| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Faith of Our Fathers
Author: Gibbons, James, 1834-1921
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Faith of Our Fathers" ***
The Faith of Our Fathers
Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the
Church Founded by Our Lord
Jesus Christ
By
James Cardinal Gibbons
Archbishop of Baltimore
Ninety-third Carefully Revised and Enlarged Edition
John Murphy Company
Publishers
Baltimore, MD. New York
R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd.
10 Paternoster Row, London, and at Manchester.
Birmingham and Glasgow
1917
CONTENTS
Preface To The Eleventh Edition.
Preface To The Forty-Seventh Edition.
Preface.
Preface To Eighty-Third Revised Edition.
Introduction.
Chapter I. The Blessed Trinity, The Incarnation, Etc.
Chapter II. The Unity Of The Church.
Chapter III. The Holiness Of The Church.
Chapter IV. Catholicity.
Chapter V. Apostolicity.
Chapter VI. Perpetuity Of The Church.
Chapter VII. Infallible Authority Of The Church.
Chapter VIII. The Church And The Bible.
Chapter IX. The Primacy Of Peter.
Chapter X. The Supremacy Of The Popes.
Chapter XI. Infallibility Of The Popes.
Chapter XII. Temporal Power Of The Popes.
I. How The Popes Acquired Temporal Power.
II. The Validity And Justice Of Their Title.
III. What The Popes Have Done For Rome.
Chapter XIII. The Invocation Of Saints.
Chapter XIV. The Blessed Virgin Mary.
I. Is It Lawful To Honor Her?
II. Is It Lawful To Invoke Her?
III. Is It Lawful To Imitate Her As A Model?
Chapter XV. Sacred Images.
Chapter XVI. Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.
Chapter XVII. Civil And Religious Liberty.
Chapter XVIII. Charges of Religious Persecution.
I. The Spanish Inquisition.
II. What About The Massacre Of St. Bartholomew?
III. Mary, Queen of England.
Chapter XIX. Grace—The Sacraments—Original Sin—Baptism—Its Necessity—Its
Effects—Manner Of Baptizing.
Chapter XX. The Sacrament Of Confirmation.
Chapter XXI. The Holy Eucharist.
Chapter XXII. Communion Under One Kind.
Chapter XXIII. The Sacrifice Of The Mass.
Chapter XXIV. The Use Of Religious Ceremonies Dictated By Right Reason.
Chapter XXV. Ceremonials Of The Mass.
Chapter XXVI. The Sacrament Of Penance.
I. The Divine Institution Of The Sacrament Of Penance.
II. On The Relative Morality Of Catholic And Protestant Countries.
Chapter XXVII. Indulgences.
Chapter XXVIII. Extreme Unction.
Chapter XXIX. The Priesthood.
Chapter XXX. Celibacy Of The Clergy.
Chapter XXXI. Matrimony.
Index.
Footnotes
DEDICATION.
_Affectionately Dedicated_
To The
Clergy and Laity
Of The
Archdiocese And Province Of Baltimore.
PREFACE TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION.
The first edition of “The Faith of Our Fathers” was issued in December,
1876. From that time to the present fifty thousand copies of the work have
been disposed of in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Ireland,
and in the British Colonies of Oceanica.
This gratifying result has surpassed the author’s most sanguine
expectations, and is a consoling evidence that the investigation of
religious truths is not wholly neglected even in this iron age, so
engrossed by material considerations.
Besides carefully revising the book, the author has profited by the kind
suggestion of some friends, and inserted a chapter on the prerogatives and
sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which, it is hoped, will be not less
acceptable to his readers than the other portions of the work.
He is also happy to announce that German editions have been published both
in this country and in Germany.
He takes this occasion to return his hearty thanks to the editors of the
Catholic periodicals, as well as of the secular press, for their favorable
notices, which have no doubt contributed much to the large circulation of
the book.
BALTIMORE,
_Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas_, 1879.
PREFACE TO THE FORTY-SEVENTH EDITION.
It is very gratifying to the author to note the large increase in the sale
of “The Faith of Our Fathers.” Apart from personal considerations, it is
pleasing to know that the popular interest in the Catholic Church and
whatever pertains to her doctrines and discipline, is growing more
widespread and earnest.
Since 1879, when the eleventh revised edition was given to the public,
there have been thirty-five editions, and the number of copies sold
reaches nearly a quarter of a million.
This desire to understand the teachings of the Church of our Fathers is
not confined to our own country. It is manifest in other lands, as shown
by the translations that have been made of this exposition of Catholic
belief into French, German, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian and Swedish.
In the hope that they will add to the usefulness of the book, several
passages upon doctrinal subjects have been inserted.
With these few remarks, the forty-seventh edition of “The Faith of Our
Fathers” is presented to the sincere and earnest seeker after religious
truth by
THE AUTHOR
_Feast of St. Anselm_, 1895.
PREFACE.
The object of this little volume is to present in a plain and practical
form an exposition and vindication of the principal tenets of the Catholic
Church. It was thought sufficient to devote but a brief space to such
Catholic doctrines and practices as are happily admitted by Protestants,
while those that are controverted by them are more elaborately elucidated.
The work was compiled by the author during the uncertain hours which he
could spare from the more active duties of the ministry. It substantially
embodies the instructions and discourses delivered by him before mixed
congregations in Virginia and North Carolina.
He has often felt that the salutary influence of such instructions,
especially on the occasion of a mission in the rural districts, would be
much augmented if they were supplemented by books or tracts circulated
among the people, and which could be read and pondered at leisure.
As his chief aim has been to bring home the truths of the Catholic faith
to our separated brethren, who generally accept the Scripture as the only
source of authority in religious matters, he has endeavored to fortify his
statements by abundant reference to the sacred text. He has thought
proper, however, to add frequent quotations from the early Fathers, whose
testimony, at least as witnesses of the faith of their times, must be
accepted even by those who call in question their personal authority.
Though the writer has sought to be exact in all his assertions, an
occasional inaccuracy may have inadvertently crept in. Any emendations
which the venerated Prelates or Clergy may deign to propose will be
gratefully attended to in a subsequent edition.
RICHMOND, _November_ 21st, 1876.
PREFACE TO EIGHTY-THIRD REVISED EDITION.
The new edition of “The Faith of Our Fathers” has been carefully revised,
and enriched with several pages of important matter.
It is gratifying to note that since the first edition appeared, in 1876,
up to the present time, fourteen hundred thousand copies have been
published, and the circulation of the book is constantly increasing.
The work has also been translated into nearly all the languages of Europe.
BALTIMORE,
_May_ 1st, 1917.
INTRODUCTION.
MY DEAR READER:—Perhaps this is the first time in your life that you have
handled a book in which the doctrines of the Catholic Church are expounded
by one of her own sons. You have, no doubt, heard and read many things
regarding our Church; but has not your information come from teachers
justly liable to suspicion? You asked for bread, and they gave you a
stone. You asked for fish, and they reached you a serpent. Instead of the
bread of truth, they extended to you the serpent of falsehood. Hence,
without intending to be unjust, is not your mind biased against us because
you listened to false witnesses? This, at least, is the case with
thousands of my countrymen whom I have met in the brief course of my
missionary career. The Catholic Church is persistently misrepresented by
the most powerful vehicles of information.
She is assailed in romances of the stamp of Maria Monk, and in pictorial
papers. It is true that the falsehood of those illustrated periodicals has
been fully exposed. But the antidote often comes too late to counteract
the poison. I have seen a picture representing Columbus trying to
demonstrate the practicability of his design to discover a new Continent
before certain monks who are shaking their fists and gnashing their teeth
at him. It matters not to the artist that Columbus could probably never
have undertaken his voyage and discovery, as the explorer himself avows,
were it not for the benevolent zeal of the monks, Antonio de Marchena and
Juan Perez, and other ecclesiastics, as well as for the munificence of
Queen Isabella and the Spanish Court.
The Church is misrepresented in so-called Histories like Foxe’s Book of
Martyrs. It is true that he has been successfully refuted by Lingard and
Gairdner. But, how many have read the fictitious narratives of Foxe, who
have never perused a page of Lingard or Gairdner? In a large portion of
the press, and in pamphlets, and especially in the pulpit, which should be
consecrated to truth and charity, she is the victim of the foulest
slanders. Upon her fair and heavenly brow her enemies put a hideous mask,
and in that guise they exhibit her to the insults and mockery of the
public; just as Jesus, her Spouse, was treated when, clothed with a
scarlet cloak and crowned with thorns, He was mocked by a thoughtless
rabble.
They are afraid to tell the truth of her, for
“Truth has such a face and such a mien,
As to be loved needs only to be seen.”(1)
It is not uncommon for a dialogue like the following to take place between
a Protestant Minister and a convert to the Catholic Church:
MINISTER.—You cannot deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches gross
errors—the worship of images, for instance.
CONVERT.—I admit no such charge, for I have been taught no such doctrines.
MINISTER.—But the Priest who instructed you did not teach you all. He held
back some points which he knew would be objectionable to you.
CONVERT.—He withheld nothing; for I am in possession of books treating
fully of all Catholic doctrines.
MINISTER.—Deluded soul! Don’t you know that in Europe they are taught
differently?
CONVERT.—That cannot be, for the Church teaches the same creed all over
the world, and most of the doctrinal books which I read, were originally
published in Europe.
Yet ministers who make these slanderous statements are surprised if we
feel indignant, and accuse us of being too sensitive. We have been
vilified so long, that they think we have no right to complain.
We cannot exaggerate the offense of those who thus wilfully malign the
Church. There is a commandment which says: “Thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbor.”
If it is a sin to bear false testimony against one individual, how can we
characterize the crime of those who calumniate three hundred millions of
human beings, by attributing to them doctrines and practices which they
repudiate and abhor. I do not wonder that the Church is hated by those who
learn what she is from her enemies. It is natural for an honest man to
loathe an institution whose history he believes to be marked by bloodshed,
crime and fraud.
Had I been educated as they were, and surrounded by an atmosphere hostile
to the Church, perhaps I should be unfortunate enough to be breathing
vengeance against her today, instead of consecrating my life to her
defence.
It is not of their hostility that I complain, but because the judgment
they have formed of her is based upon the reckless assertions of her
enemies, and not upon those of impartial witnesses.
Suppose that I wanted to obtain a correct estimate of the Southern people,
would it be fair in me to select, as my only sources of information,
certain Northern and Eastern periodicals which, during our Civil War, were
bitterly opposed to the race and institutions of the South? Those papers
have represented you as men who always appeal to the sword and pistol,
instead of the law, to vindicate your private grievances. They heaped
accusations against you which I will not here repeat. Instead of taking
these publications as the basis of my information, it was my duty to come
among you; to live with you; to read your life by studying your public and
private character. This I have done, and I here cheerfully bear witness to
your many excellent traits of mind and heart.
Now I ask you to give to the Catholic Church the same measure of fairness
which you reasonably demand of me when judging of Southern character. Ask
not her enemies what she is, for they are blinded by passion; ask not her
ungrateful, renegade children, for you never heard a son speaking well of
the mother whom he had abandoned and despised.
Study her history in the pages of truth. Examine her creed. Read her
authorized catechisms and doctrinal books. You will find them everywhere
on the shelves of booksellers, in the libraries of her clergy, on the
tables of Catholic families.
There is no Freemasonry in the Catholic Church; she has no secrets to keep
back. She has not one set of doctrines for Bishops and Priests, and
another for the laity. She has not one creed for the initiated and another
for outsiders. Everything in the Catholic Church is open and above board.
She has the same doctrines for all—for the Pope and the peasant.
Should not I be better qualified to present to you the Church’s creed than
the unfriendly witnesses whom I have mentioned?
I have imbibed her doctrine with my mother’s milk. I have made her history
and theology the study of my life. What motive can I have in misleading
you? Not temporal reward, since I seek not your money, but your soul, for
which Jesus Christ died. I could not hope for an eternal reward by
deceiving you, for I would thereby purchase for myself eternal
condemnation by gaining proselytes at the expense of truth.
This, friendly reader, is my only motive. I feel in the depth of my heart
that, in possessing Catholic faith, I hold a treasure compared with which
all things earthly are but dross. Instead of wishing to bury this treasure
in my breast, I long to share it with you, especially as I lose no part of
my spiritual riches by communicating them to others.
It is to me a duty and a labor of love to speak the truth concerning my
venerable Mother, so much maligned in our days. Were a tithe of the
accusations which are brought against her true, I would not be attached to
her ministry, nor even to her communion, for a single day. I know these
charges to be false. The longer I know her, the more I admire and venerate
her. Every day she develops before me new spiritual charms.
Ah! my dear friend, if you saw her as her children see her, she would no
longer appear to you as typified by the woman of Babylon. She would be
revealed to you, “Bright as the sun, fair as the moon;” with the beauty of
Heaven stamped upon her brow, glorious “as an army in battle array.” You
would love her, you would cling to her and embrace her. With her children,
you would rise up in reverence “and call her blessed.”
Consider what you lose and what you gain in embracing the Catholic
religion.
Your loss is nothing in comparison with your gain. You do not surrender
your manhood or your dignity or independence or reasoning powers. You give
up none of those revealed truths which you may possess already. The only
restraint imposed upon you is the restraint of the Gospel, and to this you
will not reasonably object.
You gain everything that is worth having. You acquire a full and connected
knowledge of God’s revelation. You get possession of the whole truth as it
is in Jesus. You no longer see it in fragments, but reflected before you
in all its beauty, as in a polished mirror. While others are outside
criticising the architecture of the temple, you are inside worshiping the
divine Architect and saying devoutly with the Psalmist: “I have loved O
Lord, the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth.”
While others from without find in the stained-glass windows only blurred
and confused figures without symmetry or attraction or meaning, you from
within, are gazing with silent rapture on God’s glorified saints, with
their outlines clearly defined on the windows, and all illuminated with
the sunlight of heaven. Your knowledge of the truth is not only complete
and harmonious, but it becomes fixed and steady. You exchange opinion for
certainty. You are no longer “tossed about by every wind of doctrine,” but
you are firmly grounded on the rock of truth. Then you enjoy that profound
peace which springs from the conscious possession of the truth.
In coming to the Church, 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. In coming back to the Church, you worship where your fathers
worshiped before you, you kneel before the altar at which they knelt, you
receive the Sacraments which they received, and respect the authority of
the clergy whom they venerated. You come back like the Prodigal Son to the
home of your father and mother. The garment of joy is placed upon you, the
banquet of love is set before you, and you receive the kiss of peace as a
pledge of your filiation and adoption. One hearty embrace of your tender
Mother will compensate you for all the sacrifices you may have made, and
you will exclaim with the penitent Augustine: “Too late have I known thee,
O Beauty, ever ancient and ever new, too late have I loved thee.” Should
the perusal of this book bring one soul to the knowledge of the Church, my
labor will be amply rewarded.
Remember that nothing is so essential as the salvation of your immortal
soul, “for what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose
his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”(2) Let
not, therefore, the fear of offending friends and relatives, the
persecution of men, the loss of earthly possessions, nor any other
temporal calamity, deter you from investigating and embracing the true
religion. “For our present tribulation, which is momentary and light,
worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.”(3)
May God give you light to see the truth, and, having seen it, may He give
you courage and strength to follow it!
Chapter I.
THE BLESSED TRINITY, THE INCARNATION, ETC.
The Catholic Church teaches that there is but one God, who is infinite in
knowledge, in power, in goodness, and in every other perfection; who
created all things by His omnipotence, and governs them by His Providence.
In this one God there are three distinct Persons,—the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, who are perfectly equal to each other.
We believe that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is
perfect God and perfect Man. He is God, for He “is over all things, God
blessed forever.”(4) “He is God of the substance of the Father, begotten
before time; and He is Man of the substance of His Mother, born in
time.”(5) Out of love for us, and in order to rescue us from the miseries
entailed upon us by the disobedience of our first parents, the Divine Word
descended from heaven, and became Man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by
the operation of the Holy Ghost. He was born on Christmas day, in a stable
at Bethlehem.
After having led a life of obscurity for about thirty years, chiefly at
Nazareth, He commenced His public career. He associated with Him a number
of men who are named Apostles, whom He instructed in the doctrines of the
religion which He established.
For three years He went about doing good, giving sight to the blind,
hearing to the deaf, healing all kinds of diseases, raising the dead to
life, and preaching throughout Judea the new Gospel of peace.(6)
On Good Friday He was crucified on Mount Calvary, and thus purchased for
us redemption by His death. Hence Jesus exclusively bears the titles of
_Savior_ and _Redeemer_, because “there is no other name under heaven
given to men whereby we must be saved.”(7) “He was wounded for our
iniquities; He was bruised for our sins, ... and by His bruises we are
healed.”(8)
We are commanded by Jesus, suffering and dying for us, to imitate Him by
the crucifixion of our flesh, and by acts of daily mortification. “If
anyone,” He says, “will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross daily and follow Me.”(9)
Hence we abstain from the use of flesh meat on Friday—the day consecrated
to our Savior’s sufferings—not because the eating of flesh meat is sinful
in itself, but as an act of salutary mortification. Loving children would
be prompted by filial tenderness to commemorate the anniversary of their
father’s death rather by prayer and fasting than by feasting. Even so we
abstain on Fridays from flesh meat that we may in a small measure testify
our practical sympathy for our dear Lord by the mortification of our body,
endeavoring, like St. Paul, “to bear about in our body the mortification
of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our
bodies.”(10)
The Cross is held in the highest reverence by Catholics, because it was
the instrument of our Savior’s crucifixion. It surmounts our churches and
adorns our sanctuaries. We venerate it as the emblem of our salvation.
“Far be it from me,” says the Apostle, “to glory save in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ.”(11) We do not, of course, attach any intrinsic virtue
to the Cross; this would be sinful and idolatrous. Our veneration is
referred to Him who died upon it.
It is also a very ancient and pious practice for the faithful to make on
their person the sign of the Cross, saying at the same time: “In the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Tertullian, who
lived in the second century of the Christian era, says: “In all our
actions, when we come in or go out, when we dress, when we wash, at our
meals, before retiring to sleep, ... we form on our foreheads the sign of
the cross. These practices are not commanded by a formal law of Scripture;
but tradition teaches them, custom confirms them, faith observes
them.”(12) By the sign of the cross we make a profession of our faith in
the Trinity and the Incarnation, and perform a most salutary act of
religion.
We believe that on Easter Sunday Jesus Christ manifested His divine power
by raising Himself to life, and that having spent forty days on earth,
after His resurrection, instructing His disciples, He ascended to heaven
from the Mount of Olives.
On the Feast of Pentecost, or Whitsunday, ten days after His Ascension,
our Savior sent, as He had promised, His Holy Spirit to His disciples,
while they were assembled together in prayer. The Holy Ghost purified
their hearts from sin, and imparted to them a full knowledge of those
doctrines of salvation which they were instructed to preach. On the same
Feast of Pentecost the Apostles commenced their sublime mission, from
which day, accordingly, we date the active life of the Catholic Church.
Our Redeemer gave the most ample authority to the Apostles to teach in His
name; commanding them to “preach the Gospel to every creature,”(13) and
directing all, under the most severe penalties, to hear and obey them: “He
that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me. And
He that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.”(14)
And lest we should be mistaken in distinguishing between the true Church
and false sects, which our Lord predicted would arise, He was pleased to
stamp upon His Church certain shining marks, by which every sincere
inquirer could easily recognize her as His only Spouse. The principal
marks or characteristics of the true Church are, her Unity, Sanctity,
Catholicity, and Apostolicity,(15) to which may be added the Infallibility
of her teaching and the Perpetuity of her existence.
I shall treat successively of these marks.
Chapter II.
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.
By unity is meant that the members of the true Church must be united in
the belief of the same doctrines of revelation, and 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
Christian faith. By schism, he spurns the authority of his spiritual
superiors. That our Savior requires this unity of faith and government in
His members is evident from various passages of Holy Writ. In His
admirable prayer immediately before His passion He says: “I pray for them
also who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one,
as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us;
that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me,”(16) because the unity
of the Church is the most luminous evidence of the Divine mission of
Christ. Jesus prayed that His followers may be united in the bond of a
common faith, as He and His Father are united in essence, and certainly
the prayer of Jesus is always heard.
St. Paul ranks schism and heresy with the crimes of murder and idolatry,
and he declares that the authors of sects shall not possess the Kingdom of
God.(17) He also addresses a letter to the Ephesians from his prison in
Rome, and if the words of the Apostle should always command our homage,
with how much reverence are they to be received when he writes in chains
from the Imperial City! In this Epistle he insists upon unity of faith in
the following emphatic language: “Be careful to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit, as you are called in
one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”(18) As
you all, he says, worship one God, and not many gods; as you acknowledge
the same Divine Mediator of redemption, and not many mediators; as you are
sanctified by the same Divine Spirit, and not by many spirits; as you all
hope for the same heaven, and not different heavens, so must you all
profess the same faith.
Unity of government is not less essential to the Church of Christ than
unity of doctrine. Our Divine Saviour never speaks of His Churches, but of
His _Church_. He does not say: “Upon this rock I will build my Churches,”
but “upon this rock I will build My Church,”(19) from which words we must
conclude that it never was His intention to establish or to sanction
various conflicting denominations, but one corporate body, with all the
members united under one visible Head; for as the Church is a visible
body, it must have a visible head.
The Church is called a kingdom: “He shall reign over the house of Jacob
forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end.”(20) Now in every
well-regulated kingdom there is but _one king, one form of government, one
uniform body of laws_, which all are obliged to observe. In like manner,
in Christ’s spiritual kingdom, there must be one Chief to whom all owe
spiritual allegiance; one form of ecclesiastical government; one uniform
body of laws which all Christians are bound to observe; for, “every
kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate.”(21)
Our Savior calls His Church a sheepfold. “And there shall be made one fold
and one shepherd.”(22) What more beautiful or fitting illustration of
unity can we have than that which is suggested by a sheepfold? All the
sheep of a flock cling together. If they are momentarily separated, they
are impatient till reunited. They follow in the same path. They feed on
the same pastures. They obey the same shepherd, and fly from the voice of
strangers. So did our Lord intend that all the sheep of His fold should be
nourished by the same sacraments and the same bread of life; that they
should follow the same rule of faith as their guide to heaven; that they
should listen to the voice of one Chief Pastor, and that they should
carefully shun false teachers.
His Church is compared to a human body. “As in one body we have many
members, but all the members have not the same office; so we, being many,
are one body in Christ, and every one members one of the other.”(23) In
one body there are many members, all inseparably connected with the head.
The head commands and the foot instantly moves, the hand is raised and the
lips open. Even so our Lord ordained that His Church, composed of many
members, should be all united to one supreme visible Head, whom they are
bound to obey.
The Church is compared to a vine. “I am the Vine, ye the branches; he that
abideth in Me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit, for without Me ye
can do nothing.”(24) All the branches of a vine, though spreading far and
wide, are necessarily connected with the main stem, and from its sap they
are nourished. In like manner, our Saviour will have all the saplings of
His Vineyard connected with the main stem, and all draw their nourishment
from the parent stock.
The Church, in fine, is called in Scripture by the beautiful title of
bride or spouse of Christ,(25) and the Christian law admits only of one
wife.
In fact, our common sense alone, apart from revelation, is sufficient to
convince us that God could not be the author of various opposing systems
of religion. God is essentially one. He is Truth itself. How could the God
of truth affirm, for instance, to one body of Christians that there are
three persons in God, and to another there is only one person in God? How
could He say to one individual that Jesus Christ is God, and to another
that He is only man? How can He tell me that the punishments of the wicked
are eternal, and tell another that they are not eternal? One of these
contradictory statements must be false. “God is not the God of dissension,
but of peace.”(26)
I see perfect harmony in the laws which govern the physical world that we
inhabit. I see a marvelous unity in our planetary system. Each planet
moves in its own sphere, and all are controlled by the central Sun.
Why should there not be also harmony and concord in that spiritual world,
the Church of God, the grandest conception of His omnipotence, and the
most bounteous manifestation of His goodness and love for mankind!
Hence, it is clear that Jesus Christ intended that His Church should have
one common doctrine which all Christians are bound to believe, and one
uniform government to which all should be loyally attached.
With all due respect for my dissenting brethren, truth compels me to say
that this unity of doctrine and government is not to be found in the
Protestant sects, taken collectively or separately. That the various
Protestant denominations differ from one another not only in minor
details, but in most essential principles of faith, is evident to every
one conversant with the doctrines of the different Creeds. The
multiplicity of sects in this country, with their mutual recriminations,
is the scandal of Christianity, and the greatest obstacle to the
conversion of the heathen. Not only does sect differ from sect, but each
particular denomination is divided into two or more independent or
conflicting branches.
In the State of North Carolina we have several Baptist denominations, each
having its own distinctive appellation. There is also the Methodist Church
North and the Methodist Church South. There was the Old and the New School
Presbyterian Church. And even in the Episcopal Communion, which is the
most conservative body outside the Catholic Church, there is the
ritualistic, or high church, and the low church. Nay, if you question
closely the individual members composing any one fraction of these
denominations, you will not rarely find them giving a contradictory view
of their tenets of religion.
Protestants differ from one another not only in doctrine, but in the form
of ecclesiastical government and discipline. The church of England
acknowledges the reigning Sovereign as its Spiritual Head. Some
denominations recognize Deacons, Priests, and Bishops as an essential part
of their hierarchy; while the great majority of Protestants reject such
titles altogether.
Where, then, shall we find this essential unity of faith and government? I
answer, confidently, nowhere save in the Catholic Church.
The number of Catholics in the world is computed at three hundred
millions. They have all “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” one creed.
They receive the same sacraments, they worship at the same altar, and pay
spiritual allegiance to one common Head. Should a Catholic be so
unfortunate as contumaciously to deny a single article of faith, or
withdraw from the communion of his legitimate pastors, he ceases to be a
member of the Church, and is cut off like a withered branch. The Church
had rather sever her right hand than allow any member to corrode her
vitals. It was thus she excommunicated Henry VIII. because he persisted in
violating the sacred law of marriage, although she foresaw that the
lustful monarch would involve a nation in his spiritual ruin. She
anathematized, more recently, Dr. Döllinger, though the prestige of his
name threatened to engender a schism in Germany. She says to her children:
“You may espouse any political party you choose; with this I have no
concern.” But as soon as they trench on matters of faith she cries out:
“Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no farther; and here thou shalt
break thy swelling waves”(27) of discord. The temple of faith is the
asylum of peace, concord and unity.
How sublime and consoling is the thought that whithersoever a Catholic
goes over the broad world, whether he enters his Church in Pekin or in
Melbourne, in London, or Dublin, or Paris, or Rome, or New York, or San
Francisco, he is sure to hear the self-same doctrine preached, to assist
at the same sacrifice, and to partake of the same sacraments.
This is not all. Her Creed is now identical with what it was in past ages.
The same Gospel of peace that Jesus Christ preached on the Mount; the same
doctrine that St. Peter preached at Antioch and Rome; St. Paul at Ephesus;
St. John Chrysostom at Constantinople; St. Augustine in Hippo; St. Ambrose
in Milan; St. Remigius in France; St. Boniface in Germany; St. Athanasius
in Alexandria; the same doctrine that St. Patrick introduced into Ireland;
that St. Augustine brought into England, and St. Pelagius into Scotland,
and that Columbus brought to this American Continent, and this is the
doctrine that is ever preached in the Catholic Church throughout the
globe, from January till December—“Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and
the same forever.”(28)
The same admirable unity that exists in matters of faith is also
established in the government of the Church. All the members of the vast
body of Catholic Christians are as intimately united to one visible Chief
as the members of the human body are joined to the head. The faithful of
each Parish are subject to their immediate Pastor. Each Pastor is
subordinate to his Bishop, and each Bishop of Christendom acknowledges the
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, and Head
of the Catholic Church.
But it may be asked, is not this unity of faith impaired by those
doctrinal definitions which the Church has promulgated from time to time?
We answer: No new dogma, unknown to the Apostles, not contained in the
primitive Christian revelation, can be admitted. (John xiv. 26; xv. 15;
xvi. 13.) For the Apostles received the whole deposit of God’s word,
according 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 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, whenever 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 revealed to the
Apostles, and had come down to us from them, either by Scripture or
tradition. And as the acts of all the Councils, and the history of every
definition of faith evidently show, it was never contended that a _new
revelation_ had been made, but every inquiry was directed to this one
point—whether the doctrine in question was contained in the Sacred
Scriptures or in the Apostolic traditions.
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 cognizant of all its
bearings. Truth never changes; it is the same now, yesterday, and forever,
_in itself_; but our relations towards truth may change, for that which is
hidden from us today may become known to us tomorrow. “It often happens,”
says St. Augustine, “that when it becomes necessary to defend certain
points of Catholic doctrine against the insidious attacks of heretics they
are more carefully studied, they become _more clearly understood_, they
are _more earnestly inculcated_; and so the very questions raised by
heretics give occasion to a more thorough knowledge of the subject in
question.”(29)
Let us illustrate this. In the Apostolic revelation and preaching some
truths might have been contained _implicitly_, _e.g._, in the doctrine
that grace is necessary for every salutary work, it is implicitly asserted
that the assistance of grace is required for the inception of every good
and salutary work. This was denied by the semi-Pelagians, and their error
was condemned by an explicit definition. And so in other matters, as the
rising controversies or new errors gave occasion for it, there were more
_explicit_ declarations of what was formerly _implicitly_ believed. In the
doctrine of the supreme power of Peter, as the visible foundation of the
Church, we have the _implied_ assertion of many rights and duties which
belong to the centre of unity. In the revelation of the super-eminent
dignity and purity of the Blessed Virgin there is implied her exemption
from original sin, etc., etc.
So, too, in the beginning many truths might have been proposed somewhat
_obscurely_ or _less clearly_; they might have been _less urgently
insisted upon_, because there was no heresy, no contrary teaching to
render a more explicit declaration necessary. Now, a doctrine which is
_implicitly, less clearly, not so earnestly_ proposed, may be overlooked,
misunderstood, called in question; consequently, it may happen that some
articles are now universally believed in the Church, in regard to which
doubts and controversies existed in former ages, even within the bosom of
the Church. “Those who err in belief do but serve to bring out more
clearly the soundness of those who believe rightly. For there are many
things which _lay hidden in the Scriptures_, and when heretics were cut
off they vexed the Church of God with disputes; then the hidden things
were _brought to light_, and the will of God was made known.” (St.
Augustine on the 54th Psalm, No. 22.)
This kind of _progress in faith_ we can and do admit; but the truth is not
changed thereby. As Albertus Magnus says: “It would be more correct to
style this the progress of the believer in the faith than of the faith in
the believer.”
To show that this kind of progress is to be admitted only two things are
to be proved: 1: That some divinely revealed truths should be contained in
the Apostolic teaching _implicitly, less clearly explained, less urgently
pressed_. And this can be denied only by those who hold that the Bible is
the only rule of Faith, that it is clear in every part, and could be
readily understood by all from the beginning. This point I shall consider
farther on in this work. 2. That the Church can, in process of time, as
occasions arise, _declare, explain, urge_. This is proved not only from
the Scriptures and the Fathers, but even from the conduct of Protestants
themselves, who often boast of the care and assiduity with which they
“search the Scriptures,” and study out their meaning, even now that so
many Commentaries on the sacred Text have been published. And why? To
obtain more light; to understand better what is revealed. It would appear
from this that the only question which could arise on this point is, not
about the possibility of arriving by degrees at a clearer understanding of
the true sense of revelation, as circumstances may call for successive
developments, but about the authority of the Church to propose and to
determine that sense. So that, after all, we are always brought back to
the only real point of division and dispute between those who are not
Catholics and ourselves, namely, to the authority of the Church, of which
I shall have more to say hereafter. I cannot conclude better than by
quoting the words of St. Vincent of Lerins: “Let us take care that it be
with us in matters of religion, which affect our souls, as it is with
material bodies, which, as time goes on, pass through successive phases of
growth and development and multiply their years, but yet remain always the
same individual bodies as they were in the beginning.... It very properly
follows from the nature of things that, with a perfect agreement and
consistency between the beginnings and the final results, when we reap the
harvest of dogmatic truth which has sprung from the seeds of doctrine sown
in the spring-time of the Church’s existence, we should find no
substantial difference between the grain which was first planted and that
which we now gather. For though the germs of the early faith have in some
respects been evolved in the course of time, and still receive nourishment
and culture, yet nothing in them that is substantial can ever suffer
change. The Church of Christ is a faithful and ever watchful guardian of
the dogmas which have been committed to her charge. In this sacred deposit
she changes nothing, she takes nothing from it, she adds nothing to it.”
Chapter III.
THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH.
Holiness is also a mark of the true Church; for in the Creed we say, “I
believe in the _holy_ Catholic Church.”
Every society is founded for a special object. One society is formed with
the view of cultivating social intercourse among its members; a second is
organized to advance their temporal interests; and a third for the purpose
of promoting literary pursuits. The Catholic Church is a society founded
by our Lord Jesus Christ for the sanctification of its members; hence, St.
Peter calls the Christians of his time “a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, _a holy nation_, a purchased people.”(30)
The example of our Divine Founder, Jesus Christ, the sublime moral lessons
He has taught us, the Sacraments He has instituted—all tend to our
sanctification. They all concentre themselves in our soul, like so many
heavenly rays, to enlighten and inflame it with the fire of devotion.
When the Church speaks to us of the attributes of our Lord, of His justice
and mercy and sanctity and truth, her object is not merely to extol the
Divine perfections, but also to exhort us to imitate them, and to be like
Him, just and merciful, holy and truthful. Behold the sublime Model that
is placed before us! It is not man, nor angel, nor archangel, but Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, “who is the brightness of His glory, and the
figure of His substance.”(31) The Church places His image over our altars,
admonishing us to “look and do according to the pattern shown on the
Mount.”(32) And from that height He seems to say to us: “Be ye holy, for I
the Lord your God am holy.”(33) “Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly
Father is perfect.”(34) “Be ye followers of God as most dear
children.”(35)
We are invited to lead holy lives, not only because our Divine Founder,
Jesus Christ, was holy, but also because we bear His sweet and venerable
name. We are called _Christians_. That is a name we would not exchange for
all the high-sounding titles of Prince or Emperor. We are justly proud of
this appellation of _Christian_; but we are reminded that it has annexed
to it a corresponding obligation. It is not an idle name, but one full of
solemn significance; for a Christian, as the very name implies, is a
follower or disciple of Christ—one who walks in the footsteps of his
Master by observing His precepts; who reproduces in his own life the
character and virtues of his Divine Model. In a word, a Christian is
another Christ. It would, therefore, be a contradiction in terms, if a
Christian had nothing in common with his Lord except the name. The
disciple should imitate his Master, the soldier should imitate his
Commander, and the members should be like the Head.
The Church constantly allures her children to holiness by placing before
their minds the Incarnation, life and death of our Savior. What appeals
more forcibly to a life of piety than the contemplation of Jesus born in a
stable, living an humble life in Nazareth, dying on a cross, that His
blood might purify us? If He sent forth Apostles to preach the Gospel to
the whole world; if in His name temples are built in every nation, and
missionaries are sent to the extremities of the globe, all this is done
that we may be Saints. “God,” says St. Paul, “gave some Apostles, and some
Prophets, and others Evangelists, and others Pastors and Doctors, for the
perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building
up of the body of Christ, until we all meet unto the unity of faith and of
the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man.”(36)
The moral law which the Catholic Church inculcates on her children is the
highest and holiest standard of perfection ever presented to any people,
and furnishes the strongest incentives to virtue.
The same Divine precepts delivered through Moses to the Jews, on Mount
Sinai, the same salutary warnings which the Prophets uttered throughout
Judea, the same sublime and consoling lessons of morality which Jesus gave
on the Mount—these are the lessons which the Church teaches from January
till December. The Catholic preacher does not amuse his audience with
speculative topics or political harangues, or any other subjects of a
transitory nature. He preaches only “Christ, and Him crucified.”
This code of Divine precepts is enforced with as much zeal by the Church
as was the Decalogue of old by Moses, when he said: “These words, which I
command thee this day, shall be in thy heart; and thou shalt tell them to
thy children; and thou shalt meditate upon them, sitting in thy house, and
walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising.”(37)
The first lesson taught to children in our Sunday-schools is their duty to
know, love and serve God, and thus to be Saints; for if they know, love
and serve God aright they shall be Saints indeed. Their tender minds are
instructed in this great truth that though they had the riches of Dives,
and the glory and pleasures of Solomon, and yet fail to be righteous, they
have missed their vocation, and are “wretched, and miserable, and poor,
and blind, and naked.”(38) “For, what doth it profit a man, if he gain the
whole world and lose his own soul?”(39) On the contrary though they are as
poor as Lazarus, and as miserable as Job in the days of his adversity,
they are assured that their condition is a happy one in the sight of God,
if they live up to the maxims of the Gospel.
The Church quickens the zeal of her children for holiness of life by
impressing on their minds the rigor of God’s judgments, who “will bring to
light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the
hearts,” by reminding them of the terrors of Hell and of the sweet joys of
Heaven.
Not only are Catholics instructed in church on Sundays but they are
exhorted to peruse the Word of God, and manuals of devotion, at home. The
saints whose lives are there recorded serve like bright stars to guide
them over the stormy ocean of life to the shores of eternity; while the
history of those who have fallen from grace stands like a beacon light,
warning them to shun the rocks against which a Solomon and a Judas made
shipwreck of their souls.
Our books of piety are adapted to every want of the human soul, and are a
fruitful source of sanctification. Who can read without spiritual profit
such works as the almost inspired _Following of Christ_ by Thomas à
Kempis; the _Christian Perfection_ of Rodriguez; the _Spiritual Combat_ of
Scupoli; the writings of St. Francis de Sales, and a countless host of
other ascetical authors?
You will search in vain outside the Catholic Church for writers comparable
in unction and healthy piety to such as I have mentioned. Compare, for
instance, _Kempis_ with _Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress_, or _Butler’s Lives
of the Saints_ with _Foxe’s Book of Martyrs_. You lay down _Butler_ with a
sweet and tranquil devotion, and with a profound admiration for the
Christian heroes whose lives he records; while you put aside _Foxe_ with a
troubled mind and a sense of vindictive bitterness. I do not speak of the
_Book of Common Prayer_, because the best part of it is a translation from
our Missal. Protestants also publish _Kempis_, though sometimes in a
mutilated form; every passage in the original being carefully omitted
which alludes to Catholic doctrines and practices.
A distinguished Episcopal clergyman of Baltimore once avowed to me that
his favorite books of devotion were our standard works of piety. In saying
this, he paid a merited and graceful tribute to the superiority of
Catholic spiritual literature.
The Church gives us not only the most pressing motives, but also the most
potent means for our sanctification. These means are furnished by prayer
and the Sacraments. She exhorts us to frequent communion with God by
prayer and meditation, and so imperative is this obligation in our eyes
that we would justly hold ourselves guilty of grave dereliction of duty if
we neglected for a considerable time the practice of morning and evening
prayer.
The most abundant source of graces is also found in the seven Sacraments
of the Church. Our soul is bathed in the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ at
the font of Baptism, from which we come forth “new creatures.” We are then
and there incorporated with Christ, becoming “bone of His bone and flesh
of His flesh;” “for as many of you,” says the Apostle, “as have been
baptized in Christ have put on Christ.”(40) And as the Holy Ghost is
inseparable from Christ, our bodies are made the temples of the Spirit of
God and our souls His Sanctuary. “Christ loved the Church and delivered
Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of
water, in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should
be holy and without blemish.”(41)
In Confirmation we receive new graces and new strength to battle against
the temptations of life.
In the Eucharist we are fed with the living Bread which cometh down from
Heaven.
In Penance are washed away the stains we have contracted after Baptism.
Are we called to the Sacred Ministry, or to the married state, we find in
the Sacraments of Orders and Matrimony ample graces corresponding with the
condition of life which we have embraced.
And our last illness is consoled by Extreme Unction, wherein we receive
the Divine succor necessary to fortify and purify us before departing from
this world.
In a word, the Church, like a watchful mother, accompanies us from the
cradle to the grave, supplying us at each step with the medicine of life
and immortality.
As the Church offers to her children the strongest motives and the most
powerful means for attaining to sanctity of life, so does she reap among
them the most abundant fruits of holiness. In every age and country she is
the fruitful mother of saints. Our Ecclesiastical calendar is not confined
to the names of the twelve Apostles. It is emblazoned with the lists of
heroic Martyrs who “were stoned, and cut asunder, and put to death by the
sword;”(42) of innumerable Confessors and Hermits who left all things and
followed Christ; of spotless virgins who preserved their chastity for the
Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. Every day in the year is consecrated in our
Martyrology to a large number of Saints.
And in our own times, in every quarter of the globe and in every
department of life, the Church continues to raise up Saints worthy of the
primitive days of Christianity.
If we seek for _Apostles_, we find them conspicuously among the Bishops of
Germany, who are now displaying in prison and in exile a serene heroism
worthy of Peter and Paul.
Every year records the tortures of Catholic missioners who die _Martyrs_
to the Faith in China, Corea, and other Pagan countries.
Among her _confessors_ are numbered those devoted priests who, abandoning
home and family ties, annually go forth to preach the Gospel in foreign
lands. Their worldly possessions are often confined to a few books of
devotion and their modest apparel.
And who is a stranger to her consecrated _virgins_, those sisters of
various Orders who in every large city of Christendom are daily reclaiming
degraded women from a life of shame, and bringing them back to the sweet
influences of religion; who snatch the abandoned offspring of sin from
temporal and spiritual death, and make them pious and useful members of
society, becoming more than mothers to them; who rescue children from
ignorance, and instill into their minds the knowledge and love of God.
We can point to numberless saints also among the laity. I dare assert that
in almost every congregation in the Catholic world, men and women are to
be found who exhibit a fervent piety and a zeal for religion which render
them worthy of being named after the _Annas_, _the Aquilas_ and the
_Priscillas_ of the New Testament. They attract not indeed the admiration
of the public, because true piety is unostentatious and seeks a “life
hidden with Christ in God.”(43)
It must not be imagined that, in proclaiming the sanctity of the Church, I
am attempting to prove that all Catholics are holy. I am sorry to confess
that corruption of morals is too often found among professing Catholics.
We cannot close our eyes to the painful fact that too many of them, far
from living up to the teachings of their Church, are sources of melancholy
scandal. “It must be that scandals come, but woe to him by whom the
scandal cometh.” I also admit that the sin of Catholics is more heinous in
the sight of God than that of their separated brethren, because they abuse
more grace.
But it should be borne in mind that neither God nor His Church forces any
man’s conscience. To all He says by the mouth of His Prophet: “Behold I
set before you the way of life and the way of death.” (Jer. xxi. 8.) The
choice rests with yourselves.
It is easy to explain why so many disedifying members are always found
clinging to the robes of the Church, their spiritual Mother, and why she
never shakes them off nor disowns them as her children. The Church is
animated by the spirit of her Founder, Jesus Christ. He “came into this
world to save sinners.”(44) He “came not to call the just but sinners to
repentance.” He was the Friend of Publicans and Sinners that He might make
them the friends of God. And they clung to Him, knowing His compassion for
them.
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 delinquencies; 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.
Mindful also of the words of our Lord: “The poor have the Gospel preached
to them,”(45) the Church has a tender compassion for the victims of
poverty, which has its train of peculiar temptations and infirmities.
Hence, the poor and the sinners cling to the Church, as they clung to our
Lord during His mortal life.
We know, on the other hand, that sinners who are guilty of gross crimes
which shock public decency are virtually excommunicated from Protestant
Communions. And as for the poor, the public press often complains that
little or no provision is made for them in Protestant Churches. A
gentleman informed me that he never saw a poor person enter an Episcopal
Church which was contiguous to his residence.
These excluded sinners and victims of penury either abandon Christianity
altogether, or find refuge in the bosom of their true Mother, the Catholic
Church, who, like her Divine Spouse, claims the afflicted as her most
cherished inheritance. The parables descriptive of this Church which our
Lord employed also clearly teach us that the good and bad shall be joined
together in the Church as long as her earthly mission lasts. The kingdom
of God is like a field in which the cockle is allowed to grow up with the
good seed until the harvest-time;(46) it is like a net which encloses good
fish and bad until the hour of separation comes.(47) So, too, the Church
is that great house(48) in which there are not only vessels of gold and
silver, but also of wood and clay.
The Fathers repeat the teaching of Scripture. St. Jerome says: “The ark of
Noah was a type of the Church. As every kind of animal was in that, so in
this there are men of every race and character. As in that were the
leopard and the kids, the wolf and the lambs, so in this there are to be
found the just and the sinful—that is, vessels of gold and silver along
with those of wood and clay.”(49)
St. Gregory the Great writes: “Because in it (the Church) the good are
mingled with the bad, the reprobate with the elect, it is rightly declared
to be similar to the wise and the foolish virgins.”(50)
Listen to St. Augustine: “Let the mind recall the threshing-floor
containing straw and wheat; the nets in which are inclosed good and bad
fish; the ark of Noah in which were clean and unclean animals, and you
will see that the Church from now until the judgment day _contains not
only sheep and oxen_—that is, saintly laymen and holy ministers—_but also
the beasts of the field_.... For the beasts of the field are men who take
delight in carnal pleasures, _the field being that broad way which leads
to perdition_.”(51)
The occasional scandals existing among members of the Church do not
invalidate or impair her claim to the title of sanctity. The spots on the
sun do not mar his brightness. Neither do the moral stains of some members
sully the brilliancy of her “who cometh forth as the morning star, fair as
the moon, bright as the sun.”(52) The cockle that grows amidst the wheat
does not destroy the beauty of the ripened harvest. The sanctity of Jesus
was not sullied by the presence of Judas in the Apostolic College. Neither
can the moral corruption of a few disciples tarnish the holiness of the
Church. St. Paul calls the Church of Corinth a congregation of Saints,(53)
though he reproves some scandalous members among them.(54)
It cannot be denied that corruption of morals 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.
But how was this reformation of morals to be effected? Was it to be
accomplished by a force operating inside the Church, or outside? I answer
that the proper way of carrying out this reformation was by battling
against iniquity within the Church; for there was not a single weapon
which men could use in waging war with vice outside the Church, which they
could not wield with more effective power when fighting under the
authority of the Church. The true weapons of an Apostle, at all times,
have been personal virtue, prayer, preaching, and the Sacraments. Every
genuine reformer had those weapons at his disposal within the Church.
She possesses, at all times, not only the principle of undying vitality,
but, besides, all the elements of reformation, and all the means of
sanctification. With the weapons I have named she purified morals in the
first century, and with the same weapons she went to work with a right
good will, and effected a moral reformation in the sixteenth century. She
was the only effectual spiritual reformer of that age.
What was the Council of Trent but a great reforming tribunal? Most of its
decrees are directed to the reformation of abuses among the clergy and the
laity, and the salutary fruits of its legislation are reaped even to this
day.
St. Charles Borromeo, the nephew of a reigning Pope, was the greatest
reformer of his time. His whole Episcopal career was spent in elevating
the morals of his clergy and people. Bartholomew, Archbishop of Braga, in
Portugal, preached an incessant crusade against iniquity in high and low
places. St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Alphonsus, with their companions,
were conspicuous and successful reformers throughout Europe. St. Philip
Neri was called the modern Apostle of Rome because of his happy efforts in
dethroning vice in that city. All these Catholic Apostles preach by
example as well as by word.
How do Luther and Calvin, and Zuinglius and Knox, and Henry VIII. compare
with these genuine and saintly reformers, both as to their moral character
and the fruit or their labors? The private lives of these pseudo-reformers
were stained by cruelty, rapine, and licentiousness; and as the result of
their propagandism, history records civil wars, and bloodshed, and bitter
religious strife, and the dismemberment of Christianity into a thousand
sects.
Instead of co-operating with the lawful authorities in extinguishing the
flames which the passions of men had enkindled in the city of God, these
faithless citizens fly from the citadel which they had vowed to defend;
then joining the enemy, they hasten back to fan the conflagration, and to
increase the commotion. And they overturn the very altars before which
they previously sacrificed as consecrated priests.(55) They sanctioned
rebellion by undermining the principle of authority.
What a noble opportunity they lost of earning for themselves immortal
honors from God and man! If, instead of raising the standard of revolt,
they had waged war upon their own passions, and fought with the Catholic
reformers against impiety, they would be hailed as true soldiers of the
cross. They would be welcomed by the Pope, the Bishops and clergy, and by
all good men. They might be honored today on our altars, and might have a
niche in our temples, side by side with those of Charles Borromeo and
Ignatius Loyola; and instead of a divided army of Christians, we should
behold today a united Christendom, spreading itself irresistibly from
nation to nation, and bringing all kingdoms to the knowledge of Jesus
Christ.
Chapter IV.
CATHOLICITY.
That Catholicity is a prominent note of the Church is evident from the
Apostles’ Creed, which says: “I believe in the Holy _Catholic_ Church.”
The word _Catholic_, or Universal, signifies that the true Church is not
circumscribed in its extent, like human empires, nor confined to one race
of people, like the Jewish Church, but that she is diffused over every
nation of the globe, and counts her children among all tribes and peoples
and tongues of the earth.
This glorious Church is foreshadowed by the Psalmist, when he sings: “All
the ends of the earth shall be converted to the Lord, and all the kindreds
of the Gentiles shall adore in His sight; for the kingdom is the Lord’s,
and He shall have dominion over the nations.”(56) The Prophet Malachy saw
in the distant future this world-wide Church, when he wrote: “From the
rising of the sun, 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; for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of
Hosts.”(57)
When our Savior gave commission to his Apostles He assigned to them the
whole world as the theatre of their labors, and the entire human race,
without regard to language, color, or nationality, as the audience to whom
they were to preach. Unlike the religion of the Jewish people, which was
national, or that of the Mohammedans, which is local, the Catholic
religion was to be cosmopolitan, embracing all nations and all countries.
This is evident from the following passages: “Go ye, therefore, and teach
_all nations_.”(58) “Go ye into the _whole world_, and preach the Gospel
to every creature.”(59) “Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and
in all Judea, and Samaria, and even _to the uttermost part of the
earth_.”(60)
These prophecies declaring that the Church was to be world-wide and to
embrace even the Gentile nations may not strike us today as especially
remarkable, accustomed as we are now to meet with Christian civilization
everywhere, and to see the nations of the world bound so closely together
by social and commercial relations. But we must remember that when they
were uttered the true God was known and adored only in an obscure, almost
isolated, corner of the earth, while triumphant idolatry was the otherwise
universal religion of the world.
The prophecies were fulfilled. The Apostles scattered themselves over the
surface of the earth, preaching the Gospel of Christ. “Their sound,” says
St. Paul, “went over all the earth and their words unto the ends of the
whole world.”(61) Within thirty years after our Savior’s Crucifixion the
Apostle of the Gentiles was able to say to the Romans: “I give thanks to
my God through Jesus Christ because your faith is spoken of in the entire
world”(62)—spoken of assuredly by those who were in sympathy and communion
with the faith of the Romans.
St. Justin, Martyr, was able to say, about one hundred years after Christ,
that there was no race of men, whether Barbarians or Greeks, or any other
people of what name soever, among whom the name of Jesus Christ was not
invoked.
St. Irenaeus, writing at the end of the second century, tells us that the
religion so marvelously propagated throughout the whole world was not a
vague, ever-changing form of Christianity, but that “this faith and
doctrine and tradition preached throughout the globe is as uniform as if
the Church consisted of one family, possessing one soul, one heart, and as
if she had but one mouth. For, though the languages of the world are
dissimilar, her doctrine is the same. The churches founded in Germany, in
the Celtic nations, in the East in Egypt, in Lybia, and in the centres of
civilization, do not differ from each other; but as the sun gives the same
light throughout the world, so does the light of faith shine everywhere
the same and enlighten all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the
truth.”(63)
“We are but of yesterday,” says Tertullian, “and already have we filled
your cities, towns, islands, your council halls and camps ... the palace,
senate, forum; we have left you only the temples.”(64)
Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the second century, writes: “The word
of our Master did not remain in Judea, as philosophy remained in Greece,
but has been poured out over the whole world, persuading Greeks and
Barbarians alike, race by race, village by village, every city, whole
houses and hearers one by one—nay, not a few of the philosophers
themselves.”
And Origen, in the early part of the next century, observes: “In all
Greece, and in all barbarous races within our world, there are tens of
thousands who have left their national law and customary gods for the law
of Moses and the Word of Jesus Christ, though to adhere to that law is to
incur the hatred of idolaters and the risk of death besides to have
embraced that Word; and considering how, in so few years, in spite of the
attack made on us, even to the loss of life or property, and with no great
store of teachers, the preaching of that Word has found its way into every
part of the world, so that Greek and Barbarian, wise and unwise, adhere to
the religion of Jesus, doubtless it is a work greater than any work of
man.”
This Catholicity, or universality, is not to be found in any, or in all,
of the combined communions separated from the Roman Catholic Church.
The Schismatic churches of the East have no claim to this title because
they are confined within the Turkish and Russian dominions, and number not
more than sixty million souls.
The Protestant churches, even taken collectively, (as separate communions
they are a mere handful) are too insignificant in point of numbers, and
too circumscribed in their territorial extent, to have any pretensions to
the title of Catholic. All the Protestant denominations are estimated at
sixty-five million, or less than one-fifth of those who bear the Christian
name. They repudiate, moreover, and protest against the name of Catholic,
though they continue to say in the Apostles’ Creed “I believe in the Holy
Catholic Church.”
That the Roman Catholic Church alone deserves the name of _Catholic_ is so
evident that it is ridiculous to deny it. Ours is the only Church which
adopts this name as her official title. We have possession, which is
nine-tenths of the law. We have exclusively borne this glorious
appellation in troubled times, when the assumption of this venerable title
exposed us to insult, persecution and death; and to attempt to deprive us
of it at this late hour, would be as fruitless as the efforts of the
French Revolutionists who sought to uproot all traces of the old
civilization by assigning new names to the days and seasons of the year.
Passion and prejudice and bad manners may affix to us the epithets of
_Romish_ and _Papist_ and _Ultramontane_, but the calm, dispassionate
mind, of whatever faith, all the world, over, knows us only by the name of
_Catholic_. There is a power in this name and an enthusiasm aroused by it
akin to the patriotism awakened by the flag of one’s country.
So great is the charm attached to the name of Catholic that a portion of
the Episcopal body sometimes usurp the title of _Catholic_, though in
their official books they are named _Protestant Episcopalians_. If they
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? Afraid of going so far, they gratify their vanity by
privately calling themselves Catholic. But the delusion is so transparent
that the attempt must provoke a smile even among themselves.
Should a stranger ask them to direct him to the Catholic Church they would
instinctively point out to him the Roman Catholic Church.
The sectarians of the fourth and fifth centuries, as St. Augustine tells
us, used to attempt the same pious fraud, but signally failed:
“We must hold fast to the Christian religion and to the communion of that
Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by those
who belong to her, but also by all her enemies. Whether they will it or
not the very heretics themselves and followers of schism, when they
converse, not with their own but with outsiders, call that only Catholic
which is really Catholic. For they cannot be understood unless they
distinguish her by that name, by which she is known throughout the whole
earth.”(65)
We possess not only the name, but also the reality. A single illustration
will suffice to exhibit in a strong light the widespread dominion of the
Catholic Church and her just claims to the title of _Catholic_. Take the
Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, opened in 1869 and presided over by
Pope Pius IX. Of the thousand Bishops and upwards now comprising the
hierarchy of the Catholic Church, nearly eight hundred attended the
opening session, the rest being unavoidably absent. All parts of the
habitable globe were represented at the Council.
The Bishops assembled from Great Britain, Ireland, France, Germany,
Switzerland and from almost every nation and principality in Europe. They
met from Canada, the United States, Mexico and South America, and from the
islands of the Atlantic and the Pacific. They were gathered together from
different parts of Africa and Oceanica. They went from the banks of the
Tigris and Euphrates, the cradle of the human race, and from the banks of
the Jordan, the cradle of Christianity. They traveled to Rome from Mossul,
built near ancient Nineveh, and from Bagdad, founded on the ruins of
Babylon. They flocked from Damascus and Mount Libanus and from the Holy
Land, sanctified by the footprints of our blessed Redeemer.
Those Bishops belonged to every form of government, from the republic to
the most absolute monarchy.(66) Their faces were marked by almost every
shade and color that distinguished the human family. They spoke every
civilized language under the sun. Kneeling together in the same great
Council-Hall, truly could those Prelates exclaim, in the language of the
Apocalypse: “Thou hast redeemed us, O Lord, to God in Thy blood, out of
every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”(67)
What the Catholic Church lost by the religious revolution of the sixteenth
century in the old world she has more than regained by the immense
accessions to her ranks in the East and West Indies, in North and South
America.
Never, in her long history, was she numerically so strong as she is at the
present moment, when her children amount to about three hundred millions,
or double the number of those who bear the name of Christians outside of
her communion.
In her alone is literally fulfilled the magnificent prophecy of Malachy;
for in every clime, and in every nation under the sun, are erected
thousands of Catholic altars upon which the “clean oblation”(68) is daily
offered up to the Most High.
It is said, with truth, that the sun never sets on British dominions. It
may also be affirmed, with equal assurance, that wherever the British
drum-beat sounds, aye, and wherever the English language is spoken, there
you will find the English-speaking Catholic Missionary planting the
cross—the symbol of salvation—side by side with the banner of St. George.
Quite recently a number of European emigrants arrived in Richmond. They
were strangers to our country, to our customs and to our language. Every
object that met their eye sadly reminded them that they were far from
their own sunny Italy. But when they saw the cross surmounting our
Cathedral they hastened to it with a joyful step. I saw and heard a group
of them giving earnest expression to their deep emotions. Entering this
sacred temple, they felt that they had found an oasis in the desert. Once
more they were at home. They found one familiar spot in a strange land.
They stood in the church of their fathers, in the home of their childhood;
and they seemed to say in their hearts, as a tear trickled down their
sun-burnt cheeks, “How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of Hosts! My
soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my
flesh have rejoiced in the living God.”(69) They saw around them the
paintings of familiar Saints whom they had been accustomed to reverence
from their youth. They saw the baptismal font and the confessionals. They
beheld the altar and the altar-rails where they received their Maker. They
observed the Priest at the altar in his sacred vestments. They saw a
multitude of worshipers kneeling around them, and they felt in their heart
of hearts that they were once more among brothers and sisters, with whom
they had “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”
Everywhere a Catholic is at home. Secret societies, of whatever name, form
but a weak and counterfeit bond of union compared with the genuine
fellowship created by Catholic faith, hope and charity.
The Roman Catholic Church, then, exclusively merits the title of Catholic,
because her children abound in every part of the globe and comprise the
vast majority of the Christian family.
God forbid that I should write these lines, or that my Catholic readers
should peruse them in a boasting and vaunting spirit. God estimates men
not by their numbers, but by their intrinsic worth. It is no credit to us
to belong to the body of the Church Catholic if we are not united to the
soul of the Church by a life of faith, hope and charity. It will avail us
nothing to be citizens of that Kingdom of Christ which encircles the
globe, unless the Kingdom of God is within us by the reign of the Holy
Spirit in our hearts.
One righteous soul that reflects the beauty and perfections of the Lord,
is more precious in His sight than the mass of humanity that has no
spiritual life, and is dead to the inspirations of grace.
The Patriarch Abraham was dearer to Jehovah than all the inhabitants of
the corrupt city of Sodom.
Elias was of greater worth before the Almighty than the four hundred
prophets of Baal who ate at the table of Jezabel.
The Apostles with the little band of disciples that were assembled in
Jerusalem after our Lord’s ascension, were more esteemed by Him than the
great Roman Empire, which was seated in darkness and the shadow of death.
While we rejoice, then, in the inestimable blessing of being incorporated
in the visible body of the Catholic Church, whose spiritual treasures are
inexhaustible, let us rejoice still more that we have not received that
blessing in vain.
Chapter V.
APOSTOLICITY.
The true Church must be Apostolical. Hence in the Creed framed in the
first Ecumenical Council of Nicæa, in the year 325, we find these words:
“I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and _Apostolic_ Church.”
This attribute or note of the Church implies that the true Church must
always teach the identical doctrines once delivered by the Apostles, and
that her ministers must derive their powers from the Apostles by an
uninterrupted succession.
Consequently, no church can claim to be the true one whose doctrines
differ from those of the Apostles, or whose ministers are unable to trace,
by an unbroken chain, their authority to an Apostolic source; just as our
Minister to England can exercise no authority in that country unless he is
duly commissioned by our Government and represents its views.
The Church, says St. Paul, is “built upon the foundation of the
Apostles,”(70) so that the doctrine which it propagates must be based on
Apostolic teachings. Hence St. Paul says to the Galatians: “Though an
angel from heaven preach a Gospel to you beside that which we have
preached to you, let him be anathema.”(71) The same Apostle gives this
admonition to Timothy: “The things which thou hast heard from me before
many witnesses the _same_ commend to faithful men who shall be fit to
teach others also.”(72) Timothy must transmit to his disciples only such
doctrines as he heard from the lips of his Master.
Not only is it required that ministers of the Gospel should conform their
teaching to the doctrine of the Apostles, but also that these ministers
should be ordained and commissioned by the Apostles or their legitimate
successors. “Neither doth any man,” says the Apostle, “take the honor to
himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.”(73) This text
evidently condemns all self-constituted preachers and reformers; for, “how
shall they preach, unless they be sent?”(74) _Sent_, of course, by
legitimate authority, and not directed by their own caprice. Hence, we
find that those who succeeded the Apostles were ordained and commissioned
by them to preach, and that no others were permitted to exercise this
function. Thus we are told that Paul and Barnabas “had ordained for them
priests in every church.”(75) And the Apostle says to Titus: “For this
cause I left thee in Crete, ... that thou shouldst ordain Priests in every
city, as I also appointed thee.”(76) Even St. Paul himself, though
miraculously called and instructed by God, had hands imposed on him,(77)
lest others should be tempted by his example to preach without Apostolic
warrant.
To discover, therefore, the Church of Christ among the various conflicting
claimants we have to inquire, first, which church teaches whole and entire
those doctrines that were taught by the Apostles; second, what ministers
can trace back, in an unbroken line, their missionary powers to the
Apostles.
The Catholic Church _alone_ teaches doctrines which are _in all respects_
identical with those of the first teachers of the Gospel. The following
parallel lines exhibit some examples of the departure of the Protestant
bodies from the primitive teachings of Christianity, and the faithful
adhesion of the Catholic Church to them.
Apostolic Church. Catholic Church. Protestant Churches.
1. Our Savior gives The Catholic Church All other Christian
pre-eminence to Peter gives the primacy of communions practically
over the other honor and jurisdiction deny Peter’s supremacy
Apostles: “I will give to Peter and to his over the other
to thee the keys of the successors. Apostles.
kingdom of heaven.”(78)
“Confirm thy
brethren.”(79) “Feed My
lambs; feed My
sheep.”(80)
2. The Apostolic Church The Catholic Church All the Protestant
claimed to be alone, of all the churches repudiate the
infallible in her Christian communions, claim of infallibility.
teachings. Hence the claims to exercise the They deny that such a
Apostles spoke with prerogative of gift is possessed by
unerring authority, and infallibility in her any teachers of
their words were teaching. Her ministers religion. The ministers
received not as human always speak from the pronounce no
opinions, but as Divine pulpit as having authoritative
truths. “When you have authority, and the doctrines, but advance
received from us the faithful receive with opinions as embodying
word of God, you implicit confidence their private
received it not as the what the Church interpretation of the
word of men, but (as it teaches, without once Scripture. And their
is indeed) the word of questioning her hearers are never
God.”(81) “It hath veracity. required to believe
seemed good to the Holy them, but are expected
Ghost and to us,” say to draw their own
the assembled Apostles, conclusions from the
“to lay no further Bible.
burden upon you than
these necessary
things.”(82) “Though an
angel from heaven
preach a gospel to you
besides that which we
have preached to you,
let him be
anathema.”(83)
3. Our Savior enjoins The Church prescribes Protestants have no law
and prescribes rules fasting to the faithful prescribing fasts,
for fasting: “When thou at stated seasons, though some may fast
fastest, anoint thy particularly during from private devotion.
head and wash thy face, Lent. A Catholic priest They even try to cast
that thou appear not to is always fasting when ridicule on fasting as
men to fast ... and thy he officiates at the a work of
Father, who seeth in altar. He breaks his supererogation,
secret, will repay fast only after he says detracting from the
thee.”(84) The Apostles Mass. When Bishops merits of Christ.
fasted before engaging ordain Priests they are Neither candidates for
in sacred functions: always fasting, as well ordination, nor the
“They ministered to the as the candidates for ministers who ordain
Lord, and fasted.”(85) ordination. them, ever fast on such
“And when they ordained occasions.
Priests in every city,
they prayed with
fasting.”(86)
4. “Let women,” says The Catholic Church Women, especially in
the Apostle, “keep never permits women to this country, publicly
silence in the preach in the house of preach in Methodist and
churches. For, it is God. other churches with the
not permitted them to sanction of the church
speak ... It is a shame elders.
for a woman to speak in
the church.”(87)
5. St. Peter and St. Every Catholic Bishop, No denomination
John confirmed the as a successor of the performs the ceremony
newly baptized in Apostles, likewise of imposing hands in
Samaria: “They laid imposes hands on this country except
hands on them and they baptized persons in the Episcopalians, and even
received the Holy Sacrament of they do not recognize
Ghost.”(88) Confirmation, by which Confirmation as a
they receive the Holy Sacrament.
Ghost.
6. Our Savior and His The Catholic Church The Protestant churches
Apostles taught that teaches, with our Lord (except, perhaps, a few
the Eucharist contains and His Apostles, that Ritualists) condemn the
the Body and Blood of the Eucharist contains doctrine of the Real
Christ: “Take ye, and really and indeed the Presence as idolatrous,
eat; this is My Body and Blood of Jesus and say that, in
Body.... Drink ye all Christ under the partaking of the
of this, for this is my appearance of bread and communion, we receive a
Blood.”(89) “The wine. memorial of Christ.
chalice of benediction
which we bless, is it
not the communion of
the Blood of Christ;
and the bread which we
break, is it not the
participation of the
Body of the Lord?”(90)
7. The Apostles were The Bishops and Priests Protestants affirm, on
empowered by our Savior of the Catholic Church, the contrary, that God
to forgive sins:—“Whose as the inheritors of delegates to no man the
sins ye shall forgive, Apostolic prerogatives, power of pardoning sin.
they are forgiven.”(91) profess to exercise the
“God,” says St. Paul, ministry of
“hath given to us the reconciliation, and to
ministry of forgive sins in the
reconciliation.”(92) name of Christ.
8. Regarding the sick, One of the most No such ceremony as
St. James gives this ordinary duties of a that of anointing the
instruction: “Is any Catholic Priest is to sick is practised by
man sick among you, let anoint the sick in the any Protestant
him bring in the Sacrament of Extreme denomination,
priests of the Church, Unction. If a man is notwithstanding the
and let them pray over sick among us he is Apostle’s injunction.
him, anointing him with careful to call in the
oil in the name of the Priest of the Church,
Lord.”(93) that he may anoint him
with oil in the name of
the Lord.
9. Of marriage our Literally following the The Protestant
Savior says: “Whoever Apostle’s injunction, churches, as is well
shall put away his wife the Catholic Church known, have so far
and marry another forbids the husband and relaxed this rigorous
committeth adultery wife to separate from law of the Gospel as to
against her. And if the one another; or, if allow divorced persons
wife shall put away her they separate, neither to remarry. And divorce
husband and be married of them can marry again _a vinculo_ is granted
to another she during the life of the on various and even
committeth other. trifling pretenses.
adultery.”(94) And
again St. Paul says:
“To them that are
married ... the Lord
commandeth that the
wife depart not from
her husband, and if she
depart that she remain
unmarried.... And let
not the husband put
away his wife.”(95)
10. Our Lord recommends Like the Apostle and All the ministers of
not only by word, but his Master, the other denominations,
by His example, to Catholic clergy bind with very rare
souls aiming at themselves to a life of exceptions, marry. And
perfection, the state perpetual chastity. The far from inculcating
of perpetual virginity. inmates of our convents the Apostolic counsel
St. Paul also exhorts of men and women of celibacy to any of
the Corinthians by voluntarily consecrate their flock, they more
counsel and his own their virginity to God. than insinuate that the
example to the same virtue of perpetual
angelic virtue: “He chastity, though
that giveth his virgin recommended by St.
in marriage,” he says, Paul, is impracticable.
“doeth well. And he
that giveth her not
doeth better.”(96)
We now leave the reader to judge for himself which Church enforces the
doctrines of the Apostles in all their pristine vigor.
To show that the Catholic Church is the only lineal descendant of the
Apostles it is sufficient to demonstrate that she alone can trace her
pedigree, generation after generation, to the Apostles, while the origin
of all other Christian communities can be referred to a comparatively
modern date.
The most influential Christian sects existing in this country at the
present time are the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians
and Baptists. The other Protestant denominations are comparatively
insignificant in point of numbers, and are for the most part offshoots
from the Christian communities just named.
Martin Luther, a Saxon monk, was the founder of the church which bears his
name. He was born at Eisleben, in Saxony, in 1483, and died in 1546.
The Anglican or Episcopal Church owes its origin to Henry VIII. of
England. The immediate cause of his renunciation of the Roman Church was
the refusal of Pope Clement to grant him a divorce from his lawful wife,
Catharine of Aragon, that he might be free to be joined in wedlock to Anne
Boleyn. In order to legalize his divorce from his virtuous queen the
licentious monarch divorced himself and his kingdom from the spiritual
supremacy of the Pope.
“There is a close relationship,” says D’Aubigné, “between these two
divorces,” meaning Henry’s divorce from his wife and England’s divorce
from the Church. Yes, there is the relationship of cause and effect.
