IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 1.1 1^ lii 112 1^ 1^ i -- IIIIIM 1.25 1.4 = = IIIJ4 .4 6" — > V] *;j >> y /A Photogr^hic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14560 (716) 872-4503 41 ^\ LV \\ V o ^ A, ./^ % CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The to tl The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter'any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur |~~1 Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coiourid maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or Illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut cauK>er de i'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les d^tai's de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcoiordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality i:i6gale de I'impresslon includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible The post of tl film Orig begi the sion othe first sion or ill r~T\ Showthrough/ pn Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ The shal TINI whi( IVIap diffe entii begi right requ metl Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t^ filmtes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X n/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X lire d^taiPs jes du modifier ger une filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanlcs to the generosity of : Mills Memorial Library McMatter University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film6 f ut reproduit grAce A la g6n6rosit6 de: Mills Memorial Library McMaster University Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de I'exempiaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. des Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film^s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant so't par la dernidre page qui comporte une emprointe d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols y signifie "FIN". re Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. y errata id to fit ie pelure, 9on d n 1 2 3 |. 1 2 s :::^-:*:.'. 9 6 32X THE DOCTRINE ^^' OK Onuiio nMcrical SooiBty Papal Infallibility Stated and Vindicated ; Wixri AN Al'PK.NDIX OX CIVIL ALLEGIANCE, And Certain Historical Difficulties. ^jA :ii' BY TIIK Right Reu. John Walsh, D. D., Bishop of London, Ont -♦••♦- I SECOND EDITION. REVISED AND ENLARGED. '^irit ■■ : i.-;-^ b . ■ LONDON, ONT. I'KINTED BY THE KKEK PKESH PRIJCTINO AXU I'l JJLrHUISU CO., KICUMOM* .ST ■IkliHTDOn 3HT fTLi>iii,i.;;;i/';l j/. 3. ,.i ...1 A ^.1 1 V 1 o 'iJ.tOir fO Jo ,]•;' .i:/! H /'tcj-.co huA .h\0 A^obnoi \o t\fMV«iV<^ .0. Qi ,^\2,\5:i^4 ^,d(A> .usl^ \\\^\^ .u?iDpA,:y.3 Q>i,', u:M!VHn .-luETia^ aKOi- f '1^ 'l»r»»MM MJ< ,.>>■> .j'«lH»'.l.;Jl. JH 'I''/. ■'/:)■! >«iH-{ tf^A'A'i •A.iitk fill tH sit lianship.* doctrines. , revealed Liths to he region of h, then, h simply an- nity itself, early part jy General jndeavored ore simply vhat before B preached renced, the This I say, r the novel- Is; nothing, forefathers to posterity ve the faith, rium C. 23.) necessary iropriety of Itiathe nature "What is a lis the fruit of ^-e devised ; it I assumption |ed to you, not ;ie author, but ier, but the a new appellation an old article of faitli ?" The faith which was? before implicit, or wrapped up, as it were, in the deposit of revealed tniths committed to the Church, becomes by the Church's definition explicit faitli, to be believed by all, under pain of exclusion from her communion. Thus, when at Nice, A. D. 325, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Eternal Father was defined against Arius, there was surely nothing added to the faith. Nor again at Constantinople, A. t). 381, when the divinity of the Holy Ghost was asserted against Macedonius ; and when the Fathers of the Council of Ephesu-s, A.D. 431, pro- nounced Mary to be the Mother of God, what was it but reas- serting in a different form the de3ree of Nice ? Mary was the Mother of Jesus, and he was the Son of Ciod, consubstantial with the Father. Marv was therefore the Mother of God. So, again, when both, at Chalcedon, A.D. 451, and at Constantinople, A.D. 680, the Church defined that Jesus Christ has two wills, the human and divine, being both God and man, in opposition to the Monothelites, who contended that He had but one, there was here no new revelation, no new addition to the faith; there was only a new expression and assertion of the human and divine natures in the God-man: to use the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, " Wliat was it but marking with the propriety of a new expression, an old article of faith ?" Now this is precisely -what the Church has done in defining the doctrine of Papal Infallibility; she has marked with the propriety of a new expression an old article of faith. She has not by this de- finition made new additions to the faith, but merely declared an old truth, and proposed it to be explicitly believed by ti- j faithful. This will be abundantly shown as we proceed- So much about the much misunderstood question of definitions of faith. Protestant bodies have, in flagrant violation of their pal- mary principle of private judgment, made articles of faith and communion. Thus Episcopalians have their "Thirty-nine Arti- cles," and the Presbyterians their " Confession of FaitK" . 'i'-- .•.ri: THE STATE OF THE QUESTION. il.*.'" I !• .1 Xi /• , 1 I ' ! Papal Infallibility means that the Sovereign Pontiff is by divine appointment exempt from error, when, in his official capacity, he teaches obligatory doctrine to the Universal Church; that is when, as vicar of Christ, he proposes to the liniversal Church a doctrine regaiding faith or morals. I /. .ivct 'jfi; or ; '! The following is the statement of the Vatican Council on the subject : " We teach, and define it to be a dogma divinely revealed that when the Eoman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines that a doctrine regarding faith or morals is to be held by the Universal Church, he enjoys by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in de- fining a doctrine regarding faith or morals." It is most important that we should have clear and accurate notions on this subject. We have just stated what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is. It may be well, then, to state what it is not. Papal Infallibility is not Papal impeccability. It is one thing to be exempt from sin or the power of sinning, and it is another to be exempt from doctrinal error in teaching. According to the supposition of St. Paul, a person may have such extraordinary faith as to be able to remove mountains, and yet not have charity or tlie love of God, There is not, therefore, question here of the moral conduct of th^ Sovereign Pontiff, but simply of his official teaching as head of the Church- Infallibility is not inspiration. Inspiration implies infalli- bility, but the latter does not necessarily imply the former. By inspiration is meant that singular impulse of the Holy Ghost moving one to write : His direction and presence guiding and illuminating the mind of the writer, not allowing hini to err,, and causing him to write whatsoever God wishes. Inspiration,, itiff is by is of&cial I Church; [iiiiversal )uncil on I divinely edra, that eacher of hority, he to be held assistance ith whloh ved in de- ,.!/: MiM I.; id accurate le doctrine ite what it .-■.iiW'.'.i 1" It is one ing, and it teaching, may have nountains, lere is not, Sovereign e Church- lies infalli- irmer. By ioly Ghost |iding and Bi to err,, piration, then, comes immediately from God, and inspired writing is his very word. ' ""'' ' "' By infallibility is understood a s])c ..ial providence and assist- ance of God, by whicli the Pope is preserved from all doctrinal error in teaching and defining matters of faith and morals contained in the deposit of divine truth already revealed. In order that a Papal utterance may have the chamoter of a teaching ex cathedra, for which alone infallibility is claimed, it is rofpiired that it should treat of a question connected with faith or morals, and that it should propose a doctrine to be l)elieved or rejected under pain of censure. Secondly, that the Holy Father should manifest the intention of teaching as Pope, and of commanding the Universal Church to . accept his doctrinal decrees. These conditions are necessary to constitute an infallible ordinance issued by the sovereign Pontiff. .;■....;, i ....... ^ i , . i > w. • '-' Hence it follows that infallibility is not claimed for the Pope when he speaks in conversation, when he treats of scientific matters unconnected with the faith, when he writes private documents ; when as private doctor he writes theological trea- tises or commentaries on holy writ: nor is this august prerogative claimed for his private opinions, his disciplinary decrees, his omissions of definitions of faith, and other matters of this sort. This doctrine does not, therefore, bind us to hold that the Pope was always infallibly right in deposing Princes and absolv- ing subjects from their allegiance, and in the exercise of all the privileges which the jurisprudence of the ages of faith conferred upon him. Impartial history attests that in all these transac- tions the influence of the Pope was exercised in favor of human rights and liberties, in opposition' to tyranny and oppression. But all these considerations are beside the question, and have nothing to do with the point at issue. ivri^y^^\o Tmmui\'su^ 'imop. jd* Now there is nothing strange in the doctrine that God has given such a prerogative to man for the benefit of the human race which he came to redeem. Did He not repeatedly endow inwi ivith the gift of prophecy; enable him to peer into; the mysterious future, and with linerring accuracy foretell events t^at ^Were buried in its womb? Did he not give man the s stu pen Jons power of arresting the sua in its course, and the moon, when Josue commanded, " Move not, O Sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, Moon, towards the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and moon stood still till tlie people revenged themselves of their enemies ?" (Jos. X, 12-13.) Did not Mose8,by the divine power, fill Egyptian rivers with tides of blood ? Did he not, by the waving of his wand, cleave a passage through the Red Sea, whose waters stood up on either side like lic^uid walls, to enable the chosen people to pass dry shod to the shores of the desert land? Did he not cause to gush from the flinty rock, streams of sparkling water to slake the tliirst of the Israelites in the desert ? Has not God, in His New Dispensation, bestowed on man the power of forgiving sins ? — a power so stupendous as to extort from the wondering Jews the cry, "Who can forgive sins but God alone ?" Were not the Evangelists endowed with infallibility ? Were not the writers of the Acts and Epistles infallible ? Were not the Apostles of Christ infallible ? There is, therefore, nothing out of harmony with God's dealings with man, as shown either in the Old or New Dispensation, in the doctrine that God shields the supreme head of His Church on earth, from all doctrinal en-or in his quality of universal teacher. We have simply to ascertain if Christ has bestowed this prero- gative upon the Sovereign Pontiff, and, if we find that He has, we must bow in hmnble submission to His divine will, and bless and praise God, who has given such power to man. i'll not]:; /[iii lij I.. .■,.'»,..,-'. 1 . ,'. 'I t^., PAPAL INFALLIBILITY NOT A NEW DOCTRINE. Before entering upon this inquiry, we deem it proper to make some preMrmnary observations,to which we call the earnest atten- tion of our readers. One would be led to believe, judging by the newspiipers and pamphlets of the day, that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is a novel one ; that it has been started upon a wondering world in the full blaze of the nineteenth century, by a clique of bigoted and fanatical ultramontanes, whose object is to crush all liberty and freedom of thought, and to bind the immortal soul in chains of slavery ! Now, what is the fact ? 9 .>n\, l.f-.'J -'Ul ,e, and the in, toward don. And themselves f the divine I he not, by he Red Sea, ts, to enable ,f the desert ock, streams telites in the bestowed on endous as to a forgive sins idowed with and Epistles liUe? There lealings with jation, in the [is Church on ersal teacher, ed tliis prero- l that He has, riue will, and man. ,ii ii*>'j'' ,«ii )0CTRINE. .. Loper to make . earnest atten- judgingbythe .ctrine of Papal [started upon a tth century, by whose object ^d to bind the lat is the fact ? Why, that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is as old as tlie Church itself, and that it was never called into question by any persons calling themselves Catholics, until the fifteenth cen- tury, when, according to the principles of Catholic divines, this new doctrine which questioned Papal Infallibility was suspected and condemned. For this is Catholic teaching: All now opinions in faith and religion should be at least suspectrd, and, on the •contrar}', we should steadfastly adhere to those opinions which were held by the Church prior to tlie novelty wliose birthday is written and birthplace fixed. To prove the novelty of the opinion which denies Papal Infallibility, we need only the testimony of those wlio may be styled the Fathers of the new doctrine ; we mean ( Jerson and Major, for they were either its autliors or among its first pro])a- gandists. Gerson, in a treatise de protest. Eccles. Com. l,i, wi'ites thus: " Before the celebration of this Holy Council of Constance, this tradition or doctrine {viz., of Papal Infallibility) so swayed the minds of authors that the teacher of opposite opinions was either suspected or condemned for heretical tendencies ; of which here is a proof : After the declaration, and what is more important, after the determination and acts of the same sacred synod, those were found who did not hesitate to proclaim the same doctrine." (viz., of Papal Infallibility.) In his work '' de exconi." having proposed the question whether an appeal from the Pope to a council was allowed, he thus answers the question he proposes : " Formerly, /. *;., prior to the Councils of Pisan and Constance, they taught that this was by no means lawful, and for this opinion cited their laws expressed, as it seemed to them, very plainly." So much for Gerson. \\ •■■ c^r^vvt) 'V,.fY;.,-y -^^j.; vv*.*-.-- J*^.'\ ",;"■ .r>N',\ ■». •■• \\\\\\ .\' .w.i, ' Major, in language not less plain, fixes the same date for the introduction of the novelty. He says : " There are two modes of teaching which are opposed to each other. One holds that the Supreme Pontiff is above a General Council. This doctrine, some of the Cardinals hold. It is commonly held by the Thom- ists and at Eome, where they declare it unlawful to hold a con- trary opinion. The opposite doctrine our University of Paris *««• 10 has held since the days of the Council of Constance." {De Pot. Eccles. \M.) Here is the datfe of the new opinion which circu- lated in the Parisian faculty as in its fit orbit. But a doctrine unheard of by thfc' Church for the Space of 1,400 ye&rt, and which was only then introtluced by persons little better than wily schismatics, cannot by any means be called the doctrine of the C%urch, but is its very opposite. In point of fact, previously to what is known as the scliism of the West, the doctors of the Church uni7ersaUy held and taught Papal Infallibility. This is evident ftom the following facts : 1st The doctors of the faculty of Paris and other universities taught this doctrine as the un- doubted doctrine of the. Church prior to the above-named time. 2nd. All the Canonists maintained it. 3rd. The Bishops sub- scribed to it ; nor does it appear from their writings that any of these ever thought of - doubting it. It was, therefore, only a love for novelty that induced Gerson, and a few theologians of his day to disseminate his opinion as theological teaching, nsj ,, Having made these observations, we will now come to our ;..vi(i., ... PROOFS FROM HOLY WRIT, -i iLv;,.- It will be seen by the proofs which are about to be adduced that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is as clearly enunciated and as strongly proved in the pages of Holy Writ as that of the infaUibity of the Church itself, or that of the real presence of Christ in the blessed Eucharist. J. Our first ai^ament wiU be taken from the solemn words addressed by our blessed Lord to St. Peter, after the latter had declared his belief in the divinity of the Redeemer: ''Blessed art thou, Simon Barjojm, because Jlesh and blood have not revealed this to thee^but My Father, who is in Heaven. And 1 say to thee, thou art Teter, and upon this rock I mil build my Church, and tlie gates of liell shall not prevail against it. And I will -give to thee tJie keys of the Kingdom of Heawen, and what- soever tlwu shall bind upon earth it shallbe bound also in Heav&n, and luhxdsomir thou shalt loose upon- earth it shall be loosed nlso in HeamnV (Mat xvi.,'iC. 17/ 18,'19. v.) li )/f'»4 omoT'(n^ yiit ill ."We beg here to premisCi before coming to our direct argu- ment, first, that: St iPeter is. the Tock meant by Christ in the >im;*j 10 Y;ji!iniip) -nh\i II {Dc Pot. icli circu- a doctrine and which than wily ne of the previously tors of the ly. This is the faculty as the un- amed time, ishops sub- that any of (fore, only a eologians of iching. ^!"'3 come to our be adduced enunciated 'it as that of !al presence >lemn words le latter had sr: ''Blessed d have not \ven. And 1 ill build my it it. And I .n, and mhat- [80 in Hmvm„ he loosed tdso direct argu- Jhrist in the aforesaid words; for so the sense of the text demands, and so the Holy Fathers have, with a moral unabimity, always taught. Tertullian, who Hourished A. D. 195, says: "Was anything hid- den from Peter, who was called the r6ck whereon the Church was to be built ? " {De Prosscripf. Hcerct., No. 2^, p. S09.) Origen, A. D. 206, observes : " See what was said by the liord to that great foundation of the Church, and to that most solid rock upon whicih Christ founded the Church." (T. 2 Horn. 6 in Exod. K 4, p. 14s.) St. Cyprian, A. I). 240, says : " Peter, on whom the Church had been built by the Lord himself." (Ep. 4, ad Cornel., p. 83.) " Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church was laid." (St. Firmilian.) " Upon whom (Peter) Christ was about to build h's Church." (St. Hilary Tract in Ps. 131, N. 4, p. 447.) Peter is a firm rock upon which is based the Lord's faith ; upon which the Church is every way built. (St. Epiph. adv. Hser. p. 500.) "He (Christ) called him Peter, that is, the rock, and praised the foundation of the Church, which was built on the Apostolic faith. (St. Aug. Tr. 2, in Joan, No. 20.) As may be seen in Waterworth's Faith of CatJiolies, the Fathers, in regular series, teach that the rock was Peter, and the Church was founded on him. Tertullian teaches this twice ; Origen, four times; St. Cyprian, nine times; St. James of Nisibis, once ; St. Hilary, once ; St. Ephrem Syrus, once ; St. Gregory of Nyssa, once ; St. Gregory of Nazianzum, three times; St. Basil, twice; St. Pacian, once; St. Epiphanius, twice ; St. Ambrose, four times ; St. Jerome, three times ; St. Chrysostom, twice; St. Augustine, twice ; St. Maximus, twice; St Cyril of Alexandria, once ; St. Leo, five times, «&c., &c. {Fidth of GatJiolics, Vol. 2, page 4, &c. ' >^'"*^^^'' ^'^' Secondly, we must premise that what was here said of St. Peter was also affirmed of his successors. For in thiB very nature of things, and according to Scripture itself, the preroga- tives of Peter must descend to his successors. Peter is created the rock of the Church in order to preserve it firm and unshaken. For the good of the Church, Peter is constitilted its guardian and strengthener, in order to preserve it safe from the attacks of Satan. Peter is constituted its supreme Pastor. If, therefore, •■[ 'tu j/.