N. GOOD evening, James, and you too, M. We can go on without these gentlemen. And as we are going through the facts of history, very little of course can be said, and the great schism which broke out in Rome in this century is so well known that no one can call it in question; but it upsets all pretense of a regular succession altogether. There are a few Pontificates to notice before we come to it. Boniface VIII. begins the century. He was in continual conflict with the civil powers, excommunicating and deposing Emperors and Kings, especially with the King of France, whose agent in Italy finally took him prisoner, and though rescued by the inhabitants of Anagni where he was, he died almost immediately after of chagrin.
He was violent and imperious to the last degree; many alleged that he was no true Pope, as no Pope could resign as Celestine had done to make way for him, and if so, he could not be Pope as Celestine was. The latter alleged the example of the first Clement, whom Peter had named and resigned, because no Pope ought to be nominated by his predecessor, and so was Pope after Linus and Anacletus. He was charged also with poisoning Celestine. Wickedness and violence were so rife, that crimes and false accusations from supposing them were both so common that it is often hard to tell what is true. He was charged with heresy, denying the immortality of the soul and all manner of crimes, but it was all quashed in the council of Vienna.
Benedict, called XI. and so recognized by subsequent Popes, followed this title, however set up as Benedict X. one who was not reckoned lawful Pope-so uncertain is the succession. Raynald (Cent. of Baronius) says he took the name of Benedict XI. (though if the thing be more accurately examined he was only X.) (1303, XLV.) He was respectable, but fond of monks, and was (it is believed) poisoned, and it seems to be proved (Rayn. 1304. XXXV.) He revoked all his predecessor's acts against Philip. In all these times excommunication and deposition of Kings and Emperors were the common weapons of war between state and Church. There were now two parties in the body of cardinals who chose the Pope, and so evenly balanced that they could not agree, and for some time there was no Pope. At last they agreed that the Italian party should name three French prelates, and the other choose one out of them in forty days' time, for the parties were the French and Italian parties. The Italian named three French greatly opposed to the French King; but before the French party selected their chief, knowing the ambition of the first of the three, he sent to the king, who told him he could get him made Pope if he agreed to his conditions; he accepted all with one secret one, and was named by the French party, the Italians thinking they had their way and that a friend of Boniface's against the king was chosen. He became Clement V., and did everything openly agreed on with Philip—a nice specimen of succession to the Apostolate of Peter. He stayed in France, but after staying awhile at Bordeaux and Poitiers, settled at Avignon, which did not then belong to France, and there the Popes were for seventy years, called by the Romans the Babylonish Captivity. The Emperor set up another Pope at Rome, Nicholas V., but he did not succeed in his plans, so that after some time this Roman. Anti-pope submitted himself to Clement. The abuses in the monarchy, and in the way the Pope by various inventions got all patronage into his hands, at this time incensed the nations (Fleury 90, XLIX.; Dupin Cent. XIV. c. i.; Rayn. 1305, II, III.) Clement V. passed away. The difficulties were greater than ever. The Italians wanted the Pope back to Rome, the French to keep him. The decision being long protracted, the mob assembled, the place was set on fire, some say by the Cardinals, others, by their servants or the mob. The Cardinals dispersed and could not be got to trust each other to come together. At last the next French King sent his brother, who invited them individually to Lyons, had long conferences with them, but in vain; at last, having summoned them all to a monastery, shut them all up, and would not let them out till they chose a Pope. They spent forty days still, and John XXII. was elected. Some say, not being able to agree, they did agree to put the nomination in his hands as a Cardinal of no account, and he named himself, having sworn not to mount horse or mule if it were not to go to Rome, and so went by river to Avignon, and walked to the palace. At any rate he sat Pope at Avignon. Pope John condemned as heretical what Nicholas III. had affirmed (Fleury 95, XV.) It was in his time Nicholas V. was set up by the Emperor. He also published dogmatic sermons on the beatific vision of God, condemned as heretical by the universities and other doctors, and their judgment was published. He would have left it open, but the doctors were firm. It is said he fully retracted on his death bed. However, one of the friars was burned under John XXII., and two by Innocent VI. at Avignon. Four were also burned at Marseilles for holding absolute poverty to be the right path, which Nicholas III. had pronounced right. Benedict XII. succeeded John. The first thing he did was to preach against his predecessor on the beatific vision, and then held a consistory with many doctors, on which the proposition of Pope John was formally condemned, and those who maintained it were declared heretics.
Bill M. But I thought the Popes were infallible.
N. So they have decreed lately. But they have been as we said before openly condemned as heretics, as Honorius. Liberius signed an Arian creed. And here one condemns the views of another, as positively heretical, and another burns two friars for persisting as to Christ's possessing nothing, in the opinion affirmed to be true by his predecessor, Nicholas III. Clement VI., Innocent VI., Urban V. and Gregory XI. some time before they died made a declaration by which they retracted all that they might have advanced in disputing or in teaching or preaching or otherwise (Dupin, Cent. XIV. c. iii.) so that they hardly thought themselves infallible. I suppose the Romanists would say it was not ex Cathedrci, but disputing, teaching, preaching, or otherwise takes a pretty wide scope, and what was pronounced ex Cathedra would come seemingly within teaching, preaching, or otherwise.
At any rate, if a man may teach and preach, and in every other way of communicating his thoughts, teach error, his pronouncing ex Cathedra is not worth much. In disputing, a man may be hurried away. But the Apostles, whose place they pretend to hold, know nothing of their preaching, or teaching error, (quite the contrary), and their being safe when speaking ex Cathedrȃ. It was their teaching and preaching which was inspired. But we are tracing succession. Why a number of French Cardinals electing one of their number at Avignon should make a person Bishop of Rome it would be hard to tell. But we will proceed with our history, for we are at an important epoch. Gregory XI. died at Rome when on the point of going back to Avignon. The Romans insisted on a Roman or at least an Italian Prelate, and attacked the conclave so that the Cardinals were in fear of their lives. The great number of them were French, but of these many were of the country of Limoges, so that they did not act together, as these wanted one of their party, the other Frenchmen not. There were only four Italian Cardinals. It is said that one was made to put his head out of the window, to tell the people to go to St. Peter's, which was taken by the people to mean that they had elected the Cardinal of St. Peter's. Meanwhile it was proposed to elect the Archbishop of Bari, who at any rate was an Italian, but not a Cardinal; the French party say he was only elected to pacify the people, with the understanding that he was not to take the papacy, the choice being only made under the influence of fear of the populace, and hence having no validity, and so afterward they certified the King of France. So Dupin. The Italian party, while not denying the clamors and violence, but making them arise later in the affair, insisted that the election was regular and valid. Fleury's account gives this color to it. Raynaldus of course insists that it was free, and urges that the people's leaders went to the window and insisted it should be a Roman, and that the choice of one not a Roman proved that they were free. The tumults then were great at any rate. Some would have made the Cardinal of St. Pierre Pope, but he disclaimed it, and the Archbishop of Bari was. crowned and enthroned Pope in the midst of these tumults. He took the name of Urban VI. But the Cardinals were not content, and under pretext of the hot weather went to Anagni, and there they chose one of their own body, who became Pope also, under the name of Clement VII., who removed to Avignon. The Cardinals sent a long account to the King of France, who assembled prelates and doctors, but not satisfied with this, sent ambassadors to Italy to ascertain the facts, and on their report owned Clement to be the true Pope. Spain after some time owned him too. Urban was occupied with politics and fighting in Italy, but he succeeded in maintaining himself as Pope there, and putting down the Clementines tolerably completely, though Jeanne, Queen of Naples, was for Clement, but she lost her kingdom and her life. England and Germany were for Urban, Scotland for Clement, Northern Europe for Urban, but Lorraine, Savoy and other provinces for Clement. Each Pope condemned and excommunicated the other and his adherents. Both consecrated prelates and clergy, so that the idea of a secure succession and the maintenance of the Church in sacramental grace by it is a simple absurdity. If Urban, as Raynaldus and Platina would have it, was Pope, then all France and Spain and other countries were excommunicated out of the pale of the Church, and all their orders invalid, and all they conferred on others null and void, and all the sacraments which they hold to be necessary to salvation invalid and of no efficacy.
