S<2 . 
 
 •fP 
 
1 
 

 
CONTROVERSIAL 
 
 CATECHISM. 
 
 OR 
 
 SHORT ANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS 
 OF PROTESTANTS AGAINST THE 
 TRUE RELIGION. 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REY. CH. DALLET, Miss. Apost. 
 
 Of the Society of Foreign Missions. 
 
 Ready always to satisfy every one that asketh yon a 
 reason of that hope which is in you. — 1 Peter, ch. 3, v. 15. 
 
 FIFTH EDITION. 
 
 BANGALORE : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE SPECTATOR PRESS. 
 
 1894 
 
 [With the approbation of the Superiors.] 
 
PRINTED BY H. W. OLLEPF, SPECTATOR PRESS, BANGALORE. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 Numberless books and treatises have been written 
 on the subject of religious controversy, and many 
 of these are deservedly popular. For the most part, 
 however, they suppose in the reader a greater 
 amount of information about religious matters 
 than is generally to be found amongst Christians 
 in this country. Some are so diffuse, and conse- 
 quently so expensive, as to be above the reach of 
 the greater number ; while in others a few special 
 questions only are explained and elucidated, or if 
 the whole is given, it is in so concise a form that 
 the abbreviated and sometimes garbled arguments 
 fail to produce conviction in the mind of the 
 superficial reader. 
 
 The compiler of the following pages has been 
 several years in India, ministering to the spiritual 
 wants of European, East Indian and Native Catho- 
 lic communities, and numerous cases have repeated- 
 ly urged upon him the conviction, that few of thp 
 controversial books hitherto published are adapted 
 to the general state of education and religious 
 instruction amongst the Christians of India. 
 
 An exposition of the faith of the Catholic Church 
 on every controverted point, short, clear, easily 
 understood and easily remembered, unburdened 
 with useless questions, disentangled from any 
 ambitious show of learning, and at the same time 
 withholding no necessary explanation, leaving no 
 objection unanswered, seemed to be still wanting. 
 
 I do not lay any claim to authorship. A cate- 
 chism is not a work of imagination, as a novel. 
 
11 
 
 The Catholic truth and the victorious arguments 
 on which it is established are the common property 
 of all. I have therefore carefully read and 
 thoroughly examined many controversial books ; 
 I have weighed the different answers, compared 
 them with the standard works of the great Catholic 
 divines, and as often as I have found anything 
 useful to my purpose, I have appropriated it, 
 sometimes verbatim , without taking the childish 
 trouble of changing words when nothing else had 
 to be changed. 
 
 Amongst the authors to whom I am more in- 
 debted, I must specially mention the Rev. 8. 
 Keenan, whose Controversial Catechism has 
 passed through many editions, and fully deserves 
 its success. Had the learned author given more 
 attention to setting his questions and answers in a 
 logical order, his book would undoubtedly be ac- 
 counted by all one of the best ever published. 
 
 In this as in every other controversial treatise, 
 the often recurring word “ Protestants ” must 
 generally be understood of doctrines and not of 
 persons. I make this remark, because the severe 
 and too justly deserved condemnation passed on 
 the opinions, cannot, in many cases, apply to those 
 who support them. Every one knows that there 
 are many honourable and liberal-minded Protes- 
 tants, far too good for the faith they hold, or are 
 supposed to hold. 
 
 I have sometimes given in a general way, as the 
 dootrines or opinions of Protestants, what are pro- 
 perly the peculiar tenets of some sect or other. 
 This could not be avoided. It would have been 
 useless, perhaps impossible, to point out the actual 
 teaching of the different sects. Protestants them- 
 selves would be at a loss how to state precisely 
 what they admit or deny, with whom and how far 
 they agree or disagree in matters of religion. The 
 
Ill 
 
 material point was to explain away every objection, 
 whether made by Lutherans, Calvinists, by Dissen- 
 senters or Anglican Churchmen. 
 
 I offer this Controversial Catechism to Protest- 
 ants as well as to Catholics. 
 
 To Protestants, because very few amongst them 
 know the Catholic faith. Brought up in an er- 
 roneous creed, victims of early prejudices, continu- 
 ally deceived by misrepresentations, they generally 
 accept without inquiry the ready-made opinion of 
 their teachers or countrymen, and rest satisfied with 
 a few cant phrases about Catholic ignorance and 
 Catholic superstition. It has been very justly 
 remarked that if Protestants knew our faith as it 
 is, half of them would turn Catholics to-morrow. 
 I am perfectly aware that few men have been 
 reasoned out of their religion. I trust, however, 
 that should any Protestant take the trouble of 
 reading this little book, his prejudices will be shaken 
 and his return to the true Church made easier. 
 
 I offer it to Catholics, because many of them 
 want to be strengthened in their faith. The long 
 duration of the Church has been one perpetual 
 struggle against heresy. But in this country, now- 
 a-days, the assault seems more furious than any- 
 where else. All the abuses, the lies, the calumnies, 
 the slanders, that the most hellish hatred could 
 imagine against Catholicism during three hundred 
 years, are printed and printed again. No accusa- 
 tion however false, no objection however ridiculous, 
 no absurdity however glaring, but is supported 
 with some misapplied texts of Scripture, in tracts 
 showered by millions all over the land. And when, 
 as is generally the case, bibles, tracts, books, dis- 
 cussions, abuses, etc., come to nothing, other 
 means of seduction are brought into play. The 
 destitute are bought up with ready money, the 
 ambitious are bribed into apostasy with promises 
 
IV 
 
 of preferment, and, what is more shameful, some- 
 times the poor servant is persecuted with unre- 
 mitting obstinacy by a fanatical preaching master. 
 They succeed now and then, but everybody knows 
 what sort of characters leave us to join them. 
 They are welcome indeed to clear away from our 
 congregations such rubbish. 
 
 To every attempt at seduction in the shape of 
 arguments or texts of Scripture, Catholics will 
 find in this Catechism a clear and decisive answer ; 
 other temptations they must spurn with the utmost 
 contempt, for what does it 'profit a man if he gain 
 the whole world , and suffer the loss of his own 
 soul? [St. Matt., ch. 16, v. 26.] 
 
 Before taking leave of the reader, I beg his 
 indulgence for the stiffness of style, and the num- 
 erous faults of every kind which, despite my best 
 endeavours, point out but too plainly that these 
 pages are the work of a foreigner. If I have pre- 
 sumed too far, my only excuse is my earnest wish 
 to be useful to the Christians of India. 
 
 May the Almighty Founder of the one true 
 Catholic Church bestow His blessing on this little 
 book ! Were it instrumental in strengthening the 
 faith of one hesitating Catholic, or in bringing 
 back one poor wandering soul to the true fold, I 
 should consider my labours as amply rewarded. 
 
 Bangalore, November 1859. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 The three former editions of this Catechism have 
 been received by the Catholics of India with un- 
 hoped for favour. In this fourth edition which, 
 owing to various untoward circumstances, has been 
 long delayed, I have done my best to render the 
 work less and less unworthy of the public approval. 
 In consequence, the book, which had already, in 
 the preceding editions, undergone a thorough re- 
 visal, has been read and sifted over and over again ; 
 some questions have been set in a better order; 
 many answers have been amended and simplified ; 
 various important additions, — on the truths defined 
 by the Vatican Council, on the charges brought 
 against the Church, now-a-days, in the name of 
 what they call modern civilization and progress, 
 etc., etc., have been introduced; and now I present 
 it somewhat enlarged and, I hope, much improved. 
 
 Let no one mistake the spirit in which this book 
 has been written. It is not a spirit of strife and 
 contention, but a spirit of sincere charity, that all 
 may be freed from the shackles of error, that all 
 may be shown the right and secure way to salva- 
 tion, u that they may know thee , the only true God, 
 and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” [St. John, 
 ch. 1 7, v. 3.] There are few Protestants but 
 have, at times, felt in their inmost heart some 
 doubt as to the truth and safeness of their religious 
 tenets. To every one of them, how heartily I 
 wish I could say; “ Brother, it is hard for thee to 
 kick against the gofrd,” to shut up thy eyes to the 
 truth, to keep, for worldly considerations, out of 
 
Y1 
 
 the true fold, to debar thyself of the grace-pro- 
 ducing sacraments; “the Lord Jesus hath sent me, 
 that thou mayest receive thy sight , and befitted 
 with the Holy Ghost ” [Acts, ch. 9, v. 5, 17.] 
 
 July 1875. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Reasons for studying Religious Controversy ... 1 
 
 PART I. 
 
 What is Heresy ? 
 
 CHAPTER I. Nature and Causes of all Heresies. 
 
 1. The General Characters of all Heresies ... 5 
 
 2. The Chief Heresies from the beginning of the 
 
 Church down to Luther’s time 8 
 
 3. Why God has permitted so many Heresies ... 11 
 
 CHAPTER II. Protestantism. 
 
 1. What is Protestantism ? ... ... ... ... 13 
 
 2. When and how was Protestantism Established J6 
 
 3. Luther 19 
 
 4. Calvin 24 
 
 5. The Founders of the Church of England ... 28 
 
 6. The Authors of the Reformation were not men 
 
 of God 31 
 
 7. The Reformation was not the work of God ... 34 
 
 8. The Actual State of Protestantism ... ... 37 
 
 9. On Conversions and Apostasies 41 
 
 PART II. 
 
 The Rule of Faith. 
 
 CHAPTER I. The True Church of Christ is the 
 Infallible Rule of Faith. 
 
 1 . Which is the True Rule of Faith 50 
 
 2. The Protestant Rules of Faith 51 
 
 3. Holy Script u*re privately interpreted has never 
 
 been the Rule of Faith... 52 
 
 4. Holy Scripturo privately interpreted cannot be 
 
 the Rule of Faith 56 
 
 5. God never intended the Bible privately inter- 
 
 preted to be the Rule of Faith ... ... 59 
 
 6. Protestants do not follow Scripture as their only 
 
 Rule of Faith .... ... 63 
 
 7. Jesus Christ has established his Church to be 
 
 the infallible Rule of Faith 64 
 
Till 
 
 Page 
 
 CHAPTER II. The Catholic Church is the True 
 Church op Christ. 
 
 1. What are the Marks to distinguish the true 
 
 Church from all ot’ er Sects ? 69 
 
 2. The True Church must be One. Which is the 
 
 One Church ? 71 
 
 3. The True Church must be Holy. Which is the 
 
 Holy Church ? 74 
 
 4. The True Church must be Catholic , that is, 
 
 Universal. Which is the Catholic Church?... 79 
 
 5. The True Church must be Apostolic. Which is 
 
 the Apostolic Church ? ... ... ... ... 83 
 
 6. The True Church can never be Invisible ... 88 
 
 7. Nobody can be saved out of the Catholic Church 89 
 
 CHAPTER III. From the Church only we can 
 have the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 1. What is the Bible. 92 
 
 2. The Authority of Scripture 94 
 
 3. Protestants cannot be sure of the Inspiration of 
 
 Scripture ... ... ... ... ... ... 97 
 
 4. Protestants cannot know with certainty which 
 
 books are Canonical 99 
 
 5. Protestants cannot be certain that their trans- 
 
 lations of the Bible are correct ... ... 102 
 
 6. Protestants cannot know with certainty the 
 
 true meaning of the Holy Scriptures 106 
 
 7. The Reading of Scripture 109 
 
 CHAPTER IV. From the Church only we can 
 have the True Tradition. 
 
 1. The Authority of Tradition 114 
 
 2. Protestant Objections Answered 118 
 
 3. The various Channels of Tradition 121 
 
 CHAPTER Y. The Head of the Church. 
 
 1. Saint Peter has been established by Jesus 
 
 Christ the Head of the Church ... ... 124 
 
 2. The Pope, Successor of St. Peter, is the Head 
 
 of the Church 128 
 
 3. The Power and Nature of the Pope’s Primacy 133 
 
 4. The Infallibility of the Pope 136 
 
 5. The Temporal Power of the Pope 140 
 
 6. Protestants directly contradict Scripture, when 
 
 they say that the Pope is Antichrist... ... 143 
 
IX 
 
 PART III. 
 
 Vindication op Catholic Dogmas and Practices. 
 
 Page 
 
 CHAPTER I. The Veneration and Invocation op 
 Saints. 
 
 1. The True Catholic Doctrine on the Veneration 
 
 of Angels and Saints ... ... ... ... 147 
 
 2. The True Catholic Doctrine on the Invocation 
 
 of Angels and Saints ... 
 
 • •• 
 
 ... 158 
 
 3. Miracles in the Catholic Church 
 
 
 ... 164 
 
 4. Relics and Pilgrimages 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 168 
 
 5. The H oly Images 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 172 
 
 6. The Canonization of the Saints 
 CHAPTER II. .The Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 
 ... 179 
 
 1. The true Catholic Doctrine on the Veneration 
 
 and Invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary... 186 
 
 2. Protestants deny Scripture, when they refuse 
 
 to honour the Blessed Virgin Mary 192 
 
 3. The Blessed Virgin Mary was ever a Virgin ... 199 
 
 4. The Immaculate conception of the Blessed 
 
 Virgin Mary ... ... ... ... ... 201 
 
 5. Why Protestants do not love and honour the 
 
 Blessed Virgin Mary 207 
 
 CHAPTER III. 1 he Justification of the Sinner. 
 Faith and Works. 
 
 1. What is Justification 213 
 
 2. Faith alone is not sufficient to justify the Sinner 215 
 
 3. The necessity of good works more fully proved 
 
 by scripture ... ... ... ... ... 218 
 
 4. Various Protestant errors regarding Justifi- 
 
 cation 222 
 
 CHAPTER IV. The Sacraments in General, 
 
 1. How many are the Sacraments of the New Law 226 
 
 2. Effects produced by the Sacraments 229 
 
 3. The Minister of the Sacraments 232 
 
 4. The Ceremonies used in the Administration of 
 Sacraments, and principally the Sign of the Cross 234 
 
 CHAPTER V. Baptism and Confirmation. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Baptism 239 
 
 2. Infants’ Baptism 241 
 
 3. The Ceremonies of Baptism ... ... ... 245 
 
 4. The Sacrament of Confirmation 246 
 
X 
 
 Page 
 
 CHAPTER VI. The Holy Eucharist. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Eucharist ... 249 
 
 2. First Scriptural Proof of the Real Presence — 
 
 The Promise 251 
 
 3. Second Scriptural Proof of the Real Presence — 
 
 The Institution 256 
 
 4. Third Scriptural Proof of the Real Presence — 
 
 The Figures of the Old Law 258 
 
 5. Fourth Scriptural Proof of the Real Presence — 
 
 The Preaching of St. Paul ... 261 
 
 6 Another Proof of the Real Presence — The Faith 
 
 of the early Church 263 
 
 7. Ano her Proof of the Real Presence — Schismatic 
 
 and Protestant Testimonies 265 
 
 8. Answers to Protestant Objections against the 
 
 Real Presence 268 
 
 9. The manner in which Jesus Christ is in the 
 
 Eucharist, or Transubstantiation 272 
 
 10. The Bread and Wine made use of in the Eu- 
 charist 274 
 
 11. The Worship of Christ in the Blessed Sacra- 
 
 ment ... ... ... ... 
 
 12. Communion under one kind 
 
 13. Mass a true Sacrifice ... ... 
 
 —14. Why the Mass is said in Latin 
 
 15. The Ceremonies of the Mass 
 
 277 
 
 280 
 
 284 
 
 291 
 
 295 
 
 CHAPTER VII. Penance. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Penance 298 
 
 2. Contrition ... 302 
 
 3. Confession 304 
 
 4. What Sins are to be confessed. Mortal and 
 
 Venial Sins 309 
 
 5. Satisfaction 313 
 
 6. Works of Penance. Fasting, Abstinence, etc. 417 
 
 7. Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead 321 
 
 8. Indulgences 326 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, 
 Matkimony. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction 331 
 
 2. The Sacrament of Holy Orders 333 
 
 3. The Celibacy of the Clergy, and the Monastic 
 
 life 336 
 
 4. Matrimony . ... 342 
 
xi 
 
 Page 
 
 CHAPTER IX. The pretended Identity op Cath- 
 olicism and Heathenism. 
 
 1. How Protestants try to establish this pretended 
 
 Identity 347 
 
 2. Necessity of an Exterior Worship 350 
 
 3. Objections answered ... ... ... ... 352 
 
 4. The Likeness of some Ceremonies explained by 
 
 the Origin of Idolatry 354 
 
 5. Is there anything Heathenish in the Feasts and 
 
 Ceremonies of the Catholic Church ? ... 357 
 
 CHAPTER X. Answers to some other Protestant 
 Charges. 
 
 1. The Catholic Church and Modern Civilization 364 
 
 2. Liberty of Conscience ... ... ... ... 368 
 
 “*3. Catholic and Protestant Intolerance 373 
 
 4. Catholic Faith and Modern Science ... ... 384 
 
 5. The Catholic Church and the Diffusion of Know- 
 
 ledge ... ... ... ... ... ... 389 
 
 6. Church and State. Origin of the Ecclesiastical 
 
 and of the Civil Power 398 
 
 7. Church and State. The Nature and Respective 
 
 Rights of the Two Powers 404 
 
 8. Church and State. Csesarism ... ... ... 411 
 
 9. Secret Societies ... ... ... ... ... 418 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 ... 425 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.CONTROVERSIAL 
 
 CATECHISM. 
 
 Reasons for Studying Religious 
 Controversy. 
 
 Question. Can there be more than one true 
 religion ? 
 
 Answer. No ; God, being truth itself, cannot 
 teach contradictory doctrines. There is but one 
 revelation made by him, and that revelation has 
 but one true meaning. 
 
 Q. What follows from it ? 
 
 A. That there is but one true Church of Jesus 
 Christ, since there is but one true religion estab- 
 lished by him ; that it is the duty of all men to join 
 that Church, and that the members of that Church 
 only are true Christians. 
 
 Q. What means the word “ Christian ?” 
 
 A. It means a disciple, or follower, of Jesus 
 Christ. That name is generally given to all persons 
 who have been baptized, no matter whether they 
 believe in Jesus Christ or not, whether they belong 
 to his true Church or to heretical sects. But such 
 an appellation is, in many cases, most improper, 
 because they only have a right to that glorious 
 title, who believe all the truths revealed by Jesus 
 Christ, and obey all his precepts. 
 
 Q. Why are there so many sects amongst 
 Christians ? 
 
 A. Men are naturally averse to every kind of 
 restraint ; and though the yoke of the Lord is sweet 
 
2 
 
 and his burden light , yet his faith, which imposes 
 on the mind the belief of incomprehensible 
 mysteries, is a yoke ; his moral law, which it is 
 sometimes so difficult and painful to obey, is a 
 burden. In every age and country, some have 
 tried to shake off that yoke, to throw away that 
 burden. Hence those sects of perdition, which, 
 established by fanaticism and violence, are kept up 
 afterwards by ignorance and habit. Successive 
 generations remain out of the true Church because 
 their forefathers have left it, and because a diabo- 
 lical system of misrepresentation prevents their 
 knowing it as it really is. How many thousands 
 of Protestants are there who firmly believe that we 
 Catholics adore the Saints and their images, that 
 we ignore the Scriptures, that we trust in our own 
 works and not in Christ, that we think the Pope 
 can give leave to commit sin, and such other 
 monstrous falsehoods ! 
 
 Q. What follows from the existence of so many 
 sects ? 
 
 A. It follows that discussions on the various 
 questions of religion are matters of inevitable 
 necessity, because the true religion and its dogmas 
 are ever impugned by those victims of passion, 
 prejudice, and error, — the schismatics, heretics, 
 and unbelievers. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics fear religious discussions ? 
 
 A. Far from it ; they eagerly solicit inquiry, 
 because they are fully aware that, the more their 
 doctrines are tried and examined, the stronger will 
 the conviction of their truth be in the mind of the 
 sincere inquirer. 
 
 Q. Must all Catholics be skilled in controversy ? 
 
 A. St. Peter says that we must be ready always 
 to satisfy every one that asketh ns a reason of that 
 hope which is in us. [1 Pet. ch. 3, v. 5.] Therefore, 
 
3 
 
 it is a duty for all to know the principal truths of 
 religion, and the fundamental proofs of the catholic 
 faith, as far as necessary to keep themselves from 
 any danger of perversion. And that duty is pecu- 
 liarly incumbent on those who are obliged to live 
 and converse with heretics, because otherwise they 
 expose themselves to the peril of being seduced into 
 heresy, and consequently into eternal damnation. 
 
 Let no one however misunderstand the 
 Apostle’s words, and imagine himself bound to go 
 fighting right and left, calling every one he meets 
 to account for his doctrines. Not at all. The war 
 all Catholics have to wage for their faith is a 
 merely defensive one. 
 
 As long as there is no attack, few only, and 
 in but few circumstances, have to assume the 
 offensive. The conversion of heretics and unbe- 
 lievers is the special work of the divine grace ; and 
 an experience as long as the existence of mankind 
 has proved that, as a rule, controversy is not paving 
 the way to the operation of the grace of God. 
 Whatever then may be, in any such case, the duty 
 of the pastors of souls, that of the laity is only to 
 pray for their erring brethren. 
 
 But, when the catholic faith is assaulted, the 
 case is widely different. A true-hearted son can- 
 not and will not permit his mother to be slighted, 
 ill treated and laughed at to his own face ; nor can 
 or will a true Catholic permit his religion to be 
 misrepresented and calumniated in his presence. 
 He must be ready always to satisfy every one , to 
 vindicate Christ and his Church to the utmost of 
 his power. Woe to him who should, out of worldly 
 considerations, keep silent, and be ashamed of 
 Christ before men , for Christ also shall be 
 ashamed of him before his Father . [St. Mark, ch. 
 
 8, v. 38.] 
 
PART I 
 
 WHAT IS HERESY? 
 
 In tiiis first part, I have collected a few preliminary notions 
 on the general characters of: all heresies, on the various 
 heresies that have troubled the peace of the Church since 
 the beginning, and principally on Protestantism, its founders, 
 its actual state, etc., etc. This short account, besides being 
 in itself an excellent refutation of Protestantism, will prepare 
 the reader’s mind the better to understand the theoretical 
 discussions that follow. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NATURE AND CAUSES OF ALL HERESIES. 
 
 1. The General Characters of all 
 Heresies. 
 
 Q. What is heresy ? 
 
 A. An obstinate attachment to one’s own private 
 opinions, in opposition to the known faith and 
 doctrine of the true Church of Christ, the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 Q. What sort of persons are called “heretics” ? 
 
 A. Those who, being baptized, and professing 
 themselves Christians, obstinately prefer their own 
 opinions to the declared doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church, are guilty of heresy ; but those who hold 
 erroneous opinions, not knowing them to be con- 
 demned by the Church, are not heretics. 
 
 Q. Is heresy a most grievous sin ? 
 
 A. It is ; because it is a rebellion against the true 
 Church of Jesus Christ, and consequently against 
 
6 
 
 Jesus Christ himself, according to his own words : 
 He that heareth you , heareth me , and he that de- 
 spiseth you , despiseth me. [St. Luke, ch. 10, v.16.] 
 
 Q. Are not the effects of heresy more dreadful 
 than those of any other crime P 
 
 A. They are; because as long as faith remains 
 in the heart of a Christian, though his iniquities 
 were multiplied above the hairs of his head, there 
 may be a hope of his conversion and repentance ; 
 but when, through heresy, his faith is destroyed, 
 he loses all sense of a spiritual life, he extinguishes 
 the light of grace in his soul, walks in the dark, 
 and having no one unshaken truth to cling to, 
 wanders from error to error, until at length he 
 falls into the abyss of eternal despair. 
 
 Q. What is the fundamental principle of every 
 
 ? 
 
 The irrational principle of preferring one's 
 own private judgment, one’s own interpretation of 
 Scripture or Tradition, to the judgment and inter- 
 pretation of the whole Church. 
 
 Q. What would you say to any heretic about it ? 
 
 A. I would ask him : “ Do you believe yourself 
 to be fallible or infallible ? If you admit that you 
 are fallible, then your faith is uncertain and 
 vacillating, and consequently no faith at all ; if you 
 pretend that you are infallible, then you are driven 
 to assert that the whole Church may err, but that 
 you individually cannot err." 
 
 Q. What can he reply to this ? 
 
 A. We defy him to make any satisfactory reply ; 
 he is either the victim of a never ending 
 perplexity, or the dupe of the most insupportable 
 obstinacy. 
 
 Q. What are the causes of heresy ? 
 
 A. We must not imagine, as Protestant historians 
 would have it, that any man ever left the Church 
 
 heresy 
 
7 
 
 because be had scruples of conscience concerning 
 catholic doctrines, or catholic practices. No ; pride, 
 ambition, self-conceit, lust, the spirit of revenge, 
 the thirst of plunder, the love of independence, etc., 
 such have always been the true causes of heresy. 
 Doctrinal changes were but a consequence, some- 
 times an excuse. This is evident from the history 
 of all past heresiarchs, as well as from the history 
 of the founders of Protestantism. So, Simon the 
 Magician left the Church because he had been 
 rebuked by St. Peter ; Arius, because he was 
 baffled in his expectations of being made bishop of 
 Alexandria ; Luther, because, in his quarrel with 
 the Dominican monks, he had been condemned by 
 the Pope ; Henry VIII, because he wanted another 
 wife ; etc., etc. 
 
 Q. Can you mark any peculiarities which have 
 uniformly accompanied every heresy ? 
 
 A. Six peculiarities are always observable • viz : 
 
 1, Every heresiarch presumed to blame the whole 
 Church with having fallen into pernicious error. 
 
 2, These heresiarchs with their adherents always 
 separated themselves from the Church. 3, They 
 uniformly taught new doctrines, unknown till then 
 in the Christian world. 4, Some new name, either 
 of their founder, their country, or of their new 
 dogmas, was invariably adopted by their followers. 
 5, Not one of them could ever prove that he had 
 a lawful mission. 6, They all pretended to prove 
 their peculiar and contrary doctrines from Scrip- 
 ture, imagining, with all due humility, that nobody 
 but themselves had ever understood a word of it. 
 
 Q. Did not all heresiarchs pretend that they 
 taught nothing new, but merely re-established the 
 pure doctrine of the Apostles, which the whole 
 Church had forgotten ? 
 
 A. They did; but Jesus Christ having declared 
 that he would be with his Apostles all days , even 
 
8 
 
 to the consummation of the world , to suppose that 
 the pure doctrine of the Apostles can ever cease to 
 be taught by the Church is to give God himself 
 the lie. 
 
 Q. How is this blasphemous assertion refuted ? 
 
 A. Had the faith of the Church undergone any 
 change since the days of the Apostles, heretics 
 would be able to tell us in what country, at what 
 time, and in what manner, that change was effect- 
 ed. This they cannot do ; whilst, on the contrary, 
 we can always name the author of a new creed, 
 tell the time and place of its first appearance, give 
 the names of the first men who opposed it, and 
 point out the Council or the Pope that condemned it. 
 
 2. The Chief Heresies from the begin- 
 ning of the Church down to 
 Luther’s time. 
 
 Q. Have there been many different heresies ? 
 
 A. From the very time of the Apostles, every 
 century has seen the rise, progress, decay, and 
 downfall of some new sect or other. 
 
 Q. What have been the principal heresies ? 
 
 A. The first heretic was Simon the Magician, 
 who offered money to St. Peter, to get the power 
 of giving the Holy Ghost. Severely reprimanded 
 by St. Peter, he left the Church, and tried to make 
 a religion of his own, saying that he was a new 
 Messiah. He denied the divine authority of the 
 Old Testament and the resurrection of the body. 
 
 Cerinth, Ebion, and Nicholas were the chief 
 heresiarchs of the first century. They generally ' 
 held the necessity of the practices of the Old LaKv, 
 and denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Their 
 morals were abominable. 
 
9 
 
 The Manicheans pretended that Jesus Christ 
 became man only in appearance. They believed in 
 two gods : the first being the principle of good, the 
 other the principle of e^il; the first, creator of 
 spiritual beings, the second, creator of the material 
 world ; the first, author of the New Testament, the 
 second, author of the Old Testament. They repro- 
 bated matrimony, and denied the moral liberty of 
 man. St. Augustin who, before his baptism, had 
 been engaged in this heresy, contributed more than 
 any other to confound them. This sect troubled 
 the Church during the second, third and fourth 
 centuries. 
 
 In the third century, the Novatians taught that 
 the Church has not the power of forgiving sins 
 committed after baptism. Several councils were 
 held in Italy and Africa, to condemn this heresy. 
 
 In the fourth century, the Donatists denied the 
 validity of the baptism given by heretics, even 
 with the lawful form. They pretended that the 
 whole Church had fallen into apostacy, that all 
 catholic ordinations were null and void, etc., etc. 
 They were condemned by the councils of Home and 
 Arles. 
 
 In the same century, Arius, a priest of Alexan- 
 dria, and his followers, pretended that Jesus Christ 
 is but man, and denied his divine nature. They 
 were condemned by the first Council of Nice, in 325. 
 Arianism, the most dreadful of all the heresies that 
 have appeared since the time of the Apostles, ravag- 
 ed the Church for more than three hundred years. 
 
 In the fourth century again, Macedonius, 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, denied the divine 
 nature of the Holy Ghost. He was condemned by 
 the Council of Constantinople. 
 
 In the fifth century, Pelagius and his followers 
 denied original sin, and the necessity of grace. 
 They were condemned by the Popes St. Innocent, 
 
10 
 
 St. Zozime, St. Leo, etc. 
 
 In the same century, Nestorius, patriarch of 
 Constantinople, denying the union of the divine 
 and human natures in the Incarnation, maintained 
 that there are in Jesus Christ two different persons, 
 and consequently that the Blessed Virgin is not 
 the Mother of God. He was condemned by the 
 Council of Ephesus. 
 
 In the fifth century again, Eutyches, a priest of 
 Constantinople, pretended that, in the Incarnation, 
 the divine and human natures had become one and 
 the same nature. He was condemned in the 
 Council of Chalcedon. 
 
 In the eighth century, the Iconoclasts, or image- 
 breakers, pretended that the relative honor paid to 
 the images of Jesus Christ and the Saints is 
 nothing less than idolatry. They were condemned 
 in the second Council of Nice. 
 
 In the twelfth century, Berengarius denied the 
 real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, 
 and the transubstantiation. He was condemned 
 by the Popes Nicholas II, and St. Gregory VII. 
 
 In the twelfth century again, came the Wal- 
 denses ; they declared it a heinous sin in a magis- 
 trate to condemn to death for any crime ; according 
 to them, it was a mortal sin to take an oath ; the 
 clergy became reprobates by holding one farthing’s 
 worth of property, etc. 
 
 From the Waldenses came, in the thirteenth 
 century, the Albigenses, who taught there were 
 two Gods and two Christs ; they reprobated mar- 
 riage, denied all the sacraments as well as the 
 resurrection of the body. They were condemned 
 by the fourth Council of Lateran. 
 
 In the fourteenth century, the Wickliffites 
 maintained that man must sin, that God 
 approves of sin ; yet, with evident inconsistency, 
 they declared that all power, whether spiritual 
 
11 
 
 or temporal, is forfeited by one mortal sin 7 
 and concluded that they all, and they alone, being 
 free from sin, all power belonged to them only. 
 
 Then came, in the sixteenth century, the 
 Protestants of every denomination, who, more or 
 less, renewed the errors of past heretics, and 
 immensely added to the stock. 
 
 This list, although long, is far from being 
 complete. It indicates only the chief heresies, 
 from which sprung an infinite variety of minor 
 sects, the names of which it is useless to record. 
 
 3. Why God has permitted so many 
 Heresies. 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ and the Apostles foretell 
 so many heresies, and warn the faithful against 
 them ? 
 
 A. Yes, very clearly indeed. Jesus Christ 
 himself says : Beicare of false prophets , who come 
 to you in the clothing of sheep , hut inwardly they 
 are ravening wolves. [St. Matt. ch. 7, v. 15.] And 
 again : Many false prophets shall rise, and shall 
 seduce many. [Ibid. ch. 24, v. 11.] 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul ? 
 
 A. The Spirit manifestly saith that in the 
 last times some shall depart from the faith , giving 
 heed to spirits of error , and doctrines of devils. 
 [1 Tim. ch. 4, v. 1.] And elsewhere : Jesus Christ 
 yesterday , and to-day , and the same for ever. Be 
 not led away with various and strange doctrines. 
 [Heb. ch. 13, v. 8, 9.] 
 
 Q. What says St. Peter ? 
 
 A. There shall be among you lying teachers , 
 who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the 
 Lord who bought them and many shall follow 
 
12 
 
 their riotousness, through whom the icay of truth 
 shall he evil spoken of. And through covetousness 
 shall they with feigned words make merchandise of 
 you. [2 Peter, ch. 2, v. 1, 2, 3.] 
 
 Q. What says St. John ? 
 
 A. There are become many Antichrists .they 
 went out from us, but they were not of us ; for 
 if they had been of us, they would no doubt have 
 remained with us. [1 John, ch. 2, v. 18, 19.] And 
 again : Many seducers are gone out into the world, 
 who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 flesh ; this is a seducer and an Antichrist. [2 
 John, y. 7.] 
 
 Q. What follows from all these prophetic 
 warnings ? 
 
 A. That no Catholic must be surprised at 
 hearing of so many heresies since the beginning of 
 the Church. So it has always been, and so it will 
 continue to be till the end of the world, according 
 to the saying of our Saviour : It is impossible that 
 
 scandals should not come. [St. Luke, ch. 17, v. 1.] 
 
 Q. Why did God permit so many heresies ? 
 
 A. For the good of his Church : We know 
 
 that to them that love God all things work together 
 unto good. [Rom. ch. 8, v. 28.] Heresies serve to 
 try the faith of Christians, to discern the weak 
 from the strong ; they are the fan which parts the 
 wheat from the chaff. They serve also to make 
 the truths of religion more plain and manifest ; 
 the luminous expositions of catholic Doctors, and 
 the infallible decisions of the Church multiplying, 
 as each dogma is successively assailed by various 
 sects of heretics. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. I conclude, firstly, that we must be thank- 
 ful to God for the inappreciable gift of faith, and 
 careful to keep it : Avoiding the profane novelties 
 
13 
 
 of (Cords, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so 
 called. [1 Tim. ch. 6, v» 20.] 
 
 Secondly, that we must pray for our erring* 
 brethren, who are tossed to and fro , and 
 carried away by every wind of doctrine , that 
 the ever merciful Lord may he pleased to 
 bring them back to the one fold and one Shepherd , 
 and make them children of his true Church, out of 
 which there is no salvation. 
 
 Thirdly, that our faith must remain unshaken 
 when we witness the temporary successes of heresy, 
 or fall victims to its raging fury. Let them 
 prophesy the downfall of the catholic Church, let 
 them try their hand to overthrow the House of the 
 living God ; the one and unchangeable Church has 
 outlived all heresies since the time of the Apostles, 
 and shall outlive all new heresies till the end of 
 the world. The days of every heresy are numbered, 
 because heresy is founded on error ; but the 
 Church of Jesus Christ is immortal, because she is 
 founded on truth ; and the truth of the Lord 
 remains for ever . [Psalm 11G, v. 2.] 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 PROTESTANTISM. 
 
 1. What is Protestantism ? 
 
 Q. What means the term “ Protestantism” ? 
 
 A. It means opposition . This is a common 
 name given to all the sects that have denied the 
 authority of the Church, and separated themselves 
 from her, for the last three hundred years. 
 
 Q. What is Protestantism ? 
 
 A. This question is a most difficult one to 
 
14 
 
 answer, because Protestantism differs from itself 
 everywhere and every day. It was one thing 
 yesterday, it shall be another thing to morrow. 
 It is one thing in England, and another thing in 
 ►Scotland ; one thing in America, and another thing 
 in Germany ; nay, in the very same town, it is one 
 thing in this street and another thing in that 
 street ; in the very same pulpit, one thing with 
 this minister, and another thing with that minister. 
 
 What it teaches, says or believes here, is quite 
 the contrary of what it teaches, says or believes 
 there. It is not a religion, but a rebellion ; it is 
 not a Church, but a clump of sects. In short, it is 
 
 Q. What is the fundamental principle of Protes- 
 tantism ? 
 
 A. That the only rule of faith is Scripture, in- 
 terpreted by each individual, according to his own 
 mind and notions. 
 
 Q. What follows from this P 
 
 A. That the symbol of the Protestant faith is a 
 very short one : “ I believe in nobody but myself, 
 and I protest against the catholic Church.” 
 
 Q. Can there be any Protestant Church ? 
 
 A. The very hypothesis of a Protestant Church 
 involves a contradiction, and is ludicrous in the 
 extreme. 
 
 A. Because, if they are true Protestants, every 
 one will interpret Scripture in his own way ; and 
 men’s minds being as different from each other as 
 men’s faces, not two interpretations will be found 
 to agree, and then there is no Church. If they 
 bind themselves to any given symbol of faith, 
 what becomes of the boasted right of private in- 
 
 Q. Why? 
 
15 
 
 terpretation ? How can they call themselves true 
 Protestants ? Take for example a Wesleyan ; if 
 the man thinks he has the right of interpreting 
 for himself, what has Wesley’s private interpreta- 
 tion to do with his own ? If he abide by Wesley’s 
 teaching, how can he boast of following Scripture 
 as his only rule of faith ? 
 
 Q. What do yon infer from this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants are acting in a very 
 illogical way when joining any Church or sect 
 whatever. According to their principles, each 
 individual should be his own Church and his own 
 minister. 
 
 Q. Is it so P 
 
 A. No ; such a state of things is so impossible, 
 so contrary to human nature and feelings, so 
 evidently injurious to God, that, despite their own 
 principles, Protestants have always tried, though 
 with little success, to keep up, here and there, 
 some appearance of Churches or societies, whose 
 members agree, or are supposed to agree, in the 
 same faith. 
 
 Q. How many various sects of Protestants are 
 there ? 
 
 A. No one knows, and no one can know. Every 
 year, almost every day, some new sect arises, and 
 old ones gradually fall into oblivion. A bare 
 index of their names and tenets would fill a 
 a volume. When, after the flood, the sons of men 
 tried to build a tower the top whereof might 
 reach to heaven, the Lord confounded their 
 language. The pride of those who wanted to 
 mend the work of Christ and to build a new 
 Church, was punished in the same way. Their 
 system has produced and produces nothing but a 
 Babel of tongues, an irretrievable confusion of 
 conflicting errors. 
 
16 
 
 2. Why and how was Protestantism 
 Established. 
 
 Q. How many years ago was Protestantism 
 established ? 
 
 A. It was in the beginning of the sixteenth 
 century, fifteen hundred years after the preaching 
 of the Gospel by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, 
 that an apostate priest, named Luther, invented and 
 preached the new system of religion known by 
 that name. 
 
 Q. Why do you call it a new system of 
 religion ? 
 
 A. Because, viewing it as a body of doctrine, no 
 such divinity, either as to faith or morals, was ever 
 known, taught, or believed by any sect in the 
 world, until the time of Luther. Similar errors 
 on such or such peculiar dogma may have been 
 professed by some of the former heretics, but, as a 
 whole, Luther’s doetrine was something quite new 
 and unheard of in the Christian world. 
 
 Q. Are you quite sure that such is the fact ? 
 
 A. Perfectly sure ; and Luther himself has been 
 forced to confess it. His words are : “ How often 
 has not my conscience been alarmed ! How often 
 have I not said to myself : Dost thou alone of all 
 
 men pretend to be wise ? Dost thou pretend that 
 all Christians have been in error, during such a 
 long period of years ?” [Luther’s Works, tom. 
 2, page 9.] 
 
 Q. Have you any other testimony ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the unanimous teaching of Protestant 
 divines, who, being unable to find out any vestige 
 of Protestantism in the history of the Church, tell 
 us that the true Church of God had beoome invisi- 
 ble for more than a thousand years. Now, it being 
 self-evident that an invisible Church is no Church 
 
17 
 
 at all, this theory of an invisible Church, besides 
 being opposed to Scripture, is in itself ridiculous 
 nonsense, ‘and consequently Protestantism came 
 into this world fifteen hundred years too late to 
 have anything to do with true Christianity. But 
 more of this hereafter. 
 
 Q. How was Protestantism first established ? 
 
 A. Like all other past heresies, like all other 
 heresies that may appear till the end of the world, 
 Protestantism used two ways to secure followers : 
 corruption and violence. 
 
 Under pretence of preaching the pure Gospel, 
 its founders impudently and openly flattered the 
 passions of men ; they permitted all who had made 
 solemn vows of chastity to violate them, and marry ; 
 they allowed kings to plunder Church properties; 
 they abolished confession, abstinence, fasting, and 
 every work of penance and mortification ; they per- 
 mitted divorce or polygamy to such as were rich 
 enough to pay for it; they took away from Christian- 
 ity every painful observance; in-short, they made 
 wide and easy the way to heaven, which Jesus Christ 
 had left narrow and difficult. 
 
 Under pretence of securing the liberty of conscience 
 they, wherever they could get power, enacted the 
 most bloody laws against the tenants of the old and 
 true creed; they called the jailor and the hangman 
 to the help of the parson, and drowned Catholicism 
 in the blood of countless martyrs. [See the last 
 chapter.] 
 
 Q. What sort of men were the apostles of the 
 new religion ? 
 
 A. Apostate priests and dissolute monks, like 
 Luther, Cranmer, Zwinglius ; licentious and 
 tyrannical kings or princes, like Henry VIII, 
 Philip of Hesse, Albert of Brandenburg; court- 
 esans, like Anne de Bolcyn, Margaret of Valois, 
 
18 
 
 Elizabeth.; scoundrels of the worst description, 
 like Calvin, Beza, Farel; such were in every 
 country the first authors of the so-called “ Refor- 
 mation.” And, that no one may suspect we judge 
 them unfairly and out of party prejudices, here are 
 unobjectionable Protestant testimonies. 
 
 “ Out of ten Evangelicals,” says Calvin himself, 
 “you can hardly find one having joined the gospel 
 for any thing else, than for getting free to indulge, 
 without restraint in the wildest debauchery/’ 
 [Calvin’s Script. Comment, on 2 Pet. ch. 2, v. 2j — 
 “ Of the little flock of those who have separated 
 themselves from popish idolatry, the largest part are 
 perjurers and profligates ; they are made up of 
 guile and deceit.” [Ibid, -on Dan. ch. 2, v. 84.] — 
 “ What is more shameful, ministers themselves, the 
 very ministers, I say, who get into the pulpit, are 
 giving examples of the most odious perversity, and, 
 for all that, these gentlemen are impudent enough to 
 complain when they are abused or laughed at. As 
 for me, I am amazed at the people’s patience. I 
 wonder how the very women and children do not 
 pelt them out with filth and dirt.” [Calvin’s 
 de-s Scandales, p. 128.] 
 
 “Perhaps,” says the Protestant historian Cobbett, 
 “ perhaps the world has never, in any age, seen a 
 nest of such atrocious miscreants as Luther, Calvin, 
 Zwinglius, Beza, etc. Every one of them was 
 notorious for the most scandalous vices/’ [Cobbett, 
 Lett. 7. n. 200.] 
 
 A short sketch of the lives of two or three of 
 the chief reformers will be quite enough to prove 
 the truth of this assertion. 
 
19 
 
 3. Luther. 
 
 Q. When and where was Luther born ? 
 
 A. In 1483, near Eisleben, a small town of 
 Prussian Saxony. 
 
 Q. Of what religion were his parents ? 
 
 A. They were Catholics, and so were all his 
 ancestors ; for, at the time he was born, all Europe 
 believed what the Catholics believe now. 
 
 Q. Was Luther himself a Catholic? 
 
 A. Yes ; he was a Catholic until his thirty-fifth 
 year. 
 
 Q, What was his state of life ? 
 
 A. At the age of twenty-three years, he made 
 the three .\jows of poverty; chastity, and obedience, 
 and became* fr monk of the 1 order of Discalced 
 Augustinians. 
 
 Q. Was he bound to keep these vows ? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly, since he made them after 
 mature reflection, and of his own free will ; and 
 God himself says : If any man make a vow to the 
 
 Lord, or bind himself by an oath , he shall not 
 make his word void , but shall fulfil all that he 
 promised. [Numb. ch. 30, v. 3.] 
 
 Q. Did Luther obey this commandment of God, 
 by keeping his vows ? 
 
 A. No, he violated all three : he apostatized and 
 left his convent ; he married Catherine de Bora, 
 a nun under vows, like himself, and positively 
 disobeyed and despised every ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 Q. What was it that induced Luther to invent 
 a new creed ? 
 
 A. Pride and jealousy. Pope Leo X, in order 
 to finish the magnificent Church of Saint Peter, 
 in Rome, had granted an indulgence to all Chris- 
 tains, who, receiving the sacraments with due dis- 
 positions, should give alms to that end. Luther’s 
 
20 
 
 pride was mortified because the Pope commissioned 
 the Dominican monks to preach this indulgence, 
 in preference to the Augustinians. 
 
 Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven 
 by this jealousy ? 
 
 A. To attack the true faith on the subject of 
 Indulgences. 
 
 Q. Had Luther merely attacked the abuses or 
 avarice of individual Catholics, would the catholic 
 Church have blamed him ? 
 
 A. No certainly, because the catholic Church 
 knows that men are men, that abuses will creep 
 into the most holy institutions. The greatest 
 saints of the catholic Church boldly denounced 
 such corrupt practices, and unceasingly struggled 
 to eradicate them. But, to attack the abuses com- 
 mitted in the name of the catholic faith, and to 
 attack this faith in itself, are quite different things. 
 
 Q. What was his next step ? 
 
 A. He posted on the gates of the church of 
 Wittemberg 95 Articles, which he wrote, and 
 which contained many things not in accordance • 
 with the faith of the catholic Church. 
 
 Q. What did Luther say, when disputes arose 
 from the publication of these heretical Articles ? 
 
 A. He pretended that he wished to teach nothing 
 but what was conformable to Scripture, to the 
 Holy Fathers, and approved of by the Holy See. 
 He most humbly pledged himself to submit to the 
 decision of the most celebrated Universities, and 
 wrote to the Pope, stating that he would listen to 
 his decision, as to an oracle proceeding from the 
 mouth of Jesus Christ himself. [See Luther’s 
 Works, tom. 1. pages 12, 14, 58, and 119.] 
 
 Q. Did Luther abide by the decision of the 
 Universities ? 
 
 A. No ; seeing that his new doctrine was con- 
 
21 
 
 rlemned as false and heretical, he poured forth a 
 torrent of invectives and insults against them, 
 calling the University of Paris, the mother of 
 errors, the’ daughter of Antichrist, the gate of hell ^ 
 etc. [Luther’s Works, ibid. p. 548.] 
 
 Q. Did he submit to the judgment of the Pope,, 
 whose decision he had promised to receive as an 
 oracle from Jesus Christ himself P 
 
 A. No : the moment the Pope condemned him, 
 he changed his language, burnt the papal Bull, 
 declaring that the Pope himself should be burnt. 
 [Ibid, pages 353, 553.] He called on all men 
 “ to take up arms against the Pope, the Cardinals 
 and Bishops, and wash their hands in the blood 
 of those dignitaries.” [Ibid. p. 60.] 
 
 Q. What do you infer from such conduct ? 
 
 A. That the humble protestations he had made at 
 the beginning were nothing but downright hypocrisy. 
 
 Q. Was Luther more respectful when speaking 
 of the secular powers that opposed him ? 
 
 A. No ; he wrote that the Emperor of Germany 
 was either a maniac or a demoniac [Ibid. p. 460]; 
 that the King of England was an ass, an idiot, 
 and a fool, whom every infant ought to mock. 
 [Tom. 2, p. 445. Answer to the cursed King of 
 England'] ; that the Duke of Brunswick had swal- 
 lowed so many devils in eating and drinking, that 
 he could not even spit anything but a devil [Tom. 
 7, p. 118] ; eto., etc. 
 
 Q, What does Luther say of himself, to justify 
 his infamous marriage with a nun ? 
 
 A. That when he was a Catholic, he fasted, and 
 watched, and prayed ; he was poor, chaste, and 
 obedient ; but when he became a Reformer, his 
 heart became a prey to the most shameful passions, 
 which he could not resist. [Tom. 5, ch. I, Epist. 
 ad Gal.c\x. 5, v. 14— Ibid. Serm.onMatrim, p.119.] 
 
22 
 
 Q. Was the doctrine of Luther on the virtue of 
 purity better than his example ? 
 
 A. It was worse, if possible. His book, entitled 
 “ Table Talk,” contains discourses the gross licen- 
 tiousness of which would have disgraced an orgy 
 of debauchees. Nay, even the language which he 
 didnot hesitate to use in his public sermons is so 
 disgusting, that it is impossible to quote it here. 
 Suffice it to say that he was the first person, since 
 the foundation of the Christian Church, who put 
 forth the doctrine that man is the slave of his 
 propensities, and cannot resist them ; that it is as 
 impossible to live without a wife as without food ; 
 that the command to marry is not only a duty, but 
 is more strictly binding on a man’s conscience than 
 those precepts of the decalogue which forbid 
 murder and adultery; and such other obscene errors. 
 
 Q. How did Luther secure-the support and pro- 
 tection of Philip, landgrave of Hesse ? 
 
 A. He permitted him to keep two wives at one 
 and the same time. Nor was he the only protestant 
 doctor who granted this monstrous permission ; 
 eight of his most celebrated brother Reformers 
 signed with their own hands the filthy and adul- 
 terous document, which still exists, to the eternal 
 shame of the founders of Protestantism. 
 
 Q. What were the immediate effects of Luther’s 
 doctrines ? 
 
 A. They produced endless disturbances, se- 
 dition and civil wars : amongst others, the war of 
 the Peasants, who, under the name of Anabaptists, 
 committed every excess, declaring that the rich 
 had no exclusive right to their properties, that 
 every thing should be held in common, etc. Ger- 
 many was covered with blood and ruins. 
 
 Q. Did Luther oppose the Anabaptists ? 
 
 A, Yes, and it was the most infamous act of his 
 
23 
 
 infamous life. Instead of interceding for those 
 poor deluded people, who were only guilty of putting 
 into practice his own doctrines, he incited the 
 princes to exterminate them, without pity, as so 
 many enraged dogs. More than a hundred thou- 
 sand peasants were slaughtered at his instigation* 
 
 Q. What do you think of those Protestants who 
 call Luther a man of God P 
 
 A. They are either utterly ignorant of the true 
 nature of religion, or perfectly unacquainted with 
 Luther’s history. 
 
 Q. What says Luther himself? 
 
 A. That he was inspired by the devil. u Having 
 woke about midnight, the devil commenced a 
 dispute with me, on the subject of the Mass,” etc. 
 [Tom. 6, p. 82.] 
 
 He despaired of his salvation. One summer 
 evening, a few months before his death, his wife 
 showing him the skies sprinkled with glittering 
 stars, “Look, master,” said she, “how beautiful 
 the heavens are !” “ They do not shine for us,” 
 
 the heresiarch gloomily answered. “ Why ?” 
 returned the frightened Catherine, “ Is it because 
 we have broken our religious vows ?” “ Perhaps,” 
 
 said Luther. “ If so, should we not retrace our 
 steps ?” “ It is too late now, the car is sticking in 
 
 the mud.” And he rose abruptly. [Audin’s Life 
 of Luther . ] 
 
 Q. What did Luther’s brother Keformers say of him ? 
 
 A. That he was absolutetly furious (Hospinian) ; 
 that he was puffed up with pride and arrogance, 
 and seduced by Satan (CEcolamp.); that he was 
 borne away by his concupiscence at the instigation 
 of the devil (Henry VIII) ; that all his works were 
 written at the impulse of the devil (Cong, of the 
 Church of Zurich) ; that his Church was a pig-stye, 
 (Calvin); etc., etc. 
 
M 
 
 Q. What do you now think of Luther ? 
 
 A. Any one who reads the books of Luther, s<5 
 full of indecencies offensive to modesty, any one 
 who becomes acquainted with his shameful history, 
 and his yet more scandalous doctrines, must come 
 to the conclusion that such a man was not a man 
 of God, that his undertaking was not of God* and 
 that the means he adopted were not of God. He 
 was, according to his own avowal, sent and inspired 
 by the devil ; he was a ravenous wolf, come to 
 catch and scatter the sheep of the Good Shepherd, 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 4. Calvin. 
 
 Q. Where was Calvin born ? 
 
 A. He was born in Noyon, a small town of 
 France, in the year 1500. 
 
 Q. What sort of a man was he ? 
 
 A. Wolmar, one of his brother Reformers, says: 
 Calvin, I know, is violent and perverse ; so much 
 the better: he is just the man we require to attain 
 our ends.’* 
 
 Q. Were Calvin’s morals better than Luther’s? 
 
 A. No, they were even worse. Addicted to 
 shockingly immoral practices, and guilty of crimes 
 against nature, he was to have been burnt alive ; 
 but, after a judicial trial, the sentence was, at the 
 bishop’s request, commuted into branding, instead 
 of burning. He was publicly branded on his back 
 with a fleur-de-lys , in Noyon, his native town. 
 The fact is so certain, and the public document 
 which proves it so unobjectionable, that no Protest- 
 ant, even amongst Calvin’s most fanatical followers, 
 ever dared to deny it. 
 
 Q. What was Calvin’s doctrine on the subject 
 of predestination ? 
 
25 
 
 A. He taught that God had predestined some 
 men to saltation, and others to damnation ; 
 that this decree in no way depended upon man, 
 and could not be altered by any thing man 
 might do ; that one who was predestined to be 
 saved, would be saved, however much he might 
 sin, while one predestined to be damned, would 
 be damned, however holy his life might be ; 
 and that just as the will of God is the sole 
 reason for the election of some men, so the 
 same will is the sole cause of the reprobation of 
 others. That is to say, he made God the cause 
 and author of sin ; indeed, he distinctly said that 
 the most abominable sins, for instance, the ilnces t 
 of which Absalom was guilty with his father’s 
 wives, were the work of God. 
 
 Q. How was that execrable doctrine received ? 
 
 A. A universal cry of repxabatioa arose, not 
 only in Catholic, but in Protestant countries. The 
 bishops of the newly manufactured Church of 
 England protested “ before God, that Calvin and 
 his disciples perverted every text of Scripture they 
 quoted in favor of their Church of Geneva.” 
 [Surv. of pretend. Holy Discipline, p. 44.] — 
 The Lutherans of Germany solemnly declared, 
 and very rightly too, that Calvin’s teaching 
 “ ought to be to any and every one an object of 
 horror and execration ; that it is madness, the 
 ruin of morals, monstrous and blasphemous,” etc. 
 [Corp. Doctr. Christ.] 
 
 Q. Did Calvin abide by the fundamental prin- 
 ciple of Protestantism : the free interpretation of 
 Scripture by every one ? 
 
 A. Never was any man more averse to it. 
 Thinking himself divinely infallible, he looked 
 upon opposition as the work of Satan, and a crime 
 which made the opposer deserve to be burned 
 alive. In the new code of laws which was drawn 
 
26 
 
 up for Geneva under his superintendence, one 
 word is perpetually recurring : Death. Death to 
 every one guilty of high treason against God, and 
 it was high treason against God to utter any 
 raillery against Protestant refugees. Death to 
 every one guilty of high treason against the state ; 
 and it was high treason against the state to make__- 
 a mockery of Mr. Calvin. Death to heretics ; and . ‘ 
 all were heretics who did not fully agree with 
 Mr. Calvin ; etc., etc. In a letter to the Marquess 
 du Poet, speaking of his opponents, he says : 
 
 “ Monsters of that kind should be suffocated, as I 
 did to Michael Servet....” [Orig. Letter. — Sec 
 Calvin’s History.] 
 
 Q. Who was Michael Servet ? 
 
 A. A Protestant who taught a doctrine opposed 
 to that of Calvin about the Trinity, for which 
 opposition Calvin had him burned alive in Geneva. 
 
 Q. What said Calvin about Luther’s doctrines ? 
 
 A. That it was much better to build a new 
 Church altogether, than to remain, like Luther, a 
 half Papist. He calls the Lutheran Church a 
 pig-sty. 
 
 Q. What do you remark on this ? 
 
 A. Protestant divines are perfectly ridiculous 
 when asserting that Protestantism is nothing more 
 than the re-establishment of the pure primitive 
 Church, while its founders confess it to be quite a 
 new one. Here we have Calvin’s avowal ; that of 
 Luther we have seen before. 
 
 Q. How did Calvin behave during the pesti- 
 lence which desolated Geneva ? 
 
 A. Calvin was not only a ferocious and hypocri- 
 tical scoundrel, ho was also a shameless coward . As 
 soon as the plague broke out, he had it ordered by 
 the town council that “ Mr. Calvin should not go 
 to visit the sick, because there was need of him 
 
27 
 
 for the Church.” Compare this with the conduct 
 of St. Charles Borromeo about the same time, 
 during the plague of Milan, and remember these 
 words of Christ : The good shepherd giveth his 
 life for his sheep, but the hireling and he that is 
 not the shepherd,... seeth the wolf coming and 
 leaveth the sheep and flieth... because he is a 
 hireling , and he hath no care for the sheep. [St. 
 John, ch. 10, v. 11, 12, 13.] 
 
 We may as well remark, by-the-by, that in this, 
 as in many other things, Protestantism has been 
 progressing since Calvin’s time. For instance, 
 when cholera was raging in Dublin, in 1832, 
 the then Protestant bishop Dr. Whateley, not 
 only did imitate his ancestor in faith, and like 
 him, prudently keep himself out of the way of 
 danger, but he was impudent enough to try what 
 Calvin would never have dreamed of, a theoretical 
 justification of his cowardly conduct, and to make 
 it, as it were, a standard rule of the Protestant 
 Church. In a charge to his clergy, he said : “ I 
 fear not to affirm that a Protestant who is infected 
 with some contagious disease, is bound not to 
 expose his pastor to the danger of contracting the 
 malady by calling for his attendance... for the ful- 
 filment of his duties there is no worse place than 
 the bed of sickness and still worse of death.” — 
 Why did not the Most Reverend poltroon, to give 
 more weight to his words, insinuate that the 
 practice alluded to, being a particularly Romish 
 one, must necessarily be, in some way, idolatrous ? 
 
 Q. How did Calvin die ? 
 
 A. A disciple of his own says : “ Calvin ended 
 
 his life in despair, with that shameful and loath- 
 some disease (an ulcer in the natural parts), with 
 which God threatens the rebellious and accursed. 
 This I can attest, as I saw with my own eyes his 
 dreadful and tragical end.” [See Feller.] The 
 
28 
 
 Lutherans of Germany say: “ God manifested his 
 judgment on Calvin, whom he visited horribly with 
 punishments before his unhappy death ; he so 
 struck the heretic, that despairing of salvation, 
 and invoking devils, swearing, and blaspheming, 
 he breathed forth his malignant soul.” [Conrad 
 Schlus. in Theol. Calv. lib. 2. p. 72.] 
 
 Q. What do you now think of Calvin ? 
 
 A. That it is impossible, even for the most 
 bigoted Protestant, to call such a monster 
 a man of God, and his so-called reform the work 
 of God. 
 
 5. The Founders of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 Q. How many years ago was the Church of 
 England established ? 
 
 A. About three hundred years ago. Until then 
 England was Catholic. 
 
 Q. Who were the founders of Protestantism in 
 England ? 
 
 A. King Henry VIII, and Cranmer, Archbishop 
 of Canterbury. 
 
 Q. Did not Henry VIII, at first, write against 
 Luther’s novelties ? 
 
 A. Yes ; and for that very deed the Pope gave 
 him the glorious title of Defender of the Faith , 
 which title the Kings of England still retain, 
 though they have thrown off the Pope’s spiritual 
 authority, and endeavoured to destroy the true 
 faith in their kingdom. 
 
 Q. How did Henry VIII become a reformer ? 
 
 A. Just as Luther and Calvin did : by becom- 
 ing a slave to the most shameful concupiscences. 
 After being twenty years married with Catherine 
 
29 
 
 of Aragon, he fell in love with one Anne de 
 Boleyn, and requested the Pope to pronounce a 
 divorce against his lawful wife, that he might 
 marry the concubine. 
 
 Q. What was the Pope’s answer ? 
 
 A. The Pope declared the marriage of Henry 
 with Catherine lawful and valid, and solemnly 
 protested against the adulterous intercourse of the 
 King with Anne de Boleyn. 
 
 Q. How did Henry behave on that occasion ? 
 
 A. Infuriated with lust and anger, he denied 
 the Pope’s spiritual authority, declared himself 
 the only Head of the Church in England, turned 
 away his wife, and married Anne de Boleyn. 
 
 Q. What w r as his next step ? 
 
 A. He compelled a servile Parliament to sur- 
 render into his hands all Church properties, he 
 plundered the convents and abbeys, which were 
 the patrimony of the poor, and, to put down all 
 resistance, he sent to the scaffold those who opposed 
 his scandalous and schismatical doings. The most 
 illustrious amongst the martyrs were Fisher, bishop 
 of Rochester, and Thomas Moore, Lord Chancellor 
 of England. 
 
 Q. Did Anne de Boleyn long enjoy her sullied 
 crown ? 
 
 A. No ; after two or three years, Henry got 
 tired of her, charged her with adultery, and con- 
 demned her to death. He then married Jane 
 Seymour, who died after some months. Jane 
 was succeeded by Anne of Cleves, whom he 
 repudiated. Next came Catherine Howard, who 
 was sent to the scaffold, like Anne de Boleyn, 
 under the same charge. The sixth or seventh 
 wife of this holy reformer would have shared the 
 same fate, had not Henry’s own death put an end 
 to such butcheries. 
 
30 
 
 Q. Are you now fully satisfied that Henry Till 
 was not a man of God P 
 
 A. Yes ; and every one will concur in the 
 opinion of Protestant historians themselves, that 
 “ he was the greatest monster that ever disgraced 
 Christianity.” [Cobbett’s letters, 2. n. 64.] 
 
 Q. What was Cranmer ? 
 
 A. The chief adviser of Henry VIII in all the 
 sacrileges and murders he committed, and the first 
 Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 Q. How did he prepare himself for consecration? 
 
 A. By committing perjury. Before going to 
 the altar, where he had, in the usual way, to swear 
 obedience to the Pope, he went into a chapel, and 
 there swore that he would not keep the oath he 
 was about to take. [Cobbett’s lett. 2. n. 65.] 
 
 Q. Had this wicked man been a priest ? 
 
 A. Yes ; and he had, notwithstanding his vow, 
 one wife in Germany alive, and another in 
 England. [Cobbett’s lett. 3. n. 104.] 
 
 Q. How many successive divorces did Cran- 
 mer pronounce in favor of Henry VIII ? 
 
 A. Four at least. As soon as the King disliked 
 one wife, and wished to take another, Cranmer 
 again and again sat in judgment, and successively 
 annulled the very marriages which he had him- 
 self declared valid and lawful. 
 
 Q. Was Cranmer a persecutor ? 
 
 A. He was ; during the reign of Henry, he 
 condemned countless victims to the flames, for 
 not believing Transubstantiation. After King 
 Henry’s death, he condemned others for believing 
 it. [Cobbett’s lett. 7. n. 200 ;] until, at length, he 
 suffered the same punishment himself, as guilty of 
 treason against Queen Mary. 
 
 Q. What do Protestant historians say of Cran- 
 mer ? t 
 
31 
 
 A. His is “a name which deserves to be held 
 in everlasting execration, a name which we 
 could not pronounce without almost doubting 
 of the justice of Hod, were it not for our know- 
 ledge of the fact that the cold-blooded, most 
 perfidious, most impious, most blasphemous 
 caitiff expired at last amidst those flames which he 
 himself had been the chief cause of kindling.” 
 [Cobbett’s lett. 2. n. 64.] 
 
 Q. What do you think now of the founders of 
 Protestantism in England P 
 
 A. The same Protestant historian says : “ No 
 
 reign, no age, no country, ever witnessed rapacity, 
 hypocrisy, meanness and perfidy, such as England 
 witnessed in those who were the destroyers of the 
 catholic, and the founders of the protestant Church.” 
 [Cobbett’s lett. 7, n. 220, 221.] 
 
 6. The Authors of the Reformation 
 were not Men of God. 
 
 Q. It is now quite evident that Luther, Calvin, 
 and the founders of the Church of England were 
 not sent by God ; is the same also true of their 
 brother Reformers, Carlostadt, Zw'inglius, Beza, 
 etc., etc. ? 
 
 A. Certainly. The lives of all of them were 
 spent in a series of acts which, for the wickedness 
 of their nature, and the mischief of their conse- 
 quences, are without a parallel in the annals of 
 human infamy. We shall not give any more par- 
 ticulars. It will be quite useless to go on any 
 further w r ith such a scandalous story. What we 
 have said is more than enough to prove the truth 
 of Cobbett’s assertion, that “ the world has never, 
 in any age, seen a nest of such atrocious miscreants 
 as Luther, Calvin, Zwinglius, Beza, etc. [See 
 ante, p. 18 .] 
 
32 
 
 Q. Is it at all possible, or likely, that God could 
 select such characters for the reformation of hi 3 
 Church ? 
 
 A. When we consider the men whom God, in 
 every age, chose as the ministers of his mercies 
 to man, such as Moses, the Prophets, and the 
 Apostles ; when we reflect that, whatever those 
 men had been before their appointment to a divine 
 mission, they were, from that moment, mild, holy, 
 merciful, full of zeal, — but zeal tempered with the 
 most exalted charity, — we must come to the con- 
 clusion, that he who considers any of the reforming 
 leaders as a man of God, must have lost his senses. 
 That there were abuses in the Catholic Church, 
 before Protestantism, no one denies ; and in every 
 age there shall be wise and foolish virgins , wheat 
 and cockle blended together. But to correct such 
 abuses, there is, in the Catholic Church, there shall 
 ever be, and there was at the time of Luther, a 
 permanently standing authority, regularly estab- 
 lished by Jesus Christ himself, and history bears 
 evidence to the untiring care with which this 
 authority has always discharged its functions. 
 
 Q. May it not be objected that there were indi- 
 vidual pastors in the catholic Church, as worthless 
 as Luther and his reforming brotherhood P 
 
 A. Some catholic pastors have been wicked men, 
 but still they were the lawful ministers of God, 
 having lawfully succeeded to lawfully commission- 
 ed predecessors ; and Jesus Christ himself says : 
 “ The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the 
 chair of Moses ; all things therefore whatsoever 
 they shall say to you , observe and do, but accord- 
 ing to their works do ye not.” [St. Matt. ch. 23, 
 v. 2 & 3.] But Luther stood alone ; he succeeded 
 to no one having lawful authority ; he was the 
 first and only teacher of a new creed, and, conse- 
 quently, had no mission at all. 
 
33 
 
 Q. Could not Luther, who was a priest of the catho- 
 lic Church, reply that he had commission from her 
 to preach the true doctrine, according to Scripture ? 
 
 A. Either the catholic Church was at that time 
 the true Church, or not. If she was then the true 
 Church, why did he separate from her ? If not, 
 she was not qualified to give any commission at all. 
 
 Q. Did not Luther and the other Reformers 
 assert that they were sent directly by God, to 
 preach the Gospel ? 
 
 A. They did : but if sent by God, they would 
 have been able to prove this, like Moses, and our 
 Saviour, by working miracles. 
 
 Q. Did Luther himself admit that no man could 
 preach, unless he had an ordinary or an extraor- 
 dinary mission ? 
 
 A. Yes : addressing the Anabaptist preachers, 
 he says ; u If you are sent by man, show us your 
 patent. If by God, let us see you working 
 miracles.” [Luth. Works, tom. 5. p. 491.] He 
 forgot however this embarrassing dilemma, when 
 the Catholics, with much more justice, applied it 
 to himself. 
 
 Q. What is now your opinion of the founders of 
 Protestantism ? 
 
 A. That they, and their successors in the 
 ministry, are wolves in sheep's clothing , who have 
 entered the fold, not by the door , but over the wall ; 
 of whom Christ says, that they come not to feed } 
 but to devour the sheep. 
 
34 
 
 7. The Reformation was not the Work 
 of God. 
 
 Q. What says Jesus Christ about false prophets ? 
 
 A. By their fruits you shall know them... a 
 good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit f neither can 
 an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [St. Matt, ch.7, 
 v. 16, 18.] We have clearly established before that 
 the so-called Reformers were not men of God. 
 Let us now see whether their work was the work 
 of God, and, by their own confession, evidently 
 prove that the tree they have planted is the evil 
 tree which brings forth evil fruit. 
 
 Q. What were the immediate effects of the 
 Reformation on Christian morals ? 
 
 A. To use the words of the Protestant historian 
 above quoted : “ The consequences to the morals 
 of the people were terrible ; all historians agree 
 that vices and crimes of all sorts were never so 
 great, or so numerous, before.” [Cobb. lett. 7 n. 
 201 .] 
 
 Q. What says Erasmus ? 
 
 A. “ In former times the Gospel was wont to 
 make fierce men become gentle, robbers merciful, 
 etc., but I see that those who embrace the new 
 Gospel are thereby rendered riotous, seizers of 
 other men’s goods, and stirrers up of strife ;...they 
 have always holy words upon their lips, such as 
 the Gospel, the Holy Word of God, Faith, Christ, 
 etc., but their conduct is such as to make one 
 believe that they are possessed with devils,... in a 
 word, they are such, that if I knew any place in 
 the world which was wholly free from them, 1 
 would go there this moment...” [The Protestant 
 Reformers’ Lives and Deeds, p. 62.] 
 
 Q. W ere there no exceptions ? 
 
 A. Very few, it would seem ; for the same 
 Erasmus says : “ I may be unfortunate, . but 1 
 
35 
 
 protest I do not know one single man having 
 joined them, who has not manifestly become the 
 worse Christian for so doing. [Ibid. p. 63.] 
 
 Nor was Erasmus alone in judging things in this 
 way, for he goes on saying ; “ Has not Luther 
 himself acknowledged that he would prefer the old 
 reign of the Pope and the monks to this present 
 generation of men, rushing headlong into every 
 kind of iniquity under the cloak of the Gospel ? 
 Has not Melancthon too, made the very same 
 complaint in his private letters to ourselves, and 
 (Ecolampadius (another of the Reformers) in his 
 conversations ?” [Ibid.] 
 
 Q. Quote Luther’s own testimony. 
 
 A. As the chief head and leader of the move- 
 ment, Luther was under the least possible tempta- 
 tion to exaggerate the evils which resulted from it. 
 He is therefore a most unexceptionable witness. 
 Now let us hear his own confession. “There is 
 nobody who has ever joined those who profess the 
 Gospel, who has not immediately become seven 
 times worse than he was before ; plundering other 
 men’s goods, lying, cheating, drinking, and giving 
 himself up to every vice.” [Ibid. p. 64.] Such were 
 his lamentations in the year 1525, eight years only 
 after he had begun his unhallowed work. Seven 
 years later, his language becomes still stronger : 
 “ Hitherto the new doctrine has done nothing but 
 increase the misconduct of the world ; everywhere, 
 wherever it has been received, it has made men more 
 avaricious, more unmerciful, more impatient of dis- 
 cipline.” [Ibid. p. 65.] At another time : “In 
 
 truth, it must be confessed that scarcely had we 
 begun to preach our Gospel, when one saw 
 throughout the whole country a most terrible 
 revolt ; sects and schisms in the Church, and every- 
 where the complete ruin of honesty, morality and 
 good order. . .Licentiousness and every kind of vice 
 
SG 
 
 and wickedness are, in all ranks of life, carried 
 much farther now-a-days, than ever they were under 
 the Papacy.” [Ibid, p. 66.] And again : “It 
 
 seems to be an article of faith and a necessary fact, 
 that those who attach themselves to our cause, 
 should afterwards show themselves to be worse 
 than they were before they embraced the Gospel.” 
 [Ibid. p. 72.] It were easy to fill a volume with 
 the same humiliating confessions from all the Re- 
 formers, but these are quite sufficient. 
 
 Q. Have you not some other proof? 
 
 A. Yes, besides the testimony of men, we have 
 the still stronger testimony of facts. An examina- 
 tion of the laws and statutes of those days, of the 
 public records and judicial registers of all Protest- 
 ant towns and countries, shows at the time of the 
 Reformation a frightful increase of crimes, more 
 particularly with reference to every thing con- 
 nected with marriage. These public documents 
 have been published of late, mostly by Protestants, 
 and nobody ever denied their authenticity. 
 
 Doubtless, all this is very different from the 
 picture of the social and religious* results of the 
 Reformation, which is often to be found in the 
 works of Protestant historians ; but facts are facts, 
 and no amount of ignorance or bigotry can ever 
 annihilate them. 
 
 Q. What conclusion do you draw from all this? 
 
 A. That such a work cannot be the work of God 
 which promised the revival of the true faith, and 
 produced manifold error, scepticism and unbelief, 
 — which promised piety, and produced lukewarm- 
 ness, — which promised a pure morality, and pro- 
 duced every kind debauchery. It is manifestly 
 the work of the devil, because u a good tree cannot 
 bring forth evil fruit } neither can an evil tree bring 
 forth good fruit . ” 
 
37 
 
 8. The Actual State of Protestantism, 
 
 Q. What is the special character and indelible 
 mark of Protestantism ? 
 
 A. Variation, change, disorder and endless 
 confusion ; such has always been and shall always 
 be the manifest and special mark of Protestantism. 
 As soon, one may say, as there have been two 
 Protestants, there have been two sects, two differ- 
 ent religions. To keep company to deny the 
 catholic faith, to pull down the old edifice, was 
 easy enough ; but when it came to building up 
 again, then immediately the architects fell to 
 quarrelling among themselves. Each one had his 
 own idea of what the Gospel is, and fought to 
 enforce it on others. “ It is of great importance,” 
 said Calvin, writing to Melancthon, “that posterity 
 should never * suspect the dissensions that have 
 arisen amongst us, for it is truly ridiculous that, 
 after opposing ourselves to the whole world, we 
 should, at the very commencement, differ among 
 ourselves.” [Ref. Lives and Deeds, p. 53.] 
 
 Unfortunately for them, however, posterity 
 knows not only the dissensions that arose amongst 
 the authors of Protestantism, but those also that 
 have been continually increasing amongst their 
 followers, down to this day. 
 
 We are not to enter into the fastidious story of 
 those variations. Suffice it to say, that huge dic- 
 tionaries have been composed to expound and 
 classify the different Protestant heresies that have 
 appeared from the time of Luther. 
 
 Q. What says the celebrated Protestant divine 
 Schleiermacher ? 
 
 A. He says that, at an average, Protestant 
 dogmas last fifteen years ; and he proves it by a 
 very elementary arithmetical operation, viz: the 
 addition of the various confessions of faith officially 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 published and officially cancelled and set aside, in 
 Protestant countries, since the time of the Refor- 
 mation. 
 
 Q. What has been the result of those continual 
 changes and alterations in the symbols of the 
 Protestant faith ? 
 
 A. The result is that there is no more any Pro- 
 testant faith. There are yet, thank God, many 
 individual Protestants who believe in the Trinity, 
 in the Incarnation, in such or such religious truths ; 
 but Protestantism, as such, does not believe in any- 
 thing. Even the divinity of Christ is, in many 
 Protestant countries, considered an open question, 
 and denied from the pulpit, in their official preach- 
 ing, by so-called Christian bishops and ministers, 
 who are, notwithstanding, accounted by all to be 
 good and staunch Protestants, whose only fault is 
 to be more logical than others. [See the conclu- 
 sion at the end of this Catechism.] 
 
 Q. What remains now of the Reformers’ first 
 i cachings ? 
 
 A. Nothing at all. Luther’s and Calvin’s dis- 
 ciples soon made changes in their masters’ doctrines, 
 and set up religions of their own ; and after num- 
 berless alterations and transformations, to-day, in 
 Saxony, Luther’s own country, Luther’s Complete 
 Works are prohibited as a dangerous and immoral 
 book ; in Geneva, Calvin’s own stronghold, the 
 prevailing doctrine is deeply anti-calvinist, and all 
 Calvin’s institutions have been overturned ; and so 
 iu every Protestant country, without any exception 
 whatever. 
 
 Q. What has become of the different Confessions 
 of Faith, established at the beginning of the Re- 
 formation ? 
 
 A. They are laughed at and forgotten. Who 
 cares now for the Articles of Smalcalde, or the 
 
39 
 
 Tetrapolitan Confession ? Who believes in one of 
 the five or six different editions of the Confession 
 of Augsburg? Who would sign the Acts of the 
 Dordrecht Council ? Who remembers the first, or 
 the second, or the third Helvetic Confession ? Who 
 would give his unqualified adhesion to the 42 
 Articles of Edward VI, or the 39 of Elizabeth ? 
 
 Q. But is not the Church of England an excep- 
 tion to that common rule ? 
 
 A. Not in the least. It has undergone the same 
 changes, and is reduced now-a-days to the same 
 state of general unbelief. As it is better known 
 than other sects, we shall give a short outline of 
 its history. 
 
 Established by Henry VIII, it was changed first 
 in the time of his son Edward YI. Then it was 
 that the holy Sacraments were abolished, the reli- 
 gious ceremonies mutilated, and the Church itself 
 thoroughly protestantized. Then it was that new 
 forms of ordination, devised for making such a 
 sort of pretended priests or bishops as they had a 
 mind to, were set up. Then it was that a new 
 confession of faith, consisting of 42 articles, was 
 enforced on the resisting people of England by the 
 swords of German troops brought in expressly for 
 that work. The first edition of the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, drawn up , as they declared, by the 
 special aid of the Holy Ghost , was put forth in 
 January 1549 ; yet, in two years’ time, it was su- 
 perseded by another, contradictory to the first in 
 many places, though drawn up , too, by the special 
 aid of the Holy Ghost. During the reign of Eliza- 
 beth, a new form was instituted, some of the old 
 articles were altered, and new ones devised. James 
 I made other changes, altered the Confession, 
 and introduced a new one. Charles I, advised by 
 Archbishop Laud, made another Reformation, 
 
40 
 
 which cost him his life. Then the Presbytery came 
 and made a total change. Afterwards the bishops 
 again reformed the liturgy, and devised new altera- 
 tions and ordinations, thinking the former ones 
 were defective ; etc., etc. 
 
 So much for the variations of the Anglican 
 Church. As to its actual faith, is there anything 
 of the kind in an Establishment, the spiritual head 
 of which, Queen Victoria, allows even ministers 
 to teach that baptism is a useless practice ? The 
 consequence is that to be a good Protestant and a 
 faithful member of the Church of England, it is 
 by no means necessary to receive baptism, and in 
 fact, according to Dr. Newman, not one half of 
 England is baptised. 
 
 The Church of England stands, because it is an 
 establishment of the State, a department of the 
 State, administered by the State, propped up by 
 the State. Its confession of faith is an act of Par- 
 liament, its Prayer Book an act of Parliament, its 
 very existence an act of Parliament, which may be 
 repealed to-morrow, as any other, by an opposition 
 majority, and then the Church of England shall be 
 a thing of the past. Can that be the one, un- 
 changeable, and immortal Church of Christ ? 
 
 Q. What do you remark on all this ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ says : Every one therefore that 
 heareth these my words and doth them , shall be 
 likened to a wise man that built his house upon a 
 rock , and the rain fell , and the floods came , and the 
 icinds blew , and they beat upon that house and it fell 
 not , because it was founded on a rock. And every 
 one that heareth these my words , and doth them not y 
 shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon 
 the sand , and the rain fell , and the floods came and 
 the winds blew , and they beat upon that house , and 
 it fell , and great was the fall thereof. [St. Matt, 
 ch. 7, v. 24 — 27.] 
 
41 
 
 At the time of the Reformation, when, in every 
 Protestant country, they were drawing new and 
 new confessions of faith, the Council of Trent, con- 
 Vocated by the Pope, made canons and decrees ex- 
 plaining and confirming the truths attacked by 
 the heretics. Three hundred years of wars and 
 revolutions have passed on. Now, while the Pro- 
 testant formularies have become a dead letter, the 
 Catholic Confession of faith is as fully accepted and 
 believed, as if it had been proclaimed to-day. Our 
 thousands of bishops, our thousands and hundreds of 
 thousands of priests, make it the absolute and infal- 
 lible text of their teaching. Which is the house 
 built on the rock? Which is the house built 
 upon the sand ? Let every one compare and judge. 
 
 9. On Conversions and Apostasies. 
 
 Q. What is conversion, and what is apostasy ? 
 
 A. To be converted is to give up an erroneous 
 creed to embrace the true faith ; to apostatize is to 
 forsake the true faith to embrace a false religion. 
 Conversion is a duty, the first of all ; apostasy is a 
 crime, the greatest of all. The Protestant who comes 
 back to the Church, is a convert ; the Catholic wdio 
 turns Protestant, is an apostate. That such is the 
 difference may be proved in two separate ways. 
 
 Q. What is your first argument ? 
 
 A. The Catholic faith, such as it has been in- 
 variably preached and believed since the Apostles’ 
 time, consists of a given number of positive dogmas, 
 such as the Unity of Grod, the Trinity, the Incar- 
 nation, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 
 the Papacy, etc., etc. . . When Protestants 
 
 separated from the Church, they maintained some of 
 those dogmas, and denied some others, more or less, 
 
42 
 
 according to the whims.of their chief leaders. Now, 
 whatever they kept, we have too ; whatever they 
 positively believe, we believe too. In this we differ : 
 they deny a part of what we believe, and it is that 
 very negation , that very protest , which makes them 
 Protestants. Hence follows this most evident and 
 palpable consequence : the Cathode who turns Pro»- 
 testant really and truly apostatizes, since he denies 
 to-day such and such truths which he believed 
 yesterday; but the Protestant who becomes a 
 Catholic does not forsake any known truth ; he 
 does not deny to-day what he believed yesterday ; 
 on the contrary, he believes to-day dogmas which 
 he denied yesterday, and therefore he is really and 
 truly a convert. 
 
 Q. What is your second argument ? 
 
 A. The convert does not throw away any moral 
 law, any obligation whatever ; on the contrary, he 
 binds himself to new laws, he submits to new pre- 
 cepts. The apostate breaks through the laws he had 
 been used to revere; fasting, abstinence, confession, 
 etc., he gives up everything which may be in anyway 
 painful or difficult. For you may remark, by the 
 way, that nothing is easier than to be a good Pro- 
 testant. Believe anything about religion ; believe 
 nothing if you like it better ; read the Bible now 
 and then, do not read it if you prefer ; go to some 
 temple or other of a Sunday, don’t go to any if you 
 find it troublesome ; try to be what the world calls 
 an honest man ; put your name on the subscription 
 list of some Bible Societies ; above all detest heartily 
 the Catholic Church, and you are to all intents and 
 purposes a good Protestant. 
 
 Not so with Catholics. There are, in the true 
 Church, positive laws to be obeyed ; there are 
 painful observances to be gone through. An 
 illustrious convert, the Count of Stolberg, was wont 
 to say : “ I have always remarked that the worst 
 
43 
 
 Catholic can be at once turned into an excellent 
 Protestant, sometimes into a minister of the Gos- 
 pel ; but I feel more and more every day that a. 
 good Protestant, as I have been, finds it very hard 
 to become an indifferent Catholic.” 
 
 Q. Why does one turn Protestant P 
 A. It is a well known and universally admitted 
 fact, that no Catholic ever turned Protestant for 
 Christian and avowable motives. Wounded pride, 
 disappointed ambition, lust, gross ignorance, the 
 desire of gain or preferment, etc., such were, such 
 are, such shall always he, in every possible case , 
 the true causes of apostacy. Who did ever see, in. 
 any country under the sun, one good practical 
 Catholic joining some Protestant sect out of anxie- 
 ty for his salvation ? Who did ever see one of the 
 apostates leading a Christian life, setting an 
 example of virtue to his new co-religionists? 
 Unfrocked monks, lascivious priests, debauched 
 nuns, all the dregs of the Catholic Church, in- 
 stinctively go down to Protestantism, there to find 
 sympathy and protection ; hut not one Catholic 
 ever dreamed of doing so for the sake of his soul. 
 Erasmus, who was in Germany at the time when 
 Luther’s pamphlet against celibacy appeared, has 
 left us some curious details. He represents certain 
 towns in Germany “ crowded with cowled deserters 
 and vagrant apostates, married priests, starving 
 and half-naked monks, leaping, dancing, getting 
 drunk, and praying for bread and a wife for the 
 rest of their lives, and paying no more regard to 
 the Gospel than to a hair of their beards.” [Ep. 
 Erasmi, p. 637.] “ Formerly,” adds our philoso- 
 pher, “ men left their wives for the sake of the 
 Gospel; now, the Gospel is said to flourish when 
 a monk has the luck to marry a rich wife,” [Ibid. 
 p. 768.] So obvious indeed is to everybody the ' 
 true character of those would-be conversions, that 
 
44 
 
 honest Protestants openly confess they feel dis- 
 gusted and ashamed of them. When, thirty years 
 ago, that infamous monk Achilli was triumphantly 
 carried all over England by a fanatical mob, how 
 many thousands of enlightened and upright Pro- 
 testants sorrowfully repeated Dean Swift’s saying : 
 “ When the Pope weeds his garden, he throws the 
 weeds over the wall, into our own.” 
 
 Q. Is not that also the case with Catholic con- 
 versions ? 
 
 A. Not at all. Of course, it may sometimes 
 happen that a Protestant is impelled to turn 
 Catholic by human and worldly motives, but these 
 are, and can be, but exceptions. Generally a 
 Protestant has nothing to gain, materially speaking, 
 and sometimes he has much to lose, by becoming 
 a Catholic. In Protestant countries, as everybody 
 knows, a man’s conversion mars his prospects in 
 life, exposes him to obloquy and hatred, now and 
 then to open persecution ; and it requires no small 
 amount of courage to break through all the ob- 
 stacles and trammels which the devil and the 
 ■world throw in the way. But God is with those 
 who sincerely seek him ; he gives them faith, and 
 this is the victory which overcometh the icorlcl f our 
 faith. [1 John, ch. 5, v. 4.] 
 
 What but faith, supernatural faith, could have 
 brought back to the Church men like Newman, F aber. 
 Manning, the Wilberforces, Dalgairns, and hun- 
 dreds of other clergymen of the Church of England, 
 who generously forsook all that science, reputation, 
 high connections, etc., can procure in this world ? 
 
 What but faith could have induced, for instance, 
 the illustrious Lord Spencer, not only to turn 
 Catholic, but to become a priest and a monk of the 
 humble order of the Passionists, where he is known 
 under the name of Father Ignatius ? 
 
45 
 
 What but faith could have caused the conversion 
 of princes like the Duke of Saxe Gotha, a near 
 relation of Queen Victoria (1817), of the Count of 
 Injenheim, brother of the King of Prussia (1826), 
 of the brother of the King of Wurtemberg (1851), 
 of Her Majesty the Queen-Mother of Bavaria 
 (1847), etc.; of men as celebrated as Werner, 
 Frederic Schlegel, de Haller, Frederic Hurter, 
 Overbeck, Dr. Brownson, Lord Ripon, Grand 
 Master of the English Freemasons; etc., etc.? 
 Such, at least, (and we could quote thousands of 
 others) are true conversions, which not even the 
 most bigoted tract-writer could venture to ascribe 
 to unworthy motives. 
 
 Q. What follows from all this ? 
 
 A. The necessary conclusion of what we have 
 just said cannot be better explained than in the 
 following words of a celebrated French writer : 
 
 “ If I were unhappy enough not to be a Catholic, 
 I should feel very uneasy, when considering how 
 many men of genius, since Luther and Calvius 
 time, have, after the most searching inquiry , if 
 Catholics, adhered the more strongly to their faith, 
 if Protestants, given up the reformed creed to turn 
 Catholics. That I should think quite a sufficient 
 motive to make inquiry myself, and a strict and 
 severe inquiry would I make.” [Segur’s Causeries, 
 p. 43.] 
 
 Q. Have you anything else to remark ? 
 
 A. One word more. It is a notorious fact that, 
 every day, priests are called to the death-bed of 
 some Protestant who wants to abjure his errors, 
 and get reconciled to the true Church of Christ 
 before appealing in the presence of God. Why ? — 
 Nobody has ever heard of a dying Catholic want- 
 ing, when at the threshold of eternity, to turn 
 Protestant. Why ? On another hand, it is a com- 
 
46 
 
 mon occurrence for an apostate from Catholicism 
 to return to the old creed, when at the hour of 
 death ; but who ever heard of a convert from Pro- 
 testantism wanting in his dying moments to go 
 back to heresy again ? 
 
 In a small town of Northern Germany, there 
 lived, not many years ago, a priest who, untrue to 
 his high vocation, and forgetful of his sacred duties, 
 gave himself up to dissipation and debauchery. 
 As is generally the case in similar circumstances, 
 he turned Protestant, was made at once a minister 
 of the Gospel, and went on preaching error with 
 the same mouth that had so long preached truth. 
 This frightful state of things lasted several years, till 
 one day he was invited to dinner, with the ministers 
 of the neighbourhood, at the house of the parson 
 of a small town in the vicinity. 
 
 While they were enjoying themselves, some one 
 came in, and announced to their host that there 
 was a dying man in his parish, who seemed to be 
 much in want of spiritual consolation. The parson 
 happening to be, for some reason or other, prevent- 
 ed from going himself, the apostate priest tendered 
 his services, which were accepted. 
 
 He was shown into a small room where lay an 
 old man, apparently in his last struggles, writhing 
 in the agonies of despair. Vainly did the minister 
 try to console him, vainly did he read some verses 
 of the Holy Scripture : “ Leave me,” answered the 
 dying man, “ leave me, there is no pardon for me; I 
 am lost, I am condemned to helL” To all the 
 minister’s exhortations, “No, no,” repeated he, 
 “ there is no one who can help me, my sin is too 
 great, there is no salvation, no heaven for me, I am 
 lost for ever.” “For God’s sake,” said the minis- 
 ter, “ tell me why, unburthen your heart, do not 
 despair.” But the dying man heeded him not. 
 
