IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) V ^ N? :/ i/.A 1.0 It iM III III I.I 2.5 1^ Z2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 1^ ^ 6" — ► v] (meaning "CON- TINUED "). or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN ". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre film6s A des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichi. il est film6 A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droits, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ntcesssire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 rl^\r PAPAL INFALLIBILITY A. ILiECTTJie.T£] HY REV, JAMES MURPI-n nRLlVEKKl) IN THK MECHANICS' HALL, Thursday, January 14, 1875, :H ! , WITH PREFACE AND APPENDIX. For SaLK by D. & J. SADLIER & Co., 275, Notre Damb Streit, MONTKEAL. v^ C 3^^) iMHiii ^ PAPAL INFALLIBILITY J^ LEOTTJE/B »Y REV. JAMES MURPHY DKLIVKRED IN THE MECHANICS' HALL, J'hursday, jIanuary 14, 18755 WITH PREFACE AND APPENDIX. For sale by D. & J. SADLIER & Co., 276, NoTBB Dkum Strut, MONTREAL. PkiNTKD at tub CiAZKTTK PRINTING HoUSK. PREFACE. In thu Lecture on the Papal Infullibility whi(;h is now submitted in a printed ibrni to the public, it is attempted, in the first place, to explain briefly what Papal Infallibility means, and in the second place to prove thnt Papal Infallibility as so explained is a fact. The Lecture, herefore, is not designed as an answer to objections, raisofi against the famous Vatican dogma. Such an answer will come in its time. But for the present the author restricts himself to showing that whether the difficulties against it can or cannot be met, the proposition that the Pope is infallible is true. He humbly requests that all who do him the honour of being his critics will keep this in mind. Either let them refute the arguments he uses, or let them admit that the Pope is infallible. That they can refute his arguments is what he quietly disbelieves. And when they have admitted that the Pope is infallible they will And him very willing to lend his little aid in dispelling all the outlying doubts that delay the acceptance of the Papal Infallib- ility. The author of this pamphlet invites scholarly criticism. But he deprecates vulgar insolence. ST, Bridobt, Montreal, 1st Fabruary, 1875. B LECTURE. Ladir8 and Gentlbmen. ■tf It 18 ooc of the Haddest of all the sad perversities of modem life, that ChriH'ianity, which of itself binds men into a loving bro- therhood, in often niudc a means of putting them against each other in bitter animosity. The intensity of theologic hate and the ran- cour oi' religious dissension arc proverbial. Nor at this need we feel surprise. The worst is the best corrupted ; the lowest of the devils was once the highest of the angels ; and, as long as Satan is in this universe, it is the preeminently sacred that he will try preeminently to profane. But I , when on this evening T bring before you a controversial subject, one, too, which has disturbed the balance of many minds, I will not, in any way, sacrifice Christian charity to controversial cfl'cct. Wlitit 1 have to say 1 will say in the most measured manner, iitid with the tendcrcst regard for those whose opinions are not my own. And, lest the influence of emotion hliould make me leas guarded. [ will, this evening, be sis unimpassioned as my natural and national inlirniitics will allow. A'ery grave 1 propose to be. Being grave, 1 shall perhaps (and not unnaturally) be somewhat heavy. But my subject is one on which to trifle would be, at least, to insult. And then, an audience such as I have the honour of addressing now, has been educated above the level of the stump, and will appreciate the keener pleasure, and relisli the keener air, cf the cl<'iir cold heights, where reason, quiet and calm and self-concentred, rules. My subject is Papal lulallibility. Many considerations, not the least being that blunders about its meaning are daily made even by able minds, force nic in the outset to tell very plainly what Papal Infallibility means. By it, then,' is nicunt this and this only, that when the Pope, in his capacity of Pope, that is, as the oflicial F^istor and Teacher of all Christians, declares to the Universal ( 'hurch that alie is to believe a doctrine appertaining to Faith or Morals, that doctrine is and nmst be true. The ordinary formula, useful for its scholastic compactness, is that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathidra. That last phrase, Mr. Gladstone ¥ I 6 ioforniB the British public, hiis even uniuD^ ourselves no received and rigid difinitioD. The cx-Prinie MiuiHter is v. dintinguihhed Statosmun ; he is, I think, not indeed a mun of genius, but u man of certainly high ability ; he is undoubtedly un ucconiplished ilouierio Scholar ; but his knowledge of the Latin tongue stems to be very limited indeed. In the very Vatican decree which he undertook to analyse and in which the Pope's Infullibility is proclaimed, the phrase ex-cathedra \f» expressly and exhaustively and with inimitable theological precision explained. Tliis is not the place to quote Latin ; but even in an English rendering of the decree, Mr. Gladstone's fitness for the oAicc of theologieiil critic will be amply apparent. This then is the decree : — '' We teach that the Roman " Pontiflf is infallible when he speaks tx-cutliedra, thai in'* — mark how the Council explains the phrase — '* that is when exercising the " office of Pastor and Teacher of all Clirihtians, he in virtue of his '' supreme apostolic authority, defines that a doctrine of faith or " morals is to be held by the Universal Church." Than that I'or any one acquainted with theological phraseology — and Mr. lainor. But for the ordina- ry secular mind it is susceptible of simplification. The Pope then can be regarded in many ways. For instance, he may be an author and write books ; he may be a preacher and deliver sermons ; he may be, and was, and by right is still the temporal ruler of a certain temporal state; he is (as yet) master of the Vatican palace; and he is Pope or Supreme Ruler, Pastor, and Teacher of the Universal Church. It is only in that last capacity that he possesses the Cathedra or Chair of Peter, and it is