IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 ■ 50 ""^^ ^ m ^ m |Z5 20 1.8 U IIIIII.6 vl '/ .«^ cF V <^ \\ ^v 1 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de microrenroductions historiques 1980 E^ Technical Notes / Notes techniques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Physical features of this copy which may alter any of the images in the reproduction are checked below. D D Coloured covers/ Couvertures de couleur Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains dAfauts susceptibles de nuire d la quality de la reproduction sont not6s ci-dessous. D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Coloured plates/ Planches en couleur Th« pos of 1 filnr Th« cor on apF Th« filn insi □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tache^6es ou piqu6es Tight binding (may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin)/ Reliure serrd (peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure) D D Show thrc jgh/ Transparence Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Ma in( upf bot foil D Additional comments/ Commentaires suppldmentaires Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pagination incorrect/ Erreurs de pagination D D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque D D Pages missing/ Des pages manquent Maps missing/ Des cartes gdographiques manquent ■; 'S-i D Plates missing/ Des planches manquent Additional comments/ Commentaires supplAmentaires Blanic kaves added during restoration may appear within the text Whenever pof^ble these h've been omitted from filming. The images appearing liere are the best quaiity possible considering the condition and iegibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de Texempiaire fiim6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^^ (meaning CONTINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la der- nlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbols — ft^ signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols y signifie "FIN". The original copy was borrowed from, and filmed with, the kind consent of the following institution: Library of the Public Archives of Canada IVIaps or plates 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: L'exemplaire fiimA fut reproduit grAce d la g6nArosit6 de I'^tabiissement prdteur suivant : La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour Atre reproduites en un seul ciichA sont fiimAes d partir de I'angle supArieure gauche, de gauche A droite et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre d'images nAcessaire. Le diagramme suivant illustre la mdthode : 1 2 3 4 5 6 r \^^ /^ 1^ ^^p:^^^ ^"^ 1.^1^ Papal Infallibility: "CATHOLICS" Replies to "Cleophas, »T Refuting the Vatican Dogma. [Reprinted from the St. John Globe^ WITH PREFACE AND COPIOUS APPENDIX. BY The Reverend John M. Davenport, Priest of S.John Baptist Mission Church, Portland^ St.John,N.B., Canada. ST. JOHN, N. B. J. & A. McMillan, 98 Prince William Street. 1885. I •,-,, . 9- '■>)"■ PREFACE i * ■ There is little need of a preface to these republished letters for the majority of their readers, as they are already well acquainted with the circumstances which elicited them ; but for the sake of strangers to the controversy of which they formed a part, a word or two must be said by way of introduction. On January 15th, 1885, the new Roman Catholic Church of St. Peter's, Portland, N. B., was consecrated. The preacher on the occasion — Archbishop O'Brien of Halifax — made some offensive allusion to the English Church which excited considerable feeling in some quarters, and elicited more than one sermon from Church of Eng- land clergymen, traversing the Archbishop's arguments and statements. One or two letters also appeared in the dailies. Shortly after these, about the second week in February, appeared two letters, or rather " Instructions," in the Globe, headed " Roman Catholic Doctrine," by a Roman priest of Carleton Co., N. B., over the now, de plume "Cleophas." The first, on the " Visible Church," was fairly well done, and called for no remarks ; the second, on " Papal Infallibility," drew from the author of this pamphlet, who signed himself " Catholic," fifteen questions which he deemed raised insurmountable objections to the new dogma of the Vatican. The results of this controversy have in no way shaken that conviction. The questions, he admits, might have been better put ; they were drawn up hurriedly, as stated in a foot note somewhere, so as to secure insertion in the next issue of the Globe. He admits, alsp, that for a public controversy it would have served his purpose better to have restricted their number, so as to have cut off all opportunities for fogging ordinary readers unfamiliar with Roman controversy. The main intention of the series is obvious ; namely, to show that the Vatican dogma was utterly unknown to the Church of Apostolic days, and to that of the eras of the great Oecumenical Councils ; that even after Rome had fixed her yoke upon the Churches, Papal Infallibility was not acknowledged; and that even since the Jesuits have labored for nearly three centuries to get the dogma accepted in the Churches of the Roman obedience, it has been continually repudiated by divines of the Roman Church up to the present day. At all events, the questions were printed in the Globe in the form here given, and a lengthy controversy followed. "Cleophas" answered (iii) I IV Preface. them, and " Catholic " criticised his answers in a rejoinder of two instal- ments; then "Cleophas," in seven instalments, replied to these, and "Catholic" followed with a criticism in three instalments. On March 19th, about ten days after the appearance of " Catholic's " rejoinder (p. 4) another Roman Catholic writer appeared signing himself " Veritas." This writer came forward, so he said, merely to protect the honor of his departed friend Archbishop Connolly of Halifax. His first two letters were answered by "Catholic" in a letter (p. 21) and a post- script to a letter to "Cleophas " (p. 56) ; his third and last letter, in which he did not confine himself to his professed object in writing, was an- swered in detail by "Catholic" (p. 76). It was the intention of the writer to publish the correspondence in full, but as the letters on the Roman Catholic side are so very lengthy, and for the most part contain much irrelevant matter, and those of " Cleophas " teem with coarse invective (from which " Veritas' " happily are free) he decided not to incur the heavy expense incident on printing the whole, especially as he learnt that "Cleophas' " letters were already in the press, and would probably be issued in pamphlet form before his own reprint appeared. The writer, therefore, republishes merely his own letters, with such references to his opponents' arguments as tend to make their meaning clear, together with a somewhat copious Appendix corroborative of statements contained in them. He must ask his readers to include in this preface the last paragraph of page 30, as the remarks contained in it belong properly to the v/hole of the letters. . , The letters are printed verbatim as they appeared, with a few correc- tions of grammar, and with the transference of some parentheses and references to the foot notes. On the appearance of "Catholic's" criticisms of May 5 and 12, a report was widely circulated both in St. John and Portland that Father Davenport constantly attended early Mass at St. Peter's, Portland, and was preparing for Baptism in the Roman Church. This necessitated the following letter to the Globe, which appeared on May i6th. To the Editor of the Globe : Sir, — As for the last few days my friends and I have been inundated with enquiries as to the truth of a widespread slanderous report " that Father Davenport is preparing to join the Roman Church," I shall feel grateful for a small space in your columns to abate the nuisance. We have pretty good c vidence whence the report originates, and of the reasons which have prompted the falsehood. It is an open secret now who are the writers " Cleophas " and " Catholic." Of course noth- ing could more effectually minimise, just for the moment, the force of " Catholic's " letters, and so get them shelved and forgotten, than the assertion that their author was about to join the ranks of Rome. Such tactics, borrowed from the school of Ignatius Loyola, are eminently Christian and noble, I dare say, but 1 fancy the generality of honest Preface. English folk will abhor them. It is not an uncommon device, as witness the scandalous report circulated lately in the old country concerninpj the venerable Archbishop Trench. My letters, however, will be published shortly in cheap pamphlet form, with a Preface and Appendix. Yours very truly, May 15, 1885. John M. Davenport. It may be well to state that the writer has received several manu- script replies to his questions from both sides of the water. They are all so much alike, and echo the same text-book mistakes and fallacies to be found in "Cleophas," that this reprint and appendix are a sufficient reply to most of their arguments. In some cases they assimilate even in words and phrases. Pope Sylvester, for instance, is the mainstay of all replies about the Council of Nice ; while on the Scripture question of Acts XV. they are monotonous in the mistakes they share with "Cleophas," and show how slight must be the acquaintance of their authors with either their Vulgate or their Douay Bibles. I have placed in the Appendix ( O ) an extraordinary specimen of an answer received by a lady of the English Church from a very high 'dignitary indeed of the Roman Communion (whose manuscript I have in my possession) to illustrate the shifts to which educated Theologians are driven when supporting the Vatican decrees at the expense of Holy Writ. If the answer had been simply inadequate I should not have considered it fair to quote it; but as it is so utterly contrary to truth, it is well we all should know how Roman Catholic proselytizers deal with those they are trying to win over to their Church. Festival of St. Peter, I SS5. ' a t( n (i o t\ sp sel PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. To the Editor of the " Globe : " Sir, — Please allow me to ask your correspondent, " Cleophas," a few out of many questions which a perusal of his letter in your last night's issue suggests. If St. Peter were the Supreme Pontiff and Infallible Teacher of the Church in his day, — 1. How is it that at the first Council of the Church at which St. Peter spoke, St. James the Less presided, summed up the evidence, and formulated the decision in the words, " Wherefore, my decision is," etc. (ego Krino)?* 2. How is it St. Peter was sent with St. John on a confirmation mission to Samaria by the College of Apostles ? * Fancy the Cardinals sending the Pope on such an errand ! 3. How is it that nothing is said in the Acts or Epistles about St. Peter holding the Popedom of Rome, or that amid so much theological controversy, which was then splitting up Christians into parties, calling themselves after Paul, Apollos and Cephas, they were not all referred by St. Paul to Cephas as the infallible guide in all matters c* faith and morals ? 4. How is it that St. Paul makes no reference whatever to St. Peter's all-important position as Pope when writing to the Romans so late as the year 58, A. D.? Next. Supposing St. Peter was all that is claimed for him, and supposing (what is a large assumption) the Popes of Rome to be 'St. Peter's successors and of all his special privileges, — 5. How is it that the two most important by far of all CEcu- menical Councils, those of Nicaea (325 A, D.) and Constantinople (381 A. D), which gave us the Nicene Creed (that great bulwark of orthodoxy on the Trinity and the Incarnation) how is it that they were convoked not by Popes but by Emperors (Constantine 1, Acts XV., 19. If I had to propose this question again I should omit "the Less" in speaking of St. James, as it is an open question whether or not he were the Apostle, and I my- self am now persuaded that he was not, 2. Acts viii., 14. (0 ■n 2 Papal InJalUbility. and Theodosius), were presided over — not by Bishops of Rome — but by other Bishops, and their decrees promulged — not in the name of Popes of Rome — but of the Synod, in Synodal Epistles? 6. How is it that Pope Honorius, issuing dogmatic decrees on vital points of doctrine in response to the formal and solemn request of three Eastern Patriarchs for his corroboration of the Faith which was being attacked, published flat heresy, and was condemned as a heretic by the 6th CEcumenical Council at Con- stantinople (68o A. D.) and his writings ordered to be burnt?' 7. How is it that two succeeding Councils and twenty succeed- ing Popes, on their election, confirmed the anathema of Honorius with that of other heretics ? 8. How is it that Pope Honorius' name appears with a string of other heretics in all Breviaries till they were tampered with in the interests of the Papacy during the i6th century, as Pere Gratry shows ? Note, — I do not ask whether Honorius was a heretic — Cardi- nal Manning has labored hard to prove him orthodox in spite of three Councils and twenty Popes — but, guilty or not guilty, how is it that the aforesaid Councils and Popes, with a whole host of priests reciting their Breviaries for hundreds of years, dared to condemn a Pope for heresy and say "anathema to the heretic Honorius," if the Church then held the dogma of Papal InfalUbility ? 9. How is it that Veron, in his famous book, The Rule of Cath- olic Faith, which for 200 years was the standard controversial treatise against Protestant misrepresentations of Roman doctrine, thus sums up: "All divines consequently are agreed, as Bellarmin allows, that Papal Infallibility is no doctrine of the Church Cath- olic, but a new and unheard of dogma f , 1, Owing to very hasty compilation from memory, so as to catch the next issue of the ^^ Globe," Question 6 is inaccurate. The inaccuracy, however, rather weakens than helps my argument. It should read : " How is it that Pope Honorius — consulted as Patriarch in the West by three Eastern Patriarchs upon a vital question of the Faith — by his formal replies supported the Monothelite heresy, and was condemned, &c. ? " The reason for this change is, that two of the Eastern Patriarchs — Sergius of Constanti- nople and Cyrus of Alexandria — favored the heresy, and sought to win Honorius to their side. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, opposed them, and besought Honorius, by a special messen- ger — Stephen, Bishop of Dora — to use his influence against the heresy. In spite of this, Honorius sided w^ith the heretics ; .and, therefore, the plea that Honorius was taken unawares by the sophistical arguments of Sergius falls to the ground. This fr.ct, of course, adds very con- siderably to " Cleophas' " difficulty. Letter L of ''Catholic^ 3 10. How is that Keeiian, in his Controversial Catechism, ap- proved for use by Roman Bishops in Scotland and in the United States, calls it "a Protestant invention." 