Fourth Lecture.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIII, Issue 33, 13 December 1895, Page 10 (Supplement)

Fourth Lecture.

A.M.D.G. 0 Ytrt/o stud i is snnj)cr adesto incis! J.M.J.

" Every one that heareth My words and doeth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock. And the rain fell, and the iloods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock" (Matt, vii , 24-2.')). '• Upon this rock 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (M. xvi., 18). " The (Jhuroh of the Living (iod, the pillar and ground of the truth " (lht Tim. iii , lo).

Dearly Beloved in Christ,— There is a strange feeling of unrest abroad to-day. Men's minds are troubled. Doubt and infidelity are making sad havoc everywhere outside the Catholic Church— the Church which is built upon the Buck against which the gates of hell shall never prevail. But there is one cheering sight in the midst of all this, a sight which is a marvel to those ignorant of its cause. Two hundred and fifty millions or more of men are seen with minds moulded into one when it is qnestion of the teachings of faith— men of every race, and tribe, and tongue ; men varying in the ordinary concerns of life, in literature, in science and arts, in political and social economy, but at one iv loyal attachment to the Church of the Living Cfod, which they know to be the pillar and the ground of the truth. They glory in professing the same belief, uniting in the same worship, receiving the same Sacraments, and submitting to the same authority in every part of the world. The words of my text alone give the explanation of this marvellous fact. They are those who having " heard the words of Eternal Truth ever love to do

them." They are sure of their position. Never does the least shadow of doubt dwell in their minds. They know, with the knowledge of faith, which can never deceive, that where Peter is in his Successors there is the Church. " Uhi Pttrus ibi Eccltsia." To him belong the Divine promises ; with him are unity and peace, and hope assured ; without him, doubt and uncertainty and unrest. Whatever the Infallible Church teaches they know must be right, for God is ever with his Church, guiding and directing it, and guarding it from all error. Hence the beautiful practices and devotions of the Church are to them holy and helpful. Now amongst these helpful devotions are some which the author of "Hindrances," following Dr Littledale, has thought fit to attack as so many obstacles to the Re-union of Christendom.

The last Sunday I spoke to 'you from this pulpit I had intended to take no further notice of his attacks. But on my return to Christchurch this week, I was informed that not a few of our separated brethren were anxious to hear the Catholic doctrine about Indulgences and Purgatory, and Communion under one kind, and compulsory Confession, which the author of " Hindrances " is pleased to qualify as so many perverted practices contrary to the ancient discipline of the Church, at variance with Holy Scripture, and the teaching of the Fathers, etc. Hence, yielding to their wishes, I have resolved, with the blessing of God, and the help of our Glorious and Immaculate Mother, to speak once more, and for the last time, on the subject to-night.

Borrowing the blundering words of Dr. Littledale on " Indulgences," the author of "Hindrances" affirms that, according to the Roman doctrine, there are two penalties annexed to all sin — (1) Culpa, or eternal punishment, and (2) poena, or temporal punishment, including Purgatory. I beg to inform the author of " Hindrances " that no Catholic theologians ever use culpa in the sense of " eternal punishment." Culpa, with them, has no other meaning than guilt, whereas poena, or punishment, they divide into eternal and temporal, and "Indulgences," they know, deal exclusively with temporal punishment. Hence, according to Catholic theologians, an indulgence is neither the forgiveness of sin, nor much less permission to commit sin. It is the remission, through the merits of Jesus Christ and his Saints, of the whole or part of the debt due to a sin, the guilt and everlasting punishment whereof have been forgiven. In his celebrated work on " Indulgences," Amort thus defines an Indulgence : "A remission of the punishment which is still due to sin after sacramental absolution, the remission being valid in the court of conscience and before God, and being made by an application of the Treasure of the Church on tho part of a lawful superior." The author of "Hindrances" says: "When an Indulgence of seven years is spoken of, it means that so much guilt is bought off, as would be expiated by undergoing a penance extending over the whole of that time." Notwithstanding the assurance of our author, and his guide, Dr. Littledale, lam bound to contradict him. It means nothing of the kind. It means simply that the Church relaxes the penance of seven years formerly imposed by the Church as due to certain sins after the guilt thereof has been forgiven by God, or His Church, through the divinely-appointed channels of grace known as the Sacraments. An Indulgence neither buys off nor remits guilt of any kind. Whilst the guilt of sin remains, there can be no Indulgence for it.

Again our rev. author says, " A Plenary Indulgence means the entire remission of all Purgatorial chastisements." Had he studied Catholic theology in an approved author and not confined himself to the assertions of Dr Littledale, Gore, and the New Zealand Church News for 1871, he never would have made so many blunders in so few pages. A Plenary Indulgence, according to Catholics, means the remission of the whole temporal punishment or penanco due to sin after the guilt and eternal punishment have been forgiven. According to Catholics, the Pope alone having jurisdiction over the whole Church can grant a Plenary Indulgence. Primates, Metropolitans, and Bishops grant partial Indulgence* of not more than 40 or 100 days within the limits of their jurisdiction. The author of "Hindrances" doubtless thinks he has cast deserved ridicule on " the Roman doctrine of Indulgences " by asserting, in the words of Littledale, that whereas 100 years is the extreme limit of human life, Indulgences are

promised for 500, 11,000, 32,755, and 53,01)0 years. I should like some better authority for this assertion than, that of his too credulous disciple or Dr, Littledale. The author of "Hindrances" again borrows the words of Littledale and says that the Archbishop of Naples, in 1843, granted an Indulgence of: 3.^00, 70,000, aud 200,000 years. In his masterly work, "De Synodo Dioecesana," published over a century and a half ago. the great Pope Benedict the 14th declares that no partial Indulgence of 1000 years or upwards is authentic. That one may have incurred a penance extending over the term of the limit of human life, is nothing more incongruous than the fact that a cumulative sentence may be pronounced against a prisoner for repeated breaches of the law, though the sentence may condemn him to more years of imprisonment than the extreme limit of his own or any other human life.