Bishop Short, an Anglican historian, candidly admits that “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 divorce.”(97)
The Book of Homilies, in the language of fulsome praise, calls Henry “the
true and faithful minister,” and gives him the credit for having abolished
in England the Papal supremacy and established the new order of
things.(98)
John Wesley is the acknowledged founder of the Methodist Church. Methodism
dates from the year 1729, and its cradle was the Oxford University in
England. John and Charles Wesley were students at Oxford. They gathered
around them a number of young men who devoted themselves to the frequent
reading of the Holy Scriptures and to prayer. Their methodical and exact
mode of life obtained for them the name of _Methodists_. The Methodist
Church in this country is the offspring of a colony sent hither from
England.
As it would be tedious to give even a succinct history of each sect, I
shall content myself with presenting a tabular statement exhibiting the
name and founder of each denomination, the place and date of its origin,
and the names of the authors from whom I quote. My authorities in every
instance are Protestants.
Name of Place Founder. Year. Authority
Sect. of Quoted.
Origin.
Anabaptists Germany Nicolas 1521 Vincent
Stork L.
Milner,
“Religious
Denominations.”
Baptists Rhode Roger 1639 “The Book of
Island Williams Religions” by
John Hayward.
Free-Will New Benj. 1780 Ibid.
Baptists Hampshire Randall
Free New York Benijah Close Rev. A. D.
Communion Corp of Williams in
Baptists 18th “History of all
century Denominations.”
Seventh-Day United General 1833 W. B. Gillett,
Baptists States Conference Ibid.
Campbellites, Virginia Alex. 1813 “Book of
or Campbell Religions.”
Christians
Methodist England John 1739 Rev. Nathan
Episcopal Wesley Bangs in
“History of all
Denominations.”
Reformed Vermont Branch of 1814 Ibid.
Methodist the Meth.
Episcopal
Church
Methodist New York Do. 1820 Rev. W. M.
Society Stilwell, Ibid.
Methodist Baltimore Do. 1830 James R.
Protestant Williams, Ibid.
True Wesleyan New York Delegates 1843 J. Timberman,
Methodist from Ibid.
Methodist
denominations
Presbyterian Scotland General 1560 John M. Krebs,
(Old School) Assembly Ibid.
Presbyterian Philadelphia General 1840 Joel Parker, D.
(New School) Assembly D., Ibid.
Episcopalian England Henry VIII 1534 Macaulay and
other English
Historians.
Lutheran Germany Martin Luther 1524 S. S. Schmucker
in “History of
all
Denominations.”
Unitarian Germany Celatius About Alvan Lamson,
Congrega- 1540 Ibid.
tionalists
Congrega- England Robert Browne 1583 E. W. Andrews,
tionalists Ibid.
Quakers England George Fox 1647 English
Historians.
Do America William Penn 1681 American
Historians.
Catholic Jerusalem Jesus 33 New Testament.
Church
From this brief historical tableau we find that all the Christian _sects_
now existing in the United States had their origin since the year 1500.
Consequently, the oldest body of Christians among us, outside the Catholic
Church, is not yet four centuries old. They all, therefore, come fifteen
centuries too late to have any pretensions to be called the Apostolic
Church.
But I may be told: “Though our public history as Protestants dates from
the Reformation, we can trace our origin back to the Apostles.” This I say
is impossible. First of all, 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? Nor can you say: “We existed
in every age as an invisible church.” Your concealment, indeed, was so
complete that no man can tell, to this day, where you lay hid for sixteen
centuries. But even if you did exist you could not claim to be the Church
of Christ; for our Lord predicted that His Church should ever be as a city
placed upon the mountain top, that all might see it, and that its
ministers should preach the truths of salvation from the watch-towers
thereof, that all might hear them.
It is equally in vain to tell me that you were allied in faith to the
various Christian sects that went out from the Catholic Church from age to
age; for these sects proclaimed doctrines diametrically opposed to one
another, and the true Church must be one in faith. And besides, the less
relationship you claim with many of these seceders the better for you, as
they all advocated errors against Christian truth, and some of them
disseminated principles at variance with _decency_ and morality.
The Catholic Church, 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.
All the Catholic Clergy in the United States, for instance, were ordained
only by Bishops who are in active communion with the See of Rome. These
Bishops themselves received their commissions from the Bishop of Rome. The
present Bishop of Rome, Pius IX., is the successor of Gregory XVI., who
succeeded Pius VIII., who was the successor of Leo XII. And thus we go
back from century to century till we come to Peter, the first Bishop of
Rome, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ. Like the Evangelist
Luke, who traces the genealogy of our Savior back to Adam and to God, we
can trace the pedigree of Pius IX. to Peter and to Christ. There is not a
link wanting in the chain which binds the humblest Priest in the land to
the Prince of the Apostles. 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 the Presidency could invalidate
the title of the recognized Chief Magistrate.
It was by pursuing this line of argument that the early Fathers
demonstrated the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church, and refuted the
pretensions of contemporary sectaries. St. Irenæus, Tertullian and St.
Augustine give catalogues of the Bishops of Rome who flourished up to
their respective times, with whom it was their happiness to be in
communion, and then they challenged their opponents to trace their lineage
to the Apostolic See. “Let them,” says Tertullian, in the second century,
“produce the origin of their church. Let them exhibit the succession of
their Bishops, so that the first of them may appear to have been ordained
by an _Apostle, or by an apostolic man who was in communion with the
Apostles_.”(99)
And if the Fathers of the fifth century considered it a powerful argument
in their favor that they could refer to an uninterrupted line of fifty
Bishops who occupied the See of Rome, how much stronger is the argument to
us who can now exhibit five times that number of Roman Pontiffs who have
sat in the chair of Peter! I would affectionately repeat to my separated
brethren what Augustine said to the Donatists of his time: “Come to us,
brethren if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. We are afflicted in
beholding you lying cut off from it. Count over the Bishops from the very
See of St. Peter, and mark, in this list of Fathers, how one succeeded the
other. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not
prevail.”(100)
Chapter VI.
PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH.
Perpetuity, or duration till the end of time, is one of the most striking
marks of the Church. By perpetuity is not meant merely that Christianity
in one form or another was always to exist, but that the Church was to
remain forever in its _integrity_, clothed with _all_ those attributes
which God gave it in the beginning. For, if the Church lost any of her
essential characteristics, such as her unity and sanctity, which our Lord
imparted to her at the commencement of her existence, she could not be
said to be perpetual because she would not be the same Institution.
The unceasing duration of the Church of Christ is frequently foretold in
Sacred Scripture. The Angel Gabriel announces to Mary that Christ “shall
reign over the house of Jacob _forever_, and of his kingdom _there shall
be no end_.”(101) Our Savior said to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.”(102) Our blessed Lord clearly intimates here that the Church
is destined to be assailed always, but to be overcome, never.
In the last words recorded of our Redeemer in the Gospel of St. Matthew
the same prediction is strongly repeated, and the reason of the Church’s
indefectibility is fully expressed: “Go ye, teach all nations, ... and
behold I am with you _all days_, even _to the consummation_ of the
world.”(103) This sentence contains three important declarations:
First—The presence of Christ with His Church—“Behold, I am with you.”
Second—His constant presence, without an interval of one day’s absence—“I
am with you all days.” Third—His perpetual presence to the end of the
world, and consequently the perpetual duration of the Church—“Even to the
consummation of the world.”
Hence it follows that the true Church must have existed from the
beginning; it must have had not one day’s interval of suspended animation,
or separation from Christ, and must live to the end of time.
None of the Christian Communions outside the Catholic Church can have any
reasonable claim to _Perpetuity_, since, as we have seen in the preceding
chapter, they are all(104) of recent origin.
The indestructibility of the Catholic Church is truly marvellous and well
calculated to excite the admiration of every reflecting mind, when we
consider the number and variety, and the formidable power of the enemies
with whom she had to contend from her very birth to the present time; this
fact alone stamps divinity on her brow.
The Church has been constantly engaged in a double warfare, one foreign,
the other domestic—in foreign war against Paganism and infidelity; in
civil strife against heresy and schism fomented by her own rebellious
children.
From the day of Pentecost till the victory of Constantine the Great over
Maxentius, embracing a period of about two hundred and eighty years, the
Church underwent a series of ten persecutions unparalleled for atrocity in
the annals of history. Every torture that malice could invent was resorted
to, that every vestige of Christianity might be eradicated.
_“__Christianos ad leones,__”__ the Christians to the lions_, was the
popular war-cry.
They were clothed in the skins of wild beasts, and thus exposed to be
devoured by dogs. They were covered with pitch and set on fire to serve as
lamp-posts to the streets of Rome. To justify such atrocities, and to
smother all sentiments of compassion, these persecutors accused their
innocent victims of the most appalling crimes.
For three centuries the Christians were obliged to worship God in the
secrecy of their chambers, or in the Roman catacombs, which are still
preserved to attest the undying fortitude of the martyrs and the enormity
of their sufferings.
And yet Pagan Rome, before whose standard the mightiest nations quailed,
was unable to crush the infant Church or arrest her progress. In a short
time we find this colossal Empire going to pieces, and the Head of the
Catholic Church dispensing laws to Christendom in the very city from which
the imperial Cæsars had promulgated their edicts against Christianity!
During the fifth and sixth centuries the Goths and Vandals, the Huns,
Visigoths, Lombards and other immense tribes of Barbarians came down like
a torrent from the North, invading the fairest portions of Southern
Europe. They dismembered the Roman Empire and swept away nearly every
trace of the old Roman civilization. They plundered cities, leveled
churches and left ruin and desolation after them. Yet, though conquering
for awhile, they were conquered in turn by submitting to the sweet yoke of
the Gospel. And thus, as even the infidel Gibbon observes, “The progress
of Christianity has been marked by two glorious and decisive victories
over the learned and luxurious citizens of the Roman Empire and over the
warlike Barbarians of Scythia and Germany, who subverted the empire and
embraced the religion of the Romans.”(105)
Mohamedanism took its rise in the seventh century in Arabia, and made
rapid conquests in Asia. In the fifteenth century Constantinople was
captured by the followers of the false prophet, who even threatened to
subject all Europe to their sway. For nine centuries Mohamedanism
continued to be a standing menace to christendom, till the final issue
came when it was to be decided once for all whether Christianity and
civilization on the one hand, or Mohamedanism and infidelity on the other,
should rule the destinies of Europe and the world.
At the earnest solicitation of the Pope, the kingdom of Spain and the
republic of Venice formed an offensive league against the Turks, who were
signally defeated in the battle of Lepanto, in 1571. And if the Cross,
instead of the Crescent, surmounts the cities of Europe today, it is
indebted for this priceless blessing to the vigilance of the Roman
Pontiffs.
Another adversary more formidable and dangerous than those I have
mentioned threatened the overthrow of the Church in the fourth and fifth
centuries. I speak of the great heresy of Arius, which was followed by
those of Nestorius and Eutyches.
The Arian schism, soon after its rise, spread rapidly through Europe,
Northern Africa and portions of Asia. It received the support of immense
multitudes, and flourished for awhile under the fostering care of several
successive emperors. Catholic Bishops were banished from their sees, and
their places were filled by Arian intruders. The Church which survived the
sword of Paganism seemed for awhile to yield to the poison of Arianism.
But after a short career of prosperity this gigantic sect became weakened
by intestine divisions, and was finally swept away by other errors which
came following in its footsteps.
You are already familiar with the great religious revolution of the
sixteenth century, which spread like a tornado over Northern Europe and
threatened, if that were possible, to engulf the bark of Peter. More than
half of Germany followed the new Gospel of Martin Luther. Switzerland
submitted to the doctrines of Zuinglius. The faith was lost in Sweden
through the influence of its king, Gustavus Vasa. Denmark conformed to the
new creed through the intrigues of King Christian II. Catholicity was also
crushed out in Norway, England and Scotland. Calvinism in the sixteenth
century and Voltaireism in the eighteenth had gained such a foothold in
France that the faith of that glorious Catholic nation twice trembled in
the balance. Ireland alone, of all the nations of Northern Europe,
remained faithful to the ancient Church.
Let us now calmly survey the field after the din and smoke of battle have
passed away. Let us examine the condition of the old Church after having
passed through those deadly conflicts. We see her numerically stronger
today than at any previous period of her history. The losses she sustained
in the old world are more than compensated by her acquisitions in the new.
She has already recovered a good portion of the ground wrested from her in
the sixteenth century. She numbers now about three hundred million
adherents. She exists today not an effete institution, but in all the
integrity and fulness of life, with her organism unimpaired, more united,
more compact and more vigorous than ever she was before.
The so-called Reformation of the sixteenth century bears many points of
resemblance to the great Arian heresy. Both schisms originated with
Priests impatient of the yoke of the Gospel, fond of novelty and ambitious
for notoriety. Both were nursed and sustained by the reigning Powers, and
were augmented by large accessions of proselytes. Both spread for awhile
with the irresistible force of a violent hurricane, till its fury was
spent. Both subsequently became subdivided into various bodies. The
extinction of Protestantism would complete the parallel.
In this connection a remark of De Maistre is worth quoting: “If
Protestantism bears always the same name, though its belief has been
perpetually shifting, it is because its name is purely negative and means
only the denial of Catholicity, so that the less it believes, and the more
it protests, the more consistently Protestant it will be. Since, then, its
name becomes continually truer, it must subsist until it perishes, just as
an ulcer disappears with the last atom of the flesh which it has been
eating away.”(106)
But similar causes will produce similar results. As both revolutions were
the offspring of rebellion; as both have been marked by the same vigorous
youth, the same precocious manhood, the same premature decay and
dismemberment of parts; so we are not rash in predicting that the
dissolution which long since visited the former is destined, sooner or
later, to overtake the latter. But the Catholic Church, because she is the
work of God, is always “renewing her strength, like the eagle’s.”(107) You
ask for a miracle, as the Jews asked our Saviour for a sign. You ask the
Church to prove her divine mission by a miraculous agency. Is not her very
survival the greatest of prodigies? If you beheld some fair bride with all
the weakness of humanity upon her, cast into a prison and starved and
trampled upon, hacked and tortured, her blood sprinkled upon her dungeon
walls, and if you saw her again emerging from her prison, in all the bloom
and freshness of youth, and surviving for years and centuries beyond the
span of human life, continuing to be the joyful mother of children, would
you not call that scene a miracle?
And is not this a picture of our Mother, the Church? Has she not passed
through all these vicissitudes? Has she not tasted the bitterness of
prison in every age? Has not her blood been shed in every clime?
And yet in her latter days, she is as fair as ever, and the nursing mother
of children. Are not civil governments and institutions mortal as well as
men? Why should the Republic of the Church be an exception to the law of
decay and death? If this is not a miracle, I know not what a miracle is.
If Augustin, that profound Christian philosopher, could employ this
argument in the fifth century, with how much more force may it be used
today, fifteen hundred years after his time!
But far be it from us to ascribe to any human cause this marvelous
survival of the Church.
Her indestructibility is not due, as some suppose, to her wonderful
organization, or to the far-reaching policy of her Pontiffs, or to the
learning and wisdom of her teachers. If she has survived, it is not
because of human wisdom, but often in spite of human folly. Her permanence
is due not to the arm of the flesh, but to the finger of God. “Not to us,
O Lord, not to us, but to Thy name give glory.”
I would now ask this question of all that are hostile to the Catholic
Church and that are plotting her destruction: How can you hope to overturn
an institution which for more than nineteen centuries has successfully
resisted all the combined assaults of the world, of men, and of the powers
of darkness? What means will you employ to encompass her ruin?
I. Is it the power of Kings, and Emperors, and Prime Ministers? They have
tried in vain to crush her, from the days of the Roman Cæsars to those of
the former Chancellor of Germany.
Many persons labor under the erroneous impression that the crowned heads
of Europe have been the unvarying supporters of the Church, and that if
their protection were withdrawn she would soon collapse. So far from the
Church being sheltered behind earthly thrones, her worst enemies have
been, with some honorable exceptions, so-called Christian Princes who were
nominal children of the Church. They chafed under her salutary discipline;
they wished to be rid of her yoke, because she alone, in time of
oppression, had the power and the courage to stand by the rights of the
people, and place her breast as a wall of brass against the encroachments
of their rulers. With calm confidence we can say with the Psalmist: “Why
have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of
the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord, and
against his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast away
their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them and the
Lord shall deride them.”(108)
II. Can the immense resources and organized power of rival religious
bodies succeed in absorbing her and in bringing her to naught? I am not
disposed to undervalue this power. Against any human force it would be
irresistible. But if the colossal strength, and incomparable machinery of
the Roman Empire could not prevent the establishment of the Church; if
Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism could not check her development, how
can modern organizations stop her progress now, when in the fulness of her
strength?
It is easier to preserve what is created, than to create anew.
III. But we have been told: “Take from the Pope his Temporal power and the
Church is doomed to destruction. This is the secret of her strength; strip
her of this, and, like Samson shorn of his hair, she will betray all the
weakness of a poor mortal. Then this brilliant luminary will wax pale and
she will sink below the horizon, never more to rise again.”
For more than seven centuries after the establishment of the Church the
Popes had no sovereign territorial jurisdiction. How could she have
outlived that period, if the temporal power were essential to her
perpetuity? And even since 1870 the Pope has been deprived of his
temporalities. This loss, however, does not bring a wrinkle on the fair
brow of the Church, nor does it retard one inch her onward march.
IV. Is she unable to cope with modern inventions and the mechanical
progress of the nineteenth century? We are often told so; but far from
hiding our head, like the ostrich in the sand, at the approach of these
inventions we hail them as messengers of God, and will use them as
Providential instruments for the further propagation of the faith.
If we succeeded so well before, when we had no ships but frail canoes, no
compass but our eyes; when we had no roads but eternal snows, virgin
forests and trackless deserts; when we had no guide save faith, and hope,
and God—if even then we succeeded so well in carrying the Gospel to the
confines of the earth, how much more can we do now by the aid of
telegraph, steamships and railroads?
Yes, O men of genius, we bless your inventions; we bless you, ye modern
discoveries; and we will impress you into the service of the Church and
say: “Fire and heat bless the Lord. Lightnings and clouds bless the Lord;
all ye works of the Lord bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all
forever.”(109)
The utility of modern inventions to the Church has lately been manifested
in a conspicuous manner. The Pope called a council of all the Bishops of
the world. Without the aid of steam it would have been almost impossible
for them to assemble; by its aid they were able to meet from the uttermost
bounds of the earth.
V. But may not the light of the Church grow pale and be extinguished
before the intellectual blaze of the nineteenth century? Has she not much
to fear from literature, the arts and sciences? She has always been the
Patroness of literature, and the fostering Mother of the arts and
sciences. She founded and endowed nearly all the great universities of
Europe.
Not to mention those of the continent, a bare catalogue of which would
cover a large space, I may allude to the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, the two most famous seats of learning in England, which were
established under Catholic auspices centuries before the Reformation.
The Church also founded three of the four universities now existing in
Scotland, viz: St. Andrew’s in 1411, Glasgow in 1450 and Aberdeen in 1494.
Without her we should be deprived to-day of the priceless treasures of
ancient literature; for, in preserving the languages of Greece and Rome
from destruction, she rescued classical writers of those countries from
oblivion. Hallam justly observes that, were it not for the diligent labors
of the monks in the Middle Ages, our knowledge of the history of ancient
Greece and Rome would be as vague today as our information regarding the
Pyramids of Egypt.
And as for works of art, there are more valuable monuments of art
contained in the single museum of the Vatican than are to be found in all
our country. Artists are obliged to go to Rome to consult their best
models. Our churches are not only temples of worship, but depositories of
sacred art. For our intellectual progress we are in no small measure
indebted to the much-abused Middle Ages. Tyndall has the candor to observe
that “The nineteenth century strikes its roots into the centuries gone by
and draws nutriment from them.”(110)
VI. Is it liberty that will destroy the Church? The Church breathes freely
and expands with giant growth, where true liberty is found. She is always
cramped in her operations wherever despotism casts its dark shadow.
Nowhere does she enjoy more independence than here; nowhere is she more
vigorous and more prosperous.
Children of the Church, fear nothing, happen what will to her. Christ is
with her and therefore she cannot sink. Cæsar, in crossing the Adriatic,
said to the troubled oarsman: “Quid times? Cæsarem vehis.” What Cæsar said
in presumption Jesus says with truth: What fearest thou? Christ is in the
ship. Are we not positive that the sun will rise tomorrow and next day,
and so on to the end of the world? Why? Because God so ordained when He
established it in the heavens; and because it has never failed to run its
course from the beginning. Has not Christ promised that the Church should
always enlighten the world? Has He not, so far, fulfilled His promise
concerning His Church? Has she not gone steadily on her course amid storm
and sunshine? The fulfilment of the past is the best security for the
future.
Amid the continual changes in human institutions she is the one
Institution that never changes. Amid the universal ruins of earthly
monuments she is the one monument that stands proudly pre-eminent. Not a
stone in this building falls to the ground. Amid the general destruction
of kingdoms her kingdom is never destroyed. Ever ancient and ever new,
time writes no wrinkles on her Divine brow.
The Church has seen the birth of every government of Europe, and it is not
at all improbable that she shall also witness the death of them all and
chant their requiem. She was more than fourteen hundred years old when
Columbus discovered our continent, and the foundation of our Republic is
but as yesterday to her.
She calmly looked on while the Goths and the Visigoths, the Huns and the
Saxons swept like a torrent over Europe, subverting dynasties. She has
seen monarchies changed into republics, and republics consolidated into
empires—all this has she witnessed, while her own Divine Constitution has
remained unaltered. Of Her we can truly say in the words of the Psalmist:
“They shall perish, but thou remainest; and all of them shall grow old as
a garment. And as a vesture Thou shalt change them, and they shall be
changed. But thou art always the self-same, and thy years shalt not fail.
The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be
directed forever.”(111) God forbid that we should ascribe to any human
cause this marvellous survival of the Church. Her indestructibility is not
due, as some suppose, to her wonderful organization, or to the
far-reaching policy of her Pontiffs, or to the learning and wisdom of her
teachers. If she has survived, it is not because of human wisdom, but
often in spite of human folly. Her permanence is due not to the arm of the
flesh, but to the finger of God.
In the brightest days of the Republic of Pagan Rome the Roman said with
pride: “I am a Roman citizen.” This was his noblest title. He was proud of
the Republic, because it was venerable in years, powerful in the number of
its citizens, and distinguished for the wisdom of its statesmen. What a
subject of greater glory to be a citizen of the Republic of the Church
which has lasted for nineteen centuries, and will continue till time shall
be no more; which counts her millions of children in every clime; which
numbers her heroes and her martyrs by the thousand; which associates you
with the Apostles and Saints. “You are no more strangers and foreigners,
but you are fellow-citizens with the Saints and the domestics of God,
built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief cornerstone.”(112) Though separated from earthly
relatives and parents, you need never be separated from her. She is ever
with us to comfort us. She says to us what her Divine Spouse said to His
Apostles: “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the
world.”(113)
Chapter VII.
INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
The Church has authority from God to teach regarding faith and morals, and
in her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the
Holy Ghost.
The prerogative of infallibility is clearly deduced from the attributes of
the Church already mentioned. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic. Preaching the same creed everywhere and at all times; teaching
holiness and truth, she is, of course, essentially unerring in her
doctrine; for what is one, holy or unchangeable must be infallibly true.
That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age is denied by no
Christian. We never question the truth of the Apostles’ declarations;(114)
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 denying 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 nowhere intimates that
this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as
the Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to
baptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to
them the no less essential gift of infallibility.
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.
It will not suffice to tell me: “We have an infallible Scripture as a
substitute for an infallible apostolate of the first century,” for an
infallible book is of no use to me without an infallible interpreter, as
the history of Protestantism too clearly demonstrates.
But besides these presumptive arguments, we have positive evidence from
Scripture that the Church cannot err in her teachings. Our blessed Lord,
in constituting St. Peter Prince of His Apostles, says to him: “Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.”(115) Christ makes here a solemn prediction
that no error shall ever invade His Church, and if she fell into error the
gates of hell have certainly prevailed against her.
The Reformers of the sixteenth century affirm that the Church did fall
into error; that the gates of hell did prevail against her; that from the
sixth to the sixteenth century she was a sink of iniquity. The Book of
Homilies of the Church of England says that the Church “lay buried in
damnable idolatry for eight hundred years or more.” The personal veracity
of our Savior and of the Reformers is here at issue, for our Lord makes a
statement which they contradict. Who is to be believed, Jesus or the
Reformers?
If the prediction of our Savior about the preservation of His Church from
error be false, then Jesus Christ is not God, since God cannot lie. He is
not even a prophet, since He predicted falsehood. Nay, He is an impostor,
and all Christianity is a miserable failure and a huge deception, since it
rests on a false Prophet.
But if Jesus predicted the truth when He declared that the gates of hell
should not prevail against His Church—and who dare deny it?—then the
Church never has and never could have fallen from the truth; then the
Catholic Church is infallible, for she alone claims that prerogative, and
she is the only Church that is acknowledged to have existed from the
beginning. Truly is Jesus that wise Architect mentioned in the Gospel,
“who built his house upon a rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came,
and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it
was founded upon a rock.”(116)
Jesus sends forth the Apostles with plenipotentiary powers to preach the
Gospel. “As the Father,” He says, “hath sent Me, I also send you.”(117)
“Going therefore, teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you.”(118) “Preach the Gospel to every
creature.”(119) “Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.”(120)
This commission evidently applies not to the Apostles only, but also to
their successors, to the end of time, since it was utterly impossible for
the Apostles personally to preach to the whole world.
Not only does our Lord empower His Apostles to preach the Gospel, but He
commands, and under the most severe penalties, those to whom they preach
to listen and obey. “Whosoever will not receive you, nor hear your words,
going forth from that house or city, shake the dust from your feet. Amen,
I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and
Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city.”(121) “If he will not
hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.”(122)
“He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be
condemned.”(123) “He that heareth you heareth Me; he that despiseth you
despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.”(124)
From these passages we see, on the one hand, that the Apostles and their
successors have received full powers to announce the Gospel; and on the
other, that their hearers are obliged to listen with docility and to obey
not merely by an external compliance, but also by an internal assent of
the intellect. If, therefore, the Catholic Church could preach error,
would not God Himself 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?
But we may rest assured that an all-wise Providence who commands His
Church to speak in His name will so guide her in the path of truth that
she shall never lead into error those that follow her teachings.
But as this privilege of Infallibility was a very extraordinary favor, our
Savior confers it on the rulers of His Church in language which removes
all doubt from the sincere inquirer, and under circumstances which add to
the majesty of His word. Shortly before His death Jesus consoles His
disciples by this promise: “I will ask the Father, and He shall give you
another Paraclete, _that He may abide with you forever_.... But when He,
the Spirit of truth, shall come, _He will teach you all truth_.”(125)
The following text of the same import forms the concluding words recorded
of our Savior in St. Matthew’s Gospel: “All power is given to Me in heaven
and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, ... teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am
with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”(126)
He begins by asserting His own Divine authority and mission. “All power is
given,” etc. That power He then delegates to His Apostles and to their
successors: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,” etc. He does not
instruct them to scatter Bibles broadcast over the earth, but to teach by
word of mouth. “And behold!” Our Savior never arrests the attention of His
hearers by using the interjection, _behold_, unless when He has something
unusually solemn and extraordinary to communicate. An important
announcement is sure to follow this word. “Behold, I am with you.” These
words, “_I am with you_,” are frequently addressed in Sacred Scripture by
the Almighty to His Prophets and Patriarchs, and they always imply a
special presence and a particular supervision of the Deity.(127) They
convey the same meaning in the present instance. Christ says equivalently
I who “am the way, the truth and the life,” will protect you from error
and will guide you in your speech. I will be with you, not merely during
_your_ natural lives, not for a century only, but all days, at all times,
without intermission, even to the end of the world.
These words of Jesus Christ establish two important facts: First—A promise
to guard His Church from error. Second—A promise that His presence with
the Church will be continuous, without any interval of absence, to the
consummation of the world.
And this is also the sentiment of the Apostle of the Gentiles writing to
the Ephesians: God “gave some indeed Apostles, and some Prophets, and some
Evangelists, and others Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the
Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of
Christ, until we all meet in the unity of faith, ... that we may no more
be children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine, by the wickedness of men, in craft, by which they lie in wait to
deceive.”(128)
Notwithstanding these plain declarations of Scripture, some persons think
it an unwarrantable assumption for the Church to claim infallibility. But
mark the consequences that follow from denying it.
If your church is not infallible it is liable to err, for there is no
medium between infallibility and liability to error. If your church and
her ministers are fallible in their doctrinal teachings, as they admit,
they may be preaching falsehood to you, instead of truth. If so, you are
in doubt whether you are listening to truth or falsehood. If you are in
doubt you can have no faith, for faith excludes doubt, and in that state
you displease God, for “without faith it is impossible to please
God.”(129) Faith and infallibility must go hand in hand. The one cannot
exist without the other. There can be no faith in the hearer unless there
is unerring authority in the speaker—an authority founded upon such
certain knowledge as precludes the possibility of falling into error on
his part, and including such unquestioned veracity as to prevent his
deceiving him who accepts his word.
You admit infallible certainty in the physical sciences; why should you
deny it in the science of salvation? The astronomer can predict with
accuracy a hundred years beforehand an eclipse of the sun or moon. He can
tell what point in the heavens a planet will reach on a given day. The
mariner, guided by his compass, knows, amid the raging storm and the
darkness of the night, that he is steering his course directly to the city
of his destination; and is not an infallible guide as necessary to conduct
you to the city of God in heaven? Is it not, moreover, a blessing and a
consolation that, amid the ever-changing views of men, amid the conflict
of human opinion and the tumultuous waves of human passion, there is one
voice heard above the din and uproar, crying in clear, unerring tones:
“Thus saith the Lord?”
It is very strange that the Catholic Church must apologize to the world
for simply declaring that she speaks the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.
The Roman Pantheon was dedicated to all the gods of the Empire, and their
name was legion. Formidable also in numbers are the Founders of the
religious sects existing in our country. A Pantheon as vast as Westminster
Abbey would hardly be spacious enough to contain life-sized statues for
their accommodation.
If you were to confront those figures, and to ask them, one by one, to
give an account of the faith they had professed, and if they were endowed
with the gift of speech, you would find that no two of them were in entire
accord, but that they all differed among themselves on some fundamental
principle of revelation.
Would you not be acting very unwisely and be hazarding your soul’s
salvation in submitting to the teachings of so many discordant and
conflicting oracles.
Children of the Catholic Church, give thanks to God that you are members
of that Communion, which proclaims year after year the one same and
unalterable message of truth, peace and love, and that you are preserved
from all errors in faith, and from all illusion in the practice of virtue.
You are happily strangers to those interior conflicts, to those perplexing
doubts and to that frightful uncertainty which distracts the souls of
those whose private judgment is their only guide, who are “ever learning
and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.”(130) You are not, like
others, drifting helplessly over the ocean of uncertainty and “carried
about by every wind of doctrine.” You are not as “blind men led by blind
guides.” You are not like those who are in the midst of a spiritual desert
intersected by various by-paths, not knowing which to pursue; but you are
on that high road spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, which is so “straight a
way that fools shall not err therein.”(131) You are a part of that
universal Communion which has no “High Church” and “Low Church;” no “New
School” and “Old School,” for you all belong to that School which is “ever
ancient and ever new.” You enjoy that profound peace and tranquillity
which springs from the conscious possession of the whole truth. Well may
you exclaim: “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell
together in unity.”(132)
Give thanks, moreover, to God that you belong to a Church which has also a
keen sense to detect and expose those moral shams, those pious frauds,
those socialistic schemes which are so often undertaken in this country
ostensibly in the name of religion and morality, but which, in reality,
are subversive of morality and order, which are the offspring of
fanaticism, and serve as a mask to hide the most debasing passions.
Neither Mormons nor Millerites, nor the advocates of free love or of
women’s rights, so called, find any recruits in the Catholic Church. She
will never suffer her children to be ensnared by these impostures, how
specious soever they may be.
From what has been said in the preceding pages, it follows that the
Catholic Church cannot be reformed. I do not mean, of course, that the
Pastors of the Church are personally impeccable or not subject to sin.
Every teacher in the Church, from the Pope down to the humblest Priest, is
liable at any moment, like any of the faithful, to fall from grace and to
stand in need of moral reformation. We all carry “this treasure (of
innocence) in earthen vessels.”
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. Is it not the
height of presumption for men to attempt to improve upon the work of God?
Is it not ridiculous for the Luthers, the Calvins, the Knoxes and the
Henries and a thousand lesser lights to be offering their amendments to
the Constitution of the Church, as if it were a human Institution?
Our Lord Himself has never ceased to rule personally over His Church. It
is time enough for little men to take charge of the Ship when the great
Captain abandons the helm.
A Protestant gentleman of very liberal education remarked to me, before
the opening of the late Ecumenical Council: “I am assured, sir, by a
friend, in confidence, that, at a secret Conclave of Bishops recently held
in Rome it was resolved that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception would
be reconsidered and abolished at the approaching General Council; in fact,
that the definition was a mistake, and that the blunder of 1854 would be
repaired in 1869.” I told him, of course, that no such question could be
entertained in the Council; that the doctrinal decrees of the Church were
irrevocable, and that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined
once and forever.
If only one instance could be given in which the Church ceased to teach a
doctrine of faith which had been previously held, that single instance
would be the death blow of her claim to infallibility. But it is a
marvelous fact worthy of record that in the whole history of the Church,
from the nineteenth century 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. Her record in
the past ought to be a sufficient warrant that she will tolerate no
doctrinal variations in the future.
If, as we have seen, the Church has authority from God to teach, and if
she teaches nothing but the truth, is it not the duty of all Christians to
hear her voice and obey her commands? She is the organ of the Holy Ghost.
She is the Representative of Jesus Christ, who has said to her: “He that
heareth you heareth Me; he that despiseth you despiseth Me.” She is the
Mistress of truth. It is the property of the human mind to embrace truth
wherever it finds it. It would, therefore, be not only an act of
irreverence, but of sheer folly, to disobey the voice of this
ever-truthful Mother.
If a citizen is bound to obey the laws of his country, though these laws
may not in all respects be conformable to strict justice; if a child is
bound by natural and divine law to obey his mother, though she may
sometimes err in her judgments, how much more strictly are not we obliged
to be docile to the teachings of the Catholic Church, our Mother, whose
admonitions are always just, whose precepts are immutable!
“For twenty years,” observed a recently converted Minister of the
Protestant Church, “I fought and struggled against the Church with all the
energy of my will. But when I became a Catholic all my doubts ended, my
inquiries ceased. I became as a little child, and rushed like a lisping
babe into the arms of my mother.” By Baptism Christians become children of
the Church, no matter who pours upon them the regenerating waters. If she
is our Mother, where is our love and obedience? When the infant seeks
nourishment at its mother’s breast it does not analyze its food. When it
receives instructions from its mother’s lips it never doubts, but
instinctively believes. When the mother stretches forth her hand the child
follows unhesitatingly. The Christian should have for his spiritual Mother
all the simplicity, all the credulity, I might say, of a child, guided by
the instincts of faith. “Unless ye become,” says our Lord, “as little
children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”(133) “As
new-born babes, desire the rational milk without guile; that thereby you
may grow unto salvation.”(134) In her nourishment there is no poison; in
her doctrines there is no guile.
Chapter VIII.
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.
The Church, as we have just seen, is the only Divinely constituted teacher
of Revelation.
Now, the Scripture is the great depository of the Word of God. Therefore,
the Church is the divinely appointed Custodian and Interpreter of the
Bible. For, her office of infallible Guide were superfluous if each
individual could interpret the Bible for himself.
That God never intended the Bible to be the Christian’s rule of faith,
independently of the living authority of the Church, will be the subject
of this chapter.
No nation ever had a greater veneration for the Bible than the Jewish
people. The Holy Scripture was their pride and their glory. It was their
national song in time of peace; it was their meditation and solace in time
of tribulation and exile. And yet the Jews never dreamed of settling their
religious controversies by a private appeal to the Word of God.
Whenever any religious dispute arose among the people it was decided by
the High Priest and the Sanhedrim, which was a council consisting of
seventy-two civil and ecclesiastical judges. The sentence of the High
Priest and of his associate judges was to be obeyed under penalty of
death. “If thou perceive,” says the Book of Deuteronomy, “that there be
among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, ... thou shalt come to
the Priests of the Levitical race and to the judge, ... and they shall
show thee the truth of the judgment.... And thou shalt follow their
sentence; neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the
left.... But he that will ... refuse to obey the commandment of the
Priest, ... that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from
Israel.”(135)
From this clear sentence you perceive that God does not refer the Jews for
the settlement of their controversies to the letter of the law, but to the
living authority of the ecclesiastical tribunal which He had expressly
established for that purpose.
Hence, the Priests were required to be intimately acquainted with the
Sacred Scripture, because they were the depositaries of God’s law, and
were its expounders to the people. “The lips of the Priest 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.”(136)
And, in fact, very few of the children of Israel, except the Priests, were
in possession of the Divine Books. The holy manuscript was rare and
precious. And what provision did God make that all the people might have
an opportunity of hearing the Scriptures? Did He command the sacred volume
to be multiplied? No; but He ordered the _Priests_ and the _Levites_ to be
distributed through the different tribes, that they might always be at
hand to instruct the people in the knowledge of the law. The Jews were
even forbidden to read certain portions of the Scripture till they had
reached the age of thirty years.
Does our Savior reverse this state of things when He comes on earth? Does
He tell the Jews to be their own guides in the study of the Scriptures? By
no means; but He commands them to obey their constituted teachers, no
matter how disedifying might be their private lives. “Then said Jesus to
the multitudes and to His disciples: The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon
the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you,
observe and do.”(137)
It is true our Lord said on one occasion “Search the Scriptures, for you
_think_ in them to have life everlasting, and the same are they that give
testimony to Me.”(138) This passage is triumphantly quoted as an argument
in favor of private interpretation. But it proves nothing of the kind.
Many learned commentators, ancient and modern, express the verb in the
indicative mood: “Ye search the Scriptures.” At all events, our Savior
speaks here only of the Old Testament because the New Testament was not
yet written. He addresses not the multitude, but the Pharisees, who were
the teachers of the law, and reproaches them for not admitting His
Divinity. “You have,” He says, “the Scriptures in your hands; why then do
you not recognize Me as the Messiah, since they give testimony that I am
the Son of God?” He refers them to the Scriptures for a proof of His
Divinity, not as to a source from which they were to derive all knowledge
in regard to the truths of revelation.
Besides, He did not rest the proof of His Divinity upon the _sole_
testimony of Scripture. For He showed it First—By the testimony of John
the Baptist (v. 33), who had said, “Behold the Lamb of God; behold Him who
taketh away the sins of the world.” See also John i. 34.
Second—By the miracles which He wrought (v. 36).
Third—By the testimony of the Father (v. 37), when He said: “This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.” Matt. iii. 16; Luke
ix. 35.
Fourth—By the Scriptures of the Old Testament; as if He were to say, “If
you are unwilling to receive these three proofs, though they are most
cogent, at least you cannot reject the testimony of the Scriptures, of
which you boast so much.”
Finally, in this very passage our Lord is explaining the sense of Holy
Writ; therefore, its true meaning is not left to the private
interpretation of every chance reader. It is, therefore, a grave
perversion of the sacred text to adduce these words in vindication of
private interpretation of the Scriptures.
But when our Redeemer abolished the Old Law and established His Church,
did He intend that His Gospel 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 preaching alone that
He intended to convert the nations, and by preaching alone they were
converted. No nation has ever yet been converted by the agency of Bible
Associations.
Jesus Himself never wrote a line of Scripture. He never once commanded His
Apostles to write a word,(139) or even to circulate the Scriptures already
existing. When He sends them on their Apostolic errand, He says: “Go
_teach_ all nations.”(140) “_Preach_ the Gospel to every creature.”(141)
“He that heareth you heareth Me.”(142) And we find the Apostles acting in
strict accordance with these instructions.
Of the twelve Apostles, the seventy-two disciples, and early followers of
our Lord only eight have left us any of their sacred writings. And the
Gospels and Epistles were addressed to particular persons or particular
churches. They were written on the occasion of some emergency, just as
Bishops issue Pastoral letters to correct abuses which may spring up in
the Church, or to lay down some rules of conduct for the faithful. The
Apostles are never reported to have circulated a single volume of the Holy
Scripture, but “they going forth, _preached_ everywhere, the Lord
co-operating with them.”(143)
Thus we see that in the Old and the New Dispensation the people were to be
guided by a living authority, and not by their private interpretation of
the Scriptures.
Indeed, until the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, 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. How are your civil affairs regulated in this State, for instance?
Certainly not in accordance with your personal interpretation of the laws
of Virginia, but in accordance with decisions which are rendered by the
constituted judges of the State.
Now what the civil code is to the citizen, the Scripture is to the
Christian. The Word of God, as well as the civil law, must have an
interpreter, by whose decision we are obliged to abide.
We often hear the shibboleth: “The Bible, and the Bible only, must be your
guide.” Why, then, do you go to the useless expense of building fine
churches and Sabbath-schools? What is the use of your preaching sermons
and catechizing the young, if the Bible at home is a sufficient guide for
your people? The fact is, you reverend gentlemen contradict in practice
what you so vehemently advance in theory. Do not tell me that the Bible is
all-sufficient; or, if you believe it is self-sufficient, cease your
instructions. Stand not between the people and the Scriptures.
I will address myself now in a friendly spirit to a non-Catholic, and will
proceed to show him that he cannot consistently accept the silent Book of
Scripture as his sufficient guide.
A copy of the sacred volume is handed to you by your minister, who says:
“Take this book; you will find 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; for every part of the Bible is far from possessing
intrinsic evidences of inspiration? It may, for ought you know, contain
more than the Word of God, or it may not contain all the Word of God. We
must not suppose that the Bible was always, as it is now, a compact book,
bound in a neat form. It was for several centuries in scattered fragments,
spread over different parts of Christendom. Meanwhile, many spurious
books, under the name of Scripture, were circulated among the faithful.
There was, for instance, the spurious Gospel of St. Peter; there was also
the Gospel of St. James and of St. Matthias.
The Catholic Church, 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. Even to this
day the Christian sects do not agree among themselves as to what books are
to be accepted as genuine. Some Christians of continental Europe do not
recognize the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke because these Evangelists
were not among the Apostles. Luther used to call the Epistle of St. James
a letter of straw.
But even when you are assured that the Bible contains the Word of God, and
nothing but the Word of God, how do you know that the translation is
faithful? The Books of Scripture were originally written in Hebrew and
Greek, and you have only the translation. Before you are certain that the
translation is faithful you must study the Hebrew and Greek languages, and
then compare the translation with the original. How few are capable of
this gigantic undertaking!
Indeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to
receive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole
Guardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years.
But after having ascertained to your satisfaction that the translation is
faithful, still the Scriptures can never 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 everyone; it must be clear
and intelligible; it must be able to satisfy us on all questions relating
to faith and morals.
First—A complete guide of salvation must be within the reach of every
inquirer after truth; for, God “wishes all men to be saved, and to come to
the knowledge of the truth;”(144) and therefore He must have placed within
the reach of everyone the means of arriving at the truth. Now, it is clear
that the Scriptures could not at any period have been accessible to
everyone.
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 Christian religion was founded in the year 33. St.
Matthew’s Gospel, the first part of the New Testament ever written, did
not appear till eight years after. The Church was established about twenty
years when St. Luke wrote his Gospel. And St. John’s Gospel did not come
to light till toward the end of the first century. For many years after
the Gospels and Epistles were written the knowledge of them was confined
to the churches to which they were addressed. It was not till the close of
the fourth century that the Church framed her Canon of Scripture and
declared the Bible, as we now possess it, to be the genuine Word of God.
And this was the golden age of Christianity! The most perfect Christians
lived and died and went to heaven before the most important parts of the
Scriptures were written. And what would have become of them if the Bible
alone had been their guide?
The art of printing was not invented till the fifteenth century (1440).
How utterly impossible it was to supply everyone with a copy of the
Scriptures _from the fourth to the fifteenth century_! During that long
period Bibles had to be copied with the pen. There were but a few hundred
of them in the Christian world, and these were in the hands of the clergy
and the learned. “According to the Protestant system, the art of printing
would have been much more necessary to the Apostles than the gift of
tongues. It was well for Luther that he did not come into the world until
a century after the immortal invention of Guttenberg. A hundred years
earlier his idea of directing two hundred and fifty million men to read
the Bible would have been received with shouts of laughter, and would
inevitably have caused his removal from the pulpit of Wittenberg to a
hospital for the insane.”(145)
And even _at the present day_, with all the aid of steam printing presses,
with all the Bible Associations extending through this country and
England, and supported at enormous expense, it taxes all their energies to
supply every missionary country with Bibles printed in the languages of
the tribes and peoples for whom they are intended.
But even if the Bible were at all times accessible to everyone, how many
millions exist in every age and country, not excepting our own age of
boasted enlightenment, who are not accessible to the Bible because they
are incapable of reading the Word of God! Hence, the doctrine of private
interpretation would render many men’s salvation not only difficult, but
impossible.
Second—A competent religious guide must be clear and intelligible to all,
so that everyone 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. St. Peter himself informs us that in the Epistles of St.
Paul there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned
and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction.”(146) And consequently he tells us elsewhere “that no
prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation.”(147)
We read in the Acts of the Apostles that a certain man was riding in his
chariot, reading the Book of Isaiah, and being asked by St. Philip whether
he understood the meaning of the prophecy he replied: “How can I
understand unless some man show me?”(148) admitting, by these modest
words, that he did not pretend of himself to interpret the Scriptures.
The Fathers of the Church, though many of them spent their whole lives in
the study of the Scriptures, are unanimous in pronouncing the Bible a book
full of knotty difficulties. And yet we find in our days pedants, with a
mere smattering of Biblical knowledge, who see no obscurity at all in the
Word of God, and who presume to expound it from Genesis to Revelation.
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
Does not the conduct of the Reformers conclusively show the utter folly of
interpreting the Scriptures by private judgment? As soon as they rejected
the oracle of the Church, and set up their own private judgment as the
highest standard of authority, they could hardly agree among themselves on
the meaning of a single important text. The Bible became in their hands a
complete Babel. The sons of Noe attempted in their pride to ascend to
heaven by building the tower of Babel, and their scheme ended in the
confusion and multiplication of tongues. The children of the Reformation
endeavored in their conceit to lead men to heaven by the private
interpretation of the Bible, and their efforts led to the confusion and
the multiplication of religions. Let me give you one example out of a
thousand. These words of the Gospel, “This is My Body,” were understood
only in one sense before the Reformation. The new lights of the sixteenth
century gave no fewer than eighty different meanings to these four simple
words, and since their time the number of interpretations has increased to
over a hundred.
No one will deny that in our days there exists a vast multitude of sects,
which are daily multiplying. No one will deny(149) 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. Every new-fledged divine, with a superficial education,
imagines that he has received a call from heaven to inaugurate a new
religion, and he is ambitious of handing down his fame to posterity by
stamping his name on a new sect. And every one of these champions of
modern creeds appeals to the unchanging Bible in support of his
ever-changing doctrines.
Thus, one body of Christians will prove from the Bible that there is but
one Person in God, while the rest will prove from the same source that a
Trinity of Persons is a clear article of Divine Revelation. One will prove
from the Holy Book that Jesus Christ is not God. Others will appeal to the
same text to attest His Divinity. One denomination will assert on the
authority of Scripture that infant baptism is not necessary for salvation,
while others will hold that it is. Some Christians, with Bible in hand,
will teach that there are no sacraments. Others will say that there are
only two. Some will declare that the inspired Word does not preach the
eternity of punishments. Others will say that the Bible distinctly
vindicates that dogma. Do not clergymen appear every day in the pulpit,
and on the authority of the Book of Revelation point out to us with
painful accuracy the year and the day on which this world is to come to an
end? And when their prophecy fails of execution they coolly put off our
destruction to another time.
Very recently several hundred Mormon women presented a petition to the
government at Washington protesting against any interference with their
abominable polygamy and they insist that their cherished system is
sustained by the Word of God.
Such is the legitimate fruit of private interpretation! Our civil
government is run not by private judgment, but by the constituted
authorities. No one in his senses would allow our laws to be interpreted,
and war to be declared by sensational journals, or by any private
individuals. Why not apply the same principle to the interpretation of the
Bible and the government of the Church?
Would it not be extremely hazardous to make a long voyage in a ship in
which the officers and crew are fiercely contending among themselves about
the manner of explaining the compass and of steering their course? How
much more dangerous is it to trust to contending captains in the journey
to heaven! Nothing short of an infallible authority should satisfy you
when it is a question of steering your course to eternity. On this vital
point there should be no conflict of opinion among those that guide you.
There should be no conjecture. But there must be always someone at the
helm whose voice gives assurance amid the fiercest storms that _all is
well_.
Third—A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to
instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures
alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe,
nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to
practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to
sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work?
Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred
duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you
will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The
Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we
never sanctify.
The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles
inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by
the inspired writers.(150) For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy
Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible.
We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures _alone_ cannot be a
sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be
within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves
clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and
because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.
God forbid that any of my readers should be tempted to conclude from what
I have said that the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the
Scriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible. The Catholic Church the
enemy of the Bible! Good God! What monstrous ingratitude! What base
calumny is contained in that assertion! As well might you accuse the
Virgin Mother of trying to crush the Infant Savior at her breast as to
accuse the Church, our Mother, of attempting to crush out of existence the
Word of God. As well might you charge the patriotic statesman with
attempting to destroy the constitution of his country, while he strove to
protect it from being mutilated by unprincipled demagogues.
For fifteen centuries the Church was the sole guardian and depository of
the Bible, and if she really feared that sacred Book, who was to prevent
her, during that long period, from tearing it in shreds and scattering it
to the winds? She could have thrown it into the sea, as the unnatural
mother would have thrown away her off-spring, and who would have been the
wiser?
What has become of those millions of once famous books 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 Church. Without her
fostering care the New Testament would probably be as little known today
as “the Book of the days of the kings of Israel.”(151)
Little do we imagine, in our age of steam printing, how much labor it cost
the Church to preserve and perpetuate the Sacred Scriptures. Learned
monks, who are now abused in their graves by thoughtless men, were
constantly employed in copying with the pen the Holy Bible. When one monk
died at his post another took his place, watching like a faithful sentinel
over the treasure of God’s Word.
Let me give you a few plain facts to show the pains which the Church has
taken to perpetuate the Scriptures.
The Canon of the Bible, as we have seen, was framed in the fourth century.
In that same century Pope Damasus commanded a new and complete translation
of the Scriptures to be made into the Latin language, which was then the
living tongue not only of Rome and Italy, but of the civilized world.
If the Popes were afraid that the Bible should see the light, this was a
singular way of manifesting their fear.
The task of preparing a new edition of the Scriptures was assigned to St.
Jerome, the most learned Hebrew scholar of his time. This new translation
was disseminated throughout Christendom, and on that account was called
the _Vulgate_, or popular edition.
In the sixth and seventh centuries the modern languages of Europe began to
spring up like so many shoots from the parent Latin stock. The Scriptures,
also, soon found their way into these languages. The Venerable Bede, who
lived in England in the eighth century, and whose name is profoundly
reverenced in that country, translated the Sacred Scriptures into Saxon,
which was then the language of England. He died while dictating the last
verses of St. John’s Gospel.
Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a funeral discourse on Queen
Anne, consort of Richard II., pronounced in 1394, praises her for her
diligence in reading the four Gospels. The Head of the Church of England
could not condemn in others what he commended in the queen.
Sir Thomas More affirms that, before the days of Wycliffe, there was an
English version of the Scriptures, “by good and godly people with devotion
and soberness well and reverently read.”(152)
If partial restrictions began to be placed on the circulation of the Bible
in England in the fifteenth century, these restrictions were occasioned by
the conduct of Wycliffe and his followers, who not only issued a new
translation, on which they engrafted their novelties of doctrine, but also
sought to explain the sacred text in a sense foreign to the received
interpretation of tradition.
While laboring to diffuse the Word of God it is the duty, as well as the
right of the Church, as the guardian of faith, to see that the faithful
are not misled by unsound editions.
Printing was invented in the fifteenth century, and almost a hundred years
later came the Reformation. It is often triumphantly said, and I suppose
there are some who, even at the present day, are ignorant enough to
believe the assertion, that the first edition of the Bible ever published
after the invention of printing was the edition of Martin Luther. The fact
is, that before Luther put his pen to paper, 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. Of those editions, twenty-one
were published in German, one in Spanish, four in French, twenty-one in
Italian, five in Flemish and four in Bohemian.
Coming down to our own times, if you open an English Catholic Bible you
will find in the preface a letter of Pope Pius VI., in which he strongly
recommends the pious reading of the Holy Scriptures. A Pope’s letter is
the most weighty authority in the Church. You will also find in Haydock’s
Bible the letters of the Bishops of the United States, in which they
express the hope that this splendid edition would have a wide circulation
among their flocks.
These facts ought, I think, to convince every candid mind that the Church,
far from being opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, does all she can
to encourage their perusal.
A gentleman of North Carolina lately informed me that the first time he
entered a 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 unfounded charge that Catholics were forbidden to read the Scriptures.
He has since embraced the Catholic faith.
And perhaps I may be permitted here to record my personal experiences
during a long course of study. I speak of myself, not because my case is
exceptional, but, on the contrary, because my example will serve to
illustrate the system pursued toward ecclesiastical students in all
colleges throughout the Catholic world in reference to the Holy
Scriptures.
In our course of Humanities we listened every day to the reading of the
Bible. When we were advanced to the higher branches of Philosophy and
Theology the study of the Sacred Scriptures formed an important part of
our education. We read, besides, every day a chapter of the New Testament,
not standing or sitting, but on our knees, and then reverently kissed the
inspired page. We listened at our meals each day to selections from the
Bible, and we always carried about with us a copy of the New Testament.
So familiar, indeed, were the students with the sacred Volume that many of
them, on listening to a few verses, could tell from what portion of the
Scriptures you were reading. The only dread we were taught to have of the
Scriptures was that of reading them without fear and reverence.
And after his ordination every Priest is obliged in conscience to devote
upwards of an hour each day to the perusal of the Word of God. I am not
aware that clergymen of other denominations are bound by the same duty.
What is good for the clergy must be good, also, for the laity. Be assured
that if you become a Catholic you will never be forbidden to read the
Bible. It is our earnest wish that every word of the Gospel may be
imprinted on your memory and on your heart.
Chapter IX.
THE PRIMACY OF PETER.
The Catholic Church teaches also, that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the
first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole
Church, and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the
Popes, or Bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter.
Consequently, to be true followers of Christ all Christians, both among
the clergy and the laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where
Peter rules in the person of his successor.
Before coming to any direct proofs on this subject 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. In the Jewish Church there were
Priests and Levites ordained to minister at the altar; and there was,
also, a supreme ecclesiastical tribunal, with the High Priest at its head.
All matters of religious controversy were referred to this tribunal and in
the last resort to the High Priest, whose decision was enforced under pain
of death. “If there be a hard matter in judgment between blood and blood,
cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy, ... thou shalt come to the Priests
of the Levitical race and to the judge, ... and they shall show thee true
judgment. And thou shalt do whatever they say who preside in the place
which the Lord shall choose, and thou shalt follow their sentence. And
thou shalt not decline to the right hand, or to the left.... But he that
... will refuse to obey the commandment of the Priest, who ministereth at
the time, ... that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from
Israel.”(153)
From this passage 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 figure
of the Christian Church; for “all these things happened to them (the Jews)
in figure.”(154) We must, therefore, find in the Church of Christ a
spiritual judge, exercising the same supreme authority as the High Priest
wielded in the Old Law. For if a supreme Pontiff was necessary, in the
Mosaic dispensation, to maintain purity and uniformity of worship, the
same dignitary is equally necessary now to preserve unity of faith.
Every well-regulated civil government has an acknowledged head. The
President is the head of the United States Government. Queen Victoria is
the ruler of Great Britain. The Sultan sways the Turkish Empire. If these
nations had no authorized leader to govern them they would be reduced to
the condition of a mere mob, and anarchy, confusion and civil war would
inevitably follow, as recently happened to France after the fall of
Napoleon III.
Even in every well-ordered family, domestic peace requires that someone
preside.
Now, the Church of Christ is a visible society—that is, a society composed
of human beings. She has, it is true, a spiritual end in view; but having
to deal with men, she must have a government as well as every other
organized society. This government, at least in its essential elements,
our Lord must have established for His Church. For was He not as wise as
human legislators? And shall we suppose that, of all lawgivers, the Wisdom
Incarnate alone left His Kingdom on earth to be governed without a head?
But someone will tell me: “We do not deny that the Church has a head. God
himself is its Ruler.” This is evading the real question. Is not God the
Ruler of all governments? “By Me,” He says, “kings reign, and lawgivers
decree just things.”(155) He is the recognized Head of our Republic, and
of every Christian family in the land; but, nevertheless, there is always
presiding over the country a visible chief, who represents God on earth.
In like manner the Church, besides an invisible Head in heaven, must have
a visible head on earth. The body and members of the Church are visible;
why not also the Head? The Church without a supreme Ruler would be like an
army without a general, a navy without an admiral, a sheep-fold without a
shepherd, or like a human body without a head.
The Christian communities separated from the Catholic Church deny that
Peter received any authority over the other Apostles, and hence they
reject the supremacy of the Pope.
The absence from the Protestant communions of a Divinely appointed,
visible Head is to them an endless source of weakness and dissension. It
is an insuperable barrier against any hope of a permanent reunion among
themselves, because they are left without a common rallying centre or
basis of union and are placed in an unhappy state of schism.
The existence, on the contrary, of a supreme judge of controversy in the
Catholic Church is the secret of her admirable unity. This is the keystone
that binds together and strengthens the imperishable arch of faith.
From the very fact, then, of the existence of a supreme Head in the Jewish
Church; from the fact that a Head is always necessary for civil
government, for families and corporations; from the fact, especially, that
a visible Head is essential to the maintenance of unity in the Church,
while the absence of a Head necessarily leads to anarchy, we are forced to
conclude, even though positive evidence were wanting, that, in the
establishment of His Church, it must have entered into the mind of the
Divine Lawgiver to place over it a primate invested with superior judicial
powers.
But have we any positive proof that Christ did appoint a supreme Ruler
over His Church? To those, indeed, who read the Scriptures with the single
eye of pure intention the most abundant evidence of this fact is
furnished. To my mind the New Testament establishes no doctrine, unless it
satisfies every candid reader that our Lord gave plenipotentiary powers to
Peter to govern the whole Church. In this chapter I shall speak of the
Promise, the Institution, and the exercise of Peter’s Primacy, as recorded
in the New Testament. The next chapter shall be devoted to its perpetuity
in the Popes.
_Promise of the Primacy._ Our Saviour, on a certain occasion, asked His
disciples, saying: “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? And they said:
Some say that Thou art John the Baptist; and others, Elias; and others,
Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do ye say
that I am?” Peter, as usual, is the leader and spokesman. “Simon Peter
answering, said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus
answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and
blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I
say to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My
Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed also heaven.”(156) Here we find Peter
confessing the Divinity of Christ, and in reward for that confession he is
honored with the promise of the Primacy.
Our Savior, by the words “thou art Peter,” clearly alludes to the new name
which He Himself had conferred upon Simon, when He received him into the
number of His followers (John i. 42); and He now reveals the reason for
the change of name, which was to insinuate the honor He was to confer on
him, by appointing him President of the Christian Republic; just as God,
in the Old Law, changed Abram’s name to Abraham, when He chose him to be
the father of a mighty nation.
The word _Peter_, in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, which our Savior spoke,
means _a rock_. The sentence runs thus in that language: _“__Thou art a
rock, and on this rock I will build My Church.__”_ Indeed, all respectable
Protestant commentators have now abandoned, and even ridicule, the
absurdity of applying the word _rock_ to anyone but to Peter; as the
sentence can bear no other construction, unless our Lord’s good grammar
and common sense are called in question.
Jesus, our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on
Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its
foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand,
for it is not the work of God. This is plain. Would to God that all would
see it aright and with eyes free from prejudice.
He continues: “And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,”
etc. In ancient times, and particularly among the Hebrew people, keys were
an emblem of jurisdiction. To affirm that a man had received the keys of a
city was equivalent to the assertion that he had been appointed its
governor. In the Book of Revelation our Savior says that He has “the keys
of death and of hell,”(157) which means that He is endowed with power over
death and hell. In fact, even to this day does not the presentation of
keys convey among ourselves the idea of authority? If the proprietor of a
house, on leaving it for the summer, says to any friend: “Here are the
keys of my house,” would not this simple declaration, without a word of
explanation, convey the idea, “I give you full control of my house; you
may admit or exclude whom you please; you represent me in my absence?” Let
us now apply this interpretation to our Redeemer’s words. When He says to
Peter: “I will give to thee the keys,” etc., He evidently means: I will
give the supreme authority over My Church, which is the citadel of faith,
My earthly Jerusalem. Thou and thy successors shall be My visible
representatives to the end of time. And be it remembered that to Peter
alone, and to no other Apostle, were these solemn words addressed.
_Fulfillment of the Promise._ The promise which our Redeemer made of
creating Peter the supreme ruler of His Church is fulfilled in the
following passage: “Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest
thou Me more than these? He saith to Him: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I
love Thee. He saith to him: Feed My lambs. He saith to him again: Simon,
son of John, lovest thou Me? He saith to Him: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that
I love Thee. He saith to him: Feed My lambs. He saith to him the third
time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved because He had
said to him the third time: Lovest thou Me? And he said to Him: Lord, Thou
knowest all things. Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said to him: Feed My
sheep.”(158)
These words were addressed by our Lord to Peter after His resurrection.
The whole sheep-fold of Christ is confided to him, without any exception
or limitation. Peter 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, who hold the same
relations to their congregations that the sheep hold to the lambs, because
they bring forth unto Jesus Christ, and nourish the spiritual lambs of the
fold. To other Pastors a certain portion of the flock is assigned; to
Peter the entire fold; for, never did Jesus say to any other Apostle or
Bishop what He said to Peter: Feed My whole flock.
Candid reader, do you not profess to be a member of Christ’s flock? Yes,
you answer. Do you take your spiritual food from Peter and his successor,
and do you hear the voice of Peter, or have you wandered into the fold of
strangers who spurn Peter’s voice? Ponder well this momentous question.
For if Peter is authorized to feed the lambs of Christ’s flock, the lambs
should hear Peter’s voice.
_Exercise of the Primacy._ In the Acts of the Apostles, which contain
almost the only Scripture narrative that exists of the Apostles subsequent
to our Lord’s ascension, St. Peter appears before us, like Saul among the
tribes, standing head and shoulders over his brethren by the prominent
part he takes in every ministerial duty.
The first twelve chapters of the Acts are devoted to Peter and to some of
the other Apostles, the remaining chapters being chiefly occupied with the
labors of the Apostles of the Gentiles. In that brief historical fragment,
as well as in the Gospels, the name of Peter is everywhere pre-eminent.
Peter’s name always stands first in the list of the Apostles, while Judas
Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.(159) Peter is even called by St.
Matthew _the first Apostle_. Now Peter was first neither in age nor in
priority of election, his elder brother Andrew having been chosen before
him. The meaning, therefore, of the expression must be that Peter was
first not only in rank and honor, but also in authority.
Peter is the first Apostle who performed a miracle.(160) He is the first
to address the Jews in Jerusalem while his Apostolic brethren stand
respectfully around him, upon which occasion he converts three thousand
souls.(161)
Peter is the first to make converts from the Gentile world in the persons
of Cornelius and his friends.(162)
When there is question of electing a successor to Judas 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
instructions of their leader.(163)
In the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter is the first whose sentiments
are recorded. Before his discourse “there was much disputing.” But when he
had ceased to speak “all the multitude held their peace.”(164)
St. James and the other Apostles concur in the sentiments of Peter without
a single dissenting voice.
St. James is cast into prison by Herod and afterward beheaded. He was one
of the three most favored Apostles. He was the cousin of our Lord and
brother of St. John. He was most dear to the faithful. Yet no
extraordinary efforts are made by the faithful to rescue him from death.
Peter is imprisoned about the same time. The whole Church is aroused.
Prayers for his deliverance ascend to heaven, not only from Jerusalem but
also from every Christian family in the land.(165)
The army of the Lord can afford to lose a chieftain in the person of
James, but it cannot yet spare the commander-in-chief. The enemies of the
Church had hoped that the destruction of the chief shepherd would involve
the dispersion of the whole flock; therefore they redoubled their fury
against the Prince of the Apostles, just as her modern enemies concentrate
their shafts against the Pope, his successor. Does not this incident
eloquently proclaim Peter’s superior authority? In fact Peter figures so
conspicuously in every page that his Primacy is not only admissible, but
is forced on the judgment of the impartial reader.
What are the principal objections advanced against the Primacy of Peter?
They are chiefly, I may say exclusively, confined to the three following:
First—That our Lord rebuked Peter. Second—That St. Paul criticised his
conduct on a point not affecting doctrine, but discipline. The Apostle of
the Gentiles blames St. Peter because he withdrew for a time from the
society of the Gentile converts, for fear of scandalizing the
newly-converted Jews.(166) Third—That the supremacy of Peter conflicts
with the supreme dominion of Christ.
For my part I cannot see how these objections can invalidate the claims of
Peter. Was not Jesus Peter’s superior? May not a superior rebuke his
servant without infringing on the servant’s prerogatives?
And why could not St. Paul censure the conduct of St. Peter without
questioning that superior’s authority? It is not a very uncommon thing for
ecclesiastics occupying an inferior position in the Church to admonish
even the Pope. St. Bernard, though only a monk, wrote a work in which,
with Apostolic freedom, he administers counsel to Pope Eugenius III., and
cautions him against the dangers to which his eminent position exposes
him. Yet no man had more reverence for any Pope than Bernard had for this
great Pontiff. Cannot our Governor animadvert upon the President’s conduct
without impairing the President’s jurisdiction?
Nay, 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 _withstood Peter to his face_. Do you think it would be worth
recording if Paul had rebuked James or John or Barnabas? By no means. If
one brother rebukes another, the matter excites no special attention. But
if a son rebukes his father, or if a Priest rebukes his Bishop to his
face, we understand why he would consider it a fact worth relating. Hence,
when St. Paul goes to the trouble of telling us that he took exception to
Peter’s conduct, he mentions it as an extraordinary exercise of Apostolic
freedom, and leaves on our mind the obvious inference that Peter was his
superior.
In the very same Epistle to the Galatians St. Paul plainly insinuates St.
Peter’s superior rank. “I went,” he says, “to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
I tarried with him fifteen days.”(167) Saints Chrysostom 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. St. Jerome observes in a humorous vein that “Paul
went not to behold Peter’s eyes, his cheeks or his countenance, whether he
was thin or stout, with nose straight or twisted, covered with hair or
bald, not to observe the outward man, _but to show honor to the first
Apostle_.”
There are others who pretend, in spite of our Lord’s declaration to the
contrary, that loyalty to Peter is disloyalty to Christ, and that, by
acknowledging Peter as the rock on which the Church is built, we set our
Savior aside. So far from this being the case, we acknowledge Jesus Christ
as the “chief cornerstone,” as well as the Divine Architect of the
building.
The true test of loyalty to Jesus is not only to worship Him, but to
venerate even the representatives whom He has chosen. Will anyone pretend
to say that my obedience to the Governor’s appointee is a mark of
disrespect to the Governor himself? I think our State Executive would have
little faith in the allegiance of any citizen who would say to him:
“Governor, I honor you personally, but your official’s order I shall
disregard.”
St. Peter is called the first Bishop of Rome because he transferred his
see from Antioch to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.
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.
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 Ephesus, and that St. Andrew was crucified.
The Scripture is silent regarding these historical records, and yet they
are denied by no one.
The intrinsic evidence of St. Peter’s first Epistle, the testimony of his
immediate successors in the ministry, as well as the avowal of eminent
Protestant commentators, all concur in fixing the See of Peter in Rome.
“Babylon,” from which Peter addresses his first Epistle, is understood by
learned annotators, Protestant and Catholic, to refer to Rome—the word
Babylon being symbolical of the corruption then prevailing in the city of
the Cæsars.
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; Irenæus,
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.
John Calvin, a witness above suspicion; Cave, an able Anglican critic;
Grotius and other distinguished Protestant writers, do not hesitate to
re-echo the unanimous voice of Catholic tradition.
Indeed, no historical fact will escape the shafts of incredulity, if St.
Peter’s residence and glorious martyrdom in Rome are called in question.
Chapter X.
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPES.
The Church did not die with Peter. It was destined to continue till the
end of time; consequently, whatever official prerogatives were conferred
on Peter were not to cease at his death, but were to be handed down to his
successors from generation to generation. 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; as the Church is now more widely diffused than it was then, and
is ruled by frailer men, it is more than ever in need of a central power
to preserve its unity of faith and uniformity of discipline.
Whatever privileges, therefore, were conferred on Peter which may be
considered essential to the government 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.
Peter, it is true, besides the prerogatives inherent in his office,
possessed also the gift of inspiration and the power of working miracles.
These two latter gifts are not claimed by the Pope, as they were personal
to Peter and by no means essential to the government 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
miraculous 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.
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.
As the present question, however, is a subject of vast importance, I shall
endeavor to show, from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes
have always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise supreme
jurisdiction not only in the Western Church till the Reformation, but also
throughout the Eastern Church till the great schism of the ninth century.
First—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 jurisdiction. We do not appeal from Washington to Richmond,
but from Richmond to Washington. Now, if we find the See of Rome from the
foundation of Christianity entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from
the Oriental churches; if 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.
