__________________________________________________________________

           Title: An Eirenicon
      Creator(s): Pusey, Edward Bouverie (1800-1882)
          Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All;
      LC Call no: BX5129
     LC Subjects:

                  Christian Denominations

                  Protestantism

                  Post-Reformation

                  Anglican Communion

                  Church of England

                  Church of England and other churches
     __________________________________________________________________

  THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND A PORTION OF CHRIST'S ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND A
  MEANS OF RESTORING VISIBLE UNITY.

                                 AN EIRENICON,

  In a Letter

  TO
  THE AUTHOR OF "THE CHRISTIAN YEAR."
  BY

E. B. PUSEY, D.D.,

   REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
1866
     __________________________________________________________________

   MY DEAREST FRIEND,

   You think that, Dr. Manning's last letter having been addressed to
   myself, it is desirable that I should in some way reply to it. It would
   cost me much, not to undertake any task which you might wish me to
   essay. You know how long it has been my wish to part with all
   controversy, and to consecrate the evening of my life to the unfolding
   of some of the deep truths of God's Holy Word, as God might enable me,
   by aid of those whom He has taught in times past. This employment, and
   practical duties which God has brought to me, were my ideal of the
   employments of the closing years of a laborious life. The inroad made
   upon the Gospel by unbelievers, or half-believers, compelled me in part
   to modify this my hope. Still, since there is a common foe, pressing
   alike upon all who believe in Jesus, I the more hoped, at least, to be
   freed from any necessity of controversy with any who hold the Catholic
   faith. The recent personal appeal of Dr. Manning to myself seems, as
   you and other friends think, to call for an exception to this too; yet,
   since "the night cometh when no man can work," I trust that I shall not
   be thought to shrink from duty, if, hereafter, I should maintain a
   silence, in order to give myself to that which seems to me more
   especially my calling.

   Ordinarily, it would be of very little moment what is said of any
   individual. Yet since, in this juncture of the conflict with unbelief,
   I have felt it my duty to seek for hearty cooperation with those who
   have often felt it their duty to oppose me, and Dr. Manning calls this
   "a drifting back from old moorings," [1] it seems to me a duty both to
   them and to those with whom I have more commonly acted, to explain that
   it is not.

   Ever since I knew them (which was not in my earliest years) I have
   loved those who are called "Evangelicals." I loved them, because they
   loved our Lord. I loved them, for their zeal for souls. I often thought
   them narrow; yet I was often drawn to individuals among them more than
   to others who held truths in common with myself, which the Evangelicals
   did not hold, at least explicitly. I believe them to be "of the truth."
   I have ever believed and believe, that their faith was and is, on some
   points of doctrine, much truer than their words. I believed and
   believe, that they are often withheld from the clear and full sight of
   the truth by an inveterate prejudice, that that truth, as held by us,
   is united with error, or with indistinct acknowledgment of other truths
   which they themselves hold sacred. Whilst, then, I lived in society, I
   ever sought them out, both out of love for themselves, and because I
   believed that nothing (with God's help) so dispels untrue prejudice as
   personal intercourse, heart to heart, with those against whom that
   prejudice is entertained. I sought to point out to them our common
   basis of faith. I never met with any who held the Lutheran doctrine of
   justification, that "justifying faith is that whereby a person believes
   himself to be justified." To others, who were not Calvinists, I

   used to say, "I believe all which you believe; we only part, where you.
   deny." I formed some lasting friendships with some among them who have
   finished their course, and with others who still remain. When occasion
   came, as in some of our struggles at Oxford, we acted together.

   What, then, I ventured on one occasion to remark to Archdeacon Manning,
   was not, that he "used to join with those with whom I could not," [2]
   but that he joined them in a way at which I was surprised. In plain
   words, he remained a member of, I think, two religious societies, some
   of whose principles I thought that we both held to be faulty. I have
   united with the Evangelicals now, as I did before, whenever they would
   join with me in defence of our common faith; I have not united with
   them in any of those things which were not in accordance with my own
   principles. It was not any thing new, then, when, in high places,
   fundamental truths had been denied, I sought to unite with those, some
   of whom had often spoken against me, but against whom I had never
   spoken. It was the pent-up longing of years. I had long felt that
   common zeal for faith could alone bring together those who were
   opposed; I hoped that, through that common zeal and love, inveterate
   prejudices which hindered the reception of truth would be dispelled.
   This, however, was a bright vista which lay beyond. The immediate
   object was to resist unitedly an inroad upon our common faith. This I
   had done before, upon occasions less urgent.

   But while, on the one hand, I profess plainly that love for the
   Evangelicals which I ever had, I may be, perhaps, the more bound to
   say, that, in no matter of faith, nor in my thankfulness to God for my
   faith, have I changed. This was understood on both sides. We united to
   oppose unbelief, holding, each, what each believed that God had taught
   him. And this, perhaps, may be an occasion to mention what relates to a
   very sacred season of my life, when, sixteen years ago, amid increasing
   fever and decreasing strength and apparent inefficiency of remedies,
   death seemed, day by day, nearer. Then, had it so pleased God that I
   should then die, I should have worded the confession of my faith in
   words like these: "I believe explicitly all which I know God to have
   revealed to His Church; and implicitly (implicitè) any thing, if He has
   revealed it, which I know not." In simple words, "I believe all which
   the Church believes." This is my habit of mind now. This I confess when
   I say to God, "I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church."

   It is somewhat hard that when I, who ought to know myself best, have
   denied that I have "shifted my ground," the statement that I have
   should be reiterated. It is sowing mutual mistrust. This, however, is
   but personal. The real point of Dr. Manning's letter is to assert the
   contradictory of the statement, "that the Church of England is in God's
   hands the great bulwark against infidelity in this land." This saying
   was not mine, but that of one of the deepest thinkers and observers in
   the Roman Communion. I see that I did not say this distinctly. My words
   were: "While [3] I know that a very earnest body of Roman Catholics
   rejoice in all the workings of God the Holy Ghost in the Church of
   England

   (whatever they think of her), and are saddened by what weakens her who
   is, in God's Hands, the great bulwark against infidelity in this land,
   others seemed to be in an ecstasy of triumph at this victory of Satan."
   In this last category, I would say at once, that I did not include
   Cardinal Wiseman or Dr. Manning. They "wrote gravely," [4] as I said,
   although I certainly thought Dr. Manning's letter dry, hard,
   unsympathizing. He seemed to me so intent on proving his point against
   the Church of England, for the sake of those whom he wished to detach
   from it, that all sorrow for the triumph of Satan was dried up. I said
   nothing of this. But I imagined that he identified the glory of God
   with the gaining fresh converts to the Roman Church; and so he seemed
   to me to forget, that each blow which he thought ought to help to
   detach us from the English communion, was destructive to souls and a
   dishonour to God.

   The saying itself, that "the Church of England is, in God's hands, the
   great bulwark against infidelity in this land," relates plainly only to
   a present fact. It does not aver, that the Church of England is the
   best possible bulwark; but only, as a matter of fact, that it is at
   this moment in God's Providence a real and chief bulwark against it. Of
   course, any Roman Catholic must think that the Roman Communion, if it
   were of the same extent in this land as the English Church is now,
   would be a much stronger bulwark. But this is not the question. The
   battle has to be fought now. Dr. Manning speaks of the evils resulting
   from "seventeen or eighteen thousand men [the English Clergy] educated
   with all the advantages of the English Schools and Universities, and
   distributed all over England, who maintain a perpetual protest, not
   only against the [Roman] Catholic Church, but against the belief that
   there is any divine voice immutably and infallibly guiding the Church
   at this hour in the declaration of the Christian revelation to
   mankind." [5] On this last hereafter. But then, these 18,000 clergy
   have, to say the least, the same advantages for that, which they are
   vowed to do, viz., to "banish and drive away all erroneous and strange
   doctrines contrary to God's Word," which Dr. Manning attributes to us
   for that, which we have no thought of doing, and which he must suppose
   us to do by virtue of our position, not by any word of most of us,
   since we are thinking of nothing less. Faith is, of course, the gift of
   God; but, whatever advantages our intellectual training can give to any
   of us for what we have no intention of doing, that it must with God's
   blessing give to us, for that end to which our lives are consecrated,
   the maintenance of God's truth, as far as in man lies, and the teaching
   it to the salvation of souls for whom Christ died. But the teaching of
   the Clergy is only a small portion of the efficacy of the Church in
   repelling unbelief. They act but as individuals, subordinate to the
   Church in which they are God's ministers; the Church is a whole. And
   since we are more acted upon by what we do, than by what we hear, the
   Church, by putting into the mouths of all her members the ancient
   Creeds and Prayers which embody the faith, is, yet more, a continual
   unchanging teacher of the truth which Christ revealed and delivered to

   her at the first. She, through our mothers whom God had taught by her,
   taught us our faith at our mother's knee; she, through her Prayers and
   Creeds, has taught us all our life long; and our faith which we
   professed and uttered became, by God's gift of faith, part of
   ourselves. Our bodies could be severed from our souls, but our faith
   could not, without our will, be severed from our hearts.

   We, of course, believe that God the Holy Ghost, the "One Spirit" who
   animates and informs the "One Body" of Christ, teaches truth in her in
   a way different from that in which He, the Author of all Faith and
   Grace, is present with all Truth, wherever it is taught, and
   accompanies it by His Grace.

   As individuals, we, too, thankfully acknowledge that whoever teaches
   any true faith in Jesus is, so far, one of God's instruments against
   unbelief. Nay, such is the power of Divine faith, that every child, who
   has it, is such. "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings Thou hast
   perfected praise." When our Lord came in His great humility, the faith
   of children rebuked the unbelief of the Scribes and Pharisees. The
   simple faith of a child now has power against unbelief, because it is
   the gift of God. The faith of dissenters, although often a very naked
   and fragmentary faith, must in its degree be a power of God against
   unbelief. I rather implied that there were other bulwarks against
   unbelief, when I spoke of the Church of England as "the great bulwark."
   But I think that Dr. Manning has overlooked the fact, that the
   dissenters among us are indebted for very much of their faith to the
   Church from which they dissent. The dissenters, in the main, correspond
   to the Protestant bodies abroad. When then one compares the general
   condition of the English dissenters with that of the like bodies
   abroad, the unbelief in Holland, the rationalism in Germany, the
   Socinianism of Geneva, the Arianism or Semi-Arianism prevalent among
   the French Calvinists, or the Universalism which is desolating the
   United States, and (with the exception of one body) the almost entire
   neglect of baptism there among those who are the descendants of the
   English dissenters,--one cannot but think that the degree of faith
   surviving among them here is very much owing, under the mercy of God,
   to the English Church, which enfolds them all around even while they
   are hostile to it.

   My own duties have not brought me into contact with dissenters; so
   nothing which I say can have a personal character. But I have
   understood that many of the more devout among the older denominations
   have acknowledged, that now there is more "life" in the Church of
   England than among them. I fear that those bodies which have most
   admitted among them the character of political dissent, have lost, as
   bodies, much of the life which they originally carried with the m from
   the Church, and which God the Holy Ghost has preserved in individuals
   among them. The body, which apparently has most life in it, is
   (according to the universal rule) that which last and very slowly
   parted from the Church, the Wesleyan.

   Individual portents, such as those which Dr. Manning points to, Dr.
   Colenso and the writers in the Essays and Reviews, prove nothing as to
   a large system. Rather the temporary notoriousness which they gained
   shows the more their anomalousness. The

   attraction about the m was, a curiosity to see what men in the position
   of Dr. Colenso (then a Bishop, although under no jurisdiction in
   England) and of the clerical writers of the Essays and Reviews would
   venture to say. The curiosity was an evidence to the unnaturalness and
   strangeness of the facts. People are curious, not about the indigenous
   productions of a country, but about exotics. Any thing more superficial
   than Dr. Colenso's first volume I never saw: the authors of the Essays
   and Reviews paid the tribute to the faith of the Church and people,
   that they did not speak out, for the most part, the unbelief or
   misbelief which they suggested. They were mostly unsystematic,
   disjointed, unreasoning. Any one who should wish to see what grounds
   were alleged for their statements, would have to go to the rationalist
   works of Germany, or to the infidel or Socinian press in England.!Not
   any intrinsic demerits on their parts above other writings of their
   class gained them this unenviable repute; but the miserable fact, that
   persons who had pledged themselves to the defence of the faith had
   become its assailants. Dr. Davidson's work on the Old Testament,
   gathered mostly from the German rationalist works against it which he
   largely translated, although more systematic and argumentative, excited
   no surprise, because he did not belong to the Church of England. The
   anomaly of such books as Dr. Colenso's and the Essayists did surprise
   people in England. Pious minds among the Protestants in Germany (and, I
   have heard, in France also), who correspond to pious English
   dissenters, were surprised not at the attacks, which among them are
   every-day things to which they were inured, but at the strong feeling
   which those attacks called forth. The union of 11,000 or 12,000 Clergy,
   on occasion of the judgment of the Judicial Committee, to restate the
   doctrines which had been impugned (representing, as they did, other
   thousands of the same faith, who on different grounds did not join in
   that protest), showed how little that misbelief had penetrated among
   the Clergy of England. Mr. Wilson, on his trial, when he affirmed the
   everlastingness of future punishment, and denied that he had taught
   more than what is a modification of the Roman doctrine of purgatory,
   [6] bore witness to the faith of the Church, in that he shrank from
   denying before his judges the truth which, in the simple meaning of
   words, our formularies affirm and he had denied.

   But Dr. Manning goes further. He not only denies that the Church of
   England is "in God's Hands the great bulwark against infidelity in this
   land," but he maintains the paradox, that it is "the cause and spring
   of the existence" of that unbelief; and this, (1) by its denials of
   truths which, he says, it has rejected; (2) by detaching the truths
   which it has received from the divine voice of the Church;" (3) by
   "denying the perpetual and ever-present assistance of the Holy Spirit,
   whereby the Church, in every age, is not only preserved from error, but
   enabled to declare the truth."

   Happy world, if infidelity were the product of one time or clime, or of
   one set of causes only! It is one form only of man's rebellion against
   God. Any one who knows but a little of this side of human nature, knows
   that tendencies to unbelief, as well as a

   capacity for faith, lie deep in man's heart; he knows, too, what
   variety of causes, dispositions, circumstances, what want of balance of
   intellectual or moral qualities or culture, what neglects of grace or
   spiritual defects predispose men to forfeit the gift of faith. It would
   then plainly be unphilosophical and untrue to charge upon any special
   cause alone, a spiritual disease, which is part of man's unsubmission
   to his God. Unbelief may be a strange epidemic at particular times or
   among particular natio ns. Now, among us, every thing comes to the
   surface. But the same causes were in operation when Julian apostatized,
   or he who became St. Augustine fell, before his conversion, among the
   Manichees. The same spiritual defects hindered the conversion of
   philosophers, to whom the Cross of Christ or the resurrection of the
   flesh appeared foolishness, which now destroy the faith of
   half-believers. A very thoughtful writer in the Roman Communion has
   said, "I prefer the open infidelity of the nineteenth century to the
   hidden infidelity of the middle ages; for we know now what we have to
   meet." The English Reformation cannot have been the cause of the
   infidelity of the middle ages, or of that which our countrymen found on
   their first renewed intercourse with Italy. It was not the cause of the
   unbelief, which absorbed successively the young Italians who went up to
   the capital under the late régime in Naples. For the causes of that
   unbelief are well known. Nor did it originate the worship of the
   Goddess of Reason in the first French Revolution, since Catholic
   bishops and priests apostatized. Since it did not occasion the apostacy
   of Renan, why should it be charged with the heathenism of Colenso? The
   middle classes in France, I have been told by well-informed French
   Catholics, are well-nigh lost to the faith. I remember the time when
   processions in France and Catholic Germany were attended only by a few
   women and children. It is said that when the churches were reopened in
   Paris after the first revolution, there were only fifty communicants at
   Easter. There has been, blessed be God, a great restoration of faith
   there, as among ourselves also. It is sad to point out a common misery,
   the destroyer of souls here and there. Yet so much is clear, that it is
   wrong to charge upon the English Church a terrible evil, under which
   every other part of the Catholic Church has suffered. It is more to our
   purpose to consider those grounds which Dr. Manning alleges for his
   assertion.

   (1) That it [7] "rejects much of Christian truth." What we believe, Dr.
   Manning states thus: "The Church of England has also preserved other
   doctrines" (besides those of the existence of a supernatural world, the
   revelation of Christianity, the inspiration of Holy Scripture) "with
   more or less of exactness, such as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,
   the Incarnation, Baptism, and the like. I will not," he adds, "enter
   into the question as to what other doctrines are retained by it,
   because a few more or a few less would made little difference in the
   final estimate a Catholic would make of it." [8]

   Fourteen years must have strangely dulled the memory of that faith
   which Dr. Manning had before he entered the Roman Church, and it is
   strange to contrast his niggard concessions with the large-hearted
   statements of Roman Catholics of other days.

   "We are not in most things," says Du Pin to Archbishop Wake, "so far
   removed from one another that we may not be mutually reconciled. And
   would that all Christians were one fold!" [9] "This union," said Dr.
   Doyle, "is not so difficult as appears to many. It is not difficult;
   for, in the discussions which were held, and the correspondence which
   occurred on this subject, as well that in which Archbishop Wake was
   engaged, as the others which were carried on between Bossuet and
   Leibnitz, it appears that the points of agreement between the Churches
   were numerous, those on which the parties hesitated few, and apparently
   not, the most important. The effort which was then made was not
   attended with success: but its failure was owing more to princes than
   priests; more to state-policy than a difference of belief." [10] We
   have been wont to dwell with pleasure on the amount of faith which we
   confess in common with the Horn an Church. In the three Creeds we
   confess together the whole doctrine as to the Holy Trinity and the
   Incarnation of our Blessed Lord; not, "with more or less of exactness,"
   but in the self-same words, the only words in which the Church has ever
   embodied it. We teach alike the one end of man, the resurrection of the
   dead, and of the flesh specifically, the judgment to come according to
   our works, and the life everlasting, or the everlasting fire. We have
   the self-same doctrine of original sin [11] and its transmission; the
   same prayer against "deadly sins;" the same belief in the "full,
   perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction" made by
   our Dear Lord, "by His one oblation of Himself once offered for the
   sins of the whole world." We both alike acknowledge our own
   unworthiness, that His merits alone can stand between us and our sins;
   both alike believe in the efficacy of "His most precious Blood,"
   wherewith He cleanseth us; both, in His perpetual Intercession for us
   at the Bight Hand of God. We use the self-same prayers in Baptism, and
   thank God, in the same words, that He has been pleased to regenerate
   our children therein. We both confess "one Baptism for the remission of
   sins." After confession, the Church directs the self-same words to be
   used in absolving from sin. I believe that we have the same doctrine of
   grace and of justification. [12] There is not one statement in the
   elaborate chapters on Justification in the Council of Trent which any
   of us could fail of receiving; nor is there one of their anathemas on
   the subject, which in the least rejects any statement of the Church of
   England. As to all the heresies which distracted the early Church,
   whether in regard to the Person of our Lord or His kingdom, or the
   Person and Office of God the Holy Ghost

   (those of Arius and his followers, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches,
   Marcellus), or again, the practical heresies in the West (of Novatian,
   Pelagius, Donatus), we reject alike the same errors.

   Even on other points, in the spirit of that prayer in which we all
   unite, that God would "inspire continually the Universal Church with
   the spirit of truth, unity, and concord," and that He would "grant that
   all they who confess" His "Holy Name may agree, in the truth of" His
   "holy word, and live in unity and godly love," [13] we used ever to be
   glad to point out (as those whom we reverenced had done before us) how
   much there was in common even where there was divergence.

   ii. Dr. Manning says, "If it" (the Church of England) "sustains a
   belief in two sacraments, it formally propagates unbelief in the other
   five." [14] We have pointed out again and again, how the Church of
   England, while teaching (as the fathers often do) that Baptism and the
   Holy Eucharist have a special dignity, symbolized by the Water and the
   Blood which flowed from our Redeemer's side, [15] is careful not to
   exclude other appointments of God from being in some way sacraments, as
   channels of grace, or (in the old definition of sacraments), "visible
   signs of an invisible grace." This is indeed inseparable from the idea
   of Confirmation, Orders, Absolution, Marriage.

   Marriage is, we know, directly called a "Sacrament" in the Homilies.
   [16] Of "Ordination" it is said, that neither [17] be it nor any other
   sacrament else, such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are.
   "Absolution, it says, "has the promise of forgiveness of sins." "Our
   Articles," I said long ago, [18] "do not introduce words at random. It
   has then some meaning when our Articles say, they are not to be counted
   for Sacraments of the Gospel,' that they have not like nature of
   Sacraments;' or the Homilies, that in the exact signification of a
   Sacrament there be but two,' or that Absolution is no such Sacrament as
   Baptism and the Lord's Supper are,' or that neither it nor any other
   Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are,' or
   that the ancient writers in giving the name not only to these five, but
   also to divers other ceremonies, did not mean to repute them as
   Sacraments in the same signification as the two;' or that S. Augustine,
   in the exact meaning of the word, makes mention expressly of two.' And
   with this coincides the definition of our Catechism, that there are two
   only, generally (i. e. universally) necessary to salvation,' the others
   so entitled not being of universal obligation, but relating to certain
   conditions and circumstances of life only. Certainly persons, who
   denied these rites to be in any way Sacraments (according to those
   larger definitions of S. Augustine, a sacred sign' [19] or a sign [20]
   applied to things of God, or of

   the Schoolmen [21] a sign of a sacred thing'), would have said so at
   once, and not have so uniformly and guardedly said on each occasion,
   that they were not such, in exact' or the same signification,' the
   exact meaning,' such,' of the like nature;' nor, of one which they
   regarded as in no sense a Sacrament, would they have said neither it,
   nor any other Sacrament else.'"

   Even as to Extreme Unction, it only objects to the later abuse before
   the Council of Trent, when it was customarily administered to those
   only, of whom there was a moral certainty that they could not recover;
   and, if they should recover, it was a question whether it should be
   again administered to them when they should again be sick. This is
   manifestly the meaning of the words, "the corrupt followers of the
   Apostles," Art. XXV., viz., that the unction of the sick, which the
   Apostle's words implies was to be given with the view or hope of their
   recovering, was given whe n, but for some special interposition of God,
   they could not recover. The Council of Trent, too, we used to point out
   not only makes a distinction between the dignity of the Sacraments
   which it acknowledges, but pronounces an Anathema on those who deny it.

   iii. Dr. Manning proceeds: "If it" (the Church of England) "recognizes
   an undefined Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, it formally imposes
   on its people a disbelief in Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of
   the Altar." Those before us have pointed out, how the Church of England
   taught, not an "undefined," but "a Real Objective Presence of Christ's
   Blessed Body and Blood." Take, e. g., the statement framed word by word
   on our Formularies, in a work [22] which received the sanction of two
   of our then Archbishops, to whom it was, with permission, inscribed,
   and which used to be recommended to Candidates for Holy Orders.

   "Taking as her immutable foundation the words of Jesus Christ--'This is
   My Body--This is My Blood of the New, Covenant, and, Whoso eateth My
   Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath Eternal Life,' she believes that the
   Body or Flesh, and the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Redeemer
   of the world, both God and Man, united indivisibly in one Person, are
   verily and indeed given, taken, eaten, and received by the faithful in
   the Lord's Supper, under the outward sign or form of Bread and Wine,
   which is on this account the Partaking or Communion of the Body and
   Blood of Christ.' She believes, that the Eucharist is not the sign of
   an absent Body, and that those who partake of it receive not merely the
   figure, or shadow, or sign of Christ's Body, but the reality itself.
   And as Christ's Divine and Human Natures are inseparably united, so she
   believes that we receive in the Eucharist, not only the Flesh and Blood
   of Christ, but Christ Himself, both God and Man."

   With regard to the term "Transubstantiation," there must be a real
   difference between the meaning which it had in the minds of the
   Schoolmen, and that which it must now have since the Catechism of the
   Council of Trent. For it is there taught with

   authority, that "the Eucharist has been called bread, because it has
   the appearance, and still retains the quality, natural to bread, of
   supporting and nourishing;" but the Schoolmen thought, that with the
   "change of substance" that power of nourishing ceased. Yet this being
   granted, I know not what can be included in our term "substance," which
   the English Church affirms to remain, which is not also included in the
   Roman term "accidents," which they also affirm to remain. Clearly the
   doctrine which the Church of England rejects under the term
   "Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine,"
   is only one which "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament," in that the
   sign and the thing signified became the same. This was so, according to
   the doctrine of the Schoolmen, in which "substance" was equivalent to
   "matter." The meaning of the word "substance" being changed, the Roman
   doctrine must be so far changed too. Archbishop Plato, in the Greek
   Church admits the term metousiwsiV in a sense which, if proposed to it,
   the English Church must accept. "The Eastern and Greek-Russian Church
   admits the word Transubstantiation,' in Greek metousiwsiV, not that
   physical and carnal transubstantiation, but the sacramental and
   mystical, and receives that word Transubstantiation in the same sense
   in which the oldest fathers of the Greek Church received the words
   metallagh, metaqesiV, metastoiceiwsiV." [23] A sacramental or a
   hyperphysical change no English churchman, who believes the Real
   Presence as his Church teaches, could hesitate to accept.

   The doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice depends upon the doctrine of
   the real objective Presence. Where there is the Apostolic succession
   and a consecration in our Lord's words, there, it is held by Roman
   authorities too, is the Eucharistic sacrifice. The very strength of the
   expressions used of "the sacrifices of masses," that "they were
   blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits," the use of the plural, and
   the clause "in the which it was commonly said," show that what the
   Article speaks of is not "the sacrifice of the Mass," [24] but the
   habit (which as one hears from time to time, still remains) of trusting
   to the purchase of Masses when dying, to the neglect of a holy life, or
   repentance, and the grace of God and His mercy in Christ Jesus, while
   in health. I have been obliged to speak negatively, in order to explain
   what it is which is denied. But the

   Church of England, acknowledging the belief of the fathers whose
   teaching we are required to follow, [25] and the doctrine of the
   Councils which it recognizes as "received by all men," receives what
   they taught. One thing alone she is jealous of, that nothing should
   seem to overshadow, or interfere with, or supplement the
   meritoriousness of the One Sacrifice of Our dear Lord upon the Cross.
   This is what she everywhere guards: "The offering of Christ once made
   is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the
   sins of the world, original and actual, and there is none other
   satisfaction for sin but this alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of
   Masses, &c." Plainly then, by the force of the word wherefore, she
   rejects no sacrifice which does not interfere with this. In celebrating
   the Holy Eucharist she pleads to "God, Who, of" His "tender mercy did
   give" His "only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our
   redemption, Who made there, by His one oblation of Himself once
   offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and
   satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." But that sacrifice, once
   made, lives on in Heaven. There our Lord, who shall come down to judge,
   as He went into Heaven, still bears the marks of the wounds which for
   us and our salvation He received, effulgent with the glory of His
   Godhead, irradiant with His Divine love. There He pleads that
   all-Atoning Sacrifice; there, for these 1800 years, has He lived to
   make intercession for us, generation after generation, yea, for each
   one of our sinful race. But since His perpetual intercession for us
   (which is an article of faith contained in plainest words of Holy
   Scripture) does not interfere with that one atonement made upon the
   Gross, neither does any pleading of that One Meritorious Sacrifice
   which was finished there, in that to the Merits of that One oblation
   our dear Lord Himself adds nothing. It sufficed for the sins of the
   whole world. That One Sacrifice we plead in every "through Jesus Christ
   our Lord," with which we end each prayer. Our Lord, as we confess to
   God, "did institute, and in His Holy Gospel command us to continue, a
   perpetual memory of that His precious Death until His Coming again,"
   that we might plead to the Father that same Sacrifice. In the Holy
   Eucharist we do in act what in our prayers we do in words. I am
   persuaded that, on this point, the two Churches might be reconciled by
   explanation of the terms used. The Council of Trent, in laying down the
   doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, claims nothing for the Holy
   Eucharist but an application of the One meritorious sacrifice of the
   Cross. An application of that sacrifice the Church of England believes
   also. Many years have flowed away since we have taught this, and have
   noticed [26] how the words, "sacrifice," "proper," or "propitiatory
   sacrifice," have been alternately accepted or rejected, according as
   they were supposed to mean that the Eucharistic sacrifice acquired
   something propitiatory in itself, or only applied what was merited once
   and for ever by the One sacrifice of our Lord upon the Cross. "If you
   say," said even the Lutheran

   Pfaff, [27] "that the Eucharist applies to the faithful the
   propitiation made by the sacrifice on the Cross, no Protestant will
   dispute this. But if you believe that the devotion of the Eucharist
   acquires and obtains propitiation, you may be saying what is per haps
   at variance from the opinion of the Roman Church. For the Council of
   Trent [28] says that, our Lord, in order that He might leave to His
   Church a visible sacrifice, whereby that bloody Sacrifice, which was to
   be once accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, and its memory
   abide to the end of the world, and its salutary efficacy be applied to
   the remission of our daily sins, declaring Himself a Priest for ever
   after the order of Melchizedek, offered to God the Father His Body and
   Blood under the forms of bread and wine.'" [29]

   It is an Ultra-montanist Bishop, a Penitentiary of Pope John XXII.,
   who, in the 14th century, in his work "On the moaning of the Church,"
   said, "Our Church is full and over-full of altars, masses, and
   sacrifices, and therewith is, in the sacrifices, full of homicides,
   sacrileges, uncleannesses, and simonies and other wickednesses,
   excommunications and irregularities to the very utmost.--For at this
   day so many masses are said for gain, or custom, or complaisance, or to
   cover wickednesses, or for their own justification, that both among
   priests and people the holy Body of the Lord is now held cheap. Whence
   also S. Francis willed that the brothers everywhere should be content
   with one mass, foreseeing that the brothers would wish to justify
   themselves by masses, and reduce them to a matter of gain as we see
   done at this day. And now through custom or rather corruption it has
   indurated, that a mass, priced at three or four denars or one shilling,
   is bought and sold by a blind people and by wicked simoniacal priests."
   [30]

   This is but the echo of a part of what was said over and over again
   twenty-six years ago; and our dear friend's tract [31] has done good
   and lasting service, by breaking off a mass of unauthorized traditional
   glosses, which had encrusted over the Thirty-nine Articles. The
   interpretation which he then put forth, and which in him was blamed,
   was at the time vindicated by others without blame. [32] The blame was
   occasioned by two circumstances, owing to which Tract 90 was thought to
   intend to admit much more than our friend meant. 1) There was in regard
   to Art. XXII., a purposed vagueness in the first edition, occasioned by
   his own diffidence in that he did not wish, to suggest how much of any
   practice, disused but not forbidden by the Church of England, might be
   resumed by individuals in her. 2) It was misinterpreted in an extreme
   Roman sense by Mr. Ward. But the principle of Tract 90, viz. that we
   are not to bring into the Articles, out of any popular

   W. B. Heathcote. I vindicated it in my letter to Dr. Jelf, as the
   natural grammatical interpretation of the Articles; Mr. Heathcote, as
   their only admissible interpretation.

   system, any meanings which are not contained in their words, rightly
   and accurately understood, was not and could not be condemned. Sound
   teaching has been condemned, not when it was put forth distinctly, but
   while there was any indefiniteness about it. Dr. Manning alludes to the
   censure of our friend, Bishop Forbes, by the Scotch Bishops. But when
   he explained himself elaborately in his defence, he was censured no
   more. The doctrines which he taught have been vindicated in the Church
   of Scotland, with the whole breadth and depth of Patristic teaching
   [33] and the paper, which censured his teaching before he was heard, is
   admitted to be only the private opinion of those who signed it.

   iv. Dr. Manning says, "The Church of England, in the Articles, affirms,
   that all Churches have erred, that General Councils may err." In saying
   that "General Councils may err," she affirms less than Bellarmine, and
   indeed all Roman Divines, who affirm that General Councils have erred.
   For they speak of "General Councils which have been disapproved," and
   of "General Councils which have been partly approved, partly
   disapproved." The Gallican Church held, as our Homilies also imply,
   that reception by the Church constitutes the true validity of a General
   Council. The language of the Homilies, [34] "those six Councils which
   were allowed and received of all men," agrees with that of Bossuet,
   "that Is a lawful Council, with which, while acting as OEcumenical, the
   whole Church communicates, and the matter being dijudicated, holds it
   to be adhered to, so that the authority of the Council rests on the
   authority and consent of the universal Church, nay, is the very
   authority of the Catholic Church." [35]

   But then Dr. Manning gathers up Article XIX. into the formula "All
   Churches have erred." True, in one sense; there has been error
   everywhere. Satan has sown his seed everywhere. But not all at once,
   nor collectively, nor in any formal decision, so that the whole Church
   should agree in sanctioning what is untrue, which seems to be contrary
   to our Lord's promise, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against
   her." The Article says nothing about formal errors or decrees. This
   Article was a puzzle to me when young. Having received the then
   traditional interpretation, that the Article meant certain errors
   contained in decrees of the Church of Some, I inquired what were the
   erroneous decrees of "the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and
   Antioch," in the corresponding clause. I could obtain no information,
   and thought it was my own ignorance. The two clauses, being put
   antithetically, must correspond. "Since," I argued, "they were decrees
   in the one case, they must have been decrees in the other." When upon
   fuller information I found that there were no canons of "Jerusalem,
   Alexandria, and Antioch," which were intended, then it followed, on the
   same principle of the correspondence of the two clauses, that neither
   were canons of the Church of Rome spoken of. The Article, moreover,
   does not say that "the Church of Rome is in error" in the present, but,
   "hath

   erred," in time past, just as it says of the other Patriarchates, that
   they "have erred," i. e. in time past. But whether its object is to
   state that corruptions had crept in, in the Roman Church also, as a
   ground of the need of a Reformation, or whether it was meant as a
   protest against the infallibility of that Church by itself, in neither
   case does it militate against the inerrancy of the whole Church
   collectively. The fact that practical corruptions had crept in, was
   virtually owned by the Roman Church too, by the reforms which it
   instituted.

   But neither is "Papal Infallibility" an article of faith anywhere. The
   Eastern Church, in its whole length and breadth, agrees, of course,
   with us. But in the West too, the Gallican Church, also, which holds
   the consent of the Universal Church to be essential to infallibility,
   could not hold the infallibility of the Pope, by himself, without such
   an OEcumenical Council. You remember how Bossuet [36] not only adduces
   instances in which questions remained open after the Bishop of Rome had
   expressed his decided opinion (as the question of rebaptizing heretics
   was settled by the Council of Arles, [37] or that of the keeping of
   Easter by the Council of Nice), [38] or how questions were decided by
   the joint authority of a Bishop of Borne and another Patriarch (as when
   the Origenists were condemned, first by Theophilus, and, through his
   influence, by Anastasius), [39] such judgment being accepted by the
   universal Church; or how the judgment of the Bishop of Rome was
   confirmed by a subsequent Council; or appeal from him was, in
   principle, allowed by S. Augustine, [40] --and not only this, but you
   will recollect how Bossuet even presses the case, in which Popes
   pronounced wrongly in matters of faith too. He urges the terrible and
   utter fall of Liberius (who not only subscribed a heretical creed and
   condemned S. Athanasius, but owned all the worst Arians, whence S.
   Hilary pronounced Anathema on him), [41] or how Zosimus, himself
   orthodox, approved the Pelagian confession of Coelestius; [42] or
   Hormisdas, without enunciating wrong doctrine, yet, when appealed to in
   common with other Bishops, censured those who taught the right faith,
   as was afterwards owned by all. [43]

   He insisted also on the case of Honorius, who was anathematized by the
   sixth General Council, in that, when formally consulted by three
   Patriarchs, he approved of the heretical letter of Sergius, and
   condemned the orthodox letter of Sophronius, and the true

   doctrine equally with the false. [44] Bossuet showed too how Gregory
   II. and Stephen II., and Celestine III., formally gave wrong responses
   on questions touching marriage, and sanctioned what was in fact
   adultery; [45] how Stephen II. and Nicolas I. gave wrong answers as to
   the Sacrament of Baptism--Stephen as to its form, Nicolas as to its
   words. [46] In the long Franciscan controversy about poverty, Bossuet
   shows [47] that Nicolas III. praised that, as conformable to the
   example of Our Lord, which John XXII. subsequently declared it to be
   erroneous and heretical to ascribe to Him; and that he alleged that Our
   Lord did that, taking on Himself the "person of the weak," which was
   just and right. Lastly, John XXII. preached that publicly, and caused
   it (it is thought) to be preached at Paris, and defended it to the
   French king; the contrary of which, he, when convinced by the French
   Theologians sent to him, confessed, "together with the Catholic
   Church," to be true. [48]

   Bossuet [49] himself held the distinction between "the see" and "him
   who sat thereon," maintaining that what Roman Bishops "taught believed,
   declared, was not as yet (the teaching, belief, declaration) of the
   Roman Church and of the Apostolic See, until, being promulgated by the
   Roman Pontiff, and received by the whole Church, it obtained; and that
   this was the Roman faith, the faith of Peter, and of the Apostolic See,
   which could not fail." It is apparent that Bossuet and our Articles
   are, in this, speaking of different things, since Bossuet affirms that
   only to be de fide, which is received and sanctioned by the whole
   Church, our Article speaks of that which is not so received, since it
   compares the Roman Church with the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria,
   Antioch, as distinct from them. But the Church of England, equally with
   Bossuet, maintains that which has been received by the whole Church to
   be certainly true.

   v. And this is, in fact, an answer to Dr. Manning's statement, that
   "the Church of England weakens the hold of the truths which it teaches,
   by detaching them from the Divine voice of the Church." The statement
   in the Articles, "The Church hath authority in controversies of faith,"
   in itself implies a Divine authority; for none but a Divine authority
   can have any power to decide in matters of faith. It also implies a
   necessary preservation of the Church, as a whole, from error (according
   to our Lord's true promise, "The gates of hell shall not prevail
   against her," "Lo, I am with you alway, until to the end of the
   world"), because it would be sinful to say that the Church has
   authority to declare what is untrue. The Athanasian Creed, of course,
   implies the same. "Whosoever will be saved, before all things, it is
   necessary that he hold the Catholic faith." "We are forbidden by the
   Catholic religion to say." "This is the Catholic faith, which, except a

   man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." For the "Catholic faith"
   can plainly mean nothing else than the faith held by the Catholic
   Church, which in our creeds we equally confess. It is a body of faith
   set before us on authority; confessed by us now, as it was centuries
   ago; immutable; which we own that they who have received would incur
   the loss of their souls by wilfully casting it away, and, in it,
   rejecting God Who gave it. There is no room left for inquiry here. And
   so again, when, in the exhortation to godparents in the Baptismal
   Service, they are bidden to provide that "the child may learn the
   Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar
   tongue, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and
   believe to his soul's health," the Church of England plainly teaches,
   that there is a body of faith, beyond the Apostles' Creed, which to
   "know and believe" is essential to the well-being of all Christians.
   "When asserting also the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for
   salvation, it defines on the one side the power of the Church, but it
   recognizes the power which it defines. "Holy Scripture containeth all
   things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein,
   nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it
   should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite
   or necessary to salvation." The Church of England would not have said,
   that certain things are "not to be required of any man that they should
   be believed," unless it held that other things, which are read in Holy
   Scripture, and which may be proved thereby, may be so required. So that
   the Article which sets forth the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, agrees
   with that which declares, that "the Church hath authority in matters of
   faith." It implies the authority of the Church, while it lays down
   certain limits to it.

   Nor is this limitation other than what the old Catholic fathers, to
   whom in the homilies she so often appeals, have from the first so often
   and emphatically said. There was no contrast between Tradition and Holy
   Scripture. "We willingly acknowledge," says Bp. Usher too, "that the
   word of God, which by some of the Apostles was set down in writing, was
   both by themselves and others of their fellow-labourers delivered by
   word of mouth; and that the Church in succeeding ages was bound, not
   only to preserve those Sacred "Writings committed to her trust, but
   also to deliver unto her children viva voce the form of wholesome words
   contained therein. Traditions, therefore, of this nature come not
   within the compass of our controversy, the question being de ipsa
   doctrina tradita, not de tradendi modo, touching the substance of the
   doctrine delivered, not of the manner of delivering it.' Again, it must
   be remembered, that here we speak of the doctrine delivered, as the
   "Word of God,' that is, of points of religion revealed unto the
   Prophets and Apostles, for the perpetual information of God's people;
   not of rites and ceremonies and other ordinances, which are left to the
   disposition of the Church, and consequently be not of Divine, but of
   positive and human right. Traditions, therefore, of this kind likewise
   are not properly brought within the circuit of this question." [50]

   The authority of the Church was given to her by her Divine Lord within
   certain

   limits. "Teach them," He said, "whatever I command you." All must admit
   then, that she could not command any thing which should be really
   contrary to Holy Scripture. ]STor must she contradict herself. The
   Fathers of the later General Councils began their office by expressing
   their assent to the earlier, and considered their own work as only
   expanding what was contained in the earlier, with a view to meet the
   new heresy which had emerged. So neither is it any undue limitation of
   the authority of the Church to lay down another limit, that the Church
   may not require "as necessary to salvation" what is not read in Holy
   Scripture, or may be proved by it, This only implies the historical
   fact, that the same body of saving truths which the Apostles first
   preached orally, they afterwards, under the inspiration of God the Holy
   Ghost, wrote in Holy Scripture, God ordering in His Providence that, in
   the unsystematic teaching of Holy Scripture, all should be embodied
   which is essential to establish the faith. This is said over and over
   again by the Fathers. [51] This limitation of the power of the Church
   does not set individuals free to criticise, on their private judgments,
   what the whole Church has decided. It is an axiom, "God cannot
   contradict Himself;" yet this does not set Rationalists free to deny
   any truth in Holy Scripture, because, in their private misjudgments,
   they think it at variance with some other favourite truth. And yet
   nothing is more common. "How apt are we," says Bp. Hall, [52] "if Thou
   dost never so little vary from our apprehensions, to misknow Thee, and
   to wrong ourselves by our misopinions!" "God is love;" but we may not
   argue thence, that He did not create Hell. Bather; Hell itself is a
   portion of His love to those who will be brought to love Him. None will
   be shut out from the Love of God, who do not formally reject God. But
   the Day of Judgment will alone reveal how many millions will love Him
   for ever, who would never have loved Him, unless the fear of Hell had
   first scared them to seek Him, and so to know Him and to love Him. Nay,
   since fear is here almost inseparable from love, it alone will declare
   how many exalted spirits there will have been quickened in their higher
   degrees of love by the awe lest they should endlessly lose Him. The
   truth does not justify its abuse, "nor does the abuse take away the
   use." As the truth, "God cannot contradict Himself," does not set men
   free to criticise any portion of His revelation, so neither does the
   truth, "His Church may not lay down as necessary to salvation what God
   has not revealed in His "Word," set men free to criticise what He has
   taught His whole Church to declare and to receive as saving truth, any
   more than that other maxim (which also limits the power of the Church,
   but which all receive), "His Church may not contradict His Word."

   The statement that the three Creeds "ought thoroughly to be received
   and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy
   Scripture," is, in fact, only an application of that principle. The
   Athanasian Creed, indeed, was received tacitly, not formally, by the
   Church, embodying, as it does, the faith authoritatively set forth in
   the four first General Councils. But the General Councils themselves
   acknowledge the principle. The words, "according to the Scriptures," in
   the Nicene Creed, involve it. The

   Council of Ephesus says, "The Holy Synod approved the letter written to
   him (Nestorius) by the most holy Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, as
   written rightly and unexceptionally, and in no wise unharmonizing with
   the inspired Scriptures, or with the faith set forth at Nice."i [53]
   The Council of Chalcedon [54] "ratifies the doctrine on the Substance
   of the Holy Spirit delivered by the 150 holy Fathers met at
   Constantinople; which they made known to all, not as if they added any
   thing which was deficient in that before them, but making clear by
   testimonies of Scripture their thought of the Holy Spirit against those
   who essayed to annul His dominion." S. Athanasius mentions this, as a
   principle of the fathers at Nicæa, in answer to the Arians who tried to
   shake the Creed of Nicæa. "Vainly do they (the Arians) run about with
   the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith's sake. For
   Divine Scripture is sufficient above all things. But if a council be
   needed on the matter, there are the proceedings of the Fathers. For the
   Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so
   exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be
   reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in Divine
   Scripture." [55] "If [56] the expressions are not in so many words in
   the Scriptures, yet, as we said before, they contain the sense of the
   Scriptures, and, expressing it, they convey it to those who have their
   hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." So that Constantine
   expressed a truth which he had been taught, when he exhorted the
   assembled Fathers to unity, [57] "having the written teaching of the
   All-Holy Spirit. For the books of the Gospels and Apostles, and the
   oracles of the ancient Prophets, instruct us clearly what we ought to
   think of the Divinity." S. Leo expressed his surprise that "some
   calumniators spoke of his letter, which was approved by the whole
   world" (being received by the Council of Chalcedon), "as obscure, since
   its doctrine was so plain and solid as to admit of no novelty either in
   substance or language, because whatever he had written is shown to have
   been taken from the teaching of Apostles and Gospels." [58] S. Leo in
   the Epistle itself [59] ascribes the heresy of Eutyches to his
   ignorance of Holy Scripture; hip own wonderful statement of doctrine is
   full of it.

   vi.
          Lastly, Dr. Manning says, "If the Church of England teaches that
          there is a Church upon earth, it formally denies a) its
          indissoluble unity, b) its visible Head, and c) its perpetual
          Divine voice."

   vi.
          a How the Church of England can be said "formally to deny the
          indissoluble unity of the Church," I know not, seeing that we
          cannot approach the Holy Communion without confessing, "I
          believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church." In our Litany, we
          pray for "the Holy Church Universal," and not for our Bishops
          only, but for "all

   Bishops," all, accordingly, throughout the whole world, east and west.
   In our Ember Weeks, we pray "Our Heavenly Father, Who hast purchased to
   Thyself an Universal Church by the precious Blood of Thy Dear Son,
   mercifully look upon the same, and at this time so guide and govern the
   minds of Thy servants, the Bishops and Pastors of Thy flock." We pray
   accordingly for God's special guidance of the Bishops of the Universal
   Church. At Holy Communion we pray God to "inspire continually the
   Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord," and for
   "all Bishops," not our own only. Certainly, since prayer is the voice
   of the soul to God, we express riot our inmost belief only, but a
   loving belief, that the Church is one.

   How it is one, the Church nowhere defines; but the faith is kept alive
   by prayer more than by definitions. Yet, whatever duties may follow
   upon the Unity of the Church, it is plain that no harmony of men's
   wills can constitute a supernatural and Divine Unity.

   Unity, in part, is the direct gift of God; in part, it is the fruit of
   that gift in the mutual love of the members of the Church. In part, it
   is a spiritual oneness wrought by God the Holy Ghost; in part, it is a
   grace, to be exercised by man, a consequence and fruit of that gift. In
   one way, it is organic unity derived from Christ, and binding all to
   Christ, descending from the Head to the Body, and uniting the Body to
   the Head;

   in another, it consists in acts of love from the members one to
   another. Christ our Lord, God and Man, binds us to Him by the
   indwelling of His Spirit, by the gift of His Sacraments, administered
   by those to whom He gave the commission so to do, by the right faith in
   Himself. "We are bound to one another, in that we are members of Him,
   and by the love which He sheds abroad in our hearts through the Spirit
   which He giveth us, and by common acts of worship and intercommunion.

   Of these, the highest and chief is that which binds us to Christ
   Himself. Our highest union with one another is an organic union with
   one another through union with Him. It is not chiefly an union of will,
   or of mind, or of love, although these ought to be the fruits of it in
   its most perfect state, but an union through His indwelling Spirit. It
   is an union, in a degree, corresponding with the union of the Father
   and the Son. "As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also
   may be one in Us." It was the perverseness of the Arians to say, that
   the oneness of the Father and the Son was no other than that of Their
   creatures with Them, that either we too are of the Father's own
   substance, or the Son is not so. The words do not express identity, nor
   equality. [60] Else it might be said, that "to be perfect as the Father
   is perfect," implied that the creature would become such as the
   Creator; or, that to be "harmless as doves," implies that we should
   have the harmlessness of irrational animals, not that which is
   inwrought through the Holy Spirit of God. The words do express a
   certain relation and analogy, an actual real oneness, not in ourselves,
   but with God. As we are called "sons by adoption and grace," as being
   members of the Son, and are even called "gods," says S. Athanasius,
   through the indwelling of God the Holy Ghost; so we become one in Them,
   in that the Father is in the

   Son, and the Son cometh to be in us. "Since Thou," our Lord saith (it
   is S. Athanasius's paraphrase of His words), "art in Me, because I am
   Thy Word, and I in them, because of the body, and for Thee the
   salvation of man is perfected in Me, according to its perfection, I ask
   that they too may become perfect, having oneness with It, and having
   become one in It, that all, carried as it were by Me, may become one
   body and one Spirit, and may grow up into a perfect man." This oneness,
   then, is an actual mystical oneness, inwrought by Christ our Head,
   uniting the whole Church together in one with Himself in His Body; an
   actual oneness produced by grace, corresponding to the Oneness of the
   Father and the Son by nature. S. Cyril points out more distinctly the
   way of this union: 1st, with our nature, through the Incarnation, and
   then, with us, through His indwelling, by the Sacrament of His Body and
   Blood, and by His Spirit. S. Cyril speaks first of imitation, next of
   indwelling. "Above," he says, [61] "we have said, that the union of
   believers through likeness of mind and soul ought to imitate the manner
   of the Divine Unity, and the essential identity of the Holy Trinity.
   But on these words we will essay to show that the oneness, according to
   which we are bound to one another and all to God, is, in a manner, one
   of nature, and, may be, not lacking in a bodily oneness with one
   another, although our bodies are different from one another, and each
   has his own personal being. There-being confessedly a natural oneness
   of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (for One Godhead in the Holy Trinity is
   believed and glorified), let us consider in what way we too are found
   one, both bodily and spiritually, both towards each other and towards
   God. The Only-Begotten, having shone upon us from the very Essence of
   God the Father, and having in His own Nature all which the Father is,
   became Flesh according to the Scriptures, having, as it were, mingled
   Himself with our nature, through the ineffable concurrence and union
   with this body which is from the earth. Thus He, by nature God, was
   truly called and became a Heavenly Man (not bearing God,' as some say
   who do not accurately understand the depth of the mystery, but) being,
   in one, God and Man, that having, in a manner, co-united in Himself
   what by nature was far apart and alien from all sameness of nature, He
   might make man to communicate in and partake of the Divine Nature. For
   the communication and abiding of the Spirit passed through to us also,
   having taken its beginning through Christ and in Christ first, being,
   as Man, anointed and sanctified, although, as He was by Nature God (as
   He appeared from the Father), He Himself with His own Spirit hallowing
   His own temple and the whole creation made by Him, and whatsoever
   admits of being hallowed. The mystery of Christ, then, was made a sort
   of beginning and way whereby we too might partake of the Holy Spirit,
   and of oneness with God. For in Christ are we all hallowed in the way
   afore spoken. In order, then, that we ourselves too, although differing
   both in souls and bodies through that which is personal to each, might
   come together and be commingled into an unity with God and one another,
   the Only-Begotten contrived a way, devised through the wisdom befitting
   Him, and through the counsel of the Father. For by One Body, His own,
   blessing

   through the mystical communion those who believe in Him, He makes us
   incorporate with Himself and with one another. For who should separate
   and remove from a natural oneness with one another, those who through
   the One Holy Body are bound up into oneness with Christ? For if we all
   partake of the One Bread,' we are all made one Body.' For Christ cannot
   be divided. Wherefore the Church is called also the body of Christ,'
   and we too are members in particular,' according to the mind of Paul.
   For we all, being united by One Christ through the Holy Body, in that
   we have received in our own bodies Him the One and Indivisible, owe our
   members more to him than to ourselves.-- But that, by partaking of the
   Holy Flesh, we obtain that union with Christ which is in a manner
   bodily, Paul will testify, speaking of' the mystery of godliness which
   in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, but is now
   revealed unto His holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit, that the
   Gentiles should he co-heirs, and concorporate and co-partakers of His
   promise in Christ.' [62] But if we are all incorporate with one another
   in Christ, and not only with one another, hut with Himself, in that He
   is in us through His own Flesh, how are we not all clearly one both
   with each other and with Christ? For Christ is the Bond of oneness,
   being, in One, God and Man.

   "But as to the Oneness in Spirit, we all, having feoeived One and the
   same Holy Spirit, are in a manner mingled with each other and with God.
   For although to us, being many, Christ giveth the Father's and His own
   spirit to dwell in each of us, yet is He One and Indivisible, holding
   together in oneness through Himself the spirits which, in their several
   existences, are severed from oneness, and making all to appear as one
   in Himself. For as the power of the Holy Flesh maketh those
   concorporate, in whom It is, in like way, I deem, the One Indivisible
   Spirit of God, dwelling in all, bringeth all together to the spiritual
   unity. For since One Spirit dwelteth in us, God the One Father of all
   will be in us, through the Son, holding in oneness, both to one another
   and to Himself, whatsoever partaketh of the Spirit."

   S. Hilary is even at pains to show, against the Arians, that the unity
   spoken of is not an unity of will but an unity of nature; and so he
   overthrows the more their sophism that the Unity of the Father and the
   Son was an unity of will only. "I [63] ask those who thrust upon us an
   unity of will between the Father and the Son, whether Christ is at this
   day in us by truth of nature, or by harmony of will? For if the Word is
   truly made Flesh, and we truly receive the Word, being Flesh, in the
   Food of the Lord, how must He no t be thought to abide by nature in us,
   Who, being born Man, took the nature of our flesh inseparably to
   Himself, and under the Sacrament of the Flesh to be communicated to us,
   blended the nature of His Flesh with the Divine Nature?"

   And as to the other Sacrament, S. Hilary [64] says, "The Apostle
   teacheth, from the nature of Sacraments, that this is the unity of the
   faithful. As many as have been baptized unto Christ, have put on
   Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor

   free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ
   Jesus.' [65] But that in so great variety of nations, conditions,
   sexes, they are one, is this from consent of the will or from the unity
   of the Sacrament, in that they both have one Baptism and all have put
   on one Christ? What has concord of minds to do here, seeing they are
   thereby one, that, by the nature of One Baptism, they are clothed with
   one Christ? "

   The first then and very chiefest character of Unity is not any thing
   which comes forth from us; it is infused into us by God. But this it is
   man's part to receive, and he receives it by faith. "There is One Body
   and One Spirit;" "One Body," as held together by the "One" Holy
   "Spirit;" "One Body," of all which are and have been and shall be, all
   too who before Christ's Coming believed in Him and pleased Him. "For to
   this end," says S. Chrysostom, [66] "was the Spirit given, that He
   might unite those who are separated by race and by different manners;
   for old and young, rich and poor, child, youth, and man, male and
   female, and every soul become, in a manner, one, and more entirely so
   than if there were one body."

   S. Paul also, following our Lord, places the origin of unity in God.
   God maketh us one body, by giving to us One Spirit, ingrafting us into
   One Christ through One Baptism, regenerating us to "one hope of our
   calling," freely giving to us, son-ship, heaven, infusing into us One
   Faith; for "faith," he says, "is the gift of God."

   But from this also S. Hilary [67] argues, that our union is an union of
   nature, not of will. "They who were of one heart and of one soul, I
   ask, were they one through the Faith of God? Yes; through faith was the
   heart and soul of all one. And the faith was it one or more? One
   certainly, since the Apostle himself sets forth One Faith' as One
   Lord,' and One Baptism,' and One Hope,' and One God.' If then through
   faith, i. e. by the nature of one faith, all were one, why is there not
   an unity by nature in those who are one by the nature of One Faith?"

   But it is of man to retain the faith which he has received. They have
   not the same Lord, who do not believe the same truth as to Him. The
   heretics of old who did not believe that the Son was Consubstantial,
   Co-Eternal, and Co-Equal with the Father, or that, when Incarnate, He
   had a human soul, or true flesh truly taken of the Virgin Mary, or that
   the Blessed Virgin bare Him Who was God, or who held that God dwelt
   only in the Man Christ Jesus, or contrariwise, that the Manhood was
   absorbed into God, or that our Lord had no human will--these and
   whatsoever else there was of ancient heresy on the Holy Trinity and the
   Incarnation, believed not the same Lord; as neither did the Pelagians
   believe in what He wrought for us, and the Donatists denied the
   existence of that mystical body, whereof He was the Head.

   The Faith, S. Paul says, is one, one unchangeable faith, admitting
   neither of enlargement nor diminution, so that either what the Apostles
   believed and taught the whole Church as faith, should cease to be
   faith, or that any thing should become faith

   which they, full of the Holy Ghost, knew not and taught not as the
   faith. But since the faith is one, one whole, then whosoever parteth
   with, or altereth any portion of the one faith, in fact changes the
   whole, so that it is not the same faith, whence the stress in the
   Anthanasian Creed on "keeping the faith whole and undefiled."

   This unity, derived from Our Blessed Lord as Head of the Church, is
   imparted primarily through the Sacraments. S. Paul says, that "all,
   baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," and, having put him on, are
   one in Christ. And of the Holy Eucharist, "We, being many, are one
   bread and one body: for we all are partakers of that one Bread." [68]
   By Baptism we are ingrafted into the mystical body of Christ; by
   partaking of His Body, we continue to be members of His Body. But as
   Christ Himself worketh all things in all, He baptizeth invisibly, He
   consecrateth, He strengtheneth those who stand, He restoreth those who
   fall; yet to signify to us that He doeth it, He useth the outward
   ministry of men, appointed in succession, from the day when He breathed
   on the Apostles and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose soever sins
   ye remit, they are remitted unto them; whose soever sins ye retain,
   they are retained." [69] Such an organization, as essential to the
   transmission of grace from Christ our Head, seems to lie in the words
   of S. Paul, "holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and
   bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together," [70]
   "according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,
   increaseth with the increase of God." [71] The "joints and bands" are,
   in the image of the body, naturally those ministers by which the whole
   body is held together in one, and through which spiritual nourishment
   is ministered to the growth of the whole. Certainly, the Apostolic
   ministry was to continue to the end of the world. "Apostles, prophets,
   evangelists, pastors, and teachers," or those in their stead, He set in
   the Church, "for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come,
   in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto
   a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
   Christ."

   Thus, then, we have from Holy Scripture, as means and conditions of the
   unity of the Church, One All-Perfect Author, the "One God and Father of
   all;" one end to which all tends, the "one hope of our calling;" "One
   Head," the Head of the Church, our "One Lord;" "One Spirit," giving
   life to every living member; the same Sacraments, "One Baptism," and
   "One Bread," by which we are all ingrafted into or maintained in the
   One Body of our One Head; one Apostolic descent of the Bishops and
   Pastors of the flock, coming down from One; "One" common "Faith," that
   which was given once for all, with the anathema that we hold no
   doctrine at variance with it, although an Angel from Heaven were to
   preach it. Of the se we are receivers only.

   These if any wilfully reject, they reject Christ. They sever
   themselves, not only from the Body of Christ, but directly from the
   Head, loosing the band which binds them

   unto Him. These while Christian bodies retain, they are, so long, like
   the river which "went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence
   it was parted and became into four heads." They come from the Fountain
   of blessedness; they flow down to the Ocean of the Eternal Love of God;
   they water the parched land; the y cool and refresh the weary and the
   thirsty in the places which God has appointed for them with the one
   stream coming down from Him. They are one in their One Original, from
   which they continually and unchangeably derive their being. They adore
   God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with the same new song of the
   Gospel; they confess Him in the same words of Apostolic Faith; they
   offer to Him the same incense of praise, and the same Holy Offering
   whereof Malachi foretold, "from the rising of the sun to the going down
   of the same," pleading on earth to the Eternal Father that One
   Sacrifice, as presented in Heaven; they receive the same "Bread which
   came down from Heaven to give life to the world." Unknown in face, in
   place separate, different in language, opposed, alas! in some things to
   one another, still before the Throne of God they are One Holy Catholic
   Apostolic Church; each several portion praying for itself and for the
   rest, united in the prayers and oblation which it offers for all, by
   the One Bread and the One Spirit which dwelleth in all. "In which
   mystery" (the Holy Eucharist), says S. Cyprian, "our people are shown
   to be united, so that, as many grains collected and ground and mingled
   together make one bread, so in Christ, Who is the Heavenly Bread, we
   may know that there is one Body wherewith our whole number is conjoined
   and united." [72]

   But is then the whole unity of the Church from God and to God alone, so
   that it involves duties to God only, and none from man to man? Of the
   early Christians, the Holy Ghost bears witness that they were at first
   "of one heart and of one soul." The intensest conception of human
   affection, which the range of heathen poetry could imagine as having
   been once realized, that they were "twain in body, one in soul," was
   brought into being by the Day of Pentecost, not in two, but in
   thousands. For there was, what no imagination could conceive, not one
   soul in all, but One Holy Spirit, dwelling indivisibly in each, One and
   the Same filling each soul, the very same in each, binding them
   together by the virtue of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, melting
   all into a perfect oneness of will by the fire of love which God is.
   Well might the heathen say then, "God is among them of a truth." For
   the glory which Christ gave them was greater than that of miracles; it
   was the greatest of all miracles, when souls purified, by His
   indwelling, from passion and envy and all unlove, presented no longer
   let or hindrance to His all-pervading warmth, but through the love of
   Christ were one, He says, "as We are One," Whose Oneness is
   indivisible.

   The Divine gift of Unity requires, as a corresponding duty, mutual
   love, as the exercise of that "love of God which is shed abroad in our
   hearts through the Holy Ghost which is given to us." This has been
   called "subjective" unity, or "unison of wills," and of this,
   intercommunion is the natural expression. But is all unity forfeited,
   where the

   unity of intercommunion is suspended? No one, in the face of
   Church-history, can or does maintain that all interruptions of
   intercommunion destroy unity. For Church-history records too many such
   interruptions, which (although never probably without fault on the one
   side or on both) yet did not exclude either side from the body of
   Christ. Unlove began its work even in the Apostles' times. At Corinth,
   already, our Lord's words, "By this shall all men know that ye are My
   disciples, if ye have love one to another," were in a degree eclipsed.
   Divisions began within the single Church. In the next century, was that
   first wider rent in the Christian body, when the Bishop of Rome,
   against the remonstrance of many Bishops, renounced the communion of
   the Asiatic Churches, because they followed, as to the keeping of
   Easter, a tradition different from that of Rome and of the other
   Churches. "The East," says S. Epiphanius, [73] "differing from the
   West, they received not from each other tokens of peace." The strife
   ceased not until the Council of Nice. Again, in the next century, was
   the temporary severance between Borne and both Asiatic and African
   Churches, through the Bishop of Rome, of whom one, now counted a saint,
   said, [74] "While thinking that all may be excommunicated by him, he
   excommunicated himself alone from all." This was allayed seemingly by a
   subsequent peace-loving Bishop of Rome, but the question on which they
   disagreed was settled by the large Council of Aries, not by the Bishop
   of Rome.

   Lucifer, once an exile from the faith, and ready to suffer death for
   it, created a schism between Catholics. Paulinus, whom he hastily [75]
   consecrated against S. Meletius' was recognized at Alexandria and Rome;
   S. Meletius, remained in the communion of the Easterns. S. Basil toiled
   in vain to heal the schism, [76] and blamed the Westerns for their
   "pride, haughtiness, precipitancy." [77] S. Meletius, out of communion
   with Rome, presided (as it were, marked out by God) at the Second
   General Council. On his death, the fathers of the Council, with the
   people of Antioch, filled up his place, maintaining the rights of the
   Eastern Church, and after fifty-six years the schism was healed, a
   successor in the line of S. Meletius bringing back all into one flock.
   S. Meletius, when departed, was owned to be a saint by those who, in
   his lifetime, owned him not as a bishop. Lucifer, who created the
   schism, himself closed a life of labour for the faith by forming a
   small schismatic body in Sardinia; yet, for his faith's sake, is called
   by S. Jerome, who wrote against his sect, "the blessed Lucifer." [78]

   "What, when in the troubles as to S. Chrysostom, saints were on
   opposite sides, and, in the cessation of intercourse between Home and
   Alexandria, the African Bishops had to exhort the Bishop of Home, that
   "each [79] Church should keep towards the other the

   peace which the Lord commanded?"

   The Fifth General Council, overruled by God to good, yet assembled by a
   heretical emperor, at the instigation of a heretic, was (in part
   through the vacillation, the alternate assent and dissent, of Vigilius)
   the occasion of a schism which rent the West, Africa, Upper Italy from
   east to west, and even Ireland, nor was the schism wholly healed for
   150 years. [80]

   Our own heathen ancestors, in our S. Augustine's time, were in great
   measure converted by those who were not in communion with Rome, yet God
   blessed the zeal of both for His Glory.

   More miserable was that great breach, prepared perhaps for centuries,
   and which has lasted until now, between the East and "West. Miserable
   in its origin and its issue. A quarrel begun by two Christian
   Patriarchs about authority over a province newly recovered to the
   Christian Faith, [81] strengthened subsequently by offensive answers to
   an offensive writing, and anathema answered by anathema; involving a
   people which was acknowledged to be orthodox; embittered, in later
   times, by the mixture of this world's politics, the capture of
   Constantinople under the banner of the Cross, amid excesses from which
   even the Saracens abstained; the establishment of Latin Emperors of
   Constantinople and multiplication of Latin Patriarchs and Bishops,
   sometimes scandalous in their lives, oppressive to the Greeks, whom
   they ejected, banished, or at times destroyed. "The Latins," says
   Fleuri, [82] "defeated the very end they had in view. The conquest of
   Constantinople drew after it the loss of the Holy Land, and made the
   schism of the Greeks irremediable." The conditions of reconciliation
   were, absolute submission to an authority which had grown up since the
   separation. They were to purchase help against heathen or Mohammedan
   invaders by the surrender of the Patriarchal system which they had from
   the times of General Councils, [83] which had the sanction of the
   Universal Church, and was bound up with all their memories of all the
   victories of the Faith over heresy. Or lands were offered to princes to
   whom they did not belong, on the condition that they would renounce
   obedience where it was due, and transfer it where it was not due. If we
   may judge of the sentiments of the Greeks from one of their able and
   moderate writers, Elias Meniates, Bishop of Zerniza, towards the end of
   the 17th century, says, "I hold the dispute about the supreme power of
   the Pope to be the principal cause of our divisions. This is the wall
   of division between the two Churches. The chief controversy I hold to
   be about the sovereignty of the Pope. For this is at this time the
   great wall of separation which divides the two Churches. If all
   Christians were agreed on

   this chief point, viz., how the Church was to be governed, whether by
   aristocratical rule as we think, or monarchical as the Latins think,
   there would be very little trouble in agreeing about the rest." [84]
   And can we think that the whole guilt of this miserable rent has fallen
   upon one side only, that, when both East and "West confess the same
   Mysteries of the Faith, the East is no part of the Church of Christ,
   because it does not subject itself to the West under which God did not
   place it? Moses and Aaron pleaded with God, "Shall one man sin, and
   wilt Thou be wroth with all the congregation?" [85] And are we to
   assume, whatever were the original wrong tempers of two Greek
   Patriarchs, that their sin either then involved the innocent, or now
   lives on so fatally, after so many centuries, when terms are imposed so
   different from those in the first quarrel? And that, when the great
   Russian Empire, converted to the faith by the preaching of Monks and
   Missionary Bishops since the separation of the East and West, [86] is a
   witness to the Greek Church, that she is a true member of the One
   Church! "Rome cannot show, since she has been divided from the East, a
   conversion on so large a scale, so complete, so permanent." [87] And
   now too, the Russian Church has been and is, through Apostolic Bishops,
   winning tens of thousands beyond the bounds of the Russian Empire to
   the faith of Christ.

   In the great schism of the Western Church, in which the Churches of the
   West were for forty years nearly equally divided, each party was by the
   other regarded as schismatic, yet we cannot doubt that each belonged to
   the true Church of Christ.

   "After domination in temporals and spirituals was multiplied in the
   Church," says Gerson, "men began intrusions and schisms in the Roman
   Church, for the sake of which dominations and powers, there were
   continually hatreds and rancours between the Supreme Pontiffs, the
   Roman Emperors, and temporal Lords." [88]

   There is then no ground to assume that suspensions of inter-communion
   (sad and mournful as they are) in themselves hinder either "body from
   being a portion of the Body of Christ. The Donatists were not merely
   separated from the Catholic Church throughout the world, but denied its
   existence, and claimed to be the whole Church. The body was formed on a
   heresy, rejected by the English Church. [89] Probably real schism is
   always united with heresy, whether as springing from it or degenerating
   into it. There may be schismatic acts, which have not the deadliness of
   the sin of schism, as there may be degrees of unlove in an individual,
   which do not cast the Spirit of God out of his soul. We believe the
   Church to be universal, although there are large tracts of the world
   which it has not reached, or from which it has been driven out; we
   believe the Church to be holy,

   notwithstanding that the evil is more on the surface than the good; we
   believe the prophecy to have been fulfilled, "neither shall men learn
   war anymore," although peace has been in these last days the exception
   among Christians; we believe our Lord's words that love is the test of
   His disciples, and that thereby shall they be known among men, although
   unlove and jealousy and self-interest and anger are far more visible.
   Well then may we believe that the several Churches, owning the same
   Lord, united to Him by the same Sacraments, confessing the same Faith,
   however their prayers may be hindered, are still one in His sight, Whom
   all desire to receive; Whom all confess; Whose Passion all plead before
   the Father; in Whom alone all alike hope. And so as to ourselves, our
   divines maintained (under appeal to a free general Council of the whole
   East and West, while there was yet hope, and God's Arm is not
   shortened, that He should not yet turn the hearts of the fathers to the
   children, and the children to the fathers), that we have done nothing
   to forfeit the Communion of the rest of Christendom.

   vi. b. But Dr. Manning says, that we have denied the "visible head" of
   the Church,

   i. e. we do not, any more than the Eastern Church, own the monarchy of
   the Bishop of Rome. In the time of Henry VIII. the English Church
   submitted to the abolition of appeals to Rome; and what it then
   submitted to, it has since concurred in. But, if any thing is clear in
   Christian antiquity, it is that such appeals are not of Divine right.
   Africa was converted from Italy. Yet England is not at this moment more
   independent of any authority of the Bishop of Rome, than Africa was in
   the time of S. Augustine. There are only three conceivable ways in
   which the Bishop of one Church could interfere in the internal
   regulations of another. They are, the Confirmation of its ^Bishops, or
   of its Canons or Ecclesiastical laws, or the reviewing of the judicial
   sentences of its Bishops. These would control its legislative or its
   judicial functions in detail, or the selection of those in whom the
   legislative and judicial functions are vested. Of these three, it is
   confessed by Roman Catholic writers too, that the confirmation of
   Bishops lay with the Primate, as in other countries with the
   Metropolitan, and that the Pallium was never sent to Africa. The
   African Canons stood on their own authority, as did those of all other
   Churches; the Greek, the Spanish, the Gallican, the British. The case
   of Apiarius evinces on both sides an entire unconsciousness of any
   inherent right in the see of Rome to receive appeals. The Bishops of
   Rome rested their right, not upon any inherent claim, but upon a Canon
   of the Council of Sardica, which they, by mistake, thought to be a
   Canon of the Council of Nice. The African Bishops, and among them S.
   Augustine, declared their willingness to obey any Nicene Canon, but
   stated that they had no such Canon as that alleged by the Bishop of
   Rome, in their collection of Nicene Canons which they received through
   him. The words of S. Augustine are still preserved. "We profess that we
   will observe this rule too [as to the appeals of priests or deacons],
   saving a more diligent inquiry as to the Council of Nice." [90] On this
   the question was put to the Synod, and the whole Council said, "All
   things which were enacted in the Council of Nice, we all

   approve." S. Augustine also signed the synodal letter to Boniface from
   the 217 Bishops present from all Africa, in which they deprecated any
   "haughtiness" [typhus] on the part of the Bishop of Rome, and professed
   that they "will comply with what has been alleged on his part about the
   appeals of Bishops to the Bishop of the Roman Church, and about
   terminating the causes of clerks by the Bishops of their Provinces,
   until ascertaining, whether there was such a Canon of Nice, since they
   had none such in any Greek or Latin copy of the Canons." [91] They sent
   accordingly to the East and received copies of the Canons from S. Cyril
   of Alexandria, and Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople. After these had
   been sent to Boniface, another Council from all Africa was held, in
   which Bishop Faustinus urged that the unhappy Apiarius, having been
   received to communion by Celestine, should be received by the Church of
   Africa also. A three days' hearing of Apiarius was ended by his own
   confession of all the horrible scandals of which he had been accused.
   Whereupon the Bishops of the African Council wrote thus to Celestine:
   [92] "We earnestly beg that henceforth you will not readily admit to
   your hearing those who come from hence, nor be willing to receive to
   communion those excommunicated by us, because you will readily see that
   this is ruled by the Council of Nice. For although it may seem as if
   provision were there made as to the inferior clergy or laymen, how much
   more would it have this observed as to Bishops, that, being suspended
   from communion in their own province, they should not seem to be
   restored to communion by your Holiness hastily or over-hurriedly or
   unduly. Let your Holiness repel also, as beseems you, the shameless
   applications of presbyters and clergy below them, because by no statute
   of the fathers has this been derogated from the African Church, and the
   Nicene Canons have most plainly committed both the inferior Clergy and
   the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans. For most prudently and
   justly have they provided, that all matters should be terminated in the
   places where they arose; nor will the grace of the Holy Spirit be
   wanting to each province, whereby the Bishops of Christ may both
   prudently see and constantly maintain equity; especially, since it is
   allowed to each, if he is dissatisfied with the judgment of those who
   took cognizance of his case, to appeal to the Council of his Province
   or of all Africa. Unless any one think that our God can inspire with
   justice a single individual, and refuse it to innumerable Bishops
   assembled in Council. Or how should the judgment beyond seas itself
   stand, seeing that persons needed as witnesses cannot be brought there,
   for infirmity of sex or age or many other hindrances. For that any
   should be sent, as it were from the side of your Holiness, we find
   ordained by no synod of the fathers. For as to that which you sent by
   our fellow-Bishop Faustinus, as if from the Nicene Council, we could
   find nothing of the sort in more accurate copies, which we have
   received from the holy Cyril, our fellow-Bishop of the Alexandrian
   Church, and the venerable Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, taken from
   the original, which we transmitted to Bishop Boniface of venerable
   memory. Moreover, whoever may ask yon, do not send any of your Clergy
   to execute your orders; allow it not; lest we

   should seem to bring the fumes of secular pride into the Church of
   Christ, which holds out to those who desire to see God, the light of
   simplicity and the clear day of humility. For, now that the unhappy
   Apiarius has for his shocking wickednesses been removed from the Church
   of Christ, we are sure that through the probity and moderation of your
   Holiness, Africa, without violating brotherly charity, will not have
   further to endure our brother Faustinus."

   This long process, which was carried on so perseveringly by four
   successive Bishops of Rome, is most remarkable for the principles which
   appear in the course of it, and the persons who enunciated those
   principles. For St. Augustine, forbearing, as he did, to the utmost, so
   long as there was even a bare possibility that the Council of Nice
   should have given a contrary decision, clearly showed by his short
   speech, that he knew of no other authority to which the Church of
   Africa should defer. He is further responsible for the Synodal Epistle
   to Boniface, which he signed, next after Aurelius the Primate. The
   bishops, and he among them, or rather chief of them, say, "We took care
   to convey last year by our letters to the same Bishop Zosimus, of
   venerable memory, that we would allow those [canons] to be observed
   without any detriment to him, for a little while until the inquiry into
   the canons of the Council of Nice. And now we ask of your Holiness,
   that you would cause those things which they brought in their
   instructions, [viz., the two Sardican canons], to be observed as they
   were done or constituted by the fathers at Nice, by us, and among
   yourselves in Italy. These canons are inserted in the Acts until the
   arrival of the most authentic copies of the Nicene Council; which, if
   they are contained there (as they stood in the instructions which our
   brethren sent from the Apostolic See alleged to us), and if they are
   kept even among you in Italy, we shall not be constrained to endure
   what for the present we are unwilling to speak of; but we believe that,
   by the help of the mercy of our Lord God, while your Holiness presides
   over the Roman Church we shall not have to endure their arrogance, and
   that will be observed towards us which ought to be observed with
   brotherly charity, even without any suggestion of ours, which,
   according to the wisdom and justice which the Most High has given you,
   you yourself perceive ought to be observed, if perchance the canons of
   the Council of Nice prove otherwise."