 At length, however, yielding to the minister’s 
 
47 
 
 entreaties : “ There is no heaven, no salvation for 
 me,” said he, “ because I am an apostate priest, 
 and have to answer for so many and so dreadful 
 sins besides ! so long and obstinate a resistance to 
 the secret solicitations of God’s grace ! so heartless 
 a disregard for divine mercy ! Alas, what can I 
 do ? my sin is too great ! There is no hope of 
 pardon, no help, no salvation ! I am lost, leave me.” 
 
 Such an avowal, at such an awful moment, 
 such an accurate image of the fearful state of his 
 own soul, were too much for the minister. He at 
 once remembered the faith of his earlier years, and 
 conscious of the ineradicable power he had received 
 when he was made a priest, “ My dearest brother,” 
 said he to the dying man, “ my dearest brother, do 
 not despair. As true as there is but one God, I 
 can help you. I am myself a Catholic priest, I 
 assure you ; I am, alas ! like yourself, an apostate ; 
 I am excommunicated, that is true, but, as you 
 well know, I can give a true absolution to one who 
 is at the point of death, and open for him the 
 gates of heaven.” 
 
 Had an angel descended from on high to bring 
 the hopeful tidings of salvation to the helpless 
 sinner, he could not have felt more joy and con- 
 fidence, than was caused by this unexpected dis- 
 covery. Awed into thankfulness and repentance 
 by such an astonishing stroke of the infinite 
 mercy of God, who, at the last minute of his guilty 
 life, offered him forgiveness and salvation, he did, 
 with feelings of deep sorrow and sincere contrition, 
 make a full confession of his sins, and after 
 receiving absolution, died in the peace of the Lord. 
 
 Our apostate, who had been made in that wonder- 
 ful way the instrument of God’s unbounded love 
 for sinners, could not stand such a sight. His 
 conscience was smitten with bitter remorse, and 
 his heart changed by the all-powerful influence of 
 
48 
 
 ♦ 
 
 divine grace ; he at once resolved to return to the 
 true faith, and do penance for his sins. Going 
 hack to his dinner companions, who had not yet 
 separated, “ Farewell, gentlemen,” said he, “fare- • 
 well. I have just seen how dreadful it is to die 
 [in apostate, and I must return to the Church I 
 have so perfidiously forsaken. I have found my- 
 self a priest again, to be the unworthy instrument 
 of God’s mercy to another, and a priest shall I 
 remain to my last day, that this mercy may be 
 granted to me also.” [Segur’s Causerics . p. 220.] 
 Should these lines meet the eye of some unfortu- 
 nate apostate, let him ponder on the infinite mercy 
 of God, and come back at once to the true fold. 
 How great and numerous soever his sins may be, 
 let him not despair, for God is never deaf to the 
 cries of the repenting sinner. 
 
PART II 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 Were this little book intended for heathens or infidels, I 
 should have exposed here the fundamental truths, such as 
 the Unity and Trinity of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the 
 Redemption, etc., and adduced the victorious arguments on 
 which rests the unshaken basis of the Christian religion. But 
 I am speaking to people who have been baptized, who 
 believe in Jesus Christ, who know that he alone is the 
 Saviour ; so that the most important or rather the only 
 question is this : Which is the rule of faith established by 
 
 Christ ? that is : how are we, who came into the world 
 eighteen centuries after he had left it, who cannot see him 
 nor hear his words, how are we to know with absolute 
 certainty his doctrine and his commandments P 
 
 Hence, in the following chapters, I shall prove that the 
 Church of Christ is the true and infallible rule of faith; that 
 the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ ; that 
 from her alone we can have the whole word of God, written 
 as well as not written, explained infallibly in its true sense ; 
 and consequently that we -must obey the Church, and submit 
 to the Pope, whom Christ has established the head of this 
 Church, out of which there is no salvation. 
 
 5 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS THE 
 INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 1. Which is the True Rule of Faith ? 
 
 Q. What is faith ? 
 
 A. Faith is a supernatural grace, or gift of God, 
 by which we believe firmly in God, and in all things 
 whatsoever he has revealed, even those we do not 
 comprehend. 
 
 Q. What is the rule of faith ? 
 
 A. The rule of faith is the means by which we 
 know with infallible certainty all the truths 
 revealed by God, and discern them from merely 
 human opinions, and from heretical errors. 
 
 Q. Must there be a rule of faith ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ having suffered on the cross for 
 all men, and faith in him as well as obedience to 
 his precepts being the only way to salvation, it is 
 self-evident that he must have established some 
 means to teach all men, with infallible certaint}', 
 the truths he has revealed, and the precepts he 
 has commanded. 
 
 Q. Which is the true rule of faith ? 
 
 A. The true rule of faith is the whole word of 
 God, written as well as not written, explained 
 infallibly in its true sense by the teaching body of 
 the Church. In other words, the true rule of 
 faith is the infallible Church of Christ, from which 
 w r e receive both Scripture and Tradition. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? 
 
 A. This rule of faith is the true one ; firstly, 
 because no other is possible, the various rules 
 imagined by heretics being opposed to common 
 
sense, and proved false by the history of mankind, 
 as well as by Scripture itself; and secondly, 
 because in fact, Jesus Christ has established this 
 and no other. 
 
 2. The Protestant Rules of Faith. 
 
 Q. What are the various Protestant rules of 
 faith P 
 
 A. Firstly, the rule of the Anabaptists, Quakers, 
 Moravians, Mormons and others, who, rejecting 
 even Scripture, suppose a private inspiration made 
 by God to each individual. 
 
 Secondly, the rule of the Socinians, Unitarians, 
 etc., who admit nothing of Scripture, but what 
 reason can clearly understand. 
 
 Thirdly, the rule of the great majority* of 
 Protestants, who maintain that the Bible, and the 
 Bible only, as it is understood by each individual, 
 whether ignorant or learned, is the rule of faith 
 given by God to mankind. 
 
 Q. What do you think of the first of these three 
 rules of faith ? 
 
 A. It is nothing less than the annihilation of 
 Scripture, and of all revealed religion : a general 
 revelation being perfectly useless, if each individual 
 be personally inspired. Moreover, how can those 
 poor deluded fanatics know and prove that they 
 are impelled by the Spirit of God, and not by the 
 spirit of darkness ? 
 
 Q. What do you think of the Socinian rule of 
 faith ? 
 
 A. It is absurd and blasphemous ; absurd, because 
 the history of the superstitions of mankind is a 
 lamentable proof of the weakness and infirmity of 
 human reason, when left to itself, in matters of re- 
 ligion ; blasphemous, because the reason of man, 
 
52 
 
 being limited, cannot pretend to fathom the un- 
 fathomable abyss of God’s infinite wisdom and 
 power. 
 
 Q. What do you think of the third Protestant 
 rule of faith ? 
 
 A. The system that makes Scripture, privately 
 interpreted, the only rule of faith, is directly 
 opposed to the teaching of Scripture itself and to 
 common sense ; it destroys even the possibility of 
 faith, by giving it no other basis than a self- 
 confident inquiry, which so easily turns into self- 
 deceit, and causes innumerable people to id rest the 
 Word of God to their own destruction. [2 Pet. 
 ch. 3, v. 16.] 
 
 As this doctrine is the key-stone of Protestant- 
 ism, its very soul, as it were ; as they pretend that 
 private interpretation of Scripture is the innate 
 right of every Christian, we must enter into more 
 particulars, and prove, to a demonstration, that 
 the Bible privately interpreted has never been, 
 cannot be, has not been intended by God to be, 
 and is not practically accepted by Protestants 
 themselves to be the rule of faith. 
 
 3. Holy Scripture privately Interpreted 
 has never been the Rule 
 of Faith. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that Scripture by itself, 
 and privately interpreted, has never been the rule 
 of faith ? 
 
 A. Because under the Old as well as under the 
 New Law, we see the Church existing, perfectly 
 constituted, and using her authority, — the Jewish 
 Church, before one line of the Old Testament, the 
 Christian Church before one line of the New, were 
 written. 
 
53 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? 
 
 A. As for the Old Law, we see the Jewish 
 Church existing under the authority of Moses, the 
 people coming to him to seek the judgment of God 
 . . . the precepts of God and his laivs, [Exod. ch. 18, 
 v. 15, 16.] Aaron made the high priest, Josue, 
 the chief military commander, and all that at a 
 time when not one word of the Bible was written. 
 The first tables of the Law, engraved by the Lord, 
 having been broken by Moses, some months elapsed 
 before the second tables were brought from 
 Sinai, and presented to the people, and it was 
 much later that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The 
 other books of the Old Testament were, as every- 
 body knows, composed many centuries after, by 
 David, Solomon,' the Prophets, etc., etc. 
 
 As for the New Law, Jesus Christ preaches, 
 establishes his Church, commands his Apostles to 
 preach everywhere, gives them his own authority, 
 and finally sends them his Holy Spirit from heaven. 
 The Christian Church then exists, full of life, 
 completely organized. She assembles in council, 
 once to choose a new Apostle instead of Judas the 
 traitor, at another time to pronounce the abroga- 
 tion of the Jewish ceremonial laws, to admit the 
 gentiles, etc., etc, She baptizes thousands and 
 thousands, she converts the world, and, as yet, not 
 one word of the Gospel is written. Need we 
 remark that the Church of Rome, that of Corinth, 
 etc., existed before the Epistle to the Romans, or 
 the Epistle to the Corinthians ? The Gospel of St. 
 John, the last written of the books of the New 
 Testament, was composed at the end of the first 
 century, that is, forty years after St. Paul said to 
 the Romans : Your faith is spoken of in the whole 
 world. [Rom. ch. 1 , v. 8.] 
 
 Q. What follows from this ? 
 
 A. That to the chosen people of God in Moses's 
 
B4 
 
 time, and to the Christians of the primitive 
 Church, Scripture was not the rule of faith, since 
 Scripture there was none. I hope no Protestant 
 will deny the inference. 
 
 Q. But did not Scripture, after it was written, 
 supersede the authority of the Church ? 
 
 A. By no means. Under the Old as well as un- 
 der the New Law, we see the Church of God existing 
 and acting independently of scriptural authority. 
 The Scriptures are given to her, kept by her, autho- 
 ritatively explained by her. But to appeal to the 
 Bible privately interpreted, as the only rule of 
 faith, was not dreamed of till the time of Luther. 
 
 Q. Is that assertion supported by facts ? 
 
 A. It is. After the Law was written by Moses, 
 it was not given into the hands of the people, but 
 put inside the Ark, and the priests were to read it 
 to the people once in seven years. [Deut. ch. 31, 
 v. 9, 10, 11.] 
 
 After the captivity of Babylon, the Jews that 
 lived in Judaea spoke a dialect of the Syriac, and 
 though the use of the Hebrew language was lost 
 amongst them, Scriptures were not translated into 
 Syriac until the time of Jesus Christ. It is true 
 that the Hellenist Jews who dwelt in Egypt got, 
 at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a Greek trans- 
 lation of the five books of Moses, the celebrated Sep- 
 tuagint version ; but in Egypt as well as in Judaea 
 the Scriptures were not given to the people ; they 
 were explained to them by the doctors of the 
 Law ; of which fact Jesus Christ himself stands 
 witness when he says : The Scribes and the 
 Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All 
 things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, 
 observe and do. [St. Matt. ch. 23, v. 2, 3.] 
 
 Q. But was not that rule changed when we 
 
55 
 
 were freed by the blood of Christ from the bond- 
 age of the Law ? 
 
 A. Not at all. When certain teachers, at 
 Antioch, disputed with Paul and Barnabas, con- 
 cerning the necessity of circumcision, they did not 
 appeal to Scripture privately interpreted. They 
 sent a deputation to consult the Apostles at 
 Jerusalem, and, under the direction of the Holy 
 Ghost, the point was decided by the Church, 
 which shows that Scripture was not accounted 
 to be the only rule, otherwise both the Apostles 
 and the Antiochians would have been guilty of a 
 heinous sin in abandoning it. Nor did the Chris- 
 tians of the first centuries, of what Protestants 
 call the pure early Church, follow the Protestant 
 rule of faith ; for, to quote one instance only, 
 when Arius denied the divinity of Christ, there 
 was no appeal made to private interpretation of 
 Scripture. A general council was called in the 
 year 325, and the heretic was condemned by the 
 infallible teaching body of the Church. 
 
 Q. Is there any other argument ? 
 
 A. There is. What we have just proved to be 
 the case with the whole Church, is equally the 
 case with the individual Christian. As soon as 
 a man believes in Christ and is baptised, no matter 
 whether he can read or not, whether he knows the 
 existence of divinely inspired Scriptures or ignores 
 it, is not that man a Christian ? Is he not account- 
 ed a Christian by every one and every- where ? 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. I conclude that the Church having existed 
 before Scripture, and existing independently of it, 
 and the knowledge of Scripture being in no way 
 essential to be a Christian, it is manifest that 
 Scripture, by itself, is not and has never been the 
 rule of faith. 
 
66 
 
 4. Holy Scripture privately interpreted 
 cannot be the Rule of Faith. 
 
 Q. Why cannot the Bible privately interpreted 
 be the rule of faith ? 
 
 A. The Bible does not prove itself. Before we 
 admit it, before we submit to its authority, before 
 we reverence it as the book written by the inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Ghost, we want to be made sure 
 that such is the case ; that is, we want an infalli- 
 ble rule of faith, anterior to the Bible and distinct 
 from it, to ascertain the fact of divine inspiration, 
 to point out which books are true Scripture, etc. 
 In other words, we can have the Holy Scriptures 
 from the Church of Christ, and from that Church 
 only, and those who throw away the authority of 
 the Church can have no certainty whatever con- 
 cerning the Bible, its meaning, its inspiration, its 
 very existence. [For all necessary explanations 
 $ee a little farther, ch. III.] 
 
 Q. But the Bible once admitted to he the in- 
 fallible word of God, what need is there of any 
 other rule of faith ? 
 
 A. Though the Bible is the infallible word of 
 God, yet it cannot be, by itself, the rule of faith, 
 because men, who are to interpret it, are not in- 
 fallible. You understand some important text 
 that way, I understand it another way ; we may 
 both be wrong, one of us at least certainly is. 
 Who is to judge between us ? Here again we want 
 another infallible rule of faith, anterior to the 
 Bible and distinct from it, to point out the true 
 meaning, and give our faith a solid ground to rest 
 upon. 
 
 Q. Enforce this truth by a comparison. 
 
 A. What sort of society should we have if it 
 it were constituted on Protestant principles, if 
 every man were his own judge, if there were no 
 
57 
 
 courts, no magistrates, to settle contentions, but 
 only the printed book of the law put into the 
 hands of everybody, and explained by everybody 
 according to his own whims and prejudices ? 
 
 Q. What would be the necessary consequences 
 of the principle of private interpretation if it were 
 fully acted upon ? 
 
 A. The total destruction of faith and morals. 
 Common sense tells us that there is no error so 
 stupid, no crime so revolting, no sin so infamous, 
 which cannot be justified by some misapplied text 
 of Scripture. So inexhaustible are the resources 
 of cunning and chicanery, that the following is a 
 common saying all over the world : “ Give me two 
 lines of any man’s handwriting, and I will get 
 him hanged.” What shall it be when the 72 
 inspired and mysterious books of the Bible, are 
 given up to private interpretation ? How easy, 
 under the dictates of passion or self-interest, to 
 torture some verse or other into a ridiculous or 
 guilty meaning! The Adamites inferred from 
 Scripture that a true Christian must, under pain 
 of sin, walk about stark naked ; the Ophites, that 
 the perfidious serpent which seduced our first 
 mother was no other than Jesus Christ himself, 
 etc., etc. When the Parliament of England pro- 
 nounced the first marriage of Henry VIII to be 
 null and void, and permitted the adulterous king 
 to marry Anna de Boleyn, the filthy act was 
 founded on these words of Scripture : because he 
 ( Elcana ) loved Anna. [1 Kings, ch. 1, v. 5.] 
 
 Q. Is unity of faith possible in the Protestant 
 system ? 
 
 A. No. As long as men shall be men, that is 
 free beings, with different tempers, different pas- 
 sions, different capacities, different minds, etc., it 
 is evidently impossible that they shall agree in 
 their interpretation of Scripture. 
 
58 
 
 During three hundred years, the Bible privately 
 interpreted has been the rule of Protestants. Now, 
 if this were the true rule of faith, all Protestants 
 would be of one faith, and give the same interpre- 
 tation to every passage. But the reverse is the 
 case. While the Church of England pronounces 
 from Scripture that Christ is God, the Unitarians, 
 from the same Scripture, say that he is not God, 
 but man only. The Presbyterians infer from it, 
 that Episcopacy is an accursed and diabolical 
 thing ; the Independents, that the Presbyterian 
 system is anti-christian, etc., etc. And thus it is 
 with all the sects of which the Reformation has 
 proved the prolific parent. There are not two 
 Protestants who perfectly agree in their interpre- 
 tation of Scripture. Nay, there are few Protes- 
 tants consistent with themselves, and keeping 
 always to the same faith. If you know their 
 doctrifie to-day, you cannot say what it will be 
 to-morrow. Wesley, before becoming one of the 
 founders of Methodism, changed his religion sixteen 
 times. [See his Life.] 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. The nature of the Bible itself ; for the Bible 
 is not a regular treatise or exposition of religious 
 truths, it is a vast collection of books, some his- 
 torical, others prophetical, others of a merely 
 moral import. Protestants, when trying to make 
 a body of doctrine out of Scripture only, are 
 obliged to pick up here and there the texts useful 
 to their purpose ; they are compelled to go back- 
 ward and forward, to take part of a passage from 
 one book, and part from another, to string the 
 several fragments together, to form a piece of 
 patchwork, which they call the religion of Christ, 
 and all that without any revealed authority what- 
 ever. Can any one in his senses suppose that 
 Jesus Christ could have left those whom he re- 
 
59 
 
 deemed by hi a precious blood, to choose for them- 
 selves a religion in that most arbitrary manner ? 
 
 Q. What says Scripture itself ? 
 
 A. It says that no prophecy of Scripture is 
 made by private interpretation. [2 Pet. ch. 1, 
 v, 20.] — and a little farther, that there are (in 
 Scripture) certain things hard to be understood, 
 which the unlearned and unstable icrest. ..to their 
 own destruction. [2 Pet. ch. 3, v. 16.] 
 
 And yet, such is the inexplicable bewitching 
 power of early prejudices, even on otherwise clear- 
 minded men, that in the very face of these texts, 
 Protestants maintain that every text of Scripture 
 is to be privately interpreted. They pretend that 
 such a private interpretation is the only foundation 
 on which Christian faith is to rest ; they impose 
 on each individual, however ignorant he may be, 
 the duty of making his own religion out of the 
 inspired volume ; they compel, as it were, the 
 Holy Ghost to place himself at the service of every 
 Protestant, and suppose that the celestial truth 
 will inundate the reader’s mind, provided however 
 he does not venture to discover the Catholic sense 
 in the sacred texts. 
 
 Q. What follows from all this ? 
 
 A. Taking men as they are, and Scripture as it 
 is, there is no truth more palpable than this : 
 Scripture, privately interpreted, cannot be the rule 
 of faith. 
 
 5. God never intended the Bible pri- 
 vately interpreted to be the 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that God, when giving 
 his Church the inspired Scriptures, did not intend 
 them to be the only rule of faith ? 
 
60 
 
 A. We have just proved that Scripture alone is 
 not, never was, and cannot be the rule of faith. 
 These facts are more than sufficient to support our 
 assertion, but there are, besides, strong and direct 
 arguments, to which Protestants have never been 
 able to give any answer. 
 
 Q. What is your first argument ? 
 
 A. Had Jesus Christ intended the Bible to be 
 man’s only guide in matters of faith, he would 
 certainly have written it, or at least, ordered it to 
 be written; yet he never did so; he never wrote a 
 single word himself, he never commanded his 
 Apostles to write Bibles, but to preach the Gospel. 
 Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel 
 to every creature. [St. Mark, ch. 16, v. 15.] Will 
 Protestants say that our Lord did not understand 
 the proper way to perform his work of salvation, 
 or that he failed in accomplishing it ? 
 
 Q. What is your second argument ? 
 
 A. If the written word were to be the only true 
 rule of faith, why did not the Apostles write mil- 
 lions of Bibles, and send them to all the ends of 
 the earth, with aT command that all should read 
 them ? Why did they not establish schools, that 
 all might be taught to read P Why did only a few 
 of them write something ? Why did they allow 
 nearly one hundred years to pass before writing 
 the last book of Scripture ? And those amongst 
 them who wrote nothing, were they not inspired 
 by the Holy Ghost, as their companions ? Were 
 they false to their trust, when converting the world 
 without writing one single syllable? Why did 
 they not even translate the Scripture into the 
 vulgar tongues of the nations they converted ? 
 Why did not St. Peter and St. Paul, when living 
 at Pome, translate into the Poman tongue even 
 their own epistles ? Why did St. Paul write to 
 
61 
 
 the Romans in Greek, a language understood only 
 by educated people ? From all this it is evident 
 that the Apostles did not consider the written word 
 to be the only rule of faith. 
 
 Q. What is your third argument ? 
 
 A. If the Protestant rule of faith be the true one, 
 they are driven to assert that during fifty-four 
 centuries, from the creation of man till the inven- 
 tion of printing, the world was left by God without 
 any rule of faith. 
 
 TJntil the time of Moses, during two thousand 
 and five hundred years, there was no written 
 revelation, and yet Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Melchi- 
 sedech, etc., were saved by the belief of truths 
 known by tradition. 
 
 Moses, as we have seen above, did not give the 
 Law into the hands of the people, nor were the 
 Scriptures translated from the Hebrew tongue 
 after the captivity of Babylon, though the Jews 
 no longer understood that language. 
 
 During the first four hundred years of Chris- 
 tianity, owing to the persecutions, but few copies 
 of Scripture existed ; some books were lying at one 
 Church, some at another ; they were translated 
 into only two languages ; and yet, during these 
 first four centuries nearly the whole known world 
 was converted. 
 
 Until the art of' printing was invented, few 
 could read, and fewer could get a copy of the 
 Scriptures, which cost immense sums of money. 
 Even to-day, what rule are they to follow who 
 cannot read, and those numberless multitudes, the 
 immense majority of mankind, who working un- 
 ceasingly to get the bare necessaries of life, can 
 spare no time to read ? 
 
 Q. Wliat is your fourth argument ? 
 
 A. Were the Protestant rule of faith the true 
 
 6 
 
62 
 
 one ; had every man, from God, the right to coin his 
 own religion out of Scripture privately interpreted, 
 a body of teaching pastors would be a useless 
 encumbrance, and such a thing as spiritual minis- 
 try a ridiculous nonsense. Why then did Christ 
 choose twelve Apostles P Why did he send them 
 to go and ‘preach ? Why did the Apostles choose 
 other men to be their successors, as is to be seen 
 in these words of St. Paul to Timothy : The 
 things ichich thou hast heard of me by many 
 witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who 
 shall be fit to teach others also? [2 Tim. ch. 2, 
 V. 2.] 
 
 Q. What is your fifth argument P 
 
 A. There are truths necessary to salvation 
 which are not evidently laid down in Scripture ; 
 so, not to speak of Scripture itself, of its inspira- 
 tion, of its meaning, etc., which necessary truths 
 cannot be found in Scripture, where do we find 
 the formal abrogation of all the ceremonial precepts 
 of the Mosaic Law ? Where the substitution of 
 Sunday for Saturday, as a day of rest ? Where the 
 abrogation of the Apostles’ precept of abstaining 
 from blood and animals suffocated ? Where 
 whether children are to be baptized or not, etc., 
 etc? Which things are very important, and above 
 all the last, upon which the salvation of one-third 
 of mankind depends, since above a third of the 
 human race die before their seventh year. Now, 
 if God had intended Scripture to be our only rule 
 of faith, would he have left such important truths 
 unexplained ? 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That Scripture, reason, and the history of 
 mankind prove to a demonstration that God never 
 intended Scripture to be the only rule of faith. 
 
63 
 
 6. Protestants do not follow Scripture 
 as their only Rule of Faith. 
 
 Q. Have you any other proof that Scripture, 
 privately interpreted, cannot be the rule of faith ? 
 
 A. We have: Protestants themselves, though 
 they support the liberty of interpretation in theory 
 are obliged to abandon it in practice. All Pro- 
 testant Churches interfere with, and restrain this 
 liberty, of which they boast so much. 
 
 Q. Give a proof of it. 
 
 A. Every Protestant sect has ministers, or 
 elders, or clergymen, whose duty it is to preach 
 and explainjScripture. What for ? If the parson’s 
 explanations are to be heard and believed, then 
 Protestants are guilty of what they denounce as one 
 of the greatest sins of Popery, viz : the interposi- 
 tion of human authority between man and the 
 Spirit of God ; if not, why keep any clergy at all ? 
 
 Q. What is your next argument ? 
 
 A. The Church of England excommunicates, 
 the Church of Scotland excommunicates, all Pro- 
 testant Churches, more or less, excommunicate for 
 doctrinal errors. Is this reconcilable with the right 
 of private judgment? Can there be anything 
 more absurd than to authorize each man to inter- 
 pret, and then excommunicate him for doing so ? 
 Why those furious denunciations against Catholics, 
 against Dissenters, Unitarians, etc., if every one 
 be free to explain Scripture in his own way? 
 Why those suspensions of Pusey, Wilberforce, 
 Denison, Colenso, and others, if every one has 
 from Christ the right of private judgment ? 
 
 Q. Is there are any other proof ? 
 
 A. If Scripture were for Protestants the only 
 rule of faith they would be bound by no other. 
 Now we see the contrary. The followers of the 
 
64 
 
 Established Church must sign the 39 Articles ; the 
 Lutherans must adopt what is called the Confes- 
 sion of Augsburg ; and every sectary must uphold 
 the peculiar tenets of his sect, under pain of being 
 turned out. So, besides believing in Scripture, 
 the Quaker must believe in Fox, the Wesleyan 
 must believe in Wesley, and so forth. 
 
 Q. Why do Protestants so contradict their 
 principles ? 
 
 A. Because no Church, not even the mere ap- 
 pearance of a Church, would be possible, if the 
 right of private interpretation were not checked 
 in some way or other. Let every one freely use 
 this pretended right, and to-morrow you will have 
 as many Churches as you have Bible readers. 
 Such a barefaced contradiction between theory and 
 practice, must open the eyes of all but those who 
 are voluntarily blind. No man in his senses will 
 resist this evidence : the rule of faith, which its 
 very supporters are unable or unwilling to follow, 
 is not, and cannot be, the true rule of faith. 
 
 7. Jesus Christ has established his 
 Church to be the infallible Rule 
 of Faith. 
 
 Q. Who has established the Church ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ himself. He it was who said 
 to Simon : Thou art Peter ( that is a rock), and 
 upon this rock I icill build my Churchy and the 
 qates of hell shall not prevail against it. [St. 
 Matt. ch. 16, v. 18.] 
 
 He it was who on this unshaken foundation 
 built the whole structure, when he gave to the 
 twelve Apostles and to their lawful successors for 
 ever, the doctrinal, legislative and administrative 
 powers necessary to its existence : Teach ye all 
 nations. . . . and } behold t 1 am with you all days, 
 
G5 
 
 even to the consummation of the world. [St. Matt, 
 ch. 28, v. 19, 20.] He that heareth you heard h 
 me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me. [St. 
 Luke, ch. 10, v. 16.] If he will not hear the Church , 
 let him he to thee as the heathen and publican. 
 [St. Matt. ch. 18, v. 17.] Whatsoever you shall 
 bind upon earth shall be hound also in heaven , 
 and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth , shall be 
 loosed also in heaven. [St. Matt. ch. 18, v. 18.] 
 
 Q. Why did Jesus Christ establish his Church ? 
 
 A. To give to all men an infallible rule of faith, 
 and consequently a sure way to salvation ; for the 
 teaching body of the pastors of the Church, when 
 taken collectively, with the Chief Pastor at their 
 head, is necessarily infallible, that is, cannot teach 
 any error against faith or morals. They are not 
 infallible of themselves, since they are men, but 
 so were the Apostles and the Prophets. It is God 
 that makes them infallible for the benefit of his 
 people, as he made the Apostles and the Prophets, 
 I am with you all days ! And Christ himself teaches 
 by their lips, lie that heareth you heareth me. 
 
 Q. Explain this a little more ? 
 
 A. Whatsoever God has revealed, man, when 
 he knows it, is bound to believe, by reason of the 
 veracity of God, who can neither deceive nor be 
 deceived, and he that doth not believe is already 
 judged. [St. John, ch. 3, v. 18.] But God has 
 made provision that man should know his revela- 
 tion ; he has committed it to his Church, he has 
 made her the living witness and infallible teacher 
 of truth. Whatsoever, therefore, the Church pro- 
 poses to our belief as the word of God, written or 
 unwritten, whether by her ordinary and universal 
 teaching or by her solemn judgment and definition, 
 we are bound to believe by divine and Catholic 
 faith. 
 
66 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that the Church can 
 make that which God did not reveal become an 
 article of faith, or that she can add to the revela- 
 tion of God and will be infallibly correct in such 
 additions ? 
 
 A. Not at all. The Church has no authority 
 to change what God has revealed, no authority to 
 add to what God has revealed, but she is an in- 
 fallible and unerring witness of what God has 
 revealed ; nothing more, nothing less. 
 
 Q. Is not this doctrine opposed to Scripture ? 
 
 A. No ; on the contrary, there are few truths 
 more clearly laid down in Scripture, than this 
 fundamental truth of the infallibility of the Church. 
 
 Q. What do we find in Isaias ? 
 
 A. That no weapon that is formed against 
 the Church of Christ , shall prosper; that she 
 shall condemn every tongue which resisteth her in 
 judgment, [ch. 54, v. 17.] That the nations 
 and kingdoms that will not serve her , shall perish. 
 [ch. 60, v. 12.] That she shall not be confounded , 
 nor blush, [ch. 54, v. 4.] And again : I will 
 make thee to be an everlasting glory. . . Salvation 
 shall possess thy walls . . . the Lord shall be unto thee 
 for an everlasting light, . . . thy sun shall go down 
 no more , and thy moon shall not decrease . [ch. 60, 
 v. 15, 18, 19, 20.] I will make their icork in truth , 
 and I will make a perpetual covenant with them. 
 [ch. 61, v. 8.] This is my covenant with them : 
 my Spirit that is in thee , and my icords that 1 
 have put in thy mouth , shall not depart out of thy 
 mouth , nor out of the mouth of thy seed , nor out 
 of the mouth of thy seed's seed , from henceforth 
 and for ever. [ch. 59, v. 21.] 
 
 Now, could nations be compelled to serve the 
 Church, could she have power from God to con- 
 demn every tongue that opposes her decisions, 
 
67 
 
 could she be an everlasting glory, could the Lord 
 be unto her an everlasting light, if she were not 
 divinely infallible ? How could the Church teach 
 error, with whom God has made an everlasting 
 covenant, in whose mouth he has put his words 
 
 FOR EVER ? 
 
 Q. What says Ezechiel ? 
 
 A. I will save my flock, and it shall be no more 
 a spoil, [ch. 34, v. 22.] And again: They shall 
 walk in my judgments. . . I ivill make a cove- 
 
 nant of peace with them I will set my 
 sanctuary in the midst of them for ever. [ch. 37, 
 v. 24, 26.] 
 
 Q. What do we find in Jeremias ? 
 
 A. I icill give them one heart and one way, that 
 they may fear me all days ; and I will give my 
 fear in their heart , that they may not revolt from 
 me. [ch. 32, v. 39, 40.] 
 
 Q. What says Jesus Christ himself ? 
 
 A. "We have quoted above some of the 
 words of Christ which prove that he is the true 
 founder of the Church. The same words prove 
 evidently that he has made her infallible, and 
 that to deny it is to give God himself the lie. 
 
 When Jesus Christ promises that the gates of 
 hell shall not prevail against his Church, is it not 
 downright blasphemy to say that they shall ? 
 When he promises to be with his Church all days , 
 even to the consummation of the world, is it not 
 downright blasphemy to say that he will forsake 
 her, were it but for one day ? When he solemnly 
 declares that he who heareth his Church heareth 
 himself, that whatsoever the Church binds, he 
 himself binds, etc., is it not downright blasphemy 
 to say that he who heareth the Church heareth 
 the spirit of error, that what the Church binds is 
 not bound in heaven ? 
 
68 
 
 The inference is clear. If Christ is the Al- 
 mighty God, then Christ’s Church is necessarily 
 infallible ; if Christ’s Church can be for one 
 minute a slave to the powers of darkness and 
 error, then Christ is a false prophet. What now 
 of the common assertion of Protestant divines, 
 that after three or four centuries the whole 
 Church fell into idolatry ? 
 
 Q. Did the Apostles and first Christians be- 
 lieve in the infallibility of the Church ? 
 
 A. They did. When, at the council of Jeru- 
 salem, the Apostles made the decree to exempt 
 the Gentiles from circumcision and some other 
 Jewish observances, they used these words: It 
 hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. 
 [Acts ch. 15, v. 28.] thereby plainly and openly 
 claiming God’s own infallibility ; and their decision 
 was obeyed by all, as the infallible decree of heaven. 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul ? 
 
 A. He calls the visible Church, in which 
 Timothy was a teacher, the Church of the living 
 God , the ‘pillar and ground of the truth. [1 Tim. 
 ch. 3, v. 15.] He declares that even an angel 
 from heaven is not to be believed, should he teach 
 a doctrine contrary to that preached by the pas- 
 tors of the Church. [Gal. ch. 1, v. 8.] 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all the pre- 
 ceding texts ? 
 
 A. I conclude, firstly, that the Protestant 
 Churches, by proclaiming their own fallibility, 
 and liability to err, clearly proclaim that the}' are 
 not the Church of Christ. Were we destitute of 
 every other argument, this alone would be suffi- 
 cient. 
 
 I conclude, secondly, that the Church of Christ 
 is the only and infallible rule of faith. 
 
 Let us see now which is the true Church of Christ. 
 
CHAPTER IL 
 
 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 1. Wliat are the Marks to distinguish 
 the true Church from all 
 Sects. 
 
 Q. Can there be more than one true Church ? 
 
 A. No ; truth is necessarily one, and it is self- 
 evident that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, did 
 not teach contradictory doctrines, which would 
 have been the case, if he were the founder of so 
 many various sects and creeds. When he spoke 
 of his Church, he always spoke in the singular : 
 If he will not hear the Churchy etc. I will build 
 my Church, etc., And when prophesying the 
 conversion of the Gentiles, he expressly said : 
 There shall be one fold and one shepherd. [St. 
 John, ch. 10, v. 16.] St. Paul tells us that there 
 is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, [Eph. 
 ch. 4, v. 5.] ; and consequently, but one true 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 Q. What follows from this ? 
 
 A. Amongst the numberless societies claiming 
 to be the true Church of Jesus Christ, there is but 
 one that is really true, all others being those sects 
 of perdition brought in by lying teachers , of which 
 St. Peter speaks. [2 Peter, ch. 2, v. 1.] 
 
 Q. Are there any marks to find out the true Church ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ having made his Church the 
 true rule of faith, the only way tcj salvation, and 
 every man being ordered by him to hear the 
 Church, under pain of being treated as .a heathen, 
 there are necessarily some marks to distinguish 
 
70 
 
 the true Church from the sects ; and these 
 distinctive marks must necessarily be certain, per- 
 manent, clear, intelligible to all men, to the igno- 
 rant as well as to the learned, since all are obliged 
 to enter the true Church. 
 
 Q. What marks do Protestants assign to the 
 true Church ? 
 
 A. Two : the preaching of the true doctrine of 
 the Gospel, and the lawful administration of the 
 Sacraments. 
 
 Q. What do you think of these two marks ? 
 
 A. That they are no marks at all. It is per- 
 fectly true that the Church of Christ must preach 
 the true doctrine of the Gospel, and lawfully 
 administer Sacraments; but the whole question 
 remains : Which is the Church that preaches the 
 
 true doctrine ? Which is the Church that law- 
 fully administers Sacraments ? 
 
 Q. Explain this by a simile. 
 
 A. Should any one ask me : Which of those 
 
 two men is the magistrate ? if I answer him : “ the 
 magistrate is the one who is invested with lawful 
 authority;” — my answer, though perfectly true, 
 is of no use to the inquirer. He will ask again : 
 But which of those two is invested with lawful 
 authority ? and he remains in doubt, till I point 
 out to him some outward and visible sign. 
 
 Q. What are the real marks of the true Church ? 
 
 A. Four, enumerated in the Nicene Creed : I 
 
 believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 
 Church. 
 
 One , because there is but one God, whom all men 
 must adore, and there can be no diversity, nor 
 change, nor contradiction in the truth revealed by 
 him ; 
 
 Holy, because God intended her for the salvation 
 and sanctification of souls ; 
 
71 
 
 Catholic } that is universal as to time and country, 
 because God calls all men to salvation ; 
 
 Apostolic , because God having been pleased to 
 choose the twelve Apostles to establish and govern 
 his Church, none but their lawful successors can 
 have any spiritual authority. 
 
 2. The True Church must be ONE.— 
 Which is the ONE Church ? 
 
 Q. Did Christ require unity in his Church ? 
 
 A. He did. We have just seen his words : 
 There shall he one fold and one shepherd. [St. 
 John, ch. 10, v. 16.] When addressing his Father, 
 on the last night before his passion, he said : 
 Keep them . . . that they may he one, as we also are 
 . . .And not for them only do I pray , hut for them 
 also who through their word shall believe in me ; 
 that they all may he one, as thou , Father , in me, 
 and I in thee . . . that they may he one, as we also 
 are one. [St. John, ch. 17, v. 11, 20, 21, 22.] 
 St. Paul saj^s : We, being many , are one body, in 
 Christ. [Rom. ch. 12, v. 5.] And again : one 
 body, one Spirit, . . . one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism. [Eph. ch. 4, v. 4, 5.] 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this P 
 A. That the Church is one body or fold, having 
 one faith, under one Shepherd ; that the members 
 of the Church must be one, as God the Father 
 and God the Son are one ; and, finally, that no 
 Church can be the Church of Christ which has 
 not this oneness, or unity. 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches one ? 
 
 A. On principle they cannot be one ; for the 
 first principle of Protestants, private interpreta- 
 tion, has ever produced, and will necessarily ever 
 produce, schisms and divisions. 
 
72 
 
 Q. Are theProtestant Churches one in their fa ith ? 
 
 A. No; all Protestant sects differ from one 
 another on some, or many, essential points. There 
 is one faith in England, another in Scotland, 
 another in Prussia, etc., etc. The doctrines which 
 the Established Church believes to be good and 
 true, the Dissenters hold to be damnable. The 
 creed that is upheld to-day will be cried down to- 
 morrow, and so on always and everywhere. 
 
 Q. Are not Protestants one in their faith, be- 
 cause they all follow the Bible ? 
 
 A. On the contrary, it is the Bible, abused by 
 the principle of private interpretation, which be- 
 comes for them the fruitful cause of endless 
 divisions and schisms. Every sectarian appeals to 
 the Bible, true ; but every sectarian gives to the 
 Bible a different meaning, and tries to make it 
 support, in some way or other, a system contradic- 
 tory to that of his neighbour. 
 
 Q. What say some Protestants, to secure a sem- 
 blance of unity in faith ? 
 
 A. They say that it is not necessary to believe 
 every revealed truth ; that it is quite sufficient to 
 believe a few fundamental articles : the rest of the 
 revelation being not at all necessary to salvation. 
 
 Q. What do you think of this distinction between 
 fundamentals and non-fundamentals P 
 
 A. It is the miserable subterfuge of a bad cause; 
 it is contrary to the word of God, blasphemous, 
 absurd, and practically impossible. 
 
 It is contrary to the word of God ; for Jesus 
 Christ orders us to believe, not only two or three 
 fundamentals, but all things whatsoever he has 
 commanded. [St. Matt. ch. 28, v. 20.] 
 
 It is blasphemous ; for to reject any part of the 
 revealed truth is to give God the lie. 
 
73 
 
 It is absurd ; because it throws open the gates of 
 heaven to all sectarians, no matter how contradic- 
 tory, or dangerous, or immoral, their doctrines. 
 
 It is practically impossible; because neither 
 reason nor feeling can tell us clearly which truths 
 are, and which are not, fundamental. During 
 more than three hundred years, Protestants have 
 been repeatedly challenged to decide what and 
 how many those fundamental articles are, and the 
 challenge is to this day unanswered. 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches one in their 
 moral doctrines ? 
 
 A. No ; one sect believes that man is endowed 
 with free will ; another, as Calvin, teaches that 
 God is the author of sin, or, as Wesley, that the 
 greatest crimes are only spots on God’s children ; 
 some sects hold bigamy an atrocity ; others, as the 
 Mormons, think that polygamy is the peculiar 
 privilege of the Saints, etc. 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches one in their 
 
 government ? 
 
 A. No ; Protestantism has for its head the King, 
 in Prussia ; the Queen or the State, in England ; 
 an elected Consistory, in Germany, etc., etc. 
 Every sect makes a government for itself, and a 
 great many Protestants acknowledge no authority 
 at all, in religious matters. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church one ? 
 
 A. On principle, the Catholic Church is neces- 
 sarily one. Every Catholic must believe the same 
 truths ; and to reject any one of these truths, is to 
 cut off one’s self from the Catholic communion. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her faith? 
 
 A . Yes ; all the Catholics in the world ha ve one and 
 the same creed. Amongst Catholics there are no 
 sects, no Church of France, of England, of Italy, etc. 
 
 7 
 
74 
 
 Every one believes what all believe, nothing more, 
 nothing less. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her moral 
 
 doctrines ? 
 
 A. Yes ; g.11 Catholics profess the same moral 
 principles ; the same vices are denounced on the one 
 hand, and the same virtues inculcated on the other. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her govern- 
 ment ? 
 
 A. Yes ; all the Catholics in the world are, in 
 matters of religion, subject to their priests ; these 
 priests are subject to their bishops ; and these 
 bishops are appointed by and subject to St. Peter’s 
 lawful successor, the Pope. 
 
 Q. What inferences do you draw from all this P 
 
 A. That Protestantism is the kingdom divided 
 against itself. [St. Matt. ch. 12, v. 25.]; that it is 
 not one but manifold, and therefore cannot be the 
 Church of Christ. That the Catholic Church is 
 strictly one f in every sense of the word, and conse- 
 quently, that the Catholic Church is unquestion- 
 ably the one true Church of Christ. 
 
 3. The True Church must be HOLY. 
 Which is the HOLY Church? 
 
 Q. Is holiness a necessary mark of the true 
 Church ? 
 
 A. It is. That Church alone can be the Church 
 of Christ, whose doctrines, institutions, laws and 
 practices constantly and successfully aim at sub- 
 duing pride, overcoming unruly passions, keeping 
 corrupt nature in bondage, and attaining the high- 
 est perfection. Such is and must be the divine 
 and inimitable seal affixed by God to his own work, 
 which in counterfeits shall ever be wanting. 
 
75 
 
 Q. Is that also plain from Scripture ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the prophet Isaias calls the Church of 
 Christ a way which shall be called the holy icay , 
 over which the unclean shall not pass. [Is. ch. 35, 
 v. 8.] David says : holiness becometh thy house , 
 O Lord , unto length of days . [Psalm 92, v. 5.] 
 St. Paul declares that Christ loved the Church , and 
 delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify 
 it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of 
 life: that he might present it to himself a glorious 
 Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such 
 thing, but that it should be holy and without 
 blemish. [Eph. ch. 5, v. 25, 26, 27.] 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches holy in their 
 doctrines ? 
 
 A. No ; the Protestant doctrines on predestina- 
 tion and free will, the belief that faith alone is 
 necessary, that good works are useless, etc., are of 
 themselves ruinous to holiness ; for who, believing 
 such absurdities as these, can have any motive to 
 avoid vice or practise virtue ? For instance, who 
 amongst Luther’s followers will be induced to 
 refrain from sinning, when Luther himself says 
 that “the more we sin, the more we receive God’s 
 grace ”? (On the Fishing of St. Peter.) 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches holy in their 
 members ? 
 
 A. That there are amongst Protestants many 
 honorable and worthy men, many pious and sin- 
 cere believers, many who heartily devote them- 
 selves to the welfare of those around them, we 
 most readily admit. But Saints, that is, men who 
 carry the complete imitation of the Saviour to its 
 utmost limits, who renounce the world and self for 
 the glory of God, who practise all virtues in an he- 
 roical degree, by the hands of whom God performs 
 miracles, Saints, properly so called, there are none. 
 
76 
 
 “ Catholics have Saints,” said the Protestant 
 minister Lavater, “that I cannot deny, and we have 
 none, at least none of the same stamp.” [Letter 
 to the Count of Stolberg.] 
 
 Q. Are there means of holiness in the various 
 Protestant Churches ? 
 
 A. Few, if any ; they have destroyed the best 
 and most efficient of those which Christ had pro- 
 vided us with. They have rejected the soul of 
 religion, the fountain of all graces, in rejecting the 
 Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They have no validly 
 ordained priests, and consequently they can have 
 neither the remission of sins, nor the communion 
 of the body and blood of the Lord. They have 
 thrown away the love and veneration of the B. V. 
 Mary and the Saints, the examples of whom have 
 always proved such an incentive to the practice of 
 the highest virtues. They have destroyed monas- 
 teries, convents, religious houses of every kind, and 
 as Burnet, Protestant Bishop of Salisbury, con- 
 fesses : “ The papists have solitary and retired 
 
 houses for leading a devout and strict life, and 
 many excellent books of devotion have been pub- 
 lished by many of that communion, and I do not 
 deny that this is the greatest defect of the Refor- 
 mation, that there are not in it such encouragements 
 to a devout life, and it really is a great defect, that 
 we want recluse houses.” 
 
 Q. Hid God ever work miracles through the 
 hands of a Protestant ? 
 
 A. Never ; miracles being the proof and test of 
 holiness, are not to be found out of the true Holy 
 Church. The jest of Erasmus, that neither Luther 
 nor any of Luther’s followers had ever been able 
 to cure even a lame horse, is true to this day. 
 
 Everybody knows what happened to Calvin at 
 Geneva. He had bribed a man to play the dead, 
 
77 
 
 that he might publicly resuscitate him, and there- 
 by set himself up as a great prophet. After 
 having modestly made known beforehand the 
 miracle he was just going to perform, he went to 
 the appointed place, followed by a crowd of curious 
 people. But when he reached the house, his con- 
 federate, struck dead by the justice of God, was 
 lying a corpse, and Calvin fled away to conceal his 
 shame and terror. [Surius, Mem. hist. — Bolsec, 
 Vita Calvin.~\ 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church holy in her doctrines ? 
 
 A. Yes ; she teaches her children to believe all 
 that God has revealed, and to practise all that he 
 has commanded. Fasting, mortification, unremit- 
 ting prayer, a frequent participation of the Sacra- 
 ments, all of which are so pressingly recommended 
 in Scripture, are enjoined and practised by the 
 Church, and she unceasingly invites all metL to the 
 practice of holiness, though, of course, it depends 
 on the free will of each individual whether he 
 profit by the invitation or not. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church holy in her members . ? 
 
 A. She is. That does not in any way mean that 
 all Catholics are saints, but that amongst them 
 there are and have always been many saints, the 
 like of whom are not to be found anywhere else. 
 So, to single out only a few of those who have 
 appeared since Luther’s time, where are, in the 
 Protestant sects, Bishops like St. Charles Borromeo, 
 St . F rancis of Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori ; priests 
 like St. Ignatius, St. Francis Xavier, St. Vincent 
 de Paul ; martyrs like Cornay, Borie, Perboyre, 
 Chapdelaine, Venard, and hundreds of others, — in 
 China, Tongking, Corea, etc. ; virgins like St. 
 Theresa, St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi, St. Bose of 
 Lima ? 
 
 Q. Has the Catholic Church means of holiness ? 
 
78 
 
 A. The most abundant ; in the Holy Sacrifice of 
 the Mass, which is the continuation of the Sacrifice 
 of the Cross, which keeps our Lord and Saviour for 
 ever present amongst us, with his body and soul, 
 his blood and divinity, as a propitiatory victim for 
 our sins ; in the frequent communion which unites 
 us intimately to Jesus Christ, feeds us with his 
 body and blood, makes us live of his life, be 
 strong of his strength, and, to sum up all miracles 
 in one word, be one with him as he himself is one 
 with his Father ; in all th^ Sacraments, which are 
 so many channels, through which the graces, which 
 flow from the wounds of our Redeemer, are con- 
 veyed to the souls of Catholics of every class, in 
 every condition, and at every period of life, from 
 the time they enter this world, until they commit 
 their souls into the hands of God. 
 
 Moreover, for all those who, not satisfied with 
 keeping the commandments to enter into life, 
 [St.Matt. ch. 19, v. 17], want to he perfect , to have 
 treasure in heaven and to follow Jesus, [Ibid. v. 21] 
 for all those who want fully to do penance, to obey 
 the advice and counsels of the Gospel to the very 
 letter, the Church has provided houses where to 
 find rules and examples, and everything that may 
 help weak human nature along the narrow path of 
 holiness. 
 
 Q. Did God work miracles to testify the 
 sanctity of his Church ? 
 
 A. Even Protestants admit that he did. Jesus 
 Christ said; He that helieveth in me, the ivorks 
 that I doy he also shall do, and greater than these 
 shall he do. [St. John, ch. 14, v. 12.] And faith- 
 fully did he keep his word. Every century, every 
 country, has seen some of these wonderful signs of 
 God’s mercy. For instance, here in India, St. 
 Francis Xavier wrought many miracles, the 
 
79 
 
 authenticity of which is allowed by Baldeus, Hack- 
 luit, Tavernier, etc., all rigid Lutherans or 
 Calvinists. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That none of the Protestant Churches is or 
 can be the Holy Church ; and that the Catholic 
 Church being holy in her doctrine, in her members, 
 and having superabundant means of holiness, with 
 the testimony of God himself, in the numberless 
 miracles of her Saints, is unquestionably the Holy 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 4. The true Church must be Catholic, 
 that is Universal.— Which is the 
 Catholic Church? 
 
 Q. Is Catholicity a necessary mark of the true 
 Church ? 
 
 A. It is, unless we deny God to be the God of 
 all ages and nations, unless we deny Christ to have 
 suffered for all men. 
 
 Q. Is Catholicity, as a mark of the Church, 
 evidently required by Scripture ? 
 
 A. We have from the lips of Jesus Christ an 
 express attestation, that his Church must be 
 universal, as to time, place and doctrine. When 
 giving commission to his Apostles, he said : Going 
 therefore teach ye all nations, .... teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you ; and behold, 1 am with you all days, even to 
 the consummation of the world. TSt. Matt. ch. 28, 
 v. 19, 20.] 
 
 Q. Had this universality of the Church been 
 foretold by the prophets ? 
 
 A. Yes ; God had sworn to Abraham : In thy 
 seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. 
 [Gen. ch. 22, v. 18.] In every page the Prophets 
 
80 
 
 speak of the everlasting covenant, that God was 
 to make with his Catholic or universal Church. 
 David says : All the ends of the earth shall remem - 
 her , and shall he converted to the Lord. [Psalm 21, 
 v. 28.] Ask of me , and I will give thee the Gentiles 
 for thine inheritance , and the utmost parts of 
 the earth for thy possession. [Ps. 2, v. 8] Malachias 
 says : From the rising of the sun even to the going 
 down, my name is great among the Gentiles. [Mai. 
 ch. l.v. 11.] And Jesus Christ, when ascending 
 to heaven, told his disciples that they should be 
 wit nesses unto him in Jerusalem, . . .and even to the 
 uttermost part of the earth. [Acts, ch. 1, v. 8.] 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches universal as to 
 
 time ? 
 
 A. No ; the oldest Protestant sect is but little 
 more than three hundred years old. Luther 
 preached the first Protestantism in 1517 ; no Pro- 
 testant doctrines, churches, pastors, or sects, were 
 ever known. in any country of the world, prior to 
 that time. 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches universal as to 
 
 doctrine ? 
 
 A. No Protestant sect can have any pretension 
 to the teaching of all truth, since each sect has its 
 own peculiar doctrines. At one time they rejected 
 as apocryphal books of the Sacred Scripture 
 which they now admit ; to-day they reject what 
 they taught yesterday. The absurd distinction 
 between fundamentals and non-fundamentals, is 
 of itself a superabundant proof that they do not 
 teach all things whatsoever Jesus Christ has com- 
 manded. 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches universal as to 
 numbers, and place ? 
 
 A. No : even the Greek schismatics are more 
 numerous than all the Protestants in the world 
 
81 
 
 put together. Each Protestant sect, taken by it- 
 self, is but a handful when compared to the 
 Catholic Church, and the total number of Protest- 
 ants of all denominations is but the fourth or the 
 fifth of the total number of Catholics. . “We find,’ 5 
 says the Indo-European Correspondence (p. 723), 
 “by what we think the latest and most accurate 
 statistics on this subject, that there are in the 
 whole world : 
 
 Catholics ... ... ... 208,000,000 
 
 Protestants of all denominations 66,000,000 
 Oriental schismatics and heretics 70,000,000 
 — According to the “ Scientific Miscellany ,” 
 [quoted by Keenan, p. 97] there are : 
 
 Catholics ... ... ... 254,655,000 
 
 Protestants ... 48,985,000 
 
 Greeks, etc 55,360,000 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church truly Catholic as to 
 time ? 
 
 A. Yes ; she is the only Church upon earth that 
 can be visibly traced back, through every age, to 
 the time of Christ. Should any Protestant deny 
 it, ask him where, when, and by whom was Catho- 
 licism founded? We can name the man who 
 established Protestantism, the town in which he 
 preached, the year and the day of his first preach- 
 ing, fifteen centuries after the death of Jesus Christ. 
 Let him do the same for the Catholic Church, if 
 he can. Let him point out another founder than 
 Jesus Christ himself, another birth-place than the 
 Mount Calvary stained with his blood, another 
 birth-day than the day of the Redemption of the 
 world. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church truly Catholic as to 
 doctrine ? 
 
 A. Yes ; she teaches her children to observe all 
 that God has commanded, and to believe all that 
 
82 
 
 he has revealed, Her doctrine is like Jesus Christ 
 himself, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church truly Catholic as to 
 place , and numbers ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the above statistics prove that she is the 
 Church of all nations . To her alone God has said : I 
 will give thee the nations for thine inheritance , and 
 the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. 
 [Ps. 2, v. 8.] She is everywhere, everywhere her 
 incense ascends, every where her Sacraments are ad- 
 ministered, everywhere her pure Sacrifice is offered, 
 and so she fulfils the prophecy of Malachias : In 
 every place there is sacrifice , and there is offered to 
 my name a clean oblation. [Mai. ch. 1, v. 11.] 
 
 Q. Is not the name itself of Catholic Church a 
 strong testimony ?• 
 
 A. Yes, because it is nothing else than the testi- 
 mony of mankind, during eighteen centuries. 
 Heretics of every sect have done their utmost to 
 obtain that name, or to deprive the Catholic Church 
 of it, but without success. They call us Papists , 
 Romanists , etc. ; but the world at large knows us 
 by our glorious name of Catholics . St. Augustin 
 says : “ Should a stranger, on entering any city, 
 inquire : Where is the Catholic Church ? no heretic 
 would dare to point out his heretical assembly/’ 
 [Tom. 6, contra Ep. Fund. ch. 4.] The common 
 sense of mankind has always given to each Church 
 its proper name ; to the true Church of Christ the 
 unchangeable name of Catholic ; to the various 
 heretical sects the names of their founders, or of 
 their new dogmas, or of the country in which the 
 new creed was invented: Lutherans , Calvinists, 
 Church of England, Wesleyans, Quakers, etc., etc. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That the Protestant Churches are not uni- 
 versal either as to time, doctrine , plape or numbers ; 
 
83 
 
 that the Catholic Church is the only Church upon 
 earth that has this three-fold universality : and 
 consequently that the Catholic Church is, unques- 
 tionably, the true Church of Christ. 
 
 5. The true Church must be Apostolic. 
 Which is the Apostolic Church ? 
 
 Q. What do you mean by saying : The true 
 Church must be apostolic ? 
 
 A. I mean that any Church, pretending to be 
 the Church of Christ, must have been established 
 by the Apostles of Christ, eighteen hundred years 
 ago, and must be able to trace her doctrine , her 
 orders , and her mission to the Ajpostles of Christ. 
 
 Q. Is that clear from Scripture ? 
 
 A. It is, for during all the time the Church has 
 existed, there must have been true pastors, for the 
 work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 
 of Christ. [Eph. ch. 4, v. 12.] Upon thy walls, 
 0 Jerusalem, 1 have appointed watchmen . . . . 
 they shall never hold their peace. [Isaias, ch. 62, 
 v. 6.] These pastors must have been teaching the 
 same doctrine they had received : The things which 
 thou, hast heard of me by many ivitnesses, the same 
 commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teath 
 others also . [2 Tim. ch. 2, v. 2.] They must have 
 been lawfully sent : Neither doth any man take the 
 honor [of the priesthood] to himself, but he that is 
 called by God, as Aaron was. [Heb. ch. 5, v. 4.] 
 How shall they preach, unless they be sent ? [Rom. 
 ch. 10, v. 15.] They must have been lawfully or- 
 dained, according to these directions of St. Paul to 
 Titus : For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou 
 shouldst set in order the things that are wanting , 
 and shoi^ldst ordain priests in every city , as I also 
 appointed thee. [Titus, ch. 1, v. 5.] 
 
84 
 
 And, in fact, we see that Jesus Christ sent the 
 Apostles ; these Apostles sent others, for example, 
 Paul and Barnabas ; and again Paul sent Timothy 
 and Titus ; and, in this manner, each succeeding 
 generation of pastors has been sent by the preced- 
 ing one, from Christ down to the present time ; 
 and all this by the power of Christ originally 
 given : As the Father hath sent me, I also send 
 you. [St. John, ch. 20, v. 21.] 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches apostolic in 
 their doctrines ? 
 
 A. They are not. It is a well-proved historical 
 fact that fourteen hundred years after the last of 
 the Apostles, Protestant doctrines were unknown 
 .amongst mankind ; and besides no man in his 
 senses will imagine that the Apostles could have 
 taught the numberless contradictory tenets of the 
 various Protestant sects. 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches apostolic as to 
 mission ? 
 
 A. No ; Luther was the first Protestant the 
 world ever saw. Now, by whom was he sent ? Not 
 by God # : he never wrought one miracle to prove it : 
 — not by the Apostles, he came fourteen hundred 
 years too late ; — not by the Catholic Church, 
 since he was cut off: from from her communion; — 
 not by any Protestant body, since he was the first 
 Protestant in the world. Therefore he had no 
 mission, nor have any of his followers. Of them 
 it is said : I did not send prophets , yet they ran : 
 I have not spoken to them , yet they prophesied. 
 [Jerem. ch. 23, v. 21.] 
 
 Q. Are the Protestant Churches apostolic as to 
 orders ? 
 
 A. No ; and if you except the Lutherans and 
 Anglicans, all other ministers do not pretend to 
 have orders. Now, the Lutherans have no orders, 
 
85 
 
 since they never had a succession of validly 
 ordained bishops, from whom they could receive 
 them. The Anglican clergymen have no orders, 
 because it has never been proved that Parker, 
 their first bishop, was validly ordained, and because 
 they had lost the true form of ordination during 
 one hundred and twelve years. The Church of 
 England being more generally known in this 
 country than other Protestant sects, the following 
 particulars concerning its first ordinations, will 
 prove interesting as well as instructive. 
 
 “The Catholic Church never has allowed the 
 English ordinations to be good and valid, the 
 form being essentially defective. A report was 
 moreover current, that Parker had received no 
 other than a mock ordination at the Nag’s Head 
 tavern. Many believed it ; others called it an 
 idle report, and a mere fiction. Nothing satisfac- 
 tory however appeared at the time to show the 
 fiction, if it was one. About half a century after- 
 wards, in 1613, a Lambeth register was produced 
 to prove his consecration, according to the form 
 in Edward’s ordinal. But this not having been 
 produced at the time it was called for, strong sus- 
 picions have arisen that it did not then exist, but 
 had been composed many years after the date it 
 bears. But to stay the clamours of some, and to 
 remove the doubts of others, the interposition of 
 the legislature was judged necessary. The Queen 
 caused the Parliament to pass an Act, in which her 
 majesty declares, that the established form of 
 ordination contains everything requisite for a 
 valid and legal ordination ; that all those bishops 
 elect, who had been consecrated according to that 
 form, were duly ordained ; that to remove all 
 scruples and inquietudes about the matter, she , in 
 virtue of her supreme power and authority , dispenses 
 with all causes or doubts of any imperfection or dis- 
 
 8 
 
80 
 
 ability that can or may be objected against the 
 bishops elected and made by her authority. This 
 singular act of the legislature then granted to a 
 female head of the Church of England a much more 
 extended supremacy than ever was acknowledged 
 in the Bishop of Home. The Catholic Church 
 admits no power in the Pope to alter or dispense 
 with any thing that essentially affects a divine 
 institution, either in its matter or its form. 
 Whether the sober part of mankind seriously 
 thought Elisabeth possessed of such a power, is a 
 needless question.” [Reeve’s General History of 
 the Christian Churchy p, 467]. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church Apostolic in her 
 
 doctrine ? 
 
 A. Even Protestants admit this, since they 
 admit that we were the first Church, and they 
 admit as uniformly that Popery is unchangeable. 
 We solemnly defy them to trace our doctrines to 
 any man, or set of men, to any named country or 
 date, in short, to any but apostolic authority. 
 
 But let us remark here that the Church is a 
 living body, and though perfect from the begin- 
 ning, since established and founded by the true 
 living God, she has been, and is continually 
 expanding through successive centuries. The new- 
 born infant does not enjoy at once that fulness of 
 strength, that majesty of stature, that free develop- 
 ment of intellectual faculties in which the perfec- 
 tion of human nature consists. He possesses the 
 germ of all that, but the germ only, and he has to 
 undergo successive changes from infancy to child- 
 hood, adolescence, and manhood, though he, all the 
 time, remains the self-same individual. So, the 
 Twelve present at the Last Supper were the same 
 Catholic Church which to-day numbers hundreds 
 of millions of children. Their faith was our faith. 
 
87 
 
 their worship our worship, their laws our laws, 
 with this difference only that, owing to the 
 assaults of heresy or to the new wants of the 
 Christian people, some of the truths contained in 
 the first revelation, and always believed by the 
 Church, are now and then, in the course of ages, 
 more clearly explained and defined, while some 
 disciplinary laws are modified to fit various cir- 
 cumstances of time and place. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church Apostolic as to 
 mission ? 
 
 A. Yes, since the Catholic Church alone has 
 existed in every age. Catholic pastors can trace 
 their mission, from priest to bishop, and from 
 bishop to Pope, back through every century, to the 
 Apostles themselves, We have a complete list of 
 uninterrupted 259 Popes, reaching from the present 
 one to St. Peter. We have an unbroken succes- 
 sion of bishops, ruling, teaching, in every age and 
 country, all of them in strict communion with the 
 Chief See, the See of Rome. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church Apostolic as to 
 orders ? 
 
 A. Yes, as is evident from the preceding answer. 
 Of this Protestants have never doubted, and the 
 Church of England, by claiming her so-called 
 orders from us, unequivocally asserts the apostoli- 
 city of the orders of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That the Protestant Churches are not, and 
 cannot be, the true Apostolic Church, since they 
 have been established but fourteen hundred years 
 after the Apostles ; and that the Catholic Church 
 being apostolic in her doctrine , her mission , and her 
 orders , and having always been in existence from 
 the days of the Apostles, is unquestionably the 
 only one true Church of Christ. 
 
88 
 
 6. The true Church can never be 
 invisible. 
 
 Q. Is it clear from Scripture, that the true 
 Church must ever be visible ? 
 
 A. It is ; Isaias says : The mountain of the 
 house of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of 
 mountains . . . and all nations shall flow into it. 
 [Isaias, ch. 2, v. 2.] Which Christ explains to 
 his disciples : You are the light of the world. A 
 city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. [St. 
 Matt. ch. 5, v. 14.] 
 
 Q. How. did the early Fathers apply these 
 texts ? 
 
 A. Saint Chrysostom says : u It is easier that 
 the sun should be extinguished, than that the 
 Church should be obscured.” [Hon. 4 in Isaiam.] 
 Saint Augustin says : “ The Church is seated on a 
 mountain and cannot be hid ; they are blind that 
 6ee not so great a mountain ; they shut their 
 eyes against light. The Church has this most 
 certain mark, that she cannot be hid.” [Lib. 3, 
 contra Paramen. et. cont. Petil., ch. 104.] 
 
 Q. Have you other ways of proving that the 
 Church must have been always visible ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ ordered the pastors of the 
 Church to teach and baptize all nations, and surely 
 preaching and baptising are visible operations; 
 men teaching and men taught are visible beings. 
 Moreever, if the Church were not ever visible, it 
 would be impossible to obey the command which 
 Jesus Christ made us to hear the Church, and men 
 would be left without the wa} r to salvation. 
 
 Q. Were the various Protestant Churches, or at 
 least any of them, always visible ? 
 
 A. No; Protestants are forced to confess that 
 they are nowhere to be found in the history of 
 mankind before the time of Luther, 
 
'89 
 
 Q. Can they not say that, though the true 
 Church was then invisible, yet there have always 
 been men, who secretly held Protestant doctrines ? 
 
 A. Such a reply could only satisfy fools, not 
 only because an invisible Church is proved from 
 Scripture as well as from common sense to be an 
 absurdity, but because men who believe one doctrine 
 in their hearts, and profess another, as would have 
 been these invisible Protestants, are only hypocrites 
 and traitors to their religion, whom Christ con- 
 demned to the eternal fire, when he said : He that 
 shall deny me before men , I icill also deny him 
 before my Father , who is in heaven. [St. Matt. ch. 
 10, v. 33.] How could such cowards have com- 
 posed the holy, fearless body of the true Church 
 of Christ P 
 
 Q. Cannot Protestants say that they have a 
 visible succession, at least from the Albigenses, the 
 Hussites, and other heretics of the 12th and 13th 
 centuries? 
 
 A. No, for the doctrines of those heretics were 
 widely different from Protestant doctrines. But, 
 even admitting that they succeeded to those sects, 
 in what way does it connect them with the 
 Apostles ? From the time of the Apostles to the 
 time of John Huss, twelve long centuries had 
 elapsed ; under what cloud were Protestants con- 
 cealed all the while ? 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That the Catholic Church, which alone has 
 always been visible, is unquestionably the one true 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 7. Nobody can be saved out of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 Q. Can any one be saved, who is not in the 
 Catholic Church ? 
 
90 
 
 A. No ; for those who wilfully remain out of the 
 Catholic Church there can he no hope of salvation. 
 I say wilfully , because if a person, born and 
 educated in an erroneous creed, has no doubt what- 
 ever about his religion, or, when doubting, makes 
 a serious inquiry with the sincere desire of adher- 
 ing to the known truth, — such a man may be saved, 
 though he be externally out of the body of the 
 Church, if he carefully avoids mortal sins, and ful- 
 fils all he knows of God’s commandments. 
 
 Q. What says Jesus Christ ? 
 
 A. That the man tv ho ivill not hear the Church 
 is to be reputed a heathen . [St. Matt. ch. 18, v. 17.] 
 And addressing his Apostles, he says : He that 
 
 despiseth you despiseth me , and he that despiseth 
 me , despiseth him that sent me. [St. Luke, 
 ch. 10, v. 16.] 
 
 Q. What was the faith of the early Church on 
 this question ? 
 
 A. St. Cyprian says: “He who has not the 
 
 Church for his mother, cannot have God for his 
 father.” (Lib. de Unit. Eccl.) “He who dies 
 out of the Church,” says St. Augustin, “ is doomed 
 to eternal punishment, even if he were burned alive 
 for the name of Christ.” [Ep. 173.] And the 
 Fathers unanimously teach that “ as all who were 
 not in the ark of Noe, perished in the waters of 
 the deluge, so shall all perish who are without the 
 pale of the true Church.” 
 
 Q. Does not reason most invincibly support this 
 proposition ? 
 
 A. Yes ; for if you admit that Jesus Christ has 
 established a Church, you must also admit that 
 the first and chief duty of every man is to enter 
 this Church. He who wilfully neglects such a 
 duty, is in a state of mortal sin,, and consequently 
 cannot be saved. 
 
91 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. That all men are obliged, under pain of 
 eternal damnation, to seek earnestly and enter the 
 true Church. If they be sincere, God will aid 
 them in their inquiry. There are many who 
 remain Protestants merely because they were born 
 Protestants, pleading it as an excuse that an honest 
 man does not change bis religion. Why not, if 
 he happens to be wrong ? On the same principle 
 a Jew, a Mussulman, a heathen, would be justified 
 in rejecting the Gospel. Why then did Christ 
 suffer ? Why did the Apostles go preaching all 
 over the world P In every-day concerns, none but 
 fools are obstinate enough, when they find they 
 have fallen into a mistake, to stick to it against 
 their own interest. Should it be otherwise in mat- 
 ters of religion, when the eternal salvation of the 
 soul is at stake ? 
 
 Q. What do you think of those many Protest- 
 ants, who, though fully convinced that the 
 Catholic Church is the onfy true Church, are yet 
 such cowards as to dread making public profession 
 of their faith, some on account of family considera- 
 tions, others from motives of worldly gain or 
 honour ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ says: He that shall be ashamed 
 of me and of my words , of him shall the Son of 
 Man be ashamed , when he shall come in his 
 majesty. [St. Luke, ch. 9, v. 26.] And elsewhere: 
 He that loveth father or mother more than me , is 
 not worthy of me . [St. Matt. ch. 10, v. 37.] And 
 finally : What shall it profit a man if he gain the 
 
 whole icorld and suffer the loss of his soul ? [St. 
 Mark, ch. 8, v. 36.] 
 
CHAPTER III . 
 
 FROM THE CHURCH ONLY WE CAN 
 HAVE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 1. What is the Bible. 
 
 Q. What is the Bible ? 
 
 A. The Bible is the collection of the books 
 which we, on the testimony of the infallible 
 Church of Christ, firmly believe to have been written 
 by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and to con- 
 tain God’s divine word. 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of the word Bible ? 
 
 A. It is a Greek word, which signifies Book. 
 The Holy Scripture is called The Book by way of 
 eminence , because it is as far above other books 
 as God is above men. 
 
 Q. How many parts are there in the Bible ? 
 
 A. Two : the Old and the New Testaments. 
 
 Q. What is the Old Testament ? 
 
 A. That part of the Holy Scripture which con- 
 tains the books written before Jesus Christ is 
 called the Old Testament , because it relates to the 
 old covenant, made by God with his chosen people, 
 the Jews, on Mount Sinai. 
 
 Q. What is the New Testament ? 
 
 A. The part of the Holy Scripture containing 
 the books written after Jesus Christ is called the 
 New Testament , because it relates to the new 
 covenant, made by God with mankind on Mount 
 v Calvary. 
 
 Q. What are the books of the Old Testament ? 
 
 A. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deu- 
 eeronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of the 
 Kings, two books of Paralipomenon, two books of 
 Esdras (the second of which is also called Nehemias), 
 
93 
 
 Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Eo- 
 clesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias’ Prophecy and Lamen- 
 tations, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, 
 Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sopho- 
 nias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, and two books 
 of the Machabees. 
 
 Q. What are the books of the New Testament ? 
 
 A. The four Gospels, according to Sts. Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles; 
 fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, viz : to the Romans, 
 two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the 
 Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, 
 two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, 
 to Philemon, -to the Hebrews ; one of St. James ; 
 two of St. Peter ; three of St. John ; one of St. Jude ; 
 and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John. 
 
 Q. What is the Catholic doctrine regarding 
 Scripture ? 
 
 A. The faith of all Catholics is : that Scripture 
 is the unerring word of God ; that, when explained 
 by the infallible church of Christ, and completed 
 by apostolical Tradition, it is the infallible rule of 
 faith ; that nothing can be more useful and profitable 
 to those who read it with proper dispositions. But 
 at the same time, they deny it to be of itself the 
 exclusive rule of faith, and its reading to be neces- 
 sary for salvation to every individual Christian. 
 
 Q. What is the Protestant doctrine regarding 
 Scripture ? 
 
 A. Protestants generally say : that Scripture is 
 the word of God, the only and exclusive rule of 
 faith ; that nothing is to be believed unless 
 expressly laid down in Scriptgre, that every one 
 has the right to interpret it according to his own 
 peculiar notions, and that its reading is necessary 
 for salvation to every individual Christian. 
 
94 
 
 Q. Is there any other difference between Catho- 
 lics and Protestants, as to the Bible ? 
 
 A. Yes, and a very marked one. Protestants 
 speak very much of the Bible, and boast of scru- 
 pulously following it, as their only rule of faith ; 
 yet, in reality, they merely pick up here and there 
 some texts that may appear to suit their fancies, and 
 take no notice whatever of the rest. Indeed every 
 article of their doctrines seems intended to set 
 Scripture at defiance. On the contrary, Catholics, 
 and Catholics only, firmly believe every revealed 
 word, and there is not one line of Scripture which 
 may be proved to contradict any article of the 
 Catholic faith. 
 
 Q. Can you prove that such is the fact ? 
 
 A. This little book is nothing else than a palpa- 
 ble demons! ration of this assertion. From the first 
 page to the last, we see that, on every controverted 
 point, scriptural authority stands for the Catholic 
 faith, against Protestant doctrines. 
 
 2. The Authority of Scripture. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by these words: “ the 
 authority of Scripture ?” 
 
 A. We do not mean the natural authority of the 
 Bible, considered as a book authentical, true, trusts 
 worthy, etc., which natural authority may be and 
 has been established, according to the ordinary 
 rules of criticism ; but we mean the supernatural 
 authority of the Holy Scripture, as the revealed 
 word of God. 
 
 Q. On what is the authority of the Holy Scrip- 
 ture founded ? 
 
 A. On the testimony of the infallible Church of 
 Christ, and on this only ; so that denying the 
 authority of the Church involves, as a necessary 
 
95 
 
 consequence, denying the authority of Scripture, 
 “I could not believe even in the Gospel,” says St* 
 Augustin, “ if I were not compelled by the testi- 
 mony of the Church.’* [Epist. fund. c. 5.] And 
 Luther : (l I cannot deny that with the Papists is 
 the word of God, that from them we' have received 
 it, and that but for them we could not know one 
 word of it.” [Comm, on St. John, ch, 16.] 
 
 Q. How do you establish the truth of this 
 assertion ? 
 
 A. Faith is a grace or supernatural gift of God, 
 no doubt ; but it is a gift made to reasonable 
 beings, and when God is pleased to reveal some 
 mysteries, he does not ask us to abdicate the reason 
 which he himself has granted us, but to submit 
 and subdue it. Man, consequently must have a 
 sufficient motive for his assent or belief, his faith 
 must have a solid foundation to rest upon ; in other 
 words, before being bound to believe, he must 
 know with infallible certainty that God has spoken 
 and what he has said. 
 
 Q. Now, state clearly the true point of the 
 question concerning Scripture. 
 
 A. A man takes the Bible into his hands, and 
 says to himself : Here is a collection of books full 
 of incomprehensible mysteries, written many cen- 
 turies ago, in tongues that have long been out of 
 use, by different men quite unknown to me, about 
 everything in heaven above and on the earth below, 
 from the beginning of creation to the end of the 
 world. I am told I must believe all these books 
 to be the word of God, to have been written by 
 the inspiration of the Holy Ghost : the Revelation 
 of St. John, in which there are as many mysteries 
 as there are words, as well as the four Gospels ; 
 the Song of Solomon, which so much resembles a 
 song of profane love, as well as David’s Psalms. 1 
 
96 
 
 must believe that firmly, as firmly as I believe 
 that there is but one God, and be ready, if neces- 
 sary, to part with everything, and with life itself, 
 for the assertion of that truth. 
 
 Q. What then ? 
 
 A. That man will say : I am ready, of course, 
 to submit unhesitatingly to the word of God, but 
 I must first be made certain that this is the word 
 of God. Now, inspiration is a supernatural, invisi- 
 ble, impalpable fact ; I want a witness of that fact. 
 Most of the writers, they say, have proved they 
 were truly inspired by performing miracles, but 
 that was long ago, and I have not seen them ; I 
 want a witness of those miracles ; I want a witness 
 proving that the Prophets and the Apostles have 
 written these very books, that there has been no 
 alteration, no change, that the translation is true, 
 etc. Moreover, that witness must be undoubtedly 
 infallible. If not, there may be probability, 
 surmise, conjecture, historical evidence, anything 
 short of faith, but faith there cannot be, and it is 
 faith I want. 
 
 Q. To this, what do Catholics answer ? 
 
 A. God has provided us with the infallible wit- 
 ness we want to believe in Scripture, and that 
 witness is his Church. She existed before Scrip- 
 ture, underThe Old as well as under the New Law. 
 She exists independently of Scripture ; those four 
 permanent, incommunicable and supernatural 
 marks : Unity, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity, 
 clearly prove her to be what she claims to be, the 
 Church of the living God ; the pillar and ground 
 of the truth. [1 Tim. ch. 3, v. 15.] 
 
 Now, when she tells us that such books have 
 been really and truly written by divine inspiration 
 that they are the word of God, that such is their 
 true text, such their true meaning, etc., her testi- 
 
97 
 
 mony is a sufficient motive and basis for our faith, 
 since it is the testimony of God himself, and our 
 submission is what it should be, — a reasonable one. 
 
 Q. What is the case with Protestants ? 
 
 A. The Protestant, who sets aside the authority 
 of the Church and denies her infallibility, can have 
 no true faith in Scripture. To him the following 
 questions: Are there any inspired Scriptures ? In 
 case there should be, which books are true Scrip- 
 ture ? Where is the unaltered text to be found ? 
 What is the true meaning P To him, I say, such 
 questions remain unanswerable. To him the Bible 
 becomes a dead letter, a sealed book, the very 
 existence of which (as divinely revealed) is doubt- 
 ful, and the interpretation of which is the battle- 
 ground of thousands and thousands of sectarians, 
 who contradict each other, and often themselves. 
 
 But let us enter into particulars. 
 
 3. Protestants cannot be sure of the 
 Inspiration of Scripture. 
 
 % 
 
 Q. What do you mean by this word : inspira- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. I mean that mysterious and supernatural 
 action of the Holy Ghost, which, influencing the 
 will of the sacred writer, actuates him to write, at 
 the same time illuminating his mind, and suggest- 
 ing to him whatsoever he has to say. This very 
 definition proves that unless we admit the fact on 
 • the testimon}' of the infallible Church of Christ, 
 there is no other way for us to be made aware of 
 it, or to distinguish true from suppositious in- 
 spiration. 
 
 Q. Cannot Protestants say that they know the 
 Bible to be the word of God, by the testimony of 
 the Bible itself P 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 A. That would be a very illogical argument, 
 since we must be perfectly sure of the inspiration 
 of Scripture, before we receive scriptural testi- 
 mony as to its being inspired. Besides, there is 
 no scriptural authority, stating fully and distinctly 
 which is the Scripture inspired by God. 
 
 Q. Cannot they know the inspiration of the 
 sacred books, by their excelling beauty, and, so to 
 speak, by their peculiar savour ? 
 
 A. No, since the taste of $very one is different 
 from that of his neighbour. Luther called the 
 Epistle of St. James “an epistle of straw',” and 
 consequently rejected it ; whilst Calvin styled the 
 same “ an epistle of gold” 
 
 Q. Cannot they say that the inspiration of 
 Scripture is proved by the pious feelings its 
 reading produces in the soul ? 
 
 A. No, for even erroneous books can produce 
 such feelings ; and there are many passages of 
 Scripture which, far from exciting pious feelings, 
 are likely to give rise to emotions of a very opposite 
 character, unless they be read with proper caution, 
 and by persons possessed of a competent knowledge. 
 
 Q. May not Protestants say that they are 
 individually inspired by the Holy Ghost to discern 
 true Scripture ? 
 
 A. That was a shift dreamed of by some Pro- 
 testant divines of old, but now universally exploded. 
 No man in his senses can be blind enough to make 
 the Holy Ghost answerable for all their contra- 
 dictions on this matter ; to suppose, for instance, 
 that the one and same Spirit of Truth teaches the 
 Protestants of England to believe that the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews is true Scripture, and the Protes- 
 tants of Germany to believe that it is not. 
 
 Q. Is there any other argument ? 
 
99 
 
 A. Mahometans say of the Koran precisely what 
 Protestants say of the Bible. They try to prove 
 that the Koran is God’s word, by the testimony of 
 the Koran itself ; they appeal to its excelling 
 beaut} r , to its peculiar savour, to the pious feelings 
 its reading produces in their souls, etc. Will such 
 reasons induce any Protestant divine to believe in 
 the Koran P 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from this ? 
 
 A. That the logical Protestant who, setting 
 aside every prejudice of education and habit, tries 
 to judge for himself, can never know with certainty 
 whether the Bible is inspired, or not ; whether it 
 is the word of God, or the word of man ; a revela- 
 tion of the mysteries of heaven, or a collection of 
 wild dreams. There is no middle way ; either you 
 receive Scripture from the hands of the Catholic 
 Church, and believe in it on her authority, or you 
 condemn yourself to never ending doubts and 
 perplexities about it. 
 
 4. Protestants cannot know with 
 certainty which books are 
 Canonical. 
 
 Q. What do mean by the Canon of the Holy 
 Scriptures ? 
 
 A. Canon is a Greek word which properly 
 signifies rule or law y but is sometimes used, as in 
 this case, for catalogue or collection. The canon 
 of the Holy Scripture is the collection of the books 
 which the Church admits and receives as the 
 inspired word of God. 
 
 Q. Who made the Canon of the Holy Scriptures ? 
 
 A. Under the Old as well as the New law, the 
 Canon was made by the authority of the Church. 
 
100 
 
 ;For both Testaments it was the Church that 
 authoritatively settled and decided which books 
 were to be received, and which left out. That 
 such has been the case is an historical fact admitted 
 by all Protestants; and good common sense clearly 
 points out the utter impossibility of making the 
 Canon of the Scriptures in any other way. 
 
 Q. What follows from it ? 
 
 A. That Catholics, and Catholics only, can be 
 sure that all the books of the Bible are true in- 
 spired Scripture, since they receive them from the 
 hands of the Church, which they know to be 
 infallible. But when a Protestant opens the Bible, 
 unless he begins by making a formal and unquali- 
 fied act of faith in the infallibility of the Church, he 
 can never be secure of what he reads being really 
 true Scripture. There have always been false as 
 well as true Apostles, prophets of Baal as well as 
 prophets of God. What if a fallible Church should 
 have made some mistakes ? 
 
 Q. May not Protestants say that they know the 
 canonical books by their titles ? 
 
 A. If we receive the Gospel of St. Mathew and 
 St. John, merely because they bear the names of 
 those Apostles, we should, for the same reason, 
 receive the Gospels of St. Thomas and St. Bartho- 
 lomew, which, however, all Christians reject as 
 apocryphal. 
 
 Q. Cannot they say that they receive the books 
 of the New Testament on the authority of tradition, 
 and know the books of the Old Testament by their 
 being quoted, or alluded to, in the New P 
 
 A. No ; for firstly, they are false to their name 
 and doctrines if they admit the authority of tradi- 
 tion, as the foundation of their faith is Scripture. 
 To accept tradition as a rule of faith, is to deny the 
 very principle of Protestantism. Secondly : they 
 
101 
 
 receive at least eleven books of the Old Testament, 
 of which there is no mention whatever in the New, 
 viz., Judges, Ruth, 1st Samuel, 2nd Kings, Parali- 
 pomenon, Esdras, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of 
 Solomon, Abdias, Sophonias ; — and reject six or 
 seven books “ to which,” says the Protestant 
 Minister Moulinie, “ the Apostles frequently allude, 
 even without naming them.” viz. : 
 
 Luke, ckl2,v. 19, alludes toEcclesiasticus, ch.l 1, v.19. 
 Rom.,ch.l,v.20, — Wisdom, ch.13, v.l. 
 
 James, ch.l,v. 10, — Ecclesiasticus,ch.l4,v.l8. 
 
 James, cli.2, v.l, — Ecclesiasticus, ch.43,v. 1. 
 Etc. [Notice surles livresapocryphes, Geneve, 1828.] 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. Yes, and very strong one. Protestants 
 never agreed themselves as to the books to bo 
 received in the Canon of Scripture. Luther pro- 
 claimed it his will and pleasure to expunge from 
 the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles 
 of St. James and St. Jude, the 2nd Epistle of St. 
 Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of St. John, and the 
 Apocalypse or Revelation, besides six or seven, 
 books of the Old Testament. Calvin agreed with 
 Luther in rejecting the same books of the Old 
 Testament, but received all those of the new, 
 expunged by Luther. By what authority he did 
 not choose to say ; nor do the Bible Societies that 
 genarally print the curtailed Bible of Calvin. At 
 Strasburg, in 1598, they took away four or five 
 books of the New Testament, which they replaced 
 74 years after, in 1672 ; and it would be easy to 
 prove that there is not a book, even the four 
 Gospels, which has not been more or less attacked 
 by many Protestant divines. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants do not, and cannot, know 
 with certainty which books are true Scripture and 
 
102 
 
 which' are not, and consequently can have no 
 true faith in Scripture. Either you receive all the 
 canonical books on the testimony of the infallible 
 Church, or you are driven to question the very 
 existence of any and every one of them. 
 
 5. Protestants cannot be certain that 
 their translations of the Bible 
 are correct. 
 
 Q. What is the original language of the Holy 
 Scripture P 
 
 A. The Old Testament was written iu Hebrew, 
 except some few parts which were written in 
 Chaldaic, Syriac, and Greek ; the greater part of 
 the New Testament was written in Greek, the 
 Gospel of St. Mathew in Hebrew, and that of St. 
 Mark in Latin. 
 
 Q. What do you infer from this ? 
 
 A. That, to be a strict Protestant, each indi- 
 •vidual must have a perfect knowledge of the 
 Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages. The 
 fundamental doctrine of Protestantism is that 
 there must be no intermeddling human authority 
 between man and the word of God ; but the Pro- 
 testant who reads a version of the Holy Scrip- 
 ture has the human authority of a fallible trans- 
 lator, intermeddling betwixt himself and the pure 
 word of God ; and consequently his faith rests on 
 a doubtful authority, that of the translator, unless 
 he be able to read the originals himself. 
 
 The consequence is clear. The reading of the 
 pure word of God being, in the Protestant system, 
 necessary for salvation t-o every Christian, the gates 
 of heaven are closed to all but the happy few who 
 hare time, intellect, and patience enough thorough- 
 
103 
 
 ly to master the different languages above named. 
 And even these will find another difficulty. 
 
 Q. What difficulty ? 
 
 A. It is perfectly well known that the Jew 
 Rabbins have corrupted the Hebrew text of the 
 Old Testament, and changed some words, to 
 weaken the testimony of the Prophets regarding 
 Jesus Christ. For instance, Ps. 21, v. 17, (Protest. 
 Bible, ch. 22, v. 16], the true Hebrew text is : 
 “ They have dug my hands and my feet” a clear 
 prophecy of the crucifixion of the Lord. By 
 changing a vowel, they have made it : <f my hands 
 and feet like a lion,” which is ridiculous non- 
 sense. 
 
 In the same way have the heretics of former 
 ages made free with the Greek text of the New 
 Testament, besides which, the existing copies in 
 the original languages differ more or less in many 
 passages. Whence it follows that even those who 
 read the original languages cannot have any 
 certainty regarding the true text of Scripture, 
 unless an infallible authority points it out to them. 
 
 Q. May not Protestants reply that they have 
 every necessa^ security from their translators ? 
 
 A. No ; for these translators have given differ- 
 ent and sometimes contradictory versions. Zwing- 
 lius says that Luther was a foul corrupter of God’s 
 word ; Luther retorts the compliment upon 
 Zwinglius ; Beza condemns the translation of 
 H£colampadius, Castalio condemns that of Beza. 
 The Protestant Bishop Tunstal counted two 
 thousand errors in the first English translation : 
 and Dr. Broughton, also a Protestant, says that 
 the English Bible is so corrupt as to send 
 thousands into eternal flames. The translators 
 themselves confess “ that they are not certain that 
 they have given the true word of God in every 
 
104 
 
 passage, but merely what they supposed to be the 
 best reading.” [Keenan, 3d Edit., p. 49.] 
 
 Q. Are the modern editions of the English 
 Protestant Bible better than the former ones ? 
 
 A. By ho means. Sixty years ago, in 1832, a 
 memorial on the subject was addressed to the 
 Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford 
 and Cambridge, by ten of the most learned mem- 
 bers of those Universities. The memorialists 
 complained that the new editions of the Bible, 
 printed at the University Press, differed in a great 
 many places from the authorised version of King 
 James l ; that even setting aside such minor 
 discrepancies which might be but typographical 
 errors, there remained countless others evidently 
 introduced with a deliberate purpose ; that they 
 found more than 800 such alterations in the Book 
 of Genesis, 600 in the Psalms, 416 in the Gospel of 
 St. Matthew, etc., etc. 
 
 This goes far to prove that Protestant trans- 
 lators have little regard for truth and accuracy. 
 
 Q. What does Luther himself avow as regards 
 his own translation of Scripture ? 
 
 A. That he has added the word “ only ” to the 
 following text of St. Paul ; We account a man to 
 he justified by faith. He translates “ by faith 
 only.” [Rom. ch. 3, v. 28.] 
 
 Q. How did he justify himself, when reproached 
 with this wilful perversion of the word of God P 
 
 A. “I know well,” said he, “that the word 
 only is not to be found in the text of St. Paul ; 
 but if any Papist plague you on the subject, tell 
 him at once that it was the will of Dr. Martin 
 Luther that it should be added, and please to say 
 further that a Papist and an ass are one and the 
 same thing. I am sorry that I have not added 
 
105 
 
 other words. This word only will remain in my 
 New Testament until all the Papists burst them- 
 selves with spite.” [Luther’s Works, tom. 3, 
 pp. 141 and 144.] And now can we have confid- 
 ence in Protestant translations ? 
 
