m 
 
 m 
 
 
 M'' 
 
 pteii 
 
 ilii* 
 
 ppiii 
 
 iillil !l»r !«^^^ 
 

 O^..LVL% c> 
 
 
 
 .0^ o 
 
 
 
 V- '^^'- -'*' * 
 
 9 .*Lc«T^l» *** 
 
 
 iP^t^ 
 
 
 V ^dsm^^:^'- '*b 0* 
 
 
 :* .0' 
 
 
»^.!nL'. 
 
 c» V 
 
 /^ 1^ * • o* 
 
 
 ♦ «? rlf» • ^WtS ♦ A*^ ^ •'V 
 
 
A . „ 
 
 DOCTRINAL GATECffiSM; 
 
 "WHEREIN DIVBR9 POINTS OF 
 
 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PHACTIQfi v:43a^4lilii;i) /BY 
 MODERN ni^RETICS . .. ^-.-~ 
 
 ABE SUSTAINED BY AN APPEAL TO TIH! 
 
 HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE TESTIMONY OP THE ANCIENT 
 FATHERS, AND THE DICTATES OF REASON, 
 
 ON THE BASIS OF SCHEFFMACHER'S CATECHISM. 
 
 BY THE y 
 
 REY. STEPHEN KEENAN. 
 
 THIRD AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED, CONFORM- 
 ABLY TO THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN. 
 
 " Try all things, and hold fast that which is good."-— Thess, v. 21. 
 
 Jmprimalur : 
 
 * JOHN CARDINAL McCLOSKEY, 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK. 
 
 T- "W-- STR,01srC3-, 
 Late EDtVARD DUNIGAN & BRO 
 CATHOLIC PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
 599 Broadway. 
 
 C?7\ 
 
.i^ 
 
 TheLibrarv I 'y.\^\A^ 
 
 OF CONGR^^^^«BATIONS \- 
 
 THE 
 
 BURGH EDITION 
 
 A concise Summary of Arguments, Authorities, and Proofs, ii 
 
 'support of the Doctrines, Institutions, and Practices of ih > Catho- 
 lic Church, IS here presented in a very convenient form, as an 
 additional antidote against the unceasing etfiisions of antagonist 
 Ignorance and Misrepresentation. The Believer will be hereby 
 instructed and confirmed in his Faith, and the sincere Searcher 
 ^fter Truth will here find a lucid path opened to conduct him to ita 
 sanctTiary. There is much important matter condensed in these 
 unpretending pages. The work, I trust, will meet with the not'ce 
 it deserves, and the good be thus effected which the zealous and 
 talented aithor has had in view in its publicatioi'. 
 
 ►I-i ANDREW, Bishjp of Ceramis, 
 Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Scotland. 
 Edinburgh, lOth Aprils 1846. 
 
 I have read, with much pleasure, a Catechism, by the PvC^. 
 Stephen Keenan. As it contains a well-reasoned defence of tht 
 Catholic faith, and clear and satisfactory solutions of the ustial 
 objections adduced by separatists, I deem that the study of it will 
 se most useful to all Catholics ; and, therefore, 1 earnestly recoia- 
 mend it to the Faithful m the JNorthern District of Scoiiand. 
 
 til JAS. KYLE, V.A N. Dal 
 PsESHOME, 15/A April, 1846 
 
 I.'Tipn'm.itur, 
 ^ Jonti, Cabdinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York. 
 
 Copyright, T. W. Strong, 1876. 
 
* PREFACE 
 
 Diso^sioNs on the various questions of religion have 
 ever been, and still are, matters of inevitable necessity, 
 because Curistianity and its dogmas have ever been, and 
 still are, impugned by those victims of passion, prejudice, 
 and error — the schismatic, heretic, and infidel. The true 
 minister of Jesus Christ is thus compelled to make reli- 
 gious controveisy an impoitant part of his studies, as it 
 is only by this mean he can, with the help of God's grace, 
 bring back these unfortunate v^anderers to the fold of 
 Christ. If angry leelings are sometimes engendered by 
 these discussions, the fault lies with those who first 
 raised the standard of rebellion against the authoritative 
 teaching of the lawful pastors, whom Christ commission- 
 ed to feed his lambs and his sheep, with the bread of life 
 and the Word of God. To elucidate truth, is the object 
 of free discussion ; and to all who are p^ojperly qualified 
 for the task, ample scope should be given. Catholics, as 
 regards their doctrines, court publicity ; because they are 
 fully aware, the more these are tried and examined, the 
 stronger will be the conviction of their truth in the mind 
 of the sincere inquirer. Of this, ample proof will be 
 found in the multitude of late conveisions, — conversions, 
 be it observed, not of the vulgar and .illiterate, ^but of the 
 brightest ornaments of the age, — not of me interested and 
 worldly, but of men who proved tJiemselves ready tc 
 
PREFACli:. 
 
 sacrifice every worldly advantage for ihe sake of cofl 
 science and truth, — conversions, not of the nctim of pas- 
 sion, as is the case when a stray Catholic becomes Prot- 
 estant, but of men who^e minds are pure and their hearts 
 chaste, whose high and spotless morality is beyond all 
 suspicion Such are the men, who, bursting the fetters 
 in which they had been hitherto bound, and tearing tc 
 pieces the thick veil of early prejudice by which the 
 Protestant world is blindfolded, have boldly dared to act 
 upon the Protestant principle of examining for themselves, 
 and, having made that examination, not without hearty 
 commendations of themselves to heaven, have, ot late, 
 added to the glory of the Redeemer by then piety and 
 learning, and, by their numbers, extended the pale of his 
 true Church. 
 
 With many Protestants it is vain to argue ; their pre- 
 conceived notions of Catholic doctrine are such, as to 
 prevent the infusion of the smallest portion of Catholic 
 truth. Their teachers have been for three hundred years 
 employed, not in refuting the true Catholic doctrine, but 
 in inventing calumnies against, and publishing misrepre- 
 sentations of Catholicism, and then amusing their au- 
 diences wdth a refutation, not of the Catholic religion, but 
 of these absurd Protestant forgeries, and " ingenious de- 
 vices," which they themselves have fraudulently palmed 
 upon the public as the genuine doctrines of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 Even with those who do know the rules of discussion, 
 and whose minds are imbued with something like honest 
 fairness, controversy will be Cxidless, if the Scripture 
 alone be appealed to. That Divine Book does nrit anrf 
 cannot explain itself, and, accordingly, each disputant 
 will interpret to suit his own views ; hence the bitter dis- 
 cussions, and interminable contradictions, observable 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 femong all those sects who have separated themselves 
 from the Catholic Church. Tertullian, in Iiis Book of 
 1 Prescriptions, points out the proper method of refuting 
 ail heresies. He tells them to give proofs of their mis- 
 sion, — opposes to their novelties, the traditional doctrines 
 of the Apostolic Churches, — and points to their jarring 
 and contradictory systems, as invincible proofs that they 
 are teachers of error. Thus, v^dthout any appeal to 
 Scripture, had the first reformers been asked, Whence 
 come ye ? from whence have ye derived your mission ? 
 they would have looked v&ry foolish, for to this question 
 they could give no reply. They were not sent by any 
 lawful pastor; — they had no mission from any Christian 
 Church ; — mey and their novelties came fifteen hundred 
 years too late to have any connection with the Apostles. 
 In thus setting up as preachers, without any mission, 
 they outraged the common sense of men. Christ himself, 
 Moses, and the Apostles, preached new doctrines, but 
 ihey treated men as rational beings, — they proved they 
 were sent by God by the most evident and astonisliing 
 miracles ; but the reforming ministers never wrciUght 
 even one miracle to prove to their unfortunate followers 
 that they were sent by God, or to stamp upon their new 
 cystem the seal of heaven. 
 
 These self-commissioned men railed against tradition^ 
 because it condemned their novelties ; but har^ they been 
 asked to prove, without the aid of tradition, t jat even the 
 very Bible, of which they boasted so much, i /as the Word 
 of God. tliev would have been much em'.arrassed; for 
 without the traditional argument, no mai can prove the 
 Bible to be God's Word. Hence, the vf ry first principle 
 of the Protestant Creed — the aiUhenticity, divinity, and 
 inreirriiy of the Bible — rests solely on the authority of 
 tradition ; and, consequently, if, as they maintain, tradi 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 tional be only human doctrines, tlieir whole creed ia 
 merely human, for its first principle, .upon which all their 
 other doctrines are grounded, rests solely, even according 
 to themselves, upon the authority oi men. Those who 
 talk of the Bible as the only rule of faith, would do well 
 to make this matter a subject of serious meditation : if 
 they do, they will ask themselves. How can this bo, 
 since even the authenticity, integrity, and divinity of the 
 Bible, can be proved only by a reference to tradition ? 
 
 The heresies of modern times are as productive of sect? 
 and divisions as those which appeared in the days of 
 Tertullian; they are daily spawning new religions, as 
 perplexing and pestiferous as the parents from which 
 they spring ; and thus will they continue, shooting off in 
 every direction, no matter how preposterous or absurd, 
 until their very absurdity will force the pious and reason 
 ing portion back into the bosom of the Catholic Churcli. 
 and drive the thoughtless and vainly-wise section of them 
 into the broad, but dark and hopeless, path of infidelity. 
 
 On the subject of religious controversy, numerous 
 works of deep research and intrinsic merit have of late 
 issued from the press. Most of these, however, are so 
 diffuse and expensive as to render them useless to many 
 Catholics and Protestants, who, though anxious in their 
 search after truth, have neither time nor education to 
 enable them to read, nor money to procure, elabordte and 
 expensive publications ; others, again, are so compendi- 
 ous, and the arguments so abridged, thaft, when put into 
 ihe hands of a superficial Protestant, they fail to produce 
 conviction. Some others, in fine, there are, the scope of 
 which is rather to instrict Cadiolics in the faith and 
 practices of their religion, than to disabuse the Protestant 
 mind of its prejudices and its errors. Among these worki^ 
 of real talent and merit, something seemed to the writer 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 of the following pages to be still wanting — viz. : an 
 epitome of controversy in a concise and cheap form, 
 comprising the principal arguments on the various ques- 
 tions most commonly controverted, combining perspicuity 
 with brevity and cheapness, that it might be within the 
 reach of all Catholics who are called to give a reason for 
 the faith that is in them, and of all sincerely inquiring 
 Protestants, whose occupations and circumstances pre- 
 clude the possibility of their having recourse to more 
 learned, more voluminous, and expensive works. 
 
 Whether this desideratum be supplied by the following 
 little work, the public will soon determine. The plan 
 and a portion of the groundwork are taken from a small 
 controversial treatise by Father SchefFmacher, a German 
 Jesuit, who held the chair of controversy at Strasburg 
 about a century ago. It was at first the intention of the 
 writer to give only a translation of Scheffmacher's Cate- 
 chism, but, after a careful examination of it, he found 
 some important articles treated with such brevity, that it 
 was necessary to remodel and extend them, while others 
 of vital interest were scarcely touched at all ; indeed, 
 such were the changes and additions which the writer 
 was obliged to make, that the present may be considered 
 an almost entirely new work. As the object of the wri- 
 tei is to do good, and not to acquire fame, he acknow- 
 ledges his obligations, in some instances, to several Con- 
 tinental and some English Divines ; and trusts that an 
 mdulgent public will find, in the soHdity of the matter, 
 an apology for all defects in manner and style. He also 
 takes this opportunity of expressing his gratitude to the 
 eminent Cathohc prelate to whom the work, for the sake 
 of security, was submitted ; and feels assured, that noth- 
 ing will be found in it unworthy of his Lor,dsliip's patron- 
 age. If, in fine, this publication promote tlie caase o/ 
 
5< PREFACfc:. 
 
 religion and truth ; — if, by being put into the hands oi 
 the Neophyte, it lighten the burden of his brother clergy- 
 men in the matter of contro'';ersial instruction ;— if it aid 
 in dispelling eiror. — in carrying conviction to the mind, — 
 in bringing back to the unity of the one fokl some of the 
 many who have wandered from it — the writer will c^u 
 aider jis labors amply rewarded. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 RISE AND PROGRESS OF PROTESTANTI83I. 
 
 Chap. i. Nature and author of Protestantism, p. 15. Chapi 
 a. Causes of Luther's new Creed, p. 17. Chap. iii. Luthei 
 required to retract by Cardinal Cajetan, p. 19. Chap. iv. 
 Luther judged by the Universities of Paris, &c., p. 21. Chap. 
 V. Luther cited by the secular power, p. 23. Chap. vi. Lu- 
 ther's mode of supplying his Church with priests, p. 26. 
 
 Luther's reformation not the work of god. 
 
 Chap. i. God not the author of the change of religion, p. 
 28. Chap. ii. Luther's language to the Emperor and the 
 Pope, p. 30. Chap. iii. Luther's doctrine not of God, p. 32. 
 Chap. iv. Luther's schism not brought about by God, p. 34. 
 Chap. V. Means used by Luther not from God, p. 36. Chap, 
 vi. What then are Luther's followers obliged to ? p. 38. 
 
 THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 Chap. i. To be saved we must be members of the true 
 Church — tlie true Church is that which was established 
 eighteen hundred years ago, and has existed wnceasingly 
 ■ince that time, p. 40. Chap. ii. In what Church do we 
 find these two marks of truth ? p. 43 Chap. iii. Can Prot- 
 •stants tell where and what was the true Chuich before Lu- 
 ther's time? p. 45. Chap. iv. What of the Hussites and 
 Vaudois? p. 47. Chap. v. Chief marks of the true Church 
 — its Unity, i». 50. Chap. vi. Holiness, p. 55. Chap, vii 
 Catholicity, p 59. Chap. viii. Apostolicity, p. Go. 
 
10 (^OMKVTS. 
 
 RULE OF lAITH. 
 
 Chap. i. Divine faith — its qualities and necessity, p. 72 
 Chap. ii. Faith of Protestants, not firm, but full of doubt, p 
 75. Chap. iii. They are not certain that their Bible is free 
 of error, p. 78. Chap. iv. They are not certain as to the 
 sense of the Bible, p. 81. Chap. v. Qualities of the Catholic 
 rule of faith, p. 84. Chap. vi. Tradition a« conne<;ted with 
 the rule of faith, p. 86. 
 
 PROTESTANTS DO NOT ADHERE TO THE BIBLE ALONE. 
 
 Chap. i. They do not adhere to it in the matter of God's 
 commandments, p. 88. Chap. ii. Neither do they on the 
 subject of faith, p. 90. Chap. iii. Nor do they on assurance, 
 p. 92. Chap. iv. They abide not by it as regards the Church, 
 p. 95. Chap. V. Nor on the subject of Scripture, p. 97. 
 Chap. vi. Additional proofs that they are not guided bv 
 Scripture alone, p. 10 i. 
 
 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. 
 
 Chap. i. Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, p. 102. 
 Chap. n. What we owo to Jesus Christ, p. 103. Chap. iii. 
 Catholics glorify Christ more than Protestants do, p. 105. 
 Chap. iv. Catholics do not abandon Christ by asking the 
 prayers of the saints, p. 107. Chap. v. The invocation ol 
 saints is Scriptural, p. 109 Chap. vi. The antiquity of this 
 practice, p. 110 
 
 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 Chap. i. Reception of both kinds not necessaiy, p. 11 1 
 Chap. ii. Salvation promised to the reception of one kind, p. 
 113. Chap. iii. The early and pure Church often adminis- 
 tered under one kind only, p. 114. Chap. iv. Text, Matth. 
 xvi. — '* Drink ye all of this," answered, p. 116. Chap, y 
 Additional reply to an obstinate Protestant, p. 118. 
 
CONTENTS. 1) 
 
 SACRIFICE OF THE ftTASS. 
 
 Chap. i. Essentials of the Mass instituted b^ Christ, p. 120. 
 Chap. ii. Sacrifices of the Old Law, p. 125. Chap. iii. Mass 
 R true, propitiatory sacrifice, p. 127. 
 
 PURGATORY. 
 
 Chap. i. General proofs of the existence of a middle state, 
 p. 130. Chap. ii. Proofs from the New Testament, p. 132 
 Chap. iii. Proofs from tradition, p. 136. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 Chap. i. What is it? — How is the sinner justified? p. 138. 
 Chap. ii. What part has faith in justification? p. 139. Chap, 
 iii. Can one in mortal sin merit heaven? p. 142. Chap, iv 
 What gives their value to good works? p. 144. Chap, v 
 Can man satisfy for his own sins ? p. 146. 
 
 INDULGENCES. 
 
 What is an Indulgence? — the arguments for Indulgences 
 from Scripture, Fathers, and Councils, p. 149. 
 
 HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Chap. i. Head of the Church, p. 153. Chap. ii. Primacy 
 of St. Peter, p. 156. Chap iii. What follows from the ad- 
 mission of this supremacy, p. 159. Chap. iv. All are bound 
 to obey the Bishop of Rome, p. 161 
 
 \tHE pope is NOT ANTICHRIST. 
 
 This injurious assertion of Protestants is cor rary to Scrip- 
 ture, p. 163. 
 
 COUNCILS. 
 
 Chap i The diflferent kinds of Councils, and the weight 
 of their decisions, p. 166 Chap, ii, Number of generaJ 
 Councils and obedience due to them, p. 169. 
 
12 CONTENTS. 
 
 OBEDIENCE TO THE CHURCH. 
 
 Chap. i. Scripture cormnands this obedience, p. 1"1 
 Chap. ii. Object of the commaRdments of the Church, p. 173. 
 Chap. iii. Why she forbids meats, p. 175. Chap. iv. Lent — 
 who established it, 177. Chap. v. Why was Lent estabhsh- 
 ed? p. 179. Chap. vi. Reply to the scoffers at fasting and 
 abstinence, p. 180. 
 
 ON THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 There are seven sacraments, p. 181. On the subject of 
 Infant baptism, a Protestant cannot refute an Anabaptist- 
 the matter, form, and institution of baptism, p. 184. 
 
 CONFIRMATION. 
 
 It is a sacrament, p. 187. Scriptural and traditioua. 
 
 proofs, p. 188. 
 
 HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 A sacrament of the New Law, p. 190. Promises of Christ 
 regarding it, p. 195. Christ declares what it is, p. 198. He 
 fulfils his promise by actuaHy instituting it, p. 204. Scriptu- 
 ral proofs continued, p. 209. Reply to those who say that 
 is moans represents, p. 217. Transubstantiation, p. 224. 
 Christ permanently present in the Eucharist, 229. Adoration 
 of Christ in the Eucharist, p. 231. 
 
 BACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND CONFESSION. 
 
 The end of this sacrament, p. 232. Confession not a 
 modern invention, p. 235. Confession a Diwne institution, 
 p. 237. Scriptural proofs for the practice of the first Chris- 
 tians, p. 240 
 
 EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 Scriptural proofs for the existence of this sacrament, p 
 S43. Testimony of the Fathers, p. 246. 
 
CONTENTS. . i3 
 
 HOLY ORl>ER8. 
 
 Orders a sacrament. Pastors by whom sent, p. 247. 
 
 MATRIMONY. 
 
 Matrimony a sacrament, p. 252. Catholic Church doei 
 act forbid any one to marry, p. 257 
 
 CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Why so many ceremorJes, p. 259. Blessing of inanimate 
 things, p. 261. Holy water, p. 263. Sign of the cross, p. 264. 
 Vestments, -266. Mass m Latin, p. 268 
 
 PICTURES AND IMAGES 
 
 Their use — not forbidden by Scripture — used by God's 
 own order, p. 272. Relics, p. 276. Pilgrimages, p. 278. 
 
 VENERATION OF THE EVER-BLESSED VIRGIN. 
 
 Catholics do not adore the Blessed Virgin or any creature, 
 &»c., p. 280. Scriptural proofs of her pre-eminent dignitv. p 
 283. Testimony of the ancient Church and early JP athers. 
 p. 2S8. 
 
 On Persecution, .... p. 292 
 
 On the Inquisition, p. 301 
 
 I'he power of a General Council, or a Papal Consis- 
 tory, in temporal matters, .... p. 305 
 On the reading of Scripture, .... p. 307 
 Monks, Friars, and Nuns, .... p. 310 
 Charge of ignorance made against Catholics, . . p. 313 
 Charge of Unch-aritabieness, . . . p. 323 
 
 ON HERESY. 
 
 What is it? 324. Peculiarities accompanying every nerer,-ji 
 p. 327. Luther and Calvin as missionless as Arius, p. 330. 
 
 2 
 
14 ' CONTENTS. 
 
 THE VARIOUS RULES OF FAITH. 
 
 Arian or Socinian rule exploded, p. 335. Eaptists*j Meth* 
 odlsts', and Quakeis' rule refuted, p. 335. Lutheran and 
 Calvinistic rule proved absurd and rejected, p. 338. Many 
 necessary truths not contained in Scripture, p. 347. Neithei 
 the Old nor the New Lavi^ recognise the Scripture as the 
 only rule, p. 355. Tradition to be admitted as well as Scrip- 
 ture, p. 357. 
 
 TKUE RULE OF FAITH, OR THE TEACHING OF THE INFALLIBLE 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 Catholic rule of fa-ith proved from the Old Testament, p 
 362. The same proved from the New Testament, p 368 
 Reasons why the Catholic interpretation of the texts which 
 bear on this subject should be preferred to that of Protestants^ 
 p. 379. Argument from reason on this subject, p. 385. 
 
 THE CHURCH CALLED CATHOLIC IS THE TRUE INFALLIBLE 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 The proofs, p. 386. The Protestant Church has none of 
 the Scriptural marks of truth, p. 388. The Catholic Chuidi 
 nm »U the Scriptur tl marks of truth, p 391. 
 
felB£ AND PROGRESS Of 
 
 PROTESTANTISM, 
 
 DRAWN FROM THE WOilKS OF LUTHER HIMSELf. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 (Question. What is Protestantism ? 
 
 Answer. A new religion, invented and prop 
 abated by a man, named Martin Luther. 
 
 Q. In what year was Luther horn ? 
 
 A. In 1483. 
 
 Q. Where was he horn ! 
 
 A. In Eisleben, of Prussian Saxony. 
 
 Q. Of what religion were his parents ? 
 
 A, They were CathoUcs, as were all hi^j 
 ancestK)rs. 
 
 Q. At the time Luther was horn, what was 
 the religion of all Europe ? 
 
 A, All believed what the Catholics believe 
 at the present time. 
 
 Q. Was Luther himself a Catholic for any 
 Hme ? 
 
16 TPIE DOCTRIN'AL CATECHISM. 
 
 A, He was a Cathcjlic until his thirty-fifth 
 year. 
 
 Q. What was his stale of life ? 
 
 A. He was a monk of* the order of discaiced 
 Augustmians. 
 
 Q. As such had he made religious vows 1 
 
 A, At the age of twenty- three years, he made 
 vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. 
 
 Q. Wa,s he bound to keep these vows ? 
 
 Jl. Without doubt, since he made them after 
 mature rejection, and of his ow^n free w^ill ; 
 because the Prophet says, (Ps. xHx :) " Pay thy 
 vows to the Most High ,'' and God himseh* 
 says, (Num. ch. xxx :) " If any man make a 
 vow to the Lord, or bind himself by an oath, 
 he shall not make his w'ord void, but shall fulfiJ 
 all that he promised.'' 
 
 Q. Did Luther obey this command of Goi 
 by keeping his vows ? 
 
 A. No ; he violated all the three ; he aposta- 
 tized, — he married Catherine de Bore, a nun, 
 like hmiself under vows, and he utterly diso- 
 beyed everv ecclesiastical authoritv. 
 
 Q. Was tnis man in ?xaiuy ine founder of 
 me Protestant religion, and the first of thai 
 sect that ever appeared in the world ? 
 
 A. Most certainly ; for no minister, no con- 
 gregation, no body of Divines professing Prot- 
 estant doctrines, was ever heard of until his tiraa 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 17 
 
 Q. What inference do you dram from cdl 
 this? 
 
 A. That Protestantism cannot be the religion 
 of Chri-st ; because, if the Church of Christ re- 
 quired reformation, a God of purity and holi 
 ness \^ ould never have chosen such an immoral 
 character — an apostate, a wholesale vow-break- 
 er, a sacrilegious seducer — for that purpose 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Q. What induced Luther to attac/c the an- 
 cieni Catholic faith and invent a new creed? 
 
 A, Pride and jealousy. Pope Leo having 
 granted an Indulgence, Luther's pride was mor- 
 tified, because me commission to preach that 
 Indulgence was given to the order of St. Domi- 
 nic, and not to his own. 
 
 Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven 
 by this pride and jealousy ? 
 
 A. To attack the doctrine of Indulgences it- 
 self. 
 
 Q. Would the Catholic Church have blamed 
 Luther had he merely attacked the abuses or 
 avarice of individual Catholics ? 
 
 A. No, certainly. He erred in this, that 
 under pretence of reprehending abuses, he as- 
 sailed the true failh on the subject of Tndui- 
 j^ences 
 
 2* 
 
l^ ViiZ tjOCVRlN AL CAT EyHli^M 
 
 Q. What was his next step ? 
 
 A, He posted on the gates of the Church 
 of ^Vittemburg, ninety-five articles, which he 
 wrote, and which contained many things not 
 ,u accordance with the' doctrines of the Church. 
 
 Q. Wei^e these articles refuted? 
 
 A. They were, and with much ability, by 
 some Catholic Theologians, to whom Luther 
 replied with a haughty insolence unworthy of 
 a Christian. 
 
 Q. What hypocritical pretences did Luther 
 make in 1517, during these disputes? 
 
 A, He pretended that he wished to teach 
 nothing but what was conformable to Scrip- 
 ture, to the Holy Fathers, and approved by the 
 Holy See. (T. 1. Ger. Edit. Gen. p. 12.)* 
 
 Q. What did he write to Jerome, Bishop of 
 Bxindenhurg? 
 
 A. That he wished to decide nothmg hmi- 
 self, and that he wished to submit all his doc- 
 trines to the Church, (ibid, p. 54.) 
 
 Q. What did he write to Pope Leo in 1518? 
 
 A. That he would listen to that Pope's de- 
 cision as to an oracle proceeding from the mouth 
 of JesuB Christ. (IbiJ, p. 58.) 
 
 Q. What did he promise to his relig}(;u:i 
 superiors ? 
 
 A. That he would be silent, if his adversaries 
 were placed under the same restraint. 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 19 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all this? 
 
 A. That he was either a hypocrite who did 
 not intend to fulfil his promises, or that he was 
 quite satisfied of the truth of the doctrines 
 which he impugned, since otherwise he could 
 not conscientiously promise silence and obe- 
 dience. 
 
 Q. What other consequences do you draw ? 
 
 A. That a man swollen with pride, envy, 
 jealousy — a disobedient hypocrite — was not 
 the person to be chosen by God to reform 
 abuses if any such existed. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. What took place at Augsburg between 
 Luther and Cardinal Gajetan ? • 
 
 A. The Cardinal required of him, that he 
 should retract his errors, which Luther refused, 
 appealing at the same time to the mo>^t cele- 
 brated Universities of Germany, and to that of 
 Paris, and pledging himself most humbly to 
 submit to their decision. (Ibid, p. 119 and 
 p. 14.) 
 
 Q. Did he stand by that appeal ? 
 
 A. No ; he appealed a short time after to 
 the Pope. (Ibid, p. 122.) 
 
 Q. Did he abide by this second appeal ? 
 
 A. No; he next appealed "from tlie Pope 
 
20 TU\: OOC'IRINAL CATEi:;iI13i\l 
 
 iii-informed," " to the Pope well-infonned " 
 (Ibid, p. 205.) 
 
 Q. Did he stop even here ? 
 
 A, No ; he then appealed to a Genoa! Coun 
 cil. (Ibid, p. 351.) 
 
 Q. Did he abide by this resolution to submit 
 to the decision of a General Council? 
 
 A. No ; at the Diet of Worms, he declared 
 flatly that he would not submit his doctrine 
 to any Council. (Ibid, pp. 448, 450, 452.) 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from such con- 
 duct ? 
 
 A, In the first place, that Luther must have 
 been extremely fickle to appeal to so many 
 Judges, and to abide by the decision of none. 
 Secondly, that he knew his cause was bad and 
 his doctrine false, since he would not submit it 
 even to the best judges. Thirdly, that he must 
 have been brimful of sir/ul pride and obstinacy, 
 since he preferred his own single judgment to 
 that of the whole Christian world. 
 
 Q. But did not Luther promise to abandon 
 his errors, if any one would prove them siicn 
 from Scripture ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but this was only an artifice to 
 enable him more freely to propagate them ; be- 
 cnuse he well knew that the Scriptures m.ay 
 be wrested into any, or every meaning ; that 
 ne could give them any sense he pleased, as 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 21 
 
 the MornTons, the Millerites, and other strange 
 sects do at the present day : — the Scripture is 
 made to teach all sorts of contradictions. 
 
 Q . What was ais real object in this subter- 
 fuge ? 
 
 A. He wished to impose his monstrous er- 
 rors on the public, as truths bearing the sacred 
 stamp of Scriptural authority. Had he been 
 sincere in his ap{)eal, he would have said : — J 
 shall leave it to the Church to decide whether 
 my doctrine is conformable to the Scripture 
 or not. 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 Q. What judgment did the Universities, to 
 which Luther appealed, pronounce upon his 
 doctrine ? 
 
 A. They condemned his doctrine as false 
 and heretical. (Ibid, p. 539.) 
 
 Q, What Universities did so ? 
 
 A, The Universities of Leipsic, Cologne, 
 Louvain, and Paris. 
 
 Q. Did Luther abide by their decision as he 
 had promised? 
 
 A. No ; on the contrary, he poured forth a 
 torrent of invectives and insults against them ; 
 he called the Univeisity of Paris "the mother 
 of errors," " the daughter of Antichrist," " the 
 gate of hell " (Ibid, p. 548.) 
 
If2 THE DOCTRINAL CATEi HfSM. 
 
 Q. What was the judgment of the Pope to 
 whom Luther appealed, and whose decisions he 
 promised to receive, as if they came from thfi 
 mouth of Christ himself? 
 
 A. The Pope published a Bull, condemaiiig 
 ibrtv-one articles of Luther's doctrine. 
 
 Q. What does the Pope say in that Bull ? 
 
 A. That he had done every thing he coild 
 to reclaim Luther, but that all his paternal 
 cares and advices had been unavailing. He 
 gives Luther sixty days to retract, and orders 
 his works to be formally burned at the end of 
 that period, should he persist in his enrors. 
 
 Q. Did Luther submit ? 
 
 A. No ; he now renounces the authoritv to 
 which he had appealed ; he writes against the 
 Bull of his chief Superior, w^hom he had vowed 
 to obey ; he denounces the Papal decision as 
 the decision of Antichrist, (Ibid, p. 345;) he 
 publicly burns the Bull, along with the book of 
 Decretals. (Ibid, p. 353.) 
 
 Q. Had Luther previously written, in the 
 most submissive terms, declaring that he was 
 willing to cast himself at the feet of his Holi- 
 ness ? 
 
 A, Yes, (Ibid, p 58 ;) but the moment the 
 Pope opposed him, he changed his language, 
 declaring that not only the Bull, but the Pop^ 
 himself should be burned (Ibid, p. 553.) 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATE miSM, 2S 
 
 Q. Had Luther not written, a little before, 
 that his preservation or destruction depended 
 entirely on the absolution or condemnation of 
 his Holiness ? (Ibid, p. 53.) 
 
 A. Yes ; but he now declares that men must 
 take up arms against the Pope, the Cardinals 
 and Bishops, and wash their hands in the blooa 
 of these dio:nitaries. (Ibid, p. 60.) 
 
 Q. Had he not written, before this time, that 
 the Pope and the Catholic Church were the 
 highest spiritual a^ithority on earth ? (Ibid, 
 p. 144.) 
 
 A. Yes ; but he no^v teaches, that none but 
 those who oppose the Papal authority can be 
 saved. (Ibid, p. 553.) 
 
 Q. What do you now think of Luther s con- 
 duct ? 
 
 A. I can discover nothing in it but the spirit 
 of inconstancy, doubt, error, and revenge, with- 
 out even the- slightest mark of the spirit of 
 God. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Q, What did the seculai power do to sup- 
 p7'ess the rising heresy ? 
 
 A, The Emj)eror Charles V. cited Luther to 
 appear before the Diet of Worms, and sought l4^ 
 reclaim him bv the mildest means. 
 
24 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 <4. What i^eply did Luthei^ make to the or- 
 der of the Emperor ? 
 
 A. He replied, that from the wording of the 
 order, one would suppose t!ie Emperor to be 
 either a maniac or a demoniac. (Ibid, p. 400.) 
 
 Q. Why mas not Luther confined, to prevent 
 him from corrupting others, and from excAing 
 disturbance ? 
 
 A. He had received the assurance of a safe- 
 conduct, and the civil authorities could not 
 break their promise. When, however, the term 
 of the safe-conduct had expired, the Emperor 
 proscribed Luther as a sectarian, cut off* from 
 the body of the Church. 
 
 Q. Whither did Luther then retire ? 
 
 A. To the castle of Witlemburg, where he 
 wrote the most false and pernicious works. 
 
 Q. What was the effect of these works, in 
 which he spoke of nothing hut " evangelical 
 hberty?" 
 
 A. These works produced disturbances, se- 
 dition, and amongst other evils, tlie German 
 War of the Peasants, who con)mitted every 
 sort of evcess, declaring that the rich had no 
 exclusive right to their property, that every 
 thing should be held in common, because in 
 (he 2d chapter of the Acts, it is said, that all 
 property was common amongst rhe first Ch-u^ 
 jans. 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATEOHJftM 25 
 
 Q. Did other divisions and schisms soon ap^ 
 f)eaj' amongst the Lutherans ? 
 
 A. Yes ; each disciple of Luther thought 
 he had as good a right as his master to ex- 
 pound the Scripture according to his own 
 ^.veculiar whim; — Carlostad, Zwinglius, Cahnii, 
 Muncer, Schwenckfeld, were of this opinion. 
 They interpreted for themselves, denounced 
 their master, and set up religions of their 
 own. 
 
 Q Did the thing called " religion/' invented 
 hy Luther, continue thus to give rise to nevj 
 and different sects ? 
 
 A. Yes ; every year gave rise to a new 
 spawn of sectarians, — a short period produced 
 thirty-four different sects ; and even to this 
 Jay, the religion of Luther is as prolific of sects 
 and sectarians, as the putrid carcass is of in- 
 sects or vermin. So true is it, that when we 
 once abandon truth, there can be no end to our 
 wanderings in the mazes of error ; that when 
 we once break the moorings which bind us to 
 the rock of truth, by the adoption of a false 
 rmnciple, such as that of private interpretation, 
 we are only the prey of endless, ever-varying, 
 erroneous human opinions, — tossed to and fro 
 on a wide ocean of contradictions and con- 
 trnrieties, — to-day on one tack, to-monow up- 
 n another, — cei'tain of nothing, but ultimate 
 
 3 
 
2r» THE DOGTRlNi^L CATECHISM. 
 
 shipwreck on the rock of infidelity, or the quick- 
 sands of heresy and schism. 
 
 Q. What lesson do you learn from this par- 
 ticn of Luther s conduct ? 
 
 A. That the man who wantonly disobe3^s aU 
 authority, both ecclesiastical and civil — the man 
 who perverts the sacred Scripture, for the pur- 
 pose of exciting sedition and anarchy, and prop- 
 agating evident heresy and schism — cannot 
 possibly be the ambassador of heaven. 
 
 CHAPTER V[. 
 
 Q,. What means did Luther resort to foi 
 the purpose of supplying his new church with 
 priests, seeing that no bishop could, or would 
 ordain any of his followers ? 
 
 A, He invented a new doctrine on that sub- 
 ject, a doctrine never known in the Church till 
 his time. 
 
 Q. What was that doctrine ? 
 
 A. That all Christians — men, women, and 
 children, even infants — were truly and really 
 priests, and that nothing was wanting to then 
 but presentation to a cure. (Ibid, pp. 64, 33€ 
 309.) 
 
 Q. Upon lohat did he found this unheard-oj 
 doctrine ? 
 
 A. Upon that passage of St. Peter, '' You are 
 
THE IK)CTRlNAI/CATE0:ii3M. 2' 
 
 V 7'cyal priesthood." " St. Peter/' he reasoned, 
 " addresses this to all Christians, therefore all 
 Christians are priests." He might equally well 
 have proved, from the same passage, that all 
 Christians are kings ; since St. Peter declares 
 tha-t they are all royal. Hence, as all Chris- 
 tians are confessedly not kings, so neither are 
 they all priests. Hence, again, all the followers 
 of Luther should be satisfied, that their pre- 
 tended pastors are only wolves in sheep's cloth- 
 ing, who entered the fold not by the door but 
 over the wall, smce their pretended orders and 
 mission are founded only upon a passage of 
 Scripture evidently i)erverted to suit a pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Q. What ivas Luther s next step after aboL 
 ishing the time priesthood amongst his follow- 
 ers ? 
 
 A. He next abolished the true Sacrifice. 
 
 Q. What did he allege against the sacrifice 
 of the Mass ? 
 
 A, Various things which he learned from the 
 diwil, as he himself declares. 
 
 Q. How does he express himself on that sub- 
 ''lict in his book on the Mass ^ (Tom. vi, p. 82.) 
 
 A. '' Having awoke," he says, " about mid- 
 night, the devil commenced a dispute with me 
 on the subject of the Mass/' 
 
 Q, What did th^. devil say t( him ? 
 
THE rOCTRlNAL CATECHIS^M. 
 
 A, "* Listen, most sapie^it Doctor," said the 
 father of lies : " during fifteen years you have 
 said Mass almost every day. What if all theso 
 acts have been only so many acts of idolatry ?' 
 
 Q, Did Luther hearken to the paternal ad 
 vice of his sable director ? 
 
 A. He listened so well, that he allowed him- 
 self to be persuaded that the devil was righi 
 and he wrong, so that the enemy of man cank^ 
 off' victor ; and though Luther in the same 
 book calls the devil the most artful and lying 
 deceiver, he here chose to follow his advice 
 rather than that of the Church. 
 
 Q. What think you of all this ? 
 
 A. One can hardly tell at which to be most 
 astonished, — at the open and brazen avowai 
 of Luther, or at the awful blindness of those 
 who follow a master, who, by his own account, 
 received his training and instruction in the 
 school of Satan. 
 
 THE PROTESTANT PRETENDED REFORMA 
 TION IS NOT THE WORK OF GOD. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Q. Can any one reasonably believe that the 
 change in religion brought about by Luthei i» 
 thn work of God ? 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISIVI. 2S 
 
 A. No one can believe it, unless he be utter- 
 ly ignorant of the true natuie of religion,, and 
 very unlearned in matters of history. 
 
 Q. Why do you make this answer ? 
 
 A, Because, in the first place, the author of 
 the Reformation is not a man of God ; secondly, 
 because his work is not the work of God ; 
 thirdly, because the means which he used in 
 effecting his purpose are not of God. 
 
 Q. Why do you »ay Luther is not a man of 
 God? 
 
 A. Because he has left us in his works abun- 
 dant proof, that if God saw need for any reforma- 
 tion in his Church, such a man as Luther would 
 not be selected to carry God's will into effect. 
 
 Q. What have you to hlame in Luther s 
 works ? 
 
 A. They are full of indecencies very offen- 
 sive to modesty, crammed with a low buffoon- 
 ery well calculated to bring religion into con- 
 tempt, and interlarded with very many gross 
 insults offered in a spirit very far from Christian 
 charity and humility, to individuals of dignity 
 and worth. 
 
 Q,. Pa.^sin-g over his indecencies in silence, 
 give us a specim,en of his buffooneries and in- 
 suits. What does lie say to the King of Eng- 
 land, replying to a book which the King hai 
 w*<Uen agiinst him? (Tom. ii, p. 145.) 
 
 3* 
 
30 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. He calls the King " an ass/' '' an idiot," 
 "a ^ool/' " whoni very infants ought to mock." 
 
 Q. How does he treat Cardinal Albert, Arch- 
 bishop and Elector of Mayence, in the icork 
 which he wrote against the Bishop of Magde.- 
 hurgf (Tom, vii, p. 353.) 
 
 A. He calls him " an unfortunate little priest 
 crammed with an infinite number of devils.*' 
 
 Q. What does he say of Henry, Duke of 
 Brunswick ? (Tom. vii, p. 118.) 
 
 A. That he had '' swallowed so many devils 
 in eating and drinking, that he could not even 
 spit any thing but a devil.'' He calls Duke 
 George of Saxony, " a man of straw, who, with 
 his immense belly, seemed to bid defiance to 
 heaven, and to have swallowed up Jesus Christ 
 himself." (Tom. ii, p. 90.) 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. Was Luther s language more respectful, 
 when he addressed the Emperor and the Pope ? 
 
 A. No ; he treated them both with equal 
 indignities ; he said that the Grand Turk had 
 ten tirxies the virtue and good sense of the Em- 
 peror, — that the Pope was " a wild beast," " a 
 ravenous wolf, against whom all Europe should 
 rise in arms." 
 
 Q. What do you conclude f*'om Luther s 
 
THE DOCTRJNAL CATECHISM 3 J 
 
 insolent, outrageous, and libertine manner oj 
 speaking ? 
 
 A, That he was not the man to be chosen 
 by God to reform his church ; for his language 
 is the strongest proof that he was actuated, not 
 by the spirit of God, but by the spirit of the 
 devil. 
 
 Q. May net his party say, that they cam 
 little about thi manner of the man, if his doc- 
 trine be true, — that it is not upon him, but upon 
 the word of God, they build their faith ? 
 
 A. If the Protestant doctrine be true, then 
 God used Luther as a chosen instrument to re- 
 estabhsh his true faith ; but no reasonable man 
 can possibly beheve th^ latter ; therefore, neither 
 can any reasonable man believe that the Prot- 
 estant is the true faith. 
 
 Q. May it not be objected that there were 
 individual pastors in the Catholic Church as 
 worthless as Luther ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but all the pastors of the Catholic 
 Church were not so at one and the same time, 
 whilst Luther, at the time we speak of, was 
 the first and only teacher of Protestantism. 
 Besides, Christ himself gives an unanswerable 
 reply to the objection, (Matth. xxiii :) " The 
 Scribes and Pharisees have sitten in the chair 
 of Moses ; all things therefore whatsoever they 
 shall say to you, observe and do, but according 
 
32 THE DOCTRINAL CATECHLSM. 
 
 to iheir works do ye not/' Again,- some (Catho- 
 lic pastors may have been bad men, but stil 
 they were the lawful ministers of God, having 
 succeeded to lawfully commissioned predeces- 
 sors ; but Luther stood alone, he succeeded to 
 none having lawful authority from whom he 
 could derive a mission. In fine, whatever may 
 have been the lives of some vicious Catholic 
 pastors, they taught nothing new, their teaching 
 was the same as that of the best and holiest 
 ministers of the Church. Hence, there was 
 no innovation in matters of faith, or principles 
 of morality. But Luther was the first to teach 
 a new doctrine, unknown in the wodd before 
 his time. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. We are now satisfied that the author of 
 Protesia.ntism was not a man of God ; show 
 us that his undertaking ivas not from God ; — 
 uihat did he undertake ? 
 
 A. He undertook to show that the Church 
 had fallen into error, separated himself from 
 her, and formed his followers into a party 
 against her. 
 
 Q. Could such an undertaking he //yt?. 
 God ? 
 
 A. No ; for God has commanded us not (o 
 git in judgment upon the Church, but t d heaj 
 
THE l}OCTRiNAL CiWEClllSM. *d^^ 
 
 and obey her with respect; "and if he will 
 not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the 
 heathen and pubHcan." (Matth. chap, xviii.) 
 
 Q. Wasitthepa7'ticular''teYntor'mV' Church 
 of the Roman States, or the Universal Catho- 
 lic Church, that Luther charged with having 
 erred? 
 
 A, It was the Universal Church he dared to 
 calumniate in this manner. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this ? 
 
 A. Before the time of Luther, there was no 
 Christian society in the whole world which be- 
 lieved the doctrines afterwards taught by Lu- 
 ther ; consequently, he assailed not any par- 
 ticular sect or church, but the faith of the 
 whole Christian world. 
 
 Q. Are you quite sure, that it is incontesta- 
 bly true, that no Christian body ever helieved^ 
 before Luther s time, the new doctrines he began 
 then to propagate 1 
 
 A, So sure, that we have Luther's own 
 authority for it. His words are, (Tom. ii, p. 
 9, b. :) " How often has not my conscience 
 been alarmed? How often have I not said 
 to myself: — Dost thou ALONE af all men 
 pretend to be wise ? Dost thou pretend that 
 ALL CHRISTIANS have been in error, du- 
 ring such a long period of years?'' 
 
 Q. What was it that gave Luther mott 
 
34 THE DOCTRIN'VL CATECHISM. 
 
 pain, during the time he m^flitated the int^tp* 
 auction of his new religion ? 
 
 A. A hidden respect for the authority of the 
 Church, which he found it impossible to stifle 
 
 Q. How does he express himself on tJm 
 matter ? (Tom. ii, p. 5.) 
 
 A. " After having subdued all other con- 
 siderations, it was with the utmost difficulty 1 
 could eradicate from my heart the feeling that 
 I should obey the Church." '•' I am not so pre- 
 sumptuous/' said he, " as to believe, that it is 
 in God's name IJiave commenced and carried 
 on this affair ; I should not wish to go to 
 judgment, resting on the fact that God is my 
 suide in these matters." (Tom. i, p. 364, b.) 
 
 CHAPTEU IV. 
 
 Q. What think you of the schism caused by 
 Luther ? Can one prudently believe that it is 
 the work of God ? 
 
 A, No ; beca?use God himself has forbidden 
 schism as a dreadful crime : St. Paul (1st Corinth 
 chap, i, ver. 10) says: "Now I beseech you, 
 brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and 
 that there be no SCHISMS among you ; but 
 chat you be perfect in the same mind and samf 
 judgment.'' 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATECHi^^M, 35 
 
 Q. What idea did Luther himself entertain 
 about schism before he blinded himself by his 
 rnfuriated antipathy to the Pope ? 
 
 A. He declared, that it was not lawful foi 
 any ( hristian whatever to separate himself from 
 the Church of Rome. 
 
 Q,. Repeat the very words of Luther touch- 
 ing Oiis important matter, (Tom. i, p. 116, b.) 
 
 A. " There is no question, no matter how im- 
 portant, which will justify a separation from the 
 Church." Yet, notwithstanding, he himself 
 burst the moorings which bound him to the 
 Church, and, with his small band of ignorant 
 and reckless followers, opposed her by every 
 means in his power. 
 
 Q. What do you remark on historical exam- 
 ples of conduct similar to this ever since the 
 birth of Christianity ? 
 
 A. That in every age, when a small body 
 detached itself from the Church, ou account of 
 doctrinal points, it has been universally the 
 case, that the small body plunged by degrees 
 deeper and deeper into error and heresy, and 
 in the end, brought b}'^ its own nicreasmg cor- 
 ruption into a state of* decomposition, disap 
 peared and perished. Of this we have hun- 
 dreds of examples ; nor can Lutherans or Cal- 
 vinists reasonably hope, that their heresy and 
 schism can have any other end. They are 
 
36 VRE DOUIRIN AL CATECHISM. 
 
 walking in the footsteps of those who have 
 strayed from the fold of truth, — from the imity 
 of fa^th ; and they can have no other prospect, 
 than the end of so many heresies that havte g;one 
 before them. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Q. Why have you said, that the means adopt- 
 ed by Luther, to establish his new religion, V)ere 
 not of God ? What were those means ? 
 
 A. That he might secure followers, he em- 
 ployed such means as were calculated to flatter 
 the passions of men ; he strew^ed the' path to 
 heaven — not like Christ with thoi^ns, but like 
 the devil — with jlowers ; he took off the cross 
 which Christ had laid on the shoulders of men , 
 he made wide and easy the way, which Christ 
 had left narrow and difficult. 
 
 Q. Repeat some of Luther s improvements 
 upon the religion of Christ. 
 
 A. He permitted all who had made solemn 
 vows of chastity, to violate their vows and 
 marry ; he permitted temporal sovereigns to 
 plunder the property of the Church ; he abolished 
 confession, abstinence, Tasting, and every worl 
 of penance and mortification. 
 
 Q. How did he attempt to tranquillize tht 
 consciences ^'^ had disturbed by these scanda 
 Icusly libertine doctrines ? 
 
THE DOCTRINAL CATECHISM- 'SI 
 
 A. He invented a thing, which he called 
 justifying faith, to be 'a sutlicii^nt sul>stitute for 
 all the above painful religious Vv^orks, an inven- 
 tion which took off every responsibility from 
 Dur shoulders, and laid all on the shoulders o^ 
 Jesus Christ ; in a word, he told men to be- 
 lieve in the merits of Christ as certainly ap- 
 plied to them, and live as they pleased, to in- 
 dulge every criminal passion, without even the 
 restraints of modesty. 
 
 Q. How did he strive to gain over to his 
 r)arty a sufficient number of presumptuous, un- 
 principled, and dissolute men of talent, to preach 
 and propagate his novelties ? 
 
 A. He pandered to their passions and flat- 
 tered their pride, by granting them the sovereign 
 honor of being their own judges in every reli- 
 gious question ; he presented them with the 
 Bible, declaring that ench one of them, igno-. 
 rant and learned, was perfectly qualified to de- 
 cide upon every point of controversy. 
 
 Q,. What did he condescend to do for Philip, 
 Landgrave of Hesse, in order to secure his 
 support and protection ? 
 
 A. He permitted him to keep two wives at 
 one and the same time. The name of the sec 
 ond was Margaret de Saal, who had been maio 
 of honor to his lawful wife, Christina de Saxe. 
 Nor was Luther the only Protestant Doctm 
 
 4 
 
38 vnr. doctrinai catechism. 
 
 who granted tliis nioristr:>iis dispensation from 
 the law of God ; eight of the most celebrated 
 Protestant leaders signed, with their own hand, 
 the filthy and adulterous document. 
 
 Q. Does the whole history of Christianity 
 furnish us with even one such scandalous dis- 
 pensation derived from ecclesiastical author- 
 ity 1 
 
 A. No ; nor could such brutal profligacy be 
 countenanced even for a moment, seeing that 
 the Scripture is so explicit on the subject. Gen. 
 ii, Matth. xix, Mark x, speak of two in one 
 flesh, but never of three. But Luther and his 
 brethren were guided, not by the letter of the 
 Scripture, but by the corrupt passions, wishes, 
 and inclinations of men. To induce their fol- 
 towers to swallow the new creed, they gave 
 them, in return, liberty to gratify every appetite. 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 Q. If neither the author of Protestantism, 
 ncr his work itself, nor the means he adopted tc 
 effect his purpose, are from God, v^hat arehis 
 fvUowers obliged to ? 
 
 A. They are obliged, under pam of eternal 
 
 damnation, to seek earnestly and re-enter the 
 
 ^je Church, which seduced by Luther, thev 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATKCHISM. 89 
 
 abandoned : If they be sincere, God will aid 
 them in then' inquiry. 
 
 Q. JV/iat is the situation of tiie man who 
 does not at once acquit himself c^ this ohlin-a- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. He is the victim of mortal heresy and 
 schism ; the thing he calls a chm'ch has no pas- 
 tors lawfully sent or ordained ; hence, he can 
 receive none of the Sacraments declared in 
 Scripture to be so necessary to salvation. 
 
 Q. What think you of those (they are many) 
 who are at heart convinced that the Catholic 
 Church is the only true one, and are still such 
 cowards as to dread making a public profes- 
 sion of their faith ? 
 
 A. "He," says our Saviour — Luke,-ix chap., 
 26 ver., '' who shall be ashamed of me and ol 
 rnv words, of him the Son of Man sliall be 
 ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty." 
 
 Q. What think you of those v)ho are inclined 
 to Catholicism, hut out of family considera- 
 tions neglect to embrace it ? 
 
 A, Our Saviour, in the 10th chap, of St 
 Matth., tells such, that he who loves father or 
 mother more than God, is unworthy of God. 
 
 Q,. What say you to those who hecoyne Prat- 
 tstants, or remaiii Protestants from motives of 
 \i orldly gain or honor ? 
 
 A, I say with our Saviour, in the 8th chap 
 
40 A DOCTRINAL uATECHlSM. 
 
 of St. Mark, " What will it avail a man, if ha 
 gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of hh 
 
 soul r 
 
 ON THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. 'Can any one he saved who is not in the 
 true Church ? 
 
 A, No ; for those who are not in the true 
 Church, — that is, for those who are not joined, 
 at least, to the soul of the Church,* — there can 
 be no hope of salvation. 
 
 Q. What says Christ upon this subject ? 
 (St. Matth., chap, xviii.) 
 
 A. That he who will not hear the Church, is 
 to be reputed as a heathen. 
 
 Q. What says St. Cyprian? (Lib. de Unit. 
 Eccl.) 
 
 A. " That he who has not the Church for 
 his mother, cannot have God for his father ;" 
 and the Fathers generally say, " that as all who 
 were not in the ark of Noah, perished in the 
 waters of the deluge ; so shall all perish, who 
 are without the pale of the true Church.'' 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of the ninth article 
 
 • This question, as it regards Pagans and invincibly igu^ 
 %ut Christiins will be treated afterwards. 
 
A DOCTRlN/,L CATECHISM 4i 
 
 sf the Creed: '' I believe in the /wly Catholu 
 Churchr 
 
 A That every one should firmly believe, 
 thai to be a member of the CathoUc Church, 
 is necessary in order to salvation. 
 
 Q. By ichat marks can you distinguish the. 
 true Church from all other sects ? 
 
 A, Particularly by two ; 1st, Whatever pre- 
 tends to be the Church of Christ, must have 
 been established, upwards of eighteen hundred 
 years ago, by Christ and his Apostles. 2d, ft 
 must have existed unceasingly in the world 
 from that time to the present. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that Christ's Church 
 must have been established more th-an cip^hteen 
 hundred years ago ? 
 
 A. Because it was Christ who estabi'/Ijjd his 
 own true Church, and it is more than eighteen 
 hundred years since he left the world, to w^hich 
 he has never since visibly returned. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that a church, to he the 
 true Church of Christ, must have perpetitally 
 existed, without any interruption, since the time 
 Christ established it? 
 
 A. Simply, because Christ promised such 
 perpetuity to his Church. 
 
 Q. What are the words of Christ ov this 
 subject? Matth., xvi chap., 18 ver. ; and 
 Mattfi. Kxviii — 20. 
 
 4* 
 
42 A DOCTRENAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock. 1 
 will build my church, and the gates of hell shalj 
 not prevail against it;" and, "Go, therefore, 
 teach all nations .... and lo ! / am with you 
 all days, even to the consummation of the 
 world.'' 
 
 Q. How does St. Paul speak of the Church 
 of Christ ? (1 Tim., iii. chap.) 
 
 A. He calls her the pillar and ground of 
 truth. 
 
 Q. Were it true that the Church had in 
 reality fallen into idolatry, what inference would 
 you draw from that fact ? 
 
 A. That Christ was an unskilled architect 
 and a false prophet ; because he must then 
 have built his Church, not upon a rock, but 
 upon sand, like that stupid architect of whom he 
 himself speaiis — Matth. chap. viii. ; and because 
 the gates of %ell would then have really pre- 
 vailed against the Church in spite of his pre- 
 diction. 
 
 Q. What conclusion do you draw from alt 
 this? 
 
 A. That Christ established a Church ; that 
 that Church has existed in everv age ; that she 
 exists at present ; that she never could, and 
 never can, fall into any error dangerous to 
 salvation on matters of faith or morality ; that 
 every one, in fine, is bound with a firm and 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATL JHISM. 43 
 
 unshaken faith to believe what she teaches, De- 
 cause her doctrines are, like those of her Divine 
 Master, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ^. III what Church do you find those two cer- 
 tain marks of truth, of which you have spoken 1 
 
 A. In the Catholic Church, and in no other. 
 
 Q. Was she established eighteen hundred 
 years ago ? 
 
 A. Yes; for no man has ever yet been able 
 to date her origin from any later period. 
 
 Q. Has she existed alvmys, without even the 
 least interruption, during that time ? 
 
 A. Yes ; and no one has ever ventured tc 
 point out such interruption, or how long, if it 
 look place at all, such interruption lasted. 
 
 Q. How does St. Augustine establish tins 
 necessary antiquity and perpetuity of the 
 Church up to his own time ? (Epist. a Gener.) 
 
 A, He proves it by the uninterrupted succes- 
 sion of Roman Pontiffs, whose names he gives, 
 xne after the other, for the complete period, to 
 the number of thirty-nine. 
 
 Q. How many Popes have governed the 
 Church from St, Peter to the present Pnntijf 
 Pius IX. includvely, 
 
 A, Two hundred and fifty- seven. 
 
44 A DOCTi:i\'A[. t -^TKCHISiVT. 
 
 Q. Aj'c the two certain marks of the trut 
 Churchy of waich you have spoken, discovevahh 
 in the Protestant Church ? 
 
 A. No ; neither in the Episcopal, nor Cal- 
 vinistic branch of it. 
 
 Q. How long is it since the Lutheran 
 Church was established ? 
 
 A. About three hundred years ; — Luthei 
 preached the first Protestantism ever known in 
 1517 ; and Calvinism was first preached in t!ie 
 year 1537. 
 
 Q. Were there no Lutheran or Calvinistic 
 Churches before these dates ? 
 
 A. No ; no such doctrines, nor churches, 
 nor pastors, nor sects, were ever known in any 
 country prior to that time. 
 
 Q. How do you reason from these facts 
 against your adversaries ? 
 
 A. Any church, to be the true Church, must 
 have been established eighteen hundred years 
 ago ; but the Episcopalian and Presbyterian 
 Churches are only of three hundred years' 
 durat-on ; therefore, neither of them can have 
 any pretension to be the Church of (Christ. 
 
 Q. May not your adversaries reply, that 
 the Church of the first four centuries believed 
 as they do ; that, at the end of that time, the 
 Church fell into superstition and idolatry ; 
 and thai God judged it neiessary, after the 
 
A DOCTRINAL CAIEOHISM. 45 
 
 Church was drowiijed in eiTor for eleven hun- 
 ired years, /o send Luther and Calvin to r^ 
 form her ? 
 
 A. Yes, they may, and do advance many 
 absm'dities, and this is one of them, which doe? 
 not bring them out of their difficulties ; for 
 Christ says, his Church cannot fail, — that the 
 gates of hell shall never prevail against her, — 
 that his holy Spirit shall teach her all truth 
 FOR EVER, — that he will abide with her all 
 DAYS, even to the consummation of the world. 
 Therefore it is an infallible truth, that any 
 Church to be the Church of Christ, must have 
 been estabhshed eighteen hundred years ago ; 
 therefore, that Church once estabhshed, could 
 never fail ; therefore the Protestant Church, 
 the mere child of yesterday, cannot be the 
 Church of Christ ; therefore her very founda- 
 tion is nothing but error and blasphemy, for she 
 is built on the supposidon, that Christ was 
 either unwilling or unable to keep his promise 
 — a supposition which implies the most aggra- 
 vated blasphemy, tantamount to a denial of the 
 Divinity of Christ 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q,. What questioyi can you put to a Frot 
 sstant, to which he can give no saiisfaciot^ 
 t^eply 1 
 
46 A DOCTRINA . CATECHISJW. 
 
 A. Ask him where the true Church was 
 before the time of Luther and Calvin. 
 
 Q. May he not rephj, that the Church was 
 ^hen invisible, that there were Christians in 
 every age who held the doctrines of Luther and 
 Calvin, hut thai they dared not openly profess 
 their faith ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but this answer will satisfy no man 
 of ordinary understanding ; for surely, it must 
 be evident to every one who thinks, that men 
 who believed in their hearts one creed and pro- 
 fessed another, like these invisible Protestants, 
 were only hypocrites, dastardly traitors to their 
 religion, utterly incapable of composing the holy, 
 fearless body of the true Church of Christ. 
 
 Q. Was not the Jewish Church for a timt 
 invisible, and did not God say to the prophet 
 Elias, that there were seven thousand men con- 
 cealed, who had never bent the knee to Baal ? 
 
 A. When the Jewish Church w^as invisible 
 in the kingdom of Israel, it was in a most 
 flourishing state in the land of Judah ; but the 
 Protestant Church existed in no kingdom du- 
 ring the years of its invisibility, nor have we 
 the Word of God assuring us, that there were 
 seven thousand invisible Protestants concealed 
 under a cloud anywhere. 
 
 Q. Have you any other reply to make ? 
 
 A, Yes ; there is a very great diilerencr be- 
 
A nOCTKlXAl, CATF.cn ISM. ^t 
 
 tween the Christian and the JeivisJi Church ; 
 — God n»ever promised that he would be with 
 the Jewish Church all days, that the gates of 
 hell should not prevail against her. 
 
 Q. Have you any other way of proving 
 that the true Church must have been always 
 visible ? 
 
 A. If the Church had not been always visible, 
 it would have been impossible to obey the com- 
 mand of Christ — that we should hear and obev 
 his Church. The Church is composed of men 
 teaching and men taught, and are these invisi- 
 ble ? Are preaching, public prayer, baptism, 
 the administration of the other sacraments, du- 
 ties that can be performed invisibly ? Is not 
 the subterfuge of an invisible Church a mere 
 absurdity ? May not any Mormon, Millerite, 
 or madman, declare his nostrums the true reli- 
 gion, hitherto invisible, now at length revealed? 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 Q. Have our adversaries any other reply 
 to make to that, for them, annoying question . 
 ' Where was the Church of God before I^u- 
 ihers time V 
 
 A. Yes ; some of them say, that the Chuich 
 of Christ was that of the Hussites, theWaudoia, 
 and other heretics of the twelfth century, ana 
 
48 A DOCTRINAL CATECTIISxM. 
 
 that the Protestant Church is only a continue, 
 lion of it under a different name. 
 
