














   +-------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Transcriber's Notes: Fixed a few obvious typos in the text: |
   | actually for actully, origin for orgin; and changed the     |
   | case of "sees" to "Sees".                                   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------+


   THE
   PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY

   BY THE RIGHT REVEREND
   JOHN S. VAUGHAN, D.D.
   BISHOP OF SEBASTOPOLIS

   AUTHOR OF "THOUGHTS FOR ALL TIMES," "DANGERS OF THE DAY"
   "LIFE AFTER DEATH," ETC., ETC.

     "Let us go back to the beginning of the sixteenth century.
     Either there was a Church of God then in the world, or there
     was not. If there was not, then the Reformers certainly
     could not create such a Church. It there was, they as
     certainly had neither the right to abandon it, nor the power
     to remodel it."--J.K. STONE.

   London
   SANDS & CO.
   15 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN
   EDINBURGH: 21 HANOVER STREET

   ST. LOUIS, Mo., U.S.A.: B. HERDER

   1910




INTRODUCTION.


It may seem an impertinence on the present writer's part to indite a
preface to the work of a brother Bishop; and it would be a still
greater one to pretend to introduce the Author of this little book to
the reading public, to whom he is so well and so favourably known by a
stately array of preceding volumes. Nevertheless Bishop Vaughan has
been so insistent on my contributing at least a few introductory
lines, that, for old friendship's sake, I can no longer refuse.

It is a remarkable and outstanding fact that never before in the
history of the Church has the Roman Papacy, though shorn of every
vestige of its once formidable temporal might, loomed greater in the
world, ruled over such vast multitudes of the faithful, or exercised
a greater moral power than at the present day. Never has the
_conscious_ unity of the whole world-wide Church with its Visible
Head--thanks to the marvellous developments of modern means of
communication and transport--been so vivid, so general, so intense as
in these times. Not only does "the Pope's writ run," as we may say, by
post and telegraph, and penetrate to the inmost recesses of every part
of the globe, so that the Holy See is in daily, nay hourly
communication with every bishop and every local Catholic community;
but never has there been a time when so many thousands, nay tens of
thousands of Catholic clergy and laity, even from the remotest lands,
have actually seen the Vicar of Christ with their own eyes, heard his
voice, received his personal benediction. Well may we say to Pius X.
as to Leo XIII.: "Lift up thy eyes round about and see; all these are
gathered together, they are come to thee; thy sons shall come from
afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side. Then shalt thou see
and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when the
multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the strength of the
Gentiles shall come to thee" (Isaias, lx. 4, 5).

But not only is the present position of the Papacy thus unique and
phenomenal in the world; as the Author of this little book shows in
his first part, its career across the more than nineteen centuries of
the world's chequered history, from Peter to Pius X., is no less
unique and no less phenomenal. This is a fact which may well rivet the
attention, not of the Catholic alone, but of every thinking man, be he
Christian or non-Christian, and which surely calls for some
explanation that lies beyond and above that of the ordinary phenomena
of history. The only possible satisfactory solution of this problem is
the one so concisely, yet so simply, set forth in the following
pages.

The second part is concerned with a more particular aspect of the same
problem, in its relation to the Church in this country, and especially
to that incredible latter-day myth which goes by the name of "the
Continuity Theory". It is difficult to us to realise how such a theory
can possibly be held by thoughtful and earnest men and women who have
even a moderate acquaintance with history. Bishop Vaughan applies more
than one touchstone, which, one would imagine, ought to be sufficient
to prove to any unprejudiced mind the falsity of that theory. Among
these, what I may call the "pallium touchstone,"--which still bears
its irrefragable testimony in the arms of the Archbishops of
Canterbury,[1]--has always appeared to me peculiarly conclusive.[2]

In the present small volume, Bishop Vaughan adds another to the series
of popular and instructive books which have made his name a household
word among Catholic writers. May its success and its utility be as
great as in the case of those which have preceded it.

   [cross] LOUIS CHARLES,
       _Bishop of Salford_.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Not in those of York since 1544, see Woodward's
_Ecclesiastical Heraldry_, p. 191 and plate XX.]

[Footnote 2: See _The Pallium_, by Fr. Thurston, S.J., (C.T.S.) and
the striking list in Baxter's _English Cardinals_, pp. 93-98.]




AUTHOR'S PREFACE.


The following chapters were not intended originally for publication.
If they are now offered to the public in book form, it is only in
response to the expressed request of many, who listened to them when
delivered _viva voce_, and who now wish to possess a more permanent
record of what was said.

In the hope that they may help, in some slight measure at least, to
promote the sacred cause of truth, we wish them Godspeed.

   [cross] JOHN S. VAUGHAN,
      _Bishop of Sebastopolis_.

   XAVERIAN COLLEGE,
   MANCHESTER            _January_, 1910.





CONTENTS.


CHAP.                                                            PAGE

    I. GENERAL NOTIONS                                               3

   II. THE POPE'S GREAT PREROGATIVE                                 18

  III. WATCHMAN! WHAT OF THE NIGHT?                                 35

   IV. THE CHURCH AND THE SECTS                                     53

    V. THE POPE'S INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY                              69

   VI. THE POPE'S ORDINARY AUTHORITY                                87


   PART II.

   THE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
   OR
   THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ENGLAND IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES.

       I. THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION             107

      II. THE OATH OF OBEDIENCE                                    117

     III. THE AWKWARD DILEMMA                                      130

      IV. KING EDWARD AND THE POPE                                 145




THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY.




CHAPTER I.

GENERAL NOTIONS.


No one who is given to serious reflection, can gaze over the face of
the earth at the present day without being struck by the religious
confusion that everywhere reigns. Who, indeed, can help being
staggered as well as saddened by the extraordinary differences, the
irreconcilable views, and the diversities of opinion, even upon
fundamental points, that are found dividing Christians in Protestant
lands! The number of sects has so multiplied, that an earnest enquirer
scarcely knows which way to turn, or where to look for the pure
unadulterated truth. A spiritual darkness hangs over the non-Catholic
world; and chaos seems to have come again.

Yet, amid this almost universal confusion, one bright and luminous
path may be easily descried. As a broad highroad runs straight through
some tangled forest, so this path runs through the ages, from the time
of Christ, even to the present day.

We can trace its course, from its earliest inception in apostolic
times, and then in its development age after age, down to our own day:
from Peter to Gregory, from Gregory to Leo, and from Leo to Pius X.,
now gloriously reigning. We refer to the mystical (and one might
almost say the miraculous) path trodden by the Popes, each Pontiff
carrying in turn, and then handing on to his successor, the glorious
torch of divine truth. Though clouds may gather and thunders may roll,
and tempests may rage, and though the surrounding darkness may grow
deeper and deeper, that supernatural light has never failed, nor grown
dim, nor refused to shed its beams and to illuminate the way.[3]

The continual persistency of the Papacy, to whom this steadily burning
torch of truth has been entrusted, is unquestionably one of the most
certain, as it is one of the most startling facts in the whole of
history. It stares us full in the face. It arrests the attention of
even the least observant. It puzzles the historian. It taxes the
explanatory powers of the philosopher, and will remain to the end, a
permanent difficulty to the scoffer and to the sceptic, and to all
those who have not faith. As a fact in history, it is unique: forming
an extraordinary exception to the law of universal change: a portent,
and a standing miracle. Its persistence, century after century, in
spite of fire and sword; of persecution from without, and of treachery
from within; in prosperity, and in adversity; in honour and dishonour;
while kingdoms rise and fall; and while one civilisation yields to a
higher, and the very conditions of society shift and change, is deeply
significative, and betokens an inherent strength and vitality that is
more than natural and that must be referred to some source greater
than itself, yea, to a power far mightier than anything in this
world,--_viz._, to the abiding presence and divine support of Christ
the Man-God.

Verily, there is but one possible explanation, and that explanation is
furnished us, by the words of the promise made by God-incarnate,
_viz._, "Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of
the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20). Yes, I, Who am "the true light which
enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world" (John i. 9), "will
abide with you for ever, and will lead you into all truth" (John xvi. 13).

If but few persons, outside the Catholic Church, realise the force and
import of these words, it is because few realise the absolute and
irresistible power of Him Who gave them utterance. With their lips
they profess Christ to be God, but then, strange to relate, they
proceed to reason and to argue, just as though He were merely
man--one, that is to say, Who, when He established His Church, did
not consider nor bear in mind man's weakness and fickleness, and who
possessed no power to see the outcome of His own policy, nor the
difficulties that it would engender, nor the future multiplication of
the faithful, in every part of the world. For, did He know and foresee
all these things, He _must_ have guarded against them; and this they
_practically_ deny, by continuing to associate themselves with
churches where His promises are in no sense fulfilled, and where His
most solemn pledges remain unredeemed. We refer to those churches
wherein there is no recognised infallible authority; in fact, nothing
to protect their subjects from the inroads of the world, and from the
faults and errors inseparable from the exercise of purely human and
fallible reason.

Those, however, who can put aside such false notions, and awaken to
the real facts, will find the truth growing luminous before their
gaze. History constrains them to admit that it was Christ Who
established the Church, with its supreme head, and its various
members. But Christ is verily God; of the same nature, and one with
the Father, and possessing the same divine attributes. Now, since He
is God, there is to Him no future, just as there is no past. To him,
all is equally present. Hence, in establishing a Church, and in
providing it with laws and a constitution, He did this, not
tentatively, not experimentally, not in ignorance of man's needs and
weaknesses, and folly, but with a most perfect foreknowledge of every
circumstance and event, actual and to come. He spoke and ordered and
arranged all things, with His eyes clearly fixed on the most remote
ages, no less than on the present and the actual. _We_ mortals write
history after the characters have already lived and died, and when
nations have already developed and run their course. But with Christ,
the whole history of man, his wars and his conquests, his vices and
his virtues, his religious opinions and doctrines, had been already
written and completed, down to the very last line of the very last
chapter, an eternity before He assumed our nature and founded His
Church. It was with this most intimate knowledge before Him, that He
promised to provide us with a reliable and infallible teacher, who
should safeguard His doctrine, and publish the glad tidings of the
Gospel, throughout all time, even unto the consummation of the world.
Since it is God Who promises, it follows, with all the rigour of
logic, that this fearless Witness and living Teacher must be a _fact_,
not a _figment_; a stupendous reality, not a mere name; One, in a
word, possessing and wielding the self-same authority as Himself, and
to be received and obeyed and accepted as Himself: "Who heareth you
heareth Me" (Luke x. 16).

This teacher was to be a supreme court of appeal, and a tribunal,
before which every case could be tried, and definitely settled, once
for all. And since this tribunal was a divine creation, and invested
by God Himself with supernatural powers for that specific purpose, it
must be fully equipped, and thoroughly competent and equal to its
work. For God always adapts means to ends. Hence it can never
resemble the tribunals existing in man-made churches, which can but
mutter empty phrases, suggest compromises, and clothe thought in
wholly ambiguous language--tribunals that dare not commit themselves
to anything definite and precise. Yea, which utterly fail and break
down just at the critical moment, when men are dividing and
disagreeing among themselves, and most needing a prompt and clear
decision, which may close up the breach and bring them together.

No! The decisions of the authority set up by Christ are in very
truth--just what we expect to find them--_viz._, clear, ringing
and definite. They divide light from darkness, as by a divine hand;
and segregate truth from error, as a shepherd separates the sheep from
the goats.

Christ promised as much as this, and if He keep not His promise, then
He can hold out no claim to be God, for though Heaven and earth may
pass away, God's words shall never pass away. That He did so promise
is quite evident; and may be proved, first, _explicitly_, and from
His own words, and secondly, _implicitly_, from the very necessity of
the case; and from the whole history of religious development.
Cardinal Newman, even before his reception into the Church, was so
fully persuaded of this, that he wrote: "If Christianity is both
social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must, humanly
speaking, have an infallible expounder.... By the Church of England a
hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the
sects in England an interminable division" (_Develop._, etc., p. 90).
In the Catholic Church alone the need is fully met.

The Church is established on earth by the direct act of God, and is
set "as an army in battle array". It exists for the express purpose of
combating error and repressing evil, in whatever form it may appear;
and whether it be instigated by the devil, or the world, or the flesh.
But, let us ask, Who ever heard of an army without a chief? An army
without a supreme commander is an army without subordination and
without law or order; or rather, it is not an army at all, but a
rabble, a mob.

The supreme head of Christ's army--of Christ's Church upon earth, is
our Sovereign Lord the Pope. Some will not accept his rule, and refuse
to admit his authority. But this is not only to be expected. It was
actually foretold. As they cried out, of old, to one even greater than
the Pope, "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke xix. 14),
so now men of similar spirit repeat the self-same cry, with regard to
Christ's vicar.

Nevertheless, wheresoever his authority is loyally accepted, and where
submission, respect and obedience are shown to him, there results the
order and harmony and unity promised by Christ: while, on the
contrary, where he is not suffered to reign there is disorder, rivalry
and sects.

To be able to look forward and to foresee such opposite results would
perhaps need a prophetic eye, an accurate estimate of human nature,
and a very nice balancing of cause and effect. It could be the
prognostication only of a wise, judicious, and observant mind. But we
are now looking, not forwards, but backwards, and in looking backwards
the case is reduced to the greatest simplicity, so that even a child
can understand; and "he that runs may read".

The simplest intelligence, if only it will set aside prejudice and
pride, and just attend and watch, will be led, without difficulty, to
the following conclusions: firstly, without an altogether special
divine support, no authority can claim and exercise _infallibility_ in
its teaching; and secondly, without such infallibility in its teaching
no continuous unity can be maintained among vast multitudes of people,
least of all concerning dogmas most abstruse, mysteries most sublime
and incomprehensible, and laws and regulations both galling and
humiliating to human arrogance and pride.

It is precisely because the Catholic Church alone possesses such a
supreme and infallible authority that she alone is able to present to
the world that which follows directly from it, namely a complete
unity and cohesion within her own borders.

Yes! Strange to say: the Catholic Church to-day stands alone! There is
no rival to dispute with her, her unique and peerless position. Of all
the so-called Christian Churches, throughout the world, so various and
so numerous, and, in many cases, so modern and so fantastic, there is
not a single one that can approach her, even distantly, whether it be
in (_a_) the breadth of her influence, or in (_b_) the diversity and
dissimilarity of her adherents, or in (_c_) the number of her
children, or in (_d_) the extent of her conquests, or (_e_) in the
absolute unity of her composition.

Even were it possible to unite into one single body the great
multitude of warring sects, of which Protestantism is made up, such a
body would fall far short of the stature of her who has received the
gentiles for her inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for
her possession (Ps. ii. 8), and who has the Holy Ghost abiding with
her, century after century, in order that she may be "a witness unto
Christ, in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the
uttermost parts of the world" (Acts i. 8). But we cannot, even in
thought, unite such contradictories, such discordant elements; any
more than we can reduce the strident sounds of a multitude of
cacophonous instruments to one harmonious and beautiful melody.

And if the Catholic Church stands thus alone, again we repeat, it is
because no other has received the promise of divine support, or even
cares to recognise that such a promise was ever made. The Catholic
Church has been the only Church not only to exercise, but even to
claim the prerogative of infallibility: but she has claimed this from
the beginning. Every child born into her fold has been taught to
profess and to believe, firstly, that the Catholic Church is the sole
official and God-appointed guardian of the sacred deposit of divine
truth, and, secondly, that she, and no other, enunciates to the entire
world--to all who have ears to hear--the full revelation of
Christ--_His truth_; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;
fulfilling, to the letter, the command of her Divine Master, "Go into
the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark xvi.
15).

How has this been possible? Simply and solely because God, Who
promised that "the Spirit of Truth" (_i.e._, the Holy Ghost) "should
abide with her for ever; and should guide her in all truth" (John xiv.
16, xvi. 12), keeps His promise. When our Lord promised to "_be with_"
the teaching Church, in the execution of the divine commission
assigned to it, "_always_" and "_to the end of the world_," that
promise clearly implied, and was a guarantee, first, that the teaching
authority should exist indefectibly to the end of the world; and
secondly, that throughout the whole course of its existence it should
be divinely guarded and assisted in fulfilling the commission given to
it, _viz._, in instructing the nations in "all things whatsoever
Christ has commanded," in other words, that it should be their
infallible Guide and Teacher.