   But indeed the Canons of Sardica (had they been even generally
   received) involve the same principle. St. Athanasius insists on the
   distinction between matters of faith and positive enactment, as treated
   in the Council of Nice. "The faith they declared, Thus believes the
   Catholic Church,' in order to show that their own sentiments were not
   novel, but Apostolical;" [93] but in matter of positive enactments,
   "They wrote concerning the Easter, It seemed good as follows,' for it
   did then seem good that there should be a general compliance." Now this
   is exactly the form of the Sardican Canon, "If it seem good, let us
   honour the memory of the holy Apostle Peter." The Bishops were
   providing against the recurrence of injustice to the orthodox Bishops
   of the East, such as S.

   Athanasius had undergone from a packed council of Arian Bishops, and,
   as in many other canons, so in this, they legislated to meet an
   emergency. "This form is very strong to show," says Tillemont, [94]
   "that it was a right which the Pope had not had hitherto." "The words
   of the Canon," says de Marca, [95] "prove.that the institution of this
   law is new. If it seems good to you,' says Hosius," &c. The mention of
   Julius, Bishop of Rome, by name, "if to Julius, Bishop of Rome, should
   seem good," seems again to imply a temporary purpose, such as was
   protection against the Arians. Nor was the power given an appeal to
   Rome strictly. It only empowered the Bishop of Rome to have the cause
   reheard, if he judged right, by the Bishops of the neighbouring
   province, together with a presbyter to represent himself. [96] What was
   granted was the revision of a cause, not strictly an appeal. [97]

   What was not of Divine right cannot become such. A state of things may
   be matter of order, or of human law; it cannot become part of the Law
   Divine. That only is Divine Law which was given by God. Heretics,
   indeed, or bad men, excommunicated in their own country, betook
   themselves to Rome, where they were not known, as contrariwise,
   Pelagius, condemned in the West, betook himself to the East, a)
   Marcion, excommunicated by his father, a Bishop in Pontus, for
   seduction, received the worthy answer from the Roman presbyters in the
   vacancy of the see: "We cannot do this [receive him to communion]
   without the injunction of your honoured father. For there is one faith
   and one harmony of mind, and we cannot go against the excellent
   fellow-minister, thy father." [98] b) The Montanists did not apparently
   appeal at all; but having been rejected in the East, they settled at
   Rome. They had been disallowed by the predecessors of Victor, [99] whom
   they would have imposed upon, but for Praxeas. Tillemont conjectures,
   [100] that they may have had the more hope from Victor on account of
   his quarrel with the Churches of Asia Minor, which had rejected them,
   c) Praxeas, at one time, signed a retractation o'f his heresy, which
   retractation was in the hands of the Catholics. [101] At that time
   there was neither appeal nor condemnation. When detected, he retracted.
   He acquiesced outwardly, without giving up his unbelief. Then it burst
   out again, d) Fortunatus was an anti-bishop, [102] consecrated in
   opposition to S. Cyprian, who sought to

   get recognized at Home, whither he sent letters, as Novatian, [103]
   consecrated against S. Cornelius, sought to be recognized in Africa.
   Neither was an appeal, a) The case of Basilides and Martialis is more
   interesting. Both, besides other sins, had denied Christ in
   persecution. The Spanish bishops deposed them, and consecrated Felix
   and Sabinus in their stead. "Basilides, canvassing to be unjustly
   restored to the Episcopate from which he had been justly deposed, went
   to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague," says S. Cyprian, [104]
   "residing at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done and of the
   real truth." The clergy and people of Astorga, Merida, and Leon
   appealed to S. Cyprian, through their newly-consecrated bishops. S.
   Cyprian, assembling thirty-seven other bishops, in a synodical letter,
   judged that the deposition of Basilides and Martialis was right, the
   election of Felix and Sabinus, of which an account had been sent, was
   canonical, and that the effect of "Basilides deceiving Stephen was not
   to efface but to swell the crimes of Basilides, in that to his former
   sins is added the guilt of deceit and circumvention." Conceive Spanish
   bishops now, having been consecrated in place of deposed bishops who
   had appealed to Rome, deputed by Spanish clergy and people to the
   Archbishop of Paris, and that he, with a Provincial Synod, should reply
   that the former bishops had been rightly deposed, that these had been
   canonically elected, and that the appealing bishop had only aggravated
   his crimes by "deceiving Pio Nono, our colleague," but excusing Pio
   Nono, in that "he is not so much to be blamed, who through negligence
   was imposed upon." If the appeals of bad men were a precedent, the rest
   of the history is equally a precedent, showing that the relations in
   the times nearest the Apostles were very different from those which the
   Church of England laid aside. The English Church in the fifteenth
   century acquiesced in, or consented to, the suppression of appeals to
   Rome; the African Church in the fifth century not only forbade them,
   but excommunicated throughout Africa any one who should so appeal.
   [105] It was not a mere abstract question. About the same time, A.D.
   1438, the Council of Basle complained of [106] "the very many abuses of
   intolerable vexations" consequent on appeals, especially from "remote
   parts," the "ease with which pettifoggers oppressed the poor,
   ecclesiastical benefices were

   obtained through the cavils of litigations, for the most part
   unjustly," &c. The Council prohibited, as far as in it lay, appeals
   from more distant parts, with certain exceptions. Louis, Archbishop of
   Aries, Cardinal, and President of the Council (of whom Æneas Sylvius,
   Pius II., speaks in high terms), asked in the Council, "What [107] at
   this day were bishops, but a sort of shadow? What had they left, but a
   staff and mitre? Could they be called shepherds, without sheep, when
   they could do nothing towards those under them 3 For whereas in the
   Primitive Church the chief powers were with bishops, now they have come
   to this, that in dress only and revenue they surpass presbyters. But%we
   have restored them to their former condition. We [the Council] have
   made those bishops who were no longer bishops." "A General Council,
   representing the Universal Church," says Gerson, [108] "if it aim to
   see complete union, to repress and put an end to schisms, to exalt the
   Church, must, before all things, after the manner of the holy fathers
   before us, limit and bound the coactive and usurped power of the Pope."
   [109] Which coactive power many supreme Pontiffs, at successive times,
   obtained to themselves, contrary to God and justice, depriving inferior
   bishops of the powers and authorities given them by God and the Church,
   who in the Primitive Church were of equal power with the Pope, when
   there was no sale of indulgences," [110] &c. "At length in the course
   of time (the avarice of the clergy, and the simony, cupidity, and
   ambition of the Pope increasing), the power and authority of the
   bishops and inferior prelates seem as though dried up and utterly
   overthrown, so that they seem now in the Church to be but painted
   images, to no end. For now the Pope of Rome has reserved all
   ecclesiastical benefices; now has he called all causes into his own
   court; now has he willed that a penitentiary should be held there; now
   he wills that the holy ordination of any person indiscriminately should
   take place in his own court; and they, who cannot obtain ordination in
   their own country, easily obtain ordination in that court." Nicolas V.
   plainly owned, [111] "The Roman Pontiffs, it seems to

   me, extended their skirts too far, in that they left no jurisdiction to
   the other bishops. Those of Basle abridged too much the power of the
   Apostolic See. But so it happens. "Whoso doth things unworthy, must
   endure things unjust. Those who would set erect a tree inclined on one
   side, draw it on the other. Our mind is, not to despoil of their rights
   the bishops who are called to a part of our charge. For so we hope to
   preserve our own jurisdiction, if we do not usurp what belongs to
   others." But things went on as before.

   And if, after the Pope had not only excommunicated King Henry VIIL, but
   had deposed him, deprived his future children, given away his
   dominions, laid the kingdom under an interdict, absolved his subjects
   from allegiance, and stirred up other princes against them if they
   rebelled not, given them to be slaves to their captors, and their
   property to be a spoil, the Church of England reformed by herself, it
   was always allowed to a Provincial Council to make decrees in matters
   of faith, subject to the ultimate authority of the Universal Church.
   Successive Councils, Pisa, Constance, Basle, had met and failed. Men's
   hearts despaired. Constance had been chosen to avoid Italian influence;
   at Basle it had been defeated but the Council was therefore closed. "I
   can scarcely believe," said a Carthusian, A.D. 1449, "that the general
   Church can be reformed unless the Roman court be reformed first, which
   yet how difficult it is, the course of the present times shows. For no
   nation of believers so resists the universal reformation of the Church,
   as the Italian and others who praise them, bound by hope of promotion
   or gain or temporal benefit, or fear of losing dignities. They tremble
   at the very sound of a General Council, knowing by experience that
   General Councils speak not smooth things, but correct and amend without
   respect of persons." [112] "There will be no reformation," said a
   Bishop in 1519, "save in some general, free, and candid Council, where
   room shall be given, not to a malicious, but to the Holy Spirit to
   breathe. Alas! I conjecture with alarm, that our age is not worthy of
   the gathering of a lawful Council, wherein, virtues being promoted and
   vices censured, the Church shall be reformed; so deceived are we by the
   workings of error. The Councils we need are rarely and sluggishly held;
   they are conducted at Home or elsewhere before the powerful, where
   there is no freedom of speech to the humble and the faithful, so that
   in them what concerns the worship of God,

   through the consent or permission of one's own bishop in this matter.
   Since, then, this has been introduced by common custom, and the consent
   is elicited from the custom, it is plain that its efficacy is derived
   from custom. It is not read then that the Roman Bishops in old times
   intermeddled in these things, or granted such confessionals and the
   like; and perhaps it would not have been allowed. Since then the
   Council of Africa, which S. Augustine subscribed, did not allow of an
   appeal from a Council to a Pope, because it was not found in the Canons
   that this was allowed, but it was defined in the Council of Nice that
   the cause ought to be terminated by the Synod, where it arose: how
   could they have admitted these things, and the irregular things done at
   this day? But because consent has now from long custom introduced this,
   those things are valid as to the salvation of souls, as long as they
   allow them, but they can be taken away by a Council, and reformation
   requires this." De Conc. Eccl. ii. 13, pp. 726-729, quoted Gies. K. G.
   § 136, pp. 215, 216.

   the Christian religion and reformation, is slowly corrected." [113] And
   yet these three last Councils had borne witness to the need of
   reformation "in the head and the members;" and worse was feared if it
   was not hastened, "It is strongly to be anticipated with foresight and
   fear," says that same Bishop, [114] "that the ruin of the Latin Church
   as to Ecclesiastical dignity is near at hand, since weakness in the
   foundation brings a fall."

   "Unless," said a Cardinal, in the preface to a paper presented to the
   Council of Constance, [115] "the Church be reformed speedily, I venture
   to say, that, albeit great are the things which we see, we shall soon
   see incomparably greater, and, after thunderings so awful, we shall
   very shortly hear others yet more awful. "Wherefore we must watch with
   the utmost diligence for the Reformation of the Church." And Cardinal
   Julian, appealing to the Pope against the dissolution of the Council of
   Basle, "What will the whole world say, when it shall hear this? "Will
   it not judge that the Clergy are incorrigible, and will for ever to
   remain in the defilements of their deformities? So many Councils have
   been held in our days, from which no reformation followed. The people
   looked that some fruit should come of this. If it be dissolved, it will
   be said that we mock God and man." [116] The Council was after a time
   removed to Italy, and reformation was no more spoken of.

   vi. c. The last charge which Dr. Manning brings against the Church of
   England is, that "it formally denies "the "perpetual Divine voice"
   [117] of the Church. In this statement the stress, I conceive, lies
   upon the word "perpetual." Dr. Manning understands "the Divine
   authority of the Church "to involve, not only what we confess,--that
   the whole Catholic Church has not collectively sanctioned error; and
   so, that what it has collectively pronounced is certain truth,--but
   also an ever-present power to declare new truth. "The perpetual and
   ever-present assistance of the Holy Spirit, whereby the Church in every
   age is not only preserved from error, but enabled at all times to
   declare the truth; that is, the infallibility of the Church at this
   hour--that it is, that the Anglican Church in terms denies. For three
   hundred years the Anglican Clergy have been trained, ordained, and
   bound to deny not only many Christian truths, but the Divine authority
   of the h aei ekklhsia, the living Church of every age." Conscious that
   we had never done any thing of the kind, nay that, in the Articles, we
   subscribe the contrary, [118] I asked myself, "What can this mean? For
   we are here concerned with an abstract proposition, not with a matter
   of fact, such as is that of the extent of the visible Church, viz.,
   whether it comprises the Oriental and Anglican Churches, or whether it
   consists only of the Churches in communion with Rome. Dr. Manning has,
   naturally, identified the two questions; and assumes, in fact, that, in
   denying the infallibility of the Roman Church by itself, we are
   "denying the infallibility of the living Church at this hour;" because,
   on his hypothesis,

   the Roman Church is, alone, the living Church, to the exclusion of the
   Eastern Church and of ourselves. This, I understand, is a favourite
   formula with Dr. Manning,-- "By whom does God the Holy Ghost speak? By
   the Roman Church? or by the Eastern? or by the Anglican?" I have been
   wont to say, "by all concurrently, in so far as they teach the same
   faith which was from the beginning, [119] which is the great body of
   all their teaching; and, if need required, they could at this day
   declare concurrently any truth, if it should appear that it had not, as
   yet, been sufficiently defined, against some fresh heresy which should
   emerge."

   But I see not, what this question as to the present ability of the
   Church to meet fresh errors which may emerge, has to do with the
   question as to the infallible certainty of the truths which the whole
   Church in common has received.

   The office of our Divine Lord, as a Teacher, was, to be the perfect
   Revealer of the whole truth as to God, which God willed to disclose to
   His creatures here. This same office God the Holy Ghost undertook after
   the Resurrection, teaching invisibly to the Apostles that same divine
   truth. Our Lord said to His Apostles, "He shall teach you the whole
   truth (pasan thn alhqeian), and bring all things to your remembrance,
   whatever I have said unto you." [120] The whole revelation then was
   completed at the first. He, "the Spirit of Truth," was to teach the
   Apostles the whole truth. It was a personal promise to the Apostles,
   and fulfilled in them. The Church of this day cannot know more than St.
   John, else the promise would not have been fulfilled to him, that God,
   the Holy Ghost, should teach him the whole truth. Whatever the Apostles
   received, that they were enjoined to teach. [121] And that whole truth
   the Apostles taught, orally and in writing, committing it as the
   deposit (parakataqhkh) to the Bishops whom they left in their place,
   [122] and, under inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, embodying it in
   Holy Scripture. At least we know from the testimony of those who
   followed, that they taught it orally in all its great outlines; and St.
   Paul himself says, "I have not shunned to declare to you the whole
   counsel of God." It does not indeed absolutely follow, that they so
   taught in detail all which is contained in Holy Scripture. How much, e.
   g., is taught in the Epistles incidentally, in answer to doubts which
   had arisen, whether this were so or no, even as to Apostolic teaching,
   or in correction of nascent heresies! But there is this difference
   between the teaching of the Apostles and that of the Church after them,
   that what the Apostles taught as the original and Fountain-head, that
   the Church only transmitted.

   This I conceive to be the meaning of the Council of Trent too, that,
   when our Lord became Man, He completed His revelation to man. For the
   Council of Trent, at its outset, recognized as the sources of our
   knowledge, only Holy Scripture, and those traditions, whether as to
   faith or morals, which had been dictated orally by Christ or by the
   Holy

   Ghost, and had been preserved by continual succession in the Catholic
   Church." [123] According to the Council of Trent, then, as well as
   ourselves, the revelation was finished in and through the Apostles. In
   Ravignan's words, "Achevé, sanctionné par Jésus Christ, il s'arrête, et
   Dieu ne revèle plus, ne doit plus révéler après la rédemption operée;
   car elle est le terme des promesses, le sommet de l'édifice et des
   conseils divins. La pierre fondamentale est posée, l'édifice couronné,
   et nul n'en pent bâtir un autre, comme s'exprimait S. Paul."

   The office, then, which God the Holy Ghost vouchsafes to take for us,
   became different after the time of the Apostles. For they were the
   chosen instruments whom our Blessed Lord selected to be the primary
   authoritative teachers of His truth. And, in conformity with this
   choice, God the Holy Ghost dwelt fully in them, inspiring them and
   making them infallible teachers, and completing His revelation through
   them.

   Thenceforth, then, it was the office of the Church, under the guidance
   of God the Holy Ghost, to transmit, guard, defend that truth, which our
   Divine Lord, and God the Holy Ghost, teaching the Apostles what, during
   our Lord's Bodily Presence, they had not been able to receive, gave to
   the Church once for all.

   Again, within the post-Apostolic Church, God the Holy Ghost has been
   pleased to operate, in a twofold way, for the preservation of that
   truth, which He first gave, ordinary and extraordinary. Ordinarily He
   upholds and maintains that body of faith, once declared, which, without
   His continual presence and inspiration, would be lost. He operates also
   in sacraments; He ordains the succession of pastors, doctors, bishops,
   through whom he continually propagates the truth; He converts the Jews
   and heathen; He reclaims heretics, and those too who have done despite
   to His Grace; He extends the bounds of the Church; He operates towards,
   or in every soul of Christians; He teaches in all true teachers. "The
   Holy Church throughout all the world doth acknowledge Thee." Through
   His continued operation and inspiration the Church everywhere, in East
   and West, North and South, confesseth, maintaineth, teacheth,
   propagateth the one faith,--that "which was once for all delivered to
   the saints."

   Extraordinary operations of this same teaching of God the Holy Ghost
   have been on those occasions, when the Church has had to state,
   explicitly and formally, in correction of emerging heresies, the truth
   which God the Holy Ghost ever taught by her. I call these
   "extraordinary," because such occasions have been comparatively rare in
   the history of the Church. The form of "General Councils," to which our
   thoughts naturally are first directed, are rarer still. When there was
   a good hope that the East and West might be again united, the Western
   Church was willing to ignore all the Councils which it had held
   subsequently to the separation, and to count the existing Council from
   the last which East and West had held together. They virtually
   acknowledged the intervening Councils to have been, not in their
   fullest sense General Councils, but to have been Western Councils only.

   Yet the same object of ascertaining the mind of the Church might be,
   and was, attained in another way. In the three first centuries a
   General Council was obviously impossible. It would only have marked out
   Christian bishops for martyrdom, on the supposition that they were
   engaged in a conspiracy against the State; yet emergent heresies were
   condemned, and the mind of the whole Church was ascertained as clearly
   without them as with them. St. Augustine says of the Pelagian heresy,
   "What need was there of gathering a Synod, to condemn a manifest
   mischief? As though no heresy had ever been condemned, except by the
   gathering of a Synod! Whereas, contrariwise, there were very few
   heresies, to condemn which there was any such need; and incomparably
   many more heresies have been rejected and condemned where they arose;
   and thence they could be made known through the rest of the world as
   things to be avoided." [124] Yet during all that time the assent of the
   whole Church would be obtained without any meeting. It is said of the
   Pelagian heresy, "the whole world embraced the enactment of the 214
   [African] Bishops against the enemies of the grace of God." [125] "The
   Synodal decrees of the Council of 214 Bishops of Carthage were
   transmitted to Pope Zosimus; which, being approved, the Pelagian heresy
   was condemned through the whole world." [126] The doctrines of grace
   were thus established as part of the faith, as fully as if they had
   been formally received by a General Council. Mr. Palmer counted "more
   than ninety heresies, which were suppressed before the Council of Nice
   by the arguments and authorities of the Bishops and Provincial Synods."
   [127] In like way St. Jerome relates, "how the Bishops of Rome,
   Alexandria, Milan, Aquileia, and the whole Synod of Catholics, both of
   East and West, with a like sentence, because their mind is alike,
   denounce Origen to the people as a heretic." [128] We have no detailed
   account of the Synods to which St. Jerome refers, except that Origen
   was condemned first at Alexandria, then at Rome, at the instigation of
   Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and then by other Synods. But the
   result St. Augustine sums up: "him, not undeservedly, the Church hath
   rejected" [129] on account of the heresy of Universalism, "and for some
   other things." He speaks of the doctrine as one which the Church had
   not been able to endure. [130] "The Catholic Church wholly rejects
   this, when it neither accuses him falsely, nor can be deceived by his
   defenders. For what Catholic Christian, learned or unlearned, would not
   be exceedingly horrified" [131] thereat?

   Of these two ways of ascertaining the mind of the Church, neither have
   been adopted on any fixed rule. The Second General Council was
   originally only an Eastern Council, which became general through its
   reception by the West, which was not

   represented in it. The Church had to wait many years for the Council of
   Constantinople, which completed the Nicene Creed until the accession of
   the Orthodox Emperor Theodosius gave scope for it. She had again to
   await the accession of the Emperor Marcian, before the robber-Council
   of Ephesus could be displaced by the Fourth General Council at
   Chalcedon. The Fifth General Council was assembled by an heretical
   Emperor, instigated by heretics, yet was preserved by God's Providence
   and by His Spirit, under which it was not convened.

   Nor is there any promise that the Church shall be guided, when and how
   to hold Councils, although it is promised that the whole Church should
   not be led into error. Centuries elapsed before the attempt to solve
   the great schism of the East and "West by a Council.

   Nor is it essential, according to the Church of Rome itself, that the
   Church should at once define even a matter of faith which is disputed.
   The controversies about the Immaculate Conception are older than the
   Reformation, but have only just been decided. It has now been ruled
   that that doctrine was always matter of faith; yet it has only been
   formally received in the Roman Church, when it had tacitly made its
   way, and its once powerful opponents had ceased. The object of the
   decision was understood to be, not to settle controversies which had
   long expired, but to obtain the favour of the Blessed Virgin towards
   the Church of Rome by doing honour to her. During the disputes between
   the Gallican and Ultramontane Divines about the supremacy of the Pope,
   each party held the opposite statements to be heretical; but the Church
   did not interpose. No doubt, wisely. Ultramontanism has been fostered
   by the tyranny of the State, driving people to take refuge in an
   authority external to the State. Should Gallicanism be extinguished
   hereafter, it would be according to the analogy of the course as to the
   doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, that Ultramontanism, which is
   now the favoured opinion should be declared to be matter of faith. But
   anyhow, it is clear from the old controversies as to the Immaculate
   Conception, that, according to the Roman Church too, what is
   subsequently ruled to be de fide may be allowed, for a long time, to
   remain matter of vehement dispute.

   Nor, although it is promised that the whole Church should not fall into
   error, is it promised that they should in all things act wisely. The
   Roman Church long refused to accept those Canons of the Second and the
   Fourth General Councils which settled the rank of the Patriarchate of
   Constantinople, although it ultimately acceded to them. The fifth
   General Council, although marvellously preserved from error, and a
   maintainer of truth, gave rise to a lamentable schism among the
   orthodox as to "The Three Chapters," very chiefly through the
   vacillations of Pope Vigilius. The Latin Church has tacitly
   acknowledged that the Council of Florence acted unwisely in trying to
   force upon the Greeks the Latin formula as to the Procession of God the
   Holy Ghost, contrary to their uniform tradition, even while it granted
   that the formula of the Greek fathers, dia tou Uiou, expressed the same
   truth as the Latin "Filioque." On this and other grounds the Council
   failed of its object, and the opportunity was lost of effacing the
   inveterate

   prejudice of the Greeks, that the Latin formula had an heretical
   meaning, viz., that there are two Arcai in the Divine nature. The Latin
   Church has tacitly allowed that it was a mistake to insist that the
   Greeks should adopt our Western expression, by allowing the Greeks, who
   have submitted to its authority, to say the Creed, as the Council of
   Constantinople left it.

   It is, then, no essential part of the office of God the Holy Ghost in
   the Church to direct it, how, when, and for what to assemble General
   Councils.

   It is matter of faith that the whole Church shall never be led into any
   formal acceptance of error by virtue of our Lord's promise; and on this
   ground the Church of England receives the Six General Councils. But it
   is not matter of faith that the Church will always be able to hold
   General Councils, as in fact, important as the issues were, God allowed
   a time to elapse before the Second and Fourth General Councils could be
   called.

   Meanwhile God the Holy Ghost exercises the office of Teacher, which He
   vouchsafed to take, both by teaching the children of God (as it is
   said, "they shall all be taught of God"), and by giving them the
   supernatural gift of faith, as of grace; and He maintains in the Church
   every where the tradition of the great body of the faith, infallibly
   fixed. And this is not impaired, although there are other points not
   yet cleared up, both with the Greek Church and our own, e. g. as to the
   Papal claims, so different from the relation of the Patriarchates to
   one another in early times, or indulgences which the Greek Church never
   knew, or the denial of the cup, which the Greek Church ever gave, or
   the marriage-law of the Council of Trent, which allows what the whole
   Church from the first, until the miserable Alexander VI. (Borgia), held
   to be incest. Largely, moreover, as invocation of the Blessed Virgin is
   used in the Greek Church, it has nowhere adopted that vast formulized
   theory as to her place as the channel of all grace to the Church, and
   to each single soul, which is to us the especial "crux" in the Roman
   system. It has protested against the doctrine of the Immaculate
   Conception [132] of the Blessed Virgin, which Pius

   IX. defined, as "attested" by "the monuments of the Eastern Church," as
   well as the "Western."

   Dr. Manning has invented a new heresy, which he charges upon us. The
   Church of England nowhere denies that General Councils can be held, nor
   that any doctrine could be vindicated simultaneously throughout the
   whole Church. The time may come, when this will have to be done. True,
   that the first office of a General Council now would be to reunite
   Christendom. But until this be (which may God, in His mercy, bring to
   pass), truth, when occasion shall require, may be vindicated by the
   whole Church simultaneously, without any meeting, as was done in the
   early Church, after the Council of Nice as well as before. There are
   indications of clouds lowering on the horizon of the Roman Church, in
   regard to Holy Scripture, which have discharged their first burst upon
   ourselves. There have appeared already among Roman Catholics symptoms
   of a tendency

   to hold cheaply by Holy Scripture, as being comparatively unimportant
   to them, who have the authority of an infallible Church, forgetting
   that the authority of the Church depends upon Holy Scripture. There are
   those among them who seem inclined to indemnify themselves for their
   submission to the Church in things formally laid down by it, by a
   licence as to things, not so distinctly defined. Whereto this may grow,
   or whether He will nip it, God alone knows! But the need may arise
   among them, as well as among ourselves, to lay down formally the truth
   of all Holy Scripture, as given by inspiration. of God, which has been
   presupposed by all, everywhere, at all times, from the first. Such a
   simultaneous decree would, by general consent, have the authority of a
   General Council, as without any General Council Pelagianism was
   condemned by the whole Church.

   Why, then, since we believe the teaching of God the Holy Ghost in the
   Church to be infallible, is it to be made a heresy to say that man does
   not use the gift as much as he might, as e. g. if God's constraining
   grace were to move the whole Church everywhere to seek visible
   reconciliation? The question does not relate to that which has once
   been settled by the whole Church. Nothing, of course, can add to the
   authority of what has ever been ruled by an infallible authority. We
   ourselves have, equally with those in the Roman Church, infallible
   truth, as resting on infallible authority. We do not need the present
   agency of an infallible Church to assure us of the truth of what has
   been ruled infallibly. Nor, in fact, have Roman Catholics any more
   infallible authority for what they hold than we, seeing that it was
   ruled by the Church in past ages, to whom, so far, the present Church
   submits. The later General Councils began by accepting what had been
   ruled before them. The second received, while it enlarged, the creed of
   the first; the third premised to its own acts the confession of the
   creeds of the two first; the fourth received the decree of Ephesus too,
   and accepted the wonderful clearness of the exposition of faith by St.
   Leo, as agreeing with those previous authorities. They accepted those
   creeds before them, not thereby adding to their authority, but as
   authenticating their own orthodoxy. The question, then, is not whether
   the doctrine laid down in General Councils, and received by the whole
   Church, is certain truth (on this both agree); nor whether the whole
   doctrine of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Grace, and
   whatsoever else has been received formally by the whole Church, is
   infallibly settled (on this, too, both are at one); nor whether an
   (Ecumenical Council, if such were now held and received by the whole
   Church, would, by that reception, have the seal of infallibility (oil
   this, too, according to the principles of the Gallican Church and our
   own, there is no question); nor whether, in fact, if the same doctrines
   were enunciated at once by the who le Church, the East, West, our own,
   separately, but concordantly (e. g. as to the character of the
   inspiration of Holy Scripture), the doctrine, so simultaneously
   enunciated, would be infallibly certain (which it would be);--but
   whether what should be enacted, either by the Greek or Horn an Church,
   would be infallible, unless received by the other. This (granted that
   the Eastern Church is a part of the Church), it would not be according
   to the principles of the Gallican divines too, because there would not
   be universal reception.

   This, then, which is to destroy the whole faith among us, resolves
   itself into the

   fact, that we acknowledge the Greek Church, as well as the Roman, to be
   part of the Church of Christ. If it is, the Western Councils alone, not
   having yet had universal reception, have not received the seal of
   infallibility; and the Roman Church itself owned that those
   intermediate Councils might be counted to be wanting in something,
   since it was willing, in prospect of union with the East, to ignore
   them as General Councils.

   vii.
          But is there then no issue to the present division of
          Christendom? Is disunion to be the normal state of the Church,
          for which we all pray that God would give her unity, peace, and
          concord? God forbid! I have never expected to see that external
          unity of intercommunion restored in my own day; but I have felt
          it to be an end to be wished for, and prayed for. I doubt not
          that the Roman Church and ourselves are kept apart much more by
          that vast practical system which lies beyond the letter of the
          Council of Trent, things which are taught with a quasi-authority
          in the Roman Church, than by what is actually defined. Nothing
          could be more unpractical than for an individual to throw
          himself into the Roman Church, because he could accept the
          letter of the Council of Trent. Those who were born Roman
          Catholics have a liberty, which, in the nature of things, a
          person could not have, who left another system, to embrace that
          of Rome. I cannot imagine how any faith could stand the shock of
          leaving one system, criticizing it, and casting himself into
          another system, criticizing it. For myself I have always felt
          that had (which God of His mercy avert hereafter also) the
          English Church, by accepting heresy, driven me out of it, I
          could have gone in no other way than that of closing my eyes,
          and accepting whatever was put before me. But a liberty which
          individuals could not use, and explanations which, so long as
          they remain individual, must be unauthoritative, might be
          formally made by the Church of Rome to the Church of England as
          the basis of reunion. I have already hinted at several such
          explanations which might, I should have thought, be made. The
          Council of Trent laid down, in many cases, what is very far
          below the practical system, encouraged, at present, everywhere
          in the Church of Rome, taught in her name and with her
          authority, but which, on being questioned, no Roman Catholic, I
          believe, would declare to be de fide. And yet, take not
          ourselves only, but the general body of Englishmen, whether
          instructed or not instructed, it will be of this as yet
          undefined body of practical belief that they will be thinking
          when they speak of our "reformed" Church, or against becoming
          Roman Catholics. If they speak against Papal authority, it is
          not in itself (which would be a matter of indifference), but as
          an authority, which, if they submitted to it, would enforce upon
          them that practical system. Probably, too, there is an
          hereditary dread of the renewal of the fires of Smithfield, the
          sinfulness of which has? never been disowned.
          I would explain what I mean with reference to Art. XXII.

   vii.

   a. In regard to the Invocation of Saints, the Council of Trent lays
   down this only, "It [133] is good and useful suppliantly to invoke the
   saints, and to have recourse to their prayers, help, and assistance, to
   obtain favours, from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who is
   alone our Redeemer and Saviour;" and direct prayer to the saints to
   "give us good things, and deliver us from evil things," seems to be
   directly prohibited by the Catechism of the Council. [134] And there is
   the popular explanation, that we are to ask for their prayers in no
   other sense than we ask for each other's prayers, and that "they [135]
   do nothing for us mortals in heaven, but what they did while they were
   here on earth, and what all good Christians are bound to do for each
   other, namely, they help us by their prayers. The only difference is,
   that as the saints in heaven are free from every stain of sin and
   imperfection, and are confirmed in grace and glory, so their prayers
   are far more efficacious for obtaining what they ask for than are the
   prayers of us imperfect and sinful mortals."

   Now, were this all, the difficulty never could have arisen. The mere
   "ora pro nobis," so explained, could not have led any to stop short in
   the Saints, nor have called forth any protest, out of zeal for God's
   honour. But, along with this, was that vast system as to the Blessed
   Virgin, which to all of us has been the special "crux" of the Roman
   system. This we have often insisted upon, [136] as did those before us.
   It is impossible to condense the statements of a doctrine which
   presents itself in so many startling forms, coextensive with the
   present Office of our Dear Lord for us. His Precious Blood, they of
   course say with us, is alone the meritorious cause of our salvation.
   But her intercession is held to be co-extensive with His, "Who ever
   liveth to make intercession for us," our Divine Lord, and to be the
   access to His Intercession. And this is taught, not as the glowing
   expression of Southern feeling, but as the deliberate mind of the
   present Roman Church. It was one who has since been beatified, [137]
   who formally rejected the "opinion of a certain modern author, who has
   written with great piety and learning on true and false devotion," that
   "the proposition, God gives no grace except through Mary,' is an
   hyperbole and exaggeration, which fell from some of the saints in a
   moment of fervour, and is to be understood to mean that from Mary we
   have received Jesus Christ, through Whose merits we receive all
   graces." God, it is granted, "could grant His graces without the
   intercession of Mary;" [138] but it is asserted that "He will not." It
   is one of their most learned writers [139] who says, "it is the
   universal sentiment of the [Roman] Church that the intercession of Mary
   is not only useful, but also in a certain manner necessary;"

   "necessary, with a moral necessity, because the Church seems to think,
   with St. Bernard, that God has determined to give us no grace except
   through the hands of Mary." [140] So, then, it is taught in authorized
   books? that "it is morally impossible for those to be saved who neglect
   the devotion to the Blessed Virgin;" [141] that "it is the will of God
   that all graces should pass through her hands;" that "no creature
   obtained any grace from God, save according to the dispensation of His
   holy mother;" [142] that Jesus has, in fact, said, "no one shall be
   partaker of My Blood, unless through the intercession of My mother;"
   [143] that "we can only hope to obtain perseverance through her;" [144]
   that "God granted all the pardons in the Old Testament absolutely for
   the reverence and love of this Blessed Virgin;" [145] that "our
   salvation is in her hand;" [146] that "it is impossible for any to be
   saved, who turns away from her, or is disregarded by her; or to be
   lost, who turns to her, or is regarded by her;" [147] that "whom the
   justice of God saves not, the infinite mercy of Mary saves by her
   intercession;" [148] that God is "subject to the command of Mary;"
   [149] that "God has resigned into her hands (if one might say so) His
   omnipotence in the sphere of grace;" [150] "that it is safer to seek
   salvation through her than directly from Jesus." [151]

   It seemed to me to bear very closely upon the mediatorial Office of our
   Lord, when M. Olier, founder of the seminary of St. Sulpice, said, "The
   intention of the Church is, that we seek Jesus Christ in His saints;
   and we are much more sure of finding Him in His saints, for instance,
   in the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph, St. John, St. Peter, than when we
   seek Him immediately and of ourselves.--We are very unworthy to draw
   near unto Jesus; and He has a right to repulse [rebuter] us, because of
   His justice, since, having

   entered into all the feelings of His Father from the time of His
   blessed Resurrection, He finds Himself in the same disposition with the
   Father towards sinners, i. e., to reject them; so that the difficulty
   is to induce Him to exchange the office of Judge for that of Advocate;
   and, of a Judge, to make Him a suppliant. Now this is what the saints
   effect, and especially the most Blessed Virgin." To me this seemed
   unintentional heresy, sanctioned by the two Gallican Bishops who
   recommended the book. I understand that an apology has been made for
   it, that M. Olier was a devotional, not a dogmatic writer, and so did
   not express himself with formal accuracy. Of course, I never thought of
   imputing to a pious writer, like M. Olier, conscious heresy. The
   assertion itself, however, that "our Lord had changed since His
   Resurrection, and was now of one mind with the Father," in a way in
   which He had not been before, must, in any plain meaning of the words,
   be heretical. The statement, moreover, that the saints are more ready
   to intercede with Jesus, than Jesus is to intercede with the Father,
   is, in fact, a denial of His mediatorial office, and is by no means
   peculiar to M. Olier. It was said of old, too," no sinner doth deserve
   that Christ should any more make intercession for him with the Father,
   without Whose intercession none can be delivered either from the
   eternal punishment or the temporal, nor from the fault which he has
   voluntarily committed, and therefore it was necessary that Christ
   should constitute His well-beloved mother a mediatrix betwixt us and
   Him,-- that she would appease the wrath of her Son;" [152] "that God
   retained justice unto Himself, and granted mercy to her;" [153] that
   "she is the throne of grace, whereof the Apostle speaketh;" [154] that
   "she appeaseth the just anger of her Son;" [155] that "to sinners, who
   have lost Divine grace, there is no more sun "(the symbol of Jesus)
   "for him, but the moon is still on the horizon; let him address himself
   to Mary;" [156] that "she is the only refuge of those who have incurred
   the Divine indignation;" [157] that "Jesus, being no less our Judge
   than our Saviour, He must avenge the wrongs we do Him by our sins;
   while the holy Virgin, being solely our Advocate, is obliged to
   entertain only sentiments of pity for us." [158]

   It is commonly said, that if any Roman Catholic acknowledges that "it
   is good and useful to pray to the saints," he is not bound, himself, to
   do so. Were the above teaching true, it would be cruelty to say so;
   because, according to it, he would be forfeiting what is morally
   necessary to his salvation. So then it seems as if the Roman

   Church must either advance in her theoretical teaching, or recede in
   her practical teaching. At present this sort of teaching is in the
   advance. One should have thought that, at least, when our Lord gives
   Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist, this must be direct communion with
   Himself. But a new ritual has arisen, which seems to be intended to
   symbolize that we do not gain access even to Holy Communion, except
   through the Blessed Virgin. This is but the carrying out of the old
   principle, that "it is the will of God that all graces should come
   through her hands." Before, it had been taught, "Jesus [159] Christ is,
   in the Holy Sacrament, risen again and full of glory; and though He be
   in a sacrament of goodness and mercy, He nevertheless therein exercises
   His judgments very commonly by condemnations. We must then go to a
   sacrament solely of mercy, wherein Jesus Christ exercises no judgments.
   This sacrament is the most Blessed Virgin. It is through her that we
   have access to Jesus Christ in full confidence." But now, those
   collossal figures of the Blessed Virgin, which are carried in
   procession, and placed before or by the side of the Altar, seem
   intended to represent, that, through her mediation only, those who are
   in the grace of Christ become fitted to become partakers of His blessed
   Body and Blood. In Southern India and Ceylon, our Churches are called
   by the natives "Jesus-Churches;" the Roman Catholic Churches
   "Mary-Churches."

   It is, of course, an abuse of this teaching, when any confine their
   prayers to the Blessed Virgin. A certain proportion, it has been
   ascertained by those who have inquired, do stop short in her. I have
   myself been asked by Roman Catholics to pray for my conversion: once
   only I was asked to pray our Lord. On the othe r occasions, I was
   exclusively asked to pray the Blessed Virgin for it. [160] In an
   edition of "the Glories of Mary," I have seen one objection so far
   attended to, that notes were added upon the direct prayers to the
   Blessed Virgin for spiritual graces, stating that it was meant only
   that she should obtain these graces by her intercession. Still, the
   teaching remains, that we are even surer to obtain them from her, than
   if we go directly to the One Mediator between God and man, Our Divine
   Lord, "Who ever liveth to make intercession for us."

   The Homilies illustrate what it is, which our Articles condemn, viz.,
   Invocations, which seem to interfere with the all-sufficiency of the
   Intercession of our Divine Redeemer, or any act of devotion which is
   "proper unto God." [161] Bishop Andrewes also, in his summary, explains
   what those of his day believed to be condemned by the article, not
   requests for the prayers of saints departed, but direct addresses to
   them, as if they could themselves give what we ask. "They [162]

   not only Ora pro nobis,' but Succurre miseris, juva pusillanimes,
   refove flebiles, accipe quod offerimus, dona quod rogamus, excusa quod
   timemus.'-- All which and many more show plainly that the practice of
   the Church of Rome, in this point of invocation of saints, is far
   otherwise than Cardinal Perron would bear the world in hand; and that
   prier pour prier is not all, but that, Tu dona coelum, Tu laxa, Tu
   sana, Tu solve crimina, Tu duc, conduc, induc, perduc, ad gloriam, Tu
   serva, Tu fer opem, Tu aufer, Tu confer vitam,' are said to them,
   totidem verbis; more than which cannot be said to God Himself. And
   again, Hic nos solvat a peccatis, hic nostros tergat reatus, hic arma
   conferat, hic hostem fuget, hic gubernet, hic aptet tuo conspectui,'
   which, if they be not direct and absolute, it would be asked of them,
   "What is absolute or direct?" And this impression, that more is
   intended than the asking of their prayers, as we do those of members of
   Christ still in the flesh, is strengthened by the statement, not
   contained in the Council of Trent, that invocation is "an eminent kind
   of adoration;" [163] that "we [Roman Catholics] do not honour the
   saints with that worship only, wherewith we do men which excel in
   virtue, &c., but also with Divine worship and honour, which is an act
   of religion," only that they "do not give Divine worship and honour
   unto the saints for themselves, but for God Who hath made them saints."
   [164]

   The large system as to the B. V., of which I have given specimens,
   unknown as it was to the Ancient Church, [165] has a quasi-authority in
   the Roman Church (at least, it is set forth in her name), moulds, and
   necessarily must mould, a great part of the private devotions in the
   Roman Church. Yet Dr. Manning too, I suppose, would not allege it as
   the teaching of God the Holy Ghost, which a man could not reject
   without sin: for then it would be de fide and infallible, which yet it
   is alleged not to be. Yet devotions to the Blessed Virgin have been and
   are assigned as penance in the Roman Church, and consequently as a
   condition of forgiveness of sin. It is notorious that this system is
   the great barrier and ground of alienation of pious minds in England.
   "It comes," said one who appreciated highly what is good and holy in
   the Roman Church, "as near to idolatry, as can be supposed in a Church,
   of which it is said, the idols He shall utterly abolish.'" I

   have often myself had to try to remove the rooted conviction that Roman
   Catholics are actual "idolaters." Since then the lawfulness or
   usefulness of asking the saints to pray for us is alone laid down as
   "of faith," there is a large scope for providing that, in case of a
   reunion, our people should not be flooded with these devotions, which
   to us are most alien. Nothing which seems to interfere with exclusive
   trust and reliance on Jesus will, without some great revolution, gain
   hold of the hearts of the English people.

   And here, for the sake of others, it may perhaps be well to repeat a
   statement which I made above seventeen years ago, why, in a book of
   devotions, [166] which I transplanted into the English Church, I
   "omitted all mention of the Invocation of Saints." I said:--

   "However it may be explained by Roman Catholic controversialists, to be
   no more than asking the prayers of members of Christ yet in the flesh,
   still, in use, it is plainly more; for no one would ask those in the
   flesh to protect us from the enemy,' receive us in the hour of death,'
   lead us to the joy of heaven,' may thy [the Blessed Virgin] abundant
   love cover the multitude of sins,' heal my wounds, and to the mind
   which asketh thee, give the gifts of grace,' [167] or use any of the
   direct prayers for graces which God Alone can bestow, which are common
   in Roman Catholic devotions to the Blessed Virgin. No one can look
   uncontroversially at such occasional addresses, as there are to martyrs
   in the fourth century (and those chiefly prayers at their tombs through
   their intercession for miraculous aid of God), and such books as the
   Glories of Mary,' the Month of Mary,' and say that the character of the
   modern reliance on and invocation of Saints was that of the ancient
   Church. No one could (it should be thought) observe how through volumes
   of S. Augustine or S. Chrysostom, there is no mention of any reliance
   except on Christ Alone; and how in modern books, S. Mary is held out as
   the refuge of sinners,' as having the goats committed to her, as Christ
   the sheep,' as the throne of grace,' to whom a sinner may have easier
   access than to Christ, [168] and seriously say, that the ancient and
   modern teaching and practice are the same. We could preach whole
   volumes of the sermons of S. Augustine or S. Chrysostom to our people
   to their edification and without offence: were a Roman Catholic
   preacher to confine himself to their preaching, he would (it has been
   said among themselves) be regarded as indevout towards S. Mary,' as one
   whose religion was more of the head than of the heart.' The Editor,
   then, has not ventured even upon the outskirts of so vast a system,
   which, even according to Roman Catholic testimony which he has had,
   does practically occasion many uninstructed minds to stop short in the
   mediation of S. Mary. When Holy Scripture is not even alleged (as no
   text for the invocation of saints either is or can be quoted by Roman
   Catholic controversialists), and primitive antiquity is equally silent
   (now that passages as to S. Mary once attributed to S. Athanasius, S.
   Augustine, S. Ephrem, S. Chrysostom, under the shadow of whose great
   names this system grew up, are acknowledged to be spurious), and the
   language of great fathers (as S. Cyril of Alexandria) has to be
   explained away; there was no authority to which the Editor dared to
   yield his faith. Taught by the Church to receive that and that alone,
   as a matter of faith, which was part of the good deposit,' once for all
   committed to the saints,' and which had been held always, everywhere,
   and by all,' he did not venture to receive what was confessedly of a
   more recent origin, and whose tendency seemed at variance with Holy
   Scripture itself. While acknowledging the authority of the Church in
   controversies of faith' (Art. XX.), he

   ^166 ^167^168

   could not understand on what ground that vast system, as to S. Mary,
   could be rested, except that of a new revelation. Development' must
   surely apply to the expression, not to the substance of belief. It must
   be the bringing out iu words of what was always inwardly held; the
   securing of the old, not the addition of any thing new. However the
   language of the Church on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity may have, in
   time, become more fixed and definite, any one would think it an impiety
   to imagine that S. John and S. Peter had not received, and did not
   deliver, all which has ever since been believed. He who lay on Jesus'
   Breast,' and he on whose confession of faith the Church was built,
   could not be ignorant of any thing belonging to that faith. [169]
   Neither can it be believed that they withheld any thing belonging to
   that faith. [170] To imagine either, was of old accounted to be
   subjecting' [171] Christ to reproach. Yet it seems inconceivable that
   S. Peter, S. John, and S. Paul should have believed what is now
   earnestly taught and believed upon authority within the Roman Church,
   as to the present office of the Blessed Virgin, or that believing it,
   they could have written as (e. g.) S. Paul wrote through the Holy
   Ghost, in the Epistle to the Hebrews; or that, if Almighty God had
   willed it to be believed in the Church, it should have been so excluded
   from Holy Scripture, and the doctrine itself not have appeared for
   centuries. The Editor, then, in a former work, while

   excluding invocations, admitted what is involved in the word qeotokoV,
   as sanctioned by an OEcumenical Council, to whose authority the English
   Church yields unquestioning submission. In the present, he has omitted
   the whole second section Of the Worship and Veneration of Saints,' and
   half of the seventh, On the Worship and Veneration of the Blessed
   Virgin Mary.' And, generally, for members of the English Church, who
   desire the prayers of the departed, it has to him ever seemed safest to
   pray for them to Him, of Whom and through Whom and to Whom are all
   things,' our God and our All, Who, according to the current Roman
   explanation also, reveals to them the desire of those below to have
   their prayers."

   In the years which have passed since I wrote that Preface, the actual
   state of the Cultus of the Blessed Virgin within the Roman Communion
   has been set forth in an authentic and official way in the answers sent
   by the Archbishops and Bishops to the inquiry of Pius IX. in regard to
   the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It appears from those
   answers, that the poorer classes are not, for the most part, even
   acquainted with the distinction between what is to be believed to be de
   fide, and what is popularly taught them as truth. They receive all
   which they are taught, alike as matter of faith, whether in the minds
   of their teacher it is a pious opinion or de fide. There was even a
   difficulty or a risk in acting upon the Pope's desire, that the Bishops
   would have public prayers in their Dioceses, that God would "pour on
   him the heavenly light of His Divine Spirit, that in a matter of so
   much moment he might take that counsel which should be to the greater
   glory of His Holy Name, to the praise of the most Blessed Virgin, and
   to the advantage of the Church militant." [172] The difficulty (at
   least in some places or countries) was, lest it should shake the
   people's faith, if they were told plainly, that the doctrine which they
   had always been taught to believe, had never been declared to be matter
   of

   faith, and that its being so made was yet uncertain. So, some of the
   Bishops reported to the Pope that they had veiled the object of the
   public prayers; some, I think, had not ventured to direct any public
   prayers at all. I fear that an opening has been made for the extension
   of that cultus, both in regard to the doctrines which shall, in fact,
   be part of the faith in the Roman Communion, and their relation to
   other fundamental doctrines of the faith, which is altogether
   incalculable. A very popular devotional writer, once among ourselves,
   spoke lately of [173] "the speedy coming of that great age of the
   Church which is to be the Age of Mary," with which he prayed that "the
   Holy Ghost, the Divine Zealot of Jesus and Mary, may be pleased quickly
   to console us;" and of one, "an Elias-like Missionary of the Holy Ghost
   and of Mary," who "proclaims that he brings an authentic message from
   God about the greater honour and wider knowledge and more prominent
   love of His Blessed Mother and her connexion with the second advent of
   her Son." Here, in England, we are told, that Roman Catholics too know
   little or nothing of the true devotion to the Blessed Virgin, because
   it is kept in check by what F. Faber calls "the sneers of heresy," and
   what we believe to be sensitiveness to the honour and glory of JESUS.

   I remember that the late Cardinal Wiseman, many years past, blamed
   English Roman Catholics as having been ashamed of their distinctive
   doctrines. [174] The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, if I
   understand the statement aright, has only been introduced of late years
   into their public services, and that, through an impulse given by an
   individual. [175] F. Faber, in his popular books, is always bringing in
   the devotion to the Blessed Virgin. He believes that the shortcomings
   of English Roman Catholics is owing to the inadequacy of their devotion
   to her. After instancing people's failures in overcoming their faults,
   want of devotion, unsubmission to God's special Providence for them,
   feeling domestic troubles almost incompatible with salvation, and that
   "for all these things prayer appears to bring so little remedy," he
   asks, [176]

   "What is the remedy that is wanted? what is the remedy indicated by God

   himself? If we may rely on the disclosures of the saints, it is an
   immense increase of devotion to our Blessed Lady, but remember, nothing
   short of an immense [177] one. Here, in England, Mary is not half
   enough preached. Devotion to her is low and thin and poor. It is
   frightened out of its wits by the sneers of heresy. It is always
   invoking human respect and carnal prudence, wishing to make Mary so
   little of a Mary, that Protestants may feel at ease about her. Its
   ignorance of theology makes it unsubstantial and unworthy. It is not
   the prominent characteristic of our religion which it ought to be. It
   has no faith in itself. Hence it is, that Jesus is not loved, that
   heretics are not converted, that the Church is not exalted; that souls,
   which might be saints, wither and dwindle; that the sacraments are not
   rightly frequented, or souls enthusiastically evangelized. Jesus is
   obscured, because Mary is kept in the background. Thousands of souls
   perish, because Mary is withheld from them. It is the miserable
   unworthy shadow which we call our devotion to the Blessed Virgin, that
   is the cause of all these wants and blights, these evils and omissions
   and declines. Yet, if we are to believe the revelations of the saints,
   God is pressing [178] for a greater, a wider, a stronger, quite another
   devotion to His Blessed Mother."

   It must often come to us to ask on reading such statements,--"If
   devotion to the Blessed Virgin were so essential to salvation, how
   could it be, that God, in His last and final revelation of Himself, is
   so wholly silent about it?" Christians had "fiery trials" [179] then,
   and were to count them no "strange thing." The sufferings of the
   martyrs are almost past our powers of conception; yet there were slight
   and easy and self-deceiving ways, by which to deny Christ. Converts had
   temptations, from which, if we will, we are exempt, the memory of
   heathen sins and evil habits, antecedent to grace. How can it be
   thought by any, that Jesus,--Who "ever liveth to make intercession for
   us," [180] Who crowned his own and was crowned in them; Whose words in
   His everlasting Gospel are, "Come unto Me, all that are weary and heavy
   laden, and I will give you rest;" [181] "Whatsoever ye shall ask the
   Father in My Name, He will give it you;" "Whatsoever ye shall ask in My
   Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if
   ye shall ask any thing in My Name, I will do it," [182] --is not
   willing to hear us, unless we seek a Mediatrix with Him, who is to
   dispose him to hear us?

   However, to judge from the official answers of the Bishops to Pius IX.
   in answer to his inquiry, "with what devotion your Clergy and faithful
   people are animated towards the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin,"
   Faber was right as to the immensely greater devotion and trust in the
   Blessed Virgin, at least in countries where there is no check from the
   contact with Protestants. Certainly the prominent impression in my mind
   from reading those answers (they occupy more than three close volumes)
   was, "if the devotion

   to God were like that to the Blessed Virgin, it would be a world of
   saints." "In this Diocese," says the Bishop of Cochabamba, [183] "as in
   the whole of civilized America, it has attained to the highest degree,
   so that nothing more can be desired." "Our only hope in these
   countries, tried by divers tribulations," says the Vicar Apostolic in
   Cochin China, [184] "is placed in our most holy Mother, from whom we
   expect salvation [salus]." "The devotion to the Blessed Virgin is such
   as is to be defined by no bounds," says the Bishop of Scutari. [185] In
   Spain and Portugal devotion to the Blessed Virgin is in its natural
   home. They are familiarly called Marian kingdoms. [186] I fear that F.
   Faber is right in another point too, that this cultus of the Blessed
   Virgin is about to receive "an immense increase."

   You will well remember, with what a deep pang we heard of the
   Encyclical Letter of Pius IX. from Gaeta, in which, he expressed to the
   Bishops in the Roman Communion, his "vehement wish, that with the
   greatest possible speed you would signify to us, with what devotion
   your clergy and faithful people are animated towards the conception of
   the Immaculate Virgin, and with what longing they burn, that the matter
   should be decreed by the Apostolic See; and most especially we desire
   to know, what you yourselves, in your excellent wisdom, think on that
   matter and what you desire." We felt that the decree, if passed, would
   be one more difficulty in the way of the reunion of Christendom, one
   more ground of severance between the Roman and the Greek Church; an
   insoluble difference between the modern Roman and the ancient Church.
   Even amid our own recent troubles, we heard of the decision in 1854 in
   silent sorrow.

   The object of the decree was (as some of the Roman Catholic Bishops
   pointed out in their answers) new in the history of the Church. It was
   not to allay any controversy. In the Roman Communion, controversy had
   long since been hushed by authority; outside of it, there was the less
   ground for controversy, because the doctrine occupied no apparent
   prominence. Several Bishops expressed their fears, lest the definition
   should awaken the controversy. The ground, put forward by Pius IX., was
   of this sort, that as we believe that what is done purely for the Glory
   of God draws down fresh favours from God, so, "the Blessed Virgin being
   placed," as they hold, "between Christ and the Church," what should be
   done for the glory of the Blessed Virgin would draw down from her fresh
   favours for the Church. He wrote, [187]

   "On this hope we chiefly rely, that the most Blessed Virgin,--who
   raised the height of merits above all the choirs of Angels to the
   throne of the Deity, and by the foot of Virtue bruised the serpent's
   head,' and who, being constituted between Christ and His Church, and,
   being wholly sweet and full of graces, hath ever delivered the
   Christian

   people from calamities of all sorts, and from the snares and assaults
   of all enemies, and hath rescued them from destruction, and,
   commiserating our most sad and most sorrowful vicissitudes and our most
   severe straits, toils, necessities with that most large feeling of her
   motherly mind--will, by her most present and most powerful patronage
   with God, both turn away the scourges of Divine wrath wherewith we are
   afflicted for our sins, and will allay, dissipate the most turbulent
   storms of ills, wherewith, to the incredible sorrow of our mind, the
   Church everywhere is tossed, and will turn our sorrow into joy. For ye
   know very well, Ven. Brethren, that the whole of our confidence is
   placed in the most Holy Virgin, since God has placed in Mary the
   fulness of all good, that accordingly we may know that if there is any
   hope in us, if any grace, if any salvation, it redounds to us from her,
   because such is His will Who hath willed that we should have every
   thing through Mary."

   Much the same language had been addressed to Gregory XVI. and to Pius
   IX. himself by Bishops [188] (almost exclusively Italian and French),
   who had asked them successively to proclaim the doctrine of the
   Immaculate Conception to be de fide. They hoped (as some expressed it),
   that "she who requited every the least office towards her," [189] and
   who, they say, was and is to "bruise the serpent's head," [190] and is
   "the destroyer of all heresies," [191] would establish the truth,
   restore peace, destroy heresy. The Encyclical of Pius IX. was, so far,
   a response to those Bishops who had applied to Gregory XVI. and to
   himself, to define, "by his infallible authority," the doctrine of the
   Immaculate Conception, as a matter of faith. But it is not the less a
   great change, both in the constitution of the Church and the principles
   upon which it declares any matter to be

   de fide. "In the constitution of the Church," because the personal
   infallibility of the Pope, by himself, comes out in the strongest way,
   despite of the terrible denial of the faith by Liberius, and the formal
   error of Honorius, with the anathema of the Sixth General Council. The
   Bishops who applied to the two Popes asked each severally to set the
   seal of infallibility upon the opinion, by virtue of his own act. Those
   who answered the Encyclical letter, spoke of the act, as his, not
   theirs; those who dissented from its expediency, declared themselves
   ready to submit to his judgment; some Spanish and Portuguese Bishops,
   while they declared that "no injury could arise to" their own
   countrymen who could not imagine the doctrine not to be of faith,
   professed not to be able to judge as to its effects on the whole
   Church, and left the decision to the Pope. The Bishops did not meet in
   Council, either to address the Pope, or to consider his Encyclical
   letter, except in Ireland, where the Roman Catholic Bishops, to
   inaugurate their restored synods, chose an act which should do honour
   to the Blessed Virgin. The Pope asked the opinion of each Bishop
   individually; the Bishops answered, as sons who had but a delegated
   authority, to an infallible head. What advice could any individual give
   to one, who, as all believed, was to give an inspired decision, to
   reject which, was, they held, to reject God?

   The full weight of Papal authority was given beforehand to the
   conclusion, to which Pius IX. wished to bring the Bishops in the Roman
   Communion. Not his wishes only, but the great fervency of those wishes
   were expressed in the Encyclical letter, addressed severally to each
   Bishop. Any Bishop, who should hesitate to accede to those wishes, must
   have felt that he was going counter to the whole mind of him whom he
   owned as the Vicegerent of God upon earth. Nothing but the strong
   imperative voice of conscience could induce any one, in any degree, to
   oppose him. It was not imperative to answer, and many took refuge in
   silence. But each was bound to submit himself to the decision, whatever
   it might be. In a Council, any considerable number of orthodox Bishops
   who dissented from a point not yet ruled, could not but have weight.
   The wording of at least one decree of the Council of Trent was modified
   in order not to condemn the opinion of a single Bishop. [192] We all
   know how a minority makes itself felt; much more, when any thing
   affecting men's souls is at issue, and Bishops can plead, in fervid
   living words, that they fear the effect of a decision on the souls of
   their fellow-men committed to their care. In the individual collecting
   of opinions by letter, minorities had no voice. They had no collective
   existence. Each Archbishop or Bishop was but an unit, which could
   scarcely put forth itself, and which certainly could not assert itself
   in presence of infallibility. [193] Pius IX., in his "Constitution,"
   ignored the minority, as if it had never existed. "We were touched with
   no slight consolation when the responses of those venerable brethren
   [the Bishops] came to us. For, writing back to us with an

   incredible happiness, joy, and eagerness, they not only asserted anew
   their own singular piety and mind, and that of the clergy and people of
   each, towards the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, but also
   asked of us, as it were, with a common vote, that the Immaculate
   Conception of the Virgin herself should be defined by our supreme
   judgment and authority."

   The wishes expressed by the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Bishops were
   nearly unanimous; and these formed near three-fifths of those who sent
   answers. [194] Yet even from Italy came a distinct, well-worded
   objection from the Bishop of Mondovi, [195] who "could not dare," even
   after the prayers of his Diocese, to decide that there was evidence
   enough to erect the "pious opinion" into a matter of faith, or that
   then was the best time to define it. Doubts were also expressed by the
   Cardinal Bishop of Viterbo and Toscanella, [196] the Cardinal
   Archbishop of Urbino, [197] "with some of the most pious and learned of
   his clergy," "fearing loss of souls." The Cardinal Bishop of Ancona and
   Umana, [198] the Bishops of Cervia [199] and Otranto, [200] and the
   Archbishop of Perugia, [201] wished the decree to be tempered, and made
   indirect; the Bishop of Majorca felt the difficulties and dissuaded;
   [202] the Archbishop of Milan, and five Bishops in the North of Italy,
   [203] left the decision "in these most difficult times "to "the Holy
   See, to which is promised the special assistance of the Holy Spirit."
   In Spain, the Bishop of Lugo [204] wished the decree to be made
   indirect, if it should be given at all, his own mind being against it.
   The Bishop of Zamora wished that no note should be set on those who had
   maintained the contrary, before or after the Council of Trent. [205]
   Two very remarkable answers came from the Bishops of Iaca, in Portugal,
   and of Chiapo, in Mexico. The Bishop of Iaca [206] much desired that
   the definition should be delayed until two learned works of divines of
   Salamanca, written in disproof of the testimonies of the Fathers
   alleged by Maracci, could be examined; the Bishop of Chiapo [207] was
   constrained, though with much regret, to oppose the decision, as being
   unsupported by any clear testimony

   from Scripture, or from Tradition. Yet more striking, perhaps, is the
   answer of the Bishop of Ventimiglia from Italy itself, resting his
   doubt on the probable intention of God the Holy Ghost, as evinced by
   His silence in Scripture. "For [208] that not without a purpose the
   origin of the most holy Mother is passed over by the Evangelist, her
   Nativity is not described, nor is it recorded how she was conceived (as
   the holy Bishop of Valence observes), [209] and the whole praise of her
   is touched upon in the very few words, in which her Divine Maternity is
   declared, forces on me grave fear, lest the Holy Ghost, in the
   inscrutable counsel of His Wisdom, willed that her holy origin should
   remain hidden; so that the only cause of her singular honour revealed
   should be the glory of the Immaculate Conception of Him, the Holy and
   Immaculate High Priest, Who was to bring cleansing to all besides."

   The Irish Roman Catholic Bishops agreed [210] (although the Roman
   Catholic Archbishop of Dublin reports the remarkable dissent of "the
   Jesuit Fathers at Dublin, and almost all the Professors of Maynooth),"
   [211] so did the five Vicars Apostolic in Scotland (who reported that
   the cultus of the Blessed Virgin was the dearer to their people,
   because they alone in Scotland had it), [212] and the one Vicar
   Apostolic of Norway and Sweden with his five priests. [213]

   Of the Archbishops and Bishops of France, no answer came from
   one-fourth; [214] the Archbishops of Paris [215] and Rouen [216] wrote
   earnestly to deprecate any decision, as did the Bishops of Coutances,
   [217] and Evreux; [218] Chartres [219] was anxious; Anneçy, [220]
   Meaux, [221] Carcassonne [222] doubted. The Archbishop of Rheims, [223]
   with the Bishops of Soissons, [224] Amiens, [225] Beauvais, [226]
   Blois, [227] wished the decree to be softened so as to leave those who
   disbelieved it free from the note of heresy (which would, I suppose,
   have left things much as they were before). Of those who had asked
   Gregory XVI. to define

   the doctrine, after nine years the Archbishop of Bourges feared that
   [228] "more evil than good would come from it;" the Bishop of
   Versailles hesitated, lest it should be an additional hindrance to the
   return of the Protestants, whom it was difficult to make believe what
   was already of faith in regard to her; [229] the Bishop of Périgueux,
   much as he wished it, yet "in these most difficult times, in which we
   live," [230] left the matter to the Pope, as did the Bishop of
   Angoulême. [231] The Bishop of Angers [232] expressed his doubts,
   stating that "the same thoughts and fears were shared by some at least
   of his colleagues in the Episcopate, and by priests, not less
   distinguished by learning than piety towards the Blessed Virgin." The
   statement is the more remarkable, on account of his strong opposite
   bias. "We fully trust that she [the Blessed Virgin] will bestow on the
   holy Church of God and the whole world new and unheard of benefits,
   when, a decree supervening from the Holy See, so many men and women, so
   loved by God and his Son Jesus Christ, shall with one mouth, firm
   faith, exulting minds, confess that Mary was immaculate in her
   Conception," &c. The Bishops, then, who requested the definition, were
   but a bare majority of the Bishops of France (41 out of 80). In a
   Gallican Council, it can hardly be doubted, that the earnest pleadings
   of the Archbishops of Paris and Rouen, and of the Bishop of Evreux,
   would have prevailed, and the question would have remained undecided.

   In Germany the Apostolic Nuncio at Vienna wrote to Cardinal Antonelli
   that he had tried to elicit a favourable opinion from the Archbishops,
   and had failed. He said:--

   [233]

   "I have written anew confidentially to the Archbishops of this monarchy
   to excite them to express their own opinion, and that of their
   Suffragans, on the important subject of the Immaculate Conception of
   the Madonna. Their" silence hitherto, as I have had the honour to point
   out to your Eminence, can only be an argument, that they are not
   inclined to a determination, directed to declare the pious belief of
   the Immaculate Conception as a dogma." The Archbishops and Bishops of
   the Austrian Empire are counted at 121, [234] exclusive of those in the
   Austrian possessions in Italy, and of those in Carinthia, Carniola,
   Transylvania, whose numbers I do not know. Three, [235] out of nine
   [236] Dalmatian Bishops, wrote, expressing their assent; but these also
   are Italian. Of the 121 Archbishops and Bishops (anyhow, of the Bishops
   of the rest of the Austrian Empire out of Italy), only

   four (out of 21) Hungarian Bishops [237] expressed agreement. From
   Moravia, the Archbishop of Olmütz and the Bishop of Brünn wrote
   earnestly, [238] "after mature deliberation, and fervidly imploring
   light from above," expressing their wish that the decree should be
   delayed on account of the peril of souls among their people. The four
   Bohemian Bishops expressed the same desire on the same ground. [239]
   The Archbishop of Gorizia and Gradisca, [240] the Cardinal Archbishop
   of Salzburg, [241] and the Bishop of Trieste [242] (which three alone
   wrote from Austria proper), wrote, with different degrees of strength,
   requesting that things should remain as the Council of Trent had left
   them.

   From the Prussian territory the Archbishop of Breslau wrote against it
   with a respectful, but touching solemnity, "Dixi et salvavi animam
   meam." [243] Doubts were expressed by the Bishop of Munster; [244] the
   Bishop of Paderborn expressed his wish that any decision should be
   delayed; [245] the Bishop of Warmia mentioned the opinion of many
   (among others his chapter) in favour of delay, gave no opinion, but
   declared that whatever the Pope "might decree, would be received as a
   Divine oracle." [246] The Bishop of Trèves doubted for a time on
   account of the un-Catholics, [247] but decided that the decree would be
   advantageous, "since it was the Blessed Virgin alone who destroyed all
   heresies in the whole world."

   In Hanover, the Bishop of Hildesheim reported that the greater part of
   his Clergy thought that, at least in those parts, a dogmatic decree was
   neither necessary nor desirable. He himself left it to the Pope's
   "wiser judgment." [248]

   In Hesse, "Clergy, distinguished for knowledge, full of piety towards
   Mother Church," dissuaded it. The Bishop of Fulda, like the Bishop of
   Trèves, held that, "the greater the number of adversaries, the more the
   Church, who had to strive against the powers of darkness, ought to pray
   for her help and aid, who bruised the serpent 's head, the more extol
   and venerate by prayer her who, praying her Son, alone destroyed all
   heresies in the whole world." [249]

   In Nassau, the Apostolic Administrator of Limburg gave strong reasons
   against the decision, but acquiesced, because, the question having been
   raised, things could not remain as they were. [250]

   The Card. Archbishop of Malines stated, that [251] "in these parts, and
   especially in the neighbouring kingdoms of Trance and Holland,
   ecclesiastics, conspicuous for piety, knowledge, and prudence, feared,
   lest heretics and unbelievers should take fresh occasion to calumniate
   the Catholic Church, as though she invented new dogmas, and paid undue
   worship to the most holy Mother of God, whence many, who were inclined
   to embrace the faith, might turn back."

   In Bavaria, the Archbishop of Munich [252] "could not decide about the
   expediency of defining, in the present circumstances of the Church, for
   fear of occasioning fresh dissensions where Catholics were mixed with
   heretics;" the Bishop of Bamberg held that the evidence was not strong
   enough. "8 To the body of the more erudite and learned in our Germany
   the matter does not seem so clear, that (whatever the very learned and
   illustrious Tramontanes have recently written) they can think that this
   opinion, which has hitherto been cherished as pious, should be inserted
   among dogmas which no one may doubt." [253] He begged that the decision
   might be left to a General Council at some future time.

   In Switzerland and Savoy, the Bishop of St. Gall, [254] with his
   counsellors, thought that the dogmatic definition would not increase
   the devotion towards the Immaculate Conception, and was superfluous at
   that time, and ill-advised. The Archbishop of Chambéry held that the
   [255] "tradition was not sufficiently clear to make it an article of
   faith and a true dogma, to be believed by all under pain of mortal
   sin;" and so thought it best to "follow the prudent line of the Council
   of Trent by either abstaining from defining, or at least defining the
   question only indirectly and broadly, by asserting that the cultus of
   the Catholic Church towards the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
   was pious and holy."

   Even the Patriarch of the Melchites in the Patriarchates of Antioch,
   Alexandria, and Jerusalem reported, [256] "Some of my Bishops think
   best, on account of the very many heretics, abounding here in the
   Levant, not, without great necessity, to multiply the articles of
   faith, in order to give them no motive to speak, however unjustly,
   against the Apostolic See." The Vicar Apostolic of Constantinople
   dissuaded the definition on theological grounds: [257] "Notwithstanding
   the weight of the recent theological dissertations on this point, the
   reserve of the Scriptures in regard to this privilege, the hesitation
   of the Holy Fathers to treat the said question, the delays of the
   Church itself to decide it, united to the dispositions of spirits in
   various countries, amid Catholics, too, in this century, in which
   reason, priding itself, burns to wage war with faith, make me judge

   before God, that the question ought to remain undecided; and even
   should the Church support the instruction that Mary was conceived
   immaculate, that it should not impose the obligation to believe this as
   a doctrine of faith."

   A remarkable response, objecting to the decree with much solidity and
   clearness, came from the Vicar Apostolic of Mysore, [258] and another
   from Coimbatoor. [259] The Vicar Apostolic of Patna (a German) sent his
   adhesion, with the remarkable addition, "If the tradition be
   established by recent authors." [260] The Coadjutor Bishop at Calcutta
   falls in with "the greater number of Bishops." [261] The Vicar
   Apostolic of Central Tonkin said that he could neither affirm nor deny
   that the pious opinion should be placed among the articles of faith,
   having no means to examine the subject duly, and that, for himself, he
   trusted the infallibility of the Apostolic See. [262]

   A remarkable hiatus occurs in the United States. In 1849 there were
   twenty-eight Roman Catholic Bishops in those States. [263] One only
   answer came, from Oregon, [264] containing the assent of the Roman
   Catholic Archbishop of Oregon City, the Bishops of Vancouver and Walla
   Walla.

   The European Missionary Bishops for the most part followed their
   nation, or, as the Vicar Apostolic of Ispahan, [265] refer the decision
   to the head of the Church.

   I have entered into all this detail, because it gives two remarkable
   aspects of things in the Roman Communion. On the one side were those,
   chiefly Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese (whether in Europe or America),
   and the Irish who set their hope in the Blessed Virgin, as being
   "placed between Christ and the Church," and whose one thought is, that
   whatever shall exalt the Blessed Virgin will obtain fresh favours from
   her. Of those, who asked that the Immaculate Conception might be made
   an article of faith, I counted 130 who expressed this as the ground of
   their desire, more or less strongly, besides such as only echoed the
   language of Pius IX., "to the glory of God, the praise of the most
   Blessed Virgin, the benefit of the Church militant." Of these, 70 were
   Italians, 23 Spanish and Portuguese, 25 the Irish Roman Catholic
   Bishops. The sentiment itself was often clothed in very strong words;
   and benefits, which Holy Scripture ascribes directly to God, seem to be
   purposely ascribed to the Blessed Virgin (of course, as the instrument
   of God in dispensing them, but still as their dispenser): "Glorify the
   Mother of God," wrote the Bishop of Bova to the Pope, [266] "that the
   Mother of God may glorify thee;--she will render thee glorious who hast
   glorified so great a lady. For, I doubt not, in order that you may be
   confirmed in this hope, the Virgin herself makes thee certain of

   this promise, by a voice brought down from heaven, by those words, I
   have glorified thee, and will glorify thee again.'" "She," writes the
   Vicar Apostolic of Uruguai, [267] "will direct the goings of your
   Holiness into the way of peace. She will command her angels, that they
   keep your Holiness in all your ways, that yon may walk on asp and
   basilisk, and tread on lion and dragon; and because your Holiness will
   hope in her, therefore she will deliver and protect you, because you
   have known her name, i. e. the fitting time foreordained by the Father
   of lights for defining her Immaculate Conception. Your Holiness, crying
   aloud to her, will doubtless hear, she will be in the trouble,' which
   you now experience, out of which she will infallibly deliver you; she
   will glorify your Holiness, filling you with length of days, and at
   last showing you her salvation, i. e. her Son Jesus." "We," said the
   Bishop of Perpignan, [268] "rely upon the hope, that the most Blessed
   Mother, the Queen of heaven and Mistress of the world, in return for
   the solemn declaration of her Immaculate Conception, will be pleased to
   dissipate all our sad and sorrowful vicissitudes, and sharpest anguish,
   labours, necessities, compassionating us with that most large affection
   of her motherly mind, as is her wont, by her most present and most
   powerful patronage with God, and will quell, dissipate those most
   turbulent storms of ills wherewith the Church is tossed everywhere, and
   turn our sorrow into joy." "In these most difficult times," said the
   Bishop of the Canaries, [269] "in which the ship of the Church is
   tossed in all directions by furious waves, upraised not by those only
   who are without, but very chiefly by those who have been reborn of
   water and the Holy Spirit in the bosom of the Catholic Church, and who
   as yet do not disdain openly to call themselves Catholics, yet with
   wolf's heart under the sheep's skin, let a most firm anchor be sought
   for her, that the ship of Peter may abide secure, &c. But what is this
   anchor? Mary."

   "The great one [270] herself," said the delegate Apostolic of Greece,
   [271] "will requite you, and by her most powerful patronage will
   disperse these horrible tempests, wherewith, in these most sad times,
   your Blessedness, with the whole Church, is tossed. "Winds and storm
   will cease; and there will be a great calm." "I daily," said the Bishop
   of Cesena, [272] "most earnestly and unintermittingly implore the most
   merciful and holy Virgin, the consoler of the sorrowful, that she,
   assenting to our prayers, would restore thee very speedily to thy
   kingdom and august see." "She loves those who love her," said

   the Archbishop of Granada, [273] "and most abundantly builds up with
   graces, and disposes her servants to become the habitation and temple
   of her Blessed Son and the Holy Spirit. She was full of grace, that of
   her fulness' all creatures may receive,' and have a large shower of
   heavenly gifts infused into them. She is the Mother of fair love, and
   fear, and knowledge, and holy hope, and in her is all grace of the way
   and of truth, all hope of life and virtue. Since then the most Blessed
   Virgin has been enriched with such endowments by God, it is to be hoped
   most exceedingly, that, propitiated and conquered by such praises and
   deferences most grateful to her, she, turning her eyes of mercy to us,
   will powerfully rescue us from the ills with which in the present most
   horrible tempest we are oppressed." "For all heresies," said the Bishop
   of Firenza, [274] "in the whole world were slain by Her; She is
   terrible as an ordered host to protect the universal Church of Her Only
   Begotten Son, and to put its enemies to flight; in Her is all hope of
   life and virtue." "The preparation of the heart," said the Bishop de la
   Rochelle, [275] "the Immaculate Mother of the Redeemer will hear." "If
   an opportune and fitting time were to be desired for decreeing this
   honour of the most Holy Virgin," said the Bishop of Leon, [276] "none
   could be found more opportune and fitting than this wherein we live.
   For in this most immense mass of errors, calamities, and troubles,
   wherewith we are oppressed and shaken on all sides, our whole hope is
   to be placed in that most powerful Virgin, which bruised the dragon, to
   whom it was given to destroy all heresies, and at whose free will all
   the treasures of heaven are dispensed." "We have little hope," said the
   Bishop of Lerida, [277] "that human remedies will profit us, unless the
   Most Blessed Virgin Mary, who is our true health, apply her healing
   hands, and she, most tender one, will, if," &c.