 Q. Can this reply he sustained by ar^t^- 
 ment ? 
 
 A. No ; for, in the first place, though tht 
 principles of these heretics differed in son.e 
 points from the Catholic faith, yet their doc- 
 trine generally agreed with the Catholic, and 
 differed widely from that of Luther and Calvin 
 Therefore, inasmuch as they held the Mass. 
 seven sacraments, &c., they must have been 
 idolaters according to Protestants ; and inas- 
 much as they held doctrines opposed to Protest- 
 ants, they cannot be considered as forming one 
 and the same Church. Besides, even admitting, 
 what is not the fact, for the sake of argument, 
 that the Plussites, &c., were Protestants, this 
 only makes the Protestant sect two or three 
 hundred years older ; it leaver still twelve hun- 
 dred vears of non-existence to be accounted 
 for : — this is an awful chasm. Where, still w^e 
 ask, during this long period was the Church of 
 Christ ? What other prior sect of heretics can 
 Protestants link themselves with, in order to 
 stretch out their existence over all these ages ? 
 None ; and if not, then still they do not form 
 the Church of Christ ; because they cannot 
 connect their Church in any possible way with 
 « 'Srist or his Apostles. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 49 
 
 Q. What say you to those who admit that 
 the Catholic Church luas the true Church up to 
 Luther's time, hut that many errors and abuses 
 had crept into her, which it was necessary to 
 correct ? 
 
 A, If the Catholic Church was the Church 
 of Christ before Luther, she must be so still ; 
 hence, those who have left her are, to say the 
 least, schismatics. Again, either these sup- 
 posed errors were prejudicial to salvation, or 
 they were not. If they were, then Christ has 
 failed in his word, — then the gates of hell have 
 prevailed against the Church, and this in the 
 very teeth of Christ's promises and security to 
 the contrary. If these errors were not prejudi- 
 cial to salvation, then they were only the errors 
 of individuals, not the errors of the Church 
 teaching ; and, accordingly, it was merely neces- 
 sary to correct the individuals, but on every 
 account to cling to the Church, as the pillar and 
 ground of truth ; to act otherwise, was to be 
 guilty of the dreadful crime of schism, so 
 awfully denounced by St. Paul. 
 
 Q. May not these people say, that it was we 
 who separated from them, not they from us f 
 
 A. No ; for when there are two bodies — one 
 of which is great, the other small, — one ancient, 
 the other modern, — one teaching the doctrine 
 ot a long series of ages, the other teaching a 
 
50 A DOCTR[NAL CATECHISM. 
 
 new creed — it is evidently not the great or the 
 ancient, both in existence and doctrine, but the 
 small and modern body which becomes re- 
 si)onsible for the separation : a small portior 
 detached from a mountain can- never with pro 
 priety be called the mountain itself. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Q. Are there any other marks of the inin 
 Church ? 
 
 A. Yes ; four, enumerated in the Nicene 
 Creed : " I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and 
 Apostolic Church.'' 
 
 Q. Did Christ require unity in his Church, 'f 
 
 A. He says, John, chap, x — 16, that there is 
 b\xi "' oniY. fold and one shepherd.''' St. Paul, 
 Rom. chap, xii — 5, says : " We, being many, 
 are one body in Christ ;" and Ephes., chap, 
 iv : that there is but " one body, one spirit, one 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism." The Church, 
 therefore, is one body or fold, having one faith, 
 under one shepherd. 
 
 Q.. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. That no Church can be the Church of 
 Christ which has not this oneness or unity. 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant Church one ? 
 
 A. On principle it cannot be one ; for its 
 first princ pie — " private interpretation''- — has 
 
A DOCTIIINAL CATRCIi 3M. fs J 
 
 ever jn'oduced, and will erer produce, neces- 
 sarily, schisms and divisions ; each one, learned 
 (tv ignorant, interprets according to his peculiai 
 r^'ht or interest. 
 
 Q. Is tk'i ProtesUnt Church one in its gov- 
 ern mcnt ? 
 
 A, No ; it has for its head, the King in Prus- 
 sia, the Queen or State in England ; and in 
 Scotland, the g;overnment is various, according 
 to the whims of the various sects. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her gov- 
 ernment ? 
 
 A. Yes ; all the Catholics in the w^or i are 
 subject to their priests, these priests are .ubjecf 
 to their bishops, and these bishops are appointed 
 by, and subject to, Peter's lawful successor ir. 
 the See of Rome. 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant Church one in he? 
 faith ? 
 
 A. She has one faith in England and another 
 in Scotland, a third in Switzerland, and a fourth 
 In Prussia. The Free Kirk of Scotland holds 
 as damnable, what the Established Kirk believes 
 to be good and true ; and the Puseyite believes 
 what the English Church repudiates. In one 
 Protestant Church, bishops, and ordination by 
 bishops, are believed to be necessary ; in 
 another they are rejected One Protestant 
 body believes in the rea. presence ; and anoth- 
 
o)i A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 er, in a baie and empty memorial. All th« 
 minor Protestant sects are in the same melaxi- 
 choly predicament, — they differ from one an- 
 other on some or many essential points. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her 
 faith ? 
 
 A, All the Catholics in the world have one 
 and the same creed. Amongst Catholics there 
 are no sects — no Chm'ch of Scotland, or Eng- 
 land, or France : All Catholics believe the 
 same truths, and to reject any one of these 
 trutl ^ is to cut one's self off from the Catholic 
 comn anion. The Catholic Church- is the 
 Church, not of any nation, but of the world. 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant Church one in her 
 moral doctrines ? 
 
 A. No ; one sect of Pix)testants believes ir. 
 predestination, in salvation by faith alone ; 
 and another sect of Protestants holds the ne- 
 cessity of good works and free will, whilst they 
 denounce the above Calvinistic principles, as 
 leading directly to the most debasing immo- 
 rality. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church one in her mora* 
 principles ? 
 
 A. All Catholics follow the same moral prin- 
 ciples, — the same vices are denounced on the 
 one hand, and the same virtues inculcated or 
 *.he other. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHJSM. 53 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant discipline everywhere 
 ike same ? 
 
 A. It is different in every country and every 
 sect. 
 
 Q. li ihe Catholic Church ofie on thu 
 head ? 
 
 A The Catholic Church is strictly uniform 
 on every essential matter of discipline, whether 
 that regard the pastors or the people ; — the 
 same great feasts and fasts are everywhere 
 observed. 
 
 Q. Is the Pi^otestant Church one in her 
 Liturgy, or public service ? 
 
 A. No ; on this she exhibits the most absurd 
 contrariety ; — Scotland worships God in one 
 way, England in another, Geneva in a third, 
 Prussia in a fourth, Sweden in a fifth, and 
 wherever a handful of Protestants can be 
 assembled together, they strike out a service 
 for themselves, according to their particular 
 views. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Liturgy everywtiere uni- 
 form ? 
 
 A. The same great sacrifice of the Mass. 
 and essentially in the same words, is every- 
 where offered ; the same seven sacraments are 
 fivery where administered in the same manner ; 
 even the forms of the public service are every- 
 waere essentially the same. 
 
64 \ IJOCTRiNAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q, T'VJiat inference do you draw from ei] 
 this 1 
 
 A. That the Protestant Church is a house 
 divided against itself, — that it is not one, but 
 tnanifokl ; therefore, it is not the Church of 
 Christ : — That the Catholic Church is one 
 strictly in every sense of the word ; and, con- 
 sequently, that as it is the only Church on earth 
 which has perfect unity, it is unquestionably the 
 one true Church of Christ. 
 
 Q. Are not Protestants one, because they 
 all follow the Bible ? 
 
 A. On the contrary, it is the Bible, abused 
 by the principle of private interpretation, which 
 occasions all their errors, heresies, and schisms. 
 The Prussian Mucker teaches his filthy princi- 
 ples from the Bible ; the silly Mormon palms 
 his nostrums on the Bible ; the execrable So- 
 cialist proves his brutalities from the Bible ; the 
 Millerite extracts Millerism from the Bible ; — 
 in a word, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Epis- 
 copalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, — all per- 
 vert God's Word in order to make it support 
 their jarring and contradictory systems and 
 they do this with as much assurance, as if God 
 could teach that black is white, or that a thing 
 may be black and white at the same tinie. 
 Thus. :*mongst the Presbyterians of Scotland, 
 ••>»H sect teaches that Church patrona^je if 
 
A l>oC'J'RrNAI. CATECH1&\I. Si 
 
 dan.nable, whilst another teaches that it is • 
 
 CHAPTER V] 
 
 Q. What IS ine second mark oj the true 
 Churcli ? 
 
 A. Holiness or sanctity. 
 
 Q. Does it appear from Scripture, that 
 Christ's Church should he holy ? 
 
 A, The prophet Isaiah calls her, — Isa. chap 
 XXXV, 8, — ''a way which shall be called the 
 HOLY WAY, over which the unclean shall not 
 pass.'' David, — Ps. xcii, 5, — says: "Holiness 
 becomes thy house, O Ijord,for length of days.'' 
 St. Paul, — Eph. V, 25, — declares, that " Christ 
 loved the Church and delivered himself for it, 
 that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the 
 laver of water and the word of life, that he 
 might present it to himself a glorious Church, 
 not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing 
 but that it should he holy rnd without blemish.'' 
 See also Tit. ii, 14, and ) Peter, ii, 9. 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant Church holy in her 
 pastors ? 
 
 A. No ; to this she can have no pretension ; 
 her pastors are mere men of the world, not 
 subjected to the restraints )f Apostolic [Kwerly, 
 chastity, or mortification. The burden of tti^ir 
 
th A IJOCTIUXAL CATECHISM. 
 
 religious duly seeuis to be, the mere preaching 
 of a sermon or two upon Sunday ; whilst most 
 of their time must be employed, not in Apostolic 
 duties, but in looking after their ov/n worldly 
 interest, and that of their wives and children. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church holy in her pas- 
 tors ? 
 
 A. They are all separated from the world 
 and its gratifications, and dedicated entirely to 
 God's glory and the sanctification of souls ; — 
 no w^orldly cares intrude upon them ; — the 
 Church is their spouse, and the people their 
 spiritual children ; — they are ever, in a- variety 
 of ways, employed in the spiritual improvement 
 of their flock ; — they watch with tender care, 
 from the cradle to the grave, those committed 
 to their charge ; — and, as they have no wives 
 or families to provide for, their hearts are in 
 their duties ; and whatever of this world's 
 g<X)ds they may possess, is employed for the 
 glory of God. 
 
 Q. Are there any means of Holiness in the 
 Protestant Church ? 
 
 A. No ; they have destroyed them all ; they 
 have rejected the soul of religion in rejecting 
 the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and five of tlie 
 sacraments, all abundant souices of grace, as 
 vou shall afterwards see, where the subjects are 
 treated ; and even the two sacraments which 
 
A DOCTRINAL r ATECHISM. 67 
 
 they still retain, are by them reduced to mere 
 KtTipty forms — the mere giving of a name, and 
 partaking of a little bread and wine. 
 
 Q. Has the Catholic Church means of holi- 
 ness ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the most abundant, in the holy 
 sacrifice of the Mass and the seven sacraments, 
 which are all so many channels, through which 
 the graces which flow from the wounds of our 
 Redeemer are conveved to the souls of Catho- 
 lies of every class, in every condition, and at 
 every period of life, from the time they enter 
 this world, until they render their souls into the 
 hands of God. 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant Church holy in he" 
 doctrines 1 
 
 A. The very contradictory nature of the 
 various moral doctrines, taught by the ever- 
 varying sects of Protestants, must, of itself, be 
 ruinous to holiness. But what places the un- 
 holiness of her doctrines beyond all doubt, is her 
 doctrine on predestination, on free will, her be- 
 lief that faith alone is necessary, and that good 
 works are useless ; for who, believing such ab- 
 surdities as these, can have any motive to avoid 
 vice or practice virtue ? Holiness is incom- 
 patible with these immoral principles. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church holy in her doc- 
 trines ? 
 
^S A DOt'TRlXAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A, She teaches her children to believe ali 
 that God has revealed, and to practice all that 
 he has commanded ; — multitudes of Catholics, 
 not content with observing the precepts, prac 
 tise even the coi.nsels of the Gospel. Fasting, 
 mortification, unremitting prayer, self-denial, 
 and a frequent participation of the sacraments, 
 all of which are so pressingly recommended in 
 the Scripture, are enjoined and practised by 
 the whole Church, from the sovereign pontiff^ 
 down to the humblest member of Christ's mys- 
 tical body. 
 
 Q. Were there, in consequence of these holy 
 means and holy doctrines, many members oj 
 the Catholic Church illustrious for sanctity? 
 
 A. Yes ; multitudes, and of every class, from 
 the king to the mendicant, and from the Pope 
 to the deacon. 
 
 Q. Have even adversaries admitted this ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the Apology for the Confession of 
 Augsburg, Art. 13, declares, that St. Bernard. 
 St. Francis, and St. Bonaventure, weresaints ; 
 eve.i the Calendar of the Church of England 
 admits others ; and almost all our saints are 
 admitted by the Fuseyite section of the English 
 Church. 
 
 Q. In what Church did these admitted saints 
 live and die 7 
 
A DOCTRINAL CA'PECHISM. 59 
 
 A. In he Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman 
 Church. 
 
 Q^. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. That as one can be sanctified through 
 Clirist in the Catholic Church, so he can cer- 
 tainly be saved in the same Church ; and if he 
 can be saved in this Church, it must be the true 
 Church, and he can be saved in no other ; for 
 Christ did not establish two Churches. There 
 is only one baptism, one fold, one shepherd, 
 one revelation, containing one true set of doc- 
 trines. 
 
 Q. Did God ever work miracles to testify 
 the sanctity of a, Catholic ? 
 
 A. Even enemies admit that he did. That 
 he wrought miracles by the hand of St. Francis 
 Xavier, is allowed by Baldeus, Hackluit, and 
 Tavernier, all rigid Lutherans and Calvinists. 
 Now, St. Francis was a Catholic Priest ; and 
 hence the Catholic religion, which, by the aid 
 of these miracles, he taught and propagated, 
 must be the true religion, since God could not 
 give the testimony of his Almighty hand to 
 error. 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 Q. What is the third mark of the true 
 Church ? 
 
 A. Catholicity or universality 
 
GO A I>0CTR1NAL CATECFI. SxM. 
 
 Q. Is this mark evidently i^equired by Sa ip 
 ture ? 
 
 A. According to Scripture, the Catholic 
 Church must be universal in three ways,— 
 universal as to time, universal as to place, and 
 universal as lo doctrine, 
 
 Q. Where do you find that she must he uni^ 
 versal as to time ? 
 
 A. In Isaiah, Ixii, 6 — " Upon thy walls, 
 Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen all the 
 day and all the night, they shall never hold 
 their peace/' Isa. ix, 7 — "Of the increase o{ 
 his government and peace .... there shall be 
 NO END." He shall sit upon the throng o\ 
 David " to order it, and establish it, ... . from 
 henceforth even for ever." In John, xiv, 16 
 — " I will ask the Father, and he shall give you 
 another Paraclete, that he may abide with you 
 for ever.'' 
 
 Q Where do you find universality, as to 
 place, laid down in Scripture ? 
 
 A. In Malachi, i, 11 — ''From the rising of 
 the sun to the going down thereof, my name i«5 
 great amongst the Gentiles." Ps. xxi, 28 — 
 " All the ends of the earth shall remember, and 
 shall be converted to the Lord." Ps, ii, 8 — 
 " Ask of me, and I will give the Gentiles for 
 thine inheritance, and the uttermost p^irts of 
 the earth for thy possession/' Luke, xxiv 
 
 i 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 6 
 
 16 — " That penance and remission of sins 
 should be preached in his name among all 
 nations," Acts, i, 8 — " And ye shall be wit- 
 nesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea 
 and Samaria, and even to the uttermost parts 
 of the earth.'' 
 
 Q. Is there any passage of Scripture, in 
 which the above three kinds of universality a- 1 
 clearly laid down, as necessary qualities of the 
 true Church ? 
 
 A. Yes ; in the commission given by Cnrist 
 to his Apostles — Matth. xxviii, 19, 20 — "Go- 
 ing, therefore, teach ye all nations ; . . . .teach- 
 ing them to observe all things, whatsoever 1 
 have commanded you ; and, behold, I am with 
 you all days, even to the consummation of th-e 
 worlds Here you have, from the lips of Christ 
 himself, an express attestation, that his Church 
 >^vill be Catholic or universal as to time, place, 
 and doctrine. 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant Church universal in 
 these three ways ? 
 
 A. No ; nor in any one of them. She is no^ 
 universal as to time ; for a few centuries back 
 she had no existence ; she is little more than 
 three hundred years old. A Church is com- 
 posed of pastors and people, teaching and be- 
 iieving certain doctrines, and no su'ch body 
 balding Protestant doctrines was known io 
 
62 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 the world for fifteen hunHred years aftei Chri-i 
 left it. She is not universal either as to num- 
 bers or place ; even the Greek Church is belore 
 her in numbers ; and on this head she cannot 
 bear a comparison with the Catholic Church. 
 According to the Scientific Miscellany, the 
 total number of Protestants in the world is 
 48,985,000 ; the total number of Greeks is 
 56,360,000 ; whilst the number of Cathohcs is 
 254,655,000 ; that is, the Catholics are nearly 
 six to one. But if we take each Protestant 
 Church hy itself, and this is the true point ol 
 comparison, (for these Protestant Churches all 
 differ from one another,) we will find, then, 
 that Catholics are to Presbyterians as sixty-five 
 to one, and to the Church of England as thirty- 
 six to one. Hence, it is not only incon'ect, but 
 ludicrous, to call any of these Protestant sects 
 Cathohc or universal. Neither can they 1)^ 
 called universal as to place ; for Protestants 
 are confined to a small corner of the earth, as 
 will be evident, by the following statistical ac- 
 count, from the above authority. 
 
 EUROPE. ASIA. AFRICA. 
 
 Catholics, 154,444,600 40,000,000 12,400,000 
 
 Protestautis.;... 39,675,000 50,000 10,00C 
 
 AMERICA. OCBANICA. 
 
 Catholics, 34,110,000 3,450,000 
 
 Protestants,... 9,150,000 50,000 
 
A JOCTRINAL CATEClilaM. 03 
 
 These statistics are the most decisive procf thai 
 the Protestant is not the Church of ail nations , 
 she is not even the Church of any one nation, 
 no, nor of even one parish exchisively on the 
 face of the earth. In fine, she is not universal 
 as to doctrine, either as to extent or truth ; for 
 she has taught, and does teach, many evident 
 errors, such as predestination, the rejection of 
 free will and good works, and the impossibility 
 of keeping the commandments. And as to the 
 teaching of all truth, she can have no preten- 
 sion to it, since each Protestant sect has its pe- 
 culiar doctrines ; — scarcely two of them have 
 the same creed. They even rejected, as apoc- 
 ryphal, at one time, whole books of the sacred 
 Scripture, which they now admit — they reject 
 to-day what they taught yesterday. Indeed, 
 in point of doctrine, whether moral, dogmatical, 
 or disciplinary, they present only one confused 
 and revolting mass of contradictions, contra- 
 rieties, and absurdities. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church universal in the 
 above thrrec ways ? 
 
 A, No one will dai*e to deny that she is the 
 Chur:h of all ages. She is the only Church 
 upon earth that can be visibly traced back 
 through every age to the time of Christ. She 
 is the Church of all nations, as is evident from 
 the above statistical argument , — there is not 
 
64 A IVJCTRINAL CA'l EClU^bM. 
 
 a Christian, — nay, scarcely a Pagan — nation, 
 that does not attest her actual presence, or, by 
 noble monuments, her former greatness ; — fier 
 ancient canon law is still, in a great measure, 
 the law of Scotland, as it is the foundation of 
 the law of France, and the whole x^ivil law of 
 Europe and America ; — her noble temples and 
 colleges, dedicated to the living God, are still 
 the pride o^ England ; — the ruined monastic 
 establishments and glorious cathedrals, that 
 once adorned every country of Europe, have 
 survived the Vandal hand of barbarous i eforrUy 
 as ever-enduring monuments, to perpetuate the 
 history of Catholic greatness. Protestantism 
 has never converted even one Pagan nation , 
 whilst every people that have been bi ought to 
 the knowledge and worship of the true God, 
 professing that they ow^e their conversion to 
 the Catholic Church, loudly proclaim her uni- 
 versality ; — everywhere her incense ascends ; — 
 everywhere her sacraments are administered . 
 everywhere her pure sacrifice is oflered. To 
 her alone did the Prophet speak, when he said : 
 *•' I will give the nations for thme inheritance, 
 and the ends of the earth for thy possession/' 
 In fine, she is universal as to her doctrine ; — it 
 Is everywhere the same ; — it has, like the pure 
 gold, passed through the ordeal of eighteen hun- 
 dred years' examination, unchangeable anc un- 
 
A DOCTRINAl CATECIHSM. f>5 
 
 changed ; the combined efforts of lieresy ana 
 infidelity against it have been unavailing. She 
 teaches her children to observe all that God has 
 commanded, and to believe all that he has re- 
 vealed : her doctrine is, like her Divine founder, 
 the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 
 
 Q. What says St. Augustine on the word 
 Catholic ? 
 
 A. " The very name of Catholic/' ht says. 
 '' keeps me in the Church. Heretics have done 
 their utmost to obtain that name, yet they have 
 never been able to succeed. If a stranger, on 
 entering any city, were to ask, ' where is the 
 Catholic Church ?' no heretic would dare to 
 point out his heretical conventicle/' (Tom. vi, 
 Contra. Ep. Fund. chap. 4.) 
 
 Q. Give us Saint Jeroms words, contra 
 Lu'cif. 
 
 A, " When you see any body inherit its 
 name from a particular man, as the Marcion- 
 ites from Marcion, the Valentinians from Val- 
 entinus,'' (we may add the I^utherans from 
 Luther, the Calvinists from Calvin,) "you may 
 look on that body, not as the Church of Christ, 
 but as the school of Antichrist." 
 
 Q. Give us a good reason why your name 
 of Catholic is the best proof that you are in 
 the ti'ue Church. 
 
 A. These who remained in communion with 
 
 6* 
 
f)6 A DOCTRIX.A. CAl'ECiUSM. 
 
 the ancient body of the faitliful retained the 
 ancient name, whilst innovators gave to their 
 followers either their own name, or one derived 
 from their peculiarly novel doctrine, or fion» 
 the comitry in wliich this new creed made its 
 first appearance. Thus the Lutherans, the 
 Calvinists, the Church of England, the Metho- 
 dists, the Quakers, the Moravians, show, by 
 their very names, the human origin of their 
 religion. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all 
 that you hai>e said on this mark of Catho- 
 licity ? 
 
 A, That the Scripture expressly requires, in 
 the true Church, universality as to time, place, 
 and doctrine ; that the Protestant Church is 
 not universal in any of these three ways ; that 
 the Catholic Church is the only Church upon 
 earth that has this triple universality, and, con- 
 sequently, that it is the true Church of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER YIII. 
 
 Q. What is the fourth mark of the tn4*. 
 Church ? 
 
 A. Apostolicity. 
 
 Q, What do youviean by this word? 
 
 A. That any Church pretending to be the 
 Church of Christ, must be able to trace her 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 61 
 
 loctrine, her orders, aiid her mission^ to tlie 
 .^Vpostles of Christ. 
 
 Q,. Why shoiJd this be the case ? 
 
 A. Because, during all the time the Church 
 has existed, there must have been true pastors 
 " for the work of the ministry, for the edifica- 
 tion of the body of Christ,'' — Ephes. chap. iv. 
 " Upon thy walls, O JerusaAem,- I have ap- 
 pointed watchmen • . . . they shall never hold 
 their peace," — Isa. Ixii, 6. These pastors must 
 have been lawfully sent ; for " no man taketh 
 the honor of the priesthood upon himself, but 
 he that is called by God as Aaron was/' — Heb. 
 V, 4. Thus, Christ sent the Apostles ; these 
 Apostles sent others, — for example, Paul and 
 Barnabas ; and again, Paul sent Timothy and 
 Titus ; and, in this manner, each succeeding 
 generation of pastors was sent l>y the preceding 
 from Christ to the present time ; and the gen- 
 eration of pastors giving their cojnmission to 
 their successors, did it, by the power of Christ 
 originally given, in these words : " As my Fa- 
 ther hath sent me, I also send you." In fine, 
 the pastors of every age must havB been or- 
 dained, according to that of St. Paul to Titus, — 
 Chap, i, 5 : " For this cause I left thee in Crete, 
 that thou shouldst set in oixler the things that 
 are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in 
 dve y city, as 1 also appointed the^," 
 
68 A DOCTRINAL CATEClIIsSiM. 
 
 Q. May it not he said that the Protestant 
 Church is Apostolical in her doctrine, seeing 
 that she adopts the Scripture as her rule ? 
 
 A. If she were, all Protestants would teach 
 the same truths ; and surely no man in his 
 senses will assert, that either the Apostles oi 
 the Scripture could teach all the conk-adictory 
 and absurd creeds of Protestantism. Besides, 
 for fourteen hundred years after the last of the 
 v\postles left this world, Protestant doctrines 
 were unknown amongst mankind. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church Apostolic in he? 
 doctrine ? 
 
 A. Even our adversaries admit this in spite 
 of themselves ; for whilst they unwittingly admit 
 that we were the first Church, they as uniformly 
 maintain that Popery is unchangeable. We 
 teach the same doctrine now which was taught 
 m every century and country since the time of 
 Christ ; our ' doctrines cannot be traced to any 
 man or set of men, to any particular country' 
 or date, posterior to the time of the Apostles ; 
 we defy our adversaries to trace it to any but 
 Apostolic authority. Besides, we are the onl) 
 Church that has existed in every age, since the 
 Apostolic times. 
 
 Q. Is not the Protestant Church Apostolic 
 as to mission 1 
 
 A, Certainly nc". ; Luther was the first P'-ot 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 ftstant minister the world ever saw. By whom 
 was he sent ? Not by God ^ for he never 
 wrought one miracle to prove it, and his life 
 was such as to prove that he was sent b}' an 
 opposite authority. Not by the Apostles ; for 
 he came fifteen hundred years too late to have 
 any connection with them. Not by the Catho- 
 lic Church ; for she cut him off from her com- 
 munion, and she could not give a commission 
 to teach error directly opposed to her own 
 creed. No Protestant Church existed prior to 
 his time from w^hich he could receive a com- 
 mission ; therefore he had no mission ; there- 
 fore all his followers, in the heretical and schis- 
 n'.:*ical body to which he gave being, are mis 
 sionless intruders, w^ho pay no regard to the 
 words of St. Paul; "How shall they preach 
 unless they be sent ?" — Rom. x. Of such as 
 they, the Almighty says, — Jer. xxiii, 21 : — " I 
 have not sent these prophets, yet they ran : 1 
 have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.'' 
 It is incumbent upon them to show that they 
 are not the thieves and robbers mentioned by 
 St. John, chap. x. 
 
 Q. Is the Catholic Church Apostolic as to 
 mission ? 
 
 A. The Catholic Church alone, has, beyond 
 all doubt, existed in every age, from the present 
 tiJ the Apostolic age Hence, her pastors are 
 
70 A DOCIRINAL CAT,ECU1SM. 
 
 the only pastors on earth, who can trace theii 
 rjiission from priest to bishop, and from bishop 
 to Pcpe, back tlirough every century, until they 
 trace that mission to the Apostles, who were 
 commissioned by Christ himself We have a 
 complete list of an uninterrupted chain of Ro- 
 man Pontifls, reaching from the present Pon- 
 tiff, Pius the 9th, to St. Peter. We have lists 
 of all the Catholic sees in the world, and the 
 names of the bishops who, in every age, oc- 
 cupied them ; so that we have an unbroken 
 succession of bishops ruling, teaching, and 
 adorning every age and clime ; all these in 
 strict communion with the chief sec, that of 
 Rome. 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant Church Apostolic as U 
 orders ? 
 
 A. The fact is, they have no orders at ail, 
 nor do many of them even pretend to have 
 orders. The ministers of the various Calvinis- 
 tic sects, as well as those of all other refornied 
 sects not Lutheran, are mere laymen. The 
 Lutherans, generally, can have no orders ; be- 
 cause they have never had a regular succession 
 f)\ validly ordained bishops from w^hom the} 
 could receive orders. As to the orders of the 
 Church of England, they are, to say the least, 
 extremely doubtful ; because it has never been 
 proved, that the iirst Protestant bishop of the 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATLCHISM. 71 
 
 CinvG.i of England was himself validly ordain- 
 ed or consecrated, and because the true form oi 
 ordination was not in use in the Church of 
 England during one hundred and twelve years. 
 But granting that they really are validly ordain- 
 ed, they have no mission, and hence they can 
 be reputed only as so many suspended, schis- 
 matical, and heretical priests. In fine, as the 
 whole fabric of Protestantism is only three 
 hundred and thirty-two years old, it is manifest, 
 that her ministers cannot trace their Orders to 
 the Apostolic times. 
 
 Q. Are the orders of the Catholic priesthood 
 Apostolic ? 
 
 A, They can be traced from priest to bishop, 
 and from bishop to Pope, through every century 
 back to the time of the Apostles. Indeed, a 
 perpetual succession of Catholic pastors has al- 
 ways existed ; and hence, so little doubt^is there 
 even amongst Protestants on this subject, that 
 the Church of England, by claiming her or- 
 ders from us, clearly and unequivocally admits 
 the Apostolicity of the orders of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 Q. What infe^rence do you draw from all 
 this ? 
 
 A. That the Protestant Church is not, and 
 the Catholic Church is, the true Church oi 
 Christ, 
 
72 A DOCTRINAL CATECHTSM. 
 
 Q. Why this conclusion ? 
 'A, According to Scripture, the true Church 
 must derive, by a perpetual and uninterrupted 
 succession from the Apostles, her doctrines, her 
 mission, and her orders ; but the Protestant 
 Church is not Apostolical in any of these ways 
 — therefore she cannot be the true Church. The 
 Catholic Church, on the contrary, is evidently 
 Apostolical in her doctrine, her orders, and her 
 mission,— therefore she is the true Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 Q. What general inference do you draw 
 from all we have said on the ynarks of the 
 Church ^ 
 
 A. That the Protestant Church has not even 
 one of these Scriptural marks of truth ; hence, 
 her claim to be the Church of Christ, is ludicrous 
 in the extreme ; that, on the other hand, as we 
 have seen, the Catholic Church evidently pos- 
 sesses them all, — therefore she is the one, holy. 
 Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 
 
 RULE OF FAITH 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Q. Is 7t possible to he saved without Divine 
 
 faith ? 
 A. No ; for St. Paul, in his Epistle to th« 
 
A DOClRiNAL CATECHISM 73 
 
 Hebrews, chap, xi, says— " Without iaith, it is 
 impossible to please God." 
 
 Q. What two particular qualities must fait ft 
 have that it may be divine ? 
 
 A. It must be firm and undouhting ; ani \ 
 must be prudently j^rm and undouhting, 
 
 Q. Why firm and undouhting ? 
 
 A. Because, otherwise, it will not be divinb 
 faith, but mere human opinion. Divine faith 
 is incompatible with doubt ; rather than call 
 the smallest particle into doubt, we must be 
 ready to lay down our lives ; for God, the au- 
 thor of faith, cannot deceive. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that faith must he pru- 
 dently jfirm ? 
 
 A. Because, no matter how strong and firm 
 the inward conviction be, if it be irrational — 
 that is, grounded on false reasoning — it is not 
 a virtue, but rather the effect of a vicious, be- 
 cause wilful, obstinacy , such is the faith of the 
 Turk, and the Heretic of every sect. 
 
 Q. Where do you find the tvw ahove-men 
 tioned conditions of divine faith ? 
 
 A. Only amongst Catholics ; because they 
 only follow a rule of faith, which places the 
 truth of their belief beyond the possibility of 
 doubt. 
 
 Q. What is that which you here call a rute 
 of faith ? 
 
 7 
 
74 A DOCTRI^AL CATECHlSiM 
 
 A. That which guides us to the belief and 
 practice of all that God has revealed and cow 
 inanded. 
 
 Q. What is the Catholic rule of faith ? 
 
 A. The whole Word of God, understood in- 
 lalliblv in its true sense. 
 
 Q. Is not the written Word of God alone a 
 sufficient rule of faith ? 
 
 A. No : because it is susceptible of different 
 senses, and the interpreter may give it a wrong 
 sense. Hence, that it may be to us an infallible 
 rule of true faith, we must be absolutely certain 
 that we understand the disputed passages cor- 
 rectly. 
 
 Q. Have Catholics on this head any cer 
 tainty ? 
 
 A. Their certainty is entire, because they 
 receive from the Church, which they prove to 
 be infallible, the exposition of the Scripture. 
 
 Q. Have not Protestants this same cer- 
 tainty ? 
 
 A. No ; for each Protestant explains the 
 Scripture according to his own particular light, 
 Q' fancy, or prejudice. Hence, he can never 
 be certain that he is right, as he can never be 
 absolutely certain that he is not deceived in his 
 interpretation. 
 
 Q. What does St, Pete'^* say to the faithful 
 m his 2d Epistle, chap. i. ? 
 
 J 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 75 
 
 A. That they should all understand, ''that 
 no prophecy of Scripture is made by private in- 
 terpretation ;" and after denouncing sects and 
 Heresies and crimes, in order to show that pri- 
 vate interpretation is the cause of them, he 
 adds, in the last chapter, that certain things in 
 St. Paul's Epistles are hard to be understood, 
 " which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as 
 they do also tL> other Scriptures, to their own 
 destruction/' 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. Shoio us, more at length, why those wno 
 are not Catholics, can have no other than a 
 doubting or vacillating faith ? 
 
 A, It is, because there are three essential 
 points, upon which they have no real certainty. 
 In the first place, they have no real certainty as 
 to the canon of Scripture ; secondly, they can 
 have none as regards their versions or transla- 
 tions of Scripture ; and, thirdly, they can never 
 be certain that their interpretations are the 
 genuine meaning of God^s word. 
 
 Q. Why cannot Protestants know, with in- 
 fallible certainty, uihat books of Scripture ai'e 
 canonical and divine ? 
 
 A. Because they profess to belies e nothing 
 i»ut what is expressly laid down in Scriptur<^ 
 
A DOCIRINAL CATEuiUSM 
 
 Now the Scripture does not tell us v/hat books 
 are canonicd, — that is, what, and how many, 
 books are (Jod's divine word ; this is aduiitted 
 even by the most learned Protestants. 
 
 Q. Cannot they knoic the books that are 
 divine, by their excelling beauty and thrilling 
 expression, as you know honey or sugar by 
 their sweetness ? 
 
 A. No ; for if that could be, then all P?ot 
 estants would have acknowledged the same 
 books as canonical, and yet we know thej 
 have not agreed upon this point. The first 
 Protestants rejected the Epistle to the He- 
 brews and the Apocalypse or Revelations, 
 whilst the Protestants of the present day re- 
 ceive these books as divine. Calvin called 
 the Epistle of St. James, an Epistle of gold, 
 whilst Luther styled the same, an Epistle of 
 straw. 
 
 Q. May they not say, that they know the 
 canonical books by their titles ? 
 
 A. If we must receive the Gospel of St. 
 Matthew, because it bears his name, we should, 
 for the same reason, receive the Gospels of 
 St. Thomas and St. Barthokjmew, because 
 they bear the names of these Apostles, and yei 
 all Christians reject these tw^o Gospels as 
 Apocryphal. 
 
 Q. May fhey not say, that they receive tfti 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISiM. 11 
 
 Irue books of Scripture on the autliority of 
 Iradition ? 
 
 A. No ; they reject tradition, on every other 
 question, as a doubtfal source of truth ; hence, 
 every doctrine drawn from it must be, for 
 them, uncertain. Divine faith, they say, can- 
 not rest on tradition as a foundation ; if, there- 
 fore, they know what books are divine only 
 from tradition, it evidently follows that they do 
 not, and cannot, believe these books to be God's 
 word with divine faith. 
 
 Q. What happened at Strasbourg in the 
 year 1598? 
 
 A. The Protestants expunged from theii 
 canon of Scripture, the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 the Epistle of St. James, and the Apocalypse ; 
 and seventy-four years after, they again re- 
 placed .them. This fact may be seen in their 
 old Ritual, in the chapter on doctrine, and in 
 the new Ritual, page 7. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. That they were all certainly wrong, either 
 in expunging or receiving these books ; that if 
 they were evidently wrong in a matter of such 
 awful importance as is the integrity of the 
 Scripture, they can have no certainty that they 
 are right in any thing ; that, in fine, their faith 
 resting th*us, not upon any rational or certain 
 foundation, but on the mere whims of men, 
 
V8 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 cannot oe prudently firm, and, by a necessarv 
 consequence, cannot be divine faith 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. Wliy have you said, that those who are 
 not Catholics, can never be certain that their 
 ti^anslations from the original Scrip tuj^es are 
 correct or faithful? 
 
 A. Because few, if any of them, understand 
 the original languages ; so that they are inca- 
 pable of judging whether their translations are 
 conformable to the originals. 
 
 Q. May they not reply, that they have every 
 necessary security from their translators, whose 
 knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was indis 
 putable ? 
 
 A. No ; for these translators have given 
 very different and contradictory versions ; and 
 now, in this case, are men of ordinary education 
 to know which to adopt ? 
 
 Q. What did Zwinglius say of Luther s 
 translation of the New Testament ? 
 
 A. He said, that Luther had corrupted the 
 Word of God. 
 
 Q. What said Luther of that of Zwinghus f 
 
 A, He called it the work of fools, asses, ana 
 Antichrists, 1 
 
A DOCTRINAL. CATECHISM. 79 
 
 Q. Did Beza give an opinion on the version 
 at CEcolampadius, published at Bale ? 
 
 A. Yes ; he declared it impioue, and opposed 
 to the Spirit of God. The English declared 
 the version of Geneva, the worst and the most 
 unfaithful that had appeared. 
 
 Q. Wnat does Luther himself avow a^ le- 
 gards translations of Scripture ? 
 
 A. That he had added the word "ONLY' 
 to the text of St. Paul, (chap, iii, to the Rom.,) 
 for " we account a man to be justified by faith," 
 he has, " by faith oni.y." 
 
 Q. How did he justify himself when re- 
 proached with this ? (Tom. iii, Edit, de Jena, 
 pp. 141, 144.) 
 
 A. " I know well," he says, " that the word 
 only is not to be found in the text of St. Paul ; 
 but if any Papist plague you on the subject, 
 tell him at once, that it was the will of Dr. 
 Martin Luther that it should be added ; and 
 please to say further, that a Papist and an 
 ass are one and the same thing." ''lam sorry,'* 
 says he, in addition, " that I have not added 
 other words. This word ' only' will remain in 
 my New Testament, until all the Papists burst 
 themselves with spite." 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from tlrs ? 
 
 A That no prudent man can have any con- 
 fidence in ■?, Protestant Bible, since he can never 
 
80 A DOCTRINAL CAIECHISM. 
 
 be certain that it is properly translated. The 
 English versions are of the same stampj with 
 the German. (See Disraeli's Curiosities of 
 Literature, Edit. 1843, vol. iii, p. 530, et. seq.'i 
 
 Hence, Butler (Hudibras) says : 
 
 " Religion spawned a various rout, 
 Of petulant, capricious sects, 
 The maggots of corrupted texts." 
 
 Q, Can you draw any further inference? 
 
 A. Yes ; that the faith of Protestants, ground- 
 ed as it is on doubtful Yersions of Scripture, is not 
 prudently firm, and, consequently, is not divine. 
 
 Q. But have the Catholics themselves an ab- 
 solute certainty as to the number of the sacred 
 books, and the truth of the translations from 
 them ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the Catholics are perfectly certain 
 as regards both points. The Church points out 
 the books that are canonical, and the correct 
 vei'sions of these books. Now, a fundamental 
 principle of the Catholic religion is, that the 
 Church is infallible ; because Christ says — 
 '* the gates of hell shall not prevail against her ; 
 — that He will be with her all days ; — that His 
 holy Spirit will teach her all truth for ever." 
 Hence, the Catholic grounds his faith on whal 
 is certainly God's word, and his faith, conse 
 yaently, is certainly divine. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 81 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. Why have you said that Protestants have 
 HO cei^tainty or security as regards the true 
 sense of the ScrijHure ? 
 
 A. The passages of Scripture which regard 
 controverted points, may be tortured into two 
 different, and sometimes opposite, meanings ; 
 now the Scripture itself does not, and cannot, 
 tell us which is the true sense. 
 
 Q. Have not Protestants said, that they are 
 individually inspired to understand, in its true 
 sense, any passage of Scripture ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but they have said many very 
 absurd things. According to this blasphemous 
 assertion, it was the Spirit of God who taught 
 Luther the real presence, whilst the same spirit 
 taught Calvin the figurative presence ; it is God 
 who inspires the Church of England to have 
 bishops, and the Church of Scotland to reject 
 them ; one sect of Protestants to admit good 
 works as necessary to salvation, and another 
 sect to reject them ; one minister to account 
 oaptism necessary to salvation, and another to 
 repute it as a mere ceremony. Surely, if they 
 were inspired, they would all believe the same 
 set of doctrines. 
 
 Q. May they not say, that the amhigiwui 
 
8*4^ A DOCTRINAL CATECHISMi 
 
 texts are easily explained by those thai art 
 Clear 1 
 
 A. Yes ; they may say any thing ; but it so 
 happens, that each flatters himself, that the texts 
 vvnicn appear to support bis pecuhar notionr^ 
 are abundantly clear. Thus, to prove thaj. 
 Christ is not God, the Unitarians think these 
 words: ''My Father is greater than I;" and 
 these other : " That Christ is the first-born oj 
 creatures,'' — very clear indeed. The Presby- 
 terians, to prove that the Sacrament is only 
 bread and wine, think these words : " Thefiesh 
 profiteth nothing, the words ivhich I speak to 
 you are spirit and life," the clearest portion ol 
 Scripture ; as if any Christian in his senses 
 could believe, that the flesh of Christ, by which, 
 in union with the Divinity, the w^orld was re- 
 deemed, profited nothing. The Anabaptists, to 
 prove that infants should not be baptized, bring 
 forward, what they imagine is very clear, these 
 words : " Teach all nations, baptizing them ;'' 
 and, " Ae who believeth and .s baptized shall 
 he saved.'' 
 
 Q. Do other Christians think these cleat 
 also 1 
 
 A. Yes ; some think them ., very clear in 
 ijroving the opposite doctrines, and others think 
 the^n the most obscure passages in (*he Inspired 
 Volume. 
 
A UOCTRINAI. 'JATECmSM. ^^ 
 
 Q. Do these sects quote other texts to prove 
 thei^ peculiar notions? 
 
 A. Yes ; they will quote texts by the dozen, 
 to prove any doctrine you please. It is quite 
 clear to the Free Kirk of Scotland, from Scrip- 
 turC; that the Estabhshed Kirk is Antichrist ; 
 and to the latter, the Scripture as clearly proves 
 the Free Church to be schismatical. To some, 
 Joanna Southcote was the mother of the Mes- 
 siah ; to some of the followers of Wesley, the 
 gi'eatest crimes are only spots upon God's chil- 
 dren ; whilst to the Muckers of Prussia, immo- 
 rality is virtue. 
 
 Q. What inference would you draw from all 
 this ? 
 
 A, That a wise God must have left in his 
 Church some judge perfectly qualified to decide, 
 authoritatively, on all religious disputes, and to 
 point out, with certainty, the true sense of the 
 Inspired Volume. 
 
 Q. Enforce this truth by a comparison, 
 
 A, As a legal process could never be termi 
 nated, if the counsel were allowed to appeal 
 merely to the book containing the law, so 
 religious disputes can never be settled by an 
 appeal merely to the Scriptures ; and as a law- 
 full}^ commissioned judge is necessary for the 
 settlement of civil matters, so is a divmely 
 appointed judge necessary foj the decision o\ 
 
Si A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 the more difficult and more important matter 
 oi' I'eligion. 
 
 Q,. Who is that judge ? 
 
 A. The teaching body of the Church oi 
 Jhrist, whom he sent to preach his Gospel to 
 all nations, and to whom he promised the con- 
 tniued guidance of his Spirit, even to the end 
 of time. 
 
 Q. What do you understand here by the 
 teaching body of the Church ? 
 
 A, I understand the Pope, either acting 
 alone in his decisions ex cathedra on faith 
 and morals, or in General Councils convened 
 by him of the bishops, wlio are in commu- 
 nion with the See of Eome, and acting with 
 them. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Q. What are the qualities of the Catholic 
 rule of faith ? 
 
 A. The Catholic ruJe is universal, certain 
 and clear or easy. 
 
 Q. Wliy universal ? 
 
 A, It is a rule for all, the learned as well 
 as the ignorant ; it relieves the former of all 
 doubt and uncertainty, and spares the latter the 
 trouble of a difficult inquiry and examination, 
 for which they are in no way qualified. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 85 
 
 . Q, Why do you say it is certain ? 
 
 A. Because it is no other than the Word of 
 God, explained by God's appointed organs, m 
 the very sense intended by the holy Spirit, and 
 of course God can neither deceive nor be de- 
 ceived. 
 
 Q. Why do you say it is clear ? 
 
 A. Because it tells clearly, in what sense all 
 amlnguous portions of God's Word are to be 
 understood. 
 
 Q. What are the peculiar advantages of the 
 Catholic rule of faith ? 
 
 A, In the first place, it banishes all doubt ; 
 secondly, it decides finally every dispute; third- 
 ly, it preserves unity. When an infallible judge 
 decides, there can be no room for doubt or 
 division. 
 
 Q. What say you of those wKo would ex- 
 amine, personally, every controversial point, 
 and abide by what, they in their wisdom think, 
 the Scripture teaches ? 
 
 A, That they adopt a rule which, for the 
 great mass of mankind, is an impossibility ; be- 
 cause, to form a proper judgment from the 
 Scripture on any controverted point, one should 
 know, in the first place, all the texts of Scripture 
 that are for or against such point; secondly, 
 it would be necessary to compare these texts, 
 one with the other, to weigh their respective 
 . 8 
 
86 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 force, to illustrate the obscure by others more 
 clear; thirdly, to be absolutely certain, that all 
 of them are understood in their true sense and 
 no other. Now, this is evidently a business far 
 beyond the reach, at all events, of tho ignorant, 
 who form the great mass of mankind. 
 
 Q. But may not the learned aid the ignorant 
 in this inquiry ? 
 
 A. Such is the absurdity to which error 
 always reduces its votaries. You refuse to sub- 
 mit to the decision of the lohole Church — to the 
 decision of all the learned, pious, *and enlight- 
 ened prelates of the Church, with the sovereign 
 Pontiff at their head, men of all others the best 
 qualified to judge of religious matters ; you re- 
 ject their opinion, whilst you would blindly 
 follow the crude notions of one layman pretend- 
 ing to learning, of one Oalvinistic or Lutheran 
 minister, for the truth of whose opinions you 
 have no security whatever. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Q. Has tradition any connection with the 
 rule of faith ? 
 
 A. Yes ; because it is a part of God's re- 
 vealed word, properly called the unwritten word 
 as the Scripture is called the written word. 
 
 Q. What is tradition f 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECiilriM. 91 
 
 A, The doctrines which the Apostles taught 
 by word of mouth, and which have descended 
 through every successive generation even to 
 our times. 
 
 Q. Are we obliged to believe what tradition 
 teaches, equally ivith what is taught by Scrip 
 lure ? 
 
 A. Yes ; we are obhged to beheve the one 
 as firmly as the other ; because, what the x\pos- 
 tles preached is as true as what they wrote : 
 it was the same holy Spirit who spoke by their 
 mouths and by their pen. 
 
 Q. Repeat the words of St. Paul 2d Thess., 
 chap, ii, ver. 14. 
 
 A, " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and 
 hold the TRADITIONS which you have learned, 
 whether by word or by our Epistle." (See 
 also 2d Thess. iii, 6 ; 1st Corinth, xi, 2 ; 2d 
 Tim. ii, 3.) 
 
 Q. Do the Protestants believe many things 
 not clearly laid down in Scripture 1 
 
 A. Yes ; they believe many things essen- 
 tially necessary to salvation, which are not 
 contained in Scripture. 
 
 Q. Mention a few of them. 
 
 ^1. The Scripture does not anywhere say, 
 that all the books composing itself are the Word 
 of God ; — it cannot tell us, whether our copies 
 of it are correct ; — w^hether our trans-lations 
 
88 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM, 
 
 from these are faithful; — whether the books ol 
 Scripture that are lost are a necessary part ol 
 the rule of faith ; — it does not tell us whethei 
 infants should be baptized ; — whether the obli- 
 gation of keeping Saturday holy has been don« 
 away with ; — whether Sunday should be kept 
 in its place, or at what hour the day of rest 
 should commence and terminate ; all these, and 
 twenty -four other necessary points, are not 
 clearly laid down in the Sacred Volume. 
 
 Q. What says St. Epiphanius on this sub- 
 ject, 91 Heresy? 
 
 A. That every necessary thing is not to be 
 found in the Scripture ; for the doctrines of the 
 Apostles were not all committed to writing, — 
 many of them, delivered by word of mouth, 
 were handed down by tradition ; indeed, manj* 
 of the Apostles wrote nothing. 
 
 DO WE FIND THAT PROTESTANTS REALLY 
 ADHERE TO THE SCRIPTURE AS THEIR ONLY 
 RULE OF FAITH T 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of Protestani% re 
 gardi^g the commandn-ents of God "* 
 
A DOCTRINAL UATECHDsM. 
 
 A, They teach that it is impossible to keep 
 them. " No mere man," say they, " since the 
 fall, is able perfectly to keep the commandments 
 of God." 
 
 Q. TVhat says our Saviour on this subject, 
 in the llth chapter of St, Matthew? 
 
 A. '• My yoke is sweet, and my burden is 
 
 iightr 
 
 Q. What says the Gospel of Si. Luke, chap. 
 i, ver. 6, speaking of Zachary and Elisabeth? 
 
 A. " And they were both just before God, 
 walking in ALL the commandments and justi- 
 fications of the Lord, without blame." St. 
 John, in his first Epistle, chap, v, ver. 3, says : 
 " For this is the charity of God, that we keep his 
 commandments, and his commandments are not 
 heavy.'' In Deut. chap, xxx, we have : " This 
 commandment that I command thee this day, 
 is not above thee,. . . .but in thy mouth and in 
 thy heart that thou mayest do it.'' 
 
 Q. Could a wise God give to his children 
 commandments that he knew they were unable 
 to observe ? 
 
 A. Certainly not ; for even a master, who 
 would order his slave to carry a burden beyond 
 his strength, would be reputed a fool. Besides, 
 did not the young mnn in the Scriptures tell 
 Christ himself, that he had kept all the com- 
 tnandments from his youth ? and Christ, who 
 
03 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 knew his heart, did not contradict him, but 
 urged him to other and greater works of love. 
 
 Q. Do you find from these passages, that the 
 law of God cannot be ohsevDed? 
 
 ^. No ; I find quite the contrary. Protes- 
 tants, therefore, follow any thing or every thing 
 but Scripture in this matter ; their empty boast- 
 ing about what they call their Scriptural re- 
 ligion, is only a grossly fraudulent means to 
 conceal their errors — to catch the simple and 
 ignorant — and to throw the more learned off 
 their guard. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of Protestants on the 
 subject of faith ? 
 
 A. They teach that faith alone justifies the 
 sinner. 
 
 Q. What does St. James say ? Chap, ii, ver. 
 17, and following. 
 
 A. " So faith also, if it have not works, is 
 dead in itself, ..., even the devils also believe 
 and tremble." "Was not Abraham our father 
 justified by works, offering up Isaac his son 
 upon the altar ?'^ ''Do you see that man is 
 justified by loorks, and not by faith only.^^ St. 
 Paul, 1 Corinth, chap, xiii, says : '' And if I 
 should have all faith , so that L could remove 
 mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing 
 
 A 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. Jll 
 
 Our Saviour addresses Magdalen thus : " Many 
 sins are forgiven thee, because thou hast loved 
 much/' 
 
 Q. What do these texts clearly prove ? 
 
 A. That the Protestant doctrine is false,- - 
 that their creed is in direct opposition to their 
 own boasted rule of faith. 
 
 Q. What is the Protestant doctrine touching 
 good works ? 
 
 A. They teach that good works are not at 
 all necessary to salvation. 
 
 Q. What does our Saviour teach on the sami 
 subject? Matt, x, 17. 
 
 A. That we cannot enter into heaven with- 
 out good works : — " If you would enter into 
 life, keep the commandments." St. James, 
 chap, ii, 17, says : — " So faith, if it have not 
 works, is dead in itself." St. Paul teaches, 
 Rom. chap, ii, ver. 13, that "not the heurers 
 of the law are just , before God, but the doers 
 of the law shall ho^ justified'' In 2 Peter, chap, 
 i, 10, wevare told : " Wherefore, brethren, labor 
 the more, that by good works you make sure 
 your calling and election." Jesus Christ him- 
 self says — -Matt. chap, vii, 21 : — " Not every 
 one tliat sayeth to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doctU 
 tiie will of my Father who is in heaven, he shalJ 
 enter into the kingdom of heaven." 
 
^ri A DueTKJXAl. CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. What is the reason to he given hy Chnst 
 on the last day, why he sliall pronounce the sen- 
 tence of eternal exile on many of the wicked-- 
 ^s it only that they had no faith ? 
 
 A, No ; it is that they had no charity. 
 Matth. XXV, 41 : " Depart from me, ye cmsed, 
 into everlasting fire, .... for I was hungry, and 
 you gave me not to eat ; I was thirsty, and you 
 gave me not to drink ; I was a stranger, and 
 you took me not in ; naked, and you covered me 
 not ; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.'' 
 
 Q. What think you now ? Is the Protestant 
 doctrine on good works in accordance with 
 Scripture ? 
 
 A, No, certainly ; on the contrary, it seems 
 invented to set Scripture and reason at de- 
 fiance. It is evidently opposed both to the spirit 
 and the letter of the Word of God. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. What is the ProtesioMt doctrine on as 
 surance, or the certainty of grace ? 
 
 A. They pretend, that the mome-nt wti be- 
 lieve in Jesus Christ, we are infallibly assured 
 of God's grace. 
 
 Q. What are we taught in Eccles. chap, ix, 
 ver. 1 and 12? 
 
 A. " Their just men/' says that i.pispired book 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATEvillSM. 
 
 *and wise men, and their works, are in the 
 hand of God, and yet man knoweth not whether 
 he be worthy of love or hatred, but all things 
 are kept uncertain for the time to come ; . . . . 
 man knoweth not his own end." Solomon, in the 
 20th chap, of Proverbs, ver. 9, asks : " Who can 
 rfay : my heart is clean, I am pure from sin V 
 St. Paul to the Phil., chap, ii, 12 — " Wherefore, 
 my dearly beloved,. . . .with fear and trembling 
 v/ork out your salvation ;'' and again to the 
 Corinthians, chap, iv, 4 — " For I am not con- 
 u^ious to myself of any thing, yet I am not 
 fiereby justified, but he that judge th me is 
 he Lord." 
 
 Q. Do these texts prove the falsehood of the 
 Protestant doctrine in question ? 
 
 A. Very clearly indeed. They show it to 
 be as unscriptural as it is presumptuous. 
 
 Q. Rut do Catholics believe that we shoula 
 always remain in a state of doubt, as to whether 
 we are in a state of grace ? 
 
 A. Catholics hold, that those who fear God 
 may have, not the certainty of faith, as Prot- 
 estants teach, but a moral certainty that they 
 are in possession of God's grace ; but nothing 
 except a revelation from God, who knows the 
 heart, can give us an absolute certainty. 
 
 Q. What is the Protestant doctrine on tk^ 
 "iubjcct of penitential works ? 
 
94 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM, 
 
 A. Protestants pretend, that Jesus Christ has 
 so satisfied for our sins, that, on our part, last- 
 ing and other works of penance are entirely 
 useless. 
 
 Q. Is it wonderful that Protestantism slioula 
 have some professars, since it teaches such a 
 convenient doctrine ? 
 
 A. Not at all ; since such doctrine opens a 
 wide, easy, and flowery path to heaven for un- 
 repenting and vicious Christians. According 
 to this, they may serve the devil and serve God 
 at one and the same time. 
 
 Q.* Does the Scripture teach this doctrine, so 
 flattering to the passions ? 
 
 A. No, certainly ; the Prophet Joel, chap, ii, 
 12, says : " Now, therefore, be converted to 
 me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weep- 
 ing, and in mourning,''' St. John the Baptist, 
 Matth. iii, 8, adds : " Bring forth, therefore, 
 worthy fruits of penance.'' In St. Luke, chap, 
 xiii, 3, our Saviour says : " Unless you do penance, 
 you shall all equally perish." In the 12th chap., 
 he says to those who brought not forth worthy 
 fruits of penance : " Wo to thee, Corozain ; wo 
 to thee, Bethsaida,; for if in Tyre and Sidon 
 had been wrought the miracles that have been 
 wrought in you, they had long ago done penance 
 in sackcloth and ashes.'' He tells us elsewhere, 
 that unless we take up our cross, and folJow 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 95 
 
 him, we cannot be his disciples. St. Paui, 
 I Corinth, chap, ix, 27, says : " I chastise my 
 body and bring it into subjection." And again 
 we are told : " If we live by the flesh we shall 
 diC; but if, by the spirit, we mortify the deeds 
 of the flesh, we shall live." 
 
 Q. Do you find, by the perusal of these pas- 
 sages, that, according to Scripture, Christ has 
 so satisfied for us, that we may safely dispense 
 with all crosses, siifferings, mortifications, ana 
 vwrks of penance ? 
 
 A. No ; the very reverse is so evident, that 
 a man must be either very ignorant, or blind 
 with prejudice, not to see it. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. What do Protestants teach as regards 
 the Church ? 
 
 A. That she fell into gross errors, and cor- 
 rupted the purity of the Gospel doctrine of 
 Christ. 
 
 Q. Is this clearly in opposition to Scjnp 
 ture ? 
 
 A. Yes ; because the Gospel tells us, (Matth 
 xviii, 17,) that the Church can never fall into 
 error : " Upon this rock I will build my Church, 
 and the gates of hell shall never prevail against 
 't." A rock is its foundation, Christ its builder 
 
9(1 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 and his power its prop and support. " He that 
 will not hear the Church," says Christ, " is to be 
 reputed as a heathen and a pubhcan/' " I will 
 be \^ ith you/' says Christ again, to his Apostles 
 and their successors, ''all days (that is^ each 
 and every day) to the end of the world.'*' In 
 fine, St. Paul calls the Church the pillar and 
 ground of ti^uth. 1 Tim. iii, 15. 
 
 Q. What do Protestants teach of the 
 Church ? 
 
 A, They teach that she was invisible during 
 more than a thousand years, pretending that 
 there were alicays men who held their faith 
 secretly, but that they dared not profess it out- 
 wardly. 
 
 Q. Could such a pusillanimous and coward- 
 \y body as this he the Church of Christ ? 
 
 A. No ; for the people of Christ must not 
 only believe with the heart, but openly profess 
 with the tongue. Rom. x, 10 — '' For with the 
 heart we believe unto justice, but with the 
 mouth confession is made unto salvation.'' 
 
 Q. To what do^s Christ c mpare the 
 Church ? Matth. xviii, 17. 
 
 A, To a city on the top of a mountain, visi- 
 ble to all the eyes in the world. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from these words, 
 (Matth. xviii, 17 :) ''If he will not hear theni, 
 tell the Church ?" 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM O"? 
 
 A. That the Church must have been always 
 visible, otherwise there must have been a time 
 during which this command of Christ was im- 
 possible on account of the invisibility of the 
 Church ; for no one could lay his complaint 
 before an invisible Church. Hence the Catho- 
 lic is the true Church, since she is the only 
 Church that has been always visible. 
 
 CHAPTER y. 
 
 Q. What do Protestants teach on tne sub- 
 ject of the Scripture ? 
 
 A. They pretend that the Sacred Volume is 
 so clear, that every one, leapned and ignorant, 
 may easily know its meaning. 
 
 Q. Does St. Peter think with Protestants 
 in this matter ? 
 
 A, No, indeed. In his 2d Epist., chap, iii, 
 16, he says, that there are some thina:s in the 
 Epistles of St. Paul that are hard to be under- 
 stood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, 
 as also the other Scriptures, to their oivn cle^ 
 struction, 
 
 Q. Do Protestants teach any other absurdity 
 on the subject of the Scriptui^e ? 
 
 A. Yes ; they try to persuade their followers, 
 that the Scripture contains all God's revealed 
 will, and that nothing is to be believed or prac- 
 
 9 
 
98 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 tised but what is expressly laid down in that 
 Divine Book. 
 
 Q. Is this doctrine in accordance with the 
 Scripture itself? 
 
 A No ; it is directly opposed to the words 
 of St. Paul,— 2 Thess. ii, l4 : " Therefore, 
 brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions 
 which you have been taught, whether by word 
 01- our Epistle." 
 
 Q. What do Protestants teach on the Eu- 
 charist 1 
 
 A. It is not an easy matter to answer this 
 question ; for to these four words, this is my 
 body, each Protestant gives his own peculiar 
 meaning. Some say that the body of Christ is 
 in the bread ; some, that it is under the bread ; 
 some, that it is with the bread ; some, that it 
 has no connection with the bread, but that you 
 receive the body when you eat the bread ; and 
 s jme, in fine, say, that the body of Christ is not 
 present in any sense whatever, — that the whole 
 affair is a bare memorial, 
 
 Q. Are Protestants Scriptural in this mat- 
 ter ? 
 
 A No ; they teach the very reverse of 
 Scripture. Christ says — "this is my body;' 
 they say — 'it is not his body." 
 