 Q. What of the translations of the Bible 
 Societies ? 
 
 A. In a pamphlet published in May 1836, and 
 entitled : Why I am not a member of the Bible 
 Society f the learned Dr. Perceval, Protestant 
 Chaplain to the Queen of England, has the follow- 
 ing : “ Surely, it is enough to make a Christian’s 
 blood run cold, to think of the sacreligious pre- 
 sumption of a Society which dares thus to tamper 
 with the revelation of the Almighty, and dares to 
 publish to the heathens, and attempts to palm 
 upon its credulous supporters, these school-boys’ 
 exercises of its agents, as the sacred Word of 
 God. It is the circulation of such translations as 
 these, that more than once, at the meetings of this 
 Society, has been blasphemously compared to the 
 miraculous gift of tongues. And such a system is 
 supported, and such comparisons applauded, by 
 many who, on other occasions, lay claim, and justly, 
 to characters of piety and intelligence.” [ Lamp , 
 January 1854.] 
 
 Q. What do you say of the Catholic text of 
 Scripture, usually called the Vulgate ? 
 
 A. The greatest Protestant divines have confessed 
 it to be the best. Beza, one of the founders of 
 Protestantism, says : “ I confess that the old inter- 
 preter seems to have interpreted the Holy Books 
 with wonderful sincerity and religion. The vulgar 
 edition I do, for the most part, embrace and prefer 
 before all others.” [Beza, in prsef. Nov. Test.] 
 “The Latin Vulgate,” says Grotius, “is preferable 
 to all the modern versions of the Bible. It is very 
 
106 
 
 ancient, anterior to the great schisms of the West- 
 ern Churches, and consequently quite unbiassed and 
 imtinged with party prejudices,” etc. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. When a version is approved of by the Church 
 Catholics are perfectly certain that it is free from 
 error. But no Protestant can have true faith in 
 his Bible, since he can never know whether 
 it lias been taken from the true text and faithfully 
 translated, or not. There is no middle way ; 
 unless you receive the Bible from the infallible 
 Church of Christ, you can never be sure that the 
 book going by that name is really the word of 
 God. 
 
 6. Protestants cannot know with 
 certainty the true meaning of 
 the Holy Scripture. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that Protestants have no 
 certainty as to the true sense of the Scriptures ? 
 
 A. Because the passages of Scripture which 
 regard doctrinal points may be tortured into differ- 
 ent, and sometimes opposite, meanings. These 
 four words of Jesus Christ, in the institution of 
 the Holy Sacrament : “ This is My Body,” have 
 been understood, or rather misunderstood, in 
 nearly two hundred different ways by various Pro- 
 testant sects. Now, in the Protestant system, 
 there is no judge divinely appointed to give a 
 decision, and consequently there is no end of 
 doubts and controversies. 
 
 Q. May they not say that Scripture is very 
 clear, at least in the exposition of truths necessary 
 to salvation ? 
 
 A. So they say ; but Scripture itself teaches the 
 
107 
 
 contrary. St. Peter, speaking of the Epistles of 
 St. Paul says that in these , there are certain 
 things hard to he understood , which the unlearned 
 and nntsahle wrest, as they do also the other 
 Scriptures, to their own destruction . [2 Peter, 
 ch. 3, v. 16.] 
 
 Q. Quote Luther’s own confession. 
 
 A. “ To understand thoroughly the meaning of 
 the Scriptures, is quite impossible. We may skim 
 the surface, but to fathom the sense is above the 
 reach of human intellect. Let divines say and do 
 whatever they will, the mysteries of the divine 
 word shall ever remain far above our intellectual 
 powers. How could human reason fully com- 
 prehend the inspirations of the Holy Ghost?” 
 [Audio, Vie de Luther , tom. 2, p. 339.] 
 
 Q. What do we find in the Acts of the 
 Apostles P 
 
 A. When the Ethiopian eunuch was reading 
 Isaias in his chariot, the Apostle St. Philip asked 
 him : Thirikest thou that thou understandest what 
 what thou readest? Who said : And how can I, 
 unless some man shew me ?....! heseecli thee , of 
 whom does the Prophet speak this : of himself or of 
 some other man ? Then Philip, opening his mouth 
 and beginning at this Scripture, preached unto 
 him Jesus.” [Acts, ch, 8, v. 30, 31, 34, 35.] 
 Which fact proves that the Holy Scripture would 
 be next to useless, even to men of good will, if 
 there were not divinely appointed teachers, to 
 show us the meaning of it. 
 
 Q. Have not Protestants said that they are 
 individually inspired to understand the true mean- 
 ing of Scripture ? 
 
 A. They have ; but this assertion is absurd and 
 blasphemous ; for who can suppose the Holy Ghost 
 teaching contradictory doctrines ? Is there one 
 
108 
 
 Spirit of God inspiring the Lutheran to see in the 
 Bible the evidence of the real presence of Christ in 
 the Eucharist, another inspiring the Calvinist to 
 see in the same words of the same Bible quite the 
 contrary P One inspiring the Episcopalian to find 
 in the Bible that Episcopacy is a divine institution, 
 another inspiring the Presbyterian to find in the 
 same Bible that it is an accursed and diabolical 
 contrivance ? etc., etc. 
 
 Q. May they not say that the ambiguous texts 
 are explained by those that are clear ? 
 
 A. If so, why are they scattered into so many 
 sects, each one flattering himself that those pas- 
 sages only are clear which support his peculiar 
 notions ? Every sectarian quotes texts by the 
 dozen, to prove his own doctrines and condemn 
 those of others. 
 
 Q, What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. Catholics are perfectly certain of the true 
 meaning of Scripture, because the Church is to 
 them an infallible interpreter ; but Protestants can 
 never have any security at all on that matter, 
 because they are left to themselves to do a work 
 which even the chief Reformers have considered 
 impossible. There is no middle way ; again I say, 
 unless } t ou receive the word of Gcd from the in- 
 fallible Church of Christ, you can never be sure 
 you understand it, and consequently can have no 
 true faith in it. 
 
 Q. Sum up the difficulties of the Protestant 
 system concerning the Bible ? 
 
 A. The unprejudiced Protestant who, discarding 
 the authority of the Church, freely uses his pre- 
 tended right of private judgment cannot logically 
 have faith in Scripture. Should he ever choose to 
 submit the questions we have just discussed to a 
 searching and conscientious examination, he must 
 
109 
 
 necessarily come to this rather unsatisfactory con- 
 elusion : 
 
 There are perhaps some inspired Scriptures, — 
 the different books of the Bible are perhaps the 
 word of God, — this translation I have in hand is 
 perhaps true enough, — such is perhaps the real 
 meaning. 
 
 Now, what sort of faith can be founded on these 
 four perhapses I leave the reader to imagine. 
 
 7. The Reading of Scripture. 
 
 Q. Is the reading of Scripture necessary to all 
 Christians ? 
 
 A. It is absolutely necessary to those only 
 whose duty it is to teach others, that is, the 
 pastors of the Church : For the lips of the priest 
 shall keep knoivledge , and they shall seek the law 
 at his mouth . [Malachias, ch. 2, v. 7.] 
 
 As for the laity, though the Holy Scriptures be 
 exceedingly useful to those possessed of a com-\ 
 petent knowledge, who read them with proper dis- 
 positions, to maintain that all must read the Bible, 
 that such reading is necessary for salvation is a/ 
 doctrine as false and blasphemous as it is absurd. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? 
 
 A. That doctrine is false, because neither Jesus 
 Christ nor the Apostles ever gave such a com- 
 mand. It was unheard of in the Christian world 
 till the time of the so-called Reformation, and the 
 history of the Church proves that before Luther 
 not even the heretics ever dreamed of it. 
 
 It is blasphemous, because it supposes that the 
 God of mercy, who died for us upon the Cross, 
 has made salvation physically impossible to the 
 great bulk of mankind for fifty-four centuries 
 
 10 
 
110 
 
 out of sixty, that is from the beginning of the 
 world to the invention of printing. 
 
 It is absurd, not only because it makes the 
 unity of the Church an impossibility, not only 
 because according to the Bible itself it casts a 
 snare upon the unlearned and unstable who icrest 
 the Scriptures to their own destruction , [2 
 Peter, ch. 3, v. 16] ; but principally because it 
 shuts the gates of heaven to the greatest part of 
 those who believe in Christ and obey his com- 
 mands. In the Protestant system there is no salva- 
 tion for those who have no time to read, that is, 
 no salvation for the poor, for the illiterate, for the 
 disinherited of this world, for all those whom 
 Jesus Christ loved most. 
 
 / Q. Did not Jesus Christ say : Search the Scrip- 
 tures for you think in them to have life ever- 
 lasting ? [St. John, ch. 5, v. 39.] 
 
 A. These w r ords have nothing to do with the 
 question, for our Saviour was speaking to the 
 Jewish priests, who were obliged to explain the 
 Law to the people and it is very doubtful 
 whether he made a command, even to them, for 
 the Greek word signifies : You search in the indi- 
 ■ cative mood, as w r ell as Search , in the imperative ; 
 and, from the text, the indicative sense is more 
 probable : You search the Scriptures , because you 
 think in them to have life everlasting , and the same 
 are they that give testimony of me. Be it as it may 
 these words cannot, at any rate, be construed into 
 a command for all to read the Scriptures. They 
 w r ere evidently a reproach to the Pharisees, that, 
 reading the Scriptures as they did, and thinking 
 to find everlasting life in them, they would not 
 receive him to whom all those Scriptures gave 
 testimony, and through whom alone they could 
 have that true life. 
 
Ill 
 
 Q. Did not St. Paul praise Timothy because he 
 had read the Holy Scriptures from his infancy ? 
 [2 Tim. ch. 3, v. 15.] 
 
 A. So will the Catholic Church praise all who 
 read them with proper dispositions. Mark that 
 Timothy was a Bishop, whose duty it was, not 
 only to read, but to expound the Scriptures. The 
 Apostle points out how useful the study of the 
 Scriptures may prove to him in the discharge 
 of his high duties. From thy infancy thou hast 
 known the Holy Scriptures , which can instruct thee 
 to salvation , through the faith which is in Christ 
 Jesus. All Scripture inspired of God is profitable 
 to TEACH, to REPROVE, to CORRECT, to INSTRUCT in 
 
 justice . [2 Tim., ch. 3, v. 15, 16.] One needs 
 sharp reasoning indeed to infer from these words 
 the absolute necessity for all Christians to read 
 Scripture under pain of damnation. 
 
 Q. What then is the practice of the Catholic 
 Church in this matter ? 
 
 A. Remembering the solemn warning of her first 
 Supreme Pontiff, the Catholic Church takes every, 
 precaution to prevent the sacred volume, which 
 God has intended to be a lamp to our feet , and a 
 light to our paths, [Ps. 118, v. 105,] from being 
 wrested by the unlearned and unstable to their own 
 destruction. Using the power given to her by 
 Christ, of binding and loosing, she does, according 
 to circumstances of time and place, permit or forbid 
 the reading of Scripture in vulgar tongues. 
 
 She prohibits Protestant versions, because they 
 are mutilated and unfaithful. That such is the 
 fact has been fully established above by the testi- 
 mony of Protestants themselves. She prohibits 
 all versions without explanatory notes, because 
 many texts are hard to be understood , and may be 
 but too easily misused and made a cause of per- 
 
112 
 
 dition, as is proved by the history of all heresies. 
 She condemns the Bible Societies because all the 
 Bibles published and circulated by them come 
 under that double prohibition. 
 
 As for the approved versions, with explanatory 
 notes, which preclude, as far as possible, dangers of 
 abuse, the Church, at proper times, not only 
 permits, but exhorts the faithful to read them 
 “ because nothing can be more useful, more con- 
 soling, and more animating.” [Pius VII to the 
 Eng. Bishops, April 18th, 1820.] 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that Catholics did not 
 publish any version of the Scriptures till they 
 were compelled to do so by Protestant example ? 
 
 A. Before Protestantism had a being, there 
 were upwards of twenty versions of Scripture, in 
 vernacular tongues. [Belong, Biblioth. Sacra. 
 Lipsic, 1709.] 
 
 Q. Why did not Catholic Priests in India 
 translate the Scripture into native tongues till 
 lately P 
 
 A. Because it would have proved prejudicial, 
 both to the Christians and to the heathens. 
 
 As for the heathens, those who know the natives 
 of India are well aware of the repugnance and 
 disgust with which they look at many of our 
 European manners and customs. These preju- 
 dices are daily weakening, at least in the minds of 
 educated natives, from their constant intercourse 
 with Europeans. But they were in their full 
 strength one or two centuries ago ; and the only 
 result of a translation of Scripture would have 
 been to represent Jesus Christ to the Hindoos as 
 a Feringhee, and to make his religion an object of 
 universal execration. 
 
 As for Christians, being for the most part neo- 
 phytes, they were as the people of Corinth, to 
 
113 
 
 whom St. Paul said : As unto little ones in Christ 
 I gave you milk to drink , not meat , for you were not 
 able as yet . [1 Cor. ch. 3, v. 1, 2.] Meat is in 
 itself a wholesome food, but to children or sick 
 persons, it would be poison ; Scripture also is in 
 itself the most useful spiritual food, but to the un- 
 learned and unstable it is a cause of perdition. 
 
 Q. What do you think of the practice of giving 
 Bibles to every one, whether Mahometan, or 
 heathen, etc.? 
 
 A. It is the best possible contrivance, if the 
 givers wish to have the Bible abused, mocked, and 
 despised, and its copies made use of for disgusting- 
 purposes ; but nothing can be more foolish, if 
 they intend thereby to convert heathens to Chris- 
 tianity, as experience in India, and every other 
 country, has fully proved. It was said humorously 
 enough, that “ Protestant sects have persuaded 
 themselves not only that the circulation of the 
 Scriptures is the only means of converting the 
 heathens, but that it acts in a physical or mechani- 
 cal manner, and that the heathens are to be made 
 Christians by the mere act of reading the Scrip- 
 tures, without any regard 'to the objects, temper, 
 or dispositions with which they read. They might 
 as w r ell expect to effect conversions by giving 
 them the Bible to be drunk in solutions or 
 swallowed in pills.” 
 
 Q. Is there nothing in the Gospel concerning 
 these Bible givers ? 
 
 A. There is the following warning of Jesus 
 Christ to his Apostles : Give not that which is holy 
 to dogs ; neither cast ye your pearls before swine , 
 lest perhaps they trample them under their feet. [St. 
 Matt. ch. 7, v. 6.] 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 FROM THE CHURCH ONLY WE CAN 
 HAVE THE TRUE TRADITION. 
 
 1. The Authority of Tradition. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by Tradition ? 
 
 A. I mean that part of the word of God which, 
 though revealed by Christ or by the Holy Ghost 
 to the Apostles, is not at all contained in the 
 Holy Scriptures, or at least is not clearly contained 
 in them, but has been handed down from one 
 generation of Christians to another, whether by 
 word of mouth, or by writing, monuments, etc. 
 
 Q. Explain this a little. 
 
 A. We Catholics believe that Jesus Christ and 
 his Apostles delivered many truths by word of 
 mouth, which are not written in the Scriptures. 
 We believe that these truths have been transmitted 
 to us by an unbroken tradition. We believe that 
 this, tradition is authentic, which has been admitted 
 from the beginning by all Christian nations, and 
 in every age of the Church. In short, we believe 
 that the word of God came to us by both channels. 
 Scripture and Tradition, and that dependance on 
 Tradition is quite as necessary as faith in Scripture. 
 
 Q. Does not Scripture contain all necessary 
 truths ? 
 
 A. We have it on the undoubted testimony of 
 Christ himself that all things whatsoever he had 
 heard of his Father , he had made known to his 
 apostles [St. John, ch. 15, v. 15] ; that he sent 
 them the Holy Ghost to prevent their forgetting 
 any of those truths : The Father shall give you 
 another Paraclete , that he may abide with you for 
 ever .... and bring all things to your mind what - 
 
115 
 
 soever 1 shall have said to you. [St. John, ch. 14, 
 y. 16, 26.] We know that, after as well as before 
 his resurrection, he went on speaking of the king- 
 dom of God [Acts, ch. 1, v. 3] , that is, his Church, 
 her dogmas, her moral and disciplinary laws, etc. 
 
 Now, to affirm that such a teaching, continued 
 for more than three years, is fully contained in a 
 small volume, which in a few hours can he perused 
 all through, is perfectly ridiculous, and we could 
 laugh down the preposterous assertion, even had we 
 not the positive testimony of St. John, that there 
 are also many other things which Jesus did ; which if 
 they were written every one , the world itself \ I think , 
 would not he able to contain the hooks that should he 
 written. [St. John, ch. 21, v. 25.] 
 
 Q. What follows from this ? 
 
 A. These words, the last of the Gospel, clearly 
 show that Jesus Christ did not command to write 
 all he had said and done ; that to write all would 
 have been impossible ; and finally that the un- 
 written part of our Saviour’s teaching must be 
 known to us by the infallible tradition of the 
 Church, unless we suppose he did not care about 
 it, and purposely permitted it to be lost to us, as 
 worthless. 
 
 Q. What is your next argument ? 
 
 A. The evidence of Scripture itself, which 
 proves that even those amongst the Apostles, who 
 did write, preached by word of mouth many things 
 not to be found in their writings. St. John says : 
 Having more things to ivrite unto you y 1 would not 
 by paper and ink , for 1 hope that I shall he with you , 
 and speak face to face. [2 John, v. 12.] St. Paul 
 writes to Timothy : Hold the form of sound words 
 which thou hast heard of me [2 Tim. ch. 1, 
 v. 13] ; to the Thessalonians : Hold the traditions 
 which you have learned , whether by word, or by 
 
116 
 
 our EPISTLE [2 Thess., eh. 2, v. 14]; wherein 
 we see Scripture and Tradition put on a perfect 
 level, and both together declared by St. Paul to 
 be equally necessary. But the words of the same 
 Apostle to the Corinthians are still more striking : 
 You are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us , and 
 written not with ink , but with the Spirit of the living 
 God. [2 Cor., ch. 3, v. 3.} To-day, as in the days 
 of St. Paul, the true Church is the ever-living 
 epistle of Christ, ministered by his apostles, written 
 not with ink, but the Spirit of God, addressed to all 
 nations, that in it they may read all revealed truths. 
 
 Q. What was the doctrine and practice of the 
 early Church on that matter ? 
 
 A. Protestants generally admit that Jesus 
 Christ succeeded in preserving his Church from 
 error during the first three or four centuries, 
 though they blasphemously suppose he has been 
 unable or unwilling to keep his word any longer. 
 Now the necessity of tradition was admitted by 
 all during the first centuries. 
 
 St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of , 
 the Apostles, and had seen the Saviour, says : 
 
 4 4 Beware of the perverse doctrines of the heretics, 
 and strongly stick to the tradition of the Apostles.” 
 [Euseb. Inst. Eccl. lib. 3, c. 36.] 
 
 44 As soon,” says St. Irenaeus, 44 as a question 
 arises let us have recourse to the tradition of the 
 oldest Churches which have been taught by the 
 Apostles themselves.” \_Adv. Hser. 1, 3, c. 4.] 
 
 In the second century, Tertullian writes his book 
 of the Prescription, which is nothing else than a 
 refutation of all heresies, from apostolic traditions, 
 and he lays it down as a principle that one can- 
 not be a Christian who does not believe in the 
 tradition of the Church. [ Prceser . c. 19.- — Cor. 
 Mil. c. 2 ] 
 
117 
 
 In the third century, the illustrious Origen 
 expressly says : a That only is true which perfectly 
 agrees with apostolical and ecclesiastical tradition.” 
 [0/ Principles , tom. 1, p. 47.] We could quote 
 numberless texts to the same purpose, but these 
 are quite sufficient to prove that the first Christians, 
 the disciples of the Apostles, and the Martyrs, 
 followed the Catholic and not the Protestant rule 
 of faith. 
 
 Q. Have not Protestant authors often confessed 
 the necessity of Tradition ? 
 
 A. They have. The learned Groti us says : “ We 
 must lay down as a fundamental principle, that 
 what is generally received, and the origin of 
 which cannot be clearly ascribed to such or such 
 time and place, was handed down from the 
 Apostles themselves 99 [ Votum pro pace, p. 137.] 
 
 “Tradition,” says Lessing, “is the rock on which 
 the Church of Christ is founded.” And elsewhere 
 in answer to a shrivelled objection of his own co- 
 religionists : “ If tradition could have been falsified 
 so could Scripture. 99 [Hoeningh. cli. 5.] 
 
 It would be easy to quote other Protestant testi- 
 monies, for nearly all Protestant divines of note 
 have, in their sober hours, owned the absolute 
 necessity of Tradition. 
 
 Q. But how can you distinguish human from 
 divine Tradition P 
 
 A. As easily as I can distinguish human from 
 divine Scripture, by the infallible teaching of the 
 true Church. We have seen above, that it is only 
 by this infallible testimony we know which books 
 are true Scripture, and which are not ; in like 
 manner for Tradition. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That the Apostles and the first Christians, 
 and the whole Church in every age and country, 
 
118 
 
 held the necessity of Tradition ; that this necessity 
 is clearly laid down in Scripture ; and conse- 
 quently that the whole revelation, w r ritten and 
 unwritten, infallibly explained by the true Church, 
 is the rule of faith which Jesus Christ has left to 
 mankind. 
 
 2. Protestant Objections Answered. 
 
 Q. What is the Protestant doctrine on Tradi- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. Protestants generally deny the authority of 
 Tradition, and maintain that nothing can be an 
 article of faith which is not clearly expressed in 
 the Bible. They say to Grod, as it were : If you 
 want me to believe what you reveal, get it written 
 down with pen and ink ; otherwise I will not be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 We have fully proved above how false and un- 
 founded is that system, and it is quite unnecessary 
 to confute it again. 
 
 Q. State the true cause of the inveterate dis- 
 like which all heretics feel for Tradition ? 
 
 A. No book can explain itself. We know but 
 too well that however clear a text may be, how- 
 ever plain and perspicuous its meaning, it can be 
 tortured into numberless different senses. Not so 
 with the living tradition of the living Church. 
 Had Scripture been made by Jesus Christ the only 
 rule of faith, his Church would, in a very few 
 years, have been a swarm of sects, and the Chris- 
 tian religion would have disappeared, never to rise 
 again ; but Tradition is the fence which keeps 
 out all new doctrines, the hammer which shivers 
 all errors, and that is the reason why heretics of 
 every age, from the beginning of the Church 
 down to our own time, have always instinctively 
 
119 
 
 opposed it. Arius, Macedonius, Eutyches, Pela- 
 gius, etc., etc., though they did not go so far as 
 Luther in absolutely denying the authority of 
 Tradition, always strove to weaken it. 
 
 Q. Does not Scripture say : You shall not add 
 to the words which I speak. [Duet. ch. 4, v. 2.J and: 
 If any man shall add to these things , God shall add 
 unto him the plagues written in this hook ? [Apoc , 
 ch. 22. v. 18.] 
 
 A. What have these texts to do with Tradition ? 
 They mean only that it is forbidden to add to the text 
 of the Law or of St. John’s Revelation, and nothing 
 more. The Protestant interpretation is ridiculous ; 
 it supposes that Moses had condemned all the 
 Prophets and Apostles who have added the remain- 
 der of the Old and New Testaments ; it sup- 
 poses that St. John himself has been accursed, for 
 besides and after the Apocalypse or Revelation, he 
 wrote his Gospel and three Epistles. 
 
 Q. Does not J esus Christ say : Why do you also 
 transgress the commandment of God for your tra- 
 dition ? [St. Matt., ch. 15, v. 3.] and elsewhere : 
 Leaving the commandment of God , you hold the 
 tradition of men ? [St. Mark, ch. 7, v. 8.] 
 
 A. And the Catholic Church also says : should 
 any one transgress the command of God for the 
 tradition of men, let him be anathema. The 
 traditions here condemned by the Lord are those 
 sectarian traditions which are, like those of the 
 Pharisees, either contrary to the word of God, as 
 that of neglecting parents under pretence of giving 
 to God, or frivolous, unprofitable and no-ways 
 conducing to true piety, as that of often washing 
 the hands without regard to the purity of the 
 heart. But the tradition which Catholics believe is 
 not the tradition of men ; it is the tradition of the 
 word of' God, the tradition of the oral teach- 
 
120 
 
 ing of Jestls Christ and his Apostles, the Tradition 
 of which St. Paul says : Hold fast the traditions 
 you have been taught , whether hy word , or by our 
 epistle [2 Thess. ch. 2, v. 14,], the tradition 
 which, tar from being contrary to the written word 
 of God, is its necessary complement. 
 
 Q. 'Which is the best answer to all possible 
 Protestant objections against Tradition ? 
 
 A. The teaching and doings of Protestants 
 themselves. So absurd, so impossible* is their 
 system, that practically they are forced to rely on 
 Tradition almost as much as Catholics, and, in 
 many cases, to give up the literal sense of Scrip- 
 ture. Who told them that, under the New Law, 
 Sunday was to be specially set apart for the wor- 
 ship of God, instead of Saturday ? Tradition. 
 Who told them that, despite this command of the 
 Saviour : Except you eat the flesh of the Son of 
 man . . . you shall not have life in you [St. John 
 ch. 6, v. 54] , the Eucharist was not to be adminis- 
 tered to infants P Tradition. Who told them that, 
 despite these words of Christ : He that believeth 
 and is baptized , shall be saved [St. Mark, ch. 16-, 
 v. 16,] infants should be baptized though they can- 
 not believe ? Tradition. Who told them that this 
 express law of the Council of Jerusalem, that you 
 abstain from . . . blood and from things strangled , 
 [Acts ch. 15, v. 29,] is binding no longer ? Tradi- 
 tion. Who told them that the different books of the 
 Bible which they still preserve are the word of 
 God, etc., etc.? Tradition. 
 
121 
 
 3. The various Channels of Tradition. 
 
 Q. In what ways and through wh^t channels 
 have Apostolic traditions been handed down to us ? 
 
 A. In two different ways and through two dif- 
 ferent channels, which we may call the written 
 and the unwritten tradition. 
 
 Q. Where is the written tradition to be found ? 
 
 A. In all the hooks that have been composed in 
 the first centuries after Christ, by Christian, and 
 and even heretic or pagan authors, which, in some 
 Way or other, directly or indirectly, hear testi- 
 mony to the faith of the Church at that time. 
 
 Q. Which are the principal monuments of the 
 written tradition ? 
 
 A. The liturgical books of the eastern and 
 western Churches, in the Latin, Greek, Syriac, 
 Slavonic, etc., languages, which all marvellously 
 agree in the essential parts ; the works of the 
 Fathers and Doctors of the Church, of the divines, 
 of the preachers, of the controvertists, who have 
 left no question untouched, no dogma unexamined, 
 no error unanswered ; the Acts of the Martyrs, 
 wherein is stamped, in letters of generous blood, 
 the actual belief of those intrepid witnesses of 
 Christ ; the history of the Church, and of the 
 countless battles she had to fight against the 
 powers of darkness, in order to preserve inviolate 
 and unsullied the sacred deposit of faith, etc. 
 
 Q. But what can heretical or heathen books 
 have to do with divine tradition ? 
 
 A. I have mentioned also the works of heretic 
 and pagan authors, because the very denials and 
 protests of the former, as well as the stupid calum- 
 nies of the latter, throw an unwonted light on the 
 faith of their Christian contemporaries. To quote 
 but one example : the heathen historians of the 
 
 11 
 
122 
 
 first three centuries generally charge the Christians 
 with the awful crime of killing a new-born child 
 in their mysteries, to eat its raw flesh and drink 
 its blood ; what better testimony could be wished 
 for of the faith of the early Church in the real pre- 
 sence of Christ in the Eucharist, with his flesh and 
 blood ? 
 
 Q. What do you mean by the unwritten tradi- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. I mean the institutions, customs and practices 
 common to Christians of every time and country, 
 the origin of which can be traced back to the 
 Apostles. I mean also the edifices, pictures, 
 carvings, coins, inscriptions, etc., of past ages, that 
 point out, in some way or other, the faith of our 
 forefathers. 
 
 Q. Which are the principal monuments of the 
 unwritten tradition ? 
 
 A. Of the former kind are the custom of making 
 the sign of the Cross ; that of fasting during Lent 
 and Ember days, of abstaining from flesh-meat on 
 Fridays, &c. 
 
 Of the latter are the catacombs, or subterranean 
 cemeteries, which were the burial place of the 
 early Christians of Borne, and afforded them 
 shelter during the persecutions ; the old Churches 
 of nearly all Christian countries, which in their 
 very structure and ornaments bear testimony to 
 many of our dogmas, such as the real presence of 
 Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity of prayer 
 and of a daily true sacrifice, the pre-eminence of 
 bishops over priests, of priests over the laity, &c. 
 
 Q. Give some examples of the usefulness of this 
 unwritten tradition. 
 
 A. To speak only of the recent discoveries made 
 in the catacombs : there have been found stone 
 altars with relics of the martyrs for celebration of 
 
123 
 
 Mass ; pictures and carvings of the crucified Lord, 
 of his Blessed Mother, of his Apostles, etc. ; in- 
 scriptions on the tomb-stones of martyrs, with 
 these words : “ Live in the Lord, and pray for us,” 
 “ Live in peace, and pray for us,” or others of the 
 same import ; epitaphs, medals, and coins, testify- 
 ing to the primacy of St. Peter, to the belief in 
 purgatory, in the intercession of the Saints 
 for us, etc. Lately, chairs of a peculiar kind have 
 been discovered, cut in the stony walls of the gab 
 leries, in out-of-the-way corners, the use of which 
 was not apparent at first, and which, after a long 
 and most careful examination, the best antiquari- 
 ans, both Catholic and Protestant, have pro- 
 nounced to be nothing else than confessionals, 
 clearly proving that they could in no way have 
 served for any other purpose. 
 
 Now, all these monuments are undoubtedly of 
 the second or third century ; they belong to what 
 Protestants call the pure primitive Church. What 
 then of that worn-out calumny, that the Pope’s 
 supremacy, the use of images and statues, the in- 
 vocation of Saints, the confession of sins, are, after 
 all but diabolical corruptions, cunningly devised by 
 some ambitious and greedy unnamed priests of the 
 dark ages, for the sake of money ? Here is the 
 primitive tradition, cut in the rock, attesting the 
 faith of the martyrs to have been the same we hold 
 now. Who will venture to challenge such unex- 
 ceptional witnesses ? Even had we no others, 
 even had all the Fathers and Doctors kept silent 
 the very stones would bear testimony : If these 
 shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out. 
 [St. Luke, ch. 19, v. 40.] 
 
 Q. What general conclusion do you draw from 
 all that has been said in this and in the preceding 
 chapter ? 
 
124 
 
 A. I conclude that the Holy Scriptures, reason, 
 common sense, the history of mankind, the very 
 nature of man, and every possible argument con- 
 cur to prove that the only true rule of faith is the 
 Catholic one, that is : The whole word of God, 
 known to us by both Scripture and Tradition, and 
 explained in its true sense by the infallible Church 
 of Christ. 
 
 To deny this is to deny the light of the sun, and 
 give God himself the lie. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE HEAD OF THE CHUPCH. 
 
 1. Saint Peter has been established by 
 Jesus Christ the Head of the Church. 
 
 Q. Who is the chief head of the Church ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ is the true Head of the Church, 
 w T ho, being himself invisible, governs his Church 
 from heaven,- in an invisible manner. 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ appoint any vicar on earth, 
 to govern his Church ? 
 
 A. He appointed for that purpose St. Peter and 
 his successors, as is evident from many passages of 
 Scripture. Thou art Simon , the son of Jona; 
 thou shalt be called Cephas , which is interpreted 
 Peter, or a Pock. [St. John, ch. l,*v. 42.] Thou 
 art Petery and upon this rock I will build my 
 Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And I zoill give to thee the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 upon earth f it shall be bound also in heaven ; and 
 whatsoever thou shalt loose on earthy it shall be 
 loosed also in heaven. [St. Matt., ch. 16, v. 18, 19.] 
 
125 
 
 Q. Was not the same power given also to the 
 other Apostles ? 
 
 A. Not the same, but only a part of it. Peter 
 alone was made the immovable rock on which the 
 Church is built, Peter alone received the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven ; but the power of binding 
 and loosing was given also to the Twelve : Amen , 
 I say to you, ichatsoever you shall hind upon earth , 
 shall he hound also in heaven , and whatsoever you 
 shall loose upon earth , shall he loosed also in 
 heaven. [St. Matt., ch. 18, v. 18.] This text, far 
 from contradicting the preceding one, completes it ; 
 and both united show us clearly in what way 
 Jesus Christ established his Church. The second 
 text proves that there is not only one pastor, but a 
 body of pastors ; and the first, that in this body 
 there is a head, that one only is the foundation 
 stone, viz : he who has specially received the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Q. What did Christ say to St. Peter ? 
 
 A. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail 
 not; and thou being once converted , confirm thy 
 brethren. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 32.] Peter is, 
 therefore, the only one whose faith cannot fail; 
 for that very reason he must confirm his brethren ; 
 but if not their superior, how could he do so? 
 These words, and thou being once converted , allude 
 to the sin which St. Peter was to commit, in thrice 
 denying the Lord during his passion, a sin which 
 he lamented so bitterly. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 62.] 
 It was to give him the best occasion of retrieving 
 that fault, and at the same time to fulfil his solemn 
 promise of delivering into his hands the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven, that Jesus Christ, after 
 his resurrection, asked him thrice : Simon, son of 
 John, lovest thou me more than these ? answering 
 each of Peter’s three acts of love with these words : 
 feed my lambs, feed my sheep , [St. John, ch. 21, v. 
 
126 
 
 15, 16. 17,] that is : Feed the whole flock, which 
 He, the Good Shepherd, before ascending into 
 heaven, thereby committed to another visible 
 shepherd in his place. 
 
 Q. Can you prove that the keys and the office of 
 feeding the sheep evidently mean supreme power ? 
 
 A. That such is the true sense is obvious from 
 many passages of Scripture. The metaphor of the 
 keys is used to mark the authority of Christ him- 
 self: He that hath the key of David ; he that 
 openethy and no man shutteth ; shutteth y and no 
 man openeth. [Apoc. ch. 3, v. 7.] The Lord 
 had said to David: Thou shalt feed my people 
 Israel , and thou shalt he prince over Israel . [2 
 
 Kings, ch. 5, v. 2.] See also the celebrated 
 prophecy of Ezechiel concerning Christ. [Ez., ch. 
 34, v. 23.] 
 
 Q. Have you any other scriptural proof of St. 
 Peter’s supremacy ? 
 
 A. Yes; in three different texts of Scripture 
 we have the list of the Apostles ; Peter always 
 stands the first, and St. Matthew says expressly : 
 The first Peter , [St Matt., ch. 10, v 2 ; St. Mark, 
 ch. 3, v. 16 ; St. Luke, ch. 6, v. 14.] Nor can it 
 be alleged that this was done because he was the 
 oldest, or the first to follow Christ ; for Andiew 
 was his elder brother, and followed Christ before 
 him. [St. John, ch. 1, v. 40, 41.] 
 
 Q. After the ascension of our Lord, who acted 
 as the chief of the Church ? 
 
 A. Peter, always, and in every circumstance. 
 After the ascension of our Lord, he assembled 
 the Apostles, he presided at the election of a new 
 Apostle, to replace Judas. [Acts, ch. 1, v. 15.] 
 He was the first of the Apostles that preached to 
 the Jews, and converted three thousand of them, * 
 verifying the promise of Christ that he should be 
 
127 
 
 the foundation, from which the Church should 
 rise, [Acts, ch. 2, v. 14] ; the first who wrought 
 miracles — on the lame man, [Acts, ch. 3, v. 6, 7, 8,] 
 on Eneas and Tabitha, [Acts, ch. 9] ; and, as a 
 punishment, on Ananias and Sapbira, [Acts, 
 ch. 5]; the first who taught that the converted 
 Genti es were to be admitted to baptism, which 
 truth he alone had learned by a special revelation. 
 [Acts, ch. 10.] 
 
 Q. Did St. Peter act as a presiding teacher 
 among the Apostles ? 
 
 A. He did. In the first Council of Jerusalem 
 he decided that converts from heathenism were 
 not to be circumcised. Peter rising up said to 
 them: Men , brethren , you know that in former 
 days God made choice amongst us , that , by my 
 mouth, the Gentiles should hear the icord of the 
 Gospel ... And all the multitude held their peace. 
 [Acts, ch. 15, v. 7 . . . 12.] And even James the 
 Apostle, Bishop of Jerusalem, where they were 
 assembled, rose only to repeat Peter’s decision, and 
 acquiesce in it. [Ibid., v. 13 . . . 22.] 
 
 Q. Does St. Peter’s chief authority appear from 
 other circumstances ? 
 
 A. We read in the 9th chapter of the Acts that 
 Peter passed through , visiting all. [Acts, ch. 9, 
 v. 32.] When he was cast into prison, the whole 
 Church prayed for him, nor was this done for any 
 other Apostle. [Acts, ch. 12, v. 5.] St. Paul 
 went to Jerusalem expressly to see St. Peter 
 [Gal., ch. 1, v. 18, 19], and to get his own preach- 
 ing among the Gentiles approved of, lest , perhaps , 
 says he, I should run , or had run in vain. [Gal., 
 ch. 2, v. 2.] 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. There are few truths more clearly expressed 
 and established in Scripture than the supremacy 
 
128 
 
 of Saint Peter ; and the last (Ecumenical Council 
 was perfectly right when, on the 18th of July 
 1870, it issued the following decree : “ If any one, 
 therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle 
 was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles 
 and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant ; 
 or that the same directly and immediately received 
 from the same Our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy 
 of honour only, and not of true and proper juris- 
 diction; let him be anathema.” [First dog m. Const, 
 on the Church of Christ, ch. 1.] 
 
 2. The Pope, Successor of St. Peter, 
 is the Head of the Church. 
 
 Q. The supremacy of St. Peter once established, 
 what necessarily follows ? 
 
 A. That all the successors of St. Peter hold the 
 same rank and power, because supremacy was 
 given by Christ to Peter, not for Peter’s own bene- 
 fit, but for the benefit of the whole Church, to 
 insure its unity ; and consequently, the form of 
 government established by Jesus Christ was to last, 
 not only during St. Peter’s life-time, but, like the 
 Church itself, until the consummation of the world. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? 
 
 A. The words of Jesus Christ above quoted 
 clearly show that the Church is a building, of which 
 Peter is the foundation stone; a family, of which 
 he is the father; a fold, of which he is the shepherd; 
 a kingdom, of which he is the king; a body, of 
 which he is the head. Now, as long as the build- 
 ing remains, the foundation stone must remain ; 
 as long as there is a fold, there must be a 
 shepherd ; and so forth. Hence it follows that the 
 power of St. Peter is to last, like the Church, till 
 the end of the world. 
 
129 
 
 Q. But is not Christ himself the foundation 
 stone, according to these words of St. Paul, so of- 
 ten quoted by Protestants : Other foundation no 
 man can lay , hut that which is laid; ivhich is Christ 
 Jesus ? [1 Cor. ch. 3, v. 11.] 
 
 A. Who amongst Catholics ever denied it ? Cer- 
 tainly Jesus Christ is the primary foundation; but 
 he has been pleased to lay down a secondary foun- 
 dation : Thou art a rock; upon this rock I will 
 build my Church. [St. Matt. ch. 16. v. 18.] Certainly 
 Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd; but he has 
 been pleased to appoint a secondary shepherd : 
 Feed my lambs , feed my sheep. [St. John, ch. 21. 
 v. 15, 16, 17.] Certainly Jesus Christ is the head 
 of the body, of which we are the members; but 
 he has been pleased to appoint a visible head : To 
 thee 1 shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven , 
 [St. Matt. ch. 16, v. 19.] Confirm thy brethren. 
 [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 32.] 
 
 Q. Who are the successors of St. Peter? 
 
 A. The bishops of Rome, in which capital of the 
 world St. Peter established his See, and ended his 
 life, like his Master, on a cross, in the year 67, 
 during the reign of Nero. 
 
 Q. What reply do you make to those who pre- 
 tend that St. Peter never was at Rome ? 
 
 A. We put to them the following rather trouble- 
 some questions : 
 
 If St. Peter did not suffer martyrdom at Rome 
 under the Emperor Nero, in what part of the world, 
 and when, did he die? If St. Peter did not 
 die at Rome, at what time, and from what country 
 w r ere his remains transported thither ? For there 
 they are, beyond all doubt. If St. Peter was not 
 the first bishop of Rome, who was ? And finally, 
 did not the Fathers of the early Church, who lived 
 near the time of Saint Peter, know better than the 
 
130 
 
 Protestants, who came fifteen hundred years after, 
 where St. Peter established his See ? 
 
 Q. Do the Fathers say that St. Peter established 
 his See at Rome ? 
 
 A. On this fact they are unanimous. To quote 
 a few only : in the first century, we have the testi- 
 mony of St. Clement, in his letter to the Corinthi- 
 ans, and of St. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, 
 in his letter to the Romans. In the second cen- 
 tury, that of St. Irenseus. In the third century, 
 that of Clement of Alexandria, Saint Cyprian, and 
 many others. All these testimonies can be seen in 
 the book of the Protestant bishop, Dr. Pearson. 
 [On the Succession of the first Roman Bishops , ch. 
 7. p. 32.] Moreover, all the Fathers who have 
 given a catalogue of the bishops of Rome, assign 
 Peter as the first. There is no exception. So St. 
 Augustin, St. Optat, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. 
 Leo, etc., etc. 
 
 Q. Have you any other strong argument ? 
 
 A. The testimony of all Christians, in every age 
 and country, who have been always obedient to 
 the Pope, on account of his occupying the See of 
 St. Peter; and what is still stronger, the testimony 
 of all heretics and schismatics, during fourteen 
 centuries. 
 
 Q. How ? 
 
 A. If there had been the shadow of a doubt on 
 this most important question, the numberless sects 
 of heretics, always averse to the Roman Pontiffs, 
 and condemned by them, would have been happy 
 to oppose to them such an argument; the schis- 
 matic bishops of Constantinople, who, during more 
 than five hundred years, tried in every possible 
 way to supplant the Popes, would certainly have 
 made use of it ; but the fact was so evident, and 
 so strongly proved, that no one thought of deny- 
 
131 
 
 ing it, till the fourteenth century. The first wha 
 dreamed of it was the schismatic Marcilius Pat- 
 avinus. 
 
 Q. Was not the first epistle of St. Peter written 
 from Babylon ? 
 
 A. Every body knows that, in the new Testa- 
 ment, Rome is figuratively called Babylon, because 
 heathen Rome, like the first Babylon, was the 
 mother of the abominations of the earth. In the 
 book of the Revelation, St. John uses the same 
 figure; and Protestants are well aware of it, since 
 they apply to the Christian Rome all the curses of 
 St. John against this figurative Babylon. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from this ? 
 
 A. That St. Peter most certainly established his 
 See in Rome, where he died; and consequently the 
 Pope, who is the successor of St. Peter in the See 
 of Rome, is, like him, the visible Head of the 
 Church. For this very reason, the Catholic Chureh 
 is also called “Roman.” 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that the spiritual 
 power of the Pope was not established before the 
 fourth or fifth century ? 
 
 A. Let them alone: they are blind , and leaders of 
 the blind. [St. Matt. ch. 15, v. 14.] Was it in the 
 fourth or fifth century that Jesus Christ established 
 St. Peter the chief of the Apostles ? Was it in the 
 fourth or fifth century that he said to him : Con- 
 firm thy brethren , thou art the rock , upon which I 
 will build my Church ; . . . feed my lambs , feed my 
 sheep , etc.? If any thing is clearly established by 
 the early monuments of Christian history, it is the 
 fact that the spiritual power of the Pope was, in 
 the first centuries, the same as it is to-day. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it? 
 
 A. Before the end of the first century, there 
 arose a dissension amongst the Christians of 
 
132 
 
 .Corinth. At once they wrote to Pope St. Clement, 
 the third successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome; 
 and the Pope decided the question, although at 
 that very time St. John the Apostle, the beloved 
 of Jesus Christ, was living, and governing the 
 Churches of Asia near them. Why did not the 
 Corinthians apply to him, instead of applying to 
 the successor of St. Peter P Because they knew 
 perfectly well that it was Peter and his successors, 
 and not John, nor any of the other Apostles, who 
 had been made by Jesus Christ head of the Church. 
 If the Pope had been no more than any other 
 bishop, as Protestants would have it, why did the 
 Corinthians apply to Pope St. Clement, and not 
 to St. John the Apostle ? 
 
 Q. Are there not some other well known facts ? 
 
 A. In the third century, Pope St. Stephen 
 reversed the decision of St. Cyprian, the bishop of 
 Carthage; and St. Cyprian, with all the African 
 bishops, at once submitted. For what reason did 
 St. Stephen interfere? For what reason did the 
 African bishops appeal to him, if not on account 
 of the undoubted supremacy of the See of St. 
 Peter ? At the beginning of the fourth century, 
 did not the Pope, by his legates, preside over the 
 318 bishops, in the Council of Nice? Did not the 
 councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus lay down, as a 
 fundamental truth, that Peter lives, judges, and 
 defines in his successors ? Did not all the Fathers 
 of the second' and third centuries, and above all, 
 St. Irenseus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, etc., teach that 
 the rule to distinguish heretics from true Christ- 
 ians, is to see whether they submit, or not, to the 
 successors of St. Peter? We defy Protestants to 
 quote even one of the Fathers, during the first 
 four centuries, assigning the supremacy to any 
 other than to the Pope, successor of St. Peter. 
 
133 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this? 
 
 A. The Pope, as successor of St. Peter, is, like 
 St. Peter himself, the foundation stone of the true 
 Church, the shepherd of the true fold, the only 
 one who has the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; 
 and Protestants, who reject his authority, are evi- 
 dently the house without a foundation, which shall 
 fall, the erring sheep without a shepherd, which 
 are left a prey to the ravenous wolves. 
 
 “ If then,” says the Vatican Council, u any 
 should deny that it is by the institution of Christ 
 the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter 
 should have a perpetual line of successors in the 
 primacy over the Universal Church, or that the 
 Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter 
 in this primacy ; let him be anathema.” [First 
 Dogm. Const, on the Church of Christ, ch. 2.] 
 
 3. The Power and Nature of the 
 Pope’s Primacy. 
 
 Q. What signifies the word “ Pope ”? 
 
 A. It signifies “Father”; because the supreme 
 Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, is the father 
 of all true Christians. But the Pope himself 
 assumes the title of “ Servant of the servants of 
 God.” 
 
 Q. What power has the Pope ? 
 
 A. He has the plenitude of power to feed, rule, 
 and govern the Universal Church. His primacy 
 is, therefore, a jurisdiction episcopal, ordinary, and 
 immediate, over the whole Church, over both 
 pastors and people, that is, over the whole Epis- 
 copate, collectively and singly, and over every 
 particular Church and diocese. The ordinary and 
 immediate jurisdiction, which every Bishop in the 
 Church exercises in the flock over which the Holy 
 
 12 
 
134 
 
 Ghost has placed him, is] thereby sustained and 
 strengthened. 
 
 Q. What follows from it ? 
 
 A. From this divine primacy three consequences 
 follow : the one, that the Roman Pontiff is the 
 supreme Judge over all the Church, from whom 
 lies no appeal ; the second that no power under 
 God may come between the chief pastor of the 
 Church and any, from the highest to the humblest, 
 member of the flock of Christ on earth ; the third, 
 that this supreme power or primacy is not made 
 up of parts, as the sovereignty of constitutional 
 states, but exists in its plenitude in the successor 
 of St. Peter. 
 
 Q. Do all Christians owe obedience to the 
 Pope ? 
 
 A. “ To this power of jurisdiction of the Roman 
 Pontiff all, of whatever rite and dignity, both 
 pastors and faithful, both individually and collec- 
 tively, are bound to submit, not only in matters 
 which belong to faith and morals, but also in those 
 that appertain to the discipline and government 
 of the Church throughout the world.” [Vati- 
 can Council : First Dogm. Const, on the Church of 
 Christ, ch. 3.] 
 
 Q. How do you call those who refuse submission 
 to the Pope ? 
 
 A. They are called schismatics, from a Greek 
 word which signifies a rent , a slit ; because the 
 schismatics tear, or rend, the unity of the Church. 
 
 Q. What is the difference between heretics and 
 schismatics ? 
 
 A. The schismatics properly so called are those 
 who, though believing all the Catholic truths, 
 separate themselves from the Church, by refusing 
 obedience to the Pope, and to the lawful pastors 
 commissioned by him. The heretics are those who. 
 
135 
 
 besides refusing obedience to the lawful pastors, 
 deny some revealed truths, and hold erroneous 
 doctrines. 
 
 Q. Is it absolutely necessary that all Christian 
 Churches be in strict communion with the See of 
 Rome? 
 
 A. It is, as is evident from the commission 
 given to Peter by Jesus Christ: Confirm thy 
 brethren. And so has it been from the very be- 
 ginning of the Church. In the second century, St. 
 Irenseus says : “ The Roman Church is the prin- 
 cipal, and hence all other Churches must be united 
 to her.” [St. Iren. lib. 3, Cont. Haeres. c. 3.] 
 In the third century, St. Cyprian writes : “ There 
 is only one God, one Christ, one Church, one Chair 
 of St. Peter, established by the word of Christ 
 himself.” [St. Cyp. lib. 1, epist. 8.] At the 
 beginning of the fifth century, St. Jerome writes 
 to Pope Damasus : “I am attached to your Chair, 
 which is that of St. Peter ; I know that the Church 
 is built upon that rock.” And again : “ Whoever 
 takes not refuge in that ark, shall perish in the 
 waters of the deluge ; whoever is not with you, is 
 against Jesus Christ ; whoever gathereth not with 
 you, scattereth away.” 
 
 Q. What then is the Catholic faith on the nature 
 of the primacy of the Pope P 
 
 A. It is summed up in this axiom, so often 
 repeated by all the saints and doctors : “ Where 
 Peter is , there is the Church .” Which funda- 
 mental truth the Vatican Council defines and con- 
 firms in the following words : “ If then any shall 
 say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely 
 of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme 
 power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, 
 not only in things which belong to faith and 
 morals, but also in those which relate to the dis- 
 
136 
 
 cipline and government of the Church spread 
 throughout the world; or assert that he possesses 
 merely the principal part, and not all the fullness 
 of this supreme power ; or that this power which 
 he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both 
 over each and all the Churches and over each and 
 all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be ana- 
 thema. [First Dogm. Const, on the Church of 
 Christ, ch. 3.] 
 
 4. The Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 Q. What was the last and most important de- 
 cree of the Vatican Council, in 1870 ? 
 
 A. The decree concerning the infallibility of the 
 Pope, which runs as follows : “ Faithfully adher- 
 ing to the tradition received from the beginning 
 of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our 
 Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, 
 and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred 
 council approving, we teach and define that it is a 
 dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, 
 when he speaks ex cathedra , that is, when in dis- 
 charge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all 
 Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic 
 authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or 
 morals to be held by the Universal Church, by 
 the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed 
 Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which 
 the divine Redeemer willed that His Church 
 should be endowod for defining doctrine regarding 
 faith or morals ; and that therefore such defini- 
 tions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of 
 themselves, and not from the consent of the 
 Church. But if any one, which may God avert, 
 presume to contradict this our definition ; let him 
 be anathema.” [First Dogm. Const, on the Church 
 of Christ, ch. 4.] 
 
137 
 
 Q. When does the Pope speak ex cathedra? 
 
 A. The Pope speaks ex cathedra when, and only 
 when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all 
 Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a 
 private person or a private doctor, or a local 
 bishop, or as sovereign of a state, are excluded. 
 In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to 
 error. In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt 
 from error ; that is, when, as teacher of the whole 
 Church, he teaches the whole Church in things of 
 faith and morals. 
 
 Q. What is the range, or, to speak more exactly, 
 the object of infallibility ? 
 
 A. The infallibility of the Church extends 
 directly to the whole revealed word of God, and 
 indirectly to all truths which, though not revealed 
 are in such contact with revelation that the 
 deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded, 
 expounded, and defended without an infallible dis- 
 cernment of such unrevealed truths. 
 
 Q. Cannot Protestants say that it was the Vati- 
 can Council that made the Pope infallible ? 
 
 A. He who made the Pope infallible is the Lord 
 Jesus, when he said to St. Peter: Thou art Peter , 
 (that is a rock), and upon this rock I icill build 
 my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it [St. Matt. ch. 16, v. 18], and, at another 
 time: I have prayed for thee , that thy faith 
 fail not . . . confirm thy brethren. [St. Luke, ch. 
 22, v. 32.] The dogma of infallibility was as 
 much the doctrine of the Church before as after 
 the definition. It has been always traditionally 
 held and taught by the Holy See, by the praxis of 
 the Church, and by the (Ecumenical Councils, 
 especially those in which the East and the West 
 met in union together, as, for instance, the fourth 
 of Constantinople, the second of Lyons, and the 
 
138 
 
 Council of Florence. The definition added nothing 
 to it, but only declared it to be revealed by God. 
 
 Q. Why was such a privilege granted by Christ 
 to his vicar ? 
 
 A. For the benefit of all Christians. If the 
 Pope is infallible, it is in order that we may be 
 infallible; if he has the gift not to deceive, it is 
 because we, the children of light, have the right 
 not to be deceived. Without this gift of Papal 
 infallibility, the Church would have perished ages 
 ago, or would have become, like Protestantism, a 
 Babel of conflicting errors. 
 
 Q. W T hen proclaiming the Pope infallible, do 
 you mean that he can, at his will, invent new 
 articles of faith? 
 
 A. Not at all. The Pontiff can only explain the 
 revealed truths, and authoritatively decide what is 
 part of the revelation and what is not, what is an 
 article of faith and what is not; “for,” says the 
 Vatican Council, “ the Holy Spirit was not promised 
 to .the successors of Peter that by His revelation 
 they might make known new. doctrine, but that, 
 by His assistance, they might inviolably keep and 
 faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of 
 faith delivered through the Apostles/’ [First Dogm. 
 Const, on the Church of Christ, ch. 4.] 
 
 Q. But were not new dogmas framed, from time 
 to time, by the Popes or, under their authority, 
 by the (Ecumenical Councils ? 
 
 A. Never. The Catholic Church believes to-day 
 what she believed in the Apostles’ time; nothing 
 more, nothing less. She guards, teaches, and trans- 
 mits the whole divine tradition of natural and 
 supernatural truth, but, when necessary, she 
 defines those parts of the deposit which have been 
 obscured by error, or denied by heresy. This 
 supreme power she has used from the beginning. 
 
139 
 
 To quote a few instances only: the consubstan- 
 tiality of the Word of God was declared an article 
 of faith in the year 325 ; the unity of Person and 
 duality of Natures in Jesus Christ was declared 
 an article of faith in the year 431 ; the duality of 
 wills in the Incarnate Son of God was declared an 
 article of faith in the year 6 81,. etc. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants themselves admit this 
 power ? 
 
 A. Theoretically they deny it, and the Lord 
 having promised to be for ever with his Church, 
 they, of course, give him the lie, and pretend that 
 the perpetual presence of Christ and inspiration 
 of the Holy Ghost, died away at Ephesus, with St. 
 John, the last of the Apostles, at the end of the 
 first century. Practically however, those amongst 
 them who do still believe in Christ, admit with 
 us the consubstantiality of the Word, and many of 
 the other truths defined by the Church before 
 their so-called Keformation. But they protest 
 against the truths defined since, as if from the 
 year 1545, when they themselves have been con- 
 demned, Christ, were no more with his Church. 
 I am with you all days, even to the consummation 
 of the world. [St. Matt., ch. 28, v. 20.] 
 
 Q. Why was the infallibility of the Pope defined 
 by the Vatican Council ? 
 
 A. Because the denial of this infallibility was 
 the most dangerous error of our times. It struck 
 at the certainty of the pontifical acts of the last 
 three hundred years, and weakened the effect of 
 pontifical acts of this day. The powers of dark- 
 ness knew it well, and they strove furiously to 
 prevent the definition of this all-important truth, 
 but the Spirit of God crushed their perfidious 
 plots. The council defined it to be a dogma 
 divinely revealed that the vicar of Christ is the 
 
140 
 
 supreme judge and infallible teacher of men. The 
 Church has therefore its provision for faith and 
 truth, unity and order. The floods may come, 
 the rain descend, and the winds blow and beat 
 upon it, but it cannot fall, because it is founded 
 upon Peter. 
 
 5. The Temporal Power of the Pope. 
 
 Q. Has the Pope any temporal power ? 
 
 A. Besides being the Bishop of Rome, and, 
 consequently, the Head of the Catholic Church, 
 the Pope is also the King of Rome and of the sur- 
 rounding provinces, which are generally called the 
 Patrimony of St. Peter or the States of the Church. 
 
 Q. How did the vicar of Christ obtain this 
 temporal dominion ? 
 
 A. By a special design and dispensation of the 
 providence of God. After the overthrow of the 
 Roman Empire in the West (496), central Italy, 
 though nominally included in the Ravenna exar- 
 chate, had, in fact, during three hundred years, 
 no o'ther protecting and governing power than 
 the Roman Pontiffs. At the end of the eighth 
 century, the French emperor Charlemagne, having 
 conquered Italy, made a formal and express gift 
 of the Roman kingdom to the See of St. Peter, 
 which gift has been confirmed and consecrated by 
 the common consent of Christendom, for more 
 than a thousand years. 
 
 Q. Is that earthly power essential to the Pope’s 
 spiritual primacy ? 
 
 A. It is absolutely necessary to secure the free 
 use of this supreme authority, but it is by no 
 means an essential part of it. The Head of the 
 Church, be he where he may, in Rome or in exile, 
 free or in bondage, will always be the successor of 
 
141 
 
 St. Peter, supreme in jurisdiction and infallible in 
 faith. 
 
 Q. Can you prove the necessity of the temporal 
 power ? 
 
 A. The Roman Pontiff has to govern the faith- 
 ful not of one nation only but of all nations, not of 
 one country but of the whole world ; he cannot 
 therefore be the subject of any earthly prince. He 
 must be free and independent, that his voice may 
 never be silenced by violence, his acts never inter- 
 fered with by undue political influence, his impar- 
 tial justice never suspected. In time of war, for 
 instance, how could pastors and people come to 
 him, consult him, obey him, if he were in the 
 power of any foreign king or emperor, hostile to 
 their own country ? Even in time of peace, can 
 any one imagine the vicar of Christ feeding , at the 
 control of any local parliament, the lambs and the 
 sheep of the Universal Church ? or needing the 
 license of any state minister to use the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven ? 
 
 Q. But is not that temporal power definitely 
 suppressed now-a-days ? 
 
 A. We read in the history of the Church that 
 it has been, in times past, suppressed over and over 
 again. Forty -five Pontiffs have either been driven 
 out of Rome, or have never set their foot in it ; 
 nine times that city has been held by usurpers ; 
 seven times it has been sacked and all but de- 
 stroyed ; in every century since there was a 
 Patrimony of St. Peter, those provinces have been 
 occupied by usurpation and by violence. What 
 we see at this moment is but that which has been, 
 so that we need not be over-alarmed because, to-day, 
 the so-called King of Italy has annexed, as the 
 phrase is, the States of the Church, and keeps tho 
 Pope a prisoner in the Vatican. 
 
142 
 
 Q. Will not the Pope, at last, consent to this 
 spoliation ? 
 
 A. Never. Pius IX declared, many times, 
 that he was bound to preserve entire and inviolate 
 the temporal dominion, rights, and properties of 
 the Holy See which belonged, not to him, but to the 
 Catholics of all the world ; and that he would gladly 
 part with life itself sooner than give up the cause 
 of Cod, of the Universal Church, and of justice. 
 Kings may dream of dissolving the temporal 
 power ^ but one thing is certain : let all the civil 
 powers of this world in turn, or all together, claim 
 the Vicar of Christ as their subject, a subject he 
 will never be. The infallible head of the infallible 
 Church cannot depend on the sovereignty of man. 
 
 Q. How then must end the Piedmontese usurpa- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. To use the words of the late illustrious Cardinal 
 Archbishop of Westminster : “We do not believe in 
 the perpetuity of anything but the Church ; nor 
 in the finality of anything but justice. Sacrilege 
 carries the seeds of its own dissolution. A robbery 
 so unjust cannot endure. When or how it shall be 
 chastised we know not : but the day of reckoning 
 is not less sure for that. Of one thing there can 
 be no doubt ; the nations which have conspired to 
 dethrone the vicar of Christ will, for that sin, be 
 scourged. They will, moreover, scourge one 
 another and themselves. The people that have the 
 chief share in the sin, will have the heaviest share 
 in the punishment . . . Who ever fought against 
 him (the Pope), and has prospered ? Kings have 
 carried him captive, and princes have betrayed 
 him ; but, one by one, they have passed away, and 
 he still abides. Their end has been so tragically 
 explicit that all men may read its meaning. And 
 yet kings and princes will not learn, nor be wise. 
 They rush against the rock, and perish. The world 
 
143 
 
 sees their ruin, but will not see the reason. The 
 faithful read in the ruin of all who lay hands on 
 the vicar of Christ the warning of the Psalmist, 
 Touch ye not my anointed; and of our Lord him- 
 self, Whosoever shall fall on this stone , shall be 
 broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall , it shall 
 grind him to powder ” [St. Matt., ch. 21, v. 44.] 
 
 6. Protestants directly contradict 
 Scripture when they say that Pope is 
 Antichrist. 
 
 Q. Is not there a point on which Protestants of 
 every sect agree? 
 
 A. Yes; to hate and abuse the Popes, to calum- 
 niate them in every possible way, is common to 
 all Protestant sects, no matter how contradictory 
 their tenets. In this only they are one. They 
 know that the Pope’s spiritual authority is the 
 foundation of the Catholic Church, and to shake 
 it, if possible, they have ransacked every nook and 
 corner of history, in search of facts discreditable 
 to certain Pontiffs. They have amplified them, 
 they have forged a great deal more, and fabricated 
 a long dismal list of what they call the crimes of 
 the Popes, which they triumphantly fling at our 
 heads, as conclusive evidence that the promises 
 of Jesus Christ to St. Peter have miserably failed. 
 
 Q. But, even supposing an impossible case, and 
 admitting that all these allegations could be sub- 
 stantiated, would it prove that our faith is wrong ? 
 
 A. By no means. Catholics know perfectly well 
 that Popes are men, personally subject, like other 
 men, to all the frailties or defects of human nature. 
 But, as the personal virtues or vices of a king 
 have nothing to do . with his royal authority, so 
 
144 
 
 the morals of a Pope have nothing to do with his 
 spiritual authority. 
 
 Q. Have there been, in fact, many Popes un- 
 worthy of their high vocation ? 
 
 A. No; scandalous Pontiffs have been but few, 
 four or five at the utmost, out of two hundred and 
 fifty-nine. That such is the fact has been proved, 
 beyond all question ; by the best historians, Pro- 
 testant as well as Catholic, and is admitted now- 
 adays by all learned and sober Protestants. But 
 biblical tract-mongers, especially in India, do not 
 care much for historical accuracy. They go on 
 notwithstanding, repeating thread-bare forgeries, 
 shamelessly calumniating all the Popes, St. Peter 
 included, to support their favourite thesis that 
 the Papacy is Antichrist. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by Antichrist ? 
 
 A. St, Paul, in his second epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians, ch. 2, teaches us that before the end of 
 the world and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 there will appear the man of sin, the son of per- 
 dition, to ruin the Church of God. He will come 
 according to the working of Satan, in all power, 
 and signs, and lying wonders ; he will sit in the 
 temple of God, showing himself as if he were God ; 
 but, in the end, the Lord Jesus shall destroy him 
 with the brightness of his coming. This man is 
 called Antichrist, that is the enemy of Christ ; 
 and many Protestants blasphemously assert that 
 he is no other than the series of the Popes, from 
 St. Peter down to the present time. 
 
 Q. Has this insolent assertion any foundation 
 in Scripture or in history ? 
 
 A. No ; it is in direct contradiction to the 
 prophecy : and in a great many passages of Scrip- 
 ture we find the most evident refutation of such a 
 blasphemy. 
 
145 
 
 In the 24th chapter of St. Matthew we read 
 that wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, false 
 prophets, tribulation such as had never been or 
 shall be, shall precede the coming of Antichrist. 
 But these extraordinary scourges have not yet 
 appeared : therefore Antichrist has not yet come ; 
 and consequently the Pope cannot be Antichrist. 
 
 In the same chapter it is said that the Gospel 
 shall be preached in the whole world before the 
 coming of Antichrist ; but the Gospel has not yet 
 been preached in the whole world ; therefore Anti- 
 christ has not yet come ; and consequently the 
 Pope cannot be Antichrist. 
 
 In the 7th chapter of Daniel and the 11th of 
 the Apocalypse, we read that Antichrist will have 
 power only during three years and a half, imme- 
 diately before the last judgment. But the Popes 
 have reigned since the days of Jesus Christ ; and 
 consequently the Pope is not Antichrist. . 
 
 In the 11th chapter of the Apocalypse, we read 
 that Henoch and Elias will preach against Anti- 
 christ, during those three years and a half. But 
 Henoch and Elias have not yet come : therefore, 
 neither has Antichhrist yet appeared ; and conse- 
 quently the Pope cannot be Antichrist. 
 
 In the 13th chapter of the Apocalypse, it is said 
 that Antichrist will mark, on the right hand or 
 forehead, all his followers ; but the Pope has never 
 done so ; and consequently he is not Antichrist. 
 
 It is said also that no man will be allowed to 
 buy or sell but he that has the character or the 
 name of the beast, or the number of its name. But 
 Catholics have neither this character, nor name, 
 nor number; nor has the Pope ever prevented 
 them from buying or selling; and consequently 
 the Pope is not Antichrist. 
 
 In the 11th chapter of the Apocalypse, speaking 
 of those that were to be slain by Antichrist, St. 
 
 13 
 
146 
 
 John says : And their bodies shall lie in the streets 
 of the great city . . . where their Lord also was 
 crucified. Now the Lord was crucified in Jeru- 
 salem, not in Rome ; and consequently the Pope, 
 who is at Rome, is not Antichrist. 
 
 In the 13th chapter of the Apocalypse, we read 
 that Antichrist is to open his mouth unto blas- 
 phemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and 
 his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 
 But Popes have made God’s holy name honoured 
 and adored in every clime and at all times. 
 Through them, the nations which are now Protest- 
 ant were converted from paganism ; Popes honour 
 and venerate those that dwell in heaven, the Angels 
 and Saints: and consequently the Pope is not 
 Antichrist. 
 
 Finally, it is clear from Scripture that Antichrist 
 will be a Jew by birth, since the Jews will bethink 
 him to be the Saviour promised by the prophets, 
 and from all countries assemble at Jerusalem to 
 follow him. Now there never was a Pope 
 acknowledged by the Jews to be the Messiah, and 
 the Pope has never been in Jerusalem. 
 
 Let us remark, by the way, that Antichrist 
 will blaspheme those that dwell in heaven. Should 
 not Protestant pamphleteers who blaspheme the 
 Angels and Saints, who laugh at the veneration 
 we pay to them, and brand it with the infamous 
 name of idolatry, think twice of this striking 
 likeness between themselves and Antichrist, before 
 printing such nonsensical abuses against the Yicar 
 of Christ ? 
 
PART III 
 
 VINDICATION OF CATHOLIC DOGMAS 
 AND PRACTICES. 
 
 In the second part of this Catechism I have summed up 
 the invincible arguments of every kind which prove that 
 those only are of Christ who belong to the true Church of 
 Christ, the Catholic Church. I must now enter into par- 
 ticulars, and explain away all minor objections against our 
 various Dogmas and Practices. Such is the object of this 
 third and last part. 
 
 The reader will easily perceive that a great many of these 
 objections proceed from a gross ignorance of what the 
 Catholic faith really is, while others are founded on an erro- 
 neous interpretation of some texts of scripture. 
 
 I have done my best, therefore, to expose clearly the true 
 Catholic doctrine on all controverted points, to establish the 
 real meaning of the texts that are misunderstood or mis- 
 applied ; and I hope that every man of good faith who shall 
 take the trouble of reading the following chapters will feel 
 fully satisfied that scripture, tradition and common sense are 
 invariably on the Catholic side. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 THE VENERATION AND INVOCATION 
 OF SAINTS. 
 
 1. The True Catholic Doctrine on the 
 Veneration of Angels and Saints. 
 
 Q. What is the fundamental law of the Catho- 
 lic religion ? 
 
 A. The one that was promulgated first on 
 Mount Sinai, and again by Jesus Christ himself : It 
 is written , Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and 
 him only thou shalt serve . [St. Luke, ch. 4, v. 8] . 
 
148 
 
 Q. What then is the honour due to God ? 
 
 A. A supreme honour and adoration by which 
 we acknowledge and worship him as the Almighty 
 Master of the universe, as our Creator, Redeemer 
 and last end. The essence of this adoration consists 
 in the full acknowledgment and profession of our 
 absolute dependence, subjection and servitude to 
 God, as the sovereign Lord, the Being self-existent, 
 principle and cause of all other beings, of all 
 natural and supernatural blessings and benefits. 
 Its own proper outward form or manifestation is 
 the sacrifice, which of itself signifies and makes 
 manifest that absolute dependence. Whence it 
 follows that to offer sacrifice to any creature, how- 
 ever exalted, would be idolatry. 
 
 Q. What is the honour due to Jesus Christ ? 
 
 A. That same sovereign worship or adoration 
 which is due to God alone, because he is at the 
 same time true God and true man, and in him 
 both natures are united in one divine person, 
 which is the person of the Son of God. 
 
 Q. What is the name of that sovereign worship 
 due to God alone ? 
 
 A. Theologically it is named latria, to distin- 
 guish it from the relative honour due to the B. V. 
 Mary, to Angels and Saints, which is called dulia. 
 Now-a-days, the word adoration is generally taken 
 as synonymous with latria , and reserved to the 
 worship of God. But we must remark that, of 
 itself, adoration means nothing more than kissing 
 one’s hand in token of reverence, which is the 
 reason why the word was used in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, and by the early Fathers, to mean any kind 
 of veneration. 
 
 Q. What is the honour due to the Angels and 
 Saints ? 
 
 A. A relative honour and veneration by which 
 
149 
 
 we acknowledge them as the ministers and friends 
 of God, whom Jesns Christ has made coheirs of his 
 kingdom and partakers of his glory. This honour 
 is not only infinitely inferior to the supreme wor- 
 ship which we must pay to God, but of a quite 
 different kind. 
 
 Q. Explain this difference. 
 
 A. Firstly, the honour paid to the Angels and 
 Saints is not, as the adoration of God, a profes- 
 sion of absolute dependence and subjection, for, in 
 the order of religion, we are subject to God alone, 
 in the same way as the Holy Virgin, the Angels 
 and the Saints are themselves subject to him. 
 Him only thou shall serve. [St. Luke, ch. 4, v. 8.] 
 It is an honour of charity and devotion, like in 
 nature, though immensely superior in degree, to 
 that which we owe to one another in Christ. Lov- 
 ing one another with the charity of brotherhood , in 
 honour preventing one another. [Rom. ch. 12, v. 10.] 
 As says St. Augustine: honor amus eos charitate, non 
 servitute. It is an honour of charity, not of sub- 
 jection. Secondly, it is a relative honour paid to 
 them in reverence to God, and for the sake of 
 God ; while the divine worship is absolute, resting 
 in God and ending in God for himself. Thirdly, 
 it is an honour essentially inconsistent with sacri- 
 fice, for we do not, and cannot, in any way, offer 
 sacrifice to the B. V. Mary, or to the Angels and 
 Saints. But we offer it in memory of them, in 
 union with them, that is, we pray them to unite 
 with us as members of the same body, in offering 
 it to God. Fourthly, the names are quite differ- 
 ent, as we have just explained. 
 
 Q. Do not Catholics adore Angels and Saints as 
 they adore God ? 
 
 A. Not at all ; we adore God only. God forbid 
 that we should be guilty of such a frightful sin, 
 and give to any one or to all the Angels and 
 
150 
 
 Saints that worship which is due only to the 
 Almighty. On the contrary, none more than the 
 Catholic Church has been careful to preserve, to 
 explain, and to proclaim always and everywhere 
 the fundamental difference and distinctness be- 
 tween the adoration of God and the veneration of 
 Saints, as is evident from all Catholic doctrinal 
 books ever printed. 
 
 Q. Why then is that calumny repeated over and 
 over again in so many Protestant books and tracts P 
 
 A. Sometimes out of ignorance, very often out 
 of premeditated malice. In the former case, we 
 have but to pray for the calumniators, that their 
 eyes may be opened ; in the latter we must answer 
 them with these words of Christ : You are of your 
 father the devil, and the desires of your father you 
 u) ill do . . . When he speaketh a lie , he speaketh of 
 his own , for he is a liar , and the father thereof . 
 [St. John, ch. 8, v. 44.] 
 
 It is hut just to remark that this stupid slander, 
 though formerly an article, as it were, of the Pro- 
 testant faith, is given up now-a-days by all en- 
 lightened Protestants. 
 
 Q. Do not Catholics erect temples, consecrate 
 altars, and offer the sacrifice of the Mass to the 
 B. Y. Mary, or to the Angels and Saints ? 
 
 A. No ; all these are invidious misrepresenta- 
 tions. To God alone are temples erected, priests 
 and altars consecrated ; because priests, churches, 
 and altars are intended for the sacrifice, and to 
 God alone is the sacrifice offered. But churches 
 are built to God, altars are consecrated to God, 
 under the invocation of the Saints, and the Holy 
 Sacrifice is offered to God in memory of and in 
 union with the Saints. Mark that the Protestants 
 themselves, or at least the best part of them, erect 
 temples under the invocation of Angels and Saints. 
 
151 
 
 Q. But do not Catholics pay the same exterior 
 worship to the Angels and Saints as they do to 
 
 A. Those who urge this ridiculous objection, 
 forget that the meaning of external acts of rever- 
 ence extends no further than the intention of the 
 performer. So, when I uncover my head before a 
 cross, it is an act of adoration paid to the Son of 
 God crucified ; when before the image of a Saint, 
 it is religious veneration : when I take my hat 
 off to a man, it is common politeness. If kneeling 
 down were of itself an act of adoration, then the 
 son who kneels down before his father, to ask his 
 blessing, is an idolater ; then the proudest peers 
 of England, who on certain days kneel before 
 Queen Victoria, are guilty of a monstrous idolatry. 
 
 Q. But why should we pay to the Saints any 
 veneration at all ? 
 
 A. Because God himself has honoured and will 
 ever continue to honour them. Where I am , says 
 the Lord Jesus, there also shall my minister he . . . 
 If any man minister to me , him will my Father 
 honour. [St. John, ch. 12, v. 26.] To him that - 
 shall overcome , I will give to sit with me in my 
 throne . [Apoc. ch. 3, v. 21.] Blessed are those 
 servants , whom the Lord , when he cometh , shall 
 find watching. Amen , I say to you , that he will 
 gird himself , and make them sit down to meat , and 
 passing will minister unto them. [St. Luke, ch. 12, 
 v. 37.] Mark this last word, God himself will 
 minister unto the Saints. Can there be any greater 
 honour? Is not that the excess of glory which 
 the inspired King foresaw *vvhen he exclaimed: 
 To me thy friends, 0 God, are made exceedingly 
 honourable? [Ps. 138. v. 17.] 
 
 Q. What follows from it? 
 
 A. That to refuse to honour the Saints whom 
 
152 
 
 God himself does honour, is to deny the promises 
 of Christ just quoted, to deny that the Saints and 
 we are but one body of which the Lord Jesus is 
 the head, to deny the communion of Saints and 
 the glory of heaven, finally to deny redemption 
 itself. 
 
 Q. Was any honour paid to Angels and Saints 
 in the Old Testament? 
 
 A. We read in Scripture that in the vale of 
 Mambre Abraham saw three Angels, and he ran 
 to meet them from the door of his tent , and adored 
 down to the ground. [Gen., ch. 18, v. 2.] Lot, 
 seeing two Angels coming to Sodom, worshipped 
 them , prostrate to the ground. [Gen., ch. 19, v. 1.] 
 Josue, before the Angel, fell on his face to the 
 ground and worshipped. [Jos. ch. 5, v. 15.] After 
 Eliseus had resuscitated the dead child of the 
 Sunamitess, she came and fell at his feet , and 
 worshipped upon the ground. [4 Kings, ch. 4, 
 v. 37] Etc., etc. 
 
 The Patriarchs honoured the Angels, as the 
 messengers and friends of God; the Sunamitess 
 honoured the prophet, as a saint and a worker of 
 miracles; and they are nowhere blamed for this. 
 Whence it follows that it is quite lawful to honour 
 the Angels and Saints, even when those Saints 
 are still living on earth. But the Saints who have 
 received their reward in heaven, see God face to 
 face, and love him more ardently; they can sin no 
 more; they are confirmed in justice, and made 
 partakers of the glory of Jesus Christ, and conse- 
 quently are more worthy of our respect and 
 veneration than any living man can be. 
 
 Q. But is not that honour paid to Angels and 
 Saints a violation of the Law : Thou shalt adore 
 the Lord thy God , and him only thou shalt serve ? 
 [St. Luke, ch. 4, v. 8.] 
 
153 
 
 A. It would be an idolatrous violation of the 
 Law if we were worshipping them as God. But 
 no Catholic ever dreamed of paying to the Saints 
 the supreme adoration which is due to God alone. 
 That, and that only, is forbidden, as is clear from 
 the following explanatory words : Thou shalt not 
 have strange gods in my sight . [Deut. ch. 5, v. 7]. 
 Suppose a king ordering that to nobody but him- 
 self are kingly honours to be rendered ; who will 
 be so insane as to suppose that he thereby forbids 
 due inferior honour to be paid to his own friends 
 and magistrates ? Now that the Angels and Saints 
 of God are his friends and ministers, is clear from 
 Scripture : The Angels are all ministering spirits. 
 [Heb. ch. 1, v. 14,] and : He that shall overcome 
 and keep my words to the end , I will give him 
 power over the nations. And he shall rule them. 
 [Apoc., ch. 2, v. 26, 27.] 
 
 Q. Do we not see in the [Apocalypse, ch. 19, 
 v. 10], that the Angel refused the honour paid to 
 him by St. John ? 
 
 A. True ; but firstly, as the learned Protestant 
 Grotius himself confesses, the Angel could not 
 mean that no veneration is to be paid but to 
 God, since we have seen before that Angels did 
 not refuse the same mark of respect, paid to them 
 by Abraham, Lot, Josue, Tobias, etc. 
 
 Secondly ; if the veneration of Angels be idola- 
 tory, Protestants are driven to assert that St. John 
 the Apostle was an inveterate idolater, since we 
 see, in the 22nd chapter of the Apocalypse, that he 
 fell again at the feet of the Angel, to adore him. 
 
 Q. But how do you explain the Angel’s 
 refusal ? 
 
 A. St. Augustine is of opinion that the Angel 
 appeared in so glorious a manner, that St. John 
 took him to be Jesus Christ himself, and therefore 
 
154 
 
 would have given him divine honour, had not the 
 Angel stopped him, by telling him that he was 
 but his fellow servant. St. Gregory rather thinks 
 that the veneration offered by St. John was not 
 divine honour, but was nevertheless refused by 
 the Angel, in consideration of the dignity of St. 
 John, an Apostle, a prophet and a martyr. 
 
 Q. Did not St. Paul and St. Barnabas refuse 
 with horror the adoration which the men of Lystria 
 wished to pay them ? 
 
 A. They did ; because the Lystrians, thinking 
 that Paul was Mercury, and Barnabas Jupiter, 
 wanted to adore them as gods. [Acts, ch. 14, v. 1 1 
 . . . 17.] 
 
 Q. Did not St. Peter refuse the honour paid to 
 him by Cornelius? [Acts, ch. 10, v. 26.] 
 
 A. Yes, through humility, as almost all living 
 Saints have done, under similar circumstances. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul warn us against those who 
 walk in the religion of Angels ? [Col., ch. 2, v. 18.] 
 
 A. St Paul speaks of those who adored the 
 Angels, and denied Jesus Christ ; as is clear from 
 the words immediately following : and not holding 
 the head. [Ibid. v. 19.] Some think the Apostle 
 means the heretics, disciples of Simon and Menan- 
 der ; others suppose he speaks of the Jews them- 
 selves ; but, no matter ; his words certainly do not 
 apply to Catholics who hold the head Jesus Christ, 
 adore but him, and honour the Saints and Angels 
 only on account of him. 
 
 Q. What then is the foundation of the honour 
 we pay to the Angels and Saints ? 
 
 A. As St. Paul says, Other foundation no man 
 can lay , hut that which is laid; which is Christ 
 Jesus. [1 Cor., ch. 3, v. 11.] And so Jesus 
 Christ himself is the foundation of the honour we 
 pay to the Angels and Saints. We venerate them 
 
155 
 
 on account of him, because they are his faithful 
 servants, his friends, and the coheirs of his king- 
 dom ; and he himself is the end of all the honour 
 and veneration we pay to them. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that the veneration 
 of the Saints is a newly invented doctrine ? 
 
 A. In this they belie history; for we have 
 undoubted testimonies which show that, in the 
 second century, the Christians always kept the 
 festival days of the martyrs ; which certainly they 
 would not have done if it were not in accordance 
 with the teaching of the Apostles. In the Aposto- 
 lic Constitutions we read these words of St. Clem- 
 ent : “ Honour the martyrs : Cod has made them 
 blessed, and holy men have honoured them.” 
 [Apost. Const. 5.] St. Dionysius Areopagite, 
 disciple of St. Paul and first bishop of Athens, 
 sums up the Catholic doctrine in these words : 
 “ When we beseech the Saints to help us we ob- 
 tain very great assistance.” [Eccles. Hier. ch. 7.] 
 The great Doctor speaks here of the invocation of 
 Saints, but these two things, the invocation and 
 the veneration of Angels and Saints, have never 
 been and cannot be separated. There are many 
 other testimonies to which it is useless to refer, 
 for learned Protestants admit the fact. 
 
 Q. Quote the words of one of the greatest Pro- 
 testant divines, Leibnitz, on this matter. 
 
 A. “It is perfectly true that in the second cen- 
 tury of the Christian Church, the Christians kept the 
 festival days of martyrs, and assembled near their 
 tombs.” [Syst. Theol. p. 170.] And he comes to 
 this striking conclusion : “ I fear that those who 
 think the veneration of Saints an idolatry, are 
 paving the way for the total subversion of Chris- 
 tianity. What will they think of Christ and his 
 promise, who suppose that the first idolatry was 
 
156 
 
 destroyed only to make room for another ; that 
 the true Christian faith was not kept pure, even 
 for two centuries, when we see that the Jews and 
 Mahometans have remained true to their founders’ 
 institution for many centuries?” [Ibid. p. 172], 
 
 Q. Why has the Catholic Church so multiplied 
 the feasts of the Saints ? 
 
 A. To animate and excite us by their examples,' 
 to stir up in our hearts the same ardent love of 
 God which was kindled in theirs, and to make us 1 
 follow as much as possible in their footsteps. To 
 inspire the new converts with the necessary 
 courage, St. Paul reminded them of the Saints 
 who, by faith, had quenched the violence of fire , 
 escaped the edge of the sword , ... of those who were 
 stoned , cut asunder , . . . who had wandered about , 
 being in want , distressed \ afflicted , . . . adding : and 
 therefore we also having so great a cloud of wit- 
 nesses over our head . . . let us run by patience to the 
 fight proposed to us. [Heb. ch. 11 and 12.] The 
 Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Ghost, does 
 the same. She continually brings under our eyes 
 the examples of the martyrs of Christ, of the 
 devoted followers of Christ, that we also may 
 learn to love and serve the Saviour as they loved 
 and served him. 
 
 Q. But is there no danger of our neglecting the 
 worship of God, on account of those daily recurring 
 festivals of the Saints ? 
 
 A. Far from it. Jesus Christ himself being, as 
 we have explained, the foundation, the cause, and 
 the end of the honour we pay to his Saints, it is 
 evident that the more we venerate the Saints, the 
 more we shall think of him and love him. That 
 such is and has always been the case, is proved by 
 the history of the Church, since the very be- 
 ginning. Catholics of old worshipped and glori- 
 
157 
 
 fied Jesns Christ more than former heretics, just 
 as Catholics now-a-days worship and glorify him 
 more than Protestants of any sect can do. Only 
 Catholics offer the daily sacrifice of Christ’s body 
 and blood ; they, and they only, render to Christ, 
 really present in the Holy Sacrament, all the ado- 
 ration in their power ; they pay great respect and 
 veneration to his images and pictures ; they observe 
 in Lent a fast of forty days, in honour of his fast 
 and sorrows; they abstain from flesh-meat on 
 Fridays, and in many countries on Saturdays also, 
 in honour of his death and burial ; they make 
 frequent use of the sign of the cross, to keep 
 themselves in mind of the tortures he endured, etc. 
 
 Q. Have not many learned Protestants admitted 
 the truth of the Catholic doctrine on this matter ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the Augsburg and Helvetic Confes- 
 sions, Arts. 5 and 21, define it a sound Protestant 
 doctrine that relative and inferior veneration is 
 due to the Angels and Saints. Thorndyke con- 
 fesses that the Catholic doctrine is a truth which 
 cannot be called in question. [Epil., part 3.] 
 Luther himself says : “ I therefore, with the whole 
 Catholic Church, hold that the Saints are to he 
 honoured and invoked by us.” [In purg. quor. 
 art. t. 1.] And again: “ Let no one omit to call 
 upon the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, that they 
 may intercede for him.” [Prsep. ad mort.] 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 all this ? 
 
 A. That the Catholic doctrine of the veneration 
 of the Angels and Saints is not only in perfect 
 accordance with scripture, tradition, and com- 
 mon sense, but is the best calculated to increase 
 our faith in Jesus Christ and our love for him. 
 
 li 
 
158 
 
 2, The True Catholic Doctrine on the 
 Invocation of Angels and Saints. 
 
 Q. Who is the mediator between God and man ? 
 
 A. There is but one mediator of God and 
 men, the man Christ Jesus. [1 Tim., ch. 2, v. 5] 
 He alone could and did satisfy for sin, redeem and 
 save us. He alone could and did, with the price 
 of his blood, merit and purchase all grace, both 
 for Angels and men. 
 
 Q. Could not the B. V. Mary, the Angels, or 
 the Saints, have satisfied for us ? 
 
 A. No. The B. V. Mary and all the Angels 
 and Saints together could not have satisfied for 
 one sin ; because the infinite justice of God, 
 offended by sin, required infinite satisfaction ; 
 which could not be given by finite creatures, 
 however excellent. 
 
 Q. Why then do Catholics, distrusting the 
 merits of Christ, place their hope in the Saints ? 
 
 A. This odious charge is a most impudent 
 calumny. All Catholics know that Jesus Christ 
 alone is our Saviour and Redeemer ; from him only 
 they ask grace. They do not ask grace from the 
 Saints, but merely ask the Saints to pray that God 
 may grant us all necessary graces, through Jesus 
 Christ. Catholics know well that the virtues, I 
 merits, and graces of the B. V. Mary, and of the 
 other Saints, are not from themselves, but from 
 Jesus Christ. — J 
 
 Q. Are not the same prayers addressed to God 
 and to the Saints, in the Catholic liturgy? 
 
 A. Not at all. When addressing God, Catholics 
 say : u Have mercy on us . . . Forgive us our sins.” 
 But when addressing the B. Virgin, or the Saints, 
 they say : “ Pray; for us.” We put the Saints in 
 our own place, we conjure them to join us in 
 
159 
 
 fervent prayers to God, that through Jesus Christ 
 we may obtain all the graces we stand in need of. 
 All the prayers of the Catholic Church, even those 
 asking the intercession of the Saints, are terminated 
 by these words : u Through Jesus Christ, our 
 
 Lord” 
 
 Q. What then is the Catholic doctrine on that 
 matter P 
 
 A. The Catholic Church teaches* that the Angels 
 and Saints who reign with Christ, pray to God 
 for men ; that it is good and useful to invoke 
 them, and to ask their intercession and their 
 assistance, that we may obtain graces from God 
 through Jesus Christ, who alone is our Saviour 
 and Redeemer. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that the Angels and 
 Saints know not what passes on earth, and conse- 
 quently cannot hear our prayers ? 
 
 A. In this again they contradict Scripture. 
 Jesus Christ says that there shall he joy before the 
 Angels of God upon one sinner doing penance. 
 [St. Luke, ch. 15, v. 10.] Now we know that the 
 Saints are, like the Angels of God, in heaven. 
 [St. Matt., ch. 22, v. 30.] They are equal to the 
 Angels. [St. Luke, ch. 20, v. 36.] Hence it fol- 
 lows that the Angels and Saints know the thoughts 
 of our hearts, since they know the contrition of the 
 sinner for his past- sins, and rejoice at his doing 
 penance. 
 
 St. John says that at the fall of the great 
 Babylon, a voice was heard in heaven : Rejoice 
 
 over her , thou heaven (viz : Angels), and ye holy 
 Apostles- and Prophets (viz : Saints) ; for God hath 
 judged your judgment on her. [Apoc. ch. 18, v.20.] 
 In the same book, we see the souls of the martyrs 
 praying to God, that he may punish the persecutors 
 of his Church ; God hears their prayers, but bids 
 
160 
 
 them to rest for a little while. [Apoc., ch. 6, v. 9, 
 10, 11.] Which proves that the Angels and 
 Saints know what passes on earth, and that God 
 shows forth to them the things that are to come. 
 
