IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 .^. 
 
 
 
 w.. 
 
 Va 
 
 m. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 1.25 
 
 ^" IM 1111121 
 
 '•' *tf 1 2.0 
 
 i 1.8 
 
 \A. 11 1.6 
 
 VQ 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 e. 
 
 'm 
 
 C/a 
 
 
 <Pl 
 
 '!! 
 
 
 
 ^l 
 
 ^ ^^N 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 7 
 
 //a 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 iV 
 
 r^ 
 
 «^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY 14S80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 
 '%" 
 
 6^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 

 W^ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 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 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Fncre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire} 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 n 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 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 ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6X6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality indgale de I'impression' 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont dtd film^es d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 0This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 14X 
 
 IX 
 
 \7 
 
 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 2DX 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filMed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the gen jrosity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 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. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers ar«t 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. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 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: 
 
 L'exemplaire fiim6 fut reproduit grfice d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 La bibllothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6td reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant 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. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — »► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
< 
 
■^77/^ 
 
 Papal Infallibtlity.^^^? 
 
 LETTERS of"CLEOPHAS" 
 
 IN DEFENCE OF THE VATICAN DOGMA, . 
 
 (Reprinted from St. yohn Globe), 
 WITH 
 
 PREFAi^E AND COPIOUS APPENDIX. 
 
 BY 
 
 Reverend Wm. C. Gaynok, 
 
 Rector Missumarius of Church of St. Thomas of Canterbury, 
 I J htnond, Carleton Co., N. B., Canada. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE ADDED THE 
 
 LETTERS OF "VERITAS" 
 
 ON THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 SAINT JOHN, N. B. 
 J. & A. McMillan, 98 Prince William Street. 
 
 1885. 
 
 <L 
 
 im 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 On the 15th of January last, His Grace Archbishop O'Brien of 
 Halifax preached, by invitation, at the dedication of the new Catholic 
 Church, Portland, N. B. His Grace's sermon was a lucid and convincing 
 exposition of the triple unity of the Cliurch of Christ — unity of faith, 
 worship, and obedience. Preached to an overflowing congregation, of 
 whom many were Protestants, and afterwards published in the St. John 
 daily papers, this sermon attracted much attention. Its publication, 
 as was to be expected, was followed by an outburst of angry protest and 
 misleading criticism from several of the Protestant pulpits of St. John 
 and Portland. Anonymous correspondence also appeared in some of 
 the dailies, having for object to weaken, if possible, the crushing effect 
 of His Grace's remorseless logic. My attention having been directed at 
 the time to the letter of one such critic signing himself " Truth," I was 
 induced to write for publication two letters,' which were afterwards pub- 
 lished in the St. John Globe, — the first treating of the Visible Church, 
 the second of Papal Infallibility, with incidental refutations of certain 
 historical objections brought forward by "Truth." These two letters, 1 
 need scarcely affirm, were written in no controversial spirit. They were 
 hurriedly put together, as the press of other literary duties occupied my 
 spare time. That either of them, particularly the last, which was but a 
 bare statement of the conditions limiting Papal Infallibility, should excite 
 a controversy is something of which I had no expectation. A controversy 
 of more than ordinary length and interest was, however, thus excited. 
 Two days after the publication of my second letter there appeared in 
 the columns of the Globe i\ communication' from a writer signing himself 
 "Catholic," in which he propounded fifteen questions, with the request 
 that I should answer them. Of these questions, the first referred to 
 tlie Supremacy of the Pope, the remaining ten to Papal Infallibility. 
 They were questions to which justice could not be done in the limited 
 space of a daily newspaper. Nay, the three first, which were objections 
 against the Supremacy of St. Peter, of themselves demanded, in order 
 to a thorough elucidation and proof of that dogma, more space than was 
 ultimatelv covered by the whole discussion. Fully aware of the disadvan- 
 tage under which 1 thus labored, I immediately addressed myself to the 
 
 1. Extracts from these letters are given under one heading on pages i to 5, in order that the 
 reader may obtain a connected idea of the controversy from the first. 
 
 1. This letter is given in full on pages 7, 8, j. 
 
 (i) 
 
 \ 
 
u 
 
 Preface. 
 
 preparation of a reply. That reply (p. ii), published shortly afterwards, 
 was the first of the letters of "Cleophas," properly so-called, as far as 
 this controversy is concerned. It elicited a rejoinder, in two instalments, 
 from " Catholic." To this I replied in seven letters. The publication of 
 the last of these letters (p. 66) was followed, in a few days, by another 
 rejoinder from him, this time in three instalments. The Globe then 
 debarred me from further reply by deciding that the discussion should 
 immediately come to a close. 
 
 Such is a brief summary of the origin and history of this controversy. 
 As a pretty connected idea of the controversy as a whole, and of the drift 
 of my opponent's arguments, as far as 1 was allowed to review them, 
 can be gained from my letters now republished, it is unnecessary for me 
 to enter into a more detailed account of the nature of the controversy 
 itself. As will be seen, however, the seven instalments which form my 
 last reply are at once a defence of my answers already referred to, and a 
 criticism of the peculiar methods employed by my opponent in common 
 with all Protestant controversialists from the days of Martin Luther. 
 
 That no disposition whatever is shown in these letters to evade any 
 issue just'y put will appear at a glance. The charge of using irrelevant 
 arguments and of adducing assertions utterly proofless, made against me 
 by my opponent, is so groundless, nay, so absolutely opposed to the fact, 
 that it needs no further notice from me. It comes, however, with the 
 very worst grace from one whose letters are but a jumble of worn-out 
 calumnies, and oft-refuted falsehoods, strung together without the 
 slightest regard for logic, or the just exigencies of the controversy ; and 
 whose weightiest authorities for his wild assertions against the Catholic 
 Church are such writers as Stearnes, Janus, and Littledale — not to speak 
 of the godly Church Times — anonymous newspaper correspondents, 
 Cub in gentlemen of doubtful color, and other sources of information 
 not a whit less reliable. Such historians as Labb^. Hefele, and others of 
 the same high standard were "acknowledged authorities" to my op- 
 ponent as long as he imagined they favored his contentions; but the 
 moment they were shown to be unfavorable to him and in direct contra- 
 diction to his assertions regarding the Councils of Nice and Constanti- 
 nople, they sank at once into insignificance, and were ranked by this 
 consistent writer below the anonymous Quirinus or the no less worthless 
 Pomponio Leto. 
 
 As to the charge of descending to "coarse invective," preferred 
 against me by my estimable opponent, my best reply is to refer my 
 readers to these letters. If they can find in them anything discourteous 
 or ungentlemanly — in a word, anything approaching to invective — then 
 will I be content to be judged guilty of such a charge. What his idea of 
 invective may be, of course I cannot say ; but if to " call a spade a spade," 
 and to nail a falsehood on the head without much rhetorical circumlocu- 
 
Preface. 
 
 Ill 
 
 tion, be invective, then is his idea of invective as distorted and unsound 
 as is his conception of the powers of CathoHc Bishops. I might here 
 add that fault has been found with me for treating so courteously one 
 who, as is plain to be seen, wrote not for love of truth, but rather with a 
 purpose to advertise himself by working on the well-known prejudices 
 of a portion of his readers. 
 
 I have said that "Catholic" replied to my seven letters in a reply of 
 three instalments. These instalments, particularly the first, were so 
 long, and so loaded down with extraneous matter that I can but give a 
 slight synopsis of each. The first of these instalments purported to be 
 a criticism of my first five; the second treated of my sixth, and the third 
 of my seventh instalment. 
 
 It has been well said by Brownson that " the Protestant has a squint 
 in his mental eye which prevents him looking truth straight in the 
 face." The aptness of this remark is fully shown in my opponent's letters, 
 but in no place more plainly than in the first instalment of what I will 
 term his second reply. In that letter he heaps up at random the tradi- 
 tional vocabulary of defamation against the Papacy. The gamut of stale 
 falsehoods ranges from that about Galileo down to the still more sur- 
 prising falsehood that Sixtus the Fifth published an infallible edition of 
 the Bible. Gregory the Great, than whom there never existed a Pope 
 more outspoken in defence of the Primacy of the Apostolic See, is made 
 to renounce all claims to such primacy. 
 
 The Synod of Sinuessa,* the Constitutinn Silvestri, the Annals of 
 Liberius and Sixtus, the Pretended History of Polychronius, and the 
 False Decretals, are all made to do duty in blissful ignorance of the fact 
 that the most of these documents tell more against the claims of the 
 Papacy than for them. " Catholic " has taken all these baseless charges 
 at second hand from the pages of Janus, Stearnes, and Littledale ; and, 
 stringing tliem together, imagines he has made out his case against me. 
 It mattered little to him that all these objections had time and again 
 been refuted by Catholic writers ; that Janus had been placed hors de 
 combat by Cardinal Hergenrother ;'^ that a like fate had befallen Stearnes 
 at the hands of a Catholic professor in Maryland;^ and that Littledale 
 had been forced by Father Ryder, of the Oratry,* publicly to acknow- 
 
 1. For the value to be set upon these and other historical objections against the Papacy see 
 Appendix. 
 
 2. " Anti-Janus : An Historico-Theological Criticism of the Work entitled ' The Pope and 
 The Council,' by Janus; " by Dr. Hergenrother, Professor of Canon Law and of Ecclesiastical 
 History at the University of Wurzburg. Translated from the German by J. B. Robertson, Esq. 
 Dublin : W. B. Kt^lley ; London : Burns and Oatcs & Company, 1870. 
 
 3. " The True Faith of Our Forefathers," by a Professor of Theology in Woodstock Col- 
 lege, S. J., Maryland. New York : The American News Company. 
 
 4. "Answer to Littledale's ' Plain Reasons.' " For an estimate by a Protestant clergyman 
 of the value of " Plain Reasons,'' see Appendix. 
 
IV 
 
 Preface. 
 
 edge that in his Plain Reasons, within a compass of 200 pages, he had 
 published 201 falsehoods and 13,340 errata. The St. John Protestant 
 public would not know this, of course, and consequently to them, my 
 opponent hoped, these charges and undigested diOiculties would pass as 
 current coin. 
 
 His second letter was a silly attempt to prove two assertions which 
 all history shows do not admit of proof: first, that the Church of 
 Benedict and Bernard, of Francis de Sales and Vincent de Paul, of the 
 Martyrs of the Coliseum, of St. Patrick and Augustine, can not sanctify 
 her children ; and, second, that the Church of England did not take her 
 rise from the beastiality of Henry the Eighth and the greed of Elizabeth. 
 
 To prove the first he had again recourse to historic falsehood, ad- 
 ducing as facts regarding Alexander the Sixth what every learned man 
 must know to be untrue. The state of Catholic countries is also 
 objected as an argument against the Church, and statistics are adduced 
 to show that Catholics contribute more to the criminal classes than any 
 other denomination. My opponent does all this with the air and assur- 
 ance of one who is not only certain of what he speaks, but also assured 
 that he is speaking to the point, ignoring the fact that his argum^mts tell 
 more against tlie grace of God himself than against the Church. 
 
 His second assertion that the Church of England was not founded, 
 but only rejuvenated and purified by godly King Henry and his pious 
 daughter, good Queen Bess, is so unutterably silly and untrue that I will 
 not here ('well upon it. It is of a piece with an assertion advanced by 
 another English Churcli minister of St. John not long ago, that tb*^ 
 Magna Charta (won from an impious King by the Catholic clergy and 
 barons of Catholic England, headed by the Pope's legate) was the death- 
 knell to Papal domination in England. It would require the acme of 
 gullibility to believe either assertion of these reverend gentlemen. 
 
 " Catholic's " third letter needs no special mention, as it is nothing 
 more than an ingenious attempt to dodge certain issues, and prove him- 
 self a sound, thorough-going Protestant. This he has doubtless done to 
 his own satisfaction. 
 
 With the publication of these three letters from " Catholic " the con- 
 troversy closed. Such was the decision of the Globe, and no effort of 
 mine could change it. It was useless to object that to me belon^^ed the 
 right of closing the discussion ; that from the very outset my opponent 
 had been the aggressor ; and that consequently he should not be allowed 
 to have the " last word." The Globe's decision was like the decrees of 
 the Medes and Persians, irreformable. It did, indeed, publish the follow- 
 ing short epistle, without, however, according to me the right claimed in 
 it: — 
 
Preface. 
 
 To the Editor of the " Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — I would respectfully enquire what your intentionn are rejrard- 
 in^ the theological discussion which for some time past has occupied your 
 columns. Do you intend to publish anything and everything "Catho- 
 lic " may send you, and yet refuse publication to my replies, intimating 
 at the same time that 1 should be grateful for past favors and not ask for 
 more. If it suits your idea of fair play first to permit him to attack me 
 and then deny me the right, which by all the rules of fair discussion, is 
 undoubtedly mine, of closing the present discussion, please say so pub- 
 licly, that all may be guided by your decision. Much against my will, 
 but in deference to your wishes, I have refrained so far; but as patience 
 is fast ceasing to be a \'irtue, I must, in justice to myself, insist on know- 
 ing just what your intentions are. Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 Carleton County, N. B., May 20th, 1885. 
 
 As I have said, the Globe made no reply, and the matter dropped. I 
 was thus effectually prevented from replying to "Catholic's" last three 
 letters. It would, I must confess, have been a pleasure for me to do so, 
 particularly as I wished to explain away the seeming difficulties advanced 
 by my opponent against the Supremacy of St. Peter. An opportunity to 
 do so at a more favorable time may yet be granted me ; in the meantime, 
 however, I would recommend to any one desirous of studying the ques- 
 tion, T. W. Allie's '"St. Peter, His Name and His Office, as set forth in 
 Holy Scripture^'' a work of great learning, in which all the difficulties 
 and objections advanced by Anglicans against the Supremacy of the 
 Prince of the Apostles are effectively disposed of. 
 
 An Appendix has been added to these Letters, ni which will be found 
 Notes explanatory of the text, and corroborative of my arguments. 
 
 By the kind permission of their author, the letters of "Veritas " are 
 herein republished. They supply most interesting and instructive read- 
 ing, and are a complete vindication of the Vatican C nincil from those 
 charges which, at the time of the holding of that Council, were so 
 industriously propagated by the enemies of the Church, and which were 
 reproduced at such length by " Catholic." Written by one whose personal 
 acquaintance with Archbishop Connolly was most intimate, and whose 
 opportunities of knowing the internal workings of the Vatican Council 
 could not be excelled, the letters of " Veritas " supply on this subject 
 much information generally unknown. It was because of this merit, as 
 also because these letters treat of a phase of this controversy in which, 
 on account of their opportune appearance, I was called upon to take 
 but little part, that they are here added. In my judgment they are the 
 most valuable contribution, on either side, to this now famous discussion. 
 
 That this controversy has served a good purpose I have every reason 
 to hope. It has opened the eyes of many to the fact that Catholic doc- 
 trines and dogmas are not after all so unreasonable and unhistorical as 
 
■fM' 
 
 VI 
 
 Preface. 
 
 interested calumniators would make out; it has drawn public attention 
 to her claims, and has emphasized — within a limited radius indeed — her 
 doctrines on the ixjints at issue. That it has dissipated many unjust objec- 
 tions, and cleared the way on a tangled subject for inquiring souls, the 
 many letters I have received from Protestants in St. John bear witness. 
 May God cause to bring forth fruit the seeds thus planted. 
 
 „ ^ Clkophas. 
 
 Debec, Carleton County, 
 
 Feasi of Visitation of B. V. M., iSS^. 
 
 !M 
 
tion 
 her 
 
 )jec- 
 the 
 
 tess. 
 
 .s. 
 
 
 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, 
 
 To the Editor of the ' ' Globe .• " 
 
 Sir, — Now that the outburst of specious reasoning and minis- 
 terial rodomontade which greeted the publication of Archbishop 
 O'Brien's sermon, preached at the dedication of new St. Peter's 
 on the 15th January, has subsided, it may not be inopportune to 
 present to a discerning public, through your columns, a summary 
 of Catholic doctrine on tlie two points which appear to have excited 
 the most animadversion. I refer to the visible unity of the Church, 
 and to the infallibility of the Pope. I will premise my observations 
 on these two important dogmas of Catholic belief by the remark 
 that in matters of faith Roman Catholics hold no " theories." 
 Theory, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, is, practically, 
 synonymous with uncertainty, hesitation and doubt. Catholics, 
 then, in matters of faith, hold no theories ; for vvith them, in such 
 matters, there can be no uncertainty, no hesitation, no doubt. 
 Consequently, Archbishop O'Brien propounded no "theory" 
 when he asserted in his sermon that the Church of Christ is 
 a visible, organized body, capable of being recognized at any 
 time by its unity in faith, worship and obedience. Catholics, so 
 far from holding this visible unity of the Church as a " theory," 
 believe it as a truth of faith. With them, therefore, the Church of 
 Christ is a visible body — not visible only as a religious society, 
 or collection of intelligent human beings, professing the same 
 faith, acknowledging the same head, and obeying the same laws ; 
 but also as a divinely organized body, easily distinguishable as 
 such from the many others unjustly laying claim to the same title. 
 As a consequence, therefore, the protesting sects, although called 
 Christian by courtesy, are not recognized, either individually or 
 collectively, as the Church of Christ, or as parts of the Church of 
 Christ, by the Catholic Church. It is easily seen, then, that the 
 Archbishop, in instituting a comparison between the Catholic 
 Church and the other so called churches, did not for a moment 
 
 (I) 
 
2 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 admit that these churches are the Church oi" Christ. Nay, he ex- 
 pressly affirmed that they were not the work of God's, but of 
 other hands. By what train of reasoning, then, can he be made 
 to admit that the prayer of Christ for the unity of H's Church 
 was not fulfilled ? 
 
 Of Papal Infallibility, it can be well said that it is the least 
 understood and the most misrepresented dogma of Catholic 
 belief And yet it is the natural outcome of the divine character 
 of the Church and of the promises made by Christ to St. Peter, 
 the first and chief of the Apostles. It is not to my purpose to 
 introduce here the many irrefutable arguments which can be 
 brought forward to prove the existence, nay necessity, of this in- 
 fallibility. Of its nature and extent it is sufficient to say, in the 
 words of the Pope's Encyclical Bull, called the Pastor AHernus, 
 that " the Pope has that same infallibility which the Church has." 
 To determine, therefore, what is meant by the infallibility of the 
 Pope it would be necessary first to consider the infallibility of the 
 Church. And, again, to determ^'ne the character of the Church's 
 infallibility it would be necessary to consider what is the charac- 
 teristic of Christianity, considered as a revelation of God's will. 
 As to do this would cause me to exceed the bounds allotted to a 
 newspaper correspondent — and, besides, the Church's infallibility 
 has not been attacked only inasmuch as it is supposed not to 
 account for so-called facts — I will limit myself to a short summary 
 of the Church's Infallibility, and will afterwards show, from its 
 actual exercise, the extent of the Pope's Infallibility, which is part 
 and parcel of that of the Church. 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 But it must be remembered that the Church is not infallible in 
 such facts as are merely personal and historical. She may err in 
 her judgment on the guilt or innocence of individuals who come 
 before her tribunal ; documents may be accepted as genuine 
 in her Councils which are really spurious ; historical errors may 
 exist in the offices of the breviary,* approved as it is by the 
 judgment of the Pope and the Church. Erro*- on such matters 
 
 1. See for a pertinent example the case of St. Marcellinus, noticed on a succeeding page. 
 
Papal Infallibility. 
 
 ible in 
 err in 
 3 come 
 enuine 
 s may 
 by the 
 natters 
 
 pAge. 
 
 is possible, because they form no part of the faith, nor does error 
 in regard to them detract from the perfection with which the 
 Church guards the faith. 
 
 Hence it can be at once seen that the objection against the 
 Church's Infallibility, drawn from the use as authentic of the 
 Isidorian Decretals, at once falls to the ground. There is nothing 
 in that collection, spurious though it be, contrary to faith or sound 
 morals ; otherwise its long reception would have been impossible ; 
 nor does the discipline which it enjoins depend for its authority 
 upon this collection, but either upon the constitutions of earlier 
 and later date, or upon custom: "Quae,'' as Cardinal Soglia re- 
 marks, " m rebus discipiinaribus inu/ium valei." 
 
 Turn we now from this short digression to consider more in 
 detail the Infallibility of the Pope. When is the Pope infallible ? 
 The answer is, when he speaks ex cathedra. When does the 
 Pope speak ex cathedra, or from the teaching chair of Peter ? 
 He speaks ex cathedra, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as 
 Universal Teacher ; secondly, in the name and with the authority 
 of the Apostles ; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals ; fourthly, 
 with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to ac- 
 cept and believe his doctrine. These four conditions are abso- 
 lutely required in order that any Pontificial decision may be 
 considered of dogmatic or binding force ; or, in other words, that 
 the Pope may be considered to pronounce an ex cathedra de- 
 cision. These conditions, of course, contract the range of his 
 infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart, speaking of the 
 Pope, says : " Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in 
 interpreting the Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor 
 in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in 
 answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is 
 setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible." Nay, 
 Bishop Fesseler, a man of high authority, for he was Secretary 
 General of the Vatican Council, and of higher authority still in 
 his work, for it has the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff, 
 says : " The Pope is not infallible as a man, or a theologian, or a 
 priest, or a bishop, or a temporal prince, or a judge, or a legisla- 
 tor, or in his political views, or even in his government of the 
 Church." This is reducing the Papal Infallibility with a ven- 
 geance, is it not ? And yet this is the teaching of Catholic 
 
4 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 theologians in general, and of Billuart and Fesseltr in particular, 
 the latter of whom carries with him in his work the public appro- 
 bation of the Sovereign Pontiff. This, then, is the bug-bear of 
 modern heresy ; and yet, when examined into, it turns out, like all 
 other Catholic doctrines, not to be so inconceivably absurd as our 
 opponents would make it. 
 
 In view then of even this incomplete explanation of the nature 
 and exercise of Papal Infallibility, it can easily be seen how little 
 the Catholic Church has to fear from historical enquiry. What is 
 true in the nineteenth century must have been true in the first, or 
 fourth, or tenth, or fifteenth. Pope Liberius, in the middle of the 
 fourth century, must have been as infallible in ex cathedra de- 
 cisions on faith and morals as Pope Leo XIII. in the latter part of 
 the nineteenth. How, then, it will be objected, do you defend his 
 fall from the faith in condemning Athanasius, the champion of 
 truth, and approving the heretical doctrine of Arius? Simply by 
 throwing the burden of proof that he really did subscribe the Arian 
 Confession and anathematize Athanasius on the shoulders of those 
 who, in the face of impartial history, which does not prove him to 
 have done so, assert that he did, at the bidding of Constantius, 
 deny the divinity of his Divine Master; or, still better, by quoting 
 the words of Cardinal Newman on this very point: " It is aston- 
 ishing to me how any one can fancy that Liberius, in subscribing 
 the Arian Confessions, promulgated them ex cathedra, consid- 
 ering he was not his own master when he signed them, and they 
 were not his drawing up. Who would say that it would be a 
 judgment of the Queen's Bench, or a judicial act of any kind, if 
 ribbon-men in Ireland seized on one of Her Majesty s judges, hur- 
 ried him into the wilds of Connemara, and there made him, under 
 terror of his life, sign a document in the very teeth of an award 
 which he had lately made in court in a question of property.' Surely, 
 for an ex cathedra decision of the Pope, is required his formal 
 initiation of it, his authorship of its wording, and his utterance 
 amid his Court, with solemnities parallel to those of an Ecumenical 
 Council. It is not a transaction that can be done in his travelling 
 dress, in some hedge-side inn, or town tavern, or imperial servants' 
 hall. Liberius' subscription can only claim a Nag's Head sort of 
 Infallibility." So much for Liberius' supposed renunciation of 
 Catholic doctrine on the consubtantiality of tlie Son. 
 
 BH 
 
Papal Infallibility, 
 
 I have said above that the Pope can convoke an Ecumenical 
 Council, or Provincial Synod, and in union therewith, define a 
 doctrine of faith, which he may afterwards promulgate to the whole 
 Church. But no Council, ecumenical, provincial or synodal, can 
 infallibly define any doctrine on faith or morals vvidiout the con- 
 sent and specific approbation and confirmation of the Pope. If 
 this consent or confirmation be withheld, then are all the acts of 
 such Council null, void, and not binding ; nor can such a Council 
 then be said to speak for the Church ; nor can the acts or decisions 
 of such a Council be quoted for or against the Church. Thus, 
 even the decision of the Vatican Council on the subject of Papal 
 Infallibility would not have been worth two straws if it had not 
 received the confirmation of the reigning Pope, Pius IX. How, 
 then, can the Arianism of the Councils of Sirmium and Milan be 
 objected against the infallibility of the Church, since the Church, 
 through her visible head, recognized neither? It is true, indeed, 
 that Pope Liberius sent three legates — Lucifer of Cagliara, the 
 priest Pancratius, and the deacon Hilary — to preside over the 
 latter Council in his name. But all history tells that because t» ese 
 papal legates would not subscribe an Arian formulary they were 
 banished by the Emperor Constantius, one of their number — the 
 deacon Hilary — having been first scourged and then sent into 
 exile. 
 
 Assuredly it would be well for the enemies of the Catholic 
 Church, when they next essay to prove her fallibility from history, 
 to bring forward more incontrovertible proofs of it than either the 
 spuriousness of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, or the pretended 
 fall of Liberius, or the Arianism of the Councils of Milan and 
 Sirmium. 
 
 'Let, then, readers in general, and all serious enquirers after 
 truth, beware how they judge of the Catholic faith by the portraits 
 which such writers as " Truth" give of it. Rather let them take 
 no man's ipse-dixit in such an important matter, but let them ex-- 
 amine and investigate for themselves. The Catholic Church has 
 * nothing to fear from such an investigation. To the earnest en- 
 quirer after truth there can be but one result to such investigation, 
 if rightly made. He may, perhaps, have come to mock, but he 
 
 will remain to pray. ,/ , , 
 
 ^ ^ Yours very truly,^ 
 
 Carleton County, January 23, 1885. Cleophas. 
 
if -ill- 
 
 n i: 
 
ANGLICAN OBJECTIONS. 
 
 To the Editor of the ''Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — Please allow me to ask jour correspondent, " Cleophas," 
 a few out of many questions which a perusal of his letter in your 
 last night's issue suggests. 
 
 If St. Peter were the Supreme Pontiff and Infallible Teacher 
 of the Church in his day, — 
 
 1. How is it that at the first Council of the Church at which 
 St. Peter spoke, St. James the Less presided, summed up the 
 evidence, and formulated the decision in the words, '* Wherefore, 
 my decision is," etc. (ego Krino) ? ' 
 
 2. How is it St. Peter was sent with St. John on a confirmation 
 mission to Samaria by the College of Apostles ? '^ 
 
 Fancy the Cardinals sending the Pope on such an errand ! 
 
 3. How is it that nothing is said in the Acts or Epistles about 
 St. Peter holding the Popedom of Rome, or that amid so much 
 theological controversy, which was then splitting up Christians 
 into parties, calling themselves after Paul, Apollos and Cephas, 
 they were not all referred by St. Paul to Cephas as the infallible 
 guide in all matters of faith and morals ? 
 
 4. How is it that St. Paul makes no reference whatever to St. 
 Peter's all-important position as Pope when writing to the Romans 
 so late as the year 58 A. D. ? 
 
 Next. Supposing St. Peter was all that was claimed for him, 
 and supposing (what is a large assumption) the Popes of Rome 
 to be St. Peter's successors and of all his special privileges, — 
 
 5. How is it that the two most important by far of all tLcu- 
 menical Councils, — those of Nicaea (325 A. D.) and Constanti- 
 nople (381 A. D.) — which gave us the Nicene Creed (that great 
 bulwark of orthodoxy on the Trinity and Incarnation) — how is it 
 
 1. Acts XV., 19. 
 
 2. Acts viii., 14. 
 
 (7) 
 
8 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 h! 
 
 i Hi 
 
 that they were convoked, not by Popes, but by Emperors (Con- 
 stantine and Tlieodosius), were presided over, not by bishops of 
 Rome, but by other bishops, and their decrees promulgated, not 
 in the name of Popes of Rome, but of the Synod, in Synodal 
 Epistles ? 
 
 6. How is it that Pope Honorius, issuing dogmatic decrees on 
 vital points of doctrine, in response to the formal and solemn re- 
 quest of three Eastern Patriarchs for his corroboration of the 
 Faith, which was being attacked, published flat heresy, and was 
 condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council at Con- 
 stantinople v68o A. D.), and his writings ordered to be burnt? 
 
 7. How is it that two succeeding Councils and twenty succeed- 
 ing Popes, on their election, confirmed the anathema of Honorius 
 with that of other heretics ? 
 
 8. How is it that Pope Honorius' name appears with a string 
 of other heretics in all Breviaries till they were tampered w^ith in 
 the interests of the Papacy during the sixteenth century, as Pere 
 Gratry shows ? 
 
 Note, — I do not ask whether Honorius was a heretic, — Card- 
 inal Manning has labored hard to prove him orthodox, in spite of 
 three Councils and twenty Popes — but, guilty or not guilty, how 
 is it that the aforesaid Councils and Popes, with a whole host of 
 priests reciting their Breviaries for hundreds of years, dared to 
 condemn a Pope for heresy and say " anathema to the heretic 
 Honorius," if the Church then held the dogma of Papal Infalli- 
 bility ? 
 
 9. How is it that Veron, in his famous book, " The Rule of 
 Catholic Faith," which for 200 years was the standard controver- 
 sial treatise against Protestant misrepresentations of Roman doc- 
 trine, thus sums up : " All divines, consequently, are agreed, as 
 Bellarmin allows, that Papal Infallibility is no doctrine of the 
 Church Catholic, but a nezv and unheard of dogma ? " 
 
 10. Hov/ is it that Keenan, in his " Controversial Catechism," 
 approved for use by Roman bishops in Scotland and in the United 
 States, calls it " a Protestant invention." 
 
 11. How is it that such theologians as Prince Archbishop 
 Schwarzenberg, Archbishop Connolly of Halifax, Archbishop 
 
rs (Con- 
 shops of 
 atecl, not 
 Synodal 
 
 crees on 
 lemn re- 
 II of the 
 and was 
 at Con- 
 irnt ? 
 
 succeed- 
 lonorius 
 
 a string 
 [ with in 
 , as Pere 
 
 — Card- 
 i spite of 
 ilty, how 
 i host of 
 dared to 
 2 heretic 
 il Infalli- 
 
 An(;lican Objections. q 
 
 Darboy (martyr), Archbishop Haynald. Bishops Dupanloup 
 btrossmeyer, Clifford, Rogers, Hefele, and a host of others, strong- 
 ly opposed the dogma at the Vatican Council, and that learned 
 men like Pere Gratry and Dollinger wrote vehemently against it 
 while the flower of the French and German Episcopate, brow- 
 beaten by the packed Italian majority, begged Pius IX., in private 
 audience, with tears in their eyes, not to define the dogma, and 
 then left Rome before the vote was taken ? 
 
