ANSWER TO LECTURE II.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIII, Issue 47, 20 March 1896, Page 21

ANSWER TO LECTURE 11.

The Church — The Catholic Hierarchy— The Pope's Supremacy of Honour and Jurisdiction — The Cardinalate. Denial of the Church. The Oracle of Presbyterianism in Temuka is speaking. Listen : "It needs no Church to establish or guarantee the truth of the present Salvation." Then, My Dear Mr. Dickson, why do you not close your Church, and pack up your things, and leave the Temuka people to save their souls as best they may, without your service? What is the good of your Church, or of any Church at all, since "It needs no Church to establish the truth of the .present Salvation offered by Christ?" Notwithstanding your oracular declaration, permit me to disagree witn you, and to tell you that a Church is needed to establish the truth of the present salvation offered by Christ. A Church is needed to unite all the faithful with Christ, and with one another. To effect this union, Jesus-Christ has founded His Church on the Episcopate or Prelacy, which you deny, and particularly on St. Peter, who is personally and in his legitimate successors, the permanent principle of Catholic unity. Jesus is the solid rock on which the Christian Church is built. He is the only mediator between God and man. All the benefits we enjoy come from God through Jesus-Christ. By Him all things were made, and by Him alone they subsist. It is for our salvation He came down on earth. His ambition, if I may so speak, is to sanctify and save us. The Eternal Word became Incarnate to make us deiform, or God-like. By the Incarnation, the Eternal World became like unto us, but He was not united to every one of us. It was through His Church this wonderful union was to be realised ; through her we were to become acquainted with His heavenly truths, have sanctifying grace communicated to us by the sacraments, and be made worthy of eternal life. Indeed, He could have communicated Himself immediately to every one of us, but He did not deem it expedient. He established a Universal Spiritual Society, united in the same faith, living under the same laws, sharing in the same advantages, hoping the same celestial bliss ; this Society is what we call the Church. Visibility of the Church. The first characteristic of the Christian Church is its Visibility. By the Incarnation, Jesus Christ rendered Himself visible. The Church, which He established, is, like Him, a Visible Church. If man were a pure spirit, a Visible Church should not be needed ; but being an intelligence dwelling in a material body, his union with Christ must be visible, and the Society, by means of which this union is effected must be a Visible Society. The end of the Visible Society, or Church, is to unite all the followers of Christ all over the world in one Christian family. It is a vine, whose tendrils and branches extend throughout the habitable world. It is a barque in which we cross the ocean of hie to be landed on the blessed shores of Paradise. It is a kingdom having one code of laws, one Supreme head and form ot government. The twelve Apostles are ' the foundation of this Visible Church, resting on Christ Himself as on a firm and indestructible rock. Jesus Himself trained His Apostles and instructed them in His heavenly doctrine for the space ot about three years. He called them " His little flock." He gave them a Visible Chief, extraordinary powers, and promised to be with them and their successors until the consummation of the world, and that the Spirit of Truth should abide with them for ever. It is for the j establishment of this Church that He came down on earth, j suffered and died on the cross of Calvary. From the commencement the Church was a Visible Society. After the ascension of their Divine Master the Apostles assembled together in the Upper Chamber, or " Caenaculum " ; they met together in Council in Jerusalem ; they made up a profession ot taith and composed a creed, and in this creed they inserted the words: "/ believe the Holy Catholic Church." Yet the Presbyterian Oracle of Temuka, with his usual accuracy, tells us " The -word Catholic was used for the first time towards the end of the Second Century." Are we to believe him, or the twelve Apostles chosen by Je-ui-, Christ 10 establish His Church? Wherever the Apostles went — at Jerusalem, at Antioch, Corinth, Smyrna, Athens, Ephesus, Rome, etc., they established Churches united in taith and government. If those Churches were not needed, why did they establish them ? If the Rev. J. Dickson is right, the Apostles made a terrible blunder, for he declares that " It needs no Church to establish or guarantee the truth of the present salvation offered by Christ. "Poor Mr. Dickson, it is a pity Jesus and His Apostles did not consult you ; things would have been much better organised. Denial of the Catholic Hierarchy. Having, with a stroke of his pen, swept away the Church, the Rev. J. Dickson attacks next the Hierarchy. "In the