 Moreover, the Angels and Saints have been con- 
 stituted by God our guardians and our protectors. 
 As for the Angels, Jesus Christ says : See that 
 
 you despise not one of these little ones; for I say to 
 you , that their angels in heaven always see the face of 
 my Father. [St. Matt., ch.18, v.10.] St. Paul says : 
 The angels are all ministering spirits , sent to minister 
 for them who shall receive the inheritance of salva- 
 tion. [Heb. ch. 1, v. 14.] How could they per- 
 form that ministry if they knew not our thoughts 
 and deeds P 
 
 As for the Saints, we see that God will give them 
 power over nations , and they shall rule them. [Apoc. 
 ch. 2, v. 26, 27.] And the Saints themselves sing : 
 Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom and 
 priests , and we shall reign on the earth. [Apoc. 
 ch. 5, v. 10.] We see in the same book, [ch. 20, 
 v. 4,] that the Saints and Martyrs reign with Jesus 
 Christ, that they sit upon thrones with him, and 
 that judgment has been given unto them. How 
 could they rule nations, reign upon the earth, and 
 judge with Christ, if they knew not what passes 
 in this world ? 
 
 Q. What is your next argument ? 
 
 A. The prophets, who were mere men, knew by 
 a special grace what passed at a great distance. 
 Eliseus knew what happened far away, in the king 
 of Syria’s chamber. [4 Kings, ch. 6,v.l2.] He knew 
 what passed in his absence between Naaman and 
 Giezi. [Ibid. ch. 5, v. 26.] St. Peter knew the lie of 
 Ananias and Saphira. [Acts, ch. 5.] Now who 
 can suppose the Saints reigning in heaven to be 
 bereft of that knowledge so often possessed by the 
 Saints living on earth ? 
 
161 
 
 Q. Do not even the devils know our actipns P 
 
 A. All Protestants admit this, and Scripture is 
 clear concerning it : The accuser of our brethren 
 
 (the devil) is cast forth , who accused them before 
 God day and night. [Apoc. ch. 12, v. 10.] Now 
 we must allow to the Saints as much knowledge, 
 at least, as we do to the devil. 
 
 Q. Is it clear from Scripture that the Angels 
 and Saints pray for us ? 
 
 A. Very clear. As for the Angels, to quote 
 only two texts, we read in Zacharias : The angel 
 of the Lord answered and said : 0 Lord of hosts , 
 how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem , 
 and on the cities of Juda, with which thou hast 
 been angry? this is now \ the seventieth year. And 
 the Lord answered the angel . . . good words , 
 comfortable icords. [Zach. ch. 1, v. 12, 13.] Here 
 we see four things proved : an Angel takes interest 
 in Jerusalem and the cities of Juda ; he knows that 
 God is angry with them ; he intercedes for them ; 
 and God attends to his intercession. St. John 
 says : Another Angel came and stood before the 
 altar , having a golden censer ; and there was given 
 to him much incense , that he should offer of the 
 prayers of all Saints upon the golden altar , which 
 is before the throne of God. [Apoc., ch. 8, v. 3.] 
 Here we see an Angel offering up our prayers, 
 through Jesus Christ, who is signified by the 
 golden altar. 
 
 As for the Saints, Judas Machabeus says that 
 he saw in a vision Onias and Jeremias, who had 
 long been dead, both praying for the people ; 
 and their prayers were heard, and the Jews got a 
 signal victory. [2 Mach., ch. 15, v. 12, 13.] 
 St. John saw the four and twenty elders fall 
 down before the Lamb, having vials full of odours 
 which are the prayers of Saints. [Apoc., ch. 5, 
 v. 8.] Now the Saints pray not for themselves. 
 
162 
 
 since they enjoy the glory of heaven ; these 
 prayers are for the only beings who need them : 
 the sinners of this world. 
 
 Q. Have you not another strong argument ? 
 
 A. We see in Scripture that God has often been 
 pleased to grant extraordinary favours not only to 
 the intercession of Angels and Saints in heaven, 
 but even to the prayers of Saints yet living on 
 earth. To quote two instances only : When God 
 was angry against the friends of Job, He himself 
 told them : Offer for yourselves a holocaust , and 
 my servant Job shall pray for you; his face I mil 
 accept . . . and so it was : The Lord also icab 
 turned at the penance of Job, when he prayed for 
 his friends. [Job, ch. 42, *v. 8. 10.] While Josue 
 was fighting against Amalec, Moses was praying? 
 on the top of the hill, and when Moses lifted up 
 his hands, Israel overcame ; but if he let them 
 down a little, Amalec overcame. [Exod.., ch. 17, 
 v.ll.] 
 
 Now, are we to suppose, with Protestants, that 
 the moment the Saints enter heaven, and get con- 
 firmed in glory and love, their prayers, so power- 
 ful before, become at once quite powerless ? 
 
 Q. Is not the Christian practice of praying one 
 for the other, confirmatory of the same truth ? 
 
 A. It is, evidently. In almost all the epistles 
 of St. Paul we read these or other like words : I 
 
 beseech you therefore , brethren, through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost , / 
 that you help me in your prayers for me to God.j 
 [Horn., ch. 15, v. 30.] Pray one for another , says* 
 St. James, that you may be saved. For the con- 
 tinual prayer of a just man availetli much. 
 [James, ch. 5, v. 16.] That practice, besides being 
 founded on the examples and teachings of the 
 Apostles, is so thoroughly in accordance with the 
 
163 
 
 best feelings of human nature, that even Protest- 
 ants have preserved it, and have no objection what- 
 ever to solicit the prayers of their fellow sinners. 
 Now let them show why it should be both lawful 
 and useful to ask the intercession of living men ; 
 and both useless and idolatrous to ask the inter- 
 cession of those who have left this mortal life, and 
 reign with Christ in heaven. If the latter be a 
 practice derogatory to Jesus Christ, the only 
 mediator, is not the former a hundred times more 
 injurious to him ? 
 
 Q. But why do the Saints pray for us ? 
 
 A. Exactly for the same reason that we, the 
 faithful of Christ, pray for one another ; because 
 they are members, with us, of the same mystical 
 body of Christ, of the same true Church : and as 
 St. Paul says : If one member suffer anything, 
 all the members suffer with it; and if one member 
 glory, all the members rejoice with it. [1 Cor., 
 ch. 12, v. 26.] This is what we call the CommuX 
 nion of Saints , a truth which Protestants profess 
 to believe, but which they do not understand, 
 since even the best disposed amongst them exclude 
 the Saints from it, and imagine it is all over when 
 this life is ended. 
 
 Q. But why need we apply for the intercession 
 of the Saints, since Jesus Christ has promised : 
 If you ask the Father anything in my name , he will 
 give it to you ? [St. John, ch. 16, v. 23.] 
 
 A. Undoubtedly he will give , on the condition 
 however that you pray for it : if you ask. Whence it 
 follows that he who prays badly, obtains nothing ; 
 he who prays well, obtains abundantly ; and he 
 who prays perfectly well, obtains superabundantly. 
 Now, we have it from Jesus Christ himself that, 
 other circumstances being the same, our prayer 
 shall be much better and more powerful if joined 
 
164 
 
 to the prayer of our felloW sinners: If two of 
 you shall consent upon earth , concerning anything 
 whatsoever they shall ask , it shall he done to them by 
 my Father. [St. Matt., ch. 18, v. 19.] Will it not 
 be immensely better when joined to the prayer of 
 our brothers and friends, the Angels and Saints of 
 God, and above all when joined to the prayer of 
 the B. V. Mary, the Mother of God ? 
 
 Q. Is it necessary to pray to the Angels and Saints ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church, always wise with the 
 wisdom of the Holy Ghost, does not teach that it 
 is absolutely necessary to invoke the Angels and 
 Saints ; she has only defined that it is . good and 
 useful to do so. [Council of Trent, sess. 25.] And 
 all the doctors and divines, founded on the exam- 
 ples of Scripture and the whole history of the 
 Church, unanimously exhort us to avail ourselves 
 of their intercession. Very rash and imprudent 
 indeed that man would be, who, in the midst of 
 the dangers and temptations and difficulties of 
 this life, should deliberately throw away an assist- 
 ance which countless miracles have proved to be 
 so powerful. 
 
 3. Miracles in the Catholic Church. 
 
 Q. What is a miracle ? 
 
 A. A miracle is a work, sensible, supernatural, 
 beyond the order of created nature and the power 
 of created causes, which is produced directly and 
 immediately by God himself, to reward and in- 
 crease the faith of his servants. 
 
 Q. What is the Catholic doctrine on miracles ? 
 
 A. Catholics believe not only that miracles are 
 possible, but that there must necessarily be mira- 
 cles in the true Church of Christ, on account of his 
 solemn promise : Amen , Amen , I say to you, he 
 
165 
 
 that believeth in me , the works that I do, he alsg 
 shall do , and greater than these shall he do. [St^ 
 John, ch. 14, v. 12.] They believe also that the 
 Lord Jesus has kept his word, that there have 
 been, there are even now, and there shall he until 
 the end, numberless miracles in his Church, 
 because the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it 
 cannot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot 
 hear. [Isaias, ch. 59, v. 1.] 
 
 Q. What are the cause, means, and end of mir- 
 acles ? 
 
 A. The cause of miracles is faith. He that 
 believeth in me . . . greater than these shall he do. 
 [St. John, ch. 14, v. 12.] Amen, I say to you , if 
 you shall have faith and stagger not ... if you shall 
 say to this mountain , Take up and cast thyself into 
 the sea, it shall be done. [St. Matt., ch.21, v. 21.] 
 The means of miracles is the almighty power of 
 J esus Christ. Whatsoever you shall ask the Father 
 in my name, that will I do ... if you shall ask me 
 any thing in my name, that I will do. [St. John, 
 ch. 14, v. 13, 14.] The end of miracles is the 
 glory of God : that the Father may be glorified in 
 the Son. [Ibid.] 
 
 Q. What is the difference between the miracles 
 mentioned in the Bible, and those that hav§ hap- 
 pened since, at various times, in all Christian 
 countries ? 
 
 A. In themselves those miracles are of the same 
 nature ; they have the same cause, the same means, 
 the same end ; the only difference is as far as we 
 are concerned. The first being known to us by 
 divine revelation, are believed as part of the word 
 of God, while the others are known and admitted 
 in the same way as ordinary historical facts. 
 
 Q. What are the various Protestant opinions on 
 the question of miracles ? 
 
166 
 
 A. Some Protestants deny all miracles, even 
 those attested in Scripture ; they deny even the 
 possibility of miracles, which is the same as to. 
 deny the divinity of Christ, or to deny God him- 
 self, for God is not God if he is not Almighty ; and 
 what miracle more stupendous than the one 
 recorded in the first lines of the Bible, — the crea- 
 tion of the world out of nothing? Those call 
 themselves rationalists , probably because it would 
 be difficult to find another system more absurd 
 and more radically opposed to human reason. 
 
 The great majority of Protestapts admit the 
 miracles of the Bible, but no others. They 
 imagine that the Lord Jesus has been Almighty, 
 until the day when the last page of the New Test- 
 ament was written, but not one day more. They 
 are forced to confess that he has promised to per- 
 form greater miracles by the hands of his disciples, 
 but, some way or other, they are sure he has for- 
 feited his word, either because he could not or 
 because he would not keep it. They cannot but feel 
 that such an opinion is ridiculously illogical, but 
 they care not, provided it is anti-Catholic ; and they 
 would deny evidence itself, sooner than admit 
 facts which disagree with their Reformers’ systems 
 and teachings. 
 
 Finally, there are some Protestant divines who, 
 frightened at such blasphemies, and convinced by 
 historical proofs, admit, inconsistently enough, the 
 full Catholic faith on the matter. 
 
 Q. But have there not been false miracles 
 published and believed amongst Catholics ? 
 
 A. Never with the authority or sanction of 
 the Church. In some places, now and then, 
 cupidity has imagined, and ignorance has 
 believed, false miracles. In this world of ours, the 
 spirit of deceit and covetousness impels people to 
 utter many lies ; the spirit of error and madness 
 
167 
 
 impels people to believe many, as is proved here 
 in India, both by the publishing of many pious 
 tracts, and by the blind credit they meet with. 
 But far from encouraging false miracle-mongers, 
 the Catholic Church has always punished them 
 most severely. 
 
 In every country there are forgers who utter 
 counterfeit money. Will you conclude from it 
 that all money is counterfeit, that you must refuse 
 every coin? No, but that in doubtful cases you 
 must try with a proper touch-stone whether the 
 coins offered are genuine or not. Now, in the matter 
 of miracles, the touch-stone is the authority of the 
 Church, who believes not every spirit , but tries the 
 spirits if they be of God , [1 John, ch. 4, v. 1,] 
 and who has always performed that duty with the 
 utmost severity and strictness. 
 
 An English Protestant gentleman had once, 
 while at Pome, a long discussion with a prelate on 
 this question of miracles. The prelate gave him 
 to read the official reports on a few miraculous 
 facts that had just been examined in Court. 
 “Well,” said the gentleman, when giving them 
 back, after a very attentive perusal, “were all the 
 miracles admitted in the Catholic Church as evi- 
 dently proved as these, no Protestant would think 
 of denying them.” “All right,” answered the 
 prelate, “ but of all these miracles which to you 
 seem so well established, not one has been admitted 
 by the Congregation of Rites, which has set them 
 all aside as insufficiently proved.” The Protestant, 
 much surprised, confessed that, to that day, he 
 had been the victim of a most unjust pre- 
 judice. [A. Nicolas, Nouv. Etudes Philos, tome iv, 
 p. 223]. 
 
168 
 
 4» Relics and Pilgrimages. 
 
 Q. "What is the Catholic doctrine concerning the 
 relics of the Saints ? 
 
 A. To use the very words of the General Council 
 of Trent : “ The faithful must pay great respect 
 to the remains of Martyrs and other Saints who 
 live with Jesus Christ ; lstly, because their bodies 
 have been the living members of J esus Christ, and 
 the temples of the Holy Ghost; 2ndly, because 
 they will live again, and be clothed with glory 
 during all eternity ; 3rdly, because God has often 
 granted great favours through them.” [Council 
 of Trent, sess. 25.] 
 
 Q. Have relics any secret or interior power ? 
 
 A. None in the world. 
 
 Q. Can you prove by Scripture that God has 
 wrought miracles through the relics of the 
 Saints ? 
 
 A. Yes; the waters of the Jordan, struck by 
 Eliseus with the mantle of Elias, suspended their 
 course, and afforded him a dry passage. [4 
 Kings, ch. 2, v. 14 : Protestant vers. 2 Kings.] 
 The body of a dead man was cast into the sepul- 
 chre of Eliseus, and when it had touched the hones 
 of Eliseus , the man came to life , and stood upon 
 ids feet. [4 Kings, ch. 13, v. 21 : Protestant vers. 
 2 Kings]. 
 
 In the New Testament we find examples of the 
 same kind. The woman troubled with issue of 
 blood for twelve years, was cured by touching the 
 hem of the Saviour’s garment. [St. Matt., ch. 9, 
 V. 20.] As many as touched the hem of his garment 
 icere made whole . [St. Matt., ch. 14, v. 36.] 
 
 We see in the Acts of the Apostles that the 
 handkerchiefs, and aprons, which had touched the 
 body of St. Paul, removed diseases, and expelled 
 devils. [Acts, ch. 19, v. 11, 12.] Even the shadow 
 
169 
 
 ol St. Peter healed multitudes that were sick and 
 troubled with unclean spirits. [Acts, ch. 5, 
 v. 15, 16.] 
 
 Q. What follows from this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants show a lamentable ignor- 
 ance of scripture, when they scoff at holy relics ; 
 and that Catholics are perfectly right when 
 honouring the venerable instruments used by the 
 Almighty to show the wonders of his power. 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. The faith of the early Church, which the 
 most authentic monuments prove to have been the 
 same we now hold. 
 
 Q. Quote some testimonies. 
 
 A. In the Acts of St. Ignatius, Bishop of 
 Antioch, written seventy years after the resur- 
 rection of our Saviour, we read : “ The holy bones 
 of Ignatius have been brought to Antioch, and 
 put in a shrine, as an inestimable treasure left to 
 the Church, in memory of this glorious martyr. 
 We have marked the day, that, meeting at the 
 anniversary of his death, -we could make manifest 
 our communion with this glorious athlete of the 
 Lord Jesus.” [Acts of St. Ignatius, ch. 6, 7.] 
 
 In the Acts of St. Polycarp, a disciple of the 
 Apostle St. John, written one hundred and thirty 
 years after the passion of Jesus Christ, we read : 
 “ The devil has left nothing untried to prevent us 
 from bringing the remains of Polycarp. He has 
 suggested to Nicetas to prevent the Proconsul from 
 giving us the martyr’s remains, fearing, he said, 
 that the Christians would forsake the crucified 
 J esus to adore Polycarp. They ignore that we will 
 never forsake Jesus Christ. Him only we adore, 
 as the Son of God ; and we love his martyrs, 
 disciples and followers. But we have taken the 
 relics of Polycarp, more precious than gold and 
 
 15 
 
170 
 
 jewels, and we have put them in a convenient 
 place. When we meet together in that place, 
 God will bestow on us the grace of celebrating the 
 day in which he is born to glory, to honour the 
 memory of the Martyrs, and to animate ourselves 
 by their example.” [Acts of St. Polycp., ch.17, 18.] 
 
 It would be easy to quote other texts, but these 
 two are quite sufficient. Everybody knows that 
 during the persecutions Christians braved even 
 death to dip some clothes in the blood of the 
 martyrs, or to secure their venerated remains. 
 
 Q. What follows from this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants, who ridicule the honour 
 paid to holy relics, have forsaken the religion of 
 the martyrs and of the first Christians, disciples 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 Q. What would you say to a Protestant on the 
 subject of relics ? 
 
 A. I would say to him : If you are not yet fully 
 convinced by the arguments I have adduced, I 
 appeal to your heart’s best feelings. Why does a 
 son so carefully keep some relics of his father or 
 mother ? Why does a mother keep the hair of her 
 deceased son ? Why do you esteem so highly the 
 things your great men and heroes have made use 
 of ? Why do you sometimes give wonderfully 
 high prices for trinkets of very small value, only 
 because they have been the property of great 
 men ? 
 
 Q. Is there any spiritual advantage to be de- 
 rived from pilgrimages ? 
 
 A. Certainly, when they are performed in a 
 spirit of true devotion. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants object that God is every- 
 where ? 
 
 A. God is everywhere; some places however 
 are better calculated than others to excite devotion. 
 
God is everywhere ; but Protestants themselves 
 build churches, and go to churches to pray, though 
 God is in their houses as well as in their churches. 
 
 Q. What help does devotion find in a pilgrim- 
 
 age? 
 
 A. We pray with more fervour, we are humbled 
 more sensibly, we feel more repentance for our 
 sins, when, for instance, we go to Bethlehem or to 
 Mount Calvary; when we find ourselves, miserable 
 sinners, wandering amongst the holy places, where 
 our Lord Jesus Christ lived and suffered for us. 
 Pilgrimages to the sepulchres of the Saints, to the 
 scenes of the great wonders or triumphs of Chris- 
 tianity, cannot fail to make a very wholesome im- 
 pression upon the soul, when they are performed 
 with due faith and reverence. 
 
 Q. Do we find in scripture any example of pil- 
 grimages ? 
 
 A. Elcana and Ann went every year to Silo to 
 pray. Our Lord Jesus Christ, with his Blessed 
 Mother and St. Joseph, made a pilgrimage every 
 year to Jerusalem to pray in the temple. These 
 surely are good and sufficient authorities. 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. Pilgrimages, as well as the honour paid to 
 relics, have their foundation in human nature. No 
 traveller will pass near the spot where a celebrated 
 battle has been fought, or through the vicinity of 
 the birth-place, the abode, or the sepulchre of a 
 far-famed man, without desiring to visit it. Men 
 will often go very far to see only the ruins of 
 past greatness, to wander amongst cities long 
 destroyed ; and nobody dreams of calling them 
 idolaters. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants also keep relics, and per- 
 form pilgrimages ? 
 
 A. They do. To quote one instance : Luther, 
 
172 
 
 their great prophet, and the founder of their creed, 
 in one of the many disputes he boasts of having 
 had with the devil, threw his inkstand at the head 
 of the evil one. The room in which this took place, 
 the inkstand, and the stain on the wall, have all 
 been carefully preserved ; and every year, hun- 
 dreds of Protestants, with much devotion and respect, 
 make a pilgrimage to that celebrated spot. Many 
 others will visit Eisleben, where Luther died, touch 
 devoutly some objects which belonged to the 
 reformer, and even carry off with them some little 
 portion “for the cure of the tooth-ache and head- 
 ache.” [See Audios Life of Luther , translated into 
 English by W. Turnbull.] And yet, these very 
 men will laugh at the relics of the martyrs, and 
 make a mockery of Catholic pilgrimages ! 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 all this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants deny scripture, and belie 
 human nature, when they attack pilgrimages, and 
 the honour paid to relics; and that the Catholic 
 Church, in this as in every other case, has on its 
 side both scripture and common sense. 
 
 5. The Holy Images. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics adore or invoke images ? 
 
 A. No: Catholics adore God only. They venerate 
 holy images, but they neither hope nor pray for 
 help, or relief, or grace from them. 
 
 Q. What then is the true Catholic doctrine on 
 this matter? 
 
 A. We pay to pictures, statues, and images, a 
 relative honour, not for any virtue, or power, sup- 
 posed to be possessed by them, but on account of 
 the originals which they represent. The honour is 
 given to the original, not 'to* the picture. So when 
 
ITS 
 
 we uncover our head, or kneel down, or perform 
 any other external act of veneration before the 
 image of Jesus Christ, it is Jesus Christ only wo 
 adore ; when we do the same before the image of a 
 Saint, it is the Saint himself we venerate, and not 
 the picture. 
 
 As Catholics have been often charged with con- 
 cealing and disguising the real teaching of the 
 Churcn on this point, it will not be amiss to quote 
 the very words of the Council of Trent, sess. 25. 
 
 “ The images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of 
 God, and of the other Saints, are to be had and 
 retained, particularly in churches, and due honour 
 and due veneration are to be paid to them ; not 
 that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, 
 on account of which they are to be worshipped, or 
 that anything is to be asked of them, or that trust 
 is to be reposed in images, as was done of old by the 
 Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols ; but 
 because the honour which is shown them is referred 
 to the prototypes which those images represent; in 
 such wise that by the images which vre kiss, and 
 before which we uncover our head, and prostrate 
 ourselves, we adore Christ, and we venerate the 
 Saints whose similitude they bear, as by the decrees 
 of councils and especially of the second Council of 
 Nice has been defined against the opponents of 
 images.” 
 
 Q. What do you mean by a relative honour ? 
 
 A. I mean an honour given to a thing not on 
 account of the thing itself, but on account of some- 
 thing else signified by it. 
 
 Q. Have you not some examples of this relative 
 honour paid to material things by Protestants 
 themselves ? 
 
 A. In the House of Lords the peers of England 
 have to bow before the Queen’s throne. In every 
 
174 
 
 country soldiers pay military honours to their flag, 
 and the only manner of paying a mark of respect 
 to a friendly nation is to hoist its flag and fire a 
 salute. Now these honours are paid, not to the 
 throne itself, but to the Queen’s majesty ; not t6 
 the piece of cloth called a flag, but to the country 
 which it represents. In the same way the honour 
 which Catholics pay to images is paid only to the 
 thing signified. 
 
 Q. Does not the first commandment of God 
 forbid to make or use any images ? 
 
 A. God does not forbid to make images, but to 
 make idols, that is images which are to be wor- 
 shipped and adored as gods. That such is the true 
 meaning is evident from the text itself: I am the 
 Lord thy God. . . thou shalt not have strange gods 
 before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven 
 thing , nor the likeness of any thing that is in 
 heaven above , or in the earth beneath , nor of those 
 things that are in the waters under the earth . 
 Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them: I am 
 the Lord thy God. [Exodus, ch. 20, v. 2, 3, 4, 5.] 
 
 Q. Do not many Protestants affirm that he who 
 makes any image whatsoever, violates the precept 
 of God, and falls into idolatry P 
 
 A. If so they are driven to say (the heart 
 sickens at such a blasphemy ! ) that God himself 
 has been guilty of idolatry. For we read in scrip- 
 ture his express command to make the likeness of 
 things in heaven above , and in the earth beneath. 
 Thou shalt make also two cherubim of beaten gold y 
 on the two sides of the oracle. [Exod., ch. 25, v. 18.] 
 There you have the likeness of things in heaven 
 above; and again: Make a brazen serpent , and set 
 it up for a sign; whosoever being struck shall look 
 on it, shall live. [Num., ch. 21, v. 8.] Here you 
 have the likeness of things in the earth beneath . 
 
175 
 
 How is it that proselytizing ministers, who in 
 every hook, and tract, and pamphlet, and catechism, 
 so ostensibly parade the words of the command- 
 ment, do never call the attention of their Hindoo 
 readers to these last texts, which so clearly explain 
 its true meaning? 
 
 Q. What would be the consequences of the 
 Protestant interpretation with regard to Protest- 
 ants themselves ? 
 
 A. If making any image whatever is forbidden 
 under pain of idolatry, then Protestants also are 
 idolaters, for they make pictures, and statues, and 
 carvings, and photographs of things in heaven 
 above, or in the earth beneath, as much as we do. 
 They have the likeness of their kings engraved 
 on the current coins of the country; statues of 
 their great men are to be seen in their public 
 places, sometimes even in their churches. To free 
 themselves from sin, they must banish painters 
 and sculptors, break the statues in their palaces, 
 churches, and public squares, burn all the family 
 pictures which fill their private dwellings, melt 
 their coins, and so forth : which is so manifestly 
 absurd, that the most rabid iconoclast could never 
 dream of it. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from this? 
 
 A. That it is as clear as the sun at midday, 
 that God did not forbid making images, or erecting 
 them in churches, since he himself expressly 
 commanded Moses to make images, and to erect 
 them in his temple. 
 
 Why could not we also make images of Angels ? 
 Why could we not, instead of the brazen serpent, 
 make images of the crucified Jesus, of whom the 
 brazen serpent was a figure ? Protestants draw 
 piotures of their kings and queens, and we could 
 not draw pictures of our King- Jesus Christ, of our 
 
176 
 
 Queen the Mother of God ! They erect statues to 
 their heroes, and great men, and we could not 
 erect statutes to our heroes, the martyrs of Christ, 
 to our great men, the Saints of Christ, who have 
 triumphed over the w r orld and the devil ! 
 
 Q. But if it is not forbidden to make images, 
 it is forbidden, at least, to adore and serve them ? 
 
 A. True ; but this has nothing to do with the 
 Catholic doctrine. We do not adore or serve 
 images, and we are the first to say : Cursed he the 
 man who adores or serves an image! We pay 
 honour, not to the material sign which is set be- 
 fore our eyes, but to the prototype, or thing 
 signified. 
 
 Q. Is not this relative honour condemned by 
 scripture ? 
 
 A. Not at all. The ark of the covenant was 
 a symbol ; the images of the two golden cherubs 
 covered it, and we read in scripture that Josue 
 rent his garments , and fell flat on the ground 
 before the ark of the Lord until the evening, both 
 he and all the ancients of Israel. [Jos., ch. 7, v. 
 6.] Incense was burnt before it. [Exod., ch. 30. 
 v. 36.] David brought this ark, with magnifi- 
 cent pomp, from the house of Aminadab. [2 
 Kings, ch. 6.] And in his psalms, he says : Exalt 
 ye the Lord our God , and adore his footstool 
 for it is holy. [Ps., 98, v. 5.] But this footstool 
 of the Lord was nothing else than the ark of the 
 covenant, as is evident from the words of David 
 himself : I had a thought to have built a house , 
 in which the ark of the Lord , and the footstool of 
 our God might rest. [1 Paral., ch. 28, v. 2.] 
 It is clear therefore from scripture itself, that the 
 relative honour paid to images, or symbols, is per- 
 fectly lawful and pious. 
 
 Q. What is the use of images ? 
 
177 
 
 A. If man were a pure spirit, he would not need 
 such sensible signs. But as long as his soul 
 dwells within a body, images are very useful to 
 him. They serve to adorn the churches, to in- 
 struct the ignorant, to excite devotion. They are 
 books always opened to refresh in our minds the 
 memory of our Lord, of his Blessed Mother, of 
 his friends and martyrs, that we may give God 
 thanks for all the benefits bestowed upon us by 
 Christ, that we may regulate our own lives and 
 manners according to those of the Saints, and be 
 excited by their salutary examples. 
 
 Q. Are there not images, to which great mira- 
 cles are attributed ? 
 
 A. There are many instances of undoubted 
 miracles, wrought by God in favour of people 
 who had prayed (before certain images of the Blessed 
 Virgin, or of the Saints. Such miracles are not 
 to be attributed to any virtue in the image, but 
 to the almighty power of God, moved to work 
 these wonders by the prayers of his Saints, and 
 bearing thereby testimony to the faith of his 
 Church. 
 
 Q. But is it not ridiculous and anti-scriptural to 
 speak of miraculous images ? 
 
 A. Not at all, since we see in scripture that 
 God has used images for miraculous purposes 
 purposes. The Lord said to Moses : make a brazen 
 serpent , and set it up for a sign : whosoever being 
 struck shall look on it, shall live. [Numb., ch. 21, 
 v. 8.] And so it was : When they that were 
 bitten looked upon the serpent, they were healed. 
 [Numb., ch. 21, v. 9.] 
 
 Q. You say that the Catholic Church does not 
 attribute any power to images, nor pray to them ; 
 why then are some prayers directly addressed to the 
 Cross P 
 
A. These prayers, such as “ Hail, 0 Cross, my 
 only hope/’ etc., etc., are not directed to the wood 
 of the Cross, but to Christ crucified, by a figure of 
 speech ; as when St. Paul says, that he glories in 
 the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ . [Galat., ch. 6, 
 y. 14.] 
 
 Q. In reference to this question about images, 
 what is your answer to those Protestants who 
 charge the Catholic Church with haying expunged 
 the second commandment P 
 
 A. The second commandment is : Thou shalt 
 not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ; 
 and it is found in every Catholic Catechism. 
 
 What English Protestants call the second com- 
 mandment is nothing else than a mere explanation 
 of the first, and the division they have introduced 
 into the English Prayer-Book is an alteration pur- 
 posely made to exclude holy images. I call it an 
 alteration, because though there is no scriptural 
 authority for or against any particular way of 
 numbering the ten commandments, it is clear that 
 the Jews who kept the tables of the Law, knew 
 better than any one else which is the proper division. 
 Now the Jews have always counted the whole 
 text as one commandment, and so has the Christian 
 world since the beginning of the Church. The 
 alteration was made for the first time three hundred 
 and odd years ago, by the English Protestants, for 
 purposes of their own. But other Protestant sects, 
 the G-erman Lutherans for instance, have kept the 
 old unadulterated way, and follow the Catholic 
 division. [See the Germ. Lutheran Catech.] 
 
 Q. What general conclusion do you infer from 
 all that has been said in this chapter ? 
 
 A. That the Catholic Church is perfectly right 
 in the veneration she pays to the Angels and 
 Saints, to their relics and images ; and that those 
 
who charge her with idolatry on this account ar$ 
 profoundly ignorant of Catholic doetrines as well 
 as of scripture teaching, as is evident from our 
 explanations and from the numerous scriptural 
 testimonies we have quoted. For more particulars 
 on this question, see : The Use of Holy Images , by 
 the Revd. L. Meurin, S. J., Bombay, 1866.] 
 
 6. The Canonization of the Saints. 
 
 Q. Is there not another point of the Catholic 
 doctrine concerning the Saints, more generally 
 misunderstood and misrepresented by Protestants ? 
 
 A. There is the canonization of the Saints. 
 They seldom mention it without raising at the 
 same time the old outcry against the paganism, 
 the heathenism, the idolatry, and the corruption 
 of the Catholic Church. Though such inculpations 
 are not believed even by those who repeatedly 
 proffer them, a few explanations on the matter 
 may prove useful to men of good will.* 
 
 Q. What is the canonization of a Saint? 
 
 A. By the canonization of a Saint we under- 
 stand a decree of the visible Head of the Church, 
 by which he declares that such a person, while in 
 life, has exercised the Christian virtues in an 
 heroic degree; that by his intercession God has been 
 pleased to work miracles, particularly after his 
 death ; and that consequently he is to be honoured 
 as a Saint gloriously reigning with Christ in 
 heaven. 
 
 Q. Is then the Pope to determine who deserves 
 eternal remuneration ? Is he the judge of the 
 living and the dead ? 
 
 A. By no means. Jesus Christ is the judge of 
 the living and the dead. Of his Apostles, who had 
 
 * This paragraph is taken mostly from the Rt. Rev. 
 Dr. Steins’s Pastoral Letter for Lent y 1867, Bombay. 
 
180 
 
 left all they had in the world to follow him, he 
 has said, it is true, that they shall be sitting on 
 twelve chairs, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 
 But whatever may be the part his true followers 
 will have in that tremendous judgment, we have 
 not to explain for the present; we respectfully 
 admit that Christ alone is to judge, that He alone 
 is to award eternal remuneration. 
 
 But one thing it is to award the celestial remu- 
 neration, and another to say that this remunera- 
 tion has been awarded by Christ; one thing to 
 judge, another to declare that a judicial sentence 
 has been pronounced. The former belongs to Christ 
 alone ; the latter may be done, and lawfully done, 
 by all to whom Chirst has been pleased to make 
 known what judgment, in His infinite justice, He 
 has given 
 
 Q. Explain this by an example. 
 
 A. It is not in our power to judge whether the 
 repentance of the murderer, who was hanging on 
 the cross with our Saviour, was true and sincere, 
 so as to open before him the gates of the eternal 
 kingdom ; but when we hear our dying Saviour 
 declare from the Cross that, on that day, the same 
 repenting murderer shall be with Him in paradise, 
 we are fully authorised to say, after Christ and 
 with Christ, that such a man is in possession of 
 the eternal reward, and if Christ be pleased to 
 reveal the same about any person, He gives us 
 the same right to declare such a person to be reign- 
 ing with Him in paradise. 
 
 Q. But has Christ been pleased to favour us with 
 similar revelations? or, to use the Protestant 
 expression, is the Pope in such intimate connection 
 with Christ that, concerning hundreds and hun- 
 dreds of persons, he can pronounce that they have 
 been found worthy of heavenly glory ? 
 
181 
 
 A. There are two kinds of revelations, a direct 
 and an indirect one. Of the former we have an 
 instance in the words of Jesus Christ : To-day thou 
 shalt he with me in paradise. [St. Luke, cli. 23, v. 
 43.] The latter takes place when God is pleased 
 to work miracles through the intercession of a 
 deceased person. If such a miracle he really- 
 wrought, we lawfully conclude that the person by 
 whose intercession it has been wrought, cannot be 
 the eternal enemy of Grod In the place of torments, 
 but must needs be the friend of God, and the heir 
 of His glory in heaven. 
 
 Q. Is the inference obvious ? 
 
 A. It is so obvious, so manifest, that no serious 
 difficulty has ever been raised about it. In fact, 
 it was by miracles that Moses proved, and that 
 God wished him to prove, that his mission was 
 from heaven ; it was by miracles that the prophets 
 proved, and that God wished them to prove, that 
 they were speaking on the part of God ; it w r as by 
 miracles that Christ proved Himself to be the Son 
 of God ; it is by miracles that a Saint proves 
 himself to be the friend of God and the heir of 
 His eternal glory. 
 
 Q. But, if such be the case, one miracle is quite 
 enough to ascertain that a person is in possession 
 of the eternal reward ; and if so, why has the 
 Pope to declare that such a person has exercised 
 the Christian virtues in an heroic degree ? Why 
 even has the Pope to be recurred to? Are we 
 not able to judge for ourselves that a miracle has 
 been wrought, and that consequently the person 
 who wrought it is a Saint ? 
 
 A. Yes, one miracle is enough. The God of 
 eternal truth will not suffer a miracle to take 
 place to lead us into error, or to glorify any one 
 who has been sentenced to everlasting torments. 
 
 1G 
 
182 
 
 But mark the wise discretion of the Church and 
 of her rulers. When a miracle has taken place, or 
 is said to have taken place, an opinion commences 
 to prevail that the person who was instrumental 
 in it is numbered among the children of God. 
 [Wisd. ch. 5, v. 5.] There are however many cir- 
 cumstances which may make the existence of the 
 miracles doubtful. People may have been deluded 
 or imposed upon ; at times they may have been 
 misguided by a false zeal ; so that the greatest 
 prudence is required in order that no honour be given 
 to any one who has no claim to it, and that none be 
 invoked whose intercession cannot he profitable to 
 him who implores it. To remove all possible 
 chances of error, the ecclesiastical authority insti- 
 tutes a very long and minute inquiry. 
 
 Q. What is the first step of that inquiry ? 
 
 A. The first question is : Who is the man to 
 whom the miracle is ascribed ? If he has been a 
 man of such exemplary virtue that it can he pru- 
 dently .supposed that the Almighty will do won- 
 ders at his intercession, the inquiry will be pursued; 
 if not, it will be entirely abandoned. 
 
 And, observe, what degree of virtue is required, 
 and how accurately it is to be ascertained, in order 
 that the inquiry be allowed to proceed. 
 
 A severe examination is entered upon ; a judge, 
 generally one of the eminent prelates of the 
 Church, is appointed. His sacred duty is not to 
 promote, nor to facilitate the beatification ; no, he 
 has to act as a prosecutor in a criminal suit ; he 
 has to accuse, to .call to the test, whatever is said 
 in favour of the person under inquiry. \ ou would 
 say that all his aim is to discover errors in faith, 
 deficiencies in virtue, nay, had propensities and 
 sins. If the person who is examined has left any 
 document in writing, his expressions are scrupu- 
 lously weighed, and should any sentence be found 
 
183 
 
 in opposition to the decisions of the Holy See, 
 the proceeding is at once given up. Next come 
 the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity ; 
 subsequent to these the four cardinal virtues, to 
 wit : prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance, 
 together with their faithful attendants, humility, 
 patience, meekness and others, and last the virtues 
 connected with each particular profession. 
 
 Each of all the above virtues is accurately 
 inquired into ; no transgression, how minute soever 
 it may be, and by whomsoever it may be alleged, 
 escapes the scrutinizing eye of the judge ; and, if 
 it be fully established that no fault can be found 
 against any of those numerous virtues, would you 
 think that the favourable sentence is decided 
 upon ? No, we have but the preliminary to it. 
 
 Q. Why so ? 
 
 A. Because it is not the mere absence of sin 
 but the eminence in virtue that makes the cano- 
 nized Saint ; and the Church, for deciding that a 
 person is to be numbered among the Saints, re- 
 quires the virtues in an heroic degree. 
 
 Each virtue then has again to appear and to 
 prefer all its claims to the divers acts of the Saint. 
 The question is not now, whether faith has been 
 unshaken in his heart ; but whether it has been 
 continually operative, generously confessed in the 
 midst of all tribulations and adversities, at the 
 risk even of persecution and of death. The ques- 
 tion is not whether charity has not been found 
 deficient ; but whether he has shown in word and 
 deed, that true, that fervent love of God, which 
 cannot remain hidden in the heart, but communi- 
 cates its ardour to others ; that love of the 
 neighbour which makes a man go to any amount 
 of self-sacrifice whenever the poor, the sick, the 
 necessitous are in need of his assistance ; and so 
 on with regard to each and every virtue. 
 
184 
 
 Q. What is the next step ? 
 
 A. After it has been proved that each virtue 
 was practised in the heroic degree, a new question 
 arises : Has each virtue had that precious comple- 
 ment, without which it would be of little avail : 
 has it persevered till the last spark of life ? Here 
 a new examination begins about the Saint’s depar- 
 ture from this world. Has that decisive moment 
 borne witness to the persevering existence of so 
 many virtues ? Has patience not failed, have charity 
 and perfect resignation to the adorable will of God 
 not suffered, under the weight of bodily pains ? 
 Has hope, has faith, has union with Jesus Christ, 
 remained unaltered? In a word, has there been heroic 
 virtue till eternity commenced ? If so, then human 
 judgment has achieved its work ; further it cannot 
 go, it must declare that all has been found satis- 
 factory. 
 
 Q. But can the Church rely upon a similar 
 human judgment ? 
 
 A. No. God alone is the searcher of hearts, and 
 whatever may be the learning, prudence and 
 purity of so many highly revered judges, what- 
 ever may be the probability we acquire from their 
 sentence, the Church will not feel herself justified 
 to decide with certainty. For this a more than 
 human testimony is required. It remains now 
 to be seen whether God in his omniscience has 
 been pleased, by doing miracles, to put his seal to 
 the sentence. 
 
 Q. What then is the final part of the enquiry ? 
 
 A. The final and most difficult part of the in- 
 quiry is that concerning the miracles wrought at 
 the intercession of the Saint. Observe that a 
 miracle wrought during the life of ths Saint is not 
 admitted as sufficient. It proves that he may have 
 been the privileged friend of God for a time ; it 
 
185 
 
 is no proof of his having been favored with the 
 great gift of perseverance. It has then to be esta- 
 blished that, after his departing this life, the Saint 
 has done wonders. If so, if such wonders are in 
 sufficient number, if they are of such a nature 
 that professional men, both clerical and secular, are 
 obliged to proclaim that the finger of God was 
 there ; then, and only then, when God has pro- 
 nounced by visible signs, the Pope thinks himself 
 authorised to declare that the person so judged is 
 to be honoured as a Saint. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. I conclude that the canonization of the Saints, 
 to which all heretics are so averse, is one of the 
 things that manifest the supernatural wisdom and 
 prudence of the Church in its full brightness ; that 
 it is very consoling and encouraging to us Catholics 
 to find amongst our fellow-members of the Church, 
 our brethren, those who stand the test of such a 
 rigorous examination ; and finally, that nothing can 
 be more glorious for the Church, than that perman- 
 ent proof of her having preserved that sanctity, 
 which is one of the marks of the true Church of 
 God, and the visible sign of her union with the 
 most Holy, the Lord Jesus. 
 
186 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 The True Catholic Doctrine on the 
 Veneration and Invocation of 
 the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics adore the Blessed Virgin Mary? 
 
 A. Not at all. Catholics know very well that 
 to adore a creature, however excellent, would be 
 rank idolatry. The veneration which they pay to 
 the Blessed Virgin is not only infinitely inferior to 
 the supreme worship paid to God, but of a quite 
 different kind. It is the same in nature with the 
 veneration paid to. the Angels and Saints, though 
 of a much superior degree, on account of her 
 immense superiority over them. 
 
 Q. But why honour her at all ? 
 
 A. We have proved in the preceding chapter 
 that it is both lawful and useful to honor and 
 invoke the Angels and Saints ; we have established 
 by spiritual testimonies, that they know what 
 passes on earth, that they pray for us, that they 
 offer our prayers before the throne of God, etc., etc. 
 Now, all these arguments apply with a hundred- 
 fold strength to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The 
 Angels and Saints are indeed exalted creatures, but 
 she is the greatest of all creatures ; the Angels 
 and Saints are the ministers and friends of God, 
 but she is the Mother of God. 
 
 Q. Is the Blessed Virgin Mary truly and really 
 the Mother of God P 
 
 A. She is, because she conceived and brought 
 forth him who is God and Son of God, the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. In Christ there are two different 
 natures, the divine and the human ; and though 
 
187 
 
 the Blessed Virgin did in no way conceive orbring 
 forth the divine nature, as the two natures are 
 united in one person, and that person God, she who 
 brought him forth is necessarily the mother of God. 
 Whence it follows that whosoever confesses that 
 Jesus Christ is truly and really God in the flesh, 
 must confess also that his mother is the Mother of 
 God ; and whosoever denies it, must either deny 
 the divinity of Christ altogether, or with the 
 heretic Nestorius contrive some system to cut, 
 as it were, Christ in two, to make Jesus a different 
 person from the Son of God, a man to w T hom God 
 was joined, • or whom God inhabited, or some 
 other like absurdity. 
 
 Q. But how can the Blessed Virgin be the Mother 
 of God, since she did not bring forth the divine 
 nature ? 
 
 A. How can the mother of any man be his 
 mother, how can the father of any man be his 
 father, since, as it is well known, neither did 
 physically engender or procreate his soul, that is 
 the most important part of him, what, in fact, 
 makes him a man ? They are not called however 
 father and mother of that man’s body, but they 
 are called and are indeed that man’s father and 
 mother, because those two substances, soul and 
 body, make but one person. In Christ likewise 
 the two natures, indissolubly united, make but 
 one person, who is God, and consequently, the 
 mother of Christ is the Mother of God. Will 
 Protestants, in order to deny it, deny all paternity 
 and maternity in the world ? 
 
 Q. Is there not another strong argument ? 
 
 A. God the Father, who of all eternity engen- 
 ders his Word, has not engendered the human 
 nature of Jesus Christ, no more than the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary did engender his divine nature. In 
 
18 B 
 
 the Protestant system then, God is not the Father of 
 onr Saviour, but only of a part of Him ; God 
 impassible is not the Father of him who did suffer ; 
 God invisible is not the Father of him wdio 
 appeared to us as one of us ; etc. Jesus Christ 
 however, in every page of the Gospel, calls God 
 his Father, his own, true, natural Father ; he 
 calls himself the Son of God, not the adoptive son, 
 as we are ourselves through his grace, but the 
 own, true, natural son. St. Paul says expressly 
 that : Christ , according to the flesh , icho is over all 
 things , God blessed for ever. [Rom. ch. 9, v. 5.] 
 Will Protestants deny it? There is no middle 
 w r ay, however, and if they confess that Christ in 
 the flesh is the Son of God, because the two natures 
 in him are united in one person who is God, they 
 must confess also that the Blessed Virgin Mary is 
 the Mother of God. 
 
 Q. Has this appellation of u Mother of God” 
 always been used in the Church ? 
 
 A. Yes, from the very beginning, It is found 
 in the writings of many of the early Fathers : 
 Origenes, St. Dionsyius of Alexandria, St. Athana- 
 sius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzenus, etc. 
 The heretic Nestorius, in the fifth century, was the 
 first to dispute it. Even Theodoret, one of Nes- 
 torius’s friends and abettors, expressly confesses 
 that “the most ancient doctors of the Catholic 
 faith have taught, according to the tradition of the 
 Apostles, that the mother of the Lord is to be 
 venerated as Mother of God.” Another unexcep- 
 tionable witness is Julian the Apostate, who, in the 
 middle of the fourth century, sneeringly reproached 
 the Christians with their habit of “ incessantly 
 calling Mary the Mother of God.” [Perrone, vol. 
 1, p. 1063.] 
 
 Q. How much then must we honour the Blessed 
 
189 
 
 Virgin Mary ? 
 
 A. To use the words of the Protestant Dr. 
 Pearson : “We cannot bear too reverend a regard 
 
 to the mother of our Lord, as long as we give her 
 not that worship which is due unto the Lord him- 
 self [Exp. of the Creed, p. 178]. 
 
 Q. But do not Catholics pray to her as they 
 pray to God ? 
 
 A. No. When praying to God, we say : ff O 
 Lord, have mercy on us, save us when praying 
 to the Blessed Virgin, we say: “Pray for us.” 
 Catholics know very well that the Blessed Virgin, 
 being a- creature, cannot give grace by herself ; but 
 they know too that, being the beloved mother of the 
 Lord, she is all-powerful by her intercession. 
 
 Q. Why then do Catholics address the Blessed 
 Virgin with these words : “ Give light to the 
 
 blind, . . . make us mild and pure, . . . show us 
 the Lord Jesus, etc.,” and other prayers, which 
 cannot be properly offered but to God himself ? 
 
 A. To this we answer in the words of the great 
 Protestant divine, Leibnitz : “ When the Saints are 
 invoked, and their assistance asked for, we must 
 always understand that this assistance is nothing 
 else than the prayers which they offer for us with 
 great efficacy, ‘ Help me, Peter : help me, Paul/ 
 signify only : 1 pray for me : help me by thy 
 prayers/ and so forth.” [Syst. Theol., p. 160.] 
 That such is the true meaning, is proved by the 
 words which, in the prayer : “ Hail, star of the sea,” 
 immediately follow those above quoted : “ Ask for 
 us all graces; let him who, born for us, was 
 pleased to be thine, by thee receive our prayers.” 
 F rom which it is very clear that “ give light to 
 the blind, etc., signifies : by thy all-powerful inter- 
 cession obtain light for the blind and so forth. 
 
 Q. Do not Catholics, when addressing the Blessed 
 
190 
 
 Virgin Mary, use such words as “ Our life, our 
 sweetness, our hope,” etc. ? 
 
 A. They do, but with the same'relative meaning 
 that has been just explained. The Blessed Virgin 
 is called our life, because, through her, the true 
 life Jesus Christ has been given to us. She is 
 called our hope, because she, being our mother, 
 offers our prayers to her Son, and obtains for us 
 numberless graces by her all-powerful intercession. 
 She is our sweetness, as Eve had been our bitter- 
 ness, etc. To understand it as if she were by her- 
 self our life, our hope, etc., is a heresy condemned 
 by the Church. 
 
 Q. Explain it by a comparison. 
 
 A. Suppose a man condemned to death for his 
 crimes, goes to ask his life from the king ; suppose 
 the king’s mother joins her prayers with his, inter- 
 cedes for him, and obtains his pardon ; will not 
 this man fall on his knees before her, call her his 
 life, his hope, his refuge ? Is not the true meaning 
 of his words perfectly clear ? Will the king feel 
 offended at this mark of veneration and grate- 
 fulness offered to his beloved mother ? 
 
 Q. Why do you call the Blessed Virgin our 
 mother? 
 
 A. Because the Son of God has made us his 
 brethren, as St. Paul says : He is not ashamed to 
 call them brethren , saying : I will declare thy name 
 to my brethren. [Heb. ch.2, v. 11, 12.] And he calls 
 the Saviour ihe first-born amongst many brethren. 
 [Bom. [ch. 8, v. 29.] Now, surely, if we are his 
 brethren, we may call his mother our mother. 
 Moreover, as was always understood by the uni- 
 versal tradition of the Church, it is unto us she has 
 been given as a mother, in the person of St. John, 
 by Jesus Christ himself : And he saith to the disciple : 
 Behold thy mother. [St. John, ch. 19, v. 27.] 
 
191 
 
 Q. Why do you call the Blessed Virgin : “Queen 
 of Heaven, Queen of Angels, Queen of all Saints” ? 
 
 A. Because she is the Mother of the King of 
 Heaven, of the King of Angels, of the King of all 
 Saints. 
 
 Q. Why do you call her t( the refuge of sinners V\ 
 
 A. Not that we suppose she can remit sin by 
 herself, hut because her intercession for sinners is 
 all-powerful. We have seen that our prayers are 
 offered to God by the Angels and Saints ; will 
 they not he received still more favourably when 
 offered by the Mother of the Lord ? Gould Jesus 
 Christ refuse his Mother anything ? 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That, whatever may be the expressions used 
 in the prayers addressed to the Blessed Virgin by 
 the Catholic Church, it is always, and must always 
 be understood that we ask nothing from her, as if 
 she could give it by herself ; but we ask her 
 intercession, we ask the assistance of her prayers, 
 to obtain the necessary graces from Jesus Christ. 
 Such is the true Catholic doctrine, and sensible 
 Protestants will readily admit that, after all, we 
 may be supposed to know our own faith as well, 
 at least, as those who impugn it. 
 
 Q. But what necessity is there to invoke the in- 
 tercession of the Blessed Virgin, since Jesus Christ 
 has promised to hear our prayers ? 
 
 A. We answer as before. The Catholic Church 
 does not say that it is absolutely necessary to invoke 
 the Blessed Virgin Mary ; she teaches that it is 
 highly useful to do so. To say that it is absolutely 
 necessary, or to say that it is useless, would be 
 equally erroneous. But the Catholic Church teaches 
 also that the man who should neglect deliberately to 
 pray to the Blessed Virgin, or the Saints, would 
 thereby greatly endanger his salvation ; for it is evi- 
 
192 
 
 dent, from the texts and examples above quoted, that 
 God grants many graces through the intercession 
 of the Saints, which he would otherwise certainly 
 refuse. 
 
 Jesus Christ, when dying on the Cross, has 
 made the Blessed Virgin Mary our mother : Behold 
 thy mother; and ever since, he delights in glorify- 
 ing his and our mother, by making her the 
 channel of his most signal graces and favours. 
 How many victories of Christian nations in the 
 wars against the Infidels, how many miraculous 
 cures, how many conversions, etc., are attributable 
 only to the all-powerful help of the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary’s prayers I 
 
 Q. On what is that veneration founded, which 
 we pay to the Blessed Virgin Mary ? 
 
 A. St. Paul says : Other foundation no man can 
 lay , hut that which is laid ; which is Christ Jesus. 
 £l Cor. ch. 3, v. 11.] And consequently Jesus 
 Christ himself is the foundation, the cause, 
 and the end of the veneration paid by us to 
 the Blessed Virgin. We honour her, because she 
 is the Mother of Jesus Christ; we honour her 
 because she has been the most pure tabernacle of 
 our Lqrd ; we honour her more than any other 
 creature, because the adorable Trinity has chosen 
 her amongst all creatures to co-operate in the 
 mystery of the Incarnation ; in short, we call her 
 blessed amongst women , because blessed is the fruit 
 of her womb . 
 
 2. Protestants deny Scripture when 
 they refuse to honour the Blessed 
 • Virgin Mary. 
 
 Q. What do Protestants say of the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary ? 
 
 A. Protestants do not pay any external marks 
 of respect or veneration to the Mother of the 
 
193 
 
 Lord. They call it idolatry. A great many 
 amongst them even deny her perpetual virginity, 
 call her an ordinary woman, and pretend that she 
 is to be honoured no more than any other creature. 
 
 Q. What do we find in Scripture ? 
 
 A. Scripture points her out as an extraordinary 
 woman, as the most exalted of all creatures, as 
 worthy of our special veneration'. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? 
 
 A. Immediately after the fall of the human 
 race by the sin of our first parents, the Almighty 
 honoured her by pointing her out, four thousand 
 years before the event, as a token of hope and 
 salvation. And the Lord God said to the serpent : 
 Because thou hast done this . ... I will put en- 
 mities between thee and the woman , and thy seed 
 and her seed : she shall crush thy head. [Gen., ch. 
 3, v. 14, 15.] We see in the prophecy of Isaias : 
 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign ; 
 Behold a Virgin shall conceive , and bear a son , and 
 his name shall be called Emmanuel , which signi- 
 fies : God with us. [Is., ch. 7, v. 14.] Is she an 
 ordinary woman, who is marked out from the 
 beginning of the world, as the mother of the 
 Saviour ! She, who is announced by the prophet, 
 as a sign given by the Lord ! She, who is foretold 
 to be a Virgin and a mother ! She, whose Son is 
 the true Emmanuel, the eternal God, made man to 
 live with us ! She, who shall crush the head of tho 
 devil ! 
 
 Q. What says St. Luke ? 
 
 A. The angel Gabriel was sent f rom God into 
 a city of Galilee , called Nazareth , to a Virgin es- 
 poused to a man ichose name teas Joseph , of the 
 house of David: and the Virgin's name was Mary . 
 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, 
 full of grace , the Lord is with thee : Blessed art 
 
 17 
 
194 
 
 thou among women .... And the angel said to 
 her: Fear not, Mary , for thou hast found grace 
 with God. Behold thou slialt conceive in thy womb , 
 and slialt bring forth a Son; and thou shalt 
 call his name Jesus. He shall be great , and shall 
 be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord 
 God shall give unto him the throne of David his 
 father ; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob 
 for ever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no 
 end. And Mary said to the Angel : Hoiv shall this 
 be done, because I know not man ? And the Angel 
 answering , said to her : The Holy Ghost shall come 
 upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall 
 overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy ichich 
 shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
 God. . . And Mary said: ... Be it done to me 
 according to thy icord. [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 26-38.] 
 
 Is she an ordinary woman, who is chosen that 
 way amongst the daughters of Eve, to be the 
 Mother of the Lord ! She, to whom the adorable 
 Trinity sends Gabriel, one of the great Archangels ! 
 She whom this prince of heaven respectfully ad- 
 dresses with the words : Hail, full of grace ! She, 
 who is assured by the heavenly messenger that the 
 Lord is with her ! She, who is blessed amongst 
 all women ! She, upon whom the Holy Ghost has 
 come! She, whom the Most High has over- 
 shadowed ! She, whose son is the Son of God and 
 shall reign for ever! She whose consent was 
 wanted that the Almighty God might achieve the 
 most wonderful of all his works : the Incarnation 
 of the Word ! 
 
 Q. Why have Protestants translated : thou art 
 highly favoured, instead of: full of grace? 
 
 A. The Greek word used by St. Luke is : Kek- 
 liaritomene, which signifies only : full of grace, 
 formed in grace , confirmed in grace , and could 
 never signify anything else. One can hardly im- 
 
195 
 
 agine that the Protestant translators did not know 
 the true meaning ; and it is more than probable that, 
 when they perverted the text, they did so wilfully, 
 to serve their own impious purposes. Luther 
 turned it into u most holy,” adding this irrefutable 
 vindication : “ My translation is the right one, 
 
 and I wont allow any jackass of a papist to 
 judge or censure it. Let him who repudiates it go 
 
 to the thousand d Is.” [Luther’s Works, tom. 
 
 5, p. 160. Audin, tom. 2, ch. 21]. 
 
 Q. Has the exactness of the Catholic version, 
 full of grace, been acknowledged even by Protest- 
 ants ? 
 
 A. “ Bloomfield, the Protestant commentator, 
 approves the Yulgate version, observing after 
 Walcknaer, that verbs of this form imply heaping 
 up, or filling up. What is more important, the 
 Syriac version, made in the first or second age, has 
 precisely words corresponding to the Latin. As 
 Syriac was the language used by the Angel, being 
 the vernacular tongue, it must be supposed that 
 the Syriac interpreter gave the precise terms, 
 which were probably retained in the pious exercises 
 of the faithful.” [Kenrick’s Vindication of the 
 Catholic Church, p. 142.] 
 
 Q. Have you any other scriptural testimony ? 
 
 A. We read in St. Luke that the Blessed Virgin 
 went to visit Elizabeth ; and, when Elizabeth heard 
 the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her 
 womb. And Elizabeth was filled loitli the Holy Ghost: 
 and she cried out with a loud voice and said: 
 Blessed art thou among women , and blessed is 
 the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, 
 that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? 
 [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 41, 42, 43.] 
 
 Q. Did Elizabeth treat the Blessed Virgin Mary 
 as an ordinary woman P 
 
196 
 
 A. She would have shuddered at such a thought; 
 and although highly exalted herself, since she was 
 bearing in her womb the Baptist, than whom no 
 greater was ever born of woman [St. Matt., ch. 11, 
 v. 11,] she considered herself much honoured by 
 her visit : Whence is this to me , that the Mother 
 
 of my Lord should come to me? 
 
 Mark the three miracles which God, on that 
 occasion, wrought by the presence and at the word 
 of his Mother. Elizabeth was filled with the 
 Holy Ghost. She was miraculously made aware 
 of what had passed between the Angel and the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary. The infant Baptist leaped 
 in the womb of his mother, and at the same 
 moment, was cleansed from original sin. For be- 
 hold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded 
 in my ears , the infant in my icomb leaped for joy . 
 [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 44], a joy of charity and love, 
 of grace and sanctification, absolutely inconsistent 
 with sin. 
 
 Q. What says the Blessed Virgin Mary herself ? 
 
 A. Behold from henceforth all generations shall 
 call me blessed. Because he that is mighty has 
 done great things to me. [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 48, 
 49.] “That is” as the apostate Luther himself 
 lias been forced to confess, “ that is : Now begins 
 that course of praises which from henceforth shall 
 continue through all generations to the last end, 
 and there shall be no time, no age, in which her 
 glory be not celebrated. Mark that the exact 
 meaning of the original is more than ‘ shall call 
 me blessed 9 ; it is : ‘ shall make me blessed .’ 
 So that it is not only in words or with the tongue 
 that we must venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
 or by kneeling or by bowing the head, or erecting 
 statues and images, or building churches, all 
 things which even impious people will do, hut we 
 must venerate her truly, in our inmost heart, and 
 
197 
 
 with all our strength.” [Luther’s Works, tom 5, 
 p. 85, Wittemberg, 1554.] 
 
 Truly, those are not the people of God who do 
 not fulfil the prophecy. Those have and can have 
 no part in the great things which He that is 
 mighty has done to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who, 
 far from obeying Scripture, and praising and 
 venerating her, glory in ignoring her name, and 
 reviling her servants. 
 
 Q. But did not Jesus Christ despise his mother, * 
 when at Cana of Galilee, he said to her : Woman , 
 wliat is to me and to tliee? My hour is not yet come. 
 [St. John, ch. 2, v. 4.] ? 
 
 A. Can any man in his senses suppose that the 
 Saviour, whose example we are all bound to 
 imitate, the Saviour who has given us a solemn 
 command : Honour thy father and mother ; can any 
 one, I say, suppose that He contemned and despised 
 his Mother P Can any one accuse Him of such a 
 heinous sin ? The very supposition is a blasphemy. 
 
 It is clear then that these words have another 
 meaning, that he spoke as God, intimating that, 
 as God, he knew their wants ; that, as God, he 
 would relieve them when his hour should come. 
 
 The Blessed Virgin understood very well the 
 true meaning of her Son’s words ; she felt that her 
 prayer was granted, for she said to the servants : 
 whatsoever he shall say to you , do ye. [Ibid. v. 5.] 
 And indeed the Saviour, at the request of his 
 mother, and advancing for her sake his hour, which 
 he had just declared was not yet come, immediately 
 performed his first miracle and changed the water 
 into wine. 
 
 Q. What of that word “ woman? used by Jesus 
 Christ, and which is said to be a scandal to some ? 
 
 A. The scandal, if there be any, is only in the 
 translation. For, the Greek gune in the original, 
 and the Syriac aishah , which must be the word it- 
 
198 
 
 self uttered by the Lord, far from implicating tbo 
 slightest shade of harshness or contempt, are both 
 expressive of mingled endearment and respect. 
 We see in the best Greek poets the first word used 
 by inferiors when addressing their superiors, by 
 kings when speaking to their queens. As for 
 aishah it was the name of our first mother Eve in 
 paradise, the name given by Adam himself to his 
 beloved and yet spotless spouse. [See: Weekly Re- 
 gister, 11th and 18th July, 1866.] There is, besides, 
 another proof, which is as much to the point as any 
 philological dissertation. In one other circum- 
 stance only, did the Lord Jesus address his Mother 
 in the same way. It was while pending on the 
 Cross, a few minutes before his death. When 
 Jesus therefore had seen his Mother and the 
 disciple standing , idiom he loved , he said to his 
 Mother : Woman, behold thy son. [St. John, ch. 
 
 19, v. 26.] No one will imagine that the dying 
 Saviour intended, then and there, to censure his 
 Mother ; so that, even supposing the possibility of 
 a doubt about that word in the first case, its being 
 used again in such a place, at such a time, with 
 such circumstances, sets at rest every question as 
 to its propriety and seemliness. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. To call the Blessed Virgin Mary an ordinary 
 woman, to refuse her special honour and praise, is 
 to deny Scripture and slight revelation, since in 
 the Old as well as in the New Testament, she is 
 marked out as specially worthy of our veneration 
 and love. 
 
199 
 
 3. The Blessed Virgin Mary was ever 
 a Virgin, 
 
 Q. Do not many Protestants say that the Blessed 
 Mary was not always a virgin, and that she had 
 children by St. Joseph, after the birth of the 
 Saviour ? 
 
 A. This heretical opinion was condemned by the 
 Church fourteen hundred years ago. It is con- 
 trary to Scripture, since the Blessed Virgin said to 
 the Angel : Hoio shall this he done> because 1 know 
 
 not man ? [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 34;] which words, 
 if they mean anything, mean evidently that she 
 had determined by vow never to know a man. 
 Now it would be monstrous to suppose her guilty 
 of breaking her vows. Moreover, the supposition 
 is contrary to the Apostles’ Creed, which Protest- 
 ants profess to believe as we do, and which styles 
 her a Virgin. It is contrary to Tradition, since, 
 from the very beginning of the Church, not only 
 have all the Fathers, without exception, called her 
 the Virgin Mary, but amongst all the nations of 
 Christendom, that name of Virgin has always 
 been, as it were, her own proper name, and she has 
 always been called: the Virgin , the blessed Virgin , 
 the holy Virgin , etc. 
 
 Q. Why then was she married to St. Joseph ? 
 
 A. To prevent the Jews from taking her for an 
 adulteress, and stoning her to death ; and to pro- 
 vide a protector for her and her infant Son. 
 
 Q. Who then were those who are called in 
 Scripture the brothers of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 A. They are named by St. Mark [ch. 6, v. 3.] : 
 James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. They were the 
 sons of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, whom the 
 Gospel calls the sister of the Blessed Virgin; and 
 consequently, according to the eastern usage, which 
 we see prevalent throughout all India, they were 
 
200 
 
 called the brothers of the Lord. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that such is the fact ? 
 
 A. From the Gospel itself. St. Matthew tells 
 us that amongst the pious women who were present 
 at the Saviour’s death, was Mary, the mother of 
 James and Joseph. [St. Matt., ch. 27, v. 56.] St. 
 Mark attests the same thing. [St. Mark, ch. 15, 
 v. 40.] Now St. John expressly informs us that 
 this Mary who stood by the cross was sister to the 
 Blessed Virgin, and wife of Cleophas. [St. John, 
 ch. 19, v. 25.] So that James, Joseph, Simon and 
 Jude were cousins to the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. St. Jude the apostle begins his epistle with 
 these words: Jude , the servant of Jesus Christ , 
 and brother of James. [Jude, v. 1] . Would he 
 not have written “ brother of Jesus Christ v if he 
 had been truly his own brother ? Moreover, if 
 the Blessed Virgin Mary had had other children 
 of her own, would not Jesus Christ, before his 
 death, have intrusted that beloved Mother to 
 their care, instead of commending her to St. 
 John ? 
 
 Q. But why is our Saviour called the first-born 
 of Mary T [St. Matt., ch. 1, v. 25]. 
 
 A. This is a hebraism, which signifies only that 
 no one was born before him. 
 
 Q. But why is it said of St. J oseph : And he 
 knew not her till she brought forth her first-born 
 son. [Ibid.] ? 
 
 A. This also is a hebraism, which signifies only 
 that the Lord Jesus was not born from St. Joseph. 
 But it does not at all follow that he knew her 
 afterwards. 
 
 That such is the true meaning is proved by 
 other examples from Scripture. So the raven, 
 which was sent forth from the Ark, and never 
 
201 
 
 came back is said not to have returned till the 
 waters were dried up. [Gen. ch. 8, v. 7.] So, in 
 Isaias, [ch. 46, v. 4,] God says : I am till you 
 grow old. Who will dream that after we have 
 grown old. God will cease to be ? So in the 
 Psalm 109, v. 1, God says to Jesus Christ : Sit 
 thou at my right hand , till I make thy enemies 
 thy footstool. Shall he sit there no longer, after 
 his enemies are subdued ? 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 this P 
 
 A. That Protestants misunderstand and mis- 
 apply Scripture, when they try to turn some texts 
 against the virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 Had we not scriptural testimony, common sense 
 would point out to every thinking man the absur- 
 dity of supposing the Mother of the Lord being 
 made, in a natural way, the mother of other men. 
 
 4. The Immaculate Conception of the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 
 Q. Is there not one privilege of the Blessed 
 Virgin that is peculiarly obnoxious to Protestants 
 of every sect ? 
 
 A. The glorious privilege of the Immaculate 
 Conception of the Mother of God is, now-a-days, 
 one of the most abused truths of the Catholic 
 religion, partly on account of the doctrine itself, 
 and partly on account of its having been proclaimed 
 an article of faith in our own time. AVe must 
 therefore give on both points a few necessary 
 explanations. 
 
 Q. AVhat is the original sin ? 
 
 A. The original sin is the sin of our first father 
 Adam, by which he lost to himself and to all 
 mankind, the gift of justice and sanctifying grace 
 
202 
 
 wliich he had received from God. Human nature 
 being vitiated in her source, can no more be trans- 
 mitted whole and sound ; so that all men from the 
 first moment of their existence, are by nature 
 children of wrath and enemies of God. In Adam 
 all die. [1 Cor., ch. 15, v. 22]. By one man sin 
 entered into this world , and by sin death : and so 
 death passed upon all men , in whom all have 
 sinned. [Rom., ch. 5, v. 12. etc., etc.] 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of these words : “ The 
 Immaculate Conception ” ? 
 
 A. They mean that : tl The Blessed Virgin Mary 
 in the first instant of her conception, has been, by 
 a singular grace and privilege of the Almighty 
 God, on account of the merits of Jesus Christ the 
 Saviour of mankind, preserved exempt from every 
 stain of original sin.’* [Bull of Pius IX]. 
 
 Q. But is not that taking away all difference 
 between the conception of the Blessed Virgin 
 and that of Jesus Christ himself, and blasphem- 
 ously raising her to the level of her divine Son ? 
 
 A. The very words of the definition prove how 
 foolish and unfounded is that objection. The 
 Lord Jesus did not want grace or privilege of any 
 kind ; he is of himself, as God, free from every 
 law of sin, while his Blessed Mother, who natu- 
 rally would have been subject to the common law, 
 wanted a special privilege to be exempted from it. 
 The Lord Jesus is free from original sin by his 
 divine right, his Mother had to be preserved by 
 the merits of her Son. In short, there is between 
 the two conceptions the infinite difference that is 
 between the God Creator and His creature, be- 
 tween the Author of grace and the creature 
 receiving it. 
 
 Q. Is not this doctrine of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception unscriptural ? 
 
203 
 
 A. On the contrary, it is revealed in the very- 
 first page of the Bible. After the fall of our first 
 parents, God said to the devil : I will put enmities 
 between thee and the woman , and thy seed and her 
 seed. [Gen., ch. 3, v. 15.] It is allowed by all 
 Protestants as well as Catholics, that the woman 
 here marked out is the Virgin Mary, and her seed 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, to be in a state of 
 sin, is to be a friend and a slave to the devil ; and 
 should the Blessed Virgin have been tainted with 
 original sin, were it but for one minute, the 
 solemn promise of God would have been made 
 void, and his word false. Moreover, how could 
 we reconcile sin of any kind with that plenitude 
 of grace proclaimed and saluted by the Angel : 
 Hail , f ull of grace. [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 28], and 
 by the Holy Ghost himself : As the lily among 
 thorns , so is my love among the daughters. [Cant., 
 ch. 2, v. 2.] Thou art all fair , 0 my love , and 
 there is not a spot in thee [Cant., ch. 4, v. 7.] P 
 
 Q. Has the truth of the Immaculate Concep- 
 tion been always believed in the Church ? 
 
 A . It has, with this difference only, that in the 
 first centuries, when that special question had 
 not been mo-ved, it was not professed explicitly as 
 a separate truth, but implied, as a necessary con- 
 sequence, in the Catholic faith on the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary’s perfect sanctity and total exemption 
 from sin. What but implicit faith in the Imma- 
 culate Conception of the Mother of God could 
 have suggested these words of the Apostle St. 
 Andrew to the proconsul Egeas : “ The first man 
 having brought in death by the wood of prevari- 
 cation, it was necessary that by the wood of the 
 Cross death should be expelled from its usurped 
 place ; and as the first man had been created from 
 earth as yet pure and untainted, it was necessary 
 that from a pure and Immaculate Virgin should 
 
204: 
 
 be born the man perfect, the Son of God, who 
 having first created man, was to bring in again 
 the eternal life which men had lost in Adam.” 
 [Belation of the Martyrdom of St. Andrew by the 
 priests and deacons of Achaia.] Words of the 
 same import are found in the works of all the 
 early Fathers, who vie with each other in glorify- 
 ing the Blessed Virgin, in calling her “pure, 
 unspotted, untainted, undefiled, immaculate, the 
 immaculate ewe because Mother of the Immacu- 
 late Lamb,” etc., etc. 
 
 But as soon as the question arose, whether that 
 total exemption from sin included or not the 
 exemption from original sin, the general belief 
 became more and more explicit. So that from 
 the sixth century in the Eastern Churches, from 
 the ninth in the Latin Churches, we see the truth 
 of the Immaculate Conception not only universally 
 admitted, but in many places celebrated every 
 year in a separate feast. When, in 1849, Pope 
 Pius IX consulted all the Bishops of the world, as 
 to the faith and tradition of their particular 
 Churches, their answers were unanimous. Those 
 answers, the best possible witnesses of the univer- 
 sal and perpetual faith of the Church, have been 
 since collected and printed. 
 
 Q. Have not also heretics, schismatics and 
 infidels given testimony to the same truth ? 
 
 A. They have. The Greek schismatics, who 
 have now been separated from the Church for a 
 thousand years, not only preserve intact the belief 
 in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary, but when they heard the news of its 
 definition and proclamation by the Pope, they were 
 scandalised that there might have been, on this 
 point, any doubt or questioning requiring such a 
 solemn decision. 
 
 Luther, the first founder of Protestantism, 
 
205 
 
 teaches that : (i It was perfectly just and convenient 
 that the person of Mary should he preserved from 
 the original sin, since the Son of God was to take 
 from her the flesh that was to conquer and destroy 
 all sins.” [Luther, in Evang.festi Concept. Marice.~\ 
 
 Finally, Mahomet, in the midst of all his an- 
 athemas and blasphemies against the Lord Jesus, 
 was forced to confess that : “ the Angels said to 
 Mary : God has chosen thee, he has made thee 
 exempt from all spot or taint, he has chosen thee 
 out of all the women in the world.” [Koran, ch. 3, 
 v. 37.] 
 
 Q. But did not illustrious doctors, as St. Thomas 
 Aquinas and St. Bernard, deny the Immaculate 
 Conception of the Virgin Mary; the first in his 
 Summa Theologica , the second in his letter 174 to 
 the canons of Lyons ? 
 
 A. Some divines of note have questioned the 
 authenticity of the texts just mentioned. But no 
 matter. Even admitting them to be perfectly 
 authentic, the fact of those holy and learned men 
 having erred in that point, proves only that no 
 particular doctor is infallible. In justice to their 
 memory, we must remark that they never intend- 
 ed to give their own opinion as the doctrine of the 
 Church. We see in St. Thomas’ existing works 
 that he wavered much in his views on that ques- 
 tion. [Malou’s Immac. Concept tom, 1, p. 422.] 
 As for St. Bernard, he concludes the very letter 
 above quoted in this remarkable way : “ Let all 
 this be said with due reference to the judgment of 
 wiser men. But, above all, I reserve this, as well 
 as all other things of the same kind, to the autho- 
 rity and decision of the Homan Church, and I am 
 quite ready to correct my opinion, in case it should 
 disagree with her teaching.” 
 
 Q. But since the Immaculate Conception was 
 not then an article of faith, why has it been made 
 one now ? 
 
 18 
 
206 
 
 A. It is precisely on account of those and other 
 like contradictions and theological quarrellings, 
 that the Christian people, alarmed and troubled 
 in their traditional belief, appealed to him who is 
 by dime right established to confirm his brethren, 
 to him ichose faith cannot fail, whose special duty 
 is to feed the lambs and the sheep. For more 
 than four centuries, principally since the Council of 
 Basle, 1439, bishops and priests; nations and kings 
 or emperors, earnestly implored the Holy See to 
 decide finally that the Immaculate Conception of 
 the Blessed Virgin Mary is an article of the 
 Catholic faith. At last, the Pope Pius IX, 
 u satisfied in the Lord that the proper time had 
 come,” solemnly pronounced the sentence, 
 adding: “Therefore, should anyone presume to 
 think otherwise, let him know that he is con- 
 demned by his own judgment, that he is wrecked 
 in the faith, and cast away from the unity of the 
 Church.” [Bull of Pius IX.] 
 
 Q. Are there any reasons why the definition of 
 the Immaculate Conception has been, by the 
 divine Providence, reserved to our own times ? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly there are, and most important 
 reasons too, though they may not be all as obvious 
 now as they shall become in course of time. 
 
 By this definition the faith of true Christians 
 is strengthened in the divinity of Jesus Christ, 
 which was the only cause of such a glorious privi- 
 lege being granted to his Mother ; in the existence 
 and nature of original sin being better confirmed by 
 that one exemption in favour of the Mother of God ; 
 in the infallibility of the Pope, successor of St. 
 Peter, which had never been more solemnly asse- 
 verated, with the unanimous applause and consent 
 of the whole Catholic Church ; and in many other 
 cognate truths. When could that solemn profes- 
 sion of faith have been more appropriate and 
 
207 
 
 timely than in our own days of unbelief, when the 
 vicar of Christ is persecuted, the whole revelation 
 questioned, the divinity of Christ himself publicly 
 denied ? 
 
 Holy men, in the last centuries have prophesied 
 that extraordinary wonders of divine grace would 
 follow that definition. But without attempting to 
 fathom the secrets of God’s Providence, one may 
 be sure that from the day of the proclamation of 
 the Blessed Virgin Mary’s glorious privilege shall 
 date a new era of triumph for the Church, the in- 
 creased propagation of the true faith throughout 
 the world, and particularly the overthrow of 
 heresy. I will put enmities between thee and the 
 womdn , and thy seed and her seed : she shall 
 crush thy head. [Gen., ch. 3, v. 15]. 
 
 5. Why Protestants do not love and 
 honour the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
 
 Q. Why did Jesus Christ, when dying, intrust 
 his mother to St. John ? 
 
 A. Because he loved St. John more than the 
 other Apostles ; and St. John took her to his own, 
 because he loved Jesus Christ with a more ardent 
 love. When Jesus therefore had seen his mother 
 and the disciple standing , whom he loved , he saith 
 to his mother : W oman , behold thy son. After 
 that he saith to the disciple : Behold thy mother. 
 And from that hour the disciple took her to his 
 own. [St. John, ch. 19, v. 26, 27.] And in the 
 same way, ever since, the Saviour gives his 
 mother to his Holy Catholic Church, the Church 
 that he loves, and the Catholic Church takes her to 
 her own , because she loves Christ. In the same way, 
 ever since, the Saviour gives his mother to every 
 
208 
 
 true Christian, and every true Christian takes her 
 to his own , and the more ardent his love for Christ 
 the more ardent also his filial love and veneration 
 for Mary. 
 
 Q. Why then are Protestants so irreconcilably 
 opposed to the honour we pay to the Blessed 
 Virgin ? 
 
 A. There is but one reason for it. They do not 
 love and honour the Mother of Jesus Christ, be- 
 cause they do not truly love Jesus Christ. They are 
 enemies to the woman, because they are enemies 
 to the woman’s seed : I will put enmities between 
 thee and the woman , and thy 'seed and her seed. 
 [Gen., ch. 3, v. 15.] For it is impossible to adore 
 the Son with one’s whole heart and soul, and at 
 the same time not to honour the mother ; it is im- 
 possible to love the Son, and not to love the 
 mother. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that is impossible ? 
 
 A. Because the mother, owing to the all-im- 
 portant part she took in the mystery of the Incar- 
 nation, is quite inseparable from her Son. Chris- 
 tianity is nothing else than the faith of Jesus 
 Christ, true God and true man, who died for us on 
 the Cross. If you take away the divine or the 
 human nature, if you suppose, with heretics of old, 
 that God became man only in appearance, or that 
 man was made God, in both cases the very essence 
 of Christianity disappears. Now, the second person 
 of the Holy Trinity is Jesus Christ, only because 
 he is the true Son of Mary, because in her the Word 
 was made flesh. [St. John, ch. 1, v. 14.] It is be- 
 cause he is the Son of Mary that he is Son of Adam, 
 like us, and our brother. You cannot confess him 
 true God without at the same time confessing that 
 his mother is the Mother of God ; without confes- 
 sing that the Word consubstantial was made bone 
 
209 
 
 of her bone, flesh of her flesh, blood of her blood ; 
 without confessing that the crucified body which 
 has been made our food was taken from her body ; 
 that the blood spilt to the last drop and made our 
 beverage was taken from her blood ; without con- 
 fessing finally that every insult to the Mother 
 must be an insult to the Son. 
 
 Q. Is there any other reason ? 
 
 A. Of all possible creatures it is the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary that loved the Saviour most. For 
 nine months did she carry him in her thrice holy 
 womb. She suffered with him at the crib of 
 Bethlehem, wept over his infant body, and wiped 
 away his tears ; she sorrowed when he bled, on 
 the day of circumcision ; she fled with him into 
 Egypt, tended him during youth, and was sancti- 
 fied by his divine companionship, during thirty 
 years. She partook of all his sorrows and suffer- 
 ings. During his passion, her soul was transfixed 
 by every wound he received, her tears were mingled 
 with every drop of blood he shed ; she was found 
 at the foot of the Cross, when all had abandoned 
 him. In the dying struggle of Jesus, we find her 
 the object of liis anxious care ; with his dying 
 breath he commended her to the affectionate ten- 
 derness of his beloved disciple. She received into 
 her arms his mangled and bleeding body, and 
 wept with those who laid him in the tomb. Sho 
 was found amongst the Apostles on the day of 
 Pentecost, and from her only did they learn the 
 full particulars of the Incarnation, the Visitation, 
 the Nativity, the Circumcision, the Presentation, 
 the flight into Egypt, and other mysteries anterior 
 to the public life of the Saviour, of which mysteries 
 she had been a part and alone could be the witness. 
 In short, her life was so mingled with his life, her 
 sufferings with his sufferings, that loving the Lord 
 involves necessarily loving the Mother of the Lord. 
 
210 
 
 Q. Is the assertion that it is impossible to love 
 the Son without at the same time loving the 
 Mother, supported by facts ? 
 
 A. It is. The example of St. John the beloved 
 of Christ, we have just seen. The whole history 
 of the Church proves that such has ever been the 
 case, that in every age and country, those who 
 have truly loved Jesus Christ, those who have 
 suffered and given their blood for him, have always 
 been the devout children and servants of his 
 mother. 
 
 He loved Jesus Christ, the glorious bishop 
 Irenseus, who, in the second century, after having 
 converted numberless heathens to Him, gave his 
 blood and life for the faith of the Saviour ; and he 
 loved also the Mother of Jesus Christ, and he 
 taught us how powerful is her intercession : “ The 
 Virgin Mary has been made the advocate of the 
 Virgin Eva.” [Opp. lib. 5, cap. 19.] 
 
 He loved Jesus Christ, the great St. Athanasius, 
 who suffered exile, persecution, prison, and unheard- 
 of hardships, during nearly half a century, to keep 
 inviolate the faith in the divine nature of Christ ; 
 and he loved also the Mother of Jesus Christ, as is 
 proved by this fervent prayer : “ Be mindful of us, 
 
 0 Blessed Virgin ; 0 Mistress, Lady, intercede 
 for us ; Queen, and Mother of God, pray for us.” 
 [Ath. Opp.] 
 
 He loved Jesus Christ, the great St. Augustin, 
 whose life was all employed in promoting the glory 
 of the Saviour ; and he loved also the Mother of 
 Jesus Christ : u 0 sacred Virgin, by what praises 
 
 1 may extol thee, I know not ; since thou hast 
 been deemed worthy to bear in thy womb Him 
 whom the heavens are unable to contain.” [St. 
 Aug. on the Annunc.] 
 
 He loved J esus Christ, the great St. J ohn Chry- 
 sostom, who converted so many heathens to the 
 
211 
 
 faith of the Saviour, who suffered exile and perse- 
 cution for him ; and he loved also the mother of 
 Jesus Christ, and he exalted by magnificent praises 
 her pre-eminent dignity. “ She is the greatest, 
 the holiest, the most glorious of all creatures, 
 visible and invisible. She is the servant of God, 
 and his Mother. Hail, Mother, Virgin, throne of 
 the Almighty ! Pray for us to thy Son, the Lord 
 Jesus Christ.” [Apud Metaphr.] 
 
 He loved J esus Christ, the most glorious Apostle 
 of India, St. Francis Xavier, who suffered and 
 laboured so much for the Saviour ; who converted 
 more than seven hundred thousand heathens; and 
 he loved also the Mother of Jesus Christ: “ I have 
 taken her for my patron,” said he, “ that she may ask 
 for me the pardon of my sins.” When dying, he 
 did not forget her, and besides praying to Jesus 
 Christ : “ Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me V 9 
 he often said to the Blessed Virgin: “ Show that 
 thou art our Mother !” [St. Fr. Xav. Life.] 
 
 They have loved J esus Christ, all those Catholic 
 priests who, in these our times, have given Him 
 the testimony of their blood and life, in the 
 heathen countries of China, Tong-king, Cochin- 
 china, Corea, etc ; and they have loved also the 
 Blessed Mother of our Saviour, and they have all 
 been her devout children. Every one of the 
 martyrs said his rosary, and every one of those 
 who are daily going to take their place and gain, 
 if possible, the much coveted crown of martyrdom, 
 says his rosary also. 
 
 Protestant missionaries despise the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary, and try to make her despised ; they 
 print little calumnious tracts against her, and 
 those who pray to her. But they do so prudently 
 under protection of the British guns, and we have 
 never heard of any of them having found his way 
 into those heathen countries, where persecution is 
 
212 
 
 actually raging , there to sell his tracts against 
 what they call Mariolatry. How is it that in Tong- 
 king or Corea, for instance, our brother priests, 
 while teaching hundreds of thousands of converts 
 to adore Jesus Christ and to venerate his Mother, 
 are not, as we in India, overwearied with the 
 necessity of answering again and again thread- 
 bare objections, a thousand times confuted, 
 against the veneration we pay to the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary ? Is then the persecution which they 
 suffer, the only cause of their not being annoyed, 
 as we are, by Protestant tracts and tract-givers ? 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. It would be easy to quote a thonsand other 
 testimonies ; but these are quite sufficient to "con- 
 vince people of unbiassed minds, that from the 
 first beginning of Christianity, no one has been 
 found truly loving Jesus Christ, who did not also 
 love and honour the Mother of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Q. What should Catholics do, in a country 
 where torrents of insults are daily poured forth 
 against the Mother of God, and those who pray 
 and venerate her, by men calling themselves 
 Christian ministers ? . 
 
 A. They should have ever in their hearts, and :; 
 on their lips, the sweet address of the Angel and 
 of the Church of God : “ Hail, Mary, full of grace , { 
 the Lord is with thee ; blessed art thou amongst 
 women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, 
 Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us . 
 sinners, now and at the hour of our death. J 
 Amen.” 
 
213 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER- 
 FAITH AND WORKS, 
 
 1, What is Justification. 
 
 Q. What is justification ? 
 
 A. It is grace which takes away our sins, 
 makes us friends and adoptive sons of God, and 
 heirs to the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Q. Why do we want justification ? 
 
 A. Because we are all sinners ; according to 
 Scripture even the new-born child is not pure, but 
 partakes of the sin of our first parents. 
 
 Q. Can the sinner, by his faith or good works, 
 merit the grace of justification ? 
 
 A. No, he cannot ; because when man is in a 
 state of mortal sin, his faith and good works are 
 dead , and have no merit sufficient to justify. 
 
 Q. How then is he justified ? 
 
 A. He is justified gratuitously by the pure 
 mercy of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ; 
 for Jesus Christ alone, by his passion and death, 
 has reconciled us to his Father. 
 
 Q. Could not Angels have satisfied for us ? 
 
 A. No; the most perfect creature could never 
 have atoned for one sin, because the injury offered 
 to the infinite majesty of God could not be re- 
 trieved but by a victim of infinite value. 
 
 Q. In what do Protestants agree with us, on the 
 subject of justification ? 
 
 A. If you except Socinians, Unitarians, and a 
 few others, the great bulk of Protestants admit : 
 that, by the sin of our first parents, all mankind 
 has been thrown into a state of perdition; that 
 nobody, but God himself, could atone for us, and 
 
214 
 
 save us ; that the Son of God was made man, and 
 suffered to redeem us ; that by his blood we are 
 made again sons of God, and heirs to the kingdom 
 of heaven. In these they are right, but on all 
 other points relating to justification, they hold 
 erroneous doctrines, the falsity of which we will 
 now fully prove. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that, in the justifica- 
 tion of the sinner, sins are not destroyed, but only 
 covered ? 
 
 A. In this they directly contradict Scripture. 
 David says : Wash me yet more from my iniquity, 
 and cleanse me from my sin. [Ps. 50, v. 4.] And 
 again, Thou shalt wash me, and I shall he made 
 ■^whiter than snow. [Ibid., v.9.] Blot out all my in- 
 quities. Create a clean heart in me. [Ibid., v. 11, 12 ]. 
 In Isaias, God says to Israel : I have blotted 
 out thy iniquities as a cloud, and thy sins as a mist. 
 [ch. 44. v. 22.] In St. John the Saviour is called 
 % the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the 
 ivorld. [St. John, ch. 1, v. 29.] St. Peter says in 
 his first preaching to the Jews : Do penance . . . 
 for the remission of your sins. [Acts, ch. 2. v. 38.] 
 And St. Paul teaches that Jesus Christ has made 
 purgation of sins ; [Heb, ch. 1, v. 3.] that he was 
 offered once, to exhaust the sins of many. [Ibid. ch. 
 9, v. 28.] That he has cleansed his Church by the 
 laver of ivater, in the word of life . . . that it should 
 be holy and without blemish, [Eph, ch. 5, v. 26, 27.] 
 In short it would be difficult to find a word signi- 
 fying the entire destruction of sin, not used in 
 Stripture to explain the effects of justification in 
 the sinner’s soul. 
 
 Q. Does not Scripture say that charity covereth 
 all sins ; [Prov., ch. 10, v. 12.] That those are 
 blessed, whose sins are covered. [Ps. 31, v. 1] ? 
 
 A. Scripture says that the forgiven sin is cover- 
 
215 
 
 ed because it exists no more, as is clear from the 
 texts above quoted; for it is evident that nothing 
 can be covered from the eyes of the Lord, unless 
 it be entirely annihilated. The answer is the same 
 to other texts of the same import. 
 