11. How is that such theologians as Prince Archbishop Schwarzenberg, Archbishop Connolly of Halifax, Archbishop Darboy (Martyr), Archbishop Haynald, Bishops Dupanloup, Strossmeyer, Clifford, Rogers, Hefele, and a host of others, f3trongly opposed the dogma at the Vatican Council, and that learned men like Pere Grtitry and Dollinger wrote vehemently against it, while the flower of the French and German Episcopate, brow- beaten by the packed Italian majority, begged Pius IX., in private audience, with tears in their eyes, not to define the dogma, and then left Rome before the vote was taken ? Could all these things be if Papal Infallibility were in the Church's mind from the very first? Lastly — Supposing the dogmu true as the Roman Church teaches, — 12. What has been the practical value of it to the Church in the past? 13. What practical use since it was defined? 14. What practical benefit is it likely to prove in the future ? 15. To remove all doubt must not the Pope tell us when he Yours faithfully, speaks ex cathedra. February 11, iSSj. Catholic. \'k a The replies to these questions appeared on February 25th. -^ "Cleophas" opened with an objection that some of the ques- tions were based upon a gratuitous assumption of facts which he might justly leave "Catholic" to prove before proceeding further. He, however, condescended to waive his right, lest he should be sus- pected of a desire to evade the questions ; introduced a few refined compliments to his opponent, and concluded with some satirical remarks about his nom cte ptume, dnd an erronQOus quotation from Hudibras. The drift and purport of his several answers can be gleaned from the following rejoinder. [The "G^<5^," March 4th ] "Catholic's" Rejoinder to ''Cleophas.'* To the Editor of the ''Globe:'' Sir, — "Cleophas' " replies to my questions are so long, so full of error and misleading statements, that a rejoinder to confute them thoroughly would require a pamphlet. I hope, however, you will favor me with space at least for a first instalment. In the first place, I remark that "Cleophas" (whom hereafter for brevity's sake I will initial) avoids in several instances the real crux ; that he shelves questions i to 4 by an " ignoratio elenchi " (if I may, like him, borrow a term from a text-book of logic) ; that he prints in italics under 5, an assertion utterly baseless ; that he leaves alto- gether untouched the main difficulty in Honorius' case, notwith- standing my note after No. 8 ; that he passes over 7 altogether ; that in no way does he attempt to reconcile the ancient with the modern mode of promulgating dogmatic decrees ; that he tries to^ extract the sting from 9 and 10 by casting a slur upon my veracity,, instead of by fair argument ; and that he leaves 1 2 unanswered. The truth of these assertions will appear as I proceed. Before noticing the fallacy underlying the first four answers, I observe with regard to "C.'s" introductory remarks, that to what- ever extent " self-complacancy " enters into my assumptions, I sin in most excellent company. To take the first instance (which^ by-the-bye, " C." does not prove to be gratuitous), the Presidency of St. James the Less at the first Council of the Church. Does "C" prefer the theory that another James, outside the Apostolic body, was here Bishop and President ? If so, I am content ; he only adds difficulty to his solution of the case ; or does he dispute the title of President for St. James ? Well, St. Chrysostom backs me. Here is his comment on Acts xv. 13.^ "This James," says 1. Horn, xxxiii., Oxford etl., Lib. of Fathers. (4) Letter II. — Part i. he, " was Bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last." * * * * «< Hq performed here the part of teacher." ** His also iy a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the " completion to the matter under discussion." Further, he adds : ** Observe then again his authority" (as Bishop) : " Wherefore my ** sentence is — " A little further on, he says : " After Peter, Paul " speaks and none silences him; James waits patiently, great is ** the orderliness of the proceedings. No word speaks John here, " no word the other Apostles, but held their pe^ce and think it no *' hardship, for James was invested with the chief rule (italics are " mine). So clean was their soul from love of glory." (Observe the allusions here to the then growing arrogance of Rome.) St. Chrysostom then at all events shares my " self-complacency." I must here give one more short extract from this Homily, because it is most interesting to find out how modern Papal claims can be made to fit in with it, especially if James, Bishop and President, were not an Apostle, as " C " perhaps holds. It runs thus : " Peter " indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly ; for *' thus it behoves one in high authority to leave what is unpleasant " foi;- others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part." Just fancy Peter thus playing the part of a subordinate. Methinks the Saint who wrote this comment would, like others, have caused the Council Chamber of the Vatican to ring with the voices of the irate Fathers, " Down with the heretic." • One more remark before dealing with the fallacy, to forget that English Churchmen possess Bibles, comment more misleading than this under Q. i ? "St. Peter spoke first at the Council," whereas Acts xv. 7, rurs, " When there had been much discussion, Peter rose up, etc." " C." says that after St. Peter's authoritative pronouncement," the whole multitude was silent," implying that after Peter none dare open his mouth ; whereas, if we refer to our English version, which ac- curately preserves the Greek punctuation, we find that the phrase ** and all the multitude kept silence," belongs to what follows. They kept silence, not from awe of Peter's infallible doctrinal utterance, but " in order to listen to Barnabas and Paul " give, like Peter, their experience of God's dealings among the Gentiles. There is no authoritative pronouncement whatever at this stage of "C." seems Was ever a "C." says: I i a.. ■'&>; . 6 ''Catholic's'' Rejoinder.. the proceedings. And mark, further, that it was not till Paul had finished speaking that James summed up the evidence, to which he himself added Scripture proof, and passed sentence, and did not, as " C." would have us believe, immediately after St. Peter's speech, in respectful awe, publish St. Peter's decision (so called).^ I hope your readers will carefully compare Acts xv. 6-29, with "C.'s" comment upon it, and learn from this instance of his wrest- ing Scripture, to which all can refer, how to trust his quotations and deductions from other books they cannot consult for them- selves. Such is a specimen of the shifts to which they are com- pelled who are determined to be faithful to the Vatican decrees. It is indeed a sad spectacle. .^ Now for the opening fallacy, which involves the first four an- swers — "The fallacy of Irrelevancy," or of shirking the point under discussion. I confess I had hoped that by using Roman phraseology concerning St. Peter to have quite cut off all escape from the Scripture argument by this exit. I asked, " If St. Peter were the Supreme Pontiff and Infallible Teacher of the Church of his day (meaning of course to include under those titles every- thing now claimed for the Pope), How is it, i, 2, 3, 4 ? " and what does "C." ? He takes up more than half a column to prove what none dispute, that Peter had a Primacy of some sort among the Apostles and certain privileges peculiar to himself, and then he would have us jump to the conclusion that the Primacy of the Vatican decrees is on all fours with this. I should be justified under other circumstances in leaving " C." with these remarks, but as he wrote to instruct persons outside the Roman Church what she means by Infallibility, and too many of us are ignorant of the real nature of the Vatican decrees about St. Peter and the Popes, I will here set down in condensed form their teaching.'^ They teach : (i) That Peter, by divine appointment, was Prince of the Apostles, Visible Head of the whole Church militant, and fn his single person — preferably to all other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, — possessed from Christ a true and proper Primacy of jurisdiction. That is to say, it was a Primacy 1. The Roman Vulgate and Douay Bibles are against Cleophas. See Letter iv., Part i., and Ixttcr V. 2. English versions of the Vatican Decrees caR be boujiht for a few cents from Roman Catho- lic booksellers. Letter II. — Part i. of power by right divine to rule the whole Church in his single person. There is no escape from this, for the anathema affixed pronounces those accursed who dare to hold it to be a Primacy of honor only. This conclusion is, as a matter of fact, reached,, not from a priori considerations, but from a posteriori ; that is to- say, it is argued that what we find the Popes are now, that St. Peter must have been ; for, if not, the Papal edifice tumbles to the ground as being without foundation. The decrees must be read into Scripture somehow. At all events, the decrees proceed to assert that the divine right of St. Peter is perpetuated in the Roman Bishops in all its fullness — that the Popes therefore possess a Primacy of jurisdiction to rule, feed, govern and teach the univer- sal Church as Vicar of Christ, Head of the Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians. They say that this power of jurisdic- tion is truly Episcopal^ ordinary pnd immediate, and that therefore all, of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound to submit to it, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also of discipline and government, and therefore it also follows, so the decrees say, that tne Pope is the Supreme Judge of the Faith- ful, and that none, net even an CEcumenical Council, may re-open the judgment of the Roman See. And, further, there is also in- cluded in this Apostolic Primacy the supreme power of teaching infallible truth. Now, I ask, is there anything like this absolute sovereign sway over the Apostles and their churches as belonging to St. Peter to be found in Acts xv. or anywhere else in the New Testament? Not St. Peter but St. Paul enumerates among his toils for Christ " the care of all the churches^ Does " C," I ask, prove from Holy Writ in his first four answers that St. Peter possessed such sway, or that Apostles acknowledged it? Does he even prove from Scripture that St. Peter held a Primacy equal to that of an Arch- bishop among his suffragans in the present day, or such a Primacy of honor as is ceded to Bishops of certain important Sees ; as, for instance, to the Bishop of London among English Bishops? If, then, he have not done even this, he is simply throwing dust in our eyes when he exclaims with indignation, "The Primacy of St. Peter over the other Apostles is so evident, even from the scanty records of the N. T., that the eye which fails to perceive it must be 8 ' * Catholic s ' ' Rejoinder. % wilfully and wofully blind." I will not condescend to retort. Your readers can best judge whether "C" has proved St. Peter to have possessed the Primacy defined in the Vatican decrees he is con- tending for, and can decide on which part such blindness resides. I leave them to judge of the honesty of Answers i to 4. In order to realize the vast discrepancy there is between the Scripture view of St. Peter's Primacy and that now claimed for the Pope, let us for one moment imagine a modern Pope taking his seat among the Bishops assembled in council, say at Milan (as St. Peter did at the first council), while the local prelate occupies the chair; let us picture him taking part in the debate and then wait- ing with the rest the decision of the Presiding Bishop in the words of St. James, " Wherefore I judge, etc." The Primacy of St. Peter was not interfered with by such a position. I wonder what the Cardinals and the Roman Church would think of a Pope who oc- cupied the same. A few more words and I conclude this instalment. I am asked, "Will I undertake to deny that St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome?" I answer. No. But at the same time I will not undertake to affirm that he was so, because of insufficient evidence. Although I do not myself doubt that Peter visited Rome shortly before his martyrdom there, and helped St. Paul to estab- lish the Church of the great metropolis, I must honestly admit the force of Littledale's remark ' that even for his presence in Rome "there is 7io first hand or contemporaneo7is testimony^' as in St. Paul's case, " whence it is clear God has not considered it impor- tant enough to be certified for us as being a matter of faith." It is certainly only a guess that he was ever a Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus mentions Peter and Paul as the founders of the Roman Church, but says nothing about St. Peter's any more than about St. Paul's local Episcopate, there, while the Ante Nicene testi- mony which expressly assigns the See of Rome to St. Peter is the Apocryphal " Clementine Homilies," rejected by the Roman Church as a heretical forgery. For these reasons, while I will not derv, I cannot affirm that St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome. But -upposing he were, "it is 07ily a guess, says Littledale, that he had the power to appoint an 1. p. 24, " Plain Reasons against joining the Church of Rome," 35th thousand. ; Letter II. — Part 2\ 9 ■ ■...-.•,■, ■..■■-..., heir to his special privilege, whatever that was, and only a guess that he did so appoint the Bishops of Rome, and for these tv/o guesses not the smallest scrap o- tittle of evidence ever has been produced or can be so much as reasonably supposed ever to have existed."* - < In conclusion, is it too much to say that if the Primacy of St. Peter were the Primacy now claimed for him and the Bishops of Rome — if, that is to say, what is now taught in the Vatican De- crees were really part of "the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints" — then the doctrine must necessarily stand out in majestic grandeur in the Acts and Epistles? No such historic doubts as those just mentioned could exist, while it would doubtless long ago have found a place in the Creed next to the article on the Apostolic church, which, like the Bishops of the Roman Com- munion alongside their Sovereign Pontiff, would sink into insig- nificance by the contrast. I have still the happiness to rejoice in my signature, free as it is from the limiting adjective " Roman," which belongs to " Cleo- phas," and subscribe myself again, Yours truly, Catholic. February 26, 188^. [The "G/o<5?." March 9th. ** Catholic's" Rejoinder to "Cleophas." {Concluding Portion.) that * To the Editor 0/ the " Globe:'' "^ ''■'■' ' ' ' ' ^ Sir, — Before entering upon further serious criticism allow me to relate an amusing incident which occurred at one of the April sessions of the Vatican Council."^ The Bishops were in hot debate about the title of their Church. The curialists called it in the 1. Appendix (A). 