only in that last capacity that he has been declared infallible. And in that last capacity he is said to speak eX'Cathedra or from the Chair just as the Queen's words spoken by her as Queen arc said to be spoken from the Throne. Nor, when it is said that the Pope teaching the Universal Church is infallible, is that said without limitations, ile is .'supposed to be speaking of things that appertain to the office, not of a secular, but of a religious teacher ; and such things fall under the general heads of Faith, what we are by God's Law to believe, and Morals, what we ought by God's Law to do. Nor do we claim for our I'ope what the F'iiglish law-books claim for the English Sovereign, that he can commit no sin. Infallibility simply preserves him from error in teaching the Church; and as every Judge and Professor knows a man may teach very correctly without leading a life of the most 'elevated perfection. Nor, furthermore is it to be imagined that the Pope's Infallibility makcM him oninisoiont, or oven cnahlcs him to dispense entirely with thcHo ordinary proceN^. And though the Pope might be well infallible even with the Bible tWout about his infallibiiity — the Bible neither giving nor pretending to give a . mi- plete catalogue of Christisin doctrines, neitlier destimd nor professing to be destined for a complete exposition of Christian Faith, hut on the very face of it being a eollectiou of doeunieiits — all inhpired — but written only fc purely passing sind iiceidentiil emergencies ; though all this is true, I do yet from the Bible, Jind that the Pro- testant Jiible, undertake to prove the Papal Infallibility, And though from the nature of the case J must be very brief, 1 shall, I think, produce such a proof as to any one who gives it logical fair-play will leave little to be desired. Ill the last chapter of Mathew's Gospel, we read these words addressed by Christ to his eleven Apostles — .ludas was gone to his account, and Matliias was not iis yet elected — 'All {lowtr is given " unto me in heaven and in earth ; go ye therefore and teach all " nations, '"^^ -^ teaching them lo observe all things, whatsoever I *' have commnnded you ; and lo ! I am v.ith you alway even to the " end of the world;" and in the parallel passage of IMark, these additional words are found: " he that believeth not shall be damned." You here observe a certain set of men, eleven in inunber, marked off from all others; in virtue of His universal power. Christ endues them with the teaching office ; they are endued with that office for all His Doctrine; and they are endued with it not for one nation^. I 8 but for all. The first inference is that these eleven have got a monopoly of ter^^hiug, and that these, and these alone, ard al^ men bound to believe. Furthermore, these men are to teaob for all days, even in the 19th century, even to the end of the world ; still these eleven identical men are not made immortal %nd really live only a few short ^years. The second inference, therefore, is, that these eleven men are in each age to have successors, who also will have a monopoly of the teaching office, whom also and whom alone all men will be bound to believe. Therefore, at this very moment, there must be upon the earth some body of men who have divine autho- rity to teach ; who have a monopoly of the teaching office ; whom all men beside are bound to believe. But that body of men, wherever it be, can it teach error ? If it can, then first of all, God command- ing me under pain of damnation, to believe that body jf men, com- mands me under pain of damnation to believe a lie. But that I hope is clearly absurd. Therefore that body of men cannot teach a lie. Therefore it is infallible. But on the earth to-day, there is no body of men, with any of the characteristics of a body, that even claims the teaching office and claims a monopoly of that office, and in the exercise of that office claims Infallibility, except the collective Bishops of our Church. Therefore since such an infallible body there must be, and our Bishops alone claim to be it, oir Bishops collectively and as a body are infallible. But our Bishops collectiTely and as a body have declared the infallibility of the Pope, There- fore the Pope is infallible. But, in the second place, the same thing is stated in the text ybt more directly, Christ's words arc " go ye and teach all nations * * and behold I am with you all " days, even to the end of the world." The person speaking is God. God says that ivith the eleven in their teaching, He will be till the end of time. Therefore He pledges Himself to hi with those sue- cessors of the eleven by whom, in each age, the eleven will be replaced. But as every student of the Bible knows, when God promises to be with a person in doing anything, God's promise has a certain definite meaning. It means that in doing that thing, the person cannot fail. *' I am with you," He says to Moses ; " I am with you," He says to Isaias; as a conclusive argument, that they need not fear, for they cannot fail. Therefore in teaching, the suc- cessors of the eleven cannot fail. Now what they are to teach is God's truth. But it would be a rather remarkable failure, if these men with their monopoly of teaching, and with all men bound to ^belie-^e them, did ever, even once, for God's truth teach the devil's 1 9 lave got a \x6 a\\ men br all days, still these live only a that these wiW have a I alone all ment, there ine autho- ; whom all I, wherever command- men, com- Ivt that 1 inot teach y, there is , that even office, and p collective ible body r Bishops ollectively There- the same Torda arc I you all g is God. till the lose 8UC" will be hen God lise has a ling, the " I am hat they the suc- teach is if these ound to devil's lie. Therefore, these eleven Apostles an a body, and their successors in each age as a body, cannot teach a lie. Therefore, they are infallible. But again, to these eleven Apostles, infallible as a body, there cannot be on the earth to day an infallible body of successors, for no body claims to be it, except the collective Bishops of our Church. Therefore, these Bishops are as a body infallible. But SLgain, they have pronounced one of their