\)i i)-j;r.juoii; u. UHJ 12 ,.i » r, -1 ■i .r.r » for the well-being and security of the Church, Peter has been invested with all his sublime prerogatives, it follows that these prerogatives must be permanent in the Church, and, therefore, must descend to Peter's successors. Besides, the Church of €hrist was to last forever. Its saving ministrations and its doctrines of truth were to reach unto every generation of men. " Behold, I am with you ail days, even unto the consummation of the world." (St. Matt., xxviii, 30.) " I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with yovL forever." (St. John, xiv.) The Church, therefore, was to bless the world, by its holy presence, down to the Day of Judgment ; and, therefore, the office of Peter as its visible head, with all its attributes and prerogatives, must also last forever, and must pass down to Peter's successors. The Pope dies ; but Peter is immortal in his successors. Hence Bossuet so truly remarks : — " The prerogatives conferred on Peter cannot be sup- posed to have ceased with him, because the foundations of a building designed to last forever cannot be subject to the rava- ges of time. Therefore, Peter will always live in his successor, and will always speak from his chair. Such is the doctrine of the Holy Fathers ; such the declaration of the sL\ hundred and thirty Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon." (Sermon sur rUnite.) The words of the Council of Chalcedon here referred to by Bossuet, are: — What Leo believes, we all believe; anathema be he who believes anything else. PctcQ' has sjpohcn tlwough Leo. ^y}'. <;..?/ ^ . ,;.,4,.- , / ... . . The doctrine that the prerogatives of Peter live in his suc- cessors, is further sustained by Patristic testimony ; but we need not cite here the words of the Fathers on this subject, as the ^quotations from those holy and learned doctors which we cite hereafter, under the heading, " Testimony of the Fathers," prove sufficiently that such was their belief, .^^.y^, jf-^jx^x v^\<-s\ i.* r..: ,m u' Having established that Peter is the rock on which Christ has built His Church, and that what is affirmed of him must also be affirmed of his successors ; that, in fact, Peter lives and speaks in his successors, we maintain that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is clearly enunciated in the aforesaid text. For he n ex has been s that these d, therefore, e Church of Lons and its tion of men. insummation ^ the Father, [e may abide herefore, was the Day of ; visible head, 3 last forever, ope dies ; but ssuet so truly >annot be sup- adations of a t to the rava- his successor, le doctrine of : hundred and Ion." (Sermon halcedon here we all believe; 'dcr has spoken /-• r ive in his sue- but we need subject, as the which we cite athers," prove I., lis J 1 which Christ 3d of him must Peter lives and octrine of Papal d text. For he i X. I is infallible against whom the gates of hell cannot prevail. But the gates of hell cannot prevail against l*eter, on whom the Church is built ; for if they could so prevail, then they would also prevail against the Church itself, since, if the rock were broken, or removed from its place by the power of error, then the Church which is built upon it would be shattered into frag- ments. But Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church. Therefore they shall never prevail against I'eter or his successors, and therefore the Pope — the rock of the Clmrch — is infallible. It follows, also, from the text, that the Pope is the princi})le and formal cause through Christ of the Church's infalliblity, and that, as a necessary con- sequence, he is himself infallibile. For why is it that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church ? Because it is built upon an unshaken rock, against ^^'hich the waves of error dash in vain. . - . We have a striking proof and illustration of the justness and force of this argument in the words of our blessed Lord himself, as we find them in the 24th and concluding verses oi' the 7th chapter of St. j\Jatthew: ''Every one, tim'eforv, that hearcth these, my words, and doth them, shall he likened unto a man that built his house upon a rock, and the rain fell, and the Jloods came, and the winds blew, and they beat against that home, and it fell net. And every one that hearcth these, my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that Miilt his house upmi the sand, and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the unnds blew, and they beat vpon that liouse, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof." In these words our blessed Lord expressly affirms that the reason why the house built by the wise man fell not when assailed by the most terrific storms, was precisely because it was founded upon a rock. And so it is with the Church of God. It has been able to resist the fierce tempests of heresy and error because it was founded by its divine architect upon an unshaken rock. On the other hand, we see that the house built by the foolish man, in the day of its trial, when the rain fell and the flood came, and the wind blew and beat upon it, fell to the 1 '■\j xmrn t'/v'j! H ■'ii:t •• 14 1^ H ground, and great was the tall thereof. And why ? Because it was built upon the sand. So, too, if the Church of God were built upon a foundation which could be swept away by the floods of error, it must of course necessarily fall, and sad and great would be the fall thereof, Tlie tpllowing is the cogent and irresistible reasoning of Dr. Murray^ of Maynooth, on this suljject : ^ -.i't --■■-> ,,,n' ' r '■ > ( ^. • , '• , ., f. " The rock certainly is one of the nlost expressive types of enduring, unconquerable strength. To represent a house as built upon a rock is one of the most expressive ways of conveying one's idea of the firmness, the security, the durability, the al)iding unity of the house. To rej)resent the foundation as chosen l)y the ablest judge, the house as built by the most expe- rienced architect and the most skillful workmen, is another not less expressive way of conveying the same. Yet all this is exactly, and to the letter, the way in which Christ represents the edifice of the Church and the foundation, Peter, on which it is built. That foundation is Peter ; Peter the man of faith ; I'e.ter, the rock of faith ; for Christ called him the rock ; Christ made him. the rock, and he is the rock: 'Thou art a rock.' Immediately, in the same breath, the whole Church of God is promised to be built on him, on liim as the rock : ' On this rock.' And the Church is built on Peter, the rock, not by the hand of man, however holy ; not by angels or archangels, but liy the Almighty God himself; built all by Him ; he alone being the designer, the architect, the workman, the author and finisher of the whole: *I will build my Cluu'ch.' Peter, then, is the unfailing, indestructible foundation. The whole Church is built on tliis foundation, is unfailing and indestmctible, and essen- tially indivisible. And the Church is all this because it is built on this rock Peter, and because God is the architect and biulder of it. From Pqter, then, the Church derives its stability and unity ; on Idm,: from him, through liim, it is undivided and invincible; without him it is neither. From Christ comes all, but through Peter. Christ made the rock and built the Church» but it was on the rock he built it : 'On this rock.' All that the €hurch has it has frohi Christ, and from none other ; but it has 15 Because it ' God were vay by the id sad and the cogent th, on this re types of luse as built ' conveying ability, the (undation as Binostexpe- another not jt all this is 3t represents jr on which aan of faith ; rock; Christ L art a rock.' ■h of God is ' On this ;, not by the ^ngels,bntby alone being ir and iinisher •, then, is the lurch is built 1, and essen- Luse it is built ^t and builder stability and tdivided and ist comes all, the Church. AH that the ' • but it has ■ , .r '. •■ ' . . ■ ■. "■> ■ . --'.I ft rf •■r;!ir- :<::t- "f!T it in the way, through the means established by Christ; and in no other way, through no other means. Christ is the rock not made essential, but from himself essential, by necessity essen- tial; Peter is the rock, not essential, but made essential. The Church could have done without him, had God so decreed ; but the Church cannot do without hiin, for God has so decreed, has made him necessary to it. It is a gi'eat mystery, but it is (iod's word, and in His word there are mysteries as great or greater. Human things are dim and incomplete beside lieavenly things, but we may compare them. The Sovereign is ruler of a distant Province; a Viceroy is ruler too ; the Sovereign rules through the Viceroy." J. „ji v-iyv jiuij v'i jH .•.-a-a ^<)a mijjj.u vjr}\ !<» j II. Our second argument fs taken from the the "Ist and 32nd verses of the 22nd chapter of St. Luke. " And the Lord said* Simon, Simon, behold Sataii has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that ihy faith fail not, and thou being once converted confirm thy bretiiren." [n the above (pioted text Christ foretold that tlie Apostles, and, by implication, the Church which they represented, would; ))e exposed, to most serious temptations uguinst faitli. He attirms that He has pxayed in a special manner for Peter, and, conse(piently for his successors, tliat their faith should not fail, and lie, imposed upon Peter the^ duty and responsibility of confirming in the faith his brethren; in. other words, the ChurchN which Satan would ever seek to crush. H«nce we argue^; the Churcli was to. be subject to most terrible temptations as I'egards faith, and Christ prepared a speicial remedy for it in His special prayer for Peter, the future head of His Church, that by him and liis successors, whose faith could not fail, the Church might be conhrmed in the.same saving faith. Now, if Peter or the ll6mah Pontiffs were; not infallible, or if liis faitli or theirs could fail when deciding ' as supreme teachers of the Universal Church,-; then it must be said that the prayer of Christ for Peter was inefficacious, or that Christ did not efhcaciouidy provide for thfe safety of His Church against the fierce attacks of Satan. But .since neither of these can be said without blasphemy against our blessed Lord, therefore we must necessarily admit the gift of infallibility in Peter and his successors. If I i6 The unconditional pi-ayer of Christ was always heard: "Father, I give Thee thanks," said Christ, "that Thou hast heard me,and I knew that Thou heaved me ahmys." (St. John xi.,41-42).. Again he is infallible in teaching the Universal Church, for whom, in the discharge of that duty, Christ efficaciously prayed for infallibility. But Christ efficaciously prayed for Peter and his successors, that when teaching the Univeraal Church they should never err. 1st. The prayer of Christ was efficacious, for its form is clearly absolute, and because all the prayers of Clirist that regard tlie constitution of tl\e Church are absolute and efficacious. (See St. John xiv., &c., and xvii.) 2nu. Christ prayed for infallibility, because in efficaciously praying tliat the faith of Peter might not fail, He by that very fact prayed for infallibility. Si-d. He prayed for Peter teaching the Universal Church, for he said : " Thou, being converted, confirm tliy brethren ;" i. c, the Bishops or teaching Church. III. Our third argument from Scripture is taken from the 21st chapter of St. John, 15th to 17th verse : ''Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me m^ore than these ? He saith to Him, yea. Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him, feed my lambs. He saith to him again, Simon, son of John, lovest thou 7ne ? He saith to Him, yea, Lord, Thow knowest that I love Thee. He said to him, feed my lambs. He said to him a third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thoit me ? Peter was grieved because He said a third time to him, lovest thou me. And lie said to Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things ; Thou hnmvest thcd I love TJiec, He said to him, feed my sheep." '-^^ ' ' From these words it is clear that our blessed Lord appointed Peter, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff, Supreme Shepherd of th& whole flock, including Bishops, Priests and Laity, and commis- sioned him to feed them with the words of eternal truth. Now, it is evident that this task Peter could not adequately perform without the prei-ogative of doctrinal inerrancy ; for if lie were not infallible it might occur that he would lead the whole flock of Christ into the poisonous and deadly pastures of error ; that, instead of feeding them with the saving doctrine of truth, he would lead them into the desert, there to perish of hunger, or to i!i(' ,\>:H )^.f ':,''' )•'-! •i'.[ i'tsM; V.>W{ Hi -nil\(Vl\[i\\m "!» lys heard', hast heard I xi.,41-42). Jhurch, for iisly prayed Peter and 5httrch they icacious, for jrs of Christ bsolute and 'hrist prayed at the faith , pi-ayed for he Universal confirm thy .rir.JH'-'' '■'''■" ■ ken from the 'Jesus said to re than these ? \(yve Thee- He pi, SirtKyn, son ., Lord, TJwu ,y lambs. He ,est th&ii we? ;w, l&vest thon things; Tho^i }heep'' >rd appointed jpherd of the and commis- ll truth. Now, Lately perform for if he were le whole flock |of error ; that, ^e of truth, he ^f hunger, or to 1 m ^7 be torn to pieces by wild beasts. We therefore unhesitatingly assert that this commission to feed the whole flock of Christ, the sheen and the lambs, the Bishops, Priests and Laity, implies the gift of infallibility. We cannot suppose that Christ woultl have committed His flock to a Shepherd who would lead them astray, or desert them when danger threatened. - Let us liere remark that the Gallican theory, which denies Papal Infallibility, and asserts the rij>ht of Bishops to sit in judgment on Pontitiual decrees, utterly sul) verts the order estab- lished by our blessed Lord, and authorizes the sheep to direct and control the Sheplierd, and not to be controlled l>y him. IV. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility flows from the divine constitution of the Church. Tlie Church is the mystic body of Christ. This is the conception of it given us in Scripture and the writings of the Fatliers. St. Paul thus concludes the first chapter of his Epistle to the Epliesians : "And he has put all things under His (Christ's) feet, and hath made Him head over all the Church, which is His bodv, and the fullness of Him who has filled all in all." (Eph. i., 22-23.) In his Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians, St. Paul continues the same description of the Church : "Whereas in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office, so we being many, are one body in Christ, and each one members one of another." (Eom. xii., 4-5.) " For in one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free, and of one spirit you were all made to drink. . . . . . Now you are the body of Christ and members of member." (1 Cor. xii., 11-27.) The same idea of the Church pervades all his writings, as well as those of the Holy Fathers. Of this mystical body of Christ, the Sovereign Pontiff* is the Supreme Head. St. Augus- tine thus ai-gues of the head and the body; "Therefore, as the soul animates and quickens the whole hody, but perceives in the head by the action of life, by hearing, by smelling, by the taste, by touch, in the other members by touch alone, for all are subject to the head in their opemtions, the head being placed above them for their guidance (since the head bears the person- i • i8 f,'- . I ' I,:- It \^ ality of the soul itself, which guides the body, for there all the senses are manifested,) so of the whole people of the Saints as of one body, the man, Christ Jesus, the mediator between God and man, is head." Now the Supreme Pontiff* ])ears a two-fold character, one as the representative of Christ on earth, the other as the visible head of the mystical body of Christ, which is liis Church. St. Augustine argues that the prerogatives of the head are in favor of the body ; for all are subject to the head in their operations, the head being placed above them for their guidance. But the Pope, who is the head of the Church, would bear no proportion to the body if, whilst it were infallible, he were not. It is the liead that should guide and direct the body. But if the Pope were not infallible, and if the Gallican theory were true, it is the body which would be governing and directing the head. Besides, the Supreme Pontiff", being head of the Church must, by the very fact of this relation, be considered its ordinary voice and expression. But how could he who might err be the normal and ordinary expression of an infallible Church ? Again, the Pope, as we have said, is the Vicar of Jesus Clirist, and His visible representative on earth ; but what representative char- acter could he bear if he were merely the fallible witness of an infallible head ? Our conclusion is that the Pope is by divine appointment infallible. V. The same doctrine necessarily follows from the divine institution of the primacy of the Apostolic See. The principles which all Catholics are bound to hold on this point lead logically and necessaiily to the dogma of Papal Infallibility. (A) It is agreed that the primasy of St. Peter over the wliole Church has passed down to his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, and (B) that this primacy is one not of mere honor, but of juris- diction also. It is admitted that (C) this primacy of jurisdiction was so ojiven to Peter and his successors as to belong to them alone; that(D) this jurisdiction of the primacy is not of human but of divine institution, based on the well known scriptural texts relating to St. Peter. What is the special nature of the , jurisdiction personal to Peter and his successors : what the end and object of the institution of the primacy, we gather fromi If ,ere all t\ie e Saints as itween God. s a two-fold bh, the other vhich is l^is .s of the bead head in their tieir guidance. ,ould hear no 3, he were not. hody. But If a theory were d directing the of the Church .red its ordinary might err he the Church 1 Ag^\ Christ, and His resentative char- 3le witness of an L>ope is hy divine trndition. From the belief and tradition of the Church we learn that the primacy was instituted chiefly for the purpose of preserving the unity of the faith, and that, for this reason, it was confeiTsd by Christ on Peter alone, and on his legitimate successors. The office, therefore, and jurisdiction of the primacy must necessarily regard tlie formation and preservation oi the ■Church's unity, of which the Roman Pontift' is the centre and principle ; and this office and jurisdiction must be such as to bind all Catholics to observe this unity, otherwise the moans would, not be adapted to the end. Now the unity of the faith is so necessary, that all are con- sidered as being beyond the pale of the Church, who l)y heresy assail the unity of belief. Tn order, therefore, that the lloman Pontiff' might be enabled to attain the great end of the primacy, in order that he miglit be enabled to fulfill the primary duty of liis office, he must have tlie right to bind all tlie meml)ers of the •Church to hold the same faith he does. From these premises, whicli all Catholics must admit, the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff in definitions of faith follows as a necessary conse' to the violence of persecution that swept over the Church in its early days, it would be unreason- able to look for those plain expressions of doctrine tliat appear in later ages ; but still striking evidences will be found in the scanty writings of that period, which abundantly sIkjw that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was then believed and acted upon. St. Iremeus, disciple of St, Polycarp, who wa.s a disciple ot St. John the Evangelist, informs us that in the secoml century it was necessary, in order to have the true faitli, to be in com- nnuiion and conformity with the Roman Church. " With this Churcli," says the Saint, " it is necessary that every other Church — that is, the faitliful on every side — should agree, because of its pre-eminent superiority ; witli this Church, in which the faithful, everywhere, have constantly guarded the tradition which comes from the Apostles." (Adversus H;ereses, Lib. iii., C. iii.) In this passage St. Irenieus proclaims the necessity for every Church, and for the faithful generally, to be united to the lioman Church ; not only l)ecause it jireserves tlie tradition of the Apostles, but because it exercises in this matter a pre- eminent superiority : that is to say, that its authority is supreme in matters of faitli. The logical consequence of this doctrine is the Infallibility of the Holy See : for, if it could err, then, according to St. Irena^us, the other Churches would be obliged to err with it. "If we remain firm in our allegiance to the See of Peter," continues the Saint, " we shall easily disconcert the malice of those who, either through conceitedness or bad faith, broach new-fangled theories at variance with sound doctrines."