oc<>.=^>^c©:•■0>a^3<»i"<«'-=4.'■°^^'«^^«^'*"*^ if: 
 
 HOFFMANN BBQS. 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 (0rnHmcnt8, ^tBtmtnis, 
 
 DBOOIvS, 
 
 MILWAUKIE, 
 
 WIS. 
 
 BERKELEY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^i^^ 
 
ON THE 
 
 APOSTOLICAL 
 
 AND 
 
 INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 WHEN TEACHING THE FAITHFUL, 
 
 AND 
 
 ON Ills RELATION 
 
 TO 
 
 A GExXERAL COUNCIL. 
 
 By F. X. WENINGER, D.D., 
 
 MISSIONARY OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 O . & J . S A D L I E R & CO 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 JOHN P . WALSH. 
 
 THE ABBEY OF 
 
LOAN STACK 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1868, by 
 
 REV. F. X. WENINGER, D.D., S. J., 
 
 In tlie Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the 
 Southern District of Ohio. 
 
 BTEEEOTTPED AT THE FBASKLIN TYPE FOUNDEY, CINCINNATI. 
 

 CONTENTS 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 L 
 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 
 
 OONCERNIXO THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER, AS INVESTED 
 WITH INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH. 
 
 19 
 
 n. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS 
 
 FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA, UNTIL 
 THE DAYS OF ST. BERNARD, PROCLAIMING THE SEE OP 
 ST. PETER AT ROME, TO BE THE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL 
 IN MATTERS OF FAITH <>-' 
 
 (iii) 
 
 \ 815 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 m. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF ALL THE GENERAL COUNCILS 
 OF THE EAST AND WEST, 
 
 DECLARING THE JUDGMENT OP THE CHAIR OF ST. PETER 
 
 AT ROME, TO BE THE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH 100 
 
 rv. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES THEMSELVES, 
 
 ASSERTING THEIR PREROGATIVE AS THE SUPREME AND 
 
 INFALLIBLE JUDGES IN MATTERS OF FAITH 154 
 
 V. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES EXERCISING THIS 
 PREROGATIVE. 
 
 THE POPES OP ALL CENTURIES, DEFINITIYELY BY THEIR 
 
 OWN AUTHORITY, CONDEMNING HERESY AND ERRORS. 176 
 
CONTENTS. V 
 
 VI. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE MOST CELEBRATED THE- 
 OLOGIANS AND UNIVERSITIES, 
 
 since the time of thomas aquinas, maintaining 
 the infallibility of the pope, when speaking 
 "ex cathedra" 198 
 
 VIL 
 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 acknowledging THE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN SEE 
 TO BE THE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL ON EARTH, AND THE 
 ROMAN PONTIFF THE INFALLIBLE JUDGE IN MATTERS 
 OF FAITH 218 
 
 VIIL 
 
 THE "RATIO THEOLOGICA," 
 
 OR THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH OF OUR THESIS BY 
 
 THE FORCE OF LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES 248 
 
 Objections refuted 277 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 There are already, within the reach of all, 
 standard works upon the Divine Institution of 
 the Papal Supremacy. The same can not be said 
 of the several prerogatives, consequent on the 
 Supremacy. And yet, in these unstable times, 
 when the eyes of the whole world are directed 
 toward the Holy See, as toward the only safe- 
 guard and stronghold, not merely of the Church, 
 but even of Christianity, it were desirable to have 
 at hand able treatises, setting forth, in detail, 
 the rights vested exclusively in the Sovereign 
 Pontiff. 
 
 Now, among these, none is capable of elicit- 
 
 (T) 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ing a more intense interest than his Apostolic 
 Authority, as the divinely commissioned teacher 
 of the Church. We thought, therefore, that we 
 should meet a general want, by submitting to 
 the public the present unpretentious volume, in 
 which it has been our humble aim to collect an 
 invincible array of arguments in support of the 
 point in question. 
 
 But, before entering upon our task, we must 
 premise a few remarks. 
 
 In the first place, we assume to establish the 
 infallible authority of the Pope within those lim- 
 its only, which are covered by the very title of 
 the book, namely, in matters of faith and morals. 
 We claim no such privilege for the Head of the 
 Church in scientific questions, except in so far as 
 these touch, directly or indirectly, upon the " de- 
 posit of faith,'^ and upon its preservation. 
 
 Secondly, we ascribe no such infallibility to the 
 utterances of the Pope, except when he, as they 
 say, is speaking ^' ex cathedra/^ which means, 
 when the Pope is teaching the faithful as the 
 Head of the Church, and the expounder of her 
 doctrine. We admit that, when he expresses his 
 
rN'TEODUCTION. 9 
 
 opinions as a private theologian, he is liable to 
 err, but not when he solemnly pronounces upon 
 the teaching of the Church. 
 
 By upholding the Infallibility of the Pope, 
 thus understood, we, by no means, derogate from 
 the authority of the other prelates of the Church. 
 Their dignity, as the legitimate successors of the 
 Apostles, is not at all impaired by this privilege 
 of the Sovereign Pontiff, because they do not 
 represent the Apostles in the Apostolate, but in 
 the Episcopate. As Bishops' their dignity is tan- 
 tamount to that of the Bishop of Rome, from 
 whom, nevertheless, they have received their 
 jurisdiction over that portion of Christ's flock, 
 entrusted to their charge ; not because the Pope 
 alone possesses the plenitude of the Episcopal 
 character, but because he alone represents the 
 Prince of the Apostles. 
 
 The Infallibility of the Pope flows altogether 
 from his Primacy, and is shared by no other 
 Prelate, because they can lay no claim to the 
 Apostolical authority, transmitted by Peter to 
 his successors. 
 
 This prerogative of the Bishop of Rome does 
 
1 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 not, then, detract from tlie dignity of the other 
 Bishops; on the contrary, it redounds to the 
 honor of the entire order. For, after all, it is 
 .a Bishop, and no one but a Bishop, who is in- 
 vested, with an attribute, so divinely sublime, 
 and shared by no mortal. The Episcopal dig- 
 nity is a conditio sine qua non for the Vicar 
 of Christ, who is not consecrated by a distinct 
 Order, when decked with the tiara, but, on being 
 legitimately elected, and consecrated Bishop of 
 Eome, succeeds, at once, to all the powers of 
 the head of the Church and becomes the infal- 
 lible judge, in matters of faith. 
 
 For further illustration, upon this point, we 
 refer the reader to what we purpose to say, more 
 diffusely, in the Chapter entitled ratio theologica, 
 or theological consequences. 
 
 Concerning the aim of such a work, it may 
 not be amiss to anticipate an objection, which 
 might possibly be urged by some very able the- 
 ologians devoted, heart and soul, to the interests 
 of the Holy Church. We are fully aware, that 
 there are some, who scruple to entertain any 
 doubt upon the question, but who, nevertheless, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 deem it ill-advised and unsuited to our times to 
 direct public attention to claims, calculated, as 
 tliey fancy, to alienate those not yet received into 
 the household of the laith. While appreciating 
 the motives, by which these zealous laborers in 
 the vineyard of the Lord are actuated, we beg 
 leave to dissent from their views, and respectftilly 
 invite attention to our reasons. We are fully 
 persuaded : 
 
 That it is utterly useless, at this late day, and 
 especially among our enlightened, free-minded 
 and good-hearted countrymen, to dissemble our 
 personal convictions. The armies of Truth and 
 Error are drawn up in the sight of the whole 
 world, and prepared to meet, in a decisive combat, 
 for the very life of Christianity. It is time to 
 define our position more accurately, and to let 
 our enemies feel our strength and the utter im- 
 possibility of engaging us in any compromise. 
 They themselves are fully satisfied, that the ques- 
 tion at issue, is not the admission or the rejection 
 of this or that particular article of the Creed, 
 but the existence or the extinction of the Church 
 and of Christianity itself. They know very well, 
 
12 INTRODTJCTION. 
 
 that all their schemes must prove abortive, unless 
 they succeed in destroying or, at least, in weak- 
 ening the influence of the Head of the Church. 
 Accordingly, they bring all their engines of attack 
 to play against the authority of the Roman Pon- 
 tiff, with the view of effecting a breach in this 
 bulwark of Catholic Unity. 
 
 Under these circumstances it is the urgent 
 duty of all true sons of the Church, to strengthen, 
 as much as in them lies, the devotion of the 
 faithful toward the Head of the Church. The 
 sympathies of the Catholic world are evidently 
 with our suffering Father. Thence that solicitude 
 to protect the patrimony of St. Peter from the 
 desecration of the invader; thence that generosity 
 in furnishing pecuniary aid ; thence that ardor for 
 enlisting among the indomitable Papal Zouaves. 
 
 But, if we manifest so much earnestness, in 
 the defense of his earthly territory, shall we 
 make no efforts to stay the inroads of malice on 
 his spiritual realm? He may lose his temporal 
 possessions, without the slightest detriment to the 
 Unity of the Church, so long as his subjects re- 
 main in his Communion and acknowledge his 
 
INTRODUCriON. 13^ 
 
 supremacy as the infallible teacher, in matters 
 of faith. But he can not surrender one tittle 
 of his spiritual sovereignty, with which Christ 
 has invested him. The invasion of the Papal 
 States ceases, at intervals, but the attacks, 
 made on Catholic Unity, are uninterrupted. 
 The enemies of truth are never asleep; but, in 
 our times especially strive, with insidious arti- 
 fice, to undennine the outworks of the Church, 
 which consist in the ready submission of hei' 
 children to the judgment and decision of Christ's 
 Vicar, the successor of St. Peter, Pope Pius 
 IX. 
 
 Our Holy Father, alive to the growing dan- 
 ger, has more than once met it, by solemnly 
 asserting his right, as the divinely commissioned 
 teacher of mankind. Even in the first years 
 of his eventful Pontificate, he proclaimed the 
 Dogma of the Immaculate Conception; and 
 recently, again, he startled an unbelie^dng world 
 by his syllabus, which hurls its anathemas, re- 
 gardless of policy, against all doctrines dangerous 
 to the faith. These acts argue an exercise of 
 supreme Authority, which call upon us, espe- 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 cially in tins country, to clear them from the 
 charge of Papal arrogance and usurpation. 
 
 It is worse than useless, to disguise our real 
 sentiments, in the face of facts, which stamp 
 themselves upon our whole outward deportment, 
 and which reveal to reflecting minds the real 
 nature of our conduct. All see how we act and 
 how we must act, if we wish to remain in Com- 
 munion with Kome. The Pope teaches and 
 defines, without previously convoking a Council 
 or asking the formal consent of anybody ; and 
 the clergy of every order, as well as laymen of 
 every condition, are obliged to conform, and do 
 conform, precisely as Pius IX, in his capacity 
 of Head of the Church, so teaches and defines. 
 Such a submission, without a belief in the Papal 
 prerogative for which we contend, would be the 
 sheerest hypocrisy, and an eternal stigma on the 
 sacred character of the Episcopacy. It would 
 argue a cringing acquiescence, dictated by no 
 interior conviction of duty, but prompted by a 
 sort of exterior necessity or force. For, a sin- 
 cere exterior submission is incompatible with an 
 interior dissent. The mere " obsequious silence," 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 SO often affected by the Jansenists, is an unmis- 
 takable evidence of insincerity, and can only 
 tend to set up the hypocrites, as a laughing- 
 stock to the enemies of the Church. It reminds 
 us of the ostrich, who hides his head in the sand, 
 as if thus he could escape the eyes of his pursu- 
 ers, though his whole body is visible. Such 
 conduct betrays a craven disposition, which is 
 neither honorable nor calculated to inspire con- 
 fidence; while, on the contrary, a noble, open, 
 bold bearing, conscious of the invincibility of 
 truth, must eventually gain even upon the bit- 
 terest antagonists of our Holy Faith. 
 
 We shall therefore state, with precision of 
 style and solidity of logic, our reasons, fer sub- 
 mitting to the doctrinal utterances of the Holy 
 See. Nor shall we be deterred from putting forth 
 our convictions, in all their strength, through a 
 fear of giving rise to misunderstanding. Such 
 an objection, if it had any force, would hold 
 equally of many other tenets of our Holy Re- 
 ligion. Is there a single dogma of Catholic 
 belief, which has not been misconstrued, and 
 assailed with a volley of stereotyped calumnies, 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 from the dawn of the so-called Reformation up 
 to the present day ? 
 
 In publishing this treatise we have not in 
 mind those who, like Pilate, ask "what is 
 truth,'' and then turn their backs upon Christ; 
 but, at the same time, we ought to satisfy the 
 earnest doubts of such, as are desirous to put 
 their conscience at ease, upon the teachings of 
 Holy Church. Now, of such men there is a 
 large number in our own country. Let us then 
 teach these, why the Catholic world subscribes, 
 so readily, to the utterances of Rome; and we 
 may hope that a large number of our dissenting 
 brethren, convinced of the solidity of our re- 
 ligious ^convictions, will soon join us, and tread, 
 in our company the way of salvation, under the 
 guidance of the divinely-appointed shepherd of 
 souls. 
 
 With respect to the division of the work, we 
 have but little to add, because we simply refer 
 the kind reader to our Table of Contents. The 
 very nature of a theological treatise, such as it 
 is our aim to make the present, renders it desira- 
 ble to set out with the arguments from Scripture, 
 
INTEODUCTION. 17 
 
 and then to pass over to those drawn from tradi- 
 tion, arranged in the order of their relative impor- 
 tance and their chronological succession ; finally 
 adding the force of the so-called ratio theologica, 
 by studying the deductions, at which our own 
 reason must arrive, when arguing, with logical 
 severity, from what is otherwise known to be a 
 matter of faith. 
 
 As to quotations, in which this volume must 
 of necessity abound, we shall always give the 
 most important words in Latin, with the view 
 of making the work more interesting to pro- 
 fessed theologians, and to other readers of classic 
 tastes and acquirements. We shall also give, at 
 least the substance of every passage, in English, 
 for the benefit of such, as are not familiar with 
 the Latin idiom. 
 
 Readers of the latter class will be pleased to 
 learn, that the unity of the work suffers nothing, 
 from the omission of the original Latin texts, 
 because they are reproduced, either literally or 
 substantially, in the vernacular. 
 
 jNIay the book, under the protection of the 
 Immaculate Queen of the Apostles, attain com- 
 2 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 pletely its aim, and draw nearer around the 
 chair of St. Peter all those, who are partakers 
 of the Holy Ministry in the Church of God. 
 
 May it inspire every Catholic reader with 
 more filial devotedness toward the Holy Father, 
 and strengthen his religious convictions; and 
 may it also command respect of the outsiders, 
 by showing that even those articles, which Cath- 
 olics believe, and which are especially looked 
 upon as superstitions and results of the dark 
 ages, victoriously stand the light of the most 
 severe criticisms of faith and reason. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 CiKCiimATi, Feast of St. Peter, 1868. 
 
I. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 
 
 CONCERNING THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER, AS INVESTED WITH 
 INFALLIBLE ACTaOKITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH. 
 
 If the authority and power of teaching the 
 faithful with infallibility the way of salvation 
 was divinely conferred on St. Peter and liis 
 successors in office, we naturally look for strik- 
 ing incontrovertible evidences to that effect, in 
 those passages of Holy AVrit, which record the 
 institution of the Primacy. 
 
 But, before citing either the words of Holy 
 Writ or those of the Fathers, we ought to re- 
 mind our readers, that it is not our object to 
 prove the Primacy in general, but in as far as 
 it brings with it, when united to the teaching 
 authority, the inherent prerogative of Infalli- 
 bility in matters of faith. We deem this obser- 
 
 (19) 
 
20 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTUEE. 
 
 vation of importance, in order to guard against 
 tlie supposition that we force our conclusions. 
 
 The first words, which attract our notice, are 
 those addressed to St. Peter, after he had sol- 
 emnly declared his belief in the Divinity of 
 Christ: ^^ Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: 
 because flesh and blood have not revealed it to 
 thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I 
 say to thee, That thou art Peter, and upon 
 this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will 
 give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven : 
 and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it 
 shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed 
 also in heaven." * 
 
 It is evident from this passage, that Christ 
 invested Peter as the Head of the Church with 
 infallible authority in questions of faith; for 
 their obvious import certainly is, that Peter 
 stands in the same relation to the Church, 
 whose life is faith, that the foundation does to 
 the entire building. Now, if the foundation 
 gives way, the whole superstructure must soon 
 crumble into ruins. 
 
 All the Fathers understand these words in the 
 
 * Matth. xvi : 17. 
 
TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCEimjRE. 21 
 
 same manner, and look upon the immovable faith 
 of Peter as the roek meant by Christ. St. CVril 
 of Alexandria, expounding this passage, declares: 
 "To my mind it appears evident that the rock, 
 here intended by Christ, is nothing else than the 
 disciple's unshaken faith, on which the Church 
 was built, that it might not be in danger of fall- 
 ing or of surrendering to the powers of darkness.'* 
 ^^Fetrum opinov nihil aliud, quam inconcussam et 
 firmissimam discipuli fidem vocavity in qua Eccle- 
 sia fundata estj ut non laberetur et esset inexpug- 
 nabilis inferorum portis.''^ 
 
 St. Gregory of Nazianzen avers: "Peter is 
 called a rock, and the foundations of the Church 
 are planted in his faith." f 
 
 St. Ambrose reasons as follows: "Faith is 
 the groundwork of the Church, because of the 
 faith, and not of the person of Peter, it was said, 
 that the gates of death should never prevail 
 against it." J 
 
 St. Axjgustin remarks : " He (Christ) called 
 him Peter, that is, the rock, and praised the 
 foundations of the Church which was built on 
 the Apostle's faith. " Xorninavit Petrumj et lau- 
 davit firmamentum Ecclesice in ista fideJ^ § 
 
 * Lib. iv de Trinit. f Or. de moder. ferv. in disp. 
 
 X Do Incarn. C. v, No. 34. g Tract ii. in Joan, No. 20. 
 
22 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 St. Epiphanius says : " Peter was made for 
 us a living rock, on which, as on a foundation, 
 the faith of the Lord rests, and on which the 
 Church is erected." ^'Qui quidem solidcB Petrce 
 instar nobis exstitit, cui velut fundamento Domini 
 fides innititur, supra qiiam Ecclesia modis omnibus 
 cedificata esV^^ 
 
 The same idea is forcibly reechoed in the 
 words of St. Chrysostom, who remarks : " He 
 (Christ) did not say Petrus, but Petra, because 
 He did not build His Church upon the man, but 
 upon the faith of Peter." "iYon dixit supra Pet- 
 rum; neque enim supra hominem, sed supra fidem 
 ejus, scilicet Petri cedificavitJ^ f 
 
 St. Leo the Great, sustains precisely the same 
 views: "Peter," suggests he, "so pleased the 
 Lord by the sublimity of his faith, that, after 
 being admitted to the fruition of bliss, he re- 
 ceived the solidity of an immovable rock, on 
 which the Church was so firmly built, as to bid 
 defiance to the gates of hell and the laws of 
 death." " Tantum in hac fidei sublimitate sibi 
 complacuitj ut, beatitudinis felicitate donatus, sa~ 
 cram immobilis Petrce susciperet firmitatem, sitpra 
 quam fundata Ecclesia pjoriis inferi et mortis legi- 
 bus praevaleretJ^ X 
 
 * Haeres. 59. No. 7. 1 1. Sermon. Pentecost. X Serm. 51. al. 94, c. 1. 
 
TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 23 
 
 C^SARius, the Cistercian, appositely thus 
 paraplirases the same passage : '^ On this rock, 
 namely, on the unshaken faith, to which thou 
 owest thy name, I ^vill build my Church/' ^ 
 
 Now, if this reasoning holds of Peter, it holds 
 with equal propriety of his successors. For, 
 according to the reasoning of all the Fathers, 
 the privileges which were conferred on St. 
 Peter for the direction of the fliithful, are the 
 inalienable prerogative of the Holy See, because 
 the authority vested in the Head of the Church 
 was to subsist through all ages, even unto the 
 consummation of time. Certainly Christ did not 
 build His Church upon Pet^r, for the good of 
 Peter, but for the welfare of mankind. 
 
 Pope Leo, therefore, contended for an ac- 
 knowledged prerogative, when he so emphatic- 
 ally asserted : " The order of truth remains 
 unaltered, and Peter, preserving the firmness 
 of a rock, has not abandoned the helm of the 
 Church. His power is perpetuated in his See, 
 and his authority still challenges obedience. 
 In my lowliness, then, you ought to recognize 
 him, whose authority is not impaired, though 
 transmitted to an unworthy heir." ^' Manet clispo- 
 sitio veritatk, et B. Fetrus, in accepta fortitudine 
 
 *Hoin. de Cath. S. Petri. 
 
24 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 petrce perseverans, Ecdesice gubernacula non relin- 
 quit — ciijus in sua sede vivit potestas et exeellit 
 audoritas. In persona itaque humilitatis meoe ille 
 horwretur, cujus dignitas etiam in indigno hwrede 
 non deficit.^' 
 
 Hundreds of Fathers have supported the same 
 doctrine, in the Oecumenical Councils, and have 
 solemnly declared that Peter abides in the person 
 of his successor. "Through Leo, Peter has 
 spoken," exclaimed the Fathers of the Fourth 
 General Council. Those of the Sixth General 
 Council expressed the same conviction, couched 
 in the following unequivocal terms : " It appeared 
 to us paper and ink ; but through Agatho Peter 
 has spoken. Therefore, we leave it to thee to 
 decide what is to be done, because thou standest 
 upon the immovable rock of faith.'^ "Charta et 
 atramentum videbatur; et, per Agathonem, Petrus 
 loquebatur. Tibi, itaque, quidquid gerendum sit 
 relinquimus, stanti super jirmam jidei j)etram." 
 
 Supported by the voice of tradition and the 
 teachings of the Fathers, St. Anselm, who had 
 taken up the gauntlet against the antipope, 
 Guibert, furthermore invokes the evidence of 
 historical facts : " Whilst even Patriarchs have 
 erred and apostatized from the faith, the Roman 
 Pontiff, though attacked and assaulted, has stood 
 unmoved in his stronghold, because heaven and 
 
TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 25 
 
 earth shall pass away, but not the words of Him 
 who said : ' Thou art Peter; that is the rock, and 
 upon this rock I will build my Church/ ''—"In 
 ejmdem fidei fundam€7ito, lied pulsatm, licet con- 
 cussm, tamen stetit inwiobilis, Coclum enim d 
 tet^ra tramibunt, verba autem ipsius non transi- 
 bunt, qui dixit: *Tu es Pdrus, dc.' '' * 
 
 It is of no little interest to listen to the train 
 of reasoning suggested, by the above text, even 
 to a Bossuet In a discourse addressed to the 
 French Bisho])s, assembled in Council, the 
 eloquent orator speaks thus: "This noble con- 
 fession merited fur Peter the honor of being 
 selected as the foundation stone of the Church. 
 But the power, conferred by this choice upon a 
 mortal man, can not be supposed to have ceased 
 with Peter, because the foundation of a building, 
 designed to last forever, can not be subject to 
 the ravages of time. Therefore Peter will always 
 live in his successors, always speak from his 
 chair. Such is the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, 
 such the declaration of the six hundred and 
 thirty Bishops, assembled in the Council of 
 Chalcedon. St. Paul, who had been rapt up into 
 the third Heaven, bowed to the decisions of Peter, 
 to give an example to after ages. A like dispo- 
 
 *Lib. oont. Pseud, Pont, Guib. 
 
26 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCEIPTURE. 
 
 sition^ to abide by the infollible oracles of the 
 Holy See, must ever distinguish the faithful sons 
 of the Church. Every one, no matter how learned 
 or how holy, even though he were another Paul — 
 ^ etiamsi alter Paulus quis videretur^ — owes un- 
 feigned allegiance to Peter. The Church of 
 Eome, taught by Peter and his successors, never 
 saw errors spring up in her bosom. She has 
 always preserved her virginity; and therefore 
 her faith of Christianity, and Peter still con- 
 tinues to be, in his successors, the foundation 
 of the Church. Such has ever been the verdict 
 of the General Councils of Africa, of Greece, 
 of France, of the whole Church 'from the 
 rising of the sun to the going down of the 
 same.' " * 
 
 Another decisive declamtion of Christ, in sup- 
 port of this Papal prerogative, we find in the 
 Gospel of St. Luke, Chapt. 22d : "Simon, 
 Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have thee, 
 that he may sift thee as wheat. But I have 
 prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou 
 being once converted, confirm thy brethren — 
 Bogavi pro te, ut fides tua non deficiat, et tii 
 aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuosJ^ f 
 After this sacred assurance and solemn injunc- 
 
 *Sennon sur rUnit^. fl^i^k^ xxii: 31, 32. 
 
TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 27 
 
 tion nobody, who believes in Christ, will question 
 tlie Infallibility of Peter. Now, if, even in the 
 primitive days of Christianity, the doctrinal In- 
 fiillibility of the head of the Church was, in a 
 ccrttiin sense, nccessaiy for the Church, how much 
 more necessary must it not be, in after ages? If, 
 when Tradition was still recent and the Apostles 
 were still alive, Christ wished some one to 
 strengthen His followers, in tlie faith, can we 
 reasonably suppose that, after the lapse of cen- 
 turies, when the Church is obliged to maintain 
 so fearful a combat against error. He would not 
 provide His Church with an inflUlible doctrinal 
 tribunal? In matters of faith, which excludes 
 even the possibility of error, nothing less than 
 an infallible authority can sufficiently strengthen 
 the believer against the many assaults, to which 
 he is exposed. Every Pope may therefore say, 
 with Innocent III : '' Were I not strong in the 
 faith, how could I confirm others in the faith ? 
 Yet tiiis belongs to my office, as is evident from 
 the words of Christ: 'I have prayed for thee, 
 tliat thy faith fail not : and thou being once con- 
 verted, confirm thy brethren.' " * 
 
 "iVTsi ego solidatus essem in fide, quomodo altos 
 posseni in fide firmare, quod ad officium meum 
 
 *Inn. serm. ii,do Cons. Pout. 
 
28 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCEIPTTJRE. 
 
 noscitiir specialiter pertinerej protestante Domino : 
 Ego rogavi pro teJ' 
 
 Bossuet again expresses himself as follows, in his 
 Meditations on the Gospels: ^^The mission of 
 confirming the faithful was not given to Peter 
 only, but was attached to his office, which, ac- 
 cording to the intention of Christ, was to last 
 forever. Peter must always abide in his Church, 
 in order to * confirm his brethren ' — Semper in 
 Ecclesia Petrus debuit existere^ qui fratres con- 
 firmarety Even in his Defense, we read : *^ It 
 is in virtue of their office, that Peter and, 
 through him, his successors have received the 
 command of confirming their brethren — Hog 
 ergo ex officio Petrus habet, hoc Petri successores 
 in Petro acceperunt^ ut fratres conjirmare jubean- 
 
 *^ Christ prayed for Peter,^^ remarks the same 
 author, "not because he was less solicitous for 
 the rest of the Apostles, but because, in the lan- 
 guage of the Holy Fathers, He, by strengthening 
 the head, wished to prevent the members from 
 staggering." f 
 
 "The Church," writes St. Francis de Sales, 
 " is always in need of an unerring strengthener, 
 to whom we may address ourselves ; of a founda- 
 
 * Lib. X; Def. c. 3. f Med. 70 and 72 day. 
 
TESTmOXY OF HOLY SCRIPTrHE. 29 
 
 tion, which the powers of hell, and particularly 
 those of error, can not overthrow; of a shepherd, 
 who can not lead her children astray. The Holy 
 Father is therefore invested with the preroga- 
 tives of St. Peter, which are not attached to his 
 person, but to the office.^' L^cglise a tmijours 
 besoin d^un confirmateur mfallible, au quel on 
 jmisse «' addresser, d'un fondement que les portes 
 d'enfer et principalment d'erreur ne puissent ren- 
 verser, et que son pasteur ne puisse conduire a 
 rerretir ces enfans. Les successmrs done de St. 
 Pierre out tons les mhnes privileges, qui ne sui~ 
 vent pas la personne, nmis la dignite et la charge 
 puhlique.^^ 
 
 And again, when he compared the Popes with 
 the High Priests of the Old Covenant, he re- 
 marks that the former, as well as the latter, bear 
 on their breasts the sacred Urim and Thumim; 
 that is, Doctrine and Truth. The saint assigns as 
 a reason, that no right was given to Agar, the 
 handmaid, which was not conferred, in a still 
 more eminent degree, on Sarah, the wife. 
 
 After the Resurrection, Christ, having heard 
 Peter's triple protestation of love, formally in- 
 stalled him as head of the Church, saying to 
 him: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep."* 
 
 ♦John XXI, 15, 16, 17. 
 
80 TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTTJIIE. 
 
 Now, as the food here meant is the doctrine of 
 salvation and sanctification, and as Christ could 
 never expose His whole flock to the inevitable 
 danger of being led to noxious and fatal pas- 
 tures, by those whom he had set over them as 
 the supreme shepherd, we are warranted in the 
 inference that as vicars of Christ, Peter and his 
 successors can not fall into any doctrinal error. 
 " From the shepherd I expect protection for the 
 flock/' writes St. Jerome to Pope Damasus. 
 Nothing, indeed, is more natural or proper. 
 Kemark, moreover, that, according to the mani- 
 fest declaration of Christ, this flock comprises 
 not only the lambs, but also the sheep. Hence 
 all the Fathers concur, with the great St. Eu- 
 charius, in interpreting the above text to mean, 
 that not only the common faithful, but also their 
 pastors, are bound to listen to their chief Pastor, 
 the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ. " He 
 has made Peter not merely an ordinary shep- 
 herd, but the shepherd of shepherds.'' ^^ Sed et 
 pastormn ipswn constituit pastorem.^' * 
 
 Therefore, as, according to the first text, no- 
 body can be a member of the true Church, unless 
 he yields obedience to the teachings of St. Peter, 
 who speaks by the mouth of the Sovereign Pon- 
 
 *Hom. in vig. Sti. Petri. 
 
TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTUIIE. 31 
 
 tiff, SO, according to the present text, nobody can 
 belong to the flock of Clirist, unless he is nour- 
 ished, with the food of doctrine, by the chief 
 shepherd, who can always distinguish the sweet 
 and wholesome pasture of liiith from the rank 
 and poisonous weeds of error. 
 
 These are consequences, at which the thinking 
 mind readily arrives, without at all straining 
 the words of Christ, into an unnatural meanino-. 
 Indeed they flow so necessai'ily from universally 
 admitted principles, that they appear more like 
 self-evident truths, tlian like de^luctions, seen by 
 the reflected light of logical sequence. 
 
 Yet, the strength of this scriptural argument 
 is greatly augmented and wonderfully ilhistrated 
 by the testimony of Tradition, transmitted to 
 us, without interruption, by the writings of the 
 Holy Fathers, to which we shall now appeal. 
 
n. 
 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS 
 
 FEOM THE BEGINNING OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA, UNTIL THE 
 DAYS OF ST. BERNARD, PROCLAIMING THE SEE OF ST. PETER 
 AT ROME TO BE THE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL IN MATTERS OP 
 FAITH. 
 
 It is not a little gratifying, to meet even in 
 the Apostolic age, with evidences in proof of the 
 Supreme Authority exercised in matters of faith, 
 by the successors of St. Peter. 
 
 Hermas, a disciple of St. PauPs, mentioned in 
 the Epistle to the Romans, Chap, xvi, wrote a 
 book entitled "Pastor," which seems to have 
 been held in great esteem, by contemporaries. 
 The author himself tells us, that he w^as ordered 
 to send his work to Clement, at Rome, that the 
 Vicar of Christ, to whom it belonged to decide 
 all questions bearing upon the dogmas of faitli, 
 
 (S2) 
 
TESTIMONY OP THE HOLY FATHEES. 33 
 
 might circulate the treatise among the other 
 Churches, should he think it for the interest of 
 religion. Now, at the time of Hermas, St. John 
 the Evangelist was still alive. Yet, the writer 
 was not called upon to submit his work to the 
 aged Apostle, but to Clement, the successor of 
 St. Peter. What a striking example of the Su- 
 preme authority, in matters of faith, exercised 
 by the Roman Pontiff. We can not but hail, 
 exultingly, the entire conformity, in point of 
 doctrine and practice, between the first days of 
 the Christian era and our own times. 
 
 St. Ignatius, likewise a Bishop of the Apos- 
 tolic age, and a disciple of St. John's, states, in 
 his letter to the Romans, that the doctrinal de- 
 cisions of the successors of St. Peter are authori- 
 tative. " Quce docendo prcecipitisJ^ But he, that, 
 by merely teaching a certain doctrine, can lay 
 another under the obligation of teaching the 
 same, mist evidently possess supreme judiciary 
 power to decide between right and wrong, true or 
 false. This authority of the Roman See, recog- 
 nized at so early a date, has plainly no other 
 origin or warrant than the divine institution of 
 the Primacy, as invested with that privilege. 
 
 St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. Ignatius, 
 purposely went to Rome to learn from Pope 
 St. Victor, what rule he was to follow in fixing 
 
34 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 the time for the celebration of Easter. Such a 
 journey, undertaken by one of the oldest Bishops 
 of the Church, evinces his solicitude to draw the 
 waters of truth from their fountain source. 
 \Yere there not other Apostolic Sees much nearer 
 than that of Rome? Aye, did not the beloved 
 disciple, St. John, still govern the Church . of 
 Ephesus? Yet men, taught by the Apostles 
 themselves the wisdom of faith, bend their aged 
 steps toward the Eternal City, in order to assure 
 themselves of the faith and discipline of the 
 first among the Churches. 
 
 St. Iren^us, the disciple of St. Polycarp, 
 writes upon this subject: "All the Churches 
 must depend on the Church of Rome as on their 
 source and head." ''Omnes a Romana Ecclesia 
 necesse est pendeant, tamquam a fonte et capite." * 
 The reason, which he assigns, is the preeminent 
 superiority — the ''potior py'incijmlitas^' — of the 
 Church of Rome. This precedence in ecclesi- 
 astical matters, acknowledged at so early a date, 
 can be ascribed to nothing but the supremacy 
 of St. Peter, who fixed his residence at Rome, 
 and, by his prerogative of Infallibility, made it 
 the incorruptible channel of Apostolic tradition. 
 "Ad hane enini Ecelesiam necesse est omnem con- 
 venire Ecclesianiy in qua semper ah his, qui sunt 
 
 * Iren. lib, 3, adv. haeres. 
 
TECTniONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 35 
 
 undique jideles, conservata est ea, quce ah Apos- 
 tolis est J trad it io.'^ " If we remain firm in our 
 allegiance, to the See of Peter/' proceeds the 
 Saint, ^* we shall easily disconcert the malice of 
 those, who, either through conceitedness or bad 
 faith, broach new-fangled theories, at variance 
 with sound doctrine/' ^^ Confundimus rnnnes eos, 
 qui sibi placentia, vel per vanam gloriam vel per 
 ccEcitatan et malam setitentiam, prceterquam oportct 
 colUgunV^ * The words of this venerable Father 
 of the primitive Church are decisive. Even the 
 fastidious Quesuel bowed his head before the au- 
 thority of tlffe great Father, who, passing from' 
 the East to the Vs^Qst, was a living witness to the 
 faith of the Greek as well as of the Latin Church. 
 Tertullian, who, like Irenaeus, belongs to 
 the second century, styles the. Church of Rome 
 a blessed Church, in which the Princes of the 
 Apostles sealed the faith with their blood, and from 
 which all authority emanates — ^^unde nobis quoque 
 aucforitas prcesto est. De prceser. c. 21J^ That this 
 authority referred, in a special manner, to matters 
 of doctrine, and served as a rule of faith to all the 
 Christians of his time, we may gather from the 
 following declaration of the same Father ; ^' I 
 learn," says he, '^ that a very peremptoiy decree 
 has been issued. The Sovereign Pontiff, the 
 
 * Iren. 1. 5. adv. hseres. 
 
36 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 Bishop of Bishops, declares, ^ Audio edidum 
 fuisse publicatum, et quidem peremptorium Sum- 
 mm Pontifexj Episcopus Episcoporum dicit:^'^^ 
 
 In this connection, we can not but refer to the 
 illustrious Confession of St. Hypolitus, whose 
 history is thus briefly summed up in the Roman 
 Martyrology : " At Antioch, the martyrdom of 
 St. Hyj^olitus, a priest, who offered his neck to 
 the executioner, with the words, ' We are bound 
 to profess that faith, which is preserved in its 
 purity by the See of Peter ' — ' earn fidem dicens 
 esse servandam, quam Petri Cathedra custodiret.^ ^' 
 
 Oeigen, who flourished about {^e same time 
 (t 253), adds the tribute of his mighty genius to 
 that of the other early writers. ^' Consider,'' re- 
 marks he, " what must be the power and authority 
 of Peter, the living rocky upon which the Church 
 was built, and whose decisions have as much 
 force and validity as oracles emanating from the 
 mouth of Christ Himself. " Ut ejus judicia ma- 
 neantjirma, quasi Deo Judicante per eam.^'f 
 
 St. Cyprian (f 258) writes to his friend, Pope 
 Cornelius : " All heresies and schisms have sprung 
 from a disregard for the one Priest and Judge, 
 to whom Christ has delegated His power. For 
 if, in compliance with the intentions of our 
 Lord, every member of the Christian Community 
 
 * Lib. de Pudic. t Oiig- Caten. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 37 
 
 yielded a docile obedience to the representative 
 of God, the unity of the Church would never be 
 rent." "iS'ec unus in Ecdesia ad tempus saeerdos, 
 et ad tenipihs judex vice Christi cogitatur, cui si 
 secundum magisteria dhina ohUmperaret fraier- 
 nitas universa, nemo Ecclesiam scinderet." * 
 
 The same author indignantly exclaims: "They 
 dare approach the chair of Peter, without re- 
 flecting that to the Romans no error can have 
 access." ^'Ad Petri cathedram navigare auderitj 
 non cogitantes eos esse RomanoSj ad quos perfidia 
 own possit habere accessum.'' f "One God," he 
 exclaims, " one Christ and one Church, founded, 
 by the Lord, upon Peter." X 
 
 Other portions of the Saint's writings are, if 
 possible, even more explicit still. In a letter, 
 addressed to a certain Anthony, he identifies the 
 Pope with the whole Church. " You desire me to 
 forward your epistle to Cornelius, because you 
 wish to satisfy His Holiness that you live in 
 communion with Him, that is, with the Church." 
 "Te secum.hoc est, cum Ecclesia CathoUca com- 
 municare.'^ § 
 
 The same spirit runs through his letter of fe- 
 licitation to Pope Lucius, who had been delivered 
 from prison. After pouring out his generous 
 
 *Epist. iv ad. Corn. Pont, t On Novatian and his adherents. 
 X Epist. 48 and 49. ^ Epist. 43. 
 
38 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 soul in words of congratulation, lie gives it as 
 his conviction that Almighty God specially in- 
 terposed in favor of the Pontiff, to show heretics, 
 which is the true Church and who is the one de- 
 signed by Heaven as the chief Pastor of souls. 
 
 St. Athanasius (f 373) writes to Pope Felix 
 II: "You are the destroyer of the heresies, 
 which devastate the Church ; you are the teacher 
 and guardian of sound doctrine and unerring 
 faith." '^ Tu j^rofanarum hceresujn depositor, doc- 
 tor et princeps orthodoxce doctrinoe et immaculatce 
 Jidel existis.^^ 
 
 The Fathers assembled in the Synod of Alex- 
 andria remind the same Pope that the Church, 
 which they represent, has always solicited and 
 obtained assistance from the Holy See, because 
 the chair of Peter was established on an im- 
 movable foundation, and designed, by Christ, 
 to serve as a model for all other Churches, and 
 as a pivot, upon which they rest and turn. 
 " Ipsa enim firmamentum a Deo fixum et immo- 
 bile percepitj quoniam ipsam formam universoimm 
 lucidissimam Dominus Jesus Christus vestram 
 Apostolicam constituit sedem. Ipsa enim sacer 
 verteXj in quo omnes Ecclesice vertuntur, susten- 
 tantur, relevanturJ^ * 
 
 *Epist. Syn. Alex, ad Felicemll. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 3^ 
 
 In a work, which owes its authorship to ]Moeh- 
 ler, and bears the title ^'Aihcuiasim the Great, 
 and the Church of his time" we find the follow- 
 ing |x?rtinent reflection : "As the Pope succeeds 
 to the authority of Peter, and thus becomes the 
 head, with which all the members form an or- 
 ganic whole, the several Churches should be 
 guided, in matters of faith, by his controlling 
 care. AVhen the Arian heresy devastated the 
 fairest fields of the Church, and, with the ma- 
 lignity inspired by hatred, aimeil its missiles, in 
 a special manner, against Athanasius, all the 
 Catholics, no less than this noble champion of 
 the truth, instinctively looked toward the Holy 
 See for support. Thence resulted a marvelous 
 union of forces. Those who advocated the di- 
 vinity of the invisible head, api)ealed to the 
 visible head, and, when assured of his favor and 
 countenance, they cheerfully returned to their 
 homes to offer the remainder of their lives as 
 a holocaust on the altar of the faith. Thus the 
 history of Athanasius is like an epitome of the 
 history of the Primacy, at that epoch. The 
 record of his fortunes and his devotion is not 
 a mere episode, a bare recital of isolated facts, 
 but an abridgment of the most momentous 
 events, which 'are felt, in their effects, by the 
 remotest posterity." 
 
40 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 The thought so happily expressed by this 
 learned author, is well exemplified in our own 
 times, when again the eyes of all Catholics in- 
 stinctively look upon Pius IX, who, by his 
 energy, is daily strengthening the bonds of 
 Catholic unity. 
 
 In a letter of St. Basils's (t378), forwarded 
 by the Deacon Sabinus to Pope St. Damasus, we 
 read the following : " To your Holiness it is given 
 to distinguish the adulterated and spurious from 
 the pure and orthodox, and to teach, without 
 alteration, the faith of our forefathers." The 
 holy Doctor then subjoins: " We pray and con- 
 jure your Holiness to send letters and legates to 
 your children in the Orient, that we may be con- 
 firmed in the faith, if we have followed the path 
 of truth, or be reproved, if we have gone astray. 
 There is no one but your Holiness, to whom we 
 can turn for help," ^'Fietati tuce donatum est 
 a Domino J scilicet ut, quod adulterinum est, a 
 legiiimo et puro discernas et fidem patrura sine 
 ulla subtractione prcedices.^ 
 
 Optatus, the learned and well-known Bishop 
 of Melevi (fSOO), is the author of a book, entitled 
 ^' Contra Parinenianum/^ in which he invokes, 
 against some erratic spirits of his day, the au- 
 
 * Ep : 71, 74, 77. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 41 
 
 thority of the Roman See, estoblished by St. 
 Peter. "Thou knowe.st," remarks he, "and 
 thou darest not deny, that at Rome, Peter es- 
 tablished the Episcopal Chair, which he was the 
 first to occupy, thus securing to all the blessings 
 of perfect unity." "In qua una Cathedra Uni- 
 tas ab omnibus servareturJ^ * 
 
 The Donatists tlieraselves, conscious of the 
 prevailing belief, which regarded Rome as the 
 inflillible teacher of Christian nations, seeking to 
 give to their errors the semblance of orthodoxy, 
 maintained, at the center of the Christian world, 
 a bishop of their own choosing, to make the 
 faithful of Africa believe that Rome tolemted 
 their errors, and remained in communion with 
 them. 
 
 The views, entertained by St. Ambrose (f 397), 
 on the prerogative of the Roman See, are mani- 
 fest, as well from his verbal declarations, as from 
 his personal relations with the Sovereign Pontiff. 
 In a letter, which he, in concert with other Bish- 
 ops, addressed to Pope SiRicius, the saintly 
 Prelate gives utterance to the following senti- 
 ment: "In the pastorals of your Holiness, we 
 recognize the care of the shepherd, who watches 
 the entrance of the sheep-fold; who protects from 
 
 *Contr. Parmenianum. 
 
42 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 harm the flock intrusted to him by our Lord; 
 who, in fine, deserves to be followed and obeyed 
 by all. As you well know the tender lambkins 
 of the Lord, you keep guard against the wolves, 
 and like a vigilant shepherd, prevent them from 
 dispersing the fold." '^DignuSj quern oves Domini 
 audiant et sequantur; et ideo, quia nosti oviculas 
 Christij lupos deprehendis et occurris quasi pro- 
 vidu^ pastor J ne isti moi^sihus perjidia sua Jeral- 
 ique ululatu dominicum ovile dispergant.''^ 
 
 But the unity of the fold, here referred to, 
 demands above all unity of faith. 
 
 In compliance with an ordinance from the 
 Pope, the holy Doctor forbade the troublesome 
 Jovinians the Episcopal city of Milan. 
 
 In a funeral oration on his brother Satyras, 
 he eulogized the zeal of the deceased in the 
 cause of the Roman Church, and alluded, with 
 undisguised satisfaction, to his custom of in- 
 quiring from all, whom he chanced to meet, 
 whether they were in communion with the See 
 of Peter. If Satyrus discovered that they had 
 failed in this respect, he rebuked them, because he 
 considered that thereby they had cut themselves 
 loose from the communion of the whole Church, 
 
 In his forty-seventh sermon, the Saint ad- 
 vanced the principle: "Where Peter is, there 
 is the Church." '^Ubi Petrus,ibi ecdesia.'^ If 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 43 
 
 this axiom is once admitted, it is plain that 
 Peter and his successors, when acting as vicars of 
 Christ, can never err in doctrinal decisions. If 
 they could, the Church herself would be in error. 
 But this supix)sition destroys the very idea of the 
 church. Therefore, according to St. Ambrose, 
 Peter and his successors can never lapse into error. 
 A passage in the eleventh sermon of the Holy 
 Bishop bears upon the same point: "Peter is 
 the immovable basis, which supports the entire 
 superstructure of Christianity." '^Peti^^ saxnm 
 immobile, fofius opens C/irisficmi compagcm mo- 
 lemque contineV' The Church of Rome, he ex- 
 claims, may have sometimes been tempted, but 
 it has never been altered. '' AUquando tmtata, 
 mutata nnnquam." * 
 
 St. Epyphaxius, at the end of the fourth cen- 
 tury, and St. Chrysostom, at the beginning of 
 the fifth, fully acknowledged this sovereign tribu- 
 nal in matters of fliith. The latter^s appeal to the 
 center of unity has been justlv stvled bv Dr. Roth- 
 ensee the most forcible and eloquent exposition 
 which the golden-tongued orator could have made 
 of his belief in the apostolical authority of the 
 Pope as the Supreme Judge in the Church. f 
 
 *Lib. 2, de fide ad Gratianum. 
 
 tSee also the striking declaration of the same Father on the 
 same subject, Hom. ii. in Act. Ap. Hom. 24 in Matth. xi, 
 ■Liib. 11. de Sac. c. i. Horn, in Ps. 50 and 51. 
 
44 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 St. Jerome (t420)^ whom the Church calls, 
 in her liturgy : " the greatest expounder of the 
 Sacred Writings/' thus addresses Pope Damasus : 
 " I hold fast to Irfie chair of Peter, upon whom 
 the Church is built. Decide as you please; if 
 you order, I shall not hesitate to profcvSS my 
 belief in three hypostases/' ^^Beatitudini tuoe 
 i. e., Cathedrae Petri communioni consortior ; su- 
 pra illam Petram cedificatam ecdesiam scio. Dis- 
 cerne si placet ; non timebo tres hypostases dicere^ 
 si jubebis.'^ Meanwhile I shall declare to the 
 whole world : '^ If any person is firm in his al- 
 leo^iance to the chair of Peter, he is of my mind: 
 for I hold with the successors of the fisherman. 
 He that does not gather with you scatters ; that 
 is, he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.'' 
 " Qui tecum non colUgit, spargit ; hoc est, qui non 
 est Christi, Antkhristi est.'' 
 
 In his treatise against Rufiinus, he bursts 
 forth into this brief profession of faith : " The 
 Roman Church can not countenance error, though 
 an angel should come to teach it." 
 
 St. Augustin (t430), reminding the Dona- 
 tists of the unbroken succession of the Roman 
 Pontiffs, thus addresses them : " Number all the 
 Hio'h Priests who followed one another in that 
 sacred lineage ; every one of them is that rock 
 against which the gates of hell shall not prevail." 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 45 
 
 "ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbce inferi 
 
 He disposes, in a very summary manner, of 
 the endless quibble of the Pelagians, by remind- 
 ing them that two councils had already referred 
 the matter to Rome, and that an answer had 
 been returned : " Rome has spoken ; the question 
 is settled.'' '^Boma locuta esty causa finiia estJ' f 
 
 On another occasion he writes to the Pela- 
 gians: "By the briefs of Innocent, all doubt 
 upon this subject has been removed." '^Liiterls 
 Innoccntiiy tola hac de re dubltatio sublata est.'^l 
 
 In a treatise against Julian he says: "Why 
 do you call for an investigation, since it has 
 been already made by the See of Rome ? " " Quid 
 qmeris exameii, quod jam apud Apostolicam se- 
 dem factum est J' § 
 
 In his 157th letter he remarks: "The Catho- 
 lic faith derives so much strength and support 
 from the words of the Apostolic See, that it is 
 criminal to entertain any doubts concerning it." 
 "In verbis sedis Apostolicce tarn antiqua atque 
 fwidata, certa et clara est Catholica fides, ut nefas 
 sit de ilia dubitareJ^ 
 
 In his work on the " Unity of the Church," 
 he discourses in eloquent terms on his relations 
 
 * In Ps. Contr. Don. t In serm. de verb. Apost. 
 
 t Lib. ii, c. 3, contr. 2, ep. Pel. § Lib. ii, adv. Jul. 
 
46 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEKS. 
 
 with the Vicar of Christ. " In the Catholic 
 Church/^ writes he, " I attach myself to the 
 chair of Peter, because the Lord intrusted to 
 him the care of the faithful, and because his 
 authority has descended, through an uninter- 
 rupted line of successors, down to our times. 
 The divine Shepherd said : * My sheep hear my 
 voice, and follow me.' This voice speaks to us, 
 in the clearest manner, from Rome. Whosoever 
 does not wish to stray from the true fold must 
 hearken to this voice.'' "Fba? ejus de Romana 
 Ecdesia non est obscura. Quisquis ab ejus grege 
 errare non vult, hunc audiat,hunc sequatur,^^ * 
 
 Thus spoke Augustin, perhaps the most pro- 
 found thinker among the Holy Fathers, and the 
 best interpreter of his own convictions. 
 
 With a transcendent genius, which shrunk from 
 no scrutiny, he threw light upon the obscurest 
 question of divinity, and unraveled the most 
 intricate subtilities of dialectics ; yet, when Rome 
 had once returned its infallible verdict, he bowed 
 to the oracular -response with the same unques- 
 tioning docility with which the humblest pupil 
 would listen to the explanations of his tutor. His 
 testimony alone speaks volumes in favor of the 
 question, which we have undertaken to discuss. 
 
 '^De unit. Eccl., c. xii. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 47 
 
 The Holy Doctor had instilled the same prin- 
 ciple into his two distinguished disciples, Pros- 
 per and FuLGENTius, of Ruspa. The former 
 sings as follows in his poem, "Z)e ingratis : '' 
 
 ** In causam fidei flagrantius Africa nostroe 
 Exequeris ; tecumque svum jungente vigorem 
 Juris apoatolici solio /era viscera belli 
 Conficis et lato prosternis liinite victos 
 Gemino senum celeherrima coetu 
 Decrevit, qnce Roma prohet, quoe regna sequantur." 
 
 In the same poem occur the well-known lines : 
 
 ** Sedes Roma Petri, qxice pastoralis honoris 
 Facta caput mundi, qttidquid non possidet armxB 
 Religione tenet."* 
 
 In Prosper's writings, ''Contra Collatorem," 
 we find this passage : " Pope Zosimus had add- 
 ed strength to his decisions, and armed, with 
 the sword of St. Peter, the right hand of all 
 the prelates.^' ''Papa Zosimus sententia ma ro- 
 bur adnexit, et ad impiorum detruncationem gladio 
 Petri dextras omnium armavit antistitum.'* Does 
 not this sound like the language which, at the 
 present day, we would all hold when speaking 
 of Pius IX? 
 
 "We trust/' writes our author, in the same 
 
 *Carin. de ingrat. 
 
48 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 work, "that, what happened in the case of In- 
 nocent, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, will 
 again happen in the case of Sixtus; and that, 
 as, with the help of God, they were able to 
 repulse the open assaults of the visible wolves, 
 who leaped upon the fold in broad daylight, so 
 he may defeat the secret designs of the invisible 
 wolf, who prowls about for prey under the cover 
 of night/^ * 
 
 FuLGENTius, the other disciple of the illus- 
 trious Bishop of Hippo, thus consoles the afflic- 
 ted Church of Africa: "Let not your courage 
 fail; have recourse to Rome, the mother of the 
 true faith. What Rome believes, all Christianity 
 believes." f 
 
 Quite as remarkable as the above is the tes- 
 timony of Maximian, the Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, whose love for the Holy See found vent 
 in the following expression : " From the farthest 
 extremity of the globe, the confessors of the true 
 faith look up to the Pope, as to the sun. God 
 has raised him to the instructor's chair, with an 
 indefeasible right of occupying it forever. All, 
 therefore, who would learn the divine lessons of 
 religion, must consult him.'' " Cui cathedram 
 magisteriiy perpetuo privilegii jure concessitj ut 
 
 *C. i, X, xli. fl^i^' ^^ Incarn. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 49 
 
 qnisquis divinum aliquod sive profundum iiosse 
 desideral, ad hujus prceceptionis oraculum doeirin- 
 anique recurratJ^^ 
 
 St. Cyril (t444), alluding to his relations 
 with Nestorius, writes to Pope Celestine: '^We 
 did not publicly break off all intercourse with 
 Nestorim, before advising with your Holiness. 
 We, therefore, conjure you to acquaint us with 
 your desire, that we may make it our rule of 
 conduct, and may know, beyond the shadow of 
 a doubt, whether in future, we are to hold cor- 
 respondence with him, or to dissolve, at once, all 
 connection. For, as members of the mystical 
 body of the Church, it is incumbent on us to 
 follow our head, the Roman Pontiff, who holds in 
 trust the deposit of Ajmstolic faith. From him 
 we must learn what we are bound to believe, 
 think, and hold." "Inde nostrum est qcerere, 
 quid credoidum, quid opinandum, quid tenendum 
 
 8it:'\ 
 
 " The Bishop of Rome we shall venerate and 
 consult, before all others, because he alone is 
 commissioned to reprimand, to correct, to ordain, 
 to dispose, to bind and to loose, in place of Him, 
 who has established him in his office and dele- 
 gated to him alone the plenitude of authority. 
 
 * Ep. ad Orientales. f Hard, viii, 1829. 
 
 5 
 
60 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 All, therefore, do him homage, and the prelates 
 of the earth obey him, as Christ." '^ Ipsius 
 soliiLS est reprehendere, corrigere, statuere, dispo- 
 nere, ligare et solvere loco illius, qui ipsum cedifi- 
 cavit, et nulli alii quod suum est plene, sed ipsi 
 soli dedit; cui omnes, jure divino, caput inclinanty 
 et privtates mundi tamquam ipsi Jesu Christo obe- 
 diu7it.^^ * 
 
 St. Peter Chrysologus (f 450), writes to the 
 heresiarch Eutychius : " We entreat you to hark- 
 en especially, to the decision of the Pcpe at Rome, 
 and to abide, with all. readiness, by his final sen- 
 tence; because Peter, who lives and governs in 
 his own See, returns to those, who consult him, 
 the answer of truth." " Quoniam B. Petrus, qui 
 in propria Sede vivit et prccsidet, prcc^tat quaeren- 
 tibusfidei veritatem.^^ f 
 
 The testimony of the two ecclesiastical histo- 
 rians, Socrates and Sozomenus, both Greeks, 
 likewise belongs to this century and, for obvious 
 reasons, claims a special notice in our pages. 
 Socrates affirms that without the sanction of the 
 Bishop of Rome, ^' nothing of importance can be 
 done in the Church of God." J But nothing 
 certainly is of more vital importance than decis- 
 ions concerning the dogmas of faith. 
 
 "*Lib. Thesaur. t ^P- ^^ Eutych. inter Acta Cone. Ephes. 
 % Socr. ii, 8, 15, 17, and iv, 37. 
 
TESmiOXY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 51 
 
 Sozomenus testifies, that whatever is done 
 without the approval of Rome is null and void. 
 '*Irrita esse, qicw prceter sententiam Episcnpi Bo- 
 mani constituuntur.'^ * 
 
 Let us listen to the words of the illustrious 
 Doctor and ecclesiastical historian, Theodoret, 
 (t460) Bishop of Cyprus, whose diocese was one of 
 the largest in the East, numbering no less than 
 800 parishes. Having been deposed and excom- 
 municated by the local Synod of Ephesus, and 
 thrown into prison by order of the Emperor, he 
 laid his cause before the Holy See, and sought 
 redress for his grievances, at the hands of the 
 ' Pope, whom he styles the Father of Christians 
 and the judge in matters of faith. Mark, how 
 he justifies this course of action : " If St. Paul, 
 the herald of the faith, appealed to St. Peter,' 
 for the solution of the difficulties, which dis- 
 turbed the tranquillity of the Christian Church 
 at Antioch, how much more does it behoove us 
 to have recourse to the Apostolic See, in our 
 troubles?" ^^Si Faulus, prcEco veritatis, ad 
 magnum Pdrum ei^mnit, ut iis, qui Antiochioe 
 contenderent, ab ipso afferret solutionem, quanta 
 magis nos ad apostolicam sedem vestram curri- 
 
 In allusion to this subject, Gerbert makes the 
 
 *Soz. iii, 8, 9, and vi, 39. 
 
52 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 appropriate reflection, that, like so many others 
 in the first ages of the Church, Theodoret did 
 not appeal to the Pope as to a powerful man, but 
 as to the successor of St. Peter. 
 
 While his case was still pending, he besought 
 the Cardinal Renatus to urge the Holy Father 
 to decide the question. ^' For/^ writes he, " the 
 See of Rome has the headship and direction of 
 all the Churches throughout the world ; and that 
 for many reasons, but especially because she lias 
 never been tainted by heresy nor governed by a 
 man of dangerous tendency in matters of faith.'' 
 ^^Habet enim Srna. ilia Sedes omnium per orbem 
 ecdesiarum, ducatum et principatum, multis quidem 
 de causis, atque hac ante omnia, quod ah hceretica 
 lahe immunis mansit, nee ullus jidei contra^^ia sen- 
 tiens in ea sediV^^ 
 
 It was for the same purpose, that Theodoret, 
 about this time, addressed a letter to the Arch- 
 deacon of Rome. 
 
 So general was the belief in this prerogative 
 of the Holy See, that it w^as embodied even in 
 the Rituals of the Church. You may take up 
 
 * Further on we shall see that Leo the Great did not dis- 
 appoint the confidence reposed in him. In the present chap- 
 ter, in which it is our purpose to sum up some ef the most 
 remarkable passages from the Holy Fathers, we designedly 
 avoid all citations from the Popes, in order to present them, 
 under one head, hereafter. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 53 
 
 the old Missal, edited by Muratori and Peter 
 Bellarini. Turning to the Mass for the feast 
 of S. S. Peter and Paul, you will find in the 
 Preface the following words: *' God has so 
 firmly established the Apostolic See, on the 
 ground-work of truth, that it can never be moved 
 by the shocks of falsehood; and, therefore, in 
 conformity with the designs of Heaven, all the 
 faithful devoutly embrace the doctrine taught by 
 that See, to which the government of the whole 
 Church hiis been confided." " Ut in ventatis tuce 
 fundamine soUdata, nulla moriifera falsitatis jnra 
 praevaleanf. Quce {Ecdesia), te dispcjisanfe, devota 
 suhsequitur, quid Sedes ilia cenmerit, quam tenere 
 voluisti totius Ecclesice principatumJ* 
 
 Similar expressions occur in the 20th Mass, 
 which represents the See of Rome as the one, to 
 whose guidance God has intrusted the whole 
 Church, and whose teachings He requires to be 
 implicitly followed every where. " Ut quid hceo 
 prcedicasset, ostmderes ubique servandumj'^ 
 • The Church of Spain, having met in the Coun- 
 cil of Tarragona, 465, wrote to Pope Hilary : 
 " We rely on that faith, whose encomium was pro- 
 nounced by the mouth of the Apostle, and wait 
 for an answer from that See, whose decrees have 
 never been tainted with error.'' '' Ad fidem re- 
 mrrimm apostolico laudatam ore, inde respcrasa 
 
54 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 qucerentesj unde nihil errore, sed pontificali totum 
 deliberatione prcecipiturJ^ 
 
 About the same time, St. Avitus, acting in 
 the name and with the authority of all the Bish- 
 ops of France, expressed the belief of the whole 
 Gallican Church, in a written communication, 
 addressed to the Roman Clergy, relative to the 
 election of Pope Symmachus : '' When any doubt 
 occurs about the Papal election, not one Bishop 
 only, but the whole hierarchy appears to be 
 wavering/^ 
 
 In another letter to Rome, the Saint avers: 
 *' Whenever any difference arises, in Church mat- 
 ters, it is our duty to abide by the decisions of 
 the Sovereign Pontiff, and, as members of the 
 Church, to follow our head/' " Ut membra se- 
 quentia.^' Then he adds: "The truth is known 
 to us, in so far only, as the Roman Pontiff, in 
 virtue of the prerogative of his authority, is pleased 
 to explain himself to those that apply to him.'' 
 ^^Tantum mihi Veritas innotescere poterit, quantum 
 se Romance urbis antistes, audoritatis privilegio, 
 expetentibus respondisse gaudebitJ^ 
 
 In the homilies of this Holy Prelate, the same 
 thought occurs again and again.* 
 
 Should the present volume chance to fall into 
 
 ♦ Galand, X, p. 746. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEBS, 55 
 
 the hands of non -Catholics, we would respect- 
 fully invite their attcution to the fact, that all 
 the citations, hitherto given, are taken from writ- 
 ers, who flourished during the first five centuries 
 of the Christian era ; a j^riod, during which, ac- 
 cording to the admission of nearly all Protestants, 
 the doctrine of the Catholic Church was still the 
 unadulterated teaching of the Apostles. It seems 
 to us, therefore, that even the most skepticiil 
 reader can take no exception to these testimonies, 
 or raise objections, which might tend to invali- 
 date the arguments based u}X>n such premises. 
 
 Herewith we enter uj)on the sixth century, in 
 which the first authority of note is Possessor, 
 the Bishop of Africa. His opinion is clear, from 
 a letter in which he thus addresses the Holy 
 Father : '' Whom can we ask, with greater right, 
 for strength, in our wavering faith, than the in- 
 cumbent of that See, whose first head received 
 his appointment from Christ himself, with the 
 words: ^Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my Church.' " " Aut a quo magis nu- 
 tantis Jidei stabilitas expectanda, quam ab ejus 
 Sedis prceside, cujus primus a Christo rector aud- 
 ivit : Tit es PetrusJ^ 
 
 How significant this evidence, which com- 
 prises, as in a nutshell, not only the right, by 
 which this prerogative is vested in the succes- 
 
56 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 sors of St. Peter, but likewise the matter upon 
 which it is exercised, and the reason which ren- 
 ders it indispensable to the Church of God. 
 
 About this time, the learned Archdeacon Fer- 
 andus, of Carthage (t505), wrote to a scholastic of 
 Constantinople: "We are ready to learn and 
 not to teach. If you are anxious to know the 
 truth, you must address youi'self to the head of 
 the Apostolic See.'' 
 
 In a letter to the Deacon Pelagius, the same 
 writer calls Rome the head of the world — '^ ca- 
 cumen mundi;" not, of course, in civil, but in 
 ecclesiastical matters, inasmuch as the approval 
 and confirmation of the Holy See are necessary, 
 to give to the decisions and enactments of Synods 
 any binding force. He expresses the same con- 
 viction, in a work, entitled " Compendium Can- 
 onum Ecdesiasticoi^m.^' Voices from the East 
 proclaim the same conviction. 
 
 Stephen, the Metropolitan of Larissa, in Thes- 
 saly (t 532), maltreated by Epiphanius, the Patri- 
 arch of Constantinople, determined to expose 
 his grievances to the Pope. But, detained in 
 prison and unable to sue for the coveted favor in 
 person, the appellant Prelate dispatched Theo- 
 dosius of Echina, one of his suffragans, to lay 
 before the Pope a written petition, wherein he 
 says: "No ecclesiastical rank can set aside the 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 57 
 
 authority given to you by Christ, our Savior and 
 Chief Pastor/' ^^Nidlus ecclesiasticus ordo illam 
 vestram, quce a Sakatore omnium et primo Pastore 
 Vobia est collafa, potent excellere potestcdem.^^ 
 
 Stephen stood unmoved by the clamors of par- 
 tisanship, and in justification of his course flung 
 into the face of opposition the belief of Chris- 
 tendom. " In the recognition of the Holy See, 
 all the Churches of Christendom acquiesce." 
 " In ciijiis confessione omnes mundi Ecdesicc re- 
 quiescunt." 
 
 His proxy held the same sort of language be- 
 fore the Pope in Rome. 
 
 Not less striking, in some of its features, is the 
 testimony borne to the truth by the African Bishop, 
 Facundus Hermianensis (t 553), in his book 
 " Pro defemione trium CapitidorumJ'^ Though an 
 avowed schismatic, he plainly and repeatedly ac- 
 knowledges the Holy See as the supreme tri- 
 bunal in matters of faith. 
 
 The same belief is learnedly set forth in the 
 writings of the severe British moralist, Gildas, 
 who died, according to Usher, 570."^ In a scath- 
 ing treatise, entitled ''Increpatio in Clerum/^ he 
 solemnly declares, that the fullness of the Epis- 
 copal authority resides in the See of Home, and 
 
 * De primord. Eccl. Brit. 
 
58 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 thence flows through all the branches of the 
 ecclesiastical hierarchy. Now, if it be true that 
 the Holy See is the source and spring of all 
 ecclesiastical authority, she must be so, in a 
 special manner, in doctrinal matters. 
 
 The conduct of the courageous Abbot, Colum- 
 BANUS (t 515), is likewise illustrative of the same 
 views, with respect to the present question. Like 
 many others, he was desirous to obtain a definite 
 settlement of the question relative to the Easter 
 celebration. Accordingly he addressed Pope 
 Boniface by letter, and humbly submitted his 
 ideas to the consideration of the Holy Father. 
 Thus, after referring to the traditions of the 
 Scotch and Irish Churches, he subjoined, as 
 though fearful of forcing his personal convic- 
 tions on the attention of the Holy See: "We 
 state these particulars in order to impart infor- 
 mation, and not with the view of influencing 
 the decisions of your Holiness; for that were 
 simply ridiculous.'' "iYec loci namque nee or- 
 dinis est, ut magnce luce aiictoritati aliquid quasi 
 discutiendo irrogetur, et ridlculose, te Petri Apos- 
 toli et clavieularii legitime Cathedram insedentem, 
 fiui QCGidentales apices de Pascha soUicitentJ^^ 
 
 In another letter relative to the question of 
 
 * Galland, xn, 345. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 59 
 
 the "Three Chapters," (de trihus Capitulis), he 
 writes to the Pope : ^' I assured the Irish, that 
 the Roman See would never give its support 
 to one who advocated heretical doctrines. Use, 
 then, your sovereign authority, and place your- 
 self at the head of the armies now mingling in 
 the contest for truth. For on you the issue of 
 the contest depends." ^^Ad te namque totius ex- 
 ercUus Doviini periculum pertinet. Te toium cx- 
 peciaty qui potejitatem habes omnia ordinandi^' 
 " We have no hope," writes he, " except in the 
 power and authority, which you have inherited 
 from St. Peter." " Quia unica spes de jyrincipi- 
 bus es, per honorem potens Petri Apostolic And 
 again: "Though Rome is celebrated for many 
 other reasons, it is great in our eyes, by reason 
 of that chair alone." " Licet enim Roma magna 
 est et vulgatay per istam Cathedram tantum apud 
 nos est magna et clara.'^ 
 
 Like Prosper, Columbanus remarks that the 
 supremacy of Christian Rome is acknowledged, 
 where the dominion of Pagan Rome has never 
 been felt. "Xever," suggests he, "did the Caesars 
 plant the imperial standard on the shores of 
 Ireland; but your Holiness reigns over the 
 islands of the sea, as well as in your capital. 
 We are a province of the new Rome, w^iich the 
 presence of the Yicar of Christ has almost trans- 
 
60 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 formed into a heavenly abode." ^^Et, si dici 
 potest, prope ccelestes estis." 
 
