Mgr. Louis de Ségur: Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today [1868]

[Stone]

X. Keep on the Safest Side.


— Melancthon, the favorite disciple of Luther, had prevailed on his mother to follow him in the path of the so-called Lutheran Reformation. On her death-bed she called her son, and solemnly charged him to tell her the truth: —

"My son, by thy urgency I have abandoned the Catholic Church, and followed the new religion. I am about appearing before God, and I adjure thee by the living God, tell me, and keep not the truth from me, — in what faith must I die?"

Melancthon bent his head, and was silent for a while. There was a struggle in his heart between love for his mother and the pride of sectarianism. But at last he made answer: —

"Mother, the Protestant doctrine is the easiest, but the Catholic is the surest!"*

Then, if the Catholic religion is the surest, surely one should embrace it, and much more never abandon it to embrace a less safe one.

This simple argument, based on good sense, determined Henry IV. to become a Catholic. A conference on religion was going on in Saint Denis, before the king and his court. On one side many Catholic doctors; on the other, the ministers Duverdier, Morlas, Salette, and some others.

The historian Perefixe tells us that "The king, observing that none of the Protestant divines dared to deny that one may be saved in the Catholic Church, remarked: 'What! you are all of one accord in that there is salvation in the Roman Church?' 'Certainly,' rejoined the minister, 'provided a man leads a good life.' Then, turning to the Catholic doctors, 'do you think, gentlemen,' he asked, 'that I can work out my salvation remaining a Protestant?' 'It is our belief, sire, and we solemnly profess it before you, that having once known the true Church, you must enter it, and that there is no salvation for your soul if you remain a Protestant.'

"Whereupon the king judiciously remarked, in addressing the ministers: It is then the behest of prudence that I should belong to the religion of the Catholics, and not to yours. For, you agree with them that in their religion I can be saved; whereas, in yours, I can be saved, it is true, in your opinion, but not in theirs. According to prudence, then, I must keep on the safest side."

And he became a Catholic.

[Stone]

XI. Is Heresy a great Sin?


— Heresy is one of the greatest crimes a child of God can be guilty of. It is an apostasy from the Church.

Faith is the foundation of all religious edifices, — the first element of Christian life. Accordingly, our Lord sums up the whole system of religion in faith. At every page of his gospel he repeats that to be saved it is necessary to believe in him, to believe in his word, to believe in the word of the Church.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark xvi. 16.)

Heresy is a sin against faith. It is a deliberate and obstinate rebellion against the divine teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. Heresy subverts the order established by God, and separates man from the great Catholic family which, on earth and in heaven, is the family of God.

Hence, heresy is in itself a more grievous sin, an evil far greater and more baneful, than immorality and the inordinations of sensuality. These disorders and sins are very bad, indeed, and separate a great many from Jesus Christ; but they do not inflict upon the soul an inordination so radical and so dangerous as heresy.

We have, then, the criterion whereby to judge the religious responsibility and heavy culpability of those evangelical ministers who sow heresy around them. They inflict upon society an evil far worse than the emissaries of libertinism can inflict.

[Stone]

XII. Whether a Protestant can be saved.


— Certainly he can. But let us understand each other well.

"One may be in error; but that is far different from being in heresy." Such was the distinction of Saint Augustine instructing his people on the possible salvation of heretics. Indeed, one can be deceived without being aware of it. An involuntary material error is a misfortune, not a sin. Hence one may be saved in error. But heresy is a rebellion against God and his Church; it is a sin; it is a crime, — and, therefore, one cannot be saved in heresy.

This is tantamount to say that only an invincible good faith can excuse a Protestant from the sin of heresy, and afford him, in his misfortune, a possibility of salvation.

But where this good faith does not exist, the heretic is lost, because he parts company with truth, which is Jesus, and from the association of truth, which is the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church.

But are there Protestants in good faith? Can this invincible good faith be said to exist in countries where the Catholic religion is well known, — in the midst of Catholics, — where the opportunities to find the Church are so abundant? God alone can fathom this mystery; He alone can judge it.

To judge from appearances, we are led to think that this good faith is very often to be found among Protestants, and, above all, among those who belong to the working classes, debarred as they are from the means of instruction, — that instruction, the working whereof renders the learned classes inexcusable. I must confess, that, even admitting the absolute possibility of this wonder, I have not the least trust in the good faith of ministers, and that I greatly fear for their eternal welfare.

As regards Protestants in good faith, — bona fide Protestants, such as can be saved, — I must add a qualification, which will make us even more apprehensive of their danger. Their salvation, although possible, is nevertheless much more difficult for them than for us Catholics.

I will tell you why. — At first, the faith of a Protestant is always more or less uncertain. But faith is the starting-point, the vivifying principle of those Christian virtues, with whose aid one can save his soul. The faith of the Catholic is clear, defined, and free from all the whims of his own mind.

