XIII.

ΟΝ

MODERN REVELATIONS.

N the last day I spoke of one use made of modern revelations in the Church of Rome, and gave a specimen how, on the authority of what is there called a revelation, but we should call a dream, a tissue of historical facts is asserted without a particle of historical evidence, or rather in the teeth of historical probability. I told how bishops encourage their flocks to invoke in their prayers the intercession of a person who never had any existence, and even propagate tales of miracles worked by the power of this imaginary personage. It is impossible to doubt that there must be many a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic in high position who does not believe in St. Philumena any more than we do; but it is very common with such persons to regard the excitement cf devotional feeling as more important than the truth of the alleged facts which excite it; and so they see no necessity to interfere with the practice of a devotion which appears to them conducive to pious feelings, and to be at least harmless.

But these alleged revelations are also the foundation of new doctrines, and the Pope's silence concerning them affects the whole question of the rule of faith. I do not think that in the Roman Catholic controversy sufficient attention has been given to the place which modern revelations have now taken as part of the foundation of their system. No one can take up modern popular books of Roman Catholic devotion without seeing that their teaching differs as much from that of the Council of Trent, as the teaching of that Council differs from that of the Church of England. Taking notice of this difference was the fundamental idea of Dr. Pusey's book,

XIII.] PRACTICAL SYSTEM OF THE ROMAN CHURCH.

201

The Eirenicon, to which I referred in a former lecture. He observed how far popular Roman doctrine had got beyond anything that the Council of Trent had authorized, and more particularly so in the place assigned to the Blessed Virgin. Pusey's idea then was to make the Trent decrees a basis of reconciliation; if the Romanists would only confine themselves within Tridentine limits, he hoped to screw up Anglican teaching so far. Whether he would have succeeded in the latter part of his task we need not speculate; for the doctrine of development has now gained too firm a hold of the Roman Church to permit her people to be content to believe now as she believed three hundred years ago. One of the ablest of the Roman Catholic replies to Dr. Pusey was by a Father Harper, originally, I believe, a pervert, now a Jesuit. Pusey had said, 'I doubt not that the Roman Church and ourselves are kept apart much more by that vast practical system which lies beyond the letter of the Council of Trent-things which are taught with a quasi-authority in the Roman Church-than by what is actually defined.' Harper replies (I. lxxvii.), 'It is precisely this practical system, this development of the Tridentine Canons, as Dr. Pusey means it, which is the expression, or rather actuation, of the Church's present indwelling vitality. Dead ideas alone can be hidden up in manuscript; living ideas grow and show fruit. It is precisely in and through this vast practical system, in proportion as it is universal, that the Holy Ghost is working, directing, leading the mind of the Church by degrees into all the truth. Mere formulas, mere written definitions, by themselves are bodies that either have lost animation, or are waiting for it. In the Church they are the expression of her perfected consciousness, on the particular subject of that revealed dogma about which they treat. They live in her spirit and grow with her growth. Like all things else that have an undecaying life, they can never decrease, but must ever increase. Christ grew in wisdom daily. So does the Church, not in mere appearance, but of a truth. Her creed, therefore, can never shrink back to the dimensions of the past, but must ever enlarge with the onward future.' I am not now discussing the truth of the doctrine of development; but you must

take that doctrine into account in judging what Romanism at the present day is.

Roman Catholic controversialists have often been in the habit of running away from attacks on the most vulnerable parts of her practical system by saying, 'Oh, the Church is not pledged to that; it is a mere popular abuse;' or, 'It is an unauthorized speculation of some private theologians.' I had already occasion to show how unfair an evasion that was in the case of the dogma of the Pope's personal infallibility. Though controversialists had run away from defending it on the ground of its not having been asserted in any formal decree, and so being only private opinion, yet now we have supreme Roman authority for knowing that the Protestant champions had been quite right in holding that this doctrine, however defective in formal attestation, had all the time been really part of the faith of the Roman Church. Well, this same principle gives us a right to treat the practical system which prevails in the Church of Rome as something for which that Church is responsible. If we point out that popular Romanism is full of superstitions and of belief in what sober, thoughtful Roman Catholics own to be lies, we are told these things are not part of the faith of the Church; she has never authoritatively affirmed any of them: the religion of the vulgar is always apt to run into extremes: you must excuse these things in consideration of the real piety which is at the bottom of them.' But though popular Romanism is certainly not the same as the Romanism of the schools, I hold that it is the former which has the best right to be accounted the faith of the Church. Let popular belief come first, and scholastic definition and apology will come in its own good time afterwards. I have already remarked how seldom the infallible authority is exercised to guide men's belief as long as it is doubtful; but usually only comes in when all controversy is over, to ratify the result which public opinion had already arrived at. Is it, then, only the duty of the head of the Church to declare the belief held by his people when it becomes general, or is he to exercise no superintending care over the influences which form the belief he may afterwards have to declare? If the Pope's infallibility

