Essays on devotional and Scriptural subjects

Front matter

ESSAYS

FROM THE DUBLIN REVIEW.

BY W. G. WARD, D.Pn.

Contents

PREFACE page vi

ESSAY I. — CATHOLIC DEVOTION TO OUR BLESSED LADY.

The allegation to be encountered in this Essay is, that Catholic

I

All devotion, let it be observed, presupposes doctrine. Thus the mere fact of Catholics praying at all to our Lady, implies the doctrine that she can hear their prayers. If I pray her that she will be close at hand whenever temptation assails me, — I imply the doctrine that she is well aware of the fact whenever one of her votaries is assailed by temptation. Again, if I beseech her to suggest those thoughts which may be most salutary under my present interior condition, I imply three different doctrines : viz., (1) that she has a real power (direct or indirect) of suggesting thoughts ;

(2) that she knows my present interior condition ; and

(3) that she knows what thoughts are most salutary for me in that condition. Indeed every devout Catholic feels, that if such belief in our Lady's power did not exist as a foundation, the whole fabric of his devotion to her would collapse and fall. Our defence therefore of Catholic devotion must be itself in some sense a defence of Catholic doctrine.

Now the various doctrines, indiscriminately assailed by Dr. Pusey, belong to very different classes. The first and most important consists of those, which are magisterially, and therefore infallibly, taught by the Church. How does she thus magisterially teach them? By the fact that Pope and bishops throughout Christendom promote, encourage, nay inculcate, a devotion — and further that successive Pontiifs have most richly indulgenced it — which implies and presupposes the doctrines in question. In our last number we drew out a list of such doctrines ; and as that list still seems to us sufficiently complete, we cannot do better than reprint the paragraph.

" In order to appreciate Dr. Pusey's various propositions, it is very important that we briefly and generally explain what are those doctrines concerningher which we maintain to be authoritatively, and therefore infallibly, taught by the Church. They are, we think, such as these : — (1 .) That her merits are incomparably greater than those of any other created person.* (2.) That, accordingly, she occupies a place in heaven

* " Our God Himself loves thee [Mary] alone more than all men and angels together" — (Raccolta, p. 185.)

incomparably nearer to her Son than any other. (3.) That she is intimately acquainted with the thoughts, the character, the circumstances, of all who invoke her aid ; and well knows what is really for their greatest good. (4.) That she has incomparably greater power than any other created person, towards promoting that good. (5.) That to unite ourselves with Mary in the contemplation of Jesus, — as is done e.g. by those who duly recite the Rosary, — is a singularly efficacious means for vividly apprehending His Divine Personality and His various mysteries. (6.) That the intimate and most loving thought of her has an efficacy, peculiarly its own, in promoting a tender and practical love of Him. (7.) That regular and repeated prayer to her cannot be omitted by a Catholic, without putting his salvation into grievous peril.* Other propositions might be added to these; and the proof which we would allege, of such propositions being really contained in the Church's authoritative teaching, is this : — If any one of them were denied, the exhortations impressed on Catholics throughout Christendom, with full approbation of Pope and Bishops, would be baseless and indefensible; influential religious habits, whose growth is sedulously fostered by ecclesiastical authority, would be founded on a delusion ; the Church would have in fact made a mistake, unspeakably serious^ in that very matter — the training of souls for heaven — which is the one ultimate end for which she was endowed with infallibility."

In further illustration of the Church's teaching, we will insert, almost at random, various extracts from the " Baccolta," so admirably translated by F. St. John

* " 0 Mary. . . . I shall assuredly be lost if I abandon thee. ... It is impossible for that man to perish who faithfully recommends himself to thee."— (Raccolta, p. 184.)

of the Birmingham Oratory. There cannot be more unimpeachable proofs of the Church's doctrine, than those various prayers which she authoritatively recommends to her children by indulgencing their use.

" When at length my hour is come, then do thou, Mary, my hope, be thyself my aid in those great troubles wherewith my soul will be encompassed. Strengthen me, that I may not despair when the enemy sets my sins before my face. Obtain for me at that moment grace to invoke thee often) so that I may breathe forth my spirit with thine own sweet name and that of thy most holy Son upon my lips " (p. 183).