Again: as I have said before, Protestants do not partake of the resources which the Church affords to her children, for the purpose of aiding them in leading such a life as will secure for them a right to heaven. The most powerful of these resources are the sacraments of confession and communion. Should the great misfortune of committing a mortal sin befall men, he cannot be reconciled with God but through the confession of his misdemeanors, and the absolution received at the hands of the priest. Should he, peradventure, be absolutely unable to go to confession, it becomes necessary for him to join to a heartfelt wish for the sacrament the deepest sorrow, and the purest and noblest love, which is defined — perfect contrition. The very fact that this contrition must be perfect renders it very difficult and very rare. This contrition is desirable in all cases, but it is not indispensable, when the sacrament of penance is approached; in which case, an ordinary repentance will suffice; for, in this sacrament of mercy, our Lord vouchsafes to forgive the deficiencies of the poor penitent.

The Protestant who has committed sin has not at his command the healing aid of confession. He must then have recourse to perfect contrition, — the result of a perfect sorrow for sin, and a pure love of God; without which he can obtain neither remission of his sin nor eternal salvation. He cannot unite to this contrition the wish of going to confession, because I suppose him to be bona fide, in good faith, and accordingly ignorant of the necessity of this sacrament. Therefore, it becomes by far more difficult for him, than for the Catholic, to become reconciled with God.

But, suppose even that, by a favor most special, he succeeds in conceiving this perfect contrition, he is still deprived of the holy communion, which has been instituted by our Saviour precisely for the purpose of nourishing us with spiritual food, protecting us against sin, if we are innocent; preserving us from falling again into it, if, after having indulged in it, we are relieved and purified. In holy communion we have, as it were, the food necessary to support us during our journey through life. The poor Protestant has not this food, and runs great risk of becoming faint in his journey. Hence, it becomes difficult for him to be sanctified and saved.

Thus, it becomes our duty to make an effort for his conversion, and thereby place him in the way of securing chances to find, and more powerful aids to secure, that which is, after all, the only end for which we have been placed in this world.

[Stone]

XIII. The Difference between Conversion and Apostasy.


— Conversion is a duty, apostasy a crime. A Protestant entering the bosom of the Church becomes a convert. A Catholic deserting his Church to join a sect becomes an apostate. Why this difference?

Listen: The Catholic faith, as taught invariably for eighteen centuries, consists in a certain number of positive dogmas, such as the Unity of God, the Trinity, Incarnation, Real Presence, Papacy, etc., etc. To put it in round numbers, let us suppose these dogmas to amount to fifty. On this supposition, the Christians have, then, believed fifty dogmas to the beginning of the tenth century; up to which time there had been only one faith in Christendom. At that epoch, the Greeks denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son, and the supremacy of the Holy See, and thus they have maintained only forty-eight out of the fifty dogmas of the Church. Hence it is evident that we Catholics have always believed all that the Greek Church believes, whilst she, on her part, denies two of these dogmas, which we do believe.

In the sixteenth century the Protestants pushed things a great deal farther, and denied still more dogmas. Some denied twenty of them, and some thirty; others admitted hardly any. But, however more or less they may retain, we own all they do own. The Catholic Church believes all that the Protestant Churches do believe. There is no controversy on this point.

But then, these sects, whatever name they go by, are not religious, because they have been formed only by denying this or that dogma. They are only negations; which means they are nothing in themselves, because from the moment they assert they become Catholic.

Hence follows a consequence, a striking evidence in itself, to wit: the Catholic who steps over to a Protestant sect does truly apostatize, inasmuch as he abandons a belief, and denies to-day what he believed yesterday. At the same time the Protestant, who enters the pale of the Catholic Church does not cast off dogma, he does not deny anything he believed before; on the contrary, he believes what he denied, which makes a great difference: which argument is borrowed from Count de Maistre.

In 1813, De Joux, a Protestant minister of Geneva, afterwards president of the reformed consistory of Nantes, uttered these words: "For my part, I should blame a Catholic who became Protestant, because it is not right that he who possesses the most should go in quest of the less. But I could not blame a Protestant who became Catholic, because it is fair that he who has the least should aspire after the most."

In 1825, De Joux became a Catholic.

[Stone]

XIV. Why do Some become Protestants, and Others become Catholics?

— 1. Except in very rare cases, which are always explained by a profound ignorance both of the Catholic religion which is abandoned, and of Protestantism which is embraced, I maintain that never did a Catholic become Protestant from Christian and accountable motives.

I have known many so-called Catholics who wished to become Protestant. One of them, an intelligent and amiable youth was desperately in love with the daughter of a Protestant minister; hence he ardently wished to become Protestant. It was decidedly the most disinterested conviction of the excellence of Protestantism.

