A Vindication of Christ By a Catholic Priest Roman Catholicism Capitulating Before Protestantism BY G. V. FRADRYSSA Doctor of Philosophy and Theology ; Lecturer on Sacred Scriptures ; Synodal Examiner TRANSLATED FROM THE SPANISH SOUTHERN PUBLISHING COMPANY MOBILE, ALABAMA 1908 Copyright 1908, by Southern Publishing Company Mobile, Ala. Entered at Stationers' Hall, London, England 1908 All rights reserved Issued from The Cumberland Press, Nashville Stack Annex F75 CONTENTS. PROLOGUE ------ ._...____ v ii INTRODUCTION ----- ______ x i CHAPTER I. DISCUSSION OUTLINED. ENUMERATION OF THE FUNDA- MENTAL PRINCIPLES ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PROTEST- ANTS AND THE CATHOLICS .._..___ i CHAPTER II. DISCUSSION AND OUTLINE OF THE MEANS OF KNOWING CHRIST 8 CHAPTER III. THE ONLY SURE WAY OF KNOWING CHRIST AND His CHURCH Is THROUGH THE GOSPELS ------ 18 CHAPTER IV. ARE THE GOSPELS SUFFICIENT IN ORDER TO KNOW CHRIST AND His CHURCH? 26 CHAPTER V. THE SUBJECT OF THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER CONTINUED - - 37 CHAPTER VI. IN THIS CHAPTER WE CORROBORATE THE SAME DOCTRINES OUTLINED IN THE PRECEDING ONE, BY THE CONDUCT AND WRITING OF THE APOSTLES, AND ALSO ANSWER THE MAIN OBJECTION OF THE ROMANS - - - -51 CHAPTER VII. THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE GOSPELS AND THE WRIT- INGS OF THE APOSTLES ----------- 62 CHAPTER VIII. DID CHRIST ESTABLISH AN OFFICIAL JURISDICTION? AND IF so, DID HE GRANT IT COLLECTIVELY OR WAS IT AS- SIGNED BY HIM TO SOME MEMBERS OF THE WHOLE? - 75 (iii) IV CONTEXTS CHAPTER IX. Is THE FOURTH THEORY ADMISSIBLE, WHICH DECLARES AN INFALLIBLE PAPACY OVER THE EPISCOPATE? - 85 CHAPTER X. Do THE ACTS OF PETER AND THE CONDUCT OF THE OTHER APOSTLES AFFIRM OR DENY THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE? - - - - - - 108 CHAPTER XL DlD THE SUB-APOSTOLIC FATHERS BELIEVE IN THE POPE*S INFALLIBILITY? - 125 CHAPTER XII. WILL IT BE POSSIBLE FULLY TO EXPLAIN THE PRIMACY AND PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY BY SIMPLE REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL LAWS OF LIISTORY? - 140 CHAPTER XIII. BEWILDERING AND FATAL CONDITION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, SUBSEQUENT TO THE PONTIFICAL INFALLI- BILITY ---------------- 159 CHAPTER XIV. CAN THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES BE UPHELD IN THE MlDST OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY? - - - - 173 CHAPTER XV. NOTES OF THE CHURCH -------190 CHAPTER XVI. SANCTITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH ...._--. 200 CHAPTER XVII. UNITY IN THE ROMAN CHURCH - -----218 CHAPTER XVIII. ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY - -, - - - - 244 CHAPTER XIX. THE INQUISITION AND ROMANISM ------- 257 CHAPTER XX. JUSTIFICATION, ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES - - - - 283 CONTENTS V CHAPTER XXI. THE SACRAMENTS - ------- 305 CHAPTER XXII. PURGATORY AND THE MASS - .._.__ 321 CHAPTER XXIII. THE ROMAN DOCTRINE AND MAN IN His TRIPLE ASPECT RELIGIOUS, SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL ------ 334 EPILOGUE - _-__.. $32 APPENDIX - __--__ 354 ERRATA - .__-_____ fo PROLOGUE. INDULGENT READER : You may never have had the opportunity of read- ing an author (a Roman Catholic theologian) whose purpose was to defend Christ and his Church, while refuting official Romanism. While this statement may appear somewhat para- doxical, I believe that with your indulgence and pa- tience, it can be made plain and comprehensive. At the outset, however, it must be stated, that if antagonistic to the Roman Catholic doctrine, and as one of its enemies you expect to find mention here of the many scandalous historic calumnies, the effective and plausible sophistries frequently directed against that Church, you will be bitterly disappointed and seek in vain, for all such mention has been scrupu- lously avoided. On the other hand, if a Romanist, and you hope to find in this work a defense of many of your doctrines and even dogmas of your present Pontiff, you will likewise be disappointed. The Pope's pretended monopoly of the correct interpretation of the Bible, his authority, temporal power, infallibility and many other important and serious historical and theological questions are herein clearly set forth against Romanism. Should, there- fore, such conclusions prove odious to you, it is hoped that you will place the blame where it belongs, namely : (vii) Vlll PROLOGUE. in their own Philosophy, Theology, Exegesis, and also their own Apologetics. In fact, by carefully following the work you will satisfy yourself that in all my references the most renowned and conspicuous authors in their respective fields have been selected. For example : On Philoso- phy I refer to Cardinals Gonzalez, Zigliara, etc. ; on Theology, many quotations are taken from Billuart and Cardinal Noris, who are recognized as the most dignified and noblest representatives of St. Thomas' and St. Augustine's schools ; supporting the above theologians I refer to such authorities as Hurter, Per- rone, Bertier; on Canon Law, giants of such promi- nence as Bouix, Cardinal Vives and others are named ; on Ecclesiastical History, Eusebio, Baronio, Rohr- bacher, Rivas and Hergenrother are cited; on Apolo- getics I quote Moigno, Hettinger, Jaugey ; on Exe- gesis, Comely, Vigouroux, Patrizi, etc., have been noted. Thus you will see that the references are from the most learned, most profound and distinguished authors. During the course of this writing frequent occa- sion has been found to refer to the memorable work of His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, from whose teachings I often dissent. I, therefore, may be par- doned for appropriating to myself the words of that distinguished prelate, who says: "I have imbibed her doctrines (Roman Catholic) with my mother's milk," as to that doctrine ; I have also consecrated not only my early days, but practically all my life has been lived in Romanism. By that Church I have been deemed worthy, and PROLOGUE. IX from it I have received ample applause and honorable distinction. As a priest and a gentleman I can sol- emnly assure you under oath, that I possess and hold valid, ample and perpetual ministerial faculties from more than twelve prominent prelates, and other spe- cial authorities direct from the Pope, which authori- ties are not ordinarily granted to bishops, much less to priests. In conclusion, I desire to say that no pecuniary self- interest has guided me in this work, since I volun- tarily abandon and renounce my brilliant ecclesiastical future in exchange for an humble and burdensome manual labor. Neither has rancor nor any other igno- ble passion prompted me in my writing. Far from being discharged of the Roman Community, I am leaving it of my own free will, after refusing exceed- ingly remunerative offers. To be able to live at peace with my conscience, and to proclaim the whole truth, is the only inducement that prompted me in this work, which I submit to your generous consideration. G. V. FRADRYSSA. INTRODUCTION. To THE thoughtful and analytical observer, the mod- ern religious movement of the vast Christian family when comprehensively viewed, seems to embrace two apparently opposite tendencies. On the one hand, there is a tendency towards decentralization, where centralization has been the dominant factor, while on the other hand, there is a strong and growing sentiment toward unification, where heretofore independence of thought and asso- ciation has been the prevalent idea. In Latin and Catholic Europe there are springing up, from time to time, each time with greater force, keener longings for religious expansion. A new spirit of criticism invades the seminaries, colleges and convents; thoughts tending toward dogmatic decentralization vibrate everywhere. In the face of old tradition, and of a dry and narrow scholasticism, a stream of dar- ing theories in every direction flows counter to the old standards. In fine, a torrent of new ideas threat- ens to overflow, producing an inundation in the realm of religion, similar to the reform of the sixteenth cen- tury. Whoever wishes to assure himself of the truth of this fact needs only to cast a rapid glance at what the present Pope has just condemned under the name of "Modernism." To his surprise, he will there see this tendency (xi) Xll INTRODUCTION. clearly outlined : that starting from the biblical exege- sis, it has spread over every branch of human knowl- edge, until it now constitutes a distinct doctrine. 1 Among the Anglo-Saxons and European Protestants, on the contrary, the tendency to a more complete and far-reaching centralization in religious affairs, makes itself more and more manifest. The various efforts to establish a Central Authority, which shall assume ev- ery right, are more noticeable in religious surround- ings. The aim to establish a supreme judge, from whom there shall be no appeal, who shall silence all doubts, harmonize all discordant rights, become the founda- tion and center about which every religious sect shall be coordinated, and establish its fundamental princi- ples, sparkles in every controversy on modern the- ology, reflects itself in the new rituals and conciliatory assemblies, and sheds light upon the oft-repeated at- tempts at approximation, which nowadays are so fre- quently made by the Protestants. 2 In a word, while the Latin races, in a somewhat covert but energetic 1 The Pope's bull against Modernism may be consulted on this subject; also the explanation of this matter given to the Pope by various Italian priests, and an amplified translation of the same in English also by clergymen; various articles published by the American review, The Catholic World, im- mediately after the issuance of the Encyclical. The Spanish reviews entitled, Razon y Fe (Reason and Faith) and La Ciudad de Dios (The City of God), may also be consulted. 2 See as to this point the work entitled, "Losses and Gains," by the converted Protestant, Newman. Read the letters of Fr. Faber, also a renowned convert. "The Diary of a Prot- estant Clergyman," published by The Catholic World. Con- sult the minutes of the last Protestant meetings. Read the declarations of the Episcopal ministers who have just been converted in Baltimore and those who are being converted in Chicago. INTRODUCTION. Xlll manner, approach the older form of Protestantism, in a latent but none the less pronounced way, the Anglo- Saxons are coming nearer to modern Catholicism. How are we to explain this double and antithetical movement? How can we find a common cause for this twofold divergence of ideas? The loyalty, learning and virtue of the champions of either standard cannot be questioned. They are un- excelled for their integrity, are most profound in their scientific attainments, and are of the noblest of man- kind in their lofty purposes and their simple demand for liberty of thought. Such is the character of those who lend their weight against either tendency, or stand in the forefront as a vanguard of both of these com- mendable and glorious armies. How, then, can it be explained, that such conspicu- ous soldiers aspire to the salvation of their respective churches, by proclaiming doctrines so antagonistic, and practicing such contradictory evolutions? This modest work is intended partly to draw aside the curtain which envelops this phenomenon, the more so as we note with sorrow, that Protestants and Catho- lics alike often overreach themselves in their assertions. While the former too frequently heap against the Catholics crimes and abuses (not always confirmed by history), the latter are wont to represent Catholi- cism as a serpentless Eden, as a society without dis- cord, and as a people without blemish, all of which is also far from the truth. Between these two ex- tremes, science walks serene. Let us then exhibit to the Protestants the internal and actual state of Catholicism, analyze its princi- XIV INTRODUCTION. pies, lay bare its institutions and methods, unfold its doctrines, and make public the condition of its col- lective conscience. I undertake this laborious work because the Catho- lic pamphlets that have come into my hands are not always well authenticated, not always truthful in ex- plaining the Catholic standards, but, on the contrary, are deficient in many cases, and incomplete in others. 3 Only by disclosing the truth, the whole truth, can the Protestant, with a full understanding of the facts, decide whether it is advantageous or prejudicial for him to abandon his own religious hearth for that of a stranger. Thus, and only thus, can he honestly and conscientiously determine, whether, in these critical moments, he ought to lend his aid with Christian loyalty to the Catholic uplifting already begun, by paralyzing his own. I have said critical moments, because there can be no room for doubting, that Romanism is just now passing through one of its most trying crisis. The time-worn "Magister dixit," invoked by the old scholasticism as the supreme judge in the decision of all controversies, has disappeared, to make room for the scientific investigation of doctrines and facts. The absolute and unqualified respect for authority, as the chief regulator of the individual and public conscience, has been replaced by a freedom of inquiry, by the tribunal of enlightened reason, by the conclusions of unerring science, by the evidence of findings of an irrefutable historic light. We refer preferably to the popular ~book~ entitled, "The Faith of our Fathers," by H. E. Cardinal Gibbons. INTRODUCTION. XV The longing to embrace as genuine brothers, those who were formerly believed to be dangerous heretics, palpitates in the vast majority of Catholic hearts. An irrepressible impulse to proclaim as legitimate reform- ers, those who heretofore were designated by the de- grading epithet of Protestants, animates most minds. The expansion of the Bible, and the teachings of the Saviour, by fusion of all creeds into one single creed, and of all congregations into one single congre- gation, professing the same faith and receiving the same sacraments, is the aim and the idea that is irre- sistibly subjugating the most renowned Catholic per- sonages. And in case this universal and fraternal em- brace should become a reality, in what nation couM it be attempted with greater probability of success than in the colossus of the modern world, vast and highly civilized North America? Here, as nowhere else in the world, one lives in a vivifying atmosphere at once religious and tolerant. In Old Europe, all discussion on religion arouses the passions and awakens sectarianism. Religious preju- dice has, so to speak, become crystallized in the con- science of the masses, and everything is looked at through its dangerous mirage. The man and the sect hover like darkening phan- toms overshadowing truth and reason, passion flashes before impartiality illumines, satire and sarcasm take the place of reason and deduction, the controversial criticism becomes hermetically sealed ere the sun of science can throw upon it the light of its resplendent rays. Here, on the contrary, sympathetic reception is accorded to every constructive system, let it come 2 XVI INTRODUCTION. whence it may; here is adopted ever} elevating idea by whomsoever asserted; here all honorable institu- tions and all legitimate rights are held equally sacred, while befitting respect is paid to human personality. Here the frequent communication between citizens of every clime, and between believers of every form of religion, has smoothed all bitterness and created a deep current of human civilization. It is only here that the synagogue by the side of the temple, and the humble Protestant chapel by the side of the sumptuous Catholic cathedral, can camp in the wide avenues without one or the other arousing in the passer-by, either angry protests or passionate affec- tion, because here also more freely than elsewhere, the bishop side by side with the rabbi, and the minister side by side with the priest, move in society without scandalous clashes, and even with mutual respect. To you, then, most excellent American people, I dedicate this humble work. It may not be profound, but it is honest ; it may not be always scientific, but it is inspired by a deep desire to proclaim the truth, and dictated by a yearning for the betterment of the people. Roman Catholicism Capitulating Before Protestantism. CHAPTER I. DISCUSSION OUTLINED. ENUMERATION OF THE FUNDA- MENTAL PRINCIPLES ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PROTESTANTS AND THE CATHOLICS. IN order to proceed systematically and with some hope of success in a most serious and intricate re- ligious problem, we must first determine whether there be any fundamental principle which is admitted alike by Protestants and Catholics, or any dogmatic truth which is professed and believed by both of these religious denominations. Not to do so, would be to stray from the question at the very outset. To ac- knowledge principles which would be admitted only by the Catholics, would be to decide in advance the question in their favor, and against the Protestants. To proclaim truths which would be believed only by Protestants, would be equivalent to deciding the mat- ter in their favor, and against Catholicism. Our discussion, therefore, should be based on these principles and truths which are believed and admitted by adherents of both of these denominations. Will this be possible? Is there in the multitude of Chris- tian churches any principle common to all? Will it be possible to find a general basis in which that whole 2 ROMAN CATHOLICISM series of institutions, apparently so heterogeneous and contradictory, may claim to be founded? Will it be possible to discover in that mass of assertions and denials, of codes and sacraments, of usages and cus- toms, a central truth toward which all the others con- verge, and from which they spring? Fortunately we can say that such a principle, such a truth, such a general basis common to all, does exist. We may add, we may even affirm, that the primary truths and principles of the entire Protestant Chris- tion Church are identical with the principles and truths of Roman Catholicism. The differences and divisions appear afterwards, in the secondary prin- ciples and in later issues. Let us begin the argument. First assertion: Catholicism proclaims, 1 and the Protestant believes, that Christ is God and. the Son of God. Second affirmation: The Protestant believes, and Catholicism proclaims, that Christ accomplished the redemption of man ; that He is the only mediator be- tween earth and Heaven, between sinful humanity and the Supreme Being. 2 The third assertion is so fundamental ana compre- hensive, that both religious denominations agree. 3 The Catholic and the Protestant alike teach, that Christ 1 Read the Confession of Augsburg and Concilium Triden- tinum De Fide (Concilium of Trent; title, On Faith). 'Read same authorities as citation No. I. * See the Confession of Faith of any Protestant denomina- tion. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe (Dictionary Apologetic of Faith), s. v. Jesucristo, Iglesia. Regla de Fe, Revelation. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 3 proclaimed truths which must be believed, formulated commandments which must be obeyed, and instituted sacraments which must be received, if we wish to be saved. 4 The name of "Master" is given to Christ in such a way, that Romanist and Protestant both agree that He is the only teacher of the dogma, the only lawgiver of ethics, the only author of the sacraments. 5 Both further agree in according to Christ exclusively the power to proclaim dogmas, to formulate com- mands, and to institute sacraments. It follows from this, that in the Catholic as well as in the Protestant theology, any sacrament not instituted by Christ him- self and not originating with Him, is not a sacrament at all, but a false and damnable institution. A dogma which does not spring from Christ's teachings, is not a dogma at all, but an arbitrary human imposition not to be tolerated. Fourth affirmation : Christ as a man was transitory and mortal, and redemption was to be permanent, everlasting and universal. Redemption is not confined to a certain people, but is intended for all men; it is not limited to a specific era, or to a certain race, but *Read the same testimonies mentioned in citation No. i. 6 Read the same authorities mentioned in citation No. I and also: The Protestants are referred to the Encyclopedia Britannica for titles as follows : Luther and Lutherans, vol. XI, pp. 71 to 86; Calvin, vol. IV, pp. 714 to 720; Presbyte- rian, vol. XIX, p. 339, and vol. XXVIII, p. 479; Protestant Episcopal Church, vol. XX, p. 339, and vol. VIII, p. 493; Baptists, vol. Ill, p. 353, and vol. XXV, p. 353; Methodists, vol. XVI, p. 185, and vol. XXVIII, p. 79. Catholics may consult Bertier's Compendium Theologicum : titulo, De Reve- latione et Doctrina Ecclesise ; Perrone et Hurter : the same titles; Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe (Dictionary Apologetic of Faith), s. v. Jesucristo, Revelacion, Iglesia. 4 ROMAN CATHOLICISM it embraces all times and all peoples. It was neces- sary, then, that Christ should establish His Church in such a way, that it might become the depository, at once dogmatic and ethical, of His true doctrine; that it might be the guardian of His true worship, and the administrator of His own sacraments. This is the reason why Catholics as well as Protestants acknowl- edge the existence of a Church, founded by Christ, 9 which shall be at once the synthesis and the prolonga- tion of His sublime work throughout the centuries and for all peoples. But for Catholics as well as for Protestants, the Church is not greater than Christ, nor should its work and mission go so far as to inter- polate or modify His teachings. It should be solely and exclusively the true echo of the sovereign voice of Christ, and the dispenser of his mercies. 7 Christ, and Christ alone, is the splendid sun from whom pro- ceed, like luminous rays, the truths which the Church shall teach. Christ, and Christ alone, is the only supernal fountain from whom shall emanate, like liv- ing streams, each and every sacrament which the faithful receive. Christ, and Christ alone, is the mystic tree implanted in the midst of humanity, and from whom shall come forth, like branches, all the churches and all the ecclesiastical institutions. Behold, then, how, amid that tangle of difference which actually separates one creed from another, yet both acknowledge the same fundamental principles. ' Perrpne : De Vera Religione. P. Fernandez : Teologia Dogmatica ; same head. 'Confession of Augsburg. Concilium Tridentinum; De Fide et Revelatione (Concilium of Trent; Of Faith and Revelation). Perrone: De Vera Religione. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 5 Behold, then, how, in that mass of curses and bless- ings, of denials and assertions, of hates and loves, which constitute the actual character of the Catholic and Protestant, both at the same time proclaim Jesus as their Lord and Master, His Church as a legitimate association, and the depository of His dogma and ethical teachings. And who would believe it, if it were not recorded on the pages of history in charac- ters of blood, that the very men who confessed Jesus as their Lord, and His Church as the legitimate Church, waxed wroth with one another as if the true doctrine of Christ meant nothing? In the name of Jesus and in the name of His Church, the stakes of the Inquisi- tion were set aflame, and in indescribable torment thousands of the best men perished who proclaimed Christ as their Lord, His doctrine as a divine doctrine, and His Gospel as the only Gospel leading to salvation. 8 In the name of Jesus and His Church, the gallows was raised in England, as the stake was blazing in Spain. 9 In the name of Jesus and His Church, Calvin decreed that the immortal Servetus should die, as in the name of Jesus and His Church, Alexander VI signed the death warrant of the great Savonarola. 10 In the name of Jesus and His Church, desolation and death, curses and execrations, anathemas and excom- munications, bitter quarrels among men and factional fights among cities, filled the land. 11 8 Capa : La Inquisicion Espafiola. "La Fuente: Spanish Histories of the sixteenth and sev- enteenth centuries. Robertson (Scottish historian) : His- tories of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 10 Rivas : Historia Eclesiastica ; title, Siglo XVI. 11 Castelar : Revolucion Religiosa, vol. II, chap. ii. 6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM I have briefly referred to these unhappy occurrences for the reason that the subsequent chapters cannot be studied to advantage, if we do not view the subject dispassionately, and set aside our inherited prejudices. If we seek Christ faithfully and sincerely, it is impos- sible that His doctrine which, as we shall see later, is eminently a doctrine of universal love should sepa- rate us one from the other. It is impossible that our hearts should not beat in unison, and that we should not all be fused in one great universal Church. Let us weigh well in our minds the fundamental principles applicable to all: The divinity of Christ and the legitimacy of His Church. At the same time let us not diminish the power of Christ nor magnify that of His Church. Let us not reject any of the authentic teachings of Christ, nor deny any of His precepts, nor belittle any of His sacraments. To do so would be to separate ourselves from Him, to turn away from His spiritual body, to deny the divine efficacy of His splendid mission. And let us not un- duly exalt His Church, nor concede to it greater powers than rightfully belong to it. To do this would be to elevate the Church at the expense of Christ, to proclaim the Church a God, and Jesus Christ a man. By merely noting these two fundamental principles, our discussion will be to some purpose, harmony will become possible, and we shall be able to arrive at our convincing conclusion. For, as will be shown in the succeeding chapters, all the differences that have arisen are due to the modification of the one or the other of these two principles : namely, conceding to the Church on the one hand, prerogatives which Christ CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 7 himself did not concede to it; and supposing on the other hand, that institutions which are of purely human origin, are derived from Christ. Let us be careful to distinguish the divine from the human, the fundamental from the accessory, the transi- tory from the permanent ; and in order to accomplish this, let us examine from time to time Christ and His Church ; and let us never admit any doctrine as divine, unless coming from Christ himself; let us concede nothing to the Church which Christ would not have conceded to it. CHAPTER II. DISCUSSION AND OUTLINE OF THE MEANS OF KNOWING CHRIST. WE have seen in the preceding chapter that our only Master is Christ, that all our institutions and sacraments connected with the spiritual life should have their origin with Him. But we have not had the ineffable happiness of being called personally to His apostleship; the inexpressible consolation of hear- ing from His adorable lips, His splendid and divine doctrine of salvation, has not been vouchsafed to us. How, then, shall we be able to receive the light of the Gospel? How may we know its dogmas in order to believe them? How find its true teachings in order to follow them? How distinguish its true sacraments in order to receive them? How recognize the true Church in order to embrace it? Here we have the fundamental questions, the answers to which are of vital interest alike to Catholics and Protestants, to believers and unbelievers. What means has divine Providence provided for humanity to enable it to know Christ and enter His Church, and become a member or part of His spiritual body? If Christ and His Church were not within the reach of every human being, then the advent and the re- demption of our adorable Saviour would have been in vain. What avails it to proclaim the divinity of Christ and the efficacy of His redemption, the purity (8) CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 9 of His precepts and the infallibility of His doctrine, if, after all, we should remain unenlightened as to His person and His Church ? The one affirmation is the complement of the other. If the Eternal One sent His Divine Son to save man- kind; if His Divine Son saved and redeemed man- kind, and as a continuation of His adorable mission, established His Church, it was necessary, it was indis- pensable, that there should be a simple and easy way to know and find Christ, to know and find His Church, to know and find His doctrine, His precepts, His sacra- ments. To affirm the first, without affirming the sec- ond, would be to imply a deficiency in His divine work; but this is a blasphemy which would involve the denial of the divinity of Christ Himself, the de- struction of Providence, and, the annihilation of all religion, both revealed and positive. Therefore, as we affirm the existence and divinity of Christ, the exist- ence and indestructibility of His Church, we should also affirm, that there are simple and universal ways of knowing Christ and His Church. But what are these ways? Which is the safe road? What course shall we take in order that we may definitely say, "At last I have found Christ. I have found His Church"? In attempting to answer this most serious question we come upon the points of opposition between Catholics and Protestants; differences between the two begin to appear. But in seeking a veritable and sincerely Christian criterion, fortified by sound theo- logical reasoning, and calling to our aid clarified his- torical testimony, we confidently hope to remove and IO ROMAN CATHOLICISM solve all the difficulties in our path to the satisfaction of both the religious denominations. Let us hear first the answer of the Roman Catholic theology. It begins by affirming the priority, saying to the believer : x "I am the only Church founded by Christ, and for that reason the only true one. I pos- sess the divine prerogative of infallibility, and for that reason, I only can guide you to Christ without devia- tion and without error; I can show you His dogmas as they are; His ethical teachings without mystifica- tion; His sacraments truly and without addition. Hear me, for whoever hears me, 2 hears Christ; obey me, for whoever obeys me, obeys Christ; follow me, for whoever follows me, follows Christ." This, in brief, is the answer of Romanism. 3 Let us explain this more fully. The answer to be given to the above questions should be universal and general in nature ; it should be applicable to all times, to all peoples, and to all classes of society. If it is not applicable to a given epoch in history, 4 if it is not 1 Bertier : Compendium Theologicum ; De Vera Ecclesia. Casanova: Theologia Fundamentalis ; De Vera Ecclesia. 2 Hettinger : Theologia Fundamental ; De la Iglesia Ro- mana, Spanish translation. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico, s. v. Iglesia. 8 1 will say right here that notwithstanding my title of Doctor of Theology, notwithstanding that I have studied and taught this great and perspicuous science, I have never been able to find this answer sufficient and adequate ; I have never considered this affirmation effective and rational ; nay, more, I have always regarded it as a "begging the question" and an obvious contradiction to other clear and definite doctrines of the Church. 