 The historian Bercastell informs us, that, at 
 this epoch, in particular, the approving looks of 
 the Christian community were centered upon 
 England, Ireland and Scotland, whose respectful 
 attachment to the Holy See discovered itself, in 
 the numberless pilgrimages that were set on foot. 
 The highways and thoroughfares betweeen Eng- 
 land and Rome always were alive with a devout 
 multitude of all classes and conditions. Laymen 
 and monks, priests and bishops, even princes and 
 kings, such as Ceadwalla, Renred and Offa bent 
 their steps toward the Eternal City, to do hom- 
 age to the Yicar of Christ.* 
 
 The Oriental Churches of this period were no 
 less devoted to the Holy See, whose infallibility 
 they recognized, with unquestioning submission. 
 Thus, in a synodical letter written by Sophro- 
 Nius, immediately (636) upon his accession to the 
 Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the distinguished Pre- 
 late declares, that the rescript of Leo is a rule of 
 faith, which together with all the papal bulls and 
 briefs he and the other Bishops of the East re- 
 ceive, regard, and respect, as emanating from 
 Peter himself. 
 
 * Berc vi, 274. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 61 
 
 These sentiments were openly indorsed by all 
 the orthodox Prelates, who subsequently deputed 
 Stephen, the Bishop of Dora, to solicit the 
 assistance of the Holy See against the danger- 
 ous sect of the Monothelites. On his arrival, 
 the Bishop presented a memorial setting forth 
 the troubles that afflicted the Eastern Church, 
 and breathing throughout a spirit of child-like 
 confidence in the Vicar of Christ. "With 
 David we could wish,'^ say the petitioners, " to 
 have the wings of a dove, that we might fly 
 to you and implore you to heal our wounds. 
 Peter, from whom you hold the plenitude of 
 Apostolical authority, was not only commissioned 
 to keep the Keys of Heaven and to feed the 
 lambs of the Lord, but was moreover endued 
 with indefectible faith and commanded to con- 
 firm his faltering brethren. Thus he was em- 
 powered to exercise over all the authority of 
 God become incarnate for all." 
 
 " Under this conviction," added Stephen, 
 "Sophronius conducted me to Calvary, and, on 
 the spot sanctified by the awful mystery of the 
 Redemption, gave me this solemn injunction: 
 * Speed thee, in all haste, to the Apostolic See, 
 on which the foundations of the true faith rest.' 
 ' Ubi orthodoxorum dogmatum fundameata exist- 
 untJ ^ Urge the Vicar of Christ to pronounce 
 
62 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 his judgment, with that Apostolic prudence, 
 which is from God, in order that we may weed 
 the Church of the novelties, which have of late 
 sprung up amongst us/ In compliance with 
 this order, I am come hither, to prostrate my- 
 self at your feet, supplicating and imploring you 
 to stretch out your hands and shield the imper- 
 iled faith of Christ's little ones." " Propter hoc 
 properavi vestris apostoUcis adesse vestigiis, expe- 
 teiis et deprecans, ut fidei Christianorum pericli- 
 tanti manum porrigere, etcJ^ 
 
 '^ Accede, then. Holy Father ! to this request, 
 which I prefer in behalf of all the Orientals, 
 and as a shining lamp, which diffuses over the 
 face of the Universe the light of the Gospel, 
 dispel the shades of heresy." '■^^ed sicut lumi- 
 naria in universo mundo verbum vitce retinentes, 
 introductas extinguite tenebras hceresum.'' 
 
 A memorial to the Pope, drawn up by thirty- 
 seven Archimandrites, Priests, Deacons, and 
 Monks, in the name of all the Orientals, re- 
 echoed the views expressed by Stephen. The 
 dispositions which dictated this document, may 
 be judged from its own w^ords : "We pray, im- 
 plore, and conjure the Apostolic See, to pro- 
 nounce upon this matter." "Petimus, interpella- 
 7nus, et conjuramus Apostolicam sedemJ^ * 
 
 * Hard, iii, 711. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 63 
 
 On the same occasion, Sergius, the Bishop 
 of Cypres, wrote to the Pope; "According to 
 the declaration of Eternal Truth, you are Peter, 
 and upon the ground-work of your faith the 
 columns of the Church are erected." "Tu eiiim 
 sicut cUvhium veraciier pronuntiat verbumy Petrus, 
 et super fundamentum tuum Ecclemce columywe con- 
 jinnatce sunt.'' "You keep the keys of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven; you have the power of 
 binding and loosing, both in Heaven and on 
 Earth; you are the censor of pernicious errors 
 and the teacher of indefectible faith.'' "jfa 
 princeps d doctor immacidatce fidei." 
 
 The African Bishops of Numidia, Mauritania 
 and Byzantium, emulating the example of their 
 brethren, likewise presented an address, in which 
 they discoursed, in the following terms, upon the 
 prerogatives of the Pope: "There can be no 
 doubt, that, like a pure and inexhaustible spring, 
 the Apostolic See pours its waters, in a constant 
 stream, over the whole Christian world. Ac- 
 cordingly, the Fathers have ruled, that in the 
 remotest provinces nothing should be done or 
 undertaken, before being referred to the consid- 
 eration of the Holy See, by whose approval every 
 proceeding is stamped with the sanction of au- 
 thority." ^'Vt quidquid, quamvis in remotis 
 agcretur regionibus, nan prius tractandum vel 
 
64 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 accipiendum sit^ nisi ad notitiam almoe sedis 
 vestrce fuerlt deductum, et hujus audoritate justa 
 quce fuisset pronuntiatio jirmaretur,^^ 
 
 They declare that, from Rome and the Holy- 
 See, the other Churches have derived the right 
 of preaching the word of God. 
 
 We would fain invite the attention of our 
 readers not only to the marked uniformity of 
 belief, with which the North and South, the 
 East and West recognized the doctrinal Infalli- 
 bility of the Roman Pontiff, but also to the 
 marvelous similarity of language in which they 
 conveyed their meaning. Even the most super- 
 ficial observer must be struck by the perfect 
 unity of belief, reflected alike in the unclassic 
 sentences of the austere African and the rounded 
 periods of the polished Greek, in the grotesque 
 imagery of the vivacious Oriental and the sober 
 reality of the phlegmatic Saxon. 
 
 The striking unanimity with which the whole 
 Christian world, in the first ages, declared itself 
 in favor of the Infallibility of Christ's representa- 
 tive, and, in particular, the unfeigned submission 
 with which it received the condemnation of Mon- 
 othelism, were among the most powerful motives 
 that led the illustrious Doctor Newman into the 
 pale of the Church. They taught him that the 
 doctrine of the primitive Church harmonizes in 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 65 
 
 this, as in every other particular, with that of 
 modern Catholics. His logical mind did not 
 shrink from drawing the inevitable inference, 
 nor his iron will from conformins: his life to his 
 belief. Henceforth, he not only subscribed, in 
 theory, to all the tenets of the Catholic creed, 
 but practically did homage to the principle of 
 unity, by recognizing in the Pope the infallible 
 vicegerent of Christ. 
 
 Let us now listen to the testimony of St. 
 Maximus, whose versatile genius and wonderful 
 erudition won for him the reputation of an emi- 
 nent theologian, j)hilosopher, and statesman, and 
 qualified him to be the master of the great 
 Anastasius. He, at first, held the post of im- 
 perial secretary, in the cabinet of Constantinople, 
 but, on witnessing the intrigues practiced by the 
 court, he retired from public life and buried 
 himself in the seclusion of a monastery, near 
 Chalcedon. From this holy retreat, in which 
 contemplation only quickened the vigor of his 
 intellect, he wrote a letter, which thus animad- 
 verts upon the duplicity of Pyrrhus: "If Pyr- 
 rhus wishes to clear himself of the charge of 
 heresy, let him justify his conduct publicly. 
 Let him prove his innocence to the Pope of the 
 Koman Church, that is, to the Apostolic See, 
 which possesses, to the fullest extent, the power 
 6 
 
66 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEKS. 
 
 of binding and loosing/' "Jn omnibus et per 
 omnia.'' " Because it is the Eternal Word Him- 
 self, who, from the highest Heaven, binds and 
 loosens in the person of the Roman Bishop, His 
 Vicar upon earth. If, then, Pyrrhus justifies 
 himself before prelates of an inferior rank in the 
 Church, instead of making out his cause before 
 the Sovereign Pontiff himself, he resembles a 
 man who, when arraigned for murder or other 
 misdemeanor, would evade the action of the law 
 by establishing his innocence before unauthorized 
 persons, and not before a judge, who has the 
 right of acquitting or condemning him.'' 
 
 Anastasius, faithful to the precepts of his mas- 
 ter, always evinced the same reverence toward 
 the Holy See, which, in a letter to the monks 
 of Cagliari, in Sardinia, he designates '' as the 
 inexhaustible source of true faith." At this ep- 
 och, the faith began to diffuse its light over 
 the north of Europe, and history bears witness 
 to the eagerness with which the first apostles 
 of that vast territory turned to Rome for direc- 
 tion in their doubts, and for counsel in their 
 perplexities. The Holy City witnessed the arrival 
 of a Willibrod, and a Hubert, who quitted the sea- 
 bound shores of the North to visit the Father of 
 the faithful. It witnessed the arrival of a St. 
 Boniface, who received from Pope Gregory II 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 67 
 
 the mission of bearing the titlings of the Gospel to 
 the distant tribes of Germany, with an order to 
 follow the instructions given him, and to address 
 himself, in every difficulty, to the Holy See. 
 AVhen invested with the Episcopal character, 
 Boniface solemnly engaged to maintain inviola- 
 bly the unity and purity of the Roman Church, 
 aware, as the Pontiif suggested on the occasion, 
 that the Apostle St. Peter is the head both of 
 the Apostolate and the Episcopate. " Quia B. 
 PetriLS Apodolm et Apostolatus et Episcopaius 
 pinncipium existUJ^ 
 
 After replying to an inquir>^ of the holy 
 Apostle, Gregory remarked: "We answer not 
 thus of ourselves — non ex nobis, quasi ex nobis — 
 but in virtue of our Apostolical authority." 
 
 How happy would Germany be, and how 
 united in faith, if, in aft^r years, her sons had 
 not forgotten the lessons taught them by their 
 first Apostle, but had ever faithfully reproduced 
 in themselves the example of their sturdy an- 
 cestors, whose devotion to the chair of St. Peter 
 merited, from the pen of Boniface himself, the 
 following encomium : " They looked for the doc- 
 trine of primitive Christianity in the living ora- 
 cles of Christ's representative, rather than in 
 the sacred pages, or the traditions of our ances- 
 tors in the faith.'' Because both Holy Writ and 
 
68 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 tradition are liable to misconstruction and falsi- 
 fication, and can not be known to be the unadul- 
 terated Word of God, unless recognized as such, 
 and interpreted under the guidance of a divinely- 
 commissioned teacher, who is the Pope. ^^ M 
 antiquam christiance religionis institutionem magis 
 ah ore proedecessoris ejus quam a sacris paginis 
 et paternis traditionibus expetunt — illius velle — 
 Ulius nolle tantum expetunt J^ 
 
 How is it, children of St. Boniface, that now 
 so many of you are guided by other maxims 
 than those of your first Apostles? Holy faith 
 can hot change, because Christ, its author, is al- 
 ways the same, "to-day, yesterday, and forever.'' 
 You must, then, yourselves, have changed, and 
 by changing, have forfeited the inheritance of 
 the faith. Ah, yes! sadly have you strayed 
 from the way of your forefathers. However, 
 your losses are not irreparable; you may yet be 
 reinstated in your birthright, if you will return 
 and listen, as your ancestors did, to the voice 
 of the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, 
 whose disciples were the first heralds of salva- 
 tion among you. 
 
 At the epoch to which the foregoing remarks 
 apply, t^vo luminaries, of the first magnitude, 
 destined to light up, with their effulgence, the 
 West as well as the East, just began to peer 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEUS. 69 
 
 above the horizon of the Church. One of these 
 was the profound scholar Bede, wliom St. Boni- 
 face himself styled the torch of the Church; while 
 Walafried, Strabo, and William of Malmesbury,* 
 struck at his varied acquirements, declare that 
 he can never be praised as much as he is ad- 
 mired. Even those who are loath to do justice 
 to the superior attainments of the schoolmen, 
 and who affect to sneer at the monkish authors, 
 are forced to pay an unwilling tribute to his 
 learning. It is, then, with ^reat satisfaction 
 that we refer our readers to this complete Ency- 
 clopedia of sacred science. Hear how he descants 
 upon the subject in question: "Together with 
 full judicial power on all controverted points of 
 doctrine, Peter received the keys of Heaven, as 
 a sign to all the children of the Church, that if 
 they separate themselves from the one faith, 
 which he teaches, they surrender all hope of 
 being acquitted of their guilt and of entering 
 the eternal portals."! 
 
 The same authority writes of king Oswio: 
 "This Saxon recognized the Roman Church as 
 Catholic and Apostolic, because her Sovereign 
 Pontiffs have succeeded each other, in an un- 
 broken line, from St. Peter down." From these 
 
 * De gest. Angl. Ill, 3. t Horn, de S. S. Pet. et Paul. 
 
70 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 premises he naturally inferred that she is the 
 first, and, therefore, the true Church of Christ. 
 
 And here we would remark, in passing, that 
 the validity of this argument, which seemed so 
 conclusive to the Saxon monarch, can not be 
 fairly disputed by professing Christians. For, 
 as the founder of the New Covenant has prom- 
 ised, that His Church, built on the rock, Peter, 
 shall never give way to the assaults of hell, all 
 religious controversy, among the several Chris- 
 tian denominations, must finally resolve itself 
 into the historf^ question of priority, in point 
 of time. Now, the uninterrupted succession of 
 the Popes, back to the Prince of the Apostles, 
 proves, beyond a doubt, that the Catholic Church 
 is the primitive Church, and therefore the Church 
 of Christ. 
 
 The faith of this intelligent Saxon was also 
 that of the Synod held at Caleb ut. Witness 
 the statutes sent to Home for approval, and 
 signed by the bishops, abbots, kings, and princes 
 of England, who all unite in doing homage to 
 the Holy See, and express their readiness to be- 
 lieve and do, whatever the Yicar of Christ may 
 see fit to prescribe. The other illustrious lumi- 
 nary, who, at that time attracted the admiration of 
 the Catholic world, was St. John of Damascene. 
 He had fallen upon an unhappy age ; for heresy 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 71 
 
 stalked over the provinces of the East, aud with 
 a spoiler's hand, ravaged and desecrated the 
 sanctuaries of the true faith. Saddened by the 
 outrages daily committed by impiety, which was 
 crowned in the person of Leo, the Iconoclast, 
 the intrepid champion of the faith, exclaims: 
 " Hear, ye peoples and nations of every tongue. 
 Hear, ye young and old. Depart not from the 
 d(x;trine of the Apostolical Church, even though 
 an angel should come and teach you otherwise." 
 " Licet angelus evangelizd vobis prceter id.'' * 
 
 The celebrated Abbot, Stephan, expresses 
 himself in a similar manner. About this epoch, 
 Copronymus, the Iconoclast, held a conventicle, 
 which was designated as the Seventh General 
 Council, and afterward dispatched emissaries to 
 notify him of its proceedings. Supported by the 
 highest patronage in the land, these minions of 
 an earthly power approached the illustrious Ab- 
 bot, w^ho was confined in prison by the Em])eror, 
 and, with characteristic arrogance, delivered 
 themselves of their commission, somewhat in 
 this form : " The Seventh General Council de- 
 cides." Undismayed by the solemn formality of 
 pretentious words, the Confessor of Christ replied 
 w4th a smile : '^ How can a Council convene and 
 legislate, without the authority and coasent of 
 
 *Serm. de Transfiguratione. 
 
72 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 the Apostolical See?" His firm attitude silenced 
 these creatures of a heretical court, and foiled 
 all their schemes of intimidation. " We are van- 
 quished," said the imperial commissary, Callis- 
 tus, to the Emperor; "it is impossible to resist 
 the learning and reasoning of that man." * 
 
 In connection with this subject, we can not 
 forbear inserting the declaration of the three Pa- 
 triarchs who, at that time, governed the Churches 
 of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch. After 
 informing the Emperor that, in consequence of 
 the irruption of the Saracens, they would be pre- 
 vented from attending the Synod, they remarked, 
 that their absence would by no means invalidate 
 its decrees, provided the Sovereign Pontiff ap- 
 proved of its convocation, and, through his 
 legates, presided at its meetings and confirmed its 
 actions. In support of their assertion, they cite 
 the Sixth General Council, whose decisions were 
 received by the Church, though the same three 
 provinces were unrepresented. 
 
 These circumstances may be built up unto a 
 powerful argument. For, if these Patriarchs, with 
 all their suffragans, considered their absence from 
 a General Council as quite immaterial, provided 
 the Pope would exercise the authority vested in 
 
 * Butler xvii, p. 358. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS, 73 
 
 his person, they evidently did not suppose that 
 tlie right of imparting validity to a dogmatic 
 'decision ultimately resides in the body of the 
 assembled Episcopate, but in the Apostolical 
 Holy See, Why should they deem their pres- 
 ence less necessary than that of others? What 
 was true of them, held with equal force of the 
 other dignitaries of the Church. 
 
 The latter half of this century admired the 
 wonderful erudition of Alcuix, whom Charle- 
 magne associated to himself in tlie glorious work 
 of literary restoration in France and Germany. 
 This preceptor and friend of one of the most 
 illustrious sovereigns that ever swayed the desti- 
 nies of Europe, has left a book, entitled "De 
 Divinls OfficiU" wherein he speaks of the Holy 
 See as the head from which the gifts of grace are 
 diffused through tlie whole body of the Church. 
 In the same spirit, he wrote to the newly elected 
 Pope, Adrian : " As I acknowledge you for the 
 successor of St. Peter, so I also recognize you as 
 the heir of his wonderful authority.'^ "/to d 
 miriJi.coe potestatis hceredem oonfiteor.^' " I, there- 
 fore, surrender myself entirely to you. Blessed 
 be the tongue of your mouth, which speaks the 
 saving words of life, and at whose bidding the 
 portals of Heaven are opened to the believer." 
 *^ beatissima lingiha oris ve-stri in qua est edema 
 7 
 
74 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 medieina salutis, per quam codi aperiuntur ere- 
 dentibusJ^ 
 
 In a letter to Pope Leo III, he seems at a loss 
 for words to express his profound veneration for 
 the head of the Church. " In you/' writes he, 
 ^' faith is resplendent. Under your pastoral care, 
 the flock of the Lord increases. You are the 
 consolation of the afflicted, the help of the op- 
 pressed, the hope of them that call on you, the 
 light of life, the ornament of religion.^'* These 
 words, addressed to Leo III, well-nigh a thou- 
 sand years ago, apply, with equal propriety, to the 
 Pontiif now reigning. Is not faith eminently re- 
 splendent in Pius IX ? Is he not our consolation, 
 our hope, our help, and our protection ? To the 
 skeptical ears of reformed Germany these expres- 
 sions, dictated by the ardent faith of her Alcuin, 
 sound like the uncouth jargon of a barbarous age, 
 but to the faithful they are familiar household 
 words, all the sweeter because they come to us re- 
 peated by the distant echoes of a thousand years. 
 
 Extracts Uke the above do not represent the 
 wild fancies of a solitary enthusiast. Agilram, 
 Bishop of Metz, writes to Charlemagne : " Every 
 one knows that the Pope, wielding the power 
 of St. Peter, is authorized to pass sentence on all 
 
 * Baron, ad annum 772. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 75 
 
 the Churches, and is not amenable to another 
 tribunal." " Utpote qim (sedes) de omnibus Eo- 
 chmsfcis habeatjudicandi, neque cuiqiiam licet de 
 ejus judicare judicio.'^ 
 
 The so-called Carolingian hooks— ''libri Car- 
 olini''— likewise testify to this common faith of 
 all France and Germany. In allusion to the 
 sedulous care with whicli Rome watches over the 
 religious instruction of the faithful, these ven- 
 erable chronicles remind us, that the Holy See 
 presents to all the Churches of the world the 
 chalice of her sublime doctrine. " MeUiflucE prce- 
 dicationis pocula CathoUcis per orbein ministrat 
 Ecclesii.s:' Hence the duty of seeking, in 
 matters of faith, for help from her, who' has 
 neither ^' stain nor wrinkle,'^ and who, while 
 crushing the dragon-head of heresy, strengthens, 
 in the truth, the mind of the believer. '' Ut ab 
 eapost Christum ad muniendam fidem adjutorium 
 petard J qum 7ion habet maealam, neque rugam et 
 portenfosa ha^resum capita calcat et fidelium vien- 
 tes in fide corroborat:' France and Germany " 
 owe their confirmation in the faith to the Apos- 
 tolical See of Rome. " Inde semper suscepit fidei 
 ChrismataJ'^ 
 
 The same convictions are expressed by Aga- 
 
 * Lib. i, c, 6. 
 
76 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 bond, in his letter to Louis tlie Pious, and by 
 Jonas of Orleans, in a treatise entitled " De in- 
 stitutione regia.'^ 
 
 Jesse, Bishop of Amiens (t836), exhorts his 
 clergy to cling to the doctrine of the Holy See, 
 lest the door-keeper of Heaven close the portals 
 against them, should he see them dissent from 
 his teaching. 
 
 The religious history of France, at this period, 
 is particularly interesting. Synods met successive- 
 ly at Soissons (867), at Douzi (871), at Pontigny 
 (876), at Troyes (878), at Tribur (895), and in 
 their acts emphatically declared for unquestion- 
 ing submission to the decisions of the Holy See. 
 
 JEneas, of Paris, wrote a book, in which it 
 was his object to prove, by historical documents 
 from the time of Ignatius to that of Photius, 
 that the Pope is not indebted, for his supreme 
 judicial power, to any Council or Synod, but 
 only to Christ, from whom he received it in the 
 person of St. Peter.* 
 
 Even in the East, which was now on the eve 
 of a lamentable schism, we see the sun of faith 
 still lingering upon the horizon, and gilding, 
 with its departing glories, the mountain heights 
 of learning. In an address to Leo III, the 
 
 * Specil. D'Achery, 143, 148. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 77 
 
 celebrated Theodore Studita stj^les the Roman 
 Pontiff the '' head of all heads/' " omnium capi- 
 turn capnty^ '^ z(7r> oXwu xtcalwv xz<faXr^\^y^ and 
 strenuously contends, with all the energy of con- 
 scious truth, that every novelty broached by 
 those who have strayed away from the right 
 path, falls, of necessity, under the ban of Peter 
 and his successors. *^Ad Petrum utique vel ejus 
 successorem quidqukl in eeclesia cathoUca inno- 
 vatur per eos, qui aberrant a veritatey necesse est 
 referri.^^ Alluding to the example of Leo the 
 Great, he writes : " Imitate, we beseech you, the 
 illustrious Pontiff, who bore the same name as 
 yourself, and who sprang up, like a lion, when 
 the Eutychian heresy broke out.'' ^^JSmuIare, 
 prcecamur cognominum tibi jyaparUy atque ut ille, 
 pullukmte turn hceresi Eutychiana, leonum in 
 morem experrcdus ed/^ etc. 
 
 " The Holy Spirit himself," pursues our author, 
 "directs and guides the head of the Church." 
 " Ejus est, de ecetero, qnce Deo sunt placita, facere 
 Spiritus Sancti dudu, a quo, id in aliis, sic in hoc 
 quoque rec^itur et gubematur." * Of those who, 
 by their obstinate disobedience, rend the unity 
 of the Church, he remarks : " I solemnly declare 
 before God and man, that they are sundered 
 
 * Bar. ad ann., 809; Berc. viii, U2. 
 
78 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 from the body of Christ and from that chief See 
 to which the keys of faith have been committed, 
 and against which, according to the promise of 
 the Eternal Truth, the gates of hell never have 
 prevailed in past ages, nor shall prevail unto 
 the consummation of time." " Deum hominesque 
 contestor, sejunxerunt se a corpore Christi, a cory- 
 phcea sede, in qua Christus posuit Jidei daveSy 
 adversus quam non 2)rcevaluerunt per omne scecu- 
 lurriy nee prcevalehunt portce inferi, sicut promisit 
 ille, qui non mentitur.'^ * 
 
 In his letter to Pope Paschal, he writes: 
 "You are Peter; you fill and adorn his See." 
 ^^ Petrus enim tu; Petri sedem coronans et guher- 
 nansJ^ "Confirm, then, your brethren; this is 
 the proper time. Come from the West and 
 stretch out your saving hand to the East." 
 
 There is little doubt that many a well mean- 
 ing Greek of that period shared the views, of 
 Theodore. But it strikes us as somewhat curious 
 that the schismatic Greek and Russian Churches 
 should have clipped from his writings so start- 
 ling a condemnation of their errors as the fol- 
 lowing passage, which they have placed among 
 the pious lessons read on the eleventh of No- 
 vember: "Stretch out thy hand to help the 
 
 *Hard. ix, 605. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 79 
 
 Church of Constantinople, and prove thyself the 
 successor of tlie first Leo. Listen favorably to 
 our petition, because thou art Peter, to whom 
 Christ has said, ' Confirm thy bretliren/ " * 
 
 Is it not surprising that, up to this very day, 
 these fallen Chui-ches should continue to publish 
 the memorial of their own apostasy, and despite 
 the reflections that it is likely to call up, should 
 persist in their schism ? How incomprehensible 
 are the ways of Providence, which makes even 
 enemies subserve the interests of the Church ! 
 The unaccountable conduct of these sectaries is 
 far from being a solitary instance. Even Pho- 
 tius unwillingly contributes his mite to the truth 
 when he tells us that the Manicheans styled them- 
 selves Christians, while they denominated real 
 Christians Romans. How re-assuring to the 
 Catholic, who at the present day so often hears 
 himself assailed as a Papist and Romanist. 
 These apjjellations, though meant to be oppro- 
 brious epithets, are, in reality, highly expressive 
 of the character of genuine Christianity, and 
 ally the true believer to those who, in the earlier 
 days of the Church, fought the battles of the 
 Lord. 
 .- In the West, the celebrated Hincmar, of 
 
 *De Maistre, Du Pape, p. 90. 
 
80 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 Rheims, wlio flourished about this time (882), 
 made his profession of faith before the Council 
 of Douzi : " The Roman See, the teacher of all 
 the Churches in the world/' '' Omnium Ecclesia- 
 rum in toto orbe magistraJ^ Nay, according to 
 the testimony of Flodoard, Hincmar affirmed, in 
 the most explicit manner, that all controversies, 
 once brought before the tribunal of the Apostoli- 
 cal See, are terminated by its irrevocable sen- 
 tence. In a letter to his nephew, he calls the 
 Holy See ^^ the source of religion, and of all ec- 
 clesiastical discipline and jurisdiction." ^'A quo 
 rivus religionis et omnis ecclesiasticce ordinationis 
 aique canonicce jnrisdidionis profluxit,'' No 
 theologian will fail to perceive the weight of this 
 testimony ; for Hincmar is distinguished as the 
 most zealous advocate of every shadow of episco- 
 pal right.* 
 
 Ratramnus, of Corbey, and Paulinus, of 
 Aquileia, both contemporaries of Hincmar, pro- 
 fess the same faith. Ratramnus teaches : " All 
 ecclesiastical decisions must be submitted to the 
 judgment of the Pope, that he may ratify what 
 is proper and amend what is amiss. ''Ad ejus 
 judicium pendeat, quidquid in eedesiastieis ne- 
 gotiis disponitur, id ex ejus arbitrio vel maneat 
 constitidum, vel corngafur erratum.''^ f 
 
 * Hist. Rem. iii, 13. t Nat. Alex. xiL 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEPJ?. 81 
 
 Paulinas, contrasting the tranquillity that 
 reigned in the "West with the troubles that agita- 
 ted the East, ascribes the difference to the signifi- 
 cant fact, that the former remained firm in its 
 allegiance to the Holy See, while the latter 
 plunged headlong into a fatal schism. The same 
 explanation accounts satisfactorily, in our days, 
 for the endless divisions of the Eastern schismat- 
 ics, and for the uninterrupted unity of the Cath- 
 olic Communion. "iVos intra ter-minos Apostolicce 
 dodrinoi et S. Eommnce Ecclesice firmiter stamnj^^ 
 illomim prohatissimam audoritatem sequentes et 
 sandissimis inhcerentes dodrinisJ' 
 
 Let us now listen to the celebrated Rabanus 
 Maurus (t856), who, from Abbot of his mon- 
 astery, became Bishop of Mayence, and who was 
 so great a patron of learning that he may be 
 deservedly styled the Mecsenas of the ninth cen- 
 tury. He possessed the happy art of blending 
 the love of literature with that of religion, as we 
 may see from a poem, in which he consecrates 
 the graces of the muse to the service of the Holy 
 See. We quote the following verses on Pope 
 Gregory IV, who then governed the Church of 
 Christ : 
 
 Sedia apostoliece lux aurea Romce 
 
 Et dcciie, et doctor plebis, et almus amor. 
 
82 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 Vestra valet caelum reserare et claudere lingua 
 Principi apostolico Petro conjunctus in cevunif 
 In terra vicem cujus et ipse gerit. 
 
 The voice of Catholicity speaks to Pius IX, 
 in the same strain. 
 
 Lupus, of Ferriers (f 862), who lived on terms 
 of intimacy with Rabanus and Hincmar, and 
 who took an active part in the administration of 
 the empire, under Charles the Bald, sums up, in 
 a few comprehensive words, all that has been said 
 or sung on the prerogative of the Holy See. " She 
 neither deceived herself, nor was she ever de- 
 ceived by another,'^ is the laconism which tells us 
 his belief as well as the most elaborate treatise 
 could have done. '^ Nee se fefellit, nee ah aliquo 
 falli potuitJ^ 
 
 Toward the close of the same century, Hatto, 
 Archbishop of Mayence, united with the Bishops 
 of Bavaria, and Theotmar, acting under in- 
 structions from the prelates of Juvavia, drew up 
 written communications, which were forwarded 
 to Pope John IX, with the view that, if any 
 thing should have been said or done amiss, it 
 might be rectified by his authority. ^'Ut vestra 
 potentia ad reetitudinis lineam perdueatur.^^ 
 
 We now enter upon the tenth century. Po- 
 litical intrigues and party spirit sometimes ob- 
 truded into the chair of St. Peter candidates 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 83 
 
 whose personal character was not wholly above 
 reproach. Yet, compared with the l^ng list of 
 saintly |X)ntiffs who preceded and followed them, 
 these unworthy representatives of Christ are very 
 few in number. The celebrated Protestant histo- 
 rian Herder, frankly avows that no lineage of 
 kings or princes, or, indeed, of any order of so- 
 ciety, bears so stainless a reputation. He goes 
 so far as to admit, that even those held up, by 
 narrow-minded malevolence, to the derision of 
 posterity, committed sins which, in worldly sov- 
 ereigns, would have been passed over as the veriest 
 foibles, without so much as eliciting a comment 
 from the annalist. However, as it is not our 
 province to write an apology for the failings of 
 individuals, we shall willingly concede that some 
 did disgrace the sacred character which they bore. 
 Such an admission can only tend to strengthen 
 our position ; for, as Baron ius notices, none of 
 those Popes who are most open to censure ever 
 decided erroneously on ecclesiastical questions, 
 and still less on doctrinal points. Moreover, as 
 the same writer bids us remark, the devotion to- 
 ward the Holy See never showed itself so strik- 
 ingly, in all pai*ts of the Christian world, as 
 under those very Popes whose morality was of a 
 doubtful kind. The faithful did not regard the 
 merits of those who sat on the chair of Peter, but 
 
84 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 the privileges attached thereto. ^^Non merita se- 
 dentium, 9ed Jura sedis consider antes. ^^ Hence, 
 the learned historian very ingeniously applies to 
 the Holy See of that time the words of the Can- 
 ticles : " I am black, but beautiful.^^ " Nigra 
 sum, sedformosa ^' — black, owing to vices of those 
 who occupy me; beautiful, on account of the 
 privileges annexed to me. 
 
 These remarks are corroborated by the writ- 
 ings of the most learned and holy men living at 
 that epoch. Thus the Fathers of the Council of 
 Troslei (909), unanimously declared that Christ 
 had founded His Church upon Peter, and that 
 Gaul was indebted to the zeal of the Roman 
 Pontiffs for her unshaken steadfastness in the 
 faith. ^' Sed ah eo, ejusque successoribus etiam 
 edoda firmitatem fidei, quam primo accepit, hade^ 
 nus inconcussam servare studuit." 
 
 St. Odo, of Clugni (f 942), whose learning 
 and holiness made him the ornament of his time, 
 hesitated not to affirm that, even in those evil 
 days, all the good that was done in Church mat- 
 ters was due to him, who had received from the 
 Lord the injunction of confirming his brethren. 
 