 Could all these things be if Papal Infallibility were in the 
 Church s mind from the very first ? 
 
 Lasdy,- Supposing the dogma true as the Roman Church 
 teaches — 
 
 12. What has been the practical value of it to the Church in 
 the past ? 
 
 13- What practical use since it was defined ? 
 
 14. What practical benefit is it likely to prove in the future? 
 
 15. To remove all doubt must not the Pope tell us when he 
 speaks ex cathedra. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 g Catholic. 
 
 Rule of 
 mtrover- 
 nan doc- 
 j-reed, as 
 e of the 
 
 echism," 
 e United 
 
 :hbishop 
 :hbishop 
 
r^ 
 
 i i 
 
 1 
 
 i ■ 
 ! 
 
 |- 
 ; I 
 
 1' 
 
 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 To the Editor of the ''Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — Before proceeding to answer the long list of questions 
 propounded to me by your correspondent " Catholic," in your 
 issue of the 12th inst., I must first strongly protest against the 
 gratuitousness of his assumptions. " Catholic," (what a mis- 
 nomer ! ) with the greatest self-complacency, assumes that the 
 historical accuracy of the facts on which he bases some of his 
 questions is incontrovertible. Thus, in his first question, he 
 assumes that St. James the Less presided at the Council of 
 Jerusalem ; in another, that the Councils of Nice and Constanti- 
 nople were " by far the most important of Ecumenical Councils ; '' 
 in another, that Pope Honorius issued " dogmatic decrees on vital 
 points of doctrine ; " in another, " that all Breviaries were tam- 
 pered with, in the interest of the Papacy, during the sixteenth 
 century ; " and in still another, does he assume that such theolo- 
 gians as Prince Archbishop Schwarzenberg, Archbishop Connolly, 
 of Halifax, Archbi; lop Darboy (martyr), and the other Council 
 Fathers named were opposed to the dogma of Papal Infallibility. 
 Against such proofless assertions I here enter my solemn protest. 
 Nay, I might, were I so inclined, refuse to answer questions thus 
 proposed, for it is an old maxim of logic that " quod gratis asseri- 
 tur, gratis negaiurT I might, without injury to my case, at the 
 very outset enter my denial, absolute and peremptory, to the 
 premises on which the greater part of " Catholic's " questions are 
 based, and then " possess my soul in patience " until such time as 
 he might see fit to produce his proofs. If I waive my right to do 
 so, it is because I would not have " Catholic " for a moment sup- 
 pose that I wished to evade his questions. 
 And now for the questions themselves : 
 
 First Question — How is i" that at the First Council, etc.? 
 
 Ans. — Instead of St. James' position in the Council of Jerusa- 
 lem being inconsistent with St. Peter's primacy, a little considera- 
 
 (II) 
 
12 
 
 Papal Infaixibility. 
 
 tion will show the contrary to be the case. No douljt St. James 
 says " I judge," /. e., " I give a decision for myself and my brother 
 Apostles." But we cannot fully understand the e.xtent and bear- 
 ing of this judgment till we observe that there were two questions 
 before the Council — one a question of doctrine, viz., Is circum- 
 cision necessary for salvation ; the other of expediency, viz., What 
 disciplinary decree will be most likely to promote peace between 
 Jewish and Gentile converts ? On the former question, St. Peter 
 pronounces authoritatively. He is the first to speak. He tells 
 the assembly that the Gentiles should hear the Gospel " through 
 my mouth," that God had " purified their hearts by faith," that He 
 had made no difference between Jew and Gentile, that both were 
 to be saved by the grace of Christ. " Thereupon," says the Acts, 
 " the whole multitude was silent." St. James refers to and accepts 
 St. Peter's doctrinal decision ' and proceeds to give his own judg- 
 ment on \.\\e practical rules to be laid down, viz., abstinence from 
 things offered to idols, things strangled, blood, etc. It was 
 natural, on Catholic principles, that St. Peter should pronounce 
 the doctrinal decision ; it was also natural and fitting, in the cir- 
 cumstances, that St. James should give b's judgment on XhQ prac- 
 tical rules, for St. Peter and St. Paul were both parties in the 
 dispute, already committed to the cause of freedom and spiritu- 
 ality ; whilf on the other hand, St. James, the head of the Chief 
 Jewish Church, was just the man most likely to conciliate the 
 Pharisaic party. 
 
 Second Question — How is it St. Peter was sent? etc. 
 
 Ans. — Let Dr. Dollinger, "Catholic's" friend, answer this 
 question for me. " If he (St. Peter) was sent," says Dollinger,'^ 
 " with St. John, by the Apostolic College to the new converts at 
 Samaria, he was himself member and President of that College. 
 So the Jews sent their high priest, Ismael, to Nero ; and St. Igna- 
 tius ' says that the neighboring churches in Asia had sent, some 
 their bishops, some their priests and deacons." 
 
 Third Question — How is it that nothing is said ? etc. 
 
 Ans. — Unless " Catholic" greatly belies his name he will ad- 
 mit the personal inspiration and infallibility of each of the Apostles. 
 
 k 
 
 1.. v. 14. 
 
 2. First Age of the Church. 
 
 3. Philad., 10. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 13 
 
 / 
 
 ^ 
 
 There was, therefore, no need of calling on St. Peter to decide such 
 controversies as " Catholic " speaks of under this question. St. 
 Paul, in virtue of his Apostleship and personal infallibility, was as 
 well fitted to decide on such matters as St. Peter iiiniself In 
 point of fact, however, *' the punishment," as Dollinger remarks, 
 "of Ananias and Sapphira, the anathema on Simon Magus — the 
 first heretic, the first visiting and confirming the churches suffer- 
 ing under persecution, were all St. Peter's acts."' And if no men- 
 tion is made in the Acts or Epistles of St. Peter being the first 
 bishop of Rome, — except, indeed, that passage in St. Peter's First 
 Epistle, in which he sends greetings from the church in Babylon — 
 will " Catholic " thereby undertake to deny that St. Peter was the 
 first bishop of Rome? Or, if St. Paul, in his Epistle to the 
 Romans, " makes no reference to St. Peter's all-impoitant position 
 as Pope," are we thereby to understand that St. Peter, equally 
 with St. Paul, did not, as Tertullian assures us he did, leave to the 
 Romans "the gospel sealed with his blood?" The primacy of 
 St. Peter over the other Apostles is so evident, even from the 
 scanty records of the New Testament, that the eye which fails to 
 percei"e it must be wilfiilly and wofully blind. He it was to 
 whom Christ entrusted the office of feeding both the old and the 
 little ones of His flock. The gift of the Holy Ghost, the power 
 of remitting and retaining sins, are bestowed on the other Apostles 
 as well as upon St. Peter. But Peter alone receives the keys of 
 the Church ; he alone is the rock on which the Church is built ; 
 on the faith of him alone the faith even of the other Apostles de- 
 pends ; he alone is made the shepherd of the whole flock. 
 
 Fourth Questioji — Answered in foregoing. 
 
 Fifth Question — How is it that the two most important? etc. 
 
 Ans. — I. The Council of Nice (A. D. 325) was convened by 
 the Emperor Constantine in concert with Pope St. Sylvester, who 
 was represented at the Council by his legate Osius of Cordova. 
 Further, one of the first acts of that Council was a recognition of 
 the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff". 
 
 2. The Council of Constantinople, inasmuch as it was an 
 assembly of Eastern Bishops only, had no claim in itself to be 
 
 ^. 
 
 1. Dollinger, ib. 
 
H 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 T 
 
 ecumenical ; and if, since the sixth century, it has been recognized 
 
 — in its dodrinaly not in its disciplinary QSiX\ov\s — as such, that 
 recognition was due to its having been approved and confirmed 
 by the Popes of Rome. Of its convocation Pope Si. Damasus 
 was notified. He gave his directions to St. Ascholus regarding 
 the chief question to be treated — the election of a successor to 
 St. Gregory. The question of dogma the Pope had already 
 settled in his letter to the Asiatic Bishops. Nay, the very pro- 
 fession of faith which they made at the Council itself was sent to 
 them by the Pope, and was signed by over one hundred and fifty 
 of their number, finally, the acts of the Council were sent to the 
 Pope; and Photius, who states the fact, po.sitively asserts that 
 " blessed Damasus, by his authority, confirmed the Second Council." 
 
 In his sixth, seventh and eighth questions, " Catholic " brings 
 forward the condemnation of Pope Honorius by the Third Council 
 of Constantinople as an argument against Papal Infallibility, and 
 he wishes to know how I can reconcile that condemnation and its 
 approval by subsequent Popes, with the existence, at that time, in 
 the Catholic mind of a belief i.i the inerrancy of the Roman 
 Pontiffs. In reply I would say that the very fact of " three East- 
 ern Patriarchs" (?) "requesting the corroboration of the Holy 
 See in a matter of Faith " is ample evidence of the existence, at 
 that day, even in the Rome-hating East, of a belief in Papal In- 
 fallibility. Again, if a belief in this dogma was not in the Catho- 
 lic mind, how was it that when Pope Agatho's letter was read in 
 the very Council that condemned Honorius, the assembled Fathers 
 cried out with one voice, " Peter has spoken by the mouth of 
 Agatho ! Anathema to whosoever upholds the contrary opinion ! " ? 
 That Pope Honorius's name may have been on the list of here- 
 tics in ancient breviaries I do not deny. But is not Pope St. 
 Marcellinus still set down as a heretic in modern Roman breviaries 
 
 — and this in the very teeth of the Vatican decision — and do not 
 Catholic priests the world over, in reciting the office of that saint, 
 still reproach him with having in time of trial denied the faith ? 
 Methinks it is strange that when that " breviary-tampering " was 
 done Honorius's ' name should have been erased and Marcellinus's 
 retained. It was scarcely fair to Marcellinus, especially as the 
 Church looks upon him as a saint. Perhaps Pere Gratry will 
 help " Catholic " explain this matter. 
 
 1. See Appendix (i). 
 
 t 
 
 >r 
 
'I 
 
 "9 
 
 Objections Answered. 15 
 
 As to " Catholic's " assertion that Pope Honorius " published 
 flat heresy, and was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecu- 
 menical Council," it deserves more than a passing notice. A 
 short history of that condemnation, and of the causes which led 
 up to it, will best serve to place the matter in its true light before 
 the readers of the Globe. Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
 favored — nay, openly professed — the Monothelite heresy of but one 
 single will in Jesus Christ. He maintained that there were not 
 two operations in Christ, and that the person of Christ, subsisting 
 in two natures, the divine and the human, acted by a single will. 
 St. Sophronius, of Alexandria, after vainly attempting to recall 
 Sergius from his error, sent one of his suffragan bishops to lay 
 the whole matter before the Sovereign Pontiff. But Sergius, un- 
 fortunately, had taken the lead of the Holy Patriarch, and had 
 sent to Honorius a long and guileful letter, in which he assured 
 the Pope that the Emperor Heraclius, anxious to end the Euty- 
 chian heresy, had found the Eastern mind agitated by the idle 
 question whether there were two operations — two wills, in Christ; 
 that, furthermore, the emperor's good intentions were frustrated 
 by the ill-advised action of '* the Monk Sophronius " ; that, " to 
 win a greater number of souls to God," it was better "to use con- 
 sideration and concession without however yielding anything of 
 strict precept," and that consequently " it was not fitting to dis- 
 pute about a question which in nowise hurt the true faith." 
 Honorius, utterly unsuspicious of the heretic's crafty designs, 
 approved the desire so insidiously set forth in the letter, of 
 stifling in its birth this seed of divisions and trouLie. In his reply 
 to Sergius he says : " Let us leave grammarians to discuss idle 
 questions, and disdain a war of words which would bring trouble 
 on the Church." When, afterwards, a Provincial Council, held at 
 Jerusalem, promulgated the true Catholic doctrine of two wills in 
 Christ, Honorius looked upon this action of the Council as an 
 attempt to revive a debate which he deemed it better to consign 
 to lasting silence. He wrote to this effect to all the Catholic 
 Bishops : " Let us beware." he says, " not to darken the teachings 
 of the Church by the clouds of our discussions. We acknowledge 
 that the two natures in Christ act and operate each with the other's 
 participation — the divine nature operates what is of God, the 
 human nature what is of man — without division, without confusion, 
 
i6 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 without a chant^e of the divine nature into man, or of the human 
 nature into God, but the difference of natures remaining wholly 
 distinct. Let it suffice to admit this truth without discussing the 
 ([uestion whether we should express this mode of action by the 
 terms of one or two operations in Jesus Christ." 
 
 This ])assage of the Ponriff's letter, as the Abbe Darras remarks, 
 shows that, save the mention of two operations, which he thought 
 better, for the sake of the " weak brethren," to suppress, Honorius 
 believed and taught the same truth as did St. Sophronius in Jeru- 
 salem. He believed Sergius, of Constantinople, to be of the same 
 mind ; and in his eyes there -vas a question only of checking an 
 aimless war of words, while he thought that all agreed upon the 
 matter. He lived long enough, however, to learn that he had 
 been deceived by Sergius, and that that which at first he had 
 looked upon as " a mere war of words " now threatened to grow 
 into a heresy, with which strong measures should be needed to 
 cope. He therefore recalled his decision ; but he died before he 
 could more thoroughly vindicate himself on the matter. His first 
 letter, however, still existed, and furnished the Monothelites with 
 several imprudent expressions, which they were not slow to make 
 use of When, therefore, the Sixth Council of Constantinople 
 condemned the Monothelite heresy, this letter was also condemned. 
 I must not omit to state here that Cardinal Baronius and other 
 learned writers look upon the acts of the Sixth General Council 
 condemning Honorius as apocryphal. But the majority of con- 
 scientious critics are of a contrary opinion. They agree in ac- 
 knowledging: ist, that according to the expression of Pope John 
 IV., a contemporary of Honorius, the latter Pontiff, in his letter 
 to Sergius, did not teach Monothelitism, but forbids its discussion 
 as an empty war of words ; 2nd, they think he was condemned in 
 the Sixth General Council for the indifference he showed in so 
 serious a matter, for the carelessness with which he jeoparded the 
 authority of the Holy See by rashly despising a heresy so fraught 
 with baneful results. It is allowed on all hands that in the letter 
 to Sergius, condemned in the Sixth General Council, Honorius 
 did not intend to define a dogma of faith ; he defined neither the 
 iMonothelite teaching nor the Catholic belief, which is its opposite. 
 His condemnation, therefore, proves nothing against the infalli- 
 bility of the Sovereign Pontift 's speaking ex cathedra in matters 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 ^■" 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 \ 
 
 of faith. " If the natural and grammatical sense of Honorius' let- 
 ter," says M. le Baron Henrion, in his " Hist, de la Papaute," 
 " is blameable, its general bearing, at least, has been clearly justi- 
 fied ; hence it does not affect the infallibility of the Church in matters 
 of faith. Besides, Honorius continued till the hour of his death to 
 profess and defend the truth, to entreat and threaten the very 
 Monothelites, whose opinions he was afterwards charged with 
 supporting." 
 
 Of Veron's " Rule of Catholic Faith," spoken of in his 9th 
 question, I know nothing. In fact, I was not aware such a work 
 ever existed, until enlightened on the point by " Catholic." I am 
 not, therefore, in a position to verify " Catholic's " quotation from 
 that work ; but if it be not more truthful than his quotation from 
 Keenan's Catechism, given in his loth question, I would not give 
 much for it ; for the latter author, in his Catechism (published by 
 Patrick Donahoe, Boston, 1857) page 168, in reply to the question, 
 " Is a Papal decision infallible?" answers, "Yes, if such a decision, 
 etc." As far as Veron is concerned, even admitting " Catholic's " 
 quotation from him to be correct, of what authority can he be 
 against Papal Infallibility, in view of the solemn decision of — for 
 example — the Fourth Council of Constantinople, that "in the 
 Apostolic See is the entire and true solidity of the Christian 
 religion;" of the Second Council of Lyonb, that " if any questions 
 regarding faith shall arise they must be defined by the judgment 
 of the Apostolic See;" or of the Second Council of Florence, 
 that " the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, the Father 
 and Teacher of all Christians?" To come nearer our own times, 
 did not Archbishop Troy, of Dublin, writing in the year 1793, 
 say : " Many Catholics contend that the Pope is infallible . . . 
 others deny this. . . . Until the Church decide . . . either opinion 
 may be adopted?" Again, does not Bishop Hay, in his Sincere 
 Christian^ first published between 1770 and 1780, treat of the in- 
 fallibility of the Pope, and affirm^ that the opponents of that 
 doctrine can bring " not a single text of Scripture, nor almost one 
 argumen: from tradition " to prove their contention. Once more, 
 does not Father Mumford, in his Catholic Scripturisi, a popular 
 address which has gone through various editions in the seven- 
 teenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — the same period 
 
 1. p. 194. 
 
i8 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 which Veron's work is said to cover — say that "whether the 
 definition of a Council alone, defining without their chief pastor, 
 or the definition of the chief pastor alone, defining without a 
 Council, be infallible or no, there be several opinions amongst us> 
 in which we do and may vary without any prejudice to our faith." ' 
 Finally, does not Mr. Gladstone'^ say : " The Popes have kept up, 
 with comparatively little intermission, for well-nigh one thousand 
 years, their claim to dogmatic Infallibility?" 
 
 Eleventh Question — How is it that such theologians ? etc. 
 
 Ans. — None of the Council Fathers here named were opposed 
 to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in itself, but they were opposed 
 to its definition at that particular time. Hence they were called 
 " Inopportunists." 
 
 I have myself heard Dr. Rogers, of Chatham, in his first ser- 
 mon after his return from the Council, affirm that he always 
 believed in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and that his action 
 at the Council was due to his fear lest the opportune time for its 
 definition as a dogma of faith had not arrived. The same Right 
 Reverend Bishop, in his panegyric on Archbishop Connolly, pub- 
 licly asserted that it was from the Archbishop he himself had fiist 
 learned the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, some thirty years before. 
 
 As to " Catholic's " insinuation that the Vatican Council was 
 packed with a servile Italian majority, it is sufficient to say that 
 seven of the Italian Bishops were " Inopportunists." 
 
 As to the protests of Pere Gratry and Dr. Dollinger, they go 
 for nothing unless "Catholic" is ready to assert that these writers 
 were infallible in their protests, or that it was a new thing in his- 
 tory to protest against the decision of an Ecumenical Council. 
 
 Twelfth Question — What has been the practical value ? etc. 
 
 Ans. — Church history fully answers this question, which let 
 "Catholic" consult. 
 
 Thirteenth Question — What practical use since ? etc. 
 
 Ans. — Too short a time has elapsed since its definition to 
 show forth, clearly, the practical value of Papal Infallibility. But 
 the assured certainity which the Catholic has, that in the Church 
 
 I. Ed. 1863, p. 39. 
 
 2. Expos., p. 28. 
 
■ ' 
 
 Objections Answered. 
 
 19 
 
 is an inerrant, infallible Teacher, even of itself is sufficient proof 
 of the practical value of that dogma. Nay, the — to Protestants — 
 very audaciousness of the doctrine is its best recommendation, 
 and serves to accentuate still more sharply the weakness of their 
 own Churches, none of which lays claim to infallibility, even of 
 the collective kind. 
 
 Fourteenth Question — What practical benefit ? etc. 
 
 Ans. — Of the conflicts and triumphs yet in store for the 
 Catholic Church, I, as not being endowed with a prophetic spirit, 
 cannot of course speak. But I am safe in asserting that if " Catho- 
 lic" lives long enough to witness the deadly struggle between 
 Christianity and infidelity, already inaugurated, he will then per- 
 ceive, possibly for the first time, amidst the destruction of sects 
 and the crash of ancient and time-honoured institutions, that the 
 bulwark and impregnable defence of the Catholic Church will be 
 in the infallibility of her head on earth. Every age has its own 
 errors, and its own dangers for Christian men. Against these 
 errors and dangers Almighty God has always, and will always, 
 arm His Church. The dogma of Papal Infallibility appears to be 
 on* >f those providential safeguards. 
 
 IHfieenth Question — To remove all doubt? etc. 
 
 • 
 
 Ans. — By no means, that is, not in so many words and speci- 
 fically. But he cannot fail when he does speak ex-cathedra to be 
 so understood by those who are " of the household of faith." 
 That he should not be so understood by tho'e who, like " Catho- 
 lic," are without the pale of faith, matters little. 
 
 And now, Mr. Editor, I have endeavored faithfully to answer 
 your correspondent's dreary questions. If I have done so at the 
 expense of your space, blame not me but your "Catholic" corres- 
 pondent, whose penchant for asking questions is so strongly 
 marked. That I have succeeded in answering his questions to 
 his satisfaction, I am not credulous enough for a moment to 
 imagine. Of him, I fear, it can be said : 
 
 " He that is convinced against his will. 
 Is of the same opinion still." 
 
 That he should use the sacred name of "Catholic" under cover 
 of which to propose his un-Catholic questions, is another evidence 
 
20 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 of how far a childish affectation can lead a man. There was a 
 time when, to such as your correspondent, the word Catholic was 
 as disagreeable as holy water is said to be to a certain unmention- 
 able gentleman, whose home is "where they don't shovel snow." 
 But that time is fast passing away, and now by a reaction, common 
 to history, what was first a dishonor has come to be a highly 
 prized title — a title so highly prized as to be worn with no claim 
 in fact to its possession. 
 
 And now, Mr. Editor, my thanks are due, and are hereuy 
 tendered, to you for your kindness. That I have already tres- 
 passed far too much on that kindness, over-indulgent though you 
 are, I freely admit. I promise, however, not to repeat the offence 
 unless on very great provocation. 
 
 I am, Mr. Editor, 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 
 Carleton County, N. B., February i6, iSSs- 
 
 (1) 
 
 To the Editor of the " Globe " .• 
 
 Sir, — My forecast of the probable character of your pseudo- 
 Catholic correspondent, made in my last letter, has been verified 
 by the event. " Convinced against his will," he is indeed " of the 
 same opinion still." The two instalments which make up his re- 
 joinder to my reply are now before me. " Pseudo- Catholic " — 
 your correspondent will pardon me if, in accordance with facts, I 
 so style him, and. besides, I always had a weakness for calling 
 people by their full name — can scarcely find fault with me if, using 
 his own words, I say of his two last communications that they are 
 " so long, so full of errors and mis-statements that a rejoinder to 
 confute them thoroughly would require a pamphlet," nay, I might 
 add, a volume octavo. What renders the preparation of a reply 
 to his stock objections still more uninviting, is the knowledge that 
 these same stale objections have time and again been met and re- 
 futed by Catholic writers, with the experience, however, that an 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 21 
 
 objection which to-day is exploded will to-morrow be gathered up, 
 in its scattered fragments, rehabilitated, and again presented with 
 all the eclat of originality and all the effrontery of unanswerable- 
 ness. That such would be my experience with " Pseudo- Catholic " 
 I was duly warned, and events have fully justified the wisdom of 
 that warning. Aware, however, that a deeper and more genial 
 spirit of toleration has gone forth, and that the pendulum of public 
 opinion, so long on the contre stroke is now swinging in the direc- 
 tion of a fair and impartial examination of the claims of the Catho- 
 lic Church, I cannot forbear, naturally interested as I am in every- 
 thing which tends to bring clearly before the public the validity 
 of those claims, from again addressing myself to this matter. 
 Another motive, which it is unnecessary for me to conceal, is the 
 desire to correct the many mis-statements, errors and perversions 
 of facts, made scienter et vole?iter by your pseudo-Catholic corres- 
 pondent. Whether I shall vindicate myself from such charges as 
 " avoiding, in several instances, the real crux," " shelving ques- 
 tions," making " assertions utterly baseless," throwing slurs instead 
 of meeting with " fair argument," " throwing dust in my readers' 
 eyes," — charges of which "Pseudo-Catholic" is so liberal — re- 
 mains yet to be seen. That I can, in one letter, review all the 
 ground covered by him is impossible. It would be, Mr. Editor, 
 to trespass too much on your space and to tax too highly the 
 patience of your readers. Following, then, the illustrious example 
 set me by your correspondent, I will contribute to your columns 
 by instalments, until I shall have followed " Pseudo-Catholic " 
 through all his wanderings, and rooted him out from under the 
 defences he has so carefully striven to erect for his protection. 
 This being done, I shall leave him, and upon the impartial judg- 
 ment of a discerning public I shall rest my verdict. 
 
 And " now to business." " Pseudo-Catholic " asks me whether 
 I dispute the presidency of St. James the Less at the first Council 
 of the Church. In reply, I would be distinctly understood to dis- 
 pute that presidency, in the sense in which ** Pseudo-Catholic," 
 with Calvin and others, understands it. Furthermore, I do dis- 
 tinctly deny that the passages quoted (or, rather, ^^/j-quoted) from 
 St. Chrysostom contain anything inconsistent with my explanation 
 of the position occupied by St. James the Less (Apostle and 
 Bishop) at the first Council of Jerusalem, and of the judgment 
 
 k 
 
22 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 there given by him. Nay, the very passage which " Pseudo- 
 Catholic " in part italicises, and to which he attaches so much im- 
 portance, is, when correctly given, one of the strongest proofs of 
 my contention. Permit me to quote it — not at second hand and 
 garbled and misconstrued, but from the original, and in accord- 
 ance with Mgr. Capel's translation, in his edition of " Faith of 
 Catholics." Here it is : " See how Paul speaks after Peter and no 
 one restrains. * * * James waits and starts not up, for he — 
 Peter — it was to whom had been entrusted the government." 
 {Loco citato.) As " Pseudo-Catholic" may be disposed to ques- 
 tion my accuracy in this quotation, and, besides, as he has appealed 
 to St. Chrysostom, it may not be inapropos of me here to subjoin 
 a ibw passages taken passim from that Saint's works. I will leave 
 to " Pseudo-Catholic " the pleasant duty of reconciling them with 
 his interpretation of the great Chrysostom. Perhaps, by the time 
 he IS done, he will be heartily sick of his undertaking. 
 
 *^ Everywhere,'^ says the vSaint, " they (the Apostles) _>/?V/^^^ the 
 first ho7iors to PeterT ^ (This sounds as if St. James presided at 
 Jerusalem, does it not?) 
 
 Again : " Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, the first in the 
 Church, the friend of Christ * * * . this very Peter — and 
 when I name Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm founda- 
 tion, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples," etc.'^ (This 
 sounds as if St. Chrysostom would have St. Peter take a back 
 seat at, for instance, Milan, does it not? But then Chrysostom 
 and " Pseudo-Catholic " are two different persons.) 
 
 Again : "And should anyone say, * Why, then, did James re- 
 ceive the throne of Jerusalem?' this is my answer — that He 
 (God) appointed this man (Peter), not teacher of that throne, but 
 of the habitable globe." '' 
 
 Again : " 'And in those days, Peter, rising up in the midst of 
 the disciples, said.' * As the first of the choir, he always is the 
 first to begin the discourse. * * * Justly : he has the first au- 
 thority in the matter, as having had all entrusted to him.'' * (Pos- 
 sibly " Poeudo-Catholic " will not deny that the first part of this 
 quotation bears me out in my assertion that in the Council of 
 Jerusalem St. Peter was the first to speak.) 
 
 ill 
 ill 
 
 1. T, vii., Horn, on St. Matth., n. 2. 3. Horn. Ixxxviii., n.6. 5. T. ix., Hom.in Act Ap., n. 1-3. 
 
 2. T. ii., Horn, iii., n. 4. 4. Acts i., 15. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 23 
 
 Again : *' Peter, the leader of the choir, the mouth of the dis- 
 ciples, the pillar of the Church, the buttress of the faith, the fish- 
 erman of the universe," etc' (Somehow or other I am inclined 
 to imagine that St. Chrysostom would not have been so badly 
 treated after all by the Vatican fathers. It seems to me that even 
 the most zealous of them could scarce carry ih^ privilegium Petri 
 further.) 
 
 But why multiply quotations? The few which I here give 
 (and in which I have italicised those expressions most pertinent to 
 the point in dispute) are amply sufficient. Let " Pseudo-Catho- 
 lic " reconcile them, if he can, with his garbled extracts, or dis- 
 cover in them, or in a dozen others which, if he wish it, I can 
 quote, any intimation that according to Chrysostom St. Peter's 
 place in the first Council was subordinate to that of St. James 
 the Less. Nay, rather let him explain away Chrysostom's teach- 
 ing the contrary. St. Chrysostom backs him, forsooth ! He 
 does, indeed, with a vengeance ; and Saint and all as he is, were 
 he to come to life and read the interpretation thus put on his 
 words, he would elevate " Pseudo-Catholic " with the toe of an 
 "irate" sandal to a juster appreciation of honest quotations. 
 
 I am well aware that English Churchmen possess Bibles, such 
 as they are, but I have yet to learn that they are correct or au- 
 thoritative translations. I speak of Bibles in English — of the 
 Word of God. Yet this is all beside the subject. In quoting the 
 words, *' the whole multitude was silent," I had no motive or end 
 in view than simply to connect the parts of my reply together. 
 Can " Pseudo-Catholic " be innocent enough to imagine that I in- 
 tended anything else, knowing, as I must have known, how quick 
 he would be to pounce on me for such ^ faux pas f His attempt, 
 therefore, artful and insiduous though it be, to make capital out 
 of this incident and to throw a slur on my veracity, will avail him 
 little. My quotations are made from the works quoted, and can 
 be at any time fully verified, I do not invent quotations when 
 they are not to hand, or garble extracts to suit my purpose, as my 
 pseudo-Catholic opponent has done, or quote from authors who 
 teach the direct contrary, or attribute to any book, so quoted, a 
 force and weight amongst Catholics which it does not, nor ever 
 
 1. T. iii., Horn, on Ten Thousand Talents., n. 3. 
 
24 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 i 
 
 i' I 
 
 did, possess. As this, apparently, is my opponent's conception 
 of fair argument, I leave him in his delusion. 
 