James. But what do they say to all this?
N. They deplore it of course, and say it was a source of infinite mischief, but as Raynaldus expresses it, that He who has dominion over heaven and earth brought the Church out of it. We shall see how they got out of it; but the whole order of succession and clergy was broken in upon while it did last. Urban may have been true Pope on their system, but hardly so if what all the Cardinals and others allege was true. He was named, they declare, under violence and threats, to escape the populace. The riots and violence, and the attacking the conclave is not denied, and as soon as they got out of Rome they protested, and France and Spain, and Naples and other places accepted their view of the facts. All is uncertain in the succession. It is not denied there was the utmost violence and tumult. Contemporaries state that the people forced their way armed into the court of the palace of the conclave into which they had been driven with threats by the populace. Bundles of rice stalks were laid under it to set it on fire, and they threatened to cut down the Cardinals if they did not choose a Roman. The heads of that district of Rome came and told them they must do as the people required, or they would suffer violence. The Archbishop of Bari had been previously in consultation with the Cardinals, and though an Italian, being opposed to the Romans,, the Cardinals thought he would go with them in their views, and was then chosen in a hurry, as it was thought he would reject it. If so, the temptation was too great. This account seems pretty well authenticated. It is to be remarked that the Italian Cardinals, three at least out of four, joined the rest at Anagni where they went, and then to Fondi, to be secure to choose Clement VII. Various depositions are given in Balergius' "Notes to the Lives of the Popes of Avignon," and especially those of the Cardinal of Florence. If he tells true, Urban's friends were false and perjured in their statements. One thing is clear, the French would have had a Frenchman for Pope if they could, and that fear actuated them in choosing Urban VI; on the other hand they were jealous of the Cardinals of Limoges, because the Avignon Popes had been thence.
The fullest and clearest account of the proceedings, as far as I know, is the first life of Gregory XI. in Balergius (443 and following). Before the conclave, according to this account, the Romans had driven the upper orders out of Rome, and introduced a mass of rough countrymen, taken possession of the gates that the Cardinals might not leave, and when they met broke in with them. The Bandarenses, chiefs of the twelve districts, had warned them before, individually, and on going into the conclave assembled them, and said they must elect a Roman or at least an Italian, or meet with worse; and the mob
filled the palace and room under the ball of conclave with weapons and dry reeds, and all night rioted there, vociferating while they were saying the mass of the Holy Ghost. The Cardinals sent the three deans or chiefs of the three classes of Cardinals, the people having insisted on the windows being opened, in the hope of calming them, but in vain; and a second time; but the people raged violently at the doors, insisting on the nomination of a Roman or Italian, threatening death, &c. They thus chose Bartholomew, Archbishop of Bari, as he had been present at the Roman consultations to force the choice of a Roman, was a doctor of Canon Law, and supposed to be upright. They supposed he would give it up when elected, and there was calm. For the-' same reason they had to go through with and crown and enthrone him. The account is by one who favored Clement; but it all hangs perfectly well together, and the main points certain. That they were forced by the populace against their inclination is certain, for they would have desired to go to Avignon. Whether it was sufficient to annul the election is another question. Of course the Romans as such call the others schismatics. But it clearly was not so certain. The university of Paris writing to Benedict XIII., just elected, on the point says: Clever and upright men scarcely see their way in it (quicquam ibi videant). Nicholas, Cardinal Panormitanus, says that the pontificate of Benedict. XIII. (of Avignon) was probable; for the question was arduous in law and in fact. Cardinal Cajetan, or de Vio, legate to Germany about Luther, reproves those who consider either obedience, so called, schismatic; declaring that the right of each had been and was doubtful, and what is positive on the point is, that both were deposed as Popes from their papacy, and Martin V. confirmed the decree of Constance, which by depriving both recognized both; and Sylvester Prierias says neither were; as men most skilled in Scripture and Canon Law, and pious, and more conspicuous as workers of miracles, adhered to each; and that it was necessary to believe there was only one Pope as one Church, and whichever was canonically, elected; but no, one was obliged to know which was, nor Canon Law. In this the people will follow their ancestors or prelates. This is a strange certainty of succession-so uncertain that nobody was bound to say which was true; the general council and Pope treating both as true, which, according to the famous Dominican, was contrary to what was necessary to salvation for men were bound to believe there was only one. Another says plainly that for those forty years he does not know who was Pope. (See preface to Balergius.)
Bill M. But this is poor' ground to build a man's religion on.
N. I should think it was; but succession is one of the marks Dr. Milner and all give of the true Church.
Bill Al'. I do not see who is to find it, if it is.
Mrs. James. But I do not understand, Sir, how a person who reads Scripture can think of such things being a security at all. If my faith rested on all this, where should I be? It is a sad history, but from what I have heard (and those gentlemen that were here yesterday did not deny the facts), I do not see how they can put the Church in connection with such things. And when there were two Popes at a time, and whole countries and the clergy in them following such, succession could not have been a proof of the true Church, for there was no sure succession there. But what strikes me most is how foreign it all is to everything in the word of God.
.N*. Foreign, indeed We are following it out because it is the ground this pretension to be the true Church is above all based upon. But men may take up Scripture as a matter of learning, not in its power over the conscience, and as working faith by the power of the Holy Ghost in grace. A mere store of learning is a different thing from God's word brought' with divine power to the soul. It is conscience that is cognizant of and intelligent in the word of God, because it is what the word acts on. It is man pretending by his mind to judge the word that leads to what is called rationalism. The human mind thinks it can judge of Scripture, but that is denying it to be the word of God, to start with, for if it be I must bow to it. And hence it is that, will', we must have divine teaching by grace to use it, tn.,. simple, if humble, understand it better really than the learned, because they come to it as God's own word for their consciences and hearts, and not to discuss and judge about it so that it practically loses that character. " I thank thee, 0 Father, said the blessed Lord, " Lord of heaven and earth, for thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." Of course if an ignorant person is not humble, and affects to judge about it by his own mind, he will go astray like another. He is not before the word as if God were telling him His thoughts, as He is there.
Bill M. But a person must know it is the word of God.
N*. But it is by its acting on his heart and conscience, and revealing God to him that he knows it. I know what a knife is when it cuts me, and honey when I taste its sweetness. It is not a matter of proof. The word acts through grace on the soul, and I am conscious of its actings from God as sharper than any twoedged sword, and I find all things naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom I have to do, and that is God. So I know it is His word, His eye on me.
Bill M. That is true. It gets sharp into the conscience, sure enough, and makes you know what you are.
N*. Thank God you find it so, M. That is just God working in mercy in your soul, though it be humbling to find all the evil that is there, but it is God's light come into it.
Mrs. J. But even when we know it is God's word, and own it with all one's heart, sometimes it takes no effect in the soul.. That is what troubles me sometimes.
N*. We are wholly dependent on the operation of the Spirit of God for profiting by it. But that is as all the rest of our history, only it is brought plainly before us when we have to do with the word. Your heart is cold and dull if you are preparing James's dinner, and very likely you do not find it out; but if you take up the word of God, where we know we ought to take an interest, and the heart be affected, we find out our darkness and coldness, but so much the better. That is what is needed then, and in looking to the Lord He will help us and give it power in our souls. I find often I may read a chapter, if not watchful, and, through knowing it well, not have a thought out of it, but not if I am looking to God. Then there is always fresh light and divine power on the soul to keep us before God, and lead us on.