 Otto, of Vercelli, in his work " De pressuris 
 ecdesiasticis,^^ and Pilgrim, Bishop of Passau, 
 in his address to Benedict VII, express them- 
 selves in a similar manner. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 85 
 
 Even Nicholas, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
 anxious to heal the wounds of the Greek Church, 
 invoked the authority of the Holy See, and 
 warned the Prince of the Bulgarians tliat it is a 
 heinous crime not to recognize it.* 
 
 Ratherus, of Verona, introduced into his 
 Itinerarium the following sententious remark, 
 which discovers at once his fondness for classic 
 brevity and his thorough Catholicity : ^' Never 
 was that valid which Rome rejected, nor that in- 
 valid which Rome approved.'' ^^Kunquam ratum 
 quod illic irritum, et nunquam irriium quod ibi 
 ratum fuo'it visum.^' In his appeal to the Pope, 
 whom he styles the Father of the whole world — 
 ^^unkerso orbi F(der" — his feeling heart pours 
 itself out in the following touching entreaty : " I 
 conjure you for the love of the Almighty to fly 
 to our assistance in the place of Him whose chair 
 you occupy for this purpose, that you may pre- 
 vent the gates of hell from ever prevailing against 
 the Church." "/?i Omnipotentis amove precor, 
 ejusque vice suecurratis, cujus ideo sedem obtinetis, 
 ne portce inferi prcevalei'e adversum Ecclesiam non 
 sinatis.^' 
 
 The celebrated Abbot Fleury (f 999), charged 
 with several commissions from the Pope to King 
 
 * Baron, ad ann., 983. Hard vi, 695-739. 
 
86 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 Robert, gives an account of his embassy in a 
 document which bears the following inscription : 
 ^' To the Venerable Pontiff who fills the See of 
 Rome, and who is, therefore, the teacher of 
 the whole Church/^ "Domino semper venerahili 
 Papce jRomance et Apostolicce sedis prcesidiy et 
 ideo universalis Ecclesice Dootori." In a book 
 containing a collection of canons for the guidance 
 of King Hugo and the crown-prince Robert, the 
 same author reasons thus upon the Gospel text, 
 which so frequently recurs in our pages : "Christ 
 said to his apostle, ^ Thou art Peter, and upon , 
 this "rock I will build my Church/ Mark the 
 words, ^my Church,' not thine. If the Church 
 is not Peter's, whose is she ? If we feel not the 
 peculiar force of this expression, nor model our 
 conduct accordingly, we neither lead the lives nor 
 understand the language of Catholics.'' "Certe 
 carissimi prindpeSj nee Catholice vivimus, nee 
 Catholice loquimurJ' How piquant this remark 
 when applied to Protestant sovereigns or the 
 Russian Czar, and. how very caustic when re- 
 ferred to Catholic princes following in their 
 footsteps ? 
 
 Almost at the dawn of the eleventh century 
 we meet with equally historic evidence, the same 
 expressions in a letter written to the Pope by 
 FuLBEET of Chartres (tl029), concerning the 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 87 
 
 excommunicated Count Falco of Anjou; again, in 
 an allocution of the Archbishop of Burges before 
 the Council of Limoges; and, finally, in a collec- 
 tion of Canons, compiled by Bernard of Worms, 
 the preceptor of the Emperor Conrad. 
 
 Ten years later we see the earnest convictions 
 of the age yet more clearly exemplified, in the 
 conduct of Ablx)t Odilo (tl039). A number of 
 Polish embassadors, one day, presented them- 
 selves at the doors of the monastery to reclaim 
 Prince Casimir, who had exchanged the court 
 for the cloister. The Abbot declared himself un- 
 able to accord their request, because it involved 
 a dispensation which exceeded the limits of his 
 powers. He dismissed them, therefore, with the 
 words, " That they must apply to the highest tri- 
 bunal on earth, namely, the A}x>stolical See of 
 Rome, the Vicar of Christ." ^^Proinde supremum 
 in ten-is tribunal, s^tpreniamque potestatem, sedan 
 videlicet Apostolicam Romanam, et Vicarium Christi 
 adirentJ^ * 
 
 In the Synod of Milan, St. Peter Damian, 
 renowned for the Apostolic freedom ^vith which 
 he maintained the truth before Kings and Popes, 
 designated the Church of Rome as the holy 
 teacher^— " sa»c<a??i nmgistram" In the same 
 spirit of child-like submission, he speaks of the 
 
 * Baron, ad ann. 1047. 
 
88 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 Holy See as the teaching guardianship of Peter, 
 according to whose righteousness all, that has 
 been disfigured, should be remodeled. 
 
 And here remark, in passing, how our Saint's 
 ideas on ecclesiastical reform disagree with those 
 of the modern Reformers. According to him, the 
 Church is manifestly a self-preserving organiza- 
 tion, whose principle of regeneration lies in the 
 Holy See. 
 
 In one of his letters, the same writer compares 
 the decisions of the Roman See to a keen-edged 
 blade, with which Peter cuts off the head of 
 every obstinate error, in order to strengthen all 
 the children of the Church in the unity of the 
 faith. ^'Evangelico muerone veritati resistentium 
 cervieem obtruncat^ et ad invictissime dimicandum, 
 totam Christi militiam in unius cai^itatis et Jidei 
 unitate confirmaU' 
 
 The precise meaning attached by the saint to 
 the words Apostolical See and Roman Churchy is 
 evident from the bearing of the whole passage. 
 Still they may derive additional light, by being 
 collated with expressions in another letter, in 
 which the writer himself defines his meaning, 
 when he says: "You are the Apostolical See; 
 you are the Boman Church.^' " Vos estis Apos- 
 tolica Sedes, vos Romana estis Ecckslay " Whith- 
 ersoever Peter leads you, there also is the new 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 89 
 
 Rome of Christianity.'' — "Quo vos Pefrus vobis- 
 cwnfugiens attrahit,Ulic Bomana est Ecclesia.'"^ 
 Catholics of our day are, without doubt, sustained 
 by the same abiding faith. Thence that inward 
 assurance, which can smile with placid serenity, 
 while the heel of the spoiler is on the sacred soil 
 of Rome, and an armed band of outlaws thrciit- 
 ens destruction to the temporal power. Even 
 though Providence, in its inscrutable designs, 
 should permit Pius IX to be again exiled from 
 the Eternal City, the faith of Peter would re- 
 main as unshaken, as it has been for eighteen 
 hundred years. The ])resence of the Holy Father 
 would transform also a barren island of the sea 
 into a new Home, into a new Capitol of the 
 Christian world, from which he would rule his 
 spiritual kingdom, and, with the power of Christ, 
 hurl his denunciations against the high-handed 
 injustice of his oppressors. 
 
 William of Poitiers, in his history of King 
 AVilliam, calls the Pope the teacher 'of all the 
 prelates of the Church. Arnulph and Yexe- 
 RUS of Milan, both partisans of the emperor and 
 enemies of the Pope, subscribe unhesitatingly to 
 the dogmatical infallibility of the Sovereign Pon- 
 tiff. "Never," remarks Venerus, "never did 
 
 ♦Baron, ad ann., 1049-1064. Butler iii, 194. 
 
 8 
 
90 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 the See of Rome deceive the world by an iniqui- 
 tous decree, nor could she herself ever be deceived 
 by heretical fallacies." ^^ Quae, aliquo pravo dog- 
 mate nee aliquando fefellity nee aliqua hceresi un- 
 quam falli potuitJ^ 
 
 Arnulph repeats the same, in his history of 
 Milan * " Though often violently assailed/' writes 
 Anselm of Lucca, ^^ the successor of St. Peter has 
 always stood unmoved." ^^ Licet pulsatus, licet 
 concussusj tamen stetit immobilisJ^ ^* Because 
 heaven and earth shall pass away, but not the 
 words of Him who said, ^Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock I will build my Church.' "f 
 
 About the same time, Siegfried of Mayence 
 and the Bishops of the province of Rheims, pro- 
 nounced, with no less decision, upon this prerog- 
 ative of the Roman Pontiif.J Even in the East, 
 in which the chorus of unity was hushed by the 
 oppression of the schismatics, an occasional voice 
 was heard, reechoing the strains of other lands. 
 Theophylact (tl096), the Archbishop of Bulgaria, 
 declares in his Commentaries on the Gospels: 
 "To Peter the Church has been committed for 
 instruction in the faith." '^ Petrd Ecclesia in fide 
 erudienda traditur.^' § " For this reason the Lord 
 has sowed, in the heart of Peter and of his suc- 
 
 *Hist. Mil., chapt. 13. f ^pusc. cont. Guibert. 
 
 X Thomass. i, 441. g Com. in Evang. Sti. Lucae. 
 
TESTrMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 91 
 
 cessors, the seed of faith." ^' Hahes reconcUta 
 fidei semina.^' 
 
 Euthy rains, the Patriarch of Constantinople, 
 who lived during the reign of Alexius Com- 
 nenus, indorses the same views, in his Commen- 
 taries on the Gospels, when he calls the Holy 
 Father '^ the teacher appointed by Christ to read 
 to the whole world lessons of infallible wisdom." 
 " Orbis viaf/isirumJ^ 
 
 We have now traced the testimonies of eccle- 
 siastical antiquity, from the birth of Christianity, 
 np to the Pontificate of Gregory YII. The po- 
 litical Constitution of Europe had, meanwhile, 
 been radically changed, by a series of convul- 
 sions, which had completely overturned the fab- 
 ric of the oldest States. England had but lately 
 emerged from the bloody tide of a barbarous 
 war. Yet here, as elsewhere, the faith felt not 
 the throes that convulsed the civil world. In- 
 deed, learning and sanctity never paid a nobler 
 tribute to the Holy See, than they did through 
 the illustrious Archbishops Laxfranc and An- 
 SELM, who, about this time, filled the See of 
 Canterbury. The former (flOSO), calls an un- 
 bounded docility and submission to the Holy 
 See, the " Conscience of Christianity," and 
 affirms that, tlirough the course of the Christian 
 era, no dogma was ever so solemnly proclaimed 
 
92 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 or SO generally acknowledged, as this very dogma 
 of the apostolical authority of the Pope. The 
 knowledge thereof is infused, according to him, 
 into the consciences of all the faithful. '' Ete- 
 nim omnium Christianorum conscientice inditum 
 
 The remarks of the learned prelate are appli- 
 cable to our own day. Now, as formerly. Catho- 
 lics are moved, by a certain instinctive perception, 
 to accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, even 
 without the borrowed evidence of argument. 
 Now, as formerly, the Church is guided by the 
 same ^^ conscience, ^^ which can not grow callous 
 without serious danger to Christianity itself. 
 Millions and millions, led by the dictates of this 
 ^^ conscience^ ^ alone, submit with alacrity to the 
 decisions of the Holy See, though they have 
 never heard explicit proofs, such as we produce 
 in these pages. It was, no doubt, for the same 
 reason that, even in civil matters, both princes 
 and people formerly appealed to the arbitration 
 of the Pope. Struck by the heavenly wisdom, 
 which presided at the counsels of the highest 
 ecclesiastical judiciary, when he pronounced upon 
 religious questions, the Christian community was 
 led to refer to his tribunal also many affairs of 
 
 *Lanf. Contr. Bereng. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOT.Y FATHERS. 93 
 
 state. And no doubt, as Voltaire himself admits, 
 society at large would be mucli happier, if the 
 diiferences, which sometimes occur between sov- 
 ereigns and their subjects, were adjusted bv an 
 appeal to the common father of the faithful, in- 
 stead of being settled at the point of the sword. 
 Anselm, the illustrious successor of Lanfranc 
 in the See of Canterbury, when on his way to in- 
 voke the authority of the Holy See against King 
 William the Red, spoke in the following terms 
 to an assembly of Bishops : " I am going to the 
 chief Pastor, to the angel of the great Council, 
 to the successor of St. Peter, on whom the Church 
 is built, and to whom Christ gave the keys of 
 Heaven. Hence you may all know that, in those 
 things which relate to God, I shall ever yield a 
 ready obedience to the Pope." ''Quare cundi 
 noveritis, quod in his, quce Dei sunt, vicario Petri 
 obedient ia m impenda m." 
 
 The same author dedicates his work against 
 the heretic Rosselin to " the Holy Father, whom 
 the Lord has appointed the guardian of the 
 faith." 
 
 Among those of Gregory's contemporaries who 
 used their learning in the defense of the Apos- 
 tolical authority of the Holy See, special mention 
 is due to Leo of Chartres, Bruno of Asti, God- 
 fried of Yendome, Guido the Carthusian, Otto 
 
94 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 of Bamberg, Adelbert of Mayence, Humbert, 
 Archbishop of Lyons, and Rupert of Deutz. 
 We shall leave it to the last of these witnesses 
 to interpret the meaning of all, in his book, 
 "Z>6 divino officio/^ which contains this remark- 
 able sentence: "The Roman Church, solidly 
 built upon the rock of Apostolical faith, has 
 remained firm, has silenced the heretics, not of 
 Greece only, but of the whole world, and, with 
 supreme authority, has pronounced its irrevocable 
 sentence from the tribunal of faith." ^'Bomana 
 Ecdesia, super Apostolicce fidei petram altius fun- 
 data, firmiter stetit, et tarn Grcecice quam totius 
 orbis hcereticos semper confutavit, et de excelso fidei 
 tribuTiali, data sententia, Judicavit.'' She is to all 
 the faithful, who have recourse to her, a wall of 
 defense emblazoned with the thousand trophies 
 of her former victories. 
 
 We have a still more illustrious witness in the 
 Prussian Bishop, Anselm of Havelberg, whom 
 the Emperor Lolhau dis])atched to Constantino- 
 ple, to recall the schismatical Bishops to a sense 
 of their duty. The imperial envoy strongly 
 urged his case in an address, in which he said to 
 the erring Greeks: "The Roman Church is 
 privileged beyond all others; for, whilst the 
 Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and 
 Constantinople wavered in faith, she alone, that 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 95 
 
 was built on the rock, always stood firm — ilia 
 supra petram fundata semper maiisit inconcussa — 
 because the Lord had prayed for Peter, that his 
 faith might not fail. Hence, the injunction, 
 * confirm thy brethren/ which, taken in connec- 
 tion with the rest of the text, was evidently de- 
 signed to mean : Do thou, who hast received the 
 grace of remaining steadfast in the faith, act to- 
 ward all the others as a shepherd, a teacher, a 
 father, a master, gently rebuking and strengthen- 
 ing them whenever they waver. ^' "^c si aperie 
 ei dicat: Tuy qui hanc gratiam accepistl, uty aliis 
 in fide vacillantibiiSj semper in fide immobiUs per- 
 maneas, alios vacillantes cojifinna et corrige, tam- 
 quam omnium pastor, et doctor et pater et magister 
 omnium.''^ 
 
 Then, reviewing the Annals of the Church, 
 he produced incontestable evidence to prove that 
 all heresies have been suppressed by the authority 
 of the Holy See, which crushed their authors 
 with the rock of faith — ^^ a pjetra fideiper Petrum 
 destructosJ' From these data he inferred that 
 the Roman See enjoys two remarl^able privileges, 
 namely, untainted purity of faith, and supreme 
 judicial authority over all the faithful. ''Free 
 07nnibus incorruptam puritatem fidei et supra 
 07)i7ies potestatem judicandi." 
 
 He put his arguments in so pointed a form as 
 
96 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 
 
 to silence the captious Greeks. Oh, that he could 
 rise from the grave to direct his powerful logic 
 agaiust his own countrymen, of whom the ma- 
 jority have imitated the renegade Greeks in their 
 defection! Full three centuries have already 
 elapsed since the sun of faith set upon the laud 
 which gave birth to this ardent champion of the 
 Church. A gradual return to his teachings and 
 maxims looks to us like the harbinger of another 
 dawn, that will dispel the shades of heresy and, 
 once more, bathe those regions of error in the 
 glorious sunlight of faith. May the auspicious 
 moment be no longer delayed ! 
 
 We shall close this long list of Catholic tra- 
 dition, embracing a period of a thousand years, 
 with the testimony of St. Bernard. Superior 
 to human respect, that constitutional disease of 
 weak minds, the illustrious Doctor dared to speak 
 as he thought, not only to humble monks and 
 common laymen, but also to mitred prelates and 
 sceptered princes. His letter to Innocent III 
 shows us how well he could blend an ingeiujous 
 freedom with a respectful veneration. " It is 
 but proper,'^ writes he, "to advise the Holy 
 Father of every scandal which disgraces the 
 Church, and of every danger which threatens 
 the faith ; because it is natural to look for an an- 
 tidote, against the fatal poison of heresy, in that 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHEES. 97 
 
 See, whose faith is not liable to defection. Xow, 
 this is the special pi'eros:ative of the Roman See; 
 for, to whom but Peter was it ever said : ^ I have 
 prayed for thee, that thy faith fliil not/ " ''Dig- 
 num namque arbifror ibi potlssimum reparari 
 damna Jidei, ubi non pos.^if fides ^entire, defectum. 
 Hcec quidem jyrcei'ogatka hujiis Sedis ; cid enim 
 dictum est alteri : ^rogavi pro te id non deficiat 
 fides tua.' " *' Thou canst give us no clearer proof 
 that thou art the legitimatesuccessor of St. Peter, 
 whose chair thou fillest, than by using thy au- 
 thority to strengthen wavering minds in thy 
 fiith." 
 
 The Holy Doctor uses similar expressions in 
 his 131st letter on Abelard. But nowhere does 
 he define the pi^rogatives and the true character 
 of the Sovereign Pontiff with so much accuracy, 
 as in his book of considerations, compiled espe- 
 cially for Pope Eugenius II, who had been his 
 disciple. As if admonishing the Holy Father, the 
 Saint proposes the question : " Who art thou ? ^' 
 Then, with that comprehensiveness of thought 
 which • sometimes compresses into the narrow 
 compass of a few sentences, more solid instruc- 
 tion than is scattered through the voluminous 
 tomes of inferior authors, the Saint himself 
 replies : " Thou art the Sovereign Pontiff, the 
 head of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the prince of 
 9 
 
98 TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 
 
 Bishops, the heir of the Apostles. Thou art like 
 Abel in thy primacy, like Noah in thy govern- 
 ment, like Abraham in the patriarchate, like 
 Melchisedech in thy priestly character, like Aaron 
 in thy dignity, like Peter in thy power, like 
 Christ in thy unction. The other Bishops are 
 indeed shepherds, each having charge of a par- 
 ticular portion of the fold ; but thou art the only 
 one, who feeds the entire fold of Christ." " Tibi 
 universi crediti uni unaj^ "For thou art the 
 Shepherd of the shepherds themselves. To which 
 of the Bishops, or even of the Apostles, has the 
 whole flock been intrusted ? What flock ? For- 
 sooth the inhabitants of one particular city or 
 district? No, but all the children of the Church. 
 Our Lord Himself has said : ^ Feed my sheep.' 
 James, who was regarded as one of the pillars of 
 the Church, contented himself with the province 
 of Jerusalem and left the universal Church to 
 Peter. If the ^ brother of the Lord ' thus bowed 
 to higher authority, ^vho will dai-e to arrogate to 
 himself the prerogatives of Peter?" " Cedenie 
 Domini fratre, quis alter se ingerat Petri proe- 
 rogativcef^^ "Others possess a partial author- 
 ity, thou the plenitude of power. The jurisdic- 
 tion of others is confined within definite limits, 
 thy jurisdiction extends over all. Thine is the 
 indefeasible title acquired by St. Peter when 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY FATHERS. 99 
 
 Christ delivered to him the Keys of Heaven, 
 and intrusted liim with the care of His flock/' 
 ^'Stat ergo inconcussiun privilegiuin tuum, tarn in 
 datis clavibus, quam in ovibus commendatis.''^ 
 
 Though these passages were designed by the 
 Saint to furnish his illustrious disciple with mat- 
 ter for reflection, they read like a summary of all 
 that Christianity, living on through the vicissitudes 
 of times and places, had previously asserted, in the 
 face of friends and foes, of laymen and clerics ; and 
 thus we have given a condensed bird's-eye view 
 of the faithful convictions of the Holy Fathers 
 and the eminent writers of the patristic age, dur- 
 ing a period of more than eleven hundred years. 
 
 Indeed, it would be a difficult task, to find a 
 single dogma of Catholic belief, upon which an- 
 tiquity ha.s pronounced so decisively, as U2)on the 
 infallible apostolical power of the Sovereign Pon- 
 tiff, when teaching or defining matters of faith. 
 Laufranc was right when he styled this belief the 
 conscience of Christianity, that is, of the Church. 
 
 Let us now see how the Church herself, repre- 
 sented by her Bishops, has recognized, in all her 
 General Councils, this exalted prerogative of the 
 Sovereign Pontiff. 
 
III. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF ALL THE GENERAL 
 COUNCILS OF THE EAST AND WEST, 
 
 DECLARING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHAIR OF ST. PETER AT 
 ROME TO BE THE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 If, upon a question of so much interest to the 
 true believer, it is satisfactory to learn the pri- 
 vate opinions of individual Fathers, it must be 
 doubly so to know the formal declarations made 
 by the Universal Church in her General Councils. 
 Not unfrequently protected by the secular arm, 
 the Bishops were at full liberty to discuss the 
 question of this prerogative so vitally connected 
 with the integrity of faith. Had they been of 
 opinion, that the right of defining the doctrine of 
 the Church resides in the body of the Episcopacy, 
 no time would have been more favorable for assert- 
 (100) 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 101 
 
 ing their claims than that of a General Council, 
 when tlieir whole order was gathered together, from 
 all quarters of tlie globe, and, without fear of in- 
 timidation, could canvass the subject in all its bear- 
 ings. Nay, I will say further, that, upon a point of 
 such importance, it was incumbent on them to re- 
 sist any encroachment, even though the oifeuder 
 were the Sovereign Pontiff himself. For, if they 
 looked upon themselves as the guardians of the 
 faith, they could not, without a serious dereliction 
 of duty, surrender a ])rinciple, which all par- 
 ties must allow to be of vital inq^ortance. Now, 
 the history of the General Councils, far from 
 sup})orting, directly refutes any such assumption, 
 on the part of the assembled Bishops. First, no 
 General Council was ever considered lawful, un- 
 less convoked by the Sovereign Pontiff. 
 
 Secondly, the Acts of the General Councils 
 had no binding force, unless confirmed by the 
 authority of the Holy See. 
 
 Thirdly, whenever the Popes convened a Gen- 
 eral Council, with the view of settling a dispute 
 in matters of doctrine, they usually anticipated 
 all aqtion on the part of the Fathers, by a defini- 
 tion, which was to control the deliberations of 
 rthe assembly. If they sought the cooperation 
 of the General Councils, it was solely because, in 
 matters of faith, the dogma promulgated with so 
 
102 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 mucli solemnity, before delegates from every 
 portion of the Christian world, was likely to 
 be sooner made known to every member of the 
 fold ; while, in matters of discipline, such a con- 
 vocation of Church dignitaries could not but 
 prove highly sakitary to the clergy, as well as 
 to the laymen under their jurisdiction. 
 
 Fourthly, no ecclesiastical writer, how enthu- 
 siastic soever in his devotion to the Pope, ever 
 pronounced himself more decidedly and clearly 
 in favor of the Infallibility of the Holy See, in 
 matters of faith, than did the Fathers, who com- 
 posed the General Councils. Even the Greeks, 
 despite that hereditary jealousy which was in- 
 cessantly contending for the boasted rights of 
 Constantinople, did homage to this prerogative 
 of Rome. Let us, then, carefully study the pro- 
 ceedings and enactments of the General Councils. 
 
 THE APOSTOLICAL COUNCIL. 
 AT JERUSALEM. 
 
 Though, strictly speaking, the assembly held 
 at Jerusalem, under the auspices of St. Peter, is 
 not entitled to the name of a General Council, 
 nevertheless, because the manner in which it was 
 convened, is not a little remarkable, and because 
 it has served as the model of the General Coun- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS, 103 
 
 oils, it may, with some propriety, find a place in 
 thase pages. 
 
 We shall not, therefore, apologize to our read- 
 ers for entertaining them, a few minutes, with the 
 transactions of the early Church. 
 
 We know from Holy Scripture, that the ques- 
 tion at issue related to the observance of the 
 Mosaic Law by the converted Gentiles; that 
 Peter, Paul, James, and Barnabas, together with 
 a number of elders from the Church of Jerusa- 
 lem, assembled to deliberate u^wn the subject; 
 and, finally, that a warm discussion arose among 
 them. And here we may be allowed to remark, 
 in passing, that so long as a question has not yet 
 been decided, the same freedom of debate is still 
 allowed, not merely in a General Council, but 
 also in every Diocesan Synod. Here, then, is a 
 striking resemblance between ancient and modern 
 Councils; but it is not, by any means, the only 
 one nor the most important, as must be evident 
 to every person, who knows any thing about the 
 sequel to the proceedings briefly referred to 
 above. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 that, "when there was much disputing" Peter, 
 rising up, pronounced his judgment, while all 
 '^ the multitude held their peace." The question 
 was settled ; and James, who, as Bishop of Jeru- 
 salem, rose next to submit some disciplinary re- 
 
104 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 marks, humbly acquiesced in the decision of 
 Peter. 
 
 Thus the very first synod, held under the aus- 
 pices of the Apostles themselves, foreshadowed 
 the Councils of succeeding ages. Peter still de- 
 cides, by the mouth of his successors ; and all the 
 Bishops, no less than the other children of the 
 Church, submit with the same becoming docility 
 as James, " the brother of the Lord.^^ 
 
 I. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OP 
 
 NICE. 
 
 The first General Council at Nice, intended to 
 give greater publicity to the condemnation of 
 Arius, was convoked by Pope Sylvester, under 
 the reign of Constantine the Great, who used his 
 imjierial authority to facilitate the meeting of the 
 Fathers.* The Sovereign PontilBP presided by 
 his three legates, one of whom was Osius, Bishop 
 Cordova. The other two were priests. Osius, 
 whom Athanasius styles the Leader of the 
 Council, occupied the first place, attended by his 
 two companions. How great the deference here 
 
 * See Sozomenus L i, c. 16. Act. i, Cone. Chalc. et Act. 
 xviii, Cone. Constant. III. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. CX)UNCILS. 105 
 
 shown to the Papal authority, since the raere re- 
 flection of it gave even simple priests the prece- 
 dence to Bishops, who, on the present occasion, 
 were either Orientals or Greeks, and yet never 
 objected to this conduct of the legates, as imply- 
 ing an undue assumption of power. This fact 
 alone suffices to show, that the prerogatives of 
 the Holy See were then acknowledged all over 
 the Christian world. No one, therefore, will be 
 at all startled by the flict, that, even previous to 
 any measures taken by the Councils, the legates, 
 acting under instructions, condemned the bhis- 
 phemous doctrines of Arius. The Fathers were 
 guided, in their deliberations, by these instruc- 
 tions, as well as by the symbol of faith prescribed 
 by Sylvester and brought from Rome, together 
 with a number of disciplinary regulations. At 
 the close of the Council all the Acts were sent to 
 Rome for confirmation. This circumstance, in 
 particular, was referred to by Pope Felix III, 
 when he said to the Clergy and Monks of the 
 East : " The three hundred and eighteen Fathers 
 assembled at Nice, mindful of the words of the 
 Lord, ^ Thou art Peter ' — " Obsequentes voei Domi- 
 ni, ' tu es Petvus^ — transmitted all the decrees 
 of the Council to the Roman Church for con- 
 firmation." 
 
 Pope Gelasius, the successor of Felix, reminds 
 
106 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 the Bishop of Dardania, that, as every Christian 
 should know, the Acts of a Council do not bind 
 in conscience, unless confirmed by the Holy See. 
 " As that, which the Roman See did not sanction, 
 could not lay the faithful under any obligation, 
 so that, which she judged right, was at once re- 
 ceived by the whole Church." ^^ Stout quod Ro- 
 mana 8edes non jprohaverat, stare non j^otuit ; sicy 
 quod ilia censuit judicare, tota Ecclesia suscepit.^^ 
 The decision lies exclusively in the power of the 
 Apostolic See. Those enactments only, which 
 she has confirmed, hold valid; those, which she 
 has rejected, are without binding force. " Totum 
 in Sedis Apostolicce positum est potestate. HoCy 
 quod confirmavit in Synodo Sedes Apostolica, hoc 
 robur obtinet, quod rejutavit, habere non potuit 
 firmitatem.''^ 
 
 Such were the comments, passed by the Popes, 
 when the proceedings of the Council were still 
 fresh in the memory of all. 
 
 A yet more cogent proof is furnished us by 
 the very Acts of the Council itself. The eight- 
 eenth Canon rules, that, the Church, faithful to 
 the teachings of the Apostles, has reserved all 
 cases of importance to the arbitration of the 
 Holy See. " Oujus dispositioni omnes majores 
 causas antlqua Apostolorum auctoritas reserva- 
 vit." Can there be any case of greater impor- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 107 
 
 tance — ^^ major causa" — than a question about 
 matters of faith? 
 
 The twenty-ninth canon reads as follows: 
 "The incumbent of the Eoman See, acting as 
 Christ's Vicegerent, in the government of the 
 Church, is the head of the Patriarchs, as well as 
 Peter himself was.'' " Illcj qui tenet sedem Bo- 
 manam, caput est omnium Patriarcharum sicut 
 Petrus, ut qui sit Vicarius Christi super cunctam 
 Ecdesiam" The words, " as well as Peter him- 
 self,'' point to tlie marked difference that exists 
 between tlie Roman l^ontitf, as the successor of 
 St. Peter, and the Bishops, as the successors of 
 the other Ai)ostles. Common Bishops are not 
 identified with the Apostles, whose Apostolate, 
 being vested in their person, was not transmitted 
 to their succ^essors. But the Bishop of Rome is 
 completely identified with Peter, whose preroga- 
 tives and primatial dignity, being attached to the 
 office, descend, as if by inheritance, to his last 
 successor. In the other Apostles the dignity of 
 the Apostolate, together with its consequent in- 
 fallibility, was of a personal character ; in Peter 
 it was the inalienable privilege of his office. It 
 is for this reason, that the Roman See alone has 
 been always known as the Apostolical See. 
 Why did not the Episcopal Sees of Antioch, Ephe- 
 sus, Corinth, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, all of 
 
108 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 which were founded by Apostles, lay claim to the 
 same title ? If, then, the Roman See has a right 
 to the distinctive appellation given her, from the 
 first ages of the Christian era, it must be because 
 the prerogative of Apostolical authority is in- 
 separable from the office of Peter, and, therefore, 
 enjoyed by each successive Pope. Even the ar- 
 rogant and jealous Patriarchs of Constantinople, 
 never daring to claim this title for their See, ren- 
 der testimony to the right in question. 
 
 A parallel train of reasoning, founded upon 
 the name "Vicar of Christ,^' wliich the Council 
 of Nice applies to the Holy Father, will lead us 
 to the same results. For this title would be al- 
 together inapplicable to him, could he err when 
 solemnly defining an article of faith. Think of 
 Christ, the infallible founder of the Church, be- 
 come fallible in the person whom He has chosen 
 to represent Him on earth ; think of His unerr- 
 ing oracles converted into doubtful opinions by 
 the organ which He uses to communicate them 
 to men! The inconsistency is apparent. We 
 infer, therefore, that the expressions Peter him- 
 self. Apostolical See, and Vicar of Christ 
 are significant appellations, suggested by the 
 conscience of Christianity, to mark the plenitude 
 of Apostolical authority centered in the Sover- 
 eign Pontiff. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 109 
 
 Pope Boniface I felt the force of this conclu- 
 sion when, shortly after the Council of Nice, 
 be remarked to the Bishops of Thessalonica : 
 " The Fathers of the Council did not presume 
 to legislate concerning the Roman See, because 
 they saw that the Lord has conferred the pleni- 
 tude of power upon her.'' " Adeo ut non aliquid 
 ansa sit super earn constituere, cum videret nihil 
 super meritum suum posse conferri. Omnia de- 
 nique huic noverat Domini scrmone concessa.^' 
 
 The Pope was, no doubt, warranted in this 
 inference. In fact there could scarcely be any 
 thing more complete or comprehensive than the 
 testimony of the First General Council concern- 
 ing the prerogatives of the Holy See. It covers 
 the whole question, which we have endeavored 
 to prove in these pages. 
 
 11. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE. 
 
 This Council was, at first, nothing more than 
 a provincial Synod, and if it now holds a high- 
 er rank, that distinction, as the ingenious Ger- 
 bert remarks, is altogether due to the authority 
 of the Popes, who confirmed its Canons. It 
 
110 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 was convened by Damasus, to check more ef- 
 fectually the intrigues of the heretics Sabellius, 
 Macedonius, Eunomius, and Apollinaris, against 
 whom he had already pronounced the censures 
 of the Church. 
 
 Bossuet assigns this as the object of the Coun- 
 cil, on the authority of Sozomenus, who relates 
 that the controversies then agitating the East 
 appeared to have been settled by the rescript of 
 Damasus. " Quo facto, utpote judicio Romance 
 Ecdesice controversia terminata, quievere — et finem 
 accepisse visa est.'^ 
 
 Yet, as the heresiarchs persisted in troubling 
 the peace of the Church, the Sovereign Pontiff 
 determined to promulgate their condemnation 
 in a more solemn manner. Accordingly the 
 Council met, not to discuss the merits of the 
 subject, but solely to cooperate with him toward 
 the total suppression of this heretical movement. 
 
 The same point is proven by Baronlus, who 
 cites some very ancient codices, preserved in the 
 Vatican Library and elsewhere.* 
 
 The reasons, which moved the Pope to sum- 
 mon the Council, also weighed with the Oriental 
 Bishops. Headed by Basil, the Primate of Cap- 
 padocia, they addressed Damasus in a letter, to 
 
 ♦Baron, ad ann. 381, N. 19. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. Ill 
 
 which we have had occasion to alhide above, and 
 in which they exj^ress the desire to see the Papal 
 rescript promulgated in all the Churches of the 
 East. " Omnibm Orientls Eccleslis publicari et 
 manifestari petimiis." Why should they have so 
 strongly urged the Pope to issue a public rescript, 
 if they had not felt, with the Church at large, 
 that it would produce the desired eifect? Nor 
 was there a feigned submission, but an earnest 
 conviction, which led to practical results. Even 
 after organizing in Council, they did not regard 
 themselves as a sovereign ecclesiastical tribunal, 
 but as a judicial body amenable to the Vicar of 
 Christ. Hence the deferential language in which 
 they petitioned him to confirm the disciplinary 
 canons which they had made, and to anathema- 
 tize a certain Timotheus, who had learned her- 
 esy in the school of Apollinaris. The Pope, 
 while commending their submission, reminds 
 them that, by acquitting themselves of what 
 was a strict obligation, they have but furthered 
 their own interests, since, without the sanction 
 of the Holy See, all their proceedings would re- 
 main null and void. " Quod debitam sedi Apos- 
 toIiccB reverentiam exhibet caritas vestra vobis ipsis 
 plurimum prcestatisJ^ 
 
 He rejected their disciplinary canons of the 
 Council, which were, accordingly, without force, 
 
112 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 as we learn from a brief of Gregory the Great 
 to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, 
 and to Cyriacus, the Bishop of Constantinople. 
 
