“Similarly, what a shock would it perpetually be to my deep reverence for the spiritual head of the Church, and my conviction of his undoubted inheritance, from the Prince of the Apostles, of his august prerogatives, to find no trace of such a personage as the Pope in the sacred page,—­the title of ‘Bishop of Rome’ never whispered,—­no hint given that Peter was ever even there!  I really think it would be impossible to read the book without feeling my flesh creep and my heart full of doubt.  Similarly, take that single mystery of ‘transubstantiation’; though it seems sufficiently asserted in one text, which therefore it well (as is, indeed, the practice with every pious Catholic) continually to quote alone, yet, when I look into other portions of the New Testament, I see how perpetually Christ is employing metaphors equally strong, without any such mystery being attached to them.  I cannot but feel that I and every other vulgar reader would be sure to be exposed to the peril of suspecting that in that single case a metaphorical meaning much more probable than so great a mystery.”

“You reason fairly, my dear Sir,” said the Italian.

“Again,” continued Harrington, blandly bowing to the compliment, “believing, as I should, in the efficacy of the intercessions of the saints, in the worship of images, in seven sacraments, in indulgences, and necessity of observing a ritual incomparably more elaborate than an undeveloped Christianity admitted, how very, very apt I should be to misinterpret many passages, both in the Old Testament and the New!  How is it possible that the vulgar reader should be able to limit the command not to bow down ’to any graven image’ to its true meaning,—­that is, ‘to any image’ except those of the Virgin and all the saints; to interpret aright the passages which speak so absolutely about the one Mediator and Intercessor, when there are thousands!  How will he be necessarily startled to find ‘seven’ sacraments grown out of ‘two’!  How will he be shocked at the apparent—­of course only apparent—­contempt with which St. Paul speaks of ritual and ceremonial matters, of the futility of ‘fasts’ and distinctions of ‘meats and drinks,’ of observing ’days and months and years.’ and so on.  His whole language, I contend, would necessarily mislead the simple into heresies innumerable.  Of numberless texts, again, even if the meaning were not mistaken, the true meaning would never be discovered unless the Church had declared it.  Who, for example, would have supposed that the doctrine of the Pope’s supremacy and universal jurisdiction lay hid under expressions such as ‘I say unto thee that thou art Peter,’ and ‘Feed my sheep’; or that the two swords of the Prince of the Apostles meant the temporal and spiritual authority with which he was invested?  Under such circumstances, I must say, that, if I were a devout Catholic, I should plead for the absolute suppression of a book so infinitely likely—­nay, so necessarily certain—­to mislead.”