DUST u)j~ c . — A LETTER TO THE REV. C. GORE, M.A. PRINCIPAL OP THE PUSEY HOUSE, OXFORD BY THE REV. LUKE RIVINGTON, M.A. ON HIS BOOK ‘ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS’ CONTENTS HIPPOLYTUS ’ WORKS THE FORGED DECRETALS ANGLICAN JURISDICTION SECOND EDITION LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1S89 Price Sixpence DUST A LETTER TO THE REV. C. GORE, M.A. PRINCIPAL OF THE PUSEY HOUSE, OXFORD BY THE BEY. LUKE RIVINGTON, M.A. ON HIS BOOK ‘ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 1 CONTENTS HIPPOLYTUS ’ WORKS THE FORGED DECRETALS ANGLICAN JURISDICTION SECOND EDITION LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1889 ;! i ) saacUifit DUST. My dear Sir,—In the introduction to your book on ‘ Roman Catholic Claims,’ you say of an assertion of mine (separated from its context), ‘ This is a sentence to make a man rub his eyes ! ’ The same expression occurs in a review of my book on i Authority,’ in the. 1 Church Times,’ which surpasses itself in asperity and discourtesy. And the expression is supported in the ‘ Church Times ’ by precisely the same arguments as you offer yourself. It is a positive relief, therefore, to learn from you that you were not the first to give these supposed proofs (‘ I am not the first to do it,’ p. ix.), as it enables one to hope that you refer to that article in the 1 Church Times,’ which would show that it did not proceed from your pen. It would be a pity for the phraseology and tactics of the ‘ Church Times ’ to be introduced into what ought to be the serener atmosphere of Oxford discussion. ‘ A sentence to make a man rub his eyes ! ’ is your ex- clamation. ] propose to show that the only reason why such an assertion as I have made could lead to a man’s 1 rubbing his eyes,’ is because so much dust has been thrown into people’s eyes in the name of history. There are several conspicuous instances of this in your book on 4 Roman Catholic Claims ; ’ and as one who has long suffered from the dust of prejudice, of garbled history, and of careless assertion, keeping one’s eyes more or less closed to the truth, I shall deal, briefly, with some of the most im- portant instances. 6 DUST; A LETTER ON HIPPOLYTUS' WORKS. The immediate cause of your using this peculiar phrase- ology about rubbing one’s eyes, is my contention that since the time of St. Francis de Sales there have been no literary discoveries 4 of any importance J concerning the early centuries of the Christian life bearing on the question of the authority of St. Peter’s See. You conceive that the discovery of Hippolytus’ works is a sufficient refutation of that assertion. When I penned that sentence which you stigmatise, I had this very Hippolytus before my mind, and the words 4 of any importance ’ were meant to cover his case in particular. I saw that, whilst you do not anywhere quote from him, you refer to his 4 Refutatio ’ as evidencing a state of things incompatible with the infallibility of the Holy See. Bishop Wordsworth, of Lincoln, thought so too. I was long misled by his book on the subject, in the same way that Bishop Ives, as he tells us in his 4 Trials of a Mind ’ (ch. xvi.) was misled by some perversions of history in Bishop Wordsworth’s 4 Theophilus Anglicanus.’ 1 But, on further investigation, I consider it only throwing dust in people’s eyes to speak of Hippolytus’ opposition as proving anything except his own perversity. Sure I am that St. Francis de Sales was too logical and too careful to have been misled by anything in the 4 Refutatio,’ or the 4 Philosophumena,’ of Hippolytus. Hippolytus is indeed a dangerous weapon in the hands of Anglicans. From the 4 Philosophumena ’ we see that Hippoly- tus would have degraded nearly every Anglican Bishop that ever lived. The marriage of the clergy after ordination, and, still more, successive polygamy (as Dr. Dollinger calls being married twice) in the clergy, was in Hippolytus’ judgment a serious breach of the Church’s law, and the supposed 1 Bishop Ives gave up his position, and submitted to the See of Rome. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 7 admission of it by the reigning Pope was thought to be one of the many bars to his exercising the office of Bishop. St. Callixtus would have agreed with Hippolytus in regarding the marriage of the clergy after ordination as contrary to primi- tive tradition, as also, indeed much more, a second marriage (in the case of clergy) after baptism, though he would not, apparently, have debarred those who had married twice before baptism from exercising some minor clerical office, considering that the stain of their successive polygamy be- longed to the heathen period of their life. Hippolytus, there- fore, must have condemned the so-called Reformation as a backward movement from a moral point of view, issuing, as it did, in the almost universal marriage of the clergy. Bishop Wordsworth, however, has succeeded in throwing a great deal of dust into the eyes of English Churchmen on the subject of Hippolytus. Dr. Dollinger has done his best to remove it. He says of Bishop Wordsworth’s book : 4 The 4 main object of the book is to show that the Roman See, in 4 the first part of the third century, was tainted with heresy 4 and vice-—a “cathedra pestilentiae ”—and that the events of 4 that time afford a decisive argument against the authority 4 attributed to the chair of St. Peter in the Roman Church. 4 All questions connected with Hippolytus’ work and narrative 4 attract him just so far as they stand in conjunction with this 4 object. It suits his purpose, therefore, that the condition of 4 the Roman Church at that time should be painted in dark 4 colours. She is considered to be wrapped in a thick, black 4 cloud of heresy and corruption, so that Hippolytus is the one 4 bright spot in this darkness. The strong expressions and 4 sharp sallies of Hippolytus do not content him ; when they 4 seem too tame, he helps them in his translation with more 4 powerful touches.’ Dr. Dollinger then shows how completely Dr. Wordsworth was misled by Ruggieri and Bunsen. He speaks of Dr. 8 DUST; A LETTER ON Wordsworth’s love of what is strained and far-fetched; and shows that, here and there, he has been led into serions mistranslations. I was unfortunately misled by this book of Dr. Wordsworth’s some years ago, and it was not without a strong sense of the truth of my remark that I penned these words, 4 no literary discoveries of any importance,’ bearing on the question with which I was dealing. In fact, unless we take as our authority the obviously one-sided account of a vehement passionate writer like Hippolytus, and we have no other account from which to balance his statements—a man, too, who, whatever his other qualities, was equal, according to your own admission, to creating a schism—nothing comes out of his works in this connection except the wise and tender guidance of the reigning Pope. I conclude, therefore, that neither B. Thomas More, nor St. Francis de Sales, would have been the least em- barrassed by anything in Hippolytus’ works, and that these works cannot be considered an 4 authority ’ on any question connected with the supremacy of St. Peter and his suc- cessors. As to the Benedictine edition of the Fathers, it is enough to remark that the Benedictines themselves agreed with St. Francis de Sales, and that it has yet to be proved that that saint and doctor of the Church was indebted for his view of Christianity to any phrase or phrases that the Benedictines have decided to be spurious. It is therefore, I contend, only throwing dust in people's eyes to flourish in their face certain corrections which these learned Catholic editors have made in their careful edition of the Patristic writings ; as though the mass of remaining evidence did not amply establish the 4 Roman Catholic Claims ’ as Scriptural and primitive. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 9 THE FORGED DECRETALS. Bat you appear to think that St. Francis de Sales would at any rate have been embarrassed by the discovery of the pseudo-Decretals. I reply that, first, there is not sufficient evidence that this is a discovery since St. Francis wrote his great work to the people, amongst whom he says (with his usual modesty) he had been so unsuccessful. And, secondly, it is incon- ceivable that St. Francis de Sales should have invested the discovery of their true nature with anything like the import- ance with which you regard it. You can even speak of the result of this said discovery as being that ‘ the fabric of the Papal authority has been almost totally deprived of its historical and literary basis in the early centuries.’ It is true that the word ‘ almost ’ seems to leave a basis after all. But it is evident that you are possessed with the usual Protestant notion, that the authority of the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church under Christ owed its establishment mainly to these said Decretals. And yet St. Francis’ argu- ment is not based on these, and is not affected by their exposure. His argument rests on the plain meaning of Holy Scripture, and its interpretation by the Fathers, gathered from admittedly genuine passages. The greater part of my own book is directed to showing that, long, long before these Decretals came into existence, the Papal authority was fully accepted. The Decretal letters to which I refer on p. 56 are, of course, the undisputed ones, not the false. If, therefore, I am accused of ignoring the Protestant conception of the part played by the pseudo-Decretals, I reply that I have, in point of fact, disproved that fiction. That authority was claimed and recognised ages before the pseudo-Decretals came into existence ; and I look upon the 10 DUST; A LETTER ON use constantly made of their discovery as so much 4 dust ’ thrown in people’s eyes. For what was the history of these spurious Decretals ? They consist of a collection of Papal decisions, partly genuine, partly false ; forged not in Pome but in France ; not in the interest of Rome so much as in the interest of Bishops, probably by a man who had suffered, and felt that his only chance of redress was to be found in the cautious, impartial judgment which was synonymous with Papal decisions. He wanted that authority, which clearly (I suppose I may say unquestionably, for anyone who has read them) was already acknowledged as supreme, to be invoked more often, and as a matter of obligation in a larger number of cases. It is so untrue that the Holy See caught at their support, that there is positive evidence to the contrary. The S.P.C.K. has endorsed a gross misrepresentation on this point, and cruelly distributed translations of it amongst the faithful of other lands besides our own. It occurs in Dr. Littledale’s 4 Plain Reasons,’ who has the hardihood to assert that these Decretals 4 were eagerly seized on by Pope Nicolas I. . . .to aid in revolutionising the Church, as he, in fact, largely succeeded in doing’ (p. 117). The fact is, that when for the first time these Decretals were quoted to Pope Nicolas, he made no use of them in his reply, which he based on other considerations. And there is no evidence that he ever used them at all. The popular Protestant notion is that some Pope, or Popes, looking about for some support to their authority, forged these Decretals, or had them forged, or connived at their forgery, or, as Dr. Littledale, with his usual inaccuracy, says, 4 eagerly seized on them ’ when they appeared. There is not a word of truth in all this. For some reason or other the Pope did not use them when they first appeared. One might have expected otherwise. For considering the state of literary ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 11 criticism, the lack of our modern critical apparatus, there would have been nothing surprising in the Pope’s accepting them as genuine at once, agreeing as they did, in the main, with the state of things already established. Dr. Little- dale’s notion that Popes could have at once consulted their own archives and settled the matter implies an entire ignorance of the state of the case. Papal Decretals were not necessarily confined to the Papal archives ; and there was nothing in these Decretals to startle or suggest inquiry . 