Venerable Bede, speaking of the conversion of our own country by
Augustine and his monks, sent by Pope Gregory the Great, says: "And
whereas he [Pope Gregory] bore the Pontifical power _over all the
world_, and was placed over the Churches already reduced to the faith
of truth, he made our nation, till then given up to idols, the Church
of Christ" (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. ii. c. 1). If we will but listen to the
Pope now, he will make it once again "the Church of Christ," instead
of the Church of the "Reformation," and a true living branch, drawing
its life from the one vine, instead of a detached and fallen branch,
with heresy, like some deadly decay, eating into its very vitals.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 3: No Pope, no matter what may have been his _private_
conduct, ever promulgated a decree against the purity of faith and
morals.]




CHAPTER II.

THE POPE'S GREAT PREROGATIVE.


The clear and certain recognition of a great truth is seldom the work
of a day. We often possess it in a confused and hidden way, before we
can detect, to a nicety, its exact nature and limitations. It takes
time to declare itself with precision, and, like a plant in its
rudimentary stages, it may sometimes be mistaken for what it is
not--though, once it has reached maturity, we can mistake it no
longer. As Cardinal Newman observes: "An idea grows in the mind by
remaining there; it becomes familiar and distinct, and is viewed in
its relations; it leads to other aspects, and these again to
others.... Such intellectual processes as are carried on silently and
spontaneously in the mind of a party or school, of necessity come to
light at a later date, and are recognised, and their issues are
scientifically arranged." Consequently, though dogma is unchangeable
as truth is unchangeable, this immutability does not exclude progress.
In the Church, such progress is nothing else than the development of
the principles laid down in the beginning by Jesus Christ Himself.
Thus--to take a simple illustration--in three different councils, the
Church has declared and proposed three different articles of Faith,
_viz._, that in Jesus Christ there are (1) two natures, (2) two wills,
and (3) one only Person. These may seem to some, who cannot look
beneath the surface, to be three entirely new doctrines; to be, in
fact, "additions to the creed". In sober truth, they are but
expansions of the original doctrine which, in its primitive and
revealed form, has been known and taught at all times, that is to say,
the doctrine that Christ is, at once, true God and true Man. That one
statement really contains the other three; the other three merely give
us a fuller and a completer grasp of the original one, but tell us
nothing absolutely new.

In a similar manner, and by a similar process, we arrive at a clearer
and more explicit knowledge of other important truths, which were not
at first universally recognised as being contained in the original
deposit. The dogma of Papal infallibility is an instance in point. For
though no Catholic ever doubted the genuine infallibility of the
_Church_, yet in the early centuries, there existed some difference of
opinion, as to _where_ precisely the infallible authority resided.
Most Catholics, even then, believed it to be a gift conferred by
Christ upon Peter himself [who alone is the _rock_], and upon each
Pope who succeeded him in his office, personally and individually, but
some were of opinion that, not the Pope by himself, but only "the
Pope-in-Council," that is to say, the Pope supported by a majority of
Bishops, was to be considered infallible. So that, while _all_
admitted the _Pope with a majority of the Bishops_, taken together, to
be divinely safeguarded from teaching error, yet the prevailing and
dominant opinion, from the very first, went much further, and ascribed
this protection to the Sovereign Pontiff likewise when acting alone
and unsupported. This is so well known, that even the late Mr.
Gladstone, speaking as an outside observer, and as a mere student of
history, positively brings it as a charge against the Catholic Church
that "the Popes, for well-nigh a thousand years, have kept up, with
comparatively little intermission, their claim to dogmatic
infallibility" (_Vat._ p. 28). Still, the point remained unsettled by
any dogmatic definition, so that, as late as in 1793, Archbishop Troy
of Dublin did but express the true Catholic view of his own day when
he wrote: "Many Catholics contend that the Pope, when teaching the
Universal Church, as their supreme visible head and pastor, as
successor to St. Peter, and heir to the promises of special assistance
made to him by Jesus Christ, is infallible; and that his decrees and
decisions in that capacity are to be respected as rules of faith, when
they are dogmatical, or confined to doctrinal points of faith and
morals. Others," the Archbishop goes on to explain, "deny this, and
require the expressed or tacit acquiescence of the Church assembled or
dispersed, to stamp infallibility on his dogmatic decrees." Then he
concludes:--"_Until the Church shall decide_ upon this question of the
Schools, either opinion may be adopted by individual Catholics,
without any breach of Catholic communion or peace."

This was how the question stood until 1870. But it stands in that
position no longer; for the Church has now spoken--_Roma locuta est,
causa finita_. Hence, no Catholic can now deny or call into question
the great prerogative of the Vicar of Christ, without suffering
shipwreck of the faith. At the Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX. and the
Archbishops and Bishops of the entire Catholic world were gathered
together in Rome, and after earnest prayer and prolonged discussion,
they declared that the prerogative of infallibility, which is the very
source of Catholic unity, and the very secret of Catholic strength,
resides in the individual Pope who happens, at the time, to occupy the
Papal chair, and that when he speaks _ex cathedrÃ¢_, his definitions
are infallibly true, and consonant with Catholic revelation, even
before they have been accepted by the hierarchy throughout the world.
But here it must be borne in mind that the Pope speaks _ex cathedrÃ¢_,
that is to say, infallibly, only when he speaks:--

     1. As the Universal Teacher.

     2. In the name and with the authority of the Apostles.

     3. On a point of Faith or Morals.

     4. With the purpose of binding every member of the Church to
        accept and believe his decision.

Thus it is clearly seen that from the year 1870 the dogma of _Papal_,
in contra-distinction to _ecclesiastical_ infallibility, has been
defined and raised to an article of faith, the denial of which is
heresy.

The doctrine is at once new and yet not new. It is new in the sense
that up to the time of the Vatican Council it had never been actually
drawn out of the premises that contained it, and set forth before the
faithful in a formal definition. On the other hand, it is not new, but
as old as Christianity, in the sense that it was always contained
implicitly in the deposit of faith. Any body of truth that is living
grows, and unfolds and becomes more clearly understood and more
thoroughly grasped, as time wears on. The entire books of Euclid are
after all but the outcome of a few axioms and accepted definitions.
These axioms help us to build up certain propositions. And one
proposition, when established, leads to another, till at last we seem
to have unearthed statements entirely new and original. Yet, they are
certainly not really new, for had they not been all along contained
implicitly in the few initial facts, it is quite clear they could
never have been evolved from them. _Nemo dat, quod non habet._

Hence Papal Infallibility is not so much a new truth, or an "addition
to the Faith," as some heretics would foolishly try to persuade us,
as a clearer expression and a more exact and detailed presentation of
what was taught from the beginning.

It is here that the well-known historian, DÃ¶llinger, who rejected the
definition, proved himself to be not only a proud rebel but also a
very poor logician. Until 1870, he was a practising Catholic, and,
therefore, like every other Catholic, he, of course, admitted that the
Pope and the Bishops, speaking collectively, were divinely supported
and safeguarded from error, when they enunciated to the world any
doctrine touching faith or morals. Yet, when the Pope and the Bishops,
assembled at the Vatican, did so speak collectively, and did
conjointly issue the decree of Papal Infallibility, he proceeded to
eat his own words, refused to abide by their decision, and was
deservedly turned out of the Church of God: being excommunicated by
the Archbishop of Munich on the 17th of April, 1871, in virtue of the
instructions given by Our Divine Lord Himself, _viz._: "If he will not
hear the Church (cast him out, _i.e._), let him be to thee as the
heathen and publican" (Matt. xviii. 17). He, and the few misguided men
that followed him in his rebellion, and called themselves Old
Catholics, had been quite ready to believe that the Pope, with the
Bishops, when speaking as one body, were Infallible. In fact, if they
had not believed that, they never could have been Catholics at any
time. But they did not seem to realise the sufficiently obvious fact
that, whether they will it or not, and whether they advert to it or
not, it is utterly impossible now to deny the Infallibility of the
Pope personally and alone, without at the same time denying the
Infallibility of the "Pope and the Bishops collectively," for the
simple reason that it is precisely the "Pope and the Bishops
collectively" who have solemnly and in open session declared that the
Pope enjoys the prerogative of Infallibility in his own individual
person. Since the Vatican Council, one is forced by the strict
requirements of sound reason to believe, either that the Pope is
Infallible, or else that there is no Infallibility in the Church at
all, and that there never had been.

Those who were too proud to submit to the definition followed, of
course, the example of earlier heretics in previous Councils. They
excused themselves on the plea that the Council was (_a_) not free, or
else (_b_) not sufficiently representative, or, finally, (_c_) not
unanimous in its decisions. But such utterly unsupported allegations
served only to accentuate the weakness of their cause and the
hopelessness of their position; since it would be difficult, from the
origin of the Church to the present time, to find any Council so free,
so representative, and so unanimous.

Pope Pius IX. (whom, it seems likely, we shall soon be called upon to
venerate as a canonised saint) convened the Vatican Council by the
Bull _Ã�terni Patris_, published on 29th June, 1868. It summoned all
the Archbishops, Bishops, Patriarchs, etc., throughout the Catholic
world to meet together in Rome on 8th December of the following year,
1869. When the appointed day arrived, and the Council was formally
opened, there were present 719 representatives from all parts of the
world, and very soon after, this number was increased to 769. On 18th
July, 1870--a day for ever memorable in the annals of the Church--the
fourth public session was held, and the constitution _Pater Ã�ternus_,
containing the definition of the Papal Infallibility, was solemnly
promulgated. Of the 535 who were present on this grand occasion, 533
voted for the definition (_placet_) and only two, one from Sicily, the
other from the United States, voted against it (_non placet_).
Fifty-five Bishops, who fully accepted the doctrine itself, but deemed
its actual definition at that moment inopportune, simply absented
themselves from this session. Finally, the Holy Father, in the
exercise of his supreme authority, sanctioned the decision of the
Council, and proclaimed officially, _urbi et orbi_ the decrees and the
canons of the "First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ".

It may be well here to clothe the Latin words of the Pope and the
assembled Bishops in an English dress. They are as follows: "We (the
Sacred Council approving) teach and define that it is a dogma
revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, _when_ he speaks _ex cathedrÃ¢_--that
is, when discharging the office of Pastor and Teacher of all
Christians, by reason of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a
doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole Church--in
virtue of the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter,
possesses that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed
that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith
or morals, and that, therefore, such definitions of the said Sovereign
Pontiff are unalterable of themselves, and not from the consent of the
Church. But if any one--which may God avert--presume to contradict
this our definition, let him be anathema."

"_Every Bishop in the Catholic world_, however inopportune some may
have at one time held the definition to be, submitted to the
Infallible ruling of the Church," says E.S. Purcell. "A very small and
insignificant number of priests and laymen in Germany apostatised and
set up the Sect of 'Old Catholics'. But all the rest of the Catholic
world, true to their faith, accepted, without reserve, the dogma of
Papal Infallibility."[4]

For over eighteen hundred years the Infallible authority of the
Pope-in-Council had been admitted by all Catholics. And in any great
emergency or crisis in the Church's history, these Councils were
actually held, and presided over by the Pope, either in person or by
his duly appointed representatives, for the purpose of clearing up and
adjusting disputed points, or to smite, with a withering anathema, the
various heresies as they arose, century after century. But in the
meantime, the Church, which had been planted "like a grain of mustard
seed, which is the least of all seeds" (Mark iv. 31), was fulfilling
the prophecy that had been made in regard to her, and "was shooting
out great branches" (Mark iv. 32) and becoming more extended and more
prolific than all her rivals. She enlarged her boundaries and spread
farther and farther over the face of the earth, while the number of
her children rapidly multiplied in every direction.

In course of time, the immense continents of America and Australia,
together with New Zealand and Tasmania and other hitherto unknown
regions, were discovered and thrown open to the influences of human
industry and enterprise. And as men and women swarmed into these newly
acquired lands, the Church accompanied them: and new vicariates and
dioceses sprang up, and important Sees were formed, which in time, as
the populations thickened, became divided and sub-divided into smaller
Sees, till at last the number of Bishops in these once unknown and
distant regions rose to several hundreds.

Thus the whole condition of things became altered; and the calling
together of an Ecumenical Council--a very simple affair in the
infancy of the Church--was becoming daily more and more difficult. Not
so much, perhaps, by reason of the enormous distances of the dioceses
from the central authority, for modern methods of locomotion have
almost annihilated space, but because of the immense increase in the
number of the hierarchy that would have to meet together, whenever a
Council is called.

On the other hand, with the greater extension of the Church, would
naturally come an increased crop of heresies. For, cockle may be sown,
and weeds may spring up, in any part of the field, and the field is
now a hundred times vaster than it was. Now, it is extremely important
that as fast as errors arise they should be pointed out, and rooted up
without delay, and before they can breed a pestilence and corrupt a
whole neighbourhood. But the complicated machinery of a great
Ecumenical Council, which involves prolonged preparation, considerable
expense, and a temporary dislocation in almost every diocese
throughout the world, is too cumbersome and slow to be called into
requisition whenever a heresy has to be blasted, or whenever a
decision has to be made known.

Hence we cannot help recognising and admiring the Providence of God
over His Church, in thus simplifying the process, in these strenuous
days, by which His truth is to be maintained and His revelation
protected. For the fact--true from the beginning, _viz._, that the
Pope enjoys the prerogative of personal infallibility--is not only a
profound truth; but a truth for the first time formally recognised,
defined, promulgated and explicitly taught as an article of Divine
faith. Consequently, without summoning a thousand Bishops from the
four quarters of the globe, the Sovereign Pontiff may now rise in his
own strength, and proclaim to the entire Church what is, and what is
not, consonant with the truths of revelation. This is evident from the
Vatican's definition, which declares that "THE POPE HAS THAT SAME
INFALLIBILITY WHICH THE CHURCH HAS"--"Romanum Pontificem eÃ¢
infallibilitate pollere, quÃ¢ divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in
definiendÃ¢ doctrinÃ¢ de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit". Words
of the Bull, "PASTOR Ã�TERNUS".

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 4: See _Life of Cardinal Manning_, vol. ii., p. 452.]




CHAPTER III.

WATCHMAN! WHAT OF THE NIGHT?


The most sacred deposit of Divine Revelation has been committed by
Jesus Christ to the custody of the Church, and century after century
she has guarded it with the utmost jealousy and fidelity. Like a loyal
watchman, stationed on a lofty tower, the Pope, with anxious eyes,
scans the length and breadth of the world, and, as the occasion
demands, boldly, and fearlessly, and categorically condemns and
anathematises all who, through pride or cunning, or personal interest
and ambition, or love of novelty, attempt to falsify or to minimise or
to distort the teaching of Our Divine Master. Without respect of
persons, without regard to temporal consequences, without either
hesitancy or ambiguity, he speaks "as one having power" (Matt. vii.
29). And while, on the one hand, every true Catholic throughout the
world, who hears his voice, is intimately conscious that he is hearing
the voice of Christ Himself, "who heareth you, heareth Me" (Luke x.
16); so, on the other hand, every true Catholic likewise knows that
all who refuse to obey his ruling, and who despise his warnings, are
despising and disobeying Christ Himself. "Who despises you, despises
Me" (Luke x. 16). Thus, the Sovereign Pontiff, as the infallible
source of religious truth, becomes at the same time the strong bond of
religious unity: for, just as error divides men from one another, so
truth always and necessarily draws them together. In this way the Pope
becomes the connecting link which unites over 250,000,000 of men: and
the foundation stone (or petros--Peter) of the mystical building
erected by God-incarnate ("Upon this rock will I build My Church,"
Matt. xvi. 18). He is the foundation, that is to say, which supports
it, and keeps its various parts together, in one harmonious and
symmetrical whole, and against which the angry surges rise, and the
muddy waves of error for ever beat, yet ever beat in vain: for "the
gates of hell [Satan and his hosts] shall not prevail against it". Who
doubts this denies the most formal and unmistakable promises of the
Eternal Son of God, and makes of Him a liar.

