
 And of this you seem to have a dim consciousness ; for 
 3^ou say, in the next paragraph, '' I will address myself 
 now in a friendly spirit to a non-Catholic," meaning a 
 non-Roman. Certainly, you have been addressing your- 
 self to him in any thing but '' a friendly spirit," impmt- 
 ing to him that which, if true, would make a drivelling 
 idiot intellectually respectable alongside of him. I will 
 not stoop to misrepresent the Roman Church as you 
 misrepresent the Church of England, and the great 
 body of Protestants, on this point. I could not do it 
 and preserve my self-respect. 
 
 The Roman Church holds that there are two sources 
 of ** saving truth," (sahitaris vcritatis,) the ''written 
 books," and the '' unwritten traditions which, received 
 by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or 
 from the Apostles themselves (2 Thess. 2 : 14,) the 
 Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, 
 transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand." [Concil. 
 Trident., Sess, IV. Can. I., Buckley's Translation, Lon- 
 don, 185 1, p. 18. — For the original Latin, see Browne 
 on the Articles, Am. Ed., p. 130.) 
 
 In opposition to this, the Church ol England, in 
 common with the great body of Protestants, maintains 
 (Art. VL), that there is but one source " of saving 
 truth. Her words are, '* Holy Scripture containeth 
 all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is 
 not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to 
 be required of any man, that it should be believed as 
 an article of the"^ Faith, or be throught requisite or 
 necessary to salvation." 
 
 * The Illumination of the Spirit is not here in question, on either side. 
 
THE CHURCH AXD THE BIBLE. 67 
 
 This is what is meant by " The Bible and the Bible 
 only." NotT\\^ Bible, to the exclusion of the Church 
 and Ministry, — *'as we be slanderously reported" by 
 the Archbishop ; but, The Bible, to the exclusion of the 
 '' unwritten traditions." Bellarmine understands this, 
 if the Archbishop doesn't : '' The controversy between 
 us and the heretics consists in two things. The first is, 
 that we assert that in Scripture is not expressly con- 
 tained all necessary doctrine, whether concerning faith 
 or morals, and therefore that, besides the written word 
 of God, there is moreover needed the unwritten word, 
 i.e., Divine and Apostolical Tradition. But //^^7 teach, 
 that all things necessary for faith and morals are con- 
 tained in the Scriptures, and that therefore there is no 
 neeel of the unzvritten word.'' — De Verbo Dei non Scripto^ 
 Lib. IV. cap. III.^ — See the Original Latin in Browne, 
 
 Now in this '' controversy" the Fathers are v/ith us, 
 and against Rome. Tertullian says : '' Let the school 
 of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not 
 written, let them fear the woe Avhich is destined for 
 them who add to or take away." — Adv. Herrnog., c. 22. 
 
 Origen says : ' ' If any thing remain Avhich Holy Scrip- 
 ture doth not determine, no third Scripture [he had 
 been speaking of two— the Old Testament and the 
 New] ought to be had recourse to. . . . For God 
 would not have us know all things in this world. — 
 Horn. V. ill Lev it, 
 
 Hippolytus writes : '' Whosoever will exercise piety 
 toward God can learn it nowhere but from the Holy 
 Scriptures." — Contra HcEresim Noeti, c. 9. 
 
 Athanasius : *' The holy and divinely-inspired Scrip- 
 tures are of themselves sufficient to the enunciation of 
 truth. — Contra Gentes, Tom. I. p. i. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem : '' Concerning the divine and 
 holy mysteries of the faith, even the most casual re- 
 mark ought not to be delivered without the sacred 
 Scriptures." — Catech. IV., 12. 
 
6S THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS. 
 
 Basil : '* Believe those things which are written ; the 
 things which are not written seek not." — Horn, XXIX., 
 adv, Cal. S, Trin, '* Itis a manifest defection from the 
 faith, and a proof of arrogance, either to reject any- 
 thing of what is written, or to introduce anything that 
 is not.'' — De Fide, c. i. 
 
 Ambrose : '' How can we use those things which we 
 find not in the Scriptures?" — Ojjic. Lib. I. c. 23. 
 
 Jerome: '* As we deny not those things which are 
 written, so we refuse those which are not written/' — 
 Adv, Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. IV. Pars. II. p. 
 141, Edit. Benedict. 
 
 Augustine : *' In those things which are plainly laid 
 down in Scripture, all things are found which embrace 
 faith and morals." — De Doctr, Christ., L. ii. c. 9, Tom. 
 III. p. 24. ** If an angel from heaven announce to you 
 anything beyond {^prceterquani) what ye have received 
 in the legal and evangelical Scriptures, let him be ana- 
 thema."— C(9;//r. PetiL, L. III. c. 6, T. IX. p. 301. 
 
 Theodoret : */ Bring not human reasonings and syl- 
 logisms ; I rely on Scripture." — Dial. I. ^ArpSTtr 
 
 John Damascene : " All things that are delivered to 
 us by the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the 
 Evangelists, we receive, acknowledge, and reverence, 
 seeking for nothing beyond these." — De Ortliod. Fide,, 
 L. i. c. I. See the above quotations more at large, and 
 in the Original Latin and Greek, in Browne on the Ar- 
 ticles, pp. 148, 149. — See also, in the same, p. 147, this 
 extract from Irenseus which is specially to the point : 
 '' We have received the disposition of our salvation by 
 no others but those by whom the Gospel came to us ; 
 which they then preached, and afterwards by God's 
 will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar 
 and ground of our faith." — L. III. c. i. 
 
 Irenasus says, the Gospel which the Apostles 
 preached they afterward delivered to us in the 
 Scriptures. Rome says, they delivered only a part of 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 69 
 
 it in the Scriptures, leaving the rest to unwritten tra- 
 dition. Which shall we believe ? I prefer to believe 
 Irenseus, the pupil of Pulycarp, the disciple of St. John. 
 
 But did not some of these very Fathers speak of a 
 ** canon of truth" according to which the Scriptures 
 ought to be interpreted ? Yes, they spoke of the 
 Creed, as such '' canon ;" but then the Creed was not 
 an unwritten tradition, nor was it, in their view, outside 
 of Scripture except as to its form and arrangement ; for 
 every article of it they recognized as contained in 
 Scripture. 
 
 But did not the Fathers appeal to tradition in arguing 
 with heretics ? Yes, but not as adding to the teachings 
 of Scripture, but only as confirming them. I chal- 
 lenge the Archbishop to produce a single passage from 
 any of the Fathers of the first four centuries, asserting 
 the existence of an unwritten tradition containing a 
 doctrine not in Holy Scripture and yet necessary to 
 salvation. Let him produce one such passage if he can, 
 or else let him hereafter, on this point, forever hold 
 his peace. 
 
 What the civil code is to the citizen, the Scripture 
 is to the Christian. The Word of God, as w^ell as the 
 civil law, must have an interpreter, by whose decision 
 we are obliged to abide.'' (p. 99). 
 
 Only a small portion of Scripture, to wit, the statu- 
 tory, is analogous to the '' civil code ;" the remaining, 
 and by far the greater, portion, historical, prophetical, 
 devotional, needs no tribunal to interpret it ; nay, is, 
 from its very nature, outside the domain of any tribu- 
 nal. Even the statutory portion, like the '' civil code,'' 
 needs a tribunal only when a practical case arises ; and 
 then it needs one at hand, and not one afar off. Cases 
 oi morals, — not abstract or hypothetical cases, (for the 
 ecclesiastical tribunal, if it is to follow the analogy of 
 the civil tribunal, does n't deal with such,) but concrete 
 cases, in other v/ords, charges of immorality — are de- 
 
70 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 cicled by local tribunals, with the right of appeal, it 
 may be, to a higher local tribunal, as, for instance, 
 from the parish priest to the Bishop, or from a Dio- 
 cesan court to a Provincial one. Cases of discipline, not 
 directly involving morals, are decided in the same 
 way. So were cases of faith, for the first three centu- 
 ries, there being then no general tribunal ; for the Pope 
 wa.s not then recognized as such, as we shall see, fur- 
 ther on. The highest tribunal is, the whole Church, 
 represented in General Council, and afterwards accept- 
 ing, or rejecting, the formal judgments of such Council. 
 It is not often that such an assemblage has been called 
 into being. Even of those claimed to be General 
 Councils, the number is but small ; of really General 
 ones, still smaller ; only Six, whose formal judgments 
 have been definitively accepted and acted on by the 
 whole Church. These were called into being, pro re 
 nata, as emergencies arose. These emergencies are 
 not likely to arise in the future. All the Articles of 
 the Faith have been already adjudicated. As to the 
 fourteen new articles, so called, of Modern Rome, and 
 the fourteen newer ones that she may have in reserve, 
 locked up in the storehouse of unwritten tradition, 
 waiting their turn to be let out, one by one, or in a 
 batch of a baker's dozen, by the keys of St. Peter, we 
 are ready to submit them, each and all, as Cranmer, 
 and Luther, were, before us, to a really General coun- 
 cil, not a packed one, like that of the Vatican of the 
 other day, and to abide the action (whether of accept- 
 ance or of rejection) of the whole Church upon its for- 
 mal judgments. Meanwhile, we shall get along, as the 
 Church of the first three centuries did, with Diocesan 
 and Provincial tribunals, with the advantage over it, 
 however, of the adjudications of the whole Church of 
 the three following centuries. And we shall continue 
 to maintain consistently, in theory and in practice, pri- 
 vate judgment and Church authority ; the latter, as 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. Jt 
 
 necessary to the being of a Church ; the former, not 
 only as the right, but as the duty of every man, — a 
 duty which he owes to the manhood that God has 
 given him, and which he may not shirk or draw back 
 from, or seek to shoulder off from himself on to others. 
 The Archbishop charges us with inconsistency, in 
 holding to *' The Bible, and the Bible only,'' and, in 
 the same breath, to the necessity of the Church and 
 the Ministry ; but he fails, as we have seen, to make 
 good the charge. I charge him — and I will bring the 
 charge home to him — with inconsistency, in denouncing 
 private interpretation, and, in the same breath, appeal- 
 ing to it. 
 
 1. In denouncing private interpretation : 
 
 '' It is, therefore, a grave perversion of the sacred 
 Text, to adduce these words [the words, '* Search the 
 Scriptures"] in vindication of the private interpretation 
 of the Scriptures.'* (p. 98.) 
 
 *' Thus we see that in the Old and the New Dispen- 
 sation, the people were to be guided by a living au- 
 thority, and not by their private interpretation of the 
 Scriptures.'' (p. 99.) 
 
 *' Hence, the doctrine of private interpretation would 
 render many men's salvation not only difficult, but im- 
 possible." (p. 104.) 
 
 ** Does not the conduct of the Reformers conclu- 
 sively show the utter folly of interpreting the Scrip- 
 tures by /r/z/^^^y^/<^;;^^;^/ ?" (p. 105.) 
 
 '* One will prove from the Holy Book that Jesus 
 Christ is not God. Others will appeal to the same text 
 to attest His divinity. 
 
 ** Very recently several hundred Mormon wo- 
 men. . . „ 
 
 *' Such is the legitimate fruit of private interpreta- 
 tion,'' (pp. 106, 107.) 
 
 2. In appealing to it in the same breath : 
 
 What are the Archbishop's 339 appeals (if I have 
 
72 THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS. 
 
 counted right) to Scripture, but so many appeals to 
 the private interpretation of his non-Roman readers ? 
 Or, does he expect them to go and ask the Pope if the 
 Archbishop *s interpretation is right, and, if he says 
 yes, then to go over in a body to the Roman Church ? 
 Or perhaps he expects them to follow in the footsteps 
 of the late Reverend Orby Shipley, of the Church of 
 England, now Mister Orby Shipley of the Church of 
 Rome, who thus writes to the Londofi Times : " For the 
 last time I exercised my private judgment, as ever}^ 
 person must exercise that gift of God in some way and 
 to some extent, and I humbly sought admission into the 
 communion of the Catholic [he means the Roman] 
 Church/' In other words, '' I exercised my private 
 judgment*' in strangling my private judgment ; I used 
 *' that gift of God" to hurl it back iipon the GIVER. 
 Habemus renin conjitentem. We have him pleading 
 guilty to intellectual and moral suicide. What remains 
 but to take up the corpse, and carry it forth, and bury it 
 out of sight, and leave it 
 
 "To lie in cold ohstntction^ and to r^/.** 
 
 Pass we on ! 
 
 '* A copy of the sacred volume is handed to you by 
 your minister, who says : ' Take this book ; you will 
 rind it all-sufficient for your salvation.' But here a 
 serious difficulty awaits you at the very threshold of 
 your investigations. What assurance have you that 
 the book he hands you is the inspired Word of God ? " 
 
 We have the same '' assurance " that you have. 
 The same evidence is accessible to us that is accessible 
 to you, and it is not very assuming in us to assume that 
 we are, to say the least, equally as capable as you of 
 weighing it ; especially as weighing it, involves private 
 judgment, and you are not allowed, in this matter, to 
 have any private judgment, but must take the say-so of 
 your church, without even weighing her testimony. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 73 
 
 We, on the contrary, weigh all the testimony, includ- 
 ing that of your church, which is but a very small part 
 of the whole ; for we have the testimony of the whole 
 Church before the division of the East and West ; the 
 testimony of the Greek Church since that division ; the 
 testimony of the Church of England and of nineteen- 
 tvventieths of all Protestants since the Reformation ; 
 the testimony of the early heretics and schismatics, 
 nearly all of whom recognized the canon of Scripture 
 received by the Church ; in fine, the testimony of the 
 early adversaries of Christianity, Trypho, and Celsus, 
 and Julian. If I were arguing w4th an infidel, I might 
 show how much stronger is the evidence of the genu- 
 ineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, than of the works of the ancient Greek and Latin 
 historians ; but such an argument would be out of 
 place here. As to the inspiration of the Scriptures, it 
 rests on the same kind of evidence that the authority 
 and infallibility of the Roman Church is claimed by you 
 to rest on, to wit, the declarations of these Scriptures 
 them.selves ; and as I am not arguing with an infidel, 
 this is all that I am concerned to show. I will not, be- 
 cause I need not, cite these declarations at large, but 
 will merely give reference to some of them, to wit : St. 
 Matt. ID : 19, 20 : St. Luke, 12 : 11, 12 ; St. John 14 ; 16, 
 17, 26 ; 15 : 26 ; 16 : 13, 14 ; Acts 15 : 28 ; Rom. 16 : 
 25, 26 ; I Cor. 2:4, 5, 9-16 ; 14 : 37 ; Gal. i : 11, 12 ; 
 Heb. I : I, 2 ; i St. Peter i : 11, 12 ; 2 St. Peter i : 21 ; 
 Rev, I : 10, II. 
 
 But there is another difficulty, it seems , in our way. 
 ''It [the '' book he hands you "] may, for aught you 
 know, contain more than the Word of God, or it may 
 not contain all the Word of God." (p. 100.) 
 
 1 answer, we know just as much about it as you do, 
 for we have the same identical information in our pos- 
 session that you have in yours, to wit, the testimony 
 (not merely of the modern Roman Church but) of the 
 
74 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 whole Church from the beginning ; and we are as able 
 to sift it as you are. We have sifted it, and, as the re- 
 sult, we have come to the conclusion, first, that the 
 book we call the Bible does not " contain more than the 
 Word of God," — a conclusion in which we are happy 
 to find the Greek Church, the Roman Church, and 
 nineteen-twentieths of all Protestants, agreeing with 
 us, and in which, therefore, we feel pretty safe ; and 
 we have come to the conclusion, secondly, that it does 
 *' contain all the Word of God," a conclusion in which 
 you do not agree with us ; for you claim that certain 
 other books, which we call Apocryphal, are really Can- 
 onical. What is your evidence for this claim ? '' The 
 Catholic Church," you say, **in the plenitude of her 
 authority, in the third Council of Carthage, (a.d. 397,) 
 separated the chaff from the wheat, and declared what 
 Books were Canonical, and what were apocryphal." I 
 reply, '' The Catholic Church" did nothing of the 
 kind, for the simple reason, first, that the Council of 
 Carthage was not a General Council, but merely an 
 African Council, of only forty -four Bishops ; and, sec- 
 ondly, — a reason that you will appreciate, — that '' a Ro- 
 man Council (see Bp. Hopkins, End of Controversy Con- 
 troverted, vol. i. p. 325) held a.d. 494, under [the infal- 
 lible] Pope Gelasius, by seventy Bishops, for the ex- 
 press purpose of separating [what, according to you, 
 had been already separated ninety-seven 3^ears before,] 
 the canonical Scriptures, the Councils and the fathers, 
 from the numerous apocryphal books which were in 
 circulation," deliberately excluded from the canon the 
 Second Book of Maccabees, the very Book you quote 
 (p. 184) in behalf of the Invocation of Saints (p. 206) in 
 behalf of Purgatory, and (p. 308) in behalf of Masses 
 for the Dead, and which the Council of Carthage in- 
 cluded in the canon. Evidently, his Infallibility, sturdy 
 old Roman as he was, though said by some to have 
 been of African birth, had come to the conclusion, 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 75 
 
 " Delenda est Carthago,'' — et delevit. Which was right, 
 the African Council, or the Infallible Pope ? For my 
 part, I side with his Holiness on this point. And I go 
 further, and side v/ith his successor a hundred years 
 later. Pope Gregory the Great — him that denounced 
 as the forerunner of Antichrist any one who should 
 claim to be Universal Bishop ; grand old Pope he was, 
 even if he wasn't infallible — I say, I side with him in 
 excluding not only the second book of Maccabees, but 
 the first book also ; for he introduces a quotation from 
 it with these words : '' We shall not go too far if we 
 bring forward a testimony from those books which, 
 altJioiigh itot canonical, are used to edify the Church." 
 {Moral, in Job, Lib. 19, c. xxxiv. Op,, Tom. i, p. 622, a. 
 Quoted by Bp. Hopkins, tit supra, p. 328.) I will cite 
 one more witness and one whom you can't object to ; 
 for you tell us (p. no) that '' Pope Damasus com- 
 manded a new and complete translation of the Scrip- 
 tures to be made into the Latin language," and that 
 the task '' was assigned to St. Jerome, the most learned 
 Hebrew scholar of his time." 
 
 This was some years before the Council of Carthage, 
 for that Council did not meet till twelve years after the 
 death of Damasus. Of course, St. Jerome knew what 
 Books w^ere then received in the Church as canonical 
 Scripture. What is his testimony? ** As, therefore, 
 the Church reads indeed Judith and Tobit and the 
 Books of the Maccabees, but does not receive them 
 among the canonical Scriptures, so also she reads these 
 two volumes [Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus] for the edifi- 
 cation of the people, not for the confirmxation of ecclesi- 
 astical doctrine." (Tom. L p. 938. Ed. Bened. — See 
 the origmal Latin in Browne on the Articles, p. 188.) 
 This declaration of St. Jerome is a part of his Preface 
 to the Proverbs of Solomon. Our canon and his are 
 the same, and they agree perfectly with that of the 
 Jews, to whom "were comimitted the oracles of God," 
 
7 6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 (Rom. 3 : 2), and whom Christ never charges with 
 either adding to or taking from them, but with making 
 them void by their tradition. I will only add that the 
 author of the Second Book of Maccabees, your favor- 
 ite (apocryphal) book, evidently never dreamed that 
 his unpretending history was inspired Scripture ; for, 
 in winding up his narrative, he says, '' And here will I 
 make an end. And if I have done well and as is fitting 
 the story, it is that which I desired ; but if slenderly 
 and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto. " — 
 Really, it requires a good deal of effrontery in you and 
 your Communion to foist such a man, 7iolentem volentem, 
 into the category of canonical writers, and his modest 
 ** little volume'' into the Sacred Canon ! 
 
 Since writing the above, in searching in the library 
 of the late Dr. Trapier, now in my custody, I came 
 across (what I had hitherto overlooked) Dupin on the 
 Canon, the same Dupin from whoie History of the 
 Church I have already quoted. I make a few extracts : 
 
 "As for the other Books, viz. Tobit, Judith, Wis- 
 dom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two Books of the Macca- 
 bees, they were never in the Jewish Canon, and are 
 not to be met with in the Ancient Canons of Sacred 
 Books, drawn up by the Christian Writers, except in 
 those of the Churches of Rome and Africk. 
 
 ** Origen in the Epistle to Africanus observes that 
 the Books of Tobit and Judith were not received by 
 the Jews, and that they were not so much as plac'd 
 among their Apocryphal Books, tho' the Churches did 
 make use of them. . . 
 
 *' The Book of Judith is not only rejected in all the 
 ancient catalogues of Sacred Writings, but is likewise 
 not so much as cited by the Ancient Fathers. . . . 
 
 '' The Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are put 
 down in the Ancient Catalogues among the useful 
 Books which are read in the Church with Edification, 
 but are uncanonical. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE, 7? 
 
 *' Lastly, the two Books of the Maccabees are cast 
 out of the Canon of Sacred Books in the Catalogues of 
 Melito, Origen, the Council of Laodicea, St. Cyril, St. 
 Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, and in the rest 
 which we have already mentioned." Vol. I. Chap. I. 
 Sect. V. 
 
 In the next chapter, he proceeds to enquire how, 
 notwithstanding all this, these books ** came to be in- 
 serted into the Canon," and, after giving the argu- 
 ments advanced in behalf of them, sa3^s, *' It were to 
 be wished that this Scheme were as Solid as 'tis Com- 
 modious, for an answer to the objection befory lay'd 
 down : But 'tis such an easy matter to overthrow it, 
 that whoever would persist in defending it against the 
 Hereticks, would soon find himself engaged in such a 
 Labyrinth, as would be difficult for him to extricate 
 himself out of." He comes, however, in the next par- 
 agraph, as a true son of the Church, to this conclusion : 
 '* All these Reasons and Considerations joy n'd together, 
 are sufficient to establish the Authority [he does not 
 say, Canonicity] of these Books, of which the decision 
 of the Council of Trent has left no reason [he should 
 have said no roont\ to doubt. For tho' no new Revela- 
 tion has been made to the Church, yet it may after so 
 long a tract ot time [more than 1700 years] be better 
 assured of the Truth and Genuineness of a Work, than 
 it was before, when after a due examination of the Mat- 
 ter, it has met with a sufficient Testimony not to doubt 
 any longer of it, and a sufficient Tradition, to judge it 
 to be Authentic." The humor of all this is inimitable 
 and irresistible. Dupin is evidently a wag, and must 
 have enjoyed hugely the sly dig he was giving the Tri- 
 dentine Fathers. It reminds me of a similar dig ni 
 Professor Ornsby's Note on i St, John 5 : 7, in his edi- 
 tion of the Greek Testament, approved by Cardinal 
 Cullen, where, after giving the arguments for and 
 against the authenticity of the verse, the latter prepon- 
 
78 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 derating overwhelmingly, he adds : ** The above argu- 
 ments are stated by way of furnishing a general answer 
 to difficulties commonly urged ; but such difficulties, 
 even were the solution less satisfactory, must always, 
 to us be sufficiently disposed of by the Council of 
 Trent, which has sanctioned, as sacred and canonical, 
 the entire books of Sacred Scripture, with all their 
 parts, as they were wont to be read in the Catholic 
 Church, and are found in the old Vulgate Latin edi- 
 tion : which is the case with the passage before us !" 
 
 How ** commodious" to have somebody to do our 
 thinking for us ! especiall}^ when he can think to such 
 good purpose as his Infallibility, Pope Sixtus V., who, 
 about twenty years after the Council of Trent, '' pub- 
 lished a rectified edition of the Bible as the, standard 
 Vulgate, along with a Bull, in which these words ap- 
 pear :^ * We have corrected it with our own hand. 
 . . . and from our certain knowledge, and from the 
 plenitude of Apostolical power, w^e decree that this Vul- 
 gate Latin edition of the sacred page of the Old as well 
 as the New Testament, is to be esteemed, without any 
 doubt or controversy as thoroughly amended as it can 
 be/ '' See Letter XVIIL of The End of Controversy Con- 
 troverted, by Bishop Hopkins, who adds, in the next 
 paragraph, '* Yet, before two years had elapsed, so 
 many errors had been discovered in the edition which 
 Sixtus V. had thus published from his certain knowledge 
 and from tlie plenitude of Apostolic power, that Pope Cle- 
 ment VllL was constrained to call in the copies, and to 
 put out another, which is the present standard. And 
 the Preface to this expressly states that f ' Although 
 
 ■^ " Nostra nos ipsi manu correximus, . . . Ex certa nostra scientia, 
 deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, statuimus earn Vulgatam 
 sacrse tarn Veteris quam Novi Testamenti paginae Latinam editionem, 
 .... sine ulla dubitatione aut controversia censendam esse banc ipsam, 
 quam nunc prout optime fieri potuit emendatam." 
 
 f " In hac tamen pervulgata Lectione, sicut nonulla consulto mutata, 
 ita etiam alia, (\u^fnutanda videbaniiir, consulto immutata relicta sunt." 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 79 
 
 some things were advisedly changed from the common 
 reading, there were others, which seemed to require a 
 change, advisedly suffered to remain unaltered.' 
 Such is the Latin Bible which, in the Roman Church, 
 supplants, as the standard of Appeal, the original Greek 
 and Hebrew. 
 
 *' But even when you are assured that the Bible con- 
 tains the Word of God, and nothing but the Word of 
 God, how do you know that the translation is faith- 
 ful ?" (p. lOI.) 
 
 In the same way that you and 3"Our Church *' know" 
 that your translation is faithful. Some of us have com- 
 pared the translation with the original. The rest of us 
 are satisfied of its substantial accuracy, because we 
 find, not only the Church of England, by whose schol- 
 arly members and by whose authority the translation 
 was made, and her daughter Churches, but the great 
 body of English-speaking Protestants, though belong- 
 ing to diverse and conflicting denominations, agreeing 
 in the reception of it ; and because your great cham- 
 pion, Milner, while declaiming against its accuracy, 
 specifies but two passages as wrongly translated, to wit, 
 I Cor. II : 27, and St. Matt. 19: 11, neither of which 
 bears out his charge, as I proceed to show. 
 
 In the passage from Corinthians, the question is not 
 one of translation, but of the true reading va the Greek, 
 the Manuscripts differing in regard to it ; some read- 
 ing nai^ and drink, etc. ; others, 7, or drink, etc. ; 
 which last, being the reading of the Sinaitic Manu- 
 script, lately discovered, is probably, but not certainly, 
 the true reading. Whether it be so or not, the teach- 
 ing contained in it is undoubtedly true ; for whosoever 
 either eateth the bread, or drinketh the cup, unworth- 
 ily, is guilty both of the body and of the blood of the 
 Lord ; not because half a sacrament is a whole sacra- 
 ment, but because '* whosoever shall keep the whole 
 law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." 
 
8o THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 In the passage from St. Matthew, our translation, 
 *' All men cannot receive this saying," is rights 2iXi^ the 
 Roman translation, '' NW. receive not,'' is wrong. The 
 Greek is ov Ttdvre^ jcc9pou(Tz, all have not the capacity for. 
 See the word in Liddell & Scott, where it is thus defined ; 
 ^' III. transit., to have space or room for a thing, to hold, 
 contain, esp. of measures." See the citations, one of 
 which is translated, ''as much as they possibly could ;'' 
 literall}^ as much as their heads had capacity for. — That 
 our translators were right, is practically admitted by 
 the Roman translators, who render St. John 21 : 25, 
 '' the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the 
 books that should be written." Here, it is the future- 
 infinitive of the same word which in St. Matthew is in 
 the present indicative ; if '' not be able to" is right 
 here, as unquestionably it is, '' cannot" is right there. 
 *' Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou 
 wicked," or else ignorant, calumniator ! Thine '* End 
 of Controversy" shall make an end of thee. 
 
 But I will do more than confute Milner. When I 
 come to the chapters on Invocation of Saints, Sacred 
 Images, Celibacy of the Clergy, and Matrimony, I will 
 convict your version of fouf gross mistranslations, three 
 of which Avere brought to the notice of one of your pre- 
 decessors by Bishop Hopkins more than twenty years 
 ago. See his '' End of Controversy Controverted," Let- 
 ter XVIII. , in which also it will be seen that, as acting 
 counsel of our English Version, he wrongly plead guilty 
 to Milner's indictment of it. So much for translation. 
 
 ** But, after having ascertained to your satisfaction 
 that the translation is faithful, still the Scriptures can 
 nev^er serve as a complete Rule of Faith and a complete 
 guide to heaven, independently of an authorized, living 
 interpreter. 
 
 '' A competent guide, such as our Lord intended for 
 us, must have three characteristics. It must be within 
 the reach of every one ; it must be clear and intelligi- 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 8i 
 
 ble ; it must be able to satisfy us on all questions relat- 
 ing to faith and morals. " ist. . . . Now it is clear 
 that the Scriptures could not at any period have been 
 accessible to every one. 
 
 '* They could not have been accessible to the primitive 
 Christians, because they were not all written for a long 
 time after the establishment of Christianity. . . 
 The most perfect Christians lived and died and went to 
 heaven before the most inportant parts of the Scrip- 
 tures were written. And what w^ould have become of 
 them if the Bible alone had been their guide?" (pp. 
 101-103.) 
 
 No one supposes that ''the Bible alone" was their 
 guide. The inspired Apostles and Evangelists were 
 their guides. But these could not remain always on 
 earth, and so they took care that their survivors, and 
 all Christians to the end of time, should have their 
 teachings '' always in remembrance." (2 St. Peter i : 
 15.) How ? By '* having themx committed to writing," 
 says Professor Ornsby, and every sensible man says 
 with him. But the Rhemish Annotator, not being a 
 sensible man, or else being a knave, says it was to be 
 accomplished by St. Peter's *' intercession before God 
 after His departure" from this life ! If so, if St. 
 Peter's intercession in heaven could bring to our re- 
 membrance, his teachings, though w^e never heard them, 
 nor could have heard them, seeing we were not born 
 till after his '' departure," w^hat need not only of a 
 Bible, but what need of an infallible Church or an in- 
 falhble Pope ? The inspired Apostles and Evangelists 
 held to no such nonsense. They took care that after 
 their departure Christians should still have an inspired 
 and, eventually, a completeguide to Christian faith and 
 morals, which, but for the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment, they would not have had, the Archbishop himself 
 being witness ; for he says, expressly, (pp. 140, 141,) 
 *' The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspira- 
 
S2 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 tion, and we accept their writings as the revealed word 
 of God. 
 
 " No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope 
 is inspired, or endowed with divine revelation properly 
 so called." 
 
 The Archbishop's argument (?) runs thus : The New 
 Testament ivasvS t *' a complete guide" to the primitive 
 Christians, who hadii't it ; tlierefore, it isn t a complete 
 guide to us, who liave it ! Most lame and impotent 
 conclusion ! And to think of its coming from an Arch- 
 bishop and Metropolitan, who may be supposed, with- 
 out a very violent presumption, to have been taught the 
 riidiinejits of logic I 
 
 The Archbishop goes on to speak of the hard times 
 the Christians must have had, on the *' Bible alone" 
 theory, for a thousand years and more, before the in- 
 vention of printing. 
 
 *' During that long period, Bibles had to be copied 
 wdth the pen. There were but a few^ hundred of them 
 in the Christian w^orld, and these were in the hands of 
 the clergy and the learned." (p. 103.) 
 
 ** What has become of those millions of once famous 
 books w^hich were written in past ages ? They have 
 nearly all perished. But amid this wreck of ancient 
 literature the Bible stands almost a solitary monument, 
 like the Pyramids of Egypt amid the surrounding 
 wastes. That venerable volume has survived the wars 
 and revolutions, and the barbaric invasions of fifteen 
 centuries. Who rescued it from destruction ? The 
 Catholic [not the Tridentine Roman] Church. With- 
 out her fostering care, the New Testament would prob- 
 ably be as little known to-day as ' the Book of the Days 
 of the Kings of Israel.' III. [our I. ] Kings 14 : 19." 
 (pp. 109, no.) 
 
 '' Learned monks, who are now abused in their graves 
 by thoughtless men, were constantly employed in copy- 
 ing with the pen the Holy Bible. When one died at 
 
THE CHURCH AXD THE BIBLE. ^2i 
 
 his post, another took his place, watching like a faithful 
 sentinel over the treasure of God's Word." (p. no). 
 
 From these three statements of the Archbishop, we 
 learn that while those industrious old heathens the clas- 
 sic writers of antiquity, could pour forth '' millions'' of 
 books, so little cared for that ''they have nearly all 
 perished,'' the " learned monks," with all their indus- 
 try, backed by the ''fostering care" of the Church, 
 could bring the number of Bibles up only to " a few 
 hundred ;" and yet we are told, almost in the same 
 breath, — for the sentence begins on the same page with 
 the last-quoted statement, — that the '' new translation" 
 by St. Jerome, into Latin, '' was disseminated through- 
 out Christendom, and on that account was called the 
 Vtdgate, or popular edition." Were the copies so 
 scarce, then ? What says St. Augustine, as quoted by 
 Dupin in his History of the Canon, vol. II. chap. iii. sect. 
 I, in reply to the Manichees ? " What could you do 
 but only assert that it was impossible to falsifie those 
 Books which were in the hands of all Christians f 
 What says Dupin himself, on the^preceding page ? He 
 argues that the Scriptures '' wxre not alter'd a little 
 after the Death of the Apostles and Evangelists,'' because 
 there were '' copies of them spread over the face of the 
 whole Earth ; which were preserved and read in all the 
 Churches of Christendom, 
 
 To return to the Archbishop : '^ It was well for Lu- 
 ther that he did not come into the world until a cen- 
 truy after the immortal discovery of Guttenberg. " 
 (p. 103.) Of course, it was. God always brings men 
 into the world at the right time. Hence He brought 
 the Archbishop into the world in the nineteenth cen- 
 tury. Think of one so in sympathy with our '' modern 
 inventions," and ''mechanical progress," (p. 78) — so 
 enamored of ''Civil and Religious Liberty," (chap. 
 XVI.) — so hearty an abhorrer of " Religious Persecu- 
 tion," (p. 241) — coming into the world in the sixteenth 
 
84 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 century ! Why, he would have been perfectly misera- 
 ble ! ' 
 
 ''A hundred years earlier, his (Luther's) idea of 
 directing two hundred and fifty millions of men to read 
 the Bible would have been received with shouts of 
 laughter/''^ (p. 103.) Certainly, if he had ever had 
 such an idea ; but, being a man of common sense, and 
 knowing that not one in five, if indeed one in ten, of 
 those two hundred and fifty millions, could read at all, 
 he never had such an idea. What he actually had at 
 heart — what he would have had at heart, had he come 
 into the world a hundred years earlier — was that every 
 one of those four-fifths, or nine-tenths, should have the 
 opportunity of hearing the Scriptures publicly read in 
 the Church, as the whole multitude of the Jews heard 
 them read in the Synagogue, and so became familiar 
 with them, in the time ot our Lord, and as the Chris- 
 tians in the ages next following heard them read in 
 their public assemblies, as is witnessed by the appoint- 
 ment of an Order of '' Readers" for that very purpose. 
 And certainly his ''idea" of turning out the Monkish 
 Legends from the Breviary, to make room for the 
 Word of God, ''would have been received," by the 
 Authorities of the Roman Church, with anything but 
 " shouts of laughter." 
 
 "2d. A competent guide must be clear and intelli- 
 gible to all, so that every one may fully understand the 
 true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the 
 Bible a book intelligible to all ? Far from it ; it is full 
 of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, 
 but even for the learned." (p. 104.) 
 
 That there are hard places in Scripture nobody de- 
 nies, but they are not those necessary to salvation. For 
 instance, that about being '' baptized for the dead" (i 
 
 * This sentence and the one last cited are not original with the Arch- 
 bishop ; he quotes them from Martinet's Religion in Society, Vol. II. c. 
 10. So much the worse for Martinet. 
 
THE CHURCH AXD THE BIBLE. 85 
 
 Cor. 15 : 29) is a hard place, though doubtless it was 
 plain to those to whom it was first addressed ; I don't 
 understand it, and I don't expect to understand it in 
 this life ; nor, if I did, would it set forward my salva- 
 tion a hair's breadth, nor does my failure to understand 
 it set back my salvation a hair's breadth. The '' things 
 hard to be understood," which ''St. Peter himself in- 
 forms us" of, " in the Epistles of St. Paul," are, as the 
 connection shows, certain prophecies, particularly 
 about the '* times and seasons," which are purposely 
 left in uncertainty, that we may be always watching for 
 the coming of the Lord. The passage the Archbishop 
 quotes from 2 St. Peter i : 20, '' that no prophecy of 
 Scripture is made by private interpretation," refers, 
 not to the explanation of it, but to the making of it, as 
 the very wording of it shows ; and if it did not, the 
 next verse would make it plain. What the '' certain 
 man" wanted of St. Philip (Acts 8:31) was some- 
 thing to aid his private judgment, not to supplant it ; 
 and the explanation that St. Phihp gave of the proph- 
 ecy commended itself to the man's private judgment, 
 else he would not have asked to be baptized. 
 
 On this matter of the intelligibility of Holy Scripture, 
 at least that part of it which pertains especially to sal- 
 vation, I appeal from the Archbishop on one side of the 
 question, to the Archbishop on the other side of the 
 question ; for he knows how to be on both sides of the 
 same question when it suits his argument, as we have 
 already seen in repeated instances. After citing, on 
 pages 87 and 88, several passages relating to the Minis- 
 try, he proceeds : '' Notwithstanding these plain decla- 
 rations of Scripture," etc. And again, on pages 289, 
 290 : '' And why is the Catholic interpretation of these 
 words ['' this is My body "] rejected by Protestants? 
 Is it because the text is in itself obscure and ambigu- 
 ous ? By no means." And yet again, on page 347 : 
 '' We have the most positive testimony, and our 
 
S6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Saviour's words conferring this power ['' the power to 
 forgive sins "] are expressed in the plainest language, 
 which admits of no misconception,''' Clearly, then, it is 
 not the fault of the Bible, but of the heretics, who 
 zuo7it understand it right. — But why multiply in- 
 stances, when every one of the three hundred and 
 thirty-nine times that the Archbishop quotes Canonical 
 Scripture (especiall)'^ as he quotes it in almost every in- 
 stance without comment) is, as I have already said, a 
 confession, or rather, a profession, of its intelligibility, 
 else it would be the veriest folly in him to quote it. 
 
 But let us appeal, on this point, from the Arch- 
 bishop, to Scripture itself. What says the Psalmist? 
 *^ Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto 
 my path." (Ps. 119:105.) ''I have more under- 
 standing than all my teachers : for thy testimonies are 
 my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, 
 because I keep thy precepts." (vv. 99, 100.) ''The 
 entrance of thy word giveth light ; it giv^eth under- 
 standing unto the simple." (v. 130.) What says Solo- 
 mon, of the purpose for which he wrote the Proverbs ? 
 '' To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man 
 knowledge and discretion." (Prov. i : 4.) What says 
 St. Luke .^ '' It seemed good to me also. ... to 
 write unto thee. . , . that thou mightest knozv the 
 certainty of those things wherein thou hast been in- 
 structed." (St. Luke I : 3, 4.) What says St. John? 
 '' These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is 
 the Christ, the Son of God ;" — how Avere they to be- 
 lieve, if they could not understand what was written ? 
 — ''and that believing ye might have life through his 
 name." (St. John 20:31.) What says St. Paul? 
 " Whatsoever things were written aforetime were writ- 
 ten for our learning." (Rom. 15 : 4.) And so would 
 say all the saints of the New Testament, if their say- 
 ings on this point had been preserved to us. 
 
 What say the Fathers, as reported by Dupin, (one of 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE, 87 
 
 the greater lights of the Gallican branch of the Roman 
 Communion), in vol. L chap. IX. sect. III. of his His- 
 tory of tlie Canon ? I appeal to them especially because 
 the Archbishop says (p. 105) they ''are unanimous in 
 pronouncing the Bible a book full of knotty difficulties, ' ' 
 and because this allegation, if it is to the purpose for 
 which he advances it, means that the Fathers were op- 
 posed to the unrestricted reading of the Bible by the 
 common people. Nothing can be more untrue. I 
 wish I had room for the whole of Dupin's twenty folio 
 pages of extracts ; but I must content myself with very 
 few and very brief specimens : 
 
 ''St. Irengeus [Bishop of Lyons: born A.D. 117, 
 -died 202], in the 46th Chapter of his second Book 
 against Heresies, declares expressl}' , that all the Scrip- 
 tures, both Prophetical and Ev^angelical, may be under- 
 stood by all Persons : ' Cum itaque universse scripturae, 
 et Propheticse et Evangelicse, in aperto, et sine ambi- 
 guitate, et similiter ab omnibus audiri possint. ' . . . 
 
 " St. Clement of Alexandria, [died A.D. 216], after he 
 had said, in the first Book of his Pedagogue, Chap. 1 1 
 ' That the Word of God is the health of our Souls : ' 
 . tells us in the third Book of the same Treatise, 
 Chap. 8. ' That this Divine Pedagogue proposes to 
 us all manner of Instructions,' . . . And in Chap. 
 1 1 he frames to himself this objection : ' But w^e are not 
 all capable, you wall say, of this Divnne Philosophy. 
 To which he answers thus : Are w^e not all capable of 
 attaining to the true Life ? . . . But, wall you say 
 again, I have not learn' d to read ? If you cannot read, 
 you have no excuse to make against hearing w^hat shall 
 be read to you.' . . . 
 
 " It is knowm that Origen [A.D. 184-255] studied the 
 Holy Scriptures from his Childhood, and that this was 
 one of the things which Antiquity most extoll'd and 
 admir'd in that great Man. For it w^as not then 
 
88 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 thought [implying that in Dupin's day, 200 years ago, 
 it was thought] dangerous for Laymen and Children to 
 read the Sacred Writings. ... It is ingratitude to 
 God, according to this Father, and an ill requital of his 
 kindness in condescending so far as to lisp with us, 
 that he might teach all Men the Truths of Salvation in 
 a way suitable to the capacity of the meanest, to pre- 
 tend that none but the Wise and Learned, in the es- 
 teem of the World, may take the liberty to read the 
 Holy Scriptures; and that Women and ignorant peo- 
 ple are profane Persons, who should not be permitted 
 to enter into this Sanctuary. This is what never came 
 into the minds of any of the Fathers ; [notwithstanding 
 they were, according to the Archbishop, (p. 105,) 
 ^' unanimous in pronouncing the Bible a book full of 
 knotty difficulties ;"] and Origen plainly shews us how 
 far he w^as from it, when, addressing himeslf to all Be- 
 lievers without distinction, he exhorts them in these 
 words, in his 9/// Homily on Leviticus, to read contin- 
 ually the Sacred Writings : ' I beseech you not to con- 
 tent yourselves with hearing the Word of God when it 
 is read in the Church, but apply yourselves to it also at 
 home, and meditate there night and day on the Law of 
 the Lord. For Jesus Christ is present in your Houses 
 as well as in the Church, and they that seek him, find 
 him in all places. . . . Take the Holy Scriptures 
 into your hands, and read them.' . . 
 
 '' St. Hilary [Bishop of Poictiers a.d. 350-367]. 
 . , . in his Commentary on Psalm 119. 'Let us 
 remember, says he, when we applied ourselves to 
 read the Holy Scriptures, to find there what God re- 
 quires us to do in order to please him, what a fulness 
 of Divine Knowledge we found our narrow minds 
 capable of receiving.' . . . 
 
 '' St. Basil [Bishop of Csesarea a.d. 370-379] speaks of 
 the Benefit that may be got by reading the Psalms, and 
 in general all the Holy Scriptures, in these terms : 
 
THE CHURCH A.VD THE BIBLE. 89 
 
 * All the Scriptures divinely inspired, were given by 
 the Holy Ghost, that^ being, as it were, a Magazine full 
 of all sorts of Remedies for the cure of our Souls, 
 EVERY ONE might find in them such as are proper for 
 their particular Distempers.' . . In his 284th Let- 
 ter, written to a Lady, Avho desired his Advice, .... 
 he adds : ' If you seek your comfort in the Holy 
 Scriptures, you will need neither me nor any other to 
 advise you about the manner of your behaviour : For 
 the Holy Spirit will give you all those Instructions that 
 are necessary ; he will make your way plain before 
 you, and lead you in it by the hand.' . . . 
 
 '' St. Gregory of Nyssa [a.d. 331-395] . . . says 
 of the Psalms, ' Let him therefore that is melancholy, or 
 oppressed with any great affliction, consider them as a 
 Letter of Consolation sent to him from God. Let 
 those who travel by Land or by Sea ; who are settled 
 in any Employment at home ; and in a word all Be- 
 lievers, Men as well as Women, in whatever state or 
 condition they be, sick or in health, be perswaded that 
 they deprive themselves of a great Privilege, by neg- 
 lecting the use of these Divine Songs. ' . . . 
 
 '' St. Ambrose [Bishop of Milan a.d. 374-397] de- 
 clares in many places the Excellency of the H. Scrip- 
 ture, the need we have to read it. and the benefit that 
 Christians may reap by it. . . . He says that the 
 Gospel of St. Luke was written to be read by all those 
 that love God, which should be the property of all true 
 Christians, whether learned or unlearned, of all Ages, 
 and of all Sexes. ' This Gospel, says he, ' is addressed 
 to Theophilus, that is, to HIM THAT LOVES c;OD. If you 
 love God, it is for you it was written. Receive the 
 Present of an Evangelist, and what he gives you as 
 your Friend, in token of his Affection, lay up carefully 
 in the treasure of your Hearts. Keep this precious 
 Trust ; view it often, and read it continually and with 
 great care. ' . . . 
 
9^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 '' St. Jerom [a.d, 331-420] . . . writing to one 
 of his Friends named Gaudentius, among the Counsels 
 he gives him about the Christian Education of a young 
 Maid committed to his care, forgets not to advise him 
 to make her read the Holy Scriptures, (Epist. 12.) 
 ' When she is seven years old/ says he, ' and sensible 
 of shame, and begins to know what she ought to con- 
 ceal, and to doubt about what she should speak, make 
 her learn by heart the Psalms ; and at twelve 3^ears of 
 age, let her read the Books of Solomon, the Gospels, 
 Epistles of the Apostles, and the Writings of the 
 Prophets, being taught to value them as her greatest 
 Treasure/ . . . 
 
 '' St. Austin [Augustine, born A.D. 354, baptized 387, 
 Bishop of Hippo 395-430] has spoken so many things, 
 and in so many places, in praise of this divine study, 
 that it would be tedious to relate all that is said of it in 
 his Works. ... In his 56th Sermon of Time, where 
 'tis evident he speaks to all his Hearers, without dis- 
 tinction either of Age or Sex : * Take it,' says he, ' for 
 certain, my dear Brethren, that just as our Flesh is, 
 when it receives Nourishment but once in many days, 
 so are our Souls when they do not feed often upon the 
 Word of God. . . . Continue to hear, as you are 
 wont, in the Church, the reading of the Holy Scripture, 
 
 AND READ IT ALSO IN YOUR HOUSES.' [CAPITALS Du- 
 
 pin's.] .... And in the next sermon : ' Hear,' 
 says he, ^ the Divine Lessons in the Church, and read 
 them also at home.' And in the 38th concerning the 
 Saints : ' Endeavour as much as in you lies, by the help 
 of God, to read the Divine Lessons frequently in your 
 Houses, and hear them read in the Church, with affec- 
 tion and submission.' . . . And in his first Sermon 
 on the 36th Psalm, having said, that God warns us, that 
 Repentance, which may be performed to purpose in 
 this World, will avail us nothing it we put it off till 
 death, he adds, ' That we should have some reason to 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 91 
 
 complain we were not warn'd of it, if the Scripture 
 was not read in all the Earth, or if there were not 
 everywhere Copies of it to be bouglit, ' . . . 
 
 '' But among all the Fathers, none has spoken more 
 frequently, emphatically, [mark that, Most Rev. Sir ; 
 for Dupin's " emphatically" has something to back it, 
 while yours (p. 98) has not,] or eloquently of the use- 
 fulness of reading the Holy Scripture to all Persons, 
 than St. Chrysostom [Bishop of Constantinople a.d. 
 398-407]. ... In his second Homily on St. Mat- 
 thew he says : ' Who among all you that now hear me, 
 could repeat me a Psalm, or some other portion of 
 Scripture, by heart, if I desir'd it of him ? Not one 
 single person. . . . But what excuse do Men make 
 for these Enormities ? I am no Monk or Solitary Per- 
 son they tell me : I have a Wife and Children, and a 
 Family to take care of. This is that which ruins all 
 now a days, your imagining that none but Monks 
 
 OUGHT TO READ THE HOLY SCRIPTURE ; whereas yOU 
 
 are under a much greater necessity of it than they. 
 For those who are every day exposed to so many Con- 
 flicts, and receive so many Wounds, have the greater 
 need of Remedies.' . . . 
 
 '' He begins this again more particularly in his loth 
 Homily on St, John, and obviates all the Excuses that 
 Laymen, and even Tradesmen can bring to be ex- 
 empted from reading the Holy Scripture : * Before,' 
 says he, ' I explain to you the words of the Gospel, I 
 desire of you one thing, and pray don't refuse me ; it is 
 no difficult task, and besides is more for your own ad- 
 vantage than for mine. What is it then I desire of 
 you ? That on some day of the Week, and at least on 
 Saturday, you would be careful to read what I am to 
 explain to you of the Gospel ; that you would repeat it 
 often in your houses, that you would enquire into the 
 meaning of it ; that you would mark what you find to 
 be clear, what appears to be obscure, and what seems 
 
92 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 to be inconsistent. This will be a great advantage 
 both to you and me. ... I know very well a 
 
 great many pretend they can do no more, by reason of 
 the publick and private Affairs that take them up. But 
 this is the very thing which condemns them, to be so 
 intent upon the Concernments of this World, that they 
 cannot find time for those that are more necessary for 
 them. . . . There are others of this slothful num- 
 ber, who pretend that for want of Books they cannot 
 read the Scripture. I need not say how ridiculous it 
 would be for rich Men to alledg this Reason : But be- 
 cause I find a great many poor people make use of it, I 
 would fain ask them, whether their Poverty hinders 
 them from getting all the Instruments belonging to 
 their trade ? How comes it then that they are so care- 
 ful, notwithstanding their Poverty, to furnish them- 
 selves with every thing necessary to their Art, and 
 never alledg their being poor, but when the question is 
 about buying Books, which would be so useful to them 
 in the business of their Salvation ? But after all, if 
 there be any so poor that they cannot by an}^ means 
 procure Books of the Scripture, they may learn it by 
 attending diligently to it when it is read in the Church, 
 and minding the Explications which are there given of 
 it.' ....... 
 
 ''He delivers his mind yet more fully ... in 
 his 9th Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians. 
 ' Consider the words of this great Apostle. He does 
 not say only. Let the Word of God be in you, but, let 
 it dwell in you richly ; teaching and exhorting one an- 
 other in all Wisdom. . . . Look for no other Master 
 
 tliait the Word of Goel, whieh you have in your liands. No 
 Man is able to teach you so well as this Divine Word. 
 For he to whom we address ourselves for Instruction, 
 often conceals many things, out of Vain-glory or Envy. 
 
 . . . THE IGNORANCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, IS 
 THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR MISERIES. We ^O tO War 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 93 
 
 without Arms ; how should we escape from perishing 
 there ? It is a great help to a safe retreat out of the 
 Battel to be well armed : But if we are not, we shall 
 not be able to defend ourselves. Do not put upon us 
 the whole care of your Preservation, without resolving 
 to do any thing on your part. It's true, we are your 
 Pastors ; and you our Sheep. But you are not like 
 those Animals that are void of Reason, and have no 
 power to defend themselves ; for you are rational 
 Sheep, and ought to exercise your Reason in your own 
 defence.' 
 
 '' In the third of his four sermons concerning the 
 poor Man Lazarus, who lay at the Gate of wicked 
 Dives : ' I tell you,' says he, ' some days beforehand the 
 subject I intend to treat of, that you may turn to it in 
 your Books. . . . For I exhort you always, and 
 will never cease exhorting you, not to content your 
 selves with hearing the Instructions given in this place, 
 but to read also the Holy Scripture constantly at home. 
 If we are wounded every day, and make use 
 of no Remedy, what hopes can we have of Salvation ? ' 
 Afterwards, he tells his Hearers, that if Artificers 
 rather suffer themselves to be reduced to extreme Pov- 
 erty, than sell the Tools by which they get their liv- 
 ing ; Christians ought to be the same with respect to 
 the Books of Scripture ; that they ought to get them 
 at any rate, and never part with them, because the 
 Writings of the Prophets and Apostles are to a Chris- 
 tian, what an Anvil and Hammer are to a Smith, viz. 
 that whereby we reform and renew our Souls. He 
 adds : . . . ' But how. Men will say, can we re- 
 ceive that benefit by the Hol)^ Scripture we are en- 
 couraged to hope from it, if we do not understand it ? ' 
 This is the Objection, and hear what Answer this saint 
 makes to it : . . . 'For who,' says he, * when he 
 reads in the Gospel : Blessed are the meek : Blessed 
 are the merciful ; Blessed are the pure in heart, and 
 
94 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 such other thmgs, thinks he has need of a Master to 
 make him understand them ? Any one likewise easily 
 may understand the Prodigies, Miracles, and Histories 
 of it. It is therefore a vain pretence Men make to jus- 
 tify their negligence and slothfulness, in not reading 
 the Scripture, that it is intricate and obscure. You 
 complain you do not understand these Holy Books. 
 And how should you understand them, when you will 
 not so much as be at the pains to cast your eyes upon 
 them ? Take therefore the Bible, read all its Histo- 
 ries, and being careful to remember what you under- 
 stand of it, go over often what you find in it obscure. 
 And if after you have read it carefully, you cannot dis- 
 cover the meaning of it, have recourse to one more 
 skilful than yourselves ; look for a Master who may 
 instruct you : confer with him about that which you 
 desire to understand, and let him know how very fond 
 you are of his Instructions. And if God sees you thus 
 zealous to understand his Word, he will not overlook 
 your diligence and care. Nay if it happened that you 
 could not find any one to explain to you the meaning of 
 what you enquire into, he will reveal it to you himself. 
 Call to mind the Eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia : He 
 was a Barbarian, and a Man overwhelmed with Cares 
 and Business, and did not understand what he read. 
 Nevertheless he did not forbear to read in his Chariot. 
 Judg by that how constant he might be in reading the 
 Holy Scripture at home, being so diligent at it upon a 
 journey. And if he did not give over reading, tho' he 
 understood not what he read, much less, undoubtedly, 
 did he leave it off, after the Instructions he receiv'd. 
 But that he understood not what he read, appears from 
 Philip the Deacon's Question to him : Understandest 
 thou what thou readest ? and the Eunuch's own An- 
 swer, who was not ashamed to confess his Ignorance, 
 in saying, '' How should I, except some Man guide 
 me?" He was willing to read, tho' he had nobody 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 95 
 
 with him to instruct him ; but his Zeal moved God to 
 send him a Teacher : And tho' you cannot promise 
 yourselves to have a Guide sent you miraculously as he 
 had, are you not assured of the presence and assistance 
 of the same Spirit that excited this holy Deacon to go 
 to him ? 1 beseech you then, my dear Brethren, not 
 to neglect the means of your Salvation. Whatsoever 
 was written, was written for our Instruction, who live 
 in this last Age. Reading the Holy Scripture is a 
 mighty Fence against Sin. And it is to stand upon a 
 steep Precipice, over a bottomless Gulf, to be ignorant 
 of the Scriptures. 'Tis to renounce Salvation, to re- 
 fuse to know anything of the Divine Laws. This is 
 that which has brought in Heresies ; that has occa- 
 sioned a corruption of Manners ; that has confounded 
 and disordered all things. For it is impossible, I as- 
 sure you it is impossible for a Man that reads the Scrip- 
 ture CONSTANTLY AND DILIGENTLY not to receive great 
 benefit by it.' " 
 
 I have cited thus much of the testimony reported by 
 Dupin, because, in this cmharras de richcsscs I could not 
 content myself with less ; and I am sure the reader 
 who has gone along with me will rather wish I had 
 given more, as I might easily have done, for there is 
 five times as much behind. And even that is not all. 
 '' I might add,'' says Dupin, '' several other places but 
 these are sufficient to show it has been a constant Tra- 
 dition of both Churches, [the Greek and the (Ante-Tri- 
 dentine) Roman,] that reading the holy Scripture is 
 very profitable, and that all Believers have not only 
 always been allowed to read it, but advis'd and ear- 
 nestly exhorted to do so.— Let us see," he continues, 
 '' what Objections can be made against so universal a 
 Doctrin. 
 
 '' It is not fit, say some, that ignorant People, Wo- 
 men, and Children should read the holy Scripture, be- 
 
g6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 cause it contains in it Mysteries and Heights that are 
 above them. Such are Persons of shallow understand- 
 ings who may pevert the Sense of Scripture, and so 
 run into Error. They that make this objection, seem 
 to me to be great strangers to the Spirit of God, who 
 teaches us by the Royal Prophet and his Son Solomon, 
 that the Law of God was made to give Wisdom to the 
 simple and ignorant : They are great strangers to the 
 Spirit of our Blessed Saviour, who says, that the Holy 
 Spirit anointed him to preach the Gospel to the Poor ; and 
 thanks his Father that lie had hid the Truths he preach' d 
 from the Wise and Prudent, and revealed them to Babes, 
 They are great strangers to the Maxims of the Apos- 
 tles, who assure us that Jesus Christ had not called into 
 his Primitive Church, many wise Men according to the 
 Flesh, but chosen the most foolish in the esteem of the 
 World to confound the Wise. ... If there be any 
 obscure and difficult places in it, it is not the simple 
 ordinarily that abuse them, but the proud and con- 
 ceited. ... So that Experience is so far from 
 shewing us that reading the Scripture is dangerous to 
 the simple and ignorant, that on the contrary it con- 
 vinces us they are for the most part learned Men whom 
 it has led into Error, and that the Ignorant have com- 
 monly been instructed and edified by it. 
 
 *' Another Objection is. That it's a profanation of the 
 holy Scripture to put it into the hands of Persons un- 
 worthy ot it, that is, of impure Sinners. Were this 
 true, we must say, that Jesus Christ likewise profaned 
 his Word, by addressing it to sinners and lewd Wo- 
 men ; but he himself has answered this objection, in 
 saying, Tliat they were not the whole, but the sick that had' 
 need of a Physician. The Word of God, contained in 
 the holy Scripture, is a sovereign Remedy for the 
 cure of Sinners. And why should they be denied the 
 use of this Remedy ? 
 
 '*But some, it is pretended, will unquestionably 
 
THE CHURCH AXD THE BIBLE, 97 
 
 abuse it, as St. Peter assures us, saying, that tlie zm- 
 learned and zuistable in the Faith wrest the Seriptures to 
 their own destruction. Well ! But were there not some 
 too that abused the preaching of Jesus Christ ? Was 
 not that to many an occasion of becoming more 
 wicked, as it was foretold of him, (St. Luke 2 : 34,) that 
 he shall be for the fall and rising again of many in Israel ? 
 This is also the fate of the Gospel, written and preach'd, 
 read and heard. It is, as the Apostle says, (2 Cor. 
 2 : 16 ; I Cor. i : 18, 23^) to some the savour of death unto 
 deaths and to others the savour of life ztnto life. The Word 
 of the Cross is foolishness to them that are losty a stumbling- 
 bloek to the Jews, and folly to the Gentiles, But did this 
 hinder St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles from 
 preaching the Gospel indifferently to all, Jews and 
 Gentiles, Believers and Unbelievers, Righteous and 
 Sinners ? No more ought the ill use that some may 
 make of reading the holy Scripture through their own 
 perverseness, to hinder us from advising all Men to 
 read it, except such as we foresee will despise it, and 
 are resolved not to understand it. And those are 
 properly the Persons of whom Jesus Christ speaks, 
 when he says, (St. Matt, 7 : 6,) Give not that zvhieh is 
 holy unto Dogs, nor cast Pearls before Swine, 
 
 '' There are objected likewise some Passages of the 
 Fathers, but few in number and misapplied. It is said 
 that Theodoret relates that St, Basil reproved a Cook of 
 the Emperor Valens, for taking upon him to discourse of 
 Religion, What relation has this Story to reading the 
 holy Scripture} [See Theodoret, Ed. Bohn. p. 177.] 
 
 '^ It is said also that the same St, Basil in his Epistle 
 to Chilon, forbids the reading of the Old Testament ; 
 and that Oxigcn, St, Gregory of Nazianzen and St, 
 Jerome forbid the reading of some Books of the holy 
 Scripture to young People. . . . His words are 
 these : Nor neglect the lessons, especially of the New Testa- 
 ment ; because from the Old Testament harm often happens ^ 
 
9^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 not because the words ai^e injurious, (nociva,) but because they 
 who are injured Jiave iveak niinds. Which cannot be un- 
 derstood of all the Books of the Old Testament, be- 
 cause he recommends in that ver}^ place the recital of 
 the Psalms ; but only of some Books, as that of the 
 Canticles. Now nobody says that 3^oung People and 
 weak Minds may not sometimes be disswaded from 
 reading some places of the Old Testament, which they 
 cannot truly understand, and [which] consequently 
 would be useless or dangerous to them. And there- 
 lore the Jews, as I have observed, would not have Men 
 read the Canticles, the beginning of Genesis, the begin- 
 ning and end of the Prophet Ezekiel, before they came 
 to twenty-five or thirty years of Age. As for the be- 
 ginning of Genesis, I see no reason ; but for the Canti- 
 cles, it is not without cause that the reading of it is de- 
 ferred. . . . But does it thence follow that Believ- 
 ers ought to be forbidden to read the Bible, or all the 
 Old Testament ? The quite contrary. 
 
 '' Some cite also the Author of the imperfect Work 
 on St, MattJieiu attributed to .SV. Chrysostoni, but rather 
 Pelagius's. . . . This Passage also has no relation 
 to reading the Holy Scripture. . . . 
 
 "• I need not insist on a Passage of Bede, alledged also 
 b}^ some. . . . But neither is this said of reading 
 the holy Scripture. 
 
 '' Lastly, Some alledg a Passage of St, Jeroui, in his 
 Epistle to St. Paulinus, where he complains that all 
 sorts of People meddled with the holy Scripture, that 
 silly Women, old Men, and Sophisters, presuming they 
 understood it very well^ mangled it, and took upon 
 them to teach it before they had learn 'd it ; docent ante- 
 qiiam discant. But it is a manifest abuse of these words 
 of St. Jerom, to understand them barely of reading the 
 holy Scripture." 
 
 Certainly, it is. No man has a right to teach — no 
 man can teach — till he has learned ; but the very way 
 to learn, is to read. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 99 
 
 I add two more sentences of St. Augustine, taken 
 from the 2d Section of the next Chapter of Dupin's 
 Work : '' This St. Austin observes in his second 
 Book of the Christian Doctrine, Chap. 9. ' The Pre- 
 cepts, ' says he, ' relating to a good Life, and the Truths 
 necessary to be beheved, are clearly contained in the 
 holy Scripture.' And in his Letter to Volusian, ' The 
 things, says he, necessary to salvation, and the Faith 
 without which we cannot live virtuously, are not hard 
 to find in the Scripture.' St. Chrysostom says the 
 same in several places." 
 
 One word more about the " things hard to be under- 
 stood" in the Epistles of St. Paul. In the very same 
 breath in which St. Peter speaks of these '' things," he 
 tells those to whom he is writing, that one of those 
 Epistles was written to them. What was it written to 
 them lor, if they were not to read it, or to hear it 
 read ? The fact is that nearly all the Epistles are ad- 
 dressed to some one or more Churches ; not merely, or 
 chiefly, to the clergy, but to the laity, the Christian 
 men and women and children (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3 : 20), 
 '' high and low, rich and poor, one with another : 
 
 '' Paul a servant of Jesus Christ" — '' To all that be 
 in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." — •'' Unto 
 the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that 
 are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with 
 all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ 
 our Lord, both theirs and ours" — " Unto the church 
 of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which 
 are in all Achaia" — ''Unto the churches of Galatia" 
 — '' To the saints w^hich are at Ephesus, and to the faith- 
 ful in Christ Jesus" — '' To all the saints in Christ Jesus 
 which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" 
 — *' To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which 
 are at Colosse" — " Unto the church of the Thessaloni- 
 ans which is in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ" — ''James, a servant of God and of the Lord 
 
lOO THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered 
 abroad, greeting" — '' Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, 
 to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, 
 Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. " 
 
 In all but three of these the salutation is, expressly, 
 and in those three, by implication, not to the corporate 
 body of the Church, but to the individual members. 
 What right, then, has the Church, or any portion of it, 
 in its corporate capacity, to keep back any part of the 
 precious deposit with which it has been put in trust — 
 the inspired written tradition — from those to whom it 
 is addressed ? Did not the Apostle expect as a matter 
 of course that the Epistle to the Romans would be read 
 among the Romans, notwithstanding the hard things in 
 it — harder than in any of the others ; the Epistles to 
 the Corinthians among the Corinthians ; the Epistle to 
 the Ephesians among the Ephesians, etc. ; and was it 
 not his intention that these Epistles, as also all the oth- 
 ers, should be read beyond their several immediate 
 spheres ? and did he not, therefore, taking the first for 
 granted, in writing to the Colossian Christians make 
 provision for the second (Col. 4 : 16) by charging them 
 *' When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be 
 read also in the church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye 
 likewise read the epistle from Laodicea ?'' And is not 
 one of his Epistles in one of the passages already cited, 
 expressly addressed not merely to the Corinthian 
 Christians, but to '* all that in every place call tipon the 
 name of Jesus Christ our Lord?'' Nay, did not the 
 Apostle, in the very first epistle he ever wrote, as if in 
 prophetic anticipation of what has since come to pass, 
 say to the Thessalonian Christians (i Thes. 5 : 2^]), '' I 
 charge you {ppxi^oD, I adjure you) by the Lord that 
 this Epistle be read unto all the holy brethren ?" And 
 if the Epistles, much more the Gospels, and the Acts 
 of the Apostles, which are less ''hard to be under- 
 stood." Really, it is to me simply astounding that a 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. lOl 
 
 Church that claims to be the mother and mistress of all 
 Churches, should thus go in the very teeth of the 
 teaching of an Apostle whom she claims as one of her 
 founders ! 
 
 My indictment against her is not that she gives milk 
 to babes, but that it is not the '' milk of the Word" 
 that she gives to them ; at any rate, not the '' sincere ^ 
 milk of the Word,'' (i St. Peter 2 : 2,) and that, in con- 
 sequence, they do not *' grow thereby,'' but are kept 
 in perpetual minority, and that minority made the pre- 
 text for the perpetual withholding of strong meat from 
 them, thereby laying them open to the Apostolic re- 
 proof, (Heb. 5 : 12,) '* When for the time ye ought to 
 be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again 
 which be the first principles of the oracles of God." 
 The object, as of St. Luke's Gospel, (i 14,) so of all the 
 other Gospels, and indeed of the whole New Testa- 
 ment, is that all Christians may know the certainty of 
 those things wherein they have been catechized. The 
 office of the Catechism is to prepare the way for the 
 Bible, not to take the place of it. *' Whom shall he 
 teach knowledge, and whom shall he make to under- 
 stand doctrine ? Them that are weaned from the milk, 
 and drawn from the breasts." (Isa. 28 : 9.) What 
 the Apostle says of the man and the woman, (i Cor. 1 1 : 
 II,) may with equal propriety be said of the Bible and 
 the Church. Neither is the Church without the Bible, 
 nor the Bible without the Church. Each is the com- 
 plement of the other ; intended to be so by the Divine 
 Author of both ; and what God has joined together let 
 not man put asunder. 
 
 Thus much of the Archbishop's second '* characteris- 
 tic :" I pass to the third. 
 
 *' 3. A rule of Faith, or a competent guide to heaven, 
 
 * Sine cera, without wax ; originally applied to pure honey, and after- 
 wards to any unadultered substance. 
 
102 • THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for 
 salvation. Now ... is not every Christian 
 obliged to sanctify Sunday ? . . . But you may 
 read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you 
 will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification 
 of Sunday." (p. io8.) 
 
 What says St. Paul ? '' One man esteemeth one day 
 above another : another esteemeth every day alike. 
 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.'* 
 (Rom. 14 : 5.) If thi^ is not an authorization of it, no 
 conceivable language could authorize it. But perhaps 
 the Archbishop meant requiring? Why didn't he say 
 so, then? But is there nothing, ** from Genesis to 
 Revelation," requiring it? Let us see. The Jewish 
 Sabbath, as a part of the '' ministration of death, writ- 
 ten and engraven in stones," (2 Cor. 3 : 7,) is ** done 
 aw^ay," and we are thrown back by the *' Son of Man," 
 who is *' Lord even of the Sabbath day," (St. Matt. 
 12 : 8,) on the original institution (Gen. 2 : 3) of a 
 weekly cessation from labor, one day in seven, '* sanc- 
 tified," that is, set apart, for that purpose. The *' dis- 
 ciples," therefore, must have '' sanctified" some one 
 day of the week. What day did they sanctify ? What 
 but the '' first day of the week, when," as we read, 
 (Acts 20 : 7,) they '* came together to break bread" — 
 the only day, so far as we are informed, on which they 
 did come together for that purpose ? — the day on which 
 the Lord rose from the dead — on which He went with 
 two of the Disciples to Emmaus, and '* was known of 
 them in breaking of bread" — on which He '' breathed 
 on" the Apostles, and said, *' Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost" (St. Luke 24 : i, 13, 15, 30, 31, 35 ; St. John 
 20 : 19-23) — the day on which the Apostle ordered the 
 weekly " collection for the saints (i Cor. 16 : i, 2,) to 
 be made in *' the churches of Galatia," and the church 
 at Corinth and '' in all Achaia" (2 Cor. i : i,) — in short, 
 *' the Lord's day," (Rev. i : 10,) the day on which the 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 103 
 
 Seer of Patmos '' was in the Spirit" — for, what conceiv- 
 able reason could there be for calling any other day of 
 the week the Lord's day ? and what conceivable reason 
 could there be for calling that the Lord's day,^ unless 
 it had been '' sanctified," i.e., set apart Irom the other 
 days of the week. The truth is, we have taken, not 
 only the day, but the very name of it — its Christian 
 name — from the Bible. The Archbishop should read 
 his Bible more carefully ; it isn't half so meagre as he 
 supposes. 
 
 *' The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our 
 Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important 
 duties of religion which are not recorded by the in- 
 spired writers. (See John 21 : 25 ; 2 Thess. 2 : 14.) 
 For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, 
 a practice which nowhere is found in the Bible." (p. 
 108.) 
 
 What has the allegation in the last sentence to do 
 with the allegation in the first ? The question is not 
 whether the ''practice" is '' found," but whether the 
 '' duty" is '* inculcated." If it is not, then comes up 
 the question, first, whether it is a duty, and if it is, 
 then, secondly, whether the duty needs inculcating. 
 
 The Archbishop will not deny that it is a right, and 
 that the right is sanctioned by the Bible ; for if the 
 Holy Ghost be God, as well as the Father, and the 
 Son, and if it is right to pray to the Father separately, 
 and to the Son separately, it follows that it is right to 
 pray to the Holy Ghost separately. As to St. John 
 xxi. 25, the Evangelist does not say (what the Arch- 
 bishop, by citing him in this connection, makes him 
 say) that among the '* things which Jesus did," and 
 which are not written, was the inculcation of '' cer- 
 tain important duties of religion." In 2 Thess. 2 : 14 
 
 *" The day of judgment is called in Scripture the" day of the Lord ;" but 
 the phrase in the Greek is entirely different from that in Rev. i. 10, ren- 
 dered, the " Lord's dav." 
 
104 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 [our 15], the Apostle, in the exhortation, ''hold the 
 traditions which ye have been taught, whether, by 
 word or our epistle," does indeed imply, that there 
 were '' certain important" teachings of his, whether 
 ''duties," or doctrines, "of religion," which were 
 " not recorded" in his First Epistle to them ; but he 
 does not imply (what the Archbishop represents him as 
 implying) that those teachings would not be found 
 " recorded," every one of them, in some part or other 
 of the New Testament, when it should have been com- 
 pleted. The Archbishop's reasoning is, " Certain im- 
 portant duties of religion" are not "recorded" in the 
 First Epistle to the Thessalonians, therefore, they are 
 not recorded in the New Testament ! 
 
 Having thus examined the alleged " difficulties" (p. 
 100) in the way of taking the Bible as the Standard of 
 Appeal, and shown that they exist only in the fertile 
 imagination of the Archbishop, let us now turn the 
 tables, and see how these difficulties affect the Arch- 
 bishop's own Standard, the Church. 
 
 T\\Q first difficulty in the w^ay of the non-Roman in- 
 quirer is a very serious one, to wit, Which is the 
 Church ? For there are several claimants w^th con- 
 flicting claims, in whole, or in part. For instance ; 
 there is the Roman Church, which claims to be the 
 whole, and there is, to mention no other, the Greek 
 Church, which claims to be a part. Before he can 
 advance another step, he must decide between these 
 claims ; for before the infallibility of the Church can 
 be an authority to him, he must know which is 
 the infallible Church, — the zvJiole Church ; since for 
 nothing less than the whole Church is infallibility 
 even claimed. Now there is no such difficulty in re- 
 gard to the Bible ; for, in the first place, there is but 
 one Book that even claims to be the New Testament ; 
 and, in the second place, there is but one Old Testa- 
 ment recognized in the New, to wit, that authenticated 
 
, THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. ' 105 
 
 by our Lord in St. Luke xxiv. 44 : *' AH things must 
 be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, 
 and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning 
 me ;" on which Professor Ornsby, in his edition of the 
 Greek Testament, ** from Cardinal Mai's Edition of the 
 Vatican Bible," published with the *' Approbation" of 
 Cardinal CuUen, Dublin, 1865, has the following Note : 
 '* A threefold division of the O. T. in ttse among tlie 
 Hebrew Jezvs {italks mine) ; the first comprising the Pen- 
 tateuch ; the second, the Prophets, including Joshua, 
 Judges, Ruth, and Kings [including Samuel] ; the 
 third, called also Hagiographa, in which were included 
 the Psalms, Job, the works of Solomon, the books of 
 Paralipomena [/>., Chronicles], Daniel, Esdras \i,e., 
 Ezra, and Nehemiah], and Esther. Cf. Abp. Dixon's 
 Gen. Intr. to the S. Scr. L p. 60." — In other words, 
 the Books of the Hebrew canon, as we have them in our 
 English Bibles ; there being not a single recognition, 
 throughout the New Testament, of any of the Apocry- 
 phal Books. — This first '' difficulty" then is altogether 
 against the Church, as a practical Standard of Appeal, 
 as compared with the Bible. 
 
