Roman Catholic Faith Examined!

a. You would be greatly disappointed if you entered into controversial discussion with a Roman Catholic, expecting that by a few texts you could make an end of the whole matter. No one is much influenced by an authority with which he is not familiar and Roman Catholics generally are not familiar with the Bible. [12]

b. If they hear passages quoted from it in apparent contradiction with Catholic doctrine, they assure themselves you must be quoting unfairly, and that the contradiction is only apparent. For the Catholic, the authority of the Bible rests on the higher authority of the Church and he will only accept from the Bible what has been communicated to him by the Church. [12]

a. It relieves men of the responsibility to think for themselves 15]. The craving for an infallible guide arises from men's consciousness of thc weakness of their understanding. In temporal matters we are constrained to act on our own judgment. When we have important decisions to make we often feel ourselves in great doubt and perplexity, and sometimes the decision we ultimately make turns out wrong, and we have to pay the penalty in loss or suffering. A loss, however, affecting only our temporal interests may be borne; but it seems intolerable to men that, when their eternal interests are at stake, any doubt or uncertainty should attend their decisions, and they look for some guide who may be able to tell them, with infallible certainty, which is the right way. [47]

b. It would be so very pleasant to have a guide able to save us all trouble and risk, and to whom we might implicitly commit ourselves, that Romish advocates generally spare themselves the pains of proving that such a guide exists, and prefer to take that for granted as a thing self-evident. [170]

a. But in what subject in the world is it dreamed that we have got to choose between having infallible teachers, or having no teacher at all? God has made the world so that we cannot do without teachers, but in no secular area are our teachers infallible. [109-10]

b. We have no right to assume as self-evident that the laws which govern the communication of religious knowledge must be utterly unlike those which regulate our acquirement of every other kind of knowledge. In every other department of knowledge we must assert the necessity of human teaching; we must own that one who will not condescend to learn will be ignorant; we must hold that the learner must receive the teaching he gets with deference and submission; and yet we do not imagine that the teachers are infallible, and we maintain that the learner ought ultimately to arrive at a point when he is no longer dependent on the mere testimony of his instructors, but becomes competent to pass independent judgment on the truth of the statements made to him. [112]

c. We are ready to admit that God did not intend us, in religious matters any more than in any other, to dispense with the instruction of others. We do not imagine that God meant each man to learn his religion from the Bible without getting help from anybody else. We freely confess that we need not only the Bible, but human instruction in it. [113] But when every concession to the authority of the Church and to the services she has rendered has been made, we come very far short of teaching her infallibility. [115]

a. If a Christian, reading the Bible for himself, puts upon it the interpretation which the Church puts upon it, he is no better off than if he had never looked at his Bible and had contented himself with the same lessons taught by the Church. [117]

b. But if he puts upon it a different interpretation from that of the Church (and if the Church be infallible, her interpretation is right and every other is wrong), then he is deeply injured by having been allowed to study for himself. Thus, if the Church is infallible, Bible reading is all risk and no gain. And so, in modern times the Church of Rome has always discouraged the reading of Scripture by her people; and if her theory be right, she has done so consistently and wisely. [117]

a. Chrysostom: "All things are plain and simple in the Holy Scriptures; all things necessary are evident." (2 Thess., Hom. III., vol. xi., 528). "The Apostles and Prophets have made all things proceeding from them plain and evident to all; in order that each person, even by himself, may be able to learn what is said from the mere reading of it." (Hoary. III., de Laz., vol. i., 379). [90]

b. Augustine: "In like manner, God hath made the Scriptures to stoop to the capacities of babes and sucklings." (Enarr. in Psalm. viii. 8, vol. iv., 42). "Scarcely anything is drawn out from the more obscure places of Scripture which is not most plainly spoken elsewhere." (De Doct. Chr. ii. 8, vol. iii., 22). [90]

c. When any of the early Fathers has occasion to make an enumeration of the truths which Christians ought to know, he usually contents himself with a summary of doctrines nearly identical with that contained in the Apostles' Creed, all the Articles of which contain truths that lie on the very surface of Scripture, and do not require any laborious investigation of texts in order to arrive at them. [90-91]

a. This decision stands in stark contrast to the practice of the Latin Fathers, who, far from desiring to check the study of the Scriptures, placed them in the hands of the people and encouraged them to read them. The existence of the Latin translation, dating from an early part of the second century, is evidence enough of this fact. For whose benefit can we suppose that this translation was made? The knowledge of Greek was then the accomplishment of every educated Roman. It would have been far harder then to find a Roman gentleman who did not understand Greek than it would be now to find an English gentleman who does not know either Latin or French. The Bible was translated into Latin, because the Latin Church, in those days, wished that not merely the wealthy, and the highly educated, but that all her members should have access to the oracles of truth, and be able to consult them for themselves. [118]

b. Despite her arguments on the differences of opinion and the difficulty of Scripture, the real reason Rome discouraged Bible reading is that she knew students of the Bible would soon note that the system of the NT is very unlike modern Romanism. [123] The Church of Rome, therefore, has been against the study of the Scriptures, because she knew the Scriptures were against her. [1 1-12]

a. "When they [the Valentinian heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures as if they were not correct, nor of authority, for that they are ambiguously worded, and that the truth cannot be discovered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they say that the truth was not delivered in writing but viva voce; wherefore Paul also declared 'We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."' (Irene us iii.c.2.) [28]

b. To make the analogy complete, Irenaeus goes on to complain that when the Church met these heretics on their own ground of tradition, then they had recourse to a theory of development claiming to be then in possession of purer doctrine than that which the Apostles had been content to teach. [28]

a. The principle of Trent was that the saving truth, communicated by Christ and His Apostles, is contained in the written books and in unwritten traditions, and that equal piety and reverence is to be given to the books of the Bible and to those traditions. [126] The principle of the perfect equality of Scripture and tradition, as a means of proving doctrine, runs through the decrees of Trent. Very frequently, indeed, when Scripture proof can be had, it is gladly cited; but tradition is freely used to supplement the silence of Scripture, or to interpret its obscurities. [127]

b. As Bellarmine states the matter, the rule of fairh is the Word of God; but that word may be either written or unwritten. When we say unwritten, we do not mean that it is nowhere written, but only that it was not written down by its first announcers. To the first generation of Christians, the Gospel revelation was equally authoritative, whether it was announced to them by the Apostle's spoken words or by their written letters; and so to every succeeding generation it makes no difference whether the Word of God which comes to them be written or unwritten. [126]

c. After Trent it was admitted that certain things taught and practiced in Catholicism were without Biblical justification. But it was insisted that though the Bible contained truth, it did not contain the whole truth, and that the Church was able by her traditions to supplement the deficiencies of Scripture, having in those traditions a secure record of apostolic teaching on many points on which the Bible contained only obscure indications, or gave no information at all. [29]

a. But there is ambiguity about the word tradition. Bellarmine divides tradition into Divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical. Divine traditions are things ordained by Christ Himself. Such for example, he says, are the matter and form of the Sacraments, because that it is certain that Sacraments could only be instituted by Christ Himself. Apostolic traditions are things ordained or taught by the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and by them handed down to the Church. Ecclesiastical traditions are ancient customs of the Church, which, however instituted at first, have, by length of custom, the force of laws of the Church. Such traditions, says Bellarmine, are the observance of Easter and Whitsuntide, the custom of mixing water with the Eucharistic wine, the habit of making the sign of the Cross. [140-411

b. To know which traditions contain saving truth and moral teaching is virtually impossible. There is no difficulty in an individual using Scripture as his rule of faith; for he can learn without much difficulty what the statements of the Bible are on any subject, and on most subjects these statements are easily understood. But if it were certain that Apostolic traditions independent of the Bible existed, it is next to impossible for the individual to find them with any certainty. If he has to search for them in the writings of Fathers, the canons of Councils, the decrees of Pope, the magnitude of the mass in which he has to search is enough to deter him from making the attempt. [ 13 1 ]

c. The Abbe' Migne, in the prospectus to his edition of the Fathers, tells us that he has formed one unique and admirable work, the materials which he had to gather being often fragments and small works without number, scattered here and there, and some of them unedited, drawn from books and manuscripts belonging to all places, all ages and languages, and now for the first time united in his library. [131]

a. Tertullian's treatise, De Grona Militis, contains a list of early Church customs for which no Scripture authority can be given. The occasion of it was that Tertullian—whose turn of mind led him, whenever a question was raised as to what was permissible to a Christian, to take what we may call a puritanically struck view—had pronounced it unlawful for Christians to wear a flower crown, as the heathens did, on occasions of rejoicing. It shows the feeling of the Church of the time on the sufficiency of Scripture that, whenever Tertullian puts forward any of these severe rules, he has always to meet the objection, Can you show from Scripture that what you condemn is wrong? On other occasions he makes some attempt ro satisfy the demand. Here Scripture proof fails him, and he has to take his stand on the custom of the Church, which forbad the wearing of such wreaths; and this leads him to instance a number of practices which have no authority but Church usage. It is an argument a fortiori in favor of our rule of requiring Scripture proof for Divine or Apostolic traditions, that in the early Church such proof was demanded even for Ecclesiastical traditions. [142]

b. Another instance in which Catholicism departs from tradition involves a matter wherein we are willing to allow the question concerning Scripture and tradition to be determined by tradition alone; for, if anything can be established by tradition, there is a clear and full tradition to prove that the Scriptures are a full and perfect rule of faith; that they contain the whole Word of God; and that what is outside of them need not be regarded. The second part of Taylor's Dissuasive contains a complete catena of Fathers establishing by their consent this principle, which no Father denies. There is no Roman Catholic doctrine disputed by us for which anything like so complete a tradition can be cited. [143]