" In thee let the Holy Church find safe shelter ; protect it, and be its sweet asylum, its tower of strength, impregnable against every inroad of its enemies. Be thou the road leading to Jesus; be thou the channel whereby we receive all graces needful for our salvation. Be thou our help in need, our comfort in trouble, our strength in temptation, our refuge in persecution, our aid in all dangers ; but especially in the last struggle of our life, at the moment of our death, when all hell shall be unchained against us to snatch away our souls, — in that dread moment, that hour so terrible, whereon our eternity depends, ah, yes, most tender Virgin, do thou then make us feel how great is the sweetness of thy Mother's Heart, and the power of thy might with the Heart of Jesus, by opening for us a safe refuge in the very Fount of mercy itself, that so one day we too may join with thee in Paradise in praising that same Heart of Jesus for ever and for ever" (p. 179).

" I would I had a greater love, a more tender love : this thou must gain for me, since to love thee is a great mark of predestination, and a grace which God grants to those who shall be saved" (p. 185).

CATHOLIC DEVOTION TO OUR BLESSED LADY.

' ' Thou, Mary, art the stewardess of every grace which God vouchsafes to give us sinners, and therefore did He make thee so mighty, rich, and kind, that thou mightest succour us. I will that I may be saved ; in thy hands I place wy eternal salvation, to thee I consign my soul. I will be associated with those who are thy special servants ; reject me not. Thou goest up and down seeking the wretched to console them. Cast not away then a wretched sinner, who has recourse to thee. Speak for me, Mary; thy Son grants what thouaskest" (pp. 186-7).

" My Queen ! my Mother ! I give thee all myself ; and to show my devotion to thee, I consecrate to thee this day my eyes, ears, mouth, heart, myself wholly, and without reserve. Wherefore, 0 loving Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, defend me, as thy property, and thy own possession.

" Ejaculation in any Temptation.

My Queen, my Mother ! remember I am thine own. Keep me, defend me, as thy properi/y, thy own possession" (p. 197).

<f Accept what we offer, grant us what we ask, pardon us what we fear ; for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the forgiveness of our faults ; and in thee, most blessed one, is the hope of our reward. Holy Mary, succour the wretched, help the faint-hearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for the people, shield the clergy, intercede for the devout female sex, let all feel thy help who celebrate thy holy commemoration. Be thou at hand, ready to aid our prayers, when we pray ; and return to us laden with the answers we desire. Make it thy care, blessed one, to intercede ever for the people of God — thou who didst deserve to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever" (p. 199).

o

" 0 Joseph, help us with thy prayers to be of the number of those who, by the merits of Jesus and His Virgin Mother, shall be partakers of the resurrection to glory" (pp. 274-5).

" 0 Joseph, obtain for us, that, being entirely devoted to the service of Jesus and Mary, we may live and die for them alone " (p. 275).

" O Joseph, obtain for us, that, having our hearts freed from idle fears, we may enjoy the peace of a tranquil conscience, dwelling safely with Jesus and Mary, and dying at last in their arms33 (p. 275).

Let it be clearly understood then, that in this particular part of our article we are not occupied with defending the truly beautiful sentiments which Dr. Pusey has brought together, from S. Alphonsus ; from S. Bernardine of Sienna; from the Yen. Grignon de Montfort. On their defence we shall enter afterwards; and shall face distinctly the whole mass of testimony, adduced in the Eirenicon from Catholic writers. Here however we speak of doctrines, not merely permitted and sanctioned by the Church, but authoritatively inculcated on all her children.

Now as to these doctrines, an opponent may reasonably require due evidence for their truth, antecedently to bringing against them any objection whatever ; for a doctrine is not established, nor even made probable, by the mere circumstance that it is unobjectionable. Such evidence however we consider ourselves to have most abundantly supplied, in our two last numbers. We assumed merely that Christianity is of divine origin, and that the New Testament narrative is substantially true. We argued in January that, if this be once granted, it follows that the Roman Catholic Church is indubitably infallible; and we argued in April that this infallibility includes prominently infallibility in her practical magisterium.^ We submit that no conclusion, resting on historical grounds and claiming moral not mathematical certainty, was ever more firmly established, than the conclusion at which we arrived in those two articles. That conclusion is, that if Christianity is really of divine origin, and if the New Testament narrative is accurate as to its general substance, then the Roman Catholic Church is infallible in her practical magisterium. But Dr. Pusey will be the very last man to deny, that she does magisterially teach such doctrines as those above recited, and others of a similar character. Since therefore she magisterially teaches these doctrines, — and since she is infallible in her magisterium, — it follows that these doctrines are infallibly true.

However, their argumentative establishment does not exempt a controversialist from the obligation of answering objections. Even in the region of pure mathematics, a thesis would be left in a most unsatisfactory state although it had been proved by rigorous demonstration, if a plausible objection against its truth were to remain unanswered. And much more of course does this hold, in such a matter as is here before us. Now (as has been already observed) there are two kinds of objections, essentially different, which have been raised against the body of doctrine now in * See Perrone " de Locis," nn. 347-8.

question. Those objections, which refer to its supposed inconsistency with Scripture and Antiquity, will be considered in our next number ;* those which rest on its alleged tendency to obscure the thought of God and to promote a quasi-idolatry, must be encountered here.