 Q. How many distinct passages of S^riptur^ 
 are there to prove the real presence ? 
 
 ii 
 
* A DOCTRINAI C 4.TKCH1SM. 99 
 
 A, Fourteen, — all contained in the following 
 texts : Matth. xvi, 26, 28 ; Mark, xiv, 22, 24 : 
 Luke, xxii, 19, 20 ; I Corinth, xi, 23, 25 ; John, 
 vi, 51, 60, 66 ; 1 Corinth, x, 16 ; 1 Corinth, xi, 
 27, 29. 
 
 Q. Is there one text of Scripture which de^ 
 dares the Eucharist to he mere bread and mere 
 wine ? 
 
 A, No, not so much as one ; and hence the 
 faith of Protestants on this subject is not only 
 not scriptural, but antiscriptural. 
 
 Q. What say Protestants of Confession ? 
 
 A, That it is an unscriptural, popish, practice. 
 
 Q. Is it then unscriptural ? 
 
 A. No ; the very reverse. St. James, chap. 
 V, 6, says, " Confess your sins one to another.'' 
 The first Christians, under the direction of the 
 Apostles themselves, practised confession, — 
 Acts, chap, xix, 18, 19, — "And many that be- 
 lieved came and confessed, and showed their 
 deeds/' See also Num. chap, v, 6, 7, 8 ; 
 Levit. xii, 15; Matth. iii, 5, 6. 
 
 Q. But why confess sin at all ? 
 
 A. That, according to the law of Christ, 
 those who are penitent may be absolved by the 
 Priests of Christ's Church, lawfully sent and 
 ordained. 
 
 Q. Do we find in Scripture that any suih 
 vowe? was given to the Priests of the Church I 
 
iOO A IMJCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. Yes ; we have for this the clearest texts 
 of the Insph'ed Vokime. In John, xx, 21, Christ 
 says to his first chosen Pastors — " as my Father 
 has sent me, even so I send you ;" and in chap, 
 wii, 18, of same Gospel — ''as thou hast sent 
 me into the world, even sv I have also sent them 
 into the world." But Christ was sent into the 
 world with power to forgive sins, therefore, as 
 ne communicated to his first pastors the same 
 power he had himself, they also had power 
 to forgive sins ; indeed, he expressly declares 
 it,— John, XX, 21, 22, 23: "Whose sins you 
 shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; and 
 whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." 
 And elsewhere, he says : '' Whatsoever you 
 shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven 
 and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall 
 be loosed in heaven." 
 
 Q. Are Protestant doctrines equally un 
 scriptural as regards the other Sacraments ? 
 
 A, Yes ; their doctrines are? all antiscriptural 
 as regards these. On Extreme Unction, see 
 James, chap, v, 14 ; on Holy Orders, read 1 
 Tim. iv, 14 — 2 Tim. i, 6 — Acts vi, 6, and xiv, 
 23 ; on Matrimony, see E/phes. v, 24, 25, 32. 
 
 Q. When you read these passages, do you 
 find that Protestants teach Scriptural doc- 
 trines ? 
 
 A, No ; they evidently teach the very con- 
 
A DOCTRINAL. CATECHISM. 101 
 
 trary. Their empty vauntings about Serif iturej 
 are only calculated to blind the ignorant and 
 mislead the unwary. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Q. Have you any other proof s that they are 
 not guided hy the Scripture ? 
 
 A. Yes ; so many, that we cannot admit 
 more than a mere specimen into this small 
 work They reject much that is clearly con- 
 tained in Scripture, and profess more that is 
 nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book. 
 
 Q. Give some examples of both ? 
 
 A. They should, if the Scripture were their 
 only rule, wash the feet of one another, accord- 
 ing to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap, 
 of St. John ; — they should keep, not the Sun- 
 day, but the Saturday, according to the com- 
 mandment, "Remember thou keep holy th^ 
 SABBATH-day ;" for this commandment has 
 not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated ; 
 ■ — they should receive, what they call the sacra- 
 ment, after supper, and not in the morning, be- 
 cause Christ instituted that sacrament at night, 
 and his Apostles received it after supper ; — they 
 shcnild not eat blood or strangled meat, because 
 the Apostles forbid it in the 15th chap, of the 
 Acts ;. — they should not baptize infants, as there 
 
 9* 
 
102 A DOCTRLNAL CAlEClllSM. 
 
 is no example in Scripture to justify such a 
 practice. 
 
 Q. What inference would you draw from all 
 this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants ought rather to call 
 thenmselves Anti-Evangelicals, than Evangeli- 
 cals, as their doctrines are opposed to, rather 
 than in conformity with, the Gospel 
 
 OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. How many natures are there in Jesus 
 Christ ? 
 
 A. Two — the Divine and human natures; 
 for Jesus Christ is true God and true man. 
 
 Q. How many persons are there in Jesus 
 Christ? 
 
 A. Only one ; he is a Divine and not a hu- 
 man person, although he has a human nature. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this? 
 
 A. That all the works of Jesus Ohrist are 
 divine, infinite in value ; because, the more ex- 
 cellent the person, the more valuable are his 
 works : hence, the works of the divine person 
 of Jesus Christ must be infinite in merit. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CArEUHISM; 103 
 
 Q. Was it his Divinity or his humanity 
 that suffered for us 1 
 
 A. It was his humanity that fasted, prayed, 
 and suffered for us ; still we are right in saying 
 it was God who suffered, because his sufferings 
 and works must be attributed to the person, 
 and the person of Jesus Christ is God. 
 
 Q. Where is Jesus Christ ? 
 
 A. As he is a Divine person, he is every- 
 where ; but his humanity is only in heaven, 
 and on the altar in the holy sacrament. Nor 
 can it be said, that, as his Divinity is every- 
 where, so is his humanity, for that does not 
 follow. 
 
 Q. Show us, by an example, how it does not 
 follow. 
 
 A. Man's head is i«ntimately connected with 
 his soul ; yet it is not in every place where the 
 soul is, otherwise the head would be in the feet 
 also. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. What do we owe to Jesus Christ? 
 A. We owe him a sovereign confidence, love, 
 and worship. 
 
 Q. What worship is due to him ? 
 A, That sovereign worship or adoration 
 ihicl; is due to God, and to God only. 
 Q, Do Catholics adore the saints ? 
 
104 A DOCTRINAL CAIECHISM. 
 
 A. God forbid that we should give to any, oi 
 all of the saints the worship which is due tc 
 God : we honor the saints as God's servants^ 
 enriched and honored with his divine grace. 
 
 Q. Do not Catholics consecrate altars, and 
 offer upon them the sacrifice of the Mass to the 
 saints ? 
 
 A. No ; altars are erected and consecrated 
 10 God alone ; to God alone is the sacrifice of 
 the Mass offered ; the former under the invoca- 
 tion of the saints, and the latter in memory of 
 the saints. 
 
 Q. Why do we owe to Jesus Christ a sovereign 
 confidence ? 
 
 A, Because He is the only mediator, in the 
 proper sense of the word, between God and 
 Man. 
 
 Q. Why do you say he is the only mediator ? 
 
 A. Because He alone could and did satisfy 
 for sin ; — He alone merited for us all the graces 
 we receive from God. 
 
 Q. Could not a saint satisfy for the sins of 
 men ? 
 
 A, No ; all the angels and saints that ever 
 were, or ever will be, could not have sativ^fied 
 the justice of God for even one mortal sin ; be- 
 cause, by sin, an Infinite Being was offended ;* 
 His justice required infinite satisfaction. Now 
 this could not be given by any number o\ 
 
4 DGCTRIi\AL CATECHISM. iO^ 
 
 quality of saints or angels, who are, and nmust 
 essentially be, finite creatures ; but Christ, be- 
 ing a Divine person, could easily ofFer sufficient, 
 because infinite satisfaction, by restoring to God 
 the gloi^y of which sin had deprived him. 
 
 Q. Has Jesus Christ merited for us all 
 heavenly graces 1 
 
 A. Yes ; " Blessed be the God and the Fa- 
 ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed 
 us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in 
 Christ." (Ephes. chap, i.) 
 
 Q. Do the saints merit graces for us ? 
 
 A, They may, by their prayers, obtain graces 
 for us from God, but they cannot, of themselves, 
 meidt them. It was Christ alone, who could, 
 and did, merit and purchase them with the 
 price of his bjood, both for the saints and for us. 
 
 Q. Why do you say we owe to Jesus Christ 
 a sovereign love ? 
 
 A. Because it was He " Who delivered us 
 from the power of darkness, and translated us 
 into the kiRgdom of the Son of his love." 
 fColoss. chap, i.) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q Do Catholics glorify Christ and his 
 merits more than Protestants ? 
 
 A. Yes ; much more. They worship b^'in 
 
(06 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 more fi'equently and more intensely ;- -they 
 glorify him in his saints, and in the pictures 
 and images of him, which they keep with re- 
 spect and veneration. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that Catholics worship 
 Christ in his person, more than Protestants ? 
 
 A. Because the worship which CathoHcs 
 render to the person of Christ, present in the 
 sacrament and sacrifice of the altar, shows it 
 sufficiently. In conformity with their creed, 
 they render to Christ, really present, all the 
 adoration in their power. 
 
 Q. Why have you said that Catholics ho?ior 
 Christ, in his saints, more than Protestants 
 do? 
 
 A. Because Catholics, in honoring the saints, 
 only glorify Jesus, who, by his mercies ai,id 
 graces, has made these saints what they are, 
 worthy of our veneration and imitation ; and- 
 as often as Catholics show respect or vt 'deration 
 before a picture or image of Jesus, they uni- 
 formly refer both, not to the mere matter before 
 them, but to the prototype, Jesus Christ him- 
 self. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that Catholics honor 
 the merits of Christ more than Protestants ? 
 
 A. Because Catholics think more of his suf- 
 ferings and passion than their adversaries 
 Catholics observe Lent, a fast of forty days, in 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHlWM. 
 
 honor of his fasting and sorrows ; — they abstain 
 from the luxury of flesh meat on Friday, m 
 honor of his death ; — they make frequent use 
 of the sign of the cross, to keep them in mind 
 of the tortures he endured for sinners, and that 
 it is from the merits of his passion and death 
 on the cross, that they hope for heavenly 
 strength and grace ; — they end every prayer 
 by these words : " Through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord ;" — and the last name they utter when 
 they are dying, is his holy name : — Jesus, there- 
 fore, is the only hope of every CathoHc ; and 
 those of our adversaries w»ho say othe^rwise, are 
 guilty of the very extreme of injustice ; since 
 all we ask the saints to do, is to pray for us to 
 our Divine Saviour. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. Do not Catholics abandon God, and put 
 th'ir trust in the saints, when they ask the 
 prayers of the saints ? 
 
 A, No certainly ; not so much as Protestants 
 Jo, when they ask the pisayers of sinful men. 
 
 Q. Is it not derogatory to the merits of 
 Christ to invoke the saints ? 
 
 A, Certainly not ; since the Scripture de- 
 clares, that the prayer even of the just man 
 availeth much. 
 
108 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 O'. Li what are Protestants deceived on this 
 si'hject? 
 
 A. In supposing that Catholics substitute the 
 saints for. Christ, and place their hope in tlie 
 former and not in the latter. This is a very 
 mistaken notion. Catholics do not ask grace 
 from the saints ; they merely ask the saints to 
 pray that God may grant them all necessary 
 graces through Christ. They say, when ad- 
 dressing God : ''Have mercy on us ;" ''Forgive 
 our sins;'' — but when addressing the Blessed 
 Virgin or the saints : " Pray for us/' Catho- 
 lics know well, that all the virtues, merits, and 
 izraces of the saints are derived, not from them- 
 selves, but from Jesus Christ. 
 
 Q. Are the merits of the saints then useless 
 to us ? 
 
 A. No ; the more agreeable the saints are to 
 God, the more powerful will their intercession 
 be in our favor ; consequently, the more mer 
 itoriously they ha/e co-operated with God's 
 grace, the more useful will their prayers be to 
 us ; in the same manner that we value more 
 the prayers of the man that is truly just, than 
 we do those of Lhn vvho is imperfectly so. 
 
 l^. Tn whose place do we put the saints ? 
 
 A. Not in the place of Jesus Christ but m 
 'JUT own ; we conjure them to join with us i? 
 i^jvprxt prayer to God, that, through Jer>t 
 
 J 
 
A ttOCTRlNAl CATECHISM. 10 
 
 Christ, we may obtain all the graces we stand 
 ir need of. 
 
 CHAPTER y 
 
 Q. iJoes the sacred Scripture order us ti 
 invoke the saints ? 
 
 A. It neither expressly orders, nor forbids it. 
 
 Q. Is it not said in the 49th Psalm ? — "Call 
 upon me in the day of tribulation ;" and in the 
 llth chap, of St. Matthew ? — "Come to me all 
 you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will 
 refresh you." And are not these clear com 
 mands to invoke God alone ? 
 
 A. As these passages do not forbid us to ask 
 the prayers of men, so neither do they forbid 
 us to ask the intercession of the saints. 
 
 Q. What then does God demand in these 
 passages ? 
 
 A. He demands that we invoke him, and 
 him only, as our sovereign Lord, from whom 
 both the saints and we must draw all help and 
 -consolation. 
 
 Q. Is it useful to ask the prayers of the saints ? 
 
 A. Yes, surely most useful, if it be at all use- 
 ful to have recourse to the prayers even of men. 
 
 Q. IIoio do you Janow that it is useful to have 
 recourse to the prayers of men ? 
 
 A. In the first place, all sects admit this ; 
 and, secondly, God himself orders the friends 
 
lie? A d:)ctki.\al catechism. 
 
 of Job to have recourse to Job's prayers, (chap 
 xlu :) " Go to my servant Job, .... and my ser- 
 vant Job shall pray for you ; his face I will 
 a«.cept, that folly be not imputed to you." 
 
 Q. Do the avgels and saints hear us when 
 we ask their prayers ? 
 
 A, Protestants admit, that even the devils 
 know what is passing on earth ; and yet they 
 deny this knowledge to the blessed and perfect 
 angels and saints of God. In Matth. xv, we 
 are told, that "there is joy over one sinner that 
 doeth penance, more than over ninety-nine 
 just persons." If the saints and angels can see 
 in this world even the penitent hearty they 
 surely hear our prayers without any difficulty. 
 In Luke, chap, xvi, Abraham, who, according 
 to Protestants, must have been in heaven, 
 heard the supplications of Dives, or the rich 
 man, who was certainly in hell. See also 
 Zachary, chap, i, 12. 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 
 Q. Is the practice of invoking the saints of 
 very ancient date ? 
 
 A. Yes ; even the Protestant Centuriators 
 of Magdebourg admit, that it has existed since 
 the third century at w^hich time all agree that 
 *he Church was pure. " You may trace/' saj 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. Ill 
 
 they, "manifest vestiges of the invc>cation of 
 saints in the third century ;'' — thus Origin says : 
 ''' Holy Job, pray for us/' The Protestants 
 cvho drew up the Augsburg and Helvetic Con- 
 fession, define it as sound Protestant doctrine, 
 " that relative and inferior veneration is due to 
 the saints and angels." To the same effect the 
 testimony of all the early Fathers, and even of 
 nearly all the most learned Protestant bishops, 
 along with Kemnitius, and Luther himself, who 
 says : " I therefore, with the whole Catholic 
 Church, hold that the saints are to be honored 
 and invocated by us." 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. That the invocation of the saints, angels, 
 and blessed Virgin, is a good and salutary prac- 
 tice, seeing that it has been adopted in every 
 age of the Church ; that it has been taught and 
 practised by the wise, the learned, and the good ; 
 and that the most learned, though bitterest, ene- 
 mies have been compelled to admit its utility. 
 
 COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Q. Is It necessary to recewe the sacratneni 
 Qf the Eucharist undltr both K bids ? 
 
112 A DOCTRINAL. CATECHISM. 
 
 A. No ; it is not, for three reasons ; first, 
 because what is received under both kinds is 
 received under one kind only ; secondly, be- 
 cause Christ has promised the same reward 
 to the reception of one as to the reception of 
 both ; thirdly, because the ancient Church ad- 
 ministered this sacrament often under one kind 
 only. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that the same is received 
 under one, as under both species ? 
 
 A. Because Christ is received as he is, living 
 and immortal, w^hole and entire ; and, as a 
 aving body is no^t without blood, or living blood 
 without a body, so Christ is received, as he is, 
 under eitlier the form of bread or the form of 
 wine. 
 
 Q. Does the priest, who receives under both, 
 receive more than the Laic ? 
 
 A, No ; he receives the same ; for, as a man 
 receiving two hosts would not receive more 
 than he who receives only one, so the recep- 
 tion of one species is equal to the reception of 
 both— Christ whole and entire being received 
 m either case. 
 
 Q. Why d.o priests alone partake of the 
 chalice — have they more right to it than the 
 people ? 
 
 A. They alone partake of it in Mass, because 
 it is part of the sacrifice ; but priests, bishop*v 
 
A DOCTRINAL. cATLCHlSM. 113 
 
 Slid even the Pope, receive under one kind 
 only, when they receive out of JMass. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that the chalice for7ns 
 vart of the sacj^ftce ? 
 
 A. Because Christ is a priest, according to 
 the order of Melchizedeck ; now Melchizedeck 
 offered bread and wine both; hence, Christ has 
 been pleased to institute the sacrifice of his 
 body and blood, under the forms of bread and 
 of wine. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that Christ promises 
 the same reward to the reception of one as to 
 the reception of both kinds ? 
 
 A. Because this is clearly laid down in the 
 sixth chap, of St. John, ver. 50 — " This is the 
 bread which cometh down from heaven, that li 
 any man eat of it he may not die.'' 52 — " If any 
 man eat of this bread he shall live for ever.'' 
 58 — " As I live by the Father, so he that eat- 
 eth me, the same sliall live by me." 59-^" Not 
 as your fathers did eat manna and are dead ; he 
 that eateth this bread shall live for ever." 
 
 Q. What do you observe on these passages ? 
 
 A. That Christ promised eternal life to those 
 who receive under one kind, as well as to those 
 who receive under both. Indeed, Christ him- 
 self aihninistered the sacrament under one kind 
 
 10* 
 
114 A EOCTRmAL CATECHISM 
 
 only to the disciples at Emmaus : — " And il 
 came to pasij, whilst he was at table with them, 
 he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave 
 to them." St. Paul, 1 Cor. chap, xi, 27? says : 
 " Therefore, w^iosoever shall eat this bread, oe 
 drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shali 
 be guilty of the body and of the blood of the 
 Lord." This shows clearly, that the unworthy 
 reception of either kind is enough to damn, and 
 consequently, also, the worthy reception, enough 
 to save ; because, both the body and blood 
 of the Lord are profaned, or advantageoush' 
 received, under either kind, as is evident from 
 the conjunctive particle and, in the latter part 
 of the verse, whilst the disjunctive or is used 
 in the former. From the account of the Last 
 Supper given by St. Luke, chap, xxii, 20, it 
 would appear that the cup was not a necessary, 
 even of the Apostolic communion, for it is given 
 not during the supper, but after the supper. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. Why have you said that the ancient and 
 pure church administered the sacrament often 
 under one kind only ? 
 
 A. Because history proves it to be the fact 
 Nicephorus, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii, cap. 7, St. 
 Cyprian, and St. Basil, all allude to the practice 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATE^^HISM. J 1 5 
 
 The latter says, that the sohtaries who livea 
 far from towns, were in the habit of carrying 
 with them, for the whole year, the Holy Eu- 
 charist, under the form of bread. 
 
 Q. Did not Pope Gelasius command all 
 Catholics to receive the chalice ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but this was only for a time, and 
 for the purpose of detecting the Manichean 
 heretics, who considered wine as the creature 
 of the devil. These heretics mingled with the 
 Catholics, and, concealing their heretical prin- 
 ciples, approached .to communion with them 
 Hence, the Pope ordered the chalice also to 
 be administered, knowing that this being under 
 the form of wine, would deter these heretics 
 from profaning the sacrament. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this? 
 
 A. That the sacrament must have been pre- 
 viously administered under the form of bread, 
 otherwise this order of Pope Gelasius would 
 have been unnecessary. 
 
 Q. How wai,' the sacrament given to the sick, 
 to the young, and to infants ? 
 
 A. Under the form of bread only in the two 
 former cases, and u)ider the form of wine in 
 the latter ; and the Greek Church, during Lent, 
 was in the habit of consecrating on Sunday 
 what should be necessary for the whole week^ 
 and under the form of bread only. 
 
116 A nOCTlllNAL CATE"llJaM 
 
 CHAPTER IV. ' 
 
 Q,. Has not Christ expressly said, MattK 
 xxvi, 27 : " Drink ye all of this V 
 
 A. Yes ; but these words were addressed \o 
 the Apostles alone, and not to all the faithful 
 
 Q. But if the command to drink was hert 
 given only to the Apostles, may we not justly 
 conclude that the com.mand to eat also, was 
 given only to the Apostles ? 
 
 A. The commands to eat and to drink were, 
 on this occasion, both given only to the Apos- 
 tles and their successors, — that is to say, to the 
 bishops and priests of the Church. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this 1 
 
 A. The command to eat and to drink was 
 given on this occasion only to those to whom 
 it was said — "do this in remembrance of me ;" 
 but these latter words were addressed only to 
 the Apostle-s and their lawful successors in the 
 ministry ; because, by these last words, Christ 
 conferred on his ministers the power to conse- 
 crate and administer the Eucharist ; and it is 
 quite apparent, that this power was given to 
 the Apostles only, and not to mankind in gen- 
 eral, who have never even claimed it. 
 
 Q. Is there then no command in this pas- 
 sage, that tlie laity should i eceiv( the Eur 
 vharist ? 
 
 J 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. iH 
 
 A. Yes ; the priests are ordered to distribute 
 It. by these words : " Do this in remembrance 
 of me f and consequently, the laity are com- 
 manded to receive it. 
 
 Q At what precise moment did Chmst uttei 
 these words: ''Do this in remembrance of 
 raer 
 
 A. St. Luke (chap, xxii, 19) quotes these 
 words as having been uttered by our Lord im- 
 mediately after he had given the Eucharist to 
 the Apostles under the appearance of bread, and 
 before he had delivered the chalice to them. 
 
 Q. What may he learned from this circum- 
 stance 1 
 
 A. That Christ authorized his Apostles and 
 their successors to administer the sacrament 
 under the form of bread to the laity, but that 
 he gave no command as regards the chalice. 
 
 Q. But does not Christ say, in St. John, 
 chap, vii, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
 of man and drink his blood, ye cannot have 
 life in you ?" 
 
 A, True ; but we receive Christ not dead, 
 but alive and immortal, as he is now m heaven ; 
 hence, we most certainly receive under either 
 kind both his body and blood, for where his 
 body IS, there is his blood, soul, and divmity 
 also. Besides, Protestants have nothing to do 
 with this text on the present question, since 
 
IJ8 A DOCTKINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 they hold, that not only this text, but the whole 
 chapter in which it is found, legard, not tlie 
 sacrament of the Eucharist, but mere faith m 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 (4. What would you say, in addition to the 
 above, to an obstinate Protestant who would 
 tell you, that every thing done by Christ at the 
 Last Sup])er should continue to be practised, 
 and hence, that all should receive under both 
 kinds, because he administered it to all then 
 present ? 
 
 A. I would tell him : Protestants, in thai 
 case, have much to do that they neglect. 
 
 Q. What should they do, if all that Christ 
 did, be essentially necessary ? 
 
 A. They should wash the feet of all that are 
 admitted to the sacrament ; — they should break 
 the bread ; — they should make the chalice or 
 cup pass from hand to hand ; — they should re- 
 ceive the sacrament after supper, and only 
 twelve should sit at the same table. 
 
 Q. What if Protestants reply, that these are 
 not essential to the reception of the sacrament ? 
 
 A. That is just what ^^ e say wifh regard to 
 the reception of both kinds. 
 
 Q. Are not both kinds essential to the 
 sacrament ? 
 
 d 
 
A D0CTR1?%^\L CATECHfSM. \l^ 
 
 A. If they were, Christ would not have 
 promised to the reception of one kind all that 
 ne promised to him who receives both. x\nd 
 again, if they were, the pure Chm'ch of the first 
 four centmies, would not have administered 
 one species without the other, as she frequently 
 did. 
 
 Q. Why does the Catholic Church adminis- 
 ter the sacrament under one kind, only ? 
 
 A. Amongst other reasons, first, because, for 
 the above reasons, it is evidently unnecessary to 
 use both ; and, secondly, because many acci- 
 dents, exposing this most holy sacrament to 
 irreverence (such as spilling the cup) would 
 take place, if the cup were given to all. 
 
 Q. Have Protestants made any admissions 
 on this head? 
 
 A. Yes ; the Confession of Augsburg excuses 
 the Church from any blame in this matter, (p. 
 235;) and Luther, torn, ii, p. 100, says: — "If 
 you go where only one kind is administered, 
 be content with one kind, and don't oppose the 
 great mass of Christians ;" and again, tom. iii, 
 p. 274 — " If a General Council should order us 
 to receive under both kinds, out of contempt 
 for the Council we should receive only one.'* 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all we havf 
 said ? 
 
 A, Protestants, in forming their creed, have 
 
120 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 read the Scripture without studying its meap.- 
 ing. 
 
 Q. What othei^ inference v^ould you drav: ? 
 
 A. That the Scripture does not contain every 
 necessary truth clearly laid down ; otherwise, 
 there would be no dispute on this subject. 
 
 ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE IVIASS 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Q. Who is the author of the Mass ? Wan 
 it instituted hy Jesus Christ, or by the Church ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ is the author of the essential 
 part, or the sacrifice of his body and blood ; the 
 Church has appointed merely the accompany- 
 ing ceremonial. 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ offer his hody and his 
 blood for us to his Father in the Ijast Supper? 
 
 A. He did, not only upon the cross, but in 
 his Last Supper. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this ? 
 
 A, By the words of Christ himself. In St, 
 liuke, chap, xxii, he says : " This is my body, 
 which IS GIVEN for you." Mark well his 
 wards. He does not say, this is my body, which 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHl^Ai. l2i 
 
 ^hall be given for }0u, but which IS now, 
 whilst I speak, given for you. This becomes 
 more tjvident still, from the words used by 
 Christ, whilst he held the chaKce in his hands, 
 and this whether we follow the Cathohc or 
 Protestant translation : " This is my blood of 
 the new testament, which is shed for many for 
 the remission of sins.'' (Matth. xxvi, 28, Prot. 
 Transl.) " For this is my blood of the new 
 testament, which shall he shed for many unto 
 remission of sins/' (Matth. xxvi, 28, Cath 
 Transl.) St. Mark and St. Luke are equally 
 clear, especially the latter, chap, xxii, 20. 
 From these passages, it is quite clear that tho 
 chalice contained what was shed for us ; bui 
 what was shed for us, was the blood of Christ ; 
 therefore the chalice contained the blood of 
 Christ. But at ■ the time of the Last Supper, 
 Christ had not yet shed his blood for us in the 
 sacrifice of the cross ; therefore he shed it ir 
 the sacrifice of his Last Supper ; therefore, in 
 his Last Supper, Christ offered in sacrifice his 
 body which was broken, his blood which was 
 shed, for the remission of our sins ; therefore, 
 he offered a true and real propitiatory sacrifice 
 in hin Last Supper. 
 
 Q What follows f im this? 
 
 A If Christ, in hit Last Supper, offered a 
 tiu«k and real sacrifice of his body and blcxxL 
 
 U 
 
122 A DDCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 before he offered himself in sacritiee on tne 
 cross, it follows, that all the priests uf his 
 Church must offer the same sacrifice, because 
 Christ ordered all his ministers to do what he 
 himself had done on that occasion : " Do fhn 
 for a commemoration of me.'' 
 
 Q. What is the title gioen by David, ir, 
 109th Psalm, to Jesus Christ? 
 
 A. He styles him a " Finest for ever, accord- 
 ing to the order of 3Ielchizedeck" 
 
 Q. Why is he styled ''for ever a priest, ac- 
 cording to the order of Melchizedeck ?" 
 
 A. Because, like Melchizedeck, he used bread 
 and wine in the sacrifice. 
 
 Q. Why is Christ styled a priest for ever 
 tifter Melchizedeck' s order ? 
 
 A. Because he continues, and will continne 
 to offer the same sacrifice by the hands of his 
 priests to the end of the world. 
 
 Q. Would Christ he a priest for ever ac- 
 cording to the order of Melchizedeck, if a sacH. 
 fice, according to Melchizedeck' s order, had been 
 only offered at the Last Supper ^y himself? 
 
 A. No ; for in that case, he would not be a 
 priest for ever, but only for once, according tc 
 the order of Melchizedecli : to be a priest for 
 ever, it was necessary he should establish an 
 everlasting order of priests, to offer the sam^ 
 sacrifice, as his substitutes. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECH1S:\I. 123 
 
 Q. Would Christ he a priest, according to 
 the order of Melchisedeck, if he had not used 
 bread and wine in a true and real sacrifice in 
 the Last Supper 1 
 
 A. No ; for if he did not do so in the Last 
 Supper, he is not a priest at all, according to. 
 the order of Melchizedeck, since there is no re- 
 semblance between his sacrifice on the cross, 
 and the sacrifice of Melchizedeck ; and if Clirist 
 did not at his Last Supper, he never at any 
 other time did, oflfer a sacrifice similar in any 
 manner to that of Melchizedeck. 
 
 Q. What does the prophet Malachy say 
 touching this sacrifice ? 
 
 A, " From the rising of the sun, even to the 
 going down thereof, my name is great among 
 the Gentiles ; and in every place there is 
 SACRIFICE, and there is ofiered to my name a 
 clean oblation." 
 
 Q. Does not Malachy foretell here merely the 
 sacrifice of the cross ? 
 
 *A, No, not that alone ; for he speaks ot a 
 sacrifice to be offered in every plact^ and the 
 sacrifice of the cross was ofiered in onlv one 
 place and /or one time. Hence, there must be 
 a sacrifice of the new law, intimately connectea 
 or identical, with that of the cross, to be ofieied 
 up in every place, which can be no other thai) 
 the Eucharistic' sacrifice 
 
"24 A DOCTRINAL L'ATEuHJSM 
 
 Q May not this clean oblation he prayu 
 and praise and thanksgiving ? 
 
 A. No ; for this would be nothing new for a 
 prophet to fore-tell ; this sort of oblation was 
 offered to God in every age, even at the time 
 ihe prophecy Vv~as made. Besides, w^ho would 
 dare to say that his imperfect prayer was a 
 clean oblation ? The prophet evidently alludes 
 to some extraordinary sacrifice, some new clean 
 oblation to come, not already existing, which 
 would be substituted for all the sacrifices of the 
 old law, which, in the previous verses, he con- 
 demns. 
 
 Q. What says the prophet Jeremias on this 
 subject? (Chap, xxxiii, 18.) 
 
 A. "Neither shall there be cut off from the 
 priests and Levites a man before my face, to 
 offer holocausts, and to burn sacrifices, and to 
 kill victims continually.'' 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul? (Heb. v, 1.) 
 
 A. " For every high priest, taken from among^ 
 men, is ordamed for man in things pertaining *to 
 God, that he may offer both gifts and sacinfices 
 foi' sins ;" and elsewhere, he says : " We have 
 an altar of which those who serve the tabernacle 
 dare not eat.'' 
 . Q. Do you find that these doctrim^s of the 
 Apostles, or lohat rvas foretold of the Christian 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 125 
 
 Church by the prophets, are realized or verified 
 in the Protestant Church ? 
 
 A. No ; for the Protestant Church has no 
 altar, or priest, c»r sacrifice, all of which ac- 
 cording to Scripture, are clearly necessary in. 
 the true Christian Church. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Q. How many kinds of sacrifices wyi e t/ie? e 
 in the old laiv ? 
 
 A. There were four ; — the holocaust, the 
 Eucharistic, the impetratory, and the propitia- 
 rory sacrifices. 
 
 Q. Why were victirns ofi^ered in holocaust ? 
 
 A. To acknowledge the supreme dominior 
 of God over all creatures. 
 
 Q. For what purpose was the Eucharistu 
 sacrifice ? 
 
 A. To thank God for favors and graces re- 
 ceived. 
 
 Q. For what was the impetratory sacrifice 
 instituted ? 
 
 A. To obtain from God important benefits 
 or graces. 
 
 Q. For what end was the propitiatory sacri- 
 fice ? 
 
 A. To render God propitious, and to expiate 
 
 11* 
 
i2'6 A DO'JTIUNA]. CATECHISM. 
 
 Q, What says St. Augustbie, horn in 351, 
 m ids work on the City of God, written aho?d 
 fourteen hundred years ago 'f 
 
 A. That the one sacrifice of the Mass was 
 instituted to hold the place of all the sacrifices 
 of the old law. 
 
 Q. What says St. Ireneus ? (Lib. iv, chap. 
 33,) 
 
 A. " The Apostles received this sacrifice 
 from Christ, the Church from the Apostles, and 
 she offers it everywhere, according to the 
 prophecy of Malachy : ' and in every place a 
 pure sacrifice shall he offered.' " 
 
 Q. Has the sacrifice of the Mass heen offer 
 ed everywhere during the last two hundred 
 years 1 
 
 A. Yes ; in every Christian country of the 
 earth. 
 
 Q. Has it heen everywhere offered during 
 the last twelve hundred years ? 
 
 A. Yes ; as all the ancient liturgies — Latin, 
 Greek, Arabic, &c. — attest. 
 
 Q. Can any one point out the first priest, 
 bishop, or Pope, who said Mass', or the time or 
 country in which this first Mass ivas said? 
 
 A, No ; no man has ever beeix able to make 
 such a discovery. 
 
 Q,. yVliat follows from this ? 
 
 A. It follows by St. Au^ustine*s nile, ihn 
 
 ■\ 
 
A DUCTRiXAL CATEC•In^JYl I'iT 
 
 we have received the Mass from Christ and his 
 Anoslles, since, if it were the invention of man, 
 it could be traced to its author ; for says that 
 Father, whatever is universally beheved and 
 practised in the Church, and cannot be traced 
 to any bishop, or Pope, or council, as its author, 
 must have been taught and practised by the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Q. Give me another authority, from the 
 many Fathers who assure us, that the pure 
 Christian Church of the earliest ages admitted 
 the Mass as a true sacrifice 1 
 
 A. St. Cyprian (Epist. 78) says : " Jesus 
 Christ offered the same sacrifice as did Mel- 
 chizedeck, that is, bread and wine, his own body 
 
 and blood If Jesus Christ, our Lord and 
 
 God, be himself the high priest of his Father, 
 and if he first offered himself as a sacrifice to 
 him, and commanded the same to be done in 
 remembrance of him, then that priest truly 
 stands in the place of Christ, who does what 
 Christ did, and offers in the Church a new and 
 cc>mplete sacrifice to God the Father, doing 
 what he ordained." 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 Q. Is the sacrifice of the Mass a it ue, pro* 
 viti^tory sar* ifice ? 
 
129 A DUCTLIXAL CATECHJSM. 
 
 A. Yes ; both for the hving and the dead. 
 
 Q. In what sense is it a projnHato? y sacri^ 
 fi<.efor the living ? 
 
 A. In this, that through it they obtain the 
 spirit of compunction and grace to repent of 
 their sins. 
 
 Q. How is it propitiatory for the dead? 
 
 A. It contributes to the remission of the 
 temporal punishment,* which they may still 
 owe to the Divine Justice. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that the Mass is truly 
 a propitiatoi^y sacidfce ? 
 
 A. From St. Matth. chap, xxvi : This is 
 my blood of the new^ testament, which is shed 
 for m^ay for the remission of sins f' and from 
 St. Paul to the Hebrews, chap. 5 : " For every 
 high priest, taken from among men, is ordained 
 for men in the things that appertain to God, 
 that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices fo^' 
 
 sins." 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from these ? 
 
 A. That as w^e certainly have, in the Chris- 
 tian Church, a high priest, so his duty certainly 
 is to offer sacrifices for sins. 
 
 Q. Is there then more than one sacrifice 
 propitiatory or expiatory ? — lias not the sacri* 
 fice of the cross alone expiated all sin / 
 
 ' See Trealise ou In^iir'cncet 
 
A DOCTRIVAL CATECH.SM. 129 
 
 A. The sacrifice of the cross and the sacri 
 fiee of the ahar, are one and the same. 
 
 Q. Why then renew every day the same 
 sacrifice ? is not the sacrifice of the cross once 
 offered sufficient ? 
 
 A. The merits and virtue of the sacrifice ol 
 the cross are infinite ; but that virtue and these 
 merits must be apphed, and this can only be 
 done bv certain means. 
 } Q. 'What are these means hy which the 
 merits of the sacrifice of the cross are applied 
 to our souls ? 
 
 A. They are the sacraments, the sacrifice ol 
 he Mass, prayer, and good works. 
 
 Q. Amongst these means, in what light are 
 
 3 to regard the sacrifice of the Mass ? 
 
 A. We are to regard it as a means employ ea 
 b ' the Almighty, for applying the sacred merits 
 ol the sacrifice of the cross to our souls, in a 
 very particular manner. 
 
 Q. Has the sacrifice of the Mass leen offered 
 for the dead since the earliest ages ? 
 
 A. Yes ; as is evident from the testimony 
 of the early Fathers and writers. Tertullian, 
 lib. de Monog., says : " That a woman who 
 would not have the holy sacrifice of the Mass 
 celebrated every year for her husband on the 
 anniversary of his death, should be considered 
 as one who had been divorced from him." St 
 
130 A DOCTRINAL CATEC^IUSM. 
 
 Cyprian, Epist. 9, says : " Our predecessors 
 prudently advised, that no brother departing 
 this Hfe should nominate any churchman his 
 executor, and, should he do it, that no oblation 
 should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered 
 for his repose/' The Council of Chalons (anno 
 579) decrees, that in all solemn Masses, pray- 
 ers be offered up for the souls of the departed. 
 In fine, St. Augustine, lib. xxii, de Ciyit. Dei, 
 tells us, " that one of his priests celebrated Mass 
 in a house infested by evil spirits, and that by 
 this their banishment was effected." 
 
 1 
 
 ON PURGATORY ^' 
 d 
 
 J. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. How do you irrove that there is a Pi i 
 gatory, or middle state between hell and heaven ? 
 
 A. It is proved, 1st, from the Old Testament ; 
 2dly, from the New Testament ; and, 3uiy, from 
 tradition. 
 
 Q. What is your proof from the Old Testa- 
 ment ? 
 
 A. In 2d Machab. chap. 12, where Judas, the 
 valiant commander, collects and sends to Jeru- 
 salem twelve .housand drachmas of silver, foi 
 
 J 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 13J 
 
 sacrific -^ to be offered for the sins of the dead, 
 ** It is therefore," says this passage, '' a holy and 
 wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that 
 they may be loosed from their sins." 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this pas 
 sa^e ? 
 
 A. That besides heaven and hell there is a 
 middle state ; because, as the souls in heaven 
 require net the aid of prayer, so the souls in 
 hell can receive no benefit from it ; hence, 
 there must be some tliird state of souls, in 
 which prayer is beneficial to them. 
 
 Q. Bitt is this book of Machahees a canoni- 
 cal book, containing God's word ? 
 
 A, It has been recognised as such from the 
 •arliest ages. St. Augustine (Civit. Dei, chap. 
 '6) says : " The Church of God has always 
 oknowledged the Machabees as a canonical 
 l;.»ok." Protestants have rejected this book, 
 l'':3 many other books of Scripture, because 
 it contains doctrines opposed to their novel in- 
 ventions. They do not seem to reflect, that it 
 is on the authority of the Catholic Church they 
 know the Scriptures which they admit to be 
 God's word, and they have that authority for 
 this book as well as for the rest. 
 
 Q. Does not the author of Machahees make 
 'in apology for the errors it contains ? 
 
 A. Yes; for errors oi style, but not for er- 
 
132 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 rors in fact or doctriiTe. See, for anoth.ei 
 argument on this subject of Purgatory, Gen 
 3ixxvii, 33. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. How do you prove from the New Testa- 
 ment that there is a Purgatory ? 
 
 A. From Matthew, chap. 12: "Whosoever 
 speaketh a Avord against the Son of man, it 
 shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever speaketh 
 against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven 
 him ; neither in this world, neither in the world 
 to come." 
 
 Q. What inference does St. Augustine draw 
 from this passage ? (Civit. Dei, chap. xiv. 
 iib. 21.) 
 
 ^1. That some sins are forgiven in the next 
 world, otherwise this passage of Scripture would 
 be nonsense. Naw sins are not remitted in 
 heaven, for no sin can enter there ; nor in hell, 
 for there is no redemption from that awful 
 abode : therefore there • must be some third 
 place, where some sins are forgiven. 
 
 Q. Cite the words of St. Paul? (1 Cor. 
 chap, iii.) 
 
 A. " And the fire shall try every man's 
 v/ork, of what sort it is. If any man's work 
 abide.... he sha.i receive a reward; if any, 
 man's work shal. be burned, he shall sulTeH 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. ] 33 
 
 loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as bj 
 fire." 
 
 Q. What on this do you remark ? 
 
 A. There can be no pain, or suffering, or 
 (ire in heaven ; nor is the fire of hell for salva- 
 tion, but damnation : therefore this, fire, which 
 worketh unto salvation, must be in Purgatory. 
 
 Q. What says the same Apostle ? (Philip, 
 chap, ii, 10.) 
 
 A. " That, at the name of Jesus, every knee 
 should bow, of those that are in heaven, on 
 earth, and under the earth." 
 
 Q. How do you reason on this ? 
 
 A. By those under the earth, are evidently 
 meant, not the dead bodies, but the souls of the 
 dead not yet in heaven. Now these souls are 
 certainly either in hell or in Purgatory, or in 
 both. But St. Paul cannot allude to those in 
 hell, for he knew w^ell that they would not 
 bow the knee to Jesus, — therefore he must 
 allude to souls in some other place, which is 
 not hea*ven, or earth, or the hell of the damned ; 
 therefore that place exists, and it is that which 
 Catholics ca.l Purgatory. 
 
 Q. What does St. John say (Apoc. chap. 
 xxi, 27) of Heaven ? 
 
 A, " And there shall not enter mto it anj 
 thing defiled." 
 
 Q. Wliat do you conclude fj^om this ? 
 
 12 
 
i;^4 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. That there must be some place for the 
 pmification of souls after death ; because the 
 Scripture assures us, that even the just man 
 falls seven times, — and can any one in his 
 senses suppose that many will not die without 
 expiating these faults ? With these they can- 
 n:)t enter heaven, which rec-eiveth nothing de- 
 filed ; they cannot be sent to hell, for they are, 
 according to Scripture, just. Therefore there 
 must be a third place, where these failings of 
 even the just man will be expiated. See also 
 1 Corinth, chap, xv, 29; 2 Tim. i, 18, — where 
 St. Paul prays for Onesiphorus after he was 
 dead. 
 
 Q. Did any one ascend to heaven hefoi^e our 
 Saviour ? 
 
 A, No ; for in St. John, chap, iii, 13, Chrisi 
 says — " No man hath ascended up to heaven, 
 but He that came down from heaven." 
 
 Q. Where then were all the just souls of the 
 Old Testament until Christ's ascension ? 
 
 A. They were not in heaven, they were not 
 in hell, therefore they were in some middle 
 place or state. 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of thac passage in 
 1 Peter, iii, 18, which says, that Christ weni 
 and preached unto the sp'rits in prison ? Where 
 u 're these spirits ? 
 
 A They were not in heaven, for there the^ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHlSiM. 135 
 
 (¥ould require no preaching ; they were not in hell, 
 for there preaching could be of no use to them ; — 
 therefore they were in some middle state where the 
 souls of the just were awaiting the comhig of the 
 Redeemer, by whom the gates of heaven were tc 
 be re- opened, and they admitted into the presence 
 of God. 
 
 Q. Does not the Scripture scnjy that as the tree 
 falls so it shall lie ? 
 
 A, Yes ; but this means, simply, that every 
 man who dies, is either saved or lost ; and it may 
 also refer to the state of the soul after the last 
 judgment. The moment man dies, his ultimate 
 fate is decided, either for the south or the north, 
 for heaven or hell. 
 
 Q. Is it not said, (Apoc. xiv.) — " Blessed are the 
 dead who die in the Lord, for they shall rest from 
 their labors ?" 
 
 A . Yes ; thrice blessed we say ; but this text 
 only alludes to martyrs, and such as die free from 
 all sin and debt of temporal punishment, and such, 
 of course, require not purification. , They really die. 
 in the Lerd. 
 
 Q. Does not Christ say to the good thief, *'Thi9 
 day thou shalt be with me in i^aradise ?^^ 
 
 A. Yes ; but it is not clear, that by paradise, 
 is here meant heaven and not Purgatory ; and 
 even if tliis were clear, a miracle of God's 
 grace, wrought in favor of a penitent on the 
 very day the tvorld was redeemed, is not to bo 
 considered as God's general rule with regiird 
 
136 A DOCTRlxNAL CATECHISM. 
 
 to sinners. In fine, the good thief sufferer 
 much on the cross, and Christ might have re- 
 ceived his patient sufferino^s there as his pur- 
 gatorial expiation. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. What is your third mode of proving thai 
 there is a Purgatory ? 
 
 A. By tradition, or the unanimous testimony 
 of the Fathers. 
 
 Q. Was all antiquity of the belief that there 
 is a Purgatory ? 
 
 A. The third Council of Carthage, anno 253, 
 decreed prayers for the dead. The Council of 
 Chalons in 579, the Council of Worms in 829, 
 and the Council of Trent, all came to the same 
 decision. 
 
 Q. A?'e the Ancient Fathers unanimous on 
 this question ? 
 
 A. You have only to consult Berrington' s 
 and Kirk's Faith of Catholics, to be satisfied 
 that they are most unanimous. St. Ephrem 
 orders prayers for the repose of his soul after 
 liis death. The Emperor Constantine wished 
 to be buried in a church, that the faithful might 
 remember him in their prayers to God. St. 
 Chrysostom, in his 1 Horn, on 1 Epist. tc 
 Corinth, says : " The tears of the living are no'- 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHrSM. i i3 
 
 useless to the dead, — that prayers and alms re- 
 lieve them." St. Jerom, in his Epistle to Pam- 
 machius, remarks : " It is customary to strew 
 with flowers the graves of the female dead, but 
 j^ou have followed a better usage in strewing the 
 grave of your wife with alms for the solace al 
 Her soul/' St. Augustine, in 13th chap, of his 
 9'th Book of Confession, says : " I shed not a 
 tear, whilst they offered the holy sacrifice for 
 the peace of my dear mother's soul." On the 
 37th Psalm, he prays thus : " Purify me, 
 Lord, in this life, that I may not require the 
 application of that fire, by which souk are tried, 
 in the next f and, in his Work on the Heresies, 
 (Heresy 53,) he says : " Aerius was the first 
 who dared to te-ach, that it was of no use to 
 offer up prayers and sacrifices for the dead, 
 and this doctrine of Aerius is the fifty-third 
 heresv." 
 
 Q. Does it follow, from the circumstance 
 that the ancient Church prayed for the dead 
 that there is a Purgatory ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; if the Church always prayed 
 tor the dead, she believed the dead were in a 
 place wliere prayer could be beneficial to them ; 
 this place was not heaven, nor could it be ne\\ 
 therefore it was Purgaior}'. 
 
 12* 
 
138 A DOCTRJXAL CATECHISM. 
 
 ON JUSTIFICATION 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. What IS justification ? 
 
 A. It is a grace which makes us friends o\ 
 God. 
 
 Q. Can a sinner merit this justifying 
 grace ? 
 
 A. No, he cannot ; because all the good 
 works which the sinner performs whilst he is 
 hi a state of mortal sin, are dead works, which 
 have no merit sufficient to justify. 
 
 Q. Is it an article of the Catholic faith, that 
 the sinner, in mortal sin, cannot merit the 
 grace of justification ? 
 
 A. Yes; it is decreed in the seventh chap 
 of the sixth sess. of the Council of Trent, that 
 neither faith, nor good works, preceding justi- 
 fication, can merit the grace of justification. 
 
 Q. How then is the sinner justified 1 
 
 A. He is justified gratuitously by the pure 
 mercy of God, not on account of his own or 
 any human merit, but purely through the merits 
 of Jesus Christ; for Jesus Christ is our only 
 mediator of redemption, who alone, by his pas- 
 sion and death, has reconciled us to his Father. 
 
 Q. IT//?/ th-'.n do Protestants charge us with 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 139 
 
 b<fhtmng, that tne sinner can vieint the remis- 
 sion of his sins ? 
 
 A. Their ignorance of the Cathohc doctrine 
 /s th^ cause of this, as well as many other false 
 charges. 
 
 Q. Must we then conclude, that the sinner 
 cannot, by good works, obtain the grace of jus- 
 tification ? 
 
 A. The sinner may obtain the grace of jus- 
 tification by good works pi'oceeding from a 
 broken and penitent heart, because these are 
 necessary predispositions and conditions, but 
 no works of his own can ever merit the grace 
 of justific^ation. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q.^ What part has faith in the justification 
 f the sinner ? 
 
 A. It is its root or foundation, the first step 
 to its attainment, an all-necessary condition, 
 without which no man can ever be justified ; 
 /lecause the Apostle nays : " Without faith, it is 
 impossible to please God." 
 
 Q. But is faith alone sufficient to justify the 
 nnner 1 
 
 A. No ; God requires other dispositions in 
 order to the reception of justiiying grace. He 
 reauires the sinner to fear God, to love God, to 
 
(40 A DUCTRIxVAL CATECHISM. 
 
 hope in God, to be sorry for past sin, and tc 
 have a well-grounded purpose not to sin again. 
 
 Q. Does God require these as necessary con- 
 ditions, or as meritoHous works ? 
 
 A A.S necessary conditions, without which 
 he will not receive the sinner in grace. 
 
 Q. What do the Scriptures say on this sub- 
 ject ? 
 
 A. "And when thou shalt seek there the 
 Lord thy God, thou shalt find him ; yet so, if 
 thou seek him with all thy heart and all the 
 affliction of thy soul.'' — Deut. chap, iv, 29. 
 " But if the wicked man do penance for all his 
 sins which he hath committed, and keep all my 
 commandments and &o judgment and justice, 
 living, he shall live, and shall not die.'' — Ezek. 
 chap, xviii, 21. "/f you keep my command- 
 ment, you shall abide in my love ; . . . . you are 
 my friends, if you do the things that I com- 
 mand you."' — John, chap, xv, 10, 14. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from these pas- 
 a ages 
 
 ? 
 
 A, In the first place, that the sinner can 
 never be justified, unless he comply wUh these 
 necessary conditions ; and, secondly, that faith 
 alone is not sufficient to justify him. 
 
 Q. Does not the Baptist say, John, chap, iii, 
 36: "He that believeth in the Son hath lifo 
 everlasting ?" 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECtilSM i'ij 
 
 A, Yes ; but St. John speaks here of etfica- 
 cious faith, that is, he who beiieveth in the Son, 
 so as to believe all that he teaches and prac- 
 tise all that he commands, shall have everlast- 
 mg life. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul, Rom. chap, iii, 28, 
 ?az/ ; " We account a man to be justified by 
 faith, without the works of the law ?" 
 
 ^i. True, but St. Paul is speaking here of 
 the Jewish, not the Christian law ; for St. Paul 
 cannot contradict St. James. Now, St. James 
 says, in words about which there can be no 
 dispute, chap, ii, 22, 24 : " Seest thou that faith 
 did co-operate with his works, and by works, 
 faith was made perfect : ... .do you see, that by 
 works a man is justified, a*nd not by faith only ;'' 
 and, ver. 26, he adds : " For even as the body 
 without the spirit is dead, so also faith without 
 works is dead.'' 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul, Rom. chap, v, 1, saij : 
 " Being justified therefore by faith, let us 
 aave peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
 
 Christ r 
 
 A. Yes; but the same St. Paul, 1 Corinth. 
 chap, xiii, 1, 2, says : " Tf I speak with the 
 tongues of men and of angels, and have nol 
 charity, I am becoTne as a sounding brass ;. . . * 
 and if 1 should have all faith, so that I could 
 remove mountains, and have not charity, I atr 
 
142 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 notning." So that it is quite clear the A[X3stle 
 si>eaks, in the passage quoted, of that lively 
 faith, animated by charity, which is ever pro- 
 ducing good w Drks. 
 
 Q. Protestants suppose, Hiat good works are 
 the necessary effect of faith, as heat is of fire, 
 or light of the sun : is this supposition correct ^ 
 
 A. No ; for St. John, chap, xii, 42, says : 
 '•' Many of the chief men also believed in him ; 
 but because of the Pharisees, they did not con- 
 fess him ; . . . .for they loved the glory of men 
 more than the glory of God.'' 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q,. Uan any one, who is in a state of inortal 
 sin, merit heaven by any good work or works ? 
 
 A. No; he can neither merit justification, 
 nor heaven ; because, all the works he performs 
 v/hile in a state of mortal sin are dead works. 
 and of course have no merit. 
 
 Q. Can one who is in a state of grace mejnt 
 heaven ? 
 
 A. The just, who are in a state of grace, 
 may, by good works, merit an increase of glory 
 but even they can never, by any or every gooa 
 work, merit the first degree of glorv that is, 6 
 right to heaven. 
 
 J 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 143 
 
 Q. To ivho?n do ue owe our permission to 
 enter heaven ? 
 
 • A. Solely to the mercy of God and the 
 merits of Jesus Christ : for it is by the suffer- 
 ings and death of Jesus that we acquired heaven 
 as our inheritance ; and it is God's mercy alone, 
 which gave us such a Mediator and Redeemer. 
 
 Q. Why have you said that the just may, 
 by good works, mernt an increase of glory in 
 heaven ? 
 
 A. Because, in Scripture, heaven is proposed 
 to us as a recompense, and a recompense or 
 reward is due only to merit. 
 
 Q. What does St. Matthew say on this mat- 
 ter ? (Chap. V, 12.) 
 
 A. " Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is 
 very great in heaven." In Prov. chap, xi, 18 
 — " But to him that soweth in justice, there is 
 a faithful reward." St. James, chap, i, 12 — 
 " Blessed is the man that endureth tempta- 
 tion, for when he hath been proved, he shall 
 receive the crown of life, which God hath 
 promised to them that love him." St. Paul, 
 2 Tim. chap, iv, 7, adds : " I have fought a 
 good fight, I have finished my course, I have 
 kept the faith ; as to tlie rest, there is laid 
 up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord, 
 the just judge, will render to me in tha^ 
 day." 
 
144 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. What have Protestants to object ag^iinsi 
 this Scripfur^J doctrine ? 
 
 A. Nothing that is either rational or Scrip^ 
 tural : for the leirned arnons; themselves have 
 taught the very same. The Apology for the 
 Protestant Confession of Augsburg, p. 96. 
 isays : " We teach, that good works merit a 
 temporal and spiritual reward in this world, as 
 well as in the next." 
 
 Q. What then have Protestants to say to 
 Catholics on the subject of merit and good 
 works ? 
 
 A. All they have to say arises from their 
 ienorance of the Catholic doctrine. 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 Q. What is that which gives tneir value ic 
 good works ? 
 
 A. Sanctifying grace, w^hich is within us. 
 
 Q. Is this sanctifying grace oui own, 07 u 
 it from God? 
 
 A. It is the pure gift of God's liberality to us. 
 
 Q. How does St. Paul express himself otx 
 this subject ? (Rom., chap, v, 3.) 
 
 A. " The charity of God," he says, *' is poured 
 forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is 
 given to us." 
 
 Q. l\ hat are the effects of sanctifying gracf 
 
 [ 
 
^ DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 145 
 
 A. It makes us the friends and children o/ 
 God. 
 
 Q. To whom do we owe this inestimabU 
 grace 7 
 
 A, To the merits of J esus Christ, and to these 
 alone. 
 
 Q. Have you any thing to remark on the 
 efficacy of the merits of Christ ? 
 
 A, Yes ; he was not satisfied with meriting 
 heaven for us ; he also, by his grace, put us in 
 a condition to merit greater degrees of glory in 
 heaven. 
 
 Q. Does not our Saviour say, Luke, chap, 
 xvii, 10 — " So you also, when you shall have 
 done all those things that are commanded you. 
 say, we are unprofitable servants ?'' 
 
 A, This is quite in accordance with oui 
 doctrine ; we are certainly unprofitable servants 
 to God, whatever good we do ; for nothing 
 which we can do, either adds to, or takes from, 
 his essential glory. We are not, however, un 
 profitable servants to ourselves, since these 
 good works secure /or us the rewards God has 
 been pleased to promise. 
 
 Q. Could God order us to perform good 
 r:orks without promising us any recompense ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; because we are his creatures, 
 aP'^ the grace which enables us is his. The 
 Council of Trent, Sess. xvi, chap. 16, s^vs 
 
 13 
 
146 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 ** God's goodness to man is so great, that he 
 even desires his own gifts to be converted into 
 our merit." 
 
 Q. Have we reason to trust much in ou 
 good works ? 
 
 A. "God forbid/' says the same Council, 
 " that any Christian should glory, or confide in 
 himself, and not in the Lord." 
 
 Q. How is it, then, that Protestants re- 
 proach Catholics with placing too much conjL 
 dence in their good works ? 
 
 A. They reproach us, because they do not 
 know us : and the onlv return we should make 
 for their ill-treatment of us, is to pray, as Christ 
 did for the ignorant Jews, who put him to 
 death : " Father, forgive them, for they know 
 not what thev do." 
 
 CHAPTEK V. 
 
 Q. Can a man satisfy for his own sins ? 
 
 A. No ; neither man nor angel, nor both 
 men and angels, can ever satisfy for one mortal 
 sin. Jesus Christ alone could and has satisfied 
 for our sins. 
 
 Q. Can we apply to ourselves /\e satisfac- 
 tion of Jesus ? 
 
 A, We can, certainly, with the help of Ged'? 
 grace. 
 
 i 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 147 
 
 Q. How is the satisfaction of Christ ap- 
 plied to us ? 
 
 A In two ways, either when we leceive a 
 full remission of temporal as well as eternal 
 punishment, or when the eternal is remitted 
 and some temporal punishment is reserved for 
 us to endure. 
 
 Q. In what case are both the eternal and 
 ^.eviporal punishment remitted hy the applica- 
 tion of the satisfaction of Christ to our souls ? 
 
 A. In baptism, by which all sin, and all pun- 
 ishment due to sin, is remitted. 
 
 Q. When are the satisfactions of Jesus so 
 applied to our souls, that, though the eternal 
 punishment he i^emitted, we may have some tem- 
 poral punishment to endure? 
 
 A, Commonly in the sacrament of penance. 
 
 Q. Are not the guilt and the punishmeni 
 remitted together ? 
 
 A, No ; for it often happens that God, in 
 forgiving the sinner, changes the eternal punish- 
 ment which he has deserved by his si-ns, into a 
 temporal or temporary punishment. 
 
 Q. Make this clear hy an example from 
 2 Kings, xii chap. 
 
 A, David is guilty of murder, which deserves 
 the eternal punishment of hell. Nathan warns 
 him of his danger. David repents — * I have/' 
 says he, ** sinned against the Lord." Natiian 
 
148 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 replies — ' The Lord also hath taken away thy 
 SIN ; THovj SHALT NOT DIE." Bchold the eter- 
 nal punishment taken away ; but what is sub- 
 stituted in its place ? Mark what follows, a 
 temporal punishment is substituted in its place 
 — " Nevertheless, because thou hast given oc- 
 casion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme ; 
 for this thing, the child that is born to thee 
 SHALL SURELY DIE." (Prot. Vcrs., 2 Sam. xii.) 
 
 Q. Give another Scriptural example that all 
 doubt may he removed. 
 
 A. In the xxiv chap, of same Book, (Protest. 
 Vers., 2 Sam. xxiv chap.,) David repents of 
 his sinful pride in numbering the people : God 
 forgives him, but on condition, that he should 
 suffer, as a temporal punishment, either seven 
 years of famine, or th^ee months of flight be- 
 fore his enemies, or thi^ee days of pestilence ; 
 and, in addition, the prophet Gad orders him to 
 erect an altar and offer sacrifice to the Lord. 
 
 Q. Can the penitent sinner pay, in any 
 manner, the debt of temporal punishme?it which 
 is due to the justice of God ? 
 
 A. Yes ; as is quite evident from the above 
 two passages. Indeed, the Scripture counsels 
 it in express terms. Daniel, chap, iv, 24 — 
 ^ Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be accepl- 
 nble to thee ; redeem thou thy sins with alms 
 ^d thy iniquities with works of mercy 
 
 j 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECH 'SM. 149 
 
 the pojr." The same may be drawn from 
 Protestant Vers., chap, iv, 27, though much 
 corrupted to suit a Protestant purpose. Our 
 Saviour himself, Luke, chap, xi, 4, says : " Give 
 
 ALMS, and BEHOLD ALL THINGS ARE CLEAN UNTG 
 VOU." 
 
 ON INDULGENCES 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 (4. What is an Indulgence ? 
 
 A. It is a remission of the temporal punish 
 ment due to venial sin, and also to mortal sin, 
 after the eternal punishment has been remitted, 
 as mentioned above in the case of David. 
 
 Q. Are sins remitted by Indulgences ? 
 
 A, No : sins are remitted by the sacraments 
 of baptism and penance. 
 
 Q. Has the Church the power to remit tem- 
 poral punishments ? 
 
 A, When the applicant or sinner is properly 
 disposed, the Church has power to remove 
 every obstacle to his admission into heaven : 
 but a debt of temporal punishment, due to God's 
 justice, is a temporary obstacle ; therefore the 
 Church has power to remove it. That this 
 proposition is most certainly true, is evident 
 from Matth., chap, xviii, 18 : '' Whatsoevei 
 
 13* 
 
150 A DOJIRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 you shall bind upon earth, shall be boun(1 
 also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose 
 upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven/' 
 From which it is more than evident, thai the 
 powers of the Church, over sin and its punish- 
 ment, are not in any way confined or restrained, 
 provided always, that the sinner have the proper 
 dispositions ; and if the Church has power to 
 remit the sin itself, (as beyond all doubt she has,) 
 she has surely power to remit the temporal 
 punishment due to sin. 
 