 Q. What do you infer from this ? 
 
 A. That the Catholic Church is perfectly right 
 when teaching that justification is a grace which 
 takes away our sins, and makes our souls truly and 
 really pure before the eyes of God. Protestants 
 who deny the complete annihilation of sins, do not 
 know what justification is. That they ignore also 
 the way to obtain it we must presently show. 
 
 2. Faith alone is not sufficient to 
 justify the sinner. 
 
 Q. What part has faith in the justification of 
 the sinner ? 
 
 A. It is the root, or foundation, the first thing 
 to be obtained ; it is an all-necessary condition, 
 without which no man can be justified, as St. 
 Paul says : Without faith it is impossible to please 
 God. [Heb., ch. 11, v. 6.] Yet, faith alone is 
 not sufficient, because God requires other dispo- 
 sitions besides. The sinner must fear God, hope 
 in God, be sorry for his past sins, and have a firm 
 purpose to fulfil the commandments and never to 
 sin again. 
 
 Q. What does Scripture say on that subject ? 
 
 A. And ivhen thou shalt seek there the Lord thy 
 God , thou shalt find him : yet so, if thou seek him 
 it'ith all thy heart , and all the affliction of thy soul. 
 [Deut., ch. 4, v. 29.] Again : If the wicked 
 do penance for all his sins which he hath committed , 
 and keep all my commandments, and do judgment 
 and justice , living he shall live, and he shall not die. 
 [Ezech., ch. 18, v. 21.] And again : If you keep 
 
216 
 
 my commandments , you shall abide in my love . . . 
 You are my friends , if you do the things that I 
 command you. [St. John, ch. 15, v. 10, 14.] And 
 a thousand other texts of the same import, from 
 which it is evident that faith cannot justify, unless 
 it is enlivened by charity and good works. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul say: Being justified there - 
 fore by faith, let us have peace with God , through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. [Rom., ch. 5, v. 1] ? 
 
 A. St. Paul speaks of efficacious faith, of that 
 faith that worketh by charity. [Gal., ch. 5, v. 6.] 
 For he himself says : If I should have all faith , so 
 that I could remove mountains , and have not charity , 
 I am nothing. [1 Cor., ch. 13, v. 2.] And such is 
 the true meaning of all those other texts about 
 faith which Protestants vainly try to pervert. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul expressly say : We account 
 man to be justified by faith , ivithout the works of the 
 law [Rom., ch. 3, v. 28.] ? 
 
 A. True ; but he speaks here of the Jewish law ; 
 he shows the uselessness of circumcision, and of 
 the other Mosaic rites. He does not speak of the 
 Law of Jesus Christ, as is evident from the testi- 
 mony of St. James, who speaking of the good, 
 works of the New Law, says : For even as the body 
 without the spirit is dead : so also faith ivithout 
 works is dead. [St. James, ch. 2, v. 26.] 
 
 Q. What does St. Paul say of the justification 
 of Abraham f 
 
 A. If Abraham were justified by works , he hath 
 whereof to glory , but not before God ; for what saith 
 the Scripture ? Abraham believed God , and it was 
 reputed to him unto justice. Now to him that 
 worketh , the reward is not reckoned according to 
 grace , but according to debt. But to him that 
 worketh not , yet believeth in him that justifieth the 
 ungodly , his faith is reputed to justice , according to 
 
217 
 
 tlie purpose of the grace of God. [Rom., ch. 4, v. 2-5.] 
 
 Q. Are not these words on the Protestant side ? 
 
 A. Not at all. This is one of the texts of St. 
 Paul, which, according to St. Peter, the unlearned 
 wrest to their own destruction. [2 Peter, ch. 3, v. 
 16.] But to him that understands the true 
 meaning, these very words are confirmatory of the 
 Catholic doctrine. Now St. James himself will 
 explain to us the true meaning : Wilt thou know , 
 0 vain man , that faith without works is dead % 
 Was not Abraham our father justified by ivorks , 
 offering up Isaac his son upon the altar ? Seest thou 
 that faith did co-operate with his works; and by 
 works faith was made perfect ? And the scripture 
 was fulfilled , saying: Abraham believed God } and 
 it was reputed to him to justice. Do you see that 
 by works a man is justified ; and not by faith 
 only ? [St. James, ch. 2, v. 20-24.] 
 
 Q. Are not these two doctrines contradictory ? 
 
 A. Far from it; the two texts explain each other, 
 and are made reciprocally complete. 
 
 St. Paul rebukes the insolence of the Jews, who 
 believed that by faithfully observing the cere- 
 monial performances of the Law, they had merited 
 the grace of justification through Christ ; he proves 
 to them that we can do nothing in order to be justi- 
 fied, without the assistance of the grace of God; 
 he proves that works not founded on faith are per- 
 fectly useless. 
 
 St. James, on the contrary, rebukes the insolence 
 of those who believed that the faith in Christ had 
 made them free from every law ; he proves to them 
 that the true Christian faith works by charity, that 
 faith must co-operate with works, and that faith is 
 made complete by good works; which is precisely 
 the Catholic doctrine: works without faith are dead ; 
 faith without works is dead. 
 
 19 
 
218 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants suppose that charity and 
 good works are the necessary effect of faith, as heat 
 is the effect of fire P 
 
 A. In this supposition they are wrong, as is 
 clear from Scripture. In one of the texts above 
 quoted St. Paul expressly says that faith can be 
 without charity. We see in St. John that many 
 of the chief men also believed in Jesus Christ , 
 hut because of the Pharisees they did not confess 
 him , . . . for they loved the glory of men more than 
 the glory of God. [St. John, ch. 12, v. 42, 43.] 
 And St. James says : The devils also believe and 
 tremble. [St. James, ch. 2, v. 19.] The same 
 truth is also evident from the testimony of all 
 Christians, who know by a sad experience that the 
 spirit indeed is ivilling but the flesh weak. [St. 
 Matt., ch. 26, v. 41.] 
 
 3. The necessity of good works more 
 fully proved by Scripture. 
 
 Q. What is the Protestant doctrine about good 
 works ? 
 
 A. That they are not at all necessary for salva- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. What does Jesus Christ say ? 
 
 A. That good works are absolutely necessary 
 for salvation. If thou wilt enter into life , keep 
 the commandments. [St. Matt., ch. 19, v. 17.] And 
 again: Not every one that saith to me Lord! 
 Lord! shall enter into the kingdom of heaven : but 
 lie that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven , 
 he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven [St. Matt., 
 ch. 7, v. 21.] On the day of the general judg- 
 ment, he will condemn the wicked to hell, because 
 they had no charity and did not perform good 
 
219 
 
 works : Depart from me, you cursed, into everlast- 
 ing fire, . . . For I was hungry , and you gave me 
 not to eat ; I was thirsty , and you gave me not to 
 drink. I was a stranger , and you took me not in ; 
 naked , and you covered me not; sick, and in 
 prison , and you did not visit me. [St. Matt., ch. 
 25, y. 41, 42, 43.] 
 
 Q. What is, on that matter, the teaching of the 
 Apostles P 
 
 A. In almost every page of their epistles they 
 insist most pressingly on the necessity of good 
 works for salvation. St. Peter says : Wherefore , 
 brethren , labour the more that by good works you 
 may make sure your calling and election. [2 Peter, 
 ch. 1, v. 10.] St Paul : Not the hearers of the law 
 are just before God; but the doers of the law shall 
 be justified. [Rom., ch. 2, v. 13.] St. James : 
 Faith , if it have not works , is dead in itself. 
 [St. James, ch. 2, v. 17.] etc., etc. 
 
 Q. Is there not another strong argument from 
 Scripture ? 
 
 A. There is. The holy volume, from the first 
 page to the last, is one continual exhortation to do 
 justice, and obey the commandmants. It is full 
 of threats against sinners, and of promises to well- 
 doers ; all of which would be perfectly useless, if, 
 according to the Protestant doctrine, there were 
 but one virtue : faith, and but one sin : infidelity. 
 
 Q. What follows from the Protestant doctrine ? 
 
 A. It follows that man is at liberty to sin as 
 much as he pleases. Luther says : “Man can be 
 damned for no sin, but for unbelief.” [ Capt . of 
 Bab., Tom. 2, p. 284.] And again ; “Be a sinner, 
 and sin eagerly ; as long as we are in the world, 
 we must sin ... To believe in the Lamb of God, 
 who takes away the sin of the world, is quite 
 sufficient .... and no matter even if we fornicate 
 
220 
 
 a thtftfsand times a day.” [Luther to Melancthon, 
 an. 1521. Moehler, p. 165.] 
 
 Q. Is it wonderful that such a doctrine should 
 have many followers P 
 
 A. By no means, for it opens a wide and easy 
 way to heaven for unrepenting sinners. It is but 
 fair to say that many honest Protestants shrink 
 with horror from such a shameful consequence of 
 their doctrine ; yet, it is a necessary consequence, 
 the absurdity of which proves to a demonstration 
 the absurdity of the principle from which it flows. 
 
 Q. What then is the Catholic faith regarding 
 good works ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church teaches us that good 
 works are a necessary condition, without which our 
 faith will be of no avail ; and that by these good 
 works, we can merit an increase of glory in 
 heaven. 
 
 Q. Explain it a little. 
 
 A. We can enter heaven only by the mercy of 
 God, and the sufferings of Jesus Christ; for it is 
 God’s mercy alone which gave us such a Redeemer, 
 and it is only by the sufferings and death of the 
 Redeemer that we have a right to heaven. But 
 the merits of J esus Christ cannot be applied to us 
 unless our faith is enlivened by charity and good 
 works. 
 
 Q. Is it evident from Scripture that the just 
 may, by his good works, merit an increase of glory 
 in heaven ? 
 
 A. It is, since in Scripture heaven is promised 
 to us as a reward : Be glad and rejoice, for your 
 reward is very great in heaven. [St. Matt., ch. 5, 
 v. 12.] But to him that soweth justice, there is a 
 faithful reward. [Prov., ch. 11, v. 18.] Blessed 
 is the man that endureth temptation ; for when he 
 hath been proved, he shall receive the crown of life , 
 
221 
 
 which God hath promised to them that love him. 
 [St. James, ch. 1, v. 12.] Every man shall receive 
 his own reward , according to his own labour. 
 [1 Cor., ch. 3, v. 8.] And so in many other 
 places. 
 
 These texts are so clear that learned Protest- 
 ants have been forced to confess “that good works 
 merit a temporal and spiritual reward in this 
 world, as well as in the next.” [Apology for the 
 Conf. of Augsburg, p. 96.] 
 
 Q. Does not our Saviour say : When you shall 
 have done all the things that are commanded you , 
 say: We are unprofitable servants [St. Luke, 
 ch. 17, v. 10.] ? 
 
 A. We are unprofitable servants of God, who 
 gains nothing by it, but we are not unprofitable 
 to ourselves, since by these good works we make 
 sure our calling and election. [2 Peter, ch. 1, 
 v. 10.] 
 
 Q. Sum up in a few words all the controversy 
 between Catholics and Protestants on this matter. 
 
 A. Protestants say: it is enough to hear Jesus 
 Christ; we say : besides hearing him, we must 
 follow him, and imitate him. Protestants say: it 
 is enough to believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ; 
 we say : besides believing his doctrine, we must 
 also obey his precepts. 
 
 Q. Is not the Catholic doctrine on the necessity 
 of good works injurious to Jesus Christ, and dero- 
 gatory to his merits ? 
 
 A. No, unless it be injurious to Christ to do 
 what he himself has done, and to fulfil the obligations 
 which he has imposed: For I have given you an 
 example , that as I have done to you , so you do also . 
 [St. John, ch. 13, v. 15.] 
 
 It would be indeed injurious to Jesus Christ, 
 and derogatory to his merits, to trust in one’s 
 
222 
 
 works, to imagine that man, left to himself, can 
 by his own strength perform any meritorious work. 
 But far from countenancing such a pernicious 
 error the Catholic Church has repeatedly con- 
 demned it. We well know that we can do nothing, 
 not even cry : “ Lord ! Lord I ” without the grace 
 of Jesus Christ, and if we do anything worthy of 
 a reward in heaven, it is because we are enabled to 
 do it by the grace he has merited for us. 
 
 Q. What says the General Council of Trent ? 
 
 A. “ If any one says that, without the inspira- 
 tion and assistance of the Holy Ghost man can 
 have faith, hope, and charity, or can repent so 
 that the grace of justification be bestowed upon 
 him, let him be anathema.” [Council of Trent, 
 sess. 6, canon 3.] “God forbid that any Christian 
 should glory or confide in himself, and not in the 
 Lord.” [Council of Trent, sess. 6, ch. 16.] 
 
 4. Various Protestant errors regarding 
 Justification. 
 
 Q. Have you anything else to remark concern- 
 ing the Protestant theory of justification ? 
 
 A. We have proved that Protestants do not 
 understand rightly what justification is ; that they 
 are wrong in asserting that faith alone justifies, 
 and denying the necessity of good works; but 
 from those chief errors proceed many others, which 
 we have now to expose and refute. 
 
 Q. Do not many Protestants say that man, to 
 be justified, must unhesitatingly believe that he is 
 certainly just before God ? . 
 
 A. So they say; but Scripture teaches quite the 
 contrary. JVho can say .* my heart is clean , 1 am 
 pure from sin? [Prov., ch. 20, v. 9.] There are 
 just men and wise men , and their works are in the 
 
223 
 
 hand of God ; and yet man knoweth not whether he 
 he worthy of love , or hatred. But all things are kept 
 uncertain for the time to come. [Ecclesiastes, ch. 9, 
 v. 1, 2.] And St. Paul says : I am not conscious 
 to myself of anything , yet am I not hereby justified ; 
 hut he that judgeth me is the Lord. [1 Cor., ch. 4, 
 v. 4.] From which texts we clearly perceive that 
 though we must hope in the mercy of God, none 
 of ns, however, can be sure of his salvation; and 
 we must always remember the warning of St. Paul : 
 Wherefore , my dearly beloved , . . . with fear and 
 trembling , ivork out your salvation. [Phil., ch. 2, 
 v. 12.] 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that no sin, short of 
 unbelief, can destroy justice in the soul ? 
 
 A. In this again they contradict Scripture. The 
 Lord says in Ezechiel: The just shall not be able 
 to live in his justice, in what day soever he shall sin. 
 Yea , if I shall say to the just that he shall surely 
 live , and he , trusting in his justice, commit iniquity : 
 all his justices shall be forgotten, and in his iniquity 
 lohich he hath committed, in the same shall he die. 
 [Ezech., ch. 33, v. 12, 13.] 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that a man once justi- 
 fied by faith can never sin ? 
 
 A. In this also they directly contradict Scrip- 
 ture. Watch ye and pray , that ye enter not into 
 temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the 
 flesh weak. [St. Matt., ch. 26, v. 41.] Wherefore 
 he that thinketh himself to stand , let him take heed 
 lest he fall. [1 Cor., ch. 10, v. 12.] But thou 
 standest by faith : be not high-minded , but fear. 
 [Rom., ch. 11, v. 20.] And St. Paul, who had 
 been rapt into heaven, who had seen mysteries 
 which the tongue of man cannot speak ; St. Paul, 
 who had so strong a faith, says of himself: 1 chastise 
 my body, and bring it into subjection ; lest perhaps , 
 
224 
 
 when I have preached to others , I myself should 
 become a cast-away. [1 Cor., ch. 9, v. 27.] 
 
 Q. What then is the meaning of these ■words : 
 Whosoever is bom of God , committetli not sin ; for 
 his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin , because 
 he is born of God [1 John, ch. 3, v. 9]? 
 
 A. The meaning is that he who is born of God 
 commits no sin, so long as he keeps in himself 
 this seed of grace and this divine generation. But 
 he may fall from this happy state by the abuse of 
 his own free will, for, in the same epistle, the 
 Apostle says : My little children, these things I write 
 to you , that you may not sin. [Ibid., ch. 2, v. 1.] 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that if a man sins, it 
 is a proof that he has never before been justified ? 
 
 A. They do, but Scripture teaches a very differ- 
 ent doctrine. Before the Angels sinned were 
 they not just ? Were not our first parents just 
 when in Paradise ? Before their falling into sin 
 were not Saul, David, Solomon, and many others^ 
 just? Was not St. Peter just before denying 
 J esus Christ ? Had he not, before his sin, given 
 a strong testimony of his faith, when saying : 
 Thou art Christ the son of the living God ? Had 
 he not heard from the mouth of our Saviour : 
 Thou art happy , etc. ? He fell however. Does 
 not St. John write to the bishop of Ephesus: Thou 
 hast left thy first charity. Be mindful therefore from 
 whence thou art fallen: and do penance [Apoc., ch. 2, 
 v. 4, 5] ? How then can Protestants say that 
 being once justified by faith, we can never sin; or 
 that, if we sin, it is because we never had justify- 
 ing faith ? 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that it is impossible 
 to keep the commandments of God ? 
 
 A. Have they forgotten these consoling words 
 of our Saviour : My yoke is sweet , and my burden 
 
225 
 
 light [St. Matt., ch. 11, v. 30]? We see in St. 
 Luke that Zachary and Elizabeth were both just 
 before God , walking in all the commandments , . ./. 
 without blame. [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 6.] We read in 
 St. J ohn : This is the charity of God , that we keep 
 his commandments : and his commandments are not 
 heavy. [1 John, ch. 5, v. 3.] 
 
 The same truth is very clear from reason and 
 common sense ; for how could a just and merciful 
 God have given to his children commandments 
 that he knew they were unable to observe, at the 
 same time threatening the infractors with eternal 
 punishments ? 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that justifying grace 
 is equal in all the just ? 
 
 A. They do ; Luther blasphemously wrote that 
 all Christians are equal to the Blessed Mother of 
 God, and as pure as she was ; hut in this again 
 they directly contradict Scripture. Jesus Christ 
 asked St. Peter : Lovest thou me more than these ? 
 [St. John, ch. 21, v. 15.] Andagain: In my lather’s 
 house there are many mansions. [Ibid., ch. 14, v. 2.] 
 St. Paul says : God will increase the growth of the 
 fruits of .your justice. [2 Cor., ch. 9, v. 10.] And 
 again : Star differ eth from star in glory: so also 
 is the resurrection of the dead. [1 Cor., ch. 15, v. 
 41, 42.] Every man shall receive his own reward 
 according to his own labour. [1 Cor., ch. 3, v. 8.] 
 He who soweth sparingly , shall also reap sparingly ; 
 and he who soweth in blessings , shall also reap 
 of blessings. [2 Cor., oh. 9, v. 6,] And we read 
 in the Apocalypse : He that is just y let him be 
 justified still : and he that is holy , let him be sancti- 
 fied still. [Apoc„ ch. 22, v. 11,] Can any one be 
 blind enough to infer from such texts that all are 
 equal in justice, and that all shall receive an equal 
 reward ? 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that the Saviour has 
 
226 
 
 so fully satisfied for our sins, that, on our part, 
 penance is entirely useless and uncalled for ? 
 
 A. Why then did Christ order us to take up 
 our cross and follow him ? Why did he say : 
 Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise 
 perish [St. Luke, ch. 13, v. 3] ? But we shall more 
 fully examine this question when speaking of the 
 sacrament of Penance. 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 all that has been said in this chapter ? 
 
 A. Protestant doctrines on justification are com- 
 pletely opposed to Scripture ; they are contradic- 
 tory to the very words of Jesus Christ ; they are 
 condemned by sound common sense, and finally 
 they lead to shameful consequences. Hence it is 
 evident once more, that none of the Protestant 
 religions is, or can be, the true religion of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 1. How many are the Sacraments of 
 the New Law. 
 
 Q. What is a Sacrament ? 
 
 A. A visible, that is, an outward sign or action, 
 instituted by Christ, to signify and produce by 
 itself interior or invisible grace. I say : instituted 
 by Christ , because he only, as the author of both 
 grace and nature, can affix to natural things the 
 supernatural effects of grace. 
 
 Q. How many Sacraments are there ? 
 
 A. Seven, viz : Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, 
 Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and 
 Matrimony. 
 
22 1 
 
 u These seven Sacraments are suited to all states 
 and degrees/ and adapted to all the necessities of 
 our souls/ correspondent to those of our bodies ; 
 for as, with respect to corporal necessities, we 
 must, (i.) be born into the world ; so by Baptism 
 we are regenerated and born anew to God. (ii.) As 
 we must gain strength and growth before we be- 
 come perfect men ; so by Confirmation we are 
 made strong and perfect Christians, (iii.) As we 
 must have a daily competent sustenance for the 
 support of life ; so by the blessed Eucharist our 
 souls are fed and preserved to life eternal, (iv.) As, 
 when sick, we must have recourse to physical re- 
 medies for the cure of our wounds and diseases ; 
 so by the Sacrament of Penance , all the diseases 
 and wounds made in our souls by sin are healed, 
 (v.) As we stand in need of cordials and restora- 
 tives to strengthen us against the agonizing fits and 
 pangs of death ; so by Extreme Unction , our souls 
 are strengthened in their agony against despair 
 and the last assaults of the devil, (vi.) As we must 
 be governed by laws and magistrates to avoid in- 
 justice and confusion ; so by Holy Orders , we are 
 provided with pastors to guide, govern and direct 
 our souls, (vii.) As we must increase and multiply 
 in a lawful and natural way ; so by the Sacrament 
 of Matrimony the married state is blessed and 
 sanctified, not only to the having of children, but 
 to the educating of them to life eternal.” [Poor 
 Man’s Catech., p. 183.] 
 
 Q. How do you prove that there are seven 
 Sacraments ? 
 
 A. From the Holy Scripture and from the con- 
 stant tradition of the Church. 
 
 Q. What proof is there to be found in Scrip- 
 ture ? 
 
 A. We find seven outward signs of invisible 
 
228 
 
 grace instituted by Jesus Christ, as so many means 
 to confer grace on our souls. This shall be fully 
 shown of each Sacrament in particular. 
 
 Q. How do you prove the constant tradition of 
 the Church? 
 
 A. From the very beginning the Church has 
 always condemned and excommunicated those who 
 rejected any of the seven Sacraments. Thus, she 
 condemned in the second century the Novatians, 
 who denied Confirmation ; in the fourth century, 
 the Manicheans, who altered and misrepresented 
 the true doctrine on Matrimony ; in the twelfth 
 century the Albigenses who rejected Penance, 
 Extreme Unction and Holy Orders ; etc., etc. 
 
 Moreover, not only do all the Catholics of the 
 world believe in seven Sacraments, but the Schis- 
 matics, Greeks and others, admit the same number, 
 and the same Sacraments, as the Catholic Church. 
 This is proved by all the monuments of ecclesias- 
 tical history, specially by the declaration of 
 Jeremias, schismatic patriarch of Constantinople, 
 in 1567, and by the actual practice in Russia, and 
 other schismatic countries of the East. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. That the whole Christian world have at all 
 times believed in seven Sacraments. For, had this 
 doctrine been a modem invention, not only the 
 Greek schismatic Church, which separated from us 
 a thousand years ago, but the Nestorians, Jacobites, 
 Marcionites and other heretics of former ages, who 
 have been now fifteen or sixteen centuries out of 
 the Catholic Church, would not have these Sacra- 
 ments, in number and nature, just as we have them. 
 
 Q,. What is the Protestant doctrine on the 
 subject of Sacraments ? 
 
 A. They have not yet made up their minds as 
 to the true definition of a Sacrament. But the 
 
229 
 
 prevailing opinion amongst them is that Sacra- 
 ments are mere signs and symbols, which distinguish 
 the Christians from the heathens, and signify the 
 justification obtained by faith alone. 
 
 Q. Do Protestants agree as to the number of 
 the Sacraments? 
 
 A. No ; Luther at a certain time admitted three : 
 Baptism, Eucharist, and Penance. \_Capt. of . 
 Babylon , p. 267.] Zwinglius added Matrimony. 
 Calvin added Holy Orders. Now-a-days, they 
 generally number two Sacraments only : Baptism, 
 and what they call the Lord's Supper; or, to speak 
 more properly, the great majority have no Sacra- 
 ments at all, since, in their opinion, Baptism is 
 little if anything more than the giving of a name, 
 and the so-called Lord’s Supper a mere partaking 
 of bread and wine. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from these Pro- 
 testant inconsistencies ? 
 
 A. In the matter of Sacraments, as in every- 
 thing else, the Reformers had made up their 
 religion according to their whims, teaching one 
 doctrine to-day, and another to-morrow, one in 
 this country, another in that. Now, their teaching 
 has been reformed in its turn, time after time, and 
 shall be reformed again to-day or to-morrow. Can 
 any one in his senses pretend that this is the one 
 unchangeable religion established by Jesus Christ? 
 
 2. Effects produced by the Sacraments. 
 
 Q. What is grace ? 
 
 A. A free gift of G-od, or supernatural help, not 
 due to us, by which our souls are sanctified and 
 enabled to overcome sin, and to do works which 
 merit eternal life. 
 
 20 
 
230 
 
 Q. From what do Sacraments derive their 
 efficacy ? 
 
 A. They derive it, not from man, though ever 
 so virtuous or holy, but from the death and pas- 
 sion of Christ ; so that the grace they give instru- 
 mentally is wholly given by God himself. 
 
 Q. Is it evident from Scripture that Sacraments 
 do really produce sanctifying grace in the soul ? 
 
 A. J esus Christ says : Unless a man be born again 
 of water and the Holy Ghost , he cannot enter the 
 kingdom of God. [St. John, ch. 3, v. 5.] St. Paul 
 says that the God of mercy saved us by the laver 
 of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost . 
 [Tit., ch. 3, v, 5.] St. Peter preached to the Jews: 
 Do penance , and be baptized every one of you in 
 the name of J esus Christ , for the remission of your 
 sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost . 
 [Acts, ch. 2, v. 38.] Which texts evidently prove 
 that Baptism produces the remission of sins, and 
 sanctifying grace. 
 
 The same is clear for all other Sacraments. We 
 see that by the Sacrament of Confirmation the 
 Holy Ghost is given : Then they laid their hands 
 
 upon them , and they received the Holy Ghost. And 
 when Simon saiv that by the imposition of the hands 
 of the Apostles the Holy Ghost was given. . . 
 [Acts, ch. 8, v. 17, 18] ; that the blessed Eucharist 
 giv es everlasting life : If any man eat of this 
 
 bread , he shall live for ever; and the bread that I 
 will give is my flesh for the life of the world. [St. 
 John, ch. 6, v. 52] ; that the Sacrament of Penance 
 produces the remission of sins : Whose sins you 
 
 shall forgive they are forgiven them , and whose sins 
 you shall retain , they are retained. [St. John, ch. 
 20, v. 23] ; that Extreme Unction produces the for- 
 giveness of sins : Is any man sick among you ? 
 
 Let him bring in the priests of the Church , and let 
 
231 
 
 them pray over him , anointing him with oil in the 
 name of the Lord. . . and if he he in sins, they 
 shall he forgiven him [St. James, ch. 5, v. 14, 15] ; 
 that, in Holy Orders, the grace of God is given by 
 the imposition of hands : . . . the grace of God 
 which is in thee hy the imposition of my hands 
 [2 Tim., ch. 1, v. 6] ; and that, in Marriage, it is 
 God himself who joins together husband and wife : 
 They are not two , hut one flesh. What therefore 
 God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 
 [St. Matt., ch. 19, v. 6.] It is certainly impossible 
 to find anything more clearly established in Scrip- 
 ture than the Catholic doctrine on these matters. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants object that faith alone 
 justifies without the use of Sacraments ? 
 
 A. We have proved in the preceding chapter 
 how false, impious, and anti-scriptural is the Pro- 
 testant doctrine of justifying faith. If faith alone 
 justifies without Sacraments, why did Jesus Christ 
 say that unless a man he horn again of water and 
 the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
 of God [St. John, ch. 3, v. 5]? Why did he 
 say : Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man , 
 and drink his hlood, you shall not have life in you 
 [St. John, ch. 6, v, 54]? Why did he say : Whose 
 sins you shall retain , they are retained [St, John, 
 ch. 20, v. 23] ? 
 
 Q. But is not God the only author of grace ? 
 
 A. To be sure he is, and from him only the 
 Sacraments he has instituted derive their power. 
 He could give grace in another way, if he would ; 
 but he does not change his mind, as men do. He 
 has established Sacraments, as the only way for 
 man to become justified ; and from his express in- 
 stitution we must conclude that it is the only way, 
 and that it is perfectly impossible to be justified 
 but by the Sacraments. 
 
232 
 
 Q. Which are the Sacraments that can be 
 received only once ? 
 
 A. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. 
 They cannot be reiterated because by these three 
 Sacraments, independently of sanctifying grace 
 being produced or increased, there is a seal, an in- 
 delible mark printed in the soul, as says St. Paul : 
 God has anointed us } he has sealed us. [2 Cor., ch*. 
 1, v. 21, 22.] You were signed with the Holy 
 Spirit. [Eph., ch. 1, v. 13.] 
 
 Q. Do Protestants admit this ? 
 
 A. They generally deny such efficacy to any 
 Sacrament. Those however who have retained 
 Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, follow 
 the practice of the Catholic Church, and do never 
 reiterate them. 
 
 3. The Minister of the Sacraments. 
 
 Q. What is the Protestant doctrine on the min- 
 ister of the Sacraments ? 
 
 A. The great majority of Protestants, looking 
 on Sacraments as purely external forms, suppose 
 that everybody, man or woman, Christian or 
 heathen, and according to the words of Luther, in 
 his book On the Mass , even the devil himself, can 
 administer Sacraments. Others, following the 
 tenets of Wickliff and John Huss, suppose that all 
 Sacraments are null and void which are adminis- 
 tered even by a lawful minister, if this minister be 
 at the time in a state of mortal sin. 
 
 Q. What is the Catholic doctrine ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church teaches that, if you 
 except Baptism and Matrimony, all other Sacra- 
 ments can be administered only by lawfully 
 ordained ministers. Baptism is excepted on 
 
233 
 
 account of its being absolutely necessary for salva- 
 tion, so that, in case of need, it can be administer- 
 ed by any person, even by a heathen. Matrimony 
 is excepted on account of its special nature ; for, 
 the matrimonial contract itself being the Sacra- 
 ment, it is almost certain that the contracting 
 parties themselves are the ministers. 
 
 The Church teaches also that all the Sacraments 
 are valid which are administered in the lawful way, 
 by lawful ministers, whatever these ministers’ faith 
 or morals may happen to be. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Sacraments can be 
 administered only by lawfully ordained ministers ? 
 
 A. I prove it by Scripture. The ministers of 
 Christ have been chosen and set up to be the dis- 
 pensers of the mysteries of God. [1 Cor., ch. 4, 
 v. l.J To them only, not to every Christian, did 
 Christ say in the person of the Apostles : Do this for 
 a commemoration of me. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 19.] 
 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
 them. [St. John, ch. 20, v. 23.] And St. Paul 
 warns us that neither doth any man take the honour 
 (of priesthood) to himself, but he that is called by 
 God, as Aaron was. [Heb., ch. 5, v. 4.] 
 
 This question will be more fully explained when 
 speaking of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. 
 
 Q. But what if the minister has no faith, or is 
 in a state of mortal sin ? 
 
 A. Even . in such a case the Sacraments are 
 validly administered, because their efficacy is not 
 to be ascribed to the minister’s personal worth, but 
 to God only. “ So/’ says St. Augustin, “ the seeds 
 grow in the field, no matter whether they be sown 
 by clean or unclean hands;” “and so,” adds St. 
 Gregory Nazianzen, “the wax bears the very same 
 stamp of the emperor, no matter whether it be 
 impressed on it with a gold or an iron seal,” As 
 
234 
 
 St. Paul says : neither he that plant eth is any 
 thing, nor he that watereth ; but God that giveth 
 the increase. [1 Cor., ch. 3, v. 7.] 
 
 Q. Did not Jesus Christ says that an evil tree 
 cannot bring forth good fruit [St. Matt., ch. 7, 
 v. 18]? 
 
 A. The meaning is that the evil man cannot do 
 good by his own strength. But in the administra- 
 tion of Sacraments the minister does not act in 
 his own name, he acts in the name of Jesus Christ ,* 
 and whatever the minister may happen to be, 
 Jesus Christ is always the good tree that brings 
 forth good fruits. Whence it follows that the 
 grace produced by the Sacraments in no way de- 
 pends on the minister, but only on the good disposi- 
 tions of the receivers. 
 
 4. The Ceremonies used in the Admin- 
 istration of the Sacraments, and prin- 
 cipally the Sign of the Cross. 
 
 Q. Why does the Church make use of so many 
 different Ceremonies in the Administration of the 
 Sacraments ? 
 
 A. Firstly, to give external expression to the 
 interior sentiments of respect, devotion, and re- 
 ligion ; secondly, to enliven and increase devotion, 
 by moving and striking the senses ; thirdly, to 
 lead the simple and illiterate more easily into a 
 knowledge of the mysteries of religion. 
 
 Q. Is the use of ceremonies authorized in 
 
 Scripture ? 0 
 
 A. Yes. As for the Old Law, it is perfectly 
 evident, since God himself had deigned to mark in 
 detail every particular of the offices, ministries, 
 
235 
 
 rites and ceremonies of the Priests and Levites. 
 (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc.) 
 
 As for the New Law, we see in the Gospel that 
 Our Lord made a frequent use of ceremonies. To 
 quote a few instances only : when he cured the man 
 who was deaf and dumb, he put his fingers into 
 his ears , and spitting , he touched his tongue : and 
 looking up to heaven , he groaned , and said to him: 
 Ephpheta, which is: Be thou opened. [St. Mark, 
 ch. 7, v. 33, 34.] When he cured the blind man, 
 taking him by the hand he led him out of the town: 
 and spitting upon his eyes, laying his hands on 
 him: he asked him if he saw anything. [St. Mark, 
 ch. 8, v. 23.] When he gave the Holy Ghost to 
 the Apostles, he breathed on them. [St. John, ch. 20, 
 v. 22.] He frequently laid his hands on the heads 
 of the children or of the sick that were brought 
 to him ; he washed the feet of his Apostles ; 
 etc., etc. 
 
 Besides the example of the Lord, we have the 
 command of the Apostles. St. Paul tells us : Let 
 all things be done decently and according to order, 
 [1 Cor., ch. 14, v. 40.] which would be impossible 
 without proper ceremonies. 
 
 Q. What would you say to a Protestant who 
 should condemn ceremonies ? 
 
 A. Common sense, I would reply, shows us that 
 man being composed of a body and a soul, cere- 
 monies, that is to say, external manifestations of 
 the different feelings of the soul by different 
 gestures of the body, are a part, as it were, of 
 human nature. Wherever men are brought to- 
 gether, in the daily transactions of private life, as 
 well as on great public occasions, they will use 
 ceremonies. Two friends who meet, salute each 
 other. The common politeness of the dining or 
 of the drawing room is made up of ceremonies. 
 
236 
 
 Proper ceremonies are required to enhance the 
 solemnity, the decency, the grandeur of the court, 
 the camp, or the bar. Why should we suppress 
 them in public worship ? Why should we rob 
 God’s service of all its solemnity ? 
 
 This is self-evident ; and Protestants themselves 
 uncover their heads when entering a church, kneel 
 down for prayer, bend the head at the name of 
 Jesus Christ, etc., etc. 
 
 Q. Who has instituted the different ceremonies 
 used in the administration of Sacraments ? 
 
 A. Some have been instituted by Jesus Christ 
 himself, some by the Apostles, some by the 
 Church. 
 
 Q. Has the Church the power of instituting new 
 rites and ceremonies ? 
 
 A. Certainly, as is evident from the words of 
 St. Paul who, having written to the Corinthians 
 about the Holy Eucharist, ends with these words : 
 And the rest I will set in order ichen I come. [1 
 Cor., ch. 11, v. 84.] 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. From the very beginning of the Church, we 
 see the use of ceremonies in the Christian religion. 
 St. Justin the Martyr gives evidence for the first 
 century, Tertullian for the second ; and all the 
 ancient liturgies, instituted in the first centuries, 
 are full of rites and ceremonies. 
 
 Q. Could you not quote some Protestant testi- 
 monies ? 
 
 A. In the Helvetic Confession they admit that 
 a the Churches of Christ have always used their 
 liberty, in the rites and ceremonies.” In the Augs- 
 burg Confession, and in the Saxonic Confession, 
 we read that “ those sin, who scandalously in- 
 fringe, or proudly disdain religious ceremonies.” 
 The Book of Common .Prayer declares that: 
 
237 
 
 “without some ceremonies, it is not possible to 
 keep any order or quiet discipline in the Church.” 
 
 Q. What is the ceremony most frequently used 
 in the administration of Sacraments ? 
 
 A. The sign of the cross, because it is a brief 
 profession of our faith, the use of which is derived 
 by universal tradition from the Apostles them- 
 selves. 
 
 Q. How is the sign of the cross a profession of 
 the Christian faith ? 
 
 A. By it we profess ourselves believers in the 
 redemption by the cross, and followers of the 
 crucified Christ, while, at the same time, we con- 
 fess our faith in the adorable Trinity. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the use of this sign 
 is as ancient as the Church itself ? 
 
 A. By the testimony of the early Fathers, 
 Tertullian, in the second century, wrote as follows : 
 “ At the beginning of all our actions, whether we 
 come in or go out, whether we go to dress, to bathe, 
 to eat and drink, or to rest, whether we take a 
 chair or light, let us always begin by making the 
 sign of the cross on our foreheads. This practice 
 is not commanded by a formal law of the Scripture, 
 but tradition has taught it, custom confirms it, 
 and faith observes it.” [De Corona, o. 4.] St. John 
 Chrysostom said to the people of Antioch : “ The 
 
 sign of the cross you will find everywhere, among 
 princes and subjects, among men and women, 
 among virgins and married people, among slaves 
 and freemen. All mark with it the noblest part 
 of their body, the forehead. Do never cross the 
 threshold of your house without saying: I re- 
 nounce Satan, and to Christ I fondly cleave, and 
 making, at the same time, the sign of the cross.” 
 
238 
 
 Q. Why is this sign of the cross so often nsed 
 in the administration of Sacraments ? 
 
 A. To teach us that they derive their virtue only 
 from the merits and death of Jesus Christ, and 
 that all God’s graces are showered down upon us, 
 only on account of his sufferings and his blood. 
 
 Q. Have you anything more to add in favour of 
 the sign of the cross ? 
 
 A. Yes ; this sign is called by our Lord the sign 
 of the Son of Man . [St. Matt., ch. 24, v. 30.] It 
 was pointed out by Ezechiel as the mark of those 
 who were to escape the wrath of God. [Ezech., ch. 
 9, v. 4.] And to use the words of St. Augustin : 
 “ What is the sign of Christ which all know, but 
 the cross of Christ ; which sign must needs be ap- 
 plied to the foreheads of the believers, to the water 
 with which they are baptized, to the chrism were- 
 with they are anointed, to the Sacrifice with whioh 
 they are fed ; otherwise, none of these things are 
 duly performed.” [Tract. 229, in Joannem.] 
 
239 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 BAPTISM AND CONFIRMATION. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Baptism* 
 
 Q. What is Baptism ? 
 
 A. A Sacrament which cleanses us from origi- 
 nal and actual sins, makes us Christians and child- 
 ren of God, and heirs to the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Baptism is a Sacra- 
 ment ? 
 
 A. Baptism has evidently the three requisites 
 of a Sacrament : lstly, the visible sign, which is 
 the pouring of water on the person to be baptized, 
 and the uttering of the sacramental words by 
 the minister ; 2ndly, the inward or invisible grace, 
 by which the soul is regenerated, freed from the 
 devil’s bondage, and made a child of God ; 3rdly, 
 it has been instituted by Jesus Christ, as is evident 
 from the commission he gave to his Apostles : Go, 
 teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost. 
 [St. Matt., ch. 28, v. 19.] 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Baptism remits sins ? 
 
 A. St. Peter said to the new converts : Do pen- 
 ance, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
 of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. 
 [Acts, ch. 2, v. 38.] 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Baptism is necessary 
 to salvation ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ says: Amen, amen, I say to 
 thee , unless a man be born again of water and the 
 Holy Ghost , he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God. [St. John, ch. 3, v. 5.] And elsewhere : 
 He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. 
 [St. Mark, ch. 16, v. 16.] 
 
240 
 
 Q. What is the common Protestant belief con- 
 cerning Baptism ? 
 
 A. The impious system of justification "by faith 
 alone, which is one of the fundamental doctrines- 
 of Protestantism, leads logically to denying the 
 necessity of Baptism. A great many Protestants 
 therefore consider it not as a Sacrament which 
 confers grace, but as a mere symbol of the justifi- 
 cation obtained by faith. It is for them little 
 more than a typical ceremony, which might be 
 dispensed with without any serious inconvenience, 
 and consequently, they are in no ways particular 
 about the manner in which their clergymen com- 
 monly administer it. 
 
 Q. What was the chief Reformers’ teaching on 
 this matter ? 
 
 A. In this case, as in every other, the founders 
 of Protestantism took great care to contradict, as 
 flatly as possible, the express words of our Saviour. 
 
 Jesus Christ having declared that without Bap- 
 tism one cannot enter into the kingdom, of God , 
 Calvin, Zwinglius, Socin, etc., etc., taught that 
 the necessity of baptism is a nonsense which should 
 be hissed out of Christendom. [Calvin’s Inst., 1, 
 4, c. 15.] Jesus Christ having ordered to give 
 Baptism in the name of the Father , and of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghost , Luther, Calvin, Zwing- 
 lius, etc., decided that no special words are re- 
 quired, and that any prayer to God, or no prayer 
 at all, will do as well. [ De Capt. Baby 1.1 Jesus 
 Christ having commanded that water should be 
 the necessary matter of this Sacrament, unless a 
 man be born again of water . . . Luther, Calvin, and 
 others declared that water is not required, that 
 wine, beer, milk, brandy, any liquid whatever, is 
 just as good. [Luther’s Table Talk.] 
 
 And there are even now simple-minded Pro- 
 
241 
 
 testants who devoutly believe that the so-called 
 Reformation was made to bring back religion to 
 biblical truth ! . 
 
 Q. Is the baptism conferred by heretics a true 
 one ? 
 
 A. It is, if they observe the necessary form in 
 the administration of this Sacrament, and intend 
 to do what the true Church of Christ does. 
 
 Q. Why then are the converts from heresy 
 baptized again ? 
 
 A. When they can prove that the necessary 
 conditions for the validity of the Sacrament have 
 been complied with in their baptism, it is forbid- 
 den to baptize them again ; but as many Protest- 
 ants do not believe baptism itself to be necessary, 
 they take little care to fulfil those necessary con- 
 ditions, and their baptism is, to say the least, ex- 
 tremely doubtful ; hence when a Protestant is 
 received into the true Church of Christ he is gene- 
 rally baptized conditionally . 
 
 2. Infants’ Baptism. 
 
 Q. Is there anything in scripture expressly and 
 explicitly concerning infants’ baptism ? 
 
 A. No, and the strict biblical Protestant must 
 needs for ever ignore whether there is or not any 
 chance of salvation for more than the third part 
 of the human race, who die before being capable 
 of actual faith. This, as we have shown above, 
 goes far to prove how unfounded, how impossible, 
 is the great Protestant axiom that all necessary 
 truths are clearly laid down in scripture. But 
 with us Catholics, the case is widely different. 
 
 Q. Why? 
 
 A. We have clearly proved [See Part II, ch. Ill,] 
 that to be the rule of faith the Holy Scripture must 
 
 21 
 
242 
 
 be explained by the infallible Church of Christ 
 and completed by apostolical tradition. It is on 
 the union of these combined authorities that our 
 faith is founded in the question of infants' baptism, 
 as in every other. 
 
 Q. How then do you prove that infants must 
 be baptized ? 
 
 A. That we are all conceived in iniquities [Ps. 
 50, v. 7,] and born in sin, because by one man sin 
 entered into this zvorld, and by sin death: and so 
 death passed upon all men , in whom all have 
 sinned [Rom., ch. 5, v. 12]; that, man being un- 
 able to redeem himself, God was made man, and 
 died on the cross for all, without any exception 
 whatever, as by the offence of one , unto all men 
 to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto 
 all men to justification of life [Rom., ch. 5, v. 
 18] ; that, for man to be justified and make the 
 merits of Christ his own, there is but one way, to 
 be born again of water and the Holy Ghost [St. 
 John, ch. 3, v. 5] , that is to be baptized. Such are 
 fundamental truths, which no one calling himself a 
 Christain ever thought of denying. 
 
 Now all these apply to infant children as well 
 as to adults. They also are sinners and want justi- 
 fication ; for them also Jesus Christ suffered, and 
 they are nowhere excluded from the benefits of 
 redemption ; for them also there is no other way 
 of justification but baptism. 
 
 The consequence is clear. Infants must be 
 baptized, baptized as soon as possible after their 
 birth, and those through whose wilful neglect an 
 infant dies unbaptized assume upon themselves an 
 awful responsibility, for that child cannot enter in- 
 to the kingdom of God. [St. John, ch. 3, v. 5.] 
 
 Q. Is the tradition of the Church clear and con- 
 stant on this point ? 
 
243 
 
 A. It is, from the very beginning. Saint 
 Dionysius says : “ It is a tradition of the Apostles 
 that infants should be baptized.” [Eccl. Hier 
 last ch.] St. Ireneeus : “All are saved, who are 
 
 regenerated in Christ : infants, youths, and aged 
 men.” [Lib. 2, ch. 39.] Origen : " The Church 
 
 has received a tradition from the Apostles to give 
 baptism also to little ones.” [Lib. 5, on the 6th ch. 
 to the Rom.] 
 
 There are many other similar testimonies, which 
 it would be useless to mention, as the fact is gener- 
 ally admitted by Protestants. 
 
 Q. But must not faith precede Baptism, accord- 
 ing to the words of Christ : he that believeth and 
 is baptized . . . , etc ? 
 
 A. Not only faith but contrition of sins must 
 precede baptism, in such persons as can have faith 
 and contrition, that is in adults. But children are 
 baptized in the faith of the Church. They have 
 been made guilty in Adam without any deed of 
 their own, and without any deed of their own also 
 they are washed and purified by the blood of Christ. 
 As St. A ugustin says : “ They ask the child : 
 
 dost thou believe ? and another answers for him : 
 I do. And so he is cured at another’s word, be- 
 cause he had been wounded by another’s deed.” 
 [Serm. 14, de Verb. Ap.] 
 
 Q. Was not circumcision in the Old Law the 
 figure of Baptism ? 
 
 A. It was, according to these words of St. Paul : 
 In whom (Christ) also you are circumcised with 
 circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of 
 the body of the flesh , but in the circumcision of 
 Christ , buried with him in baptism . . . [Col., ch. 
 2, v. 11.] Now, everybody knows that, by the 
 express command of God, children were circumcised 
 the eighth day. Is it not evident then, that since 
 
244 
 
 to those new-born infants the bodily circumcision 
 made by hand was useful, to the same also the 
 spiritual circumcision of Christ must be productive 
 of all its graces and benefits ? 
 
 Q. What is the Protestant practice in this 
 matter ? 
 
 A. Despite their doctrines on faith and justifica- 
 tion, the great bulk of Protestants had till now, 
 inconsistently enough, been in the habit of admin- 
 istering baptism to infant children. Unfortunately 
 the number of those who consider it a useless and 
 superstitious ceremony has been, of late, increasing 
 very much. 
 
 In the first era of the Reformation, during 
 Luther’s own lifetime, the Anabaptists, the Zwing- 
 lains, the Socinians and others, had rejected infants’ 
 baptism, which they blasphemously called pup 
 washing. But they were a minority, as well as 
 the Baptists, the Arminians, the Quakers, etc., 
 who in later times professed the same doctrines. 
 
 Now-a-days this accursed error, by which mil- 
 lions and millions of souls are hopelessly deprived 
 of their heavenly inheritance, is prevailing amongst 
 the Protestants of Switzerland, Germany, and 
 America. It gains ground even in England. The 
 divers sentences passed, a few years ago, in the 
 Gorham and Colenso cases, the actual tone of theo- 
 logical controversies, and many other symptoms, 
 show but too plainly that faith in the efficacy of 
 baptism is rapidly diminishing, and one can fore- 
 see the time when the majority of Protestants shall 
 have lost the very character and mark of 
 Christianity. 
 
245 
 
 3. The Ceremonies of Baptism. 
 
 Q. There are many exorcisms in the administra- 
 tion of Baptism, in the Catholic Church ; what do 
 you mean by exorcisms ? 
 
 A. The rites and prayers for casting out devils, 
 and restraining them from hurting our persons, 
 or abusing God's creatures to our harm. 
 
 Q. Is not this supposed power over devils a 
 mere superstition ? 
 
 A. By no means. We see in the Gospel that 
 Jesus Christ gave this power to his disciples : He 
 gave them power over unclean spirits , to cast them 
 out. [St. Matt., ch. 10, v. 1.] And he gave them 
 power . . . to cast out devils. [St, Mark, ch. 3, v. 
 15.] He gave them power and authority over all 
 devils. [St. Luke, ch. 9, v. 1.] 
 
 Q. But was not this power given personally to 
 the Apostles only P 
 
 A. Not at all ; the same power had been given 
 to the disciples too ; and the history of the Church 
 bears a constant and undeniable testimony to th^ 
 use which the Saints of every age and country 
 have made of it. 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of the other ceremonies, 
 used by the Catholic Church in the administration 
 of Baptism ? 
 
 A. They are calculated to render the Sacrament 
 more venerable and its spiritual effects more easily 
 understood. The greatest part of them are derived 
 from apostolic tradition. 
 
 The salt put in the mouth signifies the grace of 
 God, which seasons our souls, and keeps them from 
 the corruption of sin. It signifies also, according 
 to Eastern manners, the promise we make to re- 
 main faithful to God for ever. We have eaten his 
 salt, how could we betray him ? 
 
t 
 
 246 
 
 The renouncement of Satan, his works, and 
 pomps, is a solemn covenant made with God, at 
 the moment we become his children. 
 
 The white linen cloth is a memory of the white 
 garment with which the new Christians, in the 
 first centuries, used to be clothed in their baptism ; 
 it signifies the purity and innocence received in the 
 Sacrament. 
 
 The lighted candle admonishes the. newly bap- 
 tized to keep the light of faith ever burning in 
 their souls. 
 
 One can 'easily understand how all these cere- 
 monies, when the receiver’s mind is well disposed, 
 are powerful auxiliaries to the grace of the Sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 4. The Sacrament of Confirmation. 
 
 Q. What is Confirmation ? 
 
 A. A Sacrament which makes us strong and 
 perfect Christians. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Confirmation is a 
 Sacrament P 
 
 A . Confirmation has evidently the three requisites 
 of a Sacrament : firstly, the visible sign, which is 
 the unction of the holy chrism, and the imposition 
 of the hands of the bishop ; secondly, the invisible 
 grace of the Holy Ghost, which strengthens and 
 secures the faith of the receiver; thirdly, it has 
 been instituted by Jesus Christ, for the Apostles 
 practised it, which they certainly could not have 
 done, but by an express order of the Saviour. 
 
 Q. Quote the words of Scripture. 
 
 A. After the Samaritans had been baptized by 
 St Philip, the Apostles sent unto them Peter and 
 John . Who when they were come, prayed for them, 
 that they might receive the Holy Ghost . For he 
 
247 
 
 was not as yet come upon any of them: hut they were 
 only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then 
 they laid the hands upon them , and they received 
 the Holy Ghost. [Acts, ch. 8, v. 14-17.] 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. The holy rite performed by the Apostles was 
 a Sacrament, since it gave the Holy Ghost to the 
 receivers; but this Sacrament was not baptism, 
 since those Samaritans had been previously bap- 
 tized by St. Philip; it was not ordination, as some 
 have dreamed, since the verse 12 tells us expressly 
 that there were men and women ; therefore it was 
 the Sacrament of Confirmation. 
 
 Q. Quote another scriptural testimony showing 
 that Confirmation is completely distinct from 
 Baptism. 
 
 A. St. Paul first baptized and then confirmed 
 certain disciples at Ephesus. Having heard these 
 things , they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on 
 them , the Holy Ghost came upon them . [Acts, ch. 
 19, v. 5, 6.] 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that this imposition 
 of hands was only to communicate the external 
 gifts of the Holy Ghost, such as the gift of tongues, 
 or the gift of prophecy ? 
 
 A. These external and visible gifts of the Holy 
 Ghost are quite distinct from his invisible and in- 
 ternal grace. Such miraculous gifts were neces- 
 sary at the beginning of the Church, as direct 
 proofs that God was the author of the new religion 
 which the Apostles were preaching. Now that the 
 world has abundant arguments of every kind for 
 that great fundamental truth, miracles are no 
 longer necessary, but the internal grace of the 
 Holy Ghost is always and shall always be necessary 
 to all Christians. 
 
248 
 
 Q. Was the Sacrament of Confirmation used in 
 the Chureh from the beginning ? 
 
 A. It was. St. Cyril says : “ When the body 
 
 is visibly anointed, the soul becomes sanctified by 
 the interior operation of the Holy Ghost .” [3 
 Catech.] St. Augustin : “ The Sacrament of 
 
 holy chrism does not yield in sanctity to Baptism 
 itself.” [Contra Peter, lib. 3, ch. 10.] Tertullian : 
 “The flesh is anointed that the soul may be conse- 
 crated ; the flesh is overshadowed with the imposi- 
 tion of hands, that the soul may be illuminated 
 with the Spirit of God.” [Lib. de Resurr. Carnis.] 
 Q. Why then do not Protestants receive Con- 
 firmation as a Sacrament ? 
 
 A. This proves once more how empty is their 
 boast of following Scripture to the very letter, and 
 of being in accordance with the pure church of 
 the early centuries. Here we have a Sacrament 
 clearly marked out in Scripture, undoubtedly in 
 use during the first centuries, which however they 
 do not receive, for no conceivable reason but that 
 the so-called Reformers have been pleased to ex- 
 punge it from their new-fashioned creeds. 
 
249 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Eucharist, 
 
 Q. What is the Blessed Eucharist ? 
 
 A. The body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus 
 Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine. 
 
 Q. What means the word Eucharist ? 
 
 A. The word Eucharist means thanksgiving , 
 and is applied to this Sacrament on account of the 
 thanksgiving which our Lord offered up when he 
 first instituted it, and on account also of the 
 thanksgiving with which we must receive this, 
 the greatest of God’s wonders, the fountain of all 
 graces, and the pledge of a blessed eternity. 
 
 Q. Is the Holy Eucharist a Sacrament P 
 
 A. It is the greatest Sacrament of the New 
 Law. This is admitted by all Protestants, even, 
 by such as see nothing in it but mere bread and 
 wine. 
 
 Q. How do you prove the blessed Eucharist to 
 be a Sacrament ? 
 
 A. It has most evidently the three requisites 
 of a Sacrament : lstly, the outward sign consisting 
 of the appearances of bread and wine, which re- 
 main after their substance is changed into the 
 body and blood of Christ ; 2ndly, the inward grace, 
 which is nothing else than Jesus Christ himself, 
 really present with his body and blood, under 
 these appearances ; 3rdly, it has been instituted by 
 Jesus Christ, as is evident from the Gospel. 
 
 Q. What is the faith of the Catholic Church con- 
 cerning this Sacrament? 
 
 A. That the bread and wine are changed, by the 
 words of consecration, into the real body and 
 
250 
 
 blood of Christ ; and consequently that Jesus 
 Christ himself, true God and true man, is truly, 
 really, and substantially present in the Sacra- 
 ment ; for Jesus Christ lives for ever, and as there 
 is no taking a living man to pieces, where his 
 body and blood are, there necessarily must be his 
 soul and divinity. 
 
 Q. Is then what we receive in the Sacrament 
 the same body which suffered for us upon the 
 cross ? 
 
 A. Most certainly, for Christ had never but one 
 body, the body which was born of the Virgin 
 Mary, which suffered on the cross, and rose again 
 on the third day. The only difference is that, when 
 Jesus Christ was in this world, his body was 
 mortal and passible ; whereas now, since the day 
 of his resurrection, it is immortal and impassible ; 
 and consequently, though the outward signs of 
 bread and wine are liable to changes, division, and 
 corruption, yet, the body of Christ cannot be 
 changed, nor divided, tLor corrupted. 
 
 Q. How can you prove the truth of such an 
 awful mystery ?- 
 
 A. By the testimony of God himself. The 
 Eucharist is indeed the most awful of all myste- 
 ries, but we know that God can do more than we 
 can understand. The Trinity, the Incarnation, 
 etc., are also incomprehensible mysteries ; we be- 
 lieve them however on the authority of God, who 
 has revealed them. The same witness stands for 
 the truth of the Eucharist. Nothing in the Scrip- 
 tures can be more clear and evident than that 
 the Eucharist is the real body and blood of the 
 Saviour. 
 
 Q. What says Luther on this matter ? 
 
 A. “In vain I wished to have denied the real 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist . . , the words 
 
251 
 
 of the Scripture are so plain and strong in favour 
 of the Mystery, that, spite of all my wishes, al- 
 though I strained every nerve to reject it, yet I 
 could never bring my mind to adopt the bold 
 expedient.” [Epist., Car., Arnic]. 
 
 Q. What are the scriptural proofs of the real 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist ? 
 
 A. This great Sacrament being the very centre 
 of Christianity, the wonder of wonders, the means 
 by which Jesus Christ, God and man, is all in all 
 to us, by which his life flows into us and becomes 
 ours, it was of the utmost importance that the real 
 presence of Christ in it should be placed beyond 
 even the possibility of a doubt. God therefore 
 has been pleased to multiply in many parts of 
 scripture the evidences of this fundamental truth. 
 
 For clearness’ sake, we shall give these scrip- 
 tural testimonies under four different heads : the 
 promise, the institution, the figures of the Old 
 Law, and the preaching of the Apostle St. Paul. 
 
 2. First Scriptural Proof of the Real 
 Presence— The Promise. 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ make any particular pro- 
 mise, as regards the Eucharist, before he instituted 
 it ? 
 
 A. A very clear one, as we see in St. John’s 
 Gospel, chapter 6. In the first part of this chapter, 
 St. John narrates the astonishing miracle which 
 Christ performed, in feeding five thousand persons 
 with only five loaves and two fishes; and such a 
 miracle was truly a suitable prelude to the intro- 
 duction of the miracle of miracles, the Holy Eu- 
 charist. Afterwards the Lord, taking occasion 
 therefrom to speak of the heavenly bread, says to 
 the Jews : Moses gave you not bread from heaven , 
 
252 
 
 hut my Father giveth you the true bread from 
 heaven. [St. John, ch. 6, v. 32.] And he subjoins : 
 I am the bread of life. [Ibid., v. 35.] 
 
 Q. What follows these astonishing words ? 
 
 A. A long and impressive instruction as to the 
 necessity of believing his words, which shows 
 clearly that he was about to reveal something 
 which they would with difficulty believe. 
 
 Q,. And then how does he proceed ? 
 
 A. He repeats again : I am the bread of life , 
 and he adds : Four fathers did eat manna in the 
 desert , and are dead. 
 
 This is the bread which cometh down from 
 heaven ; that if any man eat of it , he may not die. 
 
 1 am the living bread , which came down from 
 heaven. 
 
 If any man eat of this bread , he shall live for 
 ever ; arid the bread that I will give, is my flesh 
 for the life of the world. [Ibid., v. 48-52.] 
 
 Q. How did the Jews receive this announce- 
 ment ? 
 
 A. Just as the Protestants receive it. They 
 strove amongst themselves, saying : How can this 
 man give us his flesh to eat? [Ibid., v. 53.] 
 How ? . . . What a blasphemy, when speaking of 
 the Almighty ! How did he create the world out 
 of nothing ? How did he turn the rod of Moses 
 into a serpent, and the waters into blood, in Egypt ? 
 How did he change the waters into wine at Cana ? 
 How did he operate all his miracles ? 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ give some explanation to 
 take away the scandal ? 
 
 A. None at all. On the contrary, he repeated 
 the same words, more strongly than before. Amen, 
 amen , I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh 
 of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall 
 not have life in yon. [Ibid., v. 54.] And, as if 
 
253 
 
 thinking of those who would deny this wonder of 
 divine love, to give his words all possible strength 
 and clearness, he repeats again and again, without 
 any explanation whatever : He that eateth my 
 flesh, and drinketh my blood , hath everlasting 
 life . . . For my flesh is meat indeed , and my blood 
 is drink indeed: he that eateth my flesh , and 
 drinketh my bloody abideth in me , and I in 
 him . . . he that eateth me , the same also shall 
 live by me . . . He that eateth this bread shall live 
 for ever . [St. John, ch. 6, v. 55, 59.] 
 
 Q. Cannot Protestants say that in this circum- 
 stance, as in many others, Jesus Christ used figu- 
 rative language ? 
 
 A. No ; because when he spoke figuratively he 
 was in the habit of giving an explanation imme- 
 diately after. For instance, he corrected Nicode- 
 mus, who understood literally that a man must be 
 born again. [St. John, ch. 3, v. 3-7] He corrected 
 the Apostles, who understood literally what he 
 had said of the leaven of the Pharisees [St. Matt., 
 ch. 16, v. 6-12] ; what he had said of the meat 
 he had to eaty which they knew not [St. John, 
 ch. 4, v. 32-34] ; and what he had said of the 
 sleep of Lazarus. [St. John, ch. 11 v. 11-14.] 
 
 There are other examples ; but these are quite 
 sufficient to prove that the Saviour habitually ex- 
 plained his language when he feared being under- 
 stood literally. 
 
 Q. Did the Jews, the disciples, and the Apostles 
 themselves understand literally what Jesus Christ 
 said of eating his flesh and drinking his blood ? 
 
 A. They did ; for the Jews asked : How can this 
 man give us his flesh to eat ? [St. John, ch. 6, 
 v. 53.] Many of his own disciples murmured, and 
 said : This saying is hard , and who can hear it ? 
 [Ibid., v. 61.] And many , . , went backy and 
 
 22 
 
254 
 
 walked no more with him. [Ibid., v. 67.] Which 
 Jesus seeing, far from calling them back by one 
 word of explanation, he said to the twelve: Will you 
 also go away ? [Ibid., v. 68.] 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. That Jesus Christ wished to be understood 
 literally. He sees that the Jews, the disciples, 
 and the twelve apostles understand him literally, 
 that many on that account go away. He gives 
 no explanation, because he has none to give. He 
 appeals to his ascension, as an argument to induce 
 them to believe ; he exhorts them again and again 
 to have faith ; he clearly tells them that the eating 
 of dead flesh will profit them nothing, but that the 
 flesh which he will give is his glorified body, 
 animated by his soul and his divinity ; the same 
 body, soul, and divinity by which he was to re- 
 deem the world. Can any one suppose that Jesus 
 Christ would have spoken so if he only intended 
 to give his disciples mere bread and wine ? 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument P 
 
 A. Protestants, who suppose that Jesus Christ 
 spoke figuratively are driven to assert : 
 
 That the author of truth has purposely and 
 deliberately wrapped up in utter darkness one of 
 the most important articles of the religion he was 
 about to establish ; 
 
 That the author of wisdom has purposely and 
 deliberately used the most improper, the most 
 scandalous language, to preach his doctrine. Im- 
 proper, for bread has never been called human flesh, 
 nor wine human blood ; scandalous, for the eating 
 of human flesh and drinking of human blood are 
 mentioned in scripture as the most dreadful curse 
 which God could inflict on mankind [Levit., ch. 7, 
 v. 26, 27. Jerem., ch. 19, v. 9. Apoc., ch. 16, v. 6]; 
 
 That the Lord of mercy has purposely and deli- 
 
255 
 
 berately caused the eternal loss of the disciples who 
 left him on that day, when to keep them he had 
 only to explain the meaning of his words ; 
 
 That the Saviour of all men has, by using unbe- 
 coming language, purposely and deliberately laid 
 an inevitable snare to the countless millions who, 
 since the beginning of the Church have believed, 
 and to the end of the world shall believe, that eat- 
 ing his flesh means eating his flesh, and that drink- 
 ing his blood means drinking his blood. For if he 
 intended only to give bread and wine, it was im- 
 possible for him to find, in the human language, 
 words better calculated to deceive mankind, than 
 those he used ; 
 
 That the New Law falls far below the level of 
 the Old Law, since it is evident that mere bread 
 and wine are inferior, as a memorial, both to the 
 manna and the paschal lamb of the Old Law ; etc. 
 
 Now such suppositions are not only absurd, they 
 are impious, blasphemous, and tantamount to a 
 denial of the divinity of Christ. 
 
 Q. Sum up the controversy between Protestants 
 and Catholics on that solemn promise of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 A. The Protestants say with the Jews and the 
 faithless disciples : Hoio can this man give us his 
 
 flesh to eat ? This saying is hard , and who can 
 hear it ? [St. John, ch. 6, v. 53, 61.] But we Catho- 
 lics say with St. Peter: Lord! . . . thou hast 
 
 the words of eternal lifey and we believe thee now, 
 because we have believed and have known that thou 
 art the Christ the Son of God . [Ibid., v. 69, 70.] 
 
256 
 
 3. Second Scriptural Proof of the Real 
 Presence— The Institution. 
 
 Q. When did Christ fulfil the promise he had 
 made to give us his body and blood ? 
 
 # A. At the Last Supper, the day before his pas- 
 sion. The promise was : And the bread that I 
 
 icill give, is my flesh for the life of the world. 
 [St. John, ch. 6, v. 52.] Except you eat the flesh of 
 the Son of Man , and drink his blood, you shall not 
 have life in you. [Ibid., y. 54.] Hear now how it 
 was fulfilled : 
 
 J esus took bread , and blessed, and broke : and 
 gave to his disciples , and said: Take ye, and eat; 
 this is my body. And taking the chalice he gave 
 thanks: and gave to them , saying : Drink ye all of 
 this. For this is my blood of the new testament , 
 which shall be shed for many unto remission of 
 sins. [St. Matt., ch. 26, v. 26, 27, 28.] 
 
 Take ye, this is my body . . . this is my blood 
 of the new testament. [St. Mark, ch. 14, v. 22, 24.] 
 
 And taking bread , he gave thanks , and brake; 
 and gave to them saying : this is my body which is 
 given for you. Do this for a commemoration of 
 me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had 
 supped , saying: this is the chalice, the new 
 testament in my blood, zvhich shall be shed for 
 you. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 19, 20.] 
 
 Q. What do yon infer from these texts P 
 
 A. I infer firstly, as before : that if Jesus Christ 
 intended to give us his real body and blood, he 
 could not have used a language more proper, more 
 correct, more literal, more plain and obvious than 
 that which he used ; but if he intended merely to 
 give us bread and wine, it was impossible for him 
 to use a language more improper, more unwise 
 and inexplicable. 
 
 I infer secondly : that the Apostles did know 
 
257 
 
 and believe that Jesus Christ intended to give ns 
 his real body and blood, since they all relate the 
 institution in the very same words, without any 
 explanation whatever. 
 
 Q. But cannot those words be understood as a 
 parable ? 
 
 A. By no means ; as is evident when we con- 
 sider at what time, with what persons, and to what 
 end, Jesus Christ was speaking. 
 
 At what time ? On the most solemn of all occa- 
 sions, the very night before his death, when taking 
 his leave and farewell of his dearest friends. 
 
 "With what persons ? With his twelve Apostles 
 to whom he w T as always accustomed to explain in 
 clear terms whatever was obscure in his parables 
 to the people ; [St. Mark, ch. 4, v. 34.] To whom 
 he had said : To you it is given to know the mys- 
 tery of the kingdom of God. [St. Mark, ch. 4, v. 11] 
 And : I have called you friends , because all things 
 that whatsoever I have heard of my Father , I have 
 made known to you. [St. John, ch. 15, v. 15.] 
 
 To what end ? To make his covenant, the cove- 
 nant which is to last as long as time itself ; to in- 
 stitute a Sacrament, upon the belief and practice 
 of which depends the eternal salvation or damna- 
 tion of all men. 
 
 The awfulness of the time, therefore, the awful 
 nature of the doctrine, its awful importance to 
 those who were to teach, as well as to those who 
 were to be taught, all required, from a good and 
 wise God, the utmost possible perspicuity of 
 language. 
 
 Q. Point out the consequences of the Protes- 
 tant interpretation. 
 
 A. Those consequences we have just explained, 
 when speaking of the promise made by Christ ; 
 but they are so dreadful, they prove so manifestly 
 
258 
 
 the absurdity of tho Protestant system, that we 
 cannot repeat them too much. If the Protestant 
 interpretation be true, if the words flesh and blood 
 signify only bread and wine , then Jesus Christ, 
 the all-wise God and Saviour of mankind, on the 
 very day of the redemption of the world, did pur- 
 posely and intentionally deceive the nineteen 
 twentieths of those he came to redeem ; he deli- 
 berately exposed them to the appalling crime of 
 idolatry ; all this whilst one word of explanation 
 from him would have prevented such evils. 
 
 Q. Sum up the controversy between Protestants 
 and Catholics on the institution of the Eucharist. 
 
 A. Jesus Christ has said: This is my body. . . this 
 is my blood. Catholics say, consequently : This is 
 his body . . . this is his blood ; but Protestants give 
 him the lie, and say : This is not his body , ... 
 this is not his blood. 
 
 4, Third Scriptural Proof of the Peal 
 Presence— The figures of the 
 Old Law. 
 
 Q. How was the Old Covenant confirmed be- 
 tween God and his chosen people ? 
 
 A. Moses took the blood of the victims, and 
 sprinkled it upon the people, and said : this is the 
 blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made 
 with you. [Exod., ch. 24, v. 8.] 
 
 Q. How has the New Alliance been confirmed ? 
 
 A. Jesus, taking the chalice , gave thanks , and 
 gave to them , saying : Drink ye all of this. For 
 THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT which 
 shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 
 [St. Matt., ch. 26, v. 27, 28.] 
 
 Q. What do you infer from this ? 
 
259 
 
 A. The words of Jesus Christ, confirming the 
 New Covenant, have evidently a relation to those 
 of Moses confirming the old one. And conse- 
 quently, as Moses presented to the people in the 
 Old Law the real blood of the victims, so in the 
 New Law the real blood of the heavenly Victim, 
 of the Lamb of God, is truly presented to the 
 children of the New Covenant. 
 
 Q. Are not the New Testament and the New 
 Church much superior to the Old Testament and 
 the Old Church ? 
 
 A. Yes ; all admit this, Protestants as well as 
 Catholics ; Judaism was only a figure of Chris- 
 tianity, and St. Paul says : These things were done 
 (to them) in a figure of us . . . All these things 
 happened to them in figure. [1 Cor., ch. 10, v. fi- 
 ll.] And : The law , having a shadow of the good 
 things to come , not the very image of the things. 
 [Heb., ch. 10, v. 1.] 
 
 Q. But if the Holy Eucharist he only bread 
 and wine, as Protestants assert, would not the 
 figures of the Old Law have been much more 
 dignified than the Sacrament of the New ? 
 
 A. Certainly they would : for the paschal lamb 
 of the Jews, slain and offered up before the Lord, 
 was more strikingly illustrative of the sufferings 
 and death of our beloved Saviour, than the practice 
 of eating and drinking mere bread and wine. 
 
 Q. "Was not the manna of the desert a figure of 
 the Eucharist ? 
 
 A. It was, as Jesus Christ himself declares : 
 Moses gave you not bread from heaven , but my 
 Father giveth you the true bread from heaven . . . 
 For my flesh is meat indeed : and my blood is drink 
 indeed . . . This is the bread that came down from 
 heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna , and 
 are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for 
 ever. [St. John, ch. 6, v. 32, 56, 59.] 
 
260 
 
 Q. But if the Holy Eucharist be only bread and 
 wine, was not the manna much superior to it ? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly ; for the manna was mirac- 
 ulous bread : the Protestant Sacrament is ordinary 
 bread ; the manna came from on high : the Pro- 
 testant Sacrament comes from the baker’s oven ; 
 the manna was a heavenly food given only to the 
 people of God : the Protestant Sacrament is noth- 
 ing more than the ordinary food of all men, wicked 
 and virtuous, Jews and Gentiles, heathens and 
 Christians ; the manna had the taste of all kinds 
 of food: the Protestant Sacrament has no taste 
 but that of ordinary bread. And so, Protestants 
 give the lie directly to Jesus Christ, who has as- 
 serted that the bread he was to give to his disciples 
 is infinitely superior to the bread given by Moses. 
 
 Q. What follows from the Protestant doctrine ? 
 
 A. It follows that the Old Law is much su- 
 perior to the Hew ; that the figure is greater than 
 the reality ; that Moses is superior to Christ. All 
 our notions of religion are subverted, and we 
 find ourselves entangled in a horrid mass of ab- 
 surdities and contradictions. 
 
 Q. What follows from the Catholic doctrine ? 
 
 A. When we believe that in the Sacrament the 
 body and blood of Jesus Christ are offered, and 
 received ; when we believe that his body is meat 
 indeed, and that his blood is drink indeed ; then 
 we are extricated from all difficulties ; then we 
 clearly perceive that, as St. Paul says, the old law 
 had only a shadow of the good things to come 
 [Heb., ch. 10, v. 1.] And we understand at once 
 the noble and significant figures of the Old Law, 
 and the infinitely superior reality of the Hew. 
 
261 
 
 5. Fourth Scriptural Proof of the Real 
 Presence— The Preaching of St. Paul. 
 
 Q. Have you any other scriptural testimony of 
 the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? 
 
 A. On this all-important matter the arguments 
 from scripture seem inexhaustible. St. Paul asks 
 the Christians of Corinth: The chalice of benediction 
 which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood 
 of Christ? And the bread , which we break, is it not 
 the partaking of the body of the Lord ? [1 Cor., 
 
 ch. 10, v. 16.] 
 
 Q. What do you infer from this passage ? 
 
 A. St. Paul well knew and firmly believed that 
 the sacrament is the true body and true blood of 
 Christ; for, if what appears bread were only bread, 
 how could the partaking of it be the partaking of 
 the body of the Lord ? if what appears wine were 
 only wine, how could the communion of it be the 
 communion of the blood of Christ ? 
 
 Q. What follows in the next verse ? 
 
 A. For we, being many , are one bread , one body , 
 all that partake of one bread. [1 Cor., ch. 10, v. 17.] 
 Now, in the Catholic sense of the sacrament these 
 words are strictly true, for we all partake of one 
 and the same bread, the flesh of the Lord : The 
 bread which I will give is my flesh. But in the 
 Protestant sense, the same words have no meaning ; 
 for if the Sacrament be mere bread, each receiver 
 receives a different bread, and hence they cannot 
 be cemented into one body. Protestants there- 
 fore are not that sort of Christians whom St. Paul 
 addressed. 
 
 Q. How does St. Paul record the institution? 
 
 A. In the very language adopted by St. Mat- 
 thew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and he adds that what 
 he writes he had learned by revelation. For I 
 have received of the Lord that . . , the Lord Jesus , 
 
262 
 
 the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 
 And giving thanks , broke , and said : Take ye and 
 eat ; this is my body which shall be delivered for 
 you; this do for the commemoration of me. In like 
 manner also the chalice . . . saying : This chalice is 
 the new testament in my blood. [1 Cor., ch. 11, v. 
 23, 24, 25.] 
 
 Q. What remark do you make on this text ? 
 
 A. Firstly, if Christ had spoken figuratively at 
 the institution of the Sacrament, it would be 
 natural to expect that in this new revelation to 
 St. Paul, who was not present at the last supper, 
 he should speak more explicitly, which however he 
 did not; the same words are adhered to with a 
 wonderful exactness. 2ndly, St. Paul, who knew 
 the true meaning of these words, and was instruc- 
 ting the ignorant, did not write: “this is a figure 
 of my body, this signifies my body,” as he would 
 certainly have done if he had understood the 
 Sacrament to be mere bread and wine ; but he 
 wrote: “this is my body, this is my blood,” be- 
 cause he fully knew that the Sacrament is the 
 body and blood of the Lord. 
 
 Q. Does St. Paul give any explanation ? 
 
 A. Yes, he says: Therefore whosoever shall eat 
 this bread , or drink the chalice of the Lord un - 
 worthily, shall be quiltu of the body and of the blood 
 of the Lord. [Ibid., v. 27.] 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from it ? 
 
 A. That the faith of St. Paul was the faith of 
 Catholics. He believed in the real presence: for 
 how could he call the chalice the chalice of the 
 Lord, if it were only a cup containing common 
 wine ? What would the unworthiness consist in, 
 if only common bread and wine were present? 
 How could the unworthy receiver be guilty of the 
 body and blood of the Lord, if the body and blood 
 of the Lord were not in the Eucharist ? 
 
263 
 
 Q. What are the concluding words of St. Paul? 
 
 A. But let a man prove himself; and so let him 
 eat of that bread , and drink of that chalice. For he 
 that eateth and drinketli unworthily , eateth and 
 drinketh judgment to himself \ not discerning the body 
 of the Lord. [Ibid , v. 28, 29.] 
 
 But how could a man eat and drink judgment 
 to himself, that is : How could a man consign him- 
 self to eternal damnation for not discerning the 
 body of the Lord, if the body of the Lord is not 
 there? If the Eucharist is the true body and blood 
 of the Lord, then the words of St. Paul are intel- 
 ligible and full of meaning; if it be only bread and 
 wine, they are the most unintelligible nonsense 
 that was ever uttered. 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 all the scriptural texts we have quoted on the sub- 
 ject of the Eucharist ? 
 
 A. The man who believes Scripture to be the 
 word of God, must necessarily believe that the 
 Eucharist is the true body and blood of Jesus 
 Christ, for no truth can be more clearly explained 
 in Scripture; and the Protestant who denies it had 
 better tear his Bible into pieces, than venture to 
 give the lie to the Apostles, and to Jesus Christ 
 himself. 
 
 6. Another Proof of the Real Presence 
 —The Faith of the early Church, 
 
 Q. Have you any other testimony, besides Scrip- 
 ture, to prove the real presence of Jesus Christ in 
 the Eucharist ? 
 
 A. We have the tradition of the early Church, 
 Protestants, as we have remarked again and again ? 
 
264 
 
 generally concede that Jesus Christ succeeded in 
 keeping his Church free from error during two or 
 three centuries. Let us see then what was the 
 faith of the first centuries. 
 
 Q. Quote the words of St. Andrew, the Apostle, 
 brother of St. Peter. 
 
 A. iEgeas, the pro-consul of Achaia,said to the 
 Apostle: “ Unless you offer sacrifice to the gods, 
 I will order you to be nailed to the cross, which 
 you praise so much.” St. Andrew answered : 
 “ Every day I offer to the Almighty God a living 
 sacrifice ; not the smoking incense, nor the flesh of 
 bulls or goats ; but I sacrifice daily upon the altar 
 the immaculate Lamb, whose flesh after all the 
 believers in Christ have partaken of, and whose 
 blood after they have drunk, the same Lamb, who 
 has been offered up a sacrifice, remains living and 
 entire.” [Brev., Rom.] 
 
 Q. What says the martyr St. Ignatius, who 
 suffered 70 years after the resurrection of Christ ? 
 
 A. Speaking of some heretics of his time: “They 
 abstain from the Eucharist,” says he, “because they 
 do not confess the Eucharist to be the true flesh 
 of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the same flesh that 
 has suffered for our sins, the same flesh that God 
 the Father has raised from the dead. But those 
 who deny the gift of God, perish by their rebel- 
 lion.” [Epistle to the Smyrn, n. 7.] 
 
 Q. Are there any other testimonies ? 
 
 A. In the second century, St. Justin, philosopher 
 and martyr, after having explained the rites of the 
 Christian sacrifice, adds: “This food we call Eu- 
 charist, and nobody can take it but those who be- 
 lieve in our doctrine, who have been baptized for 
 the remission of sins, and obey the precepts of 
 J esus Christ. For we do not take it to be common 
 bread, or common drink, but as by the word of 
 
265 
 
 God, Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh 
 and blood for our salvation, so we know that, by 
 the same word of God, the Eucharist is made the 
 flesh and blood of the Saviour Jesus.” [Apology 
 to the Emperor Antoninus ] 
 
 In the same century Tertullian says, in his own 
 pithy way: “Our flesh feeds on the flesh and blood 
 of Christ, that our soul may be fattened with God 
 himself, ut et anima de Deo saginetur .” [De Resurr. 
 Carnis, c. 8.] 
 
 In the beginning of the third century St. 
 Cyprian, speaking of those who after having denied 
 Jesus Christ during the persecution, received the 
 Eucharist before having done penance for their 
 apostasy, says : “ They outrageously ravish the 
 
 body and blood of Christ ; with their mouth they 
 sin against the Lord more than when they denied 
 him.” [Lib. de Lapsis, p. 186.] 
 
 It is useless to record the words of the Fathers 
 of the fourth and fifth centuries ; Protestants con- 
 fess that they are unanimous in asserting the real 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 
 
 Q. What do you infer from it ? 
 
 A. That the whole Church, from the time of tho 
 Apostles, has always believed the Eucharist to be 
 the true body and blood of Jesus Christ. We 
 solemnly challenge the Protestants to quote one, 
 only one, of the early Fathers, asserting that the 
 Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine, or 
 a bare memorial of the Lord’s last supper. 
 
 7. Another proof of the Real Presence- 
 Schismatic and Protestant testimonies. 
 
 Q. Do the schismatic Greeks, who have been 
 separated from the Catholic Church nearly a 
 thousand years, hold the same faith as Catholics 
 on the subject of the Eucharist ? 
 
 23 
 
266 
 
 A. They do. In their solemn attestation, signed 
 by seven of their archbishops, they declare : 
 
 1 stly . That the living body of Jesus Christ, who 
 was crucified, who ascended into heaven, and who 
 sits at the right hand of the Father, is truly pre- 
 sent in the Eucharist, but in an invisible manner ; 
 
 2ndly. That the bread and wine after the conse- 
 cration are substantially changed into the true 
 body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that the acci- 
 dents which remain are not bread and wine in 
 reality, though they appear to be bread and wine ; 
 
 3rdly. That the Eucharist is a sacrifice for the 
 living and the dead, established by Jesus Christ, 
 and which we have from the Apostles by tradition; 
 
 4thly. That the body of Jesus Christ is eaten 
 whole and entire, in an impassible state, by those 
 who receive it, whether they be worthy or un- 
 worthy : such as are worthy receive it to their 
 salvation, the unworthy to their condemnation. 
 [Perpetuity de la Foi, tom. 2, p. 412.] 
 
 Those Protestants who had always asserted that 
 the belief in the real presence was a Pomish cor- 
 ruption, were so startled by this document that the 
 celebrated minister Claude wrote to verify the fact. 
 The schismatic Greek bishops answered in May 
 1672, in the clearest and strongest language, con- 
 firming every word of the above declaration. That 
 their faith continues the same to-day is a fact well 
 known to all travellers. 
 
 Q. Are there not many, even amongst Protest- 
 ants, who believe in the real presence ? 
 
 A. Yes, the Lutherans, a portion of the Church 
 of England, and many individuals belonging to 
 other sects. 
 
 Q. What did Luther teach on the subject of the 
 Eucharist ? 
 
 A. We have seen above that it seemed impossi- 
 
267 
 
 ble to him to deny the real presence, without at 
 the same time denying Scripture to be the word of 
 God. In another place he says : “ The denial of 
 
 the real presence is a piece of downright blasphemy, 
 an impeachment of the divine veracity.” And he 
 calls the deniers i( a set of deviled, be-deviled, per- 
 deviled, and super-deviled wretches.” 
 
 Q. What is the real doctrine of the Church of 
 England on this Sacrament ? 
 
 A. In the Book of Common Prayer we find the 
 following question : “ What is the inward part, or 
 thing signified (in the Lord’s Supper) ? ” The 
 answer is : “ The body and blood of Christ, which 
 are verily and indeed taken and received by the 
 faithful, in the Lord’s Supper.” 
 
 To give every one his due, we must confess that 
 numerous divines of the Established Church, 
 much vexed at having such Romish words in their 
 official Prayer Book, have been toiling, through 
 long and wearisome volumes, to prove that verily 
 and indeed clearly and evidently mean : not at all , 
 not in the least. But, be the success of their 
 grammatical quibbles what it may, the obnoxious 
 confession of faith keeps its place in the Prayer 
 Book, and shall probably keep it as long as there 
 remains an Established Church of England. 
 
 Q. Are there other Protestant testimonies ? 
 
 A. Leibnitz, the greatest of Protestant divines, 
 says ; “ But pious antiquity plainly enough declared 
 that the bread was changed into the body of Christ 
 the wine into his blood, . . . and this change, the 
 Latins have rightly called transubstantiation.” 
 [Syst. Theol., p. 226.] Dr. Parker, a Protestant 
 Bishop of Oxford, confesses that : “ It is evident 
 to all men, who are but ordinarily conversant in 
 ecclesiastical learning, that the ancient Fathers, 
 from age to age, asserted the real and substantial 
 
268 
 
 presence in very high and expressive terms.” 
 [Reasons for Abrogating the Test, p. 13.] 
 
 There is no end of such avowals, but these are 
 quite sufficient. Do Protestants think that this 
 doctrine of the real presence, so mysterious, so 
 overpowering to human reason, would have 
 vouchers amongst schismatics and heretics, if it 
 were not strongly and clearly laid down in Scrip- 
 ture, or if it were possible to understand in another 
 way the texts we have quoted ? 
 
 8. Answers to Protestant Objections 
 against the Real Presence. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that Jesus Christ is 
 not in the Eucharist, because it is impossible ? 
 
 A. Have they forgotton that all things are 
 possible to God [St. Mark, ch. 10, v. 27]? To 
 say that some thing is impossible to Jesus Christ, 
 and to say that he is not the true living God, are 
 one and the same thing. 
 
 Q. Do not some Protestants say that it is un- 
 necessary to suppose Jesus Christ to be in the 
 Eucharist, since he could bequeath us the same 
 graces in another way ? 
 
 A. He could indeed, if he had so chosen, as he 
 could also have brought about the salvation of 
 mankind, without being made man and dying on 
 the cross. But he has chosen these wondrous 
 ways as most suitable to his love, and most 
 proper to excite us to love him. Who then shall 
 presume to call him to account, and to ask him 
 why he has been pleased to do so much, and in 
 such a way ? 
 
 Q. Do not some Protestant doctors assert that 
 Jesus Christ was compelled to say : “ This is my 
 body,” because there were no words in the Syria® 
 
269 
 
 language signifying : to typif y or to represent ? 
 
 A. Unfortunately for those doctors it has been 
 clearly proved that there are in the Syriac tongue 
 more than forty different words signifying to repre- 
 tent , etc. Moreover, the Apostles who wrote in 
 Greek had plenty of words meaning to signify; 
 why then did they so obstinately use the word is , 
 instead of others ? 
 
 Q. But is it not something disgusting, and com- 
 trary to human nature, to eat human flesh, and 
 drink human blood P 
 
 A. Of course, if this flesh and blood were under 
 their natural form ; but in the Eucharist they are, 
 by a miracle of the divine love, under the form 
 and appearance of the most wholesome food and 
 drink, viz: bread and wine. 
 
 Q. Did not Jesus Christ say: Do this for a com- 
 memoration of me [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 19,] 
 which implies that he is not in the Sacrament, 
 since we do not remember things present, but 
 things absent ? 
 
 A. This is a mere quibble. It is said also: Re- 
 member thy Creator in the days of thy youth. [Ec- 
 cles., ch. 12, v. 1.] Is there any one fool enough 
 to think that in the days of our youth our Creator 
 is absent from us? We see in Scripture that a 
 thing can be a memorial of itself ; such was the 
 manna preserved in the Ark, and such also Aaron’s 
 rod with which Moses wrought so many miracles. 
 
 Q. Must not these words : This is my body , be 
 understood figuratively, as these others: 1 am the 
 door [St. John, ch. 10, v. 9,] or these words of 
 St. Paul : And the rock was Christ [1 Cor., ch. 
 10, v. 4 ? 
 
 A. No; for when Jesus Christ said : I am the 
 door , scripture itself declares that he was speak- 
 ing figuratively: This proverb Jesus spoke to them , 
 
270 
 
 but they understood not. [St. John, ch. 10, v. 6.] 
 When St. Paul proposes the cloud and the passage 
 of the Red Sea as a figure of baptism, the manna 
 as a figure of the body, and the water of the rock 
 of Horeb as a figure of the blood of Christ, he 
 says: And all drank the same spiritual drink; 
 ( and they drank of the spiritual rock that folloiced 
 them , and the rock (spiritual) was Christ.) [1 Cor., 
 ch. 10, v. 4.] This word spiritual , twice repeated, 
 explains the whole, and proves that Jesus Christ was 
 the rock only figuratively. 
 
 But along with these words: This is my body , 
 there is no explanation whatever, no hint that Christ 
 spoke figuratively ; and we have fully proved above 
 that it is impossible even to suppose it. 
 
 Q. Does not scripture represent the body of 
 Jesus Christ as in heaven, which he is not to quit 
 until the end of the world ? 
 
 A. True ; but scripture assures us that his body 
 is in the Eucharist also, therefore we believe both. 
 Have Protestants forgotten that the Lord Jesus, 
 after his ascension , appeared visibly to St. Paul ? 
 
 Q. How can the body of Christ be both in 
 heaven and in so many places on earth ? 
 
 A. By the almighty power of God, with whom 
 all things are possible. How ? . . . What a blas- 
 phemy when speaking of God ! And how are the 
 three persons but one God ? How is Jesus Christ 
 at once true God and true man, in the unity of 
 one person? How is our soul at once full and 
 entire in every part of our body ? How did Christ 
 feed five thousand men, with five loaves and two 
 fishes, and they all did eat , and had tlyir fill. And 
 they took up the leavings , twelve full baskets of frag- 
 ments ? [St. Mark, ch. 6, v. 42, 43. St. John, 
 ch. 6, v. 13.] Remember that it was precisely on 
 the occasion of this miracle that Jesus Christ first 
 spoke of the Holy Eucharist. 
 