Mrs. J. It is true, Sir. We need grace every moment, and thank God we know where grace is. May He make us diligent.
N*. May He indeed do so. The diligent soul, it is said, shall be made fat. But here are Mr. R. and Mr. D. Good evening, gentlemen.
R. I do not disturb you?
N*. Not in the least; quite the contrary. At the moment we were speaking of the way the word of God made its power good in the conscience. But we had been speaking of the beginning of what is called the great schism, which so fatally breaks into the boasted unity of the outward Church, pretending, as it does, to be always one and the same.
R. I know you Protestants profess to rest on the word of God, slighting or denying the authority of the Church, and resting on private judgment.
N*. And do not you rest on the word of God? We can easily judge what you are if you do not. -
R. Of course I do; but you look to private judgment, and we look to the Church's judgment.
N*. Well, I attach no importance to the word Protestant, save as it has come to mean a protest against the false doctrines and abominations of Rome. In that sense I call myself so as a matter of earnest faith. At first it was merely a protest of the German electors against the recess of the diet of Spires. And the rationalist sense of private judgment I wholly repudiate. Faith is subject to the word of God; it is blasphemy to judge it. As we have often said, it judges me, and will judge those who have had it and not bowed to it, at the last day. We were speaking of this when you came in. But you bring in the Church between God and the soul, to which He speaks by the word, and you have no right to do that. It is openly trampling upon the rights of God in addressing Himself directly to His people, as He has. If by private judgment you mean not my judging of the word, but my having it directly from God Himself, and that no man has a right to come in and hinder God from speaking directly to my soul, then, though it be an abuse of the term, I insist, I will not say on my rights, though, as between man and man, there would be reason in it, but on God's rights, with which you are wickedly meddling.
R. But did not the Apostles command with authority?
N*. Command with the authority Christ expressly gave them they did; but they never exercised any authority as between God and His dealing with men's souls by the word. They were inspired to communicate it directly to people's souls; but they had no more to do with judging it, or thought of withholding it, than the meanest of God's people. They were channels to give it to them, and they appealed directly to those which people had already had, and those that searched them to see if what even they taught was according to them are commended. Even when persons wrested them, as of course may be done, there is no thought of withholding them or turning any, even the weakest from them for that reason. Doing so is a proof men are afraid of the light, be they Romanist or infidel. As to the Church's judgment, we are just come to a point where we have necessarily to judge the Church.
R. That never can be.
N*. Well, now, can the Church answer for me in the day of judgment? Must I not answer for myself?
R. It cannot; you must answer for yourself; but the Church will not mislead you here below, and if you follow it, you will be all right then.
N*. How do I know that? Was Urban VI. or Clement VII. the true Pope?
R. Urban of course.
N*. Well, all France and Spain, and other places too, held Clement VII. to be the true Pope, so that the faithful in those countries went all wrong by following what you call the Church, and were schismatics, and had no true sacraments.
R. But they ought to have recognized Urban and not Clement.
N*. Then they must have judged for themselves and judged what called itself the Church. And this lasted with various phases some forty years or more, so that a whole generation died in this condition. At any rate, to be right, they must have judged the Church and Popes too for themselves, and the ablest men and the most pious, even saints, as they were called, were uncertain, and could not tell. And some say they were not bound to know which, only to believe in the abstract: there could be only one. But then Apostolic Succession goes to the wall, for none could find it out certainly; and the sacraments were just as good without it, for they were not both in due succession at the same time. Further, one or other (if either) must have been the true Pope, and then all the rest were excommunicated, and could, as I have said, have no sacraments. If not, their validity depends simply on the faith of the receiver. No; your system breaks down altogether here. It is absurd, with two, and even three Popes at a time, and all Europe divided between them, to keep up the fiction of Apostolic Succession. I do not mind any Pope, and very likely neither was rightly Pope on their own principles, but that does not help you.
R. No doubt they were sad times, and the schism produced infinite mischief, but see how God brought the Church out of it. "Rejoice not against me, 0 mine enemy: when I fall, I shall rise again."
.N*. The professing Church no doubt was brought out of the schism at last, but Rome brought it into it. Where was unity then? And all pretension to security by Apostolic Succession was gone.
Bill M. I beg your pardon, sir, but you say that the Pope that was at Rome was the true Pope.
R. Yes.
Bill M. What then was a Frenchman to do? To judge for himself, and follow him and go against his own clergy and Church, or to follow his clergy in France?
R. He must follow his own clergy in France; and if he was sincere, God would forgive him his ignorance.
Bill M. But I understand they were all excommunicated and condemned by what you say was the true Pope, who appears now was infallible; and how could he be all right when the right Pope excommunicated him for doing it?
R. Ignorant persons cannot be expected to judge of such questions, and as I said, God is merciful and will have compassion on them.
Bill M. Still they are excommunicated by the true Church, and have no real sacraments, and their own clergy led them all wrong. It is a different story from what I thought, that it is.
N*. What M. says, Mr. R., is quite true. That God has compassion on poor souls deceived by the clergy, if they look to the Savior, I doubt not; but to pretend that the clergy or the Church is a security for any soul is clearly proved to be unfounded by the facts we are contemplating. God's bringing them out of the ditch they were all in is no proof they could keep people out of it. They were in it themselves, and all that hung upon them with them. The blind had led the blind, and both were in the ditch, just as the Pharisees did the masses against Christ. For as M. has said, the clergy that led the people, all that you call the Church,' in France, were excommunicated by what you call the rightful Pope, while their Pope excommunicated the one at Rome; and this was not a temporary accident, but they had their successors till both were. alike put down by the Council, first of Pisa and then of Constance. Meanwhile the corruptions in the Papal government of the Church increased tenfold. The Popes made their fortunes out of ecclesiastical benefices in provisions, reservations, annates, all sorts of inventions to bring money to themselves in conferring benefices. One person is said to have had five hundred benefices. The university proposed an inquiry as to who was Pope, so that they were not sure; that both should abdicate, as each proposed an inquiry as to his competitors; if they would not abdicate, a general council, and as most of the prelates were very ignorant, to have doctors and others with them, though by rights prelates alone had the right to sit there. It is at this time that Nicolas Clemangis* rector of the University of Paris, gives such an awful picture of the immorality of the clergy and the corruption of the Roman Court, saying, from the head to the feet everything was given or rather sold for money, Cardinals having as many as five hundred benefices; that the convents were brothels of Venus, and to make a girl a nun was to give her up to prostitution; nor is it denied.