 Pass we on now to the "opening fallacy" whiclv" Pseudo- 
 Catholic " says underlies my replies to his questions i to 4. 
 Here come in his opening charges that I shelved these questions 
 by an ignoratio elenchi ; or, in other words, by raising side issues. 
 Let us see whether this charge will hold water or not. " Pseudo- 
 Catholic" asks: "If St. Peter were Supreme Pontiff and Infallible 
 Teacher of the Church in his day, how is it i, 2, 3, 4?" Now, this 
 "Pseudo-Catholic" will not deny that St. Peter was infallible, as 
 were the other Apostles infallible, viz., in matters of faith and morals. 
 He did not, therefore, expect me to prove what all will admit. 
 Consequently the question of Peter's infallibility did not enter into 
 his questions i to 4. What, then, did enter into those questions ? 
 What is the raisoti d'etre of the objection which underlies each of 
 these four questions, if not to prove (i) from the Council of Jerusa- 
 lem, and (2) from the mission to Samaria, and (3) from the 
 silence of the Acts and Epistles, and from the disputes which ijb.') 
 St. Paul had to settle, and (4) from St. Paul's silence in his Epistle 
 to the Romans : that St. Peter was not the first, chief, and head of 
 the Apostles? If, then, in my reply I showed that neither St. 
 James' judgment, nor the mission to Samaria, nor the silence of 
 the Acts and Epistles, could be fairly objected against the 
 supremacy of St. Peter — was not this what I was called upon to 
 do ? Let any impartial man read " Pseudo-Catholic's " questions 
 and my replies, and judge for himself if I did not meet the issue 
 squarely and without evasion. If, in reply to his 4th query, I 
 reasoned that as St. Paul's silence in the Epistle to the Romans 
 regarding St. Peter's having been at Rome, cannot be taken as 
 an argument against St. Peter's having been there and having 
 founded that Church, I was making use of no finesse with which 
 to avoid meeting a live issue St. Paul, in his Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, does not speak of St. James the Less, nor in his Epistle 
 to the Ephesians does he speak of Timothy, yet no one will 
 thereby conclude that St. James was not Bishop of Jerusalem, 
 or Timothy Bishop of Ephesus. As we .cannot conclude in 
 the first case that St. James was not Bishop of Jerusalem, or 
 in the second case that Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus, so 
 neither can we conclude — because St. Paul in his Epistle to the 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 25 
 
 Romans does not speak of St. Peter — that the latter was not 
 Bishop of Rome. 
 
 This brings me to consider what "Pseudo-Catholic" advances 
 regarding St. Peter's establishing the See of Rome. While 
 " Pseudo-Catholic " will not deny that St. Peter visited Rome 
 and established his episcopate there, he will not admit the fact. 
 At best, he says, it is only a guess {?) And then he quotes Little- 
 dale,' and he is considerate enough to inform us that the Roman 
 Church looks upon the Clementine Homilies as apochryphal and 
 heretical, and that in consequence their testimr ny to the point 
 under consideration cannot be taken. Not to bandy words with 
 " Pseudo-Catholic," I will pass over St. Clement's testimony 
 given, not in the Homiletics, but in an undoubtedly genuine 
 epistle, written A. D. 94, to the Church in Corinth. That St. 
 Peter founded the Church in Rome is expressly asserted by 
 Caius, a priest of Rome under Pope Zephyrinus who relates that 
 his body was then on the Vatican-hill, and that of his fellow- 
 laborer, St. Paul, on the Ostian road.'^ That St. Peter and St. 
 Paul planted the faith at Rome is affirmed by Dionysius, Bishop 
 of Corinth, in the second age. Eusebius in several places men- 
 tions St. Peter's being at Rome, and the several important trans- 
 actions of this Apostle in that city.'^ Not to mention Origen,* 
 Hegessippus,^ Arnobius,® St. Ambrose,^ St. Augustine,** St. 
 Jerom," St. Optatus,'" Orosius," and others on the same subject. 
 St. Cyprian calls Rome the chair of St. Peter — as Theodoret''^ 
 calls it his throne — which the general councils and ecclesiastical 
 writers of every age repeal. That St. Peter preached at Rome, 
 and founded that Church, and died there by martyrdom under 
 Nero, are facts the most incontestible by the testimony of all 
 writers of different countries who lived near that time — persons 
 of unquestionable veracity, and who could not but be informed of 
 the truth in a point so interesting and of its own nature so public 
 and notorious, as to leave them no possibility of mistake. I will 
 conclude with the testimony of a good Protestant, Dr. Clarke,'* 
 *' St. Jerom concludes his articles on St. Peter, saying he was 
 
 1. See Appendix (2). 
 
 2. Apnd. Eus. 1. 2, C. 24, alias 25. 
 8. L. 2, c. 13 and 15, etc. 
 
 4. L. 3, c. I. 
 
 5. L. de Excid Hier., c. 1 and 8. 
 
 6. L. 3. 
 
 7. Ser. de Basilicis. 
 
 8. L. de Haeres, c. i. 
 
 9. L. 17, ad Marcell. 
 
 10. Adv. Farm, 
 
 11. L. 7, c. 1. 
 
 12. L. 2, c. 17. 
 
 13. Preface to the isl and 2nd Epistles of St. Peter, p. 4. 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 buried at Rome, in the Vatican, near the triumphal way, and is in 
 veneration all over the world. It is not necessary to make any 
 remarks on this tradition ; but it is easy to observe that it is the 
 general, uncontradicted, disinterested testimony of ancient writers 
 in the several parts of the world — Greeks, Latins and Syrians. 
 About the place there is no difference among Christians of ancient 
 times. Never was any other place named besides Rome, nor did 
 any other city ever glory in the martyrdom of St. Peter. There 
 have been many disputes between the Bishop of Rome and other 
 Bishops and Churches, yet none denied the Bishop of Rome the 
 chair of St. Peter. It is not for our honor or interests, either as 
 Christians or as Protestants, to deny the truth of events ascertained 
 by early and well-attested traditions." 
 
 Thus speaks the impartial Clarke, and it would be no difficult 
 matter to supplement his testimony by that of Bishop Pearson — 
 an English churchman — of Grotius, Blondel, Scaliger, Casaubon, 
 Du Moulin, Petit, and many others. 
 
 I am, Mr. Editor, 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 Carleton County, N. B., March ii, 1885. 
 
 (2) 
 
 To the Editor of the ''Globe'': 
 
 Sir, — Before again taking up the thread of this discussion, 
 permit me, after the example of my opponent, to relate an amus- 
 ing incident which actually occurred not long ago to an English 
 Church minister of Ritualistic tendencies, an intimate and valued 
 friend of my own. Having been heard, on several occasions, by 
 members of his congregation, employ expressions regarding him- 
 self which intimated that he claimed to be a "Catholic priest" 
 (Save the mark !), he was privately approached by a lady member 
 of his flock, who earnestly pleaded with him to renounce such an 
 absurd claim, insisting that " it was too Popish, you know." The 
 gentleman himself is my authority for this occurrence, and his 
 veracity is unimpeachable, contrasting strongly, in this respect, 
 with the worthless authority quoted by my opponent for his 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 27 
 
 " amusing incident." The argument of St. Augustine holds as 
 good now as in his own day. He says he was kept in the church 
 by the " very name of Catholic, which, not without cause, among 
 so many heresies, that Church alone has obtained ; so that al- 
 though all heretics wish to be called Catholic^ no heretic, if a 
 stranger asks the way to the Catholic Church, dares to point out 
 his own basilica or house." Imagine a stranger in St. John, who 
 has asked to be shown to a Catholic church, being directed by his 
 Protestant guide to " Father " Davenport's church, or to Trinity, 
 or to St. David's ! Again : let a bequest be made to the Catholic 
 Church in the diocese of St. John by any dying Catholic, or non- 
 Catholic, for that matter, and the law courts will soon bear decisive 
 testimony to the fact that in New Brunswick, as elsewhere, Catho- 
 lic and Roman Catholic are synonymous. 
 
 It has been well remarked by the Catholic historian, Hergen- 
 rother, that " the modern opponents of Infallibility, not so much 
 by the force of an inexorable logic as from their want of theologi- 
 cal skill, have been driven to the point of assailing the Papal 
 supremacy itself " In other words, they cannot discuss Papal 
 Infallibility on its merits, without introducing and having a fling 
 at Papal supremacy, although this latter dogma is entirely distinct, 
 both in reality and act, from the former. In this they are plainly 
 illogical — but what care they for logic, if they can only bring into 
 still further disrepute that which is little known and less under- 
 stood by Protestants. Above the level of such writers, either in 
 intellect or logical fairness, "Pseudo-Catholic" does not rise. 
 His letters are but a re-hash of their stale objections and irrele- 
 vant arguments. His letters fully exemplify the appositeness of 
 Hergenrother's remark. Like his predecessors in the same r6le, 
 he has pot been able to limit himself to the matter immediately 
 under discussion, but fruitlessly wanders from " Dan to Bershe- 
 bee." What can the public think of a writer who ex professo is 
 objecting against Papal Infallibility, and yet devotes nigh two 
 columns of the Globe to the discussion of such irrelevant subjects 
 as presidency of St. Peter, primacy of St. Peter, supremacy of the 
 Popes, etc., with side hints about collective consent of churches, 
 etc. ? Nay, it is beginning to dawn upon myself that I am nearly 
 as illogical as he in permitting myself to be drawn into the dis- 
 cussion of matters so foreign to the point at issue. In future, 
 
 > 
 
28 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 therefore, if he w'shes to discuss Papal Infallibility, let him do so. 
 If he prefer discussing the supremacy of St. Peter, the "Acts of 
 the Apostles," St. Paul's care for all the churches, the primacy of 
 the Apostolic See of Rome, or any of the other points he has so 
 irrelevantly raised, he has but to say the word, and I, like Barkis, 
 am " willin'." Order will thus be brought out of chaos. Other- 
 wise, his letters will be but a medley of objections, given regard- 
 less of pertinence or logical sequence ; and my replies, in order 
 to cover the same ground, will develop into an unsystematic treat- 
 ise on dogmatic theology, church history, and scriptural exegesis. 
 .1 would gently hint to him, however, that I am beginning to tire 
 of acting the part of the catechised. I would become catechiser 
 and ask a few questions in turn of him, such, for instance as, In 
 what chapter of the new Testament is the spiritual supremacy of 
 the secular prince mentioned? or, Where, in the same New Testa- 
 ment, can he find that a nation's faith may be regulated by act of 
 parliament ? — questions which it may puzzle him to answer. To 
 such a course on my part he cannot, in fairness, object; and 
 again, if, while professedly discussing any particular point of 
 Anglican doctrine, I introduce a dozen other matters — side issues 
 and totally foreign to the immediate subject, — and if I insist on 
 his meeting these irrelevant issues, to the exclusion of the proper 
 subject, thereby ignoring all the claims of controversial courtesy, 
 " Pseudo-Catholic " cannot find fault. I would only be giving 
 him a Roland for his Oliver — treating him as he treats me. 
 
 " This much may serve by wa\ of proem ; 
 Proceed we, therefore, with our poem." 
 
 Of a like purport with his first four queries is his fifth. In his 
 rejoinder to my reply to that question, he styles as " utterly base- 
 less " my assertion that the Council of Nicsea (A. D. 325) was 
 convened by the Emperor Constantine, in concert with Pope St. 
 Sylvester, who was represented at the Council by his Legate, 
 Osius of Cordova. " No contemporary documents," he continues, 
 " contain such record. The Synodal Epistle of the Council itself 
 never hints at it, nor do the historians Eusebius, Socrates, Sozo- 
 mon, and Theodoret, etc." Indeed ! please do not be too sure. 
 Now, what are the facts ? Do they bear my opponent out in his 
 sweeping denial ? We shall see. The historians Socrates,* Sozo- 
 
 1. L. 1, c. 5. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 a9 
 
 mon or Zozomon/ and Theodoret," each expressly state that St. 
 Sylvester, not being able to come in person, on account of his 
 great age, was represented by his Legates, Vito, or Victor, and 
 Vincentius, priests of Rome, to whom he joined Osius of Cordova. 
 That the Council of Niciea (A. D. 325) was convened as much 
 by Pope St. Sylvester as by the Emperor Constantine is literally 
 affirmed by the fathers of the third Council of Constantinople, in 
 the 1 8th action of that Council," Constanii7ius et Sylvester magnam 
 in Nica;a synodum congregabant, say the fathers.* That the 
 Council of Nicaea was presided over by the Papal Legates is ac- 
 knowledged by the Oriental bishops themselves, assembled at 
 Constantinople in 552.^ The same is affirmed, also, by Pope 
 Adrian L* The Synodal Epistle of the same Council plainly 
 teaches the same thing. Who, I would ask my opponent, were 
 the first to sign that Epistle? He admits that Osius was *he first 
 to sign it, to which statement I would add that the next signatures 
 are those of the Roman priests, Vito and Vincentius. Osius of 
 Cordova, " Pseudo-Catholic " would insinuate, was allowed first 
 to sign because he stood high with the Emperor ; but, as Hefele 
 remarks, this reasoning is very feeble. The bishops did not sign 
 according as they were more or less in favor with Constantine. 
 If such order had been followed, Eusebius of Caesarea would 
 have been first. But we find no such order of signatures. In all 
 the editions of this Council, without one exception, Osius, with 
 the two Roman priests, Vito and Vincentius, sign the first, and 
 after them, Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, signs. But, my 
 opponent will object, Osius '* signs simply as bishop of Cordova, 
 in Spain, without any allusion to Rome," whereas the two Roman 
 priests sign with such allusion ! " This is not so surprising as it 
 might at first sight appear, for these Roman priests had no right 
 to sign for themselves : it was therefrre necessary for them to 
 say in whose name they did so, whilst it was n-t necessary for 
 Osius, who, as a bishop, had a right of his own." ' Nor was it 
 simply through courtesy that the Westerns were allowed to sign 
 first, for the signatures of the representatives of the two Western 
 and Latin provinces, Gaul and Africa, come last. " Since Gaul 
 and Africa are placed at the end, they would certainly have been 
 
 1. L. I, c. 6. 
 
 2. L. I, c. 7. 
 
 3. Labbe, t. vi., p. 1049. 
 
 4. Loco citato. 
 
 5. Labbe, t. v., pp. 337-338. 
 
 6. Labbe, t. 6, p. 1810. 
 
 7. Hefck. 
 
30 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 united to the province of Spain if Osius had represented that 
 province only, and had not attended in a higher capacity." * Nor 
 could Osius have been allowed first place by reason of his having 
 suffered for the faith, for there were present confessor-bishops, 
 such as St. Marcarius of Jerusalem, St. Cecilian of Carthage, St. 
 Paul of Neocsesarea, and others, who had done and suffered more 
 than he. Still less could he have claimed precedence by reason 
 of his rank or the dignity of his See, for there were present St. 
 Alexander of Egypt, and St. Eustathius of Antioch, the one Patri- 
 arch of Alexandria, the other of Antioch — Eastern Patriarchs 
 justly tenacious of the rank and privileges such a term historically 
 implies. If, then, Osius was the first to sign the acts and decrees of 
 the Council of Niceea, he did so, not merely as " Bishop of Cordova 
 in Spain," but as Osius, Legate and representative of the Pope. 
 
 With ten -fold greater force can this be said of the Roman 
 priests, Vito and Vincentius. They were not of the episcopal rank, 
 but merely priests, and, as such, Iiaving no right to take any part 
 in the Conciliar proceedings.^ Yet we find them in th:. solemn 
 signing of this Council taking precedence of the two great patri- 
 archs of the east. Can any sane man for a moment imagine that 
 these two priests would have been allowed to take precedence of 
 the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch — not to speak of the 
 rising claimant for the patriarchal dignity, Constantinople — if they 
 represented only themselves and not the '' Ecumenical Chair of 
 Peter ? " They signed, then, as Papal Legates, as did also Osius 
 of Cordova ; and, by the signatures of his three Legates, Pope St. 
 Sylvester confirmed the Council of Nicaea. This reasoning 
 amounts to a demonstration when we bear in mind that at that 
 very time, according to the historians Sozomon, Nicephorus and 
 Socrates, there was " an ecclesiastical rule that the 
 
 CHURCHES SHOULD NOT MAKE SVNODICAL LaWS OR ORDIN- 
 ANCES WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BiSHOP OF ROME."^ 
 
 The public can now judge who has been making " assertions ut- 
 terly baseless," and at whose door that qtiagmirc lies. My " semin- 
 ary text-book " is not such a will-o'-the-wisp after all, now, is it ? * 
 
 1. Hefele, Hist, of Church Councils, introduction. 
 
 2. Jungmann, Dissert, in Hist. Ecclesiast., vol. i, p. 425. 
 
 3. Soz., 1. 3, c. 10; Niceph., 1. 9, c. 10; Socrat., 1. 2, c. 17. 
 
 4. My opponent had said : "Surely, 'Cleophas's' (seminary) text-book has not been such a 
 will-o'-the-wisp as to lead him into :^his quagmire 1 1 " 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 31 
 
 To proceed, however. By a train of reasoning peculiarly his 
 own, and in direct violation of that old law of logic, a particulari 
 ad generate non valet illatio, " Pseudo-Catholic" infers, because I 
 contended that the Council of Nicaea was convened by the Em- 
 peror Constantine, in concert with the Pope^ that, therefore, I also 
 deny all other Councils to have been convoked by other emperors ; 
 and then he hypocritically goes on to remark that "it is surely 
 strange that one who volunteers to teach the public outside his 
 own communion, through the daily press, should not have been 
 more careful." (I might here parenthetically remark that possibly 
 by this time he has found out, to his cost, how particular I was, as 
 he will still further discover before I have done with him and his 
 distordons of history). In the particular case of the Council of 
 Nicaea, I asserted that Council to have been convoked by the 
 Emperor in concert with the Pope of the time — and I have since 
 proved the truth of my assertion — but I did not deny, nor can 
 my words be distorted into a denial, that the Council of Constan- 
 tinople (A. D. 381) was convened by the Emperor Theodosius, as 
 succeeding General Councils were, until the time of Pope Pelagius 
 II., convened by successive emperors. 
 
 This was rendered necessary for ensuring safety, under the 
 circumstances of the times, and for facilitating the journeys of the 
 Bishops, w^ho made use of the Imperial posts. Then, again, this 
 intervention was unavoidable m account of the territorial power 
 of the emperors and of their general influence.' That, however, 
 in the convocation of such Councils the Popes took no part is 
 utterly untrue. Many of the acts relating to these Councils have 
 been lost, but of the Fourth Council — the same Council which 
 my opponent asserts was assembled solely in the Emperor's name 
 — we still possess numerous documents which prove the negotia- 
 tions cafried on on this subject by the Emperor Marcian and Pope 
 Leo I., and the share of the latter in this business.'' These docu- 
 ments — I will quote from them if my opponent wishes — sub- 
 stantiate the testimony of the Bishops of Moesia, given not long 
 after this same Council, that " it had been convened by the 
 command of Pope Leo, who was truly the head of the Bishops."" 
 The Sixth General Council, as we have already seen, asserts of 
 
 1. Cf. Bellamarine de Concil, i. 13: Bennettis, P. ii., t. iii., p. 154. 
 2. Hefeiv*;, Cone, i, p. 7. 8 Hard., Cone, ii., 710. 
 
32 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 the first that it was assembled by the Emperor Constantine and 
 Pope Sylvester ; and data from other sources, as we have also 
 seen, coincide in this statement.' In some cases the Popes took 
 the initiative, in others the emperors, who then assured themselves 
 of the Papal sanction, as occurred in the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth 
 General Councils ; and, as may be proved, was the case with the 
 Third also,"^ The first Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) 
 was, as I already intimated, ecumenical neither in its convocation 
 nor its assembly, being originally but a Plenary, or General, 
 Council of the Greek Church. Respecting the summoning of 
 the Fifth General Council, the Emperor Justinian negotiated with 
 Pope Vigilius.^ But soon after this Synod, Pope Pelagius II. 
 (A. D. 577) could claim the convocation of Ecumenical Councils 
 as a privilege of his See, which he does in these words, addressed 
 to the Oriental Bishops : " The authority of convoking General 
 Councils was, by the privilege of blessed Peter, given to this 
 Apostolic See ; and no Council can be read of as ratified which 
 owed 7iot thai ratification to this Apostolic authority ^^ (Let my 
 opponent compare this statement with that of Photius regarding 
 the approval and confirmation by Pope Damasus of the acts of 
 the first Council of Constantinople.) 
 
 Nor must it be imagined that because the Emperors were thus 
 instrumental in convening Councils, they must have presided over 
 them with the presidency of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or that 
 their assent to conciliar decrees gave any dogmatic force to such 
 decisions. The Emperors by their sanction did not give any in- 
 trinsic authority to the canons of the Church. On this account 
 the Imperial Codes inform us that the civil laws are grounded on 
 ecclesiastical prescriptions, and that they follow and lean on them.' 
 The Emperors regarded as divinely enacted what had been de- 
 creed by apostolic authority." Therefore they received the sacred 
 canons or decrees of the Church as laws of the Empire ; and 
 declared all civil laws to be null and void of effect when they con- 
 tradicted the laws enacted by the Church.^ 
 
 1. Hard, iii., 1417 ; Hefele, loc. cit., p. 356, seq. 3. Hefele i, pp. 9, 11-13. 
 
 2. Hurd,, loco citato, 4. VcXag.W., Epist. b, ad Orient. 
 
 6. Novel. Ixxxiii., c. 1, 1. c. p. 382 ; Ntvel. cxxxiii., Praef., 1., c. p. 6oi, etc. 
 6. Reiscript. Just. Imp. ad Dacianum Afric. Episc. apud Baron. Annates an. 541, n. xi., 
 p. ;,8o, t. vii., cd. Colonise. 
 
 7. Novel, vi., c. I, sec. 8, 1, c. p. 36; Codex Just. 1. i, tit. ii,, lex. xii. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 33 
 
 One word now about the Greek historiaii, St. Gelasius of 
 Cyzicus, whom " Pseudo-Catholic," for purposes of his own, so 
 unjustly defames, and then I shall conclude this already too 
 lengthy letter. My opponent, imagining this historian (who 
 flourished about the year 465) to be the sole authority given by 
 that " seminary text-book " of mine for my statements regarding 
 the convocation and presidency of the Council of Nice, tries hard 
 to head me off by holding the Saint up as an historian unworthy 
 of credence. Now, if — as your readers have doubtless by this 
 time remarked — in order to establish my positions, I did not once 
 quote Gelasius of Cyzicus, it was not because I coincide with the 
 unjust estimate placed upon his veracity by my opponent, but 
 simply because I had no need for quoting him. Had I had such 
 need, I would not have hesitated for a moment to quote him — 
 "Pseudo-Catholic" to the contrary, notwithstanding — and in so 
 doing I would but be following in the wake of all the great Church 
 and Council historians, such as Labbe, Mansi, Hardouin, the 
 Ballerini, Coustant, Hefele, Rorbacher, Hergenrother, Dollinger, 
 and even the Galilean, Natalis Alexander himself It is ^n un- 
 blushing falsehood then to assert that " Gelasius of Cyzicus is, 
 by common consent of Roman Catholic critics, utterly untrust- 
 worthyT He cannot be looked upon as untrustworthy by his- 
 torians and critics who unite in quoting from his pages, and 
 whose statements are corroborated by other testimony altogether 
 unimpeachable. Nothing would please me better than to have 
 space enough at my disposal in which to let in a little of the light 
 of history on such critics as Dupin and Natalis Alexander. In 
 the meantime, I would recommend any of my readers who may 
 wish to gain accurate information regarding the historical stand- 
 ing of Gelasius of Cyzicus to consult Dorscheus in " Fabricii 
 Bibliotheca Graeca,'^ ed. HarlCvSS, xii., p. 581. As to Labbe, 
 Hefele, or any of the other historians mentioned, their w jrks 
 speak for themselves. Besides, new and totally unexpected testi- 
 mony to the value of Gelasius of Cyzicus's History of the Council 
 of Nice has quite recently been discovered in the library of Turin 
 by the Danish savant and orientalist, M. Revillout, in the shape 
 of a Coptic ' manuscript on papyrus, containing, besides, the 
 almost complete acts of a Council held at the instance of St. 
 Athanasius at Alexandria, thirty -seven years after the Council of 
 
34 
 
 Papal Infallibilitv. 
 
 Nicaea, a summary of the more important acts and decrees of this 
 latter Council. This Coptic manuscript is a complete vindication 
 of St. Gelasius of Cyzicus.' 
 
 " Pseudo-Catholic " will pardon me if I correct him, but 
 Photius did not quote Gelasius of Cyzicus for his statement 
 regarding Pope Damasus' confirmation of the doctrinal decrees 
 of First Constantinople. It were as easy for him to quote from 
 Gelasius of Cyzicus on this point as it would be for my opponent 
 to quote from Froude's " History of China," or Justin McCarthy's 
 " History of P'rance," — works which were never writter 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 Carleton County, N. B., March i6, i88^. 
 
 (3) 
 To the Editor of the " Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — Before bringing the heavy artillery of that "seminary 
 text book " of mine to bear on the fragmentary defences still left 
 to mv " Pseudo-Catholic " opponent, I will briefly summarize 
 what I have already done in the way of defending the posi- 
 tions originally taken by me. In my letter under date of the 
 nth inst., I clearly proved that I had answered his questions i to 
 4 without evasion, and according to the obvious meaning of the 
 terms in which they were worded. In those answers there is no 
 disposition whatever shown to evade any issue clearly stated. 
 Nay, in noticing his first five questions at all I departed from my 
 original programme, which limited me to a brief statement of the 
 practical workings of Papal Infallibility. In freely and without 
 hesitation leaving that subject to meet him on another altogether 
 distinct and separate — and one which at no time did it enter into 
 my purpose to discuss — I certainly showed anything but a dis- 
 position to evade his onslaught. The public can judgfe whether I 
 " fought him fair" or not. If he wants his " revenge " I am ready 
 to meet him again on the same ground. 
 
 1. See Rorbacher's " //;*/. Universelle de /'^^f''*^ CrtMr^Z/Vw^," continuCe par Guillaume, 
 Hvre xxxi., p. 509, ed. (882. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 3i 
 
 To his 'garbled quotations from St. Chrysostom, I replied by 
 laying before the readers of the Globe the real teaching of that 
 great Saint on the supremacy of the Prince of the Apostles ; and 
 thus I knocked the bottom completely out of his fine-spun and 
 purely imaginary hypotheses regarding the reception Saint 
 Chrysostom would have met with from the Vatican Fathers, and 
 the subordinate position St. Peter would have held in a Council, 
 " say at Milan." Doubtless my opponent by this time is ready to 
 apply to that quotation he so triumphantly — and as the event 
 showed, so infelicitously — made from St. Chrysostom, these 
 words of Dryden : 
 
 '"Tis found, but better it had ne'er been sought, 
 Than thus in Protestant procession brought." 
 
 Incidentally, I then gave some Protestant testimony — and I 
 am ready to give plenty more of the same kind from the pages 
 of Cave,' Lardner,"^ Basnage,' Barratier,* Bramhall,'^ Robertson* 
 and others — to the fact that St. Peter founded the See of Rome. 
 This, with a few other pertinent observations, formed the conclu- 
 sion of that letter. In my epistle of the i6th inst., after pointing 
 out how illogically my opponent had introduced the foreign issue 
 of Papal supremacy, and having expressed a willingness to meet 
 him on any single point of the many he so irrelevantly raised, I 
 completely vindicated the accuracy of my statement regarding 
 the convocation and presidency of the Council of Nicaea, and in 
 doing this I fastened upon him the imputation (from which let 
 him clear himself if he can) of falsifying history. I further 
 showed the relative parts which the Popes and Emperors took in 
 other Ecumenical Councils. I closed by vindicating Gelasius 
 of Cyzicus from the stigma which, for his own base ends, my 
 opponen't sought to place upon that historian. 
 
 The foregoing summary will show that I have followed my 
 opponent, step by step, through his tortuo s windings and 
 labyrinthine ways ; that I have evaded no just issue, and shunned 
 no real difficulty ; that I have illumined the more than Egyptian 
 darkness with which he sought to obscure his subject, with the 
 light of impartial history ; and that I have, so far, clearly proved 
 him to be one who, in order to carry a point, is willing to garble 
 
 1-6. For testimony of these writers, consult Appendix. 
 
36 
 
 Papal Infallibility, 
 
 history, conceal facts, and even to stultify the very Fathers he 
 pretends to venerate. I will now take up his remaining state- 
 ments. 
 
 Speaking of my assertion that the Council of Nicaea recognized 
 by a decree the primacy of the Roman Pontiffs, " Pseudo-Catho- 
 lic" says, '"C will not think me asking too much if I beg of 
 him a reference to any acknowledged authority for this;" and 
 then he goes on to state, what is not true, that " it is not in the 
 Acts of the Council by Labbe," and that " there is indeed a 
 spurious epistle," etc. If my opponent will take the trouble to 
 consult Labbe Concil. Niccen., can. vi. col. 32, t. ii., or tom. iv., coL 
 811, he will find the Sixth Nicene canon to which I refer. He 
 will also find, if he consult Labbe, Hardouin, Mansi, Hefele, the 
 Ballerini, or any other " acknowledged authority " on Church 
 histo.y, that this same canon was quoted at the Council of Chalce- 
 don (A. D. 451) by Paschasinus, Pope Leo's Legate, from the 
 Greek, in these words: "TV/t? Roman Church always had the 
 Primacy^ but nevertheless let the ancient customs be confirmed, 
 which have prevailed in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the 
 Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these dis- 
 tricts, since this is customary to the Bishop of Rome." (It has 
 been shown by the Ballerini that the only text of the Sixth Nicene 
 canon read at the Council of Chalcedon was that cited by 
 Paschasinus, and that the second Greek copy — which is now 
 published in the Acts of that Council, and in which the clause, 
 " The Roinan Church always had the Primacy ^^ is omitted — was 
 a later edition). 
 
 Now, in the interpretation of this canon, as given by Labbe 
 {loco citato), that is, with the aforesaid clause omitted, Catho- 
 lic critics and historians differ. Hefele, Dollinger and Jung- 
 mann understand it to have reference only to the Patriarchal 
 jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as apart from his universal 
 supremacy, which, as Hefele remarks, was not questioned, and 
 therefore did not need confirmation. Baronius, Bellarmine, Bouix, 
 Maason, Murray, and others, understand the canon to mean that 
 it was customary to the Bishop of Rome to permit the See of 
 Alexandria to hold patriarchal jurisdiction over Egypt, Lybia 
 and Pentapolis. This, indeed, everything considered, appears to 
 be the natural interpretation of the canon in question, and it is 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 37 
 
 further strengthened by the admission which Hefele himself 
 makes/ that " the Emperor Valentinian III., in his edict of 445 
 on the subject of Hilary of Aries, issued also in the name of his 
 Eastern colleague, Theodosius II., maintained that the Holy 
 Synod had confirmed the Primacy of the Apostolic See." '• The 
 Emperor Valentinian," continues Hefele, " evidently makes allu- 
 sion to the Sixth Canon of Nicsea ; for at that time the Second 
 Canon of Constantinople, held in 381, which speaks in the same 
 sense, was not yet known in Rome.'"' 
 