Our non-Catholic friends close their eyes to these patent facts,
and--with great peril to their salvation--refuse to see even the
obvious. As the Jews of old were so blinded by their prejudice,
jealousy and hatred of Him, whom they contemptuously styled "the Son
of the Carpenter," that they steadily refused to consider the justice
of His claims, and could not (or would not?) bring themselves to
understand how clearly the Scriptures bore witness to His divinity,
and how marvellously the prophecies and predictions (the words of
which they accepted), were fulfilled in His Divine Person; so now
Protestants steadily refuse to consider the claims of Her whom they
contemptuously style "the Romish Church," and are so prejudiced and
full of suspicion, if not of hate, that they too cannot bring
themselves to understand how She, like her Divine Founder, bears upon
her immortal brow the distinctive and unmistakable impress of her
supernatural origin and destiny. The Incarnate Son of God, who never
asks, nor can ask in vain, implored His Heavenly Father, that all His
followers might be one, and why? In order that this marvellous unity
might ever be fixed as a seal of authenticity to His Church, and be to
all men a permanent sign and proof of her genuineness.

"Father," He prayed, grant "that they may ALL BE ONE, as Thou art in
Me, and as I am in Thee, that they also may be one in us, THAT THE
WORLD MAY KNOW that Thou hast sent Me" (John xvii. 21). Unity, then,
is undeniably the test and sign-manual attached by Christ to His
Bride, the Church; the presence or absence of which must (if there be
any truth in God) determine the genuineness or the falsity of every
claimant.

Now, this mark is nowhere found outside the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church, whose centre is in Rome.

Other Churches not merely do not possess unity. They do not possess so
much as the requisite machinery to produce it, nor even the means of
preserving it, if produced.

With us, on the contrary, it flows as naturally and as directly from
the recognised Supremacy and Infallibility of the Vicar of Christ as
light flows from the sun. It is so manifest that it would seem only
the blind can fail to see it: so that one is sometimes puzzled to know
how to excuse educated Protestants from the damnable sin of _vincible_
ignorance. Thus, the faithful throughout the entire world are in
constant communication with their respective pastors; the pastors, in
their turn, are in direct communication with their respective Bishops,
and the Bishops, dispersed throughout the length and breadth of
Christendom, are in close and direct communication with the one
Supreme and Infallible Ruler, whom the Lord has placed over all His
possessions; who has been promised immunity from error; and whose
special duty and office is to "confirm his brethren" (Luke xxii. 32).
By this most simple, yet most practical and effective expedient, the
very least and humblest catechumen in China or Australia is as truly
in touch with the central authority at the Vatican, and as completely
under its direction in matters of faith and morals, as the crowned
heads of Spain or Austria, or as the Archbishops of Paris or Malines.
Certainly _Digitus Dei est hic_: the finger of God is here. The simple
fact is, there is always something about the works of God which
clearly differentiate them from the products of man, however close may
be the mere external and surface resemblance. A thousand artists may
carve a thousand acorns, so cunningly coloured, and so admirably
contrived as to be practically indistinguishable from the genuine
fruit of the oak. Each of these thousand artists may present me with
his manufactured acorn, and may assure me of its genuineness. And,
alas! I may be quite deceived and taken in; yes, but only _for a
time_. When I plant them in the soil, together with the genuine acorn,
and give them time to develop, the fraud is detected, and the truth
revealed. For the real seed proves its worth. How? In the simplest way
possible, that is to say, by actually doing what it was destined and
created to do. That is, by growing and developing into a majestic oak,
while the false and human imitations fall to pieces, belie all one's
hopes, and are found to produce neither branch nor leaf nor fruit.

This is but an illustration of what may be observed equally in the
spiritual order, although there it is attended by more disastrous
consequences. Thus we find hundreds of Churches proclaiming themselves
to be foundations of God, which Time, the old Justice who tries all
such offenders, soon proves, most unmistakably, to be nothing but the
contrivances of man. They may bear a certain external resemblance to
the true Church, planted by the Divine Husbandman, but like the
man-made acorns, they deceive all our expectations, and are wholly
unable to redeem their promises, or to live up to their pretensions.

For, while one and all declare with their lips that they possess the
truth as revealed by Christ, their glaring divisions, irreconcilable
differences, and internal dissensions emphatically prove that the
truth is not in them: and that they have been built, not on the rock,
but on the shifting sand, and are the erections, not of God, but of
feeble, fickle men.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church, amid a thousand sects,
resembles the genuine acorn among the thousand imitations. Not only
does she alone possess the whole truth; but she alone can stand up and
actually prove this claim to the entire world, by pointing defiantly
at her marvellous and miraculous unity--a unity so conspicuous, and so
striking, and so absolutely unique, that even the hostile and bigoted
Protestant press can sometimes scarcely refrain from bearing an
unwilling testimony to it.

We might give many instances of this, and quote from many sources, but
let the following extract from London's leading journal serve as an
example. It is no other paper than the _Times_, which makes the
following admission on occasion of the Vatican Council which opened in
1869: "Seven hundred Bishops, more or less, representing all
Christendom, were seen gathered round one altar and one throne,
partaking of the same Divine Mystery, and rendering homage, by turns,
to the same spiritual authority and power. As they put on their
mitres, or took them off, and as they came to the steps of the altar,
or the foot of the common spiritual Father, it was IMPOSSIBLE
not to feel the UNITY and the power of the Church which they
represented" (16th Dec., 1869). Here, then, is the most influential
journal certainly of Great Britain, perhaps of the world, proclaiming
to its readers far and wide, not simply that the Roman Catholic Church
is one, but that her oneness is of such a sterling quality, and of so
pronounced a character that it is impossible--mark the word,
impossible!--not to feel it. Yet men ask where the Church of God is to
be found. They ask for a sign, and lo! when God gives them one they
cannot see it, nor interpret it, nor make anything out of it: and
prefer to linger on in what Newman calls "the cities of confusion,"
than find peace and security in "the communion of Rome, which is that
Church which the Apostles set up at Pentecost, which alone has 'the
adoption of sons, and the glory and the covenants and the revealed
law, and the service of God and the promises,' and in which the
Anglican [or any other Protestant] communion, whatever it merits and
demerits, whatever the great excellence of individuals in it, has, as
such, no part". But this is a digression. Let us return to our
subject.

The incontestable value and immense practical importance of the Papal
prerogative of infallibility have been rendered abundantly manifest
ever since its solemn definition nearly forty years ago. In fact,
although the enormous increase of the population of the world has not
rendered the position of the Sovereign Pontiff any easier, yet he is
better fitted and equipped since the definition to cope promptly and
effectually with errors and heresies as they arise than he was before.
We do not mean that his prerogative of infallibility is invoked upon
every trivial occasion--one does not call for a Nasmyth hammer to
break a nut--but it is always there, in reserve, and may be used, on
occasion, even without summoning an Ecumenical Council, and this is a
matter of some consequence. For, though time may bring many changes
into the life of man, and may improve his physical condition and
surroundings, and add enormously to his comfort, health, and general
corporal well-being, it is found to produce no corresponding effect
upon his corrupt and fallen nature, which asserts itself as vigorously
now, after nearly two thousand years of Christianity, as in the past.
Pride and self still sway men's hearts. The spirit of independence and
self-assertion and egotism, in spite of all efforts at repression,
continue to stalk abroad. And human nature, even to-day, is almost as
impatient of restraint, and as unwilling to bear the yoke of
obedience, as in the time when Gregory resisted Henry of Germany, or
when Pius VII. excommunicated Napoleon. If, even in the Apostolic age,
when the number of the faithful was small and concentrated, there
were, nevertheless, men of unsound views--"wolves in sheep's
clothing"--amongst the flock of Christ, how much more likely is this
to be the case now. If the Apostle St. Paul felt called upon to warn
his own beloved disciples against those "who would not endure sound
doctrine," and who "heaped to themselves teachers, having itching
ears," and who even "closed their ears to the truth, in order to
listen to fables" (2 Tim. iv. 1-5), surely we may reasonably expect to
find, even in our own generation, many who have fallen, or who are in
danger of falling under the pernicious influence of false teachers,
and who are being seduced and led astray by the plausible, but utterly
fallacious, reasoning of proud and worldly spirits. It would be easy
to name several, but they are too well known already to need further
advertising here.

Then, she has adversaries without, as well as within. For, though the
Church is not _of_ the world, she is _in_ the world. Which is only
another way of saying that she is surrounded continually and on all
sides by powerful, subtle, and unscrupulous foes. "The world is the
enemy of God," and therefore of His Church. If its votaries cannot
destroy her, nor put an end to her charmed life, they hope, at least,
to defame her character and to blacken her reputation. They seize
every opportunity to misrepresent her doctrine, to travesty her
history, and to denounce her as retrograde, old fashioned, and out of
date. And, what makes matters worse, the falsest and most mischievous
allegations are often accompanied by professions of friendship and
consideration, and set forth in learned treatises, with an elegance of
language and an elevation of style calculated to deceive the simple
and to misguide the unwary. It is Father W. Faber who remarks that,
"there is not a new philosophy nor a freshly named science but what
deems, in the ignorance of its raw beginnings, that it will either
explode the Church as false or set her aside as doting" (Bl. Sac.
Prologue). Indeed the world is always striving to withdraw men and
women from their allegiance to the Church, through appeals to its
superior judgment and more enlightened experience; and philosophy and
history and even theology are all pressed into the service, and
falsified and misrepresented in such a manner as to give colour to its
complaints and accusations against the Bride of Christ, who, it is
seriously urged, "should make concessions and compromises with the
modern world, in order to purchase the right to live and to dwell
within it". What is the consequence? Let the late Cardinal Archbishop
and the Bishops of England answer. "Many Catholics," they write in
their joint pastoral, "are consequently in danger of forfeiting not
only their faith, but even their independence, by taking for granted
as venerable and true the halting and disputable judgment of some men
of letters or of science which may represent no more than the wave of
some popular feeling, or the views of some fashionable or dogmatising
school. The bold assertions of men of science are received with awe
and bated breath, the criticisms of an intellectual group of _savants_
are quoted as though they were rules for a holy life, while the mind
of the Church and her guidance are barely spoken of with ordinary
patience."

In a world such as this, with the agents of evil ever active and
threatening, with error strewn as thorns about our path at every step,
and with polished and seductive voices whispering doubt and suggesting
rebellion and disobedience to men, already too prone to disloyalty,
and arguing as cunningly as Satan, of old, argued with Eve; in such a
world, who, we may well ask, does not see the pressing need as well as
the inestimable advantages and security afforded by a living,
vigilant, responsible and supreme authority, where all who seek, may
find an answer to their doubts, and a strength and a firm support in
their weakness?

And as surely as the need exists, so surely has God's watchful
providence supplied it, in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, the
venerable Vicar of Christ on earth. He is authorised and commissioned
by Christ Himself "to feed" with sound doctrine, both "the lambs and
the sheep"; and faithfully has he discharged that duty. "The Pope,"
writes Cardinal Newman, "is no recluse, no solitary student, no
dreamer about the past, no doter upon the dead and gone, no projector
of the visionary. He, for eighteen hundred years, has lived in the
world; he has seen all fortunes, he has encountered all adversaries,
he has shaped himself for all emergencies. If ever there was a power
on earth who had an eye for the times, who has confined himself to the
practicable, and has been happy in his anticipations, whose words have
been facts, and whose commands prophecies, such is he, in the history
of ages, who sits, from generation to generation, in the chair of the
Apostles, as the Vicar of Christ, and the Doctor of His Church."

"These are not the words of rhetoric," he continues, "but of history.
All who take part with the Apostle are on the winning side. He has
long since given warrants for the confidence which he claims. From the
first, he has looked through the wide world, of which he has the
burden; and, according to the need of the day, and the inspirations of
his Lord, he has set himself, now to one thing, now to another; but to
all in season, and to nothing in vain.... Ah! What grey hairs are on
the head of Judah, whose youth is renewed like the eagle's, whose feet
are like the feet of harts, and underneath the Everlasting Arms."
Would that our unfortunate countrymen, tossed about by every wind of
doctrine, and torn by endless divisions, could be persuaded to set
aside pride and prejudice, and to accept the true principle of
religious unity and peace established by God. Then England would
become again, what she was for over a thousand years, _viz._: "the
most faithful daughter of the Church of Rome, and of His Holiness, the
one Sovereign Pontiff and Vicar of Christ upon earth," as our Catholic
forefathers were wont to describe her.




CHAPTER IV.

THE CHURCH AND THE SECTS.


A natural tendency is apparent in all men to differ among themselves,
even concerning subjects which are simple and easily understood;
while, on more difficult and complicated issues, this tendency is, of
course, very much more pronounced. Hence, the well-known proverb:
"_Quot homines, tot sententiÃ¦_"--there are as many opinions as there
are men.

Now, if this is found to be the case in politics, literature, art,
music, and indeed in everything else, except perhaps pure mathematics,
it is found to be yet more universally the case in questions of
religion, since religion is a subject so much more sublime, abstruse,
and incomprehensible than others, and so full of supernatural and
mysterious truths, with which no merely human tribunal has any
competency to deal. Then, let me ask, what chance has a man of
arriving at a right decision on the most important of all
questions--questions concerning his own eternal salvation--who is
thrown into the midst of a world where there is no uniformity of view
on spiritual matters, where every variety of opinion is expressed and
defended, and where every conceivable form of worship has its fervent
supporters and followers.

Or, leaving all others out of account, may we not well ask how the
vast multitudes even of Catholics, scattered throughout such a world
as this, are to maintain "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace" (Eph. iv. 3), to preserve the tenets of their creed intact, and
to discriminate accurately and readily between the teaching of God,
and the fallacious doctrines of men? In dealing with anxious and angry
disputants there is little use to appeal, as Protestants do, to the
authority of teachers who have nothing more to commend them than a
learning and an intelligence but little better than that of their
disciples. Where man differs from man each will prefer his own view,
and claim that his personal opinion is as deserving of respect and as
likely to be right as his adversary's--which is practically what
obtains among non-Catholics at the present day. Indeed, the only
superhuman and infallible authority on earth recognised by them is the
Bible; and that, alas! has proved a block of stumbling and not a bond
of union, since, in the hands of unscrupulous men, it may be made to
prove absolutely anything. The most sacred and fundamental truths,
even such as the sublime doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, the Divinity
of Christ, and the Atonement, have all, at one time or another, been
vehemently denied _on the authority of the Bible_! The Anglican Bishop
Colenso, in writing to the _Times_, could quote eleven texts of
Scripture to prove that prayer ought not to be offered to Our Divine
Lord! yet, it made no difference. He was allowed to go on teaching
just as before! No one seemed to care. What is "pure Gospel" to Mr.
Brown is "deadly error" to Mr. Green; while "the fundamental verities"
of Mr. Thompson are "the satanical delusions" of Mr. Johnson. In fact,
there is really less dispute among men as to the interpretation of the
Vedas, of Chinese chronology, or of Egyptian archÃ¦ology, than of the
Bible, which, to the eternal dishonour of Protestant commentators, has
now almost ceased to have any definite meaning whatever, because every
imaginable meaning has been defended by some and denied by others. It
is beyond dispute that the Bible, without an infallible Teacher to
explain its true meaning, will be of no use whatsoever as a bond of
unity.

If the unity, promised by God-incarnate, is to be secured, the present
circumstances of the case, as well as the actual experience of many
centuries, prove three conditions to be absolutely necessary, _viz._:
a teacher who is _firstly_ ever living and accessible; _secondly_, who
can and will speak clearly and without ambiguity; and _thirdly_, and
most essential of all, whose decisions are authoritative and
decisive. One, in a word, who can pass sentence and close a
controversy, and whose verdict will be honoured and accepted _as
final_ by all Catholics without hesitation. These three requisites are
found in the person of the infallible Head of the Catholic Church, but
nowhere else.

Experience shows that where, in religion, there is nothing but mere
human learning to guide, however great such learning may be, there
will always be room left for some differences of opinion. In such
controversies even the learned and the well read will not all arrange
themselves on one side; but will espouse, some one view, and some
another. We find this to be the case everywhere. And, since the Church
of England offers us as striking and as ready an example as any other,
we cannot do better than invoke it as both a warning and a witness.

Though her adherents are but a small fraction, compared with
ourselves, and though they are socially and politically far more
homogeneous than we Catholics, who are gathered from all the nations
of the earth, yet even they, in the absence of any universally
recognised and infallible head, are split up into a hundred fragments.