The author of "Hindrances" says, "The Roman doctrine of Indulgences dates only from the year 1084." This is another historical error for which he is indebted to Dr Littledale. Indulgences date back to the very cradle of Christianity. Catholics believe that the power to grant them is included in the promise made by the Divine Founder of the Church to its Visible Head, St. Peter, when He said to him and his successors, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven " (Matt, xvi., 19).

The author of " Hindrances," equally with us, admits the power of the Church to remit sin. We, then, are logical is believing that, if the Church has power to remit the sin itself, she surely has power to remit the "temporal punishment or penance due to sin."

That the Church used the power of granting Indulgences long before the year 1084 is obvious to every impartial student of Holy Writ and Church History. Do we not read in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (v., 2-11) that this great Apostle granted an Indulgence to the incestuous Corinthian by remitting the temporal punishment to which he had subjected that notorious sinner ? In so doing does not the Apostle declare that he grants the Indulgence by the power and in the name of Christ ? Does he not say, " What I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it, in the person of Christ ?#"? # " Do not Tertullian and St. Cyprian show us the modern Roman doctrine of Indulgences in full force in the third century ? Did not this same Tertullian, when he became a Montanist, reproach the Catholic Church with what he called her too lavish use of Indulgences? Does he not say, "You give even your Martyrs this power" (De. Pud.)? Do not the early Fathers assure us that the Bishops, frequently yielding to the prayers of the Martyrs, granted Indulgences to penitents, whereby they were released from the long and severe penance which otherwise they were obliged to undergo ? Do we find the Council of Ancyra, in 414, like the General Council of Nice and other Synods, authorising the Catholic Bishops, " having considered the conduct of the penitents, to grant them Indulgences by showing them mercy," or, if unworthy of the Indulgence, to lengthen the time of the penance ? Do not the Primitive Fathers affirm that such Indulgences not only romit the temporal punishment but satisfy the justice of Gad for such temporal punishment of sin ?

Could any modern theologian put this Roman doctrine of Indulgences better before us in the nineteenth than St. Cyprian did in the third century, When speaking of Indulgences, lie says, " Those who have received letters from, the martyrs, can be assisted by this prerogative before God (Ep. xviii.) !" And again, De Lapsk, " He (the Ljrd) can mercifully pardon him who ropeuts, labours, and prays. lie can set down to his account whatever the Martyrs have asked, and the Bishops have done for such persons?" Before his unhappy fall did not Luther declare that " to a Christian it is enough to know that an Indulgence is a satisfaction for sin ?" Do not the Canons of the Anglican Church by Law Established, profess to grant Indulgences. Wb.6n our Anglican friends dispense their followers from the obligation of doing penance, what is this but the granting of Indulgences ?

As understood in the Catholic Church, Indulgences are a proof of God's loving mercy towards the repentant sinner. They necessarily suppose sorrow for sin. and a determination not to sin again. They lead to alms-giving and other good works. How, then, can the author of

of *' Hindrances " borrow the words of Littled.tle and say, " Indulgences destroy devotion," when they directly lead to it ? Who are the most fervently devout in the Catholic Church ? Are they not those most eager to gain Indulgences ? Ho adds, with Dr. Littledale, Indulgences arc directly contrary to the words of Christ, " When you have done all those things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which it is our duty to do." The parable of the ten Virgins also contradicts this docU'iae of the treasury of merits, for Christ makes the wise Virgins refuse to share their oil with the foolish, on the express ground that there would not be enough for all? Would the author of "Hindrances," therefore, forbid the wise and good to share their prayers; or any good deeds, with the unwise and foolish, or perform any work of mercy, on the express ground that there might not be enough for all ? However the former text can be applied to those who grant or gain Indulgences, I confess that I am unable to perceive. The author of " Hindrances " should know that the superabundant merits of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, are the rich and never-ending source whence the Church derives the spiritual favours she dispenses in granting Indulgences. That there have been abuses we do not deny. The Church has always been the first to protest against any such. The most sacred things have been and will be abused by unprincipled men. But surely it were unwise to condemn the abuse of salutary practices because of certain abuse in the same. To say that any Pope has ever granted an Indulgence as a license to sin is a gross calumny. I defy our author or any other to prove to me a single instance of such We teach that no power human or Divine can grant permission to commit sin. Purgatory. Dr. Littledale quarrels with the Catholic conception of Purgatory as a place of rest and suffering at the same time. He declares that it is both un-Scriptural and unCatholic. Hence the author of " Hindrances " does so too. With his master, Littledale, he also asserts, as usual, without any attempt at a proof, that Purgatory, as a place of punishment, is opposed to the primitive and Catholic doctrine of the Greek and English Churches, who regard Paradise as a place of refreshment and growth. I have said that he makes no attempt to prove his assertions. I hasten to withdraw that remark. It is so unusual for him to give any shadow of proof that I was well nigh losing eight of this one solitary exception. The author of 41 Hindrances" quotes the two texts given by Dr. Littledale, one from the Book of Wisdom, the other from Revelations, wherein we are told that the " souls of the just are in the hands of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them." Again, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord . . . that they may rest from their labours." The quotation is from the Duuay version. These texts have no bearing wKatever on the subject of Purgatory. According to the most learned commentators, they refer to the martyrs of Christ, who, of course, having been thoroughly purified by the awful torments they underwent before death, deserved to enter heaven without passing through the ordeal of Purgatory or without any fear of being touched by any further torment of death. No Catholic ever dreams of confounding Purgatory with Paradise, which we all believe to be a place of rest, refreshment, etc. The contrary statement is a purely gratuitous assertion of Dr. Littledale, hence blindly followed by the author of " Hindrances." We know how unreliable both are when it is question of Catholic theology or the history of the Primitive Church. That what they are pleased to call the Roman doctrine of Purgatory is both Scriptural and Catholic and in strict harmony with the teaching of the Primitive Catholic doctrine, of the Greek, the English, and all other Christian Churches, we have many undeniable proofs. Far from being a new-fangled doctrine of modern Roman growth, it is grounded on the authority and teaching of the Bible. Enforced in the Church of the Old Law, it is equally so in the Synagogue of to-day. Coming down from the Apostles, it has been taught by the Fathers in every age and clime, whilst the Jliast and West have incorporated it in their Liturgies. It is proclaimed and practised by the schismatic Christians scattered over