Church organised by the Inspired Apostles, there was unfortunately no provision made for a Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Priest. ' I thought you told us just now " there was no need of a Church to establish or guarantee the truth of the present Salvation offered by Christ? Why do you at present tell us that " The Inspired Apostles organised a Chnrch " ? Did they, or did they not, organise a Church ? In one place you tell us they did not ; in the other you tell us they did. Which are we to believe? Let us take for granted your last statement that they did organise a Church, and I will show you that " in the Church organised by the Inspired Apostles there was provision made for a Pope, Bishop, and Priest. As to Cardinals, I will explain to you what they are ; for your notion of them must be very obscure. In every army you have a General-in Chief, in order to maintain military discipline and unite the different regiments under one supreme head. In every fleet there is an Admiral, whose authority is recognised by all the captains of other vessels, officers, and sailors. In every country you have a Supreme Tribunal and a Supreme Judge, whose sentence is final, decisive, and without appeal. The Church of Christ being the work of an Infinite Wisdom, must be admirably organised; otherwise it could not be Divine. Organisation supposes order. Order supposes harmony or judicious disposition of parts with subordination of one to another, of inferiors to superiors, and of all to a first organiser, the mainspring of this visible harmony. The Church established by Jesus-Christ displays to our view a wonderful harmony and a beautiful diversity. Christ Himself is the Majestic Head of the Church, the Pope is His Prime Minister, the Bishops are the Generals of the various regiments, fighting under His banner; priests are the officers, and the faithful are the soldiers. The Church, although a Spiritual Society, since its ultimate end is the sanctification and salvation of men, has also its visible elements; the men it has to sanctify and to save are visible beings; the acts of worship which Jesus demands from them are both internal and visible, such as the refraining from serviceable works on the Lord's day, attending Divine Service, hearing Mass, assisting at Vespers or the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, performing works of mercy, fasting, abstinence, etc. In order to preserve the unity of faith and government among the followers of Christ, an organisation was needed and a Supreme authority to establish it and preserve it, so that all should form one family, one i united army under the leadership of Christ Himself and His Plenipotentiary Representative, first legate or ambassador, General-in-Chief of his army, the Pope or Supreme Pontiff. This Supreme authority was necessary to preserve in its integrity Divine Revelation, to explain it with accuracy to regulate Public Worship. If each nation, each family, each individual man were to be guided by private judgment, there would remain nothing of Christianity but the name; it would be impossible to enforce any dogma, to exact the observance of any positive law or ordinance ; people would believe what they liked and do what they pleased, and no power on earth could constrain them ; in a certain sense, every one would be to himself his own pope, his own church, and his own master. Private Judgment is the deification of human reason and the proclamation ot the absolute freedom and independence of man, tor if man is to be the judge of what he is to do to save his soul and serve God, little by little he will do less and less, and finish by giving up religion altogether. Men will not know what to belie\e or what to do ; the most contradictory things will be upheld and preached as the pure word of God, and religion will be a mockery and a cause ot ceaseless divisions, enmities, and hatreds. Refutation of the Theory of Presbyterianism. As the Church oi Christ was to endure for ever, it wanted an immutable and permanent government According to my friend, in the beginning the Church was a pure democracy ; Episcopal authority, or, as he calls it, '• Prelacy," is a thing ol later date. Hear what he says : •" Elders and Bishops in those days meant the same tning," and a little further on he adds: "Government b> Presbyters or Elders is the oldest Ecclesiastical office in Christendom." Is it so, indeed? And how can it be proved? Jesus chose His twelve Apostles, " that they should be with Him, and that He might send them to preach " (Mark hi., 12). He did not tell them to write or have His doctrine printed, put into book form, and distributed to the faithful, that they might read and interpret it by private judgment. "He chose them that He might send them to preach." Our Saviour sent His Apostles as He had been sent by His Eternal Father. "As Thou hast sent Me unto the world, I also have sent them" (John xvu., nj. Jesus w.is sent to us to preach the Gospel ot Salvation — that is, to be Our Teacher, and so were His Apostles. Again, just before His ascension He said to them : "All power is given me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach all nations. . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matth. xxviii., 18, 20). The Apostles are the appointed Teachers of the Whole Christian Doctrine ; they are the Prelates of the Christian Church established by Christ, whom people were obliged to hear and to obey. The Rev. Dickson, who pretends to be such a lover of the Bible, should know this ; if he does, how can he be honest and truthful when