So that, even on the most essential points of doctrine, there is
absolutely no true unanimity. This is so undeniable that Anglican
Bishops themselves are found lamenting and wringing their hands over
their "unhappy divisions". Still, we wish to be perfectly just, so, in
illustration of our contention, we will select, not one of those
innumerable minor points which it would be easy to bring forward, but
some really crucial point of doctrine, the importance of which no man
in his senses will have the hardihood to deny. Let us say, for
instance, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Can we conceive anything
that a devout Christian would be more anxious to ascertain than
whether Our Divine Lord and Saviour be really and personally and
substantially present under the appearance of bread, or no! Picture to
yourselves, then, a fervent worshipper entering an Anglican church,
where they are said "to reserve," and kneeling before the Tabernacle.
Just watch the poor unfortunate man utterly and hopelessly unable to
decide whether he is prostrating and pouring out his soul before a
mere memorial, a simple piece of common bread, or before the Infinite
Creator of the Universe, the dread King of kings, and Lord of lords,
in Whose presence the very angels veil their faces, and the strong
pillars of heaven tremble! Imagine a Church where such a state of
things is possible! Yet, we have it on the authority of an Anglican
Bishop--and I know not where we shall find a higher authority--that
this is indeed the case; as may be gathered from the following words,
taken from a "charge" by the late Bishop Ryle, which are surely clear
enough: "One section of our (_i.e._, Anglican) clergy," says the
Bishop, "maintains that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, and another
maintains with equal firmness that it is not.... One section maintains
that there is a real objective presence of Christ's Body and Blood
under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine. The other maintains
that there is no real presence whatsoever, except in the hearts of the
believing communicant."[5] Was such a state of pitiable helplessness
ever seen or heard or dreamed of anywhere! And yet this church, please
to observe, is supposed to be a body sent by God to teach. Heaven
preserve us from such a teacher. As a further illustration of the
utter incompetency of the Establishment to perform this primary duty,
we may call to mind the strikingly instructive correspondence that was
published some years ago between his Grace Archbishop Sumner and Mr.
Maskell, who very naturally and very rightly sought direction from his
Ordinary concerning certain points of doctrine, of which he was in
doubt.

"You ask me," writes the Archbishop to Mr. Maskell, "whether you are
to conclude that you ought not to teach, and have not the authority of
the [Anglican] Church to teach any of the doctrines spoken of in your
five former questions, in the dogmatical terms there stated."

Here, then, we have a perfectly fair and straightforward question,
deserving an equally clear and straightforward answer: and such as
would be given at once if addressed by any Catholic enquirer to _his_
Bishop. But how does the Anglican Archbishop proceed to calm and
comfort this helpless, agitated soul, groping painfully in the dark?
What is his Grace's reply? He cannot refer the matter to a Sovereign
Pontiff, for no Pontiff in the Anglican Church is possessed of any
sovereignty whatsoever. In fact the Archbishop himself has to "verily
testify and declare that His Majesty the King is the only supreme
Governor in _spiritual_ and _ecclesiastical_ things as well as
temporal," etc.[6] Nor dare he solve these troublesome doubts himself:
for he is no more infallible than his questioner. Then what does he
do? Practically nothing. He throws the whole burden back upon poor
Mr. Maskell, and leaves him to struggle with his doubts as best he
may. Thus; though the Church _of God_ was established to "teach all
nations," and _must_ still be teaching all nations if she exist at
all; the Church _of England_ seems unable to teach one nation, or even
one man.

But to continue. The Archbishop begins by putting Mr. Maskell a
question. "Are they (_i.e._, the doctrines about which he is seeking
information) contained in the Word of God? St. Paul says, 'Preach the
Word'.... Now whether the doctrines concerning which you inquire are
contained in the Word of God, and can be proved thereby, _you have the
same means_ of discovering for yourself as I have, and I have no
special authority to declare."

Did any one ever witness such an exhibition of ineptitude and
spiritual asthenia? We can conceive a man rejecting all revelation. It
is possible even to conceive a man denying the Divinity of Christ. But
we know nothing that would ever enable us even to conceive that
Infinite Wisdom and Infinite Power had established a Church which
cannot teach, or had sent an ambassador utterly unable to deliver His
message. There is no use for such Church as that. Total silence is
better than incoherent speech. What is the consequence? The
consequence is that in the Anglican community endless variations and
differences exist and flourish side by side, not alone in matters
where differences are comparatively of little account, but in even the
most momentous and fundamental doctrines, such as the necessity of
Baptism, the power of Absolution, the nature of the Holy Eucharist,
the effects of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and so forth. Were it not
for the iron hand of the State, which grasps her firmly, and binds her
mutually repellent elements together, she must have fallen to pieces
long ago. Now, we must beg our readers to consider well, that from the
very terms of the institution such a deplorable state of things as we
have been contemplating is absolutely impossible and unthinkable in
the Church (1) which _God-incarnate_ founded, _for the express
purpose of handing down His doctrine_, pure and undefiled to the end
of time; and (2) with which He promised to abide for ever; and (3)
which the Holy Ghost Himself, speaking through St. Paul, declared to
be "the pillar and ground of truth" (1. Tim. iii. 15). Nevertheless,
if the Catholic Church, numbering over 250,000,000 of persons, is not
to fall into the sad plight that has overtaken all the small churches
that have gone out from her, she must not only desire unity, as, no
doubt, all the sects desire it, but she must have been provided by her
all-wise Founder with what none of them even profess to possess,
_viz._, some simple, workable, and effective means of securing it.
This means, as practical as it is simple, is no other than one supreme
central and living authority, enjoying full jurisdiction over
all--that is to say, the authority of Peter, ever living in his See,
and speaking, now by the lips of Leo, and now by the lips of Pius, but
always in the name, and with the authority, and under the guidance of
Him who, in the plenitude of His divine power, made Peter the
immovable rock, against which the gates of hell may indeed expend
their fury, but against which they never have prevailed and never can
prevail. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against Thee." That any
one can fail to understand the meaning of these inspired words; that
any one can give them any application save that which they receive in
the Catholic Church, is but another illustration of the extraordinary
power of prejudice and pride to blind the reason and to darken the
understanding.

Without this final Court of Appeal, set up by the wisdom of God, the
Church would disintegrate and fall into pieces to-morrow. To remove
from the Church of Christ the infallibility of the Pope would be like
removing the hub from the wheel, the key-stone from the arch, the
trunk from the tree, the foundation from the house. For, in each case
the result must mean confusion. If such a result could ever have been
doubted in the past, it can surely be doubted no longer. The sad
experience of the past three hundred years speaks more eloquently than
any words; and its verdict is conclusive. It proves two things beyond
dispute. The _first_ is, that even the largest and most heterogeneous
body of men may be easily united and kept together, if they can all be
brought to recognise and obey one supreme authority; and the _second_
is, that, even a small and homogeneous body of men will soon divide
and split up into sections, if they cannot be brought to recognise
such an authority.

Further, any one looking out over the face of Christendom, with an
unprejudiced eye, for the realisation of that unity which Christ
promised to affix to his Church as an infallible sign of authenticity,
will find it in the Catholic Communion, but certainly nowhere
else--least of all in the Church of England.

"What," asks a well-known writer in unfeigned astonishment, "what
opinion is not held within the Established Church? Were not Dr.
Wilberforce and Dr. Colenso, Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Baring equally
Bishops of the Church of England? Were not Dr. Pusey and Mr. Jowett
at the same time her professors; Father Ignatius and Mr. Bellew her
ministers; Archdeacon Denison and Dr. M'Neile her distinguished
ornaments and preachers? Yet their religions differed almost as widely
as Buddhism from Calvinism, or the philosophy of Aristotle from that
of Martin Tupper." If a Catholic priest were to teach a single
heretical doctrine, he would be at once cashiered, and turned out of
the Church. But "if an Anglican minister must resign because his
opinions are at variance with some other Anglican minister, every soul
of them would have to retire, from the Archbishop of Canterbury down
to the last licentiate of Durham or St. Bees".

As surely as infallibility is the essential prerogative of a divinely
constituted Teaching Church, so surely can it exist only in that
institution which alone has always claimed it, both as her gift by
promise and the sole explanation of her triumphs and her perpetuity.
It would be the idlest of dreams to search for it in a fractional part
of a modern community, like the Church of England, which had always
disowned and scoffed at it, and which could account for its own
existence ONLY on the plea that the Promises of God had
signally failed, and that _it_ alone was able to correct the failure.

Men ask for some sign, by which they may recognise the true Church of
God and discriminate it readily from all spurious imitations. God, in
His mercy, offers them a sign--namely UNITY. Yet they hesitate and
hold back, and refuse to guide their tempest-tossed barques by its
unerring light into the one Haven of Salvation.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 5: See Charge, etc., dated November, 1893.]

[Footnote 6: _Ang. Ministry_, by Hutton, p. 504.]




CHAPTER V.

THE POPE'S INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY.


1. The Church of God can be but one; because God is truth: and, truth
can be but one. The world may, and (as a matter of fact) does abound
in false Churches, just as it abounds in false deities; but, this is
rendered possible only _because they are false_. Two or more true
Churches involve a contradiction in terms. Such a condition of things
is as intrinsically absurd, and as unthinkable, as two or more true
Gods--as well talk of two or more multiplication tables! No! There can
be but "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". If several Churches all
teach the true doctrine of Christ, unmixed with error, they must all
agree, and, consequently, be virtually one and the self same. There is
no help for it; and sound reason will not tolerate any other
conclusion. The "Branch Theory" stands self-condemned, if truth be of
any importance: because it is inconsistent with truth. For, if one
Church contradicts the other on any single point of doctrine, then one
or the other must be false, that is, it must be either asserting what
Christ denied; or else denying what Christ asserted. They cannot,
under any circumstances, be described as _true_ Churches. This is not
sophistry or subtilty. It is common-sense. Christ promised unity in
promising truth; since truth is one. Is Christ divided? asks St. Paul.
No! Then neither is His Church.

2. How was His truth to be maintained and securely developed, century
after century, pure and untainted, and free from all admixture of
error? _Humanly_ speaking, the thing was impossible. Then what
_superhuman_ guarantee did He offer? What was to be our security?
Nothing less than the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost Himself.

Surely, then, we need not be anxious after that! Listen, and remember
it is to God you are listening. "The Spirit of Truth shall abide with
you for ever" (John xiv. 17). Non-Catholics do not seem in the least
to realise what those words mean, or that it is God Himself who
promises. But, to continue; what is the purpose of this extraordinary
and enduring presence? Why is it given? What is it for? Well, for the
express purpose of hindering divisions and sects. In order to lead,
not to mislead us. How do we know? Because God said so: "He shall
guide you into all truth" (John xvi. 13). And this truth, thus
permanently secured, was to draw all together into one body. In fact,
we have it on Divine authority, that the Church of Christ was to be as
truly a single organic whole, in which every part is subject to one
head, as is a living human body. The similitude is not of man's
choosing, but is inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. "As the
(natural) body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of
that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.... Now,
ye are the (mystical) Body[7] of Christ" (1 Cor. xii.).

What can be clearer, what more explicit? Now, if the Spirit of Truth,
that is to say, the Holy Ghost, _is really_ with the Church (as God
promised He always would be), and if He is always present for the
_express purpose of "guiding her into all truth"_ (as God promised
would be the case), surely this guidance must be a great reality, and
not the mere sham that it is everywhere found to be, outside the
Catholic Church.

3. Consciously or unconsciously, Anglicans and other non-Catholics
have for centuries denied the truth of Our Lord's words and have
contradicted His clearest statements. In fact, the Church of England,
in her Book of Homilies, declares that "clergy and laity, learned and
unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children,
of whole Christendom, were altogether drowned in damnable idolatry by
the space of 800 years and more"! (Hom. on Peril of Idol., part iii.).
This is a specimen of the way in which God's promises are set aside,
and the Bible misinterpreted by outsiders while professing to make it
the foundation of their creed. Nor was this the teaching of a few
irresponsible persons. It was enforced by the whole Anglican Church.
"All parsons, vicars, curates, and all others having spiritual cure,"
were "straitly enjoined" to read these Homilies Sunday after Sunday
throughout the year in every church and chapel of the kingdom. And the
25th Article declares the second book of Homilies to contain "a godly
and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times"! Probably this
"godly and wholesome doctrine" is no longer obliged to be read and
taught by Anglicans; probably they no longer consider it either
"godly" or "wholesome," but quite the reverse. This we are quite ready
to admit. But, in the name of common prudence, who, in his senses,
would trust the salvation of his immortal soul to a Church that
teaches a thing is white in one century and black in the next, and
never knows its own mind?

Here then let us put two very pertinent questions, for our
non-Catholic friends to ponder over, and to answer, if they can.
First: How is it possible for the Church to go astray, if God the Holy
Ghost is really guiding? Second: How is it possible for the Church to
wander away into _error_, if this same Spirit be leading her into _all
truth_? Will some one kindly explain that, without at the same time
denying the veracity of God?

4. However, granting the absolute truth of Christ's promises, we may
now proceed to inquire in what way this divine and (because divine)
infallible guidance into all truth is brought about? Is it by the Holy
Spirit whispering to each individual priest or to each individual
Bishop? Emphatically not. Why not? Because, if that theory were well
founded, then every priest and Bishop would believe and teach
precisely the same set of doctrines, without any need of an
infallible Pope to guide him. For, clearly, the Spirit of _Truth_
could not whisper "yea" to one, and "nay" to another, nor could He
declare a thing to be "black" to one person and "white" to his
neighbour. In fine, we have but two alternatives to choose from. We
must confess either that the promises themselves, so solemnly made,
are lies (which were blasphemy to affirm), or else, that God directs
His Church, and safeguards its truth, through its head, or chief
Pastor; just as we regulate and control the members of the physical
body through the brain. We must either renounce all belief in Christ
and His promises, or else admit that His words are actually carried
out, and that the prayer has been heard which He made for Peter, and
for those who should, in turn, exercise Peter's office and functions,
and should speak in his name. Harken to the narrative, as given by St.
Luke: "The Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have
you [_observe, the plural number_] that he may sift you as wheat; but
I have prayed [_not for all, but_] for _thee_, that _thy_ faith fail
not: and _thou_, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke
xxii. 32) [_observe the singular number_, "thee," "thy" and "thou"].

Peter still lives, in the person of Pope Pius X., and _in virtue of
that prayer_, and through the omnipotent power of God, Peter still
"confirms his brethren," and will continue to confirm them in the true
and pure doctrine of Christ, until the final crack of doom. As the
venerable Bishop W.B. Ullathorne wrote to Lady Chatterton, soon after
the Vatican Council, _i.e._, 19th November, 1875: "There is but one
Church of Christ, with one truth, taught by one authority, received by
all, believed by all within its pale; or there is no security for
faith. If we examine Our Lord's words and acts, such a Church there
is. If we follow the inclinations of our fallen nature, ever averse to
the control of authority, we there find the reason why so many who
love this world, receive not the authority that He planted, to endure
like His primal creation, to the end."

"It is pleasant to human pride and independence to be a little god,
having but oneself for an authority, and a light, and a law to
oneself. But does this or does it not contradict the fact that we are
dependent beings, and that the Lord, He is God? This spirit of
independence, with self-sufficiency for its basis, and rebellion for
its act, is _just what_ Sacred Scripture ascribes to Satan" (p. 230).

True. And it is just the reverse of the disposition that Christ
demands from all who wish to enter into His One Fold: for He declares
with startling clearness that "unless we become as little children"
(_i.e._, docile, submissive, trustful, etc.) "we shall not enter into
the Kingdom of heaven," which is His Church.

       *       *       *       *       *

5. Before proceeding further, it may be well here to draw a
distinction between the Pope, considered as the _supreme_ ruler, and
the Pope, considered as the _infallible_ ruler. The reigning Pontiff,
whosoever he may be, is always the Supreme Ruler, the Head of the
Church, and the Vicar of Christ; but he is not, on all occasions, nor
under all circumstances, the infallible ruler.