 After remaining, for a long time, in a state of 
 suspense, they were finally approved, under cer- 
 tain restrictions, by Innocent, in the thirteenth 
 century. But those acts, which were not con- 
 firmed by the Holy See, were never considered 
 as binding in foro conscientice, nor reckoned 
 among: the decrees of General Councils. 
 
 The other petition was doomed to a similar 
 fate. The Pope saw no necessity of issuing a 
 special bull, condemnatory of Timotheus, be- 
 cause, as he remarked, the whole ground was 
 covered by the formulary previously sent, by the 
 Holy See, to the Council. "Jam enim semel 
 formulam dedimus, ut qui se Christianum profite- 
 atur, illud servet — quid ergo Timothei damna- 
 tionem denuo a me quceritisV^ 
 
 HI. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 EPHESUS. 
 
 When Nestorius began to disseminate his her- 
 esies, Pope Coelestin, who then governed the 
 Church, immediately issued a bull of excom- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 113 
 
 munication, which was to take effect ten days 
 after being received. If, within that time, which 
 was allowed him for reflection, he would not sign 
 a public recantation of his errors, he was declared 
 depased from his See, and Cyril, the Patriarch 
 of Alexandria, was authorized to proceed against 
 him, according to the directions of the Pope. 
 *^ Aperte hanc scias nostram sententiam ut nisi 
 .... intra decimum diem aperta et scripta con- 
 fessione damnaveris^ ab universalis Ecclesice Catho- 
 liccB communione te scias dejedum."^ 
 
 Besides the rescript which was {passed on Xes- 
 torius himself, the Pope sent an official commu- 
 nication to the principal Bishops of the East, as 
 well as a Pastoral to all the Clergy and people of 
 Constantinople. By these measures, the Holy 
 Father virtually declared himself independent of 
 a General Council. And, if he sanctioned the 
 meeting of the Fathers at Ephesus, it was with 
 the view of breaking the obstinacy of the heresi- 
 arch, and of counteracting the influence of the 
 Emperor, who was supposed to favor the new 
 errors. That this was the object of Coelestin is 
 apparent from his instructions to his legates : 
 "We command you,'' said he to them, "to 
 maintain the dignity of the Apostolical See. 
 
 »Hard. i, 1299. 
 
114 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 When, therefore, any discussion arises, you 
 shall pass sentence on the opinions advanced, 
 but not enter the lists as disputants." ^'Ad dis- 
 ceptionem si ventum fuerity Vos de eorem sententia 
 judicare debetis, non suhire certamen.^^ At the 
 same time he informed the Fathers of the Coun- 
 cil, that he had charged his legates to execute, 
 without adding or retrenching, what he himself 
 had previously decided — " ut quce a nobis antea 
 statuta sunt exequantur '' — and he forbade the 
 assembly to depart, in ought, from the instruc- 
 tion, which he had given to his representatives. 
 When the legates had read this communica- 
 tion, the entire Council indorsed the Papal 
 claims, with the words : " From the earliest 
 ages of the Church it has always been held as 
 indubitable, that the prince of the Apostles, the 
 pillar of truth, the foundation-stone of the 
 Catholic Church, Peter, who received the Keys 
 of the Kingdom of Heaven, always lives in his 
 successors and pronounces his judgment by their 
 lips." ''Qui ad hoc usque tempus et semper in 
 suis successoribus vivit et Judicium exercet." Ac- 
 cordingly the Fathers favored and promulgated 
 the condemnation of Xestorius ; and, when sub- 
 sequently they notified the Emperor of the re- 
 sult, they offered, as an explanation of their con- 
 duct, that they had acted conformably to the in- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 115 
 
 structions of the Pope, whose previous decision 
 had compelled them to take this course. The 
 Council, therefore, justified its proceedings by 
 the authority of the Pope, while the Pope rested 
 wholly upon the absolute power vested in his 
 own person. 
 
 During one of the sessions, Theodore, Bishop 
 of Ancyra, exclaimed, in the name of the As- 
 sembly : " The Lord of the Universe has sig- 
 nified, by the letters of Coelestin, that the sen- 
 tence of condemnation, promulgated by the 
 Synod, is just.'' *'Ju.stam esse Synodi sententiam 
 demofUftranit universorum Deus, per literas Ce- 
 kstini.^^ 
 
 Finally, in a letter, which the Fathers ad- 
 dressed to the Pope, to ask his confirmation of 
 the Synodical Decrees, they stated that they had 
 followed, with scrupulous fidelity, the instruc- 
 tions which they had received. 
 
 It need not surprise us, then, that Genadius, 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, speaks of the reso- 
 lutions of the Council as " dictated by Coelestin,'' 
 while Pope Sixtus, the successor of Ccelestin, 
 writes to John, the Patriarch of Antioch : " You 
 may infer, from the transactions of the Council 
 at Ephesus, what is meant by conforming to the 
 sentiments of the Holy See. St. Peter has 
 transmitted to his successors, the power received 
 
116 TESTIMONY OP THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 from Christ." ^' B. Petrus in suis successoribtis 
 quod accepU hoc tradidif 
 
 The fact is so patent, that, down to our days, 
 the liturgical books of the Russian Church, at- 
 tribute the extinction of the Nestorian schism 
 to Pope Coelestin, and not to the Council at 
 Ephesus.* 
 
 IV. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 CHALCEDON. 
 
 We have compared the testimony of the Gene- 
 ral Councils to the light of the rising sun. The 
 Council of Chalcedon furnishes us with a strik- 
 ing illustration, inasmuch as it establishes, more 
 clearly than all the preceding Councils, the au- 
 thority and prerogatives of the Holy See. 
 
 Intelligence having reached Rome concerning 
 the outrages committed by Dionysius, in the Con^ 
 venticle of Ephesus, and the machinations resorted 
 to by Eutyches, Leo the Great, acceding to the in- 
 stances of the Emperor Marcian and of the Em- 
 press Pulcheria, convoked the Council of Chal- 
 cedon. The motive which induced the Sover- 
 eigns to urge their request, is clearly stated by 
 
 ♦ See Harduin I, 1299; Nicephorus XIV, 34; Hard. I, 1503; 
 Conoil. torn. 3, p. 126; and Maistre du Pape, i, 91. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 117 
 
 the Emperor, iu his letter to the Pope. As 
 though he were guarding against all possibility 
 of misconstruction, he makes the remarkable as- 
 sertion, that when soliciting the convocation of 
 a Council, he would not be understood as ask- 
 ing for a new ordinance or definition, but simply 
 for a more speedy promulgation and enforcement 
 of the one already made by the Pope, whose 
 utterances must be received by the faithful as 
 though he were Peter himself. " Tanquam ab 
 ipso bcdlissirno Petro cuperet declarari" 
 
 The letters of Pulcheria breathe the same 
 spirit of submission. The Po})e, yielding to 
 these considerations, at length issued a bull for 
 the convocation of the Council, with the formal 
 salvo, " that the dignity and rights of the See of 
 Peter remain unimpaired." '^ Petri Apostoli sedis 
 jure et hon(yre servato.'' Six hundred and thirty 
 Bishops answered the summons. Paschasius, 
 the Papal legate, opened the Council and de- 
 clared, in the name of the Pope, that Dionysius, 
 having held a Synod without the sanction of 
 the Holy See, had forfeited his claims to a seat 
 in the assembly. The intruder was accordingly 
 ejected and forbidden a place among the Fathers. 
 The Council entered into session headed by the 
 legate, who strictly enforced the instructions 
 given by the Pope, in his letter on Eutyches. 
 
118 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 After some preliminary consultation, a profes- 
 sion of faith was drawn up, which, though not 
 couched in the same terms as the one sent by 
 the Pope to Eutyches, was yet an accurate 
 compendium of Catholic doctrine. After the 
 reading of this symbol, all the Fathers ex- 
 claimed, as with one voice : " This formula re- 
 commends itself to the Council; this was the 
 faith of our ancestors ; anathema be he that be- 
 lieves otherwise." This sudden demonstration 
 on the part of the venerable body, was an evident 
 sign that all favored the adoption of the formula. 
 Yet the Papal legates refused their assent, and 
 asked their dismissory lettei-s, with the view of 
 returning at once to the Pope, in whose for- 
 mulary they would not allow even a jot to be 
 changed. 
 
 This step, on the part of the Papal representa- 
 tives, reversed the decision of the Fathers, who 
 now exclaimed : ^' What Leo believes we all be- 
 lieve; anathema be he who believes any thing 
 else. Peter has spoken through Leo.'' " Ut Leo 
 credimus; anathema ei^qui non ita credit. Petrus 
 per Leonem loeutus estJ^ 
 
 Acropius, the Bishop of Sebastopol, remarked : 
 " His Holiness, the Pope, has sent us a formula ; 
 we are bound to follow it, and to subscribe to its 
 requirements.'' The Holy Synod, taking up the 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. CX)irNCILS. 119 
 
 speaker's words, pursued: "That is what we 
 wanted ; no better exposition can be made." 
 
 The synodical letter, in which the Fathers peti- 
 tion the Pope to confirm the acts of the Council, 
 acknowledges the same supreme authority in the 
 following passage : " We have a rock of refuge 
 in Peter, who alone possesses the absolute right 
 of deciding, in the place of God ; because he 
 alone lias the keys of Heaven. All his defini- 
 tions, therefore, bind as emanating from the Vice- 
 gerent of Christ." '' Habemns Pefnim petram 
 rcfiigii, et ijm soli, libera poteslate, loco Dei sit 
 jiLS disc4^mendi, secinidum dares a Deo sibi datas, 
 el omnia ab ipso definita teneantur tanqaam a Vi- 
 cario Apostolici ihronU' 
 
 The -condemnation and deposition of Diosco- 
 nis having been published in full Council, was 
 received, by all, with the words : " He that is the 
 foundation-stone of the faith has divested him 
 of his episcopal dignits\ Leo, the Bishop of 
 Rome, has but reechoed the sentence of the Bles- 
 sed Peter. Whosoever does not abide by the in- 
 structions of his Holiness is a heretic."' ^'Hic 
 qui est rectce fidei fundamentum, nudavit eum epis- 
 copali dignitate.^^'^ 
 
 In memory of the illustrious Pontiff who so 
 strenuously guarded the prerogatives of Peter, 
 
 *Act. Cone, iv, Sess. 
 
120 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 the Eussian Church still retains, in its Liturgy, 
 a hymn beginning with the words : '' How shall 
 I extol thee, O Leo, heir of the invincible 
 rock?"* 
 
 V. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE. 
 
 Pope Yigilius, yielding to the solicitations of 
 the Emperor Justinian, who professed a special 
 regard for his august person, had consented to 
 visit the Eastern Capital. Yet the intimacy of 
 hospitality could not make him shrink from the 
 performance of his duty. From the very mo- 
 ment of his arrival he censured the arrogant as- 
 sumptions of a recent imperial edict, and showed 
 himself determined not to surrender the rights 
 of the Holy" See. This resoluteness incensed 
 Justinian, who sought to revenge himself by 
 casting his illustrious guest into prison. Yigili- 
 us, unruffled by the occurrence, remarked to the 
 assembled dignitaries of the empire : ^' Remem- 
 ber that, though you have enchained Yigilius, 
 you can not enchain Peter. The fear of man 
 shall never induce me to prove unfaithful to the 
 duties of my charge." The Yicar of Christ had 
 
 * De Maistre i, 9. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 121 
 
 not overrated his courage. The civil authorities 
 resorted to violence, and Vigilius, aided by the 
 people, sought refuge in the Church of St. Sophia, 
 at Chalcedon. Yet, even from this asylum, he 
 issued a document on the questions agitated at 
 the time, and, with Apostolic authority, subjoined 
 to every article a solemn anathema against all 
 who would dare to teach the errors condemned. 
 Finally, he pronounced null and void whatever 
 might be done in defiance of this ordinance. 
 Evidently Peter had not been enchained in the 
 person of Vigilius. 
 
 The Council assembled, and the Emperor, as 
 wx'll as the Fathers, invited the Pope to preside 
 in [)erson. But Vigilius, who wished to show 
 the Eastern Church in particular, that the Sov- 
 ereign Pontiff, when alone, is invested with the 
 plenitude of Ajwstolical power, as well as when 
 presiding over the assembled episcopacy, declined 
 making his appearance. However, in order to 
 prevent all treachery on the part of some servile 
 Bishops who might possibly be weak enough to 
 betray the cause of the Church for the favor of 
 tlie Court, he declared invalid whatever the Synod 
 would enact in opiX)sition to his orders. But so 
 far were the assembled Prelates from setting the 
 Po|>e's authority at defiance, that they followed, 
 in the minutest particulars, the directions which 
 
122 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 he had given, and professed that they received 
 liis letters upon matters of fiuth with as much 
 submission as they did the four Gospels. ^^Pro- 
 fessa est Romani Pontificis quoad fidem epistolas, 
 ceque ac quatuor evangelia suscipere.^' ^ 
 
 Yet the mere apprehension of resistance threw 
 so much suspicion on the proceedings of the As- 
 sembly, that, for a long time, many portions of 
 the Catholic Church did not recognize it as a 
 General Council at all. Until it became gen- 
 erally known, that the Acts of the Council had 
 been confirmed, the faithful acknowledged no 
 other guide on the questions then agitated, than 
 the Constitutions of Vigilius. 
 
 No more evident and glorious proof in regard 
 to the Apostolical authority of the Pope over a 
 Council can be thought of, than this deportment 
 of Vigilius, a captive Pontiff, in the presence of 
 an enraged Emperor and of a Council originally 
 composed only of Greek Bishops. Indeed it was 
 a grand spectacle for the whole world, to see the 
 Koman PontiflP standing firm as a rock, amidst 
 the waves of persecution, defying the combined 
 powder of the Imj^erial and E})iscopal dignity, 
 and finally, when free, without any thought of 
 revenge, confirming the decrees of the Council, 
 
 *Greg. Magn. Lib. Ill, Ep. 37, Facand Lib. II. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 123 
 
 because the Fathers acted precisely according 
 to his orders. And then only after this his 
 confirmation, the Council was acknowledged 
 as legitimate, and ranked among tlie General 
 Councils. 
 
 Considering the circumstances under which 
 this Council was convoked, and, in particular, 
 the relations which had hitherto existed between 
 the Pope and the Emperor, the course pursued 
 by the assembled Fathers must be allowed to be 
 a convincing argument in favor of the supreme 
 Apostolical authority of the Pope. 
 
 TI. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 COxXSTANTINOPLE in. 
 
 This Council was convoked by Pope Agatho, 
 at the request of Coustantine the' Bearded. " The 
 Papal legates were charged to allow^ of no addi- 
 tion, subtraction or alteration in the dogmatical de- 
 cisions of his Holiness, but to require the Council 
 to promulgate, without reservation, the traditions 
 of the Roman See. " Xihil profido prcesumant 
 augere, minuere vel mutare, sed traditiones hujus 
 sedk AjyostoliccB, ut a prcsdecessoribus ApostoUcis 
 Pontificibus instituta est, sinceriter enarrare." 
 
 Agatho likewise asserted his Apostolical au- 
 
124 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 thority in his letter to the Emperor, whom he 
 reminds that the Church of Rome has never 
 strayed from the path of truth into the by-ways 
 of error, and that her decisions have always been 
 received as a rule of faith, not merely by indi- 
 viduals, but also by the Councils. ^^Hmc Apostoli- 
 ca ecdesia nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erro- 
 ris parte deflexa est.'' This is the rule of true faith. 
 ^' licec est verce ficlei regulaJ' Alluding to the 
 words, '' Confirm thy brethren," the Pontiff re- 
 marks that the successors of St. Peter have always 
 strengthened the Church in the truth. Hence 
 he infers that "all bishops, priests and laics, 
 who wish to please the God of truth, must study 
 to conform to the Apostolical rule of the primi- 
 tive faith, founded on the rock Peter, and pre- , 
 served by him from error.'' 
 
 In his letter to the Council he alludes to the 
 instructions given to his legates, and cautions 
 the Fathers not to regard the questions brought 
 before them as open to debate. He informs 
 them, that they are required to embrace, in a 
 compendious definition, the several articles which 
 he has already pronounced certain and immu- 
 table, and then to promulgate the decision all 
 over the world. " Non tamen tamquam de incertis 
 contendere, sed ut eerta et immutabilia compendiosa 
 dejinitione profcrre, simpMciter observantes, ut hwG 
 
TESTBIONY, OF THE GEX. COUNCILS. 125 
 
 eadcm ah omnibus prcedicari, atque apud omnes 
 obtineri jubeatis.^- 
 
 Here, then, is an instance of the policy, which, 
 from the earliest times, the Holy See invariably 
 observed toward the Councils of the East. Be- 
 fore the Assembly went into session, the Pope 
 had already pronounced upon the point in ques- 
 tion and transmitted his decision as a ride of 
 faith, from which no one was allowed to deviate 
 even a hair's breadth. The duty that devolved 
 upon the Council, was not so much to define the 
 truth, as to communicate it, in the most ex{)edi- 
 tious manner, to the more distant provinces of 
 the Christian world. It was on the present 
 occasion, that the Fathers used the words, to 
 which we had occasion to allude above. "It 
 seemed to us paper and ink ; but Peter has spoken 
 by the mouth of Agatho." " Charta et atramentum 
 videhatur, et per Agathonnn Petrm loquebatur.'^ 
 
 Demetrius, Bishop of Persias, gave expression 
 to the sentiments of the Council, in the memora- 
 ble words : " I receive the instructions of Agatho 
 as dictated under the inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost, by the Blessed Peter, the prince of the 
 Apostles.^' " Tamqiiam a Sjnritu Sando didata, 
 per OS beatissimi Petri, principis Apostohrurn ex 
 digito prcedidi beatissimi Pajxe AgathonisJ^ This 
 remark expresses the sentiments of all the Fa- 
 
126 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 thers. For, in their address to the Emperor, 
 they spoke of the letters of the Pope as written 
 under an inspiration from heaven; and, in a 
 communication to Agatho himself, they declared 
 that they left the whole matter, under considera- 
 tion, in the hands of him, who stood unmoved 
 upon the solid rock of faith. " Itaque tibi, quid 
 gerendum sity relinquimus stanti supra firmam 
 fidei petram.^^ 
 
 Finally, they once more declared, that they 
 would abide, in all things, by the decisions of 
 Siricius, which they regarded as ^^Apostolical 
 and divine oracles ^^ with which they had crushed 
 the growing heresy. " Qiias ut a smnmo Apos- 
 tolorum vertice divinitus prcescriptas agnovimuSj 
 per quas exortam nuper multiplicis en^oris hcereti- 
 cam sedam depulimusJ^ 
 
 These words of the Fathers were reechoed by 
 the Emperor himself, who wrote to the Pope : 
 "We all received your dogmatical letters with 
 open arms, and thought that we had, when re- 
 ceiving them, the pleasure of embracing Peter 
 himself, when he confessed the Divinity of 
 Christ." 
 
 Sending the Decrees of the Council around 
 through the empire, he did not send them in the 
 name of the Council, but of Agatho, as decisions 
 and decrees of the Apostolical See. 
 
TESTIMONY OP THE GEK. OOtTNCTtS. 127 
 
 Yll. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 NICiEA 11. 
 
 This Council having been convoked to oppose 
 an effectual barrier to the outrage of the Icono- 
 clasts by Adrian I, the Pope, following the ex- 
 ample of his predecessors, decided previously the 
 dogmatical question. He sent this his decision in 
 two letters to the East. The one directed to the 
 Emperor and the Empress; the other directed to 
 the Patriarch Tarasius. 
 
 He required his definitions to be received as a 
 RULE OF FAiTir, becausc he filled the chair of 
 Peter, who transmitte<l the authority he had 
 received from Christ to all succeeding Popes. 
 '^Quibus aucforitatis pofcstatem, quemadmodum a 
 Domino ei eoiicessum ed, et ipse quoque contulit ae 
 tradidit divino jure successor ibics Fontificibus." 
 
 Hence, he infers that the other Churches are 
 indebted for all sound doctrine to the Holy See, 
 which guards the deposit of faith. "jEc eacccterce 
 ecclesice fidei documenta sumpserunt.'^ 
 
 At the opening of the Council the Papal leg- 
 ates put this simple question : " Does Tarasius, 
 does the Council concur in the decision of his 
 Holiness or not?" ^^ Diced nobis Patriarcha 
 
128 TESTIMONY OF THE C4EN. COUNCILS. 
 
 Tarasms, dicat nobis sancta Synodus^ d consen- 
 tiat Uteris sanctissimi Papce senioris Romce, an 
 non f '' They assigned as a cause for - this sum- 
 mary proceeding, that " neither reason nor faith 
 would permit the raising of any doubt upon a 
 question that had already been irrevocably de- 
 cided.^' ^^Quia de irrefcn^nabili judicio quwri nee 
 ratio nee fides pemiittitJ^ All the Fathers re- 
 plied : " We follow, accept, and acquiesce." " Se- 
 quimuVf admittimus et consentimus.^' 
 
 The necessity of this, their declaration, is con- 
 firmed by their remarkable subscription to the 
 Acts of the Council. 
 
 The majority of them subscribed with John of 
 Ephesus, in these words: "With the grace of 
 Christ our Lord, the true God, I believe and 
 profess whatever is contained in the letters of his 
 Holiness the Pope of Rome. My faith is that 
 of Pope Adrian. With this faith I wish to ap- 
 pear before the judgment-seat of Christ. '* 
 
 John, the Bishop of Taurimania, made his 
 profession in the following words : " Whereas 
 the letters sent by Adrian, are the embodiment 
 of divine truth, I believe and confess." " Cum 
 velut divince orthodoxice terminus sunt litercey qucje 
 ab Hadriano missce sunt, 2)rofiteorJ^ 
 
 Tarasius himself, writing to Adrian in the 
 name of the Council, styles the Papal instruc- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 129 
 
 tions " Divine oracles " — " Deiloquas doctrinas " 
 — and he attributes this sacred character to the 
 Apostolical authority of the Holy See. " Cathe- 
 dram Apostoli Petri sortita est Sanctitas VestraJ^ 
 
 VIII. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE IV. 
 
 This Council, whose object was to check the 
 audacity of the refractory Photius, was convened 
 by Pope Adrian II. He was zealously seconded 
 by the Emperor Basil, who, by request of the 
 Pope, exerted his influence to gather the prelates 
 of the Christian world into the great Eastern 
 Capital. The letter addressed by the Pope to 
 the Emperor was read during the first session of 
 the Council. It required the Fathers, under the 
 severest censures, to consign to the flames, in 
 full Council, all the papers of the cabal held by 
 Photius, and to obliterate so completely every 
 vestige of its infamous proceedings, that not even 
 a letter might remain at the close of the meeting. 
 " Nee superesse apud quemllbet vel unum jota vel 
 unum apioem, nisi forte quis totius clerieatus, imo 
 tot i us 7iominis Christiani dignitate car ere volue- 
 
130 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 The Pope declared that every one who would 
 refuse to do so Avould lose at once, " ipso fado/^ 
 every degree of clerical dignity — nay, even the 
 claim to be called a Christian. 
 
 Having faithfully executed the order, all the 
 Fathers exclaimed, as with one voice : " Blessed 
 be the Lord, who has deigned to accept some sat- 
 isfaction for your Holiness." 
 
 Adrian likewise sent to Constantinople a docu- 
 ment, entitled " Libellus/^ which was made the 
 test of orthodoxy. Without subscribing to its 
 teachings, no one who had fallen into the new 
 errors could hope for reconciliation with the 
 Church and the Holy See. This Papal document 
 teaches us that the first requisite for salvation is 
 a strict adherence to the rules of true faith. 
 ^^ Prima salus est, rectce fidei regulam eustodireJ^ 
 What this rule is, the Pope himself informs us 
 •when he writes: ^'Our Lord said to Simon: 
 Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
 my Church." History furnishes abundant evi- 
 dence that this promise has not been void, be- 
 cause the faith of the Holy See has never been 
 infected with error. ^' Hcec, quce dicta sunt, re- 
 rum probantur effectibus, quia in sede Apostolica 
 imiimculata est sempjer Catholica servata religio et 
 sancta celebrafa doctrinal' 
 
 All the Fathers of the Council attested in 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 131 
 
 writing, that, by following the decrees and de- 
 cisions of the Holy Pope Adrian, they hoped to 
 abide in the communion of that Church, which is 
 the repository of true Christian faith. The for- 
 mula of their profession reads thus : " In the pres- 
 ence of the undersigned witnesses, I, N. N., Bisliop 
 of N., have affixed my signature to the profession 
 of my faith drawn up by the Blessed Adrian, our 
 Sovereign Pontiff and Pope.'' ^^ Ego, N. N., 
 Episcopus N.J hu'w irrofessionis meet lihelloj facto 
 a me in bcatissimo Hadriano smnmo Pontifice et 
 umvcrsali Papa, subscripsiy et testes qui subscrip- 
 senmt, rogavi.'^ 
 
 AVe consider the subscription of this formula 
 of Pope Adrian, by the Fatliers of this General 
 Council, as the clearest and most succinct illus- 
 tration of the mystical union of the members of 
 the Church, with their Head, through faith. 
 The Fathers confess that they believe not as re- 
 posing on a vital element of faith, hidden in their 
 own mind, but as believing by that vital element 
 by which the Head of the Church is believing, 
 and from whose fliith the life and integrity of 
 faith for all the members of the Church emanate. 
 
 During the second session all the bishops, who 
 had been implicated in the Photian schism, after 
 subscribing to tlie formula of Adrian, were again 
 interrogated, whether they had heard the ^'Id- 
 
132 TESTniONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 hellus^^ read and were ready to submit to its 
 decisions. They all exclaimed : " We accept your 
 judgment as that of the Son of God." ^^ Judici- 
 um vestrum tanquam ex persona filii Dei habemusj^ 
 
 In the third session a letter was read, written 
 by the Pope to Ignatius, in which the decisions 
 of the Holy See are called irrevocable. 
 
 Ignatius himself wrote, in a similar manner, 
 to Pope Nicholas. His letter, which was read 
 during the third session of the Council, con- 
 tains such expressions as the following: "For 
 the ailments of the body there are many phy- 
 sicians; but for the wounds of the soul there is 
 but one, the Bishop of Home." " Unum et sin- 
 gularem prceceUentem atque Catholicissimum me- 
 dicum ipse — solus ex toto magister Deus omnium 
 produxit — videlicet tuam fraternam sanctitatemy 
 "As the successors of St. Peter have inherited 
 his privileges, they have always signalized them- 
 selves by rooting out the tares of heresy." 
 ^'Eradicatores et peremptores malorum zizaniorum 
 in exortis h(jeresihus et ptrcevaricationihus.''^ 
 
 The Fathers of the Council also aver that 
 they consider Nicholas, as well as his successor 
 Adrian, to be the organ of the Holy Ghost." 
 ^'Ita'que beatissimum Papam Nicolaum, nee non et 
 sanctissimum Hadrianum Papam successoreiiij or- 
 ganum Spiritus Sancti habentes. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 133 
 
 They, as well as Ignatius and the Emperor, 
 petitioned the Pope to recognize the validity of 
 the orders administered by the intruded Patri- 
 arch. But in vain. Adrian briefly replied: 
 "iVo/i est in nobis: Est et non est.^^ "Our deci- 
 sion is irrevocable; we can not contradict our- 
 selves.'' 
 
 Such is the history of the first eight Q^cumeni- 
 cal Councils held in the East, such the lanu-uaire, 
 in which they speak of the Supreme and Infal- 
 lible Authority of the Roman Pontiff and his 
 decisions. The weight drawn from the acts of 
 these first eight (Ecumenical Councils can not 
 be overrated. They were Councils held in the 
 East where the Episcopacy was protected by the 
 imperial power. These Councils, moreover, were 
 composed, for the majority, by eastern patri- 
 archs, primates, and bishops, who from the very 
 foundation of Constantinople as the new resi- 
 dence of the emperors of the East, looked upon 
 the Western Church wdth so great jealousy. 
 Nevertheless they bowed with such unbounded 
 reverence and submission to the decrees and or- 
 ders of Rome, extolling, in yet more emphatical 
 terms, its authority, than the Popes themselves 
 did. It is truly lamentable that the arrogance 
 and pride, so deeply ingrained in the patriarchs of 
 Constantinople, finally involved this once fairest 
 
134 TESTIMONY OP THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 portion of Christianity in so fatal and fanatical 
 a schism. Still even now, all vestiges of that 
 filial devotion to the Holy See have not yet quite 
 disappeared. 
 
 IX. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 LATERAN I. 
 
 This Council was convoked by Calixtus II, 
 for the purpose of setting at rest the vexed ques- 
 tion of Investitures. The thousand bishops who 
 answered his summons, did not deliberate in pub- 
 lic sessions, upon the steps to be taken, but, by 
 fasting and prayer, invoked the light of Heaven 
 upon the Holy Father, who was meanwhile mak- 
 ing out his final sentence. 
 
 Like the Fathers of the preceding Councils, 
 they considered him the "organ of the Holy 
 Ghost;" so that, when he had once given his 
 decision they regarded the poiut as settled. Ac- 
 cordingly the agreement, which was entered into 
 between the Emperor and the Sovereign Pontiff, 
 was appropriately called the "Pactum Calixti- 
 nim'^ — "Compact of Calixtus" — and not the 
 " Compact of the Lateran Council." The Em- 
 peror yielded and took the following oath : 
 "For the love of God, of the Holy Roman 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 135 
 
 Church, and of the Pope, as well as for the 
 good of my soul, I, Henry, renouuoe all claim 
 to the right of Investiture.'^ 
 
 It may not be amiss to remind our readers, 
 that these occurrences l)elong to a j)eriod, during 
 which the faithful were wont to look up to the 
 Popes, as the arbiters, who decided upon even 
 the temporal destinies of Christian nations. 
 
 It does not belong to our thesis to enter upon 
 a discussion, by what riglit the Popes actcil in 
 that manner, but we only remark, that evidently 
 the venemtion, with which all the Christian 
 world looked upon the Roman Pontiff as the 
 highest and supreme judge in matters of laith 
 and morals, inclined them almost irresistibly to 
 submit also to his arbitration the temporal affairs 
 of princes and peoples. 
 
 X. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 LATERAN U. 
 
 This Council, convoked by Innocent II, was 
 attended by about one thousand bishops. Its 
 objects were the extinction of the schism headed 
 by the famous Peter Leo, the condemnation of 
 the heresies broached by Peter of Bruis, and the 
 eradication of divers abuses, which the remiss- 
 
136 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 ness of some prelates had allowed to creep into 
 the provinces under their jurisdiction. 
 
 The Pope, in this Council, exercised his su- 
 preme judicial authority over the assembled 
 Episcopacy in, we may say, a palpable manner. 
 Innocent, after calling by name those Archbish- 
 ops and Bishops whom he considered guilty, first 
 severely rebuked them for their faults, and then, 
 with his own hand, stripped them of their Epis- 
 copal insignia. 
 
 The Council then was held, but all the Canons 
 enacted in that Council were not promulgated in 
 the name of the Council, but in that of the Pope, 
 as it may be seen from the very preamble. " In- 
 nocentius II in Condlio Lateranensi secundo.'* 
 ^'Innocent in the Second Council of Lateran." 
 This was also the case in regard to all other 
 General Councils, when the Holy Father was 
 personally presiding over them. This manner of 
 promulgating the Acts, Decrees, and Ordinations 
 of a General Council when the Pope in person 
 presided, shows very powerfully in whose au- 
 thority the whole legislative character of the 
 Council itself was vested. If the announced 
 General Council takes place next year, we have 
 no doubt, that its enactments also will be pro- 
 mulgated under tlie heading : Pius IX in the 
 Council of the Vatican. 
 
N 
 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. (X)TTNCILS. 137 
 
 XI, GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 LATER AN III. 
 
 The Eleventh General Council assembled, under 
 an order from Alexander III, to suppress the 
 schism commenced by the apostate Octavian, to 
 quell the disturbances excited by the Albigenses, 
 and to correct sundry abuses, which had found 
 their way into the sanctuary. 
 
 The Canons, promulgated by this Council, 
 were all of a disciplinar}- character. The Fathers 
 did not even consider it advisable to comdemn 
 the heresies of the Albigenses, because, after the 
 decision given by the S<^)vereign Pontiff previous 
 to the convocation, they regarded any further 
 action as supertiuous. Besides, the Pope, in the 
 Council itself, exercised his Apostolical authority 
 as the supreme judge in matters of faith in a 
 most conspicuous manner, because, when Peter 
 Lombard, Archbishop of Paris, was charged with 
 teaching that, as man, Christ was a mere mythi- 
 cal personage, Alexander, without so much as 
 consulting the Fathers upon the measures to be 
 taken, summarily condemned the error, and, in a 
 letter to William, the Archbishop of Sens, directed 
 the Bishops of France how to act. 
 12 
 
138 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COTJNCILS. 
 
 The submission of the French Church, which 
 regarded these Papal decisions as infallible, found 
 its fullest expression in the memorable words of 
 Walter of St. Victor. " Let those troublesome 
 quibblers, stricken by the thunderbolts of an 
 Apostolical definition, cease croaking.'^ " Qu Hh 
 cessent de crodsserj ces importdns sophists, atterrSs 
 qu His sont par le tonnerre d 'une definition apos- 
 tolique" 
 
 XII. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 LATERAN IV. 
 