 " Pseudo-Catholic " will doubtless here object that he does not 
 deny that the Bishops of Rome enjoyed a primacy of honor, but 
 that it was of honor only, and not o( power and jurisdiction, and 
 that it was due " chiefly to the fact of Rome's being the imperial 
 city and metropolis of the world ; " and then he will go on to say 
 that the Third Canon of Constantinople teaches the same thing. 
 Now, if there is one thing more than another which the Council 
 of Constantinople makes plain on this point, it is that the Bishops 
 of Rome possess not only ih^ primacy of honor but also of power 
 and jurisdiction. The Council is careful to claim for the Bishop 
 of Constantinople only a primacy of honor, and this, as we shall 
 see, on political grounds. It wished to elevate the Bishop of 
 Constantinople to the dignity of a Patriarch. This, however, it 
 could not do without the consent of Rome. Nay, General 
 Council and all as it was of the Eastern Church, it could not even 
 elect a Bishop to the See of Constantinople without the consent of 
 the Pope. Wherefore, we find the Emperor TheodosiuF and the 
 Council sending an embassy to Pope Damasus to request him to 
 confirm by his apostolic authority the election of Nectarius to the 
 See of Constantinople.'' This was in accordance with what the 
 Greek historians Sozomon and Nicephorus have already assured 
 us, that long before this time there was "a sacerdotal, or ecclesias- 
 tical laic, bi7iding i7i all, which nullified everything done without 
 the consent of the Bishop of Rome''' 
 
 Furthermore, another proof of the primacy of universal 
 JURISDICTION of the Roman Pontiffs we find in the Canons of the 
 Council of Sardica, held forty years before the Council of Con- 
 
 1. Hist. 0/ Councils Nice, vol. i., p. 401, Clarke's trans. 
 2. See also Hard., i., 325 ; Mansi, ii,, 687; Van Esperen, Commentar. in Canones, etc., p. 39. 
 Si. Coustant, Ep. Rom. Pont. ; Theod. 1. 5. c. 9. 
 
38 
 
 Papal Infallikility, 
 
 stantinople, and looked upon by historians as a suppleriient or 
 continuation of the Council of Niciea.' In its Third, F'ourth and 
 Fifth Canons'^ the Council of Sardica (A. D. 341) decides that if 
 any Bishop, being deposed, consider himself unjustly treated, and 
 desire again to defend himself, "no other shall be appointed to the 
 See until the Bishop of Rome has judged and decided thereon^ 
 These Canons were adopted by the whole Council, and report 
 was made of the whole proceedings to Pope Julius in a Synodical 
 Letter, in which the tide of " head " is given to " the see of the 
 APOSTLE peter."'' Milman, himself a good Protestant, admits 
 that two of these Canons " established a geyieral right of appeal 
 from all parts of Christendom to Rome.'^* In answer to the 
 Gallican and Protestant objection that this Council cojiferred new 
 rights on the Pope, Hefele says, " It has been conclusively shown 
 that this was not the case, but rather that the right of the Pope to 
 receive appeals was involved in the idea of the Prdmacy as a 
 Divine institution, and had, in fact, been exercised before the 
 Synod of Sardica, which only expressly defined and declared it^^ 
 The attempt, hitherto abortive, to raise the See of Constanti- 
 nople to the Patriarchal rank was again renewed in the Ecumenical 
 Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451); with what success we shall 
 now see. 07ie hundred and fifty Bishops, " chiefly of the diocese 
 of Constantinople"" — the Council itself was composed of six 
 hundred or six hundred and thirty Bishops principally of the 
 Eastern Church — passed what is known as the "Twenty-Eighth 
 Canon," which raised the See of Constantinople to the first Patri- 
 archal rank after the Roman, and this Canon was, in a manner, 
 acquiesced in by the remaining Bishops of the Council, with the 
 exception of the^ presiding Papal legates, Paschasinus and Lucen- 
 tius. Bishops; and Boniface, a priest of the Roman Church. 
 Now, if the primacy of the Pope in those days was one of honor 
 only and not of jurisdiction, of course these one hundred and 
 fifty Constantinopolitan Bishops would have been indifferent to 
 what the Pope thought or said about them or their officers. As 
 an independent Church — that which my opponent would gladly 
 make them out to be, if he could — they would have had the right 
 of settling their own affairs, and of themselves deciding who 
 
 1. See Appendix. 4. Hist. Latin Church, b. ii., ch, 4, vol. i., p. 340. 
 
 2. Hefele, vol. ii., pp. iii-iag, 5. Milman, ibid, ch. 5. 
 
 3. Hardouin, torn, i, 653 ; Mansi, p. 340. 6. Ibid, p. w. 
 
^i**- 
 
 Objections Answered. 
 
 39 
 
 should be their head. They would have told the Pope to mind 
 his own Western Church and leave them to mind theirs. Did 
 they do this ? Did they act as if they believed themselves inde- 
 pendent of Rome? The Council itself, in its Synodical 
 Letter to Pope Leo, distinctly acknowledged that the whole 
 
 AUTHORITY AND VALIDITY OF ITS DECREES DEPENDED ON HIS 
 SANCTION.* 
 
 That sanction they besought in these words : " We beg of 
 
 YOU, THEREFORE, TO HONOR WITH YOUR SANCTION OUR JUDG- 
 MENT ; AND AS WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED OUR HARMONIOUS 
 AGREEMENT WITH THE HeAD IN ALL GOOD THINGS, SO LET 
 
 YOUR Supremacy deal as is becoming with your chil- 
 dren."* 
 
 Moreover, the Emperor Marcian was not a whit less desirous 
 of securing the Patriarchal rank for the metropolis of his empire 
 than were the Council Fathers themselves. If the primacy which 
 Old Rome enjoyed was but the mere outcome of the imperial 
 residence in that city, why could not the Emperor Marcian, by his 
 residence at Constantinople, or New Rome, and by his solemn 
 sanction, already given, put into effect this Twenty-eighth Canon 
 of Chalcedon, and at once elevate Constantinople to the rank it 
 so much coveted ? Did he do what, on my opponent's hy- 
 pothesis, was so manifestly within his power ? No ; he knew 
 better than that. On the contrary, he wrote to Pope Leo, en- 
 treating him to " cast a ray of his Apostolic Priviacy on the City 
 of Constantinople," to confirm the Acts of the Council of Chalce- 
 don (including the " Twenty -eighth Canon"); and he acknow- 
 ledged that the whole validity of these Acts depended on the 
 Papal sanction.^ Furthermore, he decreed that when the Papal 
 sanction would be given it should be read in all the Churches, that 
 every one might kfiow that the Pope approved of the Council.^ 
 And yet this is the same Emperor who, my opponent asserts, 
 convened this same Council solely by his oiim authority! 
 
 Again, Anatolius was Archbishop of Constantinople, He it 
 was, then, whom it affected most to have his claims as a Patriarch 
 recognized, not by the Bishop of Rom< — for we suppose, with 
 my opponent, that he himself had as much spiritual power and 
 
 1. Epist. Synod. Leoni, Labbe, torn. iv. ; at apud Leon. Epist., ed. Ballerini, xcviii. 
 2. Ibid. 3. Int. Epist. Leon. Mag. ed. Ballerini. 4. 1. c. 1182. 
 
M 
 
 40 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 jurisdiction in the East as Pope Leo had in the West — but by the 
 Bishops of his own Patriarchate, and by the four hundred other 
 Eastern prelates. If they acknowledge his authority he might 
 snap his fingers at impotent Rome. With the decision, then, of 
 Chalcedon at his back, one would imagine Anatolius would 
 have felt perfectly assured of his high position. But, no, foolish 
 man ; he too writes to the Pope, and makes the same request as 
 the Council and the Emperor. The Pope of Old Ro7nc was there, 
 and the Pope of Old Rome should be consulted and his sanction 
 obtained, or otherwise Emperor and Ecumenical Council went for 
 nothing. Now, what answer did the Pope of Old Rome give ? 
 Did he acquiesce in the wishes of the Patriarch, an Emperor and 
 an Ecumenical Council ? It might be pertinent to ask what the 
 Anglican primate of Canterbury would have done in such a con- 
 juncture. For him, — mere creature of tiie State, — the half-ex- 
 pressed wish of the reigning Sovereign would have been enough, 
 — not to speak of an Ecumenical Council. Anglican prelates, as 
 history shows, have very pliable consciences when the wishes of a 
 king or secular prince are at stake, being willing to deny to-day 
 what they solemnly decreed yesterday ; but the Popes of Rome 
 are made of the genuine metal. Trusted guardians of the " Faith 
 once delivered to the Saints," they fear not the frown of princes 
 nor the threats of mighty kings. This was Leo's answer to the 
 Emperor Marcian : " Let the City of Constantinople have the 
 glory that belongs to it . . . but the sphere of politics and the 
 sphere of religion are two distinct things. Neither can any other 
 erection be stable except the rock which the Lord placed in the 
 foundation. . . . Let the foresaid Bishop (Anatolius) be content 
 that through the assistance of your piety and by my favor he 
 holds the Episcopal See of such a City (Constantinople), Let 
 him not underrate a royal city which, however, he cannot 
 MAKE AN Apostolic See."^ To the Empress Pulcheria he 
 wrote : " All decrees, then, of Episcopal Councils which contra- 
 vene the regulations contained in the Cations of Nice, (my oppo- 
 nent will please take notice of this clause), Ave, seconded by your 
 faithful piety, make void, and by the authority of Blessed 
 Peter the Apostle, by one general censure we in- 
 
 validate THEM. 
 
 »>2 
 
 1. Epist. c. iv., c. 5 Coustant. 
 
 2. Epist. c. v., c. 3. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 41 
 
 Pretty "tall" talk, now, isn't it, for a Bishop to use who has 
 only z. primacy of honor? Methinks, the Thirteenth Leo, now 
 happily reigning, even with the Vatican decrees at his back, could 
 not speak more authoritatively than did this First Leo! Imagine 
 the Metropolitan of Canada (who, by the way, cannot even regu- 
 late the cut of a clergyman's surplice, or protect the parochial 
 rights of one of his ministers, violated by an \x\\xw^g.x, professedly 
 of the same faith, setting up a rival establishment), imagine him 
 using such language ! 
 
 Now, how did Anatolius receive this sentence? Did he rebel 
 against it, or quietly disregard it as proceeding from an usurped 
 and unacknowledged authority? No; he wrote to Pope Leo, 
 excusing himself in regard to the Canon in question, and said : 
 '■ The confirmation of that which has been done per- 
 tains TO YOUR holiness, AND NOTHING CAN BE VALID WITH- 
 OUT YOUR AUTHORITY.'" How did the Emperor Marcian 
 receive this open disregard of his wishes ? " The Emperor 
 Marcian," says Dr. Dollinger, "surrendered it (the Twenty- 
 eighth Canon), and extolled the constancy of the Pontiff in 
 maintaining the rights of the Church.'"^ How did the Council 
 and the Greek Bishops, whose decree was thus peremptorily set 
 a.side, receive it? " The whole Western Church," continues 
 DolHnger, " repudiated the Canon, and the Greeks them- 
 selves, UNTIL THE TIME OF PhOTIUS, DID NOT PLACE IT IN 
 their COLLECTIONS."^ 
 
 Somehow or other, Mr. Editor, I am beginning to think that 
 I am getting along pretty safely through that " quagmire " — 
 which, no d ibt, my opponent imagined would be to me a 
 "Slough of Despond" — but then that "seminary text book" 
 of mine has been my " Friend Help." Let us see whether 
 " Pseudo- Catholic " will get through with as clean feet. 
 
 With the St. Ascholus of my letter i am as little acquainted as 
 doubtless my opponent is with the St. Irendtis of his own. St. 
 Ascholius, Bishop of Thessalonica, he who baptized Theodosius, 
 was Pope Damasus' legate in the East. In a letter which is yet 
 extant,* Damasus gave him strict charge to be watchful that 
 
 1. Bailer., Epist. cxxxii., c. 4. 2. Hist, of Ch., vol. ii., p. 252. 
 
 4, Ceustant, Up.. Kom. Pont., col. 595. 
 
 3. Ibid, 
 
4» 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 nothing should be done in the Church of Constantinople pre- 
 judical to the faith or against the Canons. 
 
 It has been well said that there is no falsehood more dangerous 
 than that in which there is for basis a grain of truth. The sup- 
 pressio veri is often worse than the relaiio falsi. In his remarks 
 regarding the Synodal Letter of the Council of Constantinople, 
 my opponent is guilty of both. His siippressio veri lies in that he 
 does not teU -vhole truth, but suppresses that part of it which 
 does not accc with his views ; his relatio falsi, in that he asserts, 
 triumphantly indeed, but very mendaciously, that thus we find in 
 Theodoret, whom Labbe quotes, a *^flat contradiction of what 
 Photius asserts 450 years after." Theodoret contains no such 
 thing. We have already seen the Council of Constantinople 
 acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope in the election of Nec- 
 tarius ; we have the testimony of Socrates, Sozomon and Nice- 
 phorus, that nothing could be done without the consent of the 
 Bishop of Rome ; we find the Greeks themselves to teach that " it 
 is no detriment to a General Council if the Oriental Patriarchs be 
 absent, provic'^d that the Apostolic Pope in Rome concur in its 
 decisions ; " ' \ finally, Photius — himself the bitterest enemy the 
 Popes ever . . — distinctly asserts (and he does not quote 
 Gelasius of Cyzicus as his authority either) that the blessed 
 Damasus confirmed the Second Comicil. Although Photius was 
 a first-class Protestant in his day — if we follow the generic mean- 
 ing of the term — yet as possibly my opponent may consider him 
 too friendly to Rome (he undertook to excommunicate a Pope) 
 for his testimony to be of value, I will pass him by and quote the 
 testimony of one whose writings my opponent has publicly 
 recommended. I refer to Dr. Dollinger. Dollinger says : " The 
 First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople was a Council of 
 Oriental Bishops only, and acquired the authority of an Ecumen- 
 ical Synod by the subsequent acceptance and confirmation of the 
 Popey^ 1 might quote Hefele, but then " Pseudo-Catholic" has 
 intimated that Dollinger is enough for him. I leave this issue 
 between himself, Dollinger, and Palmer. 
 
 Nothing would give me greater pleasure, were the space at 
 my disposal, than to let the public know just what the historian 
 Theodoret (whom my opponent strives to twist into denying 
 
 1. Cone. vii. , ^p. Haiisi, xii., 1134. 2. Hixt. o/tkt Church, vol. ii., p. 320, 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 43 
 
 Papal supremacy) thought of that supremacy as exemplified in 
 his appeal to the Pope against the unjust sentence of deposition 
 passed upon himself by the Latrochiale of Ephesus. Among 
 other things he says : " / await the sentefice of your Apostolic 
 Throne, for it pertains to you to have the primacy in all things y^ 
 What Theodoret thought of Pap)al InfallibiHty we sliall see in my 
 next, when I come to speak of Honorius.* 
 
 My opponent has quoted Bossuet. Permit me also to follow 
 his example. " There is nothing in Church law," says Bossuet, 
 *' the Pope cannot do when need requires it."^ Again: "There 
 is one Chief Bishop, there is one Peter appointed to guide all the 
 flock, there is one Mother Church to teach all the others ; and the 
 Church of Jesus Christ founded on that unity, as on an immovable 
 rock, cannot be shaken." * Perhaps " Pseudo-Catholic " would 
 like nie to give a few quotations also from that terror of Protes- 
 tants, Bossuet's "Variations!" 
 
 Thus, Mr. Editor, have I fully vindicated every assertion that 
 I originally made regarding the Councils of Nice and Constanti- 
 nople. If, when doing so, 1 also laid bare the true character of 
 my opponent's appeal to history, he has only himself to blame. 
 When writers such as he strive to falsify history and whittle it 
 down so as to fit it into their own peculiar knot-holes, they have 
 no right to complain if their methods are held up, in all their 
 glaring crookedness, to the condemnation of a discerning and 
 educated public. That public can now judge how successful my 
 answers, so far, have been. 
 
 In meeting his arguments against Papal supremacy, my diffi- 
 culty lay not in finding proofs that that supremacy was universally 
 acknowledged in the fourth and fifth centuries, but in selecting 
 typical instances from the mass of evidence at my command. And 
 yet such writers as this " Pseudo-Catholic " will coolly assert that it 
 was by means of the False Decretals — unknown to Rome even 
 in the first half of the ninth century — that "the Popes riveted 
 their chains on the Church." Alas ! alas ! what is not blind pre- 
 judice ever ready to assert against the Church of God ! Misrep- 
 
 1. Epist. cxiii., I.eoni op. torn, iv., p. 1187. 
 
 2. The great pressure on the Globe's columns afterwards prevented me from carrying out 
 this intention. 
 
 3. " Def." xi. 20, 4. Relat. des Actes et Delib. vcd xx., p. 103, ed. Paris. Lochat, 1864. 
 
44 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 resent Scripture, garble and falsify history, belie the Fathers, 
 calumniate the honored dead ; in a word, do anything and every- 
 thing dishonest and dishonorable. It will be all forgiven and 
 forgotten provided that the teachings of the Catholic Church are 
 vilified, and her indisputable claims obscured. " And these are 
 thy Gods, O Israel ! " These are the men who would have us, 
 with our nineteen hundred years of unbroken history, renounce 
 the Church of Clement and Papias, of Irenaeus and Cyprian, of 
 Athanasius and Basil, of Chyrsostom and Augustine, of our fi^re- 
 fathers and of theirs, to embrace what — a mere figment of their 
 own imaginati n, an incoherent system made up of objections and 
 denials, of shreds of truth held without cohesion, of analogy 
 violated, history thrown into hopeless confusion, and, to crown 
 the whole, of Holy Scripture incessantly appealed to, yet its 
 plainest declarations recklessly disregarded, and its most con- 
 soling promises utterly evacuated. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 
 Carleton County, N. B., March ip, iSSj. 
 
 (4) 
 
 To the Editor of the ''Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — The chief argument of those who have at any time dis- 
 puted Papal Infallibility is the fall and condemnation of Pope 
 Honorius. Many Gallican writers made this the key of their 
 whole position, differing in this from the Jansenists, who sought 
 to secure an argument against the infallibility of the Church on 
 dogmatic facts !jy vindicating the orthodoxy of Honorius. My 
 opponent, in his letters, has again dressed up the old story of the 
 fall of Honorius. The main difficulty in his eyes, and the one 
 which he wishes me to meet, to the exclusion of every other, is, 
 how that Pope could have been condemned as a heretic by an 
 Ecumenical Council, and his letters committed to the flames as 
 " soul-destroying," if there existed at that time in the mind of the 
 Church a belief in Papal Infallibility. In this he differs from Dol- 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 45 
 
 linger, Gratry and Renouf, being decidedly more original, less 
 diffusive, and less exacting than they. The difficulty, then, which 
 I have to resolve, is, not how it could have been possible for such 
 a general belief to co-exist with an unquestionable willingness to 
 condeiTin a Pope, but whether, at the date of the Sixth Ecumeni- 
 cal Council (A. D. 680), such a general belief really did exist. In 
 meeting this difficulty I am at liberty, on my opponent's own 
 showing, to prescind altogether, if I so elect, from the condemna- 
 tion of Honorius. That condemnation, according to my oppon- 
 ent's view, is one thing; a general and unmistakable belief in 
 Papal Infallibility at the date mentioned, is another. It has not 
 entered into his argument to object that these two contradictions 
 could not co-exist. He will be fully satisfied, on his owii show- 
 ing, if I prove to him that in the seventh century, and particularly 
 in the year 680, a belief, general and unmistakable, in Papal In- 
 fallibility existed in the mind of the Church. The question thus 
 assumes very intelligible dimensions. If, then, I demonstrate (as 
 I have already done) that such a belief actually did exist in the 
 Church at the date mentioned ; nay, that such a belief was openly 
 professed by the very Fathers who condemned Honorius, I shall 
 be fully meeting the difficulty as it has been offered to me, while at 
 the same time I shall be throwing upon my opponent the burden of 
 reconciling that belief, thus undoubtedly acknowledged and univer- 
 sally professed, with its apparently irreconcilable opposite. I will 
 thus also be providing for my opponent the opportunity (for which 
 I am sure he has been long aching) of proving to the world that he 
 is more thoroughly conversant with the tenor and meaning of 
 Papal utterances, and consequently more to be relied upon by the 
 public in the interpretation of such documents than we who are 
 " of the household of faith " and " to the manner born." The op- 
 portunity thus conveniently provided of proving that Honorius 
 was condemned as a heretic for an ex cathedra utterance, is, I re- 
 peat, at once too favorable and too imperative to be ignored by 
 my opponent. Unless he avail himself of it to its fullest extent, 
 he will leave himself open to the imputation of having, in bad faith, 
 founded an objection against Papal Infallibility on Papal utter- 
 ances which are not ex cathedra, and therefore not, in fai' ness, to 
 be used as a point d'appui, or legitimate basis of such objection. 
 As being " of the household of faith," and therefore expected to 
 
46 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 know a little more — but then only a little more — about such 
 matters than my opponent, I would, for his guidance, lay down 
 the following principles to be borne in mind by him when he 
 comes to discuss this question : first, that the Pope speaks ex 
 cathedra only when he addresses the whole Church on a matter 
 of faith or morals ; second, that the Pope is not infallible in the 
 government of the Church ; third, that the Pope can speak as 
 Pope and yet not ex cathedra ; fourth, that it is one thing to as- 
 sert the Infallibility of the Pope, as defined in the Vatican decrees, 
 and quite another to claim for him personal integrity of faith ; 
 fifth principle, that when the Pope teaches the universal Church, 
 as Ecumenical Doctor, and points out some doctrine as a rule of 
 faith, he cannot leave it at the same time an open question, as a 
 matter on which judgment has yet to be pronounced, or on which 
 silence is to be held until a definite sentence be issued. Guided 
 by these five principles, and by his knowledge of the infallible 
 character of Papal utterances generally, — a knowledge which, on 
 his own showing, is deeper and more reliable than that of the 
 Vatican Fathers themselves — my opponent will doubtless arrive 
 at conclusions no less satisfactory to himself than amusing to his 
 readers. In the meantime, however, I must attend to my own 
 little " difficulty." 
 
 The Sixth Ecumenical Synod was convened at Constantinople 
 about forty years after the death of Honorius, and was presided 
 over by Pope Agatho's legates.' The Oriental Church had fallen 
 into schism because it had allowed itself to be led astray by the 
 subtleties of the Monothelite teachers, and had refused to listen to 
 the infallible voice of the Roman Pontiffs. It now looked for 
 reconciliation and unity from a Universal Council. Pope Agatho, 
 in his two letters, one to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, the 
 other to the Council, points out the way to reconciliation and 
 unity. The Catholic doctrine of two wills and two operations in 
 Christ had already been solemnly defined by Agatho's predeces- 
 sor, Martin I., in the Lateran Council. The Sixth Council (^{ 
 Constantinople was not then to discuss anew points of faith which 
 had been already settled. Consequently, Agatho sent his legates 
 with rigorous orders that they should only explain and enforce in 
 the Council the traditional doctrine of his Apostolic See, as it had 
 
 
 1, Hefele, voi. i,, sec, 3, p. 14, 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 47 
 
 been laid down by his own predecessors.' Their mission was not 
 to discuss or examine, as if the matter were doubtful or uncertain, 
 but to set before all, in a brief manner, the certain and unchange- 
 able doctrine of the Roman See? Pope Agatho gives a reason 
 for these instructions, and this is the infallibility which had been 
 divinely conferred on the See of Peter. Therefore, he openly 
 asserts that through that supernatural gift his See had always 
 been exempt from any error whatever? On this account he 
 declares that all uho wish to save their souls must unanimously 
 profess the formula of faith which rests on the Apostolic tradition 
 of Peter, who is the foundation of the Church.* Consistently with 
 this, he denounces, in the severest terms, all who reject this form- 
 ula as guilty of a betrayal of the faith, and as deserving a rigorous 
 judgment at the ti ibuual of Christ.* He judges all to be enemies 
 of the Catholic and Apostolic Confession, and subject to perpetual 
 damnation who shall refuse to teach the doctrine he propounds ; * 
 and over and over again he refers to the infallibility of the Apos- 
 tolic See as justification of his utterance. He declares that all the 
 Orthodox Fathers and all the General Councils had always ven- 
 erated the teaching of the Roman See, and entirely and faithfully 
 adhered to it; that // had been calumniated and persecuted by none 
 but heretics? He solemnly asserts that it had never at any time 
 declined from the straight path of truth, hut that it had always 
 been preserved from error since the Apostles placed in it the de- 
 posit of revealed doctrine ; and that it should always so last till 
 the end of time, pure and immaculate in its teaching." Such is 
 the language with which Pope Agatho addressed the Emperor 
 and the Sixth Council. Surely a more explicit pronouncement 
 of Papal Infallibility could not be made. This doctrine is woven 
 into the very substance of these two letters ; it is the groundwork 
 of their whole argument. If we make abstraction for a moment 
 from that teaching, the whole drift of the letter is pointless and 
 meaningless. How could Agatho proclaim an Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil to be in error and reprobation, should it decline to receive at 
 
 1. Epist. Agathonls Papae ad Const. Pogonat. Imp. in Act. iv. Cone. Const, iii. — Labbe, 
 t. vii., p. 655. 
 
 2. Epist. Agathonis Papae et Syn. Rom. arf, Synodum Sextam in Act iv. ; Cone, vi., 
 Labbe, 1. c. p. 698. 
 
 3. Epist. Agath. ad Const. Imp., Labbe, 1. c. p. 698. 4. Ibid. 5. Labbe, 1. c. p. 703. 
 
 G. Epist. Synod. Agatb., Labbe, i. e. p. 715. 
 7. Epist. Agaih. ad. Const., Labbe, I. c. p. 659. 8. Labbe, I. c. p. 659. 
 
48 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 his hands the doctrine of faith, had he not been infallible ; had not 
 the doctrine of Papal Infallibility been a traditional dogma in the 
 universal Church ? 
 
 And now let us see how the assembled Fathers — the same 
 Fathers who condemned Agatho's predecessor of "flat heresy" — 
 let us see how they received these two letters. Did they lift up 
 their voice in protest againt this fundamental doctrine of Infalli- 
 bility which Agatho attributed to his See, and which he rested on 
 the promises of Christ Himself? Was objection raised to the 
 magisterial tone of the letters addressed to an Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil ? That large and influential assembly of bishops not only 
 found nothing to censure in the letters of the Pope, but it received 
 them as a whole and in all their parts, as if they had been written 
 by St. Peter, or rather, by God Himself. The Fathers testified 
 to their admitting the infallible and divine authority of the letters 
 in the eighth session, as well as in the Sy nodical Letter addressed 
 to Agatho ; and in the Phosphonetic Letter sent to the Emperor 
 they regarded them as a rule of faith.* No sooner did a suspicion 
 arise that four bishops and two monks refused to adhere to them, 
 than the Council ordered them to give an explanation of their 
 faith in writing and on oath. They submitted, and solemnly af- 
 firmed that they accepted, without reserve, all the heads of doc- 
 trine contained in the letters.^ Again, Macarius, Patriarch of 
 Antioch, was, by sentence of the Council, deposed from his dig- 
 nity and expelled from the Synod because he refused to adhere to 
 the letters of Agatho.'^ 
 
 The simple truth is, that until the Bull, " Pastor i^ternus," 
 was issued, defining Papal Infallibility, by Pius IX., no more au- 
 thoritative assertion of that infallibility can be found than is con- 
 tained in these two letters by Agatho, in the year 680. Nor does 
 the Sixth Ecumenical Council of that year yield to the Vatican 
 Council of 1870 in its ready acceptance and unquestioning adher- 
 ence to that doctrine. And yet we are called upon by my op- 
 ponent to believe that Papal Infallibility was unknown in the 
 seventh century, and that the same Council Fathers who admitted, 
 with Pope Agatho, that the See of Rome had never erred from 
 
 1. Epist. Synod., ;ul Agath. Papam., Labbe, t. vii., p. 1109 ; Hcfele, 1. c. ; Sermo Phospho- 
 neticus ad Const. Labbc, 1. c. p. 1089. 
 
 2, Cone. Const, iii., Act. x,, Labbe, 1. c. p. 373, seq. 3. Labbe, 1. c, p. 768. 
 
■""■'■■'■ff''T'-llf- 
 
 Objections Answered. 
 
 49 
 
 the path of truth condemned Honorius, Agatho's predecessor, as 
 a heretic for an ex cathedra infallible decision in a matter of 
 faith ! No Council ever committed itself to so flagrant a contra- 
 diction and so disgraceful a deceit. Let my opponent reconcile 
 these contradictions without stultifying the Council Fathers, 
 whose decree he so highly approves. 
 
 As to poor Pere Gratry, I wonder which horn of his own 
 dilemma did he accept when, renouncing his cherished views, he 
 died a faithful son of the Catholic Church ! Doubtless, he dis- 
 covered that his dilemma was purely imaginary, depending, as it 
 did, on the ex cathedra nature of Honorius' letters to Sergius. 
 As these letters were not ex cathedra, and, consequently, not 
 infallible utterances, no argument of any kind can be fairly 
 drawn from them against Papal Infallibility. Thus also do Page 
 Renouf 's arguments also fall to the ground, pointless and defunct, 
 as being all beside the subject, and directed against an imaginary 
 infallibility — having no real counterpart in the authoritative 
 teaching of the Church. 
 
 Thus, also, must every objection drawn from the same source 
 fall to the ground until it can be proved (what has not yet been 
 done) that Honorius, in a' dogmatic utterance, and speaking ex 
 cathedra, published " flat heresy," and for that ex cathedra in- 
 fallible pronouncement " was condemned as a heretic by three 
 Councils and twenty Popes." As regards the re-iteration of the 
 anathema against the authors and abettors of the Monothelite 
 heresy by the Seventh and Eighth Councils, I may remark, in 
 answer to my opponent, that even if those Synods had con- 
 demned Honorius for heresy, it would not follow from this that 
 the docirine of Papal Infallibility is untenable, unless it is first 
 shown that Honorius was anathematised for having taught heresy 
 ex catfiedra. " Pseudo-Catholic " is quite unable to prove this 
 point, especially when we consider that both these Synods 
 solemnly acknowledged the doctrine of Papal Infallibility ; when 
 the Seventh submitted itself unreservedly to the letter of Adrian 
 I., in which that maxim was enforced, and perfect adhesion to it 
 imposed \' and when in the Eighth, the profession of faith of 
 Pope Adrian II. was unanimously received, in which the previous 
 formulary of Honorius was inserted, declaring that the Catholic 
 
 1. Labbe, I. v 
 
 HI., p. 771, se(/. 
 
50 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 doctrine had always been preserved in its integrity in the Roman 
 Apostolic See.* 
 
 The worthlessness of my opponent's argument, drawn from 
 Honorius having been set down in the breviary as a heretic, I 
 have already plainly proved. As to the assertion that twenty 
 Popes, at their accession to the Papal Throne, confirmed the 
 anathema against Honorius, it could, in view of the learned labors 
 of Yves de Chartres and Gratien on this point, be made only by 
 one who had no reputation for historical accuracy to lose. 
 