Do not Protestants profess the first article of our 
 creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty” ? 
 And is it not worse than madness for weak mortals 
 to pretend to fathom the unfathomable depth of the 
 power of God ? 
 
 Q. How can the whole body and blood of Christ 
 be contained in a small host, nay, in the smallest 
 particle of it ? 
 
 A. By the same almighty power of God, by 
 which the whole universe was created from nothing: 
 for with God all things are possible. [St. Matt., 
 ch. 19, v. 26.] 
 
 Q. Did not Jesus Christ say: The poor you 
 
 have always with you , . . , but me you have not 
 always [St. Mark, ch. 14, v. 7] ? 
 
 A. Yes, but he was speaking of his mortal and 
 visible presence; for he says elsewhere: Behold , 
 
 I am with you all days , even to the consummation of 
 the world. [St. Matt., ch. 28, v. 20.] 
 
 Q. What is the common answer to all possible 
 objections against the real presence ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ, being the true Almighty God, 
 can do whatever he pleases; he can do infinitely 
 more than we can comprehend. That he has been 
 pleased to make the Eucharist his true body and 
 blood, is beyond all doubt. Therefore, though we 
 do not understand, we must believe. When the 
 Almighty God stands a witness and says: It is so, 
 who will say: It is not so ? 
 
272 
 
 9. The manner in which Jesus Christ 
 is in the Eucharist, or Tran- 
 substantiation. 
 
 Q. What is transubstantiation ? 
 
 A. We have stated above that the Lutherans 
 admit the real presence of Jesus Christ in the 
 Eucharist. But the}' maintain that he is in the 
 bread and wine, or with the bread and wine ; 
 whereas the Catholic Church believes that the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine is changed into the sub- 
 *tance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, so 
 that nothing remains of the bread and wine but 
 the outward appearances. This change of sub- 
 stance is called transubstantiation. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this transubstantiation? 
 
 A. I prove it from the texts of scripture above 
 quoted. Jesus Christ did not say “in this,” or 
 “with this, is my body and blood,” but he did say: 
 1'his is my body , this is my blood. From which 
 words it clearly follows that what he held in his 
 hands was no more bread or wine, but his body 
 and blood. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul call the Sacrament bread 
 [1 Cor., ch. 11, v. 27, 28] ? 
 
 A. Yes, because it retains the appearance of 
 bread ; but he says that he who partakes of that 
 bread, partakes of the body of the Lord, that he 
 who eats it unworthily is guilty of the body of the 
 Lord. Jesus Christ too called it bread, when he 
 •aid: The bread that I will give , is my flesh 
 for the life of the world. [St. John, ch. 6, v. 52.] 
 He did not say: in the bread, or with the bread. 
 
 Q. But why is the Eucharist called bread, since 
 there is no more bread in it ? 
 
 A. We have many scriptural texts in which the 
 thing changed bears the name of that from which 
 it w r as changed. Thus, Eve is called the bone of 
 
273 
 
 Adam. [Gen., ch. 2, y. 23.] Adam is called dust . 
 [Gen., ch. 3, v. 19.] Aaron’s rod is called a rod , 
 even after it became a serpent. [Exod., ch. 7, v. 12.] 
 The water changed into vine by Jesus Christ is 
 yet called water. [St. John, ch. 2, v. 9.] More- 
 over, the scripture often calls things what they 
 appear to be: thus Angels in human form are called 
 men. [Gen., ch. 18.] 
 
 Q. Did not Jesus Christ call the Sacrament the 
 fruit of the vine ? [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 18 ; St. 
 Matt., ch. 26, v. 29.] 
 
 A. This name was given by the Saviour not to 
 the Sacrament, but to the common wine he drank 
 with the Apostles, while eating the paschal lamb, 
 before instituting the Sacrament, as is evident from 
 St. Luke’s account : For I say to you , that I toil l 
 not drink of the fruit of the vine , till the kingdom of 
 God come. And taking bread, he gave thanks, 
 etc. . . In like manner the chalice also , after he had 
 supped , saying : This is the chalice , the next 
 
 testament in my blood , which shall be shed for you. 
 [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 18, 19, 20.] And even if 
 our Saviour had so called the blessed Sacrament, it 
 would prove no more against transubstantiation 
 than St. Paul’s calling the other kind bread, from 
 its having retained the same outward appearances. 
 
 Q. How long does Jesus Christ remain in the 
 Eucharist ? 
 
 A. As long as the outward appearances of bread 
 and wine remain in their natural state and form ; 
 when they are changed, then Jesus Christ is no 
 more present. Thus, after communion, Jesus Christ 
 remains in the host as long as it preserves the ap- 
 pearances and external nature of bread, and ceases 
 to be present as soon as the natural appearances of 
 bread are changed in the stomach : which happens 
 after a few minutes. 
 
Q. What do you infer from this ? 
 
 A. That the body and blood of Jesus Christ, be- 
 ing now immortal, impassible and incorruptible, 
 cannot be hurt, nor divided, nor corrupted, nor 
 made in any way liable to the abuses that may be- 
 fall the external appearances of bread and wine. 
 
 Q. But is not the body of Jesus Christ divided 
 when the host is divided into pieces ? 
 
 A. Not at all ; Jesus Christ is in every particle, 
 whole and entire, just as he was in the entire host. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? 
 
 A . Jesus Christ broke the bread and gave to the 
 twelve Apostles ; every one of the twelve took also 
 a part of the chalice; however every one of 
 them received not a twelfth part of the body, nor 
 a twelfth part of the blood of the Saviour, but the 
 Saviour whole and entire. 
 
 Q. Are not the senses deceived in this Sacra- 
 ment ? 
 
 A. Not at all ; our senses can judge only of the 
 external qualities, but the substance is beyond their 
 reach. Now, in the Sacrament, the senses perceive 
 the external appearances of bread and wine, which 
 external appearances are truly there, though the 
 substance is no more. 
 
 10- The Bread and Wine made use of in 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 Q. What kind of bread does the Church make 
 use of in the Sacrament of Eucharist ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church generally makes use of 
 wafers of unleavened bread: that is of bread 
 made of fine wheaten flour, with no other mixture 
 but pure water. However, leavened bread, such as 
 is used by Churches of the Greek rite, is a valid 
 
matter for the Sacrament of Eucharist, provided it 
 be of wheaten flour, because the difference between 
 leavened and unleavened bread is an accidental one ; 
 in both cases the nature of bread remaining essen- 
 tially the same. 
 
 Q. Why does not the Church make use of com- 
 mon bread for this Sacrament ? 
 
 A. To follow the example of Jesus Christ, who, 
 at the last supper* when he instituted the blessed 
 Sacrament, made use of unleavened bread. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? 
 
 A. The day on which Christ instituted the Euch- 
 arist was, according to the Grospel, the first day of 
 the unleavened bread. [St. Matt., ch. 26, v. 17. 
 St. Mark, ch. 14, v. 12. St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 7.] 
 Now, on that day and during the whole following 
 week, there was no other bread to be found in 
 Israel, and it was even death to use any other : 
 Whosoever shall eat any thing leavened, from the 
 first day until the seventh day , that soul shall perish 
 out of Israel. [Exod., ch. 12, v. 15.] Seven days 
 there shall not he found any leaven in your houses. 
 [Ibid., v. 19.] So that it is plain that our Saviour 
 made use of unleavened bread in the institution of 
 the Sacrament. 
 
 Q. Is there any other reason why we should pre- 
 fer unleavened bread ? 
 
 A. There is. Unleavened bread is, according to 
 Scripture, an emblem of sincerity and truth : Let 
 
 us feast , not with the old leaven. . . of malice and 
 wickedness, hut with the unleavened bread of sin- 
 cerity and truth. [1 Cor., ch. 5, v. 8.] 
 
 Q. What kind of wine does the Church make 
 use of for the Sacrament of Eucharist ? 
 
 A. Wine of the grape, with which, by apostolical 
 tradition, we mingle a little water. 
 
 Q. Has the practice of mingling water with the 
 
276 
 
 wine been always observed from the days of the 
 Apostles ? 
 
 A. It certainly has, and that through the whole 
 Church, as is evident from the testimony of SS. 
 Justin, Irena3us, Cyprian, and other early Fathers. 
 [See Bellarm., lib. 4, De Euchar., c. 10.] 
 
 Q. Did Christ, when he gave the cup to his 
 Apostles, mingle some water with the wine? 
 
 A. It is probable he did, ‘though the Scripture 
 does not mention it. For, how are we to explain 
 the ancient and universal practice of the Church, 
 unless by the example of Christ himself ? 
 
 Q. Is there nothing in Scripture relating to this 
 mingling of water with the wine ? 
 
 A. In tbe Proverbs of Solomon we read these 
 prophetical words : Come , eat my bread, and drink 
 
 the wine which I have mingled for you. [Prov., ch. 
 9, v. 5.] This is a prophecy of Christ’s mingling 
 water with the wine in the institution of the Sacra- 
 ment ; and it has been so understood and explained 
 by all the Fathers of the early Church. [St. Cyp., 
 Ep., 63. St. Justin, Apol., 2.] 
 
 Q. Is there not some secret meaning in the 
 mingling of water with the wine in the chalice ? 
 
 A. According to the best divines, this mingling 
 represents the union of the human and divine natures 
 in the person of the Son of God ; the union of the 
 faithful with Christ their head; and finally, the 
 water and blood that flowed from the opened side 
 of Christ, when on the cross. 
 
 Q. Why did the Saviour appoint bread and wine 
 for the matter of this Sacrament ? 
 
 A. The Fathers and Doctors commonly teach 
 that he did so : Firstly, because bread and wine 
 
 being most nourishing to the body, are the most 
 proper to represent the grace of this Sacrament, 
 which is the food and nourishment of the soul ; 
 
Secondly, because bread and wine being both com- 
 posed of many individual parts, grains and grapes, 
 and made by a perfect union of them all, are a very 
 clear symbol of that unity which the Lord recom- 
 mends to the faithful by this Sacrament, according 
 to these words of St. Paul : For we, being many , are 
 one bread , one body, all that partake of one bread. 
 [1 Cor., ch. 10, v. 17]. 
 
 11. The Worship of Christ in the Blessed 
 Sacrament. 
 
 Q. Is Jesus Christ permanently present in the 
 Sacrament, that is, at any other than the time it is 
 received ? 
 
 A, He is really and permanently present from 
 and after the time the words of the consecration are 
 pronounced, as long as the species remain ; and not, 
 as the Lutherans would have it, only at the time of 
 communion. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this ? 
 
 A. At the moment Jesus Christ pronounced 
 these words : This is my body , either his body was 
 there, or his words were not true ; the latter is 
 blasphemy ; therefore his body was present ; but 
 the Apostles had not yet received it, which proves 
 that it is present at other moments besides the 
 one in which it is received. 
 
 Q. Explain it a little more. 
 
 A. Jesus Christ did not say : “ This shall be 
 my body when you receive it,” but absolutely : 
 “ This is my body.” If the Lutheran doctrine were 
 true, then the body of Christ would be present in 
 the Eucharist, not by virtue of the words of con- 
 secration, but by virtue of the manducation ; which 
 is a gross absurdity. 
 
 24 
 
m 
 
 278 
 
 Q. What was the faith of the early Church on 
 this matter ? 
 
 A. The primitive Church preserved the Eucha- 
 rist for the sick, in holy vessels. In times of 
 persecution it was kept so for a considerable time ; 
 and the Bishops were wont to send it one to 
 another, as a mark of their strict union. Such 
 practices prove evidently that the Christians of the 
 first centuries believed Jesus Christ to be perma- 
 nently present in the Eucharist after the con- 
 secration. St. Cyril expressly says : “ None but a 
 fool can imagine that the consecrated host loses its 
 virtue immediately after consecration.” [Epist. 
 ad Coelosyr.] 
 
 Q. You have proved that Jesus Christ is per- 
 manently present in the Eucharist ; what follows 
 from this ? 
 
 A. That we must adore the blessed Eucharist, 
 because it contains truly and really the divine 
 person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who 
 being true God, must certainly be adored where- 
 soever he is. 
 
 Q. Is there no danger of idolatry in this prac- 
 tice ? 
 
 A. Certainly not ; because this divine honour 
 is paid not to the outward sacramental appearances, 
 but to Jesus Christ, the true and living God, 
 whom all the angels adore, who lies hidden under 
 the external species. 
 
 Q. Why does the Catholic Church keep the 
 Blessed Sacrament in her Churches ? 
 
 A. Partly that she may have it there to cany 
 to the sick at all hours, whenever they shall be in 
 need of it ; and partly for the comfort of her 
 children, who by this means have Jesus Christ 
 always amongst them, and may come when they 
 please to visit him. It is on that account that we 
 
270 
 
 kneel, as often as we pass before the tabernacle, 
 and that a lamp hangs before it, burning there 
 day and night. 
 
 Q. Are Catholics justified in kneeling before the 
 Blessed Sacrament ? 
 
 A. Yes, more than justified ; for if, according to 
 Scripture, in the name of Jesus, every knee should 
 bote [Philipp., ch. 2, v. 10], how much more are 
 we bound to do so before his sacred person ? 
 
 Q. Do not some persons say that Jesus Christ is 
 in the Sacrament, not seeking our adoration, but 
 only to be the spiritual food of our souls ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ was in the crib of Bethlehem, 
 not merely to be adored ; yet the wise men of the 
 East neglected not to adore him. He cured the 
 man born blind, not merely to receive that man’s 
 adoration ; yet that man neglected not to adore 
 him. In short, wherever Jesus Christ is, there 
 he is the true living God, and consequently there 
 he is to be received and adored with divine honour. 
 And, as says St. Augustin, “it is sinful to neg- 
 lect to adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.” 
 [On Psalm 98]. 
 
 Q. Why is the Blessed Sacrament, on certain 
 days, exposed to the view of the people, in a re- 
 monstrance set upon the altar ? 
 
 A. It is to invite the people to come there to 
 adore Jesus Christ ; to excite in them a greater 
 devotion, by the sight of their Lord veiled in these 
 sacred mysteries ; and to make them receive, at 
 the same time, the blessing of our Lord present 
 in the Sacrament. 
 
280 
 
 12. Communion under one kind. 
 
 Q. Is it necessary to receive the Sacrament of 
 Eucharist under both kinds ? 
 
 A. No, for two reasons : Firstly, because what is 
 received under both kinds is received under one 
 kind ; Secondly, because Christ has promised the 
 same reward to the reception of one, as to the 
 reception of both. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that as much is received 
 under one kind as under both ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist as he is in 
 heaven, living and immortal ; and as a living 
 body is not without blood, or living blood without 
 a body, Jesus Christ is whole and entire under 
 the form of bread, and whole and entire under the 
 form of wine. 
 
 Q. Can the same thing appear under two differ- 
 ent forms ? 
 
 A. The Holy Ghost appeared under the form of 
 a dove [St. Luke, ch. 3, v. 22,] and under the 
 form of parted tongues [Acts, ch. 2, v. 3.] 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul P 
 
 A. Whosoever shall eat this bread , or drink the 
 chalice of the Lord unworthily , shall be guilty of 
 the body and of the blood of the Lord. [1 Cor., 
 ch. 11, v. 27.] This shows clearly that the un- 
 worthy reception of either kind is enough to damn, 
 and consequently the worthy reception of either 
 kind is enough to save ; because both the body 
 and blood of the Lord are profaned or advantage- 
 ously received under either kind, as is evident 
 from the conjunctive particle and , used in the 
 latter part of the verse, whilst the disjunctive or 
 is used in the former. 
 
 Q. Is not this text falsified in Protestant bibles ? 
 
 A. In this place, as in many others, Protestants 
 
281 
 
 have purposely perverted the true meaning of 
 scripture. To infer from the words of St. Paul 
 the necessity of receiving the Sacrament under 
 both kinds, they have translated : “ Whosoever 
 shall eat this bread, and drink this cup,” instead 
 of : “ eat this bread, or drink this cup.” This is 
 contrary both to the Greek and Latin texts ; in the 
 Greek we have e, in the Latin vel, which words have 
 always signified or, and could never in any case 
 signify and. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Jesus Christ has 
 promised the same reward to the reception of one, 
 as to the reception of both kinds ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ says : This is the bread which 
 cometh down from heaven , that if any man eat of 
 it, he may not die. [St. John, ch. 6, v. 50.] If 
 any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. 
 [Ibid., v. 52.] As I live by the Father, so he that 
 eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [Ibid., 
 v. 58.] Not as your fathers did eat manna and 
 are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for 
 ever. [Ibid., v. 59.] 
 
 Q. Does not the priest, who receives under both 
 kinds, receive more than the laity ? 
 
 A. No, he receives the same; for as a man 
 receiving two hosts would not receive more than he 
 who receives only one ; as a man receiving only a 
 part of the host would not receive less than he who 
 receives the entire host, so the reception of one 
 species is equal to the reception of both, Jesus 
 Christ being whole and entire under each kind, 
 and under each particle of it. 
 
 Q. Why then do priests alone partake of the 
 chalice P 
 
 A. The blessed Eucharist is a sacrifice as well 
 as a Sacrament; and of this sacrifice the bishops 
 and priests are the ministers, because they are the 
 
282 
 
 successors of tlie twelve Apostles, whom Jesus 
 Christ commanded to offer it in commemoration of 
 his death. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 19.] Now, this sacri- 
 fice in commemoration of Christ’s death requires 
 the separate consecration of both kinds, to represent 
 more appropriately the separation of Christ’s blood 
 from his body on the cross. Therefore the priests, 
 when performing Mass, partake of the chalice. But 
 the Sacrament requires only the real presence of 
 Jesus Christ, which is the same under either kind. 
 And for that reason, priests, bishops, and even the 
 Pope himself, when they do not perform Mass, 
 receive it as the laymen, under one kind only. 
 
 Q. But did not Jesus Christ say : Except you eat 
 the flesh of the Son of Man , and drink his blood, you 
 shall not have life in you [St. John, ch. 6, v. 54] ? 
 
 A. True ; but we receive his body and blood 
 under either kind. The Eucharist is not a blood- 
 less corpse: where the body of Jesus Christ is, there 
 also are his blood, soul, and divinity. 
 
 Q. Did not Jesus Christ expressly say: Drink 
 ye all of this [St. Matt., ch. 26, v. 27] ? 
 
 A. He did : but he was speaking to the twelve 
 Apostles only, since nobody else was present. 
 
 Q. But did he not say : Do this in remembrance 
 of me , thereby ordering them to give Eucharist to 
 all the faithful under both kinds, just has he had 
 given to them ? 
 
 A. No; these words: Do this in remembrance of 
 me , were uttered precisely after Jesus Christ had 
 given the Eucharist under the appearance of bread 
 to the Apostles, not after he had delivered the 
 chalice to them. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 19,] which 
 proves that, though Christ commanded his Apostles 
 and their successors to administer the Sacrament 
 under the appearance of bread to the laity, he gave 
 no such command as regards the chalice. 
 
283 
 
 Q. What is the best proof that the partaking of 
 the chalice is not commanded to all by Jesus 
 Christ ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ himself administered the Sacra- 
 ment under one kind only to the disciples at Em- 
 maus. And it came to pass , ivhilst he was at table 
 with them , he took bread , and blessed and brake , and 
 gave to them; and their eyes were opened , and they 
 knew him. And he vanished out of their sight. [St. 
 Luke, ch. 24, v. 30, 31.] Here the breaking of 
 bread, their knowing him, and his vanishing aw r ay 
 are so joined that no time is left for the benedictiop 
 and consecration of the chalice, which is not even 
 mentioned. 
 
 Q. Did not the early Church administer the 
 Sacrament under both kinds to all Christians ? 
 
 A. Such indeed was the common discipline 
 during the first centuries ; but history proves that, 
 even at that time, the Sacrament was on many 
 occasions administered under one kind only. St. 
 Basil says that the solitaries who lived far from 
 towns, were in the habit of carrying with them for 
 the whole year the Holy Eucharist, under the form 
 of bread. St. Cyprian says that it was the custom 
 to give the Eucharist to children, under the ap- 
 pearance of wine only, because they are unable to 
 receive it under the form of bread. 
 
 Q. Did not Pope Gelasius command that all 
 should partake of the chalice ? 
 
 A. This was only for a time, and for the purpose 
 of detecting the Manichean heretics, who consider- 
 ed wine as the creature of the devil. These here- 
 tics mingled with the Catholics, and concealing 
 their heretical principles, approached to commu- 
 nion with them. Hence the Pope ordered the 
 chalice also to be administered, to deter these 
 sectaries from profaning the Sacrament. But had 
 
284 
 
 not the Sacrament been commonly administered 
 under the form of bread only, such a command 
 from the Pope would have been uncalled for. 
 
 Q. Why does the Catholic Church now adminis- 
 ter the Sacrament under one kind only ? 
 
 A. Because many accidents, exposing the most 
 holy Sacrament to irreverence, such as spilling the 
 cup, would take place if it were given to all. 
 
 Q. What says Luther himself on this matter ? 
 
 A. He confesses that it is unnecessary to give 
 both kinds, as one alone suffices. [See Hospin. 
 Hist, of the Sacr., t. 12.] And the Confession 
 of Augsburg excuses the Catholic Church from any 
 blame in this matter. 
 
 13. The Mass a True Sacrifice. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by the Mass ? 
 
 A. The Mass is the Sacrifice of the Catholic 
 Church, and consists in the consecration of the 
 bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ ; 
 and the offering up of this same body and blood to 
 God, by the ministry of the priests, for a perpetual 
 memorial of Christ’s Sacrifice upon the cross, and 
 a continuation of the same till the end of the world. 
 
 Q. What is a Sacrifice ? 
 
 A. A Sacrifice is an oblation or offering of some 
 sensible thing, made to God by a lawful minister, 
 to acknowledge, by the change or destruction of the 
 thing offered, the sovereign power of God, and to 
 render him the homage due to his supreme majesty. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the Mass is a real 
 Sacrifice ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ offered his body and blood for 
 us to his Father as a propitiatory Sacrifice, not 
 only upon the cross, but at the last supper, as is 
 
285 
 
 evident from his own words : This is my body 
 
 which is given for you. Do this for a commemora- 
 tion of me . . . This is my blood of the new testa- 
 ment which shall be shed (or, as in the Greek 
 text : which is shed) for many unto remission of 
 sins. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 19. St. Matt., ch. 26, 
 v. 28.] Why was the Lord Jesus then giving his 
 body and blood P Because he was then and there 
 establishing the New Testament, and we know 
 from Scripture that no testament or covenant can 
 be dedicated and sealed, but in the blood of victims 
 offered up in sacrifice. [Heb., ch. 9, v. 17.] It 
 was in the blood of a true Sacrifice that Moses 
 confirmed the Old Testament : This is the blood 
 
 of the covenant, etc. [Ex., ch. 24, v. 8.] And 
 Jesus Christ purposely used the same words, to 
 show that in the chalice was his blood, the blood 
 of a true Sacrifice, to confirm the New. 
 
 Now if Jesus Christ, when performing the first 
 Mass, offered a true and real Sacrifice, it clearly 
 follows that his priests when performing Mass in 
 obedience to his command : Do this for a com- 
 
 memoration of me, offer the same true and real 
 Sacrifice, since they do precisely what he did him- 
 self ; and offer the same body and blood which he 
 offered both on the cross and at the last supper. 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. We read in scripture that after Abraham’s 
 victory over the five kings, Melchisedech, the king 
 of Salem, came to meet him, bringing forth bread 
 and wine, for he was the priest of the most high 
 God. [Gen., ch. 14, v. 18.] And David styles 
 Jesus Christ a priest for ever according to the 
 order of Melchisedech. [Ps. 109, v. 4.] 
 
 Now, this prophecy of David is truly fulfilled, 
 and Jesus Christ is truly a priest after Melchise- 
 dech’s order, only because, like Melchisedech, he 
 used bread and wine in a true Sacrifice ; he is a 
 
286 
 
 priest for ever, only because he continues and will 
 continue to offer the same Sacrifice, by the hands 
 of his priests, till the end of the world. 
 
 Q. What did the prophet Malachias say of the 
 Sacrifice of the New Law ? 
 
 A From the rising of the sun even to the going 
 down , my name is great among the Gentiles; and 
 in every place there is sacrifice , and there is 
 offered to my name a clean oblation. [Malachias, 
 ch. 1, v. 11.] 
 
 Q. How do Protestants explain this text of 
 Malachias P 
 
 A. They say that the Sacrifice here foretold is 
 the Sacrifice of the cross, and that the clean obla- 
 tion alluded to is nothing but prayer, praise, and 
 thanksgiving. But the prophet speaks of a Sacri- 
 fices to be offered in every place, while the Sacri- 
 fice of the cross was offered in only one place , and 
 at one time. There must needs be a Sacrifice of 
 the New Law, identical with that of the cross, to 
 be offered everywhere. As for the clean oblation, 
 the prophet speaks of some new oblation to come, 
 which would be substituted for all the sacrifices of 
 the Old Law, condemned in the foregoing verses. 
 But prayer, praise, and thanksgiving had been of- 
 fered to God in every age ; they were even at the 
 time of the prophecy ; and consequently they can- 
 not be the new oblation alluded to. Besides, who 
 would presume to say that the imperfect prayers 
 and thanksgivings of sinners are a clean oblation ? 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul on this matter ? 
 
 A. He says ; We have an altar, ivhereof they 
 have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle, that 
 is the Jews, followers of the Old Law. [Heb., ch. 
 
 . 13, v. 10.] We Catholics have an altar, whereof 
 we have power to eat, because we have an everlast- 
 ing Sacrifice; but Protestants have no altar, no 
 
287 
 
 Sacrifice ; and consequently they are not that sort 
 of Christians St. Paul was speaking of. 
 
 Q. Is tradition unanimous in considering the 
 Holy Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law ? 
 
 A. Even Protestants admit that it is. Saint 
 Irenaeus says : “The Apostles received this Sac- 
 
 rifice from Christ, the Church from the Apostles, 
 and she offers it everywhere, according to the pro- 
 phecy : And in every place a pure Sacrifice shall 
 
 he offered” [Lib. 4, ch. 33.] 
 
 The first editor of the works of St. Irenaeus, the 
 Protestant J. H. Grabius, makes on this passage 
 the following remarks: “This was not the doc- 
 
 trine of one Church or one Doctor, it was the 
 doctrine and practice of the universal Church. St. 
 Irenaeus teaches what St. Ignatius and St. Justin 
 had taught before him, what Tertullian and St. 
 Cyprian taught after. The same is clearly express- 
 ed in the epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, 
 written two or three years after the death of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul, twenty years before the death 
 of St. John, so that it is perfectly impossible to 
 suppose that it was not the doctrine of the Apostles .” 
 [See Perrone, t. II, p. 256.] 
 
 Q. What says St. Cyprian, in the third century? 
 
 A. “Jesus Christ offered the same Sacrifice as 
 did Melchisedech . . . ; he has commanded the 
 same to be done in remembrance of him. That 
 priest truly stands in the place of Christ, who does 
 what Christ did, and offers in the Church a new 
 and complete Sacrifice to God the Father, doing 
 what he ordained.” [Epist. 78.] 
 
 Q. What says St. Augustin, in the fourth cen- 
 tury ? 
 
 A. That the Sacrifice of the Mass holds the place 
 of all the Sacrifices of the Old Law. [De Civit. Dei.] 
 
 Q. How is this tradition argument confirmed ? 
 
288 
 
 A. Amongst all Christian nations in every age, 
 even amongst the heretics who came before the 
 Protestants, the sacrifice of the Mass was always 
 offered; which proves, evidently, that this solemn 
 rite was taught and practised by Christ and his 
 Apostles. 
 
 Q. But how can the Mass be a true Sacrifice ? 
 
 A. We answer in the words of the great Pro- 
 testant divine so often quoted: “The thing offered, 
 or the victim, is Christ himself, whose flesh and 
 blood, under the appearance of the symbols, under- 
 go the office of immolation and offering. I cannot 
 see what of the true essentials of a Sacrifice could 
 be wanting here. . . since what is contained in the 
 Eucharist is the most precious of all things, and 
 the most worthy of being offered to God. . . In the 
 most wonderful way, Christ in this Sacrament, 
 whenever consecration takes place, always gives 
 himself to us, that he may always be offered to God 
 again, and for ever represents and renews tlfo 
 eternal efficacy of his first oblation on the cross.” 
 [Leibnitz, Syst. Theol., p. 285.] 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul say: Nor yet that he 
 (Jesus Christ) should offer himself often [Heb., 
 ch. 9, v. 25] P 
 
 A. St. Paul speaks here of Jesus Christ offer- 
 ing himself in a bloody manner, by dying on the 
 cross for the redemption of the world, which was 
 to be but once. That such is the true meaning is 
 evident from the words immediately following : 
 For then he ought to have suffered often. [Ibid., 
 v. 26.] 
 
 Q. But does he not say : By one oblation he 
 hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified 
 [Heb., ch. 10, v. 14] ? 
 
 • A. We too say so; but this one oblation must 
 last for ever, because Jesus Christ is a priest for 
 
289 
 
 ever. The sacrifice of the cross must be continued 
 by the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which is but one 
 and the same sacrifice, since the victim is the same 
 viz., Jesus Christ; the principal offerer is also the 
 self-same Jesus Christ, who offers himself by 
 the ministry of the priests, whom he has estab- 
 lished to officiate in his name and person, by his 
 authority. 
 
 Q. What then is the difference between the 
 sacrifice of the cross and that of the Eucharist ? 
 
 A. The only difference is in the manner of 
 offering. In the sacrifice of the cross Jesus Christ 
 really died ; it was therefore a bloody sacrifice. In 
 the sacrifice of the altar he does not die really, but 
 his death is represented by consecrating apart his 
 body and blood : this is therefore an unbloody 
 sacrifice. 
 
 Q. But what need was there of the sacrifice of 
 the altar, since we were fully redeemed by the 
 sacrifice of the cross ? 
 
 A. That we might have in it a standing memo- 
 rial of the death of Christ ; that by it the fruit of 
 his death might daily be applied to our souls ; 
 that we might have till the end of the world an 
 external sacrifice, in which we could join together 
 in the outward worship of God, as his servants 
 have always done since the beginning of the 
 world ; that in and by this sacrifice, we might 
 unite ourselves daily with Jesus Christ ; etc. 
 
 Let us note again, by the way, the impropriety 
 of such a question : What need . . . ? Can a poor 
 creature arrogate to himself the right of judging 
 the way's of God? What need was there of 
 Baptism, of Eucharist, or of any Sacrament at all ? 
 What need was there even of the incarnation and 
 death of the Son of God, since he could have re- 
 deemed us by r a single word ? He has been pleased 
 to establish this wonderful way of applying the 
 
290 
 
 merits of his death to our souls, of making him- 
 self our own, of satisfying his infinite love for us. 
 Are we to call him to account for having done too 
 much P 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the Mass is a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice ? 
 
 A. By the words of Jesus Christ, when he 
 instituted it : This is my blood of the New Testa- 
 ment which shall be shed for many unto remis- 
 sion of sins. [St. Matt., ch. 26, v. 28.] And also by 
 these words of St. Paul : Every high-priest . . . 
 is ordained for men . . . that he may offer up gifts 
 and sacrifices for sins [Heb., ch. 5, v. ].] The 
 remission of sins implies the remission of the tem- 
 poral punishment which generally remains due to 
 pardoned sin, (as shall be fully proved hereafter,) 
 which punishment must be paid either in this life 
 or in the next. The sacrifice of the Mass is pro- 
 pitiatory for the living, because, through it, be- 
 sides obtaining the spirit of compunction, and 
 grace to repent of their sins, they can get directly 
 and immediately the remission of such temporal 
 pains. It is propitiatory for the dead, because it 
 contributes to the remission of’ the punishment 
 which the souls in purgatory owe to the divine 
 justice.'- [See, in the following chapter, the para- 
 graphs on Satisfaction, Purgatory, Prayers for the 
 Dead, Indulgences, etc.] 
 
 Q. What do Protestants say of the offering of 
 the Mass for the dead ? 
 
 A. The Reformers have taught them that it is 
 a superstition, invented by the Romish priests for 
 money’s sake. The fact is that this practice came 
 down from the Apostles, as is evident from the 
 testimony of the early fathers. Tertullian says 
 that 11 A woman who would not have the holy 
 sacrifice of the Mass celebrated every year for her 
 husband, on the anniversary of his death, should 
 
291 
 
 be considered as one who had been divorced from 
 him.” [De Monagam.] St. Cyprian orders as a 
 punishment for those who should break the laws 
 of the Church, by naming a churchman their 
 post-mortem executor, that “no oblation should 
 be made for them, nor sacrifice offered for their 
 repose.” [Epist. 9.] 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants, by rejecting the holy 
 sacrifice of the Mass, have rejected the very soul 
 of religion. They have no priests, no altar, no 
 sacrifice offered everywhere, they have not “ the 
 clean oblation” announced by the prophet. For 
 them Jesus Christ is not and cannot be a priest 
 after Melchisedech’s order ; he cannot be a priest 
 for ever. Consequently, they are not, and can- 
 not be, the Church of Jesus Christ. 
 
 14. Why the Mass is said in Latin. 
 
 Q. Why is the Mass said in Latin, and not in 
 the vernacular tongue P 
 
 A. Firstly, that the public worship of God may 
 be everywhere uniformly the same. The Mass is 
 the one sacrifice foretold by Malachias, which is to 
 be offered everywhere under heaven. Catholics 
 have in the oneness and unchangeableness of the 
 language, in which it is offered up, a strict bond 
 of union. 
 
 Secondly, that the same words and same prayers 
 may be always used, to avoid the changes to 
 which all living languages are subject. A curious 
 instance of these variations is found in the fact 
 that in France, if the Church had been using the 
 common language instead of Latin, the short form- 
 
292 
 
 ula of Baptism, viz : I baptize thee , in the name , 
 etc., would have been changed more than two 
 hundred and fifty times. [Segur’s Causeries , 
 
 p. 62 .] 
 
 Thirdly, that the same language which was used 
 in the sacred oflices from the Apostles’ days may 
 be preserved till the end of the world, as a living 
 argument of the unchangeableness of the true 
 Church. 
 
 Fourthly, that the same language being used 
 through the whole Church the pastors of every 
 country may understand one another, and better 
 preserve the unity of the one fold under the one 
 shepherd . 
 
 Fifthly, that the people passing from one 
 country to another, may have no difficulty in 
 joining in the public worship, it being everywhere 
 the same. 
 
 It may be well to remark that in a few coun- 
 tries the Greek, Syriac, and Armenian languages 
 are made use of in the public liturgy of the 
 Catholic Church, though, for brevity’s sake, I 
 have mentioned only the Latin tongue, which is 
 the liturgical language oi nineteen- twentieths of 
 Catholicity. Those other languages have been 
 retained because they were in use from the time 
 of the Apostles. But even in their case, the 
 Catholic principle of unchangeableness is strictly 
 adhered to, and no alteration whatever is allowed 
 in the text of the public prayers, though the com- 
 mon people understand them no more. Mark also 
 that the Greek, Ethiopian, Syriac, etc., schis- 
 matics hold the same principle and follow the same 
 rule. They all say Mass in their ancient language 
 — unknown to the people, and not in their modern 
 idioms. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the unity of language 
 serves to keep the unity of the Church ? 
 
A. In many countries, in India for instance, 
 people speaking four or five different languages 
 are frequently to be found in the same town. If 
 the Mass were necessarily to be performed in the 
 vernacular tongue of every one, there should be 
 four or five different churches, and it would be 
 impossible for Christians to join in common 
 prayer. 
 
 Q. But are not the people injured by having 
 the public service in a language which they do 
 not understand ? 
 
 A. By no means, provided they be well instruc- 
 ted in the nature of the sacrifice, and taught how 
 to accompany the priest with prayers adapted to 
 every part of the Mass, which prayers are to be 
 found in every prayer-book. The principal end of 
 the Mass is not to instruct the people, but to 
 worship God ; and surely God understands all 
 languages. Priests when preaching always use 
 the vernacular tongue. 
 
 Q. But is it not necessary that the people should 
 recite the same prayers with the priest ? 
 
 A. Not at all. In the Old Law God did not 
 even require that the people should see the priest. 
 Hence we read in the Gospel that when Zacharias 
 was offering the sacrifice inside, all the multitude 
 of the people teas praying without at the hour of the 
 incense [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 10.] And it was 
 expressly ordered that no man should be in the 
 tabernacle when the high priest w r ent with the 
 blood of the victims into the sanctuary [Levit., 
 ch. 16, v. 17]. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul condemn the use of foreign 
 tongues in the liturgy ? [1 Cor., ch. 14.] 
 
 A. The words of St. Paul have nothing to do 
 with the question. In the beginning of the 
 Church God was pleased to multiply miracles, and 
 
294 
 
 a great many Christians had, like the Apostles 
 themselves, the gift of tongues. Some of them 
 abused this gift, and out of pride and ostentation 
 affected to make exhortations, or preachings, in 
 unknown tongues, rather to show their gifts than 
 to glorify God. It is this vain display of miracu- 
 lons tongues that St. Paul is reprobating, and 
 nothing else. 
 
 Q. Does he not say : But in the Church I had 
 rather speak Jive icords with my understanding , 
 that I may instruct others also , than ten thousand 
 words in a tongue [1 Cor., ch. 14, v. 19] P 
 
 A. He is speaking here of instruction, as is 
 evident from the words : that I may instruct 
 others also. The Catholic Church in all her in- 
 structions, and sermons, and exhortations, and 
 catechisms, addresses every one in his own lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Q. What do we find in the Jewish Church ? 
 
 A. During the captivity of Babylon, the Jews 
 lost the use of the Hebrew language so entirely that 
 when Esdras and Nehemias read the Law to the 
 people, they were obliged to interpret it [Nehem. or 
 2 Esdras, ch. 8, v. 13.] The Hebrew however was 
 always retained in the religious service of the Jews. 
 
 Q. What did the English Protestants them- 
 selves do ? 
 
 A. We read in the Protestant Dr. Heylin’s 
 History of the Reformation , p. 128, that, in queen 
 Elizabeth’s time “the Irish Parliament passed the 
 act for the uniformity of the common prayer, with 
 permission of saying the same in Latin, where the 
 minister had not the knowledge of the English 
 tongue. But for translating it into Irish there 
 was no care taken. The people are required by 
 this statute, under several penalties, to frequent 
 their churches, and to be present at reading the 
 
295 
 
 English, liturgy, which they understood no more 
 than they did the Mass. By which means we fur- 
 nished the Papists with an excellent argument 
 against ourselves, for having the divine service 
 celebrated in such a language as the people do not 
 understand.” 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 all this ? 
 
 A. That the Catholic Church has very good 
 reasons to perform Mass in the Latin language, 
 and that in it, as in every thing else, she acts un- 
 der the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 15. The Ceremonies of the Mass. 
 
 Q. Why does the Catholic Church use many 
 ceremonies in offering up the sacrifice of the altar P 
 A. We have proved above how useful are cere- 
 monies in religious worship, to impress the mind 
 with a greater sense of devotion, and lead to a 
 better knowledge of the mysteries of religion. Now 
 such ceremonies are required in the Mass more than 
 in any other circumstance, since the Mass is the 
 most sacred thing on earth, being nothing else 
 than the offering up of Jesus Christ himself. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants object to these ceremonies ?, 
 A. They do ; but the answer is easy : To hon- 
 
 our your kings or queens you make endless cere- 
 monies, and you rightly esteem that by so doing 
 you add to their dignity and grandeur in the eyes 
 of men ; how much more justifiable are we in trying 
 our best to honour by proper ceremonies the King 
 of kings, the Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ truly and 
 really present upon the altar ! The sacrifices of 
 the Old Law, which were but the shadow of the 
 good things to come , were offered up with many 
 
296 
 
 striking ceremonies, ordered and regulated by God 
 himself ; why should such ceremonies be useless in 
 the sacrifice of the New Law ? Why should the 
 true Lamb of God be offered up and partaken of by 
 Christians with less pomp and solemnity than was 
 the paschal lamb by the Jews ? 
 
 Q. But Jesus Christ did not use any ceremonies 
 in instituting the Sacrament ? 
 
 A. None at least are recorded in the Gospel, 
 though the Canon of the Mass, the most venerable 
 monument of the holy tradition, mentions some : 
 “ . . . and with his eyes lifted up towards heaven, 
 giving thanks to thee ... he did bless, break and 
 give . . . 99 But even supposing the Lord did not 
 use any ceremonies, did he not then and there make 
 his Apostles priests of the New Testament ? Did 
 he not thereby give them the power of establishing 
 such as they should think proper, to set everything 
 in order? [1 .Cor., ch. 11, v. 34.] Which they 
 and their successors did, by regulating the nature, 
 number, forms and colours of the sacred vestments, 
 and all the other rites and ceremonies of the Mass. 
 
 Q. What do the sacred vestments worn by the 
 priest signify ? 
 
 A. The priest, when saying Mass, represents the 
 person of Christ, who is the high priest of the New 
 Law. Therefore each of the vestments he puts oil 
 represents some of those with which Christ was 
 ignominiously clothed at the time of his passion. 
 
 The amice signifies the rag with which our 
 Saviour was blindfolded. The alb represents the 
 white garment with which Christ was, in mockery, 
 clothed by Herod. The girdle, maniple, and stole 
 represent the cords and fetters with which he was 
 bound. The chasuble represents the purple gar- 
 ment with which the soldiers vested him. The 
 cross marked on it represents the heavy cross 
 
297 
 
 which he carried on his shoulders through the 
 streets of Jerusalem. The corporal and the veil of 
 the chalice represent the linen clothes in which his 
 body was wrapped, whilst it lay in the tomb ; etc. 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of all the rites and 
 ceremonies of the Mass ? 
 
 A. The sacrifice of the Mass being but a con- 
 tinuation of the sacrifice of the cross, such rites and 
 ceremonies are used as are strikingly illustrative 
 of the passion and sufferings of Christ, and of the 
 redemption of mankind. 
 
 The altar signifies the mount of Calvary, upon 
 which our Saviour was crucified ; and also the table 
 used at the last supper. If the missal is carried 
 before the Gospel, from the right to the left side 
 of the altar, it is to commemorate the transferring 
 of the Gospel of Christ from the Jews who rejected 
 it, to the Gentiles who received it. If we stand 
 during the reading of the Gospel, it is to express 
 our readiness to obey the commandments of the 
 Son of God. If the priest divides the host into 
 three parts, letting one drop into the chalice, it is 
 to signify the separation of our Saviour’s body 
 from his blood, and his soul from both ; and to re- 
 present the descent of his soul to Limbo, where the 
 spirits were in prison. If he prays sometimes in a 
 low, and at other times in a loud voice, it is because 
 Christ did so, while he was hanging on the cross. 
 If he blesses the people at the end of the Mass, it 
 is to represent and renew the last blessing which 
 our Saviour gave to his disciples, and, in their per- 
 son, to all of us, before he ascended into heaven ; 
 etc., etc. 
 
 Each of these ceremonies has, besides, many 
 different mystical meanings, due explanation of 
 which is to be found in Catholic books of devotion, 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this ? 
 
 A. Nothing can be better devised to impress the 
 
298 
 
 mind of the faithful with a due feeling of devotion 
 and love than the ceremonies of the Mass. To 
 the unprejudiced observer these very ceremonies 
 are one of the most striking proofs of the fact that 
 in the things which may appear less important, as 
 well as in those of the greatest moment, the Catho- 
 lic Church is directed by the unerring inspiration 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 CHAPTER VIL 
 
 PENANCE. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Penance. 
 
 Q. What is Penance ? 
 
 A. A Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ, for 
 the remission of all sins committed after Baptism. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Penance is a Sacra- 
 ment ? 
 
 A. Penance has evidently the three essentials of 
 a Sacrament : Firstly, the outward sign, in the sen- 
 tence of absolution pronounced by the priest; Second- 
 ly, the inward grace, in the sanctifying grace of 
 God, by which our sins are forgiven ; Thirdly, it 
 has been instituted by J esus Christ. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Jesus Christ has in- 
 stituted this Sacrament ? 
 
 A. From his own words. Before his death he 
 had promised to give to his Apostles the power of 
 forgiving sins. Amen, 1 say to you , whatsoever you 
 shall hind upon earth, shall he hound also in heaven ; 
 and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth , shall he 
 loosed also in heaven [St. Matt., ch. 18, v. 18.] 
 
 On the very day of his resurrection, he fulfilled 
 his promise : As the Father has sent me, I also 
 
299 
 
 send you. When he had said this , he breathed on 
 them , and he said to them : Receive ye the Holy 
 
 Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive , they are for- 
 given them; and ivhose sins you shall retain , they 
 are retained [St. John, ch. 20, v. 21, 22, 23.] 
 
 Q. Had Jesus Christ, even as a man, the power 
 of forgiving sins ? 
 
 A. He had, most evidently, as is proved by the 
 following words of the Gospel : And behold they 
 brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. 
 And Jesus , seeing their faith, said to the man sick of 
 the palsy : Be of good heart , son , thy sins are for- 
 given thee. And behold some of the scribes said 
 within themselves : He blasphemeth. And Jesus see- 
 ing their thoughts , said : Why do you think evil in 
 your hearts ? Whether is easier , to say , Thy sins 
 are forgiven thee : or to say , Arise and walk ? But 
 that you may know that the son of man hath power 
 on earth to forgive sins ( then saith he to the man 
 sick of the palsy,) Arise , take up thy bed , and go into 
 thy house. And he cTrose , and went into his house. 
 And the multitude seeing it, feared , and glorified 
 God that gave such power to men [St. Matt., ch. 9, 
 v. 2-8.] 
 
 Q. What follows from these texts ? 
 
 A. That our Saviour, even as a man, had the 
 power of forgiving sins, and that he communicated 
 this power to other men, viz : to his Apostles and 
 to their lawful successors. 
 
 Q. Is it not blasphemy to say that man can 
 forgive sins ? 
 
 A. It would be blasphemy to say that man, by his 
 own power , can forgive sins ; but it is rank blas- 
 phemy to say that God cannot commission man for 
 that purpose, and give him that power. To raise 
 the dead to life belongs only to the power of God ; 
 God however has often made men his instruments 
 
300 
 
 in raising the dead to life, as is evident from Scrip- 
 ture and from the history of the Church. 
 
 Q. But was the power of forgiving sins given 
 to any besides the Apostles ? 
 
 A. It was given to them and to their lawful 
 successors till the end of the world, because the 
 Church of Christ was to last, not only for one or 
 two generations, but till the end of the world, ac- 
 cording to the promise of our Saviour : And behold , 
 I am with you all days , even to the consummation of 
 the world [St. Matt., ch. 28, v. 20.] Protestants 
 admit that as long as there shall be in this world 
 men to be taught and baptized, the power which 
 Christ gave to his Apostles of teaching and baptiz- 
 ing must needs remain in the Church. In the 
 same way, as long as there shall be sins to be for- 
 given, the Church must needs keep the power of 
 forgiving sins which Christ has given her. 
 
 Q. What says St. Chrysostom on the texts above 
 quoted ? 
 
 A. “To the priests is given a power which is 
 denied to angels or archangels. Earthly princes 
 have the power of binding the body, but the bind- 
 ing of the priest reaches even the soul. . . What 
 the priests do below, God ratifies above, and the 
 Master confirms the sentences of his servants.” 
 [De Sacerd., t. 1, p. 383.] 
 
 Q. Is this admitted by Protestants ? 
 
 A. It is, at least officially, as may be seen in the 
 Book of Common Prayer of both the Churches of 
 England and Scotland. Recently the Protest- 
 ants of Germany, in the conference of Dresden, 
 (May 1856), re-established absolution and private 
 confession. But, though a great many Protestants 
 believe that the power of forgiving sins still remains 
 in the true Church, it is of no use to them, since 
 they are out of the pale of that true Church, and 
 
301 
 
 consequently have no lawfully commissioned mini- 
 sters of this Sacrament. 
 
 Q. What does Luther himself say ? 
 
 A. “Jesus Christ very clearly says that he gives 
 to Peter the keys of heaven,. . . as if he were say- 
 ing : The mouth of Peter is my mouth ; there are 
 
 my keys ; his ministry is my ministry. What he 
 binds, I bind ; wdiat he looses, I loose ; his keys 
 are my keys: I have no others. . . Don’t listen to 
 the pharisaical blabbering of those who deceive 
 themselves. How, say they, can a man forgive 
 sins ? Believe thou the words of Christ, and be 
 sure that there is no other way to obtain the re- 
 mission of sins, 'than this way established by Jesus 
 Christ. If you don’t seek there the remission of 
 your sins, it is vain and useless to look to heaven 
 for pardon.” [Luther’s Works, t. 5, pp. 232, 233.] 
 
 Q. But will not sinners thus be encouraged to 
 go on in their evil ways, by being made confident 
 of receiving absolution from their sins, whenever 
 they please ? 
 
 A. God himself, being all justice, cannot pardon 
 the sinner unless he repents. Therefore, the priests 
 have no power to absolve any one, unless he feels 
 a sincere repentance for his sins, and makes a firm 
 purpose of living a new life ; which proves that, 
 far from being an encouragement to sin, the 
 Sacrament of Penance is the most powerful reme- 
 dy against future sins. 
 
 Q. But if a man hypocritically pretends to be 
 sorry for his sins, what of him ? 
 
 A. In such a case the absolution, surreptitiously 
 obtained, is null and void. 
 
 Q. What are the form and matter of the Sacra- 
 ment of Penance ? 
 
 A. The form consists in the words of the priest, 
 I absolve thee ; the matter, in the acts of the. peni- 
 
 26 
 
302 
 
 tent, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which, 
 as we shall presently see, are required by divine 
 institution for the integrity of the Sacrament and 
 the entire remission of sins. 
 
 2. Contrition. 
 
 Q. What is contrition ? 
 
 A. Contrition is a sorrow and detestation of past 
 sins, with a firm purpose of sinning no more, and 
 a sincere desire of performing whatever is neces- 
 sary for the proper reception of the Sacrament of 
 Penance. 
 
 Q. Is contrition required to obtain the remission 
 of sins ? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly. Every one feels that he who 
 wishes to be reconciled to a friend must regret to 
 have injured or offended him, and be resolved not 
 to injure or offend him any more. God owes it to 
 himself not to pardon the sinner unless he repents, 
 and in almost every page of scripture he pro- 
 claims contrition a necessary condition to obtain 
 forgiveness. Be converted , and do penance. . . and 
 iniquity shall not he your ruin. Cast away from 
 you all your transgressions . . . return ye and live. 
 [Ezech., ch. 18, v. 30, 31, 32.] Turn ye to me. . . 
 and I will turn to you , [Zach., ch. 1, v. 3.] etc., etc* 
 
 Q. How many sorts of contrition are there ? 
 
 A. Two : perfect contrition, which comes from 
 the love of God above all things as the supreme 
 good ; and imperfect contrition, generally called 
 attrition, which arises from the consideration of 
 the heinousness and foulness of sin, the fear of 
 eternal punishments, and an incipient love of God. 
 
 Attrition disposes the soul to the reception of 
 the sanctifying grace and the remission of sins in 
 the Sacrament; but, of itself, it cannot justify man 
 
303 
 
 without the Sacrament. On the contrary, perfect 
 contrition being perfect charity justifies man before 
 the receiving of the Sacrament, as is clear from scrip- 
 ture: I love them that love me, [Prov., ch. 8. v. 17]. 
 He that loveth me, shall he loved hy my Father : 
 and I will love him. [St. John, ch. 14, v. 21.] 
 
 Q. Does not this prove, against Catholics, the 
 uselessness of the Sacrament ? 
 
 A. By no means, because perfect and justifying 
 contrition necessarily implies the sincere desire of 
 obeying the command of Christ, of fulfilling the 
 conditions he has imposed, and consequently of 
 receiving the Sacrament instituted by him for the 
 remission of sins. This desire is a component and 
 essential part of true contrition. 
 
 It will not be amiss to remark that perfect con- 
 trition, or, in other words, perfect charity, is not 
 so very common. The experience of mankind 
 proves, against Calvin and his followers, that, far 
 from being the rule, it is unfortunately but the 
 exception. 
 
 Q. But is not attrition, which comes from fear, 
 opposed to the true spirit of Christianity, accord- 
 ing to these words of St. Paul : You have not re- 
 ceived the spirit of bondage again in fear [Rom., 
 ch. 8, v. 15] ? 
 
 A. St. Paul speaks of a fear shamefully slavish, 
 that of the man who, though he actually abstains * 
 from sin on account of the punishment which is to 
 follow, yet vmuld commit it at once were it not for 
 it. Such a fear, of course, cannot in any way be 
 useful to man, or acceptable to Grod, because it is 
 mixed up with a real affection for sin. 
 
 But there is another fear, which Christ himself 
 commands when saying : Fear ye him , who after 
 he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I 
 say to you, fear him ; [St. Luke, ch. 12, v. 5,] a 
 
304 
 
 fear which is a grace of God and an inspiration of 
 the Holy Ghost, for which David asked : Pierce thou 
 my flesh with thy fear , for I am afraid of thy judg- 
 ments ; [Ps. 118, v. 120,] and this fear, far from 
 increasing our guilt, disposes us to the reception 
 of the sanctifying grace in the Sacrament. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the Sacrament of 
 Penance does effect remission of sins, when there 
 is but imperfect contrition in the soul of the re- 
 ceiver ? 
 
 A. I prove it from the very words of Christ : 
 Whose sins you shall forgive , they are forgiven them , 
 etc. Unless we blasphemously suppose such a 
 solemn asseveration to be a nugatory one, we must 
 admit that, as a rule, sins are forgiven and sinners 
 justified by the absolution of the priest. How, 
 when there is perfect contrition, the sinner is al- 
 ready justified ; when there is no contrition at all, 
 he cannot be justified ; hence, it is clear, that such 
 sinners who get justified in the Sacrament are 
 those who have but imperfect contrition. 
 
 3. Confession. 
 
 Q. What is confession ? 
 
 A. Confession is defined : u A Sacramental accus- 
 ation of one’s self, made to obtain pardon by virtue 
 . of the keys. It is properly called an accusation, 
 because sins are not to be told as if the sinner 
 boasted of his crimes. . . nor are they to be related 
 as idle stories or passing occurrences, to amuse ; 
 they are to be confessed as matter of self-accusation, 
 with a desire, as it were, to avenge them on our- 
 selves, and with a view to obtain the pardon of 
 them.” [Catech. of the Council of Trent.] 
 
 Q. Who has instituted confession ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ himself, when saying: Whose 
 
305 
 
 sins you shall forgive , they are forgiven them ; and 
 whose sins you shall retain , they are retained. [St. 
 John, ch. 20, v. 23.] For by this solemn declar- 
 ation he invested the priests of the New Law with 
 the power of retaining as well as of remitting sins, 
 that is, he made them true judges with full autho- 
 rity to decide in his name. Now it is self-evident 
 that no judge can pronounce a sentence without 
 hearing the whole case, and as there is no possible 
 way for the priest to know the case but the con- 
 fession of the sinner, we must either admit that 
 Jesus Christ did then and there establish confes- 
 sion, or repudiate his words as foolish nonsense. 
 
 Q. What says the Apostle St. James ? 
 
 A. Confess therefore your sins one to another : 
 and pray one for another , that you may he saved ; 
 [St. James, ch. 5, v. 16.] Here we have confession 
 to man laid down as a condition for salvation. 
 Now as it would be generally useless, and some- 
 times dangerous, to confess one’s sins to men who 
 have no power to remit sins, it seems evident that 
 the confession, which St. James declares necessary 
 to salvation, must be made to those who alone have 
 the power to absolve : that is, to the priests, suc- 
 cessors of the Apostles. 
 
 Q. Was not confession commanded even under 
 the Old Law ? 
 
 A. It was. When a man or woman shall have 
 committed any of all the sins that men are wont to 
 commit , and by negligence shall have transgressed 
 the commandment of the Lord. . . they shall confess 
 their sin , and restore the principal itself and the fifth 
 part over and above. [Numb., ch. 5, v. 6, 7.] Here 
 we have not only confession, but penance and re- 
 stitution. Solomon says : He that hideth his sins 
 shall not prosper : but he that shall CONFESS, and 
 forsake them , shall obtain mercy . [Prov., ch. 28. v. 
 
306 
 
 13.] And these were not idle words, for, to quote 
 but one example, we read in the Gospel that there 
 went out to him (John the Baptist,) all the country of 
 Judea , and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized 
 by him in the river of Jordan , confessing their 
 sins. [St. Mark, ch. 1, v. 5.] 
 
 Q. How do you prove that confession has been 
 always practised under the New Law?. 
 
 A. I prove it firstly from Scripture. It is said 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, that many of them 
 that believed came confessing and declaring their 
 deeds. And many of them who had followed curious 
 arts , brought together their books and burnt them 
 before all. [Acts, ch. 19, v. 18, 19.] Let us re- 
 mark, by the way, that the burning of dangerous 
 or heretical books, which so much excites the spleen 
 of Protestant tract-merchants, is done in strict con- 
 formity with the practice of the Apostles and of 
 the first Christians. 
 
 Q. What is your second argument ? 
 
 A. The testimony of the early Church. Saint 
 Cyprian says : “ Let every one, whilst he is yet 
 
 in life, and in a state to profit by the advice and 
 assistance of the priest, confess his sins.” (Serm. 
 de Lapsis.) St. Basil : t{ Our sins must necessarily 
 be confessed to those to whom has been committed 
 the dispensation of the mysteries of God” [Beg. 
 brev., tract, n. 228.] St. Augustin: “Let no 
 
 one say : I sin secretly ; I do it before God, he 
 knows my heart, and will pardon me. Did Christ 
 then say without reason : What you shall loose 
 upon earth shall be loosed in heaven ? Were the 
 keys then given to the Church for no purpose 
 [Horn. 19.] 
 
 Q. What of those who pretend that confession 
 was invented 600 years ago, by the fourth Lateran 
 Council ? 
 
307 
 
 A. What of him who should say that the obli- 
 gation of paying one’s debts was invented on a 
 given day, when such or such law was passed 
 against fraudulent bankrupts? We have just 
 seen that confession has been invented by Jesus 
 Christ himself, and that it has been universally in 
 use from the very beginning of the Church. For 
 centuries the great majority of Christians were 
 wont to confess four or five times a year, but sub- 
 sequently, a spirit of remissness and lukewarmness 
 having spread amongst them, many were found 
 who neglected that duty for years together. It 
 was to guard against this danger that the Council 
 enacted that celebrated law, by which every Chris- 
 tian is bound to confess his sins at least once a year. 
 
 Q. Could the confession of sins have been in- 
 vented by the priests ? 
 
 A. Taking human nature as it is, as we all per- 
 fectly know it to be, it is evident that nothing but 
 the certainty of a divine command can bring men 
 to undergo the humiliating and painful process of 
 confessing their most secret sins. Cant phrases 
 about the artful contrivances of ambitious priests, 
 about the superstition of the dark ages, etc., are 
 ridiculous nonsense, fit only for the publications 
 of the so-called Religious Tract Society. Men 
 were 600 years ago what they are to day, what 
 they have always been. Now, suppose that till 
 the present year confession had never been heard 
 of, how would the man be received who should 
 try to enforce it in the name of Christ ? 
 
 Q. But is there no daDger of the priest divulg- 
 ing the sins made known to him in confession ? 
 
 A. No ; priests are bound by the strongest possi- 
 ble obligation to keep the secrecy of confession. 
 They cannot speak of the sins made known to 
 them ; they cannot make any use of the knowledge 
 
308 
 
 thus acquired, for any reason whatever, even when 
 there is no possible danger of detection. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants say that in some extra- 
 ordinary cases, this law of secrecy can be dispensed 
 with ? 
 
 A. That is a calumny. The priest cannot make 
 public one venial sin, known to him through con- 
 fession, even if by so doing he were to save the 
 millions and millions who are burning in hell 
 for ever. 
 
 Q. But are there no examples of this law having 
 been broken ? 
 
 A. We may challenge Protestants to give the 
 name of one priest, perverse and worthless as he 
 may have been, who ever did betray the secrecy of 
 confession. Were not Luther, Carolstadt, Cranmer, 
 Zwinglius, and nearly all the founders of Protest- 
 antism, Catholic priests ? Had they not, before 
 apostatizing, heard many confessions ? How is it 
 that, even when living with their concubines, or 
 indulging in shameful debauchery, they never let 
 a word escape their lips about the sins they knew 
 through confession ? How is it that, even after 
 having broken the most solemn vows that can tie 
 a man to God, they always respected the secrecy 
 of confession ? 
 
 Q. How do you account for it ? 
 
 A. By a special protection of the all-merciful 
 God, who has established confession, and will never 
 permit this necessary instrument of salvation to be 
 rendered useless, or repugnant to the faithful, 
 through the perversity of worthless ministers. 
 
 Q. Have there not been priests who suffered 
 death to keep the secrecy of confession ? 
 
 A. There have. To quote but one or two in- 
 stances : In Bohemia, St. J ohn Nepomucen, for 
 
 having refused to reveal the confession of Jane of 
 
309 
 
 Bavaria to her husband, the emperor Wenceslas, 
 was thrown into the Moldaw, and drowned. In/ 
 England, the Jesuit Garnet was hanged in 1606* ; 
 for not revealing the gun-powder plot, which he 
 knew only through the confession of one of the 
 conspirators. 
 
 Q. Why have Protestants abolished confession ? 
 
 A. At first some of the Reformers would gladly 
 have preserved such a salutary practice. Luther 
 himself wrote: “I esteem private confession as much 
 as I do virginity. It is a precious and salutary 
 thing; Christians must thank God from their inmost 
 heart for this benefit. Private confession is a trea- 
 sury of grace, in which God offers his mercy and 
 the pardon of all sins. There is no fasting, no 
 prayer, no indulgence, no penance, so useful as 
 this salutary practice.” [Luther’s Works, t. 1, p. 
 512, 513.]. . . “ We must confess to the priest 
 
 the sins that we feel we are guilty of.” [Ibid. t. 8, 
 p. 351.] But that was of no avail. They icho 
 sow wind, reap a ivkirlwind [Osee, ch. 8, v. 7.] 
 Confession being a painful practice was soon made 
 away with, as well as works of penance, religious 
 vows, etc., by the new Churches, that wanted 
 nothing but to make wide and easy the way to 
 heaven, contrary to the words of Jesus Christ : Wide 
 is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to 
 destruction,. . . but, — hoiv narrow is the gate, and 
 strait is the way that leadeth to life ! [St. Matt, 
 ch. 7, v. 13.] 
 
 4, What Sins are to be confessed. 
 Mortal and Venial Sins. 
 
 Q. Are Christians obliged to confess all their 
 sins to the ministers of J esus Christ ? 
 
 A. They are obliged to confess all such sins as 
 are mortal, or of which they have reason to doubt 
 
310 
 
 lest they may be mortal ; but they are not obliged 
 to confess venial sins, because venial sins do not 
 exclude eternally from the kingdom of heaven, 
 and consequently there is not a strict obligation 
 of having recourse, for the remission of such sins, 
 to the power of the Church. 
 
 Q. What is a mortal sin ? 
 
 A. A mortal sin is a sin that destroys spiritual 
 life in the soul, and renders us deserving of the 
 eternal punishment of hell. Neither fornicators, 
 nor idolators , nor adulterers . . . shall possess the j 
 kingdom of God. [1 Cor., ch. 6, v. 9, 10]. 
 
 Q. What is a venial sin ? 
 
 A. A venial sin is a sin that does not deprive 
 the soul of spiritual life, but weakens in it both 
 justice and charity, and makes us deserving of the 
 temporal punishment of Purgatory. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants generally hold all sins to 
 be equal ? 
 
 A. They do, though such an erroneous opinion 
 flatly contradicts both Scripture and common 
 sense. 
 
 Q. What says Jesus Christ about it ? 
 
 A. He teaches us that there are sins which, 
 compared with others, are as a gnat to a camel 
 [St. Matt., ch. 23, v. 24], or as a mote in the eye 
 when compared with a beam. [St. Luke, ch. 6, 
 v. 42]. In St. Matthew, [ch. 5, v. 22,] he points 
 out three distinct sins against charity, one only of 
 which deserves hell fire. 
 
 Q. Are there any other scriptural testimonies ? 
 
 A. It is said in the Proverbs that the just man 
 falls seven times ; [Prov., ch. 24, v. 16.] which 
 falls are evidently venial, since he remains just. 
 
 St. James says [ch. 3, v. 2], that in many things 
 we all offend, and we know, moreover, from the testi- 
 mony of Scripture, that Zacharias and Elizabeth, 
 
311 
 
 and many others, though included in all , were 
 just before God. St Paul says that there are sins 
 for which we shall suffer loss, but from which we 
 shall be saved, yet so as by fire. [1 Cor., ch. 3, 
 v. 15]. Now these sins must be venial, since, if 
 mortal, they would deserve the fire of hell, out of 
 which no one can be saved. 
 
 Q. Is it not said that we must account for 
 every idle word [St. Matt., ch. 12, v. 36] ? 
 
 A We must account for them ; but these are 
 gnats, and not camels ; they are motes in the eye, 
 and not beams. 
 
 Q. What do you say of this text of Ezechiel : 
 The soul that sinneth , the same shall die [ch. 18, 
 v. 20] ? 
 
 A. The prophet is speaking of the enormous 
 crimes which he mentioned before, such as idolatry, 
 adultery, usury, etc. 
 
 Q. Does not St. James teach that he that offends 
 in one is become guilty of all [ch. 2, v. 10] ? 
 
 A. Yes, he who commits one mortal sin ; as is 
 evident from the following verse, where the 
 Apostle mentions murder and adultery. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that this Protestant tenet 
 is opposed to common sense ? 
 
 A. Because it is evident to any man of common 
 sense that there is a wide difference between say- 
 ing an idle word and perjuring oneself ; between 
 laughing at one’s neighbour and killing him. In 
 Protestant as well as in Catholic countries there 
 is a scale of punishments for various crimes : some 
 convicts are imprisoned, whilst others are hanged ; 
 and nobody ever thought of hanging a man for 
 having stolen one farthing, which however would 
 be strict justice, if all sins were equal. 
 
 Q. Are there not some sins so enormous that 
 they cannot be forgiven by the Church ? 
 
312 
 
 A. No ; there is no sin, however great and 
 deadly, which cannot be forgiven by the Church, 
 when the sinner is properly disposed. The power 
 of the keys is the power of God himself, as is 
 proved from Christ’s own words, which include 
 every possible cage, and admit of no exception : 
 whatsoever you shall bind upon earthy shall be 
 bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever you shall 
 loose upon earthy shall be loosed also in heaven . 
 
 Q. But did not Christ himself make an excep- 
 tion when saying : He that shall speak against the 
 Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither 
 in this world, nor in the world to come . [St. Matt., 
 ch. 12, v. 32], which limitation of power the 
 Apostles themselves have admitted : It is impos- 
 sible for those who were once illuminated , . . . and 
 are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance. 
 [Heb., ch. 6, v. 4, 6]. If we sin wilfully after 
 having the knowledge of the truth, there is now 
 left no sacrifice for sins [Ibid., ch. 10, v. 26] ? 
 
 A. These texts, and others of the same import, 
 do not mean that it is, at any time, absolutely 
 impossible for any sinner whatever to obtain the 
 remission of his sins, but that, in some cases, it is 
 a thing of the utmost difficulty, — what is commonly 
 called morally impossible ; and that for no other 
 reason but because in those cases the sinner will very 
 seldom, if ever, open his heart to the inspiration 
 of divine grace. That such is the true meaning 
 no one can deny, unless he blasphemously supposes 
 that to pardon such or such sins is above the 
 power of God, for these words of scripture refer 
 directly to getting one’s pardon from God. Now, 
 there is nowhere the slightest allusion to any differ- 
 ence between God’s direct power of forgiving sins 
 and the same power committed by him to his 
 Church. 
 
 But divines do not agree on the question of this 
 
313 
 
 almost irremediable sin. The prevalent opinion in- 
 dicates apostasy. The apostate speaks against the 
 Holy Ghost when wilfully attacking the known 
 truth ; and his conversion is almost impossible, be- 
 cause, without a miracle of God’s grace, the hellish 
 pride which is at the same time the cause and the 
 punishment of apostasy, will never permit him to 
 humble himself, to acknowledge his guilt, and to 
 ask for pardon. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. That no sinner need despair of pardon, nor 
 shall any sinner perish but by his own fault, for 
 God desires not the death of any sinner, but that 
 he be converted and live. [Ezech., ch 33, v. 11.] 
 Though men’s sins be as scarlet, they shall be 
 made as white as snow [Isaias, ch. 1, v. 18], etc. 
 
 5. Satisfaction. 
 
 Q. What is satisfaction ? 
 
 A. Satisfaction is the atonement for sin, or in 
 other words, the payment of the debt incurred by 
 the sinner in offending God. As such it is the 
 own proper work of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, since he alone, being true God and true 
 man, could and did, by a victim of infinite value, 
 retrieve the injury offered to the infinite Majesty, 
 and satisfy for mankind. 
 
 But taken as a part of the Sacrament of 
 Penance, satisfaction means : the voluntary accept- 
 ance and fulfilling of the penance inflicted by the 
 priest, for the payment of the debt of temporary 
 punishment that remains.due to the justice of God. 
 
 Q. On what is this founded ? 
 
 A. The satisfaction of Jesus Christ is applied to 
 us by the Sacraments he has instituted for that 
 purpose, and principally by Baptism and Penance ; 
 
 27 
 
314 
 
 with this difference, that in Baptism all sins, and 
 all punishments due to sins, are remitted, while 
 in Penance, though all sins, and the eternal 
 punishment due to sins, are remitted, there com- 
 monly remains some temporal punishment to he 
 suffered by the sinner, who is bound, as far as lies 
 in his power, to retrieve the injury he has done 
 to God by his sins, and to pay his debt to God’s 
 justice. 
 
 I say : “ there commonly remains,” because it 
 is possible that the contrition or charity of the 
 penitent may be so perfect, that not only sin and the 
 eternal punishment of sin, but every punishment 
 whatever would be remitted in the Sacrament. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the eternal punish- 
 ment of the forgiven sin is generally commuted 
 into a temporal one ? 
 
 A. I prove it firstly by the many examples re- 
 corded in Scripture. F or instance : When in the 
 wilderness all the children of Israel murmured 
 against Moses and Aaron, God threatened to de- 
 stroy them, but he was appeased by the prayer of 
 Moses. And the Lord said : I have forgiven ac- 
 cording to thy word. . . But yet all the men that 
 have. . . not obeyed my voice , shall not see the land 
 for which I swore to their fathers [Hum., ch. 14, 
 v. 20, 22, 23.] 
 
 Another example is found in the Second Book 
 of Kings, ch. 12. David is guilty of murder, which 
 deserves the eternal punishment of hell. The pro- 
 phet Nathan warns him of his danger. David 
 repents and says : I have sinned against the Lord. 
 Nathan replies: The Lord also hath taken away 
 thy sin; thou slialt not die . [v. 13.] Here we see 
 the sin and the eternal punishment taken away; 
 but mark what follows: a temporal punishment is 
 substituted in its place : Nevertheless , because thou 
 hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to 
 
315 
 
 blaspheme for this thing , the child that is born to 
 thee shall surely die. [v. 14.] 
 
 In the same book [ch. 24,] David repents of 
 his pride in numbering the people ; God forgives 
 him, but on condition that he shall suffer a tem- 
 poral punishment; either seven years of famine, 
 or three months of flight before his enemies, or 
 three days of pestilence ; and in addition, the pro- 
 phet Gad orders him to erect an altar, and to offer 
 sacrifices to the Lord. 
 
 Q. What is your second argument ? 
 
 A. The tradition of the Church of God. Pro- 
 testants themselves admit that on this point it is 
 constant and universal. Calvin, with his usual 
 modesty, says : u I plainly declare that almost all 
 the Fathers, whose works are now extant, have 
 been mistaken in this question/’ [Inst. 1. 3, ch. 
 4, n. 38.] 
 
 Q. But did not Jesus Christ say to the good 
 thief: This day thou shall be with me in paradise ; 
 [St. Luke, ch. 23, v. 43,] thereby excluding the 
 idea of any temporary punishment being substi- 
 tuted instead of the eternal one ? 
 
 A. Those who make the objection forget that 
 the good thief suffered very much on the cross, 
 and that Jesus Christ received his patient sufferings 
 as a purgatorial expiation. Moreover, a miracle of 
 God’s grace, wrought in favour of a man who 
 suffered with Jesus Christ and near him, a miracle 
 of mercy wrought the very day of the redemption, 
 proves nothing against the general rule. 
 
 Q. What is the common doctrine of the Protes- 
 tant sects on this matter ? 
 
 A. They generally deny such a commutation of 
 the eternal punishment into a temporary one, and 
 pretend that when our sins are covered by the im- 
 putation of the merits of Christ, punishment, 
 
316 
 
 eternal or temporary, is always remitted. From 
 which they infer that any act of penance performed 
 by a Christian is not only useless, hut injurious 
 to the satisfaction of Christ. 
 
 Q. What says Jesus Christ? 
 
 A. Far from considering acts of penance as in- 
 jurious to himself, and to the redemption he was 
 to accomplish, he repeatedly gave us an express 
 command of doing penance : I say to you : but except 
 you do penance , you shall all likewise perish. [St. 
 Luke, ch. 13, v. 5.] Do penance, for the kingdom of 
 heaven is at hand , [St. Matt., ch. 4, v. 17.] etc. 
 That command the Church has faithfully obeyed, 
 and the history of the saints of every age and 
 country is the history of their penances and vol- 
 untary sufferings. 
 
 Q. But is not the satisfaction of Jesus Christ 
 superabundant ? 
 
 A. It is superabundant in itself ; that is, it is 
 infinitely more than would be necessary to expiate 
 the sins of a million of worlds; but it is not super- 
 abundant with respect to us, so as to free us from 
 the obligation of doing penance. 
 
 With respect to us, something is wanting of the 
 sufferings of Christ, which we must fill up in our 
 flesh, by continued penance, as the Apostle St. Paul 
 did : I chastise my body , and bring it into subjection. 
 [1 Cor., ch. 9, v. 27.] I fill up those things that 
 are iv anting of the sufferings of Christ , in my flesh , 
 [Colossians, ch. 1, v. 24.] 
 
 Q. Explain this a little. 
 
 A. Nothing is wanting, nothing can be wanting 
 of the sufferings of Christ, if we consider them in 
 themselves. What is wanting is our doing pen- 
 ance in our flesh to make the merits of the Saviour 
 our own, because the satisfaction of Christ cannot 
 be applied to us, unless we, of our own free will 
 
317 
 
 and by our own acts, become one with him, and 
 are made members of him and partakers of his suf- 
 ferings. As you are partakers of the sufferings , so 
 shall you he also of the consolation. [2 Cor., ch. l,v. 7.] 
 
 Q. What do you infer from all this ? 
 
 A. I infer that we are obliged to perform the 
 penance imposed on us by the priest, even after we 
 have received the absolution of our sins. What he 
 binds is bound in heaven, [St. Matt., ch. 18, v. 18,] 
 and it is God himself who imposes on us that pen- 
 ance. But as it is generally insufficient to clear 
 away all our debts to the justice of God, we must 
 always do penance, remembering that the satisfac- 
 tion of which the blood of Christ was the price 
 will be made our own in no other way. 
 
 6. Works of Penance— Pasting, Absti- 
 nence, etc. 
 
 Q. When and where must we pay the debt of 
 temporary punishment that commonly remains 
 after sins are remitted in the Sacrament of Penance ? 
 
 A. We must pay it in this world, by voluntary 
 works of penance, or in the next, by the sufferings 
 of Purgatory. 
 
 Q. What are the principal works of penance ? 
 
 A. To give alms to the poor, to mortify the 
 body by fasting and abstinence, and the soul by 
 depriving it of otherwise lawful enjoyments, are 
 the ordinary works of penance used in the Church 
 of God. 
 
 Q. What do we find in Scripture about alms- 
 giving ? 
 
 A. We find that it is a very good way of paying 
 the temporal punishment we owe to the justice of 
 God. Redeem thou thy sins with alms , and thy in- 
 iquities with works of mercy to the poor, [Dan., ch. 
 
318 
 
 4, v. 24.] And Jesus Christ himself says: Give 
 alms , and behold all things are clean unto you. 
 [St. Luke, ch. 11, v. 41.] 
 
 Q. Does Scripture teach that fasting is agreed 
 able to God? \ 
 
 A. Yes, very clearly. St. John the Baptist’s 
 abstinence is commended. [St. Luke, ch. 1, v. 15.] 
 Anna the prophetess is praised for serving God by 
 fasting and prayers , night and day. [St. Luke, ch. 2, 
 v. 37.} The Ninivites by fasting obtained mercy, 
 [Jonas, ch. 3, v. 5.] Daniel joined fasting to 
 prayer, and by fasting was disposed for heavenly 
 visions. [Dan., ch. 9, v. 3 ; ch. 10, v. 3, 7, 12.] 
 The royal prophet humbled his soul in fasting. 
 [Ps. 34, v. 13.] Esdras and Nehemias sought and 
 found aid from God by fasting. [Esdr., ch. 8, v. 23. 
 Nehem., ch. 1, v. 4.] And God, by the prophet 
 J ©el, calls upon his people to turn to him with all 
 their heart in fasting , and in weeping , and in mourn- 
 ing. [Joel, ch. 2, v. 12.] 
 
 Q. But is not fasting one of those works of the 
 Old Law, of the law of bondage, which however 
 good and useful before Christ, are now useless, 
 since he hath redeemed us from the curse of the law 
 [Gal., ch. 3. v. 13] ? 
 
 A. Far from it. Besides giving his followers 
 an example by fasting forty days, [St. Matt., ch. 4, 
 v. 2,] Jesus Christ taught them lessons concerning 
 fasting ; [St. Matt., ch. 6, v. 16, 17, 18.] and ex- 
 pressly affirmed that after his resurrection and 
 ascension, all his children should fast. [St. Matt., 
 ch. 9, v. 15. St. Mark, ch. 2, v. 20. St. Luke, 
 ch. 5, v. 35.] 
 
 Q. Did the Apostles and first Christians obey 
 this command of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 A. They did. We find the first Christians at 
 Antioch fasting. [Acts, ch. 13, v. 2.] St. Paul 
 and St. Barnabas were ordained with prayers and 
 
319 
 
 fasting. [Ibid, v. 3.] Priests were ordained by 
 them in every church with prayer and fasting. 
 [Acts, ch. 14, v. 22.] And the Apostles were ap- 
 proving themselves as the ministers of God in 
 fasting. [2 Cor., ch. 6, v. 4, 5.] Etc. 
 
 Q. Is the satisfaction for our sins the only end 
 for which we must fast ? 
 
 A. No; besides being an expiation for our sins, 
 fasting serves to curb and restrain our concupi- 
 scences and to bring the flesh into subjection to 
 the spirit. It enables us to raise our souls to God, 
 and to offer him purer prayers. Moreover, it is 
 one of the most efficacious weapons against the 
 devil, according to the words of Jesus Christ: This 
 kind (of devils) can go out by nothing , but by prayer 
 and fasting. [St. Mark, ch. 9, v. 28.] 
 
 Q. What is the principal fast kept by the 
 Catholic Church ? 
 
 A. The fast of Lent, which is a fast of forty 
 days, instituted by the Apostles in honour of our 
 Saviour’s fast of forty days, that we may imitate 
 him, do penance for our sins, and prepare our- 
 selves to celebrate in a more becoming manner the 
 solemn feast of Easter. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Lent was established 
 by the Apostles ? 
 
 A. It has been observed by all Christian nations 
 from the Apostles’ time ; its origin cannot be 
 traced to any bishop, pope, or council ; and con- 
 sequently it was established by none but the Apos- 
 tles themselves. Besides this, we have the express 
 testimony of many Fathers of the first centuries : 
 St. Jerom, St. Leo the Great, etc. Should any one 
 deny it, ask him to mark when, where, and by 
 whom it was instituted, if not by the Apostles. 
 
 Q. Why do Christians abstain from flesh meat 
 on certain days, and principally on Fridays? 
 
320 
 
 A. Not that in flesh-meat there be any thing 
 unclean on Friday more than on any other day, 
 but to do penance, to chastise and mortify the 
 body. This abstinence has been established, as 
 well as the fast of Lent, by the Apostles themselves, 
 in honour of the death and burial of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Q. Has the Church the power of forbidding cer- 
 tain meats ? 
 
 A. Yes, as is evident from Scripture, where we 
 see the Apostles ordering to abstain from things 
 sacrificed to idols , and from blood , and from things 
 strangled. [Acts, ch. 15, v. 29.] 
 
 Q. Is it a sin to violate the precepts of the 
 Church in the matter of abstinence ? 
 
 A. Certainly, since Jesus Christ orders us to 
 hear the Church. A Christian who at the time of 
 the Apostles should have violated the aforesaid 
 precept, would have been guilty; and so is the 
 Christian who now violates the precepts of absti- 
 nence and fasting. 
 
 Q. Does not Jesus Christ say: Not that which 
 goeth into the mouth defileth a man [St. Matt., 
 ch. 15, v. 11] ? 
 
 A. It is not the forbidden meat that defiles the 
 soul : it is the violation of the precept. Should 
 any Protestant deny it, ask him where did Adam 
 and Eve put the fatal apple, and what followed 
 from it. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul call this distinction be- 
 tween different kinds of food the doctrine of devils 
 [1 Tim., ch. 4, v. 1, 3] ? 
 
 A . The Apostle speaks of those ancient heretics 
 who taught that meat had been created by the evil 
 principle, and was in itself absolutely unclean. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul say : One believeth that he 
 may eat all things ; but he that is weak , let him eat 
 herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that 
 
321 
 
 eateih not ; and he that eateth not , let him not judge 
 him that eateih. . . One judgeth between day and 
 day , and another judgeth every day: let every man 
 abound in his own sense [Rom., ch. 14, v. 2,3,5] ? 
 
 A. These texts have nothing to do with the 
 question. In the first days of the Church some 
 weak Christians, converted from among the Jews, 
 made a scruple of eating such meats as were 
 deemed unclean by the law, which others did eat 
 without scruple. Some still observed the sabbaths 
 and festivals of the law, which the others ignored. 
 St. Paul only repeats the decision of the council 
 of Jerusalem; and to prevent any quarrel between 
 the converts from Judaism and the other Christians, 
 he says to the first that they are at liberty to ob- 
 serve the sabbath and other ordinances of the law, 
 while the converts from heathenism are at liberty 
 not to observe them. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul say that where the spirit of 
 the Lord is , there is liberty [2 Cor. ch. 3, v. 17] ? 
 
 A. This text could be quoted with as good a 
 grace to throw off the whole law of God. As free> 
 says St. Peter, and not as making liberty a cloak 
 for malice , but as the servants of God. [1 Peter, 
 ch. 2, v. 16.] 
 
 7. Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead. 
 
 Q. What is Purgatory ? 
 
 A. A middle state between heaven and hell, 
 where those who die without having fully satisfied 
 the justice of God discharge the debt of temporal 
 punishment due to their sins. 
 
 Q. Do Protestants admit the existence of Pur- 
 gatory ? 
 
 A. No, they deny it; they suppose that immei 
 diately after death all souls go straight to heaven 
 or to hell. But the Catholic Church teaches that, 
 
322 
 
 besides those who being perfectly pure go straight 
 to heaven, and those who being in a state of mortal 
 sin go straight to hell, there are many who are not 
 so perfectly clean as to enter heaven immediately, 
 nor so unhappy as to die under the guilt of unre- 
 pented deadly sin. Such as these the Church 
 believes to be detained for a time in Purgatory, 
 till they have fully cleared their accounts with the 
 divine justice. 
 
 Q. Can you prove by Scripture the existence of 
 Purgatory ? 
 
 A. Yes. Jesus Christ says: He that shall speak 
 against the Holy Ghost , it shall not be forgiven 
 him , neither in this world , nor in the world to come. 
 [St. Matt., ch. 12, v. 32.] From this it is clear 
 that some sins are forgiven in the next world. 
 Now it cannot be in heaven, for no sin can enter 
 there ; it cannot be in hell, since from hell there 
 is no redemption ; therefore there must be some 
 third place, unless we impiously suppose that Jesus 
 Christ has spoken nonsense. 
 
 We know that into heaven there shall not enter 
 any thing defiled; [Apoc., ch. 21, v. 27.] that every 
 idle word that men shall speak , they shall render an 
 account for it in the day of judgment. [St Matt., ch. 
 12, v. 36.] Now, taking the case of him who dies 
 before fully expiating such slight faults, can a man 
 in his senses suppose that the just and merciful 
 God could punish one idle word with the eternal 
 torments of hell ? ' There must be some punish- 
 ment however; that idle word must be paid for, 
 and consequently there must be a place of tem- 
 poral punishment, or Purgatory. 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul about it ? 
 
 A. He says that some shall be saved , yet so as by 
 ■fire. [1 Cor., ch. 3, v. 15.] Now, there can be 
 x no pain, or suffering, or fire in heaven ; nor is the 
 
323 
 
 fire of hell for salvation, bnt for damnation; there- 
 fore this fire, which worketh unto salvation, must 
 be what we call Purgatory. 
 
 Q. Is there any other scriptural testimony? 
 
 A. We shall presently see that the utility of the 
 prayers for the dead is proved by the authority of 
 both the Old and the New Testament. Now, those 
 who are in heaven do not want any help, those 
 who are in hell cannot be bettered by any prayers. 
 Therefore there must be some others to whom 
 these prayers are useful, viz : the souls that are in 
 Purgatory. 
 
 Q. Is the tradition of the first centuries unani- 
 mous on this subject ? 
 
 A. It is, as is clear from innumerable testimonies 
 of the Fathers, and from the most ancient liturgies 
 of all Christian churches; even from the testimony 
 of all the heretical sects which, before the Protes- 
 tants, separated themselves from the church. Such 
 a unanimous consent is the most convincing proof 
 that this doctrine came down from the apostles. 
 
 Q. Is not the Protestant doctrine opposed to 
 common sense ? 
 
 A. Most evidently. Common sense clearly sees 
 that* as every man is to receive according to his 
 own works, those who die in a state of venial sin 
 cannot be punished as those who die in great and 
 deadly sin. Common sense sees also that those 
 who die without having paid in full the debt of 
 temporal punishment due to God’s justice, cannot 
 pay it in heaven, where there is no punishment, nor 
 in hell, where punishment is eternal. 
 
 Q. Does not Scripture say: If the tree fall to the 
 south , or to the north, in what place soever it shall 
 fall , there shall it he [Eccles., ch. 11, v. 3] ? 
 
 A. This proves only what no Catholic ever de- 
 nied, that when a soul is come to the south, or to 
 
324 
 
 the north, that is, when it has entered heaven or 
 hell, its state is unchangeable. It means too that 
 every man who dies is either saved or lost ; but it 
 has nothing to do with Purgatory, for, according 
 to the teaching of St. Paul, the souls in Purgatory 
 are saved , yet so as by fire . 
 
 Q. Does not Scripture say : Blessed are the dead 
 who die in the Lord , because they shall rest from 
 their labours [Apoc., ch. 14, v. 13] ? 
 
 A. Thrice blessed are they ; but what has this 
 text to do with Purgatory ? If, by those who die 
 in the Lord, you mean the martyrs, and the happy 
 few who die without sin or stain whatever, for them 
 there is no Purgatory. If you mean all those who 
 are saved, they too shall rest from their labours, 
 though not immediately, but after having paid to 
 the justice of God the last farthing. 
 
 /Q. Are the souls in Purgatory capable of relief? 
 
 A. They are, not from anything they can do for 
 themselves, for they are no more in a state to 
 merit ; but they can be relieved by the prayers, 
 alms, and other good works offered for them to 
 God, by the faithful upon earth, because they are 
 with them members of the same Church, and one 
 body in Christ. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this ? 
 
 A. I prove it by Scripture, and by the constant 
 practice of the Church of God, both under the Old 
 and under the New Law. 
 
 Q. Quote the words of Scripture ? 
 
 A. And making a gathering , he ( J udas) sent twelve 
 thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem, for sacrifice 
 to be offered for the sins of the dead , thinking well and 
 religiously concerning the resurrection. . . It is there- 
 fore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the 
 dead, that they may be loosed from sins. These words 
 are found in the 2nd Machabees, ch. 12, v. 43, 46. 
 
325 
 
 Q. But is the book of the Machabees a part of 
 scripture ? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly it is, though Protestants do not 
 admit it, precisely on account of the aforesaid text. 
 There is for this book the same testimony as for 
 others. 
 
 Protestants receive other books of scripture 
 because the Catholic Church teaches that they are 
 true scripture: they have no other possible witness. 
 Now, if they accept the testimony of the Church 
 concerning other books, why not concerning this ? 
 [See above, p. 94.] 
 
 Q. But even supposing the book of the Macha- 
 bees to be but an ordinary history, would this 
 weaken the argument against Protestants P 
 
 A. Not at all; for as an historical document it 
 proves beyond a doubt that at that time the Jews, 
 who certainly were the people of God, prayed for 
 the dead; that in the temple of Jerusalem, which 
 at that time was the only one in the world dedi- 
 cated to the true God, there were sacrifices offered 
 for the dead. 
 
 Q. What do you say of these words of St. Paul: 
 What shall they do mho are baptized for the dead , 
 if the dead rise not again at all ? Why are they then 
 baptized for them ? [1 Cor., ch. 15, v. 29.] 
 
 A. Whatever may be the meaning of this text, 
 it proves beyond discussion that the first Christians 
 believed that the religious deeds of the living are 
 useful to the dead. 
 
