One Saturday before the twentieth Sunday after Pentecost. when Margaret had received the Body of Christ, He spoke thus to her: “My child, separate thyself as far as thou canst from all intercourse with people except the Friars Minor. To others thy manifold afflictions may seem light and of no consequence, but to thee who bearest them they are indeed heavy and full of pain. And if, even so, thou dost not suffer all thou wouldst, yet bear sweetly and with a calm mind for love of Me such sufferings as come to thee. But thine interior struggles, wherein thy soul is being beautified, those struggles, which are more bitter to thee than death, shall be accounted to thee for the martyr’s palm.”

But Margaret answered: “Lord, I do not believe that my soul can be cleansed or beautified by such sufferings as these.” And the Lord: “What thou sayest is so far true, that of themselves these sufferings could not cleanse or beautify thy soul, but thy love, faithful in trial, and My Mercy. these cleanse and beautify. And know that though thou sufferest much because of thy temptations and thine infirmities and thy good works, yet even so I protect thee, and never again wilt thou offend Me by grievous sin.”

Whereon Margaret exclaimed: “I give Thee thanks, my most sweet Lord, that Thou dost foretell to me always both the sweet and the bitter things before they happen to me. But I beseech Thee, most loving God, Whom without intermission I bear in my heart by love, that Thou fulfill my desire and grant me secure confidence in Thy protection.” But the Lord said: “Thou canst not have entire security till thou art placed in the kingdom of My Glory: and this I will, that thou mayest the better guard the gifts already bestowed upon thee and that so My grace may increase in thee and that thou mayest have a more solicitous care for thy salvation.”

Then Margaret prayed that her body might be afflicted with leprosy that so she might not offend Him again; but this the Lord would not grant.

I find seven kinds of false devotees and false devotions to our Lady, namely:

• The critical devotees

• The scrupulous devotees

• The external devotees

• The presumptuous devotees

• The inconstant devotees

• The hypocritical devotees

• The interested devotees.

The critical devotees are, for the most part, proud scholars, rash and self-sufficient spirits, who have at bottom some devotion to the holy Virgin, but who criticize nearly all the practices of devotion to her, which the simple people pay simply and holily to their good Mother, because these practices do not fall in with their own humor and fancy. They call in doubt all the miracles and histories recorded by authors worthy of our faith, or drawn from the chronicles of religious orders; narratives which testify to us the mercies and the power of the most holy Virgin. They cannot see without uneasiness simple and humble people on their knees before an altar or an image of our Lady, sometimes in the comer of a street, in order to pray to God there; and they even accuse them of idolatry, as if they adored the wood or the stone. They say that, for their part, they are not fond of these external devotions, and that their minds are not so weak as to give faith to such a number of tales and little histories as are in circulation about our Lady. Or, at other times, they reply that the narrators have spoken as professional orators, with exaggeration; or they put a bad interpretation upon their words. These kind of false devotees and of proud and worldly people are greatly to be feared. They do an infinite wrong to the devotion to our Lady; and they are but too successful in alienating people from it, under the pretext of destroying its abuses.

The scrupulous devotees are those who mar to dishonor the Son by honoring the Mother, to abase the one in elevating the other. They cannot bear that we should attribute to our Lady the most just praises which the holy Fathers have given her. It is all they can do to endure that there should be more people before the altar of the Blessed Virgin than before the Blessed Sacrament, as if the one was contrary to the other, as if those who prayed to our Blessed Lady did not pray to Jesus Christ by her. They are unwilling that we should speak so often of our Lady, and address ourselves so frequently to her. These are the favorite sentences constantly in their mouths: “To what end are so many chaplets, so many confraternities, and so many external devotions to the Blessed Virgin? There is much of ignorance in all this. It makes a mummery of our religion. Speak to us of those who are devout to Jesus Christ” (yet they often name Him without uncovering: I say this by way of parenthesis). “We must have recourse to Jesus Christ; He is our only Mediator. We must preach Jesus Christ; this is the solid devotion.” What they say is true in a certain sense, but it is very dangerous, when, by the application they make of it, they hinder devotion to our Blessed Lady, and it is, under the pretext of a greater good, a subtle snare of the evil one. For never do we honor Jesus Christ more than when we are most honoring His Blessed Mother. Indeed we only honor Mary that we may the more perfectly honor Jesus, inasmuch as we only go to her as to the way in which we are to find the end we are seeking, which is Jesus. The Church, with the Holy Ghost, blesses our Lady first, and our Lord second,-Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Jesus. It is not that Mary is more than Jesus, or even equal to Him. That would be an intolerable heresy; but it is that, in order to bless Jesus more perfectly, we must begin by blessing Mary. Let us, then, say with all the true clients of our Lady against these false scrupulous devotees, O Mary, thou art blessed amongst all women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

External devotees are persons who make all devotion to our Blessed Lady consist in outward practices. They have no taste except for the exterior of this devotion, because they have no interior spirit of their own. They will say quantities of Rosaries with the greatest precipitation; they will hear many Masses distractedly; they will go without devotion to processions; they will enroll themselves in all sorts of confraternities, without amending their lives, without doing any violence to their passions, or without imitating the virtues of that most holy Virgin. They have no love but for the sensible part of devotion, without having any relish for its solidity. If they have not sensible sweetness in their practices, they think they are doing nothing; they get all out of joint, throw every thing up, or do every thing at random. The world is full of these exterior devotees; and there are no people who are more critical of men of prayer, of those who foster an interior spirit as the essential thing, while they do not lightly account of that outward modesty which always accompanies true devotion.