(Ibidem.) Tertnllian, who flourished also in the second century, calls the Church of Eome a blessed Church, in which the Apostles sealed the faith with their blood, and from which all authority emanates. (De Prses. C. 27.) - . --'■■•', ■ >' 1 u 21 [aith of tbe re cite them [y Writ, and iircU in theiv lubent on us e Vatlievs of gecution that be \iureasou- le that appear fownd in the show that the ml acted upon. s a disciple ot ;econd century to be in coni- " With this :y other Church ,vee, because of ' in which the [ the tradition ioreses, l^-ih- "i-» lie necessity for |3e united to the tiie tradition of 't matter a pre- Lority is supreme lis doctrine is the ^, then, according Liged to err with ,e See of Veter," :t the malice of ,ad faith, hroach .trines."abi^e^-^ ad century, calU ichthe Apostles 'lich all authority ', . I: Orij,'en, who Hourisheil towards the middle of the third century, commenting on the text : " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," asks whether it is to the rock or to the Church tlie pronoun it refers ? and he continues, "the phrase is aml)iguous. In my opinion the true meaning is : that the gates of hell shall prevail neither against the rock upon which Christ built His Church, nor against the Cliurch itself; for if the gates of hell should prevail against any one, it certainly would not l)e against the rock on wliich Christ built his Church, nor against the (Jhurch founded by Christ on the rock. The rock is inaccessible to the serpent ; it is stronger than the gates of hell, which wage war against it; it is because of its very strength that they cannot prevail against it. The Church itself, Christ's building, who wisely built His house on Peter, has nothing to fear from the gates of hell. These have power only against the man who finds himself separated from the rock and the (Jhurch." (in Matthiuum opus, torn, iii., Migne.) And in another place the same Father remarks, " Consider wliat must be the power and authority of Peter, the livimj rock, upon which the Church was built, and whose decisions have as much force and validity as oracles emanating from God himself." (Origen Caten.) It would be impossible to express in more direct and forcible terms, the inerrancy of the Supreme Pontiff. St. Cyprian (A.D. 258), writing to Pope Cornelius, says : " All heresies and schisms have sprung from a disregard for the one Priest and Judge to whom Christ has delegated His power ; for if in compliance with the intentions of our Lord, every member of the Christian Community yielded a docile obedience to the representative of God, the unity of the Church would never be rent." (Epist. iv., ad Corn. Pont.) And again, " Can he who preserves not the unity of the Church, preserve the faith ? Can he who opposes the Church, who abandons the Chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, flatter himself that he is still in the Church ?" (De unitate Ecclesite, Cap. iv.) It is evident from this, that, in the opinion of St. Cyprian, the Chair of St. Peter is infallible ; otherwise a case might occur 22 H in which it would be necessary to separate from it. But St. Cyprian teaches that in separating from the Chair of Peter, we abandon the Church itself. The same author exclaims, " They dare approach the Chair of I'eter, without reflecting that to the Romans no error can have access." (On the Novatians.) " One God," he exclaims in another place, " one Christ and one Chiu'ch, founded by the Lord on Peter." (Epist. 48.) And to this he refers again and again: "Peter thus speaks, upon whom the Church was to be built, teaching in the name of the Church." (Ep. 69.) " I'eter, whom Jirst the Lord chose, upon whom He built His Church." (Ep. 71.) "Peter, upon whom the Church was founded by (Jod's condescendence." (De bono Patientia.'.) " One Church, founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, in the origin and principle of unity." (Ep. 70.) " The Lord to Peter first, upon whom He built the Church, and from wliom He instituted and set forth the origin of unity, gave that power, that what he * loosed on earth, should be loosed ill Heaven.' " (Ep. 73.) " For the good of unity, blessed Peter both deserved to be preferred to all tlie Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which should afterwards bo communi- cated to the rest." (St. Opt. Cont. I'arm. lib. vii., C. 3.) St. Athanasius thus writes to Felix II: "You are the destroyer of the heresies that devastate the Church. You are the guar- dian of sound doctrine and unerring faith." St. Basil says (A.1). 378) : "He that, through the superiority of his fiiith, received upon himself , the building of the Church," and, "Blessed Peter, selected before all the Apostles, alone receiving more testimonies and blessings than the rest, that was entrusted with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." (Adv. Eunom. ii., torn. i. 240 and torn. ii. 221.) , ^ And in a letter to St. Damasus, Pope, he says: "To your Holiness it is given to distinguish the adulterated and spurious 23 t. But St. f Teter, we ims, " They that to tlie xns.) "One one Church, thus speaks, in the name loiu He built ed by C^d's upon Peter, in U the Church, )rigin of unity, irth, should be deserved to be the keys of the be cominuni- i., C. 3.) .re the destroyer ,u are the guar- . the superiority I of the Church," Apostles, alone ihe rest, that was Leaven." (Adv. ■ 'S \ ,'■ says: "To your bed and spurious from the pure and orthotlo.x, and to teach, without alteration, the faith of our forefathers;" and he adds, "wo pmy and conjure your Holiness to send letters and legates to your Children in the Orient, that we may l)e confirmed in the faith if wo have followed tlie path of tr\ith, or he reproved if we have gone astray. There is no one bdt your Holiness to whom we can turn for help." (Ep. 714, 7-) Gregory of Na/ianzum says ^A.)) 370:) 'Do you see, of Christ's disciples, all jjeing lifted up hi«,'h, and worthy of election, one i.s called the Kock, and is intrusted with the foundations of the Church ?" (Orat. xxxii., torn, i., Hdl,) St. Anil»rose, who tlouri&ed A. I). 3M5, speaking to the Emperor (Iratian, in the nrtnie of the Council of Atjuileia, assembled from almost all the provinces of the West, says: " Your clemency was to be entreated not to sutler the Itonmn Church, the head of the whole Eoiiian world, and that sacred faith of the Apostles, to be thrown into disturbance. Erom thence, as from a fountain head, the rights oi" venerable comnmnion How unto all." (jMansi, torn, iv., (122.) Tlie same Saint, on many occasions, maintained the supreme authority of the Roman See, and in u funeral sermon on his brother Satyrus, eidogized the zeal of the deceased in the cause of the lioman See, and deMared that it was connnendable in him that, from all whom he chanced to meet, it was liis custom to enquire whether tliey were in communion with the See of Peter; and if he found they were not, herebukeil them, because he considered that thereby they had cut themselves loose from the communion of tlie whole Church. Again, speaking of the passage, "Thou art Teter," he says : "Because, tlieretore, Christ, by His own authority, gave the kingdom, C(juld he not confirm this man's faith ? whom, wlien He calls him the Hock, He indicates as tlio foundation of the Church." (De fide, lib. iv., 5.) And again, " This is that I'eter to whom He said, ' Thou art Peter,' «S:c. Therefore, ic/icre Peter is, there is the Cliurch; where the Church is, there is no death, hut eternal life." (In Psal. xi.) 24 ^1 In like manner St. Jerome, A.D. 399: " But you say the Church is founded upon Peter, although in another place this self-same thing takes place upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is consolidated equally upon them; neverthe- less, for this reason, out of the twelve one is selected, that by the appointment of a head, the occasion of scliism may be taken away." (Adv. Jovin. tom. ii., 279.) " I speak M'ith the successor of the fisherman, and the disciple of the Cross. I, who follow none as my cliief but Christ, am associated in communion with thy Blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. On that rock the Church is built, I know. Wl^oso shall eat tlie Lamb outside that liouse is profane. Whoso gathereth not witli thee, scattereth — that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist," (To Damasus, Ep. 15.) St. Augustine says (A.l). 400), to a Manichean: "I am held, in the Catliolic Church, by the consent of nations and of races; by authority begun in miracles, nurtured in hope, attaining its growth in cliarity, estaljlished in antiquity. I am held by the succession of Bisliops down to the present Episcopate from the very See of Peter the Apostle, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, intrusted His sheep to be fed. Lastly, I am held l)y the very name of Catholic." (I'om. viii. 153.) And to anotlier Manichean: "Shall we then liesitate to liide oursblves in the bosom of the Cliurcli, wliich, even by the confession of the human rice, liath obtained possession of supreme authority from the Apostolic See, by the succession of Bishops, while heretics in vain have been condemned partly by the weight of councils, partly, also, by the majesty of mira- cles r (De Utilit. Cred. 17.) " You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is which is cut off from the vine ; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine; a grief it is when we see you lying tlms cut off. Number the Bishops even 25 from the very seat of Peter, and see every succession in that line of Fathers ; that is the Rock, which the 'pfoud gates of hell prevail not against." (Ps. in Donatistas, Tom. ix. 7.) "He saith to Peter, in whose single person he cast the mould of His Church : * Peter, lovest thou me ?" (Serm. cxxxvii. 8, torn, v., 664.) He disposes in a summary manner of the reason- ing and sophistries of the Pelagians by reminding them that the councils liad already referred their case to Home, and that answer has l)een returned, and the matter ended by the doctrinal authority of the Holy See : Causa Jinita est ntiiiam aliquando finirctur error,'* were his memorable words — " the case is ended, would that the error also would l)e brought to an end." St. Cyril, ^^•llo MTote in A.D, 444, alluding to his relations with Xestorius, thus addresses l^pe Celestine : " We did not juiblicly break off all intercourse with Xestorius before advis- ing with your Holiness. We therefore conjure you to acquaint us with your desire, that we may make it our rule of conduct, and may know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, whether in future we are to liold correspondence with him, or dissolve at once all connection. For as members of the mystical body of the Church, it is incunil)ent on us to follow our liead, the lioman Pontifi", who holds in trvst the deposit of Apostolic faith. From him vje must learn I'-hat u:e arc hound to BELIEVE, THINK AND HOLD. (Hardouin viii. 1829 P.) St. Cp'il was certainly an Ultramontane of the most advanced stamp, and was a thorough partisan and advocate of Papal Infallibility. Archbishop Manning himself is not more out- spoken. St Peter Chrysologus (450) writes to the heresiarch Euty- ches : "We entreat you to hearken especially to the decision of the Pope at Eome, and to abide with all readiness by his final sentence, ' because Peter, who lives and governs his own See, returns to those who consult him the truth of faith!' {Epist. ad Entijch. inter acta Bph. Con.) The Church of Spain, A.D. 465, wrote to Pope Hilary: "We rely on that faith whose encomium was pronounced by the Apostle, and wait for an answer from that See i chose decrees have never been tainted with error." !l ni "I 26 St. Avitus (A. D. 494,) writing to Pope Hormisdas, says : ** Whilst you see that it is suitable to the state of religion and to the full rules of the Catholic faith, that the ever watchful care of your exhortation should inform the flock committed to you throughout all the members of the Universal Church, as to the devotion of all Gaul, I will promise that all are watching foi your sentence respecting the state of the faith." (Mansi viii. 408.) And to Senarius, Count of the Patrimony of Theodoric, "You know that it is one of the laws regarding Councils, that in things which pertain to the state of the Church, if any doubt arises we should, as obedient members, recur to the Supreme Bishop of the Roman Church as to our head. (Gal- landi x. 726.) The above authorities are all of the first five centuries, when, according to our adversaries, the church was in its golden purity. But space warns us to bring our quotations to a close, and we the more freely do so as the testimonies from General Coun- ^Is, and from the Popes themselves, to be adduced in the sequel, corroborate, in the most striking and convincing manner, the evidence given by the venerable and saintly witnesses we have summoned, as to the prevalence in their day of the doctrine under consideration ; the wbjjie forming a body of cumulative evidence on the subject which cannot be rejected unless we be prepared to disbelieve all authentic history. We shall allow two other witnesses to speak, and then shall close tins part of our inquiry. The venerable Bede bears witness to the faith in the seventh and eighth centuries, when he says: " For this blessed Peter, m a special way, has received the keys ot the Kingdom of Heaven, and the headship of judicial power, that all believers throughout the world may understand that whosoever in any way separate themselves from the unity of his faith, or of his Society, such are not able to be absolved from the bonds of their sins, nor to enter the threshold of the heavenly kingdom." (Homily on St. Peter.) sdas, says: religion and er watchful : committed rsal Church, that all are )f the faith." f Theodoric ,. Jouncils, that lurch, if any recur to the head. (Gal- ituries, when, 11 its golden a close, and j^eneral Coun- Iduced in the acing manner, witnesses we )f the doctrine cumulative unless w^e be V'e shall allow ge this part of ill the seventh ;ssed Peter, in oni of Heaven, ers throughout way separate s Society, such }ir sins, nor to 'Hoinily on St. 27 The great Archbishop Hincmar, who flourished in the ninth century, says : " In that See, the Lord presiding, as on his own throne ; examines the acts of others, and dispenses all VFonderfully as from His own seat." And iwain : " We Catholic Bishops decree and judge all things according to the sacred Canons and the decrees of the Pontiffs of the Apostolic See ; the Apostolic See and the Catholic Church, in our persons, that are created Bishops in the stead of Apostles, in ordering orders with us, and in decreeing canonically decrees with us and in judging judges together with us. And we who execute the sacred canons and the decrees of the Pontiffs of the Itoman See, under the judgment of the Apostolic liock itself, being in this nothing else but supporters of those who judge with justice, and executors of righteous judgments, pay obedi- ence to the Holy Spirit, who hath spoken through them, and to the Apostolic See, from which the stream of religion, and ecclesiastical orders and canonical judgments, ha^•e flowed forth." (Hincmar, quoted by Thomassin Disc. De I'Eglise, i)urt I. lib. c 5.) It were easy, if required, to give a chain of unimpeachable witnesses to tliis doctrine, beginning witli Archbishop Hinc- mar, ill the ninth century, and stretching down through the ages to our time, including the teachings of Bishops, Scholas- tic Theologians and Universities ; but few will have the hardi- hood to deny, in the face of history, that the doctrine was taught and believed from that period to tlie present day. A sufficient number of Patristic testimonies is given to prove tliat Papal Infallibility is not a novelty, but was always held and taught and believed Ijy the Church from the very begin- ning, and is therefore of Apostolic origin and authority, accord- ing to the maxim of St. Augustine : " That wliicli the Univer- sal Church holds, which has been always retained, and not insti- tuted by Councils, is justly believed to have been no otherwise transmitted than l)y Apostolic authority." (De Bap. Contra Don.) The Fatliers cited testify that in tlieir day and generation this was the undoubted belief ; that it was taught and acted upon in the first five centuries of the Christian era, as well as in tlie 28 ages that succeeded. St. Irenteus, Tei'LiiUian, Saints Ambrose, Jerome, Au^^'ustine, John Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nazian- zum, Cyril, and a whole cloud of saintly witnesses, many of whom sealed their faith by the testimony of their blood, unanimously testify to this fact. We must either accept their testimony or reject all history as an imposition on human credulity. It is true many of them do not say in the same explicit terms as does the Council of the Vatican, that the I^ope is infallible when teaching faith and morals to the Universal Church, but they assume this doctrine as an incontrovertible fact, admitted by all; otherwise their words would be utterly meaningless, and the fundamental sense of language must be abandoned. According to Protestants, the Church, during tlie first five centuries, M-as pure and undefiled by error. But this doctrine, as we have seen, prevailed in the aforesaid centuries ; there- fore it must be true. On this point let us hear Salonius, who nourished in the fifth century : " Remove not the nncient land- mar1x:s which thij Fathers set. (Prov. xxiii.) By the ancient landmarl'S he means the landmarks of truth and of faith which the Catholic doctors have set from the beginning. Thus, there- fore, does he enjoin that no one understand the truth of sacred faith and of evangelical doctrine otherwise than it has been transmitted by the Holy Fathers." (Explan. Myst. in Prov.) Besides, the above-cited Fathers have, as interpreters of Holy Writ, unanimously understood it as proving Papal Infallibility. This interpretation is therefore true, and must be accepted by all Catholics, for the Council of Trent commands us to interpret the Holy Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. II H ?! TESTIMONY OF THE POPES THEMSJlLVES. It lias been affirmed by some opponents of the doctrine of Infallibility, that the declarations of tlie Popes themselves ?re of but little weight, inasnmch as they may claim the preroga- tive; because, say they, as men they would be apt to exaggerate their own authority. 