1
10
44
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6dc56683a420ad4f7248a6fa16b74b97.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I57-dkGKA30bshNjLTI-2uJT-52XA%7EevxODjjI7G2TRMmQtYwcT1CsL9RpCkUPd-C8VkwM3c77-xrNacPGqV1QRk%7Ex7zbSzZbPCPeoicoI4rDsV1hlravXC4EGVFNLrKuyZ6w-jrSV8l9-TfFKfLJwaPWs-buG7PU3SQAG4lJGyapHxdDG7hSDH7U-nRw80VgmR9sl9lVoxqk7GiNV85VAlUpFHb8pVuTzDoCKUmI3Br1n3jtIknGMEbRh%7E9QxYmMfH3T5cxYUdmGOw3z4Zsc0%7ESajv6RB7fQg40N7LPJCwrNzAWOYek-5KGTHDOJrSv3NOscsCGt3I4HJWGm29Nbg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e9ecfe3439733cc1923d5819b03198cc
PDF Text
Text
APPEAL OF A PROTESTANT
TO THE POPE
TO RESTORE THE
LAW OF NATIONS.
REPLY TO SIX QUESTIONS
ON THE
BUSINESS FOR THE ANNOUNCED
SIXTH LATERAN COUNCIL.
BY
DAVID URQUHART.
“ When the true notion of Justice becomes obscured, material force
takes the place of Right.”—Pius IX.
LONDON:'
DIPLOMATIC REVIEW OFFICE,
24, EAST TEMPLE CHAMBERS,
1868.
�This exposition arose out of an application to the
writer to put down concisely the substance of several
conversations.
The heads were given as follows:
“ 1st. The former universal observance of Interna
tional Law.
“ 2nd. Its present total disuse.
“ 3rd. The absolute necessity if Society is to be saved,
of a general reacknowledgment of International Law.
“ 4th. The Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head,
the only power capable of enforcing this.
“ 5th. The approaching General Council the occasion
for doing so.
“ 6 th. The means to the end being (in part) the for
mation of a Diplomatic College at Rome.”
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL, &c.
The Priory, January 18, 1868.
If it were possible to be concise it would be superfluous to
write. What I have to say every one formerly knew. They
do not know to-day, because of the fallacious terms and erring
propositions, which form the sum of every man’s intellectual
being.
The removal of these—the unteaching—is the work. It can
only be done by conversation. If made in writing, the attempt
must consist in more than statement or indication. The case
itself would be all contained in these words : “ Do what is right,
“ you who have no interest in doing what is wrong.”
1st
and
2nd.
PASSAGE FROM LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
The two first questions resolve themselves into one. It cannot
be said that the Law of Nations was formerly universally ob
served; nor that at the present time it has fallen into total
disuse. Both questions are directed to obtaining a definition
as to that portion of the public Law which has been disregarded,
and to fixing the limit of time at which such change has
taken place. It is in this manner, therefore, that I shall give
my answer.
The Law of Nations is a Code which regulates the intercourse
of communities, as if they were individuals. The difference be
tween an individual and a Nation consists only in number,
leaving rights, duties, and obligations precisely the same. In
a 2
�4
PASSAGE FROM
the one and the other case, all Law is founded on the Ten Com
mandments, and specially on the four:
Thou SHALT NOT kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou SHALT NOT bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet.
All which Commandments are broken collectively when a Nation
makes war upon another, without necessity, without just cause,
and without due form. That is to say, when it makes war with
a deliberate purpose of doing wrong, that wrong consisting in an
invasion or attack, which cannot be made without killing inno
cent individuals, without robbing and destroying their property.
Then these acts must of necessity be accompanied by alleging
falsely against the innocent guilty acts, and coveting that which
belongs to them.
The purpose to commit those things must exist somewhere
when they are committed. That purpose need not co-exist nu
merically with the community; it may be confined to a few, or
even to a single individual; it will be found in the brain of the
community, wherever that brain happens to be. Nevertheless,
the guilt is common to all, because it is the result of their acts,
whether perpetrated by their hands, or accomplished through
the taxes they contribute, and the assent which they give.
And as this co-operation and assent, in so far as it is blind, can
result only from the resignation of judgment in regard to
matters affecting religious conscience and political duties, the
guilt becomes twofold. Such a people is at once a felon and a
slave.
No war is made except in so far as one of the parties to it has
been reduced to this condition. When such an event has oc
curred, some one people has been thus guilty: whilst some other
people, resisting the crime, has become the protector of public
and private innocence and liberty throughout the World.
That the Law shall cease to be appealed to by the State that is
attacked, is the lowest condition to which humanity can be re
duced; it is the destruction of all human Society. It is our
present condition.
No nation can proceed honestly against another, save for acts.
It must suffer from these acts. Otherwise it cannot come into
court. It cannot proceed to pass sentence on such acts, and to
carry that sentence into execution by levying wrar, until it has
exhausted every means for obtaining redress or security, and has
thus put beyond the possibility of doubt or even cavil, the
existence on the earth of a Power resolved and prepared to dis
turb the repose of the human race. Such must be the course,
without any enactment, of an honourable or a wise nation. This
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
5
also is what the law prescribes. This is the law and rule which
each people has to enforce the observance of, on its own Govern
ment. In this consists and is shown its domestic liberty. In
this resides the means, and the only means, of preventing wars
and preserving peace; that is to say, of preserving it when not
broken by a real necessity, such as the incursion of barbarous
tribes or the outburst of some military genius at the head of a
great martial people, itself alone superior to all its neighbours.
These are the rare but sole contingencies on which the know
ledge of the law by the various communities, and the enforce
ment of it on their sovereigns and his servants, would not suffice
for the preservation of peace. All the recent wars of Europe
have arisen solely from the cessation of this restraint; in other
words, from the absence of integrity in the men composing these
communities.
It may be useful to quote an instance :
A country (Hanover) can be invaded in full peace without
declaration of war, without ground or pretext of any kind on
which to found such declaration, there having been no act what
ever done by it. It can be, thereupon, conquered (through a
succession of military treacheries) and incorporated with an
other, while the rest of Europe remain unmoved witnesses of
the crime. The victim makes no appeal to the Law !
This can only be because the law is dead. The other nations
have not remained silent; they have applauded. They are led,
having lost the standing ground of integrity, by mercenary
writers of daily comments. This can be done, because the assault
of one body on another, having ceased to be judged of on its
own grounds, is judged of on other grounds which have no
connexion with the case itself. These grounds consist in the
emotions of each man’s mind, and may be resolved into and
classed as speculations on ethnography, on philology, on geography,
on forms of government, on dogmas of religion, out of which he
draws conclusions and says, “ This people shall be united to or
“ dissevered from that people ; this king shall reign in that
“ country! such country shall expel its king, and have a re“ public; that country shall abrogate its republic, and have
“ a monarchy. This being my desire, whoever achieves it is
“ an estimable person, and whatever means he adopts are good
il means.” Thus it is that at any and every moment the occasion
is open for the employment of the last resort of man—blood
shed. For bloodshed no reason whatever need now be offered;
no wrong need have been done, attempted, or so much as
dreamt of.
Here is the test by which to separate the base from the
Upright. Every man who, being himself upright would stop
�PASSAGE FROM
evil ancl reclaim his fellow-man, must discipline himself so as
to be able to convince and convict, by showing each man with
whom he converses that, in so far as he pursues a speculation
and indulges in desires in reference to the affairs of other people
with whom he has no business, he lives without law and without
faith in the world; and lends his aid, so far as it can go,
to that universal trouble, out of which will, in due course, be
brought the domination over all of one grinding political and
religious despotism. So true is it that the Law is the foundation
of States and the only security for peace and goodwill among
men, that when it becomes obliterated, as it is to-day, nothing
can be held permanent or secure, not even their own opinions.
This deplorable condition springs from the perversion of lan
guage through the use of false and ambiguous terms; thence
the unbridled passion for destruction. Whatever is not ourselves
is hateful to us, from overweening vanity and presumption in
regard to what we imagine ourselves to be.
It is not only that the truth is hateful to them; it is con
temptible. They despise it quite conscientiously, when by the
rarest of chances, any of them hears it. Thus you say to a man,
“ Bloodshed without cause is murder, no less on the battle-field
“ than in a dark alley.” He answers, “ Oh, you must be a
“ Quaker, and will have peace at any price.” You answer him,
“ I did not speak of peace, which is a consequence; but of
“ crime, which is the cause, and of justice, which is the remedy.”
He replies, “ Oh! all wars are unjust.” He does not see that he
is confounding the commission and the punishment of crime,
and substituting felon for judge, and judge for felon. If, by
management, you at last succeed in showing him his error,
instead of being rejoiced at being emancipated from it, instead
of earnestly and hopefully entering on the new field thus opened
to him, he is only angry because proved to have been wrong,
and has no thought save that of afterwards misrepresenting to
himself that which has passed, and of reviling to others the
person from whom he has heard it. Thus it is that the truth
cannot be known. Unless shame and repentance come with
sight, blindness is not removed. This period of compunction
and of shame has passed for our age, save for very powerful
minds, very young persons, or exceptional cases of remarkable
conscientiousness, which suffice to conquer the universal passion
of self-love.
Those who are the depositaries of this truth have, therefore,
to undergo a life of trial; suffering in the sight of the uncon
sciousness around them, pain in every attempt to remove it, selfreproach in every possible occasion unemployed, persecution as
soon as the nature of their thoughts and character is appre
hended.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
7
Physical truth (discovery) is gratifying to the investigator,
and is accepted with gratitude by the rest. Moral truth is the
discovery of error in all, and is hateful to those to whom it is
presented.
What the desire of food is for animal nature so is for the in
tellectual being the desire of being right. That is, it is the main
spring on which all depends. Each virtue has its corresponding
vice : this, which is not a virtue, but the source of all virtue,
must, therefore, have in its counterpart the source of all evil.
That counterpart is the fear of being found out to be wrong; in
other words, the desire to appear to be right. This condition is
expressed by the word self-love. To say, then, that this is the
character of an age, is to express the very worst condition to
which a people can be reduced. The sign of it is offence at
being told that they are wrong. It is conscience, the stay of
integrity, perverted so as to become its enemy. This is the
evil of our times, and it must be boldly looked in the face and
known to be the real enemy we have to combat, concealed
behind all the disguises it puts on of political opinion, philoso
phical maxim, and religious pretence.
When an individual murder is committed, the heart of every
man is moved; human indignation is at work to trace, detect,
and punish. The extensive organisations of police, criminal and
legal functionaries, pursue the guilty as a business and a trade.
The conscience of the guilty is itself at work, paralysing his pro
ceedings, betraying his steps, pursuing him during his defence,
and finally overtaking him on the scaffold or the death-bed.
What prevents these safeguards from exerting their power in
the case of multiple murder ? It is only that it is not seen to
be so. It is not so seen from the progressive servility of decay
ing nations before power; whilst neither secular nor religious
instruction has applied itself to inform them in childhood as to
the nature of crime and sin in this respect, and so brought them
up as just, virtuous, or even conscious men.
That association in India known by the name of Thugs pre
sent a striking and instructive analogy. Amongst these persons
the same sense existed as to individual murder that in modern
Christendom exists as to aggregate murder. A Thug, reverting
to the sense of crime in such acts and endeavouring to convict
his fellows of guilt, would have stood in reference to that com
munity in exactly the same position as an inhabitant of
modern Europe in making the same attempt in reference to his
contemporaries. Such a person will in vain appeal to the com
mon religion of the land, any more than to the common instincts
of humanity.
The picture is, however, entirely reversed if such words are
spoken by the highest religious authority, recognised already by
�8
PASSAGE FROM
millions as the vice-regent of God upon earth. The offence ceases
for them, at least, and all will exclaim, as at the Council of
Clermont “ Died le veut !” It is the will of God that there
be peace on earth and goodwill among men, which can be onlythrough justice. St. Paul preached the kingdom to come, but
he first preached of <( judgment and justice.”
The first step backwards and out of this labyrinth of darkness
consists in regaining a clear and distinct perception of the various
acts which we include to-day under the general term War, and
of those other acts to which the term no ways applies, but which
we equally include under it.
Wars have to be classed under three heads. First, necessary;
second, just; and third, lawful.
An unnecessary war may be one to which the character of
just also applies—that is, when the Declaration has been had
recourse to, without the other preliminary steps which might
have forced the adverse party to do justice, or when the requi
site business-like capacity has not been employed, to bring the
negotiation to a fortunate issue. Thus, when Mr. Disraeli
called the Russian war of 1854, “ This most just and most un
necessary war,” the idea was presented of a war that might have
been just had the means been adopted which should have ren
dered it unnecessary; implying, that though just by occasion
being given for it by guilty acts on the other side, it wTas so no
longer, when on our side the available means had not been taken,
either to prevent the acts of which we complained, or to force the
satisfaction which we demanded.
An unjust war is one in which that is demanded which we
have no right to claim, and the adverse party is under no obli
gation to concede. Such, for instance, as the war against
France in 1806, which was made after the adjustment of all
matters respectively affecting England and France; and when,
thereafter, England made further demands, unjust in them
selves, and put forward by a third Power (Russia). The re
course in such a case is to the constituted authorities of the
State against the Ministers ; but the formalities being observed,
such as the statement of the case (Rerum Repetition, the announce
ment of the Penalty (ultimatum), the Record in Chancery, the
Proclamation to the Subjects, the Denunciation to the Enemy,
and the Commission to “ kill, burn, and destroy,”—the military
oath of the soldier is saved, and weapons can be drawn and used
lawfully.
The third case is that which, being unnecessary and unjust,
has further been made without the due and above-stated forms;
and where, therefore, there is no warrant for the use of weapons.
Any man so using them exposes himself to the last of penalties,
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
9
not only as regards the State assailed, but also as regards the
criminal and martial laws of his own country.
*
As regards the
world, this is piracy; as regards the country, it is the levying of
private war. When any case arises under it in our courts of
law, it will be disallowed, as carrying no legal consequences, as
was shown in the first Chinese war.}
Unlawful Wars have happened in the history of mankind; but
they have been of the rarest occurrence. Consisting chiefly of the
outbreak of hordes who have devastated extensive portions of
the Earth, they may be considered rather as convulsions of nature
than as operations of man. These cases have been indeed con
sidered by jurists, but only to dispose of them in a phrase to the
effect that they do not constitute war, but consist simply in
robbery and piracy.
Every man engaged in such enterprises is liable to be dealt
with, and ought to be dealt with, as a pirate; that is to say, hung
without trial if taken with arms in his hands. Thus it was that,
when Geneva, in 1602, was attacked without Declaration of
War by the Duke of Savoy, the inhabitants of that town
hung upon its walls every Savoyard they had captured. Stress
is laid upon The act by the Jurists, specially by Vattel, as a
precedent of authority. It is particularly noted that no attempt
at reprisals was made by the Duke of Savoy, and that a general
assent on the part of all Nations followed this display of vigour
and of justice, by which has been preserved the independence
of that small State.
.Unlawful Wars, when they did occur otherwise than as the
migrations of hordes were treated exactly as piracy on the high
seas, or the enterprises of Bandits in a forest; or as murders and
robberies in Town or Country.
It is to the latter category that belong the operations of fleets
and armies in this age. It may, therefore, be designated as that
of lawlessness. Those who receive and execute the commission
to murder and to rob are not aware that they are doing aught
* “ At the table of the Commander-in-Chief, not many years since, a young officer
entered into a dispute with Lieutenant-Colonel------ upon the point to which military
obedience ought to be carried. 4 If the Commander-in-Chief,’ said the young officer
like a second Scid, 4 should command me to do a thing which I knew to be civilly
illegal, I should not scruple to obey him, and consider myself as relieved from all
responsibility by the commands of my military superior.’ 4 So would not I,’ returned
the gallant and intelligent officer, who maintained the opposite side of the question.
I should rather prefer the risk of being shot for disobedience by my commanding
officer than hanged for transgressing the laws and violating the liberties of my
comtry. 4 You have answered like yourself,’ said His Royal Highness, whose attention
had been attracted by the vivacity of the debate ; ‘ and the officer would deserve both
to be shot and hanged that should act otherwise. I trust all British officers would
be as unwilling to execute an illegal command as I trust the Commander-in-Chief
would be incapable of issuing one.’ ”—Sir Walter Scott's Memoir of the Duke of York.
I See case of Evans v. Hutton.
�10
PASSAGE FEOM
amiss, and those who suffer are not aware that they can protect
themselves by inflicting on the criminals their due punishment.
It is by the abstaining of the sufferers, through the loss of the
sense of law in their own breasts, from hanging the pirates who
assail them; and, on the contrary, treating them when captured
as innocent and honourable men, that is, as prisoners of war,
that that judicial blindness has fallen on the eyes of all. As
violence is not summed up in its particular performance, but
assumes to establish a despotic authority over the human race, so
is innocence when assailed invested with supreme attributes, if it
duly performs its duty of protest, resistance, and punishment. It
is in this sense that the maxim of Roman law — Justice is in
the keeping of the injured — receives its counter-application in
the present day.
Each of these crimes does not spring from the active pre
sence of so many millions of individual passions hurrying them
on. It springs solely from two causes: 1. Blind obedience to
the Executive; 2. Absence of penalty from the injured.
Having thus circumscribed the field, a very encouraging con
sideration presents itself. It is that of its simplicity. To ap
prehend it, neither legal, constitutional, diplomatic, nor historical
studies are requisite. The simple instincts of the most illiterate
of men suffice to embrace it and apply it. It only requires to be
stated to be accepted by all. There may arise difficulties in
reference to the means of rectification; but there can be none
as to the consequences to the human race, unless the remedy be
found.
As to the period of this momentous change, it cannot be fixed
to a year and by an event; it being in the course of nature that
change should be progressive. Unnecessary and unjust Wars
had long to be made and often repeated, before the new course
of ferocity became easy or possible. It may be needful severally
to trace these steps: and the more so, as the people of this
country is entirely ignorant of the acts done by itself.
As regards England, the first great disturbance took place
under the influence of polemical hatreds, and in connexion with
a Revolution, a change in the Succession of the Crown, and the
establishment on the throne of a Foreign Prince. This was the
war of the Spanish Succession. It arose out of a treaty in
which, for the first time, the legal and constitutional element
in an International proceeding, though not openly set aside, was
virtually extinguished. The signature of the Lord Chancellor
was appended to the blank parchment, which so transmitted to
William III., then in Holland, was filled in at his arbitrary
pleasure. To have protected this Empire, and with it Em-ope,
from the consequences of this crime, it would have been
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
11
requisite to have put Lord Somers on his trial for his life. This
course not having been adopted, this first step was followed by
others in the same direction. All legal and all constitu
tional checks were successively withdrawn, whether as to the
making of wars, whether as to the negotiating and signing of
compacts with foreign States, out of which war arises. Simul
taneously the Royal functions were withdrawn from the super
vision of the body through which alone “ they could be exer
cised” and remitted to the disposal of an illegal body, to which
the designation of “ King’s Cabinet” was affixed. It is now
most falsely and most fatally held that the signing of treaties
and the making of war belong to the Royal Prerogative; whilst
such Royal Prerogative is held to be duly exercised, not by the
King in Privy Council, but by the accidental body brought
into power by a parliamentary majority, and which is called the
Cabinet.”
The wars, from that of the Spanish Succession, have been,
like it, unnecessary and unjust without exception, whilst, in carry
ing them on, the real power of England, in her naval means,
has been restrained rather than employed, by the successive
holders of office. But down to the close of the great wars of
the French revolution, a remnant of respect and of decency had
so far prevailed, that such forms as were of absolute necessity
to guard the consciences of soldiers and sailors were observed.
The warrant for destruction accompanied hostilities, and the
orders to kill, burn, and destroy were duly issued.
It is, then, since the European wars ceased, that commences
the era of uncloaked brigandage. The first incident (Navarino)
took place in 1827, which, though originating in a lawless treaty,
was not followed up by other operations (at least by England),
and was explained as the result of a mistake.
We have to come down eleven years nearer our own day for
the first positive and complete case of a buccaneering expedi
tion, undertaken and carried through by a constituted Govern
ment. This was the invasion of Affghanistan. The year
1838 may therefore be fixed upon as the period when war
ceased, and when the mere killing of men by the orders of
Governments commenced.
The Affghan war was made on the allegation that a certain
ruler was “ unfriendly” to England. This allegation, in itself
no ground for war, was supported by various sets of documents
presented to Parliament. These documents, being received by
the Envoy employed, they were declared by him to be a “ tissue
of falsehoods.” He consequently sent home for publication true
copies of his despatches. After many years and repeated motions
in Parliament, the original despatches were produced. The truth
�12
PASSAGE FROM
of the statement of Sir A. Burnes was then established; and it
was proved that the allegation against Dost Mahomed, and on
which the war to upset him had been explained and accepted, had
been made out, through an elaborate falsification of the official
despatches of the British Envoy.
The war therefore was unnecessary; it was unjust, for it was
not just to attack or upset a foreign Prince ; and being neither
necessary or just, it could not be, by any “ formality” rendered
legal, nor was there so much as the attempt to do so. The
document which appeared, though entitled a “Declaration,”
declared no war, but was restricted to observations in reference
to “ the service of troops across (beyond) the Indus.”
No ground was taken in Parhament on the law for resistance
to, or punishment of, this crime. After the whole of the ex
pedition had perished, a motion for mere inquiry was defeated,
and a second invasion was planned for the purpose of naked
vengeance.
But before this positive and hot-handed revolt against all laws
of God and man, preparations had been made for screening those
guilty in this respect from punishment. The English Government
negotiated with Spain a treaty (Elliot convention), according
to which they should no longer shoot the foreigners taking part
in the Civil contest then raging, and who were, and could only
be treated as pirates. The matter was managed with art.
There is no mention made of these foreigners. The English
Minister is only moved by the interests of humanity. It was
in the name of that great Moloch that both parties were called
upon not to shoot men after the battle was over.
*
In the Affghan war commencing the new era for mankind,
is found combined every order of guilt together with loss and
injury. It was to be expected that the licence thus obtained
should soon produce corresponding effects, and so it has proved.
Thirty years have now elapsed. During that time no Conqueror
has arisen: there has existed no necessity for war; yet wars, or
the operations to which the name has been affixed, have followed
uninterruptedly from that hour to the present; first in Asia,
then in Europe, after that in America, and now at last in Africa ;
all resulting either from the direct act of England, her indirect
encouragement, or through the operation of the general law
lessness which her practice has introduced or her authority
established.
This proceeding on the part of England awakened no atten
tion on the Continent of Europe. The sense of law was already
so far obliterated that the character of the new crime was not
• In the collection of Treaties published by the English Government this Conven
tion is wanting.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
13
perceived; the people against whom the blow was levelled wTas
remote ; they were looked upon as cc infidels” and (i uncivilised,”
and in respect to whom no Laws had to be observed. They did
not perceive that the reaction would afterwards fall upon Europe
herself. Indeed, France had herself a few years before com
menced the same lawless course in Africa, and had afterwards
continued it in Mexico and South America.
The invasion of Affghanistan was immediately followed by the
first Chinese War; a war, so far as the Chinese were concerned,
but piracy only on the part of Grreat Britain, as was formally
established.by the English Courts. Then came the destruction
of the British army in Affghanistan, and the second invasion for
the sake of vengeance. This was followed by the second and
third Chinese wars with their revolting incidents of atrocity
and barbarity. Then came the two Persian Wars, the two
attacks on Japan, the Bombardment of Jeddah, and now the
Invasion of Abyssinia. All these wars are of the same cha
racter, that is to say, unnecessary, unjust, profitless, and unac
companied by the forms requisite to make a just and necessary
War a lawful one.
It has to be remarked that whilst there was no gain to be
obtained by these operations, so was there no passion of an
internal kind to be gratified. The British Nation was on every
occasion surprised into them. Falsification of documents to the
extent of forgery, and every kind of misrepresentation were em
ployed to bring them about. These artifices were directed not
only against the public and the Parliament, but also against the
Colleagues of the Minister, and the Sovereign. And the im
punity, success, and pre-eminence of the sole Minister who
managed them, was secured by the idea that the honour of Eng
land was compromised and had to be maintained. Whilst, in
the universal sense of mental weakness and public insecurity,
confidence was given to the one man, in whom the rest recog
nised resolution and capacity.
Amongst the incidents of this order of which Asia has been
the field, we have to enumerate the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857,
it having been produced by the transmission from England to
India, in defiance of the standing orders of the department, of
cartridges prepared in a manner which inflicted pollution on our
Eastern subjects. The design in this case was the same as
in all the others ; and it was practicable and successful like the
others, only through the extinction of all the restraints hitherto
imposed on evil doers.
Thus from the year 1838 down to the year 1868 there has
been a scarcely uninterrupted series of piratical expeditions on
the vastest scale, the effects of which have been to shake the
�14
PASSAGE FROM
power of England in the East, to sap the basis of society and
the means of Government throughout these vast Regions, by
imposing heavy pecuniary obligations, and breaking down Con
stitutional restraints. Whilst, not there only, but throughout the
World, has the sense of law been obliterated from the minds of
men.
We have now to review the occurrences in our own quarter
of the globe.
The settlement of 1815 was one which, not restoring the con
ditions that had been disturbed and the rights that had been
infringed, prepared the way for what was to follow. It was
almost immediately followed by the Treaty called the Holy Alliance, which, pretending to establish a common right of Govern
ments to lend mutual aid to each other against their subjects,
had for effect that which was the object of its original proposer
—to generalise Revolution. All Governments were to lend
their troops against all subjects; all subjects were consequently
to combine against any Government. The distinction of alien
and subject was effaced, everybody could interfere with every
body and everywhere, and the right was established for every
man to fly at every other man’s throat. This heinous and sacriligious Treaty—for it pretended to act in the name of Christ—
introduced the unlawful system of Congresses. These generated
unlawful Wars; thus from it came the invasion of Naples by
Austria, and of Spain by France, and that general confusion
of opinions and affairs which has prevailed unto the present day.
Concurrently with these operations there was the intervention
in the East for the so-called “ Pacification of the Levant,” but
which was directed to the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire. The
Greeks had been insurrectionised by Russia. England, whom
it was found impossible to draw into the Holy Alliance, on the
withdrawal of the Russian Minister, made herself the organ of
Russia at Constantinople. The Turks resisting, a Treaty was
signed between England, France, and Russia, to constrain the
Turks. It stipulated that the means of action should be left
at the disposal of their representatives. This treaty was, there
fore, not a beneficent compact, but an outrage and an infamy.
It was, moreover, the surrender by each of the three Govern
ments of all control over their own actions, and placed their
respective forces at the conjoint disposal of their agents; that is,
of the one of these agents who happened to be more dexterous
than the others. Out of this came the butchery of Navarino,
and the destruction of the naval power of Turkey, followed im
mediately by the Russian invasion of Turkey, and the with
drawal of the representatives of England and France; so that it
was a common war of the three Powers against an Empire which
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
15
two of them had entered into the negotiation with the avowed
purpose of protectingI
Meanwhile the Ruler of Egypt, secretly invited to revolt, first
by England and afterwards by France, twice rebelled, imperil
ling all Europe. After ten years of confusion, the result of
these negotiations and acts, a rupture was effected between Eng
land and France in reference to Egypt. A treaty sent from St.
Petersburg, and signed by England, Austria, and Prussia,
behind the back of France, all but produced a general European
war, and left everything in utter confusion, with an immense
increase of the warlike charges of France, and the fortifications
around Paris.
Not one of these steps could have been taken had there existed
in the Minister of any State “ respect for the laws or fears
“ for his person.”* They could not have taken place had the
Executives not usurped the power of making war without the
assent of the Estates of the Realm. They could not have taken
place had the Privy Council not been displaced from within the
Executive. They could not have taken place had the habit not
arisen of permanent Embassies, by which the internal condition
was invariably subjected to external considerations and influence.
Finally, they could not have taken place had the churches of
Christendom taught that murder in the aggregate was not less,
but the same sin, as murder in the individual. For then war
would no longer have been possible on the mere motion of the
Minister; letters and despatches would have remained without
effect to produce convulsion; and that maleficent power desig
nated “ moral influence ” would have been lifted off the human
race.
The pressure of taxation, the disturbance of every basis of
judgment; the absence of all authoritative exposition of what is
right in maxim, or profitable in practice; the periodical convul
sions arising from a fictitious monetary system; and the expen
diture of large sums of money and endless activity on the part
of one Government to organise secret and revolutionary societies,
had now prepared Europe for the repetition on a larger scale, in
1848, of the convulsion of 1830.
This event, to which our present state more immediately
belongs, was led and managed for Russia by England. It began
in Switzerland by double-dealing with the parties in the Civil
War. This was followed by the celebrated despatch of October,
1847, announcing designs of Austria on Italy, and threatening her
on the part of England. Then came the mission of Lord Minto
to all the Governments of Italy openly to impose on them in* Words used in the House of Commons, February, 1848, as applied to the English
Minister.
�16
PASSAGE FROM
ternal measures, and openly to invite the various populations to
revolt. No point of Europe was neglected. The ground was
everywhere mined by Russian revolutionary agents, whilst
England openly invoked rebellion. Thus, on a given day, in the
beginning of 1848, from Copenhagen and Bucharest, to the
Mediterranean and the Atlantic, every people was convulsed
and every throne upset.
When after a time the re-establishment came, there was,
in all respects, a difference. The Governments were more sub
servient, the people more discontented. The military organisa
tions were augmented, the debt and taxes were increased.
Hitherto the north of Europe had been spared; one people
in Europe was tranquil, had no factions, and was attached alike
to its institutions and to its Prince. It was now to be drawn
into the European vortex, and whilst made the victim of its order
and ‘loyalty, was to be converted into a more terrible lever of
convulsion than any other of the fragments of the confederacy
of European States, which had severally been used as dupes and
instruments. This people were the inhabitants of the Duchies
of the Eyder. The King of Denmark had been induced, on
perfidious councils from Paris, to infringe the rights of the
Duchies on the plea of including them in a general representative
constitution, which would make the “ United Danish Monarchy”
a barrier against Russia. Being thus prepared to be acted on
by the convulsion of 1848, a civil war with Denmark broke out,
which, by the management of England, was kept on for three
years. She interfered each Autumn by mediation, and prolonged
the situation till the warlike operations could be resumed in the
Spring, which were then allowed to take their course. Prussia
lent her aid to the same work by pushing on the Duchies,
getting the command of the conjoint forces, and then betraying
them in the field. After four years of this bloodshed and perfidy,
matters were brought to a head, and an arrangement took place
at Warsaw between the Russian Czar, as head of the House of
Oldenburg, and the King of Denmark, by which the succession
of the crown was altered, so that almost the whole of the inter
vening and numerous heirs were cut off; a successor named
to the Royal line, at the option of the Emperor of Russia, and
his own title as heir-general established, both to the Kingdom
and the Duchies.
Such a compact, unlawful as all the rest, was also offensive in
the last degree to Denmark, and alarming to all Europe. It was
impossible for the Danish Government to present to the Diet of
Copenhagen a law to carry it into effect. The Compact or Pro
tocol had been kept secret. To impose it on Denmark, and to
impose it on Europe, it was taken up by England. A Treaty,
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
17
embodying the Warsaw Protocol, was signed in London, May
Sth, 1852, rehearsing that the arrangement had already been
made, and that the Treaty was only to give to it a “ European
sanction.” On this it was proposed to the. Danish Diet, as a
“ European necessity.” After repeated dissolutions, the constitu
tion was changed, and so the Treaty became law for Denmark.
These points are given, as out of this transaction—certainly
the most monstrous and insane, that the world has ever witnessed
—has come directly the phase of convulsion around us.
Whilst the Danish incident had been running its internal course
of five years, from the letters patent of 1846 to the Warsaw
Protocol of 1851, and its European course of fifteen years,
from that Protocol to the battle of Sadowa in 1866—in the
Italian Peninsula the harvest from the seed sown by the de
spatch of 1847 and the mission of Lord Minto was being
gathered in. Whatever the attractions for Russia of the Penin
sula itself, whatever the necessity of stopping a productiveness
which interfered with several, and endangered one of her own
staple products—whatever the occasion which it presented now,
as in all time, by the extended and exposed structure of the
*
land and the debased character of the people for exciting the
rivalries of neighbouring powers and bringing the fall of Dy
nasties—Italy, for Russia, meant the Pope. He was in Italy the
only real thing. He from Italy could restore law, order, and
peace in Christendom. He was head of the Western Church,
which the Czar works to destroy and pretends to incorporate.
The East was involved in Italy, no less than the West, and
Poland and Russia herself, no less than Europe and the East. To
revolutionize Italy was the means to reach the Pope. By that
process he could reach the sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome,
and so upset his spiritual power; that "is, that spiritual power not
exerted at present, but, as she well knew, capable of exercise in a
judicial fashion, and for which the first condition was that he
should be subject neither to a foreign Prince nor be protected
by foreign bayonets. That these must have been her desires
and her objects it is facile to perceive, and it is in evidence that
towards them, events have marched. But what is not so easy to
perceive, and might have appeared impossible to accomplish, is
what really did take place, and of which we possess the evidence.
It is that in bringing about this convulsion (1848) she concealed
from the Papal Government her part therein—concealed from
its eyes alike her secret connexion with revolution and with the
English Government, and made it believe that she was doing
her best to protect the Pope against both. She made the largest
* “ Divided by the Apennines ; surrounded by the sea.”
B
�18
PASSAGE FROM
offers in money ancl troops, and accepted the grateful acknow
ledgments of the Pope for having, by her influence, obtained
for his protection the presence of French troops at Pome.
*
It was not that the Pope had forgotten Poland, or the substi
tution by the Czar of himself for Patriarch, or his pressure in
the East on his spiritual subjects; but all were then powerless
to comprehend that Russia made use of revolution. They all
believed her to be its opponent. However, the anomaly of the
goodwill thus shown by the Russian Cabinet had to be explained.
The explanation offered and accepted was that St. Petersburg
and Rome were on “ the same line,” that being the “ line of
order.” It is curious that the Revolutionists at the very same
moment were attributing the pecuniary support they received
from her to the same cause, that of being “ on the same line
with her.” They understood that line to be “ disorder.”
The historian of the Revolutions of Europe remarks that,
from the commencement of the eighteenth century, history had
become difficult to write, in consequence of the non-observance
of public law. Now that the very idea of law has disappeared, or,
which is even worse, its name only used to misapply it and to
affix it to some monstrous deed, the affairs of mankind have be
come one mass of incalculable confusion. They now pretend
to substitute for the law they have abrogated, what they
call an “ International Law,” which is to consist of Treaties.
Strange as it may appear, it is not the less true that there has
not been a single treaty signed during this period, that of Vienna
inclusive, that has not been violated, till at last treaties are
looked upon as some miasma pervading the air.f The idea
of any value as resulting from a positive compact having disap
peared, they now propose to substitute them for the Law of
God and of Nations.^
* “So early as the mouth of February, 1848, the Cabinet of St. Petersburg thus
addressed itself to the Court of Rome :—
“ ‘It is beyond doubt that the Holy Father will find in His Majesty the Emperor
a loyal supporter in effecting the restitution to him of temporal and spiritualpower, and
that the Russian Government will apply itself to all the measures that may contribute
to this end, seeing that it nourishes in respect to the Court of Rome no sentiment of
rivalry and no religious animosity.’”—Farina Stato Romano,vol. Hi. p. 215.”—From
“ The East and the West,” by the Hon. H. Stanley.
f “ The Treaty of Gastein was now losing its vitality.”—M. Rouher.
j “ The most manifest and repulsive indication of that aspiration for Omnipotence
which popular sovereignty affects is the contempt of that elementary right which the
public honour and good sense have called the faith of treaties.”—M. A. Re Broglie,
in the Li Revue des Deux Mondes.” Thus the perception of the evil is powerless in
this age to lead to the perception of the cure. The first proposal of substituting
Treaties for Law and calling them Law was made by Russia, in 1806, as one of the
conditions on which she would have accepted the peace then on the point of settlement
between England and France. As a step towards this result, at the Treaty of Vienna
no anterior Treaty was restored, so that the peace became a generality.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS»
19
In former periods of anarchy and violence a remedy was pos
sible. The idea of it spontaneously arose. It was that of Law. At
that time—-that is to say, in all previous times, crimes only were
committed. The hearts of men were corrupted, but their under
standings were left to them; and speech, the instrument of
reason, was under each man’s hand to use if prompted thereto.
To-day the disturbance does not come from hordes lusting for
territory, or conquerors for battle-fields. Those who commit the
crimes suffer from them. It is the understanding that is per
verted; it is speech that is falsified; and therefore is the restora
tion at once most easy and most difficult—most easy, because all
would be on the side of right, did it find an interpreter; most
difficult, for where is the interpreter to be found in an age which
has fallen into this chaos by reason of false speech in use, and
true speech forgotten ?
When such terms as “ Public Opinion,” “ Civilisation,”
“ Progress,” can be uttered, who can speak of Law, of Justice 2
and how, therefore, can there be peace on earth and goodwill
among men 2
All these terms have been already condemned by the Pope ;
but in condemning them he has not analysed them to show their
vacuity. Let us take an instance. To say that the word
“ progress ” should not be used, is of the greatest service to any
human being who will obey the injunction ; because it will save
him from a large amount of distracting volubility, evil habits of
mind, and erroneous conclusions. But only abstaining from it
because it is forbidden, and not knowing it to be unmeaning, he
will not be freed from its effects when it falls from the lips of
others ; noi' will he be able to show to others why it is objection
able. Being incapable of giving a reason for his objection to its
use he will sink in the estimation of his interlocutor, and in his
own. The benefit of discipline is not secured to him. Instead
of the regenerating effect of discarding a false term, his obedience
only justifies the contempt of the “ man of the age,” who holds
religion to be superstition, and its professors to be weak-minded.
Let us suppose this Catholic to be instructed by his priest,
himself instructed by the Head of the Church, and so enabled
to deal logically, and not religiously or authoritatively, with a
logical perversion. How differently wrnuld he stand! He
■would then proceed to call his opponent to account, even as
Christ did in the time of the Pharisees, or as Socrates did in
the time of the Sophists. He would question him as to his
meaning; he would ask him to explain the relation between a
substantive of motion and a method of reasoning. He would
call for a definition of the geographic field over which motion is
predicated, and for the contents of the entity represented as
b 2
�20
PASSAGE FROM
marching over it. He would persist in drawing forth the forms
of the unknown future towards which the progress is to be made.
He would force him to declare whether his “ progress ” was
towards or away from knowledge of cases, the correct definition
of laws, the due regulation of constitutional checks, the restraints
on the exercise of political power, the control over the public
expenditure, the supervision of transactions between States, and
the inhibition of public acts not beneficial, not just, not lawful.
He would have always in reserve to show, and by questions to
bring out the avowal, that on all these heads, since the word in
question came into use, there had been a progressive deterioration
of the human species. Thus would he confound and confute
his antagonist, and show that to employ amphibologies is not the
perfection but the extinction of the human faculties.
Men can go on, with the pen in their hand, making phrases—
the weakest as well as the strongest. They are at once pulled
up by a question, and will equally be baffled by it—the strongest
as well as the weakest.
It is impossible to separate man and speech. There may be
base men using language correctly, but there can be no people
upright whose speech is debased. No branch of human science
can be followed, or even so much as exist, if the terms be not
defined. No legal act is binding into which terms not legal are
introduced. An article of faith consists entirely in the definition
of the terms.
What is here in evidence before us in the introduction of new
terms into all the languages of Europe, and that all these have a
double meaning: concurrently therewith, there has been a dis
turbance of all settled convictions.
The connexion is therefore established by two distinct pro
cesses. Ambiguous terms must bring, we say, malversation in
affairs and infidelity in belief. They have been introduced, and
have been accompanied by these results.
It follows, therefore, that the rectification must commence by
the exclusion of such terms ; and the Pope ha's put his hand to
this work, condemning as unchristian and uncatholic those
very terms which had already, on philological grounds, been
shown to be unmeaning and deceptive.
For doing this Catholics have a great advantage in the Sacred
Writings, having to study them, in the first instance, in the
natural sense. This is a preparation for confounding fallacy
by throwing men back on themselves, and for calling men to
Repentance without reference to dogma. These are among the
latent intellectual powers of the Catholic Church, which it knows
not itself, and which will be known either to itself or others only
when exerted.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
21
Concurrently with the obliteratiou of the common instincts of
man as regards the taking of life, there has arisen in Europe a
parallel change in the conduct of affairs, by which one subordinate
branch of government has been rendered supreme in each. The
department of Foreign Affairs dealing extra-nationally, has got
this mastery, and out of it has come an enthralling secresy. This
revolution has been worked out of the “ Intervention in the
“East.” That operation has converted international business
into a labyrinth. The very existence of which is unknown save
to those who had been connected therewith, before the Greek
episode commenced. Each Foreign Department uncontrolled,
unquestioned, can bring about wars, can, consequently, exert
“ moral influence ” on other states; and so can disturb internal
affairs, overthrow internal liberty, augment military establish
ments, increase charges, impose taxes, augment debt, produce,
indirectly, disloyalty and unbelief; and whilst directly foment
ing revolution in particularly selected countries, prepares for it
in all; tending in a direction, which at some point must render
all government impossible: and so preparing for the general
domination throughout Europe of some power or people whose
understanding and speech has not been similarly vitiated.
Before closing this branch it is desirable to revert to the act
of Geneva in 1602. It is not only a great lesson, but also a
prominent landmark. It is such a limit between two order's
of existence, such as that traced by Tacitus in summing up the
history of Rome, where he says, Hie finis cequi Juris. It explains
how small states have been in later times absorbed, and how
they remained up to these times, to be absorbed. When a crime
against which human nature revolts does not receive its due
penalty, of course it spreads, and, spreading, changes its cha
racter. So it has happened. Bandits being normally sent forth
by established governments, come at last to constitute themselves
on their own account, and to combine to assail this country or
that. The penalties having ceased to be applied to the first, are
then no longer applied to the second, so that a trade in piracy is
established, and the inducement of impunity, which would apply
to a band of false coiners, applies to the enterprises carried on
against the Sultan or the Pope. The Sovereigns so attacked,
not exercising the functions of sovereignty in this respect, be
come themselves in reality accomplices in this breaking down of
all things. They have, moreover, no passions to mislead them,
and no real or supposed advantage to gain. It is therefore the
result of weakness only—the greatest of all sins in the holder
of delegated authority. Firmness in some would at any moment
of past time have stopped the course of evil. Firmness would
stop it even to-day.
�22
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
It is not, however, correct to designate these adventurers
as . Bandits or Pirates. The latter have a positive object of
gain in view. They may be driven to guilty deeds by ne
cessity. They have the excuse of degrading associations. They
incur positive danger; and, lastly, they are conscious of thenown acts. Far different is the man who imbrues his hands in
the blood of his fellow-creatures without such inducements,
such risks, or such consciousness, and who is moved by the
passions of the understanding—the most ferocious and' most
hopeless that can take possession of the human heart—the more
hopeless and base, the loftier and the holier the pretensions which
he puts forward to himself or others. The passions of the heart
are the passions of the animal or the wild beast which lie down
when satisfied. The passions of the understanding are those of
the human being perverted from the image of God to the pur
poses of the Devil. It is before this outburst that the execu
tioner gives way !
Had the hired assassins of the King of Sardinia met the
fate of those of the Duke of Savoy—had there been in 1862 a
township in Sicily with hearts of the men who lived in 1602,
Italy would have been spared, the “ making” she has had, and
the unmaking she will presently have to undergo.
3rd.
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
The third question is already answered. It is more than an
swered, for the method to be adopted has also been shown. It
consists in the extrication of the mind from a few fallacies, all
which disappear of themselves, from the moment that a man
sees that to kill, to rob, to covet, to bear false witness, is no less
a crime when committed by many against many, than when
committed by one against one, or a few against a few. Not to
know this is to be under judicial blindness. Whilst that blind
ness endures, the case, as regards the conduct, conscience, busi
ness, and existence of a people is exactly such as, in regard to
material objects, it would be, if natural and artificial light were
suspended, and the human race were left to grope their way in
the dark. Efforts, if made, would avail nothing, resources un
bounded within his reach would satisfy neither hunger nor
thirst, and he would perish miserably in the midst of the stench
of his already putrifying fellow-creatures, despite all that Pro
vidence might have otherwise supplied for his comfort, and
fortune assorted for his pre-eminence.
�SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
23
The expression “International Law” has, however, to be put
aside. The epithet alone reveals this hopeless and abject con
dition. It reveals the intellectual debasement out of which that
condition has sprung; it reveals the loss of respect for the rule
of right, without which neither would the understanding have
been debased, nor circumstances disordered. The Law is
supreme, the Law rules, the Law is from on high. It is above
all. Thus the Law of Nations is a holy law; but the sacred
character vanishes before the preposition “ between.” In English
you could not say it. If you did, you would know that it was
nonsensical and feel that it wTas vile—“the between-NationsLaw.”
The Law of Nations is otherwise termed the “Law of
Nature,” and, again, the “ Law of God ”—of Nature and of
God because of its essence; of Nations, because ruling all and
accepted by all. It is the Ten Commandments as applicable to
communities. By observing these a people preserves its faith,
its honour, its liberty, its power, and, if capable in other respects,
will live for ever. When a people causelessly assails another,
it has lost innocence, honour, liberty, and faith. It contains no
longer one citizen, one Christian, or one gentleman, save amongst
the protestors, if there be any.
Finally, it is peculiarly the Law of Nations because it, and it
alone, deals with and adjudicates on their aggregate acts. It is
the civil and criminal municipal law applied to the whole com
munity. An eminent English judge has thus defined it:—
“ The Law of Nations,” says Lord Mansfield—“ that uni“ versal Law, which will be carried as far in England as any“ where—which is here adopted in its full extent by the Common
“ Law, and is held to be a part of the Law of England ; which
a Acts of Parliament cannot alter : which is to be collected, toge“ ther, together with the rules of decision concerning it, not from
“ Acts of Parliament, but from the practice of different nations
“ and the authority of writers; of which from time to time Acts
“ of Parliament have been made to enforce, or decisions to facili“ tate, the execution, and are, therefore, considered not as intro“ ductive of any new law, but merely as declaratory of the old
“ fundamental constitutions of the kingdom; and finally, without
“which the kingdom must cease to be a part of the civilised
“ world.”
This Law is, moreover, emphatically that of Nations, because
the Nations have themselves to enforce it. It is against their
Governments that they have to enforce it. It is by
taking care that their rulers “ shall do that only which is law
ful,” that peace can be possessed or preserved on earth. The
contrary must happen if that Law of Nations is remitted to the
�24
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
agents, that is. the Governments, to apply, to interpret, and to
change at. their pleasure. It is thus that a people falls into the
last condition of<£ taking for law that which their rulers do.” To
recover them from it, some must arise different from the rest, to
reprove and to teach them.
There remains behind a still graver consideration for the
future. If the Law of Nations is not observed, it will neces
sarily come to be perverted, and its name, forms, and authority
will remain as a blight on the world. The Law transformed
into a mask and cloak for the designing will thus become the
most fruitful of all sources of war and discord.
A small chink lets in light. It is not willingly that nations
err, sin, slay, and suffer. Therefore is it that those who among
such a generation do see, are filled with zeal, 'are incessant in
toil, and endued with power. Few and insignificant, as in them
selves they may be, their work may bear fruits.
Operations depending on thought are independent of numbers.
This present condition of the human race has been brought
about by a single man.
n
It is not bloodshed alone that we suffer from, and that has to
be put a stop to, but lawless acts of all kinds; whether these
consist in commission or in omission : of wrongs perpetrated or
wrongs endured. Had there been a body of upright men in
England, there would have been no waiver of the means of co
ercing her enemy in 1854, no giving away of her maritime power
in 1856, no fitting out of Piratical vessels in 1863, no refusal of
reparation for their depredations in 1864-7, no endurance of the
transfer by sale of territorial possessions amongst our neighbours,
or any foreign Powers, no submission to Blockades where war
of no kind had been made, no interference in the internal juris
diction of Eastern States by our Consuls, no proposals to shake
the very bases of all society in destroying the indefeasible alle
giance of the subject;—none, in fact, of these novelties, which
come upon us to-day in overwhelming and inextricable shoals,
and which were unknown in the world among all its previous
generations. All these and all that are to follow are the neces
sary effects of dispensing ourselves from the observance of any
rule of conduct. Surely a remedy so simple and so comprehen
sive ought to have attractions, if only from its novelty. We do
run after new things and strange things; one more new or more
strange is not to be found than Justice.
�DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
25
4th.
DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
Whether the Catholic Church is capable of this restoration
must depend on the qualities of the men it possesses at this
hour. It is placed under the necessity of making the attempt,
both because of the new characters which crime has recently
put on, and because of the assumption of authority over the con
sciences of its flock.
The words spoken by the Pope, while containing a promise,
also suggest a fear. By them the Church steps out of its poli
tical disability, asserting its appellate jurisdiction. Four years
have elapsed since the pretension was advanced, but it has re
mained unexerted. No preparatory steps have been taken for its
exercise. The question therefore arises as to the sense attached
to the words themselves. In any case the position of affairs is
no longer the same after they have been spoken; for from that
hour the sanction of the Church must be assumed to have been
given in all cases where it has not rebuked and condemned.
It did not, however, require the assertion of this claim in this
authoritative manner to convey a religious sanction to political
crimes. It may be put in this very self-evident and simple
fashion : Granted that the Church of England or of Prussia is
not called upon to determine the lawfulness of a war made by
the respective Governments of these countries, it does not there
upon follow that the Church of Rome can dispense itself from
this duty, seeing that its pretension is to be universal, and that
its flock will be engaged on both sides; so that there is for it
no possibility of not sanctioning crime, as there is an impossi
bility of both sides being innocent.
The case has been stated by a distinguished Prelate (the
Bishop of Mayence) in the following terms :—
u In the last centuries, after abandoning the commandments
“ of God, an inert form has been substituted for them, derived
from the scales in which merchandise is weighed. . . . This
“ separation of the Rights of Nations and the Law of God—
“ this fiction that the end and means of Policy stand in a horizon
“ superior to those of vulgar morals and justice, brings an im“ mense peril for the peace of the world. This is war in perma“ nency, or a simple armistice—the prelude of a war of all
“ against all.
“ It is thus that we have to deplore bitterly that Religion has
“ been rendered the accomplice of this policy. They have been
“ very ill inspired who in these latter times, have suggested to
“ Religion and its ministers, to give a sort of religious consecration
�26
DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
“ to all these violences. For how many victories have TeDeums
“ been chanted that have no ways been for the glory of God,
“ but which were cursed by God from heaven ! ”
It is thus that the Bishop of Mayence—without having
perceived the distinction between wars that are unjust and those
that are unlawful, and taking the first ground alone, and sup
posing that to be the guilt and danger of our times—still with
grief and indignation, and also with horror, points to the
desecration of religion, in the blessing by it of opposing arms.
Here speaks a disturbed conscience and a grieving heart; but
how unavailing those emotions, even when combined with high
intellectual powers, to find and apply the remedy, when the re
quisite knowledge of circumstances is wanting, is singularly illus
trated in the veiy work from which the above extract is taken.
It is entitled “ Germany after the War of 1866,” and necessarily
deals with the causes which brought about that war. The
author sees none of them. He makes statements as to Denmark
which are not correct. He then speculates thereon. Finally,
he reverts to that terrible and sacrilegious compact, the Holy
Alliance, through which Europe has been convulsed, as a great,
and good, and beneficial operation, attributing to its non-iulfilment the present condition of things I
Although, therefore, the instances of Gregory the Great,
Gregory VII., and Innocent III. must necessarily present
themselves to any hopeful mind, whatever its religious pro
fession, and whether or not it admits of any faith or belief at all,
yet Popes are required nowadays for far graver purposes than
to interdict uncanonical marriages, to excommunicate Royal
assassins, to restrain unlawful taxes, or even to condemn unjust
wars.
At the present time it is no active interference that is called
for in the State; it is simply adjudication on criminal matters
that is required. The povrer so to be exercised will be appre
hended only after it has been exerted; and it can be exerted
only by the possession of those eminent qualities, that perfect
knowledge, and that unbounded self-sacrifice and devotion
which, in the person of Gregory, created that wonderful
system which we designate the Church of Rome; and which,
in the person of the present Pope, if it please Providence
to grant him time and aids in men, may restore that Church,
and with it retrieve and preserve human society—that society
which, in his own words, is “ crumbling to pieces.”
A French philosopher (unbeliever) says :—
“ Do not tell me that Gregory, Leo, Urban, Innocent,
“ and so many others were Saints a thousand years ago. . I want
�DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
27
“ you to-day to be one yourself, in order that all the moral world
“ may, without dispute, fall down at your feet.”*
A Protestant clergyman and the actual Dean of St. Paul’s, in
writing of the past, shows what is practicable in the present:—
“In the person of Gregory, the Bishop of Rome first
“ became, in act and influence, if not in avowed authority, a
“ temporal Sovereign. Nor were his acts the ambitious encroach“ ments of ecclesiastical usurpation on the civil power. They
“ were forced upon him by the purest motives, if not by actual
“ necessity. The virtual Sovereignty fell to him as abdicated by
“ the neglect or powerlessness of its rightful owners; he must
“ assume it or leave the people and the city to anarchy. His
“ authority rested on the universal feeling of its beneficence.”!
But the Pope is also a crowned head. He is one of the com
munity of Sovereigns; yet he has not taken part in those
proceedings which have reduced Europe to a chaos of mind and
affairs. He has never recognised the Treaty of Vienna which
is the fountain of these evils; he has unceasingly protested
against it. He has also specially and vehemently protested
against some of the crimes (in Poland and Italy) perpetrated
under the conjoint influence of the extra-national management
to which Europe is now subject.
It is, therefore, no less the duty of the Pope, as a king, to
protest against crimes in which he has no part, and of which he
is the victim, than for the Pope, as head of the Roman Catholic
church, to teach every adult as every child belonging to his
flock, that bloodshed without cause is murder; and to refuse
the offices of religion (as he does to the conspirators in England
known as Fenians) to any man directly engaged therein,
by planning or executing them, or indirectly by approving of
them, and contributing money towards them in the shape of
taxes. His kingdom is indeed small, but in the eye of the Law,
as of human reason, all sovereignties are equal. So also in our
circumstances, the smallest State in Europe can equal the
greatest. The affairs of all nations are interwoven. They are
all conducted in secret. The entire European community is
thus at the mercy of the most dexterous ; and being all destitute
of the requisite qualifications by which to detect what is being
done with them, the web is gradually woven round their eyes, as
the snares are prepared for their feet. There is no extrication
for them save integrity and capacity in some one government,
and such a Government however minute its territories, could
render them this service.
* “ Christianity,” by Quinet, p. 59.
f Milman’s “ Latin Christianity,” vol. ii., p, 130.
�28
TIIE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
But with these qualifications the Court of Rome becomes, at
a bound, the most powerful on earth; and it has already
taken its stand against that Government which manages all the
others, and is leading them on to their mutual destruction.
The acquisition of these intellectual means is, therefore, the
question. For this,. individual powers, the most rare in the
history of mankind, are requisite. An eminent ecclesiastic
has put it in a form which cannot be improved upon. “ For
this,” he said, “ giants are required; and there are no giants
“ to be found either within the Church or without it.”
Has the attempt, therefore, to be abandoned in despair ? By
no means. The first and greatest step is made when some have
recognised its difficulty.
5th.
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
No Council is required for this work. There is nothing new
to be discovered or enacted, no new tribunal to be instituted. In
the Council there is danger only, and it is thus that it may
be counted gain.
These propositions are of the highest quality by their nature,
and of the vastest bearing in their application, now and in all
future time. If to any design the word great can be applied, it
applies to this one. Therefore can it be worked out only by
individual minds. A public assembly, however constituted, is
unfitted for the task.
The bases, metaphysical and legal, have been already laid
down by the Pope. The superstructure is wanting.
As respects terms, he has condemned them as erring; they
have to be shown to be unmeaning, to give intellectual life to his
flock, and enable them to make wai' on the fallacies in which all
error is enveloped and contained.
Among the vast resources available for this purpose is that
portion of education which in England is termed “ classical,” and
in France “ profane.” The literature so studied is that of States
(Greece and Rome) which, in their corruption and decay, are to
us at once warnings and models—warnings by their fall, models
by their thoughts. Homer is a code of the Law of Nations. In
Demosthenes we possess a remonstrance against our actual
habits, on which the seal of value has been impressed by the fall
of Athens, as a result of its neglect. Socrates has been held
by Fathers of the Church to have been the harbinger of Chris
tianity. His teaching consisted in unravelling the errors con
tained in false terms. During the flourishing, and therefore
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
29
corrupt, period of Rome, we have the two dangers constantly pre
sented, which threaten the communities of Europe to-day—false
terms and injustice—and the two are linked together. It is not
only moralists, but statesmen, favourites, and popular poets who
thus speak. I cite some of them, for these are the words which
meet our need.
Cato told his fellow-countrymen that they had lost true
speech by adopting false speech (“nos vera rerum vocabula
amisimus”). Seneca tells them that they no longer had law,
since they took for law “ whatever their rulers did.” Cicero,
in the sublime description of what a community ought to be,
which he places in the mouth of Africanus, has'these words :
“ The State (res publica) is not only synonymous with justice,
“ but exists only by and in the highest justice.” Virgil makes
the shades of Hades echo with the great voice of Theseus :—
“ Discite justitiam moniti et non temnere Divos.”
The lyric of the Augustan age presents Virtue unteaching men
their false terms, and thus securing a safe condition of life:—•
. Virtus populumque falsis
dedocet uti
Vocibus.”
“.
.
How is it that such things are known to the school-boys, and
are forgotten by the men of Europe ? How is it that there are
none to be found to take advantage of such teachings in the
past, to turn them to profit for the present, and so bring up the
Youth, knowing what is wrong, and loving what is right ? But
what did the fallacious terms of the Greeks or Romans amount
to? For the first, it was but meshes woven out of their own tongue.
For the second, it was but a very slight importation of Greek
terms. With us, it is a vast influx of both Greek and Latin
terms, and these jumbled up together and used in senses that
would be utterly unintelligible to Greeks or Romans; while
always displacing the simple and appropriate words of our own
tongue. The mass of these will astound when it is considered
that every word ending in ty, in ence, in ion, in ite, ism, and ze
belong to this category, when used in the second intention. The
effect on the human being placed in the hopeless condition of
having to learn these, and to believe that they mean something,
may be apprehended, when it is stated that every such term is
unmeaning in itself, illogical in its construction, and perverting
in its use. These terms may be used—have to be used—for
others. The danger lies in being used by them; that is, tbinking in them and through them, and imagining that there is
meaning in them.
It was the duty of the teacher to prevent the use by the child
�30
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
of vague or unmeaning terms ; so would he have put a stop to
erroneous ideas which came in as the explanation of these
terms. The teacher has not done so. It is now for the Church
to render this service to the adult.
The task may be difficult, but the obligation is imperious. If
difficult, it is not impossible. If it -were so, there could be no
safety and no hope. If men arrive at false totals because they
are working with false figures, you may hope to put them right;
and strive to do so. But if you accept the figures as correct,
then there remains nothing to do. If the evil that is done arose
from a purpose in their hearts, again the task would be hope
less, and words would be without power. It is only because
they are deceived by their terms, and thereby cheated into doing
what they do not desire, that human speech can avail for human
good.
But for this there must be the perfect and absolute conviction
of the nothingness of all that is held to be, in this age, intellectual
power and philosophical culture. Any one can arrive at this
certainty for himself, who will take any sentence of any modern
writer, whoever he may be, and strike out of it the Greek and
Latin terms, and then read it over. He will then see that these
terms were all superfluous; that the sense, if sense there was,
comes out free, or that the fallacy remains naked and exposed.
It has to be made apparent that those speculations in which
modern society is engaged are not only politically futile, and re
ligiously and morally heinous, but also that intellectually, they
are contemptible.
This branch, then, the metaphysical, is the first which has
to be undertaken for the Council.
As regards crimes, the basis was equally laid when the Pope
asserted his “ power over the consciences,” not of individuals
only, but also “ of communities, nations, and their Sovereigns.”
This power he has never exerted, nor can he till he specifies the
Law. That has to be done not only in reference to wars, but
also in reference to Congresses, Treaties, and Protocols. For
besides the modern practice of making wars without form, has
come that of holding Conferences without cause; of making
compacts (Treaties) vicious in matter of form, and lawless in
substance; of substituting Protocols for Treaties; of violating
Treaties when made; and of superimposing on all this a new
invention, which they term “ Declaration,” and by means of
which the internal condition of each State can be reached and
upset. There has, therefore, a rule to be laid down according
to which, in all these respects, Catholics may be able to dis
tinguish what is lawful from what is criminal. Then, and then
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
31
only, can and will the Pope exercise “power”—judicial power
“ over communities, nations, and their sovereigns.”
It can only be attributed to the indistinctness that prevails in
regard to these matters being common to all, that the Pope,
being recently called upon to act magisterially by a most
heinous attempt of foreign bandits on his State, his subjects,
and himself; did not in his own courts vindicate the Law, and
use “ the power of the magistrate” for the repression of evil
doers and the protection of the innocent. Had he done so, he
would by his own act have commenced the restoration of
human society, and would have gained for the promulgator of
this new order (himself) the respect and confidence of mankind.
Crime leaves no option. It must be either pursued or accepted.
To condone crime, is to be criminal. It is so in the private man,
how much more so hi the magistrate ? How strange that these
things have to be said; how much more so to know that, speak
ing them, they are not understood.
This Code of “ Christian Legislation” having been enacted,
then no grander spectacle could be witnessed, and no holier
work conceived, than the assembling of the body of the Church
to accept it, ancl to take counsel together for its application.
The danger consists in the work being left to be done by a
Council composed of men who are ecclesiastics only, and neither
lawyers, metaphysicians, nor diplomatists; at a time when the
Church has ceased to be what it was in the middle ages, the
fountain of Law; in an age when the common talk is fallacy,
and when the affairs of nations are enveloped in a secret and
mysterious web of deception.
The superior minds who have somewhat approached the
subject have felt this danger. One of the most eminent has
used the words “ The Council will kill or cure.” In this__in
the perception of this danger—lies that hope which has been
above expressed, namely, that some will thereby be induced to
make the effort necessary to have the work for the Council done
and well done, beforehand.
It has to be considered that the whole field of public morals
has been left untouched by modern speculation. It remains to
be trodden by the Church. Among all the subjects submitted
to investigation, the stopping of wars has been omitted. In all
our speculations for the improvement of the human race, no
plan has been suggested for arresting the progress of public ex
penditure. In all our associations for protecting the injured and
the weak, not one has appeared for the protection of public
honour, morals, and interests. In all our projects of reform,
there has not been one for the restraining of the Executive, and
�32
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
preventing it from disposing at its arbitrary pleasure of the
money and blood of the subject.