Presumptuous devotees are sinners abandoned to their passions, or lovers of the world, who, under the fair name of Christians and clients of our Blessed Lady, conceal pride, avarice, impurity, drunkenness, anger, swearing, detraction, injustice, or some other sin. They sleep in peace in the midst of their bad habits, without doing any violence to themselves to correct their faults, under the pretext that they are devout to the Blessed Virgin. They promise themselves that God will pardon them; that they will not be allowed to die without confession; and that they will not be lost eternally, because they say the Rosary, because they fast on Saturdays, because they belong to the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary, or wear the scapular, or are enrolled in other congregations, or wear the little habit or little chain of our Lady.· They will not believe us when we tell them that their devotion is only an illusion of the devil, and a pernicious presumption likely to destroy their souls. They say that God is good and merciful; that He has not made us to condemn us everlastingly; that no man is without sin; that they shall not die without confession; that one good Peccavi at the hour of death is enough; that they are devout to our Lady; that they wear the scapular; and that they say daily, without reproach or vanity, seven Paters and Aves in her honor; and that they sometimes say the Rosary and the Office of our Lady, besides fasting, and other things. To give authority to all this, and to blind themselves still further, they quote certain stories, which they have heard or read,-it does not matter to them whether they be true or false,-relating how people have died in mortal sin without confession; and then, because in their lifetime they sometimes said some prayers, or went through some practices of devotion to our Lady, how they have been raised to life again, in order to go to confession, or their soul been miraculously retained in their bodies till confession; or how they have obtained from God at the moment of death contrition and pardon of their sins, and so have been saved; and that they themselves expect similar favors. Nothing in Christianity is more detestable than this diabolical presumption. For how can we say truly that we love and honor our Blessed Lady, when by our sins we are pitilessly piercing, wounding, crucifying, and outraging Jesus Christ her Son? If Mary laid down a law to herself, to save by her mercy this sort of people, she would be authorizing crime, and assisting to crucify and outrage her Son. Who would dare to think such a thought as that?

I say, that thus to abuse devotion to our Lady, which, after devotion to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, is the holiest and solidest of all devotions, is to be guilty of a horrible sacrilege, which, after the sacrilege of an unworthy Communion, is the greatest and the least pardonable of all sacrileges.

I confess that, in order to be truly devout to our Blessed Lady, it is not absolutely necessary to be so holy as to avoid every sin, though this were to be wished; but so much at least is necessary, and I beg you to lay it well to heart:

1. To have a sincere resolution to avoid, at least, all mortal sin, which outrages the Mother as well as the Son.

2. I would add also that in do violence to ourselves to avoid sin, to enroll ourselves in confraternities, to say the Rosary or other prayers, to fast on Saturdays, and the like, is wonderfully useful to the conversion of a sinner, however hardened; and if my reader is such a one, even if he has his foot in the abyss, I would counsel these things to him. Nevertheless it must be on the condition that he will only practice these good works with the intention of obtaining from God, by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, the grace of contrition and the pardon of his sins, to conquer his evil habits, and not to remain quietly in the state of sin, in spite of the remorse of his conscience, the example of Jesus Christ and the Saints, and the maxims of the holy Gospel.

The inconstant devotees are those who are devout to our Blessed Lady by intervals and whims. Sometimes they are fervent and sometimes lukewarm. Sometimes they seem ready to do any thing for her, and then, a little afterwards, they are not like the same people. They begin by taking up all the devotions to her, and enrolling themselves in the confraternities; and then they do not practice the rules with fidelity. They change like the moon; and Mary puts them under her feet with the crescent, because they are mutable, and unworthy to be reckoned among the servants of that faithful Virgin, whose clients have for their special graces fidelity and constancy. It were better for such persons to load themselves with fewer prayers and practices, and to fulfill them with faithfulness and love, in spite of the world, the devil, and the flesh.

We have still to mention the false devotees to our Blessed Lady, who are the hypocritical devotees; who cloke their sins and sinful habits under her mantle, in order to poss in the eyes of men for what they are not.

There are also the interested devotees, who have recourse to our Lady only to gain some lawsuit, or to avoid some danger, or to be cured of some illness, or for some other similar necessity, without which they would forget her altogether. Both, however, of these two last classes are false devotees, and neither of them pass current before God and His holy Mother.

Let us, then, take great care not to be of the number of the critical devotees, who believe nothing and criticize every thing; nor of the scrupulous devotees, who are afraid of being too devout to our Lady, out of respect to our Lord; nor of the exterior devotees, who make all their devotion consist in outward practices; nor of the presumptuous devotees, who, under the pretext of their false devotion to the Blessed Virgin, wallow in their sins; nor of the inconstant devotees, who by levity change their practices of devotion, or throw them up altogether on the least temptation; nor of the hypocritical devotees, who put themselves into confraternities, and wear the liveries of the Blessed Virgin, in order to pass for good people; nor, finally, of the interested devotees, who only have recourse to our Lady to be delivered from bodily evils, or to obtain temporal goods.

Prophetic language asserts that death enters to the soul by the windows of the senses; therefore they must be guarded with the utmost care, so that we may never do anything for their service, but use them, as if they belonged to others, for their proper and necessary end alone, leading them away from brutal and earthly life to that which is celestial and rational, that they may learn to serve, not themselves but God. Nor are they to be restrained merely from forbidden things, out also in the lawful use of things care must be taken, lest they be carried too eagerly towards perishable things, and plunge into their delight; wherefore they are to be gradually led away from too close attention of the work they perform, and elevated to God.

§1. The Mortification of the Eyes.