4 Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico; s'. v. Razon, Revela- cion, Conocimiento Religioso. Moigno: Esplendores de la Fe. (The Spanish translation of both of these works.) CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. II applicable to any given people, if it is not applicable to each and every person individually, then it is not a legitimate procedure, and hence the answer is false and should be rejected as inadequate and contradic- tory. Now let us suppose, that instead of giving the an- swer in this twentieth century, we should have been asked to give it in the Middle Ages, the most critical period of Romanism, when there were three Popes : 5 one in Spain Benedict XIII; another at Avignon Clement VI; and the third in Rome Gregory IX. Each of them had a large following in the Church; each one had his cardinals who had elected him and proclaimed him to be legitimate; his doctors of the- ology who defended him, kings who obeyed him, and saints since canonized, who believed in him. 6 To which of these three Churches, then, should we send the man who wants to believe? For it must be borne in mind that according to the Roman Catholic theology the faithful without the Pope are a little less than nothing, while the Pope without the faithful is the Church, the whole Church. Let us suppose that all the nations should renounce the Pope, that all the faithful should turn away from him, then he alone would constitute the entire Church, all-sufficient and adequate in him- self ; 7 and all the faithful and all the nations would be as nothing but error and heresy. Don't imagine 5 Rohrbacher and Baronio: Historia Eclesiastica ; Cismas de Occidente. "Alzog: Historia Eclesiastica; Cismas de Occidente. Rivas : Lecciones de Historia Eclesiastica ; same title. 7 Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe; title, Papa, Iglesia. Maistre : Del Papa. Pio IX : Enciclica a los P. P. del Vaticano. 12 ROMAN CATHOLICISM that we are inventing doctrines ; we are merely stating the most essential and positive tenets of the Roman theology, as anyone may see who will look up the authorities to whom we refer in our notes. If, then, the Pope without the faithful is the Church, the whole Church, and the faithful without the Pope cannot of themselves constitute a Church, to which of the three Churches should we send the faithful, at the time of the three Popes? If, then, we could not accept that answer in the period of the Middle Ages, neither can we accept it now, for do not forget, that according to the Roman- istic theology, the answer, in order to be a valid one must be universal and applicable to every period of time; for if there be found any period which this an- swer does not cover and to which it does not apply, then the answer is not a valid one, but is false. 8 Hence, if it did not apply to certain specified circum- stances in the Middle Ages, neither does it apply now, and therefore it is not general ; if it would have been inadequate and contradictory then, it is inadequate and contradictory now ; therefore it is not universal. Fur- thermore, who can assure the Roman Catholic that, as schisms rent the unity of Romanism in past times, so schisms may not rise to disturb the Church in times to come? In case this should happen and it is not outside of the limit of probability how should we answer the man who wants to believe? to which Church should we send him? And in the interreg- num between the death of a Pope and the election of 8 Abate Moigno: Esplendores de la Fe. Jaugey: Demos- tracion Religiosa. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 13 his successor, what shall we say to the man who comes to us for advice ? Shall we say to him in this case : 9 Now we are in a period of transition, at this moment we are without a head ; we lack the most fundamental and constitutive part of the Church; and while this transitional period lasts, we cannot give you any definite advice, because we are not infallible; we shall be so before long, and then we will guide you calmly and without danger ; for the present keep your faith in abeyance and restrain your desire to join us, for soon, very soon, we shall have among us our infallible Pope and then we shall be a whole and complete society. Is there anyone who does not perceive the absurdity of this reasoning? If the conclusion is absurd, then the premises from which it derives are equally absurd, and consequently such antiquated affirmations can no longer be supported in this, our twentieth century. And again there is brought forward a great soph- ism, known as a "begging the question," referring back to the scholastic philosophy, which is the official philosophy of Romanism. To what kind of arguments has Romanism recourse, on which it seeks to base its claims of being the legitimate Church, and on which it seeks to found the many prerogatives it attributes to itself? Who are the teachers that say to Roman- ism, It shall be thus? Whence does it derive the assertion that it rests on solid foundations, that its dogmas are unerring, that its ethical teachings are pure, and that its sacraments are genuine? From "Famosisima carta de Pio IX a los P. P. del Concilio Vaticano. (Famous letter from Pius IX to the P. P. of the Vatican Concilium.) 14 ROMAN CATHOLICISM the Divine Word, 10 from the authority of Christ. Nothing that is not contained in this Word, says the theologian, may claim to be infallible, nothing that does not proceed from the authority of Christ may claim to be divine ; u man, individually and collect- ively, shall receive and venerate the doctrine of Christ such as He taught it, and yield obedience such as Christ demanded it, and there is no human power on earth, be it called a believer or a priest, be it called a bishop or a cardinal, be it called a king or a pope, be it called nation or concilium, which may alter one iota of that which Christ has taught or imposed. 12 This is a theological doctrine common both to Catho- lics and Protestants. For this reason, therefore, the Church must continually seek in the Bible for each and every one of her dogmas, each and every one of her sacraments, each and every one of her preroga- tives. If she must admit to us, then, that she holds nothing that has not been commanded by the Bible and by Christ, why not go directly to Christ and His Gospels? If she believes in her own affirmations, if she admits that they are all derived spontaneously from the infallible doctrine of Christ, why this out- cry, when the faithful study for themselves those same Gospels, and seek with the light of their own under- standing for that which the Bible teaches, and which 10 Perrone : De Vera Religione. Bertier : De Doctrina Ecclesiae. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe, s. v. Iglesia, Biblia. 11 Concilium Tridentinum et Vaticanum; De Fide (The Conciliums of Trent and of the Vatican; sections of the Faith). Sacra Scriptura et Revelatione. 12 P. Fernandez : Theologia Dogmatica De Doctrina Eccle- sise. Hettinger : Theologia Fundamental De Sagrada Escritura. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 1$ is so clear and self-evident? This outcry 13 is not rational or justifiable ; this anxiety to keep the Gospels from the believers injures her grievously, instead of working to her advantage, because it creates a prejudice against her, for the believer says to himself : You affirm that you are the one legitimate, the only true Church, because the Gospels and Christ proclaim it thus, and then you command me : Do not read the Gospels except under my tutelage; do not seek to know Christ except under my authority. But who will guarantee me that your tutelage is the legiti- mate one? Who will assure me that your authority is incontrovertible? This rejoinder is one that may rise to the lips of any believer who reflects, and if to this reflection is added some knowledge of ecclesiastical logic, then he may say further: You affirm that you are the only legiti- mate Church, because Christ and His Divine Word teach it so; you affirm that Christ and the Divine Word proclaim it so, because you teach it so, because you interpret it so. Thus you beg the question and you fall inta a vicious circle, because you derive the validity of one principle from the validity of another that you have taken for granted, without having previ- ously proved the rationality of either of the two, which might serve as the basis and point of departure. This is precisely what in your own philosophy 14 is called 18 Leo XIII : Enciclica sobre los estudios biblicos. Reglas del Indice, by the same Pope, in which the reading of the Bible is forbidden under penalty of severe punishment, unless it be read under the conditions imposed by the Popes. 14 Cardenal Zigliara : Philosophia Escolastica, Logica ; De Sophismatibus. Cardinal Gonzalez : Filosofia Tomista ; same title. 3 l6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM the sophism of the begging the question, the soph- ism of the vicious circle. This certainly may deceive the ignorant old woman whose stock of reasoning does not go beyond her breviary. But take a person of education who knows Christ and His Gospels ; who has passed from them to the apostles and the men of the apostolic age; has then studied the first centuries of Christianity and the lives of the first believers, with their primitive reunions, the foundings of the first congregations, with their divisions and conciliums; passing thence to the quarrels and schisms of the Middle Ages and through the Vatican down to the dawn of the modern era; listening to the Fathers assembled at Basle and Constance ; 15 and turning from them to the prelates congregated at the present time at the Council of the Vatican to proclaim off- hand and as if by the way, to such a man, moderately well versed in such studies, the existence and indefecti- bility of the Roman Church, and to rear up on this statement that whole religious system, is like the at- tempt to erect a grand edifice without a foundation, making it stand insecure at the very outset; it is equivalent to undermining his faith and driving him into the most crude rationalism. Finally, the conduct of the Roman Church is not logically consistent with itself and is contradictory to the latest definitions that have just been laid down by the Council of the Vatican. This Council condemns the philosophic system called Traditionalism, and pur- 16 Rivas : Historia Eclesiastica ; Concilio de Constanza y Basilea (Conciliums of Constance and Basle). Rohrbacher: same title. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. IJ suant to its condemnation it proclaims, that reason unaided is able to arrive at the demonstration of the existence of a personal and infinite God ; that unaided, it can demonstrate the divinity of Christ ; 16 that reason unaided can investigate and determine with certainty, which among all the religions is the true one. If reason unaided can arrive at those fundamental and self-evident conclusions, then why forbid it to examine these questions except under the authority of the Church ? Why proclaim, on the one hand, that reason is, so to speak, of age and capable of self-guidance, and then immediately affirm its incapacity and declare it to be still a minor and under the tutelage of the Church? Is not this an obvious contradiction? If the authority of the Vatican Council is upheld, why not also uphold the truths of its utterances? If the Romanists, leaning upon the Council, proclaim the infallibility of the Pope, on what grounds do they forbid other Catholics, who lean upon the same Coun- cil, to proclaim in their turn the sovereignty of reason in finding Christ and His true Church? Summing up this long chapter, then, we affirm that the ancient criterion of the Roman Church, which in- sisted on taking the believer by the hand and leading him into the knowledge of Christ and His Church, can no longer be accepted in this twentieth century, for it meets with the opposition of the Catholic phi- losophy and theology, the history of the Church, and the Council of the Vatican. 16 Concilium of the Vatican ; De Ratione et Fide. CHAPTER III. THE ONLY SURE WAY OF KNOWING CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH IS THROUGH THE GOSPELS. THE principle of authority having been dismissed in the previous chapter, we have no other ration- al and adequate means of knowing Christ and His Church, except in the Word of God, the Bible. We do not believe that this way is free from difficulties; still we may say, that they are less than in the Roman system, and that Protestantism, in setting the Bible above the Church and giving it preference to the Church, has taken a step forward instead of going backwards, and has instituted a beneficial reform in- stead of a dangerous practice. We beg the Catholic who has not been fully convinced by the reasons which have been brought forward, to follow us further with patience, for in the succeeding chapters he may per- haps see how one after the other all the objections of Romanism on this point will disappear. At the same time he will come to see that the Protestant reason- ing is better adapted than the Roman system, to de- fending the catholic faith and checking the steadily growing advance of rationalism. But in order that we may not be accused either of a diffuse or incom- plete statement of the question, we will here remind the reader of the limits that we have set ourselves in the beginning. We are addressing Catholics as well as Protestants, both of whom believe in the divinity (18) CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. IQ I of Christ and in the infallible efficacy of His rule. 1 Therefore we shall not stop to prove what they already concede to us as articles of their faith. Both Catholics and Protestants uphold the existence of a Biblical canon, and as this canon, in the New Testament, hardly differs in the two denominations, we admit it as valid, with the restrictions imposed by Protestantism. The Catholic, in following the unfold- ment of the doctrine, will see that there is nothing alarming in this slight concession. But let not the reader expect us to stop and enter into historical disquisitions in order to determine the legitimacy of the canon. Why should we take up time with questions which both denominations already concede to us ? 2 Since Catholics as well as Prot- estants believe in the divine inspiration of all the books included in the canon, we shall similarly not touch upon the numerous exegetical questions on this point discussed in both of the denominations. 3 Our discussion admits and regards as valid all the theories, from the most restrictive to the most liberal ; from the theory which would confine the divine inspiration, to those passages only which deal with the dogma, with ethics and with the sacraments, to the theory which holds that each and every one of the sentences, words, 1 The Augsburg Confession : Concilium Tridentinum et Vaticanum; De Christi Magisterio et Fide (Trent and Vatican Councils; Christ's Magistery: On Faith). 2 Read any Protestant author on the subject. For Catholics, consult : Patrizi : De Inspiratione. Vigouroux : Manual Bib- lico; same title. * Consult Comely : Manual Exegetico y Hermeneutico. Also Vigouroux : where all the theories are expounded. Jaugey ; s. v. Interpretacion biblica (Biblical interpretation). 2O ROMAN CATHOLICISM accents and commas is inspired. Without passing judgment upon any of these theories, without favor- ing or condemning any one of these schools, we say that the most restrictive, and on better grounds still, the most liberal theory suffices for our discussion. Nor shall we refer to the Old Testament in our dis- cussion. As we are not required to demonstrate the divinity of Christ nor the divinity of His Church, why should we appeal to the Old Testament when all its virtue and efficacy consist chiefly in being the preamble and annunciator of the New Testament? Why appeal to the ancient symbolism, when we pos- sess the living reality? Why question the prophets regarding that which Christ might say, when we pos- sess the same Christ speaking for himself? Why seek light from the forerunners, when we possess the Messiah himself, speaking clearly in his own voice? To go to the Old Testament would be equivalent to saying, that the symbol is clearer than the reality symbolized, that the prophet is more explicit than the thing about which he has prophesied ; in other words, that the penumbra is brighter than the light, that the dawn is more brilliant than the splendid sun from which it proceeds. Therefore we admit and need for our demonstration the testimony of the apostles and the apostolic writings. Why should we not do so, if the first churches were established before the redaction of the Gospels ? 4 Why not, if in the first days of Christianity the apos- 4 Following authors : Rohrbacher, Baronio and Rivas : His- toria Eclesiastica ; Fundacion de las primeras Iglesias (Ec- clesiastical History; title, Foundation of first Churches). CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 21 ties were the living Gospels, the incorruptible wit- nesses of the Word of Christ, and those who, finally, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, committed that Word to writing in the four Gospels and in their many epistles, well along in the first century? To set aside the testimony of the apostles would be equiva- lent to setting aside the Gospels themselves, and de- molishing the fundamental basis of the Divine Word. Here we have, then, the aggregate of the books that will enable us to know Christ and His Church: the four Gospels and the Epistles of the apostles. Here we have that which will serve us as a standard, as an infallible guide. Oh, how our spirit is calmed ! How our heart is pacified! How our anxiety is removed! No, do not let us remain at the mercy of that which resolves itself into a human personality. Do not let us run the risk of having our dogmas changed or extended, of having additions or modifications made in our moral code; of having our sacraments sup- pressed and new ones instituted. If our confession of faith is fixed once and for all, it will remain the same throughout the centuries; it will be attainable alike by all men and all nations ; it will always remain whole in the midst of all perplexities and disturbances. What will it matter to the believer, then, that there are divisions and apostasies? What will it matter to the believer then, that there are one or two pontiffs in the chair of Peter? What will it matter to him, that many priests are losing their faith, that public morals are corrupted, that the scribe and the Pharisee are stand- ing in the pulpit? Safe above all and beyond all, the august voice of Christ shall then be ever heard; the 22 ROMAN CATHOLICISM voice of Christ in accents of thunder unceasingly pro- claiming His Gospel "These are my precepts which will not change, though the centuries may change ; this is my dogma which may not be altered, though the customs may alter; these are my sacraments, which will not be increased or diminished, though my fol- lowers may increase or diminish." There is no doubt but that on this point Protestant- ism has taken a better stand than Catholicism, and that its position is more clear and unassailable than the tortuous and vacillating position of Romanism. Who can assail it? Can it be said that the Gospels may perish or be adulterated ? What ? Is this in any way possible, with their innumerable editions and in- contestable copies? 5 If such a thing is not likely with works of lesser importance, as for instance those of Cicero or other authors that are hardly known, how should this be possible with the Word of God, which is in the hands of all men, which has been translated into all languages, and of which all people possess codices ? And if there really should occur a general mistake among men, how can we believe in a Divine mistake ? Did not the Holy Ghost, while inspiring those books, impose upon himself at the same time the sacred obli- gation of watching over them with His adorable Providence? If human means should be insufficient, a supposition that is repugned on moral grounds, then the omnipotence of the Holy Ghost would come to B Both authors, Patrizi and Comely : Sobre la Imposibili- dad de perderse 6 adulterarse los Librps Santos (On the Im- possibility of either losing or adulterating the Sacred Books). CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 23 their aid and supply the deficiency. If men could not and would not watch over their preservation and purity, then He who never sleeps would watch over them, He who is all-powerful would take care of them ; their falsification would be prevented by Him who, being infinitely wise, could never mistake their true meaning. In brief, God aids humanity, so that it may never lose His divine and inestimable treasure. Note, then, the most signal difference between Ro- manism and Protestantism. The first says : Jesus Christ spoke, I do not deny that; but for you His word is an unprofitable riddle, unless I solve it for you. 6 Jesus promulgated dogmas which every faithful one shall believe, gave commands which every man must obey, established sacraments which every believer must re- ceive. All these were laid down in the Bible, and although they were committed to writing by order and under the inspiration of Heaven, do not weary yourself with reading them, for you will find nothing in them if I do not guide you ; you can know nothing with certainty, if I do not add my own sanction to the sanction of the Holy Ghost, if I do not add the authority of earth to the authority of Heaven, and if the word of the Pope is not joined with the Word of God. For Romanism, Heaven and earth are entirely sub- ject to the will of the Pope ; Heaven has no means of communicating its commands except through the Pope, and earth has no way of receiving them except 'Leo XIII: De Studiis Sacrse Scripture (Encyclical on the Holy Scripture). 24 ROMAN CATHOLICISM as interpreted by the Pope. 7 And the more false these printed monstrosities are, the more firmly they must be believed. In order that the reader may see for himself, a bull by Pius IX is quoted in the footnotes for the benefit of anyone who will read it. 8 Protestantism, on the contrary, says: Here you have the fundamental code of your beliefs, precepts and sacraments; receive it with respect, for it is divine ; read it with veneration, for it came down from Heaven. Do you wish to believe? Seek, and here you will find your faith. Do you wish to do right? Search and here you will find your code of ethics. Do you waver? Do you doubt? Do not seek human aid but implore Heaven, and the same Holy Ghost who inspired and dictated to those who wrote these books will likewise inspire and dictate to your con- science. What a notable difference we have here! Roman- ism circumscribes the activities of the Holy Ghost and T Pius IX: Enciclica ad Vatican Conciliarios P. P. (Letter to the P. P. Councilors of the Vatican). Leo XIII: De In- terpretatione Sacras Scripturae. 8 Pius IX : Pope's Bull : Obitus Rom. Pont, durante Concilio. Pius IX in Litt. Ap. "Cum Romanis Pontificibus" ait "De apostolicae potestatis plenitudine declaramus, decernimus atque statuimus quod. . . . Nos decedere contingent, idem existat, illico et inmediate suspensum ac dilatum intelligatur, quemad- modum per Nostras has litteras illud nunc, pro tune suspen- dere atque in tempus infra notandum differre intendimus, adeo ut nulla prosus interiecta mora cessare statim debeat a quibuscumque conventibus, congregationibus et sessionibus, et sequibusvis decretis seu canonibus conficiendis nee ob qualem- cumque causam, etiamsi gravissima et speciali mentione digna videatur ulterius progredi donee novus Pontifex a sacro Car- dinalium collegio canonice electus suprema sua auctoritate Concilli ipsius reassumptionem et prosequitionem duxerit in- timandam. Idem Pontifex mandat quod certam stabilemque normam in simili rerum eventu perpetuo servandam. . . ." CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 25 places itself like a barrier between God and man; Protestantism removes all obstructions and establishes a constant and most ample communication between Heaven and earth, between God and man. The objection that Catholicism opposes to Protest- antism will be met in the next chapter and will be refuted. CHAPTER IV. ARE THE GOSPELS SUFFICIENT IN ORDER TO KNOW CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH? HERE we frankly and succinctly formulate our answer. Since the Gospels comprise the writ- ings of the apostles, they should contain all that is necessary to believe, to do and to receive, in order to be saved; and they should state this so clearly and self-evidently, that with the assistance of the Divine cooperation, the mere reading will be sufficient to com- prehend it, as both denominations suppose and admit. Let us see if it is so. These books, dictated by the Holy Ghost, contain the genuine Word of Christ. Who wrote them? Two of the evangelists, Matthew and John, were eye- witnesses; the two others, Mark and Luke, wrote in conjunction, the one with Peter, also an eye-witness, and the other with Paul, who admitted that he had received the Gospel from Christ himself, through reve- lation ; 1 moreover it must always be borne in mind that the four wrote under the direct and all-sufficient inspiration of the Holy Ghost. What results there- from? We must collate and synthesize the doctrine of our Saviour; determine once and for all the true teachings of Christ, and at the same time refute the apocryphal writings, which were even then appearing everywhere, serving as the basis for the first heresies. 1 Galatians i. 12. (26) CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 27 Very well, then. According to St. Thomas and the entire school of Romanism 2 if we wish to know God and deduce His attributes, we must begin with the created beings and ascend from them, conceding to God whatever of beauty, perfection and wisdom we find in creation; with this proviso, however, that in creation all perfection is found to be mixed with im- perfection, while in God all the perfections are found entire and pure. In creation we see the perfections divided among the different classes of created things ; some we behold shining in the things not endowed with sensation, others appear resplendent in the living creatures; and the most marvelous ones scintillate in the chief being, the crown of creation, the synthesis of the universe, the compendium of the miracles of God in Man: but in God they are all summed up in their highest potentiality and with fundamental unity and simplicity, in one single Being. In creation all beauty and virtue, all perfection and holiness, is al- ways accompanied by some bounds and restrictions, all is finited and limited ; but in God all these perfec- tions are infinite and immense, without term and with- out limits. Hence, we see God, as it were, mirrored in creation, but we must never forget that the mirror is the finite while the image is infinite, that the mirror is cloudy and obscured, while the image is clear and magnificent, that the mirror is imperfect and inade- quate, while the image is absolutely perfect in all its proportions. Hence there have been deep thinkers who have 8 St. Thomas : De Deo. S. Dionysius : De Divinis Nomini- bus. 2 ROMAN CATHOLICISM held that this world, being the work of God, must needs be the most perfect of all the possible worlds ; 3 for if it were not it would lack something, hence it would be imperfect, hence it would presuppose imper- fection in the Supreme Artificer who made it. St. Thomas, and with him the entire Catholic school, since they could not concede to creation the attributes of infinity and immensity, 4 which would be equivalent to proclaiming the simultaneous existence of two infinite beings a supposition that involves an obvious contra- diction in philosophical reasoning and since they felt obliged, on the other hand, to admit the full perfection of the works ad extra, as God is absolutely perfect ad intra, tried to compromise by saying: If you ask us whether this world is the most perfect that God could create, we say roundly, No. God can create an in- finitude of worlds more perfect than the existing one ; an infinitude of beings more beautiful, more grand, more sublime than the existing ones ; but in view of the end that Gpd proposed to himself in creating this world, in view of the gradations of glory that He de- sired to see sparkling in creation, this world is the most perfect of all the worlds, this creation is the most adequate of all the creations. Not to affirm this, continues St. Thomas, would be to suppose a lack of proportion between the Artificer and His work, to proclaim a deficiency between the Creator and His creatures, which would be equivalent to denying the 8 Leibnitz : In his philosophy, which is perhaps the most profound work of Protestantism, and one of the wisest -works of humanity. See also the works of Cardinals Zigliara, and Gonzalez's Cosmologia. De possibilitate creationis eternse. * The same testimonies as cited on No. 3, CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 29 infinite wisdom of God and the harmony of Provi- dence. 5 In expounding our thesis, we go back, as the Roman Catholic believer will see, to the most fundamental doctrines of the Roman philosophy and theology, we appeal to the testimony of its deepest thinkers, of its most renowned and tried theologians; this will show that we have undertaken to write a rational work making for harmony, and not a work appealing to sectarian prejudices. Let us, then, turn the light of those doctrines upon the question in hand, let us apply the philosophic and theologic reasoning of Romanism to the work above all others divine, the redaction of the Gospels. Here we have clearly an object proposed by God the collation of the doctrine of Christ ; 6 we have also the means chosen by the same God 7 the writing of the Gospels. Is there due proportion between the end and the means, both chosen by the same God? Then the result is a complete work. Is there no such pro- portion? Are there shortcomings in the Gospels? Was the object in view not attained? Then they are 5 The same testimonies as cited on No. 3. 8 Consult the Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of the apostles, where both of these truths are re- peatedly stated. It is sufficient to read the beginning of the Gospels in order to see how the evangelists viewed Christ's doctrine. St. John begins with the Divine generation and ends with the Resurrection; St. Matthew and St. Luke begin with the human genealogy and reach, the first, as far as the Resur- rection, and the second, as far as the Ascension; St. Mark begins with the public appearance of Christ and goes as far as the Ascension. See especially the first verses of St. Luke, and St. John xx. 30, 31 ; also Acts i. 2. 7 Consult same testimonies as cited on No. 6. 30 ROMAN CATHOLICISM not a divine work, then the theory of inspiration falls to the ground. Then good-bye to the Gospels! This reasoning is not rational; it is not philosophic nor theologic within the limits of the scholastic philosophy and theology. It undermines the founda- tion of the entire Christian revelation. It is equiva- lent to proclaiming the most destructive exegetic doc- trine where we should find the most humble submis- sion, the most profound respect, the deepest reverence for the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. May we not say, rather, that in the Creation all is harmonious and proportionate ; that the stone as it falls, the river as it runs, the star as it shines, the plant as it grows, the beast as it roars, and man while he thinks are harmonious and proportionate, are fin- ished and perfect, each in its class and species, because they all respond adequately to the concept which the Supreme Artificer has formed of them, making them completely and entirely perfect, each in its way ? 8 May we affirm all this of the Creation and then when we come to the work which is above all others the work of God, to the work of redemption, the redaction of the Gospels, which are the indispensable means for the continuation of this redemption when we come to the chief work, I say, which is the foundation and basis of Catholicism and of humanity, shall we then declare : This is a deficient and incomplete work, this is a work which does not correspond to the end it pro- posed? For it proposed to expound the doctrine of 8 See Jaugey : Diccionario Apologetico de Fe ; Creacion, Providencia, Perf eccion del Mundo. Consult also Granclaude : Filosofia Escolastica, Cosmologia. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 31 Christ, and it does not expound it; it proposed to reflect all His dogmas and it does not reflect them ; it proposed to set forth all His precepts and does not set them forth ; it proposed to establish all His sacra- ments and they have not been established ; it proposed to describe the constructive elements of His Church and they have not been described ; this work remained incomplete, remained deficient, although the apostles redacted it, with the aid of the infinite wisdom of the Holy Ghost ; therefore we must complete it by seeking the assistance of the first Churches, we must add to it by seeking human testimony, we must go to tradi- tion for support. 9 Is this rational? Is this conceiv- able? This is the greatest of philosophical and theo- logical absurdities imaginable, from the point of view of scholasticism, the official doctrines of Romanism. We shall further demonstrate this fallacy by taking up another line of reasoning, and we appeal to the reader's patience if we propound and solve this great question somewhat diffusely. For it is a question that is not only of the utmost importance in itself but is also a fundamental one for the discussion in the fol- lowing pages. We cannot proceed with our subject without having answered it, for we should meet with doubts and stumbling-blocks at every step ; but if it has once been cleared up, then we can easily meet and overcome each and every one of the obstacles that we shall find on our way. The apostles were the first true followers of Christ. I take it for granted that there is no Romanist, how- * Bertier : Compendium Theologicum. Perrone, Casanova : De Traditione. 32 ROMAN CATHOLICISM ever irreverent he may be, who will not concede, that they believed in the entire Christian dogma, that they practised all its moral precepts, that they received each and every one of the Divine sacraments, that they lived within the true and legitimate Church. To doubt any one of these affirmations would be equivalent to doubting the foundations of ecclesi- asticism. 10 Very well, then. Let us suppose for a moment that they were not prompted by the Holy Ghost, let us consider them for a moment as mere historians, as men of integrity and sincerity. How would they have to proceed in order to record the true doctrines of Christ? They would have to question their own in- telligence on the supposition that they believed in each and every one of His dogmas; they would have to seek counsel from their own will, provided that they fulfilled each and every one of His precepts; they would have to reflect the experiences of daily life, provided that they received and administered each and every one of the sacraments; they would have to de- scribe the events happening around them, provided that they were living within the true Church. Then if we suppose that they were men of integrity and truth (and to doubt that would be blasphemy for a Romanist 11 ), we must further suppose that they were capable and perfect men ; as according to all reports they possessed the necessary knowledge and integrity ; I therefore say that they were true and perfect Chris- 10 Pope S. Leo: Petri et Pauli Sermo (Sermons on St. Peter and St. Paul). The unanimous testimony of the Roman Church. 11 Consult the same testimonies as cited on No. 10. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 33 tians. 12 Among historians every eyewitness is admit- ted as a credible one, who possesses adequate knowl- edge of that which he recounts, undoubted integrity in recounting it, and absolute veracity. To deny this standard of criticism is to destroy the records of his- tory, and to grope about in the dark regarding the past; it is to assert that historical accuracy is im- possible. Therefore, according to our reasoning, the apostles must have been perfect in their Gospels, and if we add thereto the Divine aid, proclaimed and be- lieved in by both the religious denominations, 13 then we arrive at a degree of certainty that is not human but divine ; then we have evidence not based on scien- tific grounds but evidence that is absolutely infallible. Let us examine the Roman theology somewhat more closely. For God, time does not exist. 14 Seated on the summit of eternity, He encompasses in one single present idea that which was, that which is, that which shall be, and that which might be. Before anything at all existed, He saw within His divine Essence all that which had to be, and how it would come to be. Hence the development of His Church was clear and visible to Him since eternity. Before the heresies ap- peared in time and among men, He beheld them rise up out of the depth of His infinite wisdom. He be- 12 Balmes : El Criterio. Granclaude : Logica ; Criterios de Verdad. Mendive: Logica; Criterios de Verdad (Criteria of Truth). 18 Concilium Tridentinum et Vaticanum : De Canone Sacrae Scripturpe. The Biblical Canon of any Protestant ritual, and the Biblical Canon of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican. u Hurter : Theologia Dogmatica de Scientia Dei. P. Fer- nandez : Same title. Perrone, Casanova, Genicot, Gotti : Same title. 34 ROMAN CATHOLICISM held scandals and schisms disturbing and defiling His Church before they actually arose. He beheld vice and sin passing triumphant from century to century, from society to society, from people to people; He saw that no class of society remained exempt; He beheld their impure stigma on the forehead of the people as well as on the crowned head, on the car- dinal's hat as well as on the Pontiff's tiara; and He beheld all these things at the moment when He was inspiring and dictating to His apostles. Is it within the bound of reason to believe that, having the power to establish the word of His adorable Son in an in- controvertible and indubitable way, He should instead entrust it to the volubility and wavering of this same humanity, which He beheld so much inclined to falsify and adulterate it, in order to cloak therewith their vices and crimes ? No, a thousand times no ; God had to choose the best and most adequate way, that which was the least open to mystifications and abuse, in order that the Gospels might condemn for all time the sins of the Pontiff as well as the sins of the faithful, the sins of the king as well as the sins of the people. Our affirmation appears still more categorical as we turn to the last one of the dogmas proclaimed by Romanism, the infallibility of the Pontiff. According to the Catholic theology, 15 inspiration as the general source of authority ceased with the apostles. The body of the doctrine was then entirely complete, and no one is empowered to add to it or take away from 15 Melchor Cano : De Locis Theologicis. Jaugey: His work above mentioned ; Revelacion, Inspiracion, Infalibilidad. Ber- tier, Perrone, Cardinal Vives : De Infallibilitate ; Ecclesise. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 35 it. 16 Consequent upon this affirmation that theology further holds that if the Holy Ghost continues to com- municate with His creatures by means of voices, vi- sions and other mystical manifestations that abound in the lives of the saints, this does not affect humanity at large, but concerns only those individuals who re- ceive such communication. 17 It holds furthermore, in regard to the personal infallibility of the Pontiff, that this is neither revelation nor inspiration, but means merely preservation from error ; 18 and in defining its powers it says: he can originate nothing and add nothing; the only thing he can do is to indicate to us the true meaning of that which has already been re- vealed. We, therefore, stand justified in our point of view, for both Romanism and Protestantism affirm alike that the entire Christian doctrine is contained in the Gospels and the writings of the apostles; we are certain, therefore, that neither in the apostolic tradition nor in the words of the first disciples of the apostles do we find anything, nor can we find anything, that we may not find in the Gospels or in the writings of the apostles themselves. Let us sum up in a few words the doctrine as ex- plained in this somewhat lengthy chapter. Protestant- ism holds that the Bible, being the Word of God, is complete; being inspired by the Holy Ghost, it is in- fallible ; reflecting the teachings of Christ, it contains the articles of our faith, the exemplar of our conduct, " Same testimonies as cited on No. II. 17 Scaramelli : Obras Misticas (Spanish translation). Jau- gey: His work above mentioned; Revelacicn. 18 Schouppe : De Inf allibilitate. Hurter and Hettinger : Same title. 36 ROMAN CATHOLICISM the summary of our sacraments. Since Christ is our one and only Master, Him only shall we hear and obey. 19 Romanism holds that although the Bible is the Word of God, still it is not complete, and does not contain the entire Christian doctrine. 20 Although it is inspired by the Holy Ghost and therefore infallible, yet its meaning is so hidden and difficult to under- stand, that it requires further authentic and infallible interpretation, that of the Pope. 21 While Christ is our only Master, yet we need a man to guide us to him, we need the Pope to go with us. Let the reader examine and decide impartially which of these two theories is the more rational, the more theological, the more human and the more divine. 10 Consult any Protestant ritual on Articles of Faith. 20 Tridentinum et Vaticanum de Traditione et Fide (Coun- cils of Trent and the Vatican). Perrone, Casanova: Same title. "Leo XIII: De Studiis Biblicis (Encyclical on Biblical Studies). Jaugey: His work above mentioned on Exegesis. CHAPTER V. THE SUBJECT OF THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER CONTINUED. WE have asserted in the preceding chapter, not only that the Christian doctrine is contained in the Gospels and the Epistles of the apostles, but also that the language of these works is so clear that it may be understood by any person who is in possession of all his faculties. As the Romanist may see, we have thereby answered one of his gravest charges against Protestantism. The other objections consequent upon the acceptance of tradition and in- volving the view that the Gospels do not contain the entire doctrine, will be the subject of the following chapter. We say this here, in order that he may con- vince himself that we are aware of the number and the force of his objections. One of the most conspicuous facts confirmed both by history and tradition, is the charming simplicity of the language used by Christ. 1 It would not have been judicious in Him to do otherwise. The first and most rudimentary rule for every orator is to accom- modate himself to the social status of the people he is addressing, so that he may be accessible to the ma- jority of them. Not to do so would be to speak in 1 Chrysostomus : De Humilitate et Simplicitate Christi (On the humility and simplicity of Christ). The Venerable Bede on the same subject. The entire tradition of the fathers of the Church, corroborates this statement. (37) 38 ROMAN CATHOLICISM vain, to move the air and not the souls, as St. Paul graphically says. Very well, then ; who were the peo- ple that for the most part composed the audience of our adorable Saviour? Simple fishermen and humble countrymen of Galilee, the illiterate and poor people of Palestine. 2 Let us glance briefly at the degree of culture of this people, that we may thereby gain some insight into this important question. As the immortal Balmes 3 says, one of the rules most necessary to observe for the good historian, but which, unfortunately, is too often forgotten, is that he should set aside for the moment his own state of civilization and his own theories, when he is studying the ancient civilizations. Living as we do in a social environment entirely different from that of Palestine, it is very dif- ficult for us to form an adequate picture of that people. We may, however, get some idea, in following the principle of exclusion, and guided by the few histori- cal records which we possess of them, and although the picture may not be a complete one, it will suffice to demonstrate our thesis. The people of Palestine, at the epoch when Christ appeared among them, selecting them as the sole re- cipients of His religion, were living isolated in the midst of the stream of Hellenism and Romanism which at that time was spreading all over the vast Roman empire. 4 The proud and hypocritical Phari- sees considered the study of Greek and Latin as de- *The Gospels and Apostolic Writings: In almost every chapter, for instance, Matt. xi. 25. *E1 Criterio: Modo de estudiar y escribir la historia (Man- ner of studying and writing history). 4 Talmud of Jerusalem : Megillath Taanith. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 39 grading as the eating of unclean animals. 5 One of these pompous doctors, on being asked the age on which a boy might begin to acquire the profane culture, replied: "At the time when there shall be neither day nor night, for Moses commanded that both the day and the night shall be given to the study of the Law." Schools were few in the land. 6 Their teachers were the same scribes who devoted themselves to the interpretation and explanation of the Holy Books. The course of study was confined to learning to read those Holy Books in a mechanical routine fashion. Nothing that could be called gen- eral culture was taught in the schools or could be acquired in social intercourse. Any branch of learn- ing that was not directly or indirectly derived from the Holy Books was denounced as profane and dan- gerous, and despised and abhorred as impious and heretical. If such was the culture of the upper classes, we may imagine the state of the lower classes, of the working people. Gaume says correctly, 7 that the low- est classes of our modern society would appear as great scholars and men of encyclopedic wisdom in comparison with the ignorant and humble masses of the Palestine people who heard and followed Christ. 8 No one who has looked into profane history and knows the historical records to which the historians 5 Talmud of Jerusalem : Pe'ah. "Renan: The Life of Christ, chap, iii (Spanish translation). 'Gaume: Folleto, Credo (Spanish translation). Josephus: Using his own words : "I am an unusual, cultured man." Philo, another Jewish rabbi of that period, was educated out- side of Palestine. "Fleury: Costumbres de la Palestina (Palestine Customs). 4O ROMAN CATHOLICISM refer in regard to this people can deny that at the time of Jesus Christ the intellectual level of the peo- ple of Palestine was much below the intellectual level of the people of our time, of our working classes. This people, then, most humble in its origin, illiter- ate and simple because of its lack of instruction, is the congregation that Christ chiefly addresses; and the people listen to Him and understand Him; thou- sands from all over the country follow Him with reverence and enthusiasm. And why should this not be so, since there is nothing so clear as the sublime preaching of Christ ? 9 In His exposition He adopted the form most easily understood by the masses. There are no profound discussions, no forced inter- pretations, nothing that is not lucid as the light, clear as day, true as the people surrounding Him were true. 10 He uses the symbol, the parable, the fable, metaphor and allegory; but these oratorical artifices serve only to make His thought more vivid, His teach- ings more clear. He not only seeks to impress the in- telligence of His audience but to appeal to their feel- ings, to move their imagination; because this simple people (and the Saviour addressed by preference the simple people) cannot grasp pure ideas and abstract reflections if they are not garnished and simplified by homely similes and vivid imagery. To deny this fact is to deny the historical personality of Christ, to deny His divine and august mission. To believe that His Gospel was written only for the 9 See any of the sermons of Christ; in the Gospel of St. Matthew, for instance, v. 1-12; also xiii. 10 See the parables of Christ in all the Gospels, especially Matt, xiii, and Luke viii. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 4! leading classes to read ; to suppose that only the upper and illustrious classes could grasp its meaning, to affirm that only those who have previously mastered auxiliary sciences can profit by its reading and inter- pretation, is to contradict the Gospel itself, to asperse and disfigure its divine simplicity, its immaculate beauty, its incomparable tenderness. 11 Poor and sim- ple are those who first approach Jesus, women and children are the first who hear His doctrine of salva- tion ; and Jesus Christ never forgets the condition of His hearers, in His sweet and tender exposition, His candid speech and His enchanting parables. Let us, therefore, go to the Gospels, with the pro- found conviction, that plain, common sense is sufficient to understand them; away with all attempts at pro- found criticism, all search for recondite meanings and deep mysteries, all endeavors to get hold of them with the aid of absurd suppositions and strained and far- fetched interpretations. That which we shall believe and do and receive we find here stated with self- evident clarity without effort or straining of any kind ; and we find it expounded and affirmed as Christ ex- pounded and affirmed His doctrine: with frankness, for the people who listened to Him were frank ; with simplicity for the people who heard Him were simple ; with transparent clearness, for only thus could the people who surrounded Him understand Him. 12 Un- less the Roman Church thinks that our people are in- ferior in knowledge to the absolutely ignorant people 11 See the Gospels, especially Matt. v. 1-12. "Fleury: Costumbres de la Palestina, Renan: Life of Christ; chaps, ii, iii, iv. 42 ROMAN CATHOLICISM of Palestine, that our society is inferior in culture to the illiterate society of Judea, she may never affirm that we require a tutor or an interpreter in order to hear and comprehend that which was heard and easily comprehended by the poor fishermen of Galilee and the simple women of Nazareth. Since this is a question of life or death for the Romanist; since the denial of the absolute necessity of an authoritative interpretation means the downfall of the great majority of the air castles reared within the shadow of this fantastic power; since the ad- mission of a more liberal interpretation might lead liberal reasoning to cast down the many bugbears which have been gathered around the central Roman power, encouraged by authority and false tradition, since Romanism foresees this inevitable catastrophe, it clings more and more closely to its favorite theory. Let us hear its reasoning. 13 If we did not admit the necessity of a single cen- tral authority, whose interpretation shall be equally obligatory upon all, the Sacred Books would be a nest of discord instead of being a center of unity ; a ground for dissensions instead of a basis of unity. 14 Human standards are so varied and numerous, the likes and dislikes of men are so diverse and heterogenous that it would be morally impossible to arrive at a common understanding, and the precepts, the dogmas, the sac- raments, all the constitutive elements of the true 12 Leo XIII : Studies in the Sacred Writings, Conciliums of Trent and of the Vatican. De Sacra Scriptura. "Jaugey: His only work mentioned in this book: Inter- pretacion Biblica; Autoridad de la Iglesia. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 43 Church, would be multiplied or diminished accord- ing to the individual likings. Such is in brief the strongest argument of the Roman Church. To this we may at once reply: Do you believe in the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in the redaction of the Holy Books? Do you believe that the Holy Ghost is constantly and directly active in elevating those who sincerely implore Him, in the supernatural order of faith? We believe, they say to us, in these things. And we believe more; we believe that without Divine aid human reason is incapable of entering into the su- pernal world of faith. We affirm that neither the clearest and keenest intelligence nor the most pro- found exegetical studies, neither the most accurate knowledge of history nor the infallible authority of the Church itself can introduce the simple mortal man into the supernal world of faith and redemption ; that this 15 is the free gift of Heaven, that this is a favor exclusively bestowed by the Holy Ghost; and we affirm at the same time that He denies it to no one, that He concedes it to all who sincerely ask for it, and who do not knowingly place any obstacle in the way of the divine impetus. 18 According to your own confession, then, the faith- ful who sincerely seek for the truth in the Sacred Books can never find therein any cause for perturba- tion and error. Whence should come error and per- turbation? Out of the Bible? That is impossible, for 13 Concilium of the Vatican ; De Ratione et Fide. 16 The attention of the reader is called to : James i. 5. Matt. vii. 7; xxi. 22. Mark xi. 24. Luke xi. 9. John xiv. 13; xv. 7; xvi. 23. 44 ROMAN CATHOLICISM according to your own confession it is divine. From the impetus of the Holy Ghost? No, for you believe that he is infallible. From the weakness of the faith- ful? No, for you affirm that the Holy Ghost himself aids them. Hence, according to your own theologic doctrine, the faithful can go direct to the fountains of revela- tion, if only he goes sincerely, invoking the divine aid. And if, notwithstanding these conditions, di- versity of opinion should arise among the faithful, bless it, for this diversity would be due to the very f ruitfulness of the Word of God ; it would be a sign of life and not of death, a signal of progress and not of regression. 17 The countless number of nebu- lae and constellations, of stars and planets, have been produced out of one single cosmic matter and this di- versity is the source of its sublime and incomparable beauty. 18 One vegetative life has produced the har- monious gradation of plants and flowers, and its di- versity is brilliant with the wonders of nature. 19 One single, living breath animates the fish in the water, propels the bird through the air, gives breath to the beast in the field and in this very diversity resides the majestic and overpowering beauty of creation." The power of judgment is the specific attribute of man, and what a diversity of races and people, of "Renan: El Porvenir de la Ciencia (Spanish translation) (The Future of Science), first chapters. 18 Sechi: De los Astros (Spanish translation). Palmiere: Cosmplogia. "Zigliara: De Vita Vegetativa. Mendive: De la Vida Vegetal. " Cardinals Gonzalez and Zigliara ; Filosofia : Del Principle Racional. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 45 philosophic systems and literary theories, of political institutions and other human creations, and above all these tilings how beautiful appears humanity in its ceaseless, majestic march toward progress, toward its entire and complete perfection ! 21 Diversity within unity is the sign of harmony, of progress, of life. Centralism within unity is the sign of usurpation, of decadence, of death. Perhaps the Romanist will reply here: But your theory applies only to the good among the faithful, only to those who sincerely seek for the truth, implor- ing Heaven to aid them, and applies by no means to all. We grant that; we speak only of those among the faithful who seek in the Holy Books before all and above all for their creed and their rule of con- duct, not of those who interpret the Scriptures so as to palliate their vices and cloak their sins. Does Romanism believe Protestantism to be so ignorant and unsophisticated as to think that the Sacred Books, aside from being the guide to the creed and the rules of conduct of the sincere believer, are of such nature that the wicked and perverse cannot make wrong use of them? Protestantism is aware and Romanism knows that the insolent can falsify and adulterate the Holy Books according to his caprice, with or without a free examination, with or without the authority of the Roman Church ; but it does not follow from this that the truly faithful may not reap a rich harvest in reading them. Here we have one of the most crafty sophisms of "Renan: El Ppryenir de la Ciencia (The Future of Science) ; chaps, ii, iii, iv, v. 46 ROMAN CATHOLICISM Romanism. Seeing that among those which it arro- gantly calls sects there are some who make a wrong use of the Scriptures, it exclaims with indignation : 22 Here you have the fruits of free examination; here you have the results of not believing in one central authority that shall determine the interpretation. The reader will pardon me if scholastic terms are made use of in replying, for it must be admitted that in treat- ing of Romanistic matters this language is very often precise and to the point. 23 According to your ethics, when a thing is good in itself and evil by accident, it is permitted and commendable if the good is in- tended, and it must never be condemned and prohibited in general. 24 Should anyone suggest that many go to confession and partake of the communion sacrile- giously and that therefore these sacraments should be suppressed, you reply, You talk very extravagantly. We do not deny that there are many, very many sacri- leges, but this is by accidence ; the sacraments in them- selves are good and not to be forbidden, for good men derive benefit from them. Here, then, you have the an- swer, my Roman theologic gentlemen: if some men make wrong use of the Scriptures, this is by acci- dence, and there are, on the other hand, many, very many men who find in them the sure rules of their conduct. Do you attempt to deny it ? Then you deny history. And if you affirm that the defects by acci- dence are sufficient ground for refusing the interpre- M Jaugey: His work mentioned. Protestantismo, Biblia. M Elber: Theologia Moralis; De Actibus Humanis (Human Acts). Sporer and Lenkhul: The same title. 14 S. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio: De Sacramentis. Cardinal Vives: Same title. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 47 tation of the Scriptures, then you suppress your chief sacraments. What do you reply to the Protestant when he says: The papal authority is bad because it gives rise to schisms and heresies? You hasten to answer that this is by accidence, and it is thereby corroborated by the true faithful. And Protestantism answers you back with the same argument, based on the same terms. The free interpretation of the Bible gives rise to evils by accidence ; 25 and is thereby fortified and corroborated for the true believers. If the argument is sound in the one case, it is also sound in the other case, for true philosophy is neither Romanist nor Protestant the truth is the same for all. Let us now demonstrate the same affirmation by following a line of reasoning that is perhaps more exegetical and philosophical. In exegesis, when ques- tions referring to divine inspiration are under discus- sion, men not well versed in such matters are con- fronted with serious difficulties. 26 If it is the Holy Ghost who has inspired the Sacred Books, why have they been written in diverse idioms and diverse styles ? Why were some written in Hebrew, some in Greek, some in Syrio-Chaldseic, and some in Latin? Why is the Hebrew of Moses not like the Hebrew of Job ? Or that of the Greater Prophets not like that of the Minor 25 Authors cited on the citations Nos. 23 and 24. For the scholastic and technical terms, consult Perujo: Dictionarium Scholasticum ; s. v. Per se, and Per accidens. 29 For all the exegetical questions, consult Comely, Patrizi and Vigouroux, who are the most authoritative. For the question under discussion, 5: will be sufficient to read Manu- ale Biblicum et Hermeneuthicum ; Inspiration and Its Ex- tent. 5 48 -ROMAN CATHOLICISM Prophets? Why is the Greek of St. Paul 27 not like the Greek of St. Luke, or the Greek of St. Mark like the Greek of St. John? Why, if there is only one principal author, the Holy Ghost, has every one of the special authors his own style, his favorite phrases, his own vocabulary? I know your answer, and I accept it as a good one ; for Protestantism must also accept it as a good one, on the supposition that it is rational, philosophical and the only one that can maintain currency. 28 These differences of idiom and style are due to the fact that the Holy Ghost, while in the act of inspiring the writ- ers, accommodated himself to the laws of the language obtaining at a given epoch; these divergencies arose because the divine act combined with the natural mode of expression peculiar to each author before the mo- ment of inspiration and in the course of inspiration. The divine act prompted the holy man to set down the truth and preserved him from falling into error; but it left him free to express his thoughts and choose his words as any profane author might do. A fine confession! An admirable mode of reasoning! If the Holy Ghost accommodated himself to the gen- eral laws of the language of each given epoch, if the holy men in writing the Sacred Books proceeded as any other author would, except that they were prompted to set down the truth and were preserved from error, then the rule of grammar, some idea of philosophy and the rudiments of history, or in brief, **, ^The authors cited and also, Moigno: Esplendores de la Fe; Milagro de Josue. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe (Spanish translation) ; Inspiration. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 49 the general laws of criticism, are sufficient to inter- pret those books. That which is adequate and suffi- cient to interpret any profane author is also adequate and sufficient to interpret the Bible, since the Revealed Writings do not differ in their morphological struc- ture from profane works. You yourself therefore admit that the Protestants are justified in maintaining that anyone can interpret the Holy Books. Finally, Romanism is at great pains to demonstrate that without a central authority the canon cannot re- main fixed and that it is not possible to arrive at a common understanding in the knowledge of the Bible, and both of these things are not only desirable but indispensable for the true Church. 29 Very well; then the first churches and the first believers, who did not have this canon and this central interpretative au- thority, were not of the true Church? 30 Then you were not the true Church until the time of the Council of Trent, which determined the present canon? Therefore the Roman Church was lacking in something during the sixteen centuries which preceded the Council of Trent ; she lacked this precious and in- dispensable thing which you now proclaim to be so necessary. It seems incredible that Romanism should not perceive how it is standing in its own light by ex- aggerating and insisting on such determinate affirma- tions. While imagining that it is cutting the supports 29 Leo XIII: Encyclical on Bible Study. Jaugey: On his work above mentioned; Interpretacion de la Biblia (Bible Interpretation). Bertier, Perrone, Casanova: De Auctoritate Ecclesiae. 80 Vigouroux ; Comely : Their mentioned works : History of the Biblical Canon. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe; Same subject. 5O ROMAN CATHOLICISM away from under other roofs, its own roof is insecure and leaky. Further on we shall see that the so much bepraised authority was not able then, nor is it able now to conserve the unity of doctrine and interpreta- tion within its own house. It follows from all these arguments that the Catho- lic philosophy and theology, dogma and exegesis, tak- ing them in conjunction and interpreting them ra- tionally, proclaim the Protestant doctrine as regards the interpretation of the Bible, and refuse the monopo- lizing central authority which Romanism arrogates to itself on this point. CHAPTER VI. IN THIS CHAPTER WE CORROBORATE THE SAME DOC- TRINES OUTLINED IN THE PRECEDING ONES, BY THE CONDUCT AND WRITINGS OF THE APOS- TLES, AND ALSO ANSWER THE MAIN OB- JECTION OF THE ROMANS. WHEN the short, but admirable, life of Christ is looked into; when it is considered that the apostles 1 came before the people not with a doctrine of their own, but with one emanating from Christ direct; and that in order to silence the existing doc- trines and prevent future ones from appearing, 2 the apostles endeavored to draw up and to explain the genuine doctrines of Christ; 3 when all these consid- erations based upon irrefutable historical testimony, are connected together; though we should even mo- mentarily abstract the divine assistance, we arrive at the certain conclusion that nothing that was funda- mental and necessary to the true Church of Christ, could have been left to tradition. Many of the writings of the New Testament were drawn up at a time when heresy and schisms were 1 St. Paul : In nearly all his epistles. Read especially Gal. i. 12. 