different parts of the East. Long centuries before the so-called Reformation it was th^ cherished belief of overy nation, civilised and pagan — Greek and Roman, British, Celt, or Saxon. Not only is it the doctrine of the millions of children of tho Catholic Church, it is boliovod and fondly cherished by not a few of the children of the Church by Law Established. The Modern, like the Primitive Catholic, believes in a middle stahe of souls who depart this life in God's grace, yet not without some slight stains, which retard their entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, whilst •jonsigning them to a temporary place of punishment. He believes that while thus detained they still remain members of that mystical Body of which Jesus Christ is the invisible Head, ajid are, consequently, helped by the prayers and good works of their fellow-members of the Church upon earth. Ever docile to the voice of holy Mother Church, the divinely-appointed witness and guardian and teacher of all truth, the devout Catholic finds no difficulty in admitting the consoling doctrine of Purgatory. He readily believes in a middle state for souls who depart this life in God's grace, yet not without some slight stains which retard their entrance into the kingdom of heaven, whilst consigning them to a temporary place of punishment. He believes that while thus detained, they still remain members of that mystical Body of which Jesus Christ is the invisible Head, and are, consequently, helped by the prayers and good works of their fellow-members of the Church upon earth. What are the Grounds of our Belief in Purgatory? The light of reason no less than that of faith leads him to this belief. Is it not written " Nothing defiled shall enter into the kingdom of heaven?" (Apoc. xxi. 27.) "none but the clean of heart shall see God?" (Mat. v, 8) and, despite the heroism of their lives, are not the very just declared "to fall seven times ?" (Prov. xii. 17). Now we know that the least sin is a defilement, a stain on that purity required to enter upon the Beatific Vision. We see the Almighty obviously alluding to the cleansing flames of Purgatory, when He declares that they " shall not go out from thence till they pay the last farthing" (Mat. v. 26). So, too, the Apostle asserting that " somr shall be saved, yet so as by fire " (1 Cor. iii. 15.) We know that God is infinitely just aud infinitely holy " the searcher of hearts and reins " (Ps. vii. 10). Where we see the most dazzling perfection He may behold nought but blemishes : iFor "He will judge justices." He will not, He cannot suffer the least taint or imperfection to abide with Him in heaven. We know, too, that His goodness is infinite, that His mercy hath no limits, and that He is too just and bountiful to doom the upright with the wicked ; to punish alike slight faults and grievous transgressions ; to treat alike true penitents and wilfully obstinate reprobates. Bearing all this in mind, what shall we think of the thousands who daily go forth from the land of the living to the valley of the dead, passing from time to eternity ? Shall we place them all in the realms of the blessed ? Have we not often been witnesses, aye, forsooth, partners of their guilt ? How many wilful omissions, faults, or imperfections in their very exercises of piety, in the fulfilling of the ordinary duties of their state ? How many breaches of charity, slight b ickbitings or untruthfulness ? Now we must never forget that the least defilement or imperfection debars one from entering into the kingdom of heaven. Yet death, it may be, mowed down many a Christian suddenly, without a moment wherein to expiate their faults. Even though they died after a lingering illness, this very illness may have been to them a fresh cause of offence. There was a lack of patience to the end, a want of self-denial, of generous detachment from creatures, of submission to God's adorable will. Besides well-known faults, how many secret sins unknown to man ; nay more, even lost sight of by guilty self ? But, it may be urged, they confessed them in the sacred tribunal of penance. True, but even then, have they fully justified the justice of God ? David fell grievously, and he repented of his crime. God forgave him the guilt thereof, yet had he not long to expiate it by the greatest of sufferings ? How, then, shall we expect such souls to be admitted to God's kingdom immediately after death ? What shall be their lot ? Shall we condemn them to hell ? Is not the bare thought hateful to us, and repugnant to the infinite mercy and justice of

God ? Moreover, is it not written " Out of hell there is no redemption. 11

We may have witnessed their faults, but have we not often witnessed their heartfelt sorrow and humility too ? Does not the Royal Psalmist proclaim this consoling fact : " A contrite and humble heart, 0 God, thou loilt not despise ?" (Ps. 50-18).