1. The first war is to he undertaken against the wantonness of the eyes, for since the eyes see with the utmost quickness, and transmit the representations of various things to the imagination and thence to the mind, they excite, unless well guarded, numerous rebellious motions and seeds of grievous sins in the appetite and will. O how great evils have we learned both from modern and ancient examples to have sprung, and still daily to spring from curious and incautious looks! “My eye hath wasted my soul,” says the Prophet (Lamentations 3:51). But though it may be difficult to guard the eyes so carefully that we may never commit any sin through them. we must not therefore imagine it impossible, because we rely not only on our own powers, but chiefly on divine grace, the aid of which we should daily implore, exclaiming with the Prophet (Psalms 18:37): “Turn away my eyes that they may not behold vanity.” Furthermore, mortification of the eyes is contained under these heads.

2. The eyes are never to be fixed on women or on immodest things, the unclean traces of which may be imprinted on the mind; but if by accident they meet such an object, they are to he averted instantly with a certain horror, as from a beast full of most deadly poison, which kills at the mere sight. Comedies, tragedies, dances, athletic games, theatrical plays and other profane shows are not to be witnessed; for such earthly representations so dissipate the mind and fill it with nonsensical cures, that it cannot soar to heaven. The doings of others must not be observed, nor more pains taken about strangers than if there were no men, unless charity or duty of office require otherwise; for in this way we shall be both in peace and shall escape murmurs and countless other sins. On no account shall we read impure and worthless books; we shall not curiously inspect vain pictures and statues, splendid edifices and other things of the same class wrought for pomp and pleasure; at home as well as abroad we shall keep our eyes modestly cast on the ground; for that government of the eyes is a certain bridle of the whole body, by which the affections and the other senses are restrained from running riot through things forbidden and unlawful.

3. Let the interior pure and simple eye of the mind, that is, an upright intention and pious affection, accompany the view of the exterior eyes, that we may look on all things for sake of a lawful end, and interpret them in the better sense for this is the eye of which it is written (Matthew 6:22): “If thy eye be single; thy whole body shall be lightsome.” It is not enough, however, to confine our look to the greater glory of God; out we ought also take heed to view the presence of God in each individual thing, and hence we way sweetly raise the mind to the praises of the divine Majesty, admiring and extolling, on account of the order, beauty, variety and perfection of creatures, God’s goodness, wisdom, power and infinite virtue, the marks of which are impressed on these same creatures; seeing that, as the Apostle says (Romans 1:20): “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”

§2. Mortification of the Ears

1. Philosophers call hearing the sense of discipline, because through it, as through a door, the idea of truth and all wisdom enter into the mind. But this door is to be strictly guarded by the watch of self denial, lest falsehood instead of truth, folly instead of wisdom force their way into the recesses of the heart. Since, then, God has granted us the perfect sense of hearing, that we might thereby acquire the mysteries of faith, lessons of salvation and doctrine of the Gospel, it is just and proper to keep the ears closed to those things that are at variance with the above end, nor may we open the entrance of truth to vanities. And since Scripture enjoins (James 1:19) that “every man be swift to hear,” we must beware of two things in this matter: one, lest a person listen to vain, curious things, that in no way concern him, from which only dissipation of mind and tumultuous thoughts arise; the other, that whatever things it is lawful to hear, a person eagerly and attentively hear, remark, preserve in his mind, compare with each other, and draw from them various rules for regulating his life and acquiring useful knowledge; for thus in a short time he shall gain for himself experience of many things.

2. But we ought to restrain our ears from love songs and secular lays, which soothe the ears, and enervate the heart, and turn it away from the love of gravity; from jokes and frivolities, from idle words and such as provoke laughter; from worldly rumors and novelties, which do not appertain to our state; from murmurings and detraction, though very light defects of others may be related; from our own praise and that of our concerns, and from every species of flattery; from the investigation of occult things, which are treated of by others in secret; in fine, from all things which do not minister to our own utility, nor to our neighbors’ salvation, nor to edification or charity.

3. We shall gladly hear the divine words, whether they be read from books, or spoken familiarly, or preached from the pulpit, just as if God himself were speaking; and from the things heard we shall study with a will to cull salutary principles and pious sentiments, to be recalled for use at the proper time, that thus we may be numbered among those, “Who hear the word of God, and keep it.” (Luke, 11:28) In the same manner we shall always draw some fruit of piety from all things that reach our ears, whatever their nature may be. Now we shall weigh some word useful for acquiring virtue; now we shall blush and be excited to penance at the remembrance of past sin or prevalent vice; now we shall pity our neighbor, especially if he speak foolishly or wickedly, and shall pray to God for him, and thus, after the manner of the industrious bee, we shall collect honey from all things.