   These and the like expressions are the necessary consequences of the
   doctrine, that "God does not will to give any thing except through the
   Blessed Virgin;" "He has placed her between Christ and the Church." Our
   Lord has bidden us ask the Father in His Name; and we should not expect
   to be heard except through our Divine Redeemer. In like way, if God had
   "placed the Blessed Virgin between Christ and His Church," then, so far
   from there being any thing amiss in the exclusiveness of these prayers,
   it would rather seem, that to pray "to Mary," or "through Mary," would
   be the only legitimate form of prayer, as our prayers are to God
   "through Jesus," or "to Jesus," God and Man. It is the natural result
   of this belief, that, in almost every case, the hopes are expressed,
   that "Mary will do this or that." I remember few cases only, in which
   any Bishop said, [278] "God would do it" (there may of course have been
   more), and one or two, that "the prayers of Mary, solemnly declared by
   the Holy See Immaculate in her Conception, will

   draw her Son out of that deep sleep which He seems to take in that
   boat." [279] "The Virgin Mother of God, helping our infirmities, will
   entreat her Son for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." [280]
   Where our natural language would be, "God will do this or that," there
   it seems equally natural to Roman Catholics to say, "Mary will do it."
   At least, where we expect beforehand, in the unfinished sentence, to
   find "God," or "Jesus," we find "Mary."

   The ways in which the declaration of the Immaculate Conception as
   matter of faith was to obtain these benefits to the Church were
   twofold, either as the direct fruit of the honour so shown to the
   Blessed Virgin in propitiating her, or (more rarely) by increasing the
   devotion of the people to her. Thus the Bishop of Sion urged it as an
   argument for the direct definition of the doctrine, that the "indirect
   definition of it would not increase devotion to the Blessed Virgin."
   [281]

   The results hoped from the definition were most large. The most common,
   perhaps, was the destruction of heresies throughout the world; a
   Missionary Bishop in China expected "the conversion of idolaters
   speedily;" [282] the Patriarch of Venice looked for "universal peace
   and love and duty;" [283] "the Bishop of Pampeluna, [284] "that the
   wicked one would be slain by the breath of the mouth [285] of Mary;"
   the Archbishop of Ferrara, [286] "that she would complete the conquest
   of the infernal Serpent."

   The Irish Bishops expected, "The Mother of Mercy will arise, when she
   shall understand that her glory is at our hearts, and stretching forth
   t the right hand of her might, amid the most dire storms and tempests
   wherewith we are tossed, she will lead us to the port of safety; she
   will arise and utterly destroy all heresies, which, to the detriment of
   our faith, carry their inroads boldly and with impunity." [287]

   On this side, there seem to be no limits to the extent, either of the
   increase of the devotion to the Blessed Virgin or the subjects which
   may be made doctrines of faith. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin is to be
   the great means of obtaining favours from God, Who "wills that all
   favour should come through her;" one chief means of showing that
   devotion is held to be, to declare what had been held as "pious
   opinions," or were taught with a quasi-authority in the Church, to be
   matters of saving faith. The existence of such teaching, spreading in
   the Church, is itself to be a proof that it is true. The natural issue
   of the precedent now set is, step by step to declare as matter of faith
   any and every thing which is taught about the Blessed Virgin, so soon
   as it has, through the constant and diligent teaching of the
   priesthood, taken root enough.

   And this decision, by a further precedent, now made, would depend not
   on a General Council, not on the consent of the whole Roman Communion,
   but on the will of the Pope of that time.

   And not only this, but the way also in which any decree on any given
   subject is to be framed, would, according to this precedent, rest with
   the Pope or his Consistory. That wonderful exposition of the doctrine
   of the Incarnation, the "tome" of Leo I., was accepted by the Council
   of Chalcedon, on the ground that it agreed with the faith, expressed or
   accepted by the Councils before it. [288] The terms in which the decree
   as to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was framed, were
   settled, not by any Council, nor by any consent of the Church, but by
   Pius IX. and his Theologians at Rome.

   Yet it was a very delicate point. According to the physical theories of
   those times, a distinction had been made between what was called the
   active and the passive conception of the Blessed Virgin; the active
   conception relating to the derivation of the body from her parents, the
   passive being the infusion of the soul from God. It used to be thought
   that there was an interval between the first formation of the body and
   the infusion of the soul; so that the body might have been conceived in
   original sin, according to the law of the transmission of this inherent
   sin, but have been cleansed from its stain before the soul was infused
   into it by God, so that it should not communicate itself to the soul.
   Probably the distinction was altogether wrong. Yet some of the Bishops
   expressed that they wished it to be declared that "the passive
   Conception" was immaculate, in other words, that the soul of the
   Blessed Virgin, being infused pure by God, was preserved pure from the
   stain of sin. The decree itself ignores all such distinctions, and
   defines that it is revealed by God, that "the most Blessed Virgin Mary
   was, in the first instant of her conception, by the singular grace and
   privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus, the
   Saviour of the human race, preserved free from all taint of original
   guilt." The words "in the first instant of her conception," are a known
   phrase among the Schoolmen. S. Thomas, e. g. inquires whether, contrary
   to the Aristotelian physics, "the body of Christ was animated in the
   first instant of His conception;" and answered, [289] of

   course, that the Word of God took, at one and the same instant, body
   and soul. In like way he shows, that "in the first instant of
   conception Christ had the fulness of grace sanctifying His Soul and
   Body;" "in the first instant of His conception Christ had the use of
   freewill;" [290] "in the first instant of His conception He merited;"
   "in the first instant of His conception He beheld God in His essence
   clearer than all creatures." What, then, Pius

   IX. has, in fact, decreed, is that the Blessed Virgin Mary, although
   conceived after the way of nature, had "in view of the merits of
   Christ" precisely that same privilege which our Lord had, being
   "conceived of the Holy Ghost," in that, "in the first moment of her
   conception," she was not only sanctified, but kept absolutely free from
   all taint of original sin. This certainly was not what some of the
   Bishops meant, who concurred in asking for the definition, in that they
   spoke of the "passive conception" only, as immaculate.

   In fixing this doctrine, as matter of faith, the principle of the
   Council of Trent was maintained in words, that the faith must be
   contained in Scripture or continuous tradition from the Apostles,
   having been taught by our Lord or by God the Holy Ghost. But another
   principle came in, which made all evidence as to fact superfluous. It
   was this, that the Church being incapable of erring, any thing taught
   throughout the Church, although not defined by any authority, or
   representing any thing beyond the opinion of the actual clergy, was
   necessarily true. In the old words, the "quod ubique" was to be, ipso
   facto, a test of the "quod semper." Any doctrine being taught
   "everywhere" at this present moment was to be a proof of a Divine
   tradition that it had been "always" taught. The present reception of
   any "pious opinion," especially at Rome,--"the mother and mistress of
   all Churches, in which alone religion hath been guarded inviolably, and
   from which all other nations must needs borrow the transmission of
   faith,"--is apparently, according to the principles of that decree, a
   guarantee, that that opinion has always (however or by whomsoever
   contradicted) been part of the Divine revelation.

   In like way, to those who believed the personal infallibility of the
   Pope, the fact that he pronounced any thing to be true was to be a
   proof that it had been always taught. Only, in that case the heresy
   contained in the formal letter of Honorius would be true. [291] This
   argument was used again and again by the Bishops,-- the doctrine of the
   Immaculate Conception must be true, because the Church teaches it
   everywhere, and the Church cannot err. They urge continually, if the
   people were to think that this, which has been taught confidently as
   Divine truth, was doubtful, they might doubt every thing.

   We have been often told that it was enough for any one in the Roman
   Communion to believe the Canons of the Council of Trent. The Bishops of
   Spain and Portugal, especially, tell us of a vast practical system,
   which the Bishops and Priests teach, and the people believe, as matter
   of faith. And this system being taught everywhere, then, on the
   principle upon which the Immaculate Conception was affirmed, it too
   might be, and must be assumed to be, of Divine tradition, and might be
   declared to be matter of saving faith. Some of the Bishops observed
   that the doctrine of the

   Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, i. e., as it is now understood,
   of the taking of the body up into heaven without seeing corruption,
   rested on the self-same authority. The feast of the Assumption, as well
   as that of the Conception, has been changed from its original meaning,
   and, having originally denoted the removal of the soul of the Blessed
   Virgin Mary to heaven, is now held in honour of the Ascension, soul and
   body. There is the same practical teaching of the Assumption as there
   was of the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, the doctrine that her "flesh
   saw no corruption" is the legitimate consequence of the freedom from
   sin, original as well as actual. For death is the penalty of sin. The
   bold conception of some, that her death was but the dissolution of soul
   and body through ecstasy of love, and that her body, though buried,
   rose from the closed tomb before it could "see corruption," and was
   taken up to the Right Hand of her Son, as He to the right hand of God,
   is but the complement of the other doctrines about her. It is said that
   it is to the honour of the Son that His Virgin Mother, of whom He
   vouchsafed to be born, should not undergo corruption, the penalty of
   sin, as that she should not, in the first moment of her conception,
   have had original sin.

   To us, the most startling part of this system is its completeness. It
   shocked us to find that she was accounted to be "placed by God between
   Christ and the Church" (and so, of course, between Him and each
   individual); but the one-half of the ground alleged for this, that we,
   as sinners, were of ourselves too unworthy to approach to Christ, found
   too much response in the hearts of us, miserable sinners. We know that
   we are unworthy to approach Him, but that He said--not, Go to My
   Mother, but--"come unto Me," and "whoso cometh unto Me, I will in no
   wise cast out." But now we find, over and above this, a studied
   identification of her, in all but what follows from the Hypostatic
   Union, with her Divine Son. And this, partly because, in the offices in
   honour of her, passages of Scripture which relate to Divine Uncreated
   "Wisdom are recited; in some degree also, because what has been said of
   her by the Fathers, as the chosen vessel of the Incarnation, was
   applied personally to her; yet more on account of spurious passages
   attributed to Fathers of great name.

   We had heard before, repeatedly, that she was the Mediatrix with the
   Redeemer; some of us, who do not read Marian books, have heard now for
   the first time, that she was ever our "Co-Redemptress." The evidence
   lies, not in any insulated passage of a devotional writer (which was
   alleged in plea for the language of M. Olier), but in formal answers
   from Archbishops and Bishops to the Pope as to what they desired in
   regard to the declaration of the Immaculate Conception as an Article of
   Faith. Thus the Archbishop of Syracuse wrote, "Since [292] we know
   certainly that she, in the fulness of time, was Coredemptress of the
   human race, together with her Son Jesus Christ our Lord." From North
   Italy the Bishop of Asti wrote of "the [293] dogma of the singular
   privilege granted by the Divine Redeemer to His pure mother, the
   Co-redemptress of the world." In South Italy

   the Bishop of Gallipoli wrote, "the [294] human race, whom the Son of
   God, from her, redeemed; whom, together with Him, she herself
   co-redeemed." The Bishop of Cariati prayed the Pope to "command [295]
   all the sons of Holy Mother Church and thy own, that no one of them
   should dare at any time hereafter to suspect as to the Immaculate
   Conception of their co-redeemer." From Sardinia, the Bishop of Alghero
   wrote, "It [296] is the common consent of all the faithful, and the
   common wish and desire of all, that our so beneficent Parent and
   Co-redeemer should be presented by the Apostolic See with the honour of
   this most illustrious history." In Spain, the Bishop of Almeria
   justified the attribute by appeal to the service of the Conception.
   "The [297] Church, adapting to the Mother of God in the Office of the
   Conception that text, Let Us make a help like unto Him,' assures us of
   it, and confirms those most ancient traditions, Companion of the
   Reedemer,' Co-Redemptress,' Authoress of everlasting salvation.'" The
   Bishops refer to these as ancient, well-known, traditionary titles at
   least in their Churches in North and South Italy, Sicily, Sardinia,
   Spain.

   This doctrine, which is here alluded to, is drawn out by Roman Catholic
   Divines of every school. It occurs in a Lapide, a repertorium for
   sermons, as well as in the most Marian writers. Proceeding on that same
   ground of the Scriptures adapted to the Blessed Virgin, Salazar
   writes,--

   "It [298] was not fitting that Christ Alone should give Himself to the
   regeneration of man; and so it was necessary that a woman, Mary, like
   unto Him, should be given Him, that, with her and by her, all the
   regeneration and adoption of the sons of God should take place."

   "She [299] merited by congruity the salvation of the whole world; not
   only because she bare Christ, but because she gave to us Him Whom she
   had borne and Who was truly hers, and for us she offered Him to death.
   For each will of the Mother and the Son, throughout concordant and
   conspiring, sacrificed to God one and the same holocaust for the
   salvation of the world."

   "The [300] ways in which the Blessed Virgin cooperated with Christ to
   the salvation of the world may be classed as three:--

   "1. As far as she so sacrificed herself to God for the salvation of the
   world by the wish and longing for death and the cross, that, if it
   could be, she too, for the salvation of the universe, was willing to
   co-die (commori) with her Son, and to meet a like death with Him.

   "2nd, and chiefly, whereby the Virgin gave her help to Christ for the
   common salvation, in that she, exhibiting a will altogether conformable
   and concordant with the will of Christ, gave her Son to death for the
   common salvation. And her zeal for the human race is not seen only
   therein, that it made her will conspire with the will of her Son, but
   also in that she excited and impelled Him to undergo death.

   "3rdly, That she acted as mediatrix with the Mediator. The work of our
   salvation was so wrought. The Virgin expressed to her Son the wishes
   and desires which she had conceived for the salvation of the human
   race; but the Son, deferring to the Mother, received these, and again
   presented to the Father the desires both of His Mother and His own; but
   the Father granted what was wished, first to the Son, then to the
   Mother.

   "It is clear from this, that the salvation of the world was granted by
   the Eternal Father, not only to Christ, but also to the Virgin; yet so
   that the Son, as the first and principal cause, gave the price of
   condignity for our redemption, but the Virgin obtained the same
   redemption by a sort of congruity. So Mary was an aider and helper to
   Christ the Lord for our redemption; not that Christ needed that help or
   aid, since the value of His Blood surpassed by a boundless interval the
   compensation of our debts, but because the authority and dignity of the
   mother demanded this, that her merits, prayers, and desires should be
   united with the desires and merits of Christ, so that the salvation of
   men should be bestowed on both.

   "But if you ask how much of help and aid the Virgin gave to the common
   salvation, I have said boldly, that Christ the Lord obtained nothing by
   His merits, either for us or for the Virgin herself, which the Virgin
   Mother of God did not also gain out of congruity (excepting always the
   original and first grace wherewith the Virgin was gifted; for this the
   Virgin could not obtain by any way of congruence). Thence it follows
   that the Virgin Mother of God, from the aforesaid congruence, so
   obtained of God the common salvation of the human race, that even the
   extinction of original sin is also to be referred to her."

   Whereas the Fathers speak of the Blessed Virgin as the instrument of
   our salvation, in that she gave birth to the Redeemer, the modern
   Marian writers expressly reject this. "This," they say, [301] "was an
   act of nature only; to have merited the Incarnation ex congruo' and so
   to have accelerated it, was," they say, "common only with Patriarchs
   and the old Fathers; to have prayed for the salvation of mankind was
   also common with others. In order, then, to establish that she had
   something special to herself, it must be laid down that Christ, God,
   and Man, ' was the true Son of Mary, and so was something of her own,
   placed under her parental authority, and, as it were, dominion. She,
   then, is to be said to have given of her own; and of Mary it may be
   said, So' Mary loved the world, that she gave her only begotten Son.'
   The Virgin not only, concordant with the Father, gave her Son to the
   world, but also, in conformity with her Son, with priestly piety
   offered Him up as a sacrifice for the world. We owe then to the Virgin
   Mother of

   God, not only that she bare Christ to the world, but also that she
   truly gave to the world, and voluntarily offered Him for the salvation
   of the world, as something which was her own." "After the manner of a
   Priest, acting in a manner together with her Son the Priest, she
   offered to the Eternal Father the Sacrifice of redemption. Christ the
   Lord was offered once upon the cross; but in her heart a thousand
   times, i. e., so often as she voluntarily assigned Him to death. The
   life, the Passion of Jesus Christ, and His Death itself, were the price
   of our redemption, so far as they were voluntarily undertaken by
   Christ; but the will of the Virgin, whereby she offered her Son,
   related to that same life and Passion. "Wherefore it was meet, that, as
   that Life and Passion, as being voluntary in the Son, merited the
   salvation of all, of condignity;' so the same life and Passion, as
   being voluntary in the Mother, should merit that same salvation, of
   congruity.' To speak more plainly, it is equitable, that, as the Son
   voluntarily enduring death satisfied for all, so the Virgin,
   voluntarily offering her Son to that same death, obtained the salvation
   of all. The act, whereby the Virgin both gave her Son to us and offered
   Him for us to the Father, was most surpassing and especially
   meritorious, and so, worthy to be computed together with the Passion of
   Christ. So that, as the Passion of Christ is said to have satisfied for
   the common salvation of all, so this so great action of Mary may be
   said in a special manner to have obtained it. On the ground of this
   action of such value and merit, the Virgin Mother of God was worthy
   that the common salvation and redemption of the whole human race should
   be ascribed in a manner to her. And since she had this in common with
   Christ, that she is said really and properly to have given and offered
   the price of our redemption, therefore she bears, together with Him,
   all the titles and names which are wont to be ascribed to Christ, and
   is rightly called Redemptress, Restoress, Mediatress, Authoress, and
   Cause of our salvation.

   "In another way, she may be called coöperatress and helper of Christ,
   viz., that as many other things made death not a little difficult and
   arduous to Christ, moved whereby He burst out into those words, Father,
   if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me,' nothing could more load
   His mind and make death more difficult to Him, than that it should be
   displeasing to His most loving Mother. Who sees not this? Wherefore,
   contrariwise? nothing so took a load off His mind, and so incited Him
   to suffer death, as that ready will of His Mother, altogether
   concordant with the will of His Father; so that I should venture to
   affirm that, besides the will of His Father, than which nothing was
   dearer to the Son, and which he wished in the first instance to
   execute, nothing stood nearer than this will of His Mother, to whom He
   deferred next to the Father. So, then, He Who addressed His Father, Not
   My will, but Thine be done,' and, owning the will of His Father,
   willingly offered Himself to death, did also gain great courage to end
   ure death, in that He knew that His Mother willed the same; yea, we may
   say that by dying He obeyed not only His Father, but also His Mother. I
   add, that it may be questioned whether, if, per impossibile,' there
   there had been no will of the Father, and His Mother alone wished and
   decreed that her Son should die for men, this would suffice that
   Christ, obeying His Mother, should willingly undergo death. I believe
   that Christ so deferred to

   His Mother, that it would have sufficed. Let others think as they will.
   I add that the Mother of God herself embraces the human race with so
   much love and affection that if, according to the aforesaid
   supposition, that will of the Eternal Father were wanting, she would
   yet, of her own will, choose that her Son should die for men.
   Therefore, since the Virgin Mary much strengthened her Son to endure
   death, and lightened to Him death itself, exhibiting her will in that
   respect conformable to the Divine will, therefore she ought rightly to
   be called His helper. So that it might be said much more truly of the
   Second Adam, that a help like unto Him was given to Him'--like, I say,
   not in dignity or merits, but in will and mind towards men, because she
   so ardently desired the salvation of the human race, that by her own
   will, perhaps by exhortation also, she confirmed in some measure her
   Son Who willed to die. A help meet,' I say, because that salvation of
   the whole human race which her Son merited de condigno' she, de
   congruo' in a certain excellent way obtained and promoted."

   This is altogether deliberate dogmatic language, touching upon the
   character and attributes of our Lord and God, His office as our
   Redeemer and the very centre of the faith. It gives the same aspect of
   our redemption, as other language does of our Lord's perpetual
   Intercession for us sinners,--that the Blessed Virgin had authority
   over our Blessed Lord in regard to this His Divine work, and that it
   was accomplished, in part, in obedience to her maternal authority. It
   is the "Monstra te esse Matrem" applied to His office for us on earth;
   and that, not as any hyperbole, but with dogmatic preciseness. "Since
   [302] the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, and God is her Son, and
   every son is naturally inferior to his mother and her subject, and the
   mother is set over and superior to her son, it follows that the Blessed
   Virgin herself is superior to God, and God Himself is her subject, in
   regard to the Humanity which He took from her." This doctrine, again,
   bears very closely upon the doctrine of our Redemption, in that our
   Blessed Lord's perfect Obedience paid the Price of our disobedience,
   and "by [303] the Obedience of One many were made righteous." "He [304]
   became obedient unto death, the Death of the Cross." But now we are
   told of another obedience, not as the ensample which He gave us in His
   Holy Childhood by being subject to His parents, the real and the
   reputed alike, [305] but, in His office as our Redeemer, to her whom He
   redeemed. The Blessed Virgin stands out in this system, not only in her
   own special gifts, but as already, before the Price was paid for her
   redemption, subject to no law of humanity, except of suffering together
   with her Son, and interceding for our fallen race, as one who did not
   belong to it.

   It seems to be a part of this system, to parallel the Blessed Virgin
   throughout with her Divine Son, so that every prerogative which
   belonged to Him by nature or office should be in some measure imputed
   to her. As His Conception, not in the way of nature, but by the Holy
   Ghost, was Immaculate, so, it is said, was hers by the Divine

   interference, her birth of barren and aged parents being (it is said)
   scarcely by way of nature; as He was the Son of God by Nature, so, they
   say, was she [306] "by a more noble right than that of adoption only, a
   right which emulates in a manner natural filiation;" as He was perfect,
   [307] so was she, in such sense perfect, and [308] "such must needs be
   the virtues of the Virgin, that Christ, imitating them, fulfilled the
   office of Saviour; that as Christ, both as God and Man, bore the image
   of the Eternal Father, so it was meet that, God and Man, He should bear
   the character of His Mother. As God in Christ, by interchange of
   properties,' is called Son of Mary, so He is said to have the character
   of His Mother on that same principle. In order, then, that we might
   say, that not Man only but God also should have the character of His
   Mother, need was that the Virgin should by the bounty of God have many
   properties and conditions of God, whereby she might be as like as
   possible to Him." As Jesus, our High Prie st, had no need to offer
   sacrifice for Himself; so she is spoken of, as desiring nothing but the
   salvation of mankind; as Jesus merited our salvation, of condignity, so
   she, of congruity; as He died for us in act, so she in will; as He
   offered "a full, perfect, and sufficient, sacrifice, oblation, and
   satisfaction for the sins of the whole world," viz. Himself, so she,
   they say, sacrificed her Son for us all. As our Redemption gained its
   sufficiency and might from Jesus, so, they say, did it gain its beauty
   and loveliness from the aid of Mary. [309] As we are clothed with the
   merits of Christ, so, also, they say, with the merits of Mary. [310] As
   Jesus rose again the third day without seeing corruption, so they speak
   of her Resurrection "so as to anticipate corruption, in some three
   days;" [311] as He was the first-fruits of them that slept, so is she;
   [312] as He was taken up into heaven in the body, so, they say, was
   she; as He sits at the Right Hand of God, so she at His Right Hand; as
   He is there our perpetual Intercessor with the Father, so she with Him;
   as "no man cometh to the Father," Jesus saith, "but by Me;" so "no one
   cometh to Jesus," they say, "but by her;" as He is our High Priest, so
   she, they say, a Priestess; [313] He, our High Priest, gave us the
   sacrament of His Body and Blood; so, they say, did she, "her will
   conspiring with the will of her Son to the making of the Eucharist, and
   assenting to her Son so giving and offering himself for food and

   drink, since we confess that the sacrifice and gifts, given to us under
   the form of bread and wine, are truly hers and appertain unto her."
   [314] As in the Eucharist He is present and we receive Him, so she,
   they say, is present and received in that same sacrament. [315] The
   priest is "minister of Christ," and "minister of Mary." [316] They seem
   to assign to her an office, like that of God the Holy Ghost, indwelling
   in the soul. They speak of "souls [317] born not of blood, nor of
   flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God and Mary;" that "the [318]
   Holy Ghost chose to make use of our Blessed Lady to bring His
   fruitful-ness into action by producing in her and by her Jesus Christ
   in His members; "that "according [319] to that word, the kingdom of God
   is within you,' in like manner the kingdom of our Blessed Lady is
   principally in the interior of a man, his soul;" that "when [320] Mary
   has struck her roots in the soul, she produces there marvels of grace,
   which she alone can produce, because she alone is the fruitful Virgin,
   who never has had, and never will have, her equal in purity and
   fruitfulness." "She alone," [321] we are told, "can produce, in union
   with the Holy Ghost, singular and extraordinary things. When the Holy
   Ghost, her Spouse, has found Mary in a soul, He flies there. He enters
   there in His fulness; He communicates Himself to that soul abundantly,
   and to the full extent to which she makes room for her Spouse. Nay, one
   great reason why the Holy Ghost does not now do startling wonders in
   our souls is, because He does not find there a sufficiently great union
   with His faithful and indissoluble Spouse." At Holy Communion, the soul
   is taught to desire that she will come and dwell with it in order to
   receive her Son, which "she [322] can do by the dominion she has over
   all hearts, and her Son will be well received by her without stains and
   without danger of being outraged or destroyed." To the Son, the soul is
   to "pray [323] to have pity upon you, that you may introduce Him into
   the house of His own Mother and yours, and that you will not let Him go
   without His coming to lodge there." The Holy Ghost "you [324] can pray
   to come Himself in Mary, His indissoluble Spouse, telling Him that her
   bosom is as pure, and her heart as burning as ever, and that, without
   His descent into your soul, neither Jesus nor Mary will be formed, nor
   yet worthily lodged."

   These details show, that it is in no figurative or general way that one
   lays down, "What [325] I say absolutely of Jesus Christ, I say
   relatively of our Blessed Lady. Jesus

   Christ, having chosen her for the inseparable companion of His life, of
   His death, of His glory, and of His power in heaven and upon earth, has
   given her by grace, relatively to His Majesty, all the same rights and
   privileges which He possesses by nature. All that is fitting to God by
   nature is fitting to Mary by grace,' say the saints; so that, according
   to them, Mary and Jesus, having but the same will and the same power,
   the two have the same subjects, servants, and slaves."

   And so they declare her the centre of creation. "Mary," [326] they say,
   "is that ring in the chain of creatures, wherein, seizing, the Son of
   God drew up the universe again to the Godhead. Therefore, Mary is not
   only the middle point of mankind, but the centre of the whole
   universe." Again, an expression, whose whole force is derived from
   applying to the B. V. what belongs to our Lord Alone, "in [327] Whom
   God gathered together in one all things, both which are in heaven and
   which are on earth." Blessed be His goodness that He, being God, for
   our sake became Man, and, by the ineffable condescension of the
   Incarnation, knit in one the Creator and the creature! But plainly He,
   in "Whose Divine Person the Godhead and Manhood, the Uncreated and the
   created nature, were united, not His creature, is the Centre of
   creation.

   Nay, one ventures to state, that she, to be born of a fallen race,
   obtained grace for those who never fell. "The [328] Virgin, the
   associate and coöperatress of the merits of Christ, obtained for the
   angels themselves and our first parents that grace wherein they were
   first created." "The [329] Virgin is mediatress not of men only, but of
   the Angels."

   The title, "the Complement of the Trinity "(founded originally on a
   strange mistake of the meaning of an unknown author), is still said to
   be one which she has merited. [330] It was (and I suppose is) the basis
   of speculations as to the way in which a

   creature, however exalted, could be said to fill up the eternal and
   infinite God. Again, the belief (founded on what is now owned to be an
   error, which crept into the Latin translation about the close of the
   fourth century), that the Blessed Virgin was prophesied of as "she" who
   should "bruise the serpent's head," became the support of the doctrine
   of the Immaculate Conception, [331] and gives rise to the statements,
   "God [332] has never made or formed but one enmity; but it is an
   irreconcilable one, which shall endure and develope even unto the end.
   It is between Mary, His worthy Mother, and the devil; between the
   children and the servants of Mary and the children and instruments of
   Lucifer."

   This system is, I understand, developing. Certainly the Bishops, in
   their answer to the Encyclical, speak of the diligence of the priests
   in preaching it. Some who did not wish the doctrine to be defined,
   wished the more that it should be diligently preached. As one instance
   of this development, in 1841 I mentioned a belief, said to exist among
   the poorer people in Rome, that in the Holy Eucharist not only our
   Lord, but His mother is present. [333] True, that Jesus took the Flesh
   of His Mother; but in those gracious thirty-three years it was all
   changed by the laws of our mortality. Yet the belief is defended by one
   who writes with confidence, as a necessary consequence of their theory
   as to the Blessed Virgin. "We [334] maintain a (co-)presence of Mary in
   the Eucharist. This is a necessary inference from our Marian theory,
   and we shrink back from no consequence." "We are much inclined," he
   says afterwards, [335] "to believe an essential co-presence of Mary in
   her whole person, with body and soul, under the sacred species.
   Certainly to such a presence in the Eucharist 1) there is required a
   glorious mode of being of the Virgin body of the Holy Mother. "We are
   not only justified in holding this as to Mary, but we have well-nigh
   proved it. 2) The assumption of a bodily presence of Mary in the
   Eucharist compels self-evidently the assumption of a multilocation (i.
   e. a contemporaneous presence in different portions of space) of Mary,
   according to her flesh too. 3) One who would receive this must be ready
   to admit a compenetration of the Body of Christ and of that of the
   Virgin in the same portion of space, i. e. under the sacred species."
   The writer subsequently explains that "the lac virginale' must be
   looked upon as that of Mary, which is primarily present in the
   Eucharist, whereto, in further consequence, the whole corporality of
   the Blessed Virgin, as also her soul, would be joined." "The [336]
   Blood of the Lord, and the lac of His Virgin Mother, are both present
   in the Sacrament."

   This same doctrine was indeed stated of old by one of their most
   popular and careful Commentators on Holy Scripture. [337] "As this
   saying, Those who eat me, shall still hunger,' is literally true of
   Christ, "Whom we eat in the Eucharist, and again hunger for Him and
   long again to eat Him; so can it in like way be said truly and
   literally of the Blessed Virgin. Wondrous is this, but true. For as
   often as we eat the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, so often do we in
   it really eat the Flesh of the Blessed Virgin. For the Flesh of Christ
   is the flesh of the Blessed Virgin. Yea, that very Flesh of Christ,
   before it was detached from the flesh of the Blessed Virgin in the
   Incarnation, was the own flesh of the Blessed Virgin, and was informed
   and animated by her soul. As then we daily hunger after the flesh of
   Christ in the Eucharist, so too we hunger for that same flesh of the
   Blessed Virgin that we may drink her virgin endowments and ways, and
   incorporate them in ourselves. And this do not only priests and
   religious, but all Christians; for the Blessed Virgin feeds all with
   her own flesh equally with the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. And
   hence that love of virginity and angelic purity in those who worthily
   and frequently communicate. For this cause all the faithful ought to
   bear about the Blessed Virgin, as well as Christ, assiduously in heart,
   in word, and in work; yea, as it were, to pass into and be transmuted
   into the Blessed Virgin, as iron glowing with fire passes into fire, or
   as bread seasoned with leaven, passes, as it were, into leaven."

   This same conclusion, the presence and consequent reception of
   something at least of the Blessed Virgin in the Holy Eucharist, appears
   to be involved in the statement of one whose writings have a large
   circulation in England, at least, and America:--

   "There [338] is some portion of the Precious Blood which once was
   Mary's own blood, and which remains still in our Blessed Lord,
   incredibly exalted by its union with His Divine Person, yet still the
   same. This portion of Himself, it is piously believed, has not been
   allowed to undergo the usual changes of human substance. At this
   moment, in heaven, He retains something which was once His Mother's,
   and which is, possibly, visible, as such, to the saints and angels. He
   vouchsafed at mass to show to S. Ignatius the very part of the Host
   which had once belonged to the substance of Mary. It may have a
   distinct and singular beauty in heaven, where, by His compassion, it
   may one day be our blessed lot to see it and adore it. But with the
   exception of this portion of it, the Precious Blood was a growing
   thing, &c."

   The way in which the practical Roman system has been enlarged by later
   visions or revelations, is a perplexing subject. 1) Because the Roman
   Divines themselves do not allege them as grounds of faith. For, as
   such, the Council of Trent alleges only Scripture and continuous
   tradition. 2) These revelations contradict one another; as when the
   Immaculate Conception is supported by a revelation of S. Brigit,
   contradicted by one of

   S. Catherine of Sienna. 3) Roman Divines accept one revelation, as
   establishing what is contained in it, and set aside another. Thus,
   Bellarmine quotes one revelation of S. Brigit in support of a matter of
   belief, and sets aside another as contrary to the received belief. But
   the same revelations cannot be, and not be, an authority for our
   belief.

   Benedict XIV. lays down, "The approbation of such revelations is no
   more than a permission, that, after a mature examination, they may be
   published for the benefit of the faithful. Though an assent of Catholic
   faith be not due nor can be given to these revelations so approved, a
   human assent is due to them according to the rules of prudence, by
   which such revelations are probable and piously credible, as in regard
   to the revelations of B. Hildegardis, which are said to have been
   approved by Eugenius III., Boniface IX., S. Brigit, S. Catherine of
   Sienna, and Gregory XI." [339] Yet the revelations of S. Brigit have
   been a support of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as other
   visions were of details as to Purgatory, which visions were, however,
   set aside in other points, as those ascribed to S. Fursey.

   I see not why this doctrine, then, of the reception of the blood of the
   Blessed Virgin in the Holy Eucharist should not prevail, on the ground
   of the revelation alleged to have been made to S. Ignatius Loyola; as
   that of her Immaculate Conception was upheld by the revelation to S.
   Brigit. Nay, further, it is involved in the "pious belief" mentioned by
   Faber, that Jesus shed, for us sinners, the unchanged blood of Mary;
   which, whereunto it may lead, one had rather not think.

   No one, of course, is responsible for the bold imagination of one who
   had as yet joined neither Greek nor Roman communion although he
   despised our own. Still the conception is illustrative, the more, since
   prayers originally addressed to God have been altered into prayers to
   the Blessed Virgin.

   "Whatever [340] point," Mr. Palmer wrote, "may have been reached, there
   must always be room in what is of its own nature limited for further
   addition and increase; and it is not difficult to imagine to ourselves
   very considerable additions and developments which might yet be made to
   the worship of the Blessed Virgin." And then Mr. Palmer gave as
   instances:

   "Assuming that, in and under Christ the Head, the Blessed Virgin is,
   after her Assumption, as it were, the neck of the Church, so that all
   grace whatever flows to the

   Body through her, that is, through her prayers, it might be argued,
   that, for such as have this belief to ask any thing of or through her,
   is identical in sense, but in point of form better, than to ask it
   directly of Christ, in like manner as to ask any thing of or through
   Christ, is identical in sense, but clearer and fuller in point of form,
   than to ask it directly of the Father. And hence, it might seem that it
   would be an improvement, if, reserving only the use of the appointed
   Forms for the making of the Sacraments, and an occasional use of the
   Lord's Prayer (and this rather from respect to the letter of their
   outward Institution than from any inward necessity or propriety), every
   prayer, both of individuals and of the Church, were addressed to or
   through Blessed Mary, a form beginning, Our Lady, which art in heaven,'
   &c., being preferred for general use to the original letter of the
   Lord's Prayer; and the Psalter, the Te Deum, and all the daily Offices,
   being used in preference with similar accommodation."

   We see the growth. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has
   prevailed, although opposed at its first appearance by S. Bernard,^341
   with no foundation in antiquity, ^342 grounded on the fact of the
   celebration of the Feast of the Conception^343

   ^341 Ep. 172, ad Canon. Lugd. Opp. i. 169.^342 "All the saints, who
   speak of it, say with one voice, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived
   in original sin." Melchior Canus (a Tridentine Doctor), Loci Theol.
   vii. 1. "Arguments (from reason) do not place the opinion as to the
   Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in any degree of certainty,
   since neither any convincing place of Scripture, nor the traditions of
   the ancient Church, nor consent of fathers or schoolmen favour it."
   Card. Pallavacini, in MS. Diss. lent to Perrone. See Episcopate
   Cat-tolico, vi. 520. S. Augustine, in his often-quoted passage (in
   answer to Pelagius, who had alleged the Blessed Virgin with many others
   to have lived free from sin), manifestly refers to "actual sins," as
   the use of the plural "sins" in itself shows. "Excepting then the holy
   Virgin Mary, of whom, out of honour to the Lord, I wish no question to
   be made when sins are treated of,--for how do we know what more of
   grace, wholly to conquer sin, may have been bestowed upon her, who was
   found meet to conceive and bear Him, of Whom it is certain that He had
   no sin? "(De Nat. et Grat. c. 36.) S. Augustine does not even rule that
   she never sinned actually, by any sin of infirmity; he marks it to be
   uncertain, by the contrast which he draws with our Lord, of Whom he
   says, "it is certain (constat) that He had no sin." On the other hand,
   S. Augustine most distinctly says, that the Blessed Virgin was born in
   original sin (de Gen. ad lit. x. 18 and 20; de Pecc. Mer. et. Rem. ii.
   24; cont. Julian. Pelag. iv. 122; v. 15; vi. 22; in Ps. 34, § 2, n. 3).
   In the Greek Church, S. Johann. Damascene speaks of her (as we should),
   as purified by the overshadowing of God the Holy Ghost. "After the
   consent of the Holy Virgin, the Holy Ghost came upon her, according to
   the Word of the Lord which the Angel spake, purifying her." De Orthod.
   Fide, iii. 2.^343 Some make a fifth festival, viz., of the Conception
   of the Blessed Mary, saying, "that as the death of saints is
   celebrated, not on account of their death, but because they were then
   received to the everlasting nuptials, so may the Conception be
   celebrated as a festival, not because she was conceived (since she was
   conceived in sin), but because the Mother of the Lord was conceived."
   Durandus à S. Porc. (A.D. 1320.) Rational. D. Offic . vii. 7.
   Bellarmine agrees that this is admissible. De Cult. Sanct. iii. 16. The
   explanation that the festival was kept only as "the Conception of the
   Immaculate Mary," not as "the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
   Mary," was forbidden by Alexander VII. (A.D. 1661). Bullar. Rom. T. vi.
   par. v.

   p. 182, § 4. He declared that the feast "did not relate to her
   sanctification, but most strictly to her preservation from original sin
   at the first moment of her Conception." Archbishop of Sassari, i. 388.

   (which yet related at first to "the sanctification of the Blessed
   Virgin," [341] the contradictory of her Immaculate Conception), opposed
   by a chain of later writers whom Rome too has canonized, [342] and even
   at the last by grave bishops [343] on the ground of the inadequacy of
   the proof or the injury which they apprehended to their flocks, or the
   increased difficulties to those external to the Roman Communion. The
   decree which defines that the doctrine, that "the most Blessed Virgin
   Mary was, in the first instant of her conception, preserved free from
   all stain of original sin by the singular grace and privilege of
   Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Saviour of
   Mankind, was revealed by God, and is therefore to be firmly and
   stedfastly believed by all the faithful;"--that same decree exhorts all
   in the Roman Communion, to what, it seemed to us, most Roman Catholics
   are of themselves inclined, an exceeding devotion to the Blessed
   Virgin. "Our mouth is filled with joy and our tongue with exultation,
   and we do render and ever will render most great and most humble thanks
   to our Lord Jesus Christ, that, of His singular goodness, He has
   granted to us, although unworthy, to offer and decree this honour and
   this glory and praise to His most holy Mother. But we rest our

   ^344^345^346

   most certain hope and certain confidence, that it will be, that that
   most Blessed Virgin-- (who, all beautiful and immaculate, bruised the
   poisonous head of the most cruel serpent, and brought salvation to the
   world; who is also the glory of the Apostles and Prophets, and the
   honour of Martyrs, and of all the saints the joy and crown; who also,
   being the safest refuge of all in peril, and most faithful helper, and
   the most powerful mediatress and reconciless (conciliatrix) of the
   whole world with her only-begotten Son, and the most illustrious glory
   and ornament and most firm protection of the Holy Church, ever slew all
   heresies and delivered the faithful people and nations from the
   greatest calamities of all sorts, and has freed us too from so many
   gathering perils)--will, by her most mighty patronage, effect, that the
   holy mother, the Catholic Church, all difficulties removed and all
   errors dispersed, may, throughout all nations and all places, daily
   more thrive, flourish, and reign from sea to sea, and from the river to
   the ends of the earth, so that the guilty may obtain pardon; the sick,
   healing; the fainthearted, strength; the afflicted, consolation; the
   imperilled, help; and all in error, the darkness of mind being
   dispersed, may return to the way of truth, and

   there be one fold and one Shepherd." "Let all the sons of the Catholic
   Church, most dear to us, hear these our words, and with a yet more
   ardent zeal of piety, religion, and love, continue to worship, invoke,
   pray, the most blessed Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, conceived
   without original stain, and to flee unto this most sweet Mother of
   mercy and grace, in all perils, distresses, necessities, and doubtful
   and anxious circumstances. For nothing is to be feared, nothing
   despaired of, when she is the Captain, she the Author, she propitious,
   she protecting, who, bearing a motherly mind towards us, and having in
   hand the affairs of our salvation, is anxious about the whole human
   race, and having been made by the Lord Queen of heaven and earth, and
   exalted above all the orders of angels and saints, standing at the
   Right Hand of her only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, does by her
   mother's prayers, most potently impetrate and find what she seeks, and
   cannot be frustrated."

   It may be, in God's Providence, that disappointment may check this
   course. The hopes have not yet been realized. For the years which have
   elapsed since that decree, have been years of singular trouble. Else
   this decree, in the legitimate application of its principles, would be
   but the beginning of a vast transmutation of doctrine; now practically
   taught with all authority in the Roman Church, into matter of faith, as
   to the Blessed Virgin, until she be proclaimed as "bearing all the
   titles and names which are wont to be ascribed to Christ," as the
   Co-Redeemer of the human race, the only access to Jesus, the Indweller
   of the soul, to prepare it for the Indwelling of God the Holy Ghost. In
   the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception there was the more
   difficulty, because it bore closely upon the doctrines of the
   transmission of original sin and the universality of redemption, and
   so, careful and deliberate judgments, stating the exact contrary of the
   doctrine, had been elicited by the Pelagian controversy. This having
   been surmounted,

   there is no fresh difficulty as to any other. The tendency of every
   decisive act, moreover, both in a body and in an individual, is to
   produce other similar acts. And that portion of the Roman Church, which
   is most devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, is most persuaded
   of the personal infallibility of the Pope, and of a continual flow of
   inspiration, which may at any time change popular opinion into
   infallible truth.

   This question of reliance upon the Blessed Virgin as the being in whose
   hands our salvation is virtually to be placed, is quite distinct from
   that other question of the nature of the worship paid to her. The one
   is a practical question, affecting our whole eternity, "What shall I do
   to be saved?" The practical answer to the Roman Catholic seems to me to
   be, "Go to Mary, and you will be saved;" in our dear Lord's own words,
   it is, "Come unto Me;" in our own belief it is, "Go to Jesus and you
   will be saved."

   The answer which is commonly made, that devotion to the Blessed Virgin
   is but relative, does not touch this. No one would impute to the Marian
   writers that they mean that she is Dea, although, notoriously, some of
   them have called her so. But they speak of what comes to the same, of
   her "delegated omnipotency;" and a recent writer says, "when [344]
   Mary, in her office of Advocate, is named Omnipotency kneeling,' or
   interceding Omnipotency,' this will now, I hope, appear to be saying
   not too much hut too little." The human mind is narrow, and easily
   filled with one thought, especially when that thought relates to one's
   all. When, then, the soul is taught that the devotion to Mary is
   essential, that she is "the [345] nearest to us, and the most suited to
   our capacity," that "to go to Jesus, we must go to Mary; she is our
   Mediatrix of intercession;" that she repels none; "she is good and
   tender; she has nothing in her austere and repulsive;" it seems
   inconceivable that many should not stop short in her, with, at best, a
   more or less indistinct reference to Jesus. It is difficult to see how
   direct heresy should not be suggested by sentences such as these (and
   they are so common): "If [346] we fear to go directly to Jesus Christ
   our God, whether because of His infinite greatness or because of our
   vileness, or because of our sins, let us boldly implore the aid of Mary
   our Mother. She is so charitable that she repels none of those who ask
   for her intercession, no matter how great sinners they have been; for,
   as the saints say, never has it been heard, since the world was the
   world, that any one has confidently and perseveringly had recourse to
   our

   Blessed Lady and yet has been repelled." For, for this argument to have
   any force, it must be implied to be possible that any could
   "confidently and perseveringly have recourse to our Divine Lord and yet
   be repelled," which is, of course, directly against the Gospel.

   But also, in regard to the mode of worship itself, the "more than
   servitude," the "hyperdouleia "which is intended to separate the cultus
   of the Blessed Virgin from all advocacy of the Saints or asking for
   their prayers, "douleia," melts very much into the "latreia" or the
   worship due to God. "Jesus [347] is altogether in Mary, and Mary is
   altogether in Jesus," so that to pray to Mary is to pray to Jesus in
   her. "Some [348] say that that special worship to her is a sort of
   latreia, [349] so that the cultus of the Blessed Virgin proceeds from
   the same habit of religion, from which arises the adoration of God and
   Christ. They prove it, first, because although the excellence of the
   mother is created, yet it has respect to the uncreated excellence, from
   which it takes its value; secondly, because this dignity appertains to
   the order of the Hypostatic Union, on the ground whereof the adoration
   of latreia is due to the Humanity of Christ. So then, by reason thereof
   there is due to the Blessed Virgin, as the Mother of God, the same
   adoration, but inferior; whence Caietan [350] teaches that the Blessed
   Virgin has a consanguinity with Christ, as God, and so that a special
   adoration is due to her, because by an operation of her own she touched
   the bounds of Divinity, i. e. because she conceived, bore, nourished
   God. And the fathers often assert that' the whole honour of the Mother
   is referred to the Son.' Thirdly, because in human things the same
   habit, which inclines to honour a king, inclines also to honour the
   king's mother, as such. But this adoration is not absolute, which is
   due to God only; but diminished, participated, and respective: for it
   has respect to the dignity and Divinity of the Son, for which the
   mother of God is honoured, as such: wherefore this honour does not stop
   in the Mother, but through her tends to the Son; and the Mother is not
   so much adored in herself, as the Son is adored in the Mother." Yet we
   are told, that [351] "after devotion to our Lord in the Blessed
   Sacrament, devotion to our Lady is the holiest and solidest of all
   devotions; "that the devotion to the Blessed Virgin comes first in
   order; [352] that [353] "the difference between the pray for us' and
   the have mercy upon us,' is not so complete, as is commonly thought. As
   it is dogmatically admissible, to approach the God-Man, Who in the days
   of His Flesh prayed the Father for us, and Who now too, as the Apostle
   says, intercedeth for us,' with a Pray for us,' so perhaps there would
   not be much to be objected to, if only rightly understood, were one to
   cry out to the Queen of heaven, Have mercy upon us.' "But as,
   practically, no one would say to our Lord, "Pray

   for me," because it would be a passing by of His Divine Nature and
   irreverence to Him; [354] so, to say to the Blessed Virgin, "Have mercy
   upon us," is indistinguishable, except in intention, from prayer to the
   Holy Trinity.

   We have been told that the devotion of the people to the Blessed Virgin
   outruns the judgment of the priests; but if the whole weight of Papal
   authority is added to the popular devotions, and the people are bidden,
   on what is to them the highest authority, to be still more devoted to
   the Blessed Virgin as the mediatrix with "the One Mediator between God
   and man, the Man Christ Jesus,'' our Adorable Lord, one sees not where
   there shall be any pause or bound, short of that bold conception that
   "every prayer, both of individuals and of the Church, should be
   addressed to S. Mary." Popular devotion now is already very different
   from what it was in the time of S. Bernard. S. Bernard has strong
   passages, grounded on what the Breviary stated to be the language of S.
   Athanasius, S. Augustine, &c., which Roman Catholic critics have
   discovered not to be theirs. But the devotion of S. Bernard is
   concentrated on Christ crucified. In S. Bernard on the Canticles, one
   is in a different atmosphere from that of e. g. Faber. Pius IX. gave
   permission throughout the Roman Communion to substitute special Hours
   recently composed on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
   for those in the common Breviary, apparently in order to give an
   impulse to this devotion. [355] At the beginning of the last century,
   De Montfort complained of two classes of "false devotees to our Lady,"
   "the "critical devotees "and "the scrupulous devotees," both of whom
   checked in some degree the devotion to the Blessed Virgin. The
   "critical devotees," he says, [356] "do an infinite wrong to the
   devotion to our Lady; and they are but too successful in alienating
   people from it, under the pretext of destroying its abuses." "The
   scrupulous devotees are those who fear to dishonour the Son by
   honouring the Mother, to abase the one by elevating the other; they
   say, We must have recourse to Jesus Christ; He is our only Mediator.
   "We must preach Jesus Christ, this is the solid devotion.'" "Instead of
   the Rosary, [357] they counsel to any poor client of our Lady the seven
   Penitential Psalms. Instead of devotion to the holy Virgin, they
   counsel him devotion to Jesus Christ." Both these classes seem to have
   passed away; there seem to be now those only who are silent, or who
   intensify the devotion to the Blessed Virgin. The Clergy, according to
   the answers of the Bishops to the Pope, seem to be everywhere earnest
   in promoting it. If the system should grow, as seems likely, and it
   should be discovered in Roman Catholic countries, that this vast range
   of doctrine which the people have been taught or encouraged in, in the
   name of the

   Church, has no foundation in either of the two authorities alleged by
   the Council of Trent--Holy Scripture or continuous tradition from our
   Lord or His Apostles--it is an anxious thought what the result might
   be. Such an authoritative explanation, as might be satisfactory to the
   English Church, might hereafter be of benefit to the Roman also. The
   Saxon mind is a large element in the Christian body.

   The solemn words addressed to Pius IX. in answer to his Encyclical
   Letter by the Metropolitan of Gorizia and Gradisca in Austria (and
   that, as it seems, from a synod of several Bishops), [358] shows that
   the anxiety for the faith of those now outwardly Catholics is shared by
   some in the Communion of Rome too.

   "If," he says, [359] "the present state of all Germany, and the
   condition of the Austrian provinces in particular, be considered
   attentively, as it ought, the proposition about deciding the scholastic
   question as to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in
   such wise, that a pious belief should be transformed into an article of
   Faith and a Catholic dogma, in face of, or rather over against, the
   Protestants, but especially over against that sect which presumes to be
   called German Catholic, and which strains day by day with incredible
   effort to extend itself more and more, and in sight of such numbers of
   languid Catholics, who, both in Germany and Italy, call themselves
   Catholic Christians, but who have, in fact, either cast off all faith
   in God, or have abandoned themselves to absolute religious
   indifferentism, in the actual state of political liberty, seems to me a
   matter full of peril.

   "Under these circumstances (as far as I can see), you must direct your
   mind, and strive, with all the effort you can by the help of God,
   together with the fathers of the Society of Jesus, that the Catholic
   faith should by the gift of God be more and more established in that
   sense in which it was excellently declared and established in the
   Council of Trent, and that it should take deeper root in men's hearts,
   that, according to the Apostle, we may have faith working by love' to
   life eternal; but you must abstain, at least for the present, from
   forming new articles of faith, and so leave the question of the
   Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in that state, in which the
   Catholic Church has hitherto kept it. There is still found in Europe a
   sufficient number of Catholics; but, alas! perhaps the greater part of
   them do not from the heart believe even the articles of faith
   necessary, necessitate medii, to salvation. [360] What avails it to
   establish that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without spot,
   when it is not believed that Jesus is the Son of God?"

   vii. b. The same distinction between the popular system, and that which
   is laid

   down as de fide, recurs as to the doctrine of Purgatory. The Council of
   Trent states a minimum as to the doctrine of the Western Church: "There
   is a Purgatory, and the souls detained there are helped by the prayers
   of the faithful and the acceptable sacrifice of the Altar." [361] It is
   stated, moreover, that the Roman Church does not require "any belief of
   the opinion that the souls there are punished by material fire." [362]

   On the other hand, what the popular mind in England objects to, is
   clearly expressed by Hooker, whom our friend quoted. "The [363] other
   punishment, which hath in it not only loss of joy, but also sense of
   grief, vexation, and woe, is that whereunto they gave the names of
   purgatory pains, in nothing different from those very infernal
   torments, which the souls of castaways, together with damned spirits,
   do endure, [364] save only in this, that there is an appointed term to
   the one, to the other, none; but for the time they last they are
   equal." Hooker must mean, as his context implies, that the physical
   sufferings are equal; for the sufferings, as a whole, could not but be
   different, according as there should be hope or knowledge, that those
   sufferings should, at some time, end in the beatific vision of God (for
   it was held by some, that some souls shall not be certain of their
   salvation until the Day of Judgment), or knowledge that the suffering
   is eternal.

   On our side, to thoughtful minds, whom the grace of God has taught
   something of what sin is, and of the holiness and love of God and of
   Jesus, it is absolutely inconceivable that,--when the soul shall first
   behold Jesus, and, in His sight, with its powers quickened by Him,
   shall behold its past life as a whole; when, in His countenance, it
   shall behold all which it never before saw of His goodness, and, in
   contrast with this, all its own ingratitude, baseness, rebellion,
   negligence, discontent, murmurings, not to speak of deadly, forgiven
   sin,--it should not have intense pain, pain so intense, that one should
   think that, in this life, soul and body would be severed by its
   intensity. There seems also to be an instinctive feeling, that a-soul,
   which here has had no longings for God, even if the man himself should
   die in a state of grace, would not be at once, and might not for some
   long period be, admitted to the sight of God. It is a common saying,
   that a number of souls "seem to be fit neither for heaven nor hell,"
   and that purgatory seems to meet the case of this class of souls. This
   cannot mean, necessarily so. For this would be to limit the Omnipotence
   of God. The ordinary belief in England must be, that God, in one act at
   the particular judgment, at once frees the soul, which dies in His
   grace, from all sinfulness which clung to it while yet in the body, and
   fits it for its abode in Paradise. The Roman doctrine of purgatory
   presupposes, that exactly the same number of souls will be saved, viz.
   those, and those only who die in a state of grace, and that the
   capacity of loving God will receive no accession there. The time of
   gaining grace, in the belief of the Roman Church equally with our own,
   is over with this life, and

   the place of the soul in bliss is then fixed for ever. Suffering and
   preparation for the sight of God, which, here, would have been the
   channel of large grace, would, there, be without any increase of grace.
   Yet many of us, for our misdeserts, may be unfit for the immediate
   presence of God; or, in the great words of S. Irenseus, "capere Deum,"
   [365] "to contain God," who yet, for the Merits of Jesus, may, we
   trust, in His mercy be saved. God can, "in a short time, fulfil a long
   time." [366] Publicans and harlots shall enter into the kingdom of God
   before the self-righteous. We know not what God may do, in one agony of
   loving penitence, for one who accepts His last grace in that almost
   sacrament of death. The question, however, is not about individuals. As
   a class, we could not affirm that those, who bring forth no worthy
   fruits of repentance, with whom, after a long period of deadly sin,
   repentance has been but a superficial work, may not, after death, be in
   a state of privation of the sight of God (the "poena damni"), not being
   admitted at once to the sight of Him, Whom on earth they little cared
   to think of or speak to, and Whom they served with a cold and grudging
   service. And the absence of the sight of God, Whom the soul in grace
   knows to be its only Good, would, when the distractions of this world
   no longer dazzled it, be an intense suffering above all the sufferings
   of this life, while the knowledge that it was saved, and that it
   belonged to Jesus, and that it would, in all eternity, behold God and
   be the object of His infinite love, would be "joy and felicity" [367]
   above all the spiritual joys in this life, even apart from all those
   consolations which God might bestow on the soul which He had made His
   own for ever.

   The Greek Church, too, [368] while it states that such souls as have
   departed with faith, but without having had time to "bring forth fruits
   worthy of repentance," "may be aided towards the attainment of a
   blessed resurrection by prayers offered in their behalf," still holds
   that "the souls of (all) the righteous are in light and rest, with a
   foretaste of eternal happiness."

   A modern approved German Catholic writer on Dogma excludes from
   Purgatory the idea of physical fire, or of any other than mental
   sufferings. "About [369] any, or the, place of purifying, nothing has
   been decided as matter of doctrine. So neither as to the mode of
   purifying. About the last, the fathers have expressed themselves only
   problematically and hypothetically, and Doctors and believers have only
   assumed a fire as matter of opinion; in which mention ignorance only or
   malice (in order to make room for irony) can find occasion to think of
   our common fire. Purifying, as the sloughing-off of the imperfection
   ingrown as it were with the soul; the straining of the soul to become
   free from all earthliness on her; the longing for the vision of God,
   from which the unbefittingness, yet cleaving to her, still excludes
   her; her struggle towards the full death of the evil in her, and
   towards the full life of the good in her; this up-stirring of her

   deepest and inmost self implies fire, fiery pain enough."

   Tetzel, on the contrary, preached, "Ye [370] hear not your parents and
   other deceased crying, Have mercy, have mercy on me, &c., for the hand
   of God hath touched me. For we are in the severest pains and torment,
   from which ye could free us by a slight alms. And ye will not. Ye
   permit us to lie in the flames, deferring the glory promised to us."
   And, [371] "let them observe that, seeing that mortal sins in the whole
   period of life are almost infinite, they have to endure an infinite
   punishment in the burning pains of purgatory." In England, when private
   masses were being discontinued, Sir Thomas More appealed in behalf of
   the souls in purgatory, speaking of "pains, which else [unless the
   masses should be purchased] will hold them here with us in fire and
   torments intolerable, only God knoweth how long." He wrote of them as
   "never resting." [372]

   The Catechism of the Council of Trent (which, I suppose, comes as near
   to a binding authority as any writing which has not absolute authority)
   supports the received practical teaching of a material fire--"There is
   a Purgatorial fire, in which the souls of the pious are tormented for a
   certain time, and expiated, in order that an entrance may be open to
   them into their eternal home, where nothing defiled can enter." Besides
   this, the system as to the Blessed Virgin reappears here, rested upon I
   know not what, yet taught as absolutely certain, that Purgatory is
   especially her kingdom. Liguori mentions no writer, except S. P. Damien
   (A.D. 1057), earlier than the latter half of the fourteenth century,
   who speaks of the Blessed Virgin in relation to Purgatory. The opinion
   gained its chief impulse from two writers, who seem to have been the
   chief authors of the modern theories as to her authority, the two S.
   Bernardines. Yet recent devotional books speak with as much certainty
   of "S. Michael as Prince of Purgatory and our Lady's regent," [373]
   "The moonlight of Mary's throne lighting up their land of pain," as if
   this had been revealed in God's Word.

   There is then here again, if the Church of Rome were so minded, scope
   for proposing to us a doctrine which our Church in no way intends to
   contradict, and which (strangely enough) commends itself even to minds
   the most alien from Catholic truth. [374] There is no ground for
   thinking that, in rejecting the popular "Romish doctrine of purgatory,"
   the Church of England meant to reject all suffering after this life,
   since the Day of Judgment is, in Holy Scripture, so plainly spoken of
   as "a great and terrible day." But Cardinal Wiseman, when consulted by
   one who related the fact to me, after taking a day to reflect, stated
   that the belief that there would be suffering in the Day of Judgment,

   would satisfy the doctrine of Purgatory. The Greeks formally rejected
   the doctrine of material fire, and hold only that there is spiritual
   pain for some souls. The fact, that, after that rejection, the Roman
   Church did not, at the Council of Trent, introduce any mention of the
   fire of Purgatory, has been noticed as an acquiescence in its exclusion
   from matters of faith. Still it is as much the popular belief as if it
   had been so decreed; devotional writers keep up that belief as about a
   thing certainly true; and it might, like the doctrine of the Immaculate
   Conception, be affirmed as a matter of faith at any future time.

   Now too, in the face of those express words of God, "I exhort
   therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
   and giving of thanks be made for all men, for this is good and
   acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be
   saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," [375] it is taught,
   that it is more acceptable to God to pray for souls in Purgatory, [376]
   than for the conversion of sinners, that they fall not into Hell; and
   to pray exclusively for them, as far as relates to prayers at a
   priest's own disposal.

   vii. c. "Pardons," or "indulgences" are in principle, it is agreed,
   only "relaxations of Canonical Penance," i. e., of a portion of that
   severity, which the Ancient Church thought good to impose on those who
   had greatly sinned; that [377] "being punished in this world, their
   souls might be saved in the day of the Lord." The Church, at times,
   shortened the period of public penance, restoring the offender sooner
   to Communion, in view of his penitence or the necessity of the case; as
   when the lapsed were restored under the prospect of renewed
   persecution, or to other penitents death seemed near, that they might
   be fortified by the Body and Blood of Christ: [378] or the Canonical
   punishment was exchanged for some other, in consideration of infirmity
   either of body or will. This was done either by Synods or by the single
   Bishop, by virtue of our Lord's words, "Whatsoever ye shall loose on
   earth shall be loosed in heaven." [379] And so (the sincerity of the
   penitent being presupposed) the Church hoped that her acts would be
   ratified by Him Who gave her this power. Writers cite, as instances,
   St. Paul's [380] forgiveness and restoration of the incestuous
   Corinthian at the prayers of the faithful, or that of the lapsed in S.
   Cyprian's time, at the intercession of the Confessors, who were
   expecting martyrdom for the testimony of Jesus. The term "indulgence
   "occurs only in these passages of S. Cyprian, until the eleventh
   century. The thing continued, as being, in fact, inseparable from any
   system of canonical penance. The general rule of the Church had to be
   adapted to the case of individuals. Thus, the Council of Neo-Cæsarea,
   A.D. 314, enacted that the period of penitence for those who had fallen
   into the sin of polygamy,

   should be abridged on account of "the faith and penitence of
   individuals." [381] Or when fervour and discipline were weakened, the
   Church permitted lighter penances, [382] sooner than that the offender
   should refuse all acts of penitence, and so risk the loss of his soul.
   "Such," Amort also agrees, [383] "were the chief instances of
   Indulgences for the first thousand years after our Lord." In the latter
   part of the thirteenth century "the Bishop could still give Indulgences
   in his own diocese as much as he willed, unless he were limited by the
   Pope. But the limitation, as seems to me (he adds), is reasonable,
   according to the excessive abuse of indulgences which now are given;
   whence it seems well that several Bishops together should not give
   (indulgences) beyond forty days." [384]

   The "modern indulgences" (as Amort too and others call them) were of
   two sorts;

   (1) a plenary forgiveness of all guilt as well as punishment, chiefly
   in connexion with Crusades. These being holy wars, death, incurred in
   them, was a sort of martyrdom, which was accounted to be "a baptism of
   blood," and so to carry with it remission of sins. The abuse of these
   Indulgences, and the exceeding wickedness incident thereon, was
   probably one cause of the failure of the Crusades. The other sorts were
   founded upon precedents which were, unhappily, by mistake [385] or
   fraud, [386] attributed to earlier Bishops of Rome. Yet Amort says,
   that "until A.D. 1391 no plenary indulgence was granted to all the
   faithful, which should exempt them from all obligation of making
   fitting amends."

   The indulgences, in their modern form, were condemned at the time in
   terms much stronger than those used by the Church of England. Berthold,
   a fervent Franciscan preacher at the close of the thirteenth century, a
   man "of [387] holy life and great learning, who, by word and example,
   converted countless sinners to the Lord, whose memory was blessed, and
   was still most fresh among men "half a century after his departure,
   said of the sellers of them, "They [388] arose but of late. Whe n I was
   yet a little child, there was not one of them anywhere. They are called
   Penny Preachers,' and are among the favourite servants of the Devil. He
   goes forth among the simple people, preaches and calls out, so that all
   present weep. And he says he has power from the Pope to take away all
   thy sins for a halfpenny. And he lies, that men are for this free
   before God; and he crowns the devil daily with many thousand souls. Ye
   must give them nothing; then must they cease

   from this cheating. While ye give to them, ye sell yourselves to
   eternal death. And they murder you, and turn you from the right
   repentance which God has hallowed, that ye should repent no longer."
   And another celebrated, though peculiar, preacher of the 15th century
   says, "Theologians [389] have made little or no mention of indulgences.
   But hypocrites only have preached them with infinite lies to deceive
   the people. Thou must go to the great indulgence, which is contrition.
   Do this, and I promise to thee what was promised to Magdalene. Go to
   the tears of the heart; shed them abundantly. God said not to her, that
   she should put five shillings in the chest, but He said to her, Thy
   faith hath saved thee.'"

   The difficulty as to indulgences, apart from the special abuses before
   the Reformation, relates to this: "In what way can they be thought,
   consistently with the previous acts of the Church, to avail for the
   departed?" It is now conceded, that "until the end of the fifteenth
   Century, there was scarcely any, or anyhow very rare use of indulgences
   for the departed." Those who defend indulgences, see that the modern
   discipline of the Church cannot in any way be reconciled to the
   ancient, except on the supposition, that indulgences ava il only by way
   of prayer to God, which prayer God would hear, or not hear, according
   to His Infinite Wisdom, and His knowledge of the condition of souls.

   Amort says, [390] "there are four opinions, as to the value of
   indulgences to the departed." The first, "rejected by almost all
   Theologians, that the Pope has jurisdiction in Purgatory." This (most
   remark) is contrary to our Lord's limitation, "Whatsoever ye shall
   loose on earth." "The second, of some older writers, that they only
   avail in the way of deprecation, in that the Church undertakes to pray
   God for the soul of a certain departed. The gain then is, that the Pope
   specially prays God in the name of the whole Church, together with him
   who gains the indulgence. The third, and most common among Theologians,
   is that they avail by way of payment, in that the Church takes the
   satisfactory merits of Christ and the Saints, and pays them to God for
   the soul which is being purified, and that God is bound to release that
   soul." The fourth, "that they avail by way of payment, but that God is
   not so bound."

   Amort's own opinion is, that "the indulgence for the dead is a solemn
   deprecation, with a pleading before the Throne of the merits of Christ
   and of His saints, but that it does not involve the success of the
   deprecation." [391] Scavini adds to this, "Most think that indulgences
   benefit the departed more or less, according as they, in their
   lifetime, deserved by their own acts that the indulgences should be
   applied to them."

   Thus reduced, indulgences differ from other prayers for the departed,
   only in that

   they are more solemn deprecations in the name of the whole Church. The
   Council of Trent, being about to disperse, did not explain what
   indulgences are, only affirming that they "ought to be retained in the
   Church." It condemns those only "who assert that they are useless, or
   deny that the Church has any power to grant them." [392] There is then
   ample scope for explanation on this subject also; the more so, since
   the Council of Trent condemned that sale of them which had so large a
   share in bringing about the Reformation.

   "In granting indulgences the Synod wishes moderation to be used
   according to the old and approved custom in the Church, lest
   ecclesiastical discipline should be enervated by excessive easiness."
   If the Roman Church wishes to go back to the ancient custom, then the
   British, which expresses the same wish, is so far at one with her. It
   proceeded,--

   "But abuses, which have crept in here, on occasion of which this
   eminent name Indulgences' is blasphemed by heretics, the Synod, wishing
   to see corrected, enacts generally by this present decree, that all
   perverse gains for obtaining the same, from which a very large occasion
   of abuses flowed among the Christian people, should be altogether
   abolished. But as to other abuses, which have arisen from superstition,
   ignorance, irreverence, or any other cause whatsoever, since, on
   account of the multiplicity of places and provinces where they are
   committed, they cannot be specially prohibited, the Synod commands all
   Bishops, each diligently to bring together such abuses in his own
   Church, and to relate them in a Provincial Synod, in order that, the
   judgment of other bishops too being ascertained, it may be forthwith
   brought before the Supreme Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and
   prudence that may be enacted which shall be expedient to the Universal
   Church, that so the gift of holy indulgences may be dispensed piously,
   holily, and uncorruptly to all the faithful."

   In regard to "indulgences" we are at one with the Greek Church, which
   never heard of them in the sense in which they, and very chiefly,
   caused the Reformation. I mean, the Greek Church abridged Canonical
   Penance in this life, according to the earnestness or necessities of
   penitence, but never thought of such abridgments or Indulgences to
   penitents, with reference to the intermediate state.

   vii. d. The veneration of images and relics as condemned by our
   Article, need not detain us long. Our friend has illustrated, from the
   homilies, what was probably the meaning of the Article. The writers of
   that homily had had before their eyes what the writers of the Articles
   desired to reject. The Council of Trent, as he observed, condemned in
   part the self-same things,--

   "All superstition also in invocation of saints, veneration of relics,
   and sacred use of images, be put away; all filthy lucre be cast out of
   doors; and all wantonness be avoided; so that images be not painted or
   adorned with an immodest beauty; or the celebration of saints and
   attendance on relics be abused to revelries and drunkennesses; as
   though festival-days were kept in honour of saints by luxury and
   lasciviousness." [393]

   Dr. Milner [394] also referred to their first Catechism for the
   instruction of children. "Qu. May we pray to relics or images? Ans. No,
   by no means; for they have no life or sense to hear or to help us;" and
   to the Anathema of Gother and Challoner, "Cursed is he that commits
   idolatry; that prays to images or relics, or worships them for God.
   Amen." The Council of Trent requires only that "due honour and
   veneration should be paid them; not that we believe there is any
   divinity or power in them, for which we respect them, or that any thing
   is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be placed in them, as the
   heathen of old trusted in their idols." On the other hand, we know
   that, in kissing the outside of the material Bible, we mean only to
   express reverence for the Word of God; in the traditional custom of
   bowing to the Altar (when the Holy Sacrament is not there), we mean
   only reverence to it, as having been "the Throne of God," [395] (as
   Peers bow before the Throne in respect for the absent Sovereign). So
   also, if any should kiss the feet of the Crucifix, it would be in
   reverence to the Crucified. Even Dr. Arnold "rather envied "the simple
   faith of a child who did so.

   "In the crypt is a Calvary and figures as large as life, representing
   the burying of our Lord. The woman who showed in the crypt had her
   little girl with her, and she lifted up the child, about three years
   old, to kiss the feet of our Lord. Is this idolatry 1 Nay, verily, it
   may be so; but it need not be, and assuredly is in itself right and
   natural. I confess I rather envied the child." [396]

   There is then nothing in this respect which might not easily be
   reconciled; the more, since Petavius says, "we must lay down in the
   first instance, that images are to be reckoned among the adiaphora,'
   which do not belong to the substance of religion, and which the Church
   may retain or take away, as she judges best." [397]

   viii. The earlier explanations of the Articles I set down, in order to
   show that the Articles in no way contradict any Catholic truth, as was
   alleged by Dr. Manning. In these last I have had the further object of
   showing that the breach between us and Rome is not so wide as is
   commonly thought, or as, in the period of my youth, the Articles were
   unconsciously strained to make out. Plainly, on the surface, by the
   force of the terms, "the Romish doctrine," as to these subjects, cannot
   include any doctrine upon them which is not "the Roman doctrine."
   Without entering into any details, or any discussion of its claims, it
   cannot include any doctrine of "the Greek Church," e. g. as to
   Purgatory, which is not Roman, nor any "opinions" floating in the Early
   Church. Else it would have run, "all believe in Purgatory," &c. But
   while any opinion, held in the Ancient Undivided Church or by the Greek
   Church upon any of these subjects, cannot, on the ground of the
   language itself, be intended by the Article, which speaks of "the
   Romish doctrine;" neither is there any ground to assume that the
   Article was directed against the canons of the Council of Trent. For,
   on the one hand, upon some of the subjects there is very little

   to be found in those canons; on the other hand, the entire practical
   system floating in the Roman communion was all around the writers of
   the Articles. They had themselves been familiar with it before the
   Council of Trent. Yet any one would, à priori, suppose that a protest
   published in the language of the people would relate to what was known
   and familiar, what was the subject of controversy, not to what was
   unknown and recondite, and would have to be put together out of a
   foreign document. Men protest against what they have before them, what
   presses upon them. The Twenty-second Article was not drawn up with
   reference to the Council of Trent, having been framed before it. The
   only change, after the Council of Trent, was the substitution of the
   terms "the Romish doctrine" for "the doctrine of the Schoolmen." The
   body of the Article did not refer to formal decrees before; there is
   nothing to make it refer to formal decrees afterwards. It does not
   contain a single hint as to the special character of the doctrines
   which it rejects. It assumes that doctrine to be popularly known.
   English controversialists afterwards, as well as before, wrote about
   the popular doctrine. Indeed, so far from the doctrine of the Council
   of Trent being the subject of controversy, it has happened that Roman
   controversialists have pared down the popular statements of English
   writers, because they alleged what was beside or against Tridentine
   doctrine. I am not aware that Jewell, although he makes his statements
   against the authority of the Council of Trent, anywhere animadverts
   upon formal expositions of doctrine. He continued his charges, as
   before, against the popular system.

   This system, going beyond the letter of the Council of Trent, remained
   as it did before. The Council of Trent gave an indirect sanction to it,
   in that, while a large portion of Europe was complaining of it, the
   Council removed certain practical abuses (such as the trade in
   Indulgences), but, else, left the whole practical doctrine unexplained
   and unlimited, while it lay down as de fide, certain statements which
   lay at the root of that practical system. On the other hand, it tacitly
   allowed that this system was not de fide, in that, after the objections
   had been raised against it, it did not erect any portion of it into
   Articles of Faith. In like way, it has been observed that the opinion
   as to a material fire of Purgatory was the more left an open question,
   in that, after the Greeks at the Council of Florence had denied it, the
   Latins did not define it. So long, however, as the Church of Rome
   places no restriction upon this practical system, she remains
   responsible for it. For it is taught by her priests, put forth as
   certain truth, and as her teaching, in books which have the sanction of
   her Bishops, and by writers who have been canonized. Yet Rome need not
   make such doctrines terms of communion, nor need she insist that the
   Church of England, if united with her, should receive them, but
   provision might be formally made on both sides that she need not.

   This has been often said to individuals, although it seems to me to be
   a psychological impossibility for one who has already exchanged one
   system for another to make those distinctions. One who by his own act
   places himself under authority, cannot make conditions about his
   submission. But definite explanatio ns of our Articles have, before
   now, been at least tentatively offered to us, on the Roman and the
   Greek side, as

   sufficient to restore communion; and the Roman explanations too were,
   in most cases, mere supplements to our Articles, on points upon which
   our Church had not spoken.

   The proposal for union with the Gallican Church in Archbishop Wake's
   time, came in the first instance from Du Pin and three other Doctors of
   the Sorbonne. "They wished for an union with the Church of England, as
   the most effectual means to unite all the Western Churches." [398]

   [399] A detailed account was given to the Regent and the Court, [400]
   which also did not, for the time, appear to disapprove of it. An
   oration, made by De Girardin to the Doctors of the Sorbonne, to
   recommend the union, and to prepare them for the treatise itself, was
   favorably heard and applauded. [401] Du Pin wrote Jan. 13, 1719, "The
   [402] Theological Faculty at Paris, whose authority is great in this
   realm, will not be out of harmony with our object. This seems to me a
   thing to be earnestly set about in these times, but maturely weighing
   and discussing every thing accurately. To accomplish the work belongs
   to God, in Whose hand are the hearts, not of kings only, but of all
   men." De Girardin gives an account of the reception of a letter of
   Wake's by the Doctors of the Sorbonne, with which they were much
   delighted, and said, that "the foundations of concord had been laid by
   him, and that they must make their contribution towards so beautiful a
   work." [403] It is said that [404] "the treatise itself was read to the
   Doctors of the Sorbonne." It had the hearty concurrence of De Girardin.
   Du Pin stated to M. Beauvoir, that [405] "he had communicated his
   design to the Cardinal de Noailles, who had approved of it." In his
   official account Du Pin says, that Wake "sent" him [406] "the
   Confession of Faith and the Liturgy of the English Church, and that M.
   Du Pin formed thereon a memorial, containing the Articles upon which
   they were agreed, those which were indifferent, and those upon which it
   was necessary to confer, in order to explain them;--articles, which
   came to few." This was in accordance to Du Pin previous conviction
   [407] "that we [the two Churches] were not so far apart as to preclude
   reunion; that there were many articles upon which we were agreed;
   others which related to discipline only, in regard to which there could
   be no dispute on either side; and

   that in regard to the other articles, few in number, upon mutual
   explanation the two parties might agree.'' The "Commonitorium" then of
   Du Pin was no common document; it may be supposed to represent the mind
   of the moderate Gallicans of 1719. Cardinal de Noailles had desired to
   peruse it before it should be sent. It is exceedingly to be regretted
   that, at present, the "Commonitorium" cannot be found, and that so
   little of it is preserved verbatim. But, as appears from Maclaine's
   epitome of it, [408] Du Pin approved unconditionally of twenty-three of
   our Articles; [409] passed over that on the Homilies, as not knowing
   them; proposed slight explanations of ten; so that there remained a
   difficulty in regard to five only, and on these also he mostly offered
   explanations of the Roman Doctrine.

