THE CHURCH AND CIVIL SOCIETY.*

LTHOUGH the title chosen for this paper is a widely

comprehensive one, the subject itself lies within much narrower limits. For, addressing such readers as these pages are likely to reach, a great deal may be assumed as demonstrated or admitted, and a great many difficulties may be passed over or set aside. To non-Catholics it would be necessary to prove the Divine constitution of the Catholic Church, the extent of her authority, the infallibility of her teaching, the depositories of her jurisdiction. And controversy has so raged round all these points during the last 350 years that their treatment in one paper, or in a dozen papers, would be still highly unsatisfactory. But with educated Catholics, the case is very different. With them all the proclaimed dogmas of the Catholic religion, and all the universally received teachings which are based upon those dogmas, may be presupposed as accepted principles. The objections urged against such dogmas and teachings will call for neither discussion nor solution. We can concern ourselves wholly with some of the logical consequences to which those principles lead up. In this way, then, we proceed to define and limit the matters which are to be considered in the following pages.

The Catholic Church is a divinely founded and divinely organised society. It has a very special object of its own-to carry on through all generations the work which Christ came to do, and which He aimed at chiefly, if not solely, during the years of His life on earth. This work is the salvation of men's souls, through faith in things to be believed and practice of things to be accomplished. In ordinary States we find an aggregation of individuals bound together by common interests, which they pursue under the direction and control of a common authority-an authority which, keeping ever in view the social ends to be attained, appoints by legislation the means that may be or must be employed to achieve them, and enforces by fitting sanctions obedience to its commands. In the ecclesiastical state-in the Christian Church-we should, therefore, be prepared to find a similar organisation.

We have changed a few phrases at the beginning of this lecture, in order to adapt it to its new environment, ED. I. M.

A visible society comprising vast multitudes of men, all striving after a common object which can only be realised by uniformity of beliefs and of action, would seem to require some supreme authority which shall teach what is to be believed, and point out what must be practised, and safeguard practice and beliefs by fitting sanctions. Now, we know that what reason would have led us to expect Christ has, in fact, established. He did not institute a school of philosophy, such as the Academy, the Porch, or the Garden. He did not merely, as Socrates or Plato, gather pupils round Him for a time to teach them the principles of high morality. He came to found a kingdom-to bind his followers closely together in a lasting bond, first with each other and then with Christ Himself; to explain to them what was right to believe and right to do, and dispose them to believe and do it. And so He based his kingdom on authority-authority to prescribe matters of belief and modes of action-His own authority while He remained with men, the authority of His delegates after He Himself departed from them.

It has been made a reproach to the Gospels that they contain almost nothing which can be described as an appeal to argument. The leaders of philosophic thought-Socrates is a notable example— strove earnestly to cultivate the reasoning powers, to lead men towards truth and right by rational conviction. Christ on the other hand, gave abundant proof, worked even miracles, to convince men of the Divinity of His mission. But that conviction once impressed upon them, and accepted by them, His appeal was ever after, to his personal authority. If He were under a Divine guidance, if He were even God himself, and if men acknowledged Him to be so, why should He justify His teachings and His precepts by arguments and reasonings? And, if the delegates to whom He has confided His authority, who speak in His name, and govern in his stead-if they are sharers in His Divine infallibility and His Divine jurisdiction, clearly it is as little necessary for them as for Him to justify their commands and teachings by human arguments within the sphere assigned to their authority.

There is, of course, no need to dwell at any length upon the point. We all profess gladly the right of the supreme rulers of the Church to pronounce dogmatically on questions of faith and morals; and, when they do so pronounce, we have neither difficulty

nor hesitation in accepting their decisions. But we are concerned to determine-firstly, what the limits of the province are, within which this authority can be rightly exercised; and next, who those persons are to whom the authority has been entrusted. For there are subjects in which no one doubts the Church's right to pronounce judgment, and in which she may evidently exact obedience from those who call themselves her children. The mysteries of faith, revealed laws of moral conduct, the system of divine worship belong, evidently to such a class of truths. There is a territory, that is, more or less clearly defined, and embracing interests exclusively spiritual and supernatural, in which Church authority, if it be admitted to exist at all, must be supreme; and there are subjects also over which the Church has clearly no control. What form of civil government a people shall adopt, what honourable worldly career a man is to select, how he is to order the daily details of his own home life-with these, and with a thousand things like these the Church professes she has no authority to directly interfere.

