Chapter XXXI Matrimony
Matrimony is not only a natural contract between husband and wife, but it has been elevated for Christians, by Jesus Christ, to the dignity of a Sacrament: “Husbands,” says the Apostle, “love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and delivered Himself up for it,... so also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.... For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife and they shall be one flesh. This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church.”536
In these words the Apostle declares that the union of Christ with His Church is the type or model of the bond subsisting between man and wife. Now the union between Christ and His Church is supernatural and sealed by Divine grace. Hence, also, is the fellowship of a Christian husband and wife cemented by the grace of God. The wedded couple are bound to love one another during their whole lives, as Christ has loved His Church, and to discharge the virtues proper to the married state. In order to fulfil these duties special graces of our Savior are required.
The Fathers, Councils and Liturgies of the Western and the Oriental Churches, including the Coptic, Jacobite, Syriac, Nestorian and other schismatic bodies, which for upwards of fourteen centuries have been separated from the Catholic communion, all agree in recognizing Christian marriage as a Sacrament.
Hence the Council of Trent, speaking of Matrimony, says: “Christ Himself, the Institutor and Perfector of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His passion the grace which might perfect that natural love, and confirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the married; as the Apostle Paul intimates, saying: ‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself for it;’ adding shortly after: ‘This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.’ (Ephes. v.) Whereas, therefore matrimony, in the evangelical law, excels in grace, through Christ, the ancient marriages; with reason have our holy Fathers and Councils and the tradition of the universal Church always taught that it is to be numbered among the sacraments of the new law.”537
The Gospel forbids a man to have more than one wife, and a wife to have more than one husband. “Have you not read,” says our Savior, “that He who made man in the beginning made them male and female? And He said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh.”538 Our Lord recalls marriage to its primitive institution as it was ordained by Almighty God. (Gen. ii.) Now, marriage in its primitive ordinance was the union of one man with one woman, for Jehovah created but one helpmate to Adam. He would have created more, if His design had been to establish polygamy. The Scripture says that “man shall adhere to his wife,”—not his wives. It does not declare that they shall be three or more, but that “they shall be two in one flesh.”
Hence Mormonism, unhappily so prevalent in the United States, is at variance with the plain teachings of the Gospel, and is consequently condemned by the Catholic Church. Polygamy, wherever it exists, cannot fail to be a perpetual source of family discord and feuds. It fosters deadly jealousy and hate among the wives of the same household; it deranges the laws of succession and primogeniture and breeds rivalry among the children, each endeavoring to supplant the other in the affections and the inheritance of their common father.
Marriage is the most inviolable and irrevocable of all contracts that were ever formed. Every human compact may be lawfully dissolved but this. Nations may be justified in abrogating treaties with each other; merchants may dissolve partnerships; brothers will eventually leave the paternal roof, and, like Jacob and Esau, separate from one another. Friends, like Abraham and Lot, may be obliged to part company. But by the law of God the bond uniting husband and wife can be dissolved only by death. No earthly sword can sever the nuptial knot which the Lord has tied; for, “what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
It is worthy of remark that three of the Evangelists, as well as the Apostle of the Gentiles, proclaim the indissolubility of marriage and forbid a wedded person to engage in second wedlock during the life of his spouse. There is, indeed, scarcely a moral precept more strongly enforced in the Gospel than the indissoluble character of marriage validly contracted.
“The Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting Him and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who, answering, said to them: Have ye not read that He who made man from the beginning made them male and female? And He said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder. They say to Him: Why, then, did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away? He said to them: Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.”539 Our Savior here emphatically declares that the nuptial bond is ratified by God Himself, and hence that no man, nor any legislation framed by men, can validly dissolve the contract.
To the Pharisees interposing this objection, if marriage is not to be dissolved, why then did Moses command to give a divorce, our Lord replies that Moses did not command, but simply permitted the separation, and that in tolerating this indulgence the great lawgiver had regard to the violent passion of the Jewish people, who would fall into a greater excess if their desire to be divorced and to form a new alliance were refused. But our Savior reminded them that in the primitive times no such license was granted.
He then plainly affirms that such a privilege would not be conceded in the New Dispensation, for He adds: “I say to you: whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery.” Protestant commentators erroneously assert that the text justifies an injured husband in separating from his adulterous wife and in marrying again. But the Catholic Church explains the Gospel in the sense that, while the offended consort may obtain a divorce from bed and board from his unfaithful wife, he is not allowed a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, so as to have the privilege of marrying another.
