ANSWER TO LECTURE III.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIII, Issue 47, 27 March 1896, Page 21

ANSWER TO LECTURE 111.

Infallibility. Objection I. — The Rejection of Christ by the Jews — The Fall of the Churches of Asia.

" What Church has not erred ? The Jewish Church erred egregiously in rejecting Christ. The seven Churches of Asia, referred to in the Apocalypse, present as a whole a sad picture of falling from Christ's ideal, and receive very sharp reproofs at his hands. REPLY. (1.) The Jewish Church did not err in her teaching. She preserved entire the Messianic prophecies. The Jewish doctors did err in not recognising that those prophecies were fulfilled in our Blessed Lord ; this was an error of fact, not an error of doctrine. However, they were inexcusable, because the miracles of our Saviour, His admirable life and sublime doctrine, combined with the accomplishment of the prophecies in His person, should have opened their eyes had they not been blinded by pride, prejudice and the false idea they had that the Messiah was to be a great temporal monarch, who was to re-establish the kingdom of Israel ; this was the principle cause of their rejecting Christ. Nothing can be concluded against the divinity the Mosaic revelation or the prophets from this fact, no more than it can be concluded that the proofs of the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope are not most solid and convincing for an unprejudiced mind, although my friend and many others, blinded by prejudice, cannot see them. The objection, therefore, from the error of the Jewish doctors against infallibility is perfectly groundless. The blindness of the Jewish doctors and the rejection of Christ by the synagogue had, besides, been foretold by the prophets, and, instead" 5 of militating against the pre-Christian revelation, is a confirmation of it. (2.) St. John, in the Apocalypse, rebukes some bishops of Asia for want of /eal and fervour for their own perfection. What has that to do with infallibility ? Even a Pope may do wrong ; a fortiori a bishop or a priest. St. Bernard wrote a book of exhortations to Pope Eugenius III.: does it show that he did not acknowledge him as the infallible ruler of the Christian Church? Hear how he speaks of him: " Who art thou ? The High Priest, the Supreme Bishop Thou art he to whom the keys of heaven are given, to whom the sheep are intrusted. There are indeed other doorkeepers and other shepherds of the Hocks, but thou art more glorious. The former have their flocks aligned to them, each one his own. To thee all are intrusted. . . . thou art the one shepherd. Thy privilege is immutable, as well in the keys committed to thee as in the sheep entrusted to thy care" (St. Bernard de Consid. 1. 11, c. S). St. C>prun had a controversy with the Pope, yet he said- " The chair of Peter is the ruling Church whence the unity of the priesthood has its source " (Su Crypian Ep. ad Cornel. Ep. lvj. Ii my rev. friend wants to speak about theology he should first study it, in order to know what he is saying and not talk nonsense, as he commonly does. (-$.) The falling of a particular Church, or of many particular Churches, from the Catholic faith does not in the least affect infallibility. This privilege is promised to the members of the true Church of Christ and to no others. Separated Churches follow fallible guides instead of Jesus, the infallible ruler of the Christian Church, speaking to us through His visible representative. No greater proof can be given of their folly than the innumerable errors into which they continually fall, their disagreement among themselves and their servility in many cases to civil authority. It is indeed a great pity to see a Christian Church falling into error; but this can never affect the true Church, which will always uphold revealed truth and, in spite of persecution, will ever ultimately triumph and endure for ever, whilst her enemies will perish into oblivion. Objection II. — Denial of Infallibility by St. Augustine and Many of the Fathers. " Augustine, like many of the Fathers, did not believe ia Church infallibility. 1 ' REPLY. The Reverend Dickson is mistaken : St. Augustine and all the Fathers bebeved in Church infallibility. When Rome settled the question of Pel.i^ianism, this great African doctor said- " The decisions ot the two Councils of Carthage and Mileve have been sent to the Apo-tohc See : Rome has spoken, the case is ended. Would to God there might aUo be an end to the error. . . ." In another place he says :"It is enough to support the faith of the Catholic Church, to have the judgment of that Church where it was the will of our Lord that the first of his Apostles should receive the crown of martyrdom." When St. Augustine cmd out: "Roma locuta est, causa Junta est " " Rome has spoken, the matter is ended," did he not consider the decision of the Pope as final and without appeal? Whether the Council of Ephesus decided or not ari)-

thing about Pelagianism does not matter, the error still existed, and the Pope authoratively condemned it ; this is all we want to defend our position. Again when this great doctor declared that " the judgment of the Pope was the support of the faith of the other Churches, did he not thereby^confess his infallibility? If this was not a confession of infallibility, what was it then ? But what about the Fathers ? Let me commence with Origen • " If the gates of hell could prevail against the stone or against the Church, the stone would not be the stone on which Christ has built His Church; the Church could not be that Church which Christ has built on the stone. The gates of hell shall not prevail either against the stone on which Christ has built his Church or against the Church no more than a serpent can engrave a mark of his passage on a rock on which it crawled " (Origen in Matth. Greek Patrology iii). Origen, therefore, believed that the Church could not fail, that the gates of hell could not prevail against her; what was this preservation from the power of hell, if not infallibility, which the Rev. Dickson says, but could never prove, many of the Fathers denied ? Let us turn to Africa. St. Cyprian declares that "no false faith can have access to Rome " (Ep. lix, 14). If no false faith can have access to Rome she must always keep the true faith, she must be infallible. St. Ephrem, the glory of the Church of Edessa, in