As this Council is not for the settlement of dogma or disci
pline, at least as primary objects, but to devise means for arrest
ing general disorder, it is not for Catholics only, but for
mankind. If the results obtained are for the good of any, they
must be also for the good of all. Those who are thus con
cerned should be admitted. At the Council of Trent, the
Protestant States were invited to attend by their represen
tatives. Such an invitation, it is true, would be accepted, if
accepted by the European Governments, only with the view of
preventing any just solution, and to produce confusion. But
the domain of Law, belongs not to Executives, nor even to socalled Legislative Assemblies, but to legists. An appeal, there
fore, to men whose studies have been so directed would natu
rally fall into, as it would be a necessary part of, such a design.
The Law of Nations, which overrules all Municipal Law, and
which, as regards England, is still part and parcel of the law of
the land, has never been enacted by parliamentary statute, nor
promulgated by royal authority. Its expounders have been, in
modern times, private individuals. The chief of these have
been Protestants (Grotius and Vattel). Their compilations
include the laws and practice of pagan times and people; and
especially of Ancient Rome, where the jus gentium was the
common law, but which had for its external application a
special judicatory. Processes with foreign States were referred
exclusively to that judicatory, and withdrawn from the civil
power. Neither King nor Consul, neither Senate nor People,
could so much as interfere in such matters, or could declare war
or make peace. The “ Government,” in such cases, "was con
sidered as a “party” merely in the dispute, and its acts were
inquired into. It was the Fecial College, a body having no
political character or functions, and which was invested with a
legal and religious character, into whose hands the case was
remitted so soon as a difference arose between the Roman Ex
ecutive and that of any other people.
It is therefore on the example of this gieat people that those
few private individuals whose minds have been turned to this
branch of human science, have chiefly relied in expounding
those principles which have obtained for them pre-eminent
authority in the courts of all modern kingdoms, and which
have, in so far as they have been maintained, secured order
and peace in the world. If private men, endowed with publicmindedness, have become the lawgivers and benefactors of
their species, what might not be effected by the Church of
Rome, if it entered on the task in a similar spirit, having no
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
33
longer laboriously to work out, but simply to employ and
apply the materials ready to its hand?
But Europe is not entirely Christian. A great Mahomedan
Power dwells on its soil, and holds possession of the point not
only of greatest geographical and political importance in Europe,
but in the world. This system, so far from being opposed to
the great design of the Pope, is associated therewith, and is
the only Government not directly and essentially opposed to it.
It is so not only as being, in common with the Pope, exposed to
the direct assault of bandits or to the insidious combinations of the
other Powers, but it is so also as having preserved in its constitu
tion the same laws and practices that prevailed in Pagan Rome.
The effects of this original constitution are still evidenced in this,
that it has alone abstained from forming designs against its neigh
bours, or combining to subvert their independence by interfering
in their affairs. The Sultan and Divan of Turkey can, no more
than could the Consuls and Senate of Rome, decree or levy war.
The Ulema in the one country, as the Fecials in the other, have
first to render their sentence (Fetva). Were a Sultan without
such warrant to declare war, he would find no one to obey him.
*
The common Mussulman soldier would make no distinction be
tween the individual murder of a fellow-citizen and the aggregate
murder of a foreign regiment. Without the Fetva of the Sheik
ul Islam, he would hold himself no more bound to obey his officer
in firing on such regiment, than an English soldier would do, in
firing on a mob without the reading of the Riot Act.
It will be, of course, supposed by Europeans, judging by their
own habits, that Turkey is not herself aggressive or intriguing, like
the other Governments, solely because she is the object of attack on
the part of others; but it is not so. Had it not been from her own
maxims and character, she would have been the most dangerous
Power in Europe, if, possessed, as she is, of the positions the
most important, she had yielded to the combined inducements
of unjust profits to make, and legitimate animosities to gratify.
Take as instance the year 1812, when, after suffering from the
several violences of England and France, an offensive alliance
was proposed to her by Russia, under which their naval and
land forces were to be combined, their joint fleets to issue into
the Mediterranean, and their armies to invade Lombardy. The
dream of Mahmoud H. was paraded before her eyes, and not
Italy only, but the Southern Provinces of France, offered
* In the only case of such usurpation presented by the annals of Turkey, the
Sultan (Mahmoud IV.) was put to death. He had recommenced war with Austria
before the expiration of a truce. Even under the new order commenced in this gene
ration, the most eloquent and popular preacher at Constantinople denounced the
surrender of Belgrade as an act of infidelity, as well as usurpation, no fetva having
been obtained for it.
�34
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
to her ambition. The good sense of certain men might, in
deed, have sufficed to overrule the suggestions of the tempter;
but even if there had been found in the Divan a Kaunitz, a
Beust, or a Bismarck, still the craft and corruption of such
men must have failed in face of institutions which required
the plans of a Minister, before execution, to be submitted to a
public Divan and approved of by a legal Fetva. The Grand
Vizier at the Treaty of Belgrade said to the Ministers of Austria
and France, “You do not understand our Government. One or
“ two men cannot decide at Constantinople, as they do at Paris
“ and Vienna.”
This rule of the Boman State was that of all human society in
the origin (the Romans only copied those who were before them,
and specially the Etruscans). It is also that which we still hold
to in common practice. The “ Government,” and even the
“ Crown,” comes into the British courts exactly as a private indi
vidual, when it has a civil case to urge. So also it is itself brought
into court by private individuals when they are plaintiffs, and
the judge deals with it simply as a party in a suit, examining
its acts, and pronouncing sentence for it or against it, according
to the merits of the case and the law which determines it. So,in like manner, in regard to external operations of the nature,
now improperly termed, of war, when they affect the subjects,
not of Great Britain only, but of foreign States, and are of a
nature to be brought into court.
In the first Chinese war a case arose between shippers and
insurers in consequence of losses incurred through the operations
then being carried on. It came for trial, on the plea that the
loss was incurred through the effects of war. The judges unani
mously decided that there was no war.
Lord Mansfield, in trying a case in which Danish subjects
had been injured by acts of the British Government, when the
orders of that Government were quoted, said (case of the Diana},
“ The word ‘ Government ’ is not one that can be used in this
“ place, being nonsensical (without meaning). If the orders were
“ lawful, the law gave them their value; if unlawful, they could
“ not be rendered lawful, by the source from which they
“ emanated.”
In like manner, had a charge of murder of a Chinaman been
brought before the Central Criminal Court against any soldier,
private or officer, or sailor employed in China, that court must
have passed sentence of death on such soldier or officer. The law
is still there, only there are no men to enforce it.
It is true that in modern Turkey, these restraints on human
passions, these safeguards of the innocence and life of com
munities, preserved there from ancient times for our instruc
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
35
tion, are fading away before the pressure of European diplo
macy and the contamination of European ideas; but, never
theless, such ideas are not there, as in Europe, strange ; are
not incomprehensible nor offensive. The Government, after
all, is itself still composed of Mussulmans; it may and does ap
preciate the injury resulting from its own unwilling usurpations ;
it does feel the danger resulting from the pressure upon it of the
lawlessness of European Governments. It is therefore unques
tionable that the Sublime Porte would hail with joy the .proposi
tion of the Pope, would aid it to the best of its ability (and that
ability, in such a case, would not be small), and might thereby be
led to a wholesome return to the past, and a respectful considera
tion of the profound and beneficent maxims, lying neglected and
obscured in the foundations of its own institutions.
*
In the time of Christ Christians lived under the dispositions
of Moses. The “Church,” then in its most perfect form,
obeyed rules for the conduct of men in all essential matters of
life, viz. low taxation, cleanliness, charity, and politeness. Islam,
in common with all primitive religions, followed the same rule,
and prescribed how wars can be lawfully made; what taxes can
be lawfully levied; how and when the body is to be washed;
what proportion of a man’s income shall be given in alms; and
how a man is to salute his fellow-creatures. By rules on these
points society can alone be considered as duly constituted, or
capable of durability. The absence of these may make up, in
deed, a condition of “ civilisation,” but, clearly, a community
destitute of such restraints is not one that can be either reli
gious, virtuous, cleanly, charitable, happy, or durable.
These restraints being imposed by Religion, Religion became
sanctified to man by its benefits; and, consequently, that dis
belief which we now see spreading over Europe was unknown.
In the origin Religion was everything to man. It was Govern
ment as well as Faith. Secular Government arose from its
decay. Finally, Government having at last come “ to consist
“ of those practices which it was instituted to put down,”f re
pudiate Religion, as a guide for its acts, while it makes use
of its authority to sanction its crimes. Thus it is that Re
volution and Atheism prevail and spread. They have not yet
however made way among those nations that still hold to Law
as a part of Religion, and who have not drawn the distinction
now established in Christendom between the Law as applied to
the acts of the individual and to those of the community.
To judge of the view which the European Governments will
Not in the Mahomedan only, but in all the Asiatic systems. Law has always
been held a part of religion.”-—Thomson's Akklak-i-Nasiri^ p. 121.
f Lord Lyttleton.
c 2
�36
THE CECUMENIC COUNCIL.
take of the matter, we must consider what the consequences
will be to them of his success—consequences which they will
perceive at a glance.
The Pope will be successful when nations commence to
question acts in reference to their lawfulness. This will present
a new obstacle to despotic power. It will endanger that “ pre
rogative of peace and war” which has been usurped by Execu
tives from both Sovereigns and Representative bodies, or, as in
France, by the Sovereign from the Representative body.
*
Executives, no longer able to plunge their country in foreign
wars, will have to surrender ambitious schemes of conquest
and annexation.
Executives no longer able to kill men at pleasure on the
battle-field, words of menace will no longer be capable of
disturbing the world, whether spoken on a New Year’s Day
presentation, or written in despatches, or secret instructions, or
“ private” letters. Diplomacy will disappear. Danger and
alarm ceasing, military establishments will be reduced.
For the same reason taxes will be cut down.
Permanent embassies will be looked on with suspicion and
alarm.
On all points the tendency will be the reverse of that at pre
sent pursued ; it will be to escape from despotic executives, extra
national combinations, ruinous military establishments, and an
unbearable accumulation of taxes—all which constitute the
power of office and its attractions.
. But the appreciation of these effects will not be confined to
diplomatic, men, but extend also to the active and managing
spirits among the class of infidels and revolutionists. They, in
like manner, will perceive that it is a blow struck at their im
portance, and at their occupation. The food and fuel of infi
delity and revolution are public crime and national suffering—in
other words, . Wars and Taxes. Governments and clubs, the
ambitious Minister, the aspiring demagogue, the spirit of rest
lessness, on whatever side it breaks out, the powerful interests
of the press, which lives by news—that is, crimes and agitations
—are all smitten by this proposal of the Pope.
Indistinct and problematical as the benefits may appear to the
vast mass of well-disposed and indifferent men who are to reap
the profit, to the moving, acting, and ruling—though in numbers most insignificant—portion of the community, the loss is
very distinct and very positive. They clearly understand that
to attempt to restore the supremacy of the Law is to attempt to
supersede their calling.
* The Revolution of 1848 had withdrawn this power from the President (except,
in case of defence); it was regained by the Coup d’Etat.
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
37
The consequence of this judicial blindness has been, in an
other sense, fatal to the peace and well-being of communities,
and to the judgment and integrity of the individuals comprising
them. This consists in the putting away the idea of punishment
in regard to persons filling ministerial offices. The arm of the
soldier is placed at the mercy of the political adviser. He is
expected to slay when ordered to do so by the Minister, and the
law is not to reach him when, acting on the oath to obey “ lawful
orders,” he obeys unlawful ones. Then it was to be expected
that the acts of the political agent should be looked into with
peculiar severity, so as to bring the full responsibility of the
measures themselves on those who had acquired the facility of
causing their subordinates to overleap the law. But this is not
the case. The reverse has happened. First, these advisers are
suffered to give such orders without prior sanction or even know
ledge of so much as their intention on the part (in England) of
the body constituted to advise the Crown in its exercise of the
prerogative of Peace and War.
In the second place, they are not held responsible for their
acts after the event, however blamable or however disastrous; so
that at once every check has been removed from human frailty,
purpose or passion, whilst every possible encouragement is
heaped upon those persons to yield to such tendencies, in the
vastness of the uncontrolled power placed in their hands, in the
enormous sums of money afforded by modern taxation, and its
concession into military materials and troops.
It is not merely that the idea has vanished of punishing
Ministers for any act, but that the neglecting to clo so has
become a maxim, and a maxim which the present generation
pronounces with much self-satisfaction, as honourably distin
guishing them from, and placing them above all former times
and people. That maxim is, “ The days of Impeachment are
gone by.” To say that there should be a class of men who shall
not be punished when they do amiss—they not acting for or by
themselves, but by the power confided to them—is what could
not enter into the imagination of men, where such had not
become the practice: so is it impossible to cause the contrary
idea to enter into the imagination of men, where such has be
come the practice.
Nor is it that this class is held to be by nature free from
human imperfection. They are by no means considered sinless
and wise: while their acts are taken for law, their word is not
taken for truth. They are periodically expelled from office because
they are condemned or despised; and any one of them who
should put his own hand in the pocket of another, or knock off
his hat, would be taken up by the police. Nevertheless, un
�38
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
questioned and unopposed, one of them can send hundreds of
thousands of his fellow-creatures to death, and cause myriads
of arms to be plunged in the pockets of hundreds of millions
of men, subjects of the Crown he serves, or aliens.
*
There have, during the last thirty years, been found some
individuals throughout Europe who have perceived, if but for a
moment, that unlawful battle was assassination, but no one
whatever has perceived that the present normal bloodshed and
convulsions are results of the maxim—that Ministers shall never
be exposed to punishment. But if the real nature of this practice
were understood, and human indignation were thereby evoked,
and directed itself to suppressing it, then would men naturally
turn upon those who, quietly and unendangered, in their closets,
ordered such crimes ; and the cry would be, “ The days of im“ peachment are not gone by.” All this the men of this class
feel and know, and instinctively connect with the general pro
position of applying the law to the conduct of States. Those
who propose to move in this matter have anxiously to ponder
and clearly to comprehend, what is the depth and intensity of
the opposition they will meet, and the vastness and variety of
the disturbing and corrupting influences that will be brought
to bear against them, in order to stop or frustrate their pro
ceedings.
No such dangers would assail, or pitfalls surround, the
attempt, were it made by any other Church save that of
Rome, as on the other hand, no corresponding benefits would
accrue. Had it been the Church of England which proposed
to restore the law, that restoration would only be, quoad
its own members. The purpose settled in its own mind,
it would only have to deal with its own Government. If so
minded, there could be no struggle and no difficulty; the
English Government could not make lawless wars in face of a
hostile Bench of Bishops, to say nothing of lay Peers, of
Members of the House of Commons, and the whole Anglican
community, resolved that wars should not be unlawfully and un
justly made. Neither France, nor Austria, nor Prussia, nor
Italy, nor any, nor all Foreign Powers, could in the slightest
degree, or for a moment, disturb or influence the decision of
such Church, nor would they, save indirectly, be affected
thereby.
The Anglican Church, like the Fecial College of Pagan
Rome, would have in view one side only: namely, its own
government. In a proposed war with Austria, it would be com* Since these operations commenced, dating them from the introduction of Lord
Palmerston into the Foreign Office and the sacrifice of Poland, the charges of Europe
for military purposes have increased threefold.
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
39
promised only in regard to the English Crown ; it is free, if our
side is just. Not so the Church of Rome. It would have to
bear on its conscience crime equally on both sides. It is not
free, if one side is just. Both must be in the right for it to be
blameless; and this is impossible. There is no possible escape
for it save by adjudication. 1st. It has to judge in reference
to the war; 2ndly. It has to excommunicate the side that is
in the wrong. No Community, great or small, can be called
just that does not exclude from its breast dishonourable men—
that is, excommunicate them. To fear to use the weapon of
excommunication is, above all things, to mistake the age in
which we live; which, more than any that has preceded it,
affords a field, and has in readiness a crown, for capable
daring.
Excommunication is a power which every individual possesses,
by which and which alone he retains, or can retain, his integrity.
We know a gentleman by this, that he will not know a dis
honourable person. This power is the safeguard of public as of
private morals. The real restraint over Ministers is this, that
public crime being also private guilt, honourable men will not
associate with them.
With Rome it is widely different. That Church is co-existent
with no State. Its decision has no reference to its own particular
State—not making itself unjust wars, or any wars; having never
used its power for the extension of its limits, when even that
power was the greatest in Europe; and not having engaged in
any of those diplomatic operations which are to-day directed
against the independence, not of the small States only, but of
the greatest also.
Its action, therefore, is without, and not within ; and with
out, it reaches them all and all equally. This action would in
effect be greatest on the States not publicly united to its faith ;
for the aggressive States which endanger the world are, with
one exception, not Catholic; and that one, Catholic in name,
is in essentials the reverse of Catholic, whether we term it
Gallican in its religion, or heathen in its Government. It is
therefore more logical to say that none of the dangerous Powers
are Catholic. These are four: England, Russia, Prussia, and
France. Of these, the three which are nominally not Catholic,
are those on which the action of the Court of Rome, under
our hypothesis, would be the greatest. The case can be only
stated here, not elaborated. Enough, perhaps, has been said
to show that the body of Catholics in England, or rather a
minute fraction of them, would suffice to stop nefarious and
injurious proceeding in the Government. Take from Russia
the active co-operation of England, and not only hei’ power
�40
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
expires, but the process commences of restoring the power of
England herself. But, in like manner, Rome has spiritual sub
jects in Russia and in Prussia. The method of proceeding is
one for all. Rome has also a few subjects left in France.
All the political influence of these Governments will be
brought to bear on Rome, directly on the Pope and his Go
vernment, indirectly through the Prelates and Ecclesiastics
connected with each State; and here Austria, too, comes in,
and will prove of all the most dangerous. Finally, the
common talk of diplomatic and political circles will be directed
to the crushing out of whatever idea may arise that is just,
wise, and beneficial. The Church of Rome knowing what it
is about, the fallacies of argument and the shafts of ridicule
would fall harmless. But the bare threat of such an intention
will cause measures to be hastened for crushing the Roman
State. During the interval it will be agitated with troubles
and tortured with alarms. In the Council the Pope has
raised up a stone; a great, a desperate, and a saving effort is
required to prevent it from falling back, and to cause it to fall
on and crush the reproved of mankind.
“ When religion is banished from civil society, and Divine
“ Revelation rejected, the true notion even of justice be“ comes obscured and is lost, material force takes the place of
“ justice and right, and certain men dare to proclaim that the
“ will of the people, manifested by what they call public
“ opinion, constitutes the supreme law, independent of all right,
“ human or divine; and that, in politics, acts consummated, and
by the fact that they have become consummated, have the
“ force of right. (Facta consummata, eo ipso, quod consumu mata sunt, vim juris habere.)”
Such is, perhaps, the leading idea of the Allocution of 1864.
This is the flag wrhich is raised. It has to be observed to
those who would object, because not adhering to the Church
of Rome, or because adhering to no church whatever, that
this proposition is not a religious dogma, but an assertion
which every man can examine, and of which he must recog
nise the truth. For no one can deny that what they call
“ Public Opinion” exists only in substituting something else in
the place of right, and that the people of Europe do accept
whatever is done on no other grounds than that it has been done.
It is, therefore, for all who see that this is so, and that it is
wrong, and must bring evil consequences, to apply themselves
to find the means of effecting a change.
It has further to be remarked that for them (the non-Catholics
and unbelievers) this is simply the assertion of a man. It is a
man, like each of us, who calls on his fellow-men to warn them,
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
41
and who, moreover, invokes their aid to stop nefarious proceed
ings, distracting and endangering, not one only, but all the
nations, first of Christendom, and then, by their example and
their acts, of the entire world.
The Pope speaks, in the first instance, to his own flock;
they differ in no respect in conduct and idea from those who
are not Catholics. That they do possess a religion no ways
changes their position from that of those who have none.
They neither protest against public crimes, nor denounce
“Public Opinion,” nor refuse to accept “consummated acts.”
In fact, the separation of religion and politics has had for
effect that there is no difference in practice and perception
between the believer and the infidel; and that condition of
slavish submission, arrived at by the latter through the throwing
off of all religious conviction or restraint, has been arrived at
equally by the former, notwithstanding his observance of the
ceremonial, and his profession of the symbol, of a belief.
What is here proposed is no more than what it is the duty of
each individual to do for himself; for it consists of the means to
be taken, so that in thought, word, and act he may not err.
Whilst each nation lived by and in itself, when the incidents of
conflict occurred at the interval of generations only, no such
duty was imposed on ordinary men. Not so when all these con
ditions are reversed, and when there is an incessant forming and
expressing of opinions. These opinions must be false, unless
they are true; and there is no possibility of their being true
save by taking the necessary steps to discard error, and that is
by ascertaining the law by which on each occasion we have to
be guided, and the history of the events to which it applies.
To commence this study a man must be possessed of the con
viction that it is his duty to be right, and consequently of the
knowledge that the idea prevalent among bis compatriots that
it is impossible to be right, and that it is human to err, is the
mere result of their not having taken the trouble to understand
the matters of which they speak. In this respect the doctrine
of infallibility of the Catholic Church comes greatly in aid.
To it, at least, we can boldly say, “ You recognise the duty of
“ being right, since you profess yourselves to be incapable of
“ error.”
There is, however, an objection which has been raised, viz.
that this is “extraneous work” and must interfere with the
regular work to come before the Council. The answer is, There
is no work before the Council.
The minds of men are, indeed, filled with vague and tumul
tuous notions as to a vast number of things that ought to be
done, and which they fancy the Council will in some way be
�42
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
able to reach. All these vanish on close inspection. It is first
of all expected that some dogmatic sanction will be obtained
for the “ Temporal Power.” When you ask how and in what
terms such an article is to be framed, you will get no answer;
and when you go on to say, “ The Temporal Power is simply a
ci state of possession, which can be disturbed only by an act of
“ violence; security against such is only to be found in the Ten
“ Commandmentsyou will have put the case in a form to
convince any one, not only that an article of faith cannot be
framed so as to meet the case, but also that it is superfluous, and
that the desired end can be reached only by a return to the Law
itself. The various’propositions may be classed under the fol
lowing heads:—
1. Temporal Power;
2. Secular Intervention in nomination of Bishops ;
3. Religious Education;
4. The Eastern Catholics ;
5. Relation of the Church to Governments (“ entre l’Eglise
et la Politique”).
As to the interference of Kings in the nomination of Bishops,
all that can be done by a Council has been done already by the
1st Article of the Council of Trent.
As to Education, it is a matter which regards the internal
legislation of each country. That legislation, as it exists, does
not, at least, prevent the priest from teaching the child what sin
is, and what the particular sin from which wTe suffer; which the
priest does not teach the child at present, because he himself
does not know, and which to teach is to stop.
In regard to the settlement looked to in the East (meaning
Turkey), there is nothing to do. The Porte leaves the Catholic
body perfect freedom on all the points on which Rome has been
at variance with the- Christian Governments of Europe. It does
not persecute, it does not constrain conversion, it does not con
fiscate property, it does not interfere in education, in the election
of Bishops, in the appropriation of testamentary bequests, or in
the public ceremonies. As to the discipline of that Church,
the Pope himself, and proprio mota, has made a change the
most momentous—that of assuming the direct nomination of the
Bishops. He has done so without consulting either the com
munities of the East, or the Consistory, or the Academia Sacra
at Rome. If he has determined the major point by reversing
immemorial practice, he can determine the minor ones, if so
minded, without the aid or intervention of a Council.
On the 5th and last point, “ the relation of the Church to
Politics,” it is difficult to imagine what it can mean.. This is
certain, that when the question is put nothing definite can be
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
43
extracted. The conclusion therefore is, that there exists at pre
sent no work foi’ the Council to undertake in the view of
realising its avowed purpose of “ preventing human society from
crumbling to dust.”
At the time of the announcement, the phrase was current at
Rome : “The Pope looks to the Council; the Cardinals to the
^Temporal Power,” meaning that the Pope had objects in
view which were not those of the Cardinals. Doubtless those
views are to be found in germ in the Allocution and the Syllabus.
But these are not all. There must lie at the bottom apprehen
sion of a new danger impending over the Church.”
Those who have considered the dangers that threaten Europe
from the disturbance of hereditary succession and from the matri
monial alliances of royal and princely houses, especially since the
new dynastic arrangements in Denmark and Greece, have had
one ground of consolation—namely, that the Pope was neither
an. hereditary monarch, nor capable of contracting matrimonial
alliances.
If the election of a Pope depended exclusively on a Conclave
of Cardinals, there might be grounds for such confidence. But
it is far from being so determined. Conflicting influences
operating from without prevail, and it is possible to suppose a
case when these influences, hitherto balancing each other, might
be combined. In such case, that elective source of the Papal
sovereignty, instead of affording any guarantee, would, on the
contrary, present the greatest of perils.
When a Frencli Sovereign conferred temporal possession on
the Bishop of Rome, it was in reason that precautions should
have, been taken to prevent the election from falling on a person
inimical to France, or in alliance or confederacy with those other
Governments with which France was in conflict, and for whose
rivalry and competition, Italy and the Papacy afforded the chief
field. In succession of time and events, other Governments
extorted and secured a similar guarantee. This consisted in the
right to.veto the election of one candidate. Three nations have
up to this time acquired this veto. These are France, Austria,
and Spain.
The first of these countries is in the hands of the man who
sent French troops to the Crimea. The second is in the hands
of a Minister who owes his position to Russia, and who has
declared himself openly against the Pope. Of the third, it
may at least be said that there is in it no capacity to take a line
of its own, and. that a Russian Ambassador has ruled as abso
lutely in Madrid as formerly at Warsaw.
To veto three candidates is to decide the election. Three
candidates amount to the number of eligible persons. By com
�44
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
bining the vetoes, the negative faculty of three, as hitherto pos
sessed, is converted into the active faculty of one. To the holder
or suspected holder of this influence, all candidates and all
electors would look.
That the Pope sees this danger is unquestionable. It does
not follow that he connects it with Russia; at all events, he
must connect it with the Ruler of France. Louis Napoleon
has sought consecration at the hands of the Pope. The Pope
has refused it. Threats and offers (money included) have been
unavailing to move him from his purpose. The Pope must,
therefore, foresee that every means will be used to obtain a more
pliant successor.
If a Council convened on the occasion can interpose so as to
bar the foreign vetoes, then some light may be thrown on the
motives to which the Pope has yielded, and some explanation
afforded, for a difference in this respect between himself and
the Consistory. It would also explain how there should be
mystery in the matter. At all events, it is clear that the fate
of the Catholic Church may turn on the election of the next
Pope, and that with that election this Council is immediately
connected. It more immediately explains the vagueness of the
terms of the instruction to the Sub-Commission as to deter
mining the relations of the Church to Politics.
Nor is this all that would be explained. The vehemence with
which Russia has denounced the Council, the monstrosity of the
pretensions she has put forward in respect to it, could hardly be
accounted for by any dread as to the effect it would have in
withdrawing Europe from her control, and the more so as the
language so used has given to the act of the Pope an importance
in the eyes of Catholics which it by no means had before. But
if she sees in it the indication of a design to frustrate the action
of foreign diplomacy in reference to the next election, the
vehemence of her words and their apparent indiscretion will
be alike explained.
But the power of applying these vetoes to candidates likely to
maintain the independence of the Roman See, is only a subsidiary
one. Doubtless the candidate has been long ago fixed upon.
The election will be made to turn in the Consistory, not
on French or Austrian influence, not on Cis or Transalpine
doctrines, not on liberal or anti-liberal tendencies, but on the
maintenance of the “ Temporal Power.” Louis Napoleon
is placed on the Temporal line; the Consistory is on the Tem
poral line. His candidate will be their candidate. That can
didate will be the Russian candidate. It matters not that Russia
has not now, and may not have even then, a representative at
Rome. It may be advantageous not to have one there, so as to
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
45
awaken no attention. It may be, that for this very reason the
rupture of intercourse was managed. Besides she has already
declared herself (1848) for “ the restoration of both the Spiritual
“ and the Temporal authority of the Pope.”
If there be a member of the Consistory who desires to know,
or rather who does not shrink from knowing, the truth, let him
render to himself an account of the operations of Louis Napo
leon since his accession, both externally and internally. Let
him inquire into the circumstances and agency which placed
him on the Imperial Throne. Is it France that has benefited
by his enterprises abroad ? Is it any Government which can
profit by what he is doing within ?
The “Temporal power of the Pope” is a word that has been
got up, just as the “ Integrity of the Danish Monarchy” and the
“Pacification of the Levant.” It will be used for a similar
purpose. This is the particular danger that threatens the world
at this moment, and that in conjunction with all the others;
for all are interwoven. There is no escape but in unravelling
the threads of the web of fallacy out of which it has sprung, and
in clearing away the false conclusions and the passions resulting
from the long series of measures by which Italy has been worked
up to her present state—measures which commenced in 1795, in
which the hand of Russia can be traced from the beginning,
and in which France, England, Austria, “ Italy,” and “ Revolu“ tion” have all been made successively, severally, and conjointly
to play their blind, servile, and suicidal parts.
Russia’s operations are secular. Her antagonists, who are but
dupes, revolve in the narrow limits of months and days. She
acts; they speculate. The horizon of their universe is made up
of the emotions of their own minds, for which she has furnished
the pasture out of the anterior acts which she has made them per
form ; and which acts they themselves, nevertheless, have for
gotten, never having known what it is they have done, because
haying no law in themselves, their eyes are without sight.
It is the “ Commandments of the Lord ” which “ enlighten the
the eyes.” Escape from this present terrible and hopeless danger
can only be by restoring the Law of God and man. Thus only
can the Consistory or the World be made to understand that to
speak of “ the Temporal power of the Pope” is to utter words
base and shameful, and is to weave a snare for their own feet.
.Why are the words “ Temporal power” substituted for Sove
reignty in the case of the Pope alone ? No one speaks of the
Temporal power of the Emperor of the French or of the Queen
of Spain. Yet there is no difference in regard to these Poten
tates as to the nature and quality of the supreme functions which
they exercise as rulers. It is true that the Pope superadds to
�46
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
the prerogative of Justices of Peace ancl War another quality
or Prerogative which is spiritual. But so does the Emperor of
Russia and the Sultan of Turkey, and yet no one speaks
of the “Temporal Power” of either. So does the King of
Prussia and the Queen of England, who dispose of the “ Tem
poralities” of their respective churches.
If, then, the “ Sovereignty” of the Pope has received a special
designation which is not applied to other sovereignties, it is that
there lurks beneath an insidious intention. That intention is to
deprive him of that Sovereignty by making men believe it to be
something different from other Sovereignties. Thus a discussion
can be raised respecting it on grounds which exclude all received
notions of right. It will so come about that men who would
not admit for a moment a proposition to take the crown off the
head of the Queen of England or of Spain, and to give it to
Victor Emmanuel because it- is a “ Temporal Power,” would
accept, and urge on that ground, the same proposition as regards
the Pope.
They will then go a step further, and say, “ We propose to
“ give—we who have no business therewith—the lands, cities,
“ and fortresses belonging to the Pope to the descendants of the
“ Dukes of Savoy (for that is the end in view), in order that
“ we may confer a great benefit on the Roman Catholic Church.
“We wish to improve and purify it. We wish to wash it clean
“ from all secular taints we desire to see it entirely spiritual, and
“ in all this we are actuated by the spirit of justice and the love
“ of Religion.”
Thus will this class of simple and perhaps devout persons find
themselves engaged in a common cause with those who seek to
“ abrogate all laws,” to revolutionise every Government, and to
upset every belief—men who not only work for “ disorder,” but
who avow to themselves that they do so.
To these, others join themselves with another motive—that of
Proselytism. They will see in this operation the breaking
down of the Catholic Church, and in the hopes of gaining con
verts to Protestantism, will join in the same clamour for the
“ unity of Italy.” Thus it is that the whole of England has not
only in effect aided and wildly applauded the atrocious proceed
ings of which Italy has been the theatre, but bowed itself down
before the man who has been the instrument employed for that
end, although as a man he combines every disqualification capable
of excluding him from intercourse with respectable persons.
This combination established, those on the other side will
“ accept the language of their enemies.”* Instead of unravelWords of the Bishop of Orleans at Malines
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
47
ling the fallacy of their terms, instead of exposing the immo
rality of their proceeding, instead of unmasking the perfidy of
their design, and the fatal consequences it must bring, they will
simply accept the term—which is accepting all—-and their rally
ing point will be to maintain the “ Temporal Power.” Thus it is
that a candidate coming forward as in favour of the “ Temporal
power” may be accepted by a future Consistory on that word
alone, and yet be the very agent selected for the undoing of
that very knot which links together this great and wonderful
system, which, unless it did possess a sovereignty in the sense of
territorial possession, could only be the dependency of some one
the Governments of Europe.
. It is in this sense that the case has been judged up to these
times by the Protestant Governments. They have always held
that the independence of the Pope was a vital point for them on
this ground : that the loss of his independence—which they saw
equally in external influence exerted at elections or in revolu
tionary movements affecting his authority—would be to the
benefit of some Catholic power and against themselves. It was
thus that England exerted herself, and at great expense, to secure
a free Consistory at Venice in 1799—Venice, which has now va
nished from the list of free states, and of which act she reaped so
signally the benefit a few years later, in being, by the aid of the
Pope, enabled to meet the effects of the Berlin and Milan De
crees. It was thus that she provided, at the settlement of 1814-5,
for the full restoration of the State and Possessions of the
Roman See.
Again, when the convulsions of Italy were beginning, and
the Revolutionists, expecting to be favourably looked on "by the
Protestant Governments, applied to the Representative of Prus
sia, they were told (by Mr. Bunsen) that they were “ greatly mis
taken if they thought that the Protestant Powers would favour
“ them because of religious differences with the Catholics.” The
above-stated reason .was then put in precise terms; the Prussian
Secretary of Legation explained why his Government could not
abet proceedings which, whatever the views and intentions of
those immediately engaged, could have no other result save that
of reducing the Pope to a condition of subserviency to some one
of the Catholic Governments, which then would turn his spiritual
supremacy over his flock, to its own advantage, against other
Powers.
The Pope has never sanctioned, or admitted, or employed,
the terms “Temporal power” as applied to his possessions. In
speaking of his sovereignty over the States of the Church, it is
always designated by him as the Civile Imperium, or the Principatus Civilis. (Syllabus, § ix. Errores de civile Romani Pontificis
4
�48
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
principati, Prop, lxxvi. et seq.) The word 44 Temporal Power,”
in Papal documents, refers to temporal judgments, and to the
effects attaching to excommunication. (Syllabus, § v. De Ecclesia ejusque Juribus Prop. xxiv. xxv. et al.) In fact it applies
to other Governments.
Those who desire to understand have got within their reach
the case of Denmark. There they may study Russia’s mode of
procedure in such matters. There 44 the Powers” combined to
impose a candidate. The internal laws were upset to let him
in. He was Russia’s nominee, yet she held aloof. She is now
mistress of Denmark, with all the advantages of not appearing to
be so. On that occasion the deceptive amphibology prepared for
men’s lips was “ The Integrity of Denmark.”
Who dreamt that there was anything in contemplation
against the Crown of Denmark, even on that morning (11th
May, 1852) when the Treaty was announced in the Times news
paper, although that profound and extensive conspiracy had
been in existence for eighty-five years ? Who has now compre
hended it, with the results before them1? If it be unquestionable
that those who do not anticipate events cannot counteract them,
so is it equally true that those who do not foresee them before
they happen, cannot understand them when they have taken
place. This is no reason for despair ; it is, on the contrary, an
inducement to strive, and in the first instance to study.
No doubt the Pope in the words he has spoken and in the
measures he proposes, offends the Catholic body This is his mis
*
fortune, not his fault. It is also his duty. He has the greatest of ex
amples to guide him, an example which is also a command. That
example is that of Christ. Our Saviour to the then 44 Church”
preached repentance. In the New Testament the words 44 con
vert” and 44 repentance ” are synonymous, so also 44 salvation.”
44 Saving the people from their sins,” is the expression used to
designate the object of the preaching of St. John, yet the sins
of that 44 Church” of Judea did not go to the extent of daily and
wholesale assassinations. St. Paul says of the 44 Christian”
after the crucifixion and ascension and the coming of the Holy
Ghost, 44 He that does not provide for his own household has
* The following words from the Monde show the schism introduced by the Syl
labus, “ Les divisions viennent de ceux qui refusent de comprendre les paroles de
Pie IX. dans le Syllabus : il y a injustice à mettre sur la même ligne avec eux les
Catholiques qui ne se sont pas départis des principes posés dans les Encycliques. Si
la voix du pasteur est écoutée, le camp des Catholiques se fortifiera, et leur action
peut devenir prépondérante. C’est à l’i/mon de VOuest et à la Gazette de France à en
prendre leur parti. Elles se bercent d’illusions si elles s’imaginent guider les Catho
liques, en restant dans leurs doctrines équivoques.
“ Elles croient servir la liberté; mais jusqu’ici elles n’ont servi que la liberté de
leurs adversaires. Ce métier de dupes ne vous va pas, quoique nous ne nous dissi
mulions pas que les Catholiques ne sont pas encore en mesure de faire prévaloir leur
volonté. L’inanité des doctrines modernes ramènera, après une longue expérience, et
s’il plaît à Dieu, les populations à uneyrnZ/i/yae chrétienne.-’
�DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
49
“ denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Yet he
spoke of neglect only, and neglect in reference to things which
had they been done would only have proved useful. With what
feelings would the apostles to-day behold, and in what terms
denounce, that community calling itself Christian 1 A true
successor of those apostles will feel and speak in like manner.
Pius IX. combines qualifications at once so dissimilar and so
eminent, that he appears to have been Providentially raised for
the need of the World, being at once an Ecclesiastic who has
applied his mind to analytical inquiries, and a Sovereign who is
so not in name only, as the other Sovereigns of Europe, but in
power also.
But there is in him not only capacity and qualifications. He has
put his hand to the work ; and that work is rendered by his own
words better than by any Commentary. He has said, “The
“ World is lost in darkness; I have published the Syllabus to be
to it a light, and to lead it back to the road of Truth.” And
again :—“ When the Pope speaks in a solemn act, it is that his
“ words shall be taken in their literal sense ; and that which he
“ has said, he has intended to say.”
Were the Catholic World of the same mind as the Pope, the
work would be done, or rather, it would not require to be clone.
But unfortunately it is not so; his difficulties are with his
own flock, alike incapable of following the thought, and of com
prehending and admiring the courage, displayed on so many
occasions by the greatest Pontiff that has ever sat on the throne
of St. Peter.
6th.
diplomatic college.
The really important point, and on which all hinges, is the
knowledge of what is doing in the world.
The subject is so vast, that to travel over it volumes would be
required. But, fortunately, it is also so simple that it can be
taken in at a glance. It has been thus enunciated by a
Prelate :—“ It must be laid down as the very first point that the
“ Church is ignorant, and that that ignorance must cease.”
There is an immediate and a practical point pressing for
instant solution, and bearing specially on the Church of Rome,
as a Church.
Russia, assuming to be the Eastern Church, aims at the de
struction of the Western Church. It is now at last known
that she has employed revolution as her instrument. It is
D
�50
DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
now by her openly acknowledged that to this end of subverting
the spiritual authority of the Pope, she has thrown Italy into
the hands of the King of Sardinia.
* This (as all the other
troubles and convulsions of Europe and the world) has not been
brought about by the power of Russia acting on circumstances,
but by hei capacity acting on opinion. That capacity consists
in her drawing from without able men wherever they were to be
found, and causing her own men to pass through an elaborate
mid laborious, discipline, such as the nations of Europe them
selves do employ to obtain legists, surgeons, or engineers. If,
then, the Papal Government would defend itself against the
Russian, or even know whether defence be possible and easy, or
difficult and impossible, it must employ the process which Russia
employs, that is, educate men.
Twenty-four years ago this plan was under contemplation by
Gregory XVI., but time was not granted him for its execu
tion. Yet then the belief of universal peace prevailed. They
thought “ that there were to be no more wars.” j- Confidence
in general wisdom prevailed. The year 1848 was still at a
distance.
Nothing is done in the world, but because at some previous
moment day, month, or year—two or three Russian diploma
tists have sate down to devise it, and also because there have
been none to sit down to consider how it could be prevented.
Some private individuals, engaged on the other side, have
prevented much that was in progress. They have prevented
great wars. These things may come out hereafter, in posthumous
memoirs; but they may also be known now to any who will
study. They have delayed, at least, the march of events, so
far as to afford time for the Church of Rome, at last to act.
The Council may take years; and what years are before us !
It suffices for one man of authority in the Roman State to be
informed, for prevention and counteraction to commence. This
is easy beyond expression, for whoever knows what is doing, and
at the same time has access to the saloons of Ministers. It is out
of false measures in each State that Russia works her way.
These come either from delusions that are spread, perfidious
counsels that are offered, falsified news that is presented, or
traitors that are employed. A Papal Nuncio duly informed, or
say a Prelate or a Priest, or a simple Layman, in a position to
be listened to, can rectify such false conclusions, or unmask
The Moscow Gazette says:—“To Russia it is necessary that Italy should be
united; but united she cannot be except at Rome, her natural capital. Is not the
fall of the Temporal Powers the triumph of orthodoxy (the Greek Church) in Rome
itself? Yes, it is in a higher capacity than that of mere spectators that we watch
this culminating point of Italian history.”
t Mr. Stewart Mill.
�DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
51
such secret agent. Russia has only the vices of men to use
to the undoing of each particular State. We have the virtues
of men for our allies, and we work for the honour and interest
of each Sovereign and each people, and for the common good
of all.
The repugnance of the Governments of Europe to the forma
tion of Diplomatic men for themselves, has to be well considered,
and perfectly understood, to perceive, how the proposed measure
would affect the world.
No public man, in England, France, Germany, or Italy, will
refuse to admit, if pressed in conversation, the following propo
sitions :—
1. That Russia is more dexterous than any other State.
2. That it is dangerous to allow her to proceed unwatched,
seeing that the affairs of all countries are mixed up together, and
— are conducted in secret.
3. That she cannot be watched, unless by persons cognisant
of her purposes and methods.
4. That it would be very desirable to have a body of men,
chosen and trained, as she chooses and trains her Diplomatists.
If, on these admissions, it be proposed to him to introduce a
measure for the carrying out of such a design, he will decline,
and start back in fear or aversion. The cause of this repugnance
is, that each would consider the mere proposal an offence and an
insult to himself individually, for it implies not only that he had
been wrong, but also that he is ignorant, and unfit for the station
he holds, has held, or aspires to hold. Also that “ public opinion”
has been wrong, and is ignorant. Dread, aversion, and disgust
must therefore be excited by the proposition, proceeding from
a Sovereign who exercises a practical and social influence over a
large number of the subjects of every other State, many of
whom sit in the representative assemblies, in the Senates of those
States, and who approach the Sovereign and share his councils.
These Governments would stand towards such a body exactly
in the position of a society of criminals, or at least of persons
not hitherto under the restraint of police or fear of the law, to
wards a newly introduced court of justice.
.The Law of Nations is not the only law violated by a public
crime, but the municipal law also. In the preceding pages this
branch has not been referred to, but it must be noticed to com
plete the subject.
The Law of Nations requires that war shall be declared only
by the sovereign authority. The municipal law defines the
conditions under which such functions shall be exercised. In
this country the Prerogative of Peace and War, as all other
Prerogatives, can be “ exercised only through the Privy Coun
�52
DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
cil.” It .is, indeed, through the evading of this law, and by the
surreptitious substitution of another body, to which also the title
of council has been given (Cabinet Council), that the disorder
has crept in, and that causeless and lawless wars have been
made.
It may therefore so happen that a war may be lawful and
just and necessary as regards the enemy, and nevertheless cri
minal as regards the subjects and the servants of the Crown.
The Pope, in his endeavour to bring back public business to
a normal state, must take this matter into consideration, and lav
down the obligation in nations possessing such institutions,
though neglected now, to restore them.
In doing so he will, as regards England, point to a far more
practical means of prevention than any other, whilst it comes as
supplementary to the rest.
Further, in urging on the nations the adoption of legal and
constitutional means of controling the executives, and thereby
putting an end to the violences which have called for his inter
vention, he will, whilst pointing, out the most feasible means of
obtaining the desired end, prevent much of the hesitation, oppo
sition, or abuse which may be provoked by his act. He will
show that it is not power that he covets, but crime that he
.abhors.
Rome has a Diplomacy and a Diplomatic College already.
Objections and fears are therefore out of place. It is true that
it is not connected with treaties and ordinary transactions, but
with concordats, and confined to the religious aspect. The
basis, however, exists, and is capable of extension. The system
dates from the period which preceded permanent embassies, and
when, therefore, the intercourse of nations took place only when
there was something to do, not when a subsisting intercourse
was converted into the means of giving them something to do.
Diplomacy derives its origin from the Byzantines. The word
.signifies “ duplicate,” and the office was equivalent to what we
now term archivist. It was a record of contracts; it was not the
having of agents reciprocally located in the various courts to
interfere day by day in all affairs.
It is by no means the object of this proposal that the Court of
Rome should involve itself in this odious and maleficent system;
but, on the contrary, that, being cognisant of it, it should frus
trate the deceptions it produces, and counteract the false maxims
.which it propagates, and by which it is suffered to exist.
*
* Prince Adam Czatoryski, formerly Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, says, in his
work, “ La Diplomatie—■“ It passes belief that nations should allow themselves to be
disposed of by a body of men having another conscience and another God, and also
hat they should look thereon, not only without abhorrence and fear, but consider it
tust and proper.” This was written in 1826 !
�CONCLUSION.
53
The “Academia Ecclesiastica ” has a branch entitled “Diplomacia Sacra,” of the nature of the Byzantine College. It is
devoted to the record and study of concordats, and the jurispru
dence thereto belonging. Through it the Nuncios pass, to pre
pare them for their functions. A natural subdivision of this
body would be a college of Secular Diplomacy, the fundamental
and primordial studies of which would necessarily consist of
Jurisprudence and the Law of Nations. This would be the
most simple and natural course, but it is not the only one.
These studies are not special. It is requisite that every man
born into the world—far more every teacher of other men—
should be possessed of them. Duties have reference to circum
stances. Before the epoch of lawless wars, such studies were
not needed, being superfluous ; but they become of the last ne
cessity to every single conscience in an age, when no one knows
what constitutes a lawful war, and when, consequently, unlawful
ones can be made without hindrance or comment.
There is the whole Priesthood to be instructed. There are the
numerous regular Oommunities, with power, devotion, libraries,
and leisure, to be employed. The resources of the Church of
Borne are overwhelming from the moment that it is perceived
that it is by the culture of the intellectual arm that the war is
to be carried on against religious infidelity, social disorganisa
tion, or the plots of those who employ these means and spread
this corruption.
Conclusion.
Danger has come near. It has been seen under its most re
volting and alarming features. The Papal Court must now see
in the destroyer of Poland, the patron of Revolution, and the
mover and the director of all the Governments, of Europe.
But that Cabinet has now itself thrown off the mask and pro
claims its identification with Italian “unity,” not as directed to
subvert (as heretofore put forward) the “temporal,” but also
the “ spiritual ” authority of the Pope. It pretends, at the same
time, to enter the CEcumenic Council; not to enter only, but to
displace from it alike the Pope and the Western Church,
offering its faith and its power for the restoration of religion,
harmony, and political rest in Christendom. Warning cannot
further go, nor provocation.
In respect to courage, that great quality is not wanting.
The Pope has already defied Russia, denounced her, and dis
missed her 1 epresentative. The time must have come for him to
�54
CONCLUSION.
think of devising means to restrain and counteract her. These
have but to be sought to be found. This great power can come
into being only on the condition of perfect knowledge and
of perfect integrity. These may appear beyond the reach, not
of this, but of every age. Still, no more is required than that
which Russia possesses in every one of her Diplomatists, and
all would be achieved with such a man as England recently
possessed in Lord Stowell. Nothing more is wanted than
what could be obtained from a British Court of Justice to-day,
were a case framed so as to be brought before it.
The affairs of States which appear under the present condition
of secret mismanagement and malversation on the part of rulers,
and of confusion as produced by parliamentary discussion and
ephemeral comments in the Press, are in themselves of the
utmost simplicity, and present neither difficulty nor ambiguity
when approached with the knowledge of the law and with
sincerity.
Unless a stop be put to our present course, Christendom, after
passing through long agonies of internecine strife, must pass
under the Muscovite sceptre, and thus reap a just and merited
retribution.
Such are the convictions which inspire with fervour and in
dustry those who do see; and in all times of peril, the fate of
armies, or of nations, or of ages will and must depend on single
men : nor is their station and capacity much to be taken into
account; it suffices that they see where the others do not.
Slaughter on the battle-field, without just cause and due
warrant, is individual murder. This no man can deny when
the case is put to him. The question with which the Church
has now to deal is thus reduced to very narrow limits. It is—
TO DECLARE MURDER TO BE SIN.
On this simple issue depend all the afore-stated sequences.
On the one side, the acceptance of all causes of social degra
dation ; on the other, the reversal of the present course of im
morality, financial dilapidation, political despotism, agitation for
change, rebellion, and apostacy.
If Rome is to restore the law, it is in this fashion that it has
to be done—that is by making individuals upright; in other
words, by making them citizens and gentlemen. Ten just”
men might have saved Sodom and Gomorrah. Ten just men
can save England, by preventing successively each of the acts,
by which she is perishing.
The great compiler of the “Law of Nations” concludes in
these words:—
“ May God (who alone can do it) inscribe these things on the
“ hearts of those who have the affairs of Christendom in their
�CONCLUSION.
55
“ hands, and grant them a mind intelligent of divine and human
“ Right, remembering that it is appointed by Him to govern
“ man, a creature most dear to Himself.”*
Grotius was not a member of the Church of Rome. If
his life was expended on the study of that Public Law then
obscured, and overthrown by religious wars and animosities,
so likewise was his heart given to the composing of religious
strife, and the reconciling of the rival Churches which equally
acknowledge Christ as their head. The Protestant Grotius,
dedicated his work to the Catholic King of France, Louis
XIII. In doing so he appeals to him, in the name of Justice, that
he may “ revive her buried Laws, that he may oppose himself to
“ a declining age, so that it may submit to the judgment of that
£i former age which all Christians acknowledge to have been
“ truly and sincerely Christian : and thus restore peace amongst
“ men. The task,” he says, “ is difficult, but nothing is worthy
“ of such excellent Princes (Louis XIII. and Charles I.)
“ but that which is in itself difficult, and which is even despaired
“ of by all others? ”f
* St. Chrysostom. Serm. de Elemosyna.
f Difficile negotiatium, propter studia partium, glesentibus in dies odiis inflaminata:
sed tantis regebus nihil dignum, nisi quod difficile, nisi quod ab aliis omnibus des
peratum.
�NOTE ON GROTIUS.
*
Note
on
Grotius.
The Bishop of Orleans has recommended the study of
Grotius as an essential part of education. He has added,
as an inducement, that Grotius was about to adhere to
the Church of Rome at the time of his death. This does not
appear from his common biographers. Were it so, the case
would not be altered, as his work was composed whilst he was a
Protestant, and the authority of his writings depend, not on his
religious belief, but on the soundness of his propositions. He
has, moreover, drawn largely, not only from the Sacred Writings,
but also from the early Fathers, whose words are reproduced in
almost every page.
It might have been supposed that the Protestant character of
this writer would have been seized upon by the Bishop of
Orleans, and made use of, to urge his co-religionaries by very
shame to apply themselves to this, the highest and most essential
branch of human knowledge, the foundation of all society, and
the ^handmaid of all religion. It is true that at the time that
B
* ishop
the
of Orleans wrote his treatise on Education the
Syllabus of the Pope had not appeared, and no General Council
had been announced; so that nothing was then in contemplation
by the Church of Rome, as a Church, for the rectification of the
human understanding, or the arrestation of the decay of human
affairs.
THE END.
LONDON:
'UHINTBD BY c. "WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Appeal of a Protestant to the Pope to restore the law of nations: reply to six questions on the business for the announced sixth Lateran Council
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 56 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by G. Whiting, Strand, London. Contains bibliographical references.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Urquhart, David
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Diplomatic Review Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Appeal of a Protestant to the Pope to restore the law of nations: reply to six questions on the business for the announced sixth Lateran Council), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5236
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
International Law
Protestantism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/670bc8cdbcbe5f18192a2a0786fc73d0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UoYIGvN%7E1ESmq0arX2DlGcAbjjxeVUHn7VggraorJdEwySWMxMRhsr3ev5hduM1sF4s5%7EX%7EPaee7Kz8HCcuZMTQ7U2MoVAGNNot6uclPhy1YZKuXJU-xSuEuxzqBy%7EewaZ9EYQ1olmeNvAb3Be%7EdvvknH4vRs42e0ai8kvs7PyJs5lAtYrZggcLuaFXfMBPjNjaRsh-QTcaiBQHFaz9jaw9W%7EqMyID15Hkk3h0vePlBHM-qh65wt3PqmilEtUaY8FIUraJ3NeJKCMFrGZe-ZVtTspKoJRTh%7EQNtWpuH6kCD3yOkqvlFu9bIJE7Y2sQyY7Vu6cdJfC1wFt2LyiXGl3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6cb57220cf05c4793e1f5d01afa83bf8
PDF Text
Text
%utber anb Get3el.
BY THE REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.
TWO leading characters occupy the stage in the
opening scene of the great drama of the Refor
mation—Luther and Tetzel. The conflict in which
they became engaged, although it lasted only for a.
couple of years, or rather less, must always be of
interest. It cannot indeed be said any longer that,,
had there been no Tetzel with his scandalous preach
ing of the Indulgence, there would have been no
Luther to inaugurate the glorious Reformation. We
know now that Luther’s heterodox views had for
some years past been maturing in his mind, and that
sooner or later they must have involved him in a.
breach with the Church. Still, an encounter with an
Indulgence-preacher was just the kind of event to
attract the eyes of others towards him, and Luther
made the most of it, and certainly succeeded in
making out of it a veritable stepping-stone to fame,.
It became the event which gained for him a European
reputation.
Martin Luther was born at Eisleben, in Saxony,,
in 1483. His father, Hans Luther, was a miner, and
at the time of their eldest son’s birth, was in great
poverty, although he afterwards became sufficiently
prosperous to own several furnaces at Mansfeldt, a
�2
Luther and Tetzel.
town about fifteen leagues from Eisleben. When
Martin was about fourteen, he was sent to school
with the Franciscans at Magdeburg, and after a year
to another school at Eisenach. It was here, that
whilst, after the custom of poor scholars, singing for
alms before the windows of well-to-do people, he won
the regards of a certain lady named Ursula Cotta.
The result was that, with her husband’s approval, she
took him to reside in her house, and thus enabled
him to go on in due course to higher studies.
Accordingly, in 1501, being now eighteen, he was
sent to the University of Erfurt, another Saxon town
of the neighbourhood, and there we are told he made
great progress in his study of philosophy and classics.
“The whole University,” wrote Melanchthon, the
colleague of his after-days, “admired his genius.”
In one respect, however, he seems to have been
curiously neglectful of the opportunities which this
University offered him.
Since the invention of
printing, about 1450, the printing-presses of Germany
had multiplied editions of the Bible both in Latin
and English, and a widespread interest in the study
of the Sacred Text had naturally ensued. This was
particularly true of Erfurt. “Erfurt,” says Janssen,
“ was a place where Biblical study was in its bloom
at that time, much importance being attached to it,
and a distinct course of lectures being devoted to it.”
And yet, says d’Aubign6, repeating the tale which
used to be so dear to the Protestant mind : one
day “ he had then been two years at Erfurth and
was twenty years old—he opens every book in the
library (of the Augustinian monastery). One volume
. . . attracts his attention. He had never until this
�Luther and Tetzel.
'hour seen its like. He reads the title—it is a Bible 1
a rare book unknown in those times.”1
In 1505, he took his doctor’s degree, and shortly
afterwards entered the Augustinian convent in the
town, the convent in whose library he had discovered
the Bible. His mode of entering was strange and
sudden. He was travelling by night, and was caught
in a thunderstorm. The lightning flashed right over
his head, and kneeling down, he made a vow to
St. Anne that if he were preserved from death he
would enter a monastery. The storm blew over, and
he returned to Erfurt. That evening he bade adieu
to his friends, and at midnight knocked at the door
of the Augustinian convent in the town. They took
him in apparently without difficulty, not fearing, as
the Superiors of a modern religious house would most
-certainly fear, lest a vocation thus suddenly formed
■should be afterwards as suddenly abandoned. In
1508, he was transferred from the monastery at
Erfurt to the monastery of the same Order at Witten'burg. It was the residence and principal city of the
domain of the Elector John Frederick of Saxony, and
this Prince had just founded there a new University
in the welfare and progress of which he was keenly
interested. Luther, now a priest, was appointed
Professor of Philosophy in this new University.
That he showed talent in the discharge of his
professorial duties, as likewise of others which were
1 History of the Reformation, i. p. 156, English Translation.
D’Aubigne refers for this statement to Mathesius, one of Luther’s
•companions. Mathesius is not a very trustworthy writer, but even he
does not say as much as this. Nevertheless, the story has become a
•cherished Protestant tradition, and is embodied in a painting belonging
to the Bible Society, the book-plates from which are widely circulated.
�4
Luther and Tetzel.
assigned to him, is not to be denied. It must be
clear to any careful student of his history and
writings that he was endowed with talent of a high
order. His thought indeed was full of confusion, and
one marvels how a man of talent could pass through
a systematic course of theological study, and yet
show himself to have so completely missed and
confounded notions which by the general mass of
students were correctly imbibed. But if he wasunable to analyze an idea into its constituents, as is.
necessary for one who will apprehend it correctly, he
could take hold of an idea as a whole, if it happened,
to please him, with a firm grasp, and set it forth tohimself and others in a thoroughly popular way, by
the aid of vigorous speech and homely illustration..
Then, too, he had an imperious will, which over
mastered the mass of those brought into contact with
him. In short, he was a born leader of men, and
belonged to the first rank of popular writers and.
orators.
His spiritual experiences during the ten years of
monastic life which preceded his breach with the:
Catholic Church were at all events interesting;
According to his own account, he was “ a Religiousof the strictest observance.” “ I was a pious monk,”
he says, “ and so strictly followed the Rule of my
Order, that I dare to say if ever any man could
have been saved by monkery, I was that monk.”
“ I was a monk in earnest, and followed the Rules,
of my Order more strictly than I can express. If
ever monk could obtain Heaven by his monkish
works, I should certainly have been entitled to it.
Of all this the friars who have known me can testify.
�Luther and Tetzel.
5
If it had continued much longer, I should have carried
my mortifications even to death, by means of watch
ings, prayers, readings, and other labours.” How far
this may have been true it is difficult to say. What
ever his fellow-monks may have been able to testify,
there is no extant record of their confirmatory testi
mony on this point. One thing at least is clear
from Luther’s own words. His spiritual endeavours,
whether earnest or not, were singularly ill-regulated.
In his zeal for reading, we are told he sometimes
omitted his Office for three or four weeks together,
after which in a fit of remorse he would set to work
to repair the omission by continuous recitation of all
that had been left unsaid. This is hardly what one
would have expected in one claiming that his obser
vance was punctiliously exact. However, it seems
that he was much agitated during this period by the
sense of sin. Apparently he had strong passions
which frequently asserted themselves, and which he
sought to subdue by prayer and fastings, but in sub
duing which the conception of God which he placed
before him was very much that of a God of avenging
justice and very little that of a God of mercy.
His companions were distressed by his singularity,
and naturally doubted whether he was not mad,
and when one day the reading in the refectory was
of the Gospel of the man possessed by a blind and
dumb devil whom our Lord cured, Luther suddenly
flung himself upon the ground and cried out aloud :
“ It is not I ! It is not I! ” He was in fact in a
thoroughly morbid state of soul, and was besides the
victim of intense scrupulosity. His superior, Staupitz,
gave him occasionally some good and sensible advice,
�6
Luther and Tetzel.
as when he said to him: “ Enough, my son; youspeak of sin, but know not what sin is ; if you desire
the assistance of God, do not act like a child any
longer.” The advice was certainly required, but it
does not seem to have left any abiding impression on
his mind. What eventually brought on the crisis in
his life was, if we are to believe what is recorded, a.
vision of an old monk who met him one day when
out walking. “I know,” said the old monk, what
will cure you of the evils which torment you.” “ What
is it ? ” said Luther. “ Faith,” responded the monk.
“ Have you not read the words of St. Bernard, in hissermon on the Annunciation : Believe that through
o
the merits of Jesus thy sins will be forgiven ; it isthe evidence which the Holy Spirit infuses into the
heart of man ; for he says, Believe, and thy sins shall
be forgiven.”
St. Bernard’s doctrine is sound enough. Faith, the
faith which relies on God’s word, is the underlying
virtue among those by which man prepares his heart
for the Divine forgiveness. But Luther put his own
sense on the word “ faith ” and on the corresponding
word “justification;” taking the one to mean an
assurance of personal salvation (“ Believe firmly that
you undoubtedly are justified, and then you are justi
fied ”) ; and the other to mean, not an infusion of
justice into the heart of the person justified, but a
mere external imputation of it. For such a doctrine
there is no warrant in Scripture, but, having managed
to connect in his own mind, and afterwards in the
minds of others, the word “ faith ” with this unnatural
meaning, he could appeal to all the passages in
St. Paul’s Epistles which assert that justification is by
�Luther and Tetzcl.
7
faith, and claim them as so many proofs of his newlydiscovered doctrine. It is this doctrine which he
afterwards called the Articulus stantis vel cadentis
Ecclesice; and, if we cannot quite accept this description
of it, at least we can recognize that it is the corner
stone of the Lutheran and Calvinistic systems. It
strikes at the very roots of the Catholic system of
sacraments and grace, of penance and satisfaction,
especially as Luther managed to graft on to it a
doctrine of the non-freedom of the human will, and of
the total depravity of fallen nature. This crisis must
have taken place two or more years before his breach
with the Church, and during the interval he does
not appear to have been conscious, although others
noticed it, of the growing opposition of his views to
those of the Catholic Church.
We have now before us, as fully as is possible
within the limits of a short essay, a picture of this
champion of Protestantism.
I will pass on then
to the occasion which led to his encounter with
Tetzel.
Julius II., who, according to Pastor, had the truer
claim to give his name to the age usually called the
age of Leo X., had it brought under his notice that
the ancient Basilica of St. Peter, which had been
given to the Church by the Emperor Constantine,
was now falling into decay. He determined to use
the opportunity, and to employ all the architectural
talent of that brilliant period, in order to erect a new
Basilica in its place which by its magnificence should
be worthy of its position as the memorial of the
Apostles and the central church of the Catholic
world. Did it lie within our subject-matter, we might
�8
Lzither and Tetzel.
take occasion to lament that a work so excellent in
itself should have been accompanied by the destruc
tion of the older Basilica. But I have too much
matter to deal with to permit of such digression.
Julius II. commenced the work, and devoted large
funds to its accomplishment. These, however, were
far from sufficient, and it became evident that the
cost of a building of such magnitude could be
defrayed only by a successful appeal to the piety of
the Christian world. Accordingly, Leo X., the successor
of Julius, proclaimed an Indulgence: that is to say,
he granted an Indulgence of a most ample kind to
all, wherever they might be, who would contribute
according to their means towards the expenses of the
rising Basilica.