2. Given p. 153. Pomponio Leto, lO ' ' Catholic's ' ' Rejoinder. \ \ 1 1 i 1 schema " Romana Catholica Ecclesia;" several desired the re- moval of the limiting adjective " Romana," among whom was a Bishop who took a business-like view of the subject. He very ingenuously recounted the fact that in his English diocese some land had been left by will to the " Catholic Church," and that the Anglicans had appropriated it on the plea that they were really the Catholic Church, the so-called Catholic Church being styled Roman Catholic. He did not gain his point, however, as the ma- jority clung to the word " Romana." Now to business. In the first part of my rejoinder I claim to have proved that " C" has evaded my first four questions. I pro- ceed to criticise Answer 5. The assertion printed in italics to prove that the Council of Nicea was convened, not, as I stated, by the Emperor Constantine alone, '^' but in concert ivith Pope St. Sylvester^ who was represented at the Council by his legate Osiiis of Cordova," is utterly baseless. No contemporary documents contain such record. The Synodal Epistle of the Council itself never hints at it, nor do the historians Eusebius, Socrates, Sozo- men and Theodoret. Hosius, the great council-leader of the age, and favorite of Constantine^ is the first to sign the acts, and he does so simply as Bishop of Cordova, in Spain, without any allu- sion to Rome. Perhaps "C" has been misled by some seminary text-book into quoting, as an authority, Gelasius of Cyzicus;'^ if so, he might just as well have followed the great teacher of his Church, Thomas Aquinas, and have given us an extract from 77/*? False Decretals at once. This author, who did not write till 150 years after the Council, when the Popes of Rome were making vast encroach- ments upon the rights of other Patriarchs, is by common consent of Roman Catholic critics utterly untrustworthy. Dupin calls him "a sorry compiler, who gathered all he met with relating to his " subject, whether good or bad, without examining whether it were " true or false." Natalis Alexander condemns the work as being "levissimi ponderis" "^M^ , , . 2. Pages 778-785. i/f f 28 ''Catholics'' Reply to '' Veritas r furious ; they raved against the minority ; they called them bad Catholics. Manning accused them of being guilty of " proxi- mate heresy." They were solemnly assured that the Pope was determined to carry the dogma in spite of them ; that with such a majority as he possessed, strengthened by his own infallible voice, the dogma must be proclaimed ; and then, what sort of a position would they be in ! How c^uld they bear such humiliation ? Not only would there be no chance of promotion for them, but prob- ably something far worse would happen. (It may not be known that Roman Catholic Bishops have to acknowledge the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in a very practical way, which helps to keep them submissive, and also to replenish the Papal treasury, by securing from Rome every five or seven years, I for- get which, what are called " Faculties," without which none of their Episcopal acts are counted valid. It need scarcely be said that such a slavery was utterly unknown among the early Bishops.) ' The majority knew well enough, however, that even a small and feeble minority was sufficient to vitiate the result they longed for. Though they hooted him down, they nevertheless knew the truth of Strossmayer's exclamation, " That alone can be imposed " on the faithful as a dogma w \ch has a moral unanimity of the " Bishops of the Church in its lavor," and that a mere majority, as in Parliament, was ineffective to secure their end in a Council. Therefore they browbeat and bullied till the minority, sickened with the contention, gave way and forsook their posts. On July 18, only two Bishops, Riccio of Cajazzo, and Fitzgerald of Little Rock, U. S. A., (brave men) voted non placet. All the rest of the opposition had decamped between the 13th and 17th. It is true they handed in to the Pope statements of their objec- tion to the decrees ; true, that the French Prelates, headed by Darboy, went to the Pope and implored him to avert the calamity ; true, that Bishop Ketteler flung himself on his knees before Pius IX. to move him from his purpose in vain.' But what was the use of all this ? The heart-breaking fact remains, that the flower of the Episcopate deserted their posts when they could have averted a disaster, and they are responsible before God for their failure of duty. Only five hundred and thirty-two, out of seven hundred 1, See a more accurate account. Letter IV., Part 3. 2. Quirtnus. — Letters 68, 69. Letter III. 29 and sixty-four Bishops who attended the Vatican Council, re- mained to vote on July i8th. The distressed minority fled to their Dioceses to be followed by the decrees which they were forced to swallow at the point of an anathema, or be driven away from their flocks and turned out of the Church of their baptism. How they could persuade themselves that the decrees were the faithful utterance of the Holy Ghost by the Church's voice, when they themselves had failed so shamefully in their duty and thus stifled her voice, it is hard for us to understand; but such is the heart-rcndinj^ picture. The Church of Rome has now riveted upon her neck the chains of bondage, forged for her by the greatest enemies of her true welfare. She is now thoroughly Italianized. As Quirinus says (p. 809) : " The Bishops have, ostensibly of their own free *' will, abdicated in favor of the Monarch, to receive back from him " so many rights and commissions as he may think good to dele- "gate to them. The revolution of the Church is accomplished." Or, as Cardinal Manning bragged, " Dogma has triumphed over history." Is there no hope for a remedy, no hope of release from bon- dage ? We can see none within the Roman Church at present ; but there may arise within her some noble, learned, liberal-minded Prelates, who, as they study the history of the Vatican Council, with its uncanonical secrecy, its usurpation of the rights of Bishops, its want of freedom and its tyrranous oppression of the minority, will protest against the bindingness of its decrees, and, like Cardinal Schwarzenberg and Archbishop Strossmayer, demand reform of the whole system, beginning with the Pope and Cardinals.^ There is abundant evidence in contemporary records to prove that Roman Catholics would be quite within their canonical rights in refusing to bow to the Vatican decrees ; and it is devoutly to be wished by all who long for the purification and reunion of Christendom that the work of the " insolent and aggressive fac- tion," as Cardinal Newman calls them, who carried the day at the Vatican, and who have crippled the Church for three hundred years, should be undone, and the Church be decentralized. With many sincere thanks for so much space, I remain, yours truly, March 27th, i88s. ' 1. Quirinus, p. 167. Catholic. i I I ! i i 30 Catholic s ' ' Criticism. After the second instalment of my rejoinder to " Cleophas " {Globe, March 9), nothing of mine in reference to his seven instal- ments appeared in the Globe till April 28. My criticism on "Cleophas' " first five instalments was sent in on April 17, but was withheld from the public till " Cleophas " had quite finished. The dates of his seven letters have already been furnished (p. 20). As they are far too long to print here in full/ I must leave my readers to glean from my criticisms the chief points of " Cleo- phas' " arguments, and, from a few allusions to his coarse invective, the general style in which he has conducted his side of the con- troversy. I must, however, make special reference here to one point which may- possibly be overlooked in my criticisms. "Cleophas" objects to my assailing Papal Supremacy under cover of a raid upon Papal Infallibility as illogical. I have shown (p. 38) that Ultramontane apologists do not think so ; that they clearly per- ceive that though Papal Supremacy might exist without In- f; 'libility. Papal Infallibility must fall with the Supremacy. Therefore, I have been only too unpleasantly logical for " Cleo- phas" in my treatment of the subject. 1. They are to appear, report said some time since, in pamphlet form. I • Letter IV. 31 [The "G/^7.*^," April 23th.] " Catholic's " Criticism on *' Cleophas ' " First Five Instalments. To the Editor of the " Globe : " Sir, — Justly anxious though you are to be rid of this contro- versy, I must nevertheless beg of you some indulgence, since only four of the seventeen columns of your space consumed have fallen to my share. As a busy city man I find it impossible to keep pace with your country correspondent, but will do my best to refute him. Where to begin is the question. Let " Cleophas " suggest. When, after two lengthy instalments of quotations from "Cleo- phas," I read in his third of a reserve force of ^^ heavy artillery'' being brought into action to demolish the ''few fragmentary de- fences'" left me for a hiding place, I thought this at any rate a singular piece of generalship, and wondered, as I saw my citadel and walls unscathed, whether "Cleophas" was himself deceived by the smoke and the noise from his light artillery, or whether he was merely bragging to his friends who could not see for the smoke. For artillery, to be destructive, proper missiles and good gunners are required. Wrested meanings from Scripture and the Fathers, accompanied by domineering braggadocia, are like empty shells which shatter themselves against the fortifications. It is instructive to note what "Cleophas" esteems his heavy artillery. Evidence from the earliest ages is the light, from the later the heavy, for after the heavy is announced he adduces no testimony earlier than the fifth century, while most is from the seventh. One would have thought that to establish a divine charter for Papal Infallibility, which is the Roman contention. Apostolic witnesses and those nearest to them would be deemed the most weighty ; yet "Cleophas" is right in his estimate of their value for his cause, since he knows that the missiles his party is rash enough to dis- I 1 I •I I. l: ^1; [I in .: 1 !• I i .X.JL. ,f>endix {^\). 2." Dollinger, Reunion of the Churches, p, 46 ; ».\\A Janus, 335 to a6i. 3. Page 51. 4. Esfttritii di Azara, p. a6, quoted by Dollinger. Further evidence, see Appendix (K and L). Letter IV. — Part 2. 61 Again, if Roman Catholicism is the beautiful, powerful instru- ment for good and holiness he pictures it, we shall of course find that Roman Catholic populations are preeminent for social purity and order. Yet what do statistics reveal? A far lower general standard of morality than in non- Roman communities. Devout, holy individuals among them doubtless there are, thank God, who soar above the rest in spite of the system, as in other religious bodies, but these are exceptions. F. Curci's "\'aticano Regio" which brought upon the writer the wrath of the Jesuits, exposes the degraded state of priests and people in Italy.' By Ravenstein's " Denominational Statistics " we learn that in England the Church of R(jme owns less than 5 per cent, of the population, and that although she is purer in F^ngland than in countries where she has things all her own way, her children con- tribute from 16 to 67 per cent, of the criminals to our prisons ; that - is to say from three tb thirteen times their fair share of crime. On December 31, 1877, there were 4,289 criminal non-Roman child- ren in English Reformatories, and 1,346 Roman Catholic ones, more than 24 per cent. In Clerkenwell prison during 1877-8, there were 1,305 Roman Catholics out of 8,930, /. t'., more than 16 per cent. In Wandsworth, 1,006 Roman Catholics out of 6,472, nearly 16 per cent. In Coldbath Fields during 1877, 23]^ per cent. The ratio in Manchester, 1877-8-9, has been 43 i)er cent. In one of the Liverpool gaols 50 per cent, and ujnvards; and in the other for 1871 to 1879, 67 per cent, of Roman Catholic prisoners, more than double all others together — the ratio of Roman Catholics in Liverpool, where they are denser dian any- where else in England, being 27.1 percent, in 1881. In Scotland, Roman Catholics are about 8j4 per cent, of the population, chiefly collected in Dundee and Glasgow. Their ratio of criminals in the Dundee gaol was 38 per cent., and in Glasgow 44^3 per cent, in 1879. In Ireland, where Roman Catholics are 76.6 per cent, of population, their share of the crime in 1881--2 was 33,424 convicts out of a total of 38,968, or 86 per cent., which included, moreover, nearly all the serious offences, as the remaining 14 per cent, con- sisted almost exclusively of petty offenders. In the Dominion of Canada, Roman Catholics are much less than half the population, 1. See Plumptre's English Selections of the work. ■ i m ■ap 62 ' ' Catholic s ' ' Criticism . I ; ■1 II ill I' < viz., in 1 88 1, 1,791,982 out of 4,324,810, say 44 per cent.; but in 1880 they had 10,286 criminals against 9,304 of all other religious bodies, or 52 per cent, of the total. The figures are more remark- able in the Province of Ontario, where there were in 1881 almost equal numbers of Roman and Anglo-Catholics (320,839 of the former, and 366,539 of the latter). But the Roman Catholic criminals in 1880 were 4,152 as against 1,944 Anglicans; much more than double the natural rates. In Prussia, where the Roman Catholics are one- third the population, and not so relatively poor as in England, they produced in 1870, 52.6 per cent, of the crimi- nals brought to trial; in 1871, 56.7 per cent.; in 1872, 56.3 per cent.; in 1873, 58.2 per cent.; in 1874, 57 per cent.; in 1875, 63.5 per cent; in 1876, 67.5 percent.; in 1877,60.7 per cent.; in 1878, 63.7 per cent. What is more, a heavier proportion holds for the graver crimes. In 1878 the Roman Catholic murderers charged were 18.7 per cent, more than non-Roman ones; homicides were 53.5 per cent. ; assaults with fatal resuUs, 38.6 per cent.; poison- ing, 100 per cent.; serious and repeated cases of theft, 30 per cent. ; robbery and extortion, 36 per cent. ; common larceny, 49.8 per cent, in excess of the non- Roman criminals. In the Nether- lands the same excess of criminals holds good. In Australia, the following witness is borne by Sir Archibald MIchie, Q.C., Agent- General for Victoria.' "In nothing are Mr. Hayter's statistics more interesting than in the tables showing the relative number of arrests and convictions among the different religious sects. The Roman Catholics are on a most unenviable eminence in this re- spect. They supplied more than twice as many arrested persons as the Protestants, and more than three times as many as the Jews and Pagans. Out of forty-one criminals executed from 1861 to 1876, twelve were Church of FZngland, twenty-one Roman Catho- lics, two Presbyterui is, three Wesleyans, and three Pagans. Now, bearing in mind that the proportion of Roman Catholic popula- tion to the non- Roman was for many years less than a fourth, the above statement is a very starding one." In the United States, the comparative results are alleged to be of the same character, but the system of prison returns does not admit of tabulating them." Judging Roman Catholic populations, then, in various 1. " Readings in Melbourne," p. 194; London, 1879. 2. See note in I ialedaie, Plain Reasons, 35th thousand, p. 204. Letter IV. — Part 2. 