Mesopotamia, is still more emphatic : " Hail, light of the world, rising in the East, and everywhere shining, illuminating those who sit in darkness, ever burning without being renovated. This light is Christ ; its lamp is Peter • the oil which feeds it is the Holy Ghost " (St. Ephrem Encom. in Petrum). According to this illustrious doctor Christ is the light of the Christian world ; Peter is the lamp where it shines ; the Holy Ghost is the oil which feeds it. This bright lightj which comes from Christ through Peter, the lamp of the Church' is ever shining; it never fails; it has never to be renovated ' it illumines the wholeworld ; does not this prove toevidence that St. Ephrem believed in the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope? Hear now the Syrian solitary, St. Jerome: "The Holy Roman Church, which ever remained immaculate, shall continue for ever firm and immaculate in the midst of attacks of heretics, thanks to the Providential protection of the Lord and the assistance of blessed Peter " (St. Hier. Ep. xv ad Damas). If, according to the Dalmatian doctor, the Church of Rome shall ever remain immacuhte owing to the protection of the Lord and the assistance of blessed Peter, she must ever be free from error and infallible. Hark to the profession of faith of the mellifluous Bishop of Milan : " The barque of Peter can never be capsized ; she is the messenger of heavenly wisdom ; the Holy Spirit propels her ; her pilot is the one who gives to the Church her solidity " (See Rev. Klein. Le Pape, Paris, 18S7. p. 449). If the barque of Peter can never be capsized ; if she is the messenger of heavenly wisdom ; if the Holy Spirit 'propels her, she must always be from error and be infallible. " St. Peter gives the true faith those who seek for it," cries out St. Peter Chrysologus, the eloquent Bishop of Ravenna (St. Peter Chrysol. Ep. ad EutichJ. If St, Peter gives the true faith to those who seek for it, he must be infallible — he must be incapable of falling into error in matters of t.nth. If time permitted it, we could quote the testimony of St. C lament, a.i). y6 , St. Ignatius, Bishop of Aniioch, a.d. 114; t 1 c General Council ot Ephcsus, which calls the Roman Pontiff " the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church," a n 431 ; the General Council of Chalcedon, which st>les St. Peter " the rock and the foundation of the Catholic taith and the foundation of the orthodox faith," A.n. 451 ; the formulary of Hormidas, signed by 2,500 bishops, a.d. 062', etc. (See H. 1. D. Ryder. Cath. Cont. Papal Infal. 14-25). Will this satisfy the false oracle of the Presbytery at Temuka, and convince him that the Fathers did believe in infallibility? Could the Rev. J. Dickson point out to me one who did not believe in it ? It would be, indeed, a wonderful discovery. Objection 111. — That proving the Scriptures from the authority of the Church and in the infallibility of the Church is reasoning in a circle. " We are told that, on the authority of an infallible Church, we must believe the Scriptures, and on the authority of the Scriptures, interpreted by an infallible church, we must believe the doctrine of infallibility. This is reasoning in a circle, and these lectures of our friend are full of these ; out of their own circle he cannot get." REPLY. A little logic and reflection would have sufficed to show the Rev. J. Dickson that the Catholic demonstration is not a vicious circle ; this reasoning in a circle has no existence, except in the misconception ot our line of argumentation by my rev. friend. In order to prove the infallibility of the Church we u->e the Bible merely a? a faithful record of the words of Christ • and from these words of Christ we show that they contain the promise of infallibility we claim for the Catholic Church. If the Rev. J. Dickson were to claim that a certain property in New Zealand belongs to the Presbyterian Church, and, in proof of this, produced a deed, drawn by a lawyer, and show from external evidence and the intrinsic nature of the deed itself that the document is authentic, and that this authentic and legal document contains the donation of the said property to the Presb) terian Church, would he be accused by the juJ" j

of reasoning in a circle? Would the judge tell him that his claim is of no value, because he first attempted to show his deed was a legal and genuine one ; and, next, from that legal, genuine deed, claimed that it contained the grant of a valuable property in favour of the Presbyterian Church, to which he belongs? Apply this to the Catholic claim for Church infallibility, and you will see that the party, as to the mode of argumentation, is exactly the same. From historical, as welf as from intrinsical, evidence, we show the authenticity, integrity, and veracity of the books of the Old and New Testament ; just as, in the case I took for example, my rev. friend would show the authenticity and veracity ot his title-deed. This demonstration is a logical one. The authenticity, integrity and veracity of the Bible being demonstrated, we show from the prophecies, miracles, and supernatural truths it contains that it must be inspired, because no intellect, no matter how highly cultivated, could have conceived, without an inspiration, the truths which it contains, and no human being, unaided by God, could have performed the wonders or miracles recorded in it. Next, from the Scriptures, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the liturgies and customs and traditions of the early Christians, we show the magisterial authority of the Church and her infallibility, just as my friend would show from the wording of his title-deed, which he would first have to show to be authentic, that this authentic title-deed of his clearly contains the donation of the claimed property as rightly belonging to the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand. The infallibility of the Church does not rest on the Bible alone ; it rests on the promises and power given by Christ and His Apostles, and the special privileges granted by Him to St. Peter and his legitimate successors ; which privileges would exist even if not a line of the New Testament had been written. However, as the Scriptures of the said New Testament contain proofs of the infallibility of the Church, we quote them as an authority and witness in favour of that claim ; where is the vicious circle out of which my friend, the Rev. J. Dickson, said exultingly " that I could not extricate myself?" It is said that " Catholics prove the inspiration of the Bible by the infallibility of the Church, and again the infallibility of the Church from the inspired Bible." Observes the learned Archbishop of Melbourne :—": — " This reasoning is said to involve a fallacy. Such, however, is not the case. Catholics do not use the inspiration of the Bible in proving the infallibility of the Church. As far as the Scriptures are at all used in the proof, Catholics appeal to them merely as an authentic record of the words of Christ, in which the promises of infallibility is clearly contained '' (Aust. C. Recors Oct., 1895, 1). Will the Rev. Dickson admit that Catholics do not reason in a circle, as he pretended, when defending infallibility ? Objection IV.