 To sum up, then, in the words of Cardinal Newman, " the 
 condemnation by the (sixth) Council in no sense compromises 
 the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. At the utmost it only decides 
 that Honorius in his own person was a heretic, which is incon- 
 sistent with no Catholic doctrine ; but we may rather hope and 
 believe that the anathema fell not upon him, but upon his letters 
 in their objective sense, he not intending personally what his let- 
 ters legitimately expressed.'"^ 
 
 Yet before quitting this subject to take up the next, I cannot 
 forbear remarking that it ill becomes my opponent to say one 
 word dishonoring to the name of Pope Honorius ; for to Honorius, 
 next to the great Gregory, does England owe her Christianity. 
 He it was that confirmed, witji his Apostolic words, Paulinus, who 
 had been sent by St. Gregory to preach to the Northumbrians ; 
 and he it was that rewarded the Saint for his glorious success 
 with the pallium.^ He encouraged with his paternal letters 
 Edwin, the powerful King of Northumbria, to hold out in 
 defence of Christianity against the swelling tide of paganism, 
 and to bear in mind the aflfection shown and instructions given 
 by his illustrious oredecessors.* It was this great Pope that 
 consoled and supported the missionaries occupied with the con- 
 version of the Angles and East Saxons, and in an especial manner 
 his namesake Honorius, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was at 
 the head of that evangelical enterprise, and who also deserved to 
 receive the pallium at the hands of the same Pontiff.^ This was 
 the Pope, then, to whom, in a great measure? England Qwed her 
 Christianity — the Christianity of Bede and Aleuin, of Alfred the 
 
 1. Labbe, t. x., p. 497. 2. DiflRculties of Anglicans, p. 317, 
 
 3. Bede, Hist. Eccles., 1. ii., c. xvii., ed, Migne, op. t. vi., p. 109. 
 
 4. Ibid, pp. 109, no. 5. Ibid, et c. xviii., p. in, seq. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 51 
 
 Great, and Edward the Confessor ; of the Martyr, a Becket ; of 
 Cardinal Langton and the Barons of Runnymede; of More and 
 Fisher, of Newman and of Manning; and it must ever ill-become 
 any Englishman, though he do deny the old faith, the faith of his 
 forefathers, to say anything disrespectful or dishonoring to the 
 name of Pope Honorius. 
 
 As my opponent virtually admits that I discounted his argu- 
 ment taken from Veron's " Rule of Faith," it is unnecessary for 
 me again to revert to the matter. His remark, however, that he 
 took the quotation from the usually accurate ''Church Times^' 
 is, indeed, characteristic. It is news, indeed, to Catholics to 
 learn that the Church Times is usiially acc2crate when it speaks 
 of them or their holy religion. The very internal evidence 
 which the quotation itself affords is sufificient to condemn it as 
 spurious. Bellarmine makes no such admission as he is therein 
 represented as making. On the contrary, he expressly teaches 
 that a Papal dogmatic decision, addressed to the whole Church, 
 is infallible. Furthermore, at the very time Veron wrote (1625- 
 1630) the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was universally taught in 
 France. This may surprise my opponent, but possibly he will be 
 still more astounded when I inform him that Luther himself taught 
 the same doctrine. 
 
 The edition of Kearney from which I quoted was issued in 
 Boston in 1857, thirteen years before the Vatican Council. It 
 could not, therefore, have been " in press at the time the new doc- 
 trine was promulged." (July 18, 1870.) It is, therefore, one of 
 " the old editions," " doubtless now difficult to procure," and in 
 which the Q. and A. which said Papal Infallibility is a Protestatit 
 Invention^ must still be found. Let us look for it. On page 168 
 we find^ the question, " Is a Papal decision infallible ? " The 
 answer is unmistakable, " Yes, if such a decision," etc. There is 
 not one word about Protestant invention in the whole book ! It 
 is now my opponent's turn to rise and explain where that " dis- 
 graceful literary fraud " comes in. I would advise him, as a 
 friend, to drop a note quietly to the Hon. W. E. Gladstone, and ask 
 that eminent statesman to extricate a blind follower from the quag- 
 mire into which an over-reliance on his leader's sagacity has un- 
 fortunately led him. He might also respectfully insinuate that when 
 " the grand old man " again undertakes to unearth " a disgraceful 
 
 w 
 
 Bar 
 
52 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 literary fraud" he should carefully provide that the fraud, when 
 unearthed, do not turn out a mare's nest on his hands. For my 
 part, it is not without some qualms of conscience (for I can well 
 afford to be magnanimous) that I am thus obliged, ruthlessly, to 
 demolish the rhetorical structure which my opponent so elabor- 
 ately constructed for the housing of his famous objection from 
 Keenan's Catechism.* It is a pity, too, that his very pertinent 
 remark about Wisemaw's Irenicon should be thus mercilessly 
 nullified. 
 
 In all gravity, however, I would say that unless my opponent 
 had been blinded by prejudice he must have seen that either 
 he misrepresented Keenan, or Keenan misrepresented the actual 
 belief of the Church. To assert, in the face of the testimony of 
 such writers as Father Mumford (sixteenth century) and Bishop 
 Hay (eighteenth century), writers whose works are of a world- 
 wide reputation amongst English-speaking Catholics, that Papal 
 hifallibility is a Protestant invention, would in any Catholic 
 author in the year 1869 be considered the height of mendacious- 
 ness. As Keenan, however, makes no such assertion, he is thus 
 completely exonerated from such a defaming imputation, which is 
 thus transferred to my opponent. Father Mumford and Bishop 
 Hay, speaking each for the century in which he lived, truly rep- 
 resented the actual belief of the Church as regards Papal Infalli- 
 bility in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. The belief of 
 this nineteenth century, long before the Vatican Council was 
 thought of, is thus voiced by McGill in his work, " Our Faith the 
 Victory:" "To any one who will impartially meditate on the 
 institution of the Church, on the promises of Christ to St. Peter, 
 on the duty of his office 'to confirm his brethren,' and also reflect 
 on the vast responsibility of the office of head of the Church, it 
 must be manifest that Christ, for the preservation of truth and 
 the welfare of souls, has really bestowed upon the Pope, as His 
 representative and vicar, the high prerogative of infallibility in all 
 his official teaching on matters of faith and morals. Upon this 
 point there has been no decision given by the Church."^ 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 Carleton County, N. B., March 2j, 1883. 
 
 1. See Appendix (4). 
 
 2. Ibid, p. 114. 
 

 Objections Answered. 
 
 53 
 
 (5) 
 
 To the Editor of the " Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — As my opponent has appealed to the dicttim of Vincent 
 of Lerins that " Christianity is what has been held always, every- 
 where, and by all," as an argument against the tenableness of the 
 Catholic doctrines now in dispute, it will not be out of place in me, 
 before proceeding further, to make a few passing remarks on the 
 practical value in the present case of Vincent's famous rule. I 
 mean, of course, its serviceableness when applied to the history of 
 the first ages of the Church. My opponent, and with him all who 
 are of the Anglican school of thought, would have us believe that, 
 judged by Vincent's '' quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omni- 
 bus," the Catholic Church must renounce her proud title of Sem- 
 per Eadem, and confess that her Christianity is not that which 
 " has been held always, everywhere, and by all ; " and that, spe- 
 cifically. Papal supremacy, infallibility, and other cognate doctrines 
 were unknown and untaught in those first ages, and consequently 
 are excluded by Vincent's vigorous principle from the true teach- 
 ings of Christianity, and must be set down as doctrinal corruptions 
 of later ages. But he, and the rest of the Via Media school, 
 
 ppear to lose sight of the fact that this same rule, when so applied, 
 as distinctly and as rigorously excludes from the range of revealed 
 Christian truths the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity itself, not 
 to speak of Original Sin, Apostolic succession in the Episcopal 
 order, and other dogmas accepted and taught by themselves. In 
 fact, as Cardinal Newman remarks, " this rule is more serviceable 
 in determining what is not than what is Christianity." " If it be 
 narrowed," says the Cardinal, " for the purpose of disproving the 
 catholicity of the Creed of Pope Pius, it becomes also an objection 
 to the Athanasian ; and if it be relaxed to admit the doctrines 
 retained by the English Church, it no longer excludes certain 
 doctrines of Rome which that Church denies. It cannot at once 
 condemn St. Thomas and St. Bernard, and defend St. Athanasius 
 and St. Gregory Nazianzen." ^ The dictum of Vincent Lerins is 
 not, therefore, applicable in the present discussion, being, as a 
 
 1. " Development of Christian Doctrine," introduction, p. 12. 
 
54 
 
 Papal Infai.libimty. 
 
 Protestant Anglican writer in the Britih Critic remarks, " from 
 the nature of the case a condition wiiich never can be satisfied as 
 fully as it might have been." " It admits," continues the same 
 writer, " of various and unequal application in various instances ; 
 and what degree of application is enough must be decided by the 
 same principles which guide us in the conduct of life, which deter- 
 mine us in politics, or trade, or war, which lead us to accept 
 Revelation at all (for which we have probability to show at most), 
 nay, to believe in the existence of an intelligent Creator." 
 
 To return, however, to my immediate subject. Your corres- 
 pondent "Veritas "' has so fully and completely refuted my oppo- 
 nent's baseless allegations (which the latter would have us accept 
 as genuine history) regarding the Vatican Council, that it would 
 be a work of supererogation in me again to notice them. I will, 
 therefore, dismiss his senseless charges against that Council with 
 the sole remark, taken from Cardinal Newman, that " Anglicans, 
 who are so fierce against the Vatican, and so respectful towards 
 the Ephesine, should consider what good reason they have for 
 swallowing the third Council, while they strain at the nineteenth." 
 
 My opponent's remarks about the Jesuits are on a par with 
 those of an anonymous writer (also signing himself " Catholic") 
 who, in the columns of the New York Herald^ recently said that 
 the late Council of the American Bishops at Baltimore was the 
 work of the Jesuits. A crazy pamphlet, also lately published, 
 attributes earthquakes, delirium tremens, and hydrophobia to the 
 same Jesuitical source ! Perhaps my opponent's next endeavor 
 will be to make make me out a Jesuit. 
 
 For an exemplification of the practical value of Papal Infal- 
 libility in the past I, in turn, must refer him to what I said in my 
 last when treating of the condemnation of Honorius. 
 
 In the estimate which " Pseudo-Catholic" makes of that pro- 
 found thinker and acute logician, Cardinal Newman, I gladly 
 coincide. There is not in New Brunswick, I can safely claim, a 
 more ardent admirer of the great English Cardinal, or a more 
 attentive student of his writings, than my humble self Yet it 
 would be futile for me to endeavor to conceal the fact that on the 
 question of the opportuneness of Papal Infallibility he had not 
 
 1. See Appendix (5). 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 55 
 
 the practical foresight of Cardinal Manning. The latter came 
 into actual, evey day contact with the masses, — he saw their 
 spiritual needs with an experienced eye. He was himself — and 
 in this he differed toto coelo from Newman — burdened with the 
 care of thousands of souls. He had no fears for the result if 
 Papal Infallibility were defined. Defined it was, and the evils 
 which it was foretold would follow did not occur. At no time 
 since the coming over of the Oxford converts forty years ago, 
 have conversions in England been more numerous or important 
 than since 1870. It was only yesterday that I read in " Morley's 
 Men of Letters " Life of Gibbofi, " the fact of any one ' going 
 over to Rome ' is too common an occurrence nowadays to attract 
 notice." The highest and noblest in " Merrie England " are bow- 
 ing their heads in dutiful submission and becoming loving children 
 of the Catholic Church. Papal Infallibility, then, became no per- 
 ceptible barrier to the progress of the Church in that land. No 
 continued alienation of Anglicans followed therefrom. Rather, 
 as I have already intimated, did the definition of that dogma 
 accentuate for them the weakness and mutability of their own 
 communion, and irresistibly draw them to the bosom of their 
 long forsaken but ever loving Mother. While, therefore, I would 
 be far from admitting the truth of an exaggerated judgment once 
 passed by a Catholic writer, who had no respect for neophytes as 
 spiritual teachers, that " Newman would minimize the Ten Com- 
 mandments provided he could thereby effect a single conversion ; " 
 yet I cannot fail to recognize in the overdrawn picture of danger 
 to the Church and to souls which exercised the Cardinal's super- 
 sentient imagination in 1870, a proof that even the most learned, 
 zealous, and single-minded are after all but fallible men. There 
 is indeed no wisdom, no prudence, no coimsel against the Lord.^ 
 It would,' however, be a great injustice to Cardinal Newman to 
 allow the impression to go forth that he did not, before the Vatican 
 Council, believe in the infallibility of the Pope. " For myself," 
 he says, " ever since I was a Catholic I have held the Pope's 
 Infallibility as a matter of theological opinion."'^ In a previous 
 letter of July 24, 1870, he said, " I saw the new Definition yester- 
 day, and am pleased with its moderation ; personally, I have no 
 difiiculty in admitting it." Speaking of the injustice done him 
 
 1. Prov, xxi. JO, 2. Letter, July 27, 1870 in " Difficulties of Anglicans," p. 304. 
 
56 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 1 
 
 by the Protestant English press in 1870, the Cardinal writes, 
 " The most unfounded and erroneous assertions have pubHcly 
 been made about my sentiments towards the Vatican Council, and 
 as confidendy as they are unfounded." ' Of the letter, from which 
 my opponent quotes, the Cardinal, under date of Feb. 26, 1875, 
 says, that o?i reflection he cannot agree with all that he wrote in 
 h\s prifna facie view of the matter.'^ Furthermore, he assures us 
 (and in thi? he differs greatly from my opponent) thai " of what 
 took place within the walls of the Council chamber, of course ive 
 knoiv nothing^ 
 
 Finally, he thus forever sets at rest his position as a Catholic : 
 " From the day," says the Cardinal, " I became a Catholic, to this 
 day, now close upon thirty years, I have never had a moment's 
 misgiving that the Communion of Rome is that Church which 
 the Apostles set up at Pentecost, "hich alone has ' the adoption of 
 sons, and the glory, and the cov tenants, anvd the revealed law, and 
 the service of God, and the promises,' and in which the Anglican 
 Communion, whatever its merits and demerits, whatever the great 
 excellence of individuals in it, has, as such, nc part. Nor have I, 
 ever since 1845, for a moment hesitated in my conviction that it 
 was my clear duty to join, as I did then join, that Catholic Church, 
 which in my own conscience I felt to be di^ ine. Persons and 
 places, incidents and circumstances of life, which belong to my 
 first forty-four years, are deeply lodged in my memory and my 
 affections ; moreover, 1 have had more to try and afflict me in 
 various ways as a Catholic than as an Anglican ; but never for a 
 moment have I wished myself back ; never have I ceased to thank 
 my Maker for His mercy in enabling me to make the great change, 
 and never has he let me feel forsaken by Him, or in distress, or 
 any kind of religious trouble."^ 
 
 My opponent appears to forget that if the feeble schism of the 
 * Old Catholics " could, in fairness, be objected as a direct result 
 of the Vatican Council, so also and with fifty times more force 
 and truth can the Arian heresy be set down as the direct outcome 
 and attendant result of the Council of Nice, one of the most 
 important in his eyes of Ecumenical Councils. When the world 
 in the nineteenth century wakes up to find itself Old Catholic, as 
 
 
 1. Ibid, p. 299. 2. Ibid, p. 371. 
 
 3. Reply to Gladstone, Feb. 26, 1875, " Difficulties of Anglicans," p. 349. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 57 
 
 t 
 
 St. Jcrom assures us it did in the fourth to find itself Arian, then, 
 and tlien only, will the Vatican Council in its direct result equal 
 that of Niciea. The truth is, tiiat of all the general Councils 
 which were ever held by the Church, there never was one whose 
 decrees secured greater unanimity than those of the Vatican. No 
 Bishop of the entire Christian world has proved an exception to 
 unanimous obedience, adhesion and submission of reason, judg- 
 ment and faith to the dogmas proclaimed by the Council of the 
 Vatican. Among the faithful children of the Church, over the 
 entire world, theri is no treason, no rationalism, no insurrection 
 of intellect against faith. Some few units, it is true, men of learn- 
 ing without grace, presumed to object against the decrees ; but, 
 like the audacious wave that presumes to raise its crest to impede 
 the irresistible way of some stately bark, they are dashed to spray, 
 the ship rides buoyantly over them, leaving them to sink in ignoble 
 oblivion, and to mingle with the undulating waters of the trackless 
 ocean behind her. 
 
 The case of the unfortunate Dr. DoUinger, the leader of these 
 malcontents, is but another historical exemplification of the errors 
 and self-contradictions into which every individual, no matter how 
 learned, must fall once he separates himself from the centre of 
 unity — the See of Peter, He whom in the days of his Catholicity 
 we find thus writing : " The See of Peter was to remain a place of 
 truth, a citadel of firm faith, conducing to the strength of all ; for 
 the words, as well as the prayer, of our Lord were addressed not 
 merely to the individual person, Peter, and for the immediate mo- 
 ment, but they were meant to lay an enduring foundation ; their 
 significance was, above all, for the Church, and for her future needs 
 beheld by Christ in spirit,"' could afterwards belie his own teach- 
 ing, and, in blind pride and open rebellion against the same Holy 
 See, ally himself with a motley crowd of Jansenists, freemasons, 
 free thinkers, and Erastian Anglicans. How, indeed, have the 
 mighty fallen ! Abyssiis abyssum invocat. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 Carleton County, N. B., March 26, iSSj. 
 
 1. Christianity and the Church, p. 32, sec. 56, 1st ed. 
 
58 
 
 Papal Infallibility, 
 
 (6) 
 To the Editor of the " Globe .• " 
 
 Sir, — In compliance with my opponent's earnest wish, I have 
 looked out upon the world. I have looked out upon the world 
 for which Christ died, and this is what I behold. I behold Pro- 
 testantism, itself a mere negation, split up into countless sects, 
 from the Anglicanism of the Primate of Canterbury to the " once 
 holy, always holy " deliramentutn of the crazy zealots of this 
 County of Carleton. This heterogenous mass of conflicting 
 opinions ('twere mockery to call them religious beliefs) I behold 
 held together by no other bond or cohesive principle than a 
 common repudiation of the Catholic Church. Yet, strange to 
 say, whatever of true Christianity, be it little or be it much, 
 possessed by any single one of these sects, was purloined from 
 her. Stranger still, to say, there is a general unwillingness 
 amongst them to acknowledge the theft. F'urther, I behold each 
 of these jarring sects divided and subdivided within itself, and in 
 its suicidal divisions actually realizing the words of our Divine 
 Lord that " the house which is divided against itself must fall." 
 I behold the Church of England split up into Ritualism, High 
 Church, Low Church, and, possibly, No Church, each anathema- 
 tizing the other, and yet each a consistent and acknc fledged 
 branch of the Anglican Communion. Methodism, itself the off- 
 spring of the Church of England, I behold divided against itself, 
 being split up into Benevolent Methodists, Primitive Methodists, 
 Wesley an Methodists. New Methodists, Free Methodists, Welsh 
 Methodists, and half a dozen other kinds of Methodists. Then 
 there are the Hard Shell Baptists, the Free Will Baptists, the Old 
 Baptists, the Open Baptists, and an almost numberless array of 
 other Baptists. And thus for all the other divers kinds of 
 heresy with which our age, for tne destruction of immortal 
 souls, is cursed. They start into existence, yet scarcely have 
 they " a local habitation and a name " till they divide and sub- 
 divide amongst themselves, thus realizing the ma.xim that the 
 human is the tmitable. What there is of Christianity in these 
 zects I behjld fast giving way, even on the most vital and 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 59 
 
 fundamental points, before the combined attack of division from 
 within and infideHty from without. Nay, I behold these count- 
 less sects actually giving birth to indifference and infidelity.' In 
 a word, it requires no great exertion of vision to perceive 
 in the Protestantism of to-day a general and unmistakable dis- 
 position either to renounce all revealed truth, and thus slide 
 into open infidelity, or to compound with actual unbelief by 
 preaching the destructive doctrines of modern progress, so-called, 
 thereby implying that what was true in the sixteenth, seventeenth 
 and eighteenth centuries — not to speak of previous ages — cannot 
 also be true in the utilitarian nineteenth. 
 
 Yet, happily for themselves be it said, tiicre are still amongst 
 these sects, earnest, truth-loving souls, who, unable to satisfy the 
 ardent longii.gs of their own minds, are looking about them for 
 some means of escape from the body of spiritual death by which 
 they are surrounded. Unwillingly indeed, yet instinctively, are 
 they turning their longing eyes to their true Mother. Victims of 
 prejudice — groundless, indeed, but deep instilled — they at first 
 reject the evidences of divinity which the Catholic Church alone 
 offers, consoling themselves with a thought, allied to that of the 
 Jews of old, that " Nothing good could come from Nazareth." 
 Insensibly, however, the mists of prejudice are lifted, and they 
 begin to see. Gradually the light of God's Truth, " ever ancient 
 but ever new," will dawn upon them. Happy they if the greatest 
 grace, the grace of divine faith, also comes to them. In the safe 
 bosom of the Catholic Church will they then find rest and peace 
 of soul. 
 
 The Catholic Church I behold as youthful, as aggressive 
 against sin and error, as when first commissioned, in the person 
 of the Apostles, to " teach all nations." Her legions of holy 
 missionaries and zealous religious still go forth to the farthest 
 extremities of the habitable globe. General Gordon died before 
 her altars in Khartoum ; and French successes in pagan China 
 find an echo in the dying groans of her martyred children in that 
 inhospitable land. In the extremest wilds of our own Canada, 
 too, do I learn of her faithful priests being butchered by the 
 savage Indian. Thus does she fulfil her mission ; and thus also 
 does she vindicate for herself the proud title of Catholic. Catho- 
 
 1. That is, as the direct and logical result of their own teachings. 
 
 1^ 
 
6o 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 lie indeed is she not only in the universality of her dominion, but 
 in that far more necessary and indispensable quality — aggressive- 
 nes;^ against error, heresy and idolatry, by spreading a knowledge 
 of the truth as it is in Christ. 
 
 What is the secret, humanly speaking, of her success ? Why 
 is it that she alone shows no signs of decay, no diminution of vital 
 vigor, whilst other forms of Christianity are fast withering from 
 off the face of the earth ? 
 
 She was old when they were yet unborn ; why is it that they 
 are dying in their very cradle whilst she " still remains not a mere 
 antique, but full of life and youthful vigor?" 
 
 There can be no mistaking the reason. Union is strength ; 
 and nowhere can be found such matchless unity as in the Catho- 
 lic Church. A priesthood subject to the episcopate, which, un- 
 shorn of a single prerogative/ is in turn subject to the Pope as 
 supreme head, and all acting and reacting on the world committed 
 to their charge — behold, humanly speaking, the divine economy 
 for the preservation and diffusion of revealed truth, and for 
 the salvation of men. The bond of this wonderful unity is the 
 Papacy. Built by the Divine Architect, the Catholic Church is 
 founded upon a Rock, the Rock of Peter. Against that Rock 
 the tempest may beat and the surging waves of heresy and 
 inf-delity may rise, but all to no purpose. Against that Rock the 
 gates of hell can never prevail. Thus the whole strength of the 
 Catholic Church centres in the See of St. Peter. Heresy knows 
 this, and schism and infidelity have long ago recognized it. 
 Therefore it is that, against the Chair of St. Peter as against the 
 very head of Christianity, do heresy and atheism and infidelity 
 concentrate their forces. 
 
 A pertinent exemplification of this hatred for the See of Peter 
 is shown, feebly indeed, yet none the less shown, in the letters of 
 my opponent. All the evils which in the past have afflicted, or 
 do at present afflict, Christianity, he would lay at the door of the 
 Popes. It matters little how violently history is outraged in the 
 attempt. Permit me to give an example. Henry VIII. of Eng- 
 land wished to put away his true wife and marry her maid of 
 honor. The Pope would not permit even the King of England 
 thus to violate the law of God. The result is that Henry declares 
 
 1, See Appendix (6). 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 6i 
 
 himself independent of the Pope, and becomes by act of Parlia- 
 ment the self-constituted head of the English Church. Now, how 
 does my opponent represent this incontestible cause of the sepa- 
 ration of England from Rome ? " England could not endure the 
 yoke of Rome," he says. Rather should he have said that she 
 could not endure the law of God, and, therefore, did she assume 
 to herself the yoke of a beastial ruffian and wife-killer. Thus it 
 was that the Church of England first began, being conceived in 
 lust* and cradled in murder. In her subsequent history she has 
 not belied her origin. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 Carleton County, N. B., April ist, 1883. 
 
 (7) 
 
 To the Editor of the " Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — When I first undertook to reply to this soi-disant 
 Catholic, I was at a loss to know to which of the many sects he 
 belonged. That he was no Catholic could be seen at a glance. 
 He might, indeed, so style himself, but his ultra-Protestant ' ^tters 
 betrayed the deception. P rom any evidence deducible from his 
 fifteen questions, unless indeed that these questions ran parallel to 
 similar Anglican objections, I was as much at liberty to set him 
 down as a Baptist, Methodist, or Campbellite, as I was to conjec- 
 ture him to be an Anglican. In his second letter, however, he 
 came to my assistance with the intimation that he was an English 
 Churchman, and possessed a Bible. An English Churchman, 
 then, I believed him to be until his third letter was published. 
 Since then I am as much at a loss to decide just what he can be 
 as I was at the very outset. Towards the conclusion of that letter 
 
 ill 
 
 1. That such was the origin of the English Church is a fact so fully acknowledged even by 
 such historians as Heylyn, Burnet, Collier, Macaulay, Short, and Fro':de, that it was unneces- 
 sary for me here to adduce proofs. 
 
O: 
 
 62 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 he invites us Catholics, who, he imag^ines, sin by excess, to return 
 to the beHef of the first ages. That behef he would have us con- 
 sider the criterion of true Christianity, and himself its infallible 
 exponent. He would, therefore, have us reject the Infallibility of 
 the Pope and accept his own ; for how can we know with cer- 
 tainty the real belief of those first ages unless we have an 
 infallible teacher to point it out to us ? It were futile to appeal to 
 history, for history is no such teacher ; it is not even a creed or a 
 catechism. Nay, does not Chillingworth aver that it sets "some 
 fathers against other fathers, the same fathers against themselves, 
 a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of an- 
 other age, the Church of one age against the Church of another 
 age?" History, therefore, cannot be our guide in determining so 
 important a matter, for history is not infallible, and we will have 
 nothing to do with a guide that is not. In a like manner, the early 
 Fathers need an infallible interpreter. Otherwise, what is there 
 to prevent us from setting down St. Dionysius as the sower of the 
 first seeds of Arianism (vSt. Basil so styles him), and St. Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus as using heretical language regarding our Lord. 
 St. Hippolytus speaks to us as if he were ignorant of the Son's 
 Eternal Sonship, and St. Methodius is far from orthodox regard- 
 ing the Incarnation. Yet these were Ante-Nicene Fathers, and, 
 in their day, faithful vvitnesses of the Eternal Son. Again, if we 
 limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they 
 expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patri-passian, 
 St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian. 
 
 If, then, we are to return to the belief of the first ages — let 
 me not for a moment be understood to admit that we Catholics 
 ever departed from it — we cannot be guided to that belief by the 
 Ante-Nicene Fathers and writers. In order, therefore, to engage 
 us to leave our own infallible guide, my opponent must first 
 postulate his own infallibility or the infallibility of the nondescript 
 sect to which he may belong. English Churchman, then, he is not, 
 for the Church of England never claimed infallibility. With the 
 first ages, furthermore, she will have nothing to do. Transubstan- 
 tiation she rejects as " damnable idolatry," and the Holy Sac- 
 rifice of the Mass as a "blasphemous fable."* Tradition she 
 eschews as a " stinking puddle devised by man's imagination." 
 
 1. Thirty-nine Articles. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 63 
 
 To the efficacy of baptism as a saving ordinance she is indifferent, 
 and she cares but Httle about Apostolic succession. Her ministers 
 she does not look upon as sacrificing priests, or as endowed 
 (which they certainly are not) with the slightest priestly power. 
 In a word, she shows no love for the early Fathers, for she too 
 well knows that the" early Fathers would have had no love for her. 
 My opponent, therefore, let me repeat, is not an English Church- 
 man, unless the English Church has herself departed from her 
 own authoritative teaching and from the model by which her 
 pious founders, Henry VIII. and good Queen Bess, sought to 
 mould her. 
 
 What, then, can he be? A free lance running amuck, lopping 
 off here and adding there, at the pleasure of his own sweet will ? 
 or a poor soul struggling up to light? 
 
 In this state of uncertainty and doubt regarding the real posi- 
 tion of my opponent among the Protestant sects, I might long 
 have remained, were it not that in the doctrine condemned in the 
 following sentence, taken from the episcopal charge of an Anglican 
 Bishop, I behold a counterpart of that which my opponent has 
 advanced : " Under the spurious pretence of deference for an- 
 tiquity," says the Bishop, " and respect for primitive models, the 
 foundations of our Protestant Church are undermined by men 
 who dwell within her walls ; and those who sit in her Reformer's 
 seat are traducing the Reformation," As this episcopal condem- 
 nation was directed against the Ritualists, it must henceforth be an 
 open secret that " Catholic " is, after all, but a Ritualist. 
 
 "The mountains labor, and a mouse is born." 
 
 He is one of those men who are undermining the foundations 
 of the English Church and traducing the glorious Reformation by 
 asking 'for a return to "the Faith and Practice of the Primitive 
 Church." 
 
 With Ritualism, however, I have no quarrel. It is doing our 
 work: why should I quarrel with it? Ritualism stirs the waters, 
 and we catch the fish. Perhaps this truth may already have come 
 home to my opponent in a very practical manner. Hence it is 
 that we look upon all such movements with hope, with prayer, 
 and at the same time with deep compassion. They have, un- 
 deniably, their grotesque side also, from which we endeavor to 
 
64 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 i 
 
 turn our thoughts, though it may sometimes irresi bly press us. 
 Everybody must be grotesque who dresses up in other people's 
 clothes, or tries to perform other people's habitual official acts, 
 or announces himself to be somebody he is not. 
 
 Ritual, not Ritualism, is, indeed, a most honest congruous 
 thing where it is at home. It is only when you import it into a 
 place foreign to it, and incongruous, that it becomes dishonest. 
 Thus, a chasuble is a sacrificial vestment, quite in place on the 
 shoulders of a true priest. But on a minister whom the Bishop 
 that made him a minister had no intention of making a sac- 
 rificing priest ' in any sense of the word, it is incongruous in the 
 last degree — it is an untruth, a dishonesty. Lights and flowers on 
 a true altar are honest, and in place : on a communion-table they 
 are meaningless, and, when made to enforce a doctrine inadmissible 
 where they stand, they are a sham. Has Ritualism, then, any 
 right to be where we find it ? Is the Anglican Church its true 
 home ? To be honest, ought it not to go further, and fare better ? 
 Is it not a hybrid thing ? Is not its leaching belied by its posi- 
 tion ? Is it not Catholic by aspiration, Protestant by stern 
 necessity ? Is it not tied to do the contrary of what it would 
 fain say ? Is not the voice, indeed, Jacob's voice, but are not the 
 hands the hands of Esau ? 
 