Is it not, then, more in harmony with our thoughts of God's justice and mercy that there should bo a middle state for such souls ? Have not all peoples believed in such a state, and in the efficacy of prayer offered in behalf of those condemned for a time to suffer therein ? What but pride or presumption could prefer a private opinion to this immense weight, carrying with it, as it does, the greatest learning, holiness, and authority ? And, if at times, it seems strange that a God of infinite goodness suffer these holy souls to linger so long amid such fearful torments, marvel not, but recall to mind the many and striking examples recorded in the sacred pages of the chastisements inflicted by the Almighty on what we call venial sin. His just anger spares neither Moses nor David. Nadab, Abiu, and others fail in the observance of mere ceremonial rites under the Old Law, in matters, too, of seemingly little import, and in circumstances which should apparently excuse them. Yet God's dread ire fell heavily upon them. Ozia thoughtlessly stretches forth his hand to uphold the tottering Ark, when lo ! he is immediately struck dead in the sight and to the great consternation of the whole people ! Why all this severity ? Because the awful purity of God's majesty so deeply abhors the least blemish, that, were we able to close for ever the dread gates of hell, save all who are burning therein, free Purgatory and secure the salvation of all mankind by telling one little, the least lie, it were unlawful to do so. For, whatever accidental glory the Almighty might receive from the salvation of so many myriads, it would not adequately atone for the outrage inflicted upon the Godhead by this single violation of truth. From the remotest times till the fatal schism of the sixteenth century, the dogma of Purgatory was believed and cherished everywhere throughout the Christian world. Churches and cloisters were everywhere reared, rich foundations were made vividly to remind the survivors of their obligation to pray for the departed. Covetous men gloated over the sight of the spoils which would fall to their lot if the dogma of Purgatory could be denied. Hence the wicked assertion that it was an innovation, a new-fangled doctrine due to the wile 3of a crafty and designing priesthood, and the ignorant simplicity of a superstitious and priest-ridden people. Hence the cry which was at once taken up and repeated to our own days : " Purgatory has neither Scriptural nor historical grounds to warrant our belief therein." The dogma of Purgatory an innovation ? Prayers for the dead a new-fangled doctrine ? Far from this. We fearlessly proclaim that they are older than Christianity itself. The dogma of Purgatory and prayers for the dead are clearly taught in the Old and obviously implied in the New Testament. They are to be found in the writings of the chief Fathers and Doctors of the Chuich. Embodied in all the ancient Liturgies of the East and the West, they are taught in all the religious systems of old, whilst the doctrine is one of the most reasonable and consoling to the human heart. We have said that the dogma is older than Christianity, that it is unmistakeably taught in the Old Testament. Open the Inspired Pages for the Proof of our assertion. Do we not read in the 12th chapter of the second book of Machabees, verses 39 to 46, that one hundred and fifty years before the light of the Gospel dawned on the world, after a long and glorious victory, the first care of Judas Machabens was to pray to the Lord in behalf of those of his brethren who died amid the triumph of war ? Was he not afraid lest, though they fell fighting for God and their country, some sins they may have committed rendered them displeasing to the Almighty ? Hear the very words of Holy Writ : v The day following Judas came to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them . . . and making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem fur sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead , thinking well and religiously concerning the return ction. For if he had not hoped that those that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is

therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins " Does not the inspired penman here praise Judas Machabeus for this act of piety towards the dead ? Does he not present him as a model to future ages ? Are not these striking words of Holy Writ strong Scriptural grounds warranting our belief in Purgatory ? Do they not amply prove its existence ? The dead for whom the Inspired Writer declares it a holy and a wholesome thought to pray are not in heaven. The citizens of heaven are confirmed in grace, hence they can need no prayers. It cannot be for the dead who are banished to hell. For, confirmed in woe, the inmates of hell are beyond all hope of salvation. Wherefore, prayers for either are useless. Again, the sins to be forgiven the dead by the prayers of the living are not mortal. One single mortal sin were enough to hurl the offender into the depths of hell. The demons were damned for one single sin of pride. If the sins from which the dead are delivered through the prayers of the living are not mortal then they must be venial sins. If venial, they are enough to prevent those dying with such stains on their soul from entering into the kingdom of heaven, for it is of faith that " There shall not enter into it anything defiled" (Apoc. xxi., 27). Yet such faults and defilement must be expiated and atoned for. The dead cannot expiate them in this world. They must do so in the next, in the place of expiation, which we call Purgatory. If we pray for them, we hasten their deliverance and do " a holy and a wholesome thing." What have the so-called reformers done to snatch this and other no less glorious monuments of our faith from the Catholic Church ? Finding it impossible to weaken the force of the foregoing passage, like an unscrupulous criminal in presence of an adverse witness, they boldly denied the books of the Machabees to be canonical. Yet St. Augustine declared in the fourth century that the Books of the Machabees were everywhere received as canonical. Have they not the same authority as the Holy Gospel or any other part of the Bible ? On what other authority save that of the Catholic Church rests the Canon of Holy Writ ? Long centuries before the sad schism of the sixteenth century snatched so many children from the bosom of the true Church, long before there was any dispute about Purgatory or prayers for the dead, was not the Catholic Church everywhere recognised as the sole depository, the faithful guardian of the Word of God contained in the sacred pages of Holy Writ. Was it not through her judgment alone that the world knew what was canonical or not ? What right had anyone to reject the authority of books which for sixteen hundred years Christ's Infallible Church had pronounced to be inspired ? What right save the fact that these inspired books condemned their opinions which were the offspring of their arrogant pride, and the cause of their unnatural revolt ? But waiving for the moment the question of their inspiration, who would dare deny their truthfulness as grand historical monuments, proving to a demonstration, that to pray and offer sacrifice for the dead was the prevailing practice among the Jews ? Furthermore, we know that our blessed Lord came " not to destroy but to perfect the law." He would purify the Jewish Church from all false traditions. He condemns the Pharisees for prohibiting works of charity on the Sabbath day. He rebukes them for their many innovations in doctrine and discipline But nowhere does He ever rebuke the Jews for their belief in a middle state, or in praying for the dead, though He well knew this practice to prevail amongst them. Far from this, more than once does He use words which obviously imply the doctrine of Purgatory.