To guard against any mistake as to the meaning of our words, let us
explain that infallibility is a gift, but not a gift that the Pope
exercises every day, nor on every occasion, nor in addressing
individuals, nor public audiences, nor is it a prerogative that can be
invoked, except under special and indeed we may certainly add, very
exceptional circumstances. And further--unlike other powers--it can
never be delegated to another. The Pope himself is Infallible, but he
cannot transfer nor communicate his Infallibility, even temporarily or
for some special given occasion, to anyone else who may, in other
respects, represent him, such as a Legate, Ambassador, or Nuncio.

"Neither in conversation," writes the theologian Billuart, "nor in
discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in
consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has
defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations,
supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope
infallible." He is not infallible as a theologian, or as a priest, or
a Bishop, or a temporal ruler, or a judge, or a legislator, or in his
political views, or even in the government of the Church: but only
when he teaches the Faithful throughout the world, _ex cathedrÃ¢_, in
matters of faith or of morals, that is to say, in matters relating to
revealed truth, or to principles of moral conduct.

"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good
pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic
definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to
the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited
by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions
of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the
constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that
doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that, alongside religious
society, there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy, there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested, in
their own domain, with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in
conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and
belonging to the domain of civil society."[8]

Further, a definition of divine faith must be drawn from the Apostolic
deposit of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of
infallibility, whether in Pope or Council. Similarly, a precept of
morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be
drawn from the moral law, that primary revelation to us from God. The
Pope has no power over the Moral Law, except to assert it, to
interpret it and to enforce it.

6. From this, it is at once realised how restricted, after all, is the
infallible power of the Pope, in spite of the alarm its definition
excited in the Protestant camp, in 1870.

Still, it must be clearly understood that whether speaking _ex
cathedrÃ¢_ or not, the Pope is always the Vicar of Christ and the
divinely appointed Head of His Church, and that we, as dutiful
children, are bound both to listen to him with the utmost attention
and respect, and to show him ready and heartfelt obedience. Anyone who
should limit his submission to the Pope's infallible utterances is
truly a rebel at heart, and no true Catholic.

The Holy Scripture is far from contemplating the exceptional cases of
infallible definitions when it lays down the command: "Remember them,
who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God,
whose faith follow". And, "_obey_ them that have the rule over you,
and _submit_ yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that
must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief".
The margin in the Protestant Version (observes Cardinal Newman) reads
"those who are your _guides_," and the word may also be translated
"leaders". Well, whether as rulers or as guides and leaders, whichever
word be right, they are to be _obeyed_.

7. From this it is evident enough that assent is of two kinds. There
is firstly the assent of Divine Faith; and secondly there is the
assent of religious obedience. Neither can be dispensed with. Both are
binding. All we affirm is that the one is not the other, and that the
first must not be confused with the last. A special kind of assent,
that is to say, the _assent of Divine Faith_ must be given to all
those doctrines which are proposed to us by the infallible voice of
the Church, as taught by Our Lord or the Apostles, and as contained in
the original deposit [_fidei Depositum_]. They comprise (_a_) all
things whatever which God has directly revealed; and (_b_) whatever
truth such revelation implicitly contains.

These implicit truths are deduced from the original revelation, very
much as any other consequence from its premisses. For example. It is a
truth directly revealed, that the _Holy Ghost is God_. But, since God
is to be adored: the further proposition:--_the Holy Ghost is to be
adored_; is also contained, though only implicitly, in revelation;
and is therefore, equally, of faith. So again; that Christ is man, is
a fact of revelation; but the further proposition--Christ has a true
body--though not explicitly stated, is implicitly affirmed in the
first proposition. All consequences, such as the above, which are seen
immediately and evidently to be contained in the words of revelation,
must be accepted as of faith. Other consequences, which are equally
contained in the original deposit, but which are not so readily
detected and deduced, _must be explicitly_ accepted as of faith, only
so soon as the Church has publicly and authoritatively declared them
to be so contained; but not before. Thus, to take an illustration, the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is a fact contained from
the beginning, implicitly locked up, as it were, in the deposit of
faith, left by the Apostles. Were it not so it never could have been
defined; for the Church does not invent doctrines. She only transmits
them. Yet, this doctrine is not so clearly and so self-evidently
included, and lies not so luminously and unmistakably on the very
surface of revelation as to be at once perceptible to all. Hence,
before its actual definition, a Catholic might deny it, or suspend his
judgment, without censure; whereas, to do either the one or the other,
after the Church has solemnly declared the doctrine to be contained in
the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, would be nothing short of
heresy.

"The Infallibility, whether of the Church or of the Pope," says
Cardinal Newman, "acts principally or solely in two channels, (_a_) in
direct statement of truth, and (_b_) in the condemnation of error. The
former takes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the latter
stigmatises propositions as 'heretical,' 'next to heresy,'
'erroneous,' and the like" (p. 136).

The gift of Infallibility, observes Cardinal Manning, "extends
_directly_ to the whole matter of divine truth, and _indirectly_ to
all truths which, though not revealed, are in such contact with
revelation that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded,
expounded, and defended, without an infallible discernment of such
unrevealed truths" (_Vatican Decrees_, p. 167).

8. To sum up: Persons who refuse to assent to doctrines which they
know to be directly revealed and defined, or which are universally
held by the Church as of Catholic Faith, become by that very act
guilty of heresy, and cut themselves adrift from the mystical Body of
Christ, and are no longer His members. If, on the other hand, their
assent is refused only to doctrines closely connected with these
dogmatic utterances, and which, as such, are proposed for their
acceptance, they become guilty, if not of actual heresy, then of
something perilously akin to it, and are, at all events, guilty of
serious sin.

We may observe, in conclusion, that the Infallibility of Pontifical
definitions, as Father Humphrey so pertinently reminds us, does not
depend upon the reigning Pontiff's possession of any real knowledge of
ancient Church history or theology, or philosophy or science, but
_simply_ and solely upon the assistance of God the Holy Ghost,
guaranteed to him in his exercise of his function of Chief Pastor, in
feeding with divine doctrine the entire flock of God. Our Anglican
friends seem penetrated with the utterly false notion of justification
by scholarship alone; which is as untrue as it is unscriptural.
Indeed, their justification by scholarship is likely to lead to very
undesirable and deplorable results.

In the foregoing chapter we have considered especially the Pope's
Infallible authority, and the assent and obedience due to it. In our
next it remains for us to consider the proper attitude of a loyal
Catholic towards the Sovereign Pontiff as the supreme ruler and
governor of the Church of God, even when not speaking _ex cathedrÃ¢_.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 7: The word _soma_, observes Mgr. Capel, is never used in
Greek to express _mere_ association or aggregation (_Catholic_, p.
13).]

[Footnote 8: From a Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops, which _received the
Pope's approbation_.]




CHAPTER VI.

THE POPE'S ORDINARY AUTHORITY.


1. When the Holy Father speaks _ex cathedrÃ¢_, and defines any doctrine
concerning Faith or Morals, we are bound to receive his teaching with
the assent of divine faith: and cannot refuse obedience, without being
guilty of heresy. By one such wilful act of disobedience we cease to
be members of the Church of God, and must be classed with heathens and
publicans: "Who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the
heathen and the publican" (Matt, xviii. 17).

But the Holy Father rarely exercises his prerogative of Infallibility,
and therefore the occasions of these special professions of faith
occur but seldom--not once, perhaps, during the course of many years.

2. What then, it may be asked, is the proper attitude of a Catholic
towards the Pope, at ordinary times?

For a proper understanding of the answer, it may be well to remind the
general reader, that the law of God enjoins obedience to all lawfully
constituted authority; whether ecclesiastical or civil, and whether
Infallible or not: further that the Pope, whether speaking _ex
cathedrÃ¢_ or not, is always our lawful superior in all matters
appertaining to religion, not only as regards faith and morals, but
also as regards ecclesiastical order and discipline. His jurisdiction,
or authority to command in these matters, is supreme and universal,
and carries with it a corresponding right to be obeyed. He is the
immediate and supreme representative of God upon earth; and has been
placed in that position by God Himself. And since the Primacy is
neither in whole, nor even in part of human derivation, but comes
directly and immediately from Christ, no man or number of men, whether
kings or princes or individual Bishops, nor even a whole Council of
Bishops, have any warranty or right to command him in religious or
ecclesiastical concerns.[9] The Council of Florence declares that: "To
him, in Blessed Peter, was delivered by Our Lord Jesus Christ the full
power of ruling and governing the Universal Church". Now this "full
power" accorded by Christ cannot be limited except by the authority of
Christ. Though the Pope is not the Sovereign of all the faithful in
the _temporal_ order, he is the Sovereign of all Christians in the
_spiritual_ order. If then--and this is admitted by all--we are bound
in conscience to obey our temporal sovereign and magistrates and
masters, and must submit to the laws of the country, so long as they
do not conflict with higher and superior laws, such as the Natural Law
and the Revealed Law, with still greater reason are we bound to obey
our spiritual Sovereign and the laws and regulations of the Church.

3. To object that the Pope may possibly make a mistake when not
speaking _ex cathedrÃ¢_ though true, is nothing to the point. For civil
governments are far more liable to fail in this respect, and as a
matter of fact, do frequently abuse their power and pass unjust laws,
and sometimes command what is sinful,[10] yet that fact does not
militate against the soundness of the _general_ proposition that
lawful superiors are to be obeyed. Nor does it diminish the force of
St. Peter's inspired words, in which he bids us be subject, for God's
sake, "whether it be to the king, as excelling, or to governors as
sent by him for the punishment of evil doers ... for such is the will
of God" (Peter ii.). Nor does it detract from the truth and validity
of St. Paul's still more emphatic words: "Let every soul be subject to
higher powers; for there is no power but from God: and those that are
ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, _resisteth the
ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves
damnation_" (Rom. xiii.). And again, when writing to Titus he says:
"Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey" (Tit.
iii. 1).

If the Apostles themselves thus command obedience to the State, even
to a pagan Government, such as the Roman was at the time they wrote,
it will scarcely be denied by any Christian that obedience is due to
the Church, and to the ecclesiastical government, altogether apart
from any question of infallibility. In fact, though both the civil
government and the ecclesiastical government are from God, and though
each is supreme within its own sphere; yet the authority in the case
of the Church is directly and immediately from God, whereas in the
case of the State, it is from God only mediately. This is why the
form of government, in the case of the State, may vary. It may be at
one time monarchical, and at another republican, and then oligarchic,
and so forth, whereas the Church must ever be ruled by one Supreme
Pontiff, and be monarchical in its form. Further, it is generally held
that even when not speaking _ex cathedrÃ¢_, "the Vicar of Christ is
largely assisted by God in the fulfilment of his sublime office; that
he receives great light and strength to do well the great work
entrusted to him and imposed upon him, and that he is continually
guided from above in the government of the Catholic Church." [Words of
Father O'Reilly, S.J., quoted with approval by Cardinal Newman, p.
140.] And that supplies us with a special and an additional motive for
prompt obedience.

"Two powers govern the world," wrote Pope Gelasius, to the Greek
Emperor Anastasius, more than fourteen hundred years ago, "the
spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff, and the temporal power of
kings". These two powers have for their end, one the spiritual
happiness of man, here and hereafter, the other the temporal
prosperity of society in the present world. So that, we may say,
speaking generally, the Roman Pontiff has, in spiritual and
ecclesiastical matters, the same authority that secular sovereigns and
their Parliaments have in worldly and political matters. They command
and issue laws not only as regards what is _necessary_ for the welfare
of their subjects, but also as regards whatever is lawful and
expedient. It is not contended that they never make a mistake. It is
not asserted that their ruling is necessarily, and in every
particular, always wise and discreet, but even inexpedient orders, if
not unjust, may be valid and binding, even though they might have been
better non-issued. The principle to guide us is of practical
simplicity. As regards both the Church and the State--each in its own
order--the rule is that obedience is to be yielded. And, in doubtful
cases the presumption is in favour of authority. If anything were
ordered, which is _clearly seen_ to be contrary to, or incompatible
with the Law of God, whether natural or revealed, then, of course, it
would possess no binding force, for the Apostle warns us that--"We
must obey God, rather than man"--but, so long as we remain in a state
of uncertainty, we are bound to give a properly constituted authority
the benefit of the doubt--and submit.

4. With these preliminary explanations and considerations to guide us
in our interpretation, we will now give the solemn teaching on the
subject, as laid down in the third chapter of the _Pastor Ã�ternus_,
drawn up and duly promulgated by the Ecumenical Council of the
Vatican; and therefore of supreme authority.

"We teach and declare that the Roman Church, according to the
disposition of the Lord, obtains the princedom of ordinary power over
all the other Churches; and that this, the Roman Pontiff's power of
jurisdiction, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; towards which
(power) all the pastors and faithful, of whatever right and dignity,
whether each separately or all collectively, are bound by the duty of
hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in the things
which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to
the _discipline and government_ (_regimen_) of the Church diffused
through the whole world; so that, unity being preserved with the Roman
Pontiff, as well of communion as of the profession of the same faith,
the Church of Christ may be one flock under one pastor. This is the
doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss
of faith and salvation."

"We also teach and declare that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge
of the faithful, and that in all causes belonging to ecclesiastical
examination recourse can be had to his judgment: and that the judgment
of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is none greater, is
not to be called in question, nor is it lawful for any one to judge
its judgment. Therefore, those wander from the right path of truth who
affirm that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman
Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as to an authority superior to the
Roman Pontiff."

"If any one, therefore, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has only the
office of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of
jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in the things which
pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the
discipline and government of the Church diffused throughout the whole
world, or that he has only the principal place (_potiores partes_),
and not the whole plenitude of the supreme power, or that this, his
power, is not ordinary and immediate, whether over all and each of the
Churches, or over all and each of the pastors and faithful, let him be
anathema!"

5. Since the Church is a perfect society, spread throughout the entire
world, with one supreme ruler at its head, it follows that it must be
endowed with all the means requisite for the carrying out of its
mission. Christ was sent, by His Eternal Father, from Heaven with full
powers. "All power is given me in heaven and in earth"; and these
powers He handed on to His Church. "As the Father hath sent Me, so I
also send you" (John xx. 21). Hence the Popes are, to use Scriptural
phraseology, "ambassadors for Christ; God, as it were, exhorting by
them" (2 Cor. v. 20); and no Catholic dare contest their power or
jurisdiction.

Indeed, it would have been hopelessly impossible to carry on the
government of the Church and to maintain unity amongst its
ever-increasing numbers, if there were no supreme authority ready to
assert itself; to correct errors; to resist abuses; and to restrain
those who might introduce dissensions and differences. Of this fact,
the present deplorable chaotic state of the Anglican and other
non-Catholic Churches offers us abundant and forcible illustrations.
From the very first the One True Church has not only taught, but
ruled; not only spoken, but acted. And when any of her subjects have
proved obstreperous and disobedient, and stubborn in their resistance
to her orders, she has invariably turned them out of her fold, so that
they should not infect and contaminate the good and the loyal. It was
in this sense that St. Paul, the inspired Apostle, in the very first
century of the Christian era, instructed Titus to construe and
administer the law committed to his charge. After warning Titus that
there are "many vain talkers and deceivers," St. Paul commands him "to
rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in faith". He adds
further: "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke, _with all
authority_". But this was not all. He was not only to decide who were
the "vain talkers and deceivers". Nor was he simply "to exhort and
rebuke them sharply, and with all authority," that they might become
"sound in the faith," but if they persisted after the first and second
admonition, he was also to reject them, and thrust them out of the
Church, as heretics. "Reject a heretic, after the first and second
admonition" (Tit. iii. 10). Now Titus was neither an Apostle nor a
Pope, but a simple Bishop. If then such were the powers invested in
him, how much more fully still must this authority be inherent in the
Vicar of Christ himself, who is the supreme head upon earth of the
entire Church of God.

It is this prompt amputation of the diseased members, before the
hideous canker has time to spread, that has kept the Church of God
pure to this day, while heretical bodies have fallen into greater and
greater spiritual decay. It is because she fearlessly and resolutely
insists upon all her children accepting the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, that she presents to the world, century
after century, with miraculous clearness and perspicuity, the Divine
hall-mark of unity.