Let me give you a few illustrations:
To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the third successor of St. Peter,
and who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles. 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. And so great was the reverence entertained for these Epistles
by the faithful of Corinth that, for a century later, it was customary to
have them publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians appeal
to Rome, far away in the West, and not to Ephesus, so near home in the
East, where the Apostle St. John still lived? Evidently because the
jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while that of Rome was universal.
About the year 190 the question regarding the proper day for celebrating
Easter was agitated in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The
Eastern Church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the Jews
kept the Passover, while in the West it was observed then, as it is now,
on the first Sunday after the full moon of the vernal equinox. St. Victor
directs the Eastern churches, for the sake of uniformity, to conform to
the practice of the West, and his instructions are universally followed.
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was martyred in 258.
From his appeals to Pope St. Cornelius and to Pope St. Stephen, especially
on the subject of baptism, from his writings and correspondence, as well
as from the whole tenor of his administration, it is quite evident that
Cyprian, as well as the African Episcopate, upheld the supremacy of the
Bishop of Rome.
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 own orthodoxy.
St. Athanasius, the great patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth
century to Pope Julius I. from an unjust decision rendered against him by
the Oriental Bishops, and the Pope(168) reverses the sentence of the
Eastern Council.
St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the same century has recourse in his
afflictions to the protection of Pope Damasus.
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, appeals in the beginning
of the fifth century to Pope Innocent I. for a redress of grievances
inflicted on him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia
of Constantinople.
St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; Nestorius, also,
appeals to the same Pontiff, who takes the side of Cyril.
In a Synod held in 444, St. Hilary, Archbishop of Arles, in Gaul, deposed
Celidonius, Bishop of Besancon, on the ground of an alleged canonical
impediment to his consecration. The Bishop appealed to the Holy See, and
both he and the Metropolitan personally repaired to Rome, to submit their
cause to the judgment of Pope Leo the Great. After a careful
investigation, the Pontiff declared the sentence of the Synod invalid,
revoked the censure, and restored the deposed Prelate to his See.
The same Pontiff also rebuked Hilary for having irregularly deposed
Projectus from his See.
The judicial authority of the Pope is emphasized from the circumstance
that Hilary was not an arrogant or a rebellious churchman, but an edifying
and a zealous Prelate. He is revered by the whole Church as a canonized
Saint, and after his death, Leo refers to him as Hilary of _happy memory_.
Theodoret, the illustrious historian and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned
by the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo in the
following touching language: “I await the decision of your Apostolic See,
and I supplicate your Holiness to succor me, who invoke your righteous and
just tribunal; and to order me to hasten to you, and to explain to you my
teaching, which follows the steps of the Apostles.... I beseech you not to
scorn my application. Do not slight my gray hairs.... Above all, I entreat
you to teach me whether to put up with this unjust deposition or not; for
I await your sentence. If you bid me rest in what has been determined
against me, I will rest, and will trouble no man more. I will look for the
righteous judgment of our God and Savior. To me, as Almighty God is my
Judge, honor and glory are no object, but only the scandal that has been
caused; for many of the simpler sort, especially those whom I have rescued
from diverse heresies, considering _the See_ which has condemned me,
suspect that perhaps I really am a heretic, being incapable themselves of
distinguishing accuracy of doctrine.”(169) Leo declared the deposition
invalid and Theodoret was restored to his See.
John, Abbot of Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch
of that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of the
Patriarch.
In 859 Photius addressed a letter to Pope Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff
to confirm his election to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In
consequence of the Pope’s conscientious refusal Photius broke off from the
communion of the Catholic Church and became the author of the Greek
schism.
Here are a few examples taken at random from Church History. We see
Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and learning occupying the
highest position in the Eastern Church, and consequently far removed from
the local influences of Rome, appealing in every period of the early
Church from the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the
supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not constitute superior
jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what superior authority means.
Second—Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of _the
Fathers_ of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has ever called
in question the faith of such men as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian,
Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Leo. They were the acknowledged guardians
of pure doctrine, and the living representatives “of the faith once
delivered to the Saints.” They were to the Church in their generation what
Peter and Paul and James were to the Church in its infancy. We
instinctively consult them about the faith of those times; for, to whom
shall we go for the Words of eternal life, if not to them?
Now, the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to the Bishops
of Rome as their superiors. The limited space I have allowed myself in
this little volume will not permit me to give any extracts from their
writings. The reader who may be unacquainted with the original language of
the Fathers, or who has not their writings at hand, is referred to a work
entitled, “Faith of Catholics,” where he will find, in an English
translation, copious extracts from their writings vindicating the Primacy
of the Popes.
Third—_Ecumenical Councils_ afford another eloquent vindication of Papal
supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assemblage of Prelates
representing the whole Catholic Church. A General Council is to the Church
what the Executive and Legislative bodies in Washington are to the United
States.
Up to the present time nineteen Ecumenical Councils have been convened,
including the Council of the Vatican. The last eleven were held in the
West, and the first eight in the East. I shall pass over the Western
Councils, as no one denies that they were subject to the authority of the
Pope.
I shall speak briefly of the important influence which the Holy See
exercised in the eight Oriental Councils.
The first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second, in
Constantinople, 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 Nicæa, in 787, and the eighth, in
Constantinople, in 869.
The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to
their convocation; 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. Before becoming a law the Acts of the
Councils required the Pope’s signature, just as our Congressional
proceedings require the President’s signature before they acquire the
force of law.
Is not this a striking illustration of the Primacy? The Pope convenes,
rules and sanctions the Synods, not by courtesy, but by right. A dignitary
who calls an assembly together, who presides over its deliberations, whose
signature is essential for confirming its Acts has surely a higher
authority than the other members.
Fourth—I shall refer to one more historical point in support 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, has received the light of faith from missionaries
who were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by
Bishops in open communion with that See_. This historical fact admits of
no exception. Let me particularize.
Ireland’s Apostle is St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St.
Celestine, in the fifth century.
St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who sent him? The same Pontiff,
Celestine.
The Anglo-Saxons 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 century.
St. Remigius established the faith in France, at the close of the fifth
century. He was in active communion with the See of Peter.
Flanders received the Gospel in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who
acknowledged the supremacy of the reigning Pope.
Germany and Bavaria venerate as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is
popularly known in his native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He
was commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the eighth
century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same Pontiff.
In the ninth century two saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius,
evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, Moravia and other parts of Northern Europe.
They recognized the supreme authority of Pope Nicholas I. and of his
successors, Adrian II. and John VIII.
In the eleventh century Norway was converted by missionaries introduced
from England by the Norwegian King, St. Olave.
The conversion of Sweden was consummated in the same century by the
British Apostles Saints Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations
immediately after their conversion commenced to pay Romescot, or a small
annual tribute to the Holy See—a clear evidence that they were in
communion with the Chair of Peter.(170)
All the other nations of Europe, having been converted before the
Reformation, received likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic
Missionaries, because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief.
Passing from Europe to Asia and America, it is undeniable that St. Francis
Xavier and the other Evangelists who, in the sixteenth century, extended
the Kingdom of Jesus Christ through India and Japan, were in communion
with the Holy See; and that those Apostles who, in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, converted the aboriginal tribes of South America
and Mexico received their commission from the Chair of Peter.
But you will say: The people of the United States profess to be a
Christian nation. Do you also claim them? Most certainly; for, even those
American Christians who are unhappily severed from the Catholic Church are
primarily indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel to missionaries in
communion with the Holy See.
The white races of North America are descended from England, Ireland,
Scotland and the nations of Continental Europe. Those European nations
having been converted by missionaries in subjection to the Holy See, it
follows that, from whatever part of Europe you are descended, whatever may
be your particular creed, you are indebted to the Church of Rome for your
knowledge of Christianity.
Do not these facts demonstrate the Primacy of the Pope? The Apostles of
Europe and of other countries received their authority from Rome. Is not
the power that sends an ambassador greater than he who is sent?
Thus we see that the name of the Pope is indelibly marked on every page of
ecclesiastical history. The Sovereign Pontiff ever stands before us as
commander-in-chief in the grand army of the Church. Do the bishops of the
East feel themselves aggrieved at home by their Patriarchs or civil
Rulers? They look for redress to Rome, as to the star of their hope. Are
the Fathers and Doctors of the early Church consulted? With one voice they
all pay homage to the Bishop of Rome as to their spiritual Prince. Is an
Ecumenical Council to be convened in the East or West? The Pope is its
leading spirit. Are new nations to be converted to the faith? There is the
Holy Father clothing the missionaries with authority, and giving his
blessing to the work. Are new errors to be condemned in any part of the
globe? All eyes turn toward the oracle of Rome to await his anathema, and
his solemn judgment reverberates throughout the length and breath of the
Christian world.
You might as well shut out the light of day and the air of heaven from
your daily walks as exclude the Pope from his legitimate sphere in the
hierarchy of the Church. The history of the United States with the
Presidents left out would be more intelligible than the history of the
Church to the exclusion of the Vicar of Christ. How, I ask, could such
authority endure so long if it were a usurpation?
But you will tell me: “The supremacy of the Pope has been disputed in many
ages.” So has the authority of God been called in question—nay, His very
existence has been denied; for, “the fool hath said in his heart there is
no God.”(171) Does this denial destroy the existence and dominion of God?
Has not parental authority been impugned from the beginning? But by whom?
By unruly children. Was David no longer king because Absalom said so?
It is thus also with the Popes. Their parental sway has been opposed only
by their undutiful sons who grew impatient of the Gospel yoke. Photius,
the leader of the Greek schism, was an obedient son of the Pope until
Nicholas refused to recognize his usurped authority. Henry VIII. was a
stout defender of the Pope’s supremacy until Clement VII. refused to
legalize his adultery. Luther professed a most abject submission to the
Pope till Leo X. condemned him.
You cannot, my dear reader, be a loyal citizen of the United States while
you deny the constitutional authority of the President. You have seen that
the Bishop of Rome is appointed not by man, but by Jesus Christ, President
of the Christian commonwealth. You cannot, therefore, be a true citizen of
the Republic of the Church so long as you spurn the legitimate supremacy
of its Divinely constituted Chief. “He that is not with Me is against Me,”
says our Lord, “and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.” How can you
be with Christ if you are against His Vicar?
The great evil of our times is the unhappy division existing among the
professors of Christianity, and from thousands of hearts a yearning cry
goes forth for unity of faith and union of churches.
It was, no doubt, with this laudable view that the Evangelical Alliance
assembled in New York in the fall of 1873. The representatives of the
different religious communions hoped to effect a reunion. But they
signally and lamentably failed. Indeed, the only result which followed
from the alliance was the creation of a new sect under the auspices of Dr.
Cummins. That reverend gentleman, with the characteristic modesty of all
religious reformers, was determined to have a hand in improving the work
of Jesus Christ; and, like the other reformers, he said, with those who
built the tower of Babel: “Let us make our name famous before”(172) our
dust is scattered to the wind.
The Alliance failed, because its members had no common platform to stand
on. There was no voice in that assembly that could say with authority:
“Thus saith the Lord.”
I heartily join in this prayer for Christian unity, and gladly would
surrender my life for such a consummation. But I tell you that Jesus
Christ has pointed out the only means by which this unity can be
maintained, viz: the recognition of Peter and his successors as the Head
of the Church. Build upon this foundation and you will not erect a tower
of Babel, nor build upon sand. If all Christian sects were united with the
centre of unity, then the scattered hosts of Christendom would form an
army which atheism and infidelity could not long withstand. Then, indeed,
all could exclaim with Balaam: “How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O
Jacob, and thy tents, O Israel!”(173)
Let us pray that the day may be hastened when religious dissensions will
cease; when all Christians will advance with united front, under one
common leader, to plant the cross in every region and win new kingdoms to
Jesus Christ.
Chapter XI.
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES.
As the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is strangely misapprehended by our
separated brethren, because it is grievously misrepresented by those who
profess to be enlightened ministers of the Gospel, I shall begin by
stating what Infallibility does not mean, and shall then explain what it
really is.
First—The infallibility of the Popes does not signify that they are
inspired. The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration, 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.
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order
that they might spread abroad new doctrine which He reveals, but that,
under His assistance, they might guard inviolably, and with fidelity
explain, the revelation or deposit of faith handed down by the
Apostles.”(174)
Second—Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is impeccable or
specially exempt from liability to sin. The Popes have been, indeed, with
few exceptions, men of virtuous lives. Many of them are honored as
martyrs. Seventy-nine out of the two hundred and fifty-nine that sat on
the chair of Peter are invoked upon our altars as saints eminent for their
holiness.
The avowed enemies of the Church charge only five or six Popes with
immorality. Thus, even admitting the truth of the accusations brought
against them, we have forty-three virtuous to one bad Pope, while there
was a Judas Iscariot among the twelve Apostles.
But although a vast majority of the Sovereign Pontiffs should have been so
unfortunate as to lead vicious lives, this circumstance would not of
itself impair the validity of their prerogatives, which are given not for
the preservation of their morals, but for the guidance of their judgment;
for, there was a Balaam among the Prophets, and a Caiphas among the High
Priests of the Old Law.
The present illustrious Pontiff is a man of no ordinary sanctity. He has
already filled the highest position in the Church for upwards of thirty
years, “a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men,” and no man can
point out a stain upon his moral character.
And yet Pius IX., like his predecessors, confesses his sins every week.
Each morning, at the beginning of Mass, he says at the foot of the altar,
“I confess to Almighty God, and to His Saints, that I have sinned
exceedingly in thought, word and deed.” And at the Offertory of the Mass
he says: “Receive, O Holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, this oblation
which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer for my innumerable sins, offences and
negligences.”
With these facts before their eyes, I cannot comprehend how ministers of
the Gospel betray so much ignorance, or are guilty of so much malice, as
to proclaim from their pulpits, which ought to be consecrated to truth,
that Infallibility means exemption from sin. I do not see how they can
benefit their cause by so flagrant perversions of truth.
Third—Bear in mind, also, that this Divine assistance is guaranteed to the
Pope not in his capacity as private teacher, but only in his official
capacity, when he judges of faith and morals as Head of the Church. If a
Pope, for instance, like Benedict XIV. were to write a treatise on Canon
Law his book would be as much open to criticism as that of any Doctor of
the Church.
Fourth—Finally, the inerrability of the Popes, being restricted to
questions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural sciences,
such as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the
false name of science, and arrays itself against revealed truth.(175) It
does not, therefore, concern itself about the nature and motions of the
planets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form
of government a nation ought to adopt, or for what candidates we ought to
vote.
The Pope’s Infallibility, therefore, does not in any way trespass on civil
authority; for the Pope’s jurisdiction belongs to spiritual matters, while
the duty of the State is to provide for the temporal welfare of its
subjects.
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 of 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. He is not the author of revelation, but only its
interpreter. All revelation came from God alone through His inspired
ministers, and it was complete in the beginning of the Church. The Holy
Father has no more authority than you or I to break one iota of the
Scripture, and he is equally with us the servant of the Divine law.
In a word, the Sovereign Pontiff is to the Church, though in a more
eminent degree, what the Supreme Court is to the United States. We have an
instrument called the Constitution of the United States, which is the
charter of our civil rights and liberties. If a controversy arise
regarding a constitutional clause, the question is referred in the last
resort, to the Supreme Court at Washington. The Chief Justice, with his
associate judges, examines into the case and then pronounces judgment upon
it; and this decision is final, irrevocable and practically infallible.
If there were no such court to settle constitutional questions, the
Constitution itself would soon become a dead letter. Every litigant would
conscientiously decide the dispute in his own favor and anarchy,
separation and civil war would soon follow. But by means of this Supreme
Court disputes are ended, and the political union of the States is
perpetuated. There would have been no civil war in 1861 had our domestic
quarrel been submitted to the legitimate action of our highest court of
judicature, instead of being left to the arbitrament of the sword.
The revealed Word of God is the constitution of the Church. This is the
_Magna Charta_ of our Christian liberties. The Pope is the official
guardian of our religious constitution, as the Chief Justice is the
guardian of our civil constitution.
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 lights which the Holy Ghost may suggest to him. Then, after
mature and prayerful deliberation, he pronounces judgment and his sentence
is final, irrevocable and infallible.
If the Catholic Church were not fortified by this Divinely-established
supreme tribunal, she would be broken up, like the sects around her, into
a thousand fragments and religious anarchy would soon follow. But by means
of this infallible court her marvellous unity is preserved throughout the
world. This doctrine is the keystone in the arch of Catholic faith, and,
far from arousing opposition, it ought to command the unqualified
admiration of every reflecting mind.
These explanations being premised, let us now briefly consider the grounds
of the doctrine itself.
The following passages of the Gospel, spoken at different times, were
addressed exclusively to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and on this rock I will
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”(176)
“I, the Supreme Architect of the universe,” says our Savior, “will
establish a Church which is to last till the end of time. I will lay the
foundation of this Church so deep and strong on the rock of truth that the
winds and storms of error shall not prevail against it. Thou, O Peter,
shalt be the foundation of this Church. It shall never fall, because thou
shalt never be shaken; and thou shalt never be shaken, because thou shalt
rest on Me, the rock of truth.” The Church, of which Peter is the
foundation, is declared to be impregnable—that is, proof against error.
How can you suppose an immovable edifice built on a tottering foundation?
For it is not the building that sustains the foundation, but it is the
foundation that supports the building.
“And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”(177) Thou
shalt hold the keys of truth with which to open to the faithful the
treasures of heavenly science. “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall
be bound also in Heaven.”(178) The judgment which thou shalt pronounce on
earth I will ratify in heaven. Surely the God of Truth is incapable of
sanctioning an untruthful judgment.
“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 thy brethren.”(179) It is
worthy of note that Jesus prays only for Peter. And why for Peter in
particular? Because on his shoulders was to rest the burden of the Church.
Our Lord prays for two things: First—That the faith of Peter and of his
successors might not fail. Second—That Peter would confirm his brethren in
the faith, “in order,” as St. Leo says, “that the strength given by Christ
to Peter should descend on the Apostles.”
We know that the prayer of Jesus is always heard. Therefore the faith of
Peter will always be firm. He was destined to be the oracle which all were
to consult. Hence we always find him the prominent figure among the
Apostles, the first to speak, the first to act on every occasion. He was
to be the guiding star that was to lead the rest of the faithful in the
path of truth. He was to be in the hierarchy of the Church what the sun is
in the planetary system—the centre around which all would revolve. And is
it not a beautiful spectacle, in harmony with our ideas of God’s
providence, to behold in His Church a counterpart of the starry system
above us? There every planet moves in obedience to a uniform law, all are
regulated by one great luminary. So, in the spiritual order, we see every
member of the Church governed by one law, controlled by one voice, and
that voice subject to God.
“Feed My lambs; feed My sheep.”(180) Peter is appointed by our Lord the
universal shepherd of His flock—of the sheep and of the lambs—that is,
shepherd of the Bishops and Priests as well as of the people. The Bishops
are shepherds, in reference to their flocks; they are sheep, in reference
to the Pope, who is the shepherd of shepherds. The Pope, as shepherd, must
feed the flock not with the poison of error, but with the healthy food of
sound doctrine; for he is not a shepherd, but a hireling, who administers
pernicious food to his flock.
Among the General Councils of the Church already held I shall mention only
three, as the acts of these Councils are amply sufficient to vindicate the
unerring character of the See of Rome and the Roman Pontiffs. I wish also
to call your attention to three facts: First—That none of these Councils
were held in Rome; Second—That one of them assembled in the East, viz: in
Constantinople; and, Third—That in every one of them the Oriental and the
Western Bishops met for the purpose of reunion.
The Eighth General Council, held in Constantinople in 869, contains the
following solemn profession of faith: “Salvation primarily depends upon
guarding the rule of right faith. And since we cannot pass over the words
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I
will build My Church,’ what was said is confirmed by facts, because in the
Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate,
and holy doctrine has been proclaimed. Not wishing, then, to be separated
from this faith and doctrine, we hope to merit to be in the one communion
which the Apostolic See preaches, in which See is the full and true
solidity of the Christian religion.”
This Council clearly declares that _immaculate doctrine_ has always _been
preserved and preached in the Roman See_. But how could this be said of
her, if the Roman See ever fell into error, and how could that See be
preserved from error, if the Roman Pontiffs presiding over it ever erred
in faith?
In the Second General Council of Lyons (1274), the Greek Bishops made the
following profession of faith: “The holy Roman Church possesses full
primacy and principality over the universal Catholic Church, which
primacy, with the plenitude of power, she truly and humbly acknowledges to
have received from our Lord Himself, in the person of Blessed Peter,
Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and
as the Roman See, above all others, is bound to defend the truth of faith,
so, also, _if any questions on faith arise, they ought to be defined by
her judgment_.”
Here the Council of Lyons avows that the Roman Pontiffs have the power to
determine definitely, and without appeal, any questions of faith which may
arise in the Church; in other words, the Council acknowledges them to be
the supreme and infallible arbiters of faith.
“We define,” says the Council of Florence (1439), at which also were
present the Bishops of the Greek and the Latin Church, “we define that the
Roman Pontiff is the successor of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the
Apostles, and _the true Vicar of Christ, the Head_ of the whole Church,
the Father and Doctor of all Christians, and we declare that to him, in
the person of Blessed Peter, was given, by Jesus Christ our Savior, full
power to feed, rule and govern the universal Church.”
The Pope is here called the _true Vicar_ or representative of Christ in
this lower kingdom of His Church militant—that is, the Pope is the organ
of our Savior, and speaks His sentiments in faith and morals. But if the
Pope erred in faith and morals he would no longer be Christ’s Vicar and
true representative. Our minister in England, for instance, would not
truly represent our Government if he was not the organ of its sentiments.
The Roman Pontiff is called the _Head_ of the whole Church—that is, the
visible Head. Now the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is infallible.
It is, as St. Paul says, “without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.” But
how can you suppose an infallible body with a fallible head? How can an
erring head conduct a body in the unerring ways of truth and justice?
He is declared by the same Council to be the _Father_ and _Doctor_ of all
Christians. How can you expect an unerring family under an erring Father?
The Pope is called the universal teacher or doctor. Teacher of what? Of
truth, not of error. Error is to the mind what poison is to the body. You
do not call poison food; neither can you call error doctrine. The Pope, as
universal teacher, must always give to the faithful not the poisonous food
of error, but the sound aliment of pure doctrine.
In fine, the Pope is also styled the _Chief Pilot_ of the Church. It was
not without a mysterious significance that our Lord entered Peter’s bark
instead of that of any of the other Apostles. This bark, our Lord has
pledged Himself, shall never sink nor depart from her true course. How can
you imagine a stormproof, never-varying bark under the charge of a
fallible Pilot?
But did not the Vatican Council in promulgating the definition of Papal
Infallibility in 1870, create a new doctrine of revelation? And did not
the Church thereby forfeit her glorious distinction of being always
unchangeable in her teaching?
The Council did not create a new creed, but rather confirmed the old one.
It formulated into an article of faith a truth which in every age had been
accepted by the Catholic world because it had been implicitly contained in
the deposit of revelation.
I may illustrate this point by referring again to our Supreme Court. When
the Chief Justice, with his colleagues, decides a constitutional question,
his decision, though presented in a new shape, cannot be called a new
doctrine, because it is based on the letter and spirit of the
Constitution.
In like manner, when the Church issues a new dogma of faith, that decree
is nothing more than a new form of expressing an old doctrine, because the
decision must be drawn from the revealed Word of God.
The course pursued by the Church, regarding the infallibility of the Pope
was practiced by her in reference to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Our
Savior was acknowledged to be God from the beginning of the Church. Yet
His Divinity was not formally defined till the Council of Nicæa in the
fourth century, and it would not have been defined even then had it not
been denied by Arius. And who will have the presumption to say that the
belief in the Divinity of our Lord had its origin in the fourth century?
The following has always been the practice prevailing in the Church of God
from the beginning of her history. Whenever Bishops or National Councils
promulgated doctrines or condemned errors they always transmitted their
decrees to Rome for confirmation or rejection. What Rome approved, the
universal Church approved; what Rome condemned, the Church condemned.
Thus, in the third century, Pope St. Stephen reverses the decision of St.
Cyprian, of Carthage, and of a council of African bishops regarding a
question of baptism.
Pope St. Innocent I., in the fifth century, condemns 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 also had
ceased.”
In the fourteenth century Gregory XI. condemns the heresy of Wycliffe.
Pope Leo X., in the sixteenth, anathematizes Luther.
Innocent X., in the seventeenth, at the solicitation of the French
Episcopate, condemns the subtle errors of the Jansenists, and in the
nineteenth century Pius IX. promulgates the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception.
Here we find the Popes in various ages condemning heresies and proclaiming
doctrines of faith; and they could not in a stronger manner assert their
infallibility than by so defining doctrines of faith and condemning
errors. We also behold the Church of Christendom ever saying Amen to the
decisions of the Bishops of Rome. Hence it is evident that, in every age,
the Church recognized the Popes as infallible teachers.
Every independent government must have a supreme tribunal regularly
sitting to interpret its laws, and to decide cases of controversy likely
to arise. Thus we have in Washington the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Now the Catholic Church is a complete and independent organization, as
complete in its spiritual sphere as the United States Government is in the
temporal order. The Church has its own laws, its own autonomy and
government.
The Church, therefore, like civil powers, must have a permanent and
stationary 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 ordinary but an extraordinary tribunal which meets, on an average,
only once in a hundred years.
Is it composed of the Bishops scattered throughout the world? By no means,
because it would be impracticable to consult all the Bishops of
Christendom upon every issue that might arise in the Church. The poison of
error would easily spread through the body of the Church before a decision
could be rendered by the Prelates dispersed throughout the globe. The
Pope, then, as Head of the Catholic Church, constitutes, with just reason,
this supreme tribunal.
And as the office of the Church is to guide men into all truth, and to
preserve them from all error, it follows that he who is appointed to watch
over the constitution of the Church must be infallible, or exempt from
error in his official capacity as judge of faith and morals. The
prerogatives of the Pope must be commensurate with the nature of the
constitution which he has to uphold. The constitution is Divine and must
have a Divinely protected interpreter.
But you will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be
conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His
Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of
working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouth-piece
communicating God’s revelation, of which the Popes are merely the
custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it
impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter?
For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than
the Pope who preserves it from error.
If, indeed, our Saviour had visibly remained among us, no interpreter
would be needed, since He would explain His Gospel to us; but as He
withdrew His visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that He
should designate someone to expound for us the meaning of His Word.
A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal
Infallibility, recently used the following language: “For my part, I have
an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require.”
This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand
the test of sound criticism.
Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either
you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is
correct or you are not.
If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course
for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny
to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own
Pope.
If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of
the whole Bible—and this is a privilege you do not claim—then, I ask, of
what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an
infallible interpreter?
If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do
you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? for would it not be
most unreasonable in Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving
him a means of ascertaining its precise import?
Do you not reduce God’s word to a bundle of contradictions, like the
leaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of
every inquirer?
Of the hundred and more Christian sects now existing in this country, does
not each take the Bible as its standard of authority, and does not each
member draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in
the mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this
variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: “An
infallible Bible is enough for me,” and does it not proclaim the absolute
necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter? You tell me to
drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched
lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the
medium of your interpretation?
How satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic
teaching on this subject!
According to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, my child,
is the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who
will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its
difficulties.
Here are the waters of eternal life, but I have created a channel that
will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without
sediment of error.
Here is the written Constitution of My Church. But I have appointed over
it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one “to whom I have given the keys
of the Kingdom of Heaven,” who will preserve that Constitution inviolate,
and will not permit it to be torn into shreds by the conflicting opinions
of men. And thus my children will be one, as I and the Father are one.
Chapter XII.
TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES.
I. How The Popes Acquired Temporal Power.
For the clearer understanding of the origin and the gradual growth of the
Temporal Power of the Popes, we may divide the history of the Church into
three great epochs.
The first embraces the period which elapsed from the establishment of the
Church to the days of Constantine the Great, in the fourth century; the
second, from Constantine to Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor in the
year 800; the third, from Charlemagne to the present time.
When St. Peter, the first Pope in the long, unbroken line of Sovereign
Pontiffs, entered Italy and Rome he did not possess a foot of ground which
he could call his own. He could say with his Divine Master: “The foxes
have holes and the birds of the air nests, but the Son of Man hath not
whereon to lay his head.”(181) The Apostle died as he had lived, a poor
man, having nothing at his death save the affections of a grateful people.
But, although the Prince of the Apostles owned nothing that he could call
his personal property, he received from the faithful large donations to be
distributed among the needy. For in the Acts of the Apostles we are told
that “neither was anyone among them (the faithful) needy; for as many as
were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the
things which they sold and laid them before the feet of the Apostles, and
distribution was made to everyone according as he had need.”(182) Such was
the filial attachment of the early Christians towards the Pontiffs of the
Church; such was the confidence reposed in their personal integrity, and
in their discretion in dispensing the charity of the faithful.
During the first three hundred years the Pastors of the Church were
generally incapable of holding real estate in Rome; for Christianity was
yet a proscribed religion, and the faithful were exposed to the most
violent and unrelenting persecutions that have ever darkened the annals of
history.
The Christians of Rome worshiped for the most part in the catacombs. These
catacombs are subterranean chambers and passages under the city of Rome.
They extend for miles in different directions, and are visited to this day
by thousands of strangers. Here the primitive Christians prayed together,
here they encouraged one another to martyrdom, here they died and were
buried; so that these caverns served at the same time as temples of
worship for the living and as tombs for the dead.
At last Constantine the Great brought peace to the Church. The long night
of Pagan persecution was succeeded by the bright dawn of religious
liberty, and as our Blessed Savior rose triumphant from the grave, after
having lain there for three days, so did our early brethren in the faith
emerge from the tombs of the catacombs, after having been buried, as it
were, in the bowels of the earth for three centuries.
Constantine gave to the Roman Church munificent donations of money and
real estate, which were augmented by additional grants contributed by
subsequent emperors. Hence the patrimony of the Roman Pontiffs soon became
very considerable. Voltaire himself tells us that the wealth which the
Popes acquired was spent not in satisfying their own avarice and ambition,
but in the most laudable works of charity and religion. They expended
their patrimony, he says, in sending missionaries to evangelize Pagan
Europe, in giving hospitality to exiled Bishops at Rome and in feeding the
poor. And I may here add that succeeding Popes have generously imitated
the munificence of the early Pontiffs.
An event occurred in the reign of Constantine which paved the way for the
partial jurisdiction which the Roman Pontiffs commenced to enjoy over
Rome, and which they continued to exercise till they obtained full
sovereignty in the days of King Pepin of France.
In the year 327 the Emperor Constantine transferred the seat of empire
from Rome to Constantinople, the present capital of Turkey. The city was
named after Constantine, who founded it. A subsequent emperor appointed a
governor, or exarch, to rule Italy, who resided in the city of Ravenna.
This new system, as is manifest, did not work well. The Emperor of
Constantinople referred all matters to his deputy in Ravenna, and the
deputy was more anxious to conciliate the Emperor than to satisfy the
people of Rome. Italy and Rome were then in a political condition
analogous to that in which the Irish were placed for several centuries.
Abandoned to itself, Rome became a tempting prey to those numerous hordes
of Barbarians from the North that then devastated Italy. The city was
successively attacked by the Goths under Alaric, and by the Vandals under
Genseric, and was threatened by the Huns under Attila. Unable to obtain
assistance from the Emperor in the East, or the Governor at Ravenna, the
citizens of Rome looked up to the Popes as their only Governors and
protectors, and their only salvation in the dangers which threatened them.
The confidence which they reposed in the Pontiffs was not misplaced. The
Popes were not only devoted spiritual Fathers, but firm and valiant civil
Governors. When Attila, who was surnamed “the Scourge of God,” approached
the city with an army of 500,000 men, Pope Leo the Great went out to meet
him unattended by troops. His mild eloquence disarmed the indomitable
chieftain and induced him to retrace his steps. Thus he saved the city
from pillage and the people from destruction. The same Pope Leo also
confronted Genseric, the leader of the Vandals; and although he could not
this time protect Rome from the plunder of the soldiers he saved the lives
of the citizens from slaughter. Such acts as these were naturally
calculated to bind the Roman people more strongly to the Popes and to
alienate them from their nominal rulers.
In the early part of the eighth century Leo Isauricus, one of the
successors of Constantine on the imperial throne, not content with his
civil authority, endeavored, like Henry VIII., to usurp spiritual
jurisdiction, and, like the same English monarch, sought to rob the people
of their time-honored sacred traditions. A civil ruler dabbling in
religion is as reprehensible as a clergyman dabbling in politics. Both
render themselves odious as well as ridiculous. The Emperor commanded all
paintings of our Savior and His saints to be removed from the churches on
the assumption that such an exhibition was an act of idolatry. Pope
Gregory II. wrote to the Emperor an energetic remonstrance, reminding him
that “dogmas of faith are to be interpreted by the Pontiffs of the Church
and not by emperors,” and begging him to spare the sacred paintings. But
the Pope’s remonstrance and entreaties were in vain. This conduct of the
Emperor tended to widen still more the breach between himself and the
Roman people.
Soon after an event occurred which abolished forever the authority of the
Byzantine Emperors in Italy, and established on a sure and lasting basis
the temporal sovereignty of the Popes.
In 754 Astolphus, King of the Lombards, invaded Italy, captured some
Italian cities and threatened to advance on Rome.
Pope Stephen III.,(183) who then ruled the Church, sent an urgent appeal
to the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, successor of Leo the Isaurian,
imploring him to come to the relief of Rome and his Italian provinces. The
Emperor manifested his usual apathy and indifference and received the
message with coldness and neglect.
In this emergency Stephen, who sees that no time is to be lost, crosses
the Alps in person, approaches Pepin, King of France, and begs that
powerful monarch to protect the Italian people, who were utterly abandoned
by those that ought to be their defenders. The pious King, after paying
his homage to the Pope, sets out for Italy with his army, defeats the
invading Lombards and places the Pope at the head of the conquered
provinces.
Charlemagne, the successor of Pepin, not only confirms the grant of his
father, but increases the temporal domain of the Pope by donating him some
additional provinces.
This small piece of territory the Roman Pontiffs continued to govern from
that time till 1870, with the exception of brief intervals of foreign
usurpation. And certainly, if ever any Prince merited the appellation of
legitimate sovereign, that title is eminently deserved by the Bishops of
Rome.
II. The Validity And Justice Of Their Title.
There are three titles which render the tenure of a Prince honest and
incontestable, viz., _long possession, legitimate acquisition_ and _a just
use of the original grant confided to him_. The Bishop of Rome possessed
his temporality by all these titles.
First—The temporal dominion of the Pope is most ancient in point of time.
He commenced, as we have seen, to enjoy full sovereignty about the middle
of the eighth century. The Pope was, consequently, a temporal ruler for
upwards of 1,100 years. The Papal dynasty is, therefore, the oldest in
Europe, and probably in the world. The Pope was the temporal ruler of Rome
four hundred years before England subjugated Ireland, and seven hundred
before the first European pressed his foot on the American continent.
Second—His civil authority was established not by the sword of conquest,
nor the violence of usurpation. He did not mount the throne upon the ruins
of outraged liberties or violated treaties; but he was called to rule by
the unanimous voice of a grateful people. Always the devoted spiritual
Father of Rome, he providentially became its civil defender; and the
temporal power he had possessed already by popular suffrage was ratified
and sanctioned by the sovereign act of the Frankish monarch. In a word,
the ship of state was in danger of being engulfed beneath the fierce waves
of foreign invasion. The captain, meantime, folded his arms and abandoned
the ship to her fate. The Pope was called to the helm in the emergency,
and he saved the vessel from shipwreck and the people from destruction.
Hence, even Gibbon, the English historian, who cannot be suspected of
partiality, has the candor to use the following language in discussing
this subject: “Their (the Pope’s) temporal dominion is now confirmed by
the reverence of a thousand years, and their noblest title is the free
choice of a people whom they had redeemed from slavery.”
Third—What is the use or advantage of the temporal power? This is well
worth considering, as many have erroneous notions on the subject.
The object is not to aggrandize or enrich the Pope. He ascends the Papal
chair generally an old man, when human passion and human ambition, if any
did exist, are on the wane. His personal expenses do not exceed a few
dollars a day. He eats alone and very abstemiously. He has no wife, no
children to enrich with the spoils of office, as he is an unmarried man.
The Popedom is not hereditary, like the sovereignty of England, but
elective, like the office of our President, and the Holy Father is
succeeded by a Pontiff to whom he was bound by no family ties. What
personal motive, therefore, can he have in desiring temporal sovereignty?
I am sure, indeed, that if the Holy Father were to consult his own taste
and feelings, he would much rather be free from the trammels of civil
government. But he has higher interests to subserve. He must vindicate the
eternal laws of justice which have been violated in his own person.
As the Popes were not actuated by a love of gain in possessing temporal
dominion, neither had they any desire to enlarge their territory, small as
it was. The temporalities of the Pope were not much larger than the State
of Maryland before he was deprived of them by Victor Emmanuel a few years
ago.
And this is the little slice of land which Victor Emmanuel wrested from
the Holy Father. This is the vineyard which the modern King Achab wrung
from the unoffending Naboth. But the Pontiff answers, like Naboth of old:
“The Lord be merciful to me, and not let me give thee the inheritance of
my fathers.”(184)
This is the little ewe-lamb which the modern David has snatched from
Uriah, its legitimate owner. The royal shepherd of Piedmont had already
seized all the other lambs and sheep of his neighbors; but he was not
satisfied till he added to his fold the solitary, tender lamb of the Pope.
Let him take care, however, that the prophecy denounced by Nathan against
David fall not upon himself and his posterity: “Why, therefore, hast thou
despised the word of the Lord, to do evil in My sight? Therefore the sword
shall never depart from thy house, because thou hast despised Me. Behold,
I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house.”(185)
While the patrimony of the Pope was large enough to secure his
independence, it was too small to provoke the fear and jealousy of foreign
powers. The authority of the Roman Pontiffs in the Middle Ages was almost
unbounded. Had they wished then, they could easily have increased their
territory; yet they were content with what Providence placed originally in
their hands.(186)
The sole end of the temporal power has been to secure for the Pope
independence and freedom in the government of the Church. The Holy Father
must be either a sovereign or a subject. There is no medium. If a subject,
he might become either the pliant creature, if God would so permit, of his
royal master, like the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, who, as
Gibbon observed, was “a domestic slave under the eye of his master, at
whose nod he passed from the convent to the throne, and from the throne to
the convent.” And, indeed, the Oriental schismatic Bishops are as
subservient now as they were then to their temporal rulers. Or, what is
far more probable, the Pope might become a virtual prisoner in his own
house, as the present illustrious Pontiff is at this moment.
The Pope is the representative of Christ on earth. His office requires him
to be in constant communication with prelates in every country in the
world. Should the kingdom of Italy be embroiled in a war with any European
Power—with Germany, for instance—it would be difficult, if not impossible,
for the Holy Father and the German Bishops to confer with each other, and
religion would suffer from the interruption of intercourse between the
Head and the members.
The interests of Christianity demand that the Vicar of the Prince of Peace
should possess one spot of territory which would be held inviolable, so
that all nations and peoples could at all times, in war, as well as in
peace, freely correspond with him. Nothing can be more revolting to our
feelings than that the spiritual government of the Church should be
constantly hampered by the hostile aggressions of ambitious rulers, an
eventuality always likely to occur so long as the Pope remains the subject
of any earthly potentate.(187)
But we are told that the Roman people, by a _plebiscitum_, or popular
vote, expressed their desire to be annexed to the Piedmontese Government.
To this I answer, in the first place, that we ought to know what
importance to attach to elections held under the shadow of the bayonet. It
is well known that the Roman _plebiscitum_ was undertaken by the authority
and guided by the inspiration of the Italian troops. It is equally
notorious that the numerous stragglers who accompanied the Italian army to
Rome legalized the gigantic fraud of their master, as well as their own
petty thefts, by voting in favor of annexation.
In the second place, the Roman people, even had they so desired, had no
right to transfer, by _their_ suffrage, the Patrimony of St. Peter to
Victor Emmanuel. They could not give what did not belong to them. The
Papal territory was granted to the Popes in trust, for the use and benefit
of the Church—that is, for the use and benefit of the Catholics of
Christendom. The Catholic world, therefore, and not merely a handful of
Roman subjects, must give its consent before such a transfer can be
declared legitimate. Rome is to Catholic Christendom what Washington is to
the United States. As the citizens of Washington have no power, without
the concurrence of the United States, to annex their city to Maryland or
Virginia, neither can the citizens of Rome hand over their city to the
Kingdom of Piedmont without the acquiescence of the faithful dispersed
throughout the world.
We protest, therefore, against the occupation of Rome by foreign troops as
a high-handed act of injustice, and a gross violation of the Commandment,
“Thou shalt not steal.”
We protest against it as a royal outrage, calculated to shock the public
sense of honesty, and to weaken the sacred right of public and private
property.
We protest against it as an unjustifiable violation of solemn treaties.
We protest, in fine, against the spoliation as an impious sacrilege,
because it is an unholy seizure of ecclesiastical property, and an
attempt, as far as human agencies can accomplish it, to trammel and
embarrass the free action of the Head of the Church.
III. What The Popes Have Done For Rome.
Although the temporal power of the Pope is a subject which concerns the
universal Church, no nation has more reason to lament the loss of the Holy
Father’s temporalities than the Italians themselves, and particularly the
inhabitants of Rome.
It is the residence of the Popes in Rome that has contributed to her
material and religious grandeur. The Pontiffs have made her the Centre of
Christendom, the Queen of religion, the Mistress of arts and sciences, the
Depository of sacred learning.
By their creative and conservative spirit they have saved the illustrious
monuments of the past, and, side by side with these, they have raised up
Christian temples which surpass those of Pagan antiquity. In looking today
at these old Roman monuments we know not which to admire more—the genius
of those who designed and erected them, or the fostering care of the Popes
who have preserved from destruction the venerable ruins. The residence of
the Popes in Rome has made her what she is truly called, “_The Eternal
City_.”
Let the Popes leave Rome forever, and in five years grass will be growing
on its streets.
Such was the case at the return of the Pope, in 1418, from Avignon, which
had been the seat of the Sovereign Pontiffs during the preceding century.
On the Pope’s return the city of Rome had a population of only 17,000(188)
and Avignon, which, during the residence of the Popes in the fourteenth
century contained a population of 100,000, has now a population of only
36,407 inhabitants. Such, also, was the case in the beginning of the
present century, when Pius VII. was an exile for four years from Rome, and
a prisoner of the first Napoleon, in Grenoble, Savona and Fontainebleau.
Grass then grew on the streets of Rome, and the city lost one-half of its
population.
Rome has naturally no commercial attractions. It is only the presence of
the Pope that keeps up her trade. Let the Popes abandon Rome, and her
churches will soon be without worshipers; her artists without employment.
Her glorious monuments will perish. Science and art and sacred literature
will take their flight and perch upon some more favored spot. The hundred
thousand and more strangers who annually flock to Rome from different
parts of the world will shake off the dust from their feet and seek more
congenial cities.
Let the Popes withdraw from Rome, and it may become almost as desolate as
Jerusalem and Antioch are today.
Peter preached his first sermons in Jerusalem, but he did not select it as
his See; and Jerusalem is today a Mahometan city, with its sacred places
profaned by the foot of the Mussulman.
Peter occupied for a time the city of Antioch as his first See. But, in
the mysterious providence of God, he abandoned Antioch and repaired to
Rome; and now, little remains of the ancient Antioch of Peter’s day except
colossal ruins.
Had the Popes remained in Antioch, Syria would now very probably be,
instead of Europe, the centre of Christianity and civilization. The
immortal Dome of St. Peter’s would, doubtless, overshadow the banks of the
Orontes instead of the Tiber; and Antioch, not Rome, would be the focus of
art, science, and sacred literature, and would be called today “The
Eternal City.”
Our present(189) beloved Pontiff, Pius IX., I need not inform you, is now
treated with indignity in his own city. In his declining years, as well as
in the early days of his Pontificate, he is made to drink deep of the
chalice of affliction. His name is dear to us all. To many of us it is a
name familiar from our youth; for thirty-one years have now elapsed since
he first assumed the reins of government; and it is a noteworthy fact
that, since the days of Peter, no Pope has ever reigned so long as Pius
IX.
The Pope in every age, like his Divine Master, has his period of
persecution and his period of peace. Like Him, he has his days of sorrow
and his days of joy, his days of humiliation and death, his days of
exaltation and glory. Like Jesus Christ, he is one day greeted with
acclamations as king, and another day crucified by his enemies.
But never does the Holy Father exhibit his title as Vicar of Christ more
strikingly than in the midst of tribulations. If he did not suffer, he
would bear no resemblance to his Divine Model and Master; and never does
he more worthily deserve the filial homage of his children than when he is
heavily laden with the cross.
I envy neither the heart nor the head of those men who are now gloating
with fiendish joy over the calamities of the Pope; who are heaping insults
and calumnies on his venerable head, while he is in the hands of his
enemies,(190) and who are confidently predicting the downfall of the
Papacy, from the present situation of the Head of the Church, as if the
temporary privation of his dominions involved their irrevocable loss; or,
as if even the perpetual destruction of the temporal power involved the
destruction of the spiritual supremacy itself. “The Papacy,” they say, “is
gone. Its glory is vanished. Its sun is set. It is sunk below the horizon,
never to rise again.” Ill-boding prophets, will you never profit by the
lessons of history? Have not numbers of Popes before Pius IX. been
forcibly ejected from their See, and have they not been reinstated in
their temporal authority? What has happened so often before may and will
happen again.
For our part we have every confidence that ere long the clouds which now
overshadow the civil throne of the Pope will be removed by the breath of a
righteous God, and that his temporal power will be re-established on a
more permanent basis than ever.
But whatever be the fate of the Pope’s temporalities, we have no fears for
the spiritual throne of the Papacy. The Pontiffs have received their
earthly dominion from man, and what man gives man may take away. But the
spiritual supremacy the Bishops of Rome have from God, and no man can
destroy it. That Divine charter of their prerogatives, “Thou art Peter,
and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it,”(191) will ever shine forth as brightly as the sun,
and it is as far as the sun above the reach of human aggression.
The Holy Father may live and die in the catacombs, as the early Pontiffs
did for the first three centuries. He may be dragged from his See and
perish in exile, like the Martins, the Gregories and the Piuses. He may
wander a penniless pilgrim, like Peter himself. Rome itself may sink
beneath the Mediterranean; but the chair of Peter will stand, and Peter
will live in his successors.
Chapter XIII.
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
Christians of most denominations are accustomed to recite the following
article contained in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in the communion of
Saints.” There are many, I fear, who have these words frequently on their
lips, without an adequate knowledge of the precious meaning which they
convey.
The true and obvious sense of the words quoted from the Creed is, that
between the children of God, whether reigning in heaven or sojourning on
earth, there exists an intercommunion, or spiritual communication by
prayer; and, consequently, that our friends who have entered into their
rest are mindful of us in their petitions to God.
In the exposition of her Creed the Catholic Church weighs her words in the
scales of the sanctuary with as much precision as a banker weighs his
gold. With regard to the Invocation of Saints the Church simply declares
that it is “useful and salutary” to ask their prayers. There are
expressions addressed to the Saints in some popular books of devotion
which, to critical readers, may seem extravagant. But they are only the
warm language of affection and poetry, to be regulated by our standard of
faith; and notice that all the prayers of the Church end with the formula:
“Through our Lord Jesus Christ,” sufficiently indicating her belief that
Christ is the Mediator of salvation. A heart tenderly attached to the
Saints will give vent to its feelings in the language of hyperbole, just
as an enthusiastic lover will call his future bride his adorable queen,
without any intention of worshiping her as a goddess. This reflection
should be borne in mind while reading such passages.
I might easily show, 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 intercession of the
Saints. But as you, dear reader, may not be disposed to attach adequate
importance to the writings of the Fathers, I shall confine myself to the
testimony of Holy Scripture.
You will readily admit that it is a salutary custom to ask the prayers of
the blessed in heaven, provided you have no doubt that they can _hear_
your prayers, and that they have the _power_ and the _will_ to assist you.
Now the Scriptures amply demonstrate the knowledge, the influence and the
love of the Saints in our regard.
First—It would be a great mistake to suppose that the Angels and Saints
reigning with God see and hear in the same manner that we see and hear on
earth, or that knowledge is communicated to them as it is communicated to
us. While we are confined in the prison of the body, we see only with our
eyes and hear with our ears; hence our faculties of vision and hearing are
very limited. Compared with the heavenly inhabitants, we are like a man in
a darksome cell through which a dim ray of light penetrates. He observes
but few objects, and these very obscurely. But as soon as our soul is
freed from the body, soaring heavenward like a bird released from its
cage, its vision is at once marvelously enlarged. It requires neither eyes
to see nor ears to hear, but beholds all things in God as in a mirror. “We
now,” says the Apostle, “see through a glass darkly; but then face to
face. Now, I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.”(192)
In our day we know what wonderful facility we have in communicating with
our friends at a distance. A message to Berlin or Rome with the answer,
which a century ago would require sixty days in transmission, can now be
accomplished in sixty minutes.
I can hold a conversation with an acquaintance in San Francisco, three
thousand miles away, and can talk to him as easily and expeditiously as if
he were closeted with me here in Baltimore.
Nay more, we can distinctly recognize one another by the sound of our
voice.
If a scientist had predicted such events, a hundred years past, he would
be regarded as demented. And yet he would not be a visionary, but a
prophet.
Let us not be unwise in measuring Divine power by our finite reason.
If such revelations are made in the natural order, what may we not expect
in the supernatural world? If science gives us such rapid and easy means
of corresponding with our fellow beings on foreign shores, what methods
may not the God of Sciences employ to enable us to communicate with our
brethren on the shores of eternity?
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy.”
That the spirits of the just in heaven are clearly conversant with our
affairs on earth is manifest from the following passages of Holy Writ. The
venerable Patriarch Jacob, when on his deathbed, prayed thus for his two
grandchildren: “May the angel that delivereth me from all evils bless
these boys!”(193) Here we see a holy Patriarch—one singularly favored by
Almighty God, and enlightened by many supernatural visions, the father of
Jehovah’s chosen people—asking the angel in heaven to obtain a blessing
for his grandchildren. And surely we cannot suppose that he would be so
ignorant as to pray to one that could not hear him.
The angel Raphael, after having disclosed himself to Tobias, said to him:
“When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave
thy dinner, I offered thy prayer to the Lord.”(194) How could the angel,
if he were ignorant of these petitions, have presented to God the prayers
of Tobias?
To pass from the Old to the New Testament, our Savior declares that “there
shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.”(195)
Then the angels are glad whenever you repent of your sins. Now, what is
repentance? It is a change of heart. It is an interior operation of the
will. The saints, therefore, are acquainted—we know not how—not only with
your actions and words, but even with your very thoughts.
And when St. Paul says that “we are made a spectacle to the world, to
angels, and to men,”(196) what does he mean, unless that as our actions
are seen by men even so they are visible to the angels in heaven?
The examples I have quoted refer, it is true, to the angels. But our Lord
declares that the saints in heaven shall be like the angelic spirits, by
possessing the same knowledge, enjoying the same happiness.(197)
We read in the Gospel that Dives, while suffering in the place of the
reprobates, earnestly besought Abraham to cool his burning thirst. And
Abraham, in his abode of rest after death, was able to listen and reply to
him. Now, if communication could exist between the souls of the just and
of the reprobate, how much easier is it to suppose that interchange of
thought can exist between the saints in heaven and their brethren on
earth?
These few instances are sufficient to convince you that the spirits in
heaven hear our prayers.
Second—We have, also, abundant testimony from Scripture to show that the
saints assist us by their prayers. Almighty God threatened the inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrha with utter destruction on account of their crimes
and abominations. Abraham interposes in their behalf and, in response to
his prayer, God consents to spare those cities if only ten just men are
found therein. Here the avenging hand of God is suspended and the fire of
His wrath withheld, through the efficacy of the prayers of a single
man.(198)
We read in the Book of Exodus that when the Amalekites were about to wage
war on the children of Israel Moses, the great servant and Prophet of the
Lord, went upon a mountain to pray for the success of his people; and the
Scriptures inform us that whenever Moses raised his hands in prayer the
Israelites were victorious, but when he ceased to pray Amalek conquered.
Could the power of intercessory prayer be manifested in a more striking
manner? The silent prayer of Moses on the mountain was more formidable to
the Amalekites than the sword of Josue and his armed hosts fighting in the
valley.(199)
When the same Hebrew people were banished from their native country and
carried into exile in Babylon, so great was their confidence in the
prayers of their brethren in Jerusalem that they sent them the following
message, together with a sum of money, that sacrifice might be offered up
for them in the holy city: “Pray ye for us to the Lord our God, for we
have sinned against the Lord our God.”(200)
When the friends of Job had excited the indignation of the Almighty in
consequence of their vain speech, God, instead of directly granting them
the pardon which they sought, commanded them to invoke the intercession of
Job: “Go,” He says, “to My servant Job and offer for yourselves a
holocaust, and My servant Job will pray for you and his face will I
accept.”(201) Nor did they appeal to Job in vain; for, “the Lord was
turned at the penance of Job when he prayed for his friends.”(202) In this
instance we not only see the value of intercessory prayer, but we find God
sanctioning it by His own authority.
But of all the sacred writers there is none that reposes greater
confidence in the prayers of his brethren than St. Paul, although no one
had a better knowledge than he of the infinite merits of our Savior’s
Passion, and no one could have more endeared himself to God by his
personal labors. In his Epistles St. Paul repeatedly asks for himself the
prayers of his disciples. If he wishes to be delivered from the hands of
the unbelievers of Judea, and his ministry to be successful in Jerusalem,
he asks the Romans to obtain these favors for him. If he desires the grace
of preaching with profit the Gospel to the Gentiles, he invokes the
intercession of the Ephesians.
Nay, is it not a common practice among ourselves, and even among our
dissenting brethren, to ask the prayers of one another? When a father is
about to leave his house on a long journey the instinct of piety prompts
him to say to his wife and children: “Remember me in your prayers.”
Now I ask you, if our friends, though sinners, can aid us by their
prayers, why cannot our friends, the saints of God, be able to assist us
also? If Abraham and Moses and Job exercised so much influence with the
Almighty while they lived in the flesh, is their power with God diminished
now that they reign with Him in heaven?
We are moved by the children of Israel sending their pious petitions to
their brethren in Jerusalem. They recalled to mind, no doubt, what the
Lord said to Solomon after he had completed the temple: “My eyes shall be
open and My ears attentive to the prayer of him that shall pray in this
place.”(203) If the supplications of those that prayed in the earthly
Jerusalem were so efficacious, what will God refuse to those who pray to
Him face to face in the heavenly Jerusalem?
Third—But you will ask, are the saints in heaven so interested in our
welfare as to be mindful of us in their prayers? Or, are they so much
absorbed in the contemplation of God, and in the enjoyment of celestial
bliss, as to be altogether regardless of their friends on earth? Far from
us the suspicion that the saints reigning with God ever forget us. In
heaven, charity is triumphant. And how can the saints have love, and yet
be unmindful of their brethren on earth? If they have one desire greater
than another, it is to see us one day wearing the crowns that await us in
heaven. If they were capable of experiencing sorrow, their grief would
spring from the consideration that we do not always walk in their
footsteps here, so as to make sure our election to eternal glory
hereafter.
The Hebrew people believed, like us, that the saints after death were
occupied in praying for us. We read in the Book of Maccabees that Judas
Maccabeus, the night before he engaged in battle with the army of the
impious Nicanor, had a supernatural dream, or vision, in which he beheld
Onias, the High-Priest, and the prophet Jeremiah, both of whom had been
long dead. Onias appeared to him with outstretched arms, praying for the
people of God. Pointing to Jeremiah, he said to Judas Maccabeus: “This is
a lover of his brethren and the people of Israel. This is he that prayeth
much for the people and for all the holy city, Jeremiah, the Prophet of
God.”(204) Then Jeremiah, as is related in the sequel of the vision,
handed a sword to Judas, with which the prophet predicted that Judas would
conquer his enemies. The soldiers, animated by the relation of Judas,
fought with invincible courage and overcame the enemy. The Book of
Maccabees, though not admitted by our dissenting brethren to be inspired,
must, at least, be acknowledged by them to be a faithful historical
record. It is manifest, therefore, from this narrative that the Hebrew
people believed that the saints in heaven pray for their brethren on
earth.
St. John in his Revelation describes the Saints before the throne of God
praying for their earthly brethren: “The four and twenty ancients fell
down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full
of odors, which are the prayers of the saints.”(205)
The prophet Zachariah records a prayer that was offered by the angel for
the people of God, and the favorable answer which came from heaven: “How
long, O Lord, wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of
Juda, with which Thou hast been angry?... And the Lord answered the angel
... good words, comfortable words.”(206)
Nor can we be surprised to learn that the angels labor for our salvation,
since we are told by St. Peter that “the devil goeth about like a roaring
lion, seeking whom he may devour;” for, if hate impels the demons to ruin
us, surely love must inspire the angels to help us in securing the crown
of glory. And if the angels, though of a different nature from ours, are
so mindful of us, how much more interest do the saints manifest in our
welfare, who are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh?
To ask the prayers of our brethren in heaven is not only conformable to
Holy Scripture, but is prompted by the instincts of our nature. The
Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints robs death of its terrors,
while the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in denying the Communion of
Saints, not only inflicted a deadly wound on the Creed, but also severed
the tenderest chords of the human heart. They broke asunder the holy ties
that unite earth with heaven—the soul in the flesh with the soul released
from the flesh. 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 of eternity, why should he not pray for me still?
What does death destroy? The body. The soul still lives and moves and has
its being. It thinks and wills and remembers and loves. The dross of sin
and selfishness and hatred are burned by the salutary fires of contrition,
and nothing remains but the pure gold of charity.
O far be from us the dreary thought that death cuts off our friends
entirely from us! Far be from us the heartless creed which declares a
perpetual divorce between us and the just in heaven! Do not imagine when
you lose a father or mother, a tender sister or brother, who die in the
peace of Christ, that they are forgetful of you. The love they bore you on
earth is purified and intensified in heaven. Or if your innocent child,
regenerated in the waters of baptism, is snatched from you by death, be
assured that, though separated from you in body, that child is with you in
spirit and is repaying you a thousand-fold for the natural life it
received from you. Be convinced that the golden link of prayer binds you
to that angelic infant, and that it is continually offering its fervent
petitions at the throne of God for you, that you may both be reunited in
heaven. But I hear men cry out with Pharisaical assurance, “You dishonor
God, sir, in praying to the saints. You make void the mediatorship of
Jesus Christ. You put the creature above the Creator.” How utterly
groundless is this objection! We do not dishonor God in praying to the
saints. We should, indeed, dishonor Him if we consulted the saints
_independently_ of God. But such is not our practice. The Catholic Church
teaches, on the contrary, that God alone is the Giver of all good gifts;
that He is the Source of all blessings, the Fountain of all goodness. She
teaches that whatever happiness or glory or _influence_ the saints
possess, all comes from God. As the moon borrows her light from the sun,
so do the blessed borrow their light from Jesus, “the Sun of Justice, the
one Mediator (of redemption) of God and men.”(207) Hence, when we address
the saints, we beg them to pray for us through the merits of Jesus Christ,
while we ask Jesus to help up through His own merits.
But what is the use of praying to the saints, since God can hear us. If it
is vain and useless to pray to the saints because God can hear us, then
Jacob was wrong in praying to the angel; the friends of Job were wrong in
asking him to pray for them, though God commanded them to invoke Job’s
intercession; the Jews exiled in Babylon were wrong in asking their
brethren in Jerusalem to pray for them; St. Paul was wrong in beseeching
his friends to pray for him; then we are all wrong in praying for each
other. You deem it useful and pious to ask your pastor to pray for you. Is
it not, at least, equally useful for me to invoke the prayers of St. Paul,
since I am convinced that he can hear me?
God forbid that our supplications to our Father in heaven should diminish
in proportion as our prayers to the Saints increase; for, after all, we
must remember that, while the Church declares it necessary for salvation
to pray to God, she merely asserts that it is “good and useful to invoke
the saints.”(208) To ask the prayers of the saints, far from being
useless, is most profitable. By invoking their intercession, instead of
one we have many praying for us. To our own tepid petitions we unite the
fervent supplications of the blessed and “the Lord will hear the prayers
of the just.”(209) To the petitions of us, poor pilgrims in this vale of
tears, are united those of the citizens of heaven. We ask them to pray to
their God and to our God, to their Father and to our Father, that we may
one day share their delights in that blessed country in company with our
common Redeemer, Jesus Christ, with whom to live is to reign.
Chapter XIV.
IS IT LAWFUL TO HONOR THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AS A SAINT, TO INVOKE HER AS
AN INTERCESSOR, AND TO IMITATE HER AS A MODEL.
I. Is It Lawful To Honor Her?
The sincere adorers and lovers of our Lord Jesus Christ look with
reverence on every object with which He was associated, and they conceive
an affection for every person that was near and dear to Him on earth. The
closer the intimacy of those persons with our Savior, the holier do they
appear in our estimation, just as those planets which revolve the nearest
around the sun partake most of its light and heat.
There is something hallowed to the eye of the Christian in the very soil
of Judea, because it was pressed by the footprints of our Blessed
Redeemer. With what reverent steps we would enter the cave of Bethlehem
because _there_ was born the Savior of the world. With what religious
demeanor we would tread the streets of Nazareth when we remembered that
_there_ were spent the days of His boyhood. What profound religious awe
would fill our hearts on ascending Mount Calvary, where He paid by his
blood the ransom of our souls.
But if the _lifeless_ soil claims so much reverence, how much more
veneration would be enkindled in our hearts for the _living_ persons who
were the friends and associates of our Savior on earth! We know that He
exercised a certain salutary and magnetic influence on those whom He
approached. “All the multitude sought to touch Him, for virtue went out
from Him and healed all,”(210) as happened to the woman who had been
troubled with an issue of blood.(211)
We would seem, indeed, to draw near to Jesus, if we had the happiness of
only conversing with the Samaritan woman, or of eating at the table of
Zaccheus, or of being entertained by Nicodemus. But if we were admitted
into the inner circle of His friends—of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, for
instance—the Baptist or the Apostles, we would be conscious that in their
company we were drawing still nearer to Jesus and imbibing somewhat of
that spirit which they must have largely received from their familiar
relations with Him.
Now, if the land of Judea is looked upon as hallowed ground because Jesus
dwelt there; if the Apostles were considered as models of holiness because
they were the chosen companions and pupils of our Lord in His latter
years, how peerless must have been the sanctity of Mary, who gave Him
birth, whose breast was His pillow, who nursed and clothed Him in infancy,
who guided His early steps, who accompanied Him in His exile to Egypt and
back, who abode with Him from infancy to boyhood, from boyhood to manhood,
who during all that time listened to the words of wisdom which fell from
His lips, who was the first to embrace Him at His birth, and the last to
receive His dying breath on Calvary. This sentiment is so natural to us
that we find it bursting forth spontaneously from the lips of the woman of
the Gospel, who, hearing the words of Jesus full of wisdom and sanctity,
lifted up her voice and said to Him: “Blessed is the womb that bore Thee
and the paps that gave Thee suck.”
It is in accordance with the economy of Divine Providence that, whenever
God designs any person for some important work, He bestows on that person
the graces and dispositions necessary for faithfully discharging it.
When Moses was called by heaven to be the leader of the Hebrew people he
hesitated to assume the formidable office on the plea of “impediment and
slowness of tongue.” But Jehovah reassured him by promising to qualify him
for the sublime functions assigned to him: “I will be in thy mouth, and I
will teach thee what thou shalt speak.”(212)
The Prophet Jeremiah was sanctified from his very birth because he was
destined to be the herald of God’s law to the children of Israel: “Before
I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee, and before thou
camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.”(213)
“Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost,”(214) that she might be worthy
to be the hostess of our Lord during the three months that Mary dwelt
under her roof.
John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s
womb.”(215) “He was a burning and a shining light”(216) because he was
chosen to prepare the way of the Lord.
The Apostles received the plenitude of grace; they were endowed with the
gift of tongue and other privileges(217) before they commenced the work of
the ministry. Hence St. Paul says: “Our sufficiency is from God, who hath
made us _fit_ ministers of the New Testament.”(218)
Now of all who have participated in the ministry of the Redemption there
is none who filled any position so exalted, so sacred, as is the
incommunicable office of Mother of Jesus; and there is no one,
consequently, that _needed_ so high a degree of holiness as she did.
For, if God thus sanctified His Prophets and Apostles as being destined to
be the bearers of the Word of life, how much more sanctified must Mary
have been, who was to bear the Lord and “Author of life.”(219) If John was
so holy because he was chosen as the pioneer to prepare the way of the
Lord, how much more holy was she who ushered Him into the world. If
holiness became John’s mother, surely a greater holiness became the mother
of John’s Master. If God said to His Priests of old: “Be ye clean, you
that carry the vessels of the Lord;”(220) nay, if the vessels themselves
used in the divine service and churches are set apart by special
consecration, we cannot conceive Mary to have been ever profaned by sin,
who was the chosen vessel of election, even the Mother of God.
When we call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God, we assert our belief in
two things: First—That her Son, Jesus Christ, is true man, else she were
not a _mother_. Second—That He is true God, else she were not the _Mother
of God_. In other words, we affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed
Trinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is from all eternity
begotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fulness of
time again begotten, by being born of the Virgin, thus taking to Himself,
from her maternal womb, a human nature of the same substance with hers.
But it may be said the Blessed Virgin is not the Mother of the Divinity.
She had not, and she could not have, any part in the generation of the
Word of God, for that generation is eternal; her maternity is temporal. He
is her Creator; she is His creature. Style her, if you will, the Mother of
the man Jesus or even of the human nature of the Son of God, but not the
Mother of God.
I shall answer this objection by putting a question. Did the mother who
bore us have any part in the production of our _soul_? Was not this nobler
part of our being the work of God alone? And yet who would for a moment
dream of saying “the mother of my body,” and not “_my_ mother?”
The comparison teaches us that the terms parent and child, mother and son,
refer to the persons and not to the parts or elements of which the persons
are composed. Hence no one says: “The mother of my _body_,” “the mother of
my _soul_;” but in all propriety “my mother,” the mother of me who live
and breathe, think and act, _one_ in my personality, though uniting in it
a soul directly created by God, and a material body directly derived from
the maternal womb. In like manner, as far as the sublime mystery of the
Incarnation can be reflected in the natural order, the Blessed Virgin,
under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second
Person of the Adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the
same substance with her own, is thereby really and truly His Mother.
It is in this sense that the title of _Mother of God_, denied by
Nestorius, was vindicated to her by the General Council of Ephesus, in
431; in this sense, and in no other, has the Church called her by that
title.
Hence, by immediate and necessary consequence, follow her surpassing
dignity and excellence, and her special relationship and affinity, not
only with her Divine Son, but also with the Father and the Holy Ghost.
Mary, as Wordsworth beautifully expressed it, united in her person “a
mother’s love with maiden purity.” The Church teaches us that she was
always a Virgin—a Virgin before her espousals, during her married life and
after her spouse’s death. “The Angel Gabriel was sent from God ... to a
Virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, ... and the Virgin’s name
was Mary.”(221)
That she remained a Virgin till after the birth of Jesus is expressly
stated in the Gospel.(222) It is not less certain that she continued in
the same state during the remainder of her days; for in the Apostles’ and
the Nicene Creed she is called a Virgin, and that epithet cannot be
restricted to the time of our Saviour’s birth. It must be referred to her
whole life, inasmuch as both creeds were compiled long after she had
passed away.
The Canon of the Mass, which is very probably of Apostolic antiquity,
speaks of her as the “glorious _ever Virgin_,” and in this sentiment all
Catholic tradition concurs.
There is a propriety which suggests itself to every Christian in Mary’s
remaining a Virgin after the birth of Jesus, for, as Bishop Bull of the
Protestant Episcopal Church of England remarks, “It cannot with decency be
imagined that the most holy vessel which was once consecrated to be a
receptacle of the Deity should be afterwards desecrated and profaned by
human use.” The learned Grotius, Calvin and other eminent Protestant
writers hold the same view.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is now combated by
Protestants, as it was in the early days of the Church by Helvidius and
Jovinian, on the following grounds:
First—The Evangelist says that “Joseph took unto him his wife, and he knew
her not _till_ she brought forth her first-born son.”(223) This sentence
suggests to dissenters that other children besides Jesus were born to
Mary. But the qualifying word _till_ by no means implies that the chaste
union which had subsisted between Mary and Joseph up to the birth of our
Lord was subsequently altered. The Protestant Hooker justly complains of
the early heretics as having “abused greatly these words of Matthew,
gathering against the honor of the Blessed Virgin, that a thing denied
with special circumstance doth import an opposite affirmation when once
that circumstance is expired.”(224) To express Hooker’s idea in plainer
words, when a thing is said not to have occurred until another event had
happened, it does not necessarily follow that it did occur after that
event took place.
The Scripture says that the raven went forth from the ark, “and did not
return _till_ the waters were dried up upon the earth”(225)—that is, it
never returned. “Samuel saw Saul no more _till_ the day of his
death.”(226) He did not, of course, see him after death. “The Lord said to
my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand _until_ I make thy enemies thy
footstool.”(227) These words apply to our Savior, who did not cease to sit
at the right of God after His enemies were subdued.