This is not the place for a detailed exposition of
the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences, but it is neces
sary that the reader should bear in mind its leading
features. An Indulgence, as may be seen from any
Catholic exposition of doctrine, from the Catechism
of the Council of Trent downwards, does not profess
to pardon the guilt of past sin and reconcile the soul
to God ; still less does it pretend to give leave for
future sins. What it offers is a remission of the
temporal punishment remaining over when the guilt
and eternal punishment of the sin has been forgiven.
It thus presupposes, and usually enjoins explicitly, as
indispensable for gaining its fruits, that the person
should first seek the pardon of guilt in the Sacrament
of Penance; and it enjoins, as the condition of
gaining it, some work of piety or charity, such as
prayer or almsgiving. Now what we have to consider
is whether it be true that the system of Indulgences,
�Luther and Tetzel.
9
into contact with which Luther was brought, differed
in any essential particulars from our modern system.
This is necessary, because the charge brought against
the Catholic Church as justifying Luther’s revolt
from her obedience was, in its original and ancient
form, that Indulgences were permissions to commit
sin, or at least pretended remissions of the guilt of
sin, sold in the most barefaced way over the counter,,
so to speak, for sums of money, amidst degrading
accompaniments. We have partially succeeded in
convincing modern and more enlightened students
that this is by no means a true account of our
teaching, and have caused them to remodel the
charge, which, as it now-a-days mostly runs, is that
we have altered our system from what it was in the
days of Luther ; that then it certainly pretended to
be a sale of forgiveness for money, but that now, in
deference to the outcry made against such an enor
mity, we have revised it, and cast it into a more
subtle form.
We have to notice then that at all events in
offering an Indulgence in return for alms to a good
work, Leo X. was acting not differently from our
modern Church. Almsgiving, especially when it is
for some sacred object, is a recognized form of good
work, such as may be stimulated and rewarded by
an Indulgence. Thus it is one of the required con
ditions for one or two of the eight great Indulgences.
In this latter case the Pope leaves it free to us toapply our alms to such religious objects as our con
science suggests. But there is no reason why he
should not himself present to us a particular object..
He might, for instance, grant an Indulgence to those
*
�IO
Luther and Tetzel.
who would give alms for the new Westminster
Cathedral, in which case he would only be doing
what was done by his predecessors to assist the
building of most of the great Cathedrals which are
England’s glory. Or he might prescribe that the alms
should be applied to some still more universal object.
He might, for instance, attach an Indulgence, either
partial or plenary, to the alms which he asks of us on
the Epiphany for Indian Seminaries, or on Good
Friday for the Holy Places at Jerusalem. This lastmentioned object closely resembles that of the Indul
gence of Leo X. Regard the building of St. Peter’s
merely as the erection of a fine architectural
monument, and the sacred character of the work is
easily forgotten. But regard it as the erection of a
house of God far more truly such than the Temple of
Solomon, and its sacred character at once returns
into prominence. So far, then, we have discovered no
impropriety in the Pope’s action.
In our own days, if such an Indulgence were
proclaimed, the Pope would write to the Bishops,
directing them to make the announcement to the
residents in their dioceses, and to make arrangements
for the placing of alms-boxes in the several churches,
for the time and manner most appropriate for giving
in the alms, and likewise for some official method of
forwarding to Rome what had been collected.
Probably if the Indulgence offered were of the public
kind to be mentioned presently, the Bishops would
also be exhorted to see that special sermons were
preached and devotions held, so that the Indulgence
time might be a time of grace. We know that such
is the modern custom at the time of what is called a
�Luther and Tetzel.
11
Jubilee Indulgence—an Indulgence which comprises
not merely the Indulgence strictly so-called, or the
remission, plenary or partial, of temporal punishment,
but also the bestowal on many confessors of special
faculties to absolve from cases otherwise reserved to
Bishops or to the Holy See. In the days of Luther
the method followed was in principle the same, but
in its actual details somewhat different.
For the preaching of this Indulgence in Germany
that country was divided into three parts, with only
one of which we need to concern ourselves. Albrecht
of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz, Bishop of
Magdeburg, and Administrator of the see of Halber
stadt, was appointed commissioner for the district
comprising the whole of Saxony and Brandenburg.
That is to say, it was his office to see that the In
dulgence was effectually made known in these parts,
and to collect the money given. With him was
associated the Guardian of the Franciscans at Mainz,
but the latter seems to have renounced his charge,
and hardly figures in the history. This Albrecht—
who, it may be incidentally remarked, was a young
man of high family, only twenty-four at the time of
his appointment—was under the usual obligation of
paying the fee for his Pallium. That there should
have been such fees is quite intelligible, for the Holy
See with its vast staff of officials for the conduct of
a world-wide business must be supported, and it is
right that those for whose benefit they are established
should support them. Still, it was a grave scandal,
and must be acknowledged as such, that the fees
exacted should have been so enormous. In Albrecht’s
case they amounted to no less than thirty thousand
�12
Luther and Tetzel.
gold guldens. What made matters worse, was that
this was the third vacancy in the see within a short
interval. Thus the burden on the revenues of the
see was crushing.
Albrecht undertook to provide the sum out of his
own private resources, and this is how he did it. By
representing to the Pope the greatness of the diffi
culty, he obtained the commissionership of the
Indulgence, with leave to retain a certain portion of
the proceeds for himself, on the understanding that he
paid up his Pallium money at once. This arranged,
on the security of the Indulgence he proceeded to
borrow the necessary sum from the famous bank of
the Fuggers at Augsburg, a consequence of which
arrangement was that the Fuggers sent a clerk toaccompany the Indulgence-preachers, who kept one
of the three keys to the alms-chests. This transaction
of Albrecht’s is another disedifying thing to which
we must frankly acknowledge, but it probably illus
trates the mode in which, beginning from the most
harmless intentions, a man may gradually and un
consciously entangle himself in a grave scandal.
Albrecht’s next duty was to choose a sub
commissioner to whom he might entrust the actual
preaching of the Indulgence, and he chose John.
Tetzel. Tetzel was a Dominican friar, who seems
to have been endowed with a gift of popular eloquence,
which enabled him to draw large congregations and
to move them to contribute handsomely to the objects
advocated. He had had much experience and an
uninterruptedly successful career as an Indulgence
preacher during the two previous decades, for it must
not be supposed that the Indulgence for St. Peter’s
�Luther and Tetzel.
13
'Church was a novelty at the time. It was a novelty
perhaps in its importance and amplitude, but was
but one among many Indulgences which were being
constantly issued in aid of one good work or another.
We have now reached Tetzel, but before informing
-ourselves of the manner in which he fulfilled his
commission, we must notice briefly the character of
the instructions given to him. Our concern is much
more with the system than with the man who had to
work it, and even as regards him, in the great dearth
of direct evidence, we have a better chance of judging
him fairly in proportion as we can understand better
the nature of his charge. Archbishop Albrecht issued
an Instructio Summaria ad Sitbcommissarios Pceniteniiarum et Confessores. It is a long document, and in
it he first prescribes to the preachers and their assistant
the mode in which they were to conduct themselves,
and explains very lucidly the character and provisions
of the Indulgence. The directions for the preacher are,
no one can deny it, both wise and edifying. All are
to begin by taking an oath of fidelity to observe
these directions, and are threatened with censures
•and deprivation of office in the case of neglect. They
are to keep always in mind the glory of God, the
reverence due to the Apostolic See, and the further
ance of the object for which the alms are solicited.
They are to conduct themselves everywhere in a
becoming manner, and to avoid taverns and doubtful
houses, and likewise excessive and useless expenses,
“ lest their conduct should be despised, and with it
the religious exercises over which they are to preside.”
They are to know that in hearing confessions they
are constituted Apostolic penitentiaries, as repre
�i4
Luther and Tetzel.
senting the Pope, and are endowed accordingly with
ample faculties, and they are to be careful that their
behaviour is worthy of so exceptional an office.
Hence they are to see that they set up their con
fessionals—over which they are to place the Papal
arms, and their own names in large letters—only in
places sufficiently open and public, nor must they
hear confessions during the sermons or Stations of
the Cross, lest they should seem to be drawing away
the people from the fruit of the Divine Word. Nor
again are they to hear any confessions outside the
church where the Indulgence Cross is erected, save
those of persons legitimately hindered from coming
by sickness or old age, and those of great nobles.
When they reach a town in their course they are to
erect an Indulgence Cross, and daily after Vespers
and Compline, or after the Salve Regina, or at some
other ‘suitable time, they are to gather round the
Cross and solemnly venerate it. They are to give at
least three sermons each week as long as the Station
in any place lasts, whilst in Advent or Lent, they
must give one every day, and on feast-days two.
And during these sermons there is to be no
preaching elsewhere, that the people may be free to
attend.
During the first week they are to explain clearly
the nature and immense value of the Indulgence
offered, and likewise of the Papal power to grant iff
In explaining too, they are to keep to the text of the
Bull, and show how it empowers them to absolve and
dispense, commute or compound, nor must they run
off into strange and irrelevant subtleties, a thing the
less tolerable since the Bull itself provides them with
�Luther and Tetzel.
15
abundant material for their discourse, all drawn from
the heart of theology and canon law.
This brings us to the other point in the Bull, the
nature of the graces, i.e., the benefits offered. There
are, says Albrecht’s summary, “four principal graces
which it grants. Of these the first is a ‘Plenary
Indulgence,’ or plenary remission of all sins by which
the pains of Purgatory are fully forgiven and blotted
out.” The term “plenary remission of sins” should be
remarked, as it is on such a phrase that those fix who
strive to make out that an Indulgence is a forgiveness
of the guilt of sin. But the phrase is usual in grants
of Indulgence even to this day, and means, as the
expository clause just given distinctly declares, a
remission of the sin as regards all its temporal punish
ment. In such a remission a sacramental absolution
is presupposed as having taken away the guilt and
eternal punishment, and it is because, by supervening
on this, the Indulgence takes away likewise all the
temporal punishment, that it is called a “plenary
remission of sins.”
The Instruction goes on to assign the conditions
for gaining this Plenary Indulgence. “ Although (it
says) nothing can be given in exchange which will
be a worthy equivalent for so great a grace, the gift
and grace of God being priceless, still that the faithful
may be the more readily invited to receive it, let
them, after having first made a contrite confession, or
at least having the intention of so doing at the proper
time, visit at least seven churches assigned for this
purpose, and in each say devoutly five Our Fathers
and Hail Marys in honour of the Five Wounds of
Jesus Christ, by which our redemption was wrought;
�16
Luther and Tetzel.
or else one Miserere, to obtain pardon for sins.” The
italicized clause is to be specially noticed, as proving
■conclusively that there was no thought of granting
absolution of guilt otherwise than through the Sacra
ment of Penance.
The visit to seven assigned
-churches, for which in smaller places visits to seven
altars were substituted, marks the intention of assimi
lating this Indulgence to the Indulgence of the Seven
Stations practised in the City of Rome.
A second condition for the Indulgence was the con
tribution towards the building expenses of St. Peter’s,
and Archbishop Albrecht proceeds to prescribe the
necessary amount according to the rank and means
of the contributors. Kings and royal persons, Arch
bishops and Bishops, must contribute at least twentyfive Rhenish gold florins ; abbots, counts, and barons,
ten florins ; others down to those whose annual income
is about five hundred florins, must contribute six;
those with an income of two hundred must give six
florins; others half a florin. If there should be any
difficulty about these amounts the parties are to
consult their confessors, and with their advice to give
what seems a becoming proportion of their means,
and the confessors are to remember that the object
for which the Indulgence is granted is not less the
salvation of. the faithful than the needs of the
building ; and accordingly are not to send any one
away without his Indulgence for want of means to
contribute. Of the poor it is added specially that
“ those who_ have no money must supply by their
prayers and fasts, since the Kingdom of Heaven
should be made open to the poor as much as to the
rich.” This scale of assessments disproves the buying
�Luther and Tetzel.
*7
.-and selling theory. If it were true that Indulgences
were offered as goods in the market, to be bought
■ and sold, the prices should have been uniform for all.
The code of prices disappears, and that of contribu
tions comes in, when such a scale of assignments as
this is borne in mind. Besides, as we have seen, the
■notion of price is expressly repudiated in the In
structions.
So much as to the first principal grace offered,
'which was the Plenary Indulgence itself. The second
principal grace was the grant of what was called a
Confessionale. This was permission to choose a suit
able confessor from the ranks either of the secular or
regular clergy, who, being chosen, would in virtue of
the grant have power to absolve the recipient of the
Confessionale once in his life (i) from any censures he
might have incurred, (2) from all sins otherwise
reserved to the Apostolic See or by the Bishops; and
(3), as often as desired, from sins not reserved ; (4) to
communicate to him a Plenary Indulgence once in
life and in time of danger of death ; and likewise to
dispense him from certain vows and to minister to
him the Holy Eucharist. Such a Confessionale, like
the Indulgence, which has been called the first prin
cipal grace, was granted in view of alms contributed
to the building fund, though the alms in this instance
was much less—a mere nothing in fact—for it was
only a quarter of a florin ; and besides it was given to
the poor gratuitously. These permissions to choose a
confessor, and grants to the person chosen of the
ample faculties mentioned, were attested by written
documents. Such a document was obviously necessary
that it might be known at any time afterwards that
�18
Luther and Tetzel.
the holder had really received the permission which
it recorded. But it must not be supposed that the
Confessionale (for this name is usually applied to the
document) was itself any forgiveness of sins. The
absolution could only be given in the confessional
when the holder approached his chosen confessor in
the Sacrament of Penance and sought absolution in
the usual way. This is another important point, for
those who undertake to show that Indulgences were
bought and sold are wont to appeal to these Confessionalia and say : “ Here is the Indulgence itself with,
the price named upon it.” Such persons must be told
that they are under a complete misapprehension ;
that, to begin with, the Confessionalia, as seen in this
one crucial case, had nothing to do with a Plenary
Indulgence to be gained then and there; and secondly,
that they gave no Indulgence themselves, still less
forgiveness of sins, but only attested the leave given
to choose a confessor and the grant to him of special
power to be used in the Sacrament of Penance.
Of the third and fourth principal graces I need’
say nothing, as they have no bearing on the Indul
gence controversy.
We can see now that this historical Indulgence, at
all events in the form in which it was conceived by
Leo X. and by his Commissioner, Albrecht of Bran
denburg, did not differ in kind, and hardly in its
circumstances, from those to which we are accustomed.
We can see, too, that the intention was to make the
preaching of the Indulgence into a sort of “mission,”
as we should now term it, the people being stirred
up by special prayer and devotions during the period
of one or two weeks, to take seriously to heart the
�Luther and Tetzel.
19
affair of their souls, and to make a good Confession
and Communion. Evidently the aim was to associate
the erection of a church which was to be the head
of all Churches with a grand religious awakening
throughout the world. The Pope therefore and his
commissioners must be acquitted of the blame which
the attacks of Luther have heaped upon them, and
this is the point of principal importance which we
have desired to prove.
But what about Tetzel, and the actual execution
of the project? Was he faithful to the injunctions
given him, or did he disregard them utterly, and
pervert the good purpose of the Indulgence into a
downright scandal ?
According to the accounts that have come down
to us from Protestant sources he went about with
much parade. When he entered a town he came
seated in a magnificent car, with the Bull resting on
a velvet cushion, and a red cross carried in front of
him. On his approach the bells were rung, and all
flocked out to meet him. When he reached the
principal church of the place, the red cross was
erected, the Bull placed in front of it, and likewise a
large money-chest. Then Tetzel ascended the pulpit
and began to extol the value of his wares.
“ Indulgences,” he said, “ are the most precious of
God’s gifts. . . . Come, and I will give you letters by
which even the sins you intend to commit may be
pardoned. I would not change my privileges for
those of St. Peter in Heaven, for I have saved more
souls by Indulgences than the Apostle by his
sermons.” Then he appealed to them to buy.
“ Bring—bring—bring,” he said, pointing to his strong
�20
Luther and Tetzel.
■box, and, according to Luther, he used to shout these
words with such a bellowing that you might have
thought him a mad bull.1
If such were Tetzel’s methods, no wonder that
good men were scandalized. And we are told that
the scandal was brought forcibly under Luther’s notice
in the following manner. Tetzel had come to Jutabock, a place not far from Wittenberg. IntoWittenberg
itself he was not permitted to enter, but the inhabi
tants went off to hear him, and Luther’s penitents
came back refusing to give up their sins. When he
exhorted and rebuked them, they showed him the
Indulgences they had received from Tetzel, and told
him they had bought permission to continue in their
sins, whilst nevertheless assured of immunity from
guilt and punishment. This is the traditional story,
but a very decisive argument entitles us to dismiss
it at once. Luther, as we are about to see, presently
framed his indictment against Tetzel, and it does not
contain a word of suggestion that the latter under
took to forgive future sins. Presumably therefore
what happened was much more simple. Those who
were wont to attend Luther’s confessional at Witten
berg, on this occasion went to the neighbouring town
to gain the Indulgence. If Luther was already set
against the doctrine of Indulgences, the natural effect
of such an incident would be to stir the bile of so
excitable a person, and that this was in reality his
-doctrinal position at the time, is clear from a sermon
which he forthwith delivered at the Castle church.
For in it he denounced not only Tetzel, but the very
-doctrine of Indulgences which the Catholic Church
1 D’Aubigne, Ibid. pp. 241—243.
�Luther and Tetzel.
i
r
holds still as she ever has held. It cannot be proved
from Scripture (he says) that Divine justice demands
of the sinner any other penance or satisfaction save
reformation of heart. “ Do nothing in favour of Indul
gences. Have you means : Give to him who ishungry; that will be more profitable than to give it
for heaping up stones and much better than to buy
Indulgences.”
A short time afterwards he drew up his famous
Theses against Tetzel’s preaching, ninety-five in
number, and on the eve of All Saints, 1517, nailed
them to the door of the same Castle church. It was
a challenge to all opposers to meet-him in the arena
of theological disputation, when he would be prepared
to defend the doctrines contained in the Theses. It
is a mistake to suppose that any exceptional courage
was required to make the challenge, which was in
accordance with the custom among scholars of those
days. But Luther was availing himself of the custom
to play a crafty game. He had, as has been said,,
already come to hold a doctrinal system, in all
essential particulars identical with that which is now
called by his name, and in such a system Indul
gences can have no place. At the same time he
was anxious to continue as long as possible in good
favour with the Pope, and hence in his Theses he
attempts to draw a distinction between Tetzel’s
doctrine of Indulgences and that of Pope Leo. The
former he vilifies; the latter he stamps with his
approval. But what he attributes to the Pope is
merely his own personal doctrine ; what he condemns
in Tetzel, being the acknowledged doctrine of the
Church, was doubtless also that of the Pope. Still
�22
Luther and Tetzel.
by this contrivance Luther was able to indulge in pro
fessions of submissiveness, as he does for instance in
his letter to Leo X. of the following spring, in which
he says: “ Wherefore, Most Blessed Father, I offer
myself prostrate at the feet of your Blessedness with
all that I have and am, cause me to live or die, call
me or recall me, approve me or condemn me, just as
you please, I will recognize your voice as the voice
of Christ, who presides and speaks in you.” But
while he wrote thus to the Pope, in private he ex
pressed himself in other language. To his friend,
Spalatinus, he had written on February 15, 1518, that
is three months later than the publication of his
Theses, but two months before his profession of sub
mission to the Pope’s decision: “To you, Spalatinus,
alone and to our friends I declare that Indulgences
seem to me to be nothing else than an illusion
offered to souls, and useful only to those who are
lazy and snore over the way of Christ.”1 For holding
this, he added that “he had stirred up against him,
six hundred Minotaurs, Radamanthotaurs, and Cacotaurs.” It will be noticed that in this letter he
draws no distinction between Tetzel’s doctrine of
Indulgences and that of the Pope’s. He condemns
Indulgences sans phrase.
I should have wished to give some specimens of
the Ninety-five Theses. This, however, is obviously
impossible in a short tract, and I must be content
to repeat that their substance, and indeed almost the
■entirety of their contents, is directed against the very
same doctrine which we now hold. Of course Luther
misrepresents this doctrine in every particular, but his
1 De Wette, i. 92.
�Luther and Tetzel.
23
misrepresentations are such as to show that what he
is misrepresenting is our orthodox doctrine and none
other. We may therefore draw the valuable con
clusion which writers like Bishop Creighton have
challenged1—that our present doctrine is no new
doctrine devised after these sad experiences of the
sixteenth century to take the place of one that had
become hopelessly discredited, but is in itself the
ancient doctrine which has come down to us from
time immemorial.
There are no doubt one or two phrases in the
Theses which, indirectly rather than directly, suggest
that the preachers have made unsound or disedifying
statements, and they must be allowed their due
weight in our estimate of Tetzel’s personal manage
ment of his mission. We shall have to mention them
presently, for we must now turn to Tetzel, and the
way in which he responded to Luther’s attacks upon
him.
When he saw Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, and
marked the enthusiasm with which they had been
taken up by many influential persons around him, he
withdrew from Saxony and retired to Frankfort-onOder. Here there was a University in which Conrad
Wimpina, a friar of Tetzel’s own Order of St.
Dominic, was a distinguished professor. He was a
friend and former professor to Tetzel himself, and it
was natural that the latter should take counsel with
him on so critical an occasion. Presently there
appeared a set, or rather two sets of theses—Anti
theses they were called—in reply to Luther’s Ninetyfive ; one set of One Hundred and Six Theses being
1 In his History of the Papacy.
�24
Luther and Tetzel.
a counter-statement of the doctrine of Indulgences^
the other of Fifty Theses, on the Papal power to
grant them.
The description of Tetzel, given higher upon thefaith of Lutheran authorities, prepares us to find in
these Antitheses the brutal, reckless, and ignorant
utterances of a buffoon. What we do find is a calm
and scientific theological statement, quite remarkable
for its force and lucidity. Indeed, I do not know
where a theologian could go for a more satisfying
defence of Indulgences against current Protestant
difficulties. Bishop Creighton remarks that Tetzel
“does not so much argue as contradict.” Of course
he does not. Theses are propositions which a theo
logian is prepared to defend by argument against
those who will discuss with him. Arguments, there
fore, do not appear in the Theses themselves, except
in so far as simple statement of the truth is often
times itself the best refutation of error ; and in this
sense, Tetzel’s Theses are a luminous refutation of
Luther’s. They prove at least this, that Tetzel
thoroughly grasped both the nature and the com
plexity of his duties. Thus Luther asserts that “those
who believe themselves to be secure of their salva
tion because' of these letters of Indulgences, will be
damned together with their teachers.” Of course he
means to suggest that the contrary was Tetzel’s
teaching. The latter replies in calmer language:
“ It is erroneous to say that no one can have such
conjectural knowledge as human nature is capable
of,” that he has gained the Indulgence if he has
done what the Jubilee requires. Also that “it is
erroneous to say that one who has gained the Papal
�Luther and Tetzel.
25
Indulgence duly in every way, that is, after true con
trition and confession, is not reconciled to God.”
These two propositions completely dispel Luther’s
fallacy. For we are absolutely certain that if we
fulfil all the conditions we gain the fruits of
the Indulgence, and as regards the “ if,” we
■can have moral, or conjectural certainty, as he
calls it, that we have had true sorrow, made
■a good confession, and done what the Indulgence
prescribes.
Again, Luther asserts that it is very hard even
for learned men to extol all the amplitude of
Indulgences, without depreciating the necessity of
true contrition. And he explains that there is this
■contradiction between the two, that whereas true
■contrition makes us anxious to embrace penances,
Indulgences take them away and cause us to hate
them when they come. To this Tetzcl replies that
■even a moderately learned man can extol the two
things without difficulty. For Indulgences do not
touch remedial penances, whereas this is what true
-contrition loves to continue throughout life. Again,
.according to Luther, those preach the doctrine of
men who preach that when the coin chinks in the
chest, the soul at once flies to Heaven, the sug
gestion being that this had been Tetzel’s preaching.
Tetzel by his reply shows us what had been his real
teaching which had given a handle to this misrepre
sentation—“ He errs who denies that a soul can fly
as quickly up to Heaven as a coin can chink against
the bottom of the chest.” He does not, that is, offer
.an assurance that at once on the giving of the money
the effect will follow, but that when the effect does
�26
Luther and Tetzel.
follow it will be sudden and complete in its accom
plishment. These are a few specimens to which
others could be added in order to prove that Tetzel’s
Theses are not only theologically correct but compiled
with real skill.
There are, however, other qualities about them
which cannot fail to impress those who are striving
to read the character of the author through the lines
of his utterance. It is almost impossible to think of
him as a buffoon, such a love of sobriety and mode
ration pervades every line of his propositions, and not
only of the Theses, but likewise of his two sermons
or rather notes for sermons, which are still extant.
Nor is the pervading tone merely one of sobriety.
It is also one of dignified self-repression. He has
been made the victim of many outrageous charges,
but there is no trace of irritation in his lang-uag-e.
He takes up the doctrinal points one after another,
but disregards the personal suggestions until he draws
near the end. Then he refers to them in a few
becoming sentences. “ For one who has never heard
them (he says) to declare in public Theses that the
Indulgence-preachers employ scandalous language
(yerborum libidineiri) before the people, and take up
more time in explaining Indulgences than in expound
ing the Gospel, is to scatter lies picked up from others,
to spread fictions in place of truths, and to show
oneself light-minded and credulous ; and is to fall
into mischievous error.” Here I think we have a
true account of what had happened. There wereplenty of mischief-makers to concoct scandalous
stories if they were likely to be welcomed, and Luther
had shown a readiness to welcome this kind of slander
�Litdher and Tctzcl.
27
if not to add to it from his own imagination, and poor
Tetzel was the sufferer.
There is another proposition among Tetzel’sTheses which shows how keenly he suffered under the
injuries done him, and which sets him before us as
the very opposite of a buffoon, as a man of delicate
feeling, at least of delicate religious feeling. This,,
however, is a point which I find some difficulty in
setting forth, so foul and unbearable are the words
which Luther did not hesitate to ascribe to his
opponent. Suffice it to say, that he accused him of
having not only taught that Indulgences could forgive
every sin, but also of having named as gross a sin as
a filthy imagination ever conceived, and claimed that
even that could be forgiven by the Indulgence then
offered. Tetzel replies very quietly and meekly, but
evidently with repressed indignation, that of course,
as God is prepared to pardon all our sins, even that
particular sin, were it possible, comes within the
range of Divine forgiveness. Then he adds, “that
to ascribe (such words to another) in downright con
tradiction to the truth of facts, was to be moved by
hatred, and to thirst for a brother’s blood.” It was
this charge, however, that ultimately killed him. He
got testimonials from the authorities of two towns
where some forms of the story had localized the
alleged offence, and he sent the manuscript of the
sermon supposed to have contained it to the Pope.
But after a two years’ interval, a Papal envoy, named
Miltitz, came into the neighbourhood. He had picked
up the stories about Tetzel as he went along, and
being hopeful of gaining over Luther by some
displays of kindness, he was prone to interpret things
�28
Luther and Tetzel.
as favourably for the latter as possible. In spite of
Tetzel’s remonstrances, when Miltitz found him out
in his convent at Leipzig, he expressed his belief that
the obnoxious words had been really used. Of
course this is a piece of evidence against Tetzel
which needs to be taken into account. Still it is
clear that Miltitz was in other respects over-credulous,
and Luther had no difficulty in leading him by the
nose when the meeting between them took place.
I am inclined, therefore, to lay small stress upon
Miltitz’s opinion on this point in regard to Tetzel.
It was an opinion, however, which fell with terrible
weight on the over-wrought Dominican. He took
to his bed, and fell into a burning fever, which before
long carried him off. If he was innocent, as for my
part I firmly believe him to have been, of a blasphemy
against the honour of our Blessed Lady, it was
peculiarly appropriate that he should have expired
just as his brethren in the choir were singing, “ Sub
tuzim presidium confugimus, Sancta Dei GenitrixP
I have now covered the ground I had marked out
for this article. We have seen what I trust will be
thought sufficient evidence that the Catholic doctrine
of Indulgences was the same in those days as in these,
and that the celebrated Indulgence which Luther
made use of to lift himself into fame, was projected
by no mere greed for gain, but for a high and holy
purpose which the arrangements made for its granting
might well have seemed calculated to promote. I
have also submitted some reasons tending to show
that the balance of probability is much more in
Tetzel’s favour than against him. We must be careful,
however, not to press these conclusions too far. It is
�Lvdher and Tetzel.
quite impossible to deny that there were grave abuses
connected with the Indulgence-preaching at that time.
Indeed, had there not been, it is not easy to see how
Luther could have been so successful in prejudicing
large multitudes against the system. Moreover, not
to mention other Catholic expressions of opinion, we
have to remember that at the Council of Trent, when
the proposal was brought forward that these travelling
Indulgence-preachers should be abolished altogether,
all previous legislation having failed to protect the
system against abuse, there was unanimity among the
Bishops in favour of the change, the German Bishops
being especially zealous for it. The point on which
I wish to insist is, in short, not that there were no
abuses, but that the abuses lay in practices unworthy
of the accepted system, not in the doctrinal system
itself. There seems no reason to suppose that these
faulty Indulgence-preachers ever went so far as to
teach that an Indulgence could be gained by one
who had not first, by confession and contrition,
obtained forgiveness of all grievous sin, and recovered,
if he had ever lost it, the grace of God for his soul.
Still less is there evidence that they told theii' hearers,
or that their hearers would have believed them if they
had, that an Indulgence was a permission to sin in
the future. Catholic doctrine in the past was always
too clear, and Catholic missioners too well instructed.
Where the preachers misconducted themselves will
doubtless have been in their dealing with the mone
tary aspects of the Indulgence. To recommend the
charity for which alms was demanded was perfectly
lawful, but we can imagine how they converted such
recommendations into a sort of hawking of wares in
�.3°
Luther and Tetzel.
their possession, and we can imagine also how a
certain amount of avarice may have mingled with the
work. It was good then that the change was made,
for, thank God, all such abuses are things of the past.
There is nothing now to disguise from us, when we
give alms at times of Jubilee, or otherwise, that we
are giving to God, and that it is God, who can see
into our hearts, who will know and judge if we are
giving from a humble and contrite heart for His
honour and glory, and for the promotion of a good
work.
And the result is that under present conditions
the system of Indulgences is a system of unmixed
spiritual good. Of the Jubilee Indulgence of 1825, as
it was held in Rome, Cardinal Wiseman was witness,
and has left us an account in his Four Last Popes :
It is a year in which the Holy See does all it can to
make Rome spiritually attractive, and spiritually only. The
theatres are closed, public amusements suspended; even
private recreation pressed within the bounds of Lenten
regulations. But all that can help the sinner to amendment,
or assist the devout to feed his faith and nourish his piety,
is freely and lavishly ministered. The pulpit is occupied by
the most eloquent preachers, awakening the consciences or
instructing ignorance; the confessionals are held in constant
possession by priests who speak every language; pious
associations or confraternities receive, entertain, and conduct
from sanctuary to sanctuary the successive trains of pilgrims;
the altars are crowded by fervent communicants; while,
above all, the spiritual remission of temporal punishment
for sins known familiarly to Catholics under the name of
Indulgence, is more copiously imparted, on conditions by
no means over easy. Rome, during that year, becomes the
attracting centre of Catholic devotion, the magnet which
draws it from every side. But it does not exhaust it, or
.absorb it; for multitudes go back full of gratitude to
�Luther and Tetzel.
31
Heaven and the Holy See for the blessings which they feel
they have received, and the edifying scenes in which they
have been allowed to partake.
The Cardinal speaks only of Rome itself, but the
same scenes are repeated throughout the world, if on
a smaller, in many places a very much smaller, scale.
Shortly we shall all have another opportunity of
witnessing them, and taking part in them, and shall
then know from our experience what a powerful
means of grace for the regeneration of souls is a
Jubilee Indulgence.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Luther and Tetzel
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK ((OCLC WorldCat).
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Smith, Sydney F. (Sydney Fenn), 1843-1922
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[190-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Reformation
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Luther and Tetzel), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1545
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Johann Tetzel
Martin Luther
Reformation
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4c1355f647678eb122aa0967468ef109.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=q4CKQSmxUFsyBXKsOQdUTNLREyKN24H5knn3s5M%7EPOexqfHOvTQRYnz2ALAsr%7EtZViPSrZNU2i7W1ADIA9md2C%7EiYF92-lf33j37BKni6hN%7EVmRpud3uolR3-WCQn3Dw0Qb0H-AfbjgULyUUo9hkkbmvBO5eX2GARiELptpcziE4wxVUD%7Eq2a9xGy214FnJHzw3gu2%7E-zO8BPC4OBdLu8PDpveAR2M11tWJYZcVgiFv-3HBWg48QURqkyF95c5%7E8iT4GIIVAEVq3nKhwHMsl1YWhJt6KJdSeCo6THUM%7E1VvmjLeMWbjum5xBECIAlKpZ1kS5DZjWuJXgKWDwirLZDg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b385cb95fd2cbf89d4f64749e8361d2a
PDF Text
Text
THE BRANCH THEORY1
By ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Every one has heard of the Anglican Branch Theory by
now; no doubt many Catholics will think it hardly worth
while to discuss it yet again. Nevertheless, there are
points about it that have still, perhaps, scarcely been
sufficiently considered. In its vague general form, as set
out by the average High Churchman (it is the only form
in which you will hear it), it is that the Catholic Church,
undoubtedly one Church, exists in several branches now
unhappily no longer in communion with one another.
These branches are the Roman, Eastern, and Anglican
churches. When William Palmer went to Russia in 1840
he had his Branch Theory at his finger-tips and he was
always proposing it to astonished Russians. Once he got
hold of a Father Maloff at Petersburg. As usual, out came
the Branch Theory: “ I think that the true Catholic
Church is divided by misunderstandings into three parts or
communions. He (Maloff) looked puzzled2 and asked,
How into three 1 I replied : First into the Eastern and
Western, and then the Western again into the Continental
and the British.” s That is the theory as they had
evolved it seventy years ago. They have not got any
further with it since.
( Reprinted from The Tablet by permission and revised by the author.
They all did that, cfr. e.gr. p. 276, where the Procurator of the
Holy Synod “seemed to be staggered,” also pp. 166, 248, &c.
3 W. Palmer : Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church (Longmans,
1895), P- 174.
�2
The Branch Theory
The most amazing thing about their theory is not its
want of logic, its absurd principle of a Church visible and
one, and yet not visibly one, its defiance of history, its
repudiation by both the two large branches, or any other of
the points that naturally strike a Catholic when he hears it.
The really wonderful thing is that Anglicans have not yet
found out what they themselves mean by it. It seems
incredible. Their whole position stands or falls by this
theory; they cannot, do not claim that the Church of
England alone is the whole Church of Christ; she is a
branch among other branches.. And yet they cannot tell
us which are the branches and why. It seems an absurd
paradox and yet it is perfectly true that the famous Branch
Theory has not yet got as far as being a theory. One need
not argue against it. Ask a High Church Anglican to tell
you what he means, and you find that he cannot. He has
never thought it out sufficiently to be able to formulate the
theory on which his whole position rests.
There are two consistent theories of the Church. The
Catholic view is at any rate perfectly logical. There is one
visible Church in communion with herself all over the
world, one great corporate united body. Every one
outside that corporate and united body is in a state of
schism. Then there is the consistent Protestant Theory,
logical enough too: namely, there is no visible Church,
no one Church in any corporate sense at all. Any one who
follows, or means to follow Christ, has an equal right to be
considered a Christian and a Catholic (the Dissenters are
claiming the name too now); it is absurd to talk about
schism, schisms do not matter; no one is a schismatic.
Between these two intelligible positions comes the High
Anglican, as usual, with his compromise. We know that
compromising via media in many questions : in none is it
so hopeless as in this. He, the High Anglican (the Low
Churchman of course still cheerfully gives Communion to
Lutherans and Dissenters), agrees with neither. He cannot
accept the Roman view, or where would he be ? Neither is
�The Branch Theory
3
he consistently Protestant. He talks about the one
Catholic Church, her teaching and authority. He abhors
the crime of schism (Romanism in England is a terrible
example of schism). He looks out over the enormous
number of churches and sects that divide Christendom and
tells us that some of them are branches of the Catholic
Church, others are schismatical sects. Surely it is not too
much for us to expect him to tell us which are which.
But that is just what he cannot do. Anglicans are
incapable of saying which are the branches ; they are if
possible still more incapable of giving us any test at all by
which we may know a true branch from a sect. Both
these points can be shown easily. We take first the ques
tion of which bodies are branches, without asking why. It
is really amazing that they have not yet made up their
minds about that.
Palmer’s naive three branches will not do at all. That
idea breaks down hopelessly in both East and West. As
for the East—what do Anglicans mean by the “ Eastern
Church ? ” Some of them seem to think that all Eastern
Christendom is united. It is an extraordinary misconcep
tion. The East is riddled with heresies and schisms almost
as badly as the West. We can count about a dozen
separate Eastern churches. There is the great Orthodox
Church and the Bulgarian Church in schism with her.
There is the Nestorian Church, there are four large
Monophysite churches (Copts, Abyssinians, Jacobites,
Armenians), there are those quarrelsome people along the
Malabar coasts, and there are the Uniates. The Orthodox,
Bulgars, Nestorians, Monophysites and Uniates all
anathematize each other as schismatics and (except the
Bulgars) as heretics too. Are they all, in spite of that,
true branches of the Church ? It is no good asking
Anglicans; they do not know, most of them own that they
do not know, that they did not even know the fact of all
these divisions in the East. Shall we try to apply the
Anglican tests ? We shall see how uncertain these tests
�4
The Branch Theory
are. But meanwhile, without discussing it, let us try
what they usually say: “ Valid Orders and the Creeds.”
Here we are pulled up again., Which Creeds? The
Athanasian Creed must be left in the background at
present. Its application is very doubtful all over the East,
as we shall see. If we take the others, more or less, and
do not bother about the Filioque, this test will cover all
Eastern sects. So it would follow that all are branches of
the Catholic Church. Some Anglicans seem to think so.
An Anglican writer not long ago distinctly claimed that the
Armenians are.1 It is difficult to understand the con
duct of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission to the
Nestorians unless these gentlemen think the Nestorians
a branch of the Church too. They print Nestorian service
books for use in church, preach in their churches, keep one
of their members in the Nestorian Patriarch’s house as his
adviser, protest continually that they do not wish to
convert Nestorians, and are indignant with the Roman
missionaries who do.2 Would they do this for heretics
and schismatics? Is it possible so to co-operate with
schism? One can hardly imagine High Anglicans doing
all this for Methodists or Calvinists. And does not their
attitude towards our missionaries prove the same ? If the
Nestorians are outside the true Church the Anglicans
ought surely to rejoice at their turning Uniate. A Uniate
is in communion with Rome, and therefore a member of,
at any rate, one branch of the Church. Surely it is better
to belong even to the Roman branch than to be outside
altogether ? But the Anglicans at Urmi call these Uniates
schismatics. So I see nothing for it but to suppose that
they do consider the Nestorians a branch, although
possibly a rather unsatisfactory one. Once more it is no
good asking them. One can get no clear answer to a plain
question: “ Are the Nestorians a branch of the Catholic
1 E. F. K. Fortescue : The Armenian Church (Hayes, 1872), pp. 212,
218, 220, &c.
2 The little paper published by the Mission is full of these complaints.
�The Branch Theory
5
Church ? ” They tell one that the Anglicans do not print
or preach anything heretical, that they hope for a future
corporate reunion with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch,
and so on. All that is beside the point. If the Nestorian
body is a heretical sect it is wrong to co-operate with it in
religious matters at all, and each Nestorian ought to be
brought back to some branch of the Church. That is their
own principle in other cases. Once more, what would a
High Churchman say to Anglicans who treated Methodists
so, and who repudiated any idea of converting them ?
But if Nestorians and Monophysites are Catholics, what
becomes of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon ? One
does not need to be very “ advanced ” to admit these as
Oecumenical. So most Anglicans, as a matter of fact, when
pressed, throw overboard the Nestorian and Monophysite
sects, although, oddly enough, they all seem to prefer them
to the Uniates. Anything seems better than the Pope, in
spite of the fact that he stands at the head of the over
whelmingly largest branch in their theory. The test of
valid orders and the creeds will not do in the East. We
must try later to find some other test. We shall not
succeed.
Meanwhile, we may take as the opinion of the average
High Anglican that in the East the Orthodox only are the
right thing. But then the Bulgars. Are they Catholics,
too ? If so we have the impossible situation all over
Macedonia of two rival Catholic bishops (exarchist and
patriarchist) in the same place in schism with one another.
Who is the lawful bishop, for instance, at Saloniki, or even
at Constantinople? Then there are all the Uniates.
They belong to the Roman branch in the Anglican
theory (at least they are in communion with the Bishop
of Rome just as much as Spaniards or Bavarians). So one
does not see how it can be denied that they are Catholics.
Surely a Catholic is a member of any one branch of this
variegated Church. Nevertheless one finds that Anglicans
nearly always describe the Eastern Uniates as schismatics,
�6
The Branch Theory
because they are not in communion with their “ lawful
Patriarchs.” These lawful Patriarchs are, of course, the
Orthodox ones in the case of Melkites. But who is the
lawful Patriarch of an Armenian Uniate? The Monophysite gentleman at Echmiadzin ? And if the Uniates are
Catholics we have again on a very large scale the paradox
of rival bishops, in this case teaching different doctrines, in
the same place, yet both Catholic bishops. We must leave
the branch theory in a confusion as regards the East.
When we turn to the West we find the confusion
as great.
Which are the Western branches? The old-fashioned
answer is simple enough, as Palmer expressed it: “The
Continental and the British,” Roman and Anglican. We
may leave the Anglicans out of account. True, a branch
of the Catholic Church (in the Ritualists’ sense) that
contains such people as the Bishops of Hereford, Newcastle,
Durham, as Canon Hensley Henson and the Kensitites,
whose Primate could declare that she teaches Receptionism
in the Holy Eucharist, tolerates the Lutheran theory,
and forbids more than that,1 such a branch is a curious
phenomenon. But let that pass; our object is not to
criticise the branch theory so much as to show that there is
none, none at least that can even be stated. Only in passing
we may note this, that the common High Church practice
of using the word Catholic as a party name for High
Churchmen only is the most absurd thing of all. If the
Church of England is a branch of the Catholic Church all
her members are Catholics, the Low and Broad Church
men just as much as the extreme Ritualists. To be a
Catholic is not a thing that admits of degrees. You
either are a member of the Catholic Church or you are not.
If you are one in any case as being an Anglican, you
cannot make yourselves more so by using incense and
1 Archbishop Temple in his Visitation Charge of 1898 (C.Androutsos, The Validity of English Ordinations, Grant Richards,
�The Branch Theory
vestments, or by changing the Prayer Book service into a
very bad imitation of the Roman Mass.1
But it is the rest of the West that presents the difficulties.
What branches have we here ? Rome only ? That will
not do at all. We find quite a number of churches or
sects not in communion with Rome that must be admitted.
First we have the Jansenists, whom it is a point of honour
to describe as the “ Church of Holland.” To them we
may safely add the various Old Catholic bodies in Ger
many, Austria, Switzerland; though, by the way, Dr.
Michaud presents as much difficulty as any Anglican
Broad Churchman. We shall get too confused if we try to
find room for Bishop Mathew and his new sect in England.
On the Branch Theory, what is he doing here? The
correspondent in The Guardian lately spoke pertinently
when he hinted that Bishop Mathew in England is as bad
as the English Romanists. But we have more branches
abroad. There is the Lusitanian Reformed Church.
Probably most people have never heard of the Lusitanian
Reformed Church. There really is such a body though,
and The Guardian of April 29, 1910 (p. 577) tells us that
three Anglican bishops (Irish, of course) have been
ordaining people in Portugal for it. If ordaining does not
mean inter-communion, what does ? Then there is Senor
Cabrera and his sect in Spain. He, too, was ordained
bishop by Anglicans. And is there not some little con1 This use of the word “ Catholic,” meaning High-Church or
Ritualistic, is one of the strangest results of the Anglican confusion of
ideas. One meets it at every turn. For instance, The Church Times
of August 5, 1910 (p. 162), publishes a letter in which a correspondent
explains that St. George’s, Goodwood, is “ the one church in South
Australia where the Catholic faith is taught without compromise,”
where the men are “ out-and-out Catholics.” One tries to imagine one
of our people writing thus to one of our papers and finding it necessary
to explain that the clergy of, say, Spanish Place or the Oratory are
“ out-and-out Catholics ” ; and one asks oneself: Do these people
really claim that the Church of England as a body teaches the Catholic
faith, and is a branch of the Catholic Church, or not ? Apparently
not. Apparently it is only the extreme section of one party that is
“Catholic.” Then what on earth do they mean by Catholic, and
where is the Branch Theory ?
�8
The Branch Theory
venticle in Italy ? There was Count Campello, till he came
back to Rome. There is M. Loyson and his Catholic
Gallican Reformed Church in France. And what is Mar
Timotheos doing now? He had some kind of sect some
where. In Poland there are these Mariavite people, and
there are all sorts of little schisms of Poles and others
in America. Now are all these branches of the true
Church too ? It would seem so. Cabrera and the Portu
guese people get their orders from Anglicans. Moreover,
on what ground can they be rejected if the Old Catholics
are admitted ? Is it that they do not teach the Catholic
faith? We do not pretend to know what the Catholic
faith in this theory may be; but at any rate they claim that
they agree with the faith of the Church of England,
and they use her Prayer-Book and formularies. It seems
hardly safe to reject them on that ground.
If they are to be admitted, we have quite a number of
branches in the West instead of Palmer’s two. And indeed
it is difficult to see on what grounds an Anglican can
reject these sects if he admits the Old Catholics. But, once
more, it is hopeless to look for any kind of agreement
among them. In spite of the action.of their own bishops,
most High Churchmen will have nothing to say to Senor
Cabrera or the Portuguese and Italian people. They
generally describe these bodies, very correctly, as con
temptible little schisms. The English Church Union even
went so far as to astonish the Archbishop of Toledo by a
letter of apology when the Anglican Archbishop of Dublin
ordained Cabrera.
But they acknowledge the Old
Catholics, apparently because they thought that that
schism was going to be a success (they can hardly think
so now), and many of them were, perhaps still are,
enthusiastic over M. Loyson and his infinitesimal sect.
Why Loyson if not Cabrera? Again we must leave this
unanswered.
Our conclusion, then, is that the Anglicans have not yet
considered their Branch Theory sufficiently even to be able
�The Branch Theory
9
to tell us which the branches are. In both East and West
they admit that they do not know themselves. Not only
do no two Anglicans agree as to which of the numerous
Christian churches are branches of the Catholic Church,
but no one seems to have thought of it. It is the easiest
thing in the world to make an Anglican contradict himself
over and over again simply by asking him plain questions.
Are the Armenians a branch ? The Copts ? The East
Syrians, Old Catholics, Mariavites, Portuguese, Spanish and
French reformed churches ? He will answer all kinds of
things, will retract what he has said when a new case is
brought forward, and will end generally by confessing that
he has not considered the question and really does not
know—an honest answer that does him credit. But it is
not astonishing that they have not considered the basis of
their whole position even enough for this ? As we said,
the really wonderful thing about the Branch Theory is
that it has not yet got even as far as being a theory.
The only possible basis for an answer to each particular
case would be a consistent test, a criterion that one could
apply to any body of Christians. What conditions are
required to be a branch of the Catholic Church ? And
they havp no such criterion. There is no test they can
suggest that will apply to all and only the churches
any one claims; all the conditions they propose either
exclude some or admit too many. This is the funda
mental impossibility of their theory. No wonder then
that they cannot tell us which are the branches.
II
We have seen that Anglicans cannot tell us which of the
numberless Christian sects make up the branches of what
they call the Catholic Church. It is one more case of the
vagueness, the confusion of their ideas on most theological
subjects. And here, too, the confusion comes from the
usual source. They cannot answer obvious questions
�IO
The Branch Theory
because they have no criteria. They cannot tell us which
are the branches to which they always vaguely allude,
simply because they have no test. Such a test would, of
course, dispense them, and us, from trying to draw up a
list. It would be enough to give the test. You might
then apply it for yourself. The churches or sects that
satisfy it would be true branches and not any others. But
there is no test. It is not that their criterion is wrong,
unfounded in any particular system of theology or in
sufficient for any other reason : the amazing truth is that
they have simply no criterion at all. The Church Times
for May 27, 1910, tells a correspondent with its usual
sovereign finality that members of the “Reformed Episcopal
Church ” “ would not be in communion with the Catholic
Church.” That is all very well, if one pools one’s religious
convictions on the ex cathedra assertions of The Church
Times; but has one not the right in this and other cases to
ask : Why not ?
The old-fashioned, fairly simple criterion that one
generally hears first from an Anglican is that to be a
branch of the Catholic Church two things are required—
Valid Orders and the Creeds. We might at once question
the reasonableness of this test before going an^ further.
Why valid orders ? That supposes the dogma of the
Apostolic Succession and the inherent character of the
priesthood. Why should that dogma be an articulus
stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae any more than the Papacy or
the Sacrament of Marriage, or many other things that were
reconsidered at the Reformation? It is not because all the
Reformers, or all the English Reformers, were agreed as to
this particular dogma. Is it because this dogma is plainly
in the Bible, was clearly held by the early Church ? Well,
plenty of good and learned people deny that. A man who
sees no Pope in the fourth century may well be excused if
he sees no bishops in the first. Why, since after all every
Reformed church has reconsidered the whole body of
dogma, rejecting parts, keeping other parts, why are bishops
�The Branch Theory
11
essential ? Must one satisfy one’s private judgement as to
this (it would involve much study), or must one accept the
High Church party, and The Church Times, as shepherd
and teacher of all Christians? But we need not discuss
this. We may let the Anglican choose any test he likes
and see if he can use it.
So be it, then—valid orders and the creeds. Both
elements are fragile, the second is no good at all. As for
valid orders—what is' meant by that ? Orders acknow
ledged by every one as valid, or orders claimed as valid by
the sect in question ? If the first, over goes the Church of
England at once. It may be a regrettable, it is however
a certain, fact that her orders are not acknowledged by
practically any one in Christendom except her own
members. The Roman Communion rejects them ; as for
the Orthodox, Professor Androutsos’ damaging book {The
Validity of English Ordinations, Grant Richards, 1909)
ought to leave no doubt in the mind of the most hopeful
Anglican. He will not even discuss Anglican orders “as
being, generally and fundamentally valid,” because Anglicans
are heretics (p. 5). It is a well-known Orthodox principle
that, as we knew, always made Orthodox recognition impos
sible. This disposes of the two overwhelmingly greatest
churches, so that one need hardly trouble about the others.
But, if one asks further, the Jansenists agree with Rome,
foreign Protestants for the most part reject the whole
theory of orders, so that they can hardly acknowledge those
of Anglicans. Even Bishop Mathew adds the voice of his
little sect to the general chorus of rejection. The smaller
Eastern sects do not appear to have considered the matter.
No doubt Senor Cabrera and the Lusitanian Reformed
Church admit Anglican orders—possibly some other insig
nificant little sects too. But as far as being acknowledged
goes, Anglican orders come off very badly indeed.
Or are the orders required those that are claimed by any
given sect ? If so, we have too many people as branches.
The Methodist Episcopal Church, the Reformed Episcopal
�12
The Branch Theory
Church, the Lutherans in Scandinavia, all have people they
call bishops, and all claim for them orders in some sense
that they consider the true one, a sense at any rate not less
vague than that of most Anglicans. The Anglican will
answer that what he wants is really valid orders, and that it
does not matter who does or does not acknowledge them.
This means, of course, such orders as a Ritualist would
recognize; and so this fraction of the Anglican body is to
be the judge of an essential note of Catholicity for all
Christendom, East and West. The situation is curious; it
repeats itself again.
But it is the second test that is so impossible. Not only
valid orders are wanted; to be a true branch one must
have the creeds. We ask at once, Which creeds ? Creeds
are professions of faith drawn up by some synod or Pope,
or even private person. Any number of them have been
made at various times by various people, and creeds con
tradict each other as much as the people who made them.
A creed is only a compendium of what some person or
persons believe on certain points : none even pretend to be
revealed by God. So we ask, Which creeds ? If our
Anglican friend is very naive, he will answer : “ Those that
are used or admitted by all Catholics,” and so (since it is
just the creeds that are going to tell us who are Catholics)
he will give away crudely the whole vicious circle to which
in any case he will come eventually. By “ the creeds ”
they mean really the three that happen to be in their
Prayerbook—the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian forms.
These are to be the test; and so again we have the amusing
situation that the Church of ^England—on their own theory
the least of all branches, or very nearly so—is the judge of
Catholicity for the whole world.1 However, here again we
1 This curious complacency always emerges from Anglican theories.
In the old days, when they were not at all ashamed of being in com
munion with the other Protestant sects, before ritualism and branch
theories were invented, they were very pleased with the idea that they
were the best kind of Protestants. At the time of the famous AngloLutheran Jerusalem bishoprick the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed
�The Branch Theory
13
need not quarrel with their criterion. We may let them
choose what they like; nothing they can suggest will work.
These three creeds will not work at all; not one of them
will apply. The Apostles’ Creed must go at once. It is
an expanded rearrangement of an old Roman baptismal
profession of faith. It does not appear in its present form
till about the 6th or 7th century (see Benzinger., Enchiridion,
ed. 10, pp. 5-6). It has no authority of a general council;
it is unknown to any Eastern church. The Athanasian
Creed is no test either. This, too, is a Western (Spanish
or Gallican) compilation, made quite late (7th century) by
some unknown person. It has no authority at all in any
Eastern church;1 it may even be disputed whether it has
any symbolic position in the Roman Church. It has no
authority of any council or Pope ex cathedra? There
remains the Nicene Creed. Here we have something quite
different. This creed has the authority of general councils
behind it; both Latins and Orthodox regard it as a symbolic
profession of faith in the strictest sense. Shall we, then,
make the Nicene Creed our test? Alas! that would be the
worst of all. It is just about the Nicene Creed that the
great dispute between East and West rages. There is
that Filioque clause. Agreement in the Nicene Creed will
not cover even the Roman and Orthodox churches, and
the scheme because it would bring about entire agreement of “ discipline
4s well as of doctrine between our own Church and the less perfectly
constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe (Statement of the
Archbishop in 1840). So Anglicanism is always the best of its kind,
whether frankly Protestant as of old or pseudo-Catholic as now. But,
after all, every sect thinks itself the best, of course.
1 The Orthodox now print a modified translation of the Athanasian
Creed in their Ilorologion, but they never use it officially, and they
refuse to it any symbolic authority.
2 The only claim this creed has to authority among Latins is its
insertion in the Divine Office. But the Office contains many things
that are not official statements of the faith At first the Quicunque
was not called a creed at all; it is rather a hymn, a psalmtis idioticus,
like the Te Deunl. Of course, we all believe everything in it; but
that is not the point. We are discussing its right to be considered a
test, a standard. Any one could draw up a list of statements that are
all de fide, as did the unknown author of this document. But such a
list does not thereby become a creed.
�14
The Branch Theory
they must be branches whatever happens. Nor can it be
said that the Filioque does not matter. Each side calls the
other heretical stricto sensu because of this. To the Orthodox
our creed-tampering ways are the most vicious of our habits.
They would never admit the creed as sung by Latins (or
Anglicans either) as evidence that we are members of the
Church of Christ. Rather that very creed proclaims us
heretics. So no creed is any use as a test. But let us
again concede all an Anglican may ask, and let us pretend
that the Filioque does not matter. Shall we say that the
Nicene Creed (with or without that fatal clause) is the
criterion? No again, because now we are letting in too
many people. All the Eastern heretics, Nestorians,
Armenians, Copts, Jacobites, &c., have valid orders and
accept the Nicene Creed; and yet how can they possibly
be Catholics, since they are condemned as heretics by
undoubted general councils ? The Nicene Creed does
not touch the issues that affect them either way. No creed
mentions all questions of faith, even from a High Anglican
point of view. A man could accept all the creeds and yet
believe in no sort of Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist
at all. So no creed can be a sufficient test.
The Anglican will now shift his ground and give as his
criterion : “ Valid Orders and the Catholic Faith,” and so
he embarks on what is as perfect a vicious circle as was
ever made by man. First we notice that this leaves no room
for schism. If a new sect in England got valid orders from
some wandering Eastern bishop and professed something
that a High Anglican would acknowledge as the Catholic
faith (the other day a very High Church clergyman told the
writer that the Irvingites hold the whole Catholic faith),
that sect would be a branch of the Church. There is no
such thing as schism. But we may leave this consideration
and turn to the palpable sophism of the test in itself. For
one must then ask : How are we to know what is the
Catholic faith ? Now there is no answer to this question
that does not involve a vicious circle. If we are told that
�The Branch Theory
15
it is the faith of the Catholic Church,1 that is, all that is
held conjointly by all branches, the thing is manifest at
once. Out of the many Christian sects you pick some and
say that they are Catholics because they hold the Catholic
faith; and the Catholic faith is what they hold 1 If it is
said that the Catholic faith is what has been laid down by
general councils the difficulty is only removed one degree;
for which are the general councils ? The only answer can
be : Those that have been held or acknowledged by the
Catholic Church. There are many councils that claim to
be Oecumenical; the Roman Church has twenty. But, we
are told, thirteen of these are not so really, because a great
part of the Church (all the East) had no share in them.
On the other hand, there is not one council that has the
allegiance of all Christendom; even at the first there were
the dissentient Arians. The Nestorians reject Ephesus, the
Monophysites Chalcedon, just as the Orthodox reject
Florence, and the Anglicans Vatican. How, then, is one
to know which councils really are Oecumenical ? Those
admitted by all Christians? There are none such. Those
admitted by all the true branches of the Church ? Yes,
but which are the true branches ? Those that accept the
general councils. And so we go round and round. One
could hardly invent a more perfect vicious circle. A branch
of the Catholic Church is one that has (valid orders and)
the Catholic faith. The faith is what was defined by the
1 The extreme High Churchman’s idea of what he calls the Catholic
faith is very curious. He is more and more unwilling to accept any
Anglican pronouncement as decisive. He appeals to the “Catholic
faith,” that is, what is held in common by all branches, behind any
thing that may be said by any Anglican authority ; and he insists that
all Anglican formulas must be understood as agreeing with this, how
ever much they have to be twisted to do so. As it is the Anglican
principles that are thus tested, the consent in question can only be that
of the other two branches, Rome and the Orthodox. But this very
consent is against the Anglican’s whole position. Rome and the
Orthodox repudiate the whole branch theory, deny any place to the
Church of England, reject Anglican orders. What it comes to, then,
is that the High Churchman quotes “the consent of the whole
Church ” when it agrees with some point for which he is fighting
against Low Churchmen, and ignores it when it tells against himself.
�i6
The Branch Theory
general councils. Those councils are general which are
acknowledged by all branches of the Church. An Armenian
would, of course, say with the same right that he holds all
the Catholic faith, that is, all that has been defined by
general councils. Chalcedon was not a general council
because the Church of Armenia has never accepted it.
Every heretic believes that he holds all the true faith, and
that councils which establish what he does not accept are
not Oecumenical, because his sect does not acknowledge
them. The famous “ undivided Church ” is the same
thing again. When was the Church undivided? Not
when all Christians were united, for there has never been a
time when some heretics did not exist. No, it was when
the true branches were in visible union. But which are the
true branches ? Those that were united—when they were
united ; those that accepted the councils—that they
accepted. So we go round.
We have come to the end of the Anglican criteria for
being a branch of the Catholic Church. All those quoted
above have been proposed really and seriously by Anglicans
repeatedly. We have never heard any others suggested.
Indeed, no others seem conceivable. And all are quite
hopeless. Either the tests do not fit the very cases for
which they were invented, or they are too wide, or they
rest on an absurd vicious circle. No wonder, then, L .at no
Anglican can tell us the result of applying his tests, that
none know which are the branches of their imagined system.
We have still to examine a further and final paradox of
the Branch theory and to see whence this theory really is
derived.
Meanwhile, we may sum it up fairly that: The Branch
Theory is that certain separated churches combine to make
up the one Church of Christ. These churches are, at any
rate, those of England, Rome, and the Orthodox. No one
knows which others must be added ; and no one can give
any reason for the inclusion or rejection of any church
at all. .
................
�The Branch Theory
17
The real reason is that they must include the Church
of England because they are Anglicans, they must include
Rome because she is so big, they must include the
Orthodox because that is a big church too and is a mighty
ally against Rome. They have never worried about any
one else and have never even troubled to consider on what
basis they can admit these.
Ill
As a last paradox we have the situation of people being at
the same time Catholics and schismatics. Since no one of
the famous three branches except the smallest (the Angli
can) will have anything to say to the theory at all, they, of
course, ignore it in practice. Romanists and the Orthodox
agree entirely as to the fact that there can be one, and
really only one, Church of Christ, in communion with her
self and teaching the same faith everywhere. And both
are quite logical in claiming that this one Church is their
own. So both treat all outsiders as schismatics (mostly as
heretics too), and send missionaries to convert them. The
Orthodox do so, but Rome is the most obvious instance.
So there are Romanist bodies gathered from other branches,
converted Anglicans and Orthodox. Now, are such people
Catholics or not ? The Romanists in England are the
nearest example. We are certainly members of what is
by far the largest branch of the Church, so surely we
are Catholics, Roman Catholics, but Catholics. What is to
be a Catholic if not to be a member of one of the branches
of the Church ? If an Anglican is one because he belongs
to one branch, surely we are Catholics too as belonging to
another branch. And yet we are schismatics as well.
Supposing the Church of England to be the lawful Church
of Christ in this country, supposing the Anglican bishops
to be the Catholic pastors of their dioceses, here are we in
open and shameless schism, setting Up altars against their
�The Branch Theory
altars, seducing people from the church of their baptism,
obviously out of communion with the lawful bishops. Nor
do the more consistent High Church papers hesitate to call
us schismatics continually. Dr. Bourne is the “ Romanist
titular so-called Archbishop of Westminster”; he has lately
perpetrated a fresh outrage on the Catholic Church of the
land by pretending to consecrate his big dissenting chapel
in the parish of that little church at the corner of Morpeth
Terrace.
Now, so far from feeling hurt at this language, a reason
able Roman Catholic will only rejoice that so far at least
they are consistent and logical. Logic is the first step
towards putting an end to our differences. Supposing their
claim, they are perfectly right. We should be a most
brazen example of schism if the Bishop of London, for
instance, were the Catholic bishop of the place. Let us
agree to that and keep to it always. There cannot be rival
Catholic authorities, mutually in schism, at any rate in the
same place. If we keep our Anglican friend to that prin
ciple we shall go a long way towards showing him the
absurdity of the whole branch theory. But then surely we
are not Catholics at all. If the terms Catholic and schis
matic are not mutually exclusive, what can “ Catholic ”
possibly mean? It seems the clearest case of contradictory
terms. A Catholic is a man who is in the Catholic Church,
a schismatic one who is outside it.
Moreover, this principle, supposing their branches, leaves
few Romanists who are not schismatics. For wherever
there are “ Catholic ” non-Roman bishops the Romanists
must be in schism, because not in communion with them.
