Dear Roussel,
Thanks for your letter. I have ordered last weeks Church Times but it has not yet arrived...
I do not remember exactly what I said the other day, but I do not think you yet know the full extent of my difficulty.
My difficulty is something like this.--Our Lord taught 1900 yrs. ago in a country known as Palestine, for about the space of three years. After that time He ascended into Heaven, but before doing that He made provision for the teaching of posterity the words which He had spoken. A great many of these words have since been written down by Evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. That this is not sufficient of itself we see by the fact that whereas one man who receives the Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God professes to find from that Scripture one thing, another man professes to find quite another thing, and yet both alike profess to find it after prayer, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Take for instance the question of the Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Here, O'Bardsy, Vicar of St. Peter's, Bdfd., tells his congregation that in the Holy Eucharist they do not really & truly receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, whilst in the neighboring parish of St. Mary Magdalene's, Wm. Redhead, the Vicar, tells his congregation that in the Holy Eucharist they do really and truly receive the Body and the Blood of our Lord. Now both of these men profess to have found their respective doctrines from the same source, and under the same guidance. But it is perfectly obvious that one of them must be in the wrong. Which of them is it?
Now as I have said, our Lord did make provision for the teaching of His people after he was gone. He did establish a Church which should teach the world that which is contained in Holy Scripture, & should be able to decide, if necessary, what was the meaning of any disputed passage, and should be able to solve any doubts and difficulties of any of its members. Now this was a great work for Him to give to His Church, but He also made it able to do it. He did send it the promised Comforter whom he promised would remain with it always (St. John XIV. 16). And again, when He sent them out to preach, He promised that He Himself would be with them...
This Church then must be at the present time in existence & always have existed since the time when Our Lord founded it.
Nextly -- How are we to recognize it? We are told - By their fruits ye shall know them.
So I next try to find out what would the characteristics of such a Church be?
The first thing I find is that whatever it teaches must be absolutely true. The Holy Ghost dwells within it. Our Lord Himself abides with it -- therefore whatever it teaches is true, for if not it must be untrue, and God cannot back up what is not true, for if He did He would cease to be God. It must then be Infallible.
If then it is infallible it must be one, for ... It cannot be divided -- "A house that is divided against itself cannot stand." It must be absolutely uniform on all matters of Doctrine (F[athe]r['s] objection about Card. Newman's ..... does not touch this for it was not a matter of doctrine, but merely a policy).
It must be Catholic and Apostolic.
Now let me look at the different views on the Catholic Church held by those who call themselves Catholics.
The Anglicans maintain that the Church consists of different "branches". The "English Church" is one, the "Roman Church" another, and the "Eastern Churches" others. Now they admit that all these "branches" differ amongst each other on certain points of doctrine. For instance, on the question of Transubstantiation, or on the question of Purgatory & Indulgences. Are they then one? Yet no Anglican dares to say that his branch alone is Catholic, and others are heretical. Again, why does not the whole Church speak, and say which is right? Our Lord is still with it, for He promised to be with it always. The Holy Ghost still dwells in it, and animates it. Can the Church ever cease to teach whilst there are still doubts & difficulties to overcome?
Now the "Roman" view on the other hand, says that the Church must be one. But in order to secure it being one, Our Lord provided it with a visible Head, without which, the Roman Catholics claim there can be no true unity. Those who do not recognize this one Head are outside the Church, just as much as a branch cut off from a tree is no longer a part of the tree. Now when I look at this view I do find that the Church, according to the Roman view of it, has always been one, for it has always looked to the Pope for guidance, & has accepted as true what has been taught by the Pope. The Church, according to this view of it, must be one for the Pope cannot at some time make two directly opposite statements, nor, the Roman Catholics claim, can he at different times teach different doctrines, for he speaks only as the mouthpiece (so to speak) of the Church, and therefore at the bidding of the Holy Ghost who is the life & soul of the Church.
The Doctrine on infallibility of the Pope follows from the Doctrine on the Infallibility of the Church, once the Roman Catholic view of the Church is accepted. There can be no doubt, I think, that a Church bearing the characteristics which the Roman Catholics claim belong to the Church, has existed from the time of the Apostles themselves. And that this Church has always called itself the Catholic Church (& always did acknowledge the English Church to be part of it, until the English Church at the Reformation denied the Supremacy of the Pope.) And we know well enough that it does exist, and that it is in a flourishing condition at the present time.
It seems to me that Anglo-Catholics (so-called) profess that they teach what has been taught by the whole Church, but that each man is to use his own private judgement as to what has been taught by the Church.
Roman Catholics (so-called), on the other hand, look to their bishops to know what is the Church's teaching, and the Bishops to the Pope. So that according to the Roman Catholic view, a man has only to use his private judgment when he declares himself to be a Catholic or no.
Thus I find two views. -- If one be true, the Church is a disunited body. If the other is true, the Church is a United body. Which am I to accept?
The direct arguments as to the Supremacy of the Bp. of Rome, which have especially appealed to me, I think, I gave pretty fully in my last letter.
As to whether St. Peter was even Bp. of Rome seems to me to be sufficiently answered by the fact that it was never questioned until three or four centuries ago. There are other arguments -- perhaps better ones -- which I have not time to go into now.
With much love
Believe me,
Yr. very loving brother
Wm. Byles