   On the VIth he agrees as the principle, that "Scripture contains all
   things necessary to salvation," and affirms no more as to tradition
   than many of our Divines have done. "This (viz., that Scripture
   contains all things necessary to salvation) we will gladly admit,
   provided that tradition be not excluded, which does not exhibit new
   articles of faith, hut confirms and explains those things which are
   contained in Holy Scripture, and fences them by new safeguards against
   those who are otherwise minded, so that nothing new is said, but only
   the old in a way. [410]

   He thought that the Apocryphal books would not occasion much
   difficulty, and allowed them to be called Deutero-canonical.

   Our Homilies [411] inculcate a secondary inspiration of some, at least,
   of the Apocrypha, since they speak of its words as said by the Holy
   Ghost, and as Scripture. On the other hand the Roman Church could
   hardly condemn the statement of S. Jerome, which our Article quotes,
   received, as it was, by unquestioned authorities down to the Council of
   Trent. [412]

   The Xth he allowed, provided that by the word "power" ("we have no
   power to do good works") be understood what school-Divines call
   "Potentia proxima," or a direct and immediate power [which plainly it
   does], since without a remote power of doing good works sin could not
   be imputed.

   On the XIth he says, "We do not deny that we are justified by faith
   only, as is set forth in the XIth Article." Maclaine paraphrases him,
   "we maintain that faith, charity, and good works are necessary to
   salvation, and this is acknowledged in the following (the

   XIIth) Article." [413]

   It does not seem to me clear whether Du Pin understood Article XIII. He
   says, "On the XIIIth Article there will be no controversy, since many
   divines are of the same mind. It appears somewhat harsh to say, that
   all those actions which are not done out of the grace of Christ are
   sins [have the nature of sin']. Yet I would not have any discussion
   thereon, except among theologians." [414]

   On the XIVth Article Du Pin explained away the offensive sense of the
   term "works of supererogation," was willing to drop the term, and only
   wished the distinction to be maintained between "w orks of strict
   precept," and those which were of "counsel" only. This distinction our
   people must, of course, admit, since our Lord says of celibacy, "All
   cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. He that is
   able to receive it, let him receive it." [415] It is a further question
   whether a person's salvation may not be very seriously involved in his
   obeying a call from God, even although that to which he is called may
   not be in itself necessary to salvation. So that the Roman aspect may
   be, to look upon the act or condition as not in itself necessary to
   salvation; ours, in the concrete, to look on ourselves as unprofitable
   servants at the best. And each must admit the statement of the other.

   On Article XIX. he wished for the word "under lawful pastors," and said
   that "although all particular Churches, even that of Home, may err, it
   is needless to say this in a Confession of Faith." So that, in
   principle, he agreed with us.

   On Article XX. he again agreed with us in the principle, that" the
   Church may not ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written;
   "but said that it must be taken for granted that the Church would not
   do this in matters "which overthrow the substance of the faith" ["quæ
   fidei substantiam evertant"]. This, too, our Church must hold, by
   virtue of our Lord's words, "The gates of hell shall not prevail
   against it."

   On Article XXI. he made two statements, neither of which are
   contradicted by the Article, and both of which have often been affirmed
   among us. 1) That "General Councils, received by the Universal Church,
   cannot err." It would be more accurate to word it, "No General Council,
   received by the Universal Church, has erred; "or, "It may not be
   thought that the Universal Church will receive a General Council which
   has erred;" or, doubtless, Du Pin said, "General Councils, received by
   the Universal Church, cannot have erred." For when they have been
   received, their whole action is a thing past, whereas "cannot err"
   implies a thing yet future. 2) "That, though particular Councils may
   err, yet every private man has not a right to reject what he thinks
   contrary to Scripture,"

   which is self-evident on the principle of our Article, "The Church has
   authority in controversies of faith."

   On Article XXII. he said, "a) as to Purgatory, that souls must be
   purged, i. e. purified from all defilement of sin, before they are
   admitted to celestial bliss; that the Church of Rome doth not affirm
   this to be done by fire; that b) indulgences are only relaxations or
   remissions of temporal penalties in this life; c) that the Roman
   Catholics do not worship the Cross, nor relics, nor images, nor even
   saints before their images, but only pay them an external respect,
   which is not of a religious nature; and that even this external
   demonstration of respect is a matter of indifference, which may be laid
   aside or retained without harm."

   On Article XXIV. he allows that "Divine Service might be performed in
   the vulgar tongue, where that was customary," and, according to
   Maclaine, "excused" (I suppose, "defended") "the Latin and Greek
   Churches for preserving their ancient languages, alleging that great
   care had been taken that every thing should be understood by
   translations."

   On the XXVth Article he required the acknowledgment "of the five
   Sacraments, whether instituted immediately by Christ or no."

   As all our controversialists have said, the controversy turns not on
   the word, but on the meaning of the word. Even Jewell quoted Cardinal
   Bessarion, who, in the 15th century, A.D. 1436, distinguished, as we
   do, the two sacraments instituted by our Lord Himself. "This, too,
   seems a thing not to be disregarded, that, whereas two Sacraments were
   delivered to us by the Saviour, Baptism and the Eucharist, He commanded
   each to be effected in His own words." [416] "If, then, there we read
   of these two Sacraments alone as having been manifestly delivered in
   the Gospels, but one of them, Baptism, is effected in the words of the
   Lord, then we must think that the other also, the Eucharist,, must be
   effected through these Divine and God-given words." [417] Yet Bessarion
   gives as the definition of other sacraments of the Church, that "they
   have something which is seen, something which is comprehended, not by
   the bodily eyes, but by the mind alone," viz. the invisible grace which
   all believe to be given in Confirmation, orders, absolution, and in
   marriage also, hallowing its act. A distinction allowed in Bessarion
   might well be allowed to us also.

   The only real difference is mainly practical, in regard to the
   Anointing of the sick. In this the Greek Church follows strictly the
   direction of S. James. The devout sick, at least, send to the physician
   of the soul as well as of the body, and in the "anointing of the sick,"
   they look for benefit both to the body, if it should so please God, and
   to the soul. A Russian Priest informed me of a case, which he knew, of
   a man, who, by the use of anointing, with the prayer of faith by the
   Presbyters, had been raised up three times from dangerous illness. Had
   the Roman Church adhered to this practice, we could never have had the
   mention of "the corrupt following of the Apostles;" for that language
   relates to

   the then custom, not to anoint the sick until they were "in extremis,"
   so that the Council of Trent had to provide, that, "if the sick should
   recover after receiving this unction, they may again be aided by the
   succour of this sacrament, when they should come into a like peril of
   life." [418] The Article plainly means, by "the corrupt following of
   the Apostles," that what S. James directed, with a view (at least in
   part, to the restoration of health, was administered only, when, in
   man's sight, such restoration was impossible. Had they in the Roman
   Church retained the practice as the Greek Church retains it, we should
   doubtless have retained it also. As it is, the English Church, even in
   the unhappy time towards the close of the reign of Edward VI.,
   virtually sanctioned it. The first Prayer Book in his reign had a
   special prayer for "the Anointing of the sick," with this direction:

   "If the sick person desire to be anointed, then shall the Priest anoint
   him upon the forehead or breast only, making the sign of the cross,
   saying thus,

   "As with this visible oil thy body outwardly is anointed, so our
   heavenly Father, Almighty God, grant of His infinite goodness that, thy
   soul inwardly may be anointed with the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of
   all strength, comfort, relief, and gladness. And vouchsafe for His
   great mercy (if it be His blessed will) to restore unto thee thy bodily
   health and strength, to serve Him; and send thee release of all thy
   pains, troubles, and diseases, both in body and mind. And howsoever His
   goodness (by His Divine and unsearchable Providence) shall dispose of
   thee; we, His unworthy ministers and servants, humbly beseech the
   eternal Majesty to do with thee according to the multitude of His
   innumerable mercies, and to pardon thee all thy sins and offences
   committed by all thy bodily

   senses, passions, and carnal affections: Who also vouchsafe mercifully
   to grant unto thee ghostly strength, by His Holy Spirit, to withstand
   and overcome all temptations and assaults of thine adversary, that in
   no wise he prevail against thee, but that thou mayest have perfect
   victory and triumph against the devil, sin, and death: through Christ
   our Lord: Who by His death hath overcome the Prince of death; and with
   the Father and the Holy Ghost evermore liveth and reigneth, God, world
   without end. Amen." [419]

   This Prayer Book was declared by the Parliament to have been written
   "by the aid of the Holy Ghost." [420] The statement, so often quoted
   from the Act for substituting "the second book," that the first was a
   "very godly order, agreeable to the word of God and the primitive
   Church," and that the doubts raised about it were "rather by the
   curiosity of the minister and mistakers than of any other worthy
   cause," shows that, even in those evil times, no slur was ever cast
   upon the Scriptural practice of anointing the sick. The practice
   existed in the Scotch Church. Bishop Jolly was always prepared to
   anoint any sick person who should desire it. Nor do I know of any
   ground, except the custom of the Church, why it should not be used in
   England. Certainly, there is nothing herein to separate us from the
   Eastern Church. It is difficult to understand what its office "to remit
   sins "can be, which the Council of Trent sanctioned under anathema,
   seeing that the Church of Rome too holds that, upon confession, sins
   would just before have been remitted by the Absolution. Nor, looked
   upon, as the Roman Church practically does, as a mere preparation for
   death (not, as the Greek does, as a means, if God so will, of restoring
   the sick), does one see, what there -can be lacking to our dying, whose
   sins, if they will, Christ absolves by the words which He gave us to
   pronounce with His authority and in His Name, and to whom He gives, as
   Food for the way, His own Body and Blood.

   One statement of the Council of Trent, as to a spiritual effect of the
   unction of the sick, might the rather be explained to us, because Roman
   Catholic writers are at issue about its meaning. The Council says,
   [421] "The substance and effect of this sacrament is explained by those
   words, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall
   alleviate him, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.' For
   the substance is this grace of the Holy Spirit, Whose anointing wipes
   away offences, if any remain to be expiated, and the remains of sin."
   And the Canon anathematizes those who deny this: [422] "If any say that
   the holy anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins,
   nor alleviate the sick, but have now ceased, as though it were only
   formerly a grace of healing." But Bellarmine says plainly, [423] "All
   Theologians do not explain in the same way what are the remains of sin.
   Some would have them to be venial sins; but this is

   improbable, for they can be effaced without a Sacrament, nor is any new
   infusion of grace required, which is the effect of all Sacraments. So,
   if this were the proper and chief effect of this anointing, we could
   not easily prove it to be a Sacrament, nor would James say, If he have
   committed sins, they shall be forgiven him;' for all have venial sins,
   as he says again, in many things we all offend.' Lastly, it is not safe
   to restrain to venial sins, what James calls, generally, sins.' Others,
   by the name of remains,' understand the proneness or habit left from
   [past] sin. But this is still more improbable. For the if he have
   committed sin' of James cannot be conveniently understood of this. Then
   too such habits do not appear to be taken away by this sacrament; for
   it often happens that they who recover feel the same proneness to sin
   as before."

   Bellarmine then himself explains "the remains of sin" to mean "either
   1) of deadly sins into which a person may have fallen through
   ignorance; or, 2) torpor, sadness, anxiety, which are wont to be left
   from sin, and which may chiefly vex a man at the point of death." But
   1) deadly sins could hardly be committed in ignorance by any one of
   well-instructed conscience; so that this explanation would apply to
   very few out of the vast multitude who fall sick; viz. to those only
   who were truly penitent, and yet had deadly sin on their conscience
   contracted since their last absolution, of which they were ignorant. 2)
   "Torpor, sadness," &c., though they might be consequences of sin, are,
   of course, not sin, and so are no explanation of the Apostle's words,
   "if any have committed sin, it shall be forgiven," nor of that which
   the Canon of the Council of Trent affirms, under anathema, that the
   Unction "remits" not merely "the remains of sin," but the "sins "the
   mselves.

   The difficulty is, since sins are forgiven authoritatively upon true
   contrition through the Absolution, what sins there can remain
   afterwards to be remitted; and this the more, since the sick is to be
   anointed by the priests, and therefore, except in extremis, confession
   could be made, and the absolution pronounced. The earliest authority,
   enumerating the ways in which forgiveness of sins were given, blends
   the confession of sins and the anointing of the sick together. "There
   is yet a seventh, although hard and laborious, remission of sins,
   through penitence, when the sinner washes his bed in tears, and his
   tears become his bread day and night, and when he is not ashamed to
   tell his sins to the priest of the Lord, and to seek the medicine,
   according to him who saith, I said, I will declare my unrighteousness
   against myself unto the Lord.' Wherein also is fulfilled that which the
   Apostle writes, If any is sick, let him call for the elders of the
   Church, and let them lay hands upon him, anointing him with oil in the
   name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and if
   he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.'" [424] S. Chrysostome
   quotes the text of S. James, [425] only as a proof of the power of the
   prayer of

   the priests, and so, doubtless, of the power of the keys.

   Innocent I. explains that it could not be given to those who were yet
   doing penance, i. e. who had not yet received absolution. So far, then,
   from remitting deadly sin, it could not, according to Innocent I., be
   given to those who, having fallen into deadly sin, had not as yet,
   after the course of penitential discipline, been absolved from it.
   [426] Two sacraments alone, they say, are "given to the dead," Baptism
   and Penitence; Baptism, or the new birth, to give spiritual life;
   Penitence to restore it when lost. But neither is it given to remit
   venial sin. It is then not a captious question, but a reasonable
   request for explanation, that we ask, what that remission of sins
   through the anointing of the sick is, the denial of which the Roman
   Church has anathematized, and, as things stand, requires us, as terms
   of communion, to anathematize? In S. James, the forgiveness of sin is
   ascribed, apparently, to the whole action, including the prayer of the
   priest, to which alone S. Chrysostome attributes it.

   In the Latin Church, too, Aquinas speaks of unction of the sick as "not
   being of necessity to salvation." [427]

   The statement of the Russian Catechism could cause no difficulty to the
   English Church. [428] "Unction with oil is a mystery, in which, while
   the body is anointed with oil, God's grace is invoked on the sick, to
   heal him of spiritual and bodily infirmities." The prayer in the
   Euchologion expresses, so far, what we could all use, "Holy Father,
   Healer of souls and bodies, Who didst send Thine Only-begotten Son, our
   Lord Jesus Christ, healing every disease and redeeming from death, heal
   this Thy servant also of the sickness of soul and body which
   encompasses him, and quicken him through the grace of Thy Christ--for
   Thou art the Fountain of healings, O Christ our God, and to Thee we
   send up the glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
   [429]

   On the XXVIIIth Du Pin was willing to omit the word
   "transubstantiation," and to substitute "changed." But the question
   remained the same, whether the "change" intended was physical or
   hyperphysical. He wished the statement to be adopted, "That the bread
   and wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which
   are truly and really received by all, though none but the faithful
   partake of any benefit from them." The real question between the
   English and Roman Church is as to the nature of the change, whether it
   is understood in Thorndike's words, to be "a change destructive to the
   bodily

   substance of the elements, or cumulative of them." [430] Properly
   speaking, Scotus and others say "transubstantiation is not change."
   [431] Since du Pin, as well as others, owned their Communion service to
   be orthodox, I should hope that the belief of the "real objective
   Presence" as therein contained, and so often expressed in our writers,
   or even the formula in the notice at the close of our fir st Book of
   Homilies, "the due receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ under the
   form of bread and wine," [432] might become the basis of mutual
   understanding, instead of any inquiries into the meaning of the words
   Substance or Change. Plainly, since the meaning of the word "substance
   "has been changed, since the word "Transubstantiation" was adopted in
   the Latin Church, to express the "change" produced by consecration in
   the Holy Eucharist, it is not too much to ask the Roman Church to
   explain what that "substance" is, which they believe to be changed. For
   since they require a belief in Transubstantiation, as terms of
   communion, and since the meaning has been changed since the times of
   the Schoolmen, it is but reasonable that they should explain the
   meaning of that, which they require us to express our belief in. My own
   conviction is, that our Articles deny Transubstantiation in one sense,
   and that the Roman Church, according to the explanation of the
   Catechism of the Council of Trent, affirms it in another.

   A very eminent foreign Divine, of the Roman Communion, allows (I am
   informed) that "the materia' of bread and wine remains," and that,
   following Theodoret, Pope Gelasius [433] and other Fathers, we may say
   that "there are two natures in the Sacrament." But if so, the whole
   controversy between us is at an end. The rest is a question of the
   schools, not for ordinary pious Christians.

   On Article XXX. he would have the reception "in both kinds," or "in one
   kind" only, left free to each Church.

   On the XXXIst Article Du Pin maintained that "the Sacrifice of Christ
   is not only commemorated but continued in the Eucharist, and that every
   communicant offers Christ with the Priest." The words "we still
   continue and commemorate that Sacrifice, which

   Christ once made upon the Cross," were used by Bishop Cosins also,
   presupposing, of course, the fundamental truth, that that Sacrifice was
   finished upon the Cross, and that nothing can add to Its infinite
   value. We can but plead It and Its merits.

   On Article XXXII. Du Pin himself advocated the celibacy of the Clergy,
   but allowed of their marriage, "where not prohibited by the laws of the
   Church."

   On the XXXVIth Article, since he allows that, in the case of an union,
   the English clergy might remain in their beneficies, "either of right,
   or of the indulgence of the Church," he must have acknowledged the
   validity of our ordinations; since, of course, no indulgence of the
   Church could make that valid which is invalid. Du Pin [434] wrote to
   Wake, admiring the theory of our election and confirmation of bishops;
   he used always the tone of one writing to an Archbishop, and signed one
   of his letters "your Son in Christ," "tuus in Christo filius;" and in
   his "relation "to "a very great man "(doubtless the Regent), mentions
   an answer of Wake, [435] "in which, without entering into any detail as
   to the Articles, he justified the succession of Archbishops and Bishops
   of England, of which

   M. Du Pin seems to have doubted." In Oct. 22, 1718, Beauvoir wrote to
   Archbishop Wake: "They [Du Pin and De Girardin] are extremely satisfied
   with the account of the succession of the English bishops. For before
   they were in error about it." [436] De Girardin himself wrote in
   December, 1718,--"You can hardly think, most illustrious Prelate, with
   what joy it filled us, that we learnt at last from this your most
   learned letter, that the consecrations of the English Bishops, in due
   succession from the first foundation to the Reformation (as they
   speak), is supported by the testimony and authority of public
   documents; so that the enemies of ecclesiastical union have no ground,
   on this head at least, to disturb the communion of minds and of
   religion, now to be renewed among Christians." [437]

   Du Pin expressed his satisfaction in these words:

   "I was exceedingly pleased with what you were so good as to write to me
   so elegantly and accurately about the election and consecration of the
   Bishops in England. It does not seem to me to differ much from the
   customs which flourished in the time of Charlemagne, as is clear from
   the Capitulars of this and the following Emperors, and the formulae of
   Marculfus. And I cannot sufficiently praise the precautions which you
   use to prevent any unworthy person from stealing into the Episcopate,
   Would that Bishops were proved in the same way every where, before they
   were consecrated!" [438] It has indeed escaped observation, that the
   form adopted at the consecration of Archbishop Parker was carefully
   framed on the old form used in the consecration of Archbishop Chichele,
   a century before (as I found by collation of the Registers in the
   Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, now many years ago). The form used
   in Chichele's time, I could not trace

   further back. Its use was exceptional, having been resorted to at a
   time when the English Church did net acknowledge either of the
   claimants of the Papacy. The tradition of that consecration was then
   only a century old. It was of the Providence of God, that they had that
   precedent to fall back upon. But the selection of this one precedent
   (amidst the number of Archbishops, consecrated in obedience to Papal
   Bulls, in which case the form was wholly different), shows how careful
   Parker and his consecrators were to follow the ancient precedents. This
   fact is in itself the contradictory of the allegations of carelessness,
   so recklessly made by Roman Catholic controversialists. It is almost
   inconceivable that such an historian as Lingard (the first Roman
   Catholic writer who ventured to discard the Nag's Head fable) should
   himself have asserted that in Parker's consecration the words "Receive
   the Holy Ghost," were not used, in face of the Lambeth Register, which
   states that they were. [439] But to return.

   Article XXXVII. Du Pin "admitted, so far as relates to the civil power,
   and denied all temporal and all immediate spiritual jurisdiction of the
   Pope, and held that every Church ought to enjoy its own liberties and
   privileges, which the Pope has no right to infringe." It seems as if
   what he left to the Pope was "to see that the canons be enforced, the
   true faith maintained, and any violation of either be redressed,
   according to the Canonical laws." On this subject there is a fuller
   statement in a letter of Du Pin to Wake, Dec. 1, 1718, --"In regard to
   the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, as regards the State, it is
   restricted within narrow bounds, so that it can be of no prejudice to
   us. For as to temporals he has no power; and in spirituals, he is held
   within the rules of the ancient Canons. He can do nothing in those
   things which relate to the government of the Bishop in his own diocese;
   he cannot ordain or enact any thing pertaining to discipline; he cannot
   excommunicate any one, or claim any thing else to himself." [440]

   "His Primacy (i. e. that he holds the first place among Bishops, as all
   antiquity affirms, and the Greeks themselves, although rent from the
   Roman Church, confess) we acknowledge. But that Primacy does not give
   him a higher grade among Bishops; he is only their fellow-bishop,
   although first among Bishops."

   Wake wrote: "The [441] honour which you give to the Roman Pontiff
   differs so little, I deem, from that which our sounder Theologians
   readily grant him, that, on this point, I think, it will not be
   difficult, on either side, either to agree altogether in the same
   opinion, or mutually to bear with a dissent of no moment."

   One more extract from Du Pin will be especially interesting to you, as
   illustrating how earnest the good old man was in his love for peace and
   union, and on what terms he thought it might be effected. Indeed, his
   whole plan seems to be an anticipation of our

   dear friend's Tract 90.

   "In these days I have read the book of William Forbes, Bishop of
   Edinburgh, entitled Considerationes Modestæ et Pacificæ
   Controversiarum,' &c., London, 1658. The Bishop seems to be of the same
   mind as you and I; for the whole subject of the work turns on this, to
   show that the controversies between us may easily be settled, if only
   the fairer Theologians are heard on both sides, if dictating is
   avoided, and we are led, not by party-spirit, but by love of seeking
   the truth. The posthumous works of Lancelot [Bishop Andrewes],
   published A.D. 1629, aim at the same end. I propose to transcribe from
   these and other works of the like sort, and from those of the more
   peace-loving on our side, testimonies on each Article, side by side,
   and to send them to you." [442]

   Many at that time shared the feeling of Du Pin. "The whole town [Paris]
   rings of an union," reported Beauvoir to Archbishop Wake, "and many
   openly declare that they wish it." [443]

   Du Pin's decease, the change of political relations, the ascendency of
   the Jesuits, quenched the hope of the restoration of Union. But Du
   Pin's work of charity was like "bread cast upon the waters," to be
   found "after many days."

   The reconciliation of the whole Church I used to look to as an ultimate
   end, which might lie, as I trusted, in the secrets of God's Providence.

   With this hope I looked at the storms which have been gathering around
   the Roman Church, if so be she might, when imperilled, be willing to
   return to the relative position which she occupied in the fourth or
   fifth century. It is alleged that the Papal power has been the centre
   of unity. Christendom was united, when it was persecuted by Emperors,
   proscribed, and as they thought annihilated; when the Bishop of Rome
   had a precedence of dignity, not of power; and "the Church was
   connected and joined together by the cement of Bishops mutually
   cleaving to each other," [444] "each Bishop ordering and directing his
   own proceedings, having hereafter to give account of his intentions to
   the Lord." [445] One of the saddest parts of modern controversy, is the
   thought, how much is owing to forged writings; to what extent the
   prevailing system as to the B. V. came in upon the authority of
   writings which Roman Catholic critics now own to have been wrongly
   ascribed to the great Fathers whose names they bear; to what extent the
   present relation of Rome to the Eastern Church and to ourselves is
   owing to the forged Decretals.

   The subject is of so much moment, as bearing on the relation both of
   our own and of the Greek Church to the Roman, that I will set down the
   changes in the discipline of the Church, which Fleury ascribes to the
   forged Decretals. What he draws out at length is stated in summary not
   by English writers, but by Divines or Canonists in the Roman

   Communion, as Archbishop de Marca, [446] Van Espen, [447] Constant,
   [448] &c. Fleury then writes: [449]

   "Those who have read with some attention what I have given of this
   history, have doubtless remarked a great difference between the
   discipline of the first ten and that of the three following centuries.
   It was in truth greatly weakened from the tenth century, but this was
   hardly ever but from ignorance, and by actual transgressions, which
   were condemned immediately that men opened their eyes to recognize
   them. It was ever a settled point that the Canons and ancient tradition
   were to be followed. It is only from the twelfth century that new
   foundations have been built on, and principles unknown to antiquity
   followed. Even then antiquity was believed to be followed, while it was
   departed from: the evil is come from an error of fact, and from having
   taken for ancient that which was not so. For in general it has always
   been taught in the Church, that the tradition of the first centuries
   was to be kept to, as well for discipline as for doctrine. I have
   spoken of the false Decretals attributed to the Popes of the first
   three centuries, which are found in the collection of Isidore Mercator,
   and which appeared at the end of the eighth century, and I have marked
   the proofs which demonstrate their falsity. He was the source of the
   evil: ignorance of history and of criticism caused these Decretals to
   be received, and the new principles they contain to be taken for the
   doctrine of the purest antiquity. Bernald, Priest of Constance, writing
   towards the end of the eleventh century, says on the faith of these
   Decretals, that, according to the discipline of the Apostles and their
   successors, Bishops ought never or very hardly to be accused; admitting
   still that this discipline does not agree with the Nicene Council, And
   allowing that this Council has forbidden the translations of Bishops,
   he opposes to it, as more ancient, the Popes Euaris -tus, Callistus,
   and Anteros, who permitted them.

   "After the Roman Church had groaned a hundred and fifty years under
   many unworthy Popes who profaned the Holy See, God, casting a look of
   kindness on that first of Churches, gave to it Leo IX., whom his virtue
   has caused to be ranked in the number of the Saints, and who was
   followed, during the rest of the eleventh, and the whole ensuing
   century, by many other virtuous Popes, zealous for the restoration of
   discipline, as Gregory VII., Urban II., Pascal II, Eugenius III.,
   Alexander III. But the best intentions without enlightenment cause
   great faults; and the faster one runs on a dark road, the more frequent
   and dangerous are one's falls. These great Popes, finding the authority
   of the false Decretals so established that nobody thought of contesting
   it any longer, believed themselves obliged in conscience to maintain
   the principles which they read there, persuaded that it was the purest
   dis cipline of the Apostolic times and of the golden age of
   Christianity. But they did not perceive that they contain many
   principles contrary to those of genuine antiquity.
    1. "It is said in the false Decretals, that it is not allowable to
       hold a Council without the order, or at least permission, of the
       Pope. You, who have read this history, have you seen there any
       thing like it, I do not say in the first three centuries, but up to
       the ninth? I know that the authority of the Pope has always been
       necessary for General Councils, and thus is to be understood what
       the historian Socrates says, that there is a Canon which forbids
       the Churches to make any rule without the consent of the Bishop of
       Rome: and Sozomen says that the care of all the Churches belongs to
       him on account of the rank of his See. But as to Provincial and
       ordinary Councils, the Roman correctors of Gratian's Decretum have
       admitted, that the authority of the Pope is not necessary for them.
       In fact, is there the least trace of permission or consent of

     the Pope in all those Councils of which Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and
     Euse-bius make mention, whether about Easter, the Reconciliation of
     penitents, or the baptism of heretics? Was there mention of the Pope
     in those three great Councils of Alexandria, which were held on the
     matter of Arius before the Nicene Council? Was there mention of him
     in the Council of Constantinople, convoked by the Emperor Theodosius
     in 381? And yet the Pope S. Damasus and all the West consented to
     its decisions; so that it is counted for the second (Ecumenical
     Council. And I speak not of so many national Councils held in
     France, principally under the kings of the second race, and in Spain
     under the Gothic kings. When the Nicene Council ordered two Councils
     to be held yearly in each Province, did it suppose that they would
     send to Rome to ask permission? And how could one have sent so
     frequently thither from the furthest points of Asia or Africa? The
     holding of Provincial Councils was counted among the ordinary
     practices of religion, just as the celebration of the holy Sacrifice
     every Sunday. Nothing but the violence of persecutions interrupted
     the course of it; as soon as the Bishops found themselves at
     liberty, they recurred to it as the most efficacious means of
     maintaining discipline. Yet, in consequence of that new principle,
     scarcely any Councils have been held from the twelfth century save
     those at which Papal Legates have presided, and the custom of
     holding Councils has insensibly gone out.

    1. "It is said in the false Decretals that Bishops cannot be judged
       definitively save by the Pope alone, and that principle is often
       repeated there. Nevertheless you have seen a hundred examples of
       the contrary; and to take one of the most illustrious, Paul of
       Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, the first See of S. Peter, and the
       third city of the Roman Empire, was judged and deposed by the
       Bishops of the East and the neighbouring Provinces, without the
       participation of the Pope, whom they contented themselves with
       informing of it after it was done, as is seen by their synodal
       letter; and the Pope did not complain of it. Nothing is more
       frequent in the first nine centuries than the accusations and
       depositions of Bishops: but their trial took place in Provincial
       Councils, which were the ordinary tribunal for all Ecclesiastical
       causes. One must be absolutely ignorant of the history of the
       Church, to imagine that at any time or in any country it has ever
       been impossible to judge a Bishop without sending to Rome, or
       causing a commission to come from the Pope.
       "Without even knowing the facts, it only wants a little good sense
       to see that the thing was impossible. From the fourth century there
       was a prodigious number of Churches in Greece, in Asia, in Syria,
       in Egypt, and in Africa, without speaking besides of the West: and
       the greater number of Bishops were poor and unable to make great
       journeys: so that the Emperors defrayed their costs for the General
       Councils. How could one have made them come to Rome, and not them
       only, but their accusers and the witnesses, for the most part yet
       poorer? This, however, is what the author of the false Decretals
       must have supposed; and the absurdity of the supposition has
       appeared clearly, when the Popes wished to reduce it to practice.
       For instance, Gregory VII., sincerely persuaded that he alone was
       the competent judge of all Bishops, made them come daily from the
       end of Germany, France, or England. They had to quit their Churches
       for whole years, in order to go to Rome at great expense, to defend
       themselves against accusers who often did not appear there: delay
       was granted upon delay: the Pope gave commissions to take
       information on the spot, and after many journeys and long
       procedures he issued his definitive judgment, against which they
       came back under another pontificate. Often likewise the Bishop
       cited to Rome did not obey, either through incapacity to make the
       journey by sickness, poverty, or other impediment, or because he
       felt himself guilty: he despised the censures pronounced against
       him, and if the Pope chose to give him a successor, he defended
       himself by force. You have seen examples of this; and here are the
       inconveniences of wishing to reduce to practice what has never been
       practised, nor practicable.
       "It is true that, on rare occasions of a manifest oppression or a
       crying injustice, Bishops condemned by their Councils could have
       recourse to the Pope, as the superior of all Bishops and maintainer
       of the Canons: and this is the order of the Council of Sardica. But
       it directs that the Pope, whether he send a Legate or not, make the
       cause be reheard on the spot, because it is easy to impose on a
       distant judge. This is what S. Cyprian set forth in speaking of
       Basilides, a Spanish Bishop, who, having been deposed in his
       Province, had obtained from Pope S. Stephen, by concealing from him
       the truth, letters for his restoration, to which the Council of
       Africa paid no regard. And some years before, the same S. Cyprian,
       writing to

     Pope S. Cornelius respecting the schismatic Fortunatus, says these
     remarkable words: It is a rule among us that every guilty person be
     examined on the spot where the crime has been committed. Those then
     who are under us must not run hither and thither, and put disunion
     between the Bishops; let them plead their cause on the spot where
     they can have accusers and witnesses.' Thus it is that S. Cyprian
     speaks to the Pope himself, to whom Fortunas had carried his
     complaints. After all this, recourse to the Pope, permitted by the
     Council of Sardica, regarded chiefly extraordinary matters, and the
     Bishops of the greatest Sees, as S. Athanasius, S. John Chrysostome,
     S. Flavian of Constantinople, who had no other superior to whom to
     address themselves.

    1. "It is further the false Decretals, which have attributed to the
       Pope alone the right to translate Bishops from one See to another.
       Nevertheless the Council of Sardica and the rest, which have so
       strictly forbidden translations, have made no exception in favour
       of the Pope; and when, in very rare cases, some translation has
       been made for the evident utility of the Church, it was made by the
       authority of the Metropolitan and the Council of the Province. We
       have an illustrious example of this in the person of Euphronius of
       Colonia, whom S. Basil translated to the See of Nicopolis. Far from
       the Pope authorizing translations, the Roman Church was the most
       faithful in observing the canons which forbad them: during nine
       hundred years we do not find any Bishop translated to the See of
       Rome: Formosus was the first; and this was one of the pretexts for
       disinterring him after his death. But since the false Decretals
       have been followed, translations have been frequent in the West
       where they were unknown; and the Popes only condemned them when
       they were made without their authority, as we see in the letters of
       Innocent III.
    2. "It is the same with the erection of new Bishoprics: according to
       the false Decretals this belongs to the Pope alone: according to
       the ancient discipline it belonged to the Council of the Province,
       and there is an express Canon for it in the Councils of Africa. It
       is agreed that places, which have never had Bishops of their own,
       are not to receive them, save it be decreed by a plenary Council of
       each Province and the Primate, and with the consent of him to whose
       diocese the said Church belonged.' [450] And certainly, to consider
       only the progress of religion and the advantage of the faithful, it
       was much more reasonable to refer it to the Bishops of the country,
       to judge of the cities which had need of new Bishops, and to choose
       the proper persons, than to refer the judgment to the Pope, so
       distant and so little able to inform himself well of it. It is all
       very well to name commissioners, and take informations as to
       utility and inutility: these proceedings are never worth ocular
       inspection, and knowledge acquired by oneself. So when S. Augustine
       caused the new See of Fussala to be erected, he did not send to
       Rome, he only addressed himself to the Primate of Numidia: and if
       the Pope heard about it, it was only on account of the personal
       faults of the Bishop Antonius: but he did not complain that the
       erection of this Bishopric had been made without his participation.
       Nor had S. Eemi any more recourse to the Pope to found the
       Bishopric of Laon: but he did it, says Hincmar, by the authority of
       the Council of Africa, that is to say, of the Canon I have quoted.
       The reason is, that the Decretals, which gave this right to the
       Pope, were not yet fabricated.
    3. "As to the union or extinction of Bishoprics, I see no other reason
       for attributing them to the Pope alone, "but certain authorities of
       S. Gregory alleged by Gratian. But he did not observe that Gregory
       only acted so in the southern part of Italy, of which Rome was the
       metropolis; or in Sicily and the other islands, which depended
       particularly on the Holy See.
    4. "In the first centuries Metropolitan Sees were rare in proportion
       to the number of Bishoprics, in order that the Councils might
       consist of large numbers; for the principal function of
       Metropolitans was to preside in them. But since the Popes have been
       in possession of the power to found them, they have created,
       principally in Italy, a great number of Metropolitans without
       necessity, merely to honour certain cities.
       The Nicene Council, which doubtless had power to assign new
       prerogatives to Churches, says simply that their privileges shall
       be preserved according to ancient custom. This shows that the
       distinction of Metropolitan Sees and Patriarchal Churches had
       already been confirmed by a long possession. The

     Popes since the eleventh century have not only made Metropolitans,
     but even Patriarchs and Primates--all on the foundation of the false
     Decretals, that is, of the first letter attributed to S. Clement, of
     the second and third of Pope Anacletus, where it is said that the
     Apostles and their successors established Patriarchs and Primates in
     the cities, where, according to the civil government, the chief
     magistrates lived, and where the pagans had their archflamens, a
     barbarous title only found in these Decretals. Now you have seen
     that in the first centuries even the title of Archbishop was
     unknown: men said, the Bishop of Rome, or of Alexandria, as of the
     least city, and in their letters they treated each other as brethren
     with a perfect equality, as is seen by the inscriptions of the
     letters of S. Cyprian. In pro portion as charity grew cold, titles
     and ceremonies increased. The Bishop of Alexandria was the first, as
     is believed, who took the name of Archbishop, the Bishop of Antioch
     took that of Patriarch, and the name of Primate was peculiar to
     Africa. But the author of the false Decretals did not know so much,
     and he makes no mention of the title of Exarch so famous in Asia.

     "Nevertheless it was on the faith of this author that Gregory VII.
     established, or rather confirmed, the Primacy of Lyons, since he
     quotes in his Bull the words of the Decretal of Anacletus. It is on
     this same foundation that other Popes have pretended to found so
     many other Primacies, in France, in Spain, and elsewhere; supposing
     them ancient by an error of fact, as I have shown of each in
     particular. These erections being contrary to the ancient possession
     have produced great contests. You have seen with what vigour the
     Bishops of France rejected the Primacy which John VIII. had given to
     Ansegisus Archbishop of Sens; you have seen how they resisted
     afterwards the Primacy of Lyons, which a long possession has at
     length established: and how the Bishops of Spain opposed those of
     Toledo and Braga, which have never been well authorized. So it is
     not to be imagined that a Bull given without knowledge of the cause,
     as that of Calistus II. for the Primacy of Vienne, is sufficient to
     change at once the ancient state of Churches, in spite of the
     parties interested.

    1. "One of the greatest wounds which the false Decretals have
       inflicted on the discipline of the Church is that they have
       extended infinitely appeals to the Pope. It appears that the forger
       had this point greatly at heart, by the care he has taken to
       diffuse through all his work the maxim, that not only every Bishop,
       but every Priest, and generally every person, who finds himself
       harassed, may on every occasion appeal directly to the Pope. He has
       made as many as nine Popes speak on the subject, Anacletus, the
       first and second Sixtus, Fabian, Cornelius, Victor, Zephyrinus,
       Marcellus, and Julius. But S. Cyprian, who lived in the time of S.
       Fabian and S. Cornelius, not only opposed appeals, he has further
       shown solid reasons for not yielding to them; and in the time of S.
       Augustine the Church of Africa did not yet receive them, as it
       appears by the letter of the Council held in 426 to Pope Celestine.
       In fine, down to the ninth century, few examples are seen of these
       appeals in virtue of the Council of Sardica, save, as I have said,
       on the part of Bishops of the great Sees who had no other superiors
       beside the Pope.
       "But, since the false Decretals became known, nothing but appeals
       were seen through all the Latin Church. Hincmar, better instructed
       than the rest in the ancient discipline, vigorously opposed that
       novelty, maintaining that this remedy ought not to be granted but
       to Bishops at the most, not to Priests. You have seen afterwards
       the complaints of Ivo of Chartres, and of S. Bernard, against this
       abuse, which in their times had already reached its height. They
       showed that this liberty of appealing to the Pope in all matters,
       and at every of the cause, utterly enervated discipline: that bad
       Priests, and other impenitent offenders, had thereby a sure means
       to elude correction, or at least to defer it: that the Pope was
       often ill-informed, and obliged to retract the judgments which he
       had given by surprise: in fine, that the Bishops, repelled by, the
       length of the proceedings, by the expense and the fatigue of
       journeys, and by so many other difficulties, lost courage, and
       endured the disorders they could not hinder. The Popes found even
       themselves incommoded by that liberty of appeal on every occasion,
       which often retarded the execution of their orders; and hence comes
       the clause, notwithstanding appeal,' which passed into a phrase in
       their Bulls.
       "If S. Bernard rose with such vigour against that abuse, while
       supposing the necessity of appeals, what would he not have said had
       he known that their use was novel and founded on false documents?
       How much more strongly would he have spoken against that multitude
       of business with which the Pope was overwhelmed. He knew that,
       according to the maxims of the Gospel, a Bishop and a successor of
       the

     Apostles ought to be disengaged from temporal affairs, to give his
     time to prayer and the instruction of the people; but the authority
     of custom held him back, and for want of sufficient acquaintance
     with antiquity, and of knowing how the Popes had fallen into that
     embarrassment of business, he dared not speak out, and advise
     Eugenius to revert to the simplicity of the first centuries.

     "Nevertheless the description which this holy Doctor has left us of
     the court of Rome, makes us see, how much this new jurisprudence of
     the false Decretals had injured the holy See, under pretence of
     extending its authority. For S. Bernard represents to us the
     consistory of Cardinals as a parliament, or a sovereign tribunal,
     occupied with judging processes from morning to evening; and the
     Pope who presided there so overwhelmed with business, that he had
     scarcely a moment to breathe: the court of Rome full of advocates,
     solicitors, pleaders, impassioned, artful, and interested, seeking
     only to surprise each other, and enrich themselves at the expense of
     others. We form the same notion of it by the history of the Popes of
     the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and by their letters,
     especially those of Innocent III., where we see so prodigious a
     detail of the affairs of all Christendom. These letters alone were a
     terrible occupation: for even if the Pope did not compose them
     himself, it was at least necessary for him to have account of them
     given him, and to take cognizance of the most important matters. And
     how could a Pope so occupied find time for prayer, for the study of
     the holy Scriptures, for preaching, and the other essential duties
     of the Episcopate? I do not speak here of the cares which his rank
     as a temporal prince gave him: I shall come to that in course.

     "I see well that, by extending without measure the authority of the
     Pope, it was believed that a great advantage was gained for him, and
     his Primacy made to tell the more. One must have been then
     absolutely ignorant of the history of the Church, or have supposed
     that the greatest Popes, as S. Leo and S. Gregory, had neglected
     their rights, and suffered their dignity to be undervalued. For it
     is very certain in fact that they never exercised the authority
     marked in the Decretals of Isidore. But let us go a little deeper
     into things. Had not those holy Popes good reasons to act so? Had
     they not higher thoughts and a more perfect knowledge of religion,
     than Gregory VII. and Innocent III.? Vulgar men only seek their
     private interests: philosophers, who carry their thoughts further,
     see by merely natural reason that in every society the interest of
     each individual, even of him who governs, ought to yield to the
     interests of the whole society. Now we may not think that Jesus
     Christ established His Church on principles less pure than those of
     the pagan philosophers: so He has not proposed to those who govern
     His flock faithfully any advantage in. this life, but only an
     eternal recompense proportioned to their charity.

     "Let us all then candidly admit, that the Popes of the five or six
     first centuries had reason to consider the advantage of the Church
     Universal preferably to that which might appear serviceable to their
     person or their See. Let us further admit, that the advantage of the
     Church required, that all matters should be judged on the spot by
     those who could do it with the greatest knowledge and facility; that
     the Bishops, especially their chief, should be turned aside as
     little as was possible from their spiritual and essential functions;
     and that each one of them should remain fixed in the Church where
     God had put him, given up continually to instruct and sanctify his
     people. Can one compare to such real goods the sad advantage of
     rendering the Pope terrible through all the earth; and of causing to
     come to Rome from all sides Bishops and Clergy, either through fear
     of censures, or for hope of favours?

     "I know that that crowd of Prelates and other foreigners, whom
     divers interests drew to Rome, brought thither great riches, and
     that its people fattened at the expense of all others; but I am
     ashamed to mention such an advantage in a matter of religion. Was
     then the Pope established at Rome to make it rich, or to make it
     holy? And did not S. Gregory fulfil the duty of common Father
     better, when by his alms he spread so abundantly through all the
     Provinces the immense revenues of the Roman Church? Now those Popes
     who made Rome rich did not make it holy; it even seems that they
     despaired of being able to do it, according to the frightful picture
     which S. Bernard has given us of the Roman people in his day.
     Nevertheless it was the first duty of a Pope, as their Bishop, to
     labour for their conversion; and he was more obliged to this, than
     to judge so many processes between foreigners.

     "Gratian's Decretum completely established and extended the
     authority of the false Decretals, which are found scattered
     everywhere there; for during more than three centuries no other
     Canons than those of this collection were known, no others were
     followed in the schools and tribunals. Gratian had even

     gone beyond these Decretals, to extend the authority of the Pope,
     maintaining that he was not subject to the Canons; which he says out
     of his own head, and without adducing any proof of authority. Thus
     was formed in the Latin Church a confused idea that the power of the
     Pope was without limits; that principle once laid down, many
     corollaries have been drawn from it beyond the points formally
     expressed in the false Decretals, and the new theologians have not
     sufficiently distinguished these opinions from the essential of the
     Catholic Faith, touching the Primacy of the Pope, and the rules of
     the ancient discipline.

     "Besides what regards the Pope, Gratian has put into his Decretum
     new maxims respecting the immunity of Clerks, who cannot, as he
     maintains, be judged by the laity in any case; and to prove it he
     cites several articles of the false Decretals, and the pretended law
     of Theodosius adopted by Charlemagne to extend excessively the
     jurisdiction of Bishops. He joins to them a maimed citation from a
     novelle of Justinian, which, when complete, asserts just the
     reverse. Nevertheless, this constitution so altered was the
     principal ground on which S. Thomas of Canterbury resisted the king
     of England with a firmness which drew upon him persecution, and at
     length martyrdom. The principle was false at the bottom, but it
     passed for true with the most skilful Canonists.

     "You have just seen into what inconveniences men fell from having
     believed in false documents. It became a custom besides to receive
     without selection all sorts of narrations, for want of principles to
     distinguish them; and thence came so many fabulous legends, so many
     false miracles, so many visions, and frivolous stories, as we see
     amongst others in the dialogues of the monk Cesarius.

     "The principles cited by Gratian touching the immunity of Clerks are
     the foundation of the answer, which Pope Innocent III. made to the
     Emperor of Constantinople at the commencement of his pontificate,
     and from which is drawn a celebrated Decretal. In this letter the
     Pope gives forced explanations to the passage of S. Peter, alleged
     by the Emperor to show that all Christians without exception ought
     to be subject to the temporal power. The Apostle, he says, spoke
     thus to excite the faithful to humility: the king is sovereign, but
     only of those who receive from him temporal things, that is to say,
     the laity: as if the Church had not also received her temporalities
     from the secular power. The Pope continues: that the prince has not
     received the power of the sword over all the wicked, but only over
     those who, using the sword, are subject to his jurisdiction. By
     which he understands still laymen alone, to procure for criminal
     Clerks exemption from temporal punishments, that is to say,
     impunity. He adds that no one ought to judge the servant of another,
     supposing that Clerks are not the servants of the prince. In fine he
     cites the allegory of the two great luminaries which God has placed
     in the heaven, to signify, says he, the two great dignities, the
     pontifical and the royal: as if in a serious discussion it was
     allowable to advance as a principle an arbitrary allegory, which one
     has only to deny in order to refute. It is thus that the most formal
     authorities of the Scriptures were eluded, in order to support
     prejudices drawn from the false Decretals.

     "Now Pope Innocent III. could not address himself worse than to a
     Greek Emperor, in order to broach these principles unknown to
     antiquity. The Latin princes, ignorant for the most part to the
     degree that they could not read, believed in these matters all that
     the Clerks told them, of whom they took counsel; and these Clerks
     had all studied in the same schools, and drawn from the same source,
     the Decretum of Gratian. Among the Greeks all respectable persons
     studied, laymen as well as Clerks; and instructed themselves in the
     original books, Scripture, the Fathers, the ancient Canons; but they
     were not acquainted with the false Decretals fabricated in the West
     and written in Latin. So they had preserved the ancient discipline
     on all the points which I have here marked. You have seen that all
     their Bishops, and even their Patriarchs, were judged and often
     deposed in Councils; that permission was not asked of the Pope to
     assemble them, nor appeal made to him from their judgments. He was
     not applied to for the translations of Bishops, or the founding of
     Bishoprics: the Canons, comprised in the ancient code of the Greek
     Church, were followed. I do not say that this Church was exempt from
     abuses; I have marked many on different occasions, and I know that
     the Patriarchs of Constantinople had claimed an excessive authority
     by the favour of the Emperors, who had even much encroached on the
     Ecclesiastical power; but still the ancient formalities were always
     outwardly maintained, the Canons were known and respected.

     "You will say, perhaps, one must not be astonished that the Greeks
     did not apply to the Pope, either for appeals, or for all the rest,
     since from the time of Photius they no longer recognized him as head

     of the Church.' But did they apply to him before? And in the times
     when they were most united with the Roman Church did they observe
     any thing of that which I call the new discipline? They were far
     enough from doing it, since the Latins themselves did it not, and
     this discipline was yet unknown to all the Church. Moreover, do not
     deceive yourself in that, the schism of the Greeks is not so ancient
     as is commonly believed: I will show it in another discourse but in
     the mean time I remark to you, that it scarcely took shape before
     the taking of "Constantinople by the Latins. Besides, I do not see
     that in the disputes we have had with the Greeks, from the time of
     Leo IX., and Michael Cerularius, we have reproached them with
     holding Councils without the Pope's permission, and the rest of the
     points in question; and I do not see any more that Gregory VII. and
     his successors have cited to Rome Greek Bishops, and treated them as
     they treated the Latin; they knew well that they would not have
     obeyed."

   Then after two sections on the temporal power of the Pope (as being
   equally derived from a forgery, the donation of Constantine), and its
   evils, he resumes:--
    1. "The spiritual power of the Pope having extended itself to such a
       degree by the conclusions drawn from the false Decretals, he was
       obliged to commit his powers to others: for it was impossible that
       he should go everywhere, or cause everybody to come to him. Hence
       came the Legations so frequent from the eleventh century. Now the
       Legates were of two sorts, Bishops or Abbots of the country, or
       Cardinals sent from Ro me. Legates taken on the spot were further
       different: the one established by a particular commission of the
       Pope, the other by the prerogative of their See, and these called
       themselves Legati nati, as the Archbishops of Mayence, and
       Canterbury. The Legates come from Rome called themselves Legates a
       latere, to mark that the Pope had sent them from his person, and
       this expression was drawn from the Council of Sardica.
       "The Legati nati did not willingly endure the Pope's naming others
       to the prejudice of their privileges, but the Pope had more
       confidence in those he had chosen, than in Prelates with whom he
       was little acquainted, or who suited him not. Now, amongst those
       whom he chose, the most favourable were they whom he took on the
       spot, because they were mo re capable of judging and ordering with
       knowledge of the cause than foreigners come from a distance. So you
       have seen with what urgency Ivo of Chartres begged the Popes not to
       send these foreign Legates. They were not received in England, any
       more than in France, unless they had been asked for by the king.
       The Bishops hardly endured seeing themselves presided over by
       foreign Bishops, still less by a Cardinal Priest or Deacon, under
       pretext of his being Legate, for until then all Bishops took rank
       before Cardinals which were not so.
       "But what rendered the Legates a latere more odious was their
       pride, luxury, and avarice. They travelled neither at their own
       expense nor that of the Pope, but of the country whither they were
       sent; and they went in great pomp, that is, with a suite of at
       least twenty-five horses, for to this the third Council of Lateran
       had limited them. Wherever they passed, they caused themselves to
       be treated magnificently by the Bishops and Abbots, to such a
       degree that the monasteries were sometimes reduced to sell the
       sacred vessels of their Churches to provide for such expenses. You
       have seen complaints of this. Nor was this all: they must have
       presents made them besides; they received such from the princes to
       whom they were directed, and often from the parties to whom they
       rendered justice; at least the expeditions were not gratuitous. In
       fine, the Legations were gold mines for the Cardinals, and they
       returned from them generally laden with riches. You have seen what
       S. Bernard said of it, and with what admiration he speaks of a
       disinterested Legate.
       "The most ordinary result of a Legation was a Council, which the
       Legate convoked at the place and time that he judged suitable. He
       presided there, and decided the affairs which came up, and
       published certain rules of discipline, with approbation of the
       Bishops, who for the most part did nothing else but applaud; for it
       does not appear that there was much deliberation. Thus were
       insensibly abolished the Provincial Councils, which each
       Metropolitan was bound to hold every year according to the Canons:
       the dignity of the Archbishops, overshadowed by that of the
       Legates, degenerated into titles and ceremonies,

     such as having a pall and causing a cross to be borne before them;
     but they had no longer authority over their suffragans, and Councils
     of Legates only were now seen. Now, to remark it in passing, I doubt
     not that the frequent Legations have been the source of the
     distinguished rank which the Cardinals of the Roman Church have
     since held: for each Church had its own, that is to say, Priests and
     Deacons attached to certain titles. But as in these Councils the
     Cardinal Legates were seen above not only Bishops, but Archbishops,
     Primates, and Patriarchs, men became accustomed to join in the title
     of Cardinal the idea of a dignity which only yielded to that of the
     Pope. The state dress of the Cardinals confirms this thought: the
     cape and hat were the dress on a journey, which belonged to the
     Legates: red was the colour of the Pope, and it was the better to
     represent him that the Legates wore it, according to the remark of a
     Greek historian.

     "Here, however, is one of the greatest changes which the discipline
     of the Church has suffered, the cessation of the Provincial
     Councils, and the diminution of the authority of the Metropolitans.
     Was, then, that beautiful order, so .wisely established from the
     birth of the Church, and so advantageously practised during eight or
     ten centuries, to be overturned without deliberation, without
     inquiry, without cognizance of cause? But what reason could have
     been alleged for it? Were foreign Legates, who knew not either the
     manners or the language of the country, and who only sojourned there
     in passing, more proper than the ordinary pastors to judge in
     differences, and restore discipline? And when they had published
     fine rules in a Council, could they be assured that these would be
     observed after their departure, if the Bishops did not lend their
     hand to it? Let us conclude upon this point as upon the rest, the
     ancient discipline has not been changed to establish a better. Thus
     we do not see that, during the frequent Legations, religion has been
     more flourishing.

     "The Bishops and Metropolitans were so ignorant of their rights,
     that they sought with eagerness for the powers of Legates, not
     considering the advantage of a proper and independent, though less,
     authority, over one more extended, but borrowed and precarious. It
     seemed they could do nothing any longer by themselves, unless the
     authority of the Pope supported them: and the Pope willingly granted
     them these favours, which they could have done without, and which
     always extended his power. It is the same, in proportion, with the
     custom, so frequent then, of causing agreements made between
     Churches, and donations to their profit, to be confirmed by the
     Pope: as if these acts would have been less valid without the
     confirmation. Right is assumed by favours asked without necessity:
     and claims are so made to render them necessary."

   Then, after a section on evils from the large subsidies to Rome, in
   order to support the Court of Rome, when from the eleventh century the
   Popes were compelled to quit Rome, he resumes:--
    1. "I well feel that it is sad to direct notice to these unedifying
       facts: and I fear that those who have more piety than enlightenment
       may derive thence occasion of offence. They will perhaps say, that
       these facts should have been dissembled in the history, or that,
       after having reported them, they ought not to have had attention
       drawn to them in a treatise. But truth is the foundation of
       history: and to suppress a part of it is not to recount it truly."
       ..." If these disorders had in such sense ceased, that no vestige
       of them any more remained, perhaps they might have been left buried
       in eternal oblivion; but we see only too much their fatal
       consequences. The heresies which for two hundred years [1723] have
       been rending the Church, the ignorance and superstition which reign
       in some Catholic countries, the corruption of morality by new
       maxims, are but too sensible effects of them. And is it not useful
       to know whence evils so great have come?"

   And after further reflections of the same sort:--

     ... "Can one still, in the light of our century, maintain the
     donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Isidore? And if these
     documents cannot be defended, can one approve the results drawn from

     them? Let us then candidly admit that Gregory VII. and Innocent
     III., deceived by these documents, and the bad reasonings of the
     theologians of their times, have pushed their authority too far, and
     have rendered it odious by stretching it: and let us not attempt to
     support excesses, of which we see the causes and the fatal effects.
     For at last, whatever one may say, it is evident that the first
     centuries furnish us with a greater number of holy Popes than the
     last, and that the manners and discipline of the Roman Church were
     much purer. Now it is not credible that the Popes have begun to know
     their rights, and to exercise their power in its full extent, only
     since their life has been less edifying, and their especial flock
     less well regulated. This reflection supplies a disagreeable
     prejudice against the new maxims.

    1. "Of all the changes of discipline, I see none which has brought the
       Church into greater disrepute, than the rigour exercised against
       heretics and other excommunicated persons."

   He then contrasts the principles of the Ancient Church, as evinced in
   the case of the Priscillianists, in S. Augustine as to the Manichees
   and others, with the practice after the eighth century. His last head
   is, "The Changes in Penitences:"--

     "I finish these sad reflections by the change introduced into
     penitences. Public penitences were turned into torments and temporal
     penalties." ... 16. "It is true that the multitude of indulgences,
     and the facility of gaining them, were a great obstacle to the zeal
     of the most enlightened confessors. It was difficult to persuade a
     sinner to fast and discipline himself, who could buy off this by a
     trifling alms, or the visit of a Church. For the Bishops of the
     twelfth and thirteenth centuries granted these indulgences to all
     sorts of pious works, as the building of a church, the maintenance
     of an hospital, in fact every public work, a bridge, a causeway, the
     pavement of a high road. These indulgences were indeed but a part of
     the penitence, but if several of them were joined, the whole might
     be bought off. These are the indulgences which the 4th Lateran
     Council calls (Can. 62.) indiscreet and superfluous,' which render
     the keys of the Church contemptible, and unnerve the satisfaction of
     penitence. To repress this abuse, the Lateran Council directs that
     at the dedication of a Church the indulgence given should not exceed
     a year, even if several Bishops should be present: for each claimed
     to give his own."

   Then, after some more observations on the relaxation of the ancient
   discipline by indulgences, he concludes:--

     "Here I end by remarking to you what I think I have proved, that the
     changes which have taken place in the discipline of the Church since
     the last five or six hundred years, have not been introduced by the
     authority of Bishops and Councils, to correct the ancient practice:
     but by negligence, by ignorance, by error, founded on false
     documents, as the Decretals of Isidore, and on the bad reasonings of
     the scholastic Doctors. God grant that we may profit by the favour
     He has shown us of being born in a more enlightened age; and that if
     we cannot bring back the ancient discipline, we may at least know
     how to esteem it, revere, and regret it."

   Fleury says in another place, of the supposititious writings after the
   seventh century,

     "Of all these false documents the most pernicious were the Decretals
     attributed to the Popes of the first four centuries, which have
     inflicted an incurable wound on the discipline of the Church, by the
     new

     maxims which they introduced concerning the judgments of the
     Bishops, and the authority of the Pope."

   [451]

   The forgery of the Decretals after they had "passed for true during
   eight centuries" [452] was owned by all, even in the Church of Borne.
   But the system built upon the forgery abides still. The Greek Church
   could not be admitted to Communion with the West, without merging its
   whole Patriarchal or Episcopal system, such as it inherited from the
   times of the undivided Church, so that her Bishops should be the mere
   delegates of the Roman Pontiff, liable to be deposed at his mere will,
   as the eighty French Bishops were by Pope Pius VII. in his Concordat
   with Napoleon 1. [453] Our Communion was rejected, because our
   forefathers used the same freedom which the Church of S. Augustine
   enjoyed. Yet what of human authority Rome clings to in her day of
   power, she may exchange for the strength of union in a day of weakness.
   Concordats have been one step in this direction since the Reformation.
   The times are in God's Hands. I used to think that our office in this
   day was that of him who "arbores serit, quse alteri prosint saeculo."
   We seemed to me in the position of the Heaven-controlled Seer, "I see
   Him, but not nigh; I behold Him, but not now." And meanwhile our office
   was within ourselves. We could not propose union, while we ourselves
   are so disunited. I hoped that the pressing storm of unbelief, which I
   have seen in the distance these forty years, would drive together those
   who love Jesus. I hoped that, as we became united in the truth and in
   the characteristic principles of our Church, those other great portions
   of the Church, East and West, would see that "God is in us of a truth."
   While we we said Bishop Andrewes's prayer for the Catholic Church,
   Oikoumenikh, Anatolikh, Dutikh, Hmetera, we hoped that the time was
   drawing on, when "Eastern, Western, our own," would melt, in visible
   communion too, into the one "OEcumenical."

   What times may be coming on the earth, He Alone knoweth, Whose they
   are. Troubles are threatening our Western Christendom everywhere.
   Whether or how they shall break, or whether they shall be averted, God
   Alone knoweth. We only know that, before our Lord shall come, there
   will be "s uch [454] tribulation as hath never been before," and "the
   [455] apostasy," an apostasy so great that former apostasies (even that
   awful apostasy through Mohammed) shall not deserve the name; and such
   "deceivableness of Satan," [456] that, "if possible, they should
   deceive the very elect." [457]

   From this trouble the Roman Church has no more ground of exemption than
   our

   own. Our Lord's words, "When [458] the Son of Man cometh, shall He find
   the faith on the earth? "seem to imply that, ere He comes, the
   objective faith, "the faith,"--not only as the life of individuals, but
   as held by the Church,--"the Catholic faith," will be very much
   obscured, and may be found among few only. We have not seen such a
   triumph of Satan over the faith here, as that reign of his in the
   capital of France. Faber anticipated a new "Age of Mary," which was to
   be connected "with the Second Advent of her Son." Alas! who shall say
   what will be the cause of the falling away before that Second Advent?
   De Montford speaks of those as "the free-thinkers of these [his]
   times," who did not believe that the Holy Trinity has made the Blessed
   Virgin the dispensatrix of all which They possess and will bestow upon
   man. Several of the Roman Catholic Bishops wrote of the belief in the
   Immaculate Conception, before it was declared an Article of faith, as
   being so believed as "of faith," that for their people to doubt of it,
   would be to doubt of all. What then, as I said, if they should discover
   hereafter that so much, which they have been taught as certain truth in
   regard to the Blessed Virgin, has no Divine foundation? There must be
   some terrible inward cause, why so large a portion of the Church shall
   lose faith, as, it seems probable, will lose it before our Lord comes.
   The victims of Antichrist must have lost Christ out of their hearts
   already. Shocking as it is to think of, the collapse of an ungrounded
   system as to the prerogatives of her, whom God, by His wondrous
   condescension, has brought into a nearer relation to Himself than any
   other mere created being, might shake the whole faith of those whose
   faith was worked into one with it. People are taught that to believe in
   Christ involves all this vast belief in the Blessed Virgin, coextensive
   with the belief in Him. What if this should fail? Such an "Age of
   Mary," as Faber anticipates, might, not unconceivably, by the collapse
   of the belief, bury in the ruins the faith in Jesus also. It is very
   observable how the presence of the English Church keeps this belief
   from taking the forms which it does where it is unchecked. This may be
   one of her offices in God's hands. She preserves the entire faith, such
   as our Lord left it with the Apostles, to evangelize the world. She
   believes all which the undivided Church believed, as of faith. Why
   should not the Church again be united in that faith which she held,
   before a miserable quarrel first caused her disunion? Pious Roman
   Catholics too have felt that the Churches are mutually weakened, that
   faith and morals and life are alike injured in each by these mutual
   divisions. Apart from other evils, the strength is wasted against each
   other, which should be concentrated against the common foe of Jesus and
   of all who are His.

   The organic reunion of Christendom, and of the Protestant bodies too,
   has been held to be possible, even by the Ultramontanes in the Roman
   Church. Cardinal Wiseman quoted, nearly a quarter of a century ago, the
   expressions of "the profound and pious Möhler." "After observing," he
   says, [459] "that no Catholic can refuse to acknowledge with
   humiliation the corruptions of past ages, that this proof lies in the
   very existence of

   Protestantism which could not have existed without them; he thus
   concludes: [460] Apprenez done une fois, ô Protestants, la grandeur des
   abus que vous nous reprochez sur la grandeur de vos propres égarements.
   Voilà le terrain, sur lequel les deux églises se recontreront un jour,
   et se donneront la main. Dans le sentiment de nôtre faute commune, nous
   devons nous écrier, et les uns et les autres, Nous avons tous manqués,
   l'Eglise seule ne peut faillir; nous avons tous pêchés, l'Eglise seule
   est pure de toute souillure.'"

   You will well remember the glowing words of our friend, [461] who is at
   once a statesman and a theologian, earnest for the cause of Christ, and
   zealous for His truth and His Church.

   "The name of the Count De Maistre has become one of European celebrity.
   He is one of the writers who have had the very largest share in shaping
   the modern tendencies of the devout and energetic portion of the Roman
   Catholics of Western Europe. He is, unhappily, of the most strictest
   sect' of that Church; of that Ultramontane school which has been from
   its first origin alike needful and dangerous to the Roman system; and
   he has defined its principles with even an augmented sharpness, and
   wound them up to a higher intensity than they had before attained.

   "Yet listen to the words in which he writes of the Church of England:--

   "Si jamais les Chrétiens se rapprochent, comme tout les y invite, il
   semble que la motion doit partir de 1'Eglise de l'Angleterre. Le
   presbytérianisme fut une oeuvre Francaise, et par conséquent une oeuvre
   exagérée. Nous sommes trop éloignés des sectateurs d'un culte trop peu
   substantiel; il n'y a pas moyen de nous entendre; mais l'Eglise
   Anglicane, qui nous touche d'une main, touche de l'autre ceux que nous
   ne pouvons toucher; et quoique, sous un certain point de vue, elle soit
   en butte aux coups des deux partis, et qu'elle présente le spectacle un
   peu ridicule d'un révolté qui prêche l'obeissance, cependant elle est
   très précieuse sous d'autres aspects, et pent être considérée comme une
   de ces intermèdes chimiques, capable d'approcher des élémens
   inassociables de leur nature.' [462]

   "It is now sixty years since thus a stranger and an alien, a stickler
   to the extremest point for the prerogatives of his Church, and nursed
   in every prepossession against ours, nevertheless, turning his eye
   across the Channel, although he could then only see her in the lethargy
   of her organization and the dull twilight of her learning, could
   nevertheless discern that there was a very special work written of God
   for her in Heaven, and that she was VERY PRECIOUS to the Christian
   world. Oh! how serious a rebuke to those who, not strangers, but
   suckled at her breast not two generations back, but the witnesses now
   of her true and deep repentance and of her reviving faith and love, yet
   (under whatever provocation) have written concerning her even as men
   might write that were hired to make a case against her, and by an
   adverse instinct in the selection of evidence, and a severity of
   construction, such as no history of the deeds of man can bear, have
   often, too

   often in these last years, put her to an open shame.

   "But what a word of hope and encouragement to every one who, as
   convinced in his heart of the glory of her providential mission, should
   unshrinkingly devote himself to defending within her borders the full
   and whole doctrine of the Cross, with that mystic symbol now as ever
   gleaming down on him from Heaven, now as ever showing forth its
   inscription--in hoc signo vinces."

   And now God seems again to be awakening the yearning to be visibly one,
   and He Who Alone, the Author of peace and the Lover of concord, must
   have put it into men's minds to pray for the Unity of Christendom,
   will, in His time, we trust, fulfil the prayer which He Himself has
   taught. It is not our insular self-importance; it is from beyond the
   seas that the voice has come, yea, it is, we trust, His Voice, "Who
   ruleth the seas and the noise of his waves, and the tumult of the
   people," Who has called to us to prepare ourselves to be such as He may
   employ for the reunion of Christendom. The authorities of the great
   Russian Church (we hear, as sounds floating on the breeze) look
   favourably on the wish for restored communion. Our position gives us an
   advantage towards her also: because, while we are widespread enough to
   be no object of contempt, there can be no dread on either side of any
   interference with the self-government of each, in the portion of God's
   heritage which, in His Providence, each occupies. We have no ground to
   fear in regard to her, lest she should force back upon us that vast
   practical system, still prevalent in the Western Church, which was one
   occasion, and is the justification, of our isolated condition. We had
   nothing to do with the great schism of the East and West. Convinced
   that (as the Council of Florence states) the Greek and Latin Fathers,
   though using different language, meant the same as to the Procession of
   God the Holy Ghost, we should have nothing to ask of her,--except
   Communion. With regard to her too, we may have a Providential Office,
   that we too have received the Filioque, not by any act of our own, but
   as circulated insensibly throughout the Latin Church; [463] and while
   we could not part with what, through so many centuries, has been the
   expression of our common faith, we might still reject with Anathema the
   heresy [464] which, since Photius, has been imputed to it, and which
   the Greek Church now seems, by an inveterate prejudice, to think to be
   involved in it. Yet it is plain that, long after the schism, her great
   writers and Bishops did not think so. Else they could not have proposed
   to the Latin Church, only to remove the word from the Creed, while
   continuing to teach or sing it

   elsewhere as they pleased. [465] For had they thought the formula to
   contain heresy, "this would have involved connivance in, and assent to,
   heresy. But if the objection lies only to the informality or mistake of
   altering the common Creed, this, it seems, was unintentional on the
   part of the Western Church; [466] and we clearly had nothing to do with
   it; nor had we with what seems to have been a mistake [467] on the part
   of the Council of Florence who, laying down that the two formulae had
   been used in the same sense by the great fathers, the 6ta rov Tlov by
   the Greek, the Filioque by the Latin, drew the strange inference that
   the Greek should adopt the formula used by the Latin fathers. We had no
   share in this; we only ask to continue to use the formula, which,
   without any act of our own, has been the expression of our faith
   immemorially. The Greeks, who value so much an inherited faith, could
   not, we trust, be insensible to the claim. If, on such terms and on
   such explanations of our belief as she may require and we could give,
   communion should be restored between us, a great step would have been
   gained towards the reunion of all Christendom.

   The largeness of the hopes and longings may, we trust, draw down the
   more favour from Him Who "maketh men to be of one mind in one house." A
   plan, which should embrace the Greek Church also, would facilitate what
   English Catholics most desire, authoritative explanations. Cardinal
   Wiseman, in his memorable letter to Lord Shrewsbury, laid down as a
   principle, "We [468] must explain to the utmost." The Church of England
   and the Council of Trent have long seemed to me at cross purposes. In
   some cases, at least, the Council of Trent proposed the minimum, of
   which it would accept, but left a maximum, far beyond the letter of the
   Council, to be thereafter, as it was before, the practical system of
   the Church. The Church of England, in her Articles, protested against
   that maximum, the practical system which she saw around her; but, in
   many cases, she laid down no doctrine at all on the subject upon which
   she protested. She made negative

   statements to show against what she protested, but. set down no
   positive statement to explain what, on the same subject, she accepted.
   Thus, in view of a Council, which was expected to be under Italian
   influence, and in which she did not expect to be fairly heard, she
   protested that "General Councils may and have erred "(which is so far
   true); but since she was employed only on the defensive on one side,
   she left it to be gathered from elsewhere that there are Councils which
   were "allowed and received of all men," [469] which she also accepted.
   And so, as to other points also. It may be that, on any such
   negotiations, she might offer such explanations of the Thirty-nine
   Articles, as the Roman and Greek Churches would accept, such as are
   suggested by Bossuet, [470] or by the Commonitorium of Du Pin; or,
   according to the precedent of the Council of Florence, the Thirty-nine
   Articles and the Council of Trent (which was so largely directed
   against errors of Luther) might pass away and be merged in the Eighth
   General Council of the once-more united Christendom. It is not, we
   trust, without some great purpose of His love, that God has so
   marvellously preserved the English Church until now. Life is the token
   of God's Presence in the Church; for out of Him there is no life. Dr.
   Manning grants, as to individuals in the English Church, that, in
   common with all the baptized, they, having been in Baptism made the
   children of God and members of Christ, are, if they have continued in
   that grace, members of Christ still. He admits, what he cannot deny
   without heresy, that they are real Christians. Even as to the number of
   these he cast doubts. He dwells [471] on the fact, that many of the
   English people are unbaptized (these are, of course, not members of any
   Church); he leaves out of the question all who have fallen from
   Baptismal grace by mortal sin, only speaking of "the [472] great
   difficulty and uncertainty of their restoration." And then he speaks of
   a small residuum whom he supposes to live on and grow in the grace
   which they received at their Baptism. His mode of admitting the fact
   implies his opinion of the rareness of such cases. Catholic [473]
   missionaries have known it as a fact, and he himself, too, as to some
   whom they have received into the Church. "There [474] are to be found
   amongst the English people individuals who practise in a high degree
   the four cardinal virtues, and, in no small degree, though with the
   limits and blemishes inseparable from their state, the three

   theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, infused into them in
   their Baptism." And so he comes to the result, that in England too, as
   well as in every other country, separate from the communion of Rome,
   there are indeed some few who grow up in Baptismal grace, some who
   have, in some imperfect degree, faith, hope, and charity, and these
   last chiefly among the dissenters, whose piety, he says, "is [475] more
   like the personal service of disciples to a personal Master, than the
   Anglican piety, which has always been more dim and distant from this
   central light of souls." With the exception of these few, the rest are,
   according to him, in a doubtful state, which he does not describe, yet
   which, since it is the result of a fall from grace given and since a
   Christian's sins are against light, is a state worse than heathenism,
   except for the possibility of an uncertain and difficult recovery. To
   the Church of England he accords nothing which does not exist in any
   Protestant body except something of the idea of a Church (which,
   according to him, we have not), and some probably inoperative truth,
   and some heathen virtues, since what piety we have, or have had, is and
   always has been, according to him, "more dim and distant from the
   central light of souls," Jesus. I say, "heathen virtues; "for the
   cardinal virtues, fortitude, justice, prudence, temperance, although of
   course they cannot be practised, without the grace of God, are yet,
   while unanimated by the special Christian graces of Faith, Hope, and
   Charity, only heathen virtues, such as heathen have practised, with the
   grace of God. Specifically Dr. Manning denies "the validity of our
   Orders [476] and absolutions," and, with our Orders, whatever depends
   upon Orders.

   The Church of England, then, according to him, teaches her children
   falsely, that in the Holy Eucharist "the Body and Blood of Christ
   preserve their bodies and souls unto

   eternal life; "for, according to him, the Holy Eucharist among us is
   but "the empty sign of an absent thing." She ordains her priests,
   according to him, with lying words, "Receive the Holy Ghost, for the
   office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto
   thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they
   are forgiven; "since he holds that the Holy Ghost is not given, and
   that sins remitted by them are not remitted. In like way he holds that
   she requires of her Priests to pronounce a material lie in the Name of
   the God of Truth, since we are directed to say, "By His [our Lord Jesus
   Christ's] authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins
   in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,"
   whereas he denies that we have any authority committed to us, or do at
   all absolve.

   And yet God blesseth through these Sacraments; and God blesseth through
   truth. If a Wesleyman minister preaches his naked Gospel, that "we are
   all sinners," that "Christ died to save sinners," that "He bids all
   sinners come to Him," and saith, "whoso cometh unto Me, I will in no
   wise cast out," this is, of course, fundamental Gospel-truth, and, when
   God blesses through it those who know no more, He blesseth them through
   faithful reception of His truth. So again, as to the Presbyterians.
   They deny, in regard to the Holy Communion, what we believe; and their
   account of their Communion is somewhat less than what we mean by a
   spiritual Communion. For they speak, rather, of "ascending in mind into
   heaven," and feeding upon Jesus there by faith, than of praying Him to
   come by His Spirit into the soul. I mean, that the Calvinist
   Confessions seems to me to speak rather of man's part than of His; of
   what faith, enabled by Him, does, than of what it receives. Still, be
   this as it may, they speak of a religious act; and although (as some of
   them say) there is no need, to this end, of any thing outward, and what
   they describe might be done in every prayer, still, doubtless, He Whom,
   they seek, is found by them, for that which they seek. They seek a
   spiritual communion, and doubtless God admits them to that spiritual
   communion with Him which they desire. Nay, in Baptism He gives them
   more than they know of or believe. With the Church of England, it
   would, according to Dr. Manning's statement, be the very contrary of
   all this. We believe, when we confess our sins, that, coming in
   repentance and in faith, "our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath left power to
   His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him,
   of His great Mercy forgives" [477] us our "offences;" and that it is
   "by His authority committed to" His servants, that we are "absolved
   from all our sins in the Name" of the All-Holy Trinity. We believe that
   in Holy Communion we, coming with the right dispositions, "verily and
   indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ;" [478] that "we
   so eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies
   are made clean by His Body, and our souls are washed by His most
   precious Blood." [479] "According to thy faith," our gracious Lord
   said, "be it unto thee." I do not believe that God maintains the faith,
   where there is not the reality. The Lutherans set out with a belief of
   the Real

   Presence, clearly expressed, except that Luther degraded the Sacrament,
   by making it a mere sign to faith. But since they had no Orders, the
   belief died out. No other body, which is not admitted to have the true
   Sacrament, claims to have it. Aquinas says, in the name of the Western
   Church, [480] "A priest consecrates validly, in heresy or schism,
   although he sins in so doing." Heretics, who are really cut off from
   the Body of Christ, receive the Sacrament, though not the grace of the
   Sacrament. We have the witness that we have really the true Body and
   Blood of Christ and the grace of the Sacrament: 1) from the knowledge
   of those who receive it. God would not allow His own to be deluded in
   such a matter as this. 2) In the supernatural lives of grace, led by
   persons, the life of whose souls is Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I do
   not mean any disparagement to any pious Presbyterians, but, believing
   the Holy Eucharist to be what we, in common with the whole Ancient
   Church, know It to be, we cannot but know that they who receive It
   worthily, have a much greater closeness of union with our Lord, than
   they who do not. Presbyterians have what they believe; we, what we
   believe. But they who have observed pious Presbyterians and pious
   English Catholics, have discerned among our people a spiritual life, of
   a kind which was not among theirs; in a word, a sacramental life. Dr.
   Manning denies the validity of our absolutions. God, the Author of
   truth, has set His seal upon them. This enlarged use of confession,
   which originated in men's stirred consciences, often grew, in
   consequence of its visible fruits, on the lives of those who had
   already used it. People were wont to ask, "What has so changed you?"
   They sought the remedy, which God had made so effectual to others. We,
   the English Clergy, have seen the death-beds of those, whose first
   confessions we had heard, and we could no longer recognize, in the
   ripened, humble saint, the person whom we had first known, although,
   then too, earnestly seeking God.