So we are schismatics throughout the British Empire, in
the United States, and wherever else may be Anglican
bishops—otherwise, again, there would be two rival
Catholic authorities in the same place. We are schis
matics in China and Japan (so are the Orthodox too, of
course), since there are Anglican bishops there. In China
the Anglican body has begun to call itself the “ Holy
�The Branch Theory
19
Catholic Church of China”;1 evidently they think so. All
Uniates and Latins in the Levant are schismatics. We
are schismatics in Holland because of the Jansenists, in
Germany and Switzerland because of the Old Catholics,
in France because of M. Loyson. Indeed, do not the
Reformed branches in Spain, Portugal, and Italy make
us schismatics in those countries too ? The authentic
Roman branch of the Church sinks to small proportions.
Or rather—if only the Anglican were logical—the schism
of one part of that Roman branch must make it all schis
matical, wherever it is. This, too, follows from the con
tradictory nature of the terms. For all the Roman Church
is in communion with us Romanists in England. So, if
we are schismatics, all the other Romanists are too. A
Catholic cannot be in communion with a schismatic, nor a
schismatic with a Catholic. Each man is either inside the
Church or out. Being in communion with Catholics means
being inside, being a schismatic means being outside. The
same man cannot be both at once.
But one can go on tying this absurd branch theory up in
a tangle indefinitely. Instead of further hunting down what
is such poor quarry, we will end by examining whence the
theory comes. It certainly does not come from the Bible,
the Fathers of the Church, or antiquity. The New Testa
ment supplies the symbol of branches in a vine, but they
are branches joined to each other visibly and really by
their common life in the trunk, which is Christ. The same
sap comes from him, and runs through all joined together.
It is the picture of united branches. As for a separated
branch, separated from Christ by being cut away from the
vine (and the other branches), our Lord tells us about that
too: “ it shall be cast out like a branch and shall wither,
and they shall gather it up and cast it into the fire and it
1 To an ordinary reasonable man this new name, even on their own
theory, is surely a most amazing piece of effrontery. Why are the
Anglican missions in China the “Catholic Church of China” more
than the Orthodox or Roman ones ? Is it that wherever Anglicans
choose to appear they eclipse every other branch ?
�20
'1'he Branch Theory
shall burn” (John xv, 6). We hear much of branches, of
local churches and their organization in early times, but
not the remotest hint of churches in schism with one
another and yet all Catholic. There were schisms enough
in the first ages, and the Fathers discussed them at length ;
but invariably a schism, that is a breach of intercom
munion, meant that one at least of the parties was
schismatic. No one ever seems to have conceived the
possibility of anything else. There may have been dis
cussions as to which was the schismatic ; but that neither
was did not even occur to any one. The Donatists were
not heretics, and all the Church was moved against them
simply because they had broken communion with the rest.
The Meletian schism at Antioch is the one case quoted for
the opposite. There was discussion while it lasted as to
which communion was Catholic and which schismatic.
But that, as a general proposition, breaking communion is
schism, and that people in schism are schismatics and not
Catholics—this was not doubted by any one. The third
chapter of St. Cyprian {De Unitate Ecclesiae) seems plain
enough : “ He (the devil) invented heresies and schisms
by which he might undermine the faith, corrupt the truth,
break unity. He gains and deceives by a new kind of
error those whom he cannot keep in the blindness of the
old way (paganism). He steals men from the Church.”
That is what a schism means, not an unfortunate mis
understanding, in spite of which both sides remain Catholic,
but stealing men from the Church; the man in schism has
left the Church. In short a schism, that is a breaking of
intercommunion, means that the people in it are schis
matics ; and schismatics are not Catholics. It is surely as
obvious now as it was to St. Cyprian.1
We may take this as one of the most obvious things of
all in the age of the Fathers; it is enough alone to destroy
1 See Dom John Chapman’s answer to Bishop Gore’s theory of
schisms inside the Church in Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims,
chap, viii: “ The Nature of Schism.”
�The Branch Theory
2I
the whole High Anglican theory. Certainly there are many
points that may be discussed about the early Church, points
that were discussed then. Rights of bishops, patriarchs,
even Popes, the mutual relation of local churches, all
manner of questions of Canon Law—no one pretends that
all this is always perfectly clear or that there has been no
development since. But we may keep to this one point as
plain in any case: the idea of a Church separated into
mutually excommunicate branches, built up of bodies in
schism with one another and yet mocked with the name of
one Church—this idea would have been as inconceivable
to any Father as it is to us. Even if we were to admit that
a Father—say St. Augustine or St. Basil—who came back
now would hesitate as to which body, Latin, Orthodox, or
Anglican, is the Church of Christ, he most certainly would
never admit that all are. We are so often challenged to
find certain of our dogmas in antiquity; let our adversary
find his branch theory there.
And yet this theory is not entirely an invention of the
modern High Churchman. It has a history behind it,
though one of which he will not be proud. The idea of a
Church made up of separated bodies is in fact the most
typically Protestant part of the Anglican system. It began
with the Reformation, it is held not only by Anglicans but
by all Protestant bodies, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presby
terians, Methodists, all of them, and only by them. It is
all Protestant and only Protestant, one of the few dogmas
common to all the Reformed sects.
How entirely the old Churches repudiate it is obvious
enough. That Rome will have none of it needs no demon
stration. It is amazing that some Anglicans 1 have tried to
claim the Orthodox as at least not rejecting some kind of
branch theory. The better-informed among them now
candidly give up this attempt,2 for indeed the Orthodox
Church makes it quite as plain that she considers herself
1 E.gr., Dr. Neale : History of the Holy Eastern Church, I.,
p. 1199.
2 A. S. Headlam : The Teaching of the Russian Church, p. 1.
�22
The Branch Theory
the whole only Church of Christ as does her Latin rival.
She declares this in all her professions of faith, claims it
unceasingly in her encyclicals, teaches it in the plainest
language in her catechisms, and acts on it invariably,
receiving all non-Orthodox Christians to her communion
with a ceremony of conversion, in which they are absolved
solemnly from heresy and schism, and admitted to the one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If she is to be tied
to the Latins and Anglicans in a triple bundle that feigns
to be one body, it is in spite of her vehement protest. She
calls Latins heretics and schismatics in the plainest language
always, and says the same quite as uncompromisingly of
Anglicans. So of the three branches it is only the smallest,
and she only in one party of her communion, that knows
what she really is. The two big branches indignantly deny
any connection with each other or her, and insist each of
them that she is the whole tree. Truly the Church of
Christ is in a parlous state.
But the Anglican will find supporters for his branch
theory, alas ! not where he would. There are people who
claim to be sister-branches with his body, and they are just
those whom a High Churchman will not have. The
Reformation began this idea. The new sects, Lutherans,
Calvinists, and so on, broke communion with the old
Church, but they could not manage to unite among them
selves. Each, of course, claimed to be a true church; all
Protestants thought themselves Catholics, but no one sect
(except, perhaps, the Anabaptists), had the effrontery to
claim to be the whole Catholic Church that they still
confessed in the creed. So they evolved the conception
of a church existing in all their bodies in spite of their
schisms. Whether they added Rome as a branch or not
depended on the vehemence of their anti-Papal ideas.
The first Protestants (and some still) described Rome as no
church at all, but a Synagogue of Satan. Milder ones later
admit Rome as a branch, though a grievously corrupt one.
That is still the position. Each Protestant sect thinks
�The Branch Theory
23
itself, like the Anglicans, a branch of the Church of Christ;
none, or none of any respectability, claims to be the whole
Church. So all stand by this branch theory, wit-h, of
course, in each case their own body as the best and purest
branch. The member of the Established Church of Scot
land sees no difficulty in want of intercommunion ; he
willingly admits the Anglicans as members of another
branch, and is hurt that the Anglican—the High Church
Anglican—will not return the compliment. Why not ? Is
it because Presbyterians have no bishops ? That only shows
that their branch does not consider such persons profitable.
All branches have their little disagreements : the Anglicans
have no Pope, the Orthodox no Filioque. The Protestant
dissenter in England would say the same. His sect is to
him only one branch, the one that suits him best; he
gladly acknowledges the others. Schism does not matter.
So we have the real and consistent branch theory, typical
of Protestantism. What it comes to is that there is no
visible corporate united Church at all. There are churches,
that is bands, groups of Christians, all having equal rights
to settle their own affairs and follow Christ as seems best
to them. _ It is one theory; the Catholic (or Orthodox) one
of a corporate Church founded by Christ is another.
And the High Anglican ? He has taken this Protestant
theory and spoiled it. It has some consistency, some
possibility of being defended if it admits all Christian
bodies. But he has tried to compromise between it and
the Catholic idea, and has made a hopeless muddle of the
whole thing. The High Churchman takes the branch
theory from the Protestants who admit it, tacks it on to
the two old churches who indignantly reject it, adds his
own body to this strange combination, and then talks about
one Church. The point of this form of the theory that is
specially illogical is that it admits separated branches that
teach different doctrines, and yet does not admit all Chris
tian sects. What possible criterion can there be for admit
ting the Church of England as a branch that will not
�24
The Branch Theory
equally fit the Swedish Church, the Presbyterians, Irvingites, and all the others, unless we make that particular
fragment of the Catholic faith that happened to be kept by
the English Reformers (or rather the still more arbitrary
fragment that appeals to some High Churchman) the test
for the whole world ? That is what the High Churchman
always assumes. His selection of dogmas, whichever it
may be, is the “Catholic faith.” Anything beyond that—
Papal Infallibility, Consecration by the Epiklesis—is an
addition to the faith; anything less—only two Sacra
ments, no Real Presence—prevents a man being a
Catholic at all. And then he has to square his Low
Church co-religionists.
The Anglican branch theory, then, is nothing but a
tattered relic of Protestantism. In itself it is as typically
Protestant as anything can be. All the High Churchman
has done to it is to spoil it by taking away every vestige of
consistency it ever had.
A writer in The English Church Review lately described
as the main danger of Popery its specious simplicity.1
That must seem' a very real danger to them, for opposed
to this hopeless confusion the real Catholic has a test that
he understands and that works. The Catholic has no
difficulty in saying who are the members of the Church
of Christ, because he knows what criterion to apply to
any one in the world. To be a Catholic you must be in
union, in real union, visible communion with all the other
Catholics. And this intercommunion among us is guar
anteed and secured by our common communion with the
Church “ that presides in the «place of the Romans.”
Moreover, this test has other advantages besides its sim
plicity. They talk to us about the Primitive Church. Was
it some modern Pope who said : “ Ad hanc enim ecclesiam
propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem
convenire ecclesiam ? ”
1 F. C. Kempson : “ Roman Fever,” in The English Church
Review for June, 1910, pp. 263-266.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Branch theory
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication:
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted from The Tablet and revised by the author." Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC, WorldCat).
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Fortescue, Adrian, 1874-1923
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1910]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church of England
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The Branch theory), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1540
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Church of England
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/24ec2442c407f2c34828247b2b70d935.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=g3FordDwGlLibOJBoydVD3chxkBiohfKfqTbgCAdbul3ajt3EVTCMkONZcKKrdJdkLuicMLeg8hTyVg5yE35ryGGG6yz9AGKAOS6kNZLaWw8qoASnV-VEFX2hGa0jd9tibnms0VEJlmB5nSuylBs84UrXA6TpUSsPWhKcj39mG2qZYmCjlEg8rM3VaP%7E82icf02dWwCP3GSXn7c0SbC4d%7EJ68M-zSm3A1IWOKRxsToORZD86aot1KFkHRqXSM1dOsB9-Yw%7EfOgKKFfKJRuOHs8rd4Zgi7HmGCNVcie7qQWTcwmZbR1O5ycIS8lD1XpiBwAcW5f1ou89%7EPuqApVu%7ENA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3999df65d58768cedbadba95347145ac
PDF Text
Text
HA IS2.$
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC
COUNTRIES NO PREJUDICE TO THE
SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH.
BY CARDINAL NEWMAN.1
I.
I have been engaged in many lectures in showing that
your place, my brethren, if you own the principles of the
movement of 1833, is nowhere else but the Catholic Church.
To this you may answer, that, even though I had been un
answerable, I should not have done much, for my argument
has, on the whole, been a negative one; that there are
difficulties on both sides of the controversy; that I have
been enlarging on the Protestant difficulty, but there are
now a few Catholic difficulties also; that, to be sure, you
are not very happy in the Establishment, but you have
serious misgivings whether you would be happier with us.
Moreover, you might mention the following objection, in
particular, as prominent and very practical, which weighs
with you a great deal, and warns you off the ground whither
I am trying to lead you. You are much offended, you
would say, with the bad state of Catholics abroad, and their
uninteresting character everywhere, compared with Pro
1 Reprinted by permission from Lectures on “Difficulties felt by
Anglicans in Catholic Teaching,” delivered in 1850.
A
�2
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
testants. Those countries, you say, which have retained
Catholicism, are notoriously behind the age;—they have
not kept up with the march of civilization ; they are ignorant,
and, in a measure, barbarous; they have the faults of
barbarians; they have no self-command; they cannot be
trusted. They must be treated as slaves, or they rebel;
they emerge out of their superstitions in order to turn in
fidels. They cannot combine and coalesce in s«cial in
stitutions ; they want the very faculty of citizenship. The
sword, not the law, is their ruler. They are spectacles of
idleness, slovenliness, want of spirit, disorder, dirt, and dis
honesty. There must, then, be something in their religion
to account for this; it keeps them children, and then, being
children, they keep to it. No man in his senses, certainly
no English gentleman, would abandon the high station
which his country both occupies and bestows on him, in the
eyes of man, to make himself the co-religionist of such slaves,
and the creature of such a creed.
I propose to make a suggestion in answer to this objection ;
and, in making it, I shall consider you, my brethren, not as
unbelievers, who are careless whether this objection strikes
at Christianity or no ; nor as Protestants proper, who have
no concern about so expressing themselves, as to compromise
the first centuries of the Church; but as those who feel that
the Catholic Church was in the beginning founded by our
Lord and His apostles; again, that the Establishment is not
the Catholic Church; that nothing but the Church of Rome
can be; that, if the Church of Rome is not, then the
Catholic Church is not to be found in this age, or in this
part of the world; for this is what I have been proving in
my preceding lectures. What, then, you are saying comes,
in fact, to this : We would rather deny our initial principles,
than accept such a development of them as the communion
of Rome, viewed as it is; we would rather believe
Erastianism, and all its train of consequences, to be from
God, than the religion of such countries as France and
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
3
Belgium, Spain and Italy. This is what you must mean to
say, and nothing short of it.
II.
I simply deny the justice of your argument, my brethren,
and, to show you that I am not framing a view for the
occasion, and moreover, in order to start with a principle,
which, perhaps, you yourselves have before now admitted,
I will quote words which I used myself twelve years ago :—
“If we were asked what was the object of Christian preach
ing, teaching, and instruction; what the office of the Church,
considered as the dispenser of the word of God, I suppose
we should not all return the same answer. Perhaps we
might say that the object of Revelation was to enlighten
and enlarge the mind, to make us act by reason, and to ex
pand and strengthen our powers; or to impart knowledge
about religious truth, knowledge being power directly it is
given, and enabling us forthwith to think, judge, and act
for ourselves; or to make us good members of the com
munity, loyal subjects, orderly and 'useful in our station,
whatever it be; or to secure, what otherwise would be
hopeless, our leading a religious life; the reason why persons
go wrong, throw themselves away, follow bad courses, and
lose their character, being, that they have had no education,
that they are ignorant. These and other answers might be
given; some beside, and some short of the mark. It may
be useful, then, to consider with what end, with what
expectation, we preach, teach, instruct, discuss, bear wit
ness, praise, and blame; what fruit the Church is right in
anticipating as the result of her ministerial labours. St. Paul
gives us a reason . . . different from any of those which
I have mentioned. He laboured more than all the Apostles.
And why? Not to civilize the world, not to smoothe the
�4
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
face of society, not to facilitate the movements of civil
government, not to spread abroad knowledge, not to culti
vate the reason, not for any great worldly object, but ‘for
the elect’s sake.’ . . . And such is the office of the Church
in every nation where she sojourns; she attempts much; she
expects and promises little.” 1
I do not, of course, deny that the Church does a great
deal more than she promises : she fulfils a number of secon
dary ends, and is the means of numberless temporal bless
ings to any country which receives her. I only say, she is
not to be estimated and measured by such effects; and if
you think she is, my brethren, then I must rank you with
such Erastians as Warburton, who, as I have shown you in
a former lecture, considered political convenience to be the
test and standard of truth.
I thus begin with a consideration which, you see, I fully
recognized before I was a Catholic; and now I proceed
to another, which has been forced on me, as a matter of
fact and experience, most powerfully ever since I was a
Catholic, as it must be forced on every one who is in the
communion of the Church; and which, therefore, like the
former, has not at all originated in the need, nor is put forth
for the occasion to meet your difficulty.
The Church, you know, is in warfare; her life here below
is one long battle. But with whom is she fighting ? For
till we know her enemy we shall not be able to estimate the
skill of her tactics, the object of her evolutions, or to the
success of her movements. We shall be like civilians, con
templating a field of battle, and seeing much dust, and
smoke, and motion, much defiling, charging, and manoeuvr
ing, but quite at a loss to tell the meaning of all, or which
party is getting the better. And, if we actually mistake the
foe, we shall criticize when we should praise, and think that
all is a defeat, when every blow is telling. In all under1 “ Parochial Sermons,” vol. iv.
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
5
takings we must ascertain the end proposed before we can
predicate their success or failure; and, therefore, before we
so freely speak against the state of Catholic countries, and
reflect upon the Church herself in consequence, we must
have a clear view what it is the Church has proposed to do
with them and for them. We have, indeed, a right to blame
and dissent from the end which she sets before her; we may
quarrel with the mission she professes to have received from
above; we may dispense with Scripture, Fathers, and the
continuous tradition of eighteen hundred years. That is
another matter; then, at least, we have nothing to do with
the theological movement which has given occasion to these
lectures; then we are not in the way to join the Catholic
Church; then we must be met on our own ground; but I
am speaking to those who go a great way with me; who
admit my principles, who almost admit my conclusion; who
are all but ready to submit to the Church, but who are fright
ened by the present state of Catholic countries;—to such I
say, Judge of her fruit by her principles and her object,
which you yourselves also admit; not by those of her
enemies, which you renounce.
The world believes in the world’s ends as the greatest of
goods; it wishes society to be governed simply and entirely
for the sake of this world. Provided it could gain one little
islet in the ocean, one foot upon the coast, if it could cheapen
tea by sixpence a pound, or make its flag respected among
the Esquimaux or Otaheitans, at the cost of a hundred lives
and a hundred souls, it would think it a very good bargain.
What does it know of hell ? it disbelieves it; it spits upon,
it abominates, it curses its very name and notion. Next, as
to the devil, it does not believe in him either. We next
come to the flesh, and it is free to confess that it does not
think there is any great harm in following the instincts of
that nature which, perhaps it goes on to say, God has given.
How could it be otherwise ? who ever heard of the world
fighting against the flesh and the devil ? Well, then, what is
�6
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
its notion of the evil ? Evil, says the world, is whatever is
an offence to me, whatever obscures my majesty, whatever
disturbs my peace. Order, tranquillity, popular content
ment, plenty, prosperity, advance in arts and sciences,
literature, refinement, splendour, this is my millennium, or
rather my elysium, my swerga; I acknowledge no whole, no
individuality, but my own; the units which compose me are
but parts of me; they have no perfection in themselves, no
end but in me; in my glory is their bliss and in the hidings
of my countenance they come to nought.
III.
Such is the philosophy and practice of the world ;—now
the Church looks and moves in a simply opposite direction.
It contemplates, not the whole, but the parts; not a nation,
but the men who form it; not society in the first place, but
in the second place, and in the first place individuals; it
looks, beyond the outward act, on and into the thought, the
motive, the intention, and the will; it looks beyond the
world, and detects and moves against the devil, who is
sitting in ambush behind it. It has, then, a foe in view,
nay, it has a battle-field, to which the world is blind; its
proper battle-field is the heart of the individual, and its true
foe is Satan.
My dear brethren, do not think I am declaiming in the.
air, or translating the pages of some old worm-eaten homily ;
as I have already said, I bear my own testimony to what has
been brought home to me most closely and vividly as a
matter of fact since I have been a Catholic; viz., that that
mighty world-wide Church, like her Divine Author, regards,
consults for, labours for the individual soul; she looks at the
souls for whom Christ died, and who are made over to her,
and her one object, for which everything is sacrificed—ap-
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
7
pearances, reputation, worldly triumph—is to acquit herself
well of this most awful responsibility. Her one duty is to
bring forward the elect to salvation, and to make them as
many as she can ;—to take offences out of their path, to
warn them of sin, to rescue them from evil, to convert them,
to teach them, to feed them, to protect them, and to perfect
them. O most tender loving Mother, ill-judged by the
world, which thinks she is, like itself, always minding the
main chance; on the contrary, it is her keen view of things
spiritual, and her love for the soul, which hampers her in
her negotiations and her measures, on this hard cold earth,
which is her place of sojourning! How easy would her
course be, at least for a while, could she give up this or that
point of faith, or connive at some innovation or irregularity
in the administration of the Sacraments 1 How much would
Gregory have gained from Russia could he have abandoned
the United Greeks ! how secure had Pius been upon his
throne, could he have allowed himself to fire on his people!
No, my dear brethren, it is this supernatural sight and
supernatural aim, which is the folly and the feebleness of the
Church in the eyes of the world, and would be failure but
for the Providence of God. The Church overlooks every
thing in comparison of the immortal soul. Good and evil to
her are not lights and shades passing over the surface of
society, but living powers, springing from the depths of the
heart. Actions in her sight, are not mere outward deeds and
words, committed by hand or tongue, and manifested in effects
over a range of influence wider or narrower, as the case maybe 1
but they are the thoughts, the desires, the purposes, of the soli
tary responsible spirit. She knows nothing of space or time,
except as secondary to will; she knows no evil but sin, and
sin is a something personal, conscious, voluntary; she knows
no good but grace, and grace again is something personal,
private, special, lodged in the soul of the individual. She
has one and one only aim—to purify the heart; she collects
who it is who has turned our thoughts from the external
�8
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
crime to the inward imagination; who said, that “ unless our
justice abounded more than that of scribes and Pharisees,
we should not enter into the kingdom of heaven;” and
that “out of the heart proceed evils thoughts, murders,
adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.
These are the things that defile a man.”
Now I would have you take up the sermons of any
preacher, or any writer on moral theology, who has a name
among Catholics, and see if what I have said is not strictly
fulfilled, however little you fancied so before you make trial.
Protestants, I say, think that the Church aims at appearance
and effect; she must be splendid, and majestic, and influen
tial ; fine services, music, lights, vestments, and then again,
in her dealings with others, courtesy, smoothness, cunning,
dexterity, intrigue, management—these, it seems, are the
weapons of the Catholic Church. Well, my brethren, she
cannot help succeeding, she cannot help being strong, she
cannot help being beautiful; it is her gift; as she moves, the
many wonder and adore;—“ Et vera incessu patuit Dea.”
It cannot be otherwise, certainly ; but it is not her aim ; she
goes forth on the one errand, as I have said, of healing the
diseases of the soul. Look, I say, into any book of moral
theology you will; there is much there which may startle
you: you will find principles hard to digest; explanations
which seem to you subtle; details which distress you ; you
will find abundance of what will make excellent matter of
attack at Exeter Hall; but you will find from first to last
this one idea—(nay, you will find that very matter of attack
upon her is occasioned by her keeping it in view; she would
be saved the odium, she would not have thus bared her side
to the sword, but for her fidelity to it)—the one idea, I say,
that pin is the enemy of the soul; and that sin especially
consists, not in overt acts, but in the thoughts of the heart.
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
9
IV.
This, then, is the point I insist upon, in answer to the
objection which you have to-day urged against me. The
Church aims, not at making a show, but at doing a work.
She regards this world, and all that is in it, as a mere
shadow, as dust and ashes, compared with the value of one
single soul. She holds that, unless she can, in her own
way, do good to souls, it is no use her doing anything; she
holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from
heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions
who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so
far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not
say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial
sin, should tell one* wilful untruth, though it harmed no
one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse. She con
siders the action of this world and the action of the soul
simply incommensurate, viewed in their respective spheres;
she would rather save the soul of one single wild bandit of
Calabria, or whining beggar of Palermo, than draw a hun
dred lines of railroad through the length and breadth of
Italy, or carry out a sanitary reform, in its fullest details, in
every city of Sicily, except so far as these great national
works tended to some spiritual good beyond them.
Such is the Church, O ye men of the world, and now
you know her. Such she is, such she will be, and though
she aims at your good, it is in her own way,—and if you
oppose her, she defies you. She has her mission, and do it
she will, whether she be in rags, or in fine linen; whether
with awkward or with refined carriage; whether by means
of uncultivated intellects, or with the grace of accomplish
ments. Not that, in fact, she is not the source of number
less temporal and moral blessings to you also; the history of
ages testifies it; but she makes no promises; she is sent to
B
�10
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
seek the lost;—that is her first object, and she will fulfil it,
whatever comes of it.
And now, in saying this, I think I have gone a great way
towards suggesting one main solution of the difficulty which
I proposed to consider. The question was this
How is
it, that at this time Catholic countries happen to be behind
Protestants in civilization? In answer, I do not at all
determine how far the fact is so, or what explanation there
may be of the appearance of it; but anyhow the fact, grant
ing it exists, is surely no objection to Catholicism, unless
Catholicism has professed, or ought to have professed,
directly to promote mere civilization;—on the other hand,
it has a work of its own, and this work is, first, different
from that of the world ; next, difficult of attainment,
compared with that of the world; and, lastly, secret from
the world in its details and consequences. If, then, Spain
or Italy be deficient in secular progress, if the national
mind in those countries be but partially formed, if it be
unable to develop into civil institutions, if it have
no moral instinct of deference to a policeman, if the
national finances be in disorder, if the people be excitable,
and open to deception from political pretenders, if it know
little or nothing of arts, sciences, and literature; I repeat,
of course, I do not admit all this, except hypothetically,
because it is difficult to draw the line between what is true
in it and what is not;—then all I can say, is, that it is
not wonderful that civil governments, which profess certain
objects, should succeed better than the Church, which does
not. Not till the State is blamed for not making saints,
may it fairly be laid to the fault of the Church that she
cannot invent a steam-engine or construct a tariff. It is, in
truth, merely because she has often done so much more
than she professes, it is really in consequence of her very
exuberance of benefit to the world, that the world is dis
appointed that she does not display that exuberance always,
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
11
—like some hangers-on of the great, who come at length to
think they have a claim on their bounty.
*
V.
Now, let me try to bring out what I mean more in
detail; and, in doing so, I hope to be pardoned, my breth
ren, if my language be now and then of a more directly
religious cast than I would willingly admit into disquisitions
such as the present; though, speaking, as I do, in a place
set apart for religious purposes, I am not perhaps called upon
to apologize.
In religious language, then, the one object of the
Church, to which every other object is second, is that of
reconciling the soul to God. She cannot disguise from
herself, that, with whatever advantages her children com
mence their course, in spite of their baptism, in spite of
their most careful education and training, still the great
multitude of them require her present and continual succour
to keep them or rescue them from a state of mortal sin.
Taking human nature as it is, she knows well, that, left to
’ themselves, they would relapse into the state of those who
are not Catholics, whatever latent principle of truth and
goodness might remain in them, and whatever consequent
hope there might be of a future revival. They may be full
of ability and energy, they may be men of genius, men of
literature and taste, poets and painters, musicians and archi
tects ; they may be statesmen or soldiers; they may be in
professions or in trade; they may be skilled in the mecha
nical arts; they may be a hard-working, money-making
community; they may have great political influence; they
may pour out a flood of population on every side; they
may have a talent for colonization; or, on the other hand,
they may be members of a country once glorious, whose
�12
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
day is passed ; where luxury, or civil discord, or want of
mental force, or other more subtle cause, is the insuperable
bar in the way of any national demonstration; or they may
be half reclaimed from barbarism; or they may be a
simple rural population; they may be in the cold north,
or the beautiful south; but, whateVfer and wherever they
are, the Church knows well, that those vast masses of popu
lation, as viewed in the individual units of which they are
composed, are in a state of continual lapse from the Centre
of sanctity and love, ever falling under His displeasure, and
tending to a state of habitual alienation from Him. Her
one work towards these many millions is, year after year,
day after day, to be raising them out of the mire, and when
they sink again to raise them again, and so to keep them afloat,
as she best may, on the surface of that stream, which is
carrying them down to eternity. Of course, through God’s
mercy, there are numbers who are exceptions to this state
ment, who are living in obedience and peace, or going on
to perfection; but the word of Christ, “ Many are called,
few are chosen,” is fulfilled in any extensive field of opera
tion which the Church is called to superintend. Her one
object, through her ten thousand organs, by preachers and
by confessors, by parish priests and by religious communi
ties, in missions and in retreats, at Christmas and at Easter, «
by fasts and by feasts, by confraternities and by pilgrimages,
by devotions and by indulgences, is this unwearied, ever
patient reconciliation of the soul to God and obliteration of
sin. Thus, in the words of Scripture, most emphatically,
she knows nought else but “Jesus Christ and Him cruci
fied.” It is her ordinary toil, into which her other labours
resolve themselves, or towards which they are directed.
Does she send out her missionaries ? Does she summon her
doctors ? Does she enlarge or diversify her worship ? Does
she multiply her religious bodies ? It is all to gain souls to
Christ. And if she encourages secular enterprises, studies,
or pursuits, as she does, or the arts of civilization generally,
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
13
it is either from their indirect bearing upon her great object,
or from the spontaneous energy which great ideas exert, and
the irresistible influence which they exercise, in matters and
in provinces not really their own.
Moreover, as sins are of unequal gravity in God’s judg
ment, though all of whatever kind are offensive to Him,
and incur their measure of punishment, the Church’s great
object is to discriminate between sin and sin, and to secure in
individuals that renunciation of evil, which is implied in the
idea of a substantial and unfeigned conversion. She has no
warrant, and she has no encouragement, to enforce upon men
in general more than those habits of virtue, the absence of
which would be tantamount to their separation from God ;
and she thinks she has done a great deal, and exults in her
success, does she proceed so far; and she bears as she may,
what remains still to be done, in the conviction that, did she
attempt more, she might lose all. There are sins which are
simply incompatible with contrition and absolution under
any circumstances; there are others which are disorders and
disfigurements of the soul. She exhorts men against the
second, she directs her efforts against the first.
Now here at once the Church and the world part com
pany ; for the world, too, as is necessary, has its scale of
offences as well as the Church; but, referring them to a con
trary object, it classifies them on quite a contrary principle;
so that what is heinous in the world is often regarded
patiently by the Church, and what is horrible and ruinous
in the judgment of the Church may fail to exclude a man
from the best society of the world. And, this being so,
when the world contemplates the training of the Church and
its result, it cannot, from the nature of the case, if for no
other reason, avoid thinking very contemptuously of fruits,
which are so different from those which it makes the
standard and token of moral excellence in its own code
of right and wrong.
�14
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
VI.
I may say the Church aims at three special virtues, as
reconciling and uniting the soul to its Maker, faith, purity,
and charity; for two of which the world cares little or
nothing. The world, on the other hand, puts in the foremost
place, in some states of society, certain heroic qualities; in
others, certain virtues of a political or mercantile character.
In ruder ages, it is personal courage, strength of purpose,
magnanimity; in more civilized, honesty, fairness, honour,
truth, and benevolence:—virtues, all of which, of course,
the teaching of the Church comprehends, all of which she
expects in their degree in all her consistent children, and all
of which she exacts in their fulness in her saints: but which,
after all, most beautiful as they are, admit of being the fruit
of nature as well as of grace; which do not necessarily imply
grace at all; which do not reach so far as to sanctity, or unite
the soul by any supernatural process to the source of super
natural perfection and supernatural blessedness. Again, as
I have already said, the Church contemplates virtue and
vice in their first elements, as conceived and existing in
thought, desire, and will, and holds that the one or the
other may be as complete and mature, without passing forth
from the home of the secret heart, as if it had ranged forth
in profession and in deed all over the earth. Thus, at first
sight, she seems to ignore bodies politic, and society, and
temporal interests: whereas the world, on the contrary, talks
of religion as being a matter of such private concern, so
personal, so sacred, that it has no opinion at all about it: it
. praises public men, if they are useful to itself, but simply
ridicules inquiry into their motives, thinks it impertinent in
others to attempt it, and out of taste in themselves to invite
it. All public men it considers to be pretty much the same
at bottom; but what matter is that to it, if they do its work?
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
15
It offers high pay, and it expects faithful service; but as to
its agents, overseers, men of business, operatives, journey
men, figure-servants, and labourers, what they are personally,
what are their principles and aims, what their creed, what
their conversation; where they live, how they spend their
leisure time, whither they are going, how they die,—I am
stating a simple matter of fact, I am not here praising or
blaming, I am but contrasting,—I say, all questions implying
the existence of the soul, are as much beyond the circuit of
the world’s imagination, as they are intimately and primarily
present to the apprehension of the Church.
The Church, then, considers the momentary, fleeting act
of the will, in the three subject matters I have mentioned,
to be capable of guiltiness of the deadliest character, or of
the most efficacious and triumphant merit. Moreover, she
holds that a soul laden with the most enormous offence in
deed as well as thought, a savage tyrant, who delighted in
cruelty, an habitual adulterer, a murderer, a blasphemer, who
has scoffed at religion through a long life, and corrupted
every soul which he could bring within his influence, who
has loathed the Sacred Name, and cursed his Saviour,—that
such a man can, under circumstances, in a moment, by one
thought of the heart, by one true act of contrition, reconcile
himself to Almighty God (through His secret grace), without
Sacrament, without priest, and be as clean, and fair, and
lovely, as if he had never sinned. Again, she considers that
in a moment also, with eyes shut and arms folded, a man
may cut himself off from the Almighty by a deliberate act
of the will, and cast himself into perdition. With the world
it is the reverse ; a member of society may go as near the
line of evil, as the world draws it, as he will; but, till he
has passed it, he is safe. Again, when he has once trans
gressed it, recovery is impossible; let honour of man or
woman be sullied, and to restore its splendour is simply to
undo the past; it is impossible.
Such being the extreme difference between the Church
�16
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
and the world, both as to the measure and the scale of
moral good and evil, we may be prepared for those vast
difference in matters of detail, which I hardly like to men
tion, lest they should be out of keeping with the gravity of
the subject, as contemplated in its broad principle. For
instance, the Church pronounces the momentary wish, if
conscious and deliberate, that another should be struck
down dead, or suffer any other grievous misfortune, as a
blacker sin than a passionate, unpremeditated attempt on
the life of the Sovereign. She considers direct, unequivocal
consent, though as quick as thought, to a single unchaste
desire as indefinitely more heinous than any lie which can
possibly be fancied, that is, when that lie is viewed, of course,
in itself, and apart from its causes, motives, and conse
quences. Take a mere beggar-woman, lazy, ragged, and
filthy, and not over-scrupulous of truth—I do not say she
has arrived at perfection—but if she is chaste, and sober,
and cheerful, and goes to her religious duties (and I am
supposing not at all an impossible case), she will, in the
eyes of the Church, have a prospect of heaven, which is
quite closed and refused to the State’s pattern-man, the
just, the upright, the generous, the honourable, the con
scientious, if he be all this, not from a supernatural power—
I do not determine whether this is likely to be the fact,
but I am contrasting views and principles—not from a
supernatural power, but from mere natural virtue. Polished,
delicate-minded ladies, with little of temptation around
them, and no self-denial to practice, in spite of their re
finement and taste, if they be nothing more, are objects of
less interest to her than many a poor outcast who sins,
repents, and is with difficulty kept just within the territory
of grace. Again, excess in drinking is one of the world’s
most disgraceful offences; odious it ever is in the eyes of
the Church, but if it does not proceed to the loss of reason,
she thinks it a far less sin than one deliberate act of de
traction, though the matter of it be truth. And again, not
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
17
unfrequently does a priest hear a confession of thefts, which
he knows would sentence the penitent to transportation if
brought into a court of justice, but which he knows, too, in
the judgment of the Church, might be pardoned on the
man’s private contrition, without any confession at all.
Once more, the State has the guardianship of property,
as the Church is the guardian of the faith:—in the Middle
Ages, it is often objected, the Church put to death for
heresy; well but, on the other hand, even in recent times,
the State has put to death for forgery, nay, I suppose, for
sheep-stealing. How distinct must be the measure of crime
in Church and in State, when so heterogeneous is the rule
of punishment in the one and in the other 1
My brethren, you may think it impolitic in me thus
candidly to state what may be so strange in the eyes of
the world;—but not so, my dear brethren, just the contrary.
The world already knows quite enough of our difference of
judgment from it on the whole ; it knows that difference
also in its results; but it does not know that it is based on
principle; it taunts the Church with that difference, as if
nothing could be said for her,—as if it were not, as it is, a
mere question of a balance of evils,—as if the Church had
nothing to show for herself, were simply ashamed of her
evident helplessness, and pleaded guilty to the charge of
her inferiority to the world in the moral effects of her
teaching. The world points to the children of the Church,
and asks if she acknowledges them as her own. It dreams
not that this contrast arises out of a difference of principle,
and that she claims to act upon a principle higher than the
world’s. Principle is always respectable; even a bad man
is more respected, though he may be more hated, if he
owns and justifies his actions, than if he is wicked by
accident; now the Church professes to judge after the
judgment of the Almighty; and it cannot be imprudent or
impolitical to bring this out clearly and boldly. His judg
ment is not as man’s : “I judge not according to the look of
�18
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
man,” He says, “ for man seeth those things which appear,
but the Lord beholdeth the heart.” The Church aims at
realities, the world at decencies; she dispenses with a com
plete work, so she can but make a thorough one. Provided
she can do for the soul what is necessary, if she can but
pull the brands out of the burning, if she can but extract
the poisonous root which is the death of the soul, and
expel the disease, she is content, though she leaves in it
lesser maladies, little as she sympathises with them.
VII.
Now, were it to my present purpose to attack the
principles and proceedings of the world, of course it would
be obvious for me to retort upon the cold, cruel, selfish
system, which this supreme worship of comfort, decency,
and social order necessarily introduces; to show you how
the many are sacrificed to the few, the poor to the wealthy,
how an oligarchical monopoly of enjoyment is established
far and wide, and the claims of want, and pain, and sorrow,
and affliction, and guilt, and misery, are practically for
gotten. But I will not have recourse to the commonplaces of
controversy when I am on the defensive. All I would say
to the world is,—Keep your theories to yourselves, do not
inflict them upon the sons of Adam everywhere; do not
measure heaven and earth by views which are in a great
degree insular, and can never be philosophical and catholic.
You do your work, perhaps, in a more business-like way,
compared with ourselves, but we are immeasurably more
tender and gentle and angelic than you. We come to poor
human nature as the angels of God, and you as policemen.
Look at your poorhouses, hospitals, and prisons ; how per
fect are their externals I what skill and ingenuity appear in
their structure, economy, and administration ! they are as
decent, and bright, and calm, as what our Lord seems to
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
19
name them,—dead men’s sepulchres. Yes! they have all
the world can give—all but life ; all but a heart. Yes ! you
can hammer up a coffin, you can plaster a tomb; you are
nature’s undertakers; you cannot build it a home. You
cannot feed it or heal it; it lies, like Lazarus, at your gate,
full of sores. You see it gasping and panting with privations
and penalties; and you sing to it, you dance to it, you
show it your picture-books, you let off your fire-works, you
open your menageries. Shallow philosophers! is this mode
of going on so winning and persuasive, that we should
imitate it ?
Look at your conduct towards criminals, and honestly
say whether you expect a power which claims to be divine
to turn copyist of you? You have-the power of life and
death committed to you by heaven; and some wretched
being is sentenced to fall under it for some deed of treachery
and blood. It is a righteous sentence, re-echoed by a
whole people; and you have a feeling that the criminal
himself ought to concur in it, and sentence himself. There
is an universal feeling that he ought to resign himself to
your act, and, as it were, take part in it; in other words,
there is a sort of instinct among you that he should make
confession, and you are not content without his doing so.
So far the Church goes along with you. So far, but no
farther. To whom is he to confess ? To me, says the
priest, for he has injured the Almighty. To me, says the
world, for he has injured me. Forgetting that the power
to sentence is simply from God, and that the sentence, if
just, is God’s sentence, the world is peremptory that no
confession shall be made by the criminal to God, without
itself being in the secret. It is right, doubtless, that that
criminal should make reparation to man as well as to God;
but it is not right that the world should insist on having pre
cedence of its Maker, or should prescribe that its Maker
should have no secrets apart from itself, or that no divine
ministration should relieve a laden breast without its
�20
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
meddling in the act. Yet the world rules it, that whatevei
is said to a minister of religion in religious confidence is its
own property. It considers that a clergyman who attends
upon the culprit to be its own servant, and by its boards of
magistrates, and by its literary organs, it insists on his
revealing to its judgment-seat what was uttered before the
judgment-seat of God. What wonder, then, if such forlorn
wretches, when thus plainly told that the world is their only
god, and knowing that they are quitting the presence of that
high potentate for ever, steel themselves with obduracy, en
counter it with defiance, baffle its curiosity, and inflict on
its impatience such poor revenge as is in its power ? They
come forth into the light, and look up into the face of day
for the last time, and, amid the jests and blasphemies of
myriads, they pass from a world which they hate into a
world which they deny. Small mercies, indeed, has this
world shown them, and they make no trial of the mercies of
another!
VIII.
O how contrary is the look, the bearing of the Catholic
Church to these poor outcasts of mankind 1 There was a
time, when one who denied his Lord was brought to
repentance by a glance; and such is the method which His
Church teaches to those nations who acknowledge her
authority and her sway. The civil magistrate, stern of
necessity in his function, and inexorable in his resolve, at
her bidding, gladly puts on a paternal countenance, and
takes on him an office of mercy towards the victim of his
wrath. He infuses the ministry of life into the ministry of
death; he afflicts the body for the good of the soul, and
converts the penalty of human law into an instrument of
everlasting bliss. It is good for human beings to die as
infants, before they have known good or evil, if they have
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
21
but received the baptism of the Church; but next to these,
who are the happiest, who are the safest, for whose depar
ture have we more cause to rejoice, and be thankful, than
for theirs, who, if they live on, are so likely to relapse into
old habits of sin, but who are taken out of this miserable
world in the flower of their contrition, and in the freshness
of their preparation;—just at the very moment when they
have perfected themselves in good dispositions, and from
their heart have put off sin, and have come humbly for par
don, and have received the grace of absolution, and have
been fed with the bread of Angels, and thus, amid the
prayers of all men, have departed to their Maker and their
Judge? I say, “the prayers of all” : for O, the difference,
in this respect, in the execution of the extreme sentence of
the law, between a Catholic State and another! We have
all heard of the scene of impiety and profaneness which
attends on the execution of a criminal in England; so much
so, that benevolent and thoughtful men are perplexed
between the evil of privacy and the outrages which publicity
occasions. Well, England surpasses Rome in ten thousand
matters of this world, but never would the Holy City
tolerate an enormity which powerful England cannot hinder.
An arch-confraternity was instituted there at the close of
the fifteenth century, under the invocation of San Giovanni
Decollate, that Holy Baptist, who lost his head by a king’s
sentence, though an unjust one; and it exercises its pious
offices towards condemned criminals even now. When a
culprit is to be executed, the night preceeding the fatal day,
two priests of the brotherhood, who sometimes happen to
be Bishops or persons of high authority in the city, remain
with him in prayer, attend him on the scaffold the next
morning, and assist him through every step of the terrible
ceremonial of which he is the subject. The Blessed
Sacrament is exposed in all the churches all over the city,
that the faithful may assist a sinner about to make a com
pulsory appearance before his Judge. The crowd about
�22
THE SOCIAL STATE OF CATHOLIC COUNTRIES
the scaffold is occupied in but one thought, whether he has
shown signs of contrition. Various reports are in circu
lation, that he is obdurate, that he has yielded, that he is
obdurate still. The women cry out that it is impossible;
Jesus and Mary will see to it; they will not believe that it
is so; they are sure that he will submit himself to his God
before he enters into His presence. However, it is perhaps
confirmed that the unhappy man is still wrestling with his
pride and hardness of heart; and though he has that
illumination of faith which a Catholic cannot but possess,
yet he cannot bring himself to hate and abhor sins which,
except in their awful consequences, are, as far as their
enjoyment, gone from him for ever. He cannot taste again
the pleasure of revenge or of forbidden indulgence, yet he
cannot get himself to give it up, though the world is passing
from him. The excitement of the crowd is at its height;
an hour passes; the suspense is intolerable, when the news
is brought of a change; that, before the crucifix, in the
solitude of his cell, at length, the—unhappy no longer—the
happy criminal has subdued himself; has prayed with real
self-abasement; has expressed, has felt, a charitable, a
tender thought, towards those he .has hated; has resigned
himself lovingly to his destiny; has blessed the hand that
smites him; has supplicated pardon ; has confessed with
all his heart, and placed himself at the disposal of his Priest,
to make such amends as he can make in his last hour to
God and man; has even desired to submit here to indignity,
to pain, to which he is not sentenced; has taken on himself
any length of purgatory hereafter, if thereby he may, through
God’s mercy, show his sincerity, and his desire of pardon
and of gaining the lowest place in the kingdom of heaven.
The news comes; it is communicated through ' the vast
multitude all at once; and, I have heard from those who
have been present, never shall they forget the instantaneous
shout of joy which burst forth from every tongue, and
formed itself into one concordant act of thanksgiving, in
�NO PREJUDICE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH
23
acknowledgment of the grace vouchsafed to one so near
eternity.
It is not wonderful then to find the holy men, who, from
time to time, have done the pious office of preparing such
criminals for death, so confident of their salvation. “So
well convinced was Father Claver of the eternal happiness
of almost all whom he assisted,” says this saintly missionary’s
biographer, “that, speaking once of some persons who had
in a bad spirit delivered a criminal into the hands of justice,
he said, ‘God forgive them; but they have secured the
salvation of this man at the probable risk of their own.’
Most of the criminals considered it a grace to die in the
hands of this holy man. As soon as he spake to them the
most savage and indomitable became gentle as lambs; and,
in place of their ordinary imprecations, nothing was heard
but sighs, and the sound of bloody disciplines, which they
took before leaving the prison for execution.”
But I must come to an end. I do not consider, my
brethren, I have said all that might be said in answer to
the difficulty which has come under our consideration; nor
have I proposed to do so. Such an undertaking does not
fall within the scope of these Lectures; it would be an
inquiry into facts. It is enough if I have suggested to you
one thought which may most materially invalidate the objec
tion. You tell me, that the political and civil state of
Catholic countries is below that of Protestant: I answer,
that, even though you prove the fact, you have to prove
something besides, if it is to be an argument for your
purpose, viz., that the standard of civil prosperity and
political aggrandizement is the truest test of grace and the
largest measure of salvation.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY,
69 SOUTHWARK BRIDGE ROAD, S.E.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The social state of Catholic countries no prejudice to the sanctity of the Church
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted by permission from Lectures on Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic teaching, delivered in 1850." Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat).
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
John Henry Newman
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[188?]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The social state of Catholic countries no prejudice to the sanctity of the Church), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1525
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ded38dfe64ada77648e26d5be1da2a92.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TXAUdt55G1b38w6bTtg7-hYf9cbI1FzoGqUTv1tUk1ecRyFigOvDm0--%7Er04ZhE%7EWj4xsMv6IYbH7%7ElD-yc3pj5jfyIr2xWhmApLh47wPB94iVbQL2pXeJJvoGglYQI5L2OuJuLxmGnx5-eDrzNhIDXUYDFziEwJDmGiK-IplVQaSrAsI8i-6rK9lU8ROm065ObfAbrhJ9xl339I8sff7WI5lmPBlB7pon2MFHEvCxrburHxktPc7lOqTIaLkL-fOdwXVh7goQq7sqpIRUCjfxrs6iM6eCeuRdo9CHyk1vVFotmRfPeol6KpmLGI6xRxGWcDjJHIRBuExdu-jcjHeA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
020024eae427a4637c7bbb299bfecadf
PDF Text
Text
THE PROTESTANT RULE OF FAITH
AN IMPOSSIBLE ONE
By the Right Rev. BISHOP VAUGHAN 1
“In order to know the religion of Protestants,” says Chilling
worth, “neither the doctrine of Luther, nor that of Calvin or
Melancthon is to be taken, nor the Confession of Augsburg or
Geneva, nor the Catechism of Heidelberg, nor the Articles of the
Anglican Church, nor even the harmony of all the Protestant
confessions, but that which they all subscribe to, as the perfect
rule of their faith and actions, that is to say, the Bible. Yes, the
Bible, the Bible alone is the Religion of Protestants.”—
Vide the Religion of Protestants, a sure Road to Salvation, by
Dr. Chillingworth (ch. vi. 56).
If we turn to Whitaker's Almanack for 1900 we shall
find that he enumerates two hundred and seventyfour “ Religious Denominations ” in England alone.
Our leading Protestant journal goes so far as to say
that “ England alone is reputed to contain some
seven hundred sects, each of whom proves a whole
system of theology and morals from the Bible.”2 In
the United States of America there is said to be
almost an equal number, so that we can hardly be
accused of exaggeration if we say that, throughout
the English-speaking world, there are many hundred
distinct bodies of Christians.
Here we seem, at first sight, to be confronted with
a veritable sea of confusion, and to be listening to a
perfect babel of conflicting tongues. There seems no
way of classifying these hundreds of different churches.
They refuse to group themselves in any regular order.
Each is a law to itself. The outlines of each are so
indistinct, and so vague and ill-defined, that they seem
1 Reprinted by permission from Thoughts for all Times, and
revised by the author.
2 Vide The Times, 13th Jan. 1884—leading article.
�2
The Protestant Rule of Faith
to blend almost imperceptibly into one another like
the floating clouds in a storm-swept sky. Looking,
however, somewhat closer, we find that there is just
one among these Christian Churches which is funda
mentally different from all the rest. Different, in the
first place, in the number of its adherents. Not merely
in the sense of being larger and more extended and
more universally diffused than any other, which would
not be very remarkable, but in the sense of being so im
measurably greater as to exceed numerically, not only
any single Christian Church taken alone, but all other
Christian Churches put together. So that, if we
divide all Christian Churches into two parts, placing
the Roman Catholic Church upon one side, and all
other forms of Christianity on the other, we shall
find a larger number gathered together under the
banner of the Catholic Church than under the host of
distinct banners held aloft by all the varieties of con
flicting sects.1 That is perhaps the most obvious dis
tinction, lying, as it were, on the surface, and the first
to attract the notice of the casual observer.
But there is another and far more important distinc
tion, which takes us at once to the root of the matter,
and that consists in the difference of the rule of faith.
1 Note.—In the Ecclesiastical Dictionary, published this
year, 1900 (Benziger Bros.), there are said to be 270,000,000
Catholics, and but a total of 89,000,000 Protestants of all kinds.
On the other hand, the well-known statistician, Mr Mulhall, pre
pared for the Australian Catholic Congress a notable paper on
the Christian population of the world, which, according to his
figures, numbers at the present moment 501,600,000, and consists
of 240,000,000 Catholics, 163,300,000 Protestants, and 98,300,000
Greek Christians. Under the head of Protestants are included
more than one hundred different sects, who differ so widely from
°ne another that some—those, for instance, who deny the Divinity
,.
the mystery of the Holy Trinity—can hardly be
called Christians. Assuming all classes of Protestants to form
one religion, their total number in relation to that of Catholics
would be as two to three.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
3
The hundreds of different Christian denominations
may, and do, differ to an extraordinary extent among
themselves. They vary in innumerable unimportant,
and in a considerable number of important points,
both of doctrine and of discipline. Yet, however
widely they may differ upon other points, they all, or
almost all, are agreed as to their rule of faith. They
all accept Reason and the Scriptures; or, if you will,
the Scriptures, interpreted by reason, as the source
and very foundation of their respective creeds. They
one and all point to the Holy Scriptures as to the
infallible and unerring word of God. They ac
cept no other infallible or unerring authority upon
earth. The Bible is the Divine Book, and contains all
that is necessary to salvation; and there is no other
Divine authority, no other infallible guide or teacher
to whom men can have access. Though each denom
ination is distinct, and unlike every other, yet one and
all found their creed on this only infallible teacher,
viz., the Bible. “ Holy Scripture cohtaineth all things
necessary to salvation ”; and “ Whatever is not read
therein, nor maybeproved thereby,is not to be required
of any man,” etc. So runs Article VJ. of the Church
of England.1 “ Protestants assert that the Old and
New Testaments are the only safe source of religious
knowledge and form the sole rule offaith”2 Rev. W.
Lee writes:—“ As Evangelical Protestants, we claim
that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of our
faith and practice.”3
It is only when we turn to the gigantic Catholic
Church, which stretches out her arms over the entire
earth, that we discover a totally different rule of
1 Vide Thirty-nine Articles.
s Vide History of Civilization in Scotland, by Jn. Mackintosh,
vol. ii. p. 35.
3 Vide What is a Protestant? p. 9.
�4
The Protestant Rule of Faith
faith. The Catholic Church accepts reason, just as
the Protestant Church does. It is in her eyes a gift
of God, to be exercised and employed to the utmost ;
she also accepts the Holy Scriptures as the inspired
word of God, and as containing a Divine revelation.
She even pays them more honour and more respect,
and treats them with even greater reverence than any
of those Churches that profess to found their creed
on them alone. To this extent, therefore, she and
all other Christian bodies are at one. But here she
parts company with them. She does not believe
that God has abandoned this inspired Book to the
mercy of fallible men to be turned and twisted into
a thousand conflicting meanings, to be made to
support doctrines and practices not only different,
but opposite ; and to be a basis upon which hundreds
of distinct and irreconcilable sects may take their
stand. She believes that God confided this inspired
volume to the guardianship of a living and infallible
Church. That this Church is the only authorized
interpreter and explainer of its pages. That no
passage can really bear two or more contradictory
senses; and that where such contradictory interpreta
tions are set forth, it rests with her, and with her
alone, to decide absolutely, definitely, and with un
wavering certainty which is, and which is not, the
true interpretation ; and so to secure unity, or truth,
which is the same thing; for where there is truth,
there unity also must always be found.
There are, in fact, but two systems of Christianity
possible—the one based on private judgement, and the
other on authority. The system of private judgement
is by far the more flattering to human pride, and that
is why it has commended itself to so many haughty
and rebellious spirits. It makes each man, not a
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
5
disciple, but a master; not a learner, but a teacher;
not a pupil, but a critic. But, as a consequence, it
renders all real unity, not only difficult, but practically
impossible. Now, unless we are out and out rationalists,
and deny that infallibility exists anywhere, which
would be to destroy supernatural religion altogether,
I take it as evident that but two courses are open to
us: either we must accept the Bible as the only in
fallible teacher, or we must accept the magisterium of
the living and articulate Church as equally infallible.
If the infallible Bible alone will not suffice—if it is
found incapable of securing the unity for which Christ
prayed—we are forced and driven to acknowledge an
infallible Church. Now, our reasons for not accepting
the “ Bible and the Bible only ” theory are manifold.
In the space at my disposal I can suggest only a few
of the more important:—
I: Christ, when founding His kingdom on earth,
never wrote as much as a single line of any kind,
which seems strange, on the hypothesis that He
intended each man’s religion to depend upon his
personal interpretation of certain documents.
II. Though He commanded His disciples to “Go
and teach all nations,” to “preach to every living
creature,” etc., He never once commanded any one of
them to commit a word to paper or parchment.
III. Even the very expressions He made use of
seem to emphasize this fact; for He does not say:
“If any man will not read the Scriptures? but, “If
any man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee
as a heathen and a publican ” ; not “ He that follows
the Scriptures as his guide, follows Me,” but rather,
“ He that heareth you, heareth Me.” And, again,
“ Faith cometh {not by reading, but) by hearing"'; and
so on, in many other passages.
�6
The Protestant Rule of Faith
IV. Because (<?) very few of the Apostles wrote at
all. Out of the “ twelve,” only five wrote any portion
of the Bible, viz., St. Matthew, St. John, St. Peter, St.
Jude, and St. James j1 and (p) because those who did
put pen to paper were urged to do so from special
circumstances, as when absent, or in prison, and from
accidental motives ; but (f) even then, they did not
address their writings to the whole Church, but to some
one or another section specially needing them, or to
some local church, and occasionally even to single
individuals, as is the case in the Epistles to Titus, to
Timothy, and to Philemon, etc.
V. Because the very form and construction of the
Scriptures seem to show that the Bible was never
intended to be a text-book of doctrine, or a summary
of belief. There is no clear or methodical statement
of the teaching of Christ, proceeding in regular
sequence, but exhortations, narratives, and incidents,
etc., are all intermingled.
VI. Because the entire Bible was not even com
posed until whole generations of Christians had passed
away. The Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John, for
example, had no existence for more than sixty years
after our Lord’s ascension.
VII. Because even after the various books of
Scripture had been composed, they were not at once
gathered together into one volume. Some were to be
found in one place, some in another, and it was not
until hundreds of years had rolled slowly by that the
various inspired writings were collected and placed
under the same cover ; so that during many generations
scarcely any one could have even seen the complete
collection, unless indeed he were a great traveller.
VIII. Because even when at last the whole of the
St. Paul was, of course, not one of “ the twelve ” Apostles.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
7
inspired writings had been collected into one volume,
not one person in a thousand could have obtained
possession of them. There was no printing; and
even paper had not yet been invented, so that the
only possible means of securing a copy of this volume
(in which each man is supposed to find his religion)
was to get it written out by hand, letter by letter,
and word by word : a process which would, according
to some authorities, take a scribe five years to accom
plish. Nor was this all: the copy had to be written,,
not on paper, which had not then come into use,
but on vellum or parchment. As a consequence, the
price was enormous and prohibitive. No one but a
rich man could afford to purchase such a thing. So
that for fourteen hundred years the system of “ the
Bible and the Bible only/’ interpreted by each indi
vidual, was clearly an impossible one, and, if impossible,
then to be rejected by every reasonable and reflecting
man. The well-known historian, Mr. W. E. H. Lecky,
is no Catholic, yet he observes: “ Protestantism
could not possibly have existed without a general diffu
sion of the Bible, and that diffusion was impossible
until after the two inventions of paper and printing.”1
Clearly a religion dependent for its very existence upon
such human inventions, unknown during fourteen cen
turies of Christianity, cannot be the religion of Christ.
IX. There was not only the initial difficulty of
procuring a copy of the Scriptures, there was the yet
further difficulty of reading them. The Protestant
historian, Macaulay, tells us that: “ There was then
throughout the greater part of Europe very little
knowledge, and that little was confined to the clergy.
Not one man in five hundred,” he says, “could have
spelled his way through a single psalm ; books were
1 Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii. p. 209.
�8
The Protestant Rule of Faith
few and costly: the art of printing was unknown,”
“ Probably,” writes Abbd Begin, a professor of the
University of Laval, “ there is no exaggeration in say
ing that nine-tenths of the population were not in a
position to read the manuscript of the Bible. Accord
ing to the Protestant system we should have to conclude,
therefore, that these poor unfortunate beings had no
rule of faith, and were out of the path of salvation.”
X. Because, whereas we know, on the one hand,
that Christ desired and prayed for unity of faith and
‘doctrine among His disciples, we know, on the other
hand, that the “ Bible only ” system has been, and is,
the direct cause of interminable divisions and innumer
able dissensions. In the words of the historian Lecky:1
“ It has been most abundantly proved that from
Scripture honest and able men have derived and do
derive arguments in support of the most opposite
opinions.”2 And if this be true in the case of “ honest
and able men, what will be the result in the case of
the less honest and the less able ? In our eyes such a
system stands self-condemned.
The above facts present themselves as insuperable
difficulties against the Protestant rule of faith. But
there remain others far greater still. There are three
fundamental tenets which are absolutely essential to
the Protestant theory, but which on strict Protestant
principles we hold to be absolutely unproved and unprovable. Let me exemplify them in this way: A
Protestant comes up to me, holding the Bible in his
hand. He says : “ This is the word of God ; this the
foundation of my faith. I don’t want any infallible
n J .On2nd November-1895, Mr. Lecky wrote : “I was brought
fP
e
of England, and have never severed myself
from it — Fzz& St. James s Gazette, 14th November 189 c.
Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii. p. 174.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
9
Church to teach me. All I need lies here, within the
cover of this book.” Thus Dean Farrar is reported to
have said: “We take our stand on the open Bible,
and declare it to be the very charter of our existence.”
What would we naturally reply? We would say:
“ Not so fast, my friend. Are you quite sure that you
hold in your hand the true Bible, the whole Bible, and
nothing but the Bible ? ”
I. Take the most important part of it, viz., the New
Testament. Consider its history. It was written by
different men, at different times, in different places,
and under different circumstances. The different
Gospels and Epistles composing it were floating about
in different parts of the Church, together with dozens
and scores of other Epistles and Gospels,1 and it was
not till the fourth century that the Catholic Church,
after carefully examining them one by one, said :
“ This is Scripture ”; “ that is not Scripture ” : “ this
we enrol in the canon ”; “ that we reject.” For
example, there is said to be a Gospel which has been
attributed to one of the twelve Apostles, viz., to St.
Bartholomew.2 The Catholic Church said : We reject
that, even though the writer was an Apostle; on the
other hand, there was a Gospel written by St. Luke,
who was not an Apostle, and the Church said: We
accept that even though the writer was not an
Apostle.
In this way the present Bible came into existence.
Now, either the Church which made the selection is
1 Note, for instance, the Protevangelion, the Gospel according
to St. Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Paul and
Thecla, the Epistles of St. Clement, of St. Barnabas, the Books
of Hermas, the Acts of St. Andrew, and a great many others,
which the Church has refused to insert in the Canon of Scripture
2 The Gospel according to St. Bartholomew is mentioned by
St. Jerome.
�IO
The Protestant Rule of Faith
infallible, or she is not infallible. If you admit her to
be infallible, then you are bound to listen to her, and
to obey her, and you must become a member of the
Catholic Church, which is the only Church which has
ever even so much as put forward the claim; but if
you say she is fallible, then you acknowledge that she
may err; and if she may err, then she may have erred
in her selection of the books of Scripture, and you
have no certainty that you possess the Holy Bible at
all! Some of the books you include may be mere
human documents—as, on the other hand, some of
the really inspired books may have been omitted.
Different Protestant denominations have different
Bibles.
Luther rejected from the Canon of the Scriptures
Job, Ecclesiastes, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the Second and
Third of St. John, that of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse
(or Revelations). Calvin rejected Esther, Tobias,
Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees.
Spinoza doubts the authenticity of the Pentateuch,
Judges, Kings, etc.; Strauss, the Gospel of St.
Matthew; Griesbach, the Gospel of St. Mark. Who
will decide between these, and countless others, if
there be no infallible court of appeal, no unerring
voice to pronounce sentence? No! If there be no
infallible Church to settle such questions, no one can
declare with any certainty that he possesses the Scrip
tures at all. Even were one satisfied with human
testimony, it would not help one, since human testi
mony itself is not agreed on the point.