II

We will begin with considering an argument, which is often used by Protestants and even by Tractarians, though Dr. Pusey does not himself endorse it. " By the very fact that Catholics believe our Lady to hear their prayer and to know their thoughts, they represent her," so runs the argument, " as omnipresent and as a kind of goddess." There is no more curious fact in all controversy, than that any Christian, who believes in the Incarnation, should have laid stress on a fallacy so easily and so triumphantly refuted. Consider that dear soul of our Blessed Lord, which was created for the very purpose of suffering in our behalf, and which did in fact experience anguish so unspeakable. When our Lord was enduring His agony, or was hanging on the cross, or now that He is in heaven, — does any Christian doubt that His soul did and does know the thoughts of those who address Him ? that it did and does apprehend most accurately men's interior circumstances ? that it did and does know what is the fittest and most appropriate remedy for their interior evils ? Yet, do Christians therefore regard that soul as omnipresent ? as uncreated ? as infinite ? How readily Protestants take up a weapon against the * [See the Third Essay in this volume.]

Church, which recoils on themselves with effect the most fatal !

We will not however be contented with stating this parallel negatively ; we will draw it out in a positive shape. How do Protestants explain this vast knowledge possessed by the soul of Christ ? We are not aware of any explanation, except that given by Catholic theologians. That soul, say these theologians, was endued from the very beginning of its existence with three kinds of knowledge : the chief of them being " scientia beata ; " that knowledge which arises from the facial vision of God. In Christ' s case, — these theologians proceed, — this facial vision imparted, and imparts, the knowledge of all things past, present, and future ; of the most hidden thoughts of the heart, no less than of the most visible and palpable phenomena of the universe. Such then is the account, we suppose, given by all those Protestants who give any at all, of Christ's human knowledge. But now consider. This facial vision of God was enjoyed by Mary from the moment of her death, quite as truly, though of course by no means in the same degree, as by Christ Himself. We are very far indeed from saying that the knowledge which she thus obtains is co-extensive with the human knowledge of Christ ; to suppose so, would be a monstrous and intolerable error. But we do say that, even if it had been thus co-extensive, she would not on that account have ceased to be a creature : unless indeed you would sanction the heretical and even absurd proposition, that the soul of Christ was raised from the sphere of createduess and finiteness to that of infinity and omnipresence.

We have been answering the objection, that to regard

our Lady as knowing the thoughts of her suppliants, is

logically and philosophically equivalent with regarding

her as omnipresent. Some Protestants however candidly

waive this objection, and admit that a Catholic does not

speculatively view her as infinite : yet they urge at the

same time that such is his practical impression ; that

the interior acts of reverence and homage, with which

he approaches her, are undistinguishable in kind from

those with which he approaches Almighty God. Dr.

Pusey is as far from sympathizing with this view as

with the former;* and, indeed, his line of objection

directly contradicts it, as will be immediately seen. We

will not then say more about it in this place, as it will

be implicitly encountered by our subsequent remarks.

In no other part of the Eirenicon can we find so

clear a statement of Dr. Pusey's own objection, as in

the following; which, as will be seen, contains an

admission, that Roman Catholics do not in fact pay

her divine worship. We have substituted our own

italics for his.

" This question of reliance upon the Blessed Virgin as the being in whose hands our salvation is virtually to be placed, is quite distinct from that other question of the nature of the worship paid to her. The one is a

* Some words of his indeed, in p. 184, seein at first sight to express this view ; but if you take them in connection with the pages which precede and follow, you will see that their sense is different. These preceding pages will be immediately quoted at length in our text.

practical question affecting our whole eternity, ' What shall I do to be saved ? ' The practical answer to the Roman Catholic seems to me to be, ' Go to Mary, and you will be saved ; ' in our dear Lord's own words, it is, ' Come unto Me ; ' in our own belief it is, ' Go to Jesus, and you will be saved/

" The answer which is commonly made, that devotion to the Blessed Virgin is but relative, does not touch this. No one would impute to the Marian writers that they mean that she is Dea, although notoriously, some of them have called her so,* But they speak of what comes to the same, of her f delegated omnipotency ; ' and a recent writer says, ' When Mary, in her office of Advocate, is named " Omnipotency kneeling," or "interceding Omnipotency," this will now, I hope, appear to be saying not too much but too little.' The human mind is narrow, and easily filled with one thought, especially when that thought relates to one's all. When, then, the soul is taught that devotion to Mary is essential ; that she is ' the nearest to us, and the most suited to our capacity ; ' that e to go to Jesus, we must go to Mary ; she is our Mediatrix of intercession ; ' that she repels none; 'she is good and tender ; she has nothing in her austere and repulsive/ it seems inconceivable that many should not stop short in her, with, at best, a more or less indistinct reference to Jesus " (pp. 181-3).