The famous Petrarch gives a like account of the Court of Avignon before the schism. Everything bad and nothing good was found there. Everything was sold for gold. (Raynald 1311, LV. and Fleury 92, XI.) It was the same at Rome under Boniface, Pope after Urban. Sales of benefices were regularly carried on with every kind of fraud (Fleury, 99, XXVI). Meanwhile much was done by the princes of Europe to put an end to the schism and to get both Popes to abdicate. France withdrew its obedience, and then Castille, to the Pope at Avignon, but rejected Boniface at Rome. Benedict, at Avignon, was besieged by France and agreed to abdicate on the Roman Pope doing so. Boniface refused, but would appear before a Council. England supported Boniface; Innocent VII. followed Boniface at Rome; Benedict had sent an embassy to Rome proposing the abdication of both; Innocent proposed a council and the cession of the Papacy by the Pope. Gregory XII. succeeded Innocent; Benedict proposed conference and refused cession, excommunicating those who approved it; the King of France burned the bull; Benedict fled to Genoa, then to Perpignan. Gregory was elected under promise to resign if union could be effected; Benedict protested the same thing. At last the Cardinals of both sides met at Pisa, and then at Leghorn, and sent a circular letter proposing a council as the only means, as the Popes would not yield, and there was such exceeding difficulty as to law and as to fact, and they blame both Popes as ruining the Church, and so did the Council, going into all the facts, and charging them with bad faith and even collusion. Finally they depose both, take off the excommunications of both, as it was so doubtful who was Pope, and chose Peter of Candia, Alexander V., who confirmed all their acts. But Gregory, who kept the south of Italy, and Robert, King of Romans, and his partizans, and Benedict XIII., who still held fast hold of Spain, kept their ground. Each held a so-called general council, Benedict having 120 prelates, but who could come to no conclusion, and sixteen only remained, who decreed he was Pope and was not to yield. Gregory held a council, but could get scarce anyone to come, and fled through fear of the Venetians and went to the south of Italy. Each of these condemned Pisa and their Pope and each other. Pisa deposed the two as schismatic, heretic, and as guilty of other crimes, all the Cardinals of both obediences being there save one. A new council was to be held. Now there were three Popes, two doubtful and deposed, and a third chosen, but it was alleged unlawfully. And this is so much the case that the highest Roman Catholic authorities are not agreed who was Pope. Raynaldus counts Gregory as Pope all the time, till he gave up at Constance. Bellarmine says Alexander V. must be owned, as the next was Alexander VI. (De Conc. I. 8.) Raynald (1409, LXXX.) says that is nothing, as the Stephens had two numbers, one of them not being owned, and the Johns three, as two of them were not owned by many. Balthasar Cossa was the leader in the affairs of Pisa, but would not be Pope, but got Alexander V. elected, and governed under him, and then became Pope at his death. Dupin speaks of the schism as going on to the Council of Constance; Fleury says nothing either. Platina reckons Alexander V. and John XXIII. One reason Bellarmine gives for the authority of the council is that a doubtful Pope is no Pope. Now I ask if in such a state of things we can talk of the Apostolic Succession. Pisa, Constance, and Basil professedly deposed Popes, the two former finally succeeding, the latter not, while the latter pronounced a council to be superior to the Pope. Constance confirmed the acts of Pisa, so that we have the authority of the episcopacy as to the wickedness, heresy, and deposition of both Popes engaged in the schism; but it consulted without John, and when he fled because of the charges brought against him, they deposed him. Raynald, however, treats the see as vacant, Gregory having resigned.
Who was Pope now?
R. It was a time of sad and admitted confusion, only
God had mercy on the Church.
N*. Is confusion a security for faith, or can apostolic
succession be a mark of the true Church, when nobody knows who was Pope, and at last all were deposed?
Bill M. Who do you think was Pope, sir?
R. Well, when so many great and pious men have doubted of it, it would be presumptuous for me to say. The only real difficulty lay between Gregory and Alexander V., and that was healed by the council of Constance when Gregory resigned, and John, the successor of Alexander was deposed, and Martin V. became Pope.
Bill M. But according to that, sir, the only ones who could be really considered so-at least one or other-
were set aside, and Martin was nobody's successor, but new made by this council. He does not seem to be the successor of anybody.
R. If we consider Gregory as Pope, the see was vacant
on his resignation, and Martin succeeded him.
Bill M. Pardon me, sir; you say, if we consider him so. But how can I tell whether I ought to consider him so? You say it would be presumptuous to decide when so many great men take different sides, and I am told to rest my faith on Apostolic Succession.
R. You must take it, trusting to God's care, as the whole Church receives it now when no such questions exist.
Bill M. But that is taking it for granted that it is the
true Church. I was told to find that out by Apostolic Succession, which they pretended was quite clear; and what they said to me was not true, for it is not quite clear; and now I am told to believe in Apostolic Succession by the Church's owning it; but I must first know it is the Church, and most Christians do not believe it is the Church, and do not believe in succession either. I find nothing to rest my faith on here. You are obliged to admit, and these great doctors admit, it is uncertain, and some are for one and some for another. When I read the Scriptures I have no need of succession; I have what you own to be the word of God, and I feel it does me good. I should be lost in looking into all these histories of the Popes, when even learned people do not know what to think. In the Scriptures I have what I know is right, though I may be very slow to learn all it means. And let me ask you, sir, had this council the right to judge the Pope and depose him?
R. Well, it is a very delicate question; perhaps, if he left the faith. But the more probable opinion is-and now generally received-that a council cannot depose a real Pope.
Bill M. But it seems they did depose them here.
R. Gregory resigned, and it was doubtful if John was the legitimate Pope, and then he could be more easily set aside. A doubtful Pope is not like an acknowledged legitimate one: so says Bellarmine.
Bill M. All is then uncertain. If they could not set him aside another could not be appointed, and you have no real succession from the one that was put in his place. If they could, there was no succession at all. If he was not Pope there was nobody to succeed. All is uncertain that I see.
James. But I do not think Dr. Milner says anything of all this.
Bill M. Ah! Let us look at him and see. Where are we to find the place?
N*. It is here, Part II., Letter XXVIII., Cent. XV., and it is thoroughly dishonest. He says: The succession of Popes continued through this century, though, among numerous difficulties and dissensions, in the following order: Innocent VII. Gregory XII., Alexander V., John XXIII., Martin VII., &c. He adopts without saying a word of the others, who had almost half Europe under them, and were owned by many of the greatest authorities, the Roman succession. That for a zealous Romanist we can understand, though an honest man would have spoken of the others. But more than this, if Gregory XII. was Pope, Alexander V. was not. Alexander died long before Gregory, and was not his successor. Raynald will not own Alexander as Pope at all, though relating his case, and that of his successor, John XXIII. Nor could Raynald own John properly at any time; because if Gregory was Pope, John was not, and Gregory's resignation could not validate John's illegal election. Possibly Dr. Milner would say Alexander was Gregory's successor when the latter was deposed by the Council of Pisa. But to say the succession of the Popes continued is not honest, for there were three at a time who claimed to be, and Gregory had been, regularly elected at Rome; and if Alexander was Pope it was by the authority of the council who set aside Gregory as not legitimate Pope, as well as Benedict. If not, then Alexander was no Pope at all.
Bill M. But what do you say Mr. It. to this? took their statements all for true.
R. It is not my business to defend Dr. Milner. I suppose he thought Gregory legitimately deposed, and Alexander V. to be the true Pope.
Bill M. But if you say " The true Pope," I have to search out which was the true Pope, and I find now other learned men do not think he was, this Gregory being there. He gives it for an unsuspecting person, as a plain succession. And it is not plain, for they doubt about it themselves, and if I have understood, put them all down at last. I see he cannot be trusted a bit.
N*. And your great historians and teachers insist that a council, instead of healing a schism by pretending to depose the Pope, made it worse, for they had three Popes instead of two. Clearly Milner deceives his readers here, and you, gentlemen, who rest on Apostolic succession must either be ignorant of history, or seek to mislead. For two Popes, at a time, with half Europe believing one to be Pope and half the other, and a council deposing both as no true Popes, but schismatics and heretics, and naming a third, and then leaving three, is no regular succession.