II. A second difficulty arises concerning the ques
tion of inspiration. What proof can any one bring
forward that the Bible (granted that we have the
Bible) contains the whole inspired word of God, and
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
II
nothing but the inspired word of God ? Inspiration
is not a thing that can be proved by mere history or
intrinsic evidence. Whether the Holy Ghost Him
self has guided and guarded a writer and protected
him from all error, etc., can be known only by an
appeal to authority. It does not admit of ordinary
direct proof, or of ocular demonstration. So that,
unless the authority appealed to be an infallible one,
a man cannot be absolutely sure that the Scriptures
are inspired. No such authority can be found outside
the Catholic Church. There is not even agreement
among the various Protestant denominations upon
this most important, and in their case, positively
essential, point.
III. But the third difficulty is the most insuperable
of all, and that is the difficulty of correct interpreta
tion. The Bible, however holy a book, and however
certainly inspired, is not merely useless, but worse
than useless to one who draws from it doctrines and
principles which are contrary to its real teaching.
Yet this is inevitable, unless there be a Divinely
assisted, and consequently an infallible interpreter.
Some would persuade us that the Bible is an easy
and simple book to understand ; so easy, in fact, that
“he who runs may read.” Nothing could be further
from the truth. This may be proved from the Scrip
tures themselves. Thus the Eunuch of the Queen of
Ethiopia, who was studying the writings of the
prophet Isaias as he journeyed home, admitted to the
Deacon Philip that he could not understand the sense
of what he read, unless some one explained it to him.
After reading out some prophetic utterances, he
turned to Philip and said : “ I beseech thee, of whom
doth the prophet speak this ? of himself, or of some
other man?” (see Acts viii. 27-35). The Eunuch
».
�12
The Protestant Rule of Faith
himself was unable to decide, so he appealed to a
higher authority.
In the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel
(verse 25 et seqi} we have another illustration of the
difficulty of correctly interpreting the inspired text.
Our Lord is obliged to interpret, to His own disciples
on their way to Emmaus, “ the things concerning him
self, beginning from Moses and from all the prophets.”
He told them that they had not understood, and
therefore He “opened to them the Scriptures”—
8irip/j.r]vevev avTois ev 7racrai$ Tais ypatpais rd irepi eavTou
(verse 27). St. Peter, inspired by the Holy Ghost, re
veals to us still more clearly that there are “ certain
things hard to be understood, which the unlearned
and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scrip
tures (J)? Kai ras Xoi7ras ypa<j>a$:'), to their own destruc
tion” (2 Peter iii. 16).
The truth of this contention is fully borne out by
the experience of past and present ages. One person
reads the Divine oracles in one way, and another in
another, so that from one and the same infallible
source are derived totally distinct and opposite
doctrines. The followers of Novatian take one view
and the followers of Sabellius another; while Donatists, Arians, Pelagians, and Nestorians all differ
among themselves. Truly does Erasmus remark that
“the interpretation of the Scriptures by individual
minds has never ended in anything but laming texts,
which walked perfectly straight before ”; while St.
Augustine, as early as the fifth century, declared : “ non
aliunde natae sunt haereses, nisi dum Scripturae bonae
intelliguntur non bene.” Butler reminds us how
Religion spawn’d a various rout
Of petulant capricious sects,
The maggots of corrupted texts.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
13
Some Protestants to whom the objection has been
put have attempted to meet it by saying : “ The diffi
culties pointed out may have some existence in the
case of careless and worldly-minded men, but if a
devout Christian takes up the Bible with reverence,
places himself in the presence of God, and earnestly
prays for the assistance and light of the Holy Spirit,
he will be sure to arrive at its correct and true mean
ing, so that he has nothing to fear.” Well! We
English are considered a practical people. We like
to test the theory for ourselves; for to use a homely
phrase, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
Then let us, for the moment, accept the theory, just
to see how' it works. Take three honourable, good,
and learned men ; ?>., (1) the Anglican Bishop of
Lincoln, Dr. King ; (2) the Anglican Bishop of Liver
pool, the late Dr. Ryle; and (3) the late Rev Dr.
Martineau, a representative of Unitarianism. Each
believes in the Bible. Each, no doubt, approaches
the study of it in becoming dispositions. Each craves
God’s grace, and light, and assistance. Yet each
rises from his knees holding a totally different and
wholly irreconcilable doctrine.
The Protestant
Bishop of Lincoln finds authority in Scripture for a
sacrificing priesthood, for priestly, absolution, and for
the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
The late Protestant Bishop of Liverpool, on the other
hand, can discover nothing of the kind. On the con
trary, he finds that any clergyman who attempts or
pretends to forgive sins is usurping the authority of
Christ; further, he fails to discover any reason for
believing that Christ is truly present under the sacra
mental species. “ This is My Body ” means one
thing to the Protestant Bishop of Lincoln, and quite
another to the late Protestant Bishop of Liverpool.
�14
The Protestant Rule of Faith
Still both are able to find in the Bible the Divinity of
Christ. But a Unitarian, as clever and as sincere as
any Anglican prelate, takes up the inspired writings,
and he can find no proof within its pages even that
Christ is God ! He prays, and studies, and reads the
Bible, and then comes to the conclusion that Christ is
not God at all. You urge that the Scripture speaks
of Christ as “ God,” and as the “ Son of God.” He
will reply: “ Yes, but may not such words be applied
to a mere man? Does not the psalmist say, ‘Ye are
all gods, and sons of the Most High ’ ” ? If you return
to the charge and point out that Christ’s Divinity is
clearly contained in His own declaration, “ I and the
Father are one,” he will again retort: “Not at all;
that is merely a union of heart and will such as
exists, or may exist, among men. Nay, this is [he
will urge] evidently from Christ’s prayer—‘ Father, that
they may be one, even as I and Thou art one! ” This is
a fair specimen of the absurd and senseless position to
which the private interpretation of the Bible inevitably
leads. Here are three well-known, highly-respected,
learned and scholarly men each discovering a totally
different doctrine in the self-same words.
Is the Holy Ghost directing them all? Is the
Changeless, Eternal, and Uncreated Truth whispering
“ yes ” in the ears of one, and “ no ” into the ears of
another ; and declaring that a thing is false and true,
black and white, at one and the same time? To
say so would be blasphemous. If, instead of three
highly-educated and distinguished men of recognized
ability, we take the millions of educated and unedu
cated, learned and unlearned, young and old, rich and
poor, the effect of such a system becomes still more
apparent, and its consequences still more hopelessly
absurd and appalling.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
i5
To sum up: I. We believe that the Incarnate Son
of God came upon earth to teach the truth. This,
indeed, is stated in the most emphatic way by Christ
Himself in the Hall of Pilate, viz.: “ For this was I
born, and for this came I into the world; that I
should give testimony to the truth” (John xviii. 37).
We believe with St. Paul that “the Church is the
pillar and ground of truth”;, that the Holy Spirit is
to “ remain with her for ever to teach her all truth ” ;
and that “the gates of hell (?>., of error) shall not
prevail.”
2. We believe truth to be one, and that it cannot
be anything but one, and in harmony with itself. We
hold that two Churches, teaching contradictory doc
trines, may both possibly be false, but by no possibility
can both be true. That they may both be true we
regard as a metaphysical impossibility, a self-evident
absurdity. But if instead of two, there be five or six
hundred claiming to be true Churches of Christ, the
absurdity of the situation becomes more glaring and
monstrous.
3. That there can be but one true Church follows,
not merely from the intrinsic nature of truth itself,
but also from the repeated and express declaration of
the Divine Founder of Christianity, e.g., “ There shall
be one fold or flock, and one Shepherd ” (John x. 16).
“ Be ye all one Body and one spirit, as you are called
in one hope of your calling. One Lord, onefaith, one
baptism ” (Eph. iv. 4, 5). A body is but one organized
whole; but:—“You are the body of Christ, and
members one of another,” and so forth. Further, the
very comparisons our Lord makes use of express the
same truth. He likens His Church to (a) a Kingdom,
(£) a City, (f) a House, (f) a Family, (f) a Fold or
Flock, (/) a Tree, (^) a Body, etc. All these figures
�16
The Protestant Rule of Fazth
imply a most essential unity, together with diversity.
What is more various than the different parts of a
living body? Yet what is more essentially one, and
in harmony with itself?
4. If unity be essential and vitally important, what
constitutes the bond of unity ? “ The Bible,” cry out
the Protestant Churches. “ The living and imperish
able voice of the Divinely assisted, and {because
Divinely assisted) infallible Church,” exclaim Catholics.
The one system maintains true unity in a community
of between two hundred and fifty and three hundred
millions, consisting of men of every race and nation,
and character and disposition, and language under
heaven. The other system cannot secure unity, even
within a national Church, among men of the same
race and country, and of the same general character
and antecedents—nay, cannot secure unity upon the
most vital points of Christian doctrine either among
the people, or the clergy, or even among the bishops
themselves.
Private judgement in religious matters is not
merely contrary to the whole idea of a teaching
Church; but it is by its very nature a strong solvent
of all true unity. Even such a pronounced Protestant
historian as Lord Macaulay could not fail to see that,
and to confess it. “ Our way of ascertaining the
tendency of free enquiry is simply to open our eyes
and look at the world in which we live: and there we
see that free enquiry on mathematical subjects pro
duces unity, and that free enquiry on moral subjects
produces discrepancy.” — Macaulay’s Gladstone on
Church and State.
There is no logical resting-place between Catholi
cism and Rationalism.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY,
69 SOUTHWARK BRIDGE ROAD, LONDON, S.E.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The protestant rule of faith an impossible one
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted by permission from Thoughts for all Times, and revised by the author." Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC) WorldCat.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Vaughan, John Stephen
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1901]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Protestantism
Catholic Church
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1538
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The protestant rule of faith an impossible one), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church-Apologetic Works
Protestantism-Controversial Literature
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/099ae881621e71c8551174ffa173a8f8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Yh1zi2sePb8P96xlk6YJzyE1guRxbBCpZ%7ErdW4b69TfSA8HUiTXM6yMNdTH-US5DXAHjXZSIuxwLlmw2fTwsmZNhrg1oXMoPQatUjoSDK7wnwtZc1dPVmR-IDHlxv9LCCTgV6QjdPGDAiE0Heq55BJ-HavsPhucaO33GmAXlD%7EiFwcyjMD-duHnXw96axTS5YHBFQb9DetkIfmgLFFvr%7EusRtZMUfZAe1MaXWgudp9URsTXB1E%7Ev875WkeM20JwlAwih4E14EuNiXh5mnlGxLS8z-5f9Yk2Wge4LGwanVP%7E3kGZJWWcAdDYMowAf0x5otCqkKwMSKZvI3jcZeJHoWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0a2c7cda3ba4f9970558693288462e0a
PDF Text
Text
C(
FIVE LETTERS
ON A
CONVERSION TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM
BY
ROBERT RODOLPH SUFFIELD.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
��ON
A
CONVERSION
TO
ROMAN
CATHOLICISM.
Alfred Villa, 2 Parson’s Mead,
Croydon, Surrey.
My Dear Sir,—Your niece is, with the best inten
tions, preparing for herself an almost irreparable
calamity. For a brief period, she can, without selfreproach, use those powers of reason and conscience
given to her by God, to be cultivated—not abrogated.
It would be a crime to destroy our own natural limbs,
our own natural eyes, and replace them with the
limbs of another or the docile eyes of a machine. But
it is also a crime (though perpetrated without malice)
to substitute for our individual reason, the conscience
and will of another. From the moment she has sworn
the soul’s servitude to an Italian nobleman, and to any
English or foreign gentleman appointed to represent
him in the confessional, she will deem herself bound
not to think “ what is right ? ” but to ask another,
“ Tell me what is right and I will be your slave and
do it, and if my thought or conscience suggest to me
that you are mistaken, I swear to banish such sugges
tions from my mind as a temptation ? ” She will reply,
“1 do not intend submitting to these men as men, but
as the chosen and infallible representatives and mouth
pieces of God.” Then to elect that infallibility, she
must use her own fallibility. Thus, the result can
�6
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
never (logically) be to her more infallible than the
result of her own fallible investigations, but it will
become all that the man claiming that infallibility
chooses to make it, for that man will use his absolute
and irresponsible authority to forbid his mental and
moral slave from ever even interiorly questioning his
assumptions. Obeying an ex-officer, a nobleman’s
son, an Italian who received a very meagre education,
who is aged, benevolent, infirm, wayward, honest,
obstinate, and profoundly self-conscious that he is the
inspired representative and infallible vicegerent of the
god of the universe, your niece will imagine that she
is performing an heroic act, in prostrating before a
foreigner she has never seen, the conscience, the re
sponsibility, the judgment imparted to her by God.
She will reply “ God tells me thus to cast my mental
and moral nature at the feet of a stranger.” Where ?
How ? When ? Those are the tremendous questions
she is now preparing to solve. That investigation
must indeed be lengthened and profound, seeing how
stupendous, how unnatural is the result. A miracle of
miracles, indeed, is needed, to set aside the personal
responsibilities proclaimed by the creation of God.
Your niece is preparing to consign to eternal torture
every individual who does not recognise a Roman
nobleman as the infallible governor of mankind:
who does not accept as essential to eternal sal
vation, a dogma, which was an open question
amongst Roman Catholics until the last three
years. She is preparing to renounce the Universal
Father and to substitute for worship the God of a
privileged sect, who will appear on the altar like a
small biscuit. She is preparing to renounce the
brotherhood of mankind, to seek admission into a sect
anathematizing—not only her parents and friends, but
millions and millions of mankind. Profound, indeed,
must be the investigations, certain the convictions
which can enable her thus, innocently, to blaspheme
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
7
Gocl’s goodness, to limit His mercy, and to anathema
tize His children.
When I was a Roman Catholic I often discussed
with fervent and believing Roman Catholic priests, a
fact we all noticed, namely—that converts invariably
deteriorated—either mentally or morally ; we puzzled
ourselves over the solution. I am inclined to think
the solution is this—Converts are very sincere and
earnest; they work out the system thoroughly and
practically, and thus reap its gravest disadvantages.
For a few years your niece will be very fervent, very
eccentric, and very happy. Then if her former better
human nature begins to arise again, she will sadly feel
that she has made a mistake. She will probably
hardly dare, thoroughly, to own it to herself
and never to others, but will bear it as a silent
sorrow to her grave. She will say strong bitter
things against heretics, and wear scapulars, and confer
for hours with a “ director,” but a universal scepticism
will have possessed her heart—wearied, disappoint
ed, and fearful. I have witnessed this a thousand
times. She is worshipping a vision of beauty which
only exists in her imagination ; like many other gentle
and good souls, she will cling to the illusion and fancy
it a reality. Should she enter the Roman sect, I
could almost wish that the illusion should endure to
the end ; otherwise, when the disenchantment comes,
and she, awakening to the reality, sees not a vision of
beauty, a heavenly Jerusalem on earth, but an ecclesi
astical polity, striving by ignoble means for the
mastery j sickened, saddened, and deceived, she will
wish she had never been born.
You ask me what books would help her. The
question is to me a difficult one. I have read much
in defence of the Roman Catholic dogmas, but very
little on the other side. There are works which I
could commend for many facts and arguments, but
■disfigured by calumnious attacks upon the Roman
�8
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
Catholic clergy and the Roman Catholic nuns, and
by misapprehensions as to some doctrines. Moreover,
the present Roman Catholic Church is only three years
old, and the antagonistic literature is therefore limited.
The controversy is limited now to the infallibility of
the Pope. If the Vatican dogma be accepted, all the
rest must follow. Upon that subject I might name
“ The Pope and the Council, by Janus.”—“ Papal
Infallibility and Persecution; ” a small brochure (Mac
millan, 1870), “ The Roman Catholic not the one true
religion ” (Triibner), and Whately’s “ Errors of
Romanism ” and “ Cautions for the Times,”
Blanco White’s works are invaluable, but unfortun
ately difficult to obtain ; they ought to be reprinted.
I name authors who assume as divinely authoritative
the Canonical Scriptures, and who believe that in our
little world the God of the Universe became an infant
and died; but I consider that she ought to study
deeper, and to ask herself “ Is the Bible infallible ? ”
“ Did God become a baby ? ” “Did God die?” In such
inquiries she would be helped by the works of FrancisNewman, Greg, Martineau, Hennell, Voysey, Vance
Smith, and Thomas Scott of Norwood.
Surely she ought to pause and examine before com
mitting herself to a position from which she would
not easily recede. She will become attached to priests
and nuns, and Roman Catholics, for she will find them,
in England and Ireland—kind, gentle, and affection
ate ; just the characters she would the least wish towound ; not in reality, more good than others, but, in
some respects, perhaps to her, more attractive. If I
exaggerate the virtues of English and Irish Roman
Catholics, you will pardon the partialities of affection,,
of gratitude, and of memory.
The more I love them, the more do I lament that
terrific dogma which compels them to reply to that
love with an anathema. These words of warning you
may use as you like—but I am not hopeful—many
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
9
are the slaves of the imagination, and they offer
themselves as holocausts to an illusion.—-Yours very
sincerely,
Robert Rodolph Sufeield.
Second Letter.
It is probable that your niece has made up her
mind to become a Roman Catholic; in that case, I
do not think that the most cogent arguments would
affect her. She has committed herself to a corpse,
and her whole existence will be occupied in an unceas
ing effort to galvanise it into life, and dreaming amidst
illusions to persuade herself that they are realities.
Once let a person with blinded eyes grasp a leader,t
and be persuaded that it would be criminal to doubt
his infallibility, the docile slave “knows” that all
arguments and facts opposed to his claims are wrong,
and only asks, “What are the best replies?”—and
there are plenty of replies—replies sufficiently plausible
to satisfy those who are determined to be convinced ;
sufficiently skilful, contradictory, and refined to em
barrass those who have good sense, an honest heart,
£nd not much learning.
All persons have their special moral weaknesses.
Men and women whose minds have been either
effeminated by the “nothingness” of what is with
cruel sarcasm called “ good society,” or at once wearied
and weakened in futile search after that absolute
certainty which all the sects insist on declaring to be
■essential for “ salvation,” plunge into the Roman
Church, much as the fevered forlorn will plunge into
the dark flowing river—one leap, and it is all over.
During the leap, what can you do ? After the leap,
the corpse floats along with the current; if eddies of
foam occasionally are seen, it is because there is still
a remnant of life, and amidst the pleasantly benumb
ing flood, the victim moves on restlessly to death.
�io
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
No arguments can dispel a moral weakness which all
the churches have conspired to create, and to enforce
by creeds. All her life she has been praying against
“ heresy,” as if it were a foul moral crime, and profess
ing opinions over and over again, as if so to do were
the essential virtue. Correct opinions on abstruse and
intangible questions have been done up into amulets,,
which hung in chains over her mind as an Anglican ;—
she suddenly has been startled by perceiving that there
are difficulties she cannot solve;—morality would require
her to think—weakness makes it easier to submit
—and she submits to the most reckless asserter. A
mind weakened finds comfort in yielding to whatever is
the most positive. The Roman Church has no doubts,
can answer everything, and though the answers con
tain absolute contradictions, that is all so much the
better, because ‘it is all a mystery.’ Moreover, the mind
cannot easily embrace in its vision opposing difficul
ties, when each difficulty aggregates around a dogma,
set off with all the paraphernalia of poetry, legend,
and tradition.
In the Church of England she had a cultured and
zealous priesthood, confessors, absolution, sacraments,
baptismal regeneration, sodalities, creeds, superstitions,
prayers, anathemas against sectaries, apostolic succes
sion, submission enjoined to ecclesiastical authority—
she is frightened lest there should be a flaw in some
of these, so she resolves to seek them in the church
whence they flowed into the Church of England. If
we say to her, “ Perhaps there is a flaw in the Roman
Church,” she replies, “ Oh, but there must be certainty
and security somewhere, and where, if not in
Rome ? ” She is probably too much imbued with anglican orthodoxy to be able to accept the only reply,
“ There is not absolute certainty anywhere, but there
is security everywhere to the seeker who never utters
or acts a conscious lie in the name of religion.”
Nevertheless she may possibly be open to a warn-
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
11
ing; and you may, as you desire it, use my name in
conveying to her the following :—
My statements on this subject cannot be treated as
devoid of authority. For twenty years I was apos
tolic missionary, and discharged duties not unim
portant in many parts of England, Ireland, Scot
land, and France. I published a work (“ The
Crown of Jesus,”) which obtained the widest cir
culation, was publicly commended by all the arch
bishops, and received the papal blessing. I left
the Roman Catholic Church on the day on which
the Papal Infallibility was proclaimed. I never in
curred, even in the smallest matter, the censure of any
ecclesiastical super'or. I never even had a quarrel
with any Roman Catholic lay or ecclesiastic. There
fore I have none of the bi tterness which sometimes is
found as the result of con flict. I have the most per
fect and intimate acquaintance with all the minutest
workings of the system in all departments of the
Roman Church. All who have known me in public
or in private during the last three years, can testify
to the affectionate kindness of my feelings and speech
as -to all the Roman Catholics whom I have known at
any period of my life. From my father, who, like
all his predecessors and relatives, belonged to the
Roman Catholic Church, into which I was received
by lay baptism in infancy, I obtained those feelings of
respect and sympathy towards the old religion which
brought me to its sacraments in the midst of my uni
versity career. My father had privately ceased to be
lieve in any orthodox creed, and though during twothirds of his life he never practised the Roman Catholic
religion, he never opposed it. Sharing the liberal ideas
then so common amongst educated Romanists, he re
garded the Church of England as almost identical with
the Roman Catholic Church, but more beneficial in its
influence, less dangerous, less logical, less arrogant,
�12
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
less consistent, more enlightened. His remembrance
of the first French Revolution retained him in a con
servatism at once religious and political, and family
traditions flung around Catholicism a halo of poetry,
and inspired, even to a sceptic, a chivalric affection
like that felt by Royalists towards the Pretender.
Reared thus amidst a union of Scepticism, Conservat
ism, Catholicism, and Anglicanism, and surrounded by
characters of singular beauty, just at the period when
Anglicanism was extolling Romanism, and returning
to it as a child to its mother, I gave myself to the
priestly life with an enthusiastic and undivided alle
giance. Unable to prove to my satisfaction any of
the dogmas of orthodoxy, I accepted them all “ on
the authority of the Church.” The “ authority of the
Church” I accepted because a revelation without a
distinct interpreter could be no revelation at all, and
taking the premise for granted, there was no alternative
for a Christian but to acknowledge either the Roman
Church or the Greek Church; but the Greek did not
claim a living infallibility. At that time the “ autho
rity of the Church” was left undefined—a faithful
Roman Catholic could change his stand-point accord
ing to the exigencies of historic or logical difficulties;
at one time he could mentally meet a difficulty by
remembering that the personal infallibility of the
Pope had never been defined; at another time he
could allow to the system its full logical development,
and deem the papal infallibility true, though modified
by restrictions mentally invented to meet difficulties
as they arose. Thus argumentatively the “ authority
of the Church” rested on its necessity, if dogmas be
essential. The Roman Church presented the creden
tials of supplying that condition now; and having
supplied it in times past, it possessed the logic of
success, a success by no means adequate to its claims,
but the success of having alone lived through genera
tions to realise the idea of a wide-spread theocracy.
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
13
Under that vague conception of “authority” vested in
a divine society, many could have died peacefully
without a doubt. But the present Pope was deter
mined to accomplish in his reign the wildest dreams
of mediaeval ambition. Encyclicals were issued to
anathematise liberty of conscience, the liberty of the
press, the liberty of the state, the liberty of science,
the liberty of association, the liberty of the episcopate;
to denounce civilisation, freedom, progress, and inves
tigation ; the world was to be divided between slaves
and the accursed. Honest men began to say the
Pope cannot be infallible, for these teachings are
obviously immoral, they renew in precept the very
enormities which we have all our life long been
indignantly repudiating. If these decrees are to be
deemed infallible, no Boman Catholic can without
hypocrisy engage in political life, or demand a single
political liberty. Then a few prelates like Dr Man
ning, urged on by laymen like Dr Ward and M.
Veuillot, and by a section of the Jesuits, flung them
selves into the papal schemes, and began to urge
on the definition of Papal Infallibility ; thus for two
or three years raged a domestic controversy which
touched the very foundation of the Roman Catholic
system, viz., “ Where does the infallibility exist 1”
The most learned Romanists proved that the con
templated dogma of papal infallibility was utterly
opposed to Scripture, reason, history, morality, reli
gion.. The infallibilists (or Neo-Catholics) argued
that it was the only logical development, and that it
obviously existed nowhere else. During this contro
versy doubts arose in numerous minds. Most Roman
Catholics determined to refuse to think, they drove
away doubts by the violence of their denunciations
and the loudness of their professions. Many priests
and laymen (to my certain knowledge) lost all faith,
but bound to the Church by the ties of interest,
affection, family, and pride, have remained in it, often
�14
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
siding with the bitter outward profession of the party
of non-thought. Several of the learned refusing to
abdicate reason, virtue, and history, yet clinging to
sacramental and traditional Christianity, being men
of courage and sincerity, renounced papal allegiance,
and became “ Old Catholics.” Some (of whom I was
one) saw every atom of the fabric crumble away on
its foundation of mist. Such, from the religion of a
sect girding itself for the persecution and debasement
of humanity, passed, at first sadly (how sadly few can
tell), out of the associations of the past, into the reli
gion of the universe, the theism which, if undefined,
embraces all.
When the fearful interior conflict had ended, and
I found myself no longer a slave to Pope, bishop, supe
rior, confessor, and a sectarian God, it still seemed to
me almost wrong to think or to act independently.
It was only by degrees that I could realise the degrad
ing, soul-subduing bondage from which I had been
delivered; then great joy and peace possessed me, as
I felt myself rise from slave into man. Most docile
Roman Catholics are happy whilst they believe; slaves
are happy under prudent masters, but it is a happi
ness which degrades master and slave. This personal
history will explain the mixture of opposing feelings
with which I touch the Roman Catholic question, viz.,
tenderness, gratitude, and love towards the Roman
Catholics I have personally known, and heard of in
my family, along with an intense dislike and dread of
the system of Neo-Catholicism which is now identified
with Vatican Infallibility. Your niece, like many
others, has mistaken for palliation of the system, my
homage of affection rendered to persons who conscien
tiously are its victims. Moreover, I have no sympathy
with the vulgar, ignorant calumnies against Roman
Catholics, and therefore, even in the first sermon I
preached in London as a Unitarian or Theist, in a
Unitarian Chapel, hearing that some intended to come
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
15
expecting to hear an anti-Romanist oration, I selected
for my subject, a practice familiar to Roman Catholics
and many other religionists, but rejected by most Pro
testants. Thus, whilst I systematically deprived my
secession of every feature which could conciliate vul
gar support, I felt that I reserved to myself that power
which in the end belongs to those who, though they
occasionally with calmness warn, yet more frequently
■extenuate, and never calumniate.
Third Letter.
The English Romanism of to-day differs from that
•of Gother, Charles Butler, and Lingard, as much as
Pusey differs from Tillotson. The declarations made
by the Vicars Apostolic whereby Roman Catholic
emancipation was obtained, are now “ damnable
heresies.” For the modern Vatican religion teaches
that the Pope is, and always has been, infallible
whenever he in his own mind means to speak or
write authoritatively as Bishop of Rome and Vicar of
Christ. That decree elevates all former bulls, encycli
cals, pastorals, and pontifical teachings into inspired
and infallible documents. The Pope is by divine right
supreme (in all matters he deems important) over all
potentates and all individuals. He is an irresponsible
universal dictator. A Roman Catholic has to believe
with interior assent not only every statement in the
Old and New Testament and in the apocrypha, but
also everything in the bullarium. Almost every in
famy and absurdity possible has at some time or
other been thus proclaimed. Besides the dead weight
of the past, nothing remains for the future but a
leaden despotism. At any moment the Pope may,
at the instigation of an ignorant Italian monsignore,
send a telegram or letter which he may intend to be
official (ex Cathedra)—that document may contradict
�16
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
science, fact, and the whole universe of God, but it
must be not only obeyed, but believed—intentionally
to doubt it would entail an eternal hell. Volumesare already filled with “ condemned propositions ”—
all these are now divine condemnations, and mercy,
justice, and toleration, will be found therein accursed.
To ordinary Roman Catholics, the papal authority
is publicly exercised through the Bishop, and privately
through the Confessor. If an ecclesiastical order is
given, and to a grave degree violated, it is a mortal
sin, such as excludes from heaven unless absolution has
been given to the penitent promising never to repeat
the disobedience. These orders regard innumerable
matters of ordinary secular, domestic, political, social,
educational, commercial, scientific, and social life—in
short everything a person cares about. Books, news
papers, societies, amusements, soldiers, magistrates,
peace, war, parents, husband and wife, children,
—all are minutely legislated for. It is a mortal sin
in any matter to obey the state, or parent, or con
science, in defiance of the Pope. Therefore all such
matters have to be treated of in the confessional, and
settled there.
However, still there remain a few things at the
choice of this papal slave. There is a machinery to
enslave even that feeble remnant of personal re
sponsibility. The system of the Jesuits has now
permeated the Roman Catholic Church, and operates
through the Bishops quite as much as through the
“ Society? Tl*e Jesuits annihilate the individual by
“'direction.” During the last few years they have
rapidly spread the system of direction throughout
this country, and the Anglicans are extensively
adopting it.
The theory of direction is this—besides the con
fession of sins—it is highly pleasing to God to ask
the advice of the confessor on all the minutest details
of life,—individual, domestic, political:—the direction
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
of the confessor is not infallible, “ but his very errors
will be overruled to the spiritual benefit of the docile
penitent.” Jesuit directors chiefly exercise their skill
on people of the higher and middle classes, or on
interesting penitents, but, to the disgust of many of
the older clergy and laity, this odious system of
espionage and arbitrary interference is rapidly per
vading all the confessionals. Frequently have I heard
good and experienced Priests deplore the fatal results—the character rendered morbid and weak, cast at the
feet of a man the least qualified to guide—-for it is
notorious that the Priests who chiefly strive to become
“ directors ” are the most self-sufficient, narrow, con
ceited, and egotistic, though under a mark of sanctity
which deceives no one more than themselves.
On incidental occasions the confessional has rendered
a service, but I fully concur in the conviction ex
pressed by several of the most thoughtful, excellent,
and believing Priests, that very frequent confession
is invariably an evil. Continually are Priests pain
fully puzzled by noticing that people never improve
by confession—that those who do the least required by
the ecclesiastical law, are nearly always superior in
character to those who do the most.
Knowing, as I do, the excellent intentions of most
of the priests and most of the lay people practising
that rite—knowing the many sacrifices entailed for
tis accomplishment—I do not make these remarks
with pleasure, but I tear them from my memory, with
grief of heart, in answer to your inquiries.
Fourth Letter.
Your niece says that whether the Eoman Catholic
religion be true or not, anyhow it is good for her—
of course it is right for her to do whatever she honestly
and thoughtfully deems right. Individual rectitude
�18
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
depends on conscientious intention. In such cases
intentions are sometimes mixed and vague. Although
not agreeing with you in blaming the priests. I cannot
accept the statement as worded by your niece.
In the end, an illusion cannot be the best for any
sane person. The question is whether certain state
ments are true or not. If true, we ought all of us
to embrace them. If false, it is morally wrong knowingly to embrace or to encourage them.—it is injurious
to do so ignorantly,—e.g., Was Peter Pope at
Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans without
naming him? Was Peter Pope when Paul opposed
him?
Does ecclesiastical history show us the
Bishops of Rome claiming the infallible powers now
claimed by Pius IX? All the modern Roman Catho
lic religion rests on papal infallibility. What are the
overwhelming proofs to substantiate a dogma dis
believed by the most learned Roman Catholics only
three years since? Such matters do not rest on
internal consciousness, but on history. Can it be
God’s intention that all religion should rest upon a
complicated historical investigation ? Again, all past
papal teachings are now infallible, therefore the con
demnation of Copernicus and Galileo, should be ap
proved. The devout Roman Catholic ought to believe
that the sun moves round the earth, the earth being
stationary and flat.
Again, all the past decrees about purgatory, indul
gence, and the scapulary now bind as articles of faith.
Therefore any one who can contrive to die wearing
two bits of blessed brown cloth cannot go to hell,
and will be saved from purgatory by the Virgin Mary
on the Saturday after death. All miracles and visions
approved by the Pope, now are articles of Christian
Faith. These things are either facts or fables. Dr
Manning sometime after the death of his wife became
a Roman Catholic; almost immediately he was or
dained a Roman Catholic Priest, then he went to
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
19
begin the study of Theology at Rome. He main
tained the papal claims and became archbishop; a
young man kneels before him, gets his head touched
by him, and a little oil rubbed on his hand, whilst a
few words are muttered. The next morning that
young man takes hold of a little biscuit and a glass
of sherry, and when he has whispered four words over
these, the biscuit becomes a man, and the glass of
sherry becomes a man—any person must go to hell
for ever who should in his mind fail in his belief that
all the flesh, blood, and limbs of Jesus as man are in
each, as also his human soul, and his divinity—should
any crumbs drop from this divine man, who looks,
feels, tastes, like baked bread—each such crumb
contains the hands, feet, and entire body of that
same man.
A priest had taken this “ sacrament ” in a pyx in
a little bag in his waistcoat pocket to give it to a sick
person [for a Roman Catholic has to believe that he
eats a man, and swallows his God]; the sick person
died without the sacraments necessary for salva
tion, because the priest had on his way called on a
friend to fix a boating trip. The priest was grieved,
but as the man was dead, he went his boating trip,
having the “host” in his pocket—a shower of rain
came on, and the water got into the pyx in which
Jesus Christ was. The priest on his arrival at the
house, opened the pyx and could not decide whether
what he saw was Jesus Christ or dough—if the ap
pearance of bread remained, then it was Jesus Christ
-—if the appearance was that of dough, then Jesus
Christ was not there. Such is the theology binding
on all. The question is, are such things revealed
truths? if so, how tremendous must be the evidence
which can alone justify our accepting such statements
without the immorality of hypocrisy or conscious
illusion. What evidence did the Apostles adduce
that they possessed such powers ? Did they ever
�20
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
claim, such powers ? Priests now only claim them by
a virtue handed down to them by the rite of ordina
tion. How would the evidence satisfy an English
court of law ?
When a Roman Catholic has swallowed the host,
he has within his stomach the limbs, feet, hands,
heart, blood of Jesus—the identical human body
which was once on the cross—that body continues
within his body as long as the qualities and appear
ances of bread remain, z'.e. until it is decomposed. The
appearances of bread are’ merely present in the host
miraculously. Surely such transcendent miracles ought
to have been propounded distinctly by Jesus and the
early disciples, if truly believed by them.
Fifth Letter.
Roman Catholics are strictly forbidden to dwell'on
any thought likely to produce doubts ;—but for that
crushing of the mind, no one could live in such un
ceasing uncertainty. Uncertainty accompanies every
act of his religious life, from its commencement to its
close. Nothing in his religion is valid unless the
minister of the sacrament means the miracle—the
outward act is not enough. Unless the Pope means
to speak officially, his utterances are not infallible;
his saying that he means it is not sufficient, he must
mean it; but the outward act binds others just as
much as if he did mean it. I would never do any
thing for the sake of wounding the feelings of Roman
Catholics ; but if I, though no longer a priest, (ex
cept by a Papal theory), chose to go into a baker’s
shop and say, Hoc est corpus meum, and meant to con
secrate ; all the quarterns, half quarterns, rolls and
biscuits made of pure flour and water would become
men—so many Jesus Christs ;—but those wherein the
ingredients were, to a considerable part, potatoe,
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
11
alum or rice, would not change. When I was at St
Sulpice, a devout priest of the Solitude at Issy, thus
thought he had accidentally consecrated all the French
rolls at dinner, and requested people to pause and
adore their God present on the table-cloth with his
human body. On another occasion, that same priest
forgot to say the words of consecration at mass, being
in ecstasy; so he communicated all the people with
bread instead of flesh, and only afterwards remem
bered his mistake. If I went into a wine merchant’s,
and whispered a short sentence over the bottles and
casks adequately open to my view,—the wine, if not
too much brandied, watered, or adulterated, would
all become God and man. If the wine on the altar
be not pure, there is no change produced at consecra
tion—no God—no human body—no blood. The
priest buys his altar breads of a bookseller; his house
keeper cuts them up and trims them with scissors,
and puts them out ready for consecration; if the
priest does not mean to consecrate when he says the
words, or if he says the words erroneously, no conse
cration takes place ; or if he means only to consecrate
the hosts in one particular vase’on the altar, whereas
other hosts are lying close by, these others continue
bread. The same doubts infest all the Sacraments.
The Roman Catholic abdicates his reason to a church'
which presents to him nothing but a complication of
uncertainties, to be acted upon without investigation.
As to the beauty of the services—it is all very well
for people who like tinsel, and haberdashery, and
genuflections, and plenty of wax candles ;—undoubt
edly, young children, and grown up children, are
pleased with such pretty baubles, but those who are
Behind the scenes are perfectly sick of them, and only
go through them as a duty. Before a high festival, a
vestry is like the green-room of a theatre ; and in the
month of May, the dressing up of the Madonna is
gone through with a feeling of shame by every man
�22.
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
who is not a born woman. I think an exception
must be made for the bishops. I believe that when
a bishop is dressed up in all liis tawdry, crowned with
a mitre of gilt pasteboard, and genuflected to, and
addressed as my Lord, that it does rather please the
recipient—though I know that some of the bishops
are not beguiled by the adulation, but regard it all as
necessary nonsense to be gone through for the sake of
a good slice of absolute power. People who like a
show, can see it done better in a theatre—and it is
quite as religious ; for the instruction given to all the
performers of the solemn masses, and other grand func
tions, is not to pray, but to mind the ceremonies, so as
to perform them accurately. Dr Gentili used to say
—“ I have been all over Italy, and found once, in a
country village, a sacristan who was not an atheist; ”
reminding me thus of the repeated saying of an Eng
lish Roman Catholic bishop when he returned from
Rome: “There is one honest man there, and he
is weak, vain, and obstinate.” Every one understood
him to mean the Pope. The whole thing is rotten
where it is not an illusion; and these dear good Eng
lish and Irish Roman Catholics being not allowed to
think or to question, are the more easily surrounded
with the halo of their own gentleness, and tenderness,
and reverence. I do not mean that they are gentle
or tender towards heretics and unbelievers, for they
are not. They are bound to believe them morally
criminal; hateful to God, and deserving of all pun
ishment. To a believing Roman Catholic, persecu
tion is now de fide, and a virtue. The Vatican sect is
at enmity with the human race.
You are not correct in your opinion regarding
priests and nuns. I quite concur with your statement,
that if your niece gives herself up to them, and then
leaves them, she will have to endure much from them
even in this country. When Dr Newman and Dr
Manning left the Church of England, and joined the
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
■ 23
Church of Rome ; when —-—- (a Unitarian lady)
became a Roman Catholic, Unitarians expressed
surprise, but never calumniated, knowing how im
possible it is for all good and clever people to think
alike; but if your niece leaves the Roman Catholic
church, she must expect to be calumniated. The
Roman Catholics regard heresy as so foul a moral
crime, that to impute to a heretic one or two more
lesser crimes, cannot be regarded as a grave injury.
The kindest thing they will say of her will be—“ She
is mad;—she always was rather weak—she is not re
sponsible
or else it will be, “ She deceived us when
she joined us; she never really had faith, only opin
ion
she is proud and wayward.” Such sayings
whispered against her, will not be pleasant; espe
cially when, in all probability, accompanied with
more malignant insinuations ; she had much better
pause now, reflect more, read on both sides, weigh
real evidence. It will be terribly difficult and
painful to retract; particularly in countries like Eng
land or Ireland, where she will probably not get
shocked by scandals, but on the contrary, attracted by
many gentle virtues and pleasing child-like simplicities.
At one time I thought such virtues existed only amongst
Romanists, and those Anglicans who approximated to
them. I now perceive with gladness that all these
beautiful qualities are the appanage of human nature,
that where they exist, their existence is not the crea
tion of any dogma or sect-—that they are to be found
in all churches, sects, and creeds, united with all be
liefs and disbeliefs. When I left the Roman Catholic
Church, I expected never again to find some of the
attractive specialities of characters I had known and
loved. I have found them just the same—just the
same variations—I now believe in human nature.
�24
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
You will thus perceive that I cannot endorse your
apprehensions regarding the Roman Catholic clergy in
•countries happily possessing numerous opposing sects.
Nothing would be so fatal to morality as what
anglicans call the union of the churches. You know
the admirable reputation of the anglican and noncon
formist clergy—the Roman Catholic clergy equal them.
The life of a Roman Catholic priest (especially if
belonging to a religious order) is a very comfortable
life ; he has no anxieties, no responsibilities, no future
to provide for; he may become somewhat egotistic,
self-indulgent, and pharisaical; he may attend sick
calls and the confessional much, as an ordinary minded
surgeon will visit cases j the high-flown things said
of him are in general moonshine ; but his life will be
as morally respectable as if he were a rector or a
minister. The differences will be merely external.
In most parts of South America no native ever goes
to confession—the “religion ” consists in wax madon
nas—and the madonnas are decidedly preferable to
the priests; also as to Spain, Portugal, and Italy, unim
aginative Roman Catholic travellers do not report
well. But in England, Ireland, and Scotland, it is
different—the priests vary as to birth, education, and
characteristics, but they are neither better or worse
than their fathers, brothers, and companions.
As to the nuns, most priests of experience are
agreed that they ought not to have parochial schools,
reformatories, or boarding schools; that secular teachers
succeed much better, with much less show; also, that
nuns after some years of convent life, nearly invari
ably deteriorate. But never in the way you suppose.
I do not mean that nuns do not even, very frequently,
■dote on their confessor with a morbid, sickly, and
intense personal attachment ; they very often do ; as
do also the girls injudiciously secluded in convent
boarding schools; but I assert, emphatically, that
•other accusations as applied to this country, are not
�On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
2 5-
true ; I have been “ extraordinary ” of different con
vents j if I knew of scandals through private confid
ences thus intrusted to me, I should of course, in
honour, be silent on the whole subject: but I unhesi
tatingly assert that, as to the popular rumours of
criminalities between nuns and their confessors, it is,
to the best of my English experience, absolutely false.
I the more willingly glance at real evils, that I may
be trusted when I deny unfounded charges. Many
nuns in convents are not happy, but then they deem
that unhappiness a sign that it is pleasing to God,
and if they were turned out by Mr Newdegate, they
would seek re-admission. But many more are very
happy—lead the life of harmless and rather supercil
ious, self-righteous children, and if they never become
superiors, retain their childish simplicity and sweet
ness much more than when they become “ representa
tives of God.” Nuns all regard Jesus Christ as their
husband, and cultivate towards him the conjugal feel
ing, especially in the most recluse communities.
And now I have answered all your questions. I
leave my letters at your disposal according to your
urgent request. You can unite with them the first
inclosure, changing in all the letters enough to conceal
the persons alluded to. The other parties agree to
their free circulation or publication.
For myself, under the circumstances I felt bound to
speak, but it has been with pain. When anglican
converts have left the English church—in which they
had passed so many happy and holy years, they
speedily published against it diatribes, in which
they seemed to delight, for they dipped their pen in
gall. I cannot say that it is with any approach to
such feelings that I write of Roman Catholics ; I know
that, theoretically, they cannot reciprocate my affec
tion and esteem ; but it has been always a delight to
me when I have been able to clear them from unjust
�16
On a Conversion to Roman Catholicism.
aspersions; it is with sadness that I warn against
that fearful despotism, under which they must, as
time advances, be prostrated more and more. May
some of those, dear to me by a thousand memories,
obtain courage to investigate, and then, conscientiously
shaking off the incubus, arise as the freed children of
the Universal Father.—Yours very sincerely,
Robert Rodolph Suffield.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Five Letters on a conversion to Roman Catholicism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Suffield, Robert Rudolph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 26 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT94
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Five Letters on a conversion to Roman Catholicism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conversion-Catholic Church
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/145695dfcc6174a4e9f01c3a7a90e728.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nGsbv7Vtgy7CV6UZPjLC7hlklhINDSsv5KMvG2db-V62cG8wykI%7EWyg8XcBT5mzZnSm22dqV9F14XnU1P2m2gMHVDsaRRZpX261K2bKIM-Rc9ic%7EyYGy1MTct8RJIZ5aeVwmldxgn%7EJ4o%7EOizjfSDPWqWbDQ1aWMr%7E75wn%7EHbAPtAcAA-MFqur7gvmf9GW%7Eje2IiRKPhupsvBzZuAUdSg56Hbws3VMh58aRZE7I0WY4kK7shQIp-lf3EL8culHASxJncDT1EEg-yBvRzKxY8lz35M-g-h%7EeFPZ4qF2IF-jzSzbTrwpPeBs1D2qh3rAJmIPKzhsFOM6KKbNQUS2hu9g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
04b742b4bfa23ca7ec4e9718c0c83c46
PDF Text
Text
CATH-OLICISME LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS & AWOURD’HUI
LE
comte
JDocteur
en
jAvOCAT,
GOBLET D’ALVIELLA
sciences administrateVES & POLITIQUE!
^CoNSEILLER PROVINCIAL DU JJpABANT
BRUXELLES
LIBRAIRIE C. MUQUARDT
^MERZBACH
f'ALK
LIBRAIRES DE LA COUR
M&ME MAISON A LEIPZIG
����LE CATHOLICISME LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS ET AUIOURDTIUI
�1MPR1MRUR M ROI
�LE
CATHOLICISME LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS & AUJOURD’HUI
PAR
LE
comte
•OCTEUR
EN
jAvocat,
GOBLET D'ALVIELLA
SCIENCES ADMINISTRATIVES & POLtTIQUES
‘Uonseiller
provincial du jBrabant
Nemo potest duobus dominis servire.
(Pie IX, bref du 6 mars 1873.)
EXTRAIT
DE
LA
REVUE
DE
BELGIQUE
BRUXELLES
LIBRAIRIE C. MUQUARDT
yVlERZBACH
f'ALK
LIBRAIRES DE LA COUR
Mta MAISON A LEIPZIG
1875
�luhi GXtXKUA-
/’< H J
. «
H/’t
• «■■■ ■>•.• ««.•!;
• ' <4 -»
t
..
■ .» I"- ■■
4.',,..
1
«I ,/J -
.
l/JA
�LE CATHOLICISMS LIBERAL
AUTREFOIS ET AUJOURD’HUI *
L’ECOLE DE LAMENNAIS ET DE MONTALEMBERT
Peu de temps apres la chute du second empire, un visiteur
du chateau nagukre occupd par le comte de Montalembert au
village de la Boche-en-Brenil d6couvrit, sur les murs de la
chapelle, une inscription latine, qui ne tarda pas & soulever
toutes les colures de la presse ultramontaine. En voici la
traduction :
Dans cette chapelle, Fdlix, ev$que d’Orleans, a distribu^ le pain
de la parole et le pain de vie a un petit troupeau d'amis chritiens,
qui, habituds a combattre depuis longtemps pour VEglise libre dans
le Pays libre, ont renouveU le pacte de consacrer le reste de leur vie a
Dieu et a la Liberty. Ce XIII Octobre MDCCCLXII. Etaient Id
Alfred, comte de Falloux; Thdophile Foisset; Auguste Cochin;
Charles, comte de Montalembert. Absent de corps, mais present
d'esprit: A Ibert, prince de Broglie.
L’inscription a survecu aux engagements qu’elle formulait,
et cette pierre votive n’est plus aujourd’hui qu’une pierre tom
bale. Ses auteurs pensaient tracer sur le marbre la devise
de l’avenir; ils ne firent que r6diger l’6pitaphe anticip6e de
leur dcole.
Aujourd’hui, en Belgique comme en France, nous avons
des catholiques fanatiques et intransigeants, des catholiques
moderes et transactionnaires, des catholiques par habitude,
�par genre et par interet, voire des catholiques constitution
nels; mais nous n’avons plus de catholiques libdraux, parce
qu’il nest plus possible d’etre catholique en religion et
liberal en politique.
Si nous nous m^prenions, s’il existait encore parmi nous
des esprits qui n’ont pas renie les traditions de l’ecole rappelee par l’inscription de la Roche-en-Brenil, eh bien,
qu’ils se Invent pour imiter ces quelques catholiques anglais
qui, sur l’appel de M. Gladstone, ont courageusement place
leurs devoirs envers leur patrie au dessus de leur obeissance
envers Rome ! Qu’ils se levent pour proclamer, avec certains
deputes allemands, que le Pape n’a pas le droit d’intervenir,
h titre d’autorite spirituelle, dans le r&glement des questions
politiques, ni, & plus forte raison, d’invalider la force obligatoire des lois r6guli£rement decretees! Qu’ils se Invent au
moins pour rep&er, mdme avec les reserves dont elle s’entoure, cette declaration ins6ree par M. P. de Haulleville,
dans sa brochure de 1863 sur les Catlioliques et les libertes
constitutionnelles: « Comme chef de l’Eglise, le Pape na
« pas le droit d’imposer aux catholiques des decisions obli« gatoires portant sur des sujets purement politiques : de
« telles decisions pourraient avoir une grande et mdme une
« supreme valeur intrinseque, mais elles ne lieraient aucune
« &me, car la distinction de l’^glise et de l’Etat est de
« l’essence meme de la doctrine catholique ! »
Toutefois, entendons-nous bien : il ne suffit pas de pro
tester que le Pape n’intervient pas ou qu’il n’entend pas
intervenir, ou qu’il n’est jamais intervenu pour dieter, de
par son autorite spirituelle, la conduite politique des catho
liques beiges. Ce que nous sommes autorises h redamer,
c est une declaration explicite que le Pape n’a pas le droit de
leur imposer ses decisions dans les affaires publiques et que,
sil en manifestait la pretention, ils lui refuseraient l’obeissance.
Qu un groupe de catholiques, si peu nombreux qu’il soit,
vienne nous faire cette declaration, veritable fondement du
catholicisme liberal, et nous reconnaitrons volontiers que
�nous nous sommes trompE. Mais nous ne regretterons pas
notre erreur, car elle aura du moins contribuE a faire luire
un rayon de soleil parmi les sombres nuEes que le souffle
grandissant du papisme entasse sur l’horizon politique de
notre pays.
I
Ce n’est pas sans un certain respect que nous abordons
l’Etude du catholicisme liberal, non seulement parce que
cette Ecole appartient aujourd’hui h l’histoire, mais encore
parce qu’elle a eu ses jours d’inspiration, de grandeur et
m6me de fEconditE. Comme mouvement religieux, il offre
l’image d’un dernier effort pour arracher l’Eglise romaine
au dEpErissement fatal de tous les organismes, physiques ou
sociaux, qui ne peuvent point se plier aux Evolutions de leurs
milieux. Comme mouvement politique, il reprEsente une
suprEme tentative pour rendre la paix de lAme aux natures
religieuses que la nEcessitE de choisir entre les exigences de
leur foi.et l’esprit de leur siEcle prEcipite dans des luttes
intimes, toujours douloureuses et souvent stErilisantes. A ce
double titre, il mEriterait mieux qu’une simple Etude,
comme en comporte le cadre des publications pEriodiques.
Mais ici notre intention est moins d’exposer dans tous ses
dEtails l’histoire de son Eclat EphEmEre et de son soudain
effondrement, que de montrer, par un court rEsumE de ses
tendances et de ses destinEes, les changements opErEs depuis
quelques annEes dans l’attitude des catholiques mEme les
moins favorables aux envahissements de l’ultramontanisme.
L’Angleterre, nation protestante, a engendre le libEralisme moderne qui a trouvE aux Etats-Unis sa premiEre et sa
plus complEte application. La France et la Belgique, nations
autrefois gallicanes, Etaient le champ prEdestinE au catho
licisme libEral, qui figurait un compromis entre les idEes
politiques issues du libre examen et les dogmes religieux
enseign.Es par l’Eglise romaine, comme le gallicanisme lui-
�mime reprisentait un compromis entre les pretentions de
Rome et les droits de l’Etat.
Il est aisi d’itablir la filiation du catholicisme liberal avec
le gallicanismede l’ancien regime. La declaration du 16 mars
1682, qui, pendant plus de deux siicles, servit de base aux
franchises de l’Eglise gallicane, proclamait formellement
l’indipendance de l’ordre politique vis & vis de l’ordre religieux; on y lit, en effet, que l’autorite du Pape se borne aux
choses spirituelles et que les affaires temporelles relive nt
exclusivement du Roi. Substituez au Roi la notion de l’Etat,
conformement a la modification qui s’est introduite, de nos
jours, dans la theorie de la souverainete nationale, et vous
vous trouvez devant la veritable doctrine du catholicisme
liberal.
Nous savons bien que l’enfant a paru renier sa mire et
que l’ecole francaise du catholicisme liberal a consacrd la
plus grande partie de son existence h combattre les derniers
privileges de l’Eglise gallicane. Mais c’est qu’il y avait
dans cette Eglise deux elements distincts, sinon contradictoires. A cote du principe fondamental, qui aurait du logiquement aboutir & la separation complete de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, se
plagaient les consequences qu’en avaient deduites les legistes
de la royaute, non pour mettre l’Eglise et l’Etat sur un pied
d’egalite, mais pour renverser la balance au profit du pouvoir civil. Ainsi, le clerge de France ne pouvait communiquer avec le Pape que sous l’autorisation des pouvoirs
publics; les assemblies ginirales de l’Eglise ne pouvaient
se tenir sans l’assentiment du Roi, et les parlements intervenaient j usque dans les conflits relatifs a l’administration
des sacrements. La mime contradiction reparut & la Constituante qui, apris avoir proclami la liberti religieuse, la
restreignit par la constitution civile du clerge ou plutot par
les mesures dirigies contre les pritres insermentis. Enfin,
cest ce mime esprit rigalien qui inspira le Concordat de
lan X, le ritablissement de l’appel comme d’abus et l’octroi
du monopole & lUniversiti de France. Mais l’existence de ces
garanties, qu’i tort ou h raison les gouvernements successsif
�9 —
de la nation francaise avaient cru devoir prendre contre les
empietements eventuels de l’^glise , n’emp^che pas la
declaration de 1682 d’avoir theoriquement etabli, conform6ment aux doctrines du liberalisme, la veritable notion des
rapports entre l’Eglise et l’^tat.
Du reste, les principaux chefs du catholicisme liberal ont
eux-memes fini par admettre cette distinction. Quelques
semaines avant la mort du comte de Montalembert, on avait
releve la contradiction de ses anciens discours anti-gallicans
avec sa recente adhesion aux objections soulevees par le
P. Gratry contre le dogme de l’infaillibilite. « Je vous prie
de remarquer — repondit-il dans une lettre qui restera son
testament politique et religieux — que le gallicanisme dont
j etais 1 adversaire resolu et victorieux n’avaitde commun que
le nom avec celui que vous reprochez au P. Gratry... C’etait
uniquement l’intervention oppressive ettracassiere du pouvoir
temporel dans les interests spirituels, qu’une portion de notre
ancien et illustre clerge de France avait quelquefois trop
facilement acceptee. Mais vous ne trouverez, j’ose le croire,
pas plus dans mes discours de 1847 que dans mes autres dis
cours ou ecrits, un mot,un seul mot, conforme aux doctrines
ou aux pretentions des ultramontains d’aujourd’hui, et cela
pour une excellente raison, c’est que personne n’avait ima
gine de les soutenir et de les soulever, depuis mon entree
dans la vie publique jusqu’& l’avenement du second empire.
Jamais, gr&ce au ciel, je n’ai pense, dit ou dcrit rien de favo
rable a l’infaillibilite personnelle et s6paree du Pape, telle
qu on veut nous l’imposer, ni & la theocratie ou & la dictature
de l’Eglise que j’ai reprouvee de mon mieux dans XHistoire
des moines d'Occident, ni enfin & cet absolutisme de Rome
dont le discours que vous me citez contestait l’existence,
meme au moyen &ge, tandis qu’il forme aujourd’hui le symbole et le programme de la fraction dominante parmi nous...
Qu’est-ce qui pouvait prevoir le triomphe permanent de ces
theologiens laics de l’ultramontanisme, qui ont commence
par faire litifere de toutes nos libertes, de tous nos principes
de toutes nos idees d’autrefois, devant Napoleon III, pour
�10
venir ensuite immoler la justice et la v6rit£, la raison et
l’histoire en holocauste a l’idole qu’ils se sont drigde au Vati
can ? »1
L’dcole du catholicisme liberal s’dtait d’ailleurs tromp6e
dans ses provisions; cet aveu de Montalembert en fait foi.
Quand elle eut suffisamment sapd les derniers remparts du
gallicanisme, ce ne fut pas la liberty qui entra par la brOche,
ce fut l’ultramontanisme, et c’est lui qui, seul, rOgne
aujourd’hui dans la place, sur les ddbris du catholicisme
liberal comme sur les ruines de l’Eglise gallicane.
II
En Belgique, l’Eglise se trouvait, au siOcle dernier, rdgie
par desprincipes analogues aux rOglements de l’Eglise galli
cane. L’indOpendance du pouvoir civil y dtait formeliement
reconnue, et 1’indOpendance de l’autorite religieuse y avait
recu plus d’une atteinte, surtout sous la maison d’Autriche.
C’Otait le gouvernement qui nommait aux principaux bdnd1 D6ja ala fin de 1853, Mgr. Sibour, archeveque de Paris, avait
6crit, dans le mdme sens, au comte de Montalembert: « La nouvelle dcole
ultramontaine nous mene a une double idolatrie, idolatrie du pouvoir
temporel et idoldtrie du pouvoir spirituel. Quand vous avez fait autrefois,
comme nous, monsieur le comte, profession 6clatante d’ultramontanisme,
vous n’entendiez pas les choses ainsi. Nous defendions, contre les preten
tions et les empi&tements du pouvoir temporel, l’indypendance du pouvoir
spirituel; mais nous respections la constitution de l’Etat et la constitution
de l'Eglise. Nous ne faisions pas disparaitre tout pouvoir intermddiaire,
toute hi&rarchie, toute discussion raisonnable, toute resistance legitime,
toute individuality, toute spontaneity. Le pape et l’empereur n’ytaient pas
l’un, toute l’Eglise, l’autre, tout l’Etat. »
Enfin, le P. Lacordaire, dans un passage sur le pouvoir des papes, a
ytabli la meme distinction avec plus de nettety’encore : « Le gallicanisme
ancien est une vieillerie qui n’a plus que le souffle et a peine; mais le gal_
licanisme qui consiste & redouter un pouvoir sans limites, s’ytendant a
tout l’univers, sur deux cents millions d’intelligences, est un gallicanisme
tres vivant et meme tres redoutable, parce qu’il est fondy sur un senti
ment naturel et meme tres chrytien. »
Ces lettres montrent en meme temps avec quelle vivacity de langage et
de sentiment d’excellents catholiques, des religieux, des pryiats meme,
combattaient naguere les doctrines qui ont fini par pryvaloir & Rome.
�-H -
flees ecclbsiastiques, et les actes de la curie romaine ne pouvaient htre imprimis ou publics dans le pays sans le placet
de l’autorite civile. Les tendances gallicanes etaient surtout
representees & l’Universite de Louvain par Van Espen et son
£cole; elles inspir&rent les reformes de Joseph II et finirent
par se confondre avec le gallicanisme francais, dans le
courant qui amena, en l’an X, la conclusion du concordat.
Aussi, lorsqu’aprbs la chute de l’empire, le gouvernement
hollandais reprit dans les provinces mbridionales des PaysBas la politique religieuse de Joseph II, les catholiques beiges,
dejb, travaillds par l’6cho des predications que Lamennais
faisait retentir en France, n’hesitbrent pas & s’unir aux lib6raux pour refaire contre le roi Guillaume la revolution brabanconne de 1788.
L’attitude de nos catholiques n’etait pas desinteressee dans
cette alliance; toutefois, les debats du Congrhs prouvhrent
qu’ils croyaient sinebrement h, la necessite de reconcilier
l’Eglise avec la liberte. Le 13 decembre 1830, Mgr. de
Mean, archevhque de Malines, un representant de ces
preiats qui, en 1814, jetaient l’anathhme sur les libertes de
la loi fondamentale, ecrivait solennellement au Congrhs :
« Les catholiques forment la presque totalite de la nation
que vous etes appeies a representer et a rendre heureuse.
En vous exposant leurs besoins et leurs droits, je n’entends
demander pour eux aucun privilege : une parfaite liberte
avec toutes ses consequences, tel est l’unique objet de leurs
voeux, tel est l’unique avantage qu’ils veulent partager avec
tous leurs concitoyens. » Un incident non moins caracteristique, ce fut la protestation de l’abbh Andries contre la fermeture d’un local destine & des reunions saint-simoniennes :
« Je me croirais, dit—il h la tribune du Congrhs, le dernier
deshommes si, aprhs avoir contribue de tous mes moyens et
de grand coeur h, la liberte des cultes, je pouvais laisser soupconner que je ne l’ai voulue que pour mon propre culte. Je
ne veux pas donner credit & un pareil soupcon, et e’est pour
cela quej’ai souscrit h une proposition qui prouve que nous
voulons la liberte en tout et pour tous. » Les sentiments du
�— 12 —
,
Congres se resument, dureste, dans la Constitution elle-mAme
qui, votde par une majorite catholique, realise en quelque
sorte l’ideal politique du catholicisme liberal.
En France, ce fut dgalement aprfes la revolution de 1830
que le catholicisme liberal s’epanouit dans tout son eclat.
Tout le monde connait cette histoire de VAvenir queMrs. Oli
phant, dans sa biographic de Montalembert, appelle the very
romance of journalism. Fonde par cet abbe de Lamennais
qui passait pour un nouveau p£re de l’Eglise et qui avait
naguere refuse un chapeau de cardinal, rddigd par un petit
groupe de jeunes gens eloquents et enthousiastes comme ce Charles de Montalembert, en qui devait se resumer toute
l’histoire ulterieure du catholicisme liberal, et cet abbe
Lacordaire, qui, suivant sa propre expression, devait « vivre
en religieux penitent et mourir en liberal impenitent »,
YAvenir reclamait, au nom meme du catholicisme, toutes les
libertes qu’on etait. habitue a revendiquer au nom de la
revolution. Fideie a sa devise, Dieu et Liberty qui devait se
retrouver, trente ans plus tard, dans la chapelle de la
Roche-en-Brenil, il soutenait avec energie la cause des
nationalites opprimees. Enfin, il proclamait tout haut la
necessite d’une figlise pauvre et independante, theocratie
purement morale, vivant de ses propres ressources, sans
attaches officielles et mAme sans subsides de l’Etat.