 The most probable explanation is this : There 
 are two baptisms, the baptism of water, and the 
 baptism of penance; to the latter Christ alludes 
 when he says : And I have a baptism icherewith I 
 am to be baptized; [St. Luke, ch. 12, v. 50,] 
 meaning his sufferings and death. The words of 
 St. Paul should then signify: some of you deny 
 
 28 
 
 \ 
 
326 
 
 that the dead rise again; if they do not, why do 
 you suffer for them the baptism of penance, prayer, 
 fast, and mortification ? 
 
 Q. Is the practice of praying for the dead very 
 ancient in the Church P 
 
 A. Yes, it comes from the Apostles. St. 
 Clement, the fourth Pope from St. Peter, and a con- 
 temporary of the Apostle St. John, says: “ Peter 
 taught us to bury the dead, to perform their funeral 
 rites, to give alms, and pray for them.” [Epist. 
 1 de S. Petro.] Tertullian, who lived in the second 
 century, says : “ Make yearly oblations for the 
 
 dead.” [De Cor., Milit.] All the Fathers are 
 unanimous on this doctrine ; and it is a known fact 
 that Arius, in the fourth century, was the first to 
 deny it. 
 
 8. Indulgences. 
 
 Q. What is an Indulgence ? 
 
 A. It is the remission by the Church of the 
 whole or a part of the temporal punishment that 
 remains due to God’s justice, after sins and the 
 eternal punishment due to sins have been remitted 
 in the sacrament of penance. 
 
 Q. Are sins remitted by indulgences ? 
 
 A. No ; sins are remitted only by the sacra- 
 ments instituted by Jesus Christ for that purpose, 
 viz. : Baptism and Penance. 
 
 Q. What is the precise teaching of the Church 
 concerning indulgences ? 
 
 A. That Christ gave power to his Church to 
 grant indulgences, and that they are most useful 
 to the Christian people. [Council of Trent, sess. 
 11, ch. 25.] 
 
 Q. When did Jesus Christ give such a power to 
 his Church ? 
 
327 
 
 A. When he said : whatsoever you shall bind 
 upon earth , shall be bound also in heaven ; and 
 whatsoever you shall loose upon earth , shall be 
 loosed also in heaven . [St. Matt., ch. 18, v. 18.] 
 From this text, and the others above quoted, it is 
 evident that the Church has power not only over 
 sin, but over the punishment of sin, and can remit 
 both, provided the sinner is properly disposed. 
 
 Q. On what is the doctrine of indulgences 
 founded ? 
 
 A. On the communion of saints. It is one of 
 the fundamental truths of religion that the meri- 
 torious works performed by Christians when in 
 a state of grace are useful not only to the per- 
 formers themselves, but to all the members of the 
 true Church, because we are all one body in Christ . 
 Hence these words of St. Paul : I rejoice in my 
 sufferings for you, and fill up those things that 
 are wanting of the sufferings of Christ , in my 
 flesh FOR HIS BODY, WHICH IS THE CHURCH. [Col., 
 
 ch. 1, v. 24]. 
 
 Q. What follows from this reversion of merits ? 
 
 A. That the superabundant merits of Christ, 
 and the meritorious works of the saints and 
 martyrs, are the common property of all Christians, 
 an ever increasing treasure, the dispensation of 
 which is left to the Church by Jesus Christ. 
 
 Q. What then does the Church do when grant- 
 ing an indulgence ? 
 
 A. When granting an indulgence the Church 
 applies to the sinner, who has received the remis- 
 sion of his sins, and is otherwise properly dis- 
 posed, a part of this treasure of merits, and so 
 remits to him the whole or a part of the temporary 
 punishment that remained due by him to God’s 
 justice. In other words the merits of the inno- 
 
32S 
 
 cent revert to the repenting guilty, and the abund- 
 ance of the former is made to supply the want of 
 the latter. 
 
 Q. Explain this by comparisons. 
 
 A. The father who pardons a guilty child at the 
 request of his other children, the king who par- 
 dons a culprit on account of the services rendered 
 to the state by the man’s ancestors or relatives, 
 are both granting indulgences. 
 
 Protestants should think twice before denying 
 this consolatory truth of the reversion of merits ; 
 for the redemption of mankind by Jesus Christ is 
 nothing else than a general indulgence, granted by 
 God to all sinners on Mount Calvary, where the 
 sufferings of the innocent Saviour have been 
 received by God as a satisfaction for the sins of 
 the world. 
 
 Q. Is the practice of granting indulgences a 
 new invention ? 
 
 A. By no means, scripture itself proves it to be 
 coeval with the Church. St. Paul who had deli- 
 vered the incestuous Corinthian to Satan for the 
 destruction of the flesh, [1 Cor., ch. 5, v. 5.] 
 granted him an indulgence a few months after, 
 declaring that he pardoned by the power of Christ, 
 and in Christ’s person. [2 Cor., ch. 2, v. 10.] The 
 history of the first three centuries affords number- 
 less examples of indulgences granted in considera- 
 tion of the martyrs, and very often at their special 
 request, to sinners condemned to public penance, 
 
 Q. Does not the Church grant indulgences to 
 the dead ? 
 
 A. Indulgences have never been granted directly 
 to the souls in purgatory, because the Church has 
 no jurisdiction over them. Her direct power is 
 restricted to men living in this world : whatsoever 
 you shall hind upon earth . . . loose upon earth. 
 
329 
 
 But some indulgences are granted which may be 
 applied or transferred to those souls per modum 
 suffragii , that is by way of intercession, when he 
 who has gained the indulgence offers it to God for 
 the speedy liberation of such a soul. This is 
 founded on the dogma of the communion of saints ; 
 for the suffering souls in purgatory, as well as the 
 glorified souls in heaven, are with us one Church 
 of Christ, and members of one and the same spiri- 
 tual body. 
 
 Now to what extent such indulgences are pro- 
 fitable to those souls we do not exactly know. 
 One thing only is absolutely certain, that they are 
 useful and salutary to them. 
 
 Q. What conditions are required from us that 
 we may gain an indulgence ? 
 
 A. One cannot gain any indulgence unless he 
 is in a state of grace, having obtained the remission 
 of his sins, and being firmly resolved to avoid sin 
 and the occasions of sin for the future. Moreover, 
 he must comply with the special conditions imposed 
 in such cases. 
 
 Let no one however imagine himself exempted 
 from the necessity of doing penance on account of 
 the indulgences he may have gained. No man 
 can know how much he owes to the justice of God, 
 nor can any one be sure he has ever been disposed 
 well enough to gain any indulgence in full. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by an indulgence of so 
 many days, so many years, plenary, etc ? 
 
 A. This formula : Indulgence of so many days, 
 so many years, for such or such pious works, 
 means that this work performed with due disposi- 
 tions is accepted by the Church, and consequently 
 by God. Whatsoever you shall loose . . . is loosed 
 in heaven, as an equivalent of the penance iwhich 
 according to the canonical law the Church could 
 
830 
 
 have imposed for so many days, so many years, etc. 
 The plenary indulgence is that which remits the 
 whole of the temporal punishment which the sin- 
 ner should have otherwise suffered 
 
 Q. Are not indulgences granted very often, for 
 very slight motives ? 
 
 A. Slight, if we consider the works in them- 
 selves ; but of a great price in the eyes of God, on 
 account of the faith and charity which must ac- 
 company them ; on account also of the large number 
 of Christians who perform the same good works. 
 Has not J esus Christ said that even a cup of water 
 given in his name would not be forgotten ? [St. 
 Mark, ch. 9, v. 40.] Moreover, how can they 
 who maintain that faith alone is quite sufficient to 
 obtain the remission of sins, reprove as excessive 
 this mercy of the Church P 
 
 Q. Have not the Popes often sold indulgences 
 for money ? 
 
 A. Never, and all the pretended instances of 
 such a diabolical trade quoted by the Reformers and 
 their successors have been proved historically false. 
 What may have given occasion to that calumny 
 is the well-known fact that sometimes alms-giving, 
 charities for the building of churches, orphanages, 
 schools, hospitals, for the propagation of the 
 Catholic faith amongst infidels, etc., have been 
 required as one of the good works necessary to 
 gain some special indulgence. But never has such 
 money been employed for worldly purposes, and 
 the Popes, more than any others, have always 
 taken the most stringent measures to prevent such 
 a scandalous profanation. 
 
 Q. Can indulgences be granted to commit sin ? 
 
 A. No, God himself cannot permit what is of 
 its own nature sinful. 
 
331 
 
 Q. Does not the Pope give leave to tell lies, to 
 commit perjury or murder, or any other crimes, 
 when it seems useful to the Church ? 
 
 A. All these assertions are abominable lies, in-* 
 vented and propagated at first by the Reformers 
 as an excuse for their rebellion against the Church 
 of God, but given up now by all honest and en- 
 lightened Protestants. Where, in the name of God, 
 in what Catholic book, in what Catholic profession 
 of faith, has so impious a doctrine ever been found ? 
 Who is the Pope who has ever done or taught any- 
 thing of the kind ? where ? at what time ? 
 
 Well may we say to the retailers of such sland- 
 erous stories what Jesus Christ said to their pre- 
 decessors : You are of your father the devil . . . 
 When he speaketh a lie , he speaketh of his own, for 
 he is a liar , and the father thereof . [St. John, ch. 
 8, v. 44.] 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 EXTREME UNCTION. HOLY ORDERS. 
 MATRIMONY. 
 
 1. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction. 
 
 Q. What is Extreme Unction P 
 
 A. The last sacrament given to dying persons, 
 in order to strengthen them in their passage out 
 of this life into a better one, and to prepare them 
 for glory. 
 
 Q. Where does the holy scripture mention the 
 sacrament of Extreme Unction ? 
 
 A. In the epistle of St. James. Is any man sick 
 among you ? Let him bring in the priests of the 
 Church , and let them pray over him , anointing 
 him tcith oil in the name of the Lord . And the 
 
382 
 
 prayer of faith shall save the sick man ; and the 
 Lord shall raise him up : and if he he in sins , they 
 shall he forgiven him. [St. James, ch. 5, v. 14, 15,] 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Extreme TJnetion is 
 a sacrament ? 
 
 A. It has the three requisites of a sacrament : 
 Firstly, the visible sign, which is the anointing of 
 the body with holy oil, accompanied by prayer ; 
 Secondly, the inward or invisible grace, by which 
 sins that may remain in the soul are remitted, and 
 the soul strengthened ; Thirdly, it has been insti- 
 tuted by Jesus Christ ; for St. James, being an in- 
 spired Apostle, knew perfectly well that God only 
 can give to any rite the power of producing grace 
 in the soul, and would never have spoken of Ex- 
 treme Unction had he not had the express authori- 
 ty of Jesus Christ for it. 
 
 Q. May not Protestants say that St. J ames speaks 
 of the miraculous anointing mentioned in the 
 Gospel, by which sick were healed T St. Mark, 
 ch. 6, v. 13] ? 
 
 A. No ; the words of St. James are very clear. 
 F rom these words all sick are to be anointed ; the 
 priests, and priests only, are ordered to anoint ; and 
 this anointing produces the effect of saving by the 
 remission of sins ; while St. Mark merely mentions 
 the healing of many sick as the effect of the mi- 
 raculous anointing of the Apostles. And even 
 supposing it to be the same, it would prove only 
 that the Apostles wrought miracles through the 
 sacraments ; which miracles, though necessary at 
 the beginning of the Church, were never an essen- 
 tial part of the sacraments. 
 
 Q. Does not St. James say that we must bring 
 in the elders of the Church ? 
 
 A. The word used by St. James is preshyteros , 
 which is the Greek for both elder and priest , be- 
 
333 
 
 cause in the primitive Church priests were gene- 
 rally elderly men. But in the New Testament 
 this word signifies exclusively the pastors of the 
 Church, as is clear from 1 Peter, ch. 5, v. 1, and 
 from the epistles of St. John. Moreover, even if 
 it should signify elders , Protestants would gain 
 nothing by it, since amongst them, notwithstanding 
 the express command of scripture, neither priests 
 nor elders do anoint the sick. 
 
 2. The Sacrament of Holy Orders. 
 
 Q. What are Holy Orders ? 
 
 A. A sacrament by which the ministers of Christ 
 are consecrated to their sacred duties, and receive 
 power to perform their holy offices with the ne- 
 cessary grace to discharge them worthily. 
 
 Q. What are the principal duties of the pastors 
 of the Church ? 
 
 A. To offer up the holy sacrifice [St. Luke, 
 ch. 22, v. 19]; to preach the Gospel [St. Matt., 
 ch. 28, v. 19] ; to baptize [Ibid] ; to forgive sins 
 [St. John, ch. 20, v. 23] ; and to administer the 
 other sacraments. 
 
 Q. How do you prove Holy Orders to be a 
 sacrament ? 
 
 A. In them we find the three requisites of a 
 sacrament: Firstly, the visible sign, which is the 
 imposition of the bishop’s hands, and prayer. Read 
 the Ordination of the Seven Deacons [Acts, ch. 6, 
 v, 5, 6,] and that of St. Paul and St. Barnabas. [Acts, 
 ch. 13, v, 3.] Secondly, the inward or invisible 
 grace, attested by Scripture : Stir up the grace of God , 
 which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. 
 [2 Tim., ch. 1, v. 6.] Neglect not the grace that is 
 in thee , which was given thee by prophecy , with im- 
 position of the hands of the priesthood. [1 Tiiu, ch. 
 
834 
 
 4, v. 14.J Thirdly, the divine institution, as is 
 clear from the practice of the Apostles, the per- 
 petual tradition of the Church, and the words by 
 which Jesus Christ gave the whole power of priest- 
 hood to his Apostles and their successors: DO this 
 for a commemoration of me. [St. Luke, ch. 22, v. 19.] 
 Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose sins you shall 
 forgive they are forgiven them. [St. John, ch. 20, 
 v. 22, 23,] which words were spoken to the Twelve 
 only, and gave them a special power not be- 
 queathed to other Christians. 
 
 Q. Were the Apostles to communicate their 
 sacred powers to those who succeeded them ? 
 
 A. Of course, as is evident from the words of 
 Christ, who promised that he would be with them, 
 not only during their own lifetime, but all days , 
 even to the consummation of the world , which words 
 cannot apply but to their lawful successors. 
 
 Q. Did the Apostles communicate their sacred 
 powers ? 
 
 A. They did. When Judas fell from the apos- 
 tleship the other Apostles elected and raised 
 Matthias to his place [Acts, ch. 1, v. 16, 26] ; 
 they ordained Paul and Barnabas [Acts, ch. 13, 
 v. 2, 3] ; Paul himself ordained Timothy and Titus 
 [Titus, ch. 1 , v. 5] ; and in this manner each suc- 
 ceeding generation of pastors has been ordained 
 by the preceding one, from Christ down to the 
 present time. 
 
 Q. Are bishops superior to priests ? 
 
 A. They are, as is clear from Scripture. Firstly, 
 Bishops, and Bishops only, can ordain priests. 
 For this cause I left thee in Crete , that thou 
 shouldest set in order the things that are wanting , 
 and shouldest ordain priests in every city , as I 
 also appointed thee. [Titus, ch. 1, v. 5.] Impose not 
 hands lightly upon any man. [1 Tim., ch. 5, v. 22] 
 
335 
 
 Secondly, Bishops are constituted judges of the 
 priests, as appears from the warning given by St. 
 Paul to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus : Against a 
 priest receive not an accusation , but under two or 
 three witnesses. [1 Tim., ch. 5, v. 19. j 
 
 Q. Cannot a man set himself up for a Christian 
 teacher if he be chosen by the people ? 
 
 A. Certainly not, as St. Paul says : Neither 
 doth any man take the honour to himself , but he 
 that is called by God , as Aaron was. [Heb., ch. 5, 
 v. 4.] And again : How can they preach unless 
 they be sent ? [Rom., ch. 10, v. 15.] 
 
 Q. Is then ordination by lawful bishops abso- 
 lutely necessary ? 
 
 A. It is, for : He that entereth not by the door 
 into the sheepfold , but climbeth up another way , 
 the same is a thief and a robber. [St. John, 
 ch. 10, v. 1.] 
 
 Q. Is that clear also from the tradition of the 
 Church ? 
 
 A. From the very establishment of Christianity 
 down to the time of Luther never has even one 
 person been received in the Church as a priest 
 who was not ordained by some Bishop. 
 
 Q. What follows from this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants have not true and real 
 priests. In many Protestant Churches the minis- 
 ters are not ordained at all ; in others they are 
 ordained by men whose episcopal ordination could 
 never be proved ; and so it is clear that Protes- 
 tants are deprived of the greater part of the sacra- 
 ments, and do not belong to the Church of Christ. 
 As, says the Protestant Dodwell : “ Where there 
 
 is no episcopal ordination, there is no ministry, no 
 sacrament, no church .” 
 
336 
 
 3. The Celibacy of the Clergy, and 
 the Monastic Life. 
 
 Q. For what reason does the Church forbid 
 priests to” marry ? 
 
 A. Because those who by their office and func- 
 tions are wholly devoted to the service of God, 
 and the care of souls, must not be diverted from 
 these duties by the distractions of a married life. 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul ? 
 
 A. He that is without a wife , is solicitous for 
 the things that belong to the Lord how he may 
 please God. But he that is with a wife , is solicitous 
 for the things of the icorld y how he may please his 
 wife ; and he is divided, [l Cor., ch. 7, v. 32, 33.] 
 
 Q. Were not bishops and priests permitted to 
 marry in the early ages of the Church ? 
 
 A. No ; it has always been a fundamental law of 
 the Church that bishops, priests, and deacons, should 
 not marry after having received Holy Orders, and 
 we defy the Protestants to name even one such 
 case. But at some epochs, and in some places, 
 principally in the Eastern Churches, priests and 
 deacons have been permitted to continue with the 
 wives they had married before their ordination ; 
 though even this was disallowed by many ancient 
 canons. 
 
 Q. What says the second canon of the second 
 Council of Carthage ? 
 
 A. It orders that bishops, priests, and deacons 
 shall live continently, and abstain from their wives ; 
 and this “ because the Apostles so taught, and all 
 antiquity observed.” 
 
 Q. What says St. J erome ? 
 
 A. “ Bishops, priests, and deacons are chosen 
 either virgins, or widowers, or from the time of 
 their priesthood perpetually chaste.” [Epist. 50.] 
 
337 
 
 Q. But were not the Apostles themselves married P 
 
 A. Some of them were, before they were called 
 to the apostleship. But it is clear from scripture 
 that they had forsaken their wives to follow Christ. 
 St. Peter said to our Lord : Behold ice have left 
 
 all things, and have followed thee . [St. Matt., ch. 
 19, v. 27.] And our Lord answering him expressly 
 mentions wives in the enumeration of the things 
 so forsaken [Ibid., v. 29.] 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul require that bishops and 
 deacons should be husbands of one wife [1 Tim., 
 ch. 3, v. 2, 12] ? 
 
 A. The meaning is not that bishops or priests 
 or deacons should have wives ; for St. Paul himself 
 had none, and he expressly declares that it is better 
 for the unmarried to continue so, even as himself. 
 [1 Cor., ch. 7, v. 8.] The meaning is that none 
 should be admitted to Holy Orders who had been 
 married more than once. And even those who 
 had been married but once were admitted only be- 
 cause in the first days of the preaching of the 
 Gospel, when the greater number of the converts 
 amongst the Jews or the Gentiles were married 
 men, it would have been impossible to find a suf- 
 ficient number of proper ministers if married men 
 had not been admitted. 
 
 Q. How do you prove against Protestants the 
 truth of this interpretation ? 
 
 A. Were the Protestant meaning the true one we 
 should conclude that at the time of St. Paul clergy- 
 men only were restrained to one wife, while other 
 Christians were at liberty to have many. The un- 
 common absurdity of this consequence must be evi- 
 dent to the most bigoted enemy of clerical celibacy. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul say that he had the power 
 to carry about his wife, as well as the other 
 Apostles [1 Cor., ch. 9, v. 5]? 
 
 29 
 
33S 
 
 A . No ; this is nothing else than one of those wilful 
 corruptions of the word of God, of which there are 
 so many in the Protestant Bible. The genuine text is: 
 Have we not power to lead about a woman a sister, 
 (and not : a sister , a wife) as well as the rest of the 
 Apostles ? St. Paul speaks of those pious women 
 who waited upon the Apostles, supplying them 
 with the necessaries of life, as they had waited also 
 upon our Lord. He says to the Corinthians that 
 though he could have brought them with himself, 
 yet that he might be less burthensome, he had 
 chosen rather to live by the work of his own hands. 
 
 Q. Besides the clerg}^ are there not many other 
 persons in the Catholic Church who lead a single 
 life? 
 
 A. There are many persons of both sexes who, 
 to do penance for their sins, to keep away from the 
 dangers and corruptions of this wicked world, and 
 to attain, as much as possible, Christian perfection, 
 consecrate themselves to God, by the vows of 
 poverty, of obedience, and principally of perpetual 
 chastity. 
 
 Q. Is then chastity better and more perfect than 
 the state of matrimony ? 
 
 A. Certainly, as is evident from the words of 
 Jesus Christ : All men take not this icord , but they 
 to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs . . . 
 who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom 
 of heaven. He that can take , let him take it. 
 [St. Matt., ch. 19, v. 11, 12.] 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul on this subject [1 Cor., 
 ch. 7] ? 
 
 A. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 
 But for fear of fornication let every man have his 
 own wife, and let every woman have her . own hus- 
 band. [v. 1,2.] I icould that all men icere even as 
 myself ; but every one hath his proper gift from 
 
330 
 
 God [v. 7.] But I say to the unmarried and to 
 the widows , it is good for them if they so continue , 
 even as I. But if they do not contain themselves , 
 let them marry. For it is better to marry than to 
 be burnt, [y. 8 , 9.] Art thou loosed f rom a wife ? 
 Seek not a wife. [v. 27.] He that is without a wife, 
 is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, 
 how he may 'please God. [v. 32.] He that giveth 
 his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth 
 her not, doth bettek, [v. 38.] etc., etc. 
 
 Q. Are not these words : Let every man have 
 
 his own wife, and every woman have her own hus- 
 band , a general commandment to all Christians ? 
 
 A. By no means, unless we admit that scripture 
 openly contradicts itself in the same chapter. The 
 meaning of St. Paul evidently i3 that though 
 chastity is better than matrimony, those who do 
 not feel that with the help of God’s grace they 
 can live chaste lives, ought to marry. 
 
 Q. Does not this text : It is better to marry 
 
 than to be burnt prove at least that real celibacy 
 is all but impossible P 
 
 A. Not at all. It proves only that, as a rule, 
 men are not called to the more perfect state of 
 perpetual virginity. Mark the consequences of the 
 Protestant interpretation. Besides priests, monks, 
 and nuns, there are, in Christian countries, millions 
 of bachelors and spinsters, of widows and widowers; 
 even amongst married people, there are millions,— 
 soldiers, sailors, traders, travellers, etc., forcibly 
 separated from their wives for months, nay, for 
 years at a time. Are all these, husbands on one 
 side, wives on the other, necessarily and, as it were, 
 by a natural law, condemned to lead a sinful life ? 
 Luther’s maxim that man cannot do without a wife 
 any more than without food, was in keeping with 
 his own shamefully corrupt interpretation of th 
 
340 
 
 word of God. Will Protestants now-a-days go 
 that length ? 
 
 Q. Is not forbidding marriage called by St. Paul 
 the doctrine of devils [1 Tim., ch. 4, v. 1, 3] ? 
 
 A. It is; and the Manicheans who, believing all 
 flesh to be from the evil principle, absolutely con- 
 demned marriage, were certainly preaching the 
 doctrine of devils. But the Catholic Church, far 
 from forbidding marriage, holds it to be a great 
 Sacrament, and leaves every one at liberty to 
 many if he thinks proper. 
 
 Q. But does not the Catholic Church forbid 
 priests to marry P 
 
 A. True ; but she compels no one to become a 
 priest. When any one, after mature deliberation, 
 has of his own free will made to God a vow 
 of chastity, she obliges him to keep his vow ; that 
 is all. 
 
 Q. But are there not many priests who lead a 
 scandalous life, which would not be the case if they 
 were allowed to marry ? 
 
 A. Amongst the twelve Apostles, chosen by 
 Jesus Christ himself, there was a traitor ; and so, 
 amongst Catholic priests there are now and then 
 individuals who shamefully break their vows. 
 Luther, Knox, Cranmer, Zwinglius, Carlostadt, 
 nearly all the founders of Protestantism, were in 
 this case. But such apostates are comparatively 
 very few in number; but were they ten times 
 more numerous, Protestants should think twice 
 before condemning them, out of reverence for the 
 authors of their own creed. 
 
 Now, to suppose that matrimony would be an 
 infallible remedy to prevent such scandals, is per- 
 fectly ludicrous. Are there no adulterers amongst 
 married men ? But what brings the matter to an 
 end, is the well known and universally admitted 
 
341 
 
 fact, that the morality of the Catholic clergy, 
 taken as a whole, is incomparably higher than, 
 that of the laity. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. I conclude, Firstly, that Protestants deny 
 scripture when they deny the superiority of 
 religious celibacy over the married state ; and 
 Secondly, that if priests were married men, they 
 could not be what they are, ministers of God, 
 wholly devoted to the care of souls, at every time, 
 in every circumstance, even at the risk of their 
 lives. Should any one doubt it, let him open the 
 history of the Church, and he will soon see how 
 much an experience of eighteen centuries duration 
 confirms the truth of St. Paul's words : He that is 
 without a wife is solicitous for the things that be- 
 long to the Lord ... he that is with a wife is soli- 
 citous for the things of the world. [1 Cor., ch. 7, 
 v. 32, 33.] 
 
 Q. Has not this been admitted by Protestants ? 
 
 A. Many of their greatest divines and states- 
 men have repeatedly deplored the inferiority of 
 married ministers. We shall offer but one testi- 
 mony ; the very words of the Act of the English 
 Parliament to permit the marriage of clergymen. 
 
 “Though it is much more convenient for the 
 respectability of priests, and other ministers of the 
 Church of God, to live chaste, and separated from 
 the company of women, and the bonds of matri- 
 mony, because, by continuing so th$y would take 
 better care of the administration of the Gospel, 
 and be less absorbed in the cftres and troubles of 
 house-keeping, being free, and unburthened with 
 wives and children,” etc., etc. [An Act for annull- 
 ing all positive laws against the marriage of 
 priests. (Edward VI.) Re-translated from a 
 French translation]. 
 
342 
 
 “ It is a fact worthy of remark that the English 
 law treats the married clergy of the Church of 
 England with undisguised contempt. Clergymen, 
 and clergymen only, are excluded from the House 
 of Commons, of which every body else, even Jews, 
 can be elected members. The wives of the bishops 
 of the establishment have legally no rank ; and, to 
 use the words of Dr. King, a minister of the 
 Church of England : ‘ Our Government makes no 
 difference between a bishop’s wife and his concu- 
 bine. The first does not in any way share in the 
 rank and dignity of her husband, while any simple 
 knight whose dignity is for life just like that of a 
 bishop, confers on his wife a rank and a title.” 
 [Edinburgh Review, July 1819, n. 63.] “ The wife 
 of any man knighted yesterday by Queen Victoria 
 is legally a Lady, and will take precedence of the 
 wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is 
 legally plain Mistress, though her husband be 
 acknowledged by the British Constitution the 
 first Lord of the Three Kingdoms! The conscience 
 of mankind is infallible, even in Protestant 
 countries ; and a married clergy shall always be 
 lowered in public opinion.” [See De Maistre, Du 
 Pape, 1845, p. 345-350.] 
 
 4. Matrimony. 
 
 Q. What is Matrimony ? 
 
 A. A sacrament which gives to married persons 
 the necessary grace to lead a Christian life, to fulfil 
 their duties to each, other, and to train up their 
 children in the fear and love of God. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Matrimony is a 
 sacrament ? / 
 
 A. It has evidently the three requisites of a 
 sacrament : Firstly, the outward sign, in the! 
 
mutual consent of the parties, externally signified ; 
 Secondly, the inward grace which enables the mar- 
 ried couple to fulfil their duties ; Thirdly, it has 
 been established by God at the beginning : Where- 
 
 fore a man shall leave father and mother , and ; 
 shall cleave to his icife : and they shall be two in 
 one flesh ; [Gen., ch. 2, v. 24. Eph., ch. 5, v. 31] 
 and confirmed by Jesus Christ : What therefore 
 God hath joined together , let no man put asunder . 
 [St. Matt., ch. 19, v. 6.] 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul ? 
 
 A. This is a great sacrament ; but I speak in 
 Christ and in the Church. [Eph., ch. 5, v. 32,] 
 Protestants, who deny marriage to be a sacrament, 
 translate : This is a great mystery ; but what 
 
 mystery is there in marriage ? and how can mar- 
 riage be greater amongst Christians than amongst 
 heathens if it is not a sacrament ? All the early 
 Fathers have read in the above text : Sacrament . 
 
 Q. What says St. Augustin ? 
 
 A. " In all nations the great good of marriage 
 consists in the procreation of children, and the 
 fidelity of the parties; but amongst Christians 
 there is, besides, the sanctity of the sacrament.” 
 [De Bono Conj., c. 24.] 
 
 Q. Can the matrimonial bond be ever dissolved 
 for any cause whatever ? 
 
 A. The matrimonial bond cannot be dissolved, 
 but by death, as is proved by these words of Jesus 
 Christ : What therefore God hath joined to- 
 
 gether, let no man put asunder. [St. Matt., ch. 19, 
 v. 6.] Whosoever shall put away his wife and 
 marry another, committeth adultery against her. 
 [St. Mark, ch. 10, v. 11.] Every one that putt eth 
 away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth 
 adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put 
 away from her husband, committeth adultery. 
 
344 
 
 [St. Luke, ch. 16, v. 18.] And St. Paul says : 
 To them that are married , not I, but the Lord com - 
 mandeth, that the wife depart not from her 
 husband. And if she depart that she remain un- 
 married, or be reconciled to her husband. [1 Cor., 
 ch. 7, y. 10, 11.] 
 
 Q. But did not Christ say : Whosoever shall put 
 away his wife , except it be for fornication, and shall 
 marry another, committeth adultery; and he that 
 shall marry her that is put away, committeth 
 adultery ; [St. Matt., ch. 19, v. 9,] thereby declar- 
 ing that, in case of adultery, marriage can be 
 dissolved ? 
 
 A. The meaning of these words of the Saviour 
 is that in case of adultery the wife may be put 
 away; but that, even then , neither the husband 
 nor the dismissed wife can marry others ; and if 
 they do they commit adultery. The words : except 
 for fornication, apply only to the first part of the 
 sentence, and prove that he who puts away his 
 wife, except in that case, is 'guilty of adultery; 
 because, as Jesus Christ himself declared in another 
 circumstance : whosoever shall put away his wife, 
 excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to 
 commit adultery. [St. Matt., ch. 5, v. 32.] 
 
 Q. How do you prove against Protestants that 
 such is the true meaning ? 
 
 A. If the Protestant interpretation were the 
 true one the words of Jesus Christ, as related by 
 St. Matthew, would be in direct contradiction 
 with the same as related by St. Mark, St. Luke, 
 and St. Paul. For in one text the Lord would 
 have taught us that matrimony can be dissolved 
 in case of adultery ; whilst, in the others, he ex- 
 pressly declares that it can never be dissolved. 
 And let no one suppose that the other Apostles 
 have omitted the exception as something im- 
 
345 
 
 material ; adultery is unfortunately a case of every 
 day occurrence ; and it is of the utmost importance 
 to know whether it makes, or not, the matrimonial 
 bond null and void. 
 
 Q. Have you any other strong argument ? 
 
 A. We have ; the Apostles who heard Jesus 
 Christ certainly understood the true meaning of 
 his words, and they said to him : If the case of a 
 man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to 
 marry. [St. Matt., ch. 19, v. 10.] Which proves that 
 the Lord had clearly taught the absolute indisso- 
 lubility of marriage, even in case of adultery ; for 
 if not, where would be the hardship ? and why 
 would it not be expedient to marry ? 
 
 Moreover, the Church has always understood 
 the command of Christ in the same way, and 
 resisted every attempt against the sacredness of 
 the matrimonial bond. Would the Christians of 
 the first ages of what the Protestants call the 
 pure and incorrupt Church, would the millions 
 and millions of Catholics during eighteen centu- 
 ries, have submitted without cavil to a law some- 
 times so hard and so distressing, if the teaching of 
 Christ on that point were not clearer than the 
 sun ? 
 
 Q. What are the consequences of the Protestant 
 interpretation in the countries where it is acted 
 upon ? 
 
 A. The consequences are deplorable. Married 
 people, when they disagree, have but to publicly 
 commit adultery to free themselves, and be at liberty 
 to marry any others, and to bind themselves 
 with new ties, which may be as easily broken 
 and thrown away as the former ones : so that a 
 man can have successively as many wives as he 
 pleases. 
 
 And mark the absurdity : for the virtuous wife 
 

 346 
 
 who happens to have a bad husband there is no 
 remedy. All the advantage is for the shameless 
 and guilty. It is a direct encouragement to sin. 
 Can any one in his senses suppose that Jesus 
 Christ could have preached a doctrine so impious, 
 so absurd, and so immoral ? 
 
 Q. Does the Catholic Church allow her children 
 to marry heretics ? 
 
 A. She has often prohibited such marriages, 
 though sometimes, and in some places, the pastors 
 of the Church, for weighty reasons, have been 
 forced to dispense with the law and sanction them. 
 
 Q. Why is the Church so averse to this kind of 
 marriage ? 
 
 A. Firstly, because she would not have her child- 
 ren communicate with heretics in sacred things, 
 such as marriage is ; Secondly, because such mar- 
 riages give too often occasion to dissensions in 
 families, whilst one of the parties draws one way 
 the other another ; Thirdly, because there is danger 
 of the Catholic party being perverted, or at least 
 not being allowed the free exercise of his or her 
 religion ; F ourthly, because there is danger of the 
 children being brought up in error. 
 
 Q. On what conditions are such marriages per- 
 mitted ? 
 
 A. The Protestant party must give to the Catho- 
 lic one a solemn promise, in writing and upon 
 oath, never to interfere with the free exercise of 
 his or her religion ; and to have all the children, 
 either male or female, baptised in the Catholic 
 Church, and brought up in the Catholic faith. 
 
 Q. What do you say of those bargains by 
 which the contracting parties agree to have the 
 boys brought up in the religion of the father, and 
 the girls left to follow that of the mother ? 
 
347 
 
 A. Such scandalous and immoral bargains are 
 strictly forbidden. God and his Church cannot 
 consent to give up to heresy souls redeemed by 
 the blood of Christ. Eternal shame to the faith- 
 less Catholic who thus allows children born of 
 himself to be brought up out of the true fold, and 
 taught to hate and despise what he himself holds 
 sacred ! 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE PRETENDED IDENTITY OF CATH- 
 OLICISM AND HEATHENISM. 
 
 1. How Protestants try to establish 
 this pretended Identity. 
 
 Q. Do not many Protestants say that Catholi- 
 cism and heathenism are identical ? 
 
 A. They do ; and numerous books have been 
 printed by them for the express purpose of showing 
 clearly, as they imagine, this pretended identity. 
 
 Q. How do they try to prove it ? 
 
 A. They perfidiously draw a parallel in wdiich 
 on one hand they disguise all the gross supersti- 
 tions of the heathens, to take notice only of certain 
 observances, many of wdiich are not otherwise 
 criminal than in being applied to the worship of 
 the devil ; and, on the other hand, they quite pass 
 over in silence the most substantial parts of the 
 Catholic religion, to cavil only at some ceremonies, 
 or matters of less importance. 
 
 Q. Why are they driven to such knavish shifts ? 
 
 A. Because persons who knowingly and delibe- 
 rately maintain a bad cause cannot do otherwise. 
 They know very well that a genuine and com- 
 
348 
 
 plete exposition of Catholicism on one side and of 
 heathenism on the other would show in its full 
 light the revolting injustice of their assertion. 
 
 Q. What must Protestants do to prove this 
 pretended identity ? 
 
 A. They must prove that the heathens worship 
 the true living God in three Persons, that they are 
 baptized in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost : for that is Catholic 
 religion. 
 
 They must prove that the heathens believe in 
 the revealed word of God, known to us by scripture 
 and tradition : for that is Catholic religion. 
 
 They must prove that the heathens believe in 
 Jesus Christ the Son of God, and in the remission 
 of sins through the merits of his blood ; that they 
 daily offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice in all their 
 churches, in memory of his passion and death : 
 for that is Catholic religion. 
 
 They must prove that amongst the heathens the 
 w’ord of God is preached, the divine office, consist- 
 ing of psalms, scripture lessons, etc., daily sung, 
 the sacraments frequently received, etc.: for that 
 is Catholic religion. 
 
 On the other hand they must prove that the 
 Catholic Church denies the true living God, and, 
 in his place, worships numberless obscene devils : 
 for that is heathenism. 
 
 They must prove that the Catholic Church sets 
 up for the adoration of the people, murder, incest, 
 adultery, all crimes and vices, without any excep- 
 tion, under the forms of gods and goddesses : for 
 that is heathenism. 
 
 They must prove that the Catholic Church de- 
 spises Jesus Christ as an imposter, denies his 
 miracles, blasphemes his divinity : for that is 
 heathenism . 
 
349 
 
 They must prove that the Catholic Church 
 teaches her children ridiculous fables about the 
 creation of the world, the nature of man, the future 
 state of souls, etc. : for that is heathenism . 
 
 When they have proved all this, then, and then 
 only, will they have a yight to conclude that 
 heathenism and Catholicism are identical. 
 
 Q. When men calumniate the Catholic Church, 
 and call her idolatrous, what answer does the 
 Church give ? 
 
 A. When the Pharisees accused Jesus Christ of 
 being possessed with the devil, he answered : I have 
 not a devil , [St. John, ch. 8, v. 49,] and to prove 
 it, he expelled devils. In like manner the Catholic 
 Church says : I am not idolatrous, since I, and I 
 alone , have everywhere destroyed idolatry and 
 heathenism. 
 
 Q. Is this strictly true ? 
 
 A. It is ; all nations who have been converted 
 to Jesus Christ have been converted by the Catholic 
 Church. The forefathers of those who are now 
 Protestants were, by the Catholic Church, converted 
 from the worship of the devil to the worship of 
 God. But ask Protestants to name even one nation 
 converted by them from heathenism to Christianity. 
 
 Q. Is any other answer necessary ? 
 
 A. No ; such a fact speaks volumes of argumen- 
 tation. However, to fulfil our task, and to banish 
 from every mind even the shadow of a doubt about 
 the truth of the Catholic religion, we will examine 
 the question in full. This Protestant objection 
 being principally levelled against the exterior 
 worship of the Catholic Church, we shall presently 
 establish the necessity of an exterior worship, 
 explain the likeness which some heathen rites bear 
 to our ceremonies, and enter into some other 
 necessary particulars. 
 
 33 
 
350 
 
 2. Necessity of an Exterior Worship. 
 
 Q. What kind of worship must we pay to God? 
 
 A. We must pay to God a two-fold worship, 
 interior and exterior. 
 
 Q. What is interior worship ? 
 
 A. It is the adoration we pay to God in our 
 inner souls, principally by performing acts of faith 
 hope, and charity. 
 
 Q. What is exterior worship ? 
 
 A. It is the adoration we pay to God, by the 
 various gestures of our body, such as uncovering 
 our heads, kneeling down, prostrating ourselves, 
 and offering to God such other external marks of 
 reverence. To offer sacrifice, to recite or to sing 
 prayers, to keep certain days holy, to build temples 
 to God, to adorn them, to consecrate any other ’ 
 inanimate creature to the service of the altar, are 
 also a constituent and necessary part of exterior 
 worship. 
 
 Q. But did not Jesus Christ say : God is a: 
 spirit, and they that adore him must adore him ini 
 spirit and in truth [St. John, ch. 4, v. 24] ? 
 
 A. By these words, the Saviour did not intend 
 to forbid exterior worship, since, during his whole 
 life, he himself paid it to God his Father, regularly 
 going to the temple on feast days, kneeling down , 
 and prostrating himself in prayer. He intended 
 to explain to the Jews, who were a carnal people ' 
 seeking only external pomp and pageantry in their 
 religious ceremonies, that external observances are 
 worthless and of no avail when not enlivened by 
 the adoration of the heart. 
 
 Q. Why do we owe to God an exterior worship P I 
 
 A. Because he is the creator of the body as well t 
 as of the soul, and both body and soul must pay * 
 him a tribute of adoration. Men are - not angels : 
 
3ol 
 
 in men the body and soul are bound together by 
 a mysterious tie, and form but one person, so that 
 the soul can have no strong feeling of any kind 
 without its being immediately felt and manifested 
 by the body. Religious feelings are the same as 
 others in this particular ; and to forbid exterior 
 worship would be nothing less than to deny and 
 destroy human nature. 
 
 Q. Is there any other strong reason ? 
 
 A. Yes; every Christian is a member of a 
 visible society, which is the Church, the mystical 
 body of Christ, the very existence of which would 
 be impossible without an exterior worship. 
 
 Q. But why make use of inanimate creatures, 
 such as the stones and the marbles of our temples, 
 the incense, the gold, and the candles of our altars ? 
 
 A. Because God being the creator of heaven and 
 earth, and of every thing in heaven and upon earth, 
 we can make no better use of the inanimate 
 creatures than to consecrate them to his glory, 
 thereby acknowledging the supreme authority and 
 dominion he holds over this visible world. 
 
 Q. What says Scripture on this subject ? 
 
 A. In many and many pages of the sacred 
 writings, the Holy Ghost invites all inanimate 
 creatures to praise the Lord. Praise ye him , O 
 sun and moon ; praise him , all ye stars and light. 
 Praise him, ye heaven of heavens; and let all the 
 waters that are above the heavens praise the name 
 of the Lord [Ps, 148, v. 8, 4.] 0 every shower and 
 dew, ... 0 ye fire and heat , . . . fountains, . . . 
 seas and rivers , . . . all things that spring up in 
 the earth , . . . bless the Lord: praise and exalt 
 him . . . [Ban., ch. 3, passim, from v. 64 to v. 90] 
 Moreover, the greatest part of the books of Moses 
 consists of precepts to regulate the use of inani- 
 mate creatures, such as gold, silver, precious stones, 
 
352 
 
 incense, water, fire, etc., in the worship of God. 
 
 Q. What conclusion do you draw from all this? 
 
 A. That no truth can be more evident, from 
 scripture and reason, than the necessity of paying 
 to God an exterior worship, the splendour of which 
 must be enhanced by a proper use of inanimate 
 creatures. Protestants, who deny it, must con- 
 fess that God himself has established heathenism, 
 that the Bible is a heathenish book, and finally, 
 that Jesus Christ was a heathen. 
 
 3. Objections Answered. 
 
 Q. What is the chief objection of Protestants 
 against the exterior worship paid to God by the 
 Catholic Church ? 
 
 A. They say that we do as the heathens, that 
 we make use of the same things, viz : incense, holy 
 water, candles, altars, statues, etc., in our exterior 
 worship; and, forgetting that some ceremonies and 
 other matters of less importance do not make the 
 whole of the Catholic religion, they infer from it 
 that Catholicism and heathenism are but one and 
 the same thing. 
 
 Q. Is there any common sense in this objection? 
 
 A. None at all ; for it is perfectly evident that 
 things or practices, in themselves innocent and 
 pious, do not become unlawful or criminal because 
 they happen to be made use of by the heathens in 
 their superstitions. What ! Because heathens erect 
 temples to the devil, we could not erect temples to 
 the true living God ! Because they have prayers 
 to the devil, we could not have prayers to the Lord! 
 Because they burn an impure incense on the altars 
 of the devil, we should not offer up a pure incense 
 on the altars of Jesus Christ ! Because they make 
 
358 
 
 gods of wood and stone, we could not use wood 
 and stone to represent more lively to our eyes 
 Christ and his saints ! 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument ? 
 
 A. We have. To things essentially different 
 cannot be accounted one and the same thing be- 
 cause they happen to have some exterior likeness. 
 A monkey is not a man, though both have earsy v 
 eyes, feet, etc., etc. Otherwise, w^e could turn the 
 Protestant objection against Protestants themselves. 
 They have temples ; the heathens also have temples: 
 they have sacred books ; so have the heathens : they 
 have prayers and hymns; and the heathens also: 
 they have the sabbath; the heathens have their 
 sacred days: they have baptism ; the heathens have 
 their sacred bathings: they have nuptial cere- 
 monies and prayers; the heathens have them like- 
 wise: they perform funeral rites; so do the 
 
 heathens. Does it follow that Protestantism and 
 heathenism are identical ? 
 
 Q. If the Protestant objections were true, what 
 would be. the consequence ? 
 
 A. Then Protestants, as well as Catholics, must 
 overthrow their churches, burn the bible, destroy 
 every exterior sign of worship, abstain from sing- 
 ing prayers and hymns, and never assemble for any 
 religious purpose: this being the only way to have 
 a religious worship perfectly different from that of 
 the heathens. The manifest absurdity of this con- 
 sequence, which is besides in opposition to the 
 express command of God, in the Old as well as in 
 the New Testament, proves clearly the utter ab- 
 surdity of the objection itself. 
 
 Q. Have you anything more to say on this mat- 
 ter ? 
 
 A. Whatever may be the exterior likeness of 
 some ceremonies, there is always between Catholic 
 
354 
 
 and heathenish rites the same difference as between 
 God and the devil, between heaven and hell ; be- 
 cause all that we do is referred by ns to the wor- 
 ship of the true living God, and the glory of those 
 whom he has himself glorified in heaven, whilst all 
 heathenish worship is referred directly to the devil. 
 
 Finally, heathen worship consists exclusively in 
 the performance of external rites; whilst every 
 Christian knows that all external acts of worship 
 are worth nothing when not enlivened by faith and 
 by the adoration of the heart. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. That the likeness which some catholic rites 
 and ceremonies bear to the rites and ceremonies 
 of the heathens, does not prove those rites or cere- 
 monies to be unlawful or heathenish in themselves. 
 The question is not: Are such or such ceremonies 
 made use of by the heathens ? This has nothing 
 to do with the matter. But the question is : Are 
 such ceremonies in accordance with the law of God, 
 and the spirit of true religion ? 
 
 4. The Likeness of some Ceremonies 
 explained by the Origin of Idolatry. 
 
 Q. How do you explain the likeness between 
 some heathen ceremonies and Christian rites ? 
 
 A. When the same ceremonies are used in the 
 worship of God and in the worship of the devil, 
 we must infer from it, not that the Christians have 
 imitated the heathens, but, on the contrary, that 
 the heathens have borrowed those ceremonies from 
 the true religion. 
 
 Q. Why are we to come to such a conclusion ? 
 
 A. Because the true religion is more ancient 
 than heathenism. We see in the bible that our 
 first parents and their children offered up sacrifices 
 
355 
 
 to God. The manner in which Abel, Enoch, and 
 other ancient patriarchs performed these sacred 
 duties of religion is marked in scripture. The 
 same rites and ceremonies were observed by all, 
 till the time of the flood. Afterwards, Noe, faith- 
 fully observing the same rites, transmitted them 
 to his children ; and they were uniformly preserved 
 in their purity, until the separation of the diverse 
 tribes of mankind, after the building of the tower 
 of Babel. When, owing to the unruly passions of 
 men, to the lapse of time, and other various caused, 
 the knowledge of the one living God fell into obli- 
 vion; when the Gentiles began to adore the stars of 
 heaven, fire, etc., and to make carved gods of stone 
 and wood, the same external rites and ceremonies 
 used in the worship of God, which they had learn- 
 ed from the constant tradition of their forefathers, 
 were still preserved, but transferred from the 
 Creator to creatures. 
 
 Q. Could you firmly establish the truth of this 
 explanation ? 
 
 A. I prove it, firstly, by the striking likeness 
 which many heathen ceremonies bear to the cere- 
 monies of the Old Law. In many cases, the mi- 
 nutest particulars, as well as the principal rites are 
 not only similar but the same. 
 
 I prove it, secondly, by the fact of these rites and 
 ceremonies being nearly the same amongst all 
 heathen nations, all over the world, and in every 
 age ; which likeness evidently denotes a common 
 origin. 
 
 Q. What do you infer from it ? 
 
 A. That this common origin is necessarily an- 
 terior to the separation of the various tribes of 
 mankind, and consequently anterior to idolatry 
 which, at that time, was yet unknown. It is then 
 manifest that the greatest part of those rites be- 
 
356 
 
 longed originally to the worship of the true God y 
 and had been taught to men by God himself. 
 
 Now, such heathen rites as were similar to those 
 of the Old Law must necessarily have some like- 
 ness with those of the true Church of Christ, 
 because, according to Jesus Christ, the New Testa- 
 ment is not the destruction but the fulfilment of 
 the Old. [St. Matt. ch. 5, v. 17.] Such is not and 
 cannot be the case with Protestantism: because, as 
 we have clearly proved, Protestantism has nothing 
 to do with the true Church of God. It is not a 
 religion, but a mere negation of the best part of 
 the Christian religion. 
 
 Q. Is there any other cause of this likeness ? 
 
 A. Scripture teaches us that the devil, the better 
 to deceive his blind followers, has always tried to 
 imitate in his worship the worship of the true God. 
 The lying wonders made by the sorcerers of Egypt, 
 in answer to the miracles of Moses ; the false pro- 
 phets set up against the true prophets of God ; the 
 solemn warning given to us by our Saviour, that 
 ■we may not be deceived in the days of Antichrist, 
 etc., are superabundant proofs of it. 
 
 Q. Have you any thing more to say ? 
 
 A. The two general causes above specified suf- 
 ficiently explain the likeness between some heathen 
 and Christian ceremonies ; but it is more than pro- 
 bable that in many countries, as in India, such 
 ceremonies were directly borrowed from Catholi- 
 cism. Everybody knows that two of the twelve 
 Apostles, St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas, 
 preached in India, and made many converts. Al- 
 though, owing to the distance they were from the 
 fundamental See of St. Peter, to the extreme 
 difficulty there was in former times of keeping a 
 regular intercourse between the eastern and western 
 countries, etc., the churches founded by these two 
 
357 
 
 Apostles did not last, who will presume to say that 
 nothing at all remained ? Indeed, some learned 
 people suspect that the story of Khrishna, that 
 also of the last Buddha, are nothing else than a 
 shameful corruption of the history of our Saviour. 
 But, without going so far, one can safely assert, 
 that some of the heathenish ceremonies practised 
 in India are but disfigured vestiges of the true 
 religion once flourishing in some parts of the 
 country. 
 
 Q. What do you infer from all these facts ? 
 
 A. That all nations having preserved in their 
 religious rites more or less of the primitive tradi- 
 tions, and the devil having done his best to have 
 his temples, altars, priests, sacrifices, and all other 
 things like those used in the worship of the true 
 God, it is no wonder that some heathen rites and 
 ceremonies resemble those of the true religion. 
 
 We shall now examine those things which Pro- 
 testants look upon as heathenish, and prove how 
 unfounded are their objections. 
 
 5.— Is there anything Heathenish in 
 the Feasts and Ceremonies of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 Q. What are the chief particulars of the Catholic 
 worship, which Protestants condemn as heathenish 
 superstitions ? 
 
 A. The veneration and invocation of the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary and of the Angels and Saints, the 
 belief in miracles, the religious respect paid to relics 
 and holy images, the festivals and pilgrimages, the 
 use of incense and holy water, the burning of lamps 
 and candles, the use of beads, the processions, the 
 way in which we -perform funeral rites, etc.; such 
 are the principal things which, according to Pro- 
 
358 
 
 testant divines, make Catholicism and heathenism 
 one and the same. (For all the questions relating 
 to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, or to 
 miracles, pilgrimages, relics, images, statues, etc., 
 see above from p. 147 to p. 212.) 
 
 Q. Is there anything heathenish in keeping 
 certain days holy, and consecrated to religious 
 worship? 
 
 A. No, since God himself established festivals 
 to be celebrated by the Jews, in memory of the 
 principal events of the Old Law [Exod., ch. 12, 
 v. 17. etc., etc.] And we see in the Gospel that 
 Jesus Christ himself kept all those feasts during 
 his mortal life. Will Protestants venture to say 
 that God the Father and God the Son were guilty 
 of heathenism ? 
 
 Q. But is there nothing heathenish in the feasts 
 of the Saints ? 
 
 A. No. We have seen that such feasts were 
 instituted in the apostolic times, at a period when 
 Protestants themselves admit that the Church of 
 Christ was preserved in spotless purity. We have 
 proved that they were kept by the martj^rs them- 
 selves. Will Protestants assert that the first 
 Christians were heathens ? Will they say that they 
 were idolaters, those martyrs who, not to pollute 
 themselves by the least participation with heathen- 
 sim, braved the sword and the wild beasts, and by 
 giving their lives in testimony to Jesus Christ, have 
 destroyed idolatry, and drowned it in their own 
 blood ? 
 
 Q. Is there anything heathenish in the use of 
 incense ? 
 
 A. No, for it has been established by God 
 himself. Behold his own command : Aaron shall 
 burn siceet-smelling incense upon. it (the altar) in 
 the morning . . . and in the evening he shall burn an 
 
359 
 
 everlasting incense before the Lord. [Exodus, ch. 
 30, v. 7, 8.] Moreover, the prayers of the Saints, 
 in many places of scripture, are compared to a pure 
 incense burning before God. Would the Holy 
 Ghost have made use of such a comparison if 
 burning incense were a heathenish superstition? 
 
 Q. But, allowing incense to be offered to God, 
 is it not rank idolatry to bum it before the statues 
 of the Saints ? 
 
 A. Ho; because, as we have remarked else- 
 where, the meaning of the external act of worship 
 extends no farther than the intention of the 
 performer. Burning incense, kneeling down or 
 prostrating, are not of themselves acts of adoration, 
 but marks of reverence, which, if applied to God, 
 become adoration; if to creatures, are only a sign 
 of veneration and honour. 
 
 Q. Is there anything heathenish in the use of 
 holy water? 
 
 A. No, since the use of water sanctified for 
 religious purposes has been ordered by God himself. 
 [Numbers, ch. 19.] Would God have ordered an 
 idolatrous practice? Will Protestants say that it 
 is from the heathens we have borrowed the use of 
 water sanctified by the word of God and prayer, 
 in the name and by the virtue of Jesus Christ, 
 for that is which w t o call holy water ? 
 
 Q. But why do bless with it inanimate creatures ? 
 
 A . To consecrate them to the service of God, as 
 was done at first by God’s express command, 
 [Exodus, ch. 19,] or to protect them against any 
 noxious influence from the devil. 
 
 Q. But are not bells baptized in the Catholic 
 Church ? 
 
 A. No; they are blessed, as every other material 
 thing that is set apart to be used in religious 
 worship. 
 
360 
 
 Q. Ie there anything heathenish in the burn- 
 ing of lamps before the altar ? 
 
 A. If so, in this case again Protestants are 
 driven to say that God himself is the author of 
 idolatory ; for, by his own express command, 
 Moses made candlesticks to be set upon the altar, 
 which was before the ark of the covenant. [Exod., 
 ch. 25, ch. 37, and oh. 40.] 
 
 Q. Is there anything heathenism in the rosary 
 of the Blessed Yirgin ? 
 
 A. If there be anything heathenish in it, it 
 must be either the Hail Mary itself, or the 
 repetition of the same prayer, or the offering of it 
 to the Blessed Yirgin Mary. 
 
 If Protestants say that the Hail Mary is a 
 heathenish prayer, then they must say that the 
 archangel Gabriel, who first used it, is a heathen, 
 as well as the Almighty God who sent him. 
 
 If they say that it is a heathenish superstition 
 to repeat the same prayer, the accusation falls 
 directly upon our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the 
 garden prayed three times, saying the self-same 
 words [St. Matt., ch. 26, v. 44.] 
 
 It they say that it is heathenism to offer this 
 salutation to the ever blessed Mother of the Lord, 
 ask them to whom else was the archangel directed 
 by God to offer it. 
 
 Q. But why are there in the rosary ten Hail 
 Marys to one Our Father ? 
 
 A. Were there no other prayers in use amongst 
 Catholics, there would be some appearance of com- 
 mon sense in this objection ; but is any one ignor- 
 ant enough to suppose that we have no others P If 
 so, let him know that the rosary, being a special 
 invocation to the Blessed Yirgin, is, on that account, 
 made up of the constant repetition of the Hail 
 Mary . But that same rosary, far from being the 
 
361 
 
 only prayer we use, is not even a part of the public 
 liturgy of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Q. Is there nothing heathenish in Catholic pro- 
 cessions ? 
 
 A. No, because processions have ever been used 
 in the worship of God, as may be seen in the Old 
 Testament, and specially in the 2 Kings, ch. 6, 
 where an account is given of the solemn procession 
 ordered by David, when he fetched the ark of the 
 covenant from Cariathiarim. Was David a heathen 
 king ? 
 
 Q. Is there anything heathenish in the way in 
 which we perform the funeral rites ? 
 
 A. No, unless it be a heathenish superstition to 
 believe in the resurrection of the body. For, if we 
 burn incense, it is to honour the remains of a 
 Christian, which have been made, by baptism and 
 other sacraments, the temple of the Holy Ghost ; 
 if we light candles, it is a symbol of the resurrec- 
 tion of this same body ; and if many Christians 
 set up 1 lamps on the grave on the third day it is in 
 memory of Jesus Christ rising the third day from 
 the dead, and as a testimony of our belief that we 
 shall rise again, like him, and by his power. 
 
 Q. Is it a heathenish practice to do penance ? 
 
 A. Was our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ a 
 heathen ? He has done penance, he has prayed, 
 he has fasted, he has ordered us to do the same : 
 If any man will come after me , let him deny him- 
 self, and take up his cross daily , and follow me. 
 [St. Luke, ch. 9, v. 23. j Do penance , f or the 
 kingdom of heaven is at hand. [St. Matt., ch. 4, 
 v. 17.] He has left us lessons concerning fasting, 
 expressly affirming that, after his resurrection and 
 ascension, all his children should fast ; and we 
 know that the Apostles faithfully obeyed his com- 
 mandment. [See above, p. 317.] 
 
 51 
 
362 
 
 Mark that many Protestant sects, whenever 
 public calamities or disasters occur, have days of 
 humiliation and prayer publicly appointed, as was 
 the case, both in England and India, during the 
 great mutiny of 1857. Why so, if doing penance 
 be a heathenish superstition ? 
 
 Q. Is it not heathenish to put ashes on one's 
 head, as Catholics do at the beginning of Lent ? 
 
 A. Have Protestants never opened the Bible ? 
 Do they ignore that Job did penance in dust and 
 ashes ? [Job, ch. 42, v. 6.] Have they not heard 
 Jeremias saying : Gird thee with sackcloth , 0 
 
 daughter of my people, and sprinkle thee with ashes? 
 [Jerem. ch. 6. v. 26.] The Old Testament is full of 
 such examples, and Jesus Christ himself says : If 
 m Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles 
 that have been wrought in you, they had long ago 
 done penance in sackcloth and ashes. [St. Matt., 
 ch. 11, v. 21.] 
 
 Q. But is not that the character of the beast 
 foretold in the Revelation of St. John, ch. 13, v. 
 16 ? 
 
 A. Catholics, on the first Wednesday of Lent, 
 receive ashes on their foreheads in the form of a 
 cross. Is the cross of Jesus Christ the character 
 of the beast ? 
 
 Q. Is it not a heathenish superstition to believe 
 in the miracles of the Saints ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ has said : Amen, amen, I say to 
 you, he that bclieveth in me, the works that I do, he 
 also shall do, and greater than these shall he do. 
 [St. John, ch. 14, v. 12.] And elsewhere he points 
 out what signs should follow them that believed. 
 [St. Mark, ch. 16, v. 17, 18.] Is the Lord Jesus 
 the founder of heathenism [See above, p. 164] ? 
 
 Q. What is the difference between the miracles 
 believed by Catholics and the false miracles of the 
 heathens ? 
 
363 
 
 A. The miracles which God has been pleased to 
 work by his saints always have these three marks : 
 they are useful to men, glorious to God, and sup- 
 ported by the strongest possible testimony, so that 
 no one can deny them, without denying evidence. 
 
 On the contrary, the false miracles which the 
 heathens ascribe to their gods and devotees are 
 generally useless or shameful tricks, with no other 
 object than the satisfaction of infamous desires ; 
 and no one, even amongst their most bigoted 
 believers, ever dreamed of producing any witness 
 of their truth. 
 
 Q. What is the general conclusion of all this 
 chapter ? 
 
 A. It must be evident to any man endowed 
 with common sense, that this Protestant accusa- 
 tion of heathenism is a ridiculous and unfounded 
 one ; that it shows in its supporters a lamentable 
 ignorance of scripture ; and that, in many cases, 
 the abuses daily heaped up by them upon the 
 Catholic Church, on account of those ceremonies, 
 fall directly upon God himself. 
 
364 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 ANSWERS TO SOME OTHER 
 PROTESTANT CHARGES. 
 
 1. The Catholic Church and Modern 
 Civilization. 
 
 Q. What is civilization ? 
 
 A. The word “ civilization ” means a state of 
 society in which all the wants of man and man- 
 kind are provided for, more amply and fully every 
 day, by the progress of morality, freedom, justice, 
 and social harmony, as well as by the continuous 
 development of intellectual activity and the increase 
 of material wealth. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church averse or hostile to 
 civilization ? 
 
 k ; A. The very idea of such an opposition is stupid 
 and blasphemous, since the Church is from God, 
 carrying on upon earth the work of God. No man 
 in his senses will pretend that the Almighty God 
 is a foe to civilization, or that the Creator is op- 
 posed to the welfare of his creatures. How then 
 could the Church of God be so P No man in his 
 senses will imagine that Jesus Christ is an enemy 
 to morality, freedom, justice, peace and truth. 
 How then could the vicar of Christ ever be so ? 
 On the contrary, the Church of God, and she alone, 
 could and did produce and foster true civilization. 
 
 Q. How do you prove it ? ' 
 
 A. Jesus Christ, when proclaiming anew the 
 two great commandments : Thou shalt love thy 
 God . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself 
 said : On these two commandments dependeth the 
 whole law and the prophets. [St. Matt., ch. 22, 
 
365 
 
 ▼. 40.] We may add that on these two command- 
 ments depends, not only the eternal salvation of 
 individual souls, but the happiness and civilization 
 of mankind. Wherever these commandments are 
 unknown or set aside, there may be science or 
 wealth, intellectual or physical progress, with the 
 other external appearances of civilization, but true 
 civilization there cannot be ; because the violation 
 of that double law necessarily begets immorality, 
 injustice, tyranny, the triumph of might over 
 right, and the remorseless oppression of the many 
 for the benefit of a few. 
 
 Now, the Church was established that all men 
 could know and obey this twofold precept. She 
 exists for nothing else ; and it is by faithfully dis- 
 charging her duty, that she has not only saved 
 millions and millions of souls, but raised Christian 
 people to a moral and social level which the world 
 had never seen. It is the Church that has dis- 
 pelled error and ignorance, made justice respected, 
 humanized legislation, created international law, 
 destroyed slavery, softened the cruel necessities 
 of war, protected the weak and the oppressed, 
 taken a motherly care of the sick and the poor, 
 alleviated miseries of every kind, unceasingly 
 fought for right against might, etc. And what she 
 has been doing from the first, she is doing to 
 this day, so that her history is the history of 
 civilization. 
 
 Q. But has not the Church always opposed 
 freedom and political emancipation ? 
 
 A. The Church has always condemned the 
 crimes committed in the name of liberty, but true 
 and real liberty she has never opposed. The spirit 
 of the Lord abides in her, and where the spirit of 
 the Lord is, there is liberty. [2 Cor., ch. 3, v. 17.] 
 She is the witness of that truth of which the Lord 
 
366 
 
 says : And the truth shall make you free. [St. John, 
 oh. 8, y. 32.] There is no historical fact more 
 certain than this, that wherever human societies 
 have acquired liberty, they owed it to the action 
 of the Church. If princes have been tyrants, it 
 was always the Church which fearlessly resisted 
 them, and but for her, as the illustrious Protestant 
 historian Guizot admits, “the whole world must 
 have been abandoned to brute force.” In Laing’s 
 Observations on the Social and Political State of 
 the European People , there is a chapter entitled : 
 Church of Rome the Source of Liberty and Civili- 
 zation , in which that ardent Protestant writer con- 
 fesses that u all that men have of civil, political 
 and religious freedom in the present age, may be 
 clearly traced, in the history of every country, to 
 the working and effects of the independent power 
 of the Church of Borne.” Such is, after centuries 
 of discussions and researches, the final verdict of 
 modern historical science. 
 
 Q. Why then is such a furious outcry raised 
 now-a-days against the Church ? 
 
 A. Why was the Lord Jesus Christ accused by 
 false witnesses ? Why was he calumniated and 
 carried to Pilate’s tribunal by the very people 
 whom he had so often and so miraculously bene- 
 fited ? The servant, said he himself, is not greater 
 than his master. If they have persecuted me, they • 
 will also persecute you. [St. John, ch. 15, v. 20.] 
 His Church, therefore, must be like him, accused 
 by false witnesses, slandered and calumniated. F or 
 long centuries they have attacked her doctrines, 
 vilified her morals, tried to shake her indefectible 
 unity ; now they deny the benefits she has confer- 
 red on them, they traduce the mother and bene- 
 factress of mankind as the enemy of freedom and 
 civilization. 
 
3G7 
 
 To give every one his due. we must remark that 
 there are many echoing this stupid charge, who, 
 like the mob that abused the crucified Lord, knoio 
 not what they do. [St. Luke, ch. 23, v. 34.] 
 Stultified by sensational novels or fanatical pamph- 
 lets, possessed of such historical lore only as can 
 be scraped up from newspapers and magazines, 
 they imagine that the Church of God is indeed 
 the monstrous bugbear it is represented to he, and 
 cry her down accordingly. But the heads of the 
 movement, the initiated leaders of secret societies, 
 know better. They have taken it up as a most 
 convenient war-cry to rouse people against the 
 Church, and they want to crush the Church, 
 because they want, in fact, to get rid of Jesus 
 Christ and of Almighty God. 
 
 Q. Should not the Pope, for the sake of general 
 peace, and to promote the best interests of the 
 Church, come to terms with progress, liberalism 
 and modern civilization ? 
 
 A. By the logical growth and evolution of Pro- 
 testant principles words have lost their true mean- 
 ing. As shall be proved hereafter, what people 
 now call progress, is degeneracy ; what they call 
 liberty of religion, is atheism ; their liberalism is 
 licentiousness ; their modern civilization means the 
 banishment of God from human society, the relapse 
 of the world into the miry sink of old paganism. 
 Do the statesmen of the day, the political wiseacres 
 of the periodical press, imagine that God Almighty 
 approves such progress, such liberty, such civiliza- 
 tion ? and, if not, why do they expect his Yicar 
 to do so ? 
 
 Q. What is the general way or, if we may use 
 the term, the pass-key to solve every objection or 
 difficulty that may be urged against the Church, 
 out of science, or history, or politics, etc. ? 
 
368 
 
 A. We Catholics know and believe that the 
 Church is from God, that she is infallible in her 
 teaching, that she is the glorious Church not 
 having spot or wrinkle , or any such thing . . . holy 
 and without hlcmisli. [Eph., ch. 5, v. 27.] We 
 are therefore perfectly satisfied, beforehand, that 
 nothing can be true, or just, or reasonable, or con- 
 clusive, which is objected against her. We know, 
 moreover, from the confession of the shrewdest 
 philosophers, the most learned historians, and the 
 best men amongst her adversaries, that, in fact, no 
 serious allegation brought against her has ever 
 been or could ever be substantiated. This double 
 answer is to the point, and quite sufficient in every 
 possible case. 
 
 There are however, some common-place objec- 
 tions and charges which occur almost every day, 
 in ponderous scientific books as in short tracts, in 
 reviews and newspapers, in speeches at political 
 meetings as well as in ordinary talk, about the 
 intolerance of Catholics, their ignorance, their 
 disloyalty to civil powers, etc., etc. These we 
 must now, to our readers’ benefit, examine and 
 clear away, as plainly and compendiously as 
 possible. 
 
 2. Liberty of Conscience. 
 
 Q. What is liberty of conscience ? 
 
 A. Liberty of conscience, properly so called, 
 is the right natural and divine which every man 
 has to serve God, to fulfil the divine precepts, and 
 to do whatever is required to obtain his super- 
 natural end, without being in any way prevented 
 or interfered with by any act or law of any human 
 power. 
 
369 
 
 The same term is also used, somewhat incor- 
 rectly, to mean the toleration granted by civil 
 laws to the various creeds established in a country ; 
 a toleration which, according to circumstances, 
 may be not only just and reasonable, but some- 
 times absolutely necessary. 
 
 Unfortunately, the true and lawful sense of these 
 words is often forgotten, and there are few expres- 
 sions in the language so constantly misunderstood 
 and so sadly misapplied. 
 
 Q. What is to-day the habitual meaning of the 
 words : religious toleration, liberty of thought, 
 liberty of conscience, etc ? 
 
 A. These words, as everybody knows, are gene- 
 rally used to mean not only the toleration of, but 
 the complete indifference to all creeds or religions; 
 which disastrous system, under the specious names 
 of moderation, liberalism, etc., ... is gaining 
 ground, now-a-days, to an alarming extent amongst 
 Protestants of every sect. The great majority of 
 them say : that man can be saved in any sect or 
 Church whatever ; that all are equally good ; that 
 it is quite sufficient to have any faith, no matter of 
 what kind. Some of their divines, principally in 
 Germany, bolder or more logical than their col- 
 leagues, go even farther. They teach publicly 
 that all religions are equally worthless ; that a 
 heathen, or a mussulman, provided he be what the 
 world calls an honest man, will go to heaven, in 
 case there should be something of the kind, as well 
 as a good Christian ; that to profess the contrary 
 is an old superstition of the dark ages, injurious to 
 God, whom it represents as cruel, etc. 
 
 Q. What do you think of it ? 
 
 A. Religious toleration, understood in that sense, 
 even if we restrain it to the various sects of Chris- 
 tians, is nothing else than practical atheism. To 
 
370 
 
 say that the various sects are equally good, is to 
 say that God has revealed contradictory doctrines; 
 it is to make him a liar. To say that it does not 
 matter, whether we obey his express command, or 
 rebel against it; to say that he is indifferent to 
 truth or error ; that he will equally reward the 
 faithful and the unfaithful, the obedient believer 
 and the insolent scoffer, are blasphemies which 
 destroy the very notion of God. 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of the Catholic Church 
 on that matter ? 
 
 A. The Church teaches her' children that as 
 there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and 
 consequently but one true Church of Christ, out of 
 this true fold there can he no salvation; that is : 
 nobody can be saved who, wilfully and by his own 
 fault, lives and dies out of it. 'Let men fret and 
 murmur at this doctrine, let them protest against 
 it and call it unjust, cruel and tyrannical. Heaven 
 and earth shall pass away , hut the word of Jesus 
 Christ shall not pass away. [St. Mark, ch. 13, v. 31.] 
 The same God who has said: Thou shalt not kill , 
 has said also: Hear the Church , and both precepts 
 
 are equally binding, and he who violates either 
 condemns himself to the same eternal punishment. 
 
 Q. What was formerly the common Protestant 
 teaching on that question ? 
 
 A. The words of the Saviour are too clear, and 
 plain common sense sees so evidently their conse- 
 quence, that, during the last three centuries Pro- 
 testants have generally professed the same doctrine 
 of exclusive salvation, which they so unjustly 
 blame in us. 
 
 In Scotland we have the 16th Article of the 
 Old Confession , which says expressly that: there 
 is one Kirk , out of which Kirk neither life nor eternal 
 felicity is to he hoped for. The 18th Article of the 
 
371 
 
 Church of England declares that : they also are to 
 he had ACCURSED, that presume to say that every 
 man shall he saved by the law or sect which he 
 professeth. The French Prot. Catech. edit. 1710, 
 p. 283, says: Without doubt , out of the Church , 
 there is nothing hut death and damnation. The same 
 is the doctrine of the Protestant Belgian Con- 
 fession, &c. 
 
 Duriug three hundred years, Protestants of 
 every denomination have excommunicated, ana- 
 thematized, and persecuted not only Catholics, 
 but Protestants of all other sects. With that ab- 
 surd fanaticism peculiar to error, they never 
 thought of excepting persons of good faith from 
 the sweeping condemnation which they passed on 
 all who did not belong to their own sect ; and as 
 the great Protestant philosopher Leibnitz remarked 
 “ the Roman Catholic Church is much more liberal 
 than Protestants, and does not condemn absolutely 
 those who are out of her communion” 
 
 Q. Why have Protestants given up their former 
 doctrine ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church alone, being founded 
 on divine and infallible authority, is true to her 
 principle when proclaiming the dogma : Out of 
 the Church there is no salvation. But in 
 Churches founded on the pretended right of private 
 interpretation, such a claim involves the most 
 absurd contradictions. This was not visible at first 
 to eyes blindfolded by a thick cloud of prejudices ; 
 they could not see that the right of choosing one’s 
 religion necessarily implies indifference to all 
 religions. But logic has proved stronger in the 
 end. Nobody cares now for those declarations of 
 long dead formularies, and the great majority of 
 Protestants condemn them as monuments of a 
 shocking and monstrous tyranny. 
 
 Q. But has not man the innate and unqualified 
 
right to think as he likes, and to utter his thoughts 
 independently of any law ? 
 
 A. Not at all. As long as God is God, he is 
 the supreme Lord and Master of his creatures, 
 and all are bound to obey his laws, in thought as 
 well as in deed. Man of course, is free to rebel, but 
 he lias no right to do so, just as he is free to stab 
 or drown himself or others, though he has no right 
 to do so. 
 
 Q. AVhat follows from it ? 
 
 A. That the Church who is witness of God’s 
 truth and guardian of God’s precepts, violates 
 no right when condemning free-thought and its 
 corollary, the liberty of the press. Free- thought 
 is but another name for atheism ; liberty of the 
 press means, in fact, that every profligate and 
 unbelieving spouter is' free to delude unwary 
 readers with all the pestilent folly his corrupt 
 imagination can engender. Such pretended right 
 neither God nor his Church can ever admit. 
 
 Q. You cannot deny, then, that the Church 
 restrains our liberty ? 
 
 A. I should as soon think of denying that God 
 dees so. She curtails our liberty in the same way 
 that he does, and in no other ; and she secures it 
 as he does, by subjecting it to law. To say that 
 she claims universal jurisdiction and authority 
 over the souls of men, and she refuses them the 
 false liberty of heresy and sin is to say that she 
 does what God appointed her to do, and has com- 
 manded her to do in his place. Does anybody 
 expect her to abdicate ? 
 
 Q. But does not such a doctrine justify that 
 fanatical intolerance with which the Church is 
 said to have persecuted Protestants ? 
 
 A. The fact is that the Church has done her 
 duty to God and mankind, and that she has been 
 and is yet cruelly persecuted ^y heretics. But 
 
this vexed question of intolerance we will now dis- 
 cuss separately, explaining the principles and 
 elucidating the principal historical facts. 
 
 3. Catholic and Protestant Intolerance. 
 
 Q. H as the Church legislative power P 
 
 A. Undoubtedly. She has been made by her 
 divine founder, a society, a kingdom, a city, a 
 family; and no society, no kingdom, etc., can 
 be imagined without'legislative authority. All the 
 arguments and scriptural texts we have quoted 
 above [Part II, ch. V] prove not only that Christ 
 has given his Church that power, but that he has 
 intrusted it to the body of her pastors, under the 
 supremacy of his vicar St. Peter, and that these 
 pastors have always used it. 
 
 Q. Has the Church coercive power ? 
 
 A. The coercive power is necessary and a corre- 
 lative of the legislative authority. No society 
 could exist, even for one day, without it, that is, 
 without proper means to enforce the execution of 
 laws, to prevent, to repress, and to punish guilty 
 acts, the impunity of which would injure that 
 society. In families coercive power is intrusted 
 by God himself to the father; in nations the 
 supreme authority, be it a king, a parliament, or 
 a congress, has its army, its police, its courts, its 
 jails, its scaffolds, etc. ; in the Church of God, the 
 Pope and the bishops have their ecclesiastical courts, 
 their penal code, with a scale of penalties, the prin- 
 cipal of which is excommunication with all its 
 consequences, spiritual and temporal. 
 
 Q. But is not the Church a society merely 
 spiritual, since Christ himself said : My kingdom 
 
 is not of this world [St. John, ch. 18, v. 36]? 
 
374 
 
 A. The Church is a spiritual society and, as such, 
 she has from God proper and direct authority on 
 the actions of her members, so far only as these 
 acts refer to man’s spiritual end, which is eternal 
 salvation. But her members are men, her pastors 
 are men, her enemies are men. She lives, operates, 
 works, fights, and suffers on earth, amongst men. 
 She is, as man himself, at the same time body and 
 soul ; as Christ himself, both human and divine. 
 She cannot, therefore, adequately fulfil the duties 
 of her supernatural ministry without some exterior 
 and coercive power. 
 
 Q. What follows from this ? 
 
 A. Two important consequences : 
 
 lstly. Such exterior and physical coercive power 
 as is necessary to the spiritual end of the Church 
 belongs to her from divine and natural right. 
 
 2ndly. As it is evident, from the very nature 
 of things, that the penal and disciplinary laws of 
 the Church, as well as the sentences of ecclesiastical 
 courts, cannot be completely efficient, cannot even 
 be carried into execution, without the co-operation 
 of the civil and temporal power, civil authority is 
 obliged, by divine right, to assist, as far as neces- 
 sary, in giving these laws or sentences their full 
 effect. 
 
 Q. Are then Christian nations and Governments 
 bound to obey the laws of the Church, and to make 
 them obeyed P 
 
 A. Asa rule they are. The end of any society 
 cannot be different from or opposed to the end of 
 its members, and it exists only to secure them the 
 use of their rights. Now, the free, full, and public 
 profession and exercise of the true religion 
 established by Jesus Christ is one of the first 
 things exacted by God, as well as one of the first 
 necessities of human nature, and one of the first 
 
rights of man. Governments, therefore, are bound 
 to protect this religion, by removing all obstacles 
 and impediments to the free working of its in- 
 stitutions. 
 
 Moreover, nations, as such, are subject to God, 
 and they, as well as individuals, must serve and wor- 
 ship him: All nations shall serve him. [Psalm 71, 
 v. 11.] They are obliged, therefore, to render a 
 public and national worship to the true living God, 
 and to his Son Jesus Christ. And it is their 
 bounden duty to carry into execution the laws of 
 Christ’s Church, to repress blasphemies and here- 
 sies, to forbid bad books, to gag an infidel and 
 corrupting press, to disinfect public theatres, to 
 prevent and punish scandals of every kind which 
 ruin faith and morals, and bring on the eternal 
 loss of countless souls. 
 
 Q. What then becomes of liberty of thought ? 
 
 A. The liberty of denying God’s revelation and 
 of disobeying God’s commandments neither God 
 nor his Church care much for. Is the law which 
 regulates the sale of poisons in druggists’ shops 
 derogatory to liberty ? Is the law which prevents 
 the direct inciting of young people to debauchery 
 oppressive of freedom? Why then should free 
 circulation be allowed to the poisons of heresy and 
 infidelity which kill the soul? Why should not 
 the corruption of the mind by erroneous doctrines 
 be proscribed, as strictly as the corruption of the 
 heart by obscene prints or filthy practices ? 
 
 Q. But is not the application of such principles 
 almost impossible in the actual state of civilized 
 nations ? V 
 
 A. Owing to the religious and political revolu- 
 tions of the last three centuries, unity of faith has 
 been destroyed amongst nearly all Christian 
 nations, and circumstances have forced on them 
 
376 
 
 the acceptance of constitutional laws which more 
 or less ignore the authority of the Church, and 
 enact the public toleration of various creeds, or 
 even a complete indifference to all creeds whatso- 
 ever. Such a state of things may he sometimes an 
 equitable and fair compromise, sometimes a practi- 
 cal necessity. In such cases Catholics are free, 
 not only to accept fully and without any mental 
 reservation the laws of the country in w’hich they 
 happen to live, but even to profess that liberty of 
 worship is, in certain circumstances of time and 
 place, relatively better than its opposite. 
 
 What they can never admit is the error of those 
 who maintain that absolute liberty of worship is 
 in itself a natural right, that its establishment is a 
 progress of true civilization, and that the complete 
 indifference of the State to any religion whatever 
 is, theoretically, the best social system that can be 
 devised. Such a doctrine is condemned by the 
 Church, because it is nothing else than the glori- 
 fication of official atheism. Christ is the king of 
 nations as well as of individuals, and though now, 
 all over the world, so-called Christian kings and 
 governments have rejected him, though they are 
 crying with the Jews : We will not have this man 
 to reign over us, [St. Luke, ch. 19, v. 14] ; yet, the 
 Church can never forsake the rights of her founder, 
 to whom all nations have been given for his inheri- 
 tance. [Psalm 2, v. 8.] 
 
 Q. What was formerly] the fundamental law of 
 all Christian countries ? 
 
 A. When things were in a normal state, Christian 
 nations and Christian governments knew their 
 duties to God, and framed their laws accordingly. 
 Christ himself was their first king; the laws of 
 his Church were embodied in every national code, 
 and the crime of heresy was then qualified high 
 
treason and punished as such. Every Christian 
 people was a member of the same family, the 
 one Catholic Church, and as the unity and purity 
 of the Catholic faith was the basis of their several 
 constitutions, all these nations taken together com- 
 posed what was called Christendom, that is Christ's 
 kingdom. 
 
 Q. This looks very well as a theory, but how 
 did the system work, and what were its practical 
 results ? 
 
 A. As was to be expected in a world where the 
 best institutions are so often abused, such a state 
 of things, however sound and reasonable in itself, 
 was not without its inconveniences. Human 
 nature is always the same. Sometimes princes 
 had indeed a zeal of God , but not according to 
 knoicledge. [Rom., ch. 10, v. 2.] At other times, 
 religious motives were made a pretext for unjust 
 wars, and acts of injustice and tyranny were com- 
 mitted in the name of religion to obtain merely 
 political ends. 
 
 But, on the whole, the moral level was much 
 higher than it is now ; the rights of subjects, 
 the local liberties of populations, the faith, the 
 feelings, the moral freedom of Christians were more 
 respected ; might, however violent and successful, 
 was not accounted right, as it is now; and the 
 political iniquities, the monstrous wars, of modem 
 times would have been impossible. This healthier 
 state of public conscience and international law was 
 owing entirely to the one Catholic faith which all 
 professed; and for the abuses, the Church can- 
 not be held responsible, for she always protested 
 against cruelty, and strove unceasingly to protect 
 the victims of mistaken zeal or of hypocritical 
 tyranny. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that such was, at that 
 time, the part of the Church P 
 
378 
 
 A. All the existing monuments of European 
 history show that the Church, however careful of 
 protecting the unity of faith, has never forsaken 
 the meekness and charity of her divine founder. 
 She has always done her best to mitigate the 
 severity of the laws passed by certain Catholic 
 governments. To quote only a few instances : 
 Pope Clement IV admonished the French king St. 
 Louis, who had enacted very stringent regulations 
 against blasphemers, and got those regulations 
 changed. According to the Protestant historian 
 Ranke [Hist, ds la Papaute aux seizieme et dix- 
 septieme siecles,~\ Pope Innocent XI reproved, 
 very severely, the cruel repressive measures of 
 Louis XIV against Protestants. 
 
 These Popes followed the constant traditions of 
 their predecessors, whose doctrine is summed up in 
 the instruction of Pope St. Nicholas the Great to 
 the Bulgarians, in the ninth century: “As for 
 those who refuse to receive the Gospel, you must 
 not in any way coerce them, for whatever is not 
 from a willing heart cannot be good. God wants 
 none but a voluntary worship, and from willing 
 offerers.” [ Resp . ad consulta Balg. 41.] 
 
 That this regulating and softening influence of 
 the church was, on the whole, very successf ul, we 
 have fully established above [sec. 1 of this chapter] 
 by unobjectionable Protestant testimonies. 
 
 Q. But have not Catholics persecuted heretics 
 most cruelly, especially in Spain ? 
 
 A. To this I answer that the Spanish Inquisition, 
 far from being an ecclesiastical and papal institu- 
 tion, was never approved of by the Popes. It was 
 a political tribunal, established by King Ferdinand 
 V, in spite of the Pope Sixtus IV, principally 
 against the Moors and Jews, who had simulated 
 conversion, the better to conceal their treacherous 
 plots against the Christians. The Popes repeatedly 
 
379 
 
 condemned the severity of the Spanish Inquisi- 
 tors. Leo X, in 1519, excommunicated them, Paul 
 III opposed the Spanish king, who wanted to have 
 the Spanish Inquisition established at Naples. 
 Pius IV and his nephew, St. Charles Borromeo, 
 did the same at Milan, etc. [See Pohrbacher. Hist, 
 de VEglise , t. XXII, where are quoted in corrobo- 
 ration of these historical facts many Protestant 
 testimonies, from Schroeckh, Ranke, Leo, etc.] 
 
 To give every one his due, it is but just to 
 remark that the Royal Spanish Inquisition against 
 heretics was never half so cruel and so barbarous 
 as the Royal English Inquisition against catholics 
 and dissenters. This fact, startling as it may 
 prove to many novel and tract readers, is admitted 
 nevertheless by all impartial historians, even 
 Protestants. 
 
 Q. What is the best argument to prove that the 
 spirit of the Church has always been what it ought 
 to be ? 
 
 A. Had the Catholic Church ever been as blood- 
 thirsty as some ignorant Protestants are taught to 
 believe, it would have been at Rome, the very 
 hot-bed of Popery, as they call it, more than any- 
 where else. Now it is a fact that no princes or 
 kings in the world have ever been so indulgent as 
 the Popes. During the middle ages, when the 
 Jews w r ere expelled from every other Christian 
 country, it was to the Popes they fled for refuge, 
 and Rome, since then, has been called the paradise 
 of the Jews. It is officially proved that, from the 
 time of Luther till the present day, no Protestant 
 was ever sentenced to death, at Rome, on account 
 of his religion. [See Balmes, le Protest . compare 
 au Cathol.~\ 
 
 Q. How have Protestants put into practice their 
 theory of religious liberty and universal toleration ? 
 
380 
 
 A. From the votaries of a creed, the fundamental 
 principle of which is the right of every individual 
 , to interpret scripture according to his own notions 
 and whims, one might have expected, at least, some 
 show of tolerance. Yet, in fact, never did any 
 sect, even the most fanatical amongst Mahometans, 
 obtrude itself on reluctant people by deeds of such 
 a shameless and tyrannical violence. In Germany, 
 in the British Isles, in Northern Europe, etc., 
 wherever some form of Protestantism established 
 itself, not only was the true religion drowned in 
 the blood of countless martyrs, hut dissenters also 
 were beheaded or perished at the stake. The 
 monstrous penal laws which disgrace the codes of 
 Protestant countries have been published, and the 
 history of these persecutions has been written, by 
 Protestants themselves, that the world may know 
 the hypocrisy of these boasters of religious 
 freedom. 
 
 We have no space for many quotations, and one 
 will be quite sufficient. As the English Church 
 by law established is better known in India than 
 other sects, let the reader peruse attentively 
 the following pages of the Protestant historian 
 W. Cobbet, in his letter to Lord Tenterden. 
 
 u . . .Let us take your proposition, that there is 
 no Church so tolerant as this. I am sure your 
 Lordship has never read her history; I am sure 
 you have not ; if you had, you never would have 
 uttered these words. . . The Law-Church is the 
 most intolerant Church I ever read or heard of. . . 
 This Church began to exist in 1547, and in the 
 reign of Edward VI. . . then only it became wholly 
 Protestant by law. The Articles of religion and 
 the Common Prayer Book were now drawn up, 
 and were established by Acts of Parliament. The 
 Catholic altars were pulled down in all the 
 churches. . . and the people who had been born 
 
381 
 
 and bred Catholics were not only punished if they 
 heard Mass, but were also punished if they did 
 not go to hear the new parsons : that is to say, 
 if they refused to become apostates. The people, 
 smarting under this tyranny, rose in insurrection 
 in several parts, and indeed all over the country. . . 
 And how were they answered ? The bullet and 
 bayonet at the hand of German troops slaughtered 
 a part, caused another part to be hanged, another 
 part to be imprisoned and flogged, and the re- 
 mainder to submit, outwardly at least, to the Law- 
 Church. 
 
 “ [Under the reign of Elizabeth] the court of 
 High Commission were empowered to have control 
 over the opinions of all men, and to punish all 
 men, according to their discretion, short of death. 
 They had power to extort evidence by the prison 
 or by the rack. They had power to compel a man 
 on oath to reveal his thoughts, and to accuse him- 
 self, his friend, brother, parent, wife, or child, and 
 this too on pain of death. . . I have no room to 
 rrlake even an enumeration of the deeds of religious 
 persecution of this long and bloody reign ; but I 
 will state a few of them : 
 
 u It was death to make a new Catholic priest 
 within the kingdom ; 
 
 “ It was death for a Catholic priest to come into 
 the kingdom from abroad ; 
 
 “It was death to harbour a Catholic priest 
 coming from abroad ; 
 
 u It was death to confess to such a priest ; 
 u It was death for any priest to say Mass ; 
 
 “ It was death for any one to hear Mass ; 
 
 “ It was death to deny, or not to swear when 
 called on, that this woman (the queen) was th® 
 head of the Church of Christ. . . 
 
 “ I am not making loose assertions here ; I am 
 
382 
 
 all along stating from the Acts of Parliament. . . 
 I am not declaiming, but relating undeniable facts; 
 and with facts of the same character, with a bare 
 list made in the above, manner, I could fill a con- 
 siderable volume. The names of the persons put 
 to death merely for being Catholics, during this 
 long and bloody reign would, especially if we were 
 to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as 
 that of our army and navy both taken together. 
 The usual mode of inflicting death was to hang the 
 victim for a short time, just to benumb his or her 
 faculties; and then cut down, and instantly rip open 
 the belly, and tear out the heart, and hold it up ; 
 fling the bowels into the fire, then chop off the 
 head, and cut the body into quarters, then boil the 
 head and quarters, and then hang them up at the 
 gates of the cities, or other conspicuous places. . .” 
 