29 In refutation of tliis view, it must be considered that the Popes held the Hrst rank among the Bishops, and the primacy over the entire Church, and that this distinction is to be accorded to them, even if it were possible to refuse to them the preroga- tive of Infallibility. It is our intention to cite, in this section, such of them as claimed infallibility down to the date of the Eastern Schism. These were all personally holy men ; and most of theiu were also iUustrious for their learning'. These reasons of themselves would justify the inference that selfish considerations would not induce them to put fortli claims whicli were contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. But in (^ui^ting these Popes, we nuist place upon their testimony a higlier value than that which tlieypossess from tlieir personal character. The Fathers and Councils style the l*opes the supreme teachers of the Church. Their teachings, then, are the authentic expression of what the Church beliex'ed, having received it from the Apostles as Apos- tolic doctrine. There is no other way to account for the fact that their claims were received with submission by both cleigy and people — no other way to explain Avhy even treneral Coun- cils referred to them, for final decision, all controversies of faith. The first Pontiff whom we shall liere quote is Damasus, who ruled the Church from A. D. 3G6 to A.D. 384. He condemned the Macedonians and ApoUinarians in a Iloman Council, A. IJ. 360, and also in the profession of faith wliich he sent to Pau- linus. Patriarch of Antioch. He also says, in his letter to the Oriental Bishops, that this condemnation had deprived the doc- trines of ApoUinaris of whatever plausibility they might have had, and that whosoever would adopt them would ruin their souls, as they would be in opposition to the universal rule of the Church. This letter was acknowledged by the Synod of Antioch, composed of representatives of all the Eastern Bisliops, and they subscribed to the profession contained therein,thereby acknowledging that the definition of Pope Damasus constituted a rule of the Univergal Church ; which would not be the case if the Pope's doctrinal definitions were not infallible. Innocent I. was Pontiff from A.D. 402 to A.D. 417. During this period the Councils of Carthage and Milevis condemned 30 I the Pelagian heresy, but sent their deci'ee to Innocent I., so that their sentence might be confirmed by him, and thus rendered Knal and infallible. The Pontiff, in his reply to the Council of Carthage, praises their action, and thus gives his reason : " Because the Fathers of the Church, acting upon divine, not human principles, have ordained that no matter of impor- tance wliich has arisen, even in the most distant provinces of the Church, should be finally disposed of until it has been referred to the Apostolic See, that the just sentence might be confirmed by the weiglit of its authority. For fron' the Roman Church all churches must learn the doctrine to wliich they must cleave, and what they must abhor, as streams are derived from the fountain head, and carry the pure water to all the regions of the world." (Epist. xxix. n. 1.) A similar letter was written by the same IVjpe to the Coun- cil of Milevis, in which he mentions what those causes are which sliould be referred to the Roman Pontiff : 1st. Whenever the matter regards faith. " Quoties fidci ratio mntilatur" 2nd. When Ecclesiastical causes are difficult of decision. ^' Sujper anxiis rebus qum sit tcnenda sentential As the Apostolic and Roman Church is here declared to be the fountain head of pure doctrine, the infallibility of the Roman See is unmistakably pronoun 3ed by this great Pontiff; and indeed, so far are the African Bishops from considering his claim as an exaggeration of his authority, that two hundred years later these very words were quoted by them in a letter to Pope Theodore, as attesting his infallible authority. The next Pope, Zosimus (417-418), wrote a letter to the Synod of Carthage, dated 26th March, 418, in which he says : "The tradition of the Fathers attributed such an authority to the Apostolic See, that its judgments are not to be disputed by any man, and such has always been the law and the practice of the Church; and this power is enjoyed by all who, by God's permission, inherit that See." He continues : " So gi'eat is the authority committed to us that no one can refuse assent to our decision." The Synod 31 (acknowledging the authority of the Pope's letter) sent to him for approval the decrees which it had drawn up against the Pelagian heresy; and after Zosimus approved of them, we have the testimony of St. Prosper, that the whole A\'orld condemned Pelagianism. (Chronicon an. 418.) Certainly tlie claim of Infallibility of the Holy See in mat- ters of faitli could ncjt be more clearly stated ; for Zosimus declares that its judgments are not to be disputed ; and whereas the Bisliops, so far from repudiating the claim, submit their decrees to his final decision, they tacitly acknowledge that the claim is legitimate. If tlie claim liad been a usurpation of authority, it would have been their duty to liave resisted it ; but if it was an Apostolic tradition, then their silent acquies- cence is easily understood, as they must have been convinced that they were to accept of, and not to sit in judgment on, the decrees of the Roman I*ontift'. Xystus III, whose I'ontificate began A.D. 432 and ended 440, had occasion to congratulate John, Patriarch of Antioch, on his return to Catholic union, after the Council of Ephesus had condemned the errors of Nestorius. In this letter the Holy Pontiff declares that the rule of the Popes is tlie rule of Peter, and the doctrine of the Pojies the doctrine of Peter. These are his w^ords : " You have learned by the result of this business what it is to agree in sentiments with us. The blessed Apostle St. Peter, in his successors, has handed down wliat he received. \Vlio would separate himself from the doctrine of him whom tlie Master himself declared to be first among the Apostles ?" This doctrine evidently implies Infallibility. Pope Leo I., illustrious for sanctity and learning, ruled the Church from 440 tci 401. In his 96tli sermon he declares that the Holy See had never been profaned with heresy ; this being due to the teaching of the Holy Ghost. In Sermon ord he says : " The firmness of that faith which was commended in the Chief of the Apostles is everlasting, and as what Peter confessed in Christ is permanent, so also is what Cln-ist instituted in Peter ; because that solidity which Peter himself, made a rock, received from the rock Christ, passed as a 32 i legacy to his successoiis." In the same sermon he says that througli his lips St. Peter speaks, and that ■what he teaches St. Peter preaches. The same I'ontiff, in a letter adiU-essed to the Fathers- assembled in General Council at Chalcedon, intimates that as the doctrine of the Incarnation of our Lord is sufficiently declared in his dogmatic letter to Flavian, they should not debate it ; and in his letter to Theodoret, he "rejoices that the I^nisersal Church assembled at Chalcedon had received what Uod had defined througli his Ministry, thus manifesting the perfect agreement of the mend »ers with the head." This great Pontiff, then, is very clear in claiming that his teaching is necessarily the doctrine of St. I'eter, received from our Lord, as the firmness of the Iloman See comes from our Lord himself appointing St. Peter his predecessor, the rock of the Church. Now, surely the Bishops assembled in General Council, the Fathers of the Church, antl the Catholic people would not have suffered this claim to pass unchallenged, if it had not been practically acknowledged already as the doctrine of the Church, received from the Apostles. Pope Simplicius ruled the Church from 46S to 483. In a letter to the Emperor Zeno, he claims that St. Peter's successors necessarily preser^^e the jjinity of the faith connnitted to St. Peter by our Lord. These are his words : " This and the same rule of Apostolic doctrine is always permanent in the successors of him whom the Lord entrusted with the care of all tlie ilock ; to w^hom he promised that he would be forever with him till the end of the world ; against whom, he said, the gates of hell shall never prevail, and whose judgment would hinder that to be loosed in Heaven which he had bound upon the earth." Pope Gelasius, Pontitt' from 492 to 496, maintained the supreme authority of the Holy See against the persecuting Emperor Anastasius. After stating that the faith nmst be one, pure and immaculate in the whole Church, he says : "This the Apostolic See so anxiously guards, that the faith be not defiled by perversity or contagion ; for the glorious confession of the Apostle is its root for the whole world. For if (which God 00 says that eaclies St. le Fathers :es that as Xy declaved )ate it ; and rsal Church had defined , agveeiuent ling that his Bceived from les from our ?, the rock of \ in Cieneral itholic people iiUeuged, if it the doctrine to 483. In f^ er's successors iimitted to St. and the same |the successors all the flock; [with hhn till gates of hell [hinder that to le earth." Iiaintained the Le persecuting must he one, ,ys : "This the be not defiled ifession of the f (which Ood avert, and which wo trust cannot occur) such a thing shoulil liappen, how should we dare to oppose error, or liope to correct the erring T Again, the same Pope, in his Kpistlc xiv., sent to tlie Kastorn Church, says : "There in liome, as Peter shone conspicuous for power of doctrine, so, after his glorious hlood-shedding, does he repose in a [dace of everlasting n^st, grunting to the See whicli he himself blessed the ])rivilege that, according to the Lord's ]>roniise, it be never over('(jme by tlie gates of hell ; that it be tlie safe Iinrhor for all wlio are tempest-tossed. Let all who des])ise this See consider what excuse they will lie able to ])lead at the day of judgment." Again, in his decrei' coneerning a|iocry]>hal writings, the same Tope says: "The Koman Church is the principal See of the Apostle St. Peter, and it has no spot, no wrinkle, nor any such thing." These are the words with whicli St. I'aul s]»eaks of the Universal Church, and St. (lelasius em])loys them as being applicable to the iioman Church, against which, as he says in the pi'e\'ious (quotation, the gates of hell shall not prevail. These assertions certainly ijnply that the same prerogative of infalli- bility which the Church Universal possesses, rests in the Itoman See. Pope Hormisdas, whose I'ontiticate began 514 and ended 523, sent to the Eastern Church a formulary of faith, whicli received the signatures both of the Eastern and the ^^'estern Bishops in the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Aniongst those who signed it were the Patriarchs of Constiintinople, John, Epiphanius and Mennas, and the Emperor Justinian, As this [fornmlary contains a clear declaration/of Papal Infidlibility in [matters of faith, it follows that this doctrine was at this time practically adopted by the whole Church, so that its definition 1870 was not the introduction of any novelty. In the for- nmlary in question, Hormisdas asserts that the Catholic faith as always preserved pure in the Iioman See. And this state- lent is not merely historical, but dogmatical, for it is stated to )e the conseriuence of the Divine promise : "Thou art Peter,and 34 *i '1 ' .'■ M im Hi! upon this rock I will build ray Church, and tlie ;,'ate.s of hell shall not prevail against it." Tlie formulary is as follows : " The first step to salvation is to keep the rule of faith, and by no means deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers, because we may by no means disregard the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said : " Thou art Peter, «&;c." " These tilings which were said are proved by their effects, for in the Apostolic See the faith has always been preserved without spot. Tlierefore, wishing never to l)e separated from this See in hope and faith, and following in all things the con- stitutions of the Fathers, we hope to be worthy to be with you in that one communion which the Apostolic See su])port8, and in which the whole and true solidity of Christian faith is found. And we promise, also, not to mention during the sacred myste- ries, the names of those who are deprived of the Communion of the Catliolic Church ; tiiat is to say, of those who do not agree with the Apostolic See." The letters of Hormisdas very frequently imply the same doctrine, as if it were a matter of course that to be a Catholic we must be in communion with the Apostolic See ; and that, if we are condemned thereby, we are thus excommunicated from the Church of Christ. Thus, in his letter to Avitus he says : " We know that Euty- ches and Nestorius were condemned by the authority o^ A.pos- tolic — that is to say, of Catholic sentence." These declarations are not confined to his letters to the Western Bisliops, but are found also in his writings to the Eastern Bishops, thus showing that his authority extends over the whole Church, Eastern as well as Western. In his Letter 62, ad Legatos, he instructs his legates to declare to the Bishop of Thessalonica, that he ought to receive doctrine at the hands of the Apostolic See, and to learn from the Pope at Eome the explanation of his difficulties and doubts, for in this way he will prove himself a true Catholic. To John, Patriarch of Constantinople, he \vrites that he should, " without hesitation, follow the judgments of the Apos- tolic See, whose faith he professed to embrace." 35 es of liell llows : ' fiiith, and Ae Tathers, 3t' our Lord their effects, n preserved )arated from Lngs the con- be with you mvpoTts, and aith is found, sacred myste- Jomniunion of ) do not agree inply the same be a Catholic 5 • and that, if his legates to iught to receive [o learn from the and douljts, for lie. mites that he its of the Apos- Dnring tliis Pontificate the Monophysites (who taught that in Christ made man, tlie divine and human natures became blended into one) attracted considerable notice. Jus- tinian, then administrator of the State, afterwards Emperor, sent to Rome a special Ambassador to supplicate the Pope to pronounce a decision which would make certain what should be believed concerning this matter. He therefore begs of the Pope to make his children sure us soon as possible; " for we believe that to be Catholic, which will be declared by your religious judgment." This shows that Papal Infalli])ility was the doc- trine of the East as well as the West ; for tlic Emi)evor hero speaks in the name of the wliole Eastern Church. Vigilius was Pope from 538 to 553. Like Innocent L, he insists that causes of faith must l)e brought to the Apostolic See for final settlement. (Ep. vii.) Pope Pelagius IT. (from 578 to 590) anathematized all who refused to submit to the faith defined at Chalcedon, and taught by Leo I. This duty, he tells us, arises from its being founded on Peter, whose faith cannot be shaken or changed. " The truth cannot lie, nor can the faith of Peter be shaken or changed : for as the Devil seeks to sift all tlie Disciples, our Lord testifies that He prayed for Peter only, and that by him he wished the rest to be confirmed." (Ep. V. Pelagii II.) And on these words of Christ he rests his own obligation to confirm the brethren, and lead them to what is right. Gregory I. (the Cireat,) Pope from A. I). 