 This Council, convoked by order of Innocent III, 
 in the year 1215, gathered together no less than 
 twelve hundred and eighty-five prelates, of whom 
 seventy-one were Archbishops, four hundred and 
 twelve Bishops, and over eight hundred Abbots. 
 The Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, 
 as well as the Maronite Archbishop, who had 
 lately been reconciled to the Church, assisted in 
 person, together with a number of embassadors 
 from various European courts. The Patriarchs 
 of Antioch and Alexandria sent their delegates 
 to represent them in the Council, and to ask for 
 reconciliation with the Church of Rome. 
 
 The Pope in the Council prescribed the pro- 
 
TESTTMOXY OF THE GEX. COUNCILS. 139 
 
 fession of faith. During the proceedings of the 
 Connci] he CGDSured a work of the Abbot Joa- 
 chim, but spared its author, who had previously 
 made a written declaration to abide by the de- 
 cision of the Holy See. 
 
 The fifth Canon of the Council pronounced the 
 Church of Rome "the mother and teacher of all 
 other Churches." " Utpote univcrsomim Christifi- 
 delium mater et magisfra.^' All decrees of the 
 Council were promulgated in his name. 
 
 XIII. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 LYONS I. 
 
 The XIII General Council, held by order 
 of Innocent IV, in the year 1245, was attended 
 by the Emperor Baldwin himself, as well as by 
 the Patriarch of Constantinople. During it the 
 Pope pronounced judgment against the Emperor 
 Frederic, who had rendered himself guilty of 
 flagrant injustice. We have repeatedly remarked, 
 that the authority formerly exercised in temporal 
 affairs, by the successors of St. Peter, was due to 
 that " Conscience of Christianity,'^ which regarded 
 them as supreme Judges in spiritual matters. The 
 Pope himself, acting in his capacity of Supreme 
 
140 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 Judge and Euler of the Council, pronounced his 
 sentence after hearing the advice of the assem- 
 bled Fathers. All the Canons of the Council ap- 
 peared under the heading, ^'Innocentius in Con- 
 Gilio Lugdunensij^ etc. " Innocent, in the Council 
 at Lyons." 
 
 XIV. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 LYONS XL 
 
 This Council was assembled by Gregory X, 
 in the year 1274, to solemnize the reunion of 
 the Eastern and Western Churches. The Em- 
 peror Michael, of Constantinople, as well as all 
 the other European Sovereigns, were duly repre- 
 sented. Even the Great Khan of Tartary had 
 sent a delegation. 
 
 The conditions, on which the schismatical 
 Greeks would be re-admitted to the communion 
 of the Church of Rome, had been previously 
 fixed by Gregory X and Clement IV. 
 
 As soon as Michael had been raised to the 
 imperial throne, he dispatched embassadors to 
 Rome, with the view of effecting a reunion be- 
 tween the Greek and Latin Churches. Clement 
 IV, who then filled the chair of St. Peter, and 
 following the footsteps of his predecessors, sent 
 to Constantinople a symbol of faith — ^^Libellum 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 141 
 
 professionis Jidel " — to which the Emi^cror and 
 all those who wished their reconciliation with 
 the Church were required to subscribe. This 
 symbol of faith embodied several articles of be- 
 lief never before defined, and yet it allowed of 
 no discussion or change. *'Kon autem ad prcc- 
 didce discws.sionan vel novam dcfijutionem fidei.^^ 
 In thus drawing up a formula for the profes- 
 sion of faith, Gregory and Clement exercised a 
 prerogative, which by itself settles our whole 
 thesis, and which the whole theological school, 
 in common with St. Thomas of xVquin, who 
 was then living, have always recognized in the 
 Yicar of Christ. 
 
 The Emperor and all the members of the 
 Greek Clergy signed this symbol and sent em- 
 bassadors, who stated that they had come to 
 make a public profession of the faith taught by 
 the Roman See, and promised to yield perfect 
 obedience to its decisions. 
 
 The Pope declared in his letter to the Em- 
 peror, that a General Council should solemnize 
 this act of reunion of the Eastern Churches with 
 the true Church of God, but not to discuss any 
 farther the matters already defined by Him. 
 "iVo?! aufem ad prcEdidce discussionem vel novam 
 dejinitionem fideiy * 
 
 * Cone. torn, ii, p. 946. 
 
142 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 In the fourth session the profession of faith, 
 which bore the signatures of the Emperor and 
 of the Principal Oriental Bishops, was publicly 
 read. The ecclesiastical as well as the secular 
 authorities of the Empire thereby acknowledged 
 that the Roman Pontiff has inherited from St. 
 Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, the rights of 
 the primacy together with the plenitude of Apos- 
 tolical power, and that, therefore, all questions, 
 which touch upon the doctrines of faith, must be 
 settled by the decision of the Holy See. " Quern 
 primatum se ab ipso Domino in beato Petro Ajjos- 
 tolorum principey sive vertices cujus Romanus Pon- 
 tifex est successor J cum plenitudine poteskdis re- 
 cepisse veraciter et humiliter recognovit. Sic et si 
 quae de fide subortce fuerint quoestioneSy suo debent 
 judicio definiriJ^ 
 
 At the conclusion of this ceremony of recon- 
 ciliation, the Pope entoned the " Te Deum ; " 
 and immediately those present, joined in the 
 swelling chorus, amid tears of joy.* 
 
 XV. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 VIENNE. 
 
 The XY General Council, which various he- 
 retical movements and a relaxation of ecclesias- 
 
 *Raynal(i ad ann. 1212, Cone. torn, ii, p. 957. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN, COUNCTLS. 143 
 
 tical discipline had rendered veiy desirable, was 
 convoked, in the year 1311, hy Clement V. 
 
 In his encyclical, he reminded the faithful of 
 the authority vested in the Roman Pontiff, whom 
 the Lord has intrusted with the government of 
 all the Churches, in order that those who have 
 been regenerated in the baptismal font, may in- 
 sure their salvation by adhering to the teachings 
 of the Holy See, and guard against the fate of 
 such as stray from the path of sound doctrine. 
 ^^Sane Romana Ecdesia, mater alma jldeJium, ca~ 
 jmt est disponeivte Domino Ucclesianim omnium et 
 magistraj a qua, velut afonte primitivo, ad sin- 
 gukis alias ejusdem fidei rivuli derivantu}^ — ad 
 cujus regimen voluit ChriMi dementia Romanum 
 Pontificem vice sui deputare ministrum, id insti- 
 tutionem ipsius et dodrinam, eloquio veritaiis Evan- 
 geliccB traditam, cuncti renati fonte boptismatis 
 teneant et conservent ; ut, qui sub hac dodrina 
 cursum vitce rede peregerint, salvi fiant, qui vero 
 ab ea discesserinty condemnenturj' * 
 
 This formula, which gave the tone to all the 
 proceedings of the Council, may be regarded as 
 a fair index of the disposition with which the 
 Fathers assembled. It need not, then, be a mat- 
 ter of surprise, that all the Decrees of the Council, 
 together with the Ordinations, Decisions, and 
 
 *Conc. torn, ii, p. 1539. 
 
144 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 Decrees passed by the Pope, before and after the 
 convocation, subsequently appeared in the same 
 volume under the head of " Clementine Enact- 
 ments.^' " Clementinje." It was but the ap- 
 plication of the principle, that the regulations of 
 the Holy See are equally binding, whether made 
 IN or OUT OF a Council. 
 
 In the treatise " On the Holy Trinity and on 
 the Catholic Faith'' — "De Summa Trinitate et 
 fide Catholica" — this Council explicitly states, 
 that it belongs exclusively to the Apostolical See 
 to pronounce dogmatically upon points of faith. 
 "Ad quam Apostoliece considerationis aciem DUM- 
 TAXAT, hcec declarare pertinent,'* 
 
 XVI. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 CONSTANCE. 
 
 This Council assembled in 1414, with the view 
 of suppressing the schism occasioned by the un- 
 certainty, in which the election of the new Pope 
 was, at that time, involved. The whole West- 
 ern Church was divided into antagonistic parties, 
 that contended, with much ardor, for their re- 
 spective nominees. 
 
 This disagreement, concerning the lawful head 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS, 145 
 
 of the Church,^ introduced an element far too 
 important to be disregarded in this connection. 
 Without due attention to this fact, it is utterly 
 impossible to view, in the proper light, the pro- 
 ceedings of the Council previous to the day, on 
 which Pope Martin V was generally recognized 
 as the representative of Christ. 
 
 Those who deny the absolute supremacy of the 
 Poj^, and advocate the suj>erior authority of a 
 Council, are wont to point to the Synod of Con- 
 stance, because it started from the principle that 
 every one, '* even though he bo a person of Papal 
 dignity " — ^* etianm PapullH ^it dlynitatis^^ — owes 
 obedience to the representatives of Christendom 
 assembled to deliberate on the interests of the 
 Church. Such persons evidently forget that it 
 was the object of the Council to consider the 
 claims of the Papal pretenders. When once it 
 became known, who was the lawful successor of 
 St. Peter, the Council assumed quite a different 
 tone, and acknowledged the supreme authority of 
 the Holy See, in terms fully as explicit as had 
 ever been used by any previous Council, 
 
 The Fathers, having taken up the question 
 concerning the Wickliffites, did not pronounce 
 new ecclesiastic censures against them, but con- 
 tented themselves with reminding the faithful, 
 that the sect and its infamous doctrines had been 
 13 
 
146 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 previously condemned by the decisions of the 
 Holy See. These decisions are irrefragable, re- 
 marks the Council, beeause it is impossible that 
 the Apostolical See, that is to say, the Pope, 
 should err. ^'Impossibile est, quod talis sedes 
 aliquid determinet et teneat p7'ofide Catholica recta, 
 quod non esset fides rectaJ' For, if she could err, 
 would she lay claim to the name of mother and 
 TEACHER of all the churches? How could she 
 presume to pronounce judgment upon every 
 body, while no one is allowed to pronounce judg- 
 ment upon her? How could the Christian, who 
 refuses to abide by her decisions, incur the guilt 
 of infidelity? "Quomodo valebit omnes judicare, 
 de ea cmtem nullus judicare permittitur '? Quo- 
 modo Christianus, qui ei obedire contemnity 'pec- 
 catum infidelitatis incurritf" 
 
 That the clause " etiamsi Papalis sit dignita- 
 tis/' had reference to none but the Papal pre- 
 tenders, is manifest from the declaration of the 
 Council itself, which ruled, in its fortieth session, 
 that a Pope lawfully elected can not be bound 
 by a Council. '^ Papa rite ac canonice electus a 
 Concilio ligari nequit.'^ Martin V acted upon 
 this principle, as soon as his authority was re- 
 cognized. While the Council was still in session, 
 he issued a Decree, which prohibited all appeals 
 from the Holy See to any other tribunal. The 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 147 
 
 Fathers, so far from taking offense at this con- 
 duct of the person, who was indebted to them for 
 his elevation, readily sabsoribed to the Decree. 
 Allowing the Vicar of Christ to be amenable to 
 the Goimcil, such an assumption on the part of 
 Martin could never have been allowed to pass 
 unrebuked, without convicting the a.ssembled 
 Bishops of extreme meanness and serious derelic- 
 tion of duty. The words of the bull were too 
 explicit to allow of any misunderstanding. " It 
 is not lawful for any person to apjieal from the 
 Roman Pontiif, who is the Supreme Judge and 
 the Vicar of Christ on earth, or, by subterfuge, 
 to elude his judgment in matters of faith.'' 
 '^Nemini fas est a supremo JiuUce, sen Apostolica 
 sede, sen Romano Pontificey Jesu Christi Vicano 
 in terrisy appellare, aut illius Judicium in causa 
 fidei decUnareJ' The Popes, certainly as soon as 
 the Fathers of a General Council attempted to 
 transgress their bounds, placed themselves ahvays 
 straight in their way. 
 
 The enemies of Papal Supremacy or Papal 
 Infallibility had, then, better seek for more con- 
 vincing arguments, than those afforded them by 
 the Council of Constance. Had the Pope re- 
 fused to confirm the Decrees made by the Fathers, 
 the assembly of Constance would never have had 
 any claim to the name of a General Council. 
 
148 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 XVII. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 FLOEENCE. 
 
 We now come to the most illustrious and most 
 stringent of all testimony taken from the autho- 
 rity of the General Councils to prove the truth 
 of our thesis. 
 
 It is Florence, which once more, and for the 
 last time, saw assembled the Hierarchy of the 
 Eastern and Western Church; and let us now 
 hear how those Greek Fathers, living so many 
 centuries in schism, now uniting with the Fathers 
 of the West, pronounced on the Apostolical au- 
 thority of the Roman Pontiff as the infallible 
 Teacher of the Church. 
 
 Their profession of faith on this point is 
 couched in the most solemn way of a definition. 
 They say: "We define that the Apostolic See, 
 that is, the Roman Pontiff, has the right of Pri- 
 macy over all the churches of the world ; that the 
 Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter ; that 
 he is the very Vicar of Christ, the head of the 
 whole Church, the Father and teacher of all the 
 faithful; that, in the person of Peter, he was in- 
 trusted by our Lord with full power to feed, 
 direct^ and govern the whole flock of Christ. 
 Such is manifestly the doctrine taught by the 
 
TESTnrONY OF THE GEN. CX)TJNCTLS. 149 
 
 Acts of the General Councils, as well as by the 
 sacred Canons." ^^ Dcjinimus sanctam ApostoU- 
 cam sedem et Romanum Fontijicem in universum 
 orbem terrarum primatum tenerCy et ipsum Roma- 
 num Pontificem successorem esse Beati Petri ^ prin- 
 cipis Apostolommij et verum Christi vicarium, 
 totiusqiie eccleske caputy et omnium Christianorum 
 patrem et doctorem existere, et ipsi in Beato Petro 
 pascendi, regendi et gubernandi universalem eccle- 
 siam a D. N. J. C. plcnam potcstafcm traditam 
 esse J quemadmodum etiam in gestis a^cumenicoimm 
 ConciUorum et in saci'is Canonibus confinetur,^' 
 What a glorious and comprehensive testimony, 
 corroborating with the seal of its authority all 
 that we have thus far said and what we shall or 
 can say in future to vindicate the truth of our 
 thesis. 
 
 Almost every word of this definition is preg- 
 nant with meaning. In it, the Council declares, 
 that the Pope is a very Peter in authority ; that 
 he is the true Vicar of Christ, the teacher of all 
 Christians, and consequently also of Bishops; 
 that he has received from Christ himself, not 
 merely some power, but the plenitude of power, 
 for the direction and guidance of the Church ; 
 and finally, that the acts of the General Councils, 
 and the canons of the Church prove this sov- 
 ereign authority to have been always recognized 
 
150 TESTIMONY OP THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 by the faithful, and exercised by the Popes from 
 the very birth of Christianity. 
 
 We can not omit to call especially the atten- 
 tion of the reflecting reader to the expression: 
 " Verum Ohristi VicariumJ' " The true and real 
 Vicar of Christ." The Popes often were called 
 the successors of St. Peter, by General Councils 
 and the representatives of Christ. But here the 
 Pope, with all the enforcing strength of a defini- 
 tion, is called the true Vicar of Christ — the 
 eternal truth! Would this be true, if the Pope 
 could err in matters of faith? 
 
 Christ himself promised to send, in his place, 
 the Holy Ghost as his Vicar. Defining now, 
 that the Pope is the true Vicar of Christ, the 
 Church implicitly identified the authority of the 
 Pope in the Church, with the ministry of the 
 Holy Ghost in and for the Church, to be in the 
 Church the living "organ of the Holy Ghost,'' 
 the true " Paraclete,'^ its comforter. Yes, we 
 feel it especially in our times. Or is Pius IX 
 not eminently the " organ of the Holy Ghost," 
 and the "Paraclete" and comforter, at present, 
 for the Church of God? 
 
 Joseph, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who 
 died at Florence, before the expiration of the 
 Council, repeated, in his last moments, the above 
 formula, to which he had previously subscribed, 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 151 
 
 and then added, with failing voice, that the 
 Apostolical authority of the Holy See, in ques- 
 tions of doctrine, was designed by the Almighty 
 to serve as the solid ground-work, upon w^hich 
 the faith of the true believer should rest.* 
 
 XTIII. GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 OF 
 
 TRENT. 
 
 If ever it was important to gather representa- 
 tives from every quarter of the Christian world, 
 in order to confront the startling errors of 
 pretended world-reformers with the traditionary 
 teachings of the Church, it certainly was so dur- 
 ing the sixteenth century. Protestantism was 
 not the denial or distortion of this or that par- 
 ticular article of Catholic doctrine, but a tissue 
 of almost all the heresies that had hitherto been 
 broached and condemned. It was, therefore, 
 quite natural to expect, that it would seek to 
 strip the Holy See of all authority in matters of 
 faith, and, if possible, to rob Christianity itself 
 of that innate '^ conscience," which instinctively 
 led the children of the Church to regard as di- 
 vine the decisions of the Sovereign Pontiff. 
 
 *Conc. torn, xiii, p. 494. 
 
152 TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the Pope very 
 wisely allowed great liberty of discussion, in 
 order to give more weight to the decisions of 
 the Council. Yet the world was not ignorant of 
 the influence which Rome brought to bear upon 
 the deliberations of the Fathers. It was so ap- 
 parent, as to excite the anger of the Protestants, 
 and even the disgust of some so-called Catholic 
 theologians of later times. The frivolous Ger- 
 man historian Dannemayer, blasphemously de- 
 clared that "the Holy Ghost, who inspired the 
 Fathers of the Council, was continually sent by 
 mail from Rome to Trent." 
 
 The Council itself, in three several decrees, 
 speaks of Rome as the mother and teacher of all 
 the Churches.* In the twenty-fifth session it 
 ruled, "that each and every decree, in what- 
 soever form or terms it may be couched, be so 
 understood, that the authority of the Roman See 
 shall remain unimpaired." " Omnia et singula 
 sub quibuscumque clausidis et verbis, dedarat, ita 
 decrreta fuisse, ut in his salva semper auctoritas 
 sedis ApostoUcce sit et esse inteUigatur,'' Beside 
 all the canons and decrees of the Council, which 
 lasted for so many years, only became binding 
 when approved by the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 * Sess. 14, In. Doct. de Ext. Unct.; Sess. 22, c. 8; Sess. 25, Doer. 2. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE GEN. COUNCILS. 153 
 
 We can not conclude this rapid sketch of the 
 General Councils, without alluding to the illus- 
 trious assembly of more than two hundred bish- 
 ops, who met at Rome in the year 1854, to assist 
 at the solemn definition of the Inmiaculate Con- 
 ception. During the last session, after all the 
 theologians had argued the point u|X>n the sub- 
 ject, with great depth of wisdom, all the bishops, 
 as though moved by one and the same spirit, 
 turning toward Pius IX, broke out into the ex- 
 clamation : "Peter teach us!" ^^ Petre docenosP^ 
 
 This spontaneous and unanimous acclamation 
 showed that, according to the convictions, ground- 
 ed on faith, of these two hundred bishops, it was 
 not the reasoning of the Doctors and neither 
 their own theological science and ability, and 
 neither their common view already previously 
 expressed in their writings to the Holy Father, 
 but that it was his sole and own judgment — his 
 faith, which they addressed, in order to hear, 
 through his mouth, as the organ of the Holy 
 Ghost, what they and the whole Church were re- 
 quired to believe, in this matter, to be a "dogma 
 of faith." 
 
rv. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES 
 THEMSELVES, 
 
 ASSERTING THEIR PREROGATIVE AS THE SUPREME AND 
 INFALLIBLE JUDGES IN MATTERS OF FAITH, 
 
 Though, at first sight, the testimony of the 
 Popes may appear inadmissible upon this sub- 
 ject, because it constitutes them judges in their 
 own cause — ^'Judices in p7^opria eausa^^ — yet, 
 upon reflection, it will be found to be quite as 
 conclusive as any other of a less personal nature. 
 
 In the first place, not every testimony in one's 
 own cause is, ipso fadOj invalid ; for, then, no- 
 body could advance an argument to prove his 
 rights. Such a testimony is all the more unex- 
 ceptionable when given in favor of a prerogative 
 due to no individual merit of ours, but insepar- 
 (154) 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE POPES. 155 
 
 able from the office which we hold ; of a prerog- 
 ative publicly asserted before such as know upon 
 what claims it rests ; of a prerogative affecting 
 an entire community, and exercised against ene- 
 mies who would contest it, were there any pros- 
 pect of success. 
 
 Applying these remarks to the sul]»ject in 
 question, we hold that the testimony of the 
 Popes furnishes a conclusive argument in favor 
 of their own Infallibility. For, they claimed 
 this prerogative in virtue of their office; they 
 claimed it in the face of Bishops and Priests, of 
 Kings and Princes, of whom many were deeply 
 interested in the matter ; they claimed it, in fine, 
 in defiance of their bitterest enemies, of schis- 
 matics and heretics m the East and the West : 
 and they sustaine<l their claim by the authority 
 of Scripture and Tradition. 
 
 We have only to recollect those most solemn 
 claims for this their privilege, uttered by the 
 Popes on occasion of the celebration of the First 
 Eight General Councils of the East. 
 
 Had the Popes not known themselves to be in 
 possession of an entirely indisputable right, when 
 claiming to be the Supreme Judges in matters of 
 faith, all circumstances of time, places, and per- 
 sons, would have induced them, in all human pru- 
 dence, to assume, while facing those CEkjumenical 
 
i66 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 Councils, quite a different stand, and to pursue 
 quite another course of proceeding than they 
 actually did. 
 
 Reviewing the history of the CEcumenical 
 Councils, the Popes at every step defied the Fa- 
 thers of those Councils to do any thing further 
 than acknowledge this sublime privilege of the 
 Holy See of St. Peter at Rome. 
 
 We remember the examples of a Leo, Agatho, 
 and the two Adrians. They even did not permit 
 so much as the change of an " iota " in their pro- 
 fessions of faith, no matter if even the same truth 
 were expressed. They acted so in the face of the 
 Greeks in the far East, whose prejudices against 
 the Western Church were known to them. They 
 acted so, opposed by mighty adversaries, who 
 often were protected by the whole strength of 
 the Imperial power ; and, how remarkable ! no 
 one dared even to say a word, which would have 
 called in question the Apostolical authority of the 
 See of Rome as the Supreme Tribunal in matters 
 of faith. 
 
 Were there no other utterances on the part 
 of the Popes, than those already mentioned 
 in the testimony of the General Councils, they 
 would afford a very strong and more than suf- 
 ficient testimony in regard to their consciousness 
 in the successors of St. Peter as to their priv- 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREEOGATIVE. 157 
 
 ilege. But they repeated also, on many other oc- 
 casions, these their claims. To them we shall 
 now devote our attention. 
 
 Such declarations were unnecessary so long as 
 no rebellious spirit arose to resist the right in 
 question. The right itself was exercised, even in 
 the Apostolic age, by Pope Clement, and repeat- 
 edly through the course of three hundred years ; 
 but the "conscience of Christianity," which was far 
 too correct and enlightened to call it in question, 
 required no particular direction in this matter. It 
 was not until the recreant children of the house- 
 hold, protected by the civil power, raised the stand- 
 ard of revolt, that the Sovereign Pontiff found 
 himself necessitated to contend, in explicit terras, 
 for the prerogatives vested in him. Such an occa- 
 sion, however, presented itself as soon as the cross 
 began to adorn the crowns of earthly princes. 
 Arius had disseminated doctrines which aimed at 
 the very life of Christianity. His partisans, who 
 daily grew in number, went so far as to hold 
 Councils, and sustained by the protection of the 
 deluded sons of Constantine, expelled St. Athan- 
 asius and other orthodox Bishops from their Sees. 
 Pope Julius, who saw the dangers that threat- 
 ened the faith, interfered and wrote to the fallen 
 Bishops of the East : " Do you not know that 
 it is customary to write to us, in order that we 
 
158 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 may define what is right." "J.n ignari estis, 
 hanc consuetudinem esse, ut jv^imum nobis scriba- 
 tur, ut hinCy quod justum est, definiri possitJ' * 
 These words of the Holy Father contain a latent 
 meaning, which should have told with humiliating 
 effect, upon the parties concerned. 
 
 The meaning of this reproach by the Holy 
 Father, is evidently as follows : " We under- 
 stand that you may have been puzzled and mis- 
 led in regard to your judgment about the mystery 
 of the Holy Trinity ; but how could you be so 
 blind or so rash as not to realize the obligation, 
 known for ages, of waiting for our decision upon 
 all points of doctrine ? " 
 
 After this censure of their conduct, Julius an- 
 nulled their enactments and restored the deposed 
 Bishops to their Sees. So intimately was the 
 whole proceeding connected with faith, that not 
 even. the heretical Bishops could fail to see, in 
 the acts of the Pope, the condemnation of their 
 errors. Yet they feared to make any opposition, 
 and, crushed by the weight of his authority, re- 
 luctantly submitted to his decisions." f 
 
 Not long af^er, Constans, who had resolved to 
 control the influence of the Synod held at Rimini, 
 threatened to send Pope Liberius into exile. 
 The fearless representative of Christ replied: 
 
 *Hard. i, 610. flbid. 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREROGATIVE. 159 
 
 " Thou canst not diminish -the words of faith by 
 my solitude/' ^'Non diminues tii, solitudine mea, 
 verba fideV^ The import of this pithy little 
 sentence can not be mistaken : " Even when I 
 am exiled and compelled to pine away in weary 
 solitude, I still continue to be the bearer of the 
 deposit of the holy faith of all.'' 
 
 Himerius, Bishop of Spain, had asked Pope 
 Damasus for instructions on ecclesiastical matters 
 of considerable importance ; but, Damasus hav- 
 ing died, his successor SiRicius answered the 
 ])c'tition: "Thou hast asked us, as the head of 
 the Church ; we answer, then, in the name and 
 with the authority of Peter, who protects the 
 heirs of his spiritual power, and we decide, not 
 merely for thy personal direction, but for that of 
 all the Churches in general.'* " Quid ab universia 
 Ecdes'ils seqmndum sit, quid vitandum, generali 
 pronuntiatione decernimus.^' Accom})anying the 
 answer was an order to inform the Bishops of 
 Gaul, Spain, and Africa of the decision. 
 
 Marca directs attention to the fact, that this 
 Eescript claims for the decisions, which Avere 
 given by Siricius in private, as much authority 
 as if they had been delivered by him in full 
 Council. 
 
 In another letter, addressed to all the Bishops 
 of the world — '^ad universos Ejnscopos'^ — the 
 
160 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 Pope emphatically declares : " If any body dares 
 to set aside this ordinance, let him know that 
 he is cut off from our communion, and guilty of 
 the pains of hell." ^^Si quis, inflatus made catmis 
 sum ah hoxi canonis rcdione voluerit evagari, sciat 
 se a nostra communione exelusum et gehen7ioe 
 pcenas habiturum." 
 
 Abbot Gerbert concluded, with much reason, 
 that Siricius would never have used these ex- 
 pressions and menaces of everlasting perdition, 
 had he not been conscious of his right to decide 
 upon the point in question and of the opinion 
 entertained concerning this right by the faithful 
 at large. 
 
 Pope ZosiMUS (t418) likewise reminded the 
 African Bishops, that no one dared to call in 
 question the decisions of the Holy See — " Ut de 
 ejus Judicio nemo disceptare audeat " — and he as- 
 signs as reason, that the dignity and power con- 
 ferred by the Lord upon Peter, descends, without 
 diminution, to every succeeding Pope. Hence 
 he infers, that the decisions of the Holy See are 
 irrevocable, and as firm as the foundations of 
 the Church. Finally, he concludes by appealing 
 to the convictions of the prelates, whom he ad- 
 dresses: "You are fully aware of all this," 
 writes he, "as priests are bound to be." "jEc 
 ipsa quoque Chrlsti promissione, ut et ligata sol- 
 
CLAIMING THIS PEEROGATIYE. 161 
 
 veret, d soluta vinciret, par potestatis data conditio 
 in COS, qui sedis hwreditatcm, ipso annuente, me- 
 ruisseiU ; nee patitur aliquid priiHegii aid aliqua 
 tituhare aura sententice, cui ipsa mii Kominis 
 finna et null is hebeiata motibus constituit fmida- 
 mmta. Non Met vos, fraires charissimi, sed nos- 
 tis, quemadnwdum sacerdotes scire debetis. 
 
 We know the effect of his decision. St. Augus- 
 tin with all the Africans exclaimed : '' Rome has 
 spoken, the dispute is at an end.'' 
 
 A similar tone j>ervades the letter of Zosimus, 
 to the Bishojis of Gaul and to the Synotl of Ri- 
 mini. The faithful of those days recognized the 
 claims advanced by the Pope;' but, long after, 
 the famous Causabon, who had not their religioiLS 
 instincts, took offense at the freedom which he 
 assumed, and scornfully spoke of him as a pre- 
 mature HiLDEBRAND.* 
 
 We agree willingly to the application, because 
 it evidently proves' that what Gregory VII 
 claimed, was not usurpation and the fruit of the 
 ignorance of the so-called darkness of the Middle 
 Ages, but the clear consciousness of a right, in- 
 herited from his predecessors, since the beginning 
 of the Christian name. 
 
 BojaFACE I (t422), the successor of Zosi- 
 mus, was not less positive than he in vindicating 
 
 ♦Exercit. xv. 
 
 14 
 
162 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 the rights of the Holy See. In a letter to his 
 Vicar, Rufus of Thessalonica, he writes : " Never 
 was it allowed to call up anew any point, on 
 which the Holy See had already pronounced;" 
 while, in a communication to Peregines he de- 
 clares: "No one ever called in question the 
 decision of this Apostolical tribunal, without 
 laying himself open to its censures." ^^ Nisi 
 qui de se voluit Judicari.^ 
 
 A book entitled ^^ Praeteritorum sedis Apos- 
 toliece Episcoporum Auctoritates/^ and commonly 
 attributed to Pope Ccelestin, contains this re- 
 markable sentence: "We profess nothing, but 
 what the See of Peter has taught and commanded 
 by the mouth of his successors ; so that we regard 
 it as not at all Catholic whatever is opposed to its 
 decision." " Ut prorsus non cestimemus Catholi- 
 cum, quod apparuerit prcefatis sententiis esse con- 
 trariumy 
 
 Pope XiSTUS the successor of Coeiestin, writing 
 to the Patriarch of Antioch, says : " Thou hast 
 now understood what it means to be of one 
 mind with us." And pointing out the reason 
 of this necessary submission to the doctrinal 
 teaching of the Pope, he writes this very re- 
 markable sentence: "Peter, who continues to 
 
 *Ep. 8, 9, 10, 15. 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREROGATIVE. 163 
 
 live in his successors, teaches the pure unadul- 
 terated faith, which he did not acquire from 
 hearing or reading, but which he received from 
 the Lord himself, and which admits of no con- 
 troversy or discussion/' ''Ab'solufam d simpUeem 
 fdan,^ et quce controversiam non habet aecepif.'' 
 
 This passage of Xistus means, according to 
 the just interpretation of the learned Constant, 
 that "the authority of the Roman Bishop is not 
 due to his erudition or to the facilities which he 
 enjoys of learning what is of faith, but to the re- 
 lation in which he stands toward St. Peter, who 
 was put in possession of tlic treasure of fliith, by 
 a direct connnunication from the Ix)rd himsellV'* 
 Leo the Great (t454) urged tlie .same point', in 
 the sermons, which he delivered on the anniver- 
 saries of his elevation to the throne of Peter: 
 "Who but Antichrist dares to a.ssail the invin- 
 cible fortress of truth.'' " Quis est nisi Ajiti^ 
 chi^tus, quipulsare audet inexpugnabilem verita- 
 temf'^ "The disposition of truth remains, and 
 Blessed Peter, retaining the firmness of a rock, 
 does not abandon the helm of the Church.'' 
 ''Manet ergo dispositio vevitatis, et B. Petrus, in 
 acceptafortmdine, suscepta EeclesicE gubemacula 
 non relinquif 
 
 *Pr»f. in epist. Pontific. 
 
164 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 SiMPLicius (t483), admonigliing the Emperor 
 Zeno of his duties, reminds him that he was en- 
 titled to do so because the Lord committed to 
 Peter the care of his sheep, and that the teach- 
 ing of the successors of St. Peter for all time to 
 come was to remain the rule of the very Apos- 
 tolical doctrine : " Hcbg et eadem ApostoliacB nor- 
 ma doctrinoe. 
 
 Felix III (t492), uses similar expressions, 
 not only in his letter to the same Emperor, who 
 had become a mere tool in the hand of a fac- 
 tion, but likewise in a letter to Acacius and Peter 
 FuUo. The former was summoned to Rome, to 
 give an account of his doings to Peter, and the 
 latter was informed that he had been condemned 
 by St. Peter himself. 
 
 On another occasion he writes this beautiful 
 sentence: '^No matter what danger may beset the 
 Church, the judgment of Peter never can be im- 
 paired. So far from being weakened, it grows yet 
 more powerful under the pressure of persecution.'' 
 '^Quibuslibet sit vallata Ecolesia periculisy nun- 
 quam pondus vigoris sui censura beati Petri 
 amittit; tanto non frangitur, sed potiuSy erudita 
 divinitus, crescit adversisJ^^ v 
 
 Do we not see these remarks strikingly veri- 
 
 *Hard. ii, 118. 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREROGATIVE. 165 
 
 fied in the steadfast opposition maintained in onr 
 times by our Holy Fatlier to the impuguers of 
 his highest prerogatives ? 
 