63 parts of the world by the prison statistics, we get a fair index of the hold their religion obtains over their moral life. It is to me, Mr. Editor, I can assure you, a most ungrateful task thus to ex- pose the sins of my brethren ; but when a leading Roman Catholic romances in public about the pre-eminent perfection and beauty of his own Church, which, he says, alone can satisfy the cravings of enquiring souls, and impart to them holiness of life, while at the same time he pours out torrents of foul abuse upon a neighbor Church, we must look hard facts in the face. Now, Mr. Editor, I have no faith in the tu qiioque argument. Two wrongs cannot make a right, but "Cleophas" literally forces it upon me in his unwisdom. If any one should keep quiet about the moral defects of opponents, it is a Roman Catholic controver- sialist ; for the history of his Church, and especially of the Papacy, teems with the vilest corruptions of life and morals. " Cleophas " is guilty of a mistake when he says Henry VIII. founded the English Church, and of a scurrilous insult when he pretends to find in her a likeness to that lustful murderer. For the sake of those who have not read the history of the English Church, let me first say that long before Henry VIII., the English had resisted the temporal power of the Pope, that is, his exercise in their kingdom of coercive jurisdiction and collection of monies without the King's leave. " P>om the end of the 13th century," says Dollinger, "and constantly during the 14th, they had resisted the encroachments and extortionate demands of the Roman court with the united force of King and Parliament." Henry's divorce, it is true, supplied the opportunity for rejecting the usurpation ; the King knew the country was ripe for the move. The whole English clergy assented, rejected the Papal coercive jurisdiction, the Pojjc's claim to right of appeals and the collection of Peter's pence, and promised to regard the Pope henceforth only as Bishop of Rome. The Church of England remained the same ; the King was excommunicated, but the country was not laid under interdict till Elizabeth's reign — adherents to the " old and new learning " communicated together at the same altars for years after Henry's excommunication. The Church's Episcopate was not then repudiated at Rome ; the English Church never lost her Episcopate, and could afford to smile at the interdict of an !i ► ! " i I i 1- il, t 'iW illl I •■ il! ! 64 Catholic s ' ' Criticism. angry Pope. In her corporate capacity she reformed abuses, in fact, purged herself from Romish error. You might as well say " a man is not the same man because he has washed his Hice," as that the Anglican Church is not one with her pre-Rc formation life. The Bishop of Rome may curse her, and his theologians invent lies, like the Nag's Head fable, to cast scorn upon her and se- duce her children, but God will not suffer such impotent rage to deprive her of divine life. Henry VHL, we are told, assumed the title " Head of the Church," a title undesirable indeed, and easily misunderstood ; but in the sense used — as of the King being the source of all coercive jurisdiction over his subjects — strictly true. The Church, under the tyrant Tudor, was not a whit more Erastian, if so Erastian, as the Church under the Catsars holding Councils at their dictation, and expelling or admitting Bishops to Sees by their command, or administering the test of orthodoxy as the Empeor Theodosius did after the first Council of Constan- tinople, at the request of the Synod. " The Synod," we read in Palmer, " requested the Emperor to " authorize the decrees, and he accordingly published an edict *' commanding all Churches to be delivered to Bishops who held " the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity." ' The Church craved power to enforce her decrees and turn out heretics at once, and this she could not do, as it involved civil rights, without support of the civil power. This is all the Church meant when she assented to Henry VHI.'s high flown title, and his rightful claim to the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome over his subjects' liberties. Whatever, then, has the moral corruption of this King to do with the Church of England's claim to Apostolicity ? Nothing what- ever. It is only dragged in by "Cleophas " to create a prejudice. If vileness of individuals could destroy the Church's corporate life, then the Church of Rome has long been a putrifying corpse. Henry VTII. was an innocent child compared with many of the Popes, Roman Qatholics themselves being the witnesses.'^ Listen to Cardinal Baronius on the Roman Church of the tenth century : " What was then the semblance of the Holy Roman " Church ? As foul as it could be ; when harlots, superior in 1. See also Appendix (G), 2. I hope it will be observed that it is principally by Roman Catholic writers that I refute •' Cleophas,'' Letter IV. — Part 2, 65 id se. in ute " power as in profligacy, governed at Rome, at whose will Sees " were transferred. Bishops were appointed, and, what is horrible "and awful to say, their paramours were intruded into the See of " Peter." " Mad lust, relying on worldly power, claimed all as its " own, goaded on by the sting of ambition. Christ was then in a *' deep sleep in the ship, and there was no disciple to wake Him, *' for all were snoring. You can imagine as you please what sort " of Presbyters and Deacons were chosen as Cardinals by these " monsters." ^ This period covered a space of sixty years and the reigns of thirteen Popes. But Gilbert Genebrard, Archbishop of Aix ( 1 537-1 597), writing of the same era, makes the duration o the Papal profligacy much longer : " This age has been unfortu- *' nate, in so far that during 150 years about fifty Popes have fallen " away from the virtues of their predecessors, being Apostates or " Apostatical rather than Apostolical^ ^ These are Roman, not Protestant writers.^ Then what are we to think of Alexander VI., the Nero of the Papacy, one of the vilest criminals on record ? * How can I decently veil his wickedness in the public press, while sufficiently indicating it ? Although a vowed celibate, he was both father and lover of Lucretia. Henry VIII. was a nobleman compared with this wretch. Yet this Borgian Pope sat on the altar of St. Peter's to be adored as the Vicar of Christ, and exer- cised spiritual jurisdiction over the Church. Will " Cleophas " dare then to say of his what he has said of our branch of the Church : " She assumed to herself the yoke of a bestial ruffian, and in her subsequent history she has not belied her origin^ It is devoutly to be hoped that the reverend gentleman^ of Carleton County, whose work on Thomas Aquinas was recently announced in the Globe, is not very intimate with "Cleophas," or we may expect another of those untrustworthy text-books with which the literature of the Roman Church is already so much dis- figured. "Cleophas " has shown us now conclusively that he can read neither his Bible, early church history, nor the history of modern times aright. I might at this point go on to prove, for 1. Ann. 912, viii. 2. Chron. Sac. iv., Ann. 901, Cologne, 1571. 3. Taken from Littledale, chap. 96, where further evidence to the same effect may be found, 4. 1492 to 1503. His MedaUion, 1 was glad to observe, v/as not filled in at St. Paulo fuori le miira when I visited Rome in 1S80. "). The Reverend William Cleophas Gayncr, of Debec, Carleton County, N. B. k w ill J! i I llil'l i I 66 " Catholic s ' ' Criticism. the discomfiture of "Cleophas," that the Roman claim "that all Jurisdiction and Mission in the Church proceed from the Popes," utterly breaks down when tested by the requirements of Roman canon law, — that in consequence of intrusion by external influ- ence without valid election ; of election by those who are not qualified to elect ; of simony ; and of antecedent personal ineli- gibility of certain definite kinds, there have been several fatal flaws in the papal succession. Alexander VI. 's name suggests to me this consideration, but I will do no more than touch on his case alone, out of many instances. His election was simonical, i. e., he was returned by means of purchased votes. It is equally certain that he systematically sold the Cardinalate to the highest bidders. Thus not only was his own popedom void by reason of simony, but the Cardinals he nominated — and he nominated a great many — were no true Cardinals for the same reason, being null and void twice over, because he had no right to nominate them at all, and because, if he had any such right, their purchase of their rank invalidated the whole transaction. When Alexander VI. died there was not a single validly created Cardinal left for the election of the new Pope; so, on Roman principles, the papal chain was here irremediably broken, and there has been no valid Pope of Rome since 1492 A. D.^ Therefore, according to the strict interpretation of Roman canon law, there is no apostolic jurisdiction or mission left in the world. All the eggs have been put into one basket, and not one has withstood the fall. The English Church can never be reduced to such an absurd position, for she holds by the ancient theory expressed in St. Cyp- rian's well known words, " Episcopatiis tmtis est, ciijiis a singulis in solidtun pars te7ietur." The Episcopate is a unity, of which each member exercises to the full all its powers and privileges. It is difiicult to translate literally, but i7i solidum is equivalent to the legal phrase " in joint tenancy." On this old Catholic theory, there can never be a loss of apostolic jurisdiction and mission unless every Bishop in the world suddenly died at the same mo- ment : if only one Bishop were left, he would possess the power 1. See Church Quarterly, July, 1883, No. 36, vol, xviii., p. 437. A r^j«;«^ of the argument is given in Littledalt s Plain Reasons, 35th thousand, and a table of flaws at end. Letter IV.— Part 2. 67 to re-bishop the world. Not so with the Roman Church ; a fail- ure or flaw in the papal line brings the whole fabric to the ground. In conclusion, I will set two or three eminent Roman Catholics to refute " Cleophas' " scandalous charge that the English Church bears the features of a " bestial ruffian " upon her countenance to the present day. Cardinal Newman, rejoicing over the spread of the English language as a gain for virtue and religion, says : '* For " English literature, in spite of its being non-Catholic (/. ! 76 ''Catholics'' Reply to '' Veritas r might be consummated. Would to God that the eldest brother of the family might take the initiative, for then might be realized in greater force than with St. Peter, the words of his Master — " When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." I believe it is impossible for us to conceive what a marvellous revival of spiritual life would ensue for the whole of Christendom if only the Roman Catholic Church would reform herself and seek to unite the flock of Christ. Thanking you again very earnestly, Mr. Editor, for your space, patience, and fair play, I remain, yours very truly. Catholic. St. John, April 2g, i88j. iT\\e," May 19th.] "Catholic's" Reply to "Veritas'" Third Letter. To the Editor of the " Globe : " Sir, — I have no objection whatever, if it suit you and your readers, to enter the lists with "Veritas," or any of his friends, on the present question of Papal Infallibility, or on any other peculiar teiict of the Roman Catholic Church (provided only, that as pledges of good faith and polite controversy, we all write over our own names)'; but I must protest against the more "wily" than "honest" proceeding (if "Veritas" will please share with me his own compliment) adopted by "Veritas" of reopening ab initio my controversy with "Cleophas" under cover of "doing justice to the venerated dead." " Veritas " professed from the first to have only one contention with me, and expressed his desire not to enter upon the controversy, which he deemed "Cleophas " fully able to 1. This challenge was not accepted, nor did " Veritas," any more than " Cleophas,'' reveal his name. Letter V. n conduct ; that contention was, that Archbishop Connolly opposed Papal Infallibility at the Vatican merely as an Inopportunist. By aid of extracts supplied by "Veritas" from Bishop Rogers, I claim to have clearly demonstrated that the Archbishop vehe- mently rejected the dogma of the Council as false. "Veritas" has found it impossible to rebut my arguments in the Globe of April yth,^ so he now attempts to raise fresh issues. I cannot, therefore, allow myself to follow him till I have made this clear to your readers. At the same time, I am not averse to a different con- tention. " Veritas " now argues that because Archbishop Connolly sub- mitted to the decision of the majority at the Vatican at the point of an anathema (and probably with a laudable motive of avoiding a fresh schism in the Church), he therefore rebutted every argument he had used previously against the dogma ; otherwise, he could not object in such severe terms to my quoting them as the Archbishop's convictions. On the same grounds, then, he ought to hold that Galileo's submission to the Inquisition overthrew his philosophic assertion that "the earth moves round the sun," or that Pere Gratry's letters to Deschamps may no longer be fairly quoted as evidence of the corrupt state of Roman Church literature, or of the casuistry of the Ultramontanes, because iri extremis he "com- plied against his will" to the Vatican decrees so as to secure the last rites of his Church. "Veritas' " illustrations of this tliesis are equally infelicitous. Is it an unknown thing in deliberative assem- blies for the sounder views to be voted down for a while by an impulsive majority only to be revived with greater force in time to come ? Will the chapters headed " Solvuntur objectiones" in the school treatises referred to, always bear close inspection ? Is it not a fact that not only the deductions, but the very axioms of physical science are in a constant state of flux, and old objections glossed over for a while are found eiitirely to upset previous con- clusions ? What student, for instance, would nowadays commit himself to the axiom, " Nature abhors a vacuum ? " Both the thesis and its illustrations, then, are thoroughly falla- cious. But the Vatican Council had neither the advantages of a deliberative assembly, nor of a chapter in its history entitled " Sol- ll ■ w I- 1 : 1 1. Page 21. 1? • III iir i' Ai. m I mtv \i ii 78 ^'Catholic s'' Reply to ''Veritas!