Second—But Jesus is called Mary’s _first-born_ Son, and does not a
first-born always imply the subsequent birth of other children to the same
mother? By no means; for the name of first-born was given to the first son
of every Jewish mother, whether other children followed or not. We find
this epithet applied to Machir, for instance, who was the only son of
Manasses.(228)
Third—But is not mention frequently made of the brethren of Jesus?(229)
Fortunately the Gospels themselves will enable us to trace the maternity
of those who are called His brothers, not to the Blessed Virgin, but to
another Mary. St. Matthew mentions, by name, James and Joseph among the
brethren of Jesus;(230) and the same Evangelist and also St. Mark tell us
that among those who were present at the Crucifixion were Mary Magdalen
and Mary the mother of James and Joseph.(231) And St. John, who narrates
with more detail the circumstances of the Crucifixion, informs us who this
second Mary was, for he says that there stood by the cross of Jesus His
mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.(232)
There is no doubt that Mary of Cleophas is identical with Mary, who is
called by Matthew and Mark the mother of James and Joseph. And as Mary of
Cleophas was the kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin, James and Joseph are
called the brothers of Jesus, in conformity with the Hebrew practice of
giving that appellation to cousins or near relations. Abraham, for
instance, was the uncle of Lot, yet he calls him brother.(233)
Mary is exalted above all other women, not only because she united “a
mother’s love with maiden purity,” but also because she was conceived
without original sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is thus
expressed by the Church: “We define that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the
first moment of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of
Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the
human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin.”(234)
Unlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never
subject to sin, even in the first moment of its infusion into the body.
She alone was exempt from the original taint. This immunity of Mary from
original sin is exclusively due to the merits of Christ, as the Church
expressly declares. She needed a Redeemer as well as the rest of the human
race and therefore was “redeemed, but in a more sublime manner.”(235) Mary
is as much indebted to the precious blood of Jesus for having been
_preserved_ as we are for having been _cleansed_ from original sin.
Although the Immaculate Conception was not formulated into a dogma of
faith till 1854, it is at least implied in Holy Scripture. It is in strict
harmony with the place which Mary holds in the economy of Redemption, and
has virtually received the pious assent of the faithful from the earliest
days of the Church.
In Genesis we read: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and
thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head.”(236) All Catholic
commentators, ancient and modern, recognize in the Seed, the Woman and the
serpent types of our Savior, of Mary and the devil. God here declares that
the enmity of the Seed and that of the Woman toward the tempter were to be
identical. Now the enmity of Christ, or the Seed, toward the evil one was
absolute and perpetual. Therefore the enmity of Mary, or the Woman, toward
the devil never admitted of any momentary reconciliation which would have
existed if she were ever subject to original sin.
It is worthy of note that as three characters appear on the scene of our
fall—Adam, Eve and the rebellious Angel—so three corresponding personages
figure in our redemption—Jesus Christ, who is the second Adam;(237) Mary,
the second Eve, and the Archangel Gabriel. The second Adam was
immeasurably superior to the first, Gabriel was superior to the fallen
Angel, and hence we are warranted by analogy to conclude that Mary was
superior to Eve. But if she had been created in original sin, instead of
being superior, she would be inferior to Eve, who was certainly created
immaculate. We cannot conceive that the mother of Cain was created
superior to the mother of Jesus. It would have been unworthy of a God of
infinite purity to have been born of a woman that was even for an instant
under the dominion of Satan.
The liturgies of the Church, being the established formularies of her
public worship, are among the most authoritative documents that can be
adduced in favor of any religious practice.
In the liturgy ascribed to St. James, Mary is commemorated as “our most
holy, immaculate and most glorious Lady, Mother of God and ever Virgin
Mary.”(238)
In the Maronite Ritual she is invoked as “our holy, praiseworthy and
immaculate Lady.”(239)
In the Alexandrian liturgy of St. Basil, she is addressed as “most holy,
most glorious, immaculate.”(240)
The Feast of Mary’s Conception commenced to be celebrated in the East in
the fifth, and in the West in the seventh centuries. It was not introduced
into Rome till probably towards the end of the fourteenth century. Though
Rome is always the first that is called on to sanction a new festival, she
is often the last to take part in it. She is the first that is expected to
give the key-note, but frequently the last to join in the festive song.
While she is silent, the notes are faint and uncertain; when her voice
joins in the chant, the song of praise becomes constant and universal.
It is scarcely necessary for me to add that the introduction of the
festival of the Conception after the lapse of so many centuries from the
foundation of Christianity no more implies a novelty of doctrine than the
erection of a monument in 1875 to Arminius, the German hero who flourished
in the first century, would be an evidence of his recent exploits. The
Feast of the Blessed Trinity was not introduced till the fifth century,
though it commemorates a fundamental mystery of the Christian religion.
It is interesting to us to know that the Immaculate Conception of Mary has
been interwoven in the earliest history of our own country. The ship that
first bore Columbus to America was named Mary of the Conception. This
celebrated navigator gave the same name to the second island which he
discovered. The first chapel erected in Quebec, when that city was founded
in the early part of the seventeenth century was dedicated to God under
the invocation of Mary Immaculate.
In view of these three great prerogatives of Mary—her divine maternity,
her perpetual virginity and her Immaculate Conception—we are prepared to
find her blessedness often and expressly declared in Holy Scripture.
The Archangel Gabriel is sent to her from heaven to announce to her the
happy tidings that she was destined to be the mother of the world’s
Redeemer. No greater favor was ever before or since conferred on woman,
whether we consider the dignity of the messenger, or the momentous
character of the message, or the terms of respect in which it is conveyed.
“The Angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee called
Nazareth to a virgin ... and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the Angel
being come in said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;
blessed art thou among women. Who, having heard, was troubled at his
saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
And the Angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with
God. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son,
and thou shalt call his name Jesus.... The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee, and therefore,
also, the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God.”(241) The Almighty does not send to Mary, a prophet or priest, or any
other earthly ambassador, nor even one of the lower choirs of angels, but
He commissions an Archangel to confer with her.
_“__Hail full of grace!__”_ Gabriel does not congratulate her on her
personal charms, though she is the fairest daughter of Israel. He does not
praise her for her exalted ancestry, though she is descended from the
Kings of Juda. But he commends her because she is the chosen child of
benediction. He admires the hidden virtues of her soul, brighter than the
sun, fairer than the moon, purer than angels, he sees before him,
“Our tainted nature’s solitary boast,”
one that alone escaped the taint of Adam’s disobedience.
As the precious diamond reflects various colors according as it is exposed
to the sun’s rays, so did the soul of Mary, from the moment that the “Sun
of Justice” shone upon her, exhibit every grace that was prompted by the
occasion.
St. Stephen and the Apostles were also said to be full of the Spirit of
God. By this, however, we are not to understand that the same measure of
grace was imparted to them which was given to Mary. On each one it is
bestowed according to his merits and needs. “One is the glory of the sun,
another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars, for
star differeth from star in glory;”(242) and as Mary’s office of Mother of
God immeasurably surpassed in dignity that of the proto-martyr and of the
Apostles, so did her grace superabound over theirs.
_“__The Lord is with thee.__”_ “He exists in His creatures in different
ways; in those that are endowed with reason in one way, in irrational
creatures in another. His irrational creatures have no means of
apprehending or possessing Him. All rational creatures may indeed
apprehend Him by knowledge, but only the good by love. Only in the good
does He so exist as to be with them as well as in them; with them by a
certain harmony and agreement of will, and in this way God is with all His
Saints. But He is with Mary in a yet more special manner, for in her there
was so great an agreement and union with God that not her will only, but
her very flesh was to be united to him.”(243)
_“__Blessed art Thou among women.__”_ The same expression is applied to
two other women in the Holy Scripture—viz., to Jahel and Judith. The
former was called blessed after she had slain Sisara,(244) and the latter
after she had slain Holofernes,(245) both of whom had been enemies of
God’s people. In this respect these two women are true types of Mary, who
was chosen by God to crush the head of the serpent, the infernal enemy of
mankind. And if they deserved the title of blessed for being the
instruments of God in rescuing Israel from temporal calamities, how much
more does Mary merit that appellation, who co-operated so actively in the
salvation of the human race!
The Evangelist proceeds: “And Mary, rising up in those days, went ... into
a city of Juda; and she entered into the house of Zachary and saluted
Elizabeth. And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of
Mary the infant leapt in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy
Ghost, and she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou
among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to
me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, as soon as
the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb
leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those
things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.”(246)
There is joy in Mary’s heart in being chosen to become the mother of the
world’s Redeemer. She wishes by her visit to communicate that joy to her
cousin. The Sun of Justice is shining within her. She desires to diffuse
His rays through Elizabeth’s household. She is laden with spiritual
treasures. She must share them with her kinswoman, especially as she is
none the poorer in making others richer.
The usual order of salutation is here reversed. Age pays reverence to
youth. A lady who is revered by the whole community honors a lowly maiden.
An inspired matron expresses her astonishment that her young kinswoman
should deign to visit her. She extols Mary’s faith and calls her blessed.
She blends the praise of Mary with the praise of Mary’s Son, and even the
infant John testifies his reverential joy by leaping in his mother’s womb.
And we are informed that during this interview Elizabeth was filled with
the Holy Ghost, to remind us that the veneration she paid to her cousin
was not prompted by her own feelings, but was dictated by the Spirit of
God.
Then Mary breaks out into that sublime canticle, the Magnificat: “My soul
doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior,
because He hath regarded the humility of his handmaid, for behold from
henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”(247) On these words I
shall pause to make one reflection.
The Holy Ghost, through the organ of Mary’s chaste lips, prophesies that
all generations shall call her blessed, with evident approval of the
praise she should receive.
What a daring prophecy is this! Among the wonderful predictions recorded
in Holy Scripture, I can recall none that more strongly commands my
admiration. Here is a modest, retiring maiden, living in an obscure
village in a remote quarter of the civilized world, openly announcing that
every age till the end of time, should pronounce her hallowed. We have no
reason to question this prophecy, for it is recorded in the inspired pages
of the Gospel. And we know also without the shadow of a doubt that the
prophecy has been literally fulfilled. For, in every epoch, and in every
Christian land from the rising to the setting sun, her _Magnificat_ has
daily resounded.
Now the Catholic is the only Church whose children, generation after
generation, from the first to the present century, have pronounced her
blessed; of all Christians in this land, they alone contribute to the
fulfilment of the prophecy.
Therefore, it is only Catholics that earn the approval of Heaven by
fulfilling the prediction of the Holy Ghost.
Protestants not only concede that we bless the name of Mary, but they even
reproach us with being too lavish in our praises of her.
On the other hand, they are careful to exclude themselves from the
“generations” that were destined to call her blessed, for, in speaking of
her, they almost invariably withhold from her the title of _blessed_,
prefering to call her _the Virgin_, or _Mary the Virgin_, or _the Mother
of Jesus_. And while Protestant churches will resound with the praises of
Sarah and Rebecca and Rachel, of Miriam and Ruth, of Esther and Judith of
the Old Testament, and of Elizabeth and Anna, of Magdalen and Martha of
the New, the name of Mary the Mother of Jesus is uttered with bated
breath, lest the sound of her name should make the preacher liable to the
charge of superstition.
The piety of a mother usually sheds additional lustre on the son, and the
halo that encircles her brow is reflected upon his. The more the mother is
extolled, the greater honor redounds to the son. And if this is true of
all men who do not choose their mothers, how much more strictly may it be
affirmed of Him who chose His own Mother, and made her Himself such as He
would have her, so that all the glories of His Mother are essentially His
own. And yet we daily see ministers of the Gospel ignoring Mary’s exalted
virtues and unexampled privileges and parading her alleged imperfections;
nay, sinfulness, as if her Son were dishonored by the piety, and took
delight in the defamation of His Mother.
Such defamers might learn a lesson from one who made little profession of
Christianity.
“Is thy name Mary, maiden fair?
Such should, methinks, its music be.
The sweetest name that mortals bear,
Were best befitting thee.
And she to whom it once was given
_Was half of earth and half of heaven_.”(248)
Once more the title of _blessed_, is given to Mary. On one occasion a
certain woman, lifting up her voice, said to Jesus: “Blessed is the womb
that bore thee and the paps that gave thee suck.”(249) It is true that our
Lord replied: “Yea, rather (or yea, likewise), blessed are they who hear
the word of God and keep it.” It would be an unwarrantable perversion of
the sacred text to infer from this reply that Jesus intended to detract
from the praise bestowed on His Mother. His words may be thus correctly
paraphrased: She is blessed indeed in being the chosen instrument of My
incarnation, but more blessed in keeping My word. Let others be comforted
in knowing that though they cannot share with My Mother in the privilege
of her maternity, they can participate with her in the blessed reward of
them who hear My word and keep it.
In the preceding passages we have seen Mary declared blessed on four
different occasions, and hence, in proclaiming her blessedness, far from
paying her unmerited honor, we are but re-echoing the Gospel verdict of
saint and angel and of the Spirit of God Himself.
Wordsworth, though not nurtured within the bosom of the Catholic Church,
conceives a true appreciation of Mary’s incomparable holiness in the
following beautiful lines:
“Mother! whose virgin bosom was uncrossed
With the least shade of thought to sin allied;
Woman! above all women glorified,
Our tainted nature’s solitary boast;
Purer than foam on central ocean tost,
Brighter than eastern skies at daybreak strewn
With fancied roses, than the unblemished moon
Before her wane begins on heaven’s blue coast,
Thy image falls to earth. Yet some, I ween,
Not unforgiven, the suppliant knee might bend
As to a visible power, in which did blend
All that was mixed and reconciled in thee
Of mother’s love with maiden purity,
Of high with low, celestial with serene.”
To honor one who has been the subject of divine, angelic and saintly
panegyric is to use a privilege, and the privilege is heightened into a
sacred duty when we remember that the spirit of prophecy foretold that she
should ever be the unceasing theme of Christian eulogy as long as
Christianity itself would exist.
“Honor he is worthy of, whom the king hath a mind to honor.”(250) The King
of kings hath honored Mary; His divine Son did not disdain to be subject
to her, therefore should we honor her, especially as the honor we pay to
her redounds to God, the source of all glory. The Royal Prophet, than whom
no man paid higher praise to God, esteemed the friends of God worthy of
all honor: “To me Thy friends, O God, are made exceedingly
honorable.”(251) Now the dearest friends of God are they who most
faithfully keep His precepts: “You are My friends, if you do the things
that I command you.”(252) Who fulfilled the divine precepts better than
Mary, who kept all the words of her Son, pondering them in her heart? “If
any man minister to me,” says our Savior, “him will My Father honor.”(253)
Who ministered more constantly to Jesus than Mary, who discharged towards
Him all the offices of a tender mother?
Heroes and statesmen may receive the highest military and civic honors
which a nation can bestow without being suspected of invading the domain
of the glory which is due to God. Now is not heroic sanctity more worthy
of admiration than civil service and military exploits, inasmuch as
religion ranks higher than patriotism and valor? And yet the admirers of
Mary’s exalted virtues can scarcely celebrate her praises without being
accused in certain quarters of Mariolatry.
When a nation wishes to celebrate the memory of its distinguished men its
admiration is not confined to words, but vents itself in a thousand
different shapes. See in how many ways we honor the memory of Washington.
Monuments on which his good deeds are recorded are erected to his name.
The grounds in which his remains repose on the banks of the Potomac are
kept in order by a volunteer band of devoted ladies, who adorn the place
with flowers. And this cherished spot is annually visited by thousands of
pilgrims from the most remote sections of the country. These visitors will
eagerly snatch a flower or a leaf from a shrub growing near Washington’s
tomb, or will strive even to clip off a little shred from one of his
garments, still preserved in the old mansion, to bear home with them as
precious relics.
I have always observed when traveling on the missions up and down the
Potomac, that whenever the steamer came to the point opposite Mount Vernon
the bell was tolled, and every eye was directed toward Washington’s grave.
The 22nd of February, Washington’s birthday, is kept as a national
holiday, at least in certain portions of the country. I well remember that
formerly military and fire companies paraded the streets, and that
patriotic speeches recounting the heroic deeds of the first President were
delivered, the festivities of the day closing with a social banquet.
As the citizens of the United States manifest in divers ways their
admiration for Washington, so do the citizens of the republic of the
Church love to exhibit in corresponding forms their veneration for the
Mother of Jesus.
Monuments and statues are erected to her. Thrice each day—at morn, noon
and even—the Angelus bells are rung, to recall to our mind the Incarnation
of our Lord, and the participation of Mary in this great mystery of love.
Her shrines are tastefully adorned by pious hands and visited by devoted
children, who wear her relics or any object which bears her image, or
which is associated with her name.
Her natal day and other days of the year, sacred to her memory, are
appropriately commemorated by processions, by participation in the banquet
of the Eucharist, and by sermons enlarging on her virtues and
prerogatives.
As no one was ever suspected of loving his country and her institutions
less because of his revering Washington, so no one can reasonably suppose
that our homage to God is diminished by our fostering reverence for Mary.
As our object in eulogizing Washington is not so much to honor the man as
to vindicate those principles of which he was the champion and exponent,
and to express our gratitude to God for the blessings bestowed on our
country through him, even so our motive in commemorating Mary’s name is
not merely to praise her, but still more to keep us in perpetual
remembrance of our Lord’s Incarnation, and to show our thankfulness to Him
for the blessings wrought through that great mystery in which she was so
prominent a figure. There is not a grain of incense offered to Mary which
does not ascend to the throne of God Himself.
Experience sufficiently demonstrates that the better we understand the
part which Mary has taken in the work of redemption, the more enlightened
becomes our knowledge of our Redeemer Himself, and that the greater our
love for her, the deeper and broader is our devotion to Him; while
experience also testifies that our Savior’s attributes become more
confused and warped in the minds of a people in proportion as they ignore
Mary’s relations to Him.
The defender of a beleaguered citadel concentrates his forces on the outer
fortifications and towers, knowing well that the capture of these outworks
would endanger the citadel itself, and that _their_ safety involves _its_
security.
Jesus Christ is the citadel of our faith, the stronghold of our soul’s
affections. Mary is called the “Tower of David,” and the gate of Sion
which the Lord loveth more than all the tabernacles of Jacob,(254) and
which He entered at His Incarnation.
So intimately is this living gate of Sion connected with Jesus, the Temple
of our faith, that no one has ever assailed the former without invading
the latter. The Nestorian would have Mary to be only an ordinary mother
because he would have Christ to be a mere man.
Hence, if we rush to the defence of the gate of Sion, it is because we are
more zealous for the city of God. If we stand as sentinels around the
tower of David, it is because we are more earnest in protecting Jerusalem
from invasion. If we forbid profane hands to touch the ark of the
covenant, it is because we are anxious to guard from profanation the Lord
of the ark. If we are so solicitous about Mary’s honor, it is because “the
love of Christ” presseth us. If we will not permit a single wreath to be
snatched from her fair brow, it is because we are unwilling that a single
feature of Christ’s sacred humanity should be obscured, and because we
wish that He should ever shine forth in all the splendor of His glory, and
clothed in all the panoply of His perfections.
But you will ask: Why do you so often blend together the worship of God
and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin? Why such exclamations as
_Blessed be Jesus and Mary_? Why do you so often repeat in succession the
Lord’s prayer and the Angelical salutation? Is not this practice
calculated to level all distinctions between the Creator and His creature,
and to excite the displeasure of a God ever jealous of His glory?
Those who make this objection should remember that the praises of the Lord
and of His Saints are frequently combined in Holy Scripture itself.
Witness Judith. On returning from the tent of Holofernes, she sang:
“_Praise ye the Lord, our God_, who hath not forsaken them that hope in
Him, _and by me His handmaid_, He hath fulfilled His mercy which He
promised to the house of Israel.... And Ozias, the prince of the people of
Israel, said to her: _Blessed art thou, O daughter_, by the Lord the Most
High God, above all women upon the earth, _Blessed be the Lord_ who made
heaven and earth ... because He hath so magnified thy name this day, that
thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men.”(255)
Witness Ecclesiasticus. After glorifying God for His mighty works, he
immediately sounds the praises of Enoch and Noe, of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, of Moses and Aaron, of Samuel and Nathan, of David and Josias, of
Isaiah and Jeremiah, and other kings and prophets of Israel.(256)
Elizabeth, in the same breath, exclaims: “Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”(257)
And Mary herself, under the inspiration of Heaven, cries out: “My soul
_doth magnify the Lord_, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior....
For, behold from henceforth all generations _shall call me blessed_.”(258)
Here are the names of Creator and creature interwoven like threads of gold
and silver in the same woof, without provoking the jealousy of God.
God jealous of the honor paid to Mary! Will a father be jealous of the
honor paid to his child, especially of a child who reflects his own image
and likeness, and exhibits those virtues which he had inculcated on her
tender mind? And is not Mary God’s child of predilection? Will an
architect be envious of the praise bestowed on a magnificent temple which
his genius planned and reared? Is not the living temple of Mary’s heart
the work of the Supreme Architect? Must she not say with all of God’s
creatures: “Thy hands (O Lord) have made me and formed me.” Is it not He
who has adorned that living temple with those rare beauties which we so
much admire? Has she not declared so when she exclaimed: “He that is
mighty hath done great things to me, and holy is His name!”(259)
God jealous of the honor paid to Mary! As well might we imagine that the
sun, if endowed with intelligence, would be jealous of the mellow, golden
cloud which encircles him, which reflects his brightness and presents in
bolder light his inaccessible splendor. As well imagine that the same
luminary would be jealous of our admiration for the beautiful rose, whose
opening petals and rich color and delicious fragrance are the fruit of his
beneficent rays.
Hence in uniting Mary’s praise with that of Jesus we are strictly
imitating the sacred Text. We are imitating Joachim, the High Priest, and
the people of God in Bethulia, who unite the praises of Judith with the
praises of Jehovah.
We are imitating the sacred writer of Ecclesiasticus who, after extolling
God for His mighty works, sounds the praises of Enoch and Noe, of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, of David and Josiah, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and other
Kings and Prophets of Israel.
We are imitating Elizabeth, who exclaimed in one breath: “Blessed art thou
(Mary) among women and blessed is (Jesus) the fruit of thy womb.”
And as no one ever suspected that the encomiums pronounced on Judith and
the virtuous Kings and Prophets of Israel detracted from God’s honor, so
neither do we lessen His glory in exalting the Blessed Virgin. I find
Jesus and Mary together at the manger, together in Egypt, together in
Nazareth, together in the temple, together at the cross. I find their
names side by side in the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creed. It is fitting
that both should find a place in my heart, and that both names should
often flow successively from my lips. Inseparable in life and in death,
they should not be divorced in my prayer. “What God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder.”
II. Is It Lawful To Invoke Her?
The Church exhorts her children not only to honor the Blessed Virgin, but
also to invoke her intercession. It is evident from Scripture that the
Angels and Saints in heaven can hear our prayers and that they have the
power and the will to help us.(260) Now, if the angels are conversant with
what happens on earth; if the Prophets, even while clothed in the flesh,
had a clear vision of things which were transpiring at a great distance
from them; if they could penetrate into the future and fortell events
which were then hidden in the womb of time, shall we believe that God
withholds a knowledge of our prayers from Mary, who is justly styled the
Queen of Angels and Saints? For, as Mary’s sanctity surpasses that of all
other mortals, her knowledge must be proportionately greater than theirs,
since knowledge constitutes one of the sources of celestial bliss.
If Stephen, while his soul was still in the prison of the body, “_saw_ the
glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God;”(261) if Paul
“_heard_ secret words”(262) spoken in paradise, is it surprising that Mary
hears and sees us, now that she is elevated to heaven and stands “face to
face” before God, the perfect Mirror of all knowledge? It is as easy for
God to enable His Saints to see things terrestrial from heaven as things
celestial from earth.
The influence of Mary’s intercession exceeds that of the angels,
patriarchs and prophets in the same degree that her sanctity surpasses
theirs. If our heavenly Father listens so propitiously to the voice of His
servants, what will He refuse to her who is His chosen daughter of
predilection, chosen among thousands to be the Mother of His beloved Son?
If we ourselves, though sinners, can help one another by our prayers, how
irresistible must be the intercession of Mary, who never grieved Almighty
God by sin, who never tarnished her white robe of innocence by the least
defilement, from the first moment of her existence till she was received
by triumphant angels into heaven.
In speaking of the patronage of the Blessed Virgin, we must never lose
sight of her title of Mother of our Redeemer nor of the great privileges
which that prerogative implies. Mary was the Mother of Jesus. She
exercised toward Him all the influence that a prudent mother has over an
affectionate child. “Jesus,” says the Gospel, “was subject to
them”(263)—that is, to Mary and Joseph. We find this obedience of our Lord
toward His Mother forcibly exemplified at the marriage feast of Cana. Her
wishes are delicately expressed in these words: “They have no wine.” He
instantly obeys her by changing water into wine, though the time for
exercising His public ministry and for working wonders had not yet
arrived.
Now, Mary has never forfeited in heaven the title of Mother of Jesus. She
is still His Mother, and while adoring Him as her God she still retains
her maternal relations, and He exercises toward her that loving
willingness to grant her request which the best of sons entertains for the
best of mothers.
Never does Jesus appear to us so amiable and endearing as when we see Him
nestled in the arms of His Mother. We love to contemplate Him, and artists
love to represent Him, in that situation. It appears to me that had we
lived in Jerusalem in His day and recognized, like Simeon, the Lord of
majesty in the form of an Infant, and had we a favor to ask Him, we would
present it through Mary’s hands while the Divine eyes of the Babe were
gazing on her sweet countenance. And even so now. Never will our prayers
find a readier acceptance than when offered through her.
In invoking Our Lady’s patronage we are actuated by a triple sense of the
majesty of God, our own unworthiness and of Mary’s incomparable influence
with her Heavenly Father. Conscious of our natural lowliness and sins, we
have frequent recourse to her intercession in the assured hope of being
more favorably heard.
“And even as children who have much offended
A too indulgent father, in great shame,
Penitent, and yet not daring unattended
To go into his presence, at the gate
Speak to their sister and confiding wait
Till she goes in before and intercedes;
So men, repenting of their evil deeds,
And yet not venturing rashly to draw near
With their requests, an angry Father’s ear,
Offer to her their prayers and their confession,
And she in heaven for them makes intercession.”(264)
Do you ask me, is Mary willing to assist you? Does she really take an
interest in your welfare? Or is she so much absorbed by the fruition of
God as to be indifferent to our miseries? “Can a woman forget her infant
so as not to have pity on the fruit of her womb?”(265) Even so Mary will
not forget us.
The love she bears us, her children by adoption, can be estimated only by
her love for her Son by nature. It was Mary that nursed the Infant Savior.
It was her hands that clothed Him. It was her breast that sheltered Him
from the rude storm and from the persecution of Herod. She it was that
wiped the stains from His brow when taken down from the cross. Now we are
the brothers of Jesus. He is not ashamed, says the Apostle, to call us His
brethren.(266) Neither is Mary ashamed to call us her children by
adoption. At the foot of the cross she adopted us in the person of St.
John. She is anxious to minister to our souls as she ministered to the
corporal wants of her Son. She would be the instrument of God in feeding
us with Divine grace, in clothing us with the garments of innocence, in
sheltering us from the storms of temptations, in wiping away the stains of
sin from our soul.
If the angels, though of a different nature from ours, have so much
sympathy for us as to rejoice in our conversion,(267) how great must be
the interest manifested toward us by Mary, who is of a common nature with
us, descended from the same primitive parents, being bone of our bone, and
flesh of our flesh, and who once trod the thorny path of life that we now
tread!
Though not of the household of the faith, Edgar A. Poe did not disdain to
invoke Our Lady’s intercession, and to acknowledge the influence of her
patronage in heaven.
“At morn—at noon—at twilight dim—
Maria! thou hast heard my hymn;
In joy and woe—in good and ill—
Mother of God, be with me still!
When the hours flew brightly by,
And not a cloud obscured the sky,
My soul, lest it should truant be,
Thy grace did guide to thine and thee;
Now, when storms of fate o’ercast
Darkly my present and my past,
Let my future radiant shine,
With sweet hopes of thee and thine.”
Some persons not only object to the invocation of Mary as being
unprofitable, but they even affect to be scandalized at the confidence we
repose in her intercession, on the groundless assumption that by praying
to her we ignore and dishonor God, and that we put the creature on a level
with the Creator.
Every Catholic child knows from the catechism that to give to any creature
the supreme honor due to God alone is idolatry. How can we be said to
dishonor God, or bring Him down to a level with His creature by invoking
Mary, since we acknowledge her to be a pure creature indebted like
ourselves to Him for every gift and influence that she possesses? This is
implied in the very form of our petitions.
When we address our prayers to her we say: _Pray for us sinners_, implying
by these words that she herself is a petitioner at the throne of Divine
mercy. To God we say: _Give us our daily bread_, thereby acknowledging Him
to be the source of all bounty.
This principle being kept in view, how can we be justly accused of
slighting God’s majesty by invoking the intercession of His handmaid?
If a beggar asks and receives alms from me through my servant, should I be
offended at the blessings which he invokes upon her? Far from it. I accept
them as intended for myself, because she bestowed what was mine, and with
my consent.
Our Lord says to His Apostles: “I dispose to you a kingdom, that you may
eat and drink at My table in My kingdom and may sit upon thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel.”(268) And St. Paul says: “Know you not that
we shall judge angels, how much more things of this world?”(269) If the
Apostles may sit at the table of the Lord in heaven without prejudice to
His majesty, surely Our Lady can stand as an advocate before Him without
infringing on His rights. If they can exercise the dread prerogative of
judges of angels and of men without trespassing on the Divine judgeship of
Jesus, surely Mary can fulfill the more modest function of intercessor
with her Son without intruding on His supreme mediatorship, for higher is
the office of judge than that of advocate. And yet, while no one is ever
startled at the power given to the Apostles, many are impatient of the
lesser privilege claimed for Mary.
III. Is It Lawful To Imitate Her As A Model?
But while the exalted privileges of Mary render her worthy of our
veneration, while her saintly influence renders her worthy of our
invocation, her personal life is constantly held up to us as a pattern
worthy of our imitation. If she occupies so prominent a place in our
pulpits, this prominence is less due to her prerogatives as a mother, or
to her intercession as a patroness, than to her example as a Saint.
After our Lord Jesus Christ, no one has ever exercised so salutary and so
dominant an influence as the Blessed Virgin on society, on the family and
on the individual.
The Mother of Jesus exercises throughout the Christian commonwealth that
hallowing influence which a good mother wields over the Christian family.
What temple or chapel, how rude soever it may be, is not adorned with a
painting or a statue of the Madonna? What house is not embellished with an
image of Mary? What Catholic child is a stranger to her familiar face?
The priest and the layman, the scholar and the illiterate, the prince and
the peasant, the mother and the maid, acknowledge her benign sway.
And if Christianity is so fruitful in comparison with Paganism, in
conjugal fidelity, in female purity and in the respect paid to womanhood,
these blessings are in no small measure due to the force of Mary’s
all-pervading influence and example. Ever since the Son of God chose a
woman to be His mother man looks up to woman with a homage akin to
veneration.
The poet Longfellow pays the following tribute to Mary’s sanctifying
influence:
“This is indeed the blessed Mary’s land,
Virgin and mother of our dear Redeemer!
All hearts are touched and softened at her name
Alike the bandit with the bloody hand,
The priest, the prince, the scholar and the peasant
The man of deeds, the visionary dreamer
Pay homage to her as one ever present!
And if our faith had given us nothing more
Than this example of all womanhood,
So mild, so merciful, so strong, so good,
So patient, peaceful, loyal, loving, pure,
This were enough to prove it higher and truer
Than all the creeds the world had known before.”(270)
St. Ambrose gives us the following beautiful picture of Mary’s life before
her espousals: “Let the life,” he says, “of the Blessed Mary be ever
present to you in which, as in a mirror, the beauty of chastity and the
form of virtue shine forth. She was a virgin not only in body, but in
mind, who never sullied the pure affection of her heart by unworthy
feelings. She was humble of heart, serious in her conversation, fonder of
reading than of speaking. She placed her confidence rather in the prayer
of the poor than in the uncertain riches of this world. She was ever
intent on her occupation, ... and accustomed to make God rather than man
the witness of her thoughts. She injured no one, wished well to all,
reverenced age, yielded not to envy, avoided all boasting, followed the
dictates of reason and loved virtue. When did she sadden her parents even
by a look?... There was nothing forward in her looks, bold in her words or
unbecoming in her actions. Her carriage was not abrupt, her gait not
indolent, her voice not petulant, so that her very appearance was the
picture of her mind and the figure of piety.”
Her life as a spouse and as a mother was a counterpart of her earlier
years. The Gospel relates one little circumstance which amply suffices to
demonstrate Mary’s super-eminent holiness of life, and to exhibit her as a
beautiful pattern to those who are called to rule a household. The
Evangelist tells us that Jesus “was subject to them”(271)—that is, to Mary
and Joseph. He obeyed all her commands, fulfilled her behests, complied
with her smallest injunctions; in a word, He discharged toward her all the
filial observances which a dutiful son exercises toward a prudent mother.
These relations continued from His childhood to His public life, nor did
they cease even then.
Now Jesus being the Son of God, “the brightness of His glory and the
figure of His substance,”(272) could not sin. He was incapable of
fulfilling an unrighteous precept. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from
these facts is, that Mary never sinned by commanding, as Jesus could not
sin by obeying; that all her precepts and counsels were stamped with the
seal of Divine approbation, and that the Son never fulfilled any
injunction of His earthly Mother which was not ratified by His Eternal
Father in heaven.
Such is the beautiful portrait which the Church holds up to the
contemplation of her children, that studying it they may admire the
original, admiring they may love, loving they may imitate, and thus become
more dear to God by being made “conformable to the image of His Son,”(273)
of whom Mary is the most perfect mirror.
Chapter XV.
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.
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 idolatry, 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.
The catacombs of Rome, to which the faithful alone were admitted,
abounded, however, in sacred emblems and pious representations, which are
preserved even to this day and attest the practice of the early Christian
Church. We see there painted on the walls or on vases of glass the Dove,
the emblem of the Holy Ghost, Christ carrying His cross, or bearing on His
shoulders the lost sheep. We meet also the Lamb, an anchor and a
ship—appropriate types of our Lord, of hope and of the Church.
The first crusade against images was waged in the eighth century by Leo
the Isaurian, Emperor of Constantinople. He commanded the paintings of our
Lord and His Saints to be torn down from the church walls and burned. He
even invaded the sanctuary of home, and snatched thence the sacred emblems
which adorned private residences. He caused statues of bronze, silver and
gold to be melted down and conveniently converted them into coins, upon
which his own image was stamped. Like Henry VIII. and Cromwell, this royal
Iconoclast affected to be moved by a zeal for purity of worship, while
avarice was the real motive of his action.
The Emperor commanded the learned librarians of his imperial library to
give public approbation to his decrees against images, and when those
conscientious men refused to endorse his course they were all confined in
the imperial library, the building was set on fire and thirty thousand
volumes, the splendid basilica which contained them, innumerable paintings
and the librarians themselves were involved in one common destruction.
Constantine Copronymus prosecuted the vandalism of Leo, his predecessor.
Stephen, an intrepid monk, presented to the Emperor a coin bearing that
tyrant’s effigy, with these words: “Sire, whose image is this?” “It is
mine,” replied the Emperor. The monk then threw down the piece of money
and trampled it. He was instantly seized by the imperial attendants and
soon after put to a painful death. “Alas!” cried the holy man to the
Emperor, “if I am punished for dishonoring the image of a mortal monarch,
what punishment do they deserve who burn the image of Jesus Christ?”
The demolition of images was revived by the Reformers of the sixteenth
century. Paintings and statues were ruthlessly destroyed, chiefly in the
British Isles, Germany and Holland, under the pretext that the making of
them was idolatrous. But as the Iconoclasts of the eighth century had no
scruple about appropriating to their own use the gold and silver of the
statues which they melted, neither had the Iconoclasts of the sixteenth
century any hesitation in confiscating and worshiping in the idolatrous
churches whose statues and paintings they broke and disfigured.
A stranger who visits some of the desecrated Catholic churches of Great
Britain and the Continent which are now used as Protestant temples cannot
fail to notice the mutilated statues of the Saints still standing in their
niches.
This barbaric warfare against religious memorials was not only a grievous
sacrilege, but an outrage against the fine arts; and had the destroying
angels extended their ravages over Europe the immortal works of Michael
Angelo and Raphael would be lost to us today.
The doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding the use of sacred images is
clearly and fully expressed by the General Council of Trent in the
following words: “The images of Christ, and of His Virgin Mother, and of
other Saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches; and a
due honor and veneration is to be given to them; not that any divinity or
virtue is believed to be in them for which they are to be honored, or that
any prayer is to be made to them, or that any confidence is to be placed
in them, as was formerly done by the heathens, who placed their hopes in
idols; but because the honor which is given them is referred to the
originals which they represent, so that by the images which we kiss, and
before which we uncover our heads or kneel, we adore Christ and venerate
His Saints, whose likeness they represent.”(274)
Every Catholic child clearly comprehends the essential difference which
exists between a Pagan idol and a Christian image. The Pagans looked upon
an idol as a god endowed with intelligence and the other attributes of the
Deity. They were therefore idolaters, or _image worshipers_. Catholic
Christians know that a holy image has no intelligence or power to hear and
help them. They pay it a relative respect—that is, their reverence for the
copy is proportioned to the veneration which they entertain for the
heavenly original to which it is also referred.
For the sake of my Protestant readers I may here quote their own great
Leibnitz on the reverence paid to sacred images. He says, in his _Systema
Theologicum_, p. 142: “Though we speak of the honor paid to images, yet
this is only a manner of speaking, which really means that we honor not
the senseless thing which is incapable of understanding such honor, but
the prototype, which receives honor through its representation, according
to the teaching of the Council of Trent. It is in this sense, I take it,
that scholastic writers have spoken of the same worship being paid to
images of Christ as to Christ our Lord Himself; for the act which is
called the worship of an image is really the worship of Christ Himself,
through and in the presence of the image and by occasion of it; by the
inclination of the body toward it as to Christ Himself, as rendering Him
more manifestly present, and raising the mind more actively to the
contemplation of Him. Certainly, no sane 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; to
Thee I give thanks and sing songs of praise.’ Given, then, that there is
no other veneration of images than that which means veneration of their
prototype, there is surely no more idolatry in it than there is in the
respect shown in the utterance of the Most Holy Names of God and Christ;
for, after all, names are but signs or symbols, and even as such inferior
to images, for they represent much less vividly. So that when there is
question of honoring images, this is to be understood in the same way as
when it is said that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bend, or that
the name of the Lord is blessed, or that glory be given to His Name. Thus,
the bowing before an image outside of us is no more to be reprehended than
the worshiping before an external image in our own minds; for the external
image does but serve the purpose of expressing visibly that which is
internal.”
In the Book of Exodus we read: “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven
thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the
earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.”(275) Protestants contend that
these words contain an absolute prohibition against the making of images,
while the Catholic Church insists that the commandment referred to merely
prohibits us from worshiping them as gods.
The text cannot mean the absolute prohibition of making images; for in
that case God would contradict Himself by commanding in one part of
Scripture what He condemns in another. In Exodus (xxv. 18), for instance,
He commands two cherubim of beaten gold to be made and placed on each side
of the oracle; and in Numbers (xxi. 8) He commands Moses to make a brazen
serpent, and to set it up for a sign, that “whosoever being struck by the
fiery serpents shall look upon it, shall live.” Are not cherubim and
serpents the likenesses of creatures in heaven above, in the earth beneath
and in the waters under the earth? for cherubim dwell in heaven and
serpents are found on land and sea.
We should all, without exception, break the commandment were we to take it
in the Protestant sense. Have you not at home the portraits of living and
departed relatives? And are not these the likenesses of persons in heaven
above and on the earth beneath?
Westminster Abbey, though once a Catholic Cathedral, is now a Protestant
house of worship. It is filled with the statues of illustrious men; yet no
one will accuse the English church of idolatry in allowing those statues
to remain there. But you will say: The worshipers in Westminster have no
intention of adoring these statues. Neither have we any intention of
worshiping the statues of the Saints. An English parson once remarked to a
Catholic friend: “Tom, don’t you pray to images?” “We pray before 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?” observed
Tom. “Yes,” said the parson; “I pray at my bed.” “Yes; you pray to the
bed-post.” “Oh, no!” said the reverend gentleman; “I have no intention of
doing that.” “Who cares,” replied Tom, “for your intention.”
The moral rectitude or depravity of our actions cannot be determined
without taking into account the intention.
There are many persons who have been taught in the nursery tales, that
Catholics worship idols. These persons, if they visit Europe and see an
old man praying before an image of our Lord or a Madonna which is placed
along the wayside, are at once confirmed in their prejudices. Their zeal
against idols takes fire and they write home, adding one more proof of
idolatry against the benighted Romanists. If these superficial travelers
had only the patience to question the old man he would tell them, with
simplicity of faith, that the statue had no life to hear or help him, but
that its contemplation inspired him with greater reverence for the
original.
As I am writing for the information of Protestants, I quote with pleasure
the following passage, written by one of their own theologians, in the
_Encyclopédie_ (Edit. d’Yverdun, tom. 1, art. _Adorer_):
“When Lot prostrates himself before the two angels it is an act of
courtesy towards honored guests; when Jacob bows down before Esau it is an
act of deference from a younger to an elder brother; when Solomon bows low
before Bethsabee it is the honor which a son pays to his mother; when
Nathan, coming in before David, ‘had worshiped, bowing down to the
ground,’ it is the homage of a subject to his prince. But when a man
prostrates himself in prayer to God it is the creature adoring the
Creator. And if these various actions are expressed—sometimes by the word
_adore_, sometimes by _worship_ or _prostration_—it is not the bare
meaning of the word which has guided interpreters in rendering it, but the
nature of the case. When an Israelite prostrated himself before the king
no one thought of charging him with idolatry. If he had done the same
thing in the presence of an idol, the very same bodily act would have been
called idolatry. And why? Because all men would have judged by his action
that he regarded the idol as a real Divinity and that he would express, in
respect to it, the sentiments manifested by adoration in the limited sense
which we give to the word. What shall we think, then, of what Catholics do
to show honor to Saints, to relics, to the wood of the cross? They will
not deny that their acts of reverence, in such cases, are very much like
those by which they pay outward honor to God. But have they the same ideas
about the Saints, the relics and the cross as they have about God? I
believe that we cannot fairly accuse them of it.”
A gentleman who was present at the unveiling of Clay’s statue in the city
of Richmond informed me that as soon as the curtain was uplifted, and the
noble form of the Kentucky statesman appeared in full view, the immense
concourse of spectators instinctively uncovered their heads. “Why do you
take off your hat?” playfully remarked my friend to an acquaintance who
stood by. “In honor, of course, of Henry Clay,” he replied. “But Henry is
not there in the flesh. You see nothing but _clay_.” “But my intention,
sir,” he continued, “is to do honor to the original.” He answered
correctly. And yet how many of the same people would be shocked if they
saw a man take off his hat in the presence of a statue of St. Peter! It is
not, therefore, the making of the image, but its worship, that is
condemned by the Decalogue.
Having seen the lawfulness of sacred images, let us now consider the
advantages to be derived from their use.
First—_Religious paintings embellish the house of God._ What is more
becoming than to adorn the church, which is the shadow of the heavenly
Jerusalem, so beautifully described by St. John?(276) Solomon decorated
the temple of God with images of cherubim and other representations. “And
he overlaid the cherubim with gold. And all the walls of the temple round
about he carved with divers figures and carvings.”(277) If it was meet and
proper to adorn Solomon’s temple, which contained only the Ark of the
Lord, how much more fitting is it to decorate our churches, which contain
the Lord of the Ark? When I see a church tastefully ornamented it is a
sure sign that the Master is at home, and that His devoted subjects pay
homage to Him in His court.
What beauty, what variety, what charming pictures are presented to our
view in this temple of nature which we inhabit! Look at the canopy of
heaven. Look at the exquisite pictures painted by the Hand of the Divine
Artist on this earth. “Consider the lilies of the field.... I say to you
that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these.” If
the temple of nature is so richly adorned, should not our temples made
with hands bear some resemblance to it?
How many professing Christians must, like David, reproach themselves for
“dwelling in a house of cedar, while the ark of God is lodged with
skins.”(278) How many are there whose private apartments are adorned with
exquisite paintings, who affect to be scandalized at the sight of a single
pious emblem in their house of worship? On the occasion of the celebration
of Henry W. Beecher’s silver wedding several wealthy members of his
congregation adorned the walls of Plymouth church with their private
paintings. Their object, of course, in doing so was not to honor God, but
their pastor. But if the portraits of men were no desecration to that
church, how can the portraits of Saints desecrate ours?(279) And what can
be more appropriate than to surround the Sanctuary of Jesus Christ with
the portraits of the Saints, especially of Mary and of the Apostles, who,
in their life, ministered to His sacred person? And is it not natural for
children to adorn their homes with the likenesses of their Fathers in the
faith?
Second—_Religious paintings are the catechism of the ignorant_. In spite
of all the efforts of Church and State in the cause of education a great
proportion of the human race will be found illiterate. Descriptive
pictures will teach those what books make known to the learned.
How many thousands would have died ignorant of the Christian faith if they
had not been enlightened by paintings! When Augustine, the Apostle of
England, first appeared before King Ethelbert to announce to him the
Gospel, a silver crucifix and a painting of our Savior were borne before
the preacher, and these images spoke more tenderly to the eyes than his
words to the ears of his audience.
By means of religious emblems St. Francis Xavier effected many conversions
in India; and by the same means Father De Smet made known the Gospel to
the savages of the Rocky Mountains.
Third—By exhibiting religious paintings in our rooms _we make a silent,
though eloquent, profession of our faith_. I once called on a gentleman in
a distant city, some time during our late war, and, on entering his
library, I noticed two portraits, one of a distinguished General, the
other of an Archbishop. These portraits at once proclaimed to me the
religious and patriotic sentiments of the proprietor of the house.
“Behold!” he said to me, pointing to the pictures, “my religious creed and
my political creed.” If I see a crucifix in a man’s room I am convinced at
once that he is not an infidel.
Fourth—By the aid of sacred pictures _our devotion and love for the
original are intensified, because we can concentrate our thoughts more
intently on the object of our affections_. Mark how the eye of a tender
child glistens on confronting the painting of an affectionate mother. What
Christian can stand unmoved when contemplating a picture of the Mother of
Sorrows? How much devotion has been fostered by the Stations of the Cross?
Observe the intense sympathy depicted on the face of the humble Christian
woman as she silently passes from one station to another. She follows her
Savior step by step from the Garden to Mount Calvary. The whole scene,
like a panoramic view, is imprinted on her mind, her memory and her
affections. Never did the most pathetic sermon on the Passion enkindle
such heartfelt love, or evoke such salutary resolutions, as have been
produced by the silent spectacle of our Savior hanging on the cross.
Fifth—The portraits of the Saints stimulate us to the _imitation of their
virtues_; and this is the principal aim which the Church has in view in
encouraging the use of pious representations. One object, it is true, is
to honor the Saints; another is to invoke them; but the principal end is
to incite us to an imitation of their holy lives. We are exhorted to “look
and do according to the pattern shown us on the mount.”(280) Nor do I know
a better means for promoting piety than by example.
If you keep at home the likenesses of George Washington, of Patrick Henry,
of Chief Justice Taney, or of other distinguished men, the copies of such
eminent originals cannot fail to exercise a salutary though silent
influence on the mind and heart of your child. Your son 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 imperceptibly
imbibe not only a veneration for those men, but a relish for the civic
virtues for which they were conspicuous. And in like manner, when our
children have constantly before their eyes the purest and most exalted
models of sanctity, they cannot fail to draw from such contemplation a
taste for the virtues that marked the lives of the originals.
Is not our country flooded with obscene pictures and immodest
representations which corrupt our youths? If the agents of Satan employ
means so vile for a bad end; if they are cunning enough to pour through
the senses into the hearts of the unwary the insidious poison of sin, by
placing before them lascivious portraits, in God’s name, why should not we
sanctify the souls of our children by means of pious emblems? Why should
not we make the eye the instrument of edification as the enemy makes it
the organ of destruction? Shall the pen of the artist, the pencil of the
painter and the chisel of the sculptor be prostituted to the basest
purposes? God forbid! The arts were intended to be the handmaids of
religion.
Almost every moment of the day the eye is receiving impressions from
outward objects and instantly communicating these impressions to the soul.
Thus the soul receives every day thousands of impressions, good or bad,
according to the character of the objects presented to its gaze.
We cannot, therefore, over-estimate the salutary effect produced upon us
in a church or room adorned with sacred paintings. We feel, while in their
presence, that we are in the company of the just. The contemplation of
these pious portraits chastens our affections, elevates our thoughts,
checks our levity and diffuses around us a healthy atmosphere.
I am happy to acknowledge that the outcry formerly raised against images
has almost subsided of late. The epithet of _idolaters_ is seldom applied
to us now. Even some of our dissenting brethren are beginning to recognize
the utility of religious symbols and to regret that we have been
permitted, by the intemperate zeal of the Reformers, to have so long the
monopoly of them. Crosses already surmount some of our Protestant churches
and replace the weather-cock.
A gentleman of Richmond recently informed me that during the preceding
Holy Week he adorned with twelve crosses an Episcopal church in which,
eleven years before, the sight of a single one was viewed with horror by
the minister.
May the day soon come when all Christians will join with us not only in
venerating the sacred symbol of salvation, but in worshiping at the same
altar.
Chapter XVI.
PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
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 satisfied the justice of God for
sins already forgiven. She also teaches us that, although the souls
consigned to this intermediate state, commonly called purgatory, cannot
help themselves, they may be aided by the suffrages of the faithful on
earth. The existence of purgatory naturally implies the correlative
dogma—the utility of praying for the dead—for the souls consigned to this
middle state have not reached the term of their journey. They are still
exiles from heaven and fit subjects for Divine clemency.
The doctrine of an intermediate state is thus succinctly asserted by the
Council of Trent: “There is a Purgatory, and souls there detained, are
helped by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable
Sacrifice of the Altar.”(281)
It is to be noted that the Council studiously abstains from specifying the
nature of the expiating sufferings endured therein.
Is it not strange that this cherished doctrine should also be called in
question by the leveling innovators of the sixteenth century, when we
consider that it is clearly taught in the Old Testament; that it is, at
least, insinuated in the New Testament; that it is unanimously proclaimed
by the Fathers of the Church; that it is embodied in all the ancient
liturgies of the Oriental and the Western church, and that it is a
doctrine alike consonant with our reason and eminently consoling to the
human heart?
First—It is a doctrine plainly contained in the Old Testament and piously
practiced by the Hebrew people. At the close of an engagement which Judas
Machabeus had with the enemy he ordered prayers and sacrifices to be
offered up for his slain comrades. “And making a gathering, he sent twelve
thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for
the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the
resurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should
rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the
dead.... It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the
dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”(282)
These words are so forcible that no comment of mine could render them
clearer. The passage proved a great stumbling-block to the Reformers.
Finding that they could not by any evasion weaken the force of the text,
they impiously threw overboard the Books of Machabees, like a man who
assassinates a hostile witness, or like the Jews who sought to kill
Lazarus, lest his resurrection should be a testimony in favor of Christ,
and pretended that the two books of Machabees were apocryphal. And yet
they have precisely the same authority as the Gospel of St. Matthew or any
other portion of the Bible, for the canonicity of the Holy Scriptures
rests solely on the authority of the Catholic Church, which proclaimed
them inspired.
But even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the Books of Machabees
were not entitled to be ranked among the canonical Books of Holy
Scripture, no one, at least, has ever denied that they are truthful
historical monuments, and as such that they serve to demonstrate that it
was a prevailing practice among the Hebrew people, as it is with us, to
offer up prayers and sacrifices for the dead.
Second—When our Savior, the Founder of the New Law, appeared on earth, He
came to lop off those excrescences 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 tares 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.
But did our Lord, at any time, reprove the Jews for their belief in a
middle state, or for praying for the dead, a practice which, to His
knowledge, prevailed among the people? Never. On the contrary, more than
once both He and the Apostle of the Gentiles insinuate the doctrine of
purgatory.
Our Savior says: “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man it
shall be forgiven him. But he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost it
shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to
come.”(283) When our Savior declares that a sin against the Holy Ghost
shall not be forgiven in the next life, He evidently leaves us to infer
that there are some sins which will be pardoned in the life to come. Now
in the next life, sins cannot be forgiven in heaven, for, nothing defiled
can enter there; nor can they be forgiven in hell, for, out of hell there
is no redemption. They must, therefore, be pardoned in the intermediate
state of Purgatory.
St. Paul tells us that “every man’s work shall be manifest” on the Lord’s
day. “The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s
work abide,” that is, if his works are holy, “he shall receive a reward.
If any man’s work burn,” that is, if his works are faulty and imperfect,
“he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by
fire.”(284) His soul will be ultimately saved, but he shall suffer, for a
temporary duration, in the purifying flames of Purgatory.
This interpretation is not mine. It is the unanimous voice of the Fathers
of Christendom. And who are they that have removed the time-honored
landmarks of Christian faith by rejecting the doctrine of purgatory? They
are discontented churchmen impatient of the religious yoke, men who
appeared on the stage sixteen hundred years after the foundation of
Christianity. Judge you, reader, whom you ought to follow. If you want to
know the true import of a vital question in the Constitution, would you
not follow the decision of a Story, a Jefferson, a Marshall, a Taney,
jurists and statesmen, who were the recognized expounders of the
Constitution? Would you not prefer their opinion to that of political
demagogues, who have neither learning, nor authority, nor history to
support them, but some selfish end to further? Now, the same motive which
you have for rejecting the opinion of an ignorant politician and embracing
that of eminent jurists, on a constitutional question, impels you to cast
aside the novelties of religious innovators and to follow the unanimous
sentiments of the Fathers in reference to the subject of purgatory.
Third—I would wish to place before you extended extracts from the writings
of the early Fathers of the Church bearing upon this subject; but I must
content myself with quoting a few of the most prominent lights of
primitive Christianity.
Tertullian, who lived in the second century, says that “the faithful wife
will pray for the soul of her deceased husband, particularly on the
anniversary day of his falling asleep (death). And if she fail to do so
she hath repudiated her husband as far as in her lies.”(285)
Eusebius, the historian (fourth century), describing the funeral of
Constantine the Great, says that the body of the blessed prince was placed
on a lofty bier, and the ministers of God and the multitude of the people,
with tears and much lamentation, offered up prayers and sacrifice for the
repose of his soul. He adds that this was done in accordance with the
desires of that religious monarch, who had erected in Constantinople the
great church in honor of the Apostles, so that after his death the
faithful might there remember him.(286)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, fourth century, writes: “We commemorate the Holy
Fathers, and Bishops, and all who have fallen asleep from amongst us,
believing that the supplications which we present will be of great
assistance to their souls, while the holy and tremendous Sacrifice is
offered up.” He answers by an illustration those that might be disposed to
doubt the efficacy of prayers for the dead: “If a king had banished
certain persons who had offended him, and their relations, having woven a
crown, should offer it to him in behalf of those under his vengeance,
would he not grant a respite to their punishments? So we, in offering up a
crown of prayers in behalf of those who have fallen asleep, will obtain
for them forgiveness through the merits of Christ.”(287)
St. Ephrem, in the same century, says: “I conjure you, my brethren and
friends, in the name of that God who commands me to leave you, to remember
me when you assemble to pray. Do not bury me with perfumes. Give them not
to me, but to God. Me, conceived in sorrows, bury with lamentations, and
instead of perfumes assist me with your prayers; for the dead are
benefited by the prayers of living Saints.”(288)
St. Ambrose (same century), on the death of the Emperors Gratian and
Valentinian, says: “Blessed shall both of you be (Gratian and
Valentinian), if my prayers can avail anything. No day shall pass you over
in silence. No prayer of mine shall omit to honor you. No night shall
hurry by without bestowing on you a mention in my prayers. In every one of
the oblations will I remember you.” On the death of the Emperor Theodosius
he offers the following prayer: “Give perfect rest to Thy servant
Theodosius, that rest which Thou hast prepared for Thy Saints. May his
soul return thither whence it descended, where it cannot feel the sting of
death.... I loved him and therefore will I follow him, even unto the land
of the living. Nor will I leave him until, by tears and prayers, I shall
lead him ... unto the holy mountain of the Lord, where is life undying,
where corruption is not, nor sighing nor mourning.”(289)
St. Jerome, in the same century, in a letter of condolence to Pammachius,
on the death of his wife Paulina, writes: “Other husbands strew violets
and roses on the graves of their wives. Our Pammachius bedews the hallowed
dust of Paulina with balsams of alms.”(290)
St. Chrysostom writes: “It was not without good reason _ordained by the
Apostles_ that mention should be made of the dead in the tremendous
mysteries, because they knew well that they would receive great benefit
from it.”(291)
St. Augustine, who lived in the beginning of the fifth century, relates
that when his mother was at the point of death she made this last request
of him: “Lay this body anywhere; let not the care of it in anyway disturb
you. This only I request of you, that you would remember me at the altar
of the Lord, wherever you be.”
And that pious son prays for his mother’s soul in the most impassioned
language: “I therefore,” he says, “O God of my heart, do now beseech Thee
for the sins of my mother. Hear me through the medicine of the wounds that
hung upon the wood.... May she, then, be in peace with her husband.... And
inspire, my Lord, ... Thy servants, my brethren, whom with voice and heart
and pen I serve, that as many as shall read these words may remember at
Thy altar, Monica, Thy servant....”(292)
These are but a few specimens of the unanimous voice of the Fathers
regarding the salutary practice of praying for the dead.
You now perceive that this devotion is not an invention of modern times,
but a doctrine universally enforced in the first and purest ages of the
Church.
You see that praying for the dead was not a devotion cautiously
recommended by some obscure or visionary writer, but an act of religion
preached and inculcated by all the great Doctors and Fathers of the
Church, who are the recognized expounders of the Christian religion.
You see them, too, inculcating this doctrine not as a cold and abstract
principle, but as an imperative act of daily piety, and embodying it in
their ordinary exercises of devotion.
They prayed for the dead in their morning and evening devotions. They
prayed for them in their daily office, and in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
They asked the prayers of the congregation for the souls of the deceased
in the public services of Sunday. On the monuments which were erected to
the dead, some of which are preserved even to this day, epitaphs were
inscribed, earnestly invoking for their souls the prayers of the living.
How gratifying it is to our Catholic hearts that a devotion so soothing to
afflicted spirits is at the same time so firmly grounded on the tradition
of ages!
Fourth—That the practice of praying for the dead has descended from
Apostolic times is evident also from the _Liturgies_ of the Church. A
Liturgy is the established formulary of public worship, containing the
authorized prayers of the Church. The Missal, or Mass-book, for instance,
which you see on our altars, contains a portion of the Liturgy of the
Catholic Church. The principal Liturgies are the Liturgy of St. James the
Apostle, who founded the Church of Jerusalem; the Liturgy of St. Mark the
Evangelist, founder of the Church of Alexandria, and the Liturgy of St.
Peter, who established the Church in Rome. These Liturgies are called
after the Apostles who compiled them. There are, besides, the Liturgies of
St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, which are chiefly based on the model of that
of St. James.
Now, all these Liturgies, without exception, have prayers for the dead,
and their providential preservation serves as another triumphant
vindication of the venerable antiquity of this Catholic doctrine.
The Eastern and the Western churches were happily united until the fourth
and fifth centuries, when the heresiarchs Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches
withdrew millions of souls from the centre of unity. The followers of
these sects were called, after their founders, Arians, Nestorians and
Eutychians, and from that day to the present the two latter bodies have
formed distinct communions, being separated from the Catholic Church in
the East, just as the Protestant churches are separated from her in the
West.
The Greek schismatic church, of which the present Russo-Greek church is
the offspring, severed her connection with the See of Rome in the ninth
century.
But in leaving the Catholic Church these Eastern sects retained the old
Liturgies, which they use to this day, as I shall presently demonstrate.
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
schismatic 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, 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, light and peace, through
the same Jesus Christ our Lord.”
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 Christians of the East among whom
they live have, without exception, prayers and sacrifices for the dead.
Now, I ask, when could those Eastern sects have commenced to adopt the
Catholic practice of praying for the dead? They could not have received it
from us since the ninth century, because the Greek church separated from
us then and has had no communion with us since that time, except at
intervals, up to the twelfth century. Nor could they have adopted the
practice since the fourth or fifth century, inasmuch as the Arians,
Nestorians and Eutychians have had no religious communication with us
since that period. Therefore, in common with us, they received this
doctrine from the Apostles. If men living in different countries drink
wine having the same flavor and taste and color, the inference is that the
wine was made from the same species of grape. So must we conclude that
this refreshing doctrine of intercession for the dead has its root in the
Apostolic tree of knowledge planted by our Savior.
Fifth—I have already spoken of the devotion of the ancient Jewish church
to the souls of the departed. But perhaps you are not aware that the Jews
retain to this day, in their Liturgy, the pious practice of praying for
the dead. Yet such in reality is the case.
Amid all the wanderings and vicissitudes of life, though dismembered and
dispersed like sheep without a shepherd over the face of the globe, the
children of Israel have never forgotten or neglected the sacred duty of
praying for their deceased brethren.
Unwilling to make this assertion without the strongest evidence, I
procured from a Jewish convert an authorized Prayer-Book of the Hebrew
church, from which I extract the following formula of prayers which are
prescribed for funerals: “Departed brother! mayest thou find open the
gates of heaven, and see the city of peace and the dwellings of safety,
and meet the ministering angels hastening joyfully toward thee. And may
the High Priest stand to receive thee, and go thou to the end, rest in
peace, and rise again into life. May the repose established in the
celestial abode ... be the lot, dwelling and the resting-place of the soul
of our deceased brother (whom the Spirit of the Lord may guide into
Paradise), who departed from this world, according to the will of God, the
Lord of heaven and earth. May the supreme King of kings, through His
infinite mercy, hide him under the shadow of His wing. May He raise him at
the end of his days and cause him to drink of the stream of His
delights.”(293)
Among the many-sided merits of Shakespeare may be mentioned his happy
faculty of portraying to life the manners and customs and traditional
faith of the times which he describes. How deep-rooted in the Christian
heart in pre-Reformation times, was the belief in Purgatory, may be
inferred from a passage in Hamlet who probably lived in the early part of
the eighth century. Thus speaks to Hamlet the spirit of his murdered
father:
“I am thy father’s spirit,
Doom’d for a certain time to walk the night;
And for the day confin’d too fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg’d away.”(294)
I am happy to say that the more advanced and enlightened members of the
Episcopalian church are steadily returning to the faith of their
fore-fathers regarding prayers for the dead. An acquaintance of mine, once
a distinguished clergyman of the Episcopal communion, but now a convert,
informed me that hundreds of Protestant clergymen in this country, and
particularly in England, have a firm belief in the efficacy of prayers for
the dead, but for well-known reasons they are reserved in the expression
of their faith. He easily convinced me of the truth of his assertion,
particularly as far as the Church of England is concerned, by sending me
six different works published in London, all bearing on the subject of
Purgatory. These books are printed under the auspices of the Protestant
Episcopal church; they all contain prayers for the dead and prove, from
Catholic grounds, the existence of a middle state after death and the duty
of praying for our deceased brethren.(295)
To sum up, we see the practice of praying for the dead enforced in the
ancient Hebrew church and in the Jewish synagogue of today. We see it
proclaimed age after age by all the Fathers of Christendom. We see it
incorporated in every one of the ancient Liturgies of the East and of the
West. We see it zealously taught by the Russian church of today, and by
that immense family of schismatic Christians scattered over the East. We
behold it, in fine, a cherished devotion of three hundred millions of
Catholics, as well as of a respectable portion of the Episcopal church.
Would it not, my friend, be the height of rashness and presumption in you
to prefer your private opinion to this immense weight of learning,
sanctity and authority? Would it not be impiety in you to stand aside with
sealed lips while the Christian world is sending up an unceasing _De
profundis_ for departed brethren? Would it not be cold and heartless in
you not to pray for your deceased friends, on account of prejudices which
have no grounds in Scripture, tradition or reason itself?
If a brother leaves you to cross the broad Atlantic, religion and
affection prompt you to pray for him during his absence. And if the same
brother crosses the narrow sea of death to pass to the shores of eternity,
why not pray for him then also? When he crosses the Atlantic his soul,
imprisoned in the flesh, is absent from you; when he passes the sea of
death his soul, released from the flesh, has gone from you. What
difference does this make with regard to the duty of your intercession?
For what is death? A mere separation of body and soul. The body, indeed,
dies, but the soul “lives and moves and has its being.” It continues after
death, as before, to think, to remember, to love. And do not God’s
dominion and mercy extend over that soul beyond the grave as well as as
this side of it? Who shall place the limits to God’s empire and say to
Him: “Thus far Thou shalt go and no farther?” Two thousand years after
Abraham’s death our Lord said: “I _am_ the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and
of Jacob. He _is_ not the God of the dead, but of the living.”(296)
If, then, it is profitable for you to pray for your brother in the flesh,
why should it be useless for you to pray for him out of the flesh? For
while he was living you prayed not for his body, but for his soul.
If this brother of yours dies with some slight stains upon his soul, a sin
of impatience, for instance, or an idle word, is he fit to enter heaven
with these blemishes upon his soul? No; the sanctity of God forbids it,
for “nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”(297) Will you
consign him, for these minor transgressions, to eternal torments with
adulterers and murderers? No; the justice and mercy of God forbid it.
Therefore, your common sense demands a middle place of expiation for the
purgation of the soul before it is worthy of enjoying the companionship of
God and His Saints.
God “will render to every man according to his works,”—to the pure and
unsullied everlasting bliss; to the reprobate eternal damnation; to souls
stained with minor faults a place of temporary purgation. I cannot recall
any doctrine of the Christian religion more consoling to the human heart
than the article of faith which teaches the efficacy of prayers for the
faithful departed. It robs death of its sting. It encircles the chamber of
mourning with a rainbow of hope. It assuages the bitterness of our sorrow,
and reconciles us to our loss. It keeps us in touch with the departed dead
as correspondence keeps us in touch with the absent living. It preserves
their memory fresh and green in our hearts.
It gives us that keen satisfaction which springs from the consciousness
that we can aid those loved ones who are gone before us by alleviating
their pains, shortening their exile, and hastening their entrance into
their true country.
It familiarizes us with the existence of a life beyond the grave, and with
the hope of being reunited with those whom we cherished on earth, and of
dwelling with them in that home where there is no separation, or sorrow,
or death, but eternal joy and peace and rest.
I have seen a devoted daughter minister with tender solicitude at the
sick-bed of a fond parent. Many an anxious day and sleepless night did she
watch at his bedside. She moistened the parched lips, and cooled the
fevered brow, and raised the drooping head on its pillow. Every change in
her patient for better or worse brought a corresponding sunshine or gloom
to her heart. It was filial love that prompted all this. Her father died
and she followed his remains to the grave. Though not a Catholic, standing
by the bier she burst those chains which a cruel religious prejudice had
wrought around her heart, and, rising superior to her sect, she cried out:
_Lord, have mercy on his soul_. It was the voice of nature and of
religion.
Oh, far from us a religion which would decree an eternal divorce between
the living and the dead. How consoling is it to the Catholic to think
that, in praying thus for his departed friend, his prayers are not in
violation of, but in accordance with, the voice of the Church; and that
as, like Augustine, he watches at the pillow of a dying mother, so like
Augustine, he can continue the same office of piety for her soul after she
is dead by praying for her! How cheering the reflection that the golden
link of prayer unites you still to those who “fell asleep in the Lord,”
that you can still speak to them and pray for them!
Tennyson grasps the Catholic feeling when he makes his hero, whose course
is run, thus address his surviving comrade, Sir Bedivere:
“I have lived my life, and that which I have done
May He within Himself make pure; but thou,
If thou shouldst never see my face again,
Pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer
Than this world dreams of. Wherefore, let thy voice
Rise like a fountain for me night and day.
For what are men better than sheep or goats
That nourish a blind life within the brain,
If knowing God they lift not hands of prayer
Both for themselves and those who call them friend?
For so the whole round earth is every way
Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.”(298)
Oh! it is this thought that robs death of its sting and makes the
separation of friends endurable. If your departed friend needs not your
prayers, they are not lost, but, like the rain absorbed by the sun, and
descending again in fruitful showers on our fields, they will be gathered
by the Sun of justice, and will fall in refreshing showers of grace upon
your head: “Cast thy bread upon the running waters; for, after a long
time, thou shalt find it again.”(299)
Chapter XVII.
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
A man enjoys _religious_ liberty when he possesses the free right of
worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of
practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God.
Every act infringing on his freedom of conscience is justly styled
religious intolerance. This religious liberty is the true right of every
man because it corresponds with a most certain duty which God has put upon
him.
A man enjoys _civil_ liberty when he is exempt from the arbitrary will of
others, and when he is governed by equitable laws established for the
general welfare of society. So long as, in common with his
fellow-citizens, he observes the laws of the state, any exceptional
restraint imposed upon him, in the exercise of his rights as a citizen, is
so far an infringement on his civil liberty.
I here assert the proposition, which I hope to confirm 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 privileges of man were perpetrated by professing members of the
Catholic faith, these wrongs, far from being sanctioned by the Church,
were committed in palpable violation of her authority.
Her doctrine is, that as man by his _own free will_ fell from grace, so of
his _own free will_ must he return to grace. Conversion and coercion are
two terms that can never be reconciled. It has ever been a cardinal maxim,
inculcated by sovereign Pontiffs and other Prelates, that no violence or
undue influence should be exercised by Christian princes or missionaries
in their efforts to convert souls to the faith of Jesus Christ.
Pope Gregory I. in the latter part of the Sixth Century, compelled the
Bishop of Terracina to restore to the Jews, the synagogue which he had
seized, declaring that they should not be coerced into the Church, but
should be treated with meekness and charity. The great Pontiff issued the
same orders to the Prelates of Sardinia and Sicily in behalf of the
persecuted Jews.