 Q. But that was in times long past; is not now 
 the Protestant system quite changed? 
 
 A. Of course, such an apostolic way of convert- 
 ing an unwilling people to the pure gospel could 
 not be safely resorted to now-a-days, at least in 
 some countries, as in England or in America. 
 But, though circumstances have changed, the 
 spirit of Protestantism has not changed, and 
 wherever political necessities do not prevent it, 
 Protestants deny liberty of conscience to Catholics. 
 
 In Lutheran Sweden, people who come back to 
 the true fold and join the Catholic Church, are 
 punished with confiscation and exile, and the pro- 
 scription laws against Catholics have been of late 
 renewed and confirmed with increased rigour. 
 
 The world at large knows what has been going 
 on of late years in Germany and in Switzerland, 
 where Protestant governments tried to crush down 
 Catholicism by a legislation which sought to re- 
 vive if not in its remorseless cruelty, at least in 
 its diabolical malice, the era of pagan persecution. 
 
383 
 
 Q. Why do you prefer against Protestants a 
 general accusation of intolerance, on account of 
 what is done in such or such particular country ? 
 
 A. Because these local persecutions have clearly 
 shown that hatred of Popery is, now as ever, the 
 universal, one might almost say the only, faith of 
 Protestantism. Let us make a supposition. 
 
 Should the Bismarckian excesses be attempted 
 in a Catholic country ; should a Catholic majority 
 in any parliament enact Prussian laws, throw Pro- 
 testant clergymen into prison and rob them of 
 their property because they ■will not give up their 
 religion, allow to Protestants no ministers except 
 such as were brought up in catholic seminaries, 
 examined and accepted by Catholic officials, permit 
 no Protestant sermons but those approved of by 
 catholic policemen, etc. . . ; should any Catholic 
 government do as was done in Switzerland, confi- 
 scate Protestant churches, built by Protestants, with 
 the alms collected from Protestants of divers coun- 
 tries, banish all the ministers regularly established, 
 and, in their stead, obtrude on large communities a 
 fe\y foreign reprobates, etc. . . ; should, in a word, 
 Catholics do to Protestants anywhere, what Pro- 
 testants have done to Catholics in these two 
 countries, what a storm of furious denunciations 
 from Protestant pulpits all over the w r orld ! What 
 an uproar amongst the so-called apostles of tolera- 
 tion ! What a deluge of rabid invocations to 
 religious freedom in every newspaper ! What a 
 concert of angry remonstrances from all civilized 
 governments ! 
 
 But, as the injured victims were Catholics, the 
 case was materially altered. In liberal England as 
 well as in liberal America, if we except a few, 
 very few, honest and independent newspapers, the 
 Protestant press at large blamed no one but the 
 sufferers. Gevernments, statesmen, politicians 
 
384 
 
 all the boasted advocates of civil and religious 
 freedom, looked on with perfect complacency, and 
 more than hinted their approval of the Bismarckian 
 policy. Nay, liberal leaders, like Lord Russell, held 
 public meetings to make free Britons praise the 
 persecutors, and hound them on by their applause. 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw from 
 all this ? 
 
 A. There is but one true religion, and one true 
 Church, since there is but one God and one Christ. 
 The true Church alone has a lawful coercive power, 
 and alone can lawfully commit the use of it to 
 civil authority ; while heresy has not and cannot 
 have any power of that kind, since error cannot 
 have any right against truth, nor the devil against 
 God. Yet, the Church, like God, has ever shown 
 herself, at the same time, an unflinching foe to 
 error, and a merciful judge to the victims of error; 
 while sectarians of every denomination, though 
 always parading religious freedom, have always 
 been the most relentless persecutors. When they 
 charge us with intolerance, well may we remind 
 them of these words of the Gospel: Thou hypocrite , 
 cast out first the beam out of thy own eye ; and then 
 shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's 
 eye. [St. Matt., ch. 7, v. 5.] 
 
 4. Catholic Faith and Modern Science. 
 
 Q. Is it true, as Protestants and free-thinkers 
 affirm, that the Catholic Church dreads the pro- 
 gress of science as she dreads her own destruction ? 
 
 A. The Church dreads science no more than 
 God does. She knows that all knowledge is good 
 in itself, and that the acquisition of natural truth, 
 which is the end of science, can never be prejudi- 
 cial or opposed to the supernatural truth entrusted 
 to her keeping. 
 
385 
 
 Why should she, for instance, be afraid of the 
 progress of physical sciences, which search and 
 investigate the secret laws and harmonies of all 
 material creatures, since the better this world is 
 known the greater shall be the glory of its Creator ? 
 Why should she be afraid of historical sciences, 
 which can only contribute to the final overthrow of 
 heresy and her own exaltation, by unravelling the 
 obscurities of past events, and sweeping away the 
 prejudices which a long conspiracy has heaped up 
 in the minds of multitudes ? 
 
 “ So far therefore,” says the Vatican Council, 
 “is the Church from opposing the cultivation 
 of human arts and sciences, that it in many ways 
 helps and promotes it. For the Church neither 
 ignores nor despises the benefits to human life 
 which result from the arts and sciences, but con- 
 fesses that as they come from God, the Lord of 
 all sciences, so, if they be rightly used, they lead 
 to God by the help of his grace.” [Dogm. Const, on 
 the Catholic Faith.] 
 
 Q. Why then is the Church now-a-days so op- 
 posed to modern science ? 
 
 A. There is and there can be, from the Church, 
 no opposition to any science whatever in itself; 
 but there is and there must ever be an unflagging 
 opposition to the blunders and assumptions of 
 science, or, to speak more exactly, of many of its 
 representatives. 
 
 Q. Why can there be from the Church no op- 
 position to any science as such ? 
 
 A. Because “although faith is above reason, 
 there can never be any real discrepancy between 
 faith and reason, since the same God who reveals 
 mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed the light 
 of reason on the human mind, and God cannot 
 deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” 
 [Vat. Council, Ibid.] 
 
 33 
 
386 
 
 Q. Has there not been, however, and is there 
 not even now such a contradiction ? 
 
 A. Not at all. “ The false appearance of such a 
 contradiction is mainly due either to the dogmas 
 of faith not having been understood and expounded 
 according to the mind of the Church, or to the 
 inventions of opinion having been taken for the 
 verdicts of rfcason.” [Ibid.] 
 
 Q. Why must there ever be from the Church 
 an unflagging opposition to the blunders and as- 
 sumptions of science P 
 
 A. We answer again with the Vatican Council: 
 “ The Church does not forbid that each science, in 
 its own sphere, should make use of its- own prin- 
 ciples and its own method ; but while recognizing 
 this just liberty, it stands watchfully on guard, 
 lest sciences, setting themselves against the divine 
 teaching, or transgressing their own limits, should 
 invade and disturb the domain of faith.” [Ibid.] 
 
 Q. Explain this a little. 
 
 A. Every science has, in its sphere, its own 
 principles and its own method. For instance : in 
 mathematics, the principle is that nothing can be 
 admitted as true but what is clearly proved to be 
 the logical consequence of axioms, or of previously 
 established propositions ; the method is the closest 
 reasoning. In natural philosophy and all other 
 like sciences, the principle is that every movement 
 or phenomenon is caused by an adequate force, 
 according to a permanent and immutable natural 
 law; the method is experimentative, arguing from 
 well tried facts to the existence and nature of such 
 or such a law, etc. 
 
 Now, as long as sciences keep within their own 
 sphere, they are perfectly free, and the Church 
 never interferes. But when mathematics invade 
 the domain of faith and declare that the Trinity, 
 
387 
 
 the Incarnation, or any other mystery, cannot be 
 admitted because they cannot be proved to be the 
 logical consequence of any axiom known to us ; 
 when natural philosophy denies miracles because 
 opposed to the laws of nature, as if the Almighty 
 God, who has of his own free will created such 
 laws, could not at his will arrest or change them ; 
 when biology pretends that man’s body being 
 analogous to the body of higher animals, man has 
 no reasonable soul, and is nothing but a biped 
 vertebrate brute ; when scientific mountebanks 
 deny God, the creation, the resurrection of the 
 body, the difference between good and evil, the 
 moral responsibility of man, and proclaim that we 
 are but improved monkeys, &c.; it is evident that, 
 in such cases, sciences are transgressing their own 
 limits, and setting themselves against the divine 
 teaching in a dangerous, illogical, and ridiculous 
 way. 
 
 Q. But are not such doctrines supported every- 
 where by men of learning, and by the most illus- 
 trious professors ? 
 
 A. What does this signify to God and to the 
 Church of God ? Such materialist theses, such 
 stupid theories, even when bedizened out and 
 decked with scientific apparatus, are not science, 
 but the caricature of science. They are supported 
 no doubt, by very clever and very learned men, 
 because the exclusive study of matter and its laws 
 has a debasing influence on the mind, and too 
 often fosters infidelity and atheism. But there are 
 yet, thank God, amongst the highest representatives 
 of science, not a few who know better and are 
 more truly learned, because they have acquired 
 natural without losing supernatural truth. As for 
 those godless mathematicians or physicians, they 
 are but, as de Maistre remarked, illustrious brutes, 
 whose genius itself has become animalized; and 
 
388 
 
 when condemning their systems or their books, the 
 Chnrch is perfectly right, and does no injury 
 whatever to true science. 
 
 Q. What then becomes of the liberty of opinion 
 and of the rights of scientific enquiry ? 
 
 A. We have answered before, when proving that 
 error, as such, can have no rights against truth, 
 nor the devil against God, so that professors of 
 heresy, atheism, and infidelity have no right to 
 utter and publish their so-called scientific systems. 
 
 But even supposing they had, have not the 
 ignorant, the poor, the little ones, the weak-minded, 
 the great unlettered mass of mankind, their rights 
 also ? Have they not the right not to be led by 
 this show of pretended science into a temptation 
 which, however despicable and shallow in itself, 
 would prove to them so dangerous? Have they 
 not the imprescriptible right to keep unimpaired 
 in their souls the truth of God, the saving faith of 
 Christ, the certainty of their having been created 
 in the image of God, and the hope of eternal life ? 
 
 Modern governments, of course, do not care for 
 the rights of so many souls, but God does; and to 
 prevent her children from catching the contagion, 
 the Church of God brands all such infidels, more 
 or less celebrated, with the hot iron of her solemn 
 anathemas, and what she hinds on earth is hound 
 also in heaven . 
 
 Q. What conclusion do you draw from all this? 
 
 A. “ We define therefore, ” says the Vatican 
 Council, “that every assertion contrary to a truth 
 of enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the 
 Church which, together with the apostolic office 
 of teaching, has received a charge to guard the 
 deposit of faith, derives from God the right and 
 duty of proscribing false science, lest any should 
 be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit. There- 
 
389 
 
 fore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden 
 to defend, as legitimate conclusions of science, 
 such opinions as are known to be contrary to the 
 doctrines of faith, especially if they have been 
 condemned by the Church, hut are altogether 
 bound to account them as errors which put on the 
 fallacious appearances of truth. [Dogm. Const, 
 on the Catholic Faith.] 
 
 6. The Catholic Church and the Diffu- 
 sion of Knowledge. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants believe that the Catholic 
 Church, being naturally averse to learning, has 
 always kept people in ignorance ? 
 
 A. Yes ; they generally imagine that before 
 their pretended Reformation the whole of Europe 
 was buried in utter darkness ; that the preaching 
 of Luther and his brother Reformers has been like 
 the rising of the sun ; that to them only we are 
 indebted for the wonderful progress of arts and 
 sciences during the last three centuries, etc. 
 
 Q. But is it not a fact that since the Reforma- 
 tion the stock of human knowledge has been, 
 immensely increased ? 
 
 A. It is a fact that mathematics and natural 
 sciences, the object of which is the study of ab- 
 stract quantity or of material beings, have been 
 in constant progress since the fifteenth century. 
 But Protestantism, as such, had nothing to do 
 with it. 
 
 It is a fact also that metaphysical and moral 
 sciences, which regard the knowledge of God and 
 man, of moral, intellectual, and social laws, are, 
 outside of the Church, in a state of progressive 
 decay, for which Protestantism, as such, is especially 
 responsible. 
 
390 
 
 Q. Why do you say that Protestantism had 
 nothing to do with the progress of physical 
 sciences ? 
 
 A. Because the progress of such sciences de- 
 pends : either on repeated observations which ac- 
 cumulate as generations succeed generations, and 
 disclose, more and more every day, the laws of 
 the various phenomena ; or on chance discoveries 
 which, furnishing new data or improved tools, en- 
 large the field of research, and become the starting 
 point of new discoveries. It is self-evident that 
 these two causes can have no connection whatever 
 with the preaching of any sect. Will any Pro- 
 testant pretend, for instance, that integral calculus 
 came from the Thirty-nine Articles? that the 
 fortuitous invention of telescopes was a consequence 
 of the free interpretation of Scripture ? that the 
 steam-engine proceeded logically from such or such 
 Protestant theory on justification by faith ? etc. 
 
 The onward impulse of the fifteenth century 
 had, in fact, for its principal causes : the discovery 
 of the compass, which gave to Europeans a sure 
 way over the trackless ocean, to vast countries till 
 then unknown ; the invention of gunpowder, which 
 made them the resistless conquerors of the whole 
 world ; and, above all, the discovery of the art of 
 printing, which made learning popular, by the 
 endless multiplication of books of every kind. 
 These three discoveries were made some time before 
 Luther was born ; the Eastern and Western worlds 
 were opened to European investigation, hundreds 
 of thousands of volumes were printed, before Pro- 
 testantism had a being. 
 
 Should the Mormons of Salt-Lake- City, or the 
 Bismarckian Old- Catholics of Prussia, or any other 
 new sectaries, lay a claim to all the progresses 
 which steam, photography, and electricity will 
 produce, because they happen to be contemporaries 
 
391 
 
 of those wonderful discoveries, they would be no 
 more ridiculous than are Protestants who claim as 
 their own the scientific achievements of modem 
 times. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that metaphysical and moral 
 sciences are, outside of the Church, in a state of 
 progressive decay ? 
 
 A. Eyes dazzled with the brilliant progress of 
 material sciences should look at the dark side of 
 of the picture. If men, to-day, know much more 
 about the laws of matter, they are in return grow- 
 ing more and more ignorant in whatever is of 
 immensely higher importance, in the knowledge 
 of God, of man, of society, etc. In academies, 
 in the chairs of many universities, modern science, 
 as the phrase is, teaches now that there is no God, 
 that everything is God, that man has no soul, that 
 thought is a secretion of the brain just as bile is a 
 secretion of the liver, that, in consequence, justice, 
 duty, conscience, moral liberty, right, honour, 
 virtue, etc., are so many ridiculous crotchets of our 
 priest-ridden ancestors, so many badges of the 
 intellectual thraldom from which progress shall 
 redeem us. Wonderful progress indeed, which 
 after two thousand years of Gospel light, brings the 
 world back to the satanical darkness of the worst 
 pagan times ! 
 
 Q. But is Protestantism the cause of it ? 
 
 A. The first and main cause, undoubtedly. 
 That progress began with the rebellion against' 
 Catholic faith, in the name of Scripture ; it goes 
 on with the rebellion against revealed truth, in the 
 name of reason ; it will end with the rebellion of 
 brute matter against reason itself. Honest Pro- 
 testants may stand aghast or strike their breasts, 
 but an inexpiable logic draws out the consequences 
 of their principles. Protestantism teaches that 
 
392 
 
 the Church of Christ has erred in r the faith ; but 
 if the Church has erred, Christ, who had promised 
 to be with her all days , even to the consummation 
 of the world, is a false prophet and cannot be God. 
 If Christ, whose divinity is so clearly proved by 
 the whole history of mankind, whom the world 
 looked for during forty centuries, and has been 
 adoring these twenty centuries, if Christ, the God 
 of Christians, is not the true God, Son of God, 
 then there is no God at all. Then emancipated 
 reason, shaking off, at one and the same time, the 
 handcuffs of faith, of Scripture, and .of common 
 sense, may logically conclude that mankind is but 
 a pack of improved brutes, swarming into life or 
 death, at hap-hazard, like other vermin. Such 
 is the law of modern progress : from Luther down 
 to Darwin ! 
 
 Q. What has been the part of the Catholic 
 Church in the diffusion of knowledge ? 
 
 A. As for metaphysical and moral sciences, 
 what we have said just now proves that, outside 
 of the pale of the Church, sirch sciences are inevit- 
 ably decaying. Human reason unassisted by faith 
 or 5 what is worse yet, divorced from faith, cannot 
 solve any question, or firmly establish any prin- 
 ciple. The Church alone can teach those sciences, 
 and she has taught them in such a way that, 
 through her, the intellectual power and moral 
 superiority of Christian people have reached a 
 height never equalled before. 
 
 As for other sciences, she has always fostered 
 their legitimate progress, and has been the trainer 
 of the human understanding. The history of 
 Europe bears irrefragable testimony to her un- 
 tiring exertions. Nearly all the Universities were 
 established by Catholics, and in Catholic times. 
 That such has been the part of the Church many 
 
393 
 
 Protestant historians have acknowledged. Hallam 
 says : “ All our manuscripts have been preserved 
 in the monasteries.” Collier : “ Before the Refor- 
 mation, many of the great monasteries were 
 nurseries of learning.” Bishop Tanner : “ The 
 monasteries were schools of learning and education.” 
 Burke : “ Catholic France alone has produced 
 more eminent scholars than all the Protestant 
 Universities of Europe.” Gibbon : “ One monastery 
 of Benedictine monks gave to the world more 
 works of learning than both the Universities of 
 England.” Etc., etc. 
 
 Q. But are not Catholic principles unfavorable 
 to genius, and to mental improvement ? 
 
 A. The answer to this we will borrow from 
 William Cobbet. The quotation, although long, is 
 interesting. 
 
 u . . .1 must here confine myself to this charge 
 against the Catholic religion, of being unfavorable 
 to genius, talent, and, in short, to the powers of 
 the mind. It is a strange notion ; and one can 
 hardly hear it mentioned without suspecting that, 
 somehow or other, there is plunder at the bottom 
 of the apparently nothing but stupid idea. Those 
 who put forward this piece of rare impudence do 
 not favour us with reasons for believing that the 
 Catholic religion has any such tendency. They 
 content themselves with the bare assertion, not 
 supposing that it admits of anything like disproof. 
 They look upon it as assertion against ^assertion ; 
 and in a question which depends on mere hardness 
 of mouth, they know that their triumph is secure. 
 But this is a question that does admit of proof, 
 and a very good proof too. The ‘ Reformation ’ 
 in England, was pretty nearly completed by the 
 year 1600. By that time all the 4 monkish igno- 
 rance and superstitions’ were swept away. The 
 
394 
 
 monasteries were all pretty nearly knocked down, 
 young saint Edward’s people had robbed all the 
 altars, and the ‘ virgin 5 queen had put the finish- 
 ing hand to the pillage. So that all was, in 1600, 
 become as Protestant as heart could wish. Very 
 well ; the kingdom of France remained buried in 
 ‘ monkish ignorance and superstition 5 until the 
 year 1787 : that is to say, 18-7 years after happy 
 England stood in a blaze of Protestant light ! 
 Now, then, if we carefully examine into the num- 
 ber of men remarkable for great powers of mind, 
 men famed for their knowledge or genius ; if we 
 carefully examine into the number of such men 
 produced by France in these 187 years, and the 
 number of such men produced by England, Scot- 
 land and Ireland, during the same period ; if we 
 do this, we shall get at a pretty good foundation 
 for judging of the effects of the two religions, with 
 regard to their influence on knowledge, genius, 
 and what is generally called learning. 
 
 u I shall refer to a work which has a place in 
 every good library in the kingdom ; I mean the 
 Universal , Historical , Critical , and Bibliographical 
 Dictionary. This work which is everywhere re- 
 ceived as authority as to the facts, contains lists of 
 persons of all nations celebrated for their published 
 works. But, then, to have a place in these lists, 
 the person must have been really distinguished : 
 his or her works must have been considered 
 as worthy of universal notice. From these lists I 
 shall take my numbers, as before proposed. It 
 will not be necessary to go into all arts and sciences : 
 eight or nine will be sufficient. It may be as well 
 perhaps, to take the Italians, as well as the French: 
 for we all know that they were living in the most 
 shocking ‘ monkish ignorance and superstition ’ ; 
 and that they, poor unfortunate and unplundered 
 souls, are so living unto this very day ! 
 
395 
 
 u Here, then, is the statement i 
 
 England, Scotland 
 
 and Ireland. France. 
 
 Italy, 
 
 Writers on Law .... 
 
 6 
 
 51 
 
 9 
 
 Mathematicians .... 
 
 17 
 
 52 
 
 15 
 
 Physicians and Surgeons . 
 
 13 
 
 72 
 
 21 
 
 Writers on Natural History 
 
 6 
 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 Historians 
 
 21 
 
 139 
 
 22 
 
 Dramatic Writers. . . . 
 
 19 
 
 66 
 
 6 
 
 Grammarians 
 
 7 
 
 42 
 
 2 
 
 Poets 
 
 38 
 
 157 
 
 34 
 
 Painters ....... 
 
 5 
 
 132 
 
 64 
 
 676 
 
 45 
 
 165 
 
 “ Here is that very 4 scale/ which a modest 
 Scotch writer spoke of the other day when he told the 
 public that 6 throughout Europe, Protestants rank 
 higher in the scale of intellect than Catholics, and 
 that Catholics in the neighbourhood of Protestants 
 are more intellectual than those at a distance from 
 them.’ This is a fine specimen of upstart Pro- 
 testant impudence. The above i scale ' is, how- 
 ever, a complete answer to it. Allow one- third 
 more to the French, on account of their superior 
 populousness, and then there will remain to them 
 451 to our 132 ! So that they had, man for man, 
 ■three and a half times as much intellect as we, 
 though they were buried all the while in 1 monk- 
 ish ignorance and superstition/ and though they 
 had no Protestant neighbours to catch the intellect 
 from ! Even the Italians surpass us in this rival- 
 ship for intellect ; for, their population is not equal 
 to that of which we boast, and their number of 
 men of mind considerably exceeds that of ours.” 
 [ History of the Protestant Reformation , Letter I, 
 31 to 35. J 
 
 Q. What is now the comparative state of educa- 
 tion in Protestant and Catholic countries ? 
 
 A. In religious instruction it is evident that 
 Catholic nations stand far higher than Protestant 
 
396 
 
 ones. Official parliamentary enquiries have re- 
 vealed to the world the startling fact that in 
 England, the first of Protestant countries, in sanc- 
 timonious, church-going, bible-distributing Eng- 
 land, hundreds of thousands live and die without 
 even knowing the name of our Blessed Saviour. 
 So that one of the late Secretaries of State publicly 
 declared, “ that Protestant England is the most 
 ignorant Christian country in the world.” [Pari. 
 Inq. Factory question.] Is there any Catholic 
 country where such ignorance might be found ? 
 
 In secular instruction too, Catholic countries 
 have not to fear any comparison. As the fact is 
 denied by none except a few ignorant bigots, we 
 will quote but one testimony, that of the well 
 known Protestant writer, Mr. Laing, in his Notes 
 of a Traveller , pp. 435, 442 [Keenan, p. 222.] 
 
 “The education of the regular clergy of the 
 Catholic Church is beyond doubt comparatively 
 higher than the education of the Scottish clergy. 
 The Catholic Clergy adroitly seized on education ; 
 and not, as we suppose in Protestant countries, to 
 keep the people in darkness and ignorance, but to 
 be at the head of the * great social influence of 
 useful knowledge. 
 
 “ The popish clergy have in reality less to lose 
 by the progress of education than our own Scottish 
 clergy. In Catholic Germany, in France, Italy, 
 and even Spain, the education of the common 
 people in reading, writing, arithmetic, music, 
 manners and morals, is at least as generally 
 diffused and as faithfully promoted by the clerical 
 body, as in Scotland . . . Pome, with a popula- 
 tion of 168,678 souls, has 872 public primary 
 schools with 482 teachers, and 14,099 children 
 attending them. Has Edinburgh so many public 
 schools for the instruction of those classes ? I doubt 
 it. Berlin, with a population about double that 
 
397 
 
 of Rome, has only 264 schools. This one fact 
 puts to flight a world of humbug,” etc. 
 
 Q. Why does the church oppose and condemn 
 the so-called secular, national or state-schools, 
 where children of various denominations are edu- 
 cated together in common matters, without refer- 
 ence to any special religious creed ? 
 
 A. Because the system on which such godless 
 schools are managed is insulting to God, and in- 
 jurious to the pupils. It is insulting to God, who 
 is driven out of baptized souls at the moment they 
 open to intelligence and knowledge, and banished 
 from the mind he himself created in his own image. 
 It is injurious to the pupils, who can receive but 
 an incomplete and crippled education, who get no 
 religious notions, no sound principles of faith or 
 morals, and become, as experience has proved and 
 proves every day, indifferent to religion, infidels, 
 and practical atheists. 
 
 There are however benevolent and otherwise 
 clear-headed persons who repeat the outcry for 
 such a school system. They do not know that the 
 cue has been given by the worst enemies of Christ, 
 the leaders of secret societies. But the Church 
 knows it ; she knows the fiendish end of the 
 schemers of that educational plan, and she will 
 always condemn it, in accordance with the words of 
 the Saviour : Suffer children to come to me, and 
 forbid them not. [St. Luke, ch. 18, v. 16.] 
 
 Q. What general conclusion do you draw from 
 all this ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church has been established 
 by Jesus Christ to teach us the way to heaven, 
 and to work out the salvation of our souls. Had 
 she done nothing for the increase and diffusion of 
 purely human knowledge, no one could make it a 
 just cause of reproach. It is a fact, however, that 
 
 34 
 
398 
 
 no church or sect whatever has done so much for 
 the general progress of civilization, and has de- 
 served so well of mankind. To deny it is to deny 
 historical evidence. 
 
 6. Church and State— Origin of the 
 Ecclesiastical and of the Civil 
 Power. 
 
 Q. Why did Jesus Christ say to his Apostles : 
 Render therefore to Caesar the things that are 
 Ccesar’s, and to God , the things that are God’s 
 [St. Matt., ch. 22, v. 21 ; St. Mark, ch. 12, v. 17 ; 
 St. Luke, ch. 20, v. 25] ? 
 
 A. To teach us that : “ There exists a two-fold 
 order of things, and, at the same time, that two 
 powers are to be distinguished on the earth, — the 
 one natural, which provides for the tranquility of 
 human society and secular affairs ; the other, the 
 origin of which is above nature, supreme over the 
 City of God, that is the Church of Christ, divinely 
 instituted for the peace and the eternal salvation 
 of souls. And the offices of that two-fold power 
 are in wisdom ordained that the things of God 
 should be rendered to God, and that, in obedience 
 to God, the things of Caesar should be rendered to 
 Caesar.” [Encyc. Lett, of Pius IX, 21st November, 
 1873.] 
 
 By these words the Lord Jesus has shown to us 
 that his followers, besides being members of the 
 universal Church, are also members of some special 
 human society or nation ; that they are at the 
 same time Christians and citizens, and have 
 Christians’ and citizens’ rights and duties ; that 
 there are two distinct authorities, each to be obeyed 
 in its lawful behests ; that one of them must be, in 
 mixed matters, subordinate to the other ; in short, 
 
399 
 
 he has given us thereby the code of our duties, and 
 the great charter of our liberty. 
 
 As questions on such matters are now much 
 agitated, and are made by Protestant and infidel 
 newspapers a pretext of abuse and scandal, by 
 some Protestant and infidel Governments a pretext 
 of persecution, we must examine the origin of the 
 two powers, their nature, their respective rights, 
 the pretended encroachments of the Church on the 
 State, the allegiance due to the civil authority, 
 the errors and dangers of Caesarism, etc. 
 
 Q. What is power ? 
 
 A. Order could not subsist in the world with- 
 out moral or physical forces, which dispose and 
 arrange the unbounded multitude of created 
 beings. 
 
 In material things, order is produced and pre- 
 served by the natural forces or laws which we call 
 attraction, inertia, action and reaction, etc. 
 These laws, created with matter by one and the 
 same act of the Creator, govern the material uni- 
 verse through all its evolutions, by forcing every 
 atom into its proper place. Should they fail 
 chaos and annihilation would immediately follow. 
 
 Amongst men, who are free and reasonable 
 beings, order cannot be maintained but by a moral 
 force which is called power or authoritj^. It con- 
 sists essentially of a double element, viz.: the right, 
 instrusted to one or more members of society, 
 of commanding what is necessary to the general 
 welfare, and of enacting laws to that end, with the 
 correlative duty or obligation, imposed on all the 
 members of society, of obeying these com- 
 mands and submitting to these laws. Without 
 power society is impossible, and mankind would 
 be annihilated. 
 
 Q. Why is there a two-fold power ? 
 
400 
 
 A. Because there is a two-fold order of things, 
 the natural and the supernatural. 
 
 In the natural order, God, for reasons of his 
 own, has permitted the division of mankind into 
 distinct tribes and nations, leaving each of them 
 to work out its own temporal welfare. To attain 
 that end, every people, every separate community, 
 has necessarily, in some way or other, its own 
 Government. That is what we call civil power. 
 
 But God, in his mercy, has raised man to the 
 supernatural order, providing his understanding 
 with the supernatural light of revealed faith, his 
 will with the supernatural assistance of grace, and 
 raising his whole being to the supernatural end of 
 the vision and possession of God. To secure the 
 permanent efflux of these spiritual gifts amongst 
 mankind, he has established his one, holy, uni- 
 versal, and infallible Church, which is the spiritual 
 power. 
 
 Q. Whence comes power ? 
 
 A. Man cannot, of himself, have any authority 
 on man. One may, of course, subdue his fellow by 
 brutal strength, but might is not right, and can 
 never create right. God alone has power and 
 authority to command, with an absolute right to 
 obedience, and there can be no lawful power but 
 from him. [Rom., ch. 13, v. 1.] And, in fact, it 
 is from him alone that come — the paternal power 
 in families, the civil power in nations, the spiritual 
 power in the church, though they come from him 
 in different ways. 
 
 Q. What is the origin of spiritual or ecclesias- 
 tical authority ? 
 
 A. The power of the Church, as we have before 
 proved at great length, is of positive diviifb right, 
 in its constitution, form, conditions, etc. ; that is, 
 it has been established directly and personally by 
 
401 
 
 God fflmself, who made his church one, holy, 
 universal, and established the Pope his vicar on 
 earth, the supreme and infallible head of his 
 church. [See above, Part II.] 
 
 Q. Has not the civil power exactly the same 
 origin and in the same way ? 
 
 A. Not in the least, though, for the last three 
 hundred years kings, and specially Protestant 
 kings, have repeatedly asserted it. 
 
 James I, king of England, theologian and per- 
 secutor, was one of the first who entered such a 
 claim. u King James,” says Suarez, “affirms that 
 kings have their power, not through the people, 
 but immediately from God ; which assertion, in 
 the way he understands and explains it, is new and 
 unheard of, and seems to have been contrived only 
 to exaggerate the temporal and weaken the 
 spiritual power.” [ Def . fid. cath. adv. Anglice 
 regem, 1, 3.] At the time when that nefarious 
 error, Gallicanism, was not yet a condemned 
 heresy, not a few Catholic kings entertained similar 
 illusions. Even in our own days, the, emperor 
 William of Prussia revived and improved on that 
 theory, when writing to Pope Pius IX that : 
 “ Kingly power is an emanation of the divine will, 
 which is revealed to us.” 
 
 The end of those who bring forward such ill- 
 founded pretensions is evident. They want to 
 raise the power of kings and emperors above every 
 human law, not only to justify beforehand every 
 kind of tyranny and injustice, but directly and 
 principally, as historical events have ever proved, 
 to undermine and destroy spiritual authority, to 
 rob the church of her rights, and their catholic 
 subjects of all religious freedom. 
 
 Q. But does not St. Paul say, while speaking of 
 kings or emperors : There is no power hut from 
 God [Rom., ch. 13, v. 1] P 
 
402 
 
 A. Certainly, all power is from God. As man 
 has been! created for social life, society is willed by 
 God, and therefore God wills also the authority 
 which is its fundamental condition. But it does 
 not mean that any or all the various forms of 
 political power have been revealed by .God, or that 
 the trustees of that power have been directly 
 designated by God. For, these forms and this 
 designation are only, under the action of Provi- 
 dence, of positive and historical human right* 
 
 Q. How do you prove that such is the catholic 
 teaching on the origin of civil power ? 
 
 A. This teaching has been so often misrepre- 
 sented by courtiers as well as by revolutionists, 
 according to their contradictory purposes, that we 
 must give it in the very w T ords of the best doctors 
 and divines. 
 
 St. John Chrysostom says : (C There is no power 
 but from God. What ! Is then every prince 
 ordained by God ? I do not say so, answers the 
 Apostle, I do not speak of individual princes, but 
 of the political authority itself. I do not say 
 there is no king but from God, but : there is no 
 power but from God.” [Homil. 23, in Paulo.'] 
 
 The same answer was given seven hundred years 
 later, in the name of the Holy See, to the abettors 
 of the excommunicated emperor Henry IV, who 
 attacked the memory of St. Gregory VII. [Baro- 
 nius, an. 1090.] 
 
 Suarez sums up the doctrine of St. Thomas 
 Aquinas in the following words : “ The civil power 
 whenever it is found in some individual or prince 
 by lawful and ordinary right, proceeds, mediately 
 or immediately, from the people and from the 
 community. Otherwise it could not be just. Such 
 is the common teaching of jurists and canonists.” 
 \_De Legibus, 1, 3.] 
 
403 
 
 Bossuet himself says : “The power or kings is not 
 from God in such a way that it be not also from 
 the consent of the people. This no one can deny.” 
 
 I Def . Declar., 1, 4, -c. 21.] 
 
 St. Liguori says : “ It is certain that men have 
 the power of making laws ; which power, as far 
 as civil laws are concerned, belongs by natural 
 right to nobody but to the community, and by the 
 community is transferred to one or many rulers.” 
 [Theol. mor. De Legib. 104.] 
 
 These quotations are quite sufficient to prove 
 that, according to the catholic doctrine the civil 
 sovereignty resides materially in society at 
 large, formally in the person or persons to whom 
 society may commit its exercise. Immediately, 
 therefore, sovereignty is given by God to society ; 
 mediately, through society, to the person who 
 wields it. 
 
 Q. But is not that the modern revolutionists’ 
 error of the “ sovereignty af the people ?” 
 
 A. Not at all. The error of the revolutionists 
 lies in this : they pretend that the will of the people 
 is, of itself, the origin of ail authority, the creative , 
 cause of all power, the primary source of law, 
 independently of any superior law. And as the 
 will of the people is practically the will of the 
 majority, which majority is but a question of 
 numbers, they are led into this monstrous conse- 
 quence that : brutal number alone creates right, 
 morals, truth, law, etc. Such is the revolutionary 
 or atheistic principle so often and so justly con- 
 demned by the Church. 
 
 Q. What do you infer from all this ? 
 
 A. Firstly, that the Church of God is, of her very 
 nature and in virtue of the divine positive act 
 which has instituted her, distinct and diverse from 
 civil power. 
 
Secondly, that the church can exist under any form 
 of civil government. And, in fact, she recognizes 
 every form, monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic, 
 provided it possesses the conditions of a govern- 
 ment at all. 
 
 Thirdly, that the two powers being ordained of 
 God, he intended no conflict between the two, and 
 that, intrinsically, from the nature of either, there 
 need be none, since both have been ordained in 
 wisdom. 
 
 Fourthly, that each power, within the limits of its 
 competence, is independent and sacred, and that 
 even the civil power is to he obeyed not only for 
 wrath , but also for conscience sake , [Rom., ch. 13, 
 v. 5,] because sovereignty is from God. Civil 
 allegiance is therefore a part of Christianity, and 
 treason is both a crime against a lawful authority 
 and also a sin against God, who has ordained that 
 authority. 
 
 7. Church and State— The Nature and 
 Respective Rights of the 
 Two Powers. 
 
 Q. What is the object of civil authority ? 
 
 A. From its very nature, civil authority has for 
 its proper and direct object the acts of all the 
 members of society, in so far as these acts refer 
 to the temporal benefit or welfare of all, individually 
 and collectively ; and consequently the sphere of 
 its competence extends to all matters purely civil. 
 
 Q. What is the object of spiritual authority? 
 
 A. From its very nature and from the positive 
 institution of God, the authority of the Church has 
 for its proper and direct object the acts of all her 
 members, in so far as these acts refer to the 
 spiritual benefit or welfare of all, individually and 
 
405 
 
 collectively ; and consequently the sphere of its 
 competence extends not only to all matters purely 
 spiritual, but also to such civil matters, acts, or 
 questions which, directly or indirectly, concern 
 faith and morals, as far as they concern faith and 
 morals. 
 
 Q. But, should a conflict arise, who will define 
 whether and how far such or such civil matters 
 affect faith or morals ? and who will settle mixed 
 questions ? 
 
 A. To define whether and how far a question is 
 a mixed one, it is evidently necessary to know 
 what the sphere of faith and morals contains, and 
 how far it extends ; it is necessary to know the 
 whole deposit of explicit and implicit faith, or, in 
 other words, to be the guardian of the Christian 
 revelation. To settle mixed questions, it is evi- 
 dently necessary to have infallible authority in 
 faith and morals, to have the spiritual and super- 
 natural power of binding and loosing, or, in other 
 words, to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Now, this deposit of the faith, these keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven, Christ did not give to the civil 
 power, but to his church ; so that the church is 
 evidently, in fact and in law, the only judge to 
 define and settle mixed questions, and her sentence 
 is final. 
 
 Q. What follows from it ? 
 
 A. That the power which alone can fix the limits 
 of its own jurisdiction, and rule accordingly, is 
 not only absolute and independent in itself, but 
 supreme over the other. To affirm this logical 
 supremacy of the church over the state in all 
 mixed questions, is but to express, in another way, 
 the supremacy of the supernatural over the natural 
 order, of the soul over the body, of man’s eternal 
 happiness over his temporal welfare, etc., which 
 fundamental truth none but apostates can deny. 
 
406 
 
 Q. But, instead of that union and subordination 
 of the two powers, which must ever produce con- 
 flicts and quarrellings, why should not catholic 
 countries admit the system of entire and absolute 
 separation, or, as the phrase is, of “ a free Church 
 in a free State ” ? 
 
 A. The theory of a free Church in a free State 
 is absurd and impossible. It is absurd, because 
 it supposes that nations and governments, as such, 
 owe nothing to God, and can lawfully ignore him 
 and his law. [See above, Sec. 3 of this chapter.] 
 It is impossible, because the same men being at 
 the same time Christians and citizens, Church and 
 State are forcibly united like soul and body. 
 They are, like the soul and the body of a living 
 man, two forces perfectly distinct but inseparable, 
 which can, no doubt, oppose, check, combat, over- 
 come or subdue each other, but cannot be absolutely 
 disjoined or separated, unless by death. 
 
 In fact, that entire and absolute separation 
 never was realized. The religious indifference, of 
 which some governments have made or are making 
 
 o o 
 
 a profession, has ever been, not true bona fide 
 neutrality, but a continual series of underhand 
 intrigues, of robberies and confiscations, of acts 
 of injustice and oppression, of half-concealed per- 
 secutions against the Church. How could it be 
 otherwise ? It was not only to individual Chris- 
 tians, but to kings and nations as well that the 
 Lord said : “ He that is not with me , is against me” 
 [St. Matt., ch. 12, v. 30.] 
 
 Q. Have not kings or governments supreme 
 power of some kind ? 
 
 A. None at all. They cannot have it as the 
 innate right of the royal authority, since that 
 authority, as explained before, is of the merely 
 natural order. They cannot have it by delegation 
 from the people, since the people or community 
 
407 
 
 cannot give what it does not possess. They have 
 not received it from Jesns Christ, since it was not 
 to kings or emperors, but to the Apostles that the 
 Lord said : Teach all nations ; it was not to Caesar 
 but to Peter, that he said : Feed my' lambs , feed 
 
 my sheep. Finally, they cannot have it, because* 
 the very existence of the Church would thereby 
 become impossible. Kings and nations being 
 independent one from the other, there would rise 
 at once as many churches as there are nations ; 
 the unity, the liberty, the universality or catholi- 
 city of the church would at once disappear. 
 
 Q. Have not kings or governments at least 
 some right of supervision in religious matters ? 
 
 A. They have not. The Church in her teaching 
 depends on God only ; she is amenable to no civil 
 tribunal, and her decrees and sentences are un- 
 appealable. 
 
 The Lord Jesus, who has created both powers, 
 rendered himself to Caesar the things that were 
 Caesar’s and paid the tribute ; but, in the order of 
 religion he ignored absolutely the civil power, and 
 took no more account of it than if it did not exist. 
 He established his church independently of the 
 civil authorities ; neither Herod nor Pilate were 
 invited to approve it. He ordered his Apostles to 
 do the same, and in every question of the soul to 
 set at nought the opposition of temporal power. 
 You shall he brought before governors , and before 
 kings for my sake. . . take no thought how or what 
 to speak. [St. Matt., ch. 10, v. 18, 19. St. Luke* 
 ch. 21, v. 12, 14.] They shall persecute you . . . 
 fear them not. . . fear ye not them that kill the body, 
 and are not able to kill the soul. [St. Matthew, 
 ch. 10, v. 23, 28.] 
 
 And faithfully did the Apostles obey him. 
 When, at the council of Jerusalem, they promul- 
 gated the first disciplinary laws of the church, 
 
408 
 
 they did not dream of asking the placet or exequatur 
 of the Roman governor. When the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles excommunicated the incestuous man 
 of Corinth he did not wait for the confirmation of 
 his sentence by any magistrate. When, during 
 three hundred years of persecution, their immediate 
 successors converted the whole Roman empire, 
 and established episcopal sees all over the world, 
 they acted, not only in perfect independence of the 
 civil power, but expressly against its laws and 
 decrees. And whenever, afterwards, the liberty of 
 the Church was encroached on by princes or 
 governments, true-hearted pastors defended it ; 
 they were brought before governors and before 
 kings for Christ’s sake ; they suffered prison, exile, 
 and death, not to betray the rights of their spiritual 
 ministry, the rights of the Christian soul, the rights 
 which Christ conquered with his blood. 
 
 Q. Has not the Church conferred some spiritual 
 power on catholic princes, when calling them to 
 her councils, or making concordats with them ? 
 
 A. When the nations of Europe were converted 
 from heathenism or heresy, the catholic faith was 
 made by them the basis of their political constitu- 
 tions, and ecclesiastical laws were incorporated 
 into their national codes. As, therefore, the dis- 
 ciplinary decrees of the general councils were to 
 become the civil law of Christendom, and the like 
 decrees of provincial or national councils the civil 
 law of provinces or kingdoms, the Church, care- 
 ful to preserve the union between the two powers, 
 to prevent conflicts or difficulties and promote 
 general peace, called princes to her councils. In 
 doctrinal matters, they had no voice at all ; in 
 others, they had a right of discussion, but with 
 the prelates was the casting vote. 
 
 By concordats or treaties, some rights in mixed 
 matters, such as the presentation of nominees to 
 
409 
 
 bishoprics and other ecclesiastical benefices have 
 been conceded to several Catholic governments; but, 
 when using such rights, they act, not of their own 
 civil authority, but as delegates of the Pope. 
 
 Any prince, Christian as well as heathen, Catholic 
 as well as Protestant or infidel, who should, of 
 himself, legislate in ecclesiastical things, manage 
 them, or interfere with them, would commit usur- 
 pation, and all such laws or acts would, of right, 
 be null and void. 
 
 Q. But have not the Popes and councils, in 
 former times, interfered in merely temporal mat- 
 ters, by excommunicating and even deposing 
 sovereigns ? 
 
 A. Popes and councils have excommunicated 
 and even deposed kings and emperors, but that 
 was not interference in temporal matters. Nobody 
 will deny that princes, for their sins and crimes, 
 are amenable to the power of St. Peter’s keys, and 
 can be, the case occurring, excommunicated like 
 other Christians. As for the few imperial or royal 
 miscreants who have been deposed, did they act in 
 the proper sphere of civil power, when robbing the 
 churches, raising simoniacal anti-popes, purposely 
 corrupting the faith and morals of their people, 
 leaguing and combining with Mahometans to 
 destroy the see of St. Peter, ruining provinoes 
 and kingdoms by monstrous exactions, divorcing 
 from their lawful wives, etc., etc. ? Such were, 
 in every case, according to the best historians. 
 Catholic as well as Protestant, the only causes of 
 their deposition. 
 
 Q. Has then the Pope the right of deposing 
 sovereigns ? 
 
 A. Pius IX, on the 20th of July, 1871, casu- 
 ally mentioning this question, expressed himself 
 in the following way : “ The right of deposing 
 
 35 
 
410 
 
 sovereigns and absolving subjects from the obliga- 
 tion of fidelity to them, which was exercised at 
 times, in critical circumstances, by the supreme 
 Pontiff, has its origin in the pontifical authority. 
 The exercise of this right, during those centuries 
 of faith when men reverenced in the Pope that 
 which he really is, namely, the supreme Judge, of 
 Christianity, and when they acknowledged the 
 advantages which result from his tribunal, in those 
 great contests of subjects and sovereigns, was freely 
 extended to the points of gravest interest to the 
 states and to their rulers, with the aid, which was 
 yielded as a duty, of the public law and of the 
 universal consent of nations.” 
 
 From which remarkable words we infer : 
 
 Firstly, that the supreme right of deposing 
 sovereigns is included among the gifts of St. Peter, 
 because no power can be wanting to the jurisdiction 
 of God’s vice-gerent, of which the safety of the 
 Christian commonwealth may at any time require 
 the exercise. 
 
 Secondly, that the exercise of that right owed its 
 efficacy to the public law of Christendom, and the 
 spontaneous assent of Christian nations. As there 
 is no longer any Christendom — though there is a 
 great host of Catholics, more than there ever were ; 
 — as there are no longer any Catholic governments, 
 since the revelation of God is no more the basis of 
 national constitutions, it is evident that the Popes, 
 now-a-days, are never likely to use such a right, 
 and will continue to leave kings in the hands of 
 God and of their own subjects. 
 
 Let us add, by the way, that neither princes nor 
 people have gained much by this progress. On 
 one side, the, axe and the guillotine of revolution- 
 ary parliaments and assemblies have proved less 
 merciful to princes than the sentence of any Pope ; 
 on the other side, people, when at the mercy of 
 
411 
 
 some crowned reprobate, have no remedy for this 
 great evil, but the greater evil of insurrections and 
 civil wars. 
 
 Q. What general conclusion do you draw from 
 all this P 
 
 A. The spiritual and the civil power are both 
 independent, each in its own sphere. But the 
 sphere of the spiritual power extends evidently to 
 all that concerns faith and morals, so that when- 
 ever, in some way or other, God and the soul are 
 in cause, then the vicar of God and pastor of souls 
 interferes as supreme power. 
 
 The right which excels and surpasses all rights 
 is the eternal salvation of mankind. That right is 
 prescriptive against all laws, and can be lost by no 
 limitation. Whatever runs to the contrary is null 
 and void ; and it is the duty of the Church to 
 accept what favours it, and to remove or throw 
 away what impedes or hinders it. 
 
 This principle no man can deny without 
 renouncing his faith in Christ. 
 
 8. Church, and State— Csesarism. 
 
 Q. What is, in matters of religion, the last 
 progress, and, if we may use the term, the quintes- 
 sence of modern civilization ? 
 
 A. It consists — as has been shown by the doings of 
 Prussia, Switzerland, and other progressing states 
 — in denying the authority of the Church and 
 , spiritual power of any kind : in accusing Catholics 
 of rebellion, because they will not apostatize at the 
 bidding of civil magistrates : in crying them down 
 as enemies to the state and traitors to their coun- 
 try, because they persist in obeying God : in 
 punishing them with fines, prison, banishment, 
 wholesale confiscation, and probably very soon 
 with death, because they remain true to their 
 
412 
 
 baptism : in making religion little more than a 
 department of police : and, finally, in bringing back 
 that most cynical and inhuman tyranny, the 
 degradation and curse of mankind, the Caesarism. 
 of old. 
 
 Q. What is Caesarism ? 
 
 A. Caesarism is the pagan theory of power, 
 which, excluding God, gives to Caesar not only the 
 things that are Caesar’s but the things that are 
 God’s. There are, as we have seen, two orders of 
 things, the natural and the supernatural, and con- 
 sequently two powers distinct and subordinate. 
 Caesarism denies the existence of supernatural 
 order, and the distinction of powers. It sees in 
 the human will, individual or collective, the sole 
 fountain of law, and does not recognize any laws 
 except of his own making. Caesar — be he a people, 
 or a king, a senate or an emperor — finds the law 
 in himself, and creates right and wrong, the just 
 and the unjust, the sacred and the profane. Morals, 
 faith, politics, and religion, all come from him and 
 all depend upon him. In short, Caesarism is the 
 absorption of the two powers in one, and conse- 
 quently the absolute dominion of man over man, 
 over the soul as well as over the body. 
 
 Q. Why is this monstrous system called Caesar- 
 ism ? 
 
 A. It has got that name from the Roman 
 emperors of old, who, after the suppression of the 
 Republic, became legally the absolute, exclusive, 
 unlimited and omnipotent masters of the Roman 
 world. I say legally, because a law was passed by 
 which the people and the senate transferred to 
 Caesar all powers, religious, political, legislative and 
 civil, in a word, omnipotence in all things and over 
 all things ; whence this brutal and shameful axiom : 
 Whatever the prince wills is law. 
 
413 
 
 Q. What have been the results of Caesarism? 
 
 A. Caesarism, in whatever shape, whether in one 
 person, or in a senate, or in a populace, always ha* 
 been, is, and always must be tyranny in the civil 
 and persecution in the spiritual order. 
 
 In Rome itself, where the system was fully acted 
 on, the results were appalling. Some emperors 
 declared themselves to be gods ; they consecrated 
 to themselves temples with priests and sacrifices. 
 One of them made his horse a consul, that is the 
 first magistrate of the empire. It is needless to 
 add that they persecuted the Church in the most 
 savage way, and shed the blood of countless 
 martyrs. Through all Mahometan countries, the 
 same cause has produced the same effects : lawless 
 despotism in the rulers, the most abject slavery in 
 the subjects. Even amongst Christian nations, 
 what passed in England under Henry VIII and 
 Elizabeth, in France under the Convention, what 
 lately has been going on in Prussia, proves that 
 Caesarism is always the same, and that a revival of 
 its worst excesses is nowise impossible. 
 
 Q. How was the world freed from Caesarism? 
 
 A. By Jesus Christ, who, while consecrating the 
 civil authority as a delegation from God himself, 
 has limited the sphere of its jurisdiction, has laid 
 on it the limits of divine law, and has withdrawn 
 from its cognizance and control the whole inner 
 life of man, the whole domain of faith and con- 
 science. Christ is the true king ; he has estabjished 
 his kingdom, which is not of the world, amongst 
 and over the kingdoms of the world; he has es- 
 tablished upon earth, for the souls of men, a 
 legislature, a tribunal, an executive, independent of 
 all human Authority ; and thereby man has been 
 set free, since his soul obeys but God, and this 
 freedom is divinely guaranteed, since God has 
 made his Church for ever, and for ever infallible. 
 
414 
 
 The State, of course, can violate divine right 
 and persecute the children of God ; it may, at the 
 licence of its imperial or democratic will, invade 
 the domain of conscience ; but it has no more any 
 right to do so, and if it does, its laws are null and 
 void, its power is violence, and its acts are 
 tyranny. 
 
 Q. Did not the Catholic Church bring back 
 Caesarism in another shape, by her intimate union 
 in former times with the powers of the world ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church knows that the union 
 of the two powers is as beneficial to mankind as 
 their confusion would prove disastrous, and she 
 has always fostered that union. But, if she wants 
 religion and politics to go, as it were, hand in 
 hand, she has never allowed them tq, mingle 
 together. To use the words of a French Protestant 
 writer : “The Catholic Church never allowed her- 
 self to be absorbed by the State. To do her justice, 
 she never knew slavery, never sold her independence 
 for worldly advantages. She has her own laws, her 
 own rules, her own spirit ; she has always been self- 
 acting, self-confiding, self -defen ding, and self- 
 respecting. Protected by her faith, which derives 
 all truth from the Holy See, she keeps her own and 
 shuts up the State in its own. She submits to no 
 one in the world. That is her own pure and most 
 enviable glory.” (Alex. Yinet, Manif. des conv. 
 rel.) 
 
 On the contrary, the general tendency of Pro- 
 testantism, if you except a few dissenting sects, 
 has always been to favour the usurpations of the 
 civil authority in religious matters. From Luther, 
 its founder, down to Dollinger, the prophet of 
 its last sect, it has always clung submissively 
 to the powers that were, always surrendered to 
 them ecclesiastical freedom, and, thereby, has 
 
415 
 
 paved the way for the revival of that Caesarisin, 
 which Prussia lately wanted to obtrude upon Ger- 
 many, and through Germany, upon the Christian 
 world. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the actual Prussian 
 legislation was true unmitigated Caesarism ? 
 
 A. The new Prussian laws cut off appeals to 
 the Holy See, deprived the Church of the power of 
 excommunication, that is of the judicial right of 
 deciding who are and who are not of her com- 
 munion, gave to the State the office of forming 
 and educating the clergy, suspended the power of 
 bishops in giving cure of souls, invested the State 
 with a final jurisdiction over all ecclesiastical per- 
 sons and matters, with supreme power over 
 religion and conscience, and, in short, made the 
 emperor the head of all religions and of all priest- 
 hoods in the empire. Under such laws no spirit- 
 ual act or function, from the excommunication 
 of heretics down to the teaching the catechism to 
 school children, could be performed without the 
 sanction of the civil power, under pain of fine, 
 prison, deposition and banishment. 
 
 What is this but the Caesarism of old ? the 
 denial, not only of the supremacy of the spiritual 
 power, but of the very existence upon earth of 
 any spiritual power of divine institution ? 
 
 Q. What were the pretexts of this outbreak 
 of persecution in the midst of the so-called liberal, 
 civilized, and progressive Europe ? 
 
 A. The same that were put forth by Nero, 
 Diocletian, and the persecutors of old ; the same 
 that are used now in China, Corea, Tong-king, 
 etc. The Catholic Church, like her divine 
 founder, cannot be convicted of any crime. Those 
 who want to crush her must needs do what the 
 Jews did ; they must prefer loose charges of chang- 
 
416 
 
 ing religion and rebelling against the State : We 
 
 have found this man perverting our nation , and 
 forbidding to give tribute to Csesar [St. Luke, ch. 
 23, y. 2.] ; and the accusation is just as true in one 
 case as it was in the other. 
 
 One pretext of the Prussian persecution was the 
 definition of the infallibility of the Pope, as if the 
 infallibility was not as much the doctrine of 
 the Church before the Vatican council, as it is 
 after it ; as if the relations of the spiritual to the 
 civil power were not to-day precisely what they 
 were before ! 
 
 Another pretext was the sedition of the bishops. 
 There was no resistance to the legislation as it 
 existed before, but the Bismarkian laws were 
 deliberately schemed to render it impossible for 
 Catholics to obey them without ceasing in that 
 moment to be Catholics, that they might be 
 accused and dealt with as resisting the emperor’s 
 authority. It was persecution that created resis- 
 tance ; how could that resistance be pleaded to 
 justify the persecution which called it up ? 
 
 Q. Does not the civil law constitute a supreme 
 rule of conscience ? 
 
 A. Not at all. The supreme rule of conscience 
 is the divine law. Human legislation, when 
 opposed to the divine law, cannot be binding ; on 
 the contrary, it becomes a positive duty to dis- 
 obey it and set it at naught, because ice ought to 
 obey God rather than men. [Acts, ch. 5. v. 29.] 
 “If civil laws,” says Pope Pius IX, u could consti- 
 tute a supreme rule of conscience, as some impiously 
 and absurdly contend, the primitive martyrs, and 
 they who afterwards followed them in shedding 
 their blood for the faith of Christ and the liberty of 
 the Church, would be rather worthy of blame than 
 of honour and praise.” (Encyc. lett. 21st Nov. 1873.) 
 
417 
 
 Infidel statesmen imagine, no doubt, that the 
 mai^rs were indeed worthy of blame, as guilty of 
 rebellion and disloyalty; but the Church, whose 
 judgment is the judgment of God himself, 
 honours and praises them and invites her children, 
 if need be, to follow in their steps. 
 
 Q. Is not such a doctrine disloyalty to political 
 power ? 
 
 A. The Church teaches loyalty to Caesar in all 
 that religion does not condemn ; but when Caesar 
 requires disloyalty to God, she bids him defiance, 
 because God is the King of Kings. When civil 
 laws are not opposed to the authority of God and 
 of the Church of God, none obey them better than 
 Catholics, none are more lo^al to their rulers, 
 because they are subject not only for wrath , but 
 also for conscience sake. [Rom. ch. 13, v. 5.] But 
 when civil laws are enacted in violation of divine 
 authority, they take no account of them, because 
 to obey would be apostasy. 
 
 Q. What shall be the result of any new per- 
 secution ? 
 
 A. Any new persecution, even if its authors 
 could succeed in making it spread through other 
 countries and all over the world, shall terminate 
 as all previous persecutions : the Church shall 
 triumph in the end. If the Church were a human 
 thing, modern Csesarism might easily prevail 
 against her, for on its side are heavy guns, soldiers 
 and police ; and the Church has none. But her 
 Founder is stronger than all the armies that ever 
 stood in battle array. Let statesmen, and politi- 
 cians, and assemblies, and kings, and emperors do 
 their best, or worst, one thing only is absolutely 
 certain : God wants his Church to be free, free in 
 her judgments, free in her organisation, free with 
 that freedom wherewith Christ has made us free . 
 [Gal., ch. 4, v. 31] And free she shall be. 
 
418 
 
 9. Secret Societies. 
 
 Q. Why are the modern theories about free- 
 thought, independent reason, supremacy of the 
 state in religious matters, etc., more particularly 
 dangerous at this time ? 
 
 A. Because they have become, as it were, 
 incarnate in those secret societies, which under 
 various names and in various ways, are the main- 
 spring of the general conspiracy against the faith, 
 or the religious liberty of Catholics, and the hand 
 of which is to be found at the bottom of all 
 criminal attempts against Christ and the vicar 
 of Christ. 
 
 Though such a subject is not directly included 
 in the plan of this Catechism, , yet the danger is 
 so common in India and other countries of the 
 Far-East, that we had better notice it in a few 
 words, which may prove useful to men of good # 
 will, and open the eves of some unsuspecting 
 victims. What is said here is a short extract of 
 the evidence published in different books and a 
 treatises, the accuracy of which has never been 
 questioned. (See Des Mousseaux, Saint-Albin, 
 S6gur, Dupanloup, etc.) 
 
 Q. What do you mean by secret societies ? 
 
 A. I mean all those associations established 
 under the mask of general philanthropy or mutual 
 assistance, and vulgarly known by the common 
 name of free-masonry, the members of which 
 recognize each other by mysterious signs or 
 gestures, and are bound by a solemn oath, under 
 pain of death, never to betray to the 'profane , — that 
 is to all people outside, — a secret which is or is not 
 disclosed to them after their initiation into the sect. 
 
 Q. Are there many secret societies ? 
 
 A. Outwardly there are many, in almost every 
 country. Frce-masonry, the principal of them, is 
 
419 
 
 divided into different rites and numberless lodges. 
 But whatever may be the names or the ostensible 
 purposes of such associations, they, in fact, though 
 the common herd may not be aware of it, all follow 
 the direction and obey the decrees of one central 
 committee or supreme governing council, known 
 to none but the chief leaders, which is composed 
 of nine members, five of whom must always be 
 Jews. 
 
 This, by the way, explains how, at times, the 
 whole infidel press, all the members of all the 
 lodges, are pleading the same cause with the same 
 arguments, uttering the same calumnies against 
 the Church, attacking in the same way, and at the 
 same moment, the same religious institutions, as 
 if moved by one and the same spring. The power 
 of the central committee is absolute ; it extends 
 throughout all the different nations of the world ; 
 the watch-word once given, all the free-masons 
 must and do obey it. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that secret societies are 
 established under the mask of philanthropy, mutual 
 benevolence, etc. ? 
 
 A. Firstly, because the exercise of philanthropy, 
 public or private benevolence, mutual relief, and 
 such like works, in no way requires concealment, 
 mystical initiations, or oaths of secrecy under 
 pain of death. Secondly, because, whatever may 
 have been formerly the official masonic assertions 
 as to their rules and principles, now that the free- 
 masons have acquired immense influence, and 
 fondly expect an almost immediate triumph, they 
 have thrown off the mask, and, in their pamphlets 
 or newspapers, openly proclaim the true end of 
 their sect. 
 
 Q. What is the true end of free-masonry ? 
 
 A. Let the chief leaders speak it their own name. 
 
420 
 
 tl Free-masonry has been a secret, society long 
 enough, but the time is come when it must raise 
 its head. To give light to the world, the sun must 
 emerge from the cloud, the truth from the symbol, 
 the work from the lodge.” — What work? — “ The 
 work of destroying revealed religions, that cannon- 
 ball which mankind has been dragging so long, 
 and of putting free-masonry as a substitute 
 in* the place of fast disappearing creeds;” for 
 “ masonry is superior to all dogmas or religions. 
 There is no revealing God, and we ourselves are 
 our own God.” ( Le Monde Maconnique , Mai, 
 1870, pp. 118, 139, 1G2. See Dupanloup’s Etudes 
 sur lafr.-mac. pp. 12, 14.) 
 
 In a secret instruction, sent by the central 
 governing council {rente supreme) to all the high 
 working-lodges {rentes), we read: “Our final end 
 is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution: 
 to annihilate for erer Catholicism, and even the 
 very idea of Christianity (L’Eglise en face de 
 la Revolution, t. 2. p. 82.) 
 
 So that free-masonry is confessedly the church 
 •which Satan has raised against the Church of 
 God, for the express purpose of taking his revenge 
 of Mount Calvary, of making null and void the 
 redemption of mankind, and of turning out of 
 the world, if possible, God and his Christ. 
 
 Q. But do mot free-masons adore God ? 
 
 A. In their official printed rules there is men- 
 tioned a being whom they call the great Architect 
 of the Universe. Which God is that ? Baal ? or 
 Jupiter, or Brahma? or Vishnu? We don’t 
 know. One thing only is certain: the God they 
 acknowledge is not the true living God, one in 
 three persons, Creator and Redeemer of the world, 
 the only God of Christians. 
 
 Moreover, even that Architect of the Universe 
 
421 
 
 they want to discard as soon as prudence may 
 allow, as is proved by the debates of not a few 
 large masonic assemblies during the last twenty 
 years. [Dupanloup, pp. 21, 22.] 
 
 Q. Can a Christian be a freemason ? 
 
 A. From what we have just quoted it is evi- 
 dently impossible to a man who believes in the 
 Apostles’ Creed to be a freemason. Masonic 
 authors plainly declare it : “ When freemasonry 
 opens its temples to a Jew, to a Mahometan, to a 
 Catholic, to a Protestant, it is on oondition that 
 he shall become a new man, abjure his past errors, 
 and throw away the superstitions in which he has 
 been brought up from his cradle. If not, what 
 has he to do in our masonic assemblies ?” [Goffin, 
 Hist, 'po'pul. de la franc-maconnerie, p. 517.] 
 This open avowal is confirmed by universal ex- 
 perience. Who has ever known, in any country 
 under the sun, a freemason being at the same 
 time a true, sincere, zealous, devoted and practical 
 * Christian ? 
 
 The inference is clear. The Christian who 
 having been enticed into freemasonry, perseveres 
 in it, is an apostate, a renegade, as much as the 
 Christian who turns Mahometan. 
 
 Q. Can a sensible, self-respecting man be a 
 freemason ? 
 
 A. Everybody has heard of the superstitious 
 or ridiculous rites, signs,- gestures, mysteries, 
 slang words, trowels, aprons, and other emblems, 
 used at the initiation of members to the lower 
 grades, or at ordinary lodge convivialities ; which 
 rites are laughed at by progressive masons, who 
 call them childish or senile [Dup. p. 44], and 
 thrown away in the convents of tho leaders or 
 masons of the true higher grades. Is it possible, 
 for men of a serious and sometimes of an enligh- 
 
 36 
 
422 
 
 tened mind, traders, lawyers, magistrates, doctors, 
 professors at universities, naval and army officers, 
 members of congresses or parliaments, etc., to 
 spend tedious hours in learning the ritual pre- 
 scriptions of their respective grades, or to practise 
 such nonsensical ceremonies, without an acute and 
 painful feeling of self-contempt ? 
 
 But all this masquerading is nothing when 
 compared to the moral abasement a true free- 
 mason must reconcile himself to. To be received 
 as a companion he swears to keep the secret, and 
 adds: “Should lever forfeit my word, let my 
 
 lips be burned with a red-hot iron, let my hands 
 be chopped off, my tongue torn out, my throat 
 cut, my body hanged in the lodge,” etc. Has 
 not that man abnegated moral sense who binds 
 himself in such a monstrous way to a secret 
 which he does not know, which he more than 
 suspects to be abominable and infamous, which 
 he may perhaps never be told, as is the case with 
 more than half the freemasons P Once bound by 
 such a deadly oath he must follow the direction 
 of his lodge, which itself obeys unknown masters. 
 The higher his grade the tighter his chains. 
 When once fairly taken in the machinery, he 
 must act as he is bid, in spite of his conscience, 
 sometimes of his remorse ; he must serve schemes 
 which he cannot approve, mix in intrigues he is 
 ashamed of, prop up men he despises ; he must, 
 in religious, social, or political questions, speak, 
 write, vote, not according to his own opinions, 
 but according to the dictation of others; lie must 
 lend himself as an unconscious tool to any work, 
 to any plan of the supreme council of the sect, 
 that is of the few mysterious masters to whom he 
 has sold himself, body and soul. If that is not 
 slavery, the most degrading slavery, what shall be ? 
 
 Q. Are there not, amongst freemasons, people 
 
423 
 
 of good faith, who are unacquainted with the true 
 end of secret societies, and do not in any way 
 promote it ? 
 
 A. Amongst those who enlist for the first 
 time into freemasonry, there may be, strictly 
 speaking, a few individuals who imagine they are 
 giving their names to a harmless philanthropic 
 association. But, amongst those who persevere 
 in it good faith is nearly impossible. Every 
 baptized Christian knows that he has to serve 
 Jesus Christ, the true living God, and to work out 
 the salvation of his soul. Can even one free- 
 mason in the world imagine he is doing so ? 
 Honest and virtuous he may be, no doubt, in a 
 worldly sense, with that pagan honesty and virtue 
 so common in hell; but he is no more a Christian; 
 he is, and he knows that he is, but an apostate. 
 And even if he could not or would not get into 
 the higher and more secret dens of the sect, he 
 is responsible for all the evils which the sect 
 produces, because, having sold his will, his intel- 
 ligence, and his liberty, he belongs to it and has 
 become a part of it. 
 
 Q. What is true organization of freemasonry ? 
 
 A. Freemasonry is made, as it were, of two 
 parts, the outside and the inside, the exterior and 
 the interior. There are the lower and the higher 
 grades, and even amongst the higher grades, the 
 mock ones and the true ones. Its members are 
 partly initiated or fully initiated, according as 
 they have entered what was called in the pagan 
 mysteries of old, — the outer temple or the inner 
 sanctuary. It is an army of which the half- 
 initiated are the common soldiers, drilled into a 
 slavish and blind obedience, the fully initiated the 
 the officers and leaders. It is a body of which 
 the first are the arm which obeys mechanically, the 
 others the brain which knows, plans, and decrees. 
 
424 
 
 In other words, the common herd which amuses 
 itself at convivial meetings with the comedy 
 of masonic emblems, is kept up by the true 
 masons as a host of menials, whose names, votes, 
 influence, and money they well know how to turn 
 to account, and as a fish-pond from which they 
 pick out such characters as are well qualified to 
 recruit their numbers, and do the real work of 
 the sect. 
 
 Q. What do you infer from all this ? 
 
 A. I infer, firstly, that the Church is perfectly 
 justified in condemning secret societies as the 
 most dangerous pestilence brought into the world 
 by the powers of hell, and excommunicating out- 
 right all their members, without any exception 
 whatever. 
 
 I infer, secondly, that when, as is frequently 
 the case, poor seduced Christians, remembering 
 their baptismal promises, feel shame and remorse 
 for being freemasons, they must withdraw at once 
 at whatever cost. It may be sometimes difficult, 
 but nothing is impossible to men of good will, 
 with the help of divine grace. 
 
 Woe to him who should hesitate too long, and 
 be overtaken by death before renouncing the 
 church of Satan ! Woe to him ! for, all the blas- 
 phemous fudges of his lodge friends at his death- 
 bed, and all their masquerading around his corpse', 
 will be of little avail; and it is a fearful thing to 
 fall into the hands of the living God. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 My task is fulfilled. The ordinary objections of 
 Protestants against the Catholic faith have been 
 replied to one by one. Every argument stands by, 
 itself strong and unanswerable; taken together 
 as a whole, they set at defiance any possible attack. 
 
 The conscientious and attentive reader must be 
 convinced now that Jesus Christ has established 
 his one Church to be the only rule of faith, the 
 only way to salvation, the infallible guardian and 
 apostle of 'the covenant which is to last for ever. 
 She alone, founded on the rock of Peter’s supreme 
 power, keeps the scriptures, explains their mean- 
 ing, protects the faith of her children from any 
 danger of perversion, directs their worship, and 
 dispenses to them all graces through the sacraments 
 established by the Saviour. 
 
 It is proved also that the various Protestant sects 
 are not the true Church of Christ ; the Scripture is 
 to them a sealed book, wrested by them to their 
 own perdition ; that they are wandering in utter 
 darkness, far away from the true fold, without 
 faith, without priests, without sacrifice, without 
 sacraments, tossed to and fro on the wide ocean of 
 human contradictions, carried about with every 
 wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men. [Eph., 
 ch. 4, v. 14.] 
 
 As a conclusion, I will add a few words on a fact 
 which, to a reflective mind, is the strongest of all 
 arguments, because it comprises all, and is always 
 increasing in strength ; a fact which, thoroughly 
 examined, has brought back to the Catholic Church 
 
420 
 
 many of the greatest and most learned Protestants; 
 a fact which has won the reluctant admiration even 
 of those it has failed to convert. I mean the very 
 existence of this unchangeable Church, which is 
 to-day what she was eighteen hundred years ago, 
 what she shall be to the consummation of the world, 
 always the same in her faith, her morals, her con- 
 stitution, her body of pastors under the chief 
 pastor, the Pope Vicar of Christ. 
 
 Everything changes in the world. All the works 
 of man, however grand and stately, sponer or later 
 undergo the destiny of man himself; they pass 
 away and are forgotten. Nations, empires, dynas- 
 ties, laws, manners, opinions and doctrines are 
 continually swept away, and there arise in their 
 place, new nations, new empires, new dynasties, 
 new laws, new doctrines, which last for a time and 
 disappear in their turn, while generations succeed 
 generations. One thing only remains unchanged : 
 the Catholic Church. Is there not something awful 
 in that immutability which no time can wear out, 
 no war conquer, no persecution weaken ? in the 
 stability of this rock higher than the waves, which 
 no storm can shake ? in the fixedness of this light, 
 set up to the four winds of heaven, which no cloud 
 can hide, no tempest blast away ? 
 
 The astonishment increases when we consider 
 that this perpetual duration is but one long pro- 
 tracted struggle, that this Church has been and is 
 continually attacked. Heathens, schismatics, here- 
 tics, unbelievers, have been by turns rushing with 
 fire and sword on the see of St. Peter. Rome, the 
 eternal city of modern times, as it was in the 
 days of yore, has been many times conquered and 
 conquered again, sacked, plundered, ruined, de- 
 stroyed by every scourge from the East and the 
 West. The Papacy has been assailed in every 
 possible way; every weapon has been hurled 
 
427 
 
 > A 
 
 against her. Open violence and crafty deceit, 
 subtle reasoning and coarse abuse, war and dip- 
 lomacy, schism, heresy, science, unbelief, the 
 jeering epigram as well as the scaffold, have been 
 used on the largest scale, with unremitting hatred, 
 with the most hellish fury, and they have failed. 
 The gates of hell , which would have at the first 
 onset, shattered to pieces any other power, have 
 been repeatedly smashed at the feet of the old un- 
 armed priest, the successor of St. Peter, who lives 
 where St. Peter lived, is to-day a prisoner where 
 St. Peter was a prisoner, and with the same power 
 governs the same Catholic Church. Beza, one of 
 the founders of Protestantism, said, 300 years ago: 
 “ On this anvil all hammers shall be shivered/’ — 
 In our times, the great Protestant historian Lord 
 Macaulay has remarked that “when we reflect on 
 the tremendous assaults which the Papacy has sur- 
 vived, we find it difficult to conceive in what way 
 she is to perish.” [Edinburgh Review, Oct. 
 1840.] 
 
 And, what is more stupendous, in this unceasing 
 struggle of eighteen centuries duration, the 
 Church has never bent to circumstances or necesrj 
 sity, never given up for one minute the rights of; 
 truth. She is continually risking her fate against 
 all known rules of human prudence. It has been 
 justly remarked that in the best organized states, 
 even fundamental laws are, from time to time, 
 made to yield to necessity, as the only way of 
 escaping revolution and ruin. The Papacy has 
 never yielded. When England was severed from 
 her, Henry VIII asked but one word — to dissolve 
 his marriage with Catherine of Aragon. That 
 word was not uttered. The Church’s long history 
 is full of such examples. Kingdoms are estranged 
 from her or come back to her, conquerors threaten 
 or caress, nations obey or rebel; nothing can move, 
 
428 
 
 nothing can seduce her. She fearlessly defends 
 truth, and cares for nothing else ; and, in the end, 
 every war waged against her proves fatal to those 
 only who have caused it. 
 
 To explain away the prodigy of the existence 
 of this wonderful power, which, immutable and 
 unbending, defies time, war and. persecution, 
 some silly persons object' that Mahometanism, as 
 well as the heathen religions of India and China, 
 have lasted unchanged for many centuries. They 
 forget that those religions may be justly compared 
 to frozen corpses, the external shape of which is 
 preserved by cold long after life has been extinct. 
 Let a hot wind blow, the dead carcase rots and 
 disappears. Cold, in this case, is ignorance. But 
 as soon as the hot wind of science shall blow, in 
 the countries till now seated in the shadow of 
 death, all those external forms shall vanish and 
 dust only remain. We see to-day the beginning 
 of this revolution. In Turkey, Mahometanism is 
 fast dying out; in India there is not one educated 
 native who retains unshaken in his heart the faith 
 of his fore-fathers. 
 
 On the contrary, the Catholic Church stands in 
 the midst of changing, progressing, reasoning, 
 disquisitive Europe; and far from diminishing, 
 her influence increases with the progress of learn- 
 ing. Let us hear the illustrious author above 
 quoted : 
 
 “We often hear it said that the world is con- 
 stantly becoming more and more enlightened, and 
 that this enlightening must be favourable to 
 Protestantism, and unfavourable to Catholicism. 
 We wish that we could think so. But we see 
 great reason to doubt whether this be a well 
 founded expectation. We see that during the 
 last two hundred and fifty years the human mind 
 has been in the highest degree active, that it 
 
429 
 
 has made great advances in every branch of 
 natural philosophy . . . yet we see that, during 
 these two hundred and fifty years, Protes- 
 tantism has made no conquests worth speaking of. 
 Nay, we believe that, as far as there has been a 
 change, that change has, on the whole, been in 
 favour of the Church of Rome. 55 [Edinburgh 
 Review, Oct. 1840.] 
 
 Yes, so it is, and so it must be. The progress 
 of learning will kill Protestantism, because no false 
 religion can stand its ground before science. In 
 proportion as a Protestant becomes more enlighten- 
 ed, he better sees the weakness of the arguments 
 which support his faith, the impossibility of find- 
 ing a resting place between Catholicism and 
 infidelity. Protestantism is but little more than 
 three hundred years old, yet its doctrines have been 
 continually changing and varying. Now, doubt is 
 prejdng on the vitals ; old formularies have become a 
 dead letter, faith is nearly extinct. In the early part 
 of this century [May 3rd, 1817], in Geneva, the 
 capital of Protestantism in continental Europe, the 
 so-called ministers of the Gospel of Christ solemnly 
 declared that the man who should dare to preach too 
 affirmatively that Jesus Christ is God, would be 
 turned out of the consistory. [Fragments de l’hist, 
 eccl. de Geneve, 1817, p. 15.] In 1859, a well 
 known Protestant divine, M. de Gasparin, was 
 thanking God publicly that out of seven hundred 
 ministers there were yet nearly two hundred who 
 believed in the divine nature of Christ. In 1867, in 
 Baden, when the newly elected Synode gdndral, or 
 governing body of the Protestant Church, met at 
 Carlsruhe, on the 1st of May, it was found that out 
 of the 56 members, 42 were men who had publicly 
 abjured Christ ; and that thirteen of those renegades 
 were returned by the Protestant clergy themselves. 
 [Le Monde , 4th Mai, 1867.] 
 
430 
 
 In England, where the established church is the 
 humble servant of the State, political expediency- 
 had kept up a show of something like faith ; but in 
 England, as well as in other Protestant countries, 
 consequences must in the end come out of their 
 principles. The most unbounded liberty of thought 
 and opinion is fiercely demanded, fundamental 
 dogmas, such as the necessity of baptism, the 
 eternity of hell, even the inspiration of the Holy 
 Scriptures, are publicly questioned, by ministers of 
 the established church. They cannot understand 
 what the pouring of water has to do with justifica- 
 tion ; they think future punishment absolutely 
 necessary to rectify abuses here below, but its 
 eternity they will not admit ; so that, 
 after having for more than three hundred years 
 denied Purgatory, cursed it as one of the monstrous 
 errors of corrupt Popery, they want now nothing 
 but Purgatory. Should any one timidly appeal to 
 the scriptures, “ the Bible, ” he will be answered, 
 ‘•the Bible, as it now lies before us, is God’s word, if 
 you will, but translated by fallible men ; and we 
 want a scientific translation, expurged of the count- 
 less errors and superstitions of the old one,” etc. 
 Vainly do some old-fashioned people protest, and 
 call on government authority to stop the increasing 
 evil. Logic is getting stronger than the text of 
 the law ; the highest tribunals do what they cannot 
 help doing, they again and again discharge the 
 offenders, and each new judgment curtails and 
 shakes the official creed. In short, we see the 
 beginning of the end, and it is more than probable 
 that the church by law established, shall soon be 
 a thing of the past. 
 
 But look at the Catholic Church. She has never 
 changed one letter of her creed, though every 
 article of it has given rise to volumes of argumenta- 
 tion; yet, she has martyrs to-day as she had 
 
431 
 
 eighteen hundred years ago. Hundreds of thou- 
 sands of learned men, of men who have been 
 for years reading, studying, carefully searching 
 every religious question, every page of scripture, 
 are ready to die for every article of her unchange- 
 able faith, and would be glad to find an opportu- 
 nity to confirm it with the testimony of their blood. 
 
 Not only has the Catholic Church stood her 
 ♦ ground, she has been and is continually increasing 
 in extent. To her only it has been said: Go ye 
 into the whole world and preach the Gospel to 
 every creature. [St Mark, ch. 16, v. 15.] I will make 
 you to he fishers of men. [St. Matt., ch. 4, v. 19.] As 
 the Father hath sent me I also send you. [St. John, 
 ch. 20, v. 21.] All nations who worship the true 
 living God have been by her, and by her alone, 
 converted from heathenism; and if, by the mercy 
 of God, a time shall come when the heathen 
 nations of the uncivilized world will be converted, 
 she and she alone will be instrumental in reclaim- 
 ing them from perdition. 
 
 .Protestants have of late tried their hand at this 
 w r ork of conversion. They have expended mil- 
 lions of pounds, printed and distributed millions of 
 books, to fulfil these words of the Gospel : You go 
 round about the sea and land to make one proselyte, 
 and when he is made, you make him the child 
 of hell twofold more than yourselves. [St. Matt., 
 ch. 23, v. 15.] They go round about the sea and 
 the land, taking care, however, generally to remain 
 in the vicinity and under the protection of British 
 guns; they give right and left millions of bibles, 
 books and tracts innumerable ; they try new 
 processes, open new schools every day; not a few 
 amongst them are confessedly learned, hard- 
 working men; and yet what is the result? Look 
 at their congregations in India. Here and there, 
 individuals bought out of heathenism with money 
 
432 
 
 or promises of employment, whose faith lasts as 
 long as they are fed and clothed at the mission’s 
 expense; stray Catholics turned out of the. Church 
 for their misdeeds, or worried into apostasy by 
 unscrupulous masters, or driven by poverty and 
 hunger to sell their souls for a few rupees, the 
 greatest number of whom, sooner or later, come 
 back like the prodigal son, striking their breasts 
 and saying : r Father, I have sinned”; that is all. • 
 Their only positive gain, the only practical result 
 of these endeavours and expenditure, is to prevent 
 heathens from joining the Catholic Church. — 
 
 “ The {Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,” 
 says one of its missionaries, “ is regarded as a mine 
 or inexhaustible exchequer, on which they (the 
 converts) have only to draw for whatever is re- 
 quired; and so firmly has this pleasing but fallaci- 
 ous idea got hold of their minds, that on the 
 refusal of the missionary to provide them with 
 clothes, houses, cows, money, etc., they leave him 
 for the Lutheran missionaries, who are said to aid 
 their followers to an extraordinary degree.” 
 [Rev. Leeper’s letter to the Madras Times , 17th 
 Nov. 1866.] 
 
 That such is the fact, not only in India but in 
 eveiy country opened to proselytizing ministers, — 
 that the words of Lord Macaulay : “ Protestantism 
 has made no conquests worth speaking of,” are 
 true to the letter is admitted by all clear-sighted 
 Protestants, and proved by the testimony of the 
 Protestant missionaries themselves. 
 
 How could it be otherwise ? I did not send 
 prophets, yet they ran . [Jerem., ch. 23, v. 21.] 
 Mow shall they preach unless they be sent ? [Rom.,, 
 eh. 10, v. 15.] And what doctrine could they 
 preach, belonging as they do to a hundred con- 
 tradictory sects? 
 
 Catholic priests have not the treasures of the 
 
433 
 
 Bible Societies, but they have the help of God, 
 because they are sent by him. They are poor, 
 as were Jesus Christ and his Apostles. They do 
 not fear to go anywhere alone and unprotected. 
 They are to be found in the interior of China and 
 Tong-king, where it is death to preach the gospel, 
 as well as in India or in America. They have 
 millions of converts in countries which no Protest- 
 ant minister has ever dared to enter. They are 
 martyrs to-day as they have been at the beginning 
 of the Church, and the field often watered with 
 their blood brings forth an abundant harvest, to 
 be gathered in the barn of the Heavenly Father. 
 
 “The Papacy,” says Lord Macaulay, “re- 
 mains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full 
 of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church 
 is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the 
 world missionaries as zealous as those who landed 
 in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hos- 
 tile kings with the same spirit with which she 
 confronted Attila. The number of her children is 
 greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions 
 in the New World have more than compensated 
 her for what she has lost in the Old. Nor do we 
 see any sign which indicates that the term of her 
 long dominion is approaching. She saw the 
 commencement of all the ecclesiastical establish- 
 ments that now exist in the world ; and we feel no 
 assurance that she is not destined to see the end 
 of them all. She was great and respected before 
 the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the 
 Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian elo- 
 quence still flourished in Antioch, when idols were 
 still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And 
 she may still exist in undiminished vigour, when 
 some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the 
 midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken 
 arch of London Bridge, to sketch the ruins of St. 
 Paul.” (Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1840.) 
 
The Catholic Church stands, always true to her 
 name, embracing all times in her duration, the 
 whole world in her extent. Hundreds of times here- 
 tics have hoped and prophesied that her hour was 
 come. Hundreds of times those doctors of error, on 
 whom God has inflicted as a punishment for their 
 rebellion against his Church, the twofold blindness 
 of seeing in the scriptures what is not in them, and 
 of not seeing what is most clear and obvious in 
 every page, have announced to the world that, at 
 length, the end of her long reign was at hand. 
 They had found the year and the day clearly 
 marked out in the Revelation of St. John, for that 
 book is fatal to Protestant divines, and few of them 
 search it without turning mad. But in every 
 circumstance God has baffled their calculations, 
 every storm has passed away, and the Church is 
 stronger than it has ever been. 
 
 “Her time is come! ” triumphantly exclaimed 
 Arius in the fourth century, when the whole 
 strength of the empire supported him in his 
 heretical rebellion. But Arius and his doctrines 
 are forgotten, and the Catholic Church stands. 
 
 “ Her time is come ; ” cried Luther, when he 
 saw the conflagration he had raised spreading far 
 and wide. Luther is dead, and nobody cares for 
 him or his teachings; yet the Catholic Church 
 stands. 
 
 “Her time is come ! ” say now-a-days Protes- 
 tants of every sect. When Pius IX was dying, 
 they cried “Her time is come ! he shall be the last 
 Pope!” They forgot that Simon dies, but Peter 
 is immortal. 
 
 Pius IX summoned, some years ago, an oecumeni- 
 cal council. In spite of hostile governments, in spite 
 of traitors and of cowards, in spite of political con- 
 spiracies and clerical plottings, he held, in the Vati- 
 can , that council of seven hundred bishops. And 
 
435 
 
 that council, inspired by the Holy Ghost, as the 
 preceding ones, applied the proper remedy to the 
 principal plagues modern society is smitten with. 
 In the middle of the nineteenth century, the 
 world, as" it were, being intoxicated with ration- 
 alism, that council defined the respective rights of 
 supernatural faith and natural reason ; it said to 
 rebellious human reason what God in the begin- 
 ning said to the ocean : Hitherto thou shalt come , 
 and shalt go no further , and here thou shalt break 
 thy sicelling waves. [Job, ch. 38, v. 11.] In the 
 middle of the nineteenth century, when the world 
 lay in a lethargy of religious indifference, and 
 had almost forgotten what is truth, that council 
 proclaimed the supernatural infallibility of the 
 Pope, guardian of the revealed truth. 
 
 It was predicted, during the Vatican Council, that 
 Satan would seek to avenge his defeat, the great- 
 est ever inflicted on him since the Councils of 
 Nice and Ephesus : we have seen the fulfilment of 
 the prophecy. The Pope is robbed of his earthly 
 kingdom, and kept a prisoner in the Vatican, and, 
 in imitation of his divine Master, is held up to 
 insult and contempt ; blind multitudes, goaded on 
 by secret societies, by an infidel press, bv hostile 
 governments, madly cry out : Away with him , 
 
 away with him } crucify him. . . . We have 
 
 no king but Csesar. [St. John, ch. 19, v. 15.] 
 But the Church fears not ; she was never so 
 widespread, never so united in herself and to her 
 head as now ; and, come what may, she remembers 
 the promise of the Lord : the nation and the 
 
 KINGDOM THAT WILL NOT SERVE THEE SHALL 
 
 perish. . ... I will make thee to be an 
 
 everlasting glory. [Isaias, ch. 60, v. 12, 15.] 
 When Julian the Apostate, in the height of his 
 triumphs and glory, threatened the Church with 
 destruction, his friend and flatterer, the heathen 
 
436 
 
 philosopher Libanius, tauntingly asked a Christian 
 of his acquaintance: “ What is the son of the 
 much have they accomplished ? Nothing. Where 
 carpenter of Nazareth doing now ?” The Christian 
 answered : a He is making a coffin for thine em- 
 peror.” And, a few months after the Apostate 
 died desperate in the Persian war. Since then 
 how many other coffins have been made in the 
 same way ! Not to go back farther than this 
 century, when Napoleon I annexed Rome to 
 his empire, and threw the Pope into a prison, what 
 was the carpenter’s son doing ? He was making 
 a coffin, the coffin of Waterloo and Saint-Helena. 
 When Napoleon III sold to the leaders of the 
 secret societies the independence of the Pope and 
 patrimony of St. Peter, what was the carpenter’s 
 son doing ? He was making a coffin, the coffin of 
 Sedan and Chislehurst. And to-day, when kings, 
 parliaments, statesmen, reptiles of the press and 
 of the lodges, vie with each other in crying down 
 and persecuting the Church of God and the vicar 
 of Christ, what is the carpenter’s son doing ? He 
 is making coffins. 
 
 “Many waves and storms threaten us,” exclaim- 
 ed St. John Chrysostom, fifteen hundred years 
 ago, “many waves and storms threaten us, but we 
 are not afraid of being overwhelmed, for we stand 
 upon the rock. Though the sea rage, it cannot 
 melt the rock ; though the waves arise, yet they 
 cannot sink the bark of Jesus. There is nothing 
 mightier than the Church. The Church is stronger 
 than heaven itself. Heaven and earth shall 
 pass away , but my words shall not pass away. 
 What words are these that shall not pass away ? 
 Thou art Peter , and upon this rock I will build 
 my Churchy and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. If you do not believe in words, be- 
 lieve in deeds. How many tyrants have tried to 
 
437 
 
 oppress the Church P How many gridirons, how 
 many furnaces, how many wild beasts, how many 
 swords, have been prepared against her ? How 
 are her foes ? They are forgotten. Where is the 
 Church ? She shines more brightly than the sun. 
 Her foes have perished ; her children are immortal. 
 If, when there were few Christians, they were not 
 overcome, how, when the whole world is full of 
 holy religion, will you be able to overcome them ? 
 Heaven and earth shall pass away , but my words 
 shall not pass away” 
 
 THE END. 
 

 *. - 
 
 ■ 
 
 * * 
 

 
 . 
 
 V