This interpretation is confirmed by the concurrent testimony of the Evangelists Mark and Luke and by St. Paul, all of whom prohibit divorce a vinculo without any qualification whatever.
In St. Mark we read: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery.”540
The same unqualified declaration is made by St. Luke: “Every one that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”541 Both of these Evangelists forbid either husband or wife to enter into second wedlock, how aggravating soever may be the cause of their separation. And surely, if the case of adultery authorized the aggrieved husband to marry another wife, those inspired penmen would not have failed to mention that qualifying circumstance.
Passing from the Gospels to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, we find there also an absolute prohibition of divorce. The Apostle is writing to a city newly converted to the Christian religion. Among other topics he inculcates the doctrine of the Church respecting Matrimony. We must suppose that as an inspired writer and a faithful minister of the Word he discharges his duty conscientiously, without suppressing or extenuating one iota of the law. He addresses the Corinthians as follows: “To them that are married not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.”542 Here we find the Apostle, in his Master’s name, commanding the separated couple to remain unmarried, without any reference to the case of adultery. If so important an exception existed, St. Paul would not have omitted to mention it; otherwise he would have rendered the Gospel yoke more grievous than its Founder intended.
We must, therefore, admit that, according to the religion of Jesus Christ, conjugal infidelity does not warrant either party to marry again, or we are forced to the conclusion that the vast number of Christians whose knowledge of Christianity was derived solely from the teachings of Saints Mark, Luke and Paul were imperfectly instructed in their faith.
Nor can we suppose that St. Matthew gave to the married Christians of Palestine a privilege which St. Paul withheld from the Corinthians; for then the early Christian Church might have witnessed the disedifying spectacle of aggrieved husbands seeking in Judea for a divorce from their adulterous wives which they could not obtain in Corinth, just as discontented spouses, in our times, sue in a neighboring State for a legal separation which is denied them in their own. Christ is not divided, nor do the Apostles contradict one another.
The Catholic Church, following the light of the Gospel, forbids a divorced man to enter into second espousals during the life of his former partner. This is the inflexible law she first proclaimed in the face of Pagan Emperors and people and which she has ever upheld, in spite of the passions and voluptuousness of her own rebellious children.
Henry VIII., once an obedient son and defender of the Church, conceived in an evil hour, a criminal attachment for Anne Boleyn, a lady of the queen’s household, whom he desired to marry after being divorced from his lawful consort, Catherine of Arragon. But Pope Clement VII., whose sanction he solicited, sternly refused to ratify the separation, though the Pontiff could have easily forseen that his determined action would involve the Church in persecution, and a whole nation in the unhappy schism of its ruler. Had the Pope acquiesced in the repudiation of Catherine, and in the marriage of Anne Boleyn, England would, indeed, have been spared to the Church, but the Church herself would have surrendered her peerless title of Mistress of Truth.
When Napoleon I. repudiated his devoted wife, Josephine, and married Marie Louise, of Austria, so well assured was he of the fruitlessness of his attempt to obtain from the Holy See the sanction of his divorce and subsequent marriage that he did not even consult the Holy Father on the subject.
A few years previously Napoleon appealed to Pius VII. to annul the marriage which his brother Jerome had contracted with Miss Patterson of Baltimore. The Pope sent the following reply to the Emperor: “Your majesty will understand that upon the information thus far received by us it is not in our power to pronounce a sentence of nullity. We cannot utter a judgment in opposition to the rules of the Church, and we could not, without laying aside those rules, decree the invalidity of a union which, according to the Word of God, no human power can sunder.”
Christian wives and mothers, what gratitude you owe to the Catholic Church for the honorable position you now hold in society! If you are no longer regarded as the slave, but the equal of your husband; if you are no longer the toy of his caprice and liable to be discarded at any moment, like the women of Turkey and the Mormon wives of Utah; but if you are recognized as the mistress and queen of your household, you owe your emancipation to the Church. You are especially indebted for your liberty to the Popes who rose up in all the majesty of their spiritual power to vindicate the rights of injured wives against the lustful tyranny of their husbands.
How opposite is the conduct of the fathers of the so-called Reformation, who, with the cry of religious reform on their lips, deformed religion and society by sanctioning divorce.
Henry VIII. was divorced from his wife, Catherine, by Cranmer, the first Reformed Primate of England.