 Q. Are Indulgences of very ancient date in 
 the Church ? 
 
 A, Yes ; since the very commencement of 
 Christianity. 
 
 Q. Give us a clear instance of their early 
 use. 
 
 A, St. Paul granted an Indulgence to the 
 incestuous Corinthian, by the remission of the 
 temporal punishment to which he had subjected 
 that public sinner ; and the Apostle declares, 
 that it is by the powder of Christ, and in Christ's 
 person, he acts in this matter — 2 Cor. chap, ii, 
 1 : — " For what I have pardoned, if I have 
 pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done 
 it in the person of Christ.'' 
 
 Q. Is this temporal punishment always in- 
 jlicted in this life ? 
 
 A. It may be inflicted here, or in Purgatory 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 151 
 
 liereafter ; and if not discharged here, it must 
 be discharged hereafter. 
 
 Q. Do the Fathers of the early Church speak 
 of Indulgences or the remission of temporal 
 punishment 1 
 
 A. Yes ; St. Cyprian, Epist. 18th, says, that 
 the bishops of the Church granted (hke St. Paul) 
 a remission of the canonical penances and peni- 
 tential works, by the mediation of holy con- 
 fessors or martyrs, " the abundance of whose 
 merits might supply for the want of their 
 brethren," according to that of St. Paul : " I 
 now rejoice in suffering for you!' — Col. chap, 
 i, 24. 
 
 Q. Have any Councils spoken on this sub- 
 ject ? 
 
 A, The Council of Ancyra (anno 314) orders 
 the bishops, " having considered the conduct of 
 the penitents, to show them mercy, or to lengthen 
 the time of their penance!' 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from this 
 practice of the Church in ancient times ? 
 
 A. That, in the remission of the canonical 
 penances, she also remitted so much of the 
 temporal punishment before God. 
 
 Q. Why ? what connection is there between 
 the one and the other? 
 
 A. The canonical penances were inflicted 
 by God's Church as a temporal punishmeat 
 
152 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 — — ^— _^ — - —-^ 
 
 due to sm. This as inflicted by his ChurcK 
 is accepted by God, either as the whole or 
 a part of what his justice demands ; for what- 
 ever his true Church does, is done by him- 
 self — " As my Father sent me, even so 1 
 send you ;" " Whatsoever you shall loose 
 in earth, shall be loosed also in heaven ;'" 
 '' He that heareth you, heareth me ;" &c 
 &c. 
 
 Q. Can any Indulgence or leave he granted 
 by any power on earth to commit sin ? 
 
 A. No ; nor can God him&elf give leave to 
 commit what is of its own nature sinful. 
 
 Q. Does not the Pope give leave to tell lies, 
 and commit perjury, and make mental reserva- 
 tions, and he disloyal, and persecute Protest- 
 ants, ichen these appear to him to promote the 
 Catholic cause ? 
 
 A. No ; these are all Protestant calum- 
 nies. 
 
 Q. Would dispensations or pardons grant- 
 ed for any such ends have any validity ? 
 
 A. No ; they would only add sacrilege to 
 blasphemy. 
 
 Q. Is it an article of the Catholic faith, 
 that temporal punishment is remitted befoix 
 God hy an Indulgence ? 
 
 A. It is not so defined in express terms , 
 but by what is defined on the subject, and 
 by necessary consequence from other doc- 
 trines, bearing on this, it is and always has 
 been held by Catholics as substantially o/ 
 faith, although not formally so defined. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 153 
 
 Q.. What has the Church decided on this 
 mhject ? 
 
 A, That God has left in his Church the 
 power of granting Indulgences, and that In- 
 dulgences are extremely advantageous to the 
 Christian people. Decret. 1, de Indul. Sess. 25. 
 
 Q. Is there any thing in this decree with 
 which Protestants can reasonably he offended? 
 
 A, No ; for they themselves grant Indul- 
 gences of their own, as is evident from the his- 
 tory of the cutty stool. For particular sins, those 
 who were rich were mulcted in a pecuniary 
 fine, and those who were poor were obliged to 
 give satisfaction before the whole congregation. 
 Now, either this was of use to the sinner or it 
 was not ; if the former, it was an Indulgence • 
 if the latter, then for what pui'pose was it prac- 
 tised ? For further proof of the practice of the 
 ancient and puie Church, see Coun. of Nice, 
 (anno 325,) Can. xii. Cone. Gen. T. 2 
 
 ON THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. Who is the true and chief head of the 
 Church? 
 
154 A DOCTRINAL CATE(!HISM. 
 
 A, Jesus Christ is the true head of the Churcf\ 
 who, being himself invisible, governs his Church 
 from Leaven in an invisible manner. 
 
 Q.. Did Jesus Christ appoint any vicar on 
 earth to govern his Church in quality of visihle 
 chief or head ? 
 
 A. Yes ; he appointed for that purpose St. 
 Peter and his successors. 
 
 Q. Did St. Peter receive more power than 
 the other Apostles from Christ? 
 
 A, Yes ; as is evident from many passages 
 of Scripture. 
 
 Q. Quote St. Matthew, chap. xvi. 
 
 A. " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock 1 
 will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it." 
 
 Q. What is meant here by the word " rock ?'' 
 
 A. Peter himself. 
 
 Q. Why? 
 
 A. Because in John, chap, i, 42, Christ, in 
 calling Peter, gives him a new name, which 
 signifies a rock, and which explains clearly the 
 meaning of the word " rock" in the above text. 
 " Thou art Simon the son of Jona, thou shalt 
 be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter, 
 or a rock." Our Saviour spoke in the Syriac 
 language, and in that language, Cephas is the 
 same as Petros in the Greek, both meaning a 
 rock , indeed, the words of Christ, literally in- 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATHCHISM. 155 
 
 terpreted, have this meaning: ''Thou art (k 
 rock, and upon this rock I will build my 
 ChurchJ' Such words were not addressed 
 to any other Apostle. 
 
 Q. What are the words of the text immedi- 
 ately following ? Matth. chap, xvi, 19. 
 
 A. " And I will give to thee (Peter) the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou 
 shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in 
 heaven ; and whatsoever thou shall loose on 
 earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." 
 
 Q. Did not Christ address the same words 
 to all the Apostles ? 
 
 A. On this occasion, he addressed these words 
 to Peter alone, which makes it quite evident 
 that he intended to confer on Peter a peculiar 
 power ; when he addressed the other Apostles 
 in these words, he did so generally and to all 
 in common, 
 
 Q. What does Christ say to Peter — John 
 xxi, 15, 16, 17? 
 
 A. " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." And 
 the Fathers of the Church have understood by 
 the lambs, the lay faithful people ; and by the 
 sheep, the pastors of the people ; for as the 
 sheep nourish the lambs, so do the pastors of tlie 
 Church tend, and spiritually feed, their flocks. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from the ahcn^ 
 ?cmmission given only to Peter ? 
 
156 A DOCTRINAL, CATECHISM. 
 
 A. That Christ gave the charge of the whole 
 Church, pastors and people, sheep and lambs. 
 to Peter alone. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q,. Have you any other proofs of St. Peter s 
 Primacy or supremacy 1 
 
 A, Yes ; in Luke, chap, xxii, v. 26, Christ 
 says to his Apostles, " He that is greater among 
 you, let him become as the younger ; and he 
 that is the" leader, as he that serveti»." There- 
 fore there was a greater, or leader, amongs 
 the Apostles, otherwise Christ's words could 
 have no meaning ; but if there was a leader. 
 Peter, and no other, was that man. 
 
 Q. Does Christ anywhere offer iip a special 
 prayer for Peter s faith, icithout including, in 
 this prayer, the rest of the Apostles ? 
 
 A, Yes ; Luke xxii, 32, — Christ says to Pe- 
 ter these w^ords : — " But I have prayed for thee, 
 that thy faith fail ivwdt ; and thou, being once 
 converted, confirm thy brethren.'' From 
 which it is clear, that Peter had a superiority 
 over his brethren given him by Christ; for if 
 he was only their equal, how could he confijvn 
 them ? 
 
 Q. Why does Christ — John, chap, xxi, 15 
 before giving Peter the special charge of all 
 
 
A DOCTRINAL GATEC;..SM. 157 
 
 Chris fs lambs and sheep, ask that Apostle 
 whether he loves him (Christ) more than the 
 other Apostles love him? 
 
 A, Christ evidently requires greater love 
 from Peter, because he is to confer a greater 
 dignity upon him, committing to his care the 
 whole Christian community, pastors and people. 
 
 Q. Have you any other Scriptural proof of 
 Peter s superiority ? 
 
 A. When the Scripture gives the names ol 
 the Apostles in order, Peter's name is always 
 placed first. (Matth. chap, x.) Nor can it 
 be alleged that this was done because Peter 
 was the oldest, for Andrew was Peter's elder, 
 and was even the first to follow Christ. St. 
 Ambrose, in Epist. ii, ad Cor. cap. xii, says, 
 '' Not Andrew, but Peter was chief amongst 
 the Apostles." St. Angus, lib. de Baptis., says : 
 •' Behold Peter, who held the pre-eminence 
 with such lustre." St. Optat., lib. contra Par- 
 .nen., adds : " Peter was appointed chief of the 
 Apostles, to the end that unity might be pre- 
 served in the Church." 
 
 Q. Did Peter act at any time as chief 
 functionary of the Church ? 
 
 A, He did so immediately after the Ascen 
 sion of our Lord. He assembled the Apostles ; 
 he presided at the election of an Apostle to re- 
 j>lac-e Judas. (Acts, chap, i.) Peter was the 
 
 14 
 
jl58 a doctrinal catechism 
 
 first to preach Jesus Christ crucified, and, by 
 the conversion of three thousand at his first 
 sermon, first gave form to the Christian Church, 
 verifying the words of Christ, that he should le 
 the rock or foundation from which the Church 
 should rise. (A.cts, chap, ii.) He is first to 
 teach the admission of the Pagans or heathens 
 to baptism, which matter he alone was taught 
 by a revelation from heaven. (Acts, chap, x.) 
 He works the first miracles, at the Beautiful 
 gate of the Temple, on the lame man, (Acts, 
 chap, iii,) on iEneas and Tabitha, (Acts, chap, 
 ix,) and as a punishment on Ananias and Sap- 
 phira, (Acts, chap, v.) 
 
 Q. Does it appear, from any other circiLrri' 
 stances, that Peter was chief amongst the Apes ■ 
 ties ? 
 
 A. Yes ; for when he was cast . into prison 
 the whole Church prayed for him, nor was this 
 done for any of the other Apostles ; to him 
 alone did heaven vouchsafe an angel as a de- 
 liverer from his prison, (Acts, chap, xii.) 
 
 Q. Did Peter act as presiding teacher 
 amongst the Apostles ? 
 
 A, Yes ; he decided, in the first Council held 
 at Jerusalem by the Apostles, that the Chris- 
 tians should not be subjected to the Jewish rite 
 of circumcision ; St. Paul, though an Apostle, 
 d'd not venture t^- decide upon it. "Men 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATZClll.^M. 159 
 
 brethren," said Peter, " you know that in former 
 davs God made choice among us, that by my 
 mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the 
 Gospel ;" and, when Peter had made an end of 
 speaking, " all the multitude held their peac, ;'' 
 and even James himself, who was bishop of 
 Jerusalem, where the Apostles were assembled^ 
 rose only to repeat St. Peter's decision, and to 
 acquiesce in it, (Acts, xv.) 
 
 Q. What dq you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. That there is not one truth more clearly 
 established in Scripture, than the superiority or 
 supremacy of Peter, and that the acrimonious 
 attacks of Protestants on this article of the 
 Christian faith, only prove that they make a 
 sport of the Scripture, except in as far as it 
 supplies them with some passages, seeming to 
 bear two meanings, which they pervert, in order 
 to prop up the tottering fabrics of contradictory 
 and contrary schisms. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q,. The supremacy of St. Peter once estab- 
 lished, what necessarily follows ? 
 
 A. That all the successors of St. Peter hold 
 f.he same rank and power ; because the form 
 of government, established by Christ in his 
 Church, was not to last merely duriiig one or 
 
160 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 two centuries, but always, like the Churchy 
 until the consummation of the world. 
 
 Q. Wh^ are the successors of St. Peter <' 
 •A. The bishops of Rome, in which capital 
 of the world, St. Peter established his See and 
 andea his life. 
 
 Q. What reply do you make to those who 
 pretend to hold that St. Peter never was at 
 Rome ? 
 
 A. We put the following rath^' troublesome 
 questions to them. In the first place, tell us, 
 if St. Peter did not suffer martyrdom at Rome 
 under the Emperor Nero, in what part of the 
 world, and when did he die ? Secondly, if St. 
 Peter did not die at Rome, at what time, an<:^ 
 from what country, were his relics or remains 
 transported thither, for there they are beyond 
 all doubt ? Thirdly, did not the Fathers of the 
 early and pure Church, who lived near to the 
 time of St. Peter, know better than Protestants, 
 who made their first appearance only three 
 hundred years ago, who was the first bishop of 
 Rome ? 
 
 Q. Do any of these Fathers say St. Peter 
 'tias the first ? 
 
 A. Yes ; St. Augustine, Ep. ad Gener., enu- 
 merating the bishops who had governed the 
 Church of Rome, begins thus — Peter was the 
 first, to Peter succeeded Linus, and to Linus, 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 16] 
 
 Clement. St. Ootatus, contra Parmen. — **' St. 
 Peter first occupied the See of Rome, to him 
 Linus sucnceeded, and after Linus, Clement." 
 St. Ireneus, lib. iii, cap. 3 ; St. Epiphanius, de 
 27 Heres. ; and all the other Fathers who havo 
 >j;iven a catalogue of the bishops of Rome, 
 assign the first occupation of that See to Pe- 
 ter. St. Leo, in Ser. de Petro et Paulo, says : 
 " Rome became the capital of the Christian 
 world, because St. Peter established his See 
 in Rome." In Pream. Concil. Chalc, and also 
 in Coun. Ephes., it is said, that " Peter Hves, 
 judges, and defines, in his successors'' " Happy 
 Church," says Tertullian, addressing the Church 
 of Rome, " which the Great Apostles fully im- 
 pregnated with all their doctrine and all their 
 hloodr 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. Do all the faithful owe obedience to the 
 bishop of Rome 1 
 
 A, Yes ; all are bound to obey him as the 
 vicar of Jesus Christ, the chief b/shop of the 
 whole Christian Church. 
 
 Q Is it a grievous sin to refuse submission 
 to the sovereign Pontiff? 
 
 A. " Whoever oppose," says St. Paul, " the 
 lawful authorities, oppose the or^^r of the Al 
 
 14* 
 
162 A UUC'i i?:N AL CATECHISM. 
 
 mighty, and those who resist such authorities^ 
 bring condemnation on themselves." 
 
 Q. Is it necessary that all Christian Churcaes 
 be in strict comrr.union with the See of Rome ? 
 
 A So all the Fathers teach. St. Ireneus, 
 lib. iii, cap. 3, says : " The Roman Church is 
 the principal, and hence all other Churches 
 must be united to her." St. Cyprian, lib. i, 
 Epist. 8 — " There is only one God, one Christ, 
 one Church, one chair of Peter, established by 
 the Word of Christ himself." St. Jerom, 
 Epist. to Pope Damasus — '• I am attached to 
 your chair, which is that of St. Peter, — I krK)w 
 that the Church is built upon that rock ;'" ana 
 again, " Whoever eats not the Lamb in that 
 house, is profane ; w^hoever takes not refuge in 
 that ark, shall perish in the waters, of the deluge ; 
 whoever is not with you, is against Jesus 
 Chinst ; whoever gathereth not with you, scat- 
 tereth abroad." 
 
 Q. Why is the Catholic Church called alsc 
 Roman ? 
 
 A, Because the Catholic Churches of all na- 
 tions and ages have honored the See of Rome, 
 and, on account of its " superior headship,'' have 
 aiways gloried in tb.e profession of the r at 
 :achment to it. 
 
A DOCTRINAU 1 V TECHISM 163 
 
 ON THE INJURIOUS ASSERTION OF PROTEST. 
 A«TS, THAT THE POPE IS ANTICHRIST. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. Has this assertion any foundation in 
 Scripture ? 
 
 A, That the Antichrist will come before the 
 end of the world, the Scripture abundantly 
 proves ; but that the Pope is that Antichrist, is 
 not only unscriptural, but antiscriptural. 
 
 Q. Where in Scripture do you find the in- 
 solent assertion refuted? 
 
 A, In very many places. In Matth. xxiv, 
 wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, false 
 pjophets, tribulation, such as hath never been, 
 nir shall he, and all this before the abomination 
 of desolation (the Antichrist) shall be seen 
 ^landing in the holy place ; therefore, as these 
 extraordinary scourges have not yet made their 
 appearance, Antichrist has not yet come. In 
 the same place, it is said, the Gospel shall he 
 preached in the whole world, before the Anti- 
 christ and the consummation come. But the 
 Gospel has not yet been preached in the whole 
 world ; therefore, the Antichrist has not yet 
 come ; therefore the Popes, who have existed 
 even since the time of Christ, cannot be the 
 Aatichrist. 
 
Er>4 A L>UCTRl?w\L CATECHISM. 
 
 vr). Have you any other texts ? 
 
 A, Yes ; te:S:ts in abundance. Daniel, cnap. 
 vii, connects the ahomination of desolation, oi 
 the Antichrist, with the placing of thrones and 
 the sitting in judgment of the Ancient of 
 days. He gives power to the beast for a time, 
 times, and half a time, or three years and a 
 half, which exactly agrees with the period of 
 his career fixed in the Apocalypse, (chap, xi,) 
 forty-two months or twelve hundred and sixty 
 days. Therefore, Antichrist's reign is to be 
 only three and a half years, and these immedi- 
 ately before the last judgment. But the Popes 
 have reigned since the time of Christ ; therefore 
 the Popes cannot be Antichrist. 
 
 Q. What does the Apocalypse say, chap, xi ? 
 
 A. That, during the above reign of Anti- 
 christ, during twelve hundred and sixty days, 
 Henoch and Elias will preach against him. 
 But Henoch and Elias have not yet come; 
 therefore, neither has Antichrist. 
 
 Q. What says ISth chap, of same Book? 
 
 A. That Antichrist wdll mark on the 7nght 
 hand or forehead all his followers ; but the 
 Pope has not done so ; therefore he is not 
 Antichrist. Again, no man is to be allowed 
 to buy or sell, but he that hath the character, 
 or the name of the beast, or the i umber oi' his 
 name. But Catholics have neither h's charac- 
 
A DOCTRINAL CA JECHISM. 165 
 
 fe®^j nor riaine, nor number, nor has the Pope 
 p*evented ihem from buying or selling ; there 
 fore, again, the Pope is not Antichrist. 
 
 Q. What do you find in Apoc. xiii chap. ? 
 
 A, That Antichrist is to open his mouth into 
 blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name 
 and his tabernacle and them that dwell in 
 heaven. But the Pope has made God's holy 
 name honored and adored in every clime and 
 at all times ; through him w^as the world con- 
 verted to Christ ; it was he who converted all 
 the Protestants from barbaric Paganism ; the 
 Pope honors and venerates them that dwell in 
 heaven, — 'tis Protestants who dishonor and 
 blaspheme the angels and saints, them that dwell 
 in heaven ; therefore the Pope, at least, is not 
 Antichrist. The above text would go far to 
 prove, that Antichrist is, or will be, a Protestant. 
 
 Q. What remark do you make on Apocal. 
 xvii, 7 ? 
 
 A, It says: "The heast which thou sawest, 
 was and is not, and shall come up out of the 
 bottomless pit." But these words cannot be 
 verified in any Pope ; therefore, the Pope is not 
 Antichrist. 
 
 Q. Is it clear from Scripture that Rome will 
 he the seat of Antichrist ? 
 
 A. No ; it is much more evident that Jeru- 
 salem will he his seaf . In the Gospel of St 
 
166 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 Matth. chap, xxiv, Christ speaks first of the 
 temple of Jerusalem, and immediately after 
 comiects this with the ahoininatiort of desolation 
 to be seen standing in the holy place ; evidently 
 pointing out that temple as the holy place where 
 the beast should be enthroned : and this is clear- 
 ly confirmed by the Apoc. chap, xi, 8, where, 
 -^peaking of the wars to be carried on by Anti- 
 christ, and of those that were to be slain bv 
 aim, St. John says : "And their bodies shall lie 
 in the streets of the gi^eat city, which is spirit- 
 ually called Sodom and Egypt, where their 
 Lord also was crucified." Now, the Lord 
 was crucified in Jerusalem, not in Rome ; 
 therefore Jerusalem, not Rome, will be the seat 
 of Antichrist. See also, on this subject, 11th, 
 12th, 13th, and 17th chaps, of Apocalypse. 
 
 ON THE COUNCILS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. How many kinds of Councils are tnere f 
 A. Two kinds ; genera, and particular Coun- 
 cils. 
 
 Q. What IS a general oj aBcumer^ica* 
 Council ? 
 
A DOCIRINAL CATECHISM. 161 
 
 A, An assembly of bishops, to which all the 
 bishops of the world are invited or summoned, 
 presided over by the Pope, or his legates, or at 
 least confirmed and approved by him. 
 
 Q. What is a particular, national, or pro- 
 vincial Council ? 
 
 A. An assembly of bishops, to which are 
 invited all the bishops of a nation or prov- 
 ince. 
 
 Q. Can a Council err in its decision on any 
 matter of faith ? 
 
 A. General or oecumenical Councils are in- 
 fallible in matters of faith ; not so particular 
 Councils. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that a general Council 
 is infallible ? 
 
 A. Because, if a general Council erred in a 
 matter of faith, the whole Church would be in 
 error ; now this cannot be, because the gates 
 of hell shall never prevail against the Church. 
 
 Q. Why do you say the whole Church would 
 e^r, if a general Council taught error ? 
 
 A, Because the bishops assembled in a gen- 
 eral Council .represent the whole Church, and 
 any error taught b}' them, is consequently an 
 error of the whole Church. 
 
 Q. In what light, then, are we to look on tf^ 
 decisii n of a general Council ? 
 
 A As the decision of the Holy Ghost. 
 
if58 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. How does St. Peter speak at the Jirst 
 general Council ? Acts, chap, xv, 28. 
 
 A. "It hath," he says, ''seemed good to tht 
 Holy Ghost and lo us, to lay no farther bur- 
 den upon you." 
 
 Q. Is it a great sin to refuse submission tc 
 a general Council ? 
 
 A. It is the greatest act of criminal pride 
 and presumption, accompanied by the awful 
 guilt of heresy or schism, or both. We call 
 it extremely criminal, as well as irrational ; 
 because the man who will not submit, prefers 
 his own single opinion — and this in a matter, 
 regarding which he is neither qualified nor 
 authorized to judge — to the deliberately formed 
 decision of an immense assemblage of the best 
 qualified, and most competently authorized, le- 
 gitimate judges. 
 
 Q. May it not he said, that we are obligea 
 to abide by the decisions of a general Council, 
 only when these are in accordance with the 
 Word of God? 
 
 A. This is a mere piece of sophistry ; it sup- 
 poses that the Church may te.ach what is op- 
 posed to God's Word. Now, this is impossible ; 
 for in that case, God must have failed in his 
 word, — his Holy Spirit, as he promised, would 
 not have taught his Church all truth for ever, 
 — the gates of hell would have prevailed against 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 169 
 
 aer. God aid not tell the world to be guided 
 3y what they thought conformable to the Scrip- 
 lure, — He sent his pastors to teach all nations, 
 ind told the nations, that he who would not 
 believe these should be condemned. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. How many general Councils have been 
 held? 
 
 A Besides that held by the Apostles and 
 first Pastors of the Church, nineteen others 
 have been held. 
 
 Q. Where and when were the four Jirst 
 general Councils held ? 
 
 A. The first at Nice in 325, the second at 
 Constantinople in 381, the third at Ephesus in 
 431, the fourth at Chalcedon in 451. 
 
 Q. How many general Councils were helu 
 at Constantinople ? 
 
 A. Four in all ; in the years 381, 553, 680. 
 809, respectively. 
 
 Q. How many at ike Lateran in Rome? 
 
 A, Five; in the years 1123^ 1139, 1179, 
 1215 and 1512. 
 
 Q. How many at Nice ? 
 
 A, Two; the first in 325, the second in 787 
 
 Q. How many at Lyons.? 
 
 A Two : one in 1245, the other in 1274 
 
 15 
 
170 A DOCTEINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A general Council was held at Vienne in 
 1311 ; one at Florence in 1139 ; one at Trent* 
 in 1545. 
 
 Q, Were the Lutheran and Calvinist minis- 
 ters invited to assist at the Council of Trent ? 
 
 A. Yes ; they were entreated to attend, and 
 every safe-conduct they could desire. offered 
 them ; it was their own fault that they were 
 not present. 
 
 Q. Are Protestants hound to obey the decisions 
 of this Council of Trent ? 
 
 A. Certainly; because these decisions ema- 
 nated from the lawfully constituted judges of 
 the true Church of Christ. 
 
 Q. What ivas the last General Council? 
 
 A, The Council of the Vatican, held at 
 Rome, December 8, 1869. 
 
 Q, How many ecclesiastical dignitaries at- 
 tended it ? 
 
 A. Forty-nine cardinals and 694 patriarchs, 
 archbishops and bishops from all parts of the 
 world. 
 
 Q. What dogma was defined in this Council ? 
 
 A, The dogma of Papal Infallibihty ; that 
 the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra^ that is, 
 when he defines a doctrine regarding faith 
 or morals, is possessed of that infalHbility with 
 which our Redeemer endowed the church. 
 
 1 
 
A DOCTrjNAL CATECHISM. 171 
 
 Q, When does the Pope speah ex cathedra ? 
 
 A, The Pope speaks ex cailiedra^ when in his 
 character of Universal Master and Pastor of all 
 Christians, by his sovereign and apostolic 
 authority, he defines some doctrine regarding 
 faith or morals for the whole Catholic Church. 
 
 Q, Whence comes it that the Pope cannot 
 teach error in place of truth F 
 
 A, He is infallible : because God assists 
 him, because the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of all 
 truth, aids him according to the promise made 
 to Peter, and in him, to his successors. 
 
 Q, Were the decrees of the Vatican Council 
 accepted hy the bishops of the Catholic Church? 
 
 A, With wonderful unanimity, not one 
 bishop in the whole world refused to accept 
 them. 
 
 ON THE OBEDIENCE DUE TO THE CHURCH, 
 
 CHAPTEK I. 
 
 Q. Are we obliged to obey the Church ? 
 
 A, Yes ; because our Saviour says, Matth. 
 chap, xviii, 17: "If he will not hear the 
 Church, let him be to thee as the heathen 
 and the pubhcan." 
 
172 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. What does Christ say to the pastors of 
 the Church ? Luke, chap, x, 16. 
 
 A . " He that heareth you, heareth me ; and 
 he that despiseth you, despiseth me ; aud he 
 that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul? Heb. chap, xiii, 17, 
 
 A. " Obey your prelates, and be subject to 
 them ; for they watch, as being to render an 
 account for your souls." 
 
 Q. A?x we bound, in conscience, to obey the 
 ecclesiastical, as well as the civil powers ? 
 
 A. Yes ; because both are instituted by the 
 appointment of God. St. Paul, Rom. xiii, 1, 2, 3, 
 &c., — " Let every soul be subject to higher 
 powers; for there is no power but from God ; 
 and those that are, are ordained of God ; there* 
 fore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the 
 ordinance of God ; and they that resist pur- 
 chase to themselves damnation, .... wherefore 
 be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but 
 ^Iso /or conscience sake.'' 
 
 Q. What follows from these passages ! 
 
 A. That we are obliged to obey the civil 
 authorities, and to observe the commandments 
 of the Church. 
 
 Q. But are not the commandments of the 
 Church the mere commandments of men ? 
 
 A. True ; but we are obliged to keep the 
 commandments of men, when God ordains it 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 17S 
 
 for example, the command of a fathei or a 
 magistrate; is only the commandment of man , 
 yet we are bound to observe both, because God 
 so oi'dains ; thus also are we bound to ob^y the 
 Church, because it is the command of God that 
 we should do so. 
 
 Q. Does not Christ say, Matth. chap, xv, 
 9 : "In vain do they worship me, teaching 
 doctrines and commandments of men ?'' 
 
 A, Yes ; but Christ speaks here of vain and 
 useless human commandments, not in accord- 
 ance with, but opposed to, his law. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Q. To what purpose are the commanaments 
 of the Church ^ 
 
 A. They serve to lead us to the better ob- 
 servance of the commandments of God. Thus 
 the law of God ordains, that we render to him 
 the worship that is due to him, — that we should 
 fast and confess our sins, and receive the holy 
 communion ; but the law of God does not tell 
 us how, or wheUj or how often, it is necessary 
 to perform these acts of religion ; he has left 
 it to the Church to settle these matteis of de- 
 tail. 
 
 (^ Has the Church any right to appoint 
 feast-days ? 
 
 15* 
 
174 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A, The Christian Church has surely a right 
 which even tlire Jewish Church possessed. 
 
 Q. Where do you find, in the Old Testa- 
 ment, feasts of pi'ecept instituted by the syna- 
 gogue ? 
 
 A. In the Book of Esther, chap. 9th, and m 
 the last chapter of the Book of Judith. 
 
 Q. Have you any other way of proving that 
 the Church has power to institute festivals of 
 precept 1 
 
 A. Had she not such power, she could not 
 have done that in which all modern reHgionists 
 agree with her ; — she could not have substituted 
 the observance of Sunday the first day of the 
 week, for the observance of Saturday the sev- 
 enth day, a change for which there is no Scrip 
 tural authority. 
 
 Q. Has the Church power to appoint days 
 f fasting ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; for St. Augustine, one of the 
 bishops of the early and confessedly pure Church, 
 taxed Aerius with heresy, for having disputed 
 that right. 
 
 A. Can the Church forbid us the use o1 
 certain kinds of food on particular days ? 
 
 A. Yes ; for she did so even in the time o^ 
 the Apostles, Acts xv, 29 — " That you abstain 
 from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, 
 and fro.nn tJiings strangled '' 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 175 
 
 Q. If the Christians of these times had used 
 these forbidden meats, would they have comtait- 
 ted sin ? 
 
 A, Certainly ; because, in that case, they 
 would have violated a commandment of the 
 Church. 
 
 Q. May not Protestants s..y, that that which 
 entereth by the mouth dejileth not the man 1 
 
 A, Yes ; but we reply it is not the meat, it 
 Is the disobedience, which renders the man un- 
 clean ; and w^e ask them, where did Adam and 
 Eve put the fatal apple ? Besides, in the pas- 
 sage alluded to, Matth. xv, 11, Christ is speak- 
 ing, not of food taken in opposition to a precept 
 of his Church, but merely of food taken with 
 unwashed hands. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. Why does the Church forbid certavn 
 meats on particular days ? 
 
 A. Not that in these meats there is anj 
 thing unclean, but to chastise and mortify the 
 bodv. 
 
 Q. Were there not some heretics in ancient 
 times, who termed certain kinds of food unclean 
 and the creatures of the devil ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the Marcionites and Manicheans ; 
 and this doctrine of theirs is styled by the 
 Apostle the doctrine of the devil. 
 
176 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Is it a very ancient Christian practice 
 to abstain from the use of flesh meat two days 
 in the week ? 
 
 A. Yes ; this practice commenced with Chris- 
 tianity itself; for St. Epiphanius, in his Cate- 
 chetical Instructions, says : '' An Apostolic law 
 has ordained a fast of two days in the week/' 
 
 Q. Were Friday and Saturday the two days 
 of abstinence always observed over the whole 
 Christian Church ? 
 
 A. No ; in some places the Wednesday and 
 Friday were the days observed ; and as to 
 tkese disciplinary portions of Christian doc- 
 trine, it is proper, as St. Jerome remarks, to. 
 conform to the usages of the Church where we 
 may happen to dwell. 
 
 Q. Why have the Greeks appointed Wednes- 
 days and Fridays, as their days of abstinence ? 
 
 A. Because Christ was sold or betrayed on 
 Wednesday, and put to death on Friday. 
 
 Q, Why does the Western or Latin Church 
 observe Friday and Saturday ? 
 
 A. In honor of the death and burial of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Q. Does not the Apostle blame the Colossians 
 for saying: "Touch not, taste not, handle 
 not /' and again : " Let no man . therefore 
 judge you in meat or in drink ?" — Coloss. chapt 
 ii, 16. 
 
\ DOCTRliXAl. CATECHISM. v 177 
 
 A. The Apostle is speaking here of the Jew- 
 ish distinctions between meats ; they consider- 
 ed some meats in themselves clean and others 
 unclean ; it is this false and superstitious no- 
 tion, as well as other abrogated Jewish ob- 
 servances, that the Apostle here condemns ; 
 and this is quite evident from the words imme- 
 diately following those above quoted : " Let 
 no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, 
 or in respect of a festival day, or of the new 
 
 MOON, OR OF THE SABBATHS." 
 
 Q. Does he not say, 2d Cor. iii, 17 : " Where 
 the Spirit af the Lord is, there is liberty?" 
 
 A, Why, this text may be quoted with as 
 good a grace to throw off the whole law of 
 God. " Liberty ;" yes ; but a rational and re- 
 ligious liberty consistent with "the obligations 
 and duties of one bound to observe the laws of 
 Christ. "Free," as St. Peter says, "as/r'^e, 
 and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, 
 but as the servants of God." — 1 Peter, chap 
 ii, 16. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. Who established Lent? 
 A, The Apostles. 
 Q, How do you prove this ? 
 A Firstly, by the rule of St. Augustine , 
 and, secondly, by the testimony of the Fathers. 
 
178 ^ A DOCTRlxNAL CATECJllSM. 
 
 Q. What is St. Augustine s rule? (Epist 
 J 8th.) 
 
 A. " Every practice received by the whoh 
 Church, whose origin cannot be traced to any 
 bishop, or Pope, or Council, must be regarded 
 as an Apostolical institution'' Now Lent has 
 l)een observed in all Christian ages and nations, 
 and cannot be traced to any merely human 
 source posterior to the time of the Apostles ; 
 therefore it was instituted by the Apostles. 
 
 Q. What do you reply to those who say tt 
 was invented by the Council of Nice ? 
 
 A. That this cannot be true ; for TertuUian 
 and Origen, who lived before that Council 
 make mention of it in their writings. 
 
 Q. Do you know any Father who has ex- 
 pressly declared that Lent was instituted by 
 the Apostles ? 
 
 A. Yes ; St. Jerom and St. Leo declare it 
 formally ; the former, Epist. ad Marcel., says : 
 '• Following the Apostolical institution, we ob- 
 serve a fast of forty days ;" the latter, Serm. 9 
 de Jejun — " It was the Apostles, who, by the 
 inspiration of the Holy Ghost, established Lent." 
 
 Q. Were people, in these times, obliged io 
 conscience to fast during Lent? 
 
 A. Yes ; for St. Jerom, Epist. ad Marcel , 
 says : " The Montanists fast three Lents in the 
 year ; we fast only one. That they observe 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 17^ 
 
 three is a voluntary act of their own ; but we 
 cDserve one, because we are obliged,'' St. Au- 
 gustine says : " Our fast at any other time is 
 voluntary ; but during Lent, we sin if we do 
 not fast." 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Q. Why did the Apostles institute the fast 
 of Lent 1 
 
 A. First, in honor of our Saviour's fast of 
 forty days ; secondly, in honor of his passio-n ; 
 and, thirdly, to prepare ourselves, in the spirit 
 of mortification, for the better celebration oi 
 the Easter solemnity. 
 
 Q. In ichat manner should Lent be observed ? 
 
 A. We ought to attend in this to the Lenten 
 Instructions of our respective bishops ; to ab- 
 stain from the use of flesh meat on the davs its 
 use is prohibited ; to take only one meal about 
 noon, and a slight collation in the evening 
 The sick are under no restrictions, Avhen the 
 nature of the disease requires a rela^xation of 
 the law ; and if a sufficient reason be given to 
 the lawful superior, the collation may be taken 
 in the morning. 
 
 Q. Are all Christians bound to fast? 
 
 A, No ; various classes are exempted ; Isl, 
 all under twenty-one years of age ; 2dly, a'ii 
 Uie aged who can be prudently deemed to<i 
 
180 A DOCTRINAl. CATECHISM. 
 
 w^ak to fast ; 3dly, women with child ann 
 nurses ; 4thly, all that are engaged in heavy 
 and laborious employments ; and, Sthly, the 
 poor, who are never certain of sufficient and 
 regular food. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Q. What should a Catholic reply to those 
 who scoff and rail at fasting and abstinence 7 
 
 A, He should tell them, that those who will 
 not hear the Church, are declared, by Christ 
 himself, to be as heathens or publicans. He 
 should repeat to them the words of St. Augus- 
 tine — '' It is an impudent folly to blame that 
 which is practised by the whole Church,'' 
 
 Q. Upon ivhom does this reproach fall with 
 full force ? 
 
 A. Upon Luther, in an especial manner, 
 who blamed fasting, although practised over 
 the whole Church. 
 
 Q. Can you prove, by any Scriptural ex- 
 ample, that Catholics do well to abstain from 
 centain kinds of food ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the prophet Jeremias praised the 
 Rechabites for abstaining from wine, because 
 Jonadab, their father, had forbidden them the 
 tise of it ; lience, the Catholics cannot do evil 
 by abstaining from any particular food, when 
 ihe Church, their mother ^ orders them to do go 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISIW. 181 
 
 Q. In what manner can we show a Protest* 
 aid, that he speaks unreasonahly against fasts 
 and abstinences ? 
 
 A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not 
 Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwil- 
 ling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, 
 that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sun- 
 day, but says nothing as to fasting and absti- 
 nence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday 
 or the Sabbath, but gives no command any- 
 where regarding Sunday or the first day of the 
 week. If, then, he neglects Saturday as a day 
 of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in 
 its place, and this merely because such was the 
 usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if 
 he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting 
 and abstinence, because the ancient Church so 
 ordained ? 
 
 ON THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 \cl. How do you prove that there are seven 
 iacraments ? 
 
 A, From the Holy Sciipture and the dog- 
 matical decisions, as well as the constant tra- 
 ditions, of the Church. 
 
 16 
 
182 A DOCTRINA], CATECHISM 
 
 Q. Where do you find in Scripture tliai 
 there are seven Sacraments ? 
 
 A. We find in Scripture seven outward 
 si^ns of invisible grace, instituted by Jesus 
 Christ, as so many means to confer gi'ace on 
 our souls ; this is easily show^n of each sacra- 
 ment in particular. 
 
 Q. Do all Catholics profess that there are 
 seven sacraments ? 
 
 A, Yes; all the Catholics in the world, in 
 number about two hundred and fifty-six millions, 
 believe in seven sacraments. 
 
 Q. Do the Greek schismatics recognise the 
 same number ? 
 
 A. Yes ; all the Greek schismatics recognise 
 the same number of saciaments as the Catholic 
 Church, and these schismatics are in number 
 about Cfty-six and a half millions ; so that three 
 hundred and twelve muUions and a half — that 
 is, nearly the half of the whole human race — 
 hold the Catholic faith on this subject ; whilst 
 tne whole Protestant population of the world, 
 opposed to it, only amount to about lorty-six 
 millions. Jeremias, the schismatical Greek 
 Patriarch of Constantinople , declared the belief 
 of the schismatical Greek Church in the seven 
 sacraments, anno 1576; and others have re- 
 peated that declaration at various times sines 
 that period. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 183 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this 1 
 
 A. That the whole Christian world, morally 
 speaking, do now believe, and have at all times 
 believed, in seven sacraments ; for had the 
 seven sacraments been a modern invention, the 
 Greek schismatical Church, which has been 
 separated from us for nine hundred years, would 
 not have had these sacraments, in number and 
 nature, just as we have them. 
 
 Q. Have Protestants been always agreed as 
 to the number of the sacraments ? 
 
 A. No ; some admitted two — baptism, and 
 what they call the LorH's Supper ; others ad- 
 mitted four and even five, and some admitted 
 only three, as is evident from the Confession 
 of Augsburg, Apol. art. 7, which says expressly, 
 that " penance is a sacrament in the proper 
 sense of the word." 
 
 Q. What inference would a man of reflection 
 draw from these Protestant inconsistencies ? 
 
 A. That Protestants were compelled to 
 frame their rehgion, not according to Holy 
 Writ, but according to the corrupt maxinis of 
 their followers ; — the question with their found- 
 ers was, not what does Christ teach, but what 
 will our partisans receive as doctrine from our 
 hands. Hence, they taught one doctrine to-day 
 and another to-rrorrow, one doctrine in this 
 country, and another in that, in order to suit 
 
^84 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 themselves and their religion to the changes ol 
 time, place, and passion. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. Can Protestants prove to Baptists, thai 
 the baptism of infants is good and useful ? 
 
 A, No ; they cannot ; because, according to 
 Protestant principles, such baptism is useless. 
 
 Q. Why do you say this ? . 
 
 A. One of the Protestant principles is, that 
 no human being can be^ justified, except by an 
 act of faith in Jesus Christ ; but no infant is 
 capable of m-aking this act of faith ; therefore 
 upon Protestant principles, the baptism of in- 
 fants is useless. 
 
 Q. Can you draw the same consequence 
 from any other principle? 
 
 A, Yes ; their first principle is, that nothing 
 is to be practised, which is not authorized 
 by Scriptural example ; but it does not appear 
 from Scripture, that even one infant was ever 
 baptized ; therefore Protestants should reject, 
 on their own principle, infant baptism as an 
 unscriptural usage. 
 
 Q. How do Baptists treat other Protestants ? 
 
 A. They boast that the Scripture is evident 
 ly for Baptist practice, — that other Protestants 
 hold traditional doctrines, like the Catholics 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 185 
 
 They quote Matth. chap, xxviii — "Go teach 
 all nations, baptizing them," from which they 
 say, it is clear, that teaching should go before 
 baptism ; hence, they conclude, that as infants 
 cannot be taught, so neither should they be 
 baptized, until they are capable of teaching or 
 instruction. 
 
 Q. What use do they make of Mark, chap, 
 xvi — " He who believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved ?" 
 
 A. They say it is eviaent that belief or faith 
 must precede b^Dtism ; but, they add, children 
 or infants are not capable of believing ; there- 
 fore neither are they capab./n o'' being baptized. 
 
 Q. What can Protestant,''' rejly to this Bap- 
 tist reasoning ? 
 
 A. They may give these passages another 
 meaning, but they can never prove that their 
 interpretation is better than that of the Bap- 
 tists, because they themselves give every one 
 a right to interpret Scripture. 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from this 1 
 
 A. That every Protestant has much reason 
 to doubt whether he be baptized. 
 
 Q. How do Catholics prove that infants 
 ought to he baptized ? 
 
 A. Not from Scripture alone, which is not 
 clear on this subject, but from the Scripture 
 illustrated by the constant tradition of the 
 
 16^ 
 
186 A DOCTtllXAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Church, which, in every age, administered barK 
 tism to infants, and consequently the practice 
 must have been derived from the Apostles. 
 
 Q. Can Protestants use this triumphani 
 argument of tradition against the Baptists ^ 
 
 A. No ; they have no right to use it in this 
 matter, where it would serve them, since they 
 reject it in every question where it is opposed 
 to their novel and latelv invented doctrines. 
 
 Q. What is the outward or visible sign in 
 baptism ? 
 
 A. The pouring of water on the person, and 
 the words, " I baptize thee," &c., pronounced 
 by the minister. 
 
 Q. What is the inward or invisible grace 
 conferred ? 
 
 A. The sanctifying grace of God, by which 
 the soul is regenerated, cleansed from all sin, 
 made the child of God, a member of his Church, 
 and an heir of heaven. 
 
 Q. Where do you find, in Scripture, that 
 Christ instituted baptism ? 
 
 A. In many places, but particularly in the 
 passage where he gives his CDmrnission to the 
 Apostles, Matth. xxviii, 19 — "Go teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holv Ghost." 
 
 Q Does it appear from Scripture that bap* 
 lism rermts sin ? 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 187 
 
 A. Yes ; St. Peter, Acts ii, 28, says : '' Do 
 penance, and be baptized every one of you in 
 the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
 your sins/' 
 
 Q. Is baptism necessary to salvation ? 
 
 A. Yes ; for Christ says, John iii, 3, 5 : 
 " Verily, verily, I say to thee, except a man be 
 born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" and 
 in Mark, chap, xvi — " He that beheveth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved." 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 (4. Why do you consider Confirmation one 
 of the sacraments ? 
 
 A, Because it is a visible sign of invisible 
 grace. 
 
 Q. What is the visible sign in Confirmation ? 
 
 A. The unction of Holy Chrism, and the 
 imposition of the hands of the bishop. 
 
 Q. What is the invisible grace conferred by 
 this sacrament ? 
 
 A, A grace of the Holy Ghost, which 
 strengthens and secures the faith of the Chris- 
 tian. . 
 
 Q. Where do you find Confirmation men- 
 \ioued in Scriptui^ ? 
 
 A. In the Stli chap, of the Acts, it is said, 
 
J 88 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 that the Samaritans, having received the Word 
 of God, were baptized by St. Philip ; and the 
 Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, 
 when they were come, prayed for them, that 
 they might receive the Holy Ghost, for he was 
 not as yet come upon any of them, but they 
 were only baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, 
 and they received the Holy Ghost." Here we 
 have a sacred rite performed by the Apostles 
 themselves, by the imposition of hands, which 
 certainly is n^^ (>^^dination, as some have dream- 
 ed ; for, as is evident fronj a j.'^^vious verse of 
 the same chapter, there were women amongst 
 those upon whom the Aposl:es imposed their 
 hands. Neither can it be baptism ; for the 
 text expressly says, that these Samaritans were 
 previously baptized by St. Philip. Therefore it 
 is that sacrament of Confirmation, which, by 
 the universal testimony of the whole Christian 
 Church, was instituted by Christ, and practised, 
 in this instance, by his Apostles. 
 
 Q. Have you any other Scriptural proof 
 showing this sacrament as completely distinct 
 from baptism ? 
 
 A. Yes ; St. Paul first baptized and then 
 confirmed the Ephesians, — Acts^ caap. xix, 5 : 
 " Having heard these things, they were bap- 
 tized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; and whec 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM- «8fi 
 
 Paul had imposed his hands upon them, the 
 Holy Ghost came upon them." 
 
 Q. May it not he said, that the Apostles im- 
 posed theii hands on these occasions to com- 
 municate the ex ernal and visible gifts of the 
 Holy Ghost, but that bishops have no such 
 power now ? 
 
 A, The external or visible gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit, such as the gift of tongues or prophecy, 
 were, in the time of the Apostles, necessary for 
 the conversion of the world, as direct proofs 
 that God was the author of their religion ; but 
 now that the world has abundant arguments 
 and proofs for that great fundamental truth, 
 miracles are no longer necessary, but the grace 
 of God — communicated along with these mi- 
 raculous gifts, which strengthened the first 
 Christians unto perfection, and enabled them 
 to lay down, even with joy, their lives rather 
 than deny their faith — has been necessary in 
 every age to all Christians, is still necessary, 
 and will continue so until the end of the world ; 
 and it is this invisible grace of the Holy Ghost 
 which is communicated in Confirmation. 
 
 Q. What have you to say to Protestants on 
 this sacrament ? 
 
 A. You appealyi we say to them, incessantly 
 to Scripture, — you boast that you comply with 
 t to the very letter, — ^why is it, then, tliat only 
 
190 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 a mere handful of you practise this sacred rite ? 
 Why do you not, as the Apostles did, impose 
 your hands upon those whom you have bap- 
 tized ? 
 
 Q. Are there any proof s for Confirmation in 
 the practice of the ancient and pure Church? 
 
 A. Yes ; St. Cyril, 3 Cathes., says : " When 
 the body is visibly anointed, the soul becomes 
 sanctified by the interior operation of the Holy 
 Spirit.'' St. Augustine, Lit. contra Petel. lib. 
 iii, cap. 10, says : " The sacrament of Holy 
 Chrism does not yield in sanctity to baptism 
 itself." 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 Q. Is the Holy Eucharist a sacrament ? 
 
 A. Yes ; all parties admit this, even those 
 who look upon it as merely bread and wine. 
 
 Q. What is the sensible sign in this sac? a 
 ment ? 
 
 A. The appearances of bread and wine which 
 remain after consecration, and under which our 
 blessed Saviour is received into our souls. 
 
 Q. What is the inward grace contained m 
 this sacrament? 
 
 A. The body and blood of Jesus Christ, the 
 source and author of all graces. 
 
 Q. Where do you find Jesus Christ men' 
 txoned as the author of this sacrame-n* ^ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 191 
 
 A. In the Gospel account of its institution 
 —■Luke xxii, 19, &c., where Jesus Christ, 
 '* taking bread, gave thanks, and brake, and 
 gave it to them, saying : this is my body ; do 
 this for a commemoration of me. In Hke 
 manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, 
 saying : this is the chalice of the new testa- 
 ment in my blood, which shall be shed for 
 you." 
 
 Q. What does the Catholic Church heliev^. 
 as to this sacrament ? 
 
 A. That after the words of consecration are 
 pronounced over the bread and wine, our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, 
 really, and substantially contained under the 
 outward appearances of the bread and wdne, — 
 the whole substance of the bread being changed 
 into his body, and the whole substance of the 
 wine into his blood ; we understand also, not 
 his body and blood as they were in this world, 
 but as they are now glorious and immortal in 
 heaven. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by a glorious and 
 immortal body ? 
 
 A, I mean that kind of body of which St. 
 Paul speaks, — 1 Cor. xv, 44 : *' It is sown a 
 natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body ; if 
 there be a natural body, theie is also a spiritual 
 body." 
 
1 95{ A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Do the Greeks hold the same doctrine as 
 the Catholics on this subject ? 
 
 A, Yes ; in their attestation, signed by seven 
 Eastern Archbishops, (Perpet. de la Foi., torn, 
 iii, p. 412, &c.,) we read : " 1st, That the Hving 
 body of Jesus Christ, who was crucified, who 
 ascended into heaven, and who sits at the right 
 hand of the Father, is truly present in the 
 Eucharist, but in an invisible manner ; 2dly, 
 that the bread and wine, after the invocation 
 of the priest and the consecration, are sitb- 
 stantially changed into the true body and blood 
 of Jesus Christ, and that the accidents which 
 remain are not bread and wine in reality, al- 
 though they appear to be bread and wine ; 
 3dly, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for the 
 living and the dead, established by Jesus Christ, 
 and which we have from the Apostles by tra- 
 dition ; 4thly, that the body of Jesus Christ is 
 eaten whole and entire, in an impassible state, 
 by those who receive it, whether they be wor- 
 thy or unworthy, — such as are worthy receive 
 it for their salvation, the unworthy to their 
 condemnation ; that it is also immolated with- 
 out effusion of blood, and justly adored as God.' 
 
 Q. Was not the celebrated Calvinist, Claude, 
 staggered by this Eastern document ? 
 
 A, So much so, that he wrote to verify the 
 fact ; and we have the celebrated letter in an- 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. l.)B 
 
 swer to him, dated May 21, 1672, confirming 
 everv word of the above document, in the 
 clearest and strongest language, as containing 
 the faith of the Eastern Church on the subject 
 of the Eucharist. See Perp. de la Foi, already 
 quoted, tom. iii. 
 
 Q. What did Luther teach on this subject ? 
 
 A, " In vain I wished,'' he says, " to have 
 denied the real presence of Christ in the Eu- 
 charist, .... the words of the Scripture are so 
 plain and strong in favor of the mystery, that, 
 spite of all my wishes, although I strained 
 every nerve to reject it, yet I could nevei 
 bring my mind to adopt the bold expedient." 
 (Ep. Car. Amic.) Again he says : " The denial 
 of the real presence is a piece of downright 
 blasphemy, an impeachment of the Divine ve- 
 racity ;" . . . • and he calls the deniers, '* a set 
 of deviled, be-deviled, per-deviled, and super- 
 deviled wretches." 
 
 Q, What is the real doctrine of even the 
 Church of England on this sacrament ? 
 
 A. In the Book of Common Prayer, we 
 find the following question, " What is the in- 
 ward part or thing signified?" (of the Lord's 
 Supper.) The answ^er is : " The body and 
 blood of Christ, which ai-e verily and indeed 
 taken, and received by the faithful in the 
 Lord's ttupper." 
 
 17 
 
194 A DOCTRINAl. CATECHlsM. 
 
 Q. What says Leibnitz ? Systema Theol,; 
 page 226 : Paris, 1819. 
 
 A. " But pious antiquity plainly enough de- 
 clared, that the bread was changed into the 
 body of Christ, the wine into his blood, .... and 
 this chano-e the Latins have rightly called Tran- 
 substantiation, ... .here the Scripture is to be 
 explained by that tradition, w^hich the Church, 
 as its keeper, has transmitted to us." 
 
 Q. What says Grotius ? Vot. pro pace. 
 
 A. " I find in all the Liturgies- — Greek, Latin 
 Arabic, Syriac, and others — prayers addressed 
 to God, that, by his Holy Spirit, he would 
 consecrate the gifts offered up, and make them 
 the body of his Son. i was therefore right in 
 asserting, that a practice so ancient and uni- 
 versal must be considered as having come 
 down from the first ages, and ought not to have 
 been altered.'' 
 
 Q. What says Dr. Parker, Protestant Bishof 
 of Oxford ? (Reasons for Abrogating the Test, 
 p. 13, anno 1688.) 
 
 A. " It is evident to all men that are but or- 
 dinarily conversant in ecclesiastical learning, 
 that the ancient Fathers, from age to age, as- 
 jserted the real and substantial presence in very 
 high and expressive terms." Indeed, almost 
 all the learned bishops of the English Trotest- 
 ant Church are of the same opinion on this 
 
\ DOCTRIN.xL CATECHISM. 195 
 
 matter. And no one can doubt, that a large 
 section of that Church at present are as much 
 CathoHc, as the Cathohcs themselves, on the 
 subject of the Real Presence (See the Modern 
 Puseyite writers.) 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from this 
 powerful testimony in favor of the real pres- 
 ence ? 
 
 A. That this portion of Catholic doctrine 
 has the support of every Church deserving the 
 name ; that its opponents are few, generally 
 ignorant, and always factious and full of sec- 
 tarian prejudice. Hence, from the number 
 and learning of the vouchers for the Catholic 
 faith here under discussion, it is manifest, that 
 that faith must be strongly and clearly laid 
 down in Scripture. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Q. Did Christ make any particular prom 
 ise, as regards the Eucharist, before he in- 
 stituted it ? 
 
 A. Yes ; a very clear promise in the sixth 
 chap, of St. John 
 
 Q. Does tais chapter regard the Euchar-ist ^ 
 
 A. Yes ; even the learned Mr. Johnson, a 
 Protestant, in his " Unbloody Sacrifice," shows, 
 at large that the Primitive Fathers understood 
 
1190 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 the sixth chapter of St. John as refemng to 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the firii 
 part of this chapter ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the astonishing miracle which 
 Christ performed in feeding five thousand per- 
 sons with only five loaves and two fishes, is 
 here related ; and such a miracle was truly a 
 suitable prelude to the introduction of that 
 miracle of miracles — the Holy Eucharist, by 
 which he was, with heavenly bread—that is, 
 with his own body and blood — to feed all his 
 faithful followers. The very fact that he 
 wrought this astonishing miracle, before intro- 
 ducing the subject of the Eucharist, shows that 
 he was about to speak on a matter that required 
 strong faith in his followers and audience. If 
 he had merely to announce to them that he 
 was going to give them common bread and 
 wine, is it likely he would have introduced it 
 by such a tremendous miracle ? 
 
 Q. Does it appear that the Jews had, bejore 
 the teaching of Christ, any notion that the 
 Messiah would give them bread from, heaven. 
 as Moses had done ? 
 
 A. Yes; for in one of their earliest Works 
 after the coming of Christ, "Commentary on 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes,'' they say, that as 
 Moses brouscht down manna from heaven, &(f 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHl>3r,I. 1 4^*7 
 
 »ne of the signs of the Messiah should be, that 
 he should bring down bread from heaven. 
 Various Jewish teachers in the early ages of 
 Christianity, according to R. David Kimchi, 
 seem to have admitted transubstantiation, 
 grounding it on that passage of Osee, chap, xiv, 
 8 : " And they shall live upon wheat, and they 
 shall blossom as a vine ; his memorial shall 1)6 
 as the vine of Lebanon." " Many Doctors,'* 
 says David Kimchi, " expound this text, that 
 there shall be made a change of nature in 
 WHEAT in the times of our Redeemer Christ." 
 
 Q. Does Christ himself appear to allude to 
 this belief of the Jews ? 
 
 A. Yes, in vc» y- clear te-rm«. — John, chap, 
 vi. 32 : " Amen, amen, 1 s^y to you, Moses 
 gave you not bread from heaven ; but my Fa- 
 ther giveth you the true bread from heaven." 
 
 Q. What does Christ say that this bread 
 from heaven is ? 
 
 A. In verse 35, he says, it is himself: '' I am 
 
 THE BREAD OF LIFE." 
 
 Q. What follows these astonishing words ? 
 
 A, A long and impressive instruction as to 
 the necessity of believing his words, which 
 fihow^s clearly, that he was about to n veal 
 something which he knew h*s audience w^uld 
 have gi'eat difficulty in believing. 
 
 i^. After ending the instruction as to faitti 
 11* 
 
198 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 with these impressive words, — "Amen, amen, 1 
 say to yoU; he that believeth in me hath ever 
 lasting Ufe," -how does he jproceedl 
 
 A. He repeats again, verse 48, the awfu 
 words : " I am the bread of life," as if he saw 
 they would now be believed, in consequence of 
 the instruction he had given. 
 
 Q. Does he show, that the bread which he 
 will give, shall be better than the miraculous 
 manna, and, consequently, better than the bread 
 and wine of the Protestant sacrament ? 
 
 A. Yes ; he says : " Your fathers did eat 
 manna in the desert, and are dead ; this is the 
 bread which cometh down from heaven, that 
 if any man eat of it, he may not die " 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 
 (4. After having prepared the minds of hu 
 audience by feeding five thousand persons with 
 five loaves, and lectured them on the necessity 
 of strong and lively faith, — after having re- 
 peated, again, that he himself was the bread of 
 life from heaven, — what does he now say thai 
 this bread is in reality ? 
 
 A, Verse 52, he says : " The bread that J 
 will give is my flesh, for the life of the world/' 
 
 Q. How did the Jews receive this announce 
 ment ? 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 199 
 
 A. Verse 53 : — " They strove among them- 
 selves, saying, How can this man give us his 
 flesh to eat ?" This is exactly the question 
 put, at the pi^sent day, by unbelieving Protest- 
 ants. " How ? ! !'' To put such a question to 
 the Almighty, is it not blasphemy ? Hoiv did 
 he create the world out of nothing ? How did 
 he turn the rod of Moses into a serpent ? How 
 did he change the waters into blood ? How 
 the water into wine at Cana ? Hoio feed five 
 thousand people with five loaves ? 
 
 Q. If he had meant, that what he was to give 
 them was mere bread and mere wine, what 
 should he, as a good and wise God, have 
 done now that he saw the Jews would not 
 believe him ? 
 
 A. He should at once have explained, (as he 
 did on other occasions,) that he did not wish to 
 be understood literally, but figuratively, — that 
 he meant to give them bread and wine as a 
 commemoration of his death. 
 
 Q. Did he give such an explanation 1 
 
 A. A^o ; he repeats, verse 54, the same again 
 in stronger language, and even with an asseve- 
 ration : " Then Jesus said to them. Amen, 
 amen, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh 
 of the Son of man and drink his blood, you 
 shall not have Hfe in you ;" and, in the next 
 five verses, in order to ^ive strenjzth to his 
 
2ii0 A DOCTRINAL ( Al ECIUS.M. 
 
 words, and to leave no doubt of his nneaning 
 on the mind of any one, he, in different forms, 
 but almost in the same words, repeats over 
 and over the same truth without any explana- 
 tion whatever. 
 
 Q. When, on other occasions, Christ taught 
 anything in figurative language, was he in the 
 habit of giving an explanation immediately 
 after, lest his words might be misunderstood, 
 and lest the people might he misled by his 
 figurative language, by interpreting his words 
 litei^ally ? 
 
 A. Most certainly he was. In John, chap 
 iii, he corrects Nicodemus, who understood him 
 literally, when he wished t ) l ^.r understood 
 figuratively. In Matth. chap, yvi, 5, he cor- 
 rects the Apostles, who understood him literally, 
 when he meant to speak figuratively, on the 
 Leaven of the Pharisees. In John, chap, iv, 
 32, his disciples misunderstood him as to the 
 food he spoke of, taking him in the literal sense ; 
 he instantly corrects the error by explaining 
 himself. In John, chap, xi, 11, his disciples 
 again mistake him, and he instantly explains. 
 In Matth. chap, xix, there is another misunder- 
 standing on the part of his disciples, and he at 
 once sets them right. Another instance may 
 be seen in Matth. chap. vi:i. 
 
 Q. Did the Jews, the Apostles, and the di$ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 201 
 
 ciples of Jesus, understand him here in the lit* 
 eral sense ? 
 
 A. Yes ; for the Jews ask, How can this 
 man give us hisjlesh to eat ? Verse 62 — " His 
 disciples murmured.'' Verse 67 — " After this, 
 many of his disciples went back and walked no 
 more with him ;" whilst he finds it necessary, 
 in verse 68, to ask his Apostles, — " Will you 
 also go V 
 
 Q. Seeing, then, that all are about to leave 
 him, — that they are scandalized at his doctrine, 
 — that they do not believe him in the literal 
 sense, does he, on this, as on every other occa- 
 sion, explain himself at once, and show them, 
 that ht speaks in figures, that he does not in- 
 tend to give them his flesh and his blood in 
 reality, but merely bread and wine, as a com- 
 memoration of himself ? 
 