Then I knew a priest who had foresworn all his duties and led a disorderly life. His bishop was obliged to suspend him from his ecclesiastical functions . . . . to-day he is a Protestant minister.

A third proselyte, a young German instructress, felt humbled at being constrained to live in a foreign family. Some Protestant friends offered her a situation of great ease, on condition that she would renounce her faith. I have it written to me in a letter by her own handwriting: "Cost what it may, I must have a home."

These are only a few instances of what occurs every day. The character of these pretended conversions is so well defined, that the Protestants are above all annoyed by them. One of them wrote that "Protestantism was the sewer of Catholicity." Dean Swift said that "when the Pope weeds his garden he throws the garbage over our walls;" which saying is now quoted as a proverb in England.

In the language of a Protestant Swiss journal: "While the Catholic Church swells her ranks with Protestants well instructed, most intelligent, and the best for their morality, our Reformed Church can levy recruits only among lecherous and concubinarian monks." In fact Luther, Calvin, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and many others were all ecclesiastics suspended for their crimes, unfrocked or bad monks; and since then every bad priest that treads in their footsteps, will throw himself, as if by instinct, into the arms of Protestantism, and therein find sympathy and protection. They were the shame and dregs of the Catholic Church, and are transformed at once into ministers of the pure Gospel. They are heard, honored, applauded. Moreover their apostasy is paraded, and the Protestant sects pride and feast on what holy Church rejects with loathing. The apostate monk Achilli, cast away from his convent and expelled from his native soil on account of his infamous libertinism, was received with an ovation in England.* Other wretches of the same cast have met with greeting and lucrative employment at the hands of Protestants in Geneva and Paris. Let the Reformation treasure these conquests. We give them up with a willing heart.

Not long ago, a Prussian lady, who had been a Catholic for about eight or ten years, thus replied with a sad candor to a clergyman, a friend of mine, who exhorted her to stand firm, as she seemed to be yielding to the entreaties and flattering offers of her family: "I became a Catholic for the love of God; I am going to be a Protestant from love of myself!" — The truest solution of the whole question.

One is poor, and wishes to emerge from his poverty; another is swayed by passions, which he does not wish to control; a third has too much pride, and is loath to subdue it; a fourth is ignorant, and allows himself to be led away. . . . For such reasons people become Protestant.


2. It is quite different with those Protestants who become Catholic. — I allow that human motives may have sometimes influenced a Protestant to enter the Church. But such cases form only an imperceptible exception. We have seen, on the faith even of Protestants, that those among them who become Catholic, are most honorable, most learned, and the most virtuous. Never was this fact more evident than in our own times.

During the last twenty years a vast number of Anglican ministers have abjured heresy in England. They were the cream of the universities of Great Britain, men of learning. Suffice it to name Newman, Manning, Faber, and Wilberforce. But then it is an every-day occurrence to hear of conversions from distinguished men of the clergy, nobility, army, and navy of England, and of America, recorded by the national papers in spite of themselves.

Take, for instance, the remarkable conversion of Lord Spencer, a British lord of the highest nobility. After becoming a Catholic, he enters the Congregation of Passionists, a most austere and most humble order, in which he was known by the name of Father Ignatius. While yet a Protestant, he endeavored to prevail on the Protestants of all classes to pray for the conversion of England, on condition, however, that if the Catholic Church was that of Jesus Christ, the Lord would vouchsafe to bring England back to that Church. After becoming a Catholic he continued with a persevering zeal in this crusade of prayer, which has been the source of so many graces to his country. (See Catholic World, New York, July, 1867.)

In Germany, instances of most illustrious conversions have been afforded especially in sovereign or princely families. In 1817, the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, a near relation of the King of England, re-entered the bosom of the Church, and by his fervid piety became the edification of Catholics as well as Protestants. In 1822, Prince Henry Edward of Schoenburg became a Catholic; and in 1826, the Count of Ingenheim, brother to the King of Prussia, Frederic, Duke of Mecklenburg, the Countess of Solms-Bareuth, Charlotte, Princess of Mecklenburg, wife to the Prince Royal of Denmark, etc., etc. Let us add to this catalogue of princely conversions that of the brother of the present King of Wurtemberg, which took place in Paris, in 1851.

Who has not heard of the Count Stolberg, one of the most eminent men at the beginning of this century? He became a convert in consequence of a close study of the authorities of the Bible, of the Fathers and of controversialists. Truth required at his hands a sacrifice of the hopes of a most brilliant career; but God consoled him with the conversion of his entire family.