   3) You remember how our dear friend J. H. Newman was impressed by God's
   visible and very awful judgment upon a sacrilegious Communion. It was
   no insulated instance. Our Lord bore witness to His own Presence, by
   judging the sacrilegious communicant, and leaving him in the power of
   Satan, who drove him to self-murder in the precincts of the Church,
   where he had profaned the Body and Blood of Christ. Prejudiced as
   juries are, the jury, awed by the case, pronounced "felo-de-se." On the
   other hand, the effects of devout communion have passed over to the
   body too. I have known too the evil fruit of sacrilegious confessions,
   very different from those of an ordinary lie.

   4) It is in accordance with the truth of the Sacrament, that the
   enlarged life among us, has especially taken the form of increased
   Sacraments. The Wesleyan bodies would increase their prayer-meetings,
   which some of them have spoken of to me as their

   "means of grace." Protestant bodies have their revivals; the Church of
   England multiplied the celebration of its Sacraments.

   But those who have pointed to "life" as a great note in the English
   Church, did not mean the life of grace in individuals. They have meant
   the organic operation of God the Holy Ghost upon the Church as a whole.
   It is the mark given by our Lord Himself. By a wonderful analogy
   between nature and grace, the branch, which had been severed from the
   True Vine, carried out with it for a time the life of the tree; but,
   the life-giving sap being cut off, after a time it withered.
   Contrariwise, as our friend observed, the Church of England has had a
   tough, vigorous life. Its life has been tried in every way in which it
   could be tried. "It has been practised upon by theorists, browbeaten by
   sophists, intimidated by princes, betrayed by false sons, laid waste by
   tyranny, corrupted by wealth, torn by schism, and persecuted by
   fanaticism. Revolutions have come upon it sharply and suddenly to and
   fro, hot and cold, as if to try what it was made of. It has been a sort
   of battlefield, on which opposite principles have been tried. No
   opinion, however extreme any way, but may be found, as the Romanists
   are not slow to reproach us, among its bishops and divines. Yet what
   has been its career upon the whole? "Which way has it been moving
   through three hundred years? Where does it find itself at the end?
   Lutherans have tended to Rationalism; Calvinists have become Socinians;
   but what has it become?" [481]

   Now, after above three centuries, it alone has a more vigorous life
   than ever. It seems like a tree which had been shaken for a while, yet
   struck its roots deep and is filling the lands. Severed in the United
   States from the protection of the state--nay, rather trampled in the
   dust by those who hated it for the loyalty of its members,--it first
   struck root when it was deprived of all human aid. Independent
   witnesses have attested some time ago, how, before this fratricidal
   war, it was regarded by many as the one principle of stability in the
   United States. It wins from all the bodies who broke off from us, and
   itself seldom loses to any. Long ago it quadrupled while the population
   doubled only. Its clergy are very frequently the sons of the ministers
   of bodies not in communion with it, whom it has won. It has been
   recently making an impression even upon the inveterate, boastful,
   intellectual Socianism.

   And all this with no human aid, with no power except the Presence of
   God the Holy Ghost, which has been specially promised to the Church. So
   also in our other colonies, and in that vast heathen realm of India. If
   our Episcopate had not been of Divine Institution, then it would have
   been all one, whether those reputed to be of the second or first order,
   Priests or Bishops, had been sent out; for, in fact, they would have
   been alike laymen. On the other hand, our Episcopate being Divine, to
   send out Priests alone, or with a Bishop over a whole continent, as it
   were, was, to plant the Gospel as God willed not that it should be
   planted. The fact has borne witness to the truth of our Episcopate.
   When the Gospel was preached, even by pious men, without the
   Episcopate, it languished

   after a time; when the Church was planted according to its Divine form,
   it flourished.

   In this restoration in which we live, very remarkable have been the
   organic workings of God the Holy Ghost in the Church as a whole. The
   last century was, by a strange harmony everywhere, especially "sæculum
   tepidum." In France, the children whom the Church had lost, aided by
   apostate Bishops and Priests, overthrew her. A marvellous inward decay
   must have prepared for the time, when the goddess of Reason could be
   enthroned in a Christian capital. Southern Germany became indevout;
   Hermesianism has, since, infested her. About thirty years ago I was,
   myself, asked to write against a German book, put forth in the name of
   Catholicism against the faith, on the ground that it had a wide,
   baleful influence among the German Catholics. In Italy, we have
   probably not yet seen the full fruits of evils long festering there.
   Much indifference is said to have existed during the last century in
   Roman Catholic Ireland. In the United States, it is commonly and
   confidently stated, that the Roman Church loses its hold over large
   proportions of the Irish immigrants. [482]

   And now, in this century, God has been reviving the Church everywhere,
   simultaneously. Nothing has so impressed itself upon me during all the
   years in which I have observed the workings of God the Holy Ghost upon
   the Church of England, as their organic character.

   Some have all along been in the habit of looking to certain modes of
   revival; at the best, to the way in which God blessed the workings of
   one class of individuals. To these they appealed, as furnishing "tokens
   of life in the English Church." For myself, I always turned away, sick
   at heart, from this feverish watching for tokens of life. It is not in
   the flush of the cheek or the more brilliant eye alone, in which you
   would recognize the returning health of the body. These might be fever,
   not health-tokens. What is concentrated around individuals, even though
   manifoldly multiplied, is individual still. To us, the workings seemed
   all along far beyond any efforts of human zeal or energy or
   faithfulness, even as blessed by God. The dawn lay beyond our memory.
   Perhaps, if one might fix a time, one should say, from the French
   revolution, when the Voice of God spoke in such terrible warning as to
   the fruits of neglectful ways, and sent a coal of fire into the hearts
   of men. Since then, the progress has been steadily onwards. Often, as
   in younger years I used to hear the account of things in the generation
   before us, the words spoken to the Prophet and his answer shot through
   me, "Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered and said, O Lord
   God, Thou knowest." But "the bones had come together, bone to his bone;
   the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them
   above, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon
   their feet, an exceeding great army." [483]

   Increased zeal for spreading the faith of Christ abroad returned into
   the bosom of

   the Church at home; increased zeal for the religious education of the
   poor won the blessing of Jesus, Whose bequest the poor are; increased
   efforts to build Churches to the glory of His Name, and for the
   salvation of souls, were blessed by the increased Presence of Him in
   Whose honour they were raised. Not in one way, nor in one set of ways,
   but in all: not in one class of minds, but in some of every class; not
   in one theological section of the Church, but in all; not through one
   set of men, but through all; not through those only who had our full
   belief, but through all who loved Him; not through prosperous
   circumstances only, but yet more through adverse; not in England only,
   but throughout the whole body, has God been forming the English Church,
   for what purpose in His hands, He knoweth!

   Even those deepest losses of all, the loss of those who "laboured most
   abundantly," and the suspicion which two or three sought to cast on
   those who remained, and most of all, the chaos into which some minds
   were thrown, suspecting Catholic truth, because their guides had become
   Roman, not English, Catholics,--these things have indeed checked, but
   they have not hindered the work of God among us.

   It seemed, indeed, before these secessions that, with the continuance
   of God's gracious operation, nothing but time was needed to Catholicize
   England. But the waters have risen, not the less decidedly, because
   noiselessly. Fallow ground was broken thirty years ago; fresh seed was
   sown; seed time and harvest have gone on together unbroken; the seed
   which ripened fell again to the earth silently and yielded fresh fruit
   abundantly. They who wished to pluck it up, only, like the birds of the
   air, carried it further. Mr. Oakeley, who, when among us, seemed to
   watch intently the progress made within rather a narrow sphere, has
   lately repeated that Tractarianism, as a movement, ended [484] with the
   loss of our dear friend, J. H. Newman. The tracts had been closed
   before. Had he followed his own bent, I believe that the tracts would
   have ended in some preceding year. The trumpet had sounded [485]
   steady, clear, certain; and a very great army had gathered at the call.
   We do not need the trumpet, when God's willing people are gathered.
   [486] What has had to be done since has been to build on. The building
   arises "without axe or hammer." Never, I am satisfied, was the work of
   God among us so wide and so deep as now. Far deeper and wider is it
   than in those glad, prosperous days, because the leaven which was
   hidden in the meal, has worked secretly, and has now more centres, from
   which it is everywhere working.

   Dr. Manning says, [487] "The known and historical evidence of
   Christianity is enough to convince any prudent man that Christianity is
   a Divine revelation. It is quite

   true that by this process he cannot entertain an explicit faith in all
   the doctrines of revelation, and that in rejecting Catholicism he
   reduces himself to human and historical evidence as the maximum of
   extrinsic certainty for his religion, and that this almost inevitably
   resolves itself in the long run into Rationalism. It is an inclined
   plane, on which, if individuals may stand, generations cannot." There
   is confusion in the statement. [488] But I fully accept as true, the
   result intended, that rejection of Catholicism ends in the long run in
   Rationalism, and that it is an inclined plane on which generations
   cannot stand. We have seen the truth of this in Lut heranism and
   Calvinism, in the length and breadth of the lands which they occupied,
   except where faith has been preserved by vicinity to the English
   Church. Why then has it not been so among us, after 300 years? The
   answer is plain; on those self-same principles, "because we have" not
   "rejected Catholicism." Dr. Manning refers to the downward course of
   the English people. The question between us is, not about the English
   people, but about the English Church. The Church of England is no more
   responsible for those of the English people who have revolted from her,
   than the Churches of Italy, and France, and Germany, are for those who
   have revolted from them. We are all responsible for any want of zeal,
   or faith, or self-sacrifice, or for any spirit of worldliness, which
   may have prevented others from seeing that "God is in us of a truth."

   But the existence of all the sects in England shows the
   uncompromisingness of the Church of England in maintaining Catholic
   truth. Had she been like the Lutheran body, she would have had no
   Dissenters. People do not split off from that which does not hold
   firmly together. But, as she is not responsible for Dissenters who nave
   rejected her authority, her teaching, her communion, neither is she
   responsible for their course. Nor is she more responsible for such
   phenomena as Dr. Colenso's heathenism, [489] or Essay-and-Review
   scepticism, than the Church of France was for Talleyrand and Sieyes.
   "Nor are we the only portion of the Catholic Church which is suffering
   from the attacks of Rationalism. Already in this place, Essay and
   Reviewism has done its worst, and is hastening to its decay. Its
   observant adherents own the growth of the Faith. It is but a passing
   storm which, desolating as it has been to the souls of individuals, yet
   disinfects the atmosphere. They have already done more to remove
   misconceptions and prejudices than twenty years of efforts of our own.
   They have given us a watchword, whereby the

   friends of Jesus may recognize one another. We have been all, in our
   several ways, fighting for Him and in His service, yet some of us,
   aloof from each other, and our fealty to our common Master suspected.
   Now those who love Jesus and His Word and His truth will be united, we
   trust, by the presence of a common foe. Now, like the battle-cry of
   God's chosen warrior of old, "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon,"
   that of the English Church will be "Jesus and victory;" and the
   "gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim will be more than the vintage of
   Abiezer." For the wine-press is trodden in His Name, "Who trod it alone
   in His bitter Passion; and the juice of the grape is His precious
   Blood, Which alone has healing, and life and salvation and union with
   Him.

   May He spare you long to His Church and people, that, as in "the
   Christian Year" you sowed in our youth the first seeds of a rich
   harvest, you may help in the ingathering, of which there is such bright
   promise in "the year of His goodness" which God has blessed!

   Your very affectionate friend,

   E. B. PUSEY.

   Christ Church, 1865.
     __________________________________________________________________

  POSTSCRIPT.

   I HAD finished my letter, and it had been some time in type, before Dr.
   Manning was elevated to his present important position, or the reading
   of the Encyclical of last year, and the comments upon it, had shown me
   how advanced, above all which was known formerly, is the present theory
   of Papal Infallibility.

   The Ultramontanes in the Roman Communion seem to be drifting off
   further from the principles of the early and undivided Church. Under
   Jesuit influence "the shores of Italy "seem ever to be "receding." We
   could not imagine ourselves to have lived a day out of the communion of
   the Church of S. Augustine. With the knowledge which we have of it, we
   could not imagine any, the slightest difficulty, which should have
   hindered our flying to it, had we been born in any sect external to it.
   It has been the home of our faith, our affections, our understanding,
   now to gray hairs. Like God's word, so that undivided Church of God
   satisfies our whole selves. There are no clouds there. In its faith we
   have been ever at rest. Even in the Gallican Church, a century and a
   half ago, there seemed to be a dawn of reunion; there was, if not clear
   day, at least a break in the clouds, such as gave token that the breath
   of God might disperse them. Now things seem to be taking an opposite
   direction. It is the boast of the English Ultramontane party, that
   Gallicanism is extinct; and this not as relates to any question of the
   relation of the Pope to the civil sovereign. This the successive rulers
   from the Restoration of 1815 did what they could to extinguish, by
   becoming the oppressors of the Church. But in regard to the central
   question, where the infallibility of the Church lies, the Ultramontanes
   tell us that the Gallican belief, that nothing has the seal of
   infallibility which has not been received by the whole Church, is
   extinct in France. [490] If it is to be found anywhere, we are, I
   suppose, to look to Germany, or perhaps among some of the Gallican
   Bishops who have not spoken. The Dublin Review would have it, that even
   the tacit reception of the Encyclical of 1864: would, even upon
   Gallican principles, fix as matters of faith, not only the doctrines,
   virtually affirmed by the Encyclical, as being the contradictories of
   the propositions condemned, but the main principle which Pius IX.
   appears to have assumed, that he is infallible in all his formal
   utterances, on whatever subjects, connected, in his judgment, with the
   well-being of the Church, although with no visible bearing on faith or
   morals, and howsoever or to whomsoever those utterances may be made. It
   is for those of the Roman Communion to settle this. Of twenty-four
   Gallican Bishops who spoke (including Algiers, and Chambéry, as now
   French), two only, the Bishop of Nimes and Fréjus, include the old
   Gallican belief of reception by the whole Episcopate in their grounds
   for adhesion to the late Encyclical. [491] But twenty-two are but about
   one-fourth of the Bishops of France. It seems also very possible that
   the Roman Catholic Episcopate

   might agree in condemning all the eighty propositions, condemned in the
   syllabus, and yet not intend thereby to express their belief that every
   enunciation of the Pope, on whatever subject, is ipso facto infallible.
   For although the writer in the Dublin Review [492] has shown that the
   Encyclical of 1864 does claim this, in the name of Pius IX., the
   doctrine does not so explicitly lie there, as to require any Bishop,
   who should not assent to it, to express any dissent. Least of all would
   it seem to be required that every one who should dissent from it,
   should, in the present troubled state of the Church everywhere, add
   such an element of discord to the present conflict. It would make the
   doctrine of "reception by the Church" a nullity, if every thing was to
   be held to be received, which should not be protested against, even
   although not formally proposed for assent.

   The claim, however, now raised, goes far beyond even the school of
   Bellarmine. If established, it would, in Pontificates so full of
   activity as that of Pius IX., who has issued thirty-two authoritative
   documents, be adding almost yearly to the faith of those in the Roman
   Communion. And union with the Roman See, on the part, e. g., of the
   great Russian Church, would involve this,--that every one should be
   ready to receive whatever all past Popes had authoritatively uttered,
   and whatever any future Pope, though unhappily a Borgia or a Julius
   II., might utter upon any subject whatsoever.

   To the great Gallican Divines, however respectfully they spoke of the
   Pope, he was but one element in the infallibility of the whole Church.
   Since universal reception was the test of the infallibility of any
   decision of the Church, nothing could have this seal of infallibility,
   which was not received by him who was in dignity its first Bishop. It
   needed not, however, that what should become infallible, should always
   emanate from him; nor did it. The Anti-Pelagian statements of faith, e.
   g., which were received by the whole Church, came from S. Augustine and
   Africa; the concluding parts of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
   came from a Council in which the East only was represented, but which
   became General through its reception by the West. To say, then, that
   the enunciations of the Pope became infallible through their reception
   by the whole Episcopate, would be a one-sided statement of Gallicanism;
   because such universal reception would equally render infallible any
   statement of faith which a Provincial Council should draw up against
   heresy: only in this case the Bishop of Rome would be an important
   member of those who should receive it.

   From this, the doctrine set forth in Bellarmine differed, in that it
   ascribed infallibility to the Pope personally, but this with a
   limitation of its subject-matter. His two canons in this respect
   are:--1) "The Pontiff, when he teaches the whole Church, can in no case
   err in those things which appertain to faith." [493] 2) "Not only in
   precepts of faith cannot he err, but neither can he in precepts of
   morals, which are prescribed to the whole Church, and which relate to
   things necessary to salvation, or to such as are good or lad

   in themselves." [494]

   The doctrine, which places such an awful power in the hands of an
   individual, is limited in two ways in Bellarmine's statement: 1) as to
   the formal way, in which the enunciation to be received as infallible
   is to be made. The "matters of faith" are to be such as are "taught to
   the whole Church;" the "precepts of morals" are to be "prescribed to
   the whole Church." 2) In regard to morals, mere benefit to the Church
   is excluded. They are to be simply things "good or bad in themselves or
   necessary to salvation." Matters of fact are omitted altogether.
   Nothing is said of them, either that they do, or do not, fall within
   the scope of Papal infallibility.

   It has recently been drawn out: [495]
    1. That Pius IX. claims infallibility in judgments which he puts
       forth, "which do not touch the dogmas of faith and morals," but
       "whose object is declared [by him to regard the Church's right
       discipline and general good. His declarations on his civil
       princedom [i. e. on his temporal sovereignty over his temporal
       subjects in Italy'] may be given as instances in point." These
       statements of infallible truth need not, then, obviously be
       connected with the substance of revelation, or be supported by any
       thing in Holy Scripture or tradition, bearing on the subject.
    2. That these statements, in order to their infallibility, need not be
       addressed to the whole Episcopate, or be in any way formal in their
       character, but may be contained in letters to this or that
       individual pastor." [496]
    3. That consequently all the statements put forth in the Syllabus of
       1864 are infallible truth.
    4. It follows that Papal infallibility is held to extend to matters of
       fact, and to things unconnected with former revelation.
    5. Since the claim for infallibility in these statements has been put
       forth, although not totidem verbis,' in the Encyclical of 1864,
       then, it is to follow, that each successive Pope is infallible on
       any of those or the like subjects, in whatever way or to whomsoever
       he may speak.

   The errors condemned at the beginning of the Encyclical cannot, indeed,
   be said to have been condemned by any authority but that of our Lord.
   For Pius IX. condemned, so far, denials of God, of His Providence, and
   His revelations, which every peasant knows to be blasphemous. Others,
   again, of the propositions condemned are naked Erastianism. Some deny
   the first principles of morals.

   I would only, in illustration of what I mean, speak of those, in regard
   to which the claim of infallibility is an advance apparently upon what
   has been hitherto taught in the Roman Communion.
    1. As to matters of fact, it is claimed to be infallible truth,--that
       "no Pope [497] ever exceeded the limits of his power, or usurped
       the rights of princes, or erred in defining matters of faith or
       morals," in which case Bossuet would be found, in regard to the
       last, in opposition to infallible truth. Again, it is to become
       infallible truth, that [498] "no too arbitrary acts of any Roman
       Pontiff contributed to the Church's division into east and west."
       Then, it is to be pronounced infallibly, that the Pope was right in
       the original unhappy dispute, with Photius and Ignatius alike,
       about Bulgaria, or in that which Fleury lamented, as finally fixing
       the schism, the setting up of a Latin Emperor and Latin Patriarchs,
       or in insisting on the addition of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed
       to be recited by the Greeks, after having acknowledged that the
       Greek and Latin Fathers, while using different formulae, meant the
       same thing; and yet subsequent Popes have abandoned this
       requisition in the case of the Greeks who have united themselves to
       the Latin Church.
    2. Again, it is to become infallible truth, that [499] "Boniface VIII.
       was not the first who asserted that the vow of chastity, made at
       ordination, annuls marriage,"--a point which would fall, one should
       have thought, under human learning, not, at this date, of Divine
       revelation. Again, it becomes infallible truth, that [500] "civil
       liberty of all worships, and full power granted to all publicly to
       manifest any opinions or thoughts whatsoever, conduces to the more
       ready corruption of the morals and minds of peoples, and to
       propagate the plague of indifferentism." A most thoughtful observer
       in the Roman Communion has said to this effect, "I had rather have
       to do with the open infidelity of the nineteenth century, than with
       the hidden infidelity of the middle ages." This is no contradiction
       of the statement of Pius IX., but might make an essential
       limitation of it, viz., that some ways of attempting to check a
       great evil, the open spread of unbelief, might produce a greater,--
       an unbelief spreading unchecked and unhealed, because hidden.
    3. In regard to matters which do not relate to the substance of the
       faith or of morals, we have now a formal pronouncement, that the
       toleration of religious worship,

   other than the Roman Catholic, is in itself inexpedient; [501] that
   immigrants, at least in some Roman Catholic countries, ought to be
   prohibited the use of their public worship; [502] that [503] "the
   Church has power to employ force against persons [vis inferendæ], and
   has temporal power direct or indirect." Pius IX. placed the denial of
   this power of the Church in the front of the propositions, from which,
   he says, [504] "It is clear that the author [Nuytz], by such doctrine
   and such maxims, aims at perverting the constitution and the government
   of the Church, and the entire destruction of the Catholic faith, in
   that he deprives the Church of external judgment and corrective power,
   to the intent that those in error may return into the way of
   righteousness."

   It is, then, to be infallibly certain, that this "corrective force"
   (such as was exercised by the Inquisition, or in the reign of Henry
   VIII., or Queen Mary) is essential to the maintenance of the Catholic
   faith; and that, as used not only against heresiarchs, but "in order
   that those in error may return to the way of justice." In fact, the
   only ground of not using it would be its visible inexpediency. Only
   such employment of force, as would exasperate, not extinguish, is
   unadvised.

   Further, Pius IX. condemns, as by infallible authority, the denial of
   the temporal authority of the Church, or of the single Bishop; [505] of
   the immunity of Clerks from being sued or prosecuted in Civil or
   Criminal Courts, at least without consent of the Pope; [506]

   "of the sinfulness of the political principle of non-intervention,'"
   [507] or the ascription of "the right called Appel comme d'Abus' to the
   civil power, even when exercised by an unbelieving ruler," [508] the
   opinion that [509] "the abrogation of the civil princedom which the
   Apostolic See enjoys [i. e. the authority which the Pope possesses as
   king over his imperial subjects in Italy'] [510] would conduce in the
   highest degree to the Church's liberty and felicity."

   The two opinions on the civil princedom of the Papacy, condemned in the
   Syllabus, are very pronounced. The one states that its abolition would
   be a benefit; the other, though less strong in words, is stronger in
   fact: for Nuytz stated, that [511] "sons of the Christian and Catholic
   Church disputed among themselves as to the compatibility of the
   temporal kingdom with the spiritual,"--which involves that some at
   least doubted whether the temporal power was not morally wrong.

   Neither condemnation lays down a positive doctrine obligatory upon
   Roman Catholics. The Syllabus however states, that [512] "many other
   errors are implicitly reprobated in the doctrine which all Catholics
   ought most firmly to hold on the civil princedom of the Roman Pontiff,"
   and that "this doctrine is clearly taught in "five Allocutions and one
   Apostolic letter, which it names. The doctrine is most fully stated in
   the earliest of 1849, that, "when [513] the Roman Empire was divided
   into many kingdoms and various states, it was by a very singular
   counsel of Divine Providence that the Roman

   Pontiff, to whom the government and care of the whole Church was
   committed by the Lord Christ, should on this ground have a civil
   princedom, that he might, for the government of the Church itself and
   for the maintenance of its unity, enjoy that full liberty which is
   required for discharging the supreme Apostolic ministry. For all know
   that the faithful people, nations, kingdoms, would never yield full
   confidence and observance to the Roman Pontiff, if they saw him subject
   to the dominion of any prince or government, and not free. For the
   faithful people and kingdoms would never cease vehemently to suspect
   and fear, that the Pontiff would conform his acts to the will of the
   prince or government in whose dominions he lived, and therefore would
   not hesitate often, under that pretext, to contradict those acts. And
   let the enemies of the civil princedom of the Apostolic See, who now
   rule at Rome, themselves say with what confidence or observance they
   themselves would receive the exhortations, admonitions, mandates,
   constitutions of the supreme Pontiff, if they knew him to be subject to
   the empire of any prince or government, especially if he were the
   subject of any prince, between whom and the Roman state there should be
   any lasting war."

   On this ground Pius IX. said, "The nature of our office requires that,
   in maintaining the civil princedom of the Apostolic See, we should
   defend with all our might the rights and possessions of the holy Roman
   Church, and the liberty of that See, which is conjoined with the
   liberty and advantage of the whole Church."

   The other Allocutions add nothing to this, [514] except, perhaps, that
   the Cum catholica ascribes the temporal government more directly to
   "the Will of God; "and the Maxima quidem says, "that the civil
   princedom was necessary," [515] which may be a little stronger than
   required.

   I have purposely selected such statements only as do not in themselves
   "touch upon faith or morals." I will only instance one more, as showing
   that every sentence in every pronouncement of the Pope is to be held as
   infallible. Prop. LXL, "The injustice of a fact, being prospered,
   brings no detriment to the sanctity of the right," is only an
   incidental statement of the jamdudum cernimus, [516] in contradiction
   of the claim that the Pope should yield up his right in those of the
   ecclesiastical states which had been rent

   from him. The claim, of course, was shameless on the part of those who
   wrested them unjustly from him. But now it is made an abstract
   proposition, to be condemned by all Catholics. Incidental statements
   then are, equally with the most formal propositions, matters of faith.
   Yet the proposition necessarily requires limitation. For, since S. Paul
   commands us to submit to "the powers that be," [517] this submission
   must often be paid to those who are kings "de facto," and not "de
   jure." On this principle the early Christians yielded obedience to each
   successive Emperor. This principle, which justified the obedience to
   William and Mary, justified obedience to the first and third Napoleon,
   whom Popes recognized. The proposition is equivalent to the proverb,
   "might makes right," and is, in fact, a denial of justice; yet S. Paul
   requires us to submit, as to a Divine ordinance, to authority, whose
   only "right" is its "might."

   In this case, however, the pronouncement did relate to a moral rule. I
   instance it only as evidencing the extent of the claim of
   infallibility. ISTot only the main proposition, but every argument used
   in all these Allocutions is held to be equally infallible truth. This
   illustrates the compass of the infallibility claimed. It is an
   infallibility equal in extent to that of the Divine Scriptures; so that
   each sentence, however incidental, becomes, like the Word of God, a
   sacred text.

   The doctrine of Papal infallibility, laid down by Bellarmine, is
   declared in the Encyclical of last year to be inadequate. Pius IX.
   distinctly rejects, as [518] "contrary to the Catholic dogma of the
   full power divinely given to the Roman Pontiff by the Lord Christ
   Himself, of feeding, ruling, and governing the Universal Church, the
   audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine,' contend that
   without [deadly] sin, and without any loss of Catholic profession,
   assent and obedience may be withheld from those judgments and decrees
   of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to regard the general
   good of the Church, its rights and discipline, provided that that
   object does not touch upon dogmas of faith and morals." And this
   "assent" to every utterance of the Pope is required to all his
   "judgments," which [519] "determine concerning truth and falsehood,"
   and that, tinder pain of mortal sin. "Cardinal Patrizi, writing," says
   the Dublin Review, [520] "to the Catholics of Pius IX.'s own diocese,
   by his express sanction, and under his very eye, claims for the
   Encyclical, and, consequently, for every like expression of the Pope's
   mind, to be the very word of God, to be received on pain of forfeiting
   heaven." But then obviously the same must apply to all past ages; and
   all genuine judgments and decrees of all the past Bishops of Rome, upon
   whatever subject, whether bearing directly upon faith or morals, or
   upon the general good of the Church, will be to be regarded as "the
   very

   word of God." Had this doctrine been held in times past, the very
   existence of General Councils appears to me perfectly unintelligible.
   For, if the word of the Pope was "the word of God," there was no
   occasion for any declaration of the hereditary faith throughout the
   Church, such as the General Councils affirmed. Roman-Catholic writers
   will perhaps explain, where was the room for the appeal to Scripture
   and unbroken tradition as depositories of the faith, if the word of
   each successive Pope was itself "the word of God."

   This extension of Papal Infallibility would, I should think, embarrass
   the defence of the system. For those who have denied the personal
   infallibility of the Pope, like Bossuet, have confined themselves to
   pointing out those cases in which any Pope seemed to have fallen into
   great and obvious error. Now, since every portion of the teaching of
   any Pope is to be infallible, it will apparently have to be shown how
   any statement of any Pope which has since been abandoned, is consistent
   with such infallibility. To take the one subject of prohibited
   marriages. S. Gregory the Great declares on the ground of Leviticus, c.
   18, that marriage "with a sister-in-law is forbidden, because through
   her former union she became the brother's flesh." In a formal answer to
   an inquiry of S. Augustine of Canterbury, "at what degree of
   consanguinity may the faithful marry, and may marriage be contracted
   with stepmothers or sisters-in-law? "S. Gregory states, "it is
   necessary that, in order to marry lawfully, they should be in the third
   or fourth degree," i.

   e. second or third cousins, and prohibits, on ground of Divine law,
   marriage with the sister-in-law, as well as with the mother-in-law.
   [521] This was directly contradicted by the unhappy Borgia (Alexander
   VI.), who gave a dispensation to marry a sister-in-law [522] and an
   aunt. [523] But Pope Innocent III. answered formally, that in the
   degrees, prohibited by the Divine law, a dispensation cannot be
   given,--"dispensari non possit." He spoke, in three Epistles, [524] of
   degrees prohibited "by Divine law," i. e. as explained, and according
   to the known use of the term, "the Levitical law." Cardinal de
   Turrecremata, acting by command of Pope Eugenius, pronounced that "the
   Pope could not dispense" when the Dauphin asked to be allowed to marry
   his deceased wife 's sister.

   Then also Pope Celestine was equally infallible, when he declared that
   [525] "the charge of teaching has descended [from the Apostles] equally
   upon all Bishops. We are all engaged in it by an hereditary right; all
   we, who have come in their (the Apostles')

   stead, preach the name of our Lord to all the countries of the world,
   according to what was said to them, Go ye, and teach all nations.' You
   are to observe, my brethren, that the order we have received is a
   general order, and that He intended that we should all execute it, when
   He charged them with it, as a duty devolving equally upon all. We ought
   all to enter into the labours of those whom we have all succeeded in
   dignity." Not, as people now say, the Pope alone, but according to Pope
   Celestine, [526] "the assembly of priests is the visible display of the
   presence of the Holy Ghost. He Who cannot lie has said, Where two or
   three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of
   them:' much more will He be present in so large a crowd of holy men,
   for the Council is holy in a peculiar sense, as the representative of
   that most holy synod of Apostles which we read of. Their Master, Whom
   they were commanded to preach, never forsook them. It was He Who taught
   them; it was He Who instructed them what they should teach others; and
   He has assured the world, that in the persons of the Apostles, they
   hear Him."

   Then S. Leo was infallible, when he spoke of his own clear statement of
   doctrine having been confirmed by the whole Church. "What God has
   before decreed by our ministry, He confirmed by the irreversible assent
   of the whole brotherhood, to show that what was first put forth in form
   by the first See of all, and then received by the judgment of the whole
   Christian world, really proceeded from Himself." [527]

   Then S. Gregory the Great was infallible, when he spoke of the See of
   S. Peter as existing equally in Home, Alexandria, and Antioch. "And
   thus though the Apostles be many, yet the See of the chief of the
   Apostles, which belongs to one, though it is in three places, alone
   prevailed in authority, by virtue of his chiefship. For it is he who
   exalted the See, in which he also condescended to take his rest, and
   finish the present life [Borne]. It is he who adorned the See, to which
   he sent the Evangelist, his disciple [Alexandria]. It is he who
   established the See in which he sat for seven years, though he was to
   leave it [Antioch]. Inasmuch then as the See, over which by Divine
   authority three Bishops now preside, is one man's and one, whatever
   good I hear of you, I lay to mine own account." [528]

   He was infallible when he said, [529] "Himself [the Mediator of God and
   man'] is the Rock from which Peter received his name, and upon which He
   said that He would build His Church." He was infallible when he said,
   "It is now said to the universal Church, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on
   earth,' "&c. [530]

   He was infallible when he said, [531] "No one of my predecessors ever
   consented to use so profane a term [as Universal Bishop], because
   plainly, if a single Patriarch is called universal, the name of
   Patriarch is taken from the rest. Wherefore let your Holiness

   in your letters never call any one universal, lest in offering undue
   honour to another, you should deprive yourself of that which is your
   due." "He endeavours to claim the whole to himself, and aims by the
   pride of this pompous language to subjugate to himself all the members
   of Christ, which are joined together to the one sole Head, that is,
   Christ. If this is allowed to be said freely, the honour of all
   Patriarchs is denied. And when, perchance, he who is termed universal,
   perishes in error, presently no Bishop is found to have remained in a
   state of duty. Stand firm, stand fearless; presume not ever either to
   give, or to receive letters with this false title of Universal." "I
   exhort and advise that no one of you ever give countenance to this
   name, ever agree to it, ever write it, ever receive a writing wherein
   it is contained, or add his subscription, but, as it behoves ministers
   of Almighty God, keep himself clear from such poisonous infection;
   since this is done to the injury and disruption of the whole Church,
   and, as we have said, in contempt of all of you. For if, as he thinks,
   one is universal, it remains that you are not Bishops." [532] "To
   consent to this nefarious name, is nothing else but to lose our faith."
   [533] "I confidently affirm, that whoever calls himself, or desires to
   he called universal Priest, in his pride goes before
   Antichrist,--whoever he is, who desires to be called sole Priest, he
   lifts himself up above all other priests." [534] "Far from Christian
   hearts he that blasphemous name, in which the honour of all the Priests
   [Bishops] is taken away, while it is madly arrogated by one to himself.
   [535] Certainly, to do honour to the blessed Peter, chief of the
   Apostles, this was offered to the Roman Pontiff per [536] the venerable
   Council of Chalcedon. But no one of them ever consented to use this
   singular appellation, that all Priests [Bishops] might not be deprived
   of their due honour by something peculiar being given to one. How is
   it, then, that we seek not the glory of this name, though offered us,
   yet another presumes to claim it, though not offered?" "If [537] one
   Bishop be called universal, the whole Church falls to pieces if that
   one, being universal, falls." "Your

   Blessedness [538] has also taken pains to tell me that you no longer
   write to certain persons those proud names which have sprung from the
   root of vanity, and you address me, saying, as you commanded,' which
   word command' I beg you to remove from my ears, because I know who I
   am, and who you are. For in rank you are my brother, in character my
   father. I did not, therefore, command, but took pains to point out what
   I thought advantageous. I do not, however, find that your Blessedness
   was willing altogether to observe the very thing I pressed upon you.
   For I said that you should not write any such thing either to me or to
   any one else; and, lo! in the heading of your letter, directed to me,
   the very person who forbad it, you set that haughty appellation,
   calling me universal Pope, which I beg your Holiness to do no more,
   because whatever is given to another more than reason requires, is so
   much taken away from yourself I do not consider that an honour, by
   which I acknowledge that my brethren lose their own. For my honour is
   the honour of the Universal Church. My honour is the unimpaired honour
   of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured, when the due honour is not
   denied to each one in his degree.

   For if your Holiness calls me universal Pope, you deny that you
   yourself are what you admit me to be, universal." "By this [539] rash
   presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and the grace,
   poured out upon all in common, contradicted. Surely the Apostle Paul,
   hearing some one say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas,'
   exclaimed in exceeding horror at this rending of the Lord's body, by
   which His members attached themselves, as it were, to other heads,
   saying, Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of
   Paul? ' If he then rejected the members of the Lord's body being
   subjected to certain heads, as it were, besides Christ, and that even
   to Apostles themselves, as leaders of parts, what will you say to
   Christ, Who is, as you know, the Head of the Universal Church, in the
   examination of the last judgment,--you, who endeavour to subject to
   yourself, under the name of Universal, all His members? Who, I say, in
   this perverse name, is set forth for imitation, but he, who despised
   the legions of angels joined as companions to himself, and endeavoured
   to rise to a height unapproached by all, that he might seem to be
   subject to none, and be alone superior to all? (quoting Isa. xiv. 13,
   14.) Surely Peter, the first of the Apostles, is a member of the holy
   Universal Church; Paul, Andrew, John,--what else are they but the heads
   of particular communities? And yet all are members under One Head. And
   to comprehend all under one brief expression, the saints before the
   law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace,--all these,
   making up the body of the Lord, are dispersed among the members of the
   Church, and no one ever wished to be called universal. No one ever
   chose to be called by such a name; no one claimed to himself this rash
   appellation; lest, should he claim to himself the glory of singularity
   in the rank of the High Priesthood, he might seem to have denied it to
   all his brethren. What, therefore, dearest brother, will you say in
   that terrible examination of the judgment to come,--you, who covet to
   be called not merely father, but common father?"

   Then S. Leo IX. was infallible when he said, [540] "The humility of
   those venerable Pontiffs [the Bishops of Rome], worthy of all
   imitation, considering that the chief of the Apostles is not found
   called universal Apostle, utterly rejected that proud name, by which
   their equality of rank seemed to be taken away from all Prelates
   throughout the world, in that a claim was made for one upon the whole."

   Then Leo II. was infallible, who, when the Acts of the sixth General
   Council were sent him, wrote back, [541] "We anathematize alike those
   inventors of new error, Theodore, Bp. of Pharan; Cyrus, of Alexandria,
   Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, plotters against, rather than Prelates
   of the Church of Constantinople; and also Honorius, who did not
   illumine this Apostolical Church with the doctrine of Apostolic
   tradition, but, by a foul betrayal, attempted to subvert its spotless
   faith."

   Then S. Leo I. was infallible, when he rejected the 28th Canon of the
   Council of Chalcedon, which placed Constantinople in the second rank,
   next to Rome, as being [542] "opposed to the rules of the sacred Canons
   established at Nicæa," in that he says, "In all Ecclesiastical causes
   we obey those laws which the Holy Spirit, by means of the 318 Prelates,
   appointed for the peaceable observance of all Priests," &c. And Pope
   Adrian was infallible when he said, [543] "He [the Patriarch of
   Constantinople] never could have ranked second, save for the authority
   of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all" (which
   rank, however, Constantinople took, and had on the authority of the
   Canon, from the time of the Council itself).

   Then, again, S. Leo was infallible, when he said, [544] "The Lord
   Jesus, then, was alone born innocent among the sons of men, because He
   alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence;" and
   Pope Gelasius, [545] when speaking of "saints, who have by God's
   abundant grace easily overcome the vices of mortality," yet "attest
   that they were not yet so free from them, so that it should be peculiar
   (proprium) to that Immaculate Lamb to have had absolutely no sin, lest
   this should not seem to be a thing to be ascribed to Him alone, if any
   other saint whatsoever should be believed to have been free from
   offence." And Innocent III., when he said, [546] "That one (Eve) was
   produced without fault, but produced unto fault; but this one (Mary)
   was produced in fault, but produced without fault. That one was said to
   be Eva; to this one was said Ave;" and that "the Holy Ghost [547]
   purified her soul from original sin in her mother's womb" which is

   what Gregory XV. denied by implication, when he removed the word
   "sanctification "from the liturgies.

   I have set down no difficulty which I do not myself think
   insurmountable. I see absolutely no way in which, upon the forbidden
   degrees, Alexander VI. can be reconciled with Gregory I., or how the
   acceptance of the sixth General Council, which anathematized Honorius
   as a heretic, by Leo II., and his own individual condemnation of him,
   are reconcileable with the doctrine of the infallibility of both, in
   all which they pronounce; or how the rejection of the position of
   Constantinople, on the ground of the immutable decrees of Nice by Leo
   I., is consistent with the statement of Adrian, that that see owed its
   position to Rome; or how S. Gregory's denunciation, not only of the
   title "Universal Bishop," but of what the title contained, and that, in
   any sense in which it could be supposed to be taken by the Patriarch of
   Constantinople, not as taken by that Patriarch only, but as unbecoming
   himself also, is compatible with the Ultramontane theories about the
   Pope. It is a characteristic of the word of God, that it "abideth for
   Pius

   IX. could not, I should think, adopt the language of Gregory I., as to
   the marriage of those near of kin, or in denying his own right to be
   called "Universal Bishop," or to what the Patriarch of Constantinople
   meant to assume by that name; nor could he, I conceive, use the
   language of S. Leo or Gelasius, of Christ "alone being born innocent,"
   or having alone had absolutely no sin; still less that of Innocent
   III., that "she was produced in fault," "producta in culpa," or that
   "she was sanctified from original sin in her mother's womb."

   These are but specimens of inextricable difficulties, in which, I fear,
   the Roman Church would involve itself by acceding to this doctrine of
   the Papal infallibility not only as to matters of faith and doctrine,
   but as to matters not connected therewith, and even as to historical
   facts. This theory is not yet put forth for actual acceptance, although
   it is contained in the Encyclical of 1864. It is even remarkable that,
   out of nineteen propositions of Nuytz, [548] all are condemned except
   two, which related personally to the Pope. Of these, the bearings of
   the one I do not understand,--" The personal law of the Pontiff cannot
   be the sole law." The other is in direct terms, "The Pope is not
   infallible." However the contrary is implied in the Encyclical, yet the
   marked omission of this, among the propositions condemned in the
   Syllabus, seems to imply that Pius IX. does not yet think the state of
   minds in the Roman Church ripe for a formal decision. It seems a state
   of things analogous to that, when the Greeks had avowed their disbelief
   in any material fire of Purgatory, and that belief was not affirmed.

   Dr. (now Archbishop) Manning, however, two years ago, had so made the
   belief in the personal Infallibility of the Pope on matters not
   directly relating to faith and morals part of his Creed, that he made
   the temporal princedom of the Pope also a part of

   that Creed, and maintained that "non-intervention in the question of
   the temporal power of the Pope is essentially a denial of the divine
   institution of the Church." He declares "that the English government,
   [549] as proclaiming the principle of non-intervention in the Roman
   question, thereby denies the divine authority of the Church," as well
   as of "the Holy See, and its divine mission to the nations of the
   world."

   He forgets, apparently, the good deeds of England in restoring Pius
   VII., and, on the ground of a doctrine, ruled by Pius IX. fourteen
   years before, and not as yet formally proposed to be accepted by the
   Church, he declares that "the English government, [550] in proclaiming
   this principle of non-intervention, assumes an attitude towards
   Christianity and the Church, and towards the Christian society, which
   gives it at this moment the melancholy pre-eminence of being the most
   Anti-Catholic, and therefore, if not in its intentions, certainly in
   its influences and results, the most Anti-Christian power in the
   world." Happy condition of the world, when mere neutrality makes a
   civil power the most Anti-Christian in it!

   And yet, according to another Ultramontane writer, "9 the Church's
   whole doctrine on his civil princedom, as regards its methodical
   expression, has been commenced, matured, and perfected by Pius IX."

   Before, it was an open question, whether or no the civil princedom did,
   or did not, contribute to strengthen the spiritual power of the Pope.
   Pius IX. has adopted the arguments, and nearly the words of an eminent
   French Bishop of the seventeenth century in maintaining that it does,
   amid the mutual jealousies of the Roman Catholic powers. [551] There is
   much to be alleged for it. Contrariwise, it has been the occasion of
   very grievous ill. "Witness the warlike and intriguing Popedom of
   Julius II. Fleury balances the evil and the good, and of himself
   evidently thought the evil to preponderate. He says: [552]

   "Leo IX. and the Popes who undertook to repair the ruins of the 11th
   century, and to restore the Roman Church to its lustre, wished also to
   re-establish its temporal powers, which they founded, first on the
   donation of Constantine,' then on those of Pepin, Charlemagne, Louis le
   Débonnaire, and Otho. All the world knows now what is the donation of
   Constantine;' and its falsehood is more universally recognized than
   that of the decretals of Isidore; but, at the time of these Popes, its
   truth, was not questioned. S. Bernard presupposed it, when he said to
   Pope Eugenius that he was the successor not only of Peter, but of

   Constantine: it was known and received as early as the 9th century, and
   minds hardly began to be disabused of it toward the middle of the 15th.
   Even the Greeks received it, as appears in Balsamon, who quotes it
   entire, and claims to found upon it the prerogatives of the see of
   Constantinople.

   "Geoffrey of Viterbo, speaking of the donation of Constantine,' in his
   abridgment of history dedicated to Pope Urban III., said that many
   thought that the Church had been more holy in the three first
   centuries, but that afterwards it was more happy.' Whoever advanced
   this beautiful sentence held sentiments very low, much beneath not the
   Gospel only, but human philosophy. Any one, ever so little above the
   common herd, sees readily that the pure happiness of this life is in
   virtue, not in riches; but one who believes the Gospel may not doubt
   it. Jesus Christ showed it by His example and His words; since, being
   the Lord of all riches and all human greatness, He sovereignly despised
   them, and bequeathed to His disciples poverty and suffering as their
   only inheritance. I still then return to this question; did they in the
   11th century discover a wisdom unknown before, and were Leo IX. and
   Gregory VII. more enlightened than S. Leo or S. Gregory!

   "These great Popes had not yet explored their archives enough to find
   there the donation of Constantine;' they were neither sovereign Princes
   nor temporal Lords, and yet they did not complain that any thing was
   wanting to their power, and had no time to spare, after their spiritual
   occupations. They were persuaded of the distinction of the two powers
   so well expressed by Pope Gelasius, [553] when he said that Emperors
   themselves are subject to Bishops in the order of religion, and that in
   the political order Bishops, even he of the first see, obey the laws of
   Emperors."

   Then, after defending the lawfulness of Ecclesiastical property in
   itself, even that "Bishops became Counts, Dukes, and Princes, as they
   still are in Germany: even (which is furthest from the institution)
   monks, whom their humility had put below all men, found themselves with
   subjects and vassals, and their Abbots gained the rank of Seignors and
   Princes," he adds, "All these rights are legitimate; it is not lawful
   to dispute them with the Church more than with laymen; and, to return
   to the Roman Church, it would be very unjust to dispute with it the
   sovereignty of Rome and of great part of Italy, of which it has been in
   possession for so many centuries, since most sovereigns have no better
   title than long possession.

   "Arnold of Brescia, then, was rightly condemned, who stirred up the
   Romans against the Pope, maintaining broadly that the Clergy ought not
   to have seignories, lands, or real property, but ought to be supported
   solely by alms and voluntary offerings. Yet I own I should have been
   glad to find in authors of Arnold's time the reasons whereby they
   refuted his errors. For the two letters of S. Bernard to the Romans
   thereon are only pathetic declarations, in which he enters into no
   proof, and presupposes the rights of the Pope indisputable. [554] Then,
   too, he did not, as we saw, question the donation of Constantine.' This
   document, if true, established the fact and the special right of the
   Pope; and for the right of the Clergy in general, it was
   unquestionable, as I have just shown.

   "But that most wise maxim of the Apostle should have been remembered,
   that what is lawful is not always expedient; [555] and it should have
   been borne in mind (as did those of old) that the human mind is too
   limited to be equal to exercise at once spiritual and temporal power.
   At least, men ought to have respected the practice of those of old, and
   should have thought that, had the donation of Constantine been true, S.
   Leo and S. Gregory would have known it, and would have had good reasons
   for not using it, as it is certain they did not. The experience of more
   than 600 years has shown the great wisdom of their conduct. Bishops who
   are simply Bishops give little hold to the temporal power; [556]
   whereas it has continually grounds of quarrel with Bishops who are
   Lords. The holy Bishops liked but too well to have temporal

   goods to manage. We see how S. Chrysostom complained of it, [557] and
   S. Ambrose discharged the care even of his patrimony on his brother
   Satyrus.

   "When the Church established the rule of admitting those only into the
   Church who had embraced a life of continence, it had not only regard to
   the purity befitting the frequent approach of the sacred mysteries; she
   also wished that her chief ministers should be disengaged from the
   cares which marriage necessarily brings, and which made S. Paul say
   that the married man is divided between God and the world. [558] But
   what is the care of one family compared with the care of a whole state?
   What is the well ordering of a wife with five or six children compared
   with the government of 100,000 subjects?

   "We are naturally more struck with sensible objects than with
   spiritual. A Prince is occupied in repressing crimes, preventing
   seditions and conspiracies against his person and state. He labours to
   preserve and defend it against its enemies without, and to avail
   himself of occasions of aggrandizing it. To this end he has to raise
   and maintain troops, fortify places, amass treasures, to provide for so
   many expenses. He must correspond with neighbouring princes, negotiate,
   make treaties of commerce and alliance. To a politician these things
   seem great and serious; ecclesiastical functions seem to him little,
   and almost childish. To chant in a church, walk in procession, act in
   ceremonies, chatechize, appear to him ordinary occupations, of which
   the first comer is capable. What in his eyes is important and solid is
   to maintain his power, and weaken his enemies. He regards prayer,
   reading, meditation on Holy Scripture as occupations more befitting a
   monk than a statesman, and he finds no time to give to them. You have
   seen what fears S. Bernard had for Pope Eugenius lest overwhelming
   business should hinder him from reflecting daily on his duties and
   himself, and he should fall at last into a state of obduracy.

   "Perhaps you will believe that a Prince-Bishop will reserve to himself
   his spiritual functions, and will throw the burden of the government of
   the state on some layman. He will take care not to do this, for fear
   the layman should become the real Prince. Bather he will abandon the
   spiritual part to others; for he fears nothing from a Priest, a
   Grand-Vicar, a Suffragan Bishop. He will willingly leave them the study
   of theology and the canons, preaching, cure of souls, of which he will
   at most have a general account rendered to him; but he will have
   detailed accounts of his troops, his fortresses, his finances. He will
   give charge of them to other ecclesiastics, whom he will trust more
   than laymen, but who will be ecclesiastics in form, and in truth men of
   business. If you doubt it, see how the diocese and states of those so
   powerful princes of Germany and Poland are governed. You will see by
   this experience, that those of old were very wise, and that the
   alliance of temporal with the spiritual power was advantageous neither
   to religion, nor to the state. As to religion, it is evident that it
   was better upheld by Bishops who were purely Bishops, and exclusively
   occupied with spiritual things, as S. Ambrose and S. Augustine."

   I have given this long extract from Fleury, to show the freedom with
   which this subject of the civil princedom used to be discussed, as
   being entirely an open question. At the commencement of the present
   Pontificate it still was so, even in Rome itself. Now a declaration of
   Pius IX., that "it came in the Providence of God," and that (which time
   alone could show) it is "necessary" to the due exercise of the Pope's
   spiritual authority, has made, we are told, a new article of faith, so
   that to take no side about it is to "deny the Divine authority of the
   Church."

   For, unless the declaration of the Pope had made it a matter of faith,
   it is obviously a subject of speculation of human wisdom. Fleury says,
   that, before the existence of this civil princedom, the Popes did not
   feel any thing wanting to their spiritual power,--such power as they
   used before the false decretals. The event only could show that the
   loss of that civil princedom would impair what they have now.

   Unless Pius IX. be directly inspired by God, like one of the old
   Prophets, to foretell that its abandonment would involve its injury or
   forfeiture, it is a question of human wisdom still.

   Secular policy hangs over the relations of the Pope to Pepin; [559] and
   what was originally a fief, held of a secular monarch, became, by what
   all acknowledge to have been a forgery, "the donation of
   Constantine,"--an abdication of the temporal government in behalf of
   the Pope. Its loss, had human ambition had its way, would have been an
   event of God's Providence, Whose love is never more visible than when
   He chastens.

   The whole turns on the inspiration of that word "necessary." Unless the
   Pope is so inspired, that every word of his, even in matters not
   bearing on faith and morals, is "the very word of God," it does not
   follow that "non-intervention as to the question of the temporal power
   of the Pope is essentially a denial of the Divine institution of the
   Church."

   The present Ultramontanes have apparently changed the old Ultramontane
   doctrine of the inerrancy of the Pope, i. e. that of his preservation
   from error, into that of Divine perpetual inspir ation. We have,
   according to them, a perpetual revelation from God, disclosing new
   truths as infallibly as if S. Peter, or S. Paul, or S. John were yet on
   this earth. One recently returned from Rome, had the impression that
   "some of the extreme" Ultramontanes, "if they do not say so in so many
   words, imply a quasi-hypostatic union of the Holy Ghost with each
   successive Pope." [560] It is well that they should know the impression
   which they give to those most disposed towards them. Archbishop Manning
   has recently said:--

   "It is surely by a disposition of the Divine Head of the Church, that,
   in the heart of the 19th century, when both the intellects and wills of
   men have reached an excess of unbelief and of licence in matters of
   revelation, of morals, and of politics, the Vicar of our Lord, the
   Teacher of all Christians (as the Council of Florence entitles him),
   should twice in these last years have spoken with the voice of
   infallible truth, thereby testifying not only to the singular
   prerogative, which, as the first-fruits of grace, was bestowed upon

   the Immaculate Mother of God, and to the great constructive principles
   of morality and jurisprudence, on which the Christian world is founded,
   but also to the perpetual assistance of the Spirit of God, by whose
   light the Church and its Pontiffs, in all ages, now as in the
   beginning, discern and declare the limits of truth and falsehood. The
   dogmatic Bull of the Immaculate Conception, and the Encyclical of last
   year will, we believe, mark an epoch in the reconstruction of the
   Christian order of the world." [561]

   I know not why Archbishop Manning has selected two occasions only in
   which Pius IX. spoke with authority. For the Syllabus quotes thirty-two
   documents. Allocutions, or Epistles, [562] all as of equal and binding
   authority, besides the Encyclical Letter and Constitution on the
   doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. All being of equal authority, it
   would follow that all are "the very word of God;" [563] and that the
   Pope would be the perpetual prophet of the Church, infallible, like
   Isaiah or Jeremiah, or the rest of "the goodly fellowship of the
   Prophets," in every enunciation of his, on any matters of the Church,
   even if contained in a letter to a single Bishop.

   This would, indeed, mark an epoch, in the history of the Church. It
   seemed to myself, as well as to Archbishop Manning, that the
   declaration of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as
   revealed truth, is calculated to be full of consequences, as entailing
   the transmutation of other "pious opinions" about her into truths
   necessary to salvation. According to the principles which have been put
   forth in regard to the recent Encyclical, that not only the main
   question ruled, but expressions, however seemingly incidental, are
   infallible truth, very much would have been so declared already. Then
   it would be infallible truth (though originally a mistake of copyists),
   that [564] "she was to bruise the serpent's head;" and that [565] "as
   Christ, the Mediator of God and man, having taken our human nature,
   destroying the handwriting of the decree which was against us, nailed
   it to His cross, triumphing, so the Most Holy Virgin, conjoined with
   Him, by a most strait and indissoluble bond, exerting, together with
   Him, and through Him, eternal enmity against the venomous serpent, and
   triumphing most fully over him, bruised his head with her immaculate
   foot" then it would be matter of faith, that "she slew all heresies in
   the whole world;" that she is "the safest refuge of all in peril;" that
   "she has in her hands the affairs of our salvation;" that the present
   "zeal of piety, religion, love" towards her is not enough; that she "is
   placed between Christ and the Church;" that "if we have any hope,
   grace, salvation, all redounds from her." It would be infallible truth
   that "the Most Blessed Virgin is a tabernacle created by God Himself,
   and formed by the Holy Spirit," i. e. "by God, as the one only cause,
   without any operation of an earthly father, as was Jesus. For either
   she was conceived after the manner of men, in which case she was
   created by God in the same way in which He

   creates all born by human generation, and then this would have no
   bearing upon her immaculateness; or she was created by God directly, in
   which case there would be no difference so far between her conception
   and that of our Lord." [566] And, if these are matters of faith, it
   follows that every other statement, which I have mentioned above, is
   virtually matter of faith too, or may be presently made so.

   Larger principles may be involved, as when the Bull Ineffabilis alleges
   as a ground of a doctrinal decision that "the Church had been wont,
   both in Ecclesiastical offices and in the most holy Liturgy, to
   transfer the words, in which the Divine Scriptures speak of uncreated
   Wisdom and represent Its everlasting origin, to the origin of that
   Virgin too; which origin was fore-established by one and the same
   decree with the Incarnation of the Divine Wisdom." For, in order that
   this should be an argument, it must be, that applied meanings of Holy
   Scripture, not the literal only, should be grounds of belief, whereas
   S. Thomas says, [567] "All the senses (of Holy Scripture) are founded
   on one, viz. the literal, from which alone can an argument be drawn,
   not from what is said allegorically, as Augustine says." [568]

   Yet larger is the statement that "in the Roman Church," i. e. in the
   Church at Home, "alone has religion been guarded inviolably, and from
   it it is requisite that all other Churches should borrow the
   propagation of faith." [569] "But if this were so, to what end," asked
   Narvaez, "to ask from the Churches everywhere, what was their doctrine,
   or rather their devotion, as to the Immaculate Conception? "There is,
   indeed, an answer, which seems to be that of the writer of the
   "Constitution," that it was indeed superfluous, but that it was done to
   give greater solemnity to the proceeding, "that we might deliver our
   supreme judgment as solemnly as possible." But then again General
   Councils are declared to be superfluous.

   On the principle involved in the Encyclical of 1864: and the Syllabus,
   that historical statements, made by the Pope, are infallible, it would
   be infallible truth, that "this doctrine was in vigour from the most
   ancient times and thoroughly implanted in the minds of the faithful,
   and marvellously propagated through the Catholic Church by the care and
   zeal of its sacred Bishops; "in which way it would be difficult to see
   how fathers, doctors, saints, and Popes, who denied it, were not guilty
   of heresy; that "the distinction between the first and second mome nt
   and instant conception "(the active and

   passive conception) "was devised, in order to weaken the doctrine of
   the Immaculate Conception; "whereas notoriously it was part of the
   philosophy of the day, and was the first stage of that doctrine, and
   the distinction was insisted upon, in order to admit of the law of the
   transmission of original sin, without admitting that it ever passed
   upon the soul of Mary. Again, it would be infallible truth, that
   Alexander VII. spoke of the conception of Mary as immaculate from the
   first moment; whereas he spoke only "of her soul, in the first instant
   of its creation and infusion into the body," in conformity with the
   distinction which Pius IX. rejects. Then it is infallible that his
   "predecessors vehemently gloried to institute by their Apostolic
   authority the feast of the Conception in the Roman Church; whereas
   Aquinas says, that "though the Roman Church does not celebrate the
   Conception of the Blessed Virgin, it tolerates the custom of some
   Churches who celebrate that festival;" [570] or that the celebration of
   the festival of the Conception in itself proves that that Conception
   was immaculate, whereas the Feast of the Conception of S. John Baptist
   was inserted in the old Martyrologies, Roman, Usuard's, Aden's; [571]
   and the feast of the Blessed Virgin, "de Spasmo," though since
   abolished as unworthy of her, would imply that this too was sacred; and
   Sixtus IV. would be infallible in approving an office of the
   Conception, which Pius V. was infallible in suppressing, as "being made
   up of fictitious testimonies of fathers and ecclesiastical writers,
   nowhere found in their works." [572] Or if the lessons in any service
   authenticated the belief of what was celebrated in it, then, as Narvaez
   says, it might become matter of faith, which "is piously believed, that
   she [the Blessed Virgin] comforts the sons who are enrolled in the
   society of the Scapular, who have used a little abstinence and a few
   prayers, with a truly motherly affection, while they are expiated by
   the fire of purgatory, and by her intervention brings them most
   speedily to their heavenly home." In the same way the stigmata of S.
   Francis, or the piercing of the heart of S. Theresa, might be equally
   matter of faith. [573]

   Faber anticipated "an Age of Mary," in comparison to which all previous
   devotion to her should be slight. Archbishop Manning anticipates a new
   era, in which the Pope should continually be declaring new matters of
   faith, to be believed without authority of Scripture or tradition, on
   his sole authority; or to be supposed to have authority of Scripture or
   tradition, solely because he declares them. Wherein these new eras
   should issue, whether in the coming of Christ, as Faber thought, or
   through a collapse of faith (through the amount of that, taught as "of
   faith," which was no part of God's revelation to the Church), in the
   coming of Anti-Christ, God only knows.

   Turrecremata spoke of old of those who, without any solid foundation,
   [574] "wish by flattery to equal the Popes, as it were, to God." The
   unhappy marriage of Henry VIII. with his brother's wife, with the yet
   more unhappy scruples of one who had no other scruples, and the rent of
   England, was the fruit of that flattery. More perilous yet may be men's
   strong convictions. Yet there are still those, although slightly spoken
   of and depreciated by the Jesuits, who look with misgiving on the rapid
   course with which this new state of things is hurried on. [575] It was
   currently said at Paris, that an Archbishop said to an English advocate
   of the new system, "Compared to you, Monsignor, I am not Gallican, I am
   Scandinavian." To such we, to whom Bossuet or De Noailles would, we
   believe, have listened, stretch forth our hands. The strife with
   unbelief stretches and strains the powers of the Church everywhere;
   Satan's armies are united, at least in their warfare against "the truth
   as it is in Jesus." Are those who would maintain the faith in Him alone
   to be at variance? On the terms which Bossuet, we hope, would have
   sanctioned, we long to see the Church united; to all who, in East or
   West, desire to see intercommunion restored among those who hold the
   faith of the undivided Church, we say, "This is not our longing only;
   this is impressed on our Liturgy by those who were before us; for this,
   whenever we celebrate the Holy Eucharist, we are bound to pray, that
   God would inspire continually the Universal Church with the Spirit of
   truth, unity, and concord.'" For this I pray daily. For this I would
   gladly die. "O Lord, tarry not."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [490] Dublin "Review," July, 1865, p. 130.

   [491] Dublin "Review," April, 1865, p. 447.

   [492] Ib. July, p. 127. The Card. Archbishop of Chamb éry also notices
   "the condemnations having been published without exciting any protest,"
   i. e., I suppose, having been tacitly received. Ib. p. 129.

   [493] De Rom. Pont. iv. 3.

   [494] Ib. c. 6.

   [495] Dublin "Review," April, 1868, p. 446.

   [496] Ib., pp. 444, 448.

   [497] Prop. xxiii., in a work of a Spanish Ecclesiastic, Lima, 1848,
   condemned June 10, 1851, in the Multiplices inter, Recueil d. Alloc.
   Consistor., Encycliques, &c., citées dans l'Encycl. et Syll. 1864, p.
   289, "Roman Pontiffs and OEcumenical Councils have quitted the limits
   of their power, usurped the rights of princes, and have erred even in
   defining matters of faith and morals." The Dublin "Review" (April,
   1865, p. 482) argues rightly, that each of these statements is
   condemned as to the Popes or OEcumenical Councils, not only as to both
   together.

   [498] Prop. xxxviii. of Nuytz, a Turin Professor, condemned in Ad
   Apostolicas, Aug. 22, 1851, that "nimia arbitria' of Roman pontiffs
   contributed," &c. Recueil, p. 294.

   [499] Prop. lxxii., also quoted from Nuytz, condemned Ib. In the note
   there occurs, as a proposition of his, "the Emperor Justinian first
   annulled the marriage of priests." Ib. p. 297.

   [500] Prop. lxxix. This is not opposed to any maxim formally maintained
   by any one. In the Nunquam fore, Dec. 15, 1856, Pius IX. stated, that
   this was the object of the Mexican government, "In order to corrupt
   more easily the minds of the people, and to propagate the detestable
   and most foul pest of indifferentism,' and to attack our most holy
   religion, the free exercise of all worship is admitted, and full power
   is given of manifesting openly and publicly any opinions or thoughts
   whatever."

   [501] Prop. lxxvii. The Proposition condemned is, "In this our age, it
   is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held the
   only religion of the state, all other whatsoever being shut out." The
   question in the Nemo vestrum, to which reference is made, is not of any
   partial recognition or endowment of any such worship, but of its being.
   The convention which was broken in Spain was, "that that august
   religion, every other worship being shut out, continuing to be the only
   religion of the Spanish nation, was to be preserved as before," &c.

   [502] Prop. lxxviii. "Hence it has been laudably provided in some
   Catholic countries, that immigrants should be allowed the public
   exercise of their several worships." Pius IX. had condemned such
   permission in New Grenada "most energetically" (summopere), in the
   Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. Recueil, p. 322. To admit immigrants at
   all, and yet forbid them their worship, would plainly be to give them
   over to entire godlessness. And, apart from the loss of their own
   souls, the presence of a godless population is more perilous than that
   of persons with an imperfect faith.

   [503] Nuytz's proposition, denying this, is condemned in the Ad
   Apostolicas, Recueil, p. 294, and Syll., Prop. xxiv.

   [504] Ad Apost., Recueil, pp. 296, 7. In the Encyclical Quantæ curæ, he
   condemns those who are "not ashamed to affirm, that the Church has not
   the right of correcting by temporal punishments the violators of her
   laws." (Recueil, p. 8.)

   [505] Prop, xxv., Nuytz's, condemned. "Besides the power, inherent in
   the Episcopate, there is another temporal power attributed, granted
   either expressly or implicitly by the civil power, which may therefore
   be recalled by the civil power when it wills." It is involved then that
   the temporal power is inherent. Prop, xxvii., "The sacred ministers of
   the Church and the Roman Pontiff are to be excluded from all right and
   dominion of temporal things," is condemned in the Maxima quidem, June
   9, 1862, "as a saying uttered with all fallacy and guile." (Recueil, p.
   456.)

   [506] Prop. xxx., "The immunity of the Church and of Ecclesiastical
   persons had its origin from the civil law," was formed from one of F.
   de Paula G. Vigil, Lima (condemned in the Multiplices inter, Recueil,
   p. 288), who asserted that "the immunity of the Church and of persons,
   constituted by ordinance of God and canonical sanctions, had its origin
   from the civil law." Prop. xxxi. was not formally maintained as a
   thesis, but was acted upon. In the Allocutions referred to, Pius IX.
   said, "By this new constitution proposed [in the Mexican Republic],
   besides other things, every privilege of the Ecclesiastical forum is
   taken away" (Nunquam fore, Recueil, p. 384), and, "a law was passed (in
   New Grenada) whereby the Ecclesiastical forum is altogether taken away,
   and it is declared that all causes appertaining to the same forum, even
   those of the Archbishop and Bishops, whether civil or criminal, are for
   the future to be judged before lay tribunals by the magistrates of that
   republic." (Acerbissimum, Recueil, p. 322.) The proposition condemned
   is, "The ecclesiastical forum for the temporal causes of clerks,
   whether civil or criminal, is to be altogether taken away, even without
   consulting, or against the protest of, the Apostolic See." (Recueil, p.
   22.)

   [507] Prop. lxii. "The principle which they term non-intervention is to
   be proclaimed and observed." The principle is condemned in the Novos et
   ante broadly. "We cannot abstain from deploring, besides other things,
   the destructive and pernicious principle, which they call
   non-intervention, not long ago proclaimed and acted upon by some
   governments, and tolerated by the rest, in the case of the unjust
   aggression of one government against another, so that a sort of licence
   and impunity of attacking and despoiling the rights, properties, and
   even territories of others against the laws of God and man, seems to be
   sanctioned, as we see in this sad time." (Recueil, p. 420.)

   [508] Prop. xli., Fuytz's. "That the civil power, even when exercised
   by an infidel ruler, has an indirect negative power over sacred things,
   and not merely the right, called exequatur, but also of appeal from
   abuse'" (l'appel comme d'abus), condemned verbally in the Ad Apost.,
   Rec. p. 294.

   [509] Prop. lxxvi., from the Quibus quantisque, 1849. "We cannot but
   admonish and reprove those especially, who approve that decree [of the
   Constituens Romana, 1849], whereby the Roman Pontiff was despoiled of
   all honour and dignity of his temporal princedom, and assert that that
   decree conduces in the highest degree to the liberty and felicity of
   the Church herself." (Rec., p. 224.)

   [510] Dublin "Review," April, 1865, p. 441, note.

   [511] Prop. lxxv. condemned in the Ad Apost., Recueil, p. 294.

   [512] Recueil, p. 33.

   [513] Quibus quantisque, Rec. p. 224.

   [514] Of the Alloc., cited in the Syll., the Si semper antea, Rec., p.
   266, Cum Catholica, Ib., p. 402, Novos, Ib., p. 420, Maxima quidem,
   Ib., p. 460, repeat, unargumentatively, the statement that the civil
   Princedom was given by the singular counsel of the Providence of God
   (the Cum Cath. says, "God willed that this see of S. Peter should be
   provided with it"), for the greater benefit of the Church, through the
   independent position of the Pontiff. The Jamdudum cernimus, Rec., p.
   438, only speaks of the Civil Princedom as belonging to the R. Pontiff.

   [515] The Dublin "Review," April, p. 487, in stating the doctrine,
   says, that "under present circumstances it is necessary for enabling
   the Pope freely to govern the Church without subjection to an earthly
   king." I do not find that limitation in any document, unless the writer
   means, "The circumstances ever since the division of the Roman Empire
   into various kingdoms," i. e., ever since the Pope has had
   temporalities. The ground alleged by the Pope would apply still more
   strongly to earlier times, since Persia was in continual antagonism to
   the Roman Empire; but then there were neither the temporalities nor the
   rule.

   [516] Recueil, p. 440.

   [517] Rom. xiii. 1.

   [518] Receuil, p. 10.

   [519] Dublin "Review," April, p. 445.

   [520] Ib., p. 449. Cardinal Patrizi's words there translated are, "The
   faithful, who show themselves such in word and act, recognize in the
   voice of the Church's visible head the very word of God [Italics of the
   Dublin "Review"]. That head has authority to address the whole Church;
   and he who listens not to him declares himself as no longer
   appertaining to ths Church, as no longer making part of Christ's flock,
   and accordingly as no longer having a right to the kingdom of heaven."

   [521] Epist., lib. xi. Indict, iv. Ep. 64, Interr. 6, ed. Ben.

   [522] To Emanuel, king of Portugal.

   [523] To Ferdinand, king of Sicily. See Dr. Pusey's Evidence before the
   commission appointed to inquire into the law of marriage, n. 464 (as
   reprinted with Pref., pp. 26, 27).

   [524] De Restit. Spol. c. Literas; de Consang. et Aff., cap. de
   Infidel.; de Divert., tit. Gaudemus, quoted ib. pp. 80, 81.

   [525] Letter to the Council of Ephesus. I have adopted the translation
   in Allies' Church of England, from Fleury, xxv. 47, Oxf. Tr. Fleury
   observes, "Thus Pope Celestine acknowledged that it was Christ Himself
   Who established Bishops in the persons of the Apostles, as the teachers
   of His Church; he places himself in their rank, and declares that they
   ought all to concur for the preservation of the sacred deposit of
   Apostolic doctrine."

   [526] Ib. The passage just precedes the former, which is its sequel.

   [527] Ep. 120, ad Theod., quoted by Bossuet, Gall. Orthod., n. 60. 61.

   [528] Ep. ad Eulog. Episc. Alex., lib. vii., quoted by Allies, Eng.
   Ch., &c., p. 347.

   [529] Opp. T. iii., p. 632 A, quoted by Allies, p. 848.

   [530] T. iii. 387 E, Ib. p. 349.

   [531] Epp., lib. v., 43, ad Eulog., quoted Ib. p. 354.

   [532] Ad Episc. Ill., lib. ix. 68. Allies, p. 355.

   [533] Ad Sabinian., lib. v. 19, Ib.

   [534] Ad Imp. Maur., lib. vii. 33. Allies, p. 356.

   [535] Ad Imp. Maur., v. 20, Ib.

   [536] Allies translated "per" "during," observing that S. Gregory used
   per, or in, not a. It was in fact used, not by but in, the Council by
   two Alexandrian Deacons who accused Dioscorus, and probably, as Van
   Espen conjectured (T. v. 477, Ib.), in opposition the like title given
   to Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria. Allies observes, however, "The
   title Ecumenical has been constantly since, and is now borne by the
   Patriarch of Constantinople; no doubt a very innocent meaning may be
   given it. The remarkable thing is, that Gregory has pointed out in such
   plain unmistakable language a certain power and claim, which he
   inferred, rightly or wrongly, would be set up on this title Ecumenical,
   and which he pronounces to be a corruption of the whole constitution of
   the Church "(Ib., p. 360), and that he and his predecessors repudiated
   it. Thomassin would have it, that the Council, by its silence,
   authorized the title given in "those" requests (i. 1. 11, Ib.). It is
   obviously unreasonable to argue any thing from the fact that the
   Council did not interrupt the proceedings to protest against a title
   occurring in a petition, and very capable of an innocent sense.

   [537] Ep. ad Anastas., lib. vii. 27. Ib. 368. This, as Allies remarked,
   is exactly the argument used for the infallibility of the Pope; i. e.
   that is claimed for him, which S. Gregory the Great, being also on the
   same principle infallible, rejected.

   [538] Ad Euseb. viii. 30.

   [539] Ep. ad Joann., Patr. Const, v. 18. Ib. p. 360.

   [540] In Mansi, xix. 640. Allies, p. 363.

   [541] In Mansi, xi. 1057. Allies, p. 381.

   [542] Ep. 105, ad Pulcher. c. 3.

   [543] In Mansi, xii. 1073. Ib., p. 399.

   [544] Serm. v. de Nativ. Dom. Opp. i. 160. Par. 1675. Comp. S. Gregory
   I. (Mor. in Job, 1. 18), "He alone was truly born holy, Who, that He
   might conquer corrupt nature, was not conceived in the ordinary way."

   [545] Epist. adv. Pelag. Hær. conc. x. p. 181, ed. Reg.

   [546] In Solemn. Assump. Glor. semper Virg. M. Serm. 2. Opp. T. i. p.
   161. Colon. 1575.

   [547] The whole passage is (on S. Luke i. 35, The Holy Ghost shall come
   upon thee), "But forthwith the Holy Ghost came upon her; He had indeed
   before come into her, when, in her mother's womb, He cleansed her soul
   from original sin; but now too He came upon her, to cleanse her flesh
   from the fomes' of sin, that she might be altogether without spot or
   wrinkle. That tyrant, then, of the flesh, the sickness of nature, the
   fomes' of sin, as I think, He altogether extinguished, that henceforth
   any motion from the law of sin should not be able to arise in her
   members."--In Solemn. Purif. Glor. V. M. Serm. Unic., Opp. T. i. p.
   107.

   [548] Printed in the Recueil, &c., pp. 294-7, from la Croce di Savoia.

   [549] Introd. to Sermons on Eccl. Subj., 1863, p. 65.

   [550] Dublin "Review," April, 1865, p. 441.

   [551] "Let us return to the Bishops, and conclude that it is only
   ignorance and grossness which made them think these seignories, united
   to their sees, were useful to maintain religion. I only see the Roman
   Church, where one can find a special reason for uniting the two powers.
   While the Ro man Empire lasted, it contained in its vast extent nearly
   all Christianity; but after Europe was divided among many princes
   independent of each other, if the Pope had been the subject of any one
   of them, there would be ground to fear that the others would have had
   difficulty in owning him as a common father, and that schisms would
   have been frequent. One may believe then, that it was by a singular
   effect of Providence that the Pope found himself independent and master
   of a state, powerful enough not to be easily oppressed by other
   sovereigns; in order that he might be the more free in the exercise of
   his spiritual power, and be able to keep more easily the other Bishops
   within the bounds of their duty. This was the thought of a great Bishop
   of our time."--Fleury, Disc. 4, sur 1'Hist. Eccl., n. 10.

   [552] Fleury, Disc. 4, sur 1'Hist. Eccl., n. 9. --

   [553] Ep. 8, ad Anastas.

   [554] Ep. 243, 244.

   [555] 1 Cor. vi. 12.

   [556] Synes., Ep. 57, and 121.

   [557] Hom. 85, in S. Matt.

   [558] 1 Cor. vii. 33.