^ vuntur objectiones." Free discussion was strictly prohibited. Though Bishops started to their feet to contradict some mon- strous allegation in an essay, they were silenced at once. The so-called debate consisted of a series of written Latin essays from either side ; ' if any contained statements strongly antagonistic to Papal Infallibility the reader was silenced by the bell of the pre- siding Legates ; the same ground was traversed again and again with no conscious reference to the statements of the previous speaker. This was the way the Bishops were duped, and this method of conducting business is one of the points complained of in the letter of a French Bishop to Count Daru, the French Minis- ter of State. ^ The simile fails then for this reason. Then with regard to the refutation of objections, I can find no record anywhere of satisfactory answers given to Schwarzenberg, Strossmayer, Darboy, Dupanloup, Connolly, and others, unless bullying and browbeating be considered their equivalents. So here again the simile is valueless. Then again the Vatican Council lacked another advantage of most deliberative assemblies, in that its minority was frightened out of voting at the right moment (July 18), although, as is not the case with those conventions, a minority could have frustrated the determination of the majority in a matter dejidc. The Vatican minority in fact simply supplies us with another illustration of " Cleophas' " quotation from Hudibras, "they com- plied against their will; " and they were in the same position as that L'ish Roman Priest who wrote a month since to the London Times'' to defend himself and his fellow priests from the charge of rebellion against the Queen, under shelter of the iniquitous Bull (albeit infallible, as Cardinal Manning holds) of Urban VIIL, In Cvcna Domini, which absolves Roman Catholics from allegiance to 1. " Veritas," who appears from his style of writing to have himself been present at the Vatican Council, and is therefore either Archbishop Connolly's theologian or one of the Canadian Roman Catholic Bishops, tells us in his second letter (the Globe, April 17), that " ill the speeches at the Council were written and delivered in Latin." It appears to me that that fact removes a great difficulty from the way of our understanding how outsiders obtained such well- written extracts of the speeches in the Council Chamber, as are given in Quirinus. I at one time thought the speeches were spoken, not read, and wondered how bishop-reporters could take down so admirably extempore effusions. 2. Letter IV., Part 3, p. 73. 3. Weekly edition, April 10, 1885. Letter V. 79 non-Roman Sovereigns, by saying that " Maynooth College used " to be very Gallican indeed, and that 7?iost Irish priests were on " that account still Gallic a7i in sentiment^ though they had been " obliged to submit on the Infallibility question^ (Behold here another illustration of the happy united family "Cleophas" in- vites us to join.) Therefore, unless "Veritas" can prove that Archbishop Con- nolly definitely retracted his twice repeated comment at the Vati- can Council on Acts xv., I shall continue to quote it, and not con- sider the doing so " unworthy of an honest and educated logician." I must ask "Veritas" to remember that he himself told me that Bishop Rogers said that Archbishop Connolly's knowledge of the salient points of Scripture bearing upon dogma was "admir- able," and that for seven months he studied the pros and cons of Papal Infallibility "with all the assiduous application of which his ** great mind w^as capable."^ How then does "Veritas" show honor to "the admirable knowledge " of his " great minded," laborfous student and ven- erated friend departed ? He actually presumes to controvert his comments on Acts xv. ; that whereas Archbishop Connolly said, " Even at the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem St. James proved " the teaching of Peter by the Prophets, and appealed to it be- " cause it agreed with theirs and not on account of his authority^' "Veritas" asserts that to his mind " St. > vike proves to a demon- " stration the supreme authority at the Council exercised by St. " Peter, and recognized by all the others." Archbishop Connolly then, in "Veritas' " estimation, must have been wofully blind, and his extract from Bishop Rogers about his deep knowledge and great mindedness had better been left unquoted. "Veritas," how- ever, is equally hard on " Cleophas," so I suppose I ought to ex- cuse him; but then while he refutes " Cleophas' " assertion that " Peter spoke first at the Council," he himself falls into another almost as baseless. He prints this comment in capitals as very important : " Peter was the first of the A])ostles who spoke." Where does he learn this ? Certainly not from the Greek, the Vulgate, or the Douay. St. Luke, in his very summary account of the Council in Acts xv., gives no information as to who took i ■ I .' 1 1 1 1. Page 23. So ''Catholics'' Reply to ''Veritas:' r I Hi il part in the " much disputing " which preceded St. Peter's remarks ; he does not say how many Apostles were absent^ in distant lands, or how many were present, or whether or not they disputed with the rest ; very probably they did join in the discussion. St. Luke appears merely to mention the chief speakers and the salient points of their testimony. All, therefore, that can be correctly asserted is that " Peter's speech is the first summarized by St. Luke in his account of the Council in Acts xv." Doubtless this fact points to the importance of Peter's testimony in the matter, as being the first to use the keys of the kingdom for admitting Gentiles to Christ's Church, and one of the first to see Gentiles endowed with the same grace and extraordinary gifts of the Spirit wherewith the Apostolic company itself had been crowned on the day of Pente- cost, but it does not make it an authoritative decision at this stage of the proceedings, any more than Paul's and Barnabas' relations of " what wonders and signs God had wrought among the Gentiles by them," were authoritative pronouncements. These were but the statements of facte concerning the Holy Ghost's work (which of course involved certain consequences), \v\nc\\ Jauies, not Peter, summed up with corroborative Scripture testimony when he said, as President, " Wherefore my judgment is," or, according to the Douay, " I judge," etc. From Acts xi. we learn that so far were the ordinary disciples of Jerusalem fiom recognizing Peter's authority as paramount, or his word infallible, that they actually called him to account for associadng with Cornelius, and that Peter, instead of rebuking this impertinence and want of faith in his divinely granted supre- macy and infallibility, as he was in duty bound to do for the truth's sake, had he known of the Divine gifts to himself, put in a defence for his conduct, and moreover produced six Jewish witnesses of the outpouring of the Spirit upon Cornelius and his company, to assure them that he was speaking the truth. '^ Then it should be obser\ ed, as Archbishop Connolly points out, "the Council did not adopt the formula of Peter, but o^ James," and also that it was issued — not in the name of " Peter, the Council approving," as the Vatican style demands — but in the 1, Like St. Thomas, who was probably in India at that time. 2. Acts xi. 17., 1,1 Letter V. 8i name of the Holy Ghost and of the Synod of Apostles and Elders. The utmost therefore that we can assert of Peter's position at the first Council is " that it need not conflict with that primacy of honor granted him by Christ." "Veritas'" treatment then of Scripture is scarcely admirable. Let us see next how he handles Chrysostom to sustain his forced conclusion. It is a most curious manipulation indeed. His hon- esty will not suffer him to adopt the "audacious substitution of Peter's name for that of James' " in the Saint's comment on Acts XV. 12, after the exami)le of Mgr. Capel and "Cleophas,"' so he shelves the comment m loco for another which has nothing what- ever to do with the passage. He did not learn this sort of expe- dient, I am confident, from Archbishop Connolly, of blessed memory. "Veritas" says, "The words of St. John Chrysostom apply here, though commenting on another discourse of St. Peter^ He then turns from Homily xxxiii. on Acts xv. to Homily iii. on Acts i., for a phrase which seems favorable to his contention about St. Peter (we shall see with what effect directly); but we may justly ask, Why don't you quote what Chrysostom says on the passage itself? Oh " Veritas," you must never again talk about " wily politicians ;" you saw these words in loco, and you prefer- red we should be ignorant of them. '^ James was invested zcith the chief rule''' at the Council, and that Jamej^ left the harsh speak- ing for Peter to do, ''for thus it behoves 07ie in high authority to leave 7vhat is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself ap- pears more affable T '^ But let us proceed. " Veritas " finds in Migne's Patrologia, at Homily HI. on Acts i, of Chrysostom, these words about Peter: " He the first has authority in the business ii. e. the election of Matthias) etc.," ergo Peter must have exercised supreme authority at the Council held eighteen or twenty years later. Perhaps your readers are clearer sighted than myself, but I can't follow this reasoning — it seems to me like asserting that St. Paul's, London, is the same as St. Peter's, Rome, because they both have domes; so I give it up and pass on. I turn, however, out of curiosity, to the citation in the Oxford Edition of the Library of the Fathers, I , 1. Page 46 and Appendix (I). 2. The Benedictine edition supports the Oxford here, and the words, are " en megalee dunasteia," Greek, " in magna potestate," Latin. >il ! I in high authority," 1; ;.| It I'll! jl i ! !■ 82 CatJiolics'' Reply to ''Veritas!^ and find the words, " He the first has authority in the business," rejected by the editors as an interj)olation, and tlie passage run- ning thus: " He (Peter) asks for one out of the whole body (viz., " the one hundred and twenty), reasonably (eikotos) as having " been entrusted with their welfare (encheiristheis) for to him Christ "said 'and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.'" This is very trying for "' Veritas," after turning back thirty homi- lies for the much coveted word "authority." It is really too cruel. Now, since " Veritas " has referred to Chrysostom's comments on Acts i. to sustain a contention depending on Acts xv., he will not, I trust, deem me more "wily than honest" if I also quote a little more from the same Homily, " Observe," says Chrysostom, " how Peter does everything by common consent, nothing hnpe- rioiisly!' (The Benedictine text is fuller still, " nihilquc cum anc- ioritatc vcl cum impcrio ") ; which is a flat contradiction of that auctoritas interpolated in Migne's edition. Observe too, again, what I have already pointed out, how the Saint protests, as it were, against the then rising arrogance of Rome (latter part of the 4th century). Again, on Acts i. 23, " And they appointed two, Joseph and Matthias," Chrysostom is very instructive. " Not he " (Peter) appointed them, but it was he that introduced the propo- " sition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that tliis zvas " not his ozmi, but from old time by prophecy ; so he acted as ^^ exposito?-, not as preccptorT^ "Veritas" must not appeal to Chrysostom even on Acts i. to support his owii strained conten- tion, for the Saint protests strongly against it. "Veritas" may be grateful if I add that Migne's Patrologia does not rank high with scholars. The Rev. Gerard Moultrie,'' in his Appendix to the late Dr. Neale's celebrated " Essays on Lit- urgiology and Church History,"'' while recounting the names and services of notorious Gallicans, like Montelambert and Lacordaire, as the remaining hope of the old school, approves (mark you) the Patrologia of the Abbe Migne " as opening out a path which might hereafter be followed with great success," but adds, "poor, hiwried and meagre is the text, let no one ever trust itT I have learnt 1. The Benedictine edition accords with this. 2. His death on April 25th, 1885, was announced here since this was written, as also have been the deaths of Cardinal Schwarzenburg and Archbishop Bourget since this controversy started. 3. P. 484, London, iS6j. Letter V. 83 also from a friend that tlie cheap later issues of Mij^ne's work have been tampered with since Migne's time, so it is to be feared patristic quotations will be a good deal muddled in the future/ It appears to me, then, that Archl)ishoj) Connolly was a far more accurate weigher of evidence and of the value of authorities than "Veritas," and it is the much abused "Catholic" who really honors the memory of the blessed dead by defending his com- ments on Acts XV. against the contradictions of his friend " Veri- tas." As I have before said — If Peter had been the Pope of the Vatican decrees he would ha\'e nominated an occupant to the vacant chair of Judas, in the fulness of his own supreme Apostolic authority,'^ and I cannot do better than apply once more the trenchant saying of Stcarne, " He who can develope Papal abso- lutism out of Peter's simple presidency, could develope a behemoth out of a beemothy "Veritas" next goes off on Gal. ii. 11, on which I quoted no- thing from Archbishop Connolly, so evidently he is taking up the cudgels in place of "Cleophas." Galatians 1. and ii, are perilous courts of appeal for Papal claims, for in them St. Paul protests that he exercised his AposLolic office on the strength of IJivine revela- tion alone, that he obtained it neither from man nor even through ma7i, that he did not see the original Apostles till years after his consecration by Jesus Christ, and that when he did meet them, even the chief pillars among them "added nothing" to him, but that, on the contrary, in his rigid faithfulness to his Master's cause, he did not shrink from resisting even Peter to the face on the strength of his own Divine commission. It is really pitiable to see "Veri- tas" struggling to evacuate Gal. ii. ir of its plain meaning and force. If all .Scripture were to be treated in this fashion we might well despair of knowing what to believe, and should, with poor Arthur Woolaston Hutton, after six years training at the Birming- ham Oratory under Newman, make shipwreck of our faith and join the ranks of the Agnostics. 1. Since this appeared I have been told I misunderstood his meaning — he did not say that Migne's text was tampered with, but that Mign.e himself was deceived into admitting many false readings by designing friends. It is a matter of sorrowful interest to learn that the Abbe Migne defrayed the cost of publishing his first edition by money raised by the farming of Masses. 