Buy From Amazon

By what has been explained in the two foregoing chapters, it is easy to see how excellent a thing is mental prayer, in which are exercised so many and such heroic acts of the principal virtues. On this account St John Chrysostom said with great reason, that “as when a queen enters into a city there enter with her, in her company, many ladies and noblemen of the Court, besides her guard and innumerable people that follow her; so when prayer enters into the soul, there enter with her all the virtues that accompany the spirit of prayer.” Some virtues go before preparing the way and disposing the soul to pray as it ought, such as faith, humility, reverence and purity of intention; according to that saying of the Wise Man : “Before prayer prepare thy soul, and be not as a man that tempteth God.” (Ecclesiasticus 18:23) Other virtues go side by side with prayer, such as charity, wisdom, devotion and religion, and those other gifts of the Holy Ghost which illuminate the understanding and aid marvelously to prayer. Innumerable other virtues follow after, that is fervent desires and purposes of all that is good in matters of obedience and patience, temperance, modesty, chastity, and the rest. And all these, interlacing themselves with prayer, exercise among themselves different acts by which they adorn one another; for humility joins herself with confidence and charity; charity with religion and thanksgiving; religion with obedience and resignation; and thus with a celestial and divine accord they make a harmony of many voices. For this reason many holy Fathers say that prayer makes men like angels, not only because it is a work of the superior faculties, in which men resemble them, but because it communicates to men an angelic life, full of purity and sanctity. “For there can be nothing”, says St. John Chrysostom, “more wise, more holy or more just than a man who speaks to God as it is meet for him to do. For from God he receives abundantly those gifts and graces in which consist true wisdom and perfect justice and sanctity.” The reason of this is that as our Lord is very sweet and gentle, and inspires us to pray, he speaks to us when we speak to him, and converses familiarly with those who enter into their heart to treat and converse with him. And the conversation of God is not words alone, but also works; for, as St Bernard says, “Locutio verbi est infusio doni.” “For God to speak is to communicate gifts infusing his graces and “virtues upon them to whom he speaks”; filling them with that “joy unspeakable” (I Peter 1:8) and with that “peace that surpasses all understanding.” (Philippians 4:7) As David also saith, “I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me; for he will speak peace unto his people,and unto his saints, and unto them that are converted unto the heart.” (Psalms 84:9) For this reason we should so speak to God in prayer as to be attentive to listen to what he will say to us by his inspirations, to obey them, and to dispose ourselves to receive those gifts which thereby he intends to communicate to us. All this goes to show the excellence and necessity of mental prayer, of which Cassian says that it has such a connection with all virtues that neither can they be perfectly obtained nor preserved without prayer, nor perfect prayer be obtained without them; for it is, says he, the end of all, and to it are directed all the labours and pains we take to gain them; inasmuch as prayer in its perfect degree embraces union with God, by means of actual knowledge and love, with great joy in possessing him. (Coll. ix, c. 1.) Hence it arises that God (as says St John Climacus) in prayer pays ready money a hundred times the double of that which is renounced or endured for his sake, besides giving great pledges of the last reward that is to be given in life everlasting. I might say many other things of this sovereign virtue which I omit, because this is written for those that already desire to exercise it on account of the great estimation in which they hold it.