 A, No ; he sees that the Jews, the disciples, 
 and the twelve Apostles, understand him in 
 the very sense which he intended. He allows 
 them to go away, he gives no explanation, be- 
 cause he has none to give. They understand 
 him literally, and he speaks literally. He ap- 
 peals to his Ascension, as an argument wliich 
 should induce them to believe, (verse 63.) In 
 verse 64, he clearly tells them, that the eating 
 of dead flesh will profit them nothing, but that 
 the flesh winch he will give them is his glorified 
 
202 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 body, animated by his soul and his life-giving 
 divinity, — that same body, soul, and divinity 
 by which, in the mystery of Redemption, he 
 was to give life to the world. He exhorts them 
 again to have faith, showing that he was teach- 
 ing something which it was difficult to believe ; 
 and concludes, by askmg his Apostles, whethe: 
 they also refuse to believe him : To which St. 
 Peter replies, (verse 69,) with full confidence in 
 his Di^ ine Master : " Lord, to whom shall we 
 go ? thou hast the words of eternal life, .... thou 
 art Christ the Son of God." 
 
 Q. What general inference would you draw 
 from the conduct of those to whom Christ ad- 
 dressed himself on this occasion ? 
 
 A. If Christ intended only to give bread 
 and wine, as a memorial of himself, why did 
 he not say so to prevent the departure of his 
 followers, and to teach them truth ? Or can 
 any one in his senses suppose, that the author 
 of truth would leave, in doubt and obscurity, 
 one of the most important articles of the reli- 
 gion he was about to establish? Assuredly 
 no. Then he spoke in the literal sense, — then 
 he wished to be understood in the literal sense, 
 — then the Jews, the disciples, and the Apos- 
 tles, understood him correctly. The Jews and 
 disciples left him, because they wouid not be- 
 lieve that he could give them his fiesh and 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 20S 
 
 olocMJ. But the Apostles, who knew that iie 
 was God, to whom nothing was impossible, 
 who could not be deceived himself, and could 
 not deceive them, submitted to the belief of 
 the incomprehensible mystery, in these words : 
 " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the 
 words of eternal life ;" we believe all that thou 
 hast taught, no matter how difficult, because 
 "we have believed and hdiVQ known, That 
 THOU art the Christ the Son of God." 
 
 Q. If Christ intended to he understood in 
 the figurative sense, and meant only to give 
 bread and wine, would there have been any 
 reason why all his audience should have turned 
 their backs upon him ? 
 
 A. Certainly not ; since such memorial would 
 have been inferior both to the manna and Pas- 
 chal Lamb of the Old Law. 
 
 Q. If Christ intended only mere bread and 
 wine, was it not an awful violation of the 
 propriety of language to say, that, in using 
 these, his followers ivould be eating his flesh 
 and drmking his blood ? 
 
 A. Yes, most certainly ; such a? we can 
 lever suppose the wisdom of God could adopt ; 
 Liay more, such language was well calculated 
 to deter the ^jws from believing his doctrine 
 at all, be'' ^use, in their language, to eat the 
 fe$h of .ny one, meant to do him some grle^ ous 
 
204 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 injury, (see 27th Psalm; 19th chap, of Job: 
 Ecclesiastes, chap, iv ; St. James, chap, v.) 
 As to the drinking of blood, it was universally 
 considered a dreadful crime among the Jews, 
 (see Gen. chap, ix ; Levit. chap, vii ; Sam 
 chap, xiv ; Judith, chap, xi ) And as to the 
 eating of human flesh, or drinking human blood, 
 it is mentioned as the most dreadful curse God 
 could inflict on mankind, (see Wisd. xi, 7 , 
 Apoc. xvi, 6 ; Jerem. xix, 8.) 
 
 Q. What would you draw from this con 
 sideration ? 
 
 A. That Christ evidently wished to be un- 
 derstood in the literal sense, and, on account oi 
 this, was compelled to use language disagree- 
 able to Jewish ears ; otherwise, his use of such 
 expressions was uncalled for, improper, and 
 unwise, and calculated to defeat the very ob- 
 ject which our Divine Saviour had in view , 
 and this supposition, that the very author of 
 wisdom would couch the doctrines he wished 
 the entire world to believe, in language unpar- 
 donably incorrect, and scandalous to his fol- 
 lowers, is not only absurd — it is impious and 
 blasphemous. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Q. Christ then promised, that At oould givt 
 his body and blood for the spiidtual ju dof uu 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 20£ 
 
 people, — where do you find that promise ful- 
 filled ? 
 
 A. In Luke, chap, xxii, 19: "And taking 
 bread, he gave thanks, and brake, and gave to 
 them, saying : " This is my body which is 
 given for you'' Place these vvrords beside the 
 words ot the promise, and you will at once 
 admit the promise fulfilled. The words of the 
 promise were — " And the bread that I will give 
 is my flesh, for the life of the world." 
 
 Q. Is the institution as to the cup or chalice 
 tqually^ clear ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the words of the promise weie — 
 " Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man 
 and drink his blood, you shall not have life in 
 you." This promise is now fulfilled in these 
 words, Luke, chap, xxii, 20 : " This is the 
 chalice of the New Testament in my blood, 
 which shall be shed for you." 
 
 Q. Are the Evaiigelists, Matthew (xxvi chap., 
 26, 28) and Mark (xiv chap., 22, 24) equally 
 clear ? 
 
 A. Yes ; and the fact, that they repeat the 
 words of the institution almost in the very 
 same words, and essentially in the very same 
 sense, — "ihat they all repeat the words body and 
 blood with the most remarkable uniformity of 
 language, is one of the strongest proofs for the 
 real presence. 
 
 18 
 
206 A DOCTRINAL CATECHIisM. 
 
 Q. Why SO? 
 
 A. Because they, at least, knew what Christ 
 meant by the words body and blood; and il 
 Christ meant by these merely bread and wine, 
 some of them, were it only by accident, would 
 have given his meaning instead of his words, 
 or, at all events, would have given some 
 explanation of them ; yet not one of them 
 did so. 
 
 Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the 
 Syriac version of St. Mark ? 
 
 A. Yes ; learned Catholics, as well as Prot- 
 estants, admit, that it represents our Lord as 
 saying : " Take, eat, this is my body itself ;" 
 thus clearly confirming the Catholic interpre- 
 tation. See Walton, Prol. Bib. Polygi. 
 
 Q. If Christ intended to deliver to mankind 
 his real body and blood, could he have used 
 more proper, concise, or correct language ? 
 
 A, No ; we cannot conceive language better 
 chosen. 
 
 Q. If he intended mere bread and wine, could 
 he have used more improper language ? 
 
 A. No ; in that case, the use of such lan- 
 guage would be unwise and inexplicable. 
 
 Q. Was the time in which Christ instituted 
 ihe sacrament a period of his mortal career, in 
 which the use of the inost obscure and improper 
 figures should be employed to convey to his 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 20? 
 
 Apostles {those who were to teach the world) 
 the most simple and necessary truths ? 
 
 A, Certainly not ; he was making his last 
 Testament, which, even amongst men, is made 
 in as simple and clear language as possible ; 
 he was teaching his Apostles what they were 
 to teach others ; he was teaching what was tc 
 be believed and practised by the whole world 
 till the latest ages, and upon the belief and 
 practice of which all were to be saved or 
 damned. The awfulness of the time, therefore, 
 the cxvvful nature of the doctrine, and its awful 
 importance to those who were to teach, as 
 well as to those who should be taught, all de- 
 manded from a good and wise God, what he 
 could easily give, and what he most assuredly 
 did give — the utmost perspicuity in the lan- 
 guage used. 
 
 Q. Is there any thing remarkable in the 
 words of the old alliance, which tends to illus- 
 trate these words of the new — " This is my 
 
 blood r 
 
 A. Yes ; in Exodus, chap, xxiv, Moses took 
 blood and sprinkled it upon the people, saying : 
 " This is the blood of the covenant which the 
 Lord hath made with you." The words of 
 Christ in the New Testament have evidently a 
 relation to those of Moses in the Old ; and as 
 Moses presented to the people, in the Old Law 
 
208 A DOCTRLNAL CATECHISM. 
 
 the rexl blood of the victims, so, in the New 
 the real blood of the heavenly victim — the 
 Lamb of God — is presented to the children 
 of the new covenant. 
 
 Q. If, in this most dignified of all the sacra- 
 ments, the true body and blood of Christ were 
 not present, what would be the consequence ? 
 
 A. That Jesus Christ, the all-wise God and 
 Saviour of mankind, did intentionally, or at 
 least indifferent as to the awful consequences, 
 express himself so. in its institution, as to de- 
 ceive nineteen-twentieths of those he can^*^ *o 
 redeem, — to involve all Christians in bitter and 
 endless disputes, and expose the great body ot 
 his Church to be guilty of the appalling crime 
 of idolatry ; — all this, too, whilst one word of 
 explanation from him would have prevented all 
 these evils. 
 
 Q. What would you infer from this ? 
 
 A. That, as these blasphemous suppositions 
 cannot for a moment be entertained, so it is 
 clear, beyond all doubt, that Christ spoke in the 
 literal sense, — in that he intended to be under 
 stood, and in that sense, and no other, his Ian- 
 guage is perfectly intelligible. 
 
 Q. Was the Almighty pleased to be explicit 
 in the language which he employed in tht 
 establish ment of olner institutions of import 
 ance? 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 209 
 
 A To be satisfied that he was so in institu 
 tions of much less importance, read Gen. chap, 
 xvii, 10, on circumcision ; Exod. chap, xii, 3, 
 on the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb ; and 
 Leviticus, on general ritual observance : and 
 in the New Law, the sacrament of baptism is 
 instituted and enforced, in language the most 
 clear and precise. 
 
 Q. If Christ meant to leave us in the sacra- 
 ment mere bread and wine, are not his words 
 sufficiently explicit ^ 
 
 A. No ; they are the reverse. He says : 
 ''This is my body, this is my blood;'' whilst 
 Protestants would make him mean by these 
 words, — This is not my body, this is not mv 
 blood. 
 
 CHj^^ii^iU viiL 
 
 Q. Can you quote any other Scriptural au- 
 thority on the subject ? 
 
 A. Yes ; several, and of great importance. 
 St. Paul, 1 Cor. x, 16, says : " The chalice of 
 benediction which we bless, is it not the com- 
 munion of tht blood of Christ ? and the bread 
 which we break, is it not the partaking of the 
 lody of the Lord?'' 
 
 Q. What is the first remark you wouM make 
 on this passage, ? 
 
 A. St Paul knew well whether the sacra 
 18^ 
 
210 A DOCTULN'AL CATECHISM. 
 
 ment was the body and blood of Christ, or onij 
 mere bread and wine. He is here preaching 
 to the Christian Corinthians, instructing thena 
 in what they ought to believe and practise. 
 If, then, Christ spoke figuratively, why does not 
 St. Paul now explain these figures to the sim- 
 ple and the unlettered ? Why does he now, 
 when he ought to be plain and clear, call bread, 
 he body, and wine, the blood of Christ ? If the 
 Protestant be the true sense of these words, 
 why does he not, even by accident, hint at such 
 a meanins: ? 
 
 Q. Have you any other reflection to offer on 
 St, Paul's words ? 
 
 A, If the cup contain only wine, how can 
 St. Paul call it a cup of benediction or bless- 
 ing ? If only wine, how can the reception oi 
 it be the communion of the blood of Christ ? 
 If what appears bread, be only bread, how can 
 the partaking of it be the partaking of the body 
 of the Lord? Besides, the word which St. 
 Paul uses to express communion, is koinonia, 
 not metoche, a word which expresses, not any 
 ordinary union, but the closest union of what 
 we receive with our own substance. 
 
 Q. What does St. Paul say in the next 
 ve?^se? (1 Cor. x, 17.) 
 
 A. After having said, that we are partakers 
 t>! the body and blood of Christ, under the 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 211 
 
 forms of bread and wine, be now adds : " Foi 
 we, being mar y, are one bread, one body, all 
 that partake Df one bread/' Now, in the 
 Catholic sense of the sacrament, these words 
 are true strictly, for we all partake of one and 
 THE SAME BREAD, — that is, the sacrcd flesh of 
 the Lord. The bread which I will give, is my 
 flesh; but, in the Protestant sense, St. Paul's 
 words would be nonsense ; for if the sacrament 
 be mere bread, then each receiver partakes of 
 a diflTerent bread ; and hence, as the bread up- 
 on which they feed is not one, so neither can 
 they be cemented into one body. Protestants, 
 therefore, being neither one bread, nor one body, 
 are not the sort of Christians to whom St. 
 Paul addressed himself 
 
 Q. What does St. Paul say in the next verse 
 (18) of same chapter? 
 
 A, " Are not they that eat of the sacrifice, 
 partakers of the altar ?" 
 
 Q. What does St. Paul mean by these words 1 
 
 A. That as the Jews, by the order of the 
 Almighty, always, except when precluded by 
 their sins, eat of the victims that were offered, 
 so also^the Christians, by partaking of the altar, 
 eat of the sacrifice ; but the Christian sacrifice 
 is Christ himself; therefore, in partaking of the 
 victim, they ea* the body and drink the blood 
 of Christ. 
 
212 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Have you any other Scriptu: tl argu* 
 ment ? 
 
 A. On this all-important matte , the argu- 
 ments from Scripture seem inexhaustible St. 
 Paul, 1 Cor. chap, xi, 23, 24, and 25, records 
 the institution in the very language adopted by 
 Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and adds, that he 
 has learned what he w^rites from the Lord, 
 Now, if Christ had spoken in figures at the in- 
 stitution, would it not be natural to expect, 
 that, in this new revelation to St. Paul, who 
 was not present at the Last Suppei, he should 
 vary the language so as cO afford some explana- 
 tion of these figures ? And yet he does not ; 
 the same words are adhered to with the most 
 wonderful exactness. Again, St. Paul knew 
 the true meaning of these words ; and if he 
 understood them to mean mere bread and wine, 
 used as a figure or commemoration, why did 
 he not, writing, as he was, in Greek, to the 
 Corinthians, say — this is a figure of my body, 
 or a commemoration of my blood ; or this 
 SIGNIFIES my body and my blood. St. Paul was 
 instructing the ignorant — he tells these ignorant 
 people, that what they believed to be br^ad and 
 wine, is the body and blood of Christ ; was this 
 tlie way an inspired Apostle should instruct t4e 
 simple ? — would any Protestant minister imitate 
 St. Paul in this odd system of instruction ? 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 213 
 
 Q. Does St. Paul give any explanation^ 
 which proves incontestably, that he understood 
 the sacrament to he the true body and blood oj 
 Christ ? 
 
 A. Yes ; ia verse 27th of same chapter, he 
 says : " Therefore, whosoever shall eat this 
 bread, or dinnk the chalice of the Lord un- 
 worthily, shall be guilty of the body and the 
 blood of the Lord:' 
 
 Q. What inferences do you draw from these 
 words ? 
 
 A. That St. Paul believed in the real pres- 
 ence ; for how could he call the chalice, the 
 chalice of the Lord, if it were only a cup con- 
 taining common wine ? And what would the 
 unworthiness consist in, if only common bread 
 and wine were present, — and how could the 
 unworthy receiver be guilty of the body and 
 blood of the Lord, if the body and blood of the 
 Lord were not there present ? 
 
 Q. What do you remark on the following 
 verse (28) — " But let a man prove himself, and 
 so let him eat of that bread and drink of the 
 chahce ?" 
 
 A. That, in the sacrament, there must be 
 something more than mere bread, otherwise, why 
 this searching proof and trial befoi^ receiving it ? 
 
 Q What are the concluding words of Si. 
 Paul, vfrse 29 ? 
 
214 A Di^CTRlNAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A, '•' For he that eateth and drinketh un. 
 worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to him- 
 self; not discerning the body of the Lord." 
 
 Q. What do you say on tliese words ? 
 
 A. How could a man become unworthy by 
 eating a morsel of bread and drinking a little 
 wine, as a commemoration of the death of 
 Christ ? Why, above all, is he consigned to 
 eternal damnation for a thing, in itself, so 
 indifferent, — and why is he doomed to this 
 awful fate, for not discerning the body of the 
 Lord, if the body of the Lord be not there 
 since, if not there, it cannot be insulted or pro- 
 faned ? If the Catholic be the true doctrine, — 
 if the body and blood of Christ are truly and 
 really present, — then are all St. Paul's words 
 intelligible and full of meaning ; but, in the 
 Protestant sense, they are the most unintelli- 
 gible gibberish that ever was uttered. 
 
 Q. Can you draw a^iy further proof of this 
 from the next verse (30) — " Therefore, are 
 there many infirm and weak among you, and 
 many sleep ?" 
 
 A. Yes, and a very strong proof. St. Paul, 
 in these words, says : on account of your un- 
 w^orthy communions, because you, in many 
 instances, receive, without discerning the body 
 of the Lord, you are afflicted with sickness, and 
 ©van with death in punishment of your awfuJ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHESM. 215 
 
 guilt by the profanation of the sacred body and 
 blood of the Redeemer, — a punishment which 
 we cannot suppose inflicted for eating bread 
 or drinking mere wine. 
 
 Q. Are the Christian Church and dispen* 
 sation superior to those of the Old Law ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; this is admitted on all hands, 
 by Protestants as well as Catholics. 
 
 Q. Would this he the case, if the most dig- 
 nified sacrament of the New Law were only 
 bread and wine, used as a mere figure of the 
 Christian sacrifice ? 
 
 A, Assuredly not ; for how much more dig- 
 nified, and strikingly illustrative of the suffer- 
 ings and death of our beloved Saviour, w^as the 
 Paschal Lamb of the Jews, slain and offered 
 up before the Lord, than is the unmeaning prac- 
 tice of eating and drinking bread and wine, as 
 the only memorial of the Christian Pasch. 
 
 Q. Was the manna of the desert a figure oj 
 the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist ? 
 
 A. Yes ; Christ himself declares it ; but if 
 the Protestant bread and wine be the Christian 
 Pasch, then the figure is greater than the reality, 
 and Christianity is degraded even below the 
 ievel of the Judaic rite. The manna was 
 miraculous bread, the Protestant sacrament h 
 natural bread • the manna came from on high 
 the Protestant sacramen": came from the eartU 
 
216 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 or the baker's oven ; the manna was a heavenlj 
 food, given only to the people of God, the Prot- 
 estant sacrament is the common food of al! 
 men, wicked and virtuous, Jews and Gentiles. 
 Turks and Christians ; the manna, on the Sab- 
 bath, suffered not corruption, the Protestant 
 sacrament is corruptible at all times, it has no 
 miraculous qualities ; the manna had the taste 
 of all kinds of food, and yet was not of all these 
 foods, the Protestant sacrament has the taste 
 of ordinary bread, and has no heavenly proper- 
 ty whatever. Thus, according to the Protest- 
 ant faith, Christianity sinks into insignificance 
 before the wonders of Judaism, — the figure is 
 greater than the reality, — Moses superior to 
 Christ, — all our notions of religion are subvert- 
 ed, — we find ourselves entangled in a dreadful 
 mass of absurdities and contradiction. But 
 when we look at the Catholic Pasch, and be- 
 Heve in the illustrious sacrifice and sacrament 
 in which the body and blood of Jesus Christ 
 are offered and received, we are extricated 
 from our inexplicable difficulties ; our under- 
 standing becomes unclouded ; we perceive at 
 once the noble and significant figure of the Old, 
 and the hifinitely superior and illustrious rea) 
 ity of the New Law. 
 
A noCTRlNAL CATECHISM. 21^ 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Q. Does not Dr, Adam Clarke, in " Ihs- 
 course on the Holy Eucharist,'' London, 1808, 
 say, that in the Syinac, the language used hy 
 Christy there is no word that expresses " to sig- 
 nify or represent,'' and that hence Christ ivas 
 compelled to say " This IS my body," instead 
 of " this REPRESENTS my body ?" 
 
 A, Yes ; but this assertion of Dr. Clarke has 
 been expunged since by Mr. Home, thus prov- 
 ing that Clarke was wrong. Dr. Lee of Cam- 
 bridge (Proleg. to Bagster's Polygl. Bible) con- 
 fesses that Clarke was in error ; and the Right 
 Rev. Dr. Wiseman, w^ho is well qualified to 
 judge in this matter, has discovered, in the 
 Syriac, forty words expressing to signify, 
 to represent, or typify. But the simplest an- 
 swer to the objection is, that the Apostles, who 
 wrote in Greek, had plenty of words meaning 
 to signify. Why then did they use the word, 
 IS, when, to express Protestant doctrine, if they 
 wish to teach such, they had an abundant choice 
 of words ? 
 
 Q. Does not St. Luke, chap, xxii, say : " And 
 having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and 
 said, take and divide it among you ; for I say 
 to you, that I will not drink of the vine till the 
 kingdom of God come ?" And does not this 
 
 19 
 
•ilS A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 prove that it was wine, and not his blood, which 
 was ir. the chalice ? 
 
 A, If Protestants would have patience lo 
 read the whole passage, and not leap at conclu- 
 sions, they would see that the above words 
 were uttered not over the sacramental cup, 
 but over the wine that was drunk with the 
 Paschal Lamb, immediately before Christ insti- 
 tuted the sacrament in verses 19, 20. 
 
 Q. Christ says — " this is the chalice, the 
 new testament,'' &c. ; and where we have these 
 two figures, why may nof the whole he figu- 
 rative ? 
 
 A. These figures were the simplest language 
 to the Apostles who were familiar with them. 
 Every one says, this cup, this glass, meaning 
 the contents of it ; and the Apostles were ac- 
 customed to the language of Moses — " This is 
 the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath 
 mad^ with you," meaning that the blood was 
 not of the covenant, but its seal. Lesides, Christ 
 explains the figure in the words '' which shall 
 be shed for you ;" now, assuredly, it was not 
 the chalice or wine that was shed, but his blood. 
 
 Q. St. Paul 1 Cor. chap, xi, says : " Do 
 this for the commemoration or in i^memhranc^ 
 of me." Now we do not remember things 
 present hut things ahsent ; hence Christ is not 
 presff^n.^ in the sacrament 
 
A DOCTRINAT. CATECHISM. 219 
 
 A, This is a mere quibble. Eccles. chap, 
 xii, says : " Remember thy Creator in the days 
 of thy youth." Now, will any Protestont be 
 fool enough to say, that, in the days of our 
 youth, our Creator is absent from us ? Besides, 
 Christ is not visibly present as he was when 
 addressing the Apostles ; hence, inasmuch as 
 he is now invisible, he may be said to be ab- 
 sent. In fine, the sacrament is a memorial of 
 his death ; and the real death of Jesus is not a 
 thing present in the Holy Eucharist, but is only 
 represented in it, — 1 Cor. chap, xi, — " As often 
 as you eat this bread, &c., you shall show the 
 death of the Lord till he come.'' 
 
 Q. Can a thing be a memorial of itself ? 
 
 A, Yes ; the manna preserved in the Ark 
 was so ; Aaron's rod was preserved as a me- 
 morial of itself, with which Moses wrought so 
 many miracles ; the victims eaten by the Is- 
 raelites were memorials of the same victims 
 offered on the altar. 
 
 Q. May not these words, " This is my body,'' 
 &c., he understood as these others, " I am the 
 door," " I am the vine ?" 
 
 A, No, for many reasons. 1st, Nothing was 
 previously said by Christ to prepare the Apos- 
 tles for believing that he was really to become 
 a vine or a door, whilst he wrought a tremen- 
 dous miracle, and addressed them in a long 
 
220 A DOCTRINAL CAJ'ECHISM. 
 
 discourse, to prepare them to believe that the 
 )read he was to give them should be his own 
 flesh. 2dly, When Christ says, " I am the 
 door'' — John, chap, x — the Scripture itself, 
 verse 6th, declares, that he was speaking fig 
 uratively. " This proverb Jesus spoke to them, 
 hut tluiy understood noty Christ, seeing this; 
 immediately explains the figure : " I am the 
 door into the sheepfold ; by my doctrine and 
 through my blood all must enter. If any man 
 enter in, he shall be saved. / am the good 
 shepherd; the good shephe> I giveth his life for 
 his sheep." In John, chap, xv, where he says 
 he is the vine, he explains himself instantly, by 
 calling us the branches ; showing, that we must 
 live by his grace, as the vine-branch lives by 
 the sap of the vine, — that we must be united 
 to him by love and obedience, as he was by 
 these united to his Father. Now, when Christ 
 says — " This is my body," he does not even 
 hint that he is speaking figuratively ; he enters 
 into no explanation whatever. The Jews are 
 scandalized, — his disciples leave him, — all ex- 
 claim : This is a hard saying ; yet he repeals 
 the same truth in the same words : " Except 
 you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink 
 liis blood, you shall not have life in you." 
 
 Q. Mdiy not Jesus Christ, when he sanl, 
 "This is niy body," have spoken figuratii^h 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATEOllJSxM. 22 
 
 like St. Paul, when he said, 1 Cor. chap, x, 
 * and the rock was Christ ?" 
 
 A. No ; for St. Paul is merely preaching, 
 where figures are allowed and useful ; whilst 
 Christ is instituting a sacrament, at the most 
 awful moment of his life, in the act of making 
 nis last will and testament ; and every one w^U 
 grant, that here rhetorical figures and flow^ers 
 would be highly unbecoming. Besides, there 
 IS no figure in the words of St. Paul, if care- 
 fully examined. He proposes the cloud and 
 the passage of the Red Sea as a figure of bap- 
 tism, — the manna as a figure of the b^ody, and 
 the water of the Rock of Horeb as a figure ol 
 the blood of Christ. He then says . " And all 
 drank the same spiritual drink ; they drank of 
 the spiritual rock that followed them, and the 
 rock (spiritual) was Christ." And was not 
 Christ the true spiritual rock, from whose 
 wounds, as from spiritual fountains, all be- 
 lievers, both prospectively and retrospectively, 
 drank (not as the Jews, from the material and 
 figurative rock Horeb) the spiritual waters of 
 eternal life ? The word spiritual explains the 
 whole, and does away with the figure. 
 
 Q. May not the substantive verb " is" in the 
 text, '•' This IS my body," mean represents, as 
 the same verb " is" means represents in Exodus, 
 nhap xii — " You shall eat (the Jlesh of the 
 
 19* 
 
222 A DOCTR1NA-. CATEChiSM. 
 
 Lamb) in liaste, for it is the Phase {cr Pass 
 over) of the Lord ?" « 
 
 A. No, not at all ; though on the force of 
 this text Zwinglius became so bold as to deny 
 iransubstantiation, decla ing, that he was in a 
 dream reminded of this text by some " winte or 
 black monitor'' The fact is, that the verb is 
 does not mean represent in this passage. Even 
 Rosenmiiller, one of the most learned Protest- 
 ant commentators, maintains, that the word is 
 should be here taken literally ; the original has, 
 This is the passover to the Lord, or this is the 
 day OY feast-day of the passover saci^d to the 
 Lord. The very same construction of lan- 
 guage is used in Exodus, x : " This is the Sab- 
 bath to the Lord," which we have '' this is the 
 Sabbath of the Lord." The same again oc 
 curs in Exodus, xxxii, 5 : " The festival of the 
 Lord," for " the festival to the Lord." And, 
 finally, in the 27th verse of the very chapter 
 under discussion : " This is the sacrifice of the 
 Lord's passover," — that is, in the original : " This 
 is the sacrifice of the passover sacred to the 
 Lord." So that the verb is does not here 
 mean represent at all, but is to be understood 
 literally. How amusingly inconsecutive are 
 Protestants in their arguments against Catholi- 
 cism ! In a few Scriptural instances the verb 
 to he means to represent, whilst in ten thou- 
 
A bOCTRliVAL CATECHISM. 223 
 
 sand instances it is to be understood literally, 
 therefore, like true philosophers, they conclude, 
 because it suits their views, that in these words 
 — " this is my body," — the word is must be un- 
 derstood, not literally, but figuratively, whilst 
 every circumstance connected with the above 
 text goes to prove the contrary. 
 
 Q. Do not the Scriptures represent the body 
 of Christ as in heaven, which he is not to quri 
 till the " times of the restitution of all things,'* 
 — that iSy until the end of the world ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but the Scriptures assure us, that 
 his body is also in the Eucharist ; therefore we 
 believe both. Those who make this objection 
 will find, that our Lord, after his ascension, 
 appeared visibly to St. Paul in the castle of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Q. Does not Christ himself say, Mark, chap, 
 xiv : " The pooi* you have always with you, 
 but me ye have not always V 
 
 A, Yes ; but he speaks here of his mortal 
 and visible presence ; for he elsew^here says : 
 " I will be with you all days, even to the end." 
 
 Q. St. Paul calls the sacrament bread, 1 Cor 
 xi, therefore it is bread, 
 
 A, He calls it bread, because it has the ap- 
 pearance of bread ; but he calls it this bread, 
 clearly showing that it has something extraor- 
 dinary about it. He calls it bread, but he say^ 
 
224 A DOCTRIN'AL C i^TECHISM 
 
 that he who partakes of it, partakes of the 
 body of Christ. Christ called it bread ; but he 
 adds, the bread which I will give you is my 
 flesh for the life of the world. Again, wo have 
 man}" examples of Scripture, in which the thing 
 changed bears the name of that from which it 
 is transubstantiated. Thus, Gen. ii. Eve is call 
 ed the hone of Adam ; in Gen. iii, Adam is 
 called dust, because he is made from dust; 
 Exodus vii, Aaron's rod is called a rod, after it 
 became a serpent ; John ii, the water after 
 being changed into wine, is called water. The 
 Scripture, too, often calls things what they 
 aj)pear to be. Thus, Gen. xvii, angels in hu- 
 man form, are called men. 
 
 CHAPTER X.—O^ TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 Q. What do you mean by Transubstantia- 
 tion ? 
 
 A, To comprehend this, we must observe, 
 that in all bodies there are two things to be 
 noted : 1st, the outward appearances, such as 
 taste, smell, shape, coloi', &c. ; and, 2dly, the 
 matter or substance in which these qualities 
 reside. The sensible qualities are objects oi 
 knowledge, which we can acquire by the testi- 
 mony of the senses, but we can form no notion 
 of the nature or structure of the inward sub- 
 
A LOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 225 
 
 stance ; it is beyond the reach of even our con- 
 ception. Now, with regard to the Holy Eu- 
 charist, our faith teaches us, that " this inward 
 imperceptible substance of the bread and wine^ 
 is, at the consecration, by the Almighty power 
 of God, changed into the substance of the body 
 and blood of Christ," all the outward sensible 
 qualities remaining entirely the same as before 
 consecration. (Council of Trent, Sess. xiii, 
 cap. 4.) 
 
 Q. Can you show that such a change took 
 place ? 
 
 A. Yes ; for when Christ took the brea-^ in- 
 .o his hands, it was still bread ; but w.. 
 gave it to his disciples, he declares that it is riib 
 body : " This is my body." His words can- 
 not be false ; by declaring it to be his body, he 
 made it so. The change did not take place in 
 the outward sensible qualities ; therefore it 
 took place in the inward substance. 
 
 Q. May it not be said that his body is with 
 the bread ? 
 
 A. No ; for Christ does not say : In this 
 bread, or with this bread, or under this bread, 
 or this bread eaten by faith, or with this bread 
 when you receive it^ is my body ; but he simply 
 says — Tins is my body. What Christ held in 
 his hand could not be bread and his body at one 
 und the same time. 
 
226 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISiM. 
 
 Q. Doefi the Scripture, by any other exam 
 pie than this, show, that the word of Christ 
 affirming that a thing is what it was not he. 
 fo7'e, is sufficient to produce the effect ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the ruler — John, chap, iv, 49, 50 
 — says to Christ ; " Sir, come down before my 
 son die. Jesus saith to him : Go thy way, thy 
 son liveth ; and it was the same hour that 
 Jesus said to the ruler, thy son liveth, that the 
 fever left him'' (Verse 53.) 
 
 Q How is such a change possible ? 
 
 A. You may as well ask how was the w^orld 
 created out of nothing ; — how were the waters 
 of Egypt turned into blood ; — the dry rod in- 
 to a living serpent ; — the water into wine at 
 Can a, 
 
 Q. How can one substance exist under thu 
 outward appearances of another ? 
 
 A, As easily as angels who appeared to God's 
 servants in the Old Law, under the outward 
 appearance of men, and spoke and walked and 
 ate, as if they really were men. Luke, chap 
 iii, 22 — the Holy Ghost appeared under the 
 bodily shape of a dove ; and Acts, chap, ii, 3 
 under the form of ''parted tongues of fire ' 
 
 Q. How can the body of Christ be in man 
 places at one and the same time ? 
 
 A We know little of glorified bodies, or 
 their qualities and perfection ; but we know 
 
A D(;CTR1NAL CATECHISM. 227 
 
 that they are not like mortal bodies. How did 
 our Saviour's body pass through the stone with 
 which his sepulchre was closed ? — Mark xv, 
 46. How did his body pass through the door ? 
 — John XX, 19, 26. How did he, whilst in 
 heaven, after his ascension, appear to St. Paul ? 
 — 1 Cor. chap. xv. In fine, the miracle of the 
 multipHcation of the loaves and fishes (Mark vi, 
 40) was intended and calculated to meet and 
 remove the objections of unbelievers on this 
 subject ; the loaves and fishes having been mi- 
 raculously, though invisibly, endued with the 
 properties of extension and inexhaustibleness, 
 so as to feed five thousand men with five loaves 
 and two fishes, and four thousand with seve-n 
 loaves and a few small fishes. — Mark viii, 6. 
 
 Q. Perhaps each one only took a little ? 
 
 A. No ; for the Scripture says, they did ali- 
 eat and had their fill, and there were twelve 
 baskets of fragments remaining. 
 
 Q. Perhaps, then, Christ created new loaves 
 andfislies ? 
 
 A, No ; for again the Scripture declares, 
 that ''the two fishes he divided among them 
 ALL,'' and that " they filled twelve baskets oj 
 the fragments of the five barley loaves." 
 
 Q. How can the body of Christ be contain 
 ed under the compass of a small host ? 
 
 A. Our Saviour says, that our bodies sha31 
 become like the angels, — that it is possible for 
 God to make a camel pass through the eye oi 
 a needle ; and how did the body of Christ pas> 
 through the door and throngli the sto'iie ? 
 
•^28 A mCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Are not the senses deceived in i/ns 
 matter ? 
 
 A. Not at ill ; the serxses can only be em- 
 ployed on ex ernal qualities ; they are not 
 exercised on siibstance. In the sacrament, the 
 external appearances are those of bread and 
 wine ; the senses perceive these, and therefore 
 they perceive all that is within tlieir provLace. 
 As well might you say, the senses were deceived 
 in Christ, who was God-man, and yet appeared 
 to be only man, or in the Holy Ghost, when he 
 appeared under the form of a dove. 
 
 Q. How can the same thing appear under 
 two different fonms, as under the form of bread 
 and wine ? 
 
 A. The Holy Ghost appeared under the form 
 of a dove — Luke iii, 22 ; and under the form o^ 
 parted tongues — Acts ii, 3. 
 
 Q. Has the doctrin-e of tr an substantiation 
 been believed in every age of the Church ? 
 
 A, No portion of Christian doctrine is better 
 attested. St. Ambrose, lib. iv de Sacra, chap. 
 4, says : " Before the consecration, bread only 
 is present ; but after the sacred words are pro- 
 nounced, the bread is chpnged into the body 
 of our Lord." And St Gregory of Nyssa, in 
 his Large Catechism, chap. 37, declares : " I 
 firmly believe that the bread is changed into 
 the body of Jesus Christ." 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 229 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Q. Is Christ permanently present in the 
 sacrament, — that is, at any other time than when 
 U is received ? 
 
 A. He is really and permanently present 
 from and after the time the words of conse- 
 cration are pronounced. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this ? 
 
 A, At the moment Christ finished the pro- 
 nunciation of these words — " This is my body," 
 either his body was there, or his words w^ere 
 not true ; the latter is blasphemy ; therefore, his 
 body was present, but the disciples had not yet 
 received it, — there it was, present at other than 
 the moment in lohich it was received. 
 
 Q. Throw a little more light on this. 
 
 A, Christ did not say : This shall be my body 
 when you receive it, but absolutely, this is my 
 body. The present, and not the future time, is 
 marked by the word is. 
 
 Q. If the Lutheran doctrine in this matter 
 were true, what would be the consequence ? 
 
 A, That the body of Christ would be present, 
 not by virtue of the words of consecration, 
 but by virtue of the manducation, which is a 
 gross absurdity. 
 
 Q, What says St. Ambrose — Lib. iv da 
 Sncr. chap. 4 ? 
 
 20 
 
280 A DOCJRJSAu CATECHISM. 
 
 A. ''The words of consecration aie as effi- 
 cacious as those employed by God in the crea- 
 tion of the world." Hence, the body of Christ 
 is present immediately after the words of conse- 
 cration, as the w^orld existed immediately after 
 the pronunciation of the words which di^ew it 
 out of nothing. 
 
 Q. Repeat St. Cyril in his Epistle to Coelo- 
 syrius ? 
 
 A. " None but a fool/' he says, " can imagme 
 that the consecrated host loses its virtue imme- 
 diately after consecration/' 
 
 Q. Have you any other proof of the perma- 
 nent presence of Jes2is Christ in the Eucharist 1 
 
 A. Yes ; the Primitive Church preserved the 
 Eucharist for the sick in holy vessels. In times 
 of persecution, it w^as kept for a considerable 
 time ; and the bishops were wont to send it, one 
 to another, as a mark of their strict union. 
 
 Q. How long does Jesus Christ remain un- 
 der the species ? 
 
 A. As long as the species exist. 
 
 Q. If the blessed sacrament should fall into 
 fire or water, would Jesus Christ suffer or he 
 insulted ! 
 
 A, Ke would be insulted if this happened by 
 the fault of man ; but if by accident, no insult 
 would be offered to him ; He is immortal and 
 jmpassiblo— He can suffer no more ; and in the 
 
A DOCTRINAL ^ATFXHISM. 231 
 
 cases nientioned, or any other such, the species 
 only are consumjed or changed. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Q,. Should we adore Jesus Christ in ths 
 llessed sacrament of the Eucharist ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; because He, whom all the 
 angels adore, is truly present on our altars. 
 
 Q. Are Catholics justified in kneeling before 
 the blessed sacrament when it is carried past 
 them in the street, either to the sick, or in re 
 ligious processions '( 
 
 A, Yes ; more than justified ; for it, accord- 
 ing to Scripture, we bend the knee at the name 
 of Jesus, how much more are we bound to do 
 so before his sacred person, 
 
 Q. Do Catholics act properly in carrying 
 the adorable sacrament with religious pomp 
 and solemnity in processions ? 
 
 A. If the Israehtes carried the ark of the 
 alliance with great solemnity, Catholics have 
 much more reason to carry in triumph the holy 
 sacrament, of which the ark was only a mere 
 figure. 
 
 Q. May it not be said, that Jesus Christ is 
 in the sacrament, not seeking our adorations, 
 hut tc be the spiritual food of ou^ souls ? 
 
 A, Jesus Christ was in the cril of Bethlehem 
 
232 A DCJCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 not. to be adored merely, yet the Magi neglect- 
 ed not to adore him. He cured the man born 
 blind, not merely to receive that man's adora- 
 tion, yet that man neglected not to give it him 
 Wherever Jesus Christ is, there he is to be re- 
 ceived and adored with sovereign honors. St 
 Angus, super Psal. 98, says : " It is sinful tc 
 neglect to adore Jesus Christ ik the EucharisL'' 
 St. Ambrose, Lib. iii de Sanct. Spirit, chap. 12, 
 says : " We adore Jesus Christ during the cele- 
 bration of the sacred mysteries.'' 
 
 Q. Are the Lutherans agreed upon this 
 point ? 
 
 A. No ; Kemnitius and his partisans order 
 the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist ; Illvri- 
 cus and his party forbid it. 
 
 ON THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND 
 CONFESSION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. For what end was the sacrament of Pen* 
 ance instituted ? 
 
 A, For the remission of sins committed after 
 baptism. 
 
 Q. Is it a true sacjament? 
 
 A. Yes ; tecause it has all the essentials of 
 
 \ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHIrfM. 233 
 
 a sacrament, — the outward sign in the sentence 
 of absolution pronounced by the priest, — thft 
 inward grace in the sanctifying grace of God. 
 by which our sins are forgiven, — and it is evi- 
 dently instituted by Jesus Christ. 
 
 Q. Where? 
 
 A. In Matth. chap, ix, Jesus heals the man 
 sick of the palsy, and says to him : " Be of good 
 heart, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Jews 
 say : " He blasphemeth." Jesus replies, that 
 he works this miracle, that they might know 
 '•' that the Son of man hath power on earth to 
 forgive sins/' " \nd the multitude seeing it, 
 feared, and glorified God who had given such 
 [)0wer to men.'' Here Christ works a tre- 
 mendous miracle to prove that he, as man, can 
 forgive sins, and the people glorify God who 
 had given such power to men. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from this ? 
 
 A. That Jesus Christ, even as man, had this 
 power from his Father. 
 
 Q. Does he communicate this power, which 
 he certainly had, to the pastors of the Chwch ? 
 
 A, On the very day of his resurrection, he 
 says to them — John xx, 21: "As my Father 
 hath sent me, I also send you ;" but he himself, 
 even as man, had, by the abovcj text, power 
 from his Father to forgive sins , therefore he 
 gave this power to his Apostles. 
 
 20* 
 
234 A Doctrinal catechism. 
 
 Q. What does he immediately add, to clear 
 away all doubt as to this power ? 
 
 A. " Breathing upon tbem, he said : Receive 
 ye the Holy Ghost ; whose sins ye shall forgive, 
 they are forgiven them, and whose sins ye shall 
 retain, they are retained." Again — Matth. 
 xviii, 18 — Christ says : "Amen, I say to you, 
 whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth, shall be 
 bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall 
 loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in 
 heaven!" 
 
 Q. What says St. Chrysostom on tfiese pas- 
 sages ? 
 
 A, " To the priests is given a power, which 
 God would not give to angels or archangels ; 
 earthly princes have the power of binding the 
 body, but the binding of the priest reaches even 
 to the soul : . . . .what the priests do below, God 
 ratifies above, and the master confirms the 
 sentence of the servants." 
 
 Q. Can the priest forgive or retain sin as 
 he pleases ? 
 
 A. No ; he is bound to act as St. Paul did, 
 when he pardoned the incestuous Corinthian. 
 The Apostle declares, that what he did, " he diu 
 It in the person of Christ." — 2 Cor. ii. The 
 priest ac:s n the person of Christ, and does 
 only what "Jhrist would do for the sincere 
 penitent. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 235 
 
 Q. Is it not blasphemy to say that man can 
 forgive sins ? 
 
 A, Certainly it is blasphemy to say, that 
 men, not commissioned by God for that pur- 
 pose, can do so ; but it is no blasphemy to say, 
 that men may have that power, and have that 
 power from God, since the Apostles were men, 
 and yet they certainly had such power. 
 
 Q. On what conditions can the lawfully- 
 ordained and commissioned piiest exercise 
 this power ? 
 
 A. The penitent, to be absolved, must detest 
 his sins ; — he must be firmly resolved to avoid 
 sin and its occasions in future ; — he must be 
 willing to submit to whatever penance the priest 
 imposes ; — and, if able, he must confess all his 
 nns. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. Is the confession of sin a modern prac- 
 tice ? 
 
 A. No; it is as ancient as revealed religion. 
 
 Q„ How do you prove this ? 
 
 A. In the first place, from the clearest testi 
 iuony of the Old Law — '' When a man or 
 woman shall have comnutted any of all the 
 sins that men are wont to comn it, and, by 
 negligence, shall have transgressed the com- 
 mandment of the Lo]*d, hey shall confcs:i ikeir 
 
23tJ /v UOCl'KiNAL CATECHISM 
 
 sin, and restore the principal, and a fifth pan 
 over and above." — Num. v, 6. Here we have 
 not only confession, but penance and restitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. Quote other passages on this importam 
 matter, 
 
 A. " He that hideth his sins shall not pros- 
 per ; but he that shall confess and shall forsake 
 them shall obtain mercy." — Prov. xxviii, 13 
 " Be not ashamed to say the truth for the sake 
 of ihf soul ; for there is a shame that hringeth 
 sin, and a shame that bringeth glory and graced 
 See also Ecclus. vi, 24, 31. 
 
 Q. Did the practice of confession exist im- 
 mediately before the coming of Christ 1 
 
 A, Certainly ; for it is said of the immediate 
 forerunner of Christ, St. John the Baptist. 
 •' That there went out to him all the country 
 of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were 
 baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing 
 their sins.'' — Mark i, 5. 
 
 Q. But did not this confession merely mean 
 confessing sin to God ? 
 
 A, Protestants must be blind indeed, not In 
 see the absurdity of this subterfuge ; do they 
 consider that a culprit, about to be hangeri, 
 makes a real confession, if he merely confess 
 his sin in his own mind or heart to God ? No 
 every execution that takes place proves tlia/ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATE {^HISM. 23*} 
 
 tie does not. Confession is the revelation oi 
 sin to man. The confession of sin to God is 
 in itself, without contrition, a matter of little 
 consequence ; for God knows all things ; we 
 confess to him in spite of ourselves. Besides, 
 in Num. v, you see that the confession must 
 have been to men, as the restitution of the 
 principal, and the fifth pai^t over and above, 
 must have been made to men. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. In the New Law, is confession institutea 
 by God or by the Church ? 
 
 A. Confession is a Divine institution, but the 
 Church has fixed the time for the performance 
 of that duty. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that confession is a 
 Divine institution ? 
 
 A. From John, chap, xx, 22, where Christ 
 says to his Apostles : " Whose sins ye shall for- 
 give, they are forgiven them ; and whose sins 
 ye shall retain, they are retained ;" and from 
 Matth. chap, xviii. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from these pas- 
 sages ? 
 
 A, That before the pastors of the Church 
 can exercise this power "-he sinner must con* 
 less his sins to them. 
 
238 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Why SO? 
 
 A. By the above text, the priest has powei 
 to forgive or to retain sin, according to the dis- 
 position of the penitent ; now, without confes- 
 sion, the exercise of this power is impossible, 
 because, in that case, the puiest cannot kno^% 
 what sins to retain, or what to forgive. 
 
 Q. Throw a little moi^e light on this, 
 
 A. The priest is a judge who must decide 
 what sins he ought to forgive, what he ought 
 to retain : now, no judge can pronounce a de- 
 cision without hearing the whole case. 
 
 Q. May it not he said, that the priest is not 
 a judge, hut is appointed merely to declare 
 the sins forgiven ? 
 
 A. No ; for the keys ai'e given, to open and 
 shut the gate, not to declare that it is open. 
 Hence, the powder which Christ gave to his 
 Apostles and their successors, was the power 
 of hinding and loosing, not the power of de- 
 daring the penitent hound or loosed. 
 
 Q. What do you find in 1 John, i, 8 ? 
 
 A. " If we say we have no sin, we deceive 
 ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we 
 confess our sins, God is faithful and just to for- 
 give us our sins." 
 
 Q. May not Protesta^nts say, that this say- 
 ing, we have no sii, and this confession of ouj 
 nns, merely regard God and not the priests ? 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 239 
 
 A. They must regard the priests ; for whc 
 would dare to say to God that he has no sin ? 
 And does not God know all our sins already 
 without having recourse to our confession ? 
 
 Q. Have you any other remark to make on 
 this passage ? 
 
 A. It says, if we confess our sins, God iS 
 faithful and just to forgive us. God is here 
 said to be faithful and just, because he promised 
 to forgive us our sins on the condition that we 
 confess them. The words of the Apostle are 
 the same as the following : " If we confess our 
 sins, God, who is faithful and just, will keep the 
 promise he made in these words : Whose sins 
 you shall forgive, they are forgiven." 
 
 Q. Can you produce any other texts of 
 Scripture on this subject ? 
 
 A. St.. James, chap, v, 16, says : " Confess 
 therefore your sins one to another, and pray for 
 one another, that you may he saved,'' Here 
 we have confession to man laid down as a con- 
 dition to salvation. 
 
 Q. May not this mean public and general 
 confession, not to the priest, but to any neis^h- 
 bor 1 
 
 A. It means confession of sin either public 
 or private, for either will be sufficient, and it 
 means to the pastors of the Church who ai*e 
 ieclared to have power to absolve ; for wha^ 
 
240 A DOCTRINAL CATECH11M. 
 
 would be the use of confessing private sins Ic 
 the public who cannot forgive them, and who 
 would be scandalized by them ? Besides, who 
 would confess to those who might divulge hi^ 
 sins and destroy his character ? 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. Is there any example in Scripture tc 
 py^ove that the first Christians confessed their 
 sins ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the 19th chapter of the Acts tells 
 us, that many who believed came, " confessing 
 and showing their deeds,'' 
 
 Q. What did the Apostles require of them 
 besides confession ? 
 
 A, " That many of them who had followed 
 curious arts," should bring their books together 
 and burn them. 
 . Q. What do you infer from this passage? 
 
 A. That St. Paul and the converts of Ephe- 
 sus were thoroughly Catholics in this matter, 
 seeing that they did exactly what the pastors 
 of the Catholic Church and their people do at 
 the present day, in the same circumstances, 
 
 Q. Is it clear, from the Fathers of the An- 
 cient Church, that private confession urns r//- 
 UMys practised 1 
 
 A Yes ; St. Cyprian, in his Sermon, Cdv 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 241 
 
 Lapsis,) says : " My dear brethren, let every 
 one, whHst he is yet in Ufe, and in a state to 
 Drofit by the advice and assistance of the priest, 
 confess his sins/' St. Basil (in Quaest. Brev. 
 Reg. 228, 229) remarks: "Our sins must 
 necessarily be confessed to those to whom has 
 been committed the dispensation of the mys- 
 teries of God." 
 
 Q. What are St. Ambrose's words ? Lib 
 li de Poenit. chap. 6. 
 
 A. " If you obtain grace, confess your sins, 
 for an humble confession bursts all the chains 
 of sin." 
 
 Q. What says St, Chrysostom ? Lib. iii 
 de Sacerd. 
 
 A. " The Jewish priests could not cure the 
 leprosy of the body, they merely declared M 
 cured ; but the Christian priest does not merely 
 declare, but effects the cure of the leprosy of 
 the soul." 
 
 Q. What says St. Augustine ? Hom. xlix, 
 T. 10. 
 
 A. " Let no one say, I sii? secretly ; I do it 
 before God, he knows mv heart and will par- 
 don me. Did Christ then say without reason : 
 ' What you shall loose upon earth, shall be 
 loosed in heaven ?' Were the keys then given 
 to the Church for no purpose ?" See also St 
 Jerome, Expos, in Ezech. cap. 10. 
 
 21 
 
242 n DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Why did the Lutherans abolish confes* 
 sion ? 
 
 A. Because, says the Confession of Ausrs- 
 burg, "no man can remember all his sins." 
 
 Q. Is this a good and valid reason 1 
 
 A. Certainly not ; since the Cathohc Church 
 only requires, that her children be sorry for al\ 
 their sins, and confess all that, after earnest and 
 careful examination of conscience, thev can 
 bring to their recollection. 
 
 Q. Was the above the real reason why Prot 
 (Slants abandoned confession ? 
 
 A. No ; they abolished it, first, because it 
 was troublesome, and they did not wish to 
 carry their cross ; secondly, because their pas- 
 tors were not lawfully ordained and commis- 
 sioned priests, and hence, as they had not the 
 power to absolve, confession to them was use- 
 less ; thirdly, the thing w^hich they called the 
 Reformed Church taught them, that faith alone 
 was quite sufficient to save them, — hence, it 
 was useless to practise confession or any other 
 Scriptural precept ; fourthlj^ these ministers 
 w^ere bound by no law to keep secret the sins 
 confessed to them, — hence, their people wouW 
 be fools to put any thing in their power. 
 
 Q. Does the Chm ch of Englanl teach any 
 thing on this subject ? 
 
 A, Yes; theBookof Common Prayer teaches 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATEClliSM. 243 
 
 both confession and the power of absolving ; and 
 even the Kkk of Scotland, (see Confess, of 
 Faith, Visit, of Sick,) whose ministers have 
 certainly no ordination, w^ould willingly lead 
 their people to confess. But these spurious 
 ^^'hurches have never succeeded in this attempt 
 
 OiS EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 Q. Whei^e does the Scripture mention the 
 sacrament of Extreme Unction ? 
 
 A. In James, chap, v, 14 — " Is any one sick 
 among you, let him bring in the priests of the 
 Church, and let them pray over him, anointing 
 him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the 
 prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the 
 Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, 
 they shall be forgiven him.'' 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from these words ? 
 
 A, That, according to Scripture, every Chris- 
 tian in danger of death should oe anointed by 
 the priests of the Church. 
 
 Q. What would you say to a Prctestani 
 touching these words of St. James ? 
 
 A. You boast, I would say, eternally about 
 following the Scripture, to the letter, in every 
 
244 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 thing ; how is it, then, that you never anoint 
 one of your sick, whilst you are aware thai 
 there is an express command in the Scriptuie 
 to this effect ? 
 
 Q. May not Protestants say, that this pas- 
 sage of St. James is to he understood of a mi- 
 raculous unction, like that in St. Mark, chap, 
 vi, 13 — " And they cast out many devils, and 
 anointed with oil many that were sick and 
 healed them ?" 
 
 A. No ; this passage is rather a confirmation 
 of our doctrine ; for the Apostles, through the 
 sacraments, often wrought miracles, as in the 
 19th chap, of the Acts, St. Paul works miracles 
 through Confirmation. These miracles were 
 not an essential part of the sacraments ad- 
 ministered, — they were an extraordinary ex- 
 hibition of God's power to induce an unbe- 
 lieving world to admit, not only the sacraments 
 so miraculously established, but to admit also 
 the truth of Christianity. When, however, the 
 world was converted, these wonderful accom- 
 paniments of the sacraments were no longer 
 rxecessary. 
 
 Q. Have you any other rejdy to make on 
 ihis matter ? 
 
 A. Yes ; the words of St. James are so clear 
 
 ^hat it is impossible to explain them away. By 
 
 rords, all p-riesis are ordered to anoint ; 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 245 
 
 from St. Mark this does not appear : 2dly, By 
 the words of St. James all the sick are to be 
 anointed , from St. Mark it is onlv clear that 
 many were anointed : 3dly, This duty of anoint- 
 ing the sick is, by St. James, expressly confined 
 to the priest ; whilst the gift of healing maladies 
 and sicknesses, in St. Mark, is given to others, 
 as well as to the pastors of the Church : Finally, 
 the unction mentioned by St. James, is to pro- 
 duce the effect of saving by the remission of 
 sin, which proves it evidently 1o be an institu- 
 tion of Jesus Christ ; for only He, by a material 
 mean, can produce such an effect. Now, such 
 effects are not at all attributed to the unction 
 mentioned by St. Mark. 
 
 Q. Does not the word Presbyter mean Eldet 
 in the above passage ? 
 
 A. Certainly not in the Protestant sense 
 The pastors of the Church were, in the primi- 
 tive ages, called Presbyters ; because they 
 were generally elderly men ; such things as 
 Kirk elders (anomalous beings, who are neither 
 ecclesiastics nor laymen) were unknown in the 
 Church, until Protestantism made its appear- 
 ance. But what sets the matter at rest, is the 
 circumstance, that the Apostles are called Pres- 
 byters in 1 Petei*, v, 1 ; in 2 John, i, 1 ; and in 
 l-i John, i, 1. 
 
 Q. Is Extreme Unction a. sa^ranierUf 
 23^ 
 
246 A UOCTKIXAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. Clearly ; because it is a visible sign, whichu 
 by Divine institution, confers invisible grace. 
 
 Q. Wliat is the sensible sign 1 
 
 A. The anointing with holy oil, accompanied 
 by prayer — " Let them pray over him, anoint- 
 ing him with oil in the name of the Lord." — ■ 
 James, v. 
 
 Q. What is the invisible grace given ? 
 
 A, The sanctifying grace of God, by which 
 sin is washed away and forgiven ; the actual 
 grace of God, by which the soul is strengthen- 
 ed, and sometimes the restoration of the body 
 to health, according to these words — " And the 
 piayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the 
 Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, 
 they shall be forgiven him." 
 
 Q. How do you show that Christ institutea 
 this sacrament ? 
 
 A. Protestants must be very ignorant to ask 
 this question. They believe St. James to be 
 an inspired Apostle ; and can they for a mo 
 ment imagine, that such a man would even 
 speak of a rite, by which man is to be saved, 
 raised up, and forgiven his sins, unless as an 
 Apostle, taught by the Redeemer himself, he 
 had the express institution and authority of his 
 Divine Master ? 
 
 Q. Do the Fathers mention this Facramem 
 in their lO'itings ? 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISiM. 247 
 
 A St. Augustine, Serm. 215 de Temp., says : 
 " x\s often as sickness happens, the sick man 
 should receive the Eucharistical sacrament, 
 and then the unction of his body, in order to 
 comply with the words of the Apostle James, 
 V chap. — * Is any sick amongst you' '' &c. 
 
 Q. Did the Church of England ever use 
 this rite ? 
 
 A. Yes ; in the first Liturgy of Edward the 
 Sixth, the use of Chrism and Extreme Unction 
 is ordered. (See order for Visit, of Sick* 
 page 114.) 
 
 ON HOLY ORDERS. 
 
 Q. Who sends the pastors of the Church f 
 A. Christ himself sent the first pastors, ir; 
 these words : " Going, therefore, teach ye all 
 nations, baptizing them," &c. These first pas- 
 tors, aided by the Spirit of God in making their 
 selection, appointed their successors ; and thus., 
 through the chief bishop of the Church, the 
 body of pastors has continued down to the 
 present day. 
 
 Q. May not any man set himself up for a 
 Christian teacher, if he he chosen by the people^ 
 as the F^^esbyterian ministers are ^ 
 
248 A DOCTRINAL CArECHlSM. 
 
 A. Certainly not ; since St. Paul says, Heb. 
 V, 4 : " Neither doth any man take the honor 
 to himself, but he that is called (not by the 
 mob, but) by God as Aaron was." " How can 
 thej preach," says St. Paul again — Rom. x 15 
 — " unless they be sent ?" 
 
 Q. Have you any other texts on this subject ? 
 
 A. In St. John, chap, x, Christ says : " For 
 he that entereth not by the sheepfold, but 
 chmbeth up another way, the same is a thief 
 and a robber.'' Again — Matth. xv, 14— those 
 who intrude themselves into the pastoral office, 
 are represented as " blind leaders of the blind," 
 who, with their unfortunate followers, will " fall 
 into the pit." 
 
 Q. What are the principal duties of the 
 pastors of the Church ? 
 
 A, To preach the Gospel, — Mattk xxviii 
 19 ; to baptize, — Matth. xxviii, 19 ; to offer up 
 the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, — Luke xxii, 
 19 ; to forgive sins by the power with which 
 God has invested them, — John xx, 22 ; and to 
 administer the holy sacraments of which we 
 are now treating. (See texts quoted, as regaros 
 each sacrament.) 
 
 Q. Did the Apostles communicate their sa* 
 cred powers to those who succeeded them ? 
 
 A. This is clear from the words of Christ 
 who said he would be with them all days, even 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 249 
 
 to the consummation of the world. Now, he 
 could not be with the Apostles all days, as the 
 pastors of his Church ; therefore, he meant that 
 he would be with them and their successors all 
 days, even to the end. Besides, we hear St. 
 Paulc — Acts XX, 28 — address the chief pastors 
 who were to succeed him in these words : 
 *' Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole 
 flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you 
 bishops to rule the Church of God." In fine, 
 the religion of Christ was to be the religion of 
 all time ; therefore, of necessity, it must have, 
 at all times, pastors ordained and sent as the 
 Apostles were. 
 
 Q. Are bishops superior to priests in au- 
 thority and jurisdiction ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; as much superior to the priests 
 as the Apostles were to the other disciples. 
 When Judas fell from the Apostleship, the other 
 Apostles elected and raised Matthias to his 
 place, according to that prophecy — " His bishop- 
 ric let another take." — Acts i, 16-24. St. Paul 
 — Acts XX, 28 — says, the bishops are to rule 
 the Church of God. In 1 Tim. v, 19, he says : 
 "Against a priest, receive not an accusation, 
 but under two or three witnesses ;" from which 
 the superiority of bishops is more than evident, 
 as they are here constituted the j.udges of the 
 prijisthood. 
 
250 . A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Where, in the sacrament of holy orders 
 have ice the outward sign ? 
 
 A, In the imposition of the bishop's hands 
 the delivery of the necessary instruments, and 
 prayer. Read the ordination of the seven 
 Deacons, — Acts vi, 6 ; and that of SS. Paul 
 and Barnabas, — Acts xiii, 3. 
 
 Q. Where does it appear that inward grace 
 is conferred in this sacrament ? 
 
 A. In 1 Tim. iv, 14, where St. Paul says to 
 Timothy : " Neglect not the grace that is in 
 thee, which was given thee by prophecy, by the 
 imposition of the hands of the priesthood ;'^ 
 and in 2 Tim. i, 6 : " Stir up the grace of 
 God which is in thee by the imposition of my 
 hands'' 
 
 Q. Who has the power to ordain priests ? 
 
 A. None but bishops. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this ? 
 
 A. From Titus i, 5, vv^here St. Paul says to 
 Titus, bishop of Crete : " For this cause I left 
 thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order 
 the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain 
 priests in every city, as I also appointed thee ;" 
 and from 1 Tim. v, 22, where St. Paul tells that 
 bishop of Ephesus " not to impoee hands lightlv 
 on anv man." 
 
 Q. Can you establish the superiomty ; 
 bishops from tradition ? 
 
A DOCTRINAL. CATECHISM. 251 
 
 A. Very clearly; from the very establish- 
 ment of Christianity down to the time of Lu- 
 ther, we defy any adversary to name even one 
 person considered a priest, who was not or 
 dainea by some bishop. 
 