Stolberg's example carried with it a host of German writers, philosophers, and jurists of the first class, who became reconciled with the Church. The conversion of the famous scholar, Werner, was, perhaps, the most remarkable. Having gained positions of the highest trust in Berlin, he gave them all up, to become a Catholic and a priest. He died in the Congregation of Redemptorists. They relate of him, that being once at a dinner with some highly distinguished Protestants, one of them, who could never forgive him for having abandoned the so-called Reformation, said before the guests that he never thought much of a man who had changed his religion. "Nor I either; and this is the very reason why I have always despised Luther," replied Werner.

Werner's example was followed by other scientists of the same nation, such as Frederick Schlegel, the Baron of Eckstein, the Aulic Councillor Adam Muller, etc., etc.

In Switzerland, Charles Louis de Haller, a patrician of Berne, and member of the Supreme Council, is one of the most illustrious Protestants that became Catholic in that confederacy. Like the majority of all those I have named above, he had the honor of being persecuted, deprived of all his titles and offices, and lastly exiled by the Protestants, whose tolerance is ever of the same stamp, whenever they can have their own way.

Haller's conversion was followed, in Switzerland, by that of the ministers Esslinger of Zurich, Pierre de Joux of Geneva, and of the illustrious ecclesiastical president of the Consistory of Schaffhouse, Frederic Hurter. He made his profession of faith in Rome, in 1844, having for his godfather the great painter, Overbeck, himself a convert of some years' standing, whose life and virtues have been the object of so much edification in the Eternal City.

Nor has France been behindhand in giving her quota of conversions from Protestantism, especially among ministers. That of Mr. Laval, pastor of Condé-sur-Noireau, was the most remarkable. He was followed by Mr. Paul Latour, president of the Consistory of Maz-d'Asil.

Two years after, in 1846, the conversion of M. A. Bermaz took place in Lyons. He had, during four years, professed the doctrines of the Momiers, and was zealously at work in promulgating them through the diocese of Lyons. But he abjured his errors and made known the motives of his conversion in a pamphlet published in Lyons.

And in our own days how many Protestants in name, how many parsons, above all, would willingly throw themselves into the arms of Holy Church, were it not for the ties of family and temporal interest? Protestant consistories very cunningly hurry young pastors to be married immediately after leaving school. Wife and children are the greatest obstacle to the conversion of a Protestant minister. Many an example I could quote to support this assertion.

America comes in also for her share in the number of noble, correct, and virtuous souls who have swollen the ranks of converts to Catholicity.

Suffice it to quote the conversion of the Protestant Bishop of North Carolina, Doctor Ives. It is well known how highly esteemed he was for his excellent character, learning and science. He sought the truth with an honest heart, and, as he found it, he abandoned all to possess it. The Protestant Bishop gave up his opulent bishopric, and undertook a journey to Rome, to throw himself at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff. On the 26th of December, 1852, he made his profession of faith in the Pope's private chapel. Throwing himself on his knees before the Holy Father, he presented to him the ring and the seal, — the insignia of the eminent place he whilom occupied among the Protestants, and as he surrendered them with the cross he wore on solemn occasions, "Holy Father!" he said with tears, "here are the marks of my rebellion!" — "They shall be henceforth the token of your submission, and as such go and lay them on St. Peter's tomb," replied the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Let now Protestantism set off its conquests against these men, so great for their virtues, their position, their love of truth! We shall not ask illustrious names, — men who for greatness of talent, or nobility of character, might offset those we have just named. Truly it has none: else they would have been proclaimed from the house-tops. Yet we would be satisfied were they to point to us, at least, some honest and virtuous, well instructed and practical Catholics, who have left our ranks, urged by the want of a better belief, and such as have edified their new sectaries with an exemplary life.*

I defy the Protestants to bring forward even one. The apostates who pass over to Protestantism are generally individuals who hope to better their fortune in a change of religion, or else sour spirits who wish to obtain revenge by giving scandal; while the Christians who emerge from Protestant sects to enter the Church of Jesus Christ look for and indeed find a faith that is solid, clear, and definite, comfort, peace, holiness, and love.

I shall now, by way of conclusion, quote a well-known fact, the consideration whereof has already shaken many Protestant consciences. There is scarcely a Catholic Priest, however limited the sphere of his action may be, who has not been called to receive into the Church a dying Protestant; while there is no record whatever of a sincere Catholic who has wished to become Protestant at the moment he was summoned to appear before the Tribunal of God.

Ignorance, bad passions, a forgetfulness of divine justice, goad unhappy souls to Protestantism.

A correct conscience, healthy learning, a love of truth, and the fear of God, lead souls back to the Catholic Church.

Draw your conclusions now.

[Stone]

XV. Is Protestantism after all a Religion?


— Perhaps I shock some one's sensitiveness by saying, no.

What is religion? It is a covenant of Doctrine and Worship which binds people together in one belief and in one uniform manner of serving God. — Thus, e.g., among false religions, are Judaism, Mahomedanism, Buddhism, etc.