 How is it as to the seeond difficult}' — that respecting 
 Translation, The authoritative teaching of the Roman 
 Church is in Latin, and must therefore be translated, 
 at least for the common people. How is the inquirer 
 to know that the translation is faithful ? There is at 
 least equal difficulty/' on this point, in the way of the 
 Church, as in the way of the Bible. 
 
 We come to the tliirel difficulty : A standard of Ap- 
 peal '' must be within reach of every inquirer after 
 truth," The Bible is within reach of all ; for even 
 those who cannot read it, can hear it read, and be rea- 
 sonably sure that it is read to them correctly. Is it so 
 with the teaching of the Roman Church ? What is 
 that teaching, and where is it to be found ? What 
 says the Creed of Pope Pius ? Its last article runs 
 
lo6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 thus : ** I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all 
 other things delivered, defined, and declared by the 
 sacred Canons and General Councils, and particularly 
 by the Holy Synod of Trent/' Where are these deliv- 
 erances, definitions, and declarations, to be found ?^ In 
 some three-score folio volumes ! 
 
 How is it with the fourth difficulty A Standard of 
 Appeal '*must be clear and intelligible to all/' Do 
 those folios come under that category ^ He must be a 
 bold man who would put them on a par with the Bible 
 on the score of intelligibility. 
 
 The fifth and last difficulty respects co7npleteness. 
 And here the Roman Church has absolutely nothing 
 but what she gets from the Bible ; for her claim to the 
 possession of an unwritten tradition has nothing to 
 stand on ; the supposition that God would take up 
 large portions of the Bible with things not necessary to 
 salvation, to the exclusion of things necessary, leaving 
 to the latter the proverbial uncertainty of unwritten 
 tradition, while to the former is secured the compara- 
 tive certainty of written tradition, refutes itself. 
 
 *' God forbid that any of my readers should be 
 tempted to conclude, from what I have said, that the 
 Catholic [meaning the Roman] Church is opposed to 
 the reading of the Scriptures.'' (p. 109.) '' If you 
 open an English Catholic [meaning Roman] Bible, you 
 Avill find in the preface a letter of Pope Pius VI., in 
 which he strongly recommends the pious reading of 
 the Holy Scriptures." (p. iii.) 
 
 Yes, and *'if you open" even the New Testament, 
 published by Lucas Brothers with the '* Approbation" 
 of '' James, Archbishop of Baltimore," '' you will find" 
 immediately preceding this '' letter of Pope Pius" an 
 '* Admonition," in the second paragraph of which you 
 may read as follows : ** To prevent and remedy this 
 abuse, [wresting the Scriptures, 2 St. Peter 3 : 16,] and 
 to guard against error, it was judged necessary to for- 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE 107 
 
 bid the reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar lan- 
 guages, [the languages of the common people,] with- 
 out the advice and permission of the Pastors and Spir- 
 itual Guides whom God has appointed to govern his 
 Church.'' 
 
 Why had not the Archbishop the manliness to tell 
 his non-Roman readers this ? And why did not he 
 tell them, further, that one of the '' Rules" in the 
 Index of '' bad and pernicious Books" set forth, in 
 compliance with the direction of the Council of Trent, 
 by Pius IV., (See Dupin, History of tlie Canon, Vol. I. 
 chap. IX. sect. IV. par. 14,) was as follows : 
 
 " It being therefore evident from Experience, that if 
 the Bible translated into the Vulgar Tongue was 
 allowed to all Persons indifferently, the rashness of 
 Men would cause it to do more harm than good : We 
 decree upon this consideration, that the Matter be re- 
 ferred to the Judgment of a Bishop or Inquisitor, who 
 with the advice of a Curate or Confessor, may give 
 those leave to read the Bible in a known Tongue, 
 [Rome has no objection to their reading it in an 7111- 
 known Tongue — none whatever,] translated by Catholic 
 Authors, to whom they judg such reading will not be 
 prejudicial, but rather promote their Faith and Piety ; 
 and such are to have this Pennission in Writing,'' 
 
 Dupin thinks that the '' supposition" on which the 
 *' Prohibition" is "grounded" being ''groundless," 
 since " it is universally known, that among a thousand 
 Catholicks who read the Floly Scripture in a known 
 Tongue at present, there is hardly one to whom it does 
 more harm than good," *' the Prohibition ought to 
 cease." But the question is not what ougJit to be, but 
 what/i-; and the Archbishop knows very well what 
 is, but he doesn't mean that his readers shall know, if 
 he can help it : '' God forbid that any of my readers 
 should be tempted to conclude, from what I have said, 
 that the Catholic [meaning the Roman] Church is op- 
 
io8 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 posed to the reading of the Scriptures." — Will God 
 forbid it ^ I trow not. 
 
 " For right is right, since God is God, 
 And right the day must win." 
 
 God is never on the side of the suppression of truth 
 and the invoh^ed suggestion of falsehood. 
 
 '* It is often triumphantly said . . . that the first 
 edition of the Bible ever published after the invention 
 of printing, was the edition of Martin Luther." (p. 
 
 III.) 
 
 Why doesn't the Archbishop give the name of the 
 ignoraimis who *' said" it so ''often," and so "tri- 
 umphantly ?" Simply because he can't. 
 
 '' The fact is, that before Luther put his pen to pa- 
 per, no fewer than fifty-six editions of the Scriptures 
 had appeared on the continent of Europe, not to speak 
 of those printed in Great Britain . . . twenty-one 
 in German ; one in Spanish ; four in French ; twenty- 
 one in Italian ; five in Flemish, and four in Bohemian." 
 (p. III.) 
 
 Yes, and the further fact is, that after Luther put his 
 pen to paper, and " his idea of directing two hundred 
 and fifty millions of men to read the Bible," or hear it 
 read, was working itself rapidly into the public mind 
 and heart, so far was it from being '' received with 
 shouts of laughter," that it created a perfect panic in 
 the Roman Camp, the result of w^hich was the Papal 
 Prohibition above-quoted. Up to this time, mediaeval 
 Rome had contented herself with making the Bible take 
 a back seat in the synagogue, and promoting monkish 
 legends to the post of honor ; but now the emergency 
 called for vigorous measures of repression. The infee- 
 tion was spreading, and nothing short of a rigid quar- 
 antine could keep it out ; hence the Prohibition. 
 
 '* You will also find in Haydock's Bible the letters of 
 the Bishops of the United States, in which they express 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 109 
 
 the hope that this splendid edition would have a wide 
 circulation among their flocks." 
 
 Exactly so. Rome has no fear of the '' splendid edi- 
 tions," which none but the well-to-do can purchase, 
 and which are kept for show, not for use. What she 
 fears is, the cheap editions, the ten-cent Testaments 
 and twenty-five or fifty-cent Bibles, that are within 
 reach of the sons of toil. 
 
 " A gentleman of North Carolina lately informed me 
 that the first time he entered a [so-called] Catholic 
 bookstore, he was surprised at witnessing on the 
 shelves an imposing array of Bibles for sale. Up to 
 that moment he had believed the [not] unfounded 
 charge that [vast numbers of so-called] Catholics were 
 forbidden to read the Scriptures. He has since em- 
 braced [what he has been deluded into believing] the 
 Cathohc faith." (p. 112.) 
 
 One so innocent as not to know that in Protestant 
 countries Rome is compelled by the exigences of the 
 situation to make at least a show of circulating the 
 Bible, was just the fly to be caught in such a cobweb. 
 The *' array" he " w^itnessed," was *' imposing" in 
 more than one sense of the word ; it imposed on him ! 
 How is it in those countries where Rome bears undis- 
 puted sway ? How is it in South America ? How is 
 it in the South of Europe, particularly in Spain ? How 
 was it before the recent establishment of responsible 
 constitutional government, in the Eternal City ? Let 
 the following, which I take from the Southern Church- 
 man of September 20th, 1878, answer the question. 
 The writer is known all over the United States, and 
 extensively in other lands, as one who would scorn a 
 suppression of truth, or suggestion of falsehood. What 
 he says may be relied on : 
 
 *' When I was in Rome, nearly twenty-five years 
 ago, it was not possible to find a Bible in a bookstore, 
 
no THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 and its circulation in the Papal States was prohibited. 
 Now it is as freely sold, distributed, and read as in any 
 other country. In my room at the hotel Quirinal, and 
 in each room of this, the largest hotel in the city, is a 
 copy of the Bible in the English language — a large 
 octavo, gilt-edged and handsomely bound Oxford 
 Bible ! Such a copy in New York would cost $2.50 or 
 more. An agent of the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety resides in Rome and attends to the distribution of 
 the Scriptures in hotels, institutions, and wherever it 
 will be received. Colporteurs are employed to go 
 about the country and cities. One of them will be fit- 
 ted out with a horse and cart, the cart being so con- 
 structed as to be converted by night into a bed cham- 
 ber for the colporteur to sleep in. He goes into a 
 city, gets a license to sell his books in the market-place, 
 draws a crowd around him, reads the Gospel, and sells 
 the truth, or gives it away if he thinks it wisest to do 
 so." — Rev, Dr, Prime, in N, Y, Observer, 
 
 " Every priest is obliged in conscience to devQte up- 
 wards of an hour each day to the perusal of the Word 
 of God. I am not aware that clergymen of other de- 
 nominations are bound by the same duty.'' (p. 113.) 
 
 We '' peruse the Word of God" not because we are 
 ''obliged in conscience" to it, but because it is our 
 meat and drink ; because we are '* as glad of" it ''as 
 one that findeth great spoil ;" (Ps. 119 : 162 ;) and the 
 consequence is, that w^e '' hate and abhor lying." (vs. 
 
 163.) 
 
 *' What is good for the clerg}^ is good also for the 
 laity." (p. 113.) 
 
 There, for once, the Archbishop is right ; but he flies 
 in the face of Pope Pius IV., of blessed memory. 
 
 '' Be assured that if 3^ou become a Catholic [so 
 called], you will never be forbidden to read the Bible." 
 (P- 113.) 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. HI 
 
 Probably not ; for in this Protestant land Rome ac- 
 cepts the situation, and lets her proselytes read the 
 Scripture. But then, if you read it, you must read it 
 of favor, and not of right ; and you must have a written 
 license for it, else you will be following the example of 
 the Archbishop, flying in the face of Pope Pius IV., 
 and no one who does that, can be *' a good Catholic.'' — 
 Moreover, you must confine yourself to the Roman 
 Version, which is itself a translation of a translation, 
 and not by any means as English as it might be. For 
 instance, Heb. 13 : i6, in the Translation as it was 
 ''first published by the English College of Rheims" 
 Anno 1582 : '' And beneficence and communication do 
 not forget, for with such hosts God is promerited." 
 It is fair to say that the Revision now in use is a very 
 decided advance upon this ; but there is plenty of 
 room yet for improvement. For instance, Col. 2:18; 
 '■' Let no man seduce you, willing in humility and relig- 
 ion of angels */' — 2 Cor. 5 : 14 : *' For the charity of 
 Christ presseth us ;" — St. Matt. 16 : 23 : " Go after 
 me, Satan ;" a thing that Satan is only too happy to 
 do.- — And then in the matter of rhythmic flow, in the 
 poetical portions ; the Nu7tc Dimittis of Simeon, (St. 
 Luke 2 : 29,) for instance : '' Now thou dost dismiss thy 
 servant, O Lord, according to thy word, in peace ;" as 
 contrasted with our Version : *' Lord, now lettest thou 
 thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word.'' 
 — That must be a dull ear indeed on which the halting 
 prose of the former does not grate, or which does not 
 drink in with delight the marvellous melody of the lat- 
 ter. Only they to whom our English Bible has been a 
 household companion from their infancy, but who 
 have gone from us, in after life, in the vain hope of a 
 rest that cannot be found this side of paradise, can tell 
 how deep the descent, how '' steep-down" the '' gulf !" 
 Listen to the wail of one of them (Newman (?), or 
 Faber (?),) in the Dublin Reviezv, and then, make the 
 plunge — if you can : 
 
112 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 " Who will not say that the uncommon beauty and 
 marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is one of 
 the great strongholds of heresy in the country ? It 
 lives on the ear like a music that can never be forgot- 
 ten ; like the sound of church bells which the convert 
 hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often 
 seem to be almost things rather than mere words. It 
 is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national 
 seriousness. The memory of the dead passes into it. 
 The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in 
 its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of 
 man is hidden beneath its words. It is the representa- 
 tive of his best moments, and all that has been about 
 him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and 
 good, speaks to him out of his English Bible. It is his 
 sacred thing ; which doubt has never dimmed and con- 
 troversy never soiled. In the length and breadth of 
 the land there is not a Protestant with one spark of re- 
 ligiousness about him, whose spiritual biography is not 
 in the Saxon Bible." 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 
 
 ** Before coming to any direct proofs on this sub- 
 ject,'* says the Archbishop, ''I may state that in the 
 Old Law, the High Priest, appointed by Almighty 
 God, filled an office analogous to that of Pope in the 
 New Law.'' (p. 114.) 
 
 The Jewish Church was a National Church, and a 
 National Church must have an administrative organiza- 
 tion, and therefore an administrative head ; and so the 
 National or Provincial Churches, of which the Catholic 
 Church of Christ is made up, have, and have had all 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 113 
 
 along, each its administrative head. But the CathoUc 
 Church itself, the ivliole Church, has not, and never has 
 had, an administrative head, for the simple reason that 
 it has no need of one ; just as the Masonic Fraternity, 
 which is as visible and as catholic a body as the Chris- 
 tian Church, has, as I have already remarked, national 
 administrative heads, but no ecumenical head. And 
 answer to what the Archbishop says about ''every 
 well-regulated government," and this is my ''every 
 well-ordered family." This last analogy, to be to 
 the point, would have required not only that Noah 
 should rule his wife, and his sons and their wives, 
 as long as they were with him in the Ark, but that 
 when they came forth of it, and set up for themselves, 
 ** and begat sons and daughters," he should continue 
 to have the administrative headship, and should trans- 
 mit the succession to his heirs male forever. If this 
 system were now to be universally adopted and carried 
 out, it needs no prophet to tell that, in two or three 
 generations, ih^ geriiis '' well-ordered family" would be 
 extinct. 
 
 '* Now the Jewish synagogue, as St. Paul testifies, 
 was the type and figure of the Christian Church ; for 
 ' all things happened to them (the Jews) in figure.' (i 
 Cor. 10 : II.) We must, therefore, find in the Church 
 of Christ a spiritual judge, exercising the same supreme 
 authority as the High Priest in the Old Law." (p. 
 
 The Apostle says, not only in the original Greek, 
 and in our English Version, but in the Latin Vulgate, 
 in the Rhemish Version, and in the Archbishop's Ver- 
 sion, "^ ''all these things ;" namely, the things he had 
 been speaking of in the ten preceding verses, to wit, 
 the passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites, and their 
 
 * I so designate, for brevity's sake, the edition published by Lucas 
 Brothers, with the approbation of Abp. Whitefield. 
 
114 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 wanderings, and murmurings, and transgressions in the 
 Wilderness, all which happened hundreds of years be- 
 fore there was a synagogue in the land. But the Arch- 
 bishop leaves out the word '' these," and thus creates a 
 Scripture proof that the supreme spiritual judgeship of 
 the High Priest in the Old Law, was a type and figure 
 of a like supreme spiritual judgeship in the Christian 
 Church. Sad, very sad ! 
 
 '* The body and members of the Church are visible ; 
 why not also the Head ? The Church without a 
 supreme Ruler would be . . . like a human body 
 without a head.'' (p. ii6.) 
 
 The *' body and members of the Church" are not 
 '* visible," but only 3. part of the *' body and members" 
 — a very small part ; by far the larger part, along with 
 the Head, has passed out of sight — but not out of exis- 
 tence. The Church on earth and in paradise is one ; 
 and it has but one Head, even Christ. The Arch- 
 bishop's comparison of it to '' a human body" would 
 imply that if a man were going up through a hole in 
 the ceiling, and his head and shoulders had got out of 
 sight, his body would no longer have a head ! 
 
 '*The absence from the Protestant Communions," 
 says the Archbishop, (p. 117,) ** of a divinely-appointed, 
 visible head, is to them an endless source of weakness 
 and dissensions. [Yet, sad as these dissensions are, 
 they are, at least, signs of life,'] .... 
 
 '' The existence, on the contrary, of a supreme judge 
 of controversy in the Catholic [meaning Roman] 
 Church, is the secret of her admirable unity." Just as 
 the existence of a " supreme judge of controversy" in 
 Barnum's ''happy family" is "the secret" (and both 
 of them are *' ope7t secrets") of its '' admirable unity"; 
 a unity as '^admirable," and (I may add) as valuable, in 
 the one as in the other. The animals have learned by 
 experience that any exhibition, on their part, of dog 
 nature and fox nature, of cat nature and rat nature, 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. US 
 
 etc., will bring down on their devoted heads the pas- 
 toral crook ot the keeper. So they repress the outward 
 manifestation of their God-given instincts ; but — they 
 keep up a terrible thinking. 
 
 Having thus cleared away the preliminary {prae 
 limen, before the threshold) rubbish, we come at last to 
 the question at issue, '' Have we any positiv^e proof 
 that Christ did appoint a supreme Ruler over His 
 Church?" Yes, says the Archbishop, we have it in 
 St. Matthew i6 : 13-19, '* Thou art Peter, and on this 
 rock," etc. *' The word Peter, in the Syro Chaldaic 
 tongue, which our Saviour spoke, means a rock. The 
 sentence runs in that language : * Thou art a rock, and 
 on this rock I will build my Church,' Indeed, all 
 respectable Protestant commentators have now aban- 
 doned, and even ridicule, the absurdity of applying the 
 word rock to any one but to Peter ; as the sentence can 
 bear no other construction, unless our Lord's good 
 grammar and common sense are called in question." 
 (p. 119.)^ 
 
 This is rather rough on Cyprian, and Jerome, and 
 Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria, and Ambrose, 
 and Hilary, and Augustine, all of whom, as the Arch- 
 bishop very well knows, agree in making something 
 other than Peter the rock ; some of them making it 
 Christ, and some of them Peter's Confession of Christ, 
 Peter's Faith ; though some of them, at other times, 
 make it Peter himself.- — But let that pass. I am not 
 here concerned with their interpretation, for they are 
 all off the track, as are also all the modern commenta- 
 tors that I have consulted ; and they are not few. It 
 mxay seem presumptuous in me to say this, and I might 
 hesitate, were it not that hardly any two of them fully 
 agree in their interpretation. 
 
 Our Lord did not say to Peter, '' Thou art a rock," 
 but, ''Thou art rock," or, *' Thou art stone;" for it 
 makes no difference, so far as the meaning here is con- 
 
Il6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 cerned, which word we adopt. Had our Lord said, 
 *' Thou art rock, and on rock I will build my Church," 
 the commentators would have seen their way clear to 
 the true interpretation. But they have been led off the 
 track by the demonstrative '' this ;" all agreeing in sup- 
 posing it employed here to individualize some particu- 
 lar rock from all other rocks, whereas it is employed 
 simply to individualize the substance rock, the material 
 rock, from all other substances, all other materials ; just 
 as the definite article '* the" is employed in the Greek 
 of St. Matthew 7 : 24-26, — built his house upon THE rock 
 — upon THE sand — not to individualize any particular 
 rock from all other rocks, or any particular sand from 
 all other sand, but to individualize, in the one case the 
 substance ''rock," in the other the substance '' ^7\xidi^'' 
 from all other substances. 
 
 This is a recognized use of the demonstrative pro- 
 noun. For instance : This goloid that they are making 
 jewelry of, is poor stuff. *' As for this Moses . . . 
 wc wot not what is become of him." (Exod. 32 : i.) 
 *' May give an account of this concourse." (Acts 19 : 
 40.) That is, this goloid, as contrasted not with other 
 goloid, but with other metals ; this Moses, as con- 
 trasted not with some other Moses, but with other 
 men ; this concourse as contrasted not with some other 
 concourse, but with our ordinary quiet — this coming 
 excitedly together, instead of staying at home, and 
 minding our own business. So in the Archbishop's 
 book, (p. 50,) '' This Catholicity," as contrasted not 
 \v^ith other Catholicity, but w^ith non-Catholicity. 
 
 This use, then, of the demonstrative is clear, and it is 
 perfectly applicable to the passage we are considering : 
 '* Thou are Peter, (that is rock, not sand, or clay,) and 
 on this (material, this substance,) rock, (not on sand, 
 or, on clay,) I will build my Church." The only diffi- 
 culty is, that the name Peter having no significance in 
 our language, we can't preserve the play upon the 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 117 
 
 words, as the French, the Spanish, and the Italian lan- 
 guages can. But there is a passage of Scripture that ; 
 will help me to illustrate this play of words in such a 
 way as will, I think, enable those whose only language 
 is English to understand and appreciate it. In Revela- j 
 tion 21 : 14, 19, we read : '' And the wall of the city 
 had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the 
 twelve Apostles of the Lamb. . . , The first 
 foundation was jasper." Now as Peter was the first 
 Apostle, his name would be in the first foundation. 
 Moreover Jasper, in English, is a Christian name. 
 Philadelphians are familiar with the name of Jasper 
 Harding, the former proprietor of the Inquirer, Sup- 
 pose, then, Our Lord's language had been English, and 
 that He had named His apostle Jasper, and had said to 
 him, '' Thou art Jasper, and on this jasper I will build 
 my Church," we should see at once that He did not 
 mean, *' Thou art a Jasper, a particular Jasper, and on 
 this particular jasper I will build my Church," but 
 that He meant just what He said. Thou art Jasper, 
 and on this jasper (this material, this substance, jas- 
 per) I will build my Church. Suppose you see a 
 group of persons bearing the respective names. Stone, 
 Marble, Clay, and, wishing to communicate with the 
 first, you call to him. Stone ! — If you are thinking at all 
 of the significance of his name, you are thinking of it, 
 not as distinguishing him from other stones, but, as 
 distinguishing him from marble, and clay ; for if the 
 others also were named Stone, it wouldn t distinguish 
 him from them, and if you wanted to distinguish him 
 from them, you would make use of some other name 
 for the purpose. Hence, there being two Simons in 
 the apostolic college, our Lord, on the occasion we are 
 considering, added to the name Simon, the distinguish- 
 ing designation, Bar-jona, /.^., Son of Jonas. But \ 
 *' Peter" zvas a distinguishing designation, distinguish- 
 ing him who bore it, not from other Peters, but from 
 
ii8 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the other Apostles ; he alone being, in name, and, per- 
 haps, in some measure, in quality, (not tlie substance, 
 but) of the substance, on which the Church was to be 
 built. 
 
 But why did St. Matthew, in translating our Lord's 
 words from Syro-Chaldaic (if indeed, as is probable, 
 they were spoken in that tongue) into Greek, translate 
 Kephas in the first clause by Petros, STONE, and in the 
 last clause by Petra^ ROCK ? For the simple reason that, 
 while preserving the pla.y upon the words, (since — con- 
 trary to what is the case in English, where, the two 
 words being from different roots, we can say a stone 
 church, but not a rock church — in Greek, petros and 
 petra, being from the same root petr, will, both, desig- 
 nate the material) he would thus exhibit Peter, not as 
 the foundation Rock, but, as a foundation stone, to be 
 (in the fulness of time) *' laid" on the foundation Rock 
 already ** lying," miji^vov (i Cor. 3 : ii,) ''which is 
 Jesus Christ." It is remarkable that Simeon, in the 
 temple, (St. Luke 2 : 34,) uses the same word : '' Be- 
 hold, this (as yet, child) xeiraiy lieth, (not, ** is set,") i,c,^ 
 as a foundation, '' for the fall and rising of many in 
 Israel ;" the fall of some, the rising of others. *' The 
 image,'' says Abp. Kenrick, as quoted by Prof. 
 Ornsby in loc, *' is that of a rock against which some 
 stumble and fall, whilst others rise on it." It is still 
 more remarkable that the same word is used by St. 
 Paul (2 Thess. 2 : 4) as the designation of the Man of 
 Sin, o arrineijiEyo^, lie that lieth (as a foitndatioii) in 
 antagonism to, and exalteth himself against, the One 
 Foundation. — See Wordsworth, in loc. 
 
 St. Peter, then, w^as a foundation stone, built upon 
 the Foundation Rock ; but so was every one of che 
 Twelve : *' The wall of the city had twelve founda- 
 tions, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of 
 the Lamb." (Rev. 21 : 14.) 
 
 But our Lord goes on : '* I will give unto thee the 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. up 
 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven.'* The nature and ex- 
 tent of the power here promised — for it is not yet co?t- 
 ferred — is shown in the sentence immediately follow- 
 ing : *' And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall 
 be bound in heaven : and Avhatsoever thou shalt loose 
 on earth shall be loosed in heaven/' (St. Matt. i6 : 
 19.) Was this power to be restricted to St. Peter? 
 The Archbishop himself shall answer : '' And to all the 
 Apostles assembled together on another occasion, He 
 uses (St. Matt. 18:18) the same forcible language : 
 Whatsoever you (ye) shall bind on earth shall be 
 bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you (ye) shall 
 loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' " 
 
 (P- 347.) 
 
 What this power of the keys was, I shall consider 
 when I come to the Chapter on Penance. At present 
 I am concerned with it only so far as it bears upon the 
 '* Primacy of Peter," and to that extent it was exer- 
 cised by him, once for all so far as the Jews were con- 
 cerned, when he opened the kingdom of heaven to 
 them on the day of Pentecost ; once for all, so far as 
 the Gentiles w^ere concerned, when He opened the 
 kingdom of heaven to them in the person of Cornelius 
 and his household. That was the whole extent of His 
 primacy in the matter of the keys ; it gave him no an- 
 thority whatever over his fellow Apostles, nor did they, 
 or he, ever suppose it did. At the opening of the very 
 next chapter but one, we are told that the Disciples 
 came to Jesus with the question, '' Who is the greatest 
 in the kingdom of heaven ? If they had known as 
 much about it as the Archbishop, in the first place, 
 they wouldn't have come to the Lord with the ques- 
 tion ; and in the second place, if they had come He 
 Avould have answered them, '' Why, Peter is the great- 
 est, of course. Didn't you hear me tell him so the 
 other day ?" But instead of that. He calls a little child 
 unto Him, and sets him in the midst of them ; and 
 
I20 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 from that text preaches to them a sermon on humility. 
 But this sermon seems to have made but Kttle impres- 
 sion on two of them ; for we read, only two chapters 
 further on, that the mother of Zebedee's children, or, 
 as St. Mark relates it, (lo : 35,) Zebedee's children them- 
 selves, came to Him with the request that they might 
 sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His 
 left, in His kingdom. ** And when the ten (of whom 
 Peter was one) heard it, they w^ere moved with indig- 
 nation against the two brethren ;" not because the two 
 were showing disrespect to the primacy of the one, but 
 because they were conspiring against the equality of 
 the twelve. 
 
 So much for the ''Promise of the Primacy,'' We 
 come now to what the Archbishop calls the '' Fulfil^ 
 ment of the Promise,'' And where, reader, think you, 
 does he find that fulfilment ? Where but in St. John 
 21 : 15-17? — '* Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? 
 Feed my lambs — Feed my sheep.'' '' Peter," sa3^s the 
 Archbishop, ** has jurisdiction not only over the 
 lambs, — the weak and tender portion of the flock, — by 
 which are understood the faithful ; but also over the 
 sheep, i,e,, the Pastors themselves." (p. 121.) In 
 place of the Latin word Pastor, in the above, put the 
 Saxon word Shepherd, and the bull (both Papal and 
 Irish) of turning sheep into shepherds will confront the 
 reader's risibles, and affront his reason. The simple 
 and obvious meaning of the command— obvious to any 
 one of plain common sense — is, '' Feed the little ones 
 of the flock — feed the grown-up ones;" '' little ones" 
 and '* grown-up ones" being both of them taken both 
 in the literal and in the spiritual sense ; and the com- 
 mand is confined to Peter, because Peter is specially in 
 need of it, as having been specially delinquent ; and it 
 is thrice repeated because he has thrice denied his Mas- 
 ter. — Feed the several members of my flock. Feed 
 them *' with food convenient for them ;" the little ones 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 121 
 
 with '*the sincere milk of the word,"'" (i St. Peter 
 2 : 2,) that they '' may grow thereby ;" the grown-up 
 ones (spiritually) with ''strong meat/' that they may 
 not be ''unskilful in the word of righteousness." 
 (Heb. 5:13, 14.) Rome counts all her laity lambs, as 
 contradistinguished from sheep, and accordingly feeds 
 them with milk ; but not (as I have already remarked) 
 with the milk of the word ; at any rate, not with the 
 sincere milk of the word, but with adulterated milk ; 
 and the consequence is that they do not grow thereby, 
 but are kept, as she means them to be kept, in perpetual 
 non-age. " Brethren, be not children in understand- 
 ing : howbeit in malice be ye children, but in under- 
 standing be men." (i Cor. 14 : 20.) 
 
 The '' Fiilfilment of the Promise,'' then, is not to be 
 found in the injunction to Peter, " Feed my lambs" — 
 " my sheep," but in the Commission, in the preceding 
 chapter, as to Peter so also to the other Apostles : 
 " Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins ye 
 remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever 
 sins ye retain, they are retained." The nature and ex- 
 tent of this power we are not here concerned with ; it 
 will come up for consideration in the chapter on Pen- 
 ance. 
 
 We come lastly to what the Archbishop calls the 
 ''Exercise of the Primacy,'' Of this he gives several 
 instances, or what he takes to be instances. But first 
 he calls our attention to the fact that " Peter's name al- 
 ways stands first in the lists of the Apostles," and that 
 he " is even called by St. Matthew the first Apostle." (p. 
 122.) This is undoubtedly true, and it as undoubtedly 
 points to a piHmacy of some sort. But of what sort ? 
 Of " rank and honor," not only, says the Archbishop, 
 but also of " authority." What are his proofs ? 
 
 ''Peter is the first Apostle Avho performed a mira- 
 cle." That is a primacy of date, not of authority. 
 
 '^ In the Archbishop's Version, " the rational milk without guile.'* 
 
122 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 '' He is the first to address the Jews in Jerusalem [on 
 the day of Pentecost], while his Apostolic brethren 
 stand respectfully around him/' Where did the Arch- 
 bishop get that word *' respectfully ?" It is not in the 
 Record, as he very well knows. Why then does he 
 foist it in, and thus give a false coloring to the narra- 
 tive ? 
 
 '* Peter is the first to make converts from the Gentile 
 world in the persons of Cornelius and his friends." 
 This also, as well as the preceding, is a primacy not of 
 authority, but of date, in the use of the keys, to open 
 the kingdom of heaven, in the one instance to the Jews, 
 in the other to the Gentiles. Nothing less ; nothing 
 more. 
 
 '' When it is a question of electing a successor to Ju- 
 das, Peter alone speaks. He points out to the Apostles 
 and disciples the duty of choosing another to succeed 
 the traitor. The Apostles silently acquiesce in the in- 
 structions of their leader.'' Here is another specimen 
 of false coloring in the words *' silently acquiesce." 
 Peter gives no instructions^ and therefore they do not 
 acquiesce in any. He simply *' points out," as the 
 Archbishop himself correctly expresses it. But there 
 is no exercise of any other authorit}^ than that of 
 moderator of the assembly, and that is just what his 
 primacy consists mi As Matthew Henry quaintly ex- 
 presses it, he is not judge ; he is simply foreman of the 
 jury, — spokesman for the other eleven. ' 
 
 '' In the Apostolic Council of Jervisalem Peter is the 
 first whose sentiments are recorded. Before his dis- 
 course, 'there was much disputing.' (Acts 15:7). 
 But when he had ceased to speak, '' all the multitude 
 held their peace.' " Here we have the Archbishop at 
 his old trick, stopping short in the midst of a sentence, 
 because to have gone on would have shown why the 
 multitude held their peace ; namely, not because Peter 
 had spoken, as the Archbishop tries to make the reader 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 123 
 
 suppose, but because Barnabas and V-^mX were going to 
 speak, and they wanted to hear them. Evidently they 
 were not satisfied with merely hearing Peter. And 
 with good reason ; for Peter had made no formal propo- 
 sition. James was the first to do that ; and his propo- 
 sition, to wit, that '' we write unto them, [viz., the 
 Gentile converts,] that they abstain from pollutions of 
 idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, 
 and from blood," ''pleased" — whom? Pope Peter? 
 No, but '' the Apostles and elders, with the whole 
 church." Peter had the same voice in the decision as 
 each of the others ; no less ; no more. But, says the 
 Archbishop, '' St. James and the other Apostles concur 
 in the sentiments of Peter without a single dissenting 
 voice." Yes, and St. Peter and the other Apostles 
 concur in the proposition of James. And, inasmuch as 
 a proposition is a step in advance of '' sentiments," if 
 the former fact argues the '' Primacy of Peter" a 
 fortiori does the latter fact argue the Primacy of James. 
 
 These five are all the instances the Archbishop brings 
 forward, of what he calls the " Exercise of the Pri- 
 mac}^" In the first three, Peter was simply the first to 
 do what each of the others afterwards did, namel}^, 
 work miracles, preach, and baptize. Is Peter, for this 
 reason, Primate ? You might as well argue that '* that 
 other disciple" was Primate, because he ''did outrun 
 Peter, and came first to the sepulchre." In the fourth 
 instance, the Primacy exercised by St. Peter is simply 
 that of the moderator of an assembly. And in the fifth 
 there is no Primacy at all exercised by him, unless it 
 be a primacy in formal speech-making. And on such 
 evidence we are asked to admit the " exercise" by St. 
 Peter of primacy of authority over the other Apostles ! 
 When we take leave of logic and common sense, we 
 may do that ; not till then. 
 
 The Archbishop now proceeds to a proof that cannot 
 be classed under any of the foregoing heads : 
 
124 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 *' St. James is cast into prison by Herod, and after- 
 wards beheaded. . . . Yet no extraordinary efforts 
 are made by the faithful to rescue him from death. 
 
 "" Peter is miprisoned about the same time. The 
 ivJiole Church is aroused. Prayers for his deUverance 
 ascend to heaven, not 07ilj/iroin Jerusalem, dut also from 
 every Cliristian family in the land. (Acts 12 : 1-5.) The 
 army of the Lord can afford to lose a chieftain in the, 
 person of James ; but it cannot yet spare the comman-' 
 der-in-chief." (pp. 123, 124.) 
 
 The part I have italieized in the first of these two par- 
 agraphs is not in the record. The Archbishop has add- 
 ed it, because without it his argument would be good 
 for nothing ; leave out the addition, and we have an 
 obvious explanation of any lack of effort in behalf of 
 James, to wit, that his life was taken before it was 
 known to be in danger. In like manner, the part I have 
 italicized in the second paragraph is added by the Arch- 
 bishop, because without it his argument would be 
 weakened. His w^hole representation in the two par- 
 agraphs is a slander on the primitive Christians, as if 
 they would pray earnestly for Peter, and would not 
 pray earnestly for James. If the Archbishop should be 
 sent to Coventry for his interpolations of proofs, and 
 mutilations of the Record, his flock will have his own 
 warrant for giving themselves small concern for him, 
 and reserving the bulk of their prayers for the '' Pris- 
 oner of the Vatican." 
 
 Having got through w4th his proofs, the Archbishop 
 proceeds to consider '' the principal objections which 
 are advanced against the Primacy of Peter. They are 
 chiefly, I may say exclusively, confined to the three 
 following : i. That our Lord rebuked Peter ; 2. that 
 St. Paul criticized his conduct on a point not affecting 
 doctrine, but discipline. ... 3. That the suprem- 
 acy of Peter conflicts with the supreme dominion of 
 Christ." (p. 124.) 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 125 
 
 If the Archbishop thinks these the '* exclusive," or 
 even the " chief," objections, he is wide of the mark. 
 The first and last are not objections at all. The sec- 
 ond — Paul's withstanding Peter to the face, (Gal. 
 2 : II,) — is an objection, because it was not '' on a point 
 not afiecting doctrine," that he withstood him, but on 
 a point affecting doctrine, and because it was an en- 
 croachment on ^?ivX ^ jurisdiction, to wit, over the Gen- 
 tiles. " When James, and Cephas, and John" — mark 
 the order of the names ; Peter stands second, not first 
 — *' who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that 
 was given unto me, thej gave to me and Barnabas the 
 right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the 
 heathen (the Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision." 
 (Gal. 2 : 9.) This was not a committing of the Gentiles 
 to Paul, but a formal recognition (and in this recogni- 
 tion James was foremost, not Peter) of the fact that they 
 had been already committed to him by Christ Himself ; 
 (Acts 26 : 16, 17 ;) for, saith the Apostle only two 
 verses before, (Gal. 2:7,)** they saw that the Gospel 
 of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the 
 Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. " — Hence 
 when Peter, after he was come to Antioch, led the way 
 in *' dissimulation, " thereby drawing after him the 
 other Jews, and even Barnabas, (vv. 12, 13,) Paul 
 '* withstood him to the face," because he was thus ex- 
 ercising a moral constraint on the Gentiles, Paul's own 
 charge, ** compelling" them *' to live as do the Jews," 
 or, as the Archbishop's Version expresses it, *' to fol- 
 low the way of the Jews ;" (v. 14 ;) thereby '' frustrat- 
 ing" the '* grace of God," (v. 21,) making righteous- 
 ness to '* come by the law," and Christ to have '' died 
 in vain." And this, which thus strikes at the very 
 vitals of the Christian faith, is what the Archbishop 
 calls '* a point not affecting doctrine, but discipline" ! 
 
 Equally sure is he that this '' withstanding" cannot 
 ** invalidate the claims of Peter." "Nay," he says, 
 
126 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 *' from this very circumstance, I draw a confirming- 
 evidence of Peter's supremacy. St. Paul mentions it 
 as a fact worthy of record, that he actually witJistood 
 Peter to his face,'' (p. 125.) And 3"et, only a few lines 
 above on the same page, he sa3^s, '' It is not a very un- 
 common thing for ecclesiastics occupying an inferior 
 position in the Church to admonish even the Pope." — 
 That is to say, '' St. Paul mentions it as a fact worthy of 
 record, that he actually' — did what was ** not a ver}^ 
 uncommon thing !'* 
 
 But suppose we let St. Paul himself giv^e the reason 
 of the *' mention" as, from the context, we may be sure 
 he would give it if he were now on earth : I withstood 
 Peter because he '' dissembled" (v. 13) on a point vital 
 to ''the truth of the Gospel;" (v. 5 ;) and I made 
 mention, to the Galatians, of my withstanding of him, 
 not because he was first in the order of my thoughts, 
 (for he w^asn't ; James was, v. 9,) nor because he was 
 first in authority, (for he had no more authority over 
 me than I had over him ; his was *' the apostleship of 
 the circumcision ;" (vv. 7, 8 ;) mine, of the uncircum- 
 cision ;) but because it bore directl}" on that which was 
 the whole burden of my Epistle to the Galatian Chris- 
 tians, to wit, that '' if righteousness come by the law, 
 then Christ is dead in vain." (v. 21.) 
 
 The order of the names of the three '' pillars" of the 
 Church, in the ninth verse of this chapter, ''James, 
 and Cephas, and John," is a hard nut for the Roman 
 Commentators to crack ; so Professor Ornsby in his 
 note on this verse discreetly passes it over in silence ; 
 but the Rhemish annotator disJwnestly ciianges the or- 
 der, putting Peter first, and James second ; which 
 shows that he felt the significance of the arrangement 
 as it stands in the text of his Version, as well as ours. 
 Suppose the Archbishop should add a Postscript to the 
 next " Thousand" of his work to the following effect : 
 " When I wrote this ' little volume,' I was only Bishop 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 127 
 
 of Richmond. But when Cardinal Giacomini, and 
 Pope Pio Nono, and Cardinal Giovannini, who seemed 
 to be pillars, perceived the inventive ingenuity that 
 was in me in the matter of premises, and the felicitous 
 conclusions that flowed from them, they gave to me 
 the right hand of fellowship that 1 should be Arch- 
 bishop of Baltimore, and they remain in charge at 
 Rome/' If this Postscript raised an uproar among the 
 faithful, it would be, not because of his promotion, or 
 of its procuring cause, but because the Pope was put 
 second among the three '' pillars ;" the very place 
 where, if successor to St. Peter, he ought to be, St. 
 Paul, or rather, the Holy Ghost inspiring St. Paul, be- 
 ing judge ; — *' second-first, " if first at all, among the 
 three '' pillars'' as was Peter at Jerusalem, the jurisdic- 
 tion having been in James the Bishop of that city. 
 
 I have said that the three objections I have been con- 
 sidering are not, as the Archbishop alleges, the only 
 ones. I will give him some others. 
 
 I object, then, to the aitthoritative primacy of Peter, 
 that the other Apostles were not aware of it, which 
 they must have been if he had exercised it over them. 
 We have already seen that they saw no primacy of au- 
 thority over them in the power of the keys, (St. Matt. 
 16 : 19,) for they came to Jesus some time after, (St. 
 Matt. 18 : I,) with the question, '' Who is the great- 
 est in the kingdom of heaven?" Turning to Acts 
 8 : 14, I read, further : '' Now when the Apostles which 
 were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the 
 word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." 
 The sender, I take it, is at least not inferior in authority 
 to the sent. If the Archbishop, giving a narrative of 
 the remarkable impulse lately given to the circulation 
 of the Bible in Spain, were to write thus, *' Now when 
 the cardinals which were at Rome heard that Hispania 
 had received the Word of God, they sent unto them 
 Pope Pius and Cardinal Giovannini," he would be de- 
 
128 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 posed as a heretic for representing the Cardinals as 
 having authority ov^er the Pope. 
 
 I object, again, to the authoritative primacy of Peter, 
 that he was not himself aware that he possessed it. 
 He begins his First Epistle with, '' Peter, an Apostle of 
 Jesus Christ ;" and in his second chapter, he dis- 
 courses eloquently on Christ as the Foundation, and 
 Christians as living stones built thereon, but keeps 
 silent about his being himself a foundation ; which he 
 could not, in such a connection, have possibly done, 
 had he been such a foundation as the Archbishop- 
 claims. And he begins his fifth chapter with, *' The 
 elders (or Presbyters) which are among you, I, your 
 (rvfiTVpsa/Svrepo^y co-presbyter,) fellow-elder, exhort; 7tot, 
 ''I, your 'commander-in-chief,' (p. 124,) command,''' 
 And what is it that he thus exhorts them to do ? to feed 
 the flock, but not to lord it over them. And he reminds 
 them of the time '' Avhen the Chief Shepherd shall ap- 
 pear." But he says nothing (though it would have 
 been specially germane to his subject) of his being him- 
 self Chief Shepherd over all the other Shepherds, for 
 the very good reason that he had no such chief shep- 
 herdship. 
 
 Such are some of the chief objections which the 
 Archbishop has very prudently (or very ignorantly) 
 failed to bring before his readers. — But in disposing or 
 rather trying to dispose of Paul's rebuke of Peter, he 
 has found another proof (!) of Peter's supremacy : 
 
 '' In the very same Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul 
 plainly insinuates St. Peter's superior rank. [The in- 
 sinuation is the Archbishop's, as we shall presently 
 see.] ' I went,' he says, (i : 18,) ' to Jerusalem to see' 
 Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.' Saints 
 Chrysostom, Jerome, and Ambrose tell us that this was 
 not an idle visit of ceremony, but that the object of St. 
 Paul in making the journey, was to testify his respect 
 and honor for the chief of the Apostles." (pp. 125, 
 126.) 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER, 129 
 
 The Archbishop gives no reference to the particular 
 portions of those fifteen or twenty folio volumes zvhcre 
 they *'tell us" this; but, fortunately, the Rhemish 
 Annotator, to whom the Archbishop is apparently be- 
 holden for his information, does give us chapter and 
 verse. His words are : 
 
 '' Verse i8, To see Peter. In what estimation Peter 
 was with this Apostle, it appeareth • seeing for respect 
 and honor of his person, and of duty, as Tertullian, de 
 Prasscript., saith : [Tertullian does ;/(^/ say that ; his 
 words are, '' then, as he himself relateth, he zvent up to 
 Jerusalem to see Peter ^ to wit, because of his office,'' i.e,^ 
 of Apostle ; not because of his '' person," *' and by right 
 of a common faith and preaching,"] notwithstanding 
 his great affairs Ecclesiastical, he went so far to see him 
 not in vulgar \i.e.^ common] manner, but as Chrysos- 
 tom noteth the Greek word to import, to behold him 
 as men behold a thing or person of name, excellency, 
 and majesty, for which cause, and to fill himself with 
 the perfect view of his behavior he abode with him 
 fifteen days. Hieroin, (Jerome) Epist. 103. [Migne 
 1. \\\J\ael Paulinum, toin, 3. v\^ho maketh also a mystery of 
 the number of days that he tarried with Peter. Am- 
 brose in Comment, hujus loei, and Chrysostom upon this 
 place, and Hom, 87 in Joan.'' 
 
 The '' Greek word" here referred to is iaroQeoo, his- 
 toreo, and it signifies in classic Greek, primaril}^, to be- 
 come acquainted with a thing or a fact by inquiry or by per- 
 sonal examination, and, secondarily, to give an account 
 laroftia, history, of things or facts thus ascertained. St. 
 Paul is the first to use it to signify to become acquainted 
 with a person. But it has nothing whatever to do with 
 the '' excellency" or *' majesty" of the person or thing 
 with whom or with which acquaintance is sought to be 
 made ; you might as well define its derivative, history, 
 
130 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 as an account of ' ' a thing or person of name, excel- 
 lency, or majesty !" Hence, did St. Chrysostom say 
 Avhat is imputed to him, he would be letting his rheto- 
 ric get the better of his lexicology. But he does not 
 say it. All that is involved in Avhat he says of the word, 
 as also in its derivation, is that acquaintance with the 
 particular person, or thing, is, for some reason or other, 
 important ; not that the person himself, or the thing 
 itself, is important, or ''excellent'' or ''majestic." 
 That is to say, Paul went up to Jerusalem to make the 
 acquaintance of Peter, not because of Peter's impor- 
 tance, or "excellency," or "majesty," but because 
 acquaintance with him was important. But why was 
 acquaintance specially with Peter important to Paul ? 
 For the reason, doubtless, that Peter was the Apostle 
 specially of the Jews, and Paul the Apostle specially of 
 the Gentiles. This Avould be a sufficient reason for the 
 visit, especially when taken in connection with the cir- 
 cumstances under which it was made : for it is not true 
 that (as the Rhemish Annotator represents it) " not- 
 withstanding his great affairs ecclesiastical, he went so 
 far to see him," for at this time he had no " great affairs 
 ecclesiastical," not having as yet founded a single 
 Church ; for it was but three years from his conver- 
 sion, and he had spent part of that time in the desert of 
 Arabia, (Gal. i : 17, 18,) and the rest of it in Damascus ; 
 whence having been driven by the hostility of the 
 Jews, whom he had barely escaped by being let down 
 by the wall in a basket by night ; (Acts 9 : 25 ; 2 Cor. 
 II : 33 ;) and being obliged to go somewhere, and no 
 particular place having any special claim on him, he 
 naturally took the opportunity of this enforced leisure 
 to go up to Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of Pe- 
 ter. Peter's headship of the Jews, therefore, being a 
 sufficient reason for Paul's leisurely visit to him, that 
 visit Q2J\M0t prove Peter's headship of the whole Church, 
 It is true St. Chrysostom (Hom. 87, in Johan.) says the 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 131 
 
 visit was made because Peter '' was the mouth and 
 chief of the Apostles ;" but that does not necessarily in- 
 volve more than Matthew Henry's phrase of *' foreman 
 of the jury ;" and if it did, it is only the opinion of 
 Chrysostom, as it is also that of Ambrose, and, as such, 
 is of no more value than the opinion of any man of 
 equal scholarship and judgment at the present day, 
 seeing they both came on the stage three hundred 
 years after Paul and Peter had left it. 
 
 St. Ambrose, in his commentary on the passage, 
 says : '' It was fit that he should desire to see Peter ; 
 for Peter was first among the Apostles, and to him the 
 Saviour had delegated the care of the Churches.'' His 
 words are, Digmun fitit ut citpcret videre Petritm ; quia 
 primus ei^at inter Apostolos, ad delegaverat Salvator curain 
 Ecclesiarum ; which shows that he is giving it as his ozvn 
 opinion of Peter, and not as St. PaiiTs ; for to make it 
 express St. Paul's opinion, the law of the Latin lan- 
 guage w^ovild require the w^ords to be, primus ESSEX, 
 instead oi primus erat. 
 
 St. Jerome says nothing whatever to the point for 
 which he is alleged. His '* mystery of the number of 
 days that he (Paul) tarried with Peter," to wit, fifteen, 
 runs thus : '' For by (or in) this mystery of the number 
 seven and the number eight, the future preacher of the 
 Gentiles was to be instructed." Hoc cnim viysterio 
 hebdomadis et ogdoadis, futurus Gentium prce die at or instru- 
 endus erat. If the reader can tell what St. Jerome is 
 here driving at, it is more than I can. — In his Com- 
 mentary, he speaks plainly enough. St. Paul, he says, 
 stayed with Peter fifteen days, videndi gratia, non dis- 
 cendi,'' to see him, not to learn from him." And the 
 same says St. Ambrose : non 7itique ut aliquid ab eo dis- 
 ceret ; . . . sed propter affeetttm apostolatus, et ut sciret 
 Petrus hanc illi datam lieentiam quam et ipse aeeeperat ; 
 that is : '* not that he might learn something from 
 him ; . . . but out of affection for the Apostolic [not 
 
132 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the Archiapostolic] office, and that Peter might know 
 that the same f7'eedoin had been given to him, {Paul,) that 
 he (Peter) himself had received.'' And he adds, a httle 
 below, that Paul abode with Peter fifteen days, quasi 
 tinaitimus coapostolus, ' * as a like-minded co-apostle. 
 
 So much for the Archbishop's last proof from Scrip- 
 ture, and for his appeal to '' Chrysostom, Jerome, and 
 Ambrose/' I will only add that if svich a passage as 
 this of 2 Cor. II : 28, ''Beside those things that are 
 without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of 
 all the churches," had been St. Peter's instead of St. 
 Paul's, it would have been a hard nut for us to crack, 
 and we should never have heard the last of it : and 
 most certainly the Rhemish Version would have trans- 
 lated it into plain English, instead of '' darkening coun- 
 sel by words without knowledge," (Job 38 : 2,) 
 after this fashion : *' Besides those things which are 
 outwardly : my daily instance, the carefulness of all 
 Churches "! 
 
 I have now examined every one of the Archbishop's 
 proofs of Peter's Primacy, and shown that most of them 
 prove no primacy at all, and not one of them a primacy 
 of authority — a commandership-in-chief. But suppose 
 it had been otherwise. Suppose he had made out his 
 case, and proved Peter's primac}^ in his sense of the 
 v/ord ; still it is nothing to his purpose, unless he can 
 prove that that primacy passed to the Bishops of Rome 
 as the Successors of Peter. To that proof, therefore, 
 he now addresses himself ; and as he is aware that his 
 whole case depends upon it, he lays himself out accord- 
 ingly, and aetually devotes no less than one zvhole page 
 and seven lines of another page of his '' little volume" to 
 the proof of this little claim. And such proof ! 
 
 That the reader may not think I am misrepresenting 
 the Archbishop, I here transcribe the whole proof, para- 
 graph for paragraph, word for word, letter for letter, 
 point for point ; and trust the argument will not lose 
 any of its force in the transcription : 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 133 
 
 1. '' St. Peter is called the first Bishop of Rome, be- 
 cause he transferred his See from Antioch to Rome, 
 where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul. 
 
 2. *' We are not surprised that modern skepticism, 
 which rejects the divinity of Christ, and denies even 
 the existence of God, should call in question the fact 
 that St. Peter lived and died in Rome. 
 
 3. '' The reason commonly alleged for disputing this 
 well-attested event, is that the Acts of the Apostles 
 make no mention of Peter's labors and martyrdom in 
 Rome. For the same reason, we might deny that St. 
 Paul was beheaded in Rome, that St. John died in Ephe- 
 sus, and that St. Andrew was crucified. The Scrip- 
 ture is silent regarding these historical records, and yet 
 they are denied by no one. 
 
 4. *' The intrinsic evidence of St. Peter's first Epistle, 
 the testimony of his immediate successors in the min- 
 istry, as well as the avow^al of eminent Protestant com- 
 mentators, all concur in fixing the See of Peter in Rome. 
 
 5. *' * Babylon,' from which Peter addresses his first 
 Epistle, is understood by learned annotators, Protes- 
 tant and Catholic, to refer to Rome, — the word Babylon 
 being symbolical of the corruption then prevailing in 
 the city of the Csesars. 
 
 6. '* Clement, the fourth Bishop of Rome, who is 
 mentioned in terms of praise by St. Paul ; St. Ignatius, 
 Bishop of Antioch, who died in 105 ; Irenseus, Origen, 
 St. Jerome, Eusebius the great historian, and other 
 eminent writers, testify to St. Peter's residence in 
 Rome ; while no ancient ecclesiastical writer has ever 
 contradicted the statement. 
 
 7. ''John Calvin, a w^itness above suspicion. Cave, 
 an able Anglican critic, Grotius, and other distin- 
 guished writers, do not hesitate to re-echo the unani- 
 mous voice of Catholic tradition. 
 
 8. '' Indeed, no historical fact will escape the shafts 
 of incredulity if St. Peter's residence and glorious 
 
134 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 martyrdom in Rome are called in question/' (pp. 126, 
 127.) 
 
 Here is the zvhole of the Archbishop's proof that the 
 primacy of Peter passed to the Bishops of Rome as his 
 successors ; and with this he closes the chapter. In 
 the opening of his next chapter he argues that the 
 primacy must have passed to Peter's successors, but 
 does not undertake to prove who those successors 
 were ; but more of this when w^e come to it. His 
 whole proof that the primacy descended to the Bishops 
 of Rome is contained in the eight paragraphs above 
 quoted, and which I have numbered, for convenience 
 Ol reference. 
 
 T\\^ first paragraph is not a proof, but a proposition, 
 to be prov^ed. 
 
 The second is simply an expression of non-surprise. 
 
 The third gives a " commonly-alleged" objection 
 from the silence of the Acts of the Apostles in regard 
 to Peter's labors and martyrdom in Rome. This is not 
 ''a commonly-alleged" objection ; nor have I ever 
 seen it alleged by any one. What is alleged, is the 
 silence of St. Paul's Epistles to and from Rome ; of 
 which I will presently speak. 
 
 The fourth is, like the first, a proposition to be 
 proved. 
 
 The fifth is also a proposition, but I will not require 
 proof of it ; I will admit that *' Babylon" (i St. Peter 5: 
 13) "is understood by learned annotators, Protestant 
 and " Roman, to refer to Rome. Per contra, it is also 
 ''understood by learned annotators," Roman as well 
 as Protestant, not to refer to Rome. What says the 
 Roman Annotator Erasmus, a contemporary of the 
 Reformers, and one of the most learned men of the 
 age? Sunt qui Babylonem hie interpretent Ro7nain ; quod 
 mihi sane non usquequaque probatur, Magis arbitror Pc- 
 trum id temporis verte Babylone vixisse ; that is, ' ' Some by 
 Babylon understand Rome ; but to me indeed that 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 135 
 
 lacks proof. Rather, I believe that Peter was at that 
 time living in the real Babylon." He adds that Papias 
 took Babylon to mean Rome, but in disparagement of 
 his opinion refers to Eusebius, who says of Papias (1. 
 iii. c. 39) that he was '* very limited in his comprehen- 
 sion/' and reports '* matters rather too fabulous.'* 
 Erasmus says also that Jerome, in one of his Epistles, 
 follows Papias, but that in doing it he is indulging his 
 bile because he had been slightingly received in Rome 
 — sed stomacho siio servientem, quodillic indignis modis esset 
 accept 21s, (Erasm. in Crit. Sacr.) 
 
 And what says Dupin ? '' Q. Whence was it (i St. 
 Peter) writ ? A. It is dated at Babylon. Many of the 
 Antients have understood that Name to signifie Rome ; 
 but no Reason appears, that could prevail with St. Pe- 
 ter to change the Name of Rome into that of Babylon. 
 How could those to whom he wrote understand that 
 Babylon was Rome ? There were many Jews at Baby- 
 lon, and St. Peter, who was the Apostle of the Jews, 
 went so far to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the 
 Jews." {Hist, of the Church, New Test., chap, v.) 
 
 Dupin may well ask, *' How could those to whom he 
 wrote understand that Babylon was Rome?" Hoav, 
 indeed ? There is not a particle of proof, or even of 
 probability, that Rome was ever called Babylon till St. 
 John called it by that name in his Revelation, thirty 
 years after the death of St. Peter. Besides, as Capellus 
 (in Crit. Sacr.) well says, exempliun in siibscriptione 
 hitjiisniodi nullum, *' there is no instance of this sort in 
 a subscription." What would be thought of Arch- 
 bishop McCloskey if, writing to the New England por- 
 tion of his Provincial flock, he should wind up with, 
 *' The Church which is in Gotham, elected together, 
 saluteth you" ? Suppose we let the superscription in- 
 terpret the subscription : " Peter, an Apostle of Jesus 
 Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, 
 Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." Babylon 
 
136 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 is to the east, or rather south-east, of these countries ; 
 Rome is to the west of them. Pontus, Galatia, and 
 Cappadocia are to the east of Asia and Bithynia. Peter 
 writing from Babylon names them in the natural order : 
 Peter writing from Rome would be naming them in an 
 order the reverse of natural ; as if the Archbishop of Bal- 
 timore, writing to the faithful of that part of his pro- 
 vince outside the archdiocese, should begin thus : 
 '' James, Archbishop of Baltimore, to the faithful scat- 
 tered through East Florida, Georgia, South and 
 North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania." 
 Every one can see that if he were writing from St. 
 Augustine, he being there resident, this would be the 
 natural order ; but, if writing from Baltimore, it would 
 be the reverse of the natural order ; just as to St. 
 Peter, if writing from Rome, the order in which he 
 names the countries is the reverse of the natural order. 
 So much for the fifth paragraph. 
 
 In the sixth paragraph, the Archbishop lays down 
 another proposition requiring proof, but of which he 
 vouchsafes none ; to wit, that six '' eminent writers," 
 whose names he mentions, '' testify to St. Peter's resi- 
 dence in Rome." Now the first two of these six — 
 namely, *' Clement, the fourth Bishop of Rome," and 
 '* St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch," were both contem- 
 poraries of St. Peter, and one of them was Bishop of 
 the city from which, and the other of the city to which, 
 St. Peter /jy said io\i2i\^ ''transferred his see;" they 
 are therefore competent witnesses, and the very best 
 that we could desire. If they testify as the Archbishop 
 says they do, then I give up my case. Do they so 
 testify ? 
 
 The only genuine writings of Clement extant are his 
 two Epistles to the Corinthians, and even of these the 
 second is held by some to be spurious ; Avhether rightl}^ 
 or otherwise matters not, as all that it contains respect- 
 ing Peter is the following : " The Lord saith, ' ye shall 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 137 
 
 be as sheep in the midst of wolves.' Peter answered 
 and said, * what if the wolves shall tear in pieces the 
 sheep ?' Jesus said unto Peter, ' let not the sheep fear 
 the wolves after death' (Mat. lo : i6 [28])" (chap. 5). 
 And here is what is said of Peter in the first Epistle : 
 ** Peter, by unjust envy, underwent not one or two, but 
 many suffering's ; until at last being martyred, he went 
 to the place of glory that was due unto him" (chap. 5). 
 *' Verily he [Paul] did by the Spirit admonish you con- 
 cerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos" (chap. 47). 
 This is absolutely all there is in Clement about Peter. 
 It is manifest, then, that there is no foundation for what 
 the Archbishop says about Clement's testimony. 
 
 How is it with Ignatius ? Of his ^^N^xi genuine Epis- 
 tles (and there are only seven), there is but one — the 
 Epistle to the Romans — in Avhich mention is made of 
 Peter ; and here is what is said of him : " I do not, as 
 Peter and Paul, command you. They were apostles, 
 I a condemned man ; they were free, but I am even 
 to this day a servant : but if I shall suffer, I shall then 
 become the freeman of Jesus Christ, and shall rise free" 
 (chap. 4). This is all ; absolutely all. There is no 
 foundation then for what the Archbishop says of Igna- 
 tius 's testimony any more than for what he said of 
 Clement's. 
 
 But perhaps the Archbishop has in mind the Clemen- 
 tine Recognitions, and the larger Epistles ascribed to 
 Ignatius ? If so, either he knows (what is the fact) that 
 they are spurious — in which case he exhibits a shameless 
 effrontery, or he does not know it — in which case he 
 shows a discreditable ignorance of what he is writing 
 about ; discreditable in an Archbishop and Metropoli- 
 tan ; particularly discreditable in a volunteer contro- 
 versialist. He may take his choice between the two 
 horns of the dilemma ; either of them will gore him 
 badly. 
 
 Irenseus is the Archbishop's next witness, and as he 
 
13^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 was born in the first half of the second century and 
 probably within sixty (some say fifty) years after the 
 death of St. Peter, and was at one time in Rome on a 
 mission or embassy from the martyrs of Lyons, then in 
 prison, of which city he was afterwards Bishop, and 
 had moreover in early life been a pupil of Poly carp the 
 disciple of St. John, and used often to hear from him 
 his reminiscences of that Apostle, his testimony is en- 
 titled to respectful consideration. What, then, is that 
 testimony ? The Archbishop, as in so many other in- 
 stances, gives no references. Fortunately, however, as 
 on a previous occasion, the Rhemish annotator, whom 
 the Archbishop seems to be retailing, gives chapter and 
 verse, to wit, lib, 3, c. 3, in the second section of which 
 I find, in the old Latin translation (for the Greek origi- 
 nal of this section is lost) Irenseus saying that as it 
 would take too long to give the succession of the 
 Bishops of all the Churches, he will give that of '' the 
 greatest, and most ancient, and to all well known 
 Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two 
 most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" — a gloriosis- 
 siinis dii obits Apostolis Petro et Paulo Ronice ficndatcB ct 
 constitntcB Ecclesice, And in the next section, which is in 
 the original Greek, I read : *'The blessed Apostles there- 
 fore (viz., Peter and Paul, as mentioned in the preced- 
 ing section) having founded and built the Church, 
 handed o\tr {evexdpiaav) the ministry of the Episcopate 
 to Linus, the same whom Paul makes mention of in the 
 Epistles to Timothy : to him succeeded Anencletus. 
 After him, and in the third place from the Apostles, 
 Clement, etc." 
 
 We have it then from Irenseus, a witness called into 
 court by the Archbishop himself, that the Church at 
 Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. Now St. Paul's 
 Epistle to the Romans Avas written within ten years of 
 his death, and up to that time (Rom. 15 : 22-24) he had 
 never been at Rome. There was, therefore, at that 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 139 
 
 time no organized Church of Rome, but only small 
 worshipping assemblies meeting (Rom. 16 : 5) in private 
 houses ; and accordingly the Epistle is addressed (Rom. 
 I : 7) not (after the analogy of the two to the Corinthi- 
 ans) to *' the Church of God which is at Rome," but, 
 '* to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be 
 saints ;" which sufficiently disposes of that fable of St. 
 Peter's twenty-five years' residence in Rome as its 
 Bishop. Not only that, but two years later, when St. 
 Paul, having been brought a prisoner to Rome, ''called 
 the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28 : 17), so little 
 were they aware of the existence of a church among 
 them of which, as is alleged, Peter had then been 
 Bishop even according to the Chronological Table of 
 the Rhemish dMXioidXoT fourteen years, but according to 
 ours seventeen, that they actually said to St. Paul (Acts 
 28 : 22), '' We desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: 
 for as concerning this sect, we know that everyw^here 
 it is spoken against." And so desirous were they thc.t 
 they actually ''appointed him a day," and " there 
 came many to him into his lodging ;" and the result of 
 his " expounding, " and "testifying," and "persuad- 
 ing" (ver. 23), "from morning till evening," was 
 (ver. 24) that " some believed the things which were 
 spoken, and some believed not." Evidently this was 
 the first time they had had the opportunity of hearing 
 these things from an Apostle. And 3^et we are bid 
 believe that Peter, the special Apostle of the Jews, had 
 been Bishop among them at least fourteen years, and 
 all the while had never once found, or made, an oppor- 
 tunity of "expounding," and "testifying" to, and 
 "persuading," them, although " some of them" were 
 so ready to be persuaded, that at the very first preach- 
 ing of these things to them they believed. Credat 
 Romanus^ non ego. I will not so slander " the Prince of 
 the Apostles ;" nor will I so magnify his fellow-apostle 
 at his expense. I leave that to those who claim to be 
 
I40 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 exclusively his flock, and of whom, if he were now on 
 earth, he might well say, save me from my '' friends/' 
 In the words of Tertullian (De Prcscriptione, 24), *' I am 
 not good man* enough, or rather I am not bad man 
 enough, to set the apostles the one against the other." 
 
 The Archbishop's next witness is Origen, w4io was 
 born within one hundred and sixteen years after the 
 death of St. Peter. His testimony, as reported by 
 Eusebius (1. iii. c. i), which is what the Rhemish an- 
 notator (from whom the Archbishop probably borrowed 
 it) refers to, is this : '' Peter appears to have preached 
 through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and 
 Asia, to the Jews that were scattered abroad ; who 
 also, finally coming to Rome, was crucified with his 
 head downward, having requested of himself to suffer 
 in this w^ay." There is not a word here of his preach- 
 ing at Rome. The great scene of his preaching was 
 evidently, in the opinion of Origen (the Archbishop's 
 own witness), the countries named. Nor is there a 
 syllable of his being Bishop of Rome ; still less of his 
 being Bishop there for a quarter of a century ; for no 
 ingenuity can make ''finally coming to Rome, was 
 crucified," mean, coming twenty-five years^ or even fif- 
 teen years, before he was crucified. 
 
 This twent3^-five years' episcopate rests on the mere 
 assertion of the Archbishop's last two witnesses, Euse- 
 bius and Jerome, the former of whom was not born 
 till more than two hundred years, and the latter more 
 than two hundred and fifty years after the death of St. 
 Peter ; and as neither of them gives any authority for 
 his assertion, and that assertion is in flat contradiction 
 with that of Irenseus and Origen, their testimony is 
 good for nothing. 
 
 So much for the Archbishop's sixth paragraph. His 
 seventJi and eighth call for no remark. 
 
 To recur now to \{\^ first paragraph, which contains 
 the proposition, but not the proof, that St. Peter trans- 
 
THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 141 
 
 ferred his see from Antioch to Rome. To this propo- 
 sition I reply that he could not transfer his see, for the 
 simple reason that he had no see. He was not a See 
 Bishop ; nor was any other of the twelve. They were 
 travelling- missionaries, '' ordained " (St. Mark 3 : 14) 
 and '' sent forth " (St. Mat. 10 : 5) as such, by the Lord 
 Himself ; and His '' marching orders" to them — to the 
 ''commander-in-chief," as well as to the other com- 
 manders — were, '' Go ye into all thew^orld, and preach 
 the gospel to every creature" (St. Mark 16 : 15) ; and 
 His last words to them on earth (Acts i : 8) were, ** Ye 
 shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in 
 all Judsea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
 of the earth." And says St. Mark (who, we are told, 
 wrote under the direction of St. Peter) in the last verse 
 of his Gospel, '* They went forth, and preached every- 
 where." There is not the sHghtest evidefiee that any 
 one of them settled down as the Head of a Diocesan 
 Church. James, the Lord's brother, was, indeed, the 
 Head of the Church of Jerusalem. But he was not 
 one of the twelve, for, at the time they were appointed, 
 he was not even a believer ; for their appointment (St. 
 Mat. 10) was before the '' Feeding of the Five Thou- 
 sand " (St. Mat. 14 : 15-21 ; St. John 6 : 4-14) and it is 
 after that, to wit, in St. John 7:5, that we are told, 
 " For neither did his brethren believe in him." And 
 when they afterwards became believers, we find them 
 (Acts 1:13, 14) distinguished from the eleven. And 
 accordingly we find that while St. Peter begins both of 
 his Epistles with the assertion of his Apostleship, and 
 St. Paul nine of his in the same way, St. James begins 
 his, '' James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ," and St. Jude his, '' Jude, the servant of Jesus 
 Christ, and brother of James." As to Gal. i : 19, 
 '' Other of the apostles saw I none, save (f ^ /^7» unless") 
 James the Lord's brother," if James is here called an 
 apostle (which is doubtful), it no more makes him one 
 
142 THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS. 
 
 of the twelve than calling Paul and Barnabas apostles 
 makes them of the twelve. See a condensed statement 
 of the argument on both sides by Dr. Schaff, in Lange 
 on St. Matthew, Am. Ed., pp. 256-260. 
 
 In conclusion, if we may believe Irenseus and Tertul- 
 lian — both of whom Avere a hundred years nearer the 
 Apostles than Eusebius, and a hundred and fifty nearer i 
 than Jerome, and therefore by so much the more likely / 
 to know the truth — if, I say, we may believe Irenseus; 
 and Tertullian, the former of whom, as we have seen, 
 says that Peter and Paul handed overthe episcopate to 
 Linus, to whom succeeded Anencletus, and after himS, 
 Clement ; and the latter of whom says {De Pre script. \ 
 32) ** the Church of Smyrna recounteth that Poly carp \ 
 was placed there by St. John ; as that of Rome doth 
 that Clement was in like manner ordained by Peter ;' | 
 it follows that there were three Popes of Rome, one 
 after another, in the lifetime of St Peter. Hence it is 
 plain that if St. Peter ever was Pope, he had ceased to 
 be, long before his death, for two contemporary lawful j 
 Popes is a thing unheard of even in Rome herself. ! 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 
 
 Aware that in the eight paragraphs I have been re- 
 marking on, and which I have quoted in full on pages 
 133-134, he has not even asserted any supremacy of 
 Peter over the whole Church, or even, except in para- 
 graphs one and four, over the Church of Rome, and 
 that he has not so much as attempted to prove even that, 
 as the reader can see for himself by turning back to 
 those paragraphs and reading them again, the Arch- 
 bishop opens this Tenth Chapter with what he expects 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 143 
 
 (or seems to expect) to pass for proof that Peter's Pri- 
 macy passed (being metamorphosed into Supremacy in 
 the passage) from him to the Bishops of Rome, as his 
 successors : *' The Church is in all ages as much in 
 need of a Supreme Ruler as it was in the days of the 
 Apostles. Nay more/' 1 answer, she has a Supreme 
 Ruler now, as she had then ; and that Supreme Ruler 
 is not and was not Peter. '' There is another King, 
 one Jesus" (Acts 17 : 7) ; the same whom Peter himself 
 (i Pet. 5 : 4) calls ** the Chief Shepherd," or, as it is in 
 the Latinized English of the Archbishop's Version and 
 of the Rhemish, *' the Prince of Pastors." It needs no 
 other ; and accordingly it never has had, and, we may 
 rest assured, never will have, any. As 1 have already 
 twice remarked, it has no more ''need of a central 
 power to preserve its unity" (p. 128) than Free Mason 
 ry has. But granting, for argument's sake, the 
 ' ' need, ' 'and that the need infers the supply, in the shape 
 of Successors of Peter, how does that prove that the 
 Bishops of Rome are those successors ? Yet that is 
 the inference which the Archbishop draws ; for he goes 
 on, in the next paragraph : 
 
 ' ' Whatsoever privileges, therefore, were conferred on 
 Peter, which may be considered essential to the gov- 
 ernment of the Church, are inherited by the Bishops 
 of Rome, as successors of the Prince of the Apostles ; 
 just as the constitutional powers given to George 
 Washington have devolved on the present incumbent 
 of the Presidential chair." 
 
 Here is a gap in the logic, as well as a flaw in the il- 
 lustration. Perhaps the Archbishop doesn't see either 
 the gap or the flaw. 
 