   [559] The celebrated answer, which transferred the kingdom of France to
   Pepin, would hardly be a precedent. "Burghard, Bishop of Wirzeburg, and
   Folrad, Chaplain, were sent to Zachary Pope, asking as to the kings of
   France, who at that time had not the royal power, if it were well or
   no. And Zachary Pope sent word to Pepin, that it was better that he
   should be called king, who had the power, than he who remained without
   royal power; that order might not be disturbed, he commanded that Pepin
   should become king by Apostolic authority."--(Annal. Lauriss., A. 749.
   Pertz, Mon. Germ. i. 136.) The next year, "Pepin, according to the
   custom of the Franks, was elected king and anointed by the hand of
   Archbishop Boniface of holy memory, and raised by the Franks to the
   throne at Soissons. But Hilderic, who was fals ely called king, was
   shorn and sent into a monastery,"--(ib. A. 750.) In return, Pepin made
   the Pope Patricius of the Exarchate, yet under fealty to Pepin, and for
   the time owning the Greek Emperor. (See authorities in Gieseler, Ser.
   3, A. 1, c. 2, § 5.) This arrangement could not be said to be by the
   Providence of God, in any other way, than all acts of men are overruled
   by Him.

   [560] The accurate writer, who reported this to me, observed in answer,
   "This seems to me to be Llamaism."

   [561] Pastoral, as published in "The Weekly Register," June 17.

   [562] Recueil des Alloc. consist, encycliques, &c. Paris, 1865.

   [563] See above. The inspiration must be extended to the writers of the
   Bulls also.

   [564] Encycl., 1849, "Ubi primum."

   [565] "Ineffabilis," 1854.

   [566] The argument of Narvaez, Exam. Bullæ Ineffabilis, p. 90.

   [567] P. 1, q. 1, art. 10, in resp. ad arg. 1.

   [568] Ep. c. Vincent. Donat. Narvaez quotes to the same end Acosta, a
   Jesuit, "de Christo revelato," iii. 4.

   [569] The writer of the "Ineffabilis" has applied to the Church at
   Rome, in relation to the rest of the Catholic Church, which has the
   faith already, words which Tertullian uses of the Church everywhere, in
   relation to those who, being newly converted, had to receive the faith
   in the first instance. The writer of the Constitution says, "Ex qua
   traducem fidei reliquæ omnes Ecclesiæ mutuentur oportet." Tertullian
   says, "The Apostles founded Churches in every city, from which the
   other Churches thenceforth borrowed the propagation of faith and seeds
   of doctrine (a quibus traducem fidei et semina doctrinæ cæteræ exinde
   Ecclesiæ muiuatæ sunt), and are daily borrowing them, that they may
   become Churches."--De Præscr. c. 20, p. 468. Oxf. Tr. 9. See notes Ib.

   [570] P. 3, q. 29, art. 2, arg. 3.

   [571] Nat. Alex. H. E. Sæc. ii. Diss. 16, § 21.

   [572] Nat. Al. ib.

   [573] The above instances are furnished by the very remarkable wo rk of
   Narvaez, "Professor of Theology in the Order of Preachers, and in the
   University of Complutum" [Alcarade Henares] ,1858, "Examen Bullæ
   Ineffabilis, institution et concinnatum juxta regulas sanioris
   theologiæ," Paris, 1858,--a detailed and just criticism of "the writer
   of the Bull."

   [574] "Adulando eos quasi æquiparare Deo." He is speaking of those who
   claimed for the Pope the right to dispense with the degrees of kin
   prohibited by the Levitical law. He calls them "Doctorculi." See Dr.
   Pusey's Evidence, &c., p. 35.

   [575] It could only be under such strong conviction that Card. Wiseman
   said of the Abp. of Paris, who died in recovering his people at the
   barricades, "he was a mere Gallican."
     __________________________________________________________________

  NOTE A.

   The Faith, according to the Fathers, is contained in Holy Scripture.

   THE VIth Article does not touch upon the subject of the interpretation
   of Holy Scripture. The questions, "Who is its interpreter? by what
   rules the interpretation is to be guided? what is the value of
   tradition or of the consent of antiquity in its interpretation? "are
   wholly outside of its scope. Nor again, is it the question whether any
   things are true or right to be observed which are grounded on
   tradition, without being contained in, or provable by, Holy Scripture.
   The Article relates only to "Articles of Faith," and lays down the duty
   not of individuals, but of the Church, not to require to be believed as
   an Article of Faith, what cannot be proved by Holy Scripture. I have
   put down a few passages from the fathers, stating or implying that the
   faith is contained in Holy Scripture, as bearing out the Article,
   chiefly such as are quoted by Beveridge on the Articles, in Archbishop
   Usher's Answer to a Jesuit (c. 2), and in the notes on S. Athanasius
   against the Arians (Library of the Fathers). Some I found in an
   American publication, taken, without acknowledgment, from Dean Goode's
   laborious collection in his "Divine Rule of Faith and Practice," vol.
   iii. pp. 29-211. From this I hare selected some few. A fuller list may
   be seen in the work itself, with which, although written against us, we
   have, thus far, no controversy; since the question between the school
   of Dean Goode and ourselves was not, whether Holy Scripture is the
   ultimate source of faith (in which we were always agreed), but whether
   it is its own interpreter.

   The argument from tradition was pressed upon heretics by S. Irenæus and
   Tertullian, that the Apostles committed orally their whole doctrine to
   the Churches which they founded. S. Irenæus begins his full argument of
   the value of tradition by asserting that what the Apostles delivered
   orally, that they wrote. "Through no other have we known the plan of
   our salvation, than through them, through whom the Gospel has come to
   us; which Gospel they then preached, but afterwards by the will of God
   delivered us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our
   faith." --iii. 1.1. In like way Tertullian: "What we are, that are the
   Scriptures from the beginning; of them we are, before that any thing
   existed contrary to what we are" [heresy],--De Præscr. c. 38, p. 489,
   Oxf. Tr. And a little before, having given the beginning and end of the
   Apostles' Creed, "She (the Church) joineth the law and the prophets
   with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, and thence drinketh
   in her faith."--Ib. § 37. And negatively, "Whether all things were made
   of any subject-matter, I have as yet read nowhere. Let Hermogenes' shop
   show that it is written. If it is not written, let them fear that woe
   alloted to such as add or take away."--Adv. Herm. c. 22.

   S. Clement of Alexandria,--"He hath ceased to abide a man of God and
   faithful to the Lord, who hath kicked against the ecclesiastical
   tradition, and bounded off to the opinions of human heresies; but he
   who hath returned from this deceit, listening to the Scriptures, and
   turning back his life to the truth, is perfected, being in a manner
   deified. For we have the Lord as the source of the doctrine, guiding
   the true knowledge from beginning to end, in divers portions and in
   divers manners,' through the Prophets, and the Gospel, and the Holy
   Apostles. But if any think he needs any other first principle, that
   which is indeed the first principle would not be kept. But he who is
   trustworthy in himself may well be worthy of trust through the
   Scripture and voice of the Lord, which, through the Lord, worketh to
   the good of man. For this [Scripture and voice of the Lord] we use as a
   rule of judging and discovering things. But every thing which is judged
   is as yet untrustworthy, before it is judged; so that what hath need of
   being judged cannot be a first principle. With good reason then do we,
   embracing by faith the first principle being undemonstrated, taking ex
   abundanti the proofs concerning the first principle from the first
   principle itself, and instructed by the voice of the Lord to the
   acknowledgment of the truth. If it suffice not simply to express what
   we hold, but there is need to establish what we say, we do not wait for
   testimony from men, but we accredit the thing to be ascertained by the
   voice of the Lord, which is more trustworthy than any demonstration,
   yea, rather is

   the only demonstration. In which knowledge they who have only a simple
   knowledge of the Scriptures are faithful.--But if those who go after
   heresies also venture to use prophetic Scriptures,--first, they do not
   use all; secondly, not perfectly; not as the body and context of the
   prophecy suggests, but selecting what is said doubtfully, they draw it
   aside to their own opinions, plucking a few sayings here and there, not
   attending to what is signified by them, but using the bare
   phrases."--Strom, vii. pp. 890, 1, Pott.

   S. Hippolytus,--"There is one God, Whom we do not know otherwise than
   from the Holy Scriptures. For as, if any one would be disciplined in
   the wisdom of this world, he could not obtain it without reading the
   doctrines of philosophers; so, whoever of us would practise piety
   towards God, shall not learn it except from the Divine Scriptures.
   Whatever, then, the Holy Scriptures set forth, let us know; and
   whatever they teach, let us learn; and as the Father willeth to be
   believed, so let us believe; and as He willeth the Son to be glorified,
   so let us glorify Him; and as He willeth the Holy Ghost to be given, so
   let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our
   own sense, nor doing violence to the things given by Him, but as He
   willed to teach us by the Holy Scripture, so let us understand
   them."--c. Noet. n. 9, Opp. T. i., pp. 238, 9.

   Origen,--"In the two Testaments every word appertaining to God may be
   sought and discussed, and from them may all knowledge be obtained. But
   if there be any thing, upon which Divine Scripture decideth not, no
   other third Scripture ought to be received as an authority for any
   knowledge; but what remaineth we should commit to the fire--i. e.,
   reserve to God. For God doth not will that we should know all things in
   this present life."--In Lev. Hom. v. n. 9, ii. 212, ed. De la Rue.

   S. Dionysius of Alexandria,--He praises the Millenarians of the
   Arsinoite, that "very conscientiously and guilelessly, and with
   childlike hearts towards God, they received the things established by
   proofs and teaching of the Holy Scriptures."--In Euseb,, H. E. vii. 24.

   S. Cyprian declares the agreement with Holy Scripture to be the test of
   genuine tradition. "Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend
   from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel, or does it come from the
   injunctions and epistles of the Apostles? For that we are to do what is
   written, God testifieth and admonisheth, saying to Joshua, This book of
   the law shall not depart out of thy mouth,' &c. (Jos. i. 8.) Likewise
   the Lord, sending His Apostles, directs that the nations should be
   baptized and taught to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded.
   If, then, it is commanded in the Gospels, or contained in the Epistles
   or Acts of the Apostles, then be this holy and Divine tradition
   preserved."--Ep. 74, ad Pomp., n. 2,

   p. 261, Oxf. Tr.

   "What presumption to prefer human tradition to Divine ordinances, and
   not to perceive that God is displeased and angered, as often as human
   tradition relaxes the Divine command" (citing Isa. xxix. 13; S. Matt.
   xv. 8, 9; S. Mark vii. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 3-5).

   "It behoves the priests of God, who keep the Divine commandments, that,
   if the truth has in any respect tottered and faltered, we should go
   back to our Lord as our Head, and to the Evangelic and Apostolic
   tradition."--Ib. n. 13, p. 267.

   S. Athanasius, admitted as a deacon to defend the faith at the Council
   of Nice, who witnesses so often that the Church there declared what it
   had received, states also the sufficiency of Holy Scripture:-- "Vainly
   then do they [the Arians] run about with the pretext that they have
   demanded Councils for the faith's sake, for Divine Scripture is
   sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point,
   there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did
   not neglect this matter; but stated the doctrine so exactly, that
   persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of
   the religion towards Christ announced in Divine Scripture."--Conc.
   Arim. et Sel. c. i. § 8, p. 81, Oxf. Tr. See further, above, p. 43.

   "Perhaps being refuted as touching the term Ingenerate also, they will
   say, according to their evil nature, it behoved, as regards our Lord
   and Saviour Jesus Christ also, to state from the Scriptures what is
   there written of Him, and not to introduce un-Scriptural expressions.'
   Yes, it behoved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as
   drawn from Scripture than from other sources; but the ill disposition
   and the versatile and crafty irreligion of the Eusebians, compelled the
   bishops, as I said before, to publish more distinctly the terms which
   overthrow their irreligion."--Nicene Def. c. vii. § 6, p. 57, Oxf. Tr.

   "Such is their [the Arian] madness and temerity. But our faith is
   right, issuing from Apostolic teaching and tradition of the fathers,
   confirmed from both the New and Old Testament," which he proceeds to
   quote.--Ep. ad Adelph., § 6, T. i. p. 914, 5, Ben.

   "The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the
   preaching of the truth, yet there are also many treatises of our
   blessed teachers composed for this purpose."--Cont. Gent. init.

   "Since Divine Scripture is more sufficient than any thing else, I
   recommend persons who wish to know fully concerning these things (the
   doctrine of the blessed Trinity) to read the Divine oracles."--Ad Ep.
   JEg. 4.

   "The Scriptures are sufficient for teaching; but it is good for us to
   exhort each other in the faith, and to refresh each other with
   discourses."--Vit. S. Anton. 16.

   S. Cyril of Jerusalem, having given a summary of the Creed, adds, "This
   seal have thou ever on thy mind, which now by way of summary has been
   touched on in its heads, and, if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set
   forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the
   Divine and most sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver
   even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures, nor be drawn
   aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then
   believe me, because I tell you these things, unless thou receive from
   the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth; for this salvation,
   which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof
   from the Holy Scriptures."--Lect. iv. § 17, p. 42, Oxf. Tr.

   "Take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession,
   which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all
   Scripture, For since all cannot read the Scriptures, but some, as being
   unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them;
   in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the
   Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of the Faith.
   This I wish you to remember even in the very phrase, and to rehearse it
   with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it on paper, but by
   memory graving it on your heart as on a monument.

   "This I wish you to keep all through your life as a provision for the
   way, and besides this to receive no other ever: whether we ourselves
   should change and contradict what we now teach; or some opposing Angel,
   transformed into an Angel of light, should aim at leading you astray.
   For though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you
   than that ye have received, let them be accursed.' And for the present,
   commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect
   at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine
   Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good
   pleasure of men; but the most important points, chosen from all
   Scripture, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the
   mustard-seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this
   Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge
   of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold,
   therefore, brethren, and hold the traditions' which ye now receive, and
   write them on the table of your hearts.'"--Lect. v. § 12, p. 58, Oxf.
   Tr.

   S. Hilary, in rejecting a statement from the Book of Enoch:-- "Let us
   pass by this. For the things which are not contained in the book of the
   law, we ought not even to know" (in Ps. 132, n. 6), and in the context
   of the celebrated passage in which he speaks of the abuse of Holy
   Scripture by heretics, he said to Constantius, "In so far I truly
   admire thee, Lord Emperor Constantius, for thy blessed and religious
   wish, in that thou desirest the faith only according to that which is
   written, and hastening, as is meet, to the very words of the
   Only-Begotten God, that your breast, which can contain an Emperor's
   cares, may also be filled with the Divine words. This whoso rejecteth
   is Anti-Christ, and whoso doth it in pretence, is anathema. But this
   one thing I ask--that in the presence of the Synod (of Constantinople),
   which is now at variance about the faith, thou wouldest vouchsafe to
   hear me as to the Evangelic Scriptures, that I may speak with thee in
   the words of my Lord Jesus Christ, whose exile or Bishop I am,--'God,'
   according to the prophet, beholdeth him who is humble and trembleth at
   His word.' Emperor, thou seekest the faith; hear it, not out of new
   writings, but out of the Books of God."--Ad Const. Aug. ii. n. 8.

   S. Epiphanius,--"The children of the Church have received from their
   holy Fathers, that is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith; and
   withal to deliver and preach it to their own children. . . . Cease not,
   faithful and orthodox men, thus to speak, and to teach the like from
   the Divine Scriptures, and to walk, and

   to catechize, to the confirmation of yourselves and those who hear you;
   namely, that holy faith of the Catholic Church, as the holy and only
   Virgin of God received its custody from the holy Apostles of the Lord;
   and thus, in the case of each of those who are under catechizing, who
   are to approach the holy Layer, ye ought not only to preach faith to
   your children in the Lord, but also to teach them expressly, as your
   common mother teaches, to say, We believe in one God,'" &c., adding the
   Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in full.--Ancorat. 120, T. ii. p. 122.

   S. Optatus,--"Why knock at heaven, when we have a Testament here in the
   Gospel? For here things earthly may be rightly compared with things
   heavenly. The case is, as when a Father, having many sons, as long as
   he is with them, himself directs them, a Testament is not yet
   necessary. So Christ, as long as He was present on earth (although now,
   too, He fails us not), for the time commanded the Apostles whatever was
   necessary. But as an earthly father, when he feels himself on the verge
   of death, fearing lest, after his death, the brothers should quarrel
   and go to law, calls witnesses, and transfers his will from his dying
   breast to tables which shall long endure, and, if any contention arises
   among the brothers, they do not go to the tomb, but ask for the
   Testament, and he who resteth in the tomb speaketh silently from the
   tables,--He Whose is the Testament is alive in heaven. So then let His
   Will be sought in the Gospel as in a Testament."--(As to the
   re-baptising of Heretics.)--De Schism. Don. v. 3.

   S. Basil, in his treatise on the faith, sets out with saying, "What I
   have learnt from the God-inspired Scripture, this would I set before
   you as is pleasing unto God. I have thought it suited to our common
   end, in the simplicity of a sound faith, to fulfil the desire of your
   love in Christ, saying what I have been taught from the God-inspired
   Scripture, being sparing as to names and words, which are not actually
   introduced into the Divine Scripture, yet which preserve that meaning
   which lieth in Scripture. But those which, besides the language being
   foreign to Scripture, had a meaning also foreign to it, and which
   cannot be found used by the saints, these I shrank from altogether, as
   foreign and alien to godly faith. For faith is an unhesitating assent
   to the things which we have heard in the fulness of the truth of the
   things preached by the grace of God. But if the Lord is faithful in all
   His words,--it is a manifest falling from faith, and sin of pride,
   either to reject any thing written, or to introduce any thing
   unwritten, since the Lord Jesus Christ saith, My sheep hear My voice,
   and a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him, for they
   know not the voice of strangers;' and the Apostle, under an example
   taken from men, strongly forbiddeth to add or take away any thing in
   the God-inspired Scriptures, in that he says, Now a man's covenant,
   when confirmed, no man annulleth or addeth thereunto.'" De Fide, n. 1,
   Opp. ii. 223, 224.

   "What then our Fathers said, we too say, that the Glory is common to
   the Father and the Son, wherefore we present our giving of glory to the
   Father with the Son. But this doth not suffice us, that it is the
   tradition of the Fathers. For they too followed the mind of the
   Scripture, taking as their first principle those testimonies which, a
   little while ago, we set before you from the Scripture."--De Spir. S.
   c. 7, n. 16,

   T. iii. p. 13.

   And, though not speaking of faith, he gives it as a rule, "That every
   word or thing ought to be confirmed by testimony of God-inspired
   Scripture, to the full conviction of the good and the shaming of the
   evil."--Reg. 26. Ib. ii. p. 256.

   "What is the character of faith? An unhesitating conviction of the
   truth of the God-inspired words. What is the character of the faithful?
   With the same conviction to embrace the meaning of what is said, and
   not to venture to annul or to add. For if every thing which is not of
   faith is sin, as the Apostle says, and faith is from hearing, and
   hearing through the Word, every thing which is without the God-inspired
   Scripture, being not of faith, is sin."--Reg. 80, c. 22. Ib. p. 317.

   S. Gregory of Nyssa,--"I think we ought to inquire, over and above what
   has been said, whether the God-inspired teachings agree with these
   things.' She said, And who would contradict this, that that alone is to
   be set down as truth, to which the seal of the teaching of the Gospel
   is added?'"--De Anima et Res. T iii. p. 207.

   "But since with them [the philosophers], the theory as to the soul was
   carried out at their own pleasure, according to what seemed to them
   consequential, but we have no such power of saying whatever we will,
   seeing that we use Holy Scripture as a canon and law of all doctrine,
   we, of necessity, looking to it,

   receive that alone which agreeth with the purport of what is
   written."-- Ib. p. 201.

   "Since the God-inspired testimony is the safe criterion of truth as to
   every doctrine, I think it well to accredit our teaching too by
   annexation of the Divine."--c. Eunom, L. i. T. ii. p. 346.

   "That God here (Gen. xi.) addressed the ministering Angels, since it is
   rested on no testimony of Scripture, we have rejected as false."--De
   Cognit. Dei, in Euthym. Panopl. Tit. 8, B. P. T. 19, p. 49.

   S. Ambrose,--"What we do not find in Holy Scripture, how can we use?"
   [not of doctrine].--De Off. i. 23, § 102.

   "Why labour we so much for the world--who ought to serve no other save
   this Lord? Here then there is no second [as the Arians called our
   Lord]. I adduce this testimony. I read that He is first; I read that He
   is not second. Let those who say that He is second show it by
   Scripture."--De. Inst. Virg. c. xi. § 70, ii. 265, Ben.

   "They say, that the Son is unlike' the Father; we deny it; yea, rather,
   we are horrified at the word. But I would not have you trust my
   argument, sacred Emperor, or my discussion. Let us interrogate the
   Scriptures; let us interrogate the Apostles; let us interrogate the
   Prophets; let us interrogate Christ."--De Fide, i. 6, n. 41, T. ii. p.
   451.

   "I wish not to be myself believed; let Scripture be recited."-- De Inc.
   Dom. Sacr. c. 3, n. 14. ii.

   706.

   S. Jerome,--"But as we do not deny what is written, so what is not
   written we reject. That God was born of a Virgin, we believe, because
   we read. That Mary married after that Birth we believe not, because we
   read not."--Adv. Helvid. § 19, Opp. ii. 222, Vail.

   "The doctrine of the Church, which is the house of God, is found in the
   fulness of the Divine Scriptures."--Ep. 30, ad Paulam, § 6, i. 147.

   "Other things, too, which they [the heretics] find and invent without
   the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, as if by Apostolical
   tradition, the sword of God [i. e. His living Word] strikes through."--
   On Hagg. i. 11, T. vi. p. 749.

   "The Church of Christ, which hath a goodly dwelling-place, and
   possesseth Churches in the whole world, is conjoined by unity of
   spirit, and hath the cities of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel, the
   Apostles, hath not gone forth from her boundaries, i. e. the Holy
   Scriptures, but retains the possession which she took."--In Mic. i. 10,
   T. vi. pp. 444, 5.

   "That treasure, in which are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
   knowledge, is either God the Word, Who seemeth hidden in the flesh of
   Christ, or Holy Scripture, in which is laid up the knowledge of the
   Saviour."--In S. Matt. xiii. 44, T. vii. 97.

   "It is asked how God made known to us the mystery of His will in all
   wisdom and knowledge. And first this is to be taken simply, that the
   mystery of His will is our redemption through the Blood of His Son, and
   remission of sins according to the riches of His grace, wherewith He
   hath abounded in us. Then that through His Scriptures He hath made
   known to us all mysteries, how He first made heaven and earth, and all
   things therein," &c.--In Ep. ad Eph. i. 9, p. 555.

   Theophilus of Alexandria,--[Origen] "not knowing that it is the
   suggestion of a dæmoniacal spirit to follow the sophism of human minds,
   and to think any thing Divine outside of the authority of the
   Scriptures."--Epist. Pasch. i. (96 among S. Jerome's), § 6, T. i. p.
   560, Vail.

   "It is one thing, if they can teach out of the Scriptures that Go d the
   "Word had His Soul before He was born of Mary, and that it was called
   His Soul before He took flesh. But if they are constrained by the
   authority of the Scriptures and reason itself, to admit that Christ had
   not a soul before He was born of Mary (for at the assumption of man,
   His Soul also was assumed), they are plainly convicted of saying that
   the same soul was, and was not, His. But let these madmen cease from
   the impiety of new dogmas. Let us, following the rule of the
   Scriptures, proclaim, with entire confidence of heart, that neither His
   flesh nor His soul were, before He was born of Mary."--Ep. Pasch. ii.
   n. 8 (Ep. 98 in S. Jer.), i. 585.

   Rufinus,--After giving the catalogue of the Books of the Old and New
   Testament, he says: "These are they which the Fathers included within
   the canon, and out of which they willed the assertions of our faith to
   be established."--Comm. in Symb. Apost. § 37, p. 110, ed. Vallars.

   "These things have been delivered unto us by the Fathers, which, as I
   said, it seemed opportune to set down in this place for the instruction
   of those who are receiving the first elements of the Church and of the
   faith, that they may know from what fountains they are to draw the
   draughts of the Word of God."--Ib. § 38, p. 101.

   Perhaps Gregory of Bætica, anyhow before S. Augustine,--"Since, then,
   thou knowest this unity of substance in the Father and the Son, by
   authority, not only of the Prophets, but of the Gospel also, how sayest
   thou that the omoousion is not found in the Divine Scriptures, as
   though the omoousion were any other than what He saith, I came forth
   from the Father,' and I and the Father are one,' or what the Prophets
   plainly intimated as to the Substance of God?"--De Fide Orthod. c. 5,
   App. S. Ambr. ii. pp. 351,

   2.

   S. Augustine,--Albeit the Lord Jesus did many things, not all are
   written; as this same S. John the Evangelist testifies that the Lord
   Christ both said and did many things which are not written: only those
   were selected to be written which were seen to suffice for the
   salvation of them that believe."--Hom. 49, in

   S. John, § 1, p. 649, Oxf. Tr.

   And after enumerating the books of Holy Scripture, "In all these books,
   they who fear God and are meek through piety, seek the "Will of God. Of
   this work and labour the first observance is, to know those books, if
   not so as to understand them, yet by reading either to commit them to
   memory, or at least not to be altogether unacquainted with them. Then
   those things which are set down plainly in them, whether precepts as to
   life, or rules of faith, are to be searched into diligently and wisely;
   of these any one will find the more, in proportion to his capacity and
   intelligence. For in those things which are set down plainly in the
   Scriptures, are found all things which contain faith in the way of
   life, i. e., hope and charity."--De Doctr. Christ, ii. 9, § 14.

   "He made the authors of the Divine Scriptures the mountains of Israel.
   Feed there, that ye may find safety. Whatsoever ye hear thence, let
   that savour well unto you; whatsoever is without, reject. Wander not in
   the mist; hear the voice of the Shepherd; gather yourselves to the
   mountains of Holy Scripture; there are the delights of your heart;
   there is nothing poisonous, nothing alien; it is a most rich pasture;
   do ye only come sound yourselves."--Serm. 46, de Past. c. 11, § 24,
   Opp. v. 238.

   "He, having spoken first by the Prophets, then by Himself, afterwards
   by the Apostles, as much as He judged to be sufficient, formed also the
   Scripture which, is called Canonical, of most eminent authority, which
   we trust as to those things, which it is not expedient to be ignorant
   of, and which yet we are not equal to know of ourselves."--De Civ. Dei,
   xi. 3, T. vii. p. 273.

   "It [the city of God] believes the Holy Scriptures, both the Old and
   the New, which we call Canonical, from which the faith itself is
   derived whereby the just liveth, by which we walk without doubting, so
   long as we are absent from the Lord; which being safe and certain, we
   may without just blame doubt as to some things, which we have not
   perceived by sense or reason, and which have not become evident to us
   by Canonical Scriptures, nor have come to our knowledge by witnesses
   whom it were absurd to disbelieve."--Ib. xix. 18. Ib. p. 562.

   "Being about to speak of the day of the last Judgment of God, we ought
   first to lay down the divine testimonies as the foundation of the
   building."--Ib. xx. 1, Ib. p. 562.

   "Read this to us from the Law, from the Prophets, from the Psalms, from
   the Gospel itself, from the Apostolic Epistles; read, and we
   believe."--De Unit. Eccles. c. 6, ix. 345.

   "Accordingly, whether as to Christ or as to His Church, or any other
   thing which belongs to your faith and life, I say not we' (seeing we
   are in no wise to be compared to him who said although we'), but I say
   what he added, if an angel from heaven preach to you any thing besides
   what ye have received,' in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel,
   let him be anathema."--c. litt. Petil. iii. 6, T. ix. p. 301.

   S. Chrysostome,--"With good cause He calleth the Scriptures a door,'
   for they bring us to God, and open to us the knowledge of God; they
   make us sheep, they guard us, and suffer not wolves to come in after
   us. For Scripture, like some sure door, barreth the way against
   heretics, placing us in a state of safety as to all which we desire,
   and not allowing us to wander; and if we undo it not, we shall not
   easily be conquered by our foes. By it we can know all, both those
   which are, and those which are not shepherds. But

   what is into the fold?' It refers to the sheep and the care of them.
   For he that useth not the Scriptures, but climbeth up some other way,
   i. e. who cutteth out for himself another and an unusual way, the same
   is the thief.' Seest thou from this too, that Christ agreeth with the
   Father, in that He bringeth forward the Scriptures? On which account
   also He said to the Jews, Search the Scriptures,'"&c.--Hom. 59, on S.
   John

   x. 1, p. 513, Oxf. Tr.

   "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable, &c.
   For doctrine.' If we ought to learn or be ignorant of any thing, thence
   shall we know it; if to disprove what is false, this too thence; if to
   be corrected and taught wisdom--that is, if any thing is lacking and
   hath to be added, that the man of God may be perfect,' he saith, to
   this end was the exhortation of Scripture. Thou hast, he says, the
   Scriptures instead of me: if thou wiliest to learn any thing, thence
   mayest thou. But if he wrote these things to Timothy, who was filled
   with the Spirit, how much more to us! Thoroughly perfected to all good
   works,' he saith, not simply partaking, but thoroughly and. accurately
   furnished."--On 2 Tim. Hom. ix. § 1, T. xi. pp. 714, 715.

   S. Isidore of Pelusium,--"That these things are so, let us look into
   the canon of truth, I mean the Divine Scriptures. "What then saith
   it?"--Epist. L. iv. Ep. 114, p. 475. "The teaching as to the fall [of
   souls, i. e. Origen's] not being true, I deem, yet seeming to be
   plausible, many other things appear to overthrow, but two especially,
   in my judgment: one, that it is not clearly taught in the
   Scriptures."--Ib. 163, against Origen, beg. p. 504.

   S. Cyril of Alexandria,--"We say that the fountains of salvation are
   the holy Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles, who cause to gush forth
   on the world the saving word which is from above and from heaven, the
   Holy Spirit supplying them, and gladden the whole under heaven."--De
   Recta Fide, ad Reg. ii. init. Opp. v. 2, c. p. 128.

   "Since we must needs follow the Holy Scriptures, nowhere going out of
   the track of what they prescribe, let us say, in what way God the
   Father is said to crown the Son with glory."--Ib. p. 168.

   "Those who oppose must either condemn to disgrace those of old, and
   call those who taught the world the mysteries of the faith, false
   teachers, to whom Christ Himself said, Go, teach all nations;' or if
   they shudder at this, they must choose to be right-minded about Christ,
   and bidding farewell to their own ignorances, hold fast to the Holy
   Scriptures, and following the inerrant path of the saints, go straight
   to the Truth itself."--De Recta Fid. ad Imp. p. 6.

   "A. What right-minded person can fail to see, my friend, that you bale
   up empty words and heap up a cold profitless multitude of ideas, unless
   you point out the writings of the saints as harmonizing with what you
   say? For we will follow, not those who will and are wont to pour out of
   their own ideas, but those who speak from the mouth of the Lord, as is
   written. B. Thou sayest right. Well, then, Divine David sang," &c.--De
   S. Trin, Dial. iii. T. v. 1, p. 477.

   "It is best then, O Hermias, not to be flurried with the petulances of
   others, since they would lead us to an undistinguishing mind, but to
   make the words of the Divine speakers the straight and unswerving rule
   of faith. For it must be right to accept no others than these
   self-same, and to say, It is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of your
   Father which speaketh in you.'"--Ib. Dial, iv. init. p. 504.

   Taken in part from S. Cyril, but later:--"Creation itself, and its
   preservation and government, proclaim the greatness of the Divine
   Nature. And first through the law and the prophets, then through His
   only-begotten Son our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He hath
   made manifest the knowledge of Himself according to our capacity. All
   things then which are delivered to us through the law and the prophets
   and Apostles we receive, and know, and confess, not seeking any thing
   beyond them. For it is impossible to say or even conceive any thing
   about God, besides what has been Divinely said to us by the Divine
   oracles of the Old and New Testament."--De Sacrosancta Trinitate, init.
   Opp. T. vi. P. 3, p. 2.

   Theodoret,--"From this we are taught not to quench the Spirit, but to
   stir up the grace which we have received, and to introduce nothing
   alien into Holy Scripture, but to be content with the teaching of the
   Spirit, and to abominate heresies, of which some have added fables to
   the Divine word, others have preferred their ungodly thoughts to the
   mind of Scripture."--Queestt. in Lev. 9. 9.

   Orth.--"Bring me not human thoughts or syllogisms. For I obey the
   Divine Scripture alone."--

   Dial. c. x. T. iv. p. 18, Sch.

   Eran.--"How could one argue with those who deny the taking of the
   flesh, or the soul, or the mind, except by producing the proofs from
   the Divine Scripture? And how could one refute those who strain to
   lessen the Divinity of the Only-Begotten, than by showing that Holy
   Scripture spake some things as to His Divinity, others as to the
   Incarnation? Orth.--This saying is true. For it is ours; nay, rather
   that of all who have kept the Apostolic rule unbent."--Dial. ii. p.
   113.

   "I would not say it, persuaded by human reasonings. For I am not so
   rash as to say any thing on which Divine Scripture is silent."--Ib. p.
   122.

   S. Proclus,--"Let faith, being the head of all virtues, remain
   unadulterated, introducing nothing spurious from human reasonings, nor
   defiled by profane novelties of words, but remaining within the bounds
   of the Gospels and Apostles, no one venturing to discuss any thing
   amiss in addition to that whereby we have been saved, and which, in
   Baptism, we subscribed with our tongue. For the sublimity of faith
   repels every attack and venture of presumption, not only of man, but
   even if carried aloft by any spiritual nature, the blessed Paul crying
   aloud, If we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other Gospel
   than what ye have received, let him be anathema.' Let us guard then
   with vigilance what we have received, keeping the eye of the soul open
   and steadily fixed on the treasure of faith. What, then, have we
   received from the Scriptures, but altogether this, that God created the
   universe by the Word?"--Epist. ad Arm. App. conc. Eph. iii. 1740, 1,
   Col.

   S. Leo,--"Into this folly they fall, who, when they are hindered by
   some obscurity from knowing the truth, betake themselves, not to the
   voices of the Prophets, not to the writings of the Apostles, not to the
   authorities of the Gospels, but to themselves. And therefore they
   became teachers of error, because they had not been disciples of the
   truth. For what additional instruction did he acquire from the Divine
   books of the Old and New Testament, who did not grasp even the
   beginning of the Creed?"--Ep. 28, ad Flavian.
     __________________________________________________________________

  NOTE B.

   Doubts among the Roman Catholic Bishops, as to making the doctrine of
   the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin an Article of faith.

   In giving more fully the answers of some of the Bishops, who demurred
   to, doubted about, or objected to, the definition of the doctrine of
   the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as an Article of faith,
   it is right to premise two points: 1. That no one of them objected to
   the definition, on the ground that he did not himself believe in it.
   All had been educated from infancy in that belief, as much as in the
   belief in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation; they had been taught it
   in the seminaries; they held it undoubtingly. 2. All were ready to
   submit their own opinion as to the expediency of making it a matter of
   faith to the authority of the Pope, and to receive what he decreed as
   "de fide." They are then opinions which have passed away, since the
   doubts or objections were ignored. Yet they have an historical
   interest, as showing how the subject was looked upon by some
   distinguished Bishops, how the influence of Roman decisions upon those
   who are not in their communion was felt by some; what principles were
   held by some as to the evidence required to establish an Article of
   faith, or what evidence was supposed to exist as to this, and, in part
   perhaps, what hopes may be entertained of meeting upon common
   principles.

   France.--1. The late Archbishop of Paris, embodying the opinion of his
   predecessor. His full answer was written Aug. 25, 1849 (Pareri, &c.,
   ii. 26-45), but withheld until Dec. 17, 1850 (Par. iii. 338). On July
   26, 1850, he wrote, "I have consulted the gravest men, the most able
   theologians of my diocese. I have subsequently myself examined and
   weighed all things before God with the greatest care. From all this has
   resulted a work of which the conclusions are--

   "1) In conformity with the principles of theology, the Immaculate
   Conception of the most holy Virgin is not a matter which can be defined
   as a truth of the Catholic faith, and, in no case, can be imposed as a
   belief obligatory under pain of eternal damnation.

   "2) That any definition whatsoever, even if the Church or the Holy See
   believed that they could frame it, would not be opportune; for it would
   add nothing to the glory of the Immaculate Virgin, and it might be
   hurtful to the peace of the Church and the good of souls, especially in
   my diocese."--Par. iii. 310,

   11. His letter of Aug. 25, 1849, which was sent four months later than
   the above, ran-- "It was my first care (your Holiness suggested
   afterwards to the Venerable Cardinal of Bourges) to

   call into council the gravest men and most learned theologians of my
   diocese. They wrote a dissertation hereon, conspicuous for learning and
   wisdom, which I have judged right to transmit to you, most Blessed
   Father, at length. Afterwards, I weighed diligently the matter before
   God, and will humbly explain my opinion to the supreme judgment of the
   Vicar of Christ. The Encyclical letter of your Blessedness, most Holy
   Father, raised two questions, the first whereof must be solved by
   learning, the other by prudence:

   "1st. As the theologians, my counsellors, observe, it must be inquired
   whether, according to the principles of sound theology, the doctrine of
   the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin can be solved by a
   decree of the Church or of the Holy See, whereby the faithful should be
   bound to embrace this doctrine:

   "2dly. Whether it is opportune to publish such a decree now.

   "As to the dogmatic question, the authors of the Dissertation lay down,
   1) that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can be enacted by a
   decree of the Church or of the Holy See, so as to be declared certain,
   yet not so as to be accounted among articles of faith; 2) that the
   Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin cannot, as they think, be
   placed among articles of faith or truths of the Catholic faith, by a
   decree of the Church or the Holy See.

   "As to prudence, having weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a
   solemn decree, whereby all the faithful should be bound to embrace the
   doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, they think such a promulgation
   altogether inopportune. And I myself, mo st Holy Father, as well as the
   theologians, my counsellors, think that from the promulgation of such a
   decree the most grave disadvantages, and perhaps great calamities, will
   arise to the Church. And I myself think with them, that it is not
   lawful, either for the Church or for the Holy See to count the doctrine
   of the Immaculate Conception in any case among the articles of faith,
   or verities of the Catholic faith. Yea, most Holy Father, I go further
   than the said theologians, and doubt whether the Church or the Holy See
   can enact by a solemn decree, that this doctrine is certain and must be
   embraced by all under pain of eternal damnation. The Advisers think
   that their judgment can be easily demonstrated by those grounds which
   theologians are wont to employ to establish the doctrine as to the
   Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin. For, as these say,
   setting aside the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, who flourished in
   the first ages of the Church, whose explanation lies under no slight
   difficulties, the truth of the Immaculate Conception is demonstrated by
   most grave theological reasons, which rest especially on the glorious
   privilege of the Divine maternity, and the constant practice of the
   Church for the last five centuries.

   "I will presently, most Blessed Father, set forth several doubts as to
   the force of these reasons, which, moreover, are reducible to the
   single ground of convenience. But for the time, admitting the gravity
   of this argument, I would explain modestly, and not without some fear,
   the following doubts."--[The original contains answers, enforcing these
   doubts. These I have omitted, when they seemed to be involved in the
   terms of the doubt itself, or were nearly identical in terms with
   it:--]

   "Doubt 1. Can the Church make a definition as to a doctrine, which
   rests neither on Holy Scripture nor Tradition?

   "D. 2. Can any thing else be inferred from the passages adduced from
   the Fathers of the earlier centuries, besides the sanctification of
   Mary from her mother's womb? [He instanced such expressions as
   Immaculate,' Most pure,' Free from stain of sin,' which, he says, were
   used by S. Bernard, or S. Thomas Aquinas too, who denied the Immaculate
   Conception.]

   "D. 3. Can the Church, when it exceeds the limits of her authority,
   declare any truth as certain, on the sole ground of intrinsic
   suitableness?

   "D. 4. Is the Church bound by no limit of lawfulness in the exercise of
   her authority, so that she can make a definition in all possible cases,
   in all circumstances, at her own will?

   "D. 5. Did the Church without evident necessity, ever define a question
   of doctrine as to which, here and now, no controversy is raised? Would
   not the practice of Councils and the Holy See be contradicted by so
   doing?

   "D. 6. Are the wishes of the faithful a sufficient motive that the
   Church should, by a solemn decision, settle a question of doctrine in
   their sense? [One of the most learned Bishops of Belgium, who extremely
   desires the doctrinal decision, confessed to me, that this practice of
   the Church seemed to him of so much moment, that on this ground alone
   he somewhat hesitated.']

   "D. 7. Can the Church propose as obligatory an opinion as to doctrine,
   which is not necessarily connected with any revealed dogma?

   "D. 8. Can the Church define, either as de Fide,' or as infallibly
   certain, a proposition which cannot be brought under theological
   conclusions? [He explains, Among the truths which the Church teaches
   with infallible authority, the last place is held by those which are
   contained in theological conclusions, i. e., such as are deduced from a
   major proposition, not revealed, and a minor, revealed. Such
   conclusions then must be connected by some necessary and evident link
   with some verity of faith. But the Immaculate Conception is not so
   connected.']

   "D. 9. Can the Church define, as certainly to be believed, a truth
   which does not touch upon the economy of religion?

   "D. 10. Can the Church propose, under pain of eternal damnation, a
   doctrine which is altogether indifferent, in respect of dogma or rule
   of life?

   "D. 11. Was it not always the mind of the Council of Trent to maintain
   liberty of opinions which

   do not injure dogma or morals?

   "D. 12. As to the Immaculate Conception itself, did not the Holy
   Council of Trent and the Holy See decree that opinions were free, and
   so, in themselves, indifferent?

   "D. 13. After the Church has declared, at least implicitly, that
   neither of these opinions affects dogma or rules of life, would it not,
   by defining that the one was necessarily to be believed and
   anathematizing the other, seem to confess that it had erred, in
   tolerating error in its bosom?

   "D. 14. Would not a new decision presuppose fresh grounds? But whence
   have these arisen? [From the "pious wishes" of the faithful
   perchance?']

   "D. 15. Failing testimonies of Scripture or tradition, can a doctrinal
   decision rest on pious wishes of the faithful?

   "D. 16. Failing texts of Scripture, or Apostolic tradition, what else
   will the testimonies of Bishops be, save a new weighing of theological
   grounds in favour of the Immaculate Conception?

   "D. 17. Can a new judgment, as to the value of theological grounds, be
   prudently passed without a new controversy, which however has not been
   raised?

   "D. 18. But why this new controversy, if the question has been solved
   by the Council of Trent and the Holy See?

   "D. 19. After a decree, declaring that opinions as to the Immaculate
   Conception are free, who will dare to assert the contrary?

   "D. 20. Can a more vivid sense of some reason of theological congruity,
   even if it affected the mind of all the Bishops of the Catholic world
   unanimously, be a sufficient ground for a doctrinal decision?

   "D. 21. "What weight is there in the ground of congruity, whereon alone
   the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rests?

   "D. 22. Does not God destroy all those reasons of congruity by the
   mystery of the Incarnation?

   "D. 23. Why, in such a mystery of the self-emptying of the Word, should
   there be any dispute as to the one or other degree of humility?

   "D. 24. Might not perhaps the ground of congruence be brought forward
   more truly to prove that the Virgin Mary was sanctified in her mother's
   womb?

   "D. 25. If some Theologians hold that the dogma of the Divine Maternity
   is connected by a bond of mere congruence with the Immaculate
   Conception of the Virgin, do not others contrariwise teach that it
   contradicts several revealed dogmas?

   "D. 26. In matter of revealed religion, before the authority of the
   Church pronounces decisively, must it not first be examined, whether
   the difficulties both of sacred and profane knowledge can be solved?
   [Dismissing the difficulties of modern physiology, he asks,]

   "D. 37. If, by a special grace, the fruit of human generation can be
   holy, immaculate, free from all fault, why was not Christ so born? [He
   says, The learned Bishop whom I mentioned, when urged by this argument,
   did not hesitate to assert that the Fathers only hinted a certain
   necessity of propriety, when they speak of the Virginity of the Mother
   of God being necessary, and that in truth the Son of God might have
   taken flesh in the ordinary way of generation. I doubt not f hat that
   pious Bishop, on weighing the matter more maturely, would acknowledge
   that such a concession was altogether contrary to the doctrine of the
   Church. All testimonies of tradition, I deem, contradict it.']

   "D. 28. Would not Christ have been united with us by a closer bond of
   brotherhood, if born of man and woman, had this been possible, as is
   supposed in the opinion of the Immaculate Conception?

   "D. 29. Is any special teaching for the forming of life derivable from
   that mystery, so that a definition could be judged, if not necessary,
   at least useful?

   "D. 30. Do they not do wrong to the Blessed Virgin, who expect singular
   and illustrious graces from the decree as to the Immaculate Conception?
   [Such as, that there should hereafter be no foreign wars, no civil
   discord, the empire of error be destroyed; everywhere truth, peace, and
   charity.' When they exhibit to us the Blessed Virgin rejoicing in such
   honour, and therefore exulting, that we acknowledge her singular
   privilege, and, as a reward, taking care to pour most copious treasures
   of her gifts into the Church, do they not clothe the Queen of the
   heavenly Court with the failings of our infirmities? Do they not

   represent her as a woman, desirous of vain glory, to whose feet each
   makes his way by flattery and blandishments? These things, if not vain
   phrenzies, are invented to the reproach of the Virgin.']

   "D. 31. Will not the doctrinal decision, contrary to the mind of the
   Church, diminish the cultus and glory of the Blessed Virgin?

   "D. 32. The doctrinal decision will profit neither the faithful nor the
   Church, nor the glory of the holy Mother of God.

   "D. 33. Will not the Dissenters mock the Church for such a solemn
   decision, and be repelled further from it?

   "D. 34. Perils, which will arise thence, in respect to the unbelievers
   and politicians of this time.

   "D. 35. Perils, which will arise thence in respect to some faithful,
   especially in the Diocese of Paris. [These, though they neglect the
   precepts of religion, yet profess to reverence its doctrines. Their
   faith, philosophic (so to speak) rather than Christian, will be too
   weak to bear such a trial. We fear, lest they should reject what they
   have hitherto venerated, or at least remove further from the Church.
   These perils are especially to be feared in the diocese' of Paris.
   There are to be found in Paris, more than anywhere else, men eminent
   for civil dignity, or science, or wealth, or authority, who by their
   example affect others, and whom we are constrained to count in this
   class. Moved thereby, my predecessor of glorious memory' (the
   Archbishop who died as a martyr) gave the same opinion as myself to the
   Holy See, asserting that the definition as to the Immaculate Conception
   would be rather a scandal than to edification among those of his
   Diocese.']

   "D. 36. Perils, which will arise as to some Catholic Theologians.
   [These will endure anxiously this new head of controversy, this new
   definition which can be confirmed by no tradition, nay, which, as many
   learned among them think, is at variance with the belief of former
   centuries of the Church. Which peril, if it be lighter on the part of
   those who listen tractably to the Church, will appear much graver, if
   we consider those who profess to reject the heretics who condemned in
   modern times, yet tread closely in their footsteps. Such perchance may
   be found among us.']

   "D. 37. Will not new heresies arise out of a doctrinal decision?
   [Probably "Anti-conceptionists" will arise, and some of them will not
   hesitate to assert that the assistance of the Holy Spirit was not
   promised to the Church, to settle at pleasure mere theoretical
   questions. What marvel, if among the adherents of the new dogma, some,
   of more rigid minds, resting on the grounds I have hinted at [Doubts
   27, 28], should come to deny the Virginity of Mary, and the operation
   of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation?']

   "D. 38. Will not the decision of the question turn to the ruin of a
   great number of souls without any compensation?

   "The wishes of the faithful, that the pious opinion of the Immaculate
   Conception should be counted among dogmas of faith, or at least among
   truths defined as certain, are incessantly produced to us as a decisive
   ground. They who so boast, most Blessed Father, exceed the limits of
   truth. To us the faithful seem to have no wish as to this definition.
   They are contented to pour forth devout prayers to the Immaculate
   Virgin. If any pious souls, more inclined to that faith, have uttered
   such a wish, they are, beyond question, very few. But be they, in
   respect to the unbelieving, heretics, or indifferent, as one, I do not
   say, to a thousand, but to a hundred, the piety or faith of this
   faithful soul will profit nothing by that definition, if it turn to the
   destruction of those hundred unbelievers, heretics, indifferentists.
   Why, without reasonable or sufficient motive, without evident
   necessity, or any benefit, at the good pleasure alone of some pious
   faithful, should we imperil so many souls? I conclude--

   "1. It is at least doubtful whether the Church can declare the doctrine
   of the Immaculate Conception to be certain and obligatory. If its power
   is doubtful, it ought to be silent, since there is no necessity of
   speaking at this time. Your Holiness is not unaware, that many of the
   theologians who have written about the definability of this question,
   even such as have grave weight with the Holy See, went further than we;
   they do not say that the authority of the Church in defining such
   questions is doubtful, they deny it altogether. But we, most Blessed
   Father, believe the matter to be doubtful, and that in matters of doubt
   there ought to be no action. 2. Since the Immaculate Conception cannot
   be demonstrated to the unbelieving or to heretics, either by Holy
   Scripture or by tradition; since, moreover, both reason and

   science raise difficulties, either in themselves insoluble or at least
   inextricable, against this opinion, if the Church were by a solemn
   decree to declare it obligatory, the Catholic controversy would in this
   point become weak and powerless. But thereby the authority of the
   Church becomes cheaper, the gravity of her decrees becomes questioned,
   and the truth of her doctrinal decisions is denied with increased
   temerity. Again then, most Blessed Father, moved by this most grave
   argument, we will say, the Church ought to abstain from any decree
   whereby the opinion as to the Immaculate Conception would become
   obligatory. 3. Although by such a decree the Church should neither
   weaken her own sacred and infallible authority, nor the deposit of
   revealed doctrines which have been already defined, in sight of the
   unbelieving and of heretics, she ought to abstain from passing it, on
   account of the inutility of the decree itself. For as we have tried to
   show, the decree in question would be useless, if not hurtful,--useless
   to the faithful, useless to the Church, useless in respect to the glory
   of the Blessed Virgin. This threefold inutility, even apart from the
   perils to souls, abundantly suffices to make the course, which some'
   expect the Supreme Pontiff to attempt, to appear illegitimate."-- ii.
   26.
    1. Louis, Archbishop of Rouen.--"I consider that this belief is not
       clearly contained in the deposit of the Holy Scriptures. I consider
       that tradition in this respect is wanting in precision and
       unanimity. Had the tradition been clear, could S. Anselm, S.
       Bonaventura, S. Bernard, S. Thomas, Bellarmine, and so many others,
       have been ignorant of it? I consider that the belief of the
       Immaculate Conception does not reach, in a way at all explicit or
       imposing, above the eleventh century; and that if new beliefs or
       devotions, favourable to piety and nowise contrary to order, may be
       wisely tolerated and even encouraged, it is still advisable to
       leave them as free beliefs and simple devotions. I consider that a
       dogmatic definition, under present circumstances, would be both
       superfluous and perilous. Superfluous, because no one now disputes
       the Blessed Virgin the privilege of her most pure Conception, and
       it is not the custom of the Church to erect into an article of
       faith what is disputed by no one. Perilous, because, considering
       the state of minds at this moment, it is to be feared that such a
       definition will only be a signal for the most lively discussions,
       the most wounding imputations. What, for instance, will the English
       Theologians, so well versed in the study of Ecclesiastical
       Antiquity, do or say, when they shall see the Holy See define, as a
       point of faith, a matter which so many ages have scarcely had a
       glimpse of (entrevue), which so many holy persons and great doctors
       have either denied or been ignorant of? Will they not think that
       the Church, at this day, holds cheap that principle of S. Vincent
       of Lerins, so certain and venerable, quod ubique, quod semper, quod
       ab omnibus? And will not the Catholic doctrine itself suffer much,
       as a whole, if, as has been recently the case, certain imprudent
       champions of the most Holy Virgin, in order the better to support
       the privilege of her Immaculate Conception, maintain publicly, that
       many of our sacred doctrines do not rest on any more solid
       foundation, on any more certain tradition? Instead of the doctrine
       of the Immaculate Conception being fortified, will not other much
       more important doctrines be shaken? And, most Holy Father, I fear
       much that in this case the wish to make good better will injure the
       good. I fear for the peace of the Church, which, on occasion of
       this new dogma, may witness destructive passions roused against her
       and within her own bosom. I fear for the honour of the Popes, who
       will be represented as having been, for 300 years, occupied in
       stifling free discussion on the subject; forbidding on the one
       side, under grave penalties, any sort of attack upon the privilege
       of the Immaculate Conception, and, on the other, favouring, by all
       possible means, the expansion of this pious belief. I fear even for
       yourself.--Will it not be said that Pius IX. exposed the bark of
       Peter to frightful tempests, for a matter in which the faith is not
       concerned, and which is incapable of any application to human
       conduct? On all these grounds, I opine that there is no room for
       erecting into a dogma of faith the pious belief in the Immaculate
       Conception of the Holy Virgin. Far from desiring such a decree, I
       should regard it as a dangerous thing, as a two-edged sword,
       capable of wounding the hand which should use it. I should rejoice
       certainly, in the interest of the mother of God, but I should be
       disquieted, in the interest of the Church and her glorious head;
       and I would not purchase so dear the consolations of piety."--i.
       357-9.
    2. The Bishop of Coutançes.--"Having been taught that pious opinion
       from boyhood, we, for ourselves and as the interpreters of the
       whole Clergy, all profess that Mary was conceived without stain.
       Yet we are persuaded, that there is no necessity or advantage in
       deciding or teaching, as an Article of faith,

   that Mary was conceived without stain of original sin; nay, we all
   unanimously think it inopportune and full of peril. For whence should
   that necessity or advantage be derived? No question is raised about it;
   no adversary of the Immaculate Conception, not the very least, appears;
   Catechists teach it to boys, Divinity Professors to seminarists,
   Preachers of the Divine word to the faithful. Everywhere piously
   preached, it is everywhere piously received.

   "Moreover, neither the Church nor the Holy See ever, as far as we know,
   erected any opinion piously believed into the dignity of a dogma,
   unless some controversy of greater moment were raised about it.

   "We think then, positively, that there is absolutely no fitting
   occasion for it; but there appears to us grave peril, if the matter be
   touched in the very least.

   "Every one knows with what efforts Rationalists and Protestants are
   assailing the bark of Peter, the authority of the Roman Pontiff, nay,
   the Church herself. Every one knows how many blasphemies the enemies of
   the Christian name pour out to weaken the Divine Monarchy. Every one
   knows with what calumnies those same inexorable enemies impugn daily
   the articles of faith.

   "If what was hitherto a mere opinion is to-morrow, at the good pleasure
   of certain Bishops, to be believed de Fide, under pain of damnation;
   if, what the S. Council of Trent itself (as Pallavicini attests) would
   not decree, although then controverted and strongly impugned; if, what
   Pope Pius V., of holy memory, Gregory XV., and Alexander VII. declared
   to be, not a dogma, but a mere pious opinion, what might be
   contradicted without note of heresy, should be delivered as a doctrine
   by decree of the present supreme Pontiff, would not the aforesaid
   Rationalists and all uncatholics take occasion for assailing anew and
   more fiercely all our doctrines with their impious speeches? Nay,
   doubtless, a handle would be given them causelessly for so doing.

   "But what is to be more feared, than to raise up these waves of
   passions and opinions, especially at this time, when the whole world is
   shaken with unwonted commotions, in which Peter (alas!) is ejected from
   his See, &c.? In these storms of tribulations, in this whirlpool of
   great crimes, in these perils and straits of all sorts, all faithful
   Christians turn their eyes to Mary, think of Mary, and call on her,
   piously and most inwardly believing that she was conceived without
   stain.

   "Moved by these reasons of graver moment, we judge that a dogmatic
   decree as to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
   which could with the greatest difficulty be derived from Holy Scripture
   or tradition, should, at least for a time, be abstained from."--i. 362,
   363.

   4. The Bishop of Evreux.--"In obedience to the commands of your
   Holiness, I have convened the most able Theologians of my diocese; I
   joined them to my Episcopal Council, and, after having interrogated and
   heard them, after having long studied and meditated in presence of our
   Lord Jesus Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, after having
   humbly entreated the Holy Spirit to have pity upon rny misery and
   profound ignorance, this is my answer to the questions put by your
   Blessedness in your admirable letter.

   "1. I do not think it well-timed to agitate at this moment the question
   of the Immaculate Conception; (1) because it is attacked by no
   Catholic, and has never been more generally admitted than in our
   century; (2) because many Protestants, reconciled by our most loved and
   holy Pope Pius IX. with the Papacy, are in the way to return, and that
   nothing would be more calculated to alienate them, than the obligation
   which would be laid upon them to cease to regard the belief in the
   Immaculate Conception as a matter of opinion.

   "2. I do not believe that the passages of Holy Scripture are precise
   enough, nor the language of tradition explicit enough, or certain
   enough in all Centuries, that this opinion (certain as it seems to me)
   should be advanced to be a dogma of faith.

   "The rules laid down by all Theologians seem to contradict this. "Our
   great strength, when we discuss with heretics, is this maxim of S.
   Vincent of Lerins,--Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum
   est, &c. "On these grounds, which it would seem to me unsuitable and
   perfectly useless to develop to your Holiness, I would conjure you to
   abide by the examples of your Venerable Predecessors in the Apostolic

   See, and to leave amid oppositions this holy opinion, which Bossuet
   called the most certain of truths."--i. 100, 101.

   5. The Bishop of Chartres.--"Never in my flock, and, I assert
   confidently, in all the Dioceses of France, did faithful Catholics burn
   with greater devotion and love towards Mary, never did they place
   fuller confidence in her; never in tribulations did they with more
   fervent impetus seek protection at her feet. Nothing can be added to
   the most lively significations of cultus towards Mary, which burst
   forth on all sides from the hearts of the faithful. It follows, that
   the pronouncing of this dogma of faith' will add nothing to this full,
   complete, and (so to speak) exuberant devotion. Nay, so far from
   kindling, it would burden, hinder, disturb it. For what confusion! what
   tumults! what protestations of rebellious men! The Jansenists and other
   Catholics of weak or less proved faith would cry out against the
   insertion of this dogma among articles of faith; they would rise up
   most boldly against it, try to draw Augustine, Bernard, Thomas, on
   their side; excite discord, assail with doubts and cavils the cultus of
   the Deipara which already includes the Immaculate Conception, and, so
   far from procuring any relaxation or comfort, would further accumulate
   the most vehement affliction of the Church.

   "2. The Protestants, who incline to the Catholic faith, which the
   numerous conversions of very learned men, especially in England, attest
   most gloriously, would be deterred by the newness of this dogma from
   completing what they have begun. They would think, that all the
   articles of faith were declared in the Council of Trent, and that that
   most learned synod completed the Catholic doctrine. The impious
   Rationalists, Socialists, who are busy in entrapping the ignorance of
   the people by false interpretations of Evangelic doctrine, would try to
   accommodate this novelty to their ends, exclaiming that the Apostolic
   See, by sanctioning things hitherto unknown and unheard of, plainly
   favours their detestable comments. So then this plague, which no tears
   can expiate, would exult with fouler and more abominable licence.

   "3. The faithful spontaneously, without constraint, without terror of
   Apostolic fulmination, believe, admire, venerate most profoundly the
   Immaculate Conception: devotion towards Mary seems thence the sweeter;
   for voluntariness is the condiment of love, the sweet aspiration of
   piety, the seal of filial affection, &c.

   "To condense my meaning in few words, I declare it as represented with
   wonderful clearness and absolute precision in the following clause of
   the most learned Pétau: To bring to a close the discussion of this
   question, I think that the most holy Virgin Mother of God was free, not
   only from all actual sin of her own, but from original also. But I am
   so far persuaded of this, that I would not have it counted of faith,
   nor would I believe that any one was to be condemned, or speak hardly
   of one who thinks otherwise; nor am I prepared to maintain it in any
   other way than that now prescribed by the Roman Pontiffs and the
   Council of Trent, i. e. by the Catholic Church' (de Incarn. xiv. 2.
   10). This tempered zeal circumstances seem to me especially to
   recommend, as also Apostolic moderation, and the very necessary counsel
   not to add sharpest strifes about matters of faith to horrible civil
   tumults. I think that nothing ought to be added to the causes of
   division and heat of mind, whose fury and rage is unexampled from the
   beginning of the world. For the glory of the Virgin and the good of the
   Church, what, as Pétau says, has been already decreed by supreme
   Pontiffs and the Council of Trent suffices. If, in a short time, as I
   most firmly believe, the most splendid benefits of the Virgin, who is
   terrible as an armed host, require other attestations of gratitude,
   your Holiness has other honours at hand to discharge this debt, and
   declare throughout the world your piety and grateful remembrance."--i.
   175, 176.
    1. The Bishop of Anneçy.--"We readily own to your Blessedness, that to
       us it would appear better, if a solemn sentence, whereby the
       Immaculate Conception of the Virgin should be proposed to be
       believed as an article of faith, and true dogma, should be
       abstained from. For, in our opinion, such a judgment could not
       easily escape the note of novelty, as being contrary to the
       practice of the Church, which has not been wont to define Christian
       truths, resting on Scripture or transmitted by tradition, as to be
       held as dogmas under pain of anathema, unless they were impugned by
       some."--i. 445, 446.
    2. The Bishop of Meaux.--"We confess that we do not think that, in the
       circumstances of these times, it is opportune that a matter, about
       which Doctors and Theologians, most distinguished for piety and
       knowledge, have so long controverted among themselves, should be
       defined by a solemn judgment. We

   confess too, that we fear lest the cultus of the most Holy Virgin,
   conceived without stain, should suffer detriment: and the piety which
   now of its own accord pays her distinguished honours should be chilled,
   when, by force of a dogmatic definition, they shall seem less
   voluntary. It is to be feared too, lest the authority of Mother Church
   should perchance be diminished by the clamours of the pseudo-reformed
   and unbelieving philosophers of these times, on all sides, that the
   faith is changed in the lapse of time, and that new doctrines are daily
   coined by the Church."--ii. 363.
    1. The Bishop of Carcassonne.--"In these most miserable and sorrowful
       times, very many, who have been baptized in the faith of our Lord
       Jesus Christ, desert this faith, or, retaining its elements, have
       entangled it with so many false doctrines, that their mind, ever
       struggling against the truth, is most ready for every sort of
       scandal. Wherefore we fear lest, things being so, a solemn dogmatic
       definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin
       Mary would give occasion to the ungodly and to heretics to sadden
       the Church by disputations, and to assail with contumelies and
       blasphemies the Mother of the Saviour, whom we venerate singularly
       with the inmost affections of the heart. Whence we think that there
       is ground to doubt, whether the promulgation of such a decree,
       which in other times would fill our heart with joy, would be
       opportune at present."--iii. 333.
    2. The Bishop of Amiens.--"But although, by that definition, the most
       pious opinion as to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
       is set forth, as founded in the doctrine of the Universal Church,
       nor can it be called in question without condemnable temerity, or
       contradicted without note of error, there lack not among us such as
       think that, if that doctrine should be assimilated to an express
       article of faith, there would be ground to fear, lest controversies
       should arise in the schools as to the conditions required for an
       express article of faith. Thence, they say, perhaps would be
       scandal to the weak, discussions and strifes of words among the
       learned; and to the heretics and unbelieving occasion would be
       given of speaking things wrong and injurious to religion."--i. 135.

   10, 11. The Archbishop of Rheims and the Bishop of Soisson said the
   same, more concisely, but with the same leading words, as the wish of
   themselves, the Canons, Directors of Seminaries, Professors of
   Divinity, Parish Priests, and pious Laity.--i. 121, 122. iii. 290.
    1. The Bishop of Beauvais.--"In order to proceed with due prudence in
       a matter of such moment, we did not neglect to consult the Canons
       of our Church, and some presbyters conspicuous for piety and
       learning. Some of them (although all believe from the heart that
       Mary was free from original taint, yet having maturely weighed the
       question) had some doubts whether the testimonies of Holy Scripture
       and tradition were so clear and unshaken that it might be settled
       by a dogmatic decree. They thought also that perhaps it was not
       necessary, since the most pious opinion as to the Immaculate
       Conception is, at this time, not impugned, and is not connected
       with the defence of other dogma or rules of life; nay, that it was
       not opportune, since there was ground to fear that heretics and
       unbelievers would say, that tradition was corrupted by the Church,
       or that new dogmas gradually crept in or were invented at will, and
       that thus, on account of a new decree on controverted doctrine, the
       weak might be turned away from embracing the ancient faith. We
       should be glad that the words of the decree should be so softened,
       that they who do not assent to this privilege [of the Blessed
       Virgin] should remain free from the note of heresy, in that it
       should be declared that the Church does not err when it teaches,
       that the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, was wholly free from
       all taint of original fault. By a decree thus tempered, the end
       intended would be gained, the Catholic truth would be asserted, the
       piety of the faithful fostered, and heretics or unbelievers would
       have no place of crying out against the Church."--i. 320, 321.
    2. The Bishop of Blois.--"In publishing such a definition, there is
       need of very great caution and indulgence for the salvation of
       many, since, in our times, the sense of Catholic truths is much
       diminished. Every one sees this, who considers things attentively
       and judges from experience, that there are men now, some
       indifferent to religion, others wholly intent on politics, many
       fevered with the licence of thinking what they will, and so that
       the truths of Christian faith and piety are obscured among the
       people; and, accordingly, that the dogmatic definition of our most
       pious opinion, whereas at first it would be entertained with joy
       and gratulation by the pious and learned, would be received by most
       other Catholics with a dull carelessness, not to say, worse. For
       perchance (and this is not improbable on account of the age, the

   feverishness of men and the pride of the insolent) an opinion which
   seems to them new will cause hindrance or delay to some sinners in
   returning to the Father's house. Nay, manifoldly as the pastors may
   instruct the people, it is to be feared that many pious faithful will,
   with difficulty or not at all, understand how the Church, after
   eighteen centuries, should now employ itself in proposing to all
   Christians, as an article of faith necessary to salvation, that which
   before it had left to the free and pious choice of each; especially
   since, in these our times, there is scarcely any one who disputes the
   truth of the Immaculate Conception, but every learned and religious
   Catholic accounts it a duty and merit to believe and profess it."--i.
   211, 212.

   On the other hand, the Bishop of Blois set the need of consolation
   which the Church had from the Blessed Virgin, which rendered the
   definition timely; and so, in due regard to the charity needed by so
   many, weak and ignorant, blind and unbelieving, asked the Pope not to
   define it so directly and expressly, that they who should not believe
   it, should thereby be separated from the Church, and incur the note and
   penalty of heresy.
    1. The Archbishop of Bourges gave the opinion of ecclesiastics very
       distinguished for theological science, whom he had con suited, and
       who had given him their mature judgment. "It seems that, in these
       troubled and stormy times, the publication of this definition would
       perhaps give a handle to the enemies of God's Holy Church to raise
       new calumnies, and vomit forth blasphemies, whence no light scandal
       might arise, especially to the unlearned and weak; they, too, who
       are frequently engaged in controversy with un-Catholics, fear lest
       the very greatest hindrance should thus be put to the return of
       heretics on the point of coming back to the bosom of Mother Church,
       since there is nothing which they more abhor, nothing which turns
       them more from the Catholic faith. Moreover, some, who piously
       believe and profess the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
       Virgin, think that this question, although clear, is not such that
       that well-known rule of Vincent of Lerins, quod semper, quod
       ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est, could be applied to it.
       Whence they think that, according to the ancient custom of the
       Church, it ought not to be defined. But I, most Holy Father,
       although I exceedingly desire whatever would be to the honour of
       the glorious Virgin, cannot but acknowledge, on the aforesaid
       grounds, that a definition thereon from the Apostolic See perhaps
       would be inopportune, and would not make for peace and unity,
       especially amid these present storms, fearing that greater evils
       would come from it than good."--i. 497, 498.
    2. The Bishop of Versailles.--"Although I was myself among those who,
       out of a feeling of filial piety toward Mary, humbly prayed his
       Holiness, Gregory XVI. of glorious memory, to declare the
       Conception of Mary Immaculate by a solemn decree, I think it due to
       my conscience to set before your Holiness a thought of fear,
       perhaps exaggerated, which takes hold of me.
    3. "In the bosom of France there still live unbelieving children whom
       heresy keeps far from their home. In their deplorable blindness,
       they still reproach us with the worship we render to Mary. It is
       not without difficulty that we can bring them to believe about the
       Mother of God, what is already of faith. Shall we not find more
       obstacles to their return, when, to reconcile them to the Church,
       we shall have to require of them explicit faith in the Immaculate
       Conception? Perhaps, to anticipate this difficulty, there would be
       ground for not giving the character of a Catholic dogma to the
       truth of the Immaculate Conception, especially seeing that, even if
       the Immaculate Conception should not be a necessary object of
       faith, the glorious Virgin would not be less honoured by all the
       pious faithful under this title."--ii. 101, 103.
    4. The Bishop of Angers.--"A doubt arises, first, because minds are at
       rest, as I said, not only in my Diocese, but in every part of
       France, yea, in the whole Catholic Church. Would it not be to be
       wished, that this peace and rest of souls should be maintained?
       "Would there not be peril of disturbing minds by passing a decree
       on that subject, the minds not of the pious, but of those, no few,
       who contradict the truth, and subject all things to the examination
       of reason? I confess that there is, as far as I know, no such peril
       for my diocese; but, in our times, there are many who love liberty,
       impatient of a yoke, who superextol reason and its discoveries. In
       France, there is great liberty, not to say great licence of
       thinking, writing, printing, which writers, and those of no mean
       sort, use and abuse, to bring all things, even religious and
       sacred, into mockery and contempt; and so they impel others and are
       impelled themselves to evil and blasphemy. In this condition, then,
       of things and minds, it is to be feared that a dogmatic decision
       may

   perhaps cherish evil passions and open a door to dangerous discussions.

   "A doubt arises, secondly, not now from the clamours of impious men,
   but from the novelty of the definition itself. For among those who are
   less audacious, among those too who seem fairly good, not a few may be
   found, who will wonder that this definition has been so long delayed,
   the thing being so evident and clear; and who will venture to say,
   although undeservedly, the new dogmas are fabricated and devised by the
   Church. Many things have indeed been defined, in the lapse of time,
   which before were not counted among articles of faith. They were often
   impugned, whence it became necessary in a manner to define them. Here
   the case is different. The fact of the Immaculate Conception is
   admitted, and securely believed, in the whole Catholic Church; nor does
   it appear, that piety toward the Blessed Virgin would be much increased
   by the supervention of such a decree."--i. 257.
    1. Savoy. The Archbishop of Chambéry.--"The Clergy and people of this
       diocese burn with the most sincere devotion towards the Blessed
       Virgin; they profess her Immaculate Conception as a pious and most
       probable opinion, but not as a doctrine to be held of necessity and
       de fide,' i. e. in much the same way in which they profess the
       Assumption of the Virgin to heaven, and her preservation from all,
       even venial sin; and this, because the tradition of former ages of
       the Church does not seem clear enough to constitute an article of
       faith, and a true dogma to be believed by all under pain of mortal
       sin. It would seem then to us better to imitate the prudent line of
       the Council of Trent, by abstaining from any definition, as did
       that same Council (sess. 24, can. 7 and 8), by asserting, e. g.
       that the cultus which the Catholic Church uses towards the
       Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mother is pious and holy.'"--i.
       411, 412.
    2. Switzerland. The Bishop of S. Gall.--"From all this, I and my
       Councillors are persuaded that the veneration of the Blessed Virgin
       Mary, whom, with the Holy Father and Holy Church, we firmly believe
       to have been conceived without stain and exempt from original sin,
       cannot be increased by any dogmatic decision or definition that she
       was so conceived, and that such a dogmatic decision is for this
       time superfluous.

   "But what, in our disturbed times, everywhere seduced by a false
   worldly light, seems to advise, not to enact, at present, the dogma of
   the Immaculate Conception, but rather to defer it to a new era, as is
   hoped, more friendly to the Catholic religion and obedient to the Vicar
   of Christ and Bishops of the Holy Church is as follows:--

   "Such a superfluous dogmatic decree being delivered and published in
   Switzerland and Germany, infected by un-Catholics and innovators,
   various disputations would be caused, pamphlets full of hatred and
   calumnies would be published, the dogma would be impugned and wickedly
   deformed in public papers, which find entrance everywhere; and so the
   seduction of many would be to be feared, the obstinacy of un-Catholics
   would be strengthened, and they be turned further away from the truth.
   Public papers and pamphlets written against religion would be published
   in far greater numbers than those in defence of the Catholic faith.

   "It does not seem advisable to bring forward a matter so delicate as
   that of the Conception, or any treatise about it, without necessity.
   The temptation to wicked and carnal authors, of casting forth foul
   things after the manner of the wretched Voltaire and his followers,
   would be too great."--iii. 302, 303.
    1. Bavaria. The Archbishop of Munich.--"But whether, in the present
       circumstances of the Church, a definition is advisable or no, I
       scarce venture to decide, since it may be said, not without some
       appearance of truth, that such a definition will provoke fresh
       discussions in countries where Catholics live mixed with
       heretics."--ii. 417.
    2. Archbishop of Bamberg.--"By far the greatest part of the Clergy is
       persuaded that this is not the time to decide what remained so long
       undecided, and which so many of your Predecessors, and those so
       great, and the fathers of the Tridentine Council itself, hesitated
       to decide. They think that such a decision will be of no benefit to
       the faithful people, in that it adheres to the pious opinion of
       "the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin spread far and
       wide; and to the body of the more erudite and learned in our
       Germany the matter does not seem so clear that (whatever the very
       learned and illustrious Tramontanes may say, who have very recently
       written in behalf of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
       Virgin) they can think that this opinion, which has been hitherto
       cherished as pious, should be enrolled among

   dogmas, about which no one may doubt. They think that account should be
   had of the state of the times, most troubled both as to the
   ecclesiastical and civil polity; that it does not belong to these times
   to revive inveterate disputes; that there is peril, lest new rents
   should take place in the Church; lastly, that it is no derogation from
   the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, if that should be left longer
   undecided, which has so long seemed matter of most difficult
   discussion. In this opinion of far the greatest part of my Clergy,
   which I have learned from the report of the Deans, the Chapter of the
   Cathedral Church of Bamberg joined unanimously, to which I cannot but
   unite myself. Be the dogmatic definition of this question left, most
   Holy Father, to other times. Be the decision of this matter reserved to
   a General Council to be celebrated hereafter. We have that sacred
   deposit of dogmas decided by the most holy fathers in General Councils,
   to defend which against the very frequent attacks of the heresies of
   this time, and to establish it in the minds of our faithful people,
   will suffice for our most arduous office."--ii. 59.

   21. Archbishop of Gorizia and Gradisca.--"The peasantry, and other of
   the lower orders of the Diocese committed to my care, worships [colit]
   most devotedly the most Blessed Virgin Mary, and frequents in great
   numbers the shrines in my diocese dedicated to her; but it does not
   desire that the pious belief of her Immaculate Conception should be
   turned into a Catholic dogma, an Article of faith; nor is the least
   wish for any such decision manifested among the people, as far as has
   become known to myself and other neighbouring Bishops. As for persons
   of the upper, and, as they are called, more cultivated classes, they do
   indeed still retain the devotion and cultus of the Virgin Mary,
   although not in that fervour and number observable in the peasantry and
   poorer artisans; but so far from desiring that the most pious opinion
   of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary should be raised to the
   rank of Catholic dogmas or articles of the Holy Faith, they (at least
   the larger part of the aforesaid classes) are of directly the opposite
   mind.

   "The fratres minores of S. Francis, called Observants in the Convent of
   Castagnavira, are most devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin
   Mary, and have an office of their own of the Immaculate Conception, but
   they have never manifested the least wish that the most pious belief of
   the Immaculate Conception should be changed into an article of faith,
   nay, rather, though most observant of the discipline of their rule,
   they fear the effect of such a decision in regard to the heterodox and
   to lukewarm Catholics, the number of whom is at this time immense.