Very well: Protestantism lays down as a fundamental principle that every man is perfectly free to believe as he chooses, and to serve God as he pleases. Therefore, Protestantism makes away with the very idea of religion, which implies bond, union, unity. I know very well that Protestants do not always draw the extreme and rigorous consequences of this principle. In Catholic countries, and above all in France, they keep up, as much as they can, the appearance of union among the different sects. But in Germany, for instance, in Switzerland, in America, where they have plenty of elbow-room, they actually boast of having as many beliefs as there are individuals.

Of all religious institutions, built by the hand of man, Protestantism is distinguished by this trait of destroying what constitutes the essence, I will not say of true religion, but of all religions in general. All false religions, in imitation of the true one, have a code of belief and worship, the rejection whereof excludes one from belonging thereto; whereas what the reverend gentlemen endeavor to pass for religion is but an anarchy without rule or restraint, which only denies, destroys, protests: it bears the mark of self-condemnation by appropriating the anti-religious title of Protestantism.

Never did Jean Jacques Rousseau utter a greater truth than when he said of the Calvinists of Geneva, that "their religion consists in attacking that of others."

But, you'll say, I know Protestants who believe in Jesus Christ, or hold other truths with a belief which seems well defined and precise. You must allow that such, at least, have religion. Not at all. They have some convictions, or, as they are more generally designated, some persuasions; all which is very good, and we praise the Lord for it. But it is not Protestantism that gives them those personal convictions, those individual persuasions. They may throw them aside to-morrow, and still not cease being Protestants. Not a few ministers glory in their name of Protestants, and still do not believe in any of the dogmas held by Luther or Calvin, and ridicule the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ, at the same time making a great noise about Christianity and pure Gospel.

The parson Vinet candidly acknowledges, with a great many more concessions of the same kind, that Protestantism is not a religion, but the bond of a religion. (Le lien d'une religion. Essai sur la manifestation des convictions religieuses.)

It is well known how the celebrated Bayle, a Protestant by birth, and an infidel in practice, made reply to a distinguished personage who had questioned him about his belief. "You are a Protestant, Monsieur Bayle, but of what sect? Are you Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian, or Anabaptist?" "I am none of all these," answered the consistent Protestant; "I am a Protestant, which means, I protest against all sorts of religion."

Protestantism, in spite of its pretensions, is not and cannot be a religion, much less is it the true religion.

[Stone]

XVI. Does Protestantism believe in Jesus Christ?

— Thank God there are yet Protestants, honest and religious, who believe in Jesus Christ. But is it because they are Protestants that they believe in him? Not at all. You can be a Protestant, a genuine one, ay more, a Protestant pastor of souls, without being in the least obliged to believe in the divinity of the Redeemer. The pastor Coquerel, of Paris, has just published a thick volume (La Christologie), for the purpose of developing this doctrine. It has been a general belief, for the last eighteen hundred years, that to be a Christian it was necessary to believe that Christ was the incarnate God. According to M. Coquerel, this is a mistake. It matters very little whether Jesus be God, or some supernatural being, or a common man. Why bother one's head about it? After all, one can be a very good Christian without making so many distinctions.

Mr. T. Colani, the learned editor of the "Protestant Theological Review," published in Strasbourg, takes particular pains not to contradict his brother of Paris, and teaches his pupils, who are trained to be ministers of the Gospel, that one can indeed be a Christian without believing in Jesus Christ, and then he unctuously adds, "that were both Jesus Christ and his sanctity taken from us, it would be a great calamity for the world; but there would still remain faith, — faith in the Father, faith in God." (Revue de Theologie, Vol. vii., p. 242.)

Thus M. de Gasparin, an ardent champion of French Protestantism, congratulates himself on a triumph, as it were unexpected, that of seven hundred ministers two hundred at least believed in the divinity of Christ. (Interets generaux du Protestantisme, p. vii.)

It has been proclaimed, from the most illustrious pulpits of the Reformation, that "the Saviour was only a Jewish Socrates, the author of the best practical philosophy."

According to some of the most celebrated ministers, he was "a simple Rabbi, but so many of the people persisted in believing that he was the Messiah, that at last he believed it himself; still he taught only a pure Mosaism, and he was condemned to death, and nailed to a cross, and laid out having the appearance of a dead man, and came to life again after the third day, and lastly, after having revisited his disciples on different occasions, he abandoned them without seeing them any more."

Nor is it in the writings of Voltaire or Rousseau that I find this infamous parody of the symbol of the Apostles; I read it in the Christian Theology of Wegscheider (Theol. Chr. Dogm. §121), which has gone through seven or eight editions, and has been adopted as the text-book for those who aspire to the ministry.