 T\\Q flaw is in this, that whereas certain '' privileges" 
 were ''conferred on Peter," without mention of suc- 
 cessors, the "constitutional powers" were "given," 
 not " to George Washington," but, to the " President 
 of the United States," which George Washington was 
 
144 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 fiot, at that time. ** The executive power shall be 
 vested in a President of the United States of America," 
 says the Constitution; not, "in George Washington 
 and his successors ;" still less, *' in George Washing- 
 ton." On the contrary, he was *' elected " to the 
 office, as were all his successors doAvn to '' the (then — 
 that is, at the time the Archbishop wrote) present in- 
 cumbent," Ul3'sses S. Grant, with the exception of 
 Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson, on whom, respectivel}^ 
 and on whom alone, in the language of the Constitution, 
 ' 'the powers and duties of the said office"did ' 'devolve. * ' 
 The Archbishop is peculiarly infelicitous in drawing 
 analogies from the civil institutions of his country, as 
 we shall see again in the next chapter. So much for 
 the pretended illustration. To make it a real one, it 
 should read, '' just as the constitutional powders first ex- 
 ercised by George Washington have devolved on Mar- 
 shall McMahon ;" and then ih^ gap in the logic would 
 be patent ; for it would at once occur to the reader 
 that '' just as" McMahon's successorship to'Washington 
 needs proof, so does the successorship of the Bishops 
 of Rome to St. Peter. And yet no proof is forthcom- 
 ing. It is asserted, indeed, in the first of the eight par- 
 agraphs that Peter's see was finally fixed at Rome ; and 
 It is asserted in the fourth that this fixation can be 
 proved by ''the intrinsic evidence of St. Peter's first 
 Epistle, " by " the testimony of his immediate successors 
 in the ministry," and by " the avowal of eminent Pro- 
 testant commentators ;" but none of these " avowals" 
 of this " testimony," of this " evidence," is laid before 
 us by the Archbishop. " St. Peter's first Epistle" is 
 in the hands of his non-Roman readers, and may be 
 safely left there. Grotius and Clarius concur in mak- 
 ing " Babylon" Rome, but neither they nor any other 
 of the fifteen or twenty " eminent Protestant commenta- 
 tors" at hand as I write, " fix the See of Peter in 
 Rome." As to the other witnesses, I suppose that not 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 145 
 
 more than the first ten Bishops of Rome, the last of 
 whom died exactly a hundred years after the death of 
 St. Peter, could, by the utmost stretch of language, be 
 called ''his immediate successors/' Of these, St. Cle- 
 ment testifies to his martyrdom, as I have already 
 shown, but does not tell us where it took place, or that 
 he was ever in Rome, to say nothing of having his vSee 
 there. The other nine have left no writings behind 
 them. Says Dupin {Hist, of the Chureh, Three First 
 Centuries, chap, vi.), '' The first Letter of St. Clement 
 to the Corinthians, which St. Irenaeus mentions, is 
 one of the most beautiful and standing Monuments 
 of that Antiquity. The second is not so evidently 
 St. Clement's ; and the Works ascribed to him are 
 not his. The other Epistles that bear his Name are 
 forged, as well as all the Epistles of the first Popes 
 down to Siricius [the 37th Bishop of -Rome, a.d. 
 384-398], which [namely, the forgery] is the Work of 
 Isidorus Mercator, who lived in the eighth Century." 
 Really, it is rather late in the day thus to attempt to 
 foist upon us the Forged Decretals, which did such 
 yeoman's service to the Papacy in the Dark Ages, but 
 which have been long since exploded ! 
 
 '' From what I have said, you can easily infer that 
 the arguments in favor of Peter's Primacy have equal 
 weight in demonstrating the supremacy of the Popes" 
 (p. 129). 
 
 How the arguments in favor of one xsxdeii '$^ primaey can 
 demonstrate another man's sitpreinacy is a problem for 
 archiepiscopal logic ; common logic is not equal to it. 
 And so the Archbishop himself seems t© think ; for in 
 the next paragraph he says he will ** endeavor to show, 
 from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes 
 have always, from the days of the Apostles, continued 
 to exercise supreme jurisdiction [mark that], not only 
 in the Western church, till the Reformation, but also 
 
14^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 throughout the Eastern church, till the great schism of 
 the ninth century. 
 
 . '' I. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is 
 never made from a superior to an inferior court, nor 
 even from one court to another of co-ordinate jurisdic- 
 tion. We do not appeal from Washington to Rich- 
 mond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now, if 
 we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of Chris- 
 tianity [though it diAnt exist till seven years after Peter 
 went to Antioch], entertaining and deciding cases of 
 appeal from the Oriental churches ; it we find that her 
 decision was final and irrevocable, we must conclude 
 that the supremacy of Rome over all the churches is an 
 undeniable fact " (pp. 129, 130). 
 
 That doesn't follow, even if the premises are true 
 (which they are not, as we shall presently see), for the 
 African churches were not *' Oriental," and they ex- 
 pressly forbade appeals to Rome. (Concil. Milevitani 
 ii. (anno 416) can. 22. See the original Latin in Gieseler, 
 vol. I, § 94, n. 62.) 
 
 *' To begin with Pope St. Clement. . . . Some 
 dissension and scandal having occurred in the church 
 of Corinth, the matter is brought to the notice of Pope 
 Clement. He at once exercises his supreme authority 
 by writing letters of remonstrance and admonition to 
 the Corinthians" (p. 130). 
 
 Where is the ** appeal " here, and where the authori- 
 tative judgment on appeal ? Where is the decision of 
 the ' ' inferior court ' ' ? Where that of the ' ' superior ' ' ? 
 Here is neither ''Richmond" nor ''Washington." 
 Bringing a thing to the notice even of a tribunal, is not 
 an " appeal " to it ; neither is " writing letters of re- 
 monstrance and admonition" " entertaining and decid- 
 ing" an appeal. At any rate, they don't do things so 
 in " Washington ;" and if they did, there would be no 
 " authority," " supreme" or non-supreme, in their ac- 
 tion. Any man can '' remonstrate" with any other 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 14? 
 
 man ; and, in like manner, any church can remonstrate 
 with any other church : and as to admonition, we are 
 told on high authority, even that of the Archbishop 
 himself (p. 125), that " it is not a very uncommon thing 
 for ecclesiastics occupying an inferior position in the 
 Church to admonish even the Pope ; ' ' and that ' ' St. Ber- 
 nard*' did that very thing *'to Pope Eugenius III.," 
 and did it *' with Apostolic freedom;" which is as much, 
 to say the least, as St. Clement did ; for in his Epistles, 
 unlike those of St. Paul to the same Church, there is 
 no tone of authority, no *' coming with a rod " (i Cor. 
 4:21), no question, '' Dare any of you . . . go* to 
 law" (i Cor. 6 : i), no warning, '' If I come again, I 
 will not spare." (2 Cor. 13 : 2). His second Epistle 
 (if it be his) is a brief hortatory discourse ; nothing 
 less ; nothing more. In his first Epistle, he is simply 
 the mouthpiece of his own church to a sister church. 
 The Epistle begins thus : 
 
 *' The Church of God which sojourneth at Rome to 
 the Church of God which sojourneth at Corinth, elect, 
 sanctified, by the will of God, through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord : grace and peace from the Almighty God, by 
 Jesus Christ, be multiplied unto you. 
 
 '* Brethren, 
 
 *' The sudden and unexpected dangers and calamities 
 that have fallen upon us, have, we fear, made us the 
 more slow in our consideration of those things which 
 you inquired of us : as also of that wicked and detest- 
 able sedition, so unbecoming the elect of God, which 
 a few heady and self-willed men have fomented to such 
 a degree of madness, that your venerable and renowned 
 name, so worthy of all men to be beloved, is greatly 
 blasphemed thereby." 
 
 Throughout the whole Epistle, there is not one soli- 
 tary command as distinguished from an exhortation. It 
 
14^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 is simply such an Epistle as any church might write to 
 a sister church, on a footing of the most perfect equal- 
 ity. I distinctly challenge the Archbishop to point out 
 a single instance of an assertion, or implication, of 
 jiirisdictioital authority, in it. 
 
 The next ''appeal" is ''to Pope St. Victor I.," 
 " about the year 190," in regard to " the proper day 
 for celebrating Easter.'' " St. Victor directs the East- 
 ern churches, for the sake of imiformity, to conform 
 to the practice of the West, and Ids instructions arc 
 imivcr sally followed'' (p. 130). 
 
 The Archbishop is right about Victor's " directing'' 
 them ; but it was a piece of impudence on his part, and 
 met with the reception from the East which it so richly 
 deserved ; while, in the West, even Irenseus, who 
 agreed with him as to the proper day, ' ' severely cen- 
 sured Victor by letter," says Socrates {EccL Hist., 1. 
 V. c. 22), "for his immoderate heat." It is marvellous 
 that an Archbishop, with Eusebius at hand, and the 
 Synodal Epistle of Nice within reach, should venture 
 on the assertion 1 have italicized. What said Poly crates. 
 Bishop of Ephesus, as reported by Eusebius (1. v. c. 
 24) ? " For there were seven, my relatives, Bishops, and 
 I am the eighth ; and my relatives ahva3^s observed the 
 day when the people {i.e., the Jews) threw away the 
 leaven. I, therefore, brethren, am now sixty-five years 
 in the Lord, who having conferred with the brethren 
 throughout the world, and having studied the whole of 
 the Sacred Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at those 
 things with which I am threatened, to intimidate me. 
 For they w^ho are greater than I, have said, ' we ought 
 to obey God rather than men. ' " No wonder that such 
 a man, w^hen Victor excommunicated him, and those 
 v/ho held with him, including "the churches of all 
 Asia, together with the neighboring churches," A.D., 
 196, set at naught the brittuin fnlmen, and that the East- 
 ern custom went on with them a hundred and twenty- 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 149 
 
 nine years longer, down to the first General Council, at 
 Nice, when, for the first time a friendly agreement was 
 reached, as witness the following, from the Synodal 
 Epistle of that Council : *' We however declare to you 
 the glad tidings of our agreement respecting our most 
 holy feast of Easter ; that by your prayers, this par- 
 ticular also has been rightly settled, so that all the 
 brethren of the East, who formerly kept the feast with 
 the Jews, and did not agree w4th the Romans, and with 
 you, and with all those who have from the beginning 
 kept it with us, shall from henceforth keep it with 
 us/' So much for Pope St. Victor, v^^ho was any thing 
 but victorious in the matter of his claim to '* entertain 
 and decide" cases on ''appeal/' The Church of his 
 day recognized no such claim. 
 
 *'Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of 
 the third century, having heard that the Patriarch of 
 Alexandria erred on some points of faith, demands an 
 explanation of the suspected Prelate, who, in obedience 
 to his superior, promptly vindicates his owm orthodoxy" 
 
 (P- 131). 
 
 Change '' demands" into ** requests," and " in obe- / 
 dience to his superior" into *'in compliance with the ' 
 request of his brother Bishop," and leave out the word 
 '' promptly," since the vindication was a treatise which 
 he composed, in four books, and the Archbishop's par- 
 agraph will express, v/hat, as it stands, it does not 
 express, namely, the truth. In this, the Bishop of 
 Rome did no more than any other Bishop might do. 
 At this very time, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, 
 was called to account for heresy, first by Firmilian of 
 Cappadocia, and afterwards by his brother Bishops in 
 Council, tried, condemned, deposed, and Domnus put 
 in his place, without so much as the Pope's knovv^ing it 
 till all was over, and then notice sent to him (and at 
 the same time to the Patriarch of Alexandria) not that 
 he might hear the case on appeal — such a thing was un- 
 
150 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 known to the Church of that age — but that he might 
 (to use the very words of the notice) '* write [to Dom- 
 nus], and receive letters of communion from him ;" — 
 the very same purpose for which the notice was sent 
 also to the Patriarch of Alexandria. There was not 
 the slightest distinction made by the Council, in this 
 matter, between the Pope and the Patriarch. See the 
 history of it at large, in Eusebhis (1. vii. cc. 27-30). 
 
 I have thus disposed of three of the Archbishop's in- 
 stances. I might go on, and dispose of the other five ; 
 but there is no need of it. Falsits in tribits^ falsus in 
 omnibus, 
 
 I will only add in regard to Julius I., the Arch- 
 bishop's fourth instance, that his power in the matter 
 of appeals, whatever it was, was derived from the ex- 
 press grant of the Council of Sardica (a.d. 347),"^ a 
 grant made at the instance of Hosius, Bishop of Cor- 
 dova, one of the Presidents of the Council of Nice, 
 twenty-two years before, which Council, so far from 
 being aware of any power in the Bishop of Rome to 
 '' entertain and decide'' appeals, actually enacted in its 
 fifth canon that appeals should be decided finally by 
 Provincial Synods, to be *' assembled twice every year 
 in every Province." And yet we are assured by the 
 Archbishop that the right of '' entertaining and decid- 
 ing" appeals, which the three hundred and eighteen 
 Bishops of the Council of Nice had never heard of, and 
 which the Council of Sardica, twenty-two years later, 
 conferred for the first time on Pope Julius I., had be- 
 longed to the '' See of Rome, from the foundation of 
 Christianit}^ "! 
 
 *' 2. Christians of every denomination admit the or- 
 thodox};^ of the Fathers of the first five centuries of the 
 Church [What ! Of Tertullian and Origen ?] . . 
 
 * See Gieseler, Period II. § 94. Bower's History of the Popes, vol. I., 
 Julius. 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 151 
 
 '* Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, 
 pay homage to the Bishops of Rome as their superiors" 
 
 (P- 132). 
 
 As the Archbishop on account of his '' limited space" 
 gives no extracts on this vital f^ovuX., but contents him- 
 self Avith referring his readers to " a work " (in at least 
 three volumes, for he quotes (p. 210) from the third), 
 *' entitled, ' Faith of Catholics,' " and as not one in a 
 thousand of them probably ever saw it, or ever will 
 see it, I shall content myself with showing the falsity of 
 the Archbishop's assertion that they, ''with one voice, 
 pay homage," etc. 
 
 St. Poly carp, pupil of St. John and Bishop of Smyrna, 
 is one of " the Fathers of the Church," his Epistle to 
 the Philippians being contained in the various editions 
 of the Apostolic Fathers. Did he pay homage to the 
 Bishop of Rome as his superior ? What says Eusebius 
 (1. V. c. 24), quoting from Irenseus, in the matter of the 
 proper time for keeping Easter ? 
 
 *' And when the blessed Poly carp went to Rome, in 
 the time of Anicetus (a.d. 157-168), and they had a 
 little difference among themselves likewise respecting 
 other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not 
 disputing much with one another on this head. For 
 neither could Anicetus persuade Poly carp not to ob- 
 serve it [namely, the day of the Jewish Passover, as 
 Easter], because he had always observed it with John 
 the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, 
 with whom he associated ; and neither did Polycarp 
 persuade Anicetus to observe, who said that he was 
 bound to maintain the practice of the presb3^ters before 
 him. Which things being so, they communed with 
 each other ; and in the church Anicetus yielded to 
 Polycarp, out of respect, no doubt, the office of con- 
 secrating [the bread and wine], and they separated from 
 each other in peace, all the church being at peace ; both 
 
152 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 those that observed and those that did not observe, 
 maintaining peace. 
 
 Piainl)^, St. Poiycarp paid no homage to Anicetus as 
 his superior. Thb two Bishops met on a footing of 
 perfect equahty ; of mutual respect and regard ; and 
 so they parted. If all the Bishops of Rome had been 
 like Anicetus, the Church would have remained united 
 and harmonious even until now. 
 
 What says St. Cyprian (one of the Fathers specially 
 mentioned by the Archbishop) with his fellow Bishops 
 of the Council of Carthage (a.d. 256) in opposition to 
 the claim of Pope Stephen ? 
 
 '* None of us styles himself Bishop of Bishops, or 
 forces his colleagues to obedience by the dread of his 
 tyranny : since every Bishop is free to act as he will, 
 according to the liberty and power which belong to 
 him ; nor can he be judged by another, in such sort as 
 he cannot become the other's judge {tamque jitdicari ab 
 alio 7ton possit, qiiain ncc ipse potest judicarc). But we 
 await, one and all, the judgment of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who alone has the power both of preferring us 
 in the government of His Church and of judging of our 
 conduct." {Ill Coneil, Carthag.) Seethe original Latin 
 in Browne on the Artieles, Art. 37 ; also in Gieseler, vol. 
 i., sect. 68, where may be found, condensed into six 
 octavo pages, the very pith and marrow of the hierarch- 
 ical arrangements, with numerous citations of authori- 
 ties in Greek and Latin. 
 
 What says St. Jerome (another of the Fathers 
 specially mentioned by the Archbishop) in his Epistle 
 to Evangelus ? 
 
 '' The Church of Rome is not to be thought one 
 thing, and that of the whole world another. Gaul, and 
 Britain, and Africa, and Persia, and the East, and Ju- 
 dasa, and all the barbarous nations, adore also one 
 Christ, and observe the same rule of truth. If authority 
 is sought for, the world is greater than one city. 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. I S3 
 
 Wherever there is a Bishop, whether at Rome or 
 Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexan- 
 dria, or Tanis, he is of the same excellency, of the same 
 Episcopate. The power of wealth and the lowliness of 
 poverty do not make a Bishop either less or greater ; 
 but they are all the successors of the Apostles. ' ' Migne, 
 Patrologia, vol. xxii. (Hieronym. vol. i.), col. 1194. 
 
 So much for Cyprian and Jerome. If either or both 
 of them elsewhere speak a different language, so much 
 the worse for the Archbishop ; for they are his wit- 
 nesses ; he called them into court, along with others, to 
 prove that they, '^ with one voice, pay homage to the 
 Bishops of Rome as their superiors," and they prove 
 just the contrary ; as does also St. Polycarp, whom he 
 didn t call into court, because he knew that his testi- 
 mony, the testimony of his actions — and actions speak 
 louder than words — would m.ake an irreparable break in 
 the '' one voice.'' 
 
 I might go on to examine the other witnesses specially 
 mentioned by the Archbishop, Basil, Chrysostom, 
 Augustine, Ambrose, and Leo. But there is no need ; 
 for even if the}^ all spoke " with one voice" on his side 
 of the question, which they do not, the '* one voice'' 
 has been already shattered into hopeless fragments. 
 
 '' 3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent 
 vindication of Papal supremacy. . . . 
 
 '' The first General Council was held in Nicsea (Nice) 
 in 325 ; the second, in Constantinople, in 381 ; the third 
 in Ephesus, in 431 ; the fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451 ; 
 the fifth, in Constantinople, in 553 ; the sixth, in the 
 same city, in 680 ; the seventh, in Nic^ea, in 787 ; and 
 the eighth, in Constantinople, 869. 
 
 *' The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, 
 or at least cojisented to their convoeation ; they presided 
 by their legates over all of them, except the first and 
 second councils of Constantinople, and they confirmed 
 all these eight by their authority" (pp. 133, 134). 
 
154 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 The clause I have italicised vs> well put in, for so far as 
 respects the first four — and I shall not concern myself 
 about the last four (only two of which, by the way, are 
 General), since the earliest of them was in the latter half 
 of the sixth century, by which time the influence of the 
 Bishop of Rome had very much increased — I say, so 
 far as respects the first four, not one of them was con- 
 voked by the Bishop of Rome ; nor did he preside by 
 his legates over any of them ; nor was his consent given 
 (except in the case of the fourth, of which more pres- 
 ently) before, and in order to, the convoking of them. 
 What says Dupin ? 
 
 * Q. Which is the first (Ecumenical or General 
 Council ? 
 
 '* A. That which was held at Niece in Bithynia, in 
 the year 325. 
 
 '' Q. Who called that Council ? 
 
 *' A. The Emperor Constantine. . . . The Le- 
 gates of Pope St. Sylvester assisted [that is, were pres- 
 ent] at it. We don't certainly know who was Presi- 
 dent of that Assembly, but 'tis likely it was Osius 
 Bishop of Corduba. " (Dupin, Century iv., chap. 4.) 
 
 According to others, the Council had three Presi- 
 dents, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Eustathius of 
 Antioch, and Hosius of Cordova. Hosius, however, 
 was not, as is pretended, one of the legates of the 
 Bishop of Rome ; for Eusebius, in his Life of Constan- 
 tine (1. iii. c. 7), as reported by Socrates {EccL Hist. 1. 
 i. c. 8), expressly distinguishes him from them thus : 
 '' Hosius, the most celebrated of the Spaniards, took 
 his seat among the rest. The prelate of the imperial 
 city [Rome] was absent through age ; but his presby- 
 ters were present, and filled his place." What that 
 '' place" was, which they '' filled," we may learn from 
 Theodoret {EccL Hist, 1. i. c. 7) : The bishop of Rome, 
 on account of his very advanced age, was necessarily 
 absent, but he sent two presbyters to the council, for 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 155 
 
 the purpose [of presiding in his stead ? no] of taking 
 part in all the transactions." 
 
 '' When Theodosius came to the Empire, Arianism 
 was entirely demolished by the Council of Constanti- 
 nople, which was called the second General Council. 
 . . . Meletius Bishop of Antioch presided in that 
 Assembly. '* (Dupin, Cent. iv. c. 4.) 
 
 '' A.D. 381. The emperor soon after convened a coun- 
 cil of orthodox bishops. (Sozomen, 1. vii. c. 7.) 
 
 '* After this the emperor without delay summoned a 
 synod of the prelates of his own faith. (Socrates, 1. 
 V. c. 8.) 
 
 *' As soon as Theodosius obtained the imperial gov- 
 ernment ... he assembled all the bishops of his 
 part of the empire to Constantinople.*' (Theodoret, 1. 
 V. c. 6.) 
 
 '' Before this Sentence [of the Council in Egypt, A.D. 
 430] was signified to Nestorius, he desired Theodosius 
 to assemble a Council. . . . This emperor sum- 
 moned one at Ephesus on Whitsuntide of the following 
 Year. 
 
 '' Q. Who was President of that Council ? 
 
 '' A. 'Twas certainly Cyril [of Alexandria] ; but 
 some [among them the Archbishop] pretend it was in 
 the Name of the Pope.*' (Dupin, Cent. v. chap. 2. 
 See his narrative in full, where the pros and cons are 
 balanced.) 
 
 '' Shortly after this the emperor's madate was issued 
 directing the bishops in all places to assemble at Ephe- 
 sus." (Socrates, 1. vii. c. 34.) 
 
 '* Hilarius • . . informed St. Leo of the manner 
 in Avhich things had been done : That Pope immediately 
 assembled a Council and demanded [mark that !] of the 
 Emperor to assemble a General Council in Italy, to 
 judge of the Appeal of Flavianus. Theodosius made 
 Answer, That he had already assembled a General 
 Council at Ephesus, that the Matter was examined and 
 
IS6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 judged there, that Flavianus was found guilty, had 
 been condemned, and it was needless and even impossi- 
 ble to do any more. St. Leo sent four Legates into the 
 East to solicite [mark that !] a new judgment. Theo- 
 dosius was dead when they arrived. Pulcheria, who 
 had a great deal of Deference for the Bishop of Rome, 
 persuaded the Emperor Martianus, her Husband, whom 
 she had set upon the Throne after the death of Theo- 
 dosius, to have that Affair examined in a Council. He 
 presently appointed one at Nice, and when the Bishops 
 were met there, he order'd them to go to Chalcedon, 
 where the Council met for the first time on the 8th of 
 October, 451. This Council was held in the great 
 Church of St. Euphemia, in the Presence of the Com- 
 missioners; Officers of the Emperor, and Counsellors of 
 State, who regulated every Motion of it, and were 
 seated in the middle of the Assembly ; at their left were 
 Paschasinus and Lucentius, Bishops, and the Priest 
 Boniface, the Pope^s Legates, then Anatolus of Con- 
 stantinople, and after him Maximus of Antioch, and the 
 Bishops of the East. On the Right was Dioscurus of 
 Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and the Bishops of 
 Egypt, lUyria, and Palestine. The Holy Gospels were 
 placed in the Middle. The Number of the Bishops, ac- 
 cording to St. Leo, were about 600, and according to 
 Liberatus and Photius, 630. However there are but 
 350 in the Subscriptions.'' (Dupin, Cent. v. chap. 2.) 
 
 I have given this long extract because of its impor- 
 tance, and because its 28th Canon, which I shall cite be- 
 fore I get through with this chapter, is absolutely de- 
 cisive of the whole question. 
 
 From the foregoing we see that every one of the 
 first four General Councils was summoned by the Em- 
 peror ; that, so far from the Pope's having \\\^ prerog- 
 ative of consenting, or (as is implied in the Archbishop's 
 assertion, if it is to the point) refusing to consent, the 
 Great Leo, when he '* demanded " the calling of a 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 137 
 
 fourth General Council, was politely snubbed by the 
 Emperor, and thereupon was contented to send four 
 legates to him, to ** solicit '' what had been refused to 
 his ** demand \' and that in not one of the four Councils 
 did the Pope by his legates preside, for the Patriarch 
 of Alexandria was at the Council of Ephesus in his own 
 right. 
 
 So much for three of the Archbishop's assertions. 
 There remains one more : ** Before becoming a law, 
 the actsof the Councils required the Pope's signature ;" 
 there is not the slightest foundation for this assertion : 
 I challenge the Archbishop to bring forward a shadow 
 of proof of it. He goes on, *' just as our Congressional 
 proceedings require the President's signature before 
 they acquire the force of law." They dont require the 
 President's signature for that purpose. There is a law 
 on the statute-book, put there by the last Congress, in 
 spite of the President's withholding his signature. We 
 are not quite under an absolute monrchy yet, in church 
 or state. 
 
 After all this, the Archbishop has the courage to say, 
 '' The Pope convenes, rules, and sanctions the Synods, 
 not by courtesy, but by right ;" and he asks, ** Is not 
 this a striking illustration of the Primacy ?" It would 
 be, if it were founded in truth. 
 
 ** 4. I shall refer to one more historical point in sup- 
 port of the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. 
 It is a most remarkable fact that every nation hitherto 
 converted from Paganism to Christianity, since the days of 
 the Apostles [the Sandwich Islands, for instance], lias re- 
 ceived the light of faith from missionaries who were either 
 especially commissioned by the See of Rome [the Congre- 
 gational missionaries to Hawaii, for instance] or sent 
 by Bishops in open communion with that See, \It alios the 
 Archbishop's.] This historical fact admits of no excep- 
 tion. Let me particularize : 
 
 *' Ireland's Apostle is St. Patrick. Who commis- 
 
158 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 sioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the fifth century' ' 
 
 (p. 134). 
 
 Bede says (1. i. c. 13), *' In the eighth 3'ear of his 
 (Theodosius's) reign, Palladhts was sent by CelestinuSy 
 the Roman Pontiff, to the Scots that believed in Christ, 
 to be their first bishop/' The Scots, it should be re- 
 marked, were not at this time inhabitants of Scotland, 
 but had their abode in the north of Ireland. 
 
 The AngloSaxon Chronicle sa3^s : ''A. 430. This 
 year Palladhts the bishop was sent to the Scots by Pope 
 Celestinus, that he might confirm their faith. ' ' Another 
 MS. reads, ** A. 430. This year Patrick was sent by 
 pope Celestine to preach baptism to the Scots." 
 
 Gieseler (vol. i. § 108) speaking of Patrick's Confcssio, 
 or Autobiography, says: ''In this work nothing is 
 found about his journey to Rome, nor of a Papal 
 authorization of a mission to Ireland, of which we find 
 a relation first of all in Hericus Vita S. Germani, i. 12 
 (Act. SS. Jul. yii.) about 860.'^ 
 
 St. Patrick himself, it seems, was not aware that the 
 Pope sent him to Ireland, else he would certainly have 
 mentioned it in his Confessio, Neither was any of his 
 successors aware of it till 400 years after. St. Patrick 
 was undoubtedly the Apostle of Ireland, but he went 
 there of himself ; he didn't wait for any Pope to send 
 him there. 
 
 '' St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who sent 
 him? The same Pontiff, Celestine" (p. 134). 
 
 How happens it then that St. Andrew is the Patron 
 Saint of Scotland ? The Archbishop seems to suppose 
 that because Palladius was sent to the Scots, he was 
 sent to Scotland ; he seems not to be aware that the 
 Scots were living, at that time, not in Scotland but in 
 the north of Ireland, and that when, some hundreds of 
 years later, they took possession of the northern part of 
 Britain, they gave their name to it, as did the Angles, 
 in like manner, theirs to the southern part. 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE, 159 
 
 ** England received the faith from St. Augustine, a 
 Benedictine monk, as all historians Catholic and non- 
 Catholic testify. Who empowered Augustine to 
 preach ? Pope Gregory I., at the end of the sixth cen- 
 tury" (p. 134). ^ 
 
 So then, not only is Joseph of Arimathea in Britain 
 a myth, but so also is '' blessed Alban," who, in 305, 
 '* suffered death," as Venerable Bede testifies (1. i. c. 
 7), ** on the 22d day of June, near the city oi Verulam," 
 299 years before the monk Augustine came into Eng- 
 land ; and Pelagius the British monk, who denied the 
 doctrine of Original Sin, is another myth, and St. 
 Augustine (not the monk) spent his mighty energies in 
 demohshing a man of straw ! Will the Archbishop allege 
 that he means that the heathen Saxons, who conquered 
 the Christian Britons and drove them out of England 
 into Wales, ''received the faith from St. Augustine." 
 Why didn't he say so, then ? Why didn't he frankly 
 tell his readers (most of whom are probably unfamiliar 
 with ecclesiastical history) that Britain had been Chris- 
 tian, certainly four hundred years, probably five hun- 
 dred, at the time of Augustine's mission to its Saxon, 
 conquerors, instead of leaving them to infer that Chris- 
 tianity was first brought into that country by Augus- 
 tine ? Is that doing as he would be done by ? 
 
 ** St. Remigius established the faith in France, at the 
 close of the fifth century. He was in active communion 
 Avith the See of Peter" (p. 135). 
 
 Here we have another reckless siippressio vert, and 
 consequent suggestio falsi, Gaul, like Britain, was a 
 Christian country, and had been from Apostolic times. 
 Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons three hundred years be- 
 fore what the Archbishop calls the cstablishmg of the 
 faith, which was really nothing more than baptizing 
 Clovis, king of the Franks, who had at that time '' es- 
 tablished " themselves in that country. 
 
 But there is one nation that the Archbishop has con- 
 
i6o THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 veniently forgotten. I mean Wales, which was and is 
 as much a nation as Ireland and Scotland. 
 
 Wales, or, as it was then called, Britannia Secunda, 
 embraced, in the time of the Romans, all that part of 
 Britain w^est of the Severn, including Hereford and 
 Worcester. Within this part of the island the Britons 
 were driven by the victorious Saxons, and here they 
 withstood the invaders, and were in undisputed pos- 
 session at the time when Augustine came into Engand. 
 Now these Britons Avere Christians, and had been for 
 at least 400 years ; for says Lingard, Antiquities of the 
 Anglo-Saxon Clmrch (chap. i. note 5), **that the Chris- 
 tian faith was publicly professed in Britain, before the 
 close of the second century, is clear from incontestable 
 authority.'* And he refers to Tertullian and Origen, 
 both of whom were living at that time, in proof of it. 
 About a hundred years later, the Bishops ot London, 
 York, and Lincoln sat in the Council of Aries, in Gaul, 
 A.D. 314, and their names are subscribed to its proceed- 
 ings. But these Sees had become, for the time being, 
 extinct, when Augustine came into England. But the 
 Britons in Wales were then under an Archbishop and 
 seven Bishops ; and these seven Bishops, with Dinoth 
 the Abbot of Bangor, by appointment met Augustine, 
 on the borders ot their territory, at a place afterwards 
 called, from that meeting, Augustine's Oak. '* He 
 (Augustine)," says Bede (1. ii. c. 2), *' said to them, 
 ' You act in many particulars contrary to our custom, 
 or rather the custom of the universal church, and yet if 
 you will comply with me in these three points — viz., to 
 keep Easter at the due time ; to administer baptism, 
 by which we are again born to God, according to the 
 custom of the holy Roman Apostolic Church ; and 
 jointly with us to preach the word of God to the Eng- 
 lish nation, we will readily tolerate all the other things 
 you do, though contrary to our customs.' They 
 answered they would do none of those things, nor re- 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE, i6i 
 
 ceive him as their archbishop/' Bede, whose preju- 
 dice against them is seen throughout his narrative, 
 does not inform us what reason they gave for their re- 
 fusal ; but Spelman {Con, Brit, an. 6oi, T. i. p. io8), as 
 quoted by Bingham {Antiq. 1. ii. c. i8, s. 2), says that 
 Dinoth '' told Austin in the Name of all the Britannick 
 Churches, That they owed no other Obedience to the. 
 Pope of Rome, than they did to every Godly Chris- 
 tian, to love every one in his Degree in perfect Char- 
 ity : Other Obedience than this, they knew none due 
 to liim v/hom he named Pope, etc. But they were un- 
 der the Government of the Bishop of Caer-Leon upon 
 Uske, who was their Overseer under God." 
 
 Schelstrate, replying to Stillingfleet, objects that the 
 Manuscript followed by Spelman is spurious ; but 
 Bingham (1. ix. c. i. s. 11) examines his objections in de- 
 tail, and shows unanswerably that they are worthies?. 
 The only one that has the slightest plausibility is this, 
 that Caer-Leon upon Uske was not at this time the 
 archiepiscopal See, it having been transferred, a hun- 
 dred years before, to Menevia, now St. David's. To 
 which Bingham answers that it is not at all uncommon 
 to retain the name of a transferred or extinct See, of 
 which he gives instances, one of them being that '* the 
 Bishop of the Isle Man now retains the Title of Episco- 
 ptts Sodorensis, because Sodora and all the Hebrides, or 
 Islands on the West of Scotland, were once part of his 
 Diocese, though now for many ages they have been 
 separated from it." 
 
 Of the eight Sees of these seven Bishops and their 
 Archbishop, all of which were in existence at least a 
 hundred years before the coming of Augustine, and 
 therefore a hundred years before the See of Canter- 
 bury, two, Lan-Patern and Morgan, are extinct ; the 
 other six, viz., Hereford, Worcester, Landaff, Bangor, 
 St. Asaph, and St. David's, have existed continuously 
 from that day to this ; a standing visible proof of a 
 
l62 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 Christianity still existing in Britain, that Avas ?iot brought 
 there '* by missionaries in subjection to the Holy See." / 
 If it had been, those British Christians in the time of/ 
 Augustine would not have had customs so different, 
 and been so tenacious of them. All the indications— 
 in particular the liturgical remains — point in a different 
 direction — nam^ely, to St. John as the source, and the 
 Church of Gaul as the channel. As on a former and 
 memorable occasion, that '' other disciple did outrun 
 Peter, and came first" to Britain : but Peter followed 
 afar off. And when, seventeen hundred years later, the 
 inheritance iit its fulness was to be *' transmitted to 
 another country speaking the same language — descend- 
 ants, in short, of the mother country," again ihcit other 
 disciple did outrun Peter ; and again Peter lagged be- 
 hind."^ Bishop Seabury was consecrated in 1784 ; 
 Bishops White and Provost in 1787 ; the Most Rev. 
 John Carroll in 1790. The Archbishop's claim to these 
 United States, then, on the score of priority, will not 
 stand. As little will it on any other score. The hier- 
 archy of which he is the head did not come from the 
 mother country, for the excellent reason that there was 
 no Roman hierarchy there at that time ; none from the 
 death of Cardinal Pole, a few hours after that of 
 '' Bloody Mary," till the creation of the See of West- 
 minster, and the appointment of Dr. Wiseman to it, in 
 our day. Hiatus ingens, sed non valde deflendits. For 
 the first eleven years of Queen Elizabeth's reign (as I 
 have remarked in a former chapter — and it cannot be 
 too often repeated) there was but one organization in 
 England that called itself a church — namely, that which 
 was then, and had been from the beginning, and is now, 
 the Church of England. In the twelfth year of her 
 reign began the *' Anglo-Roman Schism." Then, for 
 the first time in English history, was formed, and par- 
 
 * I have taken a sentence or two here from The Afterpiece to the Com- 
 edy of Convocation, 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 163 
 
 tially organized, a religious Sect, which received its 
 complete organization only within our own day, and 
 which even then did not attempt to claim the old his- 
 toric Sees, but contented itself with establishing new 
 ones, '* Westminster, Beverly, Birmingham," etc. (all 
 Briunmageifi)^ thereby proclaiming its modern origin. 
 Of this earliest English Sect they who first settled Mary- 
 land were members, and they brought the Sect with 
 them ; and here it is now, and the Archbishop is the 
 head of it. A Sect doesn't change its nature by cross- 
 ing the ocean. Cc^hun, non animnm, mutant qui trans 
 mare currunt. The inhabitants of Florida, Louisiana, 
 etc., were members of a (corrupt) branch of the Church, 
 but they have made themselves members of a sect by 
 their merger into the Roman Sect in the United States. 
 And if they had not, it wouldn't help them ; for no 
 church has, or can have, mission from Christ to preach 
 Tridentine Romanism anywhere. The less said by the 
 Archbishop, therefore, about his claim to the United 
 States, the better. 
 
 ** Henry VIII. was a stout defender of the Pope's su- 
 premacy until Clement VI L refused to legalize his adultery ' 
 
 (p. 13.8). 
 
 This is false, as I have already (page 34) shown from 
 Lingard. 
 
 You have seen that the Bishop of Rome is appointed 
 not by man, but by Jesus Christ, President of the Chris- 
 tian commonwealth " (p. 138). 
 
 That is just what we haven't seen ; and what the 
 Council of Chalcedon didn't see either ; as witness its 
 twenty-eighth Canon, and the third Canon of the Coun- 
 cil of Constantinople to which it refers. This last runs 
 thus : '' The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the 
 Primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because 
 that Constantinople is new Rome." The other, the 
 twenty eighth of Chalcedon, is as follows : 
 
 ** We following in all things the decisions of the holy 
 
164 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon [the third of 
 Constantinople, above cited] of the 1 50 most religious 
 Bishops which has just been read, do also determine 
 and decree the same things respecting the privileges of 
 the most holy city of Constantinoi3le, New Rome. 
 For the Fathers properly gave the Primacy to the 
 Throne of the elder Rome, because that was the im- 
 perial city. And the 150 most religious Bishops [at the 
 Council of Constantinople], being moved with the same 
 intention, gave equal privileges to the most holy Throne 
 of New Rome, judging with reason, that the city which 
 was honored with the sovereignty and senate, and 
 which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal 
 Rome, should also be magnified like her in ecclesiastical 
 matters, being the second after her. " (Hammond, Six 
 Ecumenical Coimcils.) ''^ The rest of the Canon merely 
 specifies what Metropolitans and other Bishops the 
 Bishop of Constantinople shall ordain. 
 
 *' Q. Did the Pope's Legates suffer those Privileges 
 to be granted to the Church of Constantinople ? 
 
 ** A. No : Next day they complained that after their 
 and the Commissioners Departure, Rules had been 
 made which they thought contrary to the Canons and 
 Discipline of the Church. They demanded that they 
 might be read over again, which they were accord- 
 ingly. Paschasinus and Lucentius [the Pope's legates] 
 opposed the Right granted to the Bishop of Constanti- 
 nople. The other Bishops of the Council stood to 
 what they had done. The Commissioners concluded 
 that the Bishop of Rome ought to have the Primacy 
 and Honour ; That he of Constantinople ought to enjoy 
 the same Prerogative of Honour. . . . The Pope's 
 Legates demanded, that the Acts of that Regulation 
 should be cancelled ; or, if they would not do that, 
 that their Protest might remain join'd to the Acts. 
 
 * See the original Greek, in Gieseler^ vol. i, § 93, n, 14. 
 
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 165 
 
 Notwithstanding this Protestation, the Bishops declar'd 
 thao they persisted ; and the Commissioners, without 
 taking any Notice of what had been said by the Pope's 
 Legates, decided, that the whole Synod had approv'd 
 their Resolution." (Dupin, iit supra,) 
 
 Let the reader now turn back to page 156, and 
 read again the account I have there given from 
 Dupin, the Archbishop's own historian, of the com- 
 position and organization of this by far the largest 
 Council of the undivided Church ever held ; four times 
 as large as that of Constantinople ; three times as large 
 as that of Ephesus ; twice as large as that of Nice ; and 
 he will be prepared to appreciate the value of the testi- 
 mony — and it is as testimony that I cite it — of the 630 
 Bishops, representative men, of whom it was composed. 
 They testify, with one voice, to three points : first, 
 that the primacy was one of honor, not of jurisdiction ; 
 secondly, that it was given by the Fathers, not by 
 Christ ; thirdly, that it was given to *' the (Episcopal) 
 Throne of the elder Rome," not because it was the See 
 of Peter, but because Rome was the '* imperial city." 
 Testimony could not be more explicit. And it makes 
 no difference with it, that the Pope refused his assent ; 
 for even if that assent had been necessary (which it was 
 not) to give it the force of law, it was of course not 
 necessary to its force as testimony. Viewed in that 
 light, it was 630 Bishops on one side ; the Bishop of 
 Rome on the other. And the testimony of these 630 is, 
 that they know nothing of any primacy, still less supre- 
 macy, of Peter, handed down to the Bishops of Rome 
 as his Successors. This, of itself, is absolutely conclu- 
 sive of the whole matter. 
 
 How Rome came at last to wield so widespread a 
 supremacy is easily explained. At the time of the 
 meeting of the second General Council, in 381, there 
 were three Patriarchal Sees, Antioch, Rome, and Alex- 
 andria. The Council added a fourth, Constantinople. 
 
1 66 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 The first three were of Apostolic origin ; the last, of a 
 later date. ** Thus/' in the words of Swete, England 
 versus Rome (p. 56), '* the constitution of the Church 
 was brought as nearly as possible into correspondence 
 with that of the empire : four great ecclesiastical Patri- 
 archates answered to the four Praetorian prasfectures 
 which divided the civil administration of the Roman 
 world. 
 
 ' ' Next followed, almost as a matter of course, a strug- 
 gle for precedence between the greater Patriarchs." 
 Antioch and Alexandria wxre Apostolical, but not Im- 
 perial ; Constantinople was Imperial, but not Aposto- 
 lical ; Rome was both Imperial and Apostolical. Add 
 to this, that while Rome was the only Patriarchate in 
 the West, the allegiance of the East was divided among 
 the other three, and each, in turn, in its rivalry with 
 the other two, appealed to Rome, not as an umpire, 
 still less as a sovereign, but as a partisan, and she, in 
 taking sides, followed policy rather than principle, and 
 her growing ascendency follows as a matter of course. 
 
 But the growth was slow. Even as late as the end 
 of the sixth century, Gregory the Great denounced him 
 who should call himself Universal Bishop, as the '' fore- 
 runner of anti-Christ ;" and in a letter to Eulogius of 
 Alexandria (1. vii. ep. 36, cited by BoAver, History of 
 the Popes) thus writes : '* If you give more to me than 
 is due to me, you rob yourself of what is due to you. 
 I choose to be distinguished by my manners, and not 
 by titles. Nothing can redound to my honor that re- 
 dounds to the dishonor of my brethren. I place my 
 honor in maintaining them in theirs. If you call me 
 * universal pope,' you thereby own yourself to be no 
 pope.'^ Let no such titles therefore be mentioned, or 
 ever heard, among us. Your holiness says, in your 
 letter, that I commanded you. I commanded you ? I 
 
 * Pope {papa) was originally the title of all Bishops. 
 
INFALLIBILITY OF TIIF POPES. 167 
 
 I know who you are, who I am. In rank you are my 
 I brother, in your manners my father. I therefore did 
 I not command ; and beg you will henceforth ever for- 
 bear that word. I only pointed out to you what I 
 thought it was right you should know.'' 
 
 Grand old Pope ! How he dwarfs the popelings of a 
 later day ! Who would have thought that his Succes- 
 sor, next but one in the line, Boniface III., only ten 
 years later, would assume the very title of '' Universal 
 Bishop,'' and get it settled on himself and his successors 
 by the usurping Emperor Phocas ; thus showing him- 
 self the forerunner of anti-Christ (Gregory being witt 
 ness), if not anti-Christ himself ? 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES. 
 
 This chapter need not detain us long, as most of its 
 arguments have been already answered in the examin- 
 ation of the last four chapters. There is but one sen- 
 tence in the first three pages that calls for criticism : 
 
 '' The avowed enemies of the Church charge only 
 five or six Popes with immorality" (p. 141). 
 
 In answer to this I affirm, on the authority of Bower, 
 who, I suppose, is, in the Archbishop's opinion, one of 
 ''the avowed enemies of the Church," that among 
 those who are no credit to the Church in a moral (not 
 to say spiritual) point of view, though not more than 
 *' five or six" of them are monsters of immorality, are 
 the following : ' Sabinian, John VIII., Boniface VI., 
 Stephen VI. (VII. ?), Christopher, Sergius III., John 
 X., John XII., John XIX., Benedict IX., Gregory 
 VI., Innocent III., Boniface VIII., Clement V., John 
 
1 68 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 XXII., Urban VL, John XXIII. , Paul II., Sixtus IV., 
 Innocent VIII., Alexander VL, Julius II., Leo X., 
 Clement VIL, Paul IIL, Julius III., Pius IV." If wc 
 count craft, and dissimulation, and persecution of here- 
 tics, immoral, the list will be swelled three or four fold. 
 
 '' What, then, is the real doctrine of Infallibility ? It 
 simply means that the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, 
 Prince of the Apostles, by virtue of the promises of 
 Jesus Christ, is preserved from error ol judgment when 
 he promulgates to the Church a decision on faith or 
 morals. 
 
 '* The Pope, therefore, be it known, is not the maker 
 of the divine law ; he is only its expounder. . . 
 
 ** In a word, the Sovereign Pontiff is to the Church, 
 though in a more eminent degree, what the Chief Jus- 
 tice is to the United States. . . . The Chief Justice, 
 with his associate judges, examines the case, and then 
 pronounces judgment upon it ; and this decision is final, 
 irrevocable, and practically infallible. . . . 
 
 '* When a dispute arises in the Church regarding the 
 sense of Scripture, the subject is referred to the Pope 
 for final adjudication. The sovereign Pontiff, before 
 deciding the case, gathers around him his venerable 
 colleagues, the Cardinals of the Church ; or he calls a 
 council of his associate judges of faith, the Bishops of 
 Christendom ; or he has recourse to other Hghts which 
 the Holy Ghost may suggest to him. Then after ma- 
 ture and prayerful deliberation, he pronounces judg- 
 ment, and his sentence is final, irrevocable, and infalli- 
 ble'^ (pp. 143-14S). 
 
 As I have already remarked, near the beginning of 
 the last chapter, the Archbishop is peculiarly infelici- 
 tous in drawing analogies from the civil institutions of 
 his country. His representation of the power of decid- 
 ing a case being in the Chief Justice alone, *' his asso- 
 ciate judges" being merely advisers — for that is the 
 intended meaning of his artfully constructed ambigu- 
 
INFALLIBILITY OF THF POPFS, 169 
 
 ous sentence, or else it is no illustration — is the creation 
 of his own brain ; there is nothing in the reality to cor- 
 respond to it. The Chief Justice — I mention this, of 
 course, merely for the information of the Archbishop ; 
 his non-Roman readers are well aware of it, ignorant as 
 he may think them — has no more voice in deciding a 
 question than each and every one of his associates. A 
 bare majority decides, even on the weightiest ques- 
 tions, and it is not by any means uncommon for the 
 Chief Justice to be in the minority. But suppose the 
 Pope, having summoned his Cardinals to '' examine" 
 with him a question of '' faith or morals/' and forty of 
 them having responded to the summons, twenty- one 
 should ** pronounce judgment" on the question, over 
 the heads of the Pope and the other nineteen ! What 
 would be the consequence ? Why, it would be said, 
 and said truly, that the whole Roman judicature had 
 been revolutionized. So much for the Archbishop's 
 fancy sketch of the United States supreme judicature. 
 When it shall have become a true sketch — when the 
 power of '* deciding" shall have been lodged in the 
 Chief Justice alone, the associate judges having only an 
 advisory voice, the ** man on horseback" will have 
 come, and the '' man of sin" will be close behind. Yet 
 the difference, according to the Archbishop, would be 
 only one of degree ; for he says, as we have seen, *' the 
 Sovereign Pontiff is to the Church, though in a more 
 eminent degree, what the Chief Justice is to the United 
 States." There are those, strange as it may seem to 
 the Archbishop, who think the difference between 
 a republic and an absolute monarchy one of kind. 
 But how are these ''venerable colleagues" of the 
 Pope, whom he " gathers around him," the Cardinals, 
 namely, appointed ? Why, by the Pope himself. And 
 how are *' his associate judges of faith, the Bishops of 
 [Roman] Christendom," appointed ? Why, again, by 
 the Pope himself. The overwhelming majority of the 
 
1 70 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 Cardinals and Bishops who sat in the late Council of 
 the Vatican, and declared Pope Pius the Ninth infalli- 
 ble, were the appointees of that same Pope Pius the 
 Ninth ; only a z^^r^^-w^^// proportion were the appointees 
 of his predecessor. I have before me '' Sadlier's Cath- 
 olic Directory, Almanac and Or do for the Year of our 
 Lord 1869/' the very year the Council met. From the 
 list of Cardinals (pp. 49-51) I find that 49 were ap- 
 pointed by Pope Pius, 10 by his predecessor ; of the 
 Bishops in the United States (pp. 52-54), 48 by Pope 
 Pius, 8 by his predecessor ; of the Bishops in British 
 America (Part II., pp. 3, 4) 22 by Pope Pius, i by his 
 predecessor ; of the Bishops in Ireland (omitting Arch- 
 bishop Cullen, whose name appears among the Cardi- 
 nals) (Part II., p. 71), 26 by Pope Pius, i by his prede- 
 cessor ; of the Bishops in Great Britain (p. 74), 17 by 
 Pope Pius, 7ione by his predecessor. The date of the 
 consecration of these latter is not given, but as the 
 Anglo-Roman hierarchy was created by Pope Pius, it 
 is not probable that the consecration of any on the list 
 dates back to his predecessor. Taking the aggregate 
 of the Bishops, we have 113 appointed by Pope Pius, 
 and only 10 by his predecessor. If this is a fair crite- 
 rion for the rest of the Roman Bishops (and it can't be 
 far out of the way), then of the 520 Bishops that were 
 present, according to Quirinus {^Letters from Rome on 
 the Council, Letter 66), at the final vote, only 42 owed 
 their elevation to Pope Gregory ; the remaining 478 ' 
 were the appointees of Pope Pius. Practically, then, 
 it was Pope Pius the Ninth that declared Pope Pius the ' 
 Ninth infaUible ! 
 
 The Archbishop brings forward three passages of 
 Scripture to prove the infallibility of the Pope, to wit, 
 ** Mat. 16 ; Luke 22 : 31, 32 ; John2i : 16, 17." Thefirst, 
 ' ' Thou art Peter, ' ' etc. , and the last, ' ' Feed my sheep, ' ' 
 etc., I have already disposed of. The second the 
 Archbishop gives thus : 
 
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES. 171 
 
 *** Behold Satan hath desired to have you (my 
 Apostles), that he may sift you as wheat. But I have 
 prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not ; and thou 
 being once converted, confirm [in our Version, 
 '' strengthen"] thy brethren/ It is worthy of note 
 that Jesus prays only for Peter " (p. 146). 
 
 How does the Archbishop know that ? There is no 
 '* only" in the record ; it is a sheer assumption of the 
 Archbishop's ; all that the language necessarily in- 
 volves is, that Christ prayed specially for Peter. 
 
 ** And why for Peter in particular ? Because on his 
 shoulders was to rest the burden of the Church "(p. 
 
 147). 
 
 Not so. The conclusion is altogether too big for the 
 
 premises. The obvious reason — obvious from the two 
 verses next following — is that Peter was specially 
 prayed for because specially in danger ; specially (from 
 his overweening self-confidence) accessible to tempta- 
 tion. And this the result showed ; for he alone of the 
 eleven denied his Master. " And when thou art con- 
 verted, strengthen thy brethren." As much as to say, 
 '' Make use of thy bitter experience for the fortifjdng 
 of thy tempted brethren" (D. Brown). He that can see 
 in this an official strengthning of the other ten, and 
 their successors, to the end of time, must be keener- 
 eyed than a lynx, or a hawk, or an eagle ! 
 
 " For optics sharp it takes, I ween, 
 To see what is not to be seen." 
 
 '* We know that the prayer of Jesus is always heard. 
 Therefore the faith of Peter will always be firm" (p. 
 
 ^47). 
 
 Let us put this into syllogistic form : 
 
 1. The pra3^er of Jesus is always heard. 
 
 2. Jesus prayed that Peter's faith might not fail. 
 
 3. Therefore Peter's faith will always be firm. 
 Here we have an assumption in every member. It 
 
172 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 is assumed \n the major premise that to hear prayer is 
 to grant the specific request. It \s assumed \n the minor 
 premise that not to fail, on a specific occasion (which 
 is, so far as we are informed, all that was prayed for), 
 is never to fail. It is assumed in the conclusion that not 
 to fail is to be firm. This last assumption makes weak 
 faith no faith at all. The second assumption is so mani- 
 fest that it needs only to be mentioned. The j^r^-/ as- 
 sumption is contradicted by fact. The faith of Peter 
 did fail temporarily notwithstanding the prayer ; it 
 was, to say the least, under an eclipse ; and it it was 
 under an eclipse then, why may it not be, in the per- 
 son of his alleged successor, under an eclipse now ? 
 Furthermore, Jesus prayed (St. John 17 : 20, 21) for his 
 followers, to the end of time, " that they all may be 
 one.'' Are they all one? What says the Archbishop 
 himself? *' No one will deny that in our days there 
 exists a vast multitude of sects, which are daily multi- 
 plying. No one will deny that this multiplying of 
 creeds is a crying scandal and a great stumbling block 
 in the way of the conversion of heathen nations. No 
 one can deny that these divisions in the Christian family 
 are traceable to the assumption of the right of private 
 judgment " (p. 106). 
 
 It will be observed that, by the Archbishop's own 
 admission, these *' divisions" are in ''the Christian 
 family ;" that very family for which Jesus prayed that 
 they all might be one. It is plain, then, from the 
 Archbishop himself, that *' the prayer of Jesus" is not 
 " always heard," in the shape of a bestowal of the spe- 
 cific thing prayed for ; and so his inference about Peter 
 falls to the ground. 
 
 So much for ''the faith of Peter." Grant the 
 Archbishop an assumption in the major, an assumption 
 in the minor, and an assumption in the conclusion, and 
 he is irresistible. But where did he get his logic ? 
 
 Having got through with his Scripture proofs, the 
 
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES. I73 
 
 Archbishop next appeals to three *' General Councils," 
 as he calls them — the Eighth, in Constantinople in 869, 
 the Second of Lyons in 1274, and that of Florence in 
 1439 5 but as the earliest of the three was held more 
 than eight hundred years after the death of St. Peter, 
 and '*was attended by about 100 Eastern Bishops" 
 only, and ** was annulled in 879," only ten years later, 
 '*by a synod of 384 Bishops at Constantinople, and 
 has always since been rejected by the Eastern Church ;" 
 and as the second of the three " was never accounted 
 ecumenical in the East, the Eastern Patriarchs and 
 Bishops not having sent any deputies to it, and what- 
 ever consent some of them gave to the union [of the 
 Greek and Roman Churches] having been extorted by 
 the violence of the Emperor Michael Pal^eologus, who 
 was desirous of obtaining the political assistance of the 
 Roman See ;" and as the claims of both of these to 
 ecumenicity were repudiated by the last of the three — 
 that of Florence — officially styling itself the Eighth ; 
 and as this last '* was immediately rejected in the East- 
 ern Churches, and has never since been recognized by 
 them ;" for all which facts, with abundance of Roman 
 authorities in proof of them, see Palmer on the Church, 
 edited by Bishop Whittingham, New York, D. Appleton 
 & Co., 1841, vol. ii., pp. 203, 216, and 222, I shall dis- 
 miss them with the simple remark that the appeal to 
 them by the Archbishop shows how desperate his case 
 is ; for if there were a shadow of evidence on his side 
 in the first six universally admitted General Councils, 
 he would be only too glad to bring it forward. It is a 
 remarkable fact— I say it after a careful search through 
 his book with reference to this very point, in which 
 search I believe I have not overlooked anything ; if I 
 have, I am open to correction — I say, it is a remarkable 
 fact that (with the exception of a line from the Niceno- 
 Constantinopolitan Creed on page 56) throughout his 
 whole book he never once quotes a single sentence from 
 
174 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, ' 
 
 any one of the first six General Councils. They are 
 every one of them against him, and he knows it. 
 Hence the wide berth he gives them. 
 
 On page 150 he argues the infallibility of the '' visible 
 Head," because ** the body/' of which he is the head, 
 '* is infallible ;" because ** it is, as St. Paul says, ' Avith- 
 out spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.' '' But St. 
 Paul doesn't say that ; he is speaking (Eph. 5 : 25, 27) 
 not of what it ''is," but of what it is to be. He is ex- 
 horting husbands to love their wives, *' even as Christ 
 also loved the church, and gave himself for it ; that he 
 might . . . present it to himself a glorious church, 
 not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." 
 When ? At '' the marriage supper of the Lamb :" *' for 
 the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath 
 made herself ready. And to her was granted that she 
 should be arrayed in fine linen j clean and white ; for the 
 fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith 
 unto me, ^Vrite, Blessed are they which are called unto 
 the marriage supper of the Lamb " (Rev. 19 : 7-9). 
 
 '* The Council of the Vatican in promulgating, in 
 1870, the Pope's Infallibility, did not create a new 
 doctrine, but confirmed an old one" (p. 151). *' This 
 was equivalent to the declaration that the doctrine in 
 question had been revealed to the Apostles, and had 
 come down to us from them, either by Scripture or tra- 
 dition" (p. 29). 
 
 If so, how comes it that the Rev. Thomas Maguire, 
 in the Report of the Discussion between him and the 
 Rev. Richard T. P. Pope,"^ says, on page 47, ''I may 
 
 * " Authenticated Report of the Discussion which took place between 
 the Rev. Richard T. P. Pope, and the Rev. Thomas Maguire in the Lec- 
 ture Room of the Dublin Institution on the 19th, 20th, 21st, 23d, 24th, 
 and 25th of April, 1827. Dublin : R. Coyne, Capel-St. R. M. Tims, 
 Grafton St. and W. Curry, Jun. & Co. Sackville-St. 1827." 
 
 Mr. Maguire is the original of the famous " Father Tom and the Pope ;" 
 though how he was made to sit for that portrait, is not obvious ; for the 
 likeness is by no means striking. The imaginary Father Tom is rude and 
 
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES. 175 
 
 premise that the Pope's infallibility is not a doctrine of 
 mine, nor of any Catholic '? And on page 60, ** Here 
 [St. Matt. 16 : 18, " On this rock/' etc.] is the infalH- 
 bility promised by our Lord, and claimed by the Cath- 
 olic Church, and not the infallibility of the Pope, which 
 my learned adversary would cram down the throats of 
 Catholics, ' velint nolint ' — as an article of Catholic 
 faith"? And again, page 63, *' 1 am opposed to the 
 doctrine of the Pope's infallibility. It is imposed upon 
 me by Mr. Pope — but I have already stated that it 
 forms no part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
 and is not received by the Catholics throughout the 
 world" ? And how comes it that DoUinger was ex- 
 communicated for denying it after the decree of the 
 Council, and was not excommunicated for denying it 
 before that decree, if it was as much a doctrine of the 
 Church before as after ? And how comes it that 
 Milner, in his End of Controversy {^'A\a\x\oxq^ John Mur- 
 phy & Co., 1859) — ^ work specially commended to our 
 Bishops in a printed Address t o them by the Arch- 
 bishop's predecessor, the Most Rev. Francis Patrick 
 Kenrick — says, of another doctrine, defined within the 
 last quarter of a century (Letter xii.), '' The church 
 does not decide the controversy concerning the con- 
 ception of the Blessed Virgin, dLud several other disputed 
 points^ because she sees nothing absolutely clear and certain 
 concerning them, either in the written or the unwritten 
 Word ; and therefore leaves her children to form their 
 own opinions concerning them'' ? 
 
 Here it occurs to me to ask. Who is the Custodian of 
 *' the unwritten Word ?" Is it the infallible Pope ? If 
 
 rollicking. The real one is kindly and genial ; and so modest, withal that 
 lie wins on you ere you are aware. It is impossible to read his part of the 
 '* Discussion" without feeling a love for the man, whatever maybe thought 
 of the cause he advocates. For learning, and candor, and accuracy of 
 citation, it is in refreshing contrast with the " Httle volume" of the Arch- 
 bishop. 
 
176 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 SO, how does he hand it down to his successor, seeing 
 he is dead before his successor is appointed ? Is it the 
 infaUible Church ? And if so, what is meant by the 
 Church ? Is it the Church diffused ? And is each in- 
 dividual member of it throughout the world the custo- 
 dian of '* the unwritten Word?'' Or is the custody 
 in a select few ? And if so, who are these select few ? 
 And are they infallible ? Anyhow, what is an infallibil- 
 ity (whether of Church or Pope) good for, that doesn't 
 know w^hat it is put in trust with, and '' titer ef ore '* 
 leaves its children to wrangle, in unseemly w^ise, for 
 several hundred years, over points that afterwards turn 
 out to have been all along articles of faith, handed down 
 from the beginning ? And where, all the while, was 
 that boasted unity on those points ? And where is it 
 now, on those '* several other disputed points," which, 
 for aught we know, may be even now articles of faith 
 that have come down to us in *' the unwritten Word," 
 since Infallibility itself, though it has not yet found out 
 that they are, has just as little found out that they are 
 not ? — After all, is the infallibility of the Pope so cer- 
 tain ? Oh yes ! says the Archbishop ; there are in- 
 stances of its actual exercise : 
 
 '' Thus, in the third century, Pope St. Stephen re- 
 verses the decision of St. Cyprian of Carthage, and of 
 a Council of African Bishops, regarding a question of 
 baptism" (p. 152). 
 
 Why didn't the Archbishop add [what he well knew 
 to be the fact] that St. Cyprian called a Council of Afri- 
 can Bishops, which reaffirmed the action of the former 
 Council in spite of Pope Stephen's reversal of it ? and 
 that St. Cyprian wrote to Pompeius (Epist. 74) that 
 *' our brother (not father) Stephen . . . among other 
 things either haughty, or not pertinent, or self-contradic- 
 tory, which he wrote without experience and without 
 foresight (inter cetera vel superba, vel ad rem non per- 
 tinentia, vel sibi ipsi contraria, quae imperite atque im- 
 
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES. 177 
 
 provide scripsit), even went so far as to say, ' If any 
 one, therefore, from any heresy whatever {a quacmique 
 haeresi) shall come to us, let him be received simply by 
 imposition of hands/ . . . He forbade to baptize 
 one coming '' from any heresy whatever ;" that is, he 
 pronounced the baptisms of all heretics valid and 
 lawful (omnium h^ereticorum baptismata justa esse et 
 legitima judicavit) ;" and that Firmilian of Cassarea, 
 to whom Cyprian communicated the doings of Stephen, 
 wrote in reply (Epist. Cypr. 75), *' I am justly indig- 
 nant at the open and manifest folly of Stephen (juste 
 indignor ad hanc tam apertam et manifestam Stephani 
 stultitiam)" ? It is plain that neither Cyprian nor Fir- 
 milian believed in Pope Stephen^s infallibility. As 
 little did St. Augustine, who, two hundred years 
 later, writing on the part St. Cyprian took in this con- 
 troversy, * excuses him," says Dupin, *' because that 
 Matter had not been 3^et decided by the Authority of a 
 full or general Council." The decision of (the infalli- 
 ble) Pope Stephen, in St. Augustine's opinion, wasn't 
 binding on St. Cyprian. Dupin continues : ** The first 
 Council of Aries [(a.d. 314) at which were ** 200 
 Bishops," says Dr. Pusey {Councils of the Church, p. 
 98) '*from Gaul, Italy, Africa, Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, 
 Britain," and which '' was convened by Constantine"] 
 set up the Distinction of Heretics who baptiz'd in the 
 Name of the Trinity, and those w^ho did not so : It or- 
 dains that the latter should be rebaptiz'd, but that the 
 former should not. . . . The Western Church em- 
 braced this Opinion" {Diipm^ First Three Centuries, 
 Chap. v). 
 
 So, then, the very act of '*Pope St. Stephen' ' ap- 
 pealed to by the Archbishop as an instance of an infalli- 
 ble decision on a point of faith (for it was not a point 
 of morals, and infallibility has to do only with those 
 two) proves the reverse ; for Stephen /^r^^^^ to baptize 
 one coming from any heresy whatever {a qitaciinqice 
 
17^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 hceresi\ and the Council commanded to baptize one com- 
 ing from an anti-trinitarian heresy ; thus reversing the 
 decision of Pope Stephen ; and the Western Church, 
 with Pope Sylvester at its head, accepted the reversal. 
 
 '' Pope St. Innocent I., in the fifth century, con- 
 demns the Pelagian heresy, in reference to which St. 
 Augustine wrote this memorable sentence : * The acts 
 of two Councils were sent to the Apostolic See whence 
 an answer was returned ; the question is ended. Would 
 to God that the error had also ceased ' " (p. 152). 
 
 Why did St. Augustine say *' the question is ended ?" 
 Not because he recognized the infallibility of the Pope, 
 for we have just seen he did not ; else he would not 
 have excused Cyprian for setting Stephen's decision at 
 nought, on the ground that a General Council had 
 not spoken ? Why, then ? Because, as Bower {History 
 of the Popes, Philad. 1847, ^"^1- i- P- H^) well explains 
 it, St. Augustine suspected Innocent of a leaning towards 
 Pelagianism, and feared he might side with the here- 
 tics ; in which case there might have been a protracted 
 conflict between the Pope and the African Bishops. 
 When therefore he found him siding with the two 
 Councils, he felt and said, *' the question is ended." 
 
 Having thus given two instances of papal infallibility, 
 one from the third century, the other from the fifth, 
 both of which I have shown to be no instances, the 
 Archbishop leaps, at one bound, over nine centuries, 
 and comes to '' the fourteenth ;" I shall therefore leap 
 over the other five, and come to the nineteenth. 
 
 '' The Church, therefore, like civil powers, must 
 have a permanent and stationar}^ supreme tribunal to 
 interpret its laws, and to determine cases of religious 
 controversy. 
 
 ** What constitutes this permanent supreme court of 
 the Church ? Does it consist of the Bishops assembled 
 in General Council ? No ; because this is not an ordi- 
 nary but an extraordinary tribunal, which meets, on 
 
TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES. 179 
 
 an average, only once in a hundred years. . . . The 
 Pope, then, as Head of the CathoUc [meaning the 
 Roman] Church, constitutes, with just reason, this 
 supreme tribunal" (pp. 153, 154). 
 
 To this I reply": If ''the Holy Roman Church'* 
 \ managed to rub along for 1837 years, to wit, from the 
 year of grace 33 to the y^ear of grace 1870, without so 
 much as knowing that she had that infallible tribunal, 
 ''the Holy Catholic Church" will make shift to rub 
 along in the same way for another 1837 years. 
 
 When I began this chapter 1 thought and said that it 
 need not detain us long ; but when I found the Arch- 
 bishop presenting weapon after weapon with the handle 
 toward me, the temptation was irresistible to clutch 
 the handle and give him the point. 
 
 I close with a single reflection. We are told by^ St. 
 James that " the husbandman waiteth for the precious 
 fruit of the earth, and hath long patience." But his 
 patience is nothing to that of the Archbishop, who puts 
 in the seed of infallibility, with the consciousness that 
 he cannot reasonably expect a return within sixty gen- 
 erations ! For if Infallibility itself, with all the Arch- 
 bishop's proofs before it, was eighteen hundred years in 
 finding out that it was infallible, surely fallibility can't 
 be expected to find it out in less than twice eighteen 
 hundred. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES. 
 
 " For the clearer understanding of the origin and 
 gradual growth of the Temporal Power of the Popes, 
 we may divide the history of the Church into three 
 great epochs" (p. 157). 
 
 There is no need of any division of the histor}^ The 
 
l8o THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 Temporal Power was unknown till 755. It originated 
 in Forgery, and was enlarged by fraud, and perpetuated 
 by force. The Archbishop shall tell his story first ; 
 and then Janus, backed by Gieseler and Bower, and 
 the authorities severally produced by them, shall tell 
 his. 
 
 ** In 754, Astolphus, King of the Lombards, invaded 
 Italy, capturing some Italian cities, and threatening to 
 advance on Rome" (p. 162). 
 
 ** In this emergency, Stephen [the third (or, as some 
 reckon, the second) Pope of that name], who sees that 
 ao time is to be lost, crosses the Alps in person, ap- 
 proaches Pepin, King of France, and begs that power- 
 ful monarch to protect the Italian people , who were 
 utterly abandoned by those that ought to be their 
 defenders [viz., the Emperor and his forces]. The 
 pious King, after paying his homage to the Pope, sets 
 out -for Italy with his army, defeats the invading Lom- 
 bards, and places the Pope at the head of the conquered 
 provinces. 
 
 '' Charlemagne, the successor of Pepin, not only con- 
 firms the grant of his father, but increases the temporal 
 domain of the Pope by donating him some additional 
 provinces" (p. 163). 
 
 The Archbishop, very discreetly, tells only half the 
 story. Now let Janus tell the other half. 
 
 *' After the middle of the eighth century, the famous 
 /Donation of Constantine was concocted at Rome. It 
 }is based on the earlier fifth-century legend of his cure 
 from leprosy, and baptism by Pope Silvester, which is 
 repeated at length, and the Emperor is said, out of 
 gratitude, to have bestowed Italy and the western pro- 
 vinces ^ on the Pope, and also to have made many reg- 
 ulations about the honorary prerogatives and dress of 
 th^ Roman clergy. The Pope is, moreover, represented 
 
 * " Lombardy, Venetia, and Istria." 
 
TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES. i8i 
 
 as lord and master of all bishops, and having authority 
 over the four great thrones [patriarchal Sees] of 
 Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. 
 
 '' The forgery betrayed its Roman authorship in 
 every line ; it is self-evident that a cleric of the Lateran 
 Church was the composer. The document was obvi- 
 ously intended to be shown to the Prankish king, Pepin, 
 and must have been compiled just before 754. Constan- 
 tine relates in it how he served the Pope as his groom, 
 and led his horse some distance. This induced Pepin 
 to offer the Pope ahomagesoforeign to Prankish ideas, 
 and the Pope told him from the first that he expected, 
 not a gift, but restitution from him and his Franks." 
 In this way it was made clear to Pepin that 
 he had simply to reject the demands of the Greek Im^ 
 perial Court about the restoration of its territory as 
 unauthorized. 
 
 '' It would indeed be incomprehensible how Pepin 
 could have been induced to give the Exarchate, with 
 twenty towns, to the Pope, who never possessed it, 
 and thereby to draw on himself the enmity of the still 
 powerful Imperial Court, merely that the lamps in the 
 Roman churches might be furnished with oil,f had he 
 not been shown that the Pope had a right to it by the 
 gift of Constantine, and terrified by the threat of ven- 
 geance from the Prince of the Apostles, if his property 
 should be withheld. There was no fear of such docu- 
 ments as the Epistle of Peter and the Donation of Con- 
 stantine being critically examined at the warlike Court 
 of Pepin. Men who mght be written to that their 
 bodies and souls would be eternally lacerated and 
 tormented in hell if they did not fight against the ene- 
 
 * ^* There can be no doubt as to the Roman origin of the ' Donation.* 
 The Jesuit Cantel has rightly recognized this in his Hist. Meirop. Urb. p. 
 195. He thinks a Roman subdeacon, John, was the author." 
 
 f " This was always given in the covetous beggmg letters of the Popes 
 as their main ground for demanding the gifts of land they wished for." 
 
1 82 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 mies of the Church, believed readily enough that Con- 
 stantine had given Italy to Pope Silvester. Those were 
 days of darkness in France, and in the complete extinc- 
 tion of all learning there was not a single man about 
 Pepin whose sharpsightedness the Roman agents had 
 reason to dread. 
 
 '' One is tempted to ascribe to the same hand the 
 Epistle of St. Peter to his ' adopted son ' the King of 
 the Franks, which appeared also at this moment of 
 great danger and distress, as well as of lofty hopes and 
 pretensions — a fabrication v/hich for strangeness and 
 audacity has never been exceeded. Entreating and 
 promising victory, and then again threatening the 
 pains of hell, the Prince of the Apostles adjures the 
 Franks to deliver Rome and the Roman Church. The 
 Epistle really went from Rome to the Prankish king- 
 dom, and seems to have produced its effect there. ^ 
 
 '' Twenty years later the need was felt at Rome of a 
 more extensive invention or interpolation. Pepin had 
 given the Pope the Exarchate, taken away from the 
 Longobards, with Ravenna for its capital, and twenty 
 other towns of the Emilia, Flaminia, and Pentapolis, or 
 the triangle of coast between Bologna, Comacchio, and 
 Ancona. More he had been unable to give, for this 
 was all the territory the Longobards had shortly before 
 acquired, and were now obliged to give up. In 774 
 Pepin's son Charles the Great (Charlemagne), after tak- 
 ing Pavia, became king of the Longobardic territory, 
 stretching far southwards. No more could be said 
 about the gift of Constantine. ... So a document 
 was laid before the King in Rome, professing to be his 
 father's gift or promise {promissio) of Kiersy. He re- 
 newed it as it was shown him, and gave away thereby 
 the greater part of Italy." (Janus, The Pope and the 
 
 * " It was incorporated in the official collection of the Codex Garolintis. 
 Cf. Cenni, Momun, Dominat, Fontif. i, 150." 
 
TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES. 183 
 
 Councily sect, vii.) See also Gieseler, Period iii., sect. 
 20, and Bower, History of the Popes, Stephen II., with, 
 the authorities cited by them. Gieseler gives (n. 21) a 
 part of the Donatio in the original Latin. Bower gives 
 a translation of a portion of the *' Epistle of St. 
 Peter.'' Here is a taste of it : 
 
 '' Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, 
 to the three most excellent kings, Pepin, Charles, and 
 Carloman ; to all the holy bishops. . . . Grace 
 unto you and peace be multiplied. 
 
 '* I am the apostle Peter to whom it was said, Thou 
 art Peter. ... It has pleased the Almighty God 
 that my body should rest in this city. . . And 
 
 can you, my most Christian sons, stand by uncon- 
 cerned, and see it insulted by the most wicked of na- 
 tions ? . . . Our lady, the virgin Mary, mother of 
 God, joins in earnestly entreating, nay, and commands 
 you to hasten, to run, to fly, to the relief of my favor- 
 ite people . . . with me the French are, and ever 
 have been, the first, the best, the most deserving of all 
 nations?'' etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Such were the documents palmed off vipon Pepin and 
 Charlemagne to induce them to make over to the Pope 
 the territories they had rescued from the Lombards. It 
 was a shameless transaction, on the Roman side, from 
 beginning to end ; conceived in forgery, brought forth 
 in fraud, and the result perpetuated by force down to 
 the year of grace 1870, Avhen, God be praised, the Suc- 
 cessor of Stephen and Adrian was made to disgorge the 
 ill-gotten gain ; whereat one universal whine — five hun- 
 dred years earlier it would have been a howl — arose 
 from all Ultramontane Christendom over **the little 
 ewe-lamb " (p. 166) — as though, in the putative Scrip- 
 ture parallel, Uriah were the thief, and David the ** le- 
 gitimate owner" — and over the '' Prisoner of the Vat- 
 ican," as with ineffably silly twaddle he was called by 
 those who knew, all the while, that he was as free as 
 
184 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 you or I, reader, to come out of the Vatican, and go 
 through the streets of Rome, and to the ends of the 
 earth. 
 