Luther and his colleagues, Melanchthon and Bucer, permitted Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, to have two wives at the same time.543 Karlstadt, another German Reformer, justified polygamy.544
Modern Prussia is now reaping the bitter fruits of the seeds that were then sown within its borders. Seventy-five per cent. of the marriages now contracted outside of the Catholic Church in Berlin are performed without any religious ceremony whatever. A union not bound by the strong ties of religion is easily dissolved.
This subject excites a painful interest in our own country, in consequence of the facility with which divorce from the marriage bond is obtained in many of our States. We have here another exemplification of the dangerous consequences attending a private interpretation of the sacred text. When Luther and Calvin proclaimed to the world that “it was not wise to prohibit the divorced adulterer from marrying again,”545 they little dreamed of the fruitful progeny which was destined before long to spring from this isolated monster of their creation. There are already about thirty causes which allow the conjugal tie to be broken, some of which are of so trifling a nature as to provoke merriment were it not for the gravity of the subject, which is well calculated to excite alarm for the moral and social welfare of our country.
Persons are divorced by the courts not only for infidelity, but also without even the shadow of Scripture authority—for alleged cruelty, intemperance, desertion, prolonged absence, mental incapacity, sentence to the penitentiary, incompatibility of temper and such other causes as the court, in its discretion, may deem sufficient.
For the year ending June, 1874, seventeen hundred and forty-two applications for divorce were presented in the State of Ohio. If such is Ohio’s record, what must be the matrimonial condition of Indiana, which is called the paradise of discontented spouses.
In Connecticut there were, in 1875, four thousand three hundred and eighty-five marriages, and four hundred and sixty-six divorces from the marriage bond. The number of divorces obtained in the same State during the last fifteen years has reached five thousand three hundred and ninety-one. This is the record of a State whose public school system is considered the most thorough and perfect in the country. The statistics given of Ohio and Connecticut will enable us to form some idea of the fearful catalogue of divorces annually obtained in the United States.
There are some who regard the Catholic Church as too severe in proclaiming the absolute indissolubility of marriage. But it should be borne in mind that it is not the Church, but the Divine Founder of the Christian religion, that has given us the law. She merely enforces its observance.
The law, how rigorous soever, is mercy itself, when compared with the cruel consequences which follow from the easy concession of divorce.
The facility with which marriage is annulled is most injurious to the morals of individuals, of the family and of society. It leads to ill-assorted and hasty marriages, because persons are less circumspect in making a compact which may be afterwards dissolved almost at will. It stimulates a discontented and unprincipled husband or wife to lawlessness, quarrels and even adultery, well knowing that the very crime will afford a pretext and legal grounds for a separation. It engenders between husband and wife fierce litigations about the custody of their offspring. It deprives the children of the protecting arm of a father, or of the gentle care of a mother, and too frequently consigns them to the cold charity of the world; for the married couple who are wanting in conjugal love for one another are too often destitute also of parental affection. In a word, it brings into the household a blight and desolation which neither wealth nor luxury can repair.
There is but one remedy to this social distemper, and that is an absolute prohibition of divorce a vinculo, in accordance with the inflexible rule of the Gospel and of the ancient Church. In Catholic countries divorces are exceedingly rare, and are obtained only by such as have thrown off the yoke of the Church. If the sacred laws of Matrimony are still happily observed by so large a portion of the Protestant community, the purity of morals is in no small measure due to the presence among them of the Catholic religion, which exercises a beneficial influence even over those who are outside the pale of her communion, like the sun, whose benignant light and heat are felt even in those secluded spots which his rays can but obliquely and dimly penetrate.