1 This latter statement can be easily proved by considering whether the essential features of Papal authority were in existence at some given date before the pseudo-Decretals stole into acceptance. I have said that in my book on c Authority ’ I have shown that they were. But it is worth while insisting on this point. Let us take the history of a Pope who lived more than two hundred years before the pseudo-Decretals were forged—the history of Gregory the Great . 2 If the Papal claims, in their essence, were made and admitted in the time of Gregory the Great, your contention falls to the ground. Gregory the Great lived much more than two hundred years before the pseudo-Decretals appeared, and a great deal longer still before they can be shown to have been adopted into the collection used by the Popes. Now St. Gregory says that he 4 knows not what Bishop is not subject to the Apostolic See.’ Nothing in the false Decretals goes beyond this. There- fore the doctrine of the subjection of all Sees to the See of St. Peter did not originate with the false Decretals. Let us look at St. Gregory’s acts to see his practical in- terpretation of this doctrine, and its recognition by others. He rebukes the Metropolitan of Ravenna for wearing 1 Cf. an interesting article on this subject in the Month , March 1881. 2 I am indebted for much that follows to Fr. S. Smith’s Alleged Antiquity of Anglicanism. 12 DUST; A LETTER ON the symbol of authority at times when he should not. It was a delicate matter touching the comparative authority of the Pope and Metropolitan. The plea which the Metro- politan preferred was not one which repudiated Gregory’s right to interfere. The whole case reveals a claim and admission of the claim to interfere, as decided and ample as any suggested by the false Decretals. In France the Bishop of Arles is made his ‘ vicegerent,’ and rules are given by which he is to be bound in his exercise of his metropolitical authority. All the Bishops of Gaul are exhorted by Gregory to render obedience to Ver- gilius. Could the false Decretals go further than this ? England was, we know, considered by St. Gregory to be under his jurisdiction. In the province of Illyria he appoints a Papal Yicar, and places ail the other Bishops under him. And when he acts contrary to what St. Gregory considers right, the Saint writes to him : c By the authority of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, we cancel and annul the decrees which you have passed.’ (Ep. liii. c. 6.) What was there for Pope Nicolas to revolutionise, or the false Decretals to establish, after this ? They could only insist on some minor and comparatively inconsiderable points. Passing from West to East, we find that the Patriarchs of the East are held to be under his jurisdiction, and that c his claims met with recognition, though not with invariable obedience.’ He says, for instance, 4 As to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who is there that doubts about its subjection to the Apostolic See ? As the most pious Sove- reign the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of that city assiduously profess.’ (Ep. 1. ix. 12.) What, I ask again, could the forged Decretals teach, after this, except some comparatively insignificant issues ? ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 13 And St. Gregory acted on this teaching in the East. In Asia Minor he reversed the sentence of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the case of a certain Athanasius, and he writes to a friend, ‘ If I find that the Canons are not observed at the bidding of the Apostolic See, Almighty God will show me how to treat those who contemn Him/ So it is in writing to John, Patriarch of Constantinople, that, whilst refusing the title of CEcumenical Bishop, which seemed to Gregory’s humble soul to savour of Antichrist, he uses the words quoted above, 4 1 know not what Bishop is not subject to the Apostolic See/ And he tells him that if he should refuse to amend, he has commissioned his representa- tive not to celebrate mass with him, 4 with the intention that if this wicked and impious pride cannot be cured by shame, I may proceed to severe measures according to the canons.’ This was of a Patriarch of Constantinople. It must be sufficiently clear from all this, that there was nothing of real importance for false Decretals to inaugurate in the way of teaching on the supremacy of the See of Rome.. The doctrine to which you object, the Papal claim, was taught and acted upon throughout the world more than two centuries before their fabrication. It was taught and acted upon by St. Gregory, and accepted in East and West. And in this single fact, the whole of your contention concerning the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals simply falls to the ground. In these Decretals, as Fr. Sydney Smith remarks, 4 there is very little of any moment which is original. The fraud consists in assigning the language of a later period to writers of an earlier one 5—though sometimes the case is actually the reverse. 4 And the purpose of securing the clergy against accusations made in the interest of avarice, which is avowed in the preface, is stamped on the text from end to end.’ 4 It is not the assertion of Papal power which is uppermost in the writer’s mind—it is not here that he 14 DUST; A LETTER ON reveals any consciousness of any adversary to be convinced or refuted/ It is, then, really throwing dust in people’s eyes to insist, as so many Protestants do, on this episode in the Church’s life, as though it explained the growth of the Papacy. The forged Decretals explain but little, and prove nothing except that Divine authority may be wielded by men who were not provided with our modern critical apparatus, and who, there- fore, unwittingly admitted into a genuine collection a number of false utterances. They cannot explain what was surely either due submission to a rightful authority, or a base sur- render on the part of local Churches all over the world to a central power—and because it was the See of St. Peter. MR. GORE'S ENGLISH HISTORY. I now turn to your ‘technical defence’ (p. 156) of the Anglican position as regards jurisdiction. It is hardly too much to say that, there is not a sentence in the two pages that constitute your defence of Anglican jurisdiction which will bear the light of history. You first assert that the ‘ concession ’ of the clergy in 1531, which acknowledged his Majesty, Henry VIII., ‘ the sole protector of the Church and Clergy of England, its unique and supreme lord, and, as far as the Church’s law allows, even its supreme head, had been passed without dissent in the Convo cation of Canterbury.’ Passed without dissent ! But was it willingly or un- willingly passed ? Were the clergy in accord with the sentiment expressed, or were they dragooned into it ? Was it not wrung from them by threats ? We know that they were then at the King’s mercy ; that they passed it at his bidding ; that they had been mulcted in more than a million sterling, and it was passed in the following way. They could ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 15 not, conscientiously, say that they agreed ; but when they were told that if they would not speak, their silence would be taken for agreement, they were, it is true, in their base timidity silent, one and all. It was a betrayal of conviction under circumstances that tried their metal. When Blessed Bishop Fisher discovered what was really involved in the claim that Henry was making, and continually expanding into clearer and clearer heresy, he laid his head on the block rather than accept the new supremacy. 1 It was with the greatest difficulty that those Bishops in 1531 were induced to give even a silent vote on the subject ; and as one of the best authorities, Mr. Gairdner, says, 4 It was repented almost as soon as it was made/ ( 4 Letters and Papers of King Henry VIII. 5 vol. v. p. 15.) And the Bishop of Chester, in his speech before Parliament on the Supremacy Bill, February 1559, speaking of this vote of the Bishops, says : 4 Of the learned men that were the doers thereof, so many as are dead, before they died were penitent, and cried God mercy for their act, and those that do live, as all your lord- ships do know, have openly revoked the same, acknowledging their error/ (Strype’s 4 Annals, 5 vol. i. part ii. p. 408.) And yet it is upon this you commence building your 4 technical defence 5 of Anglican jurisdiction ! Is not this throwing dust in people’s eyes ? It is surely clear that your endeavour to prove that the transfer of jurisdiction from the Pope to the King was the act of the Church, not of the State, fails at its start. The assertion that it was 4 passed without dissent in the Convocation of Canterbury, 5 if it means only that the Bishops were dragooned into acting against their better mind, proves nothing ; and if it means that they made their declaration willingly and with their eyes open, is untrue. Your next sentence but one contains a misstatement,2 for 1 See Fr Bridgett’s Life of Blessed John Fisher. 2 See Note III. 16 DUST; A LETTEK ON which Mr. Gladstone is proximately, and Strype ultimately, responsible. It is a most curious jumble. A parallel is dis- covered between Henry VIII. and some French king, whose name is not given— for a sufficiently good reason I ima- gine. We are told by you that there was a petition from Convocation to the effect 4 that if the Pope should persist in demanding the payment of annates, the obedience of the king and people be withdrawn ’ from the See of Rome, as in lilce case (it is 4 cases ’ in the original) the French king 4 with- drew the obedience of him and his subjects from Pope Benedict XIII/ (p. 157.) Now this would certainly be a telling incident, if true ; but it has no foundation in fact. First, as to the supposed parallel of 4 the French king/ It would have been well to have mentioned his name. Pope Benedict XIII. lived in the reign of Louis XV. Sorely you would not have us believe that Louis XV. acted like Henry VIII. History records no such act as that which you mention as a 4 like case/ Besides, the petition from Con- vocation could not have referred to Benedict XIII., as he was not then bom. Who, then, is meant ? There was a pseudo- Pope, who called himself Benedict XIII., and from him the French King, Charles VI., withdrew the obedience of himself and his subjects, for the very good reason, as the King ex- pressly says, that he was a schismatic, and not the true Pope. Charles VI. and his clergy transferred their allegiance to the true Pope. But is not this throwing dust in people’s eyes, to produce a parallel to Henry VIII.’s action from the exactly contrary conduct of a king, who, we find, would have considered Henry VIH/s action shockingly schismatical ? Of course the dust was previously blown by Mr. Gladstone. You refer us to his article in the 4 Nineteenth Century,’ which has been exposed as a most glaring instance of historical inaccuracy. 1 1 See a most powerful article in the Dublin Review, October 1888, by Fr. Morris, S.J., to which I am mainly indebted for what follows. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 17 You will, perhaps, urge that the English Convocation is responsible for this perversion of French history, as it occurs in the supposed petition, on which you so much rely in your ‘ technical defence ’ of Anglican jurisdiction. But there is no record, in the Journal of Convocation, of any such petition ! Wilkins, it seems, to whom you refer us, was deceived in this matter by Strype. The latter chose to put in a new heading, for which he had no authority, to a violently anti-papal document. This document is to be found in the Cottonian Collection, and is called in the Catalogue, ‘ A Paper against the Payment of Annates to Rome.’ The original has no heading, nor endorsement. Mr. Gairdner calls it a petition from Parliament. Thus history grows. Strype produces a violent anti-papal anonymous paper, and calls it a petition from Convocation, regardless of the historical blunder it contains about French history. Wilkins copies him, Mr. Gladstone follows suit, and it very soon makes its appearance in the last book on ‘ Roman Catholic Claims,’ to be quoted, perhaps, to innocent under- graduates as a proof that the repudiation of the Vicar of Jesus Christ was due not to the tyranny of a lustful, murderous king, and a servile Parliament manipulating timid ecclesias- tics, to call them by no worse name, but to c the action of the Church ’ forsooth ! Your next sentence is equally unhistorical. 