St. Augustine and his companions, who were sent by Pope Gregory I. to
England for the conversion of that nation, had the happiness of baptizing
in the true faith King Ethelbert and many of his subjects. That monarch,
in the fervor of his zeal, was most anxious that all his subjects should
immediately follow his example; but the missionaries admonished him that
he should scrupulously abstain from violence in the conversion of his
people, for the Christian religion should be voluntarily embraced.
Pope Nicholas I. also warned Michael, king of the Bulgarians, against
employing force or constraint in the conversion of idolaters.
The fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633, a synod of great authority in
the Church, ordained that no one should be compelled against his will to
make a profession of the Christian faith. Be it remembered that this
Council was composed of all the Bishops of Spain, that it was assembled in
a country and at a time in which the Church held almost unlimited sway,
and among a people who have been represented as the most fanatical and
intolerant of all Europe.
Perhaps no man can be considered a fairer representative of the age in
which he lived than St. Bernard, the illustrious Abbot of Clairvaux. He
was the embodiment of the spirit of the Middle Ages. His life is the key
that discloses to us what degree of toleration prevailed in those days.
Having heard that a fanatical preacher was stimulating the people to deeds
of violence against the Jews as the enemies of Christianity, St. Bernard
raised his eloquent voice against him, and rescued those persecuted people
from the danger to which they were exposed.
Pope Innocent III. in the Thirteenth Century promulgated the following
Decree in behalf of the Hebrews: “Let no Jew be _constrained_ to receive
baptism, and he that will not consent to be baptized, let him not be
molested. Let no one unjustly seize their property, disturb their feasts,
or lay waste their cemeteries.”
Other succeeding Pontiffs, notably Gregory IX. and Innocent IV., issued
similar instructions.
Not to cite too many examples, let me quote for you only the beautiful
letter addressed by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, to the son of King
James II. of England. This letter not only reflects the sentiments of his
own heart, but formularizes in this particular the decrees of the Church,
of which he was a distinguished ornament. “Above all,” he writes, “never
force your subjects to change their religion. No human power can reach the
impenetrable recess of the free will of the heart. Violence can never
persuade men; it serves only to make hypocrites. Grant civil liberty to
all, not in approving everything as indifferent, but in tolerating with
patience whatever Almighty God tolerates, and endeavoring to convert men
by mild persuasion.”(300)
It is true, indeed, that the Catholic Church spares no pains and stops at
no sacrifice in order to induce mankind to embrace her faith. Otherwise
she would be recreant to her sacred mission. But she scorns to exercise
any undue influence in her efforts to convert souls.
The only argument she would use, is the argument of reason and persuasion;
the only tribunal to which she would summon you, is the tribunal of
conscience; the only weapon she would wield, is “the Sword of the Spirit,
which is the Word of God.” It is well known that the superior advantages
of our female academies throughout the country lead many of our dissenting
brethren to send their daughters to these institutions. It is also well
known that so warm is the affection which these young ladies entertain for
their religious teachers, so hallowed is the atmosphere they breathe
within these seats of learning, that they often beg to embrace a religion
which fosters so much piety and which produces lilies so fragrant and so
pure. Do the sisters take advantage of this influence in the cause of
proselytism? By no means. So delicate is their regard for the religious
conscience of their pupils, that they rarely consent to have these young
ladies baptized till, after being thoroughly instructed in all the
doctrines of the Church, they have obtained the free permission of their
parents or guardians.
The Church is, indeed, intolerant in this sense, that she can never
confound truth with error; nor can she admit that any man is
conscientiously free to reject the truth when its claims are convincingly
brought home to the mind. Many Protestants seem to be very much disturbed
by some such argument as this: Catholics are very ready now to proclaim
freedom of conscience, because they are in the minority. When they once
succeed in getting the upper hand in numbers and power they will destroy
this freedom, because their faith teaches them to tolerate no doctrine
other than the Catholic. It is, then, a matter of absolute necessity for
us that they should never be allowed to get this advantage.
Now, in all this, there is a great mistake, which comes from not knowing
the Catholic doctrine in its fulness. I shall not lay it down myself, 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.
The ruler may even 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
be observed absolutely in every point, just as every other lawful and
honest contract.(301) 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.
The Church has not only respected the conscience of the people in
embracing the religion of their choice, but she has also defended their
_civil_ rights and liberties against the encroachments of temporal
sovereigns. One of the popular errors that have taken possession of some
minds in our times is that in former days the Church was leagued with
princes for the oppression of the people. This is a base calumny, which a
slight acquaintance with ecclesiastical history would soon dispel.
The truth is, the most unrelenting enemies of the Church have been the
princes of this world, and so-called Christians princes, too.
The conflict between Church and State has never died out, because the
Church has felt it to be her duty, in every age, to raise her voice
against the despotic and arbitrary measures of princes. Many of them
chafed under the salutary discipline of the Church. They wished to be rid
of her yoke. They desired to be governed by no law except the law of their
licentious passions and boundless ambitions. And as a Protestant American
reviewer(302) well said about forty years ago, it was a blessing of
Providence that there was a spiritual Power on earth that could stand like
a wall of brass against the tyranny of earthly sovereigns and say to them:
“Thus far you shall go, and no farther, and here you shall break your
swelling waves” of passion; a Power that could say to them what John said
to Herod: “This thing is not lawful for thee;” a Power that pointed the
finger of reproof to them, even when the sword was pointed to her own
neck, and that said to them what Nathan said to David: “Thou art the man.”
She told princes that if the people have their obligations they have their
rights, too; that if the subject must render to Cæsar the things that are
Cæsar’s, Cæsar must render to God the things that art God’s.
Yes; the Church, while pursuing her Divine mission of leading souls to
God, has ever been the defender of the people’s rights.
St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, affords us a striking instance of the
strenuous efforts made by the Catholic Church in vindicating the interests
of the citizen against the oppression of rulers.
A portion of the people of Thessalonica had committed an outrage against
the just authority of the Emperor Theodosius. The offence of those
citizens was indeed most reprehensible; but the Emperor requited the
insult offered to him by a shocking and disproportioned act of
retribution, which has left an indelible stain upon his otherwise
excellent character. The inhabitants were assembled together for the
ostensible purpose of witnessing a chariot race, and at a given signal the
soldiery fell upon the people and involved men, women and children in an
indiscriminate massacre, to the number of about seven thousand. Some time
after the Emperor presented himself at the Cathedral of Milan; but the
intrepid Prelate told him that his hands were dripping with the blood of
his subjects, and forbade him entrance to the church till he had made all
the reparation in his power to the afflicted people of Thessalonica.
People affect to be shocked at the sentence of ex-communication
occasionally inflicted by the Church on evil-doers. Here is an instance of
this penalty. Who can complain of it as being too severe? It was a
salutary punishment and the only one that could bring rulers to a sense of
duty.
The greatest bulwark of civil liberty is the famous _Magna Charta_. It is
the foundation not only of British, but also of American constitutional
freedom. Among other blessings contained in this instrument it establishes
trial by jury and the right of _Habeas Corpus_, and provides that there
shall be no taxation without representation.
Who were the framers of this memorable charter? Archbishop Langton, of
Canterbury, and the Catholic Barons of England. On the plains of
Runnymede, in 1215, they compelled King John to sign that paper which was
the death-blow to his arbitrary power and the cornerstone of
constitutional government.
Turning to our own country, it is with no small degree of satisfaction
that I point to the State of Maryland as the cradle of civil and religious
liberty and the “land of the sanctuary.” Of the thirteen original American
Colonies, Maryland was the only one settled by Catholics. She was, also,
the only one that raised aloft over her fair lands the banner of liberty
of conscience, and that invited the oppressed of other colonies to seek an
asylum beneath its shadow.
Lest I should be suspected of being too partial in my praise of Maryland
toleration, I shall take most of my historical facts from Bancroft, a New
England Protestant clergyman.
NOTE—The first edition of Bancroft’s History was published in
1834. From that date till nearly half a century afterward upwards
of twenty editions were issued, all of which retain the passages I
have cited on Maryland toleration. Early in the 80s a new edition
was given out, which omits or abridges some of the passages quoted
in this chapter. I may add that all of Bancroft’s eulogies of Lord
Baltimore’s benevolent administration are borne out by the
original documents, and by McMahon, Bozman and McSherry, and other
historians of Maryland.
Leonard Calvert, the brother of Lord Baltimore and the leader of the
Catholic colony, having sailed from England in the _Ark_ and the _Dove_,
reached his destination on the Potomac in March, 1634.
“The Catholics took quiet possession of the little place, and religious
liberty obtained a home, _its only home_ in the wide world, at the humble
village which bore the name of St. Mary.”(303)
“The foundation of the colony of Maryland was peacefully and happily laid.
Within six months it had advanced more than Virginia had done in as many
years.... But far more memorable was the character of the Maryland
institutions. Every other country in the world had persecuting laws; but
through the benign administration of the government of that province, no
person professing to believe in Jesus Christ was permitted to be molested
on account of religion. Under the munificence and superintending mildness
of Lord Baltimore, a dreary wilderness was soon quickened with the
swarming life and activity of prosperous settlements; the Roman Catholics
who were oppressed by the laws of England were sure to find a peaceful
asylum in the quiet harbors of the Chesapeake; and there _too, Protestants
were sheltered against Protestant intolerance_. Such were the beautiful
auspices under which Maryland started into being.... Its history is the
history of benevolence, gratitude and toleration.”
“Maryland was the abode of happiness and liberty. Conscience was without
restraint. A mild and liberal proprietary conceded every measure which the
welfare of the colony required; domestic union, a happy concert between
all the branches of government, an increasing emigration, a productive
commerce, a fertile soil, which heaven had richly favored with rivers and
deep bays, united to perfect the scene of colonial felicity. Ever intent
on advancing the interests of his colony, Lord Baltimore invited the
Puritans of Massachusetts to emigrate to Maryland, offering them lands and
privileges and free liberty of religion; but Gibbons, to whom he had
forwarded the commission, was so wholly tutored in the New England
discipline, that he would not advance the wishes of the Irish Peer, and so
the invitation was declined.”(304)
On the 2d of April, 1649, the General Assembly of Maryland passed the
following 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 religion hath
frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence in those
commonwealths where it has been practiced, 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 anyway compelled to the belief or exercise of any
other religion against his or her consent.”(305)
Upon this noble statute Bancroft makes the following candid and judicious
comment: “The design of the law of Maryland was to protect freedom of
conscience; and some years after it had been confirmed the apologist of
Lord Baltimore could assert that his government had never given
disturbance to any person in Maryland for matter of religion; that the
colonists enjoyed freedom of conscience, not less than freedom of person
and estate, as amply as ever any people in any place of the world. The
disfranchised friends of Prelacy from Massachusetts and the Puritans from
Virginia were welcomed to equal liberty of conscience and political rights
in the Roman Catholic province of Maryland.”(306)
Five years later, when the Puritans gained the ascendency in Maryland,
they were guilty of the infamous ingratitude of disfranchising the very
Catholic settlers by whom they had been so hospitably entertained. They
“had neither the gratitude to respect the rights of the government by
which they had been received and fostered, nor magnanimity to continue the
toleration to which alone they were indebted for their residence in the
colony. An act concerning religion forbade liberty of conscience to be
extended to ‘Popery,’ ‘Prelacy,’ or ‘licentiousness of opinion.’ ”(307)
I shall also quote from “Maryland, the History of a Palatinate,” by
William Hand Browne.(308) Mr. Browne was a graduate of the University of
Maryland. For several years he was editor of the Maryland Archives, and of
the Maryland Historical Society. He became afterward Professor of English
Literature in the Johns Hopkins University. He devoted his long life to
the Colonial history of Maryland, and is justly recognized as a standard
authority on that subject. I may add that he cannot be suspected of undue
partiality, as he was not a member of the Catholic Church.
Speaking of Calvert, the Proprietary of the Maryland Colony, the author
remarks that “while as yet there was no spot in Christendom where
religious belief was free, and when even the Commons of England had openly
declared against toleration, Calvert founded a community wherein no man
was to be molested for his faith. At a time when absolutism had struck
down representative government in England and it was doubtful if a
Parliament of freemen would ever meet again, he founded a community in
which no laws were to be made without the consent of the freemen.
The _Ark_ and the _Dove_ were names of happy omen. The one saved from the
general wreck the germs of political liberty; and the other bore the olive
branch of religious peace.”(309)
When the rule of the Catholic Proprietary was overthrown and the Puritans
had gained the ascendency in the Province, the new Commissioners issued
writs of election to a general assembly—writs of a tenor hitherto unknown
in Maryland. No man of the Roman Catholic faith could be elected as a
burgess, or even cast a vote. The Assembly obtained by this process of
selection, justified its choice. It at once repealed the Toleration Act of
1649 and created a new one, more to its mind, which also bore the title:
“An Act concerning Religion,” but it was toleration with a difference. It
provided that none who professed the Popish religion should be protected
in the Province, but were to be restrained from the exercise thereof.
For Protestants it provided that no one professing faith in Christ was to
be restrained from the exercise of his religion, “provided that this
liberty be not extended to Popery, or Prelacy, nor to such as under the
profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness. That is,
with the exception of the Roman Catholics and churchmen, together with the
Brownists, Quakers, Anabaptists, and other miscellaneous Protestant sects,
all others might profess their faith without molestation.”(310)
After the overthrow of the Puritan authority, and the advent to power of
the members of the Church of England, the second act of the Assembly was
to make the Protestant Episcopal Church the established church of the
Province.
The Act imposed an annual tax of forty pounds of tobacco per poll on all
taxables for the purpose of building churches, and maintaining the clergy.
In 1702 it was re-enacted with a toleration clause: “Protestant Dissenters
and Quakers were exempted from the penalties and disabilities, and might
have separate meeting-houses, provided that they paid their forty pounds
per poll to support the Established Church. As for the ‘Papists,’ it is
needless to say that there was no exemption nor license for them.”(311)
The author then sets before us the three kinds of toleration, like three
portraits, so that their distinctive features appear in bold relief.
“We may now,” he says, “place side by side the three tolerations of
Maryland.”
The toleration of the (Catholic) Proprietaries lasted fifty years, and
under it all believers in Christ were equal before the law, and all
support to churches or ministers was voluntary.
The Puritan toleration lasted six years, and included all but Papists,
Prelatists and those who held objectional doctrines.
The Anglican toleration lasted eighty years, and had glebes and churches
for the Establishment, connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for
Catholics, and for all, the forty per poll.
In fact, an additional turn was given to the screw in this year; the oath
of “abhorrency,” a more offensive form of the oath of supremacy, being
required, beside the oath of allegiance, and for one thing, no Catholic
attorney was allowed to practise in the Province.(312)
When the members of the Constitutional Convention declared in 1787, that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it is worthy of note that they
were echoing the sentiments, and even repeating the language of the
Maryland Assembly of 1649, which declared that “No person whatsoever
within this Province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from
henceforth be any ways molested for his or her religion, nor in the free
exercise thereof.”
We may therefore affirm that Lord Baltimore’s Toleration Act of 1649 was
the bright dawn that ushered in the noon-day sun of freedom in 1787. And
we have every reason to believe that the Proprietary’s charter of liberty
with its attendant blessings, served as an example, an incentive, and an
inspiration to some at least of the framers of the Constitution, to extend
over the new Republic, the precious boon of civil and religious liberty.
It is proper to also observe that the Act of 1649 was not a new
declaration of religious freedom on the part of Lord Baltimore’s
administration, but was a solemn affirmation of the toleration granted by
the Catholic Proprietary from the beginning of the Settlement in 1634.
I will close this subject in the words of a distinguished member of the
Maryland Historical Society: “Higher than all titles and badges of honor,
and more exalted than royal nobility is the imperishable distinction which
the passage of this broad and liberal Act won for Maryland, and for the
members of that never-to-be-forgotten session, and sacred forever be the
hallowed spot which gave it birth.”(313)
What shall I say of the prominent part that was taken by distinguished
representatives of the Catholic Church in the cause of our American
Independence? What shall I say of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who, at
the risk of sacrificing his rich estates, signed the Declaration of
Independence; of Rev. John Carroll, afterward the first Archbishop of
Baltimore, who, with his cousin Charles Carroll and Benjamin Franklin, was
sent by Congress to Canada to secure the co-operation of the people of
that province in the struggle for liberty; of Kosciusko, Lafayette,
Pulaski, Barry and a host of other Catholic heroes who labored so
effectually in the same glorious cause? American patriots without number
the Church has nursed in her bosom; a traitor, never.
The Father of his Country was not unmindful of these services. Shortly
after his election to the Presidency, replying(314) to an address of his
Catholic fellow-citizens, he uses the following language: “I presume that
your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in
the accomplishment of their revolution, and the establishment of their
government; or the important assistance they received from a nation in
which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.”
And the Catholics of our generation have nobly emulated the patriotism and
the spirit of toleration exhibited by their ancestors. They can neither be
accused of disloyalty nor of intolerance to their dissenting brethren. In
more than one instance of our nation’s history our churches have been
desecrated and burned to the ground; our convents have been invaded and
destroyed; our clergy have been exposed to insult and violence. These
injuries have been inflicted on us by incendiary mobs animated by hatred
of Catholicism. Yet, in spite of these provocations, our Catholic
citizens, though wielding an immense numerical influence in the localities
where they suffered, have never retaliated. It is in a spirit of just
pride that we can affirm that hitherto in the United States no Protestant
house of worship or educational institution has been destroyed, nor
violence offered to a Protestant minister by those who profess the
Catholic faith. God grant that such may always be our record!
It is just because the Church has ever resisted the tyranny of kings, in
their encroachments on the sacred rights of conscience, that she has
always been the victim of royal persecution. In every age, in the language
of the Psalmist, “the kings of the earth rose up, and the princes
assembled together against the Lord and against His Christ.”(315) The
brightest and most thrilling pages of ecclesiastical history are those
which record the sufferings of Popes and Prelates at the hands of temporal
sovereigns for conscience’ and for justice’ sake.
Take, for instance, St. John Chrysostom, the great Archbishop of
Constantinople in the fifth century, and the idol of the people. He had
the courage, like John the Baptist, to raise his eloquent voice against
the lasciviousness of the court, and particularly against the Empress
Eudoxia, who ruled like another Jezabel. He was banished from his See,
treated with the utmost indignity by the soldiers, and died in exile from
sheer exhaustion and ill-treatment.
Witness Pope Gregory VII., the fearless Hildebrand, in his life-long
struggle with the German Emperor, Henry IV. Gregory directed all the
energies of his great mind towards reforming the abuses which had crept
into the church of France and Germany in the eleventh century. In those
days the Emperor of Germany assumed the right of naming or appointing
Bishops throughout his Empire. This sacred office was commonly bestowed on
very unworthy candidates, and very often put up at auction, to be sold to
the highest bidder, as is now the case with the schismatic Greek church in
Turkey.
These Bishops too often repaid their imperial benefactor by pandering to
his passions and by the most servile flattery. The intrepid Pope partially
succeeded in uprooting the evil, though the effort cost him his life. The
Emperor invaded Rome and drove Gregory from his See, who died uttering
these words with his last breath: “I have loved justice and hated
iniquity, and therefore I die in exile.”
For the same cause Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was slain at
the altar by the hired assassins of Henry II., of England.
Observe how Pius VII. was treated by the first Napoleon in the beginning
of the present century. The day-dream of Napoleon was to be master of
Europe, and to place his brothers and friends on the thrones of the
continent, that they might revolve, like so many satellites, around his
throne in France. Napoleon makes two demands on the venerable Pontiff:
First—That he dissolve the marriage which had been contracted between the
Emperor’s brother, Jerome, and Miss Patterson, of Baltimore. His
ostensible reason for having the marriage dissolved was because Miss
Patterson was a Protestant, but his real motive was to secure a royal
bride for his brother instead of an American lady. Second—That he close
his ports against the commerce of England, with which nation Napoleon was
then at war, and make common cause with the Emperor against his enemies.
The Pope rejected both demands. He told the Emperor that the Church held
all marriages performed by her as indissoluble, even when one of the
parties was not a Catholic; and that, as the common father of Christendom,
he could close his port against no Christian power. For refusing to comply
with this second demand the Pope was arrested and sent into exile, where
he lingered for years.
At this very moment the old conflict between the Church and despotic
governments is raging fiercely throughout Europe. The scene enacted by
John and Herod is today reproduced in almost every kingdom of the old
world. It is the old fight between brute force and the God-given rights of
conscience.
In Russia we see the Bishop of Plock exiled for life from his See to
Siberia. His only offence is his refusal to acknowledge that the Emperor
Alexander is the head of the Christian Church.
If we pass over into Italy we see religious men and women driven from
their homes; their houses and libraries confiscated—libraries which pious
and learned men had been collecting and consulting for ages. The only
crime of those religious is that they have not the power to resist brute
force.
Cross the Alps into France and there you will see that many-headed
monster, the Commune, assassinating the Archbishop of Paris and his
clergy, solely because he and they were the representatives of law and
order.
In the Republic of Switzerland Bishop Mermillod is expelled from Geneva
without the slightest charge adduced against his character as a citizen
and a Christian Prelate. Faithful clergymen are deprived by the government
of their parochial rights and renegade Priests are intruded in their
place. The shepherd is driven away and wolves lay waste the fold.
Go to Prussia; what do you behold there? A Prime Minister flushed with his
recent victories over France. He is not content with seeing his master
wear the imperial crown of Germany; he wants him to wear also the tiara of
the Pope. Bismarck, like Aman, the minister of King Assuerus, is not
satisfied with being second in the kingdom so long as Mardochai, that is
the Church, refuses to bow down and worship him.
He fines the venerable Archbishop of Gnesen-Posen and other Prussian
Prelates again and again, sells their furniture and finally sends them to
prison for a protracted period. St. John Chrysostom beautifully remarks
that St. Paul, elevated to the third heaven, was glorious to contemplate;
but that far more glorious is Paul buried in the dungeons of Rome. I can
say in like manner, of Archbishop Ledochowski of Posen, that he was
conspicuous in the Vatican Council among his peers; but he was still more
conspicuous sitting solitary in his Prussian prison.
The loyalty of the Prussian clergy is above reproach. The Bishops are
imprisoned because they insist on the right of educating students for the
ministry, ordaining and appointing clergy, without consulting the
government. They are denied a right which in this country is possessed by
Free Masons and every other human organization in the land.
Perhaps a simple illustration will present to you in a clearer light the
odious character of the penal laws to which I have alluded. Suppose the
government of the United States were to issue a general order requiring
the clergy of the various Christian denominations to be educated in
government establishments, forcing them to take an oath before entering on
the duties of the ministry, and forbidding the ecclesiastical authorities
to appoint or remove any clergyman without permission of the civil power
at Washington. Would not the American people rise up in their might before
they would submit to have fetters so galling forged on their conscience?
And yet this is precisely the odious legislation which the Prussian
government is enacting against the Church. And the Catholic Church, in
resisting these laws, is not only fighting her own battles, but she is
contending for the principle of freedom of conscience everywhere.
But, thank God, we live in a country where liberty of conscience is
respected, and where the civil constitution holds over us the ægis of her
protection, without intermeddling with ecclesiastical affairs. From my
heart, I say: America, with all thy faults, I love thee still. Perhaps at
this moment there is no nation on the face of the earth where the Church
is less trammelled, and where she has more liberty to carry out her
sublime destiny than in these United States.
For my part, I much prefer the system which prevails in this country,
where the temporal needs of the Church are supplied by voluntary
contributions of the faithful, to the system which obtains in some
Catholic countries of Europe, where the Church is supported by the
government, thereby making feeble reparation for the gross injustice it
has done to the Church by its former wholesale confiscation of
ecclesiastical property. And the Church pays dearly for this indemnity,
for she has to bear the perpetual attempts at interference and the
vexatious enactments of the civil power, which aims at making her wholly
dependent upon itself.
Some years ago, on my return from Rome, in company with the late
Archbishop Spalding I paid a visit to the Bishop of Annecy, in Savoy. I
was struck by the splendor of his palace and saw a sentinel at the door,
placed there by the French government as a guard of honor. But the
venerable Bishop soon disabused me of my favorable impressions. He told me
that he was in a state of gilded slavery. I cannot, said he, build as much
as a sacristy without obtaining permission of the government.
I do not wish to see the day when the Church will invoke or receive any
government aid to build our churches, or to pay the salary of our clergy,
for the government may then begin to dictate to us what doctrines we ought
to preach. If it is a great wrong to muzzle the press, it is a greater
wrong to muzzle the pulpit. No amount of State subsidy would compensate
for the evils resulting from the Government censorship of the Gospel, and
the suppression of Apostolic freedom in proclaiming it. St. Paul exults in
the declaration that, though he is personally in chains, the word of God
is not enchained.(316)
And moreover, in proportion as State patronage would increase, the
sympathy and aid of the faithful would diminish.
May the happy condition of things now existing among us always continue,
in which the relations between the clergy and the people will be direct
and immediate, in which Bishops and Priests will bestow upon their
spiritual children their voluntary labors, their tender solicitude, their
paternal affection, and pour out like water their hearts’ blood, if
necessary; and in which they will receive in return the free-will
offerings—the devotion and gratitude of a filial people.
Chapter XVIII.
CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
I. The Spanish Inquisition.
But did not the Spanish Inquisition exercise enormous 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. From my heart I abhor and denounce
every species of violence, and injustice, and persecution of which the
Spanish Inquisition may have been guilty. And in raising my voice against
coercion for conscience’ sake I am expressing not only my own sentiments,
but those of every Catholic Priest and layman in the land.
Our Catholic ancestors, for the last three hundred years, have suffered so
much for freedom of conscience that they would rise up in judgment against
us were we to become the advocates and defenders of religious persecution.
We would be a disgrace to our sires were we to trample on the principle of
liberty which they held dearer than life.
When I denounce the cruelties of the Inquisition I am not standing aloof
from the Church, but I am treading in her footprints. Bloodshed and
persecution form no part of the creed of the Catholic Church. 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. Before you can convict the Church of intolerance you
must first bring forward some authentic act of her Popes or Councils
sanctioning the policy of vengeance. In all my readings I have yet to find
one decree of hers advocating torture or death for conscience’ sake. She
is indeed intolerant of error; but her only weapons against error are
those pointed out by St. Paul to Timothy: “Preach the word; be instant in
season, out of season; reprove, entreat; rebuke with all patience and
doctrine.”(317)
But you will tell me: Were not the authors of the Inquisition children of
the Church, and did they not exercise their enormities in her name?
Granted. But I ask you: Is it just or fair to hold the Church responsible
for those acts of her children which she disowns? You do not denounce
liberty as mockery because many crimes are committed in her name; neither
do you hold a father accountable for the sins of his disobedient children.
We should also bear in mind that the Spaniards were not the only people
who have proscribed men for the exercise of their religious belief. If we
calmly study the history of other nations our enmity towards Spain will
considerably relax, and we shall have to reserve for her neighbors a
portion of our indignation. No impartial student of history will deny that
the leaders of the reformed religions, whenever they gained the
ascendency, exercised violence toward those who differed from them in
faith. I mention this not by way of recrimination, nor in palliation of
the proscriptions of the Spanish government; for one offence is not
justified by another. My object is merely to show that “they who live in
glass houses should not throw stones;” and that it is not honest to make
Spain the scapegoat, bearing alone on her shoulders the odium of religious
intolerance.
It should not be forgotten that John Calvin burned Michael Servetus at the
stake for heresy; that the arch-reformer not only avowed but also
justified the deed in his writings; and that he established in Geneva an
Inquisition for the punishment of refractory Christians.
It should also be remembered that Luther advocated the most merciless
doctrine towards the Jews. According to his apologist Seckendorf, the
German Reformer said that their synagogues ought to be destroyed, their
houses pulled down, their prayer-books, and even the books of the Old
Testament, to be taken from them. Their rabbis ought to be forbidden to
teach and be compelled to gain their livelihood by hard labor.
It should also be borne in mind that Henry VIII. and his successors for
many generations inflicted fines, imprisonment and death on thousands of
their subjects for denying the spiritual supremacy of the temporal
sovereign. This galling Inquisition lasted for nearly three hundred years,
and the severity of its decrees scarcely finds a parallel in the Spanish
Inquisition. Prescott avows that the administration of Elizabeth was “not
a whit less despotic and scarcely less sanguinary than”(318) that of
Isabella. The clergy of Ireland, under Cromwell, were ordered, under pain
of death, to quit their country, and theological students were obliged to
pursue their studies in foreign seminaries. Any Priest who dared to return
to his native country forfeited his life. Whoever harbored a Priest
suffered death, and they who knew his hiding-place and did not reveal it
to the Inquisitors had both their ears cut off.
At this very moment not only in England, but in Ireland, Scotland and
Holland, Protestants are worshiping in some of the churches erected by the
piety of our Catholic forefathers and wrested from them by violence.
Observe, also, that in all these instances the persecutions were inflicted
by the express authority of the _founders_ and _heads_ of Protestant
churches.
The Puritans of New England inflicted summary vengeance on those who were
rash enough to differ from them in religion. In Massachusetts “the Quakers
were whipped, branded, had their ears cut off, their tongues bored with
hot irons, and were banished upon pain of death in case of their return
and actually executed upon the gallows.”(319)
Who is ignorant of the number of innocent creatures that suffered death in
the same State on the ridiculous charge of witchcraft toward the end of
the seventeenth century? Well does it become their descendants to taunt
Catholics with the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition!
In the religious riots of Philadelphia in 1844 Catholic churches were
burned down in the name of Protestantism and private houses were sacked. I
was informed by an eyewitness that owners of houses were obliged to mark
on their doors these words, _This house belongs to Protestants_, in order
to save their property from the infuriated incendiaries. For these acts I
never heard of any retaliation on the part of Catholics, and I hope I
never shall, no matter how formidable may be their numbers and tempting
the provocation.
In spite of the boasted toleration of our times, it cannot be denied that
there still lurks a spirit of inquisition, which does not, indeed, vent
itself in physical violence, but is, nevertheless, most galling to its
victims. How many persons have I met in the course of my ministry who were
ostracized by their kindred and friends, driven from home, nay,
disinherited by their parents, for the sole crime of carrying out the very
shibboleth of Protestantism—the exercise of private judgment, and of
obeying the dictates of their conscience, by embracing the Catholic faith!
Is not this the most exquisite torture that can be inflicted on refined
natures?
Ah! there is an imprisonment more lonely than the dungeon; it is the
imprisonment of our most cherished thoughts in our own hearts, without a
member of the family with whom to communicate.
There is a sword more keen than the executioner’s knife; it is the
envenomed tongue of obloquy and abuse. There is a banishment less
tolerable than exile from one’s country; it is the excommunication from
the parental roof and from the affections of those we love.
Have I a right to hold the members of the Episcopal, Lutheran,
Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches responsible for these
proscriptive measures to which I have referred, most of which have been
authorized by their respective founders and leaders? God forbid! I know
full well that these acts of cruelty form no part of the creed of the
Protestant churches. I have been acquainted with Protestants from my
youth. They have been among my most intimate and cherished friends, and,
from my knowledge of them, I am convinced that they would discountenance
any physical violence which would be inflicted on their fellow-citizens on
account of their religious convictions. They would justly tell me that the
persecutions of former years of which I have spoken should be ascribed to
the peculiar and unhappy state of society in which their ancestors lived,
rather than to the inherent principles of their religion.
For precisely the same reasons, and for reasons still more forcible,
Protestants should not reproach the Catholic Church for the atrocities of
the Spanish Inquisition. The persecutions to which I have alluded were for
the most part perpetrated by the founders and heads of the Protestant
churches, while the rigors of the Spanish tribunal were inflicted by
laymen and subordinate ecclesiastics, either without the knowledge or in
spite of the protests of the Bishops of Rome.
Let us now present the Inquisition in its true light. In the first place,
the number of its victims has been wildly exaggerated, as even Prescott is
forced to admit. The popular historian of the Inquisition is Llorente,
from whom our American authors generally derive their information on this
subject. Now who was Llorente? He was a degraded Priest, who was dismissed
from the Board of Inquisitors, of which he had been Secretary. Actuated by
interest and revenge, he wrote his history at the instance of Joseph
Bonaparte, the new King of Spain, and, to please his royal master he did
all he could to blacken the character of that institution. His testimony,
therefore, should be received with great reserve. To give you one instance
of his unreliability, he quotes the historian Mariana as his authority for
saying that two thousand persons were put to death in one year in the
dioceses of Seville and Cadiz alone. By referring to the pages of Mariana
we find that author saying that two thousand were put to death _in all
Spain during the entire administration of Torquemada, which embraced a
period of fifteen years_.
Before beginning to examine the character of this tribunal it must be
clearly understood that the Spanish Inquisition was not a purely
ecclesiastical institution, but a mixed tribunal. It was conceived,
systematized, regulated in all its procedures and judgments, equipped with
officers and powers, and its executions, fines and confiscations were
carried out by the royal authority alone, and not by the Church.(320)
To understand the true character of the Spanish Inquisition, and the
motives which prompted King Ferdinand in establishing that tribunal, we
must take a glance at the internal condition of Spain at the close of the
fifteenth century. After a struggle of eight centuries the Spanish nation
succeeded in overthrowing the Moors, and in planting the national flag
over the entire country. At last the Cross conquered the Crescent, and
Christianity triumphed over Mahometanism. The empire was consolidated
under the joint reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.
But there still remained elements of discord in the nation. The population
was composed of three conflicting races—the Spaniards, Moors and Jews.
Perhaps the difficulties which beset our own Government in its efforts to
harmonize the white, the Indian and the colored population, will give us
some idea of the formidable obstacles with which the Spanish court had to
contend in its efforts to cement into one compact nation a conquering and
a conquered people of different race and religion.
The Jews and the Moors were disaffected toward the Spanish government not
only on political, but also on religious grounds. They were suspected, and
not unjustly, of desiring to transfer their allegiance from the King of
Spain to the King of Barbary or to the Grand Turk.
The Spanish Inquisition was accordingly erected by King Ferdinand, less
from motives of religious zeal than from those of human policy. It was
established, not so much with the view of preserving the Catholic faith,
as of perpetuating the integrity of his kingdom. The Moors and Jews were
looked upon not only as enemies of the altar, but chiefly as enemies of
the throne. Catholics were upheld not for their faith alone, but because
they united faith to loyalty. The baptized Moors and Israelites were
oppressed for their heresy because their heresy was allied to sedition.
It must be remembered that in those days heresy, especially if outspoken,
was regarded not only as an offence against religion, but also as a crime
against the state, and was punished accordingly. This condition of things
was not confined to Catholic Spain, but prevailed across the sea in
Protestant England. We find Henry VIII. and his successors pursuing the
same policy in Great Britain toward their Catholic subjects and punishing
Catholicism as a crime against the state, just as Islamism and Judaism
were proscribed in Spain.
It was, therefore, rather a royal and political than an ecclesiastical
institution. The King nominated the Inquisitors, who were equally composed
of lay and clerical officials. He dismissed them at will. From the King,
and not from the Pope, they derived their jurisdiction, and into the
King’s coffers, and not into the Pope’s, went all the emoluments accruing
from fines and confiscations. In a word, the authority of the Inquisition
began and ended with the crown.
In confirmation of these assertions I shall quote from Ranke, a German
Protestant historian, who cannot be suspected of partiality to the
Catholic Church. “In the first place,” says this author, “the Inquisitors
were royal officers. The Kings had the right of appointing and dismissing
them.... The courts of the Inquisition were subject, like other
magistracies, to royal visitors. ‘Do you not know,’ said the King (to
Ximenes), ‘that if this tribunal possesses jurisdiction, it is from the
King it derives it?’
“In the second place, all the profit of the confiscations by this court
accrued to the King. These were carried out in a very unsparing manner.
Though the _fueros_ (privileges) of Aragon forbade the King to confiscate
the property of his convicted subjects, he deemed himself exalted above
the law in matters pertaining to this court.... The proceeds of these
confiscations formed a sort of regular income for the royal exchequer. It
was even believed, and asserted from the beginning, that the Kings had
been moved to establish and countenance this tribunal more by their
hankering after the wealth it confiscated than by motives of piety.
“In the third place, it was the Inquisition, and the Inquisition alone,
that completely shut out all extraneous interference with the state. The
sovereign had now at his disposal a tribunal from which no grandee, no
Archbishop, could withdraw himself. As Charles knew no other means of
bringing certain punishment on the Bishops who had taken part in the
insurrection of the _Communidades_ (or communes who were struggling for
their rights and liberties), he chose to have them judged by the
Inquisition....
“It was in spirit and tendency a political institution. _The Pope had an
interest in thwarting it, and he did so_; but the King had an interest in
constantly upholding it.”(321)
That the Inquisition acted independently of the Holy See, and that even
the Catholic hierarchy fell under the ban of this royal tribunal, is also
apparent from the following fact: After the convening of the Council of
Trent, Bartholomew Caranza, Archbishop of Toledo, was arrested by the
Inquisition on a charge of heresy, and his release from prison could not
be obtained either by the interposition of Pius IV. or the remonstrance of
the Council.
It is true that Sixtus IV., yielding to the importunities of Queen
Isabella, consented to its establishment, being advised that it was
necessary for the preservation of order in the kingdom; but in 1481, the
year following its introduction, when the Jews complained 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.” He wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella that
“mercy towards the guilty was more pleasing to God than the severity which
they were using.”
When the Pope could not eradicate the evil he encouraged the sufferers to
flee to Rome, where they found an asylum, and where he took the fugitives
under his protection. In two years he received four hundred and fifty
refugees from Spain. Did the Pontiff send them back, or did he inflict
vengeance on them at home? Far from it; they were restored to all the
rights of citizens. How can we imagine that the Pope would encourage in
Spain the legalized murder of men whom he protected from violence in his
own city, where he might have crushed them with impunity? I can find no
authenticated instance of any Pope putting to death, in his own dominions,
a single individual for his religious belief.
Moreover, sometimes the Pope, when he could not reach the victims,
censured and excommunicated the Inquisitor, and protected the children of
those whose property was confiscated to the crown.
After a struggle he succeeded in preventing the Spanish government from
establishing its Inquisition in Naples or Milan, which then belonged to
Spain, so great was his abhorence of its cruelties.
To sum up: I have endeavored to show that the Church disavows all
responsibility for the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, because
oppression forms no part of her creed; that these atrocities have been
grossly exaggerated; that the Inquisition was a political tribunal; that
Catholic Prelates were amenable to its sentence as well as Moors and Jews,
and that the Popes denounced and labored hard to abolish its sanguinary
features.
And yet Rome has to bear all the odium of the Inquisition!
I heartily pray that religious intolerance may never take root in our
favored land. May the only king to force our conscience be the King of
kings; may the only prison erected among us for the sin of unbelief or
misbelief be the prison of a troubled conscience; and may our only motive
for embracing truth be not the fear of man, but the love of truth and of
God.
II. What About The Massacre Of St. Bartholomew?
I have no words strong enough to express my detestation of that inhuman
slaughter. It is true that the number of its victims has been grossly
exaggerated by partisan writers, but that is no extenuation of the crime
itself. I most emphatically assert that the Church had no act or part in
this atrocious butchery, except to deplore the event and weep over its
unhappy victims. Here are the facts briefly presented:
First—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 leadership of Admiral Coligny, who was plotting the overthrow of the
ruling monarch. The French King, instigated by his mother, Catherine de
Medicis, and fearing the influence of Coligny, whom he regarded as an
aspirant to the throne, compassed his assassination, as well as that of
his followers in Paris, August 24th, 1572. This deed of violence was
followed by an indiscriminate massacre in the French capital and other
cities of France by an incendiary populace, who are easily aroused but not
easily appeased.
Second—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 special aversion
to Protestantism, unless when it threatened the throne.
Third—Immediately after the massacre Charles despatched 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 conspiracy, and that its authors had been detected and summarily
punished. The envoys, in their narration, carefully suppressed any
allusion to the indiscriminate massacre which had taken place, but
announced the event in the following words: On that “memorable night, by
the destruction of a few seditious men, the King had been delivered from
immediate danger of death, and the realm from the perpetual 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 in thanksgiving to God, not for the massacre, of which he was
utterly ignorant, but for the preservation of the French King from an
untimely and violent death, and of the French nation from the horrors of a
civil war.
Sismondi, a Protestant historian, tells us that the Pope’s nuncio in Paris
was purposely kept in ignorance of the designs of Charles; and Ranke, in
his _History of the Civil Wars_, informs us that Charles and his mother
suddenly left Paris in order to avoid an interview 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 were not long concealed.
Fourth—It is scarcely necessary to vindicate the innocence of the Bishops
and clergy of France in this transaction, as no author, how hostile soever
to the Church, has ever, to my knowledge, accused them of any complicity
in the heinous massacre.
On the contrary, they used their best efforts to arrest the progress of
the assailants, to prevent further bloodshed and to protect the lives of
the fugitives. More than three hundred Calvinists were sheltered from the
assassins by taking refuge in the house of the Archbishop of Lyons. The
Bishops of Lisieux, Bordeaux, Toulouse and of other cities offered similar
protection to those who sought safety in their homes.
Thus we see that the Church slept in tranquil ignorance of the stormy
scene until she was aroused to a knowledge of the tempest by the sudden
uproar it created. Like her Divine Spouse on the troubled waters, she
presents herself only to say to them: “Peace be still.”
III. Mary, Queen of England.
I am asked: _Must you not admit that Mary, Queen of England, persecuted
the Protestants of the British realm_? I ask this question in reply: _How
is it that Catholics are persistently reproached __ for the persecutions
under Mary’s reign, while scarcely a voice is raised in condemnation of
the legalized fines, confiscations and deaths inflicted on the Catholics
of Great Britain and Ireland for three hundred years—from the
establishment of the church of England, in 1534, to the time of the
Catholic emancipation?_ Elizabeth’s hands were steeped in the blood of
Catholics, Puritans and Anabaptists. Why are these cruelties suppressed or
glossed over, while those of Mary form the burden of every nursery tale?
Is it because persecution becomes justice when Catholics happen to be the
victims, or is it because they are expected, from long usage, to be
insensible to torture?
If we weigh in the scales of impartial justice the reigns of both sisters,
we shall be compelled to bring a far more severe verdict against
Elizabeth.
First—Mary reigned only five years and four months. Elizabeth’s reign
lasted forty-four years and four months. The younger sister, therefore,
swayed the sceptre of authority nearly nine times longer than the elder;
and the number of Catholics who suffered for their faith during the long
administration of Elizabeth may be safely said to exceed in the same
proportion the victims of Mary’s reign. Hallam asserts that “the rack
seldom stood idle in the tower for all the latter part of Elizabeth’s
reign;”(322) and its very first month was stained by an intolerant
statute.(323)
Second—The most unpardonable act of Mary’s life, in the judgment of her
critics, was the execution of Lady Jane Grey. But Lady Jane was guilty of
high treason, having usurped the throne of England, which she occupied for
nine days. Elizabeth put to death her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, after a
long imprisonment, on the unsustained charge of aspiring to the English
throne.
Third—Mary’s zeal was exercised in behalf of the religion of her
forefathers, and of the faith established in England for nearly a thousand
years.
Elizabeth’s zeal was employed in extending the new creed introduced by her
father in a moment of passion, and modified by herself. Surely, the
coercive enforcement of a new creed is more odious than the rigorous
maintenance of the time-honored faith of a nation.
Mary, therefore, insisted on perpetuating the established order of things;
Elizabeth on subverting it.
Fourth—The elder sister was propagating what she believed to be the
unchangeable and infallible doctrines of Jesus Christ; the younger sister
was propagating her own and her father’s novel and more or less uncertain
opinions.
Fifth—While Mary had no private or personal motives in oppressing
Protestants, Elizabeth’s hostility to the Catholic Church was intensified,
if not instigated, by her hatred of the Pope, who had declared her
illegitimate. Her legitimacy before the world depended on the success of
the new religion, which had legalized her father’s divorce from Catherine.
Sixth—Hence as Macaulay says, Mary was sincere in her religion; Elizabeth
was not. “Having no scruple about conforming to the Romish Church when
conformity was necessary to her own safety, retaining to the last moment
of her life a fondness for much of the doctrine and much of the ceremonial
of that Church, she yet subjected that Church to a persecution even more
odious than the persecution with which her sister had harassed the
Protestants. Mary ... did nothing for her religion which she was not
prepared to suffer for it. She had held it firmly under persecution. She
fully believed it to be essential to salvation. Elizabeth, in opinion, was
little more than half a Protestant. She had professed, when it suited her,
to be wholly a Catholic.... What can be said in defence of a ruler who is
at once indifferent and intolerant?”(324)
An intelligent gentleman in North Carolina once said to me tauntingly,
What do you think of bloody Mary? Did you ever hear, I replied, of her
sister’s cruelties to Catholics? He answered that he never read of that
_mild_ woman persecuting for conscience’ sake. I was amazed at his words,
until he acknowledged that his historical library was comprised in one
work—_D’ Aubigné’s History of the Reformation_. That _veracious_ author
has prudently suppressed, or delicately touched, Elizabeth’s peccadilloes
as not coming within the scope of his plan. How many are found, like our
North Carolina gentleman, who are familiar from their childhood with the
name of _Smithfield_, but who never once heard of _Tyburn_!
Chapter XIX.
GRACE—THE SACRAMENTS—ORIGINAL SIN—BAPTISM—ITS NECESSITY—ITS EFFECTS—MANNER
OF BAPTIZING.
The grace of God is that supernatural assistance which He imparts to us,
through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation. It is called
_supernatural_, because no one by his own natural ability can acquire it.
Without Divine grace we can neither conceive nor accomplish anything for
the sanctification of our souls. “Not that we are sufficient,” says the
Apostle, “to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our
sufficiency is from God.”(325) “For it is God who worketh in you, both to
will and to accomplish”(326) anything conducive to your salvation.
“Without Me,” says our Lord, “you can do nothing.”(327) But in order that
Divine grace may effectually aid us we must co-operate with it, or at
least we must not resist it.
The grace of God is obtained chiefly by prayer and the Sacraments.
A Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Christ by which grace is
conveyed to our souls. Three things are necessary to constitute a
Sacrament, viz.—a visible sign, invisible grace and the institution by our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus, in the Sacrament of Baptism, there is the outward sign, which
consists in the pouring of water and in the formula of words which are
then pronounced; the interior grace or sanctification which is imparted to
the soul: “Be baptized, ... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost;”(328) and the ordinance of Jesus Christ, who said: “Teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost.”(329)
Our Savior instituted seven Sacraments, namely, Baptism, Confirmation,
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders and Matrimony, which I shall
explain separately.
According to the teachings of Holy Writ, man was created in a state of
innocence and holiness, and after having spent on this earth his allotted
terms of years he was destined, without tasting death, to be translated to
the perpetual society of God in heaven.(330) But in consequence of his
disobedience he fell from his high estate of righteousness; his soul was
defiled by sin; he became subject to death and to various ills of body and
soul and forfeited his heavenly inheritance.
Adam’s transgression was not confined to himself, but was transmitted,
with its long train of dire consequences, to all his posterity. It is
called _original_ sin because it is derived from our original progenitor.
“Wherefore,” says St. Paul, “as by one man sin entered into this world,
and by sin death, and so death passed unto all men, in whom all have
sinned.”(331) And elsewhere he tells us that “we were by nature children
of wrath.”(332)
“Who,” says Job, “can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed,”
or, as the Septuagint version expresses it: “There is no one free from
stain, not even though his life be of one day.”(333) As an infant one day
old cannot commit an actual sin, the _stain_ must come from the original
offense of Adam. “Behold,” says David, “I was conceived in iniquities, and
in sins did my mother conceive me.”(334) The Scripture also tells us that
Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified before their birth, or
purified from sin, and, of course, at that period of their existence they
were incapable of actual sin. They were cleansed, therefore, from the
original taint.
These passages clearly show that we have all inherited the transgression
of our first parents, and that we are born enemies of God. And it is
equally plain that these texts apply to every member of the human
family—to the infant of a day old as well as to the adult.
Indeed, even without the light of Holy Scripture, we have only to look
into ourselves to be convinced that our nature has undergone a rude shock.
How else can we account for the miseries and infirmities of our bodies,
the blindness of our understanding, the perversity of our will—inclined
always to evil rather than to good—the violence of our passions, which are
constantly waging war in our hearts? How well does the Catholic doctrine
explain this abnormal state. Hence, Paschal 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 Savior Jesus Christ;
and that, consequently, she was never for an instant subject to the
dominion of Satan.
This is what is meant by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
But God, in passing sentence of condemnation on Adam, consoled him by the
promise of a Redeemer to come. “I will put enmities,” saith the Lord,
“between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush
thy head.”(335) Jesus, the seed of Mary, is the chosen one who was
destined to crush the head of the infernal serpent. And “when the fulness
of time was come God sent His Son, made of a woman, ... that He might
redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons.”(336)
Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, came to wash away the defilement from our
souls and to restore us to that Divine friendship which we had lost by the
sin of Adam. He is the second Adam, who came to repair the iniquity of the
first. It was our Savior’s privilege to prescribe the conditions on which
our reconciliation with God was to be effected.
Now He tells us in His Gospel that Baptism is the essential means
established for washing away the stain of original sin and the door by
which we find admittance into His Church, which may be called the second
Eden. We must all submit to a new birth, or regeneration, before we can
enter the kingdom of heaven. Water is the appropriate instrument of this
new birth, as it indicates the interior cleansing of the soul; and the
Holy Ghost, the Giver of spiritual life, is its Author.
The Church teaches that Baptism is necessary for all, for infants as well
as adults, and her doctrine rests on the following grounds:
Our Lord says to Nicodemus: “Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God.”(337) These words embrace the whole human family, without regard to
age or sex, as is evident from the original Greek text, for τις, which is
rendered _man_ in our English translation, means any one—mankind in its
broadest acceptation.
The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul, although containing
only a fragmentary account of the ministry of the Apostles, plainly
insinuate that the Apostles baptized children as well as grown persons. We
are told, for instance, that Lydia “was baptized, and her household,”(338)
by St. Paul; and that the jailer “was baptized, and all his family.”(339)
The same Apostle baptized also “the household of Stephanas.”(340) Although
it is not expressly stated that there were children among these baptized
families, the presumption is strongly in favor of the supposition that
there were. But if any doubt exists regarding the Apostolic practice of
baptizing infants it is easily removed by referring to the writings of the
primitive Fathers of the Church, who, as they were the immediate
successors of the Apostles, ought to be the best interpreters of their
doctrines and practice.
St. Irenæus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the
Evangelist, says: “Christ came to save all through Himself; all, I say,
_who are born anew_ (or baptized) through Him—infants and little ones,
boys and youths, and aged persons.”(341)
Origen, who lived a few years later, writes: “The Church received the
tradition from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants.”(342)
The early church of Africa bears triumphant testimony in vindication of
infant baptism. St. Cyprian and sixty-six suffragan Prelates held a
council in the metropolitan city of Carthage, in the year 253. While the
Council is in session a Prelate named Fidus writes to the Fathers, asking
them whether infants ought to be baptized before the eighth day succeeding
their birth, or on the eighth day, in accordance with the practice of
circumcision. The Bishops unanimously subscribe to the following reply:
“As to what regards the baptism of infants, ... we all judged that the
mercy and grace of God should be denied to no human being from the moment
of his birth. If even to the greatest delinquents the remission of sins is
granted, how much less should the infant be repelled, who, being recently
born according to Adam, has contracted at his first birth the contagion of
the ancient death.”(343) The African Council asserts here two prominent
facts—the universal contagion of the human race through Adam’s fall, and
the universal necessity of Baptism without distinction of age.
Upon this decision, I will make two observations: First—Fidus did not
inquire about the necessity of infant baptism, which he already admitted,
but about the propriety of conferring it on the eighth day, in imitation
of the Jewish law of circumcision. Second—The Bishops assembled in that
Council were as numerous as the whole Episcopate of the United States,
which contains about five thousand Priests and upwards of six millions of
Catholics. We may therefore reasonably conclude that the judgment of the
African Council represented the faith of several thousand Priests and
several millions of Catholics.
St. Augustine, commenting on this decision, justly observes that St.
Cyprian and his colleagues made no new decree, but maintained most firmly
the faith of the Church. And this is the unanimous sentiment of tradition
from the days of the Apostles to our own times.
Is it not ludicrous as well as impious to see a few German fanatics, in
the sixteenth century, raising their feeble voice against the thunder
tones of all Christendom, by decrying a practice which was universally
held as sacred and essential? In judging between the teachings of
Apostolical antiquity on the one hand and of the Anabaptists on the other,
it is not hard to determine on which side lies the truth; for, what
becomes of the Christian Church, if it has erred on so vital a point as
that of Baptism during the entire period of its existence?
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 that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of
heaven.(344) 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 necessary for all. But it is important to
observe that if a man is heartily sorry for his sins, if he loves God with
his whole heart, if he desires to comply with all the Divine ordinances,
including 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 _baptism of __ desire_, as happened to the Emperor
Valentinian who died a Catechuman: “I lost him whom I was about to
regenerate,” says St. Ambrose, “but he did not lose that grace he sought
for.” Or, if an unbaptized person lays down his life for Christ, his death
is accepted as more than an equivalent for baptism; for he dies not only
sanctified, but he will wear a martyr’s crown. _He is baptized in his own
blood._
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? And is
not God the supreme Wisdom and Justice and Mercy? I am sure, then, that
there can be nothing cruel or unjust in God’s decrees. The province of
reason consists in ascertaining that God has spoken. When we know that He
has spoken, then our investigation ceases, and faith and obedience begin.
Instead of impiously criticising the Divine decree, we should exclaim with
the Apostle: “O! the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of
God! how incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His
ways! For, who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His
counsellor?”(345)
Let us remember that heaven is a place to which none of us has any
inherent right or natural claim, but that it is promised to us by the pure
favor of God. He can reject and adopt whom He pleases, and can, without
injustice, prescribe His own conditions for accepting His proffered boon.
If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does
it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any
inalienable title. If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful
for the gift.
It is proper here to state briefly what the Church actually teaches
regarding the future state of unbaptized infants. Though the Church, in
obedience to God’s Word, declares that unbaptized infants are excluded
from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are
consigned to the place of the reprobate. None are condemned to the
torments of the damned but such as merit Divine vengeance by their
personal sins.
All that the Church holds on this point is that unregenerate children are
deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which
constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed.
Now, between the supreme bliss of heaven and the torments of the
reprobate, there is a very wide margin.
All admit that the condition of unbaptized infants is better than
non-existence. There are some Catholic writers of distinction who even
assert that unbaptized infants enjoy a certain degree of natural
beatitude—that is, a happiness which is based on the natural knowledge and
love of God.
From what has been said you may well judge how reprehensible is the
conduct of Catholic parents who neglect to have their children baptized at
the earliest possible moment, thereby risking their own souls, as well as
the souls of their innocent offspring. How different was the practice of
the early Christians, who, as St. Augustine testifies, hastened with their
new-born babes to the baptismal font that they might not be deprived of
the grace of regeneration.
If an infant is sick, no expense is spared that its life may be preserved.
The physician is called in, medicine is given to it, and the mother will
spend sleepless nights watching every movement of the infant; she will
sacrifice her repose, her health; nay, she will expose even her own life
that the life of her offspring may be saved. And yet the supernatural
happiness of the child is too often imperiled without remorse by the
criminal postponement of Baptism.
But if they are to be censured who are slow in having their children
baptized, what are we to think of that large body of professing Christians
who, on principle, deny Baptism to little ones till they come to the age
of discretion? What are we to think of those who set their private
opinions above Scripture, the early Fathers of the Church and the
universal practice of Christendom?
We may smile indeed at a theological opinion, no matter how novel or
erroneous it may be, so long as it does not involve any dangerous
consequences. But when it is given in a case of life and death, how
terrible is the responsibility of those who propagate doctrines so
erroneous!
The opposite practice of the Catholic and the Baptist churches, in their
treatment of the newborn infant, may be well compared to the conduct of
the true and the false mother who both claimed the child at the tribunal
of Solomon. The king exclaimed: “Divide the living child in two, and give
half to the one and half to the other.” The pretended mother consented,
saying: Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. “But the woman
whose child was alive, said to the king (for her bowels were moved upon
her child): I beseech thee, my lord, give her the child alive, and do not
kill it.” While the Baptist church is willing that the child should die a
spiritual death, the true mother, the Catholic Church, cries out: Keep the
child, provided its spiritual life is saved, even at your hands. Let it be
clothed with the robe of innocence even by a stranger. Let it be nursed at
the breasts even of a step-mother. Better it should live without me than
perish before my face. I will still be its mother, though it know me not.
Ah! my Baptist friend, you think that Baptism is not necessary for your
child’s salvation. The old Church teaches the contrary. You admit that you
may be wrong, and it is a question of life and death. Take the safe side.
Give your child the benefit of the doubt. Let it be baptized.
Baptism washes away _original sin, and also actual sins_ from the adult
who may have contracted them. The cleansing efficacy of Baptism was
clearly foreshadowed by the prophet Ezechiel in these words: “I will pour
upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness.
And I will give you a new heart and will put a new spirit within
you.”(346)
When the Jews asked St. Peter what they should do to be saved the Apostle
replied: “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of your sins.”(347)
And Ananias said to Saul, after his conversion: “Rise up and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins.”(348)
“We were by nature,” says St. Paul, “children of wrath,” but by our
regeneration, or new birth in Baptism, we become _Christians and children
of God_. “For, ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on
Christ.”(349) We are adopted into the same family with Jesus Christ. What
He is by nature we are by grace—children of God, and consequently brethren
of Christ. Nay, our union with Jesus is still more close. We become true
members of His mystical body, which is His Church, and His Divine image is
stamped upon our soul.
Baptism also clothes us with the _garment of sanctity_, so that our soul
becomes a fit dwelling-place for the Holy Ghost. The Apostle, after giving
a fearful catalogue of the vices of the Pagans, says to the Corinthians:
“And such some of you were; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but
ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit
of God.”(350)
Baptism, in fine, makes us _heirs of heaven_ and co-heirs with Jesus
Christ. “We ourselves also,” says St. Paul, “were sometimes unwise,
incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in
malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But when the goodness
and kindness of God our Savior appeared, ... He saved us by the laver of
regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom He hath poured forth
abundantly upon us, through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified
by His grace, we may be heirs, according to the hope of life
everlasting.”(351)
Here we plainly see that the forgiveness of sin, the adoption into the
family of God, the sanctification of the soul and the pledge of eternal
life are ascribed to the due reception of Baptism—not, indeed, that water
or the words of the minister have any intrinsic virtue to heal the soul,
but because Jesus Christ, whose word is creative power, is pleased to
attach to this rite its wonderful efficacy of healing the soul, as He
imparted to the pool of Bethsaida the power of healing the body.(352)
From what has been said, I ask you candidly what are you to think of the
decision rendered in 1872 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.
Is it no change to pass from sin to virtue, from a “child of wrath” to be
a “child of God;” from corruption to sanctification; from the condition of
heirs of death to the inheritance of heaven? If all this implies no moral
change, then these words have lost their meaning.
_Modes of baptizing._ The Baptists err in asserting that Baptism by
immersion is the only valid mode. Baptism may be validly administered in
either of three ways, viz: by _immersion_, or by plunging the candidate
into the water; by _infusion_, or by pouring the water; and by
_aspersion_, or sprinkling.
As our Lord nowhere prescribes any special form of administering the
Sacrament, the Church exercises her discretion in adopting the most
convenient mode, according to the circumstances of time and place.
For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity Baptism was
_usually_ conferred by immersion; but since the twelfth century the
practice of baptising by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as
this manner is attended with less inconvenience than Baptism by immersion.
To prove that Baptism by infusion or by sprinkling is as legitimate as by
immersion, it is only necessary to observe that, though immersion was the
more common practice in the Primitive Church, the Sacrament was frequently
administered even then by infusion and aspersion.
After St. Peter’s first discourse three thousand persons were
baptized.(353) It is not likely that so many could have been immersed in
one day, especially when we consider the time occupied in instructing the
candidates.
On reading the account of the Baptism of St. Paul and the jailer the
context leaves a strong impression on the mind that both received the
Sacrament by aspersion or by infusion.
Early ecclesiastical history records a great many instances in which
Baptism was administered to _sick persons_ in their beds, to _prisoners_
in their cells, and to persons on _shipboard_. The Fathers of the Church
never called in question the validity or the legitimacy of such Baptisms.
Now, it is almost impossible to believe that candidates in such situations
could receive the rite by immersion.
We have seen, moreover, that Baptism has always been declared necessary
for salvation. It is reasonable, hence, to believe that our Lord would
have afforded the greatest facility for the reception of so essential a
Sacrament.
But if Baptism by immersion only is valid, how many sick and delicate
persons, how many prisoners and seafaring people, how many thousands
living in the frigid zone, or even in the temperate zone, in the depth of
an inclement winter, though craving the grace of regeneration, would be
deprived of God’s seal, or would receive it at the risk of their lives!
Surely God does not ordinarily impose His ordinances upon us under such a
penalty.
Moreover, if immersion is the only valid form of Baptism, what has become
of the millions of souls who, in every age and country, have been
regenerated by the infusion or the aspersion of water in the Christian
Church?
Chapter XX.
THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION.
Confirmation is a Sacrament in which, through the imposition of the
Bishop’s hands, unction and prayer, baptized persons receive the Holy
Ghost, that they may steadfastly profess their faith and lead upright
lives.
This Sacrament is called _Confirmation_, because it _confirms_ or
strengthens the soul by Divine grace. Sometimes it is named _the laying on
of hands_, because the Bishop imposes his hands on those whom he confirms.
It is also known by the name of _Chrism_, because the forehead of the
person confirmed is anointed with chrism in the form of a cross.
Frequent mention is made of this Sacrament in the Holy Scripture. In the
Acts it is written that “When the Apostles who were in Jerusalem had heard
that Samaria had received the Word of God they sent unto them Peter and
John, who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive
the Holy Ghost; for He was not yet come upon any of them, but they were
only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on
them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”(354)
It is also related that the disciples at Ephesus “were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul had imposed his hands upon them the
Holy Ghost came upon them and they spoke tongues and prophesied.”(355)
In his Epistle to the Hebrews St. Paul enumerates Confirmation, or the
laying on of hands, together with Baptism and Penance, among the
fundamental truths of Christianity.(356)
To the Corinthians he writes: “He that confirmeth us with you in Christ,
and that hath anointed us, is God; who also hath sealed us and given the
pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.”(357) God _confirmeth_ us in faith; He
hath _anointed_ us by spiritual unction, typified by the sacred chrism
which is marked on our foreheads. He hath _sealed_ us by the indelible
character stamped on our souls, which is indicated by the sign of the
cross impressed on us. He hath given the _pledge_ of the Holy Ghost in our
hearts, by the testimony of a good conscience, as an earnest of future
glory. The Bishop performs the external unction, but God, “who worketh all
in all,” sanctifies the soul by His secret operation.
It cannot be asserted that the laying on of hands and the graces which
followed from it, as recorded in the Acts, were not intended to be
continued after the Apostles’ times, for there is no warrant for such an
assumption. This function of imposing hands formed as regular and
imperative a part of the Apostolic ministry as the duties which they
exercised in preaching, baptizing, ordaining, etc. Hence the successors of
the Apostles in the nineteenth century have precisely the same authority
and obligation to confirm as they have to preach, to baptize or to ordain.
Those who were confirmed by the Apostles usually gave evidence of the
grace which they received by prophecy, the gift of tongues and the
manifestation of other miraculous powers. It may be asked: Why do not
these gifts accompany now the imposition of hands? I answer: Because they
are no longer needed. The grace which the Apostolic disciples received was
for their personal sanctification. The gift of tongues which they
exercised was intended by Almighty God to edify and enlighten the
spectators, and to give Divine sanction to the Apostolic ministry. But now
that the Church is firmly established, and the Divine authority of her
ministry is clearly recognized, these miracles are no longer necessary.
St. Gregory illustrates this point by a happy comparison: As the sapling,
he says, when it is first planted is regularly watered by the gardener,
who softens the earth around it, that the sun and the moisture may nourish
its roots until it takes deep root and it no longer requires any special
care, so the Church in her infancy had to be nourished by the miraculous
power of God. But after it had taken root in the hearts of the people and
spread its branches over the earth it was left to the ordinary agencies of
Providence.
St. Augustine writes also on the same subject: “In the first days (of the
Church) the Holy Ghost came down on believers, and they spoke in tongues
which they had not learned.... These were miracles suited to the times....
Is it now expected that they upon whom hands are laid should speak with
tongues? Or, when we imposed hands on these children, did each of you wait
to see whether they would speak with tongues?... If, then, there be not
now a testimony to the presence of the Holy Spirit by means of these
miracles, whence is it proved that he has received the Holy Spirit? Let
him ask his own heart; if he loves his brother, the Spirit of God abides
in him.”(358)
Following in the footsteps of the Apostles we find the Fathers of the
Church, from the earliest age, recognizing Confirmation as a Divine and
sacramental institution and proclaiming its salutary effects.
“The flesh,” says Tertullian, “is _anointed_, that the soul may be
consecrated; the flesh is marked, that the soul may be fortified; the
flesh is overshadowed _by the imposition of hands_, that the soul may be
enlightened with the Spirit.”(359)
St. Cyprian, speaking of the Christians baptized in Samaria, says:
“Because they had received the legitimate baptism, ... what was wanting,
that was done by Peter and John, that prayer being made for them and hands
imposed, the Holy Ghost should be invoked and poured forth upon them.
_Which now also is done amongst us_, so that they who are baptized in the
Church are presented to the Bishops of the Church, and by our prayer and
imposition of hands they receive the Holy Ghost and are perfected with the
seal of the Lord.”(360)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem compares the sacred Chrism in Confirmation to the
Eucharist: “You were anointed with oil, being made sharers and partners of
Christ. And see well that you regard it not as mere ointment; for, as the
bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no
longer mere bread 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. You were
anointed on the forehead, that you might be delivered from the shame which
the first transgressor always experienced, and that you might contemplate
the glory of God with an unveiled countenance.... As Christ, after His
baptism and the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him, going forth overcame
the adversary, so you likewise, after holy baptism and the mysterious
unction, clothed with the panoply of the Holy Ghost, stand against the
adverse power and subdue it, saying: ‘I can do all things in Christ, who
strengtheneth me.’ ”(361)
St. Ambrose, commenting on these words of the Apostle, “God ... hath given
us the pledge of the Spirit,” (II. Cor. i. 22) expressly applies the text
to the seal of Confirmation. “Remember,” he says, “that you have received
the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of
counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, the spirit of
holy fear. God the Father hath sealed you; Christ the Lord hath
_confirmed_ you, and hath given the pledge of the Spirit in your hearts,
_as you have learned from the lesson read from the Apostle_.”(362)
St. Ambrose here speaks of the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost which are
received in Confirmation, and every Bishop in our day invokes these same
gifts on those whom he is about to confirm.
“Do you know,” writes St. Jerome against the sect of Luciferians of his
time, “that it is the practice of the churches that the imposition of
hands should be performed over baptized persons and the Holy Ghost thus
invoked? Do you ask where it is written? In the Acts of the Apostles; but
were there no Scriptural authority at hand the consent of the whole world
in this regard would have the force of law.”(363)
“You willingly understand,” says St. Augustine, “by this ointment the
Sacrament of Chrism, which, indeed, in the class of visible seals is as
sacred as Baptism itself.”(364)
The Oriental schismatic churches recognize Confirmation as a Sacrament,
and administer the rite as we do, by the imposition of hands and the
application of chrism. Now, some of these churches have been separated
from the Catholic Church since the fourth and fifth centuries. This fact
is an eloquent vindication of the Apostolic antiquity of Confirmation, and
is an ample refutation of those who would ascribe to it a more recent
origin.
Protestantism, which made such havoc of the other Sacraments, did not fail
to abolish Confirmation in its sweeping revolution.
The Episcopal church retains, indeed, the name of Confirmation in its
ritual, and even borrows a portion of our prayers and ceremonial. But, in
opposition to the uniform teaching of the Catholic, as well as of all the
Oriental churches, both orthodox and schismatic, it declares Confirmation
to be a mere rite and not a Sacrament.
In violation of the practice of all antiquity it mutilates the rite by
omitting the sacred unction. It retains the shadow without the substance.
It raises, indeed, its hands over the candidates; but they are not the
anointed hands of Peter or John, or Cyprian or Augustine, to whom it is
said: “Whatsoever thou shalt bless, let it be blessed; whatsoever thou
shalt sanctify, let it be sanctified.”(365) Their hands were lifted up
with authority and clothed with supernatural power; but the hands of the
Episcopal Bishops are spiritually paralyzed by the suicidal act of the
Reformers, and they expressly disclaim any sacramental efficacy in the
rite which they administer.
Chapter XXI.
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
Among the various dogmas of the Catholic Church there is none which rests
on stronger Scriptural authority than the doctrine of the Real Presence of
Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. So copious, indeed, and so clear are
the passages of the New Testament which treat of this subject that I am at
a loss to determine which to select, and find it difficult to compress
them all within the compass of this short chapter.
The Evangelists do not always dwell upon the same mysteries of religion.
Their practice is rather to supplement each other, so that one of them
will mention what the others have omitted or have touched in a cursory
way. But in regard to the Blessed Eucharist the sacred writers exhibit a
marked deviation from this rule. We find that the four Evangelists,
together with St. Paul, have written so explicitly and abundantly on this
subject that one of them alone would be amply sufficient to prove the
dogma without taking them collectively.
These five inspired writers gave the weight of their individual testimony
to the doctrine of the Eucharist because they foresaw—or rather the Holy
Ghost, speaking through them, foresaw—that this great mystery, which
exacts so strong an exercise of our faith, and which bids us bow down our
“understanding unto the obedience of Christ,”(366) would meet with
opposition in the course of time from those who would measure the
infallible Word of God by the erring standard of their own judgment.