590 to 604, also claims that causes of faith must be reserved for his supreme judgment. (See letters 50, 53 and 54.) And in the last cited epistle to the Bishops of Gaul, he states that the reason of this reservation is "because oui certain decision will terminate the cause." The same Pontiff says: (in L. IV. Ep. 38-) " Inasmuch, then, as from my unmistakable teaching and profession, you know our fidelity, it is proper you should entertain no further scruple or doubt concerning the Church of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles ; but fix firmly your life in the true faith, and in the rock of the Church, which is made firm in the confession of St. 35 ^ ¥\ Pctor, tlu' I'rince of tin; Api)stk's." It is for tliis ruiisou tliat the same i^reat roiitilf culls the Apostolic See the "head of faith." Now, it is the province of the head to <,'uide and regu- hite, and it would he an incouxi'uity for a fallilile authority tu guide and regulate faith wliicii is divine. The Monothelite heresy was solenndy condemned hy Popes S(!veriiius and .lolm IV. in two Ivoniaii Synods held in the years 039 and 040; also hy Pope Theodore iu 048, and hy Martin I. in 040 ; and the decrees of these I'ontiri's were regarded as of such authority, that before the Sixth Kcunienical Council was lield, the liishops, in their profession of faith hul'ore they were cfmsecratcd, were obli<;ed to lU'clare that they received, unre- servedly, the decrees of these four Popes, and condemned what- ever their decrees condemned ; thus .showing that the Holy See possessed the right of infallibly deciding doctrine. In fact, at the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself, the Synodi- cal letters of the lUshops of every part of the world spoke of the iioman See, and of the i'ope, as being the true foundation of faith, the teacher of truth, tiie centre of Catholic doctrine. When the Emi)eror (,'onstantiiie Pogonat us proposed to Pope Agatho the assembling ol' the Sixth General Council, the Pope was pleased with this evidence of his Catholic spirit, but he certainly did not consider that this Couiu^il should modify any doctrinal decisions of the Topes ; for he instructed his legates to enforce in the Council the traditional doctrine of his Apos- tolic See, which, he said, was not to be increased, dindnished or changed. The reason he gives this instruction is openly said by him to be, that "the Poman Churcli is, under Peter's ])rotection, free from all error." {LiUcr to Vuil.4. Pofjomitus.) He dechires further, that all who reject the doctrine which he]iropounds are enemies of the Catholic and Ajtostolic confession, and subject to condemnation ; and that all orthodox^ Fathers and General Councils had always venerated the teachings of the Iioman See, and had faithfully adhered to it. The same Pontiff, in the letter already cited, declai-es that "the Eoman See, under St. Peter's protection, had never turned from the way of truth into the path of error." Again, repeating 37 this statement, he says th it it was the "'f^raee of God which so presLTVc'il tlie Ai>o,stolic Sec from error and heretical novelties: 80 that the IJoman Sec n mains from the very lit't^'inninj,' of Christianity witli doctriu.! un])ollnted, as slie receiN-ed it from her founders, the Print'es of the Apostles of Christ; for our Lord and Saviour^'ave this divii' "promise to the fhicf of His discijilcs, as we lind recorded in the Holy Cospels," (S. Luke wii., 31,) where tlu; jnoniise is made to Tcterthat his faith should not fail. Leo II., his successor /S2 to f\SS) approves of the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council ; and he declares his chief reason to he, wliilu sodoiu^', Ijt'Cause he finds it conformable with the doctrine of the Apostolic See ; so tliat he exhibits the A]iustolic See as the authentic ir^an of xVjiostolic teaching,'. He says: "Since the holy universal and ^reat Sixth Synod lias followed in everythiuL;- tlie Apostolic doctrine of the most eminent Fathers, and since it preached the same definition of the right of faith, wliich the Apostfdic See of the Holy Apostle Peter received with veneration, therefore we, and through our exercise of our office of this venerable Apostolic See, give full consent to the things contfiined in the detinition of faith," &c. (Relatio ad Constan- tinum.) Pope Nicholas T. (A. D. 8G7 to 872) is the next wliom we shall (juote. When Pliotius was striving to separate the East- ern Church from its allegiance to the Pope, he reminded Plio- tius that the Papal autliority is aljove the Ecumenical Councils themselves, whicli derive their strength from the authority of the Pope. He adds: "All the faithful seek the true doctrine, and (obtain integrity of faith from this same Holy Poman Church, which is the head of all the Churches." {Letter VI. to Pliotius) In his Letter 8 to the Emperor Micliael, he says that no one can call again into question that which the Apostolic See has decided, and that no one can judge its judgments. We have already quoted the formulary of Pope Hormisdas, whicli was signed by both the Eastern and Western Bishops, and in which that Pontiff declares the necessity of ''communion with the Apostolic See ; and that they who are out of this com- ': 11 II 38 inunion are not in communion witii the Catholic Church. This same formulary was required by Pope Nicholas as a condition of peace between the East and West ; and though it was refused at this time by the schismatical adherents of Photius, it was signed by all who were admitted to the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Leo IX. also clearly claims the prerogative of Infallibility in a letter addressed to Michael Cerularius, Schismatical Patri- arch of Constantinople. Speaking of Christ's words, addressed to St. Peter— "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not" — he says: "Can there be any one so foolish as to believe that the prayer of Him who can do what He wishes, will fail in any one of Peter's successors ^ Have not the novelties of heretics in all times been overthrown by the See of the Prince of the Apos- tles — that is to say, by the Roman Church, through Peter him- self, as well as through his successors ? Have not the hearts of the brethren been confirmed in the faith of St. Peter, which till now has not failed, and never shall fail till the end ?" Here we conclude our quotations from the Popes, proving that they were conscious of possessing the prerogative of Infal- libility in matters of faith. More citations might easily be given, but we shall merely add that besides those already quoted, Pelagius, Yitalian, Adrian I., Pascal II., Innocent III., and others, all applied to their Holy See the texts : St. ]\Iatt. xvi. 18, Sc. Luke xxii., 31-32, St. John xxi., 15, 16, 17, and inferred thence the Indefectibility of the Ai^ustolie See. From the foregoing it is incontestable that the Supreme Pontiffs did very frecjuently in the past put forth dogmatic decrees, to which they claimed the obedience and internal assent of the whole Episcopate. It is also certain that the entire teaching Church accepted those doctrinal decrees without protest or reclamation : that is to say, the Popes have frequently claimed and exercised the prerogative of doctrinal infallibility with the consent and approbation of the whole Episcopate. It follows, therefore, that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is revealed of God, or that the Universal Church accepted as revealed truth a doctrine which is fundamentally erroneous : an 39 alternative which no one believing in the promises of Christ to his Churcli can possibly admit ; for as St. Augustine says, " the Church of God can neither enact, nor approve of, nor be silent about any teaching which is opposed to faith and right conduct: "Ecclcsia Dei qncc Sunt Contra Jidcm vd honam vitam ncc - cqjprohat, nee tacet. ncc facit" THE TESTIMONY OF THE GENEKAL COUNCILS.* Let us now turn to the Creneral Councils of the Church, and inquire from those solemn assemblies, over which the spirit of eternal truth hovered, and through which, as through his organ, he declared the truths of salvatiou to mankind, what doctrine they held in regard to the .question at iswne, and we shall find that they invariably affirm their V)elief in the inerrancy of the occupants of the See of Peter. It is a niotter of history that the Popes have always pre- sided, either in person or by legates, over General Councils, and that whenever occasion offered, those solemn parliaments of the Church admitted the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff to decide questions of faith, antecedently to any action of the UniAersal Church. I. THK (GENERAL COUNCIL OF NICE, A. T). o25. Scarcely had the sword of the great Ifonian persecution been sheathed than another persecution still more dangerous sprung up against the Church. Arius, a Priest of Alexandria, denied the divinity of Christ, and thus aimed a deatli-blow at the life of Christ's bride, the Church. This deadly heresy spread with the rapidity of a contagion, and like a destroying angel, smote thousands with spiritual death. A General Council was assem- bled at Nice, by the authority of Pope Sylvester, A. I). o25. Three hundred and eighteen Bishops, many of them, as we learn from history, still bearing on their Ijodies glorious ^\■ounds received for the faith of Christ during the bitter persecution but a short time ended, condemned in this Council the heresy of Arius, and *The extracts from the General Councils are taken from Petididier's Tractatus de Infallibilitate Sumnii Foutiticis and Father Weuinger'a work — "The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope." 40 m I defined tlie divinity of Christ. But in doing so, according to the testimony of the great Saint Athanasins, they solemnly affirmed the infallible teaching of Pope Dionyshis, who had already con- demned the Arian heresy. In point of fact, the decrees of this Council not only rested on the consent of the Apostolic See, but they were a ])ublic and solemn adhesion to the infallible teach- ing of the See of Peter. The 18th canon of this Council declares that " ancient Apos- tolic a\ithority has reserved to the Holy See all important causes." The 20tli canon says " the incumbent of the Iloman See, acting as Christ's vicegerent in the government of the Church, is the head of the Patriarchs, as Peter was." II. THE SECOND GEXKRAL COUNCIL, VIZ., TUE FIltST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLK, A. U. 381. The second (Jeneral Council, the first of Constantinople, was convened to check the intrigues of the heretics, Sabelliiis, Mace- donius and others. Bossuet assigns this as the object of the Council, on the autliority of Sozomenus, who relates that the controversies then agitating the East were settled by the rescript of Pope Daraasus. " (Juo facto v.fpotc Jvxliclo Romance Er.dcsioi controversia tcrminata qdiescerc ct JinfAn- accciome vim est." The Fathers of this Council addressed Pope Damasus in a letter, in which they express the desire to see the Papal rescript promul- gated in all the churches of thu East. If tlie Pope's rescript were not considered an undouljted and unerring authority for the condemnation of error, to wliich all should submit, it is not at all likely the Fathers would have solicited the promulgation of the rescript in <|uestion. For the same reason, when the Bishops of the Council peti- tioned the Pope to confirm their disciplinary canons, and to anathematize Timotheus, they did so in the most deferential language ; and the Pope himself, in his reply, commends their course as being of strict obligation, and declares that without his sanction their proceedings would be null and void. In fact, the Council itself was at first regarded as simply r Provincial Synod, until its canons were confirmed, with some restrictions by Pope Innocent, in the thirteenth century; so 41 COUNCIL OF that it was by the Pope's authority tliat it hecaine elevated to the rank of a General Council, and the Churcli has never regarded as binding those decrees uf the Council \\'hich were not con- tinned. III. THE GEXERIL COK.N'CIL OF ElMIESrS, A. 1). 431. The General Council of Ephesus was convened to condemn the heresy c4 Kestoi-ius. When tlie Papal legates wlio presided had read a. document from the Holy See, the entire Council exclaimed : "From the earliest ages of the Churcli it has always been held as indulntable that the Prince of the A])Ostles, the pillar of trutli, the foundation stone of the Catholic Church Peter, wlio receiyed the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, always lives in his successors, and ]ironounces his judgments by their lips." The Vatican decree is but the fuller and more precise expression of the faith affirmed in these memorable words. IV. THE (lENEKAL COUNCIL OF CIIALCEDOX. In tlie first tliree General Councils we find unmistakable evidences of tlie doctrine of Papal Infallibility, but in the fourth this truth shines out witli still greater l)rilliancy. At this Coun- cil the Fathers unanimously declared : " What Leo hdieves we all believe, unatkema he he vjho believes nnythiiig che. Peter has s'poh-n through Leo.'" Tlie synodical letter, in which the Fathers petition the Pope to confirm the acts of the Council, acknowledges the same supreme authority in the following w^rds: " Wc have a roelz of refuge in Peter, who (done possesses the ahsolvte right of deciding, in the place of God, because he alone has the I'eys of Heaven. All his definitions, therefore, hind, as emanating from the viecgerent oj Christ." V. (rENERAL COUNCIL — SECOND OF CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 553. Before the Fifth General Council assembled, Pope Vigilius was, by the incensed Justinian, cast into prison, because lie had censured the arrogant preterisions of that Emperor which were opposed to the rights of the Church. He tied for refuge to ChaP cedon, and thence issued decisions on the disputed doctrinal points of the day, subjoining to each an a.nathema against all who would dare teacli the error condemned. Finally, he declared 42 null and void whatever might be done in defiance of his ordi- nance. At length the Council assembled. The Pope refused to preside, though invited by the Bishops and Emperor ; and to guard against the treachery or servility of any who might be weak, he declared invalid whatever might be done by the Coun- cil, contrary to his decrees. The assembled Bishops, however, followed the Pope's directions in the minutest particulars, and declared that "they received his letters tqwn matters of faith with as much suhmission as tlunj did the four Gospels." For a long time suspicion was cast upon the decrees of the Council, and only when the decrees were confirmed by the Pope^ were they recognized by the Church, and the Council thus by him acknowledged as legitimate, ranked among the General Councils. The action of the Pope, the Bishops, and the faithful, in this trying time, is a convincing argument of the prevailing belief of the Church in the supreme doctrinal authority ot the Pope. VI. GEXEKAL COUNCIL — THIRD OF CONSTANTINO PLK, A. D. 680. This Council was convened by Pope Agatho, at the request of the Emperor Constantine. He transmitted to the Bishops, upon the points in (juestioii, his decisions as a ride of faith from which no one was allowed to deviate one iota. Their duty was not so much to define as to promulgate the truths he had already defined. He cautioned them not to regard the questions as open to debate, but to embrace in a compendious definition the several articles which he liad pronounced certain and inmiutable. He reminds the Emperor that the Church of Eome never strayed from the way of truth into the paths of error, and that her decisions had ahvays heen received as a rule of faith, not only by individuals, but also by the Councils. How did the Council receive the definitions and instructions of the Pontiff ? Listen to Demetrius, Bishop of Persias, who speaks the sentiments of the Council : " I receive the instructions of Agatho as dictated by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles." The assembled Fathers write to the Pope thus : " We leave all things to thee, who standest upon the firm rock of faith." And the Emperor promulgated the decrees as Apostolic decrees, not of the Council, but of the Pope. 43 VII. (rENERAL COUNCIL — SECOND OF NICE, A. D. 787. This Council was convened by Adrian I. against the Icono- clasts. He, Jis his predecessor had done, decided previously the dogmatic ([uestions. The Pope required his definitions to be received as a rule of faith, because he filled the chair of Peter, who transmitted the authority he had received from Christ to all succeeding Popes. He adds : " From the Holy See all the other churches receive sound doctrine." At the opening of the Council the Papal legates put the question : "Does Tarasius,does the Council concur in the decisions of his Holiness or not ?" For putting this summary ([uestion they assign as cause, that "neither reason nor faith would permit the raisingof any doubt upon a ques- tion that had been already irrevocably decided." To the (question put by the legates the assembled Fathers replied : " We follow, accept and acquiesce." The Council, through Tarasius, writing to the I'ope, styles the Papal instructions " Divine oracles," because they emanated from the Holy See. VIII, GENEKAIi COUNCIL — FOURTH OF CONSTANTINOI'LE, A. D. 869. This Council was convened by Adrian II. against Photius. The Pope required the assembled Prelates to burn, in full Coun- cil, all the papers of the cabal held by Photius. He declared that every one who would refuse to do so would lose, by the very act of refusal,every degree of clerical dignity; nay,even the claim to be called a Christion. He wrote out and sent to the Council a test of orthodoxy, which all wlio had fallen into the new error were required to subscribe. This Papal document requires strict adhesion to the rules of true faith as necessary to salva- tion. These rules of true faith are compli.mee and adhesion to the decrees of the Eoman Pontiff, for the Pope writes : " Our Lord said to Simon, ' thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' " History furnishes abundant evidence that this promise was not made void, because the faith of the Holy See has never been infected with error. All the Fathers, with wonderful unanimity, executed the commands of Adrian, and having committed the noxious papers to the flames, exclaimed : " Blessed be the Lord, who has deigned to accept some satisfaction for your Holiness." They then sub- i! » 44 HI il ' ;ii scrilied to tlie i)i'ofessioii of faith in the following form : " In the presence of the undersigned witnesses, I, N. N., ]3ishop of N., have affixed my signature to the profession of my faith drawn up by the Blessed Adrian Our Sovereign Pontiff and Pope." In the second session the Bishops who had l)een implicated in the schism were asked had they read or heard of the "test," and were they ready to accept its decisions ? They unanimously answered : " We accept your judgment as that of the Son of God'' The Fathers of the Council style the Pope "the Orrjan of the Roh/ Ghostr IX. (;exetial council — first of lateran, a. d. 1125. About a thousand Bishops assembled at this Council. They held no public session, but by fasting and prayer invoked the aid of the Holy Ghost for the Pontiff, who was meanwhile pre- paring to issue his unalterable decision. When this was issued, it was accepted both by the Prelates and the Emperor as coming from "the Organ of the Holy Gliost." X. GENERAL COUNCIL — SECOND OF LATERAN, A. D. 1139. This Council w^as convened by Pope Innocent II., and by him presided over in person. Its object was to extinguish the schism headed by Peter Leo, and to condenin the heresy led on by Peter of Bruis, and to reform abuses. In this Council the Pope exercised his supreme authority in an unmistakable manner. Having summoned before him each Archbishop end Bishop whom he deemed guilty, he rebuked thein, and w^ith his own hand degraded them. He then held the Council, and promulgated the decrees in his own name, thus : " Innocent II., in the second Council of Lateran." It is always the custom when the Pope presides in person to pro- mulgate decrees in this manner, showing thereby in whom supreme authority is invested. XL GENERAL COUNCIL — THIRD OF LATERAN A. D. 1179. Was convened by order of Pope Alexander III. to sup- press the schism commenced by Octavian, to silence the disturb- ance of the Albigenses, and to correct abuses. The Council passed no decree condemnatory of the Albi- genses, hecausc previous to the convocation of the Co2incil, the Pope 45 had f/ivrn Jii'i (hrmon. In the Council, the Pope, without con- sulting the Fathers, smnniaiily coudennied Tetcr Lombard, Archbisho\) of Paris, and wrote concerninj; hiiu to tlie lUshops of France. The French Hierarchy received and respected the Papal decisions as infallible. Their sentiments were thus] ntliily expressed by Walter of St. Victor: "Let those troublesome (^nibb- lers, stricken by the tlmnderbults of an A[tostolical definition, cease croakin<;." XII. (lENHltAL COL'XGIL— FOUUTll 01' I.ATKIiAN, A.D. I^IJ. Was held Ijy order of Pope Innocent TIL Twelve liundrcd and