c. St. Basil: "Without doubt it is a most manifest fall from faith, and a. . . certain sign of pride, to introduce anything that is not written in the Scriptures, our blessed Saviour having said, 'My sheep hear My voice, and the voice of strangers they will not hear'; and to detract from Scripture, or to add anything to the faith that is not there, is most manifestly forbidden by the Apostle saying, 'If it be but a man's testament, no man addeth thereto."' [1431

d. In the same context Basil declares that he will only sparingly employ any words which, though they express the doctrine of Scripture, are not found in Scripture itself. He said that the first duty of hearers is "Those who are instructed in the Scriptures ought to test the things that are said by their teachers, and to receive what agrees with the Scriptures, and to reject what disagrees." He established this caution by the texts, "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any Gospel to you besides that ye have received, let him be anathema"—a text, I may observe, forcibly used for the same purpose by St. Augustine. (Cont. litt. Petilani, III. 6, vol. ix. 301.) [143-441

e. St. Cyprian opposed the then existing custom of the Church which acknowledged the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, contending that the claims of custom must give way to those of truth. He was resisted by Stephen, Bishop of Rome, who, in the vehemence of his opposition, transgressed all the bounds of charity, and proceeded so far as to excommunicate those who differed from him. Now, the question is, not who was right, but what were the principles on which the Fathers of the Church argued. Cyprian writes to another bishop, "I have sent you a copy of the answer which. . . Stephen has sent to our letter, on reading which you will mark the error of him who endeavors to maintain the cause of heretics against the Church of God; for, among other things, either insolent or irrelevant, or self-contradictory, which he has rashly and thoughtlessly written, he has added this: 'if anyone come to us from any heresy whatever, let no innovation be made on the tradition that hands be laid on him unto repentance."' "No innovation on the tradition," cries St. Cyprian. "Whence comes that tradition? Does it descend from the authority of our Lord and the Gospel ? Does it come from the command and Epistles of the Apostles? God testifies that we must do the things that are written, saying to Joshua, 'the Book of the law shall not depart from they mouth, but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do all that is written in it.' Likewise, the Lord, when He sent His Apostles, commanded them to baptize all nations, and to teach them to observe whatsoever He commanded. If, therefore, it is commanded, either in the Gospels, or in the Apostolic Epistles, or in the Acts, that those coming from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid on them, then this is a Divine tradition, and let it be observed; but if in these books heretics are called nothing but adversaries and anti-Christs; if we are told to avoid them as perverse and self-condemned, why should we not condemn those who, the Apostle witnesses, are self-condemned?" Plainly, Cyprian maintained that the way to find out what traditions are genuine is not to take the word of the Bishop of Rome, but to search the Scriptures as the only trustworthy record of Apostolic tradition. [ 145]

a. On the question of heretical baptism we have, as often happens, Father opposed to Father. [146]

b. Augustine differed from Cyprian in not thinking Scripture proof to be necessary in order to show a custom to be Apostolical. He thought, on the contrary, that the existence in the Church, from time immemorial, of a custom the origin of which could not be traced to the decree of a Council, or in any other such way accounted for, afforded a reasonable presumption the custom was Apostolical. [146]

c. You may take it as a general rule that there is not a Father who, if his own belief is demanded for something not contained in Scripture which he is not disposed to accept, will reply as St. Jerome: "This, because it has not authority from the Scriptures, is with the same easiness despised as approved." (In. Matth. xxiii.35.) "As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things that are not written.' (Adv. Helvid.) "These things which they invent, as if by Apostolic tradition, without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites." (In Aggari Proph. cap. i. II.). 1147]

d. There is a point on which all the Fathers are agreed, namely, the infinite superiority of Scripture to every other source of proof. [146] You will see, then, that if we were at the desire of the Romish advocates to leave the Scriptures and resort to the Fathers of the early Church for a decision of our controversies, these very Fathers would send us back to the Scriptures as the only guide to truth, the only safeguard against heresy. [147]

a. We know, from the confession of Bishop Milner and others, that fifty years ago the Roman Church knew nothing certain, either by Scripture or tradition, as to whether or not the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin. Well, then, it is clear that if that Church has attained to certainty on this subject since, it was not by tradition she attained it. [133]

b. In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture to say that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may. (De Civ. Dei, xxx. 26.) Well, if the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a "perhaps" at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for if the Church had any tradition in the time of Augustine, that great Father would have known it. [ 133-34]

c. Tradition, as it were, hangs by a chain from the Apostolic Church, and when one part of the chain snaps, down comes all that is below it. When once it is proved that the Church at any period was ignorant of a doctrine, there can be no presence that the Church, at any subsequent period derived its knowledge of that doctrine from Apostolic tradition. [134]

d. I quoted Bellarmine, as teaching that in calling one part of the Word of God "unwritten," he does not mean that it is nowhere written, but only that it was not written down by its first authors. Yet, if you ask how late are we to go down: when did some one or other of the Fathers complete the task of committing all these traditions to writing? you can get no distinct answer. The Roman authorities will not even pledge themselves that every tradition of the Church is committed to writing at this moment; and with good reason, for if they once closed the account it might be an inconvenient check to new developments. [134]

a. For instance, as to a fact so little likely to be forgotten as the number of years our Saviour lived on earth, and the duration of His ministry, we find very opposite statements in early Christian writers, who should have had the means of being better informed. Clement of Alexandria makes the whole duration of our Lord's ministry but one year, while Irenaeus states, not merely on the authority of John viii.5 7, but of persons who claimed to have received St. John's oral teaching, that our Saviour passed through all the stages of human life from infancy to old age. [ 135-36]

b. There is a like discrepancy as to a fact one would think tradition might have preserved—the personal appearance of our Saviour (opposite opinions were held). Such a question as whether Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Greek appears to be not settled by tradition. Hermas appears to have been recognized as a prophet at Rome, and his book, called "The Shepherd" was admitted to the public reading of many Churches. Yet even in Rome itself in less than a hundred years it was quite forgotten who Hermas was, while in foreign Churches the wildest guesses were made on the subject. The Roman Church does not even give a unanimous account as to the names and order of its first bishops. The Epistle of Clement gained much celebrity; but what order this Clement held in the series of Roman bishops is disputed to this day. [136-37]

c. In the third century learned men appear to have been in the same position as we when called on to reconcile the tradition that Paul wrote Hebrews with the absence of his name and the difference of style from his acknowledged letters. They tried to solve the question by sagacious conjecture, but to have been quite without historical testimony. [137]

d. The reason we do not use traditions as well as Scripture in the proof of Christian doctrine, is that we do not know of any trustworthy enough; and what we have seen of the failure of tradition proves to us that there were good reasons why God should have granted us in Scripture a more secure channel for conveying Christian truth. [137]

e. But if it is alleged that it can be established by uninspired testimony that any doctrine not contained in Scripture is part of the Christian scheme, let the evidence be produced, and we are willing to consider it. [138]

a. Abundant proof that this dogma had been no part of the faith of the Church, was furnished by von Dollinger, reputed to be the most learned man in Catholicism, and amongst others by two Munich professors, who, under the name of Janus, published a work containing a mass of historical proofs of the novelty of the proposed decrees. These arguments were urged by able bishops at the Vatican Council itself. But the Pope carried out his project in the teeth of historical demonstration. A few of the most learned of the protesters against the new dogma refused to recognize the doctrine thus defined as that of the Catholic Church, and formed a schism, calling themselves "Old Catholics." But the bulk of the people had no inclination to trouble themselves with historical investigations, and accepted, without inquiry, what their rulers were pleased to offer them; and a number of the eminent men, who had not only denied the truth of the new dogma, but had proved its falsity to the satisfaction of every reasoning man, finding no other choice open to them, unless they abandoned every theory as to the infallibility of the Church which they had previously maintained, and unless they joined a schism which, as was foreseen at the time, and as the event proved, would be insignificant in numbers, preferred to eat their words, and to profess faith in what it is difficult to understand how they could in their hearts have had any real belief. [23]

b. Another example of a teaching unknown to Scripture or tradition is that of Transubstantiation. It was built up in the middle ages, and founded on a scholastic theory of substance and accidents which modern philosophy rejects. [401

a. This hermeneutic contended that Christ had committed to His Church certain seeds and germs of truth, destined afterwards to expand to definite forms; that He did not intend that the teaching of His Church should be always the same; but ordained that it should go on continually improving under the guidance of His Holy Spirit. [31]

b. In adopting this theory, Roman apologists exchanged tradition, which their predecessors had made the basis of their system, for a new foundation of development. [31 ]

c. As it applied to the Immaculate Conception, the doctrine of development argued that the later Church was entitled to draw out by legitimate inference all it could discover "of the intimate relation that existed between the Blessed Virgin and the human nature of our Lord," even though the earlier Church had been blind to such inferences. [33]

a. Development sets aside completely the old Roman Catholic rule of Scripture and tradition. It gives up tradition; and it must in consistency abandon as completely irrational that respect for the Fathers which even still distinguishes uneducated Romanists from uneducated Protestants. [275]

b. If in the theory of Development the Fathers lose all claims to respect, it is still worse with Scripture: the Fathers may have been but children, but the Apostles were only infants. They lived when the Church had but just come into being, and before it had learned all that the Holy Spirit has taught it in the course of nineteen centuries. If so, it ought to be only for curiosity that we need look into books written in the very infancy of the church; and to seek for our system of Christian doctrine in the Bible would be as absurd as to try to learn the differential calculus from the writings of Archimedes. In other words, the theory of Development, as taught by Cardinal Newman, substantially abandons the claims of Christianity to be regarded as a supernatural revelation which is likely to be preserved in most purity by those who lived nearest to the times when it was given. [276]

a. THE NICENE COUNCIL [325 AD]. Constantine, at the time not a baptized Christian, and as a politician anxious above everything for the peace of his Empire...devised the magnificent plan of assembling all the bishops of Christendom, and obtaining their verdict on the Arian dispute. Peace would thus be restored among quarrelling bishops by a decision which no one would be so bold as to resist. [288]

b. THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE [381 AD]. The second general council was only recognized as an Ecumenical Council ex post faeto. Originally it was but an assembly of Eastern bishops [called to deal with the divinity of the Holy Spirit]. Rome was not represented. Nor does it seem for seventy years after its occurrence to have enjoyed the consideration of such a Council. It was the respect with which its acts were quoted at Chalcedon, in 451, which seems first to have given it that character. The history of every one of the Councils tends to support the theory that infallibility, if it exist at all, resides in the Church diffusive, not in a Council. Every one of the Councils had to struggle for its reception. When its decrees are new they have but disputed authority. When time has mellowed them, and when the results arrived at by the Council have been long accepted by the Church, then we first hear of the Council's infallibility. [296-97] On this Council of Constantinople some light is thrown by a venerable Father who was present, Gregory Nazianzen. I believe he is almost the only Father who is not accused of having sometimes in his writings fallen into doctrinal error.