Turn to the New Testament, open the Gospel of St. Matthew. Do we not hear Eternal Truth declaring in the 12th chapter, "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be jor given him ; but he that shall speak against the ILohj Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come " What is the obvious meaning of these divine words ? Is it not that there are some sins forgiven in the next life ? Now it cannot be in heaven, since "' nothing denied can enter therein." It cannot be in hull, where the blood of Jesus Christ, says St. Bernard, is not applied, and out of which there is no redemption. It must, then, be in a middle state between heaven and hell, that is to say, in Purgatory, out of which our dear Lord affirms that one shall not go until the last farthing be paid. Listen to the entire text. "Be at agreement with thy

adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him, lest, perhaps, the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officers, and thou, be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee thou slialt not go out fiovi thence till thou repay the last farthing " (St. MaiL. v. 2u-2G). These are the words of God, Eternal Truth Himself. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 3, v. l.">, following his Divine Master, the Apostle of the Gentiles, declares the same doctrine in these memorable words, " Other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid ; irhich is Christ Jesus. Now if any mm buildupon this foundation, gold, si her, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble : Every man's loork shall be manifest, for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire ; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon: he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss ; but he himself fhal! be saved yet so as by fire." Now this cannot be the fire of earth, nor of heaven, nor of hell, it must be in the purifying flames of Purgatory. This interpretation is the unanimous voice of Christendom, made known to us by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, from the cradle of her existence down to our own times. And, asks the illustrious Cardinal Gibbons, in his admirable work, " The Faith of our Fathers," shall we submit to have the time-honoured marks of Christian faith ruthlessly removed by discontented men, who, impatient of religious yoke, reject the doctrine of Purgatory sixteen hundred years after the birth of Christianity, when alone they appeared on the stage ? "Whom should we follow ? To know the meaning of some legal point would you not think it more reasonable to follow the decision of our best jurists than that of some political demagogue or rebellious criminal who could bring neither learning, nor authority, nor history to support his obviously wicked purpose ? Should not a like motive which urges us to reject the opinions of ignorant politicians or depraved criminals, and embrace that of learned jurists on a constitutional question impel us to cast aside novelties or religious innovators, and follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of primitive Christianity on the great subject of Purgatory?

Let us go back to the earliest ages and ask what was the Catholic belief and practice on this dogma of Purgatory. Tertullian, who died about the year 240, says, "The faithful wife will pray for the soul of her departed husband, particularly on the anniversary day of his falling asleep, and if she fail to do so she hath repudiated her husband as far as in her lies."

In several of his writings, Orison unmistakeably proves the teaching of the early Church on the doctrine of Purgatory. He tells us that they believed it to be a temporary state in which certain souls arc detained till they are thoroughly purified and fitted for heaven.

Describing the funeral of Constantino the Great, Ensebius, the historian, says, in the fourth century, that the body of the prince was laid ou a lofty bier, and the ministers of God, and the multitude of the people with tears and much lamentation, offered up prayers and sacrifices for the repose of his soul. He adds that this was done according to the desires of this pious monarch, who had erected in Constantinople the great church in honour of the Apostles, so that after his death the faithful might remember him therein. In the same century St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, writes :—": — " We commemorate the holy Fathers, Bishops, and all who have fallen asleep amongst us believing that the supplications which we present, will be of great assistance to their souls." To those who might be tempted to doubt the efficacy of prayer for the dead, he says : "If a king had banished certain persons who had offended him, and their relations having woven a crown should offer it to him in behalf of those under his vengeance, would he not grant a respite to their punishment ? So we, in offering up a crown of prayers, in behalf of those who have fallen asleep, will o'ttain for them forgiveness through the merits of Jcmis Christ."' Does not this imply that those for whom prayers are offered ;ire in a state of torment ? In other words, i,s it not the same as the modern Catholic doctrine of Purgatory > In the same century St. Ephrem says : "I conjure you, my brethren and friends, in in the name of that God Who commands me leave you, to remember me when you assemble to pray. Do not bury me with perfumes. Give them not to me but to God. Me conceived in sorrows, bury with lamentations, and instead

of perfumes, assist me with your prayers. For the dead are benefitted by the prayers of the living saints." In nearly one hundred of his funeral pangyerics, the same Holy Father speakß of the Christian duty of praying for the dead. In his sermon on the death of the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian, St. Ambrose says : " Blessed shall both of you be if my prayers can aught avail. No day shall pass you over in silence. No prayer of mine shall omit to honour you. No night shall hurry by without bestowing on you a mention in my prayers. In every one of the oblations will I remember you." On the death of Theodosius he thus ends a beautiful prayer for his soul : " I loved him, and therefore Avill I follow him to the land of the living. Nor will I leave him till, by tears and prayers, I shall lead him unto the holy mount of the Lord, where is life undying, where corruption is not, nou sighs nor mourning." St. Chrysostom says : " It was not without good reason, ordained by the Apostles, that mention should be made of the dead, in the tremendous Mysteries, for they well knew that these would derive great benefit therefrom." In the flth book of his Confessions, St. Augustine tells us that his mother was at the point of death when she made him this last request : " Lay this body anywhere. Let nob the care of it in any way disturb you. This only I beg of you, that you remember me at the altar of the Lord, wherever you be." Listen, dearly beloved in Christ, to the impassioned words in which this great Doctor, one of the loftiest geniuses the world ever saw, prays for his dear departed mother. " 0 God of my heart, I now beseech Thee for the sins of my mother. Hear me through the merits of the wounds that hung upon the wood of the Cross. May she then be in peace with her husband. And do Thou, 0 Lord, inspire Thy servants, my brethren, whom with voice and heart and pen I serve, that as many as shall read these lines may remember at thy altar Monica, thy servant."