Buy From Amazon

Apostolic Practice

When the meaning of a commission is called in question, the public acts of those who received it, must have great weight in determining its nature and character: and when the authority of the commissioners is vouched for by him who gave the commission, their acts are decisive evidence. Christ ordered his disciples to baptize. An attempt is made to explain this of a mere internal work of the Spirit, towards which the Apostles could co-operate no further than by preaching. Did the Apostles themselves so understand it? Did they not rather conceive themselves authorized and commanded to wash with water those who professed faith in the Gospel preached by them? When the Jews felt compunction for the death of Christ, and asked of Peter what they should do to be saved, he exhorted them to be baptized; and three thousand persons on that occasion were added by baptism to the Church. From the baptism of three thousand persons in one day, it might be pretended that it was only figurative, and consisted in the grace of the Spirit being poured out on them, when they received the words of Peter; but they were already touched with compunction, when they inquired of him what they should do that they might be saved, and when told: “let everyone of you be baptized,” they were necessarily led to understand the command of a washing with water, since this was the received acceptation of the term. The use of water by the Apostles on several occasions is admitted by the opponents of baptism: “It is freely admitted,” says Enoch Lewis, “that the Apostles, after our Lord’s ascension, did sometimes baptize their converts with water:” but any possibility of cavil on this point is precluded by the positive declaration of St. Peter, when Cornelius was to be baptized: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” On this fact, St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, remarks: “Cornelius was a just man, favored with angelic visions, whose prayers and alms were like a high pillar erected in the heavens reaching unto God; Peter carne, and the Spirit was poured out on the believers, and they spoke with strange tongues, and prophesied, and after the gift of the Spirit, the Scripture says, that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: that the soul being born anew by faith, the body also might receive grace by the water.” The Eunuch learned from Philip the necessity of this ablution with water. “See, here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized?” Ananias called, to Saul: “Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” The Apostle himself constantly speaks of baptism as a laver. Christ loved the Church, “cleansing it by the laver of water.” It was, then, the persuasion of those who received the commission, and of those who were associated with them in its execution, that they were empowered to perform an ablution with water. To say, as Barclay insinuates, that the Apostles mistook the meaning of their Master, is destructive of the certainty of Christian faith, and is irreverent to Him, who, in that supposition, ill provided for the correct manifestation of his will to men. Who can read without horror the language of this Apologist? “Although it should be granted, that for a season they did so far mistake it as to judge that water belonged to that baptism,” (which, however, I find no necessity of granting,) yet I see not any great absurdity would thence follow. For it is plain they did mistake that commission, as to a main part of it.” Joseph John Gurney, a recent writer on the same subject, has not hesitated to say that the Apostles were unprepared for the perfect spirituality of the Christian dispensation, although the germs of it were in their hearts: “As long as they observed the ceremonies of, the law in their own persons-as long as they continued unprepared ‘for a full reception of the doctrine, that the ordinances and shadows of the law were now to be. disused, and that God was to be worshiped in a manner entirely spiritual-so long would they, as a matter of course, persevere in the practice of baptizing their converts in water.” The practice of the Jewish ceremonies by the Apostles, and the doubt raised as to the admissibility of the Gentiles to the privileges of the Church, and their subjection to the Mosaic ceremonial, are alleged by Barclay and by Gurney, in proof of their having mistaken the commission, and not understood fully the spiritual character of the Christian dispensation: but there is no evidence whatever of such misconception. The renitence of Peter to eat of meats legally unclean, when presented to him in vision, was a natural result of long habits of legal observance, and the command given him not to designate as unclean what God had sanctified, was not so much to enlighten him with regard to the admissibility of the Gentiles to the Church, as it was to enable him to defend their admission against the converts from Judaism, whose prejudices might lead them to condemn it: whence he appealed to those who accompanied him: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we”, In observing the legal ceremonies, the Apostles conformed to the will of their Divine Teacher, who himself observed them, and wished them to be respected, although they were to be discontinued as soon as the amalgamation of Jews and Gentiles in one Church suffered their discontinuance, without prejudice to their original institution. The Gentiles were authoritatively declared by the Apostles to be free from the, yoke of the law, both in the council of Jerusalem and in the epistles of St. Paul; and the conduct of Cephas, in withdrawing from the common table, was an act of condescension to Jewish prejudice, unattended with any false teaching. The retention of some ceremonial observances for a time did not arise from any imperfect conception of the spiritual character of the Christian dispensation, much less from any positive error; but from considerations of prudence, and a necessary regard to their divine origin. It is impossible to consider water baptism as one of them, since it is no where prescribed in the Mosaic law. Whatever may be thought of the baptism of John, baptism is simply and absolutely an institution of Christ himself, since he commanded it, and prescribed the form of words ,that should distinguish it. His promise to be with the Apostles, baptizing and teaching, is a pledge and guarantee that they should be directed by Him for the proper performance of each duty, and does not suffer us for a moment to think that they should have administered a baptism which He did not institute. As then the fact is manifest from the Scriptures, and conceded by the Friends, that the Apostles did baptize with water, the conclusion is irresistible that water baptism is-of divine institution. Whosoever says that they misunderstood the intentions of Christ, or that they were unprepared for the full development of the spiritual character of the New Covenant, makes void the promise of Christ to be with them, to send them the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, to teach them all truth; and thus overturns the whole fabric of Christianity. The words of St. Paul to the Corinthians are alleged, to show that baptism with water is no part of the Christian dispensation, and that if permitted for a time, and useful to lead the Jews, who had been. accustomed to external rites, to the knowledge of the mysteries of faith, it was in no way suited to the Gentiles, and but rarely practiced, and that the Apostle regretted having adopted the practice even for a time: “I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Caius: lest any should say that you were baptized in my name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanus: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” The inferences drawn from this passage are altogether unwarranted. The Apostle spoke in reference to their personal partialities for their teachers, which were an occasion of schism; and he reminded them, that they were disciples of Christ, and not of the individual who brought them to the knowledge of salvation, or received them into the Church by baptism. ” Is Christ,” he asks, “divided? Was Paul then crucified for you-? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” He rejoices that he had baptized but few of them, because there was so much the less reason to fear that they would cling to him as a leader, to the detriment of the unity which they should cherish in Christ: and he states that the chief object of his vocation was to preach the gospel, to bear the name of Christ before the Gentiles, and their kings, and the children of Israel. In calling him to the faith, Christ wished the converted persecutor to become an illustrious witness of his divinity, that Jews and Gentiles might be led by his testimony and example to-believe and to adore. He was, doubtless, commissioned to baptize, as all the Apostles were positively ordered by Christ himself; and he actually baptized several among the Corinthians; but he generally left the performance of that duty to others. It was not a rite of rare performance, since it was the gate of the Church, and all who bore the Christian name had entered thereby. The Apostle addresses all the Corinthians as baptized persons, and reminds them that they had not been baptized in his name: “Were-you baptized in the name of Paul? “In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” This cannot be wrested to signify a mere internal baptism, as by it all were-made” one body,” being aggregated to the Church. All foundation ‘for the assertion that the rite was used in condescension to the Jews, is take away by this passage, which is directed to Gentile converts, and declares that all of them had been baptized. In vain is it pretended that baptism with water is not implied in the term baptize. The Apostle evidently speaks of their unity as a body, which is effected by baptism, wherein they are born of water and of the Holy Ghost. But we are asked where is the proof that the Apostles themselves were baptized with water? If they were, it must have been, it is said, with the baptism of John, since Christ baptized no one. Of the baptism of Paul himself we have positive testimony. That the other Apostles were baptized, we have reason to presume from the fact, that they were chosen to be the first ministers and heralds of Christ, and the first priests of the new dispensation, although, if Christ so pleased, he could no doubt have dispensed them from this necessity. That He himself baptized some, is stated in the Gospel; and when it is said in another place, that not He, but His disciples baptized, this is manifestly meant of the ordinary and frequent performance of this rite. “Whether,” says Tertullian, “they were baptized in any way, or continued without baptism, so that what was said by our Lord to Peter concerning his being already washed, should be referred to us only, it is altogether rash to doubt of the salvation of the Apostles, since the prerogative which they enjoyed in being first chosen by Him, and afterwards continuing in intimate familiarity with Him, could supply the place of baptism.” The proof, -then, of the meaning of the divine commission, derived from the practice of the Apostles, is nowise weakened by the silence of the sacred writers as to the fact of the baptism of most of them. Admitting that they were not baptized, It does not follow that the command of Christ was not to be executed by them in regard to others. But as no book of scripture professes to be a full record of all the acts of Christ, it is not wonderful that we should not have positive testimony of facts, which may well be presumed from the general rule established for initiation into the church. We have positive statements that the Apostles baptized with water those who sought admittance into the church, and these justify us in maintaining that the command given-them must be so interpreted.

“I make my Confession before God, and this is enough.”