— Misty notion of infallibility. Alluding to my proofs and explanations of infallibility, the Rev. Dickson says :—": — " He does not seem to know whether 'infallibility' is in the bishops diffusive, or in the bishop^ gathered into a council, or in the Pope alone as the Vicar of Christ on earth; or in tho Church universal. " REPLY. Had the Rev. J. Dickson attentively read my lecture, he would have seen that I clearly stated the teaching of the Church on all these points. In lecture VII., I said . — The Church is infallible four ways: (1) Through general councils, to which all the bishops of the world have been summoned, presided over by the Pope or his delegate. The reason is clear : all the bishops of the world, united with the Pope, represent the whole teaching body, to whom the promise of infallibility and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost were promised. (2) The Church is infallible, when speaking through the unanimous voice of the bishops dispersed throughout the world whenever in union with the Pope, they decide a question of doctrine or condemn an error regarding morals. Infallibility is a supernatural privilege by which the Church is preserved trom error in matters of faith and morals, by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, to preserved the truths which have been revealed, to defend them, and to explain them with lucidity without any error. Infallibility is not a revelation of a new doctrine. It is not an inspiration by which one is moved to speak or to write, so that what he speaks or writes is really the word of God ; it is a mere assistance of the Holy Spirit to enable the Church to discriminate revealed truth from error, and explain, whenever needed, its exact meaning to the faithful. Such a definition does not exclude nay, presupposes, as a rule, prudent examination; to define a truth without having caretully examined it would be to tempt God. Now, this investigation and definition can be done as well and as effectively by the bishops dispersed throughout the world, united with the Pope, as by them assembled in council. (3) The whole teaching body in the Church, that is, the bishops and priests charged by them to preach are collectively infallible. The reason is apparent: if the teaching body taken collectively could fall into error, the faithful who are dependant on their bishops and priests for learning the truthb of salvation, would necessarily be led into error ; it our Lord permitted this, then the gates of hell should prevail against His Church, and He would be wanting to His promise , which is impossible. A particular priest or bishop, na>, several ot them, may iall into error, but this is soon found out, and the error is at once opposed and condemned, but, as I said, it can

never happen that the whole teaching body taken collectively should fall into error. If the whole teaching body taken collectively cannot fall into error, then it is evident that their agreement or consensus is a manifest proof that their teaching is absolutely true and conformable to revelation and sound morality. (4) The Church is infallible when the Pope, as Supreme Head and teacher of the Universal Church, defines anything in matter of faith and morals binding on all the faithful ; or, as is generally said, " speaks ex-cathedra." The Rev. J. Dickson should learn from this to be more precise and veridic in his statements. Objection V.— Mr. Gladstone's Vaticanism. " The history of Papal infallibility is suggestive. You may find it, among other places, in 'the Vatican decrees ' of Mr. Gladstone, a man who has done much for Ireland and who is greatly respected by the members of the Roman Church, and who, in this book, tries to prove that allegiance to the Pope is incompatible with allegiance to Queen Victoria." REPLY. All Roman Catholics are grateful to the Honourable Mr. Gladstone for his noble efforts to have the wrongs of Ireland redressed, and, in many cases, for his fairness to the Roman Catholic subjects of her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria. But, although Mr. Gladstone is a great politician, a famous Greek scholar ; he is a very poor theologian. He had most egrregiously misunderstood the propositions of the syllabus. Cardinal Manning, at the time, refuted him triumphantly. Liter on Mr. Gladstone declared that he never doubted the loyalty of the Roman Catholics living in the British Empire, and, as a proof he was sincere in his statement, he appointed several of them to the highest and most responsible offices under the Crown, even to the dignity of Viceroy of India. Th« Reverend J. Dickson cannot be ignorant of this. Why, then, by this misrepresentation does he try to poison the mind of his hearers against the Catholic body, which represents about 250,000,000 of people ? Are these distorted assertions and false inferences fair and honest? The Rev. J. Dickson also confounds the syllabus with the Vatican decrees ; the Lwo are quite distinct and have a different meaning. The syllabus, as is implied by the name, is an official compendium or abridgment of propositions already previously condemned, and as an authoritative condemnation of certain modern errors. It was not done in a hurry. Pius IX., before publishing it, had consulted the greatest doctors and most illustrious bishops of the world. All the propositions of the syllabus are not infallible definitions ; but they are a safe guidance for Roman Catholics, and they receive them with respect and submission. Leo XIII., accepting the syllabus of Pius IX,, said that it was a safe rule to guide the intellect and Catholic works. Theologians and canonists may respectfully and prudently examine what is the exact nature and importance of each of the eighty propositions of the syllabus. The propositions positively defined before are evidently to be admitted by all Roman Catholics, without any controversy or evasion whatsoever. Objection- Vl.