 St. Gelasius (t-196) expresses himself in the 
 following terms : " Peter blessed the Roman See, 
 that the gates of hell never should prevail against 
 it; but that it should be the harbor, in wliieh all 
 seeking safety there, find eternal rest. But woe 
 to whomsoever will despise it — he may see what 
 kind of excuses he will allege at the day of judg- 
 ment.'' ^^Quwn ipse (Pdnts) benedivit, iif ajjortis 
 injcri nunquanij pro Domini promissione, vinca- 
 tur, omniumqiie sif Jfucturnitium portus, in quo, qui 
 requieverity beata ac aierna statione gaudcbit ; qui 
 vero conteninerity ipse videbU, qualia genera excus- 
 cUionum in die Judicii obtendaf.^' 
 
 In his letter to the Emperor Anastasius he 
 calls the Roman See the root of the world — 
 ^' mundi radix^^ — inasmuch as it communicates 
 to the whole world the life of the true faith. 
 Hence, if faith would be poisoned in the Roman 
 See, Christianity itself w^ould die away. ^^Nam 
 si, quod Deus avertat, quod fieri non posse confi- 
 dimus, tale quid evenerit, unde cuiquam resistere 
 audcremus errori? vel unde corredionem erranti- 
 bus posceremus f^^ 
 
 In his Commonitorium, addressed to the impe- 
 rial Prefect Faustus, the same author declares : 
 
166 
 
 "All the faithful are aware, that the Holy See 
 has the right to annul whatever is done by any 
 Prelate of the Church, because she has the right 
 to judge every other church ; but no other church 
 has a right to judge her." " Cuneta per mundum 
 novit Ecolesia, quoniam, quorumlibet sententiis 
 ligata Pmitijicum, sedes Sti. Petri Apostoli jus 
 habet resohendi, utpote quce de omni EccJesia jus 
 habet judicandiy neque ciiiquam liceat de ejus ju- 
 dicare judicio.^' She possesses the plenitude of 
 judicial power — *'summam judieii totiusJ^ He 
 says that he heard of persons appealing to the 
 "Canons" in order to evade his judgment. He 
 ridicules them, "they may keep their foolishness 
 for themselves." ^'Ineptias suas sibi servent." 
 
 "For evidently they do not know what they 
 are saying, because the words of Christ, constant 
 tradition* and the Canons themselves agree in 
 asserting that the Holy See is empowered to sit 
 in judgment on the whole Church." ^^ Quaprop' 
 ter non veremur, ne Apostolica sententia resolvatur, 
 quam et vox Christij et majorum traditio et Cano- 
 num autorltas fulcit, ut totam potius Eccle- 
 
 SIAM IPSA JUDICET." 
 
 What an overwhelming argument is contained 
 in these few words ! 
 
 Agapetus (t536) required a similar act of 
 submission from the Emperor Justinian, who 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREROGATIVE. 167 
 
 accordingly subscribed the formula of profession 
 with his own hand, and then sent the document, 
 with his signatiure, back to Rome. 
 
 Pelagius I (t^59) asserted his privilege quite 
 as decisively, in a letter to the Bishops of Istria, 
 whom he bids remember, that " truth can not 
 lie, nor the fhith of Peter waver or change." 
 ^^Considerate quod Veritas mentiri non potuit, nee 
 fides Petri in cdernum quassari poterit vel mu- 
 tari:' 
 
 Gregory the Great wrote to the Bishops 
 of Gaul: ^'Should any dispute arise about mat>- 
 ters of faith, it is incumbent on you to apprise us 
 of it, that, by our decision, we may definitively 
 settle the point in question." "67 quam vero con- 
 troversiam — de fidei causa evenire contigit — 
 relatione sua ad nostram siivdeat perducere notio- 
 nein, quafenus a nobi^ valeat congrtux sine dubio 
 senfenfia terminari.^'^ 
 
 The same firmness appears in the writings of 
 Pope Theodore, and in those of the captive 
 Pontiff Martin. In a letter, condemnatory of 
 the imperial statute entitled the Typus, the latter 
 declares the judgment of the Roman Pontiff to 
 be the judgment of Peter himself. In a docu- 
 ment on the heretical movements of the time, he 
 
 * Lib. V, Ep. 53 et 56. 
 
168 
 
 adverts to the power conferred on him in the 
 person of St. Peter, and then he exhorts all the 
 Bishops to be the children of obedience — "o6e- 
 dientice filiV In fine, he orders his vicar at 
 Antioch to require from all a written declaration 
 of their adhesion to the teachings of the Apos- 
 tolic See. 
 
 Gregory II (t731) vindicated the claims of 
 the Apostolic Chair with no less resolution than 
 Martin had done before him. He wrote to the 
 Iconoclast Leo the Isaurian : " In virtue of the 
 authority left to us by St. Peter, we cut you off 
 from the Communion of the Church ; for you 
 must know that it is the prerogative of the Pope, 
 and not of the Emperor, to decide upon articles 
 of faith.'' ^^ SciaSj imjjerator, Ecclesioe dogmata 
 non imperatorum esse,sed PontijiGumJ^ 
 
 Pope Stephen, conscious of his position in 
 the Church, wrote to Pepin, *Mn the name of 
 Peter," whom he called the enlighten cr of the 
 whole world — ^'illunmiator totius mundV^ — and 
 spoke of the Roman Church as the foundation of 
 the Christian faith. ^^ Fundamentum fidei Chris- 
 tiance, Romana EcclesiaJ' 
 
 ViTALiAN and Leo II manifested the same 
 sentiments, as did likewise Adeodatus in his 
 letter to the Bishops of Gaul. 
 
 Nicholas (1867) called the Supreme Judici- 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREROGATIVE. 169 
 
 ary authority of the Holy See "the universal 
 rule of righteousness," and, in a letter addressed 
 to the King and to the Synod of Soissons, con- 
 cerning the Bishop Rothado, he remarked that 
 the rights and privileges conferred by the Lord 
 on the Holy See were the safeguard of the 
 Church, and its bulwarks against the assaults of 
 iniquity. *' Prlvilegia sedis Apostoliccc tegmina 
 sujii totius Ecdesioe Cathjoliccej munimina sunt 
 circa omnes impetus pravitads,'^ " You have an 
 instance of it," wrote he, " in Rothado himself, 
 the Bishop of Soissons. He fled to us for refuge, 
 and found it. How do you know that what has 
 liappened to this Bishop, so unjustly persecuted, 
 may not happen to you likewise? And, if it 
 should hapi>en, to whom will you have re- 
 course?" ^^Quod Rothado hodie contigii, unde 
 scitis, quod eras non cuilibet eveniat vesirumf 
 Qaodsi coiitigerii, ad cujus confugietis auxiliumf^* 
 No one can fail to perceive the appropriate- 
 ness of this reflection. They certainly could not 
 apply, with any hope of success, to simple Bish- 
 ops of another country, whose jurisdiction is 
 confined to their own dioceses, but only to the 
 general Vicar of Christ, whose authority is re- 
 cognized in every part of the world. Hence 
 Rothado declared : " I appeal to that supreme 
 authority which no one can dispute or coutra- 
 15 
 
170 
 
 dict.'^ '' Summam illam auctoritatem appello, cui 
 nullus potest contradicereJ' 
 
 We admit that the incident to which we here 
 allude has no direct reference to our thesis; nev- 
 ertheless it shows most clearly, how becoming 
 it was, that Christ, for the good and protection 
 of the Church, diffused over the w^hole globe, 
 has invested its "Head with a plenitude of spirit- 
 ual power, to meet every emergency in every part 
 of the world. 
 
 Conscious of this supreme power exercised by 
 the Popes, in matters of faith as well as of disci- 
 pline, Nicholas also wrote to the Oriental Bish- 
 ops : " What was ever valid, that was not sanc- 
 tioned by the See of Peter ? ^^ ^' Quid ratmriy quid 
 prorsus acceptum, nisi quod Sedes beati Petri pro- 
 bavit, ut ipsi scitls f '^ He held precisely the same 
 language to the Bishops of the West, where he 
 found it necessaiy to remind them of their duty. 
 Thus, when he had lieard that a Synod, held at 
 Mayence, had sanctioned the divorce of King 
 Lolhan, he annulled the proceedings of tlie as- 
 sembly, deposed the Bishops who had taken a 
 part in it, and pronounced the following sentence 
 of excommunication : " If any one makes light 
 of the dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions, 
 and decrees relative to faith or discipline, pro- 
 mulgated by the incumbent of the Apostolic See, 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREEOGATIVE. 171 
 
 let him be anathema." ^' Si quis dogmata^ man- 
 data, intcrdiday sandiones vel decnta pro fide 
 cathoUca, et j^ro ccchsiastim dkciplina a 8cdis 
 Apo8tolic(B proiside pjromulgatay contenipsef^U^ a7ia- 
 the ma slt.^^ 
 
 John VIII (t882) uses the following em- 
 phatic expression in his letter to Michael of 
 Bulgaria: "You are aware, we presume, that 
 the Roman See has never been accused by other 
 Sees of heresy, but that she has often reproached 
 other Sees, and particularly that of Constantino- 
 ple, for their delcction, and that she freed them 
 from the stain contracted, when they were sub- 
 missive, but condemned them when they proved 
 refractory." 
 
 We must not omit the remarkable words ad- 
 dressed by the same Pope to Peter Comes : " Let 
 the King peruse the Gospel record. There he 
 will find that Christ prayed for nobody else than 
 for Peter, who came to Rorae ; there he lived ; 
 there he died ; there he left his own authority 
 for all the time to come.* 
 
 Stephen YI (t897) solemnly asserts the pre- 
 rogative of the Papal Apostolical teaching au- 
 thority, in a letter written to Constantinople, 
 when Photius began to manifest his schismatical 
 
 ^■^Hara. vi, 16-18, 50, 56, 59, 98, 102. 
 
172 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 tendencies. *^ The Church of Eome," writes he, 
 "was intended to serve as a model and .mirror 
 for all the other Churches. Any point which 
 she has defined, is forever decided and unchange- 
 able." ^^Romana Ecdesia velut speculum quod- 
 dam et exemplum ecclesiis cceteris proposita est, 
 quce si quid dejlnierit, id omnibus soeculis firmum 
 ineoncussumque manet.^^ He cautions the Em- 
 peror, who showed himself favorable to the 
 Photian faction, not to interfere in Church 
 matters : " You should confine your solicitude 
 to the duties of your civil administration." 
 ^'JRe7mm tantum soecularium curam gerere debes." 
 "The care of the Church has been intrusted by 
 the Lord to the Roman Pontiff, whose dignity 
 is as far above that of an earthly sovereign, as 
 the stars are above the earth." 
 
 The writings of Leo VII (t939), of Aga- 
 petus II (t955), of John XIII (t972), of Bene- 
 dict VI (t974), of Gregory V (t999), of Syl- 
 vester II (tl003), and of Benedict VII (1983), 
 breathe all the same consciousness of this their 
 privilege and rights. 
 
 Fully aware of it, Leo IX (tl047) addressed 
 the schismatic Greeks of his time in the following 
 emphatical ways : " Christ distinctly affirmed 
 that He had asked for Peter stability of faith ; 
 and who is so bereft of reason — ' tantce am- 
 
CLAIMINO THIS PREROGATTYE. 173 
 
 ^tice '—as to harbor the thought that His prayer 
 was not heard ? The Lord intimated that a time 
 of trial would come ; but He also promised that, 
 like an anchor fixed in the bottom of the sea, the 
 faith of Peter would save the imperiled bark 
 from destruction. The promise was not in vain ; 
 for the Roman Pontiffs have invariably dis- 
 pelled the hallucinations of heretics, and strength- 
 ened the brethren in the faith of Peter, which 
 has never yet failed, and which never will fail 
 unto the end." " Tarn per Pctntmj quam per 
 guGcessores suos reprohata et expugncUa sunt om- 
 nium hcereticonim commenta, et fratrum corda in 
 fide Petri, quae hactenus non defeeUy nee usque in 
 fincm dcficict, confirmataJ' "You may think 
 of me as a man whatever you please — ^ de homi- 
 ne credite homines, quod tmltis ' — but never shall 
 we permit that you should dare to impair the 
 Supreme Apostolical authority of the Roman See. 
 He that attacks the Church of Rome, aims at 
 subverting not merely one Church, but all Chris- 
 tianity. Because, how will the distressed children 
 be able to breathe ? To whom shall they fly for 
 refuge?" ^^Cujus enim sustentatione alteimis res- 
 pirabunt filice a quovis oppresses, ilia suffocata 
 matref cujus refugium apjjellabunt f'^ If Pius 
 were to die, with what anxiety and almost breath- 
 lessness would the whole Church look for an- 
 
174 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 other head. We regard as especially happy, the 
 use which Leo here makes of the word respira- 
 hunt — breathe, inhale. For the whole Church, 
 and consequently all its members, owe their 
 life, through faith, to their union with the Su- 
 preme Pontiif as the visible head of the mystical 
 body of the Church. 
 
 YiCTOB II, Stephen IX, and Nicholas II, 
 all reecho the views of their illustrious predeces- 
 sor. Nicholas writes to Gervasius, Bishop of 
 Eheims: "We exercise the ministry of Peter, 
 that we may correct errors.^' " Quatenus errata 
 corrigamusJ^ 
 
 In the Synod of Rome, at which the imperial 
 deleiJ:ates assisted, Alexander II, remarked : " If 
 the Church of Rome remain firm, all the other 
 Churches will remain firm ; but if she, who is 
 the ground-work and basis of the rest, be un- 
 dermined, all the others will of necessity soon 
 crumble into ruin. "Hac enim stante, reliquce 
 slant; sin hcee autem, quce omnium fundamentum 
 est et basis, obruitur, cceterarum quoque status 
 neeesse ut coUabatur.^' 
 
 We have now come to the illustrious, but 
 much-maligned Gregory YII, whom both friends 
 and foes agree in representing to be the exponent 
 of all the claims ever advanced by the Holy 
 See, in the political as well as in the purely 
 
CLAIMING THIS PREROGATIVE. 175 
 
 ecclesiastical order. The former, as we have re- 
 marked above, is not directly connected with our 
 subject; yet indirectly it is, and this in a most 
 positive and strikiui^ ^vay, because the people 
 and Prince-s seeing the Supreme Pontills placed 
 as Judges on the tribunal of eternal and celestial 
 truth, thought it but just to commit to their 
 arbitration temporal affairs. 
 
 AVe would be compelled to transcribe nearly 
 the whole BuUarium Romanuniy because scarcely 
 a single public document has been issued, which 
 does not, either directly or indirectly, claim for 
 the successors of St. Peter the right of instruct- 
 ing and judging the Church, and of approving 
 or condemning whatever bears upon the dogmas 
 of faith and morals. 
 
 Let us now consider, in what manner and to 
 what extent the Popes have exercised the right 
 of deciding questions of doctrine, without the 
 concurrence of a Council. For, even though 
 they had not expressed their views upon that 
 subject, the mere exercise of the Papal preroga- 
 tive of being the supreme and infallible judges 
 in matters of faith, would furnish us with an 
 evident proof of its existence, and of their deter- 
 mination to vindicate it, in the face of the most 
 violent opposition. 
 
PEREMPTORY AND SOLEMN EXER- 
 CISE OF THIS PREROGATIVE. 
 
 THE POPES OP ALL CENTURIES, DEFINITIVELY BY THEIK OWN 
 AUTHORITY, CONDEMNING HERESY AND ERRORS. 
 
 The prerogative of the Holy See, as being the 
 Supreme Tribunal in the Church of Christ, was 
 exercised by the Vicar of Christ even during the 
 life-time of St. John the Evangelist. The Corin- 
 thians being involved in disputes, which threat- 
 ened to rend the unity of their infant Church, ad- 
 dressed themselves to Pope Clement at Rome. 
 And why should they apply to him for a definitive 
 solution of their difficulties? Why lay their com- 
 plaints before a foreign tribunal? Why not ad- 
 dress themselves to the aged Disciple, or to the in- 
 cumbent of some Apostolic Church nearer home? 
 
 (176) 
 
EXERCISING THIS PREROGATTS^E. 177 
 
 We see but one plausible explanation ; they knew 
 full well that the successor of St. Peter is the 
 ordinary Supreme Judge in matters of faith and 
 discipline. Clement at once gave his decision, 
 and restored peace to the Church. Schmitz calls 
 things by their right name, when he speaks of 
 this occurrence as " a recourse of the Church of 
 Corinth to the Roman See.''* 
 
 Even the famous '^ Ceivturiators^^ of Magde- 
 burg acknowledged that, in this instance, Clem- 
 ent acted as Supreme Judge in matters gf faith. 
 Besides it is very providential and remarkable 
 that the record of this event was preserved in 
 the Eastern Church, and sent to the West by Cy- 
 ril, the Calvinistic Patriarch of Constantinople.! 
 The judicial prerogative of the Holy See was 
 exercised in a very remarkable manner, during 
 the second century, by Po})e Hyginus. He 
 condemned the errors of Valentinus, Cerdonius 
 and Marcion, without calling a Council ; and yet, 
 as Bercastel observes, even the heresiarchs them- 
 selves did not appeal to any other tribunal, as 
 they would certainly have done, had there been 
 any possibility of calling in question the autho- 
 rity of the Sovereign Pontiff. J 
 
 * Dissert, de pot. legisl. Eec. Heidelberg, 1792. 
 
 t S3e the German Journal : " Der Katholik," Aug., 1825, p. 149. 
 
 j Bercastel i, 143. 
 
178 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 During the same second century, this preroga- 
 tive was exercised by Eleutherius against the 
 Gnostics, and by Victor against Ebion, Arte- 
 mon, and Theodotus of Byzantium, all of whom 
 were condemned and remained condemned. 
 
 It was exercised in the third century by Pope 
 Zephyrinus, against Praxeas and Proclus, Mon- 
 tanus and Tertullian, who were condemned, and 
 remained condemned. Like Valentinus and Cor- 
 donius, these heretics tried to deceive Rome; but, 
 like them, they failed. For, as Cyprian already 
 remarked, in point of doctrine, Rome can neither 
 deceive nor be deceived. 
 
 The same Pope absolved the repentant heretic 
 Natalius, who approached the chair of Peter in 
 sackcloth and ashes, craving pardon and recon- 
 ciliation. So well were heretics themselves aware, 
 before what tribunal they had to appear in order 
 to justify themselves, that it was quite unneces- 
 sary for Rome to send them a formal summons. 
 As Christians, they could not but know in whom 
 the plenitude of Apostolical power resides. 
 
 Pope Cornelius exercised this supreme judi- 
 cial prerogative, in the third century, when he 
 condemned Novatus and Novatianus, who accord- 
 ingly 7'emained condemned. 
 
 Pope Dyonisius exercised it, in condemning 
 
EXERCISING THIS PEEROGATIYE. 179 
 
 the errors of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, 
 ^vhich remained condemned. 
 
 By this Apostolical autliority Sylvester con- 
 demned Arius and his heresy, and it remained 
 condemned. 
 
 Even such as had not embraced the doctrines of 
 Cliristianity, had heard of the supreme judicial 
 authority recognized by the faithful. Porphy- 
 rins, a heathen philosopher, who edited a treatise 
 against the new faith, speaks of Paul reproaching 
 his Lord and Master, Peter. The pagan 
 writer mistook the Peter, of whom mention is 
 made in the Acts, for Peter the Ai)ostle. Yet the 
 expression "Lord and Master,'' though grossly 
 misa])plied, furnishes us a convincing proof of 
 the dignity and power conferred on the Prince 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 Amianus Marcellinus, also a pagan historian 
 of the third century, adverts, during the course 
 of his remarks on Athanasius and Constantius, to 
 the supreme judiciary autho'rity of the Roman 
 See in matters of faith. 
 
 This authority was exercised by Pope Dama- 
 SFS, in the fourth century, against ApoUiuaris, 
 Timotheus, Yitalis, and Priscillianus. This 
 Priscillian, as we learn from the account of Sul- 
 pitius Severus, had come to Rome, to clear him- 
 self of the charges preferred against him— "u^ 
 
180 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 ohjeota purgaref But the Holy Father, sus- 
 pecting his insincerity and hypocrisy, would not 
 admit him into his presence. " No heretic,^^ re- 
 marks Lupus, "ever beheld the countenance of 
 the Pope, before recanting his errors and sub- 
 mitting to the decisions of the Holy See/^ The 
 pretended reformers of Pistoja experienced the 
 truth of this remark, at a much more recent date. 
 
 This right of supreme and infallible judiciary 
 authority in matters of faith was exercised in the 
 same century, by SiRicius, the successor of Da- 
 masus, against Jovinian, whose errors were con- 
 demned, without the concurrence of a Council, 
 and remained condemned. 
 
 Again, this right was exercised, at this epoch, 
 in a remarkable manner, by Popes Innocent 
 and ZosiMUS, against the Pelagians. When 
 Pelagius and his abettor Coelestius began to 
 disseminate their errors, the Bishops of Africa 
 assembled in the Councils of Carthage and Mel- 
 evi, and addressed themselves to the Pope for a 
 definitive sentence. Innocent acceded to their 
 wishes and commended them for their submis- 
 sion to the Yicar of Christ. "Their conduct," 
 remarked he, "was a proof, that they under- 
 stood their obligations to the Holy See." "J.d 
 nostrum referendum esse approhastis judiciumy sci- 
 entes quid debeatur Apostolicce Sedi,^' 
 
EXERCISING THIS PREROGATIVE. 181 
 
 Innocent is more lengthy and explicit in his 
 ans^ver to the Council of Melevi : " You have fol- 
 lowed/' wrote he, " what you, as well as I, know 
 to have been the practice of the faithful from the 
 beginning." Antiquce scilicet regulm fonnam se- 
 cuti, quam toto semper orhe ineeum scitis esse serva- 
 tamJ^ " From this Apostolical fountain perennial 
 streams are pouring over all the provinces that 
 tliirst for the waters of truth. In matters of 
 faith, especially, all the Bishops should emulate 
 your example, and refer their doubts to no one 
 but Peter, whose authority extends over all the 
 Churches of the world." " Prcisertim quotiesfdei 
 ratio ventilaiur, arbitror omnes fratres et Episco- 
 pos nostros nonnisi ad Petrum, i. e., sui norninis et 
 honoris audoreni refer re debere, velut nunc detulU 
 vestra dilectio, quod per totum mundum possit om- 
 nibus Ecclesiis in commune prodesse.^^ 
 
 Even the authority and learning of such men 
 as St. Augustin, who lived at this time, can not 
 overbalance the decisions of the Holy See. As 
 private doctors, they may be entitled to the 
 greatest possible respect; but, like other men, 
 they are still liable to err, and therefore they 
 have no right to make the faithful adopt their 
 own private views as the teachings of the Church. 
 St. Augustin was well aware of this. Innocent 
 and Zosimus certainly did not possess so much 
 
182 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 genius and learning as he did, but they were 
 invested with a prerogative which he did not 
 enjoy. He could write better books than they 
 on the Pelagian heresy ; but he could not, like 
 them, condemn it with infallible authority. He 
 governed the Church of Hippo, which had no 
 claim to the Apostolical prerogative of Infalli- 
 bility; they filled the See of Eome, which the 
 Lord had promised to preserve from error. 
 
 Pelagius and his adherents were condemned 
 by the Holy See, and never called in question 
 the authority of the tribunal, which had pro- 
 nounced sentence against them. Considering the 
 character of the heresiarch, who was ever ready 
 to subtilize, this silence alone speaks volumes 
 in favor of the veneration then entertained for 
 the dogmatical utterances of the Holy See. Here, 
 especially, the axiom of Gregory of Naziane has 
 its full application : ^^ IJpd^c^ i;r/,9a<Trc d^S(uf)ca^.'- 
 He dared not have recourse to fanciful distinc- 
 tions, as the Jansenists in modern times have 
 done, in order to evade the crushing weight of 
 the Apostolical censures hurled against them. 
 On the contrary, he sought to justify liimself, as 
 best he might, before the Pope, whom he endeav- 
 ored to beguile, by a feigned submission to au- 
 thority. A written explanation of his conduct 
 concludes with these words : " If these our writ- 
 
EXERCISING THIS PEEROGATIVE. 183 
 
 ings should be found to contain any erroneous or 
 rash assertion, we submit it to the correction of 
 him who preserves the faitli of Peter." "Emeu- 
 dari a te cupimus, qui Petri fidem tenes.^^ " But 
 if my profession be favorably received by the 
 Apostolical See, no one, who will continue to 
 find fault with me, can fail to be convinced, not 
 that I am a heretic, but that he, be he even an 
 Augustin, is certainly not a Catholic." 
 
 St. Augustin himself relates that Coelestius, 
 the friend of Pelagius, did not dare controvert 
 or impugn the decision of Innocent, but tliat he 
 resolved cm going to Rome and condemning 
 every thing which the Holy See would condemn. 
 Like all heresiarchs, and especially those of the 
 first ages, he did his utmost to pass for a Catho- 
 lic, and to be recognized as such by the Apostoli- 
 cal Authority of Kome. His journey to the 
 Holy City, though doomed to draw uj)on him 
 new curses, brought about a temporary delay in 
 the decisions of Zosimus. The forbearance 
 shown by the Pope at first gave offense to the 
 Africans, who objected that, as Innocent had al- 
 ready condemned the teachings of Pelagius, there 
 was no reason for giving Coelestius another hear- 
 ing. Zosimus met their complaints with the re- 
 ply, that certainly no change could be made in a 
 
 * Aug. 1. ii : de pecc. orig. cap. vii. 
 
184 TESTIMONY OP THE POPES, 
 
 decision given by the Holy See on an article of 
 faith ; but that, as Coelestius had appealed to the 
 Sovereign Pontiff and invited his accusers to 
 come to Rome and prove him guilty of the con- 
 demned propositions, and had moreover prom- 
 ised to retract and condemn them, should he be 
 found guilty, it was necessary to avoid all pre- 
 cipitation and leisurely examine the whole matter. 
 
 Having satisfied himself of the complicity of 
 Coelestius, he confirmed the condemnation of the 
 Pelagian heresy, in that remarkable letter from 
 which we have quoted above, and of which St. 
 Augustin said : "Bescripta venet^unty causa jinita 
 est; utinam finiretur et eiTor!" The dispute is 
 at an end; would to God that the error were 
 also at an end ! * It was on this occasion that 
 Prosper remarked : " Zosimus, by his decision, 
 has armed the right hand of the Bishops with 
 the sword of Peter.'' 
 
 Making use of this his prerogative and pleni- 
 tude of Apostolic Power, Ccelestin condemned 
 Nestorius, and he 7'erimined condemned. 
 
 Nothing more illustrious and authoritative can 
 be imagined than the dogmatical letters of this 
 Pope, and of Pope Leo, condemning Eutyches 
 and his errors. And they also remaiKied con- 
 demned, 
 
 *Serm ii, de verb. Apost. 
 
EXERCLSING THIS PREROGATIYE. 185 
 
 Felix III, in the fifth century, exercised the 
 same prerogative of the Apostolical See, when 
 he condemned the errors of Accacius and of Peter 
 FuUo, both of whom remained condemned. 
 
 Agapetus exercised it, in the sixth century, 
 against Antinuis; John IV, in the seventh cen- 
 tury, against the ekthesis of the Emperor Ilerac- 
 lius; Theodore IV against the type of Paul of 
 Constantinople; and Agatho against the Mo- 
 nothelites — all of whom remained condemned. 
 
 In virtue of this Apostolical prerogative, 
 Adrian I, in the eiiz:hth century, ])ronouncal the 
 censures of the Church against the Iconoclasts; 
 Adrian II, in the ninth, against Photius and his 
 followers ; Leo IX, in the eleventh, against Mi- 
 chael Cerularius and the errors of the Greek 
 Church; ViCTOR II against Berengarius; Greg- 
 ory VII against the Heuricians; Innocent II 
 ajrainst Abelard. 
 
 St. Bernard and the Bishops of Soissons had 
 charged Abelard with heresy, but they dared not 
 condemn him. In a letter addressed to the Pope, 
 on the part of all these prelates, the Saint gives 
 expression to their common feeling in these 
 words : " ^Ye refer the case to thee,-'who hast the 
 authority and the power, to defeat every contrary 
 opinion, to frustrate every effort of rebellion 
 against the Lord, and to subject every intellect 
 16 
 
ise 
 
 to the obedience of Christ/' " Et in captivitafem 
 vedigendum omnem intellectum ad obsequium 
 Christi.^ " 
 
 The Pope, fully conscious of the duty that had 
 devolved on him, gave his decision in these for- 
 cible words : " Seated on the Chair of Peter, to 
 whom the Lord hath said, * Confirm thy breth- 
 ren,' we condemn the propositions of Abelard, 
 and impose on him, as a heretic, perpetual si- 
 lence/' t 
 
 In virtue of this prerogative, Eugenius III, 
 in the twelfth century, pronounced sentence of 
 condemnation against the errors of Gilbert of 
 Parret; XiSTUS IV, in the fifteenth century, 
 against those of Peter Osma ; and Leo X, in the 
 sixteenth, against the famous "theses" of Martin 
 Luther. 
 
 The arch-reformer did not, at first, dispute the 
 right of the Sovereign Pontiff. On the contrary, 
 he acknowledged it in terms which the majority 
 of Protestants would probably denounce as the 
 profession of some ultramontane Catholic. 
 
 As Luther's apostasy from the faith was the 
 gradual result of his unbridled passions, it was 
 not to be expected that he would at once mani- 
 fest that fiendish hatred and contempt of the 
 
 *Ep. 192. t Cone. torn. 10, p. 1023. 
 
EXERCISING THIS PREROGATIVE. 187 
 
 Holy See, for which he and his followers were 
 afterward distinguished beyond all the heretics 
 of earlier times. Hence, it need not surprise us 
 that he wrote to Leo X, " Holy Father ! " 
 
 " Prostrate at thy feet I offer myself, with all 
 that I am and all that I have. Vivify or des- 
 troy, confirm or repeal, sanction or condemn, 
 just as thou pleasest. I will listen to thy voice 
 as to that of Christ, who lives in thee, and speaks 
 by thy mouth.^' ^'Prostratem me, O pater, pedi" 
 bus tuiSy offero cum omnibus quce sum et haheo: vi- 
 vificctjOccide; voca, revoca; approba^ reprobfu ^d 
 placuerit ; vocem tuam vocem Christ i in te prcvsi- 
 dentis et loquentis agnoscam, dcJ^ " I protest,'* 
 (how different this protest from that drawn up, 
 a few years later, by his adherents I ) ^' I protest 
 that, by all my words and actions, present, past 
 and future, I mean to render homage and obe- 
 dience to the Roman Church." The world 
 knows how he kept his promise. '^ Should I have 
 said any thing which has not this for its object, 
 I will regard it and I desire others to regard it 
 as though it had not been said,'' etc. Protestor 
 me colere et sequi Romanam Ecdesiam in omnibus 
 meis didis d fadis, prcesentibus, prcderitis et Ju- 
 turis. Quodsi quid cditer didum fuerit, pro non 
 dicto habere et haberi volo." 
 
 In a book entitled, " Resolutio Propositionum," 
 
188 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 and written in the year 1519, we find this sen- 
 tence: ''The whole world admits that by the 
 words, ' thou art Peter/ the Pope's authority over 
 the Church was established."* What do Protest- 
 ants think of this assertion? 
 
 It was not until Leo had shown himself stern 
 and inexorable, tliat Luther poured out a torrent 
 of abusive and scurrilous language against the 
 Holy See. The Pope had now become " Anti- 
 christ/' and Rome the "whore of Babylon." f 
 
 Yet, even for many years after, whenever his 
 passions subsided a little, his conscience forced 
 him to make confessions quite incompatible with 
 his own new doctrine, and that of Protestantism 
 in general. Thus, in a work written twelve years 
 after his separation from the Church, against the 
 Sacraments-Schwcermerj that is, BeveUers in re- 
 gard to the Saa^ammts, the apostate monlv makes 
 this reflection : " It is an awful and appalling 
 thing to believe and teach a doctrine at variance 
 with that, which the Church has believed and 
 taught for fifteen hundred years. The man who 
 does so, condemns not only the Church, but also 
 Christ, who said ^ I am wdth you all days even 
 unto the consummation of the world,' and the 
 
 *Opp. Jenens, torn. v. 
 fLuth. de Capt. Bab., 1820. 
 
EXERCISING THIS PREROGATH^E. 189 
 
 Apostles, who inserted into the Creed the words, 
 ' I believe in one hobj Catholic Church/ " 
 
 It was thus that Luther moralized on the 
 errors of others. But as soon as there wa.s 
 question of his own, he completely changed his 
 tone. No sooner was he condemned than he 
 forgot all his former protests and exclaimed: 
 "What do I care whether the Popes cry out, 
 ^The Church! the Church! the Fathers! the 
 Fathers ! ' The Propliets and Apostles have 
 erred. With tlie word of God we judge both 
 the Church and Apostles." 
 
 He was, at last, s<^ utterly blinded by his pas- 
 sions, as to proclaim his own infallibility: "I do 
 not care for a hundred texts of the Bible,'' said 
 he, "and if you find that my doctrine is contrary 
 t<i that of the Church and of the Fathers, you 
 must know that I care not for all thaf And 
 whence, think you, did he derive his certainty in 
 matters of fliith if he cared not for the Bible, 
 the Church, and the Fathers? "My words," he 
 tells us, are the words of Christ, my tongue is 
 the tongue of Christ— I am certain that I can 
 not err^ * 
 
 What do you say to that, Protestants? Are 
 
 *See the History of the Life, Works, and Doctrines of Lu- 
 ther, by Audin, 1845. 
 
190 TESTIMOITY OF THE POPES, 
 
 you prepared to subscribe to the infallibility of 
 the Arch-reformer ? You certainly recoil at such 
 a request, and, nevertheless, you can not refuse 
 to do so, if you admit his principles. For, ac- 
 cording to them, not only your master but you 
 yourselves are invested with more than papal 
 prerogatives. The genuine Protestant must be- 
 lieve in his own infallibility, or deny all certainty 
 in matters of faith. He claims the right of be- 
 lieving what he holds, is the word of God con- 
 tained in the Bible; and, therefore, he virtually 
 makes his oivn judgment the ultimate criterion 
 of revealed truth, the highest infallible tribunal 
 in matters of faith, because he believes that he 
 will be saved by faith alone. Therefore, every 
 logical Protestant practically has to assert his 
 own infallibility; and still he calls, with con- 
 tempt, Catholics Papists^ because they believe in 
 the infallibility of the head of the Church. What 
 inconsistency ! This very name of Papists^ 
 which originated with Protestantism, and which 
 is meant to be an odious appellation, proves 
 that Protestants are aware to what the Catholic 
 Church is indebted for her strength, nay, for 
 her very existence and spiritual life. It is the 
 immovable strength of its Head and founda- 
 tion, invested in the authority of the Roman 
 See, and Papal prerogative. We, therefore, 
 
EXEECISING THIS PREROQATTV^E. 191 
 
 glory in that name of Papists ; for we remember 
 the words of St. Ambrose, "Where Peter is, 
 there is the Church." " Ubi PetniSy ibi Ecclesia.'^ 
 Yet Protestants, cut off from the Head of the 
 Church, adopted soon the well-known axiom, 
 " Ciijiis est regio, ejus est religio." The Protest- 
 ants, like the Russians of our day, transferred 
 to crowned heads the prerogatives of the Holy 
 See. Even a woman, who chances to wear the 
 diadem of royalty, thus becomes a very Pope for 
 the deluded partisans of error, who are unwilling 
 to recognize the rights of Christ's lawful repre- 
 sentative. AVhat a travesty of genuine Chris- 
 tianity ! 
 