It is no wonder, then, that Mr. Leblois, a minister of Strasbourg, being formed after those principles, should have, on the 31st day of December, A.D. 1854, publicly maintained from his pulpit, that the worship of Jesus Christ is a superstition, severely denouncing the Protestant sects that have retained this remnant of Popery, and protesting that we must put a stop to this idolatry, so repugnant to both reason and Gospel.

Some years ago, the King of Prussia, who is both head and doctor of the Prussian Church, expressed uneasiness about the orthodoxy of the ministers and professors of his faculty of divinity in Berlin; whereupon the Dean indignantly protested in the name of his colleagues, and solemnly declared that all, none excepted, believed . . . that Jesus had really existed. It was an effort, an exertion for which we must really compliment the theologians of Berlin. For, their brethren in Germany protest not only against the divinity of Christ, but even against the reality of his person and of his existence. Such, at least, are the logical deductions from the assumptions of Strauss, whilom professor of Protestant divinity in Zurich, who is the leader of a numerous school in Germany. And all these gentlemen call themselves Christians, and after the example of Luther, Calvin & Co.; less bold, however, they palm themselves off as the reformers of Christianity.

It is long since the Venerable Company of Pastors — for, thus they style themselves — assembled in Geneva, formally forbade their preachers, by a regulation of the 3d of May, 1817, to speak from the pulpit about the divinity of Christ. The few old fogies, who still persisted in this belief so incompatible with the principle of free examination, were obliged to separate themselves, and are to this day sneered at by the National Church, and nicknamed Momiers.

Were it not that my limits are narrow, I might here pass in review the different Protestant countries, and prove, from public and universal facts, how Luther's reformation abandons everywhere and denies the sacred and essential dogma of the divinity of Jesus Christ, — a dogma without which Christianity cannot exist. However, what we have quoted is more than sufficient to warrant our asserting, in the words of the unfortunate M. de Gasparin, "The majority of Protestants are not Christians!"

The dogma of the divinity of Jesus Christ, as well as all Christian teachings, are handed down to us by the Church, the living and infallible depositary of the authority of God.

I do not hereby mean to say that the Holy Scriptures do not prove to us the divinity of the Saviour in the clearest terms. But I merely assert that the Scriptures themselves deriving all their divine authority from the infallible teaching of the Church, whoever rejects the Church must needs lose at once the foundation of his faith in Christ.

The Protestants have discarded this authority, — hence they have no more any sure guidance in their belief, and thus, for the last three hundred years, their dogmas have dropped off one after another. They will end, if they are consistent, in framing, after a well-known Protestant, their formula of faith, thus: I believe in nothing.

After having rejected the Church, Protestantism rejects Jesus Christ; after having rejected Jesus Christ, it must reject God himself, and thus it will have accomplished its work!

This impious work has been already consummated in a large portion of Germany. There exists a powerful and widely-spread association, The Protestant Friends, who recognize for their leaders the three ministers Uhlich, Wislicenus, and Sachse. These three men have obtained the adhesion of a vast number of German pastors; and the pastors of Berlin, with whom those of France so closely fraternize, have very often rendered the homage of sympathy to those Protestant Friends. Now, here is Uhlich's profession of faith, and his public catechism: —

"Our belief is to have none."

"The being which is called God is only a fictitious one."

"The true object of our veneration is ourselves."

The Protestantism dominant in northern Germany, and above all in Prussia, consists in this bold Atheism. It is the legitimate deduction from genuine Protestantism. It cannot exist but on condition of giving to human thought a perfect freedom, or rather an unlimited license. It is that or nothing.

[Stone]

XVII. Could a Protestant ever tell what and why he believeth?


Never! The reason thereof is very simple. To believe, is to submit one's mind to the teachings of a personal authority, totally independent of the will of him who submits himself and having a claim to such submission. Now, where is this authority binding the Protestant to be found? In the Bible? But on the admission of most considerate Protestants, you have a right to interpret the Bible after your own views. The consistent Protestant, acting on the principle of free examination, believeth not, hath no faith. He substitutes his own reason for faith; for the divine authority of the church he substitutes the views or vagaries of the human mind.

The Protestant who, in spite of his separation from the Church, still preserves a certain Christian belief, is like a deserter, who, after his fleeing from the army, still carries with him part of his arms and uniform. He rests his belief on no support whatever. I defy him to give his reasons for it in a serious discussion, I will not say before a Catholic, but before an Infidel.

On the other hand, there is nothing more logical and more justifiable than the faith of the Catholic. The Catholic is united to Jesus Christ, the author of his faith, through the bonds of Holy Church, the living and permanent institution established for that very purpose by the Saviour himself, and connected with him by bonds existing for ages. The Protestant has severed this divine bond; and therefore he is separated from Jesus Christ although he may believe in him. It is not enough to call Jesus Lord and Saviour in order to partake of his kingdom: it is necessary to comply with his divine will, as he himself expressly declares.