In order that we may bring the argument between Dr. Pusey and ourselves to a more definite issue, we

* What " Marian " ever called her so ? Dr. Pusey has adduced no authority whatever for his statement. Curiously enough, we believe that such a phrase, used figuratively of course, does occur in the " Christus Patiens," a poem of the patristic period. But what later Catholic writer has so spoken ? We ask for information : we cannot, of course, assert confidently the negative, but we have never met with any such expression.

will disentangle this passage from all reference to individual writers; and we will express in our own words, to the best of our power, the argument intended by our author.

"Man's mind/' we understand Dr. Pusey to say,

" is narrow ; his affections easily exhausted ; his very

" time limited. I do not here speak of saintly men ;

" and God forbid I should suggest that these men take

" from the Son any portion of the love which they give

" to the Mother.* But I speak of the mass as we find

" them, of those who fulfil their religious duties in an

" ordinary and quiet way. These men give a certain

" portion of each day to prayer; and it is arithmetically

" evident, that if some of that portion goes to Mary,

" there will be so much the less left for their God and

" Saviour. But this is far from the worst. It is quite

" indefinitely pleasanter and easier to fallen man that

" he shall address a fellow- creature, than that he

" shall adore the Infinite Creator. If Catholics

" then are told that she knows their thoughts and

" can grant their petitions, they will be ever increasing

" the time devoted to her at the expense of that

" devoted to God. They will thus more and more

" learn practically to look to her for pardon, for help,

" for strength, for consolation. It is their prayer to

" her which will issue freely and warmly from the

" heart, while their addresses to God will be little

" more than the perfunctory and external performance

" of a certain stated and prescribed routine."

* Dr. Pusey expressly admitted this, in a letter to the " Weekly Register " of November 25, 1865.

Such representations as these — and they are common from the most " high-church" Protestants — tend to make a Catholic wring his hands in perplexity and distress. Oh, Dr. Pusey, if you could see for one moment into the heart of an ordinarily devout Catholic, you wo aid see how absolutely imaginary, nay, how wild, is the picture you draw of him. But how can we persuade you of this ? How are we to answer, in a way that shall carry conviction to your mind, those ingenious sophisms which you have so perversely constructed ? It is like labouring to teach a blind man the true nature of colours.

Yet surely Dr. Pusey's mental attitude is indefensible. If a blind man grieves over his calamity, how sincerely wo commiserate him ! how earnestly we try to help him ! But what if he will not admit himself to be in a position of disadvantage at all ? What if he declares that all who profess the possession of eyesight are in a conspiracy to deceive him ? What if he maintains that in fact there is no such thing as colour ? And is not this the true parallel to Dr. Pusey? He has never experienced, or come near to experiencing, the state of mind engendered by a constant and loving devotion to Mary : and yet he confidently pits his a priori augury of what that state of mind must be, against the unanimous testimony of those who know that phenomenon on which he descants in ignorance.

Our wish however is not to convict Dr. Pusey, but to convince him ; and we may possibly succeed in this, if we can but turn the tables on himself. We will suppose then (what is at least imaginable) a pious and devout Theist, who labours under a blind prejudice against the doctrine of the Incarnation, not dissimilar to that which influences Dr. Pusey against the Church's doctrines concerning our Blessed Lady. He may be supposed to express himself in such terms as these : — " Men were created for one end — the knowledge " and love of God. They better fulfil that end there- " fore, — they are more perfect of their kind, — in pro- " portion as they more constantly keep the thought " of God before them ; contemplate His excellencies ; " labour to fulfil His commands. Now this unhappy " doctrine of the Incarnation presents one constant " impediment in the way of man's great work. When ff we Deists are oppressed with trial, temptation, suf- " fering, we stimulate our confidence in the Almighty " Creator, by steadily fixing our thoughts on His Infi- " nite Mercy and His Infinite Power. But you Trini- ' ( tarians, I have repeatedly observed, shrink from this : " it is not once in a thousand times that your pious " affections take any such turn. No : You fix your " thoughts, not on the Infinite Love which is enter- " tained for you by God ; but on the finite love which " (as you think) is entertained for you by that created " soul, which you believe God to have assumed : and " you ponder accordingly on the various most touch- " ing circumstances of Christ's Life and Passion. Yet " even if I were to grant your full doctrine, it would " still remain true that the love felt for you by the soul " which so suffered is but a finite love. And further, t{ since no one finite object is nearer than any other " to the Infinite, it is true, in the strictest and most

c

" literal sense, that the love felt for you by the Divine <e Nature as far exceeds the love felt for you by the " soul of Christ, as it exceeds the love you feel for " each other.