— Accusations against the Vatican Council. (a) PROTESTATIONS AGAINST THE COUNCIL. "When the Vatican Council met at Rome, in July, 1870, it was rumoured that Papal Infallibility was in the air. Good thing if it had remained there. The infallible Church itself was greatly agitated over it. Petitions signed by 137 German, Austrian, Hungarian, French, American, and Italian bishops were sent against it. Pamphlets inside the Church as well as outside flew about in thousands." REPLY. On what is founded this calumny against the Council. In a matter of this importance, one would expect strong proofs, clear evidence to support it. The Rev. J. Dickson gives none. He affirms it is so, and I suppose he takes it for granted that all his hearers and readers will believe it on his authority. We can inform him of the source of these vile calumnies. They were principally taken from the Allgemeine Zeitung, the Tage buch, and an anonymous publication which was emphatically condemned by the bishops when informed of its existence. In so momentous a question, is it there that an impartial historian or controversialist should look for information ? We should indeed be much to be pitied, if, without inquiry, all that is said by our most bitter and unscrupulous adversaries were to be credited. Where are those pamphlets to be found which were sent about and flew in thousands, inside the Church as well as outside 7 Those inside the Church we could count on our fingers, I believe ; as to those outside, how many were circulated does not matter much ; they were composed of mere gossip, shameful expressions, put in the mouth of anonymous witnebses, falsely described as prelates, theologians, diplomatists and laymen. (b) SPEECHES AGAINST THE COUNCIL. (II). "When the discussion came on, scores of speeches were delivered against it, some on the ground that the decree was inopportune, and many that it would make the Church they lo\ed a laughing stock among the nations." REPLY. \V,i3 the Rev. J. Dickbon prebent at the deliberations of the bishops .' Did he hear their speeches? Have any of the prelates who were present at it given him any information about the various debates ? Again, I ask him to produce his

authority for his bold, rash, and unkind assertion. An honest man should affirm nothing for which he cannot give solid and reliable evidence. The truth is this : — •Many newspapers complained of the exclusion of laymen, and especially of the envoys of princes. Count Daru wrote two letters to that effect. Many distinguished ladies are also supposed to have given warnings to the bishops when they went to Rome. Several Liberal papers, in France, Germany, and other countries, set all kinds of rumours afloat. The Pope was threatened with abolition of the Concordat in France, and the withdrawal of the French army fiom Rome, and the prohibition of Peter's Pence. It was added that should the dogma be denned, there should be many apostasies in Eastern countries. At Constantinople no effort was spared to poison the minds of the Armenians. The German Press went so far as to demand that the decision should rest with the bishops of the Opposition, which were an insignificant minority, because they were considered more learned and intelligent and represented larger sees. The pretended superior learning of the few bishops of the Opposition was a myth ; the fact is that on the side of the minority there were very few men of an imposing character ; many of them made frightful theological blunders, and their arguments, on the whole, were extremely weak. As the Rev. J. Dickson might doubt my statements and imagine that they are the effect of prejudice and ignorance, let him take the trouble to read " Hergenrother " Catholic Church and Christian State, London, 1876. The Vatican Council, where he will find the authentic proofs of all I have just advanced. They are to be found in the Ist volume, part 2 " Charges against the Vatican Council," p. 137-167. We admit that some prelates considered the definition inopportune and were freely permitted to express their views ; but this cannot be brought as an argument against the Council ; on the contrary, it shows that all the prelates had the greatest liberty of speech, which is indispensible to come to the clear knowledge of truth. I doubt very much that any of the inopportunists went so far as to say that if the dogma were defined " the Church they loved would become a laughing stock among the nations " ? Where has my rev. friend taken this piece of new 3 ? I should like very much to know, in order to examine what it is worth. If it be a gratuitous assertion of his, it is unwarrantable. THE NEGATITE VOTIS. " When the first vote was taken," says the Rev. J. Dickson, " 150 bishops had the courage to say ' no,' and 80 did not vote, and may be set down as opposed. This is an answer to the statement of our friend that the Infallibility ot the Pope was always the doctrine of the Roman Church. REPLY. The Rev. J. Dickson is again perverting truth. When the first vote was taken, 62 bishops voted " Yes " condition illy Placet juxta moduni. They wanted the words, "of himself, and not through the previous agreement of the Church, Ex sese, non autein ex Conscu^u Eitlesia" to be adJed. This shows the unanimity of the bishops about the dogm 1 of mlalhbihty. The votes passed on July 13 were not decisive. It was only a preparatory meeting, miny ol the strongest advo cates of the definition being absent. The 50 who withdrew were no longer members of the Council. They cinnot, as my friend pretends, be set down as opposed, since they almost all believed firmly in the infallibility of the Pope, and simply objected to the opportuneness of the definition, which is quite different. Why does the Rev. J Dickson falsify authentic documents, and misrepresent facts and persons? See Hergen rother : "Catholic Church and Christian State. Charges against the Council" 1, 10, p. 152-153 — 1876, London, Burns and Oates. (d) THE KIN\L VOTE. "At the final vote there were still two