 Q. What do the Fatfiers say ? 
 
 A, St. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostles, 
 who succeeded St. Peter in the See of Antioch, 
 says, Epist. ad Trail. : " Reverence your bishop., 
 as Christ himself, like as the blessed Apostles 
 have commanded us ; for who is the bishop, 
 but he who has all power and principality over 
 all." Again — Ep. ad Magnes. — -' It becomes 
 you to obey your bishop, and in nothing to re- 
 sist him, . . . .whether you be priest, deacon, or 
 laic." St. Cyprian, Ep. 55, says : " Heresies 
 and schisms rise from no other source, but dis- 
 obedience to the chief pastors/' Tertullian, 
 Lib. de Bap. cap. 17, writes : " The bishop, 
 indeed, has a right to give baptism, and next 
 the priests and deacons, but not without the 
 authority of the bishops." 
 
 Q. What says St. Epiphanius — Con. Ae 
 rius ? 
 
 A. That the 65 Heresy, condemned by the 
 (Jhurcl\, consisted in maintaining, as Aerius had 
 done, that the powers of the bishop and Uie 
 priest were equal. He adds, that thexe is this 
 difference between the bishops and priests,-— 
 
252 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 that the priests are the sph'itual fathers of the 
 people by baptism, whilst the bishops are the 
 spiritual fathers of the priests by ordination. 
 
 Q. What was done at the Council of Alex- 
 andria ? 
 
 A, All the ordinations of Colluthus were de 
 Glared null, because he was only a priest. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this ? 
 
 A. That none but Catholics have true and 
 real priests or pastors ; because, in other 
 Churches, the ministers are not ordained at all, 
 or ordained by men whose Episcopal ordination 
 is doubtful ; hence, I conclude also, that secta- 
 rians are deprived of the greater part of the 
 sacraments, — their ministry is not of divine 
 appointment but self-constituted, and their 
 Church forms no part of the Church of Christ. 
 " Where there is no Episcopal ordination/' 
 says the Protestant Dodwell, " there is no min- 
 istry, no sacrament, no Church." 
 
 ON MATRIMONY 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. lias marriage all the necessary constitu- 
 'mts of a sacrament ? 
 
 A. It has the outward sign, in the mulua^ 
 
i* -DOCTRINAL CATKCHISM. 253 
 
 consent of the parties, externally signified ; ac- 
 companied by the other conditions which th6 
 ecclesiastical law requires. The in^vard grace 
 IS that which enables the married couple to 
 discharge their duties faithfully and in a Chris- 
 tian manner to one another, and to train up 
 their children in the fear of God ; and the 
 Divine institution is evident from Matth. xix, 6, 
 where it is said, '' Wherefore they are no more 
 two, but one flesh ; what therefore God hath 
 jjined together let no man put asunder." 
 
 Q. How does it appear that grace is con- 
 ferred in the sacrament of marriage ? 
 
 A. In the first place, you see from Matth. 
 xix, quoted above, that God is the author of 
 marriage, and sureJy you will admit, that he 
 will give to those whom he joins in this holy 
 union, such graces as will enable them to dis- 
 charge the duties of it. 2dly, St. Paul express- 
 ly says, Ephes. v, 32 : " This is a great sacra 
 ment, but I speak in (Christ and in the Church,' 
 — that is, that marriage is, in the New Law 
 of Christ and in his Church, a great sacra- 
 ment ; for the passage would not make sense, if 
 this be not its meaning; what, if marriage be 
 not the great sacrament here alluded to — w^hat 
 s this great sacrament in Christ and the 
 Church ? — -Christ himself and his Church can- 
 Dct be a 2;reat sacrament in Christ and thf 
 
 22 
 
254 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 Church; but if marriage be this great sacra- 
 ment, then every sacrament confers grace. 
 
 Q. What does St. Paul say, in the preceding 
 ve'*^ses 24 and 25, of same chapter ? 
 
 A. " Therefore, as the Chmxh is subject to 
 Christ, so also let the wives be to husbands in 
 all things. Husbands, love your wives, as 
 Christ also loved the Church and gave himself 
 up for it, that he might sanctify it." Here the 
 union of man and wife is likened to the union 
 of Christ and the Church ; but the union of 
 Christ and the Church is not only a union of 
 love, but also of grace ; therefore, such also is 
 the union of man and wife. 
 
 Q. Do net Protestants translate the above 
 woi^d " sacrament'" by " mystery,' in Ephes. 
 v,32? 
 
 A. Yes ; but they had an object in doing so , 
 they wished to deny the sacrament of marriage ; 
 and to show them that they have made non- 
 s6,nse of the text, you have only to ask them, 
 what mystery there is in marriage, if it be not 
 a sacrament 1 and, if not a sacrament, how is 
 It greater " in Christ and the Church," than it 
 was at any former period of the world ? St. Au- 
 gustine reads sacrament ; and St. Jerome, who 
 restored the New Testament to the truth of the 
 Gi^eek, and the Old, to the truth of the Hebrew^ 
 who lived fourteen hundred years ago, and 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTftfNAL CATECHISM. 255 
 
 who was one of the greatest hnguists of that 
 or any other age, — this St. Jerome reads 
 ' HacrarnenV' for "mystery." 
 
 Q. What does St. Augustine say as to the 
 sacrament of Matrimony — De Bono Conjug. 
 cap. 18, T. vi, p. 335 ; Ibid, c. xxiv, p. 337, 
 and c: x de Nupt. ? 
 
 A. He says — "In the marriage of our women, 
 die sanctity of the sacrament is of the greatest 
 weight ;" and again — " In all nations, the great 
 good of marriage consists in the propagation ol 
 children and the fidelity of the parties ; but 
 among Christians, there is, besides, the holi- 
 ness OF THE SACRAMENT." TertulUan also, in 
 his Treatise de Monog., expressly calls matri- 
 mony a sacrament. St. Ireneus, Adv. Haeres, 
 hb. i, cap. 1 — says : " By all means they ought 
 to meditate on the sacrament of marriage.'' 
 St. Cyril adds— Cap. 2, in Joan. 22 : " Christ 
 sanctified wedlock, and gave grace to marriage." 
 St. Ambrose — Lib. i de Abraham, ahd in Cap. 
 5 ad Ephes. — writes : " There is a great sacra^ 
 ment in the union of man and ivife.'' 
 
 Q. Are all Christians hound to man-y by 
 the command of God ? 
 
 A, Certainly not ; for if' they were, St. Paul 
 aas given a very bad advice. 
 
 Q. Repeat his words — I Cor. chap, vii, 8. 
 i ii, " But I say to the unmarried and to the 
 
256 A DOCTRINAL CAl KCHISM, 
 
 widows, it is good for them if they so continue 
 even as /." 
 
 Q. Does not the Apostle say, in same chap 
 ter verse 2, '' But for fear of fornication, let 
 every man have his own wife, and let every 
 woman have her own husband ?" 
 
 A, Yes ; but in verse 1st, he says, " It is 
 good for a man not to touch a woman ;" and in 
 verse 9th, " But if they do not contain them- 
 selves, let them marry." Hence, the Apostle's 
 meaning evidently is, that those who do not 
 feel, tkat, with ^le help of God's grace, they 
 can live chaste lives, ought to marry, and that 
 once married, each man should confine himself 
 to his own wife, and each wife to her own hus- 
 band. Indeed, in same chapter, verse 27, St. 
 Paul says, "Art thou loosed from a wife, 
 seek not a wife ;" and, in several passages, he 
 exhorts all who are able, to live, like himself, a 
 single life. (See chap, vii, ver. 7.) 
 
 Q,. Does not God order Adam and Eve, and 
 the whole human race, in Genesis, to increase 
 and multiply ? 
 
 A. This is not a command to all, but a bless- 
 nig by which God accords fecundity to all 
 that shall marry. Those Protestants who un- 
 derstand it as a command, mus< charge St« 
 Paul, one of God's inspired Apostles, with 
 breakmg the law of God. With what face cau 
 
 I 
 
, A DOCTRl^AL CATECHISM. 25"? 
 
 Piotestants bring forward such nonsense, see- 
 ing that a great number of themselves never 
 marry; and what will they do with those ^^ho 
 cannot get married ? 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ic^. Does the Catholic Church forbid any 
 one to marry 1 
 
 A. No, she leaves every one at liberty to do 
 as he thinks proper. 
 
 Q. Does she not forbid the marriage of 
 priests ? 
 
 A, She forbids priests to marry, but she 
 obliges no one *to become a priest. 
 
 Q. To what does she oblige those who enter 
 into Holy Orders ? 
 
 A. To keep the vow^ of chastity, which they 
 have voluntarily, and after mature deliberation, 
 made to God. 
 
 Q. Why does she oblige them to this ? 
 
 A. That they may be more at liberty to 
 discharge their duties to their flock, and that 
 they may be totally disengaged from temporal 
 matters. These advantages of tlie unmarried 
 priest over the married Protestant minister, were 
 acknowledged, even bv Prot^estants. during: the 
 prevalence of that terrible pestilence, the Cholera, 
 and are still openly visible to all, when typhus 
 
 22* 
 
258 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 fever and other contagious diseases scourge oui 
 population. 
 
 Q. Does St. Paul clearly urge these advan- 
 tages in 1 Cor. chap, vii, 32 ? 
 
 A. Yes ; he says — " But I would have you 
 without solicitude : he that is without a wife is 
 solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, 
 how he may please God; but he that is with a 
 wife is solicitous for the things of the world, 
 how he may please his wife, and he is divided.'' 
 (Read also verse 34.) 
 
 Q. In any of the early ages of the Church, 
 were bishops or priests permitted to marry 
 after entering into holy orders ? 
 
 A. No ; we defy our adversaries to name 
 even one such case. 
 
 Q. What are the words of the Second Canon 
 of the 2d Council of Carthage ? 
 
 A. '' That bishops, priests, and all who are 
 charged with the administration of the sacra- 
 ments, must lead continent lives.'' 
 
 Q. What reason does the Council give for 
 this ordinance ? 
 
 A. " This," adds tfie Council, " was taught 
 by the Apostles, and has been always practised 
 by the Church." 
 
 Q. What do you irfer from all that has 
 been said on this subject ? 
 
 A, That reason, antiquity, and Scripture, are 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 25^ 
 
 a.1 on the side of Catholic doctrine and prac 
 tice. 
 
 ON THE CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q,. Why does the Church make use of so 
 many different ceremonies ? 
 
 A, First, to give external expression to the 
 interior sentiments of respect, devotion, and 
 religion ; secondly, to enliven and increase de- 
 votion and piety by moving and striking the 
 senses ; thirdly, to lead the simple and illiterate 
 more easily to a knowledge of the mysteries of 
 religion. 
 
 Q. Is there nothing superstitious in thesf. 
 ceremonies ? 
 
 A. There w^as nothing superstitious in the 
 ceremonies of the Old Law, why then should 
 there be any thing superstitious in those of the 
 New? 
 
 Q. Is the use of ceremonies authorized by 
 Scripture ? 
 
 A, St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiv, 14, says : " Let all 
 things be done decently and according to or- 
 der ;" and the ceremonies of the Church con- 
 tribute much to these ends. 
 
260 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q W/iot icoula you say to a Protestant 
 who condemns ceremonies ? 
 
 A, You make them, I would reply, contrib- 
 ute to the decency, solemnity, and grandeur 
 of the court, the camp, the bar, and the civic 
 festival, and yet you would banish tliem from 
 the service of God ; your ball-room, your dining 
 room, and drawing-room, are all ceremony, and 
 this to add to your dignity and grandeur in the 
 eyes of men, and you would rob God's service 
 of the solemnity and grandeur to which propei 
 ceremonies so much contribute. 
 
 Q. Have you any other reply ? 
 
 A. Your whole service, I would say, is only 
 one great ceremony ; — why build Churches, 
 when you can serve God at home ; — why go 
 to Church, when, in your own dwelling, you 
 can study the Bible, and when your interpreta- 
 tion is as good and as correct as that of your min- 
 ister ; — why have your children baptized, since 
 many of you maintain, that baptism is only a 
 cerem.ony — that it does not remit original sin ; 
 — w^hy receive the sacrament in the Church, ii 
 it be only a bit of bread and wine, w^iich you 
 may receive at home ; — why do you stand un- 
 covered when the minister prays, when sitting 
 is more convenient and less troublesome ? 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 26- 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. Why are wax tapers blessed and burnt 
 on the Festival of the Purification in our 
 churches ( 
 
 A, To put us in mind, that our Saviour, who 
 is the right of the world, appeared, for the first 
 time, on that day, in the Temple. 
 
 Q. Why are ashes distributed on Ash- 
 Wednesday, the first day of Lent ? 
 
 A, To remind us, that we are only dust and 
 ashes, and that we ought to enter upon that 
 season, in which Jesus was humbled and mor- 
 tified for our sake, with an humble and morti- 
 fied spirit. 
 
 Q. Why are Palm branches blessed and 
 distributed on the Sunday before Easter ? 
 
 A. To remind us of the triumphant entry of 
 our Saviour into Jerusalem. 
 
 Q. Why are bells of churches baptized? 
 
 A . They are not really baptized, but they are 
 only blessed in the same manner as churches. 
 
 Q. Why are bread y wine, eggs, and other 
 things blessed? 
 
 A, To induce the Almighty to shower down 
 his benedictions upon those who use them. 
 
 Q. When things are consecrated to the ser- 
 mce of God, do they, in reality, become more 
 tacred ? 
 
2r»2 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. Yes ; for Christ says — rMatth. xxiii, 17 
 19-^—" Ye foolish and blind, for whether is 
 greater, the gold, or the Temple which sancti- 
 fieth the gold ? Ye blind, for whether is greater, 
 the gift, or the altar which sanctifieth the gift ?' 
 Where you see the gold sanctified by the Tem- 
 ple, and the gift by the altar. 
 
 Q. Does the Scripture allow the sanctifying 
 or blessing of inanimate things ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; for St. Paul, 1 Tim. iv, 4, 5, 
 says : " Every creature of God is good, .... 
 foi' it is sanctified by the word of God and 
 prayer.^' 
 
 Q. What does St. Gregory of Nyssa say 'f 
 (Orat. de Bap. Jesu Christi.) 
 
 A. " The mystical oil and wine before bene- 
 diction are common things and of no virtue, but 
 after benediction both of them have a great 
 virtue." 
 
 Q. Is it not a superstitious practice to makt 
 use of inanimate things for religious purposes^ 
 te procure blessings ? 
 
 A, Certainly not ; for the Scripture would, 
 in that case, teach superstition. 
 
 Q. Where does the Scripture authorize this 
 practice ? 
 
 A. St. Mark, chap, vi, 13, says : "And they 
 cast out many devils, and anointed with ou 
 many that were sick and healed them." In St 
 
A DOCTKINAL CATECHISM. ^fVS 
 
 John, chap, v, 4, we have — " And an angei ol 
 the Lord descended at certain times into the 
 pond, and the water ivas moved, and he that 
 went down first into the pond aftet the motion 
 of the water was made whole of whatsoever in- 
 firmity he lay under." 
 
 Q. Have you any thing in 4 Kings, chap. 
 V, 10, on this subject? 
 
 A. Yes ; — " And Eliseus sent a messenger 
 :o him, saying, Go, and wash seven times in the 
 Jordan, and thy flesh shall recover health, and 
 thou shalt be clean ;'' and in verse 14th, the 
 order is complied with, and he is made clean. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. Whence has holy water its virtue ? 
 
 A, From the prayers of the Church used in 
 blessing it, and from the prayers and piety of 
 those who use it. 
 
 Q. What are these prayers ? 
 
 A. The priest, in blessing it, prays, that 
 against those who use i*, the intrigues of the 
 devil may be defeated by the Holy Spirit of 
 God ; and the people, whilst using it, pray in 
 these beautiful words — '' Sprinkle me, O Lord. 
 v\dth hyssop, and I shall be cleansed, wash me 
 ^nfl T shall become whiter than snow," 
 
204 A 1 OCTRINAL CATKCHISM. 
 
 Q. Is the use of holy ivater of very ancient 
 origin m the Church of God ? 
 
 A. It is mentioned in the 5th chap, of Nuni 
 bers— " And he (the priest) shall take holy 
 water in an earthen vessel." In Num. chap. 
 viii, 7, it is again mentioned — " Let them be 
 sprinkled with the water of purification." (See 
 also Exod. chap. 19th and 30th.) 
 
 Q. May holy water he used under the New 
 Law ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; for every creature of God may 
 be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer 
 1 Tim. iv, 5. 
 
 Q. Did the early Church use it ? 
 
 A. It is mentioned in the Apostolical Instit. 
 Lib. viii, cap. 35 ; St. Cyprian, Lib. i, Ep. 12 ; 
 St. Jerom, Ep. 12 ; St. Basil de Spiritu Sancto.. 
 cap. 27 ; St. Greg. Mag., Lib. ix, Ep. 71 ; St 
 Epiphan. Haer. 30 ; Euseb., Lib. v, cap. 21. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. Why do Catholics make the sign of the 
 Cross upon themselves, and why is it so fre- 
 quently used in the Chiwch service ? 
 
 A Because it is a brief profession of the 
 Christian faith, and its use is derived bv urn 
 versal tradition from the Apostles. 
 
 """■"•'■"""'■""■■'""'I 
 
A DOCTRINAi v^'ATECHlSM. 206 
 
 A. As often as we make the sign of the 
 Cross, repeating at the same time these words : 
 * In the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost" — we profess om'selves 
 followers of, and believers in, redemption by 
 the Cross, and we at the same time profess our 
 faith in the three Persons of the Adorable 
 Trinity. 
 
 Q. How do you prove thai the use of this 
 sign is as ancient as the Church itself? 
 
 A. From the testimony of the early Fathers 
 and writers : " At the commencement of all our 
 actions, whether we come in or go out ; v/hether 
 we go to dress, to the bath, *to the table, or to 
 rest ; whether we take a chair or a light, let us 
 always begin by making the sign of the Cross 
 on our foreheads. This practice is not com- 
 manded by a formal law of the Scripture, 
 but tradition has taught it, custom confirms 
 it, and faith observes it.'' TertuL de Corona, 
 nap. 4. 
 
 Q. Do any of the other Fathers mention it ? 
 
 A. Origen says the same thing — Select, in 
 Ezech. cap. 9. St. Cyril recom.mends the sa:ne 
 practice to the faithful — Catech. 4. St. Basil 
 — De Spirit. Sane, cap. 27, No. (SQ, expressEy 
 tells us that it is an apostolical tradition. 
 
 Q. Why is the sign of the Cross made si 
 often in the holy Sacrif.ce, the administration 
 
 23 
 
268 A DOCTRINAL CATEuHlSM. 
 
 of the Sacraments, the benedictions, and exte* 
 rior worship )f the Churca ? 
 
 A. To teach us, that every practice, every 
 ceremony, rite, and service, has its virtue sole- 
 ly through the merits and death of Jesus Christ 
 upon the Cross, and that all God's graces are 
 showered down upon us on account of his 
 sufferings and his blood. 
 
 Q. Were not the Christian Copts guilty oj 
 superstition in making the sign of the Cross 
 with a hot iron on the foreheads of their chil- 
 dren, and was not this the origin of the Catho- 
 lic practice ? 
 
 A. Protestants must be very ignorant to 
 make this assertion. The sign of the Cross, 
 not however made by any painful means, was 
 universally used in the Church. The Copts 
 made the sign of the Cross visible on the fore- 
 heads of their children to prevent them from 
 being stolen by the Mahometans. (See TAbbe 
 Renaudot.) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Q. What do the vestments loorn by the Priest 
 signify ? 
 
 A, Each :>f them signifies some accompani- 
 ment of our Saviour's passion. The Amice signi- 
 fies the piece of Hnen with which our Saviour was 
 blindfolded — Matth. xxvi. The Alb representi 
 
A DOCTllIXAI. CATrCfllSM. 267 
 
 the white garment with which Christ was, m 
 mockery, clothed by Herod — Luke xxiii. The 
 Girdle, Maniple, and Stole represent the cords 
 and fetters with which Christ was ')Ound — 
 John, chap, xviii, 12, 24. The Chasulle repre- 
 sents the purple garment which the soldiei'?; put 
 upon our Divine Saviour. 
 
 Q. What is meant by the Cross marked on 
 the Chasuble ? 
 
 A. It represents the Cross which our Saviour 
 carried through the streets of Jerusalem. 
 
 Q. What is meant by the corporal and the 
 veil of the chalice ? 
 
 A. They represent the linen clothes in which 
 our Savioj^ir's body was wrapped, whilst it lav 
 in the tomb. 
 
 Q. What does the altar signify ? 
 
 A. Calvary, upon which our Saviour was 
 crucified, and also the Table used for the Last 
 Supper. 
 
 Q, Why is the Missal carried befoi^e the Gos- 
 velfrom the right to the left side of the Altar? 
 
 A. To commemorate the transference of the 
 Gospel of Christ from the Jews who rejected 
 t, to the Gentiles who received it. 
 
 Q. Why do we stand during the reading of 
 the Gospel ? 
 
 A, To express our readiness to obey th« 
 orders of the Sr^n of God 
 
268 A rOCTKlNAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Why does the priest put a drop of water 
 into the wine in the Chalice ? 
 
 A, To represent the union of the div'ine and 
 human natures m Christ. 
 
 Q. Whi/ does the priest elevate the conse 
 crated elements ? 
 
 A, To represent the elevation of the Cross 
 after our Saviour was nailed to it. 
 
 Q. Why does the priest d^'vide the Host into 
 three parts, and let one of them drop into the 
 chalice ? 
 
 A. To signify the separation of our Saviour's 
 body from his blood and his soul from both ; 
 and to represent the descent of his soul to 
 Limbo, where the spirits were in prilbn. 
 
 Q. Why does the priest pray sometimes in 
 a low, and at other times in a loud voice ? 
 
 A, Because Christ did so, whilst he was 
 hanging on the Cross. 
 
 Q. Why does the pi test bless the people at 
 the end of Mass ? 
 
 A, To represent the benediction which our 
 Saviour gave to his disciples before he as- 
 cended to heaven. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Q,. Why is Mass said in the Latin tongu$ 
 and not in the vernacular ? 
 
\ DOCJ R IN A L CAT KCII : .< M . \l(\S) 
 
 A. In the first place That the service oi 
 C d may be everywhere uniformly the same 
 sev ^ndly, That the same words and same pray- 
 ers may be used in order to avoid the changes, 
 to A hich all living languages are so much sub- 
 ject : thirdly, That the same language may be 
 used over t le whole Church, that the pastors 
 of ev ^>ry country may understand one another, 
 and ti\at the people passing from one country 
 to anc ther may have no difficulty in joining at 
 the piblic service, it being everywhere the 
 same. 
 
 Q. Are not the people injured by having the 
 public s 'rvice in a language which they do not 
 iinderstc id ? 
 
 ^. By no means ; for surely God under- 
 stands all languages, — prayers will reach His 
 Throne, n > matter in what language they may 
 be uttered ' and as to the people, they have the 
 prayers of Mass translated into their own 
 tongue in th^ir Prayer Books. 
 
 Q. Does 1 ot St. Paul say — 1 Cor. chap, xiv, 
 19, " But in V\e Church I had rather speak five 
 words with n y understanding, that I may in 
 ati'uct others tlso, than ten thousand words in 
 a tongue ?" 
 
 A. Yes ; but St. Paul is speaking here of 
 instruction, as i^ evident from the word.s — 
 * That I may \i itruct others also f And llwi 
 
 23* 
 
270 A DOCTRINAL CA rECllISxM. 
 
 Jatholic Church in all her sermoiv, private 
 prayers, and instructions, addresses /i<^r chil- 
 dren in a language which they do understand. 
 
 Q. Do not Protestants make frequent use 
 of 1 Cor. xiv, against Catholics on this subject ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but if Protestants would think be- 
 fore they speak, they would see that this chap- 
 ter has nothing to do with the question. St. 
 Paul, in the whole of this chapter, is reprobating 
 the vain display of miraculous tongues in 
 preachings, exhortations, or instructions, made 
 by recent converts, more to show their gifts 
 than to glorify God or edify the people. 
 
 Q. Can this oliapter he turned against 
 Protestants so as to support the Catholic prac- 
 tice ? 
 
 A. Yes; in verse 5, St. Paul says- — "For 
 greater is he that prophesieth than he that 
 speaketh with tongues, unless perhaps he inter- 
 pret, that the Church may receive edification ;" 
 now the Ca.tholic service is interpreted for the 
 use of all. Again, verse 13, — " Therefore he 
 that speaketh by a tongue, let him pray that 
 he interpret ;'' where speaking tongues is uol 
 found fault with, if interpretation follow. In 
 verse 27, — " If any speak with a tongue, .... 
 let one intejyret.'" In fine, in verse 39, the 
 Protestant aigument is annihilated by the 
 At)4>slle. *' Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to 
 
A DOCTE.NAL CATECHISM. 27 
 
 prophesy, and forbid not to speak vnth 
 tongues." 
 
 Q. Is the Latin in reality an unknown 
 tongue ? 
 
 A. None but those who are very ignorant will 
 venture to say that it is. In some countiies it is 
 still the vernacular tongue ;*'the learned of every 
 country are acquainted with it ; and of all lan- 
 guages it is, at least to a certain extent, the 
 most universally knov/n. 
 
 Q. Is the custom of not performing the ser- 
 vice in the vernacuTar tongue confined to the 
 Catholic Church? 
 
 A, No ; the Greek, Ethiopian, Indian, and 
 Muscovite schismatics, say Mass in their an- 
 cient, and not in their modern tongues. The 
 Syrians and Egyptians say Mass in Syriac, 
 though Arabic be their vulgar tongue. Arabic 
 is the language of the Melchites and Georgians, 
 though they say Mass in Greek. 
 
 Q. Is there any other reason lohy the Mass 
 should be said in Latin ? 
 
 A. The Mass is the one sacrifice of the 
 A\'hole Church, foretold by Malachi, as an offer- 
 ing to be made in every place under heaven : 
 Hence, all Christians have, in the oneness and 
 unchdngeableness of the language in which il 
 is offered up, a strict bond of union ; unity is 
 preserved by uniform; ty of rite. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATJail I^M. 
 
 Q. h it necessary that all the people should 
 understand ivery word used in the Liturgy? 
 
 A, Certa nly not. It is only necessary that 
 they should comprehend the nature of the ac- 
 tion performed, and unite their intention and 
 devotion with that of the priest. 
 
 Q. What do we^nd in the Jewish Church 1 
 
 A. The Jews lost the use of the Hebrew 
 language during the Babylonish captivity so 
 entirely, that w-hen Nehemias and Esdras read 
 the Law from the Scriptures to the people they 
 were obliged to interpret 4t, (Nehemias viii, 13.) 
 
 Q. What do you infer from this ? 
 
 A, The Jews spoke Syriac ; the Scriptures 
 were not translated into that language until 
 after the time of our Saviour ; yet the He- 
 brew was still retained in the religious service 
 of the Jews. Besides, from Levit. xvi, and 
 Luke i, it is very evident that the people were 
 not required to be even so near the priest as to 
 be able to hear him ; for they w^ere not allowed 
 to be even in the Tabernacle when he prayed 
 for himself and the whole congregation. 
 
 ON PICTURES OR IMAGES. 
 
 Q What is the use of Images ? 
 
 A They serve, in the first placOj to adore 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 273 
 
 the Church ; secondly, to instruct the ignoriint ; 
 and, thirdly, to excite devotion. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics adore images ? 
 
 A, No ; Cathohcs adore God onlv. 
 
 Q. Do Cathohcs invoke images ? 
 
 A. No Catholic ever thought of such a tiling. 
 Catholics neither hope for, nor ask succor or 
 grace from them. 
 
 Q. What says the 25th Session of the Court- 
 cil of Trent ? 
 
 A. That we honor pictures or images, not 
 for any virtue these inanimate things possess, 
 but on account of the originals which they 
 represent. The honor is given to the original, 
 not to the picture ; so that in uncovering the 
 head, or kneeling before a picture of Jesus 
 Christ, we honor and adore Jesus Christ him- 
 self. 
 
 Q. Does not the commandment forbid the 
 making or the use of pictures or images ? 
 
 A. No. It only forbids worshipping them as 
 Gods. " Thou shall not adore them nor serve 
 them.'' 
 
 Q. If the Scrijiture condemned, as idolatry, 
 the viaking or use of pictures or images, would 
 not the Scripture contradict itself? 
 
 A, Yes ; for in that case God himself would 
 contradict his own command ; and in fact or- 
 der that idolatry which, in the commandment, he. 
 
274 A DOCTRINAL CATECHiSM. 
 
 had forbid — Exod. chap, xxv, 18 : " Jod said 
 to Moses, thou shalt make also two cheruhims 
 of beaten gold on the two sides of the oracle ; 
 let one cherub be on one side, and the other on 
 the other." See also 20, 21, 22 verses of same 
 chapter. 
 
 Q. We see here the likenesses of heavenly 
 things made by the express command of God ; 
 did he anywhere order, in the same manner the 
 likenesses of earthly things? 
 
 A. In the same Exodus, chap, xxviii, 33, he 
 does so : " And beneath, at the feet of the same 
 tunic, round about, thou shalt make as it were 
 pojnegranates of violet, and purple, and scarlet, 
 twice dyed, with little bells set between." See 
 also 34, 35 verses ; and 3 Kings, (1 Kings, 
 Prot. Trans.,) chap, vii, 23, 24, 25, 29. Again, 
 3 Kings vi, 29; and 3 Kings x, 19. Read 
 also Osee, (Hosea,) chap, iii, 4. 
 
 Q. Did God. ever use an image for mij^acu- 
 lous purposes ? 
 
 A, Yes ; in Num. xxi, 8, — *' And the Lord 
 said to him, (Moses,) make a brazen serpent. 
 and set it up for a sign ; w^hoever being stmck 
 shall look on it, shall Hve ;" and in verse 9 you 
 will see the miraculous effect pix>duced. 
 
 Q. You have said that pictures and images 
 adorn the House of God, is it proper to adorn 
 tempi s ? 
 
A l)OC"rKI\A». CAlllOHIf^M. 275 
 
 ^4. Certainly. The Royal Prophet says. 
 Psalm XXV, 8, — " I have love J, O Lord; the 
 beauty of thy house, and the place where thy 
 glory dwelleth." And in 2 Kings vii, 2, (Protes. 
 2 Sam.,) David is ashamed to dwell in a house 
 of cedar, whilst the Ark of God is lodged within 
 skins. See also Psalm cxxxi, 3, 4, 5. Catho- 
 lics glory in the splendor of God's house and 
 the grandeur of his service ; and in this they 
 imitate the example of David and Solomon, 
 (see opening of his temple,) rather than the 
 niggardly parsimony of the traitor Judas, who 
 wished to sell the box of precious ointment and 
 give the price to the poor, and for w^hich he 
 received such a severe reprimand from Christ 
 himself — John xii, 3, &c. 
 
 Q. Why do Protestants strip the House of 
 God of ev^ry ornament, whilst they are so pro- 
 fusely liberal in the decoration of their own 
 dwellings, and all their worldly monuments 
 and public buildings 7 
 
 A. It is because their religion is essentially 
 that of this world. They flatter themselves 
 that they may obtain heaven at the least possi- 
 ble expense. They give God's glory to them- 
 selves and to their w^orldly heroes ; and their 
 ministers are too much engaged in providing 
 for wives and famihes, to give themselves any 
 trouble about, or spend any of t\ieir inconies 
 
276 A DOCTRiNAL CA'I Oi HISM. 
 
 in, the erection or decoration of splendid tem 
 pies tc the living God. 
 
 ON RELICS. 
 
 Q. In what manner do CathcKcs JionoT 
 relics ? 
 
 A. As precious remains, which bring to their 
 remembrance distinguished sanctity, and as dear 
 pledges, which animate their confidence in the 
 communion and intercession of saints. 
 
 Q. Did the first Chtnstians honor relics? 
 
 A. Ceitainly ; and it is from them that we 
 have learned to do so. 
 
 Q. Repeat St. Augustine's words — Epist. 
 103, ad Quint. 
 
 JL. " I send you the relics of St. Stephen, to 
 which pay due honor." St. Jerom wrote a 
 w^hole book against Vigilantius, who w^as the 
 first to deny honor to holy relics. 
 
 Q. Have relics any secret or interior power 
 or virtue ? 
 
 A, No ; but God has often granted great 
 favors through them. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics adore or worship reli s ? 
 
 A. No; this would be rank idolatry. A!/ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 211 
 
 Catholics can, with a safe conscience, say, — 
 " Cursed is he who commits idolatry, who prays 
 to images or relics, or worships them for God/' 
 
 Q. Has God himself honored relics, and 
 through them wrought astonishing miracles ? 
 
 A, Yes ; the waters of the Jordan being 
 struck by Eliseus with the mantle of Eiias. 
 suspended their course and afforded him a dry 
 passage, — 4 Kings ii, 14, (Prot. ver. 2 Kings ii, 
 14.) And, in the same chapter, verse 8th, the 
 same astonishing prodigy was performed by the 
 same means. Read the wonders performed by 
 means of the rod of Moses, (Exod. vii.) See 
 also 1 Kings, {alias Sam. v,) and also Sam. vi, 
 19, as to the wonders God was pleased to per- 
 form on account of the Ark, which was cer- 
 tainly a mere relic. See also 2 Kings, {alias 
 Sam. vi, 6, 7,) and 4 Kings, {alias 2 Kings xiii, 
 21,) where the hones of the prophet Eliseus 
 raised a dead man to life. 
 
 Q. Are any such examples to he found in 
 the New Testament? 
 
 A. Yes ; many such — Matth. ix, 20-21. 
 The woman troubled with an issue of blood for 
 twelve years is cured by touching the hem of 
 our Saviour s garment. In Matth. xiv, 36, as 
 many as touched the hem of his s;arment were 
 made whole. In Acts xix, the handkerchiefs 
 and aprons which had touched the hody of St 
 
 24 
 
278 A DOCTRINAL CATECHIc5M. 
 
 Faul, removed diseases, and expelled devih 
 In fin 3, the shadow of St. Peter healed multi- 
 tudes tiiat were sick and troubled with unclean 
 spirits. (Acts v. 15, 16.) 
 
 Q. What inference do you draw from all 
 this ? 
 
 A. That Protestants show a lamentable ig- 
 norance of Scripture, when they rail against 
 holy relics. If God has so honored them, and 
 nas wrought such wonderful miracles by them, 
 as honored instruments, under both the Old and 
 New Law, should not all Christians honor 
 them ; and may not those men be deemed 
 wicked who despise the venerable instruments, 
 used by the Almighty, to display the wonders 
 of his power ? 
 
 ON PILGRIMAGES 
 
 Q. Is there any spiritual advantage to he 
 derived from religious pilgrimages 1 
 
 A, Yes ; when they are performed in the 
 spirit of true devotion. 
 
 Q. What can he the use of a pilgrimage to 
 any particular place, since God is every 
 %)here ? 
 
 A It is useful in. this, that, though God is 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 27i 
 
 everywhere, some places are better calculated 
 to excite devoti' a than others; for example, 
 the scenes of any of the great wonders or tri- 
 umphs of Christianity, the Shrine of SS. Peter 
 and Paul, the Crib of Bethlehem, or the thrice 
 holy soil of Mount Olivet or Mount Calvary. 
 
 Q. TV/iat succor does devotion find in a 
 pilgrimage to such places ? 
 
 A. . We pray with more fervor, and are hmii 
 bled more sensibly, when we find ourselves as 
 grievous sinners wandering amongst the monu- 
 ments of redemption. 
 
 Q. Can we glorify God hy doing, for his 
 honor, what he has not commanded ? 
 
 A. Certainly; David — 2 Kings xxiii 15, 16- 
 17— whilst he burned vvdth an ardent thirst 
 poured forth the fresh water as an offering to 
 the Lord; and, by this act of mortification, 
 which was not commanded, he glorified God. 
 The Blessed Virgin surely glorified God by her 
 voluntary chastity, which was not commanded 
 — (St. Luke, chap, i.) vSt. Paul glorified God 
 by the voluntary chastisement of his body — 
 (1 Cor. ix.) 
 
 Q. Can you give us any Scriptural exam- 
 ple of religious pilgi images ? 
 
 A. Elcana and Ann went every year to Silc 
 to pray ; and the Blessed Jesus and his Virgin 
 Mother made a pilgrimage every year to Jen 
 
280 A DOCTRINAL CATEJllloM, 
 
 »alem to pi'ay in the Temple. These surelj 
 are good and sufficient authorities. 
 
 ON THE VENERATION OF THE EVER-BLESSEI 
 MOTHER OF JESUS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics adore the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary as they adore God ? 
 
 A. No, this would be idolatry ; but Catholics 
 honor her pre-eminent prerogatives with a de- 
 gree of veneration infinitely inferior to that 
 which is due to God, but much superior to thai 
 which is due to the angels and saints. 
 
 Q. Why honor her at all? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ himself — John xii, 26 — says, 
 *• If any man serve me, him will my Father 
 honor ;" surely, then, even as God honors the 
 Blessed Mary, for no one served his Divine 
 Son with so great fidelity, our veneration for 
 her cannot be misplaced. Even Dr. Pearson 
 a Protestant, (Exp. of Creed, p. 178,) says, — 
 " We cannot bear too re\erend a regard to the 
 Mother of our Lord, so long as we give heb 
 NOT that worship ichich is dve unto the Lor J 
 himself." 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRIiVAL CATECHISM. 28 
 
 Q. WJiat do you discover so especially pre- 
 eminent in the Blessed Virgin as to demand 
 our especial veneratioic ? 
 
 A. Immediately after the fall of man, the 
 Almighty honors her by pointing her out, four 
 thousand years before the event, as the })erson 
 whose seed should crush the serpent's head. 
 In Isaiah viii, 13, she is made again the subject 
 of a prophecy, and the sacred lips of the Prophet 
 of the Lord proclaim her virginity,— a virtue 
 which in all ages has obtained the first degree 
 of honor. 
 
 Q. What do we find in Luke i, 26 ? 
 
 A, We find she is chosen of all the daughters 
 of Eve to be the Mother of Jesus, — the choice 
 is made by the ADORABLE TRINITY, and 
 an Archangel announces the wonderful tidings 
 to her. 
 
 Q. Is the heavenly message delivered hy the 
 A.ngel in such a manner as to give a strong 
 proof of Mary's exalted dignity ? 
 
 A. Yes ; for she is addressed in language 
 so respectful as to leave no doubt about the 
 matter. " Hail !" says the Angel, " Full of 
 Grace, the Lord is with thee: Blessed art 
 
 THOU AMONGST women." 
 
 Q,. What think you of those Protestants 
 who call the Blessed Virgin an ordinary wo 
 5ian ? 
 
 ' 24* 
 
282 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. We pity them, we tren:ible for them. Ar* 
 ArchangeV, bearing the words of the Adorable 
 Trinity upon his tongue, tells them they are 
 blasphemers of the saints of God. They utter 
 a falsehood in the face of that exalted crea- 
 ture, — a falsehood in the face of the Angel. 
 — nay, a falsehood in the ver}' face of God 
 himself 
 
 Q. Do the above passages of Scripture ex 
 hihit her as an ordinary woman ? 
 
 A. Xo ; but the contrary. Is she an or- 
 dinary woman who is made the subject oj 
 prophecy, — with whom the Blessed Trinity 
 communes, — to whom that Blessed Trinitv 
 delegates an Archangel Messenger, — who is 
 declared by the unerring lips of that Angel to 
 be FULL OF grace, — to have the Lord with 
 her, — and, of all the women of the earth, to be 
 peculiarly blessed ? 
 
 Q. What should Protestants do to justify 
 their language towards the Mother of God? 
 
 A. They should coiTupt their Bible a Httle 
 more, and make the Angel say, — " Hail, thou 
 that art an ordinary woman, — thou hast no 
 grace, — thou art not blessed more than others, 
 — the Lord is as much ivith the wives and 
 daughters of the holy reforming ministers as 
 lie is with thee.'' 
 
 Q. TT \at does Origen, who lived fourteen 
 
 1 
 
A liUl^iitlWAL. CATECHISM. 283 
 
 hundred years ago, say to our present pur- 
 pose ? 
 
 i. 
 
 A, He says, — "'Hail full of grace/ (fee, \t 
 a salutation addressed to Mary alone/' 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 Q. What says Luke, i, 35, on this ques- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. " And the Angel answering, said unto 
 lier, (Mary,) the Holy Ghost shall come upon 
 thee and the power of the Most High shall 
 overshadow thee ; therefore also that Holy Thing 
 which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
 Son of Godr 
 
 Q. Does this passage prove the Blessed Vir 
 gin an ordinary woman ? 
 
 A, Oh ! blush for shame, ye reforming pre- 
 tenders to Scriptural knowledge ! Is she an 
 ordinary woman, who holds direct intercourse 
 with the three persons of the Adorable Trinity ? 
 She whose son is the Son of God ? — she who 
 j« made the mother of the King of kings ? — 
 s[ie whose son, as the Angel tells her, shall be 
 great, an 1 shall be called the Son of the High^ 
 fst, who shall sit on the throne of David.^nd 
 -^eign over the house of Jacob for ever? 
 
 Q. Doe she not, in verse 34, show some 
 
284 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 doubt, when she asks — " How shall this be > 
 seeing that I know not man ?'' 
 
 A. Yes ; but the monnient that the x\ngftl 
 tells her that the Holy Ghost shall come upon 
 her, — that all is to be the work of the Most 
 High, — she submits at once, and, wdth the most 
 edifying docility and humility, exclaims — " Be- 
 hold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto 
 me according to thy w^ord." 
 
 Q. Is there any thing in the 40th verse of 
 same chapter to throw additional light on the 
 exalted dignity of the Blessed Mary ? 
 
 A. Yes ; at the salutation of Mary, the babe 
 leaped in Elizabeth's womb, and Elizabeth was 
 -filled with the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Q. Did Elizabeth, filled thus with the Holy 
 Ghost, and bearing in her womb the Baptist, 
 than who none greater was ever born of wo- 
 man, — did Elizabeth, icho was made by God 
 miraculously fruitful, — who knew, though not 
 present at the angelic interview, what had passed 
 between the Angel and Mary, — did this honor- 
 ed, exalted, and inspired Elizabeth agree with 
 Presbyterians in thinling the Blessed Virgin 
 an ordinary woman 1 
 
 A, No ; she would Jbave shuddered at such 
 language. She proclaimed Mary's blessedness, 
 and, though exalted herself, slie considered her- 
 self highly honored by Mary's condescension / w 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTKINAL CATECHISM. 2d5 
 
 paying her a visit. " And Elizabeth spake out 
 with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou 
 among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy 
 womb ; and whence is this to me, that the moth- 
 er of my Lord should come to me ?" 
 
 Q. Is there any other proof, in this chapter, 
 of Mary's 'pre-eminent dignity ? 
 
 A. The poorest daughter of Eve is ennobled 
 and exalted by becoming the mother of a king. 
 How great, then, must be the dignity of Mary, 
 who became the mother of fhe King of kings 
 and Lord of lords! And, when we consider 
 that Jesus could not dwell in an unholy taber- 
 nacle, how ineffably pure and exalted must 
 Mary's spiritual state have been ! ! 
 
 Q. Does not this chapter suggest still some 
 other proofs of her extraordinary and singular 
 dignity ? 
 
 A. Yes ; she was troubled at the extraor- 
 dinary nature of the angelic salutation ; but 
 the Angel Messenger of the Most High calmed 
 her fears, by declaring to her the exalted place 
 she held in the estimation of the Most High. 
 " Fear not, Mary, thou hast found grace with 
 God.'' But the circumstance which proclaims 
 above all others her singular pre-eminence is, 
 her maternity combined with virginity. She 
 13 a virgin, and yet a mother ! ! ! This alone 
 is sufficient tc put to shame those unhappy 
 
28t> A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 men who seem to p;lory in revilino: the blessed 
 mother of their Redeemer, by proclaiming her, 
 wfiose Son titey ado<re, as an ordinary woman. 
 
 Q. What do we learn from Luke i, 18 ? 
 
 A That the ever-exalted and blessed Mary 
 is a prophetess. She declares of herself that 
 all generations shall call her blessed ; and 
 surely no one will be bold enough to say, that 
 she, who was full of grace, and the temple ol 
 the Holy Ghost, could speak falsehood. 
 
 Q. What inference would you draw from 
 this revealed truth ? 
 
 A. That Protestants belong not to the true 
 people of God ; for they refuse to fulfil this 
 prophecy. They glory in contemning the 
 Blessed Virgin : they proclaim her an ordijiary 
 woman, instead of obeying the Scripture, which 
 says, — " From henceforth all generations shall 
 call me blessed." 
 
 Q. Dves not the Blessed Jesus despise Mary 
 —John ii, 46 — in these words — " Woman, what 
 have I to do w^ith thee ?'' 
 
 A. Yes, according to the corrupt Protestant 
 translation ; but according to the Vulgate, 
 vvhich even the Protestant Grotius considers 
 vhe SAFEST VERSION, uur Saviour's words are, — 
 *• Woman, what is it to thee and. to me?'' 
 
 Q. Is the Protestant translation absurd and 
 ridiculous is they understand it ? 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 2S1 
 
 A. Certainl}' ; for they would make our 
 Saviour, v/hose example we are all bound to 
 imitate, despise and contemn his own mother^ 
 She is honored by being asked with him to the 
 marriage ; she wd.^ familiar with him previous- 
 ly, for she asks him to work a miracle, which 
 she clearly knows he can perform. She does 
 not seem hurt b)^ the apparent refusal of Jesus. 
 But the solution of the whole difficulty is found 
 in the fact, that he works the very miracle 
 requested by Mary immediately after. Thus, 
 he works his Jirst miracle at the suggestion oi 
 Mary. In Luke ii, 49-51, he treats her with 
 the greatest respect ; he forgets her not, when, 
 even hanging on the Cross in the agony of 
 death, he commends her with his last breath to 
 the care of his beloved disciple ; and yet, after 
 all this, Protestants would make us believe that 
 he despised her, and treated her w^ith studied 
 contempt at the marriage-feast of Cana! ! 
 
 Q. What iDould you say to the difficulty, if 
 the Protestant translation was correct ? 
 
 A, He sometimes acted in his character a? 
 God, and sometimes as man, and, on this occa- 
 sion, he wished to manifest that, as God, ne 
 knew their w-ants and would relieve them, in 
 ihe same manner as, on another occasion, ho 
 ?aid to MdiVy—'' Didst thou not know that J 
 shouid be about my Father s business ^'* 
 
t88 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q What says St. Augustine (Serm. on the 
 AniDun.) as to the dignity of the Blessca 
 Virgin ? 
 
 A. '' By what prakes, O sacred Virgin, 1 
 may extol thee I know not, since thou hast 
 been deemed worthy to bear in thy womb Him 
 whom the heavens are miable to contain." 
 
 Q. What says St, Epiphanius — Adv. Haeres. 
 Lib. iii, F. 2 ? 
 
 A, " Truly life itself was introduced into the 
 world by the Virgin Mary, .... Eve brought to 
 the human race the cause of death,. . . .Mary 
 brought the cause of life." 
 
 Q. Is the Greek schismatical Church one 
 with the Catholic Church on this head ? 
 
 A. Photius, its great leader, speaks tlius, 
 (Serm. de Nativ. :) " But you, O Blessed Vir- 
 gin, and also Mother of the eternal Lord, our 
 propitiation and refuge, interceding for us with 
 your Son and our God, .... vouchsafe to ren 
 der us your panegyrists." See Counc. of Eph- 
 esus and Nice, Act 6. 
 
 Q. Is the veneration of the Blessed Virgin 
 an ancient practice in the Church ? 
 
 A, It can owe its origin only to the Apostles, 
 (or it can be traced^to no later age ; no man, 
 no body of men, no country, can* be pointed 
 
A DOCTRINAL UA'l ECHl.riM. 28fe 
 
 out as having originated it ; hence, it is evi- 
 dently Apostolical, and, consequently, it hag 
 the authority of heaven. 
 
 Q. What general conclusion would you dram 
 from all that we have said ? 
 
 A. That Protestants, in their contempt foi 
 the Blessed Virgin, resist the irresistible evi- 
 dence of their own Bible. They talk of her as 
 an ordinarv woman, whilst, in a flood of heaven- 
 ly light, she shines the most singularly pre- 
 eminent personage that ever was created. 
 God himself makes honorable mention of her 
 at the very dawn of the world ; — the prophet 
 Isaiah, centuries before the event, proclaims 
 her the illustrious Virgin Mother of the future 
 Messiah ;— an all-wise Deity selects her, of all 
 the daughters of Eve, to be the Mother of the 
 Redeemer ; — the Blessed Trinity sends an 
 Archangel to obtain her consent ; — she is sa- 
 luted as full of grace ; — she is assured that the 
 Lord is with her ; — that she is Messed among 
 women ; — that the Holy Ghost will come upon 
 her ; — that the Most High will overshadow her ; 
 — that her son shall be called the Son of God; 
 — that she has found grace with God ; — that, 
 though a virgin, she shall conceive the Son of 
 God, at once a Virgin and a Mother ! ! ! At 
 the sound of her voice, the infant Baptist leaps 
 in his mother s womh, and his mother is filled 
 
 25 
 
290 A DOCTRINAL UATECHISM. 
 
 with the Holy Ghost. The inspired Ehzabeth 
 saiutes Mary in the very words of the Angel — 
 "Blessed art thou among women;'' and this 
 Blesso^l Mary herself bursts forth in the spirit 
 of prophecy, and foretells, that all generations 
 shall call her blessed; and all generations, 
 during fifteen hundred years, did so, and seven- 
 nighths of Christianity do so at the present day. 
 
 Q. It does appear strange, that Pi^otestants^ 
 loill despise her, lohom God has so pre-eminent- 
 ly sanctified and exalted, — have you any ad- 
 ditional considerations which may have a ten- 
 dency to make them blush for their rash and 
 unscriptural conduct ? 
 
 A. Yes ; many. For nine months did the 
 Blessed Mary carry our Redeemer in her thrice 
 holy womb ; — she suffered with him at the crib 
 of Bethlehem ; — wept over his infant body, and 
 wiped away his tears ; — she sorrowed when he 
 bled in the temple ; — fled with him to Egypt ; — 
 tended him durii g youth ; — and was sanctified 
 by his Divine companionship during thirty- 
 three years. She was the companion of all 
 his sorrows, sufferings, and tortures ; — her soul 
 was transfixed by every v^ound he received , 
 —-•her tears were mingled with every drop of 
 blood which he shed ; — a living monument oi 
 rrrief, she was found at the foot of the Cross, 
 when all ha(f abandoned him. In the dying 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 2Vfl 
 
 struggle of Jesus, we find her his anxious care ; 
 —with his dying breath he commends her to 
 the affectionate tenderness of his beloved disci- 
 ple. She received into her arms his mangled 
 and bloody body, and sorrowed with those who 
 [aid him in the tomb ; — she sought him early 
 on the morning of the Resurrection, and was 
 found among his Apostles on the day of his 
 Ascension and on the day of Pentecost ; and 
 even all this is not sufficient to induce wise and 
 religious Protestants to regard with respect 
 and veneration the Mother of Jesus ! 
 
 Q. What should Catholics do in a country 
 where torrents of blasphemous insults are evert 
 day poured forth agaivst the Mother of God by 
 men calling themselves Christian ministers ? 
 
 A. They should have ever on their lips the 
 sweet address of the Archangel Messenger, thus 
 paraphrased by the holy Athanasius fourteen 
 hundred years ago : " Be mindful of us, O 
 Blessed Virgin ! Hail, full of grace, the Lord is 
 with thee ! Thee the angelical and terrestrial 
 hierarchies proclaim blessed. Blessed art thou 
 among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy 
 womb. O mistress, lady, intercede foi us^ 
 Queen, and Mother of God, pray ^or us !" 
 
299 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 ON PERSECUTION 
 
 Q. Is persecution, on account of religious 
 belief, a isnet of the Catholic religion ? 
 
 A. Certainly not. Although some Catholics 
 are said to have persecuted, if matters are care- 
 fully examined, it will be found, that, in some 
 instances, the persecutions arose out of the 
 wicked spirit of revenge, and in others, that il 
 was not religious opinion which was persecuted, 
 but gross moral and political crimes. If Catho- 
 lics have ever been guilty of persecution, the 
 crime was their own, not that of their religion. 
 
 Q. Did Protestants persecute Catholics? 
 
 A. Yes ; in every country where the Re- 
 formed doctrines were received, CathoHcs were 
 persecuted. C Peterson Hooft, a Protestant, 
 reproaches his Protestant countrymen of Hol- 
 land thus : " Actuated by i hatred of cruelty, 
 you rush yourselves into acts of cruelty ; no 
 sooner have you secured your freedom, than 
 you wish to tyrannize over others." — Hist. 
 Reform. Ger. Brand., T. i, p. 333. Knox 
 commenced the Reformation in Scotland, by 
 being a part) to the murder of Cardinal Bea- 
 tou'i. (Tytler's Hist, of Scotland.) In 1560, 
 the Parliament es^'.ablished the Presbyterian re- 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 2\)^ 
 
 Sgion, and ordered all the professors of the an- 
 cient faith to be punished with death. " With 
 such indecent haste/' says Robertson, " did the 
 very persons, who had just escaped ecclesiasti- 
 cal tyranny, proceed to imitate the example/' 
 [n 1596, the Presbytery, writing to the King 
 and Council concerning the Earls of Huntly, 
 Errol, &c., say that, " as they had been guilty 
 of idolatry, a crime deserving of death, the 
 civil power could not spare them/' 
 
 Q. Did the French Protestants persecute ? 
 
 A. They rebelled against their sovereign, 
 prohibited the Catholic religion, murdered the 
 priests and religious, burnt the churches and 
 convents, and dug up the dead to make bullets 
 of their leaden coffins. (Maimbourg, Thuanus, 
 Hist. Calv., Lib. 31.) Nic. Fromenteau, a 
 Protestant, confesses, that in Dauphine alone, 
 they killed two hundred and fifty-six priests 
 and one hundred and twelve monks or friars. 
 In these atrocities, the Protestant Baron des 
 Adrets forced Catholic prisoners to jump from 
 the towers upon the pikes of his soldiers, and 
 obliged his own children to wash their hands 
 in the blood of Catholics. (Liv. de Finance.) 
 
 Q. Did Protestant England persecute Catho- 
 lic Ireland ? 
 
 A. Dr. Curry has preserved, amongst many 
 other martyrs, the names of twenty-seven 
 
 25* 
 
294 A DOCTKINAL CATECHISM, 
 
 priests, who suffered death on account ol theii 
 religion. (Hist, ol Civil Wars in Ireland, vol. 
 i, p. 8.) See Spondanus and Pagi on the mar- 
 tyrdom of F. O'Hurle, the Catholic Archbishop 
 of Cashel, a sanguinary deed, perpetrated by 
 Sir W. Drury. See also Bourke's Hihernia 
 Dominicana, where the number of Irish mar- 
 tyrs, and the dreadful deaths they died, are 
 given in detail. 
 
 Q. Did not the Duke of Alva boast, that, in 
 the Loiv Countries, he had delivered eighteen 
 thousand heretics to the executioners ? 
 
 A. These heretics should have been called 
 rebels, since, according to the Protestant writer 
 Brand, they had conspired against the life of 
 the duke, then Spanish governor, and put to 
 death, in cold blood, all the priests and religious 
 they could lay their hands upon. See Brana, 
 Hist, Reform, des Pays Bas. Feller, Hist. Diet, 
 art. Toledo, says, that Vandermerk slaughter 
 ed more unoffending Catholic priests and peas- 
 ants in 1572, than Alva executed Protestants 
 during his whole governmgnt. See also on this 
 subject, Mons Kerroux, L'Abrege de VHist. de 
 la Hollande, 
 
 Q. Did not the 4th Later an Council, in 1215, 
 fxpressly ordain the persecution of heretics ? 
 
 A. In the first place, Matthew of Paris (ad 
 diet, ann.) denies that the supposed persecuting 
 
A DOCTRINAL CrECHISM. 295 
 
 Canon was ^,he act of that Council ; 2dly, even 
 Dupin, who was more Protestant than Catho- 
 lic, Tom. X, p. 104, says, "it is certain that this 
 chapter (the persecuting Canon) is not the 
 work of the Council ;" 3dly, the learned Prot- 
 estant divine Collier, Eccl. Hist., vol. i, p. 424, 
 declares, that the Canon in question " is spu- 
 rious f 4thly, supposing this Canon to be genu- 
 ine, it was framed for a particular case, and 
 not by the Ecclesiastical part of the Council 
 alone, but by all the sovereigns of Europe, who 
 were present at the Council, either by them- 
 selves or by their ambassadors. 
 
 Q. For what particular class of heretics 
 was this Canon adopted ? 
 
 A, It was framed to check the horrible 
 brutalities of the Albigenses, who taught thai 
 there were two Gods — one 2:ood and the other 
 evil ; — that no one could be saved in a married 
 state ; — that unnatural gratifications should be 
 substituted for those of marriage ; — that no kind 
 of flesh-meat could be used without sin ; — they 
 threw the Scriptures into the common sewers, 
 and profaned horribly even the sacred vessels 
 of the Altar. AH these, and many other dread- 
 ful impieties, they openly taught and practised, 
 so that even Mosheim, Eccl Hist. vol. iii, says : 
 •' Their shocking violation of decency was a 
 consequence 3f their pernicious svstem ; they 
 
296 A LOCTRINAI. CATECHISM. 
 
 looked upon modesty and deoency as marks oi 
 inward corruption/' Such were the men so 
 often pitied by Protestants as a persecuted race. 
 See Limburch. Hist, of Inquis. See also Bos- 
 suet's Var. 
 
 Q. Did not the Council )f Constance per 
 sccute Wyckliff? 
 
 A. He was treated very mercifully , not- 
 withstanding his seditious and impious doc- 
 trines, he was left unpunished during his whole 
 hfe. Dr. Fiddes, Life of Cardinal Wolsey, pp. 
 38, 39, Protestant as he was, says : " It was not 
 for their speculative opinions that the followers 
 of Wyckliff were punished, but because they 
 maintained opinions derogatory to the rights of 
 princes, injurious to society, and contrary to 
 law ' and Archb. Parker says : " The laws 
 against them were necessary on account of the 
 tumults they occasioned." 
 
 Q. What were these impious .and seditious 
 doctrines of Wyckliff? were they such as to 
 deserve prosecution ? 
 
 A. He taught, 1st, that one mortal sin (an 
 act of drunkenness for example) in a rector, 
 bishop, magistrate, or sovereign, justified the 
 people in disobeying and deposing these author- 
 ities, (Walsingham, Hist. Ang. p. 283 ;) 2dly, 
 that no civil laws were to be obeyed, no taxes 
 paid, unless the justice of such laws could be 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 29*7 
 
 proved from Scripture, (Walsing. ibid ;) 3dly, 
 ihat no man could lawfully swear in a court of 
 justice, (Walsing. page 204,) or confirm his 
 own or his friends' title to an estate for ever, 
 (Knyght, Col. 2707 ;) 4thly, that it was sinful 
 in any clergyman to have one shilling's worth 
 of property, (Knyghf, Col. 2648 ;) 5thly, that 
 his followers should despoil all that had proper- 
 ty, (Walsing. p. 284;) 6thly, that God ought to 
 obey the devil, (Knyght, Col. 2648 ;) 7thly, that 
 colleges and universities were diabolical, (Con- 
 dem. Coun. Constan., Art. 29;) 8thly, that it 
 was unlawful to pray in churches, or keep the 
 Lord's day, (Hypodig. Walsing. p. 557 ;) 9thly, 
 that temporal princes should cut off the head 
 of any Ecclesiastic who sinned ; and that, ii 
 the prince himself sinned, the people should 
 punish him. ^Knyght, Col. 2657.) 
 
 Q. Dia this dreadful doctrine produce its 
 hitter fruit? . 
 
 A. In four years from the time he opened 
 his mission, he and his followers produced, 
 amongst the people, insurrection, plunder, mur- 
 der, and civil war. The Chancellor, Primate 
 Ludbury, Lord Treasurcii' Hales, and Chiei 
 Justice Cavendish, were murdered by the 
 Wyckliffite rioters, and their intention was to 
 kill the king himself and all the nobility, (Wal- 
 dng. Hist. Ang. p. 26^5 ^ They fixed adver- 
 
2?>Q A DO.lTtlNAL CATECHISM. 
 
 tisements to the church doors in London, de- 
 claring that they had raised one hundred 
 thousand men, to combat those who did not 
 agi'ee to their opinions, (Walsing. Hist. p. 385.) 
 
 Q. At least, John Huss and Jerom of Prague 
 ive?^e put to death for heresy, 
 
 A. Yes ; but they caused violent seditions 
 in Bohemia ; they excited a general insurrec- 
 tion, — they deluged the country with blood. 
 " The Hussites began by murdering the Maj^or 
 of Prague, then they overturned the govern- 
 ment of the kingdom, after fighting several 
 battles against their sovereign in the field, and 
 after everyw^iere burning down monasteries, 
 murdering the clergy, and even those who pro- 
 tected them." — Aeneas. Sylv. ap Fleury. 
 
 Q. But were not Huss and Jerom put tc 
 death by the Ecclesiastical Council of Con- 
 stance ? 
 
 A. No ; the Council excommunicated them, 
 and declared it had no farther power regarding 
 them, (Act. Counc. Sess. 15.) Nay, the 
 Church, under her highest penalty, forbids any 
 Ecclesiastic to concur in any sanguinary pun- 
 ishment ; and hence, the bishops in the British 
 Parliament leave the house, when trials of life 
 and death are going on. 
 