2. Letter IV., Part 1, p. 36. I I ii' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // !.0 |i^ 1^ II I -^ 11^ 11.25 1.4 1.6 "'^^V^ ^1^ ^J^^. if 4l^ 84 ''Catholics'' Reply to '' Veritas r What, however, can "Veritas" make of the Revised Version here, the best rendering of the passage, " But when Cephas came " to Antioch I resisted him to the face because he stood con- " demned ; " condemned, that is, by those very decrees he himself had been instrumental in passing ? The instances from Bishop Challoner, in the foot note,* of St. Paul's charitable regard as a Jew for Jewish cuitoms when with Jews or half-Jews, are in no way parallel with St. Peter's offensive conduct towards the Gentiles at Antioch. There seems to be a consttmt strain among Roman Catholic writers to prove black white. Of course it is the system they have to support which forces them to it. Happily, we are more at liberty. In conclusion, Mr. Editor, let me ask your intentions about this controversy before I go any further. I am prepared, as I said, for anything. Thanking you very heartily for your space, I remain, yours truly. Catholic. May iiy i88s. P. S. — Immediately after writing the above, the mail brought me an answer from England relative to two statements of mine called in question, in no very polite terms, by "Cleophas," about which I at once made enquiry in a quarter where large libraries are under constant contribution. It will be seen that though my quotations from Keenan and Veron were second-hand, they were perfectly accurate. The cutting is from the answers to corres- pondents in the Church Times of May i, 1885: " We have just collated two copies of Keenan's Controversial *' Catechism, the first described as the third edition, and twenty- " first thousand, published by Marsh and Beattie, Edinburgh, and ** Dolman, London, 1885. In this, at page 112 (Chap, ix., 'The 1. This was the foot note. " Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like as what is " here laid to St. Peter's charge? that is, praciice the Jewish ceremonies. Did he not circutnsise " Timothy after this, A. D. 52 (Acts xvi. 3)? Did h*" at shave his head in Cenchrea, A. D. 54 "(Actsxviii. 18)? Did he not by theadviceof St. james, A. D. s^,/^uri/y himself with the Jnus " in the temple, not to offend them ? (Acts xxi. 34). [Extract from Bishop Challoner's note in "Haydoch's Douay Bible, on Gal. ii. 11]. According to Bishop Challoner, then, it is clear St. Paul was very inconsistent, and deserved to be withstood to the face as condemned by the decrees of the first Council. Letter V. 85 "Councils'), occur the words: *Q. Must not Catholics believe the "Pope in himself to be infallible?' A. 'This is a Protestant in- " vention ; it is no article of the Catholic faith ; no decision of his " can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and en- " forced by the teaching body; that is, by the Bishops of the " Church.' The other copy is described simply as ' New Edition,' " and bears no date. It is issued by the Catholic Publishing and " Bookselling Company, Limited, and omits the question and "answer just given. We have also consulted a Latin copy of "Veron, (Paris, 1768) not having the English translation by " Waterworth (Birmingham, 1833) at hand, and give you the fol- " lowing extracts : * Papa, quocunque modo loquens, etiam ex Ca- " thedra, non est universalis Ecclesia, ergo quod ab eo proponitur, " non proponitur ab Ecclesia universali ; ergo non est doctrina " Fidei Catholicae. Addo, Conclusionem hanc tam certam esse in- " ter Doctores omnes, ut si quis contarium doceret, Novator ipse " foret, et Censura percellendus, quippe novi dogmatis inventor. " * * * * Maturius ergo procedant hi censores, quorum " censura censuram meretur, quippe inductiva novi dogmatis, tan- "quam Fide Catholica credendi, quod nemo hucusque statuit, " scilicet, quod a Pontifice foret, etiam ex cathedrA, definitum ex- " tra Concilium universale, esse de Fide Catholicd, seu tale defini- " tum esse Fide Catholica, et sub peccato haereseos ab omnibus " credendum. Hallucinati sunt, et caecutiendo in errorem pro- " lapsi." It would be impossible to traverse the Vatican degrees more explicitly than is here done. The pages of the edition of Veron we cite are 508 and 510. The actual volume has for title Dc Controversiis Tractaius Generates, Coniracti per Adriamim et Petrum de Watenburch, and to this main book are appended, with continuous pagination, first a Professio Fidei CotholiccB, and then Veron ii Regula Fidei Catholic ce. For the benefit of the generality of your readers I will trans- late the Latin of Veron. " The Pope, however he may speak, even ex cathedrA, is not " the universal church, therefore what he promulges is not put " forth by the universal church, therefore it is not a doctrine of the •* Catholic Faith. I add that this conclusion is so certain among " all Doctors (of the church) that if any one were to teach the H!- 86 ''Catholics'' Reply to ''Veritas:' I! « contrary he would become an Innovator, and one who ought to be overwhelmed with grave reproach as in fact the inventor of a new dogma. ***** Let not these censors then be in too great a hurry, for this censure deserves censure. Their view would introduce a new dogma of belief, as if by the Catholic Faith, which no one has determined up to this time. They would have us believe that what shall have been defined by the Pontiff, provided it be ex cathedra, apart from a General Coun- cil is of the Catholic Faith, or that such a thing had been defined by the Catholic Faith, and so must be believed by all on pain of heresy." " Such censors are under strange delusion, and by shutting their eyes, have fallen headlong into error." M fai ^ [I 11 APPENDIX. ■ .'ii II % Page g. — Janus, " The Pope and the Council," says, page 91 : " Of all the Fathers who have exegetically explained Matt. xvi. 18 and John xxi. 17, not a single one applies them to the Roman Bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commen- taries we possess — Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in Cate- nas — has dropped the faintest hint that the Primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter ! " Page 10. — Mahan, "Ch. H^st. of the First Seven Centuries," says of Hosius of Cordova, page 380 : " He was a favorite of Con- stantine from the time of his conversion ; a ' sober-minded ' man, ' widely known ' as such even among those who differed from him in opinion. His dignity of character was adorned by great wealth; , his wealth was ennobled by boundless liberality. A confessor in the great persecution, he had taken part in numerous Councils since the beginning of the century, and was destined during his long life to have a foremost place in many others. He was famous, in short, as Hosius the Great ; a title which he held till the hun- dredth year of his life, and which, though dimmed by his yielding at last to Arian persecutions, is still accorded to him f^r his emi- nent services to the cause of Truth." Constantine selected this great Prelate to investigate the Arian troubles at Alexandria, and, if possible, to settle them. On the failure of his mission, Constan- tine, *' led, in all probability," says Mahan (p. 382), ''by the advice of Hosius, the great Council- leader of the age,'' summoned the Council of Nice. In a footnote, p. 380, he says : " Eusebius and Athanasius alike sound the praises of Hosius : of all the Prelates at Nicsea, he is the only one that Eusebius mentions with commendation : of the four hundred whom Athanasius counted among his allies, Hosius the Great is the only one named." Euseb. Vit. Const, ii. 63; iii. 7. S. Athan. Apolog. de Fuga,\i. 703 ; ad Solitar, pp. 827, 837, 842, etc. Athanasius (ad Solitar. Vit. Agent, c. i) speaks of Hosius as being by universal consent called "'the Father of Bishops ^ The (87) ■PfiM 88 Appendix. honor, then, accorded to Hosius of acting as one of the presiding Bishops, and of being the first to sign the decrees, is sufficiently- accounted for by his great prominence in preceding Councils, his " wide spread fame," his favor with Constantine, etc. Euseb. Vit, Constant.^ iii. 7. A writer in the Church Quarterly Review ^ Jan. 1880, p. 504, says : " The Council of Nice was convoked by the Emperor Con- stantine himself, and that, as it would appear, acting on the advice of his usual counsellor in ecclesiastical affairs^ Hosius, Bishop of Cordova." The same writer says — with regard to the Roman contention, that Hosius presided and signed, as a legate of the Pope of Rome — " This opinion rests on the solitary testimony of Gelasius of Cyzi- cus, a writer of the fifth century ; " and he then proceeds to prove the worthlessness of his evidence in many important particulars. "Cleophas" mentions a Coptic MS. which supports Gelasius. It is probably not quite so old as the ancient one discovered by Zoega, and reprinted in full by Cardinal Pitra. {Spicilegium Soles- mense, vol. i, pp. 513-528), mentioned in the same article. In this the three earliest signatures are thus expressed : " From Spain, Hosius, of the city of Cordova: I believe thus, " as is written above." " Vito and Innocentius, priests : We have signed for our " Bishop, who is Bishop of Rome : he believes thus, as is written " above." Clearly, then, Hosius signed for himself and for no one else. Had he been acting for the Pope, the fact would have been re- corded. The two priest-legates of the Pope, too, seem quite unaware of any partner or superior in their commission. This is certainly the view Eusebius, himself a member of the Council, took, since he observes : " The Prelate of the Imperial City was " absent through old age, but his Presbyters were present, and '^filled his placed Vit. Const, iii. 7. Not a word about the Bishop, be it observea. The position of their signatures certainly points to the dignity of the See they represent, yet too much stress must not be laid even on this, since we find that the order of precedence is not observed in the subsequent signatures, and the Bishops of the Thebaid, Libya, Palestine and Phoenicia sign before the Prelate of Antioch, though he ranked third of the great Patriarchs, and should have signed next to Alexandria. C. Page I J. — The case of Honorius' is so " stubborn a fact, hard to get over," as " Veritas " says, that Roman apologists have been Appendix. 89 driven to many strange expedients to get rid of it. (I condense from Church Quarterly Review, April, 1879, p. 18): 1. Baronius alleged the insertion of Honorius' name to be an interpolation and forgery. Driven from that position by closer enquiry, it was said — 2. Honorius was really orthodox, and was condemned by the Council in error ; or that 3. He was condemned only in his capacity as a private Doctor, since his letter to Sergius was not put forth ex cathedrA ; or 4. He was condemned, not for heresy, but for apathetic negli- gence in suppressing the heresy of others. Pere Gratry has fully exposed the ludicrous nature of these shifts to contradict plain history. Letters to Dechamps. One or two quotations from the Acts of the sixth Council will best reveal what the Church thought which condemned Honorius. The Council said, Sess. xiii. : ** We, taking into consideration the " dogmatic Epistles which were written by Sergius, Patriarch of " the Imperial City (Constantinople at that time), both to Cyrus, " who was the Bishop of Phasis, and also to Honorius, Pope of " Old Rome, and likewise the Epistle in reply from him, that is, " Honorious, to the aforesaid Sergius, and finding them to be in " all respects alien from Apostolic doctrine, and from the defi- " nitions of the Sacred Synods, and of all the Fathers of repute, " but following the false doctrines of the heretics, we wholly reject " thern, and pronounce them accursed as hurtful to souls. '^^ * * " With these, we have provided that Honorius, who was Pope of " Old Rome, be cast out of the Holy Catholic Church of God, and '^ be anathematized, because we have found, by the writings which " he addressed to Sergius, that he followed his opinion in all re- " spects and affirmed his impious tenets.^^ In another place, after much the same preamble, they anathe- matize Honorius : " Since we find in his letters to Sergius that he " follows in all respect his error, and authorises his impious doc- 'Uriner Sess. XVI. — occur the words " Anathema to Theodore the her- " etic, anathema to Sergius the heretic, anathema to Cyrus the " heretic, anathema to Honorius the heretic, anathema to Pyrrhus " the heretic." Sess. XVII. — we read, " But since there has never, from the " beginning, ceased to be an inventor of evil, who found the ser- "pent to help him, and thereby brought poisoned death on man- " kind, and so finding suitable tools for his own purpose, — we " mean Theodorus, * * * and also Honorius, who was Pope "of Old Rome." 90 Appe7idix. These decrees were signed, without any objection being raised, by the legates of the Pope Agatho, and by all the 165 Bishops present. The anathema of Honorius was expressly repeated in the let- ter of the Council to the Emperor, and in its other letter to Pope Agatho, both signed by the Pope's legates. Next, Leo II., Agatho's successor, wrote to the Emperor on May 7, 683 A. D., a formal letter in which he says, amidst much else : " We likewise anathematize the inventors of the new error ; ** that is, Theodore, * * * Sergius, * * * and also Honorius, who " did not keep this Apostolic Church pure with the doctrine of "Apostolic tradition, but endeavoured to overthrow the unspotted ^* faith by his prof ane betray aV None of these, we see, charge Honorius with mere negligence, but with positive error. Again, Leo II. renewed this anathema in his letter to the Span- ish Bishops, inviting them to accept synodically the decrees of the Council, in which he tells them that " Honorius is danmed to all eternity r Le Page Renouf, a Roman writer, has drawn attention to a fact which quite disposes of the plea that the sixth Council con- demned Honorius in ignorance. At the fourth session of the Lateran Council, held only eleven years after the death of Hono- rius (viz., A.D. 649), under Pope Martin I., in a dogmatic letter from Paul, the Patriarch of Constantinople (who was condemned as a heretic), Paul claimed Sergius and Honorius as teaching the same heresy as himself. Labb6 Cone, Tom vi. col. 227. Both Pope and Council heard this read, and not a word of contradiction was offered; " a sure sign," says Renouf, " that the cause of Honorius was no longer held to be defensible." Honorius' name appeared in the Breviaries among the heretics till the sixteenth century : his name was then omitted in new edi- tions, and many of the old manuscript copies were mutilated with a knife. That rather looks as though the Ultramontanes of those days thought his condemnation made against Papal Infallibility. Church Quarterly Review, Vol. viii. p. 20. It may be well here to observe that in the most authoritative modern defence of Honorius, most of tlie old positions are for- saken. Pennacchi's treatise " De Honorii, etc." which appeared at Rome in 1870, and was sent to all the Bishops of the Vatican Council, is fortified by two important " tiihil obstats " and two " im- primaturs," and is moreover recommended by Cardinal Manning to his clergy. Pennacchi, by his admissions, completely cuts away the ground from under the feet of the majority of his co-apolo- gists. He admits the genuineness of all the documents once called in question. He admits that Honorius wrote his letters to Sergius, Appendix, 91 not as a private person, but as Pope, with all the authority which that position could give him ; that they were constantly appealed to by Monothelites in support of their heresy; that Honorius was actually condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the sixth Council in precisely the same sense as the other Monothelite here- tics were condemned. He admits that the distinction between the Pope speaking as Pope ex cathedrCi and as a private person is of modern invention. He admits that language occurs in the Epistles of Honorius which, had they been ivrittcn by a heretic, nothing in the world could save from being accounted undoubtedly heretical. (" Siquidem si Epistolae Honorii, a Monothelitis scriptse sunt, ab haeresi excusari non possunt " ). But he avoids the conclusion which would naturally be drawn from this, by taking for granted that Honorius was not a heretic, and that therefore the language of his letters cannot be heretical. Fallacies and assumptions, to a very large extent, do duty for arguments and proofs. He attempts to establish three points : 1. That the letters of Honorius are not, as a fact, heretical, /. ron()unced, taken exclusively of a (ieneral Council, on accept- ance by the Church, oblige none under pain of heresy to interior aaseni.' " It is hardly necessary to say that this is the direct and formal contradict- ory of the Vatican dogma. 