D. But our English succession is not involved in this.
N*. Your English succession cannot secure the whole Church. Besides, it is not so sure either, for though the "Nag's Head " story is a miserable falsehood of the Jesuit Holy wood, propagated by Stapleton, you would find it very hard to prove that Barlow, who consecrated Parker, was ever consecrated himself. However, this is not our subject. Apostolic succession at Rome is too uncertain to prove anything but the shame of those who allege it, when once history is honestly inquired into. But we may pursue that history a little further. There were still three Popes, the French, the Roman, and the Pisan Council Pope. It had been settled that a general council should be held in three years. John, the Roman Pope, called one at Rome, but nobody came.. Then the Emperor Sigismund agreed with the Pope to call one which met at Constance, much to the grief of John, who was not disposed to have the council in a place under the Emperor's power. (Fleury 100, LIV). John fled the council after a while, and the council deposed him as guilty of perjury, being a heretic, schismatic, and other things. Some twenty charges were not read publicly, as scandalous, but proved -as incest, adultery, fornication, poisoning Alexander V. and his physician, &c. He had been a corsair, and afterward sold all benefices for Boniface IX., then under Alexander, then for himself. This was, according to Platina and Milner and others, the true legitimate Pope, the successor of Peter. Gregory authorized the council, if John XXIII. did not preside. Raynaldus then counts the See vacant. Gregory gave in his resignation, who according to Raynaldus was the legitimate Pope, but whom Christendom had wholly abandoned, and then they deposed Benedict to whom Spain had held with Navarre and a few others, but by whom he was now abandoned. However, on his death, another was chosen, and then his line was extinct. This is a strange Apostolic Succession and security by it. The council declared itself superior to the Pope, and one large party, now suppressed, held that this was clearly conciliar, and confirmed' by Martin. Of this I have spoken. They then burnt Huss, whom they had sworn not to touch, as faith was not to be kept with heretics, and Jerome of Prague, and chose another Pope, who swore with the rest he would reform the Church, but when once in power forgot all that. Martin took up the Papacy while Benedict's successor was Pope for himself, and little else. Whose successor Martin was, it would be hard to tell. It is hardly necessary to pursue the list of Popes any further. Pope Eugenius condemned the council of Basle, and Basle deposed Eugenius; he transferred the council to Florence, but those at Basle still sat on and elected another, Pope Felix V. However, he had little influence, and compromised with Eugenius and resigned. Eugenius at Florence united the Greeks for a time, as Milner says-that is, starved the deputies to agree; but they were all disowned on their return to the East. He had the seal of the Council. of Basil stolen, to put to a decree as if of that council, to serve his interests. The Popes that followed were as bad as they could well be, and though the Popes had succeeded in baffling the councils held at the desire of all to heal the schism, and reform head and members, yet the conscience of Europe was aroused. It seemed prostrate at their feet, and the reform of the Court of Rome was in that court's own hands, that is, the hands of those who profited by the abuses, and wished to keep them up. Constance had pronounced a council to be above the Pope. France held to this principle in what are called the Gallican liberties; intelligence was increased; the royal power much greater by the decay of the feudal system, and the Popes could not play off one prince against another as they had. They sought to aggrandize their families in Italy; one (for Popes an honest Pope) declared it was impossible to be one, and save your soul. He had been a stickler for the Council of Basle, but condemned when Pope, appeals to a general council, for these were now becoming universal, but he soon died. Paul II. undid all he had attempted to do in the way of reform. Our old friend, the historian Platina, librarian of the Vatican, and secretary to one of the Popes, complained bitterly of it, saying they must appeal to kings, princes, and have a general council; so he was put in prison and in the stocks for his pains. Sixtus succeeded, then Innocent VIII. They mocked him at Rome, saying Rome might well call him father. He had seven children while he was Pope, and sought to make them great in Italy. After him came Alexander VI., whose infamies are past belief-a thorough debauchee at all times, so as to attract reproof even at the Papal Court. He was elected to the papacy by bribery and promises, and got rid by various means of those who had brought him in, that he might not have to fulfill them. Almost all (quasi omnia) the monasteries were, says Infessina, turned into brothels, no one gainsaying it. It was currently said, " Alexander sells kings, altars, Christ; he first bought them, he had good right to sell them." He had five illegitimate children, one of the daughters kept the Papal Court when he was away, and opened the dispatches, consulting the Cardinals. One of the brothers killed his sister's husband to marry her better; the marriage was celebrated with pomp in the Pope's palace; he killed another; and the Pope's secretary, who had sought to screen himself under the Pope's mantle, so that the blood spirted up upon the Pope. He was seeking to poison some rich Cardinals, to get their money, and being very hot, drank the poisoned wine himself, the servant who presented it being ignorant of the plot, and died. Is this a successor of St. Peter? Raynald tries to hide the last scene, but nobody believes him. After Pius III. came Julius, who made a league to fight the Venetians, and then the French. The French king held a council at Tours, which held that the king could depose the Pope If armed for war he pronounced sentence against him, it had no force; the king should keep the decrees of Basil, and appeal to a general council. A council was attempted at Pisa, but came to nothing. Francis, King of France, and Leo, made it up. But the latter, desirous of finishing the great Church of St. Peter's, farmed out indulgences to the young gay Archbishop of Mentz, to whom bankers, of the name of Zugger, advanced the money, and they by Tetzel in Germany, and Sampson
in Switzerland, commuted sins by wholesale, and the building was completed. But the consciences of some could no longer bear the iniquity of Rome. Kings were glad to have power in their own kingdoms, saints to get free from the rule of such wickedness, and near half Europe broke with the Roman See. Conscience at Rome had sunk below the measure of what there was of it elsewhere; kings and people were weary of exactions and iniquity, and oppression, and the debauchery of the clergy, and God having raised up some men of faith, all were roused, and though horrible persecutions* and Jesuitical craft pushed back the effect in many places, yet a very large part of Europe remained separated from the Pope. The instructions to Tetzel are extant, promising pardon for anything at any time on confession. As to the actual course pursued, no one denies that it was shocking. The Jesuit Maimbourg (Hist. of Luther, 3rd edt., Paris, p. 9) admits that the agents made people believe that they were sure of their salvation (that is by getting these indulgences), and souls were delivered out of purgatory as soon as the money was paid* And as they saw the clerks of these same agents carousing in taverns on their profits, much indignation was created. Is this Christianity, or Apostolic Succession? Was Alexander VI. a successor of the holy Apostle to secure grace and faith to the Church? Was his illegitimate daughter, who managed the affairs of the Roman Court with the Cardinals in his absence, a successor of Peter?
Since then, the Popes, curtailed of universal dominion, have been more decent outwardly, though not less opposed to the truth, and harassing princes by their unlawful power over their subjects. But the succession has not been in question; all things are more decent since the Reformation.
Tames. I am thankful to you, sir, for having gone through all this long and sad history. It is wonderful how any Christian man can take such godless people to be the successors of the blessed Apostle. It is making Christianity a security for wickedness, and grace and faith identified with the worst of sin. We are to look for this grace when the most heinous wickedness abounds. That is not Christianity. It separates grace from real Christian life. Besides, I should be sorry to build my faith on being able to ascertain, and be sure of the succession of Popes when all is so intricate and uncertain, instead of the Word of God which one has oneself, and from God Himself. Peter's successors, too, cannot be more sure than Peter himself. As to Paul they do not seem to think of any successor for him, nor of the other Apostles. Yet Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, not Peter.
Bill Al. Well, I am shocked; who could have thought it? I see plain enough that all this cannot be the ground of my faith. They do not agree themselves about the succession. It cannot be brought down with any certainty; and it seems to me absurd to found one's faith on such a history, or make it the mark of the true Church. I do not believe. God would put a poor man, or any one, on such ground as this. And how silent Dr. Milner is about that dreadful Alexander VI.; yet he puts him in, I see, as the channel of grace. It seems it can be bought and sold. I am glad, I am sure, we have got the Scriptures. They, any way, are worthy of God, and a comfort to a man's heart, though they search it out. But there is one thing I am not clear about yet: why it is said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it? They seem to have done so.
N*. It was this Mr. o. would not listen to; and I said too I would touch upon it. That is said of what Christ builds, which is not finished yet. It grows unto a holy temple in the Lord. That Christ secures infallibly, and will have all the living stones built up on Him, the foundation, the living stone, a spiritual house, a holy priest hood, the dwelling place of God forever. But as built by man, however well done by the Apostles at first, it is another matter. There is no such promise, then, but the contrary; and the confounding of the two is one great source of the worst of abuse in the Roman and Ritualist systems.