 Q. But were not these men burnt at the m- 
 stance of the Council ^ 
 
A DOCTIIINAL JATECHISM. 299 
 
 A, No ; they were committed to the flames 
 by the magistrates, acting on the laws of the 
 land, and by the order of the Elector Palatine 
 and of the Emperor Sigismond, (L'Enfant, L. 
 iii, i 48.) Nor had the Comicil any thing to do 
 with their death ; its acts are still extant ; and 
 we have its history by L'Enfant, a Calvinist, 
 who does not even hint at such solicitation on 
 ihe part of the Council. 
 
 Q. Was not the Council culpable in pei 
 mitting the execution of these men, after grant- 
 ing them a safe-conduct ? 
 
 A. The Council could not prevent the exe- 
 cution of seditious rebels ; John Huss had no 
 safe-conduct, but merely a passport, promising 
 him protection to and from the Council, (L'En- 
 fant. Hist. Cons. L. i. parag. 41.) The Coun- 
 cil was guilty of no breach of faith to Jeiom, 
 but he was guilty of flagrant perjury to the 
 Council ; he pubUcly anathematized his own 
 doctrine, and yet afterwards confessed that, 
 at the time he denounced it, he believed every 
 tittle of it in his heart. See the Calvinist 
 L'Enfant, Lib. iv, parag. 75. 
 
 Q. Are not the Protestants who were slaugh^ 
 tered on St. Bartholomew's day at Paris, an 
 undeniable proof that the Citholic Church 
 persecutes ? 
 
 A. Very far from it ; that massacre was 
 
300 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 caused by the unrelenting vengeance of Charles 
 IX. and the bloody ambition of Catherine de 
 Medicis. '* On the day of this massacre an 
 edict is published, in which the king de- 
 clares, that whatever had happened was done 
 by his express order, and not out of hatred to 
 Protestants, but to put an end to the conspira- 
 cy of the Calvinist Coligni and his nefarious 
 companions." 
 
 Q. What did the Calvinists do, which thus 
 pi^ovoked the inexciisable vengeance of the 
 king ? 
 
 A. They were reported to the king, as hav^ 
 ing hatched a plot to overturn his government 
 and destroy himself They certainly attempted 
 to seize the king, and overturn the constitution 
 of his dominions, (Maimb. Lib. iv, Conspiracy 
 of Amboise and Meaux ;) they threatened to 
 whip the king, and to make a mechanic of 
 him, (Ibid..;) they fought four battles against 
 him, and treasonably delivered Havre de Grace, 
 the key of his dominions, to Queen Elizabeth, 
 a foreign potentate : they murdered multitudes 
 of priests, religious, ana unarmed people, burned 
 churches and monasteries, and made rivers of 
 blood flow in the very streets of l^aris, (Davila.) 
 In the city of Pamiers, they murdered all the 
 clergy who composed a procession on Corpus 
 Cht isii, Heylin, Hist. Presb. Lib. ii. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATEdllSM. 30 i 
 
 (4. Did not the Bishops encourage the mas- 
 sacre of St. Bartholomew ? 
 
 A. No ; on the contrary, the bishop of Li- 
 sieux opposed the execution of the king's order, 
 saying : " It is the duty of the good shepherd 
 to lay down his life for his sheep, not to let 
 them be slaughtered before his face. These 
 are my sheep, though they are gone astray, and 
 [ am resolved to run all hazards in protecting 
 them." Maimb., Conten., Fleury, &c. 
 
 Q. Did not Pope Gregory XIIL rejoice 
 when he heard of this massacre ? 
 
 A, If he did, it was because the matter was 
 represented to him, not in its true colors, but 
 as a victory gained by the king in a fair man- 
 ner over impiety and sedition. Thuan. Lib. 
 i ; Maimb. Lib. iv. " The Pope considered 
 Charles's act, as a necessary act of self-defence 
 against the infamous, treasonable, and bloody 
 plot of the Calvinists, Coligni, &c., against his 
 life and government." Pagi. Brev. Gest. Rom 
 Pant. vol. vi, p. 729. 
 
 ON THE INQUISITIOJ^ 
 
 Q. Is not the Inquisition a stat^ engine em- 
 ployed by the Catholic Chui^ch for the purpose 
 of persecution ? 
 
 26 
 
302 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 . A. No ; the Church has not, and never had, 
 any connection with the Inquisition, farther 
 than this, that some of her members, through 
 mistaken zeal, resorted to this cruel and un- 
 warrantable means for the purpose of sup 
 pressing immoral, blasphemous, and infidel doc- 
 trines. 
 
 Q. Why do you say that the Inquisition i: 
 no part of the Catholic religion ? 
 
 A. Because no such court existed till the 
 twelfth century ; and in many Catholic coun- 
 tries no such tribunal has ever existed ; whilst, 
 in some of those where it was established, it 
 has been long since suppressed. 
 
 Q. Was not St. Dominic the founder of the 
 Inquisition ? 
 
 A. This is a Protestant calumny ; it was 
 nowhere established till after his death. Mos- 
 heim, Saec. xiii. 
 
 Q. If some Popes and Bishops and Catho- 
 lic Princes established and used this dreadful 
 engine, it must certainly be a part of the 
 Catholic religion ? 
 
 A. No more than Queen Elizabeth's Court 
 of High Commission, which the Dissenters ol 
 that period declared to be more intolerable 
 man the Inquisition itself, was a necessarv 
 part of Protestantism. See Hume Hist. Eng 
 Tames II., c. vi ; Mosheim, vol. iv, p. 395. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 303 
 
 Q. Was not the Inquisition, with Ecclesias- 
 tics at its head, competent to pass sentence of 
 the loss of limbs or of death ? 
 
 A. No ; it had no such power. Very few 
 received sentence of death at all from theRoman 
 Inquisition ; there is not one such sentence re- 
 corded ; and more blood was shed by the Cal- 
 vinistic Huguenots of France on account of 
 religion, than could have been shed by five 
 hundred Spanish Inquisitions. 
 
 Q. Why such an engine at all ? 
 
 A. The rulers at that time were, in their 
 wisdom, impressed with the idea, that it was 
 the best mode of suppressing sacrilege, profana- 
 tion, apostacy, magic, and other crimes, which 
 are corporally punished in every country, 
 whether Catholic or Protestant. How many 
 witches did the Calvinist ministers burn in Scot- 
 land, or the early Puritans in N. England ? How 
 many Papists did they persecute and prosecute ? 
 (Arnot's Hist, of Edinburgh.) 
 
 Q. The Inquisition, then, is no essential 
 part of the Catholic religion ? 
 
 A. It is so far from being so, that mosi 
 Catholics condemn it as loudly and as earnest- 
 ly as Protestants themselves. It is a mere 
 state engine, which certain rulers used as a 
 matter of policy, not so much to put down 
 heresy, as to check the seditions and immorali' 
 
304 A DOCTRINAL CATEt IllSM. 
 
 lies that, in every age, were the consequences 
 of heres}', an engine which CatlioUcs in gen- 
 eral denounce as opposed equally to policy 
 justice, and charity. 
 
 Q. Have Protestants any right tc be per» 
 petually harping on the Inquisition ? 
 
 A, As a matter of principle, they should 
 come to the charge with clean hands ; living, 
 as they do, in glass houses, they should not 
 throw stones. What difference is there be- 
 tween the jails, into which they cast thousands 
 of Catholics, and the prison of the Inquisition ; 
 and what difference between the deaths the 
 unhappy victims on both sides died ? If Queen 
 Mary put to death two hundred and seventy- 
 seven Protestants for their rebellious opposition, 
 Protestants have had ample revenge, through 
 the first Protestant king, Henry' VIII, who 
 slaughtered sixty Catholics for denying his 
 spiritual supremacy ; and through their merci- 
 less Elizabeth, who persecuted, in most in- 
 stances, to death, and in all to utter ruin, twelve 
 hundred Catholics, for their faith ; and if Mary 
 burnt her victims, Elizabeth hanged, quartered, 
 embowelled, and burnt hers. See, for other 
 examples of persecution, Lingard, vol. viii, reign 
 of Elizabeth ; and for the penal laws against 
 Catholics, vol. viii, p. 143. In fact, Catholics 
 have experiencol from the Protestants of thesp 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. *i(15 
 
 countries only one continued persecution more 
 or less intense. They have been j)ermitted to 
 fiorht for the honor of a country and the securi- 
 ty of a crown, which, in return, gave them no 
 encouragement, and, till very lately, scarcely 
 any protection. 
 
 ON THE POWDER OF A GENERAL COUNCIL, Oil 
 PAPAL CONSISTORY, IN TEMPORAL MAT- 
 TERS. 
 
 Q. Can a General Council frame new maU 
 ters, or articles of faith ? 
 
 A, No ; a General Council can only define 
 what has been already revealed and belongs 
 to the deposit of faith. 
 
 Q. Have not Popes at times claimed the right 
 of deposing sovereigns ? 
 
 A, For many centuries monarchs were con- 
 secrated in the Church, with ceremonies insti- 
 tuted by the Church, they swore in the hands 
 of bishops of tlie Catholic Church to govern 
 justly and to respect the rights of the people 
 and of God's Church. 
 
 Q, If a king violated his oath^ rvhat was the 
 tnhnnal at which he could he arraigned? 
 
 A. The Iloly See was the recognize:! tri- 
 26^ 
 
306 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 bu]iaL If the charges were sustained he was 
 condemned, and unless he reformed was de- 
 clared to have forfeited his throne by violating 
 his oath of office. 
 
 Q. Was the action of the Popes in such cases 
 171 favor of the rights of the people? 
 
 A, It was in all cases. 
 
 Q, Are the States of Europe more happy or 
 quiet noiv tJiat this power is no longer recognized? 
 
 A, No century in history has seen so many 
 monarchs deposed and driven into exile as 
 the last hundred years, or so many small 
 States swept away entirel}?". 
 
 Q. How are these changes made ? 
 
 A, By secret societies, plots, conspiracies 
 and revolutions, or by the unbridled ambition 
 of princes who by force of arms crush all 
 surrounding States and establish a military 
 despotism. 
 
 Q. What is the body which these secret so- 
 cieties and despotic military sovereigns alike op- 
 pose and seek to crush ? 
 
 A, The CathoUc Church. 
 
 Q. Ai^e equivocation, or mental reservation, 
 allowed by the Catholic Church ? 
 
 A. No; these are Protestant charges, in- 
 vented for the purpose of exhibiting Catholics 
 in oc^^His colors. The Catholic Church nevei 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 307 
 
 taught such unworthy doctrines ; on the con- 
 trary, she disaj- proves and condemns them 
 
 ON THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics forhid the reading of the 
 Sacred Scripture ? 
 
 A. No ; they only forbid the abuse of that 
 thrice Holy Volume, which the Catholic Church 
 has ever preserved and regarded as one of her 
 most sacred deposites, and without whose pres- 
 ervation the Protestant Church would never 
 have had it. 
 
 Q. Is it forbidden to any one ? 
 
 A, Yes, to those who would certainty abuse 
 it, to those ignorantly proud people, of whom 
 St. Peter speaks, where he says, (2 Pet. i, 20,) 
 that certain parts of St. Paul's Epistles " are 
 HARD to be understood, lohich the unlearned 
 and unstable lorest, as also the rest of the 
 Scriptures, to their own perdition." 
 
 Q. Why are not all permitted to interpret 
 the Scripture as they will ? 
 
 A, Because (2 Pet. iii, 16) God has given 
 only " SOME to be apostles, some prophets, othet 
 Bome eningelfsti, and somepastois and teacfi- 
 
ersJ' Because its sense is to be sought from 
 those who were sent to teach ; from the " lips 
 of the Priest who shall keep knowledge, and 
 from whose mouth they shall require the law'' 
 Mai. ii, 7. 
 
 Q. Do not Catholic Bishaps and Popes dis- 
 courtage the reading of the Scriptures ? 
 
 A. No ; the CathoUc clergy are bound tc 
 read the Scripture for nearly an hour every 
 day ; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain 
 publicly declared, in 1826, that the circulation 
 of authentic copies of Scripture was never dis- 
 couraged by the Church ; Pope Pius VII., in a 
 rescript, April 18, 1820, addressed to the Eng- 
 hsh Bishops, tells them " to encourage theii 
 veople to read the Holy Scrij)tures, because 
 nothing can he more useful, more consoling^ 
 more animating. They serve to confirm the 
 faith, to support the hope, and to inflame the 
 charity of the true Christian.'' 
 
 Q. Does not the Catholic Church forbid 
 versions of the Scripture into modern tongues, 
 for the very purpose of keeping the Scripture 
 from the people ? 
 
 A. Even he Rev. Robert Adams refutes 
 this Protestant slander ; though a Protestant 
 himself, he declares that the Catholic laitv are 
 not debarred the use of the Scriptures. — Re- 
 ligious World Displayed, vol. ii, p. 78. But 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 30^ 
 
 the best refutation of this calumny is, that Pope 
 Pius VI., writing to Martini, Archb. of Florence, 
 on the subject of his translation of the Scrip- 
 tures, applauds his zeal in publishing his versioii, 
 and exhorts the faithful to read it. This docu- 
 ment is dated April 1788, and is prefixed to 
 every English edition of the Catholic Bible. 
 
 Q. Is it not said that Catholics published 
 feiv versions of Scripture till they were com- 
 pelled to do so by Protestant example ? 
 
 A, This is another Protestant slander propa- 
 gated to catch the ignorant. Before Protest- 
 antism had a being, there were upwards of 
 twenty versions of the Scripture into almost all 
 the modern languages, as will be evident from 
 the subjoined detail. 
 
 EARLY CATHOLIC VERSIONS. 
 
 Fust's, printed at Mentz, Anno 1462 
 
 Bender's, printed at Augsburg, 1467 
 
 Malenni's Italian Bible, 1471 
 
 Four Gospels, Belgic, 1472 
 
 Entire Bible, Belgic, Cologne, 1475 
 
 Julian's, (an Augustinian monk,) 1477 
 
 Delft Edition, 1477 
 
 St. Vincent Ferrler's, Spanish, 1478 
 
 Gouda Edition, 1479 
 
 (iiiyards des Moulins, Freiich, , 14liO 
 
 Four Versions mentioned by Beausobre, (Hist de la 
 
 Reformation, livre iv,) printed before 1522 
 
 Efilaplc'c New Testament, 1523 
 
 Old Testament printed before 1 528 
 
310 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Bruccioli's Italictn Bible, . 153S 
 
 Antwerp and Louvain, 1578 
 
 tARLY PROTESTANT VERSIONS. 
 
 Luther's Version of New Testament, Anno 1522 
 
 Tyndale's New Testament, 1526 
 
 First Belgic Version, 1527 
 
 Luther's Old Testament, 1 530 
 
 Tyndale's Pentateuch, 1530 
 
 Miles Coverdale's Version, 1535 
 
 Ohvetan's Old Testament, 1537 
 
 First Italian Version, 1562 
 
 ENGLISH CATHOLIC VERSIONS. 
 
 Version of whole Bible, MS., Anno 1290 
 
 Auglo-Saxon Version, MS. about 1300 
 
 FRENCH, GERMAN, SPANISH, AND ITALIAN MS. VERSIONS 
 
 German, about 800 ; Italian, 1270 ; Spanish, 1280 ; French, 
 1294.* 
 
 * Six versions, and twelve editions, of the Sacred Volume 
 appeared in German before Luther's time. The same is true 
 of three versions, and many editions, in ItaHan. Four vei- 
 eions, with a multitude of editions, were published in Gothic 
 and French. Two Belgic versions, with several editions. 
 The Bohemian version was published, Prague, 1488 ; at 
 Putna, 1498 ; at Venice, 1506, and 1511. For other Catho- 
 lic translations, in almost all the languages of the world, and 
 many of them published in Rome, the very hotbed op r'>* 
 PERV, — see Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, Bochmer, Letpsic. 
 1709 ; and note appended to Lord Shrewsbury's Letter «< 
 (iOrd Bealey, page 90. 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATEttllSM. 311 
 
 ON MONKS, FRIARS, AND NUNS. 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of religious Or* 
 ders ? 
 
 A. The very fact that we have in revelation 
 counsels, as well as commands, proves that 
 such Orders should exist in the Church as 
 should observe these counsels, for Christ did 
 not give them in vain. 
 
 Q. What do you mean hy counsels ? 
 
 A. Those virtues which Christ has recom- 
 mended, but not commanded under pain oi 
 sin, such as chastity, voluntary poverty, &c. 
 
 Q. Is there not something wrong in becoming 
 a Monk or a Nun ? 
 
 A, No ; but if we are to believe the Scrip- 
 ture, there is something peculiarly praiseworthy 
 m doing so. Christ speaks often of the dan- 
 ger of riches ; he tells the young man in the 
 Gospel to go and sell all that he had, and give 
 it to the poor, if he wished to be perfect. 
 Now, this is what Monks and Nuns do ; and 
 can there be any thing wrong in following the 
 advice of Christ himself, in embracing a life 
 of voluntary poverty, instead of exposing one's 
 self to the seductive danger of riches ? St. 
 Paul declares, that he who giveth his virgin in 
 man'iage doth well, but he that giveth her not 
 
312 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 doth better ; and can there be any thing wiong 
 in following this advice of the Apostle, in vow- 
 ing and preserving that brightest of all virtues 
 — chastity ? Christ declares, that we must de- 
 ny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow 
 him ; can there then be any thing wrong in 
 those, who, finding that they cannot do this 
 well in the midst of this w^orld's temptations, 
 retire from it into the cloister, and there prac- 
 tise the counsels of Christ, in obedience to, and 
 under the guidance of, the great masters of a 
 religious life, always to be found in every re- 
 ligious establishment ? 
 
 Q. Are all religious employed merely in la 
 boring for their own, or pi^aying for the sal- 
 vation of others ? 
 
 A. No ; many religious Orders are establish- 
 ed entirely for the good of their neighbors, some 
 to teach the ignorant, others to preach the 
 Gospel, some to provide for the poor, others to 
 imbue the minds of the rich youth with know- 
 ledge and virtue, some to attend the sick, es- 
 pecially in the public hospitals, and others tc 
 redeem the slave and the captive. 
 
 Q. May there not be abuses in these estab- 
 lishments ? 
 
 A. There is nothing so good that it may not 
 be abused ; marriage, every profession, the very 
 Word o' God, nay, our common Christianity 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. SiU 
 
 are all occasionally abused ; but surely no good 
 Christian wil. think this an argument eithef 
 against them, or to get rid of them. 
 
 ON THE CHARGE OF IGNORANCE MADE 
 AGAINST CATHOLICS. 
 
 Q. Did not the Reformation bring the bless 
 ing of learning into the world ? 
 
 A, Protestants attribute to the Reformation, 
 what is due solely to the art of printing, dis- 
 covered before the introduction of the new re- 
 ligion of Luther. 
 
 Q. Did the Catholics use the art of printing 
 for the promotion of literature before Protest- 
 antism had a being ? 
 
 A. Before the end of the fiifteenth century, 
 printing presses Were wrougl t in thirty-four 
 towns of France alone ; and between the years 
 1455 and 1536, twenty -two millions nine hun- 
 dred and thirty-two thousand volumes had 
 been printed. The Popes, Nicholas V. and 
 Sixtus IV., with the Princes and Kings of most 
 European countries, were the munificent patrons 
 of the arts and sciences, (Reche^ches sur les 
 Bibliotheques, pp. 82, 207, 233, 180.) Learning 
 was ir. such a flourishing state in Germany, 
 
 2^ 
 
314 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 that ten Universities were founded between 
 the vears 1403 and 1506. Erasmus declares 
 that " learning triumphed in England, that the 
 King, the Queen, two Cardinals, and almost all 
 the Bishops, exerted themselves in promoting 
 it." (Ad Pet. Bembum ; Basileas, 1518.) In- 
 deed, all the Universities in Europe were found- 
 ed by Catholics and in Catholic times. During 
 three hundred years, Protestants have shown 
 their wish to promote learning by the erection 
 of only two Universities, those of Dublin and 
 London. 
 
 Q. By whom were the Universities oj Scot- 
 land erected ? 
 
 A. By Bishops and Popes : That of St. An- 
 drews, by the Catholic Bishop Wardlaw, under 
 the sanction of Benedict XIII., in 1413; thai 
 of Glasgow, by Pope Nicholas V., aided by 
 Bishops Muirhead and Turnbull, in 1450 ; that 
 of Aberdeen, called King's College, by Pope 
 Alexander VI., to which Bishop Elphinstone 
 largely contributed. Even the Edinburgh 
 Universit}.^ was projected by a Catholic Bishop, 
 (Reid of Orkney,) who left eight thousand 
 merks for that purpose. Indeed, every na- 
 tion in Europe, by the proudest monuments^ 
 such as Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna, Sor- 
 bonne, Salamanca, bears irrefragable testi 
 mony to the untiring exertions of the Cath 
 
A noCTRlNAL CA TEC^ IS.VJ 315 
 
 olic Church for the promotion of the arts and 
 sciences. 
 
 Q. Can you illustrate this matter hy any 
 additional consideration ? 
 
 A. Yes ; is not Europe indebted to Catholic 
 Bishops and Popes for its civilization, its laws, 
 and all its knowledge of the fine arts ? Are 
 not painting, sculpture, music, and architecture, 
 all completely and entirely Catholic ? If you 
 nave any doubt, only look to the magnificent 
 abbeys and cathedrals which have survived the 
 fury of Vandalic reform, and which the bar- 
 barous hand of Protestantism has left only a** 
 interesting ruins, and you will be quickly con- 
 vinced. No wonder, then, that the candid 
 Colonel Mitchell, in his Life of Wallenstein, 
 should declare, that " deep and indelible is the 
 debt which religion and civilization owe to 
 
 THE EARLY RoMAN PoNTIFFS AND TO THE 
 
 Church of Rome. They strove long and no- 
 bly to forward the cause of human improve- 
 ment." 
 
 Q. Did not even the Monasteries possess 
 large libraries and men of learning ? 
 
 A. For this we have excellent Protestant 
 authority. " The monas-teries . . . .had more 
 opportunities for study than the secular clergy 
 possessed. . . .But their most important service 
 was as secure repositories for books. All oiu 
 
 I 
 
3)0 A DaCTRlNAL CATECHISM. 
 
 uianuscripts have been preserved in this man- 
 ner." (Hallam, Mid. Ages, vol. ii, p. 439.) 
 " When the monks were settled in the reigrt ol 
 King Edgar, they promoted a general^ improve- 
 ment ; they were very industrious in restoring 
 learning, and retrieving the country from the 
 remarkable ignorance of these times." (Colliei . 
 Hist. Ecclesiast.) " A little before the Reform- 
 ation, many of the great monasteries were 
 
 NURSERIES OF LEARNING ; the SUPERIORS of 
 
 monasteries were men of distinction.'' (Ibid.) 
 Bishop Tanner says : " The monasteries were 
 schools of learning and education." 
 
 Q. What was the order of Pope Gregory 
 VII. to the Bishops of the Church ? 
 
 A. He urged all the Bishops in Christendom 
 to encourage literature and the arts, and to 
 have each a school attached to his Cathedral 
 Church. (Voigt, Hist. Greg. VII., French 
 Trans., p. 500.) 
 
 Q. What was the opinion of Burke, Gibbon, 
 'ind Lord Hutchinson, as to Catholic learn- 
 ing ? 
 
 A. The firs-t declared, that " France alone 
 had produced more eminent scholars than all 
 the Protestant Universities of Europe;" the 
 second said, that " one Monasterv of Benedic 
 tine Monks gave to the world more works of 
 learning than both the Universities of Eng- 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATEUHISM. SM 
 
 land ;" and the third spoke thus to the British 
 House of Lords : " Catholicity, which has this 
 night been the subject of so much abuse, has 
 ueen the behef of the most extensive and 
 ENLIGHTENED nations of Europe, and of the 
 most illustrious characters that ever did honor 
 to the name of man." (Cob., Letter i ; Lin- 
 gard's Tracts, p. 63.) 
 
 Q. Do not Protestant countries stand much 
 higher, in modern times, as to education, com- 
 fort, and prosperity, than Catholic countries? 
 
 A. They turn their whole attention to w^orld- 
 ly prosperity ; religion gives them little con- 
 cern ; and hence it would not be very surpri- 
 sing if, in the above branches, they were in 
 advance. That such, however, is not the case, 
 you have only to read, Howitfs Life in Ger- 
 many — Tait, Feb. 1843 ; TurnhulTs Austria, 
 vol. i, p. 219; Ihid, vol. ii, pp. Q^, 72 — see 
 also, p. 59 ; Borroio's Bible in Spain, chap. v. 
 Even Dr. Welsh, in the General Assembly o\ 
 1835, admitted, that Scotland, " instead of be- 
 ing the very first in point of education, holds a 
 very low place in respect of some Protestant, 
 and I must," he says, "add, some Roman 
 Catholic Countries." This from a minister 
 is a very large admission ; and when taken in 
 connection with the declaration of a British 
 ifecretary of State on the Factory question. 
 
 27* 
 
318 A DOCTRINAL CATLCUISM. 
 
 " that Protestant England is the most ignorant 
 Christian country in the world," and with the 
 astounding proofs of spiritual and tempora. 
 ignorance laid before that Factory Commission, 
 must be considered as perfectly conclusive. 
 
 Q. What does Mr. Laing — Notes of a Trav- 
 eller, pp. 435, 442 — say as to the comparative 
 state of education ? 
 
 A. In page 435, after saying that the pover- 
 ty-stricken intellectual recluse is the Popish 
 priest of the Nineteenth Century, he adds, 
 '' Our clergy in Scotland have a very erroneous 
 notion of the state of the Popish clergy ; . . . . 
 we often hear them prayed for, as men wallow- 
 ing in luxury, and sunk in gross ignorance. 
 This is somewhat injudicious, as well as un- 
 charitable ; for when the youth of their con- 
 gregations. . . .come in contact abroad with the 
 Catholic clergy, so described, and find them in 
 learning, liberal views, and genuine piety, ac- 
 cording to their own doctrines, so very diflferent 
 from the description, and the describers, there 
 will unavoidably arise comparisons. .. .by no 
 means edifying or flattering to their clerical 
 teacheis at home.... Our Churchmen should 
 understand better the strength of a formidable 
 adversary, ... .who bvinsis into the field zeai 
 and purity of life equai to their own. The 
 €ducation o the regular clergy of the Catholic 
 
A JCOCTKINAL CATECHISM. 319 
 
 Chunih, is, perhaps, positively higher, and, be- 
 yond doubt, comparatively higher, than the 
 education of the Scotch clergy. By positively 
 higher, is meant that, among a given number 
 of Popish and of Scotch clergy, a greater pro- 
 portion of the former will be found, who read 
 with ease and a perfect mastery the ancient 
 languages — Greek, Latin, and Hebrew — and 
 the Eastern languages connected with that oi 
 the Old Testament, — a greater number of pro- 
 found scholars, a greater number of high mathe- 
 maticians, and a higher average amount of 
 acquired knowledge." In page 442, he adds, 
 " The Catholic clergy adroitly seized on edu- 
 cation, and not, as we suppose in Protestant 
 countries, to keep the people in darkness and 
 ignorance, and to inculcate error and super- 
 stition, but to be at the head of the great social 
 influence of useful knowledge." Again, in page 
 439, alluding to the gross calumny, "that the 
 Catholic clergy seek to keep their people in ig- 
 norance," he scouts the impudent saying in the 
 following masterly style : " This opinion of our 
 Churchmen seems more orthodox, than charita- 
 ble, or correct. The Popish clergy have, in 
 reality, less to lose by the progress of education 
 than our own Scotch clergy. In Catholic Ger- 
 many, in France, Italy, and even Spain, thft 
 education oi' ihe c ~»mmon people, in readings 
 
320 A DOCTRINAL GATE JHISM. 
 
 writing, arithmetic, music, manners, and moralSi 
 s, at least, as generally diffused, and as faith- 
 fully pron>oted, by the clerical body, as in Scot- 
 land. It is by their own advance, and not b*- 
 Keeping back the advance of the people, thai 
 the Popish priests of the present day seek to 
 keep a-head of the intellectual progress of the 
 community. Education is, in reality, not only 
 not repressed, but is encouraged, in the Popish 
 Church, and is a mighty instrument in its 
 hands, and ahly used. In every street in 
 Rome, for instance, there are, at short dis- 
 tances, public primary schools, for the education 
 of the children of the lower and middle classes. 
 Rome, with a population of 158,678 souls, has 
 372 public primary schools, with 482 teachers, 
 and 14,099 children attending them Has 
 Edinburgh so many public schools for the in- 
 struction of those classes ? I doubt it. Berlin, 
 with a population about double that of Rome 
 has only 264 schools. Rome has also her Uni- 
 versity, with an average attendance of 660 stu- 
 dents ; and the Papal states, with a population 
 of two and a half millions, contain seven uni- 
 versities. (Protestant) Prussia, with a popula- 
 tion of fourteen millions, has only seven .... 
 The statistical fact, that Rome has above a 
 hundred schools more than Berlin, for a popu- 
 lation little more than half that of Berlin, puts 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 32 1 
 
 to flight a world of humbug .... Is it asked, 
 what is taught to the people of Rome by all 
 these schools ? Precisely what is taught at 
 Berlin, {the most Protestant capital of the most 
 Protestant country in the world) — reading, 
 writing, arithmetic, geography, languages, re- 
 ligious doctrine of some sort." This ample 
 attestation, given by an enemy, w^hen looked at 
 along with the extraordinary exertions that are 
 made, now that the penal laws are done away 
 with in Great Britain and Ireland and other 
 countries of Europe, by the Catholics of these 
 countries, in establishing schools, educational 
 convents, and colleges, should, we think, open 
 the eyes of the veriest bigot to this truth, that 
 the Catholic Church loves learning, and pro- 
 motes the arts and sciences. 
 
 ON THE CHARGE OF UNCHARITABLENESS. 
 
 Q. Are Catholics uncharitable to Sectarians? 
 
 A. Certainly not ; since the Church teaches 
 them to love all mankind, to pray for all, t(; 
 forgive all, and to do good corporally and spir- 
 itually to all, ii respective of creed, country, or 
 
3*^2 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. Does she not teach that there is no salva 
 lion out of the Church ? 
 
 A. We have already proved that there is 
 only one true Church, as there is only one 
 Lord, one faith ^ and one baptism, and that the 
 Catholic Church is that one true fold. Hence 
 it is not only not uncharitable, but very charit 
 nble in Catholics to declare to the world what 
 is laid down in Scripture, which teaches, that 
 sects and heresies and schisms are sins which 
 exclude from heaven. St. Paul declares, that 
 " they that do such things, shall not inherit the 
 kingdom of God."— Gal. v, 20, 21. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics charge all that are ap- 
 parently out of their communion with the crimes 
 of heresy and schism, and consequently exclude 
 them from salvation ? 
 
 A. No ; all baptized children who die before 
 they sin mortally, and before they embrace and 
 believe error, are members of the true Church. 
 Again, all those sincere people belong to the 
 soul of the Church, who, being baptized, and 
 believing the great fundamental truths of Chris- 
 tianity, and who are prevented from believing 
 it in all its details, not by carelessness, nor 
 leinporal interest, nor human respect, nor the 
 spirit of obstmacy, nor by malice, but simply 
 oecause they never doubted, and never had 
 8uffi(uent means of knowing the truth, \\'hich 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATE(JH1SM. 823 
 
 they would embrace at once, and with glad- 
 Qess, could they only discover it, — all these, 
 we say, belong to the soul of the Church, and 
 will be saved, if they lead good lives and do 
 not violate God's law. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by the soul of the 
 Church ? 
 
 A. All those belong to the body of the Church 
 who are openly professing Catholics ; to the 
 soul of the Church belong all such as I have 
 above described, who, being baptized, and be- 
 lieving the fundamental truths of religion, are 
 living separate from the body of the Church, 
 not by any fault of their own, but purely by 
 not having sufficient means to lead them in>to a 
 knowledge of the whole truth. 
 
 Q. Do Protestants expressly teach the verj 
 doctrine they unjustly blame in us, " exclusive 
 salvation ?" 
 
 A. Yes ; the 16th Article of the Old Pres^ 
 hyterian Confession says : " That there is one 
 Kirk, out of which Kirk neither life nor eternal 
 felicity is to be hoped for J' The 25th chap, 
 of the Westminster Confess, declares, " that 
 those who profess the true religion, (there can 
 be only one religion true,) with their children, 
 are the house of God, out of which there is no 
 Mvdinart possibility of salvation." The 18th 
 chap; of the Church of England Articles de- 
 
824 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 clares, " that they also are to be had accursed, 
 that presume to say, that every man shall be 
 saved by the law or sect which he professeth." 
 The same is the doctrine taught in the Prot. 
 Belgian Confess., 1561, and by the Synod of 
 Dort, 1619. The French Prot. Catechism, 
 Edit. 1710, p. 283, says, "Without doubt, out 
 of. the Church, there is nothing hut death and 
 DAMNATION." This is extraordinary doctrine 
 to come from the lips of men who came out of 
 the only Church in the world a few years be- 
 fore. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this? 
 
 A. That those pretended lovers of charitable 
 doctrine must be very blind w^ho look lor such 
 in anv Protestant Communion. 
 
 ON HERESY 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. Wliat is heresy ? 
 
 A. An obstinate att«achment to one's own 
 private opinion, in opposition to what is de- 
 clared an article of faith ; and he is guilty of it, 
 who prefers hirs own opinion to the declared 
 doctrine of the universal Church ; for exsi.r'^ia 
 
A DOCTK[NAL CAT ECHISiM. 826 
 
 it he hold obstinately any meaning he chooser 
 to give to any portion of Scripture, which mean- 
 ing is opposed to that given by the Church. 
 
 Q. Have all heretics pretended to prove their 
 peculiar doctrines from Scripture? 
 
 A. All, without exception. The Arians de- 
 nied the consubstantiality of the Word, depend- 
 ing on that passage of St. John, chap, xiv — 
 " My Father is greater than /.'' The Mace- 
 donians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, 
 on these words — Rom. viii, 26 — " The Spirit 
 himself asketh for us with unspeakable groan- 
 ''ngs.'' The Manicheans pretended to prove, 
 that Christ became man only in appearance, by 
 Philip, ii, 7 — " Taking the form of a servant, 
 being made in the likeness of men.'' The Nes 
 torians fancied they proved, that in Christ there 
 were two persons, by Coloss. ii, 9 — " For in 
 him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
 corporally.'' The Eutychians cited John, chap, 
 i, — " and the Word was made flesh," — to prove, 
 that Christ had only one nature ; and the Pe- 
 lagians founded their denial of original sin, on 
 Ezech. xviii, 20 — " The son shall not hear the 
 iniquity of the father." 
 
 Q. What was the source of all these e> 
 rors ? 
 
 A. The presumptuous desire and determina- 
 tion of each Heresiarch to prefer his own m- 
 
 28 
 
326 A V10CTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 terpretation of the Scripture, to that given by 
 tne whole Church. 
 
 Q. Were Luther and Calvin guilty of a 
 similar i rational presumption ? 
 
 A. They were shipwrecked on the same rock 
 which had caused the ruin of all the Heresi- 
 archs that had gone before them. Calvin, for 
 example, gave these words — " this is my body'' 
 — a figurative meaning, whilst the whole Church 
 then existing, and the whole Christian world 
 during fifteen hundred years, understood them 
 in their natural sense. Luther explamed these 
 words — Rom. iii — ''Man is justified hy faith 
 without the works of the law'' — as dispensing 
 with the necessity of good works, and the ob- 
 serving of God's commandments, whilst the 
 ivhole Church understood these words to mean, 
 that man is justified neither by the works of the 
 natural nor of the Jewish law, but by fakh in 
 Jesus Christ, and by the works which proceed 
 from that faith, having the grace of God for 
 their source. 
 
 Q. Did Luther and Calvin act uniforhily on 
 this irrational principle of pi^ef erring each his 
 own single individual judgment to that of the 
 whole Church ? 
 
 A. Yes ; such was the principle upon which 
 they grounded Cdoh article of their new faith. 
 
 Q, Can Luther, or any of his followers, hs 
 
 J 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHIbM. 32/ 
 
 excusable before God, seeing that each one of 
 them prefers, in the interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, his own one light, and his own one judg- 
 ment, to the light and judgment of the whole 
 Churcn ? 
 
 A, Certainly not ; for to such individual we 
 say : Either you believe that you are fallible in 
 the interpretation which you give the Scripture, 
 or you hold that you are infallible : if you say 
 you are fallible, then your faith is uncertain 
 and vacillating, and, consequently, is not faith 
 at all ; but if you say you are infallible, then 
 your absurd presumption drives you to assert, 
 that the whole Church may err in her inter- 
 pretation of Scripture, but that you individually 
 can interpret it with infallible certainty ! ! 
 
 Q. What can he reply to this dilemma ? 
 
 A, We defy him to make any satisfactory 
 reply ; he being either the victim of perplexity, 
 or the dupe of the most insupportable obstinacy. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q,. Have you observed any peculiarities which 
 have uniformly accompanied every imj ortant 
 heresy that has made its appearance in the 
 Christian world? 
 
 A, Yes ; five peculiarities are always ob- 
 servable. 1st, Every Heresiarch presumed to 
 
328 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 blame the Church with having fallen into perni- 
 cious error ; 2dly, These Heresiarchs, with their 
 adherents, always separated themselves from 
 the Church ; 3dly, They uniformly laught new 
 doctrines, unknown till then in the Christian 
 world ; 4th]y, They always gave their own 
 name, or the name of their country, or the 
 name of their new dogmas, to their followers ; 
 5thly, Not one of them could ever prove that 
 he had a lawful mission. 
 
 Q. Have you observed the same traits in the 
 Heresiarchs Luther and Calvin ? 
 
 A. Yes ; like Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, 
 and Eutyches, they blamed the Church, — they 
 separated themselves from her, — they taught 
 new doctrines, — they gave their names to their 
 followers, — and they were unable to prove a 
 lawful mission. 
 
 Q. How do you prove that Luther, for ex- 
 ample, taught new dogmas ? 
 
 A. We defy him or any of his followers to 
 name even one country, one parish, or even 
 one village, which, from the time of Christ until 
 Luther appealed, ever taught, that there are 
 only two sacraments, — that the Mass is an 
 abomination, — the invocation of saints, idolatry 
 — Purgatory, a superstition, — and the Pope, 
 Antichrist. 
 
 Q. Have you remarked any other peculiar Uy 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECKISM. 320 
 
 as often as any new doctrine appeared in tht 
 Church ? 
 
 A, We can always name the author of such 
 new creed, — tell the place and time where it 
 made its first apftearance, — give the names of 
 the first men who opposed it, — and point out 
 the Council w^hich condemned it. Thus, we 
 know that Arius, in the year 315, in Alex an 
 DRiA, a city of Egypt, w^as the first to teach, 
 that Clirist Jesus was not equal to the Father ; 
 and we know, that this error was combated by 
 the Patriarch Alexander and by St. Ktiia- 
 NAsius, and that it was condemned by thm 
 FIRST Council of Nice. 
 
 Q. Do we observe the same peculiarities, as 
 to the new doctrine of Luther ? 
 
 A. Exactly the same. That doctrine made 
 its first appearance at Wittemberg, in Saxony, 
 in the year 1517; it had Luther for its au- 
 thor ; was COMBATED by all the Universities 
 to which he appealed ; and was finally con- 
 demned BY the Council of Trent. 
 
 Q. What other marks of novelty do you dib 
 cover in Luther s doctrine ? 
 
 A. Three other marks. That doctrine was 
 at first embraced by very few ; all those who 
 embraced it, had been previously taught a very 
 different doctrine ; and its appearance gave rise 
 to great confusion, amazement, and sedition. 
 
 28* 
 
330 A D(»CTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Q. May it not he said, that Luther taught 
 nothing new, hut merely re-estahlished what the 
 Apostles taught ? 
 
 A. This reply is justly suspected, because it 
 was the reply of every Here^arch that appear- 
 ed in the world. 
 
 Q. How do you refute this assertion ? 
 
 A. The doctrine of the Apostles could nevei 
 cease to be taught, because Christ declared he 
 would he with his Apostles teaching all days, 
 even to the consummation of the world; but 
 the doctrine of Luther was not only not taught, 
 it was not even known before his own time ; 
 therefore, the doctrine of Luther was not the 
 doctrine of the Apostles. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. Were Luther and Calvin hetter able to 
 prove their mission, than were Arius, Mace- 
 donius, or Nestorius ? 
 
 A. No ; in this they had the very same diffi- 
 culty to contend with as had these Here-siarchs. 
 
 Q. How did the Catholics prove to the re- 
 forming leaders that they had no mission ? 
 
 A. They said to them : Your ecclesiastical 
 superiors have not sent you to preach or bap- I 
 tize ; therefore you have no ordinary mission : 
 but neithei h^ve you an extraordinary mission; 
 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 33 i 
 
 for, if you were sent immediately and directly 
 by God himself, you would have been able to 
 prove this, like Moses or our Saviour, by work- 
 ing miracles. 
 
 Q. Did Luther himself admit, that no man 
 could preach unless he had one or other of these 
 missions ? 
 
 A. Yes ; addressing the Anabaptist preach- 
 ers, he says : " If you are sent by man, show 
 as your patent ; if by God, let us see you work- 
 ing miracles/' (German Edit., T. 5, p. 491-6.) 
 He forgot, however, this embarrassing dilemma, 
 when the CathoHcs, with much more justice, 
 applied it to himself. 
 
 Q. Could not Luther, who was a priest oj 
 the Catholic Church, reply, that he had power 
 and commission from her to preach the true 
 doctrine contained in the Scripture ? 
 
 A, Either the Catholic Church was at that 
 time the true Church, or she had ceased to be 
 such ; if she was then the true Church, it 
 was unlawful for Luther to separate from her, 
 and she could not give him a commission to 
 preach a doctrine contrary to her own ; but if 
 she had ceased to be the true Church, then' 
 she was not qualified to give any commission 
 at all. 
 
 Q. As then Luther and Calvin had evident- 
 ly Ui} mission, either ordinary or extraordinary. 
 
332 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 -———-———-— ^-— —————— -^-—— —————— —————— —^———— — ' ■ ■ « » 
 
 in what light are we to regard them and theii 
 successors in the ministry ? 
 
 A. As wolves in sheep's clothing, who have 
 entered the fold, not by the door, but over the 
 wall ; of whom Christ says, that they come not 
 to feed, but to devour the sheep. 
 
 THE PROTESTANT " RULE OF FAITH" 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. You have said much already on the rult 
 of faith ; still, as it is a very important ques- 
 tion, I should like a more full exposition of the 
 three false rules generally followed by Protest- 
 ants, and then a brief but clear statement of the 
 Scriptural grounds upon which the Catholic 
 rule of faith rests, 
 
 A, You shall be gratified, as far as our brief 
 space will allow. 
 
 Q. What say you then to the rule of the So- 
 cinian ? He admits that the Scripture is in- 
 spired, but that reason is to be the interpreter 
 of that Divine revelation, and that nothing zV 
 to be admitted, but what reason can clearly com- 
 prehend. 
 
 A. We reply, in the first place, God is infinite 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 333 
 
 we are finite ; hence, he can reveal many things 
 of which we understand nothing except the 
 facts revealed, — such are, for example, the Unity 
 and Trinity of God, the Creation, the Incarna- 
 tion, &c. Now, can reason be our guide in 
 things which it cannot comprehend ? Will 
 presumptuous, finite reason pretend to fathom 
 the unfathomable abyss of God's infinite wis 
 dom and power ? Will it blasphemously tell 
 God, that it will believe nothing but what it 
 can understand, — that it will believe nothing 
 on God's word, unless he condescend to explain 
 its nature ? Secondly, reason is fallible ; hence 
 it cannot be the foundation of faith, which ex- 
 cludes all doubt ; it can only be the foundation 
 of opinion. Only open the pages which con- 
 tain the sad history of man ; look at the molten 
 idols of ancient Rome, and the garden gods of 
 ancient Egypt, — at the contradictions and ab- 
 surdities of Pagan and Christian schools, guided 
 entirely by human reason, and you will be 
 satisfied, that there is nothing ridiculous, gross, 
 absurd, or shameful, which erring reason has 
 not taught ; and if so, surely it cannot be a 
 secure rule of faith. Thirdly, all the sects in 
 the world professing Christianity, agree in de- 
 nouncing the Socinian or Unitarian rule, and 
 their 'creed founded on that rule. Most cer- 
 tainly, therefore, it is safer to follow the over 
 
i?34 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 whelming majority of Christians, than to risk 
 our salvation upon a rule lately adopted by a 
 handful of men, who have no claim to the title 
 of Christian, since they deny one of the funda- 
 mental articles of Christianity — the Divinity of 
 Christ, 
 
 Q. Have you any other argument against 
 this rule ? 
 
 A. Yes, many. The reasons or judgments 
 of men are as different as their faces ; hence, 
 an infinite variety of religions would be formed 
 under the direction of reason. Look at out 
 contradictory systems of medicine, philosophy 
 politics, and agriculture, and say : If such is 
 the case in secular sciences, should we not 
 have the same Bab;y'lonish confusion as regards 
 religion, if reason were admitted as supreme 
 judge ? Should w^e not, in that case, have as 
 many creeds as there are men, — as many va- 
 rieties in religion, as there are different grades 
 of strong or weak, polished or unpolished, rea- 
 son amongst men ? In fine, the very rule of the 
 Socinian is a contradiction to his reason. The 
 Christian rule is much more rational. God 
 reveals certain truths, many of which are mys- 
 teries. The Socinian says : What I understand 
 of these, I will beheve ; what my reason does 
 not comprehend, I will reject ; and thus an in- 
 ic>lent creature, who is the mere work of God's 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 335 
 
 hand, — who does not understand even himself, 
 --who cannot comprehend half the mysteries, 
 which exist in and around him every moment, 
 dares to disbelieve God's word, unless God 
 condescend to explain all to him. How irra- 
 tional is such conduct ! The Christian, on the 
 contrary, when a mystery is proposed, seeks 
 sufficient proof of the fact of revelation ; — 
 satisfied on this head, he believes at once. 
 God is infinitely good, he says, therefore he 
 cannot deceive me ; he is infinitely wise, there- 
 fore he cannot be deceived himself; whatevei 
 he reveals must be true ; therefore I believe it, 
 whether I understand it or not. We may then 
 sound as we please the depths of worldly 
 science ; in this we are confined to no bounds , 
 but in religion we have prescribed limits. It 
 is di positive institution — " Thus far shalt thou 
 go, and no further." 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Q. What say you to the rule adopted by ine 
 Baptists, Quakers, Moravians, and Methodists 
 which consists in a supposed private inspira- 
 don made by God to each individual ? 
 
 A. The conduct of those who adopted this 
 delusion is its best refutation. Montanus and 
 Maximilla were the first who adopted it, and 
 
836 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 ihey both hanged themselves. (Euseb. Eccl. 
 Hist., Lib. V.) The followers of Carlostad 
 were privately inspired by God, " to despoil 
 and kill all the wicked/' (Sleidan, De Statu 
 Rel. et Reip. Coniment., Lib. iii, p. 45.) John 
 Bockhold, following his inspiration, declared 
 himself king of Sion — he married eleven wives, 
 and, by order of his spirit, put them all to death. 
 (Hist, de la Reform, par Ger. Brandt.) Her- 
 man was inspired to declare himself the Mes- 
 siah, — to order that all priests and magistrates 
 should be killed (Brandt, p. 5L) David George 
 declared himself the true son of God. (Mo- 
 sheim, V. iv, p. 484.) Such were the foreigr 
 Protestants who followed private inspiration as 
 a rule of faith. 
 
 Q. Were the English followers of this rule 
 more moderate than their continental brethren 1 
 
 A. No ; Nicholas taught, that faith and 
 worship were useless, — that men should con- 
 tinue in sin, that grace might abound. (Brandt, 
 p. 5L) For the doings of Hacket's and Ven- 
 ner's private inspiration, see Fuller's Hist, of 
 the Church, p. 9, and Echard's Hist, of Eng 
 Fox, according to Penn's Journal, declared the 
 Scripture only a secondary rule, subject to the 
 spirit ; and one of his party entered the Par- 
 liament House with a drawn sword, saying, he 
 was authorized by the Holy Spirit to kill everv 
 
A JOCTRINAL CATECHISM 33" 
 
 man that sat in that house. (IMaclaine's Note 
 on Mosheim, V. v, p. 470.) James Naylor was 
 inspired to have himself hailed as the " Prince 
 of peace, the rose of Sharon, and the fairest of 
 ten thousand." (Echard.) Wesley says of the 
 Moravians, that many of them did not read 
 the Scriptures, pray, or communicate, because 
 that was seeking salvation by works. " Some 
 of our English brethren say," he adds, " you 
 will never have faith, till you leave off the 
 Church and the sacraments ; as many go to 
 hell by praying as by thieving." (Journal, 
 1740.) Such were the impious and blas- 
 phemous fruits of the rule called " private in- 
 spiration." 
 
 Q. These unquestionable facts are shoching 
 evidences against that rule, — have you any 
 additional argument to offer ? 
 
 A, In the first place, the true rule of faith 
 is a rule for all, whilst, with the exception 
 of these few deluded Protestant fanatics, no 
 body of Christians ever felt, or even pretended 
 to feel, that they were privately inspired by 
 God ; therefore, the great mass of Christians 
 have ever been, and now are, without any rule 
 of faith ; and is this at all reconcileable w^ith 
 God's goodness and mercy ? Secondly, Those 
 who adopted this rule directly contradicted the 
 Scripture. Their spirit told them to murder 
 
 29 
 
338 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 — the Scripture says — " Thou shalt not kill.** 
 The spirit told them to sin that grace might 
 abound ; — the Scripture forbids all sin. Nay> 
 they contradicted one another. The same Spirit 
 of God taught one thing to Wesley, and another 
 to Bockhold, — one to Joanna Southcote, and 
 another to Fox. Finally,' the Spirit of God, 
 say these fanatics, teaches us what we are to 
 believe and what we are to do ; but can they 
 prove that it, in reality, is the Spirit of God, 
 and not the spirit of error ? (for from their 
 Works, hinted at above, it would appear that 
 the latter is their guide.) No, they cannot ; 
 for, in order to do so, they should work some 
 unquestionable miracle ; but in this they have 
 never succeeded. What wise man, therefore, 
 would be weak enough to abandon the Scrip- 
 ture, constant traditign, and Church authority, 
 and deliver his soul to the guidance of such 
 self-sent, foolish, and wicked pretenders to in- 
 spiration ? They are guided by a spirit, but it 
 is evidently the spirit of fanaticism, darkness, 
 and error. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. What is the third false inile of faith ? 
 
 ui. That of the respectable portion of Prot- 
 estants, who maintain, that the Bible, and the 
 Bible onlT/y aid the Bible, not as it sounds, or 
 
 '1 
 
A LyOCTRINAL CATECHlSxM. 339 
 
 as it is understood by the learned, but as it is 
 understood by each private indi^ idual, whether 
 ignorant or learned; is the rule of faith, given 
 by a w^ise and good God to mankind. 
 
 Q. Have you many arguments against this 
 pretended rule ? 
 
 A. Yes, very many. The first of w^hich is 
 derived from a comparison of this Protestant 
 with the Catholic rule of faith. 
 
 Q. What is the Catholic rule of faith ? 
 
 A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly 
 divine tradition, (see Chap, on Tradition,) in 
 terpreted, not by the ignorant, nor even the 
 learned laity, but by the lawfully sent and or- 
 dained pastors of God's true Church. 
 
 Q. In comparing these rules, why do you 
 give a preference to the Catholic rule ? 
 
 A. Even at this moment, there are seven 
 CathoUcs for one Protestant in the world; 
 hence, we have seven to one in favor of our 
 interpretation of Scripture, and in favor of our 
 rule ; we have, in addition to this, the whole 
 world during fifteen hundred years before Lu- 
 ther ; and all this is confirmed by the fact, that 
 whilst all Catholics, of every age and country, 
 agree as to the rule of faith and its interpreta- 
 tion, no two sects of Protestants are agreed 
 upon every question of religion ; nor do they 
 give their rule of faHh one ond tbe same inter 
 
840 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 pretation, — each indimdual Protestant explains 
 the Scripture for himself, whilst each Catholic 
 has the Scripture explained by all that is at . 
 present — or ever was— wise, learned, great, or 
 good, in God's Church. The Protestant has 
 onl)^ the security of his own one judgment ; — 
 the Catholic has that of the whole Church. 
 
 Q. Is there any thing absurd in this trait of 
 Protestantism ? 
 
 A. Can any thing be more absurd, than that 
 an ignorant peasant should pretend to interpret 
 the Inspired Volume better than all the pastors 
 of the Church ? 
 
 Q. Would it be less absurd, if only learned 
 Protestants pretended to do so ? 
 
 A. Very Jittle indeed ; since they can be 
 only considered a handful, when compared with 
 the learned body of the Catholic Church : if, as 
 the Scripture says, " Thei^e be wisdom am,ong 
 many counsellors'' truth will be on the side of 
 Catholicism ; we have the learning of eighteen 
 centuries, — Protestants have only that of three. 
 
 Q. What is your next argument ? 
 
 A. During three hundred years, the Bible, as 
 privately interpreted, has been the rule of Prot- 
 estants ; now, if it had been the rule intended 
 b} '^od, all Protestants would have been of one i 
 faith, — they would have given the same inler- 
 >retati :)n to every passage. But the reverse is 
 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 841 
 
 the case. Luther taught the real presence out 
 of the Bible ; — ZuingUus, out of the same book; 
 taught the contrary ; — the Church of England 
 teaches one doctrine, the Kirk of Scotland an- 
 other, the Evangelical Church of I russia a th rd, 
 and yet all follow the Bible and interpret for 
 themselves. They have proved the Bible, as 
 privately interpreted, to be the fruitful source 
 of delusions, heresies, and schisms. 
 
 Q. Is it not clear, that there can he only one 
 true faith, as there is only one Lord, one bap- 
 tism, one revelation, ivhich can have only one 
 true sense ? 
 
 A, Yes, beyond all doubt ; and the Protest- 
 ant rule destroys this unity of faith. Let each 
 man interpret the Bible for himself, and you 
 will have, as is evident from our swarms of 
 Protestant sects, as many religions as there are 
 different heads and judgments. 
 
 Q. May not the ministers restrain these 
 sects by forcing all to accept their interpreta- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. No ; for this would be in contradiction to 
 their owm principles ; it w^ould be destroying 
 the right of private interpretation. 
 
 Q. Does not the Protestant rule facilitate 
 the teaching of all sorts of e'^ror, and this with- 
 tut the possibility of applying an antidote? 
 
 A. Yes, clearly. For example, an ignorant 
 29^ 
 
342 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Unitarian cobbler denies the divinity of Christ, 
 on these words — " The Father is greater than 
 I." It will be of no use for a Protestant min- 
 ister to quote against him that other passage — 
 '* I and the Father are one f for the cobbler 
 will reply, that their unity is a unity of affection, 
 not of nature, and this he will say is evident 
 from the former passage. The minister must 
 leave him in his error ; for the cobbler will tell 
 him he has a right to interpret Scripture for 
 himself, and that he is as good a judge as any 
 minister. 
 
 Q. If the Bible be the only rule of faith, 
 should not Protestants be able to tell us, with. 
 certainty, of what and How many books the. 
 Bible is composed ? 
 
 A\ Certainly ; yet this they cannot do. They 
 have never agreed amongst themselves on this 
 Mead ; — they reject nine or ten books which we 
 admit. St. Paul to the Hebrews, St. James, 
 the second of St. Peter, the third of St. John, 
 St. Jude, and the Apocalypse, have been al] 
 successively admitted and rejected by Protest- 
 ants. Their opinions, so often changed, show 
 they have no certainty as to what books really 
 constitute the Bible ; and, con-sequently, the 
 Bible can ne\ er be for them a certain rule oi 
 faith. 
 
 Q. What say you as to the books of 5c7i/?- 
 
A DOCTRlNi^L CATECHISM. 343 
 
 lure which are lost, alluded to in Num. xxi, 
 14 ; 1 Kings iv, 32 ; Chron. ix, 29 ; 1 Cor. i, 
 9 ; Matth. xxvii, 9 ; Matth. ii, 23 ? 
 
 A, If the Bible be the only rule, it is either 
 the whole Bible, including the books that are 
 lost, or it is that portion of the Bible which we 
 still have ; if the former, then the rule is incom- 
 plete ; if the latter, then let Protestants give us 
 one text, declaring what we have to be suf- 
 ficient as a rule, and clearly indicating the non- 
 Yiecessity of what is lost. 
 
 Q. Can you draw any argument against 
 the Reformed rule, from the circumstance, that 
 Christ appointed a body of pastors to teach 
 and preach in his Church ? 
 
 A, Yes ; the Reformed rule makes these 
 pastors an unnecessary lumber ; for either these 
 pastors and their people agree in their inter 
 pretation of Scripture, or they differ ; if they 
 agree, then give the people Bibles — the pastors 
 are useless— -the people can teach themselves ; 
 if they differ, then which is right — the pastor or 
 the people ? Where is the certainty ? If the 
 pastor compel the people to follow his in(.er- 
 pretation, then their rule is destroyed ; ii he 
 cannot do this, then again he is useless ; and if 
 they give up their own opinion and follo\A liis, 
 then they are trusting their salvation to one 
 fallible man, wh ) fj^ives them, not the info ilible 
 
St4 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Word of God, but his fallible interpretation oi 
 that infallible Word. 
 
 Q. If Christ intended the Bible to be man's 
 only guide, should we not suppose that he would 
 have written it, or ordered it to be written ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; and yet he nevei did so ; he 
 never commanded his Apostles to icrite Bibles. 
 but to PREACH the Gospel. 
 
 Q. What may we ask Protestants in addi- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. Why did not the Apostles, who knew 
 well the true rule of faith, write nnillions of 
 Bibles, and send them to all the ends of the 
 earth, with a command to all to learn to read 
 them ? Why did they not establish schools, 
 that all might be taught to read ? Why did 
 only a few, even of the Apostles, write their 
 doctrines ? Why did they allow nearly one 
 hundred years to pass before the last book ol 
 Scripture was written ; and what rule did the 
 Christians of that century follow, since the 
 Scripture was incomplete ? Was not the world 
 converted by the preaching of the Apostles 
 and other pastors, and not by Bibles ? Whj' 
 did not the Apostles even translate the Scrip, 
 tures into the vulgar tongues of the nations 
 they converted? Why' did not St. Peter and 
 St Paul, who lived at Rome, translate into the 
 Roman ton^u^ even tlreir own Epistles ? Why 
 
 
A DOCTRINAL CAIECHISM. 345 
 
 did St. Paul write to the Romans in Greek — a 
 language understood only by the learned ? 
 
 Q. Does it appear from undoubted facts, that 
 God could never have intended the Bible to he 
 our only rule of faith ? 
 
 A. We have seen that this was impossible 
 during the first century, for the Bible was not 
 completed. During the first four hundred years 
 it was equally impossible ; few copies, and these 
 few written with the pen, existed. Some books 
 of Scripture were lying at one Church, and 
 some at another ; and during these four hun- 
 dred years they were translated into only one 
 language ; yet, during these four hundred years, 
 whilst the Bible, as a rule of faith, was a physi 
 cal impossibility, the whole world was converted: 
 Nay, until the art of printing was discovered, 
 the Bible could not be the rule of faith ; and 
 thus Protestants must maintain, that the whole 
 world was without any rule of faith during the 
 first fourteen hundred years of Christianity. 
 During that time few could read, and even ii 
 they were able, they could not get a copy of 
 the Scripture, which cost imn\ense sums. Even 
 it present there is not one Bible in existence 
 for every ten souls ; and what rule are those to 
 follow who cannot read ? Thus, even during 
 the first century, the Bible was no* the only 
 rule of faith, and much less was it the rule 
 
346 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 during the first four, nay, during the first foui- 
 teen hundred years. 
 
 Q. If the Bible, as privately interpreted, 
 were our only ti^ihunal of appeal, would not 
 God have acted like an unwise legislator who 
 ivould make every man his own judge in rnau 
 ters of law 1 
 
 A, Yes ; and is not this consideration alone 
 sufficient to convince every reflecting person 
 of the futihty of the Protestant rule ? .What 
 sort of law would we have, if every man were 
 his own advocate as well as judge ? If a wise 
 legislator considers the judge of the law as im- 
 portant to the welfare of the community as the 
 law itself, what are we to think of Protestants, 
 who would make God give us a divine code ol 
 taws, without supplying us with divinely ap- 
 pointed interpreters and judges of these laws ? 
 Such a principle contains in itself endless di- 
 visions and schisms. Luther's religion, which 
 was one in him, became, by the adoption of 
 this principle, the seed of an infinity of creeds, 
 — so much so, that scarcely two Protestants 
 nave the same faith on every point. 
 
 Q. What does Capito, Protestant minister 
 of Strasburg, admit in this matter ? 
 
 A, " Our people now tell us," says he, " I 
 know enough of the Gospel — I can read it for 
 myself — I have no need of you." (Inter. Kpist 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 347 
 
 Calv.) Dudith says to Beza, ''Our people 
 are carried away with every wind of doc- 
 trine ; if you know what their rehgion is to- 
 day, you cannot tell what it will be to-mor- 
 row. In what single point are those who 
 war against the Pope agreed amongst them- 
 selves ?" " It is of great importance/' says 
 Calvin to Melancthon, " that the divisions 
 w^hich subsist among us, should not be known 
 to future ages/' 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 Q. A7^e there not many essential trutas, 
 the knowledge of which is necessary to sal- 
 vation, which are not clearly laid down in 
 Scripture ? 
 
 A. Yes ; many for those out of the Church, 
 who have for their guide Scripture alone, as 
 understood and explained by private inter- 
 pretation. But the Scriptures having been 
 written by inspiration by Apostles and found- 
 ers of the Church, and for her use, her mem- 
 beis are not exposed to any error or danger 
 on this subject. Tlie command to the Apos- 
 tles and their successors was, " to teach." 
 