eighty-five Prelates assemliled. Seventy-one were i\rch- bishops, four liundred and .twelve were Lishops, over eight hundred were Abbots. A number of Kmbassadors from various European Courts, also delegates of the Patriardis of Antiocli and Alexandria, were present, having been sent to seek reconciliation with the Eoman Cluircli. The fifth canon of this Council styled tlie Poman Church "the mother and teacher (jf all the other churches." XIII. cm:nki!al couxcir,— rntsT ov lyoxs, a.d. 1245. Was convened by order of Pope Innocent IV., and its decrees were promulgated in his name. "Innocent in the Coun- cil at Lyons." XIV. UKNERAL COUNCIL — BHCOXD OF LYOXS, A.D. 1274. Was convened b}' Pope Gregory X. to S(jlenmi/e the union of the Eastern and Western Churches. Clement IV. and Gregory X. fixed the conditions of re-union. Clement IV. sent to the Emperor a " profession of faith," which eml)odied several articles (jf faith never before defined ; yet it allowed of no dis- cussion or chant'C. It was signeil by the Emperor and Greek clergy, and was read and adopted in the fourth session of the Council. Thereby was acknowledged the supreme and infallible authority of the Pope. And it w\as moreover added in the Council tlxixi 'all quesi"ions which touch upon the doctrines of faith must be defined by the judgment of the Hob *"' 3e." XV. GEXERAL COUXCIL OF VIKXNA, A. D. 1311. Was convoked by Clement V. In his encyclical th^. Pope leminded the faithful of the power vested in tlie Sovereign 46 •., I. PontiH". All tlio acts of the Coiineil.sind the ordinaiices,decisions and decrees ])asse(l both previously and subsequently to it, appeared in one volume, under the title of " Clementine Enact- ments." This Council explicitly states that it belongs to the Apostolic See to ])r(jnounce dogmatically upon points of faith. XVI. GENKUAT. COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, A. D. 1-414. Assembled to determine who was the duly elected Pope, or to consider the claims of the pretenders to Papal dignity. The Council decided in favor of Martin V. In the fourteentli ses- sion it declared that "« Po2JC duly rlcdc.d cannot he, hound hj a Council.'' It reminded the faithful that tlie heresy of the Wick- liftites had already been condemned l)y the Holy See. It declared it impossible for the Holy See to err, " for if she could err, how could she claim the title of mother and teacher of all other cluirclies ? How could she judge all others and none judge her ?" While this Council was in session Martin, V. issued a decree forbidding any appeal from the Holy See, and the Fathers assembled in Council endorsed this decree. XVII. GENERAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE, A. D. 1439. This Council beheld for the last time the Fathers of tlieEastern and Western Cliurch sitting in council together. In tlie follow- ing profession of faith, which all signed, they pronounced tlie Pope tlie infallible teacher of the Church. "AVe define that the Apostolic See, that is the lloman Pontiff, has the right of pri- macy over all the churches of tlie world ; that he is the very vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Clmrch, the teacher of all the faithful ; that in the person of Peter he was intrusted hy our Lord with full fower to feed and. govern the whole fioch of Christ " Such is manifestly the doctrine taught by the General Coun- cils, as well as by the canons. What a glorious and comprehen- sive testimony from the whole Church, Greek and Latin, to con- firm the doctrine of I*apal Infallibility 1 XVin. GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT, A. D. 1545 tC 1563.' Tlie Council of Trent was convened to condemn the errors of modern Protestantism, which, by its fundamental principle of private judgment, virtually professed and sanctioned all the heresies that had ever been broached or condemned. It was 47 composed of representatives from every portion of tlie Christian world. Greater liberty of discussion wasalloAvedtlian on many former occasions, yet Rome retained her prerogative to rule and direct. Tliis Council, in three different d»'crees, s])eaks of lionic as the mother iuid teacher of all the eh nrehcn (see Sess. 1 4 in doct. ext. unic, Sess. 22, c. 8, Sess. 2o, \ )ecr. 2.) In tlie twenty-fifth .session it decreed tliat " the authoritv of tiie Picjman See shall remain unimpaired." Moreover, its canons and decrees hecame bind- ing only when tliey were approved by tlie Roman Pontiff. Til i s ra])id glance at the General Councils of the Church, those voices of the Holy Ghost, shows us how indelibly this doctrine of Papal Infallibility has stamped itself upon the mind of the Clmrcli in all the ages of her long and chequered existence; how this doctrine was at all times the chart and com- pass that guided the bark of Peter over the tempestuous ocean of time ; how it has shone during long and stormy ages of trials and conflicts as a beacon light, pointing to many alveary mai'i- ner the i)ort of safety and repose ; how, in fine, the image of Peter teaching infallibly, teaching through his successors, an«l ever radiant with triumphant trutli, lias been idwayfi present to the mind of the Church, whose children, in every conflict with heresy, in every bitter trial, and in the dark hours of adversity, ever turned for guidance and light and truth to the Apostolic See. Let us hear on this point the illustrious Dr. XeM'man, who, in his essay on development, written while he was yet a Protestant, when desci-ibing the fearful trials that beset the Church so far back as in the fifth and sixth centuries, admits that there vms hut one Rpot in the whole of Christrndor,i, one voice in the ivhole Fpiseopate to u'hAch the faithful turned in hope in that raiserahle day, and that spot vxis Itorne, and that voice the voice of the Su^tremc Pontiff. "Dreary and waste," he says, "was the condition of the Church, and forlorn her prospects at the period which we have been reviewing." "After the Ijrief triumph which attended the conversion of Constantino, trouble and trial returned upon her. Her Impe- rial protectors were failing in power of faith, strange forms of evil were rising in the distance and thronging to the conflict. / ■flnH: HI m 48 2*Ji.ere wuHhuJ one spot hi the n'holi' of Cliristcmhiii, one voice in thcwJioh' Episvopate to ir/iich tlw fnitlifid ti'rned in Iiopc in that miscrahk (!((//. In tlio year 4*.I3, in the IVtiititicalc of (lelasius, tliu whole of the Eiist wiis in tlie hands of tmit(»rs to(Mialceclon, and the wh(»le of llie West under the tyranny of the open ene- mies of Nicea. Italy was tlie prey of roltbevs. Meivenary l)ands had overrun its territory, and barhariaus were seizing on its farms and settling in its viUas. Tiu^ peasants wcsre thinned by famine and pestilence. Tuscany uiight be even said, as Cielasius words il, to contain scarcely a single inhabitant. Odoacer was sinking before Theodoric, ihe l*0|)e was changing one Arian master for another, and, as if one heresy were not enf)Ugh, IVlagianism was, with the connivance of the liisiiops, spreading in the territory of Vicenum. In the nortli of the dis- membered Empire, the Britons had first been infected witli Pela- gianism, and now were dispossessed by tiie heathen Saxons. The Armoricans still preserved a testimony to Catholicism in the west of (laul, but Ticardy, Champagne and the neighl)oriiig IM'dvinces, where some renmant of its supremacy had been found, lately submitted to the yet Pagan Clovis. The Arian Kingdoms of llurgundy, in France, and of the Visigoths, in A(putania iiud Spain, oppressed a zealous and Catholic clergy. Africa was in a still more deplorable condition, under the cruel sway of the X'audal CJundemund; the people, indeed, uncorrupt by the lieres}', but their clergy in exile and their worship sus- pended." The Church in the East was, if possible, in a worse condi- tion. Just as in an angry storm, when the clouds shut out the sky, when the elements rage, when the seas run moun- tains high, the fear-stricken passengers look for hope and encour- agement to the Captain of the tempest-tossed bark; even so amid those awful trials, those days of darkness and doubt, amid the fearful conflicts with powerful and wide-spread heresy, the faithful turned instinctively to the Chair of Peter, the Supreme Sliepherd, for succor and support, and sure guidance and direc- tion, and they were not disappointed. The voice of I'eter went abroad — " Eoma locuta est " — a voice of no uncertain sountl, 49 but iittoi'iiig iutiilliMy tli(3 uiiclia]it. Thomas of Aiiuiii, conini'dily known as the " An.^'elic l)octor." Treatiiif,', in liis " Sniania TheoloLjiie," of the right of making a s7///iW nf fditii, ho maintains that it is the e,rrJttsirc ])rero^ativo of tlie Pop3, tho successor of St. P.^ter, for whom the Lord •'prayed that his faith fail not." In snjjport of this assertion lie ipiotes th'3 text of .St. I'a'il to th ; Corinthians (see 1 Cor. i.) "It were impossible," argues tlie holy iloetor, "to comply with this injunction of the Apostle, if, when a difference arises concerning dojtrine, the controversy were not settled by him who was con- stituted the head of ihe Church, that so tht! whole Ciiurch might unhesitatingly receive his decisions." In another jiart of the Summa he reasons tliiis; "The Church cannot err, because lie that wa-i heard for }I:s own dignity said to l*eter, ' I have praycid for theii tliat thy faitli fail not ;' wherein St. Tliomas argues from the infallibility of the I'ope to that of the Church. But our space will not perinil us to dwell on any more of the many proofs which could l)e adduced from the writings of St. Thomas in su.p])ort of Papal Infallibility. Let us now listen to St. Bonaventure, the "Seraphic Doctor." We read in his •'Hexaliemaron:" "Like the sun among the ])lanets, the Pope rdoiic has the i)lentitude of power over all the Ciiurches;" and in his"Summa Thcologiic" he laid it down as incontrovertible that the Poi)e cannot err, provided he teaches as the head of the Church, with the intention to oblige the faithful to believe. These great masters of theology have been followed by the most disthiguished theolojlongs to the Pope, that is, in things pertaining to tli'j natural or divine law ;" and afterwards he adds, " That his declaration ouglit to bo helil as true, so that it is not lawful to hold or to o[)ine the contrary." Gregory de Valentia adds: "In iiiai whom the whole Church is boun'l to obey in tho-je thing -5 which pertain to the spiritual hsnlthof Ih" ftoiil, whether they concern faith or morals, there is infallible authority for the judging ([uestions of faith." Again : "Christ willed that after the death of Peter some one should be acknowledged by the Church in perpetual succession in Peter's place ; on whom Christ Himself should confer supreme authority as He did on Peter, of ordaining the matters which relate to faith, and to other things pertaining to the salvettion of the faith- fi'ir And further he says, " that He (Christ) may confer on him the authority which Peter had, that is, that by a certain law he may so ordain as to co-operate with him by a peculiar assistance, in rightly appointing such things in doctrine and morals as pertain to the good estate of the Churcli." / / 53 And still more explicitly in another place he says, " It is not to he denied, tliat what has been said of the infallil)le certainty of the Pontifical definitions, holds good, first, in those things which the Pontifl" has proposed to the faithful, in decicliiui doc- trinal coiitroi'er>iu's and cxtcrinincithuj errors, as revealed of (lod, and to be believed by faith. But, forasmuch as the Church is always bound to hear its Pastor, and the Divine Scripture declares absolutely the Church to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. iii.,) and therefore it cannot ever err as a whole, it cannot be doubtful that the authority of the Pontiff is infallible in all other things which regard inHy, and tlic whole Church. Nor do 1 think that tliis can be denied without error." Gregory then applies this to the Canonization of Saints,and con- cludes : " Tliis certainty surely rests u})on the same promises of Crod, by wliich we have seen that it can never be that the whole Church should err in niatters of religion'' We will conclude this point of our inquiry l)y (piotations from two eminent divines, who may be fairly taken as the re- presentatives of the schools, both l)efore and after their time, viz., Suarez and Tolet. Of Suarez, Bossuet says, " that irhocvcr hears him licars the entire school of scholastic theology!' Now this Prince of Theology, in the sixteenth century, teaches : " It is a Catholic truth that the Koman Pontiff, when defining ex cathedra, is a rule of faith which cannot err." And how and when is lie a rule of faith which cannot err ? " Whenever he proposes, in an authentic manner, to the Universal Church a doctrine to be believed as of divine faith." Thus speaks Suarez, and he represents the great Theological School of his age, but he hesitates not to add : " Thus teach all the Catholic Doctors of the time, and I hold that this truth is certain of faith, et censeo esse rem de fide certam.'' And in his treatise " De lieligione," ix. 1, 3, c. 4, n. 5, speaking of the Bull of Gregory XIIL, " As- cendente Domino," by which it is declared that simple vows constitute a true religious state, he says that the truili of this definition is "altogether infallible, so that it cannot be denied without error. The reason is, because the sentence of the Pontiff in things which pertain to doctrine contains infallible certainty 54 by the institution and promise of Christ, ' I have prayed for- thee.'" Afterwards he adds: " The providence of Christ our Lord over His Church would be greatly diminished if He should permit His Vicar, in deciding such questions ex cathedra, to fall into error." The great Tolet says : " The Eoman Pontiff cannot err in a judgment as to faith and morals, and this conclusion must not be accepted as a simple opinion, for the conclusion opposed to it is a manifest eiTor of faith." From these quotations it is manifest that the great schools of Theolog}', which represented and expressed the mind of the Church, were well nigh unanimous in holding and teaching the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Su- preme Pontiff. The great Universities, also, of Europe — those great centres of thought and genius — viz., those of Sorbonne, of Louvain, of Cologne and Salamanca, all solemnly professed the same doctrine. Sardagna and Tournely bear witness that during the eighteenth century all tlie Catholic Universities, if we except a few members in some, defended Papal Infallibility in matters of faith. It follows, from all this, that Gallicanism, or the theory which denies Papal Infalli1)ility, is a mere innovation, modern in point of time, and extremely limited in the number of its adherents — an innovation, too, which ha?^ been implicitly con- demned by the Holy See, as the following facts will testify : — In 1470, Sixtus IV. condemned the following proposition of Peter of Osime : " The Church of the City of Rome can err." The contradictory of this is true, namely, that the Church of the City of Home is infallible. But how could it be infallible if its Pontifi' were fallible ? Pius VI., in the Bull "Ancforcm fidci" condemned as rash, scandalous, and greviously injurious to the Holy See, the adoption by the Synod of Pistoria of the Galilean articles which deny Papal Infallibility. Alexander VIIL, in 1690, by a decree which is still in force^. condemned thirty-one propositions and pronounced excommu- nication against any one who should lintain or put them in practice. The 29th is as follows: "The authority of the Eoman. Pontiff over a council, and his infallibility in determining :an err. 55 questions of faith, is a futile and frequentl/ refuted assertion." The contradictory of tliis is certain, and is a Catholic truth. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that even in its palmiest days Gallicanism had but a very slippery foothold in Catholic France, and that the Gallican propositions were registered on the books of the University of Sorbonne at the point of the bayonet — tlie whole faculty, with but few exceptions, protesting. THE TESTIMONY OF CANONIZED SAINTS. Canonized Saints, among whom we may mention St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury, St. Thomas of Aquin, St. Bonaven- ture, St. Francis of Sales, St. Vincent de Paul, and St. Alphonsus, have unanimously held and taught the doctrine of Papal iner- rancy. Now, the Saints are in an especial manner the living temple of ( J-od, inhabited and illumed by the Eternal spirit of truth. We may, therefore, safely assert that their unanimous teaching in a matter of divine law can be none other tlian the expression of the spirit of God, according to the rule laid down by Melchior Canus: "Comcnsas sanctormn, sensiis spiritus saudi est," "The unanimous consent of the Saints, is the thought or sentiment of the Kob, 'iV/ St." Tlie very attitude of civil governments, and of the secular and infidel press, in regard to this doctrine, is a strong presum})- tive proof in its favor. Tlie world, we know, is the enemy of God, and therefore of his Church. Its aims and objects, its spirit and maxims, are directly opposed to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It has its instincts and keen appreciation of what is calculated to thwart its ungodly career, and to save humanity from the wiles of the devil and the vicious propensities of the flesh; and lience its opposition to the doctrine of Papal Infalli- bility is a strong presumption that this doctrine is true, that it is at the Side of Jesus, and will powerfully contribute to the progress of the Church and to the Crlory of God. Can any sane man believe that if the doctrine were false, if its definition woidd injure the Church of Christ, the enemies of that Church who pant most ardently for its downfall, would denounce this i' 56 liloctrine and its definition so heartily as tliey do? Did not the worhl dress the Incarnate Wisdom in the garb ot a fool and parade Him as such through the streets of Jerusalem ? Was not the wisdom of tlie Gospel always a folly to the world ? Did not Christ foretell tJiat this persecution of mockery and scorn that is now directed against the prerogf^tives of His Vicar would always rage against the Churcli, when he said, "If they have called the good man of the house Beelzehub, how much more tliem of his liousehold ?" — (Matthew X. 25.) Tliis prediction IS every day fulfilled to the letter. A man may reject every doctrine revealed by the Son of (lod; he may believe with Darwin that our ancestors were apes, or that all created beings sprang from a molecule; he may become, if he will, an Atheist, and the world is silent, or it may applaud him as an original and independent tl linker. But let him become a Catholic, let him avow his belief in the Church of Christ, and forthwith, as in tlie case of the Marquis of Ripon, he is assailed by the press with a rage and fury truly satanic ; he is denounced as a traitor to his sovereign and a slave to a foreign despot ; he is declared to have "renounced his mental and moral freedom," and to have become the "willing victim" of