he affirms that " For several centuries Prelacy was unknown in the Christian Church. Is this conformable to the Bible, which positively states that Jesus Christ set His Apostles as Teachers and Governors of the Faithful. Has he not read these words of the Epistle to the Hebrews : " Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them, for they watch, as being to render an account of your souls" (Hebr. xiii., 17)? Is it not written in the Acts of the Apostles : "To keep the precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients " (Acts, xv., 41) ? Can my friend reconcile these things with his doctrine, that " For several centuries Prelacy was unknown in the Christian Church " ? In the New Testament the Faithful are called " Brethren " ; not so the Apostles. The work of establishing Christianity in Palestine, the Roman Empire, and other countries, was carried on under the direction of the Apostles. They established the first Christian Church in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; the other Churches were expansions of that same Church, ramifications from it, and intimately linked with Apostolate or Prelacy denied by Presbyterians, contrary to Biblical evidence and historical testimony. The Apostles were not only preachers ; they had authority over those whom they taught. They were the Ambassadors of Christ (ii. Cor., v., 20) ; His Ministers and the Dispensers of Sacred Mysteries (i. Cor. iv.. 1). " For Christ we are ambassadors, said St. Paul" (ii. Cor., v., 20). "The ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God " (i. Cor., iv.. 1). They received their power and authority from Christ; "our sufficiency is from God, who hath also made us ministers of the New Testament " (ii. Cor., iii., 4-6). Thus, you see, that by Christ's appointment the Apostles were raised above the faithful in rank, dignity, and power, and set over them as Prelates. Without Prelacy there would be no Church. All other offices were grafted on this. The Apostolate or Prelacy, then, is a peculiar institution from Christ, not a mere missionary enterprise, or the outcome of historical development. The authority and rights of the Apostolate or Prelacy were communicated by Christ before the Churches were founded, the only exception being St. Paul, who was miraculously called to the Apostolate. The equality of all the Brethren in the beginning is a mere fiction, having no Biblical evidence to support it. The Apostles are to be the Judges of the Faithful. " I dispose to you, as My Father hath to Me, a kingdom . . . that you may sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel " (Luke xxti., 29-30). The Apostles spoke as having authority, they made their commands to be respected ; they never allowed anyone to interpret them by private reason. The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles as Teachers and Rulers of the Christian Church. Perpetuity of the Church. We admit that, you will say, perhaps, but the privileges of the Apostles ceased with them to exist ; they were personal favours which were not transmitted to their successors. This we positively deny. Jesus Christ came to save all men, of all ages. The needs of succeeding ages were as great, if not greater, than those of the Apostolic time. Our Blessed Lord promised that He would be with Hi;, Apostles forever (John xiv, 16). "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation ol the world (Matth. xvni, 20). The Rev. Dickson says "that f have turned this text from its purpose; that each member of Christ's Church has the same promise of Christ's presence." The Rev. Dickson is strangely mistaken ; the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have never applied this text to the faithful but to the pastors of the Church ; any other interpretation is contrary to Biblical evidence. My friend has to twist the text this way to justify the unjustifiable doctrine of Presbyterianism; but such a way of acting is not fair nor honest, especially from a minister of the Gospel. This text could not apply exclusively to the Apostles who were soon to disappear from the scene of this world ; it evidently refers also to those who were to inherit their privileges and to be their successors in the ministry, The Apostles, in their lifetime, as we have seen, organised churches. The first position in the church was occupied by the Bishop of the See. Priests were only the auxiliaries of the bishops, and deacons and other ministers the auxiliaries of both bishops and priests. St. Paul and St. Barnabas ordained priests for the faithful in every Church (Acts. xiv. 23), Bishops were not appointed by the community, but by the Apostles, who, however, as is done even to-day, consulted the community to know if the candidate was worthy of that sublime dignity. Sometimes most venerable men would suggest a name ; but the Apostles remained perfectly free to accept or reject the one thus suggested. No one could give priestly powers but an Apostle or a bishop, successor of the Apostles. St. Paul admonishes Timothy to be very prudent in the appointment of bishops (I. Tim. in. i 5(. He tells Titus to ordain priests in every city (Titus, i. 15) and he enumerates the qualities a good priest should possess. When bishops and priests are mentioned the word bishop always stands first. Bishops are generally chosen from among the presbyters or priests (Petav. Dis. Eccles. i. 1-2 Hir. i. 4. Perrone. Praelec. Tholog. ix). Bishops are often called presbyters because they had the priestly character, but bishops only, not priests, had the government of several churches, of an ecclesiastical province or diocese. Bishops always occupied a post ot honour and were ever considered as the heads of the priesthood.