" The souls of the dead,' 1 says the gentle St. Bernard, " dwell in three different abodes, according to the difference of their merits, Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. In Purgatory they undergo expiatory sufferings which dispose to redemption."

With the light of civilization and Christianity St. Augustine, who was sent into England by St. Gregory the Great, taught our Saxon forefathers the honour and invocation of saints and devotion to the dead. St. Patrick did the same in faithful Ireland. In those far away lands at home splendid architectural piles, churches, and chantries, monasteries and convents were built and endowed by their founders for the especial purpose that prayers and Masses should be offered in them for ever in behalf of the donors when departed. This is more than enough to show that far from being a new-fangled view, the doctrine of Purgatory and prayers for the dead were enforced in the earliest and what arc called the purest ages of the Church.

The most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church treated this beautiful doctrine not as a purely theoretical principle, but as an imperative duty, an act of daily piety, which should be, as, in fact, it was in the early ages of faith, embodied in the daily exercises of devotion. The dear departed were prayed for morning and night in the Divine Office, in the Holy Sacnifiee at which our Catholic forefathers made it a duty to assist every day of their lives. On Sundays they did what we do to-day— they asked the prayers of the congregation for the souls of the Faithful Departed. In excavating the Roman catacombs many most interesting inscriptions have been brought to light. Many most touching in their pious simplicity implore peace and rest, and prayers for those over whose sepulchre the inscriptions had been placed. They are speaking memorials proclaiming that the Church of God, at the very cradle of her existence, taught her children, as she teaches them today, to offer up fervent prayers in behalf of the dead.

The beautiful doctrine of Purgatory, together with the practice of praying for the dead, is embodied in all the most ancient Liturgies of the world. Jn the fourth and fifth centuries the heresiarchs Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches snatched countless souls from the centre of unity which had hitherto and happily united the Churches in the East and in the West. The sects founded by these wretched apostates have since formed many distinct communities, separating from the one and only Catholic Church in the

East, as the Protestant Churches, with their hosts of offsprings, have separated from her in the West. The Greek schismatic Church, of which the present Russo-Greek Church is the offshoot, severed her connection with the Apostolic See in the ninth century under the unhappy Photius. Now in all these Liturgies — that is to say, in the established formulary of public worship containing 1 the authorised form of prayers in the several sects — we find f )rmularies of prayers for the dead almost identical with those to be found in our authorised Liturgical formulary, the Roman Missal. Listen to this : " Remember, 0 Lord, Thy servants who are gone before us, with the sign of faith, and sleep in peace. To Thee, 0 Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light and peace, through the same Christ Jesus our Lord." During the Vatican Council the illustrious Cardinal Gibbons called upon the Oriental Patriarchs and Bishops, belonging to Armenian, Chaldaic, and Coptic, Maronite, and Syriac Rites. They all assured him that the schismatic Christians of the East among whom they live, have without exception, prayers and sacrifices for the dead. Now how could all these sects who have so long been separated from the Church, have adopted the Catholic practice of praying for the dead, unless they knew that it had come down from the Apostles ? It may not be out of place to remark that the Jews, who, two thousand years ago, offered up prayers for the dead still retain that pious practice in their Liturgy. In justice to our separated brethren, we must add that many, better than their religion, are returning to the faith of their forefathers as to the belief of Purgatory. Of late several English Protestant works have been published all bearing on the subject of Purgatory. They all contain prayers for the dead, and prove from Catholic grounds the existence of a middle state after death, and the duty of praying for the departed brethren. So true is this doctrine of Purgatory that some in our own days go so far as to deny that hell is eternal. Now a hell which is not eternal must be Purgatory. Luther and Calvin declare their belief that the Apostles themselves approved of prayers for the dead. Treating of the text of the beloved Disciple, St. John, " He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not death let him ask and life shall be given him who sinneth not to death." Luther says : " I believe that there is a Purgatory. I am certain of this truth, I believe that the souls imprisoned there are helped and relieved by the prayers of the living." In face of such strong Scriptural and historical warrant for our belief in Purgatory, it will doubtless occur to some amongst you to wonder how the contrary opinion has gained ground among non-Catholics ? How England, though for some time after she had thrown off her allegiance to the true Church of the Bible she held the Catholic doctrine, so soon caused this astounding assertion to be inserted in her Thirtynine Articles, " The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons .... is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God." From whom did this lyingarticle emanate ? Was it not from the apostate Cranmer ? Is it not a stern, stubborn, historical fact that this perjured priest, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, would fain pander to the passions of the Protector Seymour, who had obtained from a servile Parliament an Act, in virtue of which he might seize upon the rich foundations made by our Catholic ancestors for Masses for the dead ? Is not the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory most reasonable, one most consoling to the human heart ? Is it not a comfort to know that with the funereal rites all is not over between us and those who were once so near and de^r to us on earth ? How dreary the religion which would set up impassible barriers between the living and the dead ? Do not the very instincts of our heart urge us to follow our dead beyond the cold grave ? Do not they tell us that in praying for our dear departed ones we are acting with the strongest Scriptural and historical grounds — with the voice of the whole Church from the very dawn of her existence ? Is it not a consolation to feel that if, like Augustine, we fondly watch over the couch of a dying mother or father, we may, too, like Augustine, follow those beloved ones even beyond the tomb by praying for the repose of their souls ? Oh ! what a comfort for the grief-stricken soul to know that the golden bond of the Communion of Saints still unites us to those who fall asleep in the Lord, and that, thanks to this Holy Com-