 But, inasmuch as Ritualism is doing v.ithin the bosom of 
 Anglicanism a work so favorable to Catholicity, we can well 
 afford to humor the whims of its followers. Grotesque, indeed, 
 it is, and illogical ; it moves us to contempt without exciting us to 
 pity ; dishonest it plainly is in its assumptions ; yet, the Almighty 
 God, whose ways are unsearchable, does not disdain to make use 
 of it to lead souls to His Church. By all means, then, do I ex- 
 hort my opponent to continue his work. Let him by voice and 
 pen endeavor to bring Protestantism back to primitive Christi- 
 anity. If he succeeds, then will it be no longer Protestantism, for 
 if there is a safe truth, it is as Newman affirms, that historical 
 Christianity is not Protestantism. An aphoristic truth it must 
 ever be that " to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." 
 
 1. Such was the statement made by the Bishop of Chichester to a number of young men on 
 whom he had done his best to confer priest's orders, in or about 1843. " Gentlemen," he said 
 to them all, after the service, " I wish you distinctly to understand that I have not ordained voa 
 to-day as sacrificing priests, in any sense of the word." What a catena of authorities might be 
 adduced to the same point I — Andbkoon. 
 
Objections Answered. 
 
 65 
 
 In the meantime, liowever, I would advise him to mend his 
 manners. Until the Catholic Church recognizes him as one of her 
 children let him cease to be so insufferably impertinent as to be- 
 wail with crocodile tears that the Catholic Bishops of the Vatican 
 Council knew their duty and did it. They certainly should know 
 what was or what was not their manifest duty better than a hybrid 
 Ritualist. 
 
 In his glaring disregard for truth, as evidenced in his reply to 
 " Veritas," I have an intimation of what I in turn may expect at 
 his hands, especially as the Globe has, by its decision, rendered it 
 impossible for me again to notice him. The writer who could 
 employ the public press to disseminate such double-dyed false- 
 hoods as that Catholic bishops cannot exercise their episcopal 
 power without " faculties " from Rome — to be had " for a consid- 
 eration " — is capable of anything mean and unmanly. I will not 
 stop to notice the many more glaring falsehoods with which that 
 reply is filled. I will merely designate it as a specious, shuffling 
 and mendacious attempt to meet by sophistry what cannot be 
 answered by fair argument. 
 
 And now my task is done. To me, at least, it was a pleasur- 
 able undertaking — as it must needs ever be 'o vindicate Holy 
 Mother Church. In her bosom I was born, c. in her bosom I 
 hope to die ; why should I not defend her ? If that defence has 
 been imperfect and incomplete, and falling far short of its grand 
 theme, as I freely acknowledge it to be, the public will blame — not 
 the weakness of the cause — but the unskilfullness of the advocate. 
 Besides, duties more sacred and imperative than that of refuting 
 the wild vagaries of this pseudo-Catholic had a first claim on my 
 attention. Snow-storms and snow-banks, unbroken roads and 
 fatiguing journeys, are likewise not infallible aids to controversial 
 acumen, or dialectic skill. They can scarcely be said to polish 
 style or open up new avenues of thought. But, be the faults 
 of these letters what they may, one thing they show forth, dimly 
 indeed, and feebly, it is true, viz., that from impartial history 
 the Catholic Church has nothing to fear. It will not invalidate 
 her claims or dissipate iier just pretensions. Rather will it 
 strengthen and confirm them. To have contributed, no matter 
 how imperfectly, to so desirable an end, is ample compen- 
 sation for me. I seek no triumph but that of truth ; no victory 
 
66 
 
 Papal Infallibility. 
 
 but that of justice. On the verdict, therefore, of an impartial 
 public do I now rest my case. 
 
 Thanking you, Mr. p]ditor, for the unfailing kindness I have 
 received at your hands, I beg once more to subscribe myself. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Cleophas. 
 Carleton County, N. H., April 17, 188$. 
 
luflnl 
 
 THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 
 
 imm 
 
 LETTERS OF "VERITAS." 
 
w 
 
 fj 
 
The Infallibility of thf Popf. 
 
 
 To the Editor of the " Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — Not being a regular subscriber to your excellent 
 journal, it was only accidentally to-day that I read in your issue 
 of the 9th instant the communication of a Protestant writer signed 
 " Catholic," in which, quoting from a notoriously anti-papist ac- 
 count of the Vatican Council, and of the debate therein on the 
 question of Papal Infallibility, a grave injustice is done to the 
 prelates whose discourses are quoted, and, amongst others, to 
 the late Most Rev. Archbishop Connolly, whose memory is, as 
 it should be, dear to every member of his former flock in New 
 Brunswick. 
 
 A moment's reflection will convince the candid reader that, in 
 the time of deliberation and debate, when an important question 
 is being discussed and ventilated, the speakers on bot!i sides use 
 their strongest arguments and best efforts in support of their 
 respective sides, in order that in the end the best decision may be 
 made, and the true merits of the question fully established. The 
 earnest and able discourses of the Fathers above-mentioned, of 
 the Council, prove that ample liberty of debate and of action was 
 not wanting. But after the decision — to which each and every 
 one of the Bishops, without exception, duly and reasonably sub- 
 mitted — to quote the argumentations made against the question 
 while the mattei was still under deliberation and debate, to quote 
 such opposition arguments, however earnest and sincere when 
 uttered, *as the unalterable opinions or ultimate convictions of 
 their authors, would be not only unjust but absurd. For many 
 such arguments are used against the proposition such as it is then 
 formulated. Subsequent modifications of the form of the original 
 proposition take away the force or aptness of said arguments, so 
 that they no longer apply to the case. And such really was the 
 fact in the discussion of the infallibility question. 
 
 The dogma as ultimately defined by the Council is very 
 different in form or wording from the many and different forms 
 
 (69) 
 
70 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 in which it was at first formulated by various ones of its advo- 
 cates. Thus one very illustrious Prelate, in a published letter 
 which he afterwards qualified, advocated the Infallibility of the 
 Pope separate and apart from the rest of the Church. This 
 was condemned by the oi)ponents on the ground that to sup- 
 pose the Pope " separate and apart " from the rest of the 
 Church would be to suppose the head separate and apart from 
 the body, a truncated — therefore a lifeless — head. But in the 
 Church, the body of Christ, there is no separation between the 
 head and body. Sometimes a decayed limb is cut off from the 
 body ; but never can the head and body be separated without 
 death. On the contrary, in accordance «with the simile of the 
 human body, while the heart sends to all parts its life blood, the 
 head — the brain — communicates the nerve fluid to all the body. 
 When this communication is interrupted by a break at the neck 
 or other part of the spine, paralysis to all parts below the break 
 ensues — then death. Again, some would define the Pope in- 
 fallible in all his official acts. To this others opposed the historic 
 fact of Pope Honorius' letters to the Patriarch Sergius, for which 
 the said Pope was condemned as a heretic. 
 
 This case of Honorius was a stubborn fact, hard to get over. 
 It was the strong point in Father Grutry's letters to Mgr. De- 
 champs. But the letters of the latter in reply showed very plainly 
 that those letters of Pope Honorius were not ex cathedra, that is, 
 defining a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal 
 Church. On the contrary, his letters acquiesced in Sergius' 
 preference to remain silent, to make no definition ; and it was 
 precisely for this silence — for not defining and denouncing the 
 error in question, which savored of Monothelitism, that he was 
 condemned as a heretic — that is, for fostering heresy by his 
 silence when he ought to have denounced it. 
 
 Thus every kind of objection was weighed and sifted, and the 
 formulas modified, word after word, by the Bishops, so that the 
 decrees passed by the Fathers came forth very different, indeed, 
 from the original schemata, or forms in which they first came 
 before the Council. 
 
 But, Mr. Editor, it is not my intention at present to provoke 
 a discussion about the Vatican Council or other question, but 
 only, with this simple explanation, in justice to the memory of 
 
Letters of "Veritas." 
 
 71 
 
 the late Archbishop Connolly, and to the other Bishops of our 
 Province who took part in said Council, to send you two 
 pamphlets, from which to make extracts, if you will kindly afford 
 the space — one of them being the funeral sermon preached at 
 the obsequies of Dr. Connolly ; the other a letter of the Bishop 
 of Chatham, published 1872, in reply to certain strictures made 
 on him in connection with a trial which took place that year at 
 Richibucto, which letter bears on the matter now under consider- 
 ation. 
 
 Apologizing for this intrusion on your columns, and thanking 
 you kindly, 
 
 I remain, etc., 
 
 Veritas. 
 
 March J2, 1883. 
 
 [From the Funeral Sermon delivered at the obsequies of the late Archbishop Connolly, on 31st 
 July, 1876, by the Right Rev. James Rogers, D.D., Bishop of Chatham.] 
 
 Also, he "kept the faith." If ever this was true of faithful pastor, it 
 was of him. The spirit of faith — the faith which worketh by charity — 
 animated his every act. The truths of Religion formed an essential part 
 of all his thoughts and feelings, so thoroughly was he imbued with them 
 during his early studies, so congenial were they to his impressionable, 
 devotional nature. He believed not only with the simplicity of blind 
 obedience, but with the most full conviction, the most clear insight into 
 the truth of what ht believed. This was evident to all who heard him 
 preach ; so earnest in feeling, so cogent in logic, so replete with accumu- 
 lative proofs from Scripture and tradition were his sermons. From the 
 duty of " preaching the Word in season and out of season " he never 
 desisted, especially in the penitential seasons of Advent and Lent, when 
 he entered with heartfelt devotion into the spirit of the Church's dis- 
 cipline by fasting and praying himself, as well as aiding the Priests in 
 the labors of the Confessional. His knowledge of Holy Scripture, of 
 what is called " Loci Theologici" — that is, proofs of religion, natural and 
 revealed — of every imaginable objection to religious truths, and their 
 solutions, which are found elaborated in St. Thomas of Aquin, his favorite 
 author, was admirable. His short, comprehensive instructions to chil- 
 dren preparing for their First Communion were inimitable for their 
 simplicity, clearness and impressiveness, while in the Confessional his 
 manner of exciting to contrition, to abhorrence of sin, and to a deter- 
 mination of amendment, was so earnest and effective. 
 
 When called to take part in the deliberations of the Oecumenical 
 Council of the V:.iican, the same spirit of faith animated him, the same 
 
 !i 
 
 H 
 
72 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 anxiety to please God, to fulfil with simnlicity and fidelity his duty. All 
 through that trying period he maintained the same honorable distinction 
 of a laborious, studious, able and faithful Prelate The sense of the 
 responsibility of his office as one of tlie l'"athers of the Council, called 
 together by the Chief Tas'^or to carefully examine and honestly express 
 their opinions during the period of deliberation, made him study with 
 all the assiduous application of which his great mind was capable, and 
 to express his opinions with all his characteristic, honest, manly candor, 
 and the apostolic liberty which it was his right as well as his duty, 
 according to the regulations of the Council, to employ. This right he 
 exercised, this duty he performed in such a way as to give no just cause 
 of offence to any one, nor to wound his own upiight conscience by any 
 faithless abstention from a difficult and delicate duty — the duty of urging 
 his own views against what was evidently the wish of the majority, 
 during the period of deliberation while it was permissible for him to do 
 so. I allude especially to the great question of the Pope's infallibiliv'/ 
 when speaking cv cathedrA, which engaged so much attention. 
 
 This doctrine the illustricus Archbishop always held. It was what 
 he had learned during his own early tlieological studies, what, as a 
 theological opinion, from conviction of reason, he had adhered to : for it 
 was the doctrine wnich he taugiit me when, as President of St. Mary's 
 College, he taught me theology. The text book in which 1 then studied 
 
 — whose author, Thomas-ex-Cl amies — was a Fransician — was the 
 same which he himself had used, and in which the Infallibility question 
 is treated of, really, though indirectly, in answering objections. The 
 com|)endium of this course of theology is still the manual used by the 
 authorities in Rome in tlie examination of candidates for Holy Orders 
 
 — a circumstance which sliows the high estimation in which this work is 
 held. 
 
 But he did not think it advisable to erect this doctrine into a dogma 
 of faitl>, I. 'tiding all under pain of anathema. His desire to promote 
 concord, to facilitate the return to the Church of cnir separated brethren, 
 which had always influenced his ministry, his anxiety to not provoke 
 still greater opposition and persecution against the Church and the 
 Apostolic See, made liitn argue earnestly a".d all in good faith against 
 the opportuneness of defining this question. The Church, he reasoned, 
 iiad existed nearly two thousand years without such definition, and he 
 could not see r;*''' urgent necessity for it at present; while, t)n the con- 
 trary, he feared that its definition now might estrange still further from 
 the Catholic Church those already separated from it. 
 
 But from the beginning he expressed his determination, as a matter 
 of course, of bowing with simplicity and sincerity to whatever would be 
 the decision of the Council. On the day on which he delivered his 
 second able discourse on this question, lie prefaced it by one of the most 
 beautiful, simple and unreserved acts of faith that can be imagined. 
 
Letters of "Veritas." 
 
 73 
 
 "Venerable Fathers." said he, "before entering upon my argument, I 
 wisli to express my full cind entire acceptance of, and adhesion to, what- 
 ever will be the final decision of this Council. For if the Church of 
 Christ be not truly rej^resented heie, where are assembled nearly all the 
 Bishops of the Catholic world, duly convoked and presided over by the 
 Chief Pastor, the .Supreme Head on earth of the Church ; if the delib- 
 erations and decisions of this august body, aided by the Holy Ghost, the 
 Spirit of 1 ruth, whom Christ sent to guide and enlighten His Apostles 
 and their successors, and abide with them forever, be not the expression 
 of infallible truth, then there is no intallible authority for defining 
 religious truths in this world i We must here use the words of the 
 Apostles to our Lord, 's'hen He asked if they also would leave Him. 
 Simon Peter aswered : * Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the 
 V/ords of eternal life.' .So, ^/enerable Fathers, i' lie truth be noi here, 
 where else can we find it? To whom else shall we go? au qiem 
 
 IBIMUS?"^ 
 
 Then, when the dogma was formally defined, he immediately inti 
 mated his unqualified acceptance of and adhesion to it, as to every other 
 dogma of Catholic faith. 
 
 [From a sermon delivered by the Bishop of Chatham at Richibucio, Kent County, published in 
 the statement of the case McGuirii vs. Richard.] 
 
 The whole history of the Church illustrates this. P>om time to time 
 there have been disputes and differences on points of doctrine or dis- 
 cipline, which, when the matters were of sufficient importance, were 
 examined and discussed :.; Counci' by the Pastors of the Church, under 
 the Presidency of their Chief Pastor, the Pope. During the period of 
 deliberation the Fathers are expected — nay, bound in conscience — to 
 honestly and sincerely express their opinions and the reasc^ns thereof. 
 For this reason suitable regulations as to the mode (jf conducting the 
 deliberations, providing for the necessary liberty of discussion, the just 
 and decorous order to be observed in copdurtiiig it, etc., are made by 
 or with the sanction of the President, published and circulated among 
 the assembled Fathers, just as is done in all other well-regulated delib- 
 erative assemblies of intelligent men. _^ As a matter cfcour.se, during 
 the period of deliberation and discussion, there is more or less difierence 
 of opinion. Such was the case at the First Council of the Church, held 
 by the Apostles and early Christians at Jerusalem.'' Such has been thi 
 case at every Council held since. Such was the case at the recent 
 Vaticrn Council. But the period of deliberation being ended, th j liberty 
 of discussion ceases, and when the final decision is forniidly given, the 
 liberty of difference in opinion on the points decided ceases. Timple, 
 
 11 
 
 1. John, vi., tiq. 
 
 2, Acts, KV, 
 
•'^m 
 
 74 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 honest, rational and sincere assent and submission is required of all, 
 without exception, to the decirjon of the Church. " He that will not 
 ;;ear the Church," says Christ, "let him be to thee as the heathen and 
 publican!" that is, let him be cut oft" from the fold of Christ. 
 
 That my course at the Vatican Council was in strict conformity, in 
 ■every paiticular, with my conscientious duty and just official rights 
 and obligations as a Uishop of tiie Church, I have never for a moment 
 had reason to doubt. When called to the Council by the Supreme 
 visible Head of the Cliurch, I obeyed with alacrity, and may here refer 
 to the Pastoral Letter on the subject, printed and published in Novem- 
 ber, 1869, immediately before my departure. At the Council 1 remained 
 three months, after I had got leave of absence, in order to fulfil my duty 
 and exercise with Apostolic liberty my right of voting during the period 
 and within the just limits of the regulations prescribed for the delibera- 
 tions ; and when the decision was finally and formally given, as soon as 
 I could procure authentic printed copies of the Decrees, I sent them by 
 mail to every priest in my diocese. 
 
 To the Editor of the'' Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — Your correspondent " Catliolic " (would that he might 
 yet attain the right to this nom de plume as Saul became St. Paul \) 
 has written, in your issue of the jth April, a communication in 
 reply to mine published in your number of the 19th March. As 
 mentioned in that, my former letter, \ have no desire for contro- 
 versy, nor was it otherwise than purely accidentally that I read in 
 your esteemed journal, of the 7th March, the letter of" Catholic," 
 having neither seen nor learned, till then, anything of the contro- 
 versial correspondence between 'lim and "Cleophas;" nor was 
 it as an auxiliary to " Cleophas ' (who, judging from his letters 
 which I have since read, needs no aid from me), but to place 
 correctly before the j>ublic, by a simple and plain statement, the 
 real course of correct and dutiful action, at said Council, of the late 
 beloved Archbishop of Halifax, who had also \ reviously ruled the 
 Catholic Hock of New Brunswick, as Bishop of St. John, and 
 which course could not be truthfully and accurately inferred from 
 the quotations of his speeches, cited in the letter of " Catholic," 
 from the anti-papist write- " Quirinus." 
 
Letters of " Veritas." 
 
 75 
 
 Without denying or admitting tlie statements of " Quirinus," 
 I protested against the injustice (morally) and the absui'dity 
 (logically) of bringing forth and stating as decided opinion or 
 belief the argumentations delivered or reasoned out while the 
 question of debate is under deliberation — when the members o 
 Council are still sitting or weighing the reasons for and against, 
 at a time when it is the duty of the moment to let no objection 
 pass unexamined, b.:fore the time of the final decision of the 
 question has arrived. 
 
 Now, there was no need of a reply to my letter from " Catho- 
 lic." It was not written in a spirit to elicit one, nor did its matter 
 call for one. But, since he has replied. I appeal to the candid 
 reader and ask: Has "Catholic," in his reply, touched at all on 
 the point of my letter? Ov^ the contrary, he has cited again 
 " Quirinus " more extendedly ; but what does it all prove ? 
 Simply that the strongest and most earnest argumentation and 
 discussion were employed, as far as such were rightly permissible, 
 to prevent the definition, or at least to fully elucidate the ques- 
 tion ; that very full liberty of speech and of voting was exercised, 
 and not prevented nor attempted to be prevented ; so that when 
 the final decision was made (July i8th, more than seven months 
 after the opening of the Council — December 8th, and at least 
 four months af'tr thie formal introduction of the Infallibility 
 question before the Council), it cannot be said truthfully that this 
 question v :is sprung on the Council, or that it was passed hur- 
 riedly, without debate or due discussion and deliberation. All 
 this is evident from the letter of " Catholic," and, so far, he cer- 
 tainl)'^ favors the contention of " Cleophas," and leaves mine 
 untouched. But with regard to the side issue in which I joined, 
 raised by the letter of " Catholic," namely, what was the real 
 nature and merit of the action taken at the Vatican Council by 
 Archbishop Connolly and the other Bishops of the so-called 
 minority, I must again protest against the unjust and fallacious 
 reasoning of " Catholic." 
 
 He says that he quoted Archbishop Connolly's speeches ; but 
 intimates that the Bishop of Chatham in the funeral sermon 
 naturally lauded, but did not quote the speech, etc. Now, what 
 is the fact ? The Bishop of Chatham quoted the very words — 
 the ipsissima verba — which he saw the Archbishop write and 
 
 I J*-; 
 
76 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 heard him read over or rehearse that same morning before 
 leaving his lodgings to go the Council ; then in the Council Hall 
 he heard him read them again as a preface or introduction to the 
 first of the two earnest and elaborate speeches on the Infallibility 
 delivered by him before the Council. But how did " Quirinus " 
 get his report of said speeches? Well, it is certain that he did 
 not personally hear them delivered in the Council Hall, nor did 
 he get the report of them from the official stenographers of the 
 Council. As a newspaper correspondent, he could only gather 
 up from outside hearsay, and from interviewing some of the niem- 
 bers of the Council, and getting leave, perhaps, to glance at their 
 notes or manuscrpt copies of their speeches, and thus work up 
 the matter of his letters for the German newspaper. 
 
 Now, all the speeches at the Council were written and deliv- 
 ered in Latin. The newspaper correspondent should turn them 
 into German. From German the correspondence of " Quirinus " 
 is translated into English ; and from this English volume " Catho- 
 lic " quotes them. Doubtless the newspaper correspondent could 
 obtain any printed conciliar documents, which would be so far 
 correct and authentic ; but every one of experience and judgment 
 must see that on such an occasion as the prolonged Vatican 
 Council, when, besides the five or six hundred Bishops from 
 every part of the universe, there were many others — ecclesiastics 
 and prominent laymen of every rank and profession — in Rome, 
 much of the news gathered up and forwarded hastily by corres- 
 pondents would be sensational, exaggerated, colored, or distorted, 
 according to the on dit's cf the day, and to the diverse minds, 
 languages and pens of the narrators. So, while the report of 
 Archbishop Ccainolly's speeches at the Council may be partly 
 true, such report cannot be relied on as certainly correct, especially 
 when consisting only of extracts separated from the contexts, and 
 translated from one to another of different languages. 
 
 Again, " Catholic " says that ny second extract, namely, that 
 from a sermon preached by the Bishop of Chatham at Richibuclo, 
 contained only an argument in favor of the Infallibility of the 
 Church, but not of the Pope. This is in contradiction of the fact, 
 of which the said sermon is evidence. The Infallibility of the 
 Church is, indeed, reasoned out ; but also, for the recently defined 
 dogma of Papal Infallibility, the decision f>f the Church in 
 
Letters of "Veritas." 
 
 77 
 
 Council, confirmed by the Pope, is given as the reason for 
 believing and adhering to this dogma. Hence, if that dogma be 
 erroneous, the whole Church in Council, Bishops, Pope and all, 
 have erred in defining it — which is a reductio ad absurdum ! 
 The Bishop of Chatham, in his Pastoral Letter (which " Catho- 
 lic " cites), sending and promulgating in his diocese the decrees 
 of the Vatican Council, says : " But at that moment (when voting 
 non placet) as well as at all other times, we were in the disposition 
 to abide by the final decision of the Council. For such decision 
 gives us the supreme motive of credibility on ivhich our faith is 
 grounded, namely, the authority of the Church." 
 
 After that decision we have a motive of credibility which did 
 not exist before in regard to the dogma defined ; iiamely, the 
 authority of the Church. It was that same authority, St. Augustin 
 tells us, that moved him to believe the Scriptures. 
 
 Before the definition of the dogma, many, very many learned 
 Catholics believed — on the strength of the scriptural and theologi- 
 cal reasons on which they based their judgment — the same doc- 
 trine ; not as a dogma or definition of faith, but as a theological 
 opinion. Others, influenced by the objections of points of history 
 (such as that of Honorius) in the past, or possible or imaginable 
 future contingencies or other reasons, did not receive or believe 
 this doctrine. These latter did not thereby cease to be Catholics, 
 because they did not contradict an article of defined faith ; and 
 especially so if they were in the disposition to believe all which 
 the Catholic Church would teach, for such is the meaning of the 
 article of the creed, " I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." 
 But after the definition of the dogma, no Catholic is free to deny or 
 disbelieve it; if he does so, he incurs the penalty — excommuni- 
 cation ! 
 
 Is tTiere anything wrong or novel or unreasonable in this ? 
 Has not every law, whether Divine or humar its obligation, its 
 sanction, its rewards and penalties ? When God gave to the first 
 man in Paradise a law or ordinance to not eat the forbidden fruit, 
 did He not attach to His command a sanction? "In the day 
 wherein thou shalt ea thereof thou shalt die the death ! " 
 
 When a civil law is enacted in a matter in which the legislature 
 has competency, does nol such law bind in conscience ? Is there 
 not a penalty attached to its violation ? If you deny this funda- 
 
 
 il 
 
78 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 mental principle of natural ethics — not to speak of Revelation — 
 then no soc'al body, whether civil or religious, whether Church or 
 State, can exist ; for no body-corporate, no society can be kept 
 together without authority — that is, without laws and officials to 
 enforce these laws; and sanctions — that is, rewards and penalties 
 — for their observance or violation. 
 
 Now, such being the case, where is the justice or common 
 sense, or honor or manliness in " Catholic's" treating as cowards 
 the Bishops of the minority (so-called) for not waiting to assist 
 at the last public session of the Vatican Council on the i8th July, 
 in order to renew there the votes which they had given a few days 
 before in the general congregation ? Cui bono ? What would have 
 been the result? Simply to have done as the two of their num- 
 ber who did assist and vote nan placet, and then immediately, in 
 the same public and solemn manner, expressed their submission 
 and adhesion to the decrees. True, this mode of giving their 
 adhesion would have been more solemn and dramatic ; and had 
 such been exacted by the Pope or subordinate heads of the 
 Council with his consent, it should and would have been done. 
 But it was not exacted ; and it was simply the fatigue and partial 
 illness of many in the warm weather which caused them to leave, 
 after, as a matter of course, getting the necessary permission to 
 go. Notwithstanding the false, or exaggerated, or distorted 
 stories told by " Quirinus " and others about the tyrannical pres- 
 sure of the Pope, the Canadian Bishops of the minority saw none 
 of it, felt none of it. They did feel deeply pained that a sense of 
 duty, and what appeared to them at the time as the best interests 
 of the Church, ranged them on the side of the question which the 
 benign and venerated Pope did not favor. 
 
 Personally, every kindness and favor asked by, or for, any of 
 them was granted by the authorities and officials in Rome. But 
 many annoyances, by no means trifling, were caused to the 
 Bishops by the newspaper articles, generally inaccurate (not the 
 Roman newspapers), sometimes of one side, sometimes of the 
 other, which correspondents at Rome sent, to their respective 
 journals in all the surrounding countries — Italy, Germany, France, 
 England, America — to which the Bishop , partly by the silence 
 or secrecy which the regulations of the Council imposed, partly 
 from want of leisure, found it impracticable or inconvenient to 
 
 
Letters of "Veritas." 
 
 79 
 
 reply in order to rectify the matter complained of. A pressure of 
 this kind — of outside public opinion, of lay influence — was un- 
 pleasantly experienced. But, on the other hand, these shadows 
 were relieved by much cheerful intercourse between the Bishops, 
 and clerical and lay friends, new and old, visiting Rome during 
 the Council ; by the agreeable excitement of the religious cere- 
 monies ; and by the occasional short excursions to the surround- 
 ing towns and places of interest, whenever a day or two of 
 interval between the Council meetings permitted such absence. 
 On these occasions the Archbishop of Halifax was the most 
 genial and interesting of companions. 
 
 " Catholic " speaks of Archbishop Connolly as knowing but 
 little of Rome before he went to attend the Council ; whereas it was 
 in Rome he made his clerical studies, and his novitiate as a Capu- 
 chin Friar; then, subsequently, as Bishop of St. John he visited 
 the Eternal City in the winter of 1857-8, when he and the other 
 passengers in the stage coach between Civita Vecchia and Rome 
 were atUcked and robbed by Italian banditti. On this occasion 
 the Archbishop's previous experience in Italy, and knowledge of 
 the language enabled him to pacify the bandits and save life, if 
 not his own purse or those of his fellow-passengers. 
 
 " Catholic " mentions the Bishop of Montreal as one of the 
 minority. This is a mistake. Mgr. Bourget was one of the ear- 
 liest and most zealous advocates of the Infallibility, having called 
 upon various other Bishops to get their signatures to the Postu- 
 latum or Petition to the Holy Father to have the question intro- 
 duced before the Council for definition. 
 
 Finally, Mr. Editor, while thanking you very much, I beg to 
 observe that I write not in the spirit of controversy, nor do I 
 attempt to follow " Catholic " in all his self-evident fallacies ; but 
 simply to state the truth and facts in relation to the late Arch- 
 bishop Connolly and others who were with him at the Vatican 
 Counc I conclude by again quoting from his funeral sermon 
 the int )ductory passage of his discourses on the Infallibility 
 at the Vatican Council, already alluded to, and which gives the 
 key to his feelings and views in regard to the deliberations and 
 decrees of said Council: "Venerable Fathers," said he, " befuie 
 " entering upon my argument, I wish to express my full ai.d 
 " entire acceptance of, and adhesion to, whatever will be the final 
 
 ^^\ ■^^*^^ 
 
8o 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 decision of this Council. For, if the Church of Christ be not 
 
 truly represented here, where are assembled nearly all the 
 
 Bishops of the Catholic world, duly convoked and presided 
 
 over by the C!hief Pastor, the Supreme Head on earth of the 
 
 Church ; if the deliberations and decisions o{ this august body, 
 
 aided by the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, whom Christ sent 
 
 to guide and enlighten his apostles and their successors, and 
 
 abide with them forever, be not the expression of infallible 
 
 truth, then there is no infallible authority for defining religious 
 
 truth in this world ! We must here use the words of the 
 
 Apostles to our Lord, when He asked if they also would leave 
 
 Him. Simon Peter answered, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? 
 
 Thou hast the Words of Eternal Life.' So, Venerable Fathers, 
 
 if the truth be not here, where else can we find it ? To whom 
 
 else shall we go? ad quem ibimus? "' 
 
 Veritas. 
 April gth, 1883. 
 
 To the Editor of the'' Globe : " 
 
 Sir, — Injustice to the venerated dead, I claim once more the 
 kind use of your columns. 
 
 Your learned correspondent " Catholic " persists in citing from 
 " Quirinus " the late Archbishop Connolly's argumentations at the 
 Vatican Council, expressed during the time of debate and delib- 
 eration, when it was the duty of the moment to fully consider and 
 weigh every objection before coming to the final decision, and 
 perseveres in the utterly absurd allegation that such argumenta- 
 tions, because once uttered, although only in the time and place 
 of legitimate deliberation, are justly to be ascribed to their authors 
 as their decided opinions. Such uncandid reasoning might not 
 surprise us in a wily politician, but it is not worthy of an honest 
 and educated logician. 
 
 Is it not a fact that in the scientific treatrnent of every rational 
 inquiry after truth, when the question is still in the stages of 
 investigation and deliberation, the arguments on both sides, 
 affirmative and negative, are stated and argued before the final 
 
 1. John vi., 69. 
 
Letters of " Veritas." 
 