 Pius V and Gregory XIII exercised the 
 prerogative of the Papal infallible authority 
 against Baius, whose errors were condemned by 
 them, and reinained condemned. Urban VIII, 
 IxNOCEXT X, and Alexander VII, in the sev- 
 enteenth century, exercised it against the errors 
 of Jansenius, which were condemned and re- 
 mained condemned. 
 
 As Jansenism is one of the latest develop- 
 ments of error, it may prove of interest to the 
 reader to give a brief sketch of its origin and 
 progress. Its history furnishes us with another 
 evidence of the strength of truth, which is not 
 afraid to meet its opponents in broad daylight, 
 
192 
 
 and of the weakness of error, which never dares 
 to appear under its true colors. 
 
 Jansenius himself had declared, before dying, 
 that he submitted all his writings to the judg- 
 ment of the Apostolical See. Yet, after his 
 death, his errors began to spread with such 
 alarming rapidity, that the Bishops of France 
 found it necessary to refer the case to Rome. In 
 their letter to Pope Innocent X, they remarked 
 that, by appealing to the Holy See, they followed 
 the practice of ages, which the unfailing faith of 
 Peter will never suffer to be abrogated. ^^ Quern 
 fides Petri nunquam deficiens perpetuo ret'meri 
 pro Jure suo postulat^' Their appeal was soon 
 answered; for, in the year 1653, on the 9th of 
 June, the Pope condemned the erroneous propo- 
 sitions of Jansenius. 
 
 As soon as the Bishops were notified of the 
 Pope's decision, they addressed him a letter of 
 felicitation, in which they remarked that, as, at 
 the request of the African Bishops, Innocent I 
 had condemned the Pelagians, so, at the request 
 of the French Bishops, Innocent X had con- 
 demned the Anti-Pelagians, namely, the Jansen- 
 ists. "The judgment of the Holy See,'^ wrote 
 they, "has a divine authority throughout the 
 whole Church, and every Christian is bound to 
 submit to it, in all sincerity and without reserva- 
 
EXERCISING THIS PREROGATIVE. 193 
 
 tion." " Oui omnes Christiani ex officio ipsius 
 mentis obsequium prccstare tenentur.^' "Congratu- 
 lating you, therefore, by whose mouth Peter has 
 spoken, as the Fourth OEcumenical Council de- 
 clared he had done by the mouth of Leo I, we 
 cheerfully and uuliesitatingly add your Decree 
 to the Decrees of the General Councils." 
 
 But the Jansenists, with the view of eluding 
 the condemnation, pretended that it was suffi- 
 cient to submit exteriorly by keeping " an obse- 
 quious silence," while interiorly they adhered to 
 the same heretical princi])les. This, again, was 
 referred to Rome, and, as every Catholic knew 
 beforehand, the answer was soon returned, that 
 this feigned submission by no means satisfied the 
 obligations of the faithful toward the Holy See. 
 "Obedient ice Jidelium erga hanc sedem debitcc, non 
 satisjieri obaequioso silentio." Hence, the formula 
 to which all the Jansenists, desirous of being re- 
 conciled, were required to subscribe, was con- 
 ceived in the following terms: "I, N. N., submit 
 to the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs, and I 
 reject and condemn the five propositions of Jan- 
 senius in the sense intended by the au- 
 thor. So I swear, and so help me God, and this 
 His Holy Gospel.'^ 
 
 The fatal blow was dealt to Jansenism, which 
 has ever since remained condemned. 
 17 
 
194 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 Clement IX exercised this Apostolical pre- 
 rogative against Paschasius Quesnell ; Innocent 
 XI against Michael Molinos; Plus YI, in the 
 eighteenth century, against the Synod of Pistoja; 
 and in this our own century Pius YII exercised 
 this his supreme judicial and Apostolical au- 
 thority against the adherents of the so-called 
 petite Eglise; and Gregoey XVI against De 
 La Mennais and Hermes. 
 
 Finally, Pius IX not only condemned the 
 errors of Guenther and Froschhamer, but, in the 
 full consciousness of his power and of his obliga- 
 tions as the Vicar of Christ and the divinely- 
 commissioned teacher of mankind, censured, in 
 his Syllabus, the false opinions taught by modern 
 pseudo-philosophers; the dangerous theories held 
 by certain naturalists on subjects of science; the 
 unsound views entertained by pretended world- 
 reformers concerning progress and civilization; 
 the extravagant notions carried out in practice 
 by an unchristian liberalism ; and the weak con- 
 cessions of a shallow theology, which panders, 
 through a mistaken policy, to the tendencies of 
 the times. Undismayed by the hostile attitude 
 of empires and nations, he taught those w4io 
 boasted of being the most profound thinkers of 
 their day, that, before him, the expounder of 
 the eternal truth revealed by God to men, in 
 
EXERCISIXG THIS PREROGATH^E. 195 
 
 order to teach thein the way of salvation, they 
 are as mere pupils who must follow the directions 
 of an unerring master. Armed with the power 
 of the Most High, he fulminated the thunders 
 of his anathemas against ail who dared dispute 
 his decisions. 
 
 Apparently the enemies of the truth and of 
 the Church might scorn the threats of the aged 
 Pontiff, but, in the secrecy of their hearts, they 
 marveled at his superhuman courage; and, if 
 they still believed in the revealed word of God, 
 though they might have been dragged along by 
 the current of public opinion, they now began to 
 feel uneasy and troubled in conscience. The 
 living members of the Church, on the other 
 hand, rejoiced and thanked the Lord that they 
 had been preserved amid the anarchical decom- 
 position of thoughts and principles which threat- 
 ened the destruction of all order; that, while so 
 many fed on the poisonous weeds of error, Peter, 
 ever alive in his Church, nourished them with 
 the wholesome food of unfailing truth. 
 
 But the occasion on which Pius exercised his 
 divine right and privilege in a more decisive and 
 conspicuous manner than ever a Pope had done 
 before, was that on which, by his own authority, 
 he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception uf the B. V. M., mother of God. On 
 
196 TESTIMONY OF THE POPES, 
 
 tlie 8tli of December, 1854, he arose from the 
 Apostolical throne of Peter, and, surrounded by 
 more than two hundred princes of the Church, 
 proclaimed, without any reference to their opin- 
 ion or judgment, that the B. Y. Mary, mother 
 of Christ, was conceived without stain of original 
 sin. All the Prelates of the Church, absent as 
 well as present, were bound to submit, and did 
 submit, to this authoritative decision ; and every 
 one who would have dared to resist, would have, 
 ipso facto, become a heretic. 
 
 Now, we ask: Was Pius IX, when he pro- 
 claimed this revealed truth to be an article of 
 faith, conscious of his infallibility in matters of 
 faith, or was he not? If not, how could he pro- 
 nounce such anathemas against all non-believers, 
 no matter how exalted their dignity or how great 
 their number. Before he had definitively pro- 
 nounced upon the subject, fifty of the Bishops 
 thought such a step premature; but as soon as 
 he had spoken, all orders of the clergy through- 
 out the whole world bowed in humble submis- 
 sion, and, by so doing, declared their belief in 
 the infallible authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. 
 
 Besides the twelve articles of the Apostle's 
 creed, no dogma had as yet been defined by tlie 
 Church, unless called for by some particular her- 
 esy, that had dared to attack a tenet of Catholic 
 
EXERCISING THIS PREROGATn'^E. 197 
 
 belief. In this ros|)ect, therefore, the dogma of 
 the Immaculate Conception might be called the 
 thirteenth article of the Creed. It certainly is 
 as much " of faith ^' as any article of the Creed, 
 because it was proclaimed in virtue of the same 
 Apostolical authority which has been transmitted 
 by St. Peter to every one of his successors. 
 
 There is something strikingly appropriate in 
 the fact — a charming parallelism — that the ex- 
 traordinary privilege conferred on no one but 
 Mary, was made known to the world in virtue of 
 a privilege, likewise bestowed on but one person, 
 namely St. Peter, who is still living in his suc- 
 cessor, the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 Considering the unbroken chain of declara- 
 tions and exercises of their Apostolical authority, 
 nobody who is of a candid character will ever 
 assert that the Popes entered into possession of 
 this their right and prerogative in the darkness 
 of the Middle Ages, but that they asserted and 
 exercised it from the beginning of the Church — 
 not bestowed on them by the Church, but by 
 Christ, through Peter, and that they spoke and 
 acted accordingly in the face of the whole Chris- 
 tian world. 
 
VI. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE MOST CELE- 
 BRATED THEOLOGIANS AND 
 UNIVERSITIES, 
 
 SINCE THE TIME OF THOMAS AQUINAS, MAINTAINING THE 
 
 INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, WHEN SPEAKING 
 
 "ex CATHEDRA." 
 
 With St. Bernard the age of the Fathers closes ; 
 with St. Thomas and St. Bonaventura, that of the 
 Doctors of Divinity opens. The authority of the 
 Doctors is of great weight in determining the 
 doctrine of the Church. For they did not in- 
 vent new dogmas, but derived all that they 
 taught from Scripture and Tradition. Hence 
 we find that upon the present subject, as well as 
 upon every other, their doctrine reflects in the 
 (198) 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS. 199 
 
 most perfect manner, that of the earlier ages to 
 which we have already alhuled. 
 
 We shall begin with St. Thomas of Aquin, 
 commonly known as the Angelic Doctor — Doc- 
 tor Angelicus. Xone is ignorant of the respect 
 with which the entire school of Divinity is wont 
 to receive the dicta of this prodigy of philosoph- 
 ical and theological learning, who never, per- 
 haps, found his equal among the children of 
 men except in St. Augustin. 
 
 Treating in his "Sum ma Theologise'^ of the right 
 of making a Symbol of Faith, he maintains that it is 
 the exclusive prerogative of the Pope, the successor 
 of St. Peter, for whom the Lord " prayed that his 
 faith fail not." In support of this assertion, he 
 quotes the text of St. Paul to the Corinthians.* 
 
 " It were impossible," argues the holy Doctor, 
 "to comply with this injunction of the Apostle, 
 if, when a diflPerence arises concerning doctrinal 
 matters, the controversy were not settled by him, 
 who was constituted the head of the Church, 
 that so the whole Church might unhesitatingly 
 receive his decisions." Quod servari nan possit, 
 nisi qucesfio fidei exorta determinetnr per eum, qui 
 toti Ecclesice prceest, id sic ejus sententia a tota ec- 
 clesia fimiiter teneaturJ^ f 
 
 * 1 Cor. i : " I beseech you, brethren, that you all speak the 
 same thing." 
 
 fSum. St. Thorn., 2, 2, q. i, ar. 10. 
 
200 TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 In another part of the Summa he reasons thus : 
 " The Church can not err, because He that ' was 
 heard for His own dignity/ said to Peter : ^ I have 
 prayed for thee that thy faith fail not/^ ^'EggU- 
 sia errare non potest, quia ille, qui exauditus est 
 in omnibus pro sua reverentiaj Petro dixit: Ego 
 rogavi pro te, ut non dejiciat fides tua.^' ^ It is es- 
 pecially deserving of notice, that St. Thomas here 
 infers the Infallibility of the Church from that 
 of the Pope, and not the Infallibility of the Pope 
 from that of the Church. 
 
 In a work, ^^ Against the Greeks," in which as 
 a Doctor of the Latin Church, St. Thomas stu- 
 died above all to avoid every appearance of ex- 
 aggeration and rhetorical parade, and to give a 
 plain and accurate exposition of Catholic doc- 
 trine, we find the following passage : " Christ, 
 who received from the Father the scepter of the 
 Church, so that all ranks and conditions must do 
 Him homage, likewise gave to St. Peter and his 
 successors the fullest power, in the fullest manner, 
 so that He delegated to no one else His full au- 
 thority." ''Et Petro et ejus successoribus plenis- 
 simam potestatem pleiiissime commisit, ut etiam 
 nidli alii quam Petro, quod suum est plenum ipsi 
 deditJ' Had St. Thomas doubted the Pope's 
 right to decide authoritatively on questions of 
 
 * Sum. St. Thorn., p. 3, q. 25, art. 2. 
 
AND UNIVERSITIES. 201 
 
 doctrine, he certainly would never have allowed 
 himself expressions like these. For if this right 
 was not given to the Pope and is nevertheless 
 possessed by the Church, it must have been given 
 to some one else united to the Pope. But such an 
 hypothesis is at variance with the assertion of the 
 Saint : " He gave to St. Peter and his successors 
 the fuUcfit power in the fullest manner/' and "He 
 delegated to no one else His full authority.'' 
 
 Let us listen, next, to St. Bonaventure, whose 
 appellation of "Seraphic Doctor" — Doctor Sera- 
 phicus — is sufficient evidence, that, like his con- 
 temporary and friend, St. Thomas, he is looked 
 upon as "an Angel in the schools." We read 
 in his " Hexameron :" " Like the sun among the 
 planets, the Popea7o?i6 has the plenitude of power 
 over all the Churches." " Solus summus Pontifex 
 universal iter y sicid sol super planetas, habet plcni- 
 tudinem potestatis super omnes ecclesias.^' Mark 
 the terms of the comparison. St. Bonaventure 
 does not say, " like the sun among the stars/^ but 
 " like the sun among the planets.'' The planets are 
 not self-luminous, but shine with light borrowed 
 from the sun. The application, which every one 
 may easily make for himself, will serve to show that 
 St. Bonaventure, as well as St. Thomas, infers the 
 Infallibility of the Church from that of the Pope.* 
 
 * Hexameron, Serm. 21. 
 
202 TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 In his " Sum ma Theologise," in which he treats 
 this question ex- professo, he lays it down as incon- 
 trovertible that the Pope can not err, provided 
 that he teaches as the Head of the Church, with 
 the intention to oblige the faithful to believe.* 
 In any other case this special prerogative is not 
 necessary for the Unity of the Church, and, 
 therefore, not necessary at all, because it was not 
 conferred on St. Peter for any personal advan- 
 tage, but for the benefit of the Church, whose 
 very existence requires the strictest Unity. 
 
 These two leaders of the theological school, in 
 the thirteenth century, have been followed by the 
 most eminent theologians down to our time. 
 
 In proof of this, in order not to be too diffuse, 
 we can do little more than refer to the works 
 of the principal authors, unless a special reason 
 should make it desirable to quote their words. 
 We, therefore, mention, among others : John of 
 Paris, in his work "De Regia Potestate et Pa- 
 pali;" Augustinus Triumphus, " Sum ma de Potes- 
 tate Ecclesiastica ;" Durandiis of Pour gain, "De 
 Origine Jurisdictionum, seu de Ecclesiastica Ju- 
 risdictione f Petrus Paludanus, " De Potestate 
 Ecclesiastica;" Petrus Bertrandus, "De Origine 
 et Usu Jurisdictionum, seu de Spirituali et Tem- 
 porali Jurisdictione ;" Alvarus Pelagiits, Bishop 
 
 *Bon. Sum. Theol, I. Art. 3, D. 3. 
 
AND TJNIVERSTTIES. 203 
 
 of Sylves, "De Planctu Ecclesise;'' Joannes Tur- 
 recremata, " De Sumrai Pontificis et Generalis 
 Concilii Potestate/' and *^De Ecclesia et ejus 
 Auctoritate/' 
 
 Even in the East of that epoch there were 
 those who adhered to the traditions of the old 
 Greek Church and strove to bring their coun- 
 trymen back to the faith of their forefathers. 
 Among these we may rank Bessarion and Joseph, 
 Bishop of Modon, and the Greek monk, Manuel 
 CaUcas, who remarks in his book "Contra Er- 
 rores Graecorum :'^ " There have always been 
 among us men of superior learning, who con- 
 demned our separation from the Church of Rome 
 as extremely foolish and at variance with the 
 faith and teaching of our ancestors/^* 
 
 George ScholariuSj in his Apology of the 
 Council of Florence, writes : " The Bishop of 
 Rome is the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of 
 Christ, the teacher of all Christians. Who can 
 deny it ? Our Savior and all the Doctors of the 
 Church proclaim it in accents louder than the 
 thunders of heaven.'^ ^^Ucec profedo, quomodo 
 qiiis injieian possit, cum apertissime Christus et 
 omnes doctor es manifestius, quam si toiiiti^ inso- 
 naretj hoc ipsum vociferanturJ^ 
 
 Similar expressions are made by Abraham of 
 
 * Contra errores Graecorum, 1. 4. 
 
204 TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 Crete, in his Preface to the translation of the 
 Acts drawn up by the Council of Florence, and 
 by Philotheus, Patriarch of Alexandria, In his 
 answer to the "Document of Union," sent to 
 him by the Pope. George of Thrapezunt writes: 
 "As Christ gave to Peter the keys of heaven, 
 those, who reject his doctrine and leave his com- 
 munion, shall in vain exclaim, ^Lord open unto 
 us/ '^ — '^Domine aperi nobisJ^ John Flusiadenus, 
 Archpriest of Constantinople, wrote a book bear- 
 ing the title " DIalogus pro Synodo Florentlna," 
 in which he enlarges upon the Papal right of 
 confirming, examining, directing, and correcting 
 whatever bears upon faith. "Ipse auctoritatem 
 habet confirmandi, examinandi, dirigendi, d cor- 
 rigendi quce ad fidem pertinenV^ 
 
 The Infallibility of the Holy See was also 
 taught and defended by Alphonsus Tostatiis, a 
 writer of such ability, that, according to Whar- 
 ton, he wrote more in twenty-two years, than an 
 ordinary man can attentively read during a life- 
 time. We refer our readers to his commentary on 
 the xvi chapt. of St. Matthew. St. John of Capis- 
 tran most explicitly defends this privilege of the 
 Holy See, in his works, " De Dignltate Ecclesi- 
 astica," directed against the Hussites, and " De 
 Papse et Concilii DIgnitate," against the Synod 
 of Basel. 
 
AND UNTVEESITIES. 205 
 
 ;S^^. Antoninus distinguishes, as we have done, 
 between the Pope's opinions, as a private theolo- 
 gian, and his dogmatic utterances, as the Yicar 
 of Christ. " The Pope," writes he, " may err as 
 a private person; but he can not err, when, in 
 his capacity of Pope, he defines an article of 
 faith." He even goes so far, as to stigmatize 
 with heresy every body, who disputes the Infal- 
 libility of the Sovereign Pontiff. "Ulcere quod 
 in hujusmodi Papa erraret, esset hereticumj^-^ 
 
 The heresy here spoken of must, of course, be 
 understood as interior ; because there is no explicit 
 definition, which makes a person exteriorly 
 chargeable with heresy for such an act. The 
 Saint means, that, upon this subject the teaching 
 of the Church is so plain and unmistakable, that 
 no one can maintain the contrary without ren- 
 dering himself guilty, before God, of a culpable 
 error in faith. 
 
 John Nauclerus is the author of a work en- 
 titled " De Monarchia," in which he pronounces 
 an appeal from the Pope to an CEcumeuical Coun- 
 cil simply ridiculous, because there can be no 
 CEcumenical Council without the Pope, whose 
 confirmation is necessary to give validity to its 
 Decrees. To appeal from the Yicar of Christ to 
 
 * St. Ant., pars iv, lib. 8, c. 3, § 4, and pars iii, lib. 12, c. 8, g 3. 
 
206 TESTIMONY OF THE TPIEOLOGIANS 
 
 a Council is, moreover, according to him, an act 
 of rebellion, that falls under the censures of the 
 Councils themselves ; but to appeal from a Coun- 
 cil, however numerous, to the Vicar of Christ, is 
 a privilege always allowed and conformable to 
 the Canons of the Councils. 
 
 Cajetan advances the same opinion in his book 
 " De superioritate Papse super Concilium ; '^ and 
 even Et^asmus, whose varied learning the Prot- 
 estants of his times tried, by every means in 
 their power, to secure to the service of error, sub- 
 mitted all his writings to the censure of the Pope, 
 whom he looked upon as the highest exponent 
 of God's authority on earth.* 
 
 The prerogative of Infallibility claimed by the 
 Holy See is likewise defended by MMiior Canus, 
 in his celebrated work " De locis Theologicis." 
 He, too, is of opinion that those who deny the In- 
 fallibility of the Pope in matters of faith, are no 
 less guilty of interior heresy than those who deny 
 his right of primacy over the Church. 
 
 To this series of celebrated Divines we must 
 add Bellamvinej " De Romano Pontifice ; '' f Car- 
 
 * See his letters to Bishop Christoph of Basel, to Morus, Beda, 
 Faber, Melanchton, and to the Swiss. 
 
 f Indeed we were morelhan surprised to read in a book re- 
 cently published in New York by a very distinguished author, 
 who, whilst asserting the Infallibility of the Pope in his de- 
 
AND UNIVERSITIES. 207 
 
 dlnnl Oromis, " De irrefragabili Romani Ponti- 
 ficis auctoritate in definiendis fidei cx)ntroversiis ; '^ 
 Francis, Archbishop of Rouen, ''Apologia pro 
 Catholicis ad Jacobum Britanniae regem ; " Cardi- 
 nal Gotti, " De vera Ecclesia Jesu Christi ; " 3Ii- 
 lante, Bishop of Stabium, '^Exerc. 19, supra pro- 
 pos. 29;" Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, " In- 
 structio pastoralis ; " Jacob Serry, " Dissertatio 
 de Romano Pont, falli et fallere nescio ; " St, 
 Francis de Sales, who treats the subject, as we al- 
 ready observed, in some of his letters, and in a 
 
 cisioDS on matters of faith, limits its sphere in such a manner, 
 that he rather seems to prove his fallibility. But it is quite 
 inconceivable how this respectable author could go so far as 
 to cite Bellarmine in his favor, pretending that this celebrated 
 Doctor of Divinity made the Infallibility of the Pope depen- 
 dent upon the approval of a General Council. Has the author 
 ever looked for himself into the controversial works of Bellar- 
 mine ? There he may read the following two propositions, as- 
 serted and defended by Bellarmine : 
 
 "Summus Pontifex, cum totam Ecelesiam docet, in his, quae 
 ad fidem pertinent, nuUo casu errare potest." Lib. 4, de Po- 
 test. Summ. Pontificis, c. 3. 
 
 And again : " Summus Pontifex simpliciter absolute est 
 supra Ecelesiam universam, et super Concilium Generale, ita 
 ut nullum in terris supra se Judicem agnoscat." This is the 
 doctrine of Bellarmine. The author must have had before him 
 an entirely corrupted and interpolated edition, when he wrote 
 his remarks concerning the views of this prominent Theolo- 
 gian. All the world knows that Bellarmine is rather consid- 
 ered, by friends and foes, as one of the most valiant cham- 
 pions in defense of our thesis. 
 
208 TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 manuscript preserved in the Bibliotheca Clii- 
 giana.* 
 
 This right and privilege of the Holy See is 
 also defended by Antonius Charlas, in his " Trac- 
 tatus de libertatibus Ecclesise Gallicanse ; '^ by Cce- 
 lestlnus Sfrondati, in his " Regale Sacerdotium ; " 
 by ChartieVj " De infallibili et suprema au-ctori- 
 tate S.S. Pontificum ; '^ Bosevlnus, "torn, iv, de 
 Conc./^ Thyrsus Gonzalez, "De Horn. Pont. Infal- 
 libilitate;" Troila, " De Pontifice;'' Petrus Mat- 
 thcei, "Summa Const. ;^^ Duval, '^ De Suprema 
 Potest. Rom. Pont. ; '^ Cahassutius, " Notitia 
 Cone. ; " Pitidier, " Dissertation sur le Concil de 
 Constance." To these series of Doctors we add 
 the illustrious names of Sotus, Suarez, Niccnus de 
 Lyra, Spondanus, Thomassinus, Ludovicus Bail, 
 Joannes Buteanus, Charmes, Dominicus Bannes, 
 Berti, Mansi, and Roncaglia,-\ who all unani- 
 mously defend our thesis. 
 
 Considering the weight of these and innumer- 
 able other authorities, at the verge of the eight- 
 eenth century, Sardagna reasons thus in his 
 treatise " De inerrantia Rom. Pontificis : " " In 
 theological questions which involve a divine 
 right, we are obliged to follow the oldest and 
 most common opinion. But the opinion Avhich 
 holds the Infallibility of the Pope in matters of 
 
 *See De Maistre, Du Pape, li. f Adn. in Nat. Alex. 
 
AND UNIVERSITIES. 209 
 
 faith, is older and more common than the con- 
 trary ; for, before the Council of Pisa and Con- 
 stance, there was not a single theologian of any 
 note who would have ever questioned it. In- 
 deed no one could have done so without being 
 at once declared a heretic." 
 
 The causes which led some theologians, after 
 the Council of Pisa and Constance, to advance 
 the novel opinion that Infallibility is a privilege 
 peculiar to a General Council, are too obvious to 
 be mistaken. These Synods which assembled at 
 the time of the great Papal Schism, with the 
 view of examining the claims of the different 
 nominees, asserted their superiority over the pre- 
 tenders to the Chair of St. Peter. From this 
 circumstance shallow-minded and partial writers 
 took occasion to impugn the prerogatives of the 
 lawful Vicar of Christ. Their views met with 
 especial favor in France, because they flattered 
 the ambitious Louis XIY, who was resolved 
 on establishing a National Church, and making 
 himself its head. Before long the new doctrine 
 was embodied in the famous "Four Articles," 
 which tended so much to embarrass the action of 
 the Sovereign Pontiff, until they were finally 
 condemned by the Church. 
 
 German Febronianism and Josephinism fa- 
 vored these Galilean tendencies, and, with strange 
 18 
 
210 TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 inconsistency, represented the Apostolical author- 
 ity of the Holy See as hostile to the rights of the 
 whole Church assembled in a General Council. 
 How illogical and utterly untenable such an 
 opinion is, will appear from our answers to the 
 objections commonly raised against the Infalli- 
 bility of the Pope by autliors of this class. 
 
 Yet the immense majority of theologians wor- 
 thy of this name, also after the Councils of Con- 
 stance, and the schismatical convention of the 
 French Bishops in the year 1682, invariably and 
 most learnedly defended this undeniable preroga- 
 tive of the Apostolical See. The most distin- 
 guished of them are MamachiuSj " Antiq. Christ, 
 et in lib. contra auctorem opusculi : Quid est 
 Papa,^^ (the shameless pamphlet of Eibel) ; Zara- 
 chiay " Antifebronius;^^ the Brothers Ballerini, 
 "De vi ac ratione Primatus;" St. Alphonsus 
 Liguori, " De Infallibilitate Papre ;" Devoti, " Inst. 
 Jur. Ecc. Romffi, 1824 ;" De Maistre, '' Du Pape ;" 
 Muzarelli, "Auct. Rom. Pont., etc.;" Perrone, 
 " Prselectiones Theologicse ; " and, finally. Pope 
 Gregory XYI (Capellari) in his celebrated 
 work," Triomfo della Santa Sede.'' 
 
 Other authors, balancing between human re- 
 spect and duty, professed to give the arguments 
 for and against the subject. Yet, even among 
 these, there were no theologians of distinction 
 
AND UNIVERSITIES. 211 
 
 who have left us at all in doubt concerning their 
 own opinion. Like Tournely and Lieberman, 
 they range on the side of the affirmative. 
 
 To this well-nigh unanimous testimony of the 
 theological school we must yet add that of entire 
 Universities. Before the Council of Constance, 
 no diversity of opinion was allowed, u]X)n tliis 
 matter, in those venerable seats of theological 
 learning. We may easily satisfy ourselves upon 
 this subject by referring to the queen and leader 
 of all the universities, the Sorbonne of Paris, 
 whose teaching was the standard, to which all 
 the others at once conformed. Erasmus, who 
 was certainly well acquainted with the customs 
 that obtained among the learned of his day, 
 compares the influence exerted by the Sorbonne 
 over all the Universities, to the authority exer- 
 ci.sed by the See of Rome over the whole Church. 
 *^ Parisiensis Academia semper in re theologica 
 non aliter principem tenuit locum, quam Romana 
 Sedes Christiance religionis prlncipjatumy Every 
 one was confident of carrying his point when he 
 could say: '' The Sorbonne of Paris teaches this; 
 the Academy of Paris agrees with me," etc. 
 
 Let us, then, study the teachings of the Sor- 
 bonne, before Louis XIV sought to concentrate 
 in himself all authority in Church and State. 
 
 In the year 1320 this celebrated University 
 
212 TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 condemned the propositions of Marsilius Padu- 
 anus, who taught that the Pope could err in mat- 
 ters of faith. In the year 1324, the University, 
 having united with the whole French Church, 
 under Stephen, Archbishop of Paris, declared, 
 "that the Church of Rome is the mother and 
 teacher of all other churches ; that she is founded 
 on the unshaken faith of Peter, the Vicar of 
 Christ, who is authorized, as the universal judge 
 of Catholic truth, to approve or reject doctrines, 
 to solve doubts, to decide what is to be believed, 
 and to refute errors/' " Romana Ecdesia fideli- 
 um omnium mater est et magistra in firmissima 
 Petri Vicarii Christi confessions fundata, ad 
 quam velut ad universalem regulam, Catholicce 
 veritatis pertinet approbatio et reprobatio doctrina- 
 rum, dedaratio dubiorum, determhiatio tenendo- 
 rum, et confutatio errorumJ^ 
 
 Pierre de Aliaco, who presided over the Sorbonne, 
 under Clement VII, affirmed : "This is the faith 
 which we have been taught by the Catholic Church. 
 Should we have advanced any rash or erroneous 
 opinion, we hope that it will be corrected by 
 thee, who hast inherited the faith and the See of 
 Peter. We are aware, and we firmly believe, 
 that the Apostolical See is the chair of Peter, on 
 which the Church was built, and of which, in the 
 person of Peter, seated on it, it was said : ^ Peter, 
 
AND UNIVERSITIES. 213 
 
 I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.' " 
 '^ Xon ig no ramus ysedjirm iter tenemus, et nullatenus 
 dubitamus, quod S. Sedes Apostolica est ilia Ca- 
 thedra Petri, supra quamfundata est ecelesia ; de 
 qua sede et persona Petri in eadeni sedenti dictum 
 est : Peire rogavipro te, id non dejiciat fides tua.'^ * 
 
 In the year 1534 tlie Sorbonne condemned the 
 propositions of John Morandus and Marcus An- 
 touius de Dominis, who maintained that the 
 Pope is not infallible, f The celebrated Peter 
 De Marca positively affirms that, in the seven- 
 teenth century, not only the University of Paris, 
 but all the Universities of the whole world, taught 
 the infallibility of the Po{>e in matters of faith. | 
 The same thing is asserted by Petidler in his 
 treatise, ^' De Auctoritate et Infallibilitate S. 
 Pont.'' 
 
 In the year 1544, the University of Louvain 
 solemnly anathematized the errors of Luther by 
 the following proposition : " We must firmly 
 believe that there is on earth one, true. Catholic, 
 and visible Church of Christ, which was estab- 
 lished by the Apostles, which has outlived the 
 vicissitudes of ages, and "svhich subscribes and 
 
 *See Lib. 4, Hist. Univ. Paris, ad an. 1387. 
 f See Duval and Nauclems, p. 4, 1, 8, c. 6. 
 J Stephen Baluzzi in Comp. ejus vitae libris de Concordia 
 praefixo. 
 
214 TESTIilONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 clings to whatever is proposed, or will be pro- 
 posed, in matters of faith or religion, by the 
 Chair of Peter, on whom she was founded by- 
 Christ, that she might not err in what appertains 
 to faith and religion." ^^ Fir ma fide (yi^edendum 
 estj unam esse in ierris veram atque Catholicam 
 Chrisfi Ecdesiam, eamque visibilem, quce ah Apos- 
 tolis fundata in hanc usque cetatem perdurans re- 
 tinet et suscipit, quidquid de fide et religione tradit 
 et traditura est Cathedra Petri, supra qiiam a 
 Christo est fundata, ut in iis, qucefidei sunt et re- 
 ligionis, eiTare non possit.^' The University, 
 therefore, held, with St. Thomas and St. Bona- 
 venture, that the infallibility of the Church 
 results from the infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 Taperus, chancellor of the theological faculty 
 of Louvain, bears us out in the statement, that 
 no difference of opinion existed in the schools, 
 previous to the Councils of Constance and Basel, 
 the real aim of which was entirely misapprehended 
 by a few weak minds, ready to dogmatize before 
 they understood the point at issue.* Gerson 
 himself concedes that, before the Council of Con- 
 stance, any one, who would have disputed the in- 
 fallibility of the Pope, would have been branded 
 as a hereticf 
 
 * Tract. Theol. N. 6 et 7. 
 fDo Potest. Eccles.Consid. ii. 
 
AND UNIVERSITIES. 215 
 
 The theological faculties of Cologne and Sala- 
 manca solemuly professed the same doctrine, con- 
 demning the propositions of M. A. de Dominis, 
 as opposed to the teaching of the Church. Sar- 
 dagna and even Tournely attest, that during the 
 eighteenth century all the Catholic Universities, 
 with the exception of a few members in some, that 
 had been infected with Galilean principles, were 
 all defending the personal Papal infallibility in 
 matters of faith. 
 
 Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Jansenism, 
 