munion, we may still hold fond converse with our dear departed, and help them by our prayers and indulgences ! Our late Laureate seems to have grasped this Catholic feeling, when he makes his hero Arthur, in his last moments, thus addresses his comrade in arms, Sir Belvidere :—: — " If though shouldst never see my face again, Pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer Than this world dreams of. Wherefore let thy voice Rise like a fountain for me night and day. For what are men better thnn sheep and goats That nourish a blind life within the brain, If, knowing 1 God, they lift not hands of prayer Both for themselves and those who call them friend 1 For so the whole round world is every way Bound by gold chains about the feet of God. But now, farewell. lam going a long way. Where I will heal me of my grievous wound." This it is which robs death of its bitterest sting, and enables us to bear up under the sad separation of those who were once more to us than all the world beside. Communion under one Kind. The author of " Hindrances " says :—": — " Another perverted doctrine of the Roman Church is the denial of the Cup or Chalice in the Holy Eucharist to the communicants, etc.," and " the Church of Rome has no right to act in direct contradiction to the words of Christ," and nothing could be plainer than " Drink ye all of this." Catholics believe, with the Primitive Church, and not a few eminent Protestant Divines, that our Blessed Lor J, when instituting the Most Holy Eucharist, spoke these words to the Apostles, who alone were with Him at the time. To them He had already said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me" (St. Luke, xxii. 19). They believe that He no more addressed the former than the latter words to the laity not then present. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ commanded His Apostles and their successors to do exactly what He did on this memorable occasion, and so they are bound to receive under both kinds, when they consecrate or celebrate the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. Bat they do not believe that He gave any command to the ordinary faithful to receive the Cup or Chalice. They believe that, though Jesus Christ instituted the Blessed Eucharist under both kinds, that of bread and wine, and so delivered it to His Apostles, whom He then ordained priests, He left it to His Church to determine the manner of distributing it to the faithful. Does He not promise life everlasting to whoever receives under one kind only? Saying: ''If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. He that eateth. Me the same also shall live by Me. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever" (John vi. 52, 8, 9.) That our Divine Lord delivered the Blessed Eucharist to some of His Disciples, under one kind only, is the opinion of St. Augustine, who says He did so to the Disciples whom He met on the way to Einmaus. lie, with other Fathers of the Primitive Church, tells us that the Apostles afterwards did the same, v.g., when they assembled to break " bread " (Acts 11.) Writers, both ancient and modern, declare that it was the custom in the early Church to administer Holy Communion under one kind only to children, to the sick and to the general faithful in the time of persecution. Nay, more, for the first 400 years it was the practice of the Church, to communicate under one kind only, or under both as everyone thought good. To receive under both kinds first became obligatory in 443, when Pope Leo I. made it a law which was confirmed by Pope Gelasius in 490. This law was passed, not because it was thought to be of Divine precept, or necessary for the reception of the Holy Eucharist, but to find out the Manieheans. These heretics taught that Christ had no blood, and that wine was the gall of Satan. They were wont to conceal themselves among the Christians and raceive under the form of bread only, as the faithful did. They remained undiscovered till the obligation to receive the cup, which they considered to be unlawful and an abomination,* caused them to be made kuown. This well known historical fact shows clearly that the Primitive Chui'oh thought with the Catholic Church to-day that the mode of receiving, whether under one or both kinds, is not of Divine, but only of ecclesiastical precept. Does the author of "Hindrances," I wonder, forbid the use of

strangled meats or blood, since the Apostles forbade them ? Acts. xv. If unlawful at the time of the Apostles whyis it something indifferent now ? Can he assign any o'.ner reason save the authority of the Catholic Church, which has received from her Divine Head the right to determine what is of ecclesiastical discipline, and to vary the same as she thinks fit, according to circumstances of times and places? Why, then, does he quarrel with Catholics for following the ruling of that divinely appointed Church in this as in all other points of discipline ? Surely it is no reason because Dr. Littledale loves to do so? Every Catholic could inform him that believing in the real Presence of Christ Jesus in the adorable Sacrament of the Eucharist, he must believe Him present whole and entire under either the form of bread or wine, hence that whoever receives under either kind receives the august Sacrament whole and entire • henco, too, he knows that no injusticej ustice is done to him nor is he defrauded of either the Body or Blood of Christ. He knows well that he who receives under both kinds as the Priest is bound to at the Mass, receives no more than those receiving under one kind only. Several well known Protestants affirm it to be a matter of indifference whether Communion be given under one or both kinds.