I shall select three classes of arguments from the New Testament which
satisfactorily demonstrate the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed
Sacrament. The first of these texts speaks of the promise of the
Eucharist, the second of its institution and the third of its use among
the faithful.
To begin with the words of the promise. While Jesus was once preaching
near the coast of the Sea of Galilee He was followed, as usual, by an
immense multitude of persons, who were attracted to Him by the miracles
which He wrought and the words of salvation which he spoke. Seeing that
the people had no food, He multiplied five loaves and two fishes to such
an extent as to supply the wants of five thousand men, besides women and
children.
Our Lord considered the present a favorable occasion for speaking of the
Sacrament of His body and blood, which was to be distributed, not to a few
thousands, but to millions of souls; not in one place, but everywhere; not
at one time, but for all days, to the end of the world. “I am,” He says to
His hearers, “the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert
and died.... I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man
eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give
is My flesh for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, disputed among
themselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus
said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you. He that eateth
My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him
up on the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood drink
indeed.”(367)
If these words had fallen on your ears for the first time, and if you had
been among the number of our Savior’s hearers on that occasion, would you
not have been irresistibly led, by the noble simplicity of His words, to
understand Him as speaking truly of His body and blood? For His language
is not susceptible of any other interpretation.
When our Savior says to the Jews: “Your fathers did eat manna and died,
... but he that eateth this (Eucharistic) bread shall live forever,” He
evidently wishes to affirm the superiority of the food which He would
give, over the manna by which the children of Israel were nourished.
Now, if the Eucharist were merely commemorative bread and wine, instead of
being superior, it would be really inferior to the manna; for the manna
was supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a
natural, earthly food.
But the best and the most reliable interpreters of our Savior’s words are
certainly the multitude and the disciples who are listening to Him. They
all understood the import of His language precisely as it is explained by
the Catholic Church. They believed that our Lord spoke literally of His
body and blood. The Evangelist tells us that the Jews “disputed among
themselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Even His
disciples, though avoiding the disrespectful language of the multitude,
gave expression to their doubt in this milder form: “This saying is hard,
and who can hear it?”(368) So much were they shocked at our Savior’s
promise that “after this many of His disciples went back and walked no
more with Him.”(369) They evidently implied, by their words and conduct,
that they understood Jesus to have spoken literally of His flesh; for, had
they interpreted His words in a figurative sense, it would not have been a
hard saying, nor have led them to abandon their Master.
But, perhaps, I shall be told that the disciples and the Jews who heard
our Savior may have misinterpreted His meaning by taking His words in the
literal acceptation, while He may have spoken in a figurative sense. This
objection is easily disposed of. It sometimes happened, indeed, that our
Savior was misunderstood by His hearers. On such occasions He always took
care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by
stating His meaning in simpler language. Thus, for instance, having told
Nicodemus that unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of
heaven, and having observed that His meaning was not correctly apprehended
by this disciple our Savior added: “Unless a man be born again of water
and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”(370) And again,
when he warned His disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, and
finding that they had taken an erroneous meaning from His word, He
immediately subjoined that they should beware of the doctrine of the
Pharisees.(371)
But in the present instance does our Savior alter His language when He
finds His words taken in the literal sense? Does He tell His hearers that
He has spoken figuratively? Does He soften the tone of His expression? Far
from weakening the force of His words He repeats what He said before, and
in language more emphatic: “Amen, amen, I say unto you, Unless ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in
you.”
When our Savior beheld the Jews and many of His disciples abandoning Him,
turning to the chosen twelve, He said feelingly to them: “Will ye also go
away? And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast
the words of eternal life.”(372) You, my dear reader, must also take your
choice. Will you reply with the Jews, or with the disciples of little
faith, or with Peter? Ah! let some say with the unbelieving Jews: “How can
this man give us His flesh to eat?” Let others say with the unfaithful
disciples: “This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?” But do you say with
Peter: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”
So far I have dwelt on the words of the Promise. I shall now proceed to
the words of the Institution, which are given in almost the same
expressions by St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke. In the Gospel according
to St. Matthew we read the following narrative: “And while they were at
supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke and gave to His disciples
and said: Take ye and eat. This is My body. And taking the chalice, He
gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this; for this is My
blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of
sins.”(373)
I beg you to recall to mind the former text relative to the Promise and to
compare it with this. How admirably they fit together, like two links in a
chain! How faithfully has Jesus fulfilled the Promise which He made! Could
any idea be expressed in clearer terms than these: This is My body; this
is My blood?
Why is the Catholic interpretation of these words rejected by Protestants?
Is it because the text is in itself obscure and ambiguous? By no means;
but simply because they do not comprehend how God could perform so
stupendous a miracle as to give His body and blood for our spiritual
nourishment.
Is, then, the power or the mercy of God to be measured by the narrow rule
of the human understanding? Is the Almighty not permitted to do anything
except what we can sanction by our reason? Is a thing to be declared
impossible because we cannot see its possibility?
Has not God created the heavens and the earth _out of nothing_ by the fiat
of His word? What a mystery is this! Does He not hold this world in the
midst of space? Does He not transform the tiny blade into nutritious
grain? Did He not feed upwards of five thousand persons with five loaves
and two fishes? What a mystery! Did He not rain down manna from heaven for
forty years to feed the children of Israel in the desert? Did He not
change rivers into blood in Egypt, and water into wine at the wedding of
Cana? Does he not daily make devout souls the tabernacles of the Holy
Ghost? And shall we have the hardihood to deny, in spite of our Lord’s
plain declaration, that God, who works these wonders, is able to change
bread and wine into His body and blood for the food of our souls?
You tell me it is a mystery above your comprehension. A mystery, indeed. A
religion that rejects a revealed truth because it is incomprehensible
contains in itself the seeds of dissolution and will end in rationalism.
Is not everything around us a mystery? Are we not a mystery to ourselves?
Explain to me how the blood circulates in your veins, how the soul
animates and permeates the whole body, how the hand moves at the will of
the soul. Explain to me the mystery of life and death.
Is not the Scripture full of incomprehensible mysteries? Do you not
believe in the Trinity—a mystery not only above, but apparently contrary
to, reason? Do you not admit the Incarnation—that the helpless infant in
Bethlehem was God? I understand why Rationalists, who admit nothing above
their reason, reject the Real Presence; but that Bible Christians should
reject it is to me incomprehensible.
But do those who reject the Catholic interpretation explain this text to
their own satisfaction: “This is My body, etc?” Alas! here their burden
begins. Only a few years after the early Reformers had rejected the
Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist no fewer than one hundred meanings were
given to these words: “This is My body.” It is far easier to destroy than
to rebuild.
Let me now offer you some additional reasons in favor of the Catholic or
literal sense. According to a common rule observed in the interpretation
of the Holy Scripture, we must always take the words in their literal
signification, unless we have some special reason which obliges us to
accept them in a figurative meaning. Now, in the present instance, far
from being forced to employ the words above quoted in a figurative sense,
every circumstance connected with the delivery of them obliges us to
interpret them in their plain and literal acceptation.
To whom did our Savior address these words? At what time and under what
circumstances did He speak? 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. He uttered these words the
night before His Passion. And when will a person use plainer speech than
at the point of death?
These words: “This is My body; this is My blood,” embodied a new dogma of
faith which all were obliged to believe, and a new law which all were
obliged to practice. They were the last will and testament of our blessed
Savior. What language should be plainer than that which contains an
article of faith? What words should be more free from tropes and figures
than those which enforce a Divine law? But, above all, where will you find
any words more plain and unvarnished than those contained in a last will?
Now, if we understand these words in their plain and obvious; that is, in
their Catholic, sense, no language can be more simple and intelligible.
But if we depart from the Catholic interpretation, then it is impossible
to attach to them any reasonable meaning.
We now arrive at the third class of Scripture texts which have reference
to the use or reception of the Sacrament among the faithful.
When Jesus, as you remember, instituted the Eucharist at His last Supper
He commanded His disciples and their successors to renew, till the end of
time, in remembrance of Him, the ceremony which He performed. What I have
done, do ye also “for a commemoration of Me.”(374)
We have a very satisfactory means of ascertaining the Apostolic belief in
the doctrine of the Eucharist by examining what the Apostles did in
commemoration of our Lord. Did they bless and distribute mere bread and
wine to the faithful, or did they consecrate, as they believed, the body
and blood of Jesus Christ? If they professed to give only bread and wine
in memory of our Lord’s Supper, then the Catholic interpretation falls to
the ground. If, on the contrary, we find the Apostles and their
successors, from the first to the nineteenth century, professing to
consecrate and dispense the body and blood of Christ, and doing so by
virtue of the command of their Savior, then the Catholic interpretation
alone is admissible.
Let St. Paul be our first witness. Represent yourself as a member of the
primitive Christian congregation assembled in Corinth. About eighteen
years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, a letter is read from the
Apostle Paul, in which the following words occur: “The chalice of
benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body
of the Lord?... For, I have received of the Lord that which also I
delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was
betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: Take and eat:
this is My body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the
commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after the supper,
saying: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood. This do ye, as often as
ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For, as often as ye shall eat
this bread, and drink the cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until
He come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of
the Lord unworthily, _shall be guilty of the body and of __ the blood of
the Lord_. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread
and drink of the chalice. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, _not discerning the body of the
Lord_.”(375)
Could St. Paul express more clearly his belief in the Real Presence than
he has done here? The Apostle distinctly affirms that the chalice and
bread which he and his fellow Apostles bless is a participation of the
body and blood of Christ. And surely no one could be said to partake of
that divine food by eating ordinary bread. Mark these words of the
Apostle: Whosoever shall take the Sacrament unworthily “shall be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord.” What a heinous crime! For these words
signify that he who receives the Sacrament unworthily shall be guilty of
the sin of high treason, and of shedding the blood of his Lord in vain.
But how could he be guilty of a crime so enormous, if he had taken in the
Eucharist only a particle of bread and wine. Would a man be accused of
homicide, in this commonwealth, if he were to offer violence to the statue
or painting of the governor? Certainly not. In like manner, St. Paul would
not be so unreasonable as to declare a man guilty of trampling on the
blood of his Savior by drinking in an unworthy manner a little wine in
memory of Him.
Study also these words: “He who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and
drinketh condemnation to himself, _not discerning the body of the Lord_.”
The unworthy receiver is condemned for not recognizing or discerning in
the Eucharist the body of the Lord. How could he be blamed for not
discerning the body of the Lord, if there were only bread and wine before
him? Hence, if the words of St. Paul are figuratively understood, they are
distorted, forced and exaggerated terms, without meaning or truth. But, if
they are taken literally, they are full of sense and of awful
significance, and an eloquent commentary on the words I have quoted from
the Evangelist.
The Fathers of the Church, without an exception, re-echo the language of
the Apostle of the Gentiles by proclaiming the Real Presence of our Lord
in the Eucharist. I have counted the names of sixty-three Fathers and
eminent Ecclesiastical writers flourishing between the first and sixth
century all of whom proclaim the Real Presence—some by explaining the
mystery, others by thanking God for his inestimable gift, and others by
exhorting the faithful to its worthy reception. From such a host of
witnesses I can select here only a few at random.
St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. Peter, speaking of a sect called Gnostics,
says: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess
not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Savior Jesus
Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr, in an apology to the Emperor Antoninus, writes in the
second century: “We do not receive these things as common bread and drink;
but as Jesus Christ our Savior was made flesh by the word of God, even so
we have been taught that the Eucharist is _both the flesh and the blood of
the same incarnate Jesus_.”
Origen (third century) writes: “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.”
St. Cyril, of Jerusalem (fourth century), instructing the Catechumens,
observes: “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?” He seems to be arguing with modern unbelief.
St. John Chrysostom, who died in the beginning of the fifth century,
preaching on the Eucharist, says: “If thou wert 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: ‘Would that they could look upon His
(Jesus’) form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him,
touchest Him, eatest Him.’ ”
St. Augustine (fifth century), addressing the newly-baptized, says: “I
promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the
Lord’s table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were
last night made partakers. 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.”(376)
But why multiply authorities? At the present day every Christian communion
throughout the world, with the sole exception of Protestants, proclaim its
belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.
The Nestorians and Eutychians, who separated from the Catholic Church in
the fifth century, admit the corporeal presence of our Lord in the
Eucharist. Such also is the faith of the Greek church, which seceded from
us a thousand years ago, of the Present Russian church, of the schismatic
Copts, the Syrians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and, in short, of all the
Oriental sects no longer in communion with the See of Rome.
Chapter XXII.
COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.
Our Savior gave communion under both forms of bread and wine to His
Apostles at the last Supper. Officiating Bishops and Priests are always
required, except on Good Friday, to communicate under both kinds. But even
the clergy of every rank, including the Pope, receive only of the
consecrated bread unless when they celebrate Mass.
The Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each
species; so that whoever communicates under the form of bread _or_ of wine
receives not a mutilated Sacrament or a divided Savior, but shares in the
whole Sacrament as fully as if he participated in both forms. Hence, the
layman who receives the consecrated Bread partakes as copiously of the
body and blood of Christ as the officiating Priest who receives both
consecrated elements.
Our Lord says: “I am the living bread which came down from Heaven. If any
man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I will
give is My flesh, for the life of the world.... He that eateth Me the same
also shall live by Me. He that eateth this bread shall live forever.”(377)
From this passage it is evident that whoever partakes of the form of bread
partakes of the living flesh of Jesus Christ, which is inseparable from
His blood, and which, being now in a glorious state, cannot be divided;
for, “Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more.”(378) Our Lord, in
His words quoted, makes no reference to the sacramental cup, but only to
the Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which is
attached to communion under both kinds, viz., union with Him, spiritual
life, eternal salvation.
St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: “Whosoever shall eat this
bread, _or_ drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body _and_ of the blood of the Lord.”(379) The Apostle here plainly
declares that, by an unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper, under
the form of either bread or wine, we profane both the body and the blood
of Christ. How could this be so, unless Christ is entirely contained under
each species? So forcibly, indeed, did the Apostle assert the Catholic
doctrine that the Protestant translators have perverted the text by
rendering it: “Whosoever shall eat this bread _and_ drink the chalice,”
substituting _and_ for _or_, in contradiction to the Greek original, of
which the Catholic version is an exact translation.
It is also the received doctrine of the Fathers that the Eucharist is
contained in all its integrity either in the consecrated bread or in the
chalice. St. Augustine, who may be taken as a sample of the rest, says
that “each one receives Christ the Lord _entire_ under each
particle.”(380)
Luther himself, even after his revolt, was so clearly convinced of this
truth that he was an uncompromising advocate of communion 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.”(381)
Leibnitz, the eminent Protestant divine, observes: “_It cannot be denied_
that Christ is received entire by _virtue_ of concomitance, under each
species; nor is His flesh separated from His blood.”(382)
As the same virtue is contained in the Sacrament, whether administered in
one or both forms, the faithful gain nothing by receiving under both
kinds, and lose nothing by receiving under one form. Consequently, we
nowhere find our Savior requiring the communion to be administered to the
faithful under both forms; but He has left this matter to be regulated by
the wisdom and discretion of the Church, as He has done with regard to the
manner of administering Baptism.
Our Redeemer, it is true, has said: “Drink ye all of this.” But it should
be remembered that these words were addressed not to the people at large,
but only to the Apostles, who alone were also commanded, on the same
occasion, to consecrate His body and blood in remembrance of Him. Now we
have no more right to infer that the faithful are obliged to drink of the
cup, because the Apostles were commanded to drink of it, than we have to
suppose that the laity are required or allowed to consecrate the bread and
wine, because the power of doing so was at the last Supper conferred on
the Apostles.
It is true also that our Lord said to the people: “Unless ye eat the flesh
of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you.”
But this command is literally fulfilled by the laity when they partake of
the consecrated bread, which, as we have seen, contains Christ the Lord in
all His integrity. Hence, if our Savior has said: “Whoso eateth My flesh,
and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life,” He has also said: “The
bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world.”
It seems to me that the charge of withholding the cup comes with very bad
grace from Protestant teachers, who destroy the whole intrinsic virtue of
the Sacrament by giving to their followers nothing but bread and wine. The
difference between them and us lies in this—that under one form we give
the _substance_, while they under two forms confessedly give only the
_shadow_.
In examining the history of the Church on the subject we find that up to
the twelfth century communion was sometimes distributed in one form,
sometimes in another, commonly in both.
First—St. Luke tells us that the converts of Jerusalem “were persevering
in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communion of bread (as the
Eucharist was sometimes familiarly called), and in prayer.”(383) Again he
speaks of the Christian disciples assembled at Troas on the Lord’s day,
“to break bread.”(384) We are led to conclude from these passages that the
Apostles sometimes distributed the communion in the form of bread alone,
as no reference is made to the cup.
It was certainly the custom to carry to the sick only the consecrated
Host. Surely if there is any period of life when nothing should be
neglected which conduces to salvation it is the time of approaching death.
Eusebius tells us that the aged Serapion received only the Sacred Bread at
the hands of the Priest. In the _Life_ of St. Ambrose we are told that in
his last illness the consecrated Host alone was given to Him.
The Christians in time of persecution, confessors of the faith confined in
prison, travellers on their journey, soldiers before engaging in battle
and hermits living in the desert were permitted to keep with them and to
fortify themselves with the consecrated Bread—as Tertullian, Cyprian,
Basil, Ambrose and other Fathers of the Church testify.
Moreover, the Mass of the _Presanctified_, celebrated in the Latin church
on Good Friday only, and in the Greek church on every day in Lent, except
Saturdays and Sundays, the officiating Priest receives the consecrated
Bread alone.(385)
In all these instances the communicants never doubted that they received
the Lord’s Supper in its integrity. Surely the conscientious guides of the
faith would sooner withhold altogether the Sacred Host from their flocks
than permit them to partake of a mutilated Sacrament.
Second—In the primitive days of the Church the Holy Communion used to be
imparted to infants, but only in the form of wine. The Priest dipped his
finger in the consecrated chalice and gave it to be sucked by the infant.
This custom prevails to this day among the schismatic Christians of all
Oriental rites. In some instances the Sacred Host, saturated in the cup,
is given to the child.(386)
Third—Public Communion was, indeed, usually administered in the first ages
under both forms. The faithful, however, had the privilege of dispensing
with the cup and of partaking only of the bread until the time of Pope
Gelasius, in the fifth century, when this general, but hitherto optional,
practice of receiving under both kinds was enforced as a law for the
following reason:
The Manichean sect abstained from the cup on the erroneous assumption that
the use of wine was sinful. Pope Gelasius, in order to detect and condemn
the error of those sectaries, left it no longer optional with the faithful
to receive under one or both forms, but ordained that all should
communicate under both kinds.
This law continued in force for several ages, but towards the thirteenth
century, for various causes, it had gradually grown into disuse, with the
tacit approval of the Church. The Council of Constance, which convened in
1414, established a law requiring the faithful to communicate under the
form of bread only; and in taking this step, the Council was actuated both
by reasons of propriety and of religion.
The wide-spread diffusion of Christianity throughout the world had
rendered it very difficult to supply all the faithful with the consecrated
wine. Such inconvenience is scarcely felt by Protestant communicants,
whose numbers are limited and who ordinarily communicate only on certain
Sundays of each month. The Catholics of the world, on the contrary, number
about three hundred millions; and as communion is administered to some of
the faithful almost every day in most of our churches and chapels, and as
the annual communions in every parish church are generally at least twice
as numerous as its aggregate Catholic population, the sum total of annual
communions throughout the globe may be estimated in round numbers at not
less than five hundred millions. What effort would be required to procure
altar-wine for such a multitude? In my missionary journeys through North
Carolina I have often found it no easy task to provide for the celebration
of Mass a sufficiency of pure wine, which is essential for the validity of
the sacrifice. This embarrassment would be increased beyond measure if the
cup had to be extended to the laity, and still more in the coal regions,
where the cultivation of the grape is unknown and where imported wine is
exclusively used.(387)
It would be very distasteful, besides, for so many communicants to drink
successively out of the same chalice, which would be unavoidable if the
Sacrament were administered in both forms. In our larger churches, where
communion is distributed every Sunday to hundreds, there would be great
danger of spilling a portion of the consecrated chalice and of thus
exposing it to profanation.
But above all, as the Church in the fifth century, through her chief
Pastor, Gelasius, enforced the use of the cup to expose and reprobate the
error of the Manichees, who imagined that the use of wine was sinful; so
in the fifteenth century she withdrew the cup to condemn the novelties of
the Calixtines, who taught that the consecrated wine was necessary for a
valid communion. Should circumstances ever justify or demand a change from
the present discipline the Church will not hesitate to restore the cup to
the laity.
Chapter XXIII.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
Sacrifice is the oblation or offering made to God of some sensible object,
with the destruction or change of the object, to denote that God is the
Author of life and death. Thus, in the Old Law, before the coming of
Christ, when the Hebrew people wished to offer sacrifice to God they took
a lamb or some other animal, which they slew and burned its flesh,
acknowledging by this act that the Lord was the supreme Master of life and
death. The ancients offered to God two kinds of sacrifices, viz., living
creatures, such as bulls, lambs and birds; and inanimate objects, such as
wheat and barley, and, in general, the first fruits of the earth.
All nations—whether Jews, idolaters or Christians, except Mahometans and
modern Protestants—have made sacrifice their principal act of worship. If
you go back to the very dawn of creation, you will find the children of
Adam offering sacrifices to God. Abel offered to the Lord the firstlings
of his flock, and Cain offered of the fruits of the earth.(388)
When Noe and his family are rescued from the deluge which had spread over
the face of the earth his first act on issuing from the ark, when the
waters disappear, is to offer holocausts to the Lord, in thanksgiving for
his preservation.(389) Abraham, the great father of the Jewish race,
offered victims to the Almighty at His express command.(390) We read that
Job was accustomed to offer holocausts to the Lord, to propitiate His
favor in behalf of his children, and to obtain forgiveness for the sins
they might have committed.(391)
When Jehovah delivered to Moses the written law on Mount Sinai He gave His
servant the most minute details with regard to all the ceremonies to be
observed in the sacrifices which were to be offered to Him. He prescribed
the kind of victims to be immolated, the qualifications of the Priests who
were to minister at the altar, and the place and manner in which the
victims were to be offered. Hence, it was the custom of the Jewish Priests
to slay every day two lambs as a sacrifice to God,(392) and in doing this
they were prefiguring the great sacrifice of the New Law, in which we
daily offer up on the altar “the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of
the world.”
In a word, in all their public calamities—whenever they were threatened by
their enemies; whenever they were about to engage in war; whenever they
were visited by any plague or pestilence—the Jews had recourse to God by
solemn sacrifices. Like the Catholic Church of the present day, they had
sacrifices not only for the living, but also for the dead; for we read in
Sacred Scripture that Judas Machabeus ordered sacrifice to be offered up
for the souls of his men who were slain in battle.(393)
We find sacrifices existing not only among the Jews, who worshiped the
true God, but also among Pagan and idolatrous nations. No matter how
confused, imperfect or erroneous was their knowledge of the Deity, the
Pagan nations retained sufficient vestiges of primitive tradition to
admonish them of their obligation of appeasing the anger and invoking the
blessings of the Divinity by victims and sacrifices. Plutarch, an ancient
writer of the second century, says of these heathen people: “You may find
cities without walls, without literature and without the arts and sciences
of civilized life; but you will never find a city without Priests and
altars, or which has not sacrifices offered to the gods.”
The Indians of our own country were accustomed to offer sacrifice to the
Great Spirit, as Father Jogues and other pioneer missionaries inform us.
But all those ancient sacrifices were only the types and figures of the
great Sacrifice of the New Law, from which they derived all their
efficacy, just as the Old Law itself was the type of the New Law of grace.
Since the ancient sacrifices were but figures and shadows, they were
imperfect and insufficient; for “it is impossible,” says St. Paul, “that
by the blood of oxen and of goats sins should be taken away. Wherefore,
when He (Jesus) cometh into the world, He saith: Sacrifice and oblation
Thou wouldst not, but a body Thou hast fitted to me. Holocausts for sin
did not please Thee. Then said I: Behold, I come.”(394) As if He should
say: The blood of oxen and of goats is not sufficient to appease Thy
vengeance, and to cleanse Thy people from their sins; therefore I come,
that I may offer Myself an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world.
The Prophet Isaiah declared that the Jewish sacrifices had become
displeasing to God and would be abolished. “To what purpose,” says the
Lord by His prophet, “do you offer Me the multitude of your victims?... I
desire not holocausts of rams, ... and blood of calves and lambs and
buck-goats ... Offer sacrifice no more in vain.”(395)
But did God, in rejecting the Jewish oblations, intend to abolish
sacrifices altogether? By no means. On the contrary, He clearly predicts,
by the mouth of the Prophet Malachias, that the immolations 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. Listen to the significant words addressed to the Jews by this
prophet: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will
not receive a gift of your hand. For, 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; for
My Name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.”(396) The
prophet here clearly foretells that an acceptable oblation would be
offered to God not by Jews, but by Gentiles; not merely in Jerusalem, but
in every place from the rising to the setting of the sun. These prophetic
words must have been fulfilled. Where shall we find the fulfilment of the
prophecy?
We may divide the inhabitants of the world into five different classes of
people, professing different forms of religion—Pagans, Jews, Mohammedans,
Protestants and Catholics. Among which of these shall we find the clean
oblation of which the prophet speaks? Not among the Pagan nations; for
they worship false gods, and consequently cannot have any sacrifice
pleasing to the Almighty. Not among the Jews; for they have ceased to
sacrifice altogether, and the words of the prophet apply not to the Jews,
but to the Gentiles. Not among the Mohammedans; for they also reject
sacrifices. Not among any of the Protestant sects; for they all distinctly
repudiate sacrifices. Therefore, it is only in the Catholic Church that is
fulfilled this glorious prophecy; for whithersoever you go, you will find
the clean oblation offered on Catholic altars. If you travel from America
to Europe, to Oceanica, to Africa, or Asia, you will see our altars
erected, and our Priests daily fulfilling the words of the prophets by
offering the “clean oblation” of the body and blood of Christ.
This oblation of the New Law is commonly called _Mass_. The word Mass is
derived by some from the Hebrew term _Missach_ (Deut. xvi.), which means a
free offering. Others derive it from the word _Missa_, which the Priest
uses when he announces to the congregation that Divine Service is over. It
is an expression indelibly marked on our English tongue from the origin of
our language, and we find it embodied in such words as _Candlemas_,
_Michaelmas_, _Martin-mas_ and _Christmas_.
The sacrifice of the Mass is the consecration of the bread and wine into
the body and blood of Christ, and the oblation of this body and blood to
God, by the ministry of the Priest, for a perpetual memorial of Christ’s
sacrifice on the cross. The Sacrifice of the Mass is identical with that
of the cross, both having the same victim and High Priest—Jesus Christ.
The only difference consists in the manner of the oblation. Christ was
offered up on the cross in a bloody manner, and in the Mass He is offered
up in an unbloody manner. On the cross He purchased our ransom, and in the
Eucharistic Sacrifice the price of that ransom is applied to our souls.
Hence, all the efficacy of the Mass is derived from the sacrifice of
Calvary.
It was on the night before He suffered that our Lord Jesus Christ
instituted the Sacrifice of the New Law. “Jesus,” says St. Paul, “the
night in which He was betrayed took bread, and, giving thanks, broke and
said: Take ye and eat; this is My body which shall be delivered for you.
This do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice,
after He had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My
blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of
Me; for as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, ye
shall show the death of the Lord until He come.”(397)
From these words we learn that the principal motive which our Savior had
in view in instituting the Sacrifice of the Altar was to keep us in
perpetual remembrance of His sufferings and death. He wished that the
scene of Calvary should ever appear in panoramic view before our eyes, and
that our heart, memory and intellect should be filled with the thoughts of
His Passion. He knew well that this would be the best means of winning our
love and exciting sorrow for sin in our soul; therefore, He designed that
in every church throughout the world an altar should be erected, to serve
as a monument of His mercies to His people, as the children of Israel
erected a monument, on crossing the Jordan, to commemorate His mercies to
His chosen people. The Mass is truly the memorial service of Christ’s
Passion.
In compliance with the command of our Lord the adorable Sacrifice of the
Altar has been daily renewed in the Church, from the death of our Savior
till the present time, and will be perpetuated till time shall be no more.
In the Acts it is said that while Saul and others were ministering (or, as
the Greek text expresses it, _sacrificing_) to the Lord, and fasting, the
Holy Spirit said to them: “Set apart for Me Saul and Barnabas.” St. Paul,
in his Epistle to the Hebrews, frequently alludes to the Sacrifice of the
Mass. “We have an altar,” he says, “"whereof they cannot eat who serve the
tabernacle.”(398) The Apostle here plainly declares that the Christian
church has its altars as well as the Jewish synagogue. An altar
necessarily supposes a sacrifice, without which it has no meaning. The
Apostle also observes that the priesthood of the New Law was substituted
for that of the Old Law.(399) Now, the principal office of Priests has
always been to offer sacrifice. Priest and sacrifice are as closely
identified as judge and court.
St. Paul, after David, calls Jesus “a Priest forever, according to the
order of Melchisedech.”(400) He is named a _Priest_ because He offers
sacrifice; a Priest _forever_ because His sacrifice is perpetual;
_according to the order of Melchisedech_ because He offers up consecrated
bread and wine, which were prefigured by the bread and wine offered by
“Melchisedech, the Priest of the Most High God.”(401)
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.
If we consult the Fathers of the Church, who have stood like faithful
sentinels on the watch-towers of Israel, guarding with a jealous eye the
deposit of faith, and who have been the faithful witnesses of their own
times and the recorders of the past; if we consult the General Councils,
at which were assembled the venerable hierarchy of Christendom, they will
all tell us, with one voice, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the centre
of their religion and the acknowledged institution of Jesus Christ.
Another remarkable evidence in favor of the Divine institution of the Mass
is furnished by the Nestorians and Eutychians, who separated from the
Catholic Church in the fifth century, and who still exist in Persia and in
other parts of the East, as well as by the Greek schismatics, who severed
their connection with the Church in the ninth century. All these sects, as
well as the numerous others scattered over the East, retain to this day
the oblation of the Mass in their daily service. As these Christian
communities have had no communication with the Catholic Church since the
period of their separation from her, they could not, of course, have
borrowed from her the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; consequently
they must have received it from the same source from which the Church
derived it, viz., from the Apostles themselves.
But of all proofs in favor of the Apostolic origin of the Sacrifice of the
Mass, the most striking and the most convincing is found in the Liturgies
of the Church. The Liturgy is the established Ritual of the Church. It is
the collection of the authorized prayers of divine worship. These prayers
are fixed and immovable. Among others we have the Liturgy of Jerusalem,
ascribed to the Apostle St. James; the Liturgy of Alexandria, attributed
to St. Mark the Evangelist, and the Liturgy of Rome, referred to St.
Peter. There are various other Liturgies accredited to the Apostles or to
their immediate successors. Now I wish to call your attention to this
remarkable fact, that all these Liturgies, though compiled by different
persons, at different times, in various places, and in divers languages,
contain, without exception, in clear and precise language, the prayers to
be said at the celebration of Mass; prayers in substance the same as those
found in our prayer books at the Canon of the Mass.
We cannot account for this wonderful uniformity except by supposing that
the doctrine respecting the Mass was received by the Apostles from the
common fountain of Christianity—Jesus Christ Himself.
It was such facts as these that opened the eyes of those eminent English
divines who, during the present century, have abandoned heresy and schism
and rich preferments and who have embraced the Catholic faith, though, by
taking such a step, they had to sacrifice all that was dear to them on
earth.
The following passages from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews are
sometimes urged as an argument against the sacrifice of the Mass: “Christ,
... neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by His own blood,
entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption.” “Nor
yet that He should offer Himself often, as the High Priest entereth into
the Holies every year.”(402) Again: “Every Priest standeth, indeed, daily
ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins, but this Man, offering one sacrifice for sin, forever sitteth
at the right hand of God.”(403)
St. Paul says that Jesus was offered once. How, then, can we offer Him
daily? I answer, that Jesus was offered once in a bloody manner, and it is
of this sacrifice that the Apostle speaks. But in the Sacrifice of the
Mass He is offered up in an unbloody manner. Though He is daily offered on
ten thousand altars, the Sacrifice is the same as that of Calvary, having
the same High Priest and victim—Jesus Christ. The object of St. Paul is to
contrast the Sacrifice of the New Law, which has only one victim, with the
sacrifices of the Old Law, where the victims were many; and to show the
insufficiency of the ancient sacrifices and the all-sufficiency of the
Sacrifice of the new dispensation.
But if the sacrifice of the cross is all-sufficient what need then, you
will say, is there of a commemorative Sacrifice of the Mass? I would ask a
Protestant in return, Why do you pray, and go to church, and why were you
baptized, and receive Communion, and the rite of Confirmation? What is the
use of all these exercises, if the sacrifice of the cross is
all-sufficient? You will tell me that in all these acts you apply to
yourself the merits of Christ’s Passion. I will tell you, in like manner,
that in the Sacrifice of the Mass I apply to myself the merits of the
sacrifice of the cross, from which the Mass derives all its efficacy.
Christ, indeed, by His death made full atonement for our sins, but He has
not released us from the obligation of co-operating with Him by applying
His merits to our souls. What better or more efficacious way can we have
of participating in His merits than by assisting at the Sacrifice of the
Altar, where we vividly recall to mind His sufferings, where Calvary is
represented before us, where “we show the death of the Lord until He
come,” and where we draw abundantly to our souls the fruit of His Passion
by drinking of the same blood that was shed on the cross?
In the Old Law there were different kinds of sacrifices offered up for
different purposes. There were sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to
God for His benefits, sacrifices of propitiation to implore His
forgiveness for the sins of the people, and sacrifices of supplication to
ask His blessing and protection. The Sacrifice of the Mass fulfils all
these ends. It is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, a sacrifice of
propitiation and of supplication; hence that valued book, the “_Following
of Christ_,” says: “When a Priest celebrates Mass he honors God, he
rejoices the angels, he edifies the church, he helps the living, he
obtains rest for the dead, and makes himself a partaker of all that is
good.” To form an adequate idea of the efficiency of the Divine Sacrifice
of the Mass we have only to bear in mind the Victim that is offered—Jesus
Christ, the Son of the living God.
First—The Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. If all human
beings in this world, and all living creatures, and all inanimate objects
were collected and burned as a holocaust to the Lord, they would not
confer as much praise on the Almighty as a single Eucharistic sacrifice.
These earthly creatures—how numerous and excellent soever—are finite and
imperfect; while the offering made in the Mass is of infinite value, for
it is our Lord Jesus, the acceptable Lamb without blemish, the beloved Son
in whom the Father is well pleased, and who “is always heard on account of
His reverence.”
With what awe and grateful love should we assist at this Sacrifice! The
angels were present at Calvary. Angels are present also at the Mass. If we
cannot assist with the seraphic love and rapt attention of the angelic
spirits, let us worship, at least, with the simple devotion of the
shepherds of Bethlehem and the unswerving faith of the Magi. Let us offer
to our God the golden gift of a heart full of love and the incense of our
praise and adoration, repeating often during the holy oblation the words
of the Psalmist: “The mercies of the Lord I will sing forever.”
Second—The Mass is also a sacrifice of propitiation. Jesus daily pleads
our cause in this Divine oblation before our Heavenly Father. “If any man
sin,” says St. John, “we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
the just; and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
but also for those of the whole world.”(404) Hence the Priest, whenever he
offers up the holy sacrifice, recites this prayer at the offertory:
“Receive, O holy Father, almighty, eternal God, this immaculate victim
which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, for
my innumerable sins, offences and negligences, for all here present, and
for all the faithful living and dead, that it may avail me and them to
life everlasting.”
Whenever, therefore, we assist at Mass let us unite with Jesus Christ in
imploring the mercy of God for our sins. Let us represent to ourselves the
Mass as another Calvary, which it is in reality. Like Mary, let us stand
in spirit beneath the cross, and let our souls be pierced with grief for
our transgressions. Let us acknowledge that our sins were the cause of
that agony and of the shedding of that precious blood. Let us follow in
mind and heart that crowd of weeping penitents who accompanied our Savior
to Calvary, striking their breasts, and let us say: “Spare, O Lord, spare
Thy people.” Or let us repeat with the publican this heartfelt prayer: “O
God, be merciful to me a sinner.” At the death of Jesus the sun was
darkened, the earth trembled, the very rocks were rent, as if to show that
even inanimate nature sympathized with the sufferings of its God. And
should not we tremble for our sins? Should not our hearts, though cold and
hard as rocks, be softened at the spectacle of our God suffering for love
of us, and in expiation for our offences?
Third—The Sacrifice of the Mass is, in fine, a sacrifice of supplication:
“For, if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer being
sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled to the cleansing of the flesh, how
much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the Holy Ghost, offered
himself without spot to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works to
serve the living God?”(405) If the prayers of Moses and David and the
Patriarchs were so powerful in behalf of God’s servants, what must be the
influence of Jesus’ intercession? If the wounds of the Martyrs plead so
eloquently for us, how much more eloquent is the blood of Jesus shed daily
upon our altars? His blood cries louder for mercy than the blood of Abel
cried for vengeance. If God inclines His ear to us miserable sinners, how
can He resist the pleadings in our behalf of the “Lamb of God who taketh
away the sins of the world.”
“Let us go, therefore, with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may
obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid.”(406)
Chapter XXIV.
THE USE OF RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES DICTATED BY RIGHT REASON.
By religious ceremonies we mean certain expressive signs and actions which
the Church has ordained for the worthy celebration of the Divine service.
True devotion must be interior and come from the heart, for “the true
adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father
indeed seeketh such to worship Him. God is a spirit; and they who worship
Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”(407) But we are not to infer
from this that exterior worship is to be contemned because interior
worship is prescribed as essential. On the contrary, the rites and
ceremonies enjoined in the worship of God and the administration of the
Sacraments are dictated by right reason, are sanctioned by Almighty God in
the Old Law, and by Christ and His Apostles in the New.
The angels, being pure spirits without a body, render to God a purely
spiritual worship. The sun, moon and stars of the firmament pay Him a kind
of external homage. In the Prophet Daniel we read: “Sun and moon bless the
Lord, ... stars of heaven bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all
forever.”(408) “The heavens show forth the glory of God, the firmament
announces the work of His hands.”(409) Man, by possessing a soul of
spiritual substance, partakes of the nature of angels, and by possessing a
body partakes of the nature of the heavenly bodies. It is therefore, his
privilege, as well as his duty, to offer to God the twofold homage of body
and soul; in other words, to honor Him by internal and external worship.
Genuine piety cannot long be concealed in the heart without manifesting
itself by exterior practices of religion; hence, though interior and
exterior worship are distinct, they cannot be separated in the present
life. Fire cannot burn without sending forth flame and heat. Neither can
the fire of devotion burn in the soul without being reflected on the
countenance and even in speech. It is natural for man to express his
sentiments by signs and ceremonies, for “from the fulness of the heart the
mouth speaketh;” and as fuel is necessary to keep fire alive, even so the
flame of piety is nourished by the outward forms of religion.
A devoted child will not be content with loving his father in his heart,
but will manifest that love by affectionate language, and by the service
of his body, if necessary. So will the child of God show his affection for
his heavenly Father not only by interior devotion, but also by the homage
of his body. “I beseech you,” says the Apostle, “by the mercy of God, that
you present your bodies, a living sacrifice, holy pleasing unto God, your
reasonable service.”(410)
The fruit of a tree does not consist in its bark, its leaves and its
branches. Nevertheless, you never saw a tree bearing fruit unless when
clothed with bark, adorned with branches and covered with leaves. These
are necessary for the protection of the fruit. In like manner, though the
fruit of piety does not consist in exterior forms, it must, however, be
fostered by some outward observances or it will soon decay. There is as
close a relation between devotion and ceremonial as exists between the
bark and the fruit of a tree.
The man who daily bends his knee to the Maker, who recites or sings His
praises, who devoutly makes the sign of the cross, who assists without
constraint at the public services of the Church, who observes an exterior
decorum in the house of God, who gives to the needy according to his means
and duly attends to the other practices and ceremonies of religion, will
generally be one whose heart is united to God, and who yields to Him a
ready obedience. Show me, on the contrary, a man who habitually neglects
these outward observances of religion and charity, and I will show you one
in whose soul the fire of devotion, if not quite extinguished, at least
burns very faintly.
The ceremonies of the Church not only render divine service more solemn,
but also rivet our attention and lift it up to God. Our mind is so active,
so volatile, so full of distractions, our imagination so fickle, that we
have need of some external objects on which to fix our thoughts.
Almighty God considered ceremonial so indispensable to interior worship
that we find Him in the Old Law prescribing in minute detail the various
rites, ceremonies and ordinances to be observed by the Jewish Priests and
people in their public worship. What is the entire book of Leviticus but
an elaborate ritual of the Jewish church. Not, indeed, that external rites
are to be compared in merit with interior worship, but because they are as
necessary for nourishing internal devotion as food is necessary for our
animal life.
Our Savior, though He came to establish a more spiritual religion than
that of the Hebrew people, did not discard the outward forms of worship.
He was accustomed to accompany His religious acts by appropriate
ceremonies.
In the garden of Gethsemani “He fell upon His face”(411) in humble
supplication.
He went in procession to Jerusalem, accompanied by a great multitude, who
sang Hosanna to the Son of David.(412)
At the Last Supper He invoked a blessing on the bread and wine, and
afterward chanted a hymn with His disciples.(413)
When the deaf and dumb man was brought to Him, before healing Him, He put
His fingers into his ears and touched his tongue with spittle, “and,
looking up to heaven, He groaned and said: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou
opened.”(414)
When He imparted the Holy Ghost to His disciples, He breathed on them(415)
and the same Apostles afterward communicated the Holy Ghost to others by
laying hands on them.(416)
The Apostle St. James directs that if any man is sick he shall call in the
Priest, who will anoint him with oil.(417)
Now, are not all these acts which I have just recorded—the prostration and
procession, the prayerful invocation, the chanting of a hymn, the touching
of the ears, the lifting up of the eyes to heaven, the breathing on the
Apostles, the laying on of hands and the unction of the sick—are not all
these acts so many ceremonies serving as models to those which the
Catholic Church employs in her public worship, and in the administration
of her Sacraments?
The ceremonies now accompanying our public worship are, indeed, usually
more impressive and elaborate than those recorded of our Savior; but it is
quite natural that the majesty of ceremonial should keep pace with the
growth and development of Christianity.
But where shall we find a ritual so gorgeous as that presented to us in
the Book of Revelation, which is descriptive of the worship of God in the
heavenly Jerusalem? 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. Virgins, too, with harp and
canticle, follow near the Lamb, singing the new song which they alone can
utter.(418)
How glorious the pageant! How elaborate in detail!
Surely there ought to be some analogy and resemblance, some proportion and
harmony between the public worship which is paid to God in the Church
militant on earth, and that which is offered to Him in the Church
triumphant in heaven.
Strange would it be if God, who, in the dispensation past and that to
come, is seen delighting in external majesty, should have deprived the
Christian Church (the living link between the past and the future) of all
external glory. “For,” as St. Paul says, “if the ministry of condemnation
is glory, much more the ministry of justice aboundeth in glory.”(419)
It is true that God uttered this complaint against the children of Israel:
“This people draw near Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me.”(420) It is also true that He was
displeased with their sacrifices and religious festivals.(421) But He
blamed them not because they praised Him with their voice, but because
their hearts felt not what their lips uttered. He rejected their
sacrifices because they were not accompanied by the more precious
sacrifice of a penitent spirit.
The same Lord who declares that the true adorer shall adore the Father in
spirit commands also that public praise be given to Him in His holy
temple: “Praise ye the Lord,” He says, “in His holy places.... Praise Him
with sound of trumpet. Praise Him with psaltery and harp. Praise Him with
timbrel and choir. Praise Him with strings and organs.”(422)
If He says in one place: “Rend your hearts and not your garments,”(423)
immediately after He adds: “Blow the trumpet in Sion, sanctify a fast,
call a solemn assembly. Gather together the people, sanctify the
Church.... Between the porch and the altar the Priests, the Lord’s
ministers, shall weep and shall say: Spare, O Lord, spare Thy
people!”(424) The Prophet first points out the absolute necessity of
interior sorrow and contrition of heart, and then he insists on the duty
of performing some acts of expiation, penance and humiliation, as you do
when you have your forehead marked with ashes on Ash Wednesday, and when
you observe the fast and abstinence of Lent.
When St. Paul says that though he speak with the tongues of angels and of
men, and distribute all his goods to feed the poor, and deliver his body
to be burned, and have not the love of God, it profiteth him nothing,(425)
he points out the necessity of interior worship. And when he says
elsewhere that “in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those that
are in heaven, on earth and under the earth,”(426) he shows us the duty of
exterior or ceremonial worship.
When political leaders desire to influence the masses in their favor they
are not content with addressing themselves to the intellect. They appeal
also to the feelings and imagination. They have torchlight processions,
accompanied by soul-stirring music discoursing popular airs. They have
flags and banners floating in the breeze. They have public meetings, at
which they deliver patriotic speeches to arouse the enthusiasm of the
people.
What these men do for political reasons the Church performs from the
higher motives of religion. Therefore, she has her solemn processions. She
has her heavenly music to soften the heart and raise it to God. She
consecrates her sacred banners, especially the cross, the banner of
salvation. She preaches with a hundred tongues, speaking not only to our
head and heart by the Word of God, but to our feelings and imagination by
her grand and imposing ceremonial.
Chapter XXV.
CEREMONIALS OF THE MASS.
Let us now, dear reader, walk together into a Catholic Church in time to
assist at the late Mass, which is the most solemn service of the Catholic
Liturgy. Meantime, I shall endeavor to explain to you the principal
objects which attract your attention.
As we enter I dip my fingers into a vase placed at the church door, and
filled with holy water, and I make the sign of the cross, praying at the
same time to be purified from all defilement, so that with a clean heart I
may worship in God’s holy temple.
The Church, through her ministers, blesses everything used in her service;
for, St. Paul says, that “Every creature of God is good, ... that is
received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and by
prayer.”(427)
Before Mass begins the Priest sprinkles the assembled congregation with
holy water, reciting at the same time these words of the fiftieth Psalm:
“Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed; Thou shalt
wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.”
The practice of using blessed water dates back to a very remote antiquity,
and is alluded to by several Fathers of the primitive Church.
As we advance up the aisle you observe lying open on the altar a large
book, which is called a _Missal_, or Mass-book, because it contains the
prayers said at Mass. The office of the Mass consists of selections from
the Old and the New Testament, the Canon and other appropriate prayers.
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.
Nearly all the collects are also very old, many of them dating back to a
period prior to the seventh century. I am acquainted with no prayers that
can compare with the collects of the Missal in earnestness and vigor of
language, in conciseness of style and unction of piety. It is evident that
their authors were men who felt what they said and were filled with the
spirit of God, despising “the persuasive words of human wisdom,” unlike so
many modern prayer-composers whose rounded periods are directed rather to
tickle the ears of men than to pierce the clouds.
You are probably familiar with the Episcopal _Book of Common Prayer_, and
have no doubt admired its beautiful 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.
Let us now reverently follow the officiating Priest through the service of
the Mass.
You see him advance from the sacristy and stand at the foot of the altar,
where he makes an humble confession of his sins to God and His saints. He
then ascends the altar, and nine times the Divine clemency is invoked in
the _Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison_. He intones the sublime doxology,
_Gloria in Excelsis Deo_, sings the collects of the day, reads the Lesson
or Epistle and chants the Gospel, after which the sermon is usually
preached. Next he recites the Nicene Creed, which for upwards of fifteen
centuries has been resounding in the churches of Christendom. Then you
perceive him making the oblation of the bread and wine. He washes the tips
of his fingers, reciting the words of the Psalmist: “I will wash my hands
among the innocent and will encompass Thy altar, O Lord.” He is
admonished, by this ceremony, to be free from the least stain, in view of
the sacred act he is going to perform. The Preface and Canon follow,
including the solemn words of consecration, during which the bread and
wine are changed by the power of Jesus Christ into His body and blood. He
proceeds with other prayers, including the best of all, the _Our Father_,
as far as the Communion, when he partakes of the consecrated Bread and
chalice, giving the Holy Communion afterward to such as are prepared to
receive it. He continues the Mass, gives his blessing to the kneeling
congregation, and concludes with the opening words of the sublime Gospel
of St. John.
Here you have not merely a number of prayers strung together, but you
witness a scene which rivets pious attention and warms the heart into
fervent devotion. You participate in an act of worship worthy of God, to
whom it is offered.
But you are anxious that I should explain to you the reason why the Mass
is said in Latin. When Christianity was first established the Roman Empire
ruled the destinies of the world. Pagan Rome had dominion over nearly all
Europe and large portions of Asia and Africa. The Latin was the language
of the Empire. Wherever the Roman standard was planted, there also was
spread the Latin tongue; just as at the present time the English language
is spoken wherever the authority of Great Britain or of the United States
is established.
The Church naturally adopted in her Liturgy, or public worship, the
language which she then found prevailing among the people. The Fathers of
the early Church generally wrote in the Latin tongue, which thus became
the depository of the treasures of sacred literature in the Church.
In the fifth century came the disruption of the Roman Empire. New kingdoms
began to be formed in Europe out of the ruins of the old empire. The Latin
gradually ceased to be a living tongue among the people, and new languages
commenced to spring up like so many shoots from the parent stock. The
Church, however, retained in her Liturgy, and in the administration of the
Sacraments, the Latin language for very wise reasons, some of which I
shall briefly mention:
First—The Catholic Church has always _one and the same faith_, the same
form of public worship, the same spiritual government. As her doctrine and
liturgy are unchangeable, she wishes that the language of her Liturgy
should be fixed and uniform. Faith may be called the jewel, and 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 it is
set. Living tongues, unlike a dead language, are continually changing in
words and meaning. The English language as written four centuries ago
would be now almost as unintelligible to an English reader as the Latin
tongue. In an old Bible published in the fourteenth century St. Paul calls
himself _the villain of Jesus Christ_. The word _villain_ in those days
meant a servant, but the term would not be complimentary now to one even
less holy than the Apostle. This is but one instance, out of many which I
might adduce, to show the mutations which our language has undergone. But
the Latin, being a dead language, is not liable to these changes.
Second—The Catholic Church is spread over the whole world, embracing in
its fold children of all climes and nations, and peoples and tongues under
the sun. How, I ask, could the Bishops of these various countries
communicate with one another in council if they had not one language to
serve as a common medium of communication? It would be simply impossible.
A church that is universal must have a universal tongue; whilst a national
church, or a church whose members speak one and the same language, and
whose doctrines conveniently change to suit the times, can safely adopt
the vernacular tongue in its liturgy.
A few years ago a Convocation was held in England, composed of British and
American Episcopal Bishops. They had no difficulty in communicating with
one another because all spoke their mother tongue. But suppose they had
representatives from Spain, France and Germany. The lips of those
Continental Bishops would be sealed because they could not speak to their
English brothers; their ears also would be sealed because they could not
comprehend what was said to them.
In 1869, at the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, were assembled Bishops
from all parts of the world speaking all the civilized languages of
Christendom. Had those Bishops no uniform language to express their
thoughts, public debates and familiar conversation among them would have
been impracticable. The Council Chamber would have been a confused Babel
of tongues. But, thanks to the Latin language, which they all spoke
(except a few Orientals), their speeches were as plainly understood as if
each had spoken in his native dialect.
Third—Moreover, the Bishops and Clergy of the Catholic Church are in
frequent correspondence with the Holy See. This requires that they should
communicate in one uniform language, otherwise the Pope would be compelled
to employ secretaries speaking every language in Christendom.
But if the Priest says Mass in an unknown tongue, are not the people
thereby kept in ignorance of what he says, and is not their time wasted in
Church? We are forced to smile at such charges, which are flippantly
repeated from year to year. These assertions arise from a total ignorance
of the Mass. Many Protestants imagine that the essence of public worship
consists in a sermon. Hence, to their minds, the primary duty of a
congregation is to listen to a discourse from the pulpit. Prayer, on the
contrary, according to Catholic teaching, is the most essential duty of a
congregation, though they are also regularly instructed by sermons. Now,
what is the Mass? It is not a sermon, but it is a sacrifice of prayer
which the Priest offers up to God for himself and the people. When the
Priest says Mass he is speaking not to the people, but to God, to whom all
languages are equally intelligible.
The congregation, indeed, 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 undertone. And this was
the system of worship God ordained in the ancient dispensation, as we
learn from the Old Testament and from the first chapter of St. Luke. The
Priest offered sacrifice and prayed for the people in the sanctuary, while
they prayed at a distance in the court. In all the schismatic churches of
the East the Priest in the public service prays not in the vulgar, but in
a dead language. Such, also, is the practice in the Jewish synagogues at
this day. The Rabbi reads the prayers in Hebrew, a language with which
many of the congregation are not familiar.
But is it true that the people do not understand what the Priest says at
Mass? Not at all. For, by the aid of an English Missal, or any other
Manual, they are able to follow the officiating clergyman from the
beginning to the end of the service.
You also observe _lighted tapers_ on the altar, and you desire to know for
what purpose they are used.
In the Old Law the Almighty Himself ordained that lighted chandeliers
should adorn the tabernacle.(428) Assuredly, that cannot be improper in
the New Dispensation which God sanctioned in the Old.
The lights upon our altars have both a historical and a symbolical
meaning. In the primitive days of the Church Christianity was not
tolerated by the Pagan world. The Christians were, consequently, obliged
to assemble for public worship in the Catacombs of Rome and other secret
places. These Catacombs, or subterranean rooms, still exist, and are
objects of deep interest to the pious stranger visiting the Eternal City.
As these hidden apartments did not admit the light of the sun, the
faithful were obliged to have lights even in open day. In commemoration of
the event the Church has retained the use of lights on her altars.
Lighted candles have also a symbolical meaning. They represent our Savior,
who is “the light of the world,” “who enlighteneth every man that cometh
into the world,” without whom we should be wandering in darkness and in
the shadow of death.
They also serve to remind us to “let our light so shine before men (by our
good example) that they may see our good works and glorify our Father who
is in heaven.”
Lights are used, too, as a sign of spiritual joy. St. Jerome, who lived in
the fourth century, remarks: “Throughout all the Churches of the East,
before the reading of the Gospel, candles are lighted at mid-day, not to
dispel darkness, but as a sign of joy.”
You also noticed the Priest incensing the altar. Incense is a striking
emblem of prayer, which should ascend to heaven from hearts burning with
love, just as the fragrant smoke ascends from the censer. “Let my prayer,”
says the Royal Prophet, “ascend like incense in Thy sight.”(429) God
enjoined in the Old Law the use of incense: “Aaron shall burn
sweet-smelling incense upon the altar in the morning.”(430) Hence we see
the Priest Zachariah “offer incense on going into the temple of the Lord.
And all the multitude were praying without at the hour of incense.”(431)
You perceive that the altar is decorated today with _vases and flowers_
because this is a festival of the Church. There is one spot on earth which
can never be too richly adorned, and that is the sanctuary in which our
Lord vouchsafes to dwell among us. Nothing is too good, nothing too
beautiful, nothing too precious for God. He gives us all we possess, and
the least we can do in return is to ornament that spot which He has chosen
for His abode upon earth. The Almighty, it is true, has no need of our
gifts. He is rich without them. “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness
thereof.” Nevertheless, He is pleased to accept our offerings when they
are bestowed upon Him as a mark of our affection, just as a father
joyfully receives from his child a present bought with his own means. Our
Savior gratefully accepted the treasures of the Magi, though he could have
done without such gifts. Some persons, when they see our sanctuary
sumptuously decorated, will exclaim: Would it not have been better to give
to the poor the money spent in purchasing these things? So complained
Judas (though caring not for the poor(432)) when Mary poured from an
alabaster vase the precious ointment on the feet of an approving Savior.
Why should not we imitate Mary by placing at His feet, around His
sanctuary, our vases with their chaste and fragrant flowers, that the
Church may be filled with their perfume, as Simon’s house was filled with
the odor of the ointment?
Does not the Almighty at certain seasons adorn with lilies and flowers of
every hue this earth, which is the great temple of nature? And what is
more appropriate than that we should on special occasions embellish our
sanctuary, the place which He has chosen for His habitation among us? It
is sweet to snatch from the field its fairest treasures wherewith to
beautify the temple made with hands.
The _sacred vestments_ which you saw worn by the officiating Priest must
have struck you as very antique and out of fashion. Nor is this
surprising, for if you saw a lady enter church today with a head-dress
such as worn in the days of Queen Elizabeth, her appearance would look to
you very singular. Now, our priestly vestments are far older in style than
the days of Queen Elizabeth; much older even than the British Empire.
Eusebius and other writers of the fourth century speak of them as already
existing in their times. It is no wonder, therefore, that these vestments
look odd to the unfamiliar eye.
In the Old Law God prescribed to the Priests the vestments which they
should wear while engaged in their sacred office: “And these shall be the
vestments which they shall make (for the Priest): a rational and an ephod,
a tunic and a straight linen garment, a mitre and a girdle. They shall
make the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may
do the office of priesthood unto Me.”(433) Guided by Heaven, the Church
also prescribes sacred garments for her ministering Priests; for it is
eminently proper and becoming that the minister of God, while engaged in
the sacred mysteries, should be arrayed in garments which would constantly
impress upon him his sacred character and remind him, as well as the
congregation, of the sublime functions he is performing.
The vestments worn by the Priest while celebrating Mass are an amict, or
white cloth around the neck; an alb, or white garment reaching to his
ankles, and bound around his waist by a cincture; a maniple suspended from
his left arm; a stole, which is placed over his shoulders and crossed at
the breast; and a chasuble, or large outer garment.
The chasuble, stole and maniple vary in color according to the occasion.
Thus, _white_ vestments are used at Christmas, Easter and other festivals
of joy, also on feasts of Confessors and Virgins; _red_ are used at
Pentecost and on festivals of Apostles and Martyrs; _green_ from Trinity
Sunday to Advent, on days having no special feast; _purple_ during Lent
and Advent, and _black_ in Masses for the dead.
One more word on this subject. Only a few years ago the whole Protestant
world was united in denouncing the use of floral decorations on our
altars, incense, sacred vestments, and even the altar itself, as
abominations of Popery. But of late a better spirit has taken possession
of a respectable portion of the Protestant Episcopal church. After having
exhausted their wrath against our vestments, and vilified them as the rags
of the wicked woman of Babylon, the members of the Ritualistic church
have, with remarkable dexterity, passed from one extreme to the other.
They don our vestments, they swing our censer, erect altars in their
churches and adorn them with flowers and candle-sticks.
These Ritualists are, however, easily discerned from the true Priest.
Should one of them ever appear before the Father of the faithful in these
ill-fitting robes the venerable Pontiff would exclaim, with the Patriarch
of old: “The voice indeed is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the
hands of Esau.” I feel the garment of the Priest, but I hear the voice of
the parson.
God grant that, as our misguided brothers have assumed our sacerdotal
garments, they may adopt our faith, that their speech may conform to their
dress. Then, having laid aside their earthly stoles, may they deserve,
like all faithful Priests, to be seen “standing before the throne, and in
sight of the Lamb, with white stoles and palms in their hands, ... saying:
‘Salvation to our God, who sitteth upon the throne, and to the
Lamb.’ ”(434)
Chapter XXVI.
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE.
I. The Divine Institution Of The Sacrament Of Penance.
The whole history of Jesus Christ is marked by mercy and compassion for
suffering humanity. From the moment of His incarnation till the hour of
His death every thought and word and act of His Divine life was directed
toward the alleviation of the ills and miseries of fallen man.
As soon as He enters on His public career He goes about doing good to all
men. He gives sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, vigor to paralyzed
limbs; He applies the salve of comfort to the bleeding heart and raises
the dead to life.
But, while Jesus occupied Himself in bringing relief to corporal
infirmities, _the principal object of His mission was to release the soul
from the bonds of sin_. The very name of Jesus indicates this important
truth: “Thou shalt call His name Jesus,” says the angel, “for He shall
save His people from their sins.”(435)
For, if Jesus had contented Himself with healing the maladies of our body
without attending to those of our soul, He would deserve, indeed, to be
called our Physician, but would not merit the more endearing titles of
Savior and Redeemer. But as sin was the greatest evil of man, and as Jesus
came to remove from us our greatest evils, He came into the world chiefly
as the great Absolver from sin.
Magdalen seems to have a consciousness of this. She casts herself at His
feet, which she washes with her tears and wipes with her hair, while Jesus
pronounces over her the saving words of absolution. The very demons
recognized Jesus as the enemy of sin, for they dreaded His approach,
knowing that He would drive them out of the bodies of men.
Our Lord makes the healing of the body secondary to that of the soul. When
He delivers the body from its distempers His object is to win the
confidence of the spectators by compelling them to recognize Him as the
soul’s Physician. He says, for instance, to the palsied man, “Thy sins are
forgiven.”(436) The scribes are offended at our Savior for presuming to
forgive sins. He replies, in substance: If you do not believe My words,
believe My acts; and He at once heals the man of his disease. After he had
cured the man that had been languishing for thirty-eight years He
whispered to him this gentle admonition, “Sin no more, lest some worst
thing may happen to thee.”(437)
As much as our spiritual substance excels the flesh that surrounds it, so
much more did our Savior value the resurrection of a soul from the grave
of sin than the resurrection of the body from that of death. Hence St.
Augustine pointedly remarks that, while the Gospel relates only three
resurrections of the body, our Lord, during His mortal life, raised
thousands of souls to the life of grace.
As the Church was established by Jesus Christ to perpetuate the work which
he had begun, it follows that the reconciliation of sinners to God was to
be the principal office of sacred ministers.
But the important question here presents itself: How was man to obtain
forgiveness in the Church after our Lord’s ascension?
Was Jesus Christ to appear in person to every sinful soul and say to each
penitent, as He said to Magdalen, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” or did He
intend to delegate this power of forgiving sins to ministers appointed for
that purpose?
We know well that our Savior never promised to present Himself visibly to
each sinner, nor has He done so.
His plan, therefore, must have been to appoint ministers of reconciliation
to act in His name. It has always, indeed, been the practice of Almighty
God, both in the Old and the New Law, to empower human agents to execute
His merciful designs.
When Jehovah resolved to deliver the children of Israel from the captivity
of Egypt He appointed Moses their deliverer. When God wished them to
escape from the pursuit of Pharaoh across the Red Sea, did He intervene
directly? No; but, by His instructions, Moses raised his hand over the
waters and they were instantly divided.
When the people were dying from thirst in the desert, did God come visibly
to their rescue? No; but Moses struck the rock, from which the water
instantly issued. When Paul, breathing vengeance against the Christians,
was going to Damascus, did our Savior personally restore his sight,
convert and baptize him? No; He sent Paul to His servant Ananias, who
restored his sight and baptized him.
The same Apostle beautifully describes to us in one sentence of his
Epistle to the Corinthians the arrangement of Divine Providence in the
reconciliation of sinners: “God,” he says, “hath reconciled us to Himself
through Christ, _and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation_....
For Christ, therefore, we are ambassadors; God, as it were, exhorting
through us.”(438) That is to say, God sends Christ to reconcile sinners;
Christ sends us. We are His ambassadors, reconciling sinners in His name.
When I think of this tremendous power that we possess I congratulate the
members of the Church, for whose benefit it is conferred; I tremble for
myself and my fellow-ministers, for terrible is our responsibility, while
we have nothing to glory in. Christ is the living Fountain of grace: we
are but the channels through which it is conveyed to your souls. Christ is
the treasure; we are but the pack-horses that carry it. “We bear this
treasure in earthen vessels.” Christ is the shepherd; we are the pipe He
uses to call His sheep. Our words sounding in the confessional are but the
feeble echo of the voice of the Spirit of God that purified the Apostles
in the cenacle of Jerusalem.
But have we Gospel authority to show that our Savior did confer on the
Apostles and their successors the power to forgive sins?
We have the most positive testimony, and our Savior’s words conferring
this power are expressed in the plainest language which admits of no
misconception. In the Gospel of St. Matthew our Savior thus addresses
Peter: “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church.... And I
will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.”(439)
And to all the Apostles assembled together on another occasion He uses the
same forcible language: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound
also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed
also in heaven.”(440) The soul is enchained by sin. I give you power, says
our Lord, to release the penitent soul from its galling fetters, and to
restore it to the liberty of a child of God.
In the Gospel of St. John we have a still more striking declaration of the
absolving power given by our Savior to His Apostles.
Jesus, after His resurrection, thus addresses His disciples: “Peace be to
you. As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.... Receive ye the Holy
Ghost; whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins
ye shall retain, they are retained.”(441)
That peace which I give to you you will impart to repentant souls as a
pledge of their reconciliation with God. The absolving power I have from
My Father, the same I communicate to you. Receive the Holy Ghost, that you
may impart this Holy Spirit to souls possessed by the spirit of evil. “If
their sins are as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow; and if
they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool.”(442) If they are as
numerous as the sands on the seashore, they shall be blotted out, provided
they come to you with contrite hearts. The sentence of mercy which you
shall pronounce on earth I will ratify in heaven.
From these words of St. John I draw three important conclusions:
It follows, first, that the forgiving power was not restricted to the
Apostles, but extended to their successors in the ministry unto all times
and places. The forgiveness of sin was to continue while sin lasted in the
world; and as sin, alas! will always be in the world, so will the remedy
for sin be always in the Church. The medicine will co-exist with the
disease. The power which our Lord gave the Apostles to preach, to baptize,
to confirm, to ordain, etc., was transmitted by them to their successors.
Why not also the power which they had received to forgive sins, since
man’s greatest need is his reconciliation with God by the forgiveness of
his offences?
It follows, secondly that forgiveness of sin was ordinarily to be obtained
only through the ministry of the Apostles and their successors, just as it
was from them that the people were to receive the word of God and the
grace of Baptism. The pardoning power was a great prerogative conferred on
the Apostles. But what kind of prerogative would it be if people could
always obtain forgiveness by confessing to God secretly in their rooms?
How few would have recourse to the Apostles if they could obtain
forgiveness on easier terms! God says to His chosen ministers: I give you
the keys of My kingdom, that you may dispense the treasures of mercy to
repenting sinners. 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 applying to the Apostles? If I gave you, dear
reader, the keys of my house, authorizing you to admit whom you please,
that they might partake of the good things contained in it, you would
conclude that I had done you a small favor if you discovered that every
one was possessed of a private key, and could enter when he pleased
without consulting you.
I have said that forgiveness of sins is _ordinarily_ to be obtained
through the ministry of the Apostles and of their successors, because it
may sometimes happen that the services of God’s minister cannot be
obtained. A merciful Lord will not require in this conjuncture more than a
hearty sorrow for sin joined with a desire of having recourse as soon as
practicable, to the tribunal of Penance; for God’s ordinances bind only
such as are able to fulfil them.
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 is not empowered to give absolution to
every one indiscriminately. He must exercise the power with judgment and
discretion. He must reject the impenitent and absolve the penitent. 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?
Hence, we are not surprised when we read in the Acts that “Many of them
who believed came confessing and declaring their deeds”(443) to the
Apostles. Why did they confess their sins unless they were bound to do so?
Hence, also, we understand why St. John says: “If we confess our sins, He
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
iniquity.”(444)
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. We are not unfrequently told by those who are little
acquainted with the doctrine and history of the Church, that Sacramental
Confession was not introduced into the Church until 1,200 years after the
time of our Savior. In vindication of their bold assertion they even
introduce quotations from SS. Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome and
Chrysostom. These quotations are utterly irrelevant; but, if seen in the
context, they will tend to prove, instead of disproving, the Catholic
doctrine of Confession. For the sake of brevity I shall cite only a few
passages from the Fathers referred to. These citations I take, almost at
random, from the copious writings of these Fathers on Confession. From
these extracts you can judge of the sentiments of all the Fathers on the
subject of Confession. “_Ab uno disce omnes._”
St. Basil writes: “In the confession 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 confession of sins must be made to
such persons as have the power to apply a remedy.”(445) Later on he tells
us who those persons are. “Necessarily, our sins must be confessed to
those to whom has been committed the dispensation of the mysteries of God.
Thus, also, are they found to have acted who did penance of old in regard
of the saints. It is written in the Acts, they confessed to the Apostles,
by whom also they were baptized.”(446) Two conclusions obviously follow
from these passages of St. Basil: First, the necessity of confession.
Second, the obligation of declaring our sins to a Priest to whom in the
New Law is committed “the dispensation of the mysteries of God.”
St. Ambrose, of Milan, writes: “The poison is sin; the remedy, the
accusation of one’s crime: the poison is iniquity; confession is the
remedy of the relapse. And, therefore, it is truly a remedy against
poison, if thou declare thine iniquities, that thou mayest be justified.
Art thou ashamed? This shame will avail thee little at the judgment seat
of God.”(447)
The following passage clearly shows that the great Light of the Church of
Milan is speaking of confession to Priests: “There are some,” continues
St. Ambrose, “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 they burden his, who is
commanded not to give holy things unto dogs—that is, not easily to admit
impure souls to the Holy Communion.”(448)
Paulinus, the secretary of St. Ambrose, in his life of that great Bishop
relates that he used to weep over the penitents whose confessions he
heard.
St. Augustine writes: “Our merciful God wills us to confess in this world
that we may not be confounded in the other.”(449) And again: “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?”(450)
In this extract how well doth the great Doctor meet the sophistry of those
who, in our times, say that it is sufficient to confess to God!
St. Chrysostom, in his thirtieth Homily, says: “Lo! we have now, at
length, reached the close of Holy Lent; now especially we must press
forward in the career of fasting, ... and exhibit a _full_ and _accurate
confession of our sins_, ... that with these good works, having come to
the day of Easter, we may enjoy the bounty of the Lord.... For, as the
enemy knows that having confessed our sins and _shown_ our wounds to the
_physician_ we attain to an abundant cure, he in an especial manner
opposes us.”