1 Nothing was done in Mary’s reign to reverse these regular synodical acts.’ We have seen what these regular synodical acts were— a declaration forced from the Bishops by a silent vote, if vote it could be called, containing an assertion which Blessed Bishop Fisher and Blessed Thomas More died rather than make when they saw its true meaning; and, secondly, a peti- tion, which turns out not to be from Convocation at all. In- deed, I must add this much. So far from the truth is it that Convocation petitioned the King to withdraw his and their obedience from the See of Rome if the Pope should per- 18 DUST; A LETTER ON sist in demanding the payment of annates, as yon have as- serted—so utterly contrary to the truth is this that, as a matter of fact, all the Bishops opposed the bill ! But to return. Although these 1 synodical acts ’ turn out to be only a declaration forced from Convocation, and deeply regretted afterwards, and a ‘ petition,’ not from Convocation, but possibly from Parliament, if not a mere anonymous brochure , still the c declaration 5 was passed. If that could be called the action of the Church, it was certainly reversed. All was done that could be done. All the laws of the Convocation under Henry VIII. were repealed. There is no way of repealing a declaration : it may be met, and reversed by a counter-declaration. This was done. Was there ever a more solemn public scene in English history than that of Convocation kneeling, as it did, to receive absolution from the Papal Legate for its shameful deeds in the past ? How can you possibly say, after this, that nothing was done in Mary’s reign to reverse the synodical acts of her father's reign ? Why, the kingdom was placed back under the protection of the See of St. Peter, and thereby all contrary legislation was repealed, and all contrary synodical acts reversed. What more could they do ? Are laws less repealed because repealed in block ? And can synodical acts be more solemnly repealed than by kneeling to receive absolution for the sins that led to their being done, the removal of the interdict of which the whole mass of laws and synodical acts were the occasion ? Your next two sentences are a continued misrepresenta- tion of the historical facts. The laws were repealed in block, and Elizabeth, when she set to work to remodel the Church of England, for which Mr. Gladstone (in a more recent article than that from which you quote) contends that she earned the nation’s gratitude—Elizabeth did by Parliament what Mary had done by confessedly spiritual power, the Legatine action of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 19 Your defence, therefore, of the deprivation of the Marian Bishops by Elizabeth halts in this way. Mary placed them there by ecclesiastical authority, she acted in the name of one who was, at any rate, Patriarch of the West. By what power could Elizabeth deprive them ? There was no ecclesiastical power to do it. She did it without. And consequently the whole Anglican hierarchy is involved in Erastianism at its start. There was nothing 4 unconstitutional ’ in Queen Mary’s action, unless you beg the question by implying that it was no part of the Constitution of the realm up till Henry’s time that the Primate of England should receive mission from the successor of St. Peter. But anyhow it is simply distorting history to say that the Marian Bishops had withdrawn in such a way as to justify their deprivation from a Church point of view. 4 Their consequent deprivation was justified by the action of the Church ’ (p. 158). The action of Convocation in Henry VIII. ’s reign could not possibly be called the action of the Church, as I have already shown. It was at most a moment’s lapse. You assume, of course, that the Church could rightly act without her visible head, as you do not be- lieve in any visible head; but even the act to which you allude was not complete, and was repented of by that very body which committed it. When, therefore, Elizabeth came to the throne, she found regularly appointed Bishops in possession of the Sees. They refused to take an oath the utterly uncatholic character of which had by this time become abundantly mani- fest. They knew their predecessors under Henry had come to feel that they had committed an error, not to say a sin ; they knew that Blessed Bishop Fisher and Blessed Thomas More had died at the block rather than take it ; so now they stood firm. For this refusal they were, you say, rightly deprived. But by whom ? Where was the ecclesiastical power to do it ? They were deprived by the Queen ! There was no one else 20 DUST; A LETTER ON to do it. To talk of the action of the Church, as some people do, when all the Church was deprived by the said action, is a curious confusion. No ; unless Elizabeth were truly the head of the Church in England, and the source of jurisdiction, jurisdiction neces- sarily rested still with the Bishops who remained in prison. They did protest : they protested by refusing to take the oath which, in their judgment, would have involved them in heresy and schism too. And whoever took their place, acting without Metropolitan or Patriarch, but by the mere license of the Queen, involved himself in schism—broke the unity of Christ’s Church, and entailed upon the land all the religious divisions which we see before our eyes. It is worth while asking, who did take their place ? The circumstances were these. The Province of Canterbury was in prison, saving one Bishop, who remained at large to represent his Province—one only Bishop, who had jurisdiction. But this one Bishop with jurisdiction could not be induced to act. An Archbishop of Canterbury was wanted. Who was the man to help Elizabeth? Who was the man that would come forward under such circumstances, with all the Province of Canterbury in prison for their faith, save one, who refused to lend a helping hand—in prison for their faith whicn they considered would be jeopardised by obedience to Elizabeth’s claim to supremacy ? It was a man named Barlow. Here is his portrait . 