 *' Rome is to Catholic Christendom what Washington 
 is to the United States" (p. 170). 
 
 Rome was stolen from its owner, and '* Catholic 
 Christendom'* became the receiver of the stolen goods, 
 after having, in the person of her infallible Head, insti- 
 gated to the theft. Was Washington stolen from 
 Maryland, and did the United States become the re- 
 ceiver of the stolen goods, after having instigated to 
 the theft ? 
 
 ** Therefore we protest against the occupation of 
 Rome by foreign troops as a high-handed act of injus- 
 tice, and a gross violation of the commandment which 
 ' says, '* Thou shalt not steal ' " (p . 170). 
 
 This is cool ! The receiver of stolen goods calling the 
 owner a thief for reclaiming them ! 
 
 '' Let the Popes leave Rome forever, and in five 
 years grass will be growing in its streets" (pp. 171, 
 
 Even if that were so, it would be an infinite gain, 
 provided they left the zvorld at the same time. But it 
 isn't so. When, in the beginning of the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, ** St. Peter transferred his chair" to Avignon, 
 and kept it there for seventy years, Rome survived the 
 loss. For the last seven years of his life, the '' Prisoner 
 oi the Y diiic<in' practically Itlt Rome, but grass didri t 
 grow in its streets any more than when he literally left 
 it for Gaeta in the earlier part of his pontificate ; nor 
 .has *' the city lost one-half of its population." On the 
 \contrary that population is believed to be increasing. 
 
 '* Our present beloved Pontiff Pius IX., I need not 
 inform you, is now treated with indignity in his own 
 city" (p. 173). 
 
 Certainly you need not. We are all well aware that 
 he is treated with the same '' indignity" in Rome that 
 
TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES. 185 
 
 you are treated with in Baltimore — namely, not allowed 
 to wield the civil sword, but left at perfect liberty to 
 wield the spiritual. 
 
 " The Roman people, even had " The Pontiffs have received 
 
 they so desired, had no right to their earthly dominion from man, 
 
 transfer, by their suffrage, the Pat- and what man gives man may take 
 
 rimony* of St. Peter to Victor Em- away" (p. 175). 
 manuel. They could not give what 
 did not belong to them" (p. 170). 
 
 Put that and that together. 
 
 "The interests of Christianity "For the last seven years the 
 
 demand that the Vicar of the Prince Pope has been deprived of his tem- 
 of peace should possess one spot of poralities. This loss, however, 
 territory which would be held in- does not bring a wrinkle on the fair 
 violable" (p. 168). brow of the Church, nor does it re- 
 
 tard one inch her onward march" 
 (p. 78). 
 
 That is to say, ** the interests of Christianity demand" 
 for the Church, that which will not advance " her on- 
 ward march " one inch. In other words, the whole 
 benefit, to the Church, of the Temporal Power, is an 
 advance of less than one inch in her onward march ; 
 so that at the final consummation the Roman Church 
 will be not more (say) than seven-eighths of an inch be- 
 hind where she would have been if Victor Emmanuel 
 had left her alone ! Rather a small matter to whine 
 about ; especially in view of the old proverb, that '' it's 
 of no use crying for spilt milk.'' 
 
 " I envy neither the heart nor the " A civil ruler dabbling in reli- 
 
 head of those men who are now gion is as reprehensible as a clergy- 
 gloating, with fiendish joy, over the man dabbling in politics. Both 
 calamities of the Pope" (p. 174). render themselves odious as well 
 
 as ridiculous" (p. 162). 
 
 * The Pope is all the time talking about the patrimony of S. Peter, 
 but says nothing of his matrimony. Holy Scripture, on the other hand, 
 speaks repeatedly of his matrimony, but says nothing of his patrimony, 
 unless we may include under that designation his nets, his ship (which 
 was a small fishing craft), and half a house ; and these he forsook to follow 
 Jesus. Silver and gold he had none. — Afterpiece to the Comedy of Con- 
 vocation. 
 
1 86 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 Our ''joy" is that the Pope is relieved from the 
 necessity of'' dabbling in politics/' and thereby render- 
 ing himself '* odious" if not ''ridiculous." Surely a 
 joy like that cannot fairly be called " fiendish." His 
 Spiritual Power is untouched, and if he thinks cursing 
 " heretics" a part of it, he can curse to his heart's con- 
 tent ; and if he is at a loss for material, the Council of 
 Trent and the late Council of the Vatican can furnish 
 him with a whole litany of curses. Here is a specimen. 
 I take it from " The First Constitution of the Vatican 
 Council on the Church of Christ," as published in the 
 Catholic Mirror, Baltimore, August 13th, 1870, and 
 vouched for by the Editor thus : " We pubhsh to-day 
 an authorized translation of the Const itutio Dogmatica 
 Prima de Ecclesia Christi, The correctness of this doc- 
 ument, which comes from an official source, may there- 
 fore be relied on" : 
 
 " Therefore, if any one shall say that the Roman 
 Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, 
 and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the 
 whole Church, not only in matters belonging to faith 
 and morals, but also to those which regard the disci- 
 pline and government of the Church spread throughout 
 the whole world, or that he has only the principal 
 share, but not the entire fulness of this supreme power ; 
 or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate 
 either over the Churches one and all, or over the Pas- 
 tors and the faithful one and all ; let him be anathema." 
 
 These curses move us not. The source they come 
 from renders them harmless. 
 
 *' There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats." 
 
 They are out of place when directed against us. Be- 
 stow them in another quarter. 
 
 " Go tell your slaves how absolute you are, 
 And make your bondmen tremble." 
 
 " Some time ago, my attention was called to a cer- 
 
TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES. 187 
 
 tain excommunication or ' curse/ then widely circulated 
 by the press of North Carolina. The * curse ' is attri- 
 buted to the Holy Father, and is fulminated against 
 Victor Emmanuel. ... I state here distinctly and 
 positively that its author is not Pius IX., nor any other 
 Roman Pontiff, nor any Catholic Priest or layman. It 
 is to the Rev. Laurence Sterne, Minister of the Estab- 
 lished Church of England, and to his romance of * Tris- 
 tam Shandy,' that the English-speaking w^orld is in- 
 debted for this infamous compilation'' (pp. 174, 175). 
 
 This is the curse that so moved Uncle Toby. *' Our 
 army," said he, *' swore terribly in Flanders, but it v^as 
 nothing to this." The Archbishop is very explicit in 
 his denial. Sterne is equally explicit in his affirmance : 
 It was '' procured," he tells us, '' out of the leger-book 
 of the church of Rochester, writ by Ernulphus the 
 bishop." He adds in afoot-note, in a subsequent 
 edition : ** As the genuineness of the consultation of 
 the Sorbonne upon the question of baptism, was doubted 
 by some and denied by others — 'twas thought proper 
 to print the original of this excommunication ; for the 
 copy of which Mr. Shandy returns thanks to the chapter- 
 clerk of the dean and chapter of Rochester." 
 
 It is a very pretty quarrel as it stands ; I leave it to 
 the Archbishop and Mr. Shandy to settle it between 
 them. 
 
 Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites. 
 Et vitula tu dignus, et hie, et quisquis amores 
 Aut metuet dulces, aut experietur amaros. 
 Claudite jam rivos, pueri : sat prata biberunt. 
 
 P. S. — Since the above was written, a work has come 
 into my possession which enables me to settle the quar- 
 rel in favor of Mr. Shandy, and against the Arch- 
 bishop, notwithstandmg his bold denial. See Appen- 
 dix B. 
 
l88 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Nearly all this chapter is employed by the Arch- 
 bishop in proving what needs no proof, to wit, that in- 
 tercessory prayer is availing, and that the dead in 
 Christ pray for those still in the flesh. This is what all 
 Christians admit. The whole controversy between us 
 and Rome, on this point, is whether, as the Creed of 
 Pope Pius teaches, ''the saints, reigning with Christ, 
 are to be venerated and invocatcd.'' Here is an impli- 
 cation and an assertion : i , it is implied that there are 
 saints now reigning with Christ ; and 2, it is asserted 
 r that these saints are to be invocated. 
 / Now, with regard to the first, I suppose it will be 
 / admitted that if there are any saints now reigning with 
 Christ, St. Paul must be one of them. Is St. Paul, 
 then, reigning now with Christ ? In other words, has 
 he already got his crown ? Let him speak for himself 
 (2 Tim. 4:1,8): '' Who shall judge the quick and the 
 dead at his appearing and his kingdom, . . . Hence- 
 forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, 
 which the Lord, the righteous 7>/<^^, shall give me at 
 that day : and not to me only, but unto all them also 
 that love hisappeariiig/' Words could not assert more 
 plainly that the crown is to be given to all Christians 
 at one and the same time, and that time the '' day" of 
 his '' appearing," to '* judge the quick and the dead." 
 When, therefore, the Apostle elsewhere speaks of the 
 \ departed as being with Christ, he means, not that they 
 I are in heaven reigning with Him, but that they are in 
 I paradise (that part of hades (St. Luke 16 : 23) where 
 I '/'Abraham and Lazarus were) enjoying the manifestation 
 I 'of Christ's presence, *' resting from their labors" (Rev. 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 189 
 
 14 : 13), and waiting for ** the glory which shall be re- 
 vealed" (Romans 8 : 18). So St. Paul says, and so says 
 '' the Prince of the Apostles" : *' And when the chief 
 Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of 
 glory that fadeth not away" (i St. Peter 5 14). And 
 so says our Lord Himself to His Apostles (St. Matt. 
 19:28), *' In the regeneration when the Son of Man 
 shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit 
 upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
 Israel." And so say the early Fathers and the greater 
 part of the later ones. I might bring citations from 
 them in proof, but I prefer laying before the reader the 
 declarations and admissions, on this point, of Roman 
 theologians themselves : '' It was a matter in contro- 
 versy of old," says Franciscus Pegna, '' whether the 
 souls of the saints before the day of judgment did see 
 God, and enjoy the divine vision : seeing many worthy 
 men and famous, both for learning and holiness, did 
 seem to hold, that they do not see nor enjoy it before 
 the day of judgment, until receiving their bodies to- 
 gether with them they should enjoy divine blessedness. 
 For Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Ro- 
 manus [the last named, in the first century ; the other 
 three, in the second], Origen, Ambrose, Chr3^sostom, 
 Augustine, Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Theod- 
 oret, Aretas, QEcumenius, Theophylact, and Euthy- 
 mius are said to have been of this opinion : as Castrus 
 and Medina, and Sotus do relate." "^ 
 
 * " Olim controversum fuit, num animse Sanctorum usque ad diem ju- 
 dicii Deum viderent, et divina visione f ruerentur : cum multi insignes viri 
 et doctrina et sanctitate clari tenere viderentur, eas nee videre nee frui 
 usque ad diem judicii ; donee receptis corporibus una cum illis divina 
 beatitudine perfruantur. Nam Irenseus, Justinus Mertyr, Tertullianus, 
 Clemens Romanus ; Origenes, Ambrosius, Chrysostomus, Augustinus, 
 Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Theodoretus, Aretas, CEcumenius, 
 Theophylactus, et Euthymius, hujus referuntur sententise : ut commemor- 
 ant Castrus, et Medina, et Sotus." Fransc. Pegna, in part. 2. Directorii 
 Iiiqtdsitor, comment. 21. Quoted by Abp. Usher in his Answer to a Jesuit. 
 See also Brogden's Catholic Safegnai-ds, vol. 2, p. 203. 
 
190 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 And *' even Thomas Stapleton himself" says: 
 ** These so many ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Irenaeus, 
 Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Ambrose, Clemens Romanus, and Bernard, 
 did not assent unto this sentence (which now in the 
 Council of Florence [a.d. 1439] was at length after much 
 disputing defined as a doctrine of faith) that the souls 
 of the righteous enjoy the sight of God before the day 
 of judgment ; but did deliver the contrary sentence 
 thereunto." ^ 
 
 We have then (according to the testimony of three 
 Roman writers, Castrus, Medina, and Sotus, certified 
 to by another Roman writer, Pegna, and Stapleton, a 
 famous English controversialist on the Roman side, 
 agreeing with them) all the earlier Fathers that touch 
 upon the subject, and the most weighty ones (Chrysos- 
 tum, Ambrose, and Augustine) of the later, maintain- 
 ing, in accordance with St. Peter and St, Paul, the 
 teaching of our Lord Himself, that the saints do not 
 reign with Him till after the Resurrection. 
 
 On the other hand, the Archbishop, if he were to 
 set about it, could produce one clear and explicit asser- 
 tion, from Dionysius of Alexandria, as reported by Euse- 
 bius (1. vi. c. 42), and two doubtful ones (one of St. Cyp- 
 rian, Ep. 55, and the other of his correspondents, Ep. 
 31), that the martyrs (not the other saints) reign at once 
 zvith Christ, This is absolutely all that I have been able 
 to find, and I challenge the Archbishop to produce any 
 more. Passages he will find, indeed, in Jerome, and 
 Basil, and Ephrem, and Athanasius, and Epiphanius, 
 
 * " Tot illi et tarn celebres antqiui patres, TertuUianus, Irenseus, Origi- 
 nes, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, CEcumenius, Theophylactus, Ambrosius, 
 Clemens Romanus, D. Bernardus, huic sententiae (quae nunc in Concilio 
 Florentino magna demum conquisitione facta ut dogma fidei definita est) 
 quod justorum animae ante diem I'udicii Dei visione fruuntur, non sunt as- 
 sensi ; sed sententiam contrariam tradide^unt.'' — Stapleton. ' Defcns. 
 Ecclesiast, Authorit. contra Whitaker. lib. ?*, cap. 2. — Apud Usher. 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 191 
 
 and Gregory of Nazianzum, and so he will in Augustine 
 and Chrysostom, which speak of the saints as in heaven 
 (meaning thereby /^r^^/^-^, not the heaven of heavens), 
 enjoying the company of the patriarchs, the presence 
 of angels, and of Christ Himself ; but they do not speak 
 of them as reigning \N\\h Christ before the Resurrection. 
 
 According to the Roman doctrine, the saints that are 
 now reigning in heaven are to be called out of heaven at 
 the last day, to be judged, and then sent back again ! 
 Credat Romanus, non Ego, 
 
 The foiiiidation of the Roman doctrine, that ''the 
 saints reigni?ig together with Christ are to be venerated 
 and invocated," being thus taken away, the superstruc- 
 ture would seem likely to go with it. The Archbishop, 
 however, comes boldly to the rescue. 
 
 " I might easily show,*' he says, '' by voluminous 
 quotations from ecclesiastical writers of the first ages 
 of the Church, how conformable to the teaching of 
 antiquity is the Catholic practice of invoking the inter- 
 cession of the saints. But as you, dear reader, may not 
 be disposed to attach adequate importance to the writ- 
 ings of the Fathers, I shall confine myself to the testi- 
 mony of Holy Scripture" (pp. 177, 178). 
 
 '' But as you, dear reader, may not be" as well aware 
 of Roman tactics as 1 am, let me just say to you, don't 
 be misled by the Archbishop's boast of what he '' might 
 easily" do, and by the reason he gives why he doesn't 
 do it. Before we get through with his '' little vol- 
 ume," we shall find that he has given in the other chap- 
 ters no less than fifty-seven quotations (or what purport 
 to be quotations) from the Fathers, without troubling 
 himself about whether or not you will be *' disposed to 
 attach adequate importance" to them ; and he would 
 give them here if he could, 1 distinctly challenge him 
 to produce, not ''voluminous quotations," but one 
 quotation, ever so brief, sanctioning or recognizing any 
 "practice of invoking the intercession of the saints," 
 
192 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 except among heretics, from any genuine ecclesiastical 
 writing '' of the first ages of the Church," meaning 
 thereby the first three centuries. 
 
 I come now to the Archbishop's *' testimony of Holy 
 Scripture." He first quotes, and comments on, Gen- 
 esis 48 : i6(Jacob'sblessingof the sons of Joseph), thus : 
 *' * May the angel that delivereth me from all evils, 
 bless these boys.' Here we see a holy Patriarch . . . 
 asking the angel in heaven to obtain a blessing for 
 his grandchildren" (p. 179). 
 
 '* Here we see a holy" Archbishop quoting half the 
 blessing, and omitting the other half, because to have 
 quoted it would have shown the identity of the angel 
 with the uncreated God. I will supply the omission, 
 with the help of the Douay Bible in my possession — a 
 pocket edition, published at Belfast, Ireland, and cer- 
 tified to and sanctioned by *' Cornelius Denvir, D.D., 
 R. C. Bishop of Down and Connor," July 24th, 1839. 
 In this edition the blessing (Gen. 48 : 15, 16) reads : 
 ** God, in whose sight my fathers Abraham and Isaac 
 walked, God that feedeth me from my youth until this 
 day ; The angel that delivereth me from all evils, bless 
 these boys," etc. Commenting on this, St. Athanasius 
 says {Orat, IV, contr, Ariaii. apud Usher), *' He did not 
 couple one of the created and natural angels with God 
 that did create them ; nor omitting God that fed him 
 [the very thing the Archbishop has here done], did de- 
 sire a blessing for his grandsons from an angel ; but 
 saying, ' that delivereth me from all evils,' he did show 
 that it was not any of the created angels, but the Word 
 of God (that is to say, the Son) whom he coupled with 
 the Father and prayed unto." But not satisfied with 
 mutilating the quotation, the Archbishop must needs, 
 in commenting upon it, change in a vital part what he 
 does quote. Jacob does not ask the angel to '* obtain ' 
 a blessing ; he asks him to bestow one : which, of itself 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 193 
 
 (as the Archbishop confesses by changing it), shows 
 that it was not a created angel. 
 
 His next proof is not from Holy Scripture, but from 
 the Apocrypha, which as I have already shown from 
 St. Jerome (Chapter viii.), is of no authority. 
 
 The next two proofs, and the only remaining ones, 
 that he brings are St. Luke 15 : 10, and i Cor. 4:8; 
 but all they show is that angels know, more or less, 
 what is going on here. But that does not prove that 
 they are to be " invocated ;" for that is just what is 
 reprobated by the Apostle in Colossians 2:18, which, 
 in the Archbishop's Version, is, as I have already re- 
 marked, thus lucidly translated : " Let no man seduce 
 you, willing in humility and religion of angels,'' etc., 
 but which the non-Roman reader would probably pre- 
 fer in the transparent English, and at the same time 
 accurate translation, of our Version : '' Let no man 
 beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility 
 {vole?is videri humilis affectans Jiumilitatem^ says St. 
 Augustine, Epist, cxlix., sect. 27 ; wishing to seem hum- 
 ble, affecting humility) and worshipping {dprjaxeiay 
 cultura, Aug.) ot angels, intruding into those things 
 which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly 
 mind, and not holding the Head," etc. 
 
 This *' worshipping of angels" continued among the 
 heretics in Colosse, and Laodicea, and other parts of 
 Phrygia, three or four hundred years ; so that the 
 Council of Laodicea, in the fourth century, whose 
 Canons were afterwards received into the code of the 
 universal Church, enacted among its sixty canons the 
 following : 
 
 ''XXXV. Christians must not leave the Church of 
 God, and go and invocate angels, or make assemblies, 
 which things are forbidden. If then any one is dis- 
 covered giving himself to this hidden idolatry, let him 
 be anathema, for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus 
 
194 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Christ ['' not holdingthe Head "], the Son of God, and 
 gone over to idolatry." 
 
 From this, we see that, in the fourth century, there 
 was no invocating of angels in '' the Church of God ;** 
 for men had to '' leave the Church/' and go elsewhere, 
 to invocate them. 
 
 What a sore point this was with the Roman Canon- 
 ists, is evident from the fact that Carranza, Sagittarius, 
 and Joverius (Usher, apud Brogden, vol. ii., p. 235), 
 changed angclos, angels, into angulos^ corners, and put 
 ad before it, so as to make it read invocate at corners ; 
 forgetting that the Canon was originally in Greek, and 
 that the Greek word lor corner {ycovla) has no resem- 
 blance to the Greek word for angel. But the very fact 
 that they changed the text of the Latin translation of 
 the Canon shows that they felt that, as it stood, it con- 
 demned them. 
 
 Theodoret, in the fifth century, in his commentary 
 on the passage from Colossians, as quoted by Usher, 
 says they counselled invocating angels, ''pretending 
 humility, and sa3dng that the God of all things was in- 
 visible, and inaccessible, and incomprehensible ; and 
 that it was fit we should procure God's favor by the 
 means of angels ;" the very reason given by Roman 
 theologians. Alexander of Hales says, ''A sinner 
 who hath offended God, because he dareth not to come 
 unto him in his own person, may have recourse unto 
 the saints, by imploring their patronage." Gabriel 
 Biel says, '' A sinner who has offended God, as it were 
 not daring for the dross of his sin to appear in his 
 proper person, before the most high and dreadful 
 Majesty, should have recourse unto the saints." And 
 Salmeron the Jesuit says, in so many w^ords, *' The 
 praying of God by the invocation of saints doth argue 
 greater humility. " ^' All in the teeth of the exhortation 
 
 * See the original Latin of these three quotations in Usher, apud Brog. 
 den, vol. 2. p. 224. 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 195 
 
 (Col. 2 : i8) above cited ; in the teeth of the exhortation 
 (Heb. 4 : i6), *' Let us therefore come boldly unto the 
 throne of grace ;" in the teeth of St. Augustine and St. 
 Chrysostom. For, says the former, writing against 
 Parmenian the Donatist, and referring to i St. John 
 2:1, *' If he had said thus : I have written this unto 
 you, that you sin not, and if any man sin, you have me 
 a mediator with the Father, I make intercession for your 
 sins (as Parmenian in one place doth make the bishop a 
 mediator betwixt the people and God), what good and 
 faithful Christian would endure him ? Who would 
 look upon him as the apostle of Christ, and not as Anti- 
 christ rather?" (lib. ii. c. 8). And says St. Chrysos- 
 tom, ** We do not therefore so pacify him when we en- 
 treat him by others, as when we do it by our own 
 selves. For by reason that he loveth our friendship, 
 and doth all things that we may put our confidence in 
 him, when he beholdeth us to do this by ourselves, 
 then doth he most yield unto our suits. Thus did he 
 deal with the woman of Canaan : when Peter and James 
 came for her, he did not yield ; but when she herself 
 did remain, he presently gave that w^hich was desired." 
 — In Psalm IV, apud Usher. And again : '' Mark the 
 philosophy of the woman. She entreateth not James,, 
 she beseecheth not John, neither doth she come to 
 Peter, but she brake through the whole company of 
 them, saying : I have no need of a mediator, but taking 
 repentance with me for a spokesman, I come to the 
 fountain itself. For this cause did he descend, for this 
 cause did he take flesh, that I might have the boldness 
 to speak unto him. ... I have no need of a medi- 
 ator [between me and Thee, for Thou Thyself art t/ie 
 Mediator] : have thou mercy upon me." — Serin, in di- 
 mission, Chanancece ; apud Usher. St. Chrysostom is 
 full of this teaching. Archbishop Usher gives no less 
 than sixteen other quotations from him, all to the same 
 effect. The illustration from the woman of Canaan 
 
19^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 seems to have been a favorite one with him, for he 
 brings it in, in no less than five out of the eighteen 
 passages. 
 
 By this time, the reader is doubtless prepared to esti- 
 mate at its true value, or want of value, the Arch- 
 bishop's boast about the *' voluminous quotations'' he 
 could (but, very prudently, doesn't) give. 
 
 Passing over four of the Archbishop's pages (i 81-184) 
 devoted to proving (what no Christian doubts) the value 
 of intercessory prayer, offered by the faithful, whether 
 on earth or in paradise, I come to another quotation 
 from Scripture (Rev. 5 : 8). But first let me notice a 
 remark of his on his previous quotations — the ones I 
 have already considered : 
 
 *' The examples I have quoted," he says, '' refer, it 
 is true, to the angels. But our Lord declares (St. Mat. 
 22 : 30) that the saints in heaven shall be like the angelic 
 spirits," etc. (p. 180). 
 
 True ; but they are not yet like them, and will not be 
 till the Resurrection ; for '' our Lord declares," in the 
 parallel passage (St. Luke 20:36), *'they are equal 
 unto the angels ; and are the children of God, being the 
 cliildren of the resurrection,'' In knowledge^ therefore 
 .(which is the point here at issue), the saints are not yet 
 equal to the angels. 
 
 To come now to the additional quotations from Scrip- 
 ture. There are but two of them ; both on page 185. 
 The one from Zachariah is disposed of by filling up the 
 gap indicated by the dots in the closing sentence : 
 ' ' And the Lord answered the angel tJiat talked with me ^ 
 good words, comfortable words." The angel as the 
 whole context, and especially the nineteenth verse, 
 shows, was on earth, talking with the prophet. 
 
 The other passage is as little to the point : '* St. 
 
 * The Douay Version has : '* that spoke in me ;" but in the 19th verse 
 (in the Hebrew, ch. 2, vs. 2), it translates the same Hebrew words " that 
 spoke to me." 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 197 
 
 John, in his Revelation/' says the Archbishop, '' de- 
 scribes the saints before the throne of God praying for 
 their earthly brethren : ' The four and twenty ancients 
 (elders) (Rev. 5 : 8) fell down before the Lamb, having 
 every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, 
 which are the prayers of the saints. ' " 
 
 St. John '' describes" {7tot '' the saints," but) '* the 
 four and twenty elders" — official functionaries ; and 
 he describes them not as ''praying," but as offering 
 incense. True, ** the odors are the prayers of saints ;" 
 and so, in the twentieth verse of the first chapter of this 
 same book of Revelation, *' the seven candlesticks are 
 the seven churches. " But as the candlesticks are not 
 transubstantinted into churches, so neither are the odors 
 transubstantiated into prayers. The candlesticks sym- 
 bolize the churches ; tlie odors symbolize the prayers. 
 The elders are doing in the heavenly temple whatZach- 
 arias was doing (St. Luke i : 9, 10) in the earthly. He 
 was offering incense in the holy place (not the holy of 
 holies, for into that went only the high priest), and 
 *' the w^iole multitude of the people were praying with- 
 out." The ''elders," in the heavenly temple, are 
 offering incense in the holy place (not in the Holy of 
 Holies ; into that only the Great High Priest is en- 
 tered), and " the whole multitude" of the faithful, on 
 earth and in paradise, " are praying without." And 
 as the people did not invoke Zacharias, nor could he 
 have heard them, though invoked, so neither do the 
 faithful on earth (if well instructed) and in paradise in- 
 voke the elders, nor can the elders, so far as we are in- 
 formed or have reason to believe, hear them, though 
 invoked. 
 
 So much for the Archbishop's Scripture testimony. 
 Now for his argument from analogy. 
 
 " If my brother leaves me to cross the seas, I believe 
 that he continues to pray for me. And when he crosses 
 the narrow sea of death, and lands on the shores 
 
igS THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 of eternity, why should he not pray for me still T^ 
 (p. 186). 
 
 W.^ does *' pray for me still." But then, as, when 
 he " leaves me to cross the seas," and is in mid-ocean 
 or has reached his port, I do not, unless I am a fool, 
 drop down on my marrow-bones and invoke him, be- 
 cause I know he cannot hear me, any more than I can 
 hear him ; so when he *' crosses the narrow sea of 
 death," 1 do not kneel down and invoke him, because 
 I know that I cannot hear him, and I have no reason 
 to believe that he can hear me. Think -of what is in- 
 volved in the worship of the Virgin, for instance. Ac- 
 cording to the Archbishop (p. 26), her w^orshippers 
 number ''two hundred and twenty-fiv^ millions." 
 Catholics he calls them. But that is a misnomer. No 
 one that worships a created being — I speak, of course, 
 of religious worship — can be a Catholic. Of these two 
 hundred and twenty-five millions, at least two hundred 
 and twenty-five thousand — that is, only one in a thou- 
 sand — must be invoking her at any given moment, and 
 she must be supposed to hear them all. Surely, there 
 is no element of probability in the supposition. Think 
 of her listening every Sunday to five millions of wor- 
 shippers in the United States alone ! Think of it ! 
 Hold to it, then — if you can ! For my part, I say, w^ith 
 TertuUian, '' These things I may not pray for from 
 any other but from Him of whom I know I shall obtain 
 them ;" hcec ab alio or are non possum, quain a quo scio vte 
 consecuturum {Apolog. c. 30). 
 
 Having thus met every argument of the Archbishop 
 in this chapter squarely, I come now to ask of him a 
 reason for a most extraordinary omission of his. How 
 is it, Most Reverend Sir, that, knowing, as you do, the 
 prominence given to the Worship of the Virgin in your 
 Churches, and that there are three kinds of religious 
 worship recognized by your standard writers, namely, 
 dulia, to the saints, latria to God, and (betwixt tlie 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS, 199 
 
 two) hyperdiilia, to the Virgin, there is not, throughout 
 the 433 pages of your boolc, so much as an allusion to 
 any worship of the Virgin as distinguished from the 
 other saints, nor is she once mentioned, either by name 
 or by title, as an object of worship at all ? Is it because 
 you are afraid^ in these United States and this Nine- 
 teenth Century, to hold up plainly before the American 
 People that which, nevertheless, you are trying to en- 
 tice them into, and make them part and parcel of ? If 
 so, the fear does credit to your perspicacity, if not to 
 your ingenuousness. Let me supply the omission, in 
 part ; in very small part : to do it fully would require 
 a volume, and one at least five times as large as this. 
 1 confine myself, therefore, to a few instances, in part, 
 of the theory, and in part, of the practice ; and I take 
 them (except where otherwise specified) from Abp. 
 Usher's Answer to a Jesuit , as reprinted in Brogden's 
 Catholic Safeguards, London, John Murray, 1851 ; vol. 
 ii., pp. 239-257 ; where may be found a great many 
 more, all in the original Latin, as well as in English : 
 
 ** Because she is the mother of the Son of God who 
 doth produce the Holy Ghost ; therefore all the gifts, 
 virtues, and graces of the Holy Ghost are by her hands 
 administered to whom she pleaseth, when she pleaseth, 
 how she pleaseth, and as much as she pleaseth." — Et 
 quia talis est mater filii Dei qui producit Spiritum sanc- 
 tum ; ideo omnia dona, virtutes et gratise ipsius Spiri- 
 tus sancti quibus vult, quando vult, quomodo vult, et 
 quantum vult, per manus ipsius administrantur. Ber- 
 nardin, Senens. serm. 61, artic. i, c. 8." — (Brogden, 
 voL ii.,p 243). 
 
 '' No grace comes down to us from heaven that is 
 not of her dispensing." — Nulla gratia de coelo nisi ea 
 dispensante ad nos descendit. — Id. ibid, artic. 3, c. 3. 
 
 *' Take away the patronage of the Virgin, you stop as 
 it were the sinner's breath, that he is not able to live 
 any longer." — Quasi sublato Virginis patrocinio, per- 
 
200 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS, 
 
 inde atque halitu intercluso, peccator vivere diutlus 
 non possit. — Bias. Viegas in Apocalyps, cap. 12, com- 
 ment. 2, sect. 2, num. 6. 
 
 " All things are subject to the command of the Vir- 
 gin,* even God Himself." — ImperioVirginis omnia fam- 
 ulantur, et Deus. — Bernardin. Senens. serm. 61, artic. i. 
 cap. 6 (Brogden, vol. ii., p. 245). 
 
 In the Psalter of Cardinal Bonaventure the Psalms 
 are blasphemously travestied by changing Lord into 
 Lady, thus : 
 
 *' Have mercy upon me, O Lady, have mercy upon 
 me." — Miserere meiDomina, miserere mei. — Psalm 56. 
 
 ** Let Mary arise ; and let her enemies be scat- 
 tered." — Exurgat Maria, et dissipentur inimici ejus. — 
 Psalm 67. 
 
 " O sing unto our Lady a new song : for she hath 
 done marvellous things." — Cantate Dominse nostras 
 canticum novum : quia mirabilia fecit. — Psalm 97. 
 
 '* In thee, O Lady, have I put my trust; let me 
 never be confounded." — In te Domina sperav^i, non 
 confundar in seternum.—Ps. 30. 
 
 *' Let everything that hath breath praise our Lady." 
 Omnis spiritus laudet Dominam nostram — Psalm 150 
 (Brogden, vol. ii., pp. 252-255). 
 
 The following is from Bp. Bull's Sermons : Sermon 
 IV., reprinted in Brogden, vol. ii. pp. 258-279. It will 
 be found on page 274 : 
 
 *' We should tremble every joint of us, to offer any 
 such recommendation as this to the Virgin Mary. 
 Hear, if you can without horror, a prayer of theirs to 
 her. It is this : 
 
 ** * O my Lady, holy Mary, I recommend myself 
 into thy blessed trust, and singular custody, and into 
 the bosom of thy mercy this night and evermore, and 
 
 * The Vulgate Latin and the Douay English translation of Gen. 3:15 
 make the devil subject to her : ** She shall crush thy head." The pronoun 
 in the Hebrew is masculine, and can refer only to the " Seed." 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 201 
 
 in the hour of my death, as also my soul and my body ; 
 and I yield unto thee all my hope and consolation, all 
 my distress and misery, my life and the end thereof, 
 that by thy most holy intercession, and by thy merits, 
 all my works may be directed and disposed according 
 to thine and thy Son's will. Amen.' What fuller ex- 
 pressions can we use to declare our absolute affiance, 
 trust, and dependence on the Eternal Son of God him- 
 self, than they here use in this recommendation to the 
 Virgin ? . . . And yet this recommendation is to 
 be seen, in a ' Manual of Prayers and Litanies, ' printed 
 at Antwerp, no longer ago than 1671, and t\i2it permisstc 
 sitperioritm^ in the evening prayers for Friday. A book 
 it is to my knowledge commonly to be found in the 
 hands of our English papists ; for 1 had it from a near 
 relation of mine (who had been perverted by the emis- 
 saries of Rome ; but is returned again to the Com- 
 munion of the Church of England), who assured me 
 that she used it herself by the direction of her Con- 
 fessor, in her private devotions." 
 
 Of the nature of this worship of the Virgin I shall 
 have something to say in the next chapter, where it 
 will come in more conveniently in connection with 
 image-worship. 
 
 A few more extracts and I close this chapter. I take 
 them from a dingy little volume in coarse brown-paper 
 covers, which I came across at a second-hand book- 
 seller's in Baltimore, some ten years ago. It is in 
 French, and bears the imprint, ''Avignon, Seguin 
 Aine, Imprimeur-Libraire." It is without date, but, 
 judging from the orthography, comes within the last 
 half century. The title, translated into English, reads : 
 '' The Month of Mary, or the Month of May, conse- 
 crated to Mary, by means of different flowers of virtue 
 which all can practise in the Churches, or in private 
 houses. By the Rev. Father Alphonse Muzzarelli, of 
 
202 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the Company of Jesus. Flores mei fructiis honoris et 
 honestatis, Ecclus. xxiv. 23." 
 
 Beneath this Latin motto is seen in staring block- 
 letter capitals, twice as large as the principal letters of 
 the title, the words, 
 
 VIVE 
 
 MARIE: 
 
 that is to say, *' Long live Mary !" On pages 14-16 are 
 ** Twelve Acts of V^irtues, to be practised during the 
 Month." The sixth reads : *' Every day, before en- 
 tering on your studies or work, invoke the aid of Mary, 
 saying on your knees the Hail Mary,'' On the next 
 three pages are thirty-one " Other Acts of Virtues.'* 
 The second reads : *' Cause to be said, or at least hear, 
 an extra Mass for the soul in Purgatory that in this 
 world best served Mary \' the eighth : '' Say three 
 De Profitndis for the soul in Purgatory that has best 
 served Mary.'* What is the service of Mary good 
 for, if it can't keep a soul out of Purgatory ? The 
 tenth reads : *' To please Mary, fulfil exactly all your 
 duties." The thirteenth: *'At the beginning of the 
 day, offer to Mary your senses, your body, and all 
 your actions." The twenty-third : '* Mortify your 
 will three times in honor of Mary." The twenty-sixth : 
 '' Pray with fervor to Mary for those who are in mor- 
 tal sin." The thirty-first: '* Ask pardon of Mary for 
 what you have neglected to do during the month." 
 
 Passing to the body of the work : the portion for 
 each day consists of a Meditation, an Example or 
 Edifying (?) Narrative, a Practice, and an Aspiration, 
 or Ejaculatory Prayer. The Examples *' are taken," 
 as we are informed in the introductory Advertisement, 
 ''from the pious work of Father Auriemma, entitled 
 Mutual Affections of Mary and of her Servants,'' 
 " This author," it adds, *' has extracted them for the 
 
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 203 
 
 most part from the annual letters of the Company of 
 Jesus" — that is, the Jesuits. 
 
 In the Example for the Third Day {Auriem, t, 2, /. 
 57) we are told that Mary boxed the ears of a Servant 
 of hers for writing to his mistress with a pen that had 
 been dedicated to the Virgin ; and that his cheek was 
 black and blue from the blow for several days after. 
 
 In the Example for the Twentieth J)?iy {Aicrie77t, t. 2, 
 /. 317) we are told that a man, who *' to avarice added 
 many other vices, but had, nevertheless, devotion to 
 Mary, and recited the rosary," being on his death-bed, 
 ''feared much for his salvation; whereupon the 
 Mother of pity appeared to him and ordered the arch- 
 angel St. Michael to put in one scale of the balance the 
 good works which he had done in her honor, and in 
 the other the sins he had confessed of his past bad life. 
 The comparison was to his advantage, the devils fled, 
 and Mary conducted him to paradise." The Ejacula- 
 tory Prayer with which it winds up reads: ''Jesus, 
 Mary, Joseph, I give you my heart and my soul." 
 
 But the most astounding Example is that for the 
 Ninth Day. I give it in full : 
 
 " One of the most intimate companions of St. Fran- 
 cis, brother Leon, had the following vision {Aiiriem, t, 
 2, /. 289) : He saw a great plain, on which the Gene- 
 ral Judgment was to take place. A great number were 
 awaiting sentence ; the trumpets were calling the dead 
 to judgment. Two great ladders Avere let down from 
 heaven, one white, the other red, at the top of which 
 latter was Jesus Christ. St. Francis was near ; he was 
 calling his brethren mingled among the rest in the plain, 
 and encouraging them to mount this ladder. They would 
 obey, but would fall after mounting, one three rounds, 
 another four, another ten. Then Francis in despair 
 exhorted them to go to the white ladder, on which 
 Mary was leaning. They did so ; Mary held out her 
 hand to them, and they easily mounted to heaven. We 
 
204 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 should be very unfortunate if we had not this powerful 
 Mother to aid those who are mounting to heaven by 
 the ladder of justice alone." 
 
 The Ejaculatory Prayer which follows this, runs 
 thus : ''hi dve judicii, libera me, Doniina. Au jour du 
 jugement, delivrez-moi, Marie." That is, '* In the 
 day ot judgment, deliver me, Mary." Or, as it is in 
 the Latin, '' Deliver me. Lady." 
 
 Comment is superfluous. 
 
 But, says the Bishop of Aire, as quoted by Faber, 
 Difficulties of Romanism, chap, xv.), *' If any of our doc- 
 tors, pushed on by a blind zeal, has gone so far as to 
 ascribe to the saints a degree of power and efficacy 
 which belongs only to Jesus Christ ; know that we 
 vindicate not his excess : and it were unjust to make 
 the catholic body in general responsible for certain ex- 
 aggerations in particular." 
 
 I answer : It is not we that make Rome responsible 
 for the extravagances of individuals. So long as she 
 puts Pascal, and Quesnel, in the Index, and does not 
 put Auriemma, and Viegas, and Bernardinus Senensis, 
 in it — so long as she anathematizes Padre Vigil for de- 
 nying the Immaculate Conception, and canonizes Car- 
 dinal Bonaventure with his blasphemous Psalter of our 
 Lady — it is she that makes herself responsible for any 
 and all '' exaggerations" that put the creature on a 
 level with the Creator. And we shall hold her to that 
 responsibility. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 SACRED IMAGES. 
 
 '' The veneration of the images of Christ and His 
 saints is a cherished devotion in the Catholic Church, 
 and this practice will be vindicated in the following 
 lines : 
 
SACRED IMAGES. 205 
 
 ** It is true, indeed, that the making of holy images 
 was not so general among the Jews as it is among us, 
 because the Hebrews themselves were prone to idol- 
 atry, and because they were surrounded by idolatrous 
 people who might misconstrue the purpose for which 
 the images were intended. For the same prudential 
 reasons the primitive Christians were very cautious in 
 making images, and very circumspect in exposing them 
 to the gaze of the heathen among whom they lived, lest 
 Christian images should be confounded with Pagan 
 idols" (p. 189). 
 
 *' Very cautious," and '' very circumspect, " indeed ! 
 So cautious, and so circumspect, that, for the first four 
 hundred years, they actually had no images for re- 
 ligious worship, such as the Roman Church now pays 
 to them, in any congregation of the Catholic Church. 
 I distinctly challenge the Archbishop to produce one 
 instance — only one ; but it must be from a genuine 
 writing ; not from one of those spurious ones that the 
 Roman controversialists are so fond of quoting : and 
 it must be a worship such (in its essence, not necessa- 
 rily in its accessories) as is now taught and practised 
 in the Roman Church. What, then, is that worship ? 
 The second Council of Nice (a.d. 787), received as a 
 General Council by the Roman Church, but rejected 
 by the Greek and the Anglican, is the earliest that 
 sanctioned the worship of images — that is to say, '' to 
 pay these images salutation and respectful honor : not 
 indeed that true w^orship, which is according to our 
 faith, which only befits the divine nature, , . . but 
 to offer incense and lights to their honor." The Coun- 
 cil of Trent decrees that '' due honor and veneration 
 are to be given them." The Catechism of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent (First Amer. Ed., Bait., John Murphy, p. 
 334) declares *' the lawfulness of the use of images in 
 churches, and of paying them religious respect {liofi- 
 orern et cultuni), when this respect is referred to their 
 
2o6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 prototypes,'' This last clearly sanctions the teaching of 
 St. Thomas Aquinas (though a Saint of the Roman 
 Calendar needs no such sanction of his teaching) and 
 of Azorius the Jesuit, the former of whom says, 
 '* The same reverence is to be given unto the image of 
 Christ and to Christ himself : and by consequence, 
 seeing Christ is adored with the adoration of latria 
 (the highest kind of worship), his im_ageis to be adored 
 with the adoration of latria ?i\so,'' Sic sequitur quod 
 eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi et ipsi 
 Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione 
 latriae, consequens est, quod ejus imago sit adoratione 
 latrias adoranda. — Siinnn. part 3, q. 25, art. 3. And 
 Azorius says, '' It is the constant judgment of theolo- 
 gians that the image is to be honored and worshipped 
 with the same honor and worship wherewith that is 
 worshipped whereof it is an image." Constans est 
 Theologorum sententia, imaginem eodem honore et 
 cultu honorari et coli, quo colitur id cujus est imago. 
 — Jo. Azor. histititt. Moral, t. i. 1. 9, c. 6 (Usher ap. 
 Brogden, vol. ii. p. 329). 
 
 Such is the image-worship taught and practised in 
 the Roman Church. The simple fact that the Catholic 
 Church of the first four centuries knew no such teach- 
 ing or practice, and that the CathoHc Church of the 
 next four testifies against it, is enough to condemn it. 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, *' the catacombs of Rome 
 . attest the practice of the early Christian 
 Church. You could see there painted on the walls, or 
 on vases of glass, the Dov^e, the emblem of the Holy 
 Ghost ; Christ carrying His Cross, or bearing on his 
 shoulders the lost sheep. You could also meet with 
 the Lamb, and an anchor, and a ship, appropriate 
 types of our Lord, of hope, and of the Church " (pp. 
 189, 190). 
 
 Certainly you could ; and you can see them now, in 
 our Churches, on our stained-glass windows, and no 
 
SACRED IMAGES. 207 
 
 one ever confounds them with images set up to be 
 worshipped. No one bows down to them, or burns 
 incense to them. They are either historical pictures, 
 useful for instruction, or symbols. Now a symbol 
 and an image are entirely distinct from each other. 
 An eye is a symbol of knowledge ; a triangle is a symbol 
 of the Trinity ; a dove is a symbol of the Holy Ghost. 
 In like manner, the cross is a sy7nbol of the crucifixion ; 
 but the crucifix is an image of it : and, as the Archbishop 
 well knows, you find no crucifix in the catacombs. 
 
 '' The first crusade against images was waged in the 
 eighth century by Leo the Isaurian, Emperor of Con- 
 stantinople" (p. 190). 
 
 A slight mistake of the Archbishop, in the name of 
 the monarch, and in the chronology. It was good 
 king Hezekiah, fifteen hundred years before Leo, who 
 waged the first crusade against images. '* He de- 
 stroyed the high places," says the Douay Bible 
 (4 Kings (our 2 Kings) 18 .-4) " and broke the statues 
 in pieces, and cut down the groves, and broke the bra- 
 zen serpent, which Moses had made : for till that time 
 the children of Israel burnt incense to it : and he called 
 its name Nohestan [Nehushtan, brass image ; as if he 
 had said, as he smashed it, '' Old Brass !"]. '' This bar- 
 baric warfare against religious memorials was," in 
 the opinion of the Archbishop, *' not only a grievous 
 sacrilege, but an outrage against the fine arts" (p. 191). 
 Yet the Douay Bible, in continuation of the narrative, 
 commends Hezekiah for that ''he stuck to the Lord, 
 and departed not from his steps, but kept his command- 
 ments, which the Lord commanded Moses." 
 
 Now for what reason was it that Hezekiah thus 
 broke in pieces an image that had been made by the 
 express command of God Himself ; and not only broke 
 it in pieces, but applied to it an opprobrious epithet ? 
 It was because '' the children of Israel burnt incense to 
 it " — the very thing which (as v/e have seen above, p. 
 
2o8 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 205) the Archbishop's own Coilncil (or rather, his 
 Church's, for he seems to be afraid '-' of it) commanded 
 to be done. 
 
 *' Every Cathohc child clearly comprehends the es- 
 sential difference which exists between a Pagan idol 
 and a Christian image'' (p. 192). 
 
 If so, then *' every Catholic child " has a clearer com- 
 prehension than the Archbishop ; for he says in the 
 next breathy *' The Pagans looked upon an idol as a 
 god endowed with intelligence, and the other attri- 
 butes of the Deity. They were therefore idolators, 
 or image-worshippers. Catholic Christians know that a 
 holy image has no intelligence or power to hear and 
 help them." The Archbishop slanders '' the Pagans ;" 
 not intentionally, of course, but ignorantly, for lack of 
 the clear comprehension that the '' Catholic child " 
 has. His own favorite Protestant authority, the 
 '* great Leibnitz," as he calls him in the next para- 
 graph, Avhere he quotes him at length, could have 
 taught him better ; for he says, as there quoted, '' Cer- 
 tainly no sane man [and therefore no sane pagan, for 
 the pagan is a man] thinks, under such circumstances, 
 of praying in this wise : ' Give me, O image, what I 
 ask ; to thee, O marble or wood, I give thanks ;' but 
 * Thee, O Lord, I adore ;' " or, as the pagan would 
 put it. Thee, O Jupiter, I adore. The sole difference 
 between a Pagan image and a Christian image is, that 
 the one is intended to represent a Pagan god or demi- 
 god, the other Jesus Christ (very God of very God), or 
 the Virgin, or one of the Saints. The image of Christ 
 is therefore in the same category with the golden calf, 
 which was intended to represent not many godsy as it 
 
 * And yet he is under solemn vow to adhere to it ; for the Creed of 
 Pope Pius IV. which was imposed in 1564 upon all the beneficed Clergy 
 of the Roman Church says, ** I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all 
 other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons and 
 General Councils. '* 
 
SACRED IMAGES. 209 
 
 is wrongly translated (Exod. 32 : 4), but the one God, as 
 it is elsewhere rightly translated (Neh. [2 Esdr.] 9 : 18). 
 It is true the verb is plural in the former, and singular 
 in the latter ; but this only shows that a noun in the 
 " plural of majesty'' may take either a singular or a 
 plural verb ; which is further proved (if further proof 
 be wanting) by comparing the Hebrew of 2 Samuel 
 [Kings] 7 : 23 with i Chron. [Paralip.] 17:21. When 
 Moses came down from the Mount he found the 
 Israelites worshipping not other gods than Jehovah, 
 but Jehovah Himself, by means of an image ; in vio- 
 lation not of the first but of the second "^ commandment ; 
 and therefore it was that Moses burnt the calf in the 
 fire, and ground it to powder. And therefore it is 
 that the Fathers of the first six centuries denounce 
 image-worship. And they know nothing of the mod- 
 ern distinction which allows the worship of images of 
 Christ, but not of images of God. They reject all 
 image-worship. 
 
 Origen says : *' It is a thing impossible that one 
 should know God, and pray to images." Ov juev 
 Svvarov eari Jia\ yiyvc^aKBiv toy deov, xai roi£ ayaX- 
 fxaaiv evx^^dai., — Co7itr, Cels. lib. vii. p. 386. 
 
 Lactantius : '' Wherefore there is no doubt that 
 where there is an image, there is no religion." Quare 
 non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubicunque 
 simulacrum est. — Div, Inst. 1. ii. c. 18. 
 
 Ambrose : *' The Church knows no empty forms 
 and figures of images." Ecclesia inanes ideas et vanas 
 nescit simulacrorum figuras. — De Fug, Scec, c. 5. 
 
 Augustine : *' For images are of m^ore avail to bow 
 down the unhappy mind (in that they have mouth, 
 have eyes, have ears, have nostrils, have hands, have 
 feet) than they have to correct it in that they speak 
 
 * This shows that the two commandments are distinct, and that there- 
 fore the joining of the two together as is done by the Douay, following 
 a few inferior manuscripts, is wronj^. 
 
210 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 not, see not, hear not, smell not, handle not, walk not.'* 
 Plus enim valent simulacra ad curvandam infelicem 
 animam, quod os habent, oculos habent, aures habent, 
 nares habent, manus habent, pedes habent ; quam ad 
 corrigendam, quod non loquentur, non videbunt, non 
 audient, non odorabunt, non contrectabunt, non am- 
 bulabunt. — In Psal. 113 : 6. 
 
 Jerome : '' We worship one only image, Jesus 
 Christ, who is the image of God the Father." Nos 
 unam tantum veneramur imaginem, Jesum nempe 
 Christum, qui est imago Dei Patris. — In i Joan, 5 : 10. 
 Remarking upon which Erasmus (as quoted by Bishop 
 Andre wes, ap. Brogden, vol. ii., p. 359), says that '* till 
 Jerome was dead (a.d. 420) there was no image re- 
 ceived." — Erasm, Censura Catech, 6, et in Prcef at, in 
 Hieron, 
 
 One more instance must suffice : Serenus, Bishop of 
 Marseilles, having broken down the images in his 
 Church because he found the people Avorshipping 
 them, Pope Gregory the Great wrote to him : '' We 
 commended you that you had that zeal, that nothing 
 made with hands should be worshipped : but yet we 
 judge that you should not have broken those images. 
 For painting is therefore used in Churches, that they 
 who are unlearned may yet by sight read those things 
 upon the walls, which they cannot read in books." Et 
 quidem zelum vos, ne quid manufactum adorari possit 
 habuisse laudavimus : sed frangere easdem imagines 
 non debuisse judicamus, etc. — Registr, lib. vii. epist. 
 109 ; etiam lib. ix. ep. ix. ap. Brog. ii. 338. 
 
 This was at the beginning of the seventh century. 
 By this time images and paintings had been introduced 
 for purposes of instruction ; but not till nearly two 
 hundred years after, in the second Council of Nice, 
 A.D. 787, was the worship of them sanctioned. And 
 this Council was rejected by the Council of Frankfort 
 (a.d. 794), composed of three hundred bishops from 
 
SACRED IMAGES, 2il 
 
 Gaul, Aquitaine, Germany, and Italy ; by the Council 
 of Constantinople (a.d. 815); and by the Council of 
 Paris (a.d. 824). 
 
 Taiitcc niolis erat Romamun condere cultum. 
 
 Image-worship is a superstition of the heart, not of 
 the head ; hence its danger. As Leibnitz well says, 
 *' No sane man thinks'' — /.^., holds as the deliberate 
 conclusion of his intellect — that the image hears him ; 
 but many a sane man — ^as men count sanity — imagines 
 it for the moment : for, says St. Augustine, ** Who 
 worships or prays, looking upon an image, and does not 
 become so affected as to imagine he is heard by it, as 
 to hope that what he longs for will be granted him by 
 it?'' Quis autem adorat vel orat, intuens simulacrum, 
 qui non sic afficitur, ut ab eo se exaudiri putet, ab eo 
 sibi prsestari quod desiderat speret? — 7;^ PsaL cxiii. 
 sec. 5. And this of St. Augustine's I will match against 
 the rest of the long quotation from Leibnitz. St. Augus- 
 tine knew whereof he affirmed, for he had been a pa- 
 gan idolator himself. Indeed, most of the utterances 
 I have cited from him and from the other Fathers — and 
 I might have cited ten times as many — on this point, 
 were called forth by the image-worship of the pagans. 
 And this, of itself proves that image-worship was not 
 then practised in the Catholic Church. For had it 
 been, these Fathers would not have dared to use such 
 language : for their adversaries would have retorted 
 it upon them with terrible effect ; would have retorted 
 on them St. Paul's language (Rom. 2:21) or its equiv- 
 alent : *' Thou therefore which teachest another, 
 teachest thou not thyself ? . . . thou that abhorrest 
 idols, dost thou commit sacrilege [literally, rob 
 temples]? " Which, says Prof. Ornsby (of the '' Cath- 
 olic University of Ireland ") in his Note on the passage, 
 '' refers, according to St. Chrys., to the Jews robbing 
 pagan temples, though forbidden by the Mosaic law to 
 
212 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 possess idols (Deut. 7 : 25), or the gold and silver of 
 which they Avere made/' Verily, had the Christians 
 of those days worshipped images (which the Arch- 
 bishop, in the passage I quoted from him at the begin- 
 ning of this chapter, admits they were '' very cautious ' 
 about), the name of God would have been '' blasphemed 
 among the Gentiles'' (Rom. 2 : 24) through them, as it 
 is blasphemed through Roman image-worship now in 
 heathen lands. I say viXi2i^Q,-worship ; for such it is ad- 
 mitted, nay, boldly maintained, to be, by those stand- 
 ard writers, Aquinas and Azorius, from whom I have 
 quoted, and many others (e,g,, Boverius, Cardinal 
 Cajetan, Guil. Lyndewode, Jac. Nanclantus, Pet. de 
 Cabrera, Jac. de Graffiis) from whom I might quote, for 
 I have passages of theirs now lying before me, which 
 are none the worse for being vouched for by Arch- 
 bishop Usher, a Primate who is not in the habit of draw- 
 ing on fictitious funds, and whose drafts, therefore, 
 are not dishonored. Against the consentient testimon}^ 
 of these theologians and canonized saints, and against 
 the further testimony involved in the notorious prefer- 
 ence of the common people for some one particular 
 image of the Virgin over any and all other images of 
 her, because they think their prayers before it are more 
 likely to be answered, it is idle for the Archbishop to 
 attempt to tone down the doctrine and the practice. 
 Worse than idle is it for him to insult the intelligence 
 of the humblest of his non-Roman readers by parallel- 
 ing the uncovering of the heads of the spectators at the 
 unveiling of the statue of Henry Clay in Richmond 
 with the prostrations and incense-burnings before the 
 images of the Virgin and the saints in the Roman 
 Churches. He knows, and they know, and every 
 Catholic child, and I think I may say every Roman 
 child, '' clearly comprehends" that the one is religious 
 worship, and the other isn't ; and that the two are 
 heaven- wide from each other. Did he ever hear of any 
 
SACRED IMAGES, 213 
 
 one burning incense to '' the statues of illustrious men'* 
 in ''Westminster Abbey/' or to ''the likenesses of 
 George Washington, of Patrick Henry, of Chief Jus- 
 tice Taney" ? 
 
 It is noteworthy that the Archbishop does not cite a 
 single passage of Scripture in proof of image- worship."^ 
 He cites the command to make the brazen serpent ; 
 bnt he is well aware that it was for healing, not for 
 worship, and that when it was perverted to this latter 
 use, Hezekiah destroyed it. He cites also the com- 
 mand to make the cherubim, and the account (3 (our i) 
 Kings 6) of the carvings of cherubims and other figures 
 in Solomon's Temple. But these, Avith the exception 
 of the cherubim, are such as we have in our Churches ; 
 and the cherubim were not for worship, while the im- 
 ages in the Roman Churches are ; for, says Cardinal 
 Cajetan, speaking of the representations of Christ, and 
 of angels, and of saints, ' ' they are not only painted 
 that they may be shown as the Cherubims were of old 
 in the Temple, but that they may be adored^ as the fre- 
 quent use of the Chureh doth testify, Non solum pingun- 
 tur, ut ostendantur, sicut Cherubim olim in templo, sed 
 ut adorentur : ut frequens usus Ecclesiae testatur. — In 
 3 part, Thomce, qusest. 25, art. 3." (Usher, ap. Brogden). 
 The Archbishop, however, tries to convey a contrary 
 impression, by introducing (p. 195) a dialogue between 
 "an English Parson" and " a Catholic friend": 
 '' Tom, don't you pray to images?" " We pray be- 
 fore them," replied Tom ; " but we have no intention 
 of praying to them. " " Who cares for your intention, ' ' 
 retorted the Parson. " Don't you pray at night ?" ob- 
 served Tom. ''Yes," said the Parson; "I pray at 
 
 * Not even Heb. 11 : 21 ; doubtless because he has at last found out 
 that " worshipped the top of his rod," which is the rendering even of the 
 edition of Lucus Brothers, sanctioned by Abp. Whitefield, is a falsification 
 of the Greek, which reads, *' worshipped upon (em) the top of his rod ;" 
 and cannot possibly mean " worshipped the top of his rod." 
 
214 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS, 
 
 my bed/ ' '' Yes ; you pray to the bedpost/' *' Oh, 
 no !'' said the reverend gentleman ; '' I have no inten- 
 tion of doing that/' *' Who cares/' replied Tom, '' for 
 your intention" (pp. 195-196). That is to say — if the 
 illustration means anything — Tom — and ** Tom" is a 
 representative man, representing the whole Roman 
 Communion — no more adores the image than the Par- 
 son adores the bedpost. And yet, according to Car- 
 dinal Cajetan, the image is put in the Church '' to be 
 adored," while even *' every Catholic child" knows 
 that the bedpost is 7iot put into the bedchamber to be 
 adored, and is not adored. Which are we to believe 1 
 Tom, or the Cardinal ? For my part 1 prefer to be- 
 lieve the Cardinal, backed, as he is, by the second 
 Council of Nice, the consensus of a whole catena of 
 theologians, and the well-known outward acts of 
 Roman worship. 
 
 But, continues the Archbishop, '' the moral rectitude 
 or depravity of our actions cannot be determ.ined with- 
 out taking into account the intention. " 
 
 Granted ; but I have a right to infer the intention 
 from the manner of the act, and the circumstances by 
 which it is surrounded. When I see a man draw his 
 pistol, take deliberate aim at his neighbor, and shoot 
 him down, I have a right to infer that he intended to 
 shoot him. And when I see — and here comes in what 
 I had to say about the nature of the worship of the 
 Virgin and the Saints, and which I said on page 503 I 
 would defer to this chapter — when I see the outward 
 acts that are everywhere and by all, learned and un- 
 learned, barbarous and civilized, recognized as the em- 
 bodiment and expression of adoration — when I see these 
 outward acts addressed to the Virgin, and the Saints, 
 and their Images, 1 have a right to infer that they who 
 thus address these acts, adore the Virgin, and the 
 Saints, and their Images. They may tell us that they 
 are only asking the prayers of the Saints as they ask the 
 
SACRED IMAGES, 215 
 
 prayers of their brethren here on earth, but the sur- 
 rounding circumstances disprove it. Actions speak 
 louder than words. *' The Or a pro nobis of the Roman 
 Church is more than a request for a fellow-Christian's 
 prayers. It is uttered with all the signs of religious 
 homage : on bended knee ; in places and at times of 
 Divine Service ; to the strains of solemn music ; with 
 as much fervor and frequency as Per Jesum Christtim 
 Domimim Nostrum, How utterly unlike to the mutual 
 intercessions of St. Paul and the faithful are the mod- 
 ern Roman litanies (vide, e,g,, the Litany in Ritual 
 Roinanitm^ p. 104),^ which pass v/ithout break or pause 
 from the worship of the blessed Trinity to supplicate 
 the prayers of St. Mary, all the Apostles and Evange- 
 lists, all the holy Martyrs, all holy Bishops and Con- 
 fessors and Doctors, Priests and Levites, Monks and 
 Hermits, Virgins and Widows, Saints male and 
 female ; at least fifty of these being mentioned by name 
 in as many separate petitions ! Is it possible that 
 these solemn and systematic invocations can fail to over- 
 shadow the mediatorship of our Saviour Christ?" 
 (Swete, England versus Rome, pp. 95, 96). 
 
 No, it is not possible ; and we know, as a matter of 
 fact, that the Invocation of the Virgin does overshadow 
 the Mediatorship of Christ. Witness such prayers as 
 the following : 
 
 '' O glorious Virgin Mary, I commit my soul and 
 body to thy blessed trust this night and for ever, but 
 more especially at the hour of my death. I recommend 
 to thy merciful charity all my hopes, my consolations, 
 my distress and misery, my life and the end thereof." 
 Litany of our Blessed Lady of Loretto ; ap. Swete, 
 p. 97. 
 
 ** Mary, Mother of grace. Mother 01 mercy, shield 
 us from the Enemy, and receive us at the hour of 
 
 * Also that at the dedication of Cardinal McCloskey's Cathedral. 
 
2l6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 death. ' ' — RitiiaL Roman, de visitatione infinnoruin. 
 Ibid., p. 98. 
 
 How different the prayer of the dying Stephen, 
 Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ! 
 
 The Archbishop thinks '' the outcry formerly raised 
 against images\i2i^ almost subsided ;" and his reason for 
 thinking so is that '* some of our dissenting brethren 
 [how mild he puts it !] are already beginning to recog- 
 nize the utility of religious symbols !'' It takes a surgical 
 operation, it is said, to get a joke into a Scotchman's 
 head : nothing short of one, I fear, will ever get the 
 difference between a symbol and an image into the 
 Archbishop's. 
 
 '' Crosses already surmount some of our Protestant 
 churches, and replace the weather-cock" (p. 204). 
 
 ''Already," quotha.^ They were oxv our Churches 
 before the Archbishop was born, but we never dreamed 
 of worshipping them, any more than of worshipping 
 the weather-cocks. They are both symbols ; the latter 
 a symbol, not of fickleness, but of change for cause, for 
 it never veers except to catch the breath of heaven. 
 
 It is remarkable that the Archbishop says not a word 
 of Relics, though the Catechism of the Council of Trent 
 directs that the faithful '' be accurately taught that 
 . . . the honor which the CathoHc Church has always 
 paid even to the bodies and ashes of the saints, are not 
 forbidden by this [the first — with us the second] com- 
 mandment " (p. 328). There is need, certainl}^ of this 
 teaching ; else '' the faithful " would be pretty certain 
 to think such honoring was forbidden. Perhaps the 
 Archbishop will account for the omission by saying 
 he is ** writing for the information of Protestants" (p. 
 196), not for the faithful. Pity, then, the ''informa- 
 tion" were not more complete and more trustworthy. 
 I will endeavor to make up for its shortcoming on this 
 head by an extract from one of the Homilies of the 
 Church of England set forth in the time of Queen Eliz- 
 abeth — the homily Against Peril of Idolatry : 
 
SACRED IMAGES, 217 
 
 " Because Relics were so gainful, few places Avere 
 there but that they had relics provided lor them. And 
 for more plenty of relics some one saint had man}^ 
 heads, one in one place, and another in another place. 
 Some had six arms and twenty-six fingers. And where 
 (whereas) our Lord bare His Cross alone, if all the 
 pieces of the relics thereof were gathered together, the 
 greatest ship in England would scarcely bear them. 
 . . And not only the bones of the saints, but every- 
 thing appertaining to them Avas a holy relic. In some 
 places they offer a sword, in some the scabbard, in some 
 a shoe, in some a saddle that had been set upon some 
 holy horse, in some the coals wherewith St. Lawrence 
 was roasted, in some the tail of the ass which our Lord 
 Jesus Christ sat on, to be kissed and offered unto as a 
 relic." 
 
 It seems hardly credible that such things should be, 
 though they undoubtedly were, and are ; and I do not 
 wonder that the Archbishop gives them a w4de berth. 
 The present Pope has stopped the sale of them, to pre- 
 vent the faithful being any longer imposed upon.^^ 
 But he should go further. Let him set forth at once 
 'diXi Index Expurgatorhis, containing a list of all the spuri- 
 ^olis relics. Or if that be thought impracticable, by 
 * reason ''the world itself could not contain the books 
 that should be written," let him issue Tixv Index Atcthen- 
 ticns, containing a list of all the genuine relics. A very 
 small volume Avould suffice for that ; and then the faith- 
 ful Avill know what to worship. And this he can easily 
 do, for he is infallible in the domain of faith and morals : 
 and surely objects of worship are within that domain ; 
 
 ■^ Perhaps he had heard of the keeper of a provincial museum, who, 
 expatiating on curiosity after curiosity, held up at last a rusty old weapon 
 and said : " This is the sword that Balaam had when he was going to kill 
 his ass. " But," suggested one of his visitors, " Balaam hadn't a sword ; 
 he only wished he had one." ** Your are right. I forgot. This is the 
 sword that Balaam wished \i^ had." 
 
2i8 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 for even the Archbishop will admit that to worship the 
 relics of a heretic is idolatry. Let us have the Index 
 then : the sooner the better. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 Of the seventeen pages of this chapter, in the " little 
 volume/' sixteen are devoted to Prayer for the Dead, 
 and are therefore supererogatory ; for who, that knows 
 anything about it, does not know that it was the prac- 
 tice of the early Church, and that ail the ancient Litur- 
 gies contain prayers for the faithful departed ? But 
 what has all this to do with Purgatory ? Who were 
 they that were thus prayed for ? Let the Liturgy of 
 the Church of Constantinople, ascribed to St. Chrysos- 
 tom, give the answer to this question, for itself, and 
 for the others ; for I haven't room to quote from them 
 all: 
 
 ''We offer unto thee this reasonable service, for 
 those who are at rest in the faith, our Forefathers, 
 Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Preachers, 
 Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Religious Persons, 
 and every spirit perfected in the faith ; especially for 
 our most holy, immaculate, most blessed Lady, the 
 mother of God and ever-virgin Mary." 
 
 Was the Virgin in Purgatory ? If so she must have 
 been there three or four hundred years when this lit- 
 urgy was composed ; for Chrysostom wasn't Bishop 
 of Constantinople till a.d. 398 : and the Patriarchs and 
 Prophets must have been there a good deal longer. 
 Leo Thuscus felt this difficulty, and undertook to get 
 around it in his translation of the liturgy into Latin by 
 rendering the passage thus : 
 
PURGA TOR V AND PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD, 2 1 9 
 
 ** We offer unto thee this reasonable serWce for the 
 faithfully deceased, for our Fathers and Forefathers ; 
 the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confess- 
 ors, and all the saints, interceding for them." Adhuc 
 offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obseqinum pro fideliter 
 dormientibus, pro patribus et proavis nostris ; inter- 
 venientibus Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis, etc. — 
 Ckrysos, Liturg, Latiji. (ap. Brog. ii. 124). 
 
 Thuscus thus manages to kill two birds with one 
 stone, not only not letting us pray for the Patriarchs, 
 etc., but actually setting them to praying for us. And 
 how does he do it ? Simply by causing mterveiiientibus 
 to intervene, where it has no business to be, there being 
 nothing in the Greek to correspond to it. Turn out 
 the intruder, and the translation will be correct, Patri- 
 archis, etc., being construed with pro, as well as dor- 
 mientibus and patribus ; just as the corresponding geni- 
 tives in the Greek original are construed with vTtep, 
 
 Thus we see that the prayers for the dead, in the 
 ancient liturgies, were for souls in Paradise, not for 
 souls in Purgatory. 
 
 The Archbishop quotes from the Oration of St. 
 Ambrose on the death of the Emperor Theodosius, 
 beginning with, '' Give perfect rest to thy servant 
 Theodosius," and ending with, '' Nor will I leave him 
 until, by tears and prayers, I shall lead him [where his 
 merits call him "^] unto the holy mountain of the Lord, 
 where is life undying," etc. (p. 211.) {De Obit, Theod. 
 
 36, 37.) 
 
 The Archbishop leaves out the five words which I 
 have put in brackets (putting dots in their place), not 
 because of the huge space they would occupy, but be- 
 cause the non-Roman reader, if allowed to read them, 
 would see at once that if the merits of Theodosius 
 called him to the holy mountain of the Lord, as Am- 
 
 ■^ " Quo sua merita vocant." 
 
220 THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS. 
 
 brose said they did, he couldn't be in Purgatory. 
 That Ambrose prayed for the soul of Theodosius, is 
 plain from the Archbishop's quotation ; but that it 
 wasn't for his soul as being in Purgatory that he 
 prayed, I will make plain by quoting a previous pas- 
 sage which the Archbishop didit t quote, though it is in 
 the next preceding column, in Migne's edition : 
 
 ** Theodosius of honorable memory, being freed 
 from doubtful fight, doth now enjoy everlasting light 
 and continual tranquillity ; and for the things which he 
 did in this body, he rejoiceth in the fruits of God's re- 
 ward : because he loved the Lord his God, he hath ob- 
 tained the society of the saints." Absolutus igitur du- 
 bio certamine, fruitur nunc augustse memorise Theodo- 
 sius luce perpetua, tranquillitate diuturna ; et pro iis 
 quae in hoc gessit corpore, remunerationis divinse 
 fructibus gratulatur. Ergo quia dilexit augustas 
 memorias Theodosius Dominum Deum suum, meruit 
 sanctorum consortia. — Ambros. de Obit. Theod. 32, 
 
 In the adjoining column on the opposite side, over 
 against the Archbishop's extract, is the following : 
 
 '' Theodosius remaineth in light, and glorieth in the 
 company of the saints." Manet ergo in lumine Theo- 
 dosius, et sanctorum coetibus gloriatur. — Id, 39. 
 
 I might go on and give instance after instance ; and 
 I will g\wQ one more, from Bede's Ecclesiastical History 
 of England (Book iv. chap. 23), where, giving an ac- 
 count of the death of Hilda, abbess of the monastery 
 at Whitby, he relates how a nun at the monastery at 
 Hackness, thirteen miles from ^Vhitby, saAV in her 
 sleep Hilda's death, and awaking and perceiving that 
 she had had a vision, she ran to the Abbess Frigyth, and 
 told her that she had seen Hilda '' ascend to eternal 
 bliss, and to the company of the inhabitants of heaven, 
 with a great light, and with angels conducting her. 
 Frigyth having heard it, awoke all the sisters, and call- 
 ing them to the church, admonished them to pray and 
 
PURGA TORY AND PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD, 221 
 
 sing psalms for her soul, which they did during the 
 remainder of the night." 
 
 This last instance shows that even after they had be- 
 gun to pray for souls in purgatory, they still kept up 
 the old practice of praying for souls not in purgatory. 
 
 But why did they pray for those who were at rest 
 in paradise, and were awaiting with certainty their 
 crown of glory at the Resurrection ? For the same 
 reason that we pray, *' Thy kingdom come," adding 
 immediately, ** For thine is the kingdom;" God's 
 kingdom being certain to come, and we being taught, 
 nevertheless, to pray for its coming ; a reason recog- 
 nized even by Bellarmine, who says, " The Church 
 prays for the souls in purgatory, that they may not be 
 condemned to the everlasting pains of hell : not as if it 
 were not certain that they would not be condemned to 
 those pains, but that it is God's pleasure that we should 
 pray even for those things which we are certain to re- 
 ceive ; quia vult Deus nos orare etiam pro iis rebus 
 quas certo accepturi sumus. — De Purgatorio, lib. ii. 
 cap. 5 (Usher ap. Brogden, ii. p. 138). Our pra3^er, 
 ** Thy kingdom come,' is an expression of our fellow- 
 ship with that kingdom, and of our wish for its com- 
 ing ; and in like manner, our prayer for the faithful de- 
 parted is an expression of our fellowship with them, 
 and of our wish for their repose and final reward ; in 
 other words, it is an expression of our belief in the 
 Communion of Saints. The Thirty-nine Articles say 
 nothing against Prayers for the Dead in Christ. The 
 first Prayer Book of King Edward retained them. The 
 second dropped them out, because they had become so 
 inextricably interwoven with purgatory, in the minds 
 of the people, that the only way to get rid of the one 
 was to torego, for a time, the use of the other. A hun- 
 dred years later, the Commemoration in the Prayer for 
 the Church Militant was restored ; perhaps the other 
 
22 2 THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS. 
 
 prayers may be at some future day.^ Meanwhile no 
 clergyman has a right to use them in the Public Wor- 
 ship of the Church. 
 
 I have thus shown that the prayers for the dead, in 
 the Early Church, had nothing whatever to do with 
 Purgatory. The same is true (so far as the wording of 
 it is concerned, however it may be in the intention of 
 those who use it) of the Prayer in the Roman Missal, as 
 given by the Archbishop (p. 214) : *' Remember, O 
 Lord, Thy servants who are gone before us with the 
 sign of faith, and sleep in peace. To these, O Lord, 
 and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, 
 a place of refreshment, f light, and peace, through the 
 same Jesus Christ our Lord." There is nothing of 
 purgatory in this ; nothing that any one might not use 
 and yet den}^ the existence of purgatory. 
 