nays. Time and pressure, however, bore down all opposition, ani one day, amid thunder, and lightening and rain, a day similar to that on which the Council met, as if the heavens were denouncing the proceeding, the Pope by the light of a candle read the famous decree that was to secure for ever the presei vation of the Roman Church, but the very next day saw the German battalions at work, which demolished at Sedan the Napoleonic Empire, and with it the temporal throne of the Pope." REPLY. This burlesque description of the grand and magestic ceremony of the closing of the Vatican Council was drawn by the Rev. J. Dickson with a view to turn it into ridicule. Should one who pretends to have no other aim but the " glory of God and His Son Jesus Christ" have recourse to such means, in order to throw discredit on the most august assembly ol Christendom V There never was in the Church a greater har mony than that which was displayed on that solemn occasion. Hear how Cardinal Manning, who was an eye witness, speaks of it " Setting aside this one question of opportuneness there was not in the Council of the Vatican a difference of any gravity, and certainly no difference whatsoever on any doctrine of faith. I have never been able to hear of five bishops who denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility." (Vatican Council by Cardinal Manning p. 33). Two bishops only voted " non placet." Where, in the history of the Christian Church, was there a greater unanimity, especially if we bear in mind that the two Bishops who hud given a negative vote submitted after-

wards ? The Rev. Dickson tells us " eighty did not vote, and maybe set down as opposed." The number "eighty" is inaccurate, " fifty/' not "eighty" absented themselves. Admitting theirs might be reckoned as a negative vote, what is fifty negative to 553 affirmative votes? No council in the Church had, in proportion, a more overwhelming majority. It is a vile calumny on the part of my rev. friend to say that any pressure was exercised on the Fathers assembled. Every one was perfectly free to vote according to his conscience ; had they not all been in favour of the proclamation, they could all have voted " non placet" as the two who recorded a negative vote. The fact that the Pope and bishops paid no attention to the threats of German, French and Eastern diplomatists shows that the Catholic Church is not a time-serving Church; that being the Pillar of Truth, she is not afraid to affirm it, no matter what temporal consequences may follow. God may permit her to be afflicted and persecuted for a while, but ultimately she will triumph over all her enemies. The definition of the infallibility of the Pope has strengthened the unity of the Church and thrown a brighter light on a truth which was generally believed from the beginning, as we have shown but not explicitly defined. The great need of our age is respect for authority. The dogma of infallibility gives to the spiritual authority in the Church a new strength and a new splendour. It is the most imposing protestation against revolution. Objection VII. — The Great Schism of the West. "The great schism of the West over rival popes in the XIV century lasted fifty years. Clement VII. supported by the bishops of France, Spain and Savoy opposed Urbain VI, supported by the bishops of Italy, Germany and the north of Europe, and these two Popes vilified and excommunicated one another. At their death the number of rival Popes was increased to three. In 1046 a.d. there were four, while at times in the 13th and 14th centuries rival Popes swarmed like bees, and every one had his sting, and the wonder is that any body lived to tell the tale. Will our friend not agree with this? REPLY. In order to understand the great schism of the West a retrospective view of the preceding ages is necessary. The northern barbarians who invaded Europe from the sth century had spread desolation everywhere and destroyed the civilisation of previous ages. The Catholic Church Christianised them, and changed those ravenous wolves into meek lambs. Germany owes to the missionaries sent to her by the Popes the greatness which it attained in Europe. Pope Leo 111, crowned Charlemagne Emperor in 800 and thus laid the foundation of the Western Empire. Ever since the influence of the Pope in Germany was very great. He alone could crown the Emperor. His advice was asked in all matters of importance. The empiie of Carcemagne comprised the present territory of France and Europe besides Germany. It was divided after his death. Germany still retained a certain influence over Italy, but France had the influence over the greater portion of the rest of Furope. Soon contests arose between the Popes and the German Emperors. When these went too far in their op jres^ion of the Italian people, the Popes courageously opposed them. Alexander 111. resisted Frederick Barbarossa and in untamed the independence of Italy. However, the Germans had their confederates in Italy, the Ghibellines, who defended the claims of the German emperors. The Pope was supported by the Guelphs, who were the advocates of Italian independence. Protected by the German Emperors, the Gbibellines grew very powerful. The Popes were sometimes driven from the eternal city of Rome by the Imperialists. On account of the continual wars between the Ghibellines and the Guelphs the sojourn of the Pope in Rome became unbearable; this is why he had to leave Italy and take refuge in France at Avignon. The cause of the quarrel with the German emperors w.is that they wanted to have the nominations to bishoprics and abbeys, and thus enslave the Church. The Popes could not consent to this, and they declared the claims of the German emperors and also of some French monarchs to be a criminal usurpation. If the civil authorities could appoint church digni-t-ines, the Church would soon degenerate and would have to accommodate herself to the whims and caprices, even of scandalous princes. The people of Europe were very much attached to the Catholic Church and held their clergy and the monks in great esteem and veneration, as is evident from the splendid cathedrals, colleges, monasteries, convents, hospitals, etc., they built all over Europe for them and richly endowed. The Church also defended the poor from the oppression and tyranny of cruel princes and landlords. Through this she was often unjustly persecuted by them. She offered asylum to the sick and afflicted, and also to travellers and artists. By the truce of God, she mitigated, as far as it was in her power, the horrors of war, for four days in the week. The Lords wanted the bishops and monks to espouse their quarrels, and, for that object, they desired to have none appointed to bishoprics or abbeys except those who were devoted to them and upon whom they could rely in case of emergency. Unfortunately those whom they proposed were often most unworthy, and the Church, happen what may, had to reject them. You may easily understand this by the state of France at the present time. Had the Jesuit^ and cHhcr ichgiuuo OiJc-rs been willing to submit to the