c. THE COUNCIL OF EPl1ESUS [431 AD]. Cyril of Alexandria presided over the third Council [which, against the Nestorians, defined that there is one person in Christ, taught that Mary is truly Mother of God, and dealt with problems of grace against Pelagius], and of all those who have been honoured with the title of saint, he is the one whose character least commands our affection. Of the qualities which go to make up our modern idea of saintliness. the only one to which Cyril can lay claim is zeal for orthodoxy. Of the non-theological virtues of meekness, kindness, equity, obedience to law, we find in him no trace. His whole career was marked by violence and bloodshed. [304] He was a bitter opponent of a greater saint than himself, St. Chrysostom. [306] It involves a degradingly low estimate of Christian character if we hold up as a model of saintly perfection one in whom history only enables us to discover the excellencies and failings of an able and successful, but violent and unscrupulous party leader. If Cyril changed his character towards the end of his life, his contemporaries do not seem to have been aware of it. Here is the language of one of them on hearing the news of his death: "At last the reproach of Israel is taken away. He is gone to vex the inhabitants of the world below with his endless dogmatism. Let everyone throw a stone on his grave, lest perchance he may make even hell too hot to hold him, and return to earth." t308] I have spoken at such length about the character of Cyril, because in truth Cyril was the third General Council. [3()9] If I were to say that Cyril at Ephesus was "seeking to revenge a private quarrel rather than to promote the interests of Jesus Christ," I should say no more than was said by good and impartial men at the time. "Cyril," says Newman, "came to Ephesus not to argue but to pronounce an anathema, and to get over the necessary process with as much dispatch as possible." Nothing could have been more violent and unfair than the proceedings at Ephesus. [309]

d. THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [451 AD]. [The fourth General Council treated of the distinction of the two natures in Christ, against the Monophysitic Eutyches]. One of the characteristics of this council was the acclamations (interruptions) of hishops that the reporters carefully took down. [316] At Chalcedon, where, in contrast to previous councils, the proceedings were comparatively orderly, there were occasional scenes of great uproar. Thus, when the Church historian, Theodoret, whose sympathies had been with Nestorius, took his place, the Acts of the Council record that:—"The most reverend the bishops of the East shouted out: 'He is worthy. 'The most reverend the bishops of Egypt shouted out: 'Don't call him bishop, he is no bishop; turn out the fighter against God; turn out the Jew.' The most reverend the bishops of the East shouted out: 'The orthodox for the Synod; turn out the rebels; turn out the murderers.' The most reverend the bishops of Egypt: 'Turn out the enemy of God; turn out the defamer of Christ."' It became necessary for the Imperial Commissioners to suppress the clamour. 13171 Succeeding Councils have been less noisy and violent; but this has been because, as a general rule, the parties whom it was intended to condemn have not been allowed to be present, and the Council has only represented one side. [318]

e. THE SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA [787 AD]. I have already referred to discredit thrown on Councils by the badness of the arguments by which their conclusions were arrived at, hut a more plentiful crop of illustrations may be drawn from the proceedings of the seventh General Council, the second of Nicaea. The Fathers attempted to prove the propriety of image worship from Scripture; but, as if conscious that they would have no easy task, they propounded the then novel doctrine of the insufficiency of Scripture, and anathematized those who say that they will not receive any doctrine on the bare authority of Fathers and Councils, unless it be plainly taught in the Old and New Testament. Their Scripture proofs were not what would be very convincing to us. For instance, the antiquity of looking at images is proved from the Psalms, since David says, "Show me thy face;" and "Like as we have heard, so have we seen;" and again, from Canticles, "Let me see they countenance, let me hear thy voice, for sweet is thy voice and thy countenance is comely." Should we have any hesitation in setting up our fallible judgment against that of those infallible interpreters, and in pronouncing such proofs to be texts wrested from their contexts, we need have less scruples about their proofs from antiquity, several of which are from spurious documents which no learned Roman Catholic now would venture to defend. [319-20]

f. THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE [1414-18]. The highest point, perhaps, that Councils attained was at the time of the Council of Constance. For two or three centuries the power of the Popes had been steadily growing, until first, by their removal to Avignon and their subjugation to French influence, then by the schism in the Popedom, their authority was greatly weakened. The schism made it necessary that there should be some superior authority to determine who really was Pope: or rather that was not enough, for though Christendom was generally agreed in desiring that the three rival Popes should be replaced by a single Pope, the adherents of each were indisposed to admit that they had been all along in the wrong. What was needed was an authority which, if the Popes should not voluntarily resign, would be able to compel them. In order that all might acquiesce in its decisions it was necessary that it should have power to depose even a real Pope; for there were some who acknowledged each of the three as the real Pope. This power then the Council of Constance claimed in its celebrated decree, passed without a dissentient voice, "that every lawfully convoked Ecumenical Council derives its authority immediately from Christ, and that everyone, the Pope included, is subject to it in matters of faith, in healing of schism, and the reformation of the Church." I do not say that this decision placed Councils in a higher position than they were at the time of the Council of Nicaea—for I do not imagine that the Roman prelate would have dreamed then of setting himself above the Council—but it placed them higher than they had been in the times immediately before, or than they were afterwards. For when the Council of Basle attempted to exercise, in the face of a universally acknowledged Pope, the prerogatives which the Council of Constance had claimed in the time of schism, the result was failure. [321-22]

g. THE VATICAN COUNCIL [1870]. At the Vatican Council of 1870—at which Pius IX tried to have his claim to infallibility endorsed by the Council—there was no fair representation of bishops. In the first place, the assembly included some three hundred titular bishops—bishops not residing over any real sees, but holding mere titles of honour given them by the Pope, or else missionary bishops deriving their titles from places where there were few or no Christian congregations. In addition, the German bishops, who constituted the main strength of the minority, complained that they were swamped by the multitude of Italian and Sicilian bishops. The twelve millions of Roman Catholics in Germany proper were represented at the Council by Fourteen bishops; the seven hundred thousand inhabitants of the Papal States by sixty-two; three bishops of the minority—Cologne, Paris, and Cambray—represented five million; and these might be outvoted by any four of the seventy Neapolitan and Sicilian bishops. The German theologians compared their learning with that of the bishops of these highly favoured localities, amongst whom a clean sweep would have been made if it had been a condition of admission to the Council that the bishop should be able to read the New Testament in its original language, or have Greek enough to be able to consult the writings of Greek Fathers or the acts of Greek Councils— a qualification without which, north of the Alps, one does not rank as a theologian. The German visitors, too, compared the activity of religious thought in the country from which they came with that in those regions which provided the predominant element at the Council. It was said, and I believe with truth, that more religious books are printed in England, or Germany, or North American in one year than in Italy in half a century. In Rome a lottery dream-book might be found in every house, but never a New Testament, and extremely seldom any religious book at all. So that it seemed as if it were a recognized principle, that the more ignorant a people, the greater must be the share of their hierarchy in the government of the Church. The minority complained that all regulations as to the transaction of business were in the hands of a committee appointed by the minority, and solely representing them, without the consent of which committee no subject could be discussed; and, indeed, it was complained at first that the bulk of the Council did not know what business was coming on. [323-24]

a. If, previous to the Vatican Council, the Church of Rome had known the doctrine of the Pope's personal infallibility to be true, she had, somehow or another, so neglected to teach it, that though it is a doctrine relating to the very foundation of her religious system, her priests and bishops had been ignorant that it was any part of her teaching. [25]

b. Keenan's Catechism, published with the imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic bishops, contained the following question and answer—" Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?" "A. This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church." [26]

a. The Scripture proof, in the main, consists of three texts; sometimes called the three texts, viz., (1) the promise of our Lord to Peter (recorded Matt. xvi.), that upon this rock He would build His Church; (2) His promise (recorded Luke xxii.), "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou are converted strengthen thy brethren"; and (3) the commission "Feed my sheep," related in the last chapter of St. John. [332]

b. Let us turn now to the texts appealed to. That in St. Matthew is so familiar to you that I need not read it: but I will give you, in the words of Dr. Murray, one of the ablest of the Maynooth Professors, what this text is supposed to mean. He says, "Peter was thus established by our Lord as the means of imparting to the Church indefectibility end unity, and of permanently securing these properties to her. Peter was invested with supreme spiritual authority to legislate for the whole Church; to teach, to inspect, to judge, to proscribe erroneous doctrine, or whatever would tend to the destruction of the Church; to appoint to offices or remove therefrom, or limit or extend the jurisdiction thereof, as the safety or welfare of the Church would require: in one word, to exercise as supreme head and ruler and teacher and pastor all spiritual functions whatever that are necessary for the well-being or existence of the Church" [Irish Annual Miscellany, iii. 300.] [333]