 '' During my sojourn in Rome at the Ecumenical 
 Council, I devoted a great deal of my leisure time to 
 the examination of the various Liturgies of the schis- 
 matic churches of the East. I found in all of them 
 formulas of prayers for the dead almost identical with 
 that of the Roman Missal: ** Remember,'' etc. [the 
 one just given]. 
 
 ** Not content with studying their books, I called 
 upon the Oriental Patriarchs and Bishops in communion 
 with the See of Rome, who belong to the Armenian, 
 the Chaldean, the Coptic, the Maronite, and Syriac 
 rites. They all assured me that the schismatic Chris- 
 tians of the East among whom they live, have, without 
 exception, prayers and sacrifices for the dead '' (pp. 
 214, 215). 
 
 From this the Archbishop draws the conclusion that 
 the ''practice of praying for the dead'' was in the 
 
 * No Protestant could well object to a petition like this, for a brother 
 or sister who had departed in the faith of Christ ; May he {07 she) have the 
 joy of 7velcomii7g its to paradise, 
 
 f See farther on, p. 785. 
 
PURGA TOR V AND PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD. 223 
 
 Church before the earliest of these schismatics sepa- 
 rated from it — viz., in the fourth or fifth century ; a fact 
 that nobody disputes. But he forgets (accidentally, 
 of course) to tell his readers that the Orientals do 
 not hold to purgatory. His brother-theologue Al- 
 phonsus de Castro shall give his memory a jog : 
 '* The mention of purgatory in ancient writers, es- 
 pecially in the Greeks, is almost none at all. For 
 which cause purgatory is not believed by the Greeks 
 to this very day.'' De purgatorio in atiquis scrip- 
 toribus potissimum Grsecis fere nulla mentio est. Qua 
 de causa usque in hodiernum diem purgatorium non 
 est a Grascis creditum. — Alphonsus de Castro advers. 
 Hceres, lib. viii. verbo Indulgentia. (Laud, Confer, 
 with Fisher, London, 1639, p. 354; apud Brogden, vol. 
 ii., p. loi.) 
 
 Having thus disposed of the fifteen or sixteen pages 
 that the Archbishop devotes to prayers for the dead, I 
 come now to the one or two that he devotes to purga- 
 tory. And first let us have the Archbishop's definition 
 of Purgatory. 
 
 ** The Catholic Church teaches that, besides a place 
 of eternal torments for the wicked and of everlasting 
 rest for the righteous, there exists in the next life a 
 middle state of temporary punishment, allotted for 
 those who have died in venial sin, or who have not sat- 
 isfied the justice of God for sins already forgiven" (p. 
 
 204). 
 
 Venial sins ' imply mortal sins ; and as the '' little vol- 
 ume" contains no explanation of the difference between 
 the two, 1 shall seek one in a volume still smaller, but 
 more complete— Archbishop Chsdloner' s Cat /lo lie C/iris- 
 tian Instructed \ New York: The Catholic Publication 
 Society : 
 
 '' All those sins are to be esteemed mortal, which 
 the word of God represents to us as hateful to God, 
 against which he pronounces a woe, or of which it 
 
224 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 declares, that such as do those things shall not enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven" (p. 137). 
 
 Can any one tell us what sins, according to this classi- 
 fication, are not mortal ? Surely, all sins come under 
 one or another of these three categories. Indeed, 
 they all come under the first ; for sin is in its very na- 
 ture *' hateful to God/' Yet we are told by Dr. Chal- 
 loner, in the preceding paragraph, that Christians '* are 
 obliged to confess all such as are mortal, or of which 
 they have reason to doubt lest they may be mortal ; 
 but they are not obliged to confess venial sins, because, 
 as these do not exclude eternally from the kingdom of 
 heaven, so there is not a strict obligation of having re- 
 course for the remission of them to the keys of the 
 church.'' 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say that the Roman division 
 of sins into mortal and venial, has no warrant in the 
 Word of God. Holy Scripture does indeed speak (i 
 St. John 5 : 16, 17) of '* a sin unto death," and '* a sin 
 not unto death ;" but the Note on this passage, in the 
 pocket edition of the Archbishop's version, says, '* It 
 is hard to determine what St. John here calls a sin 
 which is not unto death, and a sin which is unto death. 
 The difference cannot be the same as betwixt sins that 
 are called venial and mortal.'' And there is no other 
 passage that gives even the slightest countenance to 
 the Roman distinction. All sin repented of, even 
 the most aggravated, is venial ; all sin unrepented of, 
 even the least aggravated, is mortal. There is a differ- 
 ence in the punishment of slight and of heinous sins, 
 but it is a difference of intensity, not of duration ; sin 
 repented of hath full and free forgiveness ; sin unre- 
 pented of hath never forgiveness. There is therefore 
 no foundation for the Archbishop's two classes in Pur- 
 gatory — '' those who have died in [unforgiven] venial 
 sin" and those *' who have not satisfied the justice of 
 God for [mortal] sins already forgiven." I mean, 
 
PURGA TOR V AXD PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD. 225 
 
 there is no foundation for them in Scripture. Just as 
 little foundation is there in it for the existence of Pur- 
 gatory. Indeed the Archbishop brings forward but 
 two passages in support of it from Canonical Scripture. 
 But he prefaces them with a quotation from the Second 
 Book of Maccabees ; and in doing it, he has the iinptc- 
 dence to liken us, who reject that Book as no part of 
 the Canon, to ** a man who assassinates a hostile wit- 
 ness.'' A man must be a simpleton to assassinate a wit- 
 ness that has already been ruled out of court as incom- 
 petent. And this is the case Avith the witness in ques- 
 tion. It w^as ruled out by the Jews (to whom, says 
 St. Paul (Rom. 3:2)'' were committed the oracles of 
 God '') two thousand years ago, and by the Christians 
 from the beginning down to the fourth century, as I 
 have already shown (p. 75) by St. Jerome, the trans- 
 lator of the Latin Vulgate. I have also shown that 
 the author of the book makes admissions (2 Mace. 
 15 : 39) concerning himself inconsistent with his being 
 inspired. Here is a specimen of what Rome counts 
 canonical : '' When he (Razias) was ready to be (rather, 
 on the point of being) taken, he struck himself with his 
 sword, choosing to die nobly rather than to fall into 
 the hands of the wicked '' (2 Mace. 14 : 41, 42). Here 
 we have the Archbishop and his Church claiming inspi- 
 ration for a writer who, not only narrates a suicide, 
 but commends it ; thereby making themselves /^r/Za/^i- 
 criminis in the commendation. Think of an Archbishop 
 commending suicide ! 
 
 Foiled in his attempt to palm off upon us, in spite of 
 the protest of St. Jerome, the Books of the Maccabees 
 as inspired Scripture, the Archbishop comes down a 
 peg, and is willing, ** for the sake of argument," to ap- 
 peal to them simply as '' truthful [but not infallible] his- 
 torical monuments?' Let us meet him, then, on this 
 ground, and see whether, as such, *' they serve," as he 
 alleges (p. 206) * 'to demonstrate that it was a prevailing 
 
2 26 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 practice among the Hebrew people, as it is vv^ith us 
 [/.^., Avith the Roman Church], to offer up prayers and 
 sacrifices for the dead." I give the passage in the 
 AngKcan Translation, which every Greek scholar who 
 has compared it with the Septuagint Text as edited 
 juxta Exemplar Vaticanum by Holmes and Lambert 
 Bos, knows to be correct; whereas the Vulgate Latin 
 Translation, from which the Douay Version is made 
 is incorrect ; and I begin with the 40th verse, whereas 
 the Archbishop (for cogent reasons, as will presently 
 be seen) begins with the 43d : 
 
 (40) ** Now under the coats of everyone that was 
 slain [in the battle fought by Judas Maccabeus against 
 Gorgias], they found things consecrated to the idols of 
 the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. 
 Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore 
 they were slain. (41) All men therefore praising the 
 Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things 
 that were hid, (42) betook themselves unto prayer, and 
 besought him that the sin committed might wholly be 
 put out of remembrance. Besides that, noble Judas 
 exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, foras- 
 much as they saw before their eyes the things that 
 came to pass for the sins of those that were slain. (43) 
 And when he had made a gathering throughout the 
 . company, to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, 
 he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin-offering [so far is 
 history; now come the historian's reflections], doing 
 therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful 
 of the resurrection; (44) (for if he had not hoped that 
 they that were slain should have risen again, it had 
 been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead) : (45) 
 and also in that he perceived that there was great favor 
 laid up for those that died godly. (46) It was a holy 
 and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconcili- 
 ation for the dead, that they might be delivered from 
 sin." 
 
PURGA TOR V AXD PRA VERS FOR THE DEAD. 227 
 
 The Douay Version has in the place of " to offer a 
 sin-offering," in verse 43 "for sacrifice to be offered 
 for the sins of the dead;" y\x\gditQ, p?^o peccatis mor- 
 tuoriun sacrificiitm. The word morttcoriun, ** of the 
 dead," has no business to be in the verse, there being 
 nothing to correspond to it in the Greek. Leave 
 that out, and put '' sins in the singular, withovit 
 the article, as it is in the Greek (Ttepl d/xaprias dvaiav).^ 
 and the narrative is plain, to wit, as Prideaux {Connec- 
 tion, Pt. ii. Bk. 4) paraphrases it : '* Whereby perceiv- 
 ing for what cause God had given them up to be slain, 
 Judas and all his company gave praise unto Him, and 
 humbly offered up their prayers for the pardon of the 
 sin [all the survivors being (after the analogy of Deut. 
 21 : 1-9, particularly verse 8) ceremonially involved in 
 it]. And then making a collection through the whole 
 company, which amounted to 2,000 drachms [not 
 12,000, as the Vulgate and the Douay have it], sent it 
 to Jerusalem to provide sin-offerings, thereto be offered 
 up for the expiating this offence, that wrath for it 
 might not fall upon the whole congregation of Israel, 
 as formerly it had (Joshua 7 : 10-26) in the case of 
 Achan." 
 
 What follows is the comment of the anonymous 
 compiler of the history. For his facts he is indebted 
 to the work of Jason, in five books : the comments are 
 his own, and are of no authority, being simply his pri- 
 vate opinions. Even these are grossly misrepresented 
 by the Douay Version (the one quoted by the Arch- 
 bishop), which, following the Vulgate, translates the 
 last verse thus : *' It is, therefore, a holy and whole- 
 some thought to pray for the dead, that they may be 
 loosed from sins." The original Greek puts a colon 
 after thought, thereby making it refer to the resurrec- 
 tion, just before mentioned : the Douay, following the 
 Vulgate, takes away the colon, thereby bring the word 
 '* thought " into seeming connection with what follows, 
 
228 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 which is simply impossible in the Greek. The verse, 
 literally translated, runs thus : '* holy and pious (was) 
 the thought : wherefore for (oQ^v nepi) the dead he 
 made the expiation, to be loosed from the sin/' Who 
 to be loosed ? Plainly Judas himself, and those with 
 him : not the dead ; for to them, dying as they did in 
 mortal sin, the sin of idolatry, there was under the 
 Jewish law of old, as there is now according to the 
 teaching of Rome herself, no loosing. Take the Roman 
 representation of the passage, and it stands out, in 
 solitary abnormity, the first instance, and the last, in 
 all Jewish history from the beginning even unto this 
 da}^, of prayer or sacrifice for the loosing of the dead 
 from their sins. Josephus makes no mention of it, 
 though he gives {Antiquities, B. xii. c. 7) an account 
 of the battle. It all rests upon the authority of the 
 anonymous compiler of the Second Book of Maccabees ; 
 and ev^en his compilation has to be falsified in the trans- 
 lation to make it speak as Rome wants it to speak ; and 
 even then the Archbishop doesn't dare to quote the 
 first part of the account, because it would show the 
 reader that they for whom the offering is alleged to 
 have been made died in mortal sin ! 
 
 The Archbishop's triumphant question, then, ** Did 
 our Lord, at any time, reprove the Jews for their be- 
 lief in a middle state, or for praying for the dead ?** is 
 easily answered. He had no occasion to reprove 
 them; for their *' middle state" was that which He 
 Himself brings before us in the parable, with Abraham 
 and Lazarus on this side the '* great gulf," and Dives 
 on that ; which certainly wasn't purgatory, for there 
 was no passing from the one to the other ; and as to 
 prayer for the loosing of the dead from their sins, they 
 had it not. The prayers used by the Jews in their 
 worship in the time of our Lord are still extant, and I 
 challenge the Archbishop to point to a single petition 
 in them for the loosing of the dead from their sins. And 
 
PURGA TOR V AiVD PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD. 229 
 
 I extend the challenge to take in the Jewish prayers of 
 the present day ; for in the long extract which he 
 gives from them on page 216 of his book, the reader 
 will search in vain for any such petition. The petitions 
 in the extract given by him are of the same class as 
 those in use in the early Church, and are as wide apart 
 from those of modern Rome as purgatory is from 
 paradise ; and that is an infinite distance. 
 
 1 come now to the Archbishop's proofs from inspired 
 Scripture. Of these he gives but two, having come, 
 doubtless, to the sound conclusion that that about the 
 sinner's not coming out till he has paid the vittermost 
 farthing, does not refer to purgatory, seeing he can 
 never pay it. 
 
 His first proof is from St. Matt. 12 : 32 : '' Whoso- 
 ever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be 
 forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to 
 come." But this won't prove purgatory, for three 
 reasons : 
 
 I. We can't conclude logically that because one sin 
 will not be forgiven hereafter, other sins will. As 
 Cardinal Bellarmine admits, '* The inference does not 
 follow from the premises ;" no7t seqiti sccundicin regiUas 
 dialecticoriun, — De Piirg, 1. i. C4,. t. ii. p. 393, B. Colo- 
 niae, 1628." (Hall on Purgatory, Lond. 1843, P- 49-) 
 
 2* Granting, for argument's sake, that ''there are 
 some sins which will be pardoned in the life to come," 
 they must be the sins of those who have never heard 
 of Christ in this life. That is the very utmost that the 
 text can prove. But these do not go to purgatory : 
 that is only for ''faithful souls, which have departed 
 hence in a state of grace, " ' * Est a fide catholica 
 alie?iuiu,'' says Thomas Aquinas (5//;;^;//<^ TheoL SuppL 
 Qucesty 100 de Ptirg.Diiaci, 1614. Ap. Hall on Purg. , 
 p. 15), '' negare purgatorium fidelium animarum ^;/<^ hinc 
 in statu gratiae decesserint, 
 
 3. Purgatory, according to the teaching of Rome, is 
 
230 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 for purgation and penalty, not for forgiveness : there 
 are but two classes that go there ; one, to suffer the 
 residuum of temporal penalty, or, as the Archbishop 
 puts it (p. 205), to satisfy tlie justice of God for sins 
 already forgiven ; the other, to expiate, not to obtain for- 
 giveness of, the guilt of venial sin : for, ''per pcenas 
 Purgatorii,'' says Bellarmine (de Purg, 1. ii. c. 6, t. ii. 
 p. 410, C. Ap. Hall, p. 14). ' peccatuni veniale expiatur 
 ETIAM QUOAD CULPAM ;" />.,'' by the pains of Purgatory 
 venial sin is expiated even in respect of its guilt,'' It is 
 plain, therefore, that it needs no forgiveness. We are 
 taught to pray. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our 
 debtors. If my creditor is unable to pay me, and I give 
 him a release, I forgive him the debt ; but if he pays 
 me in full, and I give him a receipt, that is not forgive- 
 ness. It is plain, then, that as the text from St. Mat- 
 thew speaks of forgiveness and not of penalty, and pur- 
 gatory speaks of penalty and not of forgiveness, there 
 is no connection between the two. 
 
 The Archbishop's second and only remaining proof 
 from inspired Scripture is found in i Cor. 3 : 11-15 : 
 ** For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, 
 which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon 
 this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, 
 hay, stubble ; every man's work shall be made mani- 
 fest : for the day shall declare it, because it shall be re- 
 vealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every man's work 
 of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he 
 hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If 
 any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss : 
 but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." 
 
 On this the Archbishop comments thus : ** His soul 
 will be ultimately saved, but he shall suffer, for a tem- 
 porary duration, in the purifying flames of Purgatory. 
 This interpretation is not mine. It is the unanimous 
 voice of the Fathers of Christendom" (p. 208). 
 
 The interpretation in question is not the unanimous 
 
PURGA TORY AND PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD, 231 
 
 voice of the Fathers of Christendom. '' Clement of 
 Alexandria, Ambrose, and Jerome,'' says Hall, 
 {Doctrine of Purgatory y p. 55), *' declare that the ' gold^ 
 silver y and precious stones ' signify ' catholic interpreta- 
 tions ;' and that * the zvood, hay, and stubble' signify 
 * heresies/ '' Of course, therefore, they do not inter- 
 pret the words of purgatory, for heretics are not ad- 
 mitted into it, and therefore their *' heresies" cannot 
 be burned up in it. ** Origen, Jerome, Augustine," 
 continues Hall, ''together with Bernard and Bede, 
 regard the 'fire ' as the emblem of * temporal tribula- 
 tion before death.''' Even Pope Gregory the Great 
 admits that it may be so interpreted. His w^ords 
 {Dial. 1. iv. c. 39, col 442, Paris, 1705), as quoted by 
 Hall in a foot-note, are, '' de igne tribulatioitis in hac 
 nobis vita adhibito possit i7itelligi\' i,e,y '* it may be un- 
 derstood of tribulation applied to us in this life." 
 *' Lactantius, Basil, and Ambrose," continues Hall, 
 *' apply it to the general conflagration at the day of 
 judgment : while Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, and Theophylact affirm it to be hell itself." 
 Here are no fewer than thirteen Fathers, to whom 
 might be added Hilary, as I will presently show, mak- 
 ing fourteen in all, several of them saints of the Roman 
 Calendar, every one of whom interprets the passage 
 otherwise than of Purgatory. And yet the Arch- 
 bishop has the courage to tell his unsuspecting reader 
 that the Fathers unanimously interpret the passage as 
 he does ! If he had no fear of Protestants before his 
 eyes, he might at least have had the modesty not to 
 go in the teeth of his own Cardinal Bellarmine, who, 
 speaking of the Fathers {de Pttrg, 1. ii. c. i, t. ii. p. 405, 
 G. ap. Hall, p. i68), says, '* Aliqui eorum (patrum) 
 per ignem non intelligunt ignem purgatorium, sed 
 ignem divini judicii. Ita videntur loqui Hilarius, 
 Hieronymus, et in loco posteriore (Ps. 118) Ambro- 
 sius :" iu\, '* Some of them (the Fathers) understand 
 
232 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 by it not the fire of purgatory, but the fire of divine 
 judgment. So seem to speak Hilary, Jerome, and in 
 a later place Ambrose/' He might have added 
 Augustine, who says expressly (in PsaL vi. c. 3), Ar- 
 guunntur autem in die jiidicii omnes qui non habent 
 fundamentum, quod est Christus : emendantur au- 
 tem, id est purgantur, qui huic fundamento superae- 
 dificant lignum, foenum, stipulam. Detrimentum enim 
 patientur, sed salvi erunt tanquam per ignem" — i,e,, 
 '' All are convicted in t]ie day of judgment who have 
 not the foundation, which is Christ. But they are 
 amended (in the day of judgment) — /.^., purified, who 
 build, upon this foundation, wood, hay, and stubble : 
 for they shall suffer (not shall have suffered) loss, but yet 
 they shall be saved, so as by fire." And again (in Psal. 
 ciii., Serm. 3), *' Hoc agit caminus : alios in sinistram 
 separabit, alios in dextram quodamodo eliquabit :" 
 />., " This is what the furnace does : it will separate 
 some to the left hand, and others it will refine, as it 
 were, and place them on the right. ''And says Ambrose 
 [in PsaL cxviii. Serin. 3), *' Post consummationem sseculi, 
 missis angelis qui segregent bonos et malos, hoc futu- 
 rum est baptisma : quando per caminum ignis iniquitas 
 exuretur, ut in regno Dei fulgeant justi sicut sol ipse 
 in regno patris sui. Et si aliquis sanctus ut Petrus sit, 
 ut Johannes, baptizatur hoc igne :" /.^., '' After the end 
 of the zvorldy when the angels shall be sent to separate 
 the good from the bad, then this baptism shall com- 
 mence, and iniquity shall be consumed in the furnace 
 of fire, that the just may shine as the sun in the king- 
 dom of their Father. Though any one were holy as 
 Peter and John, yet is he baptized with this fire." 
 '*Justos cum judicaverit," says Lactantius {Divin, 
 Instit, 1. vii. c. 21, vol. ii. pp. 146, 147, Ed. Bipont.), 
 " Deus etiam igni eos examinabit. Tum quorum pec- 
 cata vel pondere vel numero praevaluerint perstringen- 
 tur ab igni, amburentur. Quos autem plena justitia, 
 
PURGA TQR V AND PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD. 233 
 
 et maturitas virtutis incoxerit, ignem illam non senti- 
 ent. . . . Nee tamen quisquam putet, animas post 
 mortem protinus judicari. Omnes in una communique 
 custodia detinentur, donee tempus adveniat, quo max- 
 imus Index meritorum faciat examen :'' i.e,, '' When 
 God shall Judge the Just , he shall examine them even with 
 fire. Then those whose sins shall exceed in number 
 or magnitude, shall be scorched by the fire. But they 
 who have been imbued with complete righteousness 
 and maturity of virtue, shall not feel that fire. . . . 
 Let not any one suppose, however, that souls are 
 judged immediately after death. All are detairted in 
 one common custody tint il the time shall arrive when the 
 great Judge shall make EXAMINATION of their deserts, 
 ** An, cum ex omni otioso verbo,''says Hilary (in Psalm 
 cxviii. (our cxix.), Gimel,^ 12), rationem simus praesti- 
 turi, diem judicii concupiscemus, in quo nobis est ille 
 indefessus ignis subeundus ? in quo subeunda sunt gravia 
 ilia expiandse a peccatis animae supplicia ? Beatse 
 Marise animam gladius pertransibit, ut revelentur mul- 
 torum cordium cogitationes. Si in judicii severitatem 
 capax ilia Dei Virgo ventura est, desiderare quis aude- 
 bit a Deo judicari?'' — /.^., Since for every idle word 
 we must give account, can we desire the day of Judg- 
 ment, IN WHICH that unwearied fire must be undergone 
 and those severe punishments endured for the expiation 
 of the soul from sins ? A sword shall pass through the 
 soul of the Blessed Mary, that the thoughts of many 
 hearts may be revealed. If therefore that Virgin 
 Bearer of God {capax Dei) will come into tJie severity of 
 Judgment, who shall dare desire to be judged by God ?" 
 Here are four of the fourteen Fathers above-men- 
 tioned — three of them Saints of the Roman Calendar- — 
 who say expressly that the burning of the '' wood, hay, 
 and stubble,'' and the saving *' so as by fire," is at the 
 day of judgment ; and yet the Archbishop coolly de- 
 clares that they represent it as being not at the day of 
 
2 34 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 judgment, but in Purgatory, which is before the day of 
 judgment ! 
 
 I might quote passage after passage that I have 
 marked (for /don't deal in Avholesale assertions that 
 can't be substantiated) from other Fathers, in the teeth 
 of the Archbishop's assertion ; but 1 have not room 
 for them, nor is there need of them. 
 
 There is a passage in St. Cyprian (Epistle 55) which 
 is cited to prove Purgatory, but which refers not to 
 Purgatory, but to the penitential discipline in the earl}^ 
 Church, as may be seen proved at large by Hall {Doc- 
 trine of Purgatory, pp. 1 15-121) and Bp. Wo^i^Ym^ {End 
 of Controversy Controverted, vol. ii., pp. 308-312). It 
 would take more space than 1 can spare to give a full 
 account of it ; so I shall content myself with another 
 passage of Cyprian — one of seven that I have marked 
 in the Folio edition of his Works, Oxford, 1682, all to 
 the same effect — which is in direct antagonism .to the 
 doctrine of Purgatory : *' Quando istinc excessum 
 fuerit, nuUus jam poenitentise locus est, nuUus satisfac- 
 tionis effectus ; hie vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur" (p. 
 196): i.e,, '' When wx have departed hence, there is 
 no more place for repentance, nor effecting of satisfac- 
 tion ; it is here that life is either lost or secured." Ob- 
 serve the word *' satisfaction," and mark what the 
 Archbishop says of Purgatory (p. 205), to wit, that it is 
 *' allotted for those who have died in venial sin, or who 
 have not ^^//iy?^</the justice of God for sins already for- 
 given." According to St. Cyprian, there is no mak- 
 ing of satisfaction after we have departed this life ; ac- 
 cording to the Archbishop, we may make satisfaction 
 in Purgatory. It is plain, therefore, that the Arch- 
 bishop's Purgatory was unknown to St. Cyprian, and 
 therefore unknown to the Church of his day, that is to 
 say, of the middle of the third century. 
 
 St. Augustine, who flourished a century and a half 
 later, and who, as we have seen, referred the being 
 
PURGA TOR Y AND PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD. 235 
 
 *' sax^ed so as by fire'' to the day of judgment, is in ac- 
 cord with St. Cyprian ; for he says (Serra. ccclxxxvii. 
 t. V. col. 1699. ed. Migne) : '* Postea, cum de hoc saec- 
 ulo transierimus, nulla compositio vel aliqua satisf actio 
 remanebit:'' />., *' Afterwards, when we have de- 
 parted out of this life, there will remain no agreement 
 (with our adversary, St. Matt. 5 : 25) nor any satisfac- 
 tion,'' Elsewhere, however, he speaks doubtingly : 
 *' Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile 
 non est ; et utrum ita sit quaeri potest, et aut inveniri 
 aut latere, nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purga- 
 torium, quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexe- 
 runt, tanto tardius citiusve salvari {Ejicliirid, c. 69) : 
 Lc, '' That some such thing may take place after this 
 life is not incredible ; and inquiry may be made whether 
 it be so, and it may be found, or it may not, that some 
 believers, through a certain purgatorial fire, are later 
 or sooner saved, according as they have more or less 
 loved perishable goods.'' This is the nearest approach 
 he makes to Purgatory, and the doubting way in which 
 he speaks of it — ** it may be found, or it may not " — 
 shows, that, in his day — to wit, in the first quarter of the 
 Fifth Century, though it was creeping in, it had not 
 yet become the doctrine of the Church. This is ad- 
 mitted by some even of the Roman writers. I have 
 already (p. 223) quoted from Alphonsus de Castro. I 
 will now quote from Cardinal Fisher, Bishop of Roches- 
 ter in the time of Henry VIII., and who was put to 
 death by that monarch for refusing to accept the Royal 
 Supremacy in place of the Papal. Here is what he 
 says {Assert, Lntlier, Confiit,, Art. xviii., col. 496, 497. 
 Wirceb. 1597, ap. Hall, p. 174) on the matter in hand : 
 '' Legat qui velit Grsecorum veterum commentaries, et 
 nullum quantum opinor, aut quam rarissimum, de Pur- 
 gatorio sermonem inveniet. Sed neque Latini, simul 
 omnes ac sensim, hujus rei veritatem conceperunt :" 
 i.e., '' Read who will the commentaries of the ancient 
 
236 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Greeks, and he will find no speech, as I think, or the 
 very rarest, of Purgatory. Nor did the Latins all at 
 once, but gradually conceive the truth of it." And 
 says Father Barnes, about a.d. 1625 {Catholico-Rom, 
 Pact/,, sec. ix., p. 130, D. ad fin. Paralip. Oxon. 1680, 
 ap. Hall, p. 175), '' Punitio ergo in Purgatorio est res 
 in opinione humana posita : quae nee ex Scripturis nee 
 Patribus, nee Conciliis, deduci potest firmiter. Immo, 
 salvo meliore judicio, opposita sententiaeis conformior 
 videtur :" />., ** Punishment in Purgatory is a doc- 
 rine seated in human opinion. Neither from Scripture 
 7ior from the Fathers, nor from the (earlier) Councils, 
 can it be firml}^ deduced. Nay, with submission to 
 better judgment, the contrary opinion seems more con- 
 formable to them." 
 
 After this it would be superfluous to cite the numer- 
 ous passages I have marked from the Fathers before 
 the time of Augustine, all of the same purport with 
 this of Ambrose {in PsaL 40 (41) 2 ; '' shall be blessed 
 upon the earth ") : '' Bene addidit /;/ /^rr<^, quia nisi hie 
 mundatus fuerit, ibi mundus esse non poterit :" />., 
 '' He has well added upon earth ; for if one be not 
 cleansed here, he cannot be clean there,'' 
 
 Having thus vindicated the Fathers and the Church 
 of the first six centuries, from the slanderous imputa- 
 tions of the Archbishop, let me recall to the reader 
 what the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory is, and then give 
 it the coup de graee from the Apocrypha and from Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 '* Hell, then," says the Catechism of the Council of 
 Trent (Donovan's Translation, Baltimore, John Mur- 
 phy, pp. 62, 63), ''here (in the Creed) signifies those 
 secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have 
 not been admitted to the regions of bliss. 
 
 '' These abodes are not all of the same nature, for 
 amongst them is that most loathsome and dark prison 
 in which the souls of the damned are buried. 
 
PURGA TOR V AND PR A VERS FOR THE DEAD. 237 
 
 Amongst them is also the fire of purgatory, in which 
 the souls of just men [mark that ^orAjust] are cleansed 
 by a temporary punishment/' etc. 
 
 Again (pp. 63-65) : '' This we shall easily understand 
 by comparing the descent of Christ . . . with that 
 of the just. They (the just) descended as captives ; 
 He as free and victorious, . . . they (the just) de- 
 scended, some [of the just] to endure the most acute tor- 
 ments, others, though exempt from actual pain, yet 
 deprived of the vision of God. . . . Christ the 
 Lord descended, not to suffer, but to liberate from suf- 
 fering the holy and \h^just, . . . Before His death 
 and resurrection heaven was closed against every 
 child of Adam : the souls of the just, on their depart- 
 ure from this life, were borne to the bosom of Abra- 
 ham ; or, as is still the case with those who [though holy 
 3,nd just^ require to be freed from the stain of sin, or die 
 indebted to the divine justice, were purified in the fire of 
 purgatory.'* 
 
 Besides these there is another passage which Hall, 
 in his treatise on Purgatory (p. 17), quotes from the 
 Catechismus ad Parochos (the Latin title of the Catechism 
 of the Council of Trent), p. 74, Lugduni, 1579, but which 
 Donovan, for some reason or other, does not give in 
 his Translation. It runs thus : *' Poena Purgatorii ex- 
 cedit omnem poenam temporalem hujus vitae:'* i.e,, 
 '' The punishment of Purgatory surpasses all temporal 
 punishment of this life.'' This is in accordance with 
 what Cardinal Bellarmine says {de Purgat, 1. ii. c. 6, t, 
 ii., p. 410, C. Colonise, 1628, ap, Hall) : '' Theologi 
 fere omnes docent eodem in loco esse, et eodem igne 
 torqueri, damnatos et animas Purgatorii :" i,e,, ** Almost 
 all Theologians teach that the damned, and the souls 
 in Purgatory, are in the same place, and tortured in 
 the same fire, * 
 
 Now those that are thus tortured are, as we have 
 seen, the '' holy" and '' just," or, as Thomas Aquinas 
 
238 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 expresses it in the passage quoted by me above (p. 
 229), '' faithful souls that have departed hence in a state 
 of grace ' — in other words, tJie dead in Clirist : for those 
 ^)\o divQ out of Christ ^Q, according to Rome, straight 
 to hell. The dead in Christ, therefore (with the excep- 
 tion of the martyrs and eminent saints, who are said 
 to go straight to glory), are, according to Rome, tor- 
 tured in the same fire wdth the damned in hell ! 
 
 To this atrocious teaching, for all which Rome is re- 
 sponsible until she puts Bellarmine in the Index, I op- 
 pose the opening verses of the third chapter of the 
 Book of Wisdom, which Rome accounts canonical : 
 '* But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of 
 God, and there shall no torment touch them."^ In the 
 sight of the unwise, they seemed to die : and their de- 
 parture is taken for misery, and their going from us 
 to be utter destruction : but they are in peace .•" and to 
 \' make assurance doubly sure," I meet and vanquish it 
 with a passage of Holy Writ which utterly annihilates 
 the whole doctrine of Purgatory : *' I heard a voice 
 from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the 
 dead which die in the Lord from henceforth : Yea, saith 
 the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors ; and 
 their works do follow them." 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 
 
 *' A MAN enjoys religious liberty," says the Arch- 
 bishop, ** when he possesses the free right of w^orship- 
 
 '-^ The Douay, following the Vulgate, reads, " the torment of death ^\i2^ 
 not touch them." But as Du Hamel, in his edition of the Vulgate, Venice, 
 1741, published ** j/z/fr/^r/^/;/ /^r/;//j-j-z^," rightly says, in a note on the 
 passage, " Vox^ mortis, dc-cst in Graro :'' i.c.y "The words, of deaths 
 are wanting in the Greek." 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 239 
 
 ping God according to the dictates of a right con- 
 science, and of practising a form of religion most in ac- 
 cordance with his duties to God." 
 
 This is a definition that Torquemada himself would 
 agree to. I had always thought that a man enjoys 
 religious liberty when he possesses the free right to 
 worship God according to the dictates of his own 
 conscience. But no, says the Archbishop : if he is 
 a Protestant or a non- Roman, his conscience is a 
 Avrong conscience ; the only right conscience is a con- 
 science in accordance with the Roman Church, and 
 therefore a man enjoys religious liberty when he pos- 
 sesses the free right to worship God according to the 
 dictates of the Roman Church. I defy any one to 
 make anything else out of the Archbishop's definition 
 of religions liberty. 
 
 He next defines civil liberty , and then adds : 
 
 '' I here assert the proposition, which I hope to con- 
 firm by historical evidence, that the Catholic Church 
 has always been the zealous promoter of religious and 
 civil liberty ; and that whenever any encroachments on 
 these sacred rights of man were perpetrated by pro- 
 fessing members of the Catholic faith, these wrongs, 
 iar from being sanctioned by the Church, were com- 
 mitted in palpable violation of her authority" (p. 222). 
 
 That the Roman Church '' has always been the zealous 
 promoter" of religious liberty, as above defined by the 
 Archbishop, nobody doubts ; and therefore he might 
 have spared himself the trouble of *' confirming" the 
 proposition "by historical evidence." But more of 
 this by and by. Let us first consider the two brief 
 paragraphs (less than half a page, out of the eighteen 
 pages that follow) on civil liberty : 
 
 *' The greatest bulwark of civil liberty is the famous 
 Magna Charta. It is the foundation not only of Brit- 
 ish, but also of American constitutional freedom. 
 Among other blessings contained in this instrument, it 
 
240 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 establishes trial by jur)', and the right of Habeas Corpus, 
 and provides that tiiere shall be no taxation without 
 representation. 
 
 '' Who were the framers of this memorable charter ? 
 Archbishop Langton and the Catholic barons of Eng- 
 land. On the plains of Runny mede, in 12 15, they 
 compelled King John to sign that paper, which was 
 the death-blow to his arbitrary power and the corner- 
 stone of constitutional government *' (p. 229). 
 
 So far, all goes on swimmingly. But the Arch- 
 bishop conveniently forgets to tell his readers that Pope 
 Innocent III. annulled Magna Charta, ordered Lang- 
 ton to excommunicate the recalcitrant Barons, and on 
 his refusal suspended him permanently from his office, 
 excommunicated the Barons himself, and laid the city 
 of London under an Interdict ! All of which they will 
 find in the Archbishop's own historian Lingard, His- 
 tory of E7tgland, author's last, revised edition, John, A.d. 
 1215, Aug. 24, 25, Dec. 16. 
 
 Leaving the Archbishop to his reflections, and the 
 reader to hisy I return to the consideration of the other 
 branch of the subject, to w^it, religions liberty. On 
 page 226 the Archbishop undertakes to correct ** a 
 great mistake, which comes from not knowing the 
 Catholic doctrine in its fulness. I shall not lay it down 
 myself,'' he says, '* lest it seem to have been gotten 
 up for the occasion. I shall quote the great theologian 
 Becanus, who taught the doctrine of the schools of 
 Catholic Theology at the time when the struggle was 
 hottest between Catholicity and Protestantism. He 
 says that religious liberty may be tolerated by a ruler 
 when it would do more harm to the state or to the 
 community to repress it." 
 
 Reader, what do you think the Archbishop quotes 
 this last sentence for ? You will hardly believe it, but 
 I assure you it is true, and if you will look in his book 
 in the page preceding this you will see for yourself. 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBER TV. 241 
 
 He actually quotes it to reassure American citizens, 
 alarmed for their religious liberty in the event of Rome's 
 ** getting the upper hand in numbers and power." 
 The burden of his dehortation is, Don't be alarmed ! 
 I assure you there is no occasion for it. If we get the 
 upper hand, we shall tolerate you so long as it will do 
 more harm not to tolerate you ; but as soon as the time 
 comes — and of that we are to be the judge — when it 
 won t do more harm not to tolerate you, then we shall 
 not tolerate you ! Very reassuring, isn't it ? 
 
 And then that word '* tolerate !" Who are you that 
 thus dare to talk — for it is your talk, though the words 
 are Becanus's ; for you make them your own, and say 
 expressly that they are *' Catholic doctrine" — who are 
 you that thus dare to talk of * ' tolerating ' our ' ' re- 
 ligious liberty ?" I scorn to be ** tolerated'' in the en- 
 joyment of that v/hich is my birthright. Like him 
 whose blood flows in my veins, the first Governor Dud- 
 ley of Massachusetts, but for a very different reason, I 
 cry out, from the bottom of my soul, and with all the 
 strength that is in me, against this un-American, un- 
 nineteenth - century, '' intolerable toleration." You 
 forgot yourself, and whom you were talking to, when 
 you used that word ! Keep it for your bondmen ! To 
 think of a man who can thus talk to us of tolerating our 
 birthright, of tolerating what he himself (though evi- 
 dently it is with him only a rhetorical flourish) a little 
 lurther on (p. 237) calls '* the God-given rights of con- 
 science" — to think of such a man being at the head of 
 the Roman Hierarchy in the United States ! 
 
 But we have not yet finished his quotation from 
 Becanus : 
 
 '* The ruler may even [may eve^i I think of that, 
 reader] enter into a compact in order to secure to his 
 subjects this freedom in religious matters ; and when 
 once a compact is made, it must absolutely be observed 
 in every point, just as every other lawful and honest 
 
242 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 contract" (Becanus de Virttitibus TJicologicis, c. i6, 
 qusest. 4, No. 2). This is the true Catholic teaching 
 on this point according to Becanus and all Catholic 
 theologians. So that if Catholics should gain the 
 majority in a community where freedom of conscience 
 is already secured to all by law, their very religion 
 obliges them to respect the rights thus acquired by 
 their fellow^citizens. What danger can there be, then, 
 for Protestants if Catholics should be in the majority 
 here ? Their apprehensions are the result of vain fears 
 which no honest mind ought any longer to harbor'' (p. 
 226). 
 
 " Will you walk into my parlor 
 Said the spider to the fly ?" 
 
 Thank you. No ! If it is all the same to you, I had 
 rather stay out. Timeo Romanos, etc. The metre is 
 bad ; but, as Peter Quince says, '* Never sacrifice sense 
 to sound." In the patriotism of the CarroUs and the 
 Taneys in this country, and the Beaumonts, the Nor- 
 folks, and the Camoys in England, of whom more by 
 and by, I have the utmost confidence ; in the Roman 
 Curia and its tools — him of Westminster and him of 
 Baltimore — none at all. Has the Archbishop forgot- 
 ten, or does he think we have, that King John made a 
 compact, of the very kind specified by Becanus, with 
 the *' Cathohc Barons," and that Pope Innocent III., 
 who may be presumed to have known as well as Becanus 
 what was '* true Catholic teaching," trampled it under 
 foot ? Has he forgotten, or does he think ze'^ have, that 
 the Council of Constance violated the Imperial safe- 
 conduct under the protection of which John Huss came 
 within its power, and with a disregard of plighted faith 
 that an American savage would have deemed it an 
 everlasting infamy to have been guilty of, burnt him 
 alive ? Has he forgotten, or does he think zve have, that 
 Pope Innocent X., in his Bull of 20th November, 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 243 
 
 1648, '* Zebis Domits Dei,'' condemns the Peace of West- 
 phalia as " null and void, and of no effect or authority 
 for past, present, or future,'' adding that "no one, 
 though he had sworn to observe the Peace, is bound to 
 keep his oath ?" See the original in Janus, p. 30, n. 
 
 Coming down to our own time — for '' Rome never 
 changes" — Has he forgotten, or does he think we have, 
 that ''in 1824, Leo. XII. addressed a letter to Louis 
 XVIII., pointing out the badness of the French Con- 
 stitution, and urgently pressing him to expunge from 
 the charter those articles which savored of liberalism ?" 
 — that '' soon after the establishment of the new Bel- 
 gian Constitution in 1832, Gregory XVI. issued his 
 famous Encyclical, recently used and confirmed by Pins 
 IX,, which pronounces freedom of conscience an insane 
 folly, and freedom of the press a pestiferous error, 
 which cannot be sufficiently detested ?" — that *' the at- 
 tempt of the Congress of Malinesin 1863 was wrecked ;" 
 the *' Syllabus" of Pius IX. having '' pronounced sen- 
 tence of death on its programme, so eloquently set forth 
 by Montalembert, for reconciling the Church with civil free- 
 dom f — that '' in Italy, the Papal Government has used 
 every effort to deter Austria and the other Italian sove- 
 reigns from granting parliamentary and free municipal 
 institutions.^" — that ''the Roman Court declared that 
 it could not suffer even the very mildest forms of parlia- 
 mentar)^ government in its neighborhood on account of 
 the bad example ?' — that "the mild and just Grand 
 Duke Leopold of Tuscany was compelled, against his 
 will, under pressure from Rome, to abolish that article 
 of the Constitution which asserted the equality of all 
 citizens before the law, without distinction of religion^ 
 because the Pope declared that it could not be promul- 
 gated " tut a conscientiaT' — that " the Bavarian Consti- 
 tution, with its equality of religious confessions, and of 
 all citizens before the law, is looked on with an evil eye 
 at Rome?" — and, finally, that "the Austrian Consti- 
 
244 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 tution has drawn on itself the curse of the Vatican," as 
 witness the following from '' the Allocution of 22d 
 June, 1868 :" *' By our apostolic authority we reject 
 and condemn the above-mentioned (new Austrian) laws 
 in general, and in particular all that has been ordered, 
 done, or enacted in these and other things against the 
 rights of the Church by the Austrian Government or its 
 subordinates ; by the same authority we declare these 
 laws and their consequences to have been, and to be for 
 the future, null and void {nulliusqiie roboris fitisse ac 
 fore). We exhort and adjure their authors, especially 
 those who call themselves Catholics, and all who have 
 dared to propose, to accept, to approve, and to execute 
 them, to remember the censures and spiritual penalties 
 incurred ipso facto, according to the apostolical consti- 
 tutions and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, by 
 those who violate the rights of the Church "? See all 
 this, and a good deal more to the same effect, not only 
 asserted, hut proved hy incontestable authorities, in the 
 chapter on the Syllabus, in The Pope and the Council, by 
 Janus : Rivingtons, London, Oxford, and Cambridge ; 
 Scribner, Welford Co., New York, 1869 (pp. 8-33). 
 
 The following is from the Encyclical above referred 
 to, as translated in the Dublin Review for April, 1865 : 
 
 ** Against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, 
 and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert 
 that * That is the best condition of society, in which no 
 duty is recognized as attached to the civil power, of re- 
 straining, by enacted penalties, offenders against the 
 Catholic religion, except so far as the public peace may 
 require/ From which totally false idea of social gov- 
 ernment they do not fear to foster that erroneous 
 opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church 
 and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor 
 Gregory XVI. an insanity, viz., that ' liberty of con- 
 science and worships is each man's personal right. 
 
 . / But while they rashly affirm this, they do not 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 245 
 
 think and consider that they are preaching the liberty of 
 perdition. 
 
 Here we have Gregory XVI. calling the doctrine of 
 ** each man's personal right " to '' liberty of conscience 
 and worships" an insanity^ and Pius IX. declaring it to 
 be the liberty of perdition, and ** most fatal in its effects 
 on the Catholic [meaning thereby the Roman] Church. 
 In the face of these authoritative declarations of Infalli- 
 bility — for ** liberty of conscience and worships'' is 
 clearly within the sphere of ** faith and morals" — Avhat 
 do the *' eloquent voice" of Bernard, and the '' beauti- 
 ful letter" of Fenelon, paraded Avith such a flourish of 
 trumpets by the Archbishop (p. 224), amount to ? Can 
 fallibility offset infallibility ? 
 
 The mention of Fenelon reminds me of the Arch- 
 bishop's paragraph on the education of girls: ** It is 
 well known," he says, ** that the superior advantages 
 of our female academies throughout the country lead 
 many of our dissenting brethren to send their daughters 
 to these institutions" (p. 225). Their only *' superior 
 advantage" is their cheapness. It would be much more 
 commendable in the Sisters who give themselves to the 
 work of educating the daughters of Protestants at a low 
 charge, if they would set about giving a good secular 
 as well as religious education to their sisters of their 
 own communion in the humbler walks of life, instead of 
 leaving them to grow up (secularly) almost if not wholly 
 uncared for. Their own translation of r Tim. 5 : 8 
 could tell them that ** if an}^ man have not care of his 
 own, and especially of those of his house, he hath de- 
 nied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." One of 
 the good effects of the *' liberty of conscience and wor- 
 ships" in the city of Rome under the new regime is, 
 that it has compelled the present Pope to inaugurate a 
 system of popular education, instead of leaving the 
 humbler classes to grow up, as under his predecessor, 
 in squalid ignorance. 
 
246 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 I have said that cheapness is the only superior advan- 
 tage of the schools in question. Against this is to be 
 set the supreme disadvantage of the risk, nay, the prob- 
 ability, of the perversion of young, and therefore sus- 
 ceptible, minds and hearts exposed to subtle influences 
 which surround them like an atmosphere, and which 
 they breathe in unconsciously. The Archbishop un- 
 derstands this, for he tells us that the pupils *' often 
 beg to embrace a religion which fosters," etc. But 
 *' do the sisters take advantage of this influence in the 
 cause of proselytism ? By no means." Not they. 
 They know too well that *' in vain is the net spread in 
 the sight of any bird." So they let things take their 
 course, being shrewd enough to perceive that that is 
 the surest way of gaining their end. This shrewdness 
 of the sisters the Archbishop sets to the account of del- 
 icacy. *' So delicate," says he, ''is their regard for 
 the religious conscience of their pupils, that they rarely 
 consent to have these young ladies baptized till they 
 have obtained the free permission of their parents or 
 guardians." They rarely consent. They do consent, 
 then, sometimes. Remember that, fathers and mothers, 
 when you are thinking of putting your daughters with 
 them ; for if those daughters are perverted, the re- 
 sponsibility will be upon you. Remember, too, that 
 though you secure their education at a moderate 
 charge, you may be paying dear for it nevertheless. 
 You would not send them to one of the Pope's new 
 schools in Rome, to continue there year after year, ex- 
 posed during summer to the malaria of the Pomptine 
 Marshes, even if the school were the best in Christen- 
 dom, and the Pope were to offer to educate them for 
 nothing. And yet you expose them to a moral miasma 
 as much worse than the physical, as the soul, on which 
 it brings its blight, is more precious than the body. It 
 looks very disinterested in Rome to be thus educating 
 the daughters of Protestants at a low charge ; but we 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 247 
 
 may be sure of one thing : she is not reckoning with- 
 out her host. All is fish that comes to her net ; and 
 she has hauled, from these schools, some big fish, that 
 have brought their tens of thousands, if not hundreds 
 of thousands, into her coffers. If all that she has thus 
 received were added to the tuition money paid her by 
 Protestant pupils, and the aggregate averaged among 
 the whole number of those pupils, perhaps the figures 
 would be found considerably higher than those on the 
 Protestant school-bills. 
 
 The Archbishop says nothing about schools for boys. 
 Let the Southern Churchman^ of August 22d, 1878, 
 supply the omission : 
 
 ** A Mr. Petre, an English Roman Catholic, has 
 lately published a pamphlet, * Catholic Systems of 
 School Discipline,* in which he gives the testimony 
 derived from his own investigation and experience. 
 He was educated at a Jesuit college, but is ' thoroughly 
 persuaded that the system pursued in Roman Catholic 
 schools is out of tone with the age and in some respects 
 pernicious.' At Stonyhurst College, where Mr. Petre 
 was educated, at no hour of the day were the boys 
 allowed to be out of the sight of a master. The boys 
 had no separate rooms, all studying, reading, or taking 
 their recreation in the presence of schoolmates or in- 
 structors. There was a pla3^ground surrounded by a 
 stone wall and having on its barren surface some eight 
 or ten trees ; except under the most exceptional cir- 
 cumstances no boy was allowed to leave this square. 
 The scholars were not expected to walk about in 
 couples in conversation. If talking in couples was at 
 all persisted in the parties were liable to arbitrary sep- 
 aration. There was a special fear of ' ' particular 
 friendships*' in the school, and hence Stonyhurst boys 
 would not have liked to be seen shaking hands or walk- 
 ing arm in arm. The religious life, too, was propor- 
 
248 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 tionately narrow and restrained. The instructors must 
 necessarily be drawn from the narrow hmits of the 
 order, and are generally young scholastics who are ap- 
 pointed to teach as a matter of training. The spiritual 
 father ought naturally to have been chosen with regard 
 to his sympathy with the boys in their eccentricities, 
 troubles, and difficulties. But he did not gain their 
 confidence and rarely met with them for personal re- 
 ligious aid. So it is with all Jesuit schools, according 
 to Mr. Petre. The much-lauded Jesuit college is con- 
 ducted on principles of suspicion calculated to repress 
 instead of cultivating manliness in the boy ; governed 
 by rules as unreasonable as they are arbitrary, and with 
 a religious influence that is cold, heartless, and me- 
 chanical.'' 
 
 Such was, fifty or sixty years ago (and I presume is 
 still) the system of discipline at the Jesuit College at 
 Georgetown, D. C, as I was informed, many years 
 since, by one who, being, when a boy, resident in the 
 District, received his preparatory training at the Col- 
 lege, but was afterwards graduated at Harvard Uni- 
 versity, in the Class of 1826. I refer to the late Corne- 
 lius McLean, Esq., Member of the Maryland Bar, Sec- 
 retary of State under Governor Grason, and Auditor 
 of the Court of Chancery. He gave me a detailed ac- 
 count of the discipline of the College as it was carried 
 out in his time. There was a sort of tessera — I am not 
 certain what the name of it was — that a boy who had 
 violated the rules w^as obliged to carry about him till 
 he found another boy violating the rules, when he 
 could pass it to him ; and /le, in his turn, must keep it 
 till he found another to pass it to, and so on. Thus the 
 boys were made sj?zes upon one another. Indeed, the 
 whole system was one of espiojtage, calculated, and, 
 doubtless, designed to destroy all manliness of char- 
 acter, and break down all confidence between boy and 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 249 
 
 boy ; in short, to be a slow murder of the boy's moral 
 nature. Even a heathen "^ could say, Maxima debetur 
 pucro reverciitia, and many a heathen parent felt the 
 force of the maxim and acted upon it. But your true 
 Jesuit has no reverence for aught of human kind. He 
 is, by the necessity of his position and training, Jiostis 
 liumani generis, ''Man delights him not, nor woman 
 neither :" and as for childhood, he looks upon it simply 
 as material out of which to mould machines, to do re- 
 morselessly his bidding. That I am not alone in my es- 
 timate of Ultramontane Jesuitism, and its system of edu- 
 cation, may be seen from the following, which I take 
 from the Southern Churchman of November 14th, 1878 : 
 
 ''ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLICS AND ULTRAMONTANISM. 
 
 " Some signs of an incipient reaction against Ultra- 
 montanism are apparent among English Roman Catho- 
 lics. The Catholic Gazette is an anti-Jesuit organ, re- 
 centl}^ established. It says : ' We thank God English- 
 men are not likely to approve of the Jesuit system of 
 education, and feel the force of the old saying of the 
 man who declared that he "thanked God he was a 
 Catholic, but he also thanked God that he was born 
 and brought up in a Protestant country.'' Is it not a 
 fact that a certain per-centage of Jesuit-instructed 
 youths invariably go to the bad, and, what is more, are 
 far worse than bad Protestants ? We appeal to men of 
 the world for a reply. In France it is notorious that 
 from Voltaire downwards the worst infidels and most 
 immoral men have been ex-Jesuit students.' 
 
 It is this Ultramontane Jesuitism that is at the bot- 
 tom of the conflict now raging between the Ecclesias- 
 tical and the Civil Power all over Europe, and which 
 
 * Juvenal, Satire, xiv. 
 
2 so THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the Archbishop is so lugubrious over because the Ro- 
 man Curia is getting, as in such a conflict it deserves 
 to get, the worst of it. Let it try the same thing here, 
 as it is itching to do, and it will get a lesson that will 
 last it till the crack of doom, if it itself lasts so long. 
 
 Liberty of conscience doesn't mean the liberty of a 
 conscience that impels its owner to enslave other con- 
 sciences. 
 
 With the Gallicanism of Pascal and Bossuet and Du- 
 pin, of Carroll and Eccleston and Taney, of Beaumont 
 and Norfolk and Camoys, Civil Society has no con- 
 flict ; for Gallicanism is consistent with patriotism, but 
 Ultramontanism abhors the very word, and is doing its 
 best, or rather its worst, to eradicate the name and 
 the thing from the minds and hearts of men. May the 
 curse of Him who *' hath made of one blood all nations 
 of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and 
 hath determined the times before appointed, and the 
 bounds of their liabitation^'" ^ rest upon it. 
 
 The following letter, which speaks for itself, and 
 which I give in part, only wishing I had room for the 
 whole, 1 take from The Genius of Popery opposed to the 
 Principles of Civil and Religions Liberty^ Dublin, 1850, 
 pp. 176-178 : 
 
 " Dublin, Nov. 20, 1850. 
 
 " My dear Lord Zetland : I perceive that the 
 newspapers have announced the intention of the High 
 Sheriff to call a public meeting to consider the propriety 
 of addressing the Crown on the subject of the late in- 
 sult [the setting up of a Roman Hierarchy in England] 
 offered to this country by the Court of Rome, and 1 
 learn from the same sources of information that the step 
 on the part of the High Sheriff has been taken in conse- 
 quence of a requisition signed by nearly all the resi- 
 dent peers in Yorkshire. It is a matter not only of no 
 
 ^ Acts 17 ; 26. 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 251 
 
 surprise, but of no regret to me, that such a proceeding 
 should be adopted by the country, for the acts in ques- 
 tion are of quite as much poUtical and social impor- 
 tance as of religious and sectarian character. The 
 pope, by his ill-advised measures, has placed the 
 Roman Catholics in this country in a position where 
 they must either break with Rome, or violate their 
 allegiance to the constitution of these realms. 
 It is impossible to act up to the spirit of the British 
 Constitution, and at the same time acknowledge the 
 jurisdiction of the pope in local matters. . . . Be- 
 lieving, therefore, that the late bold and clearly ex- 
 pressed edict of the Court of Rome cannot be received 
 or accepted by English Roman Catholics without a vi- 
 olation of their duties as citizens, I need not add that 
 I consider the line of conduct now adopted by Lord 
 John Russell as that of a true friend of the British Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 *' Believe me, my dear Lord Zetland, yours very 
 truly, " Beaumont. 
 
 ** To the Right Hon. the Earl of Zetland." 
 
 This drew from the Duke of Norfolk the following 
 letter to Lord Beaumont : 
 
 ** Arundel Castle, Nov. 28, 1850. 
 ** My DEAR Lord: I so entirely coincide with the 
 opinion of your letter to Lord Zetland, that I must 
 write to you to express my agreement with you. 
 
 ** 1 should think that many must feel as we do, that 
 ultramontane opinions are totally incompatible with 
 the allegiance to our Sovereign and w^ith our constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 . '' I remain, my dear Lord, faithfully yours, 
 
 " Norfolk.'' 
 
 These letters are from *' representative men" of the 
 
252 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Roman Communion, one of them at the head of the 
 Enghsh Nobihty. Here is another, from Lord Camoys, 
 called forth by Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet on the new 
 dogma of Papal Infallibility. 1 give it entire, as I find 
 it in the Southern Chitrchnian of December 3d, 1874 : 
 
 LETTER FROM A ROMAN CATHOLIC NOBLEMAN. 
 
 ** The pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone is attracting great 
 attention, not only in England, but in Germany, and 
 in this country. In the London Times, Lord Camoys, 
 who is a Roman Catholic, publishes a letter, addressed 
 to Mr. Gladstone, in which he concurs with the views 
 of the pamphlet. It is of so much importance we give 
 it in full : 
 
 ** ' Henley-on-Thames, Nov. 13, 1874. 
 
 ** * Dear Mr. Gladstone : In your ** Expostulation" 
 you have appealed to those English Roman Catholics 
 who concur in the views you have therein expressed. 
 As I am one of those who so concur, I am bound to 
 say so. No one is more entitled than yourself to an 
 expression of confidence from those w^ho have benefit- 
 ted by the great principles of civil and religious liberty 
 by w^hich you have been invariably guided. I concur 
 in the proposition you have stated, though I regret in 
 reference to the reign of Queen Mary you should have 
 considered it necessary to use the term " bloody." It 
 is unnecessary to argue upon the accuracy of the ex- 
 pression. That word has always been and is offensive 
 to the Roman Catholics, and was not needed to sup- 
 port your assertion. I believe it to be perfectly true, 
 since that reign it was not possible for the party to 
 whom you allude — I presume the Ritualists— and you 
 might have added for the Roman Catholics, and I add 
 for both combined, though they might tend to over- 
 throw the Estabhshed Church, yet could never make 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 253 
 
 this a Roman Catholic country. Lord Acton and 
 yourself have drawn attention, and quite appropriately, 
 to the language held by the Roman Catholic clergy and 
 laity previous to emancipation, when the distinction be- 
 tween the civil and spiritual duties of Catholics was 
 clearly defined and infallibility emphatically denied. 
 Had any Catholic of importance then said, '' I am a 
 Catholic first and an Englishman after,'* and that with- 
 out the slightest reservation, and had that expression 
 been defended by a Catholic Archbishop of that day as 
 it has been defended by the Archbishop of Westmin- 
 ster, 1 very much doubt if Catholic emancipation would 
 have been granted. In noticing your *' Expostulation'' 
 the Archbishop of Westminster, in his published let- 
 ter, said that there is no change in the obligations of 
 the Roman Catholics to the civil power in consequence 
 of the publication of the Vatican decrees. Now, is this 
 so ? It is not likely the present Pope will adopt 
 against Queen Victoria the course pursued by the then 
 Pope against Queen Elizabeth, but there is no telling 
 what edict might be issued by the author of the Sylla- 
 bus. Assuming an edict was now issued tending to 
 weaken or destroy allegiance, what a different position 
 a Roman Catholic would be in now from what he 
 would have been in then ! Infallibility was not then a 
 matter of compulsory belief, and he w^ould have been 
 at liberty to refuse compliance with such an edict ; but 
 what would be the effect of his belief in the personal 
 infallibility ? He must either withhold his allegiance 
 on the one hand, or risk his salvation on the other ; 
 and is not this a new obligation ? To be compelled to 
 believe under severe penalties now what we were at 
 liberty to disbelieve then with impunit}^ is surely a new 
 obligation. As an Independent English Roman Cath- 
 olic, I consider it my duty to make this response to 
 your appeal. Much may be said of the serious difficul- 
 ties that many members of the Roman CathoHc Church 
 
254 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 throughout the world will be placed in by being com- 
 pelled to believe in the Vatican decrees. For myself, 
 I will say that history, common sense, and my early 
 instruction, forbid me to accept the astounding and 
 novel (novel, at least, in its present promulgation) doc- 
 trine of the personal infallibility of the Pope, though 
 limited, as asserted, to the large domain of faith and 
 morals. I remain yours faithfully. 
 
 '' ^Camoys.* '^ 
 
 A beautiful illustration this of the Archbishop *s glow- 
 ing apostrophe (p. 90) to the '' Children of the Cath- 
 olic Church :" '\ You are a part of that universal Com- 
 munion which has no ' High Church ' and ' Low 
 Church ' . . . Well may you exclaim : Bcliold hozv 
 good and hozv pleasant it is for brethren to dzvell together 
 in unity ! ! !'' 
 
 As a pendant to the preceding remarks on Jesuit 
 Colleges and Conventual Schools, I give the following 
 from the Baltimore Gazette of December 7th, 1878 : 
 
 FAILURE OF A CELEBRATED CATHOLIC COLLEGE. 
 THEATRICAL GOSSIP. 
 
 London, Nov. 24. 
 
 *' Special Correspondence of the Gazette. 
 
 '' The Roman Catholic college which was established 
 a few years ago at Kensington has failed, and there is 
 reason to believe that its brief existence will be rung 
 out by next Christmas bells. The failure is softened 
 to the Catholic breast by many theories, the chief be- 
 ing that it was not in the right locality and that it will 
 presently reappear at Oxford. But the real difficulty 
 was that this college could not prepare 3^oung men for 
 any degree whatever now given in this kingdom by 
 any university without instructing them in heretical 
 books. The works of Lvell, Darwin, Huxlev, Tyndall, 
 
CIVIL A.VD RETJGIOUS LIBERTY. 255 
 
 Haeckel, and such men, are used as regular books of 
 study at Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, 
 Dublin, and London ; they are not optional, but pro- 
 vided for by the authorities, and no man can pass ex- 
 aminations without them. It is idle for a college to 
 attempt to get on without preparing youth for degrees 
 without which no one can become a physician or a pro- 
 fessor and which is becoming the readiest way of suc- 
 ceeding in the law. The Roman Catholic church 
 while steadily gaining fresh strength from one side of 
 the English church, is really out of harmony with the 
 present strong tendency to physical, political and social 
 sciences found in all educational institutions in this 
 country. Their college at Kensington had in it pow- 
 erful men — St. George Mivart, Mgr. Capel, Cardinal 
 Manning and one or two other highly-cultivated men 
 — but they had been educated as Protesants and seceded 
 from the English church. They did not put forth for 
 their new college any list of books to meet the examin- 
 ations of the degree-conferring universities. Conse- 
 quently the 3"Outh, even of their own body, who aspire 
 to English careers, could not venture to run risk of 
 wasting their early years by entering there. 
 
 '' If, indeed, a rumor I have heard but do not credit 
 should prove true and a Roman Catholic college be 
 established at Oxford, it w^ould be in picturesque coin- 
 cidence with the founding there of a college for women. 
 In that monastic city, where, under its ancient regime 
 the apparition of a pretty girl would, in any moment, 
 have identified her with Satanella, a Catholic college 
 would now find its twin sister in a female college. 
 Your correspondent has the pleasure of belonging to 
 an association just formed which is to meet at Oxford 
 on the 3d of December and found this institution. 
 Many of the most active masters and professors of the 
 university — High Church and Broad — have united to 
 carry through a scheme which began with a lady hav- 
 
256 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 ing offered a thousand pounds to start the matter. 
 Next year the lectures and classes which will prepare 
 girls above 18 to pass the regular Oxford examinations, 
 without reserve or limit, will begin. For a time, the 
 girls from a distance, who attend, will be lodged in 
 houses which a committee of ladies will buy and secure. 
 In this the ladies will begin jvist where the old pilgrim- 
 students did, who lodged where they could and grad- 
 ually clubbed together in what were called halls (some 
 are so called yet) and afterward grew into the statelier 
 buildings of colleges. . . /' 
 
 To the proposed college for women at Oxford every 
 true friend of the higher education will bid a hearty 
 God-speed ; and if the Roman Communion shall estab- 
 lish at that University a college for its sons, that shall 
 keep abreast of the age in secular studies, we will bid 
 that, so far, God-speed, also. 
 
 A word now on ** Maryland toleration," and I close 
 this chapter : 
 
 '' On the 2d of April, 1649," says the Archbishop, 
 " the General Assembly of Maryland passed the follow- 
 ing Act, which will reflect unfading glory on that State 
 as long as liberty is cherished in the hearts of men : 
 ' Whereas the enforcing of conscience in matters of re- 
 ligion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous con- 
 sequence in those commonwealths where it has been 
 practised, and for the more quiet and peaceable government 
 of this province and the better to preserve mutual love and 
 unity amongst the inhabitants, no person whatsoever 
 within this province, professing to believe in Jesus 
 Christ, shall from henceforth be anyways troubled or 
 molested for his or her religion, nor in the free exercise 
 thereof, nor any way compelled to thebelief or exercise 
 of any other religion against his or her consent. * 
 
 '' Upon this noble statute, Bancroft makes the follow- 
 ing candid and judicious comment : ' The design of the 
 
CIVIL AXD RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 257 
 
 ]aw of Mar}' land was to protect freedom of conscience. 
 . . / " (pp. 231, 232). 
 
 As the Archbishop has a way (as the reader has al- 
 ready seen in more than one instance) of omitting from 
 a quotation what makes against him, let me, in the pres- 
 ent instance, supply the omission : *' Any person or 
 persons whatsoever that shall deny our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy 
 Trinity — the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or the 
 Godhead of any of the three persons of the Holy Trin- 
 ity or the unity of the Godhead, or shall use any 
 reproachful words, speeches or languages concerning 
 the Holy Trinity, or any of the three said persons 
 thereof, shall be punished with death and confiscation 
 or forfeiture of all his or her land and goods to the 
 Lord Proprietor and his heirs.'* 
 
 These provisions are part and parcel of the Arch- 
 bishop's'' noble statute ;" and Bancroft's '* comment " 
 on it, whether ''candid and judicious," or not, must 
 be admitted to be at least disinterested, seeing, if the 
 said provisions were now in force and enforced, and he 
 were to buy a house in Baltimore, and take up his resi- 
 dence in it, he would be put to death, and his house, 
 and furniture, and library, would be confiscated ; to 
 the reflection of " unfading glory" on the good State 
 of Maryland " as long as," etc. 
 
 The truth is, nothing was further from the intention 
 of any one of the three classes, Anglican, Puritan, 
 Roman, that made up (probably in about equal pro- 
 portions) the bulk of the population — Quakers and 
 Socinians being only sporadic — than to pass an act of 
 universal (or even general) toleration, for toleration s 
 sake. The Roman portion had sucked in intolerance 
 with their mothers' milk. So had the grandfathers of 
 the Anglican and the Puritan ; and it has taken several 
 generations to get the virus out of their blood, if in- 
 deed it be entirely out yet. What they were seeking 
 
258 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 was, as is plain from the very words of the preamble, 
 especially those I have italicized, a modus vivendi, a way 
 of getting along comfortably, or, at least, tolerably, 
 together, in the peculiar circumstances in which they 
 were placed. Each one was ready to give a grudging 
 toleration to the other two, as the only way of being 
 itself tolerated. And so the Act was passed, tolerat- 
 ing all '* professing to believe in Jesus Christ '' as ** the 
 Son of God,'' one of " the three persons of the Holy 
 Trinity,'' and *' punishing Avith death " any one '' de- 
 nying" him to be such. 
 
 In the Assembly that enacted this law, there is not 
 the slightest proof, or even probability, that those of 
 the Roman Communion were in the majority. In the 
 rank and file of the population Protestantism was pre- 
 dominant in the beginning. *' Lord Baltimore's col- 
 ony," says a late writer,"^ '* came to Maryland in 1634. 
 It has been commonly assumed that the majority of the 
 settlers were Roman Catholics, but a better knowledge 
 of the facts in the case proves to the contrary. Even 
 Bancroft, who, in the first edition of his history, fell in 
 to the common opinion, in his new and revised edition 
 [which the Archbishop seems not to have seen] says 
 that the majority of the first settlers were Protest- 
 ants. . . 
 
 * The Rev. B. F. Brown, Rectot of St. Paul's Church, Harrlsburg, 
 Pa., and formerly Rector of All Saints' Church, Baltimore, to whom I am 
 indebted for the facts here stated, the original sources not being accessi- 
 ble to me as I write. See an article of his in the New York Church 
 Journal of August g, 1877, called forth by a passage in Governor Car- 
 roll's Address at the Dedication of the " Catholic Centennial Fountain." 
 See also a pamphlet entitled, Early Religious History of Ma7yland. The 
 Substance of a Lecture Delivered before the Guild of All Saints' Chu7 chy Bal- 
 timo7e. By the Rev. B. F. Btown, Baltimore ; Innes of Co., 1876. Re- 
 specting this, Mr. B. writes me : " Dr. De Peyster, President of the 
 New York Historical Society, and Dr. Hoyt, of the New England Histor- 
 ical and Genealogical Register have done my poor pamphlet the honor to 
 style it a Deuionstration of its two main points — Maryland not a Roman 
 Catholic Colony — Toleration not an act of Roman Catholic Legislation." 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 259 
 
 *' In 1645. Richard Ingle, holding a commission from 
 the Parliament, drove Leonard Calvert (Lord Balti- 
 more's Lieutenant Governor) out of Maryland, and 
 held its Government in the Parliamentary interest for 
 nearly two years. The Jesuit Priests were arrested 
 and sent to England for trial, the Missions were broken 
 up, and the Roman Catholic influence in the Province 
 greatly diminished. . . . 
 
 ** In the Province the number of people declined 
 from over six hundred to about four hundred. To 
 save all he had invested in the enterprise, Lord Balti- 
 more had to achieve two things : First, to conciliate 
 the Puritan Government ; and Secondly, to bring 
 emigrants to his declining Colony. Departing from 
 his former policy of putting his Roman Catholic 
 friends in the Colonial offices, he appointed one Capt, 
 Gibbons of Boston, a noted Puritan, to be Admiral of 
 the Province of Maryland. Robert Vaughn, a Protes- 
 tant, was made Commander of Kent Isle ; and CoL 
 William Stone, a Protestant and Parliament man, to be 
 his Governor in Maryland. Stone's commission, 
 dated August, 1648, showed that it was on condition 
 that he brought five hundred settlers. . . . Where 
 were the new settlers to come from ? Col. Stone 
 found Virginia to be the most hopeful quarter. Gov- 
 ernor Berkeley of that Province had induced the As- 
 sembly to enact very rigid laws against the Puritan 
 Nonconformists who had been gathering there. Their 
 uncomfortable position in Virginia disposed them to 
 listen with favor to Stone's invitation to settle in Mary- 
 land. 
 
 ** Stone's promise to the Puritans was embodied in 
 his Commission from Lord Baltimore, and the next 
 year, 1649, enacted by the Maryland Assembly, under 
 the title ' An Act concerning Religion,' and commonly 
 known as * The Religious Toleration Act.' . 
 
 *' Hammond, in * Rachel and Leah,' a pamphlet pub- 
 
26o THE FAirn OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 lished in England in the year 1656, [after giving an ac- 
 count of their (the Puritans') * admittance and enter- 
 tainment into that Province/ and the stipulation * that 
 they should have a convenient portion of land assigned, 
 the liberty of conscience, and privilege to choose their 
 own officers,* this stipulation being the act (be it ob- 
 served) of a Protestant Governor,] says, ' An Assembly 
 was called throughout the whole countr}^ \i,L\, Prov- 
 ince] after their coming over, consisting as well of them- 
 selves as the rest, and because there were a few Papists 
 that first inhabited, these themselves, and others, being 
 of different judgments, an Act was passed that all pro- 
 fessing to believe in Jesus Christ should have equal 
 justice/ 
 
 ** This passage proves two essential things : First, 
 that there were but few Papists ; and Second, that to 
 the Protestant population, already largely in the as- 
 cendant, were added the new Puritan emigrants from 
 Virginia, giving an overwhelming Protestant prepon- 
 derance in the Assembly of 1649/' 
 
 Whether any but Protestants voted for the Act may 
 be doubted ; for the narrative of Mr. Brown, after 
 some further reflections, proceeds : 
 
 ** From certain * Annapolis Manuscripts,* Neill, in 
 his new book entitled * Founders of Maryland/ tells us 
 that in the next year after the Act of 1650, when the 
 Assembly met, and the delegates, thirteen in number, 
 came to be sworn in, all the Roman Catholics, four in 
 number — John Medley, Philip Lond, Thomas Mat- 
 thews, and George Manners — objected to the principles of 
 the ' Act of Religion,' Three of them finally took the 
 oath ; but Thomas Matthews said he could not take it, 
 ' as he wished to be guided in matters of conscience by spirit- 
 ual counsel,' He was censured and expelled, and Cuth- 
 bert Fenwick returned in his place/' 
 
 Matthews evidently meant, not that he wanted time 
 to consult his spiritual director whether he might, Avith 
 
CHARGES OF RELIC rO US PERSECUTTOX. 261 
 
 a safe conscience, take the oath to maintain the laws, 
 and among them the particular law in question, but, 
 that he had already consulted him, and, as the result of 
 his ** spiritual counsel,'* ''could not take it/' The 
 other three were of easier virtue. They were op- 
 posed, indeed, to the law, 07t principle, but interest 
 said to them, with Meg Merrilies, *' Gape, sinner, and 
 swallow!" So they gaped, and swallowed. But 
 they did it with a wry face. They didn't believe in 
 toleration even as a modus vivcndi ; still less in tolera- 
 tion for toleration's sake ; least of all in the inalienable 
 right of freedom of conscience to be (not tolerated but) 
 asserted and maintained against all comers. 
 
 After this, and ten times as much more to the same 
 effect, in the article, and the pamphlet, we may well 
 say with the writer of them, in conclusion : ** We leave 
 these facts and reflections to an intelligent public, to 
 judge whether the Maryland Assembly of 1649 was 
 Roman Catholic ; and whether the * Act Concerning 
 Religion ' was in spirit and intent a * Broad, True, and 
 Generous Religious Toleration.' " 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 
 
 The Spanish Inquisition. — The Massacre of St. Bartholomew. — Queen 
 Mary of England. 
 
 I. 
 