2 St. Paul: I Cor. iv. 1-5; xi. 18-26. II Cor. xi. 17. Mark xiii. 22. 8 Eusebius : Ecclesiastical History, First Heresies, and the same authorities mentioned in citation No. 2; also consult the Acts of the Apostles, chap. xv. (51) 52 ROMAN CATHOLICISM already tearing asunder the dawning Christian Church. 4 There existed already believers who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, and believers who re- jected His human nature. There were already diver- gences of opinion upon the authority of His disciples, and upon the reception of His highest sacraments. The same Gospel speaks to us of the false evangel- ists and the false Christs, 5 who would attempt to de- ,ceive the people by erroneous doctrines and spurious sacraments. St. Paul unhesitatingly states that from among his listeners there would arise false prophets, who would endeavor to cheat the masses, by pervert- ing the true doctrine of Christ, and tarnishing the purity of His Church. Since the apostles knew and foresaw these things, since they witnessed on every side the sprouting of error 6 and of mystification ; since, for the purpose of unmasking this treacherous class and strengthening the faithful in their creeds they drew up their writings and their history of the life of Christ, is it reasonable or admissible so far as the human judgment is concerned, that they would have omitted anything fundamental, anything neces- sary or anything of a constructive nature? Is it con- ceivable that they should have left dogma, morals, sacraments, their very Church itself, in uncertainty? Was not this more like an occasional cause of the coming heresies and future errors? To write a part *St. Paul: I Cor. i. II, and iii. 4; also xi. 13. Gal. i. 7. B Matt. vii. 15; xxiv. u; xxiv. 23, 24. Mark xiii. 22. Rom. xvi. 17, 1 8. Eph. v. 6. Col. ii. 6. II Peter ii. 2, 3. The Acts of the Apostles xx. 29, 30. 9 Same testimonies as citation No. 5, and also I Cor. xi, from v. 1 8 on. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 53 of the dogma and to omit another; to speak of some moral precept while keeping silence on others; to proclaim certain specific sacraments, and overlook others, was not that to open a wide breach to error and to doubt? Was not that equal to befriending the very evil-doers whom they purposed by their writings to banish from their Church? The soundest his- torical judgment rejects so monstrous an aberration. Could it be believed that they have delivered up to the crowd some portion of their sacred trust, when they well knew that from the masses would arise the adulterations? Besides, that was opposed to the very teachings of Christ upon tradition. 7 Jesus Christ knew, and they could see, that by means of tradition the former synagogue had falsi- fied and prevented the true laws ; 8 Jesus Christ knew, and they could see, that thanks to tradition, the syna- gogue had created an organization and a code other than the right ones ; hence, the reason why Christ arose against tradition, accused it of forgery, used severe language towards it and against its followers, and rejected it as an injurious doctrinal teaching. 9 Since Jesus condemned the old tradition, and the apostles knew of His prohibition, as well as of the great evils that the former was causing, can it be ad- mitted, can anyone explain, for what possible reason they should have committed to the care of tradition any portion of their dogmas, of their morals, or of 7 Consult Matt. xv. 1-9. Consult Mark vii. 5, 6. Consult Col. ii. 8. Consult Luke xii. I. 8 Matt, xxiii. Luke xi. 39, 40, 41, 42. Mark vii. 4-14, "Luke xiii. 15, and also citation on No. 8. 54 ROMAN CATHOLICISM their sacraments? 10 If both Jesus and the apostles looked upon it as a wicked tradition of corruption and prevarication, how can we believe that they would intrust to it any one of the things necessary to our salvation? Does not this assumption involve a most evident contradiction? Would not this be equivalent to an act of approval, of that, which they so strongly condemn in their writings ? Would not this be lacking in sincerity and honesty? Since we are reasoning according to human judg- ment, let us advance a few historical considerations that bear out our contention. Suppose for a moment that after the death of the immortal hero, Washington, some criminally disposed person had written pamphlets libeling his wonderful mission to this great nation; that some should pre- sume to discredit his military genius, misrepresenting his most important feats of arms; that others should deny him his political ability, mutilating and pervert- ing his principles, that still others should try to im- pugn his public and private character, by inventing and divulging atrocious calumnies! Suppose that an intimate friend of this immortal hero, contemporaneous with him, and knowing all and every one of his deeds, comes to his defense by writ- ing his true biography. Would you understand such an author as likely to omit knowingly any important fact relating to the public and private life of his exalted subject? Can "Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel already cited; also I John iv. 1-4. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History; Heresies of the First Century. Rohrbacher: Same head. Jaugey: First Century of the Church. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 55 you conceive that he would neglect to write some- thing on all indispensable circumstances such as would tend to make his life shine in the heaven of history, as the sun shines in our planetary system? And if consciously he did omit something absolutely neces- sary to successfully dispel the calumnies so made pub- lic, would not such a historian be guilty not only of lese-majeste (high treason) but assist also in promul- gating the calumny? Apply then, this reasoning to our case. Ever since the first century atrocious and frightful calumnies have been launched against Jesus Christ. 11 His -divine mis- sion is either denied or ignored, as is His human na- ture; His doctrine is distorted; His sacraments are falsified, 12 and the apostles, Christ's intimate friends, and ear-witnesses of His preaching, thoroughly ac- quainted with His doctrine, come out in His defense, compiling it and writing it up. Can you understand their omitting anything fundamental, anything con- structive? And if they should knowingly omit some- thing, would not that show the apostles as being at times the means and cause of propagating error and heresy? Such an omission would be inconceivable to Human judgment. 13 Only those having a preconceived interest in the subject would be able to grasp its meaning; but in the mind of impartial thinkers and clear reasoners, everything must have been left recorded. 11 St. Paul : Epistle I to the Corinthians, especially chap, xi ; also read citation No. 10. a Same authorities as cited on Nos. 8, 9, 10 and n. 13 Balmes : Criterion : Rules to Judge History. Granclaude : Same heading. 56 ROMAN CATHOLICISM Here is the main argument of Romanism : looking into its Gospel, St. John declares: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." St. Paul in his first epistle to Timothy, remarks: "The traditions received from me," Rom- anism says then: "Not everything was left written, therefore we must heed tradition." St. John teaches the first, St. Paul orders the second. Pause, Roman- ist, for within your own and more commendable exe- gesis, Protestantism can find a satisfactory answer. Let us proceed in order as taught by your scholasticism. We are dealing with a grave question, and it is worth while to look into it minutely and conscientiously, in order to deduce from it the only rational agree- ment. Let us see what St. John says, what Roman- ism affirms, and what Protestantism denies. Only by connecting these three points shall we be able to reach a positive result, and one conformable to bib- lical exegesis. To begin with: It seems to us that no Romanist would venture to take literally the passage quoted from St. John, 14 because the world is very large, and Jesus' public life, although astound- ing and admirable, is too short to provide sufficient matter for so colossal a number of books, as not to find room in space. We do not suppose anyone so foolish as to dare to believe so much, and, therefore, we must interpret that passage with mica salts (with a grain of salt) as some of your scholastics would 14 St. John : Gospel, last chap., last v. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 5/ say. Such words must be taken as hyperbolical, in the language of rhetoric. 15 That passage, reduced to its logical term by exe- gesis and rhetoric, would mean that neither were all and every word spoken by Christ copied, nor were all and every one of His miracles recorded. But what will you have gained by that wonderful discovery? From where have you deduced that Protestantism believes that all and every one of Christ's words, and all and every one of His deeds were recorded in writ- ing? 18 Do not confound the terms: The only thing that Protestantism asserts is, that everything that must be believed and practised, everything that must be ac- complished and received, was left written. That is their affirmation. And is there, perchance, any contradiction between the Protestant dogma and the words of St. John? Read over carefully the pas- sage, apply it as prescribed by your own exegesis and enlightened reason, and you will see that said passage is more opposed to Romanism than to Protest- antism. Does St. John say that among the innum- erable words uttered by Christ, that he did not copy, and among- the uncountable deeds that Christ per- formed that he did not record, there exist any new precepts, any new dogmas or any different sacraments ? And since St. John says nothing, because it was im- possible, because it would have been contradictory, of what use is it to you to invoke testimony that means 15 Colonnia : Rhetoric. 18 Encyclopedia Britannica ; Luther and Lutheranism, Cal- vin and Presbyterian. 58 ROMAN CATHOLICISM nothing, unless it is that the Protestants are right? Because since St. John writes the life of Christ, of His dogma and of His morals, do you not understand that if he omits something it is on account of its ir- relevancy to those morals and to that dogma? Can you not see that he himself proclaims it thus, since he gives no directions on the subject? If, on saying that he omitted part of Jesus' preachings and of His miracles, St. John had added that such a portion as he did not copy carried within itself new teachings that must be followed, embodied different moral precepts, separate sacraments which were indispensable to re- ceive: then only could such words give cause for doubt. But as nothing of the kind is said, you cannot deduce anything in your favor. It is only the Prot- estants who can profit by that passage, since it shows the difference between a fundamental doctrine and that which is auxiliary. 17 But it is desirable that a more exegetic answer be given you, a reply in ac- cordance with your own doctrine. In studying some of the allusions contained in the sacred writings, espe- cially the Old Testament, it is quite evident that some of the inspired books were lost. 18 Such is the opinion of many holy Fathers 19 and of not a few expositors, 20 but they all unanimously agree in asserting, that in that case, either they did not contain any dogmatic truths or moral precepts, or that if they contained them, neither the one nor the other would be indispensable "John xx. 30, 31. 18 Read Comely on this question. 19 St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others on this subject. "Vigouroux, Patrizi, Lobera and Caminero. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 5Q to salvation, as the contrary would be repugnant to the economy of divine providence. We are, therefore, in the same identical case : every- thing that it pleased Jesus Christ to teach as dog- matic, everything that He wished to impress upon humanity as a teacher, all remained written. Let us illustrate this most weighty doctrine with some ex- ample that may, so to speak, render it more percepti- ble. Suppose that a very learned man wrote a vo- luminous work, and that later on some one else, in fewer words, were to extract synthetically a com- pendium of all the principles therein formulated and all the truths therein demonstrated. If such a com- pendium reproduced all and each of the truths, all and each of the principles contained in the main work, would it cease to be complete because it was smaller and did not contain all the words of the original work? Certainly not. Our case is absolutely similar. The author of the great work is Christ in His divine life and infallible preaching; the writer of the compen- dium is St. John 21 and the one who comes out vocif- erating "that the compendium is not complete because it does not embrace all the preaching of Christ" is the Romanist. But in turn Protestantism rises, and with its usual good sense reaches a masterly solution by saying : "it is 22 complete as regards the substance and the doctrine; it is incomplete in that it does not contain all the words of Christ, nor all His miracles ; 21 Consult St. John and connect his Gospel with his last chapter and verses. 22 Encyclopedia Britannica; Luther and Lutheranism, Cal- vin and Presbyterian. 6O ROMAN CATHOLICISM this last I present to thee as an ornament, for I have more than enough with the first." Still more obvious and simple is the answer to the argument based on St. Paul's words. 23 He explains to Timothy principally the precepts to be observed by the head of a Church, and incidentally touches upon the obligations inherent in a Christian; but as Timothy frequently accompanied St. Paul, and often by the latter's orders, wrote some letters to the faithful, St. Paul took occasion to remind him, not to forget either. It was like saying to him: "What thou knowest al- ready by other letters written by thyself, and what I now tell thee, thou must observe to be perfect." Let Romanism seek the light in the Gospel in the writ- ings of the apostles, for it will never find anything to favor tradition as it proclaims it. The very force- ful language used by Christ 24 in rejecting the Judaical tradition was still buzzing in the ears of the apostles ; they still remembered those severe words, those sar- castic and steel-like epithets which he applied to the wicked scribes and Pharisees who, standing on tradi- tion, 25 had outraged the law and perverted the dogma. How, then, could they be so disrespectful to their Master and so short-sighted as to knowingly promote abuses with lamentable consequences so much deplored by themselves? Tradition, then, in the spirit that Romanism takes it, is indefensible; it is opposed to the character of 23 St. Paul : II Tim. i. 13 ; ii. 2. ** Matt, xxiii. 13-36 ; Luke xii. i ; also xi. 39-42. " Same authorities cited on the last two citations. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 6l Christ, to the nature and epoch when the gospels were written; it is contrary to divine inspiration and the economy of God's providence; common sense rejects it, exegesis combats it, and critical judgment repels it as irrational. CHAPTER VII. THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE GOSPELS, AND THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES. HAVING adopted the New Testament as the standard for our discussion, it must be the one to decide, as the supreme judge, upon all the ques- tions at issue between Protestantism and Romanism. These may be reduced to five different questions, namely: First, Constitution of the true Church; sec- ond, Characteristics it should possess; third, Number of Sacraments, and the essential elements necessary to their integrity; fourth, Worship and the form to be adopted; fifth, What, if any, innovations exist? Whoever examines the Gospels, hoping to find in them a close and compact doctrinal body, similar to a modern treatise, will be grievously disappointed. 1 Christ expounds His doctrine by means of apho- risms and parables, in which there does not exist any kind of methodical inference. According to the cir- cumstances of the moment, the quality of His hearers, the objections of His opponents, does He proceed, sometimes explaining a precept, at others correcting some vice, or again speaking on a sacrament; but *Read the Gospels, and the truth of this assertion will be seen. Only that in St. John's Gospel and in some of St. Paul's Epistles there appears some method. (62) CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 63 without His teachings ever conforming to any studied or systematic method. In order to properly grasp His doctrine, it is necessary to follow His every step, from one people to another, from one parable to an- other, from one aphorism to another. It is necessary to connect the passages in the Gospels and to seek, as it were, the resultant. 2 Then it becomes clear that His dogma is reduced to a very few fundamental truths; that His precepts are not numerous but most important; that His sacraments are very simple and clear. Then it appears also 3 that there exist in His dogma and in His morals, certain points that He favors most; some, He never tires of repeating and inculcating on His hearers, 4 while others He only touches upon incidentally. On no point, perhaps ex- cepting the clearness of His exposition, does Christ insist more often in His Church, than upon its founda- tion. Similes, parables, apologies, allegories every- thing, 5 in fact, is used by Christ to illustrate to us His establishment and His organization. We will not dwell at length upon the establishment of the Church. Since it is our purpose to limit ourselves only to the differences between Protestantism and Romanism, and to determine which are better grounded in the sacred Books, we will not delay in proving the existence of 'Read Camunero: Manual Isagogicum (Biblical Manual); General Rules of Exegesis. 8 See same author : Synthesis of Christ's Doctrine. 4 See St. John's Gospel, and it will be seen how frequently he inculcates charity. In all his Gospels he insists numberless times on meekness, modesty, etc. * See Matthew, chapters xiii and xv, and the other Gospels, in the respective paragraphs dealing with the same parables. 6 64 ROMAN CATHOLICISM the Church, inasmuch as both these professed religions believe in such existence. 6 The discussion will arise afterwards, when we come to assign to the "True Church" its properties and characteristics, its function and organization. Anyone wishing to convince him- self that Christ did establish the Church, has but to peruse the chapters and verses quoted in the margin. 7 In them he will find a complete demonstration that Christ presupposed collectivity in the .Church, for sometimes he uses the expression, "God's kingdom," at others, the "coming of God's kingdom," and some- times the concrete word, "Church." Now He com- pares it to a field of rye and good wheat growing together; again to a net catching good and bad fish; still again to a mustard seed, which, although it be the smallest of grains, yet produces one of the most luxuriant of plants. But where the difficulty arises is not in confessing the existence of the Church, whereon both Protestants and Catholics are agreed, but mainly on its organiza- tion. Should it be democratic or aristocratic? That is the question, the answer to which separates Protest- ants from Catholics, and disunites both from their own organizations, because neither do all 8 the Catho- lics consider it absolute, however much they may pro- 6 Confession of Augsburg. Read Luther and Calvin in En- cyclopedia Britannica. Also read all the Roman theologians. 7 Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17. Mark iv. John x. Acts v. n; viii. 3; v. 27. The exclusion with which they sometimes con- demn the heretics and scandalous proves the same; for in- stance: Rom. xvi. 17. I Cor. v. 9. II Thess. iii. 6, 14. II John 10. 8 Read Cardinal Gonzalez : Address on the organization of the Church. Declarations of the Gallican clergy. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 65 claim it as monarchical, nor do all 9 the Protestants agree in proclaiming it either democratic or aristo- cratic. Let us see whether, through systems so intricate and tortuous, we can discover the light and establish the true system, the one that unequivocally proceeds from the Divine Word, from Christ's own august authority. This is precisely a point that at once strikes the eye of whoever reads the New Testament without bias. There is perhaps no more oft-repeated doctrine, and none stated with greater clearness and energy, than the doctrine referring to the organization of the Church. There are teachings showing us how Christ does not wish it to be, and others ordaining how it should be. He sets and establishes it, as the scholastic would say, in the negative and in its positive sides. In order to understand the mind of Christ concern- ing the organization of His Church, it is very neces- sary to bear in mind the two kinds of organized powers that ruled Palestine in those times : First, the theocratic, represented by the synagogue ; and second, the civil, represented by the Roman delegates. To Christ's most humble eyes, both forms of or- ganization appeared monstrous and repulsive. Far from inspiring Him with esteem or respect, 10 both awakened in Him only indignation and profound con- tempt. No, He does not wish indeed that His Church should imitate either of the two, He does not wish it 9 See heads in Encyclopedia Britannica : Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists. 10 Read Matt. x. 6. Mark viii. 15. 66 ROMAN CATHOLICISM to have the least resemblance to either, but He does wish, that the organization of His Church be the liv- ing and obvious denial of those organizations, and that where they said yes His should say no. This is the thought that seemed to absorb the mind of Christ ; which we see referred to in all the Gospels; and which some of the Evangelists repeated thrice, such was the insistence that Jesus laid upon it in His teach- ings. 11 The crowned heads of earth, says He, reside in royal palaces, like to have numerous servants, and domestics to wait upon them, in all their acts love to make a show of power and dominion over others, in- sist on being called lords, eat and feast sumptuously at splendidly served tables, and live in grandeur and magnificence. Such is a characteristic example of civil power, in describing which He omits nothing; He speaks of its internal working, of its external manifestations, such as might and authority, luxury and pompous show ; He speaks of its public and private displays luxury of servants, submission and hom- age from others, of the stately appearance in dress and speech; and speaking of the private side, He enumerates the palaces, the attendants and their treat- ment. Jesus Christ shows the well-marked purpose to determine with precision and minuteness the con- stituent elements of civil power, so as to better elimi- nate all of them from the organization of His Church. Let us now see how He characterizes the theocratic or religious power of His time : 12 The scribes and 11 Matt. xx. 25-28 ; xxiii. 8-12. Mark x. 42-45. "Read the chapter mentioned and also Matt. xv. i-n. Mark vii. 1-13. I Peter v. 3. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 67 Pharisees like to be called fathers and masters; they expect from others the consideration and obedience due to such ; they choose the foremost seats at public functions; they dress with show and walk with arro- gance; they interpret the law according to their own convenience and impose upon others heavy penalties from which they are exempt; they are harsh and haughty toward the meek and humble, while they flatter the rich and powerful; they enjoy appearing in showy religious garbs; but within, they are hun- gry wolves, putrid sepulchers, depraved souls. There we have another minute description, lacking in noth- ing to enable us to form a complete idea of that haughty and hypocritical body that monopolized all religious teaching during Christ's epoch. We almost see those two Powers photographed in their respective characters. And what judgment does Christ pass upon them? To His apostles, says He: "Beware of the leaven of the Herodians (Roman Or- ganization) and of the leaven of the Pharisees (theo- cratic Power). Throw away from you as a deadly poison everything transcending to either of those Powers. See ye here how I wish my Church to be, and how the duties pertaining to it must be allotted and performed. In the Powers before mentioned there is one to command and one to obey; not so amongst ye, who must all obey each other recipro- cally ; 13 in the said Powers there are lords and serv- ants ; not so in my Church, which must contain only sons and brothers, since there exists as father only 13 Read Matt, xviii and Mark ix. 35. 68 ROMAN CATHOLICISM your Heavenly Father, and as master your God; therefore take great care never to call any one 'lord/ nor 'father,' nor 'master/ lest ye give offense to your only Heavenly Father and to your only master, God ; take great care that none amongst you arrogate to himself the title of 'lord' or 'father' or 'master/ lest he become an infractor of my doctrine and an enemy to God. Sons of one only Father, you are equally brothers; vassals of the same God, you are equally free. Let not one of you wish to preside over the others. 14 He who thinks himself greatest is the smallest and must wait upon the others. He who humbles himself most shall be more exalted, and he who is proudest shall be the most humbled and con- fused. Let modesty and meekness excel in your words and deeds. 15 Flee from the gaudy luxury of outside show as not proper to my Church. By lowliness you will subdue human pride ; by modesty subdue luxury ; by simplicity conquer malice; be, in short, gentle lambs among wild wolves and you will triumph over the world. Let nothing frighten or terrify you, for I will be with you till the end of time. Where two or three of you congregate 16 there will I be to preside over and help you. My spirit and my power, my wisdom and my love will accompany you everywhere, and the same as I triumphed over the world, so shall you triumph; the same as the world hated me, so it will hate you ; but above the power of the world there is my power, which I will communicate to you; over 14 See the three foregoing notes. 15 Read nearly all the chapters of the Gospel. 16 Matt, xviii. 19, 20, CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 69 the world's learning the wisdom that will be granted to you by the Holy Ghost, and over the world's per- secution there is my help omnipotent, that can do all." And wishing these principles to remain deeply en- graved in their minds, carved, so to speak, in their hearts, on the eve of His glorious passion, on the most memorable date of His august life, at the moment of the supreme mysteries (according to the Catholic Church), at that everlasting hour, after He had syn- thetized as a basis of His moral teaching, the holiest precept of universal charity ; of His dogma, the procla- mation of His divinity; and of His institutions, the Eucharist, as the final coronation of His august work, as a last legacy, in His Testament, He returns to the constitution of His Church, and gives to His disciples the most astonishing example of humility practised during His life. He commands 17 everyone to sit down, orders a wash basin with water to be brought, kneels at the feet of His apostles and washes the feet of them all. And when His disciples had scarcely recovered from their profound amazement that so un- expected an act had caused in them, Christ exclaims as follows, in a voice at once magnificent and impos- ing: "You call me lord and master, and you mistake not, for I am such. For if I, who am truly your lord and master, humble myself to wash your feet, so with greater reason must you humble yourselves toward one another, and as I did just now must you do al- ways. 18 Away from you, all idea of command and authority all thought of exaltation and pride, away from you all imperial distinction, all semblance of "Tghn xiii. 1-24. 18 The same. 70 ROMAN CATHOLICISM superiority. Humbleness must be the basis of my Church, charity its summit, and I condemn and abomi- nate everything that may tend to pollute it." O sover- eign, magnificent and divine democracy ! Thou wert the fruitful dawn of true liberty! Thou wert the legitimate beginning of universal brotherhood ! Thou wert the mighty germ of a harmonious equality! O blessed Christian democracy! Thou didst overthrow the narrow and proud synagogue, felling to the ground its proud and senile priesthood; O a thou- sand times venerable and worshiped Christian de- mocracy ! 19 Thou didst demolish the great mountain of the despotic pagan empire, and where before existed the odious distinction between freemen and slaves, between masters and servants, thou didst pro- claim liberty to the sons of God, and not a degrading subjection to man, but to the authority of reason, to the laws of justice. Those who in future may have the power to command, shall no longer do so wanton- ly, nor despotically and tyranically, but in accordance with reason and justice, and if besides occupying a high rank, they are also Catholic, they will have to be servants of servants, who obey them. Oh! if as Thy Gospels have endured through the centuries Thy meek and life-giving spirit had also been preserved! Oh! if as Thy first apostles and disciples, impregnated with Thy divine teachings and powerful examples, estab- lished the first congregations of the faithful, on the grounds of humility and charity, 20 those who pride "Monsabre: Conferences upon Christ's Doctrine. 20 Castelar: Revolucion Religiosa (Religious Revolution); Book III. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 7! themselves on being their successors had only followed in the same wake, how many black pages that stain ecclesiastical history would never have been written; how many bloody furrows that are an affront to hu- manity would never have been filled ! How many dis- turbances, desolations, drawbacks that have hindered and vitiated our civilization would have been avoided ! But, no! most meek and gentle Jesus, the first to trample under foot Thy humble spirit, are those who pride themselves on being the sole depositories of Thy doctrine. Thy commands were that preaching and mildness should be the channels of Thy teaching, but they will construct the dungeon, 21 they will raise the scaffold, they will fire the stake to the unbeliever. Thy command to Thy followers was to avoid all showy servitude, but he who calls himself the successor 22 to the poor and humble fisherman, will reckon his serv- ants by the thousand, and even his menials must be the great and the noble. Thou didst say that those who were Thine should not dwell in regal palaces, as that was contrary to Thy humble doctrine ; but the successor to the meek fisherman inhabits 23 a palace so vast and sumptuous, so showy and regal, that the residences of the great on earth, the palaces of the kings and emperors throughout the world, the build- ings Thou didst see with horror and didst indignantly abominate, are as nothing compared to this vast palace; they are even as the humblest huts, as the poorest shelters beside its magnificence. Thou didst "Read Father Richard Gapa: Spanish Inquisition. 