c. When it is pointed out that the disputes among the Apostles for precedence show that they were not aware that Peter had been made their ruler, it is answered that our Lord on the night before He was betrayed decided the subject of these disputes in His charge to Peter. [342] Our Lord's words do very strongly bring out a special gift to Peter: "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you (humas, all the Apostles) that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren." But certainly no one who interpreted Scripture according to its obvious meaning could suspect that the passage contains a revelation concerning the Church's appointed guide to truth in all time. The whole passage refers, on the face of it, to the immediate danger the faith of the Apostles was in from those trials under the pressure of which they all deserted their Master. There was a special prayer for Peter because of his special danger, and we see that this prayer did not exclude a grievous fall. If no security of unbroken constancy in the faith was thereby gained to Peter, for whom the prayer was directly made, we have no ground for supposing that it had greater efficacy in the case of any alleged successors, to whom the petition can at most apply indirectly. [342-43]

d. I come now to the third text, the "Feed my sheep" of John; and here too, certainly, there is no indication in the text itself that there was an appointment to an office peculiar in its kind. The office of tending Christ's sheep is certainly not peculiar to Peter. It is committed, in even more general terms, by Paul to the Ephesian elders, "Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts =.28) and by Peter himself to his fellow elders, "Feed the flock of God which is among you" (1 Pet. v.2). The sequel of the story, too, is adverse to the supposition that our Lord meant to confer on Peter the oversight of his fellow Apostles. For when he asks concerning St. John, "What shall this man do?" he receives something like a rebuke: "What is that to thee? follow thou me." I don't know any respectable Patristic authority for understanding the passage otherwise than Cyril of Alexandria does, whose commentary we may well adopt: "If anyone asks for what cause he asked Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by 'Feed my lambs,' and the like, we answer that St. Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the Apostleship, but because meanwhile Peter had fallen (for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord), he now heals him that was sick, and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter, and compensating the fault with the correction." [345-46]

e. It is a useful test of interpretations of Scripture to examine into their antiquity; for there is always an immense presumption against any new-fangled interpretation. Those passages of the New Testament which Roman Catholics now adduce as establishing the Pope's supremacy were not so understood by the most ancient interpreters of Scripture. [366]

a. The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A.D. 42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded it. [347]

b. We may conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it; for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The Scripture accounts of Peter place him inJuda2a, in Antioch, possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. If Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second Epistle to Timothy. 1347-481

c. Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period of the history, and not long before his death. [ 348]

d. For myself, I am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connection with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim. In the earliest uninspired Christian writing, the Epistle of Clement of Rome, he makes mention of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, but does not name the place where they suffered. There is a fair presumption, however, that in this Roman document Rome is intended. The earliest express mention of Italy as the place of their martyrdom is in a letter of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, about 170. There is mention of their tombs at Rome in a dialogue of Caius the Roman presbyter, about A.D. 200, and from that time this tradition reigned without a rival. If this evidence of Peter's Roman martyrdom be not deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate. [349]

a. I wish to state the conclusions which I consider would be arrived at by a historical inquirer with no theological purpose in view, on the questions: What was the connection of Peter and Paul with the Roman Church? How came it to believe that Peter had been its first bishop? and, How came the duration of the episcopate to be fixed at twenty-five years? [353]

b. I have seen, in a Roman Catholic book of controversy, the question put, Who founded the Church of Rome? and the answer given: It could not have been St. Paul, because we learn from his Epistle that there was a Church at Rome before he had visited that city; therefore the founder could have been no one but St. Peter. But there are absolutely no grounds for the tacit assumption in this argument, that the Church of Rome must have been founded by some Apostle. On the contrary, we know (Acts ii. 10) that "strangers of Rome" were present on the day of Pentecost; and we may reasonably believe that some of them soon returned to that city, whither also the constant influx of visitors from every part of the empire would be sure soon to bring some professors of the Christian faith. It follows that the origin of the Church of Rome is not to be ascribed to the exertions of some missionary arriving with the express intention of evangelizing the city, but was due to silent and spontaneous growth. It is quite possible that among those who came to Rome were some "prophets or teachers," but very unlikely that for some time any Apostles were among the visitors. [353-54]

c. The Epistle to the Romans gives us every reason to think that Paul was the first Apostle to visit that city. [354]

d. But what, then, are we to say to the statement of Irenaeus that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome? Probably the simple account of the matter is, that the visit of the two great Apostles was such an important event in the history of the Roman Church that the men of the next generations did not care to trace that history further back; but it is likely enough that these Apostles, at the time of their visit, did important work in organizing the Roman Church, and guiding it through the period of transition from the state in which the Church was taught by missionaries, or men endowed with miraculous gifts, to the permanent state in which it was under the guidance of a settled ministry. But we travel at once out of the region of historic probability when any evidence, tending to induce us to believe that St. Peter once visited Rome, is taken as establishing that he was bishop of Rome. [355]

d. The real inventor of the story of Peter's Roman episcopate was an editor of the Clementine Romance. This work was brought to Rome at the very end of the second or beginning of the third century; and it had then prefixed a letter from Clement to James at Jerusalem, telling how Peter had ordained him, and set him in his own chair of teaching as bishop of Rome. Though the doctrinal teaching of the Clementines was rejected as heretical, the narrative part of the book was readily believed; and in particular this story of Clement's ordination by Peter was felt to be so honourable to the Church of Rome that it was at once adopted there, and has been the traditional Roman account ever since. [360-61]

e. We can only give conjectural answers to the question, Who first counted Peter as bishop of Rome? and, How came the duration of his episcopate to be fixed at twenty-five years? but I will tell you what seems to me most probable. Hippolytus was the first Christian scientific chronologer at Rome. Before his time, lists of Roman bishops had been made, and notes of the duration of episcopates had been preserved; but I consider that it was Hippolytus who first put these dates together, with the view of showing how the whole interval between our Lord's time and his own was to be accounted for. My belief is that, in working his way chronologically back, he placed the accesslon of Linus twenty-six years after our Lord's Ascension. You may take it as a fact that, in the early part of the third century, men had come to find it impossible to conceive the idea of a Church without a bishop. So to the question, What about the twenty-six years before the accession of Linus? Was there no Roman Church then? Hippolytus answered that there was, and that it had St. Peter as its bishop; and my belief is that the duration of twenty-five years was intended to indicate that the Roman Church was founded the year after our Lord's Ascension. [362-63]

a. If I desired a summary proof that some at least of the powers which the Popes have exercised in later times were not part of the original prerogatives of the see, I should find it in the oath which every bishop in communion with Rome is now bound to take on his appointment: "The rights, privileges, and powers of the see of Peter I will, to best of my ability, extend and promote." Every bishop of Rome thought he was doing a good thing if he gained for his see some powers and privileges which had not previously belonged to it; and for some centuries he has pledged all over whom he has power to aid him in this endeavor. The Pope's avowed policy for centuries has been one of usurpation; and unless we believe either that all the Roman Catholic bishops have perjured themselves, or that their united efforts, continued for hundreds of years, have failed to augment and promote the rights, dignities, and privileges of the Pope, that prelate must possess some powers now which his predecessors did not enjoy. [367]

b. If we once admit Roman Supremacy to have been but a development, there were causes in operation which quite sufficiently account for it. The primacy of the bishop of Rome grew naturally out of the precedence accorded to the bishop of the first city of the Empire. Our own experiences would tell us that the people of the greatest city can choose their bishop from among a larger number of candidates, that they are likely to be able to secure the services of an abler man, that they can put larger sums of money at his disposal for charitable and other purposes, and altogether make him a much more influential person in the Church than the bishop of a smell town. [370]

c. Rome's first interference with other Churches was of the most honourable kind that no Church is likely strongly to object to, namely, sending them money, or otherwise conferring benefits on them. [373-74]

d. Did the early Church recognize the bishop of Rome as their ruler, teacher, and doctor. Confessedly, the opinion of him who was the leading bishop of the Church had great weight in every dispute; but the question now is, whether his decision was final, and whether, when Rome had spoken, the cause was finished. [376-77]

e. I come now to what is regarded by many as the first mild attempt at Papal aggression—the proposal of bishop Victor at the very end of the second century to excommunicate the Asiatic Quartodecimans. [383]

f. In the third century the importance of the bishop of Rome increases; yet even so late as the episcopate of Callistus (A.D. 217-222), it seems to me that it still depends on his being able to speak in the name of his Church. [387-88] There is every reason to think that Callistus was the prelate whose decision, that persons excommunicated on account of adultery might be admitted to penance and restoration, gave rise to Tertullian's treatise, De Pudicitia, in which the rigorist view is strongly maintained, that such persons ought never in this life to be readmitted to the Church. [388]

a. Catholic writers have maintained that it is still impossible to decide with certainty- which party was in the right. Even a general council, which had the aid of the Holy Ghost to enable them to decide infallibly, did not venture to solve the question, and had recourse to its authority instead of availing itself of its knowledge, that is to say, instead of informing the Christian world which of the popes was the true one, the council, by virtue of its authority, deposed them all, and set up a new pope of its own. [396]

b. Upon the death of Gregory XI and the election of his successor (which took place at Rome), the cardinals, being French, would undoubtedly, if they had free choice, have elected a French successor. But they were surrounded by a violent mob who threatened to tear them in pieces and set the house on fire over their heads if they elected a foreign pope. Although the cardinals at first protested than an election constrained by violence would not give a real pope but an intruder, they ultimately gave way and elected an Italian Pope, Urban VI, notified his election as usual to the Courts of Europe, and did not set up the plea of constraint until Urban had showed himself troublesome in the character of reformer of abuses. Then they made a unanimous secession; declared that they had only chosen Urban in the persuasion that he would in conscience have refused the pontificate, his election to which was only due to violence. "But he, forgetful of his salvation, and burning with ambition, had allowed himself to be enthroned and crowned; and assumed the name of pope, though he rather merited that of apostate and antichrist." And so they set up a French pope, Clement VII. [396-97]