I shall not stop here to show that a Protestant cannot rest his belief on the authority and teachings of the pastors of his sect. It is well known that it is one of the principles of Protestantism, that all Christians are equal, and it does not behoove any one to play the teacher. In the language of the Protestant Jean Jacques Rousseau, "Ministers do not know what they believe, nor what they aim at, nor what they say. It cannot even be ascertained what they pretend to believe." (Lettres sur la Montagne.)

As a comment on these words we add those of De Maistre: —

"As one of these preachers attempts to speak, on what does he rest his assertions, and what means has he to know that the people below are not laughing at him in their sleeves? It seems to me as if every one of his hearers says to him with a sceptical smile: 'Truly I believe that he believes I believe him!'"

XVIII. Christianity and Catholicity are one and the same Thing. — When you say Christianity you mean Catholicity; Catholicity is not an accidental form, but indeed the only one divinely instituted form of Christian religion.

From the very first ages, the Church of Jesus Christ has been called not only Christian, but also Catholic, in order to distinguish it from the different heresies which cut loose from her, and still persisted in calling themselves Christian, because they happened to preserve some shreds of truth.

It was our Lord Jesus Christ, who established upon earth this spiritual government, this religious and universal monarchy, which unites the Christians all over the world in One Society, One Church, One Body, which is called the Catholic Church. It is Jesus Christ himself who has established in this Church the Papacy, the Episcopate, and, as an auxiliary to Papacy and Episcopate, the Priesthood. The Pope, successor of Saint Peter, is, by right divine, Sovereign Pontiff of the Christian religion, the Pastor of all bishops, of all priests, and of all the faithful, the Supreme Judge of all religious questions, and the Doctor of true faith.

"There is only one way to be a Christian, and that is to be a Catholic," says Bossuet: which means to belong not only in sympathy and belief, but also in avowed and public practice, to the Catholic Church, to the Church governed by the Pope, to the only true Fold of Jesus Christ.

There has never been nor can there be but one Christianity. If Protestantism were Christianity, Catholicity could not be it.

This is not a question of form, it is one of nature. The institution of Jesus Christ cannot be made subject to the caprice of man, and the Protestant who fangles a Christianism to suit his own fancy has not the true Christianity, that Christianity which our Lord has brought into the world, and whose deposit and diffusion he has trusted to the Church.

In our times this glorious name of Christian has been strangely abused. From the Protestant who admits or rejects at will the divinity of Jesus Christ, to the Socialist, who sees no hope of liberty but in the annihilation of the Church, the whole crowd of heretics and revolutionists make a parade of their Christianity — but oh, what a Christianity!

To be a Christian is to be a Catholic: outside of Catholicity you may be a Lutheran, a Calvinist, a Mahommedan, a Mormon, a Free Thinker, a Buddhist, but you are not, you cannot be a Christian.

[Stone]

XIX. Protestantism and Primitive Christianity.


— It is very common for certain Protestant sects to pretend that they have revived primitive Christianity, or rather that they are the Christianity of Primitive Times. Some Protestant authors have endeavored to give a color of truth to these pretensions of antiquity by forging, with great trouble, interminable genealogies, and pointing with a zeal, worthy of a better cause, to all the characteristics of the primitive Church in the different branches of the reformation. Let them do their best to cover with dust this Protestantism, which did not exist three hundred years ago; let them cover it with cobwebs like those bottles which merchants place on the front of their shops, but which, on being broken, reveal only sloe-wine and vinegar.

But such boasts are not believed, and many Protestant writers, well instructed and conscientious, avow their absurdity. However, it is not in behalf of the Catholic Church that they strip the Protestant sects of their pretensions. They do not recognize our practices of piety and the forms of our worship in the Gospel or in the writings of the Apostles: hence they accuse the Catholic Church as having encumbered Christianity with dogmas and practices which have disfigured it; and in their opinion Catholicity is as different from the Christianity of the primitive ages as the Protestantism of to-day.* This is the place to give a distinct and true idea of this Catholic Church, which is so contradictorily accused both of inactivity and stagnation, and of restlessness and innovation.

There never was, nor can there ever be, but one Church of Christ, — a Church immutable like her head and founder, who is God. But this Church is a living body, and however perfect she is from her origin, she develops and adapts her beneficial influences apace with the progress of centuries. Man does not possess at his birth that fulness of strength, that beauty of symmetry, that expansion of all his faculties, which add so much to the perfection of his nature. At his birth he possesses all this; but he has had no opportunity as yet to work out its development. But still he is always the same individual, whether he is a tender infant, an adolescent, or a full-grown man. Thus the Church, which was born with the Twelve Men in the cenacle, has grown and developed her strength through the growth of succeeding ages. Like a splendid drapery, which slowly deploys and progressively unfolds its beautiful colors, so the Church has successively opened to the world the treasures of her doctrine and the sanctification which emanates from her bosom.