"I am delighted," says Luther, "to see that it has been taught that we should be content to receive under ' one ' species only, and to believe firmly that Jesus Christ is not in part, but ' whole ' and ' entire ' under each species of the Holy Sacrament. I believe it, and I pray everyone to believe it also ; my sermons teach the same doctrine." Again " I have neither said nor taught, and it is quite contrary to my opinion that either one or more Bishops, of their own authority, and without the decision or command of some General Council, may give to any person whatever, the Holy Communion under both species." Finally, "They sin not against Christ," says Luther, " who use but one, Christ having left it free to the choice of each." Does he not reproach Carlostad for having placed Christianity in thiugs of no moment, such as communicating under both kinds ? Is he not followed in this by his friend and successor Melancthon ? Does not the Protestant Bishop Montague ask, " Where doth the Scriptures command baptism of the infant, or the people to receive the Sacrament in both kinds ?" What authority has the author of "Hindrances" for infant baptism, except that of the Catholic Church ? Why will he not admit the same authority for Communion under one kind ? Has he never read how, in their Synod at Poictiers in 1560, the French Calvinists expressly decreed that " the bread " of our Lord's Supper ought to be administered to those who "cannot drink wine," on their making a protestation that they do not refrain from contempt ? Is he not aware that, even in England, an exception is made " by Act of Parliament " from Communion under both kinds, in case " necessity " did otherwise require ? For proclamation to that effect, he has only to consult the Anglican Bishop Sparrow's collection. His own Protestant Burnet or Heylin would tell him that in spite of the mendacious Littledale, the denial of the Cup to the Communicants is no perverted doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Compulsory Confession. At paragraph c. of his pamphlet, the author of "Hindrances" attacks the practice of the Catholic Church imposing compulsory Confession before Communion as a perversion of the ancient discipline of the Church and the imposing of an unnecessary yoke upon the faithful. We know by experience how unreliable an authority he is on the ancient discipline of the Church. We have the authority of the Fathers of the five first centuries — the golden age of Christianity — that the discipline of the Church in those times was to confess when in sin, and this is a diviue precept. The Primitive Church believed, with Catholics to-day, and in all ages, that the Almighty having given His Apostles and their successors the power to forgive sins, laid it as an obligation on the faithful to confess their sins before receiving the Holy Eucharist, to prove themselves, as the Apostle warns us, lest eating or drinking unworthily they should eat or drink to their own condemnation. According to the Protestant Thorpe, the Primitive Church in England looked upon Confession not merely as a pious ceremony dependant on the devotion of the individual, but as a matter of

obligation on the sinner and binding the highest minister of the Church as strictly as the lowest layman. The penitent, whosoever he might be, was instructed to approach with humility and compunction, to make, in the presence of his confessor a profession of faith, to ' ' bare before him the secrets of his conscience, and to disclose faithfully the offences of his life" which he had ever committed, whether in word, or in work, or in thought. Private Confession and Absolution in the Anglican Church. The author of "Hindrances " says : "The habit of private confession and absolution has been universally accepted in the Anglican Church, and that any one has a right to seek it who wishes to do so." Again, " the Church of England has always allowed it." Can he in conscience say this is true anywhere in the Anglican Church, except in that portion called the High Church ? Is it not a well-known fact that the practice of the Church of England, by law established, is wholly at variance with this ancient practice of our Catholic forefathers with regard to private Confession and absolution ? Following the spirit of the first Reformers, does not the Book of Common Prayer declare that the Sacrament of Penance, which includes Confession as an integral part, is a corrupt following of the Apostles, and that every man is his own absolver ? Have we not heard, time after time, the most eminent Bishops and archbishops of the Anglican Church, not only deprecating, in their charges and manifestoes, the practice of Confession, but declaring that the Priest in absolution has no place in the ministerial system of the Established Church ? How in the face of this can the author of " Hindrances " dare say that " the practice of private confession and absolution has been ' universally ' accepted in the Anglican Church ?" Does he not know, as well as we do, that in the few Anglican Churches where confession obtains, it is practised by stealth, and often under the disguised name of " Preparation for Communion," as the word Confession would savor too much of "popery ?" The Sale of Masses. As usual, following Dr. Littledale, the last point the author of "Hindrances" tells us he wishes to say a word about is what he calls the " Sale of Masses," It is painful in the extreme to be obliged to point out so many misstatemonts in so small a pamphlet as that called "Hindrances to the Re-union of Christendom." To charge us with the sale of Masses is not only a gross error, it is a vile calumny, unworthy of a gentleman and a divine. I have met the author of "Hindrances " but once. I then thought him. a gentleman and a scholar — and I think so still. But can he be exonerated from all blame in so blindly following the untrustworthy Littledale, whom he probably deemed infallible ? I feel sure that he would not have fallen into many errors about our Holy Faith and its cherished practices — errors which the tiniest of our tiny children able to read that golden book the Catholic Catechism, would have set him right about, had he condescended to consult them, instead of guides so blind or prejudiced. Would he not reasonably resent it were I to dare charge him or his colleagues with trafficking in the ' ' sale of Marriages, or Baptisms, or churchings," because it is customary to give an offering when he or his fellow ministers perform such cere*monies ? Let him inquire of any Catholic layman, and he would that trafficking in Masses is impossible in the Catholic Church. Priests are not bound to celebrate Mass every day, though most priests love to do so when ever they can. But when they do celebrate they are bound to pray for all both the living and the dead. They are not bound to offer the Mass for any persons in particular. If they undertake to do so, they are allowed to accept the small honorarium or offering determined by the proper diocesan authorities. Moreover, when obliged to get the Mass said by another, they are strictly forbidden to retain any portion of the offering for themselves. What is there in this even bordering on the sale of Masses ? Dearest in Christ, the task which I was urged to undertake a few Sundays ago is now nearly ended, and I sin-