a. When examining authorities it is necessary to discriminate geographically; for the geographical test is as effective as the chronological in showing that the notion of the Petrine supremacy is a development and not a tradition. [402]

b. Bearing all this in mind, you will see the necessity, when any ancient writer is quoted as asserting the right of the bishop of Rome to rule over other Churches, of inquiring who it is that says it. I might tell you, for example, that several eminent authors assert that Paris is the capital of the civilized world, the centre of European thought and culture. But you would smile at me if, when asked who these eminent authors were, I had to reply Victor Hugo, Comte, and other enthusiastic Frenchmen. In like manner we can but smile when Romish divines, who have undertaken to adduce evidence in proof of the papal claims, tender to us the assertion of popes, or of papal legates, or of Roman presbyters. Such evidence is only good to show what Rome would like to have believed, but determines nothing as to what really was by Christ's appointment the constitution of His Church. [404]

c. It is much more to the purpose when they adduce Eastern evidence; but such evidence always turns out to be, not spontaneous acknowledgment of the justice of the Roman demands, but temporary acquiescence in them by persons of the moment badly in want of Roman assistance. Contending parties in the East [Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism] were always glad to get the West on its side; and the party successful in this endeavor could not afford to be critical if there was too much arrogance in the tone which the Roman supporters adopted. [4041

a. Though Cyprian did not dispute the assertion that Stephen sat in the chair of Peter, he did not by any means regard the bishop of Rome as the Church's infallible guide, nor even as a competent witness to apostolic tradition if his testimony seemed to conflict with what was found in the written word. [405]

b. Cyprian was not only unanimously supported by a council of eighty-seven African bishops, but he had enthusiastic allies in the East. Chief of these was Firmilian of Cappadocia, at that time one of the most illustrious of Eastern bishops. There is extant a Latin translation of Firmilian's letter to Cyprian. Some of the first editors of Cyprian's works were minded to suppress the letter altogether on account of the great disrespect with which he treats the bishop of Rome. Certainly it is not surprising that Roman Catholics should have found matter of offence in Firmilian's letter. He begins by congratulating himself that through Stephen's "inhumanity" (in breaking communion with those who re-baptized converts from heresy) he had experimental proof of Cyprian's faith and wisdom. But, he adds, that for this benefit resulting to him from Stephen's conduct, Stephen himself was no more entitled to gratitude than Judas Iscariot was entitled to our gratitude for the benefits which resulted to the world from his treason to our Lord. [406]

c. The result is that we may name the episcopate of Stephen as the time when, out of the fiction that Peter had been bishop of Rome, his supposed successors began to develop the consequence that they had a right to rule other bishops; but we find that this development was at the time not only scouted in the East, but was violently resisted in the neighbouring province of Africa. [407]

d. In the third century, if disputes took place in [a Church], their brethren elsewhere would take an interest in it, and would use their influence to bring about the triumph of right. That the Roman Church should possess influence of this kind was a matter of course. But we see now that the possession of such influence was no exclusive prerogative of that see. Other Churches, too, claimed the right to make their voices heard, and had no scruple in taking a side opposite to that taken by the bishop of Rome. [408-091

e. We now turn to the occasion when the sanction of a council was first given to the interference of the bishop of Rome with regard to the deposition or restoration of bishops outside his immediate jurisdiction. [410]

f. These instances show how absurd it is to claim for the pope immunity from error in his declarations of doctrine, while he is allowed to be liable to error with regard to matters of fact. How can we put confidence in the judgment of one who is mistaken as to the facts which ought to guide his judgment? When a bishop of Rome has to decide what rights he shall claim for his see, it surely is important for him to know what rights early councils had recognized and what rights his predecessors had exercised. If a pope should be entirely misinformed on these points, it is quite to be expected that he should form a false estimate of the rightful claims of his see. [415-16] The case of Apiarius shows clearly that the right of receiving appeals was not an original possession of the see of Rome. Zosimus claimed it as a privilege bestowed by the Council of Nicaea; the African bishops were ready to concede it if it had been so bestowed, but asked for proof that it had been. That it belonged to the see by divine right does not seem to have been dreamed of on either side. 1416-17] Thus we see that even in the West at the beginning of the fifth century the pre-eminence 0 the bishop of Rome implied no right of absolute dominions. [417]

a. How far did that right extend? Rufinus, who translated these canons towards the end of the fourth century, says, Rome has the care of the suburbicarian Churches. Commentators differ as to what exactly this means. It is clear, however, that Rome had not patriarchal authority as yet over the whole West. [4201

b. The great schism between East and West grew out of disputes as to whether certain provinces belonged to the patriarchate of Rome or Constantinople. The two patriarchs felt a natural shame to confess that the cause of their solicitude was the money that would he diverted from their converts if these provinces should be lost to them. Consequently differences of ritual or doctrine, on points on which previous generations had been content to differ, were now first represented as soul-destroying errors; and the disputants declared themselves each to be solely moved by solicitude for the souls that would be imperilled if they were placed under the teaching of his rival. But all these struggles to increase the part of the Church over which Rome was to hold sway are perfectly inconsistent with her modern claim to dominion over the whole Church. [420-21] The ancient Church, even when it came to recognize the bishop of Rome as the great patriarch of the West, implicitly denied his jurisdiction over the whole Church. [421]

c. In the second general council, one of the Constantinopolitan canons forbids the bishops at the head of the great ecclesiastical divisions to meddle out of their own provinces, or throw the Churches into confusion; but that according to the canons the bishop of Alexandria should alone administer the affairs of Egypt, the bishops of the East those of the East and so on. No mention of Rome is made in this canon, which deals only with Eastern affairs; but Roman claims to Eastern dominion are sufficiently condemned by the silence of the canon, there being apparently no necessity even to reject such pretensions. [421]

a. It is the truth to say that Roman claims have principally taken their growth out of two forgeries. I have already described one of them, the pseudo-Clementine literature, which first started the idea that St. Peter had been bishop of Rome. This idea was developed by successive Roman bishops, who drew from it the consequence that, as Peter had been chief of the Apostles, so the bishop of Rome ought to be chief of all bishops; and who by gradually increasing claims endeavoured to elevate men's notions of the authority which in that capacity he ought to exercise. [448]

b. But the highest claims previously made fell far short of what men were taught was the pope's rightful possession in the second forgery of which I have now to speak—the collection of letters purporting to have been written by early bishops of Rome, a collection first published in the ninth century. [4481

c. In the ninth century another collection of papal letters, which were supposed by some means to have escaped the industry of Dionysius, was published under the name of Isidore, by whom, no doubt, a celebrated Spanish bishop of much learning was intended. In these are to be found precedents for all manner of instances of the exercise of sovereign dominion by the pope over other Churches. You must take notice of this, that it was 6yfi'rnishing precedents that these letters helped the growth of papal power. Thenceforth the popes could hardly claim any privilege but they would find in these letters supposed proofs that the privilege in question was no more than had been always claimed by their predecessors, and always exercised without any objection. [449]

d. On these spurious decretals is built the whole fabric of the Canon Law. The great schoolman, Thomas Aquinas, was taken in by them, and he was induced by them to set the example of making a chapter on the prerogatives of the pope an essential part of treatises on the Church. Bellarmine, and a number of other Roman controversialists, were similarly misled. [451]

e. The decretals much helped the growth of Roman power. Yet, Romish advocates think they can remove the foundation, but the edifice built on it remain. They assert that these letters really taught nothing new; that they ascribed no more power to the see of Rome than it had long possessed. This is as impudent an assertion as has been ever made by them. [453]

a. It is not uncommon for Catholic advocates to argue that in every department of conduct we submit our own judgment to that of skilled persons? If we are sick, or if a member of our family is so, we do not try to study the case out of medical books; we call in a physician of repute, and submit implicitly to his directions. If we go to sea, we leave the navigation of the vessel in the hands of the captain. If we have a difficult lawsuit, we do not try to conduct it ourselves; we take legal advice, and permit our adviser to determine our course of action. Why should we think that the problems of religion are so simple, that skilled and unskilled persons are on a par, and that this is the only subject in the world in which a man is to be ashamed to submit his judgment to that of those who are wiser than himself? The Catholic advocate who argues thus, however, does not at all understand the nature of the claim to infallibility made on behalf of his Church. [50]

b. It would he an absurd misrepresentation to suggest that any of US who insists on the necessity of private judgment thinks it a matter of indifference whether a man uses his judgment rightly. On the contrary, we think it every man's duty. who has to make a decision, to use every means in his power to guide his judgment rightly. Not the least of these means is the instruction and advice of people better informed than ourselves. [50]

a. A man may say, "I am absolutely certain that I am right in my religious opinions, because I believe what the Pope believers, and he is absolutely certain not to believe wrong." But then comes the question, "How come you to he absolutely certain that the Pope is absolutely certain not to believe wrong?" It is not possible to answer this question without being guilty of the fallacy of arguing in a circle. A common way of answering is by producing texts of Scripture such as "Thou art Peter, and on this rock 1 will build my Church," and such like. [53-54]

b. When a Catholic says, "I know that I understand these texts rightly, because the Church, which cannot err, has taught me that this is their true meaning," they are clearly in a vicious circle. They say, "The Church is infallible, because the Scriptures testify that she is so, and the Scriptures testify this because the Church infallibly declares that such is their meaning." [541

a. It is evident that if a man tells you, "I know that I am right, and you are wrong, because I have a divinely-inspired certainty that I am in the right in my opinion," such a claim does not admit of being met with direct disproof, though it has sometimes met with the mocking answer, "Your claim to a supernatural gift of faith means that your doctrines are such, that it requires a miracle to make a man believe them." We can, however, point out that the claim to have been taught by God's Spirit is made, and certainly on quite as good grounds by others, who say that they have been led by Him to conclusions quite opposite to the Roman Catholic. [82]

b. When a Romanist claims to have been taught by a supernatural gift of faith to trust his Church, and when a Protestant claims, equally under the guidance of God's Spirit, to have learned that she is unworthy of confidence, and when neither can prove, by miracles or any other decisive test, the superiority of the spiritual guidance which he professes to have himself received, what remains but to own that no certainty can be got from trusting to such supposed supernatural guidance. [82]