Footnotes
1 Dryden, Hind and Panther.
2 Matt. xvi. 26.
3 II. Cor. iv. 17.
4 Rom. ix. 5.
5 Athanasian Creed.
6 Matt. xi.
7 Acts iv. 12.
8 Isaiah liii. 5.
9 Luke ix. 23.
10 II. Cor. iv. 10.
11 Gal. vi. 14.
12 De Corona, C. iii.
13 Mark xvi. 15.
14 Luke x. 16.
15 Symb. Constantinop.
16 John xvii. 20, 21.
17 Gal. v. 20, 21.
18 Ephes. iv. 3-6.
19 Matt. xvi. 18.
20 Luke i. 32, 33.
21 Matt. xii. 25.
22 John x. 16.
23 Rom. xii. 4, 5.
24 John xv. 5.
25 Apoc. xxi. 9.
26 I. Cor. xiv. 33.
27 Job xxxviii. 11.
28 Heb. xiii. 8.
29 De Civitate Dei, Lib. 16, Cap. ii., No. 1.
30 I. Pet. ii. 9.
31 Heb. i. 3.
32 Exod. xxv. 40.
33 Lev. xix. 2.
34 Matt. v. 48.
35 Eph. v. 1.
36 Ephes. iv. 11, 13.
37 Deut. vi. 6, 7.
38 Apoc. iii. 7.
39 Matt. xvi. 26.
40 Gal. iii. 27.
41 Eph. v. 25-27.
42 Heb. xi. 37.
43 Coloss. iii. 3.
44 I. Tim. i. 15.
45 Matt. xi. 5.
46 Matt. xiii. 24-37.
47 Ibid. xiii. 47.
48 II. Tim. ii. 20.
49 Dial. contra Lucif.
50 Hom. 12, in Evang.
51 In Ps. viii., ii. 13.
52 Cant. vi. 9.
53 I. Cor. i.
54 I. Cor. v.
55 Luther, Zuinglius, and Knox had been ordained priests. Calvin had studied for the priesthood, but did not receive Orders.
56 Ps. xii.
57 Mal. i. 11.
58 Matt. xxviii. 19.
59 Mark xvi. 15.
60 Acts i. 8.
61 Rom. x. 18.
62 Rom. i. 18.
63 Adv. Hær., i. 1.
64 Apologet. c. 37.
65 St. Aug. de Ver. Rel., c. 7. n. 12.
66 Does not this fact conclusively demonstrate the truth that the Catholic Church can subsist under every form of government? And is it not an eloquent refutation of the oft repeated calumny that a republic is not a favorable soil for her development?
67 Apoc. v. 9.
68 Malachy i. 11.
69 Ps. lxxxiii.
70 Eph. ii. 20.
71 Gal. i. 8.
72 II. Tim. ii. 2.
73 Heb. v. 4.
74 Rom. x. 15.
75 Acts xiv. 22.
76 Tit. i. 5.
77 Acts xiii. 2, 3.
78 Matt. xvi. 18.
79 Luke xxii. 32.
80 John xxi. 15.
81 Thess. ii. 13.
82 Acts xv. 28.
83 Gal. i. 8.
84 Matt. vi. 17.
85 Acts xiii. 2.
86 Acts xiv. 22.
87 I. Cor. xiv. 34, 35.
88 Acts viii. 17.
89 Matt. xxvi. 26-28.
90 I. Cor. x. 16.
91 John xx. 28.
92 II. Cor. v. 18.
93 James v. 14.
94 Mark x. 11, 12.
95 I. Cor. vii, 10, 11.
96 I. Cor. vii.
97 History of the Church of England, by Thomas. V. Short, Bishop of St. Asaph’s, p. 44.
98 Book of Homilies.
99 Lib. de Præscrip., c. 32.
100 Psal. contra part Donati.
101 Luke i. 32, 33.
102 Matt. xvi. 18.
103 Matt. xxviii. 20.
104 Except some Oriental sects dating back to the fifth and ninth centuries.
105 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xxxvii, p. 450.