R. I do not understand what you mean. Surely the Church of God was established on earth, and it was to that the promise was made.
N*. Undoubtedly. But there is a vast difference between Christ's building and man's building, between living stones coming by grace to the living stones built up a spiritual house, and man's building with wood and hay and stubble.
R. Are there two Churches then?
N*. No; Scripture does not so speak, but what is in the counsels of God, to be made perfect in due time by His power, in His own way, He always puts first into man's hands, as responsible. So it was with Adam's state of favor at first. The result, according to God's counsels, is in Christ, the second man, the last Adam. So it was with the law: first on tables of stone, then to be written on men's hearts. So the priesthood, so the royalty in Israel, so supremacy among the Gentiles. In all these was man's responsibility, and man failed; in all perfection is found, or will be in grace, and in the second man Christ. And so with the Church: it was set up right by God, but first entrusted to man's responsibility; in the end it will be set up by divine power, perfected as a holy temple to the Lord. Not a different Church, as built by Christ forever, but an external one, built by man in his responsibility, the other built by Christ to be the habitation and temple of God.
R. But this is a theory of your own, just to enable you to get rid of the plain promise of God to His Church.
N*. Nay; were it so it would be indeed worthless. I have only referred to the plain statements of Scripture; and the result even is declared as plainly, the removing by judgment of what has man for its builder; and further, that after the Apostles there was no security for its continuance in the order of God.
R. Let us hear what you have to say, for I never heard of such a thing.
James 1 should be very glad to hear it too; for I could not rightly understand about the Church, and what is said of it in Scripture.
N*. Well, in Matt. 16 we have the promise as to the Church; and a blessed one too. Simon had, through the revelation of the Father Himself, confessed the blessed Lord to be the Son of the living God. It was not that He was the Messiah, or the Christ, true as that was. In the next chapter, He forbids them to announce that, because He was going to suffer and to take another and a heavenly place, nor yet that He was Son of Man, a title He continually gave Himself, to our great comfort and joy, for we are men. His taking that too in its full display in glory was yet to come, and He had to suffer and accomplish redemption to take it according to the counsels of God, though we know He was it, and it was the name He loved to give Himself. Nay, more, none had as yet confessed Him in the full extent of the title He here gives Himself. Son of God and King of Israel, Nathanael had confessed Him according to Psa. 2 But the full expression of the living God, Son in the full power of divine life, this was what the Father now gave to Simon to know. This was proved in resurrection. He was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead. This was a wholly new place for man, and consequent upon the accomplishment of redemption. And this glorious truth, that Jesus was not only the Messiah, or Christ, but the Son of the living God, was the basis or rock on which He would build His Church. This was the real Church of God, built up by divine grace and power, built by Christ Himself-no stone in it not laid by Him, and all living stone. So we read in Peter's first epistle, " Unto whom coming, as unto a living stone, ye also, as lively (living) stones, are built up a spiritual house." Here there is no builder mentioned; Christ is a living stone, and they are living stones, and spiritual house. So in Eph. 2, there is no builder spoken of, but "in whom (Christ) all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." Here, again, we have no earthly builder, and the temple is not built; it grows to a holy temple in the Lord. This surely cannot fail. What Christ, the Son of the living God, builds, though not yet complete, the gates of hell, the power of him who has the power of death, shall never prevail against. But in 1 Cor. 3 we have human builders, and a temple or building which is then in existence. As a wise master-builder, Paul had laid the foundation; the work was well done; but here man's responsibility. comes in. Every man is to take heed how he builds 'thereon. Wood, hay, stubble may be built into the building, and the work come to nothing, though the builder be saved, yet so as by fire. And a third case is mentioned: one who corrupts the temple of God. Such God will destroy. We have a good man, and a good builder; he has his reward, the fruit of his labor: a good man, but a bad builder; his work is destroyed, though he is saved: and one who corrupts God's temple, and is himself destroyed. Now, in all this we have a temple whose state depends on builders or corrupters. The responsibility of man enters into the question, and the state of things depends on his faithfulness. Hence it may be badly built or corrupted. This cannot be where Christ builds. It is supposed, then, that it is possible that the Church, as subsisting here on earth, may be badly built, and the work destroyed or corrupted. The pretension, therefore, that this must always be preserved perfect against the craft and power of Satan is unfounded. What Christ builds will. This is confirmed as to the general state of the dispensation in the Lord's own teaching and the Apostle's. " Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord bath made ruler over his household to give them meat in due season" (Matt. 24:4545Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? (Matthew 24:45)). Now here the possibility is supposed of that servant set by the lord in this place of service being unfaithful, mixing with the world and usurping oppressive authority over the fellow-servants. Now, this is just what the clergy, and especially the
Roman hierarchy, have done: they have mixed with the ungodly world, and they have oppressed their fellow-servants.
The professing Church, and especially the teaching and ruling responsible body can be unfaithful and destroyed as hypocrites, and left to weeping and gnashing of teeth. Paul tells us that in the last days perilous times shall come, and then describes their state, adding, "having the form of godliness, but denying the power of it;" and desires us to turn away from such. Thus we know that the professing body, as a whole, will be ruined; that, instead of its being said, " the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved," he could only say, " the Lord knoweth them that are His." We read that an apostasy or falling away will come, and the man of sin be revealed. The parable of the tares and wheat tells the same tale, that the mischief that the devil did in the crop Christ had sown could not be remedied till the harvest came, that is, the judicial dealings of God. This did not hinder the wheat being in the garner, but it spoiled the crop in the field. As to the time this began, Paul says in the Philippians, " All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ;" Peter, that the time was " come for judgment to begin at the house of God;" John, that there were " many Antichrists, whereby they knew that it was the last time," for Antichrist is the mark which characterizes the last times. Jude pursues the development of this power of evil from his day, when false brethren had crept in, to the end of the times when they perish in their opposition. So far from looking for successors in the care of the Church, Paul tells the elders of Ephesus that he knows that after his decease grievous wolves would enter in and ravage the flock, and perverse men arise to turn away the disciples. He has no idea of a successor to his place, but warns the elders to watch, commending them to God and the word of His grace as the resource. Peter takes care by his epistle that they should keep what he told them in remembrance. Neither knows anything of a successor. Both refer to the elders already there. I find the practical ruin of the Church clearly stated, and no successor supposed by those most interested in it. The Lord Himself recognizes the difference between the care of human shepherds and its effect, and the security afforded by His own. In speaking of the security of His sheep, He says, " The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep; and the wolf cometh and seizeth the sheep, and scattereth them." But further on He says, " I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck (seize) them out of my hand."
R. But do you mean to say that the Church failed from the beginning?
N*. As entrusted to man. The apostles held their ground against encroaching evil; but the evil was there, and Paul tells us that it would break out after his departure. All that was already there. The warnings are most solemn in Jude, who reports its first inroad and progressive character. Paul tells us what the end would be in what was Antichristian and in judgment; John, that in principle it was already there; Peter, that the time was come for judgment. Hence we claim as a rule what was from the beginning, nothing after it being to be allowed as certainly good, though good may have remained in spite of the evil. And further, the principle of succession is a false one, denied by the apostles; and if I look to history, it becomes a security for the worst and most abominable evil.
R. But do you mean to say that there was no succession?
N*. Certainly, in the sense you mean it; though always a ministry of the word by the grace of God. Further, I find for the ordinary elders the apostles appointed them, or their delegates did. They were never chosen by the people, nor by the clergy, nor by men-invented cardinals. Your sources of ecclesiastical power have no foundation in Scripture.