 8i 
 
 conclusion? Not only in deliberative assemblies, but even in 
 school treatises on any branch of science, is there not generally, 
 where the nature of the proposition or thesis requires or admits 
 it, a section of the demonstration in which the objections are 
 stated and answered ? " Solvunter Objectiones " is the title of 
 a chapter or section familiar to the eye of every student. After 
 the solution of an objection has been given and recognized as 
 correct, is it reasonable or usual to renew the objection, or to con- 
 tinue to attribute to the objector the arguments which he had used 
 before, but which the solution neutralized and caused him to lay 
 aside ? In a court of law, when a doubtful case has been fairly 
 tried and argued by learned counsel on both sides, after the final 
 judgment of the highest court has been given by the judge and 
 acquiesced in as just by the suitors, is it permitted to bring up the 
 case again, or to regard the losing party as still pressing the same 
 claims and arguments which the j" .ge has already considered 
 and disposed of? How was it at the Apostolic Council of Jerus- 
 alem? We read^: "5. But there arose some of the sect of the 
 " Pharisees that believed, saying — They" (the Gentiles received 
 "into the Christian fold) "must be circumcised and be com- 
 " manded to observe the Law of Moses. 6. And the Apostles and 
 " ancients assembled to consider this matter. 7. And whc7i there 
 ^'' had been much disputi7ig, Peter, rising up, said to them," ike. 
 
 Doubtless the " disputants " who insisted on the necessity of 
 circumcision quoted the Scriptures, the law of Moses, in support 
 of their contention ; but the decision of the Council showed them 
 to be mistaken, as the law of Moses applied only to the Jews, but 
 not to the Gentile Christians. After such decision, all acquiesced 
 and were silent. Would it be, after this, right or just to quote 
 the speeches in Council o. those who contended for circumcision, 
 and to hold up to the public such speeches and scriptural inter- 
 pretations as the settled and unchanged opinions of those who 
 had, during the disputation, in all good faith, appealed to the law 
 of Moses? And yet this is what " Catholic" persists in doing in 
 regard to the historical objections and scriptural interpretations 
 urged by the opposition debaters at the Vatican Council, but 
 neutralized and set aside by the final decision of the said Council, 
 and by the acquiescence of said objectors in that decision. 
 
 1. Acts, XV. 
 K 
 
tmm 
 
 82 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 m 
 
 With regard to the historical objections of the case of Honorius, 
 I showed in my first letter that, while it was a real " stubborn " 
 objection before the definition, it is not so now, since the decree 
 of definition was so formulated as to avoid that and every other 
 historical difficulty. 
 
 Touching the Council of Jerusalem, and the dispute which led 
 to it, I would venture a few observations. In Acts xv. 12, we 
 read : " And some coming down from Judea taught the brethren 
 " that except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses you 
 " cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small 
 " contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas 
 " and certain others of the other side should go up to the 
 " Apostles and Priests to Jerusalem about this question." Then 
 after the Council, on their way back from Jerusalem, an incident 
 happened at Antioch which St. Paul elsewhere describes, and which 
 is sometimes alleged against the supremacy of St. Peter. In 
 his epistle to the Galatians ' St. Paul states : " And when Cephas 
 " was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he 
 " was to be blamed. For, before that some came from James he 
 " did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he withdrew and 
 " separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. 
 " And to this dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that 
 " Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But, 
 " when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the 
 " Gospel, I said to Cephas, before them all : If thou^ being a Jew, 
 " livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, 
 " how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? " &c. 
 
 Let us examine these two points to see if they make against 
 the primacy or supremacy of St. Peter, or against the ex cathedra 
 inerrancy of himself and successors in defining dogmas of faith 
 and morals to be held by the universal Church. 
 
 First, as to the Council. It is contended that not St. Peter, 
 but St. James, presided, having made the concluding discourse, in 
 which he assigned the authority of the Prophets, and not that of 
 St. Peter, as the reason for the opinion or judgment which he 
 expressed. Now, is this so ? Let us read and analyze the record 
 of the Council."'^ Did St. James really preside ? Some Fathers 
 and Commentators are of opinion that he did. Others hold that, 
 
 
 1. II. 11 to 14. 
 
 2. Acts, XV. 
 
Letters of "Veritas." 
 
 83 
 
 as Bish()p of Jerusalem, where the Council was being held, he had 
 a particular authority and official prominence, but evidently sub- 
 ordinate to that of St. Peter, who, though not the first sjjeaker at 
 the Council, was the first of the Apostles who spoke. 
 Then the matter and style of St. Peter's discourse bear the stamp 
 of supreme authority. 
 
 ** 7. And when there had been much dispjiting, Peter, rising up, 
 " said to them : Men, brethren, you know that in former days 
 " God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles 
 " should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. 8. And God, 
 " who knoweth the hearrs, gave testimony, giving unto them the 
 " Holy Ghost as well as to us. 9. And put no difference between 
 " us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10. Now, there- 
 " fore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the 
 " disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to 
 " bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe to 
 " be saved, in like manner as they also. 12. And all the multitude 
 " held their peace : and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what 
 " great wonders and signs God had wrought among the Gentiles 
 " by them. 13. And after they had held their peace, James an- 
 " swered, saying:" &c. 
 
 Nothing can be more authoritative, more directly to the point, 
 more dignified and magisterial than this discourse of St. Peter. 
 It defines the true doctrine in the matter disputed — clear, concise 
 and full, with an earnest appeal to the disputants — a sort of ana- 
 thema — to cease their cavilling: IV/iy tempt ye God, to put a 
 yoke upon the ?ieeks of the disciples J 
 
 Saints Barnabas and Paul follow, supporting the decision of 
 St. Peter, by an account of their own personal experience in re- 
 ceiving ijito the fold so many Gentiles upon whom the grace of 
 God had been poured out. Then St. James speaks. But is it 
 true that he does not refer to the authority of St. Peter ? Quite 
 the contrary : he does refer most deferentially to the statement of 
 St. Peter. " Men, bretiiren : Simon hath related how God first 
 " visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name," referring to 
 the revelation of his will, made by God to St. Peter at Joppe, and 
 the conversion of the Centurion Cornelius and his fiimily, upon 
 whom the Holy Ghost had been poured so abundantly ' After 
 
 1. Acts V. 
 
A^. 
 
 ^. 
 
 %, 
 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 -^^ 
 •^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 7 
 
 w^^O 
 
 
 Cs'^ 
 
 :/ 
 
 5r /^/^ 
 4 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.! 
 
 1.25 
 
 Ilia 
 
 131 
 
 12.5 
 
 tU 
 
 |21 
 
 liS Hill 2.0 
 
 mm 
 
 M- IIIII16 
 
 6" 
 
 (^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 /i 
 
 VI 
 
 >^ 
 
 el 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 r 
 
 o/^ 
 
 w 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 3) WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 Sb 
 
 ^«^ 
 
 iV 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^ \. ^^q\ 
 
 #» °^i 
 
 ■o^,* 
 
 
 n; 
 
 ■"^^ 
 
 '^^^^ 
 

 %' #.1 
 
 L^- 
 
 &?^ 
 
 I 
 
 O 
 
 \ 
 
 
84 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 thus referring to this highest of all authorities, namely, God's 
 revelation of his will in regard to the Gentiles as well as Jews to 
 St. Peter, and through him to the whole church, St. James pro- 
 ceeds with his discourse, confirming St. Peter's doctrine by a 
 citation from the ancient prophets,' whose authority the Jews 
 would not fail to respect Now, to my mind, the attentive analy- 
 sis of the speeches at the Council in the admirable report of the 
 sacred penman, St. Luke,^ proves to r demonstration the supreme 
 authority therein exercised by St, Peter, and recognized by all the 
 others. 
 
 As to the prominence of St. James at the Council — subordi- 
 nate to St. Peter — there were particular reasons for it. He was 
 the local bishop. It was some of his flock who had propagated 
 the false doctrine which gave occasion to this Council. As the 
 proper local pastor of Jerusalem, he was anxious in regard to his 
 flock, of whom so many were inclined towards the same erroneous 
 opinion which the Council was called to condemn. In acting as 
 Secretary of the Council, if not as President, when writing the 
 decree, he takes care in the preamble to euiphasize the error, and 
 that those who propagated it had no authority from him. " For- 
 " asmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have 
 " troubled you with words ; subverting your souls, to whom we 
 ''^ gave no commandnicjit''' ^ The decree of the Council is formu- 
 lated by St. James in the name of all the Council ; but it is the 
 authoritative voice of St. Peter — the first of the Apostles to speak 
 in the Council — which reverberates to the end in the Council 
 decree. The words of St. John Chrysostom ajiply here, though 
 commenting on another discourse of St. Peter, the first uttered by 
 him as Vicegerent of Christ, immediately after our Lord's ascen- 
 sion into heaven.* 
 
 " Primus auctoritatem habet in negotio, ut cui omnes commisse 
 " fuisseni;. Huic enim Christus dixerat : Et in aliqua7ido con- 
 '''• versus y confirmafratres tuos.^^^ "He the first has authority in 
 " the business, as the one to whom they all had been committed. 
 •* For to him had Christ said : And thoUy being once converted^ 
 " confirm thy brethren ^ * 
 
 1. Amos ix., 11-12. 2. Acts xv, 8. Acts xv. 34. 
 
 4. Acts, i. 6. Due. xxii., 32. 
 
 6. St. John Chrysostom, vol. 9, col. 37, 3rd Homily on Acts of Apostles, in Greek Patrology, 
 Migne's edition. 
 
 'ffllQ 
 
Letters of "Veritas." 
 
 85 
 
 Secondly — The incident t Antioch. Let us consider if it 
 makes as againt St. Peter's supremacy. 
 
 There were many of the Jewish Christians whom it was very 
 hard to convince that the converted Gentiles were not bound to 
 circumcision and other ceremonies of the law of Moses. St. Paul 
 everwhere earnestly protested against this, and advocated the lib- 
 erty with which Christ had made us free, that is, free from the 
 ceremonial law of the Jews ; for the moral precepts of the law of 
 Moses weie continued and confirmed, not abrogated, by the Gos- 
 pel. So that in reality these ceremonial precepts of the law of 
 Moses no longer bound Christians, whether Gentiles or Jews. 
 Nevertheless, though not binding, they were tolerated, and by the 
 great bulk of Jewish Christians were continued in use, especially 
 in Jerusalem, where the Jewish Christians were very tenacious of 
 their ancient sacred rites and practices. It was in part to concili- 
 ate them, and in part to pave the way for closer union in the bonds 
 of charity between these two sections of Christians, tht Jew and 
 Gentile converts to Christ, that the decree of the Council of Jeru- 
 salem, while freeing the Gentile Christians from circumcision, 
 ordained them to observe three other merely ceremonial points 
 of the Jewish law, namely, to abstain from eating things offered 
 to idols, from blood, and from the meat of strangled or suffocated 
 animals — besides the moral precept, always binding, to abstain 
 from fornication. The Jewish Christians could not understand 
 how the sacred rites and precepts commanded by God through 
 Moses were not still of obligation ; and it was to not shock or 
 irritate them, as well as to exercise and discipline the converted 
 Gentiles in abstinence and self-denial, that these three merely 
 ceremonial points were commanded. This national tenacity and 
 irritability of the Jews, which afterwards manifested itself so bit- 
 terly against St. Paul, nearly costing him his life,^ was known to St. 
 Peter, and explains the motives of prudence and charity which 
 actuated him at Antioch on the occasion when St. Paul " resisted 
 him to the face." But was St. Peter really to blame on this occa- 
 sion ? The matter of rebuke was not one of doctrine, nor of any 
 ordinance made by St. Peter. It was only in regard to his per- 
 sonal conduct — dissimulation, not in words, but in act. St. Paul 
 complained that St. Peter, in going too far to avoid offending tiie 
 
 1. Acts xxi. 
 
86 
 
 Infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 Jews, was exposing the Gentile Christians to be scandalized. St. 
 Peter receives the rebuke in silent, fraternal charity and acquies- 
 cence. If St. Peter was to blame, it was only a venial fault in per- 
 sonal conduct, such as St. James says all are Hal to : " In many 
 things we all offend,"* but not a faihng either in loctrine or ad- 
 ministration. So that in no way can this incident make against 
 the Supremacy or Primacy of St. Peter. 
 
 On that occasion St. Peter exercised the virtues of prudence 
 and charity in trying to avoid wounding the susceptibilities of the 
 Jews. St. Paul himself on pther occasions taught and practiced a 
 similar charitable course, namely, abstentation from what would 
 be in itself lawful, in order not to scandalize the weaker brethren ;'■* 
 also, he conformed to Jewish ceremonies that were not obligatory, 
 in order to conciliate the Jews.^ Moreover, that very Council of 
 Jerusalem above mentioned* had just enacted three points of Jew- 
 ish ceremonial law (but not circumcision), to be observed by the 
 Gentile Christians, so as to conciliate the Jews. 
 
 Thus it is hard to believe that St. Peter committed even a 
 venial sin on this occasion. Nevertheless, since the inspired words 
 of St. Paul impute to him blame, we must admit that there was in 
 the action of St. Peter, at least objectively, a material fault, if not 
 subjectively, a formal one ; while we cannot but admire the influ- 
 ence of the Holy Ghost directing St. Paul to exercise, with apos- 
 tolic liberty, fraternal correction, and St. Peter with meekness and 
 humility to receive the same in penitential silence. It is th'is God 
 watches over, guides, and perfects his saints, while preserving his 
 church "without spot or wrinkle" of erroneous teaching ! 
 
 Veritas. 
 Mays,i88s. 
 
 1. Jame? iii., 2. 2. i Cor. x., 22. 
 
 ;i. " Did not St. Paul on several occasions do the like as what is here laid to St. Peter's 
 
 " charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies. Did he not circumcise Timothy after this, 
 
 " Anno 52 (Acts xvi., 3) ? Did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, An. 54 (Acts xviii., 18)? 
 
 " Did he not, by the advice of St. James, An. 58, purify himself with the fews in the temple, 
 
 " not to offend them ? " Acts xxi., ■24.— Extract from Bishop Challoner's note, in Haydock' s 
 
 Dotiay Bible, on Gal. ii., 11. 
 
 4. Acts XV. 
 
It 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Note A. — Preface. 
 
 DONATION OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 The following quotation from a work already referred to, " The True 
 Faith of Our Forefathers," in refutation of Dr. Steam's " Faith of Our 
 Forefathers," fully meets the difficulty objected by " Catholic." 
 
 After discussing the date of the forgery of the Donation, the writer 
 says : 
 
 " But we might grant the Doctor (.Stearns) that the forgery was com- 
 mitted in the year i, if he so wishes ; yet he could never prove that the 
 Popes had anything to do with it. We take our proofs for this assertion 
 from the document itself. It is there stated that the Church is subject to 
 the Empire, and that the Popes owe their primacy over the other four 
 Patriarchs to the liberality of Constantine, not to the positive institution 
 of Christ. Now, these two statements are heretical, and consequently 
 could never have been countenanced by the Popes. Moreover, the divine 
 institution of the Primacy is the source of all their power and dignity ; 
 now, even supposing that the Popes could be so carried away as to 
 endorse a forgery and connive at a heresy, is it possible that they could 
 be so stupid as to disclaim the priniacy, and thus destroy, with their own 
 hands, the foundation of all their greatness. Again, the Popes have 
 never attributed their rights and possessions as temporal sovereigns to 
 Constantine, but to Pepin and Charlemagne. Paul I., for instance, writ- 
 ing to Pepin in 759, and Adrian I. to Charlemagne in 776, make this 
 acknowledgment in the plainest terms. But if they had palmed off a 
 forgery to deceive Pepin and Charlemagne, is it likely they would after- 
 wards contradict themselves in their letters? In a word, to satisfy Dr. 
 Stearns (and "Catholic") we must at one moment make the Popes 
 monsters of depravity, and the personification of cunning, and the next 
 allow them scarcely sense enough to remove them one degree above 
 idiocy. 
 
 " Moreover, we happily possess the formula of agreement (Pactionis 
 Foedus) made between the Pope and Pepin at Kiersy, and the Diplomas 
 of Donation given to the See of Peter by Pepin and Charlemagne ; but 
 in none of them is there the remotest allusion to a donation of temporal 
 dominion made by Constantine to the Roman Church. Yet the donation 
 by Constantine should have been recited as a motive of their grant, out 
 of deference to the prejudices of the Franks, if it be true that their 
 * homage to the Pope was so foreign to Frankish ideas ; ' and if their 
 L (89) 
 
90 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 liberality would draw on them the * enemity of the still powerful Imperial 
 Court,' as Dr. Stearns asserts. 
 
 " We see, then, that neither the testimony of historians, nor the intrin- 
 sic evidence offered by the document itself, nor the interest of the Popes, 
 nor their admissions in authentic letters, nor the very Diplomas of Dona- 
 tion given by Pepin and Charlemagne, afford any ground for the charge 
 that the temporal power of the Popes originated in a forgery." — Pages 
 251-2-3. 
 
 Note B. — Preface. 
 
 " The sixth century abounded in forgeries — 
 
 " The forged Acts of the Synod of Sinuessa. 
 
 " The forged ' Constitution of Sylvester.' 
 
 " The forged ' Annals of Liberius and Xystus.' 
 
 "The pretended history of Polychronius. — Catholic." 
 
 The end aimed at by these fictions, our opponent would have us 
 believe, was to establish the maxim that the Pope, as the highest 
 authority in the Church, can be judged by no one. These fictions were 
 fabricated during the Pontificate of Pope Symmacus, who flourished 
 from 498 to 514, yet long before that time it was a received maxim that 
 " prima sedes a nemine judicatur." 
 
 " These documents are indeed spurious," says Cardinal Hergenrother, 
 "but do they justify the conclusion that the maxim 'prima sedes a 
 nemine judicatur ' was first introduced by them. If the maxim were so 
 new, it would be a matter of astonishment that so many Italian Bishops, 
 and among them those of Milan and Ravenna, should, in the year 501, 
 have affirmed it in a Roman Synod ; and likewise that the Church of 
 France, under Avitus of Vienne, should have sanctioned it. Janus even 
 says, 'that Pope Gelasius, about 495, for the first time insulted the 
 Greeks and their 28th Canon of Chalcedon, by affirming that every 
 Council must be confirmed, and every Church judged by Rome ; but she 
 can be judged by none. It was not by Canons, as the Council of Chalce- 
 don affirmed, but by the word of Christ that she received the primacy' 
 (Janus, p. .25). The holy Pope Gelasius yet belongs to the witnesses of 
 the fii'St six centuries, who alone possess any credit with our author; but 
 he is rejected, for in this he went beyond all the claims of his predeces- 
 sors. We might, indeed, modestly reply, that like claims were put for- 
 ward by earlier Pontiffs ; that Zosimus, in particular, who reigned from 
 417 to 418, had claimed for the Papal See the privilege that its judgment 
 should be the ultimate and decisive one. But -this Janus has already 
 obviated, as he remarks (p. 82) : ' By Zosimus it was still said, the Fathers 
 it was who imparted the privilege to the Roman See.' To this we may 
 venture to remark that the difference is not as to the right itself but as 
 to the source of the right; whether, according to Gelasius, it is derived 
 
Appendix. 
 
 9J 
 
 from Christ, or, according to Zosimus, from the Fathers. Now, not 
 the Popes only, but other prelates, metropoHtans and patriarchs, also, 
 deduced their prerogafives from various titles, and often name one with- 
 out excluding the other: for the proximate title does not exclude the 
 remoter one. Accordingly, the right established by the Fathers has its 
 own force ; the See of Constantinople could not all claim any other ; 
 why, then, should this not be valid for the latter, and not for Rome? 
 
 Secondly, Zosimus has, for one of the privileges involved in the 
 Primacy, alleged the tradition of the Fathers, and most appropriately, 
 indeed ; for, in respect to that privilege, this decision was preeminently 
 decisive ; but he has immediately pointed out the foundation of that 
 Primacy, lying, as it does, in the promise of Christ, and proclaimed that 
 the Roman Church is founded on divine as well as on human light ; and 
 at the close of the introduction he repeats that none can reverse the 
 Papal sentence (Zosim. ep. 12, ad Aurel. p. 974, ed. Const.) Our appeal 
 to Zosimus, with reference to the first three words of his letter, is fully 
 sustained by the whole context. 
 
 "Like Zosimus, Boniface I., who flourished from 418 to 422, puts in 
 the claim also, that from his tribunal there is no appeal, and that it has 
 never been lawful to reform a Papal judgment (Bonif I. ep. 13, ad Ruf., 
 n. 2 ; ep. 15, ad eumd., n. 5, p. 1035, 1042, ed. Const.). Here the proposi- 
 tion is enunciated without the appeal to the * Fathers.' So we again find 
 proof, that what some wished to make pass for novelty shows itself to be 
 much older ; and that it was not by forgery the privilege in question of 
 the Roman See was firi^t established.' Under Symmacus, the chief object 
 was to prevent the intervention of the Arian King Theodoric in the 
 affairs of the Church of Rome." — Anti-Janus, pp. 150-2. 
 
 Note C. — Preface. 
 
 That Pope Sylvester, apart from the signature of his legates — Hosius, 
 Vitus and Vincentius, — approved and confirmed in an especial manner 
 the acts and decrees of the First Council of Niciea, is thus upheld by 
 Hefele, of whom his Protestant translator — Rev. William R.Clark, 
 M. A., — says : " Dr. Hefele is so fair in the statement of facts that 
 every reader may very easily draw his conclusions for himself "( Pre- 
 face, vol. i., p. 6): '"The signatures of the Pope's legates — Hosius, 
 Vitus and Vincentius — subscribed to the acts of the Council before the 
 other Bishops, must be regarded as a sanction from the .See of Rome to 
 the decrees of Niccea. Five documents, dating from the fifth century, 
 mention, besides, a solemn approval of the acts of the Council of Niccea 
 
 1. " If the histoiy of Polychronius was invented in order to bring forward the Pope, even in 
 the year 435, as judge of an Oriental patriarch (Janus, p. 125) ; so this invention was certainly 
 foolish and unnecessary ; for already, in 430, Pope Celestine had judged an Oriental patriarch, 
 namely Nestorius, not to mention other cases." — Hergenrother, ibid. 
 
 ■ 
 
92 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 given by Pope Sylvester and a Roman Synod of 275 Bishops. It is 
 granted that these documents are not authentic, as we shall show in the 
 history of the Council of Nicsea ; but we, nevertheless, consider it very 
 probable that the Council of Nicaea was recognized and approved by an 
 especial act of Pope Sylvester, and not merely by the signature of his 
 legates, for the following reasons : — 
 
 It is undeniable, as we sh^ll presently see, that 
 
 (a) "The Fourth Qi^cunfenical Council looked upon the Papal con- 
 firmation as absolutely necessary for ensuring the validity of the decrees 
 of the Council ; and there is no ground for maintaining that this was a 
 new principle, and one which was not known and recognized at the time 
 of the Nicene Council. / 
 
 (d) "Again, in 485, a synod composed of about forty bishops from 
 different parts of Italy was quite unanimous in asserting, in opposition 
 to the Greeks, that the three hundred and eighteen bishops of Nicaea had 
 their decisions confirmed by the authority of the Holy Roman Church — 
 confirmationem rermn atqiie aucloritatem sanctce Romamc Ecclesice detul- 
 ertint} 
 
 (tr) " Pope Julius I. in the same way declared, a few years after the 
 close of the Council of Nicaea, that ecclesiastical decrees (of the decisions 
 of Synods'^) ought not to be published without the consent of the Bishop 
 of Rome, and that this is a rule and law ol the Church.'* 
 
 {d) " Dionysius the Less also maintained that the decisions of the 
 CoOncil of Nicaea were sent to Rome for approval ; and it is not improb- 
 able that it v/as the general opinion upon this point which contrifcuted to 
 produce those spurious documents which we possess." — Church Councils^ 
 vol. i., Introduction, pp. 44, 45. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Note D. — Preface. 
 THE FALSE DECRETALS. 
 
 / 
 
 In styling the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals "a monster imposition," 
 "Catholic" shows how limited is his knowledge of these Decretals, and 
 how unsafe it is to take objections at second hand, especially from a 
 writer of such slip-shod scholarship as Littledale. 
 
 It is not to my purpose to enter into this subject of the Decretals of 
 pseudo-Isidore, as the subject, to do it justice, would demand more space 
 than can be conveniently given it in this place. Suffice it to say that 
 they are anything but a fabrication, pure and simple ; on the contrary., 
 the more modern scholarship has examined into the subject, and com- 
 pared undoubtedly authentic documents with those given by Isidore- 
 Mercator, the more evident has it become that the errors of his collec- 
 tion are not to be attributed to any bad faith on his part, but rather to 
 the difficulties which beset him in the compilation of his Decretals. 
 
 It can be easily shown that these Decretals attribute no privilege to 
 the Popes, which authentic history does not show them to have enjoyed 
 hundreds of years before Isidore-Mercator lived. 
 
 1. Hard, ii., 856. 2. Socrat. Hist, Mccles. ii., 17. 3. Socrat. ibid. 
 
Appendix. 
 
 93 
 
 It is absolutely untrue that Pope Nicholas first introduced these De- 
 cretals to the French Bishops. If " Catholic's " knowledge of Church 
 history were not of the most superficial kind, he would know that it was 
 from France that these Decretals came, and that they were there used 
 and appealed to by the F'rench and German Hishops from the ninth to 
 the eleventh century ; whereas, even in 1085, these False Decretals had 
 but little weight at Rome. 
 
 The Synod of Kiersy in 857, and Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, 
 made use of them. Pope Nicholas I. was not acquainted with them even 
 in 863. It was only in 864 these Decretals became known to him through 
 Rothad, Bishop of Soissons. (Weizsiicker, in Sybel's Historical Period- 
 ical, iii., 84). 
 
 Nay, the fact is that Nicholas I., in his correspondence with the 
 Frankish Bishops, did not once quote from the False Decretals. (Nichol., 
 ep. 42, ad Kpisc. Gall. Mansi., xv., 695). 
 
 Note E.— Preface. 
 
 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE "CATENA AUREA." 
 
 "Catholic" is kind enough to inform us that St. Thomas of Aquin, 
 deceived by this forgery, quotes from the (Jatena Aurea in corroboration 
 of his doctrine regarding the' Holy See. If " Catholic " would have us 
 thereby understand that the Angelic Doctor's arguments are founded on 
 passages from the pseudo-Cyrill and other false texts, it mus" be at once 
 apparent how superficial is his knowledge of the great Dominican's writ- 
 ings. We open Thomas Aquinas, and we find tha;; he relies for his 
 doctrine respecting the plenitude of power and inerrancy of the Holy .' ^e 
 upon many other things, and especially on the passages of Scripture 
 relating to Peter's primacy (on Matt. xvi. ; Sum. Supplem. 9, rj. a. i ; 
 Com. in h. 1. ; on Luke xxii. 2-22, q. i, a. 10 ; L., iv.. Sent. d. 24, q .3, a 2), 
 as well as upon internal theological grounds, upon inferences from 
 dogmatic premises, as, for example, from the necessary unity of the faith 
 (C. Gent. L. 10, c. 76 ; Quodlib. ix. a. 16), on the authority of Pope Leo 
 at the Synod of Chalcedon, attested as it is in genuine documents (De 
 potentia, q. 10, a. 4 ad 13), and on a genuine passage of Pope Innocent I., 
 and of others (Sum. 2, 2, q. 11, a. 2 ad 3. Can. quoties C. xxiv. q. I., Inno- 
 cent I. Ep. 30). If, now, at a period in which the Latins could as yet use 
 but few writings of the Greek Fathers, Thomas Aquinas cited passages 
 from the pseudo-Cyrill ( Catena Aurea) and other false texts, so this 
 could not, and even at the present day cannot damage his other proofs. 
 Nay, these new fictions might have been abundantly replaced by other 
 genuine texts. Theodore the Studite, Ignatus, patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, Maximus, in a passage already made known in the West even in 
 the ninth century, would have offered such a supply. 
 
94 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Note V.— Preface. 
 
 " Catholic's " remarks about " the corruption and falsification of the 
 Fathers " are so unutterably silly and untrue that I pass them by without 
 further comment. His acuteness in detecting forgeries is so marked 
 timt he would be just at present a valuable adjunct to some of the St. 
 John Ranks. 
 
 Note G. — Preface. 
 
 " Sixtus the Fifth published no decree regarding his edition of the 
 Bible. He promulgated no bull on the subject ; he did not even desire 
 that his work should be received y^.''^ divina as quite correct and perfect. 
 The errors in his edition refer not to matters of faith ; and neither him- 
 self nor his successor, Clement VIII., ever imagined or could imagine it 
 was in their power to put forth a perfectly faultless edition of the Scrip- 
 tures, in which posterity would find nothing to change for the better." — 
 Hergenrother, ''AfiH-faniis" p. 91. 
 
 Note H. 
 
 ANGLICAN ORDERS. 
 
 As my opponent in one of his letters referred to this matter, I shall 
 here quote from Canon Estcourt, who, after examining the question with 
 the greatest care, draws the following conclusions : 
 
 " Anglican ordinations must be considered as altogether invalid, and 
 there is neither Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon in the Anglican communion. 
 
 " I. Because from the year 1554 it has been the unvarying practice of 
 the Catholic Church so to consider and treat them. 
 
 " 2. Because there are grave doubts whether Barlow, the consecrator 
 of Parker, had ever himself received Episcopal consecration ; and in fact 
 the probabilities of the case incline more strongly against than in favor 
 of it. 
 
 " 3. Because the Anglican forms of ordination have been altered from 
 the ancient form, both by way of mutilation and addition, in such a 
 manner as to exclude on the part of those paiticipating in the acts en- 
 joined, any intention of conferring or receiving a sacrament, or sacra- 
 mental grace, or a spiritual character, or any sacerdotal or episcopal 
 power. 
 
 " 4. Because the same forms have been also altered purposely, with 
 the view of excluding the idea of a Priest at his ordination receiving 
 power to offer sacrifice. 
 
 " 5. Because Anglican Bishops and Priests at the time of ordination 
 join in a profession contrary to the Catholic faith in the Holy Sacrifice; 
 thus assuming on themselves, by their own act, the spirit of erroneous 
 intentions with which the alterations were made. 
 
 " 6. Because the meaning here attributed to the Anglican forms re- 
 ceives confirmation from the fact of its being doubtful whether the word 
 
1! 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 95 
 
 " Priest" in the Anglican forms of ordination means a Priest in the sense 
 of the Catholic Church, that is to say, sacerdos, 'a sacrificing Priest.' 
 
 " 7. Because the meaning of the same forms is further illustrated 
 from the ' Order of Administration of Holy Communion ' in the Hook of 
 Common Prayer, which is found to be contrary to the Catholic laith in 
 the doctrines of the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real 
 Presence, (p. 373: The Question of Anglican Ordinations Discussed. 
 London, 1873)." 
 