2 All this time private Christians, puzzled by the most opposite statements of learned men on both sides, must have looked eagerly to the infallible guide, in hopes to learn from him the true doctrine which they were to believe. But the judge was silent. He trimmed and wavered between both parties, and sought to make peace between them, without giving a triumph to either. The strongest step was taken by Sixtus IV, who, though himself a Franciscan, did not venture to declare that the doctrine taught by his own school was true; but who, in 1483, published a brief, in which he condemned those who said that it was a heresy, or that it could not be taught without mortal sin. [180]3. At length came the Council of Trent, in the course of which it became necessary to draw up an Article on original sin. It seemed than hardly possible to evade the question: for either it must be stated generally that all men are subject to this infection, and then the matter would be decided in favour of the Dominicans; or else the desire of the Franciscans should be complied with, that special mention should be made of the Virgin Mary, exempting her from the plague-spot of the human race. [180]

a. A violent dispute arose. When the dispute was made known at Rome, instead of embracing the opportunity of declaring by infallible authority the true doctrine on this subject, orders were given to the Papal Legates at Trent to reconcile the contending parties as far as possible, without giving a triumph to either. The directions were, not to meddle with this matter, which might cause a schism among Catholics; to endeavour to maintain peace between the opposing parties, and to seek some means of giving them equal satisfaction; above all, to observe strictly the brief of Pope Sixtus IV, which forbad preachers to charge the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with heresy. And in accordance with these instructions the decree of the Council was drawn up. The controversy was named; it was declared that the Council left the matter undetermined, and renewed the brief of Sixtus IV. [180-81 ]

b. Doesn't this prove that the Pope did not believe in his own presence to infallibility, else why not take the opportunity of settling, by the joint authority of Pope and Council—an authority which, in theory, all owned to he infallible—a dispute which had so long convulsed the Church? [181]

c. To meddle in the matter—that is to say, to decide the question one way or other—"might cause a schism among Catholics;" in other words these "Catholics," whatever they might pretend, did not really believe in the infallibility of the Pope and the Council. Why should there be danger of a schism after the truth had been ascertained by infallible authority? Surely, no person could be made enough to separate himself from the Church of Christ in consequence of a decision which he believed to be infallibly true, and to have emanated from a divinely-promised and infallible guidance. The only way of accounting for the conduct of the Pope and of the Council on this occasion is, that neither one nor other believe in the presence of infallibility. For, as I said, acting is the test of faith; and here the Pope acts as any prudent, well-advised sovereign would act under similar circumstances, endeavouring to avoid a decision that must irritate one party or other, and trying to conciliate both as well as he could. Although he speaks loudly and boldly before the world of his infallible authority, and ~f the great blessing of being in a Church which possesses an infallible tribunal for settling all disputes, yet he acts as one who was fully aware that there was no such tribunal. [181]

d. Is there clearer proof than this that the Roman communion does not practically believe in its own claim to infallibility? The guide will not venture to strike into one of two doubtful paths until those whom he is conducting have already made their choice, and that because he knows that, though professing to believe in his infallible wisdom, they will not follow him if he should happen not to take the path which they prefer. [182]

a. In process of time the whole controversy died away. Franciscans and Dominicans ceased to accuse each other of heresy or mortal sin, and so then was the time that the infallible tribunal ventured to speak; and in my own time (8th December, l 854) the Pope proclaimed that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was true, and moreover that the Church had always held it. Certainly in this case the Church carried the "discipline arcan"' to an immoderate extreme! since neither Bellarmine nor Milner, nor many other Roman Catholic divines whom I could name, were aware that the Church had any tradition on the subject. But if she had, how are we to excuse Pope Sixtus, or the Council of Trent, who, instead of making known the tradition at the time when the knowledge of it would have done good in healing the violent discussions which raged between members of the Church, kept silence until people had ceased to feel much interest in the controversy? [183]

b. The Pope did not make his decree without first taking advice, and you will find in the Library the answers he got from the bishops of Christendom. Among these, both some of the most eminent of the French bishops, and our Irish professors at Maynooth, declared, not by any means their disbelief in the doctrine of the Immaculate conception, but their opinion of the inexpedience of defining it by authority. [ 183]

c. Lord Bacon tells a story of a wise old man who got a great reputation for his success in settling disputees. When privately asked by a friend to explain the secret of his success, he told him it was a rule to himself never to interfere until the parties had completely talked themselves out, and were glad to get peace on any terms. That was just the way in which the Pope settled the controversy about the Immaculate Conception, by carefully holding his tongue until the dispute was practically over. [186]

a. It may be said that it was needless for the Roman Church to publish commentaries on Scripture, since it is not to Scripture that she sends her people for instruction in the doctrines of their faith. She has catechisms and other books of instruction, from which her people may learn. But has she ventured to put her seal of infallibility to any one of them? Not so; catechisms, sermons, books of devotion, are guarded by no such gift. If we detect a catechism in manifest error, if we find a preacher or a book of devotion guilty of manifest extravagance, no matter how eminent the man, or how widely popular the hook, the Church always leaves a loophole for disowning him, and we are at once told that the infallible authority has spoken by no such medium. But why has she not? Does it not seem strange that a communion possessing the high attribute of infallibility should make no use of it in the instruction of her people? It cannot be said that this neglect does not lead to ignorance and error on the part of the people. I need take no other example than the case already mention of "Keenan's Catechism," where a book circulated by thousands, with the highest episcopal approbation, went on, year after year, teaching doctrine which has now to be withdrawn as false. [190-92]

b. It may be said, it is not from hooks at all that the Church means her people to learn. To the people the voice of the Church is only the voice of the priest. Ordinary laymen certainly cannot study decrees of Popes or Councils, or works on scientific theology. They must take the doctrines of their Church as their authorized teachers expound it to them. Well, are those teachers infallible? Why, no, is the answer; but practically the people have the full benefit of the gift of infallibility. It is true their priest is not infallible; but they know that, if he teaches any heresy, he will be suspended by his bishop: if the bishop neglect his duty, he will be called to account by the archbishop: if the archbishop be heretical, he will be removed by the Pope. [193]

a. On Purgatory more than on any other subject the evidence of revelations deserves to be listened to, for the whole faith of the Church of Rome on this subject has been built upon revelations, or, as we should call it in plain English, on ghost stories. For hundreds of years the Church seems to have know little or nothing on the subject. Even still the East has lagged sadly behind the West in her knowledge, and the reason is, that the chief source of Western information is a Latin book, the dialogues of Gregory the Great, a work of which the genuineness has been denied by some, merely because it seemed to them incredible that so sensible a man should have written so silly a book. But no one acquainted with the eccentricities of the human intellect can rely on such an argument, in the face of positive evidence the other way. Gregory, believing twelve or thirteen centuries ago that the end of the world was at hand, and that the men of his age, by reason of their nearness to the next world, could see things which had been invisible to their predecessors, collected a number of tales of apparitions which, being received on his authority, have been the real foundation of Western belief in Purgatory. [206]

b. Abbe Louvet (Le Purgatoire d'apres les revelations des Saints, [Purgatory, according to the Revelations of the Saints] per M. l'Abbe Louvet, Missionaire Apostolique: Paris, 1880) made a systematic treatise on Purgatory, based on modern revelations. [205] It appears that Purgatory is but one division of the subterranean regions. At the centre of the earth is the place of the damned; above it lies Purgatory, divided into three regions, for the special torments of each of which I must refer you to Louvet. Above Purgatory is the limbus infantium, inhabited by unbaptized infants; above that the limbus palrum, now empty, but formerly dwelt in by the souls of the patriarchs until the descent of our Lord to release them. I am sorry to tell you, though you might have gathered it from something that I have said already, that the lowest division is largely tenanted by the souls of priests and bishops, monks and nuns: the bishops with mitres of fire on their heads, a hurning cross in their hands, and clad in a chasuble of flames. But it will shock you to hear that in that region are the souls of many popes who, with all the treasure of the Church at their command, were either so thoughtless or so unselfish as to make no provision for their own needs. For example, Marie Taigi saw the soul of the venable Pius Vl come to the door of Purgatory (in 1816), and be sent back again into the abyss, his expiation not being yet finished. [207-08] The great pontiff, Innocent III, who held the Lateran Council, who passed for a saint in the eyes of men, and did so much for the reform of the Church, appeared to St. Lutgarde, all surrounded by flames, and on her expressing her astonishment, informed her that he had narrowly escaped from hell, and that he had been condemned to suffer in Purgatory till the end of the world. He earnestly entreated her prayers, whereupon St. Lutgarde, with all her nuns, set themselves with all their might to make intercession for his deliverance; hut no sign came that their prayers were answered, and, for all we know, after five centuries the poor wretch may be still plunged in those horrible pains from which he begged earnestly to be delivered. "This example," says Bellarmine, "fills me with real terror every time I think of it." [208-9]