R. But tradition is clear as to the bishops who succeeded in every place.
N*. I admit no authority of tradition in the things of God. But we have seen that it is not. Jerome tells us that there were no such local prelates at first; that they were merely chosen by human arrangement to prevent jealous disputes for primacy among the elders; hence, even in Rome prelacy is merely a matter of jurisdiction, nothing in order is above a priest. Others tell us that John quite late went about to establish them. And at Rome the real history is pretty apparent by the utter uncertainty as to the first three, or, as some say, four: but this we have gone through. For succession you have no Scripture ground, but the contrary; tradition is confused and uncertain, though the principle-the Church being already far departed from the Lord, which none dare question, for the apostle, nay the Lord Himself, says so—came in very early.
R. Well, I must leave you at present; I will call for Mr. D. on my way back.
D. I shall wait for you. But, Mr. N—, you set aside in the strongest way not only all tradition, but the whole ordained channel of blessing downwards.
.N*. I set aside nothing. We have been inquiring whether it really exists as you state, or whether there are not irreparable breaches in your channel. And mark, the essential character of the Great Shepherd is, that He has an untransmissible priesthood. He ever lives, and therefore can save to the uttermost them that come to God by Him. He secures His sheep, and will gather the wheat into His garner. And the word of God, the truth itself, and security for it, there can be no succession in; the grace that uses it must be individual.
James. That is what we have to trust in, and can surely trust in Christ and the word of God; and I remember, the apostle commended them to God and the word of His grace, when he expected not to see them again. He spoke of no successor.
Bill M I begin to see into it. There is a true Church of saints that the Lord builds, and which cannot fail, which is not finished yet; and a body formed on earth and put under man's care, and it is predicted it would be corrupted and ruined in its state, and we see that it was.
N*. Just as it happened to Adam, and to Noah, and to Israel, and to the priesthood, and to everything else trusted to man. Man spoiled all as entrusted to him, and indeed it was the very first thing that happened, and all is made good in Christ the last man.
Bill M. But then it makes a trying time for simple people.
N*. The Apostle speaks of perilous times, or, as the Rhenish testament has it, " dangerous." But the Scriptures have predicted it so as to confirm our faith when we find ourselves there. The Scriptures give the fullest directions for them, and the Lord, who ever lives, is able to secure us in one time as in another, and we have His promise.
James. That is sure, and, I believe, if we hold to Scripture, and lean on Him, and cleave to Him, the danger only makes us feel so much the more how sweet it is to have His help, and how faithful He is.
N*. None shall pluck them out of His hand.
Bill M. I am satisfied as to the truth of this. The word of God is a wonderful thing; how it makes all things clear, and suffices for all times. They say one is not able to understand it. Well, I have not much knowledge in it, but I think it gives understanding more than requires it.
N*. That is just it, through grace.
Bill M. But what do you say to this, Mr. D.?
D. I think it very dangerous ground to set up one's own judgment against the Church of God.
Bill M. But I do not set up my judgment at all about the matter. I submit to what the Apostles Paul and Peter and John have said, and the Lord Himself. That cannot be false ground. But, begging your pardon, sir, you know we have been looking for the true Church; which is it?
D. We desire its reunion; but there is the Roman Catholic, and the Greek, and the Anglican, besides schismatical bodies.
Bill M. But these are all opposed to each other; that I know as to the Roman Catholic and the English, for they tried to get me out of it, because it was all wrong,. and I was like to be damned if I stayed; and did get me out of it, because it was not the true one. And the Greeks, as I learn, condemn them, and they the Greeks so that I have no surety there, at any rate. Scripture you all own to be of God, but these bodies utterly condemn one another, and how is a poor man to know which is the true Church?
D. He should stay where he has been baptized: that all own.
N*. No, sir, excuse me, Dr. Milner says your baptism is so uncertain that it cannot be trusted, and they baptize them over again, when you have done it already,
D. That is very wrong.
Bill M. But they say it is very right. How could I tell if I or my children had been rightly baptized? Which of you can I trust? And they told me I must on no account stay where I was baptized; I was outside the only true church.
D. Well, I do not deny the disunion is very sad. We pray, and have a society to pray for the union of ally that there may be no such sad division.
Bill M. Do you. pray that the Scripture may be right?
D. Of course not.
Bill M. Does Mr. R.?
D. I suppose not. All Catholics hold the Scriptures are inspired of God.
Bill M. Then I had rather trust it that is surely right, than you that confessedly, some or all of you, are wrong. Besides, I have learned a great deal I never knew before. They hide the truth; I find I cannot trust what they say. Who would have thought, with Dr. Milner's fine words, there was such a history as there is behind it?
D. Well, I cannot give up my confidence in the Church of God.
Bill M. Are you sure you are of it?
D. Well, there are many things I am not satisfied with. We have departed from many Church truths, and we shall never be right till we return to them and unity.
Bill M. Are you satisfied with Rome?.
D. I deplore the spirit that will not own us, and I have some difficulties about the worship of the Virgin Mary to the extent they carry it to; but if they would. leave us free on these points, unity would soon be re-established. We own their orders and sacramental grace.
Bill M. And do they own yours? Dr. Milner says they cannot; that you have no grace at all, but a very doubtful baptism. It was all this shook me when I was among you. Now I see God can work in grace in a man's heart by the word, though I am far from being what I feel I ought to be.
D. Well, they ought to own them. If you have attended to what Mr. N*. has been going through, you might have seen that we in England have escaped from all the uncertainty occasioned by the great schism.
Bill M. But Dr. Milner says your orders cannot be proved; that they cannot be proved in the time of Queen Elizabeth; that somebody who consecrated the Archbishop had never been consecrated.
D. I think it can be proved, or that at least it is highly probable he was; at any rate the one who assisted the Suffragan of? Thetford was.
Bill M. Is that all I have to rest my hopes of salvation on? I had rather have the Scriptures and the grace of Him that died for me. Very glad to learn from any minister; but when you, gentlemen, give it me as the ground and security of salvation, I find you all disown and condemn one another, and that there is nothing certain for a soul to rest upon. I do not find that in the word of God. It is sure, though it condemns me in many things. But here is Mr. R., returned.
R. I am come to look for you, Mr. D.
N*. We have just done. We have been speaking with Mr. D. on the differences between the Roman and Anglican systems, after closing our survey of the Popes' succession. You spoke, when here before, of the common judgment of those who had Catholic principles alike condemning what you call our rashness who rest in Scripture. Now our friend Bill M. finds more uncertainty in your discord than sure ground for his soul to build upon. He judges, that as your friends took pains to get him away from the Anglican body that he might have his salvation assured, you must think them entirely wrong.
R. Of course they are wrong in not being united to the sole head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, besides other points on which they would get clear when once they accepted Catholic Unity. Having got the Church's authority they would get the Church's truth.
N*. We are on the search for the true Church. But I understand your principle, one held by all Roman Catholics, when once the Church's infallible authority is admitted, whatever she teaches is to be believed implicitly, though a person does not in fact believe really any one of the things taught. So Mr. Newman puts it as to himself, that, when he joined the Roman Catholic body, he did not hold as true what it taught as vital truth. So Dr. Milner says, every Catholic will say, I believe all that the Church teaches, though he does not know what it is. This is no faith in the truth, for such an one has not even heard what it. is. In the word of God I have not only divine authority but the truth itself. It is not a body competent to teach, but a revelation of the truth. Hence, though I go on learning, I have not implicit but explicit faith. I believe what I find there; I do not believe the Church teaches. The Apostles and others appointed to it by God's gifts and grace taught or may now teach the Church; but let that pass now: who is this sole true head of the Church?
R. The Pope.
N*. If he then be the sole head, there is no other. R. There can be but one, and of course therefore no other.
1V*. Then Christ is not the head, of the Church at all.