Ce dernier point du programme eftt suffi, alui seul, pour
attirer sur la tete des novateurs les foudres de la papaute,
qui, du reste, avait deja condamne, en 1790 et 1791, par
l’organe de Pie VI, les principes essentiels de la revolution
frahcaise. Toutefois, les fondateurs de YAvenir, persuades
qu ils se trouvaient en possession de la vraie tradition catho
lique, etaient convaincus que le chef de 1’Eglise, en vertu de
son infaillibilite meme, devait necessairement partager.leur
maniere de voir. Ils prirent done les devants pour chercher
personnellement a Rome une approbation et un concours
qui leur faisaient defaut dans les spheres catholiques aussi
bien que dans les spheres liberates de leur pays. Mais,
traites avec froideur et partout econduits, ils recurent bieritd't
�13 —
l’ordre de retourner chez eux pour y attendre la decision du
Saint-Si^ge. Ils £taient a Munich quand ils apprirent la
publication de l’Encyclique qui ruinait toutes leurs esperances.
Gregoire XVI y d6clarait que « de l’indiffdrentisme seul
peut d6couler cette maxime absurde et erron6e, ou plutdt
ce d61ire : qu’il faut assurer et gararitir & qui que ce soit la
liberty de conscience. On prepare la voie & cette pernicieuse
erreur par la liberty d’opinion pleine et sans bornes qui se
r6pand au loin pour le malheur de la soci6t6 religieuse et
civile, quelques uns r^pdtant avec une extreme impudence
qu’il en r6sulte quelque avantage pour la religion. Mais,
disait saint Augustin, qui peut mieux donner la mort &
l’&me que la liberty de l’erreur? »
L’Encyclique condamnait ensuite la liberty de la presse,
d6noncant « combien est fausse, tdm6raire, injurieuse au
Saint-Si6ge et f^conde en maux pour le peuple chr6tien,
1’opinion de ceux qui, non seulement rejettent la censure des
livres comme un joug trop on6reux, mais en sont venus & ce
point de malignity qu’ils la pr6sentent comme trop oppos6e
aux principes de droiture et d’£quit6 et qu’ils osent refuser a
l’Eglise le droit de l’ordonner et de l’exercer ».
Apr&s avoir ni£, au nom des lois divines et humaines, le
droit des peuples opprim^s &la resistance et & l’insurrection,
le document pontifical s’attaquait & l’id^al religieux de
1'4 wnir et de son ecole : «Nous n’aurions rien h prSsager que
de malheureux pour la religion et les gouvernements, en
suivant les voeux de ceux qui veulent que l’Eglise soit
separee de l’Etat et que la concorde mutuelle du sacerdoce et
de l’empire soit rompue. »
Et pour qu’on ne se fasse pas d’illusions sur la portee de ses
injonctions, le Pape terminait par un appel manifeste au
bras seculier :
« Que nos chers fils en Jesus-Christ, les princes, favorisent
par leur concours et leur autorit^ ces voeux que nous formons pour le salut de la religion et de l’Etat. Qu’ils considkrent que leur autorit6 leur a 6t6 donn^e non seulement pour
�14
le gouvernement temporel, mais surtout pour defendre
l’JESglise, et que tout ce qui se fait pour l’avantage de l’liglise
se fait aussi pour leur puissance et pour leur repos. »
Nous autres, qui vivons en dehors de l’Eglise romaine,
nous ne saurions concevoir l’amertume d’un pareil desaveu
pour des esprits habitues a unir dans une meme pens6e
d amour et de veneration l’figlise et la liberty, les enseignements du souverain pontife et les besoins de la societe moderne. Lamennais qui, & raison de sa position et de son Age,
portait le principal poids de cette condamnation, ne tarda pas
A se jeter ouvertement dans le schisme. Ses collaborateurs
courbArent la tAte : Lacordaire rentra au cloitre; Montalem
bert se plongea dans des travaux d’histoire et de literature;
mais tous deux, en se soumettant, n’en conservArent pas
moins au fond du coeur, comme ils le montrferent par la suite,
les gAnAreuses illusions qui avaient inspire cette premiere
croisade du catholicisme liberal.
Ill
Du reste, Rome sentait elle-mAme que le moment n’etait
pas venu de pousser sa victoire aux derniAres consequences.
Elie avait encore besoin du catholicisme liberal, surtout en
France, oil il lui fallait renverser toutes les barriAres AlevAes
par la legislation du premier empire contre les envahissements de 1 autorite spirituelle. Or, comment demander la
liberte A sesadversaires, si ce n’est au nom du droit commun?
On laissa done Montalembert reparaitre bientAt A la tribune
pour y redamer la liberte de l’Eglise fondee sur la liberte
generale, en mAme temps que Lacordaire faisait retentir de
son eloquence la chaire de Notre-Dame. Il est vrai que le
catholicisme liberal, s’il continuait A redamer toutes les
libertes individuelles comme des droits parfaitement conciliables avec, la prospAritA de l’Eglise, avait cesse d’en faire
la base necessaire de l’orthodoxie catholique et, d’autre part,
qu’il avait jete par dessus bord l’ideed’une separation absolve
entre 1 Eglise et 1 Etat pour se rallier au regime mixte con-
�sacre par la Constitution beige de 1830. Dans ces conditions,
l’6cole vit peu & peu grossir le nombre et l’influence de ses
adherents; il suflira de citer ici les noms de Tocqueville,
d’Ozanam, de Mgr. Parisis, de l’abbe Perreyve et enfin
de Mgr. Dupanloup qui livrait & la publicity ces paroles
audacieuses : « Ces libertes si chhres & ceux qui nous accusent de ne pas les aimer, nous les proclamons, nous les invoquons pour nous, comme pour les autres. Nous acceptons,
nous invoquons les principes et les tibertes proclamAs en 89.
Vous avez fait la revolution de 1789 sans nous et contre
nous, mais pour nous, Dieu le voulant ainsi malgrd vous. »
En Belgique, l’Encyclique de Gregoire XVI avait produit
une sensation plus profonde encore que chez nos voisins,
car elle paraissait viser directement les principes essentiels
de notre Constitution. Toutefois, Fecole ultramontaine, si
puissante aujourd’hui, ne s’etait pas encore affirmee a cette
dpoque d’effervescence nationale. Aprds un premier mouve
ment de stupeur, les catholiques s’etaient mis a interpreter
le document papal de facon h lui enlever tout caractere
d’hostilite pour nos institutions fondamentales. Suivant
les uns, c’etait 1& une simple declaration doctrinale et absolue
qui restait sans valeur comme sans pretentions dans le
domaine de la politique1. Suivant les autres, c’etait au contraire une sorte de jugement particulier, uniquement appli
cable au cas de Avenir et de sa redaction, qui avaient
eux-memes reclame, la sentence du souverain pontife. Un
representant du parti catholique ayant voulu offrir sa
demission par scrupule de conscience, l’eveque de Gand,
Mgr. Vande Velde, lui repondit que l’Encyclique avait une
portee purement dogmatique et qu’elle ne s’appliquait pas h
notre droit constitutionnel. Gregoire XVI, parait-il, aurait
formellement admis, vers cette epoque, que les catholiques
beiges pouvaient pr£ter serment a notre Constitution sans
manquer h l’orthodoxie. Enfin, l’on exploita un bref, adresse
au roi Leopold cinq mois aprds l’Encyclique, oh le Pape
1 Thonissen. La Belgique sous le roi Leopold Ier, chap. IX.
�16 —
fdlicitait « l’illustre nation des Beiges d’etre restde fiddle a
sa foi au milieu des circonstances les plus difficiles ».
Aussi l’Union put-elle survivre pr6s de huit ann6es
encore. Quand elle succomba, pour laisser entre les deux
partis de notre pays un gouffre qui ira sans cesse en s’61argissant, cette rupture coincida avec les premiers d^veloppements de l’^cole ultramontaine. Toutefois, cette nouvelle
tendance resta longtemps encore tenue en 6chec par l’autorit6 des hommes qui repr&sentaient dans le parti catholique
les id^es de 1830, et qui justifiaient alors son titre de parti
conservateur. C etaient les F61ix de M^rode \ les Vilain XIIII,
les De Decker, les Dechamps, les de Muelenaere, les de Haerne,
tous morts ou silencieux aujourd’hui.
Un moment, l’on put croire que la papaute, reprdsentde
par Pie IX, allait elle-m^me entrer dans le courant des principes modernes. Mais la revolution romaine, qui forca le
nouveau Pape & fuir dans Gaete, modifia le cours de ses id6es
au point de le jeter dans les bras des j6suites, qui ne l’ont plus
lachA Sa restauration par une arm^e francaise fut le signal
d’une nouvelle reaction contre le catholicisme liberal. C’est
en 1850 que se fonda le Bien public, en meme temps que
X'Uni'oers passait aux mains de M. Veuillot, et presque au
lendemain des fetes oh le clerge francais bdnissait les arbres
de la liberte, Montalembert pouvait amerement deplorer h
la tribune la defection « de l’armee qu’il avait form.ee pen
dant vingt ans de luttes » . Apr&s le coup d’Etat, cette reac
tion s’accentua de plus en plus, et l’on put croire que le
catholicisme liberal ne se relkverait pas, en France, de la
nouvelle alliance tacitement conclue entre le tr6ne et l’autel.
1 M. Thiers avait pretendu, en 1844, que la Belgique etait asservie au
clerge. « Si votre appreciation est exacte, repondit Felix de Mdrode, je ne
puis qu’6prouver un profond regret de la part que j’ai prise a la revolution
dont l’ind6pendance est le rdsultat, puisque l’affranchissement du joug
hollandais s’est transform^ pour nos provinces en servitude politique h
ldgard du pouvoir spirituel. Or, cette servitude m'a toujours paru la
chose la plus funeste, le plus grand danger de perversion auquel puissent
Ctre exposes les peuples modernes. » Les liberaux qui, devant l’asservissement de nos campagnes, regrettent la revolution de 1830, se trouvent
done en bonne et illustre compagnie.
�- 17
Mais les instincts lib^raux ont la vie dure et, aussitdt que
le gouvernement imperial desserra un peu le b&illon de la
France, les catholiques lib^raux furent des premiers & reparaitre dans l’ar&ne. Peut-£tre la m6sintelligence, provoqu6e
par l’exp6dition d’Italie entre la papaute et l’empire, ne
fut-elle pas 6trangdre a la r6apparition de l’6cole qui voulait
revendiquer les droits de l’Eglise au nom de la liberte m^me.
Quoi qu’il en soit, nous voyons se reorganiser, vers cette
6poque, la redaction du Correspondant, qui va devenir la
principale forteresse de l’6cole catholique liberate. Le mou
vement gagne mdme les spheres ecclSsiastiques et, a c6t6
des noms signals par l’inscription de la Roche-en-Brenil,
nous voyons figurer des pr6dicateurs en renom, comme les
p&res Gratry et Hyacinthe, des preiats comme Mgr. Maret,
doyen de la Sorbonne; des theologiens comme l’abbe Godard,
professeur au grand seminaire de Langres, qui ecrit un
ouvrage— condamne, il est vrai, par la congregation de
l’Index — sur la conformity de la doctrine catholique avec
les principes de 89; enfin, un jesuite, le P. Matignon,
anxieux d’etablir que ni la cour de Rome, ni m£me la compagnie de Jesus n’avaient jamais combattu les droits naturels de la society civile. Toutes ces tentatives de conciliation
etaient d6nonc6es par l’ZTwws et par la Cwtlta Cattolica,
avec une violence de langage qui scandalisait meme les
libres-penseurs de l’epoque, mais qui ne surprend plus personne, aujourd’hui qu’elle se retrouve jusque dans la
bouche du souverain pontife.
Dans notre pays, l’ancien parti catholique commencait
6galement&se modifier par la lente infiltration des influences
ultramontaines. A la fin de 1856, pendant les debats de
l’Adresse, l’honorable chanoine de Haerne etait encore l’interprfete de ses amis politiques, quand il cdl£brait son attachement pour la Constitution qu’il avait contribud & fonder, en
ces termes, qui doivent bien scandaliser aujourd’hui ^Jour
nal de Bruxelles lui-mSme : « Disons que la Constitution est
pour nous une arche sainte; que nous y tenons par le fond de
nos entrailles, parce qu’elle est l’expression la plus vraie des
2
�— 18 —
besoins actuels et futurs de la nation beige; disons que ce
serait un crime de ldse-patrie que d’y porter atteinte, que
ce serait un parricide. » Et pourtant, dans cette m£me dis
cussion, M. De Decker, alors mihistre de l’int^rieur, devait
d&ja con stater qu’ « un souffle d’intol^rance » commencait &
passer sur la Belgique.
Quelques mois plus tard, le ministere tombait sousl’indignation du pays pour avoir cdd6 lui-m^me & ce souffle into
lerant qu’il venait de d6noncer. L’agitation populaire de
mai 1857 fut vivement exploits par les ultramontains, qui
commenc&rent, d&s lors, h jeter ouvertement le doute et le
discredit sur la valeur de nos rouages constitutionnels. Mais,
' d’un autre c6t6, la n6cessit£ de rentrer dans les bonnes graces
de la majority £lectorale contraignit toutes les forces du
parti k se ranger derriere l’ancien 6tat-major des catholiques
lib6raux,— t6moin laplate-forme liberate et m£me democratique que M. Ad. Dechamps devait faire adopter par ses
amis politiques aux Elections de 1864.
Telle 6tait la situation, lorsqu’en 1863, le Congrks de
Malines vint rassembler, autour de la m6me tribune, les
catholiques de France et de Belgique. Jamais le catholi
cisme liberal n’avait encore affirm^ aussi hautement son
amour de la liberty en tout et pour tous. Il est vrai que ce
devait 6tre son chant du cygne.
M. de Gerlache lui-m^me, l’apologiste de Philippe II,
n’h^sita pas, dans son discours d’ouverture, & proclamer, au
nom des catholiques beiges « qu’il leur importerait peu, au
fond, que l’autorit6 tomb&t aux mains des dissidents ou des
libres-penseurs, s’illeur 6tait permis d’exercer librement les
droits qu’ils tiennent de la Constitution. »
« La religion sans la liberty, disait de son cdte M. Eug.
de Kerckhove, c’est, ou bien la religion pers6cut6e, refoulde
dans lescatacombes, mutil^e surl’dchafaud, oubienla religion
protegee et imposee, aboulissant, hdlasl trop souvent a la ser
vility a la degradation, au silence, a Vheresie... La religion,
l’liglise de Die a doit dtre libre, independante, c’est son droit,
sa force, sa vie, la condition de son efficacit6; mais elle ne
�19 —
doitpas desirer la liberte pour elle seulement; cette liberte
ne serait qu’un privilege sans garantie, une faveur octroy6e
par le pouvoir, et que le pouvoir pourrait lui reprendre un
jour. »
Ce fut, ici encore, le comte de Montalembert qui r6suma
les doctrines du catholicisme liberal avec le plus de vigueur,
de nettety et d’yioquence, quand il posa en ces termes les
principes de la liberte religieuse :
« Ayant recu de Dieu, avec mon &me immortelle, la liberte
morale, la liberty de choisir entre le vrai et le faux, je sais que je
dois choisir le vrai, mais je ne veux pas Atre tenu par l’Etat de
croire ce qu’il croit vrai, parce que l’Etat n’est pas le juge de la
v6rite. Cependant, l’Etat, pouvoir civil et la'ique, souverainement
incompetent en matiere de doctrine religieuse, est tenu de me prot6ger dans la pratique de la v6rite que j’ai choisie, c’est it dire
dans l’exercice de la religion que je professe, parce que je Pai
trouv6e seule vraie et seule supdrieure h toutes les autres. C’est lh
ce qui constitue la liberte religieuse que l’Etat est tenu de res
pecter et de garantir non seulement h chaque citoyen en particulier, mais aux citoyens r^unis pour professer et pour propager
leur culte, c’est h dire aux corporations, aux associations, aux
Eglises.
Est-il besoin d’ajouter que la liberte religieuse, telle que je
l’iiivoque, ne saurait etre illimitee, pas plus qu’aucune liberte. La
liberty des cultes, comme toutes les autres, doit etre contenue
par la raison naturelie et la religion naturelle. LEtat incom
petent, en these generate, a juger entre les cultes et les opinions
religieuses, demeure juge competent, quoique non infaillible, dece
qui importe a, la paix publique, aux moeurspubliques. Contre tout ce
qui porte atteinte a la societecivile il a droit de legitime defense. »
Ce passage m^ritait d’etre city en entier; car, s’il laisse
quelque Equivoque sur le degr6 de protection due aux diff6rents cultes et h leurs associations, il nous parait poser,
dans toute leur plenitude, les vrais principes qui doivent
r6gir les rapports de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, c’est h dire, d’une
part, legality des cultes devant la loi et la neutrality de
l’Etat en mature de dogmes, d’autre part, la restriction des
libertes religieuses par les n6cessit6s de l’ordre et de la mo
rality publique, ainsi que le droit de l’lStat de dyterminer
�souverainement quelles sont ces n6cessit6s. Beaucoup de
catholiques oseraient-ils encore reproduire aujourd’hui cette
belle et fifere declaration ? Montalembert, cependant, — les
comptes rendus l’attestent — resta le h6ros de la session,
et nulle voix discordante ne vint troubler les acclamations
de l’assistance.
IV
On concoit que les janissaires de la papaute ne pouvaient
laisser impunie une pareille debauche de lib6ralisme. L’ann6e
suivante, le Congrds de Malines tint sa seconde et dernikre
session, mais elle fut loin d’offrir l’importance et l’enthousiasme de la premiere : il y avait d6j& du Syllabus dans
l’air.
C’est le 8 d6cembre 1864 que ce catalogue des erreurs
r6prouv6es par l’autorit6 pontificale fut exp6did & tous les
6v6ques du monde, en compagnie d’une Encyclique oil
Pie IX reproduisait les condamnations prononc6es par
Gregoire XVI dans son Encyclique de 1832, contre la
liberty de la presse, de la parole et de la conscience. Parmi
les erreurs qu’on signalait & l’animadversion des fiddles,
nous devons particulidrement noter les suivantes :
VII. L’Eglise n'a pas le droit d’employer, la force; elle n’a
aucun pouvoir temporel direct ou indirect.
XXXIX. L’Etat, comme 6tant la source et l’origine de tous les
droits, jouit d’un droit qui n’est circonscrit par aucune limite.
XLII. En cas de confit legal entre les deux pouvoirs, le droit
civil prtvaut.
LV. L’Etat doit etre sSpare de l’figlise et l’Eglise de l’Etat.
LXXVII. A notre Spoque, il n’est plus utile que la religion
catholique soit consid6r6e comme l’unique religion de l’Etat, h
l’exclusion de tous les autres cultes.
LXXVIII. Aussi est-ce avec raison que, dans quelques pays
catholiques de nom, la loi a pourvu a ce que les strangers qui
viennent s’y etablir y jouissent chacun de l’exercice public de
leur culte particulier.
�LXXX. Le Pontife romain peut et doit se reconcilier et se
mettre d’accord avec le progrds, avec le libGralisme et avec la
civilisation moderne.
Les catholiques libdraux de YAvenir, sauf Lamennais,
avaient accepte leur condamnation sans regimber. Les catho
liques du Congr&s de Malines refus&rent de se voir atteints
par la nouvelle Encyclique, quoiqu’elle visat cependant, dans
certaines propositions condamn6es, les termes m6mes dont ils
s’etaient servis.
Nous vimes reparaitre, en cette occasion, tout l’arsenal des
interpretations plus ou moins elastiques qu’on avait d6j&
mises en avant pour 6mousser l’Encyclique de 1832. Parmi
les plus specieuses, il faut surtout noter la fameuse distinc
tion, si sou vent reproduite & la tribune de- nos Chambres,
entre la tolerance civile et l’intoierance dogmatique.
L’Eglise romaine, dit-on, comme toutes les ISglises, et
meme toutes les dcoles de morale, s’estime en possession
exclusive de la verite; elle doit done se croire superieure &
toutes ses rivales et partant elle ne peut leur reconnaitre,
au point de vue dogmatique, des droits egaux aux siens.
Le Pape ne fait qu’user de son autoritd dogmatique en
d6niant aux fiddles le droit de repousser les decisions de
l’Eglise ou de choisir eux-m6mes leurs croyances. Mais on
ne peut en conclure qu’il leur ordonne de supprimer la tole
rance civile, c’est & dire qu’il leur enjoigne d’invoquer l’appui
de la force publique pour imposer aux autres leurs propres
opinions religieuses. Les Encycliques de 1832 et de 1864
sont simplement des declarations de principes au point de vue
disciplinaire; elles n’ont pas plus de rapports avec la poli
tique des Jfitats que les th6oremes de l’algebre ou les lois de
l’astronomie1.
1 On a dit aussi, sous une forme plus scolastique : L’homme qui a la
faculty de choisir entre le bien et le mal, n’a pas, au point de vue moral, le
droit de choisir le mal; c’est la tout ce que veut dire l’Eglise, quand.elle
conteste, a son point de vue, la liberty de l’erreur. Toutefois, comme en
fait l’apprdciation de ce qui est le bien et le mal differe suivant les individus, la faculty morale de faire son choix devient, dans le domaine du
�— 22 —
i
L
Il s’agit de bien nous entendre. Si le Pape se borne & dire:
« Hors de l’Eglise pas de salut», c’est un droit que personne
ne lui conteste. S’il veut simplement interdire i ses fiddles
les lectures qu’il juge p6rilleuses pour leur orthodoxie,
nous trouverons peut-Stre exorbitante cette pretention de
mettre en tutelle deux cents millions d’intelligences ; cependant, ce n’est en somme qu’un droit de censure priv6e, comme
en possMe tout instituteur dans son dtablissement, tout pfere
de famille dans sa maison. — Mais si telle estl’unique port6e
des deux Encycliques que nous examinons, pourquoi Gre
goire XVI terminait-il la sienne par un appel au concours et
h Xautorite des princes « ses chers fils en Jesus-Christ » ?
Pourquoi Pie IX stigmatise-t-il l’opinion de ceux qui repoussent une religion d’Etat et qui veulent accorder aux dissi
dents etrangers le droit de ceiebrer leur culte (prop. LXXVII
et LXXVIII du Syllabus)? Pourquoi r6prouve-t-il(prop. VII)
ceux qui denient & l’JSglise « le droit d’employer la force » ?
Pourquoi enfin condamne-t-il ceux qui veulent faire pr6dominer le droit civil en cas de conflit entre les deux pouvoirs
(prop. XLII) ? Cette derniere condamnation non seulement
fait litifere des principes modernes sur le rdle essentiel de
l’fJtat, tels queMontalembert lui-meme les definissait au Congrfes de Malines, mais encore proclame hautement la subor
dination complete du pouvoir civil, si meme elle n’impose le
devoir de d6sob6ir aux lois temporelles condamnSdfe par
1’ISglise.
Un theologien de mdrite, grand adversaire des ultramontains, le rev. J.-H. Newman, a fait ici une distinction qui
m6rite d’etre signalee1. Le Syllabus, comme on sait, est une
collection de condamnations d£ja prononc^es par le Vatican
dans des circonstances diverses. Or, le savant oratorien fait
pouvoir civil, la base d’un droit strict que l’Etat doit impartialement
.garantir a tous ses membres. — Voy. Thonissen. La Belgique sous le
regne de Leopold IeT, chap. IX. — P. de Haulleville. Les catholiques et les
liberty constitutionnelles. — Cardinal Sterckx. La Constitution beige et
TEncyclique de Gregoire XVI.
1 A letter on occasion of
Gladstone recent expostulation. Lon
don, 1875.
x
�observer que le Pape a signe l’Encyclique du 8 ddcembre
1864, mais non son annexe du Syllabus. Celui-ci n’est plus,
dfes lors, qu’un recueil de jugements, rassemblds par un compilateur anonyme et possedant, dans son ensemble, une
autorite purement doctrinale. Pour trouver la valeur dogma
tique de ses diverses injonctions, il faut les prendre isoldment,
dans les conditions particuli&res oil elles se sont produites,
et dans le document original d’oti elles sont tiroes. Ainsi, la
condamnation prononc^e contre la tolerance des cultes dissi
dents vise uniquement l’Espagne qui avait encouru cette
sentence dans des circonstances sp^ciales. Ainsi encore la
proposition XVII n’a de valeur dogmatique qu’h lAgard de
la Nouvelle-Grenade, et la proposition XII ne s’applique
qu’aux oeuvres d’un certain professeur Nuytz.
On voit le systdme : d’apres les uns, les condamnations
du Pape ont une portee tellement g6n6rale et absolue qu’elles
n’ont rien de commun avec les mis6rables debats de la poli
tique. D’aprSs les autres, au contraire, elles ont une portee
tellement locale et relative qu’on ne peut les etendre en
dehors des cas particuliers qui les ont motivdes.
Mais que devient le premier de ces arguments devant les
frequents exemples oil le Pape a appliqud aux lois de cer
tains Etats ses principes d’intoldrance dogmatique, renfermds, disait-on, dans la sphere de la morale individuelle ?
Quant & la seconde explication, ne mdconnait-elle pas la
portae generate de l’Encyclique oh Pie IX rappelle d tous
les fideles du globe les termes de la condamnation lanc^e
par son prdddcesseur contre la liberty de la presse et des
cultes? Qu’importe d’ailleurs! Quand le chef de cette grande
organisation religieuse qui a pour devise: Semper eadem, condamne au nom de ses principes absolus l’dtablissement de la
tolerance civile parmi les habitants de la Nouvelle-Grenade
et de l’Espagne, ne doit-il pas n^cessairement aspirer h
l’abolir chez nous, et s’il s’attribue le droit de placer les
membres catholiques de certains gouvernements entre leur
fidelite envers l’Eglise romaine et leur respect pour la liberty
publique, pourquoi n’en ferait-il pas autant, h la premiere
�— 24 —
occasion favorable, dans d’autres pays, comme la France et
la Belgique, infest6s de la meme erreur? Si bien que la
grande distinction de la politique et de la morale, de la
these et de l’hypoth^se, nous semble 6trangement se r^duire
k une question d’opportunit6 et de moyens — ce dont, au
reste, nous nous dtions toujours dout6.
Sans doute, comme fait observer Mgr. Dupanloup1, la
condamnation d’une proposition n’equivaut pas absolument
a l’affirmation de la proposition contraire. Ainsi, quand le
Pape condamne l’axiome: « Il faut proclamer et observer le
principe de non-intervention » (prop. LXII), il ne veut pas
dire « qu’on doit intervenir & tort et & travers, sans discernement, toujours. » —Mgr. Dupanloup a raison; mais quand
le Pape condamne la doctrine: « L’Eglise n’a pas le droit
d’employer la force », cette condamnation ne signifie-t-elle
pas tout au moins que, dans certains cas, l’Eglise a le droit
d’employer la force? Quand le Pape condamne 1’assertion :
«En cas de conflit entre les deuxpouvoirs, le droit civil pr6vaut», cette condamnation ne signifie-t-elle pas tout au moins
que,^o$ certains cas, il fautfaire pr6valoir le droit eccl6siastique? Or, m6me r6duites & cette port6e, ces condamnations
' de l’Encyclique et du Syllabus seraient encore autant de defis
aux principes de la soci6t6 moderne et meme aux doctrines
du catholicisme liberal.
Quand Pie IX condamne la proposition que « la papaut6
doit se reconcilier avec le progrks, le lib^ralisme et la soci6t6
moderne », assur6ment cette condamnation n’implique pas
que le Pape condamne en bloc tous les 616ments de la civili
sation moderne: les tdl^graphes, les chemins de fer, la photographie, etc. — Mais s’ensuit-il, comme le soutientM. Dupan
loup, qu’il entende uniquement condamner les abus et les
exces de cette civilisation, r£prouv6s par tous les partisans
d’une morale quelconque? Pie IX s’est charg6 lui-meme de
rdpondre & cette question, en definissant, dans son allocution
du 18 mars 1861, la civilisation avec laquelle il ne veut pas
, 1 La Convention du 15 septembre et VEncyclique du 8 decembre.
Paris, 1865.
�se reconcilier. C’est « la civilisation qui va jusqu’a favoriser
les cultes non catholiques, qui n’ecarte meme pas les infldeles
des emplois publics et qui ouvre les ecoles catholiques & leurs
enfants ». Tout commentaire serait ici superflu.
Enfin, l’on a soutenu que la condamnation du SaintSiege portait uniquement sur la liberte absolue, illimitee,
de la presse, de la parole, des cultes, etc. Or, nulle part,
ajoutait-on triomphalement, cette liberty illimitee n’existe,
ni ne saurait exister; m6me la Constitution beige a dfr pr6voir la repression legale des deiits auxquels donnerait lieu
l’usagedeslibertds qu’elle proclame. ■—Mais, puisque les gouvernements ont partout et toujours reconnu la necessity de
reprimer par des lois les excks inevitables de la liberte individuelle, qu’etait-il besoin deces protestations bruyantes pour
reprocher au monde l’oubli d’une vdrite eidmentaire que, a
part Proudhon, personne n’a jamais contestde? D’ailleurs, les
commentaires memes du Saint-Siege r£futent cette etrange
interpretation, et nous venons dej& de voir que mainte sen
tence du Syllabus avait pour objet de frapper des nations
coupables d’avoir introduit dans leurs institutions non une
liberte sans limite et sans frein,'mais une timide application
de la liberte des cultes.
Nous reconnaitrons toutefois que plusieurs de ces expli
cations etaient suffisamment specieuses pour permettre aux
catholiques liberaux de se croire encore dans les limites de
l’orthodoxie. L’esprit humain est ainsi fait que, de tr&s bonne
foi, il profitera du moindre doute, de la moindre ambiguite
pour se retrancher le plus longtemps possible dans les inter
pretations sympathiques & ses prejuges ou h ses illusions. Mais
l’ecole du catholicisme liberal n’en etait pas moins frappee
a mort. C’est sur le terrain du concile que, quatre ans plus
tard, elle livra et perdit sa dernibre bataille.
V
< ? •
•
A premiere vue on ne saisit gufere les rapports qui existent
entre le dogme de 1’infaillibilitA et les doctrines du catholi-
�— 26 —
cisme liberal. Une fois que l’Eglise revendique le droit de
faconner les institutions politiques des peuples, qu’importe
si c’est du Pape ou du concile que part le mot d’ordre? Mais,
en rdalitE, — sans parler de l’ascendant que les catholiques
absolutistes ont pu acquErir sur la personne du Pape actuel
— on doit bien admettre que l’ancien systEme des Inglises
nationales, mEme dEbarrassE de toute entrave gouvernementale, favorisait davantage non seulement l’independance des
Etats, mais encore le principe de la liberty politique; car
les EvEques, en contact immEdiat avec leurs concitoyens,
Etaient naturellement plus aptes & faire la part de leur
temps et de leur pays que les thEologiens abstraits et centralisateurs de la curie romaine, isolee et endormie dans
1’atmosphEre glaciale de ses vieilles traditions.
M. Gladstone en a fourni une preuve assez intEressante
dans sa rEcente brochure sur les dEcrets du Vatican. Lorsqu’il
fut question de donner aux catholiques anglais le droit de
siEger au Parlement, on fit une enquete pour Eclaircir si les
fiddles de l’^glise romaine n’Etaient pas tenus d’obEir, dans
leurs actes politiques, aux ordres du Vatican. En un mot,
admettaient-ils que le Pape 6tait infaillible, et que cette
infaillibilitE restait sans limites? Un prelat bien connu ,
Mgr. Doyle, rEpondit sous serment : « Les catholiques se
considerent obliges d’obeir au Pape en ce qui concerne leur
foi religieuse et dans ces questions de discipline ecclEsiastique qui ont dEj& EtE dEfinies par les auto rites compEtentes.
Mais notre obEissance & la loi et 1’allEgeance que nous devons
au souverain sont nEanmoins completes, absolues, parfaites
et sans aucune restriction ni division, puisquelles s’Pendent
d tous les droits civils, legaux et politiques du roi ou de ses
sujets1. » En mEme temps, les vicaires apostoliques qui
administraient, avec autorite Episcopate, les catholiques
1 Ce meme pr61at, interrogd sur ce que ferait le clerge catholique
d’Angleterre, si le Pape' voulait s'immiscer dans les affaires int^rieures
du pays, rSpondit officiellement : « Ce qu’il en r6sulterait, c’est que nous
lui ferions une opposition indomptable, a l’aide de tous les moyens en
notre pouvoir, meme par l’exercice de notre autoritS spirituelle. »
�— 27 -
d’Angleterre, proclamaient, dans une declaration collective,
que : « Ni le Pape, ni aucun prelat ou aucun autre ecclesiastique de TEglise catholique romaine n’a le droit de s'immiscer directement ou indirectement dans le gouvernement
civil,... ni de s’opposer en quoi que ce soit & l’accomplissement des devoirs civils qui sont dus au Roi. » Il est vrai que
ces mdmes autorites ajoutaient que, dans leur conviction,
« l’infaillibilite du Pape n’est point un article de la foi
catholique et que l’Eglise ne les oblige point h y croire ».
Tous les catholiques conviendront avec nousque ces rassurantes declarations ne seraient plus possibles aujourd’hui.
Par les d£crets du concile, non seulement l’infaillibilite du
Pape est devenue un dogme dans toutes les questions de foi,
de morale et mhme de discipline ecciesiastique, mais son
autoritd absolue, son droit a l’ob6issance des fiddles ont
encore hth 6tendus a des objets qui semblent hchapper a la
sphere de son infaillibilite—par exemple aux questions rela
tives au gouvernement de l’Eglise {quae ad disciplinary et
regimen ecclesiee... pertinent}. Or, comme fait remarquer
M. Gladstone \ mbme aux Etats-Unis d’Am6rique — et h
plus forte raison en Belgique — « on pourrait dresser un
long catalogue des objets qui appartiennent au domaine de
l’Etat, mais qui affectent incontestablement le gouvernement
de l’Eglise, par exemple, les manages, les cimetibres, l’instruction publique, la discipline des prisons, les blasphemes,
l’assistance publique, la mainmorte, les donations religieuses, les voeux de c61ibat et d’ob6issance, etc. »
On concoit quele vote de ces dhcrets ait sonn6 le glas funbbre du catholicisme liberal. Les plus avanc6s de ses adeptes,
tels que le chanoine Dollinger et l’abbe Loyson, ne recurrent
pas devant un nouveau schisme. Mais la majority se soumit
avec plus ou moins de bonne gr&ce, h commencer par
Mgr. Dupanloup, nagubre un des adversaires les plus bnergiques de la decision qui avait prbvalu au concile. L’abbe
Gratry ne donna son adhesion que deux ans plus tard, sur
1 Voy. Gladstone. The Vatican decrees. Londres, 1874.
�son lit de mort. Le pere Lacordaire s’etait eteint en 1858.
Quant h Montalembert, il eut le bonheur de descendre dans
la tombe quelques semaines avant la terrible alternative oil
l’aurait place la victoire definitive des ultramontains.
Le 28 f6vrier 1870, dans la lettre que nous avons citde
plus haut comme le testament politique et religieux de sa
longue et brillante carri^re, ce vigoureux athlete du catholicisme liberal avait exhale cette supreme protestation, qui
fait songer & l’ave, Cesar, morituri te salutamt des gladiateurs mourants :
« Dans l’ordre politique, nous sommes dej& deiivresde
l’ancien regime, que tant d’esprits faux et serviles avaient
acclame comme fapogee de l’ordre et du progrfcs, et nous
voyons renaitre l’ordre avec la liberte. Dansl’ordre religieux,
je reste enfin convaincu, malgre toutes les apparenees contraires, que la religion catholique, sans subir la moindre
alteration dans la majestueuse immobilite de ses dogmes ou
de sa morale, saura s’adapter en Europe, comme elle l’a dej&
fait en Amerique, aux conditions inevitables de la societe
moderne et qu’elle demeurera comme toujours la grande
consolation et la grande lumibre du genre humain. »
Cinq mois n’avaient point passe sur ces genereuses pre
dictions que la France avait declare la guerre h la Prusse et
que le dogme de l’infaillibilite papale etait entrd dans la
constitution de 1’lSglise romaine. 11 y a vraiment de ces
heures de vertige, oh, de toutes parts, le monde prend a tache
de justifier l’antique adage : « Dieu frappe de folie ceux
qu’il veut perdre. >
�LA FIN D’UN GRAND PARTI
On vient d’assister h la ddroute du catholicisme liberal sur
le terrain du concile. Les catholiques libdraux, qui pouvaient
encore se trouver dans les rangs du clergd, furent naturellement les premiers & courber la tdte, et, depuis l’exode des
vieux catholiques, c’est l’ultramontanisme qui a eu seul la
parole dans les facultds de thdologie et dans les mandements episcopaux, comme dans les chaires des prddicateurs
a la mode et dans les publications des dcrivains eccldsiastiques. Mais, parmi les laics, les ddcrets du Vatican laissaient
debout un petit groupe de fiddles qui t&chaient encore,
contre vent et marde, d’accommoder leurs anciennes convic
tions libdrales avec les exigences de la papautd. Tels dtaient,
en France, les disciples survivants de Montalembert, rallies
autour du Correspondent, et, en Belgique, les reprdsentants
des traditions qui avaient animd noire Congrds national de
1830. Il restait 1&, dans les deux pays, un centre d’opposi
tion, momentandment impuissant, mais capable, & un instant
donnd, d’entrainer dans son orbite la masse flottante de
ces esprits superficiels, si nombreux parmi nos populations
catholiques, qui t&chent machinalement de concilier l’accomplissement de leurs devoirs religieux avec les impdrieuses
�ndcessitesde la vie moderne. Pour que l’ultramontanisme put
dire sa victoire complete, il fallait que ces derniers foyers de
resistance fussent eteints ou disperses. Ce fut l’objet d’une
nouvelle campagne, qui s’ouvrit peu de temps aprfcs le con
cile et qui se poursuit, ou plutdt, s’ach&ve sous nos yeux.
I
Le 18 juin 1871, une nombreuse deputation de catho
liques francais, conduite par l’evAque de Nevers, etait venue
feiiciter Pie IX d’avoir atteint le vingt-cinquieme anniversaire de son pontificat. Voici ce que Sa Saintete leur
repondit en francais :
Mes chers enfants, il faut que mes paroles vous disent bien ce
que j’ai dans mon coeur... L’atheisme dans les lois, l’indifference
en matidre de religion et ces maarimes pernicieuses, qu’on appelle
catholiques-lib&rales, voila, oui, voila les vraies causes de la
mine des Etats, et ce sont elles qui ont prdcipite la France.
Croyez-moi, le mal que je vous signale est plus terrible encore
que la Revolution, que la Commune m&me.
Ici1 le Saint-P^re porta la main h son front et, avec un
mouvement qui indiquait un amer chagrin meld & une profonde indignation, il dit : « J’ai toujours condamnd le libd« ralisme catholique »; levant alors les mains, il ajouta
avec vivacitd et avec force : « Et je le condamnerais quarante
« fois encore, s’il le fallait. » Puis il continua :
A cepropos, je me souviens d’un Frangais qui avait une place
61evee et que j’ai connu de pres ici, & Rome; j’ai eu meme occa
sion de parler avec lui, et il me faisait de grands compliments.
C’etait ce que l’on appelle un homme distingue, honnete, qui pratiquait sa religion et se confessait. Mais il avait des idees etranges
1 Cette allocution fit grand bruit a l’6poque ou elle fut pronbnc£e;
cependant les journaux n’en avaient donn6 qu’un texte abr6g6 et m6me
att6nu6. C’est seulement depuis quelques semaines que la version authentique — telle que nous la reproduisons textuellement — a paru dans l’6dition, autorisie et revue par le Saint-P&re, des allocutions prononc£es au
Vatican, durant ces quatre dernidres annees.
�- 31 -
et certains principes que je n’ai jamais pu comprendre comment
ils avaient pu prendre racine dans un catholique de bonne foi.
C’6taient pr6cis6ment les maximes dont je parlais tout & l’heure.
Ce personnage soutenait que, pour bien gouverner, il faut
avoir une legislation athde, de l’indiff^rence en matidre de reli
gion, et cette singuliere tactique qui sait s’accommoder h toutes
les opinions, h, tous les partis, & toutes les religions, et unir
ensemble les dogmes immuables de TJSglise avec la liberty des
cultes, des consciences. Nous etions d’accord sur plusieurs points;
sur ceux-ci, jamais.
Cet homme, que faisait-il, en effet? Aujourd’hui, une chose;
demain, une autre tout oppos^e. Un de ses amis, qui etait protes
tant, mourut & Rome; il suivit son convoi et assista aux fundrailles dans un temple protestant! On fait certainement tres bien
d’assister les protestants dans leurs n6cessites, leurs maladies, et
de leur faire l’aumdne, l’aumdne de la verity surtout, pour pro
curer leur conversion; mais c’est chose extremement blamable
que de participer & leurs c6r6monies religieuses.
Que pensent de ce passage les divers chefs de notre parti
catholique qui prirent part aux fun6railles d’un auguste
protestant, premier roi des Beiges? Qu’en pense surtout cer
tain membre de notre cabinet actuel qui assistait nagufere a
« l’enfouissement» civil d’un haut magistrat, mort en librepenseur? Il est vrai que, d’apres l’organe officieux du Vati
can, nos ministres ne sont que des cldricaux faux teint, des
ribaldi, des « catholiques lib^raux » pour tout dire!
On doit croire, cependant,que, malgrele retentissement de
cette allocution, les derniers catholiques lib6raux ne se
hat&rent pas suffisamment de depouiller le vieil homme, car
l’ann6e 1873 voit accumuler bref sur bref contre leurs « pernicieuses » doctrines.
Sans parler du bref adress6, le 10 f6vrier, h 1’Association
g6n£rale des catholiques allemands, pour les exhorter & combattre la politique religieuse dugouvernementprussien, nous
devons signaler en premiereligne lebref que Pie IX envoyait,
le 6 mars, a la jeunesse catholique de Milan :
Oui, h61as! il y en a qui ont l’air de vouloir marcher d’accord
avec nos ennemis et s’efforcent d’etablir une alliance entre la
lumiere et les tSndbres, un accord entre la justice et l’iniquitd, au
�moyen de ces doctrines qu’on appelle catholiques - liberates,
lesquelles, s’appuyant sur les principes les plus pernicieux,
flattent le pouvoir laic quand il envahit les choses spirituelles et
poussent l’esprit au respect ou tout au moins h la tolerance des
lois les plus iniques, absolument comme s’il n’etait pas ecrit que
personne nepeut servir deux maitres. Or, ceux-ci sont plus dangereux assurSment et plus funestes que des ennemis declares, et
parce qu’ils secondent leurs efforts sans etre remarques, peut-etre
mdme sans s’en douter, et parce que, se maintenant sur Textr&me
limits des opinions formellement condamndes, ils se donnent une
certains apparence d’inttgrite et de doctrine irreprochable, alltchant ainsi les imprudents amateurs de conciliation et trompant
les gens honn^tes, lesquels se revolteraient contre une erreur
declaree.
Le 8 mai suivant, c’est notre pays qui a son tour, par un
bref adressd h la Fidiration des cercles catholiques de Bel
gique :
Ce que nous louons le plus dans cette religieuse entreprise,
c’est que vous etes, dit-on, remplis d’aversion pour les principes
catholiques-lib&raux que nous tdchez d'effacer des intelligences,
autant qu'il est en notre pounoir.
Ceux qui sont imbus de ces principes font profession, il est nrai,
d'amour et de respect pour I'Fglise et semblent consacrer a sa de
fense leurs talents et leurs trataux; mais ils n’en tranaillent pas
moins apernertir son esprit et sa doctrine;Qi chacun d’eux, suivant
la tournure particuliere de son esprit, incline b. se mettre au ser
vice, ou deC6sar, oude ceux qui inventent des droits enfaveur de
lafausse liberty. Ils pensent qu’il faut absolument suivre cette
voie pour enlever la cause des dissensions, pour concilier avec
l’Evangile le progres de la soci6t6 actuelle et pour retablir l’ordre
et la tranquillit6; comme si la lumiere pouvait coexister avec les
t6n6bres, et comme si la verity ne cessait pas d’etre la verity, des
qu’on lui fait violence en la dGtournant de sa veritable significa
tion et en la depouillant de la fixit6 inh6rente a sa nature.
Cette insidieuse erreur est plus dangereuse quune inimitit
ouverie, parce qu’elle se couvre du voile spScieux du zele et de la
charit6; et c’est assurSment en vous efforcant de la combattre et
en mettant un soin assidu & en 61oigner les simples, que vous
extirperez la racine fatale des discordes et que vous travaillerez
efficacement h produire et h entretenir l’union btroite des ames.
Ce n’estdonc pas aujiw^ liberal, aux heretiques etauxlibrespenseurs que s’adresse ce bref, mais bel et bien h ces catho-
�33 —
liques qui, chez nous, s’intitulent moddrds, parlementaires,
constitute onnels.
Le 9 juin, dans un bref au Comitb catliolique dCOrlia/ns,
le Souverain Pontife revient sur la m&ne idde :
Bien que vous ayez h soutenir la lutte contre l’impidte, cependant vous avez moins & redouter de ce cdte, peut-dtre, que de la
part d’un groupe compost d’hommes imbus de cette doctrine,
laquelle, tout en repoussant les consequences extremes des
erreurs, en retient et en nourrit obstinement le premier germe et
qui, ne voulant pas embrasser la vdritd tout entiere, riosant pas
non plus la rejeter tout entire, s'efforce d‘interpreter les enseignements de TEglise de maniere a les faire concorder d peu pres avec
ses propres sentiments.
Car, aujourd’hui encore, il en est qui adherent aux vdrites
rdcemment ddfinies par un pur effort de volonte, et cela pour
dviter I’accusation de schisme et pour abuser leur propre con
science; mais ils n’ont nullement « depose cette hauteur qui
« s’dleve contre la science de Dieu, ni rdduit leur intelligence en
« captivite sous l’obeissance de Jdsus-Christ ».
Cependant, les malheureux catholiques liberaux — qui
s’etaient donnd tant de peine, k l’apparition du Syllabus,
« pour interpreter les enseignements de 1’ISglise de mani&re
a les faire concorder h peu prds avec leurs propres senti
ments » — mettaient encore de la mauvaise grA.ce, parait-il,
A se reconnaitre dans cette description. Alors, le 9 juillet,
comme pour souffler sur leurs dernidres illusions, Pie IX
envoie A, l’dvdque de Quimper un bref oil Sa Saintetd commente elle-mdme ses declarations prdcddentes :
Avertissez, vdndrable frere, les membres de l’Association catho
lique que, dans les nombreuses occasions ou nous avons repris
les sectateurs des opinions libdrales, nous n’avons pasen vue ceux
qui halssent l’Eglise et qu’iZ cdt ete inutile de designer, mais bien
ceux que nous venons de signaler, lesquels, conservant et entretenant le virus cache des principes liberaux qu’ils ont sued avec le
lait, sous pretexte qu’il n’est pas infestd d’une malice manifeste
et n’est pas, suivant eux, nuisible & la religion, l’inoculent aisdment aux esprits, et propagent ainsi les semences de ces revolu
tions dont le moDde est depuis longtemps dbranld.
Il dtait impossible de viser plus directement les opinions
de presque tous les catboliques qui avaient pris la parole au
y
3
�— 34 —
CongrAs de Malines. D’ailleurs, les encouragements prodiguAs, depuis cette allocution, par le Saint-PAre aux adver'saires invAtArAs de l’ancienne Acole catholique-libArale,
achAvent de prAciser contre quels hommes et quelles ten
dances Ataient dirigAes les condamnations papales.
Tout le monde connalt les doctrines de la Croix. Voici les
felicitations que Pie IX envoyait, le 21 mai 1874, & la redac
tion de cette feuille ultramontaine :
... C’est pour nous un devoir de louer le dessein que votre lettre
nous fait connaitre et auquel nous avons appris que votre journal
repond pleinement, & savoir : de produire, de repandre, de mettre
en lumiere, de faire pAnAtrer dans les esprits tout ce que le SaintSiAge a enseignA contre des doctrines coupables ou contre des
doctrines pour le moins fausses et regues en plus d’un lieu,
notamment contre le liberalisme catholique qui tache de concilier
la lumiAre avec les tenebres, la vAritA avec l’erreur.
Sans doute, vous avez entrepris 1& une tache bien rude et bien
difficile, puisque ces doctrines pernicieuses, qui ouvrent le cbemin
* & toutes les entreprises de 1’impiAtA, sont en ce moment soutenues
avec violence par tous ceux qui se glorifient de favoriser le prdtendu prog res de la civilisation; par tous ceux qui, faisant consister la religion dans les actes extArieurs et n’ayant pas son
veritable esprit, parlent partout et tres haut de paix, alors qu’ils
ignorent la voie de la paix et attirent a eux, par ce proce'de, le
nombre tres considerable des hommes que seduit Vamour egoisle du
repos.
Ces gens que seduit V amour dgoiste durepos, nous semblent
bien procbes parents des hommes politiques qui prAchent
une politique « d’apaisement » et qui mettent toute leur
adresse & Aviter « les dAbats irritants ».
Il est & peine besoin de rappeler les brefs dont ont AtA
rAcemment honorAs le rAdacteur en chef du Courrier de
Bruxelles et l’auteur des Lois de la societe chretienne.
Plut & Dieu, Acrivait le Pape & M. Ch. PArin, que ces vAritAs
fussent comprises de ceux qui se vantent d'etre catholiques tout en
adJidrant obstin&ment a la liberty des cultes, a la liberte de la presse
et a d autres libertes de la meme espece, decrdtees a la fin du siecle
dernier par les revolutionnaires et constamment rdprouvdes par
lEglise, de ceux qui adhArent & ces libertAs non seulement en
tant qu’elles peuvent Atre tolArAes, mais en tant qu’il faut les
considerer comme des droits, qulil faut les favoriser et les defendre
�comme nfcessaires a la condition prdsente des choses et & la marche
du progrds.
Ainsi, le Pape condamne mdme ceux qui se bornent &
representer les principes de notre Constitution comme ndcessaires a la condition presente des choses. Il faut un singulier
aplomb pour soutenir, comme le Journal de Bruxelles, que
ce bref est une justification indirecte et non une flagrante
condamnation de la politique adoptde par ses patrons. Le
Courrier de Bruxelles s’est d’ailleurs charge de lui rdpondre
au nom delalogique ultramontaine, enl’invitantsimplement,
mais inutilement, & reproduire le bref ainsi reprdsentd
« sous un jour errond ».
Parmi les nombreuses attestations analogues prodiguees
par Pie IX aux ecrivains qui defendent en France les’iddes
ultramontaines, nous citerons seulement les lettres adressees
au chanoine Morel et & Mgr. de Sdgur, parce qu’elles compldtent la signification des brefs reproduits plus haut.
M. Morel, chanoine honoraire de la cathedrale d’Angers,
demontre une fois de plus qu’un exalte trouvera toujours
un plus exalte qui l’excite, car il en est venu & incriminer le
moderantisme... de M. Veuillot lui-mdme! Partisan ddvoud
de l’inquisition espagnole, qu’il appelle « la sentinelie la plus
« dclairde, la plus vigilante et la plus incorruptible » de la
citadelle catholique; apologiste convaincu de la torture < que
« l’Eglise n’a jamais regardde avec defaveur » et quelle
devait employer « sous peine de faire dclore des inconvd« nients plus graves », — cet enfant terrible de l’Eglise a
consacrd un ouvrage h rdfuter les alldgations des catholiques
qui, par respect humain, cherchaient, soit & attdnuer les
rigueurs et les cruautds de la procddure inquisitoriale, soit
& ddgager la responsabilitd des papes en rejetant l’organisation du saint office sur le compte du pouvoir royal. Enfin,
dans la prdface d’un ouvrage publid en 1869, sous le titre
d’Incartades liberates de quelques auteurs catholiques, il
termine ainsi l’dnumdration des erreurs catholiques-libdrales
qu’il a cru trouver mdme chez des dcrivains jusque-1^ peu
soupconnds d’hdtdrodoxie : « Des ultras qui sont encore des
�— 36 —
consentiraient bien & s’avancer jusqu’au point de
d6fendre le grand cardinal Xim6n£s; mais ils frissorment
au nom de la torture /preventive, surtout si cette question
rigoureuse menace un savant qui a la raison de son cbtt,
Galilee, par exemple... Nous d^velopperons successivement
nos theses contre ces erreurs ou fractions d’erreur. »
De pareilles 6normit6s, Kerites h froid, ne valent-elles
pas les sinistres declamations de l’lnternationale rouge? Eh
bien, le 7 octobre dernier, ce fanatique — que nous aurions
voulu croire isoie dans notre dix-neuvi&me sifecle, — recevait
du Pape infaillible une lettre de felicitations pour son cou
rage & defendre « la saine doctrine contre les pretentions
« de ceux qu’on nomme catholiques liberaux » !1
Et l’on s’etonnerait de voir la republique de l’Equa^eur
arrieres,
songer & retablir l’inquisition! A quand les « grandioses »
auto-da-fe qui, suivant M. le chanoine Morel, ont fait la
gloire et le salut de l’Espagne?
Le dernier bref, que nous avons & rappeler, a ete adresse
le ler avril 1874 a Mgr. de Segur, pour le feiiciter d’une
publication intitulee : Hommage aux jeunes catholiques libdraux. Cette petite brochure, publiee au commencement de
l’annee derniere, a deja atteint sa dixieme edition; h&tonsnous d’ajouter qu’ellejustifie pleinement ce succ&s par la fran
chise de son langage et par la logique de son argumentation.
Mgr. de Segur s’y donne pour but d’abord de resumer et de
coordonner les condamnations prononcees par le Souverain
Pontife contre les doctrines du catholicisme liberal, en second
lieu, de rechercher et de definir, conformement aux paroles
memes du Pape, ce qu’il faut entendre par le mot de catho
licisme liberal: « Aucun catholique, dit-il, ne pense & nier,
en theorie, le droit souverain de Jesus-Christ; mais en pra
tique, lorsqu’ils sont atteints de liberalisme, les catholiques
1 L' Univers, du 4 avril, annonce que ce meme abbe Morel vient d’etre
nomm.6, par le Pape, consulteur de la Sacrde congregation de l’lndex. Un
billet du cardinal Antonelli portant cette nouvelle a la connaissance de
l’int6ressd, le 6 mars dernier, nous apprend que cette faveur lui a 6t6
accordSe « & raison de son intelligence et de la rectitude de ses Merits. »
�37 -
se conduisent en vrais lib^raux; au lieu de defendre, comme
c’est leur devoir, le droit de Jfeus-Christ et de son ^glise,
ils sont toujours pr^ts & le sacrifier, au nom de la politique,
au nom des n^cessitds du temps, au nom de l’opinion
publique, au nom des faits accomplis. On les voit revendiquer, au moins indirectement, pour les ennemis de la foi,
la liberty d’attaquer l’Eglise, et ils mettent une sorte de
g6nerosit£ chevaleresque a soutenir les pr6tendus droits de
l’erreur et & r^clamer pour les ennemis de Dieu des privileges
,6gaux ceux de ses serviteurs. Ils feront, comme hommes
publics, des actes qui impliquent la negation de ce qu’ils
croient comme hommes priv6s. De pareilles tendances, con
sequences logiques des principes catholiques - lib£raux,
peuvent-elles, je le demande, se concilier avec la foi d’un
vrai chretien? Un m£me homme peut-il avoir deux con
sciences, et ce qui est faux pour l’homme priv6, peut-il 6tre
vrai pour l’homme public? » 1
Quel esprit de bonne foi peat refuser de reconnaitre dans
cette description les doctrines professees par les catholiques
du Congres national et du Congr&s de Malines — en un mot,
les doctrines de nos catholiques constitutionnels... quand
ils avaient encore une doctrine?
** J
II
chasses dans leurs derniers retranchements? Ils pouvaient, a
la rigueur, pr^tendre que ces brefs n’avaient pas d’autorite
dogmatique, sous pr^texte qu’ils ne r^unissaient pas les condi
tions exig^es pour les «d63nitions de foi». Maisilconvientde
se rappeler que les decrets du Concile ont 6tendu l’autorit6
absolue des papes sur presque tous les objets ou le Souverain
Pontife croit en jeu les int6r£ts de l’Eglise. Des lors, comme
1 Mgr. de Sdgur ddveloppe dgalement cette idde que la liberty est upe
idde essentiellement protestante etle libdralisme, un « rejeton » du protestantisme. Il est assez curieux de voir un prdlat ultramontain se rencontrer ainsi avec MM. F. Laurent et Em. de Laveleye.
�— 38 —
fait observer Mgr. de S6gur, « du moment que le Pape parle
et enseigne officiellement, il importe peu que ce soit par un
bref, ou par une ency clique, ou par une bulle; ce qui importe
uniquement, c’est de savoir ce qu’il entend enseigner. Dans
les cinq brefs en question, la pens^e pontificale ne saurait
Atre douteuse, non plus que la port6e magistrale quele Pape
entend donner & sa parole. En effet, ainsi que le fait remarquer le docte et lumineux 3v£que de Poitiers, le Pontife
romain n’invoque rien moins ici que I’infaillibilitG de son
pouvoir doctrinal. Il reclame explicitement une pleine et
humble soumission au Saint-Si^ge et A son infaillible minist6re (bref a la federation des Cereles beiges), et cela au moment
m6me oil il va enseigner dans un simple bref que les opinions
lib6rales sont des erreurs, des erreurs maintesfois r6prouv6es
dont il faut se d6fier plus que de l’impi6t£ elle-m&me. »
D’autre part, ces brefs sont en quelque sorte un long commentaire du Syllabus et un commentaire d’autant plus
d^cisif que l’autorit6 dont il emane est elle-m6me la source
du document h interpreter. Si done on pouvait contester leur
portae dogmatique, on ne pouvait en aucun cas leur refuser
le merite de donner & un acte — dont aucun fiddle ne nie la
force obligatoire — une interpretation qui aneantissait les
dernieres echappatoires du catholicisme liberal.
Les catholiques liberaux n’avaient plus, d£s lors, qu’& se
retirer.de l’Eglise ou h se soumettre. Nous comprenons
sans p'bine tout ce qu’ils devaient trouver de grave et de
douloureux h l’eventualite d’une rupture avec Rome. Et
pourtant ils avaient la un beau rdle & jouer — ou du
moins & tenter! S’ils avaient su s’eiever h la hauteur de
la situation, si, confiants dans la justice de leur cause
et la saintet6 de leurs intentions, apr^s avoir recule jusqu’aux derni&res limites de la soumission compatible avec
l’independance de leur conscience, ils avaient respectueusement, mais fermement crie au papisme : Tu n’iras pas plus
loin, — ils auraient sauvegardd leur dignity en m6me temps
que leur foi, ils auraient definitivement assis leur ecole sur
des fondements qui n’auraient plus menace ruine au moindre
�— 39
souffle du Vatican. Avec le concours du libdralisme, qui
n’aurait pas commis la sottise de prdtexter son d6sint£ressement des questions religieuses pour repousser une alliance
capable de deplacer la balance de nos partis politiques \ ils
auraient r6duit & nine impuissance complete cette faction
ultramontaine qui les tient aujourd’hui prisonniers dans leur
* propre camp, et qui, par un raffinement de vengeance ou
d’habiletd, se sert de leurs bras pour saper leur oeuvre. Enfin,
ils auraient peut-^tre donnd le signal de la seule renovation
qui puisse encore sauver le catholicisme d’une debacle finale,
ou tout au moins ils nous auraient ouvert une issue pour
6chapper h ce deplorable antagonisme du sentiment religieux
et de la liberty politique qui est en train de perdre notre pays,
comme, du reste, toutes les populations resides fiddles h
1’jSglise de Rome.
Mais ils ne Font pas voulu! A une resistance pleine de
grandeur, ils ont prdfflrd une resignation pleine d’amertume,
qui comptera parmi les phdnomfcnes sociaux les plus caractdristiques d’un si&cle si fdcond pourtant en singularity
religieuses et politiques. Il est vrai que le virus de lapapolatrie, graduellement infiltr6 dans leurs veines, avait depuis
longtemps affaibli la constitution de leur parti, en apparence
si robuste encore il y a vingt ans. Qui done aujourd’hui
— parmi les laics militants du catholicisme, aussi biep que
dans les rangs de sa hi^rarchie sacerdotale — oserait seulement formuler la simple pens£e d’une resistance quelconque
aux injonctions du Pape declarant lui-meme qu’il commande
1 Aujourd’hui encore — ainsi que le faisait dernierement ressortir la
Flandre liberate, — si l’exemple des quelques curds siciliens qui viennent
de quitter 1’Eglise romaine a la tete de leurs paroisses pouvait, par extra
ordinaire, trouver des imitateurs chez nous, les liberaux devraient favoriser cette diversion par tous les moyens ldgitimes en leur pouvoir, prives
ou publics, et notamment en faisant transferer & la nouvelle Eglise la part
la plus large possible des avantages materiels actuellement assures au
culte catholique-romain. Ajoutons que cette judicieuse politique ne compromettrait en rien notre fidelite au principe de la separation absolue
entre l’Eglise et l’Etat. Il est mdme & craindre, devant l’art. 131 de la
Constitution, que cet objectif final de notre parti ne puisse s’atteindre sans
une vdritable revolution religieuse dans les sentiments de nos populations^
�— 40 —
ex cathedra? Plus que jamais, 1’Eglise romaine realise de
nos jours l’image autrefois appliqu^e & 1’autocratie russe :
une vaste steppe avec une tour au milieu. La steppe, ce sont
ces millions de consciences catholiques abaiss^es, nivel^es,
« r6duites en captivity » par les dogmes de l’omnipotence et
l’infaillibilitd papales; la tour, c’est ce palais du Vatican oil
quelques janissaires fanatiques montent la garde autour
dune idole mitr6e!
Encore si le catholicisme liberal avait su mettre dans son
abdication la dignitd que lui commandait l’^clatde son pass6.
A vrai dire, quelques uns de ses principaux chefs, comprenant qu’ils ne pouvaient plus affirmer leurs convictions,
aimfcrent mieux se taire d6sormais que de parler pour ne
plus rien dire, et nous devons nous incliner devant ces quel
ques esprits convaincus qui jug^rent une retraite pr6matur6e
pr6fdrable & un vrai role d’eunuques politiques. Mais le
grand nombre, qui ne voulait ni ne pouvait plus vivre, ne
sut pas mOme mourir. Il tenta encore de se d6rober aux condamnations d^sormais inGluctables du Vatican en quittant
subrepticement le terrain des principes pour chercher un
refuge surle terrain des faits. Il ne comprit pas qu’h force de
secramponner h la vie,il allait perdre toute raison de vivre.
Nous ne nierons pas que les circonstances ne se soient
prM6es & cette dtrange tactique. Le parti des catholiques
liberaux avait toujours compris deux dl6ments : l’un com
post des £crivains et des orateurs qui poursuivaient, au nom
de leurs principes et en pleine connaissance de cause,
l’alliance de* l’Eglise romaine avec la liberty politique —
l’autre form6 de ces masses que nous avons montr^es s’efforcant par instinct d’accorder les aspirations du si6cle avec les
exigences de leur culte. Quand de ces deux dements le pre
mier se d6sagr6gea sous les foudres papales, ses ddbris trouvbrent naturellement au sein du second un asile trop com
mode pour n’Atre pas tenths de s’y r6fugier, m6me en laissant
leurs principes & la porte. Mais, par le fait mAme de cette
Evolution, le catholicisme liberal a abdiqud son tang d’6cole
philosophique et religieuse pour devenir une simple expres-
�sion politique de ces attaches inconscientes qui imposent aux
masses, quels que soient leurs erreurs et leurs prejuges, le
respect des conditions essentielles a la conservation de leur
milieu social. LA oil il y avait nagukre une doctrine devant
nous, il ne reste plus aujourd’hui qu’une juxtaposition de
craintes et d’intdr^ts. Cette transformation marque la troisieme et probahlement la derni&re phase de l’ecole catho
lique liberate.