With regard to such a false principle of modern sectarians, what has been stated in the chapter 2., sec. 2, and 3; is to be remembered, that is, that according to the present order of Providence in the evangelical law, the Christian sinner cannot find any other means of pardon, except that of sacramental confession when it is possible to do it. To hold a contrary doctrine would be to fall into an error already condemned by the Church in the sixth canon of the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent, where excommunication is pronounced upon any one who should maintain one of the following propositions: “That the institution of confession is not of divine right; that confession by divine ordination is not necessary to salvation; that the mode that the Church from the beginning has always retained and still retains for the manner to confess secretly his faults to the priest alone, is contrary to the institution and command of Jesus Christ; that such an institution is a human institution.” And to induce the faithful to comply at least once a year with such an obligation, the same Council pronounces anathema against those who would dare to maintain that the faithful are not obliged to go to confession, at least once a year, according to the canon of the Council of Lateran. God wishes to grant pardon, but He wishes that His ministers should pronounce the sentence, in order that this, having been lawfully pronounced, He should confirm it. “The servant,” says S. John Chrysostom (“Lib. de Sacerd.”), “pronounces before the master; the heavens expect the judgment of the earth to give its own: there is confirmed what has been here decided.” Origen likewise says: “If we disclose our sins, not only to God, but to those who may apply a remedy to our wounds and iniquities, our sins will be effaced by Him who said: ‘I have blotted out thy iniquities as a cloud, and thy sins as a mist.’ “-Isaias. And S. Augustine says: “Nobody may say ‘I do secret penance before God,’ because from this it would follow that without reason has been said, ‘whose sins you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,’ and likewise without reason the keys of heaven have been given to the Church of God; by so saying, we frustrate the Gospel of God, frustrate the words of Christ.” S. Pacianus refuting the novatians, says: “But God alone, you Novatians will say, can grant the pardon of sins. Even so, but what He does by His ministers is done by His own power”-quod per sacerdotes ruos facit ipsius potestas est. There is no person, however privileged, as has been already observed, that can be dispensed from the duty of going to confession to the minister of God; from the humblest of subjects to the greatest of monarchs; but this happy necessity makes all sinners equal before God, and obliges all without distinction to wash themselves in the same purificatory, as if they wish to participate of the so many spiritual goods that are derived from the sacrament of confession.

Love is divisible into

I. Perfect or divine love, which includes the

1. Love of GOD, as GOD;

2. Love of GOD’S image, for GOD’S sake;

3. Love of created things, in relation to GOD.

II. Imperfect or human love, which centers in the

4. Love of self.

II. Self Is The Source And Origin Of All Human Sin

Love of self, or imperfect love, may take three forms:

1. Of loving evil or ill, in love distorted;

2. Of loving too little, in love deficient;

3. Of loving over-much, in love excessive.

III. Deadly Sin Is The Development Of Human Selfishness.

Human selfishness may be developed into

I. Love distorted, which is evidenced by 1. Pride; 2. Envy; 3. Anger:

II. Love deficient, which is evidenced by 4. Sloth:

III. Love excessive, which is evidenced by 5. Avarice; 6. Gluttony; 7. Lust.

IV. Divine Love Is The Antidote To Human Selfishness.

Human selfishness may be conquered, in the form

I. Of Love distorted, by 1. Humility; 2. Brotherly Love; 3. Meekness:

II. Of Love deficient, by 4. Charity:

III. Of Love excessive, by 5. Liberality; 6. Temperance; 7. Purity.

338. The second commandment of the Church is, “To fast and abstain on the days appointed”. It appears to be of Apostolic origin; but it is ever adapted by the authority of the Church to the changing circumstances of times and places. Since it regards important matters, it carries with it a grievous obligation; still a slight transgression of the law constitutes only a venial sin. The precept of fasting obliges the faithful who have completed the twenty first, but not the sixtieth year of their lives, to take only one full meal a day, about noon or after, on all the week-days in Lent, the Ember-days, and on the vigils of Christmas, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and of All-Saints Day; also, except in some dioceses of this country, on the Fridays in Advent. Besides the one full meal, two ounces of solid food are allowed in the morning, and a collation, or light supper, at night, at which eight ounces of solid food may be taken. More is allowed if more is needed by anyone in order to continue the fast for successive days without injury to health. Drink does not break the fast; but milk is considered rather food than drink. The Church excuses from the law of fasting: a) All those employed in hard and prolonged bodily labor; b) The sick and infirm generally; c) Pregnant and nursing women; d) The very poor, who cannot usually procure very nourishing-food. In doubt as to the sufficiency of the excuse, the proper course is to consult once’s pastor or confessor; these, besides being safe interpreters of the law, can in certain cases grant dispensations from its obligations.

339. The law of abstinence, as now in force in the United States, forbids no other food than flesh-meat; this it forbids in all its forms, including meat soups and sauces, except however lard used as a substitute for butter. This law obliges all the faithful who have the use of reason to abstain from flesh-meat on all Fridays, except on Christmas when it falls on that day; also on all fast-days (n. 338) except the Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays in Lent, and except all the Saturdays of Lent but the second and the last. Those obliged to fast may not eat meat more than once on the days on which it is allowed; and none of the faithful, except the sick, may eat flesh-meat and fish at the same meal on a fast-day or a Sunday in Lent. It belongs to the Bishops to make such special regulations for the observance of the general laws of fast and abstinence, as they deem proper for the faithful of their diocese.