 ** But did not the Spanish Inquisition exercise enor- 
 mous cruelties against heretics and Jews ? I am not 
 the apologist of the Spanish Inquisition, and I have no 
 desire to palliate or excuse the excesses into which 
 that tribunal may at times have fallen. . . • When 
 
262 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 1 denounce the cruelties of the Inquisition, I am not 
 standing aloof from the Church, but I am treading in 
 her footprints. . . . Before you can convict the 
 Church of intolerance, you must bring forward some 
 authentic act of her Popes or Councils sanctioning the 
 poHcy of vengeance.'* (pp. 241, 242.) 
 
 Very well ! I will attend to that in a moment : but 
 let me first remark that Avhen the Archbishop brings 
 forward, by way of off-set, or ** to show/' as he ex- 
 presses it, (p. 243,) that ** those w^ho live in glass 
 houses should not throw stones," the persecutions un- 
 der Calvin, and Luther, and Henry VIII., and the 
 Puritans of New England, and ** the religious riots of 
 Philadelphia in 1844," he insults the inteUigence of his 
 readers ; for they know, and he knows, that he might 
 put all these together and pile on top of them the fires 
 of Smithfield under *' Bloody Mary," and the whole 
 combined would be a heaven of blessedness, compared 
 with the liell of the Spanish Inquisition. — Now for acts 
 of Pope and Council. 
 
 My first citation shall be from Gieseler, whose Text- 
 Book of Clmrcli History is recognized among scholars as 
 a standard authority, filled, as it is, to repletion, with 
 extracts from the original sources in Greek and Latin. 
 The paragraph I am about to transcribe is backed with 
 authorities in the original Latin occupying eight times 
 as much space as the paragraph itself. I w^ish I had 
 room for them all, in Latin and English, but must con- 
 tent myself with merely an occasional reference to Ro- 
 man authorities : 
 
 *' The wretchedness of this country (Toulouse) was 
 completed by the horrors of the Inquisition which now 
 rose up. In order to perpetuate the work of blood, 
 begun by the Papal legates, in a permanent institution, 
 the fourth Lateran Council (in 121 5) made it the chief 
 business of the Episcopal Synodal tribunals to search 
 out and punish heretics (c. 3. § 7) ; and the Council of 
 
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 263 
 
 Toulouse (1229) aclfieved the organization of this Epis- 
 copal Inquisition (Mansi xxiii. 192). However, soon 
 after, it was, in fact, almost annihilated ; for in 1232 
 and 1233 Gregory IX. appointed the Dominicans to be 
 the standing Papal Inquisitors (BuUarium Ord. Prasdi- 
 cat. i. 37 ; Mansi xxiii. 74 ; Guil. de Podio Laur. c. 43) 
 and forthwith they began their hideous work in the 
 countries tainted with heresy. In order that the 
 Church may not seem to soil herself with blood, the 
 secular princes must serve the office of executioner."^ 
 Lewis IX. in 1228 (Ordonnances des Roys de France de 
 la zieme race par M. de Lauriere, i. 50), Frederick 11. 
 in 1232 (Petri de Vineis lib. i. ep. 25-27), the ill-fated 
 Raymund VIL in 1233 (Mansi xxiii. 265), each passed 
 the requisite laws. That the new Inquisition might 
 strike more of the guilty, a way of proceeding was 
 prescribed for it, to which of necessity many of the 
 guiltless must fall victims. Thus armed, this monster 
 raged with most frightful fury in southern France, 
 where the heretics had only learned, from former 
 events, to keep themselves more secret. Germany for 
 a short space of time (1231-1233) was taught to know 
 the Inquisition in its most senseless rage, in Conrad of 
 Marburg, and in the Dominican monk Conrad Dorso, 
 who came to Strasburg ; and at the same time acquired 
 the most fearful experience of the abuses of the new 
 laws against heretics in the crusade on the Steding- 
 er, the lovers of freedom, in 1234. But by these 
 events so universal a resistance was aroused that Ger- 
 many for a long time after remained free from this 
 
 * This is the answer to what the Archbishop alleges (p. 242) in proof 
 that ** Bloodshed and persecution form no part of the creed of the Catho- 
 lic [meaning the Roman] Church," to wit, that, ** So much does she 
 abhor the shedding of blood, that a man becomes disqualified to serve as 
 a minister at her altars, who, by act or counsel, voluntarily sheds the 
 blood of another." She doesn't shed the blood herself, but makes the 
 civil power do it for her. And so she keeps her skirts clean ' \ 
 
264 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 monster/' (Third Period, § 89. Edit. Harper & Broth- 
 ers, New York, 1857.) 
 
 The new *' way of proceeding" spoken ot in the last 
 sentence but three, embraced, as explained in a foot- 
 note, four particulars : ** i. The witnesses were con- 
 cealed from the accused, . . . 2. Criminals also were 
 admitted as witnesses. . • . 3. Besides, conviction 
 might be effected by such witnesses. ... 4. Con- 
 fession was extorted by torture.'' Each of these state- 
 ments is followed by the authority on which it rests. 
 In proof of the last, to wit that *' confession was ex- 
 torted by torture," an extract is given, in the original 
 Latin, from the *' Bull Ad extirpanda" of Innocent 
 IV., 1252 (Bullar. magn. in Innoc. IV. No. 9), § 25 ; 
 which, translated into English, runs thus : ** Let the 
 Powder or Ruler, moreover, be held to compel, short 
 of loss of limb or peril of death, {teneatur . . . 
 cogere citra membri dirninutionem et mortis pericuhtm,) all 
 heretics whom he shall have taken, to confess expressly 
 their errors, and to accuse other heretics whom they 
 know, and their property, and those who believe them, 
 and receive them, and defend them, as thieves and rob- 
 bers of temporal things are compelled to accuse their 
 accomplices, and confess the crimes they have commit- 
 ted." How thieves and robbers were ** compelled" in 
 those days, we all know ; the rack was the recognized 
 instrument of compulsion : and here we have Pope In- 
 nocent IV. commanding its use against heretics. 
 
 Here, then, is one '' authentic act" of Pope or Coun- 
 cil. Does the Archbishop want another ? He shall 
 have it, in the shape of a Letter from Pope Sixtus IV. 
 to Queen Isabella, of Spain, under date of 23 Febr. 
 1483. ** A Pope's letter," says the Archbishop, ** is 
 the most weighty authority in the Church." (p. 112.) 
 And the letter of Pope Sixtus must be particularly 
 " weighty," seeing it was by his authorization that the 
 Inquisition was established by Isabella. This is grudg- 
 
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 265 
 
 ingly admitted by the Archbishop himself : ** It is 
 true," he says, ''that Sixtus IV., yielding to the im- 
 portunities of Queen Isabella,"^'* consented to its estab- 
 lishment, being advised that it was necessary for the 
 preservation of order in the kingdom ; but in 148 1, the 
 year following its introduction, when the Jews com- 
 plained to him of its severity, the same Pontiff issued a 
 Bull against the Inquisitors, as Prescott informs us, in 
 which * he rebuked their intemperate zeal, and even 
 threatened them with deprivation/ f He wrote to 
 Ferdinand and Isabella that * mercy towards the guilty 
 was more pleasing to God than the severity which they 
 were using/ '' (p. 252.) 
 
 This, of course, couldn^t have been the letter of the 
 23d of February, for that, as given in Gieseler, vol. iii. 
 § 148, n. 8, says : *' Quod autem dubitare videris, nos 
 forsan existimare, cum in perfidos illos, qui Christianum 
 nomen ementiti Christum blasphemant, et judaica per- 
 fidia crucifigunt, quando ad unitatem redigi nequeant, 
 tam severe animadvertere cures, ambitione potius et 
 bonorum temporalium cupiditate (te agi), quam zelo 
 fidei et catholicas veritatis, vel Dei timore ; certo 
 scias, ne uUam quidem apud nos ejus rei fuisse suspici- 
 onem. Quod si non defuerint qui ad protegendum 
 eorum scelera multa susurrarint, nihil tamen sinistri de 
 tua vel consortis tui illustris devotione persuaderi 
 nobis potuit,'' ^>., '* As to your seeming to doubt 
 whether, perchance, we do not suppose you (to be ac- 
 tuated) rather- by ambition and the desire of temporal 
 possessions than by zeal for the faith and Cathohc 
 truth, in being so severe against those perfidious ones, 
 who, having belied the Christian name, blaspheme 
 
 * Here we have the Archbishop trying to free the Pope from the re- 
 sponsibility and the odium by ungaliantly " blaming it on" the Queen ! 
 
 f Here the Archbishop, by his own witness, fixes the responsibility on 
 the Pope, by showing that he had the power to deprive the Inquisitors ol 
 their office, and yet didn't do it. 
 
266 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Christ, and with Jewish perfidy crucify him, and can- 
 not be brought back to unity ; know for certain, that 
 not even any suspicion of such a thing has been har- 
 bored by us. But if there have not been wanting those 
 who, to cover up their crimes, have whispered many 
 things, yet have they not been able to persuade us of 
 anything sinister concerning your devotedness, or that 
 of your illustrious consort/' 
 
 Does the Archbishop w\ant yet another '^authentic 
 act ?" It is at hand. He quotes (pp. 251, 252) Ranke's 
 Ottoman and Spanish Empires ; I will quote Ranke's 
 History of the Popes, Philad., Lea & Blanchard, 1844. 
 '* The pope (Paul III.) one day asked cardinal Caraffa 
 [afterwards Paul IV.] ' what means he could devise 
 against these evils .^ ' The cardinal declared that the 
 only one was *a thorough searching inquisition.' 
 John Alvarez de Toledo, cardinal of Burgos, joined 
 with him in this opinion. . . . On the 21st of July, 
 1542, the bull was issued. . . . 
 
 '' It names six cardinals among whom Caraffa and 
 Toledo stood first, to be commissioners of the apostolic 
 see, general and universal inquisitors on this side the 
 Alps and beyond them. It bestows on them the right 
 to delegate ecclesiastics with similar power, to all such 
 places as it shall seem good to them, to determine ab- 
 solutely all appeals against the acts of the latter, and 
 even to proceed without the participation of the or- 
 dinary spiritual courts. Every man, without a single 
 exception, without any regard whatever to station or 
 dignity, shall be subject to their jurisdiction ; the sus- 
 pected shall be thrown into prison, the guilty shall be 
 punished even capitally, and their property confis- 
 cated. . . . 
 
 ** Caraffa lost not a moment in putting this bull into 
 execution. He was not over rich, but upon this occa- 
 sion he would have regarded it at (as ?) a loss had he 
 waited for a payment from the apostolic chamber :*he 
 
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 26-] 
 
 immediately hired a house, fitted up the rooms for offi- 
 cers and the prisons at his own cost ; provided them 
 with bars and strong locks, with blocks, chains, and 
 bonds, and all the horrible utensils of his office. He 
 then named commissioners general for the several 
 countries. The first, as far as I can discover, for Rome, 
 was his owm chaplain, Teofilo di Tropea, of whose 
 severity, cardinals, such as Pole, had soon reason to 
 complain. 
 
 The following rules,' says the MS. biography of 
 Caraffa,"^ * were conceived by the cardinal to be the 
 best directed to the end in view.f 
 
 ** * I. In matters of faith not a moment's delay must 
 be made, but upon the least suspicion, measures must 
 immediately be taken with the utmost rigor (ogni 
 sforza e violenza). 
 
 ** * 2. No respect must be shown to any prince or 
 prelate, however high his station. 
 
 '* ' 3. Extraordinary and extreme severity must be 
 used against such as shall seek to defend themselves 
 through the protection of any potentate ; only whoso 
 confesses, shall be treated mildly and with fatherly 
 compassion. 
 
 ** *4. We must not debase ourselves to any sort of 
 toleration towards heretics, and especially towards 
 Calvinists. * 
 
 ** All, we see, is rigor, unrelenting, unscrupulous 
 rigor, till the confession has been worked out. 
 
 " Everywhere throughout Italy, persecution and 
 terrors broke out. 
 
 " In all these contrivances and undertakings the 
 clergy employed the aid of the secular arm. It was of 
 adv^antage to the popes that they possessed a territory 
 of their own, of such considerable extent where they 
 
 * Caracciolo, Vita di Paolo IV. MS. c. 8. 
 
 f Tenuto da lui come assiomi vetissimi ; literally : held by him as 
 most true axioms. 
 
268 THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS. 
 
 could set an example and establish the model for imita- 
 tion.'* (pp. 74-76.) 
 
 Hozu Caraffa, after he became pope (Paul IV.) '* set" 
 this '* example/' and '' established" this '' model," see 
 in Ranke, further on, page 102 : 
 
 *' Above all other institutions he favored the inquisi- 
 tion which he had himself re-established. He often let 
 pass the days appointed for the sittings of the segnaUira 
 and the consistory, but never the Thursday on which 
 the congregation of the inquisition assembled in his pre s- 
 e7ice. He insisted on the utmost rigor in the proceed- 
 ings of that body. He subjected new classes of of- 
 fences to its jurisdiction, and endozved it luith the barbar- 
 ous prerogative of employing torture for the detection of 
 accomplices. . . . He instittited the festival of St. 
 Dominie in honor of that great inquisitor. 
 
 But the people forgot not so quickly as the pope 
 himself, what they had suffered under him. . . . 
 Upon his death (a.d. 1559) some assembled in the capi- 
 tol, and resolved to destroy his monuments, since he 
 had been an ill-doer to the city and to the whole earth. 
 Others pillaged the buildings of the inquisition, set fire to 
 them, and maltreated the servants of the tribunal." 
 
 Is the Archbishop satisfied with these " authentic 
 acts" of four Popes, Gregory IX., Sixtus IV., Paul 
 III., and Paul IV. ; and two Councils, the fourth 
 Lateran Council in 121 5, and the Council of Toulouse 
 in 1229? Or would he like to come a little nearer 
 home ? Has he forgotten, or does he think we have, 
 what came to hght, only thirty years ago, in the *' one 
 spot of territory" (p. 168) which '' the interests of 
 Christianity demand that the Vicar of the Prince of 
 Peace should possess ?" Here is a reminder : 
 
 *' When the pope (Pius IX.) fled from Rome in 1849, 
 he left the inquisition under strict injunctions that 
 every officer should remain at his post, and the prison- 
 ers in the holy office to be kept as closely guarded as 
 
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 269 
 
 before. It was a fortnight after the new government 
 under the Roman Republic was assumed before this 
 was discovered. The government then took posses- 
 sion of all it contained, and ordered the holy office to 
 be made the abode for poor families ; and its doors, 
 which for three centuries had been closed, were for the 
 first time opened to the view of the people. What a 
 scene was there, as the people crowded in to behold 
 the prisons and subterraneous passages which had held 
 so many victims, who had sealed their faith with their 
 blood ! The most terrible oaths and imprecations 
 were made against the priests ; and sometimes the 
 spectators would be intimidated and look behind, fear- 
 ing even then some father inquisitor might be near to 
 lay hold upon them.'' {Pope, or President : New York, 
 1859, P- 140.) 
 
 ** It was about sunset, on the 27th of March, 1849, I 
 w^as apprised,*' says a distinguished prisoner, *' that 
 something extraordinary was taking place ; and as I 
 expected it would prove to be something dreadful, I 
 fell on my knees, betook myself to prayer, and com- 
 mended my soul to God. While thus employed my 
 door was violently opened. The first person who en- 
 tered was a man of short stature, who, with great im- 
 petuosity, threw himself on my neck, embracing, kiss- 
 ing, and bathing me with the tears which all the time 
 fell from beneath his green spectacles. This was the 
 Minister Sterbini, the author of the decree which abol- 
 ished the holy office ; and those who followed him, 
 having embraced me in their turn, he left two of them 
 with me, saying, ' You are free ! I must go and lib- 
 erate others ! ' 
 
 *' I found myself laboring under extreme weakness 
 of the limbs, the effect of my long confinement. It 
 was with great difficulty that I could walk a few steps. 
 The two, therefore, supported me in their arms, and 
 conducted me in triumph to the midst of a crowd 
 
270 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 assembled in the court-yard, who, as soon as they saw 
 me, began to shout for joy and clap their hands, ex- 
 claiming, ' Liberty of conscience forev^er ! ' I was now 
 taken to an apartment, with the other liberated prison- 
 ers, where the kind-hearted Roman people, so different 
 from their priests, were eagerly providing broth, wine, 
 and cordials, to recruit our feeble powers. Meanwhile 
 fresh arrivals from the prisons continually took place 
 till we reached the number of about thirty, on which 
 Sterbini, now quite worn out with exertion, asked 
 each one separately where he would like to be con- 
 ducted. I replied,'' etc. (F. De Bonne, U Italia del 
 Popolo : \\\ Pope, or President, pp. 143, 144.) 
 
 Has the Archbishop forgotten, or does he think we 
 have, the two Letters that Mr. Gladstone addressed to 
 the Earl of Aberdeen, and the description in them of 
 the chains with which the prisoners of the Inquisition, 
 vmder the Neapolitan Government, a quarter of a cen- 
 tury ago, were fastened two and two ? 
 
 ** The weight of these chains, I understand, is about 
 eight rotoli, or between sixteen and seventeen pounds 
 for the shorter one, which must be doubled when we 
 give each prisoner his half of the longer one. The 
 prisoners had a heavy limping movement, much as if 
 one leg had been shorter than the other. But the 
 refinement of suffering in this case arises from the cir- 
 cumstance that here we have men of education and high 
 feeling chained incessantly together. For no purpose 
 are these chains undone — and the meaning of these last 
 words must be well considered — they are to be taken 
 strictly.'' {Pope, or President, pp. 162, 163.) 
 
 Has the Archbishop forgotten the outburst of execra- 
 tion (drawn forth by this revelation of Mr. Glad- 
 stone's) from all Christendom (except Pius IX. and his 
 ultramontane minions) that greeted the miscreant mon- 
 arch, (I use the word in its etymological sense — misbe- 
 liever, and therefore misdoer^) and ultimately drove 
 
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, 271 
 
 him from the throne he had disgraced, to end his days 
 in exile ? Who taught king Bomba to inflict temporal 
 penalties for spiritual delinquencies ? The Council of 
 Trent, whose Fourteenth Canon (Session VII.) Touch- 
 ing Baptism, (as, baldly, I might say servilely, translated 
 by Theodore Alois Buckley from the original Latin 
 now lying before me in the Venice Edition, '' Cum Su- 
 periorum Licentia et Privilegio," 1619,) reads thus : 
 
 ** If any one shall say, that those who have been thus 
 baptized when infants, are, when they have grown up, 
 to be questioned whether they w^ill ratify what their 
 sponsors promised in their name when they were bap- 
 tized ; and that, in case that they answer they will not, 
 they are to be left to their own will ; and are not mean- 
 while to be compelled {cogendos) to a Christian life by 
 any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the 
 participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacra- 
 ments, until they repent ; let him be anathema." 
 
 Here v/e have the Roman Church, by its mouthpiece 
 the Council of Trent, maintaining that men are to be 
 ** compelled to a Christian life" by other than spiritual 
 penalties, (since, if exclusion from the Eucharist will 
 not compel them to it, no other spiritual penalty will,) 
 — in other words, that men are to be ** compelled to a 
 Christian life" by temporal penalties — and coolly curs- 
 ing all who deny the right of so compelling them. 
 That this is the meaning of the Canon the Archbishop 
 must himself admit, or else show (which he never can) 
 that there is some other spiritual penalty that will suc- 
 ceed when exclusion from the Eucharist has failed. 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, (p. 241,) *' in raising my 
 voice against coercion for conscience' sake, I am ex- 
 pressing not only my own sentiments, but those of 
 every Catholic (he means Roman) Priest and layman in 
 the land." If so, all I can say is, that they all, with 
 the Archbishop at their head, are so '* low-church" (p. 
 90) that they not only go in the teeth of the four infalli- 
 
272 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 ble popes, (for the right or wrong of '' coercion for con- 
 science' sake" is a question of morals,) and two coun- 
 cils above specified, but distinctly bring themselv^es un- 
 der this curse of the Fourteenth Canon of the Seventh 
 Session of the Council of Trent. — And there I leave 
 them. 
 
 II. 
 
 What about the massacre of St, Bartholomezv ?'* 
 
 Ay, what about it ? The Archbishop shall tell his 
 story about it first ; and then somebody else, who has 
 thoroughly investigated the whole subject, shall tell 
 his. 
 
 ** I have no words strong enough,'' says the Arch- 
 bishop, ** to express my detestation of that inhuman 
 slaughter. It is true that the number of its victims has 
 been grossly exaggerated. . . . 
 
 '' I. In the reign of Charles IX. of France, the 
 Huguenots were a formidable power and a seditious 
 element in that country. They were under the leader- 
 ship of Admiral Coligny, who was plotting the over- 
 throw of the ruling monarch. . . . 
 
 ''2. Religion had nothing to do with the massacre. 
 Coligny and his fellow Huguenots were slain not on 
 account of their creed, but exclusively on account of 
 their alleged treasonable designs. If they had nothing 
 but their Protestant faith to render them odious to 
 King Charles, they would never have been molested ; 
 for neither did Charles nor his mother ever manifest 
 any special zeal for the Catholic Church, nor any spe- 
 cial aversion to Protestantism, unless when it threat- 
 ened the throne. 
 
 '' 3. Immediately after the massacre, Charles de- 
 spatched an envoy extraordinary to each of the courts 
 of Europe, conveying the startling intelligence that the 
 King and royal family had narrowly escaped from a 
 horrible conspirac}^ and that its authors had been de- 
 
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIOX. 273 
 
 tected and summarily punished. The envoys, in their 
 narration, carefully suppressed any allusion to the in- 
 discriminate massacre which had taken place, but an- 
 nounced the event in the following words : On that 
 * memorable night, by the destrnction of a few sedi- 
 tious men, the King had been delivered from imme- 
 diate danger of death, and the realm from the perpet- 
 ual terror of civil war/ 
 
 " Pope Gregory XIII., to whom, also an envoy was 
 sent, acting on this garbled information, ordered a ' Te 
 Deum ' to be sung, and a commemorative medal to be 
 struck off in thanksgiving to God, not for the mas- 
 sacre, of which he Avas utterly ignorant, but for the 
 preservation of the French King from an untimely and 
 violent death, and of the French nation from the hor- 
 rors of a civil war.'' (pp. 254-256.) 
 
 If this be so, why do the medals, one of which is now 
 lying before me, have on them an angel standing, with 
 a cross in his uplifted left hand, and a dagger in his right 
 hand, looking on, while the slaughter is going on be- 
 fore him ; and, over all, the legend, Vgonottorvm. 
 Strages ; 1572. — Slaughter of the Huguenots, 1572? 
 And again ; why does the Archbishop say nothing of 
 the frescoes of Vasari in the Vatican, of which more 
 presently ? And again ; why should the Pope be in 
 such hot haste to commemorate by a medal the '' de- 
 liverance from immediate danger of death'' of a king 
 who *' neither did . . . ever manifest any special 
 zeal for the Catholic Church, nor any special aversion 
 to Protestantism?" And yet again ; when His Holi- 
 ness found out the falsehood that had been palmed off 
 on his Infallibility by the French king, why did he not 
 follow the good example that had been set him by Am- 
 brose (p. 228) in the similar case of Theodosius ? I 
 say, '' palmed off on his Infallibility ' ; for surely, if infal- 
 libility is necessary, to prevent a pope from being de- 
 ceived on the question of the Immaculate Conception, 
 
2 74 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 it is still more necessary, to prevent him from being 
 deceived into giving solemn thanks for an *' indiscrimi- 
 nate m_assacre/' an ''inhuman slaughter, " an '' atro- 
 cious butchery," (pp. 254,255,) to the scandal of the 
 said pope and his church now for more than three cen- 
 turies. 
 
 Turn we now to the other picture. I take it from a 
 large octavo volume entitled, '' The Massacre of St. 
 Bartholomew : preceded by a Histor)^ of the Religious 
 Wars in the Reign of Charles IX. By Henry White. 
 With Illustrations. London : John Murray, Albemarle 
 St. 1868." The name of the publisher is a guarantee 
 of the standing of the writer. The italics (except in 
 the Latin) are mine : 
 
 ** When the news of the massacre reached Rome, the 
 exultation among the clergy knew no bounds. The 
 Cardinal of Lorraine rewarded the messenger with a 
 thousand crowns ; the cannon of St. Angelo thundered 
 forth a joyous salute ; the bells rang out from every 
 steeple ; bonfires turned night into day ; and Gregory 
 XIII. attended by the cardinals and other ecclesiastical 
 dignitaries went in long procession to the church of St. 
 Louis, where the Cardinal of Lorraine chanted a Te 
 Deum. A pompous Latin inscription in gilt letters over the 
 entrance describes Charles as an avenging angel sent 
 from heaven (^angelo percussore divinitus immisso') to 
 sweep his kingdom front heretics,'^ A medal was struck 
 to commemorate the massacre, f and in the Vatican vtay 
 still be seen three frescoes by Vasari % describing the at- 
 
 * " Twelve months after the massacre the Cardinal publicly applauded 
 Charles to his face for his ' holy dissimulation.' Dale's dispatch. Mackin- 
 tosh, Hist. Engl. 3 : 226." 
 
 f ** It is engraved in Bonanni's Numismata Pontijictwi^ 2 vols. fol. 
 Romae 1689 torn, i, p. 336. It is No. 27 of the series of Gregory XIII. 
 Lestoile mentions it under Lundi 30 juin, 1618, as the piece que le pape 
 Gre^oire XIII. fit fair e d Rome^ Van 1572." 
 
 X ** The outline of one of the frescoes in the frontispiece to this vol- 
 ume [White's] is taken from De Potter's Letti'es de Pie 8. It is of the 
 Massacre, and Coligne's body is being cast from a window to be impaled 
 on the spears of assassins below." 
 
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 275 
 
 tack upon the Admiral, the king in council plotting the 
 massacre, and the massacre itself. Gregory sent 
 Charles the golden rose, and four months after the mas- 
 sacre, when humaner feelings might have been sup- 
 posed to have resumed their sway, he listened compla- 
 cently to the sermon of a French priest, the learned but 
 cankerous Muretus, who spoke of ' that day so full of 
 happiness and joy when the Most Holy Father received 
 the news and went in solemn state to render thanks to 
 God and St. Louis. . . . That night the stars 
 shone with greater lustre, the Seine rolled her waters 
 more proudly to cast into the sea the corpses of those 
 unholy men,' and so on in a strain of rhapsody unen- 
 durable by modern ears." (p. 476.) 
 
 The Archbishop himself says, '' Ranke, in his His- 
 tory of the Civil Wars, informs us that Charles and his 
 mother suddenly left Paris in order to avoid an inter- 
 view with the Pope's legate, who arrived soon after the 
 massacre ; their guilty conscience fearing, no doubt, a 
 rebuke from the messenger of the Vicar of Christ, from 
 whom the real facts zvere not lojtg cojtcealed,'' (p. 256.) 
 Of course, he knew these facts long before the *' four 
 months" had elapsed, at the end oi which he *' listened 
 complaceiitly' to the sermon of the French priest. If, 
 therefore, the guilty conscience of the king feared a 
 rebuke, his fears were groundless. Even the Arch- 
 bishop doesn't pretend that the Pope ever did rebuke 
 him. 
 
 III. 
 
 ** I am asked : Must you not admit that Mary, Queen 
 of England, persecuted the Protestants of the British 
 realm f . . . 
 
 *' If we weigh in the scales of impartial justice the 
 reign of both sisters, we shall be compelled to bring a 
 far more severe verdict against Elizabeth." (p. 257.) 
 
276 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Let us see if this is so. The subject of this chapter, 
 recollect, is '' Religious Persecution/' Now, at the 
 time we are speaking of, the stake was the recognized 
 instrument of death for heresy ; the gibbet^ for treason. 
 The simple fact, therefore, that Mary's victims per- 
 ished by the stake, Elizabeth's by the gibbet,"^ tells the 
 whole story. No doubt the religion of the greater 
 part of those who suffered under Elizabeth, was at the 
 bottom of their sufferings ; but then it was because 
 their religion led them into overt acts of treason. 
 Pope Pius V. excommunicated the Queen, and ab- 
 solved her subjects from their allegiance to her. It 
 was impossible, therefore, for them to be at the same 
 time loyal to the Pope, and loyal to the excommuni- 
 cated Queen. They had to choose between the two, 
 and to take the consequences of their choice. Such 
 being the case, it is decidedly cool in the Archbishop 
 to cry out (p. 257) against ** the legalized fines, confis- 
 cations, and deaths inflicted on the Catholics (ultramon- 
 tanes, he means) of Great Britain and Ireland for three 
 hundred years," down ** to the time of Catholic Eman- 
 cipation." It was Pius V. and his successors, not 
 Queen Elizabeth and hers, that brought these penalties 
 upon them. Let Leo XIII., or any of his successors, 
 undertake to play the same game here, and wx'U make 
 shorter work than Queen Elizabeth did, of those who 
 attempt to carry out his behests. 
 
 * The Archbishop practically admits this in the sentence with which 
 he winds up his chapter : ** How many are found, like our North Car- 
 olina gentleman, who are familiar from their childhood with the name of 
 Smithfield, but who never once heard of Tyburn F' — Tyburn, as every- 
 body knows, was the place of i]\Q gibbet ; Smithfield, of the stake. 
 
GRACE—THE SACRAMENTS— ORIGINAL SIN. 277 
 
 CHAPTER XVIIL 
 
 GRACE— THE SACRAMENTS — ORIGINAL SIN — BAPTISM — 
 ITS NECESSITY — ITS EFFECTS — MANNER OF BAPTIZ- 
 ING. 
 
 The Archbishop, after defining the grace of God as 
 *' that supernatural assistance which He imparts to us 
 through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation,'* 
 proceeds to the consideration of the Sacraments. 
 *' Three things are necessary,'' he says, *' to constitute 
 a Sacrament, viz. : a visible sign, invisible grace, and 
 the institution by our Lord Jesus Christ." The Cate- 
 chism of the Council of Trent, instead of * * visible 
 sign," uses the phrase, *' sensible thing;" and this 
 sensible thing, it tells us, consists of two parts, the 
 ** matter" and '*the form;" water being the *Vmat- 
 ter," in Baptism, for instance, and the words, '* I bap- 
 tize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost," the " form," 
 
 '* Our Saviour instituted seven Sacraments," con- 
 tinues the Archbishop, ''namely, Baptism, Confirma- 
 tion, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, 
 and Matrimony." (p. 261.) 
 
 Whether all these are Sacraments, ifi the sense above 
 defined, we shall see when we come to come to consider 
 them severally. Meanwhile, I shall content myself 
 with challenging the Archbishop to produce a single 
 passage — only one — from the genuine writings of any of 
 the Fathers, for the first one thousand years after 
 Christ, fixing the number of the Sacraments to seven, 
 Peter Lombard, in the 12th century, must be allowed 
 that honor ; at least, till chapter a7id verse of some earlier 
 writer are specified. 
 
 That Baptism and the Eucharist are the Sacraments 
 
278 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 of the Gospel, is clear from the language of St. Chrys- 
 o^tovi\ (Horn, in Johann, 85): ''came there out blood and 
 water . . . out of both these (^5" ajxcporipoov ravroor) 
 the Church is constituted : those initiated into it are 
 born by {Sia) water, nourished by blood and flesh : in 
 these, the mysteries (sacraments) have their source/' 
 
 Baptism is *' for the remission of sins'' (Acts 2 : 38) ; 
 for *' washing them away" (Acts 22 : 16). Hence bap- 
 tism is for all, inasmuch as all are sinners. '' These 
 texts," (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:3; Job, 14 : 4 ; Ps. 51 : 5,) 
 says the Archbishop, (p. 263), '' apply to every mem- 
 ber of the human family, to the infant of a day old as 
 well as to the adult. . . . The [Roman] Church, 
 however, declares that the Blessed Virgin Mary was 
 exempted from the stain of Original sin," and, in do- 
 ing so, declares what isn't true ; what she herself, at 
 the opening of this nineteenth century, according to the 
 testimony of the Archbishop's predecessor Kenrick's 
 own witness, Milner, didn't know to be true ; for he 
 says (I have quoted it once, p. 175, and it will bear 
 quoting again) : " The church does not decide the 
 controversy concerning the conception of the Blessed 
 Virgin, and several other disputed points, because she 
 sees nothing absolutely clear and certain concerning 
 them, either in the written or the unwritten Word" ! ! 
 
 But enough of this for the present ; I shall have 
 more to say on it before I get through. 
 
 The greater part of this chapter is taken up with the 
 controversy between the Archbishop and his '' Baptist 
 friend," as he terms him ; and I leave them to settle it 
 between them. There are but two points that call for 
 notice from me, — the state of infants dying unbaptized, 
 — and the declaration of our Bishops in regard to Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 " Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. 
 Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the 
 taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the Scripture says 
 
GRACE— THE SACRAMENTS— ORIGINAL SIN. 279 
 
 that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven 
 (Rev. 21 : 27). Hence, Baptism, which washes away 
 original sin is as essential for the infant as for the full 
 grown man, in order to attain the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 '' I said that Regeneration is necessarv for all. But 
 it is important to observe that if a man is heartily sorry 
 for his sins, and loves God with his whole heart, and 
 desires to comply with all the divine ordinances, in- 
 cluding Baptism, but has no opportunity of receiving 
 it, or is not sufficiently instructed as to its necessity ^"^ God, 
 in this case, accepts the will for the deed. Should this 
 man die in these dispositions, he is saved by the bap- 
 tism of desire, f . . . 
 
 ** But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which 
 excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that 
 have never committed any actual fault ? To this I 
 reply : Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary 
 for all?'; (p. 268.) 
 
 To this / reply : If '* Baptism is necessary for all,'' 
 how is it that the '' all" has an exception in the case of 
 adults, but no exception in the case of infants ? Ac- 
 cording to the Archbishop, the Quaker mother who 
 has failed of baptism solely from not being *' suffi- 
 ciently instructed as to its necessity," dying, goes to 
 heaven ; but the Quaker infant, or the Baptist infant, 
 who has failed of baptism solely from its mother's (or, 
 it may be, its father's) not being '' sufficiently in- 
 structed as to its necessity," dying, goes — where? 
 Not to heaven; for, says the Archbishop, ''the [Ro- 
 man] Church in obedience to God's Word, (?) declares 
 that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom 
 of heaven." — Where then? The Archbishop shall an- 
 swer : 
 
 *' All that the [Roman] Church holds on this point, 
 is that unregenerate [i,e,, unbaptized] children are de- 
 
 * Italics mine. f Italics his. 
 
28o THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 prived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God' 
 which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed, 
 (p. 270.) 
 
 They are " deprived of . . . the essential happi- 
 ness of the blessed." That's *'all"! Only that, and 
 nothing more ! 
 
 ** Now, between the supreme bliss of heaven," con- 
 tinues the Archbishop, '' and the torments of the repro- 
 bate, there is a very wide margin." 
 
 Somewhere, then, m this *' margin," in the limbus 
 infantum, or limbo of infants. Christian mother, your 
 unbaptized child (dying, perhaps, before it was possible 
 to baptize it) may be. You may go to heaven your- 
 self ; but of one thing be assured : if the Archbishop, 
 and his Church, are to be depended on, you will never 
 see your child again. 
 
 And all this *' horrible teaching" of the Roman 
 Church, that dura mater infantum, we are told, (p. 269,) 
 is '* in obedience to God's Word "! If so, the obedi- 
 ence doesn't go far enough ; for ** God's Word" says 
 expressly (St. Mark 16 : 16), ** He that belie veth not 
 shall be damned." The Roman Church, therefore, to 
 be consistent, should ** consign" ^// infants, baptized, 
 as well as unbaptized, '' to the place of the reprobate," 
 as the Archbishop (p. 269) euphemistically terms it. A 
 single sentence of the Archbishop's own, further on, 
 (p. 350,) '* God's ordinances bind only such as are able 
 to fulfil them," knocks in the head his whole teaching 
 concerning unbaptized infants. 
 
 *' From what has been said, I ask you candidly what 
 are you to think of the decision rendered in 1872 (1871) 
 by the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 who, in their convention in Baltimore, declared that by 
 the word Regeneration we are not to understand a moral 
 change. If no moral change is effected by Baptism, 
 then there is no change at all ; for, certainly Baptism 
 produces no physical change in the soul.'' (p. 274.) 
 
GRACE— THE SACRAMENTS-^ORIGINA L SIN. 281 
 
 There was no "decision" rendered; it was simply 
 an expression of *' opinion" on the part of the Bishops 
 that " the word ' Regenerate ' is not there [namely, in 
 the Baptismal Office] so used as to determine that a 
 moral change in the subject of baptism is wrought in 
 the sacrament." 
 
 According to the Archbishop, the only alternative to 
 a '' physical change" in Baptism (which no one holds 
 to) is a moral change : the distinction between a spirit- 
 ual and a moral change, which is one of the common- 
 places of theology, seems not even to have entered into 
 his imagination. Evidently, there has been a very seri- 
 ous defect in his theological training, or else his mem- 
 ory didn't here stand him in stead. Says Bishop 
 Browne {Exposition of the XXXIX, Articles, Art. 
 XXVII. p. 622, Amer. Edit.): "Undoubtedly, bap- 
 tism guarantees a spiritual change in the condition of 
 the recipient. But we must not confound a spiritual 
 change in the condition of the soul, with a moral 
 change of the disposition and tempers. It is a great 
 spiritual change to be received into Christ's Church, to 
 be counted as a child of God, to obtain remission of 
 sins, and to have the aid and presence [indwelling] of 
 the Spirit of God. But a moral change can only be the 
 result of the soul's profiting by the spiritual change." 
 
 Baptism is the Sacrament of our birth out of the 
 kingdom of nature into the kingdom of grace ; and this 
 birth is a spiritual birth. But birth is not the begin- 
 ning of life. There is life before birth in the spiritual 
 as well as in the natural w^orld. We are " begotten of 
 God ;" (i St. John 5 : 18 ;) we are " born of Water and 
 Spirit," is vSaros nai nv^vjxaro^, (St. John 3 : 5). Birth 
 — in other words, being born, /.^., borne, i,e,, brought 
 forth — is the introduction to a new phase of existence, 
 new surroundings, new possibilities (so far as those sur- 
 roundings are concerned) of development. — Some of 
 these possibilities become, at once, actualities ; breatli- 
 
2 82 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 ing (for instance) the air of earth — the air of heaven ; 
 others, after a time ; digesting (for instance) and assim- 
 ilating *' strong meat/' In either case, the breathing 
 is automatic ; but the suppression of it is vokmtary, 
 and, if persisted in, will, in the end, result in death. — 
 See Birth and New Birtli, Second Edition, (Baltimore, 
 Geo. Lycett,' 1873,) from which the last three sentences 
 are taken, and where I have treated the whole subject 
 at large. 
 
 Baptism is the Sacrament of our adoption into the 
 family of Christ, and this adoption is a spiritual adop- 
 tion. ''Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the 
 Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Fath- 
 er.'' (Gal. 4:6.) *' Ye have received the Spirit of 
 adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Rom. 8 : 
 15.) Hence, says Clement of Alexandria, (Pasd. lib. i. 
 c. 12). '' Being baptized, we are illuminated ; being 
 illuminated, we are adopted as sons ;" and Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, {Catecli, Prcefat, 10,) calls baptism riodeaia^ 
 Xocpic^f^oCy the free gift of adoption,'* Now the effect of 
 spiritual adoption may be illustrated by that of natural 
 adoption. ** Moses was * a new creature,' as to things 
 temporal, the moment he was taken from the * ark of 
 bulrushes ' by command of Pharaoh's daughter : the 
 moment before, he was a slave, under sentence of 
 death ; the moment after, he was a freeman, the heir 
 of royalty. [There was no moral change wrought in 
 him, at the time, and by the act, of the adoption ; but] 
 there was then and there given him the power of a new 
 life in the temporal sphere, and, being trained to ' lead 
 the rest of his life according to this beginning,' he grew 
 into it, becoming, day by day, more and more a new 
 creature, another man than ' his brethren the children 
 of Israel ; ' they, ignorant slaves ; he, * learned in all 
 the wisdom of the Egyptians. ' And as with the infant 
 Moses in the temporal sphere, so with the infant ' mem- 
 ber of Christ ' in the spiritual sphere : he comes from 
 the water * a new creature ; ' the power of a new Hfc is 
 
CONFIRM A TION. 283 
 
 his ; and with the proper care, (not without it, any- 
 more than Moses would have done,) he will grow into 
 that life more and more, through daily renewal, (* the 
 inward man is renewed day by day,' 2 Cor. 4 : 16,) * unto 
 a perfect man, (Eph. 4 : 13,) unto the measure of the 
 stature of the fulness of Christ/ " — Birth and New 
 Birth, p. 59. 
 
 Baptism is the Sacrament of our engrafting into 
 Christ. We "by baptism," says the Catechism of the 
 Council of Trent, (p. 172,) *'are engrafted as branches 
 on Christ." According to the Archbishop, the en- 
 grafting creates the life ; but he will find no nursery- 
 man to agree with him. '' ' Regenerate, and grafted 
 into the body of Christ's Church.' The Baptismal 
 Office associates the two. As there must be life before 
 birth, other than still-birth, so must there be life before 
 ingraftation. Who would graft a dead scion, knowing 
 it to be dead, on a living stock ? The life that is in the 
 scion of the stock of the First Adam, before its ingraft- 
 ation into the stock of the Second Adam, is in it in 
 virtue of the Incarnation. The mere act of ingrafting 
 cannot give life. There is nothing magical in it. It 
 makes no change in the nature or character of the 
 scion. It simply {conditions a change ; it] places it 
 amid new surroundings, and as the consequence of those 
 snrroiindings, obstacles and hinderances apart, the life 
 of the stock flows into it, and the tw^o grow together 
 {avfjicpvroi, Rom. 6:5,) and become one. ' I live,' 
 says the Apostle, (Gal. 2 : 20,) * yet not I, but Christ 
 liveth in me.' " — Birth and New Birth, p. 22. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 CONFIRMATION. 
 
 ''Confirmation," says the Archbishop, ''is a Sac- 
 rament." If so, what is the "matter" of it? For, 
 
284 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS, 
 
 says the Catechism of tJie Council of Trent ^ (p. 139,) 
 '* every Sacrament consists of two things :" the *' mat- 
 ter/' and the *' form/' What, I say, is the '' matter'* 
 of Confirmation? The ''chrism," i.e., ''ointment," 
 says the Catechism^ (p. 184 ;) the " chrism," echoes the 
 Archbishop. But, unfortunately for his case, the echo 
 doesn't reach back to the ApostoHc age. The first 
 writer who mentions the ointment, is TertuUian, who 
 wrote at the end of the second and beginning of the 
 third century. There is no hint of it in any earlier 
 writer. The Archbishop thinks (p. 278) he finds men- 
 tion of it in 2 Cor. i : 21, 22 : " He that confirmeth (in 
 our Version, " stablisheth") us with you in Christ, and 
 that hath annointed us, is God ; who also hath sealed 
 us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts." 
 But it is enough to reply to this, that if the anointing is 
 literal, the sealing must be also ; as when we impress a 
 seal on wax, or on paper, and thereby make a perma- 
 nent visible mark ; which the Archbishop, I presume, 
 will hardly maintain. If Christians were so sealed, 
 everybody would know who were Christians and who 
 were not. The Catechism of the Council of Trent goes 
 further back than the Archbishop, even to our Lord 
 himself: "The chrism," it says, (p. 185,) "is conse- 
 crated with solemn ceremonies, by the bishop. That 
 this its solemn consecration is in accordance with the 
 instructions of our Lord, when at his last supper he 
 committed to his Apostles the manner of making 
 chrism, [to wit, by mixing "oil and balsam," and 
 " solemnly consecrating them by episcopal benedic- 
 tion," Catechism, p. 185,] we learn from Pope Fabian." 
 Of course, " Pope Fabian" was there, and heard our 
 Lord give the instructions ? Well, no ! not quite that ; 
 there's a " little space" between them ; a matter of 
 some \.\NO hundred and three years, or so, between 
 them : for Fabian was Pope from 236 to 250. And this 
 is what passes for evidence in the Roman Church ! And 
 
CON FIRM A TION. 285 
 
 even this is forged. There is not now extant, and has 
 not been for nearly fifteen hundred years, any genuine 
 writing of any Pope, except Clement, prior to Siricius, 
 A.D. 384. All those pretended letters of the early 
 popes had been proved to be spurious before the publi- 
 cation of the Catechism of the Coimcil of Tre7tt. The 
 Catechism ought, therefore, to be ashamed of itself for 
 attempting to father such ineffably silly stuff upon 
 Pope Fabian, who was a man of sense, and, as the 
 Catechism truly says, '* eminently distinguished by his 
 sanctity, and by the glory of martyrdom." 
 
 '* The Episcopal Church retains, indeed, the name of 
 Confirmation in its ritual, and even borrows a portion 
 of our prayers and ceremonial.'' (p. 283.) 
 
 She borrows some ; but not from you. She borrows 
 only those that you yourself borrow^ed, also, from 
 those that went before you ; those that are really yours 
 she would be the very last to borrow. Moreover, she 
 ''retains" not only ''the name of Confirmation," but 
 the thing, just as it is laid down by the Apostle (Heb. 
 6 : I, 2) as one of the six " principles of the doctrine of 
 Christ" — the "laying on of hands," or, as the Arch- 
 bishop's Version calls it, in its latinized English, ''im- 
 position^ of hands ;" no " anointing" here ; just as it 
 was practised by St. Peter and St. John, (Acts 
 8 : 14-17), and by St. Paul (Acts 19 : 6). 
 
 " In violation of the practice of all antiquity, it muti- 
 lates the rite by omitting the sacred unction." (p. 283.) 
 
 " All antiquity" goes back of Tertullian, the Arch- 
 bishop's earliest witness, one hundred and fifty years, 
 and during all those years there is not, as the Arch- 
 bishop very well knows, a syllable of any literal anoint- 
 ing in Confirmation. 
 
 * Not the only " imposition" in the Roman Church ; for, as Father 
 Tom says, " Imposthor," id est,, ** imposithor :" for isn't the Pope " the 
 grand imposithor and top-sawyer of Christendom?" That word, ** top- 
 sawyer," is good : the bottom-sawyer is down in the saw-pit, and gets all 
 the dust in his eyes ; the Pope looks out not to let any one throw dust in 
 his. 
 
286 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 '* It raises, indeed, its hands over the candidates ; 
 but they are not the anointed hands of Peter or John/' 
 (p. 283.) 
 
 ** No ; for the hands of Peter and John were not an- 
 ointed, except — as are those of our Bishops, at least to 
 as great an extent as are those of the Bishops of the 
 Roman Church — '* with the Holy Ghost and with 
 power." 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 ** Among the various dogmas of the Catholic 
 Church,'* says the Archbishop, (p. 284,) there is none 
 w^hich rests on stronger Scriptural authority than the 
 doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the 
 Holy Eucharist." 
 
 In this, I am happy to agree with him ; that is, in 
 what he says : if he means what he doesn't say, that is 
 his fault, not mine. 
 
 In his '' exposition and vindication" of the doctrine, 
 he proposes to speak of ''the promise of the Eucha- 
 rist," of '* its institution" and of *' its use among the 
 faithful." The first of these he finds in the discourse 
 of our Lord at Capernaum, (recorded in the sixth chap- 
 ter of St. John,) in which he considers Him as '' speak- 
 ing of the Sacrament of his body and blood." But it 
 is certain that his hearers could not have so understood 
 him. The truth is, He is speaking not of the Sacra- 
 ment but of that which underlies the Sacrament. As 
 the Presbyterian commentator David Brown excel- 
 lently expresses it : '* Although this discourse has 
 nothing to do with the Sacrament of the Supper, the 
 Sacrament has everything to do with it, as the visible 
 embodiment of these figures, and, to the believing par- 
 
i^HE HOLY EUCHARIST. 287 
 
 taker, a real, yea, and the most lively and affecting par- 
 ticipation of His flesh and blood, and nourishment 
 thereby of the spiritual and eternal life, here below/' 
 
 The Archbishop argues from verses 48-56, 61, and 
 67, not only that our Lord's hearers understood His 
 words literally, about eating His flesh and drinking His 
 blood, but that He meant they should ; else He would 
 have corrected their misapprehension of them, as He 
 did in other instances, — that, for instance of *' the 
 leaven of the Pharisees,'' which, when they mistakenly 
 interpreted it of bread, He explained as referring to the 
 doctrine of the Pharisees. Now it so happens that our 
 Lord did correct their misapprehension, in this very 
 discourse ; and St. John, who recorded the misappre- 
 hension, has recorded also the correction of it ; and 
 here it is, right under the Archbishop's nose, though 
 he doesn't see it ; none so blind as those that won't 
 see : 
 
 ** Many therefore of his disciples, when they had 
 heard this (about eating His flesh and drinking His 
 blood), said. This is an hard saying ; who can hear it } 
 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples mur- 
 mured at it, he said unto them. Doth this offend you ? 
 ^Vhat and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up 
 where he was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth ; 
 the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak 
 unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (verses 
 60-63.) As if he had said, When you shall see the 
 body of the Son of man ascend up into heaven, then 
 you will know that it is not here for you to eat ; and 
 that therefore when I speak of eating it here, I speak 
 of a heavenly, not an earthly, eating ; of a spiritual, 
 not a carnal, literal, manducation. The Archbishop, 
 with the vail of Roman (more carnal even than Jewish) 
 tradition upon his heart, *' untaken away (2 Cor. 3 : 14, 
 15) in the reading of the New Testament," sticks fast in 
 the letter, that killeth, and fails to penetrate to the 
 
ZSS THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 spirit, that giveth life. Qui hceret in litera, hceret in 
 cortice. So Origen, who is one of the authorities that 
 he himself quotes, could teach him. For, in his Sev- 
 enth Homily on Leviticus, referring to this very dis- 
 course of our Lord, he says : '' Non solum in veteri 
 Testamento occidens litera deprehenditur ; est in novo 
 Testamento litera quae occidat eum qui non spiritaliter 
 quas dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam 
 sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est : Nisi manducaver- 
 itis carnein meanty et biberitis sanguinem ineum^ occidit 
 litera :" i.e./' Not only in the old Testament is there a 
 letter which killeth ; but also in the new Testament 
 there is a letter which killeth him who does not spirit- 
 ually consider it. For, if according to the letter [like 
 the Archbishop] you receive this saying. Except ye eat 
 My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth." 
 
 The Archbishop next proceeds to '' the words of the 
 Institution." *' Could any idea," he asks, ** be ex- 
 pressed in clearer terms than these : This is My body ; 
 this is My blood?" Certainly it could, if the Arch- 
 bishop's interpretation is the true one ; for, had our 
 Lord meant what the Archbishop says He meant, He 
 could, and would, have said, *' This is no longer bread, 
 but is transubstantiated into the substance of my body ; 
 what remains, is only the accidents of the bread, and it 
 is these that you see and taste : the substance of the 
 bread is gone, and in its place is come, in virtue of the 
 words of consecration, the substance of my body." 
 Had He said this (supposing this to be His meaning, 
 that is,) His words would have been a great deal plainer 
 than they are ; so plain, indeed, that they could not 
 possibly have been misunderstood, any more than the 
 Roman doctrine can be. But our Lord took it for 
 granted that his disciples, being men of common sense, 
 would not dream that he meant by T/iis is my body, this 
 is transubstantiated into my body ; any more than those 
 who should come after them, sixty years later, would 
 
THE HOLY ErCIIAIUST. 289 
 
 dream that one of them, saying, (Rev. i : 20,) " The 
 seven candlesticks . . . are the seven churches/' 
 would mean that each candlestick was transubstanti- 
 ated into a church : for certainly if the wording of the 
 sentence proves transubstantiation in the one case, it 
 proves it in the other. 
 
 The Roman Church, by her doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation, exacts of her communicants what a Saint of her 
 own Calendar, — St. Augustine, characterizes as crimi- 
 nal and disgraceful. In the third book of his treatise 
 De Doctrina Christiana, he has a short chapter, the six- 
 teenth, headed, Regtila de locutionibtis prceceptivis, that is, 
 ** Rule concerning preceptive utterances," which be- 
 gins thus : 
 
 Si prseceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus 
 vetans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est 
 figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere 
 aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. 
 Nisimanducaveritis, inquit, carnein filii horninis, et san- 
 guineni biberitis, no?i habebitis vitam in-vobis {jfoan, vi. 54). 
 Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere : figura est ergo, 
 prsecipiens passioni dominicse communicandum, et 
 suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod 
 pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit : />., '* If 
 there is a precept forbidding something disgraceful or 
 criminal, or commanding something useful or bene> 
 ficent, the precept is not figurative. But if it seems to 
 require that which is disgraceful or criminal, or to pro- 
 hibit that which is useful or beneficent, it is figurative. 
 Except ye eat, He says, the flesh of the Son of man, and drink 
 his blood, ye have no life in yon. He seems to require that 
 which is criminal or disgraceful ; therefore his language 
 is a figure, bidding us communicate in the Passion of 
 our Lord, and sv/eetly and to our profit lay up in our 
 memory the thought that for us His Flesh was crucified 
 and wounded." 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, (p. 292,) *' every circum- 
 
290 THE FAITH OF OUR FORFFATIIERS. 
 
 stance connected with the deUvery of them [the words, 
 This is my body, etc.] obUges us to interpret them in 
 their plain and literal acceptation. . . . He was 
 addressing His few chosen disciples, to whom He 
 promised to speak in future, not in parables nor in 
 obscure language, but in the words of simple truth." 
 
 Wlieii did He promise this ? After the Last Supper, 
 and immediately before His betrayal and arrest. And 
 when was the promise to take effect ? Not till His 
 Ascension and Session in glory at the right hand of the 
 Father: ** The time cometh'' — it had not yet come — 
 ** when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, 
 but I shall show you plainly of the Father. At that 
 day, ve shall ask in my name," etc, (St. John 16 : 25, 
 26,) ' 
 
 '* He uttered these words," continues the Arch- 
 bishop, ''the night before His Passion. And when will 
 a person use plainer speech than at the point of death ?" 
 
 He was nearer "the point of death" when He ut- 
 tered the words, (St. John 15:1,)"! am the true 
 vine," etc., and therefore, <^ fortiori, according to the 
 Archbishop's reasoning, must His words be taken ''in 
 their plain and literal acceptation ;" and so we must 
 understand Him to mean that He was a literal vine ! 
 The Archbishop should look to his chronology. He 
 serves the different parts of Scripture, as he says 
 (p. 174) Tristram Shandy did the " ciirsing and damn- 
 ing' — " heaps them up in wild confusion." 
 
 The Archbishop next quotes from St. Paul ; (i Cor. 
 X. and xi. ;) but the language is clearly against him. 
 The Apostle says expressly, " Whosoever shall eat this 
 bread, or drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall 
 be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, ' ' And, ' ' He 
 that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink- 
 eth condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord' s 
 body,'' "How could he be blamed," says the Arch- 
 bishop, " for not discerning the body of the Lord if 
 
THE HOLY EUCHARIST, 291 
 
 there were only bread and wine before him ?' ' No- 
 body says there Avere only bread and wine ; but the 
 Archbishop says there were no bread and wine at all ; 
 thereby contradicting the Apostle, who condemns the 
 unworthy partaker, because in eating the ''bread,'' — 
 mark that ; it is bread that he eats, — in eating the 
 bread, ' ' he fails to ' * discern the Lord' s body. 
 But, says the Archbishop, (p. 295,) '' if the words of 
 St. Paul are figuratively understood, they are dis- 
 torted, forced, and exaggerated terms, without mean- 
 ing or truth. But if they are taken literally, they are 
 full of sense and of awful significance.*' Why doesn't 
 the Archbishop himself take them literally then ? He 
 talks about z£//;^^, but the word ** wine'' is never once 
 used by the Apostle in the passages the Archbishop 
 quotes from him ; it is cup (or chalice) throughout : 
 *' the Clip of blessing, which we bless" — '* this C2ip is the 
 New Testament (or Covenant)" — ''as often as ye eat 
 this bread and drink this cup" — " and so let him eat of 
 that bread and drink of that cup,'' Either let the 
 Archbishop admit that, if there is any transubstantia- 
 tion at all, it is the cup, and not the wine in it, that is 
 transubstantiated, or else let him stop talking of his be- 
 ing the literal interpretation. 
 
 The Archbishop now passes from the Scriptures to 
 the Fathers, who, he says, '' without an exception, re- 
 echo the language of the Apostle of the Gentiles." He 
 is right ; they do re-echo it. The Apostle says, as we 
 have just seen, *' Whosoever shall eat this bread ;" and 
 the Fathers say the same. They all call the bread and 
 wine the body and blood of Christ, just as the Arch- 
 bishop does, and just as we do : there is no dispute be- 
 tween us on that point. The bread and wine are the 
 body and blood of Christ. But how ? literally, or fig- 
 uratively ? Literally, says the Archbishop. Figura- 
 tively, say the Fathers, and say we. They are the body 
 and blood of Christ, and yet remain bread and wine ; 
 
292 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 just as '' the seven candlesticks" (Rev. i : 20) ** arc the 
 seven churches." St. John makes this declaration in 
 explanation of ro fxvarrjpiovy the "mystery," as we and 
 the Archbishop's Version translate it, the " sacra- 
 ment,'' as the Rhemish Version renders it, "of the 
 seven candlesticks." The Rhemish Version teaches, 
 therefore, that the seven candlesticks are sacranientally 
 the seven churches. Just so, we affirm, the bread and 
 wine are sacranientally the body and blood of Christ. 
 The two declarations are, in this respect, perfectly 
 parallel. 
 
 The Archbishop gives what purport to be quotations 
 from Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyril of Jerusa- 
 lem, Chrysostom, and Augustine ; but instead of giving 
 chapter and verse for each, as is the scholarly way, he 
 gives for all six only the wholesale reference, *'See 
 Faith of Catholics, Vol. II.," a work in at least three 
 volumes (for he quotes, further on, from Vol. III.), 
 which probably not one in a thousand of his readers 
 ever saw or ever will see. As it is not accessible to me 
 as I write, I must get along as well as I can without 
 it. As the works of Ignatius and Justin are brief, the 
 former of them occupying less than fifty pages, the 
 latter less than seventy, I have succeeded, by diligent 
 search, in finding the two passages. That from Ignatius 
 is correctly quoted. In it he affirms the Eucharist to 
 be "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ;" but 
 whether literally, or figuratively, he does not say, 
 either here, or m any other part of his writings. We 
 must, therefore, interpret him by the others ; if we find 
 that they are to be taken literally, then he is to be 
 taken literally ; if, on the other hand, they are to be 
 taken figuratively, then he is to be taken figuratively. 
 
 The passage from Justin Martyr is outrageously 
 garbled ; but whether by the Archbishop, or by the 
 author of The Faith of Catholics, 1 do not know. I 
 should take it for granted that it was not by the Arch- 
 
THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 293 
 
 bishop, had I not already (p. 114) detected him in a 
 precisely similar garbling of Holy Scripture. I give 
 the passage entire, putting in italics the part left out by 
 the Archbishop : 
 
 " For we receive not these elements as common 
 bread or common drink. But even as Jesus Christ our 
 Saviour, being made flesh by the Word of God, had 
 both flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we are 
 taught, that the food which is blessed by the prayer of 
 the word which came from him, by the conversion of 
 which (into our bodily substance) our blood and flesh are 
 nourishedy i^ fjs aifxa uai (japjies Kara ^eral3o\rfv rpkcpov- 
 rai r]ix(S)v^ is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was 
 made flesh.'' Apol, i. c. 86. 
 
 I have given this extract, in the translation of Cheva- 
 lier, edited by Bishop Whittingham. The four words in 
 parenthesis are supplied by the translator, but any 
 Greek scholar can see that they are implied in the 
 original Greek of the italicized portion, which I have 
 also given. But let us leave out these words, and trans- 
 late the Greek literally, thus : '* by(JS, out of the substance 
 of) which our blood and flesh by digestion {' }j.8ra^aXkeadai 
 rp6cpr}Vy to digest one's food,' Liddell and Scott) 
 are nourished,'' Why these words were left out, it needs 
 no ghost to tell. In them, Justin declares that by the 
 (no longer common, but) consecrated bread and wine 
 our blood and flesh are, by digestion, nourished ; and 
 therefore, by clear implication, (since accidents can't 
 nourish substance,) that the natural substance of the 
 bread and wine remain after consecration. This the 
 Archbishop, or whoever was the responsible party, was 
 shrewd enough to see ; and so, inasmuch as, with the 
 words left in, Justin wouldn't even seem to teach tran- 
 substantiation, they were quietly left out. Were this 
 the only omission of the kind, it might possibly, by a 
 stretch of charity, be put to the account of accident ; 
 but I have already exposed more than one, of the same 
 
294 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 kind, and others are to follow. To suppose all these, 
 — all te7idmg in one direction, all converging to one end — the 
 result of accident, is to insut the commonest intelli- 
 gence. 
 
 So much for the Archbishop's second extract. The 
 remaining four 1 have no means of testing, as he dis- 
 dains to give chapter and verse, and I cannot undertake 
 to search for them through twenty huge folio volumes. 
 They may be correct, but the reader is warranted, by 
 what he has already seen, in looking upon them with 
 suspicion. But whether correct or incorrect, they do 
 not teach transubstantiation. Origen, as quoted by the 
 Archbishop, (p. 296,) says : "If thou wilt go up with 
 Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee 
 that bread of benediction, His own body, and will 
 vouchsafe to thee His own blood.'' And St. Augus- 
 tine, as quoted by the ArcJibishop, (p. 297,) says : *' You 
 ought to know what you have received. The bread 
 which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the 
 word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, 
 after being sanctified by the word of God, is the blood 
 of Christ." That is what we say. That is Avhat our 
 Lord Himself says : This is my body ; this is my blood. 
 There is no dispute on this point. The point in dis- 
 pute is, as the Archbishop very well knows, How are 
 they his body and blood ? Literally, or figuratively 1 
 Literally, says the Archbishop. Figuratively, say 
 Origen and Augustine, as we have already seen (above, 
 pp. 288, 289), Augustine going so far as to say that to 
 take the words literally would be to represent our 
 Lord as requiring of us what would be '' criminal and 
 disgraceful^ And yet the Archbishop, knowing this, 
 or else being (for a high dignitary) discreditably igno- 
 rant, coolly tries to palm him off on us as an asserter of 
 transubstantiation ! 
 
 Of the two remaining witnesses of the Archbishop, 
 St. Chrysostom, as he quotes hini^ says : '' If thou wert 
 
THE HOLY EUCHARIST, 295 
 
 indeed incorporeal, He would have delivered to thee 
 those same incorporeal gifts without covering. But 
 since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to 
 thee in things perceptible to the senses, the things to 
 be apprehended by the understanding. How many 
 nowadays say : * \\ ould that we could look upon His 
 (Jesus') form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes/ 
 Lo ! thou seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him/' — 
 But how do we, according to St. Chrysostom, see Him, 
 touch Him, eat Him? By the ''understanding/' as 
 contradistinguished from the *' senses." The " things 
 to be apprehended by the understanding" are the body 
 and blood of our Lord ; and these, St. Chrysostom says, 
 are ''delivered" to us "in things perceptible to the 
 senses, ' ' namely, in the bread and wine. — This is in exact 
 accordance with his teaching elsewhere. Commenting 
 on St. John 6 : 63, (Hom. xlvii. 3,) he says : " He 
 (Christ) tries to remove their difficulties in another 
 way, as follows, // is the spirit that quickenethy the flesh 
 profiteth nothing : that is to say. You ought to under- 
 stand My words in a spiritual sense : he who under- 
 stands them carnally is profited nothing. To interpret 
 carnally is to take a proposition in its bare literal mean- 
 ing, and allow no other [which is just what the Arch- 
 bishop does]. But we should not judge of mysteries 
 in this way ; but examine them with the inward eye ; 
 />., understand them spiritually." And again (Hom. 
 XXV., on St. John 3): "As in baptism, the spiritual 
 power of regeneration is given to the material water ; 
 so also the immaterial [incorporeal] gift of the body 
 and blood of Christ is not received by any sensible cor- 
 poral action, but by the spiritual discernment of our 
 faith, and of our hearts and minds." According to the 
 Archbishop, the body of Christ is placed by the priest 
 on the tongue of the communicant, (which is a " sensi- 
 ble corporal action,") and is swallowed by the commu- 
 nicant, (which is another sensible corporal action :) 
 
296 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THFRS. 
 
 plainly the Archbishop and the golden-mouthed Father 
 are heaven-wide from each other. 
 
 The only remaining witness cited by the Archbishop 
 is St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, who, as he quotes him, says : 
 '' He Himself having declared. This is my body, who 
 shall dare to doubt henceforward ? and he having said, 
 This is my blood, who shall ever doubt, saying : This is 
 not his blood ? He once at Cana turned water into 
 wine, which is akin to blood ; and is He undeserving 
 of belief, when He turned wine into blood?" The 
 question is how He turns wine into blood. Does He 
 turn wine into blood in the same way that He turned 
 water into wine .^ Clearly not ; for He turned the wa- 
 ter into something that did not before exist ; but He 
 turns the wine into that which is already existing, and 
 has been for eighteen hundred years ; and even Omni- 
 potence cannot do that literally ; for that would be to 
 make wine of the present century's vintage eighteen 
 hundred years old without lapse of time, St. Cyril is 
 responsible for no such absurdity. If the reader will 
 turn back to page 281 of the Archbishop's book, he will 
 find a long extract from the Saint. A part of.it (which 
 is given also in Browne on the Articles, (p. 698,) and 
 which therefore I can rely upon as being accurately 
 quoted, since the tw^o agree substantially) runs thus : 
 '' And see well that you regard it [the ointment in Con- 
 firmation] not as mere ointment ; for as the bread of 
 the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, 
 is no longer 7nere bread (ovk en aproi Xiro^), but the 
 body of Christ ; so likewise this holy ointment is no 
 longer common ointment after the invocation, but the 
 gift of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, being rendered 
 efficient by His divinity." — From this it is clear that 
 unless St. "Cyril held the ointment to be transubstanti- 
 ated, (which I presume the Archbishop will not claim,) 
 he did not hold the bread to be transubstantiated 
 either. 
 
THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 297 
 
 So much for the Archbishop's Patristic ** echoes." — 
 In the closing paragraph of his chapter he has the 
 courage to say — and it takes a great deal of courage to 
 say it — '' Such also is the faith of the Greek Church, 
 which seceded from us a thousand years ago, as well as 
 of the present Russian Church." Here are two ugly 
 ''blots/' (to use Father Newman's quadriHteral 
 euphemism for a Saxon triliteral) : i. The Greek 
 Church did not secede ; the secession was on the other 
 side, and the Archbishop tries to cover it up by the 
 old trick of crying, Stop thief ! hoping, in the noise 
 and confusion, to get possession (which, he is well 
 aware, is nine points in law) of the stolen goods. — 
 2. Such is not the faith of the Greek Church, and 
 never was. The Archbishop of Syra, a distinguished 
 prelate of the Greek Church, is (to say the least) as 
 likely as the Archbishop of Baltimore, who is only a 
 distinguished outsider, to know what the faith of the 
 Greek Church is, and what it is not. In a conference 
 with the Bishop of Ely, (Harold Browne, author of the 
 work on the Articles,) F. Meyrick, and others, in Eng- 
 land, Feb. 4, 1870, a report of which will be found in 
 the Journal of our General Convention of 1871, (appen- 
 dix, pp. 577-583,) he says i *' My individual opinion is, 
 that the bread remains bread in the mouth, and the 
 wine remains wine in the mouth ; but that at the same 
 time as we receive them, we receive the whole body of 
 Christ. Others have taken up the opinions of the Latin 
 Church, and rolled them into our Church. The ques- 
 tion is not authoritatively settled." — It is not, therefore 
 a part of *' the faith of the Greek Church ;" for every 
 part of the ''faith" of that Church />, and was, long 
 before the secession of the Church of Rome, '' authori- 
 tatively settled." 
 
 '' Rolled them in" is good. It expresses the opera- 
 tion exactly ; and it expresses also the result ; to wit, 
 that, having been *' rolled in," they have no foothold ; 
 
298 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 and therelore, when the Church settles the question 
 authoritatively she will roll them out again. 
 
 The Archbishop's assertion about the Greek Church 
 having thus been proved to be worthless, the reader is 
 entitled to infer the equal worthlessness of the other 
 assertions, in the same paragraph, about the *' Nesto- 
 rians and Evitychians,*' the ^' schismatic Copts, the Syr- 
 ians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and, in short, of all the 
 Oriental sects no longer in communion with the See of 
 Rome ;" he is warranted in taking it for granted that 
 not one of them holds the Roman doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation. 
 
 It having thus been shown that the doctrine has no 
 foundation in Scripture as interpreted by the Fathers 
 and by common sense, and no seat but in the mazed 
 brain of mediaeval and modern Rome, it remains to 
 show, in few words, that it strikes at the foundation of 
 all confidence in the value of human testimony. And 
 here Lacordaire, an authority to which the Archbishop 
 cannot take exception, shall stand me in stead. I 
 quote from his Conferences, Langdon's Translation, Lon- 
 don, 1853— those Conferences that, in the last genera- 
 tion, set all Paris agog with their contagious enthusi- 
 asm, and might fairly challenge any one, since the days 
 of the golden-mouthed Bishop of Constantinople, to 
 match them in eloquence. The passages I shall quote 
 are not specimens of the eloquence, but they are speci- 
 mens of the transparent simplicity of the language, and 
 they are all the more valuable for my purpose, in that 
 Lacordaire never dreamed of the application that could 
 be made of them. The wonder is, they have not long 
 since been put in the htdex Expurgatorhis, Had they 
 appeared in a » Protestant book, they undoubtedly 
 would have been : 
 
 '* You believe, then, in bodies because you have seen 
 them ? Well, I announce to you a sad, a lamentable 
 fact ; it is that you have never seen them ! What have 
 
THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 299 
 
 you seen, in effect, in that which you call a body ? 
 Certain properties — size, weight, color, form ; but the 
 substance, that which is underneath, I tell yovi that you 
 have not seen it. . . . And yet you believe in the 
 existence of bodies ; you believe in it firmly ; and you 
 do well, because in the phenomeita you have sufficient reason 
 for so doing.'' {Conference 12th, p. 167.) 
 
 '* On seeing the phenomena {i.e., accidents'] of bodies, 
 those of existence, those of the mind, we have no diffi- 
 culty in believing in the substance which supports 
 them." {Ibid. p. 171.) 
 
 Here Lacordaire tells us that we see, on the altar, 
 for instance, (for he is speaking of all bodies,) after the 
 consecration of the elements, exactly what we saw be- 
 fore, — neither more, nor less, — to wit, the phenomena, 
 i.e., accidents, — size, color, form — of the bodies, bread 
 and wine, and that the sight of these accidents of the 
 bodies is our *' sufficient reason" for" believing firmly'* 
 in the substance of these bodies ; not in the substance 
 of some other body, or bodies, that has taken their 
 place. 
 
 I have said that the Roman doctrine of Transubstan- 
 tiation strikes at the foundation of all confidence in the 
 value of human testimony. Let me give one example 
 — one is as good as a hundred — and one that is particu- 
 larly in point. I refer to the testimony of the Apostles 
 to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Admitting, to the 
 full, not only the sincerity, but the objective truth, of 
 that testimony, what, to a consistent believer in transub- 
 stantiation, is it good for ? Just nothing at all. For 
 what did they see and handle ? Simply the accidents of 
 the Resurrection body of Christ ; for they certainly 
 did not see and handle the substance. Now ii our seeing 
 and handling the accidents of the bread and wine, after 
 consecration, is not our " sufficient reason" for believ- 
 ing in the substance of bread and wine beneath those 
 accidents, then neither was their seeing and handling 
 
300 l^HE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the accidents, of His Resurrection body their ''suffi- 
 cient reason" for believing in the substance of that 
 Resurrection body beneath those accidents ; and so, to 
 the consistent believer in transubstantiation, Christianity 
 itself is without foundation : for, says the Apostle, 
 (i Cor. 15 : 14,) '' If Christ be not risen, then is our 
 preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." 
 
 Will the Archbishop say. We are to believe in the 
 substance beneath the accidents, except where Jesus 
 Christ (as in the case before us, by saying. This is my 
 body ; this is my blood) has told us not to believe in it ? 
 I answer. That is the very point in dispute, Vv^hether 
 He has so told us, in so saying. Is it in the words 
 themselves, or in the Archbishop's interpretation of the 
 words ? If it is in his interpretation of the words, then 
 I have as good a right to my interpretation of them, as 
 he has to his ; especially as my interpretation of them 
 is the interpretation of all Christendom for the first six 
 hundred years, St. Augustine (as we have seen) even 
 going so far as to say that the other interpretation, to 
 wit, the literal, would make our Lord require of us a 
 ''disgraceful and criminal action." — If, on the other 
 hand, it is in the words themselves, then it is also in 
 the exactly similar words of the Archbishop himself 
 (p. 202) : " Your son [seeing the " likenesses"] will ask 
 you : Who are those men ? And when you tell him : 
 This is Washington, the Father of his Country ; this is 
 Patrick Henry, the ardent lover of civil liberty ; and 
 this is Taney, the incorruptible Judge, your boy will " 
 — will what ? — will, if he is a scion of the Archbishop, 
 say : Oh ! I understand you ! You mean, This is not 
 canvas, or marble. This is the flesh and blood of 
 Washington, the flesh and blood of Patrick Henry, the 
 flesh and blood of Taney ! I understand you per- 
 fectly !^0h, but you don't understand me, you reply ; 
 I don't mean any such thing. Why do you say it, 
 then ? You say, This is Washington ; This is Patrick 
 
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 301 
 
 Henry ; This is Taney : just as our Lord says, '* This 
 is my body ; This is my blood. Surely, if transubstan- 
 tiation is in the words themselves, in the one case, it is 
 in the words themselves, in the other. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 As our Lord said to the eleven (or to the twelve, if 
 Judas was present), '' Drink ye all of this,'' and St. 
 Mark records that '' they all drank of it ;" and as the 
 Archbishop's objection that this was said '' not to the 
 people at large, but only to the Apostles," (p. 301,) is 
 answered, as he very well knows, by his admission (p. 
 298) that ** even the clergy of every rank, including the 
 Pope, receive only of the consecrated bread, unless 
 when they celebrate Mass ;" and as Cardinal Bona 
 admits that ** always, everywhere, from the very first 
 foundation of the Church to the 12th century, the faith- 
 ful communicated under the species both of bread and 
 wine ;" "^ and as the Archbishop himself confesses 
 (p. 304) that the withholding of the cup was first en- 
 acted into a law by the Council of Constance in 1414 ; 
 and as the alleged exceptional instances of communion 
 in one kind in the early history of the Church, and the 
 alleged sufficiency of such communion, even with Au- 
 gustine and Liebnitz to back it (if they do back it), 
 amount to nothing in the face of the plain command of 
 our Saviour, '' Drink 7^ all of it ; and as I have already 
 (p. 79) refuted the Archbishop's calumnious accusa- 
 tion (p. 300) against '' the Protestant translators" of i 
 Cor. II : 27, I shall confine myself to the extraordinary 
 
 ^ Rev, Lifurg. 1. ii. c. 18, n. i. Apud Bingham, xv. v. i. 
 