Only priests ordained and appointed by bishops, with the immediate or mediate consent of tne Roman Pontiff, are successors of the Apostles and inherit their spiritual powers and privileges. The bishops appointed by the Apostles occupy the first place in apostolicity of the Church. The apostolic office survived and was continued by their legitimate successors, the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church. The Apostles imparted to them the gifts they had received. The gift of miracles and the gift of tongues were not indeed given to each of them ; however, the power of working miracles always remained in the Church as a proof of her divinity. " Peter never had any successor," says the Rev. Dickson, " who after his day could speak in unknown tongues like him, or speak and work miracles like him, or write with the same power from on high? Many saints and martyrs worked miracles as great as those of the Apostles, miracles performed publicly, in presence of hundreds, nay, thousands of witnesses. It was mainly through the miracles they wrought that the early Christian missionaries showed the divinity of the Catholic religion. The power of miracles still exists in the Catholic Church and it will always remain with her, because she is the Church of the Living God. None but the Catholic Church ever claimed the power to work true miracles. As I shall soon examine the objections of my friend to the miraculous manifestations which show the divinity of the Catholic Church, I will say no more for the present, except to remind him that spurious coins show that there are genuine, sterling ones. Even the gift of tongues has been given by God to many Catholic missionaries, particularly to St. Francis Xavier who without any study could speak the various languages and dialects of india. A critic like the Rev. Dickson, should examine facts and not talk of what he knows nothing about except through the coloured glasses of Presbyterian prejudice and innate aversion to the Catholic Church. Although bishops and priests legitimately ordained are the successors of the Apostles, each individual bishop or priest does not inherit everything that appertained to each individual Apostle. Bishops are not like the Apostles, immmediate witnesses and ambassadors of Christ with extraordinary powers, but they are the ordinary pastors and guardians of the Church. Every individual bishop is not a successor of an Apostle, as the Pope is the successor of St. Peter ; but the congregation of the bishops with the Pope is the successor of the Apostolic College. The Apostles were not limited to a particular place to exercise their ministry; bishops are limited to their dioceses. The bishops consecrated by the Apostles had their jurisdiction from Christ ; the archbishops, who in earlier times appointed bishops, had received their authority with the consent of the Pope, who conferred upon them the Pallium. The appointment of lawful bishops has always been made mediately or immediately with the consent of the Pope. When assembled in council, bishops are with him judges of the Faith. All power in the Church is transmitted to'both pastors and flocks j through the Holy See. In the East, the Popes exercised their authority mostly through the Patriarchs; in the West, the Popes founded all the great churches in Germany, Hungary, Scandinavia, England, etc. The Catholic Hierarchy is as visible as the sun at mid-day, to any impartial student of the Christian Church ; the Rev. J. Dickson has a veil over his eyes, he cannot see it, and declares " that in the Church, as organised by the inspired Apostles, there was unfortunately no provision made for a Pope, cardinal, bishop or priest.'' We have seen there was ample provision made for bishops and priests, let us consider especially what kind of provision was made for a Pope. although it might be inferred from what we have all already said. The Pope's Supremacy of Honour and Jurisdiction. The Apostolic College, as instituted by Christ, had for its object the spreading and preservation of Faith everywhere by means of bishops or prelates. It was to last until the consummation of the world. But how were the various bishops or prelates to be united together ? Was not a centre of unity wanted? Bishops occupy the first place in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ; they are the governors of the flock of Christ, each in his respective diocese. If each were allowed to govern his diocese independently, how could Christian unity be preserved ? Although, in the world there are many dioceses, there is but one Church, one Christian people. A Supreme Head, therefore, was needed to unite together the various Bishops and Churches of the world, to the end that they might not live isolated from the centre of Christendom and the body of the faithful. The unity intended by Jesus Christ is the unity of Faith in all the truths which He had revealed ; unity of practice, by means of the seven Sacraments which He instituted; and unity of government, by obedience to the same laws and submission to the chief Pastor and Visible Representative of His Divine authority. It is of this unity the Apostle spoke when he said : " Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same | thing, and that thfre be no division among you, but that you be perfect, joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (i Cor. i. 10). This also Our Saviour declared, when He said : " There shall be one fold{and]one shepherd" (John, x 16). The Supreme Head to maintain this union is Jesus Christ;