106 Du Pape, 1, 2, c. 5.
107 Psalm cii. 5.
108 Psalm ii. 1-4.
109 Daniel, iii.
110 Tyndall, Study of Physics.
111 Psalm ci. 27-29.
112 Eph. ii. 19, 20.
113 Matt. xxviii. 20.
114 See Gal. iv. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 13.
115 Matt. xvi. 18.
116 Matt. vii. 24, et seq.
117 John xx. 21.
118 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
119 Mark xvi. 15.
120 Acts i. 8.
121 Matt. x. 14, 15.
122 Matt. xviii. 17.
123 Mark xvi. 16.
124 Luke x. 16.
125 John xiv. 16; xvi. 13.
126 Matt. xxviii. 18-20.
127 Ex. iii. 12; Jer. xv. 20, etc.
128 Eph. iv. 11-14.
129 Heb. xi. 6.
130 Tim. iii. 7.
131 Isaiah xxxv. 8.
132 Ps. cxxxii.
133 Matt. xviii. 3.
134 Pet. ii. 2.
135 Deut. xvii. 8, et seq.
136 Mal. ii. 7.
137 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
138 John v. 39.
139 Except when He directed St. John to write the Apocalypse, i. 11.
140 Matt. xxviii. 19.
141 Mark xvi. 15.
142 Luke x. 16.
143 Mark xvi. 20.
144 I. Tim., ii. 4.
145 Martinet, Religion in Society, Vol. II., c. 10.
146 II. Pet., iii. 16.
147 Ibid., i. 20.
148 Acts, viii. 31.
149 Except, perhaps, Rev. H. W. Beecher. who thinks that God is glorified by the variety of sects.
150 See John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.
151 III. Kings xiv. 19.
152 Dialog. 3, 14.
153 Deut. xvii.
154 I. Cor. x. 11.
155 Prov. viii. 15.
156 Matt. xvi. 13-19.
157 Rev. i. 18.
158 John xxi. 15-17.
159 Matt. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 14.
160 Acts iii.
161 Acts ii.
162 Acts x.
163 Acts i.
164 Acts xv.
165 Acts xii.
166 Gal. ii. 11.
167 Gal. i. 18.
168 Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, B. II., c. xv.
169 Epist. 113.
170 See Butler’s Lives of the Saints—St. Olave, July 29th.
171 Ps. lii.
172 Gen. xi. 4.
173 Numb. xxiv. 5.
174 Conc. Vat. Const. Pastor Æternus, c. 4.
175 Conc. Vat. Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4; Coloss. ii. 8.
176 Matt. xvi.
177 Matt. xvi.
178 Ibid.
179 Luke xxii. 31, 32.
180 John xxi. 16, 17.
181 Matt. viii. 20.
182 Acts iv. 34, 35.
183 Sometimes called Stephen II., as Stephen, his predecessor, died three days after his election, whose name is omitted in some calendars.
184 III. Kings xxi. 3.
185 II. Kings xii.
186 I dare say you could have found, a few years since, some persons in the United States who entertained a holy fear lest the Pope should one morning land upon our shores, and take forcible possession of our country. A venerable clergyman once informed me that when he went to pay his respects to President Pierce, who then occupied the White House, his Excellency remarked to him: “I had a visit from a nervous gentleman, who asked me whether I was making any preparations to resist the approach of the Pope. I replied that so far I had taken no steps, but that no doubt I would be prepared to meet the enemy when he arrived. The man retired more composed, though not fully satisfied.”
187 Some of the evils that were predicted to follow from the occupation of Rome by a foreign power have been too speedily realized. Already several convents and other ecclesiastical institutions have been seized and sold, and their inmates sent adrift. A number of colleges founded and endowed by the piety of foreign Catholics have been confiscated. Public religious processions through the streets of Rome have been prohibited. These and other outrages are perpetrated by a government which solemnly pledged itself to maintain inviolate the sovereign rights of the Holy Father when it took forcible possession of his city in 1870. From the events that have already transpired, we shall not be surprised to see the Pope still more seriously hampered by a monarch who has unscrupulously violated his former guarantees.
188 Memoir of Pope Sixtus V., by Baron Hübner, Vol. II., ch. 1.
189 When these lines were written, Pius IX. was the reigning Pontiff. He died February 7, 1878.
190 Some time ago, my attention was called to a certain excommunication or “curse,” then widely circulated by the press of North Carolina. The “curse” is attributed to the Holy Father, and is fulminated against Victor Emmanuel. In this anathema, cursing and damning are heaped up in wild confusion. When this base forgery appeared, an article exposing the falsehood of the production was published. We fear, however, that many who read the slanderous charge did not read its refutation.