The Catholic Church is ever old and new. She teaches to-day what she taught in her primitive days. Some of her teachings have been more clearly defined, according as they have been attacked by her enemies, or the wants of the people have required more explicit definitions.

At the same time, whoever has seriously applied himself to the study of antiquity, the origin of Christianity, and the writings of the Fathers, has invariably found in the documents of ancient times repeated proofs of the perfect unity of Christian faith and religion, from the Apostolic Fathers down to our own times. The Papacy, Catholic Hierarchy, the Priesthood, the Sacrifice of Mass, and the Real Presence, Confession, the veneration of Our Lady, of saints and of relics, the prayers for the dead; in a word, whatever is attacked in our belief by dissenters, all is fully proven and justified by those monuments so venerable and so authentic.

The discoveries made, during the last twenty years, in the catacombs of Rome,* bring to light every day new testimonials of our faith and practices. Learned Protestants, on visiting the capital of the Christian world, admit at once the undeniable authenticity and the religious importance of these discoveries. Inscriptions, paintings, monuments, etc., etc., portray the forms of our worship, and trace the origin of our belief. The catacombs contain numerous chapels, with altars, upon which the relics of the martyrs are enshrined. On their walls frescos, greatly injured by the hand of time, still reveal the faith of the primitive Christian in the Real Presence, in the eucharistical sacrifice, and in confession. At every step you meet with proofs of the belief in the Papacy, the Episcopacy, and the Priesthood.

I happened once to visit the catacombs with a young Protestant gentleman, who had just come from Strasburg, where he had been studying for the ministry. He was greatly astonished with what he saw. He was a well-disposed young man, intelligent, and loyal. He did not dare to deny the evidence of what he saw before him, and knew not what to say.

I have not seen him since. God grant that those mighty truths, so plainly spoken to his heart from the walls of the catacombs, may lead him to the pale of Catholic Unity!

[Stone]

XX. Why does the Catholic Church speak Latin?


— Because she is apostolic; because she never varies her doctrine; because she is one and catholic.

1. The Church is apostolic. She is the Church of St. Peter and of the Apostles, and she has guarded with tenderness all the precious memories of the Apostles. When they parted for their mission over the four quarters of the globe, to announce to all nations the Gospel of Salvation, they found that two languages were spoken and understood by the two great divisions of mankind, — the Latin in the West and the Greek in the East. Hence they preached the Faith in Latin and Greek; their teachings and their constitutions were written in those two fine languages; and the Church has preserved these monuments with a religious veneration. This is the reason why her language in the West is Latin, and Greek in the East. Yet that, which in fact is a testimony in favor of the Church, is made the theme of reproach to her.

2. Providence had already disposed everything in advance. Latin and Greek became dead languages, and hence invariable; whereby they became wonderfully adapted to formulate the doctrines of the Church, which knows no variation, because she is divine. An interesting calculation, instituted on the changes of living languages, has shown that had the Church, instead of adhering to the Latin of St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Mark, etc., adopted the French, she would have been obliged to modify the formula of the sacrament of Baptism one hundred and sixty times; otherwise this formula would never have expressed in the correct language the idea it must convey. By this we can form an idea of the transformations which the Credo should have undergone, to say nothing of the decrees of primitive councils and of ancient Popes!

3. The Church speaks Latin, not only because she is unchangeable, but because she is catholic, which means universal, and has to address herself to all times, nations, and countries. During the three or four first centuries the Latin was the language of the civilized world, and, although a vernacular language, it had that catholic, i.e. universal character which is indispensable to the language of the Church.

Whilst the world was divided into many nationalities, the Church still preserved her beautiful primitive language, and thus remained one in her forms as she has ever been in her essence.

Thus the Church speaks Latin because, first, she is apostolic; second, she is unchangeable; third, she is catholic.

But, it is objected, Saint Paul directs that in all Christian assemblies a language should be used which is understood by all the faithful. True, he says that much in his Epistle to the Corinthians. But the Protestants draw hence an objection which has nothing at all to do with the present question. The Apostle confines himself to the preaching, exhorting, and instructing the assembled faithful, which all, he says, must be done in the vernacular language. The word prophecy comprehends instructions, the speaking on things divine. The Catholic Church has invariably followed this apostolic command to the letter. Her bishops, priests, missionaries, and catechists always employ a language common to all, understood by all. They speak in the most obscure and poorest dialects in order that the Word of God may reach all understandings. The Protestant sects have good reason indeed to speak in vernacular and modern tongues. Languages of different geniuses, essentially variable, and forever changing, admirably express doctrines of such fluctuating characters.