but Jesus Christ is no longer visibly in our midst ; His representative is the Supreme Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. " Peter," says the Rev. J. Dickson, " was a very frail piece of humanity indeed ; lie had no preeminence over the other Apostles except what was given him by courtesy." There was no such thing as pre-eminence among the disciples of Christ, and Peter never had any successor. Let us refute those false and unwarrantable assertions. In the first place " Peter had a place of pre-eminence over the other Apostles." This pre-eminence was not given him by courtesy but by Christ Himself. From the New Testament we see that when Christ formed His Apostolic College He assigned to one of them a per-eminent position, and conferred on him special priviliges. This privileged Apostle was St. Peter. When Jesus first met him, He said to him : " Simon, son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shall bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt, xvi, 18-19) The Rev. J. Dickson tells us that the word " Peter," translated here " rock," is neuter and cannot refer to a person. No doubt my friend is not much better informed about grammar than he is about the Bible or ecclesiastical history. Let him look at his dictionary and he will see that " Petra " is not neuter but feminine. What he meant to establish is that the promise of our Blessed Lord was not made to Peter personally, but to his faith. This is inadmissible. In the text the person is manifestly addressed. " Thou art Peter (the name given before by our Saviour), and then comes the explanation of that name : " and on this rock (Petra) " Peter and rock are set closely and clearly one against the other. The copulative particle " and," and the demonstrative pronoun "this" — upon this rock — establish the connection with the preceding subject " Peter." That is, Christ, Who is the solid rock, promises to found His Church on St. Peter, as on a secondary rock resting on Himself, in order to impart to him strength and stability, so that the gates of hell shall never prevail against this Church which, through him, He will establish. Tertullian declares that Peter is the rock on which Christ promised to build His Church. Origen says that Christ built His Church on St. Peter (Orig. in Matt. xii. 10-14). "It was on Peter the Lord built His Church,'. cries out St. Cyprian " (St. Cyp. De. Unl. Eccles. c. iv) When some of the Fathers say that the Faith or Confession of St. Peter was the rock, the}' mean thereby that it was the original and meritorius cause for which Christ made choice of him to be the founder of His Church. This explanation disposes of the objection of my rev. friend ; for, unless Christ meant that Peter was to be to the Church what a foundation is to a building, the words of our Saviour would be senseless, All the Fatheis agree that the Church was founded on Peter, and that it will last till the end of time. The Apostles participated in the power of authority which Peter received from Christ, short, however, of the Pnmacy. Peter alone, according to our Lord's words, was the Supreme Ruler and visible Head of the Christian Church on earth. To Peter Jesus committed the lambs and the sheep, the pastors and the faithful " Feed my lambs; feed my sheep " (John, xxi. 15-17). That is the whole flock of Christ was confided to the custody o( Peter. The Fathers are unanimous about this interpretation ; how then can my friend say : " he had no pre eminence over the other Apostles except what was given him by courtesy"? The Primacy of St. Peter was not only a Primacy of honour but a Primacy of jurisdiction. He presided at the meeting of the Apostolic College to elect a substitute to the treacherous Judas. | He determined the mode of election and the qualities required in the elect (Acts, 1-15) He preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts, ii. 14-37 J. He was the spokesman before the Council (Acts, iv, S and v 29). He passed judgment on Ananias and Saphira (Acts v). He confounded Simon Magus. He received the Centurion Cornelius into the Church (Acts, i-O. When in prison he was delivered by an angel through the prayers of the faithful (Acts. xii). He presided and passed sentence at the first Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul came to see him and gave him an account of his apostolic labours (Gall. 1-1S). In the enumeration of the apostles, his name always stands first. Does the Rev. J. Dickson know all this ** Ii he does how can he say " that St. Peter had no pre-eminence over the other Apostles except what was given him by courtesy ? " St. Peter, according to mv rev. iriend, " never had a successor." Perpetuity of the Primacy. The Primacy of St. Peter is the principal element of the constitution of the Church. If Christ promised to be with His Church till the end of the world it is necessary that the privileges of its chief pastor, of the she pherd of the lambs and sheep be also perpetuated for ever, because there will always be lambs and sheep to feed, brethren to confirm and faithful to govern. The very nature of the Primacy entails perpetuity. Without the Primacy, there is no Apostolical succession possible, and without Apostolical succession the Church would collapse. The juribdiction of the early Christian bishop^