number, the Pope, .0 have the personal gift of infallibility. Therefore, the Pope has that gift, and is infallible. So far. Now take another text. In that just cited, Christ ad- (irebcies thfi eleven as a body ; in that to be cited now, He addresses Peter alone. The event described occurred after our Lord's resur- rection, and the description of it is found in the last chapter of the Gospel of John. " Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, " lovest thou Me more than these ? he saith unto Him, Yea, Lord, " thou knowest that I love thee ; He saith unto him, feed my lambs. "He saith unto him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, " lovest thou nic ? he saith unto Him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that " r love thee ; Ho saith unto him, feed my sheep. He saith unto " him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me ? Peter " was fi;rieved because He said unto him the third time, lovest thou ** Me ? And he said unto Him, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou " knowest that I love thee ; Jesus saith unto him, feed my sheep." There is in that text something very worthy of consideration. The eleven Apostles arc present, but only to one of them does Christ speak. And to that one, (Peter,) in the very peesence of the re- maining ten, docs Christ with great solemnity give some power which to the remaining ten is pointedly denied. The power is, to feed Christ's entire flock, without exception, both the sheep thereof and the lambs. But by feeding Christ's flock (known also to be one, and to have but one shepherd) is meant, of course, teaching all Christians what they are to believe and what they are to do. There- fore is Peter appointed to teach all the flock, without exception, the ten other pastors present included. Therefore what Peter teaches these ten, these ten are bound to believe; and only what he teaches them or permits them to teach can they teach others. But suppose he taught error. Then they would have to teach error. Then he and they together would be teachers of error. But by the text of Matthew :t heady cited, that cannot be, for by that text he and they together arc infallible. Therefore he cannot teach error, nor ask them, nor permit them to teach error to others. Therefore he is * I \ 1 I > I 10 infallible. But the office of the eleven, and therefore his office as teacher of the ten, is to last till the end of time. Therefore there is on the earth to-day some man, successor of Peter, and infalliblo. But no man even claims to be either one or the other except the Pope. Therelore the Pope is infallible. But there is yet much more in the Bible. I have already given vou something from Matthew and something from John ; let me now give you something from Luke. On the night preceding the Passion of our Lord, He and the twelve were met to eat their last earthly meal together. The Apostles as yet were rude, unenlightened men, and so, even in that solemn hour when the awful shadows of Olivet aud Calvary, were fast gathering about their Master's brows, thc^, with the unconscious cruelty of ignorance, saddened His great heart by vulgar wrangling among themselves. With that gentle, sad solemnity with which he always spoke to sinners, He rebuked them all. But he did more. This time again he He turned to one especial member of their body, and this time again the one was Peter. I crave earnest attention to the words He uses, and 1 beg it to be remembered that these words are used on the occasion ©f wrangling and dissension among the twelve. The words will be found in the '22nd chapter of St. Luke. "Simon, Simon," says the Lord, with solemn reiteration, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to " have ,yc, that he may sift ye as wheat ; but 1 have prayed for thee " that thj faith fail not, and when thou art converted," for Peter was to deny Him, ' strengthen thy brethern." To that text, I ap- prehend, little need be added. Satan, says Christ, is doing his bit" terest to destroy you all, and thus to end my Church, as he thinks he is going to end myself. But I will baulk him. And I will baulk him in this way. The faith of you, Peter, I engage to keep secure, and your own faith being thus established, do you establish the faith of your brethren. Therefore the faith of Peter is established. Therefore Peter is infallible. But the motive for making him infallible is to prevent Satan from ruining the remaining Church teachers. But that motive extends far beyond Peter's time, even to the end of days, for even to the end of days will Satan assail the teachers of the Church. Therefore not only was Peter infallible but in each age some man succeeding to Peter's office is infallible too. But again no one claims either to be Peter's successor or to be nfallible except the Pope. Therefore the Pope is Peter's successor and is infullible. ■is *■■-'. I 11 his office as jrefore there t)d infallibli). r except the liready given ohn ; let me receding the lat their la^t iDenlightened 1 shadows of ster's brows, led His great that gentle. He rebuked :urned to one DC was Peter, beg it to be «t' wrangling bund in the Lord, with h desired to ayed tor thee " for Peter it text, I ap- loing his bit* us he thinks il will baulk keep secure, lish the faith established, making him ling Church s time, even Satan assail }ter infallible is infallible essor or to be sr's succespior * Only to one other text shall I at present direct attention. It is found in the 16th chapter of St. Matthew. The Evangelist there records how Simon Peter having made, in a very remarkable manner, a bold open profession of faith in our Lord's divinity — a profession of faith which was under the circumstances very unexpected — our Lord addresses to this Simon the fisherman, the following solemn and weighty words : " Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, because flesh " and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in "heaven : And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock " 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail *' against it : And 1 will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of " Heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound J " also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be ^iC " loosed also in heaven.'' Upon that passage, so splendidly suggest- ■| ive, I limit myself at present to a few remarks. The word " Peter," i in the phrase *' thou art Peter," is, as most know, only an Anglicized ' form of a certain Greek word, admitted too in the Latin language, ? and meaning ]Jock. Our Lord, therefore, unto Simon, son of John, says simply " thoti art Kock," signifying to him, as the sequel shows, his new oftioe and his new name. The Saviour then proceeds to state His intention of building a Church, and that Church he charac- terizes, in other phrase, as one that wiU last for ever. " Pray you hold the figure fast.'' Keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that the Church which our liOrd speaks of is represented by Him as a single edifice which he propos-es to erect. That edifice, that Church, wants a foundation, even froui the beginning. Simon, son of John, is se- lected by our Lord to be that Hock-foundation. But the Church is to endure forever, and as long as it endures it will of course re- quire its foundation to sustain it. therefore either Simon the Rock must in his own person support the Church for ever, or men must in each age succeed to him, each of whom will do for the Church in his day what in Simon's day was done for it by Simon. But in his own person Simon the Rock did not ron)ain with the Church. Therefore he had, and has, and will always have, a successor to his office of Rock- foundation of the Church. Therefore there is upon the earth at this very instant sou)e Church built by Christ, some congregation of men established and unified by Him as a single edifice ; and as the * This argument the author had, in dcMvering his Lecture, to state only in HubHtAncti. Even as developed here he does not consider that anything like justice in done it. But his critics may give him an opportunity which ho does not like to i-reate for himself. 12 i foundation of that Church, and ruler of that community, there is to-day some man who does in the nineteeth century what Simon did in the first. And that Church is Christ's Church, His only one — " My Church " He calls it — ; and that man is the man who, and who alone, has the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. That reaches very far. But the text goes much farther. For Christ says of hb Church not merely that she will last for ever, hut He says specifically of her that against her " the gates of hell shall never prevail." Now by the " gates of hell," as all scholars know, and as is evident enough even to th«? unecholastic, is meant all the forces of Satan. The I'oreos ot Satan are manifold ; but (as all know) they are principally two, ;iiul those two are moral sin, which diseases the will, and re- ligious error, which diseases the intelligence. Therefore against the C-hurcli religious error can never prevail ; by religious error the Church can never be, even for an instant, vanquished. But if the ( Miureh herself did for one instant believe religious error, in that in- stant religious error would be her conqueror. Therefore she can never even for an instant believe in religion what is untrue. There- fore she, the Church, founded on Simon the'llock, is infallible. But if the Church herself be firm against her foe, religious error, — how firm also must be her Rock-foundation ! If a certain community, one and single as an edifice, be unconquerable by error, what must be the invincibility of the man by being centred and unified in whom it is that the community is secure ? If the Church be infallible, tberei'ore, her rock foundation is infallible too. But the Church is, as wo saw, infallible. Therefore, as that Church must be existing now, and as she must be existing now with her liock-foundation, there nmst be upon the earth some one community of Christians, single as an edifice, with the gift of infallibility ; and in that comumnity there must be some one man, centre and ruler and support of that community, he also being infallible. But upon this earth to-day no man even claims such an office but the Pope. Therefore the Pope is infallible. Those are the only direct scriptural arguments which I can at piesont venture to use. Springing out of them, however, there is one other which not so much for its own sake as for the sake of one of its far-reaching corollaries, 1 shall indicate in passing. Whether the Pope be or be not infallible, he is at all events the official ruler and teacluM- of all Christ's Church. That he is the law-maker o the Church, and that all the Church is bound to obey his laws ; that he is the teacher of the Church, and that all the Church is 'A ity, there is t Simon did 3 only one — lan who, and Phat reaches it says of his i^s specifically ivail." Now ident enough ■^atau. The re principally will, and rc- c against the )us error the . But if the ar, in that iu- efore she can true. There- fallible. But s error, — how n community, ir, what must ified in whom be infallible, le C'hurch is, St be existing (k-foundation, ristiauH, single it comnmnity pport of that irth to-day no ore the Pope ich I can at revcr, there is the sake of mg. Whether 3 official ruler law-maker o ley his laws ; le Church is II bound to obey his teaching — this I assume against ^ Gallicans, for they admit it, against Protestants, for against them it has beeu^ I think, fairly proved. I assume moreover, against both, and for the same reasons, that the Church herself is infallible and cannot pos- sibly believe a lie. But with these assumptions, the inference that - the Pope is infallible, is immediate and irresistible. That a ('hurch which cannot believe a lie, should be bound to believe a man who may tell her lies, is nonsense. If the Church is infallible ; the man appointed us the teacher, whom she is bound to believe, must evidently be infallible too. But it is not to this very simple argument that I now wish to draw attention. It is to one of its corollaries that I ask you to attend. That corollary at once by one / downstroke, disposes of all that Gladstonian verbiage about the novelty of the doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility. The