Again he says: “Do not _confess to me_ only of fornication, nor of those
things that are manifest among all men, but bring together also thy secret
calumnies and evil speakings, ... and all such things.”(451)
The great Doctor plainly enjoins here a detailed and specific confession
of our sins not to God, but to His minister, as the whole context
evidently shows.
The same Father, in an eloquent treatise on the power of the sacred
ministry, uses the following words: “To the Priests is given a power which
God would not grant either to angels or archangels; inasmuch 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
retained.’
“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,
was 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 absolutely
cleansing the defilements of the soul.”(452)
And again: “If a sinner, as becomes him; would use the aid of his
conscience, and hasten to confess his crimes and disclose his ulcer to his
physician, who may heal and not reproach, and receive remedies from him;
if he would speak to him alone, without the knowledge of any one, and with
care lay all before him, easily would he amend his failings; _for the
confession of sins is the absolution of crimes_.”(453)
St. Jerome writes: “If the serpent, the devil, secretly bite a man and
thus infect him with the poison of sin, and this man shall remain silent,
and do not penance, nor be willing to make known his wound to his brother
and master; the master, who has a tongue that can heal, cannot easily
serve him. For if the ailing man be ashamed to open his case to the
physician no cure can be expected; for medicine does not cure that of
which it knows nothing.”(454)
Elsewhere he says: “With us 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.”(455)
Could the Catholic doctrine regarding the power of the Priests and the
obligation of confession be expressed in stronger language than this?
And yet these are the very Fathers who are represented to be opposed to
Sacramental Confession! With a reckless disregard of the unanimous voice
of antiquity our adversaries have the hardihood to assert that private or
Sacramental Confession was introduced at a period subsequent to the
twelfth century. They do not, however, vouchsafe to inform us by what Pope
or Bishop or Father of the Church, or by what Council, or in what country,
this monstrous innovation was foisted on the Christian Republic. Surely,
an institution which, in their estimation, has been fraught with such dire
calamity to Christendom, ought to have its origin marked with more
precision. It is sometimes prudent, however, not to be too particular in
fixing dates.
I shall now, I trust, show to the satisfaction of the reader: First—That
Sacramental Confession was not introduced. Second—That it could not have
been introduced into the Church since the days of the Apostles, and
consequently that it is Apostolic in its origin.
That Confession was not invented since the days of the Apostles is
manifest as soon as we attempt to fix the period of its first
establishment. Let us go back, step, by step, from the nineteenth to the
first century.
It had not its origin in the present century, as everybody will admit.
Nor did it arise in the sixteenth century, since the General Council of
Trent, held in that age, speaks of it as an established and venerable
institution and Luther says that “auricular Confession, as now in vogue,
is useful, nay, necessary; nor would I,” he adds, “have it abolished,
since it is the remedy of afflicted consciences.”(456) Even Henry VIII.,
before he founded a new sect, wrote a treatise in defence of the
Sacraments, including Penance and Confession.
It was not introduced in the thirteenth century, for the Fourth Council of
Lateran passed a decree in 1215 obliging the faithful to confess their
sins at least once a year. This decree, of course, supposes Confession to
be already an established fact.
Some Protestant writers fall into a common error in interpreting the
decree of the Lateran Council by saying “Sacramental Confession was never
required in the Church of Rome until the thirteenth century.” The Council
simply prescribed a limit beyond which the faithful should not defer their
confession.
These writers seem incapable of distinguishing between a law obliging us
to a certain duty and a statute fixing the time for fulfilling it. They
might as well suppose that the revenue officer creates the law regarding
the payment of taxes when he issues a notice requiring the revenue to be
paid within a given time.
Going back to the ninth century we find that Confession could not have had
its rise then. It was at that period that the Greek schism took its rise,
under the leadership of Photius. The Greek schismatic church has remained
since then a communion separate from the Catholic Church, having no
spiritual relations with us. Now, the Greek church is as tenaciously
attached to private Confession as we are.
For the same reasons Confession could not date its origin from the fifth
or fourth century. The Arians revolted from the Church in the fourth
century, and the Nestorians and Eutychians in the fifth. The two
last-named sects still exist in large numbers in Persia, Abyssinia and
along the coast of Malabar, and retain Confession as one of their most
sacred and cherished practices.
In fine, no human agency could succeed in instituting Confession between
the first and fourth century, for the teachings of our Divine Redeemer and
of His disciples had made too vivid an impression on the Christian
community to be easily effaced; and the worst enemies of the Church admit
that no spot or wrinkle had yet deformed her fair visage in this, the
golden age of her existence.
These remarks suffice to convince us that Sacramental Confession _was not
instituted since the time of the Apostles_. I shall now endeavor to prove
to your satisfaction _that its introduction into the Church, since the
Apostolic age, was absolutely impossible_.
There are two ways in which we may suppose that error might insinuate
itself into the Church, viz.: suddenly, or by slow process. Now, the
introduction of Confession in either of those ways was simply impossible.
First, nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that Confession was
immediately forced upon the Christian world. For experience demonstrates
with what slowness and difficulty men are divested of their religious
impressions, whether true or false. If such is the case with individuals,
how ridiculous would it seem for whole nations to adopt in a single day
some article of belief which they had never admitted before. Hence, we
cannot imagine, without doing violence to our good sense, that all the
good people of Christendom went to rest one night ignorant of the
Sacrament of Penance, and rose next morning firm believers in the Catholic
doctrine of auricular Confession. As well might we suppose that the
citizens of the United States would retire to rest believing they were
living under a Republic, and awake impressed with the conviction that they
were under the rule of Queen Victoria.
Nor is it less absurd to suppose that the practice of Confession was
introduced by degrees. How can we imagine that the Fathers of the
Church—the Clements, the Leos, the Gregories, the Chrysostoms, the
Jeromes, the Basils and Augustines, those intrepid High Priests of the
Lord, who, in every age, at the risk of persecution, exile and death have
stood like faithful sentinels on the watch-towers of Israel, defending
with sleepless eyes the outskirts of the city of God from the slightest
attack—how can we imagine, I say, that they would suffer the enemy of
truth to invade the very sanctuary of God’s temple? If they were so
vigilant in cutting off the least withered branch of error, how would they
tamely submit to see so monstrous an exotic engrafted on the fruitful tree
of the Church?
What gives additional weight to these remarks is the reflection that
Confession is not a speculative doctrine, but a doctrine of the most
practical kind, influencing our daily actions, words and thoughts—a
Sacrament to which thousands of Christians have constant recourse in every
part of the world. It is a doctrine, moreover, hard to flesh and blood,
and which no human power, even if it had the will, could impose on the
human race. It is only a God that, in such a case, could exact the homage
of our assent.
In whatever light, therefore, we view the present question—whether we
consider the circumstances of time, place, manner of its introduction—the
same inevitable conclusion stares us in the face: that Sacramental
confession is not the invention of man, but the institution of Jesus
Christ.
But the doctrine of priestly absolution and the private confession of sins
is not confined to the Roman Catholic and Oriental schismatic churches.
The same doctrine is also taught by a large and influential portion of the
Protestant Episcopal Church of England.
The Rev. C. S. Grueber, a clergyman of the Church of England, has recently
published a catechism in which the absolving power of the minister of God,
and the necessity and advantage of confession, are plainly set forth. I
will quote from the Rev. gentleman’s book his identical words:
_Question._ What do you mean by absolution?
_Answer._ The pardon or forgiveness of sin.
_Q._ By what special ordinance of Christ are sins committed after Baptism
to be pardoned?
_A._ By the sacrament of absolution.
_Q._ Who is the minister of absolution?
_A._ A Priest.
_Q._ Do you mean that a Priest can really absolve?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ In what place of the Holy Scripture is it recorded that Christ gave
this power to the priesthood?
_A._ In John xx. 23; see also Matt. xviii. 18.
_Q._ What does the prayer-book (or Book of Common Prayer) say?
_A._ In the office for the ordaining of Priests the Bishop is directed to
say, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the
Church of God. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven.” In the
office for the visitation of the sick it is said, “Our Lord Jesus Christ
hath left in His Church power to absolve all sinners that truly repent and
believe in Him.” In the order for morning and evening prayer we say again,
“Almighty God hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare
and pronounce to His people, being penitent, the absolution and remission
of their sins.”
_Q._ For what purpose hath Christ given this power to Priests to pronounce
absolution in His name?
_A._ _For the consolation of the penitent; the quieting of his
conscience._
_Q._ What must precede the absolution of the penitent?
_A._ _Confession...._ Before absolution privately given, confession must
be made to a Priest privately.
_Q._ In what case does the Church of England order her ministers to move
people to private, or, as it is called, to auricular confession?
_A._ When they feel their conscience troubled with any weighty matter.
_Q._ What is weighty matter?
_A._ Mortal sin certainly is weighty; sins of omission or commission of
any kind that press upon the mind are so, too. Anything may be weighty
that causes scruple or doubtfulness.
_Q._ At what times in particular does the Church so order?
_A._ In the time of sickness, _and before coming to the Holy Communion_.
_Q._ Is there any other class of persons to whom confession is profitable?
_A._ Yes; to those _who desire to lead a saintly life. These, indeed, are
the persons who most frequently resort to it._
_Q._ Is there any other object in confession, besides the seeking
absolution for past sin and the quieting of the penitent’s conscience?
_A._ Yes; the practice of confessing each single sin is a great check upon
the commission of sin and a preservative of purity of life.(457)
Here we have the Divine institution of priestly absolution and the
necessity and advantage of Sacramental confession plainly taught, not in a
speculative treatise, but in a practical catechism, by a distinguished
minister of the Church of England; taught by a minister who draws his
salary from the funds of the Protestant Episcopal church; who preaches and
administers in a church edifice recognized as a Protestant Episcopal
church, and who is in strict communion with a Bishop of the Protestant
Episcopal Church of England.
And these doctrines are upheld, not by one eminent Divine only, but by
hundreds of clergymen, as well as by thousands of the Protestant
Episcopalians of England.
What a strange spectacle to behold the same church teaching diametrically
opposite doctrines! What is orthodox in the diocese of Bath and Wells is
decidedly heterodox in the diocese of North Carolina. An ordinance which
Rev. Mr. Grueber proclaims to be of Divine faith is characterized by Rt.
Rev. Bishop Atkinson(458) as the invention of men. What Dr. Grueber
inculcates as a most salutary practice Dr. Atkinson anathematizes as
pernicious to religion. Confession, which, in the judgment of the former,
is a great “check upon the commission of sin,” is stigmatized by the
latter as an incentive to sin. “Behold how good and pleasant it is for
brethren to dwell together in unity.”(459)
Suppose that the venerable Protestant Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina,
in passing through England, were invited by the Rev. Mr. Grueber to preach
in his church in the morning, and that the Rt. Rev. Prelate chose for his
subject a sermon on confession; and suppose that the Rev. Mr. Grueber
selected in the evening, as the subject of his discourse, the doctrine
advanced by him in his catechism.
Let us imagine some benighted dissenter attending Mr. Grueber’s church at
the morning and evening service, with the view to being enlightened in the
teachings of the Protestant church. Would not our dissenter be sorely
perplexed, on returning home at night, as to what the Protestant Episcopal
church really _did teach_?
Some Episcopalians are pleased to admit that confession may be resorted to
with spiritual profit in certain abnormal cases—for instance, in time of
sickness. So that, in their judgment, a religious observance which is
salutary to a sick man is pernicious to him in good health. For the life
of me, I cannot see how the circumstances of bodily health can affect the
moral character of a religious act.
That a minister of the Baptist or the Methodist church should deny the
power of priestly absolution I readily understand, since these churches
disclaim, in their confessions of faith, any such prerogative for their
clergy. But I cannot well conceive why a Protestant Episcopalian should
repudiate the pardoning power, which is plainly asserted in his standard
prayer-book.
Whenever an Episcopalian Bishop imposes hands on candidates for the
ministry he employs the following words, which are found in the Book of
Common Prayer: “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest
in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our
hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins
thou dost retain, they are retained.”(460) If these words do not mean that
the minister receives by the imposition of the Bishop’s hands the power of
forgiving sin, they mean nothing at all. When the Bishop pronounces this
sentence, either he intends to convey this power of absolution, or he does
not. If he intended to confer this power, he could not employ more clear
and precise language to express his idea; if he did not intend to confer
this power, then his language is calculated to mislead.
Just imagine that prelate addressing a candidate for Holy Orders, in the
morning, with the words: “Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven;”
and after Divine service saying to the young minister: “Remember, sir, you
have no power to forgive sins. The words of ordination are a mere figure
of speech.”
When a Catholic Bishop ordains Priests he uses the precise words which I
have quoted, because the Book of Common Prayer borrows them from our
Pontifical. But he means exactly what he says, viz: That the Priest
receives through the ministration of the Bishop the power of forgiving
sins.
To sum up: We have seen that the Sacrament of Penance and absolution by
the Priest is taught in Scripture, proclaimed by the Fathers, upheld not
only by Roman Catholics throughout the world, but also by all the
schismatic Christians of the East. It is inculcated in those old and
genuine editions of the _Book of Common Prayer_, which have not been
enervated by being subjected to the pruning-knife in this country, and the
same practice is encouraged by an influential portion of the Protestant
Episcopal church in England, and I will add, also, in the United States.
Again, some object to priestly absolution on the assumption that the
exercise of such a function would be a usurpation of an incommunicable
prerogative of God, who alone can forgive sins. This was precisely the
language addressed by the Scribes to our Savior. They exclaimed: “He
blasphemeth! who can forgive sins but God only?”(461) My answer,
therefore, will be equally applicable to old and modern objectors. It is
not blasphemy for a Priest to claim the power of forgiving sins, since he
acts as the delegate of the Most High. It would, indeed, be blasphemous if
a Priest pretended to absolve in his own name and by virtue of his own
authority. But when the Priest absolves the penitent sinner he acts in the
name, and by the express authority, of Jesus Christ; for he says: “I
absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.” Let it be understood once for all that the Priest arrogates to
himself no Divine powers. He is but a feeble voice. It is the Holy Spirit
that operates sanctity in the soul of the penitent.
Not a few Protestant Episcopalians, I believe, still admit that original
sin is washed away in the Sacrament of Baptism. If the minister is not
guilty of blasphemy in being the instrument of God’s mercy, in forgiving
sins by Baptism, how can a Priest blaspheme in being the instrument of
Divine mercy, in absolving sinners in the Sacrament of Penance? The same
Lord who instituted Baptism for the remission of original sin established
Penance for the forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism. Did not the
Apostles exercise Divine power in raising dead bodies to life, and in
raising souls that were dead to the life of grace? And yet no one but
Scribes and Pharisees accused them of usurping God’s powers. Cannot the
Almighty, without derogating from His own glory, give to men in the
nineteenth century privileges which He accorded to them in the first age
of the Church?
Far, then, from dishonoring, we honor God by having recourse to the
earthly physician whom He has appointed for us, and, like the multitude in
the Gospel, we “glorify God, who hath given such power to men.”(462)
Others object thus: Why confess to a Priest, when you may confess to God
in secret. I will retort by asking, why do you build fine temples when you
can worship God in the great temple of nature? Why pray in church when you
can pray in your chamber? Why listen to a minister expounding the Word of
God when you can read the Gospel at your leisure at home. You answer that
the Lord authorizes these things. So does He authorize priestly
absolution. This objection is not new. It is very old.
St. Augustine, who lived fourteen hundred years ago, will answer the
objection for me: “Let no one,” remarks this illustrious Doctor, “say to
himself, I do penance to God in private; I do it before God. Is it, then,
in vain that Christ has said: ‘Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven’? Is it in vain that the keys have been given to the
Church?” The question for us is not what God is able to do, but what _He
has willed to do_. God _might_ have adopted other means for the
justification of the sinner, as He might have created a world different
from the present one. But it is our business to take our Father at His
word, and to have recourse with gratitude to the system He has actually
established for our justification. Now, we are assured by His infallible
word that it is by having recourse to His consecrated ministers that our
sins will be forgiven us.(463)
It is related in the Book of Kings that Naaman, the Syrian, was afflicted
with a grievous leprosy, which baffled the skill of the physicians of his
country. He had in his household a Jewish maid-servant. She spoke to her
master of the great prophet Eliseus, who lived in her native country, to
whom the Lord had given the power of performing miracles. She besought her
master to consult the prophet. Naaman, accordingly, set out for the
country of Israel and begged Eliseus to heal him. The prophet told him to
go and wash seven times in the Jordan; but Naaman, instead of doing as he
was directed, became very angry, and said: “I thought he would have come
out to me, ... and touched with his hand the place of the leprosy, and
healed me. Are not the Abana and the Pharfar rivers of Damascus, better
than all the waters of Israel, that I may wash in them, and be made
clean?”(464) But the servants of Naaman remonstrated with him, and
besought him to comply with the prophet’s injunction, telling him that the
conditions were easy and the Jordan was at hand. Naaman went and washed
and was cleansed. Our opponents, like Naaman, cry out: “Why should you go
to a Priest, a sinner like yourself, when secretly, in your own room, you
can approach God, the pure fountain of grace, to be washed from your
sins?” I answer, because Jesus Christ, a prophet, and more than a prophet,
has commanded you to do so.
The last charge that I will notice is the most serious and the most
offensive. We are told that private confession is lawless; that the
conscience soon becomes “enfeebled and chained and starved” by it, and,
worse and worse, that sins are more readily committed, if followed by an
absolution conveying pardon—in other words, that the more attached
Catholics are to the practice of their holy religion the more depraved and
corrupt they become. Or, if they remain faithful to God, this is not by
reason of, but in spite of, their religious exercises.
Surely, this was not the sentiment of the late Dr. Ives, once Protestant
Bishop of North Carolina, and of many other illustrious converts, who,
from the day of their conversion to the hour of their death never failed
to receive consolation and strength from the sacred tribunal.
Nor is it the sentiment of Rev. Father Lyman, a Catholic Priest, of
Baltimore, and brother of the assistant Protestant Bishop of North
Carolina, nor of the present Archbishops of Baltimore and Philadelphia, of
the Bishops of Wilmington, Cleveland, Columbus and Ogdensburg, and a host
of others, both of the Protestant clergy and laity, who within the last
fifty years have entered the Catholic Church.
If we compare the Protestant and Catholic systems for the forgiveness of
sins, the Catholic system will not suffer by the comparison. According to
the Protestant system, repentance is necessary and sufficient for
justification. The Catholic system also requires repentance on the part of
the sinner as an indispensable prerequisite for the forgiveness of sin.
But it requires much more than this. Before the penitent receives
absolution he must carefully examine his conscience and confess his sins,
according to their number and kind. He is obliged to have a firm purpose
of amendment, to promise restitution, if he has defrauded his neighbor, to
repair any injury done his neighbor’s character, to be reconciled with his
enemies and to avoid the occasions of sin. Do not these obligations afford
a better safeguard against a relapse into sin than a simple internal act
of contrition?
Many most eminent Protestant, and even infidel writers, who were
conversant with the practical workings of the confessional in the
countries in which they lived, bear testimony to the moral reformation
produced by it. The famous German philosopher, Leibnitz, admits that it is
a great benefit conferred on men by God that He left in His Church the
power of forgiving sins.(465)
Voltaire, certainly no friend of Christianity, avows “that there is not
perhaps a more useful institution than confession.”(466)
Rousseau, not less hostile to the Church, exclaims: “How many restitutions
and reparations does not confession cause among Catholics!”(467)
The Protestant authorities of Nuremberg, in Germany, shortly after the
establishment of the reformed doctrines in that city, were so much alarmed
at the laxity of morals which succeeded after the abolition of confession
that they petitioned their Emperor, Charles V., to have it restored.
It is a favorite custom for the adversaries of the Catholic Church to
refer to the alleged loose morals prevailing in France and in other
Catholic countries as a proof of the inferior standard of Catholic
morality. This is a safe, and at the same time not the most honorable,
mode of attack, as the people of those nations are too far off to defend
themselves. For my part, I have spent a considerable time in various
portions of France, and more edifying Christians I have never witnessed
than those I met in that country. For six years I had for my professors
French Priests, whose exemplary lives were a daily sermon to all around
them.
I submit that the cosmopolitan city of Paris (waiving, for the present,
the enormities of which it is accused), is not to be adduced as a fair
criterion of French morality. Let us stay at home and judge of Catholic
morals by the examples furnished under our eyes.
The influence of the confessional has been fairly tested in this country
since the foundation of our Republic. Are practical Catholics enfeebled in
conscience? Is their conscience chained and starved? Has the absolution
they received whetted their appetites for more sin? Are they monsters of
immorality? I think that an enlightened Protestant public will pronounce a
contrary verdict.
I feel that I can say, with truth, that Catholics who frequent the
confessional are generally virtuous in their private lives, just and
honorable in their dealings with others, and that they cultivate charity
and good-will toward their fellow-citizens.
It will not do to reply that it is the system, not the individual, that is
attacked. How can we judge of a system unless by its practical working in
the individual? “By their fruits ye shall know them,” says our Redeemer.
Vices, indeed, we have to deplore among certain classes of our people,
which are often superinduced by their migratory habits and irregular mode
of life. But they are commonly sins of frailty, and these are not the
persons that are accustomed to approach the confessional. If they did
their lives would be very different from what they are.
The best of us, alas! are not what we ought to be, considering the graces
we receive. But if you seek for canting hypocrites, or colossal
defaulters, or perpetrators of well-laid schemes of forgery, or of
systematic licentiousness, or of premeditated violence, you will seek for
such in vain among those who frequent the confessional.
There is another objection which it is difficult to kill. It dies hard
and, like Banquo’s ghost, it will not down. If you drive it from the city,
it will fly to the town. If you expel it from the town, it will take
refuge in the village. If you eject it from the village, it will hide
itself like some noxious animal, in some desert place until it makes its
rounds again.
I allude to the charge that a price has to be paid for remitting sins.
“You have only (say these slanderers) to pay a certain toll at the
confessional gate, and you can pass the biggest load of sin.”
It is hard to treat these objections seriously. I have been hearing
confessions for fifty years, and of all who have come to me, not one has
had the sense of duty to offer me any compensation for absolving them, and
this is true of every Priest with whom I have been acquainted. The truth
is, the Priest who would solicit a fee for absolution knows that he would
be guilty of simony, and would be liable to suspension.
But we are told that confession is an intolerable yoke, that it makes its
votaries the slaves of the Priests.
Before answering this objection, let me call your attention to the
inconsistency of our adversaries, who blow hot and cold in the same
breath. They denounce confession as being too hard a remedy for sin and
condemn it, at the same time, as being a smooth road to heaven. In one
sentence they style it a bed of roses; in the next a bed of thorns.
In a preceding objection it was charged that the votaries 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.
I have already refuted, I trust, the former charge. I shall now answer the
second. I am not aware in what sense our people are less independent than
those of any other class of the community. The only restraint, as far as I
know, imposed on Catholics by their Priests is the yoke of the Gospel, and
to this restraint no Christian ought to object. In my estimation, no body
of Christians enjoys more Apostolic freedom than those of the Catholic
communion, because they are guided in their conduct, not by the
ever-changing _ipse dixit_ of any minister, but by the unchangeable
teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.
But if to love their Priest, to reverence his sacred character, to obey
his voice as the voice of God; if to be willing to make any sacrifice for
their spiritual father; if, I say, you call this slavery, then our
Catholic people are slaves, indeed, and, what is more, they are content
with their chains.
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 that furnishes honey to the bee supplies
poison to the wasp; and, in like manner, the same book that gives only the
honey of consolation to the devout reader has nothing but moral poison for
those that search its pages for nothing else.
How can anyone object to the table of sins in our prayer-books and
consistently advocate the circulation of the Bible, which contains
incomparably plainer and more palpable allusions to gross crimes than are
found in our books of devotion? Let us not forget the adage, “_Honi soit
qui mal y pense._”
I may be permitted, in concluding this subject, to add the testimony of my
own experience on the beneficent influence of the confessional; for, like
my brethren in the ministry, I am, in the language of Dryden,
“One bred apart from worldly noise,
To study souls, their cures, and their diseases.”
Since the time of my ordination up to the present hour I have been
accustomed to hear confessions almost every day. I have, therefore, had a
fair opportunity of ascertaining the value of the “system.” The
impressions forced upon my mind, far from being peculiar to myself, are
shared by every Catholic Priest throughout the world charged with the care
of souls. The testimony of ten experienced confessors ought, in my
estimation, to have more weight in enabling men to judge of the moral
tendencies of the confessional than the gratuitous assertions of a
thousand individuals who have no personal experience of it, but who draw
on their heated imaginations or on the pages of sensational novels for the
statements they offer.
My experience is that the confessional is the most powerful lever ever
erected by a merciful God for raising men from the mire of sin. It has
more weight in withdrawing people from vice than even the pulpit. In
public sermons we scatter the seed of the Word of God; in the confessional
we reap the harvest. In sermons, to use a military phrase, the fire is at
random, but in confession it is a dead shot. The words of the Priest go
home to the heart of the penitent. In a public discourse the Priest
addresses all in general, and his words of admonition may be applicable to
very few of his hearers. But his words spoken in the confessional are
directed exclusively to the penitent, whose heart is open to receive the
Word of God. The confessor exhorts the penitent according to his spiritual
wants. He cautions him against the frequentation of dangerous company and
other occasions of sin, or he recommends special practices of piety suited
to the penitent’s wants.
Hence missionaries are accustomed to estimate the fruit of a mission more
by the number of penitents who have approached the sacred tribunal than by
the number of persons who have listened to their sermons.
Of all the labors that our sacred ministry imposes on us, there is none
more arduous or more irksome than that of hearing confessions. If I may
make a revelation of my own life, I deferred receiving Holy Orders for two
years, from a sense of the dread responsibility connected with the
confessional. It is no trifling task to sit for six or eight consecutive
hours on a hot summer day, listening to stories of sin and sorrow and
misery. It is only the consciousness of the immense good he is doing that
sustains the confessor in the sacred tribunal. He is one “who can have
compassion on the ignorant and erring, because he himself is also
encompassed with infirmity.”(468)
I have seen the man whose conscience was weighed down by the accumulated
sins of twenty winters. Upon his face were branded guilt and shame,
remorse and confusion. There he stood by the confessional, with downcast
countenance, ashamed, like the Publican, to look up to heaven. He glided
into the little mercy-seat. No human ear will ever learn what there
transpired. The revelations of the confessional are a sealed book.
But during the brief time spent in the confessional a resurrection
occurred more miraculous than the raising of Lazarus from the tomb—it was
the resurrection from the grave of sin of a soul that had long lain
worm-eaten. During those precious moments a ray from heaven dispelled the
darkness and gloom from that self-accuser’s mind. The genial warmth of the
Holy Spirit melted his frozen heart, and the purifying influence of the
same Spirit that came on the Apostles, “like a mighty wind from heaven,”
scattered the poisonous atmosphere in which he lived and filled his soul
with Divine grace. When he came out there was quickness in his step, joy
on his countenance, a new light in his eye. Had you asked him why, he
would have answered: “Because I was lost, and am found. Having been dead,
I am come to life again.”(469)
II. On The Relative Morality Of Catholic And Protestant Countries.
It has been gravely asserted that the confession of sin and the doctrine
of absolution tend to the spread of crime and immorality. Statistics are
produced to show that murder and illegitimate births are largely in excess
in countries under Catholic influence, and that this prevalence of
wickedness is the _result of confession and easy absolution_.
If our system of absolving those only who both repent and _confess_ leads
to laxity of morals, how much more must the Protestant system, which omits
that which is most humiliating and admits the sinner to reconciliation on
condition of mere interior dispositions? As all our catechisms teach, and
as every Catholic knows, there is no pardon of sin without sorrow of heart
and purpose of amendment. It is a great mistake to suppose that the most
ignorant Catholic believes he can procure the pardon of his sins by simply
confessing them without being truly sorry for them. The estimate which so
many Protestants set on the virtue of even the lower classes of Roman
Catholics is clearly enough evinced in the preference which they
constantly manifest in their employment of Catholics—practical
Catholics—Catholics who go to confession. I maintain, therefore, that
confession, far from being an incentive to sin, as our adversaries have
the hardihood to affirm, is a most powerful check on the depravity of men
and a most effectual preventive of their criminal excesses.
But is it true that crimes, especially murder and illegitimacy, are more
prevalent in Catholic than in Protestant countries? I utterly deny the
assertion, and also appeal to statistics in support of the denial. Whence
do our opponents derive their information? Forsooth, from Rev. M. Hobart
Seymour’s “Nights Among Romanists” and similar absolutely unreliable
compilations, the false statements of which have been again and again
refuted.
Rev. Mr. Seymour gives the following list of the number of murders in
England, France and Ireland:
Ireland: 19 homicides to the million of inhabitants
France: 31
England: 4
The reader of the above might well draw back in astonishment and exclaim,
“Truly moral atmosphere of England!” But how do these statements compare
with the official records which I submit to the unprejudiced reader?
Recent returns from the “Hand-Book” for France, and “Thom’s Official
Directory for England and Ireland, 1869,” are as follows:
Convictions (and Executions.
sentences to
death).
1864.--France 9 5
1867.--England and 27 10
Wales
Ireland 3 0
These figures, which are from authenticated sources, do not bear out our
accusers in their assertion that murders are more prevalent in Catholic
than in Protestant countries. The statistics of this crime are limited, or
they are not in very general circulation. But we have more extensive
information in reference to the other great crime which, it is charged,
prevails to a much more alarming extent in countries under Catholic
influence, viz., illegitimacy. Here again we shall meet statistics with
counter-statistics to refute unjust declarations. We do not wish to be
understood as advocating the immaculateness of Catholic communities. We
frankly admit and heartily deplore the disorders which Catholics commit,
but we deny that they are worse than their Protestant neighbors; and still
more emphatically do we deny that the Church is responsible for their
disorders.
The Journal of the Statistical Society of London, of the years 1860, ’62,
’65, ’67, gives the number of illegitimate births in England and Wales as
6-1/2 in every hundred, whilst in the Catholic kingdom of Sardinia the
number is slightly over two in the hundred, and in Ireland three in every
hundred. If the test of illegitimacy is a correct index of the morality of
a country, how refreshing to pass from Protestant England across to
Catholic Ireland or to the Continent and visit Sardinia! The moral
atmosphere of these countries, compared with England, must be as a
healthful breeze to a pestilential marsh.
That we may see at a glance the real condition of European countries in
reference to this species of crime, I will here insert as correct a table
as can be made from the latest reports. (Vid. _Catholic World_, Vol. XI.,
p. 112.)
Percentage Of Illegitimacy In Protestant And Catholic Countries Of Europe.
Protestant. Per cent.
Holland 4.0
Switzerland 5.5
Prussia (Protestant) 10.0
England and Wales 6.5
Sweden and Norway 9.6
Scotland 10.1
Denmark 11.0
German States 14.8
Wurtemburg 16.4
Catholic.
Italy 5.1
Spain 5.5
France 7.2
Prussia (Catholic) 6.5
Belgium 7.2
Austria 11.1
Ireland 3.0
We have divided Prussia into Protestant and Catholic because statistics
are kept according to the religious creed of the people; and we discover
that, whilst among the Catholic portion of the empire there is but a
percentage of six and a half of illegitimate births, among the Protestants
it runs up to ten per cent. And the same remark is applicable to Ireland.
The _Scotman_, whose statements are based on the report of the British
Registrar-General, publishes the following statistics:
“The proportion of illegitimate births to the total number of births is in
Ireland 3.8 per cent.; in England the proportion is 6.4; in Scotland 9.9;
in other words, England is nearly twice, and Scotland nearly thrice worse,
than Ireland. Something worse has to be added, from which no consolation
can be derived. The proportion of illegitimacy is very unequally
distributed over Ireland, and the inequality rather humbling to us as
Protestants, and still more as Presbyterians and Scotchmen. Taking Ireland
according to the registration divisions, the proportion of illegitimate
births varies from 6.2 to 1.3. The division showing this lowest figure is
the western, being substantially the Province of Connaught, where about
nineteen-twentieths of the population are Celtic and Roman Catholic. The
division showing the highest proportion of illegitimacy is the
north-eastern, which comprises, or almost consists of, the Province of
Ulster, where the population is almost equally divided between Protestants
and Roman Catholics, and where the great majority of Protestants are of
Scotch blood and of the Presbyterian church. The sum of the whole matter
is, that semi-Presbyterian and semi-Scotch Ulster is fully three times
more immoral than wholly Popish and wholly Irish Connaught—which
corresponds with wonderful accuracy to the more general fact that
Scotland, as a whole, is three times more immoral than Ireland as a
whole.”
It is worthy, too, of notice, that in the tabular statement above
presented the percentage of illegitimacy in Holland and Switzerland, where
there are large Catholic minorities, is lower than in any other Protestant
country.
We have at hand evidences, furnished by Protestant writers, of the hideous
immoralities of certain European nations that are more thoroughly
Protestantized than England itself. Thus, Mr. Laing writes: “Of the 2,714
children born in Stockholm, 1,577 were legitimate, 1,137 illegitimate;
making only a balance of 440 chaste mothers out of 2,714; and the
proportion of illegitimate to legitimate children not as one to two and
three-tenths, but as one to one and a half.”—_A Tour in Sweden in_ 1838.
But we are not disposed to parade these monstrous vices, no matter by whom
committed. We allude to them with feelings of shame, not of pleasure; and
give them a passing notice merely in self-defence against the gratuitous
assertions of our adversaries. We certainly do not wish to excuse or
palliate the evil deeds of Catholics, who, with all the blessed aids which
their religion affords, ought to be much better than they are. Yet we will
add, quoting the words of the _Catholic World_: “If we are not very much
better than our neighbors, we are not any worse; and are not to be hounded
down with the cry of vice and immorality by a set of Pharisees who are
constantly lauding their own superiority and thanking God they are so much
better than we poor Catholics.”
Chapter XXVII.
INDULGENCES.
There are few tenets of the Catholic Church so little understood, or so
grossly misrepresented by her adversaries, as her doctrine regarding
Indulgences.
One of the reasons of the popular misapprehension of an Indulgence may be
ascribed to the change which the meaning of that term has gradually
undergone. The word Indulgence originally signified _favor, remission or
forgiveness_. Now, it is commonly used in the sense of unlawful
gratification, and of free scope to the passions. Hence, when some
ignorant or prejudiced persons hear of the Church granting an Indulgence
the idea of license to sin is at once presented to their minds.
An Indulgence is 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
punishment have been remitted.
It should be borne in mind that, even after our guilt is removed, there
often remains some temporal punishment to be undergone, either in this
life or the next, as an expiation to Divine sanctity and justice. The Holy
Scripture furnishes us with many examples of this truth. Mary, the sister
of Moses, was pardoned the sin which she had committed by murmuring
against her brother. Nevertheless, God inflicted on her the penalty of
leprosy and of seven days’ separation from the people.(470)
Nathan, the prophet, announced to David that his crimes were forgiven, but
that he should suffer many chastisements from the hand of God.(471)
That our Lord has given to the Church the power of granting Indulgences is
clearly deduced from the Sacred Text. To the Prince of the Apostles He
said: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in
heaven.”(472) And to all the Apostles assembled together He made the same
solemn declaration.(473) By these words our Savior empowered His Church to
deliver her children (if properly disposed) from every obstacle that might
retard them from the Kingdom of Heaven. Now there are two impediments that
withhold a man from the heavenly kingdom—sin and the temporal punishment
incurred by it. And the Church having power to remit the greater obstacle,
which is sin, has power also to remove the smaller obstacle, which is the
temporal punishment due on account of it.
The prerogative of granting Indulgence has been exercised by the teachers
of the Church from the beginning of her existence.
St. Paul exercised it in behalf of the incestuous Corinthian whom he had
condemned to a severe penance proportioned to his guilt, “that his spirit
might be saved in the day of the Lord.”(474) And having learned afterwards
of the Corinthian’s fervent contrition the Apostle absolves him from the
penance which he had imposed: “To him, that is such a one, this rebuke is
sufficient, which is given by many. So that contrariwise you should rather
pardon and comfort him, lest, perhaps, such a one be swallowed up with
over-much sorrow.... And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For,
what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes I have
done it in the person of Christ.”(475)
Here we have all the elements that constitute an Indulgence. First—A
penance, or temporal punishment proportioned to the gravity of the
offence, is imposed on the transgressor. Second—The penitent is truly
contrite for his crime. Third—This determines the Apostle to remit the
penalty. Fourth—The Apostle considers the relaxation of the penance
ratified by Jesus Christ, in whose name it is imparted.
We find the Bishops of the Church, after the Apostle, wielding this same
power. No one disputes the right, which they claimed from the very first
ages, of inflicting canonical penances on grievous criminals, who were
subjected to long fasts, severe abstinences and other mortifications for a
period extending from a few days to five or ten years and even to a
lifetime, according to the gravity of the offence. These penalties were,
in several instances, mitigated or cancelled by the Church, according to
her discretion; for a society that can inflict a punishment can also remit
it. Our Lord gave His Church power not only to bind, but also to loose.
This discretionary prerogative was often exercised by the Church at the
intercession of those who were condemned to martyrdom, when the penitents
themselves gave strong marks of fervent sorrow, as we learn from the
writings of Tertullian and Cyprian.
The General Council of Nice and other Synods authorize Bishops to
mitigate, or even to remit altogether, public penances, whenever, in their
judgment, the penitent manifested special marks of repentance. Now, in
relaxing the canonical penances, or in substituting for them a milder
satisfaction, the Bishops granted what we call an Indulgence. This
sentence of remission on the part of the Bishops was valid not only in the
sight of the Church, but also in the sight of God. Although the Church
imposes canonical penances no longer, God has never ceased to inflict
temporal punishment for sin. Hence Indulgences continue to be necessary
now, if not as substitute for canonical penances, at least as a mild and
merciful payment of the temporal debt due to God.
An Indulgence is called plenary or partial, according as it remits the
whole or a part of the temporal punishment due to sin. An Indulgence, for
instance, of forty days remits, before God, so much of the temporal
punishment as would have been expiated in the primitive Church by a
canonical penance of forty days.
Although the very name of Indulgence is now so repugnant to our dissenting
brethren, there was a time when the Protestant Church professed to grant
them. In the canons of the Church of England reference is made to
Indulgences, and to the disposition to be made of the money paid for
them.(476)
From what I have said you may judge for yourself what to think of those
who say that an Indulgence is the remission of past sins, or a license to
commit sin granted by the Pope as a spiritual compensation to the faithful
for pecuniary offerings made him. I need not inform you that an Indulgence
is neither the one nor the other. It is not a remission of sin, since no
one can gain an Indulgence until he is already free from sin. It is still
less a license to commit sin; for every Catholic child knows that neither
Priest nor Bishop nor Pope nor even God Himself—with all reverence be it
said—can give license to commit the smallest fault.
But are not Indulgences at variance with the spirit of the Gospel, since
they appear to be a mild and feeble substitute for alms-giving, fasts,
abstinences and other penitential austerities, which Jesus Christ
inculcated and practised, and which the primitive Church enforced?
The Church, as every one must know who is acquainted with her history,
never exempts her children from the obligation of doing works of penance.
No one can deny that the practices of mortification are more frequent
among Catholics than among Protestants. Where will you find the
evangelical duty of fasting enforced, if not from the Catholic pulpit? It
is well known that, among the members of the Catholic Church, those who
avail themselves of the boon of Indulgences are usually her most
practical, edifying and fervent children. Their spiritual growth far from
being retarded, is quickened by the aid of Indulgences, which are usually
accompanied by acts of contrition, devotion, self-denial and the reception
of the Sacraments.
But, do what we will, we cannot please our opponents. If we fast and give
alms; if we crucify our flesh, and make pilgrimages and perform other
works of penance, we are accused of clinging to the rags of dead works,
instead of "holding on to Jesus" by faith. If, on the other hand, we
enrich our souls with the treasures of Indulgences we are charged with
relying on the vicarious merits of others and of lightening too much the
salutary burden of the cross. But how can Protestants consistently find
fault with the Church for _mitigating_ the austerities of penance, since
their own fundamental principle rests on _faith alone without good works_?
But have not Indulgences been the occasion of many abuses at various
times, particularly in the sixteenth century?
I will not deny that Indulgences have been abused; but are not the most
sacred things liable to be perverted? This is a proper place to refer
briefly to the Bull of Pope Leo X. proclaiming the Indulgence which
afforded Luther a pretext for his apostasy. Leo determined to bring to
completion the magnificent Church of St. Peter, commenced by his
predecessor, Julius II. With that view he issued a Bull promulgating an
Indulgence to such as would contribute some voluntary offering toward the
erection of the grand cathedral. Those, however, who contributed nothing
shared equally in the treasury of the Church, provided they complied with
the essential conditions for gaining the Indulgence. The only
indispensable conditions enjoined by the Papal Bull were sincere
repentance and confession of sins. D’Aubigne admits this truth, though in
a faltering manner, when he observes that “in the Pope’s Bull something
was said of the repentance of the heart and the confession of the
lips.”(477) The applicants for the Indulgence knew well that, no matter
how munificent were their offerings, these would avail them nothing
without true contrition of heart.
No traffic or sale of Indulgences was, consequently, authorized or
countenanced by the Head of the Church, since the contributions were
understood to be voluntary. In order to check any sordid love of gain in
those charged with preaching the Indulgence, “the hand that delivered the
Indulgence,” as D’Aubigne testifies, “could not receive the money: that
was forbidden under the severest penalties.”(478)
Wherein, then, was the conduct of the Pope reprehensible? Certainly not in
soliciting the donations of the faithful for the purpose of erecting a
temple of worship, a temple which today stands unrivalled in majesty and
beauty!
“But thou of temples old, or altars new,
Standest alone, with nothing like to thee;
Worthiest of God, the holy and the true,
Since Sion’s desolation, when that He
Forsook His former city, what could be
Of earthly structures, in His honor piled,
Of a sublimer aspect? Majesty,
Power, Glory, Strength, and Beauty, all are aisled
In this eternal ark of worship undefiled.”(479)
If Moses was justified in appealing to the Hebrew people, in the Old Law,
for offerings to adorn the tabernacle, why should not the Pope be equally
justified in appealing for similar offerings to the Christian people,
among whom he exercises supreme authority, as Moses did among the
Israelites?
Nor did the Pope exceed his legitimate powers in promising to the pious
donors spiritual favors in exchange for their donations. For if our sins
can be redeemed by alms to the poor,(480) as the Scripture tells us, why
not as well by offerings in the cause of religion? When Protestant
ministers appeal to their congregations in behalf of themselves and their
children, or in support of a church, they do not fail to hold out to their
hearers spiritual blessings in reward for their gifts. It is not long
since a Methodist parson of New York addressed these sacred words to
Cornelius Vanderbilt, the millionaire, who had endowed a Methodist
college: “Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thy alms are had in
remembrance in the sight of God.”(481) The minister is more _indulgent_
than even the Pope, to whom were given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven;
for the minister declares Cornelius absolved without the preliminary of
confession or contrition, while even, according to D’Aubigne, the
inflexible Pope insisted on the necessity of “repentance of the heart and
confession of the lips” before the donor’s offering could avail him to
salvation.
John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, who had been appointed the chief preacher
to announce the Indulgence in Germany, was accused by Luther of exceeding
his powers by making them subservient to his own private ends. Tetzel’s
conduct was disavowed and condemned by the representative of the Holy See.
The Council of Trent, held some time after, took effectual measures to put
a stop to all irregularities regarding Indulgences and issued the
following decree: “Wishing to correct and amend the abuses which have
crept into them, and on occasion of which this signal name of Indulgences
is blasphemed by heretics, the Holy Synod enjoins in general, by the
present decree, that all wicked traffic for obtaining them, which has been
the fruitful source of many abuses among the Christian people, should be
wholly abolished.”(482)
Chapter XXVIII.
EXTREME UNCTION.
Extreme Unction is a Sacrament in which the sick, by the anointing with
holy oil and the prayers of the Priests, receive spiritual succor and even
corporal strength when such is conducive to their salvation. This unction
is called _Extreme_, because it is usually the last of the holy unctions
administered by the Church.
The Apostle St. James clearly refers to this Sacrament and points out its
efficacy in the following words: “Is any man sick among you; let him bring
in the Priests 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 the
sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they
shall be forgiven him.”(483)
Several of the ancient Fathers allude to this Sacrament. Origen (third
century) writes: “There is also a remission of sins through penitence,
when the sinner ... is not ashamed to declare his sin to the Priest of the
Lord, and to seek a remedy ... wherein that also is fulfilled which the
Apostle James saith: ‘_But if any be sick among you, let him call in the
Priests of the Church, and let them impose hands on him, anointing him
with oil in the name of the Lord_.’ ”(484)
St. Chrysostom (fourth century) says: “Not only when they (the Priests)
regenerate us, but they have also power to forgive sins committed
afterward; for he says: ‘Is any man sick among you; let him call in the
Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil
in the name of the Lord.’ ”(485)
Pope Innocent I. (fifth century), in a letter to a Bishop named Decentius,
after quoting the words of St. James, proceeds: “These words, there is no
doubt, ought to be understood of the faithful who are sick, who can be
anointed with the holy oil, which, having been prepared by a Bishop, may
be used, not only for Priests, but for all Christians.”(486)
The Sacramentary, or ancient Roman Ritual, revised by Pope St. Gregory in
the sixth century, prescribes the blessing of oil by the Bishop, and the
prayers to be recited in the anointing of the sick.
The venerable Bede of England, who lived in the eighth century, referring
to the words of St. James, writes: “The custom of the Church requires that
the sick be anointed by the Priests with consecrated oil and be sanctified
by the prayer which accompanies it.”(487)
The Greek Church, which separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the
ninth century, says in its profession of faith: “The seventh Sacrament is
Extreme Unction, prescribed by Christ; for, after He had begun to send His
disciples two and two (Mark vi. 7-13), they anointed and healed many,
which unction the Church has since maintained by pious usage, as we learn
from the Epistle of St. James: ‘Is any man sick among you,’_ etc._ The
fruits proper to this Sacrament, as St. James declares, are the remission
of sins, health of soul, strength—in fine, of body. But though it does not
always produce this last result, it always, at least, restores the soul to
a better state by the forgiveness of sins.” This is precisely the Catholic
teaching on this subject. All the other Oriental churches, some of which
separated from Rome in the fifth century, likewise enumerate Extreme
Unction among their Sacraments.
Such identity of doctrine proclaimed during so many ages by churches so
wide apart can have no other than an Apostolic origin.
The eminent Protestant Leibnitz makes this candid admission: “There is no
room for much discussion regarding the unction of the sick. It is
supported by the words of Scripture, the interpretation of the Church, in
which pious and Catholic men safely confide. Nor do I see what any one can
find reprehensible in that practice which the Church accepts.”(488)
Protestants, though professing to be guided by the Holy Scripture,
entirely disregard the admonition of St. James. Luther acted with more
consistency. Finding that the injunction of the Apostle was too plain to
be explained away by subtlety of words, he boldly rejected the entire
Epistle, which he contemptuously styled “a letter of straw.”(489)
It is sad to think that our separated brethren discard this consoling
instrument of grace, though pressed upon them by an Apostle of Jesus
Christ; for, surely, a spiritual medicine which diminishes the terrors of
death, comforts the dying Christian, fortifies the soul in its final
struggle, and purifies it for its passage from time to eternity, should be
gratefully and eagerly made use of, especially when prescribed by an
inspired Physician.
Chapter XXIX.
THE PRIESTHOOD.
The Apostles were clothed with the powers of Jesus Christ. The Priest, as
the successor of the Apostles, is clothed with their power. This fact
reveals to us the eminent dignity of the priestly character.
The exalted dignity of the Priest is derived not from the personal merits
for which he may be conspicuous, but from the sublime functions which he
is charged to perform. To the carnal eye the Priest looks like other men,
but to the eye of faith he is exalted above the angels, because he
exercises powers not given even to angels.
The Priest is the _ambassador of God_, appointed to vindicate His honor
and to proclaim His glory. “We are ambassadors for Christ,” says the
Apostle; “God, as it were, exhorting by us.”(490) If it is esteemed a
great privilege for a citizen of the United States to represent our
country in any of the courts of Europe, how much greater is the
prerogative to represent the court of heaven among the nations of the
earth! “As the Father hath sent Me,” says our Lord to His Apostles, “I
also send you.”(491) “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, ... teaching
them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. And, behold,
I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”(492) The
jurisdiction of earthly representatives is limited, but the authority of
the ministers of God extends over the whole earth. “Go ye into the whole
world and preach the Gospel,” says Christ, “to every creature.”(493)
Not only does Jesus empower His ministers to preach in His name, but he
commands their hearers to listen and obey. “Whosoever will not receive
you, nor hear your words, going forth from that house or city, shake off
the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that
city.”(494) “He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you
despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.”(495)
God requires not only that His Gospel should be heard with reverence, but
that the persons of His Apostles should be honored. As no greater insult
can be offered to a nation than to insult its representative at a foreign
court, so no greater injury can be offered to our Lord than to do violence
to His representatives, the Priests of His Church. “Touch not My anointed,
and do no evil to My prophets.”(496) God avenged the crime of two and
forty boys who mocked the prophet Eliseus by sending wild beasts to tear
them in pieces. The frightful death of Maria Monk, the caluminator of
consecrated Priests and Virgins, who ended her life a drunken maniac on
Blackwell’s Island, proves that our religious institutions are not to be
mocked with impunity.
When an ambassador is accredited from this country to a foreign court, he
is honored with the confidence of the President, from whom he receives
private instructions. So does Jesus honor His ambassadors with His
friendship and communicate to them the secrets of heaven: “I will not now
call you servants; for, the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth. But I
have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of My
Father I have made known to you.”(497)
What a privilege to be the herald of God’s law to the nations of the
earth! “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth
good tidings and that preacheth peace: of him that showeth forth good,
that preacheth salvation, that saith to Sion: Thy God shall reign.”(498)
How cherished a favor to be the bearer of the olive branch of peace to a
world deluged by sin; to be appointed by Heaven to proclaim a Gospel which
brings glory to God, and peace to men; that Gospel which strengthens the
weak, converts the sinner, reconciles enemies, consoles the afflicted
heart and holds out to all the hope of eternal salvation!
I have often reflected on a remark made to me by Senator Bayard of
Delaware: “You of the clergy,” he said, “have a great advantage as public
speakers over us political men. You enjoy the confidence of your hearers.
You can speak as long as you please, you can admonish and rebuke as much
as you please, without any fear of contradiction; while we are constantly
liable to interruption.”
O! what a tremendous power is wielded by the Catholic preacher! Hundreds
of souls are hanging on his words; hundreds are sustained by him in
spiritual life, and leave the Church depending on him whether they go
forth fortified with the Bread of life, or famished and disappointed. I
can say of every Priest what Simeon said of our Lord, “This man is set for
the fall and the resurrection of many in Israel.”
Not only are Priests the ambassadors of God, but they are also the
_dispensers of His graces_ and the almoners of His mercy. “Let a man so
regard us,” says the Apostle, “as ministers of Christ and dispensers of
the mysteries of God.”(499)
How can he be called a dispenser of God’s mysteries whose labors are
confined to preaching? But he is truly a dispenser of Divine mysteries who
distributes to the faithful the Sacraments, the mysterious symbols and
efficient causes of grace.
As St. John Chrysostom observes, it was not to angels or archangels, but
to the Priests of the New Law that Christ said: “Whatsoever you shall bind
on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on
earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” To them alone He gave the power to
forgive sins, saying: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven.”
To them alone He gave the power of consecrating His Body and Blood and
dispensing the same to the faithful. He has empowered the Priests of the
New Law to impart the grace of regeneration in Baptism. He has assigned to
them the solemn duty of preparing the dying Christian for his final
journey to eternity: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the
priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil,
in the name of the Lord.”(500)
As far as heaven is above earth, as eternity is above time, and the soul
is above the body, so far are the prerogatives vested in God’s ministers
higher than those of any earthly potentate. An earthly prince can cast
into prison or release therefrom. But his power is over the body. He
cannot penetrate into the sanctuary of the soul; whereas the minister of
God can release the soul from the prison of sin, and restore it to the
liberty of a child of God.
To sum up in a few brief sentences the titles of a Catholic Priest:
He is a _king_, reigning not over unwilling subjects, but over the hearts
and affections of his people.
His spiritual children pay him not only the tribute of their money, but
also the tribute of their love which royalty can neither purchase nor
exact.
He is a _shepherd_, because he leads his flock into the delicious pastures
of the Sacraments and shelters them from the wolves that lie in wait for
their souls.
He is a _father_, because he breaks the bread of life to his spiritual
children, whom he has begotten in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.(501)
He is a _judge_, whose office it is to pass sentence of pardon on
self-accusing criminals.
He is a _physician_, because he heals their souls from the loathsome
distempers of sin.
St. John, in his Apocalypse, represents the Church under the figure of a
city. “I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven,
from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”(502) Our Savior is
the Architect and Founder of this celestial city. The Apostles are its
foundation. The faithful are the living stones of the edifice. The
anointed ministers of the Lord are the workmen chosen to adjust and polish
these stones, that they may reflect the beauty and glory of the sun of
justice that perpetually illumines this city. The Priests are engaged in
adorning the interior of the heavenly Jerusalem by enriching, with virtue,
the precious souls entrusted to their charge. “God gave some, indeed,
Apostles, and some Prophets, and others Evangelists, and others Pastors
and Doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ,”(503) which is His
Church. What an honor is this to the Priest of the New Law! Surely God
“hath not done alike to every nation, and His judgments He hath not made
manifest to them.”(504)
With how much more force may we apply to the successors of the Apostles
the words which God spoke to the Priests of the Old Law: “Hear, ye sons of
Levi. Is it a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated
you from all the people and joined you to Himself, that ye should serve
Him in the service of the tabernacle, and should stand before the
congregation of the people and minister unto Him?”
Our Savior affectionately puts this question three times to Peter: “Simon,
lovest thou Me?” And three times Peter answers Him, “Lord, Thou knowest
that I love Thee.” What proof of love, then, does Jesus exact of Peter?
Does He say: If thou lovest Me, chastise thy body by fasting and stripes,
prophesy, work miracles, lay down thy life for Me? No, but “feed My
lambs,” “feed My sheep.” This was to be the closest bond of Peter’s
devotion to his Master, and of the Master’s affection for His disciple.
And our Lord declares that the reward of His disciples would be
commensurate with the dignity of their ministry: “Behold,” says Peter, “we
have left all things and have followed Thee. What, therefore, shall we
have? And Jesus said to them, Amen, I say to you that you who have
followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the
seat of His majesty, you shall also sit on twelve seats, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel.” And immediately after He adds that the worthy
successors of the Apostles shall share in their felicity: “And every one
that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or
wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake shall receive a hundredfold
and shall possess life everlasting.”(505)
I know that there are many in our days who deny that Priests possess any
spiritual power—as if God could not communicate such power to men. I
understand why atheists and rationalists, who reject all revelation,
should deny all supernatural authority to the ministers of God. But that
professing Christians who accept the testimony of Scripture should share
in this unbelief passes my comprehension.
Has not the Almighty, in numberless instances recorded in Holy Writ, made
man the instrument of His power? Did not Moses convert the rivers of Egypt
into blood? Did he not cause water to issue from the barren rock? Did not
the prophets predict future events? Did not the sun stand still in the
heavens at the command of Josue? Did not Eliseus, the prophet, raise the
dead to life? Why do we believe all these prodigies? Because the
Scriptures record them. Does not the same Word of God declare that the
Apostles received power to confer the Holy Ghost by the imposition of
hands, to forgive sins, to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.
Is not the New Testament as worthy of belief as the Old? Has not Jesus
Christ solemnly promised to be always with the ministers of His Church,
“even to the consummation of the world,” strengthening them to repeat
those miracles of mercy that were wrought by His first disciples? Can the
God of truth be unfaithful to His promises? Is He not as strong and
merciful now as He was in days of the Prophets and Apostles, and are not
we as much in need of the Holy Ghost as the primitive Christians were? If
God could make feeble men the ministers of His mercy then, why not now?
But should a Priest consider himself greater than other men because he
exercises such authority? Far from it. He ought to humble himself beneath
others when he reflects to what weak hands God assigns power so
tremendous. He should remember what our Savior said to the seventy-two
disciples, who, returning with joy from their first mission, cried out to
Him: “Lord, even the devils are subject to us in Thy name.” But Jesus
checked their vain-glory, saying: “I saw Satan like lightning fall from
heaven. Behold, I have given you power ... but rejoice not in this, that
spirits are subject to you; but rejoice in this, that your names are
written in heaven.”(506) The Priest does not forget that “the most severe
judgment shall be for them that bear rule,”(507) and that “judgment should
begin at the house of God.”(508) The words of the Apostle are present to
his mind: “What hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast
received, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?”(509) As
well might the vessel that is filled with precious liquor boast of being
superior to the vessel that is filled with water. The Priest knows full
well that the powers he has received from God are given to him not to feed
his own vanity, but to enrich the hearts of the faithful; and that, though
instrumental in pointing out to others the way to heaven, he himself,
unless adorned with personal virtues, will become a reprobate, like those
unhappy Priests of Jerusalem who directed the Magi to Jesus in Bethlehem,
but did not go thither themselves.
“I have planted,” says the Apostle, “Apollo watered, but God gave the
increase. Therefore, neither he that planteth is anything, nor he that
watereth, but God that giveth the increase.”(510) We perform the outward
ceremony; God alone supplies the grace.
The obligations of the minister of God are, therefore commensurate with
his exalted dignity.
The Priest is required to be a man of profound learning and of solid
piety. “The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they (the people)
shall seek the law at his mouth.”(511) The Lord denounces the Priests of
the Old Law because they neglected to study the Sacred Sciences: “Because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do
the office of priesthood for Me, and thou hast forgotten the law of thy
God, I will also forget thy children.”(512)
“To you,” says our Lord to His Apostles, “it is given to know the mystery
of the Kingdom of God, to the rest, in parables.” The Priests of the New
Law, like the Apostles, are the custodians of the mysteries of religion.
Now we know that the knowledge of God’s Kingdom is not imparted to us by
inspiration or revelation. Christ does not personally teach us as He
taught His Apostles. It is by hard study that the knowledge of His law is
acquired by us. He does not lift us up on Angels’ wings to the spiritual
Parnassus. It is only by the royal road of earnest labor that we can
attain those heights which will enable us to contemplate the Kingdom of
heaven and describe it to others.
As physician of the soul, he must be conversant with its various
distempers and must know what remedy is to be applied in each particular
case. If society justly holds the unskilful physician responsible for the
fatal consequences of his malpractice, surely God will call to a strict
account the spiritual physician who, through criminal ignorance,
prescribes injudicious remedies to the souls of the patients committed to
his charge.
As judge of souls, he must know when to bind and when to loose, when to
defer and when to pronounce sentence of absolution. If nothing is so
disastrous to the Republic as an incompetent judge, whose decisions,
though involving life and death, are rendered at hap-hazard and not in
accordance with the merits of the case, so nothing is more detrimental to
the Christian commonwealth than an ignorant priesthood, whose decisions
injuriously affect the salvation of souls.
The advocate in our courts of justice feels bound in conscience and in
honor to study the case of his client with the utmost diligence, and to
defend him before the jury with all the eloquence he can master. And yet
the suit may not involve more than a brief imprisonment or even a limited
fine.
But the Priest, like Moses, stands before God to intercede for His people,
and before the people to advocate the cause of God. He not only ascends
daily the altar to plead for the people and to cry out with the prophet,
“Spare, O Lord, spare Thy people, and give not Thy inheritance to
reproach;” but every Sunday he mounts the pulpit to vindicate the claims
which God has on His subjects. Certainly, if an attorney is bound to study
his client’s cause before he defends it, no matter how trifling the issue,
how much more imperative is the obligation of the Priest to study well his
case, when he reflects that an immortal soul is on trial, and before men
who are often the worst enemies of their own soul. He has to convince the
people that the narrow road, which their inclinations abhor, is to be
followed; and that the broad road, which their self-love and their
passions tend to pursue, is to be abandoned. Conviction in this case
requires rare tact as well as eloquence and learning.
But the minister of religion has to defend the soul not only against the
corruptions of the heart, but also against those doctrinal errors that are
daily springing up in every direction, and which are plausibly preached by
false teachers, who bring to their support the most specious arguments,
couched in the most attractive language. To refute these errors often
requires the most consummate skill and a profound knowledge of history and
the Holy Scripture.
It is no wonder, then, that the Church insists that her clergy be educated
men. Hence our ecclesiastical students are usually obliged to devote from
ten to fourteen years to the diligent study of the modern and ancient
languages, of history and philosophy, of the great science of theology and
Holy Scripture, before they are elevated to the sacred ministry.
It is true, indeed, that, owing to the rapidly-increasing demand for
clergy in the United States, our Bishops have hitherto been sometimes
compelled to abridge the course of studies of the candidates for the
ministry; but now that the Church is more thoroughly organized, and that
seminaries are multiplied among us, they are happily enabled to extend to
their young levites the advantages of a full term of literary and
theological training.
If the Priest should be eminent for his learning, he should be still more
conspicuous for his virtues, for he is expected to preach more by example
than by precept. If in the Old Law God charged His Priests with the
admonition: “Be sanctified, ye that carry the vessels of the Lord,”(513)
how much more strictly is holiness of life enjoined on the Priests of the
New Dispensation, who not only touch the sacred vessels, but drink from
them the Precious Blood of the Lord?
“Purer,” says St. Chrysostom, “than any solar ray should that hand be
which divides that flesh, that mouth which is filled with spiritual fire,
that tongue which is purpled with that most awful blood.”
In order to foster in us the spirit of personal piety, we are constantly
admonished by the Church to be men of prayer. The Priest should be like
those angels whom Jacob saw in a vision, ascending to heaven and
descending therefrom on the mystical ladder. He is expected to ascend by
prayer and to descend by preaching. He ascends to heaven to receive light
from God; he descends to communicate that light to his hearers. He ascends
to draw at the Fountain of Divine grace, he descends to diffuse those
living waters among the faithful, that their hearts may be refreshed. He
ascends to light his torch at the ever-burning furnace of Divine love; he
descends to communicate the flame to the souls of his people.
The Church, indeed, considers prayer so indispensable to her clergy that,
besides the voluntary exercises of piety which their private devotion may
suggest, she requires them to devote at least an hour each day to the
recitation of the Divine Office, which chiefly consists of the Psalms and
other portions of Holy Scripture, the Homilies of the early Fathers and
prayers of marvelous force and unction.
Chapter XXX.
CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
The 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.”(514)
Our Savior and His Apostles, though recognizing matrimony as a holy state,
have proclaimed the superior merits of voluntary continency, particularly
for those who consecrate their lives to the sacred ministry. “There are
eunuchs who have made themselves such for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He
who can take it, let him take it.”(515) Our Lord evidently recommends here
the state of celibacy to such as feel themselves called to embrace it, in
order to attain greater perfection.
St. Paul gives the reason why our Savior declares continency to be a more
suitable state for His ministers than that of matrimony: “He who is
unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—how he may please God. But he
who is married is solicitous about the things of the world—how he may
please his wife—and he is divided.”(516)
Jesus Christ manifestly showed His predilection for virginity, not only by
always remaining a virgin, but by selecting a Virgin-Mother and a
virgin-precursor in the person of St. John the Baptist, and by exhibiting
a special effection for John the Evangelist, because, as St. Augustine
testifies, that Apostle was chosen a virgin and such he always remained.
Not only did our Lord thus manifest while on earth a marked predilection
for virgins, but He exhibits the same preference for them in heaven; for
the hundred and forty-four thousand who are chosen to sing the New
Canticle and who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth are all virgins,
as St. John testifies. (Apoc. xiv.)
The Apostle of the Gentiles assures us that he led a single life, and he
commends that state to others: “I say to the unmarried, and to the widows
it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.”(517)
There is no evidence from Scripture that any of the Apostles were married
except St. Peter. St. Jerome says that if any were married they certainly
separated from their wives after they were called to the Apostolate. Even
St. Peter, after his vocation, did not continue with his wife, as may be
inferred from his own words: “Behold, we have left all things, and
followed Thee.”(518) Among “all things” must be reckoned the fellowship of
his wife, for he could hardly say with truth that he had left all things
if he had not left his wife. Our Savior immediately after enumerates the
wife among those cherished objects, the renunciation of which, for His
sake, will have its reward.(519)
St. Paul declares that “a Bishop must be sober, just, holy,
continent.”(520) And writing to Timothy, whom he had consecrated Bishop,
he says: “Be thou an example to the faithful ... in charity, in faith, in
_chastity_.”(521) In another place, he enumerates chastity among the
virtues that should adorn the Christian minister: “In all things let us
exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God in much patience, ... in
chastity.”(522)
Although celibacy is not expressly enforced by our Savior, it is, however,
commended so strongly by Himself and His Apostles, both by word and
example, that the Church felt it her duty to lay it down as a law.
The discipline of the Church has been exerted from the beginning in
prohibiting Priests to marry _after_ their ordination. St. Jerome observes
that “Bishops, Priests and Deacons are chosen from virgins or widowers,
or, at least, they remain perpetually chaste after being elevated to the
priesthood.”(523) To Jovinian he writes: “You certainly admit that he
cannot remain a Bishop who begets children in the episcopacy; for, if
convicted, he will not be esteemed as a husband, but condemned as an
adulterer.”(524) Again he says: “What will the churches of the East, of
Egypt and of the Apostolic See do, which adopt their clergy from among
virgins, or if they have wives, they cease to live as married men.”(525)
St. Epiphanius declares that “he who leads a married life is not admitted
by the Church to the order of Deacon, Priest, Bishop or sub-Deacon.”(526)
In the primitive days of the Church, owing to the scarcity of vocations
among the unmarried, married men were admitted to sacred orders, but they
were enjoined, as we learn from various canons, to live separated from
their wives after their ordination.
This discipline, it is true, was relaxed to some extent in favor of a
portion of the clergy of the Oriental Church, who were permitted to live
with their wives if they happened to espouse them before ordination; but,
like the Priests of the Western Church, the Eastern clergy were forbidden
to contract marriage after their ordination. It is important also to
observe that the unmarried clergy of the East are held in much higher
esteem by the people than the married Priests.
It cannot, indeed, be denied that at certain epochs of the Church’s
history, especially in periods of disordered society, there were too many
instances of the violation of clerical celibacy. But the repeated
violations of a law are no evidence of its non-existence. Whenever the
voice of the Church could be heard it always spoke in vindication of the
law of priestly chastity.
Let me now call your attention to the propriety and advantages of clerical
celibacy.
First—The Priest is the representative of Jesus Christ. He continues the
work begun by his Divine Master. It is his duty to preach the word, to
administer the Sacraments, and, above all, to consecrate the Body and
Blood of Christ and to distribute the same to the faithful. Is it not
becoming that a chaste Lord should be served by chaste ministers?
If the Jewish Priests, while engaged in their turn in offering the
sacrifice of animals in the Temple, were obliged to keep apart from their
wives, should not the Priests of the New Law, who offer daily the
sacrifice of the Immaculate Lamb, practise continual chastity?
If David and his friends were not permitted to eat the bread of
Proposition till he had avowed that for the three preceding days they had
refrained from women,(527) how pure in body and soul should be the Priest
who daily partakes of that living Bread of which the bread of Proposition
was but the type; and if the people at Mount Sinai were forbidden to come
near their wives for three days before receiving the Law,(528) should not
they whose office it is to preach the Law at all times abstain altogether?
Thorndyke, an eminent Protestant Divine, in his work entitled, _Just
Weights and Measures_, makes the following observation: “The reason for
single life for the clergy is firmly grounded, by the Fathers and canons
of the Church, upon the precept of St. Paul, forbidding man and wife to
depart unless for a time, to attend unto prayer (I. Cor. vii. 5). For,
Priests and Deacons being continually to attend upon occasions of
celebrating the Eucharist, which ought continually to be frequented; if
others be to abstain from the use of marriage for a time, then they
always.”(529)
Second—Writers frequently discuss the secret cause of the marvelous
success which marks the growth of the Catholic Church everywhere in spite
of the most formidable opposition. Some ascribe this progress to her
thorough organization; others to the far-seeing wisdom of her chief
pastors. Without undervaluing these and other auxiliaries, I incline to
the belief that, under God, the Church has no tower of strength more
potent than the celibacy of her clergy. The unmarried Priest, as St. Paul
observes (1 Cor. vii.), is free to give his whole time undivided to the
Lord, and can devote his attention not to one or two children, but to the
entire flock whom he has begotten in Christ Jesus, through the Gospel;
while the married minister is divided between the cares of his family and
his duties to the congregation. “A single life,” says Bacon, “doth well
with churchmen; for, charity will hardly water the ground where it must
first fill a pool.”(530)
Third—The world has hitherto been converted by unmarried clergymen, and
only by them will it continue to be converted. St. Francis Xavier and St.
Francis de Sales could not have planted the faith in so many thousands of
souls if they were accompanied on their journeys by their wives and
children. Of all the gems that adorn the priestly diadem, none is so
precious and indispensable in the eyes of the people as the peerless jewel
of chastity. Without this pearl the voice of a Hyacinthe “becomes as
sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal;” with it, the humblest missioner
gains the hearts of multitudes.