appointed by the Apostles was limited to a town, country or province. Titus was Bishop of Crete, Timothy of Ephesus, Evodius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, etc. Their jurisdiction was limited to their particular see, After the death of the Apostles, who could create new sees? Who could give Apostolic mission ? If there had not been one having jurisdiction over all no one would have had authority to do it. No particular bishop and no number of them can have universal jurisdiction. Christ provided for this. He instituted the Head of the Apostolic College with perpetual authority, and through that perpetual primacy of honour and of jurisdiction the Apostolate subsist in all ages. Peter is ever living in his legitimate successors, and all the bishops ordained by him or with his sanction, mediately or immediately, are truly Apostolic men. The Church is one because it is built on Peter. History testifies that St. Peter lived and died in Rome ; his legitimate successors inherit his double primacy of honour and jurisdiction. We have the list of all the Roman Pontiffs from St. Peter to Leo XIII., who now occupies his chair. The early Fathers universally recognised in the Roman Pontiffs the successors of St. Peter. St. Ignatius styles the Roman Pontiff the "President of the Brotherhood," that is, Head of the Faithful (Ign. Ep. ad Cor., c. lvi). St. Iraeneus says : " With this Church (the Roman Church) on account of her higher rank and power every Church must agree" (Iraeneus, iif, 3). " The Roman chair," says St. Cyprian, " is the chair of Peter, the principle of unity in the w/iole Church " fSt. Cyprian Ep., lix, 14). St. Ambrose says: "Where Peter is, there is the Church " " Übi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia " (St. Ambrose Ps., xl, 30). St. Augustine is no less explicit: "When Rome has spoken the matter is ended" "Roma locnta est causa finita est " ("St. Aug. Ep., 186;. All great causes of dispute in the world in the early ages, both in the East and in the West, were referred to the Apostolic See. The Council of Chalcedon calls Rome the " Mistress of all the Churches from the beginning." The Council of Constantinople, 381, recognised the supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff. In 519 the Formulary of Hormisdas, affirming the supremacy of the Holy See and the necessity of communion with it, was signed by 2,500 bishops. These historical facts, and many more I omit for the sake of brevity, cannot be denied, and amply show that the supremacy both of honour and jurisdiction was from the commencement, for ages and ages, universally acknowledged both in the East and in the West, that is, by the whole Christian world. In the face of such crushing evidence, will my friend still maintain that " Peter never had any sucessor and that for several centuries afterwards none presumed to exercise Peter's Apostolic functions ""' Infallibility. ! " It is not at all necessary," says my reverend friend, " for the Church to be infallible, to be able with the Bible for a text book, to teach men religion, any more than it is neccesary for a schoolmaster to be infallible to teach grammar, and arithmetic, and spelling. God, as we might expect he would do, his made the plan of salvation easy to be understood." The fallible Mr. Dickson speaks as it he were infallible. Certainly an ci cathedra definition could not be more emphatic than his flippant assertions ; he expresses himself as if every word of his were Gospel truth, and not even a doubt could be entertained about their accuracy. Let us, once more, remind him to be a little more modest and reserved, and show him, if he be amenable to conviction by logical arguments, that "it is ■ necessary for the Church to beintellable to teach men religion." An error about grammar, arithmetic, or spelling will not compromise salvation , an error about taith or morals will, except in the rare case of invincible ignorance. There is no parity in the two cases. Infallibility 1-. wanted. (1) To keep in its integrity Divine revelation ; (2) to s 'ttle disputes about controveited points; (3) to unite together the members of the Christian Church ; (4) to apply to them the merits of our Lord by the administration of the Sacraments; (5) to train them in the practice of perfection, and safely lead them to their destiny. Infallibility must be permanent in the Church, because the reasons of its existence never change. Infallibility cannot remain in the Church in a vain, undetermined manner : it must be vested in a particular sub|ect. The indefectibility of the Church is a kind of infallibility, because, although every Christian is fallible, it is impossible that all