R. Nay, He is the head in heaven, but the Pope is the head on earth, His vicar.
N*. Then are there two heads, one in heaven and one on earth. Now I know no head but Christ, and could not own any other. The Spirit of God has in a certain sense replaced Him as the Comforter; but there is one only head, that of the Church as a body, and that is the way head is spoken of. "He gave him to be head over all things to the Church, which is his body," and this being the scriptural sense of the head and the body, Christ alone in glory can be it. It would be simply a blasphemy to call the Pope the head of Christ's body. There is only one unchangeable living head, the source of grace, that nourishes and cherishes it as a man does his own flesh, " for we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones." To apply this to the Pope would be as absurd as it would be wicked. We should have a different head, and perhaps a wicked one, every few years.
R. Christ alone of course can be the heavenly head.
But the Pope is the head of the Church on earth.
N*. But Christ is the head and source of grace to the
members of His own body united to Him by the Holy
Ghost. No one can be thus united to the Pope.
R. But the Pope represents Him on earth.
N*. But he cannot be the head of the body as the scripture speaks of it. We are members of Christ. We cannot be members of the Pope.
R. But he has the rule and authority down here as representing Christ. I do not understand your mysticism about members of Christ.
N*. What you call mystical is distinctly taught in the Cathecism of the Council of Trent (Cap. ii. 52, De Bapt.), only it is ascribed to baptism. Now the children or others are clearly not made members of the Pope, and the Pope is not at all head of the Church as scripture speaks of it. You have made a mere earthly thing of the Church, a great tree (to use the scripture figure), and set the Pope the chief and now infallible ruler in it, of which the scripture knows nothing. It does know a great fallible system in earth on which judgment will come. But that is figured by a house, or the state of a kingdom, not by a body and a head. I say then Christ is the head of the true Church which I own and bless God for; the Pope the head of yours But allow me to ask you, as you are both here, for clearing the ground for our two friends whose minds have been occupied with these questions, -you believe that transubstantiation is an essential doctrine of the Church?
R. Most assuredly; we should have no sacrifice without it; no priesthood, which supposes a sacrifice. In a word, the whole edifice of true worship would fall to the ground.
N*. But what does Mr. D. say to this?
D. I have no objection. I believe the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed there.
W*. But what does your Church say?
D. I am only bound to believe its teaching in a general way.
N*. Well now. It is stated in the Articles that Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of the Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. Now, Mr. R., what do you say to this?
R. I reject it as evidently heretical and false.
D. As a scholastic account of the manner of the change we are not bound to it, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent advises also that it should not be curiously searched into.
N*. Be it so; but saying that it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture is not curiously searching into anything, and saying you are bound generally may do to leave a wide margin to make conscience easy, but cannot reconcile its being an essential article of faith and being repugnant to the plain words of Scripture. So your Church says " the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and adoration as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a forced thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God." So in the XXXI. Article you own," Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." Now I know that some of those seeking the union of churches say it refers to what was commonly said, and that it speaks of Masses, not of the Mass. But two Masses are not said at once, and excusing oneself by saying it was only what was commonly said which was condemned, is miserable subterfuge, because the same thing is explicitly stated in the decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. c. 2). What Mr. R. holds to be essential truth and the essence of his worship,. anathematizing all who do not hold it (C. of T. XVII., Canon 3), you declare to be blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. You stand anathematized by Mr. R., and then come to preach to us unity and Catholicity. This does not quite hold water.
Bill M. It is true though, and the Mass is what was made the most of with me.
'D. But I hold it is a sacrifice only commemorative.
N*. You profess to hold, generally if you like, that what Mr. R. holds to be the highest divine worship is a blasphemous fable. What he would do to bring people out of purgatory or help'them there, you, as far as the act goes, consider would lead people to hell; for I suppose blasphemous fables must do that.
D. But if once the Church was one, these things would be easily settled.
N*. Well, then, by your own showing it is not one; so according to your ideas, and Mr. R. says your common ideas, there is no true Church such as you point it out by its marks. Unity and Catholicity both fail, and what kind of unity is it when you begin by uniting with blasphemers? That is a strange kind of union. It has always struck me how Roman Catholics, and all who tend that way, are indifferent to truth. Now the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With you blasphemies are no matter.
D. I wish the expressions were away.
N*. That I understand, but that would be simply your going over to what you now profess to believe to be blasphemy.
D. But I do not believe it to be so.
N*. This is a strange thing. You have professed to believe it, and have your present position by having done so. We must have the truth of God, " whom I love In the truth, and for the truth's sake."
R. But where shall we find truth, if not in the Church?
N*. That is Pilate's question. I answer, in the revealed word of God; His word is truth, and by grace you will find it there. As I have already said, what you call trusting the Church is simply unbelief. He that has received Christ's testimony has set to his seal that God is true, and we have the Apostle's declaration, " He that is of God heareth us."
D. Well, I suppose, Mr. R. I am keeping you, and our continuing our conversation can profit little.
R. Well, I should like to talk a little with Mr. N*. on the sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation. He takes the questions up boldly I see, and on this point I do not see how he can answer, even on his own ground of Scripture, which tells us of a pure offering that was everywhere to be offered. But now. I must go.
N*. I shall be very glad to speak with you on it. For the present then good evening, gentlemen. We will meet the day that suits you.
R. And our good friend here will let us come to his house again.
James. Surely, sir. I 'shall be glad to see you, and happy to hear about it.
D. Will to-morrow suit you?
James. Any day, sir.
D. And you, Mr. N.?
N*. I will.
D. Let it be to-morrow then. Good evening all-good evening, gentlemen.
Bill M. Well, I shall be glad to hear about that. I see one thing, that what they call the Church is all fallen and gone away from what it was, and their pretended unity with some of the clergy is all hollow. They are only going away just as I was, only not so simply, for any way I was straightforward, only I knew nothing.
James. But how can people be so deceived as to think of offering Christ in sacrifice now? Why, then His work is not finished, though He says it is. He cannot die upon the cross again. He cannot shed His blood again, and without shedding of blood is no remission.
I cannot think how they can speak of such a thing. It is not then a finished work!
N*. It is very simple when once we know what redemption is, and that blessed work which Christ has done. But they do not know this at all ' and we must remember, James, that neither you nor I knew it at one time, and when one does not, it is easy to be in difficulties and perplexities. We are not what we ought to be, and look, for something to get us out of the uneasiness, and are easily seduced by what seems to offer a resource. The evil is that in this case the' enemy has made a system of it, and so denied really not the fact, but the efficacy of Christ's offering.
Bill M. Well, it is just the point I should like to be clear upon.
James. What you say, sir, is true. I see the impossibility of it; but it is not long ago it would have been a snare to myself. How precious a thing is faith! But I feel. I ought to be more humble about it, and thankful for the grace that has delivered me.
N*. Thankful, indeed, we ought to be. And you, M., you see just what you want, you want still the knowledge of an accomplished redemption, and that, being justified by faith, we have peace with God. But He will graciously help you on, I fully trust. But now I must say good evening till to-morrow. I am never surprised that any one who does not know redemption should be ensnared by Romanism.
James and M. Good evening, sir.
Mrs. James. Well, James, I am sure we have to be very thankful for the grace that has given us peace. It is a great thing to cry Abba, Father, and know one is reconciled to God. And all through grace. All is simple and clear then. How thankful I am. But who would have thought of all this wickedness, and that the Church of God could have come to this. I did not hear it all, but I heard enough. I never thought that what God set up so beautiful had sunk so low. But He warned us of it. But how it shows what man is. The Lord graciously keep us near Him.
Bill M. Well, it is shocking to think, but what I am thinking of most is how they deceive us. Though as Mr. N*. said, I do not know redemption clear yet for myself, but it is not in that unholy place Rome, but on the cross of the blessed Savior, I believe.
James. God will lead you on, and give you rest, Bill. The work is all done, and you will find peace through it yet. Good-night.
Bill M. Good-night both.