a degrading super- stition. Thus the world is true to itself, to its aims and its instincts, and is, to-day, as truly as it was in the days of St. John, the enemy of God and of his Church ; hence the wild fury of its attacks on the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is a strong presumptive proof that this doctrine is indeed of God, and that its definition is the work ot the Holy Ghost. Catholics should, therefore, pay but little heed to what is said or published against this truth of faith, but following the advice of the be- loved disciple, should "try these spirits if they be of God;" and the test by which to try whether they be of God or not is the following, laid down by the same beloved Apostle: "Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus (and they do so who rob his Vicar of his prerogatives) is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard, that he cometli and he is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome him because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the 57 world. They are of the world, therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them. We are of God; (that is the Apostles and the Catholic Bishops, their successors;) he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth us not. By thin we knoio the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." — (St. John, 1st Epist, IV. chap., 1 to 6 v.) There are many other ar- guments, historical and theological, which could be adduced in favor of this doctrine, but we feel that our dissertation has been already drawn to a great length. The arguments which we have adduced are sufficiently strong and numerous to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is a revealed truth; that it is contained in the deposit of faith, confided by Jesus to the guardianship of his Church, and that in tlie language of Suarez, " It is a trutli cer- tahi of faith" — rem dc. fide certain; and tlierefore pro])erly defined by the Church." SUMMAliY AND CONCLUSION. And now we must bring tliis imperfect essay to a close. We have traced tlie doctrine of Papal Infallibility from the days in which our blessed Lord walked in the tlesh; from that early period when the Church was in her infancy; "when as yet the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and leopards and tigers bounded in the lioman amphitheatre;" through all the vicissitudes of the Church; through the days of her sorrows and persecutions, as well as through those in which the sun of peace and prosperity shone upon her ; when her children were in chains, as well as when they enjoyed the mastery of the world. We have seen it interwoven like threads of gold with the whole history of the Church ; we have found it inserted in her constitution like the sun in the heavens — the central doc- trine around which the whole religious world has revolved. In looking back through the past we see a bright cliain of Pontiffs linking age to age, and century to century, uniting St. Peter, preaching with infallible certitude to the multidues on the day of Pentecost, with Pius IX., proclaiming with the same divine prerogative the doctrines of salvation in the Eternal City. As 58 a river rising in a distant lajid flows ever onward tliroiigli many a winding valley and many a broad plain, fertilizing and beau- tifying the countries through which it flows, until it loses itself at last in the slioreless sea, even so have we seen this bright stream of doctrine gushing from the fountain of divine truth and flowing down through the ages, fertilizing and beautifying with tlie waters of saving faith, the pastures on which feed the lambs and sheep of the fold. We have asked the ancient fatliers what their belief was, as well as that of their times, in this matter, and from their elo- quent pages, in which they still live an imperishable life, they proclaim that the Pope is infallible. In words that will not perisli they bid us go to Home, there to learn with infallible certainty from Peter, the oracles of God. From men who lived in the Apostolic age, when the faith of Jesus was, even in the estimation of Protestants, pure and bright like gold just from the mint ; from those whose genius and whose sanctity shed an undying lustre on their age; men who lived for God and humanity, many of whom died the martyr's death, and now wear the martyr's crown, we learn that unless we be united with Rome in faith we are aliens from the house of God ; we are outcasts from the home of the soul ; we are in the same position as were those who in the days of the flood had no place in the ark. We turn to tlie General Councils, those august embodiments of the wisdom, the learning, and the sanctity of their times, and which flame out like beacon lights in their respective ages, and they have told us that Peter speaks in the Supreme Pontiff; that the Pope is the centre of unity, the oracle of truth, and the universal teacher of mankind. We asked the Canonized Saints, in whose bodies the life of Jesus was mani- fested, who were in an especial manner the temples of the Holy Ghost, and whose instinct of the true and good was unerring, and with one voice they inform us the Pope is infallible. We interrogated the Popes themselves; we asked. Did you,0 Supreme Pontiffs, possess the consciousness of this august prerogative ? and they all exclaimed by their words and acts that they were charged with the commission of feeding the sheep and the lambs 59 of Christ's fold with saving doctrines ; that they are the rock on which the Everlasting Church is built, and that in the matter of doctrinal teaching the ^ates of hell have never prevailed against them. We have seen that the schoolmen, too, with one accord, have proclaimed this doctrine. The Prelates of the Church of to-day, those who so nobly bear the burthen of the day, and the heats, have, as well in Provincial Synods as in the Council of the Vatican, solemnly expressed their unshaken belief in Papal Infallibility. Thus the voice of the living Church, in the present as in the past, bids us hold that this doctrine is true and revealed of God. Hence the Supreme Pontiff, with tlie approbation of the sacred Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, has defined this doctrine to be a dogma divinely revealed, and therefore to • be held as of faith by all. In the first dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, proniulgated in the fourth session of the Holy Ecumenical Vatican Council, the Holy Father says ; " Therefore faitiifully adhering to the " tradition received from the beginnnig of the Christian faith, for * the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic " religion and the salvation of Christian people, with the " approbation of the sacred Council, we teach and define it to be " a dogma divinely revealed, tliat when the Roman Pontiff speaks " ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the office of pastor " and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his Supreme Apos- " tolic authority, he defines that a doctrine regarding fjxith or " morals is to be held by the Universal Church ; he enjoys by ' the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that "infallibility, with which the Divine Eedeemer willed His "Church to be endoweil, in defining a doctrine regarding faith " or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Eoman " Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent " of the Church ; but if any one — which may God forbid — " presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema." APPENDLt ■ n ox THE Ql'KSTION OK t'lVII. .VLLEfUANCF. AS AFKECTED I'.V 'inK TEA(iII>J(;s 0^ THE CATUOI.TC CFIL'RCH, AMI NOTABLY BY THE DorrRINE OK PAPAL TXFALLtlllLITV; OU, IN' OLAD.STOXE S WORDS. THE YATICAN IIECItEKS." II Y It is a remarkablf charactoristio of error, that it is incessantly shifting the basis of its attacks on the citadel of divine truth — tlie Catholic Church. At one time she (the ( 'hurch) is denounced as the idly of despots and the sworn enemy of popular rights ; at another time she is stigniati/ed as the adversary of social order, and as a vast conspiracy against the rights of sov- ereigns and the stability of thrones. She is, in a word, a gigantic chameleon, changing her colors when she likes; at one time menacing human freedom, at another, sapping the foundations of civil authority : now crushing under foot popular rights, and again undermining kingly thrones. There is nothing novel, however, in this characteristic of error. Our Blessed Lord called attention to it long ago, when He said to the Jews— "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say lie hath a devil. The Son of Man came, eating and drinking, and they say. Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine- drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners." And so it is ; truth shall ever be misrepresented and calumniated by error. It is just now the f '.?hir;n to accuse the Church of being, l)ecause of her doctrine of Pai)al Infallibility, no friend of Cit'sar, and of being the enemy of the duty of civil allegiance. The same accusation was made, centuries ago, against the divine Founder of the Church, and with the same disregard of trnth. Our Lord was accused of sedition and treason, and the savage mob, maddened by the "political expostulations" of their leaders, cried out to Pilate,— "ir j'ou do not put this man to death, you are not the friend of Cit'sar, for we have found him perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Casar, and saying that he is king; and whosoever maketh himself king, speaketh against Cii-sar. " On this false and wicked pretence the Son of God was cnicified ; and so those who wish to crucify God's Church in England, fiilsely say, in their " political expostulations," that she is found perverting the nation and forbidding civil allegiance to be given to the sovereign. To read the publications of the non-Catholic press on this matter, one would be led to believe that the state has a right to be obeyed in all things, and that it is downright treason to refuse to do so. More unchristian and slavish language was never uttt lod. The state has a strict right to the obedience of its people within its own sphere, but not beyond it. Our Lord drew the distinction for all time when He said — " Render to Ciesar the things that are C;esar'3, and to God, the things tLat are God's." — (St. Matthew, 22 c, 21 y.) According to Catholic theologians, there are two distinct powers in the world, the temporal and the spiritual, each having its own sphere, its own end, and its own mode 62 of iperatinii. Moth powers ant ordained by < Jod, and the respective authority, inherent in each, is derived from (»od. The primary end of the temporal order is the temponil welfare, security and peace of civil society, and of each memher of society, an far as that can be reached ; but man is a compound being, a child of cttirnity, as well oh of time ; an I, having an immortal soul, looks forward to higher and eternal destinies. The spiritual order has for its primary and direct object the eternal well-being and salvation of men ; and to the attainment of this object are its functitms solely and primarily directed. The two orders are, tlicreforc, distinct, and should move through distinct spheres, towards tlio realization (if their objects. So long as the state, or temporal order, confines its operations within its own sphere, it has a i)orfect right to the obedience and loyalty of its members. It is within this sphi.'re, in the language of St. Paul, an ordinance of ( Jod, ami they who resist it pur- cliaso to themselves damnation. —(Rom., 13 c. ,2 v.) lUit when the state, stepping beyond its sphere, invades the domain of religion, and, l)y a saeri- legi(jus intrusion, violates tlic sanctuary of the conscience, then its usurpations must be resisted and its unjust claims repudiated. This is the teaching of Christ, who broke forever the yoke of Pagan slavery and set the human conscience free. Hence, when the civil authorities forlade St. Peter to preach (.'hrist and His doctrines, he at once replied that he could not obey their unjust sentence, add'ng that it was better to obey (Jod rather than man. Hence, the early Christians suffered exile, imprisonniflnt and death itself, rather than obey the state which reipiired of them to apos- tatize from the faith. The state, we repeat, is the ordinance of (iod within its own sphere, but when it makes laws which are opposed to the laws of < Jod, it must not be obeyed in this resjiect, for such laws are not laws at all, but outrages on the Christian conscience. When the Pagan gladiators passed before the throne of Ciesar in the Roman ampiiitheatre, on their way to bloodshed and slaughter, they liowed their heatls and exclaimed, — "Arc. Ccemr, vioritnrl te .salulant .'" "Hail, O Ciesar, the dying salute thee!' This was the cry of men who were enslaved in soul and body by the rule of Civsar, and who, on their way to a violent and bloody ileath, in order to make a Roman holiday, crouched obsequiously to the tyrant who condemned them to an unjust doom. When the martyrs of Christ were paraded in the same arena to suffer death for the faith, they possesse 1 their souls in Christian freedom, and, as they passed the throne of Ciesar, said, — " tVM«r, Dcun (c iudicahU." "OCa'Sar, God will judge thee." This was tlie cry of men whom Christ made free indeed. Now, this is the spirit which has ever animated the Church. She is at once the friend of order and of well-regulated liberty. She is the mother of a civilization, in which, so long as the peoples obeyed her voice, there reigned authority without despotism, and liberty without license. The state which does not want to usurp the things which belong to God, and that rules with justice, has its best friend in her. It has certainly more to fear from the operation of the Protestant principle of private judgment than from the Ca- tholic principle of authority ; for whilst the latter is neoessarily the friend of 63 iithority, temporal (1 of each :ompound rtal soul, laH for its len ; and directed. I distinct state, or I a i)erfect 8 8ph(!re, ist it pur- blio state, Y a sacri- iurpations of Pagan mthorities iplitid that I obey ( tod irisoninmit m to apos- lod within V8 of ////(«/((t;'// spirit wliich loves to witnesH destruction for its own sake, and tliat intoxicated solf-contldenco which renders folly mis- chievous." — (History of Literature, vol. I., [). I!>2. ) Hence, it is not a matter of surprise that one of the lirst fruits of tlie [irinoiplc of i)rivate judguient pro- claimed by Luther was a (.'ommuniHtic war waged by tlie Anabaptists and peasants of (lerniany, during which more than a hundred thousand men fell on the ticM of 1)attl j, seven cities were destroyed, monastiTies M'cro ra/ed to tlie ground, churches burned, and i)illago, burning and slaughter did their frightful work of havoc and destruction. Macauly institutes a comparison between tlie lleforiii'ition and the Krench Hevolutiou — the one was a revolution in religion, the other in politics, but both were the outcome of the Protestant princiide of private judgment. " The only event," he says, " of modern times wliich can be properly compared with the Reformation is the French Revolution ; or, to speak mtre accurately, that great revolution of political feeling; which took place in almous, for civil alleuiance ia a duty stronuously incidcatod by botli. Says Marsliall, a brilliant ilnglish author, — "If popes no longer doposu bad prini-os ' \>y the authority' of I'cttr,' thore aro others who doposu c^ood on"s without any au- thority at all. Cntniwcll and his foUoworsdid it in Hngland, Miral)oau and his friends in France. Such onergotic anti popes did not object at all to deposi- tion, provideil it was inllii-'t'-id by themselves. Tiiey object to it still leas now. It has b>) '(ime a habit. Knglishmeii d.-p )sed .lames I!., after niurdeiing his father, and put a !)utchman in ids place. In other iands they are always deposiuy somcimdy. The earth is strewn witli deit med a«vereigas. "^oiuetimes they doposo one another, in order to steal what does not belong t<> them. < >ne of them lias deiiosed the Pup;,- himself, a"; least for a time, and all the rest clap their hands. 'I'liey do not sec th it by tirs last felony tiiey have undeiinined every throne in Europe. Perhaps in a few years therj will not bo a king left to be dojtose I. Since the secular was sul)3tituted everywhere for the spiritual authority, kings have fared badly. The I'opes only rebuked them w hen they did evil ; the mob is le:js discriminating ; and the iliU'crcnce 'oetwcen the deposing piAVer of the I'opes and that of the m ib is this, that the first used it, like fathers, for the benefit of religion and society ; the second, like wild beasts, for the destruction of both." " Yet the newspapers tell us every day that the I'opn, prisoner as he is, is the only dangerous tyrant. They add, and Mr. (iladstone lends tiieni his llorid elwjuencc to embellish the lie, that whoever is true to /I'mi is fal.a; to Ciesar. The Jews used the same argument against the Saviour whom they cruoilicd. " 'I'hou art not Ca'sar's friend," isan old cry ; and it is as false now as it was then It is tre'jly false when uttered by journalist?, for it is the pre.n ""c loy.ilty. whose hands are pure from every stain of disatloctinii, we can (»nly hopf tliat we may not one day he cdled upon to give a linal ])roof of it. It\" defeiidint; Mith (lur hearts and hands the tiirone which vm luve ai^'ainst f/i ir treason. If We should ever have to light in that ca«8c, the bles-sing of the Pope will go with UB to the combat. Ho would be on tlic sidi- of llngland's crown; on whicii side W(ndd Mr. (JladHtone and his frien Emi)eror, but als j (as we freely confess) the slaves of (Jod; and now not even the supreme necessity of life has driven us into rebellion. We have our arms in our hands, and yet we resist not; because wc have thought it better to die than to slay." This lidelity of the ancient Christians towa-ds their sovereigns sinncs forth more brightly, if we consider, with Tertullian, that the Christians of that time " were not deficient in numbers or strength, had they chosen to play the part of declared enemies." " We are of yesterday," ho 67 \ Bays, "and we have tilled your whole larnl ; yonr cities, islamls, t'ortiusses, municipalities, your very camp, your tribes, decuries, pniaoes, senate, forum. To what war should we have been une(|ual or unready, even had we been unequal in force, we who so willingly encounter death, were it not tiiat accord- ing to our rule of life it is more lawful to be slain tlian to slay? If so great a multitude of men as we are had broken away from you into some rcnioti' comer of tho earth. 