191 Matt. xvi. 18.
192 I. Cor. xiii. 12.
193 Gen. xlviii. 16.
194 Tobias xii. 12.
195 Luke xv. 10.
196 I. Cor. iv. 9.
197 Matt. xxii. 30.
198 Gen. xxviii.
199 Exod. xvii.
200 Baruch i. 13.
201 Job xlii.
202 Ibid.
203 II. Paralip. vii. 15.
204 II. Mac. xv. 14.
205 Revel. v. 8.
206 Zach. i. 12, 13.
207 I. Tim. ii. 5.
208 Council of Trent, Sess. xxv.
209 Prov. xv. 20.
210 Luke vi. 19.
211 Matt. ix. 20.
212 Exod. iv. 12.
213 Jer. i. 5.
214 Luke i. 41.
215 Ibid. i. 15.
216 John v. 35.
217 Acts ii.
218 II Cor. iii. 6.
219 Acts iii. 15.
220 Isaiah iii. 11.
221 Luke i. 26, 27.
222 Matt. i. 25.
223 Matt. i. 25.
224 Book V., ch. xlv.
225 Gen. viii. 7.
226 Kings xv. 35.
227 Ps. cix.
228 Josue xvii. 1.
229 Matt. xii. 46; xiii. 55, 56.
230 Ibid.
231 Matt xxvii.; Mark xv.
232 John xix. 25.
233 Gen. xiii. 8.
234 Bulla Dogmat. Pii Papæ IX.
235 Ibid.
236 Gen. iii. 15.
237 I. Cor. xv. 45.
238 Bibliotheca Max. Patrum, t. 2, p. 3.
239 De sac. ordinat., p. 313.
240 Renaudot. Lit. Orient.
241 Luke i. 26-35.
242 I. Cor. xv. 41.
243 St. Bernard.
244 Judges, v.
245 Judith, xiii.
246 Luke i. 39-45.
247 Luke i. 46-48.
248 Oliver W. Holmes.
249 Luke xi. 27.
250 Esther vi. 11.
251 Ps. cxxxviii. (In Protestant version, Ps. cxxxix.)
252 John xv. 14.
253 John xii. 26.
254 Ps. lxxxvi.
255 Judith xiii.
256 Eccles. xliii. et seq.
257 Luke i.
258 Ibid.
259 Luke i. 49.
260 Gen. xlviii. 16; Tobias xii. 12; Luke xv. 10; Zach. i. 12, 13.
261 Acts vii. 55.
262 II. Cor. xii. 4.
263 Luke ii. 51.
264 Longfellow’s “Golden Legend.”
265 Isaiah xlix. 15.
266 Heb. ii 11.
267 Luke xv. 7.
268 Luke xxii. 29, 30.
269 I. Cor. vi.
270 Longfellow’s “Golden Legend.”
271 Luke ii. 51.
272 Heb. i. 3.
273 Rom. viii. 29.
274 Sess. xxv.
275 Chap. xx.
276 Apoc. xxi.
277 III. Kings vi.
278 II. Kings vii. 2.
279 At the Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Va., in the sanctuary of the chapel, the portrait of an opulent benefactor holds a conspicuous place.
280 Exod. xxv. 40.
281 Sess. xxv.
282 II. Mach. xii. 43-46.
283 Matt. xii. 32.
284 I. Cor. iii. 13-15.
285 De Monogam., n. x.
286 Euseb., B. iv., c. 71.
287 Catech., n. 9, 10, p. 328.
288 Apud Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 162 and seq.
289 See Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 176.
290 Ibid., p. 177.
291 Ibid., Vol. II.
292 Confessions, Book ix.
293 Jewish Prayer Book. Edited by Isaac Leeser, published by Slote & Mooney, Philadelphia.
294 Act. I.
295 See Path of Holiness, Rivington’s, London. Treasury of Devotion, Ibid. Catechism of Theology, Masten, London.
296 Mark xii. 26, 27.
297 Apoc. xxi. 27.
298 Morte D’Arthur.
299 Eccles. xi. 1.
300 Vie de Fenelon.
301 Becanus, de Virtutibus Theologicis, c. 16, quæst. 4, No. 2.
302 Dr. Brownson, who was then a Protestant.
303 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii. 20th Edition, 1864.
304 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii.
305 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii. Vide Bacon’s Laws.
306 Ibid.
307 Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I., ch. vii. Vide Bacon’s Laws.
308 Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1884.
309 Ibid., Chapter iii.
310 Ibid., Chap. v.
311 Ibid., Chap. xi.
312 Ibid. Chap. xi.
313 James Walter Thomas.
314 The original of Washington’s reply is still preserved in the Archives of the Baltimore Cathedral.
315 Ps. ii.
316 II. Tim. ii. 9.
317 II. Tim. iv. 2.
318 “Ferdinand and Isabella,” Vol. III., p. 202.
319 Blue Laws.
320 For an impartial account of the Inquisition, the reader is referred to the “Letters on the Spanish Inquisition,” by the Count de Maistre.
321 “The Ottoman and Spanish Empires,” by Leopold Ranke.