,
.
UAvenir proclamait que toutes les libert6s etaient de droit'
divin et que la moindre immixtion de l’Eglise dans le
domaine temporel etait un crime de l&se-christianisme.
Aprks l’Encyclique de Gregoire XVI, l’ecole de Montalembert, sans affirmer encore que la liberty etait une Gonsdquence directe et n^cessaire de la doctrine catholique, continua & en faire un droit de l’homme reposant sur le fait du
libre arbitre, ainsi que sur Pincompetence de l’Etat dans les
questions de dogmes, — ajoutant que le regime du droit
commun etait la condition sociale la plus favorable aux
progr&s de la society et la plus avantageuse pour l’^glise
elle-mdme.
Or, aujourd’hui, pour les moins r^actionnaires de nos
catholiques, la liberty n’est plus un droit; c’est une simple
transaction entre les partisans et les adversaires de la v6ritd
catholique. Elie represente un etat social inf6rieur au r&gne
des lois de 1’lSglise. On peut la tol6rer 1& ou elle existe, et
l’etablir 1& ou elle est profitable au catholicisme; mais on ne
peut ni l’aimer ni la rechercher pour elle-m^me, et surtout
Ton ne peuts’y rallier qu’a condition d’en espdrer ladisparition.
Si l’on croitque nous calomnions nos catholiques soi-disant
constitutionnels, qu’on relise, dans leur principal organe,
Particle que nous avons d6j& cit6 au sujet du bref rdcemment
obtenu par M. Ch. P6rin. On y voit apparaitre, dans tout
leur naif machiavelisme, les embarras des gens qui veulent
encore manager la ch&vre de Rome et le chou de notre
Constitution. Ainsi, le bref papal louait M. Perin d’avoir
enseigne que, sous l’empire de certaines circonstances, on
peut tol6rer les deviations de la rdgle, lorsque ces deviations
�— 42 —
ont ete introduces dans les lois civiles pour 6viter de plus
grands maux, mais que dans aucun cas il ne faut Clever ces
deviations & la hauteur de droits. Le Journal de Bruxelles
traduit ce passage comme si le Saint-P6re avait lou6 M. Pdrin
d’enseigner que certains principes, quoique r^prouv^s en
these absolue, peuvent parfaitement' trouver place dans les
lois et y etre inscrits & titre de droits. Voila pour le chou
de la constitution. — La feuille officieuse s’efforce ensuite de
justifier, au point de vue catholique, son attachement & notre
Constitution, en rappelant que la faculty de revision, inscrite
dans l’art. 131, ne donne pas & nos liberty fondamentales le
caractere d’institutions normales et irr&vocables. C’est & dire
que tout bon catholique peut impun^ment leur apporter son
concours, puisqu’il lui reste permis d’en espSrer le renversement. Voil& pour la chdvre romaine!
Qu’on rapproche de ce langage mesquin, embarrassd,
Equivoque, les belles et explicites declarations prof6r6es
en faveur de nos institutions par tant de catholiques sinceres, depuis le Congr&s national jusqu’au Congr^s de
Malines : on aura la mesure de la distance qui s6pare les
catholiques lib6raux d’autrefois et les pr6tendus catholiques
constitutionnels d’aujourd’hui. Ce sont d’autres principes,
d’autres allures; c’est une autre langue, un autre monde.
En France, une modification analogue s’est op6r£e sous
l’empire des memes circonstances parmi les derniers survi
vals du groupe qui repr^sentait les doctrines consacr6es
par l’inscription de la Roche-en-Brenil. Lamort a d6j& frapp6,
plus d’un coup dans le petit cenacle de 1862; le d^couragement et la defection ont fait le reste. A la suite de Montalembert, Cochin et Foisset se sont eteints en 1873. Dans une
de ces heures d’entrainement, qui ne sont pas rares chez les
6crivains francais, M. de Falloux a bien 6crit encore que Dieu
et la liberty 6taient les deux poles du monde moral et poli
tique ; mais on sait ce que l’honorable collaborateur du Correspondant a fait de son p61e liberal pendant son passage au
pouvoir. Nous ne parlerons pas de Mgr. Dupanloup, et pour
cause. Quant au prince de Broglie, il peut aujourd’hui se
�trouver « present de corps »; mais il sera certainement
a absent d’esprit» chaque fois qu’il s’agira de liberalisme —
meme sous la forme mitigee du catholicisme liberal.
Veut-on juger par un exemple frappant h quel point les
derniers survivants du catholicisme liberal brblent aujour
d’hui leurs drapeaux et leurs devises ? Certes, l’inscription de
la Roche-en-Brenil reprdsente non seulement uu fait impor
tant dans l’histoire des doctrines qu’elle pretendait consacrer,
mais encore un trait marquant dans la vie des personnages
r6unis au banquet spirituel dont elle devait perp6tuer le sou
venir. Eh bien, qu’on parcoure l’eioge funbbre de Montalembert par Cochin, la vie de Cochin par le comte de Falloux,
les travaux publics sur Montalembert par Foisset, enfin
l’etude de M. de Saint-Loup sur la correspondance de
Foisset; dans toutes ces biographies — qu’b part la dernihre
les hdtes de La Roche-en-Brenil ont dcrites les uns sur les
autres — on ne trouvera qu’une seule mention de l’incident
ou nous avons puisd le pr^ambule de cette etude. Ce sera
dans l’ouvrage de M. de Falloux. Et encore celui-ci ne pouvait-il guere garder le silence devant les insinuations,
prodiguees a son hdros par les feuilles ultramontaines en
raison de sa participation h la solennitd de la Roche-enBrenil. Mais si M. de Falloux relhve enfin ces attaques au
nom de toute son ecole, sera-ce dumoins pour se faire gloire
d’une inscription qui resumait ses doctrines de 1862? Allons
done! C’est en 1874 qu’il ecrit, et desormais les catholiques
liberaux ne remuent plus les fastes de leur passd que pour
redamer le benefice des circonstances attenuantes :
■ D’abord, ce n’est pas dans une chapelle que se passait la
sebne, mais dans un simple oratoire, « un tout petit oratoires.
— Ensuite la reunion de la Roche-en-Brenil avait ete « abso« lument fortuite et sans aucune ombre de dessein premd« dite. » — En troisieme lieu, le « pain de la parole » que,
d’aprbs les termes pompeux de la plaque commemorative,
Mgr. Dupanloup distribua g6nereusement au petit cenacle,
n’etait qu’une mince galette de circonstance, quatre mots
« d’emotion pieuse ». Enfin, l’epigraphe; composee par le
�44
comte de Montalembert et par M. Foisset, qui nourrissaient tous
deux « le gofit » des inscriptions, n’avait « d’autre impor
ts tance que celle d’un souvenir affectueux » . Et M. de Fallouxajoute:« Aucun de nous n’en fut inform6et nous n’ avons
appris T existence de cette inscription que par Z’Univers. »
Cependant, l’inscription date de 1862 et elle n’a paru dans
X Univers qu’en mars 1871, neuf ans aprfes. M. de Falloux
n’est done jamais retourn6 & la Roche-en-Brenil pendant les
huit derni&res ann^es qu’y passa son vieil ami?
Quelques mois avant le comte de Falloux, M. l’abbd
Lagrange, vicaire-g6n£ral du diocese d’Orl6ans avait aussi
public dans le Correspondant1 un.e r^ponse aux attaques
dirig^es par 1’Univers contre Mgr. Dupanloup, & l’occasion
des faits relates par la fameuse inscription. Cet article tendait surtout & disculper l’ev^que d’Orleans d’avoir formule
dans son allocution la doctrine du catholicisme liberal. « Je
retrouve l’analyse de ses paroles dans mes notes, ecrit
M. Lagrange. Il prit texte de ce verset de saint Jean :
Le verbe s’est fait chair et a habite parmi nous. Apr&s
quelques mots sur la presence r£elle de Notre Seigneur, 1&,
sur cet autel, il dit Thonneur et le bonheur pour des chretiens
d‘avoir ete les champions de la sainte Eglise sur la terre;
puis il ajouta que cet honneur obligeait et qu’il fallait le soutenir par les vertus chretiennes, par une vie irrdprochable
et sainte. » Or, prononc^e devant Montalembert et ses amis,
la phrase que nous avons soulign^e dans l’analyse de ces
« quatre mots », si elle ne touche pas/lirectement aux theo
ries du catholicisme liberal, ne semble-t-elle pas au moins
renfermer une approbation sacramentelle de l’attitude poli
tique adoptee paries principaux chefs de l’ecole?
Un trait d’ailleurs caract6ristique, c’est l’indignation de
M. Lagrange contre « le violateur inconnti de l’hospitalit^
« de la Roche-en-Brenil », qui s’est empar£ de cette inscrip
tion pour la livrer « & 1’adversaire le plus notoire parmi les
« catholiques de M. de Montalembert, M. Veuillot. »
1 Une page de la vie du comte de Montalembert, par 1’abbS F. Lagrange.
(Correspondant du 24 mars 1874.)
�45 —
Cette indignation m£me dquivaut& unddsaveu. Ce n’est pas
Montalembert quieflt ainsi rougi de la publicity donnde& une
de ses plus grandes et de ses plus heureuses manifestations.
Quant aux doctrines mdmes de l’inscription, l’abbd
Lagrange, comme le comte de Falloux, se borne h pretendre que la formule pro libera ecclesia in libera patria
signifie : « Pour l’Eglise libre dans la patrie libre », — ce
qui, parait-il, est une tout autre th^orie que l’J&glise libre
dans l’Etat libre. M. Lagrange traduit m£me : « Pour la
liberte de l’Eglise et la liberty de la patrie, » avec la plus
profonde conviction que par cette ldg&re alteration du texte
il vient de sauver l’orthodoxie et l’honneur de l’dcole1.
Pour faire justice de toute cette casuistique, il nous suflira
de renvoyer le lecteur aux paroles m6mes que Montalembert
prononca au Congr&s de Malines sur les rapports de l’Eglise
et de l’Etat, — paroles si explicites et si justes, que nous
avons pu nous y rallier nous-meme presque sans reserves.
Devant de pareilles subtilitds, drigdes a la hauteur d’un
system e politique, nous ne pouvons nous etonner de la des
cription qu’inspire h Mgr. de Sdgur l’dtat actuel du catholi
cisme liberal. C’est en France que l’illustre polemiste a
cherchd ses modeles, mais leur air de ressemblance avec les
types de certains groupes bien connus dans notre pays
-prouve que les memes causes ont produit chez nous les
memes effets :
« Les meneurs du parti, tout catholiques qu’ils sont,
savent intriguer mieux que personne, et leur conduite
1 Cette distinction rappelle l’ingdnieuse 6chappatoire trouvSe par les
organes actuels des anciens catholiques lib6raux, tels que le Franpais et
le Journal de Bruxelles, pour d6montrer l’orthodoxie de leur attitude.
« Le Pape, disent-ils, condamne le catholicis,me liberal; il a bien raison.
Aussi ne sommes-nous pas catholiques libSraux, ce qui serait horrible,
mais catholiques et lib6raux, ce qui est tout autre chose, c’est a dire catho
liques en religion et amis de la liberty en politique. — Le Pape n’aurait
done mis a l’ceuvre toutes ses foudres que pour combattre l’id&e saugrenue
d’introduire le lib^ralisme dans la religion, c’est a dire dans les questions
purement religieuses et ecclSsiastiques! Cette absurde supposition est,
du reste, surabondamment contredite par les termes memes des brefs
que nous avons cit6s plus haut.
�— 46 —
publique offre un singulier melange d’honneur et de dupli
city. Ils aiment dtrangement les faveurs, les decorations et
les bonnes places. Pour y arriver, ils se font la courte
dchelle, ils se surfont sans vergogne les uns les autres dans
leurs journaux, dans leurs revues, et on les a appelds trds
justement une society d’admiration mutuelle. On ne comprend gudre ce qu’ils font de leur conscience au milieu de
tout cela ; car, malgry tout, ils entendent rester catholiques,
et bons catholiques. »
Le tableau est syvere; mais qui l’oserait dire immerity ?
Voila oil en est arrivye l’ycole des Lamennais et des Monta
lembert, l’ycole qui a donnd h la Belgique la Constitution de
1830! Quel exemple pour les partis qui survivent & leurs
principes!
Et, cependant, les ultramontains ne sont pas encore satisfaits. Par un juste ch&timent, les dybris de 1’armye catholiquelibdrale sont poursuivis j usque sur le terrain oil ils avaient
cru acheter le repos au prix de leurs doctrines, par les thdoriciens implacables du papisme, plus apres et plus puissants a chaque nouvelle victoire.
« Ils commencent maintenant h repudier le nom de libdraux, dit Mgr. de Sygur. C’est ddjh quelque chose; c’est le
sens catholique qui commence h dominer le non-sens libyral.
Mais il ne s’agit pas du nom seulement; c’est surtout le fond
qu’il faut laisser 1&; le fond, c’est a dire les idyes fausses; le
« virus cachy des principes libyraux » , ce « germe des
« erreurs qu’ils retiennent et nourrissent obstinyment » et
qui n’est autre chose que cette conception anti-catholique de
la notion de la libvrtb et de la notion de Xautorite, ainsi que
nous l’avons rappely plus haut. Ce qu’il faut mettre de c6ty,
c’est cette manidre humaine, anti-surnaturelle, anti-catholique
de juger et les doctrines et les personnes et les choses; c’est
l’esprit de parti, c’est l’entytement, c’est, en un mot, tout ce
que nous avons signaly dans ce petit opuscule.
« Ils se disent raisonnables, par opposition hnous autres,
catholiques tout courts, qui sommes toujours, le Pape
le premier, .des exagerds, des ultramontains, qui perdons(
�— 47 —
l’Eglise et la France. Raisonnables ! C’est raisonneurs
qu’ils devraient dire. La vraie raison est inseparable de la
vraie foi, de la vraie fidelite catholique. Les catholiques
liberaux n’ont que la prudence humaine & leur disposition;
et c’est pour cela qu’ils perdent toutes les bonnes causes, soit
religieuses, soit politiques. »
Est-il besoin de rien aj outer & ce language peut-etre brutal
dans sa franchise, mais irrefutable dans sa logique?
Or, les droits delalogique — commeles droits de la verite et
de la morale — peuvent etre temporairement transgresses
par les partis aussi bien que par les indi vidus, sans quoi il n’y
aurait pas de liberte humaine; mais ils finissent toujours
par reprendre leur empire au detriment de ceux qui les ont
meconnus, sans quoi il n’y aurait pas de progres dans les
societes. L’ecole de nos catholiques constitutionnels a con
serve ses cadres et son etat-major; elle remplit notre admi
nistration et notre Parlement; elle dirige les affaires du
pays; elle posskde toutes ces masses indifferentes qui se
laissent guider, dans leurs predilections politiques, par 1’interet, la peur ou l’habitude. Mais, tandis qu’elle occupe
bruyamment le devant de la scene officielle, elle est sourdement minee, au sein meme du parti clerical, par une faction
chaque jour grandissante qui a pour elle trois grandes
forces : la foi, l’abnegation et l’esprit de suite; nous n’en
voulons d’autre preuve que le developpement pris, dans ces
dernieres annees, par la presse ultramontaine jadis bornee
au seul Bien public. Aussi le jour n’est peut-etre pas eioigne
oil le catholicisme constitutionnel s’effondrera dans la fosse
qu’il aura lui-meme creusee.
HI
En resume, il n’y a plus de place, dans l’Eglise de Rome,
que pour les partisans sans reticences d’un ultramontanisme
sans limites. Le catholicisme liberal a passe sans retour,
comme ces nuees d’orage qui, aprfes avoir rafralchi les campagnes alterees, se fondent sur l’azur en laissant h peine
�— 48 -
derriere elles quelques flocons perdus de vapeurs. Notre
catholicisme constitutionnel, qui se pr^tendait une incarna
tion de la meme 6cole, ne renferme plus gu&re que des habiles
ou des indiffdrents, destines & disparaltre le jour oti Rome
se croira assez forte pour attaquer de front nos institutions
et nos droits. Alors se d&chainera, dans toute sa violence, le
duel h mort de l’Eglise et de la liberty, que certaines feuilles
ultramontaines proph^tisent d6j & h travers leurs rAves de feu
et de sang. Heureux les peuples qui, & l’heure supreme,
seront doues d’un temperament assez robuste pour triompher de ces menees liberticides par les settles armes de la
liberte!
Nous comprenons que les hommes de 1830 dcartent systematiquement le fantdme d’une crise aussi menacante pour
l’avenir de leurs creations. Nous-meme, nous ne pouvons
nous defendre d’une secrete epouvanteen nous trouvant force
de conclure & l’incompatibilite absolue de nos libertes avec la
religion dominante du pays, avec cette Eglise qui, malgr6
nos attaques, comme malgr6 ses exces, reste le culte de nos
femmes, de nos enfauts, de nos paysans. Mais nous n’en
croyons pas moins salutaire de crier sans relache & ces nombreux catholiques, que seule la force de l’habitude retient
sous le joug de Rome, comme & ces lib6raux impr6voyants,
plus nombreux encore, qui livrent si all^grement & l’ennemi
les avenues de leur foyer domestique : Soyez luth6riens,
soyez calvinistes, soyez unitairiens, soyez vieux catholiques,
soyez isra&ites, soyez rationalistes, soyez bien autre chose
encore : vous pourrez rester de bons citoy ens, d’excellents
libSraux, de sinc&res progressistes. Mais sachez que, logiquement, nul ne peut dtre a la fois liberal en politique
et catholique romain en religion — pas plus que le m6me
citoyen ne peut appartenir & deux Etats, pas plus que
deux corps ne peuvent occuper le m6me espace. — $omme
l’a dit Pie IX, en donnant a sa citation le m£me sens que
nous : Nemo potest duobus dominis servire. Il est grand
temps de choisir lequel des deux maitres vous voulez servir!
�■ I - »»...
���EN VENTE A LA LIBRAIRIE MUQUARDT, A BRUXELLES
OUVRAGES DU MEME AUTEUR :
L ETABLISSEMENT DES COBOURG EN PORTUGAL
ETUDE SUR LES DEBUTS D’UNE MONARCHIE CONSTITUTIONNELLE
(D’APRfiS DES DOCUMENTS lN^DITS)
Un volume in-8°. Paris, 1871. — Prix : 5 francs.
UNE EXCURSION DANS L’ARCHIPEL DES LIPARI. — L’lLE D’ELBE
SOUVENIRS DE L’IRLANDE OCCIDENTALE
Bruxelles, 1871
DIzSARMER OU DECHOIR
ESSAI
SUR LES RELATIONS
INTERNATIONALES
(Ouvrage couronnd par la Societe des Amis de la Paix)
Avec
un
Avant-propos de M. Frederic. PAS SY
Un volume in-8°. Paris, 1872. — Prix : 5 fr.
SAHARA & LAPONIE
I. UN MOIS AU SUD DE L’ATLAS. — II. UN VOYAGE AU CAP NORD
Un vol. in-12 orn6 de 18 gravures. — Prix: 4 fr.
Paris, 1873.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Le Catholicisme liberal autrefois et aujourd'hui
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Goblet d'Alviella, Eugene Felicien Albert [1845-1925]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Brussels; Leipzig
Collation: 48 p. ; 25 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Revue de Belgique. Printed by M. Weissenbruch, Brussels.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
C. Murquardt; Merzbach & Falk
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5411
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Le Catholicisme liberal autrefois et aujourd'hui), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
French
Catholic Church
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e71da3b688abfd1084c9f4d319fac78e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=b14YLRoixh2CBSnvdTsCUDLieYoQLBds-DZO1I29CW8LN5891uUjxxp2-9y12NRx1lyHU4WAj9E%7Ep0nZ4qjd3mYnpPLJ3RPp%7EQhxZIZ7coHeksyR6IIxIezb%7ENR0Z1iXx1UaA%7E6lGlRo9K9hU86xWlqwxufWu-Kav9D4tTN6Y5EuPdxhjTqjnoD78txQUIuVGcE-8Gco8880TIVew9ZySTwmuMXvs7%7EBI4U%7ETbdd16M2dTGZ-X0E-BPuDXw9UPpRC0oIazvDydtdWdLBGsotZOw3EekPISxjLzwPFc0Vr3nqC8symS%7EJpFvFxS89y3J0Q5BYU3ins4bC5i2Md-xq9A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5d878a67cbe0fa455aa31d14abd7745e
PDF Text
Text
FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT
BY MONSIGNOR W. CROKE ROBINSON, M.A.1
It is difficult to know where to start in a subject so large
and profound as the change of one’s faith, and the
process by which that change came about. I will
endeavour to trace the beginnings from which were
evolved eventually five conclusions which led me to the
Catholic Church.
I must premise that I was brought up as a Low
Church Anglican, but that a very little serious thought
brought me to what is known as Tractarianism, as dis
tinguished from Evangelicanism on the one side and
Ritualism on the other, with neither of which I had any
sympathy. I thought the one narrow - minded and
illogical, and the other illogical and dishonest; and I
think so now. I very soon began to be disturbed and
unsettled by the confusion worse confounded of Angli
canism. I asked myself, “Can Almighty God be the
author of this confusion ?
Can our Divine Saviour’s
promise be fulfilled ‘ that the gates of hell shall not pre1 Reprinted, by permission of the publishers, from Roads to
Rome (Longmans).
�2
From Darkness to Light
vail against His Church,’ or His prayer be answered,
‘ that they may be all one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and
I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the
world may believe that Thou hast sent Me’ ? ” 1 I
could neither explain the difficulty nor get it explained.
As yet the Catholic and Roman Church, for whatever
reason, never entered into my thoughts. These early
troubles were the beginning of what I may truly call my
ten years’ agony. For it took me all that time—that is,
from 1862 to 1872—to find my way from darkness to
light.
It was not very long before it dawned upon me that
every Anglican, of whatever school, was in reality a law
to himself, and that he acted on his own authority: and
then it was that the question of authority became to me
the c<articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesicu” and ever
afterwards. I asked every one I met, “ By what authority
dost thou believe, and doest thou these things ? ” Some
times, on my inquiry of this or that divine, I was
referred to the Prayer-book as my authority, sometimes
to the bathers of the Church, sometimes to the Primitive
Church. It took me some years to discover the fallacy
of such appeals to authority; why, I cannot think. But
that is always the way when one becomes a Catholic.
One is sure to feel and say, “ How could it have taken
so long to discover what a moment’s serious thought and
the exercise of a little common sense ought to have
revealed ? How is it that every Anglican cannot see
it ? ” The answer, of course, is that they have not the
gift of faith. They even might see it—that is to say,
might be intellectually convinced of the fallacy of such
1 St. John xvii. 21.
�From Darkness to Light
3
^appeals, and moreover of the logical standpoint of the
Catholic Church; and yet, for all that, they will not,
and cannot become Catholics. For—and here I must
be pardoned for making a considerable digression—in
tellectual conviction is not faith. It cannot be too
strongly insisted upon at this present moment (January,
1901). There are thousands and tens of thousands to-day
who are intellectually convinced that of all bodies of men
calling themselves Christians, the Catholic Church alone
is logical and unassailable in its credentials. But they
do not, and will not, ever become Catholics because they
have not faith.
Let me give an illustration of the difference between
intellectual conviction and faith. For several years
the astronomers Adams and Leverrier were intellectually
convinced of the existence of the planet Neptune. It
was not till 1846 that M. Galle, of Berlin, actually saw
it. This similitude explains itself.
God alone can give the faculty of seeing as well
in the order of grace as in that of nature; and until
He gives it, no man can attain to it by any process
of scientific inference. And here, let me observe,
many of the so-called apostasies of our days are to be
explained. They are not really apostasies. It is simply
this, that certain men have reasoned themselves into the
•Church and then have reasoned themselves out again.
They were merely intellectually convinced, and were
received on the strength of this conviction by priests who
possibly took too much for granted, and who neglected
to satisfy themselves about che faith of their neophytes,
accounting such precautions as superfluous in the case of
educated men or members of the Universities. But these
�4
From Darkness to Light
people are not apostates, for they never had the faith.
When a man has once the real gift of faith—that is to say,
the gift of God’s grace, which elevates his reason above
his natural powers and attainments, so that it rises and
passes from intellectual conviction into faith, which is an
act of the reason but different in kind as well as degree
from intellectual consent—when, I say, a man once has
this great gift of God, it is impossible for him, so I think,
to lose it, and to relapse into any form of Protestantism.
He may lose it by wilfully and persistently sinning
against the faith, and, being punished by judicial blind
ness, become an infidel. This, of course, is true in the
abstract. But, in the concrete, it may well be doubted
whether this or that person among the exceedingly few
apostates of to-day has really lost the faith. For myself,,
I do not believe they have.
But to return to my subject. At length I saw through
the fallacy of any appeal to the Prayer-book, or the Fathers,,
or the Primitive Church, or the Church of the Ritualists.
To begin with the last. A Ritualist has always seemed:
to me to be one who forms for himself his own theory of”
the Church, and then religiously obeys, not the Church,
but his own theory of it. He is as much a law to himself
as the extremest Evangelical.
His is merely a case of
obedience to self once removed. All Anglicans likewiseform their own theory of the Prayer-book, their owa
commentary on the Fathers of the Church, their own
account of the Primitive Church. They are simply a law
to themselves, and the slaves of a self-imposed obedience.
This conviction of my mind was, I know not why, very
slow in its growth, but it came at last, and was indeed a
disillusionment! But, besides this, it occurred to me to-
�From Darkness to Light
5
inquire of what practical use is the dead letter of any
book, whether Prayer-book, or Patristic writings, or even
the Bible itself. For any practical purpose, what is wanted
is the living voice of authority to determine infallibly what
the book means or does not mean in the cause of Holy
Writ; and what is true or false doctrine in the pages of all
other writers, even those of the Fathers of the Church,
all of whom—with the solitary exception of St. Gregory
Nazianzen—we as Catholics know have more or less
•committed themselves, here and there, to false doctrine.
Where is the living voice among Anglicans ? Echo
answers, “ Where ? ” It is quite past my comprehension
how such men as Lord Halifax fail to see what is so
obvious, and keep on appealing with wearisome monotony
to what the Prayer - book teaches, or the Church of
England teaches, when the fact must be patent to him,
as it is to all the world, that there is no living authorized
interpreter of either, and never can be, unless it be the
Crown, which of course they repudiate. Here I find
I must relinquish the continuous narrative of the
process of my conversion for want of space. I will
proceed to notice one or two of the chief difficulties
which occurred to me on the march to the Catholic
Church, and the solution of them which satisfied
me, but may not, I am perfectly aware, satisfy
everybody.
The first difficulty occurred to me in the condemnation
of Private Judgement by the Catholic Church. Catholic
teaching on this point seemed to me inconsistent with
itself; because at one moment it insists on the use of
Private Judgement, and in the next it absolutely forbids
it. The answer, however, is very simple ; though it was
�6
From Darkness to Light
some time in coming home to me. Of course, a man
must use his reason to examine the credentials of the
Catholic Church. When he is satisfied with them, and
has found the true Church, he gives up his Private
Judgement and submits to the judgement of the Church.
As Cardinal Newman writes, in his own inimitable style,.
“Those who are external to the Church must begin with
Private Judgement: they use it in order to ultimately
supersede it; as a man out of doors uses a lamp on a
dark night, and puts it out when he gets home. What
would be thought of his bringing it into the drawing
room ? ” 1
I was puzzled for a time with another plausible con
tention. It occurred to me that it might be said, “ Yoh
admit that by Private Judgement a man finds out the
Catholic Church. Well, then, although he subsequently
lays it aside, yet what was Private Judgement in the first
instance must always be Private Judgement. By Private
Judgement he began; Private Judgement, therefore, is the
real foundation of his subsequent belief.” But I saw
before long that this objection proves a great deal too
much. It seems to imply, at least to me, that, in the
last resort, truth is nothing more to a man than what
seems to him to be truth. A most dangerous doctrine,
'truly, as well as utterly false! It spells Idealism in
Philosophy, Licentiousness in Morals, and Anarchy in
Politics. Surely truth is not dependent for its being on
Private Judgement. By Private Judgement we attain ta
it, but the truth was there before we discovered it, and
no matter what we think about it; and, the moment we
arrive at it, we lest upon the truth, not upon the Private
1 Loss and Gain, p. 203.
�From Darkness to Light
7
Judgement which brought us to it. By Private Judge
ment, at some time of my life, I apprehended the
authority of the English Crown; the moment I did
so, I gave my intelligent allegiance to it. Hence
forth, I rested upon the authority of the Crown, not
upon my mental apprehension of it. I am now a
British subject, not because mentally I have come to
that conclusion, but because of the /ar/. Or, to adopt
another illustration: by means of a ladder I mount a
platform; I am then standing on the platform, and not
on the ladder which is left down below. By Private
Judgement, then, a man must find out the Catholic
Church. When he finds it, it is a huge objective fact.
All men must be agreed about it as a gigantic organiza
tion, which has existed these nineteen hundred years.
For all that time—the name and date of every Pope
being historical facts—it has become a chief factor in
the history of Europe. All that time it has taught with
the living voice, and ruled with an incomparable dis
cipline. There it is to-day, as of old, independent
altogether of what men may think about it, a stub
born, undeniable, unmistakable fact. Whether it
be true or false in its doctrine is beside the mark :
there it is, and there it will be; that is all we are
maintaining.
Well, then, a man discovers this Church; he makes his
allegiance to it, and is formally accepted by it. Hence
forth he rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church,
not upon his mental apprehension of it. He is a
Catholic, not because he thinks he is, but because of
the fact of his formal reception into the Catholic
Church : whereas an Anglican rests, not in facts, but
�8
From Darkness to Light
in his theory of facts. Not one of the objects of his
religious allegiance really exists except in his imagina
tion. He will say, “Surely the Prayer-book is a fact.”
To which I reply, “ Well, of course it is; but not the
Catholic interpretation of it; for all men are not agreed
about that; indeed, the great majority are violently
opposed to it. As long as there is a Broad Church
interpretation of it, or an Evangelical, so long the High
Church interpretation of it must be a theory and not a
fact.” The same with the Fathers of the Church or
the Primitive Church. These things are, of course,
facts in themselves, but not to the Anglican, only the
Anglican interpretation of them, which is a very different
thing. From beginning to end, therefore, the Anglican
is a creature of Private Judgement, not a child of
faith; and from the extremest Ritualist down to the
most rabid Evangelical, he is a Protestant pure and
simple.
But all this is reasoning in the mere natural order of
things. Let us go to the supernatural. By Private
Judgement, then, aided by grace—for without that he
can do nothing—a man finds out the Catholic Church ;
then Private Judgement is superseded by Faith, which,
as has been already said, elevates and sustains the reason
above the level of its own natural powers. It is on
that platform that he stands ever afterwards, and Private
Judgement is the ladder by which he reached it and is
of no further use.
Upon this, another objection occurred to me, which
may be worded thus: “ That is a convenient way of
getting out of a difficulty by appealing to faith which is
not cognizable by any human sense. It may be or it
�From Darkness to Light
9
■may not be as you say, but that is not argument after
all.” To this I reply: “ Quite so ; to every one but a
Catholic it is, I grant, inconclusive. But, then, must it
not of its very nature be so ? I cannot show anybody
my faith, as I can show him a bunch of keys taken from
my pocket. All I know is that I have it, and that the
non-Catholic has it not. and that that great gift of God
is my foundation, and no longer Private Judgement,
which is, ipso facto, driven out by faith just as darkness
is by light.”
I do not remember any other serious intellectual
difficulty, or one that detained me for long. Bad popes
and bad priests never troubled me for a moment. The
office and the man are so obviously distinct, that the
mind must be addled that does not see it at a glance.
A policeman may be an immoral man, but the ’bus
drivers and the cabmen will obey him, and rein in
their horses at his bidding, because he is a police
man. The sentence of an immoral judge will avail
to hang a guilty murderer, because it is the official
act of a judge; it is not invalid because the judge is a
bad man.
But, before I formulate my five conclusions, I must
here declare my greatest obstacle to my conversion,
which was not intellectual but moral. I loved the
English Church intensely. It was associated with
everybody and everything dear to me from the first
■dawn of consciousness. From a worldly point of view,
to change my faith was to lose everything dear to me
and to gain nothing. It meant the wreck of one’s life,
shattered nerves, and, for all I knew, absolute destitu
tion. Can it be wondered that I felt reluctant to take
�io
From Darkness to Light
the step ? Whilst I cannot accuse myself positively of
bad faith, yet I must own that the terrible prospect
before me made me dilatory in the work of finding out
the truth. I have always accounted it as nothing short
of a signal miracle of God’s grace by which a conver
sion such as mine was brought about. For ever and
for ever blessed be His Holy Name, and the inter
cession of His Blessed Mother!
I come then, finally, to the five conclusions already
alluded to, which pointed, unmistakably—in the reputed
language of Lord Macaulay after one of Cardinal
Wiseman’s famous lectures—to “ either the Catholic
Church or Babel.”
Point I.—If my soul is to be saved, God must show me
the way. It is not for me to choose my own way, and
offer that to God. These words may seem a truism,
but they are not really so; on the contrary, they are
most useful as hitting off the Catholic and Protestant
position exactly. The Ritualist, the High Churchman,
the Broad Churchman, the Evangelical, the Noncon
formist, all alike formulate their own views of religion,,
and offer them for God’s acceptance as their account
of salvation. The Catholic calls that putting the cart
before the horse. The Catholic standpoint is this : that
it is for God to reveal His own way of salvation, and
all that man has to do is to find out where that, is and
to obey it. Further, that God has revealed it, and has
committed this revelation to a competent authority
upon earth, to guard it from error and to enforce
its observance. It is the duty of man to find out
where this oracle of truth is, and submit mind and
heart to it.
�From Darkness to Light
11
Point II.— When God does reveal the way of salva
tion, it will and must be one—
(1) One in number.
(2) One in unity.
(1) One in number, i.e., “One Lord, One Faith,
One Baptism” (Eph. iv. 5). Nowhere does Scripture
give a hint as to more than one Church. When St. John
writes to the Seven Churches of Asia, he is, of course,
writing to seven hierarchies of the one only Church.
And so historians sometimes speak of the English
Church or French Church, meaning the Catholic Church
in England or France. But mere common sense postu
lates oneness in number. It is impossible to imagine
more than one way of salvation. Of course, it is
conceivable that Almighty God could make many Ways
of salvation, because He can do all things; but it is not
conceivable how confusion worse confounded would be
avoided if He did. Supposing there was one way for
Europe, another for Asia, another for Africa, another for
America, a man would have to change his religion four
times in a voyage round the world; and where could he
tell where his good ship passed from one way of salvation
into that of another? Some spiritual Trinity House
would have to mark the supremely important boundaries
of buoys. I know this is fooling ; but then, the theory
I am trying to gibbet is fooling too.
(2) Next, if the revelation is one in number it will be
one in unity too; that is to say, the earthly teachers of
it will be one, and the taught will be one. Why?
Because it is the truth. Truth is one: one in the
teacher, and one in the taught of its very nature.
For instance, London is a city on the Thames. That
�12
From Darkness to Light
is truth; and so all schoolmasters are one in teaching it,
and all scholars one in learning it. Why ? Because it
is true. About God’s way of salvation, then, wherever
located on the earth—and located it must be somewhere
—there will be unity in the teacher and unity in the
taught. If I do not find unity in the teacher and unity
in the taught, then I shall know that the truth is not
there, from the very fact that there is not unity about it.
Let us be quite sure about this. The following proposi
tion is undeniable. Wherever the truth is, there must
be unity of the teacher and unity of the taught about it,
because it is true. But the proposition, “ Wherever there
is unity in the teacher and unity in the taught there is
truth,” cannot, of course, be maintained as it stands;
because teachers and scholars may conceivably be agreed
upon what is false. Yet, observe, in religious argument,
even this last proposition is undeniable. For, as a matter
of fact, no religious system of human opinion has ever
succeeded in maintaining unity, and for this reason :
because the moment you depart from the Divine rule of
faith, wherever it may be, you are landed, ipso facto, in
human opinion. There is no intermediate position
possible. Now, human opinion must of its very nature
be variable, because the human mind has been created
by God as variable as the human face. When Dr.
Benson, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, ordered
prayers for unity of belief among his flock, I remember
saying that he might just as usefully pray for unity of
countenance among them. Therefore, in point of fact,
though not perhaps in logic, the religious inquirer may
be quite sure that where there is not unity in the teacher
-and unity in the taught, there cannot be truth ; and that,
�'
From Darkness to Light
13,
conversely, wherever there is unity in the teacher and
unity in the taught, there, ipso facto, is Divine truth.
Point III.—If God does make a revelation of the way
by which the soul is to be saved, that revelation will be
infallible.
A. Infallible in its Subject Matter—
(1) Because Almighty God delivers it. How can it
be otherwise ?
(2) Because my soul wants nothing less. I cannot
trifle with eternity. I cannot afford to make a mistake
about it, which it is impossible to put right after death.
B. Infallible in its Earthly Mouthpiece—
(1) For of what practical use would be infallible truth
with a fallible mouthpiece ?
(2) How can Almighty God punish me for ever, if I
refuse to believe a teacher who may mislead me? It is
my solemn duty to refuse belief in such an one. Re
member, we have to give an account of our faith as well
as of our morals, and of faith before morals. “ He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved : he that
believeth not shall be condemned” (St. Mark xvi. 16).
How can God punish me eternally for want of faith,
unless he gives me an infallible teacher, whereby I can
secure infallible truth ? An infallible teacher of salva
tion is the most pressing of all the needs of the soul, and
yet the very mention of an infallible teacher makes the
average Englishman shiver in his shoes. This is indeed
astounding. Well, then, somewhere on earth, and in.
some authoritative body of men, or in the office of one
man, must be placed by Almighty God the infallible
oracle of truth. The way of salvation, then, is reduced
to great simplicity by this time. All a man has to do is-
�14
From Darkness to Light
to find out where the oracle is, and then believe what it
teaches, and do what it commands.
Point IV.—This way of salvation will be exclusive.
That is to say, it will be the only one ; and every other
way of salvation will be false. This means that the true
Church, wherever it is, will not only be the best of all
Churches, but the only one. This point seems to require
no further remark; and yet I remember a catechumen
once saying to me when teaching it, “ Oh, Father, that
is a tall order and no mistake ! ”
Point V.—To accept when once seen or wilfully to reject
this way of salvation is a matter of life or death eternal.
This seems obvious from the words of Scripture already
quoted. To see it not, by a man’s own fault, is likewise
to be lost. Once the solid conviction has crossed a
man’s brain, that if he inquired honestly into the cre
dentials of the Catholic Church he would be convinced
of the truth of it, and bound to submit to it in mind and
will—that man must go on in his inquiry, otherwise he
will be lost. To see it not, not by a man’s fault—that is
to say, in a case where it has never occurred to a man’s
mind that his own religion is false or that any other
religion can be true—then, not to believe in the Catholic
Church will not, of course, entail eternal loss on that
account. All this was self-evident to me, but it may
not be so to others. With that I have nothing to do.
My task is nearly done. Only a few words are needed
-to show that the Catholic and Roman Church alone can
satisfy these five points or conclusions. Let the reli
gious inquirer examine any system of religion other than
that of the Catholic Church, he will find that it breaks
-down on one or more of these five points. Ask the
�From Darkness to Light
15
Ritualist first, who is in many ways nearer to the truth
(and yet of him I say, “thou art so near and yet so
far”), is he one with his brother Anglicans in faith?
And what must he answer if he speaks the truth ? Is
he infallible, or the Church of his invention ? Is the
Church Times infallible? No; he breaks down hope
lessly, and all his fellow-Protestants when submitted to
the test of my five points. But ask next the Catholic
Church if it can satisfy these same points, and you will
soon see how perfectly she can stand the test.
Point I.—This point, as we have already seen, is the
■Catholic standpoint par excellence.
Point II.—Is the Catholic and Roman Church one ?
Yes; absolutely one in number and in unity all over
the world, in every climate, in every race of men:
-one in the teachers and one in the taught. It is this
marvellous fact that in point of fact converted me. I
have always considered this unity of nineteen hundred
years as God’s greatest miracle.
Point III.—Is the Catholic Church infallible? Yes;
and it has always claimed to be, and has acted as the
infallible Divine teacher of truth from the time of Christ.
The Catholic Church alone of all religious bodies claims
infallibility. The very claim sufficiently proved its truth
to me.
Point IV.—Is the Catholic Church exclusive ? Yes
it says, “I, and I only am the one true religion. All
others are false, and not to be accounted religions at
all.”
»
Point V.—Is it a matter of life or death eternal to
accept when seen or wilfully reject the Catholic Church ?
The Catholic Church replies “ Yes.” She alone teaches
�16
From Darkness to Light
this; no other system of Christianity has dared toteach it.
Here I conclude the history of my conversion. I do
not pretend to do anything more than show what led me
to the Catholic Church. I do not lay down any law for
others. All I know is that I have the faith, and in the
profession and peace of it I have lived twenty-nine years.
Not a shadow of a doubt in it has ever crossed my mind
during that long time. In this faith I still live, and inthis faith I hope to die. Amen.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.
u
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
From darkness to light
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robinson, W. Croke
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted, by permission of the publishers, from Roads to Rome (Longmans). Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1903
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1534
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (From darkness to light), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Catholic Church-Apologetic Works
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c79ef029d4d886277e4bca1ffc3eee2f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AooGkGexfYD3mrl6QojRHhDQKCA8CnazM6r45DEpMJeuSrhmCJSmH0alkutwhacpbT%7E7gD0XKKivCl%7EjOXQsayfanZrkqpZI-0WJDo7Zlb2jgDkDYRmRz1M-6jSLatMhROljUbA7yFY1yjpap05cKKdBVVmlYMGwOo9b1RtlEWUvez3ADEo2LIDfxmW0vWGuoV1kePBQzvAdnDwGDD8qq8B9ZFyTMWQ6rJW914RQ7PgRdQSHjLyYZwDWOdZtp94on-GaTradkIwBPxGF5-iuwkIUeR6K%7EzR%7EXcnmaRDGH4Lt-brzwnBpaWjjmSNKgTAiHEKuf1oyKrkOKeNzW-CjUA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b7e86938ab58770f86fa71f55469021e
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECU'
" "''CIETY
ROME OR REASON?
A
REPLY
TO
Cardinal Manning
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
REPRINTED EROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
■ October and November, 1888.
^onirou:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1888.
�J ONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.,
�ROME, OR REASON?
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition Nias ears more deaf than adders to the voice
of any true decision.”
A REPLY TO
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian churches
The questions involved are among the most important
that can engage the human mind. No one having the
slightest regard for that superb thing known as intel
lectual honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek in
any way to gain a victory over truth.
. Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
hght is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge. In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
or the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its mar
vellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible
fruitfulness m all good things, its catholic unity and
lnVinC\^e lability, is a vast and perpetual motive of
legationaU irrefragable witness of its own divine
�4
ROME OR REASON.
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are :
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations
of the civilised world; that it is extra-national and inde
pendent in a supernational unitv ; that it is the same in
every place ; that jt speaks all the languages in the civi
lised world; that it is obedient to one head; that as many
as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the pope ;
that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to Rome,
and that all these things set forth in the most self-evident
way the unity and universality of the Roman Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the world,
treating with empires, republics and governments ; ” that
“ there is no other man on earth that can so bear him
self,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from Con
stantinople can such a voice go forth to which rulers and
people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlight
ened and purified the world ; that it has given us the
peace and purity of domestic life ; that it has destroyed
idolatry and demonology ; that it gave us a body of law
from a higher source than man ; that it has produced
the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes were the
greatest of statesmen and rulers ; that celibacy is better
than marriage, and that the revolutions and reformations
of the last three hundred years have been destructive
and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
every thing that exists; of every church, great and small,
of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ? All
success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of men
have frequently been wrong. We believe in what is
called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the most
part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid of old
errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer in har
�ROME OR REASON.
5
mony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater clear
ness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some,
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond ; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we can
not say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
~
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the
whole intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The
truth or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, What shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose
out of the ruins of the Roman Empire—that is to say,
the rums of Paganism. And it is equally clear that
Mohammedanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of
Catholicism.
- After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was forever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome,, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were en
gaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out
their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the
Conscience of .man. Bishops were concerned in assassina10ns, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, treasons,
civil war. Patriarchs and primates were excommuni
�6
ROME OR REASON.
eating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries
for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with gold and
courtesans and royal females with concessions of epis
copal love. Among legions of monks who carried terror
into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities
arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a
voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included, the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives withered
leaves. At his name, priests, bishops and cardinals fled
with white faces, popes trembled, and the armies of God,
fighting for the true faith, were conquered on a thousand
fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that anothei’ church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose the
second church lives and flourishes in spite of the first,
what does that prove ?
�ROME OR REASON.
7
As a matter of fact, however, no church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or it
could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is absolutely
certain that the conditions are favorable. If it spreads
rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are exceed
ingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition are weak
and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as we
find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition began to
grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to persecution,
and the persecution increased its strength. It was driven
from State to State by the believers in universal love,
until it left what was called civilisation, crossed the wide
plains, and took up its abode on the shores of the Great
Salt Lake. It continued to grow. Its founder, as he
declared, had frequent conversations with God, and
received directions from that source.
Hundreds of
miracles were performed, multitudes upon the desert
were miraculously fed, the sick were cured—the dead
were raised, and the Mormon Church continued to grow,
until now, less than half a century after the death of its
founder, there are several hundred thousand believers in
the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world, eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that church ?
It seems to me that a “ supernatural ” religion—that it
to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle, is much
�8
ROME OR REASON.
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in the
miraculous, in the supernatural.
The conception of
uniformity, of what may be called the eternal consistency
of nature, is an idea far above their comprehension.
They are forced to think in accordance with their minds,
and as a consequence they account for all phenomena by
the acts of superior beings—that is to say, by the super
natural. In other words, that religion having most in
common with the savage, having most that was satis
factory to his mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand
the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous grew
less and less—the domain of the natural larger ; that is
to say, the common became the natural, but the uncom
mon was still regarded as the miraculous. The rising
and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder of
mankind—there was no miracle about that ; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty that the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this : The average man
regards the common as natural, the uncommon as super
natural. The educated man—and by that I mean the
developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and can not
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
�BOMB OR BEASON.
9
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on. the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a pre
late of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good ?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the especial care, protection, and guidance
of an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has persecuted
and preached, and the salvation of the world is still
remote.
This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the word to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ? Do the Catholic nations
move in the van of progress? Withintheir jurisdiction
�10
ROME OR REASON.
are life, liberty and property safer than anywhere else ?
Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer? Was Pius IX., or any other
Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to go
into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their con verts at any time, nor one of the
Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward, knew
of the existence of the Western Hemisphere. During all
that time, can it be said that the Catholic Church was
universal ? At the close of the fifteenth century, there
was one-half of the world in which the Catholic faith had
never been preached, and in the other half not one person
in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard
of it, not one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic
Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personalitv. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed and been killed for the sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
�ROME OR REASON.
11
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes, but
his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—that
is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to the
destruction of man’s well-being, that tend to his unhappi
ness, are bad, no matter by whom they are taught or
done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation and
inquiry led, oi’ might lead, to doubt ; that doubt leads, or
may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity
for joining that Church, for accepting that creed, and for
the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in ordei’ to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently, the
Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving and just. A church must be judged
by the same standard. Has the Church been merciful ?
Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of justice,
charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man, believing a
�12
ROME OR REASON.
good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ? If the
Church imprisons a man for the expression of an honest
opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine of the
Church is wrong, or that the Church is bad ? Both can
not be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is impossible.
Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most malicious of
the human race. If the history of the world proves
anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for many
centuries the most merciless institution that ever existed
among men. I cannot believe that the instruments of
persecution were made and used by the eminently good ;
neither can I believe that honest people were imprisoned,
tortured, and burned at the stake by a Church that was
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices
against Catholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices
against.Protestantism. I regard all religions either with
out prejudice or with the same prejudice. They were all,
according to my belief, devised by men, and all have for
a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of the next.
All the gods have been made by men. They are all
equally powerful and equally useless. I like some of
them better than I do others, for the same reason that I
admire some characters in fiction more than I do others.
I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but have not the slightest
idea that either of them existed. So I prefer Jupiter to
Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied that both are myths.
I believe myself to be in a frame of mind to justly and
fairly consider the claims of different religions, believing
as I do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do that there
is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church, we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order, the
members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned the
living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to the
-end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the end
�ROME OR REASON.
13
that it might take from widows their portions and from
orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
—the millions who perished by the sword—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all
the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers.
It hated geologists—it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to foi-get the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
�HOME OR REASON.
14
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
FonX presided over by the agent of God-punisbmg
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of his
head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
but having at the same time the impudence to call on
God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ, and the Virgin
Marv to join in the curse ; and to curse him no _ y
herey’but forever hereafter—calling upon all the saints
and’upon all the redeemed to join in a hallelujah of
cursesP so that earth and heaven should reverbrate with
countless curses launched at a human being simply or
having expressed an honest thought.
,
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things " invented
crimes that it might punish, This Church tried men or
a “suspicion of heresy’’—imprisoned themfoi ^e vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they bad_ on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected. This
W It Vtoo late^to talk about the “invincible stability ” of
the Seventh, in the Eighth, or
in the Ninth centuries. It was not invincible m Germany
in T other’s day. It was not invincible m the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme m any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not .triumph m Paris, or
Berlin • it is not dominant m London, m England ,
neither’ is it triumphant in the United States. It has not
within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen, and the
thinkers who are the leaders of the human race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that m some it holds
the whole nation in its unity.
.
in
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful 1
Spain than in any other nation. The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy, the
result of an acknowledgment by a people that a certain
religion is too sacred to be examined.
�ROME OR REASOK.
15
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adoption
of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough to say
that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the most
thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavored to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they were
bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but because
they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not because
they were ignorant or vicious, but because they were
unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and deliberately
made outcasts of the intelligent, the industrious, the
honest and the useful, because they were not Catholics.
It leaped like a wild beast upon the Low Countries, for
the destruction of Protestantism. It covered the seas
with its fleets, to destroy the intellectual liberty of man.
And not only so—it established the Inquisition within its
borders. It imprisoned the honest, it burned the noble,
and succeeded after many years of devotion to the true
faith, in destroying the industry, the intelligence, the
usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth of a
nation. It became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and
excited the pity of its former victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held
“ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In 1782
it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be friends
with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and Algiers
and the Barbary States.
It had become too poor to
ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It began to
appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer nor
convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise
proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic Church.
This may be said of every other nation in Christendom'
Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. The dungeons of
the Inquisition are empty, and a little light has penetrated
the clouds and mists—not much, but a little. Spain is
�16
ROME OR REASON.
not yet clothed and in her right mind. A few years ago
the cholera visited Madrid and other cities.. Physicians
were mobbed. Processions of saints carried the host
through the streets for the purpose of staying the plague.
The streets were not cleaned ; the sewers were filled.
Filth and faith, old partners, reigned supreme. The
Church, “eminent for its sanctity,” stood in the light and
cast its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The
Church, in its “inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good
things,” allowed its children to perish through ignorance,
and used the diseases it had produced as an instrument
ality to further enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It i§ necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and goodness
of these men. But their religion did more than all other
causes to produce the very evils that called. for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “godliness”;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity ; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary.
Faith is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers
fmitloss*
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree, by
the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that sense,
and that in that sense it has what may be. called a
supernationai
xiw same,
“ supernational unity.” The muj-c, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but it
is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in t e
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in. faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, that the Catholic Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. . This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
�ROME OR REASON.
17
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions have
become permanent. New sects have been born and the
Catholic Church has been weakened. The boast of unity
is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin. This is asserted over and over
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession :
Was it only by the human power of man that the unity,
external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years
had been supreme, was once more restored in the Council
of Constance, never to be broken again ? ”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again. Yet
it is asserted that the internal and external unity of the
Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates its
divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made the
sword is that it never had been and never could be
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
B
�18
ROME OR REASON.
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin ?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored, and then’ it is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated. Put in a form to be easily understood it
is this :
’
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin.
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken? Was it universal while it was without unity?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was
immutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised ; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to
the pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness of
the organisation.
.. How was the Roman empire formed ? By what means
did that Great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word, Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
�ROME OR REASON,
19
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous and cruel. The
gospel with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven and
hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it was
preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that Christ
had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell..
The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart ; it rewarded
every vice ; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess; it tortured wit
nesses to compel the commission of perjury ; it tortured
children for the purpose of making them convict their
parents; it compelled men to establish their own innocence;
it imprisoned without limit; it had the malicious patience
to wait; it left the accused without trial, and left them
in dungeons until released by death. There is no crime
that the Catholic Church did not commit, no cruelty that
it did not practice, no form of treachery that it did not
reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was
the greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights.
It did all that organisation, cunning, piety, self-denial,
heroism, treachery, zeal and brute force could do to
enslave the children of men. It was the enemy of
intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer of
progress. It loaded the noble with chains and-th©
infamous with honors. In one hand it carried the alms
dish, in the other a dagger. It argued with the sword,
persuaded with poison, and convinced with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a Church
can be established by showing that hundreds of bishops
have visited the pope.
Does the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran ? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
�20
ROME OR REASON.
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows ?
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He
who in power compels his fellow man to kneel, wili him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power;
■a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand face
to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal who
kneels in the presence of the pope, wants the bishop to
kneel in his presence ; and the bishop who kneels
■demands that the priest shall kneel to him ; and the priest
who kneels demands that they in lower orders shall
kneel ; and all, from pope to the lowest—that is to say,
from pope to exorcist, from pope to the one in charge of
the bones of saints—all demand that the people, the lay
men, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
'Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
•ashen face.
The cardinal insists that the pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute in office. He stands
in the place, or occupies the position in relation to the
Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ would
occupy were he the pope at Rome. In other words, he
takes Christ’s place ; so that, according to the doctrine of
the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is present in
the person of the pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad agent.
A good king might leave his realm and put in his place a
tyrant and a wretch. The good man, and the good king,
■cannot certainly know what manner of man the agent is
—what kind of person the vicar is—consequently the bad
may be chosen. But if the king appointed a bad vicar,
knowing him to be bad, knowing that he would oppress
the people, knowing that he would imprison and burn
the noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for
such a king ?
Now if the Church is of divine origin, and if each pope
is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been chosen
by Jesus Christ ; and when he was chosen, Christ must
have known exactly what* his Vicar would do. Can we
believe that an infinitely wise and good Being would
�ROME OR REASON.
21
choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant, malicious, heartless,
fiendish and inhuman vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe.
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constantine
were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s place.
The tongue of the Bishop Theodoras was amputated by
the man who had been substituted for God. This bishop
was left in a dungeon to perish of thirst. Pope Leo III.
was seized in the street and forced into a church, where
the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to put out his
eyes and cut off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V
was driven ignominiously from Rome. His successor,
Paschal I., was accused of blinding and murdering two
ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace. John VIII., unable
to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them
tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from other
Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by the
pope ; afterwards he gave him absolution because he be
trayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated others.
There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the pope,
and some of the treasures of the Church were seized, and
the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys to
admit the Saracens. Pormosus, who had been engaged
in these transactions, who had been excommunicated as
a conspirator for the murder of Pope John, was himself
elected pope in 891. Boniface VI. was his successor.
He had been deposed from the diaconate and from the
priesthood for his immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII.
was the next pope, and he had the dead body of Formosus
taken from the grave, clothed in papal habiliments,
propped up in a chair and tried before a Council. The
corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off
and the body cast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen
�'22
ROME OR REASON.
VII., this Vicar of Christ, was thrown into prison and
strangled.
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V.,
in less than two months after he became pope, was cast
into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains. This
Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while was
expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became pope
in 905. This pope lived in criminal intercourse with the
celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters Marozia
and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an extraordi
nary control over him. The love of Theodora was also
shared by John X. She gave him the Archbishopric of
Ravenna, and made him pope in 915. The daughter
of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised him
in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed;
the pope was thrown into prison, where he was afterwards
murdered. Afterward, this Marozia, daughter of Theo
dora, made her own son pope, John XI. Many affirmed
that Pope Sergius was his father, but his mother inclined
to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose brother
Guido she afterwards married. Another of her sons,
Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the Pope, cast him
and their mother into prison. Alberic’s son was then
elected pope as John XII.
“ John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the most
shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I. was
compelled by the German clergy to interfere. He was
tried. It appeared that John had received bribes for the
consecration of bishops ; that he had ordained one who
was only ten years old ; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the
Lateran Palace had become a brothel.
He put out
the eyes of one ecclesiastic; he maimed another
—both dying in consequence of their injuries. He was
given to drunkeness and to gambling.
He*was de
posed at last, and Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subse
quently he got the upper hand. He seized his an
tagonists ; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger,
and the tongue of others. His life was eventually
brought to an end by the vengeance of a man whose wife
he had seduced.”
And yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the
�ROME OR REASON.
S3
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when compared
with the orthodox God—with the God they worshipped.
These popes, these bishops, these priests could persecute
only for a few years—they could burn only for a few
moments—but their God threatened to imprison and burn
forever ; and their God is as much worse than they were,
as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“ John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassinated
by Catholics—murdered by the faithful—that one Vicar
of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and that these
men were “ the greatest rulers and the greatest statesmen
of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose
cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent
through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to
the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than twelve years of
age, was raised to the apostolic throne. One of his suc
cessors, Victor III., declared that the life of Benedict was
so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to
describe it. He ruled like a captain of banditti. The
people, unable to bear longer his adulteries, his homicides
and his abominations, rose against him, and in despair of
maintaining his position, he put up his papacy to auction,
and it was bought by a Presbyter named John, who
became Gregory VI., in the year of grace 1045. Well
may we ask, Were these the Vicegerents of God upon
earth—these, who had truly reached that goal beyond
which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass ?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “ some two hundred and fifty-eight ” Vicars
of Christ there were probably some good men. This
would have happened even if the intention had been to
get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches perfec
�24
ROME OR REASON.
tion neither in good nor in evil; but if they were selected
by Christ himself, if they were selected by a Church with
a divine origin and under divine guidance, then there is
no way to account for the selection of a bad one. If one
hypocrite was duly elected pope—one murderer, one
strangler, one starver—this demonstrates that all the popes
were selected by men, and by men only, that the claim
of divine guidance is born of zeal and uttered without
knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many have
there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not know.
He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St. Peter to
Leo XIII., there have been some two hundred and fifty
eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the whole
Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and Vicars of
Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word “some"?
Why “ claiming ” ? Does he positively know ? Is it
possible that the present Vicar of Christ is not certain as
to the number of his predecessors ? Is he infallible in
faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely,—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “the pope speaks to many people
in many nations : that he treats with empires and govern
ments,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from
Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisation.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists
put the hand to the ear fearing that an accent may be
lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ? Is not the
Church weakest at its centre ? Do those who have raised
�ROME OR REASON.
25
Italy from the dead, and placed her again among the
great nations, pay attention ? Does Great Britain care for
this voice—this moan, this groan—of the Middle Ages ?
Do the words of Leo XIII. impress the intelligence of the
Great Republic ? Can anything be more absurd than for
the vicar of Christ to attack a demonstration of science
with a passage of Scripture, or a quotation from one of
the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens, but it shows that
chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people.
If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and if
Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe had
assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been as
virtuous as popes. But if this had happened, the verdict
of the world would be that the people are not capable of
selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the vicar of
God, and the supernatural Church, “ are being tormented
by Falck laws, by Mancini laws and by Crispi laws.” In
other words, this representative of God, this substitute of
Christ, this Church of divine origin, this supernatural
institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—are being
“ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it possible that
this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other ?*
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden is
upon them.”
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
�26
ROME OR REASON.
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Commenc
ing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and conquered,
until it was believed that the sky bent above a subjugated
world. And yet all was natural. For every effect there
was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies of
Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born, it was believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
(older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is pagan.
Long before popes began to murder each other, pagans ate
cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank wine—the blood of
Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the Ganges and Nile,
priests interceded for the people, and anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most religions
there has been a strange mingling of the good and bad,
of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and malicious.
Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood of man,
insisted on the development of the mind, and this religion
was propagated not by the sword, but by preaching, by
�ROME OR REASON.
27
persuasion and by kindness—yet in many things it wag
contrary to the human will, contrary to the human pas
sions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism succeeded.
Can we, for this reason, say that it is a supernatural
religion ? Is the unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every
Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the same ; it
must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic Church
has not grown—that it has been petrified from the first—
does not establish divine origin ; itsimply establishes the
fact that it retards the progress of man. Everything in
nature changes—every atom is in motion—every star
moves. Nations, institutions and individuals have youth,
manhood, old age, death. This is and will be true of the
Catholic Church. It was once weak—it grew stronger—
it reached its climax of power—it began to decay—it
never can rise again. It is confronted by the dawn of
Science. In the presence of the nineteenth century it
cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to disinte
gration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural. All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When the
acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon it and
the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “ all natural
causes ” do not “ run to disintegration.” But there comes
a time when the oak has reached its limit, and then the
forces of nature run towards disintegration, and finally
the old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is right—if “ all
natural causes run to disintegration,” then every success
�28
ROME OR REASON.
must have been of divine origin, and nothing is natural
but destruction. This is Catholic science : “ All natural
causes run to disintegration.” What do these causes find
to disintegrate ? Nothing that is natural. The fact that
the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is of
supernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only
business of nature is to disintegrate the supernatural.
To prevent this, the supernatural needs the protection of
the Infinite. According to this doctrine, if anything
lives and grows, it does so in spite of nature. Growth,
then, is not in accordance with, but in opposition to
nature. Every plant is supernatural—it defeats the dis
integrating influences of rain and light. The generalisa
tion of the Cardinal is half the truth. It would be
equally true to say : All natural causes run to integration.
But the whole truth is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created by
the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes at
this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the
work of their own hands ; they did not make it, but they
have for three hundred years been unmaking it by refor
mations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years ; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time, Phillip II. was king of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the in?
quisition was firmly established, and priests were busy
with rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of
man and the love of God, the Church with every
instrument of torture, touched every nerve in the human
body.
�ROME OR REASON.
29
In those happy clays the Duke qf Alva was devastating
the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive—their
tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids from
their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the destruction
of the heretics of England, and the Moriscoes—a million
and a half of industrious people—were being driven by
Sword and flame from their homes. The dews had been
expelled from Spain. This Catholic country had suc
ceeded in driving intelligence and industry from its
territory ; and this had been done with cruelty, with a
ferocity, unequalled in the*annals of crime. Nothing
was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, the
Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly
Sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nineteenth century,
living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets the change that
has been wrought by the intellectual efforts, by the dis
coveries, by the inventions and heroism of three hundred
years.