For the object Christ had in view when He came on earth, and when He established an enduring visible organisation to carry on and perpetuate His work, was wholly spiritual. "The Son of Man," He told Zacheus, "is come to seek and to save that which is lost," or as St. Paul expresses it more fully in his Epistle to Timothy : "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." And the Evangelists describe his labours as concerned only with this object: "He began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." "He went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom." It was no part of His plan to concern Himself with merely earthly aims. He made no effort to better the condition of his people socially. He did not direct their attention to what might be called social as distinct from moral virtues-to industry, cleanliness, intellectual training, thrift and material progress. He would not even act the part of a human peace-maker. "Master," said one to Him, "speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me." But He said to him: "Man, who hath appointed Me judge or divider over you?" And, when He sent His Apostles, He limited them to purely spiritual labours and to the miraculous works that should authenticate their mission: "As ye go, preach, saying the Kingdom

of Heaven is at hand; heal the sick, raise the dead; cleanse the lepers, cast out devils"; and later, after his resurrection, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." And the apostles were so imbued with this conception of their calling that they shrank at times from the very corporal works of mercy themselves: "It is not reason," they said, "that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore look ye out among ye men of good report whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word."

Then, after Christ had ascended, and the Apostles had passed away, the first few centuries that followed were centuries of persecution, and the Church was confined almost of necessity to purely spiritual functions. The conditions of her existence forbade all interference with state policy and works of social beneficence. It was only when persecution ceased that worldly interests began to press upon her. Constantine, when he embraced the faith, and later Christian emperors bestowed great wealth upon her. They burdened her Bishops with civil, legal jurisdiction. They charged them with the protection of orphans, of slaves, and of prisoners. They entrusted them with the execution of laws against gambling, appointed them to the superintendence of weights and measures, gave them a large share in the administration of municipal revenues, the carrying out of public works, the maintenance of military defences, and many other purely secular affairs. And, as time went on, other cares were added. The temporal power of the Papacy grew up and became consolidated; ecclesiastical principalities were established and multiplied; and the obligations and anxieties which are the consequences of temporal authority and temporal dominion pressed heavily upon the clergy. They shared in the election of sovereigns, ruled over kingdoms as chancellors and ministers, took part in legislation, visited foreign courts as envoys, and lived there as ambassadors. They interested themselves in wars and treaties, and engaged in the turmoil and intrigues of politics and diplomacy. Schools, orphanages, hospitals sprang into being, and remained, under their administration. There were few if any of the activities of social civil life in which Churchmen did not take a large share. And in too many cases, unfortunately, they were far indeed from attending solely "to prayer and to the ministry of the Word."

But on this state of things, in which secular objects seemed to constitute so large a part of the Church's aims, we should observe, firstly That it arose out of no definite plan or policy on the part of the Church herself. She has never claimed a direct mission from her Founder to administer worldly wealth, or to judge civil causes, or interfere in civil government, or promote intellectual or material progress. It was the liberality of the faithful, the needs of the empire, the social circumstances of the times which forced these occupations upon her. Again it should be borne in mind that ecclesiastical authority in temporal affairs, even when most fruitful in good results, must be often credited to Churchmen rather than to the Church. The Church's tolerance is not to be taken as approval even of their action. St. Cyril and his Parabolani, Ximenes, Richelieu, Wolsey, Mazarin, are not honoured in the Church for their secular achievements. Further, it is certain that the Church has suffered grieviously from the worldly aims which clerics have at times pursued. Intriguing for Church dignities, unsuitable promotions, the embroiling of the Church in civil strifes, popular distrust, and popular discontent, a consequent weakening of the Church's influence and a lowering of morality and faith, have too often been their outcome. It is not asserted by the most loyal Catholic historian that the social and political action of some even among the Popes has always promoted the best interests of Catholicism. It has been doubted whether Leo X.'s patronage of the New Learning helped then or since to sanctify or save a soul, but it has not been doubted that it aided powerfully in the revival of a pagan temper which proved most hurtful to faith and morals. No one-not even their most zealous defender will maintain that the merely civil policy of the Popes in peace and in war, their temporal dealings with petty Italian states, and with the more important European governments, have been always beneficial or even non-injurious to the spiritual welfare of the body of the faithful.

But while admitting all this freely, we may not look on it as an adequate presentation of the subject. Christ and His apostles did not busy themselves solely with things directly spiritual. Singularly enough, the first wonder which drew attention to Christ's public mission was a work of human kindness-the miracle of Cana-designed to spare his friends a momentary shame. And when the Baptist sent from his prison to ask: "Art thou He