Infallibility of the Pope is a doctrine as old as the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, and that latter dates from the Church's commencement. Neither did the Popes wait nor could the Popes wait to have their Infallibility defined. They must all from first to last assume it as certain and iurlis- pensable. For they all, from first to last, had to teach and legislate. But how could a man who was not certain of his knowing the truth ;have the hardihood to teach a Church which must believe hhn and i could not believe a lie ? How could God, if He made the Church I infallible, and therefore incapable of believing a lie, how could He order her to believe a Pope and yet leave it in the Pope's reach to tell her lies ? By making her infallible. He told her, " you cannot believe a lie ;" by obliging her to believe a man who might be a liar. He told her, '•' you must, if that man wishes it, believe a lie." That vis, He told her, '• you must believe what you cannot believe." That this is absurd, I need not tell you. But even to this absurdity, are fa * By OaUicann I intend to designate the few unimportant Catholics^ iwho, before the Vatican Council, denied the Papal Infallibility; and the '|Few very unimportant heretics — calling themselves Catholics — who since 'the Vatican Council have done the same. When I speak of the opponunts ^tof Papal Infallibility who lived before 1870, as unimportant,! am pre- pared to hear some allusion to Bessuet. Among all the Church's children >iiof modern years, Bossuet is the one whom I admire and venerate and love .^the most. I am very unlikely therefore to desire, by any remark of mine, j,|to lesson his great fame. But should his name be introduced by any of fmy critics, I think I shall be able to prove that the Eagle of Meaux •jwould have scarcely desired association with the fowl that cackle after )r. Doellinger. I 14 t we brought by the wise men who call Papal Infallibility a new doctrine. They are not learned enough, these wise men, to be acquainted with that alphabetic bit of theological teaching, that, namely, a doctrine is one thing and a dogma quite another. The Divinity of Christ was not a dogma till the Council of Nice ; Mr. Gladstone, I hope, admits that even from the commencement of the Church, the Divinity of Cbrist was a doctrine. The Infallibility of the Pope is in a like situation. It was always a doctrine for always was it the belief of the Church ; not till the Vatican Council was it a dogma, for not till then was it formally defined, promulgated and enforced with penalties. That is the difference, a difterence not hard to grasp, but far too subtle for the brain -grapple ra of theolo- gical amateurs. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, for one evening we have had enough of biblical analysis. T now invife you to consider an argument that addresses itself to a larger circle, and buses itself o • a broader though not a firmer fouudutiou. And if iu this audicjce, there be any man who is neither Protestant nor Catholic, but is still a believer in God and Providence, it is to him especially that [ speak now. When therefore I look out upon the world beyond Catholicity, the wide, wild world of Protestantism and infidelity, 1 behold a sight that fills me with a vast sorrow. I know, and even deists know, that men have been sent into the world not to discuss religion but to practise it ; not to deliver controversal lectures, but to lead noble, heroic lives. Much arguing engenders much arrogance and in syllogisms there is small salvation. I know that men are essentially servants, and I know that unless their Master, the Master of this tangled universe, be a maniac, He must have given clearly and completely the rules and conditions, under wl\ich He would have His servants serve Him. So much does my sheer reason tell me. My Bible, which 1 need not use at all, and which I use only against my Protestant friends, tells me much more. In the 35th chap, of Isaias, I read, that in the days of Christianity, there will be in the world "a path and way, and it shall be called the holy " way, and it shall be a straight way, so that fools shall not err *' therein." But with all this told me by my reason and by my Bible, when I look beyond Catholicity, outside my own Church, what do I find? No way and no rule fixed or difinite, or certain at all. Neither Infidel nor Protestant knows what to believe or what to do. Is hell eternal or not eternal ? The Doctors of Protestantism and i M. 15 Uty a new men, to be jhing, that, 4 jther. The '. Nice; Mr. raent of the ifallibility of le for always )uncU was it aulgated and itterence not ;rs of theolo- e had enough irgument that ) a broader ,ace, there be but is still a tf that I speak I Catholicity, J 1 behold a id even deists iscuss religion IS, but to lead arrogance and that men are Master, the ,st have given [or wlycli He oes iny sheer 11, and which I Ich niore. In |istianity, there called the holy shall not err by my Bible, lurch, what do [certain at all. or what to do. itestantism and Infidelity disagree. Is Jesus Christ true Qod or merely the most splendid specimen of men ? The aforesaid doctors cannot agree. Js the Bible inspired truth or is it a mingled mass of fact and fable part poetically human, part sensually bestial, nothing heavenly divine ? The doctors still differ. What God hath joined no man can put asunder, is that true, or is it rather true that what God hath joined is severable by the honorable and right honorable gentlemen who legislate for the Dominion ? Among the doctors again diversity. Has each man full license to shape bis own beliefs, the sciolist, according to his impudence, and the sot according to his stupidity ; or is there a Church which whoso hears not is as the heathen, and is there a man who can say with St. Paul, if even an angel of heaven teach you the contrary of what I teach you, let him })e anathema ? Not even here are the doctors in perfect harmony. And on these matters and on other matters quite as serious, but not quite so meutionablc here, have the doctors been differing ever since that first of doctors, Doctor Martin Luther did, without much trouble