State, their rules and constitutions, instead of being persecuted ' and ostracised, they would be protected by the Republic ; they could not admit the supremacy of the State in purely spiritual and religious matters. Hence they are considered as enemies of the State and treated accordingly. History repeats itself. The German emperors went so far in their pretensions as to wish to invest bishops and abbots with their rings and crosier. For this Henry IV. of Germany was opposed by Gregory VII., who declared deposed all bishops and abbots who would receive their appointment from a layman. The Popes were willing to concede the giving of the insignia by the emperor, provided the appointment be made previously by them. But even this concession was abused. When the affairs with Germany had been settled by the agreement between Calixtus 11. and Henry V., troubles commenced in another place. Philip the Fair of France, being rebuked for his tyranny and immorality by Pope Boniface VIII., grew indignant. He was at war with the kings of England and Arragon. In vain did the Pontiff try to mediate between them. Philip sent his emissaries to Anagni, when the Pope was residing. They so ill-treated him that he died of the wounds he had received. Benedict XI., his successor, was, it is thought, poisoned. The next Pope, Clement V., being a. Frenchman, went to live at Avignon. He and his successors remained there for seventy years. During the stay of the Popes at Avignon, the Imperialists and the Guelphs were fighting. Rienzi, like, later on in Ireland, Daniel O'Connell, bravely defended the independence of Italy, but, unfortunately, elated by his success, misused his authority. Pope John XXII. refused to recognise Louis of Bavaria, who had been elected emperor by a faction and was supported by the Ghibellines. The proud monarch went into Italy and entered Rome. The Romans were asking for the return of the Pope. Gregory XI. yielded to their wishes. When he died, in 1378, the Italians declared that they wanted to have an Italian Pope, fearing, no doubt, that if a stranger were appointed he might again abandon them. The Cardinals, frightened, nominated Urban VI. who was Archhishop of Bary. Five months after, they declared that his election was null for want of freedom, and they appointed Clement VII. as legitimate Pope. The new Pope returned to Avignon. Thus tor about halt a century there were, as it were, two Popes, one sitting in Rome, and the other at Avignon. At Avignon and at Rome a successor was appointed to replace the Pontiff who had died. The Council of Pisa, 1409, increased the difficulty by nominating a third Pope, Alexander V. The Council of Constance put an end to the schism by prevailing on the three Popes to give their resignation and nominating Martin V., who was acknowledged by the Universal Church. Let us now calmly examine these facts. The Great Schism is the result of the double election of 1378, so that, until the Council of Pisa, there were apparently two Popes, that is / until 1409. From the Council of Pisa until the election of Martin V. at the Council of Constance, that is, until 1417, there were apparently three Popes. The election ot Urban VI. was at first made under pressure, the people clamouring, " Romano lo vole mo 0 Italiano " — " We want a Roman or an Italian for Pope." But atterwards the Cardinal-, three onl} being absent, ratified the election, and all the Cardinals signed the act ol election and acknowledged Utb.in \l. a» legitun ite Pope. Tne subsequent election of Clement VII. was, theretore. invalid. However, having been elected by twents -two or twenty-thiee Cardinal-, he had a coloured title, as well as his successor, Benedict XIII. Both in Italy and l-iance the supporters of the Pope were in good taith, and the anti-Popes themselves may have thought they were legitimately appointed. On that account their error was only m venal, and all the sacraments they administered were really valid, the Church, on account of the coloured title, supplying the deficency ot jurisdiction. The conduct of the German, French and other princes with regard to either of the contending parties has nothing to do with the c lse In their adhesion to one or the other they were generally influenced by political motives, not b_\ the canonicity or non canonicity of the election. At the Council ol Constance the question was hriall) settled by the election ot Martin V. At tins Council, recognised as canonical, there were present 200 cardinals, p ltnarchs, archbishops and bishops, 100 abbots, 300 doctors. It was opened by John XXI II. Gregory XL and Boniface XI II were represented by their nuncios. There were also several princes and ambassadors. The laity weie not admitted to the deliberations on point of taith or mjials., but onl\ to tnose on extenal administration or discipline, in order to put an end to the schism. For the sake ot peace, to promote unity and other more weight) reasons the Fathers ot the Council were empowered to insist on the resignation or deposition ot all the pretenders to the Papacy. Gregory XL and Benedict XIII. sent in their resignations, John XX.III. was deposed. He accepted the sentence ot deposition, apologised for the t.iuhs he had m ide, and was appointed by Martin V. Dean ot the Sacred College, 1419. John XXI I I. had we admit, committed grievous faults, but he repented and nobly repaired the past. This is a faithful history of the Great Schism of the West. What is there in it that can be brought reasonably against the Infallibility ot the Church or of the Pope? The resignation ot the three Pontiffs at the Council of Constance is an admirable act of humility and shows how these Pontiffs, although they