   "I must say the same of the secular Clergy, which, with few exceptions,
   is pious and studious of sacerdotal discipline. [Then follows, If the
   present state--full of peril,' given above, pp. 177, 178.] "For in past
   years there were heard, and still are heard, the assertion of
   Protestants and indifferent Catholics, that Rome puts an unbearable
   yoke on the faithful, by coining new dogmas, and forming articles of
   faith from the rhetorical expressions of one or two fathers, and
   enjoining that that should be held with firm faith as a dogma, which a
   few centuries, nay, a few decennia before, might be questioned, and the
   assertors of the contrary whereof Roman Pontiffs had forbidden to
   condemn.' What then would happen, if the most pious faith (yea, the
   pious opinion,' as it still stands in Catechisms) of the Immaculate
   Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, should be declared as a dogma of
   sacred faith? Will it be an increase of faith? Will it be a happier
   condition of the Catholic Church? Is a restoration of affairs at Rome
   to be hoped therefrom? I, as far as it is given me by God to see, fear
   exceedingly the contrary. It is a matter, I must repeat, full of peril.
   When some years ago, under Gregory XVI., the same question was proposed
   to the Bishops, there came to me letters of Catholic Bishops from
   countries very remote from this, the writers whereof exclaimed in
   amazement, Does Rome mean to form new articles of faith?" Should we
   have a more beneficial result now? I doubt most exceedingly." [Then
   follows, Under these circumstances--the Son of God.' Above, p. 178.] He
   sums up, "This is what, after instituting a mature examination in the
   .sight of God in this most grave matter, I thought I ought to explain
   to your Holiness, and I do explain it with all befitting submission of
   mind and reverence," &c.--i. 178, 179.

   22. The Archbishop of Salsburg.--"This pious faith being now nowhere
   controverted, nay, every one being free, undisturbed by any, to indulge
   this cultus in his own way, all gladly acquiesce in the most wise
   constitution of the Council of Trent published thereon, so that I do
   not know that any one wishes for a new decree of the Apostolic See.
   Moreover, history attests, that the Church then chiefly intervened by a

   peremptory decision, when the wrongful zeal of men attempted either to
   question, or to corrupt by sinister interpretation the faith given by
   God, neither of which is done (it is known) in the present case. Added
   to this, the opinion is fixed in the minds of very many, that there
   exists not such authority of Apostolic tradition, that the Immaculate
   Conception of the most Blessed Virgin can be established by a decree
   divinely certain. Wherefore I think that it is much to be feared, that,
   whereas formerly most grave and lasting controversies were lulled by
   Apostolic decrees, issued on matters of faith, the declaration of the
   Holy See would this time rather furnish fresh matter for doubts and
   discords about that question which are now quite hushed or unknown, and
   the enemies of the Church, ever ready to censure, would take occasion
   thence of impiously calumniating her, as though she delivered new
   dogmas without the suffrage of Divine tradition. Being then commanded
   by your Holiness to exp lain candidly my mind in this matter,
   considering the adjuncts of the times, I cannot bring myself to think
   that the counsel to declare that pious belief as a Catholic dogma is
   opportune, or that it will really advance that cultus. In that ferment
   of minds which now prevails, very inimical to religion and piety, I
   fear that such a public and solemn declaration is a matter full of
   peril, such as the other many and great difficulties with which the
   Church now struggles, seem to dissuade from voluntarily provoking."--i.
   326, 327.

   23. The Bishop of Trieste.--"The people of the united Diocese of
   Trieste and Capo d'Istria are animated with such devotion to the
   Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that any doubt which
   might be newly raised as to this doctrine would excite the greatest
   disturbance of mind, and give useless, nay, very perilous occasion to
   theological questions among the laity themselves. For this cause I
   omitted express mention of the wish that it should at last be decided
   by a solemn judgment that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without
   original taint, in order to maintain the laudable and firm opinion of
   the faithful people herein; and also I did not venture to express
   openly the consideration of the topic, to guard against discussions
   among some of the clergy themselves, who keep silence as to the
   opposite opinion, not out of any conviction of their own, but rather
   out of obedience.

   "For myself, I own plainly, that it is extremely to be desired that the
   intention of the most Holy Council of Trent (Sess. v.), according to
   which the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary was not comprised in the
   decree as to original sin, should be explained more clearly, and the
   Catholic doctrine of her Immaculate Conception should be defined in
   unambiguous terms; yet, having weighed the aforesaid considerations, I
   should wish to follow the counsel of many brethren (confratrum,' other
   Bishops), who in the present circumstances and at this time hold that
   it is better that any direct definition should be deferred, and wish
   only for a tacit definition, decreeing the sanctity of the
   ecclesiastical rite now used in the cultus of the Conception of the
   Blessed Virgin." --i. 435, 436.

   24, 25. Moravia. The Archbishop of Olmütz, and the Bishop of
   Brünn.--"Nevertheless, the most humbly subscribed cannot adopt the
   opinion that now at present this pious assertion should be placed by a
   Pontifical decree among dogmas of faith. The gravest reason, whereby,
   after mature deliberation and fervid imploring of light from above,
   they feel themselves moved so to judge, is taken from the most
   difficult circumstances of the countries over whose Churches they are
   set. A most cunning heresy spreads with impunity in these parts, which
   has been wont most greedily to seize every handle for criminating the
   Catholic Church. Among divers protests, whereby it attempts to entice
   the faithful to its side, is this also, that they blatter (certainly,
   without any solid foundation), that the Catholic Church forms new
   dogmas at will. But if, by a solemn judgment of the Holy Apostolic See,
   the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin should be defined at
   this time as a dogmatic doctrine of the Catholic Church, doubtless that
   most false incrimination would shake many, less firm in the Catholic
   faith, with great peril of souls. This peril ought the more to be
   considered, because hitherto, through an erroneous statement of the
   subject, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been
   considered by many faithful of the Catholic Church as only a pious
   opinion; accordingly, it could not be without disturbance of minds,
   that what (although persuaded of its truth, and not doubting) they
   seemed until now only to opine, they should be obliged to revere as a
   Catholic dogma.

   "Our counsel, therefore, tends to this, that, until circumstances be
   changed, things should remain as they are. The faithful do not doubt
   the Immaculate Conception to the Virgin Deipara; the cultus of that

   mystery increases daily; souls then are not imperilled on the head of
   truth's not being acknowledged; but contrariwise no slight perils are
   avoided, which come reasonably to be feared from the dogmatic
   pronouncement of the truth by the Apostolic See.

   "This state of things was the ground why the most humbly subscribed
   hesitated to execute the exhortation of your Holiness, prudently
   accounting that the appointment of public prayers in their dioceses for
   the obtaining of light from above for counsel to be taken in this
   matter, could not be without detriment to religion and the Holy
   Apostolic See."--iii. 232, 283.

   25. b) The four Bishops of Bohemia.--They thank the Pope, for "the most
   precious letter, wherein in sweetest words the feelings of our mind
   towards the most Blessed Virgin are expressed; "and they state that
   they had assiduously endeavoured to promote among the people "the
   Catholic cultus of her."

   "Full of the same faith as your Holiness, that the most Blessed Virgin
   was conceived without any stain of original fault? we gave public
   testimony of this faith in the prayer addressed to the Predecessor of
   your Holiness, of most pious memory, Gregory XVI., that we might be
   allowed publicly to enunciate and add the word Immaculate in the
   Preface and Litanies of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

   "So then, unanimous and joyous, we report to your Holiness that this
   faith, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without stain of
   original fault, is held both by the clergy and the faithful people as a
   doctrine of our Holy Church from most ancient tradition.

   "Nevertheless, since the question is, that this faith be decreed by the
   solemn judgment of the Apostolic See, we, following the most venerable
   example of your Holiness, thought that we ought to consult some persons
   proved by piety and theological discipline. Having heard their
   judgment, and weighed it maturely in the Lord, we thought that we ought
   to signify to your Holiness that this faith, as we have set forth, is
   vivid, and is taught of old in our Christian people and clergy, but
   that because in these last times there has been no controversy about
   this belief, and no heretical doctrines, opposed to it, seem to urge
   such a decision; the modern adjuncts of time, place, and men do not
   recommend that this most ancient belief should be decreed as a doctrine
   by the solemn judgment of our holy Roman Catholic Church. For the
   multitude of unbelievers, heretics, and adversaries of our holy Church
   in our neighbourhood, and living among the faithful in our regions,
   would abuse such a decision most foully to their own perverse ends by
   their diabolic calumnies; so that we have good grounds to fear, lest
   many of the weak, the number whereof hath very greatly increased
   through the machinations of false prophets, be seduced, and make
   shipwreck of their faith, and, with their faith, of their everlasting
   salvation.

   "This our judgment, besought from the Lord with assiduous prayers,
   which we signify to your Holiness," &c.--ii. 403.

   26. Archbishop of Breslau, to the Apostolic Nuncio at Vienna.--
   "According to the opinion of the most zealous and enlightened Catholics
   such a disturbance would infallibly arise, if the dogmatic decree [on
   the Immaculate Conception] should be passed by the Holy See. The
   Protestant writers contending, pro aris et focis, would seize it as a
   welcome prey, to deafen anew their poor people by their cries against
   the papacy and the manufacture of dogmas discovered after eighteen
   centuries; unbelievers would join in chorus with the pietists, and
   would discharge fresh floods of sarcasms and blasphemies against this
   holy mystery; the literary Jewish youth would especially excel therein.
   So much for those without. Within, the secular war in the schools of
   theology, appeased with so much difficulty, would be kindled anew; that
   very delicate point of the infallibility of the Pope would give it an
   accession of combustible matter; the opposition of a part of the clergy
   imbued with Neologism, in the Rhine provinces, in Baden, and in
   Bohemia, would also find food therein; and as the result, instead of
   edification and a new spring of piety and devotion in the Catholic
   people, there would be nothing but troubles, divisions, scandals,
   disturbances without and within,--things a thousand times more
   dangerous now than they were in past centuries.

   "I have re-read before I decided on writing this letter to you, my
   Lord, the chapters of Pallavicini (Hist, of the Council of Trent), and
   of Pétau (Theol. Dogm. T. vi. L. xiv. c. 2) on this subject; and this
   study has encouraged me to do so. History proves that hitherto the Holy
   See has only given dogmatic decrees to appease polemic and scandalous
   strifes, or to repress dangerous errors. In the present case neither of
   these grounds is apparent; the ground for acting would be a pure motive
   of piety, of devotion,--a motive very

   beautiful, very precious in the eyes of God and of every faithful
   soul,--a motive, which for certain countries and certain people might
   also be founded on the fruits to be looked for, but which for our
   country (as I have had the honour to explain to you, my Lord) is
   counterbalanced by greater considerations, which discover the greatest
   dangers to the Church in the pronouncing of such a decree. I have
   allayed my Episcopal conscience, my Lord, in communicating to you my
   thoughts and apprehensions in this matter. I have spoken to you as the
   organ of the sovereign Pontiff. I repeat once more, that, in what I
   have just set forth, I find myself of one mind with all the most
   zealous and enlightened Catholics in our country. Make what use of this
   letter you please. Dixi et salvavi animam meam.'"--ii. 466, 477.
    1. The Bishop of Warmia.--"The Clergy of this diocese entertain a
       singular devotion to the most glorious Virgin; but as to her
       conception, many (and among them the Chapter of Warmia) have given
       their judgment, that in these turbulent times, ill-disposed as to
       ecclesiastical as well as civil matters, for the guarding against
       heresies and avoidance of schisms, it is not expedient to decree
       any thing new in this matter by Apostolic authority, but that it is
       more suitable, that this faith should, until a more fitting time,
       be left under the terms which the holy Tridentine Synod laid down
       (Sess. v.), on original sin. Yet after deducting these, there is
       still a great number of those who have openly professed the
       Immaculate Conception, with the most ardent desire that this faith
       should be decreed and confirmed by Apostolic authority." "Among the
       people of the diocese of Warmia, which is, with inmost devotion,
       addicted to the worship of the most Holy Virgin,--the faith of the
       Immaculate Conception obtains universally, although there are
       those, who, being less instructed in the faith, under the term
       Immaculate Conception,' apprehend and believe not the origin of the
       Virgin herself, but the Conception of God-Man in the Virgin's womb,
       by the operation of the Holy Ghost. The faith in the Immaculate
       Conception is cherished and fed among the people of Warmia by the
       diligence of the parish priests, especially in sermons; and, as I
       am persuaded, none of the clergy, although he hold an opposite
       opinion, would venture to teach or say any thing to injure the
       pious faith in the Immaculate Conception among the people, or
       whereby that faith might be imperilled or made matter of doubt. But
       there are some among the people of Warmia, who fear lest, if
       anything new be decreed by Apostolic authority about the Conception
       of the Blessed Virgin, the uninstructed people, who cannot
       distinguish between dogma and that which is only to be piously
       believed, may bring into some peril the faith as to the Immaculate
       Conception too, which now exists universally."
    2. The Bishop of Munster.--"As to the longing that this opinion should
       now be defined by the Apostolic See as a doctrine of the Catholic
       Church, no wishes of this sort have reached me hitherto, except of
       some men whose opinion was especially sought. Nay, there are not
       wanting those who think that a dogmatic decision will not be
       without peril for these times and for Germany. Nor would I deny
       that, according to the character of the times, and in the provinces
       of our German fatherland, in which so many adherents of un-Catholic
       dogmas lire mostly mixed with Catholics, controversies might arise
       on occasion of this definition, injurious to Catholicism, and
       perilous to those Catholics who are less deeply acquainted with
       Catholic doctrine, and so are more easily moved by the objections
       of unbelievers and heretics."--vii. pp. cxxxviii., ix.
    3. The Bishop of Paderborn.--"But even though I am persuaded that the
       dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception rests on a firm
       foundation of truth, yet about the other question, whether this our
       time is opportune and fitted for the emanation of the aforesaid
       dogmatic declaration, I can scarce remove all doubt. At least,
       considering the circumstances of my diocese, which is manifoldly
       extended amid regions altogether Protestant, and weighing
       especially the character of this restless time, very much inclined
       to dissensions and disputations, religious as well as political, it
       is to be feared that the adversaries of the Church would from that
       dogmatic definition get a handle for disputations and revilings
       against our holy religion; and lest to such of the faithful as are
       inadequately instructed in Divine things, or who cleave but
       lukewarmly to the Holy Mother Church, scandals should arise thence
       and perils of discord and alienation from the orthodox faith. When
       I weigh these things, and at the same time revolve that the greater
       part of the faithful people are already heartily devoted to the
       pious opinion of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed
       Virgin Mary, and so, that there is no urgent necessity for the
       dogmatic declaration of the same; after having long and much
       weighed in my mind the bearings of this most grave matter, it seems

   to me most expedient, to the benefit of the Church, and to the praise
   of our most loving Mother Mary, if that dogmatic definition should be
   not abandoned altogether,' but deferred for a time, until more quiet
   and peaceful times be restored to our Germany, and until the Church
   shall enjoy a firmer and consolidated fruition of the liberties granted
   to her in these last times by kings and princes.

   "This my sentence, whereto all the members of the Chapter of this
   Cathedral Church and other learned and good priests agree, I,
   explaining to your Holiness with the greatest devotion and all fitting
   confidence, leave the whole matter to your prudence and wisdom; and
   whatever you, under the inspiration of God, shall think it conducive to
   His honour to determine or define thereon, that I will, with readiest
   heart and due submission, receive as the utterance of God, will ratify
   and profess by word and deed throughout the diocese intrusted to my
   pastoral care."-- iii. 181.
    1. The Bishop of Trèves.--"I confess that, for some little time, I,
       with some other Ecclesiastics, hesitated whether, having regard to
       un-Catholics, with whom, in most dioceses in Germany, we live
       intermixed, an opportune time has arrived for such a solemn
       declaration, in that I fear therefrom new cavils and incriminations
       against holy Mother Church, and against the holy Apostolic See.
    2. "But, having weighed the matter more maturely, I have laid aside
       all doubt, and firmly trust in the Lord, that the Conception of the
       Immaculate Virgin, defined as a doctrine of the Catholic Church,
       will contribute most exceedingly to confound the adversaries of the
       faith, inasmuch as it is she who alone slew all heresies in the
       whole world."--vii. p. clvii.
    3. The Bishop of Hildesheim.--"1. In celebrating this [feast of the
       Immaculate Conception] the most Blessed Virgin is considered by the
       people all beautiful and without stain, so that they could not
       think that it would come into controversy; hence they do not desire
       any decision.

   "2. There is scarce any hope that the devotion of the people should be
   increased by such decision; rather, it is to be feared lest they should
   marvel at such a decree in a matter certain to them, and lest the
   younger should by its publication be incited ad cogitationes minus
   puras.' But as to the rest, who are alien from the Catholic Church,
   there is danger lest it should be made a handle of assailing the cultus
   of the Blessed Virgin with new calumnies.

   "Wherefore the greater part thought that a dogmatic decree was neither
   necessary, at least in these regions, nor desirable.

   "As to the Clergy, their opinions differed. The greater part professes
   the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin; others
   consider it only a pious opinion,' supporting themselves by the decree
   of the Council of Trent. (Sess. v., of Original Sin.)

   "For myself, I profess that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
   seems to me inseparable from the dignity of the Mother of God, and, on
   the ground of the consent of the Church at this time, certain. But
   whether or no its dogmatic definition is desirable, at least for our
   regions, and is for the good of the Church and the greater honour of
   the Blessed Virgin, this, for the reasons set forth above by the
   Clergy, and which are not to be altogether thought lightly of, I would
   not dare to affirm."--iii. 346.

   32. Bishop of Fulda.--"Yet neither among the Clergy are there wanting
   men, who, distinguished for knowledge, full of piety towards Mother
   Church, have indeed the same faith as others as to the Immaculate
   Conception of the Virgin Mary, and who, should any thing be enacted by
   the Apostolic See thereon would embrace it most humbly; yet do not
   advise or wish that it should be done in our turbulent times, wherein
   impiety rages with such impunity, and neither Church nor State enjoy
   peace. They regard the greater part of the faithful people, who, even
   without any declaration of the Church that the most Blessed Virgin
   enjoys this prerogative, venerate the undefiled Mother: they regard the
   tepid, living chiefly in cities with un-Catholics, who, not being
   stable in faith, nor well grounded in charity towards the most pious
   Virgin, if a controversy should perchance arise between them and the
   adversaries of the Catholic faith, may easily be worsted: they regard
   the countless host of enemies, to whom, as they fear, an opportune
   occasion and handle would be given by the doctrine decided by the
   judgment of the Apostolic See, of calumniating the spouse of our Lord,
   the Catholic Church, and of inveighing most bitterly against the
   undefiled Virgin, especially since, at this time, all things are
   disturbed in Germany, all are confused, and that ancient serpent aims
   at the heel more vehemently than ever. Although I do not deny that
   these anxieties

   are not to be held cheap or despised, and would not conceal them from
   your Holiness, yet, after having poured forth copious prayers to God
   the Father of Light, I cannot subscribe to their opinion, which,
   approaching the throne of your Holiness, I candidly confess. For the
   greater the number of adversaries, the more insolently they persecute
   the Lord Christ in His Church, the mo re the secular arm is shortened,
   the more impotent have become the kings who protect her, the more ought
   the Church, who has to contend with the powers of darkness, to pray for
   her aid and help, who bruised the serpent's head, to extol with praises
   and venerate with prayers her, who, praying her Son, alone slew all
   heresies in the whole world."--

   ii. 439.

   33. J. A. Paredis, Apostolic Administrator of Limburg.--Alleged against
   the decision: "1. The question was too much agitated formerly without
   any fruit to souls. 2. Both sides have been defended by persons above
   all exception, nay, saints. 3. Those who denied or opposed it were as
   devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and venerated her as much as those
   who defended it. 4. The question is at this time extinct altogether, at
   least in this country. 5. The faithful are either ignorant of, or
   misunderstand the question.

   "But on the other side, 1. According to the mind of the most Holy Lord,
   the mind of all Bishops, &c., in this matter has been sought. 2. The
   faithful were instructed of this, and exhorted to pour out prayer to
   this end. 3. The question then has in some measure revived, and if a
   definition do not follow, its issue is unknown. 4. For the affirmative,
   there are motives founded on theological reason, and on practice pretty
   general at this day; therefore on this side I think the contrary, and
   judge that a dogmatic definition may be published.

   "Meanwhile, our most Holy Lord, Pope Pius IX., will judge in his
   prudence and infallibility, and his judgment is ours."--iii. 308.
    1. b) The Bishop of Spire.--Himself desired its promulgation as an
       article of faith, but added, "The matter being of so great moment I
       cannot but observe, that there are some theologians and
       ecclesiastics who do not at all think that a doctrine hitherto left
       to the disputations of the schools should be defined by an
       immutable sentence, whereby free judgment on the matter should be
       cut off. and pertinacious spirits might be harassed and
       irritated."-- ii. 442.
    2. Engelbert, Card. Archbishop of Malines.--"I thought, however, that
       I ought to add, that in these regions (and especially in the
       neighbouring kingdoms of France and Holland) there are
       ecclesiastics, conspicuous for piety, knowledge, and prudence, who,
       although they acknowledge that great advantage would arise from an
       Apostolic decree, whereby it should be enacted, that all must
       believe of Divine faith, that the most Blessed Virgin was preserved
       from original stain, since thereby larger honour would accrue to
       the most Holy Deipara, and the faithful would conceive yet greater
       reverence towards her, and would be kindled more and more to
       worship her, fear lest very great inconveniences should arise from
       it. They fear especially lest heretics and unbelievers, who, in
       journals and other writings dispersed everywhere do not cease to
       attack the faith, should derive thence fresh ground for
       calumniating the Catholic Church, as though it were devising new
       doctrines, and paying undue cultus to the most Holy Mother of God.
       Whence also it might follow that many, who now seem ready to
       embrace the faith, might start back from their purpose. If, then,
       having heard the report of the most eminent Divines) Doctors,
       Cardinals, and other distinguished men, to whom the examination of
       that most grave matter has been committed, your Holiness should
       judge that the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God is to be
       defined as a Catholic dogma, perhaps it will be better to explain
       the Divine tradition clearly and luminously in the Apostolic
       decree, that it may be plain that nothing new is enacted, but that
       the ancient faith of the Church is alone declared and confirmed.
       For thus it may be hoped that the month of the malicious may be
       stopped, or at least the defenders of the faith may more readily
       refute their calumnies.

   "Then, seeing that in these times those who have care of souls are
   compelled in moral matters to interpret the laws favorably [to men's
   wishes], and to use great indulgence, because the faith of many is
   langxrid and charity is cold, those same men doubt whether it is
   expedient at this day to bring in a new obligation in a matter of
   doctrine, as to which not only there is no controversy, but it is
   extended more and more with a marvellous consent of all Catholics. For
   they fear lest perchance in countries in which there are theologians,
   who groundlessly deny the infallibility of the Roman See in defining
   dogmas of faith, some

   [174]

   may arise even out of the Clergy themselves, who, out of the itch of
   writing which there prevails, may with rash boldness openly impugn the
   Apostolic decree, and so raise public scandal. These doubts and these
   fears I report, most Blessed Father, simply that your Holiness may
   clearly know the state of things, and provide by a fitting remedy for
   any inconveniences, if it should seem that any are to be
   apprehended."--pp. 447, 448.
    1. Italy. The Bishop of Adria.--"I know that the gates of hell cannot
       prevail against this rock founded by Christ; yet we must beware
       lest we give occasion to our enemies, that it should be assailed
       with new wars, which will, I am horribly afraid, be the case, if
       the Church after so many centuries exhibit to the faithful to be
       believed a new mystery, of which we find no testimony in the
       Scriptures or holy fathers, if we except many allegories spoken of
       the Eternal Wisdom.
    2. "But what if very many faithful, who, while the world rages,
       persevere still in the faith? I fear lest they too suffer scandal,
       rather than be built up. For faith in the Immaculate Conception of
       the Blessed Virgin Mother is so deeply settled in their minds, that
       they do not allow themselves even to doubt its truth. Where is room
       for suspicion? The Bishops continually discourse thereon in their
       homilies, the Parish Priests in their catechizings, Preachers in
       their sermons. What, when they know by the new decree of this holy
       See, that that was for so many ages uncertain which they held for
       certain, and which was everywhere announced as so certain? If we
       were deceived in this,' they will say, perhaps we are mistaken and
       deceived about other mysteries of faith too,'' or perhaps they will
       allow themselves to doubt of the truth of the same."--i. 317.
    3. The Bishop of Mondavi.--"But whether the arguments, which they who
       at this day uphold this pious opinion, derived whether from
       Scripture or tradition and the almost universal zeal of the Church
       of the present time, suffice to prove that it ought to be
       transferred to a dogma of faith, if they be compared with what the
       fathers of the Councils of Florence, Lateran, and Trent, have
       uttered on this subject, and very chief theologians have discussed,
       I should fear to affirm. Nor, now that prayers have been poured out
       to God through the whole diocese, is it given to me to dare to do
       so. And I own that I am withheld by the same doubt, when I consider
       the fitting season of the aforesaid definition which, since it is
       not of necessity to salvation, it seems to some may with greater
       advantage be put off to happier times of the Church. None of these
       difficulties, however, would perhaps arise, if it were only defined
       that the Church rightly promotes the cultus of the Immaculate
       Conception of Mary, yet so that the contrary opinion cannot be ever
       accounted heretical."--iii. 144.
    4. The Cardinal Bishop of Viterbo and Toscanella.--"Two classes of the
       faithful are to be distinguished, the learned and unlearned. The
       unlearned, speaking of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
       suppose and believe de fide that it was most exempt from all stain,
       and therefore do not think it a matter liable to be disputed, and
       so neither to be defined by the Apostolic See; wherefore, from
       ignorance, they neither have, nor can have any wish about it. The
       learned have not all the same mind or wish. Although all now hold
       most firmly that the most Blessed Virgin was conceived without any
       stain whatever, they are not unanimous that it is necessary or
       convenient to define it by a dogmatic judgment of the Holy See.
       Some wish such decision; others think it ought not to be proceeded
       to, especially considering the circumstances of the times.
    5. "For myself, I own ingenuously, that on the one side, from my
       observance and devotion to the most Holy Virgin, I wish that your
       Holiness should number the mystery of the Immaculate Conception too
       among the articles of faith; yet, on the other, weighing the
       reasons adduced by many most grave theologians, and especially by
       the most Eminent Cardinal Gotti, in his discourse on this
       controversy, exhibited to Clement XII., and recently published at
       Home, I feel myself vehemently urged to judge that, in the present
       state of things, and especially in the coldness and infirmity of
       faith and religion at this day, it is more useful not to proceed
       further in so weighty a matter."--iii. 33, 34.
    6. The Archbishop of Urbino.--"As to the necessity of publishing any
       definition, I do not think that there is any. For the Immaculate
       Conception of the most Blessed Virgin has no such close connexion
       with the other articles of faith (at least as far as I know), that,
       if this privilege were denied, it'would follow that any of those
       articles should be impugned. But this being removed, I see not from
       what other head this

   real necessity should be extracted.

   "Whether this definition should be held to be opportune, I confess that
   I still doubt. I have again and again weighed the ending of all
   contentions, the dissipating of doubt, maintenance of truth,
   greater-glory of God, prais e of the Virgin, hope most sweet of new
   benefits to the good of the Church militant, and other grounds, which
   seem to support such opportuneness, and I have always owned them to be
   most excellent. But the peril of perdition which may come to some from
   the definition, makes me doubt, now as ever, whether it is opportune.
   For although, as seems to me, it is now sounder to hold the Immaculate
   Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and less sound to doubt it, and
   altogether folly openly to deny it, yet since, in these most unhappy
   times, the number of those is very great, who do not hesitate to
   question, or altogether to impugn, all the dogmas of the Church, yea,
   and the existence of God too, with the ruin of many, there seems to be
   a probable peril that they will the more easily impugn this doctrine
   too; and that thence will follow the perdition of those, who, lightly
   esteeming the definition of the Church, seduced by perverse discourses,
   will either not embrace the pious opinion, or, having embraced, will
   desert it, or at least be unable to lay aside their doubts. Nor does it
   seem difficult for the malice of the ungodly to pervert in this the
   understandings of the simple, since we see it done in more evident
   truths; and since the example of those, who, in past time, though
   distinguished for learning and holiness, are thought to have denied
   this privilege, may be very moving; and because, apart from the
   authority of the Church, the theological grounds do not seem to be so
   consequent, as to leave no room for the possibility of the contrary,
   nor so transparent, that at the first glance this truth should be clear
   to any one. Since, then, there seems to be this evident, or at least
   probable peril of perdition, which would be imminent to some, though
   perhaps few, even of those who are now counted among such as have been
   gained to Christ, I should not fully believe it opportune to add
   dogmatic certainty to this truth.

   "I say this, most Holy Father, with inmost grief of heart; but the
   necessity of charity seems to require it of me to consult alike for the
   salvation of the wise and the unwise; and the example of the Apostolic
   See itself moves me thereto, which hitherto seemed to have been made
   weak to the weak, that it may gain the weak ,' wishing that those who
   hold the contrary shoukVneither Bin, nor be heretics."

   The Archbishop of Urbino appended to this response a letter to the same
   effect, which he had written Nov. 10, 1847, to the Bishop of Fano, who
   had urged him to ask for the decree. He used there the same topics, and
   quoted the maxim of Sixtus III., that treating of dogmas, "nihil addi
   convenit vetustati."--

   iii. 43 --45.
    1. The Bishop of Ancona and Umana.--"Having asked aid of God, I
       venture to opine that it is best to adopt that mode of defining,
       which should be free from all asperity, viz. by deciding directly
       that the Church is not deceived as to the truth of the object
       proposed by this cultus, whereby the immunity of the Blessed Virgin
       from all stain in the first moment of her Conception is celebrated;
       and that the Church does not err, when, according to the pious true
       opinion to be held by all, she proposes that the immunity of the
       Holy Mother of God from all fault in the first instant of her
       Conception should be celebrated.
    2. "But since the sanction of this opinion necessarily involves the
       disapproval and proscription of the contrary, which no few eminent
       and learned man held determinedly, men of eminent deserts towards
       the Christian religion, some account ought, it seems, to be had of
       them, that the words of the decree should be softened, and no note
       be branded on the advocates of the contrary opinion; and that it
       should be so concluded, that the authors of the opposite opinion
       should be said to have expressed the contrary out of love of truth;
       and the more, because they were destitute of those supports which
       came in afterwards, and which, burning as they were with piety to
       Mary, would have inclined them to the opinion which now
       prevails."-- ii. 153.
    3. The Bishop of Cervia.--"If I turn to weigh what is the rigorous imp
       ort of a solemn, and that a direct declaration of any dogma, as de
       fide, no slight difficulties float as clouds over my mind, and I do
       not in any way ascertain which opinion I ought to prefer. That
       saying of Vincent of Lerins must move me, received as a rule by all
       theologians, and constantly observed, whenever it was the question
       of distinguishing or defining dogmas of faith, what was always,
       everywhere, by all, received as a dogma of faith, and has been
       believed till now. Every Catholic dogma, being a fact manifest to
       us by Divine

   revelation, can neither be known nor proved, save by the work of God,
   written or handed down; and, since God could, either expressly or
   implicitly, by Scripture or tradition, reveal a truth unattainable by
   human intellect or reason, the Church never proposes any truth as a
   dogma to be received and believed by all, under pain of anathema or
   heresy, unless it be contained explicitly, or at least implicitly, in
   the Word of God, written or handed down. But some theologians contend,
   that this could scarcely be affirmed as to the proposed truth. For, had
   it been expressly or implicitly revealed in Scripture or tradition, how
   should older Fathers, and Doctors, Theologians, and the whole order of
   Dominicans, and the whole school of the Thomists, not only be ignorant
   of it, but venture, with all their might and vehement abundance of
   argument [assail it], the Supreme Pontiffs conniving, or at least not
   condemning as heretics those who for many ages opposed with their whole
   strength the Conception,'immaculate at the first instant'? On what
   ground was that most wise, and, above all the OEcumenical Councils held
   in the Church, most learned Council of Trent, unwilling to define this
   truth expressly but left it in its own possession' and statu quo, yet
   with that prudence and precision of words, that a grave and reverent
   weight should be added to establish and strengthen so pious and
   Catholic a truth, yet not to advance it to the sublimity of a dogma by
   a judgment and unalterable decree? There was a deep silence as to this
   truth in the first centuries; in subsequent centuries it was
   controverted, which would not have been, if in any of the above ways
   the Church had owned it as either expressly or implicitly revealed.
   Else we should fall into the heresy of Lutherans and un-Catholics, who,
   no less absurdly than impiously, tattle that the Church was obscured
   after the Apostolic times, the light of faith being almost
   extinguished, and that true dogmas were involved in the darkness of
   ignorance, &c.

   "It must be confessed that all dogmas were not always believed in the
   Church with a solemn and open faith, which now, errors having been
   defeated, we profess with a noble and universal belief. Yet scarce did
   error dare to raise its venomous head, but the Church too did not keep
   silence: it took arms, and gained an entire triumph over the rash
   attempt.

   "The question, which now occupies minds, does not relate to the truth
   of the Immaculate Conception, as is clear. For it is so supported by
   most solid arguments, and engraven on the minds of all, that the
   opposite opinion is rejected by the faithful as a manifest error. This
   truth, so sweet, so sublime, and to be cherished, remains unconquered,
   and now very near to faith; yet so, that the doubt is not lost out of
   sight or mind, whether it be dogmatically definable de fide, as
   mysteries, which are proposed to all by the Church, to be believed by
   an act of faith under pain of heresy.' For although all dogma is truth,
   yet not conversely is all truth dogma. God willed not to reveal to us
   all truths, as of the end of the world and the time of His Second
   Advent, and many others, which John confesses to be unwritten, and so
   many, that if they had been written, they would fill the world. Many of
   the most profound Theologians of the first rank, whom P. Perrone
   mentions, have impugned its definability, chiefly on the ground that it
   cannot be plainly extracted either from Scripture or tradition as de
   fide. The Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, cannot deceive the
   faithful in teaching; but it does not frame new and impervious dogmas,
   but either explains or proposes to be believed what occur, as expressly
   or implicitly revealed. But all do not agree as to this express or
   implicit revelation: the divine revelation then remains as yet
   doubtful, or at least inevident, and consequently the foundation
   necessary for directly promulging a dogmatic definition fails
   altogether."--ii. 217--219.

   41. The Archbishop of Otranto.--"As to my own opinion, I should think
   (I speak as one unwise') that such a declaration is not at all
   necessary, both because there are not, as in past ages, any
   disagreements among Catholics as to this privilege of the Blessed
   Virgin, no enemy, no controversy in the schools; and they who once
   supported the opposite opinion, panegyrize this privilege in the
   preaching of the Word of God; and all Churches, during Mass, gladly
   praise God for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as
   also because the chief end of any decree or dogmatic declaration is
   already obtained, such a cultus throughout the world as should seem to
   need no new accession of piety. Yet I am constrained to confess that
   the grounds, whereon this privilege of the Blessed Virgin rests, are of
   such weight, that they ought to induce any Catholic to believe it de
   fide. In my opinion then there are all the grounds of probability to
   induce me to assert that this privilege of the Immaculate Conception of
   the Blessed Virgin

   Mary may be declared a dogma of faith.

   "Yet I should think that, if the Church should judge that it should
   come to this declaration, out of many forms which she has at times used
   in defining a dogma of faith, it would be most prudent to use that,
   whereby the dogma of the privilege should be defined indirectly as the
   subject-matter, but directly the infallibility of the Church which
   teaches it, which formula the Tridentine Fathers at times used, Sess.
   xxiv.

   c. 7. If any say that the Church errs when it teaches,'" &c.--ii. 365,
   366.

   42. The Archbishop of Perugia.--"I should think that, before any
   definition is published, some account should be had of that difficulty
   which the adversaries cease not to proclaim loudly, that not without
   wrong would so many most wise men, who, either with the assent or at
   least the permission of the Church, adopted with impunity the opposite
   opinion, be proscribed at one blow, and punished with the note of
   heresy, and so (unless your Blessedness should think of any other mode
   of satisfying as far as possible this specious difficulty), the words
   of the decree should be so tempered for the former Theologians, that
   all, even the slightest, occasion of new complaints should be
   removed."-- ii. 290.

   Three weeks afterwards he united with the Archbishop of Spoleto, two
   other Archbishops and fifteen Bishops, in earnestly imploring the issue
   of the decree, on account of "the increased devotion to the Blessed
   Virgin which it would occasion, and the help and defence which she, so
   honoured and invoked under this title, would give to the whole
   Christian people and the Holy Roman Church." He did not, however,
   withdraw the above wish.--ii. 379--81.
    1. b) The Bishop of Santorino.--"Although most devoted to the
       Immaculate Conception of the most Holy Mother, they [his Chapter
       and Clergy] did not deem it suitable, in these calamitous times of
       general confusion, to decide the question of the Conception. The
       speaker, moreover, who stood forward in the name of the rest, said
       that he thought it more advisable that the question of the
       Immaculate Conception should continue undecided, because the
       devotion of the people was deeply rooted; and that to bring it to a
       decision and make it an article of faith would perhaps be an
       obstacle in the case of attempting union with the Greek
       schismatics, it not being possible to prove it by clear arguments
       from Scripture and the Fathers, but merely by the argument of
       congruity. Thus far this Canon. Had he, however, said that in the
       case of the Protestants it would have given rise to new disputes,
       all very good; but as for the Greeks, I do not see either that
       union with them is a likely thing to happen immediately, or that
       they have any rights: and, besides, the Greeks believe in and
       celebrate the festival of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin by
       S. Anne, which is what the Catholics also say and believe." He
       himself held, as decisive, the texts "full of grace," "the power of
       the Highest shall overshadow thee," "she shall bruise thy head;
       "nondum erant abyssi, et ego jam concepta eram "(Prov. viii.),
       "Fecit potentiam in brachio suo," and this, "ab initio
       creaturæ."--i. 201.
    2. The Bishop of Majorca.--"To these most pious wishes, longings,
       feelings, the Bishop of Majorca (to express at length his own
       mind), knowing well how much (in things which in any way appertain
       to faith) that criterion is to be accounted of, which is not
       unfitly called an instinct of piety, infused into the hearts of the
       faithful by inspiration of God, viz., the unanimous feeling of
       Pastors and faithful, or of the whole Catholic Church, especially
       when Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers, the chief witnesses of
       tradition, are either altogether silent, or speak somewhat
       obscurely, or do not so agree together in attesting it, that their
       opinion can be certainly known, nor can any certainty be arrived
       at, through their aid, what was handed down from the beginning of
       the Catholic Church.

   "No testimony is, in truth, found in Scripture which any so clear
   tradition has explained, as to be equal to the passing of a dogmatic
   judgment and to be a stable foundation thereof, although in some one,
   perhaps, the meaning may perhaps lie hid, as the germ in the seed. Some
   Fathers seem to oppose the pious opinion,' especially S. Bernard and
   the Angelic Doctor, whose words S. Antoninus, Abp. of Florence,
   asserted to be twisted by the defenders of the Immaculate Conception
   against their intention; others, as S. Bonaventura, seem at one time to
   support the one opinion, at onother the opposite. But it is marvellous
   and worthy of consideration, that the sayings of the Holy Fathers,
   whereby the Immaculate Conception is impugned, at least in appearance,
   are found to have been for the most part written or spoken, when, as
   Doctors and Theologians, they were discussing the doctrine of faith by
   the light of the Divine word, written or handed down; contrariwise,
   what has been wont to be adduced in behalf of the singular privilege of
   the

   Virgin, whether in plain or equivalent terms, is taken almost entirely
   from sermons, prayers, hymns, and praises, when they expressed the
   affection of the heart towards the most benignant Mother rather than
   the judgment of the mind, the feelings of piety rather than the opinion
   of the understanding. Nay, the words of certain Fathers, which seem
   self-contradictory, may perhaps be reconciled in this way? that some
   attest the obscurity of Scripture and tradition in their eyes, some
   explain their inmost feelings, which led the Fathers and orthodox
   writers from the very birth of the Church to extol the integrity of the
   Virgin Mother from all spot with so many distinguished and elegant
   praises, yet so as sometimes to enunciate explicitly the mystery of the
   Conception. For the vehicles of tradition cannot be said to be clear,
   viz., sayings of Fathers, practice of the Church, sacred liturgies, and
   consent or persuasion of the faithful as to so excellent a privilege,
   since those most clear-sighted Bernard and Aquinas, Orators of the
   Blessed Virgin, did not see it. There lurked in the heart, and
   sometimes there burst forth in flames, as it were, that divine ardour
   and inmost feeling whereby the whole Church was borne to extol and
   celebrate the dignity and excellence of the Mother of God, than which
   no greater can be conceived under God. The opinion as to the Immaculate
   Conception had its germ, was cherished, grew, through the implanted
   warmth of piety, seizing step by step on the sacred rites of outward
   worship, the universities, and the minds of the faithful. Yet not so
   rapidly did it pervade the minds of the learned, who, in scholastic
   method, especially under the guidance of Aquinas and the Master of the
   Sentences, evolved the testimonies of the Bible and the ancient Fathers
   as to original sin (among whom are Card. Caietan, Melchior Cano, and
   other most excellent Theologians), until silence being imposed by the
   supreme Pontiffs on the opposite party, and the Feast of the Conception
   being sanctioned, there now remains no country, city, college, or
   community which does not, from the inmost heart, venerate that mystery.
   Although then, perhaps, some are not wanting, who, sincerely using the
   cultus of the Immaculate Conception in heart and external practice in
   order to obey the Pontifical decrees, yet in their inner judgment of
   the mind do not assent to it as a dogma of revelation (of which number
   were the most illustrious P. de Herrera and Master Vincent Ferré, whose
   MS. elucubrations are certainly extant at Salamanca, perhaps
   elsewhere); yet at present there is doubtless a common feeling of the
   faithful, a consent of the living instruction of Pastors with their
   wishes; there is in the Church a wondrous conspiracy of minds who
   profess the privilege of Mary, to which our safest criterion of the
   mystery which lurked obscurely under the veil of Scripture and the
   folds of primitive tradition, it pleased the Holy Spirit to reserve a
   clearer revelation in process of time.

   "The aim of all this, most Blessed Father, is, that while the Bishop of
   Majorca, giving his judgment, so subscribes to the truth of the
   Immaculate Conception, that else the Holy Spirit would seem to him to
   have deserted the Catholic Church, he at the same time estimates the
   difficulties which might arise out of the dogmatic definition, on
   account of the number and authority of distinguished Doctors who
   dissent, of the odium cast on the opposite opinion; and lastly (unless
   it seem otherwise to the prudence of the Supreme Pastor, led by the
   hand, as it were, by the Holy Spirit), the Bishop does not, on
   reflection, see any reason why that most safe way, trodden by the
   Council of Trent and your Predecessors, should be deserted, who thought
   good not to decide or define any thing dogmatically which had not been
   decided before, although Bishops, Congregations of religious,
   flourishing Universities, most powerful Kings and Princes who had
   deserved well of the Church, urged it. Of a truth, the cultus of this
   great mystery has so prevailed throughout the whole world, that it
   could hardly be carried further by a dogmatic definition, as other
   mysteries also of the Nativity and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, which
   have most solid foundation in ancient tradition, are celebrated
   throughout the world, without the faithful anywhere being anxious about
   their dogmatic definition, not from any carelessness about sacred
   things, but being content with the reverence which they entertain and
   manifest towards the Divine Mother.

   "But, most Blessed Father, your Holiness, placed in the highest
   watch-tower of the Church, and approaching nearer to the light from
   above, by the office of the Apostolate and singular piety towards the
   Mother of God, will, by the Divine inspiration, understand and
   certainly know in what way the opinion of the Immaculate Conception
   ought to be confirmed, or more or less directly defined by a solemn
   judgment, which judgment of your Holiness, whatsoever it may be,"
   &c.--ii. 157--160.

   44. The Bishop of Lugo.--"But as our humble opinion also is asked, not
   only upon the ground of

   the doctrine, but also on the convenience and utility of the
   authoritative declaration of it, perhaps our agreement in this
   particular may not be so general or comprehensive. In Spain already no
   Academical Degrees are received in the Schools, nor is any Collation to
   Prebends or Ecclesiastical Benefices allowed, whether the Benefice be
   with or without cure of souls .... without the previous requirement of
   an oath expressly made, to defend the mystery of the Immaculate
   Conception.....I do not therefore understand,-- and some of our
   first-rate Theologians are of the same judgment with me,--that there is
   any necessity or expediency in now proceeding to the declaration, which
   certain persons, carried along by their tender devotion towards the
   most Holy Virgin, are soliciting from your Holiness: for there would be
   no augmentation made by this means to the devotion and unbounded
   confidence in the protection of the Queen of Angels; on the contrary,
   it would in some measure go to impair that confidence by depriving the
   pious opinion of its voluntary character, adopted, without being made a
   dogma of faith; in that it holds it as a duty to our Lady to attribute
   to her the gift of original purity: for we thus understand the honour,
   rather than that she was set free from the guilt of the children of
   Adam after having contracted it. Notwithstanding, it is possible that
   in this opinion we may deceive ourselves, as we should deceive
   ourselves if we believed it was a greater honour to Jesus Christ and
   His holy Mother to descend only from holy women, and not to reckon in
   this genealogy Tha-mar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, the four specially
   marked with dishonourable stains among the people of Judah. Wherein is
   seen how different the judgment of men is wont to be from the judgment
   of God, which we can only know by the revelation made of it in Holy
   Scripture and constant tradition of the old Fathers, as the Universal
   Church has understood and understands them.

   "My opinion therefore is, most Holy Father, keeping in view these
   reasons which I have slightly intimated, that there is no express
   mention in Holy Scripture, nor in consistent Tradition, of the
   exclusion of the most Holy Virgin from the general mass of mankind
   which sinned in Adam; and that it is not expedient, even supposing that
   I deceive myself in the opinion which I have formed, to declare as a
   point of doctrine that which is only a pious persuasion. Nevertheless,
   if your Holiness should judge and define otherwise, I, for my part, as
   a faithful and obedient son of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, will
   submit my heart and mind to the decisions of its supreme Chief. Yet I
   venture to entreat your Holiness, that, supposing you decide the pious
   persuasion to be a point of Faith, you will condescend to adopt such
   modification of it as you may judge to be most suitable, that the great
   defender of the Church, S. Thomas Aquinas, may continue to hold the
   distinguished and honourable place which the Church itself on very
   solemn occasions has granted him."-- ii. 98.
    1. The Bishop of Zamora.--"But as regards the mode of defining, your
       excellent prudence and wisdom will judge what is most right, and
       the same as to formulas of words; and this only he [the Bishop]
       suppliantly desires, that no note be branded upon the supporters of
       the opposite judgment, who nourished before and after the aforesaid
       Council of Trent."--i. 415.
    2. The Bishop of Iaca.--"I cannot dissemble, that the Church has not
       been wont to publish her dogmatic decisions, except when compelled
       by a sort of necessity, especially the impugning of heretics, and
       that in our days they wage no special war against the Immaculate
       Conception of the Virgin, which perhaps would burst out anew if a
       definition were asked for. But I am fully persuaded that no account
       is to be had of heretics in this matter, since their learned and
       instructed teachers have passed over in great measure into
       rationalism, and have sunk in the deep, despising these and all
       other controversies of this sort. The same judgment is not to be
       passed as to Catholics, who, if in any numbers they impugned the
       Immaculate Conception, might cause some trouble. But since those
       who, in our time, do not acquiesce in the pious opinion,' seem to
       be few, I trust that they will not (out of a sort of reverence to
       the Doctors who hitherto thought otherwise) resist the votes of the
       Church everywhere, when weighed and solemnly pronounced by your
       Holiness.....

   "I have explained my own opinion as to this most grave controversy. But
   I think it not unadvisable to inform your Holiness that there are, in
   the very celebrated University of Salamanca, where I long taught Greek,
   some Doctors of Divinity, of no low rank, who, so far from holding that
   the Word of God written or handed down favours the pious opinion,
   contend determinedly that it is contrary thereto; and who hold

   most firmly that the definition ought to be abstained from altogether,
   as not at all necessary, they say, to the life of the Church, and as
   likely, perhaps, to occasion division and tumult. I had lately a great
   discussion hereon, by letter, with my master, F. P. Sanchez, a Doctor
   in Theology of Salamanca, of the Dominicans, whom I thought that I
   ought to consult, as being eminent in all sorts of learning, extremely
   well versed in Theology, and thoroughly acquainted with the whole
   history and turns of this question. Moreover he took with him two MSS.
   in folio from the library of the Convent of S. Stephen in Salamanca
   (when, the tempest raging, all the Spanish families of religious were
   expelled from their convents): the one, a copy of which is said to be
   in the Vatican, elaborated by M. Herrera, the most wise moderator of
   the first class of Theology at Salamanca, afterwards a Bishop; the
   other, elaborated by M. Ferré^580 with unwearied toil, to prove the
   assertion of Maracci to be false, who affirms that both Greek and Latin
   Fathers are on the side of the pious opinion. He weighs them all one by
   one, cites editions, chapters, pages, and at last concludes that that
   saying of S. Antoninus of the defenders of the Immaculate Conception is
   most true, that they twist the sayings of the ancients against the
   intention of the speakers.' I own that I have not read these MSS.,
   which, it is said, ought to be highly accounted of, nor can I give any
   judgment of my own about them; but I have no doubt that that saying of
   my master is most true, that there is nothing missing in them, which
   can avail to throw great light on all this question, nothing which has
   not been examined and weighed; so that they should be waited for, as
   master-works, treating the controversy thoroughly and most copiously,
   and as magazines, from which the adversaries may draw their arguments,
   both to impugn the Immaculate Conception and to throw discredit on the
   object of the definition. I wish then, most Blessed Father, that these
   two MSS. should be examined by the Theological body, with the aid of
   your Holiness, before any thing be decreed on this most grave question,
   lest we should incur that censure, Whoso decrees any thing, one side
   unheard, though he decree what is just, is himself not just.'" i. 480.

   46. b) The Bishop of Santander.--"I say, if it be ripe for a
   definition,' because there are some here, who, although they shrink
   from imagining that Mary was conceived in original sin, yet think that
   her immunity from this stain was not revealed by God through Scripture
   or the tradition of the Church, but was left only to the piety and
   reverence of the faithful. For since there are many truths, which are
   not certainly to be revealed to men, except in their heavenly home,
   such as are, perhaps, those which maintain that S. John Baptist was
   ever free from any even light fault of speech, and S. Joseph, the
   spouse of the most pure Virgin, from any stain concerning chastity;
   these think that of the number of these truths is this also, which
   maintains the immunity of the most Blessed Mother of God from original
   guilt. For sought out, say those who thus think, and too far-fetched
   are those arguments, whereby some celebrated writers contend that they
   demonstrate that this pious opinion is proximately definable. Too
   twisted are the interpretations whereby they endeavour to draw over to
   their side others, who are even openly opposed to it; so that one may
   now, too, say of them, what S. Antoninus said formerly of their leaders
   (Summ. part. v. lib. 8, c. 2), They twist their sayings (those of
   ancient and modern doctors) against the intention of the speakers.' And
   they say that they have found a notable instance of such forced
   interpretation in a celebrated dissertation on this subject, published
   a few years ago by a most eminent man. For in it (at least as it was
   published in Spanish in 1847) Melchior Cano is counted among writers
   who supported the pious opinion, whereas neither did he utter the words
   adduced in confirmation thereof in his own person, but in the person of
   those who impugn the authority of the Holy Fathers; nor do those words
   signify other than that the opinion of the immunity of the most Holy
   Virgin from original sin is pious and praiseworthy, which any one who
   estimates things fairly would in such questions, not defined by the
   Church, doubt not readily to confess of the opinion adverse to his own.

   ^580 Narvaez (1. c. p. 56) mentions another learned Spanish writer on
   the same side: "A Dominican father, Vincentius de Bandelis of New
   Castille, who, as that most wise Pontiff, Lord Benedict XIV., says (de
   festo

   V. M., c. xv., de festo Conceptionis, n. 8), maintained the opinion
   contrary to the Immaculate Conception, printed and published a treatise
   on the subject, whose title is, On the singular purity and prerogative
   of the Conception of our Saviour Jesus Christ, on the authorities of
   260 most illustrious Doctors.'"

   "So these think, more freely perchance than is meet."--i. 424, 425.
    1. The Bishop of Chiapo in Mexico.--"Omitting what all know, that the
       adapted or allegorical meaning, unless inspired writers themselves
       have in other places so employed it, does not yield any firm
       argument in Theological matters, I wish to use the words of a
       Theologian of the first rank, and one of the chief maintainers of
       the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, F. F. Suarez, who
       says when writing thereon, You must not ask for any clear passage
       from Scripture, where this should be asserted, for it would be rash
       to require this, when other privileges of the Virgin, which the
       Church holds for certain, do not require such testimony of
       Scripture. And in respect to tradition, he says, that it is worthy
       of consideration that the ancient Fathers have said little of this
       privilege of the Virgin,' having said before, as to the
       sanctification of the Blessed Virgin in the womb, This truth is not
       expressly defined, nor handed down as of faith.' And S. Thomas, who
       had read the writings of the Fathers better, perhaps, than any, did
       not find it, I say not handed down as of faith,' but not in any
       way; else, doubtless, he would never have maintained the contrary.
       I am aware how many have strained with all their might to detach
       this most eminent Saint therefrom; but in vain, as I think; since
       in so many places of his works, especially the Summa, in which,
       last of all and expressly, he treated this question, he taught it
       most openly, on account of the reverence due to the general sayings
       of Holy Scripture, and because there was as yet no leaning of the
       Church towards the pious opinion. Pétau again, another of the more
       eminent Theologians, and most versed in the Fathers, although he
       contended for the Immaculate Conception of the most Holy Virgin,
       did not find it clearly handed down to them. If then, as is
       evident, the truth of the Immaculate Conception is not found so
       expressed in the Holy Scriptures that it can be proposed to the
       people as a dogma of faith; if it is not clear in the writings of
       the holy Fathers that it was always, everywhere, and by all' handed
       down, and much more handed down as of faith, since neither was her
       sanctification in the womb (which was easier), as Suarez asserts,
       so handed down; since I have no qualifications which enable me to
       decide better than S. Thomas or at least Pétau, what is contained
       in tradition thereon; since neither did the Fathers, who remained
       at Basle, and who left nothing untried to settle this matter,
       define it in this sense; and since those words, whereby the most
       Blessed Virgin is called Immaculate,' may be understood, like those
       in 2 Pet. iii. 12, Wherefore, most dearly beloved, considering
       these things, be diligent, that ye may be found of Him immaculate
       in peace,' not without great grief of heart, most Blessed Father, I
       dare not give a suffrage for the declaration of the aforesaid truth
       as a dogma of faith. Let, then, that most firm truth abide among
       all, yet with that certainty, wherewith the Assumption of the most
       Blessed Virgin into heaven, with body and soul at once, is
       believed, although it is not held as a dogma of faith. I have been
       not a little delayed, because a religious' man, who had done good
       service in literature with others whom I called that I might have
       the more light, only on the 16th of April last, showed me a work of
       some magnitude, elaborated with great care, and chiefly derived
       from the seraphic treasure-house, without examining which, from the
       desire I had of embracing a different opinion, I did not think it
       at all reasonable to deliver my judgment.
    2. "Although this has not happened [that his opinion had been
       changed], and what I have said notwithstanding, if the Immaculate
       Conception of the most Holy Virgin be defined by your Holiness, or
       by any successor of yours, should I not myself be departed, I will
       receive it with the greatest exultation, and with my whole heart,
       and will defend it with all my power."--T. ix., App. i. 19, 20.
    3. Vicar Apostolic of Mysore.--"Although we are all by nature children
       of wrath, even although all perished in the first Adam, yet it is
       not repugnant either to my faith or reason to admit a marvellous
       and free exception as to the most Blessed Virgin in fact; nay, it
       seems to me in the highest degree congruous, that there should have
       been such an exception; whence I believe, by a faith of nature
       (naturaliter credo'), that God gave such a privilege with many
       other gifts of His free mercy to the Blessed Virgin Mary. But
       because neither Holy Scripture nor ancient tradition prove
       sufficiently clearly that such exemption from the stain of original
       sin was granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, I cannot, believe it
       with a Divine faith. On the other side, considering that the Word
       of God had no repugnance to many other indignities in the life of
       His ancestors according to the flesh, both men and women, by parity
       of reason, it might have been absolutely, that He should have taken
       a Mother who had the stain of a fault strictly not her own, at
       least in the original moment [of her being]; whence my opinion,
       therefore, stands only in the natural sense of fittingness

   towards my Redeemer, and in the pious desire of glory and veneration
   towards His most beloved Mother.

   "Fearing, lest Protestants and philosophers, objecting that such a
   decision, as de fide, is contrary to the Catholic axiom, quod ubique,
   quod semper, quod ab omnibus,' and muttering that the Roman Church
   imposes mere opinions under pain of damnation, should also refuse most
   certain dogmas; and, moreover, not clearly seeing that the confidence
   of Christians as to the most pure Mary, or their fervour in the cultus
   of Mary, the refuge of sinners, can be increased by such a decision;
   especially being unwilling at this time to impose, as de fide, and
   under pain of damnation, an opinion which was free for eighteen
   centuries, and which, although thoroughly examined by many most pious
   and most learned Pontiffs, has yet always been undecided, with the most
   profound submission to the future judgment of your Holiness, I can in
   no way desire such a definition, and am compelled by my conscience so
   to confess."--iii. 353.

   49. The Vicar Apostolic of Coimbatoor.--"Although, I repeat, I have no
   doubt as to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, I cannot
   but fear that from the definition of that doctrine as an article of
   faith some evils would arise to the Church; I cannot but fear that such
   a definition (saving the reverence due to the many and most pious
   theologians who urge it) bears on its front a certain appearance of
   novelty, and diminishes the force and majesty of tradition, the
   firmness whereof will hereafter be more and more to be desired.

   "Doubtless, if the Holy See shall declare the Immaculate Conception of
   the Blessed Virgin Mary an article of revealed faith, it will thereby
   define that the tradition was always such (for I think that this
   revelation will never be rested on Scripture alone, which seems to me
   yet more perilous). This will suffice for one who is firm and constant
   in the faith. But as to those weaker in the faith, whose weakness will
   always be to be indulged, the grounds of this tradition, resting on
   which the Church delivers the definition, are to be weighed. No easy
   task. Notwithstanding the pious attempts and industry of more recent
   theologians, must we not confess that their demonstrations, though
   rigorous, are not mostly easy to the conception of the faithful? But
   ifc seems to me of great moment that tradition, on other grounds most
   precious (which will be an anchor of safety in the storms whereby
   Mother Church will still be tossed), should be found clear and
   conspicuous to the minds of all.

   "Perhaps, most Blessed Father, I fear where no fear is. But I own I
   fear the thick falsehood, which seems about to involve the human mind
   more and more. Aided thereby, the prince of darkness will seduce many,
   unless we reverence tradition most scrupulously. Let others boast the
   vain science of this world, and assert that the world clay by day makes
   progress. I grieve to see mankind casting itself headlong into an
   inevitable gulf of darkness. The portentous abuses of printing, the
   venom of journals, which creeps even into uncivilized nations, corrupt
   the minds, and turn them from the right path: licence in writing,
   printing, and circulating everywhere all sorts of books, good or bad,
   on any subject, with an unworthy mixture of sacred with profane,
   maintaining error with a bold iron forehead; and under the appearance
   of sound philosophy or theology propagating false doctrine, enveloped
   in artfully contrived subtleties, so that the most wise laws of the
   Church hereon cannot be effectually maintained even in empires wholly
   Catholic; these things, with many other causes, seem likely to bring so
   great a disturbance on the intellect of men, that hereafter, more
   perhaps than before, Catholics, mistrusting reasoning, but cleaving to
   the documents of sacred tradition, will be compelled to acknowledge
   that only with the certainty of faith, which has been believed,
   everywhere, always, and by all.'

   "To return; notwithstanding the pious industry of more recent
   theologians, and their diligence in scrutinizing the works of the
   Fathers, and adducing every thing which, directly or indirectly,
   evidently or inferentially, supports our opinion, it remains difficult
   to prove, in my opinion, that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
   Virgin Mary was believed always, and especially that it was believed
   everywhere. But will not minds, weak in the faith, be by that
   difficulty put in danger of doubting not only the articles defined, but
   moreover tradition itself, which was the shrine of this revelation? But
   hence what perils are not to be feared for weak faith, to whose
   infirmity it is our office to be indulgent?

   "So then, most Blessed Father, I should prefer that the truth of the
   Immaculate Conception of Mary should remain among truths which are
   generally admitted to be piously believed.'"-- iii. 354, 355.

   50. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.--"It must be confessed,
   that there are some

   among us (I believe, very few), who are otherwise minded, and who think
   that it has not been revealed with sufficient clearness, that the Holy
   Virgin Mary had no ground to cry out like the other daughters of Adam,
   In sin did my mother conceive me.--[S. Bernard, Ep. 174, n. 8.]
   Although they most readily acknowledge that, through the foreseen
   merits of her future most Holy Son, He who is mighty freed her
   immediately from original fault, and made her full of richest graces.
   Now as to that, on which your Holiness vouchsafed chiefly to inquire,
   whether or no it seems expedient for the advance of the glory of God,
   that the Holy See should declare by a dogmatical decision, that it is
   to be believed de fide, that the most Holy Virgin never, even in the
   first instant of her Conception, bore the very slightest spot of sin,
   herein too the opinions are different. For the greater part of the
   priests of this diocese think that the time is come, when the doctrine
   of the Immaculate Conception of the most Holy Ever-Virgin Mary is known
   to be so universal, that it may and ought to be promulgated as an
   article of faith. But no contemptible part of grave, pious, and learned
   priests and laymen think otherwise; and although they believe
   undoubtingly, that the Mother of the most Holy Saviour was always free
   from all spot of original sin, they do not at all think it expedient,
   that such a doctrine, however true, should be proposed to the faithful,
   to be believed as of Divine faith; and that chiefly for these reasons:
   1. A dogmatic decision of this matter, on which there is no dissension,
   would seem to them contrary to the practice of the Church, since
   hitherto such decisions have only been promulged at such time as
   heretics dared to assail sound doctrine; and they are not aware of any
   ground sufficiently grave for departing, in the present case, from the
   ancient custom, and incurring the note of novelty. 2. The Immaculate
   Conception of the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary is believed peacefully
   almost everywhere, and is assailed publicly by no one; and they think
   it much safer for the peace of religion quieta non movere,' than under
   no pressure of necessity, to agitate the question as to a new article
   of faith in the present state of minds, when men, even Catholics, both
   in foreign parts and in Italy itself, are, alas! too much inclined to
   examine, without due reverence, the limits of Ecclesiastical power. 3.
   They would hardly dare to hope that the devotion towards the most
   Blessed Virgin, which already everywhere is lively in the hearts of the
   faithful, could be much increased by the solemn decision that she was
   always Immaculate, since, on the one side, the Church, which is already
   extensively attacked, would be exposed to new assaults by embittered
   and ever-vigilant enemies, who would doubtless seize occasion thence of
   chattering, Lo! the Church of the Catholics has devised a new Article
   of faith after ages, which, as is evident, was not believed everywhere,
   nor always, nor by all. What new light then dawns now upon that Church,
   which was denied to its Council of Trent?' Such fallacies the
   well-instructed Catholic will easily dissipate; but they think that it
   is to be feared that the minds of the simple may be disturbed thereby,
   and their faith also perchance shaken. 4. Lastly, they fear, lest many
   Protestants who, as they hope, are now verging towards the Catholic
   Church, seeking a refuge there from their ever-varying errors, may be
   driven further from us on account of this new Article of faith,
   recently, as they will perhaps think, devised. These are some of the
   reasons which move those whose minds I have explained, to desire
   vehemently, unless the Holy Lord shall think differently, that nothing
   further should be done therein at present.

   "Among those who thus think are the Jesuit fathers at Dublin, almost
   all the Professors of our national College at Maynooth, and many
   others, both priests and laymen, conspicuous for zeal for religion. And
   knowing their most pious feelings towards the Blessed Mother of God,
   and their desire that she should be honoured and worshipped everywhere
   with most ardent devotion, I cannot hold their opinion cheap; and
   therefore do not venture to advise that a dogmatic decision should go
   forth from the Holy See, declaring that it is to be believed, de fide,
   that the most Holy Virgin Mary was conceived without stain of original
   sin,' however certain it be that that doctrine is true."--ii. 142--144.

   He subsequently joined the other Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops
   in praying the Pope to define it.--iii. 376--378.

   The Archbishop of Tarragona left the question of expediency to the
   judgment of the Pope (ii. 126). The Bishop of Oviedo said, "Perhaps the
   fulness of time has come to declare this article" (ii. 229). The
   Archbishop of Braga desired it, "if there was no reason to fear for
   other realms, as in this most religious nation nothing is to feared"
   (i. 126). The Bishop of Lamego evidently leant to think it inopportune:
   "Whether in the actual state of things the passing of such a decision
   is more opportune than it was in the

   time of some supreme Pontiffs of venerable memory, and of the most
   learned fathers of the Council of Trent, I dare not give an opinion"
   (iii. 73).

   So, I think, did the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon: "Whether for this
   longed-for definition a more opportune time has now come; and those
   things are no longer to be feared, which were a hindrance to the
   Tridentine fathers, and the supreme Pontiffs; whether the present state
   of many nations, most turbulent and most hostile to all authority, and
   the impious and most insidious efforts of Protestants and of all
   enemies of the Catholic Church, who do not cease to censure as new
   dogmas what are defined in the Catholic Church, and who endeavour with
   their whole might to impugn the infallibility of that Church, the
   existence of Divine tradition, and the authority of the Apostolic See,
   ought to cause some delay to that longed-for and implored
   decree;--this, I think, to be left to thy most wise and prudent
   judgment."--iii. 56, 57.

   Narvaez (p. 48), counting the Bishops in Communion with Rome at 748,
   and those who answered the Encyclical at 576, leaves 172 who did not
   answer, of whom, allowing for vacancies, letters not reaching, &c.,
   many like the Austrian Bishops, must have been silent, because they did
   not wish to express their dissent.

   Narvaez gives, in strange contrast with 1864, this statement as to
   Cardinal Bona: "Alexander VII., when asked by the ambassador of Philip
   IV. of Spain to decide the Conception of the Blessed Virgin to be a
   dogma of faith, asked the wise and pious Cardinal Bona, whether he
   could decide the question by himself? The Cardinal answered, that
   neither the Holy See, nor the Church herself, can form new articles of
   faith; that it can only declare what God has revealed to His Church,
   after having examined the matter according to the rules of the
   traditions transmitted by the Apostles.' The Pontiff replied, Can I
   decide what is to be believed on this matter under inspiration of the
   Holy Ghost?' Cardinal Bona said, Most Holy Father, if any thing should
   be revealed to you by God, this will profit yourself alone; but it will
   not be lawful for you, nor can you bind the faithful to adhere to your
   decision, as neither can you bind me.'"--pp. 91, 92.

   One of the earliest fruits of the decision fell upon Spain, where the
   last sacraments were refused to "Father Mr. Pascual who, until A.D.
   1865, was the oracle of Salamanca, and was held by learned men a
   fountain of religious wisdom, gushing forth on all sides," because,
   "when interrogated by certain Bishops, he wrote that the Immaculate
   Conception of the Blessed Virgin never could come to be an article of
   faith, and never acknowledged the dogma, after the Lord Pope Pius IX.
   pronounced it a dogma of faith, and did not recant." And yet
   "inconsistently," Narvaez says," the divine office was said for his
   soul."--p. 54.
     __________________________________________________________________

  NOTE C.

   The Greek Church believes the Blessed Virgin to have been conceived in
   original sin.

   On this subject too, we are one with the Greek Church, and it is even,
   strange, that of all the Bishops who returned answers, one only
   mentioned the Greeks as likely to be kept away by this decision of the
   Latin Church apart, and he only, summarily to overrule the objection as
   of less account than if it had been the Protestants.

   In regard to the belief of the Russian Church, my friend the Rev. G.
   Williams has furnished me with the following references. No exception
   is made, as though the Blessed Virgin had been exempt from the
   transmission of original sin to "all who are naturally engendered of
   the offspring of Adam."

   "1. Confessio orthodoxa of 1642, 3, which has very great authority in.
   the Church."

   "The sin from our first parents is the transgression of Divine law
   given in Paradise to our forefather Adam, when it was said to him, Of
   the tree of knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat; but in the day
   that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die.' This original (propatorikon)
   sin passed from Adam to the whole human race, since we were all
   contained at that time in Adam. And thus through the one Adam sin
   passed to us all. Therefore we are all conceived and born with this
   sin, as the Holy Scripture teaches, By one man sin entered into the
   world, and death by sin; and so death passed unto all men because in
   him all sinned.' This original sin can be done away by no repentance,
   but only by the grace of God. But it is abolished by the dispensation
   of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh, and the shedding of His precious
   Blood. And this takes place through the mystery of holy Baptism; for
   whoso is not baptized, he is not free from sin, but is a child of wrath
   and of everlasting punishment, according to what is said (John iii. 5),
   Verily I say unto you, unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he
   cannot enter into the kingdom of God." -- P. iii., qu. xx., Kimmel,
   Libri Symb. Eccl. Orient., pp. 272, 273.

   In the Acts of the Synod at Giasion, in condemning Cyril Lucar for
   holding that "all had been guilty of actual mortal sin," it professed
   that the teaching of the Church was that none was exempt from original
   sin.

   "The sixth, that he includeth all human nature under sin, not only
   original (as our church confesseth), but also under that which
   springeth from it, being of free choice and deadly (troairetikhn kai
   qanasimon), which he calls the fruits of that, and exempting none from
   this (the deadly sin which maketh him who doeth it condemned), neither
   him who is the greatest among those born of woman, nor her the blessed
   among women,1 the spotless and Ever-Virgin Mary, or certain Patriarchs
   or Prophets and Apostles, is condemned as alien from our faith."--§ 6.
   Ib. pp. 410, 411.

   "The Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem: We believe that
   the first man, created by God, fell in Paradise, neglecting the Divine
   command: he obeyed the deceitful counsel of the serpent; and that
   thence, by succession, flowed original sin; so that no one is born
   according to the flesh who does not bear this burden, and who does not
   feel its fruits in this present hour. The fruits, we say, and burden,
   not sin, such as ungodliness, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication,
   hatred, and whatever else is gendered by wicked choice, not by nature,
   contrary to the Divine will. For many, both of the Patriarchs and
   Prophets, and very many others, both under the shadow [the Law], and
   the truth [the Gospel], the divine forerunner

   (S. John Baptist), and especially the Mother of the Divine Word, the
   Ever-Virgin Mary, were not tempted by such and the like offences, but
   only [suffered] those things which the Divine righteousness assigned as
   punishment to men for the transgression, as the weariness of toil,
   afflictions, bodily weaknesses, pangs of childbirth, laborious life in
   our pilgrimage, and lastly, bodily death.'"--Decr. vi. pp. 432, 433.

   A Russian layman, in vindicating the Greek Church on occasion of a
   "mandement" of the Archbishop of Paris, says remarkably:

   "This last time has seen an obligatory decree on a dogmatic question
   emanate from the Pontifical throne. It is then an act completely
   ecclesiastic in the highest sense of the word; and, as being the only
   one for many years, it deserves special attention. This decree
   announces to all Christendom, and to ages to come, that the Blessed
   Mother of the Saviour was exempt from all, even original sin. But the
   Holy Virgin, did she not undergo death, like the rest of mankind? She
   did. And death, is it not (as the Spirit of God said by the Apostle)
   the penalty of sin? (lit. the wages of sin?) It is so no longer: by a
   Papal decree it has become independent of sin; it has become a simple
   accident of nature, and all Christendom is convicted of falsehood. Or
   the Blessed Virgin, has she undergone death like Christ, making herself
   sin for others? We should have two Saviours; and Christendom would
   again be convicted of falsehood. Lo, how Divine mysteries manifest
   themselves to the Roman Communion; lo, the heritage which she
   bequeathed to futurity!"--Quelques Mots sur les Communions occidentales
   (Leipz., 1855), pp. 88, 84.

   THE END.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Dr. Manning's Letter, p. 36.

   [2] Dr. Manning, p. 36.

   [3] Legal force of the judgments of the Privy Council, pp. 3, 4.

   [4] Ib. p. 5. My statement about Cardinal Wiseman and Dr. Manning was,
   "they wrote gravely, yet both of them (it now appears) were mistaken
   (as I was myself also), as to the legal effects of that judgment."

   [5] Letter, p. 35

   [6] See Legal force of Judgment, &c., pp. 9, 10.

   [7] Dr. Manning's letter, p. 22.

   [8] Letter, p. 20.

   [9] Letter in App. to Mosheim, t. vi. p. 770.

   [10] Catholic Miscellany, 1824, p. 234, sqq., quoted by Palmer on the
   Church, ii. 232. The learned Rev. J. Berington said to me in my early
   youth, "There is not much difference between us" (the Churches).

   [11] The Council of Trent says: "This concupiscence, which the Apostle
   sometimes calls sin,' the sacred synod declares that the Catholic
   Church never understood to be so called sin, as though it were in the
   regenerate truly and properly sin, but because it is from sin and
   inclines to sin." conc. T. p. 29. The words of our Article, "that it
   hath the nature of sin," involve the statement that it is not "truly
   and properly sin," as the Roman denial, that it is not properly sin,
   implies that it hath something of the nature of sin about it.

   [12] I endeavoured to point out, many years ago, that if people, on
   different sides, dwelt on their real agreement instead of their
   differences in wording their belief as to justification, this would be
   the result: "Justification," Univ. Sermon. To show this, is the object
   of Le Blanc, Theses Theologicæ.

   [13] Prayer for the Church Militant.

   [14] Letter, p. 33.

   [15] See Scriptural Doctrine of Holy Baptism ("Tracts for the Times,"
   No. 67), pp. 294-298.

   [16] Sermon on Swearing, p. 1.

   [17] On Common Prayer and Sacraments, p. 1.

   [18] Letter to Dr. Jelf, 1841, pp. 34, 35. The statement had been made
   in substance in the letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 1839. It was
   repeated in my letter to the Bishop of London, 1851, pp. 5-22.

   [19] De Civ. Dei, x. 33.

   [20] 2 De Doctr. Christ, iii. 6, quoted by Bp. Jewel, Answer to Hard.,
   p. 82.

   [21] P. Lombard, 1. iv. dist. 1, ib.

   [22] Palmer on the Church, i. 526.

   [23] In Dutens, OEuvres Mêlées, Part ii. p. 171, in Palmer, i. 211, 2.

   [24] The Council of Trent was obliged to enact that "the ordinary
   Bishops of each place should give diligent care and be bound to
   prohibit and remove all those things which have been brought in by
   avarice, idolatry (Eph. v. 5), or irreverence, which can scarcely be
   separated from impiety, or by superstition, the false imitatress of
   true piety. And to comprise much in few words, let them prohibit
   altogether, in regard to avarice, all bargaining of all sorts or pay,
   or whatever is given for celebrating masses, and those importuning and
   illiberal exactions rather than requests for alms, and all else of this
   sort, which are not far removed from the stain of simony or certainly
   from filthy lucre." Sess. xxii. de Sacrificio Missæ. The Council of
   Trent also desired, as we do, that, whenever the Holy Eucharist should
   be celebrated, there should be those who should communicate, in which
   case private masses would have ceased. "The holy synod would wish, that
   at each mass the faithful present would communicate not only by
   spiritual affusion, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist,
   that so they might have fuller benefit from this most holy sacrifice."
   Ib. c. 6.

   [25] "They [preachers] shall in the first place be careful never to
   teach any thing from the pulpit to be religiously held and believed by
   the people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New
   Testament, and collected out of that very doctrine by the Catholic
   fathers and ancient Bishops." Convocation of A.D. 1571 (the same
   Convocation which enforced subscription to the Articles).

   [26] Tracts for the Times, No. 81, p. 52.

   [27] Diss. de Oblat. Euch. Irenæi Fragm. Anecdot. subj., p. 211, quoted
   ibid.

   [28] Sess. 22, c. 4.

   [29] See Homilies, end of Book i., as vindicated in Pusey's "The Real
   Presence the Doctrine of the English Church."i

   [30] Alvarus Pelagius de Planctu Eccl. ii. 5, quoted by Gieseler, K.G.
   ii. 36.

   [31] Tracts for the Times, No. 90.

   [32] No blame was attached either to my own vindication of the
   principles of Tract 90, or to that of the Rev.

   [33] Theological Defence for the Bp. of Brechin, &c., 1860. In like way
   I preached in 1853, much more definitely and distinctly, the self-same
   doctrine of the Real Objective Presence, which was implied in my
   practical sermon of 1843 (which was condemned for reasons never
   published), and no one objected to it

   [34] Homily against Peril of Idolatry, p. 2.

   [35] Projet de Réunion, iv. 3. OEuvres, T. xxv. p. 455.

   [36] Defensio Declarat. Conv. Cleri Gall. 1862, L. 9. OEuvres, T. 33.

   [37] The Council of Aries is intended by S. Augustine under the term
   "plenary universal Council." See Pusey's "Councils of the Church," &c.,
   p. 98.