 My Presbyterian friends can thus console themselves with the cer- 
 tainty that their own ministers possess as valid orders as the Metropolitan 
 of Canada, or Charles of Niagara, neither of whom could minister at a 
 single altar in Christendom, and whom not a priest from East to West — 
 no, not ajansenist in Holland — would credit with being in Holy Orders. 
 
 Note I. — Preface. 
 The following "smashing" letter from a Protestant clergyman of 
 England, the Rev. Frederick George Lee, D. D., Vicar of All Saints, 
 Lambeth, which appeared lately in the London Tablet^ bears so directly 
 — in more senses than one — on this controversy that it has been judged 
 proper to reprint it in full. It is a brilliant and trenchant exposure of 
 Dr. Littledale and his methods. 
 
 [From the " Catholic Record."] 
 
 A CRUSfHNG REPLY. 
 
 A PROTESTANT REFUTES PROTESTANT CALUMNIES. 
 
 " We publish this week what we may perhaps best describe as a * smash- 
 ing' letter from the Rev. Frederick George Lee, D. D., Vicar of All Saints', 
 Lambeth. Dr. Lee, of course, writes from his own standpoint, and there are 
 one or two incidental remarks as to which we are likely to remain in perma- 
 nent disagreement with him, but nothing could well be more effective than 
 his brilliant and trenchant exposure of the reckless carelessness and slovenly 
 scholarship of the man who, with a light heart, has set himself to * criticise the 
 saints, correct the Popes, and cnub the Cardinals.' Indeed our readers may 
 even be a little curious to know what is left of Plain Beasons, when they learn 
 that for its 200 pages. Dr. Littledale has already had to make 201 retractions, 
 and that its latest edition contains a Preface with * no less than 13,340 words 
 of eirataJ This signal discomfiture of Dr. Littledale we trust may prove a 
 lesson and a warning to other rash assailants of the Church of God." — London 
 Tablet. 
 
 Below we give the letter referred to : — 
 
 AN ANGLICAN ON ANGLICAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Sir, — Certain generous and wise words which you published on November 
 4th, 1882, lead me to trouble you with this letter, and to ask you to favor me 
 by printing it. 
 
 England's most imminent danger. 
 
 Your words stood thus : " Anything which tends to weaken the influence 
 of the Church of England as a teacher of those religious truths which she, 
 
96 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 however imperfectly, holds and proclaims, appears to us to be matter of regret, 
 as so much gain to the cause of secularity and unbelief." Even from your 
 point of view, in a certain sense, the scaffolding and organization of the Estab- 
 lished Church, including more particularly baptism and marriage, is after the 
 ancient type, and is inherently Christiiin. It has lost much, I know, and its 
 needs are numerous ; our ancestors were betrayed, robbed, hoodwinked, perse- 
 cuted and defrauded by the Tndors, and, as a consequence, religion itself, and 
 England as a nation, have grievously suffered. Whether, in the future, the 
 national church, after disestablishment and disendowment, will break up, re- 
 mains to be seen. If it does, our beloved country will be far on the way to re- 
 verting to paganism. And atheism subsequently may become very powerful, 
 if not dominant, to our great woe and loss, for all of us. 
 
 WHAT DR. LEE WISHES TO SEE ACCOMPLISHED. 
 
 Surely, therefore, to maintain and mend the Church of England without 
 breaking it up, to regain what has been lost, to restore it to visible corporate 
 communion with the Holy See (as did Cardinal Pole under Queen Mary) and 
 not to destroy it, seems to me the right and proper policy to adopt. I see 
 nothing wrong in such a programme and plan, but everything that is wise and 
 good, righieous and true. This being so, and having been so with myself for 
 more than thirty years, I rejoiced when I read your politic, sensible, and 
 kindly-expressed words, and often re:.i them anew. 
 
 A GOOD WORD FOR THE TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT. 
 
 Everything that tends to remove the dark shadow of polemical misrepre- 
 sentation from the minds of patriotic Englishmen seems to me distinct advan- 
 tage to the country. The Tractarian movement not only began this good 
 work, but steadily carried it on "for years. In the various restorations effected, 
 malignant, long-cherished prejudices have been laid to rest, mistakes admitted, 
 history re-written, old truths regained, zeal and self-denial brought to the 
 forefront. In most of our ancient Cathedrals, where the Abomination of Deso- 
 lation was set up by the Poynets, Ridleys, Bales and Aylmers of old, such 
 beneficent restorations have been effected as that Mass might therein be said 
 again with all {)roper dignity and orler at a few days' notice. During the last 
 half century, moreover, nearly 6,000 .\evf churches and chapels have been built 
 in England, and more than that number of old sanctuaries creditably restored. 
 
 A RITUALISTIC BLUNDER — DR. LITTLEDALE. 
 
 Now, just as a breach of unity sealed divisions, and all kinds of dangerous 
 and worthless sects and everlasting wranglings sprang from the deplorable 
 Tudor changes ; so ought peace and harmony and re-union to spring from, and 
 become the direct and distinct outcome and the final crown of the Oxford or 
 Tractarian movement — evidently from God. Anything that tends to hinder 
 such a desirable consummation is mischievous, disastrous, and certainly not 
 from above. It is because I feel very keenly that the recent pitiable policy 
 of the Ritualists in matters controversial — so greatly at variance with that of 
 forty years ago — is both dangerous and disastrous; and that in several par- 
 ticulars this movement, instead of being core-structive, is now actually o^e-struc- 
 tive, that I venture to assure you that a large portion of the English clergy — 
 many of them retiring, uncontrovei'sial, and peace-loving — have no sympathy 
 whatsoever with the blatant and boisterous noise of mere professional contro- 
 versialists, who, Vrith arrogance and art, but with no responsibility, are doing 
 their best to render future peace and unity, humanly speaking, impossible. 
 No publication with which I am acquainted has been more disastrous in its 
 aim and consequences than Plain jReasons, published by the Society for <,ne 
 Promotion of Christian Knowledge. More than 35,000 copies have been sold, 
 and its readers, of course, have been numerous. Its success, as a literary 
 
Appendix. 
 
 97 
 
 speculation, is one ot the darkest signs of the times. Had we a body of clergy 
 with a sound theological education/ such a publication must have been met 
 first only with a chilling welcome from those being duped, and then with a 
 howl of execration. I will not directly say more than that, having carefully 
 examined it in conjunction with others — the first edition was the last — we 
 have found it to be mercilessly unfair, and altogether untrustworthy. I would 
 that we could regard its compiler as unintentionally milled and mistaken. 
 The book will very pos8ii)ly destroy the faitn of many. 
 
 DR. littlepale's " cobbt:ction8." 
 
 Now 1 here ask you, sir, to note that, independent of eighteen separate 
 apologetic letters sent from time to time (from 1880 to 1885) to the Guardian 
 and Church Times, each containing certain retractions, emendations, and cor- 
 rections of mistakes which had been pointed out, the author, in a new edition 
 of his book, published in 1881, prefixed no less than twenty-nine pages of 
 closely printed "additions and corrections" (mainly the latter), each page 
 containing forty-six lines, and each line about ten wbrds; thus m iking no less 
 than 13,340 words oi errata — a somewhat unprecedented and startling literary 
 performance, and a remarkable example of original slip-slop and random 
 accusation — for a person who, criticising the saints, correcting the Popes, and 
 sniibbing the Cardinals, claims to hector and teach other people, and whose 
 book in its totality does not extend to two hundred pages. Every fresh edition 
 has received fresh corrections, while in several cases the corrections are equally 
 inaccurate with the statements presumed to be corrected. 
 
 TABUIiATED STATEMENT OF CORRIGENDA AND ERRATA. 
 
 The various errata and 'Explanatory additions referred to, as can be calcu- 
 lated and seen, amount, I am given to conclude, to exactly two hundred and 
 one. These — which will probably be set forth at length in a future publica 
 tion — are, of course, of dittierent kinds, some more important than others, and 
 have thus been carefully tabulated by myself and two friends : 
 
 Corrigenda and Errata. — Regarding historical or traditional facts, 51 ; re- 
 garding dogmatic facts, historical and theological, 43 ; regarding quotations, 
 either first or second hand, from writers on history and canon law, with inac- 
 curate conclusions from uncertain premises, 29 ; regarding historical and theo- 
 logi'^al quotations half made, often with certain remarkable omissions or 
 qualifications, and consequently, for purposes of controversy, imperfectly and 
 not fairi" quoted, 30 ; regarding siiort scraps of quotations from the Fathers, 
 which, when sought out and studied, are found to bear an entirely difierent 
 meaning from that which, for controversial purposes, they were credited, 24 ; 
 moreover, the compiler of Plain Reasons has, on no less than seventeen occa- 
 sions, made mistakes in confuj'ing the personal opinions of Catholic writers on 
 dogma, canon law, or ecclesiastical history with the defined and authoritative 
 faitli of the Catholic Church — a somewhat serious series of additional ti rata, 
 17 ; furthermore, in seven cases he has assumed that certain current o[)inions 
 — highly probable opinions, no doubt, but as yet only opinions — are without 
 any doubt dogmatic facts, sacred dogmas, and part of the unchangeable divine 
 deposit, and has argued accordingly. This is neither fair nor faithful. The 
 "opinions" even of Popes or canonized saints are opinions, and nothing 
 more. Such opinions are not imposed on the faithful, and iiiav be distinct 
 from the Catholic faith, 7. Total, 201. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INTENTION. 
 
 Several of the above referred to corrigenda and sub-added notes contain 
 several other retractions, further detailed explanations, and careful explain- 
 
 1. Rather a refloctio!) on my estimable opponent, for whom Littledale's hook ajppears to 
 be a Vade Mecum. Dr. Lee's estimate of "Catholic's" hisstorical knowledge would, I fear, 
 be no higher than my own. — Clbopfv'. 
 
 M 
 
98 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 ings-away of grave mistakes. The artful and insincere criticism (and I must 
 add supreme nonsense) which is found regarding the doctrine of intention — a 
 doctrii' as familiar to law as to theology, and as important to one as to the 
 other (lor if good faith were not kept in ordinary public and official acts, where 
 should we be ?) — is so utterly puerile and ridiculous, that it can only take in 
 those who are anxious to be deluded. If one man, in the presence of another, 
 apparently executing a legal deed, deliberately and openly declares, " I do not 
 deliver this as my act and deed" — the proper intention is wanting, and the 
 signed instrument is probably invalid, and certainly open to have its value 
 contested. So most probably in regard to an official sacramental act when the 
 general intention has been found »o have been absolutely withheld. 
 
 ADVERSE PROTESTANT CRITICISMS OF DR. LITTLEDALE. 
 
 Many of the criticisms in question, tiiough maintained with some show of 
 learning, are accurately enough measured at their true value by those Angli- 
 cans competent to form an opinion. Circumstances have placer' at my dis- 
 posal mmierous comments upon the book criticised. I select a few as evidence 
 that the new and diastrous policy embodied in Plain Reasons is by many 
 repudiated ; its method being misstrusted, its very gross and uncharitable lan- 
 guage deplored, and its conclusions rejected. I only wish those clergymen in 
 official places, who are so ready and even voluble to conden)n it in private, 
 wouhl have the courage of their opinions in public. But this is scarcely a 
 courageous age. Wills are too often weak, and moral backbones either dis- 
 jointed or broken. 
 
 An Honorary Canon of Oxford Cathedral writes : 
 
 " No long experience of Plain Reasons has proved to me that the plan of 
 appealing to mere reason, and bringing everything down to its own level in 
 dealing with Romanism, is likely to be turned to a deadly account in dealing 
 
 with the great doctrines of the Trinity and of God manifest in the flesh 
 
 I know two at least whom the book has made first anti-Roman and then scoff- 
 ing infidels." 
 
 Another clergyman of the Diocese of Oxford writes : " In my parish and 
 neighborhood it lias done more harm than good, making its readers, in some 
 cases, often loose believers, and then Christians unattached. In others, it has 
 sent devout minds, shocked by its unpleasant cynicism, over to Rome." 
 
 Mr. Shirley Brjbazon, of Stoke, Oxfordshire, expressed in public (14lh of 
 October, 1881) the foMowing sentiment: "A book which has been corrected 
 in nearly a hundred cases of misstatement, should have been first submitted 
 
 to some competent anther before being put in print. It shakes 
 
 our confidence in the Scciety for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and it is 
 not creditable that no exoression of regret was made by its committee for the 
 circulation of errors and fictions. Dishonesty in controversy, especially in 
 religious controversy, evtn when resulting from want of necessary inquiry 
 beforehand, is much to be Jeprecated." 
 
 Dr. Mossman, of Torrington, Lincolnshire, in 1881, wrote thus: "The 
 book appears to me to be written in a most reprehensible spirit. Unless ex- 
 posed and refuted, it is calculated to do grievous harm to the blessed and holy 
 cause of corporate reunion. Tl' e book cannot, of course, mislead any one who 
 is really accjuainted with ecclesiastical history and dogmatic theology, but 
 how very tew of its readers will know that it is little more than a crude con- 
 geries of fallacies and erroneous statenjents, taken at second hand, which liave 
 oeen exposed and refuted again and again." 
 
 Another clergyman, of the Diocese of Salisbury, writes : " I am not prepared 
 to face the malice and malevolence of (a certain religious newspaper), other- 
 wise I could easily point out a score of mistakes and misrepresentations (in 
 
Appendix,, 
 
 99 
 
 Plain Reasons) as to our relations with the saints in glory — their help, our 
 duty." 
 
 A Rector in Kent, in a published letter in 1882, put on record his judg- 
 ment as follows : " That such a book should be issued at all by the Society for 
 Promoting Christian Knowledge is a sign of deterioration, and a bad sign, too. 
 For to drive more wedges into the breach between us and Rome, snd t", innke 
 it bigger and wider, is not to my mind the work of a Catholic (?) p'lest, now 
 that irreligion, unbelief, and profanity are extending so." 
 
 The Rev. Wentworth Hankey, of Christ Church, Oxford, in August, 1881, 
 wrote thus : " I shall be mu'^h obliged, if you will allow me, as an Anglican 
 clergyman, who prefers Dr. Littledale's past to his present views, to express 
 the shame and indignation with which I have from the first regiirded the pub- 
 lication of Plain Reasons. Since the issue of translations Into French and 
 Italian, the claim of the work to be defensive and not aggressive can no longer 
 be sustained ; and considering what manner of men are the vast majority of 
 the Church's enemies in France and Italy, I protest in thp name of our com- 
 mon Christianity against anv such attempt to weaken the hands of the 
 Church." 
 
 HANDLING DR. LITTLEDALE " AVITHOUT GLOVES." 
 
 The Rev. E. W. Gilliam remarked of its author's controversial writings 
 that they are "so evidently dictated by ill-feeling and prejudice, and the rules 
 of good breeding are so completely ignored by him, that a read'^r of any re- 
 finement of mind instinctively draws back from one who seem^ thus regard- 
 less of the first principles of Christian moderation and ordinary charity." 
 Adding, with much force and terseness of " Plain Reasons" : " Entirely nega- 
 tive in character, it is, moreover, a coarse, vituperative, brutal book, without 
 piety and without justice — a book whose spirit has nothing in common with a 
 holy and upright mind." 
 
 I am informed by persons who know them that Canon Liddon, Canon 
 Carter, Bishop King, Prebendary West of Lincoln, Mr. R. M. Benson of 
 Cowley, Mr. Chancellor Wagner, and.others, have expressed their dislike of 
 the methods, assertions, and style of reasoning of " Plain Reasons," in terms 
 more or less in harmony with the various sentiments just quoted. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 
 
 To return to the book itself. As regards the important doctrine of the 
 Immaculate Conception, which has always been held by the Catholic Church, 
 it is perfectly certain the first Bishop of Norwich, Ilerbeu de Losinga (1050- 
 1119) taught it, as a matter of course, openly atid publicly, with the greatest 
 distinctness. Here are words — a strong contrast to the confused sentiments 
 and distressing profanity of certain preachers at Oxford thirty-five years ago — 
 taken from one of Bishop de Losinga's sermons: "She, the Blessed Virgin, 
 was made white with many virtues and merits, yea, whiter than the driven 
 snow was she made by the gift of the Holy Ghost; and showed forlh in all 
 things the simplicity of the dove since whatever was done in her was all 
 purity and simplicity, was all pure grace, was all the mercy and justice which 
 looked down from lieaven. And therefore is she called Undefiled {et ideo 
 immncutata) because in nothing was she corrupt {quia in nullo corrupla).^' 
 Vol. ii., p. 349.* ' 
 
 THE ASSUMPTION AND INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 And the following beautiful passage relates to the dogmatic fact of the 
 Assumption, and to the consoling and sustaining doctrine of the Invocation of 
 Saints: "To-day the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was taken up above the 
 
 * " Life and Letters of Herbert de LosinRa, Hishop of Norwich. Hy E. M. Ooulborne, 
 Deau, and Henry Symonds, M.A., Procentor of Norwich Cathedral. In two volumes. 
 I^ndou : 1878. 
 
lOO 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 heavens, and in ihe presence of the Holy AposUes her body was placed in the 
 sei ulchre. She died, but a body of such excellent dignity could not (as 
 Blessed Gregory saith) long be held in the bonds of death. For it was im- 
 p(.88ible that the flesh should be corrupted by a long death of which the 
 V'orld was made flesh and dwelt among us. For if at the Lord'r resurrection 
 nuny bodies of the saints that slept arose, how could that flesh not rise again 
 which gave birth to the Author of life Himself? With a full and undoubi- 
 \nj, faith, believe ye, my brethren, that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, made 
 inuMortal, both in body and soul, sitteth at the "ight hand ot (iod, with her 
 Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, being the mother of penitents, and the most 
 efl'ectual intercessor for our sins with her most gracious Son." (Vol. ii., pp. 
 351, 352.) 
 
 BASELESS AND PROFANE CHARGES. 
 
 With regard to what is set forth in " Plain Reasons " concerning Church 
 law, the maxims of Ferraris and other canonists quoted are no more infallible, 
 as is pnictically assumed, than are the personal opinions of Sir Robert Philli- 
 inore and Sir Edn)und Beckett equivalent to our authoritative declaration of 
 what is the present law of the Established Church. The charges of "accumu- 
 lated falsehood," of ''entire disregard for truth," of " deliberate and conscious 
 falsehood with fraudident intent," and that " truth pure and simple is almost 
 never to be found, and the whole truth in no case whatever," in the Roman 
 Catholic Church, are statements exceedingly shocking, and in most cases have 
 the exactly opposite effect intended. Such vague charges are incapable of 
 being rufl, for they are baseless as they are profane. In one case this accuser 
 of his brethren goes so far as to deliberately charge Baronius with purposely 
 altering a date, and of deliberately falsifying the Roman martyrology for 
 certain controvrrsial purposes. Now, any historian is liable to a chronological 
 error ; yet no certain evidence of the accuracy of the grave charge in (juestion 
 exists; while a writer who has himself made no less than two hundred retrac- 
 tions or explanations in a hastily compiled book of two hundred pages, should 
 not (without any hearing or defense) be severe upon a Christian hero who 
 may possibly have made one in two thousand. 
 
 BROUGHT TO TASK BY A GREEK. 
 
 Dr. Littledale's treatment of the Seventh Gi^cumenical Counc.I and its de- 
 crees has brought down upon him a scornful and withering criticism by Pro- 
 fessor Damalas of Mount .\th()s, referred to in a recent number of a German 
 literary serial, which I have hot seen, but which a learned Anglican friend 
 informs me it is painful to read, and quite impossible to answer. 
 
 THE CONSEQUENCES OF DR. LITTLEDALE's METHOD. 
 
 In fine, only let the sacred doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, of the Proces- 
 sion of the Holy Spirit, of the Incarnation, of the Two Wills of our Blessed 
 Saviour, of the Sacraments and of the Episcopate, be treated in a like carping 
 and rationalistic method with which the writer of " Plain Reasons" has dealt 
 with the need of a Visible Head to a visible Church, and the exercise by 
 delegation of our Lord's Universal Sovereignty, and the mischief of the 
 method would be apparent. Furthermore, devction to and invocation of the 
 saints, which of course is only the "communion of saints" (in which all pro- 
 fess to believe) put into practice, the state of the faithful departed, the Imma- 
 culate Conception and Assumption of our Blessed Lady, would, by a like 
 rationalistic and destructive method, be swept away. The Catholic faith, 
 however, is like a perfect and complete arch. If but one stone be removed 
 and several others be [)ain8takingly battered and intentionally broken, there 
 is a grave danger that the whole archway may fall. 
 
Appendix. 
 
 lOl 
 
 DR. LEE AOAIN EXPKESSES HIS GREAT HOPE. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that for more than three and a half centuries in 
 England, destruction, protests, negations, bitter controversies, and self-pleasing 
 have done more than enough evil and mischievous work ; and that the Estab- 
 lished Church, now confronted by indifference, atheism, sectarian spite, and 
 avowed agnosticism — can only retain its present position, oj be proved to be 
 worth its salt, by its leaders and officials making a zealous endeavour to restore 
 what is wanting, and to secure from ecclesiastical authority in the face of 
 Christendom a restoration of what has lapsed and been lost — the original 
 scheme, so far as there was one, of Newman and I'usey, of Manning, Keble, 
 Fronde and Ward. By this means all Christians — like animals when 
 attacked by a common foe — might at first be led in mere self-defence to herd 
 together, and then, under supreme authority, to act together for the honor of 
 God, (,he extension of the Catholic fiiith and the advantage of Christendom, 
 in this hope, I subscribe myself, sir, your obedient and obliged servant, 
 
 Frederick George Lee, D. D. 
 
 All Saints' Vicarage, Lambeth, S. E., Rogation Sunday, 1885. 
 
 {1 — Pajre 14.) 
 
 It is not true that in the Roman Breviary, as reformed by the order 
 of the Council of Trent, the names of all the other heretics were retained 
 whilst that of Honorius was erased. 
 
 Out of nine, only three were retained — namely, Cyrus, Sergius, and 
 Pyrrhus, the very authors and first propagators of Monothelitism. The 
 names of Paul, Peter, Macarius, Stephen and Polychronius, as well as 
 that of Honorius, were expunged. * 
 
 ( 2 — Pas-e 25. ) 
 
 Dr. LiTTLEDALE. quoted by "Catholic," has the assurance to say: 
 " It is only ag-ues that St. Peter was ever at Rome at all ; it is only a 
 guess that he was ever Bishop of Rome, and for this the e is very little 
 evidence of any kind. The only ( ! ) ante-Nicene testimony zvhich expressly 
 assigns the See of Rome to St. Peter is the apochryphal Clementine 
 Homilies. The first {/) post-Nicene who is clear on the subject is 
 Optotus of Milevis, A. D. 386, and he is contradicted by Euphanius and 
 Rufinus."(!!) 
 
 The ignorance or dishonesty displayed in these statements of Little- 
 dale is at once so manifest that they need no refutation from me. It 
 will suffice to oppose to them, in this place, the candid admission of the 
 late Dean Milman, that " Before the end of the third century the lineal 
 descent of Rome's Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed 
 and obsequiously admitted by the Christian zvorld; '" and to refer the reader 
 for a complete vindication of St. Peter's Roman Episcopacy to such works 
 
 1. Hist, 0/ Early Christianity, vol. iii., p. 370, ed. 1840. 
 
I02 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 as Sanguinetti's De Sede Roviana B. Petri Apost. Comment. Hist. 
 Criticus (Romae, 1867), and Prof. Jungmann's Dissert. Select, in Hist. 
 Eccles., vol. i., pp. 27-107. 
 
 ( 3 — Page 35. ) 
 
 ST. PETER IN ROME. 
 
 Dr. Cave, a learned Protestant writer, says: "That Peter was at 
 Rome and for some time resided there, we intrepidly affirm, with the 
 whole multitude of the ancients. We produce witnesses altogether un- 
 exceptional, and of the very highest authority." (Here follow such 
 names as Ignatius, of Antioch ; Pai'Ius, of Hierapolis; Irkn.kus, of 
 Lyons; Dionysius, of Corinth ; Tertuli.ian; Caius, the Roman pres- 
 byter, and Origen, with references to their writings.) 
 
 " After names so venerable, therefore," continues Cave, " after monu- 
 ments of antiquity so many and so illustrious, wlio will call into doubt a 
 matter so clearly and constantly attested? " — Script. Eccles. Hist. Literar. 
 Genevae, 1720, p. 5). [Cave evidently is not so good at guessing as 
 
 LiTTLEDALE. — ClEOPHAS.] 
 
 Dr. Lardner's testimony has been already given in the quotation 
 from Clarke on page 25. 
 
 Bassnage writes : " Neque ulla unquam traditio fuit, quae majore 
 testium numero cingatur, ut de Petri in urbem adventu dubitari non 
 possit, quin omnia historiae fundanienta convellantur." 
 
 A free translation of which would read : " There never was a tradi- 
 tion upheld by a greater number of witnesses, so that to doubt that Peter 
 did visit Rome would be to destroy the very foundations of history.' * 
 [Rather hard on Littledale, is it not? — Cleophas.] 
 
 Barratier, another learned Protestant writer, says : "Tantus hac in 
 re omnium consensus fuit, ut sane miraculo debuerit esse, quosdam nos- 
 tris saeculis ortos, factum adeo manifestum negare presumpsisse." — De 
 Success. Ep. Rom. c. i,v\. 1, ap Lardner. 
 
 This freely translated would read : " So great is the consent to this 
 point, that nothing short of a miracle can explain why certain writers of 
 our day could have presumed to deny a fact so manifest." 
 
 Archbishop Bramhall says : " That St. Peter had a fixed chair at 
 Antioch, and after that at Rome, is what no man who giveth any credit 
 to the ancient Fathers, and Councils, and historiographers of the Church, 
 can either deny or well doubt of." — Works, p. 628, ed. Oxon ; cited in 
 Brit. Critic, No. Ixiv., p. 352. 
 
 . 
 
Appendix. 
 
 103 
 
 Dr. Robertson, Canon of Canterbury, and late Professor of Ecclesi- 
 astical History in King's College, says : "It is not so much a spirit of 
 sound criticism as a religious prejudice which has led some Protestants 
 to deny that the Apostle was ever at Rome, where all ancient testimony 
 represents him to have suffered, together with St. Paul, in the reign of 
 Nero." — Hist, of the Church, vol. i., p. 4, ed. 1875. 
 
 {\— Page h2.) 
 
 My opponent afterwards quoted from what he styled the London 
 edition Qf " Kearney's Catechism " to the following effect : — 
 
 " Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible ? 
 
 " A. This is a Protestant invention : it is no article of the Catholic 
 faith ; no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be 
 received and enforced by the teaching body — that is, by die Bishops of 
 the Church." 
 
 What argument against Papal Infallibility can be drawn from this 
 quotation I fail to see. It must be plain to even the weakest intellect 
 that Kearney does not call Papal Infallibility a Protestatit invention, but 
 that he so styles the assertion made at the time by Protestants that 
 Catholics zvere obtiged X.o believe tiie Pope infallible. At the time this 
 author wrote, the dogma of Infallibility had not been promulgated. No 
 Papal decision therefore could, at that time, oblige under pain of heresy 
 unless clothed with the conditions laid down. Papal Infallibility at 
 that time was no article of Catiiolic belief. Protestants, it would 
 appear, cannot be made understand that in the Catholic Church 
 the widest and fullest measure of discussion and private opinion is 
 allowed on all matters which are not articles of faith. In dubiis (id 
 est, in nan decisis) libertas is her motto. The moment, however, 
 that a doctrine becomes, by a decision of the Church, an article of 
 faith — as Papal Infallibility did in 1S70 — then must all speculation and 
 doubt cease, and be replaced by firm and unshaken belief. At the time, 
 therefore, that Kearney wrote he could truly say that Papal Infallibility 
 was " no article of Catholic faith," as he could justly style any assertion 
 to the contrary a Protestant invention. 
 
 ( 5 — Page 54. ) 
 
 The Council of Sardica — the (Ecumenical character of which is main- 
 tained by Baronius, Natalis Alexander, the Ballerini, Mansi, and Palma 
 — was assembled at the desire of Pope lulius by the Emperors Constans 
 and Constantius. Like the Council Oi Nice, it was presided over by 
 Hosius (or Osius), assisted by the Roman priests Archidanus and 
 
 tm 
 
I04 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Philoxenus, whose signatures in the list given by St. Athanasius* ap- 
 pear immediately after that of Osius. 
 
 St. Athanasius calls the Council of Sardica "a great Synod''"^ and 
 Sulpicius Severus says that it was *V.r toto orbe convocatay^ It was 
 called CEcumenical by the Emperor Justinian in his Edict (A. D. 346) 
 on the Three Chapters.* 
 
 The Seventh Canon of this Council was cited as Nicene by the 
 Bishops of the Third (Ecumenical Council who were reassembled in 
 Constantinople A. D. 382 ;•" and the i^ifth Sardican Canon was also cited 
 as Nicene by Pope Zo.iimus, A. D. 417 ; by Popes Boniface, Celestine, 
 and Leo the Great, and* in the Twelfth Council of Toledo, A. D. 
 681. « 
 
 This confoui ling of the Sardican Canons with the Nicene arose, as 
 Hefele tells us, from the fact that in the most ancient MSS. the Canons of 
 Sardica were placed immediately after those of Nice, and under a com- 
 mon title of "Canons of the Council of Nice." 
 
 The charge which my opponent made against the Popes above men- 
 tioned, of quoting spurious Nicene Canons, is thus effectually disposed of. 
 
 ( 6 — Page 62. ) 
 
 The ignorance or dishonesty, I know not which, displayed by my 
 opponent in the following quotation, is equalled only by his assertion in 
 another place that Catholic Bishops are mere assessors of the Pope : — 
 
 " Perhaps ' Cleophas ' means that a Bishop can say Mass, or confirm 
 children, or consecrate holy water (!), and so gives vent to his indignation 
 as though I had altogether lied in the matter. My original statement is 
 absolutely correct, that the Bishops are kept submissive by an oppressive 
 system of faculties," etc. 
 
 Your original statement is absolutely incorrect, Mr. "Catholic." — 
 Cleophas. 
 
 1. Apol.cont. Arian., c. 50. 2. lb., c. 1. 3. Hist., Lib. ii. 4. Hardoiiin, torn, iii., p, 317. 
 
 5. Vide Hefele's Hist. 0/ Ch. Councils, Eng. trans, vol. ii., pp. 133, 134 and 378. 
 
 6. Hardouin, torn, ii., pp. 26, 38 ; iii., p. 1720, n. 4, etc. 
 
us' ap- 
 
 ,"2 and 
 It was 
 D. 346) 
 
 by the 
 ibled in 
 Iso cited 
 destine, 
 o, A. D. 
 
 arose, as 
 anons of 
 r a com- 
 
 )ve men- 
 posed of. 
 
 ;d by my 
 sertion in 
 Pope : — 
 r confirm 
 dignation 
 tement is 
 )ppressive 
 
 .tholic." — 
 
 iii., Pi 317- 
 d378.