6. Outside the true Church of God there is no recognised voice strong
enough to enforce any uniformity of belief. Though the Pope's
authority was acknowledged throughout England for over one thousand
years, yet at the time of the so-called Reformation, that Voice of
God, speaking through Peter, was admitted no longer. Hence, as
Cardinal Manning most truly observes: "The old forms of religious
thought are now passing away in England. The rejection of the Divine
Voice has let in the flood of opinion; and opinion has generated
scepticism; and scepticism has brought on contentions without end.
What seemed so solid once, is disintegrated. It is dissolving by the
internal action of the principle from which it sprung. The critical
unbelief of dogma has now reached to the foundation of Christianity,
and to the veracity of Scripture. Such is the world the Catholic
Church Sees before it at this day. The Anglicanism of the Reformation
is _upon the rocks_, like some tall ship stranded upon the shore, and
going to pieces, by its own weight and the steady action of the sea.
We have no need of playing the wreckers. It would be inhumanity to do
so. God knows that the desires and prayers of Catholics are ever
ascending that all that remains of Christianity in England may be
preserved, unfolded and perfected into the whole circle of revealed
truths, and the unmutilated revelation of the Faith.

"It is inevitable that if we speak plainly we must give pain and
offence to those who will not admit the possibility that they are out
of the Faith and the Church of Jesus Christ. But, if we do not speak
plainly, woe unto us, for we shall betray our trust and our Master.
There is a day coming, when they who have softened down the truth, or
have been silent, will have to give account. I had rather be thought
harsh than be conscious of hiding the light which has been mercifully
shown to me" (_Temp. Mission_, etc., p. 215).

It would be well if all Catholics took to heart these noble words of
the great English Cardinal, who was himself once an Archdeacon in the
Anglican Church. Real charity urges us to set forth the truth in all
its nakedness and beauty. This must be done, even though it may
sometimes give pain and cause irritation. If a man be walking in a
trance towards the crumbling edge of some ghastly precipice, who--let
me ask--acts with the greater charity, he who is afraid to interfere,
and will calmly allow the somnambulist to walk on, till he fall over
into the abyss; or he who will shout, and, if need be, roughly shake
him from his fatal sleep, and so, perhaps, save him from destruction?
Surely, to allow a fellow-creature to follow a path of extreme danger,
for fear of wounding his susceptibilities and incurring his anger, by
candidly pointing out his peril, is the mark, not of a lover of his
brethren, but rather of one who loves himself alone.

We will conclude with the warning of God, given through the inspired
writer Ezekiel, the application of which, _positis ponendis_, is
sufficiently plain: "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shall surely
die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked
from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die
in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at thy hand. Yet _if
thou warn the wicked_, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from
his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity, but _thou hast delivered
thy soul_" (Ezek. iii. 18).

_P.S._--Among the authors quoted in THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY may be
mentioned the following, as being easily obtainable by English
readers: Allnatt, Allies, Bonomelli, Capel, Castelplano, Dering,
Deviver, Franzelin, Humphrey, Manning, Merry del Val, Meyer, Minges,
Newman, O'Reilly, Rhodes, Ullathorne, Ward.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 9: "Da chi dipenderÃ  il Pontefice nell' esercizio del suo
potere Spirituale? Dai RÃ¨? Eccovi il gallicanismo parlamentare! Dalle
masse dei fedeli? Eccovi il richerianismo, e febronianismo! Dai
Vescovi? Eccovi il gallicanismo teologico" (_L. di Castelplanio_, p.
104).]

[Footnote 10: Take for instance, 37 Henry VIII. Chap. 17, which
recites that "the clergy have no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, but by
and under the King, who is the _only Supreme Head of the Church_ of
England, to whom _all_ authority and power is _wholly_ given to hear
and determine all causes ecclesiastical."]




PART II.

THE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
OR
THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ENGLAND IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES.


   As the First Part of this little treatise is devoted to a
   consideration of the position of the Pope and the authority
   which he exercises throughout the Universal Church; so the
   Second Part is concerned with the position occupied and the
   authority exercised by the same Sovereign Pontiff in our own
   country of England, before she was cut off from the
   Universal Church in the sixteenth century.




CHAPTER I.

THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION.


One of the greatest glories of the Catholic Church is that she and she
alone possesses and is able to communicate to others the whole truth
revealed by Jesus Christ. The Church of England and other Churches
that have gone out from her have, we are thankful to say, carried with
them some fragments of Christianity, but the Catholic Church alone
possesses the whole unadulterated revelation of Jesus Christ. For over
a thousand years, the Church in England formed a part of the great
Universal Church, the centre of which is at Rome and the circumference
of which is everywhere. From the sixth to the sixteenth century the
Church in England was a province of that Church, and received her
power and jurisdiction from the Holy See. It was not until the
sixteenth century that she apostatised, and was cut off from the stem,
out of which she had sprung, as a rotten branch is lopped off from a
healthy tree. It was not until then that she became a Church apart,
distinct from the Church of God, no longer the _Catholic_ Church _in_
England, but henceforth the _National_ Church _of_ England and of
England alone. The pre-"Reformation" Church was, as we have said, not
a separate Church, but a part of the one Catholic Church, whereas the
post-"Reformation" Church stands alone, unrecognised by the rest of
Christendom; hence the one is absolutely distinct from the other. The
grand old cathedrals and churches designed, built, and paid for by our
Catholic ancestors have been forcibly taken possession of, but the
Faith, the teaching, and the doctrine--in a word, the Church
itself--is totally distinct. The wolf may slay and devour the sheep
and may then clothe himself in its fleece, but the wolf is not the
sheep, and the nature of the one remains totally different from that
of the other. The proofs of all this are so numerous and so striking
that one scarcely knows which to choose, nor where to begin. In the
present chapter, we will content ourselves with calling attention to
certain points that every one will be able to grasp. It is said that a
straw will show which way the wind blows, so things even trivial in
themselves will enable any unprejudiced man to see that there must be
some radical difference between the Church in England four hundred
years ago, and the Church of England to-day. First, let us just look
round and consider the Catholic Church. It is spread all over the
world. It is found in France, in Belgium, in Italy, in Spain, and in
other countries, all of which recognised the Church in England before
the "Reformation" as one in faith and doctrine with themselves. They
felt themselves united with it in one and the same belief; they taught
the same seven Sacraments; they gathered around the same Sacrifice;
they acknowledged the same supremacy of the same spiritual head. Now
there is no single Catholic country that recognises the Church of
England as anything but heretical and schismatical.

Formerly when any Archbishop of Canterbury travelled abroad he was
received as a brother by the Catholic Bishops all over the Continent.
He felt thoroughly at home in the Catholic churches, and offered up
the Divine Mysteries at their altars, using the same sacred vessels,
reading from the same missal, speaking the same language, and feeling
himself to be a member of the same spiritual family. Can the present
Archbishop of Canterbury follow their example? Would the Cardinal
Archbishop of Paris, for instance, or the Archbishop of Milan receive
the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, as a brother Bishop? Would they
cause their cathedrals to be thrown open to him? No.

In vain does the Archbishop of Canterbury of to-day claim continuity
with the pre-"Reformation" Archbishops. For no one would be found to
admit such a claim. It may be said that this is of no great
importance. It may not be in itself, but it is the straw which shows
the way the wind blows; and clearly proves that the verdict of the
entire world and the chief centres of Christendom is against
continuity.

Let us take another "straw". Before the pseudo-Reformation there were
Cardinals exercising authority in the Church in England. Some of them
even became famous. There was, for instance, Cardinal Stephen Langton,
who was Primate of England, and who brought together the Barons, and
forced the Great Charter from King John. There, amongst the signatures
to that famous document we find the name of a Roman Cardinal. From the
time of Stephen Langton to the time of Cardinal Fisher in the
sixteenth century there was a long succession of Cardinals in England,
all of whom were members of the Church in England. From the time of
Cardinal Robert Pullen to that of Cardinal John Fisher there were no
fewer than twenty-two Roman Cardinals belonging to that Church. How is
it that during those thousand years the English Church could have and
actually did have Cardinals, up to the time of the so-called
Reformation, but never since? How is it that such a thing has ceased
to be possible? Clearly because it is no longer the same Church.
Before, England was a part of the Universal Church; and just as the
Church in Italy, France, and Spain, had, and still have, their
Cardinals, so England also was given its share of representation in
the Sacred College. We shall realise the inference to be drawn if we
consider what a Cardinal is. In the first place, he is one chosen
directly by the Pope; secondly, he is one of the Pope's advisers;
thirdly, when the Holy Father dies it is he, as a member of the Sacred
College, who has to elect a successor; furthermore, he swears
allegiance to the Sovereign Pontiff, and on bended knee, with his
hands on the Holy Gospels, he solemnly declares his adhesion to the
Roman Catholic Faith. No Anglican of the present day, no Protestant,
no one who is not an out-and-out Roman Catholic can be, or could ever
have been, a Cardinal, yet there were Cardinals here in the Church in
England, and, as we have stated, a long succession of them right up to
the time of the pseudo-Reformation. How can there be continuity and
spiritual identity between the Church _in_ England, which before that
change could and did have Cardinals, and the Church _of_ England
to-day, which can produce nothing of the kind? Cardinals or no
Cardinals is not a matter of great importance in itself, but it is
another "straw" which clearly shows the completely altered condition
of things. Let us pass to another point. During the period between the
sixth and sixteenth centuries there were many canonised saints in the
Church in England. I refer to such men as St. Bede, who lived in the
eighth century; to St. Odo of Canterbury; to St. Dunstan, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in the tenth century; to St. Wolstan of Worcester; to
St. Osmond, Bishop of Salisbury in the eleventh century; to St. Thomas
Ã  Becket, in the twelfth century; to St. Richard, Bishop of
Chichester and St. Edmund, in the thirteenth century; and to many
others we could mention, whose names are enrolled in the lists of the
Catholic Church, and who are set up before her children as models of
virtue, as the most perfect specimens of sanctity, and as worthy of
our imitation--all members of the Church in England before the
pseudo-Reformation.[11] How is it that the present Church of England
has never canonised any saint? Those to whom I have referred represent
the best and truest of the Church in England before the "Reformation".
We still show them reverence. In many cases we even recite their
offices and Masses. How, then, can they be members of the same Church
as the Church of England of to-day, which we know to be a schismatical
body, cut off from the unity of Christendom some four hundred years
ago? There has been no saint canonised according to the rite of the
Church of England, but if there had been, we would not and could not
reverence them, for they would be to us outside the Church--aliens,
heretics, and, from that point of view at all events, unworthy of
imitation. Let us point out yet another "straw" which clearly
indicates the essential difference between the Church in England
before the "Reformation" and the Church of England after it. When the
young King Henry VIII. first came to the throne he, like all his
predecessors, both kings and queens, was a true Roman Catholic. So
much so, that when a doctrine of the Church was attacked he wrote a
book in its defence; in fact, the Pope was so pleased with his zeal
that he determined to reward him by conferring on him the title of
"Defender of the Faith". But, in the name of common-sense! Defender of
what Faith? Was it the Protestant faith? Was it the faith professed by
the present Church of England? Is it likely, is it possible, that any
Pope would confer such a title on any one who was not in union with
the Holy See, and who rejected Catholic doctrine? Such a thing is
unthinkable. Was the faith of Henry VIII. before the break with Rome
the same as that of Edward VII. who on his coronation day declared the
Mass to be false, Transubstantiation to be absurd, and Catholics to be
idolaters? If not, then what becomes of the continuity theory? The
fact is that between the Church in England before the sixteenth
century and the Church of England to-day there is no real connection,
no true resemblance, and those who endeavour to prove the contrary are
but falsifying history and throwing dust into the eyes of simple
people, and trying to prove what is absolutely and wholly untrue.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 11: As early as 1170 Pope Alexander III. decreed that the
consent of the Roman Church was necessary before public honour as a
saint could be given to any person. Is it conceivable that such
consent would be given by any Pope in the case of one not united to
Rome in the same faith?]




CHAPTER II.

THE OATH OF OBEDIENCE.


In order to realise the absolute absurdity of the continuity theory,
and to see how thoroughly Roman Catholic England was right up to the
"Reformation," it is enough for us to turn back the hands of the great
clock of time some few hundred years, and to visit England at any
period during the long interval between the sixth and the sixteenth
century.

One of the first facts that would strike any observant visitor to our
shores in those days, would be the attitude of the Church in England
towards the Holy See. Every Archbishop, every metropolitan from the
time of St. Augustine himself, A.D. 601, up to the sixteenth
century, not merely acknowledged the authority of the Pope, but
solemnly swore to show him reverence and obedience. Furthermore, even
when an Archbishop had been appointed and consecrated, he could not
exercise jurisdiction until he had received the sacred pallium, which
came from Rome, and was received as the symbol and token of the
authority conferred on him by the supreme Pastor. The pallium itself,
"taken from the body of Blessed Peter," is a band of lamb's wool, and
was worn by each Archbishop as the pledge of unity and of orthodoxy,
as well as the fetter of loving subjection to the Supreme Pastor of
the One Fold, the "apostolic yoke" of Catholic obedience.

In the early Saxon times, long before trains or steamers had been
invented, we find Primate after Primate of All England undertaking the
long and perilous journey over the sea, and then across the Continent
of Europe, and over the precipitous and dangerous passes of the Alps,
down through the sunny and vine-clad slopes of Italy, in order to
receive the pallium in person from the venerable successor of St.
Peter, in the great Basilica in Rome. But, whether they actually went
for it themselves in person, or whether special messengers were sent
with it from Rome to England, they always awaited its reception before
they considered themselves fully empowered to exercise their
metropolitan functions. By way of illustration, it may be interesting
to consider some special case, and we will then leave the reader to
judge whether we are dealing with an England that is _Catholic_ or an
England that is _Protestant_; with an England united to the Holy See
and to the rest of Catholic Europe, or an England independent of the
Holy See, isolated, and established by Law and Parliament, as it is
to-day--an England in possession of the truth, which is universal and
the same everywhere, or an England clinging to error, which is local,
national and circumscribed.

It does not much matter what name we select; any will answer our
purpose. Let us then take Simon Langham, as good and honest an English
name as ever there was. It is the year 1366, some two hundred years
before the Church in England cut itself off from the rest of
Christendom. The metropolitan See of Canterbury is vacant. The
widowed Diocese seeks, at the hands of the Pope, Urban V., a new
Archbishop. After mature inquiry and consideration the Pope selects
Simon Langham. And who is he? Who is this distinguished man, now
called to rule over that portion of the one Catholic Church
represented by England? If we study his history we shall find that he
in no way resembles the typical amiable Anglican Canon of the present
day, with a wife and children, living within the Cathedral close, but
that he is a simple, austere, Benedictine monk. He has been living for
some time past in the famous Abbey of Westminster. He was first a
simple monk, then he was chosen Prior, and finally Lord Abbot. Some
years later, _i.e._, in 1362, he was appointed to the vacant See of
Ely. By whom? Well, in those days the Church was not a mere department
of the State, so it was not by the Crown. No: nor by the Prime
Minister, as in the Anglican Church of to-day. But, as history
records, by a special Papal Bull. Thus, at the time we are now
considering, _viz._, 1366, he had been Bishop just four years. Now,
the Primatial throne of St. Augustine, as already stated, has become
vacant, and Simon Langham, the Bishop of Ely, is appointed Archbishop
of Canterbury, and Lord Primate of England.

As with all the other Archbishops before the "Reformation," he cannot
exercise his metropolitan powers till he has received from Rome the
insignia of his office, _viz._, the sacred pallium. On this occasion
the Archbishop does not go himself to Italy, to receive it from the
hands of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it is brought by special
messengers from Rome to England.