Everybody is aware of the numerous conversions to Christianity effected by
St. Francis Xavier in Japan in the sixteenth century. After the lapse of
many years from the death of St. Francis, when a French squadron was
permitted to enter the Japanese ports, a native Christian, named Peter,
having learned that French Priests were on board, put their faith to the
test by proposing to them these three questions: “Are you followers of the
great Father in Rome? Do you honor Mary, the Blessed Virgin? Have you
wives?” The French priests having satisfied their interrogator on these
points, and especially on the last, Peter and his companions fell at the
missioners’ feet, exclaiming with delight “Thanks, thanks! they are
virgins and true disciples of our Apostle Francis.”(531)
A contemporary writer has wittily remarked that “perhaps the most ardent
admirer of hymeneal rites would cheerfully admit that he could not
conceive St. Paul or St. John starting on a nuptial tour, accompanied by
the latest fashions from Athens or Ephesus, and the graceful brides whom
they were destined to adorn. They would feel that Christianity itself
could not survive such a vision as that. Nor could the imagination, in its
wildest moods, picture the majestic adversary of the Arian Emperor
attended in his flight up the Nile by Mistress Athanasius, nor St. John
Chrysostom escorted in his wanderings through Phrygia by the wife of his
bosom arrayed in a wreath of orange-blossoms. Would Ethelbert have become
a Christian if St. Augustine had introduced to him his lady and her
bridesmaids?”(532)
We frequently hear of unmarried Bishops and Priests laying down their
lives for the faith in China and Corea and imprisoned in Germany. Heroic
sacrifices such as these are, however, too much to be expected from men
enjoying the domestic luxury and engrossed by the responsibility of a wife
and children.
But does not St. Paul authorize the marriage of the clergy when he says:
“Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest
of the Apostles?”(533) The Protestant text mis-translates this passage by
substituting the word _wife_ for _woman_. It is evident that St. Paul does
not speak here of his wife, since he had none; but he alludes to those
pious women who voluntarily waited on the Apostles, and ministered to them
in their missionary journeys.
It is also objected that the Apostle seems to require that a Bishop be
“the husband of one wife.”(534) The context certainly cannot mean that a
Bishop must be a married man, for the reason already given, that St. Paul
himself was never married. The sense of the text, as all tradition
testifies, is that no candidate should be elected to the office of Bishop
who had been married more than once. It was not possible in those days
always to select single men for the Episcopal office. Hence the Church was
often compelled to choose married persons, but always with this
restriction, that they had never contracted nuptials a second time. They
were obliged, moreover, if not widowers, to live separated from their
wives.
Others adduce against clerical celibacy these words of St. Paul: “In the
last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of
error, ... forbidding to marry.”(535) This passage, however, alludes to
the Ebionites, Gnostics and Manicheans, who positively taught that
marriage is sinful. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds that
matrimony is not only a lawful state, for those who are called to embrace
it, but that it is also a Sacrament, and that the highest degree of
holiness is attainable in conjugal life.
Some go so far as to declare continency impracticable. Our dissenting
brethren in the ministry are so uxoriously inclined that, perhaps, for
this reason they dispute the possibility, as well as the privilege, of
Priests to remain single. But in making this assertion they impugn the
wisdom of Jesus Christ and His Apostle, who lived in this state and
recommended it to others; they slander consecrated Priests and nuns, and
they unwittingly question the purity of their own unmarried sisters,
daughters and sons. How many men and women are there in the world who
spend years, nay, their whole lives, in the single state? And who shall
dare to accuse such a multitude of incontinency?
Nor should any one complain of the severity of the law of clerical
celibacy, since the candidate voluntarily accepts the obligations after
mature consideration.
Finally, it cannot be urged against celibacy that it violates the Divine
precept to “increase and multiply;” for this command surely cannot require
all marriageable persons to be united in wedlock. Otherwise, bachelors and
spinsters would also be guilty of violating the law. The number of men and
women consecrated to God by vows of chastity forms but an imperceptible
fraction of the human family, their proportion in the United States, for
instance, being only one individual to about every four thousand.
Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that the population increases
most in those countries in which the Catholic clergy exercise the
strongest influence; for there married people are impressed with the idea
that marriage was instituted not for the gratification of the flesh, but
for the procreation and Christian education of children.
Chapter XXXI.
MATRIMONY.
Matrimony is not only a natural contract between husband and wife, but it
has been elevated for Christians, by Jesus Christ, to the dignity of a
Sacrament: “Husbands,” says the Apostle, “love your wives, as Christ also
loved the Church and delivered Himself up for it, ... so also ought men to
love their wives as their own bodies.... For this cause shall a man leave
his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife and they shall be one
flesh. This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the
Church.”(536)
In these words the Apostle declares that the union of Christ with His
Church is the type or model of the bond subsisting between man and wife.
Now the union between Christ and His Church is supernatural and sealed by
Divine grace. Hence, also, is the fellowship of a Christian husband and
wife cemented by the grace of God. The wedded couple are bound to love one
another during their whole lives, as Christ has loved His Church, and to
discharge the virtues proper to the married state. In order to fulfil
these duties special graces of our Savior are required.
The Fathers, Councils and Liturgies of the Western and the Oriental
Churches, including the Coptic, Jacobite, Syriac, Nestorian and other
schismatic bodies, which for upwards of fourteen centuries have been
separated from the Catholic communion, all agree in recognizing Christian
marriage as a Sacrament.
Hence the Council of Trent, speaking of Matrimony, says: “Christ Himself,
the Institutor and Perfector of the venerable sacraments, merited for us
by His passion the grace which might perfect that natural love, and
confirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the married; as the Apostle
Paul intimates, saying: ‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved
the Church, and delivered Himself for it;’ adding shortly after: ‘This is
a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.’ (Ephes. v.)
Whereas, therefore matrimony, in the evangelical law, excels in grace,
through Christ, the ancient marriages; with reason have our holy Fathers
and Councils and the tradition of the universal Church always taught that
it is to be numbered among the sacraments of the new law.”(537)
The Gospel forbids a man to have more than one wife, and a wife to have
more than one husband. “Have you not read,” says our Savior, “that He who
made man in the beginning made them male and female? And He said, for this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto _his
wife, and they two shall be in one flesh_. Wherefore they are no more two,
but one flesh.”(538) Our Lord recalls marriage to its primitive
institution as it was ordained by Almighty God. (Gen. ii.) Now, marriage
in its primitive ordinance was the union of one man with one woman, for
Jehovah created but one helpmate to Adam. He would have created more, if
His design had been to establish polygamy. The Scripture says that “man
shall adhere to his _wife_,”—not _his wives_. It does not declare that
they shall be three or more, but that “they shall be two in one flesh.”
Hence Mormonism, unhappily so prevalent in the United States, is at
variance with the plain teachings of the Gospel, and is consequently
condemned by the Catholic Church. Polygamy, wherever it exists, cannot
fail to be a perpetual source of family discord and feuds. It fosters
deadly jealousy and hate among the wives of the same household; it
deranges the laws of succession and primogeniture and breeds rivalry among
the children, each endeavoring to supplant the other in the affections and
the inheritance of their common father.
Marriage is the most inviolable and irrevocable of all contracts that were
ever formed. Every human compact may be lawfully dissolved but this.
Nations may be justified in abrogating treaties with each other; merchants
may dissolve partnerships; brothers will eventually leave the paternal
roof, and, like Jacob and Esau, separate from one another. Friends, like
Abraham and Lot, may be obliged to part company. But by the law of God the
bond uniting husband and wife can be dissolved only by death. No earthly
sword can sever the nuptial knot which the Lord has tied; for, “what God
hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
It is worthy of remark that three of the Evangelists, as well as the
Apostle of the Gentiles, proclaim the indissolubility of marriage and
forbid a wedded person to engage in second wedlock during the life of his
spouse. There is, indeed, scarcely a moral precept more strongly enforced
in the Gospel than the indissoluble character of marriage validly
contracted.
“The Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting Him and saying: Is it lawful for a
man to put away his wife for every cause? Who, answering, said to them:
Have ye not read that He who made man from the beginning made them male
and female? And He said: For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath
joined together let no man put asunder. They say to Him: Why, then, did
Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away? He said to them:
Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to
put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to
you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her
that is put away committeth adultery.”(539) Our Savior here emphatically
declares that the nuptial bond is ratified by God Himself, and hence that
no man, nor any legislation framed by men, can validly dissolve the
contract.
To the Pharisees interposing this objection, if marriage is not to be
dissolved, why then did Moses command to give a divorce, our Lord replies
that Moses did not command, but simply _permitted_ the separation, and
that in tolerating this indulgence the great lawgiver had regard to the
violent passion of the Jewish people, who would fall into a greater excess
if their desire to be divorced and to form a new alliance were refused.
But our Savior reminded them that in the primitive times no such license
was granted.
He then plainly affirms that such a privilege would not be conceded in the
New Dispensation, for He adds: “I say to you: whosoever shall put away his
wife and shall marry another committeth adultery.” Protestant commentators
erroneously assert that the text justifies an injured husband in
separating from his adulterous wife and in marrying again. But the
Catholic Church explains the Gospel in the sense that, while the offended
consort may obtain a divorce from bed and board from his unfaithful wife,
he is not allowed a divorce _a vinculo matrimonii_, so as to have the
privilege of marrying another.
This interpretation is confirmed by the concurrent testimony of the
Evangelists Mark and Luke and by St. Paul, all of whom prohibit divorce _a
vinculo_ without any qualification whatever.
In St. Mark we read: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another
committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her
husband and be married to another she committeth adultery.”(540)
The same unqualified declaration is made by St. Luke: “Every one that
putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he
that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth
adultery.”(541) Both of these Evangelists forbid either husband or wife to
enter into second wedlock, how aggravating soever may be the cause of
their separation. And surely, if the case of adultery authorized the
aggrieved husband to marry another wife, those inspired penmen would not
have failed to mention that qualifying circumstance.
Passing from the Gospels to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, we
find there also an absolute prohibition of divorce. The Apostle is writing
to a city newly converted to the Christian religion. Among other topics he
inculcates the doctrine of the Church respecting Matrimony. We must
suppose that as an inspired writer and a faithful minister of the Word he
discharges his duty conscientiously, without suppressing or extenuating
one iota of the law. He addresses the Corinthians as follows: “To them
that are married not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not
from her husband. And if she depart that she remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his
wife.”(542) Here we find the Apostle, in his Master’s name, commanding the
separated couple to remain unmarried, without any reference to the case of
adultery. If so important an exception existed, St. Paul would not have
omitted to mention it; otherwise he would have rendered the Gospel yoke
more grievous than its Founder intended.
We must, therefore, admit that, according to the religion of Jesus Christ,
conjugal infidelity does not warrant either party to marry again, or we
are forced to the conclusion that the vast number of Christians whose
knowledge of Christianity was derived solely from the teachings of Saints
Mark, Luke and Paul were imperfectly instructed in their faith.
Nor can we suppose that St. Matthew gave to the married Christians of
Palestine a privilege which St. Paul withheld from the Corinthians; for
then the early Christian Church might have witnessed the disedifying
spectacle of aggrieved husbands seeking in Judea for a divorce from their
adulterous wives which they could not obtain in Corinth, just as
discontented spouses, in our times, sue in a neighboring State for a legal
separation which is denied them in their own. Christ is not divided, nor
do the Apostles contradict one another.
The Catholic Church, following the light of the Gospel, forbids a divorced
man to enter into second espousals during the life of his former partner.
This is the inflexible law she first proclaimed in the face of Pagan
Emperors and people and which she has ever upheld, in spite of the
passions and voluptuousness of her own rebellious children.
Henry VIII., once an obedient son and defender of the Church, conceived in
an evil hour, a criminal attachment for Anne Boleyn, a lady of the queen’s
household, whom he desired to marry after being divorced from his lawful
consort, Catherine of Arragon. But Pope Clement VII., whose sanction he
solicited, sternly refused to ratify the separation, though the Pontiff
could have easily forseen that his determined action would involve the
Church in persecution, and a whole nation in the unhappy schism of its
ruler. Had the Pope acquiesced in the repudiation of Catherine, and in the
marriage of Anne Boleyn, England would, indeed, have been spared to the
Church, but the Church herself would have surrendered her peerless title
of Mistress of Truth.
When Napoleon I. repudiated his devoted wife, Josephine, and married Marie
Louise, of Austria, so well assured was he of the fruitlessness of his
attempt to obtain from the Holy See the sanction of his divorce and
subsequent marriage that he did not even consult the Holy Father on the
subject.
A few years previously Napoleon appealed to Pius VII. to annul the
marriage which his brother Jerome had contracted with Miss Patterson of
Baltimore. The Pope sent the following reply to the Emperor: “Your majesty
will understand that upon the information thus far received by us it is
not in our power to pronounce a sentence of nullity. We cannot utter a
judgment in opposition to the rules of the Church, and we could not,
without laying aside those rules, decree the invalidity of a union which,
according to the Word of God, no human power can sunder.”
Christian wives and mothers, what gratitude you owe to the Catholic Church
for the honorable position you now hold in society! If you are no longer
regarded as the slave, but the equal of your husband; if you are no longer
the toy of his caprice and liable to be discarded at any moment, like the
women of Turkey and the Mormon wives of Utah; but if you are recognized as
the mistress and queen of your household, you owe your emancipation to the
Church. You are especially indebted for your liberty to the Popes who rose
up in all the majesty of their spiritual power to vindicate the rights of
injured wives against the lustful tyranny of their husbands.
How opposite is the conduct of the fathers of the so-called Reformation,
who, with the cry of religious reform on their lips, deformed religion and
society by sanctioning divorce.
Henry VIII. was divorced from his wife, Catherine, by Cranmer, the first
Reformed Primate of England.
Luther and his colleagues, Melanchthon and Bucer, permitted Philip,
Landgrave of Hesse, to have two wives at the same time.(543) Karlstadt,
another German Reformer, justified polygamy.(544)
Modern Prussia is now reaping the bitter fruits of the seeds that were
then sown within its borders. Seventy-five per cent. of the marriages now
contracted outside of the Catholic Church in Berlin are performed without
any religious ceremony whatever. A union not bound by the strong ties of
religion is easily dissolved.
This subject excites a painful interest in our own country, in consequence
of the facility with which divorce from the marriage bond is obtained in
many of our States. We have here another exemplification of the dangerous
consequences attending a private interpretation of the sacred text. When
Luther and Calvin proclaimed to the world that “it was not wise to
prohibit the divorced adulterer from marrying again,”(545) they little
dreamed of the fruitful progeny which was destined before long to spring
from this isolated monster of their creation. There are already about
thirty causes which allow the conjugal tie to be broken, some of which are
of so trifling a nature as to provoke merriment were it not for the
gravity of the subject, which is well calculated to excite alarm for the
moral and social welfare of our country.
Persons are divorced by the courts not only for infidelity, but also
without even the shadow of Scripture authority—for alleged cruelty,
intemperance, desertion, prolonged absence, mental incapacity, sentence to
the penitentiary, incompatibility of temper and _such other causes as the
court, in its discretion, may deem sufficient_.
For the year ending June, 1874, seventeen hundred and forty-two
applications for divorce were presented in the State of Ohio. If such is
Ohio’s record, what must be the matrimonial condition of Indiana, which is
called the paradise of discontented spouses.
In Connecticut there were, in 1875, four thousand three hundred and
eighty-five marriages, and four hundred and sixty-six divorces from the
marriage bond. The number of divorces obtained in the same State during
the last fifteen years has reached five thousand three hundred and
ninety-one. This is the record of a State whose public school system is
considered the most thorough and perfect in the country. The statistics
given of Ohio and Connecticut will enable us to form some idea of the
fearful catalogue of divorces annually obtained in the United States.
There are some who regard the Catholic Church as too severe in proclaiming
the absolute indissolubility of marriage. But it should be borne in mind
that it is not the Church, but the Divine Founder of the Christian
religion, that has given us the law. She merely enforces its observance.
The law, how rigorous soever, is mercy itself, when compared with the
cruel consequences which follow from the easy concession of divorce.
The facility with which marriage is annulled is most injurious to the
morals of individuals, of the family and of society. It leads to
ill-assorted and hasty marriages, because persons are less circumspect in
making a compact which may be afterwards dissolved almost at will. It
stimulates a discontented and unprincipled husband or wife to lawlessness,
quarrels and even adultery, well knowing that the very crime will afford a
pretext and legal grounds for a separation. It engenders between husband
and wife fierce litigations about the custody of their offspring. It
deprives the children of the protecting arm of a father, or of the gentle
care of a mother, and too frequently consigns them to the cold charity of
the world; for the married couple who are wanting in conjugal love for one
another are too often destitute also of parental affection. In a word, it
brings into the household a blight and desolation which neither wealth nor
luxury can repair.
There is but one remedy to this social distemper, and that is an absolute
prohibition of divorce _a vinculo_, in accordance with the inflexible rule
of the Gospel and of the ancient Church. In Catholic countries divorces
are exceedingly rare, and are obtained only by such as have thrown off the
yoke of the Church. If the sacred laws of Matrimony are still happily
observed by so large a portion of the Protestant community, the purity of
morals is in no small measure due to the presence among them of the
Catholic religion, which exercises a beneficial influence even over those
who are outside the pale of her communion, like the sun, whose benignant
light and heat are felt even in those secluded spots which his rays can
but obliquely and dimly penetrate.
INDEX.
Abraham, dear to Jehovah, 37.
Abstinence on Friday explained, 2.
Adoration and reverence compared, 202.
A’Kempis compared with Bunyan, 20.
A’Kempis’ “Following of Christ” recommended, 20;
Protestant edition mutilated, 20.
Albertus Magnus on Faith quoted, 15.
American Independence and Catholic Church, 240.
Angel Raphael and young Tobias, 155.
Angels labor for man’s salvation, 160.
Anglican Church began with Henry VIII., 44.
Anne, Queen, praised by Thomas Arundel, 92.
Apostolate of Sisterhoods—Consecrated Virgins, 23.
Appeals, a proof of Papal Supremacy, 109.
Apostles commissioned to teach, 29;
transmit infallibility to successors, 65;
not commanded to write, 80;
ordered to teach and to preach, 81;
received power to forgive sins, 342.
Apostolic teaching was infallible, 65;
weapons, 26;
missionaries sent by Popes, 115.
Apostolicity defined, 38;
a note of the true Church, 39;
claims of tested, 40, et seq.
Articles of Faith—consequences of denial of, 10.
Arian heresy and the Church, 53, et seq.
Arianism and Protestantism paralleled, 55, et seq.
Astolphus, King, threatens Rome, 140.
Attila and Pope Leo the Great, 139.
Attributes of Christ—objects of Church’s teaching, 16.
Attributes or Notes of the Church imply infallibility, 65.
Authority of the Church derived from God, 65;
absence of, causes dissensions, 97;
authorized versus private interpretation, 81;
of the Book of Machabees, 214.
Barbarians attack Rome, 139.
Bancroft’s History cited, 233.
Baptism essential for remission of original sin, 268;
necessary for all, 268;
must not be delayed, 273;
effects, 21;
remits all sin, 275;
makes us heirs of heaven, 276.
Baptism of desire or martyrdom substitutes for Baptism, 272.
Baptizing, modes of, 277.
Bartholomew, Archbishop of Braga, directs crusade, 27.
Becanus teaches value of religious liberty, 230.
Bede, Venerable, translated Bible into Saxon, 91.
Bible, venerated by the Jews, 77;
requires the living authority of the Church, 77;
interpreted by the Sanhedrim, 77;
expounded by the priests, 78;
a babel among reformers, 86;
itself unchanging, it causes ever-changing tenets, 87;
guardian and depository of, is the Catholic Church, 90;
translated into Saxon by Venerable Bede, 91;
in English, Sir Thomas More on, 92;
editions prior to Luther, 92;
early editions in English, 92;
use of, recommended by Pope Pius VI, 93;
in seminary, 93, et seq.;
basis of Papal Infallibility, 125, et seq.;
infallible, not sufficient, 133, et seq.;
not ordered to be multiplied, 78.
Biblical interpretation on
Deuteronomy, quoted, 78;
associations never converted nation, 80;
authorization claimed by Mormons, 88;
restrictions as to garbled versions, 92.
Bishops, priests and deacons among Protestants, 10;
first bishop of Rome, was St. Peter, 106;
of Rome, heirs to St. Peter’s supremacy, 108;
convoked councils, 114;
presided at councils, 114.
Bishop Short on Anglicanism, 44.
Bond of Union—Catholic, compared to that of secret orders, 36.
Bond—Nuptial, ratified by God, 411.
Books of Piety adapted to wants, 19;
of Machabees, same authority as other Scriptures, 214.
Bride or Spouse of Christ, applied to the Church, 8.
Brownson, Dr., appreciates stand of Church on civil liberty, 231.
Bunyan compared with A’Kempis, 20.
Butler’s “Lives of the Saints” and Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs” compared, 20.
Byron, Lord, lauds St. Peter’s Church in Rome, 381.
Caranza Bartholomew arrested by the Inquisition, 257.
Carroll, Charles, in American Independence, 240.
Carroll, Rev. John, in American Independence, 240.
Catacombs abound in sacred images, 196;
earliest churches, 137.
Catechism, Episcopal, treats of Absolution, 354, et seq.
Catholic bond of union and that of the secret orders compared, 36;
barons and Archbishop Langton, 233;
idea of infallibility reasonable and satisfactory, 135;
priest obliged to read Scriptures, 94;
priest preaches Christ and Him crucified, 18;
literature favored by Episcopal clergyman, 20;
missionaries wherever English is spoken, 35;
churches burned by Protestants, 251.
Catholics number three hundred millions, 10;
exhorted to study the Word of God in their homes, 19;
not all holy, 23;
sometimes are sources of scandal, 23;
and free will, 23;
consciences not forced, 23;
Washington addresses, 241;
persecuted by Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, 250,
by the Puritans, 251.
Catholicity—prominent attribute of the Church, 29;
evidences of, in Apostles’ Creed, 29;
defined, 29;
foreshadowed by the Psalmist, 29;
foreseen by Prophet Malachy, 29;
not found in the separate sects, 32.
Ceremonial of the Mass, 328, et seq.
Ceremonies—religious, defined, 320;
described, 327;
prescribed by God, 332;
necessary, 322.
Christ’s life portrayed, 17, et seq.;
teachings versus Book of Homilies, 67, et seq;
words and private interpretation, 79;
divinity not proved solely by Scripture, 79, et seq.;
honored virgins in a special manner, 400;
instituted matrimony, 409;
contained entire under each form, 300.
Christian—a title of nobility, 17;
obligations it imposes, 17;
defined as another Christ, 17;
communions claim perpetuity, 51;
unity endorsed, 119.
Church teaches one God, 1;
unity of, 5;
government requires unity, 6;
needs visible head, 6;
a kingdom, 6;
Christ founded only one, 6;
Christ’s spiritual kingdom, 7;
government compared to that of state, 7;
of Christ, a sheepfold, 7;
likened to the sheepfold, 7;
one chief pastor, one chief shepherd, 7;
likened to human body, 7;
compared to a vine, 8;
bride or spouse of Christ, 8;
unity as taught by common sense, 8;
harmony, 8;
needs common doctrine, 9;
uniform government, 9;
of England ruled by sovereign, 9;
alone possesses unity, 10;
temple of faith, 10;
her creed identical with past ages, 11;
faith and government similar, 11;
does not meddle with political tenets, 10;
teaches one faith everywhere, 10;
explains and declares truths implicitly believed, 15;
authority to decide disputes, 15;
holiness an attribute of, 16;
a society, 16;
established for man’s sanctification, 16;
only one founded by Christ, 6;
inculcates valuable lessons of divine perfection, 16;
invites to a holy life, 17;
enforces the inculcation of divine precepts, 18;
affords motives and means of sanctification, 20;
encourages communion with God, 20;
a watchful mother—supplies us at each step, 21;
fruitful in saints, 22;
still produces saints and apostles, 22;
has her martyrs in our day, 22;
still numbers confessors in her ranks, 22;
saves sinners, 24;
refuge of the poor, 24;
her inheritance—the afflicted, 25;
possesses means of reform, 27;
cosmopolitan, 30;
Catholic in name and reality, 34;
gaining numerically at present, 35;
apostolical, 38;
built upon foundation of the Apostles, 38;
derives her origin from the Apostles, 48;
indestructible, 51;
and the barbarous hordes, 53;
and Mohammedanism, 53;
and the Arian heresy, 53, et seq.;
and the Irish people, 54;
and state, 57;
her relation to other religious bodies, 58;
does not need temporal power for preservation, 58;
and modern progress, 59;
benefited by scientific appliances and inventions, 59;
fosters intellectual progress, 60;
encourages scientific investigation, 60;
science indebted to her—has no fear from human liberty, 61;
outlasts all other governments, 61, et seq.;
authority comes from God, 65;
her teaching directed by the Holy Ghost, 65;
her infallibility proved from Scripture, 66, et seq.;
Christ’s promise in favor of the, 70, 73;
her doctrines incapable of reform, 73;
her doctrinal decrees irrevocable, 76;
divinely appointed teacher of revelation, 76, 77;
guardian and depository of the Bible, 90;
requires a head, 97;
unity maintained by supreme head, 77;
only one founded by Christ, 100;
built on Peter, 100;
revealed Word of God her Magna Charta, 124;
exhorts all to honor Mary, 187;
her practice proves existence of purgatory, 214, et seq.;
Fathers of the—unanimous in praying for the dead, 217;
has always promoted civil liberty, 226;
defends civil rights and liberties, 231;
conflict with state, 231;
and American Independence, 240;
desires no governmental aid, 246;
does not sanction persecution or bloodshed, 249;
disavows the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, 258;
her practice and the procedure of the Supreme Court compared, 130;
organization—American system of, 246;
her doctrine on unbaptized infants, 273;
perpetuates Christ’s work, 341;
grants indulgences, 376.
Churches—earliest Christian were Catacombs, 137;
fallible—consequences, 70.
Clement of Alexandria bears witness to spread of Christianity, 31.
Clerical celibacy—necessity, 399;
propriety and advantages of, 402.
Clement VII, Pope, refused to sanction divorce of Henry VIII, 414.
Communion with God encouraged by Church, 20.
Communion under both forms given by Christ, 300.
Communion under form of bread, 303, et seq.
Communion of Saints—a comforting thought, 160.
Confession of sins obligatory, 345;
various views, 366;
sacramental, of divine institution, 346, et seq.
Confirmation—graces of, 21;
defined, 280;
signs that follow, 282;
described by St. Augustine, 282;
abolished by the Protestants, 285.
Constantine gives peace to the Church, 137.
Continence—voluntary, superior to matrimony, 399.
Cross—held in reverence, 3;
instrument of the crucifixion, 3;
adorns our sanctuaries, 3;
surmounts our Churches, 3;
emblem of salvation, 3.
Cross—sign of the, ancient and pious practice, 3;
how made, 3;
taught by tradition, 3;
profession of faith, 3;
salutary act of religion, 3.
D’Aubigne on Protestant Reformation, 264—comments on divorce of Henry
VIII.
David and Nathan, 376.
Deacons, priests and bishops in Protestant sects, 10.
Death does not dissever love among friends, 161.
Decrees in doctrinal matters irrevocable, 77.
De Maistre quoted on name Protestant, 55.
Deuteronomy quoted on Biblical interpretation, 78.
Devotion—true, is interior, 320;
manuals of, criticised, 366.
Divine perfections sources of valuable lessons, 16.
Divine power manifested on Easter Sunday, 3.
Divinity of Christ not proved solely by Scripture, 79, et seq.
Divorce never allowed—separation sometimes, 412.
Divorce prohibited by St. Paul, 413.
Divorced man may not marry during wife’s lifetime, 414.
Divorce—legal, causes, 416;
cruel consequences of, 417.
Doctrinal decrees of the Church are irrevocable, 76.
Doctrines of the Church cannot be reformed, 73;
the same everywhere, 10;
new definitions do not impair unity of faith, 11, et seq.
Dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated, 171.
Döllinger, Dr., anathematized, 10.
Duties to God—first lessons taught us, 18.
Eastern churches allow a married clergy, 402.
Ecumenical councils vindicate papal supremacy, 113;
defined, 114.
Elias dear to Jehovah, 37.
Elizabeth, Queen, and Henry VIII. persecuted Catholics, 250.
Elizabethan and Marian persecutions compared, 262, et seq.
Episcopal clergyman favors Catholic books, 20.
Evangelical Alliance failed—had no common platform, 119.
Exodus, Book of, and sacred images, 200.
Extreme Unction defined, 384;
effects, 21;
supported by ancient authority, 386.
Faith, hope and charity necessary for Catholics, 37.
Faith, temple of, the Church, 10;
Albertus Magnus quoted, 15.
Faith, unity of, required, 5;
progress in, does not change truth, 15.
Fathers of the Church on Confirmation, 283;
echo the words of St. Paul on the Eucharist, 297;
they are unanimous on praying for the dead, 217.
Fenelon favors liberty of conscience, 228.
Founders of various religious denominations, 46.
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and the Lives of the Saints contrasted, 20.
Free-will—Catholics enjoy, 23.
Garbled versions of the Bible restricted, 92.
Gibbon quoted on triumphs of the Church, 53.
God—infinite in knowledge, power and goodness, 1;
governs by His Providence, 1;
created all things by His Omnipotence, 1;
three persons in One, 1;
persons equal, 1.
God commands the making of images, 301.
God requires that His ministers be respected, 388.
God works through his representatives, 341, et seq.
God’s judgment impressed on the child mind, 19.
Gospel ministers are ordained and commissioned, 39.
Government—state and church compared, 7.
Governmental aid not desired for Church, 246.
Grace defined, 265;
necessary for sanctification, 265.
Graces imparted by Holy Orders and Matrimony, 21.
Graces needed by married couple, special, 408.
Great Spirit worshiped by American Indians, 309.
Gregory II, Pope, writes about images, 140.
Habeas Corpus, 223.
Hail Mary explained, 174, et seq.
Hamlet, Shakespeare’s, advised by the dead, 221.
Hebrews believed in intercessory prayer, 159.
Henry VIII. excommunicated, 10;
divorce refused, 44.
Henry VIII and Elizabeth persecuted Catholics, 250.
Heresy and schism opposed to unity, 5;
likened to murder and idolatry, 5;
heresy defined, 5;
and the Church, 54;
a crime against church and state, 255.
Holy Eucharist—St. Paul’s testimony on, 295.
Holiness a mark of the Church, 16.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, praises Mary, 179.
Holy Ghost sent by Christ, 3;
on Pentecost, 3;
guides the Church’s teaching, 65.
Holy Scripture—depository of God’s Word, 77.
Holy Orders and Matrimony—graces of, 21.
Image—Making commanded by God, 201.
Images, Sacred—advantages of, 204, et seq.;
and the Reformers, 198;
and the Council of Trent, 198, et seq.;
and the Book of Exodus, 200;
veneration of, 196;
Catacombs abound in, 196.
Immaculate Conception implied in Scripture, 171;
in our earliest history, 173;
dogma formulated in 1854, 171.
Indestructibility of the Church due to finger of God, 57.
Infallible Bible not sufficient 133, et seq.
Infallibility a special guidance of the Holy Ghost, 65;
implied in the attributes of the Church, 65;
of Apostolic teaching, 65;
proved from Scripture, 66, et seq.;
transmitted by Apostles to successors, 65;
blessings attendant on—for the faithful, 72;
Catholic idea of, reasonable and satisfactory, 135;
misapprehended, 121;
what it does not mean, 121, et seq.;
what it is, 123;
founded on Bible, 125, et seq.;
not a new doctrine, 130.
Incense, its use, 334.
Indians, American—worshiped the Great Spirit, 309.
Indulgence defined, 375;
granted by the Church, 376;
elements required, 377;
classes, 378;
does not exempt from doing penance, 379;
abused, 380.
Infant Baptism proved from early Doctors, 270;
and the Council of Carthage, 270;
not to be delayed, 273.
Inquisition, Spanish—cruelties, 248;
its true character, 254;
explained, 254;
excesses disavowed by the Church, 258.
Inventions and scientific appliances beneficial to Church, 59.
Invocation of the Saints defined, 152.
Ireland and the Ancient Church, 54.
Irish clergy persecuted by Cromwell, 250.
Jeremiah, after death, prays for Jewish people, 159.
Jesus Christ, second person of Blessed Trinity, 1;
perfect God and perfect man, 1;
assumes human nature, 1;
born on Christmas Day, 1;
led a life of obscurity at Nazareth, 1;
commences public career, 1;
associates with his Apostles, 2;
doing good, 2;
preaches new gospel, 2;
crucified on Mount Calvary, 2;
purchases our redemption, 2;
is our Saviour and Redeemer, 2;
example to be imitated, 2;
manifested Divine power on Easter Sunday, 3;
raised Himself to life, 3;
ascended into heaven, 3;
spends forty days on earth, 3;
sends Holy Ghost, 3;
requires unity of faith, 5;
prays for unity, 5;
mission evidenced in unity of Church, 5;
speaks of His Church, not churches, 6;
our model, 17;
wrote no line of Scripture, 80;
established supreme head of the Church, 98, et seq.;
founded but one Church, 100;
the one Mediator, 161;
came on earth to wash away sins, 268;
our Victim in the Mass, 317;
a Physician and Savior, 340.
Jesus’ prayer is always heard, 126;
name implies His mission, 339;
example a means of sanctification, 16;
moral lessons tend to sanctification, 16.
Jews ordered by Christ to obey constituted teachers, 79;
pray for their dead, 220;
venerate the Bible, 77;
were released from religious persecution by St. Bernard, 228;
appealed to the Sanhedrim for the settlement of disputes, 77;
their priests expounded Bible, 78;
their High Priest and the Roman Pontiff compared, 95.
Job intercedes for his friends, 157.
John, Abbot of Constantinople, appeals to Pope Gregory I, 112.
Judea a hallowed soil, 164.
Jurisdiction of God’s ministers unlimited, 388.
Laity contain many Saints, 23.
Langton, Archbishop, and Catholic barons, 233.
Leibnitz taught that Christ is entire under each species, 302.
Leo the Great, Pope, and Attila, 139.
Leo the Isaurian desires spiritual jurisdiction, 139;
destroys paintings, 140;
wars on images, 197.
Lepanto—victory of 1571, 53.
Liberty, religious, explained, 226;
ever promoted by the Catholic Church, 226;
taught by Becanus, 230;
favored by Fenelon, 228;
and civil rights defended by the Church, 231;
human not feared, 61.
Lights on the altar—meaning, 333.
Literature, Catholic, favored by Episcopal clergyman, 20.
Llorente, historian of Spanish Inquisition, 253;
who he was, 253, et seq.
Longfellow refers to Mary’s influence and intercession, 189.
Loyalty to Christ implies veneration of His representative, 106.
Luther advocated Communion under one form, 301;
accused John Tetzel, 382.
Lutheranism founded by Luther, 44;
rise and progress of, 54.
Magna Charta—great bulwark of liberty, 233.
Magna Charta, the Church’s—the revealed Word of God, 124.
Marriage law violated by Henry VIII, 10;
indissoluble, 410;
contract—most inviolable and irrevocable, 410;
forbidden to priests after ordination, 400.
Married couple need special graces, 408.
Mary singularly honored by Jesus Christ, 165;
Mother of God—meaning, 166;
not mother of divinity—Mother of God, 167;
truly and really Mother of God, 167;
of surpassing dignity and excellence, 168;
always a virgin, 168;
loves men, 190;
exempted from original sin, 267.
Mary’s soul never subject to sin, 171;
her soul needed a redeemer, 171;
prerogatives, 174;
honor redounds to God, 181;
honor founded on Scriptural sanction, 186;
honor encouraged by the Church, 187;
intercession superior to that of the Angels and the Saints, 188;
influence and intercession referred to by Longfellow, 189-193;
invoked by Edgar Allan Poe, 191.
Mary Magdalen experienced the mercy of Jesus, 340.
Maryland—cradle of civil and religious liberty, 233;
land of the Sanctuary, 233;
religious toleration explained, 234, et seq.;
changes effected by Puritans, 237;
tolerations—three, 238, et seq.
Mass is identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, 311;
instituted, 312;
a perpetual oblation, 313, et seq.;
of Apostolic origin, 314;
its ceremonial, 328, et seq.;
why said in Latin, 329, et seq.
Matrimony defined, 408;
instituted by Christ, 409;
imparts ample and suitable graces, 21.
Missionaries, Catholic, wherever English is spoken, 35;
Apostolic—sent by Popes, 115.
Mohammedanism, rise and conquests, 53;
and the Church, 53.
Monica, St., requests prayers for the repose of her soul, 216.
Morality of Catholic and Protestant countries contrasted, 369;
lax among Catholics—accusation answered, 364;
Christ’s lessons tend to sanctification, 16;
inculcated by the Church, 18;
moral law standard of perfection, 18.
More, Sir Thomas, quoted on Bible in English, 92.
Mormons claim Biblical authorization for polygamy, 88.
Mormonism at variance with Gospel, 410.
Mysteries, principal, incentive to holiness, 17;
proposed by the Church, 17;
surround us everywhere, 293.
Naaman the Syrian cured, 361.
Napoleon’s demands on Pope Pius VII, 242, et seq.
Nathan and David, 376.
Nuptial bond ratified by God, 411.
Onias, after death, prays for the people of God, 159.
Oracles, rashness of following discordant, 72.
Origen bears witness to the spread of Christianity, 31.
Original sin, all men born in, 267;
Blessed Virgin alone exempted, 267;
universal, 272.
Pagans retained primitive traditions about sacrifices, 309.
Papal Jurisdiction—examples, 109, et seq.
Papal states a convenience for the Holy Father, 145.
Paul, St. on heresy and schism, 5, et seq.;
asks intercession, 158.
Penance—effects of Sacrament, 21.
Pentecost—Christ sends Holy Ghost, 3.
Perpetuity of the Church, 50;
defined, 50;
foretold in the Scriptures, 50.
Persecutions lasted 280 years, 52.
Persecution and bloodshed not sanctioned by the Church, 249.
Persecutions by Queen Mary of England, 261;
compared with those under Elizabeth, 262, et seq.
Pepin, King of the Franks, defeats Lombards, 141.
Peter, St., primacy of, 95;
foundation of the Church, 100;
first Bishop of Rome, 106;
supremacy handed down, 108;
and Washington compared, 108;
oracle of the Apostles, 126, et seq.
Photius appeals to Pope Nicholas I to confirm his election to the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, 112.
Plebescitum, Roman, explained, 146.
Plutarch declares: “No nations without priests and altars,” 309.
Poe, Edgar Allan, invokes Mary, 191.
Pontiff, Supreme, is commander-in-chief of the Church, 117.
Pope is Vicar of Christ, 129;
father and doctor of Christians, chief pastor of the Church, 130;
confirms or rejects decrees of councils, 131;
a prisoner in his own house, 145.
Popes succeed to Peter’s supremacy, 108;
send Apostolic missionaries, 115;
go to confession regularly, 122;
oracles of the early Church, 128, et seq.,
recognized in all ages as infallible teachers, 132.
Prayer for unity, 5;
and Sacraments—means of sanctification, 20;
a duty binding in conscience 20;
of Jesus Christ, always heard 126;
for the dead, consoling, 225.
Priest, Catholic obliged to read word of God, 94;
ambassador of God, 387;
dispenser of God’s graces, 390;
titles, 391;
physician of souls, 396;
must be man of prayer, 398.
Priestly obligations, 395;
stands before God, intercessor for his people, 396;
experience in sacred ministry, 367, et seq.
Primacy of St. Peter, 95;
promised, 98, et seq.;
and supremacy similarly demonstrated, 109.
Progress, Modern, and the Church, 59;
intellectual fostered by the Church, 60;
cannot destroy the Church, 59.
Prophecies of Christ fulfilled by spread of Christianity, 30.
Protestant sects make no claim to Catholicity, 32;
Episcopalians sometimes usurp the title of Catholic, 33;
inconsistency between teaching and practice, 82, et seq.
Protestantism not traceable to Apostolic times, 47;
and Arianism paralleled, 55, et seq.
Protestants differ in belief among themselves, 9;
sects do not possess unity, 9;
combat the perpetual virginity of Mary, 169, et seq.;
their objections answered, 169, et seq.;
burned Catholic churches, 251;
abolished confirmation, 285.
Puritans effected changes in Maryland, 237;
persecuted others for conscience’s sake, 251.
Ranke quoted on Spanish Inquisition, 256.
Raphael Archangel and young Tobias, 155.
Real presence founded on scripture, 288;
proved from the New Testament, 288, et seq.
Reformation of morals effected, 26.
Reformers made a babel of the Bible, 86;
and sacred images, 198;
guilty of violence towards others, 250.
Regeneration, necessary to all, 272.
Religious denominations and their founders, 46.
Repentance—Catholic and Protestant systems contrasted, 362.
Revelation—church divinely appointed teacher of, 76.
Reverence for the Cross, 3;
and adoration compared, 202.
Rites and ceremonies prescribed by God, 322.
Ritual described in Revelation, 324.
Rodriguez, “Christian Perfection” recommended, 20.
Roman Pontiff and Jewish High Priest, compared, 95.
Roman Plebescitum explained, 146.
Rome, St. Peter, first Bishop of, 106.
Rome, St. Peter’s residence in, proved, 107;
testified by eminent writers, 107.
Sacramental confession of divine institution, 346, et seq.
Sacraments and prayers are means of grace, 265;
defined, 265;
constituent elements, 265;
seven, instituted by Christ, 266.
Sacred images—advantages, 204, et seq.;
and the Reformers, 198;
and the council of Trent, 198, et seq.
Sacrifices, defined, 307;
offered by all peoples, 307;
early, 307, et seq.;
various, in Old Law, 317.
St. Alphonsus, a distinguished reformer, 27.
St. Ambrose describes Mary’s life, 194;
confronts the Emperor Theodosius, the Great, 232;
on the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost, 284.
St. Athanasius appeals to Pope Julius I against a Decree of the Eastern
Bishops, 111.
St. Augustine quoted about truth, 12;
on false claims to Catholicity, 33;
on Apostolicity, 49, 56;
describes confirmation, 282;
on Chrism ointment, 285;
on secret confession, 360.
St. Basil of Cæserea has recourse to Pope Damasus, 111.
St. Bartholomew’s Day—massacre, 259;
church not interested in, 259;
facts stated, 259, et seq.
St. Bernard released Jews from religious persecution, 228.
St. Charles Borromeo, the reformer, 27.
St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine, 111.
St. Francis de Sales’ writings recommended, 20.
St. Hilary of Arles and papal supremacy, 111.
St. Ignatius Loyola, conspicuous reformer, 27.
St. Irenæus bears witness to the spread of Christianity, 31.
St. Jerome’s edition of the Scriptures, 91;
edits the vulgate, 91.
St. John Chrysostom appeals to Pope Innocent I, 111.
St. Justin, martyr, witness of Catholicity in second century, 31.
St. Paul invokes intercession of the Ephesians, 158;
testimony on the Holy Eucharist, 295;
granted indulgences, 376;
prohibited divorce, 413.
St. Peter’s primacy, 95;
first bishop of Rome, 106;
residence in Rome proved, 107;
supremacy handed down, 108;
Oracle of the Apostles, 126, et seq.
St. Philip Neri, apostle of modern Rome, 27.
St. Vincent of Lerins on doctrine and practice, 15.
Saints—many among laity, 23.
Sanctity—examples witnessed, 23.
Sanhedrim settled disputes for the Jews, 77;
explained Bible, 77.
Scandals do not invalidate Church’s claims to sanctify, 26.
Schism and heresy oppose unity, 5;
schism defined, 5.
Schismatic Churches have no claims to Catholicity, 32.
Scripture, Holy, depository of, God’s Word, 77;
no line of, written by Christ, 80;
does not contain all truth, 89;
alone, not sufficient guide and rule of faith, 89;
perpetuated by the Church, 91, et seq.;
St. Jerome translates, 91.
Sects—conflicting in North Carolina, 9;
Protestant do not possess unity, 9.
Sign of the Cross—ancient and pious practice, 3;
how made, 3;
Tertullian quoted on, 3;
taught by tradition, 3;
profession of faith, 3;
salutary act of religion, 3.
Signs following confirmation, 17.
Sin includes guilt and punishment, 375;
original—all men born in, 267;
Most Blessed Virgin alone excepted, 267.
Smithfield and Tyburn compared, 264.
Socrates quoted on papal supremacy, 111.
Solomon and Judas as warnings, 19.
Spain—condition of, during the Inquisition, 255.
Spanish Inquisition—cruelties, 248;
Llorente, historian, 253;
excesses disavowed by the Church, 258.
"Spiritual Combat" recommended, 20.
Supremacy of St. Peter—Popes succeed to, 108;
Socrates quoted on, 111;
and Primacy similarly demonstrated, 109.
Supreme Court procedure and Church practice compared, 130.
Supreme Head of the Church maintains unity, 98;
established by Christ, 98;
is commander-in-chief of the Church, 117.
Teachers—constituted, to be obeyed, 79.
Teaching of Christ versus Book of Homilies, 67, et seq.
Teaching of Apostles infallible, 65.
Teaching of the Church guided by the Holy Ghost, 65.
Temporal power—end and aim, 144;
not necessary to Church’s preservation, 58.
Tennyson’s Sir Belvidere asks prayers for his soul, 225.
Testament, Old—teaches existence of Purgatory, 211, et seq.
Testimony of St. Paul on the Holy Eucharist, 295.
Tertullian bears witness to the spread of Christianity, 31;
treats of the Apostolicity of the Church, 49.
Tetzel, John, accused by Luther, 382.
Theodoret appeals to St. Leo, Pope, 112.
Theodosius the Great confronted by St. Ambrose, 232.
Thomas Arundel praised Queen Anne, 92.
Titles of the Catholic priest, 391.
Tobias, Young, and the Archangel Raphael, 155.
Toleration, Religious, in Maryland, 234, et seq.
Transubstantiation a mystery, 292.
Triumphs of the Church according to Gibbon, 53.
Trent, Council of—great reformatory tribunal, 27;
on sacred images, 198, et seq.;
asserts doctrine of Purgatory, 210.
Truth unchangeable, 12.
Tyburn and Smithfield compared, 264.
Tyndall on debt of science to the Church, 60.
Unity of the Church, 5;
heresy and schism opposed to, 5;
required by Jesus Christ, 5;
of faith required, 5;
Jesus Christ prays for it, 5;
prayer of Christ for, 5;
an evidence of Christ’s mission, 5;
in government it is essential, 6;
not found in Protestant sects, 9;
found in Catholic Church alone, 10;
Catholic, in what it consists, 10;
of government and faith, 11;
safeguard of government, 11;
of faith not impaired by new doctrinal definitions, 11;
of the Church maintained by supreme head, 98;
Christian, endorsed, 119;
implies recognition of pope’s headship, 119.
Unbaptized Infants—Church’s teaching regarding, 273.
Validity of the Pope’s title to the papal states, 141.
Variation in Biblical interpretation, 87.
Vatican Council assembled from all nations, 332;
Ecumenical, 34;
all countries represented, 34;
all systems represented, 34.
Veneration of images, 196.
Vestments—their meaning, 335;
their colors symbolical, 337.
Vicar of Christ is the Pope, 129.
Victim in the Mass is Jesus Christ, 317.
Victor Emmanuel, the modern Achab, 144.
Virgins, Consecrated—Apostolate of Sisterhoods, 23.
Virgins especially honored by Christ, 400.
Virginity, Perpetual—of Mary, combated by Protestants, 169, et seq.
Voltaire bears testimony to the good use of Church temporalities, 138.
Vulgate—edited by St. Jerome, 91.
Warfare on Church—foreign and domestic, 51.
Washington and St. Peter compared, 108.
Washington’s Address to the Catholics, 241.
Wesley, John, founds Methodist Church, 44.
Westminster Abbey has many statues of heroes, 201.
Wordsworth on “Mother’s Love and Maiden Purity,” 168, 180;
tribute to Mary, 175.
FOOTNOTES
1 Dryden, _Hind and Panther_.
2 Matt. xvi. 26.
3 II. Cor. iv. 17.
4 Rom. ix. 5.
5 Athanasian Creed.
6 Matt. xi.
7 Acts iv. 12.
8 Isaiah liii. 5.
9 Luke ix. 23.
10 II. Cor. iv. 10.
11 Gal. vi. 14.
12 De Corona, C. iii.
13 Mark xvi. 15.
14 Luke x. 16.
15 Symb. Constantinop.
16 John xvii. 20, 21.
17 Gal. v. 20, 21.
18 Ephes. iv. 3-6.
19 Matt. xvi. 18.
20 Luke i. 32, 33.
21 Matt. xii. 25.
22 John x. 16.
23 Rom. xii. 4, 5.
24 John xv. 5.
25 Apoc. xxi. 9.
26 I. Cor. xiv. 33.
27 Job xxxviii. 11.
28 Heb. xiii. 8.
29 De Civitate Dei, Lib. 16, Cap. ii., No. 1.
30 I. Pet. ii. 9.
31 Heb. i. 3.
32 Exod. xxv. 40.
33 Lev. xix. 2.
34 Matt. v. 48.
35 Eph. v. 1.
36 Ephes. iv. 11, 13.
37 Deut. vi. 6, 7.
38 Apoc. iii. 7.
39 Matt. xvi. 26.
40 Gal. iii. 27.
41 Eph. v. 25-27.
42 Heb. xi. 37.
43 Coloss. iii. 3.
44 I. Tim. i. 15.
45 Matt. xi. 5.
46 Matt. xiii. 24-37.
47 Ibid. xiii. 47.
48 II. Tim. ii. 20.
49 Dial. contra Lucif.
50 Hom. 12, in Evang.
51 In Ps. viii., ii. 13.
52 Cant. vi. 9.
53 I. Cor. i.
54 I. Cor. v.
55 Luther, Zuinglius, and Knox had been ordained priests. Calvin had
studied for the priesthood, but did not receive Orders.
56 Ps. xii.
57 Mal. i. 11.
58 Matt. xxviii. 19.
59 Mark xvi. 15.
60 Acts i. 8.
61 Rom. x. 18.
62 Rom. i. 18.
63 Adv. Hær., i. 1.
64 Apologet. c. 37.
65 St. Aug. de Ver. Rel., c. 7. n. 12.
66 Does not this fact conclusively demonstrate the truth that the
Catholic Church can subsist under every form of government? And is
it not an eloquent refutation of the oft repeated calumny that a
republic is not a favorable soil for her development?
67 Apoc. v. 9.
68 Malachy i. 11.
69 Ps. lxxxiii.
70 Eph. ii. 20.
71 Gal. i. 8.
72 II. Tim. ii. 2.
73 Heb. v. 4.
74 Rom. x. 15.
75 Acts xiv. 22.
76 Tit. i. 5.
77 Acts xiii. 2, 3.
78 Matt. xvi. 18.
79 Luke xxii. 32.
80 John xxi. 15.
81 Thess. ii. 13.
82 Acts xv. 28.
83 Gal. i. 8.
84 Matt. vi. 17.
85 Acts xiii. 2.
86 Acts xiv. 22.
87 I. Cor. xiv. 34, 35.
88 Acts viii. 17.
89 Matt. xxvi. 26-28.
90 I. Cor. x. 16.
91 John xx. 28.
92 II. Cor. v. 18.
93 James v. 14.
94 Mark x. 11, 12.
95 I. Cor. vii, 10, 11.
96 I. Cor. vii.
97 History of the Church of England, by Thomas. V. Short, Bishop of St.
Asaph’s, p. 44.
98 Book of Homilies.
99 Lib. de Præscrip., c. 32.
100 Psal. contra part Donati.
101 Luke i. 32, 33.
102 Matt. xvi. 18.
103 Matt. xxviii. 20.
104 Except some Oriental sects dating back to the fifth and ninth
centuries.
105 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xxxvii, p. 450.
106 Du Pape, 1, 2, c. 5.
107 Psalm cii. 5.
108 Psalm ii. 1-4.
109 Daniel, iii.
110 Tyndall, Study of Physics.
111 Psalm ci. 27-29.
112 Eph. ii. 19, 20.
113 Matt. xxviii. 20.
114 See Gal. iv. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 13.
115 Matt. xvi. 18.
116 Matt. vii. 24, et seq.
117 John xx. 21.
118 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
119 Mark xvi. 15.
120 Acts i. 8.
121 Matt. x. 14, 15.
122 Matt. xviii. 17.
123 Mark xvi. 16.
124 Luke x. 16.
125 John xiv. 16; xvi. 13.
126 Matt. xxviii. 18-20.
127 Ex. iii. 12; Jer. xv. 20, etc.
128 Eph. iv. 11-14.
129 Heb. xi. 6.
130 Tim. iii. 7.
131 Isaiah xxxv. 8.
132 Ps. cxxxii.
133 Matt. xviii. 3.
134 Pet. ii. 2.
135 Deut. xvii. 8, et seq.
136 Mal. ii. 7.
137 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
138 John v. 39.
139 Except when He directed St. John to write the Apocalypse, i. 11.
140 Matt. xxviii. 19.
141 Mark xvi. 15.
142 Luke x. 16.
143 Mark xvi. 20.
144 I. Tim., ii. 4.
145 Martinet, Religion in Society, Vol. II., c. 10.
146 II. Pet., iii. 16.
147 Ibid., i. 20.
148 Acts, viii. 31.
149 Except, perhaps, Rev. H. W. Beecher. who thinks that God is
glorified by the variety of sects.
150 See John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.
151 III. Kings xiv. 19.
152 Dialog. 3, 14.
153 Deut. xvii.
154 I. Cor. x. 11.
155 Prov. viii. 15.
156 Matt. xvi. 13-19.
157 Rev. i. 18.
158 John xxi. 15-17.
159 Matt. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 14.
160 Acts iii.
161 Acts ii.
162 Acts x.
163 Acts i.
164 Acts xv.
165 Acts xii.
166 Gal. ii. 11.
167 Gal. i. 18.
168 Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, B. II., c. xv.
169 Epist. 113.
170 See Butler’s Lives of the Saints—St. Olave, July 29th.
171 Ps. lii.
172 Gen. xi. 4.
173 Numb. xxiv. 5.
174 Conc. Vat. Const. _Pastor Æternus_, c. 4.
175 Conc. Vat. Const. _Dei Filius_, cap. 4; Coloss. ii. 8.
176 Matt. xvi.
177 Matt. xvi.
178 Ibid.
179 Luke xxii. 31, 32.
180 John xxi. 16, 17.
181 Matt. viii. 20.
182 Acts iv. 34, 35.
183 Sometimes called Stephen II., as Stephen, his predecessor, died
three days after his election, whose name is omitted in some
calendars.
184 III. Kings xxi. 3.
185 II. Kings xii.
186 I dare say you could have found, a few years since, some persons in
the United States who entertained a holy fear lest the Pope should
one morning land upon our shores, and take forcible possession of
our country. A venerable clergyman once informed me that when he
went to pay his respects to President Pierce, who then occupied the
White House, his Excellency remarked to him: “I had a visit from a
nervous gentleman, who asked me whether I was making any
preparations to resist the approach of the Pope. I replied that so
far I had taken no steps, but that no doubt I would be prepared to
meet the enemy when he arrived. The man retired more composed,
though not fully satisfied.”
187 Some of the evils that were predicted to follow from the occupation
of Rome by a foreign power have been too speedily realized. Already
several convents and other ecclesiastical institutions have been
seized and sold, and their inmates sent adrift. A number of colleges
founded and endowed by the piety of foreign Catholics have been
confiscated. Public religious processions through the streets of
Rome have been prohibited. These and other outrages are perpetrated
by a government which solemnly pledged itself to maintain inviolate
the sovereign rights of the Holy Father when it took forcible
possession of his city in 1870. From the events that have already
transpired, we shall not be surprised to see the Pope still more
seriously hampered by a monarch who has unscrupulously violated his
former guarantees.
188 Memoir of Pope Sixtus V., by Baron Hübner, Vol. II., ch. 1.
189 When these lines were written, Pius IX. was the reigning Pontiff. He
died February 7, 1878.
190 Some time ago, my attention was called to a certain excommunication
or “curse,” then widely circulated by the press of North Carolina.
The “curse” is attributed to the Holy Father, and is fulminated
against Victor Emmanuel. In this anathema, _cursing_ and _damning_
are heaped up in wild confusion. When this base forgery appeared, an
article exposing the falsehood of the production was published. We
fear, however, that many who read the slanderous charge did not read
its refutation.
191 Matt. xvi. 18.
192 I. Cor. xiii. 12.
193 Gen. xlviii. 16.
194 Tobias xii. 12.
195 Luke xv. 10.
196 I. Cor. iv. 9.
197 Matt. xxii. 30.
198 Gen. xxviii.
199 Exod. xvii.
200 Baruch i. 13.
201 Job xlii.
202 Ibid.
203 II. Paralip. vii. 15.
204 II. Mac. xv. 14.
205 Revel. v. 8.
206 Zach. i. 12, 13.
207 I. Tim. ii. 5.
208 Council of Trent, Sess. xxv.
209 Prov. xv. 20.
210 Luke vi. 19.
211 Matt. ix. 20.
212 Exod. iv. 12.
213 Jer. i. 5.
214 Luke i. 41.
215 Ibid. i. 15.
216 John v. 35.
217 Acts ii.
218 II Cor. iii. 6.
219 Acts iii. 15.
220 Isaiah iii. 11.
221 Luke i. 26, 27.
222 Matt. i. 25.
223 Matt. i. 25.
224 Book V., ch. xlv.
225 Gen. viii. 7.
226 Kings xv. 35.
227 Ps. cix.
228 Josue xvii. 1.
229 Matt. xii. 46; xiii. 55, 56.
230 Ibid.
231 Matt xxvii.; Mark xv.
232 John xix. 25.
233 Gen. xiii. 8.
234 Bulla Dogmat. Pii Papæ IX.
235 Ibid.
236 Gen. iii. 15.
237 I. Cor. xv. 45.
238 Bibliotheca Max. Patrum, t. 2, p. 3.
239 De sac. ordinat., p. 313.
240 Renaudot. Lit. Orient.
241 Luke i. 26-35.
242 I. Cor. xv. 41.
243 St. Bernard.
244 Judges, v.
245 Judith, xiii.
246 Luke i. 39-45.
247 Luke i. 46-48.
248 Oliver W. Holmes.
249 Luke xi. 27.
250 Esther vi. 11.
251 Ps. cxxxviii. (In Protestant version, Ps. cxxxix.)
252 John xv. 14.
253 John xii. 26.
254 Ps. lxxxvi.
255 Judith xiii.
256 Eccles. xliii. _et seq._
257 Luke i.
258 Ibid.
259 Luke i. 49.
260 Gen. xlviii. 16; Tobias xii. 12; Luke xv. 10; Zach. i. 12, 13.
261 Acts vii. 55.
262 II. Cor. xii. 4.
263 Luke ii. 51.
264 Longfellow’s “Golden Legend.”
265 Isaiah xlix. 15.
266 Heb. ii 11.
267 Luke xv. 7.
268 Luke xxii. 29, 30.
269 I. Cor. vi.
270 Longfellow’s “Golden Legend.”
271 Luke ii. 51.
272 Heb. i. 3.
273 Rom. viii. 29.
274 Sess. xxv.
275 Chap. xx.
276 Apoc. xxi.
277 III. Kings vi.
278 II. Kings vii. 2.
279 At the Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Va., in the
_sanctuary of the chapel_, the portrait of an opulent benefactor
holds a conspicuous place.
280 Exod. xxv. 40.
281 Sess. xxv.
282 II. Mach. xii. 43-46.
283 Matt. xii. 32.
284 I. Cor. iii. 13-15.
285 De Monogam., n. x.
286 Euseb., B. iv., c. 71.
287 Catech., n. 9, 10, p. 328.
288 Apud Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 162 and seq.
289 See Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 176.
290 Ibid., p. 177.
291 Ibid., Vol. II.
292 Confessions, Book ix.
293 Jewish Prayer Book. Edited by Isaac Leeser, published by Slote &
Mooney, Philadelphia.
294 Act. I.
295 See Path of Holiness, Rivington’s, London. Treasury of Devotion,
Ibid. Catechism of Theology, Masten, London.
296 Mark xii. 26, 27.
297 Apoc. xxi. 27.
298 Morte D’Arthur.
299 Eccles. xi. 1.
300 Vie de Fenelon.
301 Becanus, de Virtutibus Theologicis, c. 16, quæst. 4, No. 2.
302 Dr. Brownson, who was then a Protestant.
303 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii. 20th
Edition, 1864.
304 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii.
305 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii. Vide
Bacon’s Laws.
306 Ibid.
307 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii. Vide
Bacon’s Laws.
308 Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1884.
309 Ibid., Chapter iii.
310 Ibid., Chap. v.
311 Ibid., Chap. xi.
312 Ibid. Chap. xi.
313 James Walter Thomas.
314 The original of Washington’s reply is still preserved in the
Archives of the Baltimore Cathedral.
315 Ps. ii.
316 II. Tim. ii. 9.
317 II. Tim. iv. 2.
318 “Ferdinand and Isabella,” Vol. III., p. 202.
319 Blue Laws.
320 For an impartial account of the Inquisition, the reader is referred
to the “Letters on the Spanish Inquisition,” by the Count de
Maistre.
321 “The Ottoman and Spanish Empires,” by Leopold Ranke.
322 Constitutional History; Elizabeth, Chap. III.
323 See Lingard, Vol. VII., pp. 244-5.
324 Macaulay’s Essays, “Review of Nares’ Memoirs of Lord Burleigh.”
325 II. Cor. iii. 5.
326 Phil. ii. 13.
327 John xv. 5.
328 Acts ii. 38.
329 Matt. xxviii. 19.
330 See Wisdom ii. 23.
331 Rom. v. 12.
332 Eph. ii. 3.
333 Job xiv. 4.
334 Ps. l. 7.
335 Gen. iii. 15.
336 Gal. iv. 4, 5.
337 John iii. 5.
338 Acts xvi. 15.
339 Ibid. xvi. 33.
340 I. Cor. i. 16.
341 Lib. II. adr. Hær.
342 In Ep. ad Rom.
343 Epis. ad Fidum.
344 Apoc. xxi. 27.
345 Rom. xi. 33, 34.
346 Ezech. xxxvi. 25, 26.
347 Acts ii. 38.
348 Ibid. xxii. 16.
349 Gal. iii. 26, 27.
350 I. Cor. vi. 11.
351 Tit. iii. 3-7.
352 John v.
353 Acts ii. 41.
354 Acts viii. 14-17.
355 Acts xix. 5, 6.
356 Heb. vi. 1, 2.
357 II. Cor. i. 21.
358 Tract VI. in Ep. Joan.
359 De Resur. car.
360 Epist. lxxiii.
361 Cat. xxi. Mys. iii. De S. Chrism.
362 De Myst. cvii. n. 42.
363 Dial. adv. Lucifer.
364 L. II., contra lit. Petil.
365 Roman Pontifical.
366 II. Cor. x. 5.
367 John vi. 48-56.
368 John vi. 61.
369 Ibid. vi. 67.
370 John iii.
371 Matt. xvi.
372 John vi. 68, 69.
373 Matt. xxvi. 26-28.
374 Luke xxii. 19.
375 I. Cor. x. 16, and xi. 23-29.
376 See “Faith of Catholics.” Vol. II.
377 John vi. 51, and seq.
378 Rom. vi. 9.
379 I. Cor. xi. 27.
380 Aug. De consec. dist.
381 De formula Missæ.
382 Systema Theol., p. 250.
383 Acts ii. 42.
384 Ibid. xx. 7.
385 Alzog’s Hist., Vol. I., p. 721.
386 Denziger, Rit. Orientales.
387 While Protestants consider the cup as an indispensable part of the
communion service, they do not seem, in many instances, to be very
particular as to what the cup will contain. And the New York
_Independent_, of September 21, 1876, relates the following
incident: “A late English traveler found a Baptist mission church,
in far-off Burmah, using for the communion service Bass’s pale ale
instead of wine. The opening of the frothing bottle on the communion
table seemed not quite decorous to the visitor, who presented the
pastor with a half-dozen bottles of claret for sacramental use.”
388 Gen. iv.
389 Gen. viii.
390 Ibid. xv.
391 Job. i.
392 Numb. xxviii.
393 II. Mac. xii. 43-46.
394 Heb. x. 4, 7.
395 Isaiah i. 11-13.
396 Mal. i. 10, 11.
397 I. Cor. xi. 23-26.
398 Heb. xiii. 10.
399 Ibid. vii. 12.
400 Ps. cix. 4; Heb. v. 6.
401 Gen. xiv. 18.
402 Heb. ix. 25.
403 Ibid. x. 11, 12.
404 I. John ii. 1, 2.
405 Heb. ix. 13, 14.
406 Heb. iv. 16.
407 John iv. 23, 24.
408 Dan. iii. 62, 63. Though this passage is omitted in the Protestant
Bible, it is retained in the Book of Common Prayer.
409 Psalm. xviii. 1.
410 Rom. xii. 1.
411 Matt. xxvi.
412 Ibid. xxi.
413 Ibid. xxvi.
414 Mark vii.
415 John xx.
416 Acts viii.
417 James v.
418 Apocalypse, passim.
419 II. Cor. iii. 9.
420 Isaiah xxix. 13.
421 Ibid. i. 72.
422 Ps. cl.
423 Joel ii. 13.
424 Ibid. ii. 15-17.
425 I. Cor. xiii.
426 Phil. ii. 10.
427 I. Tim. iv. 4.
428 Exod. xxv. 31, and seq.
429 Ps. cxl.
430 Exod. xxx. 7.
431 Luke i. 9, 10.
432 John xii. 6.
433 Exod. xxviii. 4.
434 Apoc. vii. 9, 10.
435 Matt. i. 21.
436 Matt. ix. 2.
437 John v. 14.
438 II. Cor. v. 18-20.
439 Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
440 Matt. xviii. 18.
441 John xx. 21-23.
442 Isaiah i. 18.
443 Acts xix. 18.
444 I. John i. 9.
445 In Reg. Brev., quæst, ccxxix., T. II., p. 492.
446 Ibid., cclxxxviii., p. 516.
447 See Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 74 and seq.
448 Apud Wiseman’s Doctrines of the Church.
449 Hom. xx.
450 Sermo cccxcii.
451 Tom. vii. Comm. in Matt.
452 Lib. iii., De Sacerdotio.
453 Ibid., Hom. xx.
454 Comment in Eccles.
455 Comm. in Matt.
456 Lib. de Capt. Babyl. cap de Pœnit.
457 See “A Catechism on the Church.” By the Rev. C. S. Grueber,
Hambridge, Diocese of Bath and Wells. London: Palmer, 1870.
458 The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina.
459 Ps. cxxxii.
460 The Ordering of Priests.
461 Mark ii. 7.
462 Matt. ix. 8.
463 John xx.
464 IV. Kings v.
465 Systema Theol.
466 Remarques sur l’Olympe.
467 Emile.
468 Heb. v. 2.
469 Luke xv. 32.
470 Num. xii.
471 II. Kings xii.
472 Matt. xvi. 19.
473 Ibid., xviii. 18.
474 I. Cor. v. 5.
475 II. Cor. ii. 6-10.
476 Articuli pro Clero, A.D. 1584. Sparrow, 194. I admit, indeed, that
Protestant canons have but a fleeting and ephemeral authority even
among themselves, and that the canons must yield to the spirit of
the times, not the times to the canons. I dare say that even few
Protestant theologians are familiar with the canons to which I have
referred. Some people have a convenient faculty of forgetting
unpleasant traditions.
477 Vol. I. p. 214.
478 Ibid.
479 Byron.
480 Daniel iv. 24.
481 Acts x. 31.
482 Sess. xxv. Dec. de Indulgentia.
483 James v. 14, 15.
484 Homil. ii. in Levit.
485 Lib. iii. de Sacred.
486 Epist. xxv. ad Decentum.
487 Comment in locum.
488 Systema Theol., p. 280.
489 Lib. de Captiv. Babyl.
490 II. Cor. v. 20.
491 John xx. 21.
492 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
493 Mark xvi. 15.
494 Matt. x. 14, 15.
495 Luke x. 16.
496 Paralip, xvi. 22.
497 John xv. 15.
498 Isaiah lii. 7.
499 I. Cor. iv. 1.
500 James v. 14.
501 I. Cor. iv. 15.
502 Apoc. xxi. 2.
503 Eph. iv. 11, 12.
504 Ps. cxlvii. 20.
505 Matt. xix. 27-29.
506 Luke x. 18, 20.
507 Wisd. vi. 6.
508 I. Pet. iv. 17.
509 I. Cor. iv. 7.
510 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
511 Malach. ii. 7.
512 Osee. iv. 6.
513 Isaiah lii. 11.
514 Rom. xii. 1.
515 Matt. xix. 12.
516 I. Cor. vii. 32, 33.
517 I. Cor. vii. 8.
518 Matt. xix. 27.
519 Ibid., xix. 29.
520 Tit. i. 8.
521 I. Tim. iv. 12.
522 II. Cor. vi. 46.
523 Ep. ad Pammach.
524 Adv. Jovin., lib. 1.
525 Adv. Vigilantium.
526 Hæres. 59, c. 4.
527 I. Kings xxi.
528 Exod. xix.
529 Page 239.
530 Essays, p. 17.
531 Annals of the Propagation of the Faith, March, 1868.
532 Marshall, Comedy of Convocation.
533 I. Cor. ix. 5.
534 I. Tim. iii. 2.
535 I. Tim. iv. 1-3.
536 Ephes. v. 25-32.
537 Sess. xxiv.
538 Matt. xix. 4-6.
539 Matt. xix. 3-9.
540 Mark x. 11, 12.
541 Luke xvi. 18.
542 I. Cor. vii. 10, 11.
543 Bossuet, Variations, Vol. 1.
544 Audin, p. 339.
545 American Cyclop., art Divorce. Our Savior declares that he who
marrieth an adulteress committeth adultery. Yet Luther and Calvin
declare that it is unwise to oppose such a marriage. But “the
foolishness of God is wiser than men.” And Wisdom has said: “I will
destroy the wisdom of the wise.” (I. Cor. i.)
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Faith of Our Fathers" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.