c. Louvet, who builds his speculations solely on the evidence of canonized saints [211], makes a calculation, by the help of his revelations, how long an ordinary Christian may expect to have to stay in Purgatory. A Christian of more than usual sanctity, who has never committed a mortal sin, who has carefully avoided all the graver venal sins, and has satisfied by penance for three-fourths of the lighter sins into which frailty has led him, must expect to spend in Purgatory 123 years, 3 months, and 15 days. [209]

a. The miracle of La Salette, 19 September 1846, when two children minding cows claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary. She discoursed to them on the sins of France, and gave them messages in the name of her Son. The children told the story: the matter was noised abroad; the place soon became crowded with visitors; chapels arose, inns were opened, medals were struck, the sale of the water of La Salette soon came to he gainful traffic, for it had not only virtue in curing diseases, but a few drops even operated the conversion of an obstinate sinner, in whose liquor it had been mixed without his knowledge. [218] Some of the clergy of the neighboring dioceses declared the whole apparition to be an imposture. It was asserted that the virgin who appeared to the children was a certain Constance Lamerliere, a nun, half knave, half crazy, who could be proved to have purchased the dress in which the Virgin appeared, and whose connection with the apparition could in other ways be proved. This was stated so persistently that Constance Lamerliere was forced to accept the challenge, and bring an action for defamation of character; but the Court decided against her, and the decision was confirmed on appeal. [219-20]

b. Bernadotte of Lourdes (Bernadotte Soubirous) was a poor girl of fourteen, who, on February 11, 1858, while picking up dry wood, claimed to have seen a beautiful lady robed in white, with a blue sash. On being asked who she was, the lady answered, "I am the Immaculate Conception." She invited the girl to drink at a fountain. The child, seeing no fountain, scraped away some earth with her hands. A little water filtered through the orifice: it increased gradually in volume, became perfectly clear, and now supplies to the faithful millions of bottles, which are in large demand for the purpose of effecting supernatural cures. [220] There is a number of incredulous people who object that the witness to the Lourdes miracle is a child subject to hallucinations. What I complain of is, that when there is an infallible guide he will not interfere to clear our doubts. [220-21] If the Pope is unable to arrive at certainty about things alleged to have taken place in his own lifetime, how can he expect to be more successful about things that happened centuries ago? [E.g., whether or not the body of the Virgin was miraculously taken up to heaven—the assumption of Mary—is a question of fact.] [222]

a. A closer examination showed those competent to judge that the edition had graver faults than could be accounted for by printer's carelessness. Sixtus had changed the readings of those whom he had employed to report upon the text with the most arbitrary and unskillful hand; and it was scarcely an exaggeration to say with Bellarmine that his precipitate self reliance had brought the Church into the most serious peril. The death of Sixtus removed all constraint, and the learned divines whose opinions had been overruled represented the true state of the case to his successor. [227]

b. There was then much embarrassment how to correct these undeniable errors. Bellarmine's way of solving the difficulty was to lay the blame upon the printers, although in his autobiography he makes no secret that those errors had been deliberately introduced by Sixtus himself, which he recommended should be imputed to the carelessness of others. Indeed Bellarmine's original proposal was a delightful illustration of the skill which the Order to which he belonged is popularly believed to possess, in knowing how to insinuate a falsehood in words consistent with truth. [227]

a. Galileo was a firm believer in the truth of Scripture, and as soon as he came to believe that the Copernican theory was true, he could not help also believing that it was not contrary to the Bible. Accordingly, in 1613, he wrote a letter, defending this view, to Castelli, who was Mathematical Professor at Pisa. He said that the Bible was beyond doubt infallible; that though the Scripture could not err, its interpreters might. Clearly we are not to interpret every word of Scripture literally. There were obvious reasons why, in speaking incidentally of the sun, or of the earth, or other created bodies, the Scriptures should conform to popular language. [231 ]

b. This letter was the occasion of the first collision between Galileo and ecclesiastical authorities; for though it was a private letter, a copy fell, either through indiscretion or treachery, into the hands of Dominicans at Florence, one of whom denounced it to the Holy Office at Rome. And naturally it gave much offence that a layman should presume to teach theologians how to interpret Scripture. [231-32]

c. The reason why Copernican speculations about the earth's motion had been tolerated by ecclesiastics, while the writings of Galileo on the same subject were rigidly condemned, was that Galileo's predecessors, in order to avoid shocking existing prejudices, had taken some pains to represent the notion of the earth's motion, not as a true account of what actually takes place, but as a mathematical fiction imagined for the more convenient calculation of the places of the heavenly bodies. There is, you know, great virtue in an if. Theologians insisted on saying, without contradiction, that the earth does not move; but they had no objection to allow mathematicians to amuse themselves with the problem, If the earth and the planets went round the sun, what appearances would the planets, on that hypothesis, present? Galileo found that the answer to that question was, Exactly the appearances which we observe now; while, on the contrary, the observed appearances were not explained by the older theory. He could not then resist the conviction that the Copernican doctrine of the earth's motion was no mere mathematical fiction, but the absolute truth. [233]

d. All Galileo contended for was toleration for his own belief. He only endeavoured to make out that there was nothing in the Bible that forbade him to believe that the earth moved. And unless he imagined that the same thing could be scientifically true and theologically false, how was it possible for him, who believed that nothing false is taught as an article of faith in the Scriptures, when he had come to believe that the doctrine that the earth does not move is false, to avoid asserting that the doctrine that the earth is at rest is not taught in the Bible as an article of faith? [233-34]

e. Nothing is so puzzling as a real love of truth to people who are not possessed of it themselves. The good old orthodox theologians of Galileo's day could not imagine what motive the philosopher could have for persisting in saying that it was the earth which went round the sun, and not the sun which went round the earth. That he should say so, merely because he was convinced it was true, was quite beyond their comprehension. It must be from love of opposition, from a wish to insult them, from sheer obstinacy, from self-conceit, or some other unworthy motive. [2341

a. The Inquisition was able to pronounce Galileo's acquittal on the question of fact. The document submitted to them only purported to be a copy of a letter written by Galileo: where was the original? It could not be produced. No doubt, if the Inquisitors had been malevolently disposed, they might have resorted to such further inquiry as would either have brought the letter home to Galileo, or at least would have proved that it truly expressed his sentiments. But they were content, in the absence of positive evidence, to pronounce a verdict of Not Guilty; only they took care that the verdict should be, Not Guilty, but don't do it again. [235]

b. They obtained a report from their "qualifiers," which ran in the following terms—(1). The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world, and immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, 6ecause it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. (2). The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered at least erroneous in 6ith. [235]

c. Galileo was not required to make abjuration, or to do penance, because he had not been convicted of heresy; but, by order of the Holy Office, Cardinal Bellarmine summoned him before him, and admonished him in the name of the Pope and of the Holy Office, under pain of imprisonment, that he must give up the opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves, and must not hold, teach it, or defend it either by word or writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in the Holy Office. Galileo submitted, and promised to obey. [235]

a. The Congregation of the Index continued its war on the Copernican theory for about two centuries. The Index of 1704 contains the comprehensive prohibition, "all books that teach the mobility of the earth or the immobility of the sun." [237]

b. These prohibitions continued in force for a century longer. At the beginning of the present century the astronomer Lalande, made great exertions at Rome to have the names of Galileo, Copernicus, and Foscarini, removed from the Index; but in vain. Accordingly, the Index for 1828 contains the names of these three culprits; but the prohibition against all books teaching the mobility of the earth was quietly dropped out of the later editions of the Index. It was only on the accession of Gregory XVI, the predecessor of Pius IX, that the important step was taken, and the attempt to insist on believing on the immobility of the earth was finally abandoned. For the first time for some two hundred years an Index of prohibited books was published, in which no confession of previous error was made, but the names of Galileo, Copernicus, and Foscarini, were silently withdrawn. Even then there were some at the Papal Court who regarded this a weak-minded concession to modern prejudice. [2381

6. Galileo went back to Florence disheartened at the condemnation of the Copernican doctrines, but professing outward submission to the Papal decisions. It would be unreasonable to suppose that he accepted them in his heart. [240]

a. In a tract which he published on the motions of comets, he says: "Since the motion attributed to the earth, which I, as a pious and Catholic person, consider most false and not to exist, accommodates itself so well as to explain so many and such different phenomena, I shall not feel sure but that, false as it is, it may not just as deludingly correspond with the phenomena of comets." He preserved the same verbal conformity to the commands of his superiors in the work which he published in 1632, which was the cause of his subsequent troubles. He gave it the form of a dialogue, which enabled him to state the arguments on both sides without committing himself to an adoption of either; and he said that he proposed to discuss the Copernican system as a mere mathematical hypothesis, and to show, not its absolute truth, but its superiority to some bad arguments by which it had been assailed. [240]

b. The disguise, however, was found to be a little too thin. Pope Urban VIII recognized in the arguments put into the mouth of the silly speaker some which he had formerly used himself in discussion with Galileo. [240]

c. The sale of the dialogue was forbidden, and a summons was served on Galileo ordering him to appear before the Inquisition at Rome. He made every effort to escape obedience, pleading inability to undertake the journey (a more formidable business then than now), on account of his age (he was seventy), and the bad state of his health, and asking for at least a reprieve. His excuses were not accepted by the Pope, who said he might come in a litter if he pleased; but come he must. The Florentine Inquisitor visited Galileo, and found him confined to his bed, and professing himself unable to take the journey in his then state of health. A certificate was forwarded, signed by three of the most eminent medical men in Florence, to the effect that Galileo was suffering from hernia, and could not be moved without danger to his life. The answer from the Inquisition was, that if he did not come the Pope and the Holy Office would send down a commissary and a physician of their own, whose expenses would have to be defrayed at Galileo's cost. If they should find him able to travel they were at once to deprive him of his liberty, and send him up in irons; if they should find that the move would involve danger of life, they were to send him up bound and in irons as soon as the danger was over.