'Jie loss of so many eiti/ens (of whatever kind yon may a'^.count them) would have shamed your empire, and punished it by the very loss of numbers. Beyond doubt, you would have been shocked at your solitude; you wouM have sought for subjects to govern; there would have remained to you more enemies than citizens; whereas now you have fewer, on account of the nuiltitude of Christians." "These bright examples of immovable subjection to sovereigns, which come necessarily from the most holy precepts of the C'liristian religion, con- demn the detestable in.solence and wickedness of tliose wlio, heated with reckless and unbridled desire of lawless liberty, labor t > orerthrow and eradicate all the rights of sovereignties, and who assuredly will introduce real slavery among peoples under the pretext of liberty. To this point tended the most wicked raving and machinations of Valdcnses, Beghards, Wieklift- ites, and other such children of Belial, who were the filth and ignominy of mankind, and were, on that account, deservedly anathematizeil by this Apostolic See. For no other end, indeed, do these miscreants exert all their strength, except that they may, Mith Imther, congratulate themselves on being ' free from every restraint; ' and for the sake of more easily and (juickly attaining this end, they most audaciously perpetrate evtiry enormity." Pius IX. has more than once laid down the same doctrine. Thus in his inaugural Encyclical: — " Labor to inculcate on the Christian people due nbc- dience and subjection to sovereigns and powers, teaching (according to the Apostle's admonition) that there is no power except from Cod; that those who resist the power resist (Jod's ordinance and so incur damnation; and therefore, that the precept of obeying the (civil) power can by no one bo violated without sin (»•///•m(v»/(//«,) unless anything be hapl}' commanded which is opposed to the laws of Cod and the Church." This is the doctrine on the duty of civil allegiance taught by the Topes to the Catholic subjects of every state in the world, //( (olo orhe In'roriDii, and to unsophisticated people, to those who are not shar]) enough to see a mean- ing in words which they do not contain, it seems to contain no menace or danger to the civil government, l)ut, on tlic contrary, it seems very much calcu- lated to strengthen and sustain it. But methinkH I hear some (iladstonian say, "O, but what about the infallibility of 'the i'ope? Will not this horrid doctrine ui>8et governments, dethrone kings, ami perhaps |)iungc th»; world into ruin and chaos? Who will save thepooi-, inotTcnsivc, weak governments from this terrible, infallible I'opc?" Please (|uiet your fears, good ( Uadstonian. Hear the following official pronouncements of Cardinal Antonelli and Pius IX. himself on the subject : In a dispatch to Monsignore Chigi, Papal Xoncio at Paris, dated May 1st, 1870, Cardinal Antonelli says: — 68 " Does it not follow from the faot that tl)o Church has l)een inatituted by her Divine fouiulur as a true and i»erfC(t society, distinct and indciteudeut of tho civil power, endowed witli a triple authority, legislative, judicial, aatl even coactive, that no confusion ensues in the progress of human society, and in the exorcise of the two powers / The eomi)etence of l>oth ono and the other is clearly distinct, and determined l»y tljc end to wliich it is directed. In virtue of her authority, tlie < 'iuurli does not inti'ude herself in a direct and al)aolute manner into the constitutive luiiiciples of governments; into the forms of civil institutions; into the political rights of citizoas; into tlieir duties of state, or into the otlier matters referred to in the note of the Minister. But no society can exist witlmut a sovereign principlt; to regulate the morality of its acts .and ol" its laws. Such is the sublime nustfion that (lod has confided to IJis Church, with a view to the happiness of peoples, and without inter- ference in the discliarge of these high functions Milh tlie free and prompt action of governments. The Ciiurch, in fact, while inculcating the principle to render to (!od tlie things that arc (lod's, and to Ciesar the things that are Ca'sars, imposes at the same time upon her clnldren the obligation of a con- scientious obedience to tlie authority of sovereigns. But sovereigns ought also to remember that if they in any way prescribe laws in opposition to the principles of eternal justice, to ol)ey in .such a case would be no longer to render to Ca'sar the things that are Casar's, but to rob Cod of that which is His due. ]t is to be hoped, on the contrary, that the ( atholic doctrine, receiving a new and solemn eoniirnuition at the hands of tlie Fathers ot the Council of the N'atican, will l)e reeeived liy tiic faithful people as the bow in the heavens, the pledge of peace, and the harbinger of a better time. The only object of the confirmation of these doctrines is, in fact, to recall to the con- sciousness of modern society the principles of justice and of htmestj', and thus to restore to the world that peace and that prosperity which nothing but the perfect oliservance of the divine law can secure."' The Holy Father himself, when aiblressing tho Society for the defence of the Catholic faith, on the 20tli ^luly, IS71, said :-- " Among tlie questions which will present themselves to you, one seems to me to be, at this time, of great importance; it is, how to defeat the attempts now being made to falsify the idea of I'ontilical Infallibility. Among those errors, tlie most malicious of all is tiiat which attributes to it the right of deposing sovereigns, and aiisolving subjects fnmi the obligations of lidelity to them. This right, witlumt doubt, was exercised at times, in critical circum- stances, l)y the Supreme I'ontills; liut it has nothing to do with the l'onti!ieal Infallibihty. Neither is its origin the Infallibility, but the INmtilical authority. " Moreover, the exercise of tiiis right, during those centuries of faitli, when men reverenced in tiie Tope that which he really is, namely, the Supreme Judge of Chribtirinity, and when they acknowledged the advantages whicii result from his tribun.al, in those great ecmtests of people^ and sover- eigns, was freely extended (with the aid, which wa^ yielded as a duty, of the public right, and of tlie universal consent of natif ns) to the points of gravest nterest to tho states and to their rulers. 69 " But the present circumstances arc very ditttrcnt from those, and malice alone could confound tilings so diverse, confusing, namely, the infallible judgment regarding tin; prinuipl.s of rtvelation with the light which the I'opes exerciseil, in virtue of their authority, whenever the common good d( ..anded it." This, of course, should In- snflicicnt to satisfy all save those who are de- termined not to lie sati^'lied. \\"c will con'ludi with the following crushing reply of Archhishoi) Manning to the charge that the Vatican definition of 1870 revolutionized tiie ndations of ( hurth and State: — " I cannot doubt that the public writers who make these assertions believe them to be true, i-it I am at a U)ss to conceive how men oi uiulcniable ability, with the fa -ts ,jf history before them, can make such assertions. Tlie governments of the world have consciously framed all their contracts .lud concordats with an infallible C'hurch. 'I'lie cunditions on which those relations of amity were fcmndetl, were always based up -n the laws and principles of an infallible ( 'hurch. The (juestion as to the seat oi that ini'allibility is not temporal, or civil, or political, or dijdomatic, or external, but strictly internal, domestic anil the. As the alleged illtreatnu-at of (lalileo by the Roman Iiii|ni«ition, is so often tn being llrst formed to judge of heresy in doctrine, tlie woril heresy was necessarily employed so as to render a process legal, and to enable the '<|ualitiers' to proceed. This word was used, up to the tinu of the lleformation, to eouvey any otlenco against the Church ; as wiiere Martin Lutlitr, when speaking of some prefect who did not i)ay tribute to the Pope, saiil, 'Such impertinence must always, in the Pope's spiritual law, ))c called heresy. ' That < ialileo did not think himself condemned, in even so much as tlio 'scientilic' sense, i.s apparent from his letter to a friend : 'The result has not l)een favorable to my enemies; because the doctrine of Copernicus has not Ijeon declared heretical, but only as not consonant with Holy Seri])ture ;' tliat is with the /irlnni fiirii> signili- cation of Scripture. The I'opc aho wrote: 'The Coperuiean system is not condemned, nor in it to be considered as hei'ctieal, but only as rash. ' And forth- with one of the Cardinals, by command of the Pope, issued a new edition of flalileo's writings ; eliminating the passages on the Scriptures, and reducing the theory to hypothesis. "4. As to the punisliment of (ialilco, so absurdly exaggerated by adver- saries, he passed a week in the Dominican t '(invent of the Minerva in Rome, and four months in the Palace of the Tuscan Ambassador, his own particular friend. 'I have for a prison,' he wrote, in a letter whieli is extant, 'the de- lightful Palace of Trinita di Monte.' Sub.seiiuently, he wrote, 'Afterwards they sent me to my best friend, the; Archl)ishop of Siena, and 1 have always the most delightful trancjuility. ' Later he went to his own villa in Florence, where he died in peaco with the Church. So that tlic clemency of the Church in the punishment of a rebel, even of one who had caused great scandal, is not less shown in this story of Calileo, than is her nurture of science — apart from theology — and her reverence in tlic treatment of Scri]>ture." APPENDIX o. THE OliTHODO.VY OF Pol'ES LIIJHUII'S AND UO.NOniUS. The opponents of Papal Infallibility are in the habit of citing the case of two Popes as having actually erred in matters of faith, and thereby proved themselves fallible, vi/ : Pope Liljerius, who, it is alleged, taught the heresy of Arianism, and Pope llonorius, who is accused of having fallen into the error of Monothelism. In order to make. good their objection to our thesis, our opponents must //ror. two things: 1st, that tlie aforesaid Popes did actually fall into heresy; and secondly, that they, as heads of the Church, taught heresy by <♦./• Callictfm detinitions. Now m-c aiiirm, most positively, that neither of those two positions can be made good. We make this solemn athrmation with the proofs at hand to sustain it; but, of course, it would be 72 ll ,• utterly iinposaiblc, in a little work like this, to enter fully or satisl'actorily into the historic ]»roof8 whiuh vindicate those I'opes from the untrue charges made aerea, in Thrace, and an auti- jjopo, Felix, was consecrated in the emperor's i»alace; but the people remained throughovit faithful to Liberius, and would hold no communion with the usurper; though, to do the latter justice, we must state that even he adhered to the Creed of Nice, and was irreproachable, except in thus temporizing with Arians, and allowing himself to be lured ])y the dazzling temptations set before him. After about two years of exile, Liberius was recalled to Home, and the whole city gave hi in a most triumjdiant reception on lus return, and expelled Felix. Surely these facts will not allow the sui)posltion that the same Pope Liberius had just disgraced himself and the Church by cn to a heresy. The formula spoken of here by Sozomen was strictly orthodox, strongly asserted Catholic doctrine, and contained no error, ajid therefore cannot bo construed into a proof against the inerrancy of the Popes. As to the accusation that l^iberius condeuined St. Athanasius, we may remark that the Arians did not attempt to convict Athanasius of heresy, tliey merely charged him with being a disturber of the peace, so that doctrine was not in ijuestion at all in his case, and therefore, even if the I'ope had joined in his condemnation, it would be no ari^nment against the doc'rine of Papal Infallibili'y in matters of faith and morals wlien defined (./• vatlnthut . But what is the fact as to the way in which Athanasius was regarded by Liberius ': The Imly Pontiff called a council hi Home (A. D. '.\')2) and laid before the bishops the emperor's retpiest tliat they should condemn Athanasius ; but they unanimously proclaimed his innocence and declared, with llie approval of Liberius, tha'. the virtue of Athanasius rendered him deserving of the ad- miration of the world, tjuotatious might be multiplied from St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. Epiphanius. t'assiodoru3,'rheodoret, St. Athanasius and other writers of the age, proving the Holy Poutitrs innocence of ihe charges brought against him, but it would occupy too much space to do so. SutHceit, there- fore, to say that the few passages, from well informed historians, which are quoted to prove that he fell into heresy, were either Ariau forgeries and iu*er polatious in tlie writings of truly great men, or they were written with but an imperfect knowledge of a matter darkly shrouded amid the shadows of the past. Liberius we believe to have been a great and holy Pope, and we arc fully convinced that an impartial investigation into the matter will sustain our view. IL The case of Pope Honorius is also, as we have said, a favorite topic with the opponents of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Monothelite heretics acknowledged both the divinity and humanity of Christ, but they denied his human will and operation, maintaining that in him there is but one, viz. : — T^ie divine will. Pope Honorius was induced by Sergius, I'atriarch of Constantinople, to believe that it was best for the peace of the Church to impose silence on both the advocates and opponents of this doctrine, and accordingly he did so, and two letters were written to Sergius, in which the Pope urges the advocates of both sides to silence ; but the,effect was rather to give strength to the hereti cal party, and to discourage the orthodox. Tlit> successors of Honorius, Severinus, John IV., and Theodore, aware of his mistake, solemnly con- demned the new heresy, and in the acts of the sixth Cencral Council, Honorius is very strongly condemned for his course. Some writers maintain that the passages in the acts of the Sixth Council, wherein Honoriusis con 74 fli . 1 (leinncil, arc not authentic. The weight of eviiler-e seems to us to be in favor of their authenticity, but we maintain : — lat. That the letters of Honorins do not constitute an r.r rathnlra defi- nition. 'Jndly, That there is in them no doctrinal error, and 3rdly, That his doctrine was not condemned by infallible authority. If we can sustain these three propositions, or even the first or second of them, it will follow, that, from tho conduct of Honorius, no valid objection can be brought against the Pope's Infallibility when "teaching a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church." First, then, tho letters of Honorius were not utterances ».'• rufhrilra. To be of this character, a tenet of faith should be defined, but the letters in (luestion do not define any tenet, they merely impose silence on two contending parties— and certainly the economy of ailence is not a definition of doctrine. \Ve are quite prepared to admit » neglect of duty in administration, but certainly there is, in the letters referred to, no heterodox doctrinal teaching at all. The Vatican decree declares the Pope to be infallible cmly when he speaks Kf Citfhedra, that is to say, '* as exercising the ofiice of pastor and doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his Apostolic autboniy, a doctrine, •whether of faith or of morals, for the acceptance of the universal Church." Thus when Pope Pius I X. declares, as he does in the decree defining infalli- bility: — "But if ony one, which may (lod overt, shall presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema," the definition is pronounced ex Citflii'(fi'a, but tliere is nothing like this in the letters of Honorius. In fact, so far from being ex Cathedra definitions, the letters were evidently a portion of a discussion on the Monothelite as opposed to the Catholic doctrine, and were written with a view to arriving afterwards at a final decision. Therefore they were not intended to have the force of an Apostolic definition of faith. In our proof of the first proposition, we have also proved the second, viz., that in the aforesaid lettern there wan no doctrinal citov. We, therefore, pass to the consideration of the third proposition, that Honoriua'a doctrine teas not foadvmwd by infallible aiithoriti/. This proposition would not require to be proved, in order to sustain our thesis, because Papal Infallibility would not be afi"ected by the fact, even if a Pope fell personally into error. It is only when he teaches as head of the Church, and obliges the Church to receive his teaching, that we claim for him the prerogative of infallibility; still it is a satisfaction to know that Honorius did not fall into heresy, and for this reason we propose to show precisely for what he was worthy of condemnation. The Sixth General Council, held 40 years after his death, pronounces an anathema against Honorius. Some writers admit that the coudemnation by the bishops was intended to imply that he was really a heretic; but as the intention of the bishops does not constitute an infallible tribunal without the confirmation of the Pope, we are to look to the terms in which the authority of the Pope confirms the acts of the Council; for, as Adrian II. says, " No bishop would have the right of expresiing any judgment on Honorius unless the authority ot the Frimatial See hi A gone before." Now St. Leo II., in confirming the anathema against Honorius, expressly says: — 75 "We nnatlicTiiatizc tlio inventors of the new error Theodore, Cyrus. Sergins, utc. Nay anil llonorius also; who iliil not lal)or to preserve in pu.ity this Apostolic Chiircli l)y the teaching of Apostolic tradition, hut by prolanu Iietrayal .sH//;r<'/ the spotlosH to he polluted." Again, St. iiCo asserts, in his 1 ittcrH to the Spanish hishops uutl to tlie Spanish king, the same reason for the condemnation of Honorins, which he gives in iiis letter to the < Jrcek emperor. " Those who fought acra'nst the purity of Apontolic doiitrine, and have died, have been punished by a per])etual condemnation, that is, Theodore, ("ynis, itc, togetlier with llonorius, who did not extinguish, at its outset, the riamc of heretical dogma as became his Apostolic authority, but, by neglecting, fostered it. "All tlic authors of heretical assertion were cast out from the Church's unity— Theodore, Cyrus, &c.— and with them Honorius of Home, who con- nHifid that the undetiled rule of Apostolic tradition should be defiled, which he received from his predeccsaora. " In fact, John 1\'., who succeeded to the I'ontitical olhce, only two years after the death of llonorius, says, in a letter addressed to Constantine I'ogonatus :- "Our predecessor (llonorius) said that there arc not in Jesus Christ, as in the sinful man, two contrary wills, that of the tiesh and that of the spirit; but it is absr)lutely false that he admitted only one will in Jesus < hrist.'' Now this doctrine is quite orthodox. From these testimonies it is clear that Konorius was condemned fo nxjlccCiiKj to crush heresy, and not for (lac/dnu false doctrine. It is true, as we have already said, some Catholic writers admit that the eastern bishops considered him guilty of heresy; but it was only for iiojltdliig his duty that the infallible judgment of the Holy Sec condennied liim, and even very high authorities assert that the bishops also intended no more in their condemna- tion of him than to blame him for neglect of duty, as did Leo II.