We may well imagine the interest these visitors from the Eternal City
would excite among the population of London. Their dark complexion and
bright, black eyes, and foreign appearance would, no doubt, attract
considerable attention. Of course they would be made welcome and be
shown the chief sights of the city. They would greatly admire, for
instance, the beauty of Westminster Abbey, and would probably ask its
history. Then they would be told how it originated with St. Edward the
Confessor. How he had made a vow to go on a pilgrimage to the tomb of
the Apostles at Rome, like a loyal Catholic, in order to pay homage to
the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ appointed as head of the
Church; how the pious King, finding his kingdom in danger of invasion,
and his authority threatened, and not daring to absent himself, begged
the Pope to release him from his vow; how the Pope at once commuted
it, and bade him build a church instead, in honour of St. Peter; and
so forth. Then they would very likely visit the inmates of the Abbey.
The Benedictine monks who served the Abbey would entertain them, and
ask after their brethren in Italy. Some of these English monks would
in all likelihood have been educated at Subiaco, where St. Benedict
first lived, or at Monte Cassino, where he died, and where his body
still lies. In any case, these English monks were undoubtedly true
children of St. Benedict, and followed his rule, and were animated by
his spirit, and rejoiced to acknowledge him as their founder and
spiritual father. There was nothing of the modern Anglican, and
nothing insular about them!

In the meantime the great day arrives. It is the 4th of November in
the year 1366. The bells of the Abbey are ringing a merry peal. The
Faithful are flocking in to witness the Archbishop receive the
Pallium, the symbol of jurisdiction, and the sign that all spiritual
authority emanates from St. Peter, who alone has received the keys,
and from his rightful successors in the Petrine See of Rome.

It is a grand ceremony, and we have even to-day, in the old Latin
records, a full account of what took place. Anything more truly Roman
Catholic, or less like the Anglican Church of the "Reformation," it
would be difficult to imagine.

It was directed by the rubrics, that the Cathedral clergy should be
called together, at an early hour, and that Prime and the rest of the
Divine Office should be recited, up to the High Mass. Then the
cross-bearers and torch-bearers and thurifers, and the attendants
carrying the Book of the Gospels and other articles of the sanctuary,
are drawn up in processional order in the chancel. Two and two,
followed by priests and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, they walk
down the nave. Then comes the Archbishop himself, robed in full
pontificals, though, out of respect to the Pallium, with bare feet.
The rubric on this point is explicit, _viz._, "nudis pedibus". Behind
the Archbishop come the Prior and the monks wearing copes. In this
order they all pass through the streets of London to the gate of the
city to meet the Papal Commissioner who bears the Pallium. He is
dressed in an alb and choir-cope, and solemnly carries the Pallium
enclosed in a costly vessel either of gold or of silver. As soon as
the procession meets the Pallium-bearer it turns round, and those who
issued forth retrace their steps towards the Abbey. Last but one walks
the Archbishop, and last of all follows the bearer of the Pallium. On
reaching the church the Pallium is reverently laid on the high altar.
The Archbishop then remains, for some minutes, prostrate in prayer
before the high altar. Then the choir having finished their singing,
the Archbishop rises, and turning to the assembled multitude, gives
them his blessing. He then approaches the altar, and with his hands
upon the holy Gospels, takes the following solemn oath.

Now, gentle reader, we are anxious that you should pay particular
attention to the words of this oath. They may be found in Wilkins'
_Concilia_ (vol. ii., p. 199), in the original Latin, just as they
were uttered by Simon Langham, and other Archbishops, in old Catholic
days. We give them translated into English. And, as you read them, ask
yourselves whether the Archbishops who uttered them were genuine Roman
Catholics, or merely Parliamentary Bishops of the local and national
variety, belonging to the present English Establishment.

We take our stand in spirit in Westminster Abbey, on the 4th day of
November, 1366, and, in common with the rest of the vast congregation
which fills every available space, we listen to the newly elected
Archbishop, as in clear, ringing words, with his hands on the Gospels,
he swears as follow:--

"I, Simon Langham, Archbishop of Canterbury, will be from this hour
henceforth faithful and obedient to St. Peter, and to the Holy
Apostolic Roman Church, and to my Lord the Pope, Urban V., and to his
canonical successors."

Surely, some of us would open our eyes pretty wide if we saw the
present Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury with his hands on the
Gospels taking that oath. Yet we are assured, _ad nauseam_, that the
Church to which Simon Cardinal Langham belonged is the same as the
present Church of England, which repudiates the authority of the Pope
altogether. The same? Well, yes; if light and darkness, and sweetness
and bitterness, are the same. But let us read the whole of the oath:
"I, Simon Langham, will be from this hour henceforth faithful and
obedient to St. Peter, and to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, and to
my Lord the Pope, Urban V., and to his canonical successors. Neither
in counsel or consent or in deed, will I take part in aught by which
they might suffer loss of life, or limb, or liberty. Their counsel
which they may confide to me, whether by their envoys or their letter,
I will, to their injury, wittingly disclose to no man. The Roman
Papacy and the royalty of St. Peter, I will be their helper to defend
and to maintain, saving my order, against all men. When summoned to a
Synod I will come, unless hindered by a canonical impediment. The
Legate of the Apostolic See I will treat honourably in his coming and
going, and will help him in his needs. Every third year I will visit
the threshold of the Apostles, either personally or by proxy, unless I
am dispensed by Apostolic licence. The possessions which pertain to
the support of my Archbishopric, I will not sell, nor give away, nor
pledge, nor re-enfeoff, nor alienate in any way, without first
consulting the Roman Pontiff. So help me, God, and these God's Holy
Gospels."

If you, who read these lines, had stood by, and listened to this oath,
would it leave any doubt in your minds as to the religion of the
Archbishop? Could you possibly mistake it for the religion of the
present Church of England?

Was the present Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury chosen and appointed
by the Pope? Did he take a vow of celibacy? Does the present
Archbishop acknowledge publicly and officially that he receives his
jurisdiction from the Pope? Did he receive the Pallium from Rome, sent
by special Papal messengers? Did he stand up and swear on the Gospels
that he would be faithful and obedient to his Lord the Pope? Did he
promise to visit Rome every three years, to give his Lord the Pope an
account of his diocese? Nothing of the kind. Yet we are gravely told
that there is no break between the Church of St. Anselm, and Simon
Langham, and of Cardinal Fisher, on the one hand, and the Church of
the present Archbishop of Canterbury on the other!

Why are these good men so exceedingly anxious to prove that black is
white? Why will they assert and re-assert, in every mood and tense,
that things most opposite are identical, and things most unlike are
exactly the same?

We will deal with that question in the next chapter. All we now affirm
is that the reason is abundantly clear and evident, though little
creditable to these perverters of history.




CHAPTER III.

THE AWKWARD DILEMMA.


In the whole catalogue of sin, there is hardly one so detestable in
itself, or so withering in its effects, as the sin of heresy.
Consequently, though we feel a great love as well as a great interest
in the Church in England during the thousand years in which she formed
a part of the Church of God, we can have little love for the present
Church of England, as by law established, cut off, as she is, from the
only true Church, which Christ, the Incarnate God, was pleased in His
infinite wisdom to build upon St. Peter, and upon those who should
succeed him in his sublime office, and who have received the Divine
Commission to rule over the entire flock, to hold the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and to confirm their brethren to the end of time.

Besides, a careful study of the origin and genesis of the present
Anglican Establishment is scarcely calculated to predispose any one
particularly in its favour. It is not Catholics only who might be
thought biased upon such a point, but others also who feel this. In
fact, it is precisely impartial men, unaffected by any interest either
way, who most fully realise from what a very shady beginning the new
state of things arose. As Sir Osborne Morgan puts it, "Every student
of English history knows that, if a very bad king had not fallen in
love with a very pretty woman, and desired to get divorced from his
plain and elderly wife, and if he had not compelled a servile
Parliament to carry out his wishes, there would, in all human
probability, never have been an Established Church at all."

This gentleman is a Protestant, and the son of a Protestant clergyman,
so we may be quite sure that he harbours no special leanings towards
us, yet he speaks impartially as one who has not only read history,
but read it without coloured spectacles. Perhaps Lord Macaulay puts
the case as bluntly as any one, and we may as well quote him because
he, too, was no Catholic, and held no brief for the Church of Rome.
This brilliant writer, who was, perhaps, an historian before all
things, tells us that the work of the Reformation was the work, not of
three saints, nor even of three ordinary decent men, but of three
notorious murderers! These are not our words, but Macaulay's, and it
is not our fault if this is his reading of history. We merely summon
him as a Protestant witness. He calmly and deliberately states that
the Reformation was "begun by Henry VIII., the murderer of his wives;
was continued by Somerset, the murderer of his brother; and was
completed by Elizabeth, the murderer of her guest". Not a very
auspicious beginning, it must be confessed, and scarcely suggestive of
the Divine afflatus. Those who planted the Catholic Church used no
violence, and did not inflict death. No! on the contrary, they endured
death, and their blood became the seed of the Church. And that is
quite another story. In former days every one admitted the present
Anglican Church to be the child of the Reformation. It was, to quote
the Protestant historian, Child, "as completely the creation of Henry
VIII., Edward's Council, and Elizabeth as Saxon Protestantism was of
Luther." But now? Oh! now, "nous avons changÃ© tout cela," and history
has received a totally different setting. A certain section of
Anglicans, in these modern times, are labouring hard to persuade
themselves and others that they can trace their Church back to the
time of St. Augustine. They will by no means allow that they started
into being only in the sixteenth century. In fact, it is quite
pathetic to watch the strenuous efforts they make, and the extravagant
means to which they have recourse, in order to lull themselves into
the peaceful enjoyment of so sweet and consoling a delusion.

A delusion which a candid study of past history must sooner or later
ruthlessly dispel, and which has not a shred of foundation in fact to
support it. But we promised to point out WHY, in spite of
its absolute absurdity, these good men, like the Bishop of London,
persist in repeating and restating with ever-increasing vehemence that
there has been no break in the continuity, and that the present Church
of England is one with the Church of St. Bede, of St. Dunstan, of St.
Anselm, of St. Thomas, and of other pre-Reformation heroes; though
they must surely know that there is not one amongst these glorious old
Catholic saints who would not a thousand times sooner have gone to the
stake and been burnt alive, than have accepted the Thirty-nine
Articles, or than have joined the present Bishop of London in any of
his religious services. Why do Anglicans make such heroic efforts to
connect their Church with the past? Why do they advance an impossible
theory? Why will they stubbornly affirm what history utterly denies?
Why do they assert, and with such emphasis, what no one but they
themselves have the hardihood to believe? Why? For precisely the same
reason that will induce a drowning man to grasp at a straw. In short,
because even if they did not realise it before, they are now
beginning to see that their very position depends upon their being
able to make out some sort of case for continuity. They realise that
to admit that the Church of England began in the sixteenth century is
simply to cut the ground from underneath their feet. Therefore, purely
in self-defence, they feel themselves constrained to cling to the
continuity theory. It may be absurd, it may be unhistorical, it may be
impossible and utterly repudiated by every impartial and honest man.
That cannot be helped. Impossible or not impossible; true or false, it
is necessary for their very existence, so that, just as a drowning man
catches at a straw, though it cannot possibly support him, so do these
most unfortunate and hardly-pressed men clutch at and cling to the
hollow theory of continuity. Sometimes, when off their guard, and in a
less cautious mood, they will confess as much themselves. And what is
more, we can provide our readers with an instance of such a
confession. Many will well remember a well-known and distinguished
Anglican divine, named Canon Malcolm MacColl. He died a few years ago,
and we do not wish to say anything against him. Well, he wrote to _The
Spectator_ in 1900. His letter may be seen in the issue of 22nd
December for that year. In the course of this letter he makes the
following admission: he declares that "to concede that the Church of
England starts from the reign of Henry VIII. or Elizabeth is to
surrender the whole ground of controversy with Rome. A Church," he
continues, "which cannot trace its origin beyond the sixteenth century
is obviously not the Church which Christ founded."

The late Anglican Canon MacColl is, of course, perfectly right, and
his inference is strictly logical. A Church, however highly
respectable and however richly endowed, which came into existence only
1,500 years after Christ, came into existence just 1,500 years too
late, and cannot by any intellectual manoeuvring or stretching of the
imagination be identified with the one Church established by Christ
1,500 years earlier. Consequently every member of the Anglican
community finds himself, _nolens volens_, impaled on the horns of a
truly frightful dilemma. For either he must frankly confess that his
Church is not the Church of God, _i.e._, not the True Church, which
(human nature being what it is) he can hardly be expected to do; or
else he must assert that it goes back without any real break to the
time of the Apostles; which though absolutely untrue, is the only
other alternative. In a word, he finds himself in a very tight corner.
He knows, unless he is able to persuade himself of the truth of
continuity, the very ground of his faith must slip from under his
feet, and that he must give up pretending to be a member of Christ's
mystical body altogether.

No wonder there is consternation in the Anglican camp. No wonder that
sermons are preached, and history is re-edited and facts suppressed,
and pamphlets are circulated to prove that black is white and that
bitterness is sweet, and that false is true. No wonder there are shows
and pageants and other attempts to prove the thing that is not. Poor
deluded mortals! It is really pitiable to witness such straining and
such pulling at the cords; as though truth--solid, imperturbable,
eternal truth--could ever be dislodged or forced out of existence! No!
They may disguise the truth for a time, they may hide it for a brief
period; just as a child, with a box of matches and a handful of straw,
may, for awhile, hide the eternal stars. But as the stars are still
there, and will appear again when the smoke has blown away, so will
the truth reappear and assert itself, when men grow calm, and put
aside pride and passion and prejudice and self-interest. "Magna est
veritas, et prevalebit!"

It has been said: "Mundus vult decipi"; the world wishes to be
deceived; certainly the Anglican world does. But no one else is taken
in. The Dissenter, the Nonconformist, and others who have no axe to
grind, know well that "fine words butter no parsnips," and are far too
shrewd to be deluded. Why, even the old Catholic cathedrals with
their holy-water stoups, their occasional altars of stone, still
remaining, their Lady chapels, and their niches for the images of the
saints, as ill befit the present occupiers, and their modern English
services, as a Court dress befits a clown.

That the sublime grotesqueness of the whole contention is clearly
visible to other besides Catholic eyes is clearly proved by the
occasional observations of the non-Catholic Press. Here, again, we
will offer the gentle reader a specimen. The _Daily News_ is one of
London's big dailies. It has a wide circulation. It is representative
of a large section of the English people. Let us select a passage from
one of its leaders. Speaking of the arrogance of the Anglican Church,
which, as compared to the Catholic Church, is but a baby, still in
long clothes, it gives expression to its views in the following
caustic lines. One might almost imagine it were the _Tablet_ or
_Catholic Times_ that we are about to quote from, but, nothing of the
kind, it is the Nonconformist organ, the _Daily News_. It writes:
"The Anglicans may still persist in patronising the Roman Catholics as
a new set of modern dissidents under the old name. It is the sort of
vengeance which, under favourable circumstances, the mouse may enjoy
at the expense of the elephant. If he can mount high enough by
artificial means, the smallest of created things may contrive to look
down on the greatest, and to affect to compassionate his want of
range. For purposes of controversy, the Anglican could talk of himself
as a terrestrial ancient-of-days, and regret the rage for innovation,
which led, not, of course, to his separation from Rome, but to Rome's
separation from him! So the pebble, if determined to put a good face
on it, might wonder what had become of the rock, and recite the
parable of the return of the prodigal to the Atlas Range"; and so
forth. The fact is that every unprejudiced man, who has so much as a
mere bowing acquaintance with the facts of history, knows perfectly
well that before the sixteenth century the Church in England was
united to the Holy See, and rested where Christ Himself had built it,
_viz._, on Peter, the rock. Whereas, after the sixteenth century, it
became a State Church, dependent, not on Peter, but upon Parliament,
and as purely local, national, and English as the British Army or the
British Navy. Bramhall tells us that, "whatsoever power our laws did
divest the Pope of, they invested the King with" (_Schism Guarded_, p.
340).

We dealt in the last chapter with the relation between the
pre-Reformation Archbishops and Metropolitans and the Pope, and we saw
how each in turn swore obedience to the Vicar of Christ as his
spiritual sovereign. We will now conclude the present chapter by
transcribing a typical address presented by another representative
body of men to the Pope, in past times. It is the year 1427. Now
Chicheley, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been accused at Rome of
some fault or indiscretion, so the other Bishops of the province met
together for the purpose of defending him. With this end in view,
they address a letter to Pope Martin V. It begins as follows:--

"Most Blessed Father, one and only undoubted Sovereign Pontiff, Vicar
of Jesus Christ upon earth, with all promptitude of service and
obedience, kissing most devoutly your blessed feet," and so forth.
They then proceed to defend their Metropolitan, and in doing so
declare that "the Archbishop of Canterbury is, Most Blessed Father, a
most devoted son of your Holiness and of the Holy Roman Church". Nay,
more; they go on to testify that "he is so rooted in his loyalty, and
so unshaken in his allegiance especially to the Roman Church, that it
is known to the whole world, and ought to be known to the city
(_i.e._, Rome) that he is the most faithful son of the Church of Rome,
promoting and securing, with all his strength, the guarantees of her
liberty".