a. He was not permitted either to reprint his old books, or to print new ones. When he died, his power to make a will was disputed, and the question was raised whether his body might be placed in consecrated ground. That was decided in his favour; but when the Grand Duke proposed to raise a marble monument to him, he received a message from the Pope that such an intention, if carried out, would be most pernicious, and that he must remember that Galileo during his life had caused scandal to all Christendom by his false and damnable doctrine. [242-43]

b. Galileo was informed that the opinion which he really held had been pronounced heretical, and that if he again taught it, he would be treated as a relapsed heretic. 1245]

c. The ecclesiastical authorities at the time, no doubt, thought they had gained a triumph when they obtained Galileo's abjuration; but that abjuration remains their lasting disgrace. [245]

a. The tribunal of the Inquisition never dreamed of setting itself up as an authority for pronouncing on the progress of science. In knowledge of the science of astronomy they must have been perfectly well aware that Galileo was infinitely their superior. What they thought they did know hefter than he was how to interpret Scripture. It was as theologians they interfered; and interfered, as we now know, wrongly. And indeed how could science ever have come to its present state if they could have had their way? Every good Catholic was forbidden even to read a book which taught the mobility of the earth. [246]

b. The Inquisitors did not claim to know more about scientific arguments than Galileo, but they did claim to know better than he how to interpret Scripture. Yet it turns out now that, with regard to the interpretation of Scripture, Galileo was right, and they were wrong. The condemnation of Galileo has been a good deal discussed with reference to the question of the Pope's personal infallibility. You will see now that it cuts much deeper, and affects the question of the Church's infallibility, speaking by no matter what organ. The Council of Trent declared that it is the province of Holy Mother Church to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Now there are many texts of Scripture which we hold that the Roman Church interprets wrongly; but we have no means of forcing her to own that we are right and she wrong. We have the means in the case of such texts as "He hath made the round world so fast that it cannot be moved." From such texts it was inferred in the sixteenth century that the physical fact of the immobility of the earth was a revealed truth. Everyone entitled to speak on behalf of "Holy Mother church" asserted it. If general consent, universal long tradition, absence of opposing view, can prove any interpretation of Scripture to be lawfully imposed by the head of the Church, this certainly was so. And yet it has now to be confessed that interpretation was wrong. It must be owned, therefore, that whatever respect the Church may claim when she interprets Scripture, she is not infallible, and that the Church of a more learned age may wisely review and correct the decisions of its predecessors. [246-47]

c. Yes; but it will be said that the Church's infallibility when she interprets Scripture is limited to questions of faith and morals, and that the question of the earth's mobility is not one of faith. But this is to accuse the heads of the Church in Galileo's time of a far graver mistake. It is surely a less error to decide a question that belongs to your province wrongly, than not to know what belongs to your province and what does not. If modern apologists are right, the Church in Galileo's time not only was wrong in pronouncing it to be heresy to hold that the earth went round the sun; but was utterly wrong in imagining that either of the opinions—the sun goes round the earth; or the earth goes round the sun—possibly could be heresy, the whole subject being outside the domain with which faith has to deal. On the contrary, the Church in Galileo's time held that it was of faith to maintain the absolute correctness of everything asserted in express words of Scripture, and that the doctrine of the earth's fixity was so asserted. [247-48]

d. Either the earth moves, or it does not. If it moves, theologians were wrong in inferring from Scripture the God had revealed that it is at rest; if it does not move, the Copernicans had wrongly interpreted the indications of their science. You know how the matter has ended. Roman Catholics and Protestants are now agreed that the theologians of two hundred years ago were wrong in the system of astronomy which they imagined they had derived from the Bible; and Roman Catholics and Protestants agree in adopting the principles of Scripture interpretation which Galileo taught the theologians of his day. [232]

a. The Popes appear to think the gift of infallibility quite too precious for everyday use, and that when a disputed question arises it is the hardest matter to obtain a decision on it from the infallible authority. But there are some occasions which would extort speech from the most taciturn of human beings; and I imagine that the most silent of men might be induced to speak, if he saw a fellow-creature about to be severely punished, perhaps burned alive, in his name, and by his alleged authority, upon a charge of heresy which he had the means of infallibly knowing was no heresy at all. It cannot plausibly be maintained that a Church possessing an infallible guide to secure her from heresy should appoint a special tribunal for the expulsion of heresy, and that that tribunal, acting under the very eyes of the Church's head should be left in uncertainty what is or is not heresy. [249-50]

b. It is said, however, that the Pope is both teacher and governor of the Church, and that though infallible as teacher, he may err in the steps he takes as governor, for the preservation of the Church's discipline. But when the punishment of heresy is concerned, it is impossible to separate his disciplinary from his teaching power. It may be assumed as certain that the Pope would not punish a man for heresy without having first ascertained that the doctrine which he held was heresy; and the Pope could not teach the world more distinctly that a certain doctrine is heretical than by setting the example of punishing a man for holding it. [250]

c. It is nothing less than a gross libel on Pope Paul V, who was Pope in 1616, to assert that he did not bring all the resources of his infallibility into play in the case of Galileo. I need not tarry over the plea that either Paul in 1616, or Urban in 1633, erred but only as a private doctor, not as a Pope speaking ex cathedra. With regard to the question when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, the only rational distinction is between his official and non-official utterances. We do not hold the Papacy responsible for everything Urban may have said in conversation to Galileo; but in all the transactions which I am discussing it is clear that neither Urban nor Paul acted as a private doctor, but as Pope. [250] I need not linger over a plea in which some Romanists find much comfort, that the condemnation of Galileo does not contain what is called the customary clause of Papal confirmation at the end. We may be sure that Paul V did not knowingly omit anything necessary to give validity to his sentence; and the fact is, that the "custom" in question has come in since Paul's time, and that this clause does not appear in previous decrees of the Congregation of the Index. (No decree of the Index has been found with the clause earlier than January 17, 1729.) [251]

d. Assuredly Galileo and the Copernicans of his day were not allowed to suppose that to persist in their heresy would be to resist anything short of infallible wisdom. They were pressed with the words of the Bull of Sixtus V, by which the Congregation of the Index was remodeled: "They are to examine and expose the books which are repugnant to the Catholic doctrines and Christian discipline, and after reporting them to us, they are to condemn them by our authority." What was done by the Inquisition in Galileo's case was not a mere verdict on a matter of fact on which the judges might pardonably go wrong, but it was the decision by the Pope's authority on a question of doctrine. Pope Urban made that decision his own by directing (in 1633) that in order that these things might be known to all. copies of the sentence on Galileo were to be transmitted to all Apostolic Nuncios, and all Inquisitors of heretical pravity, especially the Florentine Inquisitors. These were to summon the professors of mathematics and to read the sentence for their instruction. This sentence refers to the interference of the Congregation of the Index as made "to the end that so pernicious a doctrine" as the Copernican "might be altogether taken away and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth." It states that the Congregation was held in the Pope's presence in which Galileo was ordered to give up this false opinion. It relates that Galileo had been formally made acquainted with "the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index," the tenor whereof is that the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the fixity of the sun is contrary to the sacred Scriptures, and can neither be defended or held. It may be added that the desired Papal confirmation in express terms was given by a later Pope, Alexander VII, in 1664, who republished and confirmed the previous decree. [251-52]

a. Thus, Pope Nicolas I was consulted by the Bulgarians whether a Jew or a Pagan could give valid baptism. He replied in the affirmative, but further volunteered the information that the baptism would be equally good, whether given in the name of Jesus alone or in that of the Three Persons of the Trinity. [436-37]

b. This is now given up as clearly erroneous teaching, but is excused as an "obiter dictum,'! the Pope having gone out of his way to answer a question he had not been asked. [437]

c. As regards this particular case, remember that the Roman Church holds that an unbaptized person cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven, and that baptism in the name of Jesus alone is valid. It follows that if the Bulgarians accepted the instruction officially given them by the Pope, hundreds of them may have imagined themselves baptized when they really were not, and then, for want of baptism, their souls must have been eternally lost. Now, it seems to me monstrous to imagine that anyone could be damned for following the guidance of him whom Christ had appointed as teacher of the Church. So that if I believed the pope to hold this office I should find myself constrained to believe that the rule of Nicolas was right. No evasion as to the form In which the instruction was conveyed will suffice. If the Pope be Christ's Vicar, It IS incredible that he could be permitted officially to mislead His people Into error inconsistent with their salvation. [437]

a. Even if the pope had faith in his own infallibility, he had no confidence that his people had, and so had to consider the dangers of a schism that might result from an unacceptable decision. [258-59]

b. Distress at an ex cathedra decision, and unwillingness to accept It, IS very inconsistent on the part of a "Catholic," and very wrong. [2591 Catholics who have no real faith in the Pope's infallibility have no right to complain if other people think so too. [260]

a. When it was suggested that we might content ourselves with the guidance of the Holy Scriptures, Romanist advocates have replied, that though the Bible may be infallible it is not an infallible guide: that is to say, it does not protect those who follow it from danger of going wrong. Surely now we may say as much for the pope. Let him be infallible if you please; let him be in his heart of the most admirable orthodoxy, still he is not an infallible guide if by his public utterances he leads Christian people wrong. [441-42]

b. It is beyond controversy that cases have occurred when Christian people would have gone wrong if they followed the guidance of the bishop of Rome. Even if it were possible to demonstrate that no bishop of Rome had ever entertained sentiments that were to most rigidly orthodox, it remains proved that the pope is not an infallible guide. L442]