should fall into error ; if this were to happen the Church would, ipso facto, collapse. If, as was maintained by the Reformers of the sixteenth century, and is affirmed in the Book of Homilies of the Church of England, " not only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise, not the people only but the bishops, not the sheep but also the shepherds (who should have been guides in the right way and light to shine in the darkness) being blinded, fell both in the pit of damnable idoltry, in which all the world, as it were drowned, continued until our age, by the space of eight hundred years." Or, as the Rev. J. Dickson put it : "If heathenism came in like a flood when the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, and attempted to amalgamate Church and State, paganism and Christianity in one." If, unfortunately, such had been the case, then there would be no Christianity at all, and it would be a folly to try to patch up a Church which Jesus Christ was not able to preserve from

damnable errors, idolatry and heathenism. If infallibility is needed to the Church, the practical question is : To whom was infallibility given? Our reply is : It was given to tho Episcopate united with the Pope, and to the Pope when defining a point of revelation or morals for the whole Christian Church, that is, the privilege of infallibility is vested in the teaching body of the Catholic Church. In an Oecumenical Council, the majority of the Bishops, united with the Pope, is infallible. God alone of His own nature is infallible, but He can keep whomsoever He pleases from falling into error. This we believe He has done for the Church and for the Pope speaking ex cathedra, that is, giving a definition of a point of dogma or morality binding on the whole Christian world. Infallibility is not impeccability. The Pope can sin, like other men, and in that case cannot be saved, except he shoul 1 truly repent. The Pope is not called " your Holiness," not because he is personally holy, but because his office is a holy one. In his private capacity the Pope is fallible. As a writer, he may teach error. He is not infallible as a preacher. John XXII. expressed, in a sermon, an opinion which he afterwards condemned. The Pope is not infallible as a scientist, nor as a priest, nor as a bishop, nor as a temporal ruler, nor as a politician, nor as a legislator, nor in his relations with temporal princes, but he is infallible in his capacity of Supreme Head of the Church and Visible Vicar of Jesus Christ, when he explains or defines a point of revelation or morality, and the definition is addressed to the Universal Church. In no other case is the Pope infallible. The Pope can make no new dogmas; he cannot add to Divine Revelation ; he is only the custodian and interpreter of Divine Revelation and of the moral law. He can neither add nor subtract from, nor in any way modify the teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. It is a dangerous illusion to fancy that the Pope can modify Divine Revelation as he pleases ; he can only remind us of it, if he thinks we were exposed to forget it, or explain it to us, if we were in danger to form a wrong conception of it. Infallibility does not forbid Biblical researches, scientific investigations, or new discoveries. Geologists, astronomers, philosophers, historians, metaphysicians, etc., may exercise their genius as much as they please. They may observe, experiment, analyse the rational proofs of revelation ; the Pope and the Church will encourage and praise them, provided they do not go beyond their proper sphere of scientific investigation. In our lecture on " Science and revelation " we shall see that there can never be a real conflict between true science and revelation. The objection of Galileo we have answered in our lecture on toleration, and we refer our rev. friend to it. The proofs of the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope have not been examined by the Rev. J. Dickson— we advise him to read them and meditate upon them. Let us observe also that a definition ex cathedra can never be reformed. The Pope and the Church are always united in such a definition, and there can ne\ er be a conflict between them; the members and the head work in harmony together. Some part'cular members of the Church may rebel, as the famous Dollmger of lamentable memory, but they are the only sufferers, and this does not destroy the unity oi the Church. The Episcopate Ecclesia docens. and the faithful, Ecclesia discens will al\va>s agree in all defined points. The Rev. J. Dickson telk us, with hi-, usu tl pomposity : " With the Bible for a text book, infallibility is not wanted to teach religion." In this he disagrees even with the greatest lights of the Reformed Churches. Let me give only a few proofs of this. " The Word of God is abused," said Collier, in his ecclesiastical history of Great Britain. " How people squabble about the sense! how it is turned into wretched rnymes, sun^ jangled in every ale-hou-,e and tavern! and all this in filse construction and sounter-meaning to the inspired writers. I am sorry to perceive the re iders of the Bible discover so little of it in their