302 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 paragraph about Luther, and to the last three para- 
 graphs of the chapter, in which the Archbishop apolo- 
 gizes for not obeying the command of Christ by alleg- 
 ing certain difficulties in the way of obedience to it ! 
 The paragraph respecting Luther is as follows : 
 
 '* Luther himself, even after his revolt, was so clearly 
 convinced of this truth, that he luas an uncomproniising 
 advocate of co77imitnion under one kind, ' If any Council, ' 
 he says, * should decree or permit both species, we 
 would by no means acquiesce ; but in spite of the 
 Council and its statute, we would use one form, or 
 neither, and never both/ — De fornmla MisscE,'' 
 
 Of course, any one familiar with the works of Luther, 
 knows that in the part I have italicized above, there is 
 no truth. It is the old Jesuit trick oi taking what the 
 logicians call dictiun secundum qnidior simpliciter dictnni ; 
 that is to say, in quoting what is said relatively y to leave 
 out that relatively to which it is said, and quote it as 
 said absolutely. To illustrate : On page 241, above, 
 I said : '' I scorn to be ' tolerated' in the enjoyment of 
 that which is my birthright. Like him whose blood 
 flows in my veins, the first Governor Dudley of Mas- 
 sachusetts, but for a very different reason, I cry out, 
 from the bottom of my soul, and with all the strength 
 that is in me, against this un-American, un-nineteenth- 
 century, ' intolerable toleration.' " — Suppose the Arch- 
 bishop, or some of his understrappers, were to quote 
 me thus : ** Like him whose blood flows in my veins, 
 the first Governor Dudley of Massachusetts, I cry 
 out, from the bottom of my soul, and with all the 
 strength that is in me, against this * intolerable tolera 
 tion ; ' '' leaving out the qualifying words, without 
 giving any indication that anything was left out ; and, 
 commenting upon it, represent me as *' an uncompro- 
 mising advocate" of intolerance^ and add, that, by my 
 own confession, it was born and bred in me ! He 
 would be serving mc exactly as he has served Luther. 
 
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND, Z^l 
 
 But as he is in the habit of serving the Bible and the 
 Fathers so, as I have already shown (p. 113) and have 
 yet to show, (p. 337) it is not strange that he should 
 serve a heretic the same scurvy sauce. Here is what 
 Luther says, the part which I have italicized being that, 
 in the first paragraph, which the Archbishop has left 
 out. It will be seen that what Luther is denouncing 
 is, 7iot communion in both kinds, as the Archbishop 
 represents, but, putting the Councils of men above the 
 Word of God : 
 
 '' \i by any cJiance a Council by its own autJwrity should 
 decree or permit it, in that contingency by no means 
 would Ave use both species ; rather, tlien first, in 
 spite as well of the Council as of its statute, would we 
 use one or other of the two only, or neither, and by no 
 means both, and zvoiild plainly anathematize those, whoso- 
 ever they might be zvho, on the authority of stich Cotcncil or 
 statute, sliould use both, 
 
 "Do you wonder, and ask why? Listen; If you 
 know the bread and the wine to have been instituted 
 by Christ, both, namely, to be taken by all, as the Gos- 
 pels and Paul most clearly testify, so that even our ad- 
 versaries are compelled to confess it, and yet dare not 
 believe and trust Him, so as to take it on His author- 
 ity, {literally^ to take it so), but are bold to take it, if 
 men in their Council decree it, are you not in that case 
 preferring men to Christ ? Are you not exalting Men 
 of sin above all that is called God, or that is Vv'Or- 
 shipped ? Are you not relying upon the words of 
 men, rather than upon the words of God ? Nay, you 
 altogether distrust the words of God, and believe only 
 the words of men. But how great is that abomination 
 and denial of the Most High God ? What idolatry 
 then can equal your so scrupulous obedience to a 
 Council of men ? Ought you not rather a thousand 
 times to die ? Ought you not rather to receive one 
 
304 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 species or none, than, in such obedience so sacrilegious 
 and apostasy of faith, to receive both ?" 
 
 The Archbishop would only be serving St. Paul in 
 the same way as he here serves Luther, if he were to 
 write thus : 
 
 '* * We are not under the law, but under grace/ St. 
 Paul himself, even after his conversion, was so clearly 
 convinced of this truth, that he was an uncompromis- 
 ing advocate of sinning that grace might abound. 
 ' God be thanked,' he says, ' that ye were the servants 
 of sin.' (Rom. 6 : 17.)" 
 
 Do you say, reader, the Archbishop wouldn't treat 
 St. Paul so ? 1 have showed you how he did treat 
 him ; and if you have forgotten, you can refresh your 
 memory, if not your equanimity, by turning back to 
 page 113. I have showed you also how he treats the 
 Fathers, and will show you more before I get through. 
 The sorrowful fact is that you can't trust, not only his 
 representations of them, but even his (professed) quota- 
 tions from them. 
 
 A word now on the last three paragraphs of the 
 chapter, in which the Archbishop shows, in palliation 
 of his and his Church's disobedience to the plain com- 
 mand of Christ, how '* very difficult" (p. 304) and how 
 ** very distasteful" (p. 305) it is to obey that command. 
 
 The difficulty is, to procure a sufficiency of pure wine 
 for so many communicants. I answer, where there's a 
 will, there's a way : the demand creates the supply ; 
 and to ensure its purity, the Church has but to take the 
 matter into her own hands. 
 
 The distastefiilness is another matter : '' It would be 
 very distasteful, besides," says the Archbishop, **for 
 so many communicants to drink successively out of the 
 same chalice." This is an objection I never thought 
 to hear from a Christian, let alone an Archbishop. 
 The Communicants for the first one thousand years, as 
 he himself admits, did, in large numbers, drink out of 
 
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 305 
 
 the same cup. The truth is, this squeamishness is arti- 
 ficial. Children are not troubled with it : and all 
 Christians should, in this respect, be children in the 
 family of Christ. 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, '' in our larger churches, 
 where communion is distributed every Sunday to hun- 
 dreds, there would be great danger of spilling a por- 
 tion of the consecrated chalice, and of thus exposing it 
 to profanation.'' I answer, the danger is imaginary. \ 
 I have, myself, in the course of my ministry of nearly / 
 forty years, '' delivered the cup'* to thousands upon 
 thousands — to hundreds on the same day — to scores 
 Sunday after Sunday, for months together — and never 
 yet hav^e I spilled the first drop, or seen a communicant j 
 spill it. But even were the danger tenfold greater / 
 than it is, we are not responsible for it, or for any un- 
 avoidable profanation consequent upon it. 
 
 The Archbishop winds up the chapter with the dec- 
 laration, ** should circumstances ever justify or de- 
 mand a change from the present discipline, the Church 
 will not hesitate to restore the cup to the laity." 
 
 So then, the difficulty^ and the distastefulnesSy and the 
 danger, are bogus, after all ! For an unanswerable re- 
 ply to his own arguments, sometimes on the very next 
 page, commend me to the Archbishop. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIl. 
 
 THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 
 
 As the Roman doctririe of the Sacrifice of the Mass is 
 built upon Transubstantiation, and as I have already 
 shown that that is without warrant, either of Scripture 
 as interpreted by the Fathers, or of common sense, this 
 chapter need not detain us long. 
 
30 6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 That the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of prayer and praise, 
 including a memorial of the one Sacrifice offered up 
 d7;^^^/^r a// upon the Cross for the Redemption of the 
 whole world, an oblation of the bread and wine, of 
 alms, and, above all, of the body, soul, and spirit of 
 the worshippers as a living sacrifice, is the doctrine of 
 Holy Scripture, of the early Liturgies, of the Fathers 
 of the first five centuries, and of our Reformers ; but 
 not one of them all gives any countenance to the 
 Roman doctrine of a propitiatory sacrifice of a victim in 
 the Mass. 
 
 Says St. Chrysostom, (Hom. xvii. in Heb.) " There 
 is but one sacrifice ; we do not offer another sacrifice, 
 but continually the same : or rather, we make a memo- 
 rial of the sacrifice — jAoXkov Sh avaf^ivrjaiv epya^o/Asda 
 
 Says St. Augustine (Contr. Faust, xx. i8) : *' Unde 
 jam Christiani peracti ejusdem sacrificii memoriam cel- 
 ebrant, sacrosancta oblatione. Corporis et Sanguinis 
 Christi \' i.e,, Christians celebrate the memorial of the 
 same fully finished sacrifice, by sacred oblation, and 
 participation of Christ's Body and Blood." 
 
 And Ridley, the Martyr : '* The whole substance of 
 our sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the 
 Lord's Supper, consisteth in prayers, praise, and giving 
 of thanks, and in remembering and showing forth of 
 that sacrifice upon the altar of the cross ; that the same 
 might continually be had in reverence by mystery, w^hich, 
 once only and no more, was offered as the price of our 
 redemption. ' ' {Disputations at Oxford, Works, Parker So- 
 ciety, p. 211.) And, in his Piteous Lamejitation, {Works, 
 p. 52,) he calls the modern Roman Mass — and all the 
 Fathers of the first five centuries would have called it 
 the same, if it had been even dreamed of in their da}^, 
 which it was not — *' a new blasphemous kind of sacri- 
 fice, to satisfy and pay the price of sins, both of the 
 dead and of the quick, to the great and intolerable con- 
 
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, 307 
 
 tumely of Christ our Saviour, His death and passion ; 
 which was, and is the only sufficient and everlasting, 
 available sacrifice, satisfactory for all the elect of God, 
 from Adam the first, to the last that shall be born to 
 the end of the World." 
 
 The Archbishop talks about the Pagan sacrifices of 
 victims, and quotes Plutarch in proof of their univer- 
 sality ; as if Pagans, in their worship, Avere examples 
 for Christians ! He talks also of the Patriarchal and 
 Jewish sacrifices of victims, as if the Apostle had not 
 taught us (Heb. vii., viii., ix., and x.) that they have all 
 been fulfilled and brought to an end in the One Sacrifice 
 of the One Victim, on Calvary. He quotes also the 
 prophecy (Mai. i : 11), ** From the rising of the sun 
 even to the going down. My Name is great among the 
 Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and 
 there is offered to My Name a clean oblation.*' But 
 the word '* sacrifice," taken by him from the Douay, 
 which follows the Vulgate, is a mistranslation : the 
 Hebrew word {muktar) doesn't mean ** sacrifice ;" it 
 means ** incense," and can't mean anything else. But, 
 not satisfied with the Vulgate's and the Douay's per- 
 version of the text, he perverts it still more in his com- 
 ment on it: '* He (God) clearly predicts," he says, 
 '' by the mouth of the Prophet Malachiah, that the im- 
 molations of the Jews would be succeeded by a clean 
 victim, which would be offered up not on a single altar, 
 as was the case in Jerusalem, but in every part of the 
 known world." (p. 310.) 
 
 He should predict that, to make it a prediction of the 
 modern Roman Mass : but he doesn't ; that word vic- 
 tim is a sheer fabrication of the Archbishop's, without 
 warrant even from the Vulgate or the Douay. The 
 ** pure offering,'' or, as the Douay expresses it, *' clean 
 oblation,'' is the '* minchah of the Mosaic law, which is 
 never a victim, but is, as his own authority the Doua}^ 
 (Lev. 6:15) could tell him, an offering of '' flour that 
 
3oS THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 is tempered with oil/' and is accompanied with the 
 burning of '' frankincense. '* 
 
 Passing over i Cor. ii : 23-26, which has been 
 already (p. 291) considered, w^e come, in the order fol- 
 lowed by the .Archbishop, to Acts 13:2, As they 
 '* were ministering (or, as the Greek text expresses it,'' 
 says the Archbishop, ** sacrificing) to the Lord.'' That 
 is exactly what it doesn't '* express :" had it *' ex- 
 pressed" it, the Vulgate and the Douay would have 
 been only too happy to have so translated it. The 
 Greek word for sacrifice is Qvoo '^—Xnrovpyiooy which is 
 the word used by the Apostle, is a generic one, and signi- 
 fies performing the SERVICE, praying, praising, giving 
 thanks, sacrificing, or whatever that service may be. 
 
 We come next, and last, to Heb. 13 : 10 : " We have 
 an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve 
 the tabernacle. " * * The Apostle here plainly declares, 
 says the Archbishop, *' that the Christian Church has 
 its altars as well as the Jewish synagogue." If that is 
 all the Apostle declares, the Church is poorly off for 
 altars ; for everybody knows the synagogue had none, 
 and has none to the present day : altars were confined 
 to the Temple. '* An altar," continues the Archbishop, 
 ** necessarily supposes a sacrifice, without which it has 
 no meaning." Very true."^ But it does not necessarily 
 suppose a victim. The Altar of Incense (Exod. 30 : i - 
 10) was for the offering of incense, and no other sacri- 
 fice was allowed (Exod. 30 : 9) to be offered on it. — The 
 meat offering, also, (Lev. 2 : 1,2,) which was not (as the 
 word meat in its present signification might lead the 
 reader to suppose) a flesh offering, but an offering of 
 flour mingled with oil, and accompanied with incense, 
 was offered upon the altar, /.^., sacrificed ; in other 
 words, made sacred (for that is the meaning of sacrificed) 
 to God. Gifts also were offered upon the altar, and to 
 that our Lord has reference w^hen he sa3^s (St. Matt. 
 
 * I leave out of the account the Altar of Witness, (Joshua xxii.) because 
 '\\ presupposed 2.n altar of real offerings. 
 
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 3^9 
 
 5 : 23,) '* If thou bring thy gift to the altar ;" and so 
 does the Apostle when having spoken (Heb. 13 : 15) of 
 **the sacrifice of praise," he adds in the next verse, 
 *' But to do good and to communicate (alms) forget 
 not ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased/' 
 
 We have an altar then, and a sacrifice, or rather, 
 sacrifices; sacrifices (/.^., oblations) of bread and wine 
 — the very sacrifice that Melchizedec offered— sacri- 
 fices of prayer and praise and thanksgiving — sacrifices 
 of our substance — sacrifices of ourselves. We have an 
 altar, a sacrifice, a priest ; but the Catholic altar, the 
 Catholic sacrifice, the Catholic priest, and the Roman 
 altar, the Roman sacrifice, the Roman priest, are heav- 
 en-wide from each other. 
 
 After remarking on Psalm 110:4, that our Lord is a 
 *' "^rx^^X, forever,'' because His sacrifice is '* perpetual,'' 
 which, if he means by it perpetually offering, is in con- 
 flict with Heb. 10 : ia-14, the Archbishop passes on to 
 the unwritten word : 
 
 '' Tradition, with its hundred tongues, proclaims the 
 perpetual oblation of the sacrifice of the Mass, from 
 the time of the Apostles to our own days." (p. 314.) 
 
 ** Hundred tongues" is good. The genuine tradi- 
 tion, from our Lord and his Apostles, is authenticated 
 to us in one tongue, the Greek, and speaks to us with 
 one voice, as it spoke in the beginning, and ever shall 
 speak. The Archbishop's hundred-tongued animal is 
 like Virgil's Fame {^n, iv. 173): *' a monster horrid, 
 huge, with as many wakeful eyes, (wonderful to tell,) 
 as many tongues, as many sounding mouths, as many 
 pricked-up ears, as it has feathers on its body." 
 ' ' Flourishing in locomotivity, and gaining strength by 
 going ; small and timid at first ; soon it raises itself to 
 the breezes, stalks along on the ground, and hides its 
 head in the clouds,'' The Archbishop is welcome to 
 his pet, 
 
 centum mult.loquacibus oris 
 Gaudentem, et pariter facta atque infecta canentem. 
 
3ro THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 '* If we consult the Fathers of the Church ... if 
 we consvilt the General Councils . . • they will all 
 tell us/' etc. (p. 314.) 
 
 We have seen what the Archbishop's wholesale as- 
 sertions about, and retail quotations from, the Fathers, 
 are worth ; or rather, what they are 7iot worth ; and 
 as he does not, here, venture even so much as to refer 
 to, not to say quote, even one of them by name, we 
 may commend his prudence, and pass on. 
 
 His argument from the '' Nestorians and Eutychians*' 
 and the '' Greek schismatics" (p. 315) has been already 
 disposed of in the chapter on transubstantiation, (p. 
 297) and needs no further remark. 
 
 '' But ot all proofs in favor of the Apostolic origin of 
 the sacrifice of the Mass,"^ the most convincing is found 
 in the Liturgies of the Church." (p. 315.) 
 
 The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, as 
 embodied in the early liturgies, is as unlike the Arch- 
 bishop's ** sacrifice of the Mass" as the Catholic doc- 
 trine of the Real Presence is unlike mediaeval Transub- 
 stantiation. They are heaven-wide from each other- 
 Rome claims she brings God down upon her altars, to 
 worship Him there ; a blasphemous claim. The key- 
 note of the Ancient Liturgies is, 
 
 Sursuni corda ! Lift up your hearts ! 
 
 Habemus ad Dominum. We lift them up to Thee. 
 
 " St. Paul says that Jesus was " If the wounds of the martyrs 
 
 offered once. How, then, can we plead so eloquently for us, how 
 offer Him daily ? I answer, that much more eloquent is the blood of 
 Jesus was offered once in a bloody Jesus shed daily upon ou7 altars ?'^ 
 manner, and it is of this sacrifice 
 that the Apostle speaks. But in the 
 sacrifice of the Mass He is offered 
 up in an tinbloody manner. ... 
 daily off ered on ten thousand altars, ^^ 
 
 ^ The name Mass (Latin, Missa) was first used as a distinctive title of 
 the Eucharist by St. Ambrose near the end of the fourth century. Even 
 then it was only a change of name, not of thing. It was two or three 
 centuries later before the corruMions of it had crept in. 
 
RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES. 311 
 
 Reader, I assure you both these extracts are genu- 
 ine, and they are found in the Archbishop's book only 
 four pages apart ; the first on page 317, the last on 
 page 321. The first looksYsk.^ the '' unbloody sacrifice" 
 of the Ancient Liturgies ; but that is of the symbols of 
 Christ's Body and Blood, not of Christ Himself ; the 
 last is bald transubstantiation. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES. 
 
 *' Omit that,'' said a Spanish monarch to one of his 
 courtiers; ** it's only a ceremon3^" ''Sire," replied 
 the courtier, ''the king himself is but a ceremony." 
 There is a deep truth in this, as also in the old conun- 
 drum. What is majesty, stript of its externals ? A jest.^ 
 Strip Rome of her externals — those of them, I mean, 
 that are peculiarly hers — and where would she be ? 
 
 *' The flame of piety," the Archbishop tells us, (p. 
 323,) " is nourished by the outward forms of religion. 
 The fruit of a tree does not consist in its bark or its 
 leaves and branches. Nevertheless, you never saw a 
 tree bearing fruit, unless when clothed with bark, 
 adorned with branches, \why "adorned?" Are 
 branches for ornajnent ?\ and covered with leaves." 
 
 There the Archbishop is mistaken, as the commen- 
 tators on the " fig-tree" having " nothing but leaves" 
 (St. Mark 11 : 13) could tell him : " If haply, ei apa : 
 that is, because it had leaves ; since the leaves of the 
 fig-tree appear after the fruit,'' — Lange, Dr. South 
 shall furnish him with a better comparison. I quote 
 from memory : 
 
 " Our adversaries tell us that forms are not religion. 
 
 ^ M a jest y. 
 
312 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 We do not claim that they are ; but they are to rehg- 
 ion what clothing is to the body ; they keep in the vital 
 warmth." The comparison is an admirable one. All 
 the clothing in the world will not warm a corpse : 
 there must be the inner life. Even then, we may keep 
 it so thinly clad that it shall go shivering with cold : 
 and that is what '' Geneva" does, or did, fifty years 
 ago. On the other hand, we may smother, or swelter, 
 it ; and that is what Rome does. The English Reform- 
 ers kept to the *' golden mean," though at one time 
 they came near going to the Genevan extreme. ** They 
 were disgusted with the everlasting dinning into their 
 ears the outside of the Church, as though it had no 
 inside. The homely proverb of our ancestors reminded 
 those who were too much enraptured with the exter- 
 nal of the human form divine that * beauty was but 
 skin deep ; * which was certainly true, as Apollo no 
 doubt found out when he flayed Marsyas. Now there 
 were those who were for flaying the Church, to get at 
 the holiness beneath ; on the other hand, there were 
 those who seemed to look upon her as all skin ; no 
 bone, and muscle, and sinew : no heart, and mind, and 
 soul, and strength ; no quickening spirit. Or, to change 
 the figure, there were tliose who seemed to think Dress 
 was everything, and who therefore went on piling upon 
 her pannier upon pannier, flounce upon flounce, fur- 
 below upon furbelow, of rites and ceremonies, till she 
 looked more like a bedizened harlot than like the chaste 
 bride of Christ, and wanted little of being smothered 
 in her lendings. No Avonder those who found her 
 gasping, and succeeded in stripping off the cumbrous 
 additions, when they saw the reviving influence of the 
 fresh air upon her, came nigh going on with the dis- 
 robal, and leaving her shivering in the cold, without 
 clothing enough to keep in the vital warmth. One 
 extreme begat another. The real wonder was that the 
 English Reformers should, in their public, official acts. 
 
RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES. 313 
 
 have kept so closely as they did to the old, Catholic 
 way in which the Fathers walked in the beginning, and 
 found rest to their souls. No doubt, as the Count De 
 Maistre said, it was 'the English good sense,' that 
 * preserved the hierarchy ; ' "^^ but surely the hand of 
 God was in it. " — Afterpiece to the Comedy of Convocation. 
 
 The Archbishop thinks he finds Avarrant for a 
 " gorgeous ritual" in the Revelation of St. John : 
 '' Angels with golden censers stand before the throne, 
 while elders cast their crowns of gold before the Lamb 
 once slain. Then that unnumbered multitude of all 
 nations, tongues, and people, clothed in white raiment, 
 bearing palms of victory/ 'etc. — (p. 326.) 
 
 *' Palms of victory ' are for the Church triumphant, 
 not for the Church militant. But even if we are to 
 take the language literally (which, by the way, would 
 require us (Rev. 14 : i) to have the name of God liter- 
 ally *' w^ritten on our foreheads'') and the worship of 
 the Church triumphant for a pattern to the Church 
 militant, the '' white raiment" seems much more in 
 keeping with our ritual than with that of the '' woman 
 arrayed in purple and scarlet, (Rev. 17 14,) and decked 
 with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . the 
 mother of harlots . . . drunken with the blood of 
 the saints." Of course, no church will put on this coat 
 unless \t fits ; unless a scarlet-robed ritual is its peculiiim, 
 
 * "'Were it permitted to establish degrees of importance amongst 
 things of Divine institution,' he says, * / should place the Jiierarchy hefoe 
 dogma — to so great a degree is the former indispensable to the mainten- 
 ance of the faith. One may cite in favor of this theory a splendid experi- 
 ence ivliich for three centuries has been conspicnons in the eyes of all En- 
 rope ; I mean the Ajiglican Church, ivhich has preserved a dignity and weight 
 absolutely foreign to all other Reformed Churches entirely because the English 
 good sense Jias preserved the Iiierarchy/ " — De Maistre, Lettre a une Dame 
 Russe, vol. ii., p. 285, Lettres et Opus. ined. — Quoted by Ffoulkes, Christen- 
 down's Divisions,, London, 1865, p. 200. 
 
31-4 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 CEREMONIES OF THE MASS — THE MISSAL — LATIN LAN- 
 GUACxE — LIGHTS — FLOWERS — INCENSE — VESTMENTS. 
 
 The Archbishop invites the *' dear reader'' to '' walk 
 together'' with him '' into a Cathohc" (meaning a 
 Roman) ** Church, in time to assist" (that is, — by a 
 GaUicism more honored in the breach, than in the ob- 
 servance — be present as a looker-on) *'at the late Mass, 
 which is the most solemn service of the Catholic" 
 (meaning Roman) " Liturgy." As I hold most un- 
 doubtingly that '' the SacramxCnts were not ordained of 
 Christ to be gazed upon" (Art. XXV.,) and as lie does 
 not invite me to partake, and as (moreover) a man is 
 known by the company he keeps, I prefer to stay out- 
 side and hear what he has to say for himself : 
 
 '* The Canon of the Mass never varies throughout 
 the year, and descends to us from the first ages of the 
 Church with scarcely the addition of a word." (p. 
 
 330.) 
 
 I have before me ** The Roman - Missal, Translated 
 into the English Language for the use of the Laity. 
 . . . By the Right Rev. Doctor England, Late Bish- 
 op of Charleston. To which is added The Vespers. 
 Philadelphia, Eugene Cummiskey, 1843," ^^'^^^ I ^"^ 
 happy to say that it bears out the Archbishop's decla- 
 ration. There is very little that is objectionable in the 
 words of the *' Canon" proper. Leave out the word 
 host, Lat. hostia, which means vietini, and is so trans- 
 lated in the second paragraph following the elevation 
 of the chalice, leave out also the oblique invocation 
 (there is no direct invocation in the '* Canon") of the 
 Virgin and the Saints, "by whose merits '<xxiA pravers 
 
 ^' Observe, it is the Roman Missal, not the Catholic Missal. 
 
CEREMONIES OF THE MASS. 3^5 
 
 grant,'* etc., and there is nothing in the Canon that I 
 should object to ; and nothing that any (Trinitarian) 
 Protestant would object to, except the *' Commemora- 
 tion of the Dead," which reads thus, and which is cer- 
 tainly primitive, being found in all the early Liturgies : 
 
 ** Be mindful, O Lord, of thy servants N. and N. 
 who are gone before us with the sign of Faith, and rest 
 in the sleep of peace. 
 
 ** To these, O Lord, and to all that sleep in Christ, 
 grant, we beseech thee a place of refreshment, light, 
 and peace : through the same Christ our Lord. Amen, 
 
 The word '' refreshment,'' especially in its Latin 
 form refrigerhtm may be suggestive of Purgatory at 
 the present day, but it carried no such suggestion in 
 the early days of the Church, for the very good reason 
 that the very idea of Purgatory, as we have already 
 seen, (p. 234,) was then unknown. Tertullian (a.D. 
 150-220) calls the love-feast a refreshment {refrigeriuni) ; 
 {ApoL 39 :) and Jerome, in the Vulgate (the authorita- 
 tive Version of the Roman Church) renders *' times of 
 refreshing' by the same Avord ; and he also renders 
 ** oft refreshed me" (2 Tim, i : 16) by refrigeravit, and 
 Exodus 13 : 12, *' that thine ox and thine ass may rest, 
 (spoken of the sabbath,) and the son of thine handmaid 
 and the stranger may be refreshed,'' by refrigeretiir. 
 Even if the word did signify cooling, it would not imply 
 purgatory, for says Prof. Ornsby, in his Greek Testa- 
 ment, with the imprimatur of Cardinal Cullen, on Acts 
 3 : 20, '' The times of refreshment mean eternal blessed- 
 ness, as it were a cooling from the heat [not of purga- 
 tory, but] of this life's temptations and afflictions." 
 
 I said there was very little to object to in the words 
 of the *' Canon of the Mass ;" in the deeds, on the other 
 hand, — the elevation of the host, for instance, as enjoined 
 in the rubric, — there is everything to object to ; it has 
 no warrant in the (uninterpolated) primitive Liturgies, 
 or in the usage of the Church for the first six hundred 
 
3i6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 years and more ; it came in with transubstantialion, 
 and it will go out with it. 
 
 In the '' Ordinary of the Mass," there is more to ob- 
 ject to than in the '* Canon ;" for instance, the Coitfiteor 
 or Confession ''to Almighty God, to blessed Mary 
 . to all the saints, and to you, Father,'' to wit, 
 to the Priest ; there is no smcJi confession in any of the 
 primitive Liturgies. 
 
 '' You are probably familiar with the Episcopal Book 
 of Common Prayer ^ and have no doubt admired its beau- 
 tiful simplicity of diction. But perhaps you will be 
 surprised when I inform you that this Prayer-Book is 
 for the most part a translation from our Missal." (p. 
 
 33I-) 
 
 1 should be surprised, had I not long since learned, in 
 
 reading the Archbishop's courageous utterances, ;/// 
 admirari. Perhaps you will be surprised, reader, when 
 / inform you that not only ''the most part" of the 
 Prayer-Book (outside of what is taken from Holy Scrip- 
 ture), but nearly all that is Catholic in the Missal, is a 
 translation from the primitive Liturgies. Hence the 
 similarity between them in certain parts ; a similarity, 
 however, that does not extend to "diction." Com- 
 pare, for instance, the Collect for the Fourth Sunday 
 after Easter, (suggested by the season at which I am 
 writing this,) as given by Bishop England, with its 
 transfiguration in the Prayer-Book : 
 
 PRAYER-BOOK. MISSAL. 
 '* O Almighty God, who alone " O God, who makest the faith- 
 canst order the unruly wills and af- ful to be of one mind : grant that 
 fections of sinful men ; Grant unto thy people may love what thou 
 thy people that they may love the commandest, and desire what thou 
 thing which thou commandest and promisest : that amidst the uncer- 
 desire that which thou dost prom- tainties of this world, we may place 
 ise ; that so among the sundry and our affections where there are true 
 manifold changes of the world, our joys. Through Jesus Christ our 
 hearts may surely there be fixed Lord." 
 where true joys are to be found ; 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
CEREMONIES OF THE MASS. 3^7 
 
 That the reader may not think that this is excep- 
 tional, I give, from the Missal, the Collects for the two 
 following Sundays and the intervening Ascension Day ; 
 the reader who has the Prayer-Book at hand can com- 
 pare them with those for the corresponding Sundays 
 and Festival in it : 
 
 Fifth Sun. af. Easter : — '' O God, from whom all 
 that is good proceeds : grant that thy people, by thy 
 inspiration, may resolve on what is right, and by thy 
 direction, put it in practice. Through" — 
 
 Ascension Day: — ''Grant, we beseech thee, O Al- 
 mighty God, that we, who believe that thy only Son, 
 our Redeemer, ascended this day into heaven, may 
 also have our hearts always fixed on heavenly things. 
 Through" — 
 
 Sun. af. Ascension. — '' O Almighty and Eternal God, 
 inspire thy servants with true devotion, and grant that 
 we may serve thy divine Majesty with sincere hearts. 
 Through" — 
 
 Those who have made the comparison, will see that 
 there is no connection between this last Collect and the 
 corresponding one in the Prayer-Book, but that they 
 are from entirely different sources ; which is also the 
 case with a good many other of the Sunday Collects : 
 and, while they admit the bald simplicity of diction of 
 the Missal, will be prepared to agree with the Arch- 
 bishop in '' admiring" the '' bcaiitifttl simplicity of dic- 
 tion" of the Prayer-Book. 
 
 The Archbishop, after some further explanation of 
 ceremonies, proceeds to explain '' why the Mass is said 
 in Latin," and gives, among other reasons this : that 
 ** the Fathers of the early Church generally wrote in 
 the Latin tongue." (p. 333.) That the reader may 
 see what dependence is to be placed on this wholesale 
 declaration, (as on so many similar ones throughout 
 the book, I subjoin the following list of the Fathers of 
 
s^s 
 
 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS, 
 
 the first six centuries ; the dates are in some instances 
 only approximate : 
 
 GREEK. 
 
 ^Clemens Romanus 70 
 
 Barnabas 75 
 
 '"Ignatius 107 
 
 Polycarp 108 
 
 Hermas 145 
 
 '^Justin Martyr 147 
 
 Athenagoras 177 
 
 " Irenaeus 180 
 
 Clemens Alex 194 
 
 '^Origen 230 
 
 Dionysius Alex 265 
 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus 270 
 
 " Eusebius 315 
 
 Athanasius 350 
 
 "'^Cyril Jerus 350 
 
 ■'^Basil 37c 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen 370 
 
 Gregory Nyssen 370 
 
 " Epiphanius 370 
 
 ■^"Chrysostom 398 
 
 Cyril Alex 412 
 
 Isidore of Pelusium 412 
 
 Theodoret 423 
 
 Socrates 440 
 
 Sozomen 440 
 
 Evagrius 594 
 
 LATIN, 
 
 Minutius, Felix 177 
 
 *Tertullian 190 
 
 *Cypricin 250 
 
 Arnobius 303 
 
 Lactantius 306 
 
 Hilary of Poictiers 350 
 
 Pacian 350 
 
 ■'^Ambrose 374 
 
 "Jerome 390 
 
 '"Augustine 400 
 
 H ilary of Aries 424 
 
 Vincent of Lerins 434 
 
 Prosper of Aquitainc 440 
 
 '"Leo the Great .... 440 
 
 Gelasius. Pope 492 
 
 ■^^Gregory the Great 590 
 
 That is to say, in the first three centuries, twelve 
 Greek Fathers, tliree Latin ones ; in the next three cen- 
 turies, fourteen Greek Fathers, thirteen Latin ones : in 
 all, during the first six centuries, — and **the early 
 Church'' can hardly embrace more, — twenty-six Greek 
 Fathers, and sixteen Latin ones. 1 believe 1 have 
 omitted none, of any repute, whose works have come 
 down to us. I have marked with a star those that are 
 appealed to as authorities by the Archbishop ; it will 
 be seen that ten of them are Greek, and seven Latin : 
 and yet we are assured by the Archbishop that ** the 
 Fathers of the early Church generally wrote in the Latin 
 
CEREMONIES OF THE MASS. 3^9 
 
 tongue ! And he gravely gives this as one reason for 
 having the Mass in Latin. Another of his reasons is 
 put interrogativ^ely : ** How, I ask, could the Bishops 
 of these various countries communicate with each other 
 in council, if they had not one language to serve as a 
 common medium of communication?'* (p. 334.) To 
 which I reply : Does the Archbishop suppose that 
 there is one among his fifty thousand, or five times fifty 
 thousand, readers, who is so big a fool as not to see 
 that the need of the Bishops aforesaid, with fifty or a 
 hundred different mother-tongues, has nothing what- 
 ever to do with the need of an ordinary congregation of 
 worshippers., with one common mother tongue ? Real- 
 ly, he should give his readers credit for at least a hun- 
 dredth part of a grain of common sense. 
 
 Another of his reasons is that the faith of the Roman 
 Church being ** always one and the same faith'' — which, 
 as we have seen isn't true, for it has changed twice 
 within twenty -five years — should be enshrined in a 
 dead language. ** Faith,** he says, ^'may be called the 
 jewel, and the language is the casket which contains it. 
 So careful is the Church of preserving the jewel intact, 
 that she will not disturb even the casket in which the 
 jewel is set. Living tongues, unlike a dead language, 
 are continually changing in words and in their mean- 
 ing. The English language, as written four centuries 
 ago, would be now almost as unintelligible to an Eng- 
 lish reader as the Latin tongue.** (p. 333.) 
 
 Here is a specimen of the language as written on ^x five 
 centuries ago, to wit, in 1356 ; it is from the Travels of Sir 
 John Mandevilky as given in the Introduction to Webster 
 Unabridged, p. xxxix. Let us see whether it is ** as un- 
 intelligible to an English reader as the Latin tongue :'* 
 
 '' After for to speke of Jerusalem the holy cytee, yee 
 schuU undirstonde that it stont full faire betwene hilles, 
 and there be no ryveres ne welles, but water cometh 
 by condyte from Ebron. . . .** 
 
3:o THE FAITH OF OUR FORE FA THERS. 
 
 And here is another specimen taken from Wycliffe 
 (1380), just five hundred years old next year : 
 
 "• For sothe when Jhesus hadde comen doun fro the 
 hil, many cumpanyes folewiden hym. And loo ! a 
 leprouse man cummynge worshipide hym, sayinge : 
 Lord, yif thou wolt, thou maist make me clene. ..." 
 
 The chief difficulty is in the spelling. Occasionally 
 you meet with a word that has changed its meaning ; 
 as in this sentence of Chaucer, which was, perhaps, 
 what led the Archbishop into image- worship : *' The 
 sin of mawmetry (idolatry) is the first that is defended in 
 the ten commandments.'' To defend {fend off) m^^int 
 originally to forhid, '' Which God defend thdit I should 
 wrong from him." — Shakespeare, That the English of 
 three hundred years ago is still '' understanded of the 
 people," the Prayer-Book is a standing proof. 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, *' the congregation could 
 not be expected to hear the priest, even if he spoke in 
 English, since his face is turned from them, and the 
 greater part of what he says is pronounced in an un- 
 dertone." (p. 336.) To which 1 reply. Speak louder, 
 and don't mumble your words like a heathen priest ! 
 '* When the priest says Mass, he is speaking not to the 
 people, but to God, to whom all languages are equally 
 intelligible." (p. 336.) Yes, and the people, who 
 ought to be praying with him, are either gazmg, or else 
 praying each on his own hook, with perhaps a dozen 
 different manuals in use in the same congregation at 
 the same time. If any one of them were trying to join 
 in the public prayer, the Apostle's question (i Cor. 14 : 
 16) would come home to the priest, *' How shall he that 
 occupieth the room of the unlearned say the Amen 
 {to dcjJirjv) at thy giving of thanks (r?} ai) evxocpi(yri(Y^ 
 thy Eucharist), seeing he understandeth not what thou 
 sayest ?" 
 
 The Archbishop next introduces his '' dear reader'* 
 to '' lighted chandeliers," and thinks, '' assuredly that 
 
CKREMONIES OF THE MASS. 3^1 
 
 cannot be improper in the New Dispensation which 
 God sanctioned in the Old. (p. 337.) If so, the sacri- 
 ficing of bulls and goats cannot be improper. Dioge- 
 nes lighted a candle at mid-day and said, ** I seek a 
 man !" Perhaps that is what the Archbishop is seek- 
 ing in the Roman Church. Ten years ago he might 
 have found one — Dr. DoUinger ; but now she has cast 
 him out. She doesn't like a man, for the same reason 
 .that the Archbishop doesn't like the English language 
 in w^orship : it's too live. But, '' in the primitive 
 days," the Christians, on account of persecution, were 
 obliged to '* worship in the Catacombs ;'* and as these 
 ** did not admit the light of the sun, the faithful were 
 obliged to have lights even in the open day :" therefore 
 the Church, now that she is above ground, has them 
 still ! Lights have also *' a symbolical meaning ;" they 
 *' serve to remind us to let our light so shine before 
 men," etc. ; are '' a sign of spiritual joy," etc., etc. ; to 
 all which, the primitive Christians, before they were 
 driven into the Catacombs, would have replied in the 
 words of the Apostle (i Cor. ii : i6), '' We have no 
 such custom, neither the churches of God." And the 
 same reply they would have made in regard to incense, 
 which was in keeping with the worship under the Old 
 Law^ but is out of keeping with the worship under 
 the New. 
 
 A simple wreath of flowers at Easter is as unobjec- 
 tionable as a wreath of evergreens at Christmas ; but 
 to turn the font into a flower-pot, which there seems 
 an irresistible temptation to do because it is so eon- 
 venient, is to make ornament take the place of use, 
 which we have no right to do. Moreover, a pyramid 
 of flowers in the font, instead of a wreath around it, is 
 in as bad taste as a pyramid of orange blossoms would 
 be on the head of a bride, instead of a wreath of them 
 around it. The spiritual Church is the Bride of Christ, 
 and the adornment of the material edifice should be in 
 
322 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 harmony therewith. So of the vestments of the priests 
 that minister at her altars : white is the apocalyptic 
 color of the bride ; purple and scarlet are for the harlot 
 *' that sitteth upon many waters/* (Rev. 19 : 8, and 
 17 : 1-4.) 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 The very title of this chapter is a misnomer ; for, 
 says the Catechism of the Council of Trent (p. 139, 
 Donovan's Translation, Baltimore, John Murph}'), 
 ''Every Sacrament consists of two things: * matter,' 
 which is called the element, and * form,' which is com- 
 monly called ' the word.' . . . By the words * sen- 
 sible thing,' therefore, the Fathers understand not only 
 the matter or element, such as water in baptism, 
 chrism (ointment) in confirmation, and oil in extreme 
 unction, all of which fall tmder the eye ; but also the 
 words which constitute the form, and which are ad- 
 dressed to the ear." Very good : let us hold the Cate- 
 chism to its definition. And will it now be good 
 enough to tell us what is the '' matter" of the '* sacra- 
 ment of penance ?" O yes, says the Catechism (p. 241), 
 '' the matter of the other sacraments is some produc- 
 tion of nature or art ; but the acts of the penitent, con- 
 trition, confession, and satisfaction, constitute, as has 
 been defined by the Council of Trent, the matter as it 
 were (quasi materia) of the sacrament of penance." 
 Really, this is such an Irish definition that we are half 
 inclined to suspect Father Donovan of the paternity of 
 it, and not the original Latin of the Catechism. First 
 we are told, by way of definition, of the matter of the 
 sacrament of penance, what the matter of the other 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. ^27, 
 
 sacraments is ; this is certainly Irish. Next, we are 
 told not what the matter of the sacrament of penance 
 is, but what the matter as it ivere is. Now matter-as-it- 
 were isn't matter at all. Had the definition of a Sacra- 
 ment said, the '' matter as it were,'' and the ** form," 
 then the explanation would have been to the point ; 
 but it says, the *' matter," and the *'form." By this 
 time the reader will begin to think that though nothing 
 is the matter ^/the sacrament, something is the matter 
 with it. But let that pass. 
 
 The Archbishop devotes several pages to the '' power 
 of the keys," the power to '* bind" and to ** loose," to 
 *' remit" and to '' retain," and argues (p. 348) that this 
 poAver *' was not restricted to the Apostles, but ex- 
 tended to their successors in the ministr}^, unto all 
 times and places." In this I am happy to agree with 
 him. The power is as much needed now as it was in 
 the Apostles' day. I have this power, and exercise it 
 as a part of my ministry. I exercise this power when- 
 ever I baptize one that offers himself for baptism, or 
 decline to baptize him, according as \ judge him to be, 
 or not to be, in a suitable condition to be baptized. In 
 the same way, I exercise the power in admitting or de- 
 clining to admit him to the Holy Communion, and in 
 suspending him therefrom after he has been admitted, 
 if occasion require, and in restoring him again when I 
 judge him penitent, and otherwise prepared for restora- 
 tion. In these instances my action \^ judicial, and as I 
 am fallible, as all the ministers of Christ are, since ** we 
 have this treasure in earthen vessels," I may mistake, 
 and '*bind" one who should not be bound, and 
 *' loose*' one who should not be loosed ; and in that 
 case what I ''bind on earth" is *' bound in heaven," 
 and what I '' loose on earth" is '' loosed in heaven" only 
 so far as the outward act, with what is tied to it, is 
 concerned : my judicial act cannot reach to his internal 
 relation to God. Again ; I exercise the power when. 
 
324 rllE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 in the Morning and Evening Service and in the Cele- 
 bration of the Holy Communion, Christ speaking by 
 me as His ambassador then and there absolves all those 
 — and only those — who then and there have *' with 
 hearty repentance and true faith" confessed their sins 
 unto Him : the Absolution goes forth on its errand 
 like the *' Peace" of St. Luke lo : 5, 6, and if the son of 
 absolution be there, it finds him, and '* rests upon him ;" 
 if not, it turns to the absolver again. But, it will be 
 said, if the one confessing is penitent — and if he is not 
 his confession is worthless — he is already absolved. I 
 answer. Yes — in the mind of the Great Absolver ; but 
 it does not follow that the penitent has yet consciously 
 appropriated it. There is the same reason for the 
 spoken absolution in public worship that there is for 
 the spoken confession : the one corresponds to and is 
 the complement of the other. Once more ; 1 exercise 
 the power when, in the pulpit, or in private to one 
 who comes to me in private to ** open his grief," I, 
 "by the ministry of God's Holy Word," or by 
 '* ghostly counsel and advice," give (not the form but) 
 the ''benefit of absolution," to the quieting of a dis- 
 turbed conscience, and "the removing of all scruple 
 and dovibtfulness." In these last mentioned instances 
 the absolving is ministerial, and is as real and as effec- 
 tive in its sphere as is the judicial in its. Many a time 
 has a seemingly casual utterance from the pulpit 
 reached some stricken soul and ministered to it a real 
 absolution. It is a mighty power ; all the mightier 
 that it is exclusively spiritual. It is given in some 
 measure to every Christian, for every Christian is a 
 king and a priest unto God (Rev. 1:6; i St. Peter 
 2:9); but it is given specially to the ambassador of 
 Christ. And it is given not as a personal favor to him, 
 as the Archbishop seems to suppose ; but as a favor to 
 those for whose benefit he is to exercise it. I say, as 
 the Arehbishop seems to suppose. Here is what he says : 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 325 
 
 " But of what use would it be to give the Apostles 
 the keys of God's treasures for the ransom of sinners 
 if every sinner could obtain his ransom without apply- 
 ing to the Apostles ? If 1 gave you, dear reader, tfie 
 keys of my house, authorizing you to admit whom you 
 please, that they might partake of the good things con- 
 tained in it, you would conclude that 1 had done you a 
 small favor if you discovered that every one was pos- 
 sessed of a private key, and could enter when he 
 pleased, without consulting )^ou/' (p. 349.) 
 
 What an utterance for a Christian Bishop ! It re- 
 minds us irresistibly, by contrast, of an utterance, under 
 like circumstances, of the great Jewish Lawgiver : 
 *' And there ran ayoinig man, and told Moses, and said, 
 Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And 
 Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of 
 his young men, answered and said. My lord Moses, 
 forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou 
 for my sake? Would God that all the Lord's people 
 were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit 
 upon them.'' (Num. 11 : 27-29.) How different the 
 Archbishop's utterance from, that of Moses ! How 
 different from that of St. Paul (2 Cor. i : 24) : *' Not 
 for that we have dominion over your faith, but are 
 helpers of your joy" ! How different from that of the 
 Prince of the Apostles (i St. Peter 5:3): ** Neither as 
 being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples 
 to the flock" ! 
 
 But the most remarkable part of the whole thing is, 
 that the Catechism of the Council of Trent has served 
 the Archbishop this same scurvy sauce, to wit, giv^en 
 one of the keys, the key of baptism, not only to every- 
 body in the Church, but to everybody out of it : 
 " Those w^ho may administer baptism in case of neces- 
 sity, but without its solemn cere^nonies, hold the third 
 and last place ; and in this class are included all, even 
 
326 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may 
 belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even 
 to JezvSy infidels, and Jiereties ; provided, however, they 
 intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act 
 of her ministry." (p. 159.) According to the Arch- 
 bishop's own showing, the Catechism has done him 
 '* small favor," and one that, evidently, is not '' grate- 
 fully acknowledged." 
 
 The paragraph which contains the remarkable utter- 
 ance we have been considering begins with, " It fol- 
 low^s, secondly, that forgiveness of sin was ordinarily; 
 to be obtained only through the ministry of the Apos-j 
 ties and their successors ;" the previous paragraph,] 
 which we have already considered, having begun with,! 
 " It follows, first, that the forgiving power was not 
 restricted to the Apostles." Now this second " foU'^ 
 lowing" is exactly what doesn't ** follow," any more 
 than it follows from the institution of physicians of the 
 body, that bodily health is ordinarily to be obtained 
 only through their ministry. The physician of the 
 body ordinarily presides at our natural birth, as the 
 physician of the soul ordinarily presides at our spiritual 
 birth ; but, as to make the physician of the body an 
 ordinary resort is the surest way to ruin the bodily 
 health, so to make the physician of the soul an ordinary 
 resort is the surest way to ruin the spiritual health ; in 
 the spiritual therapeutic, as in the physical, continually 
 dosing destroys the tone of the system. 
 
 "It follows, in the third place, that the power of 
 forgiving sins on the part of God's minister involves 
 the obligation of confessing them on the part of the 
 sinner. The priest . . . must exercise the power 
 with judgment and discretion. . . . But how will 
 he judge of the disposition of the sinner unless he 
 knows his sins ? and how will the priest know his sins, 
 unless they are confessed ?" (p. 350.) 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, 3^7 
 
 Ordinarily, the remedies are to be sought direct from 
 the Great Physician. Nor are they far to seek ; they 
 are ** nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart.-' 
 (Rom. lo : 8 ; see also the next three verses.) " Reckon 
 up, therefore,'' says St. Chrysostom, **the medicines 
 which heal thy wounds, and apply all [not, ^^/ the priest 
 to apply thei7t\ unremittingly, humbleness, confession, 
 forgetting wrongs, giving thanks in aflflictions, showing 
 mercy both in alms and actions, persevering in prayer. 
 . . . There is yet another way along with these, 
 defending the oppressed ; for He saith (Isa. 1:17, 
 18), Judge the fatherless, plead for the zvidozv . 
 thoiigli your sins he as scarlet, they shall be as white as snozu. 
 What excuse, then, can we deserve to have made for 
 us if with so many ways leading us up to heaven, and 
 so many medicines to heal our wounds, even after the 
 Laver (of Baptism) Ave continue where we were?" 
 (Hom. V. in 2 Cor. 2 : 12, 13.) Just before, he explains 
 what the confession he here enumerates among the 
 remedies is : ** Groan when thou hast sinned . . . 
 because thou hast offended thy Master. . . . For 
 this, groan, and do this continually : for this is confes- 
 sion/' When we are in doubt about the remedy (which 
 ought not to be often, and zvill not be, unless we are 
 suffering from the effects of unskilful treatment^ it is 
 proper to seek the advice of a skilful under-physician ; 
 and then, of course, so much of our complaint, and 
 only so much, is to be disclosed as is necessary to en- 
 able him to give intelligent advice. If we shrink from 
 iincalledfor exposure of the body to the ph3^sician of 
 the body, much more should we shrink, unless in cases 
 of extreme necessity — and such cases are extremely 
 rare — from exposure of the soul except to the Great 
 Physician, who 
 
 *' Knows all, yet loves us better than He knows." 
 
 The Archbishop quotes Acts 19 : 18, which tells how 
 
3^^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the Ephesians, at the time of their conversion, confessed 
 publicly their previous heathenish practices {npaB,Eii^ of 
 ** curious arts" of magic, and "brought their books 
 together, and burned them before all men ;'* and i St. 
 John I : 9, *' If we confess our sins (namely to God), 
 He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
 cleanse us from all unrighteousness,'' neither of which 
 has any thing whatever to do with the subject in hand,, 
 and adds, *' The strength of these texts of Scripture 
 will appear to you much more forcible when you are 
 told that all the Fathers of the Church, from the first 
 to the last, insist upon the necessity of Sacramental 
 Confession as a divine institution." (p. 350.) 
 
 I should say in reply, reader, that these texts will 
 appear to 3^ou much less forcible — only that I am sure 
 that, even as it is, they don't appear to you (for the 
 purpose for which they are quoted) forcible at all — 
 '' when you are told," as 1 now tell you, distinctly and 
 categorically, '* that all the Fathers of the Church, from 
 the first to the last," down to the time of Leo the 
 Great, Bishop of Rome from 440 to 461, know nothing 
 and say nothing of any such necessity. I distinctly 
 challenge the Archbishop to produce out of the genu- 
 ine writings— and I say genuine because Rome has a 
 scent for spurious works like that of a buzzard for car- 
 rion — of the thirty-odd Fathers, Greek and Latin, who 
 wrote before the time of Leo, one passage, only one, 
 ''insisting upon the necessity of Sacramental Confes- 
 sion as a divine institution." Let him now do it, or else 
 hereafter forever hold his peace. But observe, it is 
 " Sacramental Confession" that is here in question. 
 What that is, the Council of Trent shall inform us : 
 
 *' Session XIV., Canon VI. If any one shall deny 
 either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is 
 necessary to salvation, of divnne right ; or shall say 
 that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone. 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, 329 
 
 which the Catholic Church hath ever observed from the 
 beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institu- 
 tion and command of Christ, and is a human invention ; 
 let him be anathema. 
 
 *' Canon VII. If any one shall say that, in the sac- 
 rament of Penance, it is not, of divine right, necessary 
 unto the remission of sins, to confess all and individu- 
 ally the deadly sins, the memory of which, after due 
 and dihgent previous meditation is held, even those 
 which are secret and those which are opposed to the 
 two last [our one last, to wdt, the tentli] commandments 
 of the Decalogue, as also the circumstances which 
 change the species of a sin ; but [saith] that such con- 
 fession is only useful to instruct and console the peni- 
 tent, and that it w^as of old only observed in order to 
 impose a canonical satisfaction ; ... let him be an- 
 athema. 
 
 ** Canon VIII. If any one shall say that the con- 
 fession of all sins, such as the Church observes, is im- 
 possible, and is a human tradition, to be abolished by 
 the pious ; or that all and each of the faithful of Christ, 
 of either sex, are not obliged thereunto once a year, 
 according to the constitution of the great Council of 
 Lateran, ... let him be anathema. 
 
 *' Canon IX. If any one shall say that the sacra- 
 mental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but 
 a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring sins to be 
 remitted unto him who confesses ; ... let him be 
 anathema.'* 
 
 ** As, according to the W'ise admonition of the Council 
 of Trent, we cannot form an accurate judgment on any 
 matter, or award to crime a just proportion of punish- 
 ment, w^ithout having previously examined, and made 
 ourselves well acquainted with the cause ; hence arises 
 a necessity, on the part of the penitent, of making 
 known to the priest, through the medium of confession, 
 cacli and every sin. This doctrine, a doctrine defined by 
 
33^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 the holy synod of Trent, the uniform doctrine of the 
 Catholic Church, the pastor will teach/' {Catechism of 
 the Council of Trent ^ p. 255.) 
 
 . ** Sins of desire only, such as are forbidden by the 
 ninth and tenth [our tenth] commandments, are all and 
 each of them to be made matter of confession/' {Ibid,, 
 p. 258.) 
 
 ** Hence, according to the most ancient practice of 
 the Church, when penitents are absolved from their 
 sins, some penance is imposed, the performance of 
 Avhich is commonly called * satisfaction/ '' {Ibid., p. 
 266.) 
 
 '* No person is to be absolved until he has first faith- 
 fully /r^;;^/>^^ to repair fully the injury done" to his 
 neighbor. {Ibid,, p. 273.) 
 
 **Butin imposing penance ... no satisfaction 
 can be more salutary than to require of the penitent to 
 devote, for a certain number of days, a certain portion 
 of time to prayer/* {Ibid., p. 273.)^ 
 
 From the foregoing extracts from the Canons of the 
 Council of Trent (Buckley's Translation, which is 
 almost servilely literal), and from the Catechism set 
 forth by its authority, we see what '' sacramental con- 
 fession" is: it is (i) to a priest, (2) in private, (3) of 
 secret sins, even those of thought, (4) compulsory, (5) 
 for obtaining private absolution, (6) without previous 
 and public penance — the penance being always subse- 
 quent, and private, (7) ** of divine institution/' This is 
 the '' Sacramental Confession," the necessity of which, 
 the Archbishop says, all the Fathers insist upon. If 
 the Confession in use in the early Church prior to Leo 
 the Great lack any one of these seven characteristics, 
 then it is not the *' Sacramental Confession" now taught 
 and enforced in and by the Roman Church. 
 
 Now there were but two kinds of confession in the 
 
 * Think of turning Prayer, which is " ihc Christian's vital breath," into 
 Penance ' ! ! 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. ZZ"^ 
 
 early Church ; the first was public, and consisted of 
 acts rather than words, and lasted one, five, ten, 
 twenty, even thirty years, and sometimes for a lifetime. 
 It was for heinous and scandalous sins only, such as 
 falling away from the faith under persecution, adultery, 
 homicide, and such like. Tertullian has given an ex- 
 tended account of it in his treatise De Penitentia : God, 
 saith he, '' hath placed in the porch a second repent- 
 ance [Baptism being the first], which may open unto 
 them that knock, but now for once only, because now 
 for the second time, and never again, because at the 
 last time in vain/' (c. vii.) And again: '* The more 
 straitened, then, the work of this second and only re- 
 maining repentance, the more laborious its proof, so 
 that it may not be only borne upon the conscience 
 within, but may be also exhibited by some outward 
 act. This act, w^hich is better and more commonly 
 expressed by a Greek word {eB,o}xo\6yr]aii), is Confes- 
 sion, whereby we acknowledge our sin to the Lord, 
 not because He knoweth it not, but inasmuch as by 
 confession satisfaction is ordered, from confession re- 
 pentance springeth, by repentance God is appeased.'* 
 (c. ix.) 
 
 It will be seen that Tertullian speaks of this *' second 
 repentance,'' this acted confession, as *' placed in the 
 porch." In the arrangement of the ancient churches, 
 there was commonly, before the church, an open area 
 surrounded with porticoes, or sometimes only an open 
 portico. This was the place in which the first and 
 lowest order of penitents, the weepers, stood exposed 
 to the weather. The church itself consisted usually of 
 three divisions within. In the first, called the riarthex, 
 a narrow vestibule extending the whole width ot the 
 church (among Jews and heathen, heretics and schis- 
 matics, catechumens and energoumens as yet unbap- 
 tized), stood the second class of penitents, the hearers , 
 who were allowed to hear the Scriptures read, and the 
 
332 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 sermon preached, but had to depart before the Com- 
 mon Prayers began, which in the early Church fol- 
 lowed the sermon. The next division, or main body of 
 the church, was the nave, separated from the 7tarthex 
 by a wooden railing. Just within this railing were the 
 third order of penitents, the kneelers or prostrators, so 
 called because they were allowed to remain and join in 
 certain prayers particularly made for them, whilst they 
 were kneeling, or prostrate on the ground. In the rest 
 of the nave were the believers or faithful, among 
 whom were mingled the fourth order of penitents, the 
 co-staiiders who stood with the faithful, and joined in the 
 prayers after the other orders of penitents had been 
 dismissed. At last, after they had gone through the 
 prescribed time,'^ which varied according to the degree 
 of the offence, some of them spending years in each of 
 these orders, others only a brief period, they were by a 
 public and formal absolution restored to full commun- 
 ion. The absolution was never given before the pen- 
 ance was accomplished, except to such as were dan- 
 gerously ill, and these, if they recovered, were obliged 
 to take their place again among the penitents till they 
 had gone through the several stages. (See Hammond, 
 Six General Councils, from whose Note to Canon XI. 
 of the Council of Nice I have abridged most of the 
 foregoing account.) In all this, there is nothing at all 
 resembling the ' ' Sacramental Confession' ' of the modern 
 Roman Church. 
 
 The second, and only other, kind of confession in 
 the early Church (except, of course, that of Christians 
 ** confessing their faults one to another and to God,'') 
 was private, but it was not compulsory, nor was it ever 
 accompanied with private absolution ; still less, with 
 private penance following such absolvition. '' There 
 was a very early Practice/' says Marshall {Penitential 
 
 ^ This was sometimes shortened by an Indulgence, of which more in 
 the next chapter. 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PEiVANCE. 3?>Z 
 
 Discipline of the Primitive Church, (p. 44,) London, 
 1714), '' oi voluntary Confession, which was sometimes 
 publick, and sometimes /nV^/^ only ; of both which we 
 meet with Testimonies approaching so near the Foun- 
 tain that they almost mix with it." He then cites 
 *' some noble passages" from Origen, TertuUian, and 
 Cyprian, and, on page 52, continues thus : 
 
 ** It is true, indeed, that all who mention the Confes- 
 sion of secret Sins do it still with some Eye of Reference 
 to /^^//^/& Discipline. (This Origen, Tertullian, and St. 
 Cyprian do all, as far as I can judge, agree in :) But 
 then it is likewise certain, th^t publick Discipline was not 
 assign 'd to every Sin, which w^as thus in private con- 
 fess d ; but only to such as, upon a view of the Case, 
 were conceiv'd to need it. The Party therefore who 
 thus confessed his private Offences, must have open'd 
 them at large, or else the Penitentiary could not judge 
 of them whether they needed such a Cure or no. If 
 they did not, then the Party had the Comfort [not of 
 Absolution, but] of that Presbyter's Opinion, that he 
 might be safe without it, and Ghostly Advice moreover, 
 how to behave in the Conduct of his future Life ; and 
 upon this, in Process of Time, was grafted the Practice 
 oi private Penance, when the Zeal of Men grew too cold 
 for a Submission to the Publick.'' 
 
 Origen, in one of the ** noble Passages" cited by 
 Marshall, advises those who would confess in private, 
 to ''be careful in chusing a fit Person, to whom they 
 may open their Minds with Profit and Advantage ; that 
 they try to find out such a spiritual Physician, as knows 
 how to mourn with them that mourn, to be weak with 
 them who are weak ; in fine, to be tender and compas- 
 sionate, and such an one (upon the whole) as having 
 approv'd his skill to them, may give them Reason to 
 depend upon his Council, and to follow it ; that so, if 
 
334 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 he shall judge their Case to be, what may need the 
 Cure of a publick Animadversion, and deserve to be 
 laid open in the Face of the Church {gui in conveniu 
 totiiis Ecclesice expo?ii debeat et curari)^ for the Edification 
 either of themselves or others, this may be done delib- 
 erately and discreetly^ and agreeably to the Directions 
 of such an approved Physician." {In PsaL 37 (38). 
 Horn, 2.) 
 
 From this we learn that what was deemed wanting, 
 in such a case, in Origen's day was a spiritual physi- 
 cian qualified to give (not private absolution, which 
 was then unknown, but) sound (spiritual) medical ad- 
 vice, and that the sin-sick soul was free to choose its 
 own physician. This liberty was afterward abridged 
 by the appointment by each Bishop of a Penitentiary 
 Presbytery '' whose duty," says Socrates (Eccl. Hist. v. 
 19), '* it should be to receive the confession of penitents 
 who had sinned after baptism ;" and he says it was first 
 done '* when the Novatians separated themselves from 
 the Church because they would not communicate with 
 those who had lapsed during the persecution under 
 Decius ;" i,e,, about a.d, 250. This continued till about 
 390, when, in consequence of a scandal to which it had 
 given occasion in the Constantinopolitan Church, ec- 
 clesiastics being subjected to taunting and reproach, 
 '' Endsemon," says Socrates, *' a presbyter of the 
 Church, by birth an Alexandrian, persuaded Nectarius 
 the Bishop to aboHsh the office of penitentiary pres- 
 byter,' and to leave every one to his own conscience with 
 regard to the participation of the sacred mysteries ^'^ i,e., the 
 holy communion. That this last statement of Socrates 
 is correct, we may be sure, for he says, ** I myself 
 heard the explanation of the matter from Endaemon ;" 
 and he adds : '' My observation to End^mon, when he 
 first related the circumstance, was this : ' Whether, O 
 presbyter, your counsel has been profitable for the 
 Church or otherwise, God knows ; but I see that it 
 
. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE- 335 
 
 takes away the means of rebuking another's faults, and 
 prevents our acting upon that precept of the Apostle, 
 Have no fellowship wit It tJie unfruitful works of darkness, 
 but rather reprove them,' '' Sozomen {Ecel. Hist. vii. 
 16) gives the same account of the *' suppression of this 
 office in the Church," and adds, *' This example v/as 
 followed by the Bishops of every region." I add, that 
 there was but one penitentiary presbyter to a diocese, 
 even the great city of Constantinople having- but one ; 
 for, says Sozomen {ut supra), '' At Constantinople, a 
 presbyter was always appointed to preside over the 
 penitents, until," etc., and then goes on to give an ac- 
 count of the scandal that occasioned the abolition of the 
 office. 
 
 From the foregoing account two conclusions follow^ : 
 frst, that confession to a priest as a condition to the 
 partaking of the Holy Communion was exceptional 
 not universal, or even general, for it would have been 
 physically impossible for one presbyter to hear habitu- 
 ally, or even once a year, the confessions of all the 
 communicants of a diocese ; and, secondly, that confes- 
 sion to a priest in private Avas not then considered of 
 divine authority and therefore of universal and per- 
 petual obligation, for had it been, Nectarius would not 
 have dared to abolish it, and ' ' leave every one to his own 
 conscience zvith regard to the participation of the sacred 
 mysteries ;'' nor if he had, would his *' example" have 
 been *' followed by the Bishops of every region." 
 Nectarius and the other Bishops evidently understood 
 that they were simply returning to the rule of St. Paul 
 (i Cor, II : 28), '' Let a man examine himself, and so 
 (that is, after having examined himself, not, after having 
 been examined by another) let him eat of that bread, 
 and drink of that cup." Rome's rule, on the contrary, 
 is, Let him 7iot *' eat of that bread" — I use the v/ords 
 of her own Version — except another, and that other a 
 priest, have first examined him, and let him not drink 
 
Z2>^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 of that cup at all. And this rule (of examination by 
 another), the Archbishop has the assurance to tell us, is 
 primitive and Apostolic ; for he says (p. 358) — and he 
 italicizes it — that * * Sacramental Confession was 7iot in- 
 stituted since the time of the Apostles. Really, he ought 
 to be satisfied with browbeating his contemporaries, 
 without undertaking to browbeat the Apostle Paul ! 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, '' We are not unfrequently 
 told . . . that Sacramental Confession was not in- 
 troduced into the Church until 1,200 years after the 
 time of our Saviour. [Will he have the goodness to 
 inform us when, before that date, and where, and by 
 whom, it was made compulsory on all communicants 
 everywhere, and give us chapter and verse ?] In vin- 
 dication of their bold assertion ['* bold assertion," from 
 hiin, is good], they even introduce quotations from SS. 
 Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Chrysostom. 
 These quotations are utterly irrelevant ; but if seen in 
 the context [mark that, reader, for I am going to show 
 you, presently, a specimen of the Archbishop's idea of 
 cojitext, that will make you open )^our eyes zvide\ they 
 will tend to prove, instead of disproving, the Catholic 
 [yes, but not the Roman] doctrine of Confession. For 
 the sake of brevity ['* brevity's the soul of wit," but 
 not always of truth], I shall cite a few passages only 
 from the Fathers referred to. These citations I take, 
 almost at random {quite " at random," the reader will 
 think, before he gets through with them], from the 
 copious writings of these Fathers on Confession. [The 
 '' writings of these Fathers on Confession" are '' copi- 
 ous," but the ''Confession" is not ** Sacramental."] 
 From these extracts you can judge of the sentiments of 
 all the Fathers on the subject of Confession. '' Ab uno 
 disce omnes,' " (p. 351.) 
 
 The Archbishop's first '' extract" is from St. Basil, 
 Bishop of C^esarea in Cappadocia from 370 to 379 ; 
 and that it may be (to use the Archbishop's phrase 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 337 
 
 above quoted) '' seen in the context," I shall here give, 
 in parallel columns, the Archbishop's presentation of 
 the Saint, and the Benedictine presentation of him ; 
 merely premising that the Benedictine Edition is recog- 
 nized by all scholars, Roman and non-Roman, as the 
 Standard Edition : 
 
 BENEDICTINE: 
 
 " Q. 229. Whether forbidden ac- 
 tions ought to be laid open, citra 
 verectrndiani^ to all, or to whom, 
 and of what sort ? 
 
 '* A. The discovering of sins has 
 the same rules as the making known 
 of bodily ailments : as then men 
 do not reveal the ailments of the 
 body to all, but to those skilled in 
 their cure, so also the discovery of 
 sins ought to be made to those able 
 to cure them, as it is written (Rom. 
 15 : i), Ye, then, that a^'e strong, bear 
 the infirmities of the weak, i.e., by 
 care remove them'*^ (p. 492). 
 
 [Between this and what follows, 
 there is a space of only twenty-four 
 folio pages of the Benedictine edi- 
 tion ! ! !] 
 
 ** Q. 288. Whether he v/ho wishes 
 to confess his sins ought to confess 
 them to all, or to any chance per- 
 sons {quibtislibet), or to whom ? 
 
 ** A. . . . Sins must be confessed 
 to those who have been put in trust 
 with the mysteries of God. For 
 thus they also are found to have 
 done who of old did penance in the 
 presence ^y the saints (I'kI tcjv uyioVy 
 coram Sanctis^. For it is written 
 {171 Evangelio qtiidem^ in the Gos- 
 pel (St. Matt, iii.), that they con- 
 fessed their sins to John the Bap- 
 tist ; {in actis vero), and in the Acts, 
 to the Apostles themselves, by whom 
 also they were baptized" (p. 516). 
 
 ARCHBISHOP'S: 
 
 ** St. Basil writes : * In the con- 
 fession of sins, the same method 
 must be observed as in laying open 
 the infirmities of the body ; for as 
 these are not rashly communicated 
 to every one, but to those only 
 who understand by what method 
 they may be cured, so the confes- 
 sion of sins must be made to such 
 persons as have the power to ap- 
 ply a remedy.* Necessarily, our 
 sins must be confessed to those to 
 whom has been committed the dis- 
 pensation of the mysteries of God. 
 For thus also are they found to have 
 acted who did penance of old, in 
 regard of the saints. For it is writ- 
 ten in the Acts, they confessed to 
 the Apostles, by whom also they 
 were baptized ' f " (p. 351). 
 
 * Here come in the twenty-four 
 folio pages. 
 
 f '' In Reg. Brev., p. 516." 
 
 The first of the two answers that the Archbishop, 
 
33^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 quietly (for there are no stains, or other indication of any 
 omission) ignoring twenty-four foHo pages, here brings 
 together (thereby practically solving affirmatively the 
 famous problem of the Schoolmen, whether angels can 
 pass from one point of space to another without passing 
 through the intermediate points) relates to the disclos- 
 ing of spiritual ailments not by the laity to the clergy, 
 but by the weak to the strong, whether clergy or laity, 
 as the citation from Rom. 15:1, which the Archbishop 
 prudently omits, unmistakably shows, "the weak" and 
 *' the strong" having been clearly pointed out by the 
 Apostle in the preceding chapter, to wit, the fourteenth. 
 The other answer of the Saint, twenty-four pages 
 further on, relates to public confession, as the reference 
 to John the Baptist, which the Archbishop also pru- 
 dently omits, most plainly demonstrates, and as is 
 shown likewise by the Greek phrase above given, which 
 the Benedictine Editors rightly translate, coram Sanctis, 
 i,e,, in the presence oftIie_sai}its, but w^hich the Archbishop 
 inadvertently renders, '' in regard of the saints.'' It is 
 a great misfortune when a man's mistakes all tend in 
 the same direction, and conspire to the same end : it 
 tends to unsettle confidence in the mathematical doc- 
 trine of '* chances," or, as the better phrase is, '* quan- 
 tity of belief." In one thing I am sure we shall all 
 agree with the Archbishop, namely, in the importance 
 of '' quotations from SS. Basil, Ambrose," etc., being 
 ''seen in the context," or, if that is inconvenient, not 
 more, at the farthest, than twenty-four folio pages away 
 from it. 
 
 The Archbishop prefaces his extract from St. Basil 
 with, '' Ab uno disce omnes .*" From one learn all : which 
 means that his quotation from St. Basil is a fair speci- 
 men of his other quotations. Whether his first quota- 
 tion from St. Ambrose is made up of disjecta membra 
 twenty -four folio pages apart from each other, is more 
 than I can say, as he gives no other reference than 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 339 
 
 " See Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 74, and seq./' and 
 I caiit *' see" it, as it is not visible in this latitude. I 
 have searched carefully through the four volumes of 
 Migne's Edition of St. Ambrose, with the help of tol- 
 erably full Indexes, and have been unable to find it. I 
 shall therefore content myself with remarking that the 
 reference, like that in the next extract, which I liave 
 succeeded in finding, is undoubtedly to public confes- 
 sion, the ''shame" of which (''Art thou ashamed? 
 This shame will avail thee little at the judgment seat of 
 God") is tenfold more powerful as a drawback than 
 that of \\\Q private confession of the Roman Church. 
 
 I said, I have succeeded in finding the Archbishop's 
 second extract— the one which he says " clearly shows 
 that the great Light of the Church of Milan is speaking 
 of confession to priests," and I here add that I have 
 also succeeded in finding — what the Archbishop didnt 
 succeed in finding — the paragraph immediately preced- 
 ing ; the last two sentences of which, together with the 
 first sentence of the Archbishop's extract, runs thus in 
 the original Latin : " Nam plerique futuri suplicii metu 
 peccatorum suorum conscii, penitentiam petunt, et cum 
 acceperint, pitblicce siipplicationis revocantitr pudore. Hi 
 videntur malorum petiisse poenitentiam agere bonorum. 
 
 " Nounulli ideo poscunt poenitentiam, ut statim sibi 
 reddi communionem velint. Hi non tam se solvere 
 cupiunt, quam sacerdotem ligare," etc. {De Poenit, 1. 
 ii. c. 9, par. 86, 87. Migne, t. xvi. col. 517.) 
 