XIII.] PRACTICAL SYSTEM OF THE ROMAN CHURCH.

203

reaches so far as to qualify him for guiding the Church at this stage, he always omits to exercise it. I have said that popular Romanism differs as much from that of the Council of Trent as the latter does from the creed of the Church of England. And I wish now to point out that the difference springs out of a fundamental difference as to the rule of faith. The Thirty-nine Articles appeal to Scripture alone, the Council of Trent to Scripture and tradition; and so it is to be expected that the results should be different when the principles of investigation are different. But the rule of faith of popular Romanism is different again: it is not Scripture and tradition, but Scripture and tradition and modern revelations.

There is a certain development of Christian doctrine which inevitably takes place, but which is quite private and unauthorized. Anyone who thinks much about the things of religion will be sure to make speculations of his own about them, and to draw consequences from generally accepted revealed truths, which consequences may, or may not, be legitimately drawn. Here, according to Newman's theory, would be the place for the infallible authority to interfere to inform the Church which developments are to be accepted. But what actually happens in a number of cases is, that these additions to the structure of Christian doctrine find a shorter road to recognition. Both within and without the Church of Rome it has constantly happened that persons of an excitable and enthusiastic frame of mind, whose thoughts have been much occupied about religion, have supposed themselves to be favoured with miraculous communications from God. Such persons, for instance, were Johanna Southcote among Protestants; St. Gertrude, Marie Alacoque, among Roman Catholics. Among Protestants persons of this kind do not find it easy to get anyone to listen to their pretensions; they are joined by no sober-minded persons; they collect a few foolish people for a while, form them into a small sect, and in a few years there is an end to them. But in the Church of Rome pretenders of this kind not only gather a larger band of followers, but they meet with no opposition—not from those of their own communion even who do not believe in them. Few Roman Catholics would grudge any honour, not

even excepting the title of saint, to a pious woman of this kind, even though they do not believe in her asserted revelations. She will at least promote the cause of piety; and for their part they do not choose to give scandal to pious minds and triumph to unbelievers by exposing the weaknesses and excesses of faith to an infidel world.' But meanwhile the utterances of these supposed recipients of a revelation are caught up and accepted with implicit faith by others. This will happen when the utterances express only the seer's private speculations. But more usually they are the opinions already favourably thought of in her own little circle, which is therefore prepared to welcome an authoritative enunciation of them; and then with this backing of inspired attestation, belief in them grows so strong and spreads so widely, that Church authorities are no longer free to choose whether or not they will approve of them.

There is in the Roman Church an amazing amount of literature recording revelations such as I have described; but whether these revelations are genuine or not the Pope will not tell, and it is at anyone's choice to accept or reject. Some of the Oxford converts made it a point of honour to show how much they were able to believe, and with what ease they could swallow down what old-fashioned Roman Catholics were straining at. Among these there was none more influential than the late Father Faber (far more so, indeed, than Dr. Newman), whose devotional and theological works had a rapid and extensive sale. You can hardly read half a dozen pages of these without meeting as proof of his assertions, Our Lord said to St. Gertrude,' 'It was revealed to St. Teresa,'' Let us listen to the testimony of God Himself: He made known to a holy nun,' &c.* These quotations are made

Our Lord said to St. Gertrude, that as often as anyone says to God: "My love, my sweetest, my best beloved," and the like, with a devout intention, he receives a pledge of his salvation, in virtue of which if he perseveres he shall receive in heaven a special privilege of the same sort as the special grace which St. John, the beloved disciple, had on earth.'— All for Jesus, p. 60.

Our Lord said to St. Teresa, that one soul, not a saint, but seeking perfection, was more precious to Him than thousands living common lives,' p. 117.

'St. Gertrude was divinely instructed, that as often as the Angelic