from examiners, take out his degrees. . Now to all these awful questions, some answers there must be. To know these auswers (whether, for instance, hell is or is not eternal) Is for all humanity of the most tremendous practical concern. Does -Uny man who believes that God has made the world, has made the inen that people it, rules them, loves them, wishes them to walk and Work and serve Him according to His will, believe also that God has left the world powerless to have these questions solved, doomed to Spend their time, and embitter their little sectarian hates, in attempt- &ig their solution ? Does any man who knows that God is a God tf peace and order and love, believe that He has left religion in hope. jtess litigation, and that He has appointed no tribunal unto which l^en may with certainty of satisfaction appeal ? To put such ques. Iftons is to answer thsni. Either such a tribunal God has established ^ the character which even reason gives Him as a God of Law and j|ove is a]\ a lie. That latter supposition we do not entertain. We infer, ||erefore, of sheer necessity, that upon our earth some tribunal, judge 0g religious controv^prsy and solver of religious doubt, is existing now. ]|at if such a tribunal were itaelf liable to error it would be useless, fluid settle no doubt and end no controversy. Therefore, not only ipist such a tribunal exist, but it must be also not liable to error, tt is, it must be infallible. Jpon this earth, therefore, at this very instant, there must be, if wd has not abandoned the world, some infallible tribunal in religious I ? (i I ; I 16 controver«y. tn the world of Protestantism and Infidelity Is such a. tribunal found ? Not one, in these quarters, has been even so much as named — except the Bible. But the Bible, is it a tribunal at which the sore doubts of men are infallibly resolved ? Why it is to the Bible that, mainly, these doubts owe their existence ! It raises ghosts, but it rarely lays one. It starts problems but it rarely ends one. Long ago, even in the first days of the Reformation, did the Culvinist Wiegsheider write of it, in the sharp, straightforward Latin of his time: — Hie liber est in quo querit sua dogmata quisquf, Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sun. which for the ladies may be rendered, and to the ladies l dedicate the rendering — The Bible ! That's the book where each ■ , , Seeks out the faith he's most inclined to, , And, as is fit, he finds it teach Whatever faith he's most a mind to. The Bible ! Why to that book we all appeal ! Unitarian, Trinit- arian, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Catholic, all these, though their doctrines are mutually destructive, call upon the Bible to prove these doctrines and find or think they find the Bible prompt to the call. The reason is very plain. The Bible's meaning is true, but it is not easy to discover what the Bible means. What it is supposed to mean depends very much upon the character of the supposer. Whenever I find it mentioned as a solver of religious doubts, I am forcibly reminded of a certain countryman of mine. His master and his master's friend, had been late into the night enjoying that feast of reason and flow of soul, which in the Irish climate, do some times produce strange slips of temper and strange lapses of memory. " What o'clock is it," was the exciting subject of their debate. It was really just midnight, but one of the gentlemen maintained it was yesterday, and the other contended it was to-morrow morning My countryman, the servant, was called in to decide. *' By gorra gentlemen," said he, on hearing the question, "T cannot decide but sure, I'll take the candle — it's very dark, gentlemen— I'll takt the candle and go look at the sundial." That servant may havi been somewhat foolish ; but there is a large suggestiveness in hi folly. The sun-dial is serviceable for determining correct time a long as the sun is in the heavens. The Bible is excellent for teacli ing religion, as long as some heav«nly light, shining on the Bible ni oil oil isl cl 0^ ■# 17 elity is such a even so much a tribunal at Why it is to ice! It raises , it rarely ends nation, did the tforward Latin qu.', dies I dedicate nituriau, Trinit- II these, though 10 Bible to prove 5 prompt to the ng is true, but it lat it is supposed of the supposer. )us doubts, I aiii [ne. His master ;ht enjoying that climate, do some apses of memory, their debate. It len maintained n -morrow morning ide. " By gorra. I cannot decide itlemen— I'll tak. servant may hav> ggestiveness in hi ng correct time a jxcellent for teacli ng on the Bible ipages, tells without fear of error what precisely the Bible means. jBut such a light, Protestant and Infidel have yet to discover. I say lit with all due respect, but still, it is a truth only too sadly certain ; that in interpreting the Scriptures, no Protestant and no Infidel is very much more than poor Patt Slattery's farthing candle. But still with the Bible's evident inability to meet the difficulty of the time, the awful moral and mental questions that perplex and pain every thinking non-Catholic so very profoundly, remain re- ' Jnorseless and demand a settlement. No man who believes that God is master of this universe, and loves the men who people it and detests untruth and abominates dissension, can possibly believe that that settlement is impossible. He cannot even believe that it is hard. There must be upon the earth some God-created tribunal to solve reliirious doubts, and end religious controversy. That tribu- nal must be easily accessible; its authority must be final; it must be and must be admitted to be (otherwise it can settle and end nothing) infallible. But that infallible tribunal which must be upon the earth where is it? Again, Ladies and Gentlemen, having disposed of the Bible, we have no rivals. Our Church and our -Church alone, among the Churches, has always maintained her ,own infallibility. Therefore, as some infallible Judge of controversies, there must be — else has God kicked oiF the world — and as our >Church alone even claims to be it, our Church must be infallible. But that Church thus proved by one large fact of thought to be infallible, has