 In the first of these St. Ambrose tells us that " many, 
 conscious of their sins, through fear of future punish- 
 ment, ask for penance, and after they have accepted it, 
 draw back through shame of the public supplication,'' In 
 the second he tells us, in the translation given by the 
 Archbishop, that " there are some who ask for penance, 
 that they may at once be restored to communion. 
 These do not so much desire to be loosed as to bind the 
 priest ; for they do not unburden their conscience, but 
 
340 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 they burden his, who is commanded not to give holy 
 things unto dogs — that is, not easily to admit im- 
 pure souls to the holy communion" (p. 352). In both 
 cases, the penance which is, of course, imposed by the 
 Priest, or the Bishop, is public ^ and the ** loosing," 
 after the penance is accomplished, is by the Priest, or 
 the Bishop, and is public also. The '' public supplica- 
 tion," spoken of in the first of the two paragraphs, is 
 referred to again in paragraph 92 : '* Let your mother 
 the Church weep for you, and lave your fault with her 
 tears ; let Christ see you weeping, that He may say : 
 Blessed are ye that weep now ^ for ye shall laugh (St. Luke 
 6:21). He loves to see many praying for one : ainat 
 ut pro tuio inulti rogent,'' 
 
 '* Paulinus, the secretary of St. Ambrose, in his life 
 of that great Bishop [prefixed to Migne's Edition of 
 his works], relates that he used to weep over the peni- 
 tents whose confessions he heard." 
 
 Yes, and the context, and the Catechis^n of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, will tell us why he wept so ; namely, be- 
 cause he found it so hard to induce them to submit to 
 the shame and the severity of the public penance. Says 
 the Catechism (p. 269, Murphy's First American Edi- 
 tion), ** But with regard to public sinners, they, as we 
 have already said, were never absolved until they had 
 performed public penance. Meanwhile, the pastor 
 poured out his prayers to God for their salvation, and 
 ceased not to exhort them to do the same. This salu- 
 tary practice gave active employment to the zeal and 
 solicitude of St. Ambrose ; many, who came to the 
 tribunal of penance hardened in sin, were by his tears 
 softened into true contrition. Paulinus in ejus vita.'' 
 
 '* St. Augustine writes : ' Our merciful God wills us 
 to confess in this vv^orld that we may not be confounded 
 in the other.' Horn, xx." 
 
 I have not been able to find it by this reference, but 
 it is of no consequence, for there is nothing here to 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 34 1 
 
 determine whether the confession is to man, or to God 
 — in public, or in private ; the sole points at issue. 
 
 The Archbishop gives another extract from St. Au- 
 gustine, but as he, again inadvertently, omits three or 
 four lines immediately preceding, which are important 
 to the correct understanding of the passage, 1 will sup- 
 ply the omission, merely premising that the Sermon 
 (Serm. 392) from which it is taken is Ad coiijitgatos, 
 '* To Married People," and that the part containing 
 the extract is addressed to husbands : 
 
 *' Qui post uxores vestras vos illicito concubitu mac- 
 ulastis, si prseter uxores vestras cum aliqua concubuis- 
 tis ; aqite poenitentian, qualis aqitur in Ecclesia, ut 
 oret pro vobis Ecclesia."^ Nemo sibi dicat, Occulte ago, 
 apud Deum ago," etc. ; i,e,, '' Ye who have defiled 
 yourselves by adultery, do penance, as it is done in the 
 Churchy that the Church may pray for you.^ Let no 
 one say, to himself, I do penance to God in private, I 
 do it before God. Is it then in vain that Christ hath 
 said, ' Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven ? ' Is it in vain that the keys have 
 been given to the Church ? Do we make void the 
 Gospel? void the words of Christ?" (p. 352). 
 
 '* In this extract," continues the Archbishop, '' how 
 well doth the great Doctor meet the sophistry of those 
 who, in our times, say that it is sufficient to confess to 
 God !" To which I add, *' In this extract," uncur- 
 tailed of its fair proportions, *' how well doth the great 
 Doctor meet" the inadvertence of those who, in our 
 day, by the omission, '' for the sake of brevity" (p. 
 351), of tivo lines and a half, turn public penance for 
 adultery into private penance for a violation of the 
 tenth commandment ! ! *' The great Doctor's" inter- 
 pretation of the *' power of the keys," of '' binding," 
 and ''loosing," as here given, is exactly that of our 
 
 " Here the omitted part ends, and the Archbishop's extract begins. 
 
342 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 Thirty-third x\rticle :^ " That person which by open 
 denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the 
 unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to 
 be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an 
 Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by 
 penance^ and received into the Church by a Judge that 
 hath authority thereunto'' — in other words, that hath 
 the '' power of the keys ;*' the power of *' binding," 
 and, as a consequence thereof, of ** loosing." 
 
 The Archbishop next quotes from the '' thirtieth 
 Homily" of St. Chrysostom ; from which one would 
 suppose that his Homilies are numbered in one series 
 only, instead of being numbered, as they really are, in 
 separate series for the separate books of Scripture. In 
 the present instance, it is the thirtieth Homily on Gene- 
 sis. In it we are exhorted to ** exhibit," during the 
 closing days of Lent, '' 2i full and accurate confession of 
 our sins, . . . For . . . having confessed our 
 sins, and shown our wounds to the physician, we attain 
 to an abundant cure" (p. 353). Here, by inadvertently 
 (it is wonderful how inadvertent some people are) 
 italicizing certain words, as given above, and beginning 
 physician with a small/, the Archbishop leads the reader 
 off the track, away from the Great Physician, of whom 
 
 * The following, from his Lectures to Catechumens on the Creed is abso- 
 lutely conclusive : " Once we are washed by Baptism, daily we are washed 
 by prayer. But take care not to commit those sins for which you will 
 have to be separated from the body of Christ. That be far from you. 
 For they whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either 
 adultery, or some other grievous offence ; and for these they are doing 
 penance. For if their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot 
 them out." Semel abluimur Baptismate, quotidie abluimur oratione. 
 Sed nolite ilia committere, pro quibus necesse est ut a Christi corpora 
 separemini : quod absit avobis. Illf enim quos videtis agerepoenitentiam, 
 scelera commiserunt, aut adulteria, aut aliqua facta immania : inde agunt 
 pcenitentiam. Nam si levia peccata ipsorum essent, ad haec quotidiana 
 oratio delenda sufficeret. — August De Symbolo ad Catechuuienos. c. 7, 
 Migne., tom 11. (Aug. t. vi.) col. 636. From this, it is plain that, in St. 
 Augustine's day, the remedies for sin were two : daily prayer, and the 
 public penance and absolution ; he knew of no intermediate private pen- 
 ance and absolution. 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, 343 
 
 St. Chrysostom's thoughts were full, to the little physi- 
 cian, the priest, who, as we shall see by and by (fur- 
 ther on, p. 348), wasn't in his thoughts at all. 
 
 For his next quotation from St. Chrysostom, the 
 Archbishop gives the general reference '' Tom. vii., 
 Comm. in Matt.," which necessitates a search for it till 
 it is found. The passage, as he gives it, runs thus : 
 '' Do not confess to me only of fornication, nor of those 
 things that are manifest among all men, but bring to- 
 gether also thy secret calumnies, and evil speakings 
 and all such things. " 
 
 If the Archbishop had begun ** me' with a capital, 
 *' Do not confess to Me only of fornication," etc., the 
 reader would have seen at once that St. Chrysostom 
 was putting the words into the mouth of God. But 
 that is the very thing the Archbishop denies: ''The 
 great Doctor," he says, ''plainly enjoins here a de- 
 tailed and specific confession of our sins not to God, 
 but to His minister, as the whole context evidently 
 shows" (p. 353). Why, then, doesn't he give the 
 context ? If it does show that, then it is in fiat contra- 
 diction with passage after passage, in other parts of St. 
 Chrysostom's works, some of which I will give before 
 I get through. See further on, page 348. 
 
 The Archbishop next adduces three passages from 
 St. Chrysostom's treatise on the Priesthood in which 
 he extols the power of Christ's priests as compared 
 with that of parents and of kings, in that we receive 
 our natural birth from our parents, our baptismal new 
 birth from the priest, as also the sacrament of Christ's 
 body and blood ; our parents also, he says, cannot re- 
 store to us our lost health, but the priests can, by 
 " pra3dng over us and anointing us with oil in the name 
 of the Lord ;" of which more when I come to the 
 chapter on Extreme Unction. The three passages are 
 as follows : 
 
 " To the priests is given a power which God would 
 
344 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 not grant either to angels or archangels ; insomuch that 
 what the priests do below, God ratifies above, and the 
 Master confirms the sentence of His servants. For, 
 He says, ' Whose sins you shall retain, they are re- 
 tained/ 
 
 *' What power, I ask, can be greater than this ? The 
 Father hath given all power to the Son ; and I see all 
 this same power delivered to them by God the Son. 
 
 *' To cleanse the leprosy of the body, or rather to 
 pronounce it cleansed, w^as given to the Jewish priests 
 alone. But to our Priests is granted the power not of 
 declaring healed the leprosy of the body, but of abso- 
 lutely cleansing the defilements of the soul.'' 
 
 See the second extract from St. Jerome, further on. 
 
 There is one more passage from St. Chrysostom. I 
 give it in the Archbishop's translation, and in the cor- 
 rect translation in the long Note on Confession in 
 Dodgson's Tcrtulliait (Oxford, J. H. Parker, 1842, p. 
 387): 
 
 DODGSON'S. THE ARCHBISHOP'S. 
 
 ** He who has done these things " If a sinner, as becomes him, 
 
 [grievous sins], if he would use the would use the aid of his conscience, 
 
 assistance of conscience for his and hasten to confess his crimes, 
 
 need, and hasten to confess his sin, and disclose his ulcer to his physi- 
 
 and show his sore to the Physician, aan, who may heal and not re- 
 
 Who healeth and reproacheth not, proach, and receive remedies from 
 
 and converse with Him alone, none him; if he would speak to him 
 
 knowing, and tell all exactly, he alone, without the knowledge of 
 
 shall soon amend his falls. For any one, and with care lay all be- 
 
 confession of sins is the effacing of fore him, easily would he amend 
 
 offences (Hom. xx. in Gen., § 3." his failings ; for the confession of 
 
 sins is the absolution of crimes 
 
 (Horn. XX.) 
 
 The reader will here see how, by a slight change at 
 the beginning, a grievous sinner is changed into any 
 sinner^ and the great Physician, by the pronoun his and 
 the subjunctive may heal instead of the article tJie and 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 345 
 
 the indicative healeth, into the little physician, the 
 priest. 
 
 '' St. Jerome writes : ' If the serpent, the devil, se- 
 cretly bite a man, and thus infect him with the poison 
 of sin, and this man shall remain silent, and do not pen- 
 ance, nor be willing to make known his wound to his 
 brother and master ; the master [and brother] who has 
 [who have] a tongue that can heal, cannot \^plural\ 
 easily serve him [magister et f rater ^ qui linguam habait 
 ad curandum, facile ei prodesse non poteriint],^ For if 
 the ailing man be ashamed to open his case to the phy- 
 sician, no cure can be expected ; for medicine does not 
 cure that of which it knows nothing.' Comment, in 
 Eccles. [X. 8]'* (p. 354). The words here comment- 
 ed on are, '* Whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall 
 bite him ;'' and a spiritual lesson is suggested by them 
 to the commentator, lo wit, that he who is bitten by 
 the serpent of dn, should seek the advice of spiritual 
 physicians. St. Jerome evidently had a reason for 
 adding the words ** and brother," and putting the verbs 
 ill the plural ; and the Archbishop as evidently had a 
 reason for leaving out those words, and putting the 
 verb in the singular. 
 
 St. Jerome, in his comment on St. Matt. 16 : 19, 1 
 will give thee the keys, etc., as given in the English trans- 
 lation of the Catena Aurea of St. Thomas Aquinas (Ox- 
 ford, J. H. Parker, 1841), which I have compared with 
 the original in Migne, and find to be literal, says : 
 *' Bishops and Presbyters, not understanding this pas- 
 sage, assume to themselves something of the lofty pre- 
 tensions isiipercilio) of the Pharisees, and suppose that 
 they may either condemn the innocent or absolve the 
 guilty ; whereas what will be enquired into before the 
 Lord will not be the sentence of the Priests, but the 
 life of him that is being judged. We read in Leviticus 
 of the lepers, how they are commanded to show themx- 
 
 " Migne, Patroloqia, torn, xxiii., col. 1096. 
 
346 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 selves to the Priests ; and if they have the leprosy, then 
 they are made unclean by the Priest ; not that the 
 Priest makes them leprous and unclean, but that the 
 Priest has knowledge of what is leprosy and what is not 
 leprosy, and can discern who is clean, and who is un- 
 clean. In the same way then as there the Priest makes 
 the leper unclean, here the Bishop or Presbyter binds or 
 looses not those who are without sin, or guilt, but in 
 discharge of his function when he has heard the varieties 
 of their sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who 
 loosed." 
 
 The Archbishop gives (p. 355) a part of the last sen- 
 tence thus : 
 
 ** With MS, the Bishop or priest binds or looses ; not 
 them who are merely innocent or guilty, but (having 
 heard, as his duty requires, the various qualities of sin), 
 he understands who should be bound and who loosed." 
 
 The Archbishop italicizes the part I have enclosed in 
 parentheses, to draw special attention to it. I have in- 
 dicated by Italics his alterations and additions. He 
 hadn't room for more ; but as he likes to have things 
 ''seen in the context (p. 351), he will be obliged to me 
 for having supplied his ' * lack of service. ' ' 
 
 St. Chrysostom, in the passage last but one cited 
 from him, seems to differ from St. Jerome here, on the 
 comparative power of the Jewish and the Christian 
 priest ; but the difference is one of seeming, rather 
 than of reality. St. Jerome is speaking of judicial 
 absolution, in ** the external forum ;" St. Chrysostom, 
 of ministerial absolution, in '' the internal forum." At 
 any rate, Rome canonizes them both, and, in the 
 words of Tertullian {De Prcescript, xxiv.), though he is 
 speaking of Apostles, '* I am not good man enough, or 
 rather I am not bad man enough, to set" two Saints of 
 the Roman Calendar *' the one against the other." 
 
 The Archbishop having at last got through with his 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PEiVANCE. 347 
 
 quotations from the Fathers, to every one of which I 
 have paid my respects, asks triumphantly, in reference 
 to his last one from St. Jerome : ** Could the Catholic 
 doctrine regarding the power of the priests and the ob- 
 ligation of confession be expressed in stronger lan- 
 guage than this?'' Whether the Catholic doctrine 
 could or not, the Roman doctrine certainly could. 
 
 *' And yet/' continues the Archbishop, ''these are 
 the very Fathers w^ho are represented to be opposed to 
 Sacramental Confession ! With a reckless disregard 
 [''reckless," from the Archbishop, is good] of the 
 unanimous voice of antiquity [not the faintest whisper 
 of which, if it exist, has he yet produced], our adver- 
 saries have the hardihood [^'hardihood'' is good] to 
 assert that private or Sacramental Confession was in- 
 troduced at a period subsequent to the twelfth century. 
 They do not, how^ever, vouchsafe to inform us by what 
 Pope or Bishop or Father of the Church [there has 
 been no " Father of the Church" since the twelfth 
 century ; St. Bernard was " the last of the Fathers"], 
 of by w^hat Council, or in what country, this monstrous 
 innovation [he is right there ; it is " monstrous"] vv^as 
 foisted on the Christian Republic" (p. 355). 
 
 As the Archbishop is anxious for information, he 
 shall have it ; and from one to whom he can't very w^ell 
 refuse to listen : I mean Cardinal Wiseman. But first 
 let me recall his witnesses, for examination in chief ; 
 hitherto we have been cross-examining them. 
 
 Call St. Basil. — What say you ? Is the Archbishop 
 right or wrong ? 
 
 Wrong. " I do not confess with the lips, that I may 
 be made manifest to people, but within, in the very 
 heart, closing my eye, I show the groanings within me 
 to Thee only, Who seest in secret^ roaring within myself. 
 Horn, i?i PsaL 37 (our 38) : 8. 
 
 Call St. Ambrose. — What say you? Is the Arch- 
 bishop right or wrong ? 
 
348 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFA THERS. 
 
 Wrong. ** Let tears wash away the guilt which one 
 is ashamed to confess with the voice. Tears consult both 
 for pardon and for modesty. Tears express the fault 
 without alarm ; tears confess the sin, imthottt injuring 
 bashfulness ; tears obtain the pardon they ask not for." — 
 In Luc, Hb. X. c. 88. Migne, t. xv. col. 1825. 
 
 Call St. Augustine. — What say you ? Is the Arch- 
 bishop right or wrong ? 
 
 Wrong. '* What have I to do with men that they 
 should hear my confessions, as if they could heal (sana- 
 tiiri siiit) all my diseases?" Confess, lib. x. c. 3. 
 
 Call St. Chrysostom. — What say you ? Is the Arch- 
 bishop right or wrong ? 
 
 Wrong. *' Why art thou ashamed and blushest to 
 tell thy sins ? Tellest thou them to man, that he may 
 reproach thee ? Confessest thou to thy fellow-servant, 
 that he may make a show of thee ? Thou showest thy 
 wound to the Lord, Who careth for thee, the Friend, 
 the Physician" {Horn, iv. De Lazaro, § 4). ** I do not 
 bring thee into any theatre of thy fellow-servants, nor 
 compel thee to reveal thy sins to men ; unfold thy 
 conscience to God, and to Him show thy w^ounds, and 
 of Him ask the remedies ; show them to Him who re- 
 proacheth not, but healeth" {Hom, v. De Incompre- 
 hens, Dei 7iat, § 7). " Within, in the conscience, none 
 being present except the All-seeing God, enter into judg- 
 ment and examination of sins, and reviewing thy whole 
 life bring thy sins into the judgment of thy mind ; cor- 
 rect thy transgressions ; and thns with a pure con- 
 science, toiicJi the Holy Table and partake of the Holy 
 Sacrifice,''^ Hom, De Pcenit vi. fin. 
 
 Thus all five of the Archbishop's witnesses, on their ' 
 cross-examination, fail to sustain him ; and four out of 
 the five, on being summoned on the other side and ex- 
 amined in chief, testify point blank against him. 
 
 Let us now call Cardinal Wiseman into court, and 
 see what information he can give the Archbishop on 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 349 
 
 the origin of the different parts of the Roman ** Sacra- 
 ment of Penance." I have lying before me his Lectures 
 on tlie principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic 
 Church; in two volumes : First American, from the 
 First London Edition. Philadelphia : Eugene Cum- 
 miskey, 1837. O^^ P^g^ i/ of volume ii. he brings 
 forward two witnesses of the second century, St. 
 Irenaeus and TertuUian ; whereas all the Archbishop's 
 witnesses are of the latter half of the fourth. Here is 
 what he quotes, and all he quotes, from Irenseus : 
 ** Some, touched in conscience, publicly confessed their 
 sins ; while others, in despair, renounced their faith. 
 Adv, Hcer, c. xiii." On this he thus comments : '' Look 
 at this alternative ; some confessed, and others re- 
 nounced, the faith. If there were any other means of 
 forgiveness, why should they have abandoned their 
 faith ?" Now as Irenseus says expressly that the con- 
 fession was public y and as the Cardinal's question im- 
 plies that there was no other means of forgiveness, it 
 is plain that in Irenaeus's day such sins as they con- 
 fessed could not be forgiven on private confession. He 
 then gives an extract from TertuUian, the same that 1 
 have already given on page 331, and adds : *' This is 
 said with reference, more or less, to the public prac- 
 tice.'* These two quotations he introduces with this 
 paragraph. 
 
 '' 1 now proceed to read you passages from these an- 
 cient fathers, and I will not come later than 400 years 
 after Christ ; because, after that time, the texts increase 
 immensely. I will divide them into two classes. I 
 will give you one or two where confession in general — 
 that is, public confession — is alluded to ; for they will 
 show the feeling of the church, as to its being the only 
 means of obtaining forgiveness.'' He then gives the 
 two quotations just mentioned, and one other from Ter- 
 tuUian, on the necessity of such public confession in cer- 
 tain cases. He gives no instance of private, Sacramen- 
 
\ 
 
 350 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 tal Confession from the second century, for the very 
 good reason that he can't find any ; if he could have 
 found so much as one, he would have been only too 
 happy to have brought it forward. 
 
 At what time, then, did private confession take the 
 place of the public ? I answer, It began to take the 
 place of it under Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome from 
 440 to 461, who in his letter to the Bishops of Campania 
 ordered the substitution of the one for the other. The 
 penance, however, continued, long after, to be public, 
 as did also the absolution that followed upon it. When 
 and how the penance became private, the Cardinal 
 shall inform us : " The public penance has disappeared 
 from the Church not in consequence of any formal abo- 
 lition, but from the relaxation of discipline, and from 
 the change of habits, particularly in the west, caused 
 by the invasion of the northern tribes. Theodore of 
 Canterbury [a.D. 668-693] ivas the first who introduced the 
 practice of secret penance, and in the eighth century the 
 custom became general, of substituting prayer, alms, 
 or other works of charity, for the rigorous course of 
 expiation prescribed in the ancient church. It was not 
 till the thirteenth that the practice of public penance 
 completely ceased'' (p. 65). This was the very cen- 
 tury in which the Fourth Council of Lateran (a.d. 121 5) 
 made private confession to a priest, at least once a 3^ear, 
 compulsory on all the faithful who had attained to years 
 of discretion. 
 
 The Archbishop says it was compulsory before ; that 
 is, compulsory (not on communities of monks, for in- 
 stance, but — for that is the point at issue — ) on all the 
 faithful, and as a conditio sine qua no7i of receiving the 
 Holy Communion. Let him show it, if he can. His 
 declaration isn't proof : unfortunately, owing to his 
 inadvertences, it isn't even presumptive evidence. We 
 have seen that St. Paul says, '' Let a man examine 
 himself" — not, let the priest examine him — *'and so 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 35 ^ 
 
 •let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." We 
 have seen that St. Chrysostom the Bishop of the Im- 
 perial City Constantinople, '' New Rome," at the be 
 ginning of the fifth century, says, in the last quotation 
 from him, '' Within, in the conscience, none being pres- 
 ent except the All-seeing God, enter into judgment 
 and examination of sins, . . . and thus . . 
 partake of the Holy Sacrifice." It is clear, then, that 
 within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople, 
 at the beginning of the fifth century, private confession 
 to a priest as a condition precedent to the reception of 
 the Holy Communion was unknown. Equally un- 
 known, according to Cardinal Wiseman's testimony 
 above-cited, was the private penance till the middle of 
 the seventh century. And dot/i of these are esse7ttial parts 
 of the *' Sacrament of Penance." Yet the Archbishop 
 devotes four pages (356-359) to showing that that '* sac- 
 rament" could not have originated subsequently to the 
 time of the Apostles. To all which, I answer, with 
 Alice in the play, I never said it could ; I only said it 
 did : and in that, St. Chrysostom and Cardinal Wise- 
 man say with me. Well does Dr. Pusey, in his Letter 
 to the Rev. IV. JV, Richards, Oxford, J. H. Parker, 1850 
 after quoting (p. 145) two passages from St. Basil — the 
 two the Archbishop lumps into one — add (p. 146) : 
 
 *' Far more remarkable than any such passages is the 
 entire omission of the mention of private confession, or 
 of any rule about it, or any restriction whatever as to 
 making or receiving it. Had the present Latin disci- 
 pline been that of the Ancient Church, it is impossible 
 that we should have no traces of it, no indication what- 
 ever of these rules, of which, since the Council of Lat- 
 eran, there is such frequent meation." 
 
 I add, had the present Roman doctrine of *' Sacra- 
 mental Confession" been that of the Church of the first 
 
35 2 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS 
 
 four centuries, it is impossible that there should have, 
 been absolutely no Manuals for the guidance of Father 
 Confessors, such as those which swarm in the Roman 
 Church of the last four centuries. 
 
 The remaining twenty-four pages of the Archbishop^s 
 chapter on this subject of Penance and Confession is, 
 for the most part, taken, for substance, from his 
 ** Reply" to Bishop Atkinson^s Charge on Sacramental 
 Confession^ delivered . . . to the Clergy of his Diocese^ in 
 St, Johns Churchy Wilmington (TV. C), May 22d, 1874. A 
 *' Refutation'' of this '' Reph^'* of the Archbishop has 
 since been published by Bishop Atkinson. Of this I 
 shall avail myself in what little needs here by said on 
 these twenty-four pages. 
 
 The Archbishop (who was at the time plain Bishop 
 Gibbons, of Richmond, having in charge also the mem- 
 bers of the Roman Communion in North Carolina) 
 gives (pp. 360-364) the teaching of a catechism put 
 forth by '' the Rev. C. S. Grueber, a clergyman of the 
 Church of England, ' ' and contrasts it with that of Bishop 
 Atkinson. To this, Bishop Atkinson replies : 
 
 ** Bishop Gibbons is of the opinion that my teaching 
 does not harmonize with that of the Rev. Mr. Grueber, 
 of the Church of England. In this, I am sure, he is 
 right ; but it does not unsettle my faith, that I should 
 differ from Mr. Grueber. He is just one of that class 
 of persons against whom my * Charge ' was directed. 
 
 *' The bishop is disturbed by the spectacle of the 
 same Church teaching diametrically opposite doctrines. 
 I would, however, comfort him by pointing out that I 
 am not the Church, nor is Mr. Grueber. And that I do 
 not claim to be infallible, nor do I admit him to be so ; 
 and that we are merely two ministers of the Church 
 who hold and teach different views on a certain ques- 
 tion. Does this seem very shocking to the excellent 
 Bishop of Richmond ? What would he say, then, to 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 353 
 
 the contradictory teachings of St. Augustine and St. 
 Chrysostom on the subjects of Predestination and Free- 
 will?'^ (pp. 24, 25). 
 
 Bishop Atkinson then goes on to contrast the asser- 
 tion of Dr. (now Cardinal) Newman, in his Letter to 
 the Duke of Norfolk regarding the Syllabus, ** Any 
 how, it is not the Pope, and I do not see my way to 
 accept it for what it is not" — and again, '* The Syllabus 
 is not an official act'' — with the declaration of *' Arch- 
 bishop Manning, the head of the Anglo-Roman Church, 
 in his Pastoral to his Clergy in 1867," that '* the Encyc- 
 lical and Syllabus" are '' a part of the supreme and in- 
 fallible teaching of the Church, both in the Declarations 
 and in the Condemnations contained in them." 1 wish I 
 had room for the whole of this portion of the pamphlet, 
 but must content myself with referring the reader to it. 
 
 The Archbishop ** cannot well conceive why a Pro- 
 testant Episcopalian should repudiate the pardoning 
 power, which is plainly asserted in his standard Prayer- 
 Book" (p. 364). I have already shown (pp. 323, 324) 
 that we do not repudiate it, but are in the constant ex- 
 ercise of it. Let us hear Bishop Atkinson on this 
 point : 
 
 *' Bishop Gibbons is of the opinion — certainly with- 
 out knowing much about it — that I have never heard a 
 confession or given Absolution. ... If he mean 
 that I have never pronounced Absolution to the truly 
 penitent and believing, then he is egregiously mis- 
 taken ; for this I am doing every week of my life. 
 
 ** Again, if he mean by saying that I have never 
 heard a confession, that 1 never heard such a one as is 
 enjoined by the Council of Trent, then, again, he is in 
 the right ; and few things would pain me more than 
 even to be tempted to have it otherwise. But, if he 
 mean that I never heard a confession of sin made 
 
354 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS • 
 
 to relieve the conscience, and to procure guidance for 
 the conduct, confession made secretly, and never to be 
 divulged, and of sins which, if divulged, would not 
 only have entailed shame and anguish, but very proba- 
 bly have caused bloodshed — confessions which I keep 
 as sacredly as any Roman Catholic Priest can those 
 made to him — then he is entirely mistaken, and shows 
 himself unacquainted with the duties of a Priest of the 
 Anglican Church. 
 
 '' The difference, in this particular, between such a 
 Priest and one of his Communion is, that ive do not re- 
 quire confession of all persons, however pure their 
 lives, however quiet their consciences ; that we do not 
 suggest sins to those who, perhaps otherwise, might 
 not have thought of them ; that we do not make con- 
 fession a condition of communion ; that we do not re- 
 quire a disclosure of all sins, whether of thought, word, 
 or deed, with all their circumstances. Confession of 
 that sort we do, with great unanimity, reject, as being 
 unauthorized and pernicious" (pp. 28, 29). 
 
 All the Archbishop's comment, therefore, on page 
 365 of his '' little volume,'' is only so much rigmarole. 
 We have as much power as he has : he has no more 
 power than w^e have. We can, and do, retain and re- 
 mit sins, judicially, in the external forum, by admitting, 
 or declining to admit, to the Holy Communion ; by 
 suspending therefrom, and restoring thereto ; and he 
 can do no more. We can, and do, retain and remit 
 sins, ministerially, in the internal forum, hj pronouncing 
 absolved the penitent and believing, and declining to 
 pronounce absolved the impenitent and unbelieving ; 
 and the Archbishop himself can do no more. All the 
 Archbishops in Romandom, with the Infallible Pope at 
 their head, cannot absolve, in the internal forum, an 
 impenitent unbelieving sinner : all the Archbishops in 
 Romandom, with the Infallible Pope at their head, can- 
 
TIlP. SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 355 
 
 not keep unabsolved, in the internal forum, a j)enitent 
 believer. Moreover, the '' power of the keys" belongs 
 to the kingdom of heaven here only ; not to the king- 
 dom of heaven hereafter. All the Archbishops in Ro- 
 mandom, with the Infallible Pope at their head, can- 
 not put a man into purgatory, or let him out of it ; and 
 the pretension to any such power, by whomsoever put 
 forth, is only a huge imposture. 
 
 The Archbishop repeats on page 368 the quotation 
 on page 352 from St. Augustine, and with the same 
 mutilation ; for my exposure of it, the reader is re- 
 ferred to page 341 above. 
 
 The Archbishop appeals to Statistics of Crime (by 
 way of offset to Statistics quoted in Bishop Atkinson's 
 ** Charge'') as a test of the value of the Confessional. 
 I append a few counter-statistics from Bishop Atkin- 
 son's Rejoinder/'^ But I have a practical test to pro- 
 pose, worth more than all the Statistics of Christen- 
 dom. Let the Archbishop confess to a Priest the 
 ''negligences and ignorances" and ijiadvertences with 
 which, as I have shown, his '' little volume" swarms, 
 and let the Priest impose on him the penance of a pub- 
 lic acknowledgement and recantation of them each and 
 all. I will not require him to be at the expense of pub- 
 lishing- 50,000 copies of the Recantation. I w^ll guar- 
 antee that the Protestant Press shall send it forth on 
 the wings of the wind, and that it shall reach the great 
 body of those who have been misled by his statements, 
 and render his '' little volume" harmless for all future 
 time. Let him perform this simple act of Restitution, 
 and it will be of more avail than all the '' sentiments" 
 of '' Dr. Ives," or '' Father Lyman," or all the other 
 Doctors and Fathers of Romandom. Meanwhile, 
 against all the arguments that can be adduced in behalf 
 of '* Sacramental Confession," I put the simple fact 
 that the Corinthian Christians were perhaps the most 
 
 * See Appendix C. 
 
35 6 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 immoral of all the early converts to Christianity, some 
 of them even getting- drunk in the very presence of the 
 Table of the Lord, and that it never once occurred to 
 the Apostle, in full view of all this, to say, Let a man 
 be examined by a Priest and receive absolution from 
 him, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that 
 cup ; but that he said the diametric opposite : *' Let a 
 man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread 
 and drink of that cup ;" and, to the Galatians, '* Let 
 every man prove his own work, and then shall he have 
 rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For 
 every man shall bear his own burden*' (i Cor. ii : 28 ; 
 Gal. 6 : 4, 5). 
 
 The Archbishop devotes the ten or twelve pages that 
 immediately precede the Statistics to the consideration 
 of Objections. Most of what he says has been already 
 noticed by me, by anticipation. A word or two on one 
 or two points. 
 
 ** Even our Manuals of Devotion have not escaped 
 the lash of wanton criticism. They have excited the 
 pious horror of some modern Pharisees, because they 
 contain a table of sins for the use of those preparing 
 for Confession. The same flower which furnishes honey 
 to the bee supplies poison to the wasp" (p. 374). 
 
 I can furnish him with a iViore appropriate simile : 
 The same carrion that is snuffed with delight by the 
 buzzard, is an offence to civilized, not to say Christian, 
 nostrils. I could prove the charges against some of 
 these Manuals, if I could bring myself to soil this book 
 with the filth with which they reck. The Apostle 
 speaks pretty plainly in the first chapter of the Epistle 
 to the Romans ; yet he says (Eph: 5:12) that there are 
 things done in secret of which ''it is a shame even to 
 speak :" and these are the very things that ?iX(d paraded 
 on the pages of these Manuals. 
 
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 357 
 
 *' In the last objection it was charged that the vota- 
 ries of Confession had no moral constraint at all. Now 
 it is said that their conscience is bound in chains of 
 slavery. Surely Confession cannot be hard and easy at 
 the same time" (p. 373). 
 
 Why not ? It all depends on the '' penitent" and on 
 the Confessor. Take, in illustration, the following, 
 which I translate from the Manuel des Confesseurs : par 
 U Abbe J, Gatime, Vieaire general de Never s, Sixieme 
 Edition^ Paris, Gatime Freres, 1845 (P« Z^A)' 
 
 ' * You are astonished perhaps to hear me say a multi- 
 tude of negligent confessors. Come with me to a mission, 
 place yourself at a confessional to hear the confessions ; 
 out of a hundred penitents you will find sometimes 
 eighty odd slaves of bad habits ; some of blasphemy, of 
 perjury ; others of impurity, of theft, of hatred, and of 
 evil thoughts ; ask them : How long, my child, have 
 you been committing such faults ? — Eight, ten, twenty 
 years. Father. — Do you often fall into this sin? — Two 
 and three times a week ; sometimes even every day. — 
 Have you always confessed them ? — Yes, Father. — 
 Have you only one Confessor ? — No, Father ; I have 
 recourse sometimes to one, sometimes to another, ac- 
 cording as I find him (or it) more accommodating (or 
 advantageous) suivant que je le trouve plus commode, — So, 
 v/ithin so many years you have had all the Confessors 
 of this place, and even those of the environs ? — Yes, 
 Father. — Now tell me, Have these Confessors always 
 absolved you ? — Yes, Father. — But before absolving 
 you, what have they said to you ? — They have told me 
 not to relapse. — But have they not made known to you 
 your bad estate ? Have they not given you means of 
 correcting yourself ? Have they not been careful to 
 move your heart to contrition ? — I will tell you. Fa- 
 ther, that two or three have given me a brief exhorta- 
 tion ; but they have ended with giving me absolution. 
 
35^ THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 • — And have the others always absolved you, without 
 giving you any exhortation ? — Always, Father. 
 
 '' Poor murdered souls {pauvres creatures assassinees) ! 
 This one penitent will reveal to you the weakness of 
 almost all the Confessors of this place and of the envi- 
 rons. And what indignation, what pain, will you not 
 feel in learning that out of eighty who habitually go to 
 confession isiir quatre-vingts habitudinaires) there are 
 perhaps more than seventy who have been lost in this 
 way by ignorant and unzealous Confessors. This dia- 
 logue seems to you a fiction. No, it is not so. Alas ! 
 What do you say ? Would to God it were less prac- 
 tised, and were not founded on a deplorable and con- 
 tinual experience ! The pious Cardinal Bona with 
 good reason deplores a conduct so prejudicial to the 
 salvation of souls. ' This false charity,' says he, * and 
 this blameworthy indulgence {damnable condescendence), 
 cause the greater part of Christians to pass their life in 
 a continual disorder, and in an endless round of sacra- 
 ments and sins, of confessions and relapses. ' To these 
 sad words we may add the groans and tears of another 
 Cardinal, no less pious and learned. Bellarmine, con- 
 sidering the too great facility of absolution irrespective 
 of internal condition the ruin of poor souls, has writ- 
 ten and proclaimed aloud that 7ion esset hodie tanta facili- 
 tas peccandiy si non esset etiam tanta facilitas absolvendi — 
 there would not be to-day [that was three hundred- 
 years ago] such facility of sinning, if there were not 
 also such facility of absolving.'' 
 
 To this inside testimony, that had gone through six 
 editions a third of a century ago, no words of mine 
 could add aught. It speaks for itself. Given human 
 nature as it is, such will always be, as, in the long run, 
 they always have been, the results of the Confessional : 
 to the few, seeking to work out their salvation as ser- 
 vants, under the bondage of the law, a rough and hard 
 
INDULGENCES. 359 
 
 road, leading— who knows whither ; to the many, an 
 easy and compendious path to purgatory, and thence 
 to heaven ; to the soul that has '' not received the spirit 
 of bondage again to fear" (Rom. 8 : 15), but *'the 
 Spirit of adoption,'' having '* tasted the good word of 
 God (Heb. 6 : 5), and the powers of the world to 
 come/' an intolerable burden. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 INDULGENCES. 
 
 An Indulgence, in the Primitive Church, was simply 
 a remission, in part, of the public penance imposed by 
 the canons for public offences. It lay within the dis- 
 cretion of the Bishop to grant or withhold it, according 
 as, in his judgment, the granting or withholding it 
 would best serve the ends for which the penance was 
 originally imposed. It was thus analogous to the par- 
 *doning power in the hands of the civil ruler ; a power 
 that all admit the utility of, though, like every thing 
 human, it may be sometimes abused. 
 
 '' An Indulgence," in the Roman Church, ** is, " says 
 the Archbishop, *' simply a remission in whole or in 
 part, through the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ 
 and His saints of the temporal punishment due to God 
 on account of sin, after the guilt and eternal punish- 
 ment have been remitted" (p. 385). 
 
 It will thus be seen that there is no resemblance 
 whatever between the two ; for the ancient Indulgence 
 was the remission not of the penalty due to God, but 
 of the penalty due to the Church. Over the penalty 
 due to God the Church has no control. In the cases 
 of Miriam (Num. 12) and David (2 Sam. 12) the ** tem- 
 poral penalty," referred to by the Archbishop, was not 
 
360 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 remitted at all ; it was rigidly exacted. The case of 
 the '* incestuous Corinthian," also referred to by him, 
 is an instance of the ancient Indulgence, the remission 
 of the penalty due to the Church, not to God, and has, 
 therefore, nothing whatev^er to do with the modern 
 Roman Indulgence. 
 
 But, says the Archbishop, ''although the Church 
 imposes canonical penance no longer, God has never 
 ceased to inflict temporal punishment for sin" (p. 388). 
 Yes, and He has never ceased to keep the power to in- 
 flict it and remit it in His own hands. The Primitive 
 Church, as the Archbishop very well knows, never laid 
 claim to any such power : it is a sheer invention of 
 modern Rome. 
 
 The Archbishop talks, in his definition, above, of the 
 ''superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His 
 saints." " His saints" have no " superabundant mer- 
 its :" when they have " done all," they are " unprofit- 
 able servants'' (St. Luke 17 : 10) ; they have merely 
 " done what was their duty to do." Even if they had 
 superabundant merits, those merits, alongside 01 the 
 Merits of Christ, would be simply naught ; for the finite 
 alongside of the Infinite is zero, as every mathematician 
 knows. 
 
 The Indulgences to which " reference is made," says 
 the Archbishop (p. 388), in " the canons of the church 
 of England," are as like to the Indulgences of the 
 church of Rome as the pi into which the printer's type 
 is sometimes knocked is to the pie with which we 
 wind up our Christmas dinner; the one "heavy as 
 lead ;" the other indigestible possibly to weak stom- 
 achs, but — not hard to take. 
 
 The Archbishop admits (p. 390) "that Indulgences 
 have been abused," but thinks those granted by Pope 
 Leo X., "to bring to completion the magnificent 
 church of St. Peter," were all right, because the 
 church is so ''grand,'' you know ; so " unrivalled in 
 
EXTREME UNCTION, 361 
 
 majesty and beauty/' And then he quotes Byron's 
 description of it, by way of showing, of course, how 
 valuable Indulgences are ! Doubtless he thinks Cardi- 
 nal McCloskey's Indulgences to sell liquor, and carry 
 on gambhng (see above, pp. 21-26), in the unfinished 
 New York Cathedral, to get the means to finish it, 
 were all right. For my part, I think those walls will 
 smell of whiskey till doomsday (if they stand so long) 
 spite of all the holy water the Cardinal sprinkled upon 
 them at their dedication the other day. Evidently, the 
 Holy Roman Church never changes. 
 
 But Leo didn't sell Indulgences, after all ; '' he 
 issued a Bull," says the Archbishop (p. 390), ''pro- 
 mulgating an Indulgence to such as would contribute 
 some voluntary offering toward the erection of the 
 grand cathedral." This reminds me of the scene in 
 Moliere's Bourgeois Gentilhomrne^ where Monsieur 
 Jourdain, who is very much exercised about his ple- 
 beian antecedents and relatives, is assured that his 
 grandfather was no vulgar tradesman. He didn't sell 
 goods behind a counter : he simply gave people what 
 they wanted, and they gave him money ! 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 *' This unction is called Extreifie because it is usually 
 the last of the holy unctions administered by the Church. 
 
 *' The Apostle St. James clearly refers to this Sacra- 
 ment, and points out its efficacy (St. James 5 : 14, 15) in 
 the following words : ' Is any man sick among you ; 
 let him bring in the priests [elders] of the Church, and 
 let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the 
 name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save 
 
362 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 the sick man ; and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if 
 he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him/ '* 
 
 The unction here prescribed by St. James, so far j 
 from being '' Extreme/' is for the very purpose of ' 
 healing the sick, just as the anointing by the twelve (St. 
 Mark 6:13) was ; whereas, the anointing prescribed 
 by Rome is never performed except when the sick . 
 person is thought to be m extremis, and is therefore, as \ 
 our 25th Article expresses it, a '' corrupt following of V 
 the Apostles,'' 
 
 ** Protestants, though professing to be guided by 
 the Holy Scripture, entirely disregard the admonition 
 of St. James" (p. 396). 
 
 The Archbishop and the whole Roman Church, 
 though professmg to believe in Christ, '' entirely dis- 
 regard" His injunction (St. Matt. 6:17), '' Thou, 
 when thou fastest, anoint thy head,^ ?ind wash thy face." 
 If the command of the servant is binding, a fortiori \s 
 the command of the Master. 
 
 ^ CHAPTER XXVni. 
 
 i 
 
 . THE PRIESTHOOD. 
 
 As what little of argument there is in this chapter 
 has been already considered, its thirteen pages of rhet- 
 oric need not detain us, except to notice an admission, 
 and a mistake. 
 
 '' To the carnal eye," says the Archbishop (p. 398), 
 " the Priest looks like other men." According to the 
 Conitdy of Convocation, *' People's Edition," it is the 
 Anglican clergy, '' in whose face there is no reflection 
 of the Sacramental Presence" (p. 11 1), implying that 
 there is a reflection of it in the face of the Roman 
 Priest — in whom ''the grace of Orders does not ap- 
 
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. Z^t^ 
 
 pear' (]:. 107), implying that it does appear in the 
 Roman Priest. The Archbishop is right, and the 
 Comedy is wrong. So much for the Admission, 
 
 The Mistake is in the first paragraph on page 403, 
 where that is said to have been spoken to the Priests 
 (Num. 16 : 8, 9) which was really spoken to the Le- 
 vites ; for in the very next verse they are reproached, 
 for that, not satisfied with being admitted to the low- 
 est order of the ministry, they challenged to them- 
 selves the Priesthood also. The mistake is of conse- 
 quence only as showing the inveterate habit of the 
 Archbishop's mind. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 
 
 *' The [Roman] Church requires her Priests to be 
 pure in body as well as in soul, and to ' present their 
 bodies a living victim, holy, well-pleasing unto God ' '' 
 (p. 410).^ 
 
 This, if it means any thing to the purpose of this 
 chapter, means that celibacy is a state of comparative 
 purity, and marriage a state of comparative impurity. 
 This, if carried out to its legitimate consequence, 
 would abolish marriage among Christians ; for what 
 the Apostle says (Rom. 12 : i) requires, in these very 
 words, of all Christians, as being themselves priests 
 (i St. Peter 2 : 5) (Rev. i : 6), that they ''present 
 their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto 
 God." Moreover, it reflects upon God, who ** at the 
 beginning" (St. Matt. 19 : 4) ''made them male and 
 female." And said, *' For this cause shall a man leave 
 father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and 
 thev twain shall be one flesh." It is needless to sav 
 
364 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 that there is not a shadow of authority in Scripture for 
 this teaching of the Church of Rome : on the contrary, 
 it is '* expressly" declared by ''the Spirit/' speaking 
 by the mouth of the Apostle (i Tim. 4 : 1-5), to be a 
 ** doctrine of devils." I submit to the Archbishop's 
 considerativon this dilemma : Either his interpretation 
 (p. 412) of I Tim. 4:12 and 2 Cor. 6 : 6 (in which he 
 makes '* chastity," or, as it is in our Version, '' puri- 
 ty," mean celibacy), is false, or his own father and 
 mother were unchaste. If he will cast such an impu- 
 tation upon them, all I can do is to protest most ve- 
 hemently against it. In Rev. 14 : 4, '' defiled" refers 
 not to marriage but to fornication. *' Virgins," really 
 such, are, of course, chaste ; married persons may be 
 or may not be. To say that certain persons have not 
 *' defiled themselves," for that they are ** virgins," 
 does not, as the Archbishop insinuates, imply that all 
 who are not virgins have defiled themselves. ** Mar- 
 riage is honorable in all," says the Apostle (Heb. 13 14), 
 **and the bed undefiled." According to the Arch- 
 bishop's reasoning, the marriage bed cannot be unde- 
 filed. The passages, Exod. 19 : 15, i Kings (Sam.) 
 21 : 4, 5, are interpreted by Eccles. 3:5, last clause ; 
 according to the Archbishop's argument, the first of the 
 two assertions of the Wise Man in this clause is false. 
 
 The preference is given by our Lord and his Apostle 
 (St. Matt. 19 : 12 ; i Cor. 7 : 32-35) to the single life 
 over the married in certain cases, for prudential rea- 
 sons, and for its greater freedom from worldly anxie- 
 ties. This is recognized by St. Chrysostom : '* For 
 the evil," saith he, '' is not in the cohabitation, but in 
 the impediment to the strictness of life." {Horn, xx. 
 in Matt,) 
 
 The Archbishop admits (p. 412) that St. Peter was 
 married, but claims that he gave up '' the fellowship of 
 his wife" after ''his vocation," because he says (St. 
 Matt. 19 : 27) he had left all and folloAved Christ, and 
 
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY, 365 
 
 because the ** wife*' is enumerated by Christ, immedi- 
 ately after, among the things thus left. But all that 
 this involves is, that he left them so far as they inter- 
 fered with his following Christ ; a thing which every 
 layman, as well as clergyman, is bound to do ; a thing 
 the like to which, in a lower sphere, is recognized as a 
 duty, and fulfilled as such, by every Officer of the 
 Army and Navy. That St. Peter did not give up en- 
 tirely '' the fellowship of his wife" we know from the 
 question of St. Paul, *' Have we not power to lead 
 about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as 
 the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas Y' (i Cor. 9:5.) 
 It is true the Archbishop's Version, following the 
 Rhemish, as that follows the Vulgate, translates, ''a 
 woman, a sister ;" but it is equally true that this is a 
 gross mistranslation, made either from sheer ignorance, 
 or else for theological reasons : the Greek cannot pos- 
 sibly bear that rendering. Instances of the construc- 
 tion in question are numerous, both in the New Testa- 
 ment and in the classic writers : ** a man, a murderer" 
 (Acts 3 : 14, Gr.) ; *'a man, a merchant" (St. Matt. 
 13 : 45) ; ''a man, an householder" (St. Matt. 20 : i) ; 
 *' a man, a prophet" (St. Luke 24 : 19, Gr.) ; *' a man, 
 a wayfarer" (Iliad xvi. 263) ; **a man, a commander" 
 (Plato, Ion. p. 540 d). See Winer, Seventh Edition, 
 Andover, 1869, p. 523. In every instance of an appo- 
 sitive construction of this kind, the defining noun, in 
 the Greek, comes last. It is a law of the language. 
 Hence in St. Luke 4 : 26, ** a woman, a widow," yvvt} 
 {woman) y comes first ; whereas, in i Cor. 9:5^ yvvt] 
 {wife), comes last, and the Archbishop's Version, fol- 
 lowing the Rhemish, dishonestly, or ignorantly, trans- 
 poses the words. Even if the Greek would bear that 
 rendering, the word translated, 'Mead about," ex- 
 cludes it ; for it demonstrates that the allusion is 7tot, as 
 alleged by the Archbishop, to *' those pious women 
 who voluntarily waited on the Apostles, and minister- 
 
:^66 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 ed to them in their missionary journeys'' (p. 418). That 
 was an institution of a later day, and we all know what 
 scandal it gave rise to ; insomuch that the Council of 
 Ancyra (a.d. 315) had to enact, '' We prohibit virgins 
 from living with men as brothers." (Canon XIX.) The 
 Prince of the Apostles Avas guilty of no such unseemly 
 conduct as *' leading about" with him another man's 
 wife, or an unmarried woman. He left that to his suc- 
 cessors, John XXIII., Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., 
 etc., etc. The early Fathers understood the Apostle's 
 language better than the Archbishop. '' It was permit- 
 ted even to the Apostles," says TertuUian, *' to marry, 
 and to lead about their wives with them :" Licebat et 
 Apos tolls nub ere ct iixores circumdiicere, — De Cast it at, c. 8. 
 — And Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1. iii. p. 535 ; 
 Potter, cf. 1. iv. p. 607) gives the same interpretation, 
 and says moreover that St. Paul had a wife, and ad- 
 dressed her (Phil. 4 : 3) as ** true yokefellow." 
 
 ** Is it not becoming that a chaste Lord should be 
 served by chaste ministers ? (p. 414.) Certainly ; and 
 just as '* becoming" that he should be served by chaste 
 laymen ; and therefore, if the Archbishop's interpreta- 
 tion of chastity were consistently held and acted on 
 throughout Christendom, the Catholic Church would 
 become extinct in one generation. 
 
 '* We frequently hear of unmarried Bishop's and 
 Priests laying down their lives for the faith. . . 
 But such heroic sacrifices are too much to be expected 
 from men enjoying the domestic luxury and engrossed 
 by the responsibility of a wife and children" (p. 418). 
 
 Why '' too much ?" Did the Archbishop never read 
 in Eusebius (1. viii. c. 9) of Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, 
 and Philoromus, who were '' urged, in the persecution 
 under Diocletian, to have pit^^ on their wives and chil- 
 dren, and, for their sakes, to save their own lives," but 
 
A/ A TRIM ON Y. 367 
 
 were urged in vain ? Did he never hear of John Rog- 
 ers, whose wife, '* with nine small children, and one at 
 the breast,'' followed him to the stake, in the persecu- 
 tion under Bloody Mary ? Are married physicians any 
 less ready to face danger and death than unmarried 
 ones? Why, then, should married clergy be? There 
 is no ground for the imputation. 
 
 '' Nor could the imagination picture, in its wildest 
 moods, the majestic adversary of the Arian emperor at- 
 tended on his flight up the Nile by Mistress Athana- 
 sius, nor St. John Chrysostom escorted in his wander- 
 ings through Phrygia, by the wife of his bosom ar- 
 rayed in a wreath of orange blossoms" (p. 417). 
 
 Perhaps not. But it requires no '' wild mood'' of 
 the imagination, but only a very tame, humdrum exer- 
 cise of that faculty, to *' picture" Mistress John XXIII., 
 Mistress Innocent VIII. , Mistress Alexander VI., and a 
 hundred thousand other Mistresses, in fifty thousand par- 
 sonages, in the middle and the South of Europe, in the 
 thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. See, 
 ior proof o{ this, and a good deal more, the twenty-first 
 chapter of Mr. Henry C. Lea's Historical Sketch of 
 Sacerdotal Celibacy, Philadelphia, 1867, 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 MATRIMONY. 
 
 Among the '* Things I don't Understand/' and 
 which I think it would puzzle Father Curtis to explain, 
 is how the marriage of a catholic to a heretic can be a 
 Sacrament. Equally hard is it to comprehend how the 
 marriage union can be a type of the union betwixt 
 
368 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS, 
 
 Christ and his Church, and yet the married state be in- 
 ferior in purity to the single state ; and how, if that 
 be so, the marriage vow can be sacramental, and the 
 vow of celibacy non-sacramental. And again ; I am 
 puzzled to comprehend on what principle the Arch- 
 bishop's Version (Baltimore, Lucas Brothers) trans- 
 lates fjLvarrjpiov sacrament in Eph. 5 : 32, and mystery in 
 all the other twenty-six places in which it occurs in the 
 New Testament ; especially, as the Rhemish Version, 
 in six of those places, to wit, Eph. i : 9 ; 3 : 3, 9 ; Col. 
 I : 27 ; I Tim. 3:16; Rev. i : 20, translates it sacra- 
 me7it ; thus makmg a sacrament of *'the seven stars,'* 
 and **the seven candlesticks of gold.'' Just here, 
 things seem to be pretty much mixed up. One thing, 
 however, seems clear : if Matrimony is a Sacrament, 
 then, for the same reason, there ought to be twenty-six 
 other sacraments of the New Testament, besides the 
 six others of Rome. 
 
 In conclusion, I am happy to express my hearty con- 
 currence with the Archbishop in regard to the Chris- 
 tian doctrine of divorce, and in regard to the evils 
 which flow from its violation. 
 
APPENDIX A. (p. 38). 
 
 Even if Barlow had not been consecrated, there 
 would not have been a break in the Succession ; for 
 every Bishop laying on hands at the Ordination of a 
 Bishop, is a channel of conveyance of the Order, not- 
 withstanding Rome's insistence to the contrary.^ All 
 that is requisite to the valid ordination of a Bishop, is 
 that hands be laid on him, by a Bishop, for the purpose 
 of ordaining him Bishop. Now whether Barlow was a 
 consecrated Bishop or not — and no impartial jury 
 would hesitate to give an affirmative verdict in a civil 
 suit for a hundred thousand dollars turning upon the 
 question of his consecration — Scory and Coverdale 
 and Hodgkins were, admittedly, consecrated Bishops, 
 and they all laid hands on Parker ; and they all said,t 
 ''Take the Holy Ghost, and remember,'' etc. ; and 
 they did this, and said this, for the purpose of ordain- 
 ing him Bishop, as is proved by the words they used in 
 presenting \vvm, to wit : *' Reverend Father in God, we 
 offer and present to you this godly and learned man, to 
 be consecrated Archbishop ; ut Archiepiscopus consecre- 
 titr. In the actual conferring of the office and Order, 
 
 * Granting that Christ designed the ministry of His Church to be per- 
 petuated by /<:zr^^/^/ succession, the presumption that He would not leave 
 the perpetuation to the risk involved in the single-link theory of modern 
 Rome is simply overwhelming. 
 
 \ " Cicestren., Hereforden., Suffraganeus Bediorden. et IMilo Cover- 
 dallus Manibus Archiepiscopo impositis dixerunt Anglice, viz., * Take the 
 hollie gost, and remember,' " etc., Haddan, p. 359. Haddan gives the 
 entire Latin Record, extending through 43 octavo pages. 
 
370 THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 to wit, in the laying on of hands, and saying of the 
 words. Barlow did exactly what each of the other 
 three did — neither more nor less. Now Rome admits 
 that if Barlow was a consecrated Bishop, and if he 
 used a valid Form in consecrating Parker (which he 
 certainly did, seeing it was the very Form of the Ro- 
 man Pontifical, and Parker had already been ordained 
 Priest by the Form of the Roman Pontifical in the reign 
 of Henry VIII, ), Parker was validly consecrated by 
 him. It follows, therefore, that Parker was validly 
 consecrated by the other Bishops, whether Barlow was 
 a consecrated Bishop or not. 
 
 APPENDIX B. (p. i87j. 
 
 I TAKE the following from The Genius of Popery 
 opposed to the Principles of Civil and Religious Liberty. 
 Dublin : P. Dixon Hardy & Sons, Wareroom for Re- 
 ligious and Moral Publications, 23 Upper Sackville 
 Street. London : W. Allan, Paternoster Row. 1850. 
 P. 195 : 
 
 ''THE PRIEST'S CURSE. 
 
 '' The following dreadful Curse, being a form of ex- 
 communication of the Church of Rome, is extracted 
 from ' the Excommunication Service ' of that Church : 
 [Here follows the Curse, at length, being the same as 
 that given in Tristam Shandy, with slight variations in 
 the phraseology, owing to both being translations from 
 the original Latin, which is also given in Tristram 
 Shandy, '\ 
 
 '* It is only four years since it was proved in a court 
 of justice that the Priest's Curse is in full force and 
 practice in Ireland — on the trial of the Rev. Luke 
 Walsh, P.P„, at the Carrickfergus Assizes, in the year 
 
APPEXDIX C. 371 
 
 1846, for having cursed and excommunicated Charles 
 McLaughlin (one of his congregation), a verdict of 
 £jQ damages, and 6d, costs, were adjudged against the 
 priest." 
 
 In the face of this conviction in a court of justice, 
 which must be, of course, on record now at Carrickfer- 
 gus, and which must have been matter of pubHc noto- 
 riety at the time of pubhcation, and for the fact of 
 which P. Dixon Hardy & Son's, of DubUn, and W. 
 Allan, of London, made themselves responsible, Avhat 
 is the Archbishop's solemn denial good for, unless he 
 can show from the Carrickfergus Records for 1846 that 
 no such trial and conviction took place ? 
 
 APPENDIX C. (p. 355). 
 
 I HAVE before me '* A Defence of the Charge on 
 Sacramental Confession, delivered by Bishop Atkinson, 
 to the Clergy of his Diocese, in St. John's Church, 
 Wilmington, May 22d, 1874 ; and A Refutation of the 
 Reply made thereto, by the Rt. Rev. James Gibbons. 
 By the Author of the Charge." It is a pamphlet of 39 
 pages. I had intended to quote its Statistics at large, 
 but I have not room for them. I shall, therefore, con- 
 tent myself with the following paragraphs, referring 
 the reader, for the rest, to the pamphlet itself : 
 
 *' I undertook to show that ... as compared 
 with the usages of the Anglican Church, the system of 
 Auricular Confession had wrought unfavorably to the 
 moral interests of the countries in which it had been 
 established. The statistics I adduced for that purpose, 
 and for which I gave the authority of Mr. Seymour, 
 and for Avhich he cites official documents, have 7iot been 
 disproved by Bishop Gibbons^ although he produces 
 
37- THE FAITH OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 others which are of a very contrary tendency. My au- 
 thorities do not satisfy him, and his do not satisfy me ; 
 and as I wish the truth to come out exactly as it is, I 
 have used the efforts that I have already referred to 
 to obtain, at first hand, the official papers elucidating 
 the subject. These efforts have, so far, been only in 
 part successful ; but I shall not discontinue them until 
 I accomplish my object, if it can be accomplished. 
 
 *' I have obtained, how^ever, among other documents, 
 the ' Blue Books/ for 1873, for England and Wales on 
 the one hand, and for Ireland on the other. I find from 
 these that of offences determined summarily, other 
 than indictable offences, the English proportional num- 
 ber is less than the Irish by forty-eight per cent ; but 
 that of indictable offences the Irish is less than the 
 English by thirty-two per cent. That the Irish 
 offences against property are less in proportion to the 
 English, while the Irish offences agianst persons are 
 greater. 
 
 " But in coming to a fair estimate of the proportion 
 of crime, some other considerations ought to be had in 
 view. First, That the British Parliament has deemed 
 it necessary, in order to repress crimes in certain parts 
 of Ireland, to make it obligatory to have a license to 
 carry arms in the districts, under what is called the 
 * Peace Preservation Acts,' and thereby to disarm 
 questionable persons. 
 
 ** These districts comprise twenty-six counties 
 wholly, and five partially, proclaimed ; and seven cities 
 or towns wholly proclaimed. This certainly tends 
 very much to prevent crimes of violence. Again, the 
 cities in Ireland have a much larger proportion of 
 offences brought before the courts than the adjoining 
 counties ; showing that there are more crimes, propor- 
 tionally, committed in an urban than in a rural popula- 
 tion ; while the population of England, compared with 
 
APPENDIX C. 373 
 
 that of Ireland, is much more urban than rural/^ And 
 again, that of the criminal population in Irish jails, 
 there are only two per cent and a fraction of women 
 and girls, and only three per cent and a fraction ot 
 men and boys, not of Irish birth, in 1873. While in 
 England and Wales, in 1871 and '72, there were more 
 than twenty-four per cent of women and girls, and 
 more than fifteen per cent of men and boys, in English 
 prisons, not born in England and Wales ; and of these 
 strangers, more than twenty per cent of the women 
 and girls, and more than eleven per cent of the men and 
 boys, were of Irish birth. 
 
 " This large percentage, then, of persons charged 
 with violation of law, or under punishment for such 
 violations, ought, in fairness, to be deducted from the 
 number of criminals for which England is responsible, 
 and added to that which must be charged upon Ire- 
 land. The truth is, that England, being a much richer 
 country than Ireland, a large part of the criminal 
 classes of the poorer country is disgorged on the more 
 inviting shore, where they expect to find plunder. 
 While England, then, has received immense benefits 
 from the great body of Irishmen who serve in her 
 armies and labor in her fields and factories, she has had 
 to endure, to some extent, an accompanying penalty in 
 the necessity laid upon her, by this emigration, of 
 watching over, arresting, and punishing offenders with 
 whom, otherwise, Irish justice would have had to deal. 
 While, then, I believe, that in Ireland the tone of mo- 
 rality is much higher than in any other Roman Catholic 
 country, I think this likewise ought to be considered : 
 That the population of Ireland comprises a large num- 
 ber of Protestants, forming the leading class in the 
 
 * This explains why, according to the Scotsman, as quoted by the Arch- 
 bishop (p. 383), *' Presbyterian and semi-Scotch Ulster is fully three times 
 more immoral than wholly Popish and wholly Irish Connaught. Ulster 
 is largely urban ; Connaught almost wholly rural. 
 
374 77/7s FAlTir OF OUR FOREFATHERS. 
 
 community, embracing a great proportion of the prin- 
 cipal merchants and manufacturers, and much the 
 larger part of the landed proprietors ; and that the gov- 
 ernment of the country itself is controlled by Protes- 
 tants. It is, then, a very striking circumstance, that of 
 those countries which have Roman Catholics to consti- 
 tute the majority of the population, that is the most 
 moral which is ruled by a Protestant government, and 
 comprehends in its population a large and influential 
 body of Protestants" (pp. 30-33). 
 
 '* The Pope tells us, and so his adherents all do, that 
 he has been despoiled of his territories. He tells us, 
 furthermore, that he is a prisoner in his own palace. 
 \ It is, to be sure, a very peculiar imprisonment. . . . 
 Still he is a prisoner. Still he calls on mankind to wit- 
 ness the crimes and outrages of which he has been the 
 victim. But men ask, who have committed these 
 crimes ? and who have been gviilty of these outrages ? 
 The answer is, his own children, the very people he 
 and his predecessors have been training for a thousand 
 years — the men of Rome, the men of Italy. These are 
 they who, according to his belief, have imprisoned 
 their sovereign and robbed their spiritual father. 
 
 '* Now if these are the results of that religious disci- 
 pline which he enjoins, in his own city, under his own 
 eye, working out its proper consequences under the 
 most favorable circumstances, may not we, poor here- 
 tics and barbarians as we are, be excused for declining 
 to submit to that discipline ? 
 
 *' I would beg leave, furthermore, to suggest one ad- 
 ditional thought before I bid adieu to Bishop Gibbons. 
 He concludes his pamphlet [and the 25th chapter of 
 his ' little volume'] by quoting the language of the 
 ' Catholic World,' to this effect : * If we are not very 
 much better than our neighbors, we are not any 
 .worse. But this will not do. On the principles of 
 
APPENDIX C. 375 
 
 those who thus speak, they are bound to be very much 
 better. In their own belief, they alone have the full 
 truth of the Gospel. Protestants are heretics, who 
 deny many essential saving verities of the Christian 
 religion. 
 
 *' Now the Author of that religion teaches that it is 
 the office of His truth* to sanctify. They who exclu- 
 sively possess it ought to have, and on His principles 
 must have, exclusive sanctification, or, at the very least, 
 the highest and most overwhelming evidences of sanc- 
 tification. 
 
 *' Spain, on the principles of the Church of Rome, 
 ought not only to be equal to England in religious ear- 
 nestness, in morals, in prosperity, and in peace and 
 happiness, but infinitely superior. Is it so ? 
 
 ** The South American Republics and Mexico ought 
 greatly to excel the United States in the possession of 
 all those blessings that dignify public life and sweeten 
 private. Are they thus favorably distinguished ? Let 
 those answer who believe that all persons who dissent 
 from the teachings of the Church of Rome and object 
 to her practices, are heretics, if not infidels" (pp. 
 37-39)- 
 
 I add, Rome claims about one seventh of the white 
 population of the United States. The files of the pub- 
 lic press would show, I think, that of those who end 
 their days on the gallows, nearly, if not quite, one half 
 are attended by priests of the Roman Church. Of the 
 Mollie Maguires, if I remember rightly, all but one 
 were so attended. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Absolution, 323, 353 
 Admissions of Roman Writers : 
 
 Bellarmine, 67, 221, 229, 231 
 
 Barnes, Father, 236 
 
 Castro, Alphonsus de, 223 
 
 Fisher, Cardinal, 235 
 
 Medina, 189 
 
 Pegna, Franciscus, 189 
 
 Sotus, 189 
 
 Stapleton, 190 
 
 Wiseman, Cardinal, 348 
 ' Altar, 308 
 Ancient Liturgies, 218, 222, 310 
 Angel Worship, 193-196 
 Apocrypha, 74-77 
 Apostolicity of the Church, 32 
 Apostolic Succession in the 
 
 Church of England, 36-41 
 Archbishop's, The 
 
 Boasts about the Fathers, 191, 
 230, 231, 310, 328 
 
 Carelessness about Facts, 32 
 
 Contradictions of Himself, 50, 
 71. 72, 85, 185, 305, 310 
 
 Garbled Quotations, 113, 302, 
 337 
 
 Logic, 143, 172, 229 
 
 Perversions, 307, 343, 344 
 
 Sins of Omission, 113, 219, 220, 
 240, 337, 339, 342 
 
 Archbishop's, The {conlinued) : 
 Sympathy with the Nineteenth 
 
 Century, 83 
 Authorities : 
 
 Ambrose, 68, 89, 189, 190, 209, 
 
 219, 231, 232, 236, 339, 348 
 Aquinas, 229, 237 
 Aretas, 189 
 
 Athanasius, 67, 190, 192 
 Augustine, 68, 90, 99, 178, 1S9, 
 
 191, 195, 209, 211, 231, 232, 
 
 235, 288, 294, 306, 341, 348 
 Basil, 3, 68, 88, 97, 190, 231, 336 
 Beaumont, 250, 251 
 Bede, 98, 159, 220, 231 
 Bellarmine,, 67, 221, 229, 230, 
 
 231, 237 
 Bernard, 231 
 Bossuet, 250 
 Camoys, 242, 250 
 Canons of the Council of Trent, 
 
 328 
 Catechism of the Council of 
 
 Trent, 8, 11, 236, 329 
 Castro, Alphonsus de, 223 
 Chrysostom, 91-95, 98(?), 189, 
 
 190, 191, 195, 231, 295, 306, 
 
 327, 342, 346, 348, 351, 364 
 Clement of Alexandria, 87, 231, 
 
 282 
 
378 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Authorities {continuea) : 
 
 Clement of Rome, 136, 145-148, 
 
 189, 190 
 
 Cyprian, 152, 176, 177, 190, 234 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 67, 282, 296 
 De Maistre, 46 
 Dupin, 52, 76, 77, 83, 86-99, io7, 
 
 135, 145, 155, 164, 165, 177 
 Ephrem, 190 
 Epiphanius, 190 
 Erasmus, 135 
 Eusebius, 140 
 Euthymius, 189 
 Gregory the Great, 210, 231 
 Gregory Nazianzen, 97, 191, 231 
 Gregory Nyssen, 89 
 Hilary, 88, 231, 232 
 Hippolytus, 67 
 Homilies, Book of, 5S, 216 
 Ignatius, 137, 292 
 Irenaeus, 68, 87, 137. 138. 189, 
 
 190. 349 
 Janus, 52, 180, 243 
 
 Jerome, 68, 90, 97, 98, 140, 152, 
 
 190, 210,231, 345 
 John Damascene, 68 
 Justin Martyr, 1S9, 293 
 Lactantius, 189, 209, 231, 232 
 Leibnitz, 208, 211 
 Luther, 3, 70, 84 
 Maguire, Father Tom, 174 
 Milner, 79, 80, 175, 278 
 Montalembert, 243 
 Norfolk, Duke of, 250, 251 
 CEcumenius, 189, 190 
 Origen, 67, 87, 97, 140. 189, 190, 
 
 209, 231, 288, 294, 333 
 Pascal, 250 
 Polycarp, 151 
 
 Authorities {continued)-, 
 Pusey, Dr., 177, 351 
 Socrates, 334 
 Sozomen, 335 
 Tertullian, 67, 189, 190, 198, 331, 
 
 349 
 
 Theodoret, 68, 97, 189, 190, 231 
 
 Theophylact, 189, 190, 231 
 
 Wiseman, Cardinal, 348 
 Babylon (i St. Peter, v.), 134-136 
 Baptism, 278 
 
 Infants Unbaptized, " in limbo," 
 279, 280 
 
 Bishops' Declaration about, 2S0 
 
 Effects of. Illustrations, 281-2S3 
 
 Minister of, 325 
 Barnum's Happy Family, 60, 114 
 Bible, and Church, 61 
 
 Inspired, 72, 73 
 
 Genuine, 74 
 
 Apocrypha, 74, 77 
 
 Vulgate, Errors of, 78, 80, 213, 
 
 238, 307 
 Translations of, 79 
 Copies (before printing), 81-83 
 Difficulties of, 84-87 
 To be Read by the People— so 
 
 say the Fathers, 87-95 
 Objections, 95-99 
 Epistles, written to the Laity, 
 
 99-100 
 Testimony of, to Lord's Day, 
 
 102, 103 
 Contains all things necessary to 
 
 Salvation, 104 
 Difficulties of the Roman 
 
 Theory, 104, 106 
 Prohibited to the People, 106, 
 
 III 
 
INDEX, 
 
 379 
 
 Bible {continued) : 
 
 Our English Translation of, 79, 
 
 80, 112 
 " Bloody Mary," 276 
 Brazen Serpent, 207 
 Brummagem, 163 
 Camoys, 242, 250 
 Carroll, 242, 250 
 Cathedral Fair, 21 
 Cathedral Pews, 27 
 " Catholic,'* 31, 32 
 Celibacy — Chastity, 363 
 Ceremonies, 310 
 Church of England and Henry 
 
 VIII., 34-42 
 Confession {see Penance) 
 Convent Schools, 245-247 
 Cursing, 186, 187 L^ 
 
 Dead, Prayers for, 218 
 Did not Involve Purgator)% 21G- 
 
 223 
 Why the Dead were Prayed for, 
 
 221 
 Prayer for a Place of " Refresh- 
 ment," 222, 315 
 Development of New Dogmas, 11- 
 
 15 
 Dominicans and Franciscans, 13, 
 
 14 
 ** Eldad and Medad," 325 
 Eucharist, 286 
 
 Real Presence, 286 
 Transubstantiation, 287 
 Excommunication, 19 
 Extreme Unction, 361 
 Faith, in Relation to Infallibility, 
 
 56, 57 
 Fathers, List of, 318 
 Father Tom Maguire, 174 
 
 Flounce and Furbelow, 312 
 
 Flowers, 321 
 
 Henry VIIL, 34 
 
 High Church and Low Church, 60, 
 
 254 
 Immaculate Conception, 278 
 Image Worship, 204 
 Incense, 321 
 Indulgences, 359 
 Infallibility, 168 
 Inquisition, 263 
 Inspiration, 72 
 Invocation of Saints, 188 
 Jewish Church, 
 Latin in the Mass, 317 
 Lights, 320 
 Luther, 302-304 
 Magna Charta, 239, 240 
 Mariolatry, 198-204, 214-216 
 Maryland Toleration, 256 
 Masonry, 9 
 Mass, Sacrifice of, 305 
 Matrimony, 367 
 
 Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 272 
 Missal, 314 
 
 Morality of the Confessional, 355 
 Mortal and Venial Sin, 223 
 Mumbling, 320 
 Penance, 322 
 
 *' Matter" of it, 322 
 
 Power of the Keys, 323 
 
 Defined by Council of Trent, 328 
 
 Anciently Public (till a.d. 668), 
 331-348 
 
 Testimony of the Fathers, 331- 
 345 
 
 Penitentiary Presbyter, 334 
 
 Confession, not an Ordinary 
 Remedy, 326 
 
38o 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Penance {coniimied) : 
 
 Roman Manuals, 356 
 
 The Abbe Gaume, 357 
 
 Let the Archbishop Confess his 
 Misdoings, 355 
 Persecution, 261 
 Peter, 
 
 His Matrimony, 185. 364-366 
 
 His Patrimony, 185 
 Popes : 
 
 Fabian, 284 
 
 Gregory the Great, 210 
 
 Honorius, 54 
 
 Innocent, 210 
 
 Leo the Great, 155, 156 
 
 Leo X., 26 
 
 Pius IV., 5, 12 
 
 Victor, 148 
 
 Vigilius, 52 
 Primacy of Peter, 112 
 Purgatory, 223 
 Prayer-Book, 18, 316 
 
 Priests' Curse. 187 
 
 Refreshment, 315 
 
 Relics, 216 
 
 Saints {see " Invocation") 
 
 Sacrifice, 306-310 
 
 Sects, 16 
 
 Seven Sacraments, 277 
 
 " Shawl of Network," 44 
 
 Supremacy, 143 
 
 Supreme Court, 168-170 
 
 Symbols, 207, 216 
 
 Toleration, *' Intolerable," 241 
 
 Tradition, 
 
 Unwritten, 66, 67 
 
 *' With its Hundred Tongues. 
 
 309 
 Temporal Power, 179 
 Tristram Shandy, 187 
 Washington and Richmond, 146 
 Weathercock, 216 
 Wilberforce, 10 
 

 .^. 
 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper procej 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnologie 
 
 A V/OPILD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIC 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
 ^724i 779-21 It