" Then, we preserve untouched that most sacred <f truth, which your own Scriptures so prominently " testify; that God Alone can know men's thoughts : " whereas you admit the soul of Christ into a participa- " tion of that incommunicable privilege, and thereby " invest a finite object with the very attributes of " Infinity. Or, again, suppose I would rouse myself to " repentance for sin: I reflect on God's Infinite " Sanctity; on the disloyal insult which I have offered " to that Sanctity; and on the foul contrast between " God, the great Exemplar, and myself. Now I will " not say that you Trinitarians never do this; but I will " confidently say that you far oftener do something " else. You dwell on the anguish which you consider " your sin to have inflicted on the loving Heart of your ' *' Redeemer ; or on the contrast between your sin and " Christ's spotless sanctity — i.e., the spotless sanctity ' { of a created soul ; or on your ingratitude for the " torments endured by that soul in your behalf ; and " then you gaze with compunction on the pierced " hands and feet. In fact, you carry this quasi-idola- " trous principle into every detail of the interior life. t( You do not come, as I may say, face to face " with God ; what you call the Sacred Humanity " stands up as a constant barrier between Him and " your soul. Nor must I fail to add, that your doc- " trine of the Atonement has fearfully encouraged

" sin, by representing pardon for the most frightful " offences as so certain and so easily obtained.

" I do not here speak," he may continue to say, in closer parody of Dr. Pusey's assault on Catholics, " I " do not here speak of saintly men, but of the great " mass as we find them ; of those who fulfil their " religious duties in a quiet and ordinary way. These " men give a certain fixed portion of each day to* " prayer ; and it is arithmetically evident that if some " of that portion goes to the created soul of Christ, so " much less will be left for the Infinite God. But thi& " is far from the worst. It is quite indefinitely easier " and more pleasant to man as he is, that he shall con- " template a created object — especially one invested " with the singularly pathetic and imaginative interest " surrounding Christ's Life and Passion — than that " he shall contemplate the Divine Nature. If men " are told therefore, that Christ's human soul knows tc their thoughts and can grant their petitions, — they* " will be ever increasing the time devoted to that " soul, at the expense of the time devoted directly to " the Uncreated. They will thus learn practically more " and more to look to the created soul of Christ " for pardon, for help, for strength, for consolation ;. " it is their prayers to that soul which will issue freely t{ and warmly from the heart ; while their direct " addresses to the Divine Nature will be little more " than the perfunctory and external performance of a " certain stated and prescribed routine.

" Nor can you justly argue, in reply to all this, that " you regard the soul of Christ as appertaining- to a

c 2

" Divine Person, and that your prayers to that soul " are addressed to God the Son. I do not deny that " such is your theory ; but the simple fact is this. fc For once that your pious affections are directed to " the Eternal Father, they are directed a thousand f ' times to the Sacred Humanity. You must perforce t( therefore admit one of two alternatives, and I care " not which. Either you love the Second Person " of your Trinity far better than you love the First ; " or else you love the created soul far better than you (C love the Divine Person. In either case your doc- " trines of the Trinity and Incarnation have intro- " duced a shocking and most perverse corruption into " your practical worship."

Under the pressure of such arguments, we think that Dr. Pusey in his turn would be disposed to wring his hands in perplexity. Great would be his distress at finding that men can argue with such perverse ingenuity, on grounds purely a priori, in favour of a proposition proved to be monstrously and extravagantly false by the daily experience of every Trinitarian. In fact he would have a practical perception, of the effect which is produced on the mind of Catholics, by his own criticism of their devotion to Mary. The mere expression of such distress, however, would do but little to convince his Deistic opponent ; for we will not suppose that the Deist is fairer in dealing with Dr. Pusey, than is Dr. Pusey in dealing with the Roman Church. Dr. Pusey therefore would be obliged, if the Deist had some considerable influence, to bring out a train of argument in reply ; and this argument might perhaps take some such shape as the subjoined. We should add that we are ourselves in complete agreement with the whole reply which here follows : —