 Q. K''>t^n if the Scripture told us what and 
 
348 A DOCTRINAL CATECHFSM. 
 
 hoic many loere the true, all-necess-afy, and 
 original books of Scripture, would that be suffi- 
 cient '! 
 
 A, No; to be a certain rule of faith, it should 
 also inform us, with the utmost certainty, what 
 are the true and uncorrupted copies of the true 
 and original Scripture. The last of the Scrip- 
 tures were written nearly two thousand year^* 
 ago ; we know that the last chapter was added 
 to Deuteronomy after the death of Moses, and 
 that other changes have taken place since that 
 time. What text, then, tells us that these 
 changes were made by inspired men, and not 
 by impostors ? Without certainty on this head, 
 ihe Bible cannot be a secure rule of faith. 
 
 Q. WTiat do you draw from the fact, thai 
 the Jews were, for generations, without the 
 Bible as a rule of faith in their own tongue ? 
 
 A. A most important inference, — viz., that 
 the people of God were all that time without 
 that which Protestants maintain to be the only 
 rule of faith. That people lost the use of the 
 Hebrew language in the Babylonish captivity ; 
 during fourteen generations after, they spoke 
 Syriac ; and the Protestants themselves admit, 
 that there was no Syriac version of Scripture 
 before the time of Christ, (Ray croft's Ed. of 
 Bible London, 1655.) 
 
 Q Can Protestants be certain tlud the Jew 
 
A DOOTRINAL CATECHISM. 349 
 
 tsh Rabbins did not corrupt the original Scrip, 
 ture ? 
 
 A. No; this is another question the Bible 
 cannot answer. If these ignorant and malicious 
 men, who hated Christianity, and in that hatred, 
 had a sufficient motive for corrupting Chrih- 
 tianity in its source, when they inserted, after 
 the time of Christ, points to indicate where 
 there should be a vowel, inserted maliciously a 
 wrong point, may they not thus have perverted 
 verses and chapters, nay, whole books of Scri} 
 fure ; and what Protestant can be now certain 
 that they did not do so ? 
 
 Q. But even supposing all the originals 
 which exist to be perfect, hotv can Protestants 
 knoiv that their translations from these origi- 
 nals are faithful? 
 
 A. Here is another necessary truth which 
 the Bible cannot teach. Translation from dead 
 languages is at all times difficult ; — the original 
 idiom of the Bible has not been in use for up- 
 wards of two thousand years ; — the translators 
 are mere men, and, of course, fallible. Zuing- 
 lius says, Luther was a foul coiTuptor of God's 
 Word — liUther retorts the compliment upon 
 Zuinglius ; — Beza condemns the translation of 
 (Kcolampadius, and Castalio condemns that of 
 B^'iu ; — the Protestant Bishop Tunstal counted 
 tv thousand errors 'n the fir<?t English trans- 
 
 30 
 
34 ) A r>OCTRINAL CATECHISM, 
 
 iaton ;~ -and Dr. Broughton says, the English? 
 Bille is so corrupt as to send thousands into 
 eternal flames. The very translators them 
 selves confess, that tliey are not certain that 
 they have given the true Word of God in every 
 passage, but merely what they supposed to he 
 the best readings. Such is the Protestant rui^^ 
 — such the thing to which they trust their im- 
 mortal souls ! 
 
 Q. // ' the Scripture he the only rule of faith, 
 must it not he a matter of the last importance 
 to know what is the true sense of that Sacred 
 Volume ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; and yet the Scripture cannot 
 tell us this ; nay, St. Peter (2 Pet. iii, 16) tells 
 us, that parts of Scripture " are hard to he un- 
 derstood, which the unleu^rned and unstable 
 wrest, as also the rest of the Scripture, to 
 their own perdition'' Nay, the Scripture can 
 not even prove that itself is the Word of God; 
 and this Protestants admit. (Chillingworth, p. 
 69, No. 49 ; and Hooker Eccl. Polem., Lib. i, 
 S. 14, p. 86.) Dr. Covel (Defence, Art. iv 
 p. 31) declares, " It is not the Word of God 
 which does, or can assure us that we do well 
 to think it the Word of God.'' The Bible then 
 cannot tell us these two most important of all 
 tiTiths — that itself is the true Word of God, and 
 what IS its true and genuine sense. 
 
 J 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 351 
 
 Q. Do you observe other necessary triiths 
 us taught by the Church, not clearly laid down 
 in Scripture ? 
 
 A. The doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine 
 the knowledge of which is certainly necessary 
 to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently 
 laid down in Scripture, in the Protestant sense 
 of private interpretation. 
 
 Q. What say you of infant baptism ? 
 
 A. One-third part of the whole human race 
 die before they reach their seventh year : it is 
 then a matter of the last importance to know 
 whether infants should be baptized ; for the 
 Scripture declares, that baptism is necessary to 
 salvation ; and yet the Scripture does nowhere 
 tell us clearly whether Christ intended infants 
 to be baptized. If it did, why should we have 
 Baptists, who have never been able to see this 
 ^rz^i^A clearly laid down in Scripture? Here, 
 then, we have a truth, upon which the salva- 
 tion of one-third part of the whole human race 
 depends, which is not to be found in Scripture. 
 
 Q. Did not the Church, at the time of Christ, 
 and before that period, keep the day of rest from 
 five o'clock on Saturday till five on Sunday? 
 
 A, Yes ; and yet Protestants keep it from 
 twelve to twelve without any warrant of 
 Scripture. Nay, they oppose the Scripture — 
 Levit. xxiii, 32—" From even unto even shall 
 yon celebrate your Sabbath." 
 
J52 A DOCTRINAL CATEfiUSM. 
 
 Q. When Protestants do profane work upon 
 Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do 
 they follow the Scripture as their only rule oj 
 faith, — do they find this permission clearly 
 laid down in the Sacred Volume ? 
 
 A. Oil the contrary, they have only the au- 
 thority of tradition for this practice. In pro- 
 faning Saturday, they violate one of God's 
 commandments, which he has never clearly 
 abrogated, — " Remember thou keep holy the 
 Sabbath day/' 
 
 Q. Is the observance of Sunday, as the day 
 of rest, a matter clearly laid down in Scrip 
 ture ? 
 
 A. It certainly is not ; and yet all Protest- 
 ants consider the observance of this particular 
 day as essentially necessary to salvation. To 
 say, we observe the Sunday, because Christ 
 rose from the dead on that day, is to say we 
 act without warrant of Scripture ; and we 
 might as well say, that we should rest on 
 Thursday because Christ ascended to heaven 
 on that day, and rested in reality from the work 
 of redemption. 
 
 Q. Is it not said, in the Book of Revelations, 
 that St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's 
 day, that is, Sunday ; and is not this Sci ip- 
 cural proof that Sunday is the day to be ob* 
 t& ved in the Nev^ Law ? 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 353 
 
 ^_ . ^ 
 
 A, Are we then to observe this particular 
 day, merely because St. John had a revelation 
 upon it, — must we observe, as a day of rest and 
 hohness, any day upon which an Apostle mas 
 in the Spirit ? 
 
 Q. But it is called the Lord's day ? 
 
 A, And is not every day the Lord's day, — 
 does this text tell you not to work upon that 
 day, — does it tell you that the obligation of 
 keeping Saturday is done away with, or that it 
 was not the day of the Resurrection or Ascen- 
 sion which St. John here calls the Lord's day ? 
 
 Q. Is it not said in the Acts — " And upon 
 the first day of the week, when the disciples 
 came together to break bread, Paul preached 
 unto them, ready to depart on the morrow," 
 and is not this sufficient Scriptural authority 
 for the observance of the first day of the week? 
 
 A. But does this text abrogate the observance 
 of Saturday the seventh day, or allow Protest 
 ants to do profane work on that day ? Certainly 
 not. They should then rest upon both days, if 
 they hold the above text as any argument. The 
 text in question does not say that the Apostle 
 preached, or that the people assembled every 
 first day of the week, but merely on this par- 
 ticular day, for which a good reason is given, 
 namely, that St. Paul was to depart next day. 
 It is quite clear, however, that they met every 
 
 30* 
 
354 A DOCTRflVAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Saturday ; for the same Acts say, St. Paul 
 preached in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and 
 exhorted the Jews and the Greeks. Besides, h 
 is not wonderful that the disciples came to 
 gether on this first day of the week, since, ac- 
 cording to Acts ii, they continued daily in the 
 Temple breaking bread. 
 
 Q. Does not St, Paul order the Galatians 
 and Corinthians to make collections on the 
 first day of the week ? 
 
 A. Yes ; but, again, this does not abolish the 
 observance of Saturday. St. Paul does not 
 say that the people would be at church on that 
 day, — that they were to keep that day, to the 
 exclusion of Saturday, holy,— or that these col- 
 lections were to be made at church, but merely 
 that every man should lay up by himself in 
 store upon that day. 
 
 Q. What do you conclude from all this? 
 
 A, That Protestants have no Scripture for 
 the measure of their day of rest, — that they 
 abolish the observance of Saturday without 
 warrant of Scripture, — that they substitute 
 Sunday in its place without Scriptural authori- 
 ty, — consequently, that for all this, they have 
 only traditional authority. Yet Protestants 
 would look upon a man who would do profane 
 work after five o'clock on Sunday, or keep the 
 Saturday and profane the first day, as a victina 
 
A DOCTRINAL «>A1ECH1SM. 35o 
 
 of perdition. Hence we must conclude, that 
 the Scripture, which does not teach these things 
 clearly, does not contaii? all necessary truths, 
 and, consequently, cannot be the only rule of 
 faith. 
 
 Q. Does it not appear from all this, that 
 Protestants teach, in many things, what is op- 
 posed to Scripture, and that the Catholic doc- 
 trines are much more Scriptural? 
 
 A This is very evident from all we have 
 said, and must be considered indisputable, if w^ e 
 study carefully what has been said in page 88, 
 and the following. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Q. Does it appear from Scripture, that the 
 written word was ever, either under the Old or 
 ike New Law, considered as the only rule of 
 faith ? 
 
 A. Until the time of Moses there was no 
 w^'itten revelation ; yet Seth, Abraham, Isaac. 
 Melchizedeck, and all God's peo^ple, were saved 
 by the belief of truths for which they could 
 have no authority but tradition. 
 
 Q. What says Moses as to the Book of the 
 Law which he wrote, and ichich was the first 
 written revelation the world was favored with f 
 
 A. He orders tKe Levites to deposite it '' in 
 
356 A DOLTR.NAL CATECHISM. 
 
 the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord ;' 
 adding, " after seven years, in the vear of re 
 mission, . . . , thou shalt read the words of tliis 
 law before all Israel in their hearing/' (Deut. 
 xxxi, 24, et seq) Was this a giving of the 
 written word to the people as their only rule ? 
 The Levites are ordered to read it to the peo- 
 ple, and this only once in the seven years. 
 
 Q. What do we find in Deut., chap, xvii, 8, 
 9, et seq. ? 
 
 A. God commands his people, whenever they 
 find among them a hard and doubtful matter in 
 judgment, " to come to the priests of the Le- 
 vitical race, and to the judge that shall be at 
 that time, (the High Priest,) and thou shalt ask 
 of them," says the Lord, " and they shall show 
 thee the truth of the judgment ; and thou shalt 
 do whatsoever they shall say .... and what they 
 shall teach thee ; and he that will be proud, and 
 refuse to obey the commandment of the priest 
 who ministereth at that time, .... that man 
 shall die." Moses had written out the law by 
 this time ; yet he, the inspired oracle of heaven, 
 does not put that written word into the hands 
 of the people, that by it they might decide their 
 disputes ; on the contrary, he orders them, un- 
 der pain of death, to have recourse to the 
 priests of the Church, and especially to the 
 High Priest, See 2 Paraltp. (2 Ghron. xix) 
 
^ DOCTRl^ VL CATECHISM. 35""/ 
 
 and Maiachias ii, 7, where it is said, " The lips 
 of the priest shall keep knowledge, and the peo- 
 ple shall seek th^ law at his mouth." 
 
 Q. Is not the New Testament equally cleat 
 on this head? 
 
 A. Certainly ; for Christ never wrote any 
 thing, and never commanded his Apostles to 
 write. In Heb. i, 2, it is said, " In these days 
 (God) hath spoken" (not written) " to us, by his 
 Son." In Matth. xxviii, 18, Christ does not say 
 to his Apostles, Go, write Bibles to all nations, 
 but " Go, teach all nations." In Luke x, 16, 
 He does not say. He that readeth, or heareth 
 the Scripture, heareth me, but " He that heareth 
 you, heareth me." In Matth. xviii, 17, He 
 does not say. He that w^ill not read the Scrip, 
 ture, but " He that will not hear the Churchy is 
 to be considered as a heathen and publican." 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Q. Do Catholics depend on ti^aditional doc- 
 trines as well as on those that are Scriptural 
 or written ? 
 
 A. Yes ; we believe that what Christ or hi^ 
 Apostles spoke, is as true as w^hat they wrote. 
 It is clear, fram what we have seen above, thai 
 they delivered many truths by word of moutlv 
 
858 A D0CTR1^AL CATECHISM 
 
 which are not written in the Scripture. These 
 truths are considered authentic and divine by 
 Catholics, when it is found that they have been 
 beheved by all Christian nations, and in* every 
 age of the Church. 
 
 Q. Does the Scripture authorize this de- 
 pendence on traditional doctrine 1 
 
 A, In 2 Thess. ii, 15, we have, " Hold the 
 traditions you have been taught, whether by 
 word, or by our Epistle.'' In 2 Corinth, iii, 3, 
 it is said, " You are the Epistle of Christ, not 
 written with ink, but with the Spirit of the 
 living God." Here, what is not written is call- 
 ed the Epistle of Christ, Vvrritten with the Spirit 
 of the living God upon the heart, which, though 
 only tradition, most certainly must be as true 
 as the written Word itself. 
 
 Q. Have you any other texts to the same 
 effect ? 
 
 A, 2 Thess iii, 6 — " Withdraw yourselves 
 from every brother that walketh disorderly, and 
 not after the tradition which ye have received 
 of us." See Rom. vi, 17 ; 1 Cor. xi, 2 ; Tim 
 vi, 20 ; Tim. i, 13, where it is said, " Hold fast 
 the form of sound words which thou hast heara 
 of me." 1 Thess. ii, 13 — " When ye received 
 the Word of God, which ye heard of us, ye 
 received it, not as the word of men, but (as it 
 is in truth) the Word of God " 
 
A DOCrRl?JAL CATECHJSM. 35l> 
 
 Q. How can you distinguish true from false 
 tradition 1 
 
 A. As easily as you can distinguish a true 
 from a false copy of Scripture. In both cases 
 you must depend on the uniform and universal 
 testimony of Christian antiquity. You hold 
 your Bible to be the Word of God, because all 
 (christian ages and nations have done so before 
 you ; and you have the very same testimony 
 for the traditional doctrines held as divine by 
 the Catholic Church. We have as much evi- 
 dence for the truth of universally-admitted tra- 
 Jitional doctrine, as we have for the truth and 
 authenticity and divinity of the four Gospels. 
 
 Q. Does not our Saviour say — " Search the 
 Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal 
 Jfe?" John V, 39. 
 
 A, Yes ; but he does not say, in them ye 
 kave certainly eternal life. This argument 
 would prove, that the Old Testament, without 
 the New, was sufficient ; for, at this time, not 
 one word of the New Testament was written. 
 In 2 Tim. iii, 15, we are told, that all Scripture 
 IS profitable, and that it maketh wise unto sal- 
 vation; and what Catholic ever denied this? 
 This text does not say that the Scripture alone 
 maketh wise as to every thing necessary. The 
 book of Genesis makes men wise, but will this 
 one book make men wise in every religiou? 
 
860 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 truth ? St. Paul praises Timothy, because he 
 had read the Scriptures from his youth ; but 
 then Timothy was . a bishop, whose duty it 
 was, not only to read, but to expound the 
 Scripture. 
 
 Q. What say you to Deut. iv, 2 — " You 
 shall not add to the word which I speak, nor 
 take away from it ?" 
 
 A. At this time nothins; but the Mosaic law 
 was written ; hence, this passage in the mouth 
 of a Protestant proves, that he- believes the 
 Mosaic law sufficient as a rule of faith. But 
 what will he say to the Prophets and Apostles, 
 who afterwards added all the rest of the Oki 
 and New Testament ? It is not what is added 
 by inspired men that is here condemned, but 
 what is contrary to that which God had already 
 revealed, for God do6s not condemn the good 
 institutions of men. 2 Chron. xxx, 21, after 
 the children of Israel, according to law, had 
 kept the solemnity of Azymes seven days, (ver. 
 23,) the whole assembly took good counsel to 
 ]i:eep other seven days, and yet, though this 
 Vv^as a human addition, (ver. 27,) '' their prayej 
 came to the holy habitation of heaven." Thus 
 also, Christ himself (John x, 22) keeps the feast 
 of the dedication, mentioned in 1st Macchabeeo, 
 iv, f»6, though this book is not admitted hi 
 Protestants to be Scripture at all. 
 
A DOCTllINAL CATECHISM. 361 
 
 Q. Does not St. John, at the end of Apoca- 
 lypse, the last book of Scriptui^e, say — " If any 
 mail shall add to these things, God shall add 
 unto him the plagues written in this book T 
 (Chap, xxii, 18.) 
 
 A. The Apocalypse, though placed last in 
 order, was not last written. St. John wrote 
 his Gospel some years after his liberation from 
 the Isle of Patmos, where the Apocalypse was 
 composed ; hence, as St. John, according to the 
 Protestant sense of the words above quoted, 
 would himself incur the curse, it is evident that 
 he merely threatens with that curse any one 
 who should dare to vitiate, by addition or sub- 
 straction, the book which he there concludes, 
 — that is, the book of the Apocalypse. He 
 ends his Gospel by declaring, (John xx, 25,) 
 that our Lord did much that was not written , 
 and surely the witnesses of these doings were 
 not accursed for relating and believing what 
 they had seen, or heard from the lips of Christ, 
 although these things were never written. The 
 Thessalonians had tradition, (2 Thess. ii, 14 ;) 
 Timothy had a form of sound wojds, (2 Tim. 
 i, 13 ;) and were they, or are we, to be visited 
 by the plagues, because, in obedience to St. 
 Paul, we hold these traditions, in addition to 
 what God commanded to be written ? It w 
 therefore a nere Protestant gloss, unauthorized 
 
 31 
 
362 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 by the text itself, and in contradiction to the 
 rest of the Scripture, to assert, that we are to 
 believe nothing except what is written. 
 
 ON THE TRUE RULE OF FAITH, OR THE IN. 
 FALLIBILITY OF THE TRUF CHURCH OF 
 CHRIST 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Q. What is the rule of faith adopted by 
 Catholics ? 
 
 A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly 
 divine tradition, interpreted by the teaching 
 body of the Church, — that is, by the Pastors to 
 whom Christ said : " Go, teach all nations/' 
 This teaching body, the Chief Pastor and 
 the bishops in communion with him, all 
 Catholics believe to be infallible, — that 
 is, that they can teach no error. Now, 
 if this great fundamental truth be clearly 
 laid down in Scripture, then Catholics will be 
 quite safe m following the teaching of their 
 Pastors ; — then the teaching body will be, to 
 the taught, an infaLible rule of faith. Mark- 
 well, we do not maintain that the pastors of thtf 
 Church are, of themselves, infallible, but thai 
 God his made them so for the benefit of hi5 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 363 
 
 people, and that Christ himself teaches by their 
 ips. 
 
 Q. What proof have you to advance for all 
 Jiis ? 
 
 A. In Isaiah ii, 3, Christ is represented as 
 teaching the Church — ''He will teach us his 
 ways, and we shall walk in his paths."* That 
 Church must be infallible in its teacliing, which 
 has Christ as its director, and whose children 
 walk in the paths of the Saviour. 
 
 Q. What do we find in Isaiah, liv, 17 ? 
 
 A. That no weapon which is formed against 
 the Church of Christ shall prosper ; and that 
 every tongue which resisteth her in judgment 
 she shall condemn. Surely she must be infal- 
 lible, if she triumph over every enemy, and 
 have power from God to condemn every tongue 
 that opposes her decisions. In Isaiah Ix, 12, it 
 is said, " that the nation and kingdom that will 
 not serve her shall perish." Now, could na- 
 tions be compelled to serve the Church, if she 
 could lead them astray and teach them error ? 
 
 Q. Do we find any thing of importance to 
 our purpose in Ezechiel xliv, 23 ? 
 
 * Our Protestant brethren have only to refer to their own 
 Bible, and note the titles of its chapters, to b© satisfied, that 
 this and the following passages, quoted from the Old Testa- 
 ment, have a direct reference to the Church of Christ, wh'nw 
 hfaiiibiUty thoy foretell iu the most explicit terms. 
 
364 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 A. '* They (the priests) shall teach my people 
 what is between a holy thing and a thing pol- 
 luted, and the difference between clean and 
 unclean they shall show them ; and when there 
 shall be a controversy, they shall stand in judg- 
 ment, and shall judge according to my judg- 
 ments." The judgments of the priests of the 
 Most High must then be infallible, since they 
 are according to the judgment of God himself. 
 
 Q. What have we in Psalm cxxxii, 13 ? 
 
 .A. We have — " Our Lord hath chosen Sion , 
 he hath chosen it for an habitation to himself; 
 this is my rest for ever and ever; here will I 
 dwell, because I have chosen it." Now, ac- 
 cording to St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii, 15, Christ's 
 dwelling-place is his Church — " That thou may 
 est know how to converse in the house of God^ 
 the Church cf the living God'' It must be 
 manifest, then, that the Church of Christ is 
 pure and free from error ; for, were she the 
 mother and mistress of idolatry, the pure God 
 of heaven could never have chosen her for his 
 dwelling-place. 
 
 Q. What says Isaiah, liv, 4 ? 
 
 A. " Fear not," says the Almighty, address- 
 ing the Church, " for thou shalt not be ashamed, 
 neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not 
 be put to shame." If, as Protestants pretend. 
 ^he Church became ida atrous, surely she musi 
 
A DOCTRINAL CAl ECHISM. 365 
 
 have been put to shame, and, in this case, tlie 
 words of the Ahuighty are supposed ialse, which 
 iS evident blasphemy. 
 
 Q. Is there not a still more brilliant testi- 
 mony to the infallibility of the Christian 
 Church in the same Prophet, Ix, 15 ? 
 
 A, Yes ; — *' I will make thee an eternal 
 excellence/' Would the Church be an eternal 
 excellence, if after a few centuries' duration, 
 she had fallen into the depths of idolatry ? 
 And, in verse 18, " Thou shalt call thy walls 
 salvation ; our Lord shall be unto thee an ever- 
 lasting light ; thy sun shall go down no more, 
 and thy moon shall be no more diminished." 
 Now, could it be said of an idolatrous ChurciL 
 that her walls were salvation, — that the infalli- 
 ble Deity was her everlasting light, — that her 
 sun should set no more, nor her m.oon withdraw 
 her light ? According to these texts, either 
 the Church is perpetual, pure, and infallible, or 
 God is a false prophet. In chap, xlii, 3, she is 
 called " a crown of glory, the delight of the 
 Almighty;'' and in ver. 12, she is called, "a 
 city sought for and not forsaken ;" and could 
 she be either the one or the other, if she had, 
 as Protestants pretend, fallen into idolatry ana 
 superstition ? 
 
 Q. What says Ezech. xxxiv, 22 ? 
 
 A, 'Vl will save my flock, and it will he r 
 
366 A DOCTRINAI CATECHISM, 
 
 more a spoil ' Could the flock be saved 
 from spoil, if the Church teaching that flock 
 were full of error and buried in idolatry, as 
 Protestants contend, for upwards of a thousana 
 years ? Surely that Church is infallible in 
 which God himself saves the flock from spoil. 
 
 Q. Is not this infallibility clearly laid down 
 in Isaiah, Ixi, 8 ? 
 
 A, Yes, very clearly. " I will direct their 
 work in truth/' says the Lord of his Christian 
 Pastors, " and I will make an everlasting cov- 
 enant with them" for preserving this never- 
 failing truth. Surely nothing could more 
 explicitly point out the infallibility of the future 
 Christian Church. Again, in xxxv, 5, it is 
 said, that in the time of Christ's Church, "the 
 eyes of the blind shall be opened, and a high- 
 way shall be there, and it shall be called the 
 way of holiness,. . . .though fools shall not err 
 therein." Now, if the Church were idolatrous 
 or superstitious, could she be called a way of 
 holiness, a way in which even fools could not 
 err ? 
 
 Q. Do yje not find a very strong text in 
 Isaiah, Ixix, 20 ? 
 
 A, Yes ; there the Almighty makes a cove- 
 nant with his Church, which places her infalli- 
 bility beyond all doubt. " There shall ©ome/' 
 says he, " a Redeemer to Sion, and to them thmt 
 
A DOCTRINAL C \TE-CHIi >I. 367 
 
 shall return from iniquity in Jacob; as for 
 ine, this is my covenant with ibem : my spirit 
 that is in thee, and my words that I have put 
 in thy mouth, shall .lot depart out of thy mouth, 
 nor out of the m juth of thy seed, nor out of 
 the mouth of thy seeds' seed, from henceforth 
 and for ever/' Surely a Church, with the 
 Word of God in her mouth, with the Spirit of 
 God as her guide, and having the word of 
 heaven, that these shall remain with her foi 
 emr, must be infallible — can teach no error. 
 
 Q. What say you to the words of Jeremiah, 
 xxxii, 39, where God says of his Christian 
 Church — " I will give them one heart and one 
 way, that they may fear me for ever ; I will 
 put my fear in their he arts, that they shall not 
 depart from me ?" 
 
 A, Protestants see here how false is their 
 assertion, that after three or four hundred years' 
 duration, the Church of Christ fell into idolatry. 
 That Church is io fear God for ever, and nevei 
 to depart from God. In Ezec. xxxvii, 24, the 
 Atlmighty says — " They shall walk in my judg- 
 ments, and observe my statutes and do them, 
 1 will make a covenant of peace unto them; il 
 shall be an everlasting covenant with them ; ] 
 will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for 
 evermore,'^ We here ask any reasoning Prot- 
 estant, if an idolatrous Church can observe 
 
868 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 God's statutes ; can He make an everlasting 
 peace with such a Church ; or can it be even 
 inrjagined, that He could place his holy sanc- 
 tuary in the midst of a mass of idolatry aiiJ 
 superstition /or evermore ? 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ARGUMENTS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENP. 
 
 Q. What do you observe on Matth. xviii, 17 
 — " If he will not hear the Church, let him be 
 untf thee as a heathen and a pubhcan ?" 
 
 A. We ask, could a good God, who came to 
 teach truth, and to save men by the belief of 
 truth, give such a command as this, if the 
 Church, w^hich he appointed to teach, were an 
 idolatrous Church ? Suppose, for a moment, 
 that Church teaching even one error, does not 
 Christ, in the above text, command all to be- 
 Heve that error under pain of being as heathens 
 and publicans, for w^hom there is no salvation ? 
 If this supposition be not blasphemous, I know 
 not what is ; and yet such is the language of 
 every Protestant. By rejecting the infallibility 
 of the teaching body of the Church, they evi- 
 dently make the Saviour command his people 
 to believe idolatry, as the Churcbi, according tc 
 them, fell into it, and taught it, soon aftei 
 Christ left the world 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATEUHISM. 369 
 
 Q Have you any remark to make on the 
 next verse — Matth. xviii, 18 — where ChriH 
 says to the teachers in his Church, " Whatso- 
 ever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in 
 heaven ; and whatsoever you shall loose upon 
 earth, shall be loosed also in heaven ?'' 
 
 ^1. Yes ; these words have relation to the 
 Sacrament of Penance, and the other doctrines 
 connected with it. But the infallibility of the 
 Church is secured and asserted in other parts of 
 the Scripture, as, " Go ye, teach ;" " I am with 
 you all days;'' " He that hears you, hears me/' 
 
 Q. Do you here suppose the teachers indi- 
 vidually infallible ? 
 
 A, The Pope as the constant head of the 
 Church we hold infallible in decisions ex 
 cathedra : but not exempt from falling into per- 
 sonal sin. The various bishops are neither in- 
 dividually infallible nor sinless. But we may 
 argue that if the Pope and the various bishops 
 teach any particular doctrine,— men who have 
 had no motive for such, do actually teach the 
 '^ery same truths, then we maintain, by all laws 
 of human evidence or moral certainty, that their 
 combined testimony to the existence of any 
 doctrine infalliWy proves its truth. This, how- 
 ever, IS not what we contend for here ; we 
 maintain our teaching body to be infallible, be- 
 j'ause (Tod has made them se ; as in the Old 
 
S76 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 Law he made the Sciibes and Pharisees, wlio 
 were the public ministers of his Church, (though 
 often, no doubt, personally sinners,) infallible, 
 for the safety of those whom they taught. That 
 these teachers of the ancient Church were in^ 
 fallible, is more than evident from Matth. xxiii, 
 1 — " Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the 
 Scribes and Pharisees ; all therefore whatsoever 
 they shall say unto you, observe and do,'' Were 
 they not infallible teachers, even God could not 
 thus command us to obey them ; and surely no 
 one will make the teachers of the better Chris 
 tian Church inferior to these. 
 
 Q. Did not the Apostles and first Christians 
 act on this teaching as infallible ? 
 
 A. Yes ; in Acts xv, 2, Paill and Barnabas, 
 and certain others, went up to Jerusalem to 
 have a disputed question of religion authori- 
 tatively decided. They had no Scripture to 
 guide them : yet, after great disputation, 
 they, as the teaching body, decided, Saint 
 Peter declaring that their decision was the de- 
 cision of the Holy Ghost — '*' It seemeth good to 
 the Holy Ghost and to us ;" and this decisicm 
 was obeyed by all, as the infallible decree ol 
 neaven. 
 
 Q. Is it not manifest, from Gal. ii, 1, thai 
 the first Christians reposed no :onfidence in 
 any authority but the Church teaching ? 
 
A J< CT.rvINAL CATr.CHISM. 37 1 
 
 A. It is ; even St. Paul, after teaching and 
 preaching fourteen years, goes up to Jerusalem. 
 " I went up," says he, " according to revelation, 
 and conferred with them the Gospel which I 
 preach among the Gentiles." St. Paul does not 
 take the Scripture here as his only rule; no, no; 
 he draws an additional confirmation of his own 
 inspired teaching, from its conformity to the 
 teachings of the Church, necessarily infallible. 
 This, however, not as if he were doubtful, but 
 to satisfy such, if any, as might regard him as a 
 teacher apart or distinct from the Church. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul — Ephes. iv, 11 — sup- 
 ply us with a very strong argument : " He 
 gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and 
 other some evangelists, and other some pastors 
 and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, 
 for the work of the ministry, for the edifying 
 of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the 
 unity of faith ?" 
 
 A. This certainly is a strong passage. Here 
 the Bible is not employed to perfect the saints, 
 — to edify the body of Christ, — but a body of 
 living teachers are pointed out, and these must 
 be infallible in their doctrine, otherwise they 
 would neither perfect nor edify the body of 
 Christ. 
 
 Q. What say you on Matth. xvi, 18 — "The 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'' (the 
 Church ?) 
 
 A. In this passage, Christ is the architect or 
 builder — "On this vock I will build my Church:' 
 A rock is the foundation ; and Christ declaras. 
 
372 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 that even all the power of hell shall never pr©* 
 vail against her. Who then will dare to assert 
 that this Church, with such a foundation, such 
 an architect, and such a promise, is fallible, — 
 that she may fall into idolatry? Either she 
 cannot fail, or Christ is only a false and impo- 
 tent prophet. 
 
 Q. Is not the infallibiliiy of the Church 
 clearly pointed out in Matth. xxviii, 18, 19, 
 20, where it is said, " All power is given to me 
 in heaven and in earth ; going therefore, teach 
 all 7ia^/on5, .... teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever 1 have commanded you ; 
 and behold I am with you all days, even to the 
 consummation of the world?" 
 
 A. Christ here sends his Pastors to teach all 
 nations, and to teach them until the end of the 
 world : He knew well that his Apostles could 
 not do this of themselves ; for twelve mortal 
 men could not teach everywhere and always 
 until the consummation of the world. When, 
 therefore, Christ sent these first teachers, he 
 sent with them all their chosen assistants and 
 successors ; for surely Christ did not come 
 merely to secure safe teachers to those who 
 lived in the time of the Apostles! Now, he 
 says he has all power ; tlierefore he can make 
 his teachers infallible : He, the God of truth, 
 sends them to teach all nations ; and sureJv ha 
 
A LOCTRINAL CATECHieiM. 'HS 
 
 does not send tham to teach error I He vnU 
 he with thejn, he says, all days, and, beyond all 
 doubt, he will be with them, to preserve them 
 at all times from teaching even the smallest 
 error, for he could not be with an idolatrous 
 Church. Hence, as Christ himself is the guide 
 of the Church, and this in every age, she can 
 obviously teach no error ; hence she is infal- 
 lible. 
 
 Q. What says St. Paul— I Tim. iii, 15 ? 
 
 A. He calls the visible Church, in which 
 Timothy is a teacher, "the Church of the 
 LIVING God, the pillar and ground of truth.'' 
 What man will dare attempt to give these clear 
 words even two probable explanations ? She 
 is, says an Apostle, the Church of the living 
 God, therefore she can teach no error. She is 
 the pillar and ground of truth ; could she be 
 so, if she taught idolatry or superstition ? 
 
 Q. We admit, you may say, that the Church 
 was infallible until the Scripture was written, 
 but after that period thc^ Scripture became the 
 infallible rule. 
 
 A. Christ does not tell vou that his Church 
 will be infallible only for a time, — he declares 
 she will be so until the end of time ; nor does 
 St. Paul say, that the Church will ever cease to 
 be the pillar and ground of truth. The Scrip- 
 tures are, be) ond doubt, an infallible rule to 
 
 32 
 
374 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 the extent of the revealed truth contained in 
 them, but they are infallible only in themselves 
 and not with regard to us, unless we are pre- 
 pared to say, that the meaning we give them is 
 infallibly correct, and that this cannot be, we 
 have only to consider how Protestants contra- 
 dict one another in interpreting Scripture. 
 The Bible, then, cannot be an infallible rule, 
 unless your understanding of it be infalliblv 
 right ; but of this you can never be certain, 
 unless you have it interpreted for you by an 
 infallible judge, and this, as you must see, sup 
 poses the existence of an infallible Church ? 
 
 Q. In Luke x, 16, what do we find? 
 
 A. *' He that heareth you, heareth me, and 
 he that despiseth you, despiseth me." He who 
 heareth the teaching of Christ, heareth infalli- 
 ble teaching ; but Christ, who cannot deceive 
 declares, that he who hear^eth his pastors, hear- 
 eth himself ; therefore their doctrine, being that 
 of Christ, is infallible. 
 
 Q. Does not the Apostle-^Gd\. i, 8 — assume, 
 that the teaching of the pastors is infallibly 
 correct ? 
 
 A. Certainly ; for he declares, that even an 
 angel from heaven is not to be believed, if he 
 teach a doctrine contrary to that preached by 
 the pastors of the Church. 
 
 Q. Have we not a most conclusive passage 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISxM 31^ 
 
 in John xiv, 16, 17, and xvi, 13 — "And I will 
 ask the Father, and he will give you another 
 Paraclete, that he may abide with you for 
 ever, the Spirit of truth. ,. ,You shall know 
 him, because he shall abide with you and in 
 you ; but when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, 
 he will teach you all truth V • 
 
 A, Here the teaching body of the Church 
 are to be directed by the Spirit of truth, who 
 is to teach them all truth, and for ever. They 
 must then be infallible guides. 
 
 Q Does not Christ call his Apostles the 
 light of the world ? 
 
 A, Yes ; and upon these words we argue m 
 the following manner. The light, sent by 
 Christ to enlighten the world, could not lead 
 into darkness or error ; but the Apostles and 
 their lawful successors were such light ; there- 
 fore they could not lead mankind astray. 
 
 Q. We admit, say some of our reformed 
 brethren, thai the Apostles v)ere infallible, but 
 we cannot make the same admission as to thi 
 vastors who succeeded them. 
 
 A. You must, we reply, either admit the lat- 
 ter, or you must make Christ a respecter of 
 persons, who gave to the first Christians infal- 
 lible teachers in the Apostles, and left all the 
 rest of mankind to the direction of erring 
 men Christ sureh makes us as secure as 
 
376 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 the first (yhrktians : he loves us, as he lovpd 
 them. 
 
 Q. Cav you strengthen your cause by a ref- 
 erence to Ephes. chap, v ? 
 
 A. Yes. The Church is described there as 
 riie spouse of Christ ; Christ has sanctified her, 
 and lovel her, and presented her to himself, 
 without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, and 
 made her holy and without blemish. Now, 
 this Church must be free from error, otherwise 
 Christ could not sanctify her, nor could he I'ove 
 her, if she was idolatrous : her holiness, with- 
 out spot or blemish, is a certain pledge of hei 
 infallibility. "Obey your prelates," says St. 
 Paul, " for they watch, as being to render an 
 account for yo^r souls." Now% how could the 
 Almighty, by his Apostle, order us to hear and 
 obey men, unless he knew that these men could 
 teach us no error ? " Take heed to your- 
 selves," says the same Apostle to the pastors of 
 the Church, " and to your whole flocks, w^herein 
 the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops, to rule 
 the Church of God." CouM the Holy Ghost 
 subject his people in this world to the rule and 
 direction of men, who might — and, according 
 to Protestants, did^ — teach error, idolatry, and 
 superstition ? 
 
 Q. Must not the rule of faith, given by tkt 
 Almighty to mankind, have been an easy rule ^ 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 377 
 
 A. Yes ; because it was inte:ided for the ig^ 
 norant as well as the learned. Wherever the 
 Christian Church existed, there were Christian 
 pastors — for we cannot suppose a flock without 
 shepherds ; hence, the teaching of these living 
 guides was always within reach of their people. 
 This mode of acquiring instruction is a " path 
 in which even fools cannot err ;" not so the 
 Bible, about the interpretation of which even 
 the most learned dispute and differ, and which, 
 until the invention of printing, fourteen hundred 
 years after Christ, could not be within the 
 reach of the people at all ; and to those who 
 were unable to read, could be no rule at all. 
 
 Q. Was the Jewish as well as the Christian 
 Church infallible 7 
 
 A. As long as it was the decree of heaven 
 that the Jewish Church should exist, she was, 
 by the teaching of her pastors, infallible as a 
 guide to her people. During the first two 
 thousand four hundred years of the world, there 
 was no Scripture ; God's people — Seth, Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, Israel, Job, Melchizedeck — were 
 saved by the teaching, which must have been 
 infallible, of the patriarchs. In Deut. xxxi, the 
 Levites are ordeied to read and expound the 
 Scripture to the people; but the Scriptuieis 
 not put into the hands of the people. In the 
 same Book, chap, xvii, all are commanded, 
 
 32* 
 
378 A DOCTRINAL CATE :H ISM. 
 
 under pain of death, to have recourse to the 
 pastors of the Church in every controversy. 
 In 2 Parahp. (2 Chron. xix) — " Amarias, youi 
 high priest, shall be cuief in the things which 
 regard God." In Make, ii, 7, the people are 
 commanded to seek the law^ from the lips of 
 the priesthood. Now, surely these commands, 
 to ';bey the pastors or teachers in the Jewish 
 Church, evidently suppose that body to be 
 infallible, for a good God could not command 
 his people, under pain of death, to obey men 
 who might lead them into error. 
 
 Q. Was the Church of Christ to be so uni- 
 versal, that all its children might be within 
 reach of its teaching ? 
 
 A, St. John, Apoc. vii, 9, besides twelve 
 thousand of every tribe of Israel, saw a great 
 multitude, which no man could number, of all 
 nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues. Ps. ii, 8 
 — " Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles 
 tor thy inheritance, and the end of the earth 
 for thy possession.'' Ps. xxii, 27 — "^ All the 
 ends of the earth shall remember and be con- 
 verted to the Lord." Ps. Ixxii, 7—'^ He shall 
 rule from sea to sea, ....yea, all the kings of 
 the earth shall adore him, and all nati ms shall 
 serve him." And in the New Testament, the J 
 Church is represented as a city on the top of a 
 mountain, — as a light which cannot be hid,— 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 379 
 
 whilst IJhrist commissions his Aposi /es to teach 
 all nations. The teaching of the Church, then, 
 is within reach of all, as the Church is visible 
 to all ; but no one in his senses will say the 
 same of the Bible, whose existence, in the hands 
 of the people, was an impossibility during most 
 of the time that has elapsed since the establish- 
 ment of Christianity. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Q. May not some reasoning Protestant here 
 say : You have given a very plausible inter- 
 pretation of these passages of Scripture in 
 favor of the infallibility of the Church of 
 Christ ; hut how are we to know that yours is 
 the true interpretation, — that these texts mean 
 exactly what you say ? 
 
 A, Here we have a sensible person to reason 
 with, and we request nim to beg the Almighty 
 to enlighten his mind ; w^e beg him to solicit 
 this grace through the all-powerful mediation 
 of the incarnate and crucified God ; w^e beseech 
 him also to recollect, that there is a thick misi 
 of long-fostered prejudice to be removed, — 
 that the effects of early education are to be 
 overcome, — pride and self-love to be curl)ed 
 and repiessed. Let him give these texts an 
 
380 A DOCTllINAL. CATECKiSM. 
 
 attentive reconsideration, and then v/eigh im* 
 partially the following reflections. 
 
 1st, The following rule of criticism has been 
 universally received — " Every explanation must 
 be clearer than the thing explained." The 
 texts, then, in question, by the chapter titles ot 
 the Protestant Bible, evidently refer to the 
 Christian Church : on this head, therefore, there 
 can be no dispute. These texts say, that, in 
 the Christian Church, the Lord will teach us 
 his ways, — that our path shall be so plain thai 
 even fools cannot err in it, — that God will 
 never be wroth with his Church, — that she 
 shall be founded in justice, — that her children 
 shall he taught of the Lord, &c., &c. Now, 
 what interpretation can be so clear as that 
 which I gave these texts, — that the Church of 
 which they were spoken must be free from 
 error ; and what inference could be more forced 
 and unnatural than this, which Protestants 
 draw, — that a Church, with these splendid and 
 glorious attributes, — a Church which has God 
 as her teacher, his Spirit her guide, and his 
 Word ever in her mouth, should be liable to 
 teach error, or fall into idolatry ? 
 
 The inference which I drew from the New 
 Testament evidences is still more natural. 1 
 will build my Church upon a rock, — the gatea 
 
A DO(^TRtNAL CATECHISM. 381 
 
 with her all days, even to the consummation of 
 the world, — she is the pillar and ground of 
 truth, — my Holy Spirit will teach her all truth 
 for ever. Is not the interpretation of these 
 passages, in favor of infallibility, easy, natural, 
 and obvious ; and w^ould not any interpretation 
 of them, in favor of fallibility, be forced, con- 
 jectural, and whimsical, and much less clear than 
 the texts themselves ? 
 
 2dly, Our next reason for the admission o/ 
 the Catholic interpretation is this : — We have, 
 for this interpretation, the unanimous testimony 
 and collective judgment of all ages, of all na- 
 tions, of all Christian people ; and surely this 
 ought to be preferred to the private interpreta- 
 tion of one fallible man ; for this, in fact, is the 
 Protestant rule — each Protestant is bound to 
 follow the interpretation he himself thinks best. 
 If there is wisdom among many counsellors, 
 and if Christ is in the midst of even two or 
 three gathered together in his name, surely any 
 interpretation, universally believed by the Cath- 
 olic Church spread over all nations, and exist- 
 ing in all ages, is preferable to the interpreta- 
 tion of any one individual, how learned soever 
 rie may be ! 
 
 3dly, Our interpretation should be admitted, 
 if I can prove that the Protestant mode of in- 
 lorpretation ought to be rejected ; truth lies 
 
382 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 
 
 between us ; the one must be right, the other 
 wrong. Now, that mode of interpretation is 
 bad in theory, which its advocates are obHged 
 to abandon in practice. But such is the Prot- 
 estant mode ; it supports the right of private 
 judgment as the great palladium of Gospel liber- 
 ty. When, therefore, Protestant Churches inter- 
 fere with, or restrain this liberty, they abandon 
 their system in practice. But the Church of 
 England excommunicates — the Church of Scot- 
 land excommunicates — for doctrinal errors ; is 
 this reconcileable with the right of private 
 judgment ? This right, they say, is from Christ ; 
 those w^ho use it are responsible only to Christ ; 
 and if so, no Protestant Church has a right to 
 judge of its use, or its abuse, for that is the very 
 power they deny to the infallible Church. Prot- 
 estants authorize each man to interpret, and 
 then excommunicate and depose him for doing 
 what they authorize ; hence, their principle is 
 bad ; they hold in theory what they are obliged 
 to abandon in practice. What, indeed, are 
 their signatures to the thirty-nine articles, and 
 the Athanasian Creed, — their denunciations or 
 Dissenters and Unitarians, — their suspensions 
 of Pusey and others, — ^but a practical abandon- 
 ment of the empty boast of Protestantism — the 
 right of private judgment ? 
 
 4thly, That mode of interpretation must be 
 
A DOCTRINAL OATECHISM. 383 
 
 the correct one, which is sanctioned by the 
 example of the Apostles, and practised by the 
 primitive Church. But both these appealed, 
 not to private judgment, but to the judgment 
 of the teaching Church, for the truth of their 
 doctrines. When certain teachers at Antioch 
 disputed with Paul and Barnabas concerning 
 the necessity of circumcision, did they appeal 
 each to his private judgment, or to the Scrip- 
 ture privately interpreted ? No ; they sent a 
 deputation with Paul and Barnabas to consult 
 the pastors of the Church at Jerusalem. The 
 Judeans and Antiochians, led by private judg- 
 ment, believed circumcision necessary ; Paul 
 and Barnabas thought otherwise. They appeal, 
 not to the Bible, but to the teaching body of 
 the Church, and, under the direction of the 
 Holy Ghost, the point is decided by this body. 
 Now, if the Scripture alone were the only 
 rule, the Antiochians were guilty of a heinous 
 sin in abandoning that rule, and the Apostles 
 were equally criminal in deciding by any other 
 5thly, That mode of interpretation is true 
 which was adopted during the first five cen- 
 turies ; during which period even Protestants 
 admit that the Church was pure and free from 
 every error. Now, when Arius denied the 
 Divinity of Christ, there was no appeal to pri- 
 vate judgment; a general Council was called in 
 
384 A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM 
 
 the year 325, and thus was condemned, by the 
 body of living teachers, the impious doctrine oi 
 Arius, — a doctrine which may be styled the 
 first monster produced b} the principle of pri- 
 vate interpretation. 
 
 6th]y, Such as the above was the principle 
 adopted by all the Fathers of the first five cen- 
 turies. St. Irenaeus, (Adv. Haer^ s. L. iv, c. 45,) 
 who lived in the Second Century, sa^s : " God 
 appointed in his Church Apostles, prophets, and 
 doctors ; where, therefore, are the holy gifts of 
 God, there must the truth he learned'' And 
 again — Cap. lii, p. 355 — " To this mari all things 
 will be plain, if he read diligently the Scriptures, 
 with the aid of those who are the priests in the 
 Church, and in whose hands rests the doctrine 
 of the Apostles.'' Origen, of the Third Century, 
 says, (Praef. Lib. i, Periarchon,) — " Many think 
 they believe what Christ taught, and some of 
 these differ from others ;. . . .all should profess 
 that doctrine which came doicn from the Apos- 
 tles and now continues in the Church ; that alone 
 is truth which in nothing differs from what is 
 tnus delivered," St. Hilary, in the Fourth 
 Century, says, the ship from which Christ 
 preached 'Ms an emblem of the Church, within 
 which is the vwrd of life placed and preached'* 
 "I would not," says St. Augustine (Contra 
 *3pist. Fund.) in the Fifth Century, " I would 
 
A DOCTRINAl CATECHISM. 885 
 
 not give credit to the Gospel, unless the au^ 
 thority of the Church induced me to it ; for/* 
 says he, Contra Faust., " the authority of our 
 sacred hooks is confirmed by the consent of 
 nations, through the succession of Apostles, 
 bishops, and councils." 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Q. Can you confirm all these arguments in 
 favor of infallibility, by an appeal to reason, 
 which is the handmaid of Scriptui^e ? 
 
 A, Yes*; reason tells us, that a fallible Church 
 is unworthy of a good and merciful God. What 
 security can man have from a Church which 
 may teach error ; his salvation depends upon 
 his faith and morals ; and how can he be cer- 
 tain what he should believe or practise, if he 
 have no teacher but a fallible Church ? Hence, 
 either the Church of Christ must be infallible, 
 or there should be no Church at all ; for no 
 man can ever be certain that what a fallible 
 Church teaches is true ; — he can never, with- 
 out doubting, believe her doctrines ; — he can 
 have not even moral certainty of salvation ; for 
 though he may believe every thing she teaches, 
 and practise all that she commands, he must 
 still remain in doubt as to the truth of his be- 
 *ef To have true faith, you must have a 
 
 33 
 
385 A DOCTRENAI. CATECHISM. 
 
 teacher that cannot err ; this you cannot have, 
 unless the Church be infalHble. It is vain for 
 you to reply, that the Scripture is an infallible 
 teacher ; we admit it an infallible teacher, il 
 your interpretation of it be infallibly right ; but 
 until you are satisfied that you have it explain- 
 ed by an infallible interpreter, you must still 
 be in doubt regarding its true meaning; and 
 hence, though in itself the Bible be infallible, 
 with regard to you it is still a fallible rule. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE CHURCH CALLED CATHOLIC IS THE TRUE INFAL- 
 LIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 We have already proved, by the most con- 
 vincing arguments, that the Church of Christ, 
 whatever and wherever she be, is infallible ; we 
 have yet to point out w4iat and where that 
 Church is ; we new deliberately assert, that 
 this infallible Church of Christ, is that great, 
 ever-enduring, and everywhere-existing Church, 
 which is called Cathohc. 
 
 Q. Hoic do you prove this assertion ? 
 
 A. Were we destitute of every other argu- 
 ment, the following would be sufficient. That 
 Church, and that Church only, can be the true 
 Church of Christ, which openly avow^s and be- 
 Ueves its ovm infallibility ; for, having once 
 
 I 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 387 
 
 admitted tkat Christ's Church is infallible, any 
 Church teaching its own fallibility, teaches that 
 it cannot be the Church of Christ ; because, 
 even though such Church were actually in it- 
 self infallible, by teaching its fallibility, it teaches 
 an error in dogma, and, by this very fact, be- 
 comes fallible. But the Catholic Church is the 
 ONLY Church upon earth, which avows, be- 
 lieves, and teaches its own infallibility ; there- 
 fore, the Catholic Church is, beyond all doubt, 
 the true, infallible Church of Christ ; and the 
 Protestant Church, by proclaiming her own 
 fallibility, and liability to err, proves to a de- 
 monstration, that she has no right to the august 
 title of Christ's Church. 
 
 Q. What other proofs have you to advance 
 on this subject? 
 
 A. The Scriptural marks of the Church of 
 Christ are to be found only in the Catholic 
 Church ; hence, the latter is evidently the 
 Church of Christ. These marks are Unity, 
 Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.'^ The 
 true Church of Christ is, according to Scrip- 
 ture, One, There is one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism, one fold, of which there can be only 
 
 * As an apology to the reader for the hrevity with which 
 we will state the following argument, we requetit hira to re- 
 member, that we have treated these subjects more fully al 
 Wi^ 50, in the early part of this work 
 
388 A DOCTRINAL CA'J ECHISM, 
 
 one shepherd. She is Holy: The spouse of 
 Christ,- -a purchased people, — holy and without 
 blemish. She is Catholic or universal: The 
 prophet declares, that she will have the nations 
 for her inheritance, and the ends of the earth 
 for her possession ; and Christ tells his Apos- 
 tles to preach the Gospel to all nations. She 
 {^Apostolical: Christ was to.be with Yier all 
 days, — she was to exist always, from the time 
 of the Apostles to the end of the world, that all 
 her doctrines might be traced easily back through 
 every age to the Apostolic times. 
 
 The Protestant Church is not One. Prot- 
 estants admit and Protestants deny the Trinity ; 
 some of them admit and some of them deny 
 "he Divinity of Christ ; some admit and some 
 deny the necessity of baptism, the real presence, 
 the existence of free-will, the necessity of good 
 works, the propriety of having bishops as rulers ; 
 in short, there is scarcely one point in which 
 they are agreed ; — upwards of two hundred 
 jarring sects of Protestants made their appear- 
 ance during the first century of their existence. 
 The Protestant Church, then, is not One. 
 
 Nor can it be said that she is Holy. She 
 has taught that God is the author of sin, — that 
 man mus' sin, — that good works are hurtful to 
 salvation. Her founders and leading teachers 
 —Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox — were ai] 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATLCHISM. 880 
 
 Stained by immorality ; — Melaiichthon says,, the 
 whole Elbe would not supply tears enough lo 
 weep over their crimes ; and Luther adds . 
 " Our people are more disorderly, vicious, and 
 cruel now than when they were Papists." The 
 Protestant Church, therefore, is not Holy, 
 
 Nor is it true that she is Catholic, St. Pa- 
 cian says, that by the name Catholic, the true 
 Church is distinguished from all heresies. The 
 Protestant Church has never, though she has 
 often attempted it, been able to filch that glori- 
 ous name from us, or to get herself made known 
 and recognised by that title. If you ask any- 
 where, even in Protestant countries, for the 
 Catholic Church, no one will point to a Prot- 
 estant Church. Fifteen hundred years of Chris- 
 tianity had elapsed after the death of Christ 
 before she made her appearance, before even 
 her very name was known ; therefore she is 
 not Catholic or universal as to time. She 
 never was so diffused throughout the world as 
 that she deserved to be styled the Church of aK 
 nations. She is only know^n in a few coun- 
 tries ; — Protestants are only 18,000,000, Catho- 
 lies are 256,000,000; — she is not exclusively 
 the Church of any one nation, nay, of any one 
 parish under heaven ; therefore, she is not uni- 
 versal as to place. She is not Catholic as to 
 th^ truth of her doctrine — it is different in al- 
 
 33* 
 
300 A r)0(jj'Kii\Ai. 'jvrEcuisM. 
 
 most every different country ; it has oeer^ ohop- 
 ped and changed almost every year : — scarcely 
 will ycu find two Protestants, who, on every 
 point, believe the same principles. It is evi- 
 dent, therefore, that the Protestant Church is 
 not Catholic, 
 
 To be Apostolical, she should have a per- 
 petual succession of society, doctrine, orders, 
 and mission from the Apostles. Now she made 
 her first appearance in the world only in the 
 year 1517 ;— her society existed nowhere be- 
 fore that time ; — her peculiar doctrines could 
 not exist, for there were none to profess them. 
 As she had no existence, she had no pastors , 
 hence, she could have neither orders nor mis 
 sion. Indeed, her pastors cannot have orders 
 even at present. There are only two ways of 
 receiving orders and mission, either directly 
 from heaven, or from the lawfully sent and 
 ordained pastors of God's Church upon earth ; 
 but Protestant ministers have not received them 
 in either of these ways. They came fifteen 
 hundred years too late to have any connection 
 with Christ oi- his Apostles ; and they have 
 never been able to prove that they received 
 either orders or mission from the Catholic 
 ('hurch — the only Church in existence when 
 they made their first appearance. The Prot- 
 estant Chuicli, therefore, has not the Scriptural 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATJ: < HISM. 391 
 
 marks of truth. Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, 
 and Apostolicity ; hence, beyond all doubt, she 
 cannot be that infallible Church of Christ, 
 which we have, by such a flood of overwhelm 
 ing evidence, proved to exist. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CATHOLIC oHURCH HAS ALL THE SCRIPTURAL 
 MARKS OF TRUTH. 
 
 She is One in her faith. The Apostles' Creed, 
 the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and 
 the Creed of Pope Pius, are everywhere taught 
 and believed ; — the same articles of faith, the 
 same principles of morality, everywhere found in 
 her catechisms ; — tne same rule of faith every- 
 where followed ; — the same sacrifice of the Mass 
 everywhere offered ; — the same seven sacra- 
 ments ever}^where administered; — the same 
 great festivals of redemption, and the same 
 Apostolical fast of Lent, everywhere observed. 
 Such, in short, is her unity in these respects, 
 that the Catholic priest is at home on every 
 altar in the world ; and the Catholic laity, 
 whether they wander to the west or to the east, 
 to the north or to the south, can join with ease 
 and fruit in every part of Divine worship, be- 
 cause it is everywhere essentially the same. 
 She is One in her government too : Her chil- 
 
'jO'G a D( CTRINAL CATEuKiSM. 
 
 dren spread over all nations, differing from each 
 other in every thing else, in the order of religion 
 are one, united, beautiful body, like an army in 
 battle array; each simple Catholic is subject to 
 his parish priest, each priest to his bishop, and 
 €ach bishop acknowledges the spiritual su- 
 premacy of Peter's lawful successor, to whom 
 Christ said, " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." 
 The Catholic Church is therefore One. 
 
 She is Holy. She teaches her children to 
 believe all that God has revealed in the Old and 
 New Testaments ; to look to Jesus alone for 
 mercy, grace, and salvation ; to practise the 
 virtues recommended in the Gospel ; to receive 
 the sacraments there instituted : in short, to 
 believe firmly, to hope with confidence, to love 
 with fervor God and every fellow -creature 
 Her pure doctrines, and heavenly means, and 
 pious exertions, have been crowned in every 
 age with myriads of saints, whose lives have 
 been so incontestably holy, that even enemies 
 have been compelled to admit their eminent 
 sanctity, and reverence their memory. The 
 Catholic Church, then, is evidently Holy. 
 
 She is Universal too. The name Catholic 
 has been ever hers in spite of every enemy. 
 By this title is she known now everywhere, as 
 she was in the days of Pacian or Tertullian. 
 She bears not tlie name of any man or any 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM. 393 
 
 country, because she is the Church of every 
 man and every country. Her doctrine has 
 been taught in every nation ; — Jerome, Au- 
 gustine, Leo, and Gregory, taught what we 
 teach. It has been attacked in vain by the 
 ablest heretics and infidels ; other doctrines 
 have arisen and died in rapid succession ; 
 every thing has been changed, even nations 
 have lost their very names ; her doctrine has 
 remained the sam.e amid the general wreck, 
 because the truth of the Lord remaineth for 
 ever. That she has been universal as to time 
 — that is, that she has existed ever since Christ, 
 without any interruption — even Protestants 
 willingly admit ; and there is scarcely a nation 
 under heaven that does not attest her uni- 
 versality as to place ; everywhere her altars 
 rise, everywhere her sacrifice is offered, every- 
 where her pastors disseminate the pure Word 
 of God. She converted the world from Pagan- 
 ism ; — the names of her Apostles are embalmed 
 in the recollections of the nations she convert- 
 ed. Ask for the patron saint of every nation 
 in succession, and you will find, that he who 
 carried Christianity thither was a Catholic priest 
 or a Catholic bishop. Where is the nation that is 
 not under the protection of some Catholic saint ? 
 Where is the great city that is not adorned with 
 some Catholic cathedral, university, or monas- 
 
394 A DOCTRINAL CATElUIl '>M 
 
 tic institution — magnificent even in its ruins ? 
 Where is the island that is not hallowed by the 
 name of some Catholic recluse ? Where is 
 even the graveyard, v. hose monuments do not 
 speak our antiquity and universality by the 
 names, the embJems, the doctrines, that adorn 
 the moss-clad stone ? 
 
 In fine, the Catholic Church is Apostolical 
 Her society we can trace, as a religious body, 
 with congregations, pastors, liturgy, back through 
 every age, until we arriv^o ai that first blessed 
 society, which was formed as the school of 
 Christ and his Apostles ; — her doctrines can be 
 traced to no source but the Apostolic times ; — 
 her orders and mission can be traced back 
 through an unbroken succession of bishops and 
 Popes to the time of Christ, who ordained and 
 commissioned the first pastors of his Church. 
 She is therefore Apostolical, in every sense cl 
 the word. 
 
 We can come tiien, dear reader, to omy one 
 conclusion on this all-important subject, which 
 we think fully warranted by what we have seen. 
 That conclusion is this : — the true Church o\ 
 Christ, which is mfallible, ought, according: to 
 Scripture, to be One, Holy, Catholic, and 
 Apostolical. But the Protestant Church i:> 
 
A DOCTRINAL CATLuHlSM. 395 
 
 ueither one, nor holy, nor Catholic, nor Apos- 
 tolical ; therefore, sh*^ is not, she cannot be, the 
 true, infallible Church of Christ. On the con- 
 trary, the Church called Catholic is strictly One 
 in her faith, her government, her liturgy ; Holy 
 in her head, her doctrines, and her saints ; 
 Catholic as to time, place, and doctrine ; Apos- 
 tolical as to her society, doctrine, orders, and 
 mission. Therefore, either she is the true, in- 
 fallible Church of Christ, or God is a deceiver 
 the Scripture is not his Word, reason is a fancj 
 *Rd religion a solemn mockery 
 
 VKB SWD. 
 
BO -16 4 
 
!>\o^ %'*^?^!^> 
 
 
 • - - r O o 
 
 a\ , , -^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 
 ^ t • "-^.l* , ^^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 ■oC' *J^IU/^^ ' <>• Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 
 
 ^ PreservationTechnologies 
 
 ^ S^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 <724) 779-2111 
 
'^oo^ 
 
 
 Jp°x. 
 
 v^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ♦ 1*°- > ^'y .*t:Aj* o^ 
 
 * -#> 
 
 
 •.^ 
 
 LIBRARY BINDING * ^^^^^^^1^*» ''*^ "^ ^ 
 
 DOBBS BROS. 
 
 i^OEC 81 
 
 'J ST. AUGUSTINE. * -«4/— »- ■ 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 CONGRESS 
 
 ^m Mi