   [38] Pusey's "Councils of the Church," &c., p. 108.

   [39] Bossuet, 1. c. c. 12.

   [40] "Suppose we think all those Bishops who judged at Rome were not
   good judges, there yet remained a plenary Council of the Universal
   Church, in which the cause might have been tried with the judges
   themselves, so that if they had judged amiss, their sentence might have
   been annulled." S. Aug. Ep. 43, ad Glor., &c., c. 1, n. 19, in Bossuet,
   c. 10.

   [41] Pusey's "Councils," &c., pp. 169-172.

   [42] Bossuet, c. 30.

   [43] Ib. c. 16-18.

   [44] Bossuet, Gall. Orthod. Præv. Diss. c. 54-57. OEuvres, T. 31, pp.
   123-128. Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. L. 7, c. 21-23. T. 32, pp. 485-497.

   [45] Boss. Def. Decl. L. 9, c. 37-40.

   [46] Ib. c. 37.

   [47] Ib. c. 41-45

   [48] Ib. c. 46

   [49] Ib. fin.

   [50] Letter to a Jesuit, c. i. pp. 31, 32.

   [51] See Note A. at the end.

   [52] Cont., The Resurrection.

   [53] conc. T. iii. p. 1190, ed. Col.

   [54] Ib. T. iv. p. 1458.

   [55] Conc. Arim. et. Seleuc. n. 6, in S. Ath. ag. Arians, T. i. p. 81,
   Oxf. Tr.

   [56] Nic. Def. § 21. Ib. pp. 36, 37.

   [57] In Theod. H. E. i. 7.

   [58] Ep. 152, ad Julian. "Which the consonant patterns of our
   forefathers attest to agree in all things with the doctrine of the
   Apostles." Ep. 131 ad Julian.

   [59] Ep. 28, ad Flavian, n. 1.

   [60] S. Ath. c. Arian. iii. 22, p. 431, Oxf. Tr.

   [61] S. Cyril Al. on St. John xvii. 21. L. xi. c. 11, pp. 997-1000.

   [62] Eph. iii. 3-5.

   [63] De Trin. viii. 13.

   [64] Ib. § 8.

   [65] Gal. iii. 27, 28.

   [66] Ad loc. Hom. 9, p. 207. Oxf. Tr.

   [67] l. c. § 7.

   [68] Cor. x. 17.

   [69] S. John xx. 22, 23.

   [70] Col. ii. 19

   [71] Eph. iv. 16.

   [72] Ep. 63, ad Cæcil. § 10, p. 191, Oxf. Tr.

   [73] Hær. 70, n. 9, p. 821.

   [74] S. Firmil. in S. Cyprian, Ep. 75, § 25, p. 284, Oxf. Tr.

   [75] Præproperus, Ruf. H. E. i. 27.

   [76] See Pusey's "Councils," pp. 243-252.

   [77] Ib. p. 252.

   [78] Adv. Lucif. c. 20, Opp. ii. 193.

   [79] conc. Afr. c. 68. conc. T. ii. p. 1334, Col.

   [80] See Hefele, Concilien-Gesch. ii. 899.

   [81] Bulgaria. The province had originally belonged to the Patriarchate
   of Constantinople. When Arian emperors expelled the orthodox bishops
   and put Arians into the see, it put itself under the Patriarchate of
   Rome. The inhabitants were driven out by the heathen Bulgarians, who
   were converted from Constantinople. Rome claimed them, and pronounced
   anathemas to S. Ignatius as well, as to Photius on this ground, as
   indeed the dispute was first with S. Ignatius.

   [82] Disc. 6, sur l'Hist. Eccl. T. 18, § 5.

   [83] conc. Const, i. can. 2, Chalc. can. 28.

   [84] Lapis Offensionis, L. 2, c. 1 init., quoted by M. Trevern,
   Discuss. Amicale, T. i. p. 231.

   [85] Numb. xvi. 22.

   [86] See the Archimandrite Macarius' History of Christianity in Russia,
   p. 894, in Allies' Church of England cleared from charge of Schism, pp.
   498, 499, supplied by Rev. W. Palmer.

   [87] Allies, ib. p. 500.

   [88] Status Ecclesiæ in V. et N. T. Opp. T. ii. p. 155.

   [89] Art. XXVI.

   [90] Cod. Eccl. Afr. G. in Bruns, i. 159.

   [91] Cod. Afr. c. 134, Bruns, i. 197.

   [92] See their letter in Bruns, p. 199.

   [93] Conc. Arim. et Seleuc. n. 5. Treatises ag. Arians, i. 80, Oxf. Tr.

   [94] S. Athanas. Art. 50, T. 8, p. 110.

   [95] Conc. Sac. vii. 3, 8.

   [96] Conc. Sard. c. 7.

   [97] See de Marca 1. c., c. 6 and 7.

   [98] S. Epiph. Hær. 42, n. 2, p. 303.

   [99] "This same [Praxeas] constrained the then Bishop of Rome, when on
   the point of acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca,
   Maximilla, and by that recognition carrying peace to the Churches of
   Asia and Phrygia, to recall the letters of peace which were already
   issued, and to give up his purpose of accepting their spiritual gifts,
   by asserting falsehoods as to the prophets and their churches, and
   maintaining the authorities of hid [Victor's] predecessors." Tert. adv.
   Prax. c. i.

   [100] Les Montanistes, Art. 4, T. ii. p. 425, Note 4, p. 669.

   [101] Tert. c. Prax. c. i.

   [102] S. Cyprian Ep. 59, ad n. 10. 22. Com. Oxf. Tr.

   [103] Id. Ep. 44, ad Corn. O. T.

   [104] Ep. 69 (Synod.) ad Felic., &c. n. 5.

   [105] "If presbyters, deacons, or other inferior Clergy, shall, in any
   cause which they may have, complain of the judgments of their own
   Bishops, let the neighbouring Bishops hear them, and determine any
   matter between them, being called in by them with the consent of their
   own Bishops. But if they think that they should appeal from them too,
   let them not appeal to Courts beyond seas, but either to the Primates
   of their provinces, or to a general Council [of Africa], as has been
   often enacted about Bishops also-But if any one choose to appeal to the
   parts beyond seas, let him be received to communion by no one within
   Africa." Cod. Can. Eccl. Afr. 28. In Can. 125 it is, "let them only
   appeal to African Councils or to the Primates of their provinces,"
   without the words "as has often been enacted about Bishops also." The
   clause excommunicating those who appeal is repeated. In the Council of
   Carthage, A.D. 525, a canon is rehearsed from the 11th Council, "Whoso
   communicates not [i. e. is excommunicate] in Africa, if he should
   venture to communicate beyond seas, let him be condemned;" as also Can.
   125 from the 16th Council, and "Let no one dare to appeal to the parts
   beyond seas," from the 20th. conc. iii. 780. Col.

   [106] Sess. 31, Decr. i. Conc. xvii. 371. Col.

   [107] In Æneas Sylv. de Gest. Bas. conc. L. I. in Brown, Fasc. rer.
   exp. i. p. 23.

   [108] De modis uniendi ac reform. Eccl. per Conc. Opp. ii. pp. 173,
   174.

   [109] Gerson adds here, "The aforesaid Lord Alexander V. was altogether
   inclined to this before he was Pope, when it was hi agitation that the
   said Council should be held at Pisa. He not only said this, but with
   many arguments from theology, philosophy, and jurisprudence, laboured
   at the limitation which was to follow. When created Pope, he had no
   care to publish them."

   [110] The whole passage is, "when there were no Papal reservations of
   benefices, no inhibitions of Episcopal cases, no sales of indulgences,
   no commendams of cardinals, and distributions of benefices, of
   priories, and monasteries."

   [111] In Baluz. Miscell. vii. 555, in Gieseler K. G. § 133. Nicolas of
   Cusa (A.D. 1448) still taught that "Peter did not receive any more
   power than the other Apostles; that nothing was said to him which was
   not said to the others; that all the Apostles were equal to Peter; that
   in the beginning of the Church there was only one general episcopate,
   without distinction of dioceses, throughout the world; that all bishops
   are of one power and dignity; that those above others, Archiepiscopal,
   Patriarchal, Papal, are administrations. All bishops have the Apostolic
   command to govern themselves and their flocks in which the Holy Ghost
   has placed them to rule the Church, and therefore is the synodal
   judgment intrusted to them, because they are chiefs and rulers of the
   Church. If thou sayest that the Pope looses and binds those under the
   bishops, I say the same as to others, when there is the consent of
   their own bishops. For an act, null in itself, becomes valid

   [112] Jacob de Paradiso: de Virtutibus Eccl. in Brown ii. 106.

   [113] John Chemensis, Onus Eccl. c 19, § 16.

   [114] Ib. § 14.

   [115] Peter de Alliaco, A. 1415, Browne i. 407.

   [116] Epist. Julian. Card, ad Eug. iv., in Browne i. 57.

   [117] Letter, pp. 34, 5.

   [118] See above.

   [119] See above, ib.

   [120] St. John xiv. 26; xvi. 13.

   [121] St. Matt. x. 27. xxviii. 20.

   [122] 2 Tim. ii. 2, &c.

   [123] Sess. iv.

   [124] Cont. 2 Epp. Pelag. end.

   [125] Prosper resp. ad Obj. Gall. 8.

   [126] Id. Chron. A. 418.

   [127] On the Church, ii. 134.

   [128] Cont. Ruff. ii. 22.

   [129] De Civ. D. xxi. 17.

   [130] Ib. c. 23.

   [131] De Hær. c. 43.

   [132] See Note B at the end.

   [133] Sess. xxv. Bishop Latimer is quoted as agreeing altogether with
   the words of the Council of Trent. "Take saints for inhabitants of
   heaven, and worshipping them for praying to them, I never denied but
   that they might be worshipped, and be our mediators, though not by way
   of redemption (for so Christ alone is a whole mediator, both for them
   and us), yet by way of intercession."--Foxe, Acts and Monuments.

   [134] "God and the saints are not to be prayed to in the same manner,
   for we pray to God that He Himself would give us good things, and
   deliver us from evil things; but we beg of the saints that they would
   be our advocates, and obtain from God what we stand in need of."--Cat.
   of C. of Trent, quoted by Milner, End of Contr. Lett, xxxiii.

   [135] Milner, ib.

   [136] Dr. Pusey's Letter to Dr. Jelf, pp. 187-216, and Sermon, Rule of
   Faith, pp. 65-61.

   [137] Liguori, Glories of Mary, v. 1, quoted Rule of Faith, p. 57.

   [138] Ib.

   [139] Suarez, T. ii. in 3 P. Disp. 23, § 3.

   [140] Liguori, ib.

   [141] See the Proofs in Rule of Faith, p. 55.

   [142] Bernardine Sen. Serm. 61, Tr. i., Art. 8, quoted by Lig.

   [143] Contensonius, Theol. Mentis et Cordis, T. ii. L. x. D. iv. c. 1,
   in Lig.

   [144] See in Rule of Faith, p. 58.

   [145] Bernardine Sen. Serm. 61, c. 8.

   [146] Ric. a S. Laurent, de Laud. Virg. L. 3, p. 1, and others in Lig.

   [147] Eadmer de Excell. Virg. cxi., quoted as St. Anselm, in Lig. St.
   Antonin. ib.

   [148] Ascribed to St. Chrys. if not to St. Ignat., but spurious, in
   Lig.

   [149] "All things are subject to the command of the Virgin, even God
   Himself." Bern. Sen. Serm. 61, Art. i. c. 6. Ussher, p. 417. "The
   Blessed Virgin is superior to God, and God Himself is subject unto her,
   in respect of the Manhood which He assumed from her." Bern, de Bust.
   Marial. p. 9, Serm. 2, ib. "However she be subject unto God, inasmuch
   as she is a creature, yet she is said to be superior and preferred
   before Him, inasmuch as she is His mother." Ib. p. 2, s. 2, ib. "You
   have over God the authority of a mother, and hence you obtain pardon
   for the most obdurate sinners." Gl. of M. in Letter, p. 209.

   [150] Glories of M. p. 85, quoted Letter, p. 208. See also Treatise on
   the Scapular, c. 7, p. 43. Gl. of M. p. 130. On "participated
   omnipotency," ib. 207.

   [151] As "in the vision which Burn. de Bust, reciteth as shown to St.
   Francis touching the two ladders, that reached from earth to heaven,
   the one red, upon which Christ leaned, from which many fell backward
   and could not ascend; the other white, upon which the holy Virgin
   leaned; the help whereof such as used, were by her received with a
   cheerful countenance, and so with facility ascended into heaven."
   Marial. p. 9, Serm. 2, Assim. 2; also (as shown to Fr. Lion) Spec. vit.
   Franc, et soc. p. 2, c. 45, Spec. exempl. dist. 7, exempl. 41, in
   Ussher, p. 429, repeated in Glor. of M. p. 180.

   [152] Jac. de Valent. in Expos. Magnificat. Ussher.

   [153] Gabr. Biel in Can. Miss. Lect. 80. Bernardin. de Bust. Marial. p.
   3, s. 3, de excell. 4, in Ussher.

   [154] Bern. de B. ib. Exc. 5, and p. 5, Serm. 7, fin. Ussher.

   [155] "I shall no longer fear your Son justly irritated, since one word
   from you [Mary] will appease Him." Gl. of M. p. 74. Letter on Tract 90,
   p. 211. "If my Saviour drive me off because of my sins, I will go and
   cast myself at the feet of His mother; thence I will not rise till she
   has obtained my pardon. For she does not know what it is to be
   insensible to the voice of misery, and her pity will mitigate the anger
   of her Son." Gl. of M. p. 89. Ib.i

   [156] Innocent III. in Glories of Mary, p. 69; Letter, ib.

   [157] Blosius in Glories of Mary, p. 93; quoted, ib.

   [158] Eadmer, de Exc. B. V., ib. p. 212.

   [159] M. Olier, Catéchisme Chrétien, quoted Rule of Faith, p. 60.

   [160] A friend of mine, in like way, was asked to pray to the Blessed
   Virgin in a form framed on the beginning of the Litany: "Mary, daughter
   of the Father, give me light; Mary, Mother of the Son,--Mary, Spouse of
   the Holy Ghost,"--the especial prayers I forget; but they were exactly
   the same prayers which we should have addressed to the Holy Trinity.
   "These English are but half converts!" was the exclamation of an
   Italian priest by a devout deathbed, when the dying person commended
   herself to "Jesus," instead of to "Jesus and Mary."

   [161] On Prayer, p. 277.

   [162] Answer to Card. Perron's Reply, end, pp. 58. 62 [pp. 76. 80, ed.
   Ang. Cath. Lib.]. say to the Blessed Virgin, Sancta Maria!'

   [163] "Eximium adorationis genus." Bellarm. Præf. in Controv. Eccl.
   Triumph, quoted by Ussher, p. 402.

   [164] Azor. Inst. Mor. T. i. L. i.x. c. 10, quoted ib.

   [165] The one exception is a relation given by S. Gregory as to S.
   Justina, out of some spurious Acts belonging to the latter half of the
   fourth (his own) century. The Acts, from which he takes his account,
   agree in substance with those which S. Prudentius also had (Peristeph.
   13), and which the Empress Eudoxia versified (Phot. Cod. 184, p. 216,
   Hoesch.). All alike, on the ground of those Acts, confound S. Cyprian
   with an Eastern martyr, whom the Acts make a magician before he was
   converted. Besides historical inaccuracies, the Acts have plainly
   fabulous stories about magic. (See Baluz. Præf. ad S. Cypr. xxxiii.).
   As extant, however, they have not the history related by S. Gregory,
   that, at the close of long prayers to God Justina "besought the Virgin
   Mary to succour a virgin in peril from the assaults of Satan." (Orat.
   24, §11.) S. Gregory relates the fact as he found it in his Acts,
   without comment, not remarking on the Acts of a martyr. The Acts are
   most full, in Latin, in Martene, Anecd. iii. pp. 1621, sqq.; the Conf.
   S. Cypriani exists in Greek, App. to S. Cypr. p. ccxcv., Ben. In no
   instance, among the genuine Acts of Martyrs, edited by Ruinart, is any
   martyr related to have asked for help amidst those superhuman
   sufferings, or otherwise, except from God generally, or from our Lord.

   [166] Paradise for the Christian Soul, Advertisement.

   [167] Or say, "If I walk through the midst of the shadow of death, I
   will fear no evil, for she is with me. If war arise against me, in this
   will I be confident. If my father and mother forsake me, the Mother of
   my Lord shall take me up."

   [168] "Christ is not our Advocate only, but a Judge; and since the Just
   is scarcely secure, how shall a sinner go to Him, as an Advocate?
   Therefore God has provided us of an advocatress, who is gentle and
   sweet, in whom nothing that is sharp is to be found."--Antonin. quoted
   by Taylor, Dissuasive, 1. ii. 8.

   [169] "For after that our Lord arose from the dead, and they were
   endued with the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon them from on high,
   they were fully filled as to all things, and had perfect knowledge.' It
   is unlawful to say that they preached before they had perfect
   knowledge.' S. Iren. iii. 1. 1. According to these' [the heretics],
   Peter was imperfect; imperfect also the other Apostles. And were they
   to live again, they must needs become the disciples of these, that they
   too may become perfect. But this were absurd.'" Ib. 12. 7. See also in
   the same book, 11 ult.

   [170] Id. iii. 3. 5.

   [171] Tert. de Præscr. Hær. c. 22.

   [172] Ep. Encycl. Pii IX. A.D. 1849.

   [173] Faber, Preface to transl. of De Montfort on the true devotion to
   the Blessed Virgin, pp. xi. xii., vi. vii.

   [174] In his controversial Lectures.

   [175] Bishop Nicholson, Coadjutor of Corfu, says: "I persuaded many
   Bishops of Italy, Germany, England, Ireland, to ask for the word
   Immaculate' to be added to the Mass of the Conception, and Queen
   conceived without original stain,' in the Litany of Loretto, and to
   supplicate the Vicar of Jesus Christ to declare the Immaculate
   Conception ex cathedra." Pareri dell' Episcopato Cattolico sulla
   definizione dogmatico dell' immacolato concepimento della B. V. Maria,
   i. 403. The Roman Catholic Bishops of Cashel, Killaloe, Cork, Elphin
   imply that the people had not been taught the doctrine. The R. C.
   Archbishop of Cashel said, that "they had not explicit faith, but that
   they had implicit," since they so venerated the Blessed Virgin, that
   they would believe any thing to her honour (Ib. i. 487); the R. C.
   Bishop of Killaloe, that the clergy had been silent about it, on
   account of various Bulls (Ib. i. 500); of Cork, that the laity were not
   versed in theological questions (Ib. ii. 85); of Elphin, that he did
   not ask people, as they did not understand the question (Ib. ii. 204).
   The R. C. Bishop of Meath said, that both "priests and people believed
   it" (Ib. iii. 211), and the Bishop of Clonfert, that they would reject
   the contrary, which, however, he as well as others put in the form,
   that she had been "a child of wrath" (Ib. iii. 214).

   [176] Pref. to De Montf. p. ix. x.

   [177] Faber's Italics.

   [178] Faber's Italics.

   [179] 1 Pet. iv. 12; i. 7.

   [180] Heb. vii. 25.

   [181] S. Matt. xi. 28.

   [182] S. John xvi. 23; xiv. 13, 14.

   [183] Pareri, iii. 149.

   [184] Ib. iii. 344.

   [185] Ib. i. 159. "Ut nullis terminis sit definita."

   [186] e. g. The Bishop of Lerida, "in hoc Mariano regno," Par. i, 168.
   In like way the Bishop of Guadalaxara speaks of Mexico as "Marian"
   (iii. 76), and so others.

   [187] Ep. Encycl. A.D. 1849.

   [188] 88 Italian Bishops wrote, 54 French, 11 only from Spain and
   Portugal, including Spanish and Portuguese America; 5 English,
   including Australia; 1 Irish; 9 European Missionary Bishops in China,
   the East Indies, &c.; 1 from Senegal, 1 of Corfu. 20 French Bishops,
   who wrote subsequently, did not write then; 13 French, and 25 Italian
   (chiefly Neapolitan), who wrote then, sent no answer to the Encyclical.
   Gregory XVI. assigned the silence of Bishops from other nations as a
   ground for not proceeding then. The Bishop de la Rochelle gives an
   extract from his letter to himself. "He (Gregory XVI.) added, that
   except the Bishops of France, and some of Venetia, Lombardy, and Spain,
   the Bishops of other nations had hitherto kept silence; Germany,
   England, and Ireland had been silent; that there seemed to him ground
   to fear, lest the judgment asked for, if then solemnly promulged, would
   render the Apostolic See odious to certain nations; that complaining
   and almost threatening sounds, emanating from different countries, had
   been heard at the Canonization of some whom Pius VII. had placed among
   the saints." Par. i. 13.

   [189] This seems to be almost a proverbial saying. It occurs in the
   Bishop of Bayeux, i. 289. Lipari, i. 347. Iaca, i. 480, &c.

   [190] "She shall bruise His head," for, "He shall bruise." Ipsa, for
   ipse, an error which came into the Latin about the time of S.
   Augustine. See De Rossi Varr. Lect. T. ii. App. pp. 210, 211. The
   frequent allusions to this "protevangelium," in the letters of the
   Bishops and in controversy, as though it ascribed to the Blessed Virgin
   directly and personally, what God promised as to the Person of our
   Lord, shows how deeply this mistake of the Vulgate has worked into the
   Marian system.

   [191] "The destroyer of heresies throughout the whole world" is a
   received title of the B. V. in the Roman Church, applying to her
   present personal power, what was originally said of the Incarnation,
   that it, rightly believed, is the destruction of all heresies.

   [192] Catharinus.

   [193] The Bishop of Massa di Carrara doubtless expressed the mind of
   many, when he said, "In a matter of such moment, to be defined by the
   supreme and infallible judgment of the Holy See, I dare not open the
   sentiment of my mind" (i. 319). The same feeling is apparent in many
   other responses.

   [194] There were answers from 178 Bishops of Italy, and the adjacent
   islands; 101 from Spain and Portugal, with Spanish and Portuguese
   America. The whole number was about 490.

   [195] iii. 144. See B. n. 36. The Pareri, &c., being now a very scarce
   book, extracts from this and most of the following letters are given in
   Note B., at the end.

   [196] iii. 34. B. n. 37.

   [197] iii. 44-46. B. n. 38.

   [198] ii. 153. B. n. 38

   [199] ii. 218. B. n. 40.

   [200] ii. 366. B. n. 41.

   [201] ii. 290. B. n. 42.

   [202] ii. 158. B. n. 43.

   [203] The Bishops of Bergamo, Como, Crema, Lodi, Mantua, with the
   Vicars General of the chapters of Cremona, Pavia, and Brescia, i. 222,
   223

   [204] ii. 99. B. n. 44.

   [205] i. 415. B. n. 45.

   [206] i. 481. B. n. 46.

   [207] ix. App. 17. B. n. 47.

   [208] iii. 374.

   [209] Thom. Valentin, conc. 2 de Nativ. B. M. V.

   [210] iii. 376-379.

   [211] ii. 143. B. n. 50.

   [212] ii. 148.

   [213] iii. 309.

   [214] Viz. 22. France has 14 Archbishops, 66 Bishops; in all, 80
   (Moroni, T. 27, p. 141).

   [215] ii. 26-46; iii. 310, 311, 338. B. n. 1.

   [216] i. 357-359. B. n. 2.

   [217] i. 362, 363. B. n. 3

   [218] i. 100, 101. B. n. 4.

   [219] i. 175, 176. B. n. 5.

   [220] i. 445, 446. B. n. 6.

   [221] ii. 362, 363. B. n. 7.

   [222] iii. 333. B. n. 8.

   [223] i. 121. B. n. 9.

   [224] iii. 290. B. n. 10.

   [225] i. 135. B. n. 11.

   [226] i. 321. B. n. 12.

   [227] 211, 212. B. n. 13.

   [228] i. 498. B. n. 14.

   [229] ii. 163. B. n. 15.

   [230] i. 361.

   [231] ii. 11.

   [232] i. 258, 259. B. n. 16.

   [233] ii. 464, 465.

   [234] This and the following numbers are taken from McCulloch's
   Geography, upon whose numbers (he being "a member of the Institute") I
   concluded that I might rely.

   [235] Sebenico, Zara, Spalatro.

   [236] Moroni, T. xix. pp. 75, 75.

   [237] Colocsa and Bayia, Fünfkirchen, Sabaria, Scepusio.

   [238] iii. 232, 233. B. n. 24, 25.

   [239] ii. 404. B. n. 25b.

   [240] i. 177-179. B. n. 21.

   [241] i. 327. B. n. 22.

   [242] i. 436. B. n. 23.

   [243] ii. 467. B. n. 26.

   [244] vii. cxxxviii. cxxxix. B. n. 28.

   [245] iii. 184. B. n. 29.

   [246] i. 278-280. B. n. 27.

   [247] vii clvii. B. n. 30.

   [248] iii. 346, 347. B. n. 31.

   [249] ii. 439. B. n. 32.

   [250] iii. 307, 308. B. n. 33.

   [251] ii. 447. B. n. 34.

   [252] ii. 417. B. n. 19.

   [253] ii. 59. B. n. 20.

   [254] iii. 303. B. n. 18.

   [255] i. 411, 412. B. n. 17.

   [256] ii. 370.

   [257] i. 266.

   [258] iii. 351. B. n. 48.

   [259] iii. 354. B. n. 49.

   [260] ii. 385.

   [261] ii. 398.

   [262] iii. 172.

   [263] Moroni, T. 95, p. 76.

   [264] iii. 23.

   [265] iii. 321.

   [266] ii. 18.

   [267] ii. 25.

   [268] i. 55, 56.

   [269] i. 293. In like way the Archbishop of Orviedo: "In this most
   turbulent tempest, wherewith the Church of Christ is tossed everywhere,
   the eyes of all are turned to Mary, who slew all heresies in all the
   world, as to a polar star; and this is perhaps the council of Divine
   Providence, that she should then at length calm and disperse the storm,
   when she shall be adorned with this new honour by the oracle of the
   Church itself."--ii. 461.

   [270] Perhaps a misprint, "magna" for "magnas." "She herself will yield
   thee great thanks," &c.

   [271] i. 301.

   [272] Ib. 323.

   [273] iii. 202.

   [274] i. 281, 282. "I hold for certain, that the Most Holy Mother of
   God, adorned at length with his honour on earth, will rescue the Church
   of her Son safe out of such calamities and perils."--Tivoli, i. 237.

   [275] i. 13.

   [276] i. 115, 116. So the Bishop of Squillace, i. 113.

   [277] i. 169.

   [278] As the Bishop of Casale, iii. 62; Rottenburg, i. 276; Warmia, i.
   280; Durango, iii. 156; Jesus, Massa et Popul. i. 273.

   [279] Coadj. Bishop of Montreal, ii. 268. Nevers, iii. 245.

   [280] Archb. of Cuba, i. 142.

   [281] ii. 486, 488.

   [282] Adm. of Nankin, iii. 23.

   [283] iii. 37, 38, 39. The Archbishop of Cuba expected as the result
   that "all would be one fold and One Shepherd," i. 142. The Bishop of
   Isernia, "that there would be peace to the whole Church," i. 162. The
   Bishop of Valladolid, "extirpation of heresies, peace of the Church,
   increase of true faith and piety," i. 195. The Bishop of Gubbio,
   "conversion of sinners and unbelievers," i. 147, 148. "Those many lost
   benefits will return to the human race, and to the Church tranquillity,
   peace, security, splendour,'' Coadj. of Corfu, i. 409. "Faith, charity,
   religion," S. Fé di Bogota, ii. 432. "She, with her virgin and
   immaculate foot, will bruise the head of the Infernal Serpent, will
   bring to nought the snares of the Prince of darkness, scattered wide,
   in these our times, by the most impious sects, and by her potent virtue
   will restore peace to the Church, and its own rights, power, liberty,
   glory to the Holy Apostolic See, and thee, the head of the whole Church
   and the foundation, she will preserve," Abb. Commendat. of S. Vincent
   and Anastasius, i. 173. "Innumerable riches of grace will be diffused
   to the whole Christian people, and our sorrow will be turned into joy,"
   Ugento, i. 228. The Bishop of Aire advocated it because "never was the
   bruising of the serpent's head more needed," i. 272.

   [284] i. 491.

   [285] Said of Jesus, Isa. xi. 4, 1 Thess. ii. 8.

   [286] i. 298.

   [287] iii. 370.

   [288] See Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall. vii. 15-17, translated too by
   Allies, "Church of England cleared from Schism," pp. 282-287.

   [289] P. 3, q. 84, art. 1.

   [290] Ib. art. 2.

   [291] See Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall. vii. 22, sqq.

   [292] ix. 201.

   [293] Ib. i. 325. "She deserved the name and glory of Co -redeemer,"
   Archbishop of Trani, ib, i. 10.

   [294] "Quem simul cum Eo Ipsa corredemit," ib. i. 218.

   [295] ix. 160.

   [296] ix. 7.

   [297] Ib. i. 186.

   [298] Pro Immac. B. V. Concept., c. 19, n. 7.

   [299] Id. ib. c. 21, n. 2.

   [300] Ib. n. 3-7.

   [301] De Salazar on Prov. viii. 19, pp. 621-629.

   [302] S. Bernardin. de Bust. Marial. P. IX. Serm. ii. in Ussher, 1. c.,
   c. ix.

   [303] Rom. v. 19.

   [304] Phil. ii. 8.

   [305] S. Luke ii. 61.

   [306] Salazar in Prov. viii. 30, p. 696, and Ind. v. Maria.

   [307] Ib. p. 649.

   [308] Ib. p. 544. The terms are known terms, "patrizo" and "matrizo."

   [309] "As I have often inculcated, Christ so wrought our redemption, as
   to call in Mary, as an aid in this work. Wherefore as the birth, nature
   itself guiding, derives strength from the man, but, from the woman,
   form and beauty; so also our redemption (which was borne, as it were,
   by Mary and Christ) derives from Christ sufficiency, strength, and
   consistency, but from Mary, beauty and loveliness. For as therefrom,
   that Christ the Lord worked our redemption, we infer rightly, that
   nothing of sufficiency or might should be wanting to it; so therefrom,
   that the Virgin cooperated to the same, we rightly reduce, that nothing
   of form or beauty could be missed in it. For in some way the grace and
   beauty of the redemption would fade, if the aforesaid coöperation of
   the Virgin were lacking." Salaz. pro Immac. Virg. Conc., § 14, n. 171.

   [310] De Montf. p. 143.

   [311] Oswald, Mariologie, 171. De Montfort speaks of her resurrection.
   True devotion, &c., p. 1.

   [312] Oswald, p. 174.

   [313] Ib. p. 198.

   [314] Salazar in Prov. ix. 4, 5, p. 769.

   [315] Oswald, 174-186. Oswald speaks of her office to us in Baptism,
   ib. 187,--"Through it, the woman has a right to that special blessing,
   deposited for her in the Church through the merits of Mary."

   [316] Ib. 200.

   [317] De Montfort, pp. 74 and 126.

   [318] Ib. p. 11.

   [319] Ib. p. 21.

   [320] Ib. p. 19.

   [321] Ib. p. 20.

   [322] Ib. p. 186.

   [323] Ib. p. 187

   [324] Ib. p. 188.

   [325] Ib. 49, 50.

   [326] Salazar, 1. c. p. 213.

   [327] Eph. i. 10.

   [328] Salazar pro Imm. Deip. V. Concept, c. 3, p. 28.

   [329] Ib. in Prov. xxx. n. 200.

   [330] Archbishop of Trani, Par. i. 10. The title is a mere mistake,
   drawn from a Latin translation of a homily attributed to some
   Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, in which he contrasted Mary with
   Noah's ark. "It was an ark of living things, she of life; it, of
   perishable animals, she, of imperishable Life; it bare Noah, she bare
   the Maker of Noah; it had two or three stories, she the whole fulness
   of the Trinity; inasmuch as the Spirit too came upon her, and the
   Father overshadowed her, and the Son dwelt in her, borne in the womb."
   Bibl. Patr., Paris 1624, T. ii. p. 421. Whereas the writer (whoever he
   was) spoke of the whole Holy Trinity as concerned in the Incarnation, a
   celebrated Jesuit preacher, first-court-preacher of Philip III.,
   attributed the saying, as altered into "Mary is the Complement of the
   whole Trinity," to the celebrated Hesychius of Jerusalem. He explained
   it to mean that she "added the last complement to the Holy Trinity, in
   that, through the Incarnation of our Lord in her, the Virgin Mother of
   God filled up the capacity which the Trinity had of a natural paternity
   and a natural filiation, and a bond of both in time, in addition to the
   eternal relations of natural Paternity and natural Filiation, and the
   Indissoluble Bond of both." Other solutions were: 1) That the
   attributes and perfections of the Trinity shone forth most in her, and
   showed forth their virtue and efficacy most in her. (Salazar rejects
   this, because Hesychius is said to have affirmed, that the Virgin was
   "the complement not of the attributes of God, but of the very Trinity
   itself.") 2) "That the Father imparts His infinite Essence to the Son,
   and the Son, with the Father, communicates the same to the Holy Ghost;
   but that there is no fourth person to whom the Holy Ghost can pour
   Himself forth without measure. Mary then gave a complement to the
   Trinity, in that the Holy Ghost could lighten that infinite desire of
   communicating Himself by the wonderful affluence of His gifts to Mary."
   Salazar in Prov. viii. 23, n. 800-306.

   [331] It was put forward by many of the Bishops in their answer to the
   Encyclical.

   [332] De Montfort, pp. 30, 31.

   [333] Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 209. It was said on the authority of one
   who had been staying at Rome.

   [334] Oswald, Dogmat. Mariologie, p. 177.

   [335] Ib. p. 179.

   [336] Ib. pp. 182, 183.

   [337] Corn. à Lap. on Ecclus. xxiv. 29.

   [338] Faber, "The Precious Blood," pp. 29, 30. Salazar mentions a
   meditation of S. Ignatius, which he thought to have been given him by
   God, but which rested on human reasoning on physics, viz., that, on
   Aristotle's maxim, that "the son is a great part of his father and
   mother," "in the Eucharist he received the flesh and blood, not only of
   Christ, but also a great, yea, chief, part of Mary. For if the flesh
   and blood of the son and the mother be one, he who receiveth the flesh
   and blood of the son, must needs also receive the flesh of the mother.
   And if the son is a part of his parents, whoso eateth the son, eateth
   also a part of his mother. Hence, he said, that all they who are
   worthily refreshed with the Body and Blood of Christ, become one flesh
   not only with the Lord Christ, but pass into one flesh with the
   Virgin." Salazar in Prov. ix. 4, 5, n. 144, 145.

   [339] De Canoniz. Sanct. ii. 32. 11, quoted by A. Butler, Oct. 8, S.
   Brigit, from Araus., Decis. Mor., Tract. 3, qu. 23, § 2. Gerson, Opp.,
   T. i., col. 24, says, that two contradictories may, in different
   respects, be piously believed: quoted by Bened. XIV. ib. "For although
   no one ought to believe or to propose to be believed, what he knew to
   be certainly false, yet so long as it was not certainly known to be
   false, the pious belief was independent of its truth or falsehood."
   Fleury, H. E. 70, n. 161, quotes Papebrock (app. ad Vit. S. Mariæ de
   Pazzi), as showing by instances that visions are no dogmatic authority.
   Yet they themselves claim this most energetically as an authority
   beyond all other. In the Revelations of S. Brigit, the Blessed Virgin
   is supposed to have said, "If ye believe not Scripture, the Church, the
   Fathers, at least believe ye me, who have often revealed, that all sin
   of Adam was severed from me, &c." Revel. S. Brig. c. 12. 45. 49. T. ii.
   quoted by Bishop of Marsi, Par. ii. 311.

   [340] Palmer, Diss. on the Orthodox Comm., pp. 248, 249.

   [341] Alv. Pelagius (Bishop), in the fourteenth century, says, "The
   Roman Church does not celebrate, though it tolerates, the Feast of the
   Conception. The feast ought to be referred to the sanetification of the
   Virgin, not to her Conception; and so says the prayer which is said in
   this feast at Rome in the Church of S. Maria Major, Deus, qui
   sanctificationem Virginis,' &c., as I saw and heard when I preached on
   that sanctification, on that feast of the sanctification which is kept
   in December fifteen days before the Feast of the Nativity.' "De Planctu
   Eccl. i. 51. Turrecremata attests that in the office then used in
   Germany on the Feast of S. Elizabeth there were these words, "The
   Blessed Virgin Mary, although full of grace, was yet born with the
   fomes [peccati], which, however, the virtue of the Highest extinguished
   at the very time of the Conception of Christ." Preuss, p. 1017. Gregory
   XV., A.D. 1622, forbade the use of any other word than "Conception "in
   any office, public or private (i. e. forbade the word sanctification).
   Bullar. T. v. 65, § 4, pp. 45, 46. He expunged the word
   "sanctification" from the liturgies. Archbishop of Albano, Pareri, &c.,
   ii. 237. Yet some Bishops argued that the Immaculate Conception was
   matter of faith, on the ground that the festival had always been
   celebrated at Rome.

   [342] S. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, ii. 16 A,--"The Virgin herself, whence
   He was assumed, was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did her mother
   conceive her, and with original sin was she born, because she too
   sinned in Adam, in whom all sinned." S. Peter Damian, Opusc. vi.
   19,--"From that very flesh of the Virgin, which was conceived of sin,
   the Flesh came forth without sin, which also abolished the sins of the
   flesh." So in the ninth century Paschasius Radbertus, de Perp. Virg. S.
   Mariæ,--"But the Blessed Mary, although she was born and procreated of
   the flesh of sin, and herself was flesh of sin, was she not then, from
   the forecoming grace of the Holy Ghost, called by the angel blessed
   above all women? The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of
   the Highest shall overshadow thee.' Else if she was not sanctified and
   cleansed by the same spirit, how was not her flesh, flesh of sin? "In
   like way P. Lombard, Hugh and Richard à S. Victore, Alexander of Ales,
   S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, &c., and, earlier,
   the two S. Fulgentius. Rusp. de Inc. et Grat. c. 6: "The flesh of Mary,
   because she was conceived in iniquity after the manner of men, was
   flesh of sin. If it is not called untruthfully flesh of sin, the flesh
   hath in itself sin." S. Fulg. Ferr., "The flesh of Christ was like and
   unlike to the flesh of Mary; like, because He was born of it; unlike,
   because He did not contract thence the contagion of a vitiated origin."
   From Pet. de Inc. xiv. 2. Add Bede Hom. sup. Missus, Rup. in Cant. c.
   1, i. p. 986. Melchior Canus quotes also S. Erhard, or Eberhard, S.
   Antoniua of Padua, S. Bernardino, S. Vincent Ferr., S. Antoninus, &c.

   [343] See above, pp. 124-131, and Note B at the end.

   [344] Oswald, Mariologie, p. 216.

   [345] De Montf. p. 171.

   [346] Ib. p. 58. Oswald says, "Ascending, the ladder to heaven leads
   first to the Mother; from the Mother to the Son; from the Son to the
   Father. We might, indeed, passing over the lowest Court, turn direct to
   the Son; but we can also spring over the middle step and go direct to
   the Godhead." Yet, so we should directly contradict our Lord, "No one
   cometh to the Father but by Me." It is not God, but man, who says, "no
   man cometh unto Jesus but by Mary." Oswald proceeds, "The natural order
   is that which I have named. I believe that this way of looking at it,
   will occasion milder judgment as to a certain equalizing, nay, apparent
   preference of the devotion to Mary to that to Christ. As long as it is
   genuine, it can only have the meaning, that Mary, in this valley of
   tears, is nearer to us, and so is approached most gladly."--p. 216. He
   himself asserts that "Mary is always--more dimly or more clearly, this
   does not matter-- thought of in connexion with her Son."

   [347] De Montf. p. 171.

   [348] Corn. à Lap. on Cant. v. 11, p. 247.

   [349] "Franc. Suarez thinks this very probable (3 p. q. 37, disp. 22,
   S. 3, sub fin.), and from him Mendoza (in Viridario, L. 2, Probl. 4),
   though G. Vazquez thinks the contrary, de Adorat., disp. 8, c. 2."
   Ibid.

   [350] "2. 2. q. 103, art. 4, ad 2."

   [351] De Montf. p. 68.

   [352] Ib. p. 65.

   [353] Oswald, Mariologie, p. 216. The "Oro pro nobis," as said in the
   litanies to the saints; "Miserere nobis," as said in the litanies to
   the Holy Trinity.

   [354] Pétau de Inc. xii. 8, fin. speaks against it.

   [355] "Since we have already allowed the Roman Clergy to recite the
   special Canonical Hours, quite recently composed and printed, on the
   Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, in place of those contained in
   the common Breviary, therefore by these letters we give you, venerable
   brothers, the faculty, that, if it seem good, all the Clergy of your
   diocese should be free to render the same canonical hours on the
   Conception of the most holy Virgin, which the Roman Clergy now use,
   without needing to implore leave from us or from our Congregation of
   sacred rites."--Ep. Encycl. Pii IX. A.D. 1849.

   [356] Pp. 62-64.

   [357] P. 41.

   [358] "In actuali plurimorum Episcoporum congregatione præsentem."

   [359] Pareri dell' Episc. Cattolico, i. 178, 179.

   [360] The Archbishop of Breslau, who, in the most solemn and earnest
   manner, opposed the decree, spoke of "a part of the clergy, imbued with
   neologism, in the Rhine provinces, in Baden, and in Bohemia."--Pareri,
   &c., ii. 467. The Bishop of Clermont said, "Although the days are evil,
   and the number of those who, tainted with unbelief or ignorance, care
   little as to things pertaining to salvation but too increased, &c."--
   Ib., ii. 471.

   [361] Sess. xxv.

   [362] Milner, End of Contr., Letter 43, n. 2.

   [363] Sermon on Pride, Works, iii. 798, quoted in Tract 90, p. 27.

   [364] Aquinas held this; and that the difference was, that "the damned,
   as being worse in merits, are to be reckoned worse in place." See in my
   Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 85.

   [365] Adv. Hær. v. 32. 1.

   [366] Wisdom iv. 13.

   [367] Burial Service.

   [368] Longer Catechism, P. i. p. 98, 99, Blackmore's Transl.

   [369] Klee, Dogmatik, ii. 429, 430.

   [370] Instructio pro Sacerd., Serm. 2, in v. d. Hardt, Hist. Ref.

   [371] Id. Serm. 3, ib.

   [372] Supplication of Souls. Works, p. 316. See Letter to Dr. Jelf, p.
   87.

   [373] The language is that of the late F. Faber.

   [374] The case of this class of souls is the stock argument among those
   who are denying Hell, "those who die in ignorance, like the thousands
   of the London poor." Who ever said or suggested that they would
   necessarily be lost? Mr. Wilson, in his Defence (p. 147), maintained
   that the Roman doctrine of Purgatory made the belief in Hell more
   reasonable in the Roman, than in the English Church; as though the
   English Church held that any whom the Roman Church assigns to Purgatory
   would be cast into Hell!

   [375] 1 Tim. ii. 1-4.

   [376] Rosignoli, Opere, i. 710, as quoted in Faber, "All for Jesus;"
   "Purgatory," pp. 354-356.

   [377] Commination Service.

   [378] S. Cyprian, Ep. 57, ad Corn. p. 136, Oxf. Tr.

   [379] S. Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18.

   [380] 2 Cor. ii. 10.

   [381] Can. 3. So Conc. Ancyr. c. 2. 7. 16. Nic. i. c. 12. Arelat. ii.
   c. 10. Canons of S. Basil, Ep. ad Amphiloch. c. 2. 7. 53. 74. 84. S.
   Greg. Nyss., Ep. Canon, ad Letoium, can. 8. 11. conc. Garth, can. 75,
   76. Aur. iv. c. 8. 27. Wormat. (A. 868), c. 25. Tribur. (A. 890), c.
   52. These are the chief instances given by Amort, Hist. Indulg. P. ii.
   c. iv. § 31-52.

   [382] As in the Poenitentials of Bede, Theodore, Burchard, the Roman

   [383] Ib. § 57.

   [384] Alb. M. in iv. dist. 20, art. 21, Aq. iv. dist. 24, q. 3. art. 2.

   [385] Because S. Gregory I. instituted certain stations, it was
   inferred, by mistake, that he annexed indulgences to the visiting of
   the stations, which no old writer mentions. See Pagi in Leo IV. 1, n.
   4.

   [386] The indulgences ascribed to Leo III. A.D. 803, Sergius, A.D. 847.
   See Mabillon, Præf. ad Sæc. 5 Bened. n. 107, Papebroch. Conat.
   Chron.-Hist, Diss. 17, quoted and extracted, in part, in Amort, Hist.
   Indulg. P. i. n. xlv., xlvi., pp. 43-63.

   [387] Jo. Vitoduranus, Chron. ad A. 1265, in Gieseler, ii. 2, § 80, n.
   c.

   [388] Berthold, Deutsche Pred., p. 384, ed. Kl.

   [389] Menot, Serm. Quadr. f. 147 b, in Gies. K. G. Par. 3, § 147, n.
   ee.

   [390] Hist. Indulg. P. ii. S. v. § 2, p. 289.

   [391] Theol. Eclect. T. iii. p. 189. The divine who supplied me with
   this last quotation, adds, "I believe this to be the common doctrine
   now. Thus Scavini says, that they are given by way of suffrage or of
   simple payment, in so far as God is prayed to vouchsafe to accept them.
   But in what measure God accepts them, we know not.'"

   [392] Sess. xxv. continuat.

   [393] Sess. 25. Tract 91, p. 36.

   [394] End of Controv., Let. xxxiv.

   [395] Laud, Speech at the Star-Chamber, 1637, p. 47.i

   [396] Dr. Arnold's Life, ii. 402.

   [397] De Incarn. xv. 13. 1.

   [398] M. Beauvoir's Letter to Wake, Dec. 11, 1717. No. 2 in Maclaine,
   Trans, of Mosh. vi. 98.

   [399] Du Pin's "Rélation de ce qui s'est passé entre M. Du Pin et M.
   l'Archevêque de Cantorbery, au sujet des lettres qu'ils se sont
   mutuellement écrites," in Wake's MS. letters, Christ Church Lib., T.
   25, n. 139.

   [400] Letter of M. Beauvoir, Feb. 8, 1719, Ib. n. 190 (it stands as
   110). For these notices I am indebted to the Rev. E. Foulkes.

   [401] Letter of M. Beauvoir (no date), and in another letter of April
   5,1718, 0. S., Wake, Ep. T. 28. The Oration itself is in T. 25, n. 67,
   and M. Girardin's letter, with which he sent it to Wake, Ib. n. 66,
   April 30, 1718.

   [402] Ib. n. 99.

   [403] Ib. n. 92, dated VI. Kal. Sept.

   [404] Maclaine, App. to Mosheim, vi. p. 75.

   [405] Letter of M. Beauvoir to Archbishop Wake, Sept. 17, 1718, T. 29,
   n. 5.

   [406] Du Pin's Rélation, 1. c.

   [407] Beauvoir to Wake, T. 28, July 16, 1718, O. S.

   [408] Trans. of Mosheim Eccl. Hist., T. vi., pp. 75-80.

   [409] Art. I.--V., VII.--IX., XII, XV.--XVIII., XXIIL, XXIV., XXVI.,
   XXV1L, XXX., XXXII--XXXIV., XXXVIII, XXXIX.

   [410] The original words are: "Hoc lubenter admittemus, modo non
   excludatur traditio, quae articulos fidei novos non exhibet, sed
   confirmat et explicat ea, quse in Sacris Literis habentur, ac adversus
   aliter sapientes munit eos novis cautionibus, ita ut non nova dicantur,
   sed antiqua nove." Macl.

   [411] See the passages collected in Tract 90. The Jews agreed in
   speaking of the Wisdom of Sirach as Scripture. See Dr. Pusey's "Daniel
   the Prophet," p. 303.

   [412] See, at length, in Bishop Cosins on the Canon (with notes in Ang.
   Cath. Lib.).

   [413] The original words are: "Fide sola in Christum nos justificari,
   quod Articulo XImo exponitur, non inficiamur: sed fide, charitate, et
   adjunctis bonis operibus, quæ omnino necessaria sunt ad salutem, ut
   articulo sequenti cognoscitur." Ib.

   [414] "De Articulo XIIImo nulla lis erit, cum multi theologi in eadem
   versentur sententia. Durius videtur id dici, eas omnes actiones quæ ex
   gratiâ Christi non fiunt, esse peccata. Nolim tamen de hac re
   disceptari, nisi inter theologos."

   [415] S. Matt. xix. 11, 12.

   [416] De Sacr. Euch. Bibl. Patr. T. xxvi. p. 794, G. H.

   [417] Ib., init.

   [418] Sess. xiv. de Extrem. Unct. c. 3. In the Latin Church, the bodily
   healing is mentioned in a homily ascribed to Cæsarius, "How much more
   right and healthful were it, to haste to the Church, receive the Body
   and Blood of Christ, faithfully anoint themselves and theirs with the
   blessed oil, and, according to what the Apostle James says, receive not
   only bodily healing, but remission of sins also." Opp. S. Aug. T. v.,
   Serm. 279, n. 5. In the Statutes of Boniface (c. 29) all the faithful
   sick (not those "in extremis "only) are bidden to ask for it; so also
   in the Excerpta of Egbert of York (A.D. V48): that "according to the
   definition of the holy Fathers, if any one is sick, let him be
   diligently anointed by the priests with hallowed oil, with prayer."
   Thorp, Anc. Laws, ii. 100. Egbert, in his Poenit. (i. 15, T. ii. 179,
   Th.), paraphrases S. James, "that, if any be sick, he call his own
   priests and other servants of God, that they read over him, and the
   sick tell them his need, and they anoint him in the name of the Lord
   with holy oil, and that by the prayers of those faithful, and by the
   anointing, he may be preserved, and the Lord raise him up, and if he
   have committed sins, they may be forgiven him." In a canon under King
   Edgar, the priest was enjoined to give unction to the sick, if they
   desire it (Can. 65, T. ii. 259, Th.). Ælfric says, "If the sick layman
   desire to receive unction, let him then confess him and forgive every
   grudge, before the unction," &c. Past. Ep. n. 47, ii. 285, Th. A
   Council of Pavia (A.D. 850) still mentions bodily cure, "That healthful
   sacrament, which James recommends, If any man among you is sick,' &c.,
   should, by a wise preaching, be made known to the people, truly a great
   and very desirable mystery, whereby, if it is asked faithfully, both
   sins are forgiven, and consequently bodily health restored," &c., c. 8.
   quoted Klee, Dogm. ii. 322. And the Capitular of Charlemagne: "That all
   priests should ask the Bishop for the oil of the sick, and admonish the
   faithful sick to seek it, that they being anointed with the same oil
   may be healed by the grace of God, because the prayer of faith, poured
   forth by the presbyters, shall save the sick," vi. 179, quoted ib.

   [419] Two Liturgies of King Edward VI. compared, pp. 366, 367. 1838.

   [420] See Collier, Eccl. Hist., vol. v. p. 296.

   [421] Sess. xiv. de Sacr. Extr. Unct. c. 2.

   [422] Can. 2.

   [423] De Extr. Unct. i. 9, T. ii. p. 1198, 9.

   [424] Origen in Lev. Hom. ii. n. 4, Opp. T. ii. p. 191.

   [425] De Sacerdot. iii. 6. "For not only when they regenerate us, but
   afterwards too, they have power to forgive sin. For he says, If any man
   be sick.'" In like way in Victor (as contained in a Catena), the
   efficacy is also ascribed to the prayer. "Oil remedies sufferings, and
   is a cause of light and cheerfulness. The oil then, wherewith one is
   anointed, signifies both the mercy from God, and the healing of the
   disease, and the illumining of the heart. For that prayer worketh all,
   is plain to every one; but the oil is the symbol of these things," on
   S. Mark vi. 13. So, still in Bede, "We read in the Gospels, that the
   Apostles did this, and the custom of the Church now holds, that the
   sick be anointed with consecrated oil, and healed by prayer
   accompanying," on S. James v.

   [426] "It cannot be poured upon those in penitence (poenitentibus),
   because it is a sort of sacrament. For they, to whom the other
   sacraments are refused, how can it be thought that one kind can be
   granted?" Ep. ad Decen. viii. 12.

   [427] iv. dist. 23, q. 1, art. 1, fin.

   [428] Orthodox Catechism, quoted by Blackmore, Harmony of Angl.
   Doctrine with the Doctr. of the Cath. and Ap. Church of the East, p.
   124

   [429] P. 417, Par. 1647.

   [430] "On the Laws of the Church," c. iv. p. 33, and Pearson, On the
   Creed, Art. 3, note p. 288. See further, Dr. Pusey, "On the Words of
   the Fathers quoted in support of Transubstantiation," in "The Doctrine
   of the Real Presence," pp. 162-264, and "Illustrations used by the
   Fathers imply Sacramental Change only," ib. pp. 264-314, and above, pp.
   32, 33.

   [431] Ad IV. Dist. xi. Q. i. n. 20, quoted ib. p. 232.

   [432] See on the history of that formula, Dr. Pusey's "The Real
   Presence the Doctrine of the English Church," pp. 4-160.

   [433] See the Doctrine of the Real Presence, p. 85, sqq. The same
   Divine adds that "the form is changed;" but this is a scholastic
   question, and cannot, of course, enter into the faith, which is to be
   proposed to the poor. He referred my friend to a Pastoral Letter of a
   Bishop of Boulogne about 780, against the Encyclopedists, who gives
   with approbation the following words from Archbishop de Marca: "It may
   be asked, how these symbols are changed and yet remain in their own
   nature. They are changed according to the invisible [inconspicua, he
   suggests insensibilis,' not cognizable by the senses '] substance into
   the invisible Body of Christ; yet so that that invisible substance does
   not cease to be, but is attracted by the Body of Christ. But according
   to the visible body, which is seen and touched, they are not changed."
   Then follows a statement in the Aristotelian terms, which could not be
   made intelligible to any ordinary reader.

   [434] Archbp. W., Ep. T. 25, n. 99, Jan. 13, 1719, three months before
   Du Pin's decease.

   [435] l.c.

   [436] Archbp. W., Ep. T. 29, n. 7.

   [437] Archbp. W., T. 25, n. 111. The date appears from Wake's commenced
   answer, ib. n. 112

   [438] In Wake, T. 25, n. 98.

   [439] "The Record of Archbishop Parker's Confirmation and Consecration"
   has been carefully reprinted by the Rev. A. W. Haddan, from the Lambeth
   Register, in Bramhall's Works, T. iii. pp. 173-210; and the Record of
   his Consecration from a MS. Transcript in Corpus Christi College,
   Cambridge, which is believed to have been given by Archbishop Parker.
   Ib. pp. 210-213.

   [440] Ib. n. 98.

   [441] Ib. Ep. 100.

   [442] Du Pin, in Wake, T. 25, lett. 98.

   [443] Feb. 14, 171 8/9 , Wake, Ep. T. 29, n. 17.

   [444] S. Cypr. Ep. ad Flor. lxvi. n. 7, Oxf. Tr. p. 204.

   [445] Id. Ep. lv. ad Anton. n. 17, p. 129; and Ep. lix. n. 19, p. 165
   and note u. Præf. ad conc. Carth. pp. 286, 287.

   [446] De Concord, vii. 20. iii. 5, 6, quoted in Allies' "Church of
   England cleared from Schism," pp. 449, 450, 451-457. In quoting this
   book, I would say that his second work, after that, in despair of the
   English Church on the Gorham judgment, he left the Church of England,
   is no real answer to this, which he wrote, not as a partisan, but as
   the fruit of investigations, as to whose issue he was indifferent.

   [447] T. iii. 478, quoted ib. 459-462.

   [448] Præf. pp. 125. 127, quoted ib. 458. Comp. Pereira, Tentativa
   Theologica (Landon's transl.), pp. 54-57, quoted ib. p. 457.

   [449] Quatrième Discours, prefixed to vol. xvi. of his Histoire
   Eccles., L. Ixv. ed. 12mo. I have used Allies' translation, altering an
   expression here and there from the original.

   [450] Cod. Eccl. Afr. can. 98.

   [451] Troisième Discours, § 2.

   [452] Fleury, 1. 44, § 22.

   [453] See e. g. in Allies, p. 439. I have seen this lately spoken of,
   as it seemed to me, authoritatively, as the annihilation of the ancient
   Gallican Church, and the creation of a new French Church, by a single
   stroke of the pen of the Pope.

   [454] S. Matt. xxiv. 21.

   [455] 2 Thess. ii. 3, h apostasia.

   [456] Ib. 9, 10.

   [457] S. Matt. xxiv. 24

   [458] S. Luke xviii. 8.

   [459] Letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury on Catholic Unity, p. 33.

   [460] Symbolique, T. ii. § 37.

   [461] Gladstone, Remarks on the Royal Supremacy, p. 86-- end.

   [462] Considérations sur la France, c. ii.

   [463] The clause does not appear to have been formally received in the
   West until the Council of Florence. The conjecture of Baronius seems to
   be most probable, that when, at the instance of Henry II. Emperor of
   Germany, the Nicene Creed came to be sung at all at Mass at Rome (A.D.
   1014), it was sung, as it was in Spain and France and elsewhere, with
   the clause, "et Filio" (H. E. A.D. 447, n. 24). Baronius (A.D. 883, n.
   38) expresses himself uncertain what Pope received it. He expresses his
   regret that the Nicene Creed came to be chanted at all at Rome (A.D.
   1014, n. 5). The statement of Andr. Rhod., at the Council of Florence,
   that it was received by a large Western Council (Sess. 7, T. xviii. p.
   124, Col.), seems a pure mistake.

   [464] That there are two Arcai in the Godhead.

   [465] Blackmore, Harm. of Eng. Doctr., &c., pp. 67-59, cites
   Theophylact, of the eleventh century, as quoted by John Beccus, "On
   other occasions, I will grant you (the Latins) the use of the
   expression, of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son,'
   as may suit your speech; in common discourses, I mean, and in Sermons
   in the Church, if ye please; but in the Creed, and in that alone, I
   will not grant it you." This was renewed by the Bishops hi the time of
   the Emperor John Ducas, A.D. 1249, that "the interpolation should be
   put out of the Creed, but might be retained and used in any other
   form." Pachymeres, v. 12. This was drawn out by Michael Palæol. (A.D.
   1273), quoting from the Register of the Church. He appealed to the
   written declarations of the Primates of that time, "bidding them notice
   how those Fathers had entirely abstained from taxing the Italians with
   impiety or heresy on account of their attempt to interpolate the Creed;
   leaving them free to retain and read the words as they pleased,
   anywhere else." The only complaint, then too, was as to "the scandal of
   innovation hi changing the Creed." Tract. Zörnicav. ii. 972. In the
   Council of Florence too, Mark, Abp. of Ephesus, confined himself to
   this one question, "Expunge this clause from the Creed, and then place
   it where ye will, and sing it in your churches on occasion, as is sung
   o monogenhV logoV." Ib.

   [466] The "Filioque" was first adopted in the Creed in Spain, after the
   recovery from Arianism, the Council supposing, by mistake, that such
   was the original Creed of Constantinople. From Spain, it passed into
   France.

   [467] It may the rather be termed "a mistake," because the Church of
   Rome does not now require of the Greeks, united with her, what she then
   required of the whole Eastern Church.

   [468] Letter, p. 31.

   [469] Homilies. See above.

   [470] "A foreign Priest has pointed out to us a valuable document for
   our consideration, Bossuet's Reply to the Pope,' when consulted on the
   best method of reconciling the followers of the Augsburg Confession
   with the Holy See. The learned bishop observes, that Providence had
   allowed so much Catholic truth to be preserved in that Confession, that
   full advantage should be taken of the circumstance; that no
   retractations should be demanded, but an explanation of the Confession
   in accordance with Catholic doctrines. Now, for such a method as this,
   the way is in part prepared by the demonstration that such
   interpretation may be given of the most difficult [of the XXXIX]
   Articles, as will strip them of all contradiction to the decrees of the
   Tridentine Synod." Card. Wiseman, Letter, p. 38.

   [471] P. 10.

   [472] P. 18. He must mean, that, although God forgives, upon real
   contrition for past sins, it is, to any one, uncertain whether he be
   truly contrite.

   [473] P. 11.

   [474] P. 13.

   [475] P. 19.

   [476] On our English Ordinations, it is enough to refer to the words of
   Mason, Courayer, Bramhall (with the important additions of the very
   careful editor, the Rev. A. W. Haddan, Angl. Cath. Lib.). I have
   examined in turn every objection made to them, and it has seemed to me
   that Roman Catholic controversialists took up easily any objection
   which might for the moment serve their turn. Cardinal Wiseman laid all
   aside, and took up the ground of jurisdiction. But this objection
   presupposes the truth of Ultramontanism. The metropolitical see in each
   country has inherent jurisdiction, according to the ancient canons.
   Parker was left in undisputed succession of the See of Canterbury, and
   his successors have the jurisdiction inherent in that See. Du Pin, when
   satisfied as to our Orders, felt, as a Gallican, no difficulty as to
   jurisdiction. Van Espen infers, from the very terms used in the Roman
   Pontifical and Ordinal, that "jurisdiction" is given in Consecration.
   He argues from the words with which the Gospel is given by the
   ordainer, "Receive the Gospel, and go preach to the people committed to
   thee," and from those in the Preface, "Give to him, Lord, the keys of
   the kingdom of heaven, that he may use, not boast of, the power which
   Thou givest to edification and not to destruction; whatsoever he shall
   bind on earth, &c., grant to him, O Lord, the Episcopal chair, for the
   ruling of Thy Church and people committed to him," that "Bishops
   receive their jurisdiction from God Himself, not from the Roman
   Pontiff." For that it would be "mocking God" so to speak and so to
   pray, without believing that the Bishop would have that which was
   prayed for. Opp. T. 5, p.441. See further as to our orders, above.
   Bossuet says, "This holy and Apostolic doctrine of the Episcopal
   jurisdiction and power proceeding immediately from, and instituted by,
   Christ, the Gallic Church hath most zealously retained." "Therefore
   that very late monition, that Bis hops receive their jurisdiction from
   the Pope, and are, as it were, Vicars of him, ought to be banished from
   Christian Schools, as unheard of for twelve centuries." Def. viii. 12,
   in Allies, p. 428.

   [477] Service for the Visitation of the Sick.

   [478] Catechism.

   [479] Communion Service.

   [480] iv. dist. 13, q. 1, arc. 1, q. 3, and S. P. iii. q. lxxxii. art.
   vii., on the ground of S. Augustine's statement, that orders, as well
   as baptism, remain in those separated from the Church, (c. Ep. Farm.
   Ep. 2, c. 13, n. 28.) Both, however, deny the grace of the Sacraments.
   The grace of the Sacraments belonging to the Church alone, the
   undoubted presence of the grace of the Sacraments is a proof to us,
   that we are in the body of Christ, in which alone He gives it.

   [481] Catholicity of the English Church, in British Critic, No. 63, p.
   77.

   [482] The Dublin "Review" confirms this. "We fear that there can be
   little doubt that in the United States the Church loses more souls than
   it gains. In the second generation, the faith of the Catholic immigrant
   is constantly lost." July, 1865, p. 226.

   [483] Ezek. xxxvii. 7-10.

   [484] Dublin "Review." Since the above has been in type, I observe a
   kindly mention of Mr. Keble 's and my own recent exertions, in Mr.
   Oakeley's reprint of those Articles. As to any supposed previous "quies
   cence," exertion has to take a different shape, when confidence in any
   one has been for the time rudely destroyed.

   [485] Motto of the Tracts, "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who
   shall prepare himself for battle?"

   [486] I asked, contrariwise, Schleiermacher in 1826, "Why the
   Wolfenbüttel Fragments,' which had been thought so formidable an attack
   on Christianity at one time, were thought of no more? He answered,
   "Wozu der Mist, wann die Erndte da ist?" "To what end the manure, when
   the harvest is there?"

   [487] Letter, pp. 26, 27.

   [488] a) Although, in the cold phraseology of the last century, it is
   part of prudence to inquire into the evidence what God has revealed
   Himself to His creatures, prudence has no part in producing conviction.
   b) It is a truism, that "one who rejects Catholicism" cannot "attain an
   explicit faith in all the articles of the doctrines of revelation," i.
   e. of the Catholic faith. But this does not affect us, except on the
   assumption that we have rejected Catholicism or the Catholic faith, or
   any thing which is Divine, c) "Extrinsic certainty" must mean, I
   suppose, what is antecedent to the gift of faith in one who comes to
   the faith. For the habit of faith which God gives to Christians is
   internal, and we all have it from God.

   [489] The fifty answers to Dr. Colenso's first Part are much greater
   indications of the mind of the people of England, than his solitary
   attack. His legal position Lord Westbury has destroyed, and declared
   him in fact an unattached Bishop, his patent also being invalid. Dr.
   Colenso has neither ecclesiastical position, being deposed, nor the
   hearts of the people of Natal. The Church in South Africa is free, and
   can right itself.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Indexes
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References

   Genesis

   [1]11

   Leviticus

   [2]9

   Numbers

   [3]16:22

   Joshua

   [4]1:8

   Psalms

   [5]34   [6]34:2   [7]132

   Proverbs

   [8]8   [9]8:19   [10]8:23   [11]8:30   [12]9:4   [13]9:4   [14]9:5
   [15]9:5   [16]30

   Ecclesiastes

   [17]1:51   [18]2:5   [19]2:13   [20]100:6

   Song of Solomon

   [21]5:11   [22]100:1

   Isaiah

   [23]11:4   [24]14:13   [25]14:14   [26]29:13

   Ezekiel

   [27]37:7-10

   Micah

   [28]1:10

   Haggai

   [29]1:11

   Matthew

   [30]10:27   [31]11:28   [32]13:44   [33]15:8   [34]15:9   [35]16:19
   [36]18:18   [37]19:11   [38]19:12   [39]24:21   [40]24:24

   Mark

   [41]6:13   [42]7:9

   Luke

   [43]1:35   [44]2:61   [45]18:8

   John

   [46]3:5   [47]14:13-14   [48]14:26   [49]16:13   [50]16:23
   [51]17:21   [52]20:22   [53]20:23

   Romans

   [54]5:19   [55]13:1

   1 Corinthians

   [56]6:12   [57]7:33

   2 Corinthians

   [58]2:10

   Galatians

   [59]3:27   [60]3:28

   Ephesians

   [61]1:9   [62]1:10   [63]3:1   [64]3:3-5   [65]3:1740   [66]4:16
   [67]5:5

   Philippians

   [68]2:8

   Colossians

   [69]2:19

   1 Thessalonians

   [70]2:8

   2 Thessalonians

   [71]2:3

   1 Timothy

   [72]2:1-4   [73]6:3-5

   2 Timothy

   [74]2:2

   Titus

   [75]8

   Hebrews

   [76]7:25

   James

   [77]5

   1 Peter

   [78]1:7   [79]4:12

   Wisdom of Solomon

   [80]4:13

   Sirach

   [81]24:29
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Pages of the Print Edition

   [82]2  [83]2  [84]3  [85]4  [86]5  [87]6  [88]7  [89]8  [90]9  [91]10
   [92]11  [93]12  [94]13  [95]14  [96]15  [97]16  [98]17  [99]18
   [100]19  [101]20  [102]21  [103]22  [104]23  [105]24  [106]25  [107]26
   [108]27  [109]28  [110]29  [111]30  [112]31  [113]32  [114]33  [115]34
   [116]35  [117]36  [118]37  [119]38  [120]39  [121]40  [122]41  [123]42
   [124]43  [125]44  [126]45  [127]46  [128]47  [129]48  [130]49  [131]50
   [132]51  [133]52  [134]53  [135]54  [136]55  [137]56  [138]57  [139]58
   [140]59  [141]60  [142]61  [143]62  [144]63  [145]64  [146]65  [147]66
   [148]67  [149]68  [150]69  [151]70  [152]71  [153]72  [154]73  [155]74
   [156]75  [157]76  [158]77  [159]78  [160]79  [161]80  [162]81  [163]82
   [164]83  [165]84  [166]85  [167]86  [168]87  [169]88  [170]89  [171]90
   [172]91  [173]92  [174]93  [175]94  [176]95  [177]96  [178]97  [179]98
   [180]99  [181]100  [182]101  [183]102  [184]103  [185]104  [186]105
   [187]106  [188]107  [189]108  [190]109  [191]110  [192]111  [193]112
   [194]113  [195]114  [196]115  [197]116  [198]117  [199]118  [200]119
   [201]120  [202]121  [203]122  [204]123  [205]124  [206]125  [207]126
   [208]127  [209]128  [210]129  [211]130  [212]131  [213]132  [214]133
   [215]134  [216]135  [217]136  [218]137  [219]138  [220]139  [221]140
   [222]141  [223]142  [224]143  [225]144  [226]145  [227]146  [228]147
   [229]148  [230]149  [231]150  [232]151  [233]152  [234]153  [235]154
   [236]155  [237]156  [238]157  [239]158  [240]159  [241]160  [242]161
   [243]162  [244]163  [245]164  [246]165  [247]166  [248]167  [249]168
   [250]169  [251]170  [252]171  [253]172  [254]173  [255]175  [256]176
   [257]177  [258]178  [259]179  [260]180  [261]181  [262]182  [263]183
   [264]184  [265]185  [266]186  [267]187
     __________________________________________________________________

            This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal
               Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org,
                   generated on demand from ThML source.

References

   1. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=11&scrV=0#ii.ii-p35.1
   2. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=9&scrV=0#ii.ii-p73.1
   3. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=16&scrV=22#ii-p84.3
   4. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Josh&scrCh=1&scrV=8#ii.ii-p9.1
   5. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=34&scrV=0#ii-p245.1
   6. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=34&scrV=2#ii-p245.2
   7. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=132&scrV=0#ii.ii-p22.1
   8. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=8&scrV=0#ii.iii-p129.3
   9. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=8&scrV=19#ii-p216.2
  10. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=8&scrV=23#ii-p230.1
  11. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=8&scrV=30#ii-p222.2
  12. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=9&scrV=4#ii-p223.2
  13. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=9&scrV=4#ii-p235.2
  14. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=9&scrV=5#ii-p223.3
  15. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=9&scrV=5#ii-p235.3
  16. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=30&scrV=0#ii-p227.3
  17. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=1&scrV=51#ii-p247.2
  18. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=2&scrV=5#ii-p36.2
  19. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=2&scrV=13#ii-p101.1
  20. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=100&scrV=6#ii.ii-p60.1
  21. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Song&scrCh=5&scrV=11#ii-p256.3
  22. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Song&scrCh=100&scrV=1#ii-p247.4
  23. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=11&scrV=4#ii-p192.5
  24. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=14&scrV=13#ii.i-p36.2
  25. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=14&scrV=14#ii.i-p36.3
  26. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=29&scrV=13#ii.ii-p11.1
  27. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=37&scrV=7#ii-p423.2
  28. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Mic&scrCh=1&scrV=10#ii.ii-p44.1
  29. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Hag&scrCh=1&scrV=11#ii.ii-p43.1
  30. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=10&scrV=27#ii-p107.5
  31. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=11&scrV=28#ii-p153.7
  32. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=44#ii.ii-p45.1
  33. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=15&scrV=8#ii.ii-p11.2
  34. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=15&scrV=9#ii.ii-p11.3
  35. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=19#ii-p276.4
  36. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=18#ii-p276.5
  37. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=11#ii-p310.2
  38. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=12#ii-p310.3
  39. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=21#ii-p393.2
  40. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=24#ii-p393.7
  41. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=6&scrV=13#ii-p328.3
  42. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=7&scrV=9#ii.ii-p11.4
  43. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=35#ii.i-p40.5
  44. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=61#ii-p220.7
  45. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=18&scrV=8#ii-p395.2
  46. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=5#ii.iv-p5.1
  47. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=13#ii-p153.10
  48. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=26#ii-p107.2
  49. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=16&scrV=13#ii-p107.3
  50. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=16&scrV=23#ii-p153.9
  51. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=21#ii-p59.2
  52. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=20&scrV=22#ii-p71.3
  53. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=20&scrV=23#ii-p71.4
  54. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=19#ii-p220.3
  55. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.i-p22.2
  56. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=12#ii.i-p56.2
  57. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=33#ii.i-p58.2
  58. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=10#ii-p276.7
  59. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=3&scrV=27#ii-p64.2
  60. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii-p64.3
  61. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=9#ii.ii-p46.1
  62. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=10#ii-p226.3
  63. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=1#ii.ii-p78.2
  64. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=3#ii-p60.2
  65. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=1740#ii.ii-p78.1
  66. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=16#ii-p71.8
  67. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=5#ii-p33.2
  68. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=8#ii-p220.5
  69. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=2&scrV=19#ii-p71.6
  70. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=8#ii-p192.6
  71. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii-p393.4
  72. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=1#ii-p275.2
  73. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=6&scrV=3#ii.ii-p11.5
  74. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=2#ii-p107.7
  75. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=8&scrV=0#ii.ii-p35.2
  76. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=7&scrV=25#ii-p153.5
  77. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Jas&scrCh=5&scrV=0#ii-p328.4
  78. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=1&scrV=7#ii-p153.3
  79. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=4&scrV=12#ii-p153.2
  80. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Wis&scrCh=4&scrV=13#ii-p267.3
  81. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3?scrBook=Sir&scrCh=24&scrV=29#ii-p233.2
  82. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#i-Page_2
  83. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_2
  84. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_3
  85. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_4
  86. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_5
  87. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_6
  88. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_7
  89. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_8
  90. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_9
  91. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_10
  92. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_11
  93. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_12
  94. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_13
  95. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_14
  96. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_15
  97. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_16
  98. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_17
  99. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_18
 100. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_19
 101. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_20
 102. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_21
 103. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_22
 104. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_23
 105. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_24
 106. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_25
 107. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_26
 108. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_27
 109. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_28
 110. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_29
 111. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_30
 112. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_31
 113. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_32
 114. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_33
 115. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_34
 116. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_35
 117. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_36
 118. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_37
 119. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_38
 120. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_39
 121. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_40
 122. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_41
 123. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_42
 124. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_43
 125. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_44
 126. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_45
 127. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_46
 128. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_47
 129. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_48
 130. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_49
 131. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_50
 132. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_51
 133. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_52
 134. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_53
 135. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_54
 136. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_55
 137. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_56
 138. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_57
 139. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_58
 140. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_59
 141. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_60
 142. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_61
 143. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_62
 144. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_63
 145. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_64
 146. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_65
 147. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_66
 148. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_67
 149. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_68
 150. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_69
 151. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_70
 152. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_71
 153. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_72
 154. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_73
 155. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_74
 156. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_75
 157. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_76
 158. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_77
 159. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_78
 160. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_79
 161. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_80
 162. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_81
 163. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_82
 164. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_83
 165. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_84
 166. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_85
 167. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_86
 168. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_87
 169. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_88
 170. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_89
 171. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_90
 172. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_91
 173. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_92
 174. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_93
 175. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_94
 176. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_95
 177. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_96
 178. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_97
 179. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_98
 180. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_99
 181. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_100
 182. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_101
 183. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_102
 184. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_103
 185. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_104
 186. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_105
 187. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_106
 188. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_107
 189. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_108
 190. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_109
 191. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_110
 192. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_111
 193. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_112
 194. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_113
 195. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_114
 196. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_115
 197. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_116
 198. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_117
 199. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_118
 200. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_119
 201. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_120
 202. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_121
 203. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_122
 204. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_123
 205. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_124
 206. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_125
 207. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_126
 208. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_127
 209. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii-Page_128
 210. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_129
 211. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_130
 212. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_131
 213. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_132
 214. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_133
 215. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_134
 216. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_135
 217. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_136
 218. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_137
 219. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_138
 220. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_139
 221. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_140
 222. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_141
 223. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_142
 224. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_143
 225. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_144
 226. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_145
 227. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_146
 228. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_147
 229. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_148
 230. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_149
 231. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.i-Page_150
 232. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_151
 233. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_152
 234. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_153
 235. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_154
 236. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_155
 237. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_156
 238. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_157
 239. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.ii-Page_158
 240. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_159
 241. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_160
 242. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_161
 243. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_162
 244. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_163
 245. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_164
 246. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_165
 247. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_166
 248. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_167
 249. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_168
 250. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_169
 251. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_170
 252. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_171
 253. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_172
 254. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_173
 255. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_175
 256. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_176
 257. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_177
 258. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_178
 259. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_179
 260. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_180
 261. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_181
 262. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_182
 263. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_183
 264. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_184
 265. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iii-Page_185
 266. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iv-Page_186
 267. file:///ccel/p/pusey/eirenicon/cache/eirenicon.html3#ii.iv-Page_187