1 Barlow was a man of low extraction, who became one of Thomas Cromwell’s agents. He won the confidence of Henry, and was appointed Bishop of St. David’s. He was one of the Reformers of whom Archbishop Cranmer did not entertain a good opinion. He considered him too jocose, and found him frequently speaking in 4 an air of ridicule of things 1 See Burke’s Historical Portraits, &c., from which the next paragraph is taken. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 21 sacred and holy.’ . . . Many discreditable actions have been recorded of him. He 4 stripped the lead off the palace and sold it, embezzling the price, and letting the palace go to ruin, so that the repairs would have needed twelve years’ revenue of the See.’ The records of the diocese, the State Papers of Edward’s reign, and the correspondence of the leading Reformers of the period, prove Dr. Barlow to have been a very dishonest man, turning everything connected with religion to financial uses. Under Edward VI. he avowed himself a Reformer, and was rewarded with the richer mitre of Bath and Wells, from which he immediately alienated eighteen manors to the Protector, Somerset, as the fee for his promotion. Barlow took a chief part in celebrating the Mortuary Masses for the soul of Henry VIII. At this very period he was secretly connected with the wife of a German Anabaptist, who gave him a 4 sound drubbing ’ at an inn located in Coventry. Archbishop Cranmer’s verdict against Barlow is most severe. Whether he resigned or was de- prived under Queen Mary does not seem quite certain. W hen Elizabeth succeeded, Barlow delivered several addresses at St. Paul’s Cross in favour of the Royal Supremacy 4 in all matters of religion.’ He persecuted the clergy of his diocese for denying that Elizabeth was 4 the vicegerent of Christ on earth.’ He persecuted the poor tenants in the neighbourhood of his palace, and took into his own hands the yearly revenue that was long paid to old women who 4 outlived all their kindred, and were in want.’ According to Strype, he was, in the judgment of his wife, 4 too fond of wine and women to be a fitjreformer of religion.’ This was the man who wasj^willing, in obedience to Elizabeth’s injunctions, to consecrate an Archbishop of Can- terbury— to consecrate at a juncture like this. There is no record of his own consecration. It is certain that he did not consider consecration necessary. When 22 DUST; A LETTER ON Henry VIII. asked the question of Archbishop Cranmer, and of this very man, whether consecration was necessary for a Bishop, they both replied that it was not . 1 Your contention, therefore, that Henry VIII. would never have allowed a man to act as Bishop who was not consecrated cannot be sustained. Nor do Barlow’s words throw any light on the question as to whether he was consecrated or not. Plain as they seem to you, they seem ambiguous to us, just the sort of answer that one might expect from such an unprincipled man as Barlow if he had not been consecrated. Henry, then, clearly pretended to have doubts as to the necessity of consecration in the case of a Bishop, and his advisers, Archbishop Cranmer and this Barlow, contended that Henry’s own appointment; being the appointment of such a Christian king (they contrasted him with Nero), was sufficient. The date of his consecration, as you admit, must have fallen within the limited period of a few days. There is no record of his consecration during those days, nor indeed at any subsequent period. Canon Estcourt has shown that the argu- ment in Haddan and Stubbs on this point will not hold. The fairest answer that I have ever heard to this is, that there are some others whose consecration is missing in the records, and yet their consecration is undoubted. But their consecration is undoubted because the surrounding circumstances were such as to make up for the loss of the documentary evidence. There were no other grounds for suspicion in their case. There are in Barlow’s case. There is that curious question of Henry VIII., and Barlow’s reply; there is the fact that his consecration was presently doubted, and that contemporary writers speak of the new occupants of the Sees as Parliament-Bishops ; there is the singular fact that when Barlow is spoken of in the records it is with an epithet which is usually applied to appointed, but unconse- 1 See Note II. HOMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 23 crated, Bishops ; there is the fact that there was such an utter absence of courage on the part of the new Bishops, that we cannot imagine anyone venturing to question what Elizabeth had sanctioned ; and that a retrospective Act was passed pro- fessing to set right all that might have been wrong in such matters ; and there is the general laxity on the subject of Epi- scopal Ordination in the Establishment which then ensued. This latter point is of some importance. Barlow’s esti- mate of Episcopal consecration was not so high as Hooker’s. Yet Hooker could trust himself at his death-bed to the ministrations of one who had not been Episcopally ordained. Saravia, his confessor, was a minister in the Establishment, but he was in Dutch Protestant, not Episcopal, orders. Mr. Keble, in his preface to Hooker’s works (p. 76), admits that ‘ nearly up to the time when Hooker wrote, numbers had been admitted to the ministry of the Church of England with no better orders than Presbyterian ordination.’ An Act was passed in 1571, which provided that any person professing to be a priest or minister of God’s Holy Word and Sacra- ments, ‘ by reason of any other form of institution, consecra- tion, or ordering than the form set forth by Parliament/ might become a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England by merely subscribing to the Articles. Such was the tone of the era ushered in by Barlow’s consecration of Archbishop Parker. It exactly harmonises with the strong probability that Barlow undertook the odious task of acting in place of his imprisoned comprovincials (who, of course, by the mere fact of remaining in prison protested against what they deemed a schismatical act) without having ever been^consecrated himself. It was but a natural climax to -A* the man’s previous life. And it is evident from Elizabeth’s replies to the Spanish ambassador that she was not likely to look too closely into the matter. We must beware of trans- ferring jdeas of what is possible now to what was possible 24 DUST; A LETTER ON then. A man of Barlow’s character might easily have duped his fellows, whilst so many were, we know, so utterly Eras- tian and altogether unprincipled, that they were not the men to risk their necks by meddling in a matter which Elizabeth settled. Barlow, we know, was ready to consecrate with any form that Elizabeth and Lord Burleigh chose, and eventually with a form which the latter has left on record had not even the force of law—it had only the sanction of the Queen—and was considered so unsatisfactory that it was afterwards changed into the form used at the present time. In short, there is no security about anything that was concocted by Elizabeth, Lord Burleigh, and Barlow. It is certain that the clergy ordained after this were the objects of common contempt, and still more so their wives. For such was the difficulty of getting people of respectable character to enter into the married state with clerics, and such the avidity of the new clerics (many of them cobblers and tinkers for lack of applicants for the new ministry) to obtain wives, that the results were fatal to any high conception of religion amongst the masses. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was abolished by Act of Parliament and ceased from the land, save in hidden corners, and at the risk, and often the loss, of life. England was deluged with blood to teach men that the supremacy of the Queen was to be a reality ; and the perse- cution was sufficiently thorough to be successful in its aim. And from that time till quite of late the Bishops and clergy of the Church of England did, as a body, with only here and there an eccentric exception, trace their commission to the Sovereign under God—the Sovereign who in each case was obliged to take the oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, that he would defend the ‘ Protestant Reformed ’ religion. These are facts which ought to be taken into account in estimating the character ofthe jurisdiction claimed by Elizabeth ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 25 and accepted by the National Church. She did not claim to touch the Sacraments, after she had curtailed their number, and provided a ministry through Barlow to administer what was left, and emptied them, much against her will, of half their meaning, in deference to the ever-increasing Protest- antism of the Bishops and clergy : but she did claim to assign them the limits of their jurisdiction, and to ‘ unfrock them/ to use her own expression, at her will, and, in fact, to exercise all the prerogatives of a Patriarch, not to say of a Pope. She preferred the term 1 Governor ’ to ‘ head ; ’ and her clergy, although they professed to be governed by our Lord, and therefore not by the Pope, were not unwilling, or at any rate were obliged, to be governed by her gracious Majesty. From the day that Barlow consecrated Archbishop Parker until to-day, the clergy in possession of the temporalities of the ancient Sees have been without a Patriarch. The Metropolitan has, as we recently learnt, some sort of jurisdiction over, for instance, the Bishop of Lincoln ; but there is a power behind the Archbishop, which tells him whether he has, or has not, j urisdiction, and defines its limits ; and that power appears to be the Queen in Council. It is often said that jurisdiction is £ inherent in the See,’ as you have yourself said (p. 155), or, that it is ‘ resident in the See/ This, however, carries us no further. A Bishop must be properly in the See before he can exercise its juris- diction. But the Province of Canterbury, when Elizabeth came to the throne, put no one in the See, and, therefore, no one from that time to this has been canonically in the See. Not everyone who takes possession of the temporalities of a See is in it. There must be some authority appointing, and some authoritative acceptance, and this latter, in the case of a Bishop, must, according to the law of the Church, be the comprovincial s (saving the rights of the Holy See). The Province, as I have said, could not act j and consequently 26 DUST; A LETTER ON Archbishop Parker was never in the See, and not being in the See could not partake of its jurisdiction. He was merely a claimant, who, in his successors, has been before the jury, the rest of the Catholic world, for three hundred years, and has been disowned by the rest of the family. NO SALVATION OUT OF THE CHURCH. And now, passing by some other instances of what I can only call real ‘ dust,’ such as (i.) your remarks about St. Bernard (p. 67), in which you make the somewhat natural mistake of confusing what St. Bernard objected to being made into the subject of a Festival (viz. the active conception of our Lady) with the dogma which is a matter of faith, and in which you omit to say, what is the fact, that St. Bernard expressly said that he would believe even the former if it were so defined by the Apostolic See, 1—or (ii.) again, the misrepresentation of St. Jerome’s letter, by which you would have us believe that St. Jerome thought there was no difference between the Sees of Constantinople and Tanis, in point of jurisdiction and authority 2— and (iii.) your assertion that 4 very little’ of my book on 1 Authority ’ is 4 even directed ’ to showing that the Papal claim was of ‘ Catholic acceptance,’ when three-fourths of it are directed to nothing else—putting aside these errors, as well as (iv.) the complaint that I make 4 no allusion ’ to the < main contention ’ of your argument, which is an assertion I do not know how to meet without seeming to lack courtesy— I 1 See Note I. at the end. 2 It is strange that Mr. Gore does not see that St. Jerome is not alluding to the question of jurisdiction, and that his words do not in any way ex- clude a gradation of authority in the various Sees. The same mistake occurs in his Ministry of the Christian Church (p. 169). His division of St. Jerome’s life into Papal and anti-Papal is quite arbitrary. There is not a shred of evidence that he ever changed his mind concerning the authority of the See of St. Peter, as such. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 27 conclude with expressing my deep regret on one point. It is that you should have treated somewhat lightly, I had almost said flippantly, a fact which I have stated, viz. that I con- sidered it a matter of one’s soul’s salvation not to continue in schism. You call it 4 submitting to the loudest voice, which threatens us with the severest penalties.’ I regret that you should have allowed yourself so to speak, just as I regret that you should have used soft, palliative words of Archdeacon Farrar’s book on 6 Eternal Hope.’ I know how that book has wrecked men’s faith, and what is wanted in regard to such heartless writings is clear and emphatic denunciation. It is, of course, the case that an English Churchman can hardly speak of the danger of schism, and the risk to one’s soul’s health of rejecting truth, as a Catholic does ; still it is sad to feel that there is less common ground on this funda- mental point than one would have hoped. Certainly I have said nothing beyond what St. Augustine would have said — indeed, did say—to the Donatists. He told them not to plume themselves on having the Sacrament (for they had undoubted Orders) nor on preaching the Faith in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, nor on being able to say Amen, and sing Hallelujah—for they might have all these—Orders, and Sacraments, and correct teaching on other points—but they were not therefore in the Church, and therefore there was one thing they could not have, and that was 4 Salvation.’ And so one may say to an Anglican : 4 Even if you had certain Orders, and the Sacrament, and joyous services, and preaching of the Faith, there is still one thing wanting— you are not in communion with the Catholic world—you eat the Lamb outside, to use St. Jerome’s phrase ; you are not associated with the chair of Peter, and, as he continues, 4 on that rock the Church is built, I know.’ I am not forget- ful of St. Augustine's beautiful teaching that many belong to 28 DUST; A LETTER ON the soul, who do not belong to the body, of the Church ; but we cannot belong to tbe soul, as soon as we see the marks of the Church here or there ; we must submit at once—and that at the cost of our soul’s salvation if we do not. Nothing can be more contrary to the tone of St. Augustine, and St. Optatus, and St. Cyprian, than the growing tendency to comprehensiveness in the Church of England. One of her own Bishops has thus written quite recently : 4 Things have 4 come to such a pass that it does not appear to matter a jot 4 what a clergyman holds and believes. The most heterogene- 4 ous opinions are maintained about inspiration, and the atone- 4 ment, and the Lord’s day; and the great majority of Church- 4 men appear to think it all right, and see no harm. It is all 4 right, forsooth, if he who maintains them is earnest, clear, and 4 sincere. Everything is true, and nothing is false, and the 4 man who appeals to texts, Creeds, and Articles, is regarded 4 as little better than an antediluvian fossil, quite out of date 4 in this enlightened age of free thought. If this is not danger, 4 I know not what is.’ Above he had said , 4 About the doctrine 4 and ritual of the Lord’s Supper, the very turning point of the 4 English Reformation, the most violently contrariant opinions 4 are held and taught. The clergy are divided into two parties 4 and their views cannot be reconciled. It seems impossible 4 to find out who is right and who is wrong.’ And now he adds : 4A Church without distinct positive truth to live and 4 die on is a lighthouse without a lantern and a body without 4 bones.’ It is better, not only for ourselves, but for mankind in general, for any one of us to be within the lighthouse of the world, and to devote our energies to the good of our fellows from within the One, Holy, Catholic Church into which we were admitted by our Baptism, but of which we are imperfect members, whilst we live in schism—i.e. out of communion with the- successor of St. Peter. HOMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS 29 NOTE I. St. Bernard’s words in respect of the particular view of the Immaculate Conception, which he questioned (and which is not that which is contained in the definition of the dogma), but which he thought >vas being made the subject of a Festival, are as follows : — ‘ I more especially refer this whole matter, as I do all others of the same sort, entirely to the authority and adjudication of the Roman Church : and I am prepared, if my opinion is different from it, to conform myself to Its judgment .’—Letter to the Canons of the Church at Lyons. NOTE II. One of the questions asked was, ‘ Whether in the New Testa- ment be required any consecration of a Bishop or Priest, or only appointing to the office be sufficient ? ’ Cranmer replied, ‘ In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no consecration by the Scrip- ture, for election or appointment thereto is sufficient.’ Barlow replied, ‘Only the appointing.’ NOTE II r. This statement has been withdrawn by Mr. Gore ; but it occurs in Canon Dixon’s ‘ History of the Church of England,’ as quoted by the Author of ‘The Roman Question J (p. 16), who calls that history ‘the latest and the most thorough account of those eventful times.’ PRINTED B V Sl’OTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE LONDON BIT THE S^-TvTHl ATJTHOB AUTHORITY ; OR, A PLAIN REASON FOR JOINING THE CHURCH OF ROME By LUKE RIVINGTON, M.A. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD. Fifth Edition, with Hew Preface, crown 870. 3s. 6d. London: REGAN PAUL, TRENCH, & CO.