declared for the Pope's Infallibility. Therefore the Pope is infallible. But I do not care to urge that short and sum- mary, but very satisfactory inference here. 1 choose to rely on a further application of the general principle I have been explaining, And 1 say that even had the Vatican Council never assembled no ^thinking and observing creature of this generation could have failed to find even from his own reason, that the Pope*6f Rome is infallible. Jn this way. Some infallible court of appeal in religious controversy, i|God, as we have seen, must have on the earth to-day. But such a |Bourt must be something more than infallible ; it must be from its liature, able to use its infallibility in a manner suited to the exigen- mea of the time. Now in times past, the General Council did suffi- jjiently well. Errors were comparatively not numerous, and, what -is of more importance, they were not of rapid propagation. The ^hurch was free. The Popes had some scrap of land to call their ll^wn. The nations that supported the Church were powerful. The Spirit of Jansenism had not spread abroad. The Papal Infallibility i ' 5 } .1 18 was practically recognized mikI niiivcrM.illy presupposed . Hut in our ijeneration. all tlies«o circumstiincps, tho last oxropted, have olianped. Even hel'ore the Vatican ('onneil. tlu> Spirit of .lanscnism, that spirit of lyinji, and slmfflinL' ;ind donhle-dcalintr in (trder to limit the Papal prcroupj»ose it did a.s.semble, and with the most perfect freedoni. it would still be altogether unequal to the exiics beyond count, the blasphemies beyond coniput.ition. which every day and hour and minute, the printinir-press, and the pul))it. and the lecture-room, fling- forth in floods upon tho modern world ! H'or the awful daily needs ol tho liUh century, a (Jeneral (^ouiicil, even if it could be held, is no sufficient or suitable remedy. And stiil (Jod is looking on ; and still Jlis self-imposed relations towards men, bind Ilim to supply the world with an infallible Judge of controversy suited exactly to the time; a Judge who ean decide daily, without delay, and with a voice which will comnmnd attention, whether it be heard from a palace of the Vatican or a prisorj of l-'ontainebleau. No such authority even claims to be on the earth to-day except the Pope. Therefore, the Pope is that authority. Therefore, he is tho divinely appointed Judge of religious controversies in our time. Hut such a Judge to be at all suitable to his office, must be. as we have eeeu, infallible Therefore the I'ope is infallible. Either that is true or God has abandoned this 19th century to its |own vast follies, and its own vast crimes; its religious shams that are nnparalleled, and its religious animosities that are indescribable. That (jiod has so abandoned the world of to-day, is a supposition which, I, alike for (rod's honour and for man's hopes, refuse to entertain. And here, ladies and gentlemen, arises a thought which supplies at the same time a most striking argument for my cause and a most striking reply to a large section of its opponents. It was the fashion icd. Hut in uur i, hiivc clmnped. .InnHCiiistn, thnt rder to limit the oiis ill whom of lot quite able to )or!il possessions, •he bully thirsts uin^tances for a II possible. If it would probably "Oiiible, and with r unequal to tlu' uld dis.solve, its watch, and after iork to be done, iies ? What are yond count, the • and hour and he lecture-room, the awful daily 1 if it could be (lod is lookinji en, bind Ilini to ntroversy suited y, without delay, ether it be heard lebleau. No .'(uch xccpt the Pope, le is the divinely time. But sucli as we have eeeu, lier that is true *own vast follies, are unparalleled, That God has vhich, I, alike for lin. lit which supplies cause and a most t was the fashion 19 iome time ago, in certain quarters it may be the fashion still, to pronounce the recent definition at leuHt inopportune. Rut when God gives a talent. He gives the tact of using it rightly ; when He made His Church infallible, lie made her wise in the exercise of her in- fallibility, lie secured lier not only ag linst error in what she said, but against imprudejice in the time of her saying jt. Mark the event. While a General ('ouneil suffices for all wants, and the Jan- ■cnistic efforts to limit the I'apal prerogative have no success, the Church (|uietly assumes the Tapal Infalibility, but never defines it. But suddenly, with u suddenness which te some ha.s been botli start- ling and .-scandalous, she does defiue it: nven some of the best among her own children, like .1. II. Xewman, can see no necessity for the definition, and complain that those "'whom the Lord hath not made sad are about to be made sorrowful ; " still the Church, impelled by Some secret force which the world naively confesses itself unable to understand, does define formally the Papal Infallibity ; and, lo and behold ! no sooner is the definition promulgated than it turns out to be just in the nick of time, for it turns out that tixe Pope is just being plundered of the last shred of his small estate, that Rome herself is in tlu; hands of robbers, and that, for no man can tell how long, a General Council is a moral impossibility ! Is there ii think- ing man who does not trace even in the time of the definition the quiet overruling finger uf the iiord ? And if God's finger marks the definition's op[)urtuneness. who does not see that it marks, aud with e({ual evidence, the definition's truth ? But some excellent persons complain that though the definition is truthful, it yet is dangerous. It has lost us Dr. Doellinger; if Uiay lose us other doctors ; it has procured, and threatens to procure for Us, the bitterest persecution. Ladies and gentlemen, though we have been obliged to cut away our (iernian Historian— and I may remark that lo be a h'^^orian, especially a German historian, and to be a theological thinker re(iuire minds of very dilfereiit orders— I am not JBure that that eminent iiersonaI honest and English Wiiy. Perhaps you woulil have liked it better had I kept the myrtle around the sword, and the glove of velvet over the hand of steel. I do not know. But I do know that I have