may have been mistaken as to the validity of their election, yet one and all loved the Church and were willing to sacrifice thejr rights, real or apparent, sooner than to see the Church distorted by schism and Christian nations divided in their allegiance to the legitimate successor of St. Peter. Instead of militating against Church Infallibility I think that this last scene in that painful historical drama is a most glorious manifestation of Church Infallibility. In a well-constituted monarchy, there can be but one legitima'e sovereign, but there can be many pretenders to the throne. The claims of the pretenders do not affect the legitimacy of the real king. It may happen that the pretenders may imagine they have a real title to the throne, and they may have influential partisans who may think the same. These may denounce the lawful king as a usurper, oppose him and denounce him as they themselves are denounced and opposed by the lawful monarch. There is, perhaps, no nation in the world where such things have not happened. Do people on that account contest the hereditary rights of the lawful monarchs? Do they make it an argument against royalty ? Why then should the Great Schism of the West be continually paraded against the unbroken succession of the Roman Pontiffs or their Infallibility, with which it has nothing to do ? Clement V., the first Pope who retired to Avignon, was certainly a legitimate Pope. He transmitted his privileges to his successors, John XXII. , Benedict XII., Clement VI., Innocent VI. and Urban V., who transferred his residence to Rome. Gregory XI. also returned to Rome. Until then there is no break in the succession. It is, indeed, a pity that, on account of the ivar between the Ghibbelines and the Guelphs, the stay of the Popes in Rome was rendered morally impossible, but this momentary exile in no way affects their rights and privileges of the Papacy or the unity of Christendom. Urban VI. and his successors until Alexander V. continued the line of legitimate Popes, and the election of Martin V. at the Council of Constance put an end to the lamentable schism. The Councils ot Pisa and Constance had a perfect right to insist on the resignation or deposition of the pretenders to the Papacy, just as any country might force pretenders to the crown to give up their claim when it is shown to be unfounded or their abdication may be necessary to re-establish peace and harmony. In order to fully understand the many rival claims to the Papacy it is necessary to attentively and impartially study the state of Italy and Europe at that time and the unjust interference of princes with the affairs of the Church, which was the principal cause of all these difficulties. In this the Church is to be pitied, not to be blamed. Objectiok VIII. — The Council of Basil or Basle. " Nicholas, as specimen of unity at the fountain-head, decreed the Council of Basil an assembly of men filled with the Holy Gho^t ; Eugenius an assembly of madmen, barfa mans, wild beasts, heretics, miscreants, monsters, "a pandemonium." And yet our friend tries to make a great point against Protestantism out of the unity of the Roman Church." REPLY. The Council of Basil was convened by Martin V. and was about to assemble when he died. When the Council assembled, under Eugemus IV , on the day appointed, March 3, 1341, on account of the wars between the dukes of Burgundy anU Austria, and the intention Eugenius had expressed to transfer the Council to Bologna, there was only one abbot. Cardinal Cesanni had been sent by the Pope to preside at the Council it there was a sufficient number of prelates. At the first session there were only three bishops and seven abbots. They declared that they represented the Universal Church. Eugenius ordered the dissolution of the Council and convened a Council to be held at Bologna wfthin 18 months. The city ot Bologna was more suitable, it being more easy of access to the Greeks who were anxious to be present at it. The members of the Council of Basil refused to obey the Pope. Cesarini, the Pope's legate, resigned the presidency. Many temporal piim.es, and among others Charles VI I. and the Emperor Sigismond supported the rebellious members of the Council of Basil. The Pope replied that except there were at least 75 prelates he could not recognise the Council as a representative one. However, on the representations of the Emperor Sigismond he formally permitted it to be continued. One hundred prelates assembled. Being displeased with the proceedings of the Council and wishing to please the Greeks who wanted a Council to be reunited with the Latin Church the Pope transferred the Council to Ferrari. The majority ot the prelates submitted ; a small faction resisted. This happened on Jnly }i, 14};. From that time the Council of Basle ceased to be representative ; its members were rebels against legitimate authority. Supported by temporal princes they made decrees against the supremacy of the Pope which, it is manifest, were only the expression of their angry feelings and proud disposition-,. The sessions xvi to xxv, which were presided over by the Pope's legate, were valid , after the Pope had proclaimed the dissolution of the Council and the majority of the prelates had withdrawn, it was indeed a disgraceful and scandalous assembly and a kind of pandemonium. I doubt very much if Pope Eugenius ever used the expressions put in his mouth by the Rev. I. Dickson. This gentleman seldom gives an authority or a relei en<_e lor what he asserts, so that, not knowing from whom ■ I he look his would be information, it is difficult, nay, sometimes