340. The practices of fasting and of abstaining from special kinds of food and drink, and other species of mortification, are highly recommended to all the faithful without exception, provided they be restrained within the proper bounds of Christian prudence, For they are taught us by the example of Christ and the Saints, and are inculcated in numberless passages of Holy Scripture. They are often necessary to weaken concupiscence and to obtain the grace of resisting temptations. St. Paul teaches this when he writes: “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection; lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway” (I Cor. 9:27). These acts of penance are among the most efficient means to obtain pardon of sin, and any favors we may desire from the liberality of God; as we see exemplified in the pardon which He granted to the Ninivites (Jonah 3).

Buy From Amazon

Of this warfare, which is the foundation and the deepest thought of Freemasonry, I will only quote three facts, which can leave no doubt on any impartial mind as to the real spirit of the Order. I will first ask: Was it not a deeply seated hostile intention that, in 1869, at Brussels, Naples, and Paris, those new councils (in Masonic language, conventions) were convened in the face of the Ecumenical Council? And quite lately, has not a similar ‘convention’ tried to meet in Rome itself? We may remember that this Paris Convention was announced by a circular of the Grand Master of the Order, General Mellinet, who had been at the same time, under the Empire, Commander in chief of the National Guard of Paris. The following is the circular: ‘TT .·. CC.·. FF… [which means, Very dear Brothers],-The General Assembly of the “Grand Orient” of France, in its last Session, passed the following resolution:

I only wish to make one remark upon this circular: it is upon the motive of this projected Convention. It is to elaborate and vote a solemn manifesto-for what purpose? To affirm certain principles which it was important to lay down in face of the Ecumenical Council. Would it be possible to declare in a more explicit manner the flagrant antagonism between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church? And if it were possible to have any doubt left on the subject, would it not be enough, to remove it, to remember a letter published at that time by M. Michelet, and in which the ‘manifestation’ which it was incumbent on the Freemasons to make (according to M. Michelet), ‘in face of the Ecumenical Council,’ would be “THE TRUE COUNCIL WHICH WOULD JUDGE THE FALSE ONE.” The second fact, by which the warfare declared by Freemasonry against Christianity is clearly revealed, consists in the attacks emanating from the Masonic lodges against the religious institutions of Christianity, institutions which they affirm must be ‘crushed’ and ‘Extirpated, Even By Force,’ ‘The Monkish Hydra’ is the term which the Venerable of the Lodge of ‘The Three Friends’ applied to Christianity; and another ‘Venerable’ (in a speech on the occasion of his installation), quoting this ‘happy expression,’ exclaims ‘This monkish hydra, so often crushed, threatens again to lift its hideous head;’ while a third, in the midst of frantic applause, adds: ‘It is our right and our duty to occupy ourselves with this question, and it is high time that the country should take the law into its own hands, EVEN SHOULD FORCE BE NECESSARY TO ERADICATE THIS LEPROSY’ (bravos). And now what are we to say to those Masonic confraternities in which they enter into a formal engagement to have neither baptism, religious marriage, nor priest at the sick-bed; where they go so-far as to issue orders to the members of the confraternity to intervene in the most odious manner, at the last hour, between the dying man and his family, whereby the adept of Freemasonry thus deprives himself, by these sacrilegious engagements, of all possible return of conscience or repentance at the hour of death? From whence sprung this horrible sect, which seems to have given itself the mission to immolate all hope between what they call the ‘eternal unknown’ which precedes birth and the ‘eternal nothingness’ which follows death’ from the Masonic lodges in Belgium. whence it passed quickly to the Masonic lodges in France. Very soon, in fact, one of the Paris lodges (L’Avenir), in imitation of the Belgian Freemasons, created in its bosom a committee or confraternity of this kind. The following is the 10th art. in its statutes:

And they call this the right to die in freedom (le libre mourir)! They thus bind the will of their members – They institute of their own free will this revolting intrusion in the very heart of their own families, so that the Freemasons, armed with a threefold copy of the mandate, may come into a house and say to the father, mother, wife, or children of the dying victim, “This dying man, this corpse belongs to us. Be so good as to leave us alone and retire!” It is, then, the member of the Freemason committee, and he alone, who will watch by the dying bed; and when his last hour is at hand there will be for the unhappy Freemason neither father, mother, wife, nor child; neither brother nor sister, nor any link of family or friendship or religion; nothing but the committee and its tyranny! It is true that In France the official organ of Freemasonry has been somewhat shocked at the publicity given to this monstrous abuse, which had been but too long tolerated, From reasons of order and prudence, the Grand Master pretended that this extreme measure was a reflection on Masonic principles, and in consequence he suspended the lodge called ‘L’Avenir’ for six months. But how often, and in how many other lodges and Masonic newspapers, have not the principles of the ‘Avenir’ and the confraternity been proclaimed! That which the Masonic journals, such as the Monde-Maconique, set up above everything is Atheism to the dying bed. These deaths without God, these departures for eternity without any religious consolations, these funerals without prayers, these are what this newspaper calls ‘dying without weakness’. In one single number I see related and carefully chronicled five deaths and five burials of this sort, two of which are of women! and they are described in these terms: ‘He died without the assistance of a minister of any religion.’ ‘He died faithful to his principles, and was buried without a priest.’ ‘Useless to mention that the funeral of Mdme. F. was a purely civil ceremony.’ And again: ‘Upwards of two thousand Masons followed the hearse of Mdme. S. C.’ Elsewhere. in the same review, I read : ‘Ever since 1863 Brother Bremond, treasurer of the lodge called “L’Echo du Grand Orient,” had entrusted to the “Venerable” of the lodge a letter, in which he declared: “I wish to be buried civilly and Masonically.” So that I am not surprised to read in this same Macon Masonique that the R Lodge, L’Ecole Mutuelle,’ which has for first Sur.’. (Inspector) Brother Tirard, placed among the ‘orders of the day,’ for discussion, the following subject: On the Organization of Civil and Masonic Burials. And, alas, what Impieties, and, I must add, what miserable stupidities these lodges orators indulge in on these occasions! Thus, at the funeral of Brother Bromond, of whom we spoke just now, Brother Pinchenat exclaimed: ‘Man dies, but his ideas do not die with him. … Poor dear brother, thou wilt revive in us!’ What consolation for this poor Brother Bremond thus to revive in the dear Brother Pinchenat! Do not then talk to me any more of this toleration and respect for religion, inscribed, must one say, so hypocritically, on the frontispiece of the Masonic Constitution.