'Prop. XV. • Nor do Catholics, as Catholics, believe that the I'ope has any direct or indirect authority over the temporal concerns of States or the jurisdiction of Princes. Hence, should the Pope pretend to absolve, or to dispense His Majesty's sulyects from their allegiance, on account of tiereay or schism, such dispensation they would view us frivolous and null.' " This is a direct contradiction of the twenty-third Proposition of the Syllabus and indirectly contravenes several others. And now we are in a position to gauge the value of Mgr. Capel's truly marvellotis assertion that 'the extracts given in the chapters, "The Primacy of 8t. Peter," and "The Primacy of the Successors of St. Peter," ftilly uphold this [V^atican] decision.' He shows his discretion certainly in not undertaking to cite any fresh extracts for his purpose, for the merest tyro in Church history knows that a passage in favour of Papal Infallibility professing to come from any Council or Father of the first five centuries would at once betray itself as a self-evident anach- ronism. But a writer must be allowed to have the courage of what we must charitably presume to be his opinion, when he gravely refers his readers for the proof of Papal Infallibility to a collection of extracts put together for a wholly different purpose by compilers who, on the strength of those same authorities, expressly repudiate it. They have placed at the close of these same two chap- ters, on the Primacy of St. Peter and of his Successors, which according to Mgr. Capel 'fully u|)hold ' Papal Infallibility, and as apart of a summary of their contents, the proposition qtioted just now, declaring it to be 'no article of Catholic faith.' It is open to him of course, if he pleases, to argue for the doctrine (m other grounds, but to base it on testimonies of the first five centuries, a thousand years before it was ever heard of, cited in the very work he is editing partly with the avowed object of disproving it, can only be re- garded as a very simple or a very sul)tle application of the principle of contraries. There is a river in Monmouth and a river in Macedon, and Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility both have to do with the Pope; ergo to prove his primacy is to i)rove his infallibility. Q. E. D. To be sure, Berington and Kirke did not go qtiite so far as Archbishop Hamilton, the last Roman Catholic Primate of Scotland and Papal Legate, whose elaborate and extremely interesting Catechism — going over much the same ground as the Tridentine Catechisnms ad Parochos — has just been republished with a preface by Mr. Gladstone. For not only does he make no single mention of the Pope from beginning to end of what professes to be a minute and detailed exposition of Catholic doctrine, but he concludes a long chapter on the rights and functions of bishops and priests with the significant remark that, ' as for other orders and dignities of the Church, we think them not necessary to be expounded to you, because the knowledge of them makes not much to your edification.' The Faith of Catholics, as we have seen, does include a recog- nition of Papal Primacy, but mentions Papal Infallibility only to reject it. Yet this is the work deliberately presented to ' the people of the United States,' in order to convince them of the doctrine it neither proves nor admits. Mgr. Capel must after all have formed a rather poor opinion of theiy ' quick intelligence,' if he seriously expects them to swallow so portentous a para- Appendix. 95 dox ; and if he has managed to swallow it himself, the less said of his own *(iuick intelligence' the better. To append to such a work a translation of the Vatican decrees betrays, to say the least, a defective sense of humor. To all classical scholars it must inevitably recall the famous lloratian adage — probably not familiar to the editor — of the too ambitious painter who sur- mounted a human body with a horse's neck. We have no intention of entering on a controversial discussion of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. But we may venture to recommend to Mgr. Capel's notice, before he again volunteers his services as a Vatican apologist, a treatise on the Pontifical Dccreea against the Doctrine of the Earth's Moreineitt and the Ultramontane Defence of them, just republished with a new and very instructive Intro- duction by its author, the Kev. W. Roberts, formerly 'a Priest of t!ie Pro- vince of Westminster,' and who has not, so far as we are aware, renotmced his orders or his creed. It proves to demonstration, for all who can appre- hend that two and two make four, how fatally Papal Infallibility committed itself through and through in the sixteenth century, by the formal condem- nation of Galileo's * heresy,' that the Earth moves round the Sun, to the proposition that the Corpernican astronomy — which no Roman Catholic now dreams of disputing — 'is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.' Whether Papal Infalli- bility is true in any sense or in no sense, is a problem we may be content td leave to the ingenuity of theological experts; that, if it be true in any but the most highly sublimated and * non-natural ' sense, the annual rotation of the earth is a scientific falsehood and a doctrinal heresy, is a point not open to reasonable dispute. But the courage which essays to detect proof of the Vatican dogma in a work compiled to prove inter alia that ' it is no article of Catholic faith,' may perhaps prove equal to the ettbrt of discovering a fresh confirmation of it in the circumstance that, on a question of world-wide interest and notoriety, papal inerrancy was convicted of a very grave mistake." ■ F. — V?^^ 48. From Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Vol. I. p. 665. The title "father of fathers" was sometimes assigned to eminent bishops. In one place it is given to the Apostle Paul {quaest. ad Orthodox, c. 119, apud Justin Mart, opp.) Athanasius {ad Solitar. Vit. Agent, c. i), speaks of Hosius as being by universal consent called the "father of bishops." Gregory Nazianzen {Orat. 19; De Funeb : Patr. § 44), says that his lather was called " the father of all bishops." Gregory the Great {Epist. vi.), addresses Lupres of Troyes as "father of fathers, bishop of bishops." In a letter from the African bishops which was read at the ist Lateran Coun- cil, at the close of the Episde, Theodore, Bishop of Rome, is styled "father of fathers." In a letter read at the 6th Council of Con- stantinople (Act 13), Sergius is addressed in the same manner. At the 2nd Council of Nice, A.D. 787 (Act 6). Gregory Nyssen is said to have been called "father of fathers" by universal consent. See also what St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, says of himself. Appendix I. rrtsssm 96 Appendix, . G. Quotations referred to on page 48. A. D. 325. Constantine's letter to the Church of Alexandria. Socrates i. 9. "By the suggestion of God I summoned to Nicaea most of the bishops, with whom I myself also, who am but one of you. and who rejoice exceedingly in being your fellow servant, undertook the investigation of the truth." A. D. 325. Synodical letter of the Council of Nice. Socrates i, 9. " Since by the grace of God, and the favored- of-God King Constantine, collecting us from different cities and provinces, the great and holy Synod was celebrated at Nice." Socrates i. 8., says '* When therefore the Emperor beheld the Church unsettled by both these causes (/. e. Arianism and the Easter question) he convoked a General Council, summoning all the bishops by letter to meet him at Nice." After naming the celebrities present, and the names of their various countries, he adds: "Such a crown, composed as a bond of peace, the Emperor Constantine alone has ever dedicated to Christ his Saviour, as a thank-offering worthy of God for victory over his enemies, having appointed this convocation among us in imitation of the apostolic assembly," Sozomen i, 17. "Constantine jailed together a Synod at Nice in Bithynia and wrote to the superintendents of the Churches in every country, directing them to be there on an appointed day," His (the Emperor's) hopes were frustrated by the result of this undertaking {i. : "A lavish increase of clerical plant, both in staff and buildings, (Continues to be made year by year," * * * * this is the case " even in neighbourhoods where there is no present demand for them, on the same principle as railways are made in the United States, through uninhabited regions, in the hope that they may draw settlers." Timorous persons are apt to see in this a sign of achieved successes — but they wrongly judge. Not only do statistics prove it a sham, but it is confessed to be so by a Roman Catholic peer, Lord Braye, who has been sharply rebuked by the Tablet for his imprudent admissions. " Is there any re- ligious body in the country," says he, "where so much fine energy is wasted ? Learned priests without any one to buy their learned books ; aged professors with two pupils apiece ; a dozen large colleges, when one public school would be sufficient; dioceses with scarce a parish priest to a county. What is the use, under these foggy circumstances, of building great churches in a place where you hardly get a server for Mass ? * * * * We are a small body, and poor. A convert from the middle class is unknown." — The Present State of the Church in England, by Lord Braye, London, 1884. See also Mgr. Capel's admission, Letter IV., Part 3. I. — Page 46. '. Capel, on p. 30 of his pamphlet on the tide " Catholic," m , ,s St. Cyprian as saying : " He who holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, he ivho abandons the Chair of Peter, upon ivhom the Church wu^ founded, does he feel confi- dent that he is the Church ? " The italicized words are one of the almost innumerable interpolations and forgeries of all sorts by which Roman parti zans have attempted to make the ancient wit- Appendix. 99 nesses lisp the modern shibboleth. — vSee Baluze's note in Bene- dictine edition. Mgr. Capel reviewed by Rev. J. H. Hopkins, p. 41. Mgr. Capel, in his Rejoinder to Hopkins, p. 48, writes : " St. Cyprian, writing to the Pope St. Cornelius, says, — ' For this has been the very source whence heresies and schisms have taken their rise, that obedience is not paid to the priest of God, nor do they reflect that there is for the time one High Priest in the Church, and one judge for the time in Christ's stead ; whom if THE WHOLE BROTHERHOOD WOULD OBEY ACCORDING TO THE Divine injunctions, no one would stir in anything against the College of Prelates." — Ep. lix. 6. The italics, and especially the small capitals, show the high value and authority which Monsignor attaches to these words. He has taken it at second hand, as so many others have done before him, and doubtless in good faith has applied St. Cyprian's remarks to the Bishop of Rome. But when one refers to the original, dne finds that St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, is actually speaking of himself, and of the consequences of anywhere setting up in a See a schismatical bishop against the true one ! " This is amusing enough ! " says Dr. Hopkins. But if those words vteafit the modern Papal idea when they were thought to be spoken of the Pope, why not let them mean the same thing — for surely the same words ought to mean the same thing — when spoken of St. Cyprian ? Then we should have a clear testimony that the Bishop of Carthage was the " one High Priest," the " one Judge in Christ's stead," whom the whole brotherhood " must obey according to the Divine injunctions ; " we should have to con- fess the Bishop of Carthage Pope at that time, in place of the Bishop of Rome. This criticism is summarized from Dr. Hopkins' Rejoinder to Mgr. Capel in 7^he American Church Review for January, 1885, p. 214. " Cleophas " must in future be careful to verify his quotations drawn from Mgr. Capel's books. K. — Pagers. Whether or not it be due to some general order, the habit of romancing about their Church is growing among Roman Catho- lics. Occasionally we meet with minds too honest to be content with a fools' paradise, and who will not obey the order to conceal the real state of things. Two important revelations have lately issued from the press of France and Italy, from devout Roman Catholic Priests — the French Abb^ Roca and C. M. Curci. The latter has been already mentioned in my letters. lOO Appendix, Both writers assert that the civil society, against which the Vatican has declared war, is more moral, more religious, more interpenetrated with Christian ideas and governed by Christian maxims than the Vaticanist Church itself, although fully admitting that those who are so influenced by Christianity are often unaware of it, and recognize not the source of the principles on which they act. The Abb6 Roca has travelled much, and has laid before the Pope and the Roman Catholic world at large, the results of labo- riously collected facts during an enquiry extending over fourteen years amongst the Roman Catholics of Europe and America. He says that although the Latin Church claims two hundred millions of adherents, that number, even were it not grossly exaggerated^ is most unsatisfactory, being but one-seventh of the population of the earth ; while in mere honesty, the younger generations hi all the Latin countries who are rushing out of the Church, and are at open war with the Vatican, even in Rome itself, should be left out of the reckoning. Everywhere he has seen the same marks of religious decay and degeneration, and, quoting the words of a dis- tinguished orator, " Through our fault, half the Church is leaving the Church at this moment," he adds, that the truth is, that not one-half, but nine-tenths of all Catholics are hastening away from Rome, never to return till reform has come. " If Ultramontanism were the only true form of religion, one would have to say that the whole world — that is, the world of thought and movement — is plunging into apostacy." * * * The only remedies forth- coming are thunders and the Syllabus, charges and allocutions, Peter's pence and pilgrimages. Sacred Hearts and Madonnas, jubilees and novenas, — all utterly useless. He appeals to Leo XHL for relief Failing that, he expresses his belief that in another fifty years there will be no Roman Catholics left except intellectual Cretins, or persons blinded by guilty self-interest. Such sentiments, he declares, are held by very many who are terrorized into silence ; nay, in the Congregation of the Index itself, there are several Prelates who think as he does. Amongst the reforms he suggests, are — 1. A far less sensuous ceremonial of the Church, 2. The abolition of such frauds as La Salette and Lourdes. At the former place, he tells us, he was himself at one time de- ceived, with five hundred others, into proclaiming a mirac' 'hich afterwards proved to be a swindle. 