practice, for I am sure coant\ w.is ne\er in a more languishing condition, viitue never at a lower ebb, nor God Himself never less honoured and worse =erved in C hnstendom " (Colliers Eccles. Hist , P. in., 5, p 20S , Ed. London, 1852). It the Bible were sufficient as a text book to teach religion, as my rev. friend aHirms, how is it people should squabble ..bout the sense? How could they put lake constructions upon it? How could they contradict the mean ing of the sacred writers, if the Holy Ghost assisted their pmate judgment? If He does, not, how can they rely on the explanation of it given by a minister who, like them, can put a lalse construction upon the sacred text and lead them astray ? Does not this show that the Bible alone is not sufficient, as a text book, to teach religion, and that it requires an infallible authority to explain it? Luther himself is not less explicit : "This one will not hear of baptism," he says, " that one denies the sacrament, another put-, a word between this and the last day ; some teach that Christ is not God, some say this some say that; there are about as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No bumkin is so rude, but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself lnspned by the Holy Ghost, and must be a prophet. ... It the world endureth much longer, we be forced, by reason of the contrary interpretations of the Bible which now prevail, to adopt again, and take refuge in the decrees of the councils, it we have a mind to maintain the unity of faith " (Luther 11, Contia Zwingl). " Our answer," says the Rev. J. Dickson, "is unity in variety, not uniformity, is the

order of nature. Unity without variety would mean here stagnation and death." Indeed, with Bible reading and private judgment, you have variety enough ; some deny the hierarchy, some the priesthood, some all the sacraments, some the Divinity of our Lord, some marriage, some celibacy and religious vows, some good works, some sin, etc. Is this the variety advocated by my rev. friend ; if it is, the less we have of it the better. Be^a did not, like the Rev. Dickson, find that variety beautiful, for he said :—": — " Our people are carried away by every wind of doctrine. If you know what their religion is today, you cannot tell what it may be to-morrow. In what single point are those churches which declared war against the Pope united among themselves? There is not one point which is not held by some of them as an article of faith, and by others rejected as an impiety " (Beza Ep. L. ii., Ep. 202). If it were I who should so speak, my friend would perhaps accuse me of exaggeration. In our own time, has the situation changed ; from the Salvation Army to the Anglican Church do not all the sects contradict one another in the most vital points ? Let this suffice to dispose of the affirmation of the Rev. J. Dickson, that " With the Bible as a text book, no infallible authority is wanted." But what about the " Cardinals V" The Cardinalate. The Rev. Dickson says that " In the Church, as organised by Christ, there was, unfortunately, no provision made for Cardidals." Even if there was not, what would it show? Would it prove that the cardinalate is not a most wise and useful institution ? But my friend is again mistaken. "In the Church as organised by Christ and His inspired Apostles there was some provision made for it." Let me explain how this was. In every Apostolic Church, there was an assembly of presbyters, composed of priests and deacons. They formed the Council of the Bishop, and assisted him with their advice. St. Ignatius, in many of his epistles, speaks of them. Ha tells the Christians of Philadelphia to obey the bishops, priests and deacons. He gives the same admonition to the Thrallians. Later on, the members of the Bishops' Council were called Cardinals, because they were the permanent incardinati advisers of the bishop. In process of time, the canons of cathedral churches fulfilled the same office. St. Peter had his cardinals or advisers, and among them were St. Linus, St. Cletus, St. Clement, who succeeded him. Such is the origin of the Cardinalate. The only difference between the Bishops' advisers and those of the Pope, was that the formers advised the bishop for the affairs of the diocese only, whereas the advisers or cardinals of the Pope advised him for the government of the whole Church. The word Cardinal is used now for the advisers of the Pope. Sixtus V. limited the number of Cardinals to seventy. There are fifty cardinal-priests, 14 cardinal-deacons, and six cardinalbishops. It is to the college of the cardinals that the choice of the successjr to the Papacy is entrusted. They also administer the Church during the vacancy, but they can make no innovat on, nor frame laws for the Church. In the absence of the Pope, the dean among the cardinals presides at the consistories. The various branches of the administration of the Church are presided by cardinal,. Presbyterians have mimicked the Pope, and adm.tied lawmen, insteid of pnests and deacons, as their advisers ; is this a happy Reformation ? In our next lecture, we shall answer the Rev. J. Dickson 's othci objections against infallibility.