322 Constitutional History; Elizabeth, Chap. III.
323 See Lingard, Vol. VII., pp. 244-5.
324 Macaulay’s Essays, “Review of Nares’ Memoirs of Lord Burleigh.”
325 II. Cor. iii. 5.
326 Phil. ii. 13.
327 John xv. 5.
328 Acts ii. 38.
329 Matt. xxviii. 19.
330 See Wisdom ii. 23.
331 Rom. v. 12.
332 Eph. ii. 3.
333 Job xiv. 4.
334 Ps. l. 7.
335 Gen. iii. 15.
336 Gal. iv. 4, 5.
337 John iii. 5.
338 Acts xvi. 15.
339 Ibid. xvi. 33.
340 I. Cor. i. 16.
341 Lib. II. adr. Hær.
342 In Ep. ad Rom.
343 Epis. ad Fidum.
344 Apoc. xxi. 27.
345 Rom. xi. 33, 34.
346 Ezech. xxxvi. 25, 26.
347 Acts ii. 38.
348 Ibid. xxii. 16.
349 Gal. iii. 26, 27.
350 I. Cor. vi. 11.
351 Tit. iii. 3-7.
352 John v.
353 Acts ii. 41.
354 Acts viii. 14-17.
355 Acts xix. 5, 6.
356 Heb. vi. 1, 2.
357 II. Cor. i. 21.
358 Tract VI. in Ep. Joan.
359 De Resur. car.
360 Epist. lxxiii.
361 Cat. xxi. Mys. iii. De S. Chrism.
362 De Myst. cvii. n. 42.
363 Dial. adv. Lucifer.
364 L. II., contra lit. Petil.
365 Roman Pontifical.
366 II. Cor. x. 5.
367 John vi. 48-56.
368 John vi. 61.
369 Ibid. vi. 67.
370 John iii.
371 Matt. xvi.
372 John vi. 68, 69.
373 Matt. xxvi. 26-28.
374 Luke xxii. 19.
375 I. Cor. x. 16, and xi. 23-29.
376 See “Faith of Catholics.” Vol. II.
377 John vi. 51, and seq.
378 Rom. vi. 9.
379 I. Cor. xi. 27.
380 Aug. De consec. dist.
381 De formula Missæ.
382 Systema Theol., p. 250.
383 Acts ii. 42.
384 Ibid. xx. 7.
385 Alzog’s Hist., Vol. I., p. 721.
386 Denziger, Rit. Orientales.
387 While Protestants consider the cup as an indispensable part of the communion service, they do not seem, in many instances, to be very particular as to what the cup will contain. And the New York Independent, of September 21, 1876, relates the following incident: “A late English traveler found a Baptist mission church, in far-off Burmah, using for the communion service Bass’s pale ale instead of wine. The opening of the frothing bottle on the communion table seemed not quite decorous to the visitor, who presented the pastor with a half-dozen bottles of claret for sacramental use.”
388 Gen. iv.
389 Gen. viii.
390 Ibid. xv.
391 Job. i.
392 Numb. xxviii.
393 II. Mac. xii. 43-46.
394 Heb. x. 4, 7.
395 Isaiah i. 11-13.
396 Mal. i. 10, 11.
397 I. Cor. xi. 23-26.
398 Heb. xiii. 10.
399 Ibid. vii. 12.
400 Ps. cix. 4; Heb. v. 6.
401 Gen. xiv. 18.
402 Heb. ix. 25.
403 Ibid. x. 11, 12.
404 I. John ii. 1, 2.
405 Heb. ix. 13, 14.
406 Heb. iv. 16.
407 John iv. 23, 24.
408 Dan. iii. 62, 63. Though this passage is omitted in the Protestant Bible, it is retained in the Book of Common Prayer.
