The Papacy in History.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13655, 25 July 1908, Page 3 (Supplement)

The Papacy in History.

George Sampson ■in his review of "The History cf the Popes during the last four centuries?' (by Leo. Von Ranke), Bohn edition, says: Reprints come and reprints go. but Bohn goes on for ever. This is as it should be; for in an age of hustle, Bohn insists on dignity; in an age of flimsiiuss, Bohn stands for solidity; in an age of serappinees, Bohn embodies the beauty of wholeness. Bohn has soared beyond criticism. It is a national institution, like the Bishops or the Boat Bate ; and if people have mocked its more venerable volumes—well, there was once a distill-; puished stateman who not only damned Ihe North Pole, but spoke disrespectfully of the. Equator. Here is the lato-t addition. RaukeY famous history in three-com-pact cxcelleiitly-printed volttmesT embellished with portraits after Raphael, Velasquez,'and Titian —not the old three volutins, but a. new set, following the last German edition, completely revised and fully indexed by Mr. G. R. M. Dennis—altogether the meat dtsirab'e edition of an indispensable history. 1 hope that Messrs. Bell will match it by giving us Gregorovivs in the same admirable form. Thanks to Macaulay. Most of the readers, I suppose, get their first acquaintance- with Ranke's work from Ma<;anlay*s admirable essay thereon ; and it is worthy of note that both es.vay and history—like the latter accounts of the Papacy written by Creighton and Nielsen—hare: come; from non-Catholicc. In many ways this is an advantage. The normal man is as ill-fitted to.write the history of his own church as to write the story of his own life. The looker-on sees moiit of the game', provided that. L© understands -what,, he sees, and doesn't take sidtts too violently. The latter provision is important in any case, but especially important in ecclesiastical history ; for it is notorious that men's feelings run them towards violence and distortion more readily in matters spiritual than in ma'tbeus temporal. "Of course no writer in this fallible world can be quite free from bias; but if our religious his, tofian has knowledge- and sympathy, we idiall forgive" him his little prejudice. In' truth, we do not really want impartial history or impartial opinions, though we pretend we do. An impartial newspaper, even if it were possible .or desirable.; would not exist for a week. When we ask people for a fair and- .unbiassed opinion, we invariably mean an opinion that, agrees with his own. We want our one-sidedness supported, not .straightened,. and -above all,: we want it called the Truth: ; We like to feel, and, generally, we do feel, that people who differ ffoin lis are either •stupid or perverse. We like obliquity, but we want it under the name of rectitude. Our fault'is.not that we are biassed, but that we do not know we are; we cannot understand other people, because we do not understand ourselves.

The Complete Truth. 'This attitude of mind, this unconscious exaltation of our own opinion as the Complete Tiuth about things is noticeably apparent in mcst. English historians when they come to deal with re'.igimis matt''is. Indeed, I am beginning to believe that English history has been written chiefly by Orangemen so narrowly and exclusively Protestant in its outlook. Tt pt, forward Protestantism not ps one view of things, but as the right view of things. The other day, I fonnd an elaborate review of Lord Acton's latest published CMiiivs gravely assuring the world * that of coume this Catholic historian writes with bias, and cannot pretend to a Protestant's candour, of judgement—a charmingly ingenuous assumption in any case, but especially fatuous in tibe case of Acton, surely" the most fair of all historions. -Reduced to its elements, the statement comes to-this: Tn a Catholic historian you will find Catholic views; in;"a Protestant historian you will find the Truth. Most Englishmen read, and writ© history upon this assumption; and. thus, grotesque sectarianism is taught and

studied in almost every 6chool. The only thing that children seem to learn about the parent Church of their native land is that wicked Catholic Mary habitually burnt good protestane at Smilhfield. In every school manual of history there is a shameful unfairness to Catholici:—unfairness of silence, and unfairness of accus-

ation, unfairness that is only matched by an equal unfairness to Ireland. Let nic adduce as an equal, specimen of this goi-pel according to Ulster, Mr. C. It. L. Fletcher's pert and slangy volumes, the honest John Bullery of which can be gathered from statements like this : The Great Charter of England had the supreme- honour and good fortune to get itself cancelled by the Pope at a dirty little town in Southern Italy.

Mr. Fletcher assures vs. that, as part of his studies, he listened to the veteran Ranke at Berlin. He might have listened with more advantage. Our Historic Attitude.

To me (a complete Englishman, and as far from being a Catholic as. I am.from adopting the Ulster creed) the English historical attitude to Rome is ridiculous and irritating. What has history to do with .protesitanism, or Catholiciimi, or any other ism, save phenomenally? When I read history I do not want apologetics worthy of that pleasing body the Protistant Alliance. I want adequate recognition of fact, and it is simple fact that in the history of Europe the Church of Rome is the Church of the centre, the other bodies being merely provincial institutions. The Church--of history is not the Church of' England, nor the Weisleyan Methodist Connection, nor the Society of Friends, nor the Union of Ethical Societies. The Church of history is the Church of Rome, as Newman asserts in the passage where he sadly admits that the "unbeliever Gibbon" is our only worthy ecclesiastical historian. But I will go further, and say that the Church of England history is the Church of Rome; for if gave ns our cathedrals, set the form of our prayers, marked out our parishes', taught us our duty to the poor, mimed our laws and our learning, won us much of our liberty, and laid the foundation of our last four centuries of progerss. Without knowing something of this great. Church, you can understand very little of the English history, and t<> minim**; the historic imporotam-e of the Papacy because you happen to be a Protectant is as stupid as to minimise the historic importance of the Hnu»c of Austria because you happen to be an Engdishman. Papal Infallibility. The Papney is the o'dei.-t dominion in Europe, and -is »n introduction to its history Von R "ike's boi-k lerved admir-. ab'y. " He : i> not a Cdholic. b-.it he is fair. T! ? can exhibit hi* Protect anism with' ut alluding to the Scarlet Woman, or What-do-you-call-it of Babylon. He does not double-dye the crimes of Alexander VI., nor does he entenuate the worldlinetK of Leo.G., or the unworld-. liness of Ignatius Loyola. His account of this paper-saint (if I may invent the word) is one of the best chapters in the book. Ignatius can too easily arouse hysteria of both extremes; but Ranke is never tempted from history into pathology—he gives us (to speak in the language of logic) a judgement of fact, and leaves the judgement of value to the leader. : This latest version of the history brings us down to the Vatican Council of 1870. and closes with the public definition of Papal Infallibility., In conclusion and with a. taste of Ranke's quality, let me quote this passage- from his last: chapter : Pius IX. appeared in full canonical, and occupied the Papal .throne. The approaches to the hall were thrown wide open. . - .In perfect silence the assembly listened to the final decision ef the Pope, who rose from his throne and confirmed with apnstfolic authority the articles which had been read, and to which the Holy Council had agreed. At that same moment a storm of thunder and lightning broke over the Vatican, and the ardent adherents of the Papacy had no hesitation in conjuring up the recollection of the announcement of £he Mosaic Law on Mount Sinai. '...-'