Three hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son
of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—after
nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—after
hundreds of vicars of ^Christ had sat in St. Peter’s chair—
after the’natural passions of man had been “ softened ” by
the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of St. Bartholo
mew, the result of a conspiracy between the Vicar of
Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish mother.
Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre once
more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of
Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the Infinite,
persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death. This great’
this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He had ventured
to assert the rotary motion of the earth ; he had hazarded
the conjecture that there were in the fields of infinite
space worlds larger and more glorious than ours. For
these low and groveling thoughts, for this contradiction
of the word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned
for many years. But his noble spirit was not broken,
and finally in the year 1600, by the orders of the infam
ous Vicar, he was chained to the stake. Priests believing
�30
ROME OR REASON.
in the doctrine of universal forgiveness—priests who
when smitten upon one cheek turned the other—carried
with a kind of ferocious joy faggots to the feet of this
incomparable man. These disciples of “Our Lord” were
made joyous as the flames, like serpents, climbed around
the body of Bruno. In a few moments the brave thinker
was dead, and the priests who had burned him fell upon
their knees and asked the infinite God to continue the
blessed work for ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquisition are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe1
?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church—in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility—we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin—if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that God
exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and good—
and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed is
foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed the following :
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it isnecessary that he hold the Catholic faith.”
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more im
portant than conduct. The most important of all things
is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were thousands
of years during which it was not necessary to hold that
faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet during
that time the virtues were just as important as now, just
as important as they ever can be. Millions of the noblest
of the human race never heard of this creed. Millions
of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, and
rejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed
it, and because of their belief, or notwithstanding their
�ROME OR REASON.
31
belief^ have murdered millions of their fellows. We
know that men can be, have been, and are just as wicked
with it as without it. We know that it is not necessary
to believe it to be good, loving, tender, noble and self
denying. We admit that millions who have believed it
have also been self-denying and heroic, and that millions,
by such belief, were not prevented from torturing and
destroying the helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “ whoever will be saved, before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
u Which faith, except every one do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth : The
believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost. We
know that faith is not the child or servant of the will.
We know that belief is a conclusion based upon what the
mind supposes to be true. We know that it is not an act
of the will. Nothing can be more absurd than to save a
man because he is not intelligent enough to accept the
truth, and nothing can be more infamous than to damn
a man because he is intelligent enough to reject the false.
It resolves itself into a question of intelligence. If the
creed is true, then a man rejects it because he lacks
intelligence. Is this a crime for which a man should
everlastingly perish ? If the creed is false, then a man
accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both cases
the crime is exactly the same. If a man is to be damned
for rejecting the truth, certainly he should not be saved
for accepting the false. This one clause demonstrates
that a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not
write it. It also demonstrates that it was the work of
men who had neither wisdom nor a sense of justice.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this :
■“ That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ? Why
�32
ROME OR REASON.
should one God wish to be worshipped as three ? Why
should three Gods wish to be worshipped as one ? Why
should we pray to one God and think of three, or pray to
three Gods and think of one ? Can this increase the
happiness of the one or of the three ? Is it possible to
think of one as three, or of three as one ? If you think
of three as one, can you think of one as none, or of none
as one ? When you think of three as one, what do you
do with the other two ? You must not “ confound the
persons ”—they must be kept separate. When you think
of one as three, how do you get the other two ? You
must not “divide the substance.” Is it possible to write
greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason—for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered,
unreasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed ; one who loved to see fear upon its
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors ; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh ; he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fe
was a divine comedy.
The shrieks of wives, the
cries of babes when fathers were being burned,
gave contrast, heightened the effect and filled his cup
with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the
earth he had made, and had forgotten the orbits of the
�BOMB OR REASON.
33
stars. > “ The stream of light which descended from the
beginning” was propagated by faggot to faggot, until
Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of
faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
Sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousandsfor the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to man their own relation toa Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics tothe Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of Mexico,
of Peru—to philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these
victims were taught to regard the true God as a loving
Father, and this lesson was taught with every instrument
of torture—with brandings and burnings, with Sayings and
flames. The world was filled with cruelty and credulity,
ignorance and intolerance and the soil in which all these
horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true God,,
and the true knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet,
we are compelled to say, that the one true Devil described
by the Catholic Church was not as malevolent as the one
true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship of
popes—of the doctrine of the Real presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuit5r in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithfulsoftened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
•
c
�34
ROME OR REASON,
assistance of forces that were above nature; ” and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement :
“Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacra
ment, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists that
celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a sacra
ment—that marriage is not the highest state, but that
« the state of virginity unto death is thejhighest condition
of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can in
terfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made public
to the end that the real contract may be known, so that
the world can see that the parties have been actuated by
the highest and holiest motives that find expression in
the acts of human beings. The man and woman are not
joined together by God, or by the Church, or by the
State. The Church and State may prescribe certain
•ceremonies, certain formalities—but all these are only
•evidence of the existence of a sacred fact in the heaits of
the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage is a dogma
that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears.
It has given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality.
Fear has borne children begotten by brutality. ^Countless
women have endured the insults, indignities and cruelties
■of fiendish husbands, because they thought that it was
the will of God. The contract of marriage is the most
important that human beings can make ; but no contract
can be so important as to release one of the parties from
the obligation of performance ; and no contract, whether
made between man and woman, or between them and
God, after a failure of consideration caused by the wilful
�HOME OR REASON.
35
act of the man or woman, can hold and bind the innocent
and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago, a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her :
“ Do not touch me ; you have no right to beat me ; I am
not your wife.”
About a year ago, a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in the
indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming enraged,
seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her eyes.
She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliberately
repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim totally
blind. Would it not have been better if man, before
the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom
God had joined together? Thousands of husbands,
who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are the b eaters
of wives.
The Law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one wom'an. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family • and back
of all your holy mistakes and your sacred absurdities is
the love of husband and wife, of parent and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of. Christianity, the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman ; made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “ fathers ” denounced woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The Church
worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had
pronounced his curse on woman, and had declared
that she should be the serf of the husband. This Church
followed the teachings of St. Paul. It taught the un
cleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children were
�36
' ROME OR REASON.
conceived in sin. This Church pretended to have been
founded by one who offered a reward in this world, and
eternal joy in the next, to husbands who would forsake
their wives and children and follow him. Did this tend
to the elevation of woman ? Did this detestable doctrine
“create the purity and peace of domestic life’ ? Is it
true that a monk is purer than a good and noble father .
that a nun is holier than a loving mother ?
?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother 8
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most use
ful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers and
holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good and
not for the benefit of others. They are earning eternal
glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their fellow
men, their selfishness is only equalled by their foolish
ness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell, counting
beads and saying prayers for the purpose of saving his
barren soul, with a husband and father sitting by his
fireside with wife and children. Compare the nun with
the mother and her babe.
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love—that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left worth
livino- for. The Church has treated this great, this
sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man. Human
love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish,
because man does not love God for God’s sake but for
his own. •
,
i 4.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought by
Christianity in the social, political and international
relations of the world’’-“that the root of this ethical,
change, private and public, is the Christian home.
A
moment afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is
far better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live in accordance with the “ highest state, this gene
ration would be the last. Why were men and women
created ? Why did not the Catholic God commence with
the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal ought to take the
�ROME OR REASON.
37
ground that to talk well is good, but that to be dumb is
the highest condition; that hearing is a pleasure, but that
deafness is ecstasy ; and that to think, to reason, is very
well, but that to be a Catholic is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings and what
is left ? The great object should be not to destroy
passions, but to make them obedient to the intellect. To
indulge passion to the utmost is one form of intemper
ance, to destroy passion is another. The reasonable
gratification of passion under the domination of the
intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun,
of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct—all were produced by human affection,
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two lives
unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a melody.
Love is a revelation, a creation. From love the world
borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice,
self-denial, charity and pity are the children of love.
Jjover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home—these
words shed light—they are the gems of human speech.
Without love all glory fades, the noble falls from life, art
dies, music loses meaning and becomes mere motions of
the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal
then asks : “ Who will ascribe this to natural causes,
and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four thousand
years ? ”
If there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature—if
this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the Cardinal
that such religion must be of divine origin. Is it “against
the tendencies of human nature ” for a mother to throw
her child into the Ganges to please a supposed God? Yet
a religion that insisted on that sacrifice succeeded, and
has, to-day, more believers than the Catholic Church can
boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
.gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
�38
ROME OR REASON.
“ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know that
man is a conditioned being. We know that he is affected
by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he is super
stitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed, if
he perceives clearly that all things are naturally produced,
he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scientific. He
is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but a philo
sopher. He does not worship, he works; he investigates ;
he thinks ; he takes advantage, through intelligence, of
the forces of nature. He is no longer the victim of
appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the
persecutor of his fellow men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier
than the love of man for any phantom born of ignorance
and fear.
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
What was the world when science came ?
What
was it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler ?
What was it when printing was invented ? What was it
when the Western World was found ? Would it not be
much easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it developes the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah prac
tically abandoned the children of men for four thousand
years, and gave them over to every abomination. He
claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness of time,
and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness of time
may mean is one of the mysteries of times and seasons,
that it is not for us to know.” Having declared that it is
a mystery, and one that we are not to know, the Cardinal
explains it : “ One motive for the long delay of four
thousand years is not far to seek—it gave time, full and
�ROME OR REASON.
39
ample, for the utmost development and consolidation of
all the falsehood and evil of which the intellect and will
of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ” ?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this development
and consolidation ? What would be thought of a father
who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to drown
a world just for the want of a supernatural religion—a
religion that man, by no possibility, could furnish ? Was
there “ husbandry in heaven ” ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is it
possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what man
can do without God, and I assert that the history of the
Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted by a
church of divine origin, presided over by the infallible
vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the test
of divine origin. All supernatural religions have been
�40
ROME OR REASON.
founded in precisely the same way. The credulity of
eighteen hundred years ago believed everything except
the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that. “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral nature
in all nations and all ages to this day.” What becomes of
the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin
because “ it has ascended the stream of human licence,
contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier than
nature ” ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and all ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone against
the stream. How then can it be said that Christianity
has been in changeless opposition to nature as man has
marred it ? To what extent has man marred it ? In spite
of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and
moral nature of all nations in all ages to this day is in
harmony with the religion of Jesus Christ.
Are we justified in saying that the' Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy.Catholicism by persecutions
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution ;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecu
tion ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
�ROME OR REASON.
41
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religion.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and
Protestantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to which
no statutes at large or imperial pandects can bear com
parison “ that the world-wide and secular legislation of
the Church was of a higher character, and that as water
cannot rise above its source, the Church could not, by
mere human wisdom, have corrected and perfected the
imperial law, and therefore its source must have been
higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the Canon
Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most part,
original. In my judgment, the legislation of the Repub
lic of the United States is in many respects superior to
that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted to the
Common Law ; but it never occurred to me that our
Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon
Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft to take
interest for money. Without the right to take interest
the business of the world would, to a large extent, cease
and the prosperity of mankind end. There are railways
enough in the United States to make six tracks around
the globe, and every mile was built with borrowed money
on which interest was paid or promised. In no other
way could the savings of many thousands have been
brought together and a capital great enough formed to
construct works of such vast and continental import
ance.
�42
ROME OR REASON.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the man
who had been robbed was not allowed to open his mouth.
A Catholic could enter the house of an unbeliever, of a
Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before the eyes of the
husband and father murder his wife and children, and
the father could not pronounce in the hearing of a judge
the name of the murderer. The world is wiser now, and
the Canon Law, given to us by infinite wisdom, has been
repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four ; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour ;' a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve witnesses
were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ; of a
deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were made,
not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel, to excommunicated per
sons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say : “ Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever a
garment of fire”? Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law the
dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates confiscated
—that is to say, their widows and orphans robbed. The
most brutal part of the common law of England is that in
relation to the right of women—all of which was taken
from the Corpus Juris Canonist, “ the law that came
from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the
pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would not
live with the other who continued still an unbeliever.
Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be rid of
�ROME OR REASON.
43:
his wife had only to join the Catholic Church, provided
she remained faithful to the religion of her fathers.
Under this divine law, a man marrying a widow was
declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It'
has been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of being
witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with devils.
Thousands perished at the stake, having been convicted
of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon Law, there
was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A man or
woman could be arrested, charged with being suspected,,
and under this Canon Law, flowing from the intellect of
infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor of guilt.
The suspected had to prove themselves innocent. In all
civilised courts, the presumption of innocence is theshield of the indicted, but the Canon Law took away this
shield, and put in the hand of the priest the sword of
presumptive guilt.
If the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd
of the sheep, this fact should be known not only to the
vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely founded and guarded
church ought to know its own shepherd, and yet the
Catholic sheep have not always been certain who theshepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes—
rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual vicar of Christ and the pretended. This action
was taken because a council, enlightened by the Holy
Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counterfeit.
The council then elected another vicar, whose authority
was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died, and John
XXIII. took his place ; Gregory XII. insisted that he
was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he was de
posed, and afterwards imprisoned; then Gregory XII.
resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole thing
reads like the annals of a South American Revolution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
�44
ROME OR REASON.
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great council
John Huss appeared and maintained his own tenets.
The council declared that the Church was not bound to
keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was condemned
and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His disciple,
Jerome of Prague, recanted, but having relapsed, was put
to death, May 30th, 1416. This cursed council shed the
blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Ecce Homo for
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted :
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who has
entered into the formation of speech, which is the symbol
of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively the
origin of civil society ? He who can do these things can
explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says that
the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to find
and describe than that which unites men—than that
which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union—no harder to describe than th®
origin of civil society—because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
■climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and
swarms.
If we know anything we know that language is natural
—that it is a physical science. But if we take the ground
occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that everything
that cannot be accounted for by man, is supernatural.
Let me ask, by what man ? What man must we take as
the standard ? Cosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or
Darwin ? If everything that we cannot account for is
above nature, then ignorance is the test of the super
natural. The man who is mentally honest, stops where
his knowledge stops. At that point he says that he does
not know. JSuch a man is a philosopher. Then the
�ROME OR REASON.
45
theologian steps forward, denounces the modesty of the
philosopher as blasphemy, and proceeds to tell what is
beyond the horizon of the human intellect.
■ Could a savage account for the telegraph, or the tele
phone by natural causes? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
Belonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest
interest "in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow and
insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is un
fortunately lost, contained either to. 7rpcoTeia, or some
inflection of 7rp<DTeva>, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome rests on some “ inflection ” of a Greek word—and
that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed to
have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the
following ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out: ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ”
Is it
possible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been
a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen from
the following statement concerning this Father: “When
any heretical doctrine was spoken in his presence he
would stop his ears.” After this, there can be no question
�46
ROME OR,REASON.
of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp was a
martyr—that a spear was run through his body and
that from the wound his soul, in the shape of a bird, flew
away. The history of his death is just as true as the
history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if oneof his inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. . All of these Fathers were familiar with won
ders and impossibilities. Nothing was so common with
them as to work miracles, and on many occasions they
not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order of
nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said,
or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There were
many centuries filled with forgeries, many generations in
which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased, oblite
rated and interpolated the records of the past, during
which they invented books, invented authors, and quoted
from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the slightest
value. They believed everything, they examined nothing.
They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever
accepts their testimony will exclaim with the Cardinal :
“ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46 p. ; 18 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. No. 65a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N390
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2ceecba4d41f53bf489b474568d2f131.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tMJB%7E6kP4zZ4vWkRqmf8Nt1MR%7EzTTDxhY0mDGfd6KP%7E3I3WZGlVj61bm7JOyQfFMdSh8XcaVGdYjsseImil8PxRalpg6tEEyvRmXVuiqf0gImIKRKraq5FbtuCm8iDFuXYPn94GxVqNKA8QJRDVBJvzxS7006whthi4fl9lHCwa2-Dnnqtxkv%7EvmB--Czn50gn-L%7EMlGqW0zLyMUEEkH-wmSkynlHfqNDAFgQJq%7EjTJ1I6mWe8B5T5RLMgA8kuMSu8pApsW0u%7EOkEYBvpnXQCCPzVI4KTNdQDSveMwLQUgaHnQx9GGVcyxjYGdnu5Rc-cYLYCkfWzHbNVYp5WnMOqg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e284a92bc6021a59212d5bf0f14ff624
PDF Text
Text
Ube ^pantsb SnquteitiorL
BY THE REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.
“The Spanish Inquisition” is still an effective cry whenever it
is wished to arouse prejudice against the Catholic Church and
her children. It is true the cry is not quite as effective now
as it was a few decades ago. There has been of late days
much more fusion between Catholics and others in the various
walks of life, and our fellow-countrymen have come to know
us well, both our clergy and our laity, and have been able to
judge for themselves what manner of men we are. They do
not find us to be of harsher temperament than themselves, less
fond of liberty, or less respectful of the due rights of others.
And so when reminded of the Inquisition, although perhaps
accepting the popular account of its cruelties as unquestionable
fact, they prefer.to treat the past as history and judge of the
present by the present.
It is consoling to mark this increasing disposition to give
us credit for wha*- we are. There is certainly no desire any
where among us to have renewed the harsh methods and punish
ments of the Spanish Inquisition. But we will go further and
claim that the Spanish Inquisition itself was never the horrible
thing it is represented in Protestant literature as having been.
Let the reader understand exactly the position we take up.
We are. far from inviting a judgment of acquittal on all its
proceedings. We maintain only that the bad name it has
acquired in popular estimation is due largely to the gross
exaggerations of those who have written against it in an
adverse sense, and to the neglect to view it in relation with
the notions and methods everywhere current in the days of
its existence.
What then are the charges against this tribunal? They
may be summarized as follows. It treated beliefs contrary to
the established creed, even though conscientious, as crimes of
the first magnitude. It punished offenders with the most cruel
punishment of fire, and went so far in its inhumanity as to
B
�2
The Spanish Inquisition.
make their dying agonies a religious spectacle for the enter
tainment of “ the faithful,” the very Kings, surrounded by
brilliant Courts, presiding over the autos da fex (“acts of
faith”) at which the condemned were delivered to the flames.
In the excess of its thirst for heretical blood it did not hesitate
to sacrifice whole hecatombs in this way: and in order that
the number of victims might not run short, it instituted a
grossly unfair judicial procedure whereby the accused person
had hardly a chance of -rebutting the charges against him.
The names of his accusers, often, his personal enemies, were
concealed from his knowledge, and the services of a skilled
advocate whom he could trust to act in his interests were
denied him. On the other hand, he was submitted to repeated
tortures in loathsome cells, until, unable longer to endure the
agony, he was driven to disregard future consequences and
seek present relief by a confession of guilt, truthful or feigned.
Lastly, to intensify the terror of the tribunal throughout the
country, arrests were made with the utmost secresy, and by
secret officials, called “familiars” of the court. These
mysterious beings would lie in wait for their victim at some
unobserved spot, or they would enter his house stealthily
under the cover of the darkness, and carry him from his very
bed to their underground dungeons. When the family rose
in the morning one cherished member was missing. Wife or
children might suspect what had happened, but there was no
remedy. Probably they would never see him again except
once, and then tied to the burning faggot at some future auto
da ft. It was hardly safe even to mention his name, still less
to express regret at his fate. Nor was this all. Should he be
convicted, as be was morally certain to be, all his goods would
be confiscated, and the family that had been dependent upon
him for its maintenance, would be reduced to poverty, as well
as branded with perpetual disgrace and suspicion.
Here certainly is a terrible indictment. Well may the
people of England shudder at the bare thought of such a system
introduced into their free and happy country. But now what
are the facts ?
It cannot be denied that the doctrine of intolerance was
recognized in those days. It was certainly held to be the
1 The Spanish phrase is auto de ft. Auto daft is Portuguese, from which;
nation therefore we must have originally obtained the word.
�The Spanish Inquisition.
3
-duty both of the Church and of the State to treat heresy to
the Catholic faith as a crime commensurate with treason, and
to adopt stringent measures against its propagation. This was
a doctrine unquestioned in those days among all parties. Pro
testants and Catholics alike, in the countries where they had
the upper hand, proscribed and punished their opponents. It
did not occur to either side that any other course was rational.
Surely, they would have said, truth and error are not on
-equal terms. Truth has rights : it demands to be upheld and
promoted. Error has no rights : and is to be repressed and
•destroyed.
Our Protestant readers will here urge, that although this is
true, yet there is this difference between Protestantism and
■Catholicism, that, whilst the former now recognizes the sacred
■rights of religious liberty, the latter continues to be as intolerant
-as ever, and is always itching to persecute. In a certain sense
no doubt it is true that Catholics are still and always will be
intolerant of error, for their religion is founded on the conviction
-that God’s revelation is not a mere matter of subjective per■suasion, but an external fact attested by certain and convincing
proofs. No sane person would claim that virtue and vice
•ought to have equal toleration in the community, and the
attitude of manifest truth to manifest error does not differ,
in the abstract, in this respect from the attitude of manifest
virtue to manifest vice. If Protestants are, in the abstract,
advocates of universal toleration, this is because they do not
believe in any objective certainty of religious truth. Creed,
■for them, is matter of opinion, not of certain knowledge.
But although the two parties are necessarily divided in
theory, when we compare the same two parties in their practice,
the balance of intolerance, at least in the present day, and
indeed in the past also, would seem to be on the side of
Protestants : not indeed of Protestants generally, but of that
-class of Protestants—Exeter Hall Protestants as they used to
be called—who are so fond of flinging the Inquisition in our
faces. In old days each party assumed that its opponents
were not only in error, but in conscious error. Persecution
was supposed and expected to have the effect of making them
follow their consciences, not resist them. Nowadays we have
■come to realize more clearly how differently minds are con
stituted and how possible it is, in the medley of opposing
�4
I
i
The Spanish Inquisition.
creeds, not to perceive which out of them all is the truth.
This realization is general, and is certainly strongly felt by
Catholics, who are also moved by other similar considerations
to feel a great dislike for all attempts to coerce religious beliefs.
The realization seems to be less marked among Protestants of
the class just indicated. Consider, for instance, how often
when a man becomes convinced of the duty to turn Catholic,
Protestant relations and others have no scruples at all in
opposing temporal obstacles of the severest kind in his way.
And with this contrast the very great reluctance shown by
Catholic priests to receive converts into the Church until they
have been well instructed and thoroughly realize what they are
about.
These remarks have seemed to be necessary in order toremove a prejudice which might otherwise interfere with a
fair hearing of the considerations we have to offer in defence,
or rather in extenuation, of the Inquisition. It ought now
to be clear that the intolerance shown by this tribunal involves
no reflexion on the Catholic Church. Viewed historically, it
was intolerance accepted by the age as an obvious duty and
accepted by Protestants and Catholics alike. Viewed as a
basis of anticipation concerning the future, it cannot be con
sidered to forebode any likelihood of future similar “ persecu
tion ” of Protestants by Catholics, should the latter, which
does not seem likely, return once more to power.
We shall have to confine our attention to the Spanish
Inquisition established in the fifteenth century. The Inquisi
tion itself originated as far back as the twelfth century in.
Southern France, but nowhere and at no time did these
Inquisitorial courts indulge in the multitudinous capital con
victions chargeable to the later Inquisition in Spain. It is
this Spanish Inquisition which has occasioned the popular
outcry against the institution, although most Protestants
imagine that it was quite as bad in the other Catholic
countries. The Roman Inquisition is still existent. As it
does not fall within the scope of our subject-matter we must
be content to say that all along it was noted for its comparative
mildness, and that at the present day its work is to examine
and condemn books and propositions at variance with the
Catholic faith.
The Jews had in ancient days been far more numerous
�The Spanish Inquisition.
5
and influential in Spain than in any other country, and were
even credited with a policy of Judaizing the entire Peninsula.
They were accordingly much disliked by the Christian popula
tions, who sought to protect themselves by frequent and
stringent repressive laws, ecclesiastical and civil, directed
against the enemy. It may be mentioned here incidentally
that the Popes, such as Alexander II., the friend of Hildebrand,
and Honorius III., are found several times interposing and
protesting against the cruel treatment to which the Jews
became thus subjected. The race, however, evinced its wellknown vitality, and in the fourteenth century had acquired
important privileges for the preservation of the status of its
members, as well as their admission into some of the primary
offices of the Government. The results of the persecution
through which they had lived had been, on the other hand,
most pernicious in producing a class of Jews who were such
at heart, although by open profession they had become
Christians. These were in league with the open adherents
of their national creed, and were the more dangerous because
their machinations against the Catholic religion were carried
on in the dark. The extent of the evil may be realized some
what when it is said that not a few of these secret Jews had
risen to high ecclesiastical dignities, some even to bishoprics.
These and the like advantages of position, obtained by inter
marriage with noble families and the possession of great wealth,
they were unquestionably using, in the latter part of the
fifteenth century, with the determined policy of meeting
Judaism on the ruins of Spanish Catholicity and nationality.
Here was a very serious danger for the rulers of the country
to take into consideration, and they had the clamorous demands
of their terrified Christian subjects to urge them on to action.
The crisis came when Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of
Castile were the reigning monarchs. They met it by estab
lishing the “Spanish Inquisition.” It is called by this special
name because of its distinctive character. But the older
Inquisition had existed in Spain, and had still a staff of
officials in the Kingdom of Aragon, not, however, in Castile;
although Castile, much more than Aragon, was to be the home
of the renewed Inquisition now about to commence its harsh
career.
In 1478 (or possibly in 1480) the Sovereigns obtained a
�6
The Spanish Inqiiisition.
Bull from Sixtus IV. to establish a tribunal for searching out
heretics.
In virtue of its authorization, the tribunal waserected at Seville for the entire Kingdom of Castile, and twoDominicans, Miguel Morillo and Juan Martin, were by royal
appointment placed over it as royal inquisitors. After a
preliminary season allowed for efforts to gain back the hereticsby preaching and persuasion, the work of the tribunal com
menced in 1481. It began then, as it invariably began its
sessions in any part of the country, by proclaiming a period
of grace of sixty or more days, a period often prolonged. All
who came forward during such periods and confessed their
heresy, even if it were relapse, were reconciled without incurring
any severe penance. It is important, now that we have toconsider its doings, to remember that the Inquisition never
proceeded against the unconverted Jews, but only against
those who after having received Baptism had relapsed, openly
or secretly, into Judaism. Such persons were called Maranos.
In 1483, the famous Torquemada, Prior of the Dominican
convent of Segovia, was appointed Grand Inquisitor over the
whole of Castile, and shortly after the single court at Seville
was supplemented by three others at Cordova, Juan, and
Villa-Real (afterwards changed to Toledo). Torquemada held
office till 1498, when he was succeeded by Diego de Deza,
who in turn gave place to the Franciscan Cardinal Ximenez
in 1507.
About twenty years later, the Inquisition, continuing to
be employed against the Maranos, found another sphere for
its activity in the Moriscos of Granada. In 1480 war broke
out between the Spanish monarchs and the Moors, who
having been at one time the dominating race throughout
nearly the whole of Spain, still maintained possession of the
Kingdom of Granada in the south-east of the Peninsula. The
Spaniards conquered after a war of ten years’ continuance,
the Moors receiving for the time very favourable conditions,,
which among other things included freedom to retain their
national worship. The conquerors did not, however, understand
these terms to prevent them from sending Catholic mission
aries to preach to their new subjects, and encouraging con
versions by the offer of temporal advantages. We are not
maintaining that this was a judicious measure. Indeed, ex
perience proved that it was not, that it led to conversions
�The Spanish Inquisition.
7
which were far from solid in their character. The immediate
effect of the conversions obtained was to excite the anger of
the unconverted Moors, who began to persecute the Moriscos,
as the converted Moors were called. Eventually the uncon
verted rebelled, but they were subdued, and then were offered
the alternative of either suffering the penalties of treason which
they had incurred, or obtaining pardon by passing over to the
Christian religion and receiving Baptism. One can under
stand how this offer could be well-intentioned if only we bear
in mind what has been indicated already, that the Spaniards
were persuaded that the Moors in resisting the light of
Christianity when set before them were resisting the dictates
of their consciences. The measure was productive of its
natural results, natural as we perceive them to be. Many
conversions followed, of a more or less imperfectly sincere
kind, and afterwards there were continual attempts to apos
tatize. In fact, the very same difficulty emerged with regard
to the Moors and Moriscos, which had been felt over the Jews
and Maranos; or rather a worse difficulty, because the two
now became fused into one, by the secret sympathy and
combined efforts of the two races involved in the same trouble.
Hence the application of the Inquisition to the Moriscos (not
the Moors) to retain them in the Christian faith. Hefele,
however, tells us that it was never employed so extensively or
with such severity against the Moriscos as against the Maranos.
In 1524 these Moriscos, addressing the newly-appointed Grand
Inquisitor, Manriquez, say: “We have always been treated
justly by your predecessors, and properly protected by them.”
Clement VIII. forbade the confiscation of their property, or
the infliction of capital punishment upon them for apostacy.
We may call the campaign of the Inquisition against the
Maranos and Moriscos the first stage in its history. It lasted
till the middle of the reign of Charles V.
I he second stage of importance began some fifty years
later during the reign of Philip II. At this time there was an
attempt to introduce Protestantism into Spain, which was
resolutely resisted by the Spanish monarchs with the aid of
the Inquisition, and Philip, on this account, is wont to be
specially identified by Protestants with the cruelties of the
tribunal, although they appear to have been less marked in
his reign than in the earbor reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.
�8
The Spanish Inquisition.
ji
This second period lasted till the accession of the Bourbons,
when the danger from Protestantism was held to have passed
by. From that time onwards the activity of the tribunal was
much diminished, and was confined, says Balmez, to the
repression of infamous crimes and the exclusion of the
philosophy of Voltaire. By the end of the eighteenth century
the Inquisition was a shadow of its former self, and it was
abolished at the commencement of the present century, first
by the Bonapartist King Joseph, in 1808, and again, after
a short resuscitation on the return of the Bourbons, finally in
1830.
We can now deal with the charges of cruelty against the
Inquisition. These are due largely to the wealth of imagina
tion which seems to characterize anti-Catholic polemical
writers.. They have, however, a basis which might seem trust
worthy in a book on the Inquisition written near the beginning
of this century by one Antonio Llorente. Llorente was a
Spanish priest, who, although probably a Freemason, had
from 1789 to 1793, been Secretary-General to the Inquisition
at Madrid. When Joseph Bonaparte was placed by his brother
on the throne of Spain, and the Spanish people rose with
patriotic ardour against the usurpation, Llorente joined the
small body of anti-patriots called Afrancescados. This is note
worthy, as it reveals the character of the man. On the fall
of Joseph he was naturally banished from Spain and took
up his residence in Paris. There he wrote his History of the
Inquisition, with the aid of the official documents he had
pillaged from its archives at Madrid whilst he was enjoying
the favour of King Joseph. The book is complete in its way;
that is to say, it narrates the history of the tribunal from its
commencement to its abolition, and gives detailed accounts
of the more famous historical processes and autos da fe. It
is apparent, however, on the surface, how the author exaggerates
everything. that tells against the Inquisition, and misconstrues
all that is in its favour, particularly any action taken in regard
to it by the Popes; and one has strong suspicions that he
must be omitting altogether a great deal which would materially
reduce his indictment. But there is one thing full of signifi
cance about this writer. He tells us himself, in his work,
I burnt with his (King Joseph’s) approbation all the criminal
processes, save those which belong to history by their import-
�The Spanish Inquisition.
9
ance or celebrity, or by the quality of the person, as that of
Caranza, and of Macanez, and a few others. But I preserved
intact the register of resolutions of Council, royal ordinances,
bulls and briefs from Rome, and all genealogies,” Ac.1 For
such conduct there can be no excuse. As Balmez reasonably
demands, “Was there no place to be found in Madrid to
place them (the proceedings and documents), where they
could be examined by those who, after Llorente, might wish
to write the history of the Inquisition from the original docu
ments!” In consequence of this prudent act of barbarism,
we are constrained to base our examination of the tribunal
almost entirely on the testimony of this biassed witness. Still,
even under these disadvantages, we have the means of rectify
ing the current Protestant notions. We will now consider one
by one the charges against the tribunal enumerated above,
not, however, necessarily taking them in the order there given.
As to the number of the victims, Llorente gives the follow
ing statistics: In the year 1481, 2,000 burnt and 17,000
penanced; in 1482, 88 burnt and 625 penanced; in 1483,
688 burnt and 5,727 penanced; from 148410 1498 (that is,
under Torquemada), 6,024 burnt and 66,654 penanced; from
Torquemada to the suppression of the tribunal, 23,112 burnt
and 201,244 penanced. On Llorente’s authority these alarm
ing numbers are invariably adopted by anti-inquisition writers,
whose readers naturally assume that Llorente took them from
the official records in his possession. In fact, however, they
are mere inferences of a very unreasonable kind from three
very slight statements of ancient writers, one of whom he
grossly misunderstands. Mariana, as misread by Llorente,
is supposed to say that in 1481, the year when the Inquisition
commenced its proceedings, 2,000 persons were burnt at the
stake, and 17,000 others penanced at Seville alone. Another
writer, Bernaldez, is made to say that, also at Seville, from
1482 to 1.189 (in reality, he says, from 1481 to 1488), over
700 were burnt and 5,000 penanced. And an inscription on
the Quemadero (the platform where the condemned were
burnt), at Seville, records that from 1492 to 1524 nearly 1,000
were there burnt, and 20,000 abjured their heresy.
Taking Mariana's supposed statement as it stands, for the
year 1481, Llorente calculates from Bernaldez an annual
1 iv. 145(i*)
�io
The Spanish Inquisition.
average for the years 1482—1489, and from the Quetnadero
inscription for the entire remainder of the Inquisition's auration, making, that is to say, gradual reductions at intervals
to allow for the known growth of leniency as time ran on.
These figures by themselves refer only to the one court at
Seville. To obtain figures for the other courts, added in course
of time, he multiplies those for Seville, after having with
a show of generosity, first halved them. Can anything be
more untrustworthy than such a computation, assuming, as it
does, that the multiplication of tribunals within the same area
of jurisdiction involves a corresponding multiplication of con
demned persons, and that the number of condemnations has
preserved a calculable average through centuries? Nor is this
the only vice. Mariana does not say 2,000 were burnt at
Seville in 1481. If he did, he would contradict Bernaldez,
since, as we have noticed, Bernaldez includes 1481 in his eight
years. Mariana (1592) is in agreement with Pulgar, an earlier
writer, (1545), who tells us that these 2,000 were burnt during
Torquemada’s entire time (1484—1498), and that, not in Seville
only, but in the various places to which his activity extended.
Mr. Legge, a non-Catholic writer in the Scottish Review
(April, 1891), has adjusted Llorente’s calculations to this
rectified reading of Mariana, and his figures may be set down
with advantage for comparison with those just given. In 1481,
298 burnt and 5,960 penanced; in 1482, 88 burnt and 625
penanced; in 1483, 142 burnt and 2,840 penanced; from
1484 to 1498, 2,000 burnt and 40,000 penanced. That is,
from 1481 to 1498, 2,528 burnt and 49,425 penanced against
Llorente’s 8,800 burnt and 90,006 penanced. From 1498
onwards, having no means at hand of testing them, Mr. Legge
gives a sceptical adhesion to Llorente’s figures. Still, even
Mr. Legge, through not adverting to Llorente’s mistake of a
year in his citation of the. passage in Bernaldez, has not
reduced these initial facts to their true proportion. The year
1481? according to Llorente’s system, being the inaugural year
of the Inquisition, must claim to itself a very large proportion
of the 700 which Bernaldez assigns to the period (1481-8).
This would reduce the annual average for the years following
from Llorente’s (and Mr. Legge’s) 88 to about 40, and would
involve a consequent reduction in the annual average for sub
sequent years at Seville and elsewhere.
�The Spanish Inquisition.
11
We have, however, to bear in mind that inferences like
these, deducing the criminal statistics of many districts and
many centuries from one to two slight data appertaining to a
place and time of exceptional severity, are most hazardous.
To what extent this is true, will be the better felt if we make a
similar inference from a few chance criminal statistics referring
to our own country. Hamilton’s History of Quarter Sessions
from Elizabeth to Anne,1 gives us the gaol returns at Exeter for
1598. In this year the total result of the two assizes and four
quarter sessions was the hanging of 74 persons, many for crimes
no greater than sheep-stealing. Starting from these facts Sir
James Stephen2 gathers that, “if the average number of execu
tions in each county were 20, or a little more than a quarter
of the number of capital sentences in Devonshire in 1598, this
would make 800 executions a year in the 40 English counties.”
That is 11,200 in 14 years against Torquemada’s 2,000 (or
6,024), in the same period, and some reduction on 264,000
executions in a period of 330 years, the duration of the Inquisi
tion in Spain, against Llorente’s 23,112 burnt and 201,244
penanced by this tribunal within that time.
Mr. Legge provides, in the article referred to, another
instance very much in point, since it deals with an offence
kindred to heresy. He cites Mr. Mackay’s Curious Super
stitions? for a computation that in Scotland from the passing
of the Act against witches under Queen Mary, an Act due not
of course to her helplessness but to the imperious harshness of
John Knox—from this date to the accession of the King
fames I. 17,000 witches were burnt in Scotland, whilst in
England 40,000 supposed witches perished in this way between
1600 and 1680, 3,000 during the Long Parliament which
undertook its struggle with the Crown in the cause of civil
and religious liberty. It would not do to place too much
trust in these numbers. Mr. Mackay is a popular writer, not
a historian, and sets down without criticism the figures he finds
in ancient authors. It does not seem to occur to him that
such authors are merely making wild guesses and in no sense
relying on accurate statistics.
However, we only require
one illustration of wild statistics to set against another.
Mr. Legge remarks upon these data that, “ even supposing
the figures are, as one would fain hope, grossly exaggerated,
1 P. 31.
* History of the English Criminal I.aw, i. 467.
* i. 237.
�12
The Spanish Inquisition.
it would appear that the whole number of Inquisition victims
would hardly have afforded the witch-hunters of our own land
sport for 50 years.” Even when we go further and distrust
altogether these inferential statistics, whether in Spain, England,
or elsewhere, there seems little doubt that the judicial waste
of life in England surpassed that in Spain. Witchcraft, it
must be remembered, was an offence which in Spain came
under the cognizance of the Inquisition, as did many other
offences, partaking to a greater or less degree of a religious
character, which did not amount to heresy.
The next charge we have to deal with is the mode of
execution employed by the Inquisition. The punishment of
fire seems to us cruel and revolting. We moderns cannot
tolerate the idea of its infliction on any class of offenders.
But this was not the feeling of our ancestors, who were un
doubtedly, and regrettably, far sterner and harsher than their
descendants, yet are not on that account to be condemned
en masse as a generation of savages. There is plenty of proof
that they had tender hearts like our own. The truth is that
human nature is so one-sided. We moderns fix our attention
on the acuteness of human pain, and perhaps forget somewhat
the gravity of crime. The ancients realized less the throbbings
of pain in the criminal’s body, as indeed they were less im
patient of it in their own, but they realized more the outrage
of his guiltj and aimed by their severities at preventing its
recurrence. Moreover, it would be a great mistake to suppose
that the Inquisition alone is responsible for execution by fire.
Witches were punished at the stake in England, Germany, &c.
and it was not only to ecclesiastical offences that this mode
of death was allotted. It was also the English punishment
for high treason, in the case of a woman, or if she murdered
her husband. In the Carolina, a code drawn up by the
Emperor Charles V. in 1532, and considered to be an inno
vation in the direction of greater leniency towards criminals, it
is the punishment for circulating base coin and other offences.
In France, too, it was in use for certain civil crimes, among
others for poisoning. We have also to remember that ancient
justice knew of harsher modes of death even than the stake.
On the continent there was the revolting punishment of the
wheel, to which the body of the criminal was tied with tight
cords, and where, his bones having been broken by severe
�The Spanish Inquisition
13
blows, he was left to linger in his agonies for hours or days, as
the case might be, till death came to release him. This was
■quite a common punishment for simple murder in France till
the time of the Revolution. It was in use in Protestant Prussia
as late as 1841. Nor has England any cause to boast of
-her greater mildness. The punishment for high treason was,
to be drawn on the hurdle from the prison to the gallows,
to be hanged for a while, to be cut down while still living, to
■undergo a shocking mutilation, and to have the bowels torn out
and burnt before the victim’s face. His heart was then pulled
out and cast into the fire, his body quartered and beheaded,
and the parts exposed in five different places to be the food of
the birds. In the time of Henry VIII. an Act was passed
decreeing that poisoning should be accounted high treason,
and punished by boiling to death. And the Chronicler of the
■Grey Friars writes: “This year (1531), was a cook boiled in
a cauldron in Smithfield, for he would have poisoned the
Bishop of Rochester, Fisher, with divers of his servants, and
he was locked in a chain, and pulled up and down with a
gibbet at divers times till he was dead.” From Wriothesley’s
Chronicle we further learn that this punishment was not
deemed unsuitable for a woman. “This yeare (1532), the
17th of March, was boyled in Smithfeild one Margret Davie,
a mayden, which had poysoned 3 householdes,” ucc. In the
Low Countries on the establishment of Protestant ascendency
it was decreed that Balthassar Gerard, the assassin of William
the Silent, should have “his right hand burnt off with a red-hot
•iron, his flesh torn from his bones with pincers in six different
places, that he should be quartered and disembowelled alive,
that his heart should be torn from his bosom and flung in his
face, and finally that his head should be cut off.”1
If the Inquisition is to be condemned so severely for not
■emancipating itself from the ideas of its age in the matter of
harsh punishments, at least it should receive credit for not
having resorted to these refinements of cruelty which were
abounding everywhere around it. It was not even primarily
responsible for the selection of the fire, as its peculiar mode of
-execution. . The assignment of this punishment to heresy
■was the State’s, not the Church’s, choice. The Church
banded the heretic over to the secular arm to be punished
1 Motley’s Rise of the Dutch Republic, iil 612.
�The Spanish Inquisition.
according to the law of the land. Protestant writers sneer ar
this distinction, but it is real. The Inquisitors , might perhapshave scented heresy in the civil authorities, had they neglectedto punish the condemned heretics, and of course they knew
what the legal civil punishment was. But there is no ground
for supposing they would have opposed themselves violently
to any general scheme for the mitigation of the mode of
punishment.
We must bear in mind also another fact if we are toestimate the large number sent to the stake at their right value
as an index of the disposition, cruel or temperate, of the
Inquisitors. Great efforts up to the last moment were alwaysmade to induce the condemned to acknowledge his errors and.
recant. Llorente himself, in the statistics he gives of several
autos da ft, shows that the proportion of those who recanted
to those who persisted in their heresy was large. When therecantation came after relapse it did not usually procure re
mission of the death-sentence, but it always procured a material
alleviation of its severity. The condemned were in that casefirst strangled, and not till life was extinct were the bodies
committed to the flames.
But, it will be said, how vain to seek to exculpate the
Inquisition from the charge of savagery, when the autos da ftat which the victims perished at the stake in vast numbers at
a time were treated as religious spectacles, appropriate for daysof festal gathering, presided over by ecclesiastics, and sanc
tioned by the presence of the King in full state.
This is doubtless the popular impression of an auto da fe,.
but it is quite erroneous. There was no stake at the auto itself.
These assemblages were unquestionably of a religious nature,,
and were conducted by the Inquisitors. Their purpose, how
ever, was primarily not to punish, but to reconcile. Those who,,
having erred from the faith, had been induced to return.to it,
made their public recantation, or auto da 7? (“act of faith”),,
and having a penance assigned to them, harsh doubtless
according to our ideas, but still not that of death, were
solemnly absolved and reconciled to the Church. It was inview of this that Mass was sung and sermons preached. The“ relaxed ” were those who, though at the auto, could not beinduced to join in it. They were, therefore, after the judgment,,
not. the sentence had been pronounce-d over them, “relaxed,”’
�The Spanish Inquisition.
15
that is, delivered over to the civil power for sentence and
punishment under its arm. The proportion of the “ relaxed ”
to the “penanced” was at all times comparatively small, often
■very small indeed. Llorente1 mentions the five autos held at
Toledo, in i486, as illustrations of the enormous number of
victims, 3,300 in all. Yet out of this large number only 27
were relaxed, and perhaps if he had carried his classification a
step further we should have found that a dozen at the most were
burnt alive. At the two famous autos at Valladolid, in 1559,
famous because the chief of those which dealt with the
Lutherans, out of 71 victims, 26 were relaxed (apparently an
•unusually large proportion), but 2 only of these were burnt
alive. At a public auto at Seville, May 29, 1648, we learn
from the published Relation, that out of 52 condemned only 1
was relaxed in person, and he, recanting, was garrotted before
he was burnt. At the three autos at Seville, in 1721, the
Relations give, out of 130 condemned, 27 relaxed and 5 burnt
alive. The “ relaxation,” or deliverance into the hands of the
civil officials, accomplished, the latter led away their prisoners
either at once, or, more usually, after a day or more's detention
in the civil prisons, to the place of public execution. Here the
ecclesiastics had no place. They could have t jo place (except
■of course that of confessors to the condemned, which is not in
question); for to participate in the infliction of capital punish
ment would have caused them to incur the canonical punish
ment called “irregularity,” which prohibited from performing
the functions of the sacred ministry. At these public execu
tions, the King may at times have been present in person,
as Philip II. was in 1559. But the Relation of the abovementioned auto at Seville (May 29, 1648) happens to mention
the nature of the usual attendance, “ Innumerable boys, the
troublesome attendants of such criminals, followed the cortege
to the Quemadero.” There had assembled “a numerous
multitude on foot, on horse, and in coaches, attracted by the
novelty of the spectacle.” This reminds us of the assemblages
at public executions at Newgate, only that it seems to have
been more respectable, and, one would hope, was more deeply
sensible of the solemnity of an act of public justice.
Another item in the punishment of the condemned to
■which exception has been taken, was the confiscation of their
1 t 338-
�16
The Spanish Inquisition.
goods, an aggravation of the acutest kind to the sufferer, who
thus saw those whom he loved best involved in ruin on his
account, and a gross injustice to them as the crime was
certainly not theirs. To this we may reply that whether
confiscation of goods, in view of its effect on the innocent
offspring, is an improper punishment to inflict or not, is a
question worthy of discussion, and modem opinion appears
to solve it in the negative. The practice was, however-,
universal in former days (there are even some relics of it in
the existing laws of England) in the case of treason and
felony, crimes with which heresy was considered to be
equivalent, and it does not appear why the Inquisition
should be chargeable with its adherence to the accepted,
methods in this particular any more than in that of death by
burning. It should, however, in fairness be borne in mind,,
that the time of grace always allowed and generally extended
before the Inquisition began to hold its sessions in a neighbour
hood, was specially designed to enable the suspected to avoid
confiscation as well as other punishments by timely sub
mission ; also that the sovereigns were wont to restore some
portion to the widows and orphans if innocent; that the
property of the Moriscos was declared not liable to thisconfiscation, but passed on to the heirs; and finally that the
Holy See in its frequent interpositions to secure greaterleniency was particularly insistent in protecting the children
of the condemned heretics, and thereby became implicated
in many disputes with the Spanish sovereigns, who complained
of the consequent loss to the royal exchequer.
We have next to consider the charges against the pro
cedure of the Tribunal: so unfair to the accused, who was
not allowed to have the name of his accusers or even the
exact text of their accusation against him. The fact is, that
the facilities for preparing his defence allowed by the Inquisi
tion to the accused, contrast favourably with those allowed
in the contemporary civil courts of our own country as well
as of the rest of Europe. It has been urged as so hard that
the text of the accusation should be altered before being,
submitted to the accused, and that his accusers should not
be confronted with him. The names of the accusers were
not given, in order that their identity might be concealed,,
but the text was only altered in unessentials so far as was.
�The Spanish Inqicisition.
17
•necessary to preserve this concealment. On the other hand,
in England and elsewhere not the names of the accusers only,
•but the charges made by them, were concealed from the
•prisoner’s knowledge up to the time of his appearance in
•court, so that it was quite impossible for him to prepare a
•carefully thought-out defence. Nor was the English prisoner
allowed an advocate at all in criminal cases, whereas the
prisoner of the Inquisition was allowed and given one. It
is true such an advocate had to be of the number of those in
the service of the Inquisition, or at all events must take its
■oath of secresy. This also was a necessity to preserve the
?secresy about the accusers. But he was under oath to do his
best to set forth any truthful defence the accused might have.
In the English trials, again, the accused was not allowed to
bring forward witnesses on his behalf, whereas in the Inquisi
tion he was, and could even require them to be summoned
.from the most remote regions. Possibly some readers will be
.astonished that such unfairness should be imputed to the
English system, but that it was so may be read in Sir James
-Stephen’s work already referred to.1 The notion current in
•those times was that either the accuser proved his case against
the accused, or he failed to prove it If the latter, a verdict
■of acquittal was already due and rendered witnesses for the
•accused unnecessary; if the former, any witness in the
contrary sense must either be irrelevant or perjured. That
the. truth could emerge out of the conflict of opposing
testimonies thoroughly sifted, did not enter into the minds
•of the English and other civil jurists. It was the merit of
the Inquisition to have grasped in no small degree the rational
.principles now realized.
But why should the names of the accusers have been con
cealed? Could there be any ground for veiling these trials in
■secresy save to press unfairly on the poor victims ? There is
-a great prejudice in our times against secret trials as pressing
•unfairly on the accused, but we have occasional reminders
that an open trial may also have its disadvantages. To pass
■over the question of the injury often done to the reputation
of third parties, it has occasionally been forced on public
attention that crimes cannot be put down, because witnesses
know that by giving evidence they expose themselves to great
1 p- 350c
�18
The Spanish Inquisition.
risks, the accused having powerful friends to execute vengeance
in their behalf. This was exactly the case with the Inquisition.
We have already described the state of affairs in Spain which,
first caused it to be Set in motion. The Maranos and the
Moriscos had great power through their wealth, position, and
secret bonds of alliance with the unconverted Jews and Moors.
These would certainly have endeavoured to neutralize the
efforts of the Holy Office had the trials been open.
Torquemada, in his Statutes of 1484, gives expressly this
defence of secresy: “ It has become notorious that great
damage and danger would accrue to the property and person
of the witnesses, by the publication of their names, asexperience has shown, and still shows, that several of them
have been killed, wounded, or maltreated by heretics.” The
truth about secret trials seems to be that they impose a muchgreater responsibility on the judges. If a judge is unfair, aswe know from history judges have often been, publicity is p
valuable check upon them. But as long as the judge isimpartial, it is quite possible to work a secret trial in such a
manner as to reach a just conclusion, particularly when the
court has the power to “ inquire,” that is, seek out evidence,,
and is not tied to the mere evidence set before it by others.
In the case of inquiries about heresy, there was also this to*
diminish the otherwise greater difficulties of the secret pro
cedure. Past heresy was of comparatively small account if
there was undoubted present orthodoxy, and on this point
evidence of a conclusive kind could be furnished on the spot
by the accused person if only he chose to furnish it. Provision
was of course made by the Inquisition to obviate the chancesof unjust accusations and to give the accused every reasonable
chance of setting forth his defence. They are provisionsobviously dictated by the desire to be impartial and evenclement, as well as efficacious. It would take too much spaceto give them here, but they can be seen in Hefele or morefully in Llorente himself, who, if we separate his facts from>
his insinuations, is a valuable apologist of the institution he
attacks. In the present connexion there is one thing in his.
pages worthy of special note. In the accounts of many
famous processes which he gives, you cannot help feeling:
that the court invariably succeeds in arriving at the truedecision. Llorente’s charge against it is in each case too*
�The Spanish Inquisition.
19.
patently, not that it convicted of heresy those who werenot heretics, but that it did not give real heretics sufficient
chances of slipping through their hands. It is absurd and.
illogical to mix up charges. Whether heresy is a crime or not,
is one point; whether the law is bound to afford guilty persons,
facilities for escaping justice is another. On the former wehave already offered some remarks; as to the latter, one would,
imagine no remarks were needed.
The next charge against the Inquisition is its use of torture.
We are all agreed that the practice is cruel and happily
obsolete. But again, why is the Inquisition to be more blame
worthy than other European courts of the period ? Torturewas everywhere in use whilst it was in use with the Inquisition,
and became obsolete there when it grew into disfavour else
where. It is indeed the boast of English lawyers that it was.
never a part of the English procedure, and this is true of the
ordinary procedure. But it was employed in England never
theless, under the prerogative of the Crown, particularly during,
the Tudor and early Stuart period. “ Under Henry VIII. it
appears to have been in frequent use. Only two cases occurred
under Edward VI., and eight under Mary. The reign of
Elizabeth was its culminating point. In the words of Hallam,
‘ The rack seldom stood idle in the Tower during the latter
part of Elizabeth’s reign.’”1 And we may add incidentally
that while Edward and Mary do not appear to have employed
it in cases of heresy, Elizabeth employed it ordinarily and
ruthlessly against the Catholics. If, too, in England torture
was not employed under the ordinary procedure, Sir James
Stephen tells us2 this was merely because the ordinary pro
cedure had slight scruples about convicting on very insufficient
evidence. Torture was employed by the Inquisition, as by
other courts, in order to extract evidence which could not.
be otherwise verified, and so obtain the certainty, if it existed,
without which no conviction was possible. In short, if we
are to compare the Inquisition with other contemporary courts,
whether in Spam or England or elsewhere, in regard to the
employment of torture, the result must be to award the Inquisi
tion the palm of greater mercy. It limited largely the number
of those who could inflict it, permitted its infliction only when,
the evidence against the prisoner amounted already to a semi
1 Encycl. Brit. s.v. “Torture.”
2 Op. cit. i. 222.
�20
The Spanish Inquisition.
plena probatio (i.e. nearly complete proof), permitted it only
once in each case, and required the presence of the inquisitor
and the ordinary, not, as is popularly thought, to gloat over the
agonies of the sufferer, but to see that the experiment was
■conducted with as much mercy and mildness as was possible
under the conditions. These precautions do not seem to have
•existed in the same degree in England.
In like manner the charge of inhumanity against the
■dungeons of the Inquisition needs only to be dealt with by
the comparative method in order to melt away. Is the story
told, only a century ago, by John Howard and Elizabeth Fry,
.as to the state of English and continental prisons so completely
forgotten? Doubtless the prison cells of the past were in
flagrant opposition to the dictates of humanity, and one can
only marvel that they could last so long without encountering
the protests of the merciful. The Inquisition was naturally
governed in this respect also by contemporary methods, though
analogy would lead us to surmise that here too it was to seme
•extent in advance of its age. One thing at least we may hope,
that it had no dungeon like that into which, under Elizabeth,
Father Sherwood was put in the Tower of London. This we
learn from Jardine, “was a cell below high-water mark and
totally dark; and, as the tide flowed, innumerable rats which
infested the muddy banks of the Thames were driven through
the crevices of the walls into the dungeons.”1 Alarm was the
least part of the torture to the terrified inmates. At times
flesh was torn from the arms and legs of the prisoners during
sleep by these rats. And this was after a century of enlighten
ment had separated a new age from that of Torquemada. We
have Llorente’s unimpeachable testimony for the improvement
that had set in by the commencement of the present century.
At that time he tells us the cells were “ good vaulted chambers
well lighted and dry,” and “ large enough for exercise.” Nor
were chains in use, unless perhaps in an isolated case to
prevent suicide.2 As much could not have been said of the
generality of English prisons at that date.
The last charge relates to the manner of the arrests. That
the Inquisition established an all-embracing system of espionnage
through the agency of secret officials called “ familiars ” is an
^important feature in the Protestant conception of its methods.
1 Cf. Jardine’s Readings on the -use of Torture in England.
2 i. p. 300.
�The Spanish Inquisition.
21
But the 11 familiars ” were not a secret body. They were a»
sort of militia containing a large number, perhaps a majority,
of religious-minded, influential persons. The purpose of
their enrolment as such was not to spy out heresies, but to
constitute an organized fund of physical force in support of
the tribunal against the very considerable power of the heretics
it was endeavouring to over-master. They had a large part
in the conduct of the autos da fe, and apparently the officials,,
apparitors, &c., of the court were of their number. But there
is no ground for thinking them to be mysterious beings with
cat-like tread such as a morbid fancy has depicted them.
Arrests were perhaps at times made in secresy. This is usual
and according to common sense when otherwise an arrest
might be successfully impeded. But that after arrest, no
news of what had happened were allowed to transpire, or a
word of allusion to the occurrence to be made, is absurd. As
soon as an arrest was made, an official of the court was at
once sent to the prisoner’s house to take an inventory of his
possessions. How could this be done and the family remain
in ignorance of what had nappen ed? That all conversation
about the arrests made was xOrbidden seems also altogether
improbable, and at least requires to be established by proof,
not imagination. At the best, there may be this slight ground
for the notion. To manifest sympathy with the heresy, not
the person, of the prisoner, would be to repeat the fault of
which he was suspected, and to incur its liabilities. In all
cases, when a criminal has been carried off by justice, it im
prudent for his accomplices to observe reticence.
No other charge occurs to us demanding notice in a short
pamphlet, but readers who desire fuller information may be
referred to Hefele’s excellent chapters on the subject in hisLife of Cardinal Xinienez. All that now remains for us here
is to correct the notion that the Holy See is responsible for
the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition. It is disputed
among authorities whether the tribunal ought not to be
regarded as a royal rather than a papal court, and BishopHefele is strongly of this view. The inquisitors were, however,
unquestionably ecclesiastics, and drew their jurisdiction from
Papal Bulls. In this sense the court was certainly Papal, but
the appointments were all made by the Crown, and the Crown,,
not the Pope, is responsible for the harshness. The Papal
�:2 2
The Spanish Inquisition.
power of control, though theoretically absolute, was practically
small. The Popes met with constant opposition from the
Spanish monarchs in all their attempts to interpose. They
did, however, interpose frequently, both by protests, by threatsof excommunication, by drawing to themselves appeals, and
sometimes by revising largely in the sense of mercy or even
altogether remitting sentences passed by the tribunal. We are
•dependent for our information concerning this matter on
Llorente, who alone has had access to the Papal Letters. He
.gives us some letters of expostulation written by Sixtus IV.,
and these exhibit this Pope just as we should expect to find
-a Pope, anxious to put down heresy, and therefore granting
the spiritual faculties solicited by the sovereigns for their
nominees, and even exhorting them to zeal in their work; but
at the same time desirous that the zeal should be tempered by
mercy, and deeply incensed when he discovered that the claims
of mercy were so disregarded. It is the voice of genuine
compassion which speaks out in terms like these, “ Since it is
clemency which, as far as is possible to human nature, makes
men equal to God, We ask and entreat the King and Queen
by the tender mercies of our Lord Jesus Christ to imitate Him
whose property it is ever to show mercy and to spare, and so
to spare the citizens of Seville and its diocese,” &c. Nor did
Sixtus stay at words. First he appointed the Archbishop of
Seville as a judge of appeal, and, when this arrangement failed
■of its effect, he allowed the victims to carry appeals to Rome,
where already they had fled in large numbers, hopeful of
obtaining, as they did obtain, either complete absolution or a
large alleviation of their penance from that merciful tribunal.
Surely it is a significant fact that fugitives from the harshness
■of the Spanish Inquisition should have thought of Rome as
the best refuge to which they could flee. Succeeding Popes
are stated by Llorente to have made similar endeavours to
mitigate the extreme severities of the inquisitors. They were,
however, invariably foiled by the Spanish sovereigns, who had
the power in their hands.
Llorente tries to take the edge off these remonstrances of
the Holy See by insinuating that they sprang from the base
motive of cupidity; that the Popes had an eye to the fees they
could extort as the price of their absolutions. But this is mere
insinuation for which there is not a shadow of proof. The
�The Spanish Inquisition.
23
-action of the Popes in regard to the Inquisition is quite in
•keeping with the character that has always been theirs. The
Popes as individuals have had their personal qualities. Some
have been sterner, others milder, in their temperament and
in their rule. But the Holy See has all along stood out
■among the thrones of Christendom conspicuous for its
love of mercy and tenderness towards the erring and the
■suffering.
And not the Holy See only, but the clergy also, if we take
them as a body. As the ministers of Jesus Christ, more entirely
devoted to His service and more exclusively occupied with the
study of His Life, this is what would be expected of them.
And what honest historian of the past, or observer of the
present, can deny that the expectation has been realized ? It
was the clergy, in the wild middle ages, who were the refuge
of the weak and oppressed against the lawless monarchs and
chieftains : it was they who originated charitable institutions
under so many forms. And in our own days, they are engaged
everywhere in exactly the same work. This does not mean,
that the Catholic laity are backward in charitable enterprises.
It means only that the clergy are wont to be the leaders in
such works. Surely then it is reasonable to judge of their part
in the Inquisition by these analogies, and this is all we have
been contending for. The Inquisition belonged to an age
which was far harsher in dealing with crime than our own, and
the clergy are always, necessarily, imbued with the ideas and
feelings that are in the air they breathe. We ought not to be
surprised to find that when they acted as Inquisitors, they
adopted methods prevalent in their age, which to us seem
harsh and revolting. But we should expect also that their
judicial behaviour would in some sort reflect the tender-hearted
ness in all other respects demonstratively characteristic of their
body. In a word, the faults which we deplore in these Inqui
sitors were the faults of their age, which happily has passed
away. The redeeming qualities we discover in them were
the virtues natural to their state. The latter survive, and
we may hope, ripen, and they furnish a guarantee which
should give satisfaction to terrified Protestants, that our
return to power, if so unlikely a thing should be in the near
future, will not bling with it any danger to their lives and
liberties.
�24
The Spanish Inquisition.
It will be convenient to sum up what has been established)
in a few propositions.
1. The intolerance of Catholics consists in this that they
believe our Lord has made His revelation sufficiently clear for'
all men to recognize it if they will. Still, modern Catholics,
have no desire to coerce those who will not recognize it. The
tolerance of Protestants consists in this that they believe every
one must be left to his private judgment in a matter so obscureas the true religion. But they persecute those whose private
judgment recommends them to become Catholics.
2. No one wants back the Spanish Inquisition, but althoughfollowing the notions of its age, it put to death altogether a
very large number of heretics, the English civil courts put todeath many more for lesser crimes—like sheep-stealing.
3. Torture employed by the Inquisition in conformity with
the common law of Spain, but with greater restrictions. Torture
employed in England much more fiercely, in spite of thecommon law of England. The culminating point of its use in.
England was under Elizabeth, who inflicted it ruthlessly on
Catholics.
4. Names of accusers for their security concealed in Spain
from the accused, but the accusation given him and the assist
ance of an advocate. No advocates allowed in English criminal
trials of former days, and accusations not shown to the accused
till he came into court.
5. Inquisition dungeons probably never worse than contem
porary English dungeons, and certainly much better in the
latter days of its existence.
6. The victims of the Inquisition had such a belief in the
humanity of the Popes that they fled to his territory and begged
to have their cases judged there.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Spanish Inquisition
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Smith, Sydney F. (Sydney Fenn) [1843-1922]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1891?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1544
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Spanish Inquisition
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Spanish Inquisition), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Spanish Inquisition