409 Psalm. xviii. 1.
410 Rom. xii. 1.
411 Matt. xxvi.
412 Ibid. xxi.
413 Ibid. xxvi.
414 Mark vii.
415 John xx.
416 Acts viii.
417 James v.
418 Apocalypse, passim.
419 II. Cor. iii. 9.
420 Isaiah xxix. 13.
421 Ibid. i. 72.
422 Ps. cl.
423 Joel ii. 13.
424 Ibid. ii. 15-17.
425 I. Cor. xiii.
426 Phil. ii. 10.
427 I. Tim. iv. 4.
428 Exod. xxv. 31, and seq.
429 Ps. cxl.
430 Exod. xxx. 7.
431 Luke i. 9, 10.
432 John xii. 6.
433 Exod. xxviii. 4.
434 Apoc. vii. 9, 10.
435 Matt. i. 21.
436 Matt. ix. 2.
437 John v. 14.
438 II. Cor. v. 18-20.
439 Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
440 Matt. xviii. 18.
441 John xx. 21-23.
442 Isaiah i. 18.
443 Acts xix. 18.
444 I. John i. 9.
445 In Reg. Brev., quæst, ccxxix., T. II., p. 492.
446 Ibid., cclxxxviii., p. 516.
447 See Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 74 and seq.
448 Apud Wiseman’s Doctrines of the Church.
449 Hom. xx.
450 Sermo cccxcii.
451 Tom. vii. Comm. in Matt.
452 Lib. iii., De Sacerdotio.
453 Ibid., Hom. xx.
454 Comment in Eccles.
455 Comm. in Matt.
456 Lib. de Capt. Babyl. cap de Pœnit.
457 See “A Catechism on the Church.” By the Rev. C. S. Grueber, Hambridge, Diocese of Bath and Wells. London: Palmer, 1870.
458 The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina.
459 Ps. cxxxii.
460 The Ordering of Priests.
461 Mark ii. 7.
462 Matt. ix. 8.
463 John xx.
464 IV. Kings v.
465 Systema Theol.
466 Remarques sur l’Olympe.
467 Emile.
468 Heb. v. 2.
469 Luke xv. 32.
470 Num. xii.
471 II. Kings xii.
472 Matt. xvi. 19.
473 Ibid., xviii. 18.
474 I. Cor. v. 5.
475 II. Cor. ii. 6-10.
476 Articuli pro Clero, A.D. 1584. Sparrow, 194. I admit, indeed, that Protestant canons have but a fleeting and ephemeral authority even among themselves, and that the canons must yield to the spirit of the times, not the times to the canons. I dare say that even few Protestant theologians are familiar with the canons to which I have referred. Some people have a convenient faculty of forgetting unpleasant traditions.
477 Vol. I. p. 214.
478 Ibid.
479 Byron.
480 Daniel iv. 24.
481 Acts x. 31.
482 Sess. xxv. Dec. de Indulgentia.
483 James v. 14, 15.
484 Homil. ii. in Levit.
485 Lib. iii. de Sacred.
486 Epist. xxv. ad Decentum.
487 Comment in locum.
488 Systema Theol., p. 280.
489 Lib. de Captiv. Babyl.
490 II. Cor. v. 20.
491 John xx. 21.
492 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
493 Mark xvi. 15.
494 Matt. x. 14, 15.
495 Luke x. 16.
496 Paralip, xvi. 22.
497 John xv. 15.
498 Isaiah lii. 7.
499 I. Cor. iv. 1.
500 James v. 14.
501 I. Cor. iv. 15.
502 Apoc. xxi. 2.
503 Eph. iv. 11, 12.
504 Ps. cxlvii. 20.
505 Matt. xix. 27-29.
506 Luke x. 18, 20.
507 Wisd. vi. 6.
508 I. Pet. iv. 17.
509 I. Cor. iv. 7.
510 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
511 Malach. ii. 7.
512 Osee. iv. 6.
513 Isaiah lii. 11.
514 Rom. xii. 1.
515 Matt. xix. 12.
516 I. Cor. vii. 32, 33.
517 I. Cor. vii. 8.
518 Matt. xix. 27.
519 Ibid., xix. 29.
520 Tit. i. 8.
521 I. Tim. iv. 12.
522 II. Cor. vi. 46.
523 Ep. ad Pammach.
524 Adv. Jovin., lib. 1.
525 Adv. Vigilantium.
526 Hæres. 59, c. 4.
527 I. Kings xxi.
528 Exod. xix.
529 Page 239.
530 Essays, p. 17.
531 Annals of the Propagation of the Faith, March, 1868.
532 Marshall, Comedy of Convocation.
533 I. Cor. ix. 5.
534 I. Tim. iii. 2.
535 I. Tim. iv. 1-3.
536 Ephes. v. 25-32.
537 Sess. xxiv.
538 Matt. xix. 4-6.
539 Matt. xix. 3-9.
540 Mark x. 11, 12.
541 Luke xvi. 18.
542 I. Cor. vii. 10, 11.
543 Bossuet, Variations, Vol. 1.
544 Audin, p. 339.
545 American Cyclop., art Divorce. Our Savior declares that he who marrieth an adulteress committeth adultery. Yet Luther and Calvin declare that it is unwise to oppose such a marriage. But “the foolishness of God is wiser than men.” And Wisdom has said: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise.” (I. Cor. i.)