 Gratian devoted a series of canons in the Decretum to the many problems presented by the proprietary church system. The greater part of two Questions give excerpts from the Church’s legislation aimed at bringing to an end the abuses which lay usurpation of ecclesiastical authority had produced in the past. Two fictitious cases introduce the Questions of the Decretum here under consideration. The first is at Causa X, where Gratian proposed the case of a certain layman who wished to separate a church he had built from the authority of the bishop. The bishop in turn claimed complete authority over the church, going so far as to seize it by force. Gratian then asked as his first Question: “an basilica cum omni dote sua ad episcopi ordinationem pertineat?” The second case involved the possibility of a layman entrusting a church to the care of a monastery. In answering these two questions, Gratian touched upon such subjects as the general authority of the bishop in parish affairs, the problem of lay investiture, and the possession and administration of tithes. By examining the rubrics and the dicta surrounding these canons, and by a study of the comments made upon them by several of the early Decretists, the attitude of the Church’s first canonists toward the lay holders of churches can be discovered and evaluated. Gratian replied to his first question with an uncompromising defense of the authority of the bishop over the churches in his territory. Consecrated churches could not be separated from the lex diocesana. To support this principle he presented first a passage from the Council of Lerida, held in 546: “Si ex laicis quisquam a se factam basilicam consecrari desiderat, nequaquam eam sub monasterii specie, ubi congregatio non colligitur, a diocesana lege audeat segregare.” The reason underlying this canon was epitomized in the rubric: “Ecc1esia et omnia jura earum ad episcopi ordinationem pertinent,” which introduced another canon defending the bishop’s rights over the churches. “omnes ecclesiae cum dotibus suis, et decimis, et omnibus suis, in episcopi potestate consistant, atque ad ordinationem suam semper pertineant.” For the most part, Gratian attacked the lay founder only indirectly, stressing the fact of the bishop’s authority over the churches in his diocese. One rubric, however, explicitly excluded lay founders from any participation in this power: “Basilicarum conditores in rebus ecclesiarum nullam se potestatem habere cognoscant.” It is to be noted that most of the legislation quoted by Gratian in defense of the bishop’s authority was taken from sixth and seventh century councils held in Gaul, and was originally directed against the lay founders of churches and their heirs. Keeping this in mind, as well as the fact that for Gratian the concepts of lex diocesana, potestas, and ordinatio connoted both jurisdictional and administrative power, we can conclude from an examination of these few quotations that the Magister conceded to lay holders of churches no authority whatsoever. Though noted for their independence of judgment and for the variety of their opinions, the early Decretists had little comment on the firm stand Gratian took against lay control of churches, other than to repeat the general principle that the bishop had complete authority over churches. Typical was the comment of Rolandus Bandinelli, the future Alexander III: “Generaliter enim tam ecclesiae quam decimae nec non et quaelibet res ecclesiasticae in episcoporum et non laicorum consistunt. Laici enim nec decimas nec ecclesias sua vel alterius auctoritate possidere possunt.” These early commentators were careful, however, to safeguard the rights of those monasteries exempted from the bishop’s jurisdiction by special privilege of the Roman Pontiff. One of the more flagrant abuses of the proprietary system was the misappropriation of tithes and church funds by the lay lords. Gratian recorded in at least a dozen canons of the two Questions under study the Church’s opposition to this practice, and in so doing strengthened his own position, and consequently that of his followers, that the laity have no say in church government or administration. Included among his sources was the solemn condemnation by the I Lateran Council (1123) of the practice of lay appropriation of the offerings of the faithful. He ended his short treatment of the problem in Causa X with the dictum: Premissis auctoribus ecclesiae … tam ecclesiae quam oblationes et facultates earum a laicorum dispensatione probantur esse immunes. In a second and more lengthy attack on this abuse, Gratian also appealed to legislation of the Gregorian Reform. Earlier in the Decretum, bishops who distributed tithes to laymen were declared guilty of simony. They were to appoint procurators from among the clergy to care for the administration of the offerings of the faithful. Gratian’s early commentators repeated and re-emphasized his own condemnation of lay alienation of church funds. Stephen of Tournai, for example, considered the right to possess tithes a jus spirituale, one which was not subject to prescription. The author of the Summa Parisiensis looked upon the practice of alienation of tithes as contrary to the divine law. During the period in which Gratian wrote, the practice of lay investiture was still prevalent enough to warrant his devoting several canons to the problem. He attacked the practice at every level, by quoting legislation which condemned lay investiture in connection with the conferment of both episcopal benefices and the lesser dignities, his general thesis being that no cleric could receive a church from a layman. Several canons he recorded pronounced excommunication upon those guilty of conferring or accepting benefices by means of lay investiture. The rights of bishops in matters of investiture were also defended by the early Decretists. The teaching of Rufinus serves to illustrate this. . . . in hac questione asseritur usque ad sanguinem defendere debemus, scilicet quod per manum laicorum nec abbati nec alicui liceat accipere ecclesiam.