82 See Manual and Manners of the Vatican, and list of servants. 28 Anyone can become convinced by merely seeing it. 72 ROMAN CATHOLICISM say that not one of Thine should assume any power or authority over others, but the successor to poor Peter s * takes upon himself such jurisdiction, that the might of the Roman empire, so much despised by Thee, were not even a shadow compared with the power attributed to the Roman Pontiff. The em- perors styled themselves divine, but were considered as men, and believed their decrees liable to revocation and amendment; but he who calls himself Thy suc- cessor, calls himself irrefutable, unimpeachable, 25 in- fallible. Thou didst say that he who believed himself greater should bow to the smaller, but he who appro- priates Thy representation in Rome will shut his door 20 to the poor and the humble, and when the noble or the rich succeed in being received by him, they will have to bend the knee 27 and prostrate themselves as before a divinity, they will have to kiss the sandal as to a God. 28 Thou didst say to be simple in treat- ment and dress, but he who claims to be Thy visible head on earth will appear cloaked in the richest garbs ; loaded not with poverty as Thou dost prescribe, but with precious stones, and seated on a throne 29 as a divinity of the pagan Olympus. Thou didst feel in- Z4 Read Cardinal Vives : Compendium Juris Canonic! de Juribus Pontificum (Compendium of Canonical Law on Pon- tifical Rights). 25 Same author and heading. 26 Anyone can become convinced by attempting it without money or without being a noble. Some exception is some- times made to heretics. 37 The same Vives. We prefer quoting this author because he is considered an oracle among Romanists. 28 The same Cardinal Vives : Names given to the Pope and conduct to be observed in his presence. 19 Same authors mentioned before. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 73 dignant against the hypocritical Pharisees who mo- nopolized the law for their own benefit and to the detri- ment of others, who at their pleasure issued new pre- cepts, the fulfillment of which they exacted from others, while considering themselves exempt ; but Thy sovereign Pontiff 30 centralizes all the power in his despotic hands, he is the only source of jurisdiction and command, the only legislator, the only judge, and he declares himself exempt from all laws, free from judgment. And all that monstrous show, all that gather- ing of arbitrary proceedings and crushing monopoly, they endeavor to base on Thy humble doctrine, on Thy redeeming teaching. If Thou shouldst appear anew in visible form, Thou wouldst find a synagogue and an empire, prouder and more despotic than the former synagogue and the former empire. Thou wouldst also need now as formerly, to grasp the whip and throw out of Thy Church the traffickers in Thy doctrine. (We beg the writer to peruse the marginal notes, to see that we do not make any statement not based on trustworthy and irrefutable evidence taken from reliable Romanist authorities.) One need no longer be surprised at the following Italian saying: "Roma viduta, fide perduta" (Rome seen, faith lost), having become popular in Latin Europe, although it should be modified by saying that "when Catholic Rome is seen and studied, all faith in Romanism is lost." 80 Cardinal Vives : Compendium Juris Canonici de Juribus Pontificum (Compendium of Canonical Law on Pontifical Rights), 74 ROMAN CATHOLICISM But as Christ energetically proclaims, that He did not wish the power of jurisdiction perpetuated in any of His followers, He proclaimed as energetically against the power of the order or office. Here is the question that impartially and with abundance of data, we are going to expound in the next chapter. Let not the two questions get mixed, for as the reader will see, they are separate and distinct. CHAPTER VIII. DID CHRIST ESTABLISH AN OFFICIAL JURISDICTION? AND IF SO DID HE GRANT IT COLLECTIVELY, OR WAS IT ASSIGNED BY HIM TO SOME MEMBERS OF THE WHOLE? THIS is one of those most intricate questions which has divided and continues to divide the ranks of both Catholics and Protestants. We will clearly and sincerely expose that which in our opin- ion we consider justified, but in doing so we do not propose to confine ourselves exclusively to this opinion. Consequently, with our harmonious and tolerant judg- ment, we would never venture to consider as beyond the pale of the great Christian family, nor beyond the spirit of Christ, those who, while not openly contra- dicting any of the evident evangelical or apostolic truths, endeavor nevertheless to ground their theories on the New Testament. On this question, more than on any other, we must guard ourselves against all idea of exclusivism, and remember Christ's tolerance, as well as the apostles' ample indulgence. 1 The apos- tles in their evangelistic excursions met another man, who without being sent by Christ, was also preaching and expelling demons, and they begged of Christ to forbid him doing so; He answered: "I will do noth- *Mark x. 38, 39, (75) j6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM ing of the kind, for that one also honors me." When St. Paul expounded some doctrine about which he had not received any special instructions from Christ 2 he would say : "I understand this to be for the best, but I do not condemn anything contrary to it; each one can have his own feeling and opinion." Upon this standard we must also model our conduct. Is it evident and clear? Let us bow to it, never forgetting that, however great the probability may be, it does not exclude error from our opinion nor certainty in that of another. 3 Is it doubtful or confused? Then let each one freely elect whatever he thinks best. Not to do so would be to contradict the very spirit of the Gospel and to fall into the same narrow and despotic ways charged against Romanism. If the allegations adduced were not sufficient to in- spire in us a charitable and eclectic judgment, im- piety's own example should prove enough to do so. Can we not see how all the elements of ungodliness group themselves to combat the supernatural ? * Can we not see that within their organization there is as much room for the pantheist as for the materialist, for the rationalist as for the positivist? Dost thou deny the supernatural? Then thou art ours, no mat- ter what thy arguments and thy theories may be. The argument based on hypnotism, which presupposes a psychic principle, is as good for us as the one deduced 2 1 Cor. vii. 25. 3 Granclaude : Philosophy on Probability. Mendive : Phi- losophy ; Characteristics of Probability. Zigliara : Philoso- phy; Conflicting Probabilities. 1 Haeckel : By-Laws of the Anti-Religious Society recently established in Germany. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 77 from the eternity of matter, that denies all vital prin- ciple. The ideal pantheist, who denies the super- natural on the ground that there is nothing real in the universe, but only a mere representation of our subjective ego, is as admissible to us as the material- istic pantheist for whom everything is mere substance, without any accident or ideality. Let us, then, join the opposite army. Dost thou proclaim the divinity of Christ and His Gospel? The efficacy of His redemp- tion and the mission of His Church? Dost thou not exclude anything that is clear? Nothing of what is self-evident in the Bible? Then, come in, thou art one of us. Welcome to thee, whichever thy congrega- tion may be. This will have to be the language and the conduct of the great Christian community if it aims to successfully stem the inroads of impiety, and defend its own existence. No energy must be wasted on discussions that we might call domestic, or contro- versies with those at home, but on the contrary, hus- band it, to fight and resist the onslaughts of outsiders and enemies. This bright thought attributed to St. Augustine, must be our motto: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas:" "In things necessary, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, char- ity." And in support of this very thought, after ex- pounding our opinion, we will also shortly give the foundations of those contrary to ours. The questions that head this chapter have been met by four affirma- tions. 5 All of them suppose that Christ established an official jurisdiction and made a difference only in the 1 See Encyclopedia Britannica ; head, Church. 78 ROMAN CATHOLICISM assignment of such jurisdiction. The first, which is the most radical of the four, supposes that Christ es- tablish no difference between clergymen and lay- men ; all faithful are also ministers and priests, if the masses appoint and delegate their authority to them. For the upholders of this theory, the official jurisdic- tion resides with the collectivity, and the latter alone can delegate it to individuals, either permanently or temporarily. The second theory attributes to divine origin, the designation of the ministers, and, there- fore, supposes that Christ and the apostles had previ- ously divided the masses into two classes, namely: Clergymen and laymen. 7 But what kind of ministers did Christ select? What are their powers? In the answer given to these questions, the three theories that admit divine origin for the distinction between clergymen and laymen, differ. The Presbyterians say : The priest exists only from divine source. 8 All the sacraments to be administered, all the services to be performed in the Church, can, and must be done, by the priest, considered in his individual or his col- lective capacity. These are followed by the Epis- copalians who say : 9 Two kinds of priests are of di- vine source: those with limited authority who can only administer the sacraments, but who cannot dele- gate their powers to others to do likewise ; those with limited powers also, but who beside themselves ad- * Same ; head, Baptist. 7 Same ; head, Presbyter and Presbyterian. 8 Same ; head, Calvin and Calvinism. We prefer quoting this work because beside considering it as one of the soundest and most serious, it is recommended by such enlightened Romanists as Cardinal Gibbons. 8 Same work ; head, Episcopate and Episcopalians. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 79 ministering the sacraments, can delegate others to do so. We incline to this opinion, believing it to be better establish on apostolic history, and follow- ing it most closely. The fourth 10 affirmation is that of the Romanists, who suppose that besides the dis- tinction between laymen and clergymen, beside the ex- istence of inferior priests and superior priests, called bishops, there exist lower degrees styled deacons, sub- deacons, and still lesser degrees known as ostiaries, Gospel readers, exercisers and acolytes, and over all of them a degree superior to that of bishop, which supersedes them all, the Pontiff; This is the theo- retical hierarchy, the one defined in the councils, be- cause practically there is another " intermediary de- gree between the bishop and the Pontiff, namely car- dinal, a dignity superior to the bishop's in the honor it confers, and yet in the order of power and jurisdic- tion it is inferior to him and even to the priest's, since it can be granted to a simple deacon. There is no room to doubt that Christ 12 selected the twelve apos- tles and granted to them faculties not granted to the masses. He orders them during their life to go and preach to the nations the kingdom of God, He be- stows upon them the power to heal the sick and to expel the evil spirits, He explains in advance to them the parables that He expounded before the people, 10 Cardinal Vives : Compendium Theologicum de Hierarchia (Theologicum Compendium on Hierarchy). Casanova: Fun- damental Theology. Bouix: Jus Canonicum (Canonical Law) ; same head. "Cardinal Vives, Bouix: same head. Ferrais: Canonical Dictionary; same head. "Matt. xvi. 19; xvii. 18; xxviii. 19, 20. Mark xvi. 15. Luke xxiv. 47. John xx. 21, 23. 7 80 ROMAN CATHOLICISM: He holds the Last Supper with them and charges them to do the same in His memory, upon them He confers the authority to bind and to loose, to forgive and to condemn. Therefore, there can be no doubt that they appear as separate from the common people, that the distinction between clericals and faithful appears well defined and as emanating from the Lord. But, were the apostles priests only, or were they invested with episcopal dignity? If we are guided by the Gospel alone, we cannot reach any certain conclusion, because the word priest is sometimes taken as synonymous with bishop, and the word bishop synonymous with priest. 13 However, some indications appear to demon- state that they were different. St. John writes to the seven Churches of Asia Minor. We must for the start believe that there were many priests and that the designation of the seven who were at the head of each one of those Churches, seems clearly to indicate that they ranked higher than the other priests. When 14 the discussion about circumcision crops up St. James appears to address the priests as though he were a superior over them. When St. Peter walks miraculously out of prison he orders St. James to be informed first and the other brothers afterward, as if St. James were at the head of them all. 15 St. James decides as judge and teacher over all outstanding questions. When St. Paul arrives in Jerusalem he 13 Connect these passages together : Acts viii. 29 ; x. 19 ; xi. 12; viii. 2; xxv. 28; xxvi. 6, 7; xix. 21; xx. 23. "Acts, chapter 15. 15 Consult and connect these passages : Acts xiv. 23 ; xii. 17; xv. 13, 19; xviii. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 8l visits St. James first. St. Paul says that he visited and spoke with St. James, Peter and John, whom he calls pillars of the Church. 16 All these indications ap- pear to demonstrate that already there existed from the time of the apostles a distinction between priests and bishops. But that distinction is only found well marked at the time immediately contemporaneous with the apostles and emanating from them. 17 In Asia Minor we can see already how bishops supersede the priests who are the immediate successors of the apos- tles. There appear St. Polycarp, St. Papias, St. Igna- tius, St. Irenaeus. In St. Ignatius' epistle, admitted by many as authentic, the differences between priest and bishop are clearly conspicuous. The same thing is noticeable in the letters from Clement of Rome, and let it not be forgotten that those authors can be looked upon as immediate successors to the apostles, especially St. John, to whom history and tradition grant an extraordinary longevity. 18 To this it must be added according to the testimony of St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Ter- tullian, that the constitution of the bishops was estab- lished by St. John himself. As the reader can satisfy himself by reference to the biblical records, and the testimonies adduced, the rea- sons put forward by the Episcopalians are very earnest ones and if they do not convey an absolute certainty, 18 See Gal. i. 19 ; xi. 9, 12. 17 See Encyclopedia Britannica, under head, Church. See Clement of Rome : Letter to the Corinthians. Hefele : St. Ignatius' letter and St. Irenaeus against Heresies. 1S Besides the heads mentioned, see Encyclopedia Britannica, under Episcopate. 2 ROMAN CATHOLICISM they give rise to a most firm probability. 19 To this may be added an endless number of old and contemporane- ous historical testimonials and the statements of emi- nent theologians. Nevertheless, we are going to give the basis of the two other theories. According to the Baptists, Christ did not establish 20 any difference either in the ministerial power or jurisdiction. Christ says: "Let there be among you neither greater nor smaller than the other. Whoever claims to be greater must be the smaller. Whoever leaves his all behind and follows me, is equal to the apostles." Christ says unequivocally that no one is to be called lord, master or father, because He alone is the only superior, mas- ter and father. He Himself 21 promises to stay among His faithful followers till the end of time, and if this is so it was no longer necessary to leave behind Him any constituted authority. He offers that wherever any two or three of His disciples congregate He will be with them as president or head. If He presides, any other dignitary or minister is superfluous. A col- lective body may appoint whom it deems suitable to perform this office, and can also withdraw such ap- pointment. 22 (Anyone desiring further information may obtain the same by referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the headings in the footnotes.) 10 Besides the works mentioned, read those of the Protest- ants Bilson and Cotterill. For the Romanists see Baronio, Rohrbacher, Hergenrother, Natal Alexander and Rivas. * Matt. xx. 26 ; xxiii. 8, 9. Mark ix. 25. Luke xxii. 25. John xv. 2. 21 Matt, xviii. 20. 21 Read the historians : Neander, Rev. I. H. Ross and Mr. Morrison, also Encyclopedia Britannica: Under Baptist. CAPITULATING BEFORE 1'ROTESTANTISM. 83 The second theory has to support it, some serious arguments and powerful reasonings. It may at once be asserted that nearly all the reformers were parti- sans of this theory. So thought 23 Luther, and thus be- lieved Melancthon, Bugenhagen and especially Calvin. They say, and they are not without reason, that as many passages as may be invoked in defense of the episcopate, as coming from the Gospel and the apos- tles, just as many can be adduced to demonstrate that there are only priests. 24 And, in effect, those writings show the two offices performed by priests. See the same passages above mentioned and those we are adding here. Add also the powerful testimony of St. Jerome. No one doubts that this learned author was one of the best informed on ancient times. Driven east- ward to prepare his translation of the Bible and to investigate every known code, as well as to interro- gate the most learned, his decisions may be taken as oracles. That author affirms in the most unquestion- able terms that between bishop and priest there is no distinction whatever as coming from the teachings of Christ or His apostles. Read the letter mentioned in the footnotes. 25 Resuming, we declare that our in- clination is toward the episcopal theory, but that we do not consider it so certain as to justify the rejection of the others, especially the Presbyterian, 26 and when 28 Melanchthon's Writings. Calvin's Theology. "Connect the following passages: Acts viii. 29; x. 19; xi. 12; viii. 2; xxv. 28; xxvi. 6, 7; xix. 21; xx. 23. 25 Collection of St. Jerome's letters, No. 146. 20 See Encyclopedia Britannica : under Luther, Priest and Presbyterian, Calvin. 84 ROMAN CATHOLICISM viewed strictly by the Gospel, it appears that the theory of the Baptist is the most well-founded. The reader who may feel interested in acquiring a more exhaustive knowledge of the subject is referred to the several authors mentioned. CHAPTER IX. IS THE FOURTH THEORY ADMISSIBLE, WHICH DECLARES AN INFALLIBLE PAPACY OVER THE EPISCOPATE? IN answer to this question Romanism has three groups of arguments: (a) Biblical and socio- logical arguments (theological reasons) ; (b) Apos- tolic and sub-apostolic testimonies; (c) Arguments properly called historical. 1 We propose using these same three sources for the purpose of demonstrating that such theory is purely an arbitrary one. But upon this point more than on any other question, we would beg our readers to dismiss all prejudices, and to be as sincere and impartial as possible. So weighty is this question as to make it worth while for us to concentrate all the energy of our mind, for the purpose of making it clear. The consequences attending a solution one way or the other, are so transcendental, that nothing should be omitted from, nor be added to, what Christ taught His apostles to believe, on the penalty of incurring the most horrible and lamentable results. Let us listen to Romanism 1 Jaugey: heads, Church and Infallibility. Hettinger: Apology of Religion; Church and Pope. See also Cardinal Gibbons : The Faith of Our Fathers, referring to the Pri- macy and Infallibility of the Popes. As the reasons on which Pontifical Primacy are based are often the same as those adduced to establish Infallibility, we understand that after the latter has been refuted, the former meets the same fate : for that reason we say nothing on the Primacy, (85) 86 ROMAN CATHOLICISM through the mouthpiece of H. E. Cardinal Gibbons. His book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," summarizes with a fair degree of accuracy, the arguments invoked by the school he represents. We will make only one remark considered, if anything, favorable to that authority. To devote two chapters in order to demon- strate the infallibility of the Church, seems to us some- what unbecoming at this time, and even liable to make the faithful fall into error. According to the brand- new Roman theology, since there is only one head, there cannot be two infallibilities, but only an ex- clusive one, that of the Pope. 2 The manner of exposi- tion adopted by H. E. Cardinal Gibbons is rather of the epoch preceding the Vatican Council. The Fa- thers assembled at 3 Basle and Constance conceived an infallible Church and believed in it, without making any direct mention of the Pope's infallibility. 4 Gal- licanism, so rigorously condemned by the Vatican, thought and believed the same; but he who now- adays would venture to uphold an infallible Church, and in addition an infallible Pope, would break away from the doctrine of the Church. That dualism has constantly been rejected by Romanism. It was after the Vatican Council that the Pope, by his own decree, 5 became the whole Church, sufficient and adequate, and the Church without the Pope, nothing, absolutely noth- * Bertier : Compendium Theologicum de Infallibilitate. Car- dinal Vives : Same head. Casanova : Theologia Fundamen- talis; same head. 8 See canons of both councils by Robracher, Baronio, Rivas and Alzog. *Gallican: Articles attributed to Bossuet, Declarations of the Gallican clergy. "Jaugey; heads, Church and Infallibility. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 8? ing. There exists only one infallibility, that of the Pope, and from him it is communicated to others ; the episcopate, considered collectively, is also infallible in so far as it shares the pope's infallibility by teaching its doctrine and assenting to it. Let His Eminence read the beautiful encyclical of Leo XIII on the unity of the Church. I call it beautiful because the. style could not be more elegant nor the Latin more classical. Would His Eminence have another irrefutable testi- monial that infallibility is a thing of the past, if not taken as the papal infallibility? .Here it is: the first pope to enjoy infallibility as an obligatory dogma furnishes the clearest and most complete one. The Vatican Council was ecumenical, was it not? In it was represented the whole Church. Is not that so? Well, then, please read Pius IX's bull herein trans- lated but reproduced in the appendix in Latin. 7 "If I should die during the celebration of the Council, let the Council be adjourned at the very moment of my death, let all discussion be suspended, let nothing be done, nothing be resolved; and from now, if such an event should occur (my death) by these presents I adjourn the Council. Only after a successor has been elected and he deems it proper, shall the fathers composing the Council resume its labors." The text, as Your Eminence can see, is still more energetic and ample. And in order that no one should believe that such an act referred to that Council only, the Pope ordered that the same 8 be observed always and in per- 6 Leo XIII: Encyclical; De Unitate Ecdesiae (Of the Unity of the Church). 7 Pius IX : Encyclical to the fathers of the Vatican Council. 8 Same Pius IX : Encyclical. 88 ROMAN CATHOLICISM petuity. Now, that was a legitimate and ecumenical Council, that is to say all the Church. In case of death it was not to be said that the Council parted from the Pope, nor that it got away from its spirit and in- structions, for notwithstanding, as Your Eminence sees, it leaves the whole Church, although legitimately as- sembled, entirely incapacitated to resolve anything whatsoever, absolutely nothing, however weighty or urgent the case might be. There is, consequently only one sole infallibility, the single and exclusive one of the Pope. If Your Eminence is not convinced, there is another obvious and very rapid way to proceed. Address to Your Eminence's colleagues, the cardinals, the following question : Besides the infallibility of the Pope, can the Church be considered as infallible? Your reputation and good name being well known in Rome, and your brothers of the hat being most at- tentive to their confreres, they might even answer by telegraph. It may be safely wagered, however, that they will not reply in the sense in which infallibility appears explained in Your Eminence's book. But if you say that in speaking of the infallibility of the Church you mean the personal infallibility of the Pope, then one of the two chapters would be superfluous, and Your Eminence would commit a redundancy that might occasion lamentable misunderstandings, for some might believe that beside an infallible Pope there is also an infallible Church. We have ventured on this remark not only because we think it necessary, but also because it is essential to prosecute the discus- sion within definite limits. When we say that we con- 9 Same Pius IX : Encyclical. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 89 sider the papal infallibility as arbitrary and mislead- ing we refer exclusively to the Pontiff's own person- ality, and in no manner whatever to the Church, con- sidered as an universal collectivity. Whether the Church is or is not infallible, we neither admit nor reject in this work: what we do reject and do not admit is the individual infallibility of the Pope. Syn- thetically, these are the arguments adduced by Roman- ism : 10 Matthew xvi. 16, 17, 18: "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Luke xxii. 31, 32: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat : "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not : and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." John xxi. 15, 16, 17: "So when they had dined Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 10 See Cardinal Gibbons : The Faith of Our Fathers, re- ferring to Primacy and Infallibility of Peter and the Popes. 9O ROMAN CATHOLICISM "He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." Let us examine each and every one of the argu- ments. In the first, a most energetic one, it is most noticeable that although all the evangelists quote the same passage, one only, namely, St. Matthew's, adds the statement mentioned. 11 Connecting the Gospels together it may be deduced as a general rule, that the necessary and fundamental portions are not only re- produced by all the evangelists, but that at times such portions are repeated in the same Gospel. See for instance: The Eucharist, the command to preach the Gospel, the powers granted to the apostles; baptism; the precept on charity; the divinity of Christ. It may at once be asserted, that in all things fundamental to the organization of the Church, we shall find all the evangelists as one, and we shall find many passages on the Divine Word repeated. 12 However, dealing as 11 Compare Matt. xvi. 16 and following, with Mark vii. 29 and following, and Luke ix. 20 and following, and John vi. 69 and xi. 27 and following, with Matt, xvi, before mentioned. "Read the four Gospels, looking up in them any of the points mentioned, and the truth of what we affirm will become evident. For instance : On the Eucharist : Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. Mark xxv. 22 and following. Luke xxii. 19 and following. John vi. 51, I Cor. xi. 23, 24, 2. Qn The Preaching of the CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. QI we are doing here with this most important dogma of the organization of the Church, it is truly surpris- ing to find only one evangelist making reference to so great a doctrine, and that he should be, not Mark, who writes in association with St. Peter, but Matthew. And the surprise increases still more, when we con- sider that all of them relate the dialogue between Jesus and Peter. In all of them Christ inquires concerning the mission that the people attribute to Him ; in all of them Christ questions His apostles as to .what they think of Him, and in all of them Peter answers: "Thou art the Son of God." And while three evan- gelists conclude the passage without adding anything more, one only proclaims the most important of the dogmas. 13 Anyone who reads the Gospels carefully and connects and compares the substantial portions of them, must see in this exception an inexplicable anomaly. 14 It is not surprising that some commenta- tors notwithstanding their faith in the infallibility and inspiration of the Bible, believe that there has been some subsequent interpolation here. 15 We do not venture so far and would rather admit the authenticity of the passage; but the fact that only one evangelist repro- duces it leads us to believe that it is not worthy of the great significance attached to it by Romanism, for if it had such Importance, it seems that all the evan- Gospel: Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 15. Luke xxiv. 47. On Baptism: Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. John iii. 18, 36. Acts ii. 38. On Charity: John xiii. 34. Matt. xxii. 37, 38, 39. Luke x. 27. Mark xii. 35. 18 Read the four Gospels in the places named. 14 Make a test by reading and connecting the Gospels in any important matter. " See Encyclopedia Britannica : Heads, Church and Papacy. 92 ROMAN CATHOLICISM gelists should mention it, as they do the other dogmas and things fundamental. Let us analyze the text: Christ calls Peter blessed, because he confesses His divinity, and that only the Eternal Father would have inspired that confession in him, and as a consequence of such a profession of faith, Christ offers to estab- lish His Church upon Peter (synonym of stone) and adds, besides, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. One cannot believe that anyone would interpret these words so materially as to suppose that Christ promises to establish His Church upon the Apostle Peter, as an ordinary individual like anyone else, but in whom He has discovered something super- natural and divine. If this is not so the passage has no meaning. It is necessary to connect Peter's con- fession with the subsequent promise made by Christ. The latter is the result of the former, and that is the basis of this. The meaning appears, therefore, to be as follows: "Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, because the flesh and the blood did not reveal to thee that I am the son of God, but my heavenly Father, and to thee I say that because thou art believing in that truth thou art a hard rock, and upon it I will establish my Church." Which would be clearly equiv- alent to meaning that Christ promises that the founda- tion upon which He shall raise His Church is the explicit confession to His (Christ's) divinity. 16 He does not refer to anyone personally, only that Peter's confession gives Him an opportunity to expound the foundations on which He will cement His Church, and the reward He wishes to grant to His believers. "Matt. xvi. 17 and following. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 03 This distinction can be seen much more clearly if we pay attention to the words that follow. From them Peter's personality disappears altogether and is sub- stituted by the Church. Christ promises indefectibility not to the person of Peter, but to His Church. 