3. Better discipline of clerical morals. " I say nothing of our celibacy," he remarks, " which has be- come universally ridiculous." He thinks that even where the clergy are living correct lives, their characters suffer from being isolated from the sacred shrine of family life. ** Priestly mar- i! Appendix. lOI riage," he says, " is the only remedy for all these evils, and that without prejudice to the true voluntary celibates, who are the flower of the clergy." He adds the significant remark, that nine- tenths of the clerics in penal servitude at Brest and Toulon have found their way thither in consequence of the working of the law of compulsory celibacy. 4. He advocates the abolition of the Jesuits and of the Mendi- cant Orders, and the training of the poor in cleanly ways. He says, that from personal experience he has observed, all the world over, when you come to a town with a population partly Roman Catholic and partly Protestant, you can always tell the former districts at once by their dirt, though dirt is contrary to the spirit of both Old and New Testaments. 5. He speaks of the evils wrought by withholding the Scrip- tures from the laity, and of the absence of the Gospel spirit in the sermons and other instructions offered by the clergy. He charges the whole Latin Church with having chanted the " glad tidings " of the Gospel to men on the notes of the De Pro- fundis and the Dies Ircz, by the glare of funeral torches and the flames of autos-da-fe; turning the Christian Hfe into death and Paradise into a place of sorrow and wailing unspeakable. He makes an earnest protest against the current theory of saintliness in the Latin Church, which he truly says is more allied to the nirvana of Buddhism than to the active virtues of the Gospel, and he complains that it produce^ an emasculate paganism sanctified with holy water and the scapular, rears devotees more like auto- mata than living men, and that is all. Then he draws a remark- able contrast between the Bible nations, as he calls them, and the nations of the Vatican. In the last 'Century, the Anglo-Saxons were a race of twelve millions. They have now 230,000,000 of subjects, and own one-third of the earth. The United States, no more important not long ago than Greece is now, count their fifty millions already; r>.nd expect to have three times that number in a century. Prussia, the Michigan of Europe, has become the first military power in the world, and that at the cost of Ultramontan- ism. On the other hand, the mighty Empire of Spain has sunk to the lowest place, and, as an indignant Spaniard cried, " The Inqui- sition, the monks and the priests have made it the Turkey of the West." France has lost her splendid American and Indian pos- sessions, and for her fair Rhine provinces has got in exchange the barren rocks of Savoy and the sandy plains of Algiers. Austria has become the vassal of Prussia ; and everywhere the races which have accepted Ultramontanism are the servants of those which have rejected it. Fr. Curci's survey is restricted to Italy. He points to the wide divorce between the Italian nation and the Church, the fatal indif- I02 Appendix. ference to religion wiiich prevails even among '' practising Catho- lics," the degraded and Pagan type of such popular beliefs and cults as do hold their ground, the crass ignorance and low moral tone of the mass of the clergy. Like the AbbC Roca, Fr. Curci considers the modern civilization with which the Vatican is at war to be fundamentally Christian, and the Vatican to be the enemy of Christianity itself in its attempts to suppress it, as it resisted earlier improvements. A false semblance of unity is maintained, he tells us, by means of an organized terrorism brought to bear on every Catholic, and especially every ecclesiastic, who ventures to speak his mind upon all these evils, but who in doing so virtu- ally dooms himself to temporal ruin. After supplying proof of the disasters wrought by the law of clerical celibacy (making the state of morals as bad as they were when the Committee of Car- dinals presented their terrible report to Paul III. in 1538), Fr. Curci suggests that for the honor of God and the good of souls, it would be well for the Church to make priestly marriage per- missible. It would be better, he says, to preserve the jewel of purity, set as it were in silver, than, while boasting that it is mounted in gold, to let it drop into the mire. The above remarks are either extracted or condensed from an able article in the Church Quarterly Reviezv, London, April, 1885, entitled " The Failure of Vaticanism," which should be widely read by all who are interested in the religious state of the world. 'L. — PageS9' Things were not much better in England about that time. In the latter half of the fifteenth century Archbishop Bourchier, of Canterbury, attempted some reform, and issued a commission for inquiring into the state of the morals and conduct of the clergy. An appalling picture is given us in Wilkins of clerical life in the Province. " Regulars had thrown off the habit of their order and " wore secular dress. Parish priests wandered loose and dissolute " through the Kingdom, giving themselves up to drinking bouts, " fornications, adulteries and other crimes, leaving all care of their " benefices, the buildings of which fell into dilapidation. * * * * " The younger clergy affected a foppish costume, with a sword ** and dagger dangling on one side, and an embroidered purse " hanging from a gilt girdle on the other. They wore * bolsters,' " doublets, and boots with pointed toes. They indulged in revel- " lings and drunkenness." Such were the charges made by the Primate against the clergy of his province. — Church Quarterly Review y April, 1884, p. 179. Appendix. 103 Gascoigne, an English priest of the fifteenth century, and Chancellor of Oxford, reveals the same state of things in his Theological Dtclzoftary — selected passages from which were given us from Oxford in 1881. Protesting against Papal indul- gences, he writes, " The men of our day say we need not be careful " against any sin, for if we sin we have no cause to fear, because " Rome is at our door, and very easily and quickly shall we get " pardon of our fault, and remission of all penalty, if we give " money to procure the Papal indulgence, and so they omit the "acts of true penitence and the acts of due righteousness." p. 118. Again (p. 91). "Oh, how often have I heard worldly and carnal livers say, boastingly, ' I fear not to rob men, to get gain as I please, to defraud widows and the poor ; for however badly I shall act I can get plenary remission of sin and of punishment by visiting such a Church, and by an offering of money.' " Shameful and shameless cupidity was rife, such as was exhibited in the Arch-diocese of York, when it was ordered by the Arch- bishop that none should be absolved, however penitent, who did not contribute a fitting sum to the fabric of the Cathedral Church (pp. 12J-123). He complains bitterly that the Popes used to sell English benefices and English sees, and to draw a large part of their revenue from this abuse. " I know it," he writes, " to be a thing commonly practised in England, that great and wealthy persons, never elected to any dignity in the Church, obtain from the King permission to accept a Papal provision of some dignity, and so by means of large sums of money sent to Rome, and by the Pope's provisions, become Bishops. In the same way others get to be Deans of Cathedrals." He exclaims, " Rome has been the principal wild boar to lay waste the vineyard of the Church by reserving to itself the elec- tion of Bishops, so as not to give an Episcopal Church to any save they first pay the annates, or first-fruits of the Church." The absolute paralysis of all discipline, caused by vexatious interference of the Roman Curia at every turn of ecclesiastical life, so as to secure gain, was, throughout the middle ages, the principal cause of the corruption and utter weakness into which the Church of England fell. In a sermon on the Streams of Babylon he laments that seven mighty evils, like seven streams, drown many in sins and punish- ments — the streams being atrocious ecclesiastical abuses finding support from Rome. He draws a heart-rending picture of the luxury, indolence and corrupt life of the clergy of all ranks, and of its baneful effect upon the laity. Church Quarterly Review, A^rW, i%St^. Article, " Gascoigne's Theological Dictionary." ' : T' 104 Appefidix. M. — Page 60. From T/ic CJnirch Press, N. Y., June 13, 1885: "Church Work in Cuba. — The Bishop of Florida has issued a report of his second visitation of our Missions in Cuoa. It is an interesting document, and will repay perusal. As an introduction to this report, the Bishop men- tions a few facts which he would ' especially emphasize' before the Church. The first is the earnest and universal desire of the masses of the people in all parta of the island for the establishment of our services. Tn Cuba, a: in other Central and South American States inhabited by the Latin race, they are tired and disgusted with the priesthood and whole characteristic system of the Church of Rome. * * * * We have full toleration in Cuba, with the prayerful importunities of the people everywhere for our services. * * * ■•«■ The Cubans want our Church, and if they can get it v ' have nothing else. * * * * Still another encouraging feature of our work is the number of young men of good education, the highest respectability, and devout disposi- tions, who are oftiering themselves for the ministry ; so that if the work goes on we will have in a few years a native ministry of our own training, instead of passd and renegade Koman priests to serve our congregations." The following account from Church and Home gives some idea of how many are forsaking Romanism for the healthier atmosphere of the English Church : " Hisiiop Young reached Havana February 24, 1885, and was met by dele- gations from five vestries. Only two missionaries of our Church are actively engaged in these missions, the Kev. Juan B. Baez, presbyter, and Mr. Albert Diaz, lay render. But the result of their labors is very wonderful, as shown by the Bishop's visitation, when congregations were crowded to discomfort, the interest very great, and confirmation classes exceedingly large. In Geth- semane Chapel, Havana, March 1, eighty were confirmed. At Guanabacoa, six miles east of Havana, March 4, the chapel was full of people, the street full and almost crushing into the building, restrained with difficulty by police- men. Ninety-six received the ' laying on of hands,' and fbrty others were prevented from receiving the rite, being unable to n)ake their way through the crowd to the chancel rail. On Sunday, March 8, seventy-four were con- firmed in Mantanzas. Altogether three hundred and twenty-five were con- firmed in six congregations. Last year one hundred and sixteen were cor- firmed in two congregations." That is a total of 441 confirmed. How many came over already confirmed is not recorded. N. — Page 6j. The Pope and the Irish R. C. Clergy. — A correspondent of the St. James's Gazette , May, 1885, writes : " Private letters from Rome inform me that the Pope has expressed himself very strongly regarding the conduct of the Irish clergy when the Prince of Wales visited Dublin. The Holy Father says it is a disgrtice to the Church that the Bishops and Priests were the one only corporate body in the country that did -iiof send a deputation to welcome H. R- H. He says truly enough that whereas under the British rule the Church enjoys far more liberty of action than under any other Government in Europe, and is never interfered witii in any Appendix. 105 way, the Irwh prelates and priests ouglit to have seized the opportunity of shewing their loyalty ; whereas they have held aloof, and have tacitly shewn their approbation of what the avowed revolutionists in Ireland are doing. There are now in Rome a number of Irish Bishops ; and it is rei)orted in clerical circles that Leo XIII. intends sjieaking very plainly to them respect- ing their duties to the Government under which they live, before they return to their own country ; and it is by no means improbable that at Whitsuntide he may issue a pastoral letter on the subject." O. — Preface. The answers referred to are mostly disposed of in the fore- going letters to "Cleophas" and "Veritas," but among them appeared the following astounding solution of Ques. 4, page i : " Owing to the hatred against Christians, St. Paul, like the Apos- " ties and all early Christian writers, were reticent about persons, " not wishing to expose them to danger." A manuscript reply was sent to this, showing that the writer — to take the most charitable view of the matter — must have been lamentably ignorant of the New Testament Epistles, and guilty of an astonishing anachronism, since St. Paul's Epistles are crowded with names, merely in kindly salutations, which did not expose their owners to danger, because the times of severe persecution had not yet arrived when the Epistles were written, and which did make sub- Apostolic writers careful to avoid mention of names. The references given in proof of this statement were — Corinthians — Fifteen names mentioned and one household. Colossians — Ten names and one household. 2 Timothy— ^Sixteen names. Romans — Thirty-seven names — three congregations and two households. From these it appears that the letter in which the Apostle ought to have been most " reticent about persons," as being addressed to St. Peter's Church, situated in the place which soon became a chief centre of violent persecutions, is the very one selected by St. Paul wherein to catalogue the names of converts. It contains the most gratuitous mention of the names of twenty-nine persons in Rome, two of note among the Apostles (xvi. 7), of three Churches or assemblies which were wont to meet at certain of the larger private oratories, and two households, while at the same time mention is made of the names of eight persons sending greetings. In some instances, St. Paul actually mentions the occupations of the Christians named. So that it was certainly very cruel of St. Paul, if what the Roman writer says be correct, to hand over so many excellent Christians to the executioner from mere gaiety of heart in sending greetings, while he was too concerned for St. Peter's safety to give the slighest hint of his presence or work among them.