impossible to refute him ; as to myself, I am inclined to think it is a pure invention, although, had the words been uttered, they would not be an exaggeration of the truth. On account of the small number of its representatives and the interference of civil princes, the Council of Basles has never been considered as Oecumenical. When the Holy See permitted for a while its continuation it never sanctioned its decrees, and they are all of no canonical value, except those which afterwards were approved by the Pope, and derive their authority exclusively from this recognition. Where has my reverend friend seen that Nicholas decreed the assembly of Basil an assembly of men " filled with the Holy Ghost" ? Does he mean Nicholas V., the founder of the Vatican library and one of the glories of the fifteenth century ? Why does he make assertions without the shadow of a proof ? Some sessions of the Council of Basil were legitimate, but even of these it would hardly be true to say that it was an assembly " filled with the Holy Ghost"; there was too much of the worldly element from beginning to end. It is a sad page of history and should be a lesson to Christian princes and civil rulers not to interfere with Church affairs. Objection IX. " No traces of any of the great doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are to be seen in the records of the first two centuries, as found in Scripture or the writings of the Fathers." REPLY. This is again a sweeping assertion for which my rev. friend gives no proof whatsoever, except his own word. It is a rule of logic that what is affirmed without a proof may be passed unnoticed as not proven " Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur." If my reverend friend even said : Could it be shown that such or such Catholic doctrine was held by the Fathers of the first two centuries and proved from Scripture, I might attempt to answer him; but were I to try to show him that all the points of Catholic doctrine were taught by them, it would take a whole volume to answer this objection. Besides, I have done it in my lectures, showing from early Fathers and the Scriptures every article of the Catholic faith as far as time and circumstances did permit me. Let the Rev. J. Dickson name one single great doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which cannot be proved from apostolical tradition or Scripture, or both, and he may boast of having achieved the greatest controversial victory of the nineteenth century, for all those who have attacked a particular doctrine up to the present time, have been confounded by the very Scripture and the testimony of the primitive Fathers appealed to by him. In the early ages, the teaching was principally oral. On account of the persecutions and the hard life of the first Christian missionaries, they had little time for writing. However, the leading Catholic doctrines may be found in the various liturgies, in the Pastor of Hennas, the letters of St. Ignatius, the letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians, the letter to Diogenetes, a kind of Christian apology attributed by some to St Justin, the first letter of St. Clement, whose authenticity is well proved ; the writings of St. Denys the Aeropagyte, whose authenticity is now established by learned investigations; the works of St. Justin, of Athenagoras of Theophilus of Antioch ; the great work of St. Ireneus adversus heereses, which is of itself a kind of theology ; the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis, etc. Has the Rev. J. Dickson ever read any of them ? If not, why does he speak of what he knows nothing about ; in one place, he tells us " he considers the writings of the Fathers of little importance because they were not infallible " ; and when it suits him, he tries to make use of them in support of his reckless accusations and false doctrines ; is this logical 7 Is this honest? Objection X. "To speak of the Mediaeval Churches as the Church of Roman Catholic Church, whose creed was formulated by Pope Pius IV, in 1564, is to show lamentable ignorance of history." REPLY. During the middle ages were not the three great nations of Europe : Italy, Germany and France in union with the Roman Pontiffs ? Did they not profess the same faith as the Church of Rome? Did not the Roman Pontiffs give the pallium to archbishops, who, at that time, appointed bishops in many places ? Was not England in constant communication with Rome from St. Augustine until Henry VIII.? Did not all English people profess the same faith as Roman Catholics do to-day 7 Even before the advent of St. Augustine were not the few missionaries who visited England in communication with the Bishop of Rome? Some of them differed in points of liturgy, but none of them professed any other faith but the Roman Catholic faith. Was not St. Patrick sent by the Pope to Ireland Did he not teach the Irish the Roman Catholic religion, which they never have abandoned, and for which they have suffered so much n Was not Spain always a most Catholic country ' Was she not always in communion with the Roman Church? Did not her doctors always defend the Foman Catholic doctrines? Were not St. Cyril and St. Methodius, who preached Christianity to the Khazars. Tartars, and Moravians, faithful apostles of the Roman Church? Did not St. Cyril die in Rome 7 Was he not buried in the Church of St. Clement, S6B ? Was not Vladimir, who converted the Russians, a Roman Catholic, 9SB ? Did not St.

Adalbert, of Prague, convert the Magyars or Hungarians ? Was not this Saint a devoted child of the Roman Catholic religion ? Was not St. Willibrod, who converted the Danes, a Roman Catholic missionary ? Was not St. Anschaire, the Apostle of the North, a zealous Roman Catholic ? Was he not the legate of the Pope for Sweden, Denmark, Greenland, and Iceland ? Were not all the great writers of the medieval ages supporters of the Roman Pontiffs ? Let me quote only a few : Alcuin, famous Roman Catholic theologian ; St. Paulinius, of Aquilea; Thodulphus ; Eginhard ; St. Nicholas the Great ; Raban Maur ; Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims ; St Paschasius Radbert ; John Scottus Erigenus ; St. Eulogius, Archbishop of Toledo; Paul Alvar, of Cordoua; Usuard ; AnasLasius, the librarian of the Roman Church ; St. Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres, etc. Does not the Reverend J. Dickson show a lamentable ignorance of history, when he falsely affirms that the medieval churches were not churches of the Roman Catholic Church ? The creed of the Catholic Church was framed by the Apostles before their separation to preach the Gospel. The other subsequent creeds are only a fuller explanation of the same creed, according to circumstances, and the needs of the time, such as the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed and the Creed of Pius IV., which embodies the principal articles of faith defined by the Council of Trent against the reformers. To say, as my rev. friend does, " that the faith of the Catholic Church was first formulated by Pius IV., in 1564," is to display an ignorance, which, especially in one "who professes to honour truth," is inexcusable.