Now, what we wish to know is, how in the world can a man be "the most
faithful son of the Church of Rome," so rooted in his loyalty to her
that "his allegiance is known to the whole world," and yet not be a
Roman Catholic? The Bishops then add that "they go down upon their
knees" to beseech the Pope's favour for the Archbishop, and in doing
so declare that they are "the most humble sons of your Holiness and of
the Roman Church".

Then Archbishop Chicheley follows up their letter, by writing one
himself, in which he says: "Most Blessed Father, kissing most
devotedly the ground beneath your feet, with all promptitude of
service and obedience, and whatsoever a most humble creature can do
towards his lord and master" (_i.e._, domino et creatori--literally
"creator," in the sense that the Pope had made or "created" him
archbishop) and so forth. Then he goes on to explain that "Long before
now, were it not for the perils of the journey and the infirmities of
my old age, I would have made my way, Most Blessed Father, to your
feet, and have accepted most obediently whatsoever your Holiness would
have decided" (see Wilkins, vol. iii. pp. 471 and 486). Surely, no
Archbishop or Bishop could use language of such profound reverence
and of such perfect loyalty and obedience, unless he recognised the
Pope as the true representative of Christ upon earth, invested with
His divine authority ("To Thee do I give the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven"). There is a whole world of difference between such men and
the Anglican Prelates of to-day who take the oath of homage to the
King, and say: "I do hereby declare that your Majesty is the only
supreme governor of this your realm, in spiritual and ecclesiastical
things, as well as temporal".




CHAPTER IV.

KING EDWARD AND THE POPE.


In a previous chapter, we promised to tell of a famous letter written
by one of our greatest kings to the Pope of his day. Let us then
introduce this interesting historical incident without further
preamble or delay.

The King of whom we are about to speak is King Edward III., who
reigned over this land for more than fifty years, that is to say, from
1327 to 1377. The historian Hume tells us that, in general estimation,
his reign was not only one of the longest, but that it was considered
also "one of the most glorious that occurs in the annals of our
nation" (vol. ii., p. 297). It is important to remember, further, that
Edward was no timid weakling, ready to yield to others through
weakness or fear. Quite the contrary. He was strong, war-like, and
courageous. Hume informs us that "he curbed the licentiousness of the
great; that he made his foremost nobles feel his power, and that they
dared not even murmur against it, and that his valour and conduct made
his knights and warriors successful in most of their enterprises"
(_id._, p. 497). Yet, in spite of his strong, independent and man-like
character--or shall we not rather say because of it?--he ever showed
himself to be a most loyal child of the Catholic Church. He considered
it no indication of weakness to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy
and jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff, and to subscribe himself as
a most obedient son of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, as we shall now
proceed to prove, in spite of all the frogs and jackdaws that the
Bishop of London appeals to as witnesses to the contrary.

Now, it so fell out that, in the second decade of his reign, certain
persons, with perhaps more zeal than discretion, began to lodge sundry
complaints against the King. They carried stories to Rome, and sought
to prejudice the Pope, Benedict XII., against King Edward. In the
course of time the King got wind of what was going on, and found that
the suspicions of the Pope had been raised against him. Now, what did
Edward do? If he had been a modern Anglican, he would have snapped his
fingers at the Pope. Forgetful of Our Lord's words, "Unless you become
as little children you shall not enter the Kingdom of heaven," he
would have proudly declared that no Pope or foreign Bishop could claim
any jurisdiction in England, for that he himself was, in his own
realm, the supreme authority in things ecclesiastical as well as in
things temporal. Such would have been the natural and obvious course
for him to have taken. That is to say had he been a modern Anglican.
But since he was not a modern Anglican, but a genuine Roman Catholic
to his very backbone, like all the rest of his kingdom, he did not act
in that imperious, off-hand way, but was very much distressed and
concerned, as a loving son would be, who had incurred the displeasure
of a generous father. Finally, in the thirteenth year of his reign,
that is to say, in 1339, he determined to address a letter to the
Sovereign Pontiff, firstly to protest against these accusations,
secondly to assure the Pope of his innocence, and thirdly to beg him
to take no notice of those who had been calumniating him.

The document is a very remarkable one, and from the point of view of
continuity (of which it completely disposes) it is of very
considerable interest.

Before you read it, and ponder over its contents, let me remind you
that the writing of a letter in those days was a very serious
business. There was no post such as we have now, and special couriers
had to be despatched from London to Rome. Paper had not as yet been
invented, so the message had to be carefully written, by paid scribes,
on vellum or parchment. Further, a letter from a King to the Pope was
not a thing to be dashed off on the spur of the moment, but to be
carefully thought out, and expressed with great accuracy. The King
would summon his advisers, and his Secretary of State, and probably
consult some of the Bishops and weigh each word before committing his
message to parchment. In short, the document would represent his own
deliberate convictions as well as those of his official advisers and
counsellors.

After addressing the Pope in the usual respectful and filial way, he
says: "Let not the envious information of our detractors find place in
the meek mind of your Holiness, or create any sinister opinion of a
son" [observe the King calls himself a son of the Pope], "who after
the manner of his predecessors" [so previous Kings were as loyal as
he] "shall always firmly persist in amity and obedience to the
Apostolic See. Nay, if any such evil suggestion concerning your son
should knock for entrance at your Holiness's ears, let no belief be
allowed it till the son who is concerned be heard, who trusts and
always intends both to say and to prove that each of his actions is
just before the tribunal of your Holiness, _presiding over every
creature, which to deny is to maintain heresy_." Nothing could be
stronger than this last sentence; but we will return to that later.
Then the King goes on to speak of others, who are dependent upon him,
and proceeds as follows: "And further, this we say, adjoining it as a
further evidence of our intention and greater devotion, that if there
be any one of our kindred or allies who walks not as he ought in the
way of _obedience towards the Apostolic See_, we intend to bestow our
diligence--and we trust to no little purpose--that leaving his
wandering course, he may return into the path of duty and walk
regularly for the future".

From these words it is clear that the King of England, not satisfied
with obeying the Pope himself, likewise insisted upon all under his
authority obeying him likewise. Indeed, he would have made short work
of those who should refuse to do so. Then, alluding to some reproach,
admonition or censure which he had received from the Pope, he goes on
to express himself in words strangely out of harmony with the whole
tone and spirit of modern Anglicanism. They are as follows:--

"That the Kings of England, our predecessors, those illustrious
champions of Christ, those defenders of the Faith, those" [listen!]
"_zealous asserters of the rights of the Holy Roman Church, and devout
observers of her commands_, that they or we should deserve this
unkindness, we neither know nor believe. And though, for this very
reason many do say--though we say not so--that this aiding of our
enemies against us, seems neither the act of a father nor of a mother
towards us, but rather of a stepmother; yet this notwithstanding, we
constantly avow that we are" [remember, it is still the King of
England speaking], "and shall continue to be, to your Holiness and to
your seat, a devout and humble son, and not a step-son".

Can any one imagine greater reverence or greater loyalty to the Vicar
of Christ than is shown forth in these words? Can you, dear readers,
by any stretch of the imagination, conceive any one who is not a Roman
Catholic giving vent to such sentiments as are here expressed? Have
words lost their plain meaning for the Bishop of London, and for those
who (we must in charity suppose, _blindly_) follow him?

The letter is a long one, and we need not transcribe the whole of it,
but we will offer for your consideration just one more paragraph. The
King writes: "Your Holiness best knows the measure of good and just,
in whose hands are the keys to open and to shut the gates of heaven on
earth, as the _fulness of your power_ and the excellence of your
judicature requires.... We being ready to receive information of the
truth, from your sacred tribunal, _which is over all_," etc.

Observe these words were written over five hundred years ago, long
before the present Anglican Establishment was so much as dreamed of;
yet, even if King Edward III. had actually foreseen the craze that
would seize Anglicans of to-day to prove that he, and his subjects
were not loyal Roman Catholics, he could not have expressed his
Catholicity and his loyalty to the Vicar of Christ in more
unmistakable or in more explicit terms.

Whom shall we believe? King Edward III. himself, who, in the above
words, declares he is a staunch Roman Catholic, and an obedient son of
the Pope, ready to defend his rights against all, or the present
Bishop of London, who declares he was not?

There is one sentence in the King's letter which is especially worthy
of consideration, as it is so pregnant with meaning. We refer to the
following: knowing that "your Holiness presides over every creature,
_which to deny is heresy_".

You will observe that the King not only believes, but that he here
practically makes an explicit profession of faith in the spiritual
supremacy of St. Peter and his successors, the Popes. In fact, he not
only admits and confesses the Pope's supremacy to be true, which is
one thing, but he declares it to be a _revealed_ truth, taught by Our
Blessed Lord Himself, which is a great deal more. How does he do this?
Suffer us to explain.

To deny any truth of religion is wrong and sinful, but it is not
necessarily and always heretical. Heresy is not the denial of any kind
of truth: it is the denial only of a special form of truth. It is the
denial of those truths which have been taught by Jesus Christ and the
Apostles. But the King explicitly declares in his letter to the Holy
Father that to deny the Pope's spiritual supremacy over all is not
only wrong, not only sinful, but that it is to be guilty of the
specially horrible sin of heresy. His words are: "It is to maintain
heresy". Yet Anglicans still fondly cling to the delusion that the
Church in England in the time of Edward III. is in unbroken continuity
with the Church of England in the time of King Edward VII.!

But, to continue. It is interesting to note that the Pope, Benedict
XII., in due course replies to this letter from his "devout and humble
son," as Edward describes himself. He begins by expressing his
satisfaction that His "most dear Son in Christ King Edward of England"
should thus "follow the commendable footsteps of your progenitors,
Kings of England who," he goes on to say, "were famous for the fulness
of their devotion and faith towards God and the Holy Roman Church".

Will the present Bishop of London, we wonder, be good enough to
explain how Pope Benedict XII. could possibly tell a renowned King of
England that his progenitors, that is to say, the Kings of England who
had preceded him, were famous--mark the word--"_famous_ for the
_fulness_ of their devotion and faith towards God _and the Holy Roman
Church_," if they were all the while cut off from the Roman Church,
and denounced as heretics by that Church, if, in short, they were of
one and the same faith as the Anglicans are to-day? We pause for a
reply. Of course we know that Anglicans are very hard pressed, and in
a quandary, and that some allowance must be made for drowning men when
they stretch forth their trembling hands to clutch at straws. But
really the claim to continuity, however vital to them, should hardly
be put forward in the face of such clear and overwhelming evidence of
its falsity. The ultimate effects of such vain efforts to prove black
to be white can only be to make them ridiculous, and to discredit them
in the eyes of honest men.

In conclusion, we are persuaded that some may feel curious or
interested to see and read King Edward's letter for themselves, and in
its entirety. Some may even wish to satisfy themselves that we are
stating actual facts, and not romancing; so let us inform any such
persons that the letter quoted belongs to the thirteenth year of King
Edward III.'s reign (An. Regni xiii. Ed. Rex III.). The original, if
not at the Vatican, should be either at the Record Office or at the
British Museum. The English version, of which we have made use, may be
found on pages 126-30 of _The History of Edward III._, by J. Barnes,
Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and published in 1688. Had this
history been composed in more modern times, this famous letter to Pope
Benedict would probably have been quietly suppressed or omitted.

But in 1688 the theory of continuity had not been invented by the
father of lies, to bolster up a lost cause, so the letter actually
appears in Barnes' History, to tell its own unvarnished tale: and to
bear its uncompromising testimony to the truth.

In the meanwhile, time wears on, and the end draws near when each man
will have to give an account of his life and conduct to the Supreme
Judge of the living and the dead. And it will go hard with us if we
turn our back upon the truth. God is speaking in this England of ours,
and shedding His light, and many are finding their way back to that
glorious Faith of which they were cruelly robbed at the "Reformation".
"To-day, if you shall hear His voice, harden not your hearts," but
lend an attentive ear to His invitation, and pray that you may have
courage enough to join hands once again with Bede, and Dunstan,
Anselm, and Thomas Ã  Becket, and with Edward III. and his royal
predecessors, all faithful sons of St. Peter and the Holy See, and to
enter that Church which was built by God Incarnate on Peter, and upon
no other foundation; which still rests securely upon Peter, and which
(if there be any truth in God's promises) will continue to rest on
Peter till the end of time. "Upon this Rock (Peter) will I build My
Church, and the gates of hell (_i.e._, the powers of darkness) shall
never prevail against it."



=Also by Rt. Rev. JOHN S. VAUGHAN, D.D.,=
=Bishop of Sebastopol.=
=To be had of all Catholic Booksellers.=


1. CONCERNING THE HOLY BIBLE: ITS USE AND ABUSE.
   With a Letter from H.E. Cardinal LOGUE.
   Pp. xvi.-270. Price 3s. 6d.

   "It is impossible to take up this delightful volume without
   desiring to express one's admiration of it.... As to the matter,
   _it would be well if every Catholic had it at his fingers'
   ends_, especially in this country.... It has an irresistible
   charm of style."--_The Tablet_.

   H.E. Cardinal LOGUE writes to Bishop Vaughan: "You are to be
   congratulated on the success with which you have treated
   your important subject."

   _N.B.--The volume has already been translated into French and
   Italian, and is now being translated into other foreign
   languages._

2. EARTH TO HEAVEN. Fourth Edition. Pages 200. Price 2s. 6d. net.

   "There is a freedom, a freshness, and a new manner of expressing
   old truths in Bishop Vaughan's writings, which is exceedingly
   charming.... Better even than their beauty is their
   suggestiveness," etc.--_Tablet_.

3. FAITH AND FOLLY. Second Edition. Pages 502. Price 5s. net.

   "We know no author who has a happier method of popularising
   theology."--_Catholic Times_.

   "A candid antagonist will feel respect for the
   author."--_Spectator_.

   "The author has gifts of happy illustration, of close reasoning,
   and of clear expression."--_Ave Maria_.

   "An excellent work and a timely one."--_The Rosary Magazine_.

   "We trust 'Faith and Folly' may have a wide
   circulation."--_Dublin Review_.

4. THOUGHTS FOR ALL TIMES. The Eighteenth Edition is now in
   preparation. Pages 436. Price 5s. net.

   "Clear and well-written expositions, rich in illustrations and
   adorned in places with beautiful and sublime
   language."--_Whitehall Review_.

   "We would be glad to see a copy in every household in the land.
   It needs only to be known to have its merits appreciated."--H.E.
   Cardinal GIBBONS.

5. LIFE AFTER DEATH. Fourteenth Edition. Pages 245. Price 2s. net.

   "Popular, luminous, eloquent, and persuasive. It is carefully
   thought out, and forms a massive argument of great value."--_The
   Gentleman's Journal_.

   "This work cannot but exercise a pleasing charm over the reader,
   and serve to hold his attention spell-bound
   throughout."--_Catholic Times_.

6. DANGERS OF THE DAY.

   "An admirable book. Just what is wanted."

7. THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY; and, THE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY.
   Just Published. Price 1s. 6d.

       *       *       *       *       *

   "HOW I CAME TO DO IT; or, How Parson Blackswhite gave up his Vow of
   Celibacy." A Holiday Sketch. Pages 300. 2s. 6d. net. Edited by
   Monsignor VAUGHAN.

   A PRIEST writes: "I read this novel, and laughed and
   laughed till the tears rolled down my cheeks."

   _The Lamp_ says: "It is as instructive as it is amusing, and as
   amusing as it is instructive."

   The well-known French paper _L'Univers_ says: "Ce livre est
   charmant, et trÃ¨s interessant et mÃ©riterait d'Ãªtre traduit en
   franÃ§ais".

   _How I Came to Do It_ is now being put into French by M. l'abbÃ©
   P. SÃ©cher, with the title _Les Raisons de ma DÃ©cision_.

       *       *       *       *       *