spoken for the best as that best is shown to me ; that I have spoken with all that courtesy of charity deminded of me alike by ufy holy faith and my sacred calling ; and that whether I have spoken effectively or not effectively shall be as the Lord pleases. Only I do entertain the hope that at least some one ■^ .Jm 33 s he gave his j; persecution ; were Jefiniug ;kri, excite the quicken the still, serenely ous of the lies ever, and sent is perfect self- an nature has , they knew u, istors and the 1 in Montreal, ig and beloved 19 1 not even a British Parlia- lust make an c, could do it ivhat is due to f thought open much more rougher roads I miiirht have hat elofjuence ngifted. But tn Irish of the lines, and to- rn nly to do a Perhaps you nd the sword, io not know, best is shown ity dennndcd ng ; and that lall be as the sast some one soul which is of the Lord'i sheep, tliough not yet of the Lord's fold, will feel from to night, and will be gladdened by the feeling, that it is being drawn gradually and gently on and in to that one great fold under one great Shepherd, where the sheep are sure that the herbage in healthful, and the Shepherd is sure that the sheep are safe. APPENDIX A. For the satisfaction oi the scholarly, I give here the original ijatin text of that j)ortion of the Vatican decree, which it eoncerned luG to quote. " Itaque Nos traditioni a 6dei Christianae exordio i" perceptae fideliter inhacrendo ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, ** religioiiis Catholicse exaltationem et Christianorum populorum " salutem, Sacro approbante Concilio docemus et divinitus revelatum '* dogma e>se defininius Komanum Poiitificeni, aim ex Cathedra " loquitur, id est mm omnimn Christinnomm Ponton's et Doctoris ** mvnere fungenii pro svjrrema sua Apostolica autoritati; doetrinam I" lie fide out morihim ah imiversa Ecclesid tenmdam definite per " assistentiani divinani ipsi in Beato Petro promissam ea infallibi- i" litate poUere qua divinus Eedemptor Ecciesiam suam in definienda " doctrina, de fide aut moribus instructam esse voluit, ideoque " ejusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese non autem ex II " consensu Ecclesise irreformabiles esse." It is needless to draw at- f tention to the fact, that the Council here expressly explains in I what sen.-c it used the phrase ex Cathedra, and that for clearness and completeness the explanation is perfect. Against Mr. Gladstone, ; I have no prejudice whatever; for his great ability I have the sin- ceresi respect. But then he is, as great men often are, notoriously petulant and impatient ; and men of petulance and impatience have generally :• tendency to be unfair to opponents. Great man as he is, he might, I think, have condescended to try to understand the .^, Vatican Decree before trying to harm it. With the words of the t| Council as printed above, printed in his own pan:phlet, he had the ^easy arrogance to write that " there is no established or accepted •'^ definition of the phrase ex Cathedray But he is in sympathy with ^ fcis time. We live in a generation when theology is a holiday study, and the inconvenient intelligence of ingenuous youth refutes in a day what the wrinkled thinkers of eighteen centuries have been 'Jbelieving. For the world at large Mr. Tennyson's prayer has not ^b«eD heard. ^ Let knowledge grow from more to more, But more of Reverence in ui dwell. u ■'! l! The fate of Osee was terrible ; but let us hope that sheer ignorance will, in our century, save the foolish fingers that touch the ark of the Lord. Hi iIM! . I A writer in the Montreal Witness gravely informs the public, that in my argument, I assume the Papal Supremacy. He more- over makes a certain promise of which 1 now beg to remind him. It is not my intention to occupy myself with remarks that are foolish. Still in the exercise of a Christian courtesy, which one ** who belongs to no religious sect," (if such a being be possible) cannot, I fear, properly appreciate, I will put down in a couple of words the gist of ray argument. In the Scriptures, I find it stated that according to Christ's arrangements, there must be some where upon the earth at this very moment some one man, a teacher of Christ's religion and infallible. As a fact, that man must be the successor of St. Peter ; but for my argument it matters not whom he succeeds or whether he succeeds any one at all The point is that suoh a man, a religious teacher, a teacher of Christ's religion, and infallible, must now be existing. But I find one person, and one person only claiming to be such a teacher. I infer that that person is the teacher to whom Scripture points. That inference is, I am afraid, too elliptical for the writer in the Witness. I will supply the suppressed reasoning. If Christ has put upon the earth an infallible teacher, and put him upon the earth to teach infallibly, it is, I apprehend, somewhat probable that that teacher knows it. If he knows it, it is, 1 apprehend, somewhat probable that he will not be silent about it. Now that Christ has put upon the earth such an infallible teacher my arguments prove. But though we have teachers in abundance, all are silent about their infallibility but one. That one, therefore, is the one infallible. And that one is the Pope. All else in the letter to the Witness, will, I hope, be by any readers of my Lecture seen at once to be beside the mark. Since 1 prepared my Lecture for the press, some other criticisms of it have appeared. These, it would be unfair to touch till the writers of them have seen the Lecture in full. But as soon as I have suflBcient matter before me for an interesting reply, the reply will not be long in coming. .,.!*ri jheer ignorance ich the ark of -,3 ms the public, 5y. He niore- remind him. narks that are sy, which one g be possible) in a couple of [ find it stated be some where , a teacher of 1 must be the tters not whom The point is hrist's religion, ne person, and nfer that that That inference Vitness. I will upon the earth :each infallibly, icher knows it. le that he will ipon the earth Jut though we eir infallibility And that one is .1 Xi! pe, be by any mark. other criticisms touch till the t as soon as I reply, the reply