17 The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, not against Peter. Therefore, concerning the personal infallibility of the Pope, far from establishing it, this text shows that the usurpation of it by the popes, as a private and exclusive attribute, is arbitrary and absurd. That the Church does not and cannot possess it, according to the Papacy, is clearly affirmed by Pius IX in the letters quoted above, because, if the Church assembled in General Council could be infal- lible, why render it unfit to discuss, resolve and de- cide? Let, then, this text be carefully examined, and it will be seen that He says nothing about the per- sonal infallibility of the Pontiff, and that the only thing He affirms is that His Church, not the Pope, shall be: that is to say, that Christ granting infalli- bility to the Church, and Pius IX wresting it from the Church in order to concentrate it in the hands of the Papacy, are in flagrant contradiction. Another interpretation can still be given which is attributed to Origen. 18 It is not easy to explain how Christ could establish His Church on any one person but His own, on His own omnipotence and unfailing divinity. Now, when for the first time and most energetically, Peter acknowledges the divinity of Christ, the latter "Same: Chap. xvi. 17, 18. 18 See the work entitled Extract from the Doctrine of Origen and Tertullian, by a Franciscan Father. 94 ROMAN CATHOLICISM avails himself of the occasion to disclose his doctrine. According to this theory the meaning would be : Thou art stone and I, Christ, also, and upon my divinity I will establish my Church. At first sight this inter- pretation seems strained, but when properly analyzed it will be found to be the most correct, since it is the most grammatical, and when it becomes necessary to deduce a probative argument, one has not to seek the mystic nor the accommodating sense, which of them- selves, prove nothing, but confine the question, as far as possible, within the grammatical and the literal sense. According to syntax, if Peter were the stone upon which Christ intended to build His Church, He should have said : upon that stone, and not, upon this stone. The word "this" can only be applied in correct syntax as referring to Christ himself. - The meaning, there- fore, would be: Thou art a stone and I (Christ) am also a stone and upon this (Christ pointing to himself) I will build my Church. In this manner only can be properly explained the use of the pronoun this and not of the pronoun that which is the corresponding one, if the foundation stone of the Church were Peter and not Christ. 20 Read the Vulgata Latina, the only one authentically approved by the Council of Trent, and in which will be found a more exhaustive treat- ment of this question. The following additional con- sideration is well worthy of notice. While the apos- tles do not draw any inference from the nickname "Stone" attributed to Peter, and one would think they would have done so, if it had the meaning subse- 19 See Matt., chapter and verse already mentioned. 20 See the same chapter and verse of the Vulgata Latina. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 95 quently put upon it by Romanism, yet from the date of that dialogue, there has existed a kind of unwhole- some desire to call Christ the foundation stone, 21 the angular stone, the corner stone, the stone of contradic- tion, the smashing stone. All this seems to lead those who sincerely search for the truth to believe that so much eagerness to dub Christ in so many ways as a stone is due to the fact that in that most important passage Jesus referred to Himself and not to Peter. It is worth while to take into account an interpretation backed not only by exact construction, but also cor- roborated by the oft-repeated language and symbol- ism of the apostles. But it is useless to longer dwell on this point since it is as clear as noonday that Christ does not refer in any way to the person of Peter, but to His Church. 22 The last words spoken by Christ to Peter namely: "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven and everything thou dost bind," etc., have no probative force whatever because "quod nimis probat nihil probat" (too much proof proves nothing) is true according to Roman philosophy. Christ says those same words, with the same fullness of meaning, to the other apostles : therefore, if they do not prove in the apostles that Christ grants to them an infallibility transferable to others, they must not prove either that He granted it to Peter; and if on the con- trary they should prove it, good-bye to papal infalli- bility. Perhaps, we will be told there is something He grants to Peter that He does not give to the others : n Matt. xxi. 42, 44. Mark xii. 10. Luke xx. 17. Acts iv. II. Eph. ii. 20. I Peter ii. 6, 7. 22 See Matt. xvi. 17, 18, 19. 8 96 ROMAN CATHOLICISM yes, the keys ! 23 Cardinal Gibbons furnishes the an- swer. The keys, says he, are a symbol of authority, they are a testimony that the authority given is most ample. Therefore, if speaking of Peter he means the symbol and the thing symbolized, and if when speaking of the apostles He grants the thing symbol- ized without the symbol, He neither takes away from the other apostles, nor does He add anything to Peter, for the symbol by itself is nothing, it is the thing sym- bolized that is effective. (St. Matthew, chapter xviii. 1 8.) Perhaps it may be said, Peter alone is spoken of in this case and not the others. The same passage answers itself because Peter was the only one on that occasion to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. 24 If under those circumstances Christ had intended to re- fer to all, He would not have mentioned anything about a corresponding reward, such as He wants to make evident in this case. Thou art the first to acknowledge me as the son of God, to thee first I grant that which in the same manner and on diverse occasions I will grant to the others. On the other hand it is dangerous to strain individual indications. Following that theory we should find in the same chapter that Peter is the worst among the apostles, and comparable to Satan. Follow the maxim wisely set by scholasticism that "quod nimis probat nihil probat" (too much proof proves nothing) and we shall then be able to coordinate individual exclusiv- isms that otherwise would create fatal errors, 25 24 Read Cardinal Gibbons : The Faith of Our Fathers ; chap- ter on Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope. "Read Matt. xvi. 13-19. 26 See Peru jo's Dictionary, ecclesiastical terms and phrases. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 97 Let us, then, discard the first text as a contradiction of proof of the papal infallibility, and see it rather as a great obstacle than a firm support. That was clearly seen by the Vatican Council 26 which attempted prin- cipally to establish the pontifical infallibility in an- other text by the words spoken by Christ: "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not : and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." What a poor opinion must anyone form of certain personalities, who examines this passage with greater fear of error than of ecclesiastical cen- sure; with the irrevocable longing to proclaim the truth, rather than flatter somebody, be that somebody the chief Pontiff ! To invoke this text for the purpose of laying the whole foundation of the papal building, seems to us the grossest absurdity and the most fla- grant contradiction. The papal infallibility is a nega- tive and external prerogative, not an internal and posi- tive one ; it means only that while the Pope teaches the world as a universal doctor, he cannot communicate 2Z error. This is so much so that the majority of theolo- gians 28 suppose that infallibility may be compatible with an internal infidelity of the Pope ; that is to say, a Pope may be an occult heretic and yet continue be- ing Pope and infallible, since that is an outward privi- lege and one beneficial to the Church: consequently, 38 See Vatican Council: De Fide (Faith). "Jaugey^: Heads, Infallibility, Pope. Cardinal Gibbons: Book mentioned, chapter referring to Infallibility of the Pope. 28 St. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio : Theologicals, chapter the Pope. Apologetic Dictionary of Faith, under heads already mentioned. 98 ROMAN CATHOLICISM infallibility is incompatible with an external loss of faith. Outwardly, the Pope cannot teach error. Now, can that passage mean such a thing? When does Christ utter those words? 29 Doubtless long before His most cruel Passion. Did Christ then, promise to Peter that external faith should not fail him? In that case His promise proved false, for did not Peter deny Christ? and was not his denial an act of infidelity? It does not avail to say that internally he continued to believe, because this only entangles and complicates the question for the Romanists themselves. Have we not agreed that infallibility is external and not internal? Do you not affirm that the Pope can break faith internally but not externally? Do you not say Christ granted to Peter that external pre- rogative when He uttered those words? Therefore, one of three things must be evident : either this state-, ment was made after the Passion, which amounts to contradicting the evangelists, who distinctly claim the contrary ; or Christ made a mistake, which is blas- phemous ; or those words must have another meaning. This is an example of the inexplicable proceedings of the Romanists to get into the good graces of their papal idol, by whom they seem to be possessed: they do not hesitate to make Christ contradict Himself. To deny that Peter was unfaithful to Christ would be heresy ; to affirm that Christ made a promise to Peter that He did not keep would be blasphemous; there- fore, no room is left for any other meaning, than the literal and obvious one, but not the contradictory and a * See Luke xxii. 31 and following. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 99 arbitrary one of the Romanists. 30 Christ foresaw Judas' apostasy, Peter's denial and the other apostles' scandals; He saw Judas horror-stricken at his crime, dying in despair, and Satan trying to plunge Peter into the same abyss and to confuse the other apostles ; but Christ prays for Peter and succeeds in saving him from utter loss that he may repent and live ; and as he better than anyone else was to feel the truth of His prophecy, and the sweetness of His mercy, recommends him to strengthen the others. Let us translate the passage on antecedents and consequents : "Peter, Peter, Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift you as wheat ; he has succeeded with Judas and thou hast run great danger, but I have prayed for thee and although thou wilt be unfaithful to me, thou shalt not be altogether lost, but shall become converted and do penance for thy sin ; when this happens thou better than anyone else shalt feel that what I am saying is the truth; for my prophecy shall be accomplished in thee; endeavor to strengthen the others that walk astray and hesitate." What is there in this translation not clear, well established and in harmony with the literal sense, given the antecedents and consequents? Therefore, why throw doubt upon the infallibility of Christ's promise if not to infer as a consequence the personal one of the Pope? The second argument is thus thrown out of the discussion, because to interpret it as the Romanists do, would be heresy or blasphemy. That which "nlmis probat nihil probat" proves, then, 80 Read the Gospels, ch'apters referring to the Passion, and connect them with each other. See also John xyii. 9 and fol- lowing, and it will be seen how He prays in a similar manner for all His apostles and disciples, IOO ROMAN CATHOLICISM nothing as to personal infallibility. We will now ex- amine the third and last biblical text. Christ after His resurrection in conversing with Peter and the apostles, spoke in this manner: "Simon, lovest thou me?" etc. Says Romanism: Here Christ by recommending to Peter to tend His lambs and His sheep, places faith- ful and bishops under his pastoral jurisdiction. The former are represented by the lambs, and the latter by the sheep.? 1 It is probable that Cardinal Gibbons has not forgotten that the mystic meaning is an excellent one to edify the faithful, an admirable one to display oratorical talent, and to write brilliant discourses, but extremely poor and insufficient for the deduction of demonstrative argument. 32 Only in case another in- spired writer deduces and determines the same, can the mystic types have any demonstrative efficacy. And where has Cardinal Gibbons discovered that by lamb is to be understood the merely faithful, and by sheep the bishop? In which passage of the Gospel does he find the classification and separation of those types? Which apostle determined it in his writings? Let him not say to us that that is so understood by the Roman Church, because such an answer to us would be equiva- lent to saying nothing. That would be begging the question which we are not disposed to admit. We need an inspired passage, some authentic testimony. 33 That Christ may be called shepherd and His Church a 81 See Vigouroux : Biblical Manual, Rules of Exegesis. Pat- rizi, Schouppe: same head. Comely: Biblical Meanings. Lobera : same head. 82 Add to the authors named the Apologetic Dictionary of Faith, under head, Exegesis. 83 John x. 14. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. IOI sheepfold, we do find in St. John. But that for lamb must be understood the merely faithful, and by sheep the bishops, we have not found anywhere. What we have found in St. John is that sheep is synonym with the merely faithful. 34 "I have other sheep that it is necessary to bring to the fold." Here Christ speaks of the faithful in general, and let not Cardinal Gib- bons forget it He calls them sheep. 35 The shepherd that tends one hundred sheep and loses one leaves the ninety-nine behind and goes in search of the stray one. Here He speaks of the sinner in general and also calls him sheep. Where, then, is the passage in which he says that by sheep must be understood bishop, and not the merely faithful? Wherefore seek for ab- struse meanings, when the literal translation is so clear and so evident? Thou lovest me, Peter, there- fore preach my gospel, convert the people and by that means show me thy love. Thou thinkest to love me more than the others, preach then more than they do, for love is in the deeds, not in good words. But it may be asked, Why that preference in ad- dressing Peter and not the others? Because Peter by his impulsiveness, by his years, appears perhaps more conspicuous. That may also be the reason why Christ's reproaches are addressed to him. 36 If the second circumstance demonstrates nothing against him, neither does the first prove anything in his favor. None of the three "biblical arguments bears out the claims of Romanism: the first because it refers to its 84 John x. 1 6. S5 Matt. xvii. 12. See also Matt. x. 6 and xv. 24. 30 Matt. xvi. 23. IO2 ROMAN CATHOLICISM Church and not to Peter; the second because it is based on a false supposition, the third because it is an allegory that demonstrates nothing. Your Eminence can see that the free interpretation of the Bible is good for something. It serves at least to undermine and to demolish the shaky foundations on which it is sought to implant that of the Vatican. Against the doctrine of the despots of old, there was only one set- back, revolution; against Roman despotism there is only one barricade, namely: Biblical revolution, free interpretation of the Divine Word assisted by the help of Christ so many times promised to the faithful until the end of time. 37 This is the last means left to save religion. That centralism proclaimed by Your Eminence as a divine panacea, as an unequivocal proof of life and progress, is looked upon (and an effort made to demonstrate it in another chapter) as an in- dubitable sign of ruin, as a sure mark of approaching death. As a rule, centralization and tyranny are the last conclusions of decayed and senile power. Well understood liberty and independence are, according to reason, the dawn of all progressive and lasting civiliza- tion. Let us look into the sociologic theological argu- ments : These may be considered as Cardinal Gibbons' favorite themes. 38 If we are not mistaken in our reckonings, he has thrice adduced the same argument on the necessity of a central power, of a supreme authority, final, similar to any human assembly or 37 See Matt., last chapter and last verse. Read also Matt, vii. 7, 8; xxi. 22. Mark xi. 24. Luke xi. 9, 10. John xiv. 13, 14. James i. 5, 6. 38 Cardinal Gibbons : Chapter already mentioned. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. IOJ government. This argument is unquestionably sensa- tional, of a kind to appeal to the irreverent masses; and forsooth to the literary classes as well, if they should not possess a deep philosophical and theological foundation. On the other hand this argument boasts the glorification of a most astounding success. 39 At the last lamentable sitting preceding the vote on in- fallibility, the last speaker was the then Bishop of Cuenca, H. E. Sr. Paya, and his most eloquent dis- course is precisely based on variations upon the same theme that Cardinal Gibbons so much likes to handle. If he should publish another edition of his popular book, we would recommend it to His Eminence. 40 The most trustworthy chroniclers of Romanism say, that it called for embracements and even kisses from the Pontiff. History adds that he passed from Cuenca, one of the poorest and smallest dioceses in Spain, to the vast and prosperous Santiago, in Galicia, where later he received the capels, and died as Primate of Spain. I might say as much of the famous and im- mortal Dupanloup, and many more things concerning the impartiality and liberty in which Romanism left its defenders and accusers. But let us not touch super- ficially on a subject to which we intend devoting an entire chapter. What we wish to assert at this time, is that the testimonies before mentioned are taken from the rabid Romanist, the indefatigable controvert- ist, the lasher of liberals and Protestants in Spain, the illustrious priest, Mateos Gagos, on whom we rely 39 Read Address of H. E. Sr. Paya : On Infallibility. 40 Read Father Mateos Gagos : Chronicle of the Vatican Council, IO4 ROMAN CATHOLICISM principally for our history of that eventful and turbu- lent council. Listen, Cardinal Gibbons ! he appears to say : Why do you wonder at the central power of the Vatican? 41 Why are you smitten with the infalli- bility of the Pontiff? Have you not a president in every republic? Have you not a king in every mon- archy? Have you not in every well organized gov- ernment, supreme courts, whose decisions are final? Why then refuse to the Church, that is a most per- fect social organization, what other societies possess, whatever their degree of imperfection might be? Let us proceed slowly, as the scholastic would say. Your Eminence will permit me to state that in good exegesis, allegorical argument demonstrates nothing trustworthy ; 42 in good philosophy and sound theology, arguments of similitude and analogy throw light upon, illustrate and corroborate what has already been proved, but do not demonstrate what has to be proved. By whose authority does Your Eminence deduce, that because civil governments have central powers and supreme courts, the Catholic Church should also pos- sess them? Have you received some inspiration or mandate from heaven to make such a proclamation? If the Baptists, taking the Gospel as their standpoint, would reply: Jesus Christ knew the Roman organi- zation and the Hebrew organization; He knew that the empire and the synagogue had supreme courts, and yet when He speaks to His apostles of the organi- 41 See Cardinal Gibbons : Chapter mentioned. 42 See Melchor Cano: Lugares Teologicos (Theological Places). See Casanova: Teologia Fundamental, Introduc- cion (Fundamental Theology); Jaugey: Apologetic Diction- ary of Faith; head, Proof, CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. TO5 zation of His Church He says to them: 43 "Beware of the leaven of the Roman and of the leaven of the Pharisee, your society must be different; in the im- perial, and the synagogical, there are haughty persons and masters, in mine I do not wish for any such." 44 If the Baptists argued thus, I say, what answer could be made to them? For their argument has the ad- vantage of being biblical, while Your Eminence has the disadvantage of being antibiblical. But let us gratuitously assume that the comparison is good, that the Church is a society identical with the civil society, and that since the latter has a central authority, the former must also have one, and that if the latter has supreme and final courts, the former must also have them. Should we then have advanced anything towards the personal infallibility of the Pope ? Alas ! Cardinal Gibbons ! must we forget the logic which we learned in our school days ? 43 One of the most important rules of syllogism, is that the con- clusion must never be greater than the premises. The only possible consequence would be this: that there must, therefore, exist a central authority and a su- preme tribunal identical with those existing in the civil powers. But Your Eminence has seen that some of these powers, although called final, assume the pre- rogative of infallibility. Has Your Eminence ever known a president so foolish, or a king so stupid as to 43 Mark vii. 15. Matt. xvi. 6. 44 Connect together the following passages : Mark ix. and following, and Matt. x. 43; xx. 26, 27, and xxiii. u. 45 See Cardinal Zigliara : Filosofia Tomista (Thomist Phi- losophy) ; book I : Rules of Syllogism. Gonzales : Same head. 106 ROMAN CATHOLICISM say : "I am infallible because there is no appeal from me?" Does not Your Eminence believe that both presi- dent and kings are liable to error, although there is practically no appeal from them ? Does not Your Emi- nence believe, that if after pronouncing a judgment, they became fully satisfied, by the evidence, that they had committed a mistake, and that their mistake might have fatal consequences, they would not correct their mistake and alter their decision? Have we not the recent example of France? Now if Your Eminence considers infallibility identical with finality, and nothing more, then Your Eminence is one of us, and I would at once proclaim Your Eminence Pope, and kiss as a sign of submission, not your sandal, which I would consider humiliating, but your pas- toral ring. That a certain kind of argument only is permitted in Rome, where Vaticanism exercises a paramount in- fluence over ecclesiastics; that another kind of argu- ment cannot be published in Latin Europe, where Roman excommunication, like the terrible Hercules' club, still presses down in a horrible manner upon the conscience and the human intelligence, one familiar with the conditions there existing, can understand and explain to himself. But here in this country of true freedom, an essentially progressive and expanding nation, a state where all legitimate and rational inde- pendence is looked upon with approval, instead of fear or apprehension, a region where the "ensemble" of doctrines has given rise to the ecclesiastical term "Americanism," redeeming synthesis of modern reli- gious societies j here, be it said, one cannot under- CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. IO7 stand or explain the exposition of certain doctrines. Still "Unusquisque in sensu suo spondet" (Let every one do as he pleases). Let it be recorded that neither the Bible, nor so- ciologic theology, demonstrates the personal infalli- bility of- the Pope. Can this be demonstrated by apos- tolic or sub-apostolic testimony? This will be the sub- ject of the next chapter. CHAPTER X. DO THE ACTS OF PETER AND THE CONDUCT OF THE OTHER APOSTLES AFFIRM OR DENY THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE? IN order to avoid useless digressions, it is well to clearly establish at the outset, the meaning involved in the double title of this chapter. If Christ granted infallibility to Peter in a solemn manner and in the presence of the other apostles, Peter should be the first to be persuaded of that ex- traordinary prerogative. His words and acts must therefore harmonize with that persuasion. This must be applied and understood in such a way, that if we should find any passage in which Peter had to exer- cise the said privilege, but failed to do so, we should at once have a most powerful argument for denying his infallibility. For, merely an erroneous definition coming from one Pope, would demolish the infalli- bility of all of them, according to the Romans them- selves. 1 And so also in any single passage, in which Peter spoke and acted, as if he did not possess such a valuable gift, it would be more than sufficient reason to deny, or at least to question, the infallibility of *Read Jaugey: Infalibilidad (Infallibility). Read Casa- nova : Fundamental Theology. Read Perrone : De la Verda- dera Religion (True Religion). Read The Church and the Pope. Read Hettinger: Same head. Any of the Roman theologians will confirm this statement. (108) CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. ICX) Peter, whenever we are dealing with cases or oc- casions in which he should invoke his said infallibility, to determine or decide them. The apostles would act in like manner, since they are the ear-witnesses to the concession and magnificent privilege granted to Peter by Christ. They must, therefore, be the principal be- lievers in the said infallibility, they must be the first to respect and revere it, they must be the first teachers to convey it to the new people. If they did not act thus, and we should find that in their preaching and behavior they proceeded as though they knew noth- ing of such a privilege, we would then have sufficient cause to question its existence. And if we should find only one passage, only one word, only one act on the part of the apostles contrary to such infalli- bility, then we would not only be justified in doubting such infallibility, but also in roundly denying it. Either of these three declarations, if not admitted as good by our opponents, places them in contradiction either with the most fundamental rules of sound criti- cism, or with the main principles of their history and theology. 2 The Romanists must never forget that they have always to prove, on every necessary occasion, that infallibility did accomplish and does accomplish everything ; and that to us, on the contrary, one single word from the apostolic times, one single act of the apostles contradicting that prerogative, is more than sufficient reason to demolish it. In return, we admit, and this will show the sincerity of our arguments, that if Peter and the other apostles spoke and acted as if 'Jaugey: Head, Critics and its Principle. Read the his- torians Rohrbacher, Rivas, etc. IIO ROMAN CATHOLICISM such infallibility did exist, then we would be the first to respect it, because being moved as they were by the Holy Ghost in all their acts, the idea of their erring would be conflicting. 3 A similar consideration must be applied when dealing with the immediate success- ors of the apostles, with only this exception: that the arguments based on sayings and acts of the latter, would carry divine and irrefutable authority, whereas the arguments of the others would carry only human and controvertible authority. The question being thus put with all loyalty and frankness, we will now ex- amine it, beginning with the conduct observed by Peter himself. We select precisely the same Chapter xv of the Acts of the Apostles ; and with deep regret we must again invite the attention of the most learned primate or pontifical delegate of North America. We may, perhaps, be mistaken, but the manner in which Cardinal Gibbons narrates what happened at the cele- brated Jerusalem Council may lead into error those who have not read the whole of Chapter xv, but are contented with the mutilated portion of it, as presented by Cardinal Gibbons. 4 Reading the passage as stated by H. E. the Cardinal, there would appear to have occurred some discussion before Peter spoke; that Peter alone rises to speak, and that after listening to him, they all remain silent, and Peter's motion is car- ried in his sole name, and under his exclusive re- sponsibility, without anyone else speaking. Now, Your Eminence, when a Romanist of your rank de- clares in your own words, that you imbibed her doc- 'Jaugey: Head, Revelation. * Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, p. 127. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. Ill trine with your mother's milk, and made her history and theology the study of your life, and present to us, as proof of infallibility a garbled chapter, when that chapter taken in its entirety, states exactly the con- trary, the stock of proofs must be very scanty indeed, else you would not have recourse to such deficient and contradictory means. I presume your Bible to be as complete as mine. Let us, then, continue reading from that celebrated chapter. Then (after Peter spoke) all the multitude was silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul (two others who spoke after Peter), who related all the miracles and marvels per- formed by God through them, among the Gentiles. And after these had spoken the multitude becomes silent again, in the same manner as they did when Peter spoke; St. James (a third apostle, who speaks, and who does seem to be the true Pontiff, by the tone of his language, unlike that of the humble Peter's) answered by saying: "Men and brethren, listen to me," etc. (we will later copy his doctrine in full). As Cardinal Gibbons can see, it is not Peter alone who speaks, but also Barnabas, Paul and St. James, who, speaking later, do not suppose the matter entirely settled by Peter. Now, according to a prudential maxim of canonical law, in great councils and col- lective decisions, in order that the junior dignitaries may not appear as though restrained, and may express their opinion with entire freedom, they are granted the privilege of speaking and deciding first, for if they did so after the seniors, the prestige of the latter might curtail the independence of the former. 5 According to 'Read Bouix: Canon Law (De Jure Canonico). Read 9 112 ROMAN CATHOLICISM this maxim, Peter appears of minor importance, hav- ing been the first to speak, while St. James, who spoke last, is favored. When we examine the language of the two, we shall arrive at the same conclusion. For that reason we cannot recover from our astonishment at the fact that a man of Cardinal Gibbons' character, an American prelate of his reputation and prestige, and one possessed of his vast enlightenment, should employ the same methods of demonstrating infalli- bility, .as those used by the fictitious and decadent Romanists. What a disenchantment the reading of his book has been to me! What a bitter disillusion! What a blow to the belief that in America I would find prelates of the tenacity of the immortal Cardinal New- man, who, notwithstanding the declaration of infalli- bility, dared to face the wrath and storm of the Vatican by denying such documents of Pius IX as "The Sylla- bus," which document is recognized as one of the most important of the Romanists'. 6 Imagine, as I say, my disappointment and disenchantment in coming to America from Europe, where one sees everything in religious circles corroded, where decay invades all, from the tiara to the village curate, where senility and moral looseness adorn themselves with the showy drapery of submission and virtue, where prevails an eagerness to praise and flatter individuals rather than telling the truth, the whole truth, thereby being able the better to enjoy the power of mere sordid wealth to find, alas, in America, the far-famed home of true Bouix: De Jura Regulari (Regular Law). Read Bouix: Head, Reuniones Defmitoriales. "Jaugey: Head, Syllabus. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 113 liberty (where the enlightened pioneers who conceived and systematized the doctrinal compendium termed "Americanism," 7 must be of another way of thinking), that the classical book on religion, the one authorized by the signature of the greatest prestige, is not only an echo of the most rabid Romanism, but one not pos- sessing even the merit of the crafty art, and seductive cunning of European Vaticanism. But let us return to the subject. What is the teaching that springs in the clearest manner from Chapter xv of the Acts of the Apostles ? To anyone reading it carefully and im- partially, that which strikes the eye without even seek- ing, is that all those blessed pioneers believed in every- thing, excepting in Peter's infallibility ; everything was conducted and everything was determined upon, as if Peter had been one of their number, nay, even, as if Peter had been in fact inferior to St. James. Let the Bible speak for us, since its language is most clear and convincing. ''And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." Pray observe, Car- dinal Gibbons, that Paul and Barnabas go to Jeru- salem not to see Peter alone, but also the apostles and elders. To proceed: "And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: 7 Read Encyclical of Leo XIII about Americanism. 114 ROMAN CATHOLICISM and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and the,y declared all things that God had done with them." Pray, listen to it, cardinal : they were received not by Peter alone, but by the Church and by the apostles and by the elders. Let us continue: "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and the elders came together for to consider of this matter." Let not Cardinal Gibbons forget: they assembled to resolve upon a question, not with Peter alone, which sufficed had he been infallible, but with the apostles and the elders. Proceeding: "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us : And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe, that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence." Pray notice, Cardinal, the tone in which Peter speaks, explains, relates and enquires like anybody else; he neither decides, nor judges, as he should do if he him- self had believed in his own infallibility. Let us read CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 115 further. "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what mir- acles and wonders God had wrought among the Gen- tiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the proph- ets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gen- tiles are turned to God : But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sab- bath day." This apostle does speak the language proper to the future Roman Pontiff : and while Peter, enquires and explains, he judges and decides ; while the humble and weak Peter (does not Your Eminence feel offended at the treatment given to Peter by the same Holy Ghost through Paul's lips?) 8 does not de- cide or rule upon anything definite, St. James rules and determines that those of Antioch must be written to, and dictates exactly the sense in which to write 8 Read Galatians i and ii. Il6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM to them. Well, now ! "Aliquando bonus dorm it at Ho- mcrus" (The wisest will commit mistakes). To quote Chapter xv as a proof of the Pope's personal infalli- bility is, Your Eminence, as ridiculous, as if I were to quote Louis XIV's bon mot, "L'Etat c'est moi" (I am the state), to substantiate the principles of the French Revolution ! Let us close the chapter because the whole of it is the most explicit condemnation of the individual infallibility of the Pontiffs. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas ; namely, Judas sur- named Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren." Let Cardinal Gibbons comment upon these words: Peter, as the infallible, does not appear at all; it is the apostles, the elders, the whole Church of Jerusalem, who resolve to send ambassadors to Antioch. Here follows a copy of the resolutions : "And they wrote letters by them after this manner ; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia : "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, sub- verting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such com- mandment : "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul : "Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 1 1/ "We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these neces- sary things ; "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from for- nication : from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. "So when they were dismissed, they came to An- tioch: and when they had gathered the multitude to- gether, they delivered the epistle : "Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." What conclusion does Your Eminence reach, con- sidering that Peter, as the infallible one, should have been the man to head and sign the letter, but instead, it is headed and signed by all ? While the Holy Ghost, according to Romanism, should have become asso- ciated with Peter only, it joins the whole, and the name of Peter appears nowhere. When it should have been Peter's doctrine copied in the letter, it is the doctrine decided upon and chosen by St. James that is transcribed and sent. Can a greater denial be given to the infallibility of the Popes than that thrown out by the Jerusalem Council? Let us summarize the doctrine scattered over preceding pages. If infallibility were a gift made by Christ to Peter, in a solemn manner, and in the presence of the apos- tles, they and Peter should have been the first to be- lieve in it, and on the solemn occasion of that first council, it should have appeared and shone resplendent Il8 ROMAN CATHOLICISM as the sun, clear as the light of day. But in that council the said infallibility effectually suffers a first and total rebuke. Peter instead of playing the char- acter of the infallible, explains and enquires, speaks first instead of speaking last ; contra, St. James, instead of speaking as the inferior of Peter, speaks as if he were the true teacher and judge : it is he who decides what has to be done and how it is to be done. Finally, instead of Peter alone confirming the resolution, as he should do by virtue of his infallible authority, they all sign together as equal judges, possessing equal power and jurisdiction. There is nothing, therefore, in Chap- ter xv of the Acts of the Apostles to demonstrate or corroborate the individual infallibility of the Popes, but much and a very great deal to deny it in the clear- est and most negative manner. If anyone after read- ing the whole chapter referred to in its entirety, still believes that it contains any proof, by which the pre- tended pontifical prerogative of infallibility can be de- fended, he should not be surprised at his believing also, any day, that the Pope is not a human being but some divinity, a belief already entertained by a few, according to Cardinal Gibbons, a statement which does him so much harm. We consider the first more irra- tional and illogical than the second. But to continue : we have two letters from St. Peter himself, three from St. John, one from St. James, yet another from Jude, and also the Apocalypse. Do those writings say any- thing concerning that important prerogative ? Is there any passage in them intimating to the faithful that Peter and his successors possess the extraordinary grace of infallibility? Is it not evident to Your Emi- CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. nence that that well designed silence speaks most elo- quently against it? They apprehend and even see be- fore them, the coming heresy, that with its machina- tions and arguments, it may upset everything; but if they believed that in the "Apostolic See" 9 there would always be a trustworthy oracle of the Holy Ghost, does not Your Eminence think they were under the obligation to say to their followers: "Though error and schism supervene, fear not, because when that happens you will have a sure means, the surest chan- nel, toward the truth ; you will need only to look to the 'Roman See' and there find always a luminous beacon that through wrecks and disasters can guide you to a safe port; consult and follow the Roman Pontiff: by doing so, you will imitate the doctrine of the Holy Ghost"? If such a prerogative was known to them, was it not a crime not to teach it, when they could, at one stroke and forever, have killed all controversy among the truly faithful, by simply proclaiming the infallibility of the Pontiffs? If this had been a heav- enly gift, was it not their most sacred duty to make that fact known, for the good of the Church? Your Eminence's exclamation, made in the midst of the twentieth century, must have been also the apostles' exclamation. Oh! what great happiness for Catholi- cism to have an infallible tribunal ! 10 always at hand and for all necessary purposes ! To be always certain that by following it, we are on the path of truth ! Is "Acts xx. 29, 30. Matt. vii. 15; xxiv. 5, II, 24. Mark xiii. 22. Rom. xvi. I/. Eph. v. 6. Col. ii. 8. Peter ii. i, 2, 3. 10 Read Cardinal Gibbons: The Faith of Our Fathers, the Supremacy and Infallibility of Popes, specially; page 162. I2O ROMAN CATHOLICISM it possible to obtain greater consolation or greater happiness ? That should have been the first and fundamental teaching of the apostles, since it was a most neces- sary one to preserve the unity and to destroy every heresy in its cradle. Therefore, if they remained silent, that was a terrible argument against infalli- bility. But if, in exchange, the other apostles say nothing against infallibility, we have St. Paul, whose language and behavior are uniformly against it. Let us see. Here, again, we must draw Cardinal Gibbons' atten- tion to the point ; but let him not think that we say so for oratorical effect. In Europe we entertained such a high opinion of his practical knowledge and lofty attainments; we heard such encomiums from author- ized spokesmen, so daring, according to the best inter- pretation of this adjective, that on our way here, we imagined we were going to find in his writings the needed light, solace and encouragement to undertake our great work of demolishing the Vatican idol, our profound conviction being that either he must be wiped out, or the Latin Church will disappear, swallowed up by him, in the same way as, according to the Bible, Moloch used to swallow up his victims. For that reason we feel truly vexed in having to impeach the man whom we previously admired and applauded. But our axiom is the one so frequently adduced in scholasticism, namely : Amicus Plato sed magis arnica veritas (a friend to Plato but a greater friend to truth). Says Cardinal Gibbons: "It matters little that Peter should think different from Paul, on a ques- CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 121 tion that was finally settled by the Church " in favor of the latter and against the former, because this be- ing a disciplinary matter, Peter might make a mistake and Paul's censures mean nothing." May we ask, What can Cardinal Gibbons understand by disciplinary questions? We are fairly acquainted with the cur- riculum, and our opinion is, that the matter under dis- cussion was something more than a disciplinary one. The first verse of the famous Chapter xv does not assume that that question was limited solely to the circumstantial act of circumcision, but it comprises also the fulfillment of the entire old law. When Peter speaks of it, one understands also that he refers to the obligation of keeping, or not, all the old law. Paul explicitly states that the circumcised undertake to keep the whole law. 12 Let Your Eminence read the passages mentioned and you will see how evident this is. And that great question of whether or no 13 the entire law must be kept. Your Eminence simply calls that ques- tion a mere disciplinary one ! A fine way of evading the point, indeed ! By the same proceeding, any Ro- manist could soon find arguments to prove that the majesty of the Most Holy Trinity is purely and sim- ply a matter of worship, a subject of discipline. But let us suppose that the question is nothing more than a disciplinary one. Does Your Eminence expect with that to untie the Gordian knot of the objection? Not so, Your Eminence. The question remains standing. Is Your Eminence aware that on matters of general dis- 11 Read Cardinal Gibbons : Same book, page 128. 12 Gal. xv. 3. "Acts xv. i, 10. 122 ROMAN CATHOLICISM cipline the Pope must also be infallible ? 14 Please refer to the Romanist authors quoted in the notes, the flower and the cream of Romanist theology, and you will see how the infallibility of the Popes includes also every question on general discipline. And what point more general can there be, than to determine if all and every Christian must keep, or need not keep, the law of Moses ! Can Your Eminence imagine any other more general disciplinary doctrine? Therefore, even on the hypothesis of being a disciplinary question, which we do not admit, according to Roman theology it would come under the jurisdiction of the pontifical infallibility, and for that very reason, a single mistake made by any one Pope could be enough to destroy the entire structure raised to uphold it. Now what does the Bible say on this disturbing controversy? Listen 15 to Paul, the oracle of the Holy Ghost. "Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead). "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Let us see what Paul, inspired by Jesus Christ, says about poor Peter. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 Read Schouppe : Compendium Theologicum de Inf allibili- tate. Read Cardinal Vives : Same head. Read Casanova and Hettinger: Same head. Read Jaugey: Head, Infallibility. 16 Galatians. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 123 "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I per- secuted the Church of God, and wasted it : "And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in my own nation, being more exceedingly zeal- ous of the traditions of my fathers. . . . "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. "For, before that certain came from James, he did eat with t'he Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him ; in so much that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'* Poor Peter! What hast thou come to with all the infallibility laid on thy shoulders? Thou art being whipped round like a top. On the one hand the impetuous and acrimonious Paul resists thee, 15 and even injures thee ; and on the other, fearing the censure of St. James, notwithstanding thy infallibility, thou goest about crestfallen and timorous. Without doubt thy infallibility must have been different from thy suc- cessor's, Pius IX, for while thou goest about subdued by opposite factions, thy successor, adapting a famous 15 Gal. ii. 11-14. 124 ROMAN CATHOLICISM phrase, says : "I am the Church, 16 without me you are nothing." While thou, Peter, didst now listen to some, then to others, acknowledging the right of everyone, thy sublime successor, Pius IX, without consideration of any kind, as Cromwell dismissed the English Par- liament, says to the full council of venerable heads of the Church : "If I die, close the doors and go to your homes." 17 It seems incredible that Cardinal Gibbons should take seriously the other indications as to Paul consulting Peter, when in the same epistle and almost in the same breath he emphatically says, that he con- siders as three pillars of strength, not St. Paul alone, but also St. James and St. John, that is to say, that for Paul there was nothing in Peter, that St. James and St. John did not have. Let us conclude this long and tedious matter, by stating what is evident, that neither Peter nor the apostles knew anything of what is now a dogma of faith in Romanism, under the name of papal infallibility. 18 Read Encyclical of Pius IX to the Fathers of the Vatican Council. 17 Read the same as cited on No. 16. CHAPTER XL DID THE SUB-APOSTOLIC FATHERS BELIEVE IN THE POPE'S INFALLIBILITY? ACCORDING to Romanistic theology, the truth of the revelation was entirely closed and termi- nated with the death of the apostles. 1 From that time no one can add the smallest thing to the revealed doctrine. The only thing that can be done is, to de- velop and illustrate the revelations, to corroborate and synthetize them by reasoning and compilations; but whoever should venture to add to the truths revealed, would become guilty of blasphemy and heresy. The Pope himself, notwithstanding the divine prerogative of infallibility attributed to him by Romanism, holds no higher rank in this question than the most ordinary man. 2 Neither the common people nor the learned teachers nor the venerable bishops, nor the Ecumenical Councils, nor the sovereign Pontiff can increase the ensemble of the principles revealed. Having been de- termined for all time by the apostles, so they shall re- main until the end of the world. As a consequence of this most important doctrine, the following evident 1 Read Cardinal Gibbons : Chap. II. Read Schouppe : Theologia Dogmatica De Revelatione. Read Cardinal Vives : Same head. 2 Cardinal Gibbons : Chap. II. Hettinger : Theologia Fun- damental. Casanova : Same head. Jaugey : Revelacion y Doctrina de la Iglesia. (125) 126 ROMAN CATHOLICISM conclusion can be deduced: Suppose that all the Fa- thers together, in a clear and unequivocal manner, proclaim the infallibility of the Pope ; that by the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, this belief were admitted and recognized by all and everyone; would that be any gain toward proclaim- ing the infallibility of the Pontiff? No, none what- ever. On the assumption that the apostles themselves did not believe in such a prerogative, they could not have transmitted it to their immediate successors, the Fathers, therefore, on the latter teaching, a purely human doctrine, instead of a divine one, that teaching could not be added to the truth of the revelation, since the latter, by unanimous consent, came to an end at the very moment of the apostles' death. 3 Consistently with those shining and fundamental principles, we might consider the question of infallibility as closed with the last words of the preceding chapter. We might say, and our argument would be most correct, according to Roman theology, if the apostles, far from believing in the infallibility, ignored it and acted as if willing to reject it, this was because it did not exist, and would never have existed. We would rather, however, out of courtesy to Cardinal Gibbons, accom- pany him in his investigation through the centuries and question the Fathers with him. We will listen to what those venerable heads have to say concerning so singular a privilege. We will enquire into whether those enlightened teachers are more considerate toward 8 Read same author as above and also Melchor Cano : De Locis Theologicis de Ecclesia. P. Fernandez: Same head. Hurter : Same head. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 12? infallibility than were the apostles, who in truth had for it neither regard nor respect. S. Clement I, fourth Pope and third successor of Peter, is the first witness who appears worthy of serious consideration, since he is a wise and holy Pope. I recall that in my school- days I used to look on this renowned head almost as an apostle ; with simple faith I believed that his testi- mony concerning papal infallibility was most im- pressive and irrefutable. How my views have changed since reaching mature age ! How many bitter disillu- sions have I not suffered every time I have had to apply, instead of the false Roman doctrine, the reason and conscience given to all by God Almighty, and according to which we shall be judged ! How many wasted illusions ! How many hopes defrauded ! How many and what painful shocks to coordinate what conscience taught in a positive manner, with what the Roman faith proclaims as infallible ! What a horrible disenchantment, when, notwithstanding the most su- preme efforts, I beheld issuing forth one with the other and growing larger and larger every day the incompatibility on papal questions! What desolating conflicts, when there was no other option but to choose one or the other ! What rending perplexities to realize that it was necessary, compulsory even, to reject one of the two, under penalty of losing both! Alas! he who has not experienced this kind of torture, does not yet know what it is to suffer! He who has not faced spiritual battles knows not the most fruitful source of pain and bitterness ! I would rather a thou- sand times disappear from existence than to be seared again with such a horrible Calvary. For that reason, 10 128 ROMAN CATHOLICISM every time mention is made of Clement the Roman, there rushes to my brain in furious confusion a tor- rent of pricking memories. It was the first pillar to be demolished at my feet, and in his fall I saw the whole Roman structure totter to the ground. That is to say: the spiritual home, in which I had grown and studied, in which I hoped to remain until the coming of the Lord, in which I had concentrated all my tenderest affection, and in which I had placed all my consolation and all my ambitions ! The expa- triated suffers nothing in comparison to the anguish experienced when I was compelled to say : "Loves of former times, away with ye, ye are not legitimate. Hopes of former times, ye are false. Joys of yore, ye also are fictitious." The fate of the shipwrecked mariner is not sadder for losing his chart and com- pass, and being engulfed, than was mine, to see the previously shining beacon of pontifical infallibility, vanish before the advancing darkness which was to surround and absorb me ; to feel the abyss yawn at my feet, myself on the brink of plunging into the bottom- less chaos of despair! God Almighty, Thou knowest that I prevaricate not, nor exaggerate. Thou didst see more than once the burning and terrible tears of distress bathe my cheeks ! Thou didst witness that during whole weeks I went about disconsolate, like a man deprived of reason, without the sustenance of life or restoring sleep! Blessed be Thou a thousand times, for Thy help and comfort during that fearful battle ! Blessed be Thou a thousand times because Thou didst bring solace to my spirit and peace to my con- science ! Blessed be Thou a thousand times for teach- CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 129 ing me to live in Thy universal Church, without any need of Romanism ; to invoke and believe in Thy name and Thy doctrine, without the fabulous Romish stories! And you, kind reader, forgive this short digression and come with me to listen to Clement the Roman. What does this enlightened Pope say? Does he proclaim the personal infallibility of the Roman Pon- tiff? Your Eminence should not forget, that for the testimony to be admissible, it rs necessary for it to bear directly on the papal individuals, and that it de- clare that infallibility belongs to them, and will re- main with them, in perpetuity to the end of the world. In accordance with sound judgment, as we go back- ward to the first centuries, we should find that pre- rogative more clearly and brilliantly defined; just as we get nearer to the spring, the water should be more transparent and pure, and as we go away from it, it should be more turbid and less pure. Appealing to your loyal impartiality as an American, and to your frank sincerity as a writer, I ask, Is this general law of history and of judgment observed where infallibility is concerned? Are the primitive testimonies more ex- plicit or clearer than the secondary, and these in turn more so than the last ones? And if the opposite is exactly what does happen (and I do not believe Your Eminence would venture to deny it), is this not an almost certainty, that infallibility is one of the many ecclesiastical myths created by history, and centralized by the papacy? When the testimony of the Fathers is taken as a whole, in harmony with the general laws of historical evolution, we find in it a perfect accord, I3O ROMAN CATHOLICISM and we arrive at the evidence that infallibility is purely of ecclesiastical origin. St. Clement is the first witness to this true theory. Neither Catholic conscience, nor Catholic intelligence, was yet prepared to receive the enormous weight of a personal infallibility. The ex- ample of the apostles was too fresh in the mind of all, to be openly falsified. For that reason Clement the Roman, 4 disciple of Peter, acts and speaks like that apostle. Like him, he addresses the Corinthians in humble language, not with any attitude of authority, as befitted an infallible Pope, but advising and ex- plaining, instead of ordering and excommunicating. Let Your Eminence read any of the modern papal bulls, and compare their style to that of Clement. In the former you will see flashing the wrathful rays of infallibility; in the latter the simplicity and humility of a wise man seeking the truth, which he thinks he possesses, and while so thinking transmits it to others. But Your Eminence will see nothing that appears as infallible. Lastly, and this is convincing to Roman- ism, the latter is headed and signed not as if an in- dividual Pontiff were speaking, as he should do if he believed in personal infallibility, but as an expression from the whole Roman collectivity, as an echo from the Roman Church. I ask Your Eminence, can a clear proof be adduced that personal infallibility was not believed in in those times? If the first Pope, in a public document and as we might say now, ex cathedra, instead of resting on his * Read Clemens Romanus : Letters to the Corinthians, by Hefele. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 13! own infallibility, rests on the collectivity of his own Church, is this not clear proof that he did not believe himself infallible? St. Clement's testimony proves nothing in favor of Romanism, but a great deal against it. Let us examine the second, 5 St. Ignatius. This Father did realize what he was doing. His testimony could not bear out our theory with greater force. He is already formulating, not the Roman infallibility, which is still too near the apostles, but the first firm step of the episcopacy. How very unfortunate are the Romanists who invoke his testimonies ! To intro- duce the letters of St. Ignatius for the purpose of demonstrating the personal infallibility is for the Ro- manist to commit ecclesiastical suicide. Read care- fully, and it will be seen that he grants the first place to the Roman Church, not over the whole world, but over Italy and perhaps over the Occident. In the eyes of St. Ignatius the episcopacy is developing toward the metropolitan, and to each metropolitan he makes the same concession as to Rome. Poor pontifical infallibility! How badly you come out of the hands of a writer, who believes there are so many superior and infallible ones as bishops, prin- cipals or metropolitans ! Away, then, with his testi- mony, since it says nothing about the personal infalli- bility of the Popes, but on the contrary reduces the Pontiff to a mere patriarch. Closely following these two, comes St. Irenaeus. This writer appears some- 5 Read St. Ignatius' letter, by Hefele. Read Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Popedom. 8 Read Migne : Patrologia, writings of St. Irenaeus. 132 ROMAN CATHOLICISM what contradictory: on the one hand, he praises the Roman See (not its infallibility, for on that we know nothing as yet) : on the other, he assails the Popes and St. Victor rather furiously and roughly, accuses them of incompetence in passing on matters of general dis- cipline, that is to say, on matters that come fully within infallibility. Then St. Irenaeus, far from admitting it, denies it. The fourth witness is Bishop Hippolytus, of Ponto. 7 He seems like the new Paul of the first centuries. In what bitter language does he censure the Pontiffs, Zephyrinus and Calixtus ! He calls them weak, loose, ignorant and ignoble. He threatens them the same as a modern bishop would any village priest. It seems to me that when he used such lan- guage and took such liberties with the Popes men- tioned, he must have been far from considering them as cloaked with the ineffable gift of infallibility. Those who can reconcile such a behavior with the belief in an infallible Pontiff, could also, we might say, reconcile the Koran with the Gospel. One marvels at the little importance given to such language by Cardinal Gibbons. Why dispute about things that he can see for himself? Let Your Eminence venture, by way of trial, to censure any modern Pope, and let him do so, not with the roughness employed by St. Irenaeus against Victor, nor the barbarous discourtesy of Hip- polytus against Zephyrinus and Calixtus, but in meas- ured language and with studied courtesy, and Your Eminence will soon see appear in the horizon the pon- tifical thunder and lightning, will very promptly be 7 Read Migne : Patrologia, writings of St. Hypolitus, Bishop of Ponto. Encyclopedia Britannica: Head, Popedom. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 133 deprived of hat and see, and as promptly Your Emi- nence's ecclesiastical destruction will follow. If the pontifical power, after having been so much abused, still continues to throw out anathemas as objects of terror, what explosions it would not have caused in the first centuries when at that time it was buoyant and young? How in chorus with these holy Fathers two others appear, who without being holy, are also apostolic Fathers, and certainly among the most im- portant, one oriental, the other- occidental, and both quoted by Romanism as the strongest pillars of the Church Tertullian and Origen. The first ener- getically reproves the Roman bishop for arrogating to himself the ostentatious title of chief pontiff. 8 If he had believed him infallible, would he have been guilty of the contradiction of denying to him a title that in some way referred to his authority? But the one to feel acrimonious and scoffing is the immortal Origen, the most learned encyclopedist of Christian- ism, the one who best understood how to defend it against the rationalist attacks of that epoch; the man to whom the Church is most indebted on account of his monumental writings, and for his inconceivable labors in its defense. This learned man and apologist, one of the greatest in the world, notwithstanding his vast knowledge about ancient times, notwithstanding his having known how to defend the Church, as no one better, was in ignorance of what Romanism now proclaims as its basis and foundation, namely: in- fallibility. And not thinking it important to deal gravely with a question so arbitrary, he addresses 8 Read Tertullian: De Pudicitia. 134 ROMAN CATHOLICISM himself to the Roman Pontiff, and in somewhat jest- ing language, exclaims : 8 "If you suppose that Christ founded His Church on Peter alone, what role do you assign to the other apostles? What do you concede to St. James and to St. John, whom Christ also sur- named 'sons of thunder/ to indicate their great im- portance ? " We will close this paragraph by stating, as no impartial person will deny, that the sub-apostolic Fathers knew nothing and said nothing about infalli- bility. And the councils? Let us follow Cardinal Gibbons in the profitable investigation. The very existence of the councils is the most obvious denial of that of in- fallibility. Why perform such long journeys and take upon oneself such painful troubles, when the Holy Ghost considered everything settled by a simple pon- tifical definition? If those wise heads had then be- lieved in what is now an article of faith of the Roman- ists, why grow excited over burning disputes, and waste so much energy battling against each other, since by merely exhibiting a simple formula to the Pontiff, the latter determined the question in a trice with the sanction of the irrefutable Holy Ghost? Ccme, Cardinal Gibbons, let us reason like men and not like Romanists. It is axiomatic in all argument of a scientific and human order that when an end is sought and there exist channels of obtaining it, one long, difficult, laborious and unsafe, the other quick, easy and secure, every sane man adopts the latter, and only the mad and unbalanced one inclines to the former. The essence of this identical principle is 9 Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Popedom. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 135 translated in natural and sociological sciences as "the line of least resistance ;" 10 in the philosophical, that beings must not be multiplied without necessity ; " in the theological, that one must not have recourse to supernatural forces, while the natural elements are sufficient. But our conscience and our spirit are so impregnated with this principle, that' always and on every occasion we decide what we believe easier in difficulty; we choose the safe against the unsafe, the surest against the doubtful. Even when we make a mistake we keep the law, because our error consists always, in that we believed we had chosen the easiest, and it turns out afterward to be otherwise ; but if we asked our spirit why it inclined in a given direction, rejecting others, it will always adduce the principle named as the reason. To deny this principle, would be to deny human rationality and wisdom. Let us then apply this truth to the question under discussion, not with a preconceived judgment, but with the pur- pose of discovering the truth. The Fathers, and the common people of the earlier centuries, worked to an end, namely: to define the true Catholic doctrine. They were facing two channels : the one long, difficult and unsafe, otherwise the councils, but in this way they saw the councils assembled repeatedly, and the heretics and their heresies increased ; the other channel was simple, quick, and safer, to appeal to the Pope. If those Christians had believed as the Romanists of the twentieth century believe, in papal infallibility, was 10 Read any scientific work on the subject. 11 Read Cardinal Gonzalez : Philosophy ; and any other author on this subject. P. Fernandez: Teologia Dogmatica; and any other theologian on the subject. 136 ROMAN CATHOLICISM it not a veritable madness and truly a crime not to make the appeal? Could not one single Roman decree have silenced all disputes, as it would now silence them to the believers in infallibility? If, then, infalli- bility would now be fully and completely efficacious to the believers, does not Your Eminence see as clear as noonday, that if in bygone times it was not invoked or had recourse to, it was because in truth there was not any belief in it? If in the twentieth century in- fallibility suffices to prevent the disruption of the doctrine (as your own statement), 12 how was it not sufficient or enough during the centuries nearer to Christ, when it should have been more vivid and re- splendent? If from Christ down to us the Church, the whole Church, 13 has believed in infallibility, how is it that in later centuries it can decide and judge, with entire submission from the people, whereas in the ear- lier centuries it is neither invoked nor respected in the manner now practised by Romanism ? If there should crop up in America divisions in the faith, would not Your Eminence as the pontifical delegate, apply to the Roman See in preference to any council? Then, why did not the old Fathers do as Your Eminence would do, except because those Fathers did not believe in what Your Eminence believes? This argument be- comes still stronger when we take into account that between the fourth and the fifth centuries, such a state of confusion was reached that St. Jerome himself is responsible for the assertion that the world was dumb- 12 Read Cardinal Gibbons: Chaps. VIII, IX, X and XL 13 Cardinal Gibbons : Same chapters. Jaugey: Infalibilidad (Infallibility). CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 137 founded, at having gone to bed Catholic and awakened Arian, wise and holy men having been drawn into error by the semi-Arians. If that happens, why did not the Popes get up and by virtue of their infalli- bility, proclaim such clear and convincing judgments as those of Pius IX in the Syllabus, of Leo XIII against Americanism, and that of Pius X against Modernism? How was it the bishops and the people did not see that shining beacon that remained burn- ing on the Vatican, according -to the Romanists, as an infallible token ? u Those not impressed by these arguments, can be classed in the same category as the Mahometan, who believes in all innocence that his prophet took in the moon by his right sleeve, and brought it out by the left, and when told that the moon is too large and the sleeve too narrow, exclaims : "Oh! Allah is great!" But let us drop the first councils, since we must bring them up again when dealing with the unity of the doctrines, and let us now touch upon the worthy councils of Constance and Basle. The Romanist ser- vility was never more odious and deserving of eternal censure than when we see it treating with contempt those two famous and most important councils, in order to flatter the Popes. 15 What assemblies ever did more good to Christendom than these two vener- able councils? Who saved Latin Europe from Chris- 11 Cardinal Vives : Compendium Theologicum Dogmaticum ; De Infallibilitate. 15 To become acquainted with the state of the Church, read Baronio, Rohrbacher, Hergenrother : Ecclesiastic History, centuries XIII and XIV; also Cesar Cantu, on his General History on the Condition of the Church, centuries XIII and XIV. " 138 ROMAN CATHOLICISM tian bankruptcy, if not Constance and Basle? While Christianity was divided among- these Pontiffs, the most subversive, the greatest of all scandals among ecclesiastical powers, was the order of the day. From Peniscola, residence of Benedict XIII, came excom- munications against Avignon and Rome, the respective residences of Clement and Gregory. These, in turn, sent back with interest the anathemas to the stubborn one at Pefiiscola. 16 In the midst of all this frightful confusion the peo- ple knew not to whom to look. The College of Car- dinals, the universities, the episcopate kingdoms, re- ligious communities and the common people lived in complete subversion. The wicked applied first to one Pope, then to another, in their endeavors to profit from all. To some universities and religious com- munities there were three rectors and three superiors. The Pontiffs, in their eagerness to proselyte, trafficked in the benefices and ecclesiastic patronages. Coming down from the heads, corruption carried gangrene everywhere, over all the ecclesiastic body. All de- scription pales before such a state of things, in Latin Europe. Yet, the council that terminated such dis- orders, the assemblies that halted those terrible calami- ties, are looked upon with contempt by the proud and servile Romanist! Even if Romanism had not been guilty of a more despicable sin than its scornful con- tempt towards those venerable councils, that alone was enough to remain branded with ignominious stigma, like Cain. Far worse than a fratricide is he who condemns to death those who gave us life, and who "Read same authors and also Rives and Alzog. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 139 freed us from the inevitable religious hecatomb. And all, for what reason? For nothing more than because when those respectable Fathers saw that the Popes intended to establish themselves as supreme, and in- fallible over the ecumenic council, they declared the sovereignty and infallibility of the latter over the former. 17 But the most wondrous is that while deny- ing and affirming the authority of those councils, Ro- manism has caught itself in a- blind alley. If the council was not above the Popes, how could it dis- miss them, and appoint another that is unanimously considered by Romanism as legitimate? If on the other hand it was superior to the Popes, how coordinate this affirmation with Pius IX's bull already quoted several times? Of this hieroglyphic, we hope Cardinal Gibbons may favor us with a deciphering, while we continue to affirm that to all sincere and impartial minds, the councils, as well as the Fathers and the apostles, deny personal infallibility. 17 Read Acts of the Council, already mentioned. CHAPTER XII. WILL IT BE POSSIBLE FULLY TO EXPLAIN THE PRIMACY AND PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY BY SIMPLE REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL LAWS OF HISTORY? WE have seen from the preceding chapters that the apostles, sub-apostolic Fathers and the first councils were far from believing in the centralization of authority now attributed by Romanism to the sov- ereign Pontiff. How is the origin and development of this mighty prerogative to be explained ? By whom and how was that stupendous power established and consolidated? This is a point well cleared up by the progress of history. In so doing, it not only takes away from Romanism the probability of the divine origin, which has so far been entirely left out of all discussion, but also the pretext for establishing an authority and a power that is merely human. The same general law has been followed with the pontifical, as with any other similar power. The pontificate ap- pears as all other human institutions do, step by step, and by successive additions, energetically preserved and enlarged by the despotism of the Popes. History teaches how the gceat human empires and monarchies appear, and disappear, are consolidated and are swept away, solving the question which certainly has nothing mysterious or divine about it. (140) CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 14! The first Church to appear is that at Jerusalem. Its foundations are most liberal and highly demo- cratic ; mutual charity and respect for the apostles are the only canons which rule that poor and humble con- gregation. 1 The apostles dream not of draping them- selves with that show of majesty, nor of exercising that sovereignty that later will be the ostentatious features of those calling themselves their successors. In the first council we see assembled the apostles, the elders and the common people. The democratic or- ganization still prevails over the aristocratic. The second church to come forth is that at Antioch. 2 Already a new, though slow and insignificant, step is made; an advance takes places as a result of its dis- putes: the Church of Jerusalem creates the first visit- ing inspectors. This looks like a first step between elders and elders, that is to say, between priests and bishops. There will yet come a period when those two titles will serve to express one same and sole dignity, consequently said dignity will frequently be called by the two names. The distinction is not yet clear, but the idea is progressing and it will soon take shape and crystallize. We will find clear evidence in the last days of St. John, that the bishops are leading and acting like the heads of their respective churches. The name of angels applied to the seven chiefs of the churches of Asia, 3 clearly indicates that there existed already some priests over other priests. The episco- 1 Read Acts, first chapters. Read Edw. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, last chapter of the first vol- ume. 2 Acts, first chapters, and Chapter xv. *Read the first verses of Revelation. 142 ROMAN CATHOLICISM pate is already advancing ; the first step that will later carry us up to the pontifical summit is already taken. Soon a second will be added, then a third and a fourth, and the lofty mystic ladder of the pontificate will be completed. But to compare the first bishops with the present ones, would be a sad mistake. The latter are now assuming aristocratic ways ; neither the com- mon people, nor even the canonic, ever take part in their decisions or resolutions. 4 Occasionally, out of mere formality and respect for old age, the latter are allowed a hearing, but without any obligation to fol- low their counsels : it is the latest theoretical remainder of the old democracy, practically meaning nothing, since the bishops retain their fullest liberty to act against their advice. The original bishops were, on the contrary, the first aristocratic element to be seen in the midst of an entirely democratic environment. The first bishops are the echo of their church ; priests and common people participate in their councils and have a voice in their election. 5 The original bishop is a chief, but he is withal democratic and comes of a democratic community. The second century will come, and in it St. Ignatius will make a decided step toward the emancipation of the episcopate, and will sow the first ideas of the metropolitan, the second step of the pontifical ladder. 6 According to him, the episcopate is already a thing apart, ranking above priests and common people. He will soon appear as a teacher and judge, capable of * Bouix : De Jure Canonico ; De Episcopes. 6 Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Episcopacy. 6 Read St. Ignatius' letters, by Hefele ; also Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Episcopacy and Bishop. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 143 deciding by himself all questions that may arise in his community. But we are still very far from Roman centralism. We already have aristocratic forms to rule the congregations, but these are entirely of a federal character. Each bishopric will govern itself, without one being subject to the other. The bishop is the supreme chief of his congregation and is not under the jurisdiction of any other chief. There may be churches more or less important than others, ac- cording to the character of their founders or the num- ber of their followers, but each of them will be gov- erned entirely independent of the remainder. It is the most federative aristocracy that reigns in this epoch of the Church. Soon, however, that federative character will par- tially weaken to make room for the monarchic. 7 The sees, in respect to their founders, or the city where they are established, appear more worthy of respect or more suitable to treat ecclesiastical matters, will claim individual privileges or will consider themselves above the others, and almost simultaneously the metro- politan and the patriarch appear. Already we have another link in the great chain that is to encircle the vast Christian family. In the mystic ladder of the pontificate, the third step will appear in place. The fourth, and the most important one, will be still easier to establish. Anyone believing that the metropolitan and patriarchs appeared clothed in all the privileges which they enjoyed later, would fall into error. 8 Just 7 Read Eusebius : Ecclesiastic History ; Metropolitans and Patriarchs. 8 Darwin: Evolution of Species. Read Father Arintero: The Evolution of the Species, and Philosophy. II 144 ROMAN CATHOLICISM as in their natural evolution, the species preserve some atavic traces of their subordinate and lower kinds ; so also human institutions develop, the larger keeping the privileges of the inferior, and being equally restricted by them. But as in nature the traces of the lower species become lesser and lesser, while the high dis- tinctions predominate and become more and more typical, so also in historical order, the high dignitaries, who in the beginning appear almost equal to their im- mediate subalterns, soon become distant from them, throw off their restrictions and destroy their priv- ileges. For this reason the metropolitan and patriarch, who appeared as an equal among equals, and who filled a presidential chair, as respectable as it was honorable, will soon declare their supreme dignity and greater jurisdictional power. The same thing hap- pens in respect to conciliar assemblies. While the first Jerusalem Council appeared entirely democratic, the later assemblies, through the predominance of priests and bishops, asserted their aristocratic tendencies. At an epoch so far advanced as that of St. Cyprian, in which the bishops and the metropolitan were already well defined, the Church had not yet been able to en- tirely shake off the democratic element, for the com- mon people had still a voice in the provincial coun- cils. 10 The sketch is now drawn. The Church will not go back, and just as from democracy it passed on to aris- tocracy, as represented by the bishops, then to mon- 9 Acts xv. Eusebius : First Councils. 10 Edw. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, last chapter of the first volume. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 145 archy, as reflected by the metropolitans and patriarchs, it will go on ascending till it reaches the imperial Caesarism systematized by the Roman Pontiffs. The mission of the Popes becomes easier and simpler. The patriarchs have reduced difficulties by taking the bishoprics under their care, while in turn the bishoprics have absorbed the priests. The patriarchs being now monopolized, the whole Church is centralized, and Roman Caesarism can appear. No great astuteness is needed to predict the victory for Rome. No Apos- tolic See contains the moral or historic prestige, or the social elements that seem to surround Rome since the fourth century, that is to say, from the time the patriarchate flourishes. If in such conflict Rome were not victorious, history would contradict itself, but would fail in its general and evolutive principles. Let us examine the question through the fairest critics, and it will be seen that the balance will incline towards Rome, rather than to any other patriarchate. At that time the Roman See appears to the eyes of all believers as sanctified and fecundated by the blood of innumerable victims, especially by the venerable blood of Peter and Paul. It is believed that a congregation taught by such sublime heads must preserve better than any other the trust of the revelation ; that in it must be found purer traditions, holier examples. At that time Rome appears like a new Jerusalem. Had not this sacred city been destroyed, had not the com- mon people so often dispersed from it, Jerusalem could have disputed the primacy with Rome. For there also reposed the ashes of the illustrious Stephen ; there ran also the venerable blood of St. James, and 146 ROMAN CATHOLICISM again there remained the memory of the coming of the Holy Ghost, the meeting of the first council, and ever so many other not-to-be-forgotten traditions. But Jerusalem was almost destroyed by the war, and when she tried to raise herself she found herself preceded not only by the Roman patriarchate, but also by the Oriental patriarchs themselves. There remained, con- sequently, only Rome, and in respect to moral and his- torical prestige, she was in a better position than any other patriarchate. Which among them could have shown the tombs of two such venerable apostles as Peter and Paul ? Which among them could head and sign their writings with these august words : "Thus received by us from Peter and Paul"? On questions of dogma and morals, what other words, or what other names, could be more eloquent? But here we must determine the scope of our words. When we speak thus it is not because we believe that the question of whether Peter was in Rome or not has been entirely settled. After having read, as we think, everything of any importance written by the Catholics on this obscure subject, after having visited every place supposed to have been sanctified by Peter, and after having prayed before a venerable tomb, we do not believe that question so entirely exempt from doubt as to say that it can be assented to as altogether certain. In speaking thus, we limit " ourselves to the opinion prevalent at that epoch and that century, which can be affirmed as positive, namely, that at that time every one believed that Peter had been in Rome, and there "This was the belief of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, etc. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 147 died. If any Romanist believes there is any contra- diction between this categorical affirmation and our own doubts, we would reply to him: Go to Spain, compare the most ancient and venerable traditions, ex- amine all their historians from the beginning to the end of the Middle Ages; examine foreign historians of those same times, and you will find them all as one, in affirming that St. James the Elder was there a long time. The history of Spain, its edifices, its re- ligious worships, are alike saturated with said tradi- tion, and yet what historian would venture in the midst of the twentieth century, to give out as a certainty the going of St. James to Spain and his staying there? 12 One may state a tradition generally believed of some known epoch, yet the principle on which it is based may nevertheless be doubtful ; but for our pur- pose we are satisfied that it was so admitted, and in effect it was so believed in those times. To this moral and historic prestige, in itself very worthy of con- sideration, must be added another very potent social reason. With or without the emperors 13 Rome con- tinued to be the head of the empire. There was situ- ated the Roman consulate and the imperial magistracy. From there the laws emanated. There, converged all the important means of communication. Rome was the supreme city in all those centuries. 14 This is so 12 Read Natal Alexander : Ecclesiastic History. Baronio, Rohrbacher, Hergenrother : Ecclesiastical History, about St. James. 18 Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. "Read Gibbon: Same heading, about Constantine and his close successors. 148 ROMAN CATHOLICISM potent a reason that she alone in the long run could determine centralization. Look, for instance, at Con- stantinople. Her see does not possess the moral or historic prestige of Rome. No apostle ever established it, and it was only because the emperor of the Orient habitually resided there, that Constantinople carried the other sees immediately after her, and proclaimed herself superior to the other patriarchates. Add to Rome this same reason, and you will appreciate that it was logical and conformable with the general laws of history that centralization should appear in Rome, and the patriarchal sees should there by preference become consolidated. To these two most weighty causes a third must be added, namely, the question of the appeals. Starting with the third century, the Orient lives in a continu- ous theological agitation. Dogmatic disputes multi- ply with astounding rapidity, and as a consequence, excommunications and removals from office follow each other in great number. 15 There are historical epochs in which patriarchs and bishops live entirely in constituted parties, one against the other, bishops and patriarchs excommunicating and removing from office each other with frightening ease. Confusion and dis- order invade everything in the Orient, and yet the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the Occident, is en- joying the peaceful possession of his pontificate. In the Occident there were fewer and much less important heresies. Everything turned toward Rome as a much 16 Eusebius : Ecclesiastic History ; First Centuries. Fleury, Rohrbacher and Rivas : Ecclesiastic History about the First Centuries. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANT ISM. 149 more impartial and venerable center. Consequently the appeals to Rome became very frequent. Taking this circumstance as their standing ground, the Roman- ists claim to base upon it their most powerful argu- ment in defense of the Papacy. 18 We have already said that this could in no way prove the divine origin of such primacy, and we might, therefore, pass on: nevertheless, we prefer to dispel the reasons which, as we have seen, do not emanate from the apostles, and, therefore, do not exist, but are pretexts. Only through ignorance of history and lack of theological acumen can Romanism have attached so much importance to a circumstance that is merely a historical phenomenon like any other, purely human. A falling man clings to anything he can, to recover his footing. In the Orient the fallen ones were so numerous, had so little faith in their claims at home, because those that could help them were their opponents, that one cannot wonder at the great num- ber of their appeals to Rome. As an evident proof that what we are stating is the truth, the same phenomenon produces the same effects in the Occident, although on a smaller scale, because the occasions are less frequent. 17 Rome condemns Felician and Nova- tus, and these appeal from Rome to Carthage. St. Cyprian is condemned in the Occident by the Patri- arch of Rome, and Cyprian, the great Cyprian, whom 16 Read Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers ; Su- premacy, Infallibility of the Popes. Also consult such au- thors as Rohrbacher, Rivas, about the epoch of heresies of Occident and their insignificant importance. 17 Edw. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ; last chapter of the first volume. I5O ROMAN CATHOLICISM some Romanists consider as one of their own, does not scruple to appeal to the Orient against the Occi- dent. As may be seen, the phenomenon is general, and for those who know how to read history, it has no more meaning than that the fallen look to recover themselves, no matter how. On the other hand here is a consideration that we venture to submit to the profound theological learning of Cardinal Gibbons; examine the spirit of the appeals and consultations, and the admissions and answers of the first Popes, and it will be seen that what principally moves both, is the belief that the Roman Church keeps less corrupt the doctrines of the apostles. It seems as if the ex- istence of their memorable bodies was looked upon as a kind of mystic preserving salt. 18 More than the personality of the Pope there appears the Roman col- lectivity, the doctrine professed in Rome, the Roman religious atmosphere. It is not their belief in the ex- istence there, of a person endowed with infallibility, which belief will take shape much later, but that in Rome, owing to the apostolic example, and to the apos- tolic teachings, error becomes less likely. Let us illus- trate this doctrine by some examples. Even now when the Franciscan desires to revive his spirit he has re- course to Assisi and to Alvernia. He must believe that there, the surroundings are filled with the spirit of his patriarch; that those fathers living where their chief lived, that those houses inhabited in former times by him, those craggy grounds over which Francis walked, those meadows trod by him, that heaven con- 18 Read St. Athanasius of Alexandria: St. Ignatius, Patri- arch of Constantinople. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 151 templated by him, in short, that everything must con- tribute to keep purer and more genuine their spirit. The Jesuit still repaires to the holy cave of Manresa to the novitiate of Loyola, and listens with ecstasy to the marvels related to him of his illustrious father, by his brothers who live there. He questions and con- sults them, believing that there, better than elsewhere, must be reflected the legitimate Ignatian spirit. It may be said that the Franciscan and the Jesuit be- lieve that their brethren are endowed with some ex- traordinary privilege. No, what they do believe is that in those places better than in others, on account of the local conditions, it is more difficult to falsify or lose the genuine spirit of their founders. Our case is simply analogous. Rome is applied to, not because it is believed that the Roman Patriarch possesses any personal virtues that others do not pos- sess, but because the circumstances attending the first differ from the circumstances surrounding the sec- ond. 19 As anyone can see, these two questions are very distinct: One, to apply to Rome, because there the true doctrine is believed to be kept; the other, to apply to Rome, because there exists a Pontiff who is believed to be gifted with the divine prerogative of infallibility. To mix up the two questions, and to pass from one to the other, will be easy to the be- liever, but to the learned, this is prohibited by logic and by history. Looking into history impartially and minutely, it is understandable and explainable how the centralization of power should take place in Rome 19 Study the body of this chapter on the appeal to Rome in the first centuries, where this affirmation is well denned. 152 ROMAN CATHOLICISM and under the safeguard of the Occidental patriarch and for his own benefit. Even more, if there had not occurred any disagreement between the German Empire and the Papacy; if the scandalous schisms of the Occident, that so greatly weakened Roman prestige, had not issued forth when they did, then infallibility would have been reached in the fourteenth century, instead of in the nineteenth. 20 Without these two circumstances, everything would have been bet- ter prepared for it then than in later times, because of a perfectly accomplished centralization. The mod- ern doctrine about the Pope, being due to the issuance of the False Decretals, and especially to the writings of St. Thomas 21 and St. Bonaventure, were success- fully taught everywhere. But these two facts mili- tated so deeply against Roman prestige, especially the schisms, that not even in the nineteenth century was it possible to arrive at a peaceful and universal agree- ment. Anyone knowing well what occurred at the Vatican Council, will have still another proof of how very human was the said prerogative, and how true are the principles that led us to combat it. For the common people, who generally know by halves or not at all, the things ecclesiastical, the Vatican Council conceives something like a pastoral idyl, similar to the Apostles' Cenacle when the Holy Ghost descended ; and as if in the most solemn moments, given to voting and defini- 20 Read Rohrbacher, Baronio, Rivas, Alzog, in reference to the schisms of Occident and differences between the Empire and the Papacy. 21 St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure : About the Pope ; spe- cially the latter. CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 153 tion, there supervened a terrible storm, the thunder sounded with a crash and clamor seldom heard in Rome, and as the lightning with its sinister brilliancy illumined the timorous and pallid faces of the reverend members of the Council, they have claimed to see an- other proof that that was a manifest symbol of the visible presence of the Holy Ghost. 22 How many clergymen believe it was so ! In our numerous ex- cursions about towns and villages, we have heard such tales narrated with sincere candor and enjoyment by wearers of the cassock. History relates that when John Huss 23 found himself close to the blaze in which he was to die, he saw coming a poor old woman panting and hurrying to throw a small bundle of wood on the flames. That unfortunate man, worthy of a better name, then exclaimed: O sancta simplicitas! (O holy simplicity!) That is what the true historian should answer to those innocent enthusiasts, in their earnest- ness to see in the lightning and in the thunder the beneficent presence of the Holy Ghost. If it were said that the outer storm were symbolical of the storm within; if it were said that the atmospheric com- motions were but a pale reflection of the moral con- vulsions that inwardly agitated the members of the Council, one would have not perhaps a historical con- clusion, but a rhetorical figure to depict graphically the eventful, turbulent and stormy Vatican Council ! 24 As history goes, the bishops might be classified by M Mateos Gagos : Chronicles of the Vatican Council. Cua- drado: About the Vatican Council. 23 Castelar: Revolucion Religiosa; Ejecucion de St. Juan de Huss. M Mateos, Gagos and Cuadrado : Same heads. 154 ROMAN CATHOLICISM nationalities. 25 The Germans opposed definition with all their strength. They were followed by more than half the Austrians and Hungarians. All the French, without exception, not only avoided the definition but headed the opposition and organized the fight against it. As an ornament to this great army there were the American prelates, who also were unanimous in their resistance to dogmatic definition. The Spaniards, to a man, were in favor of it. Though it may not be very flattering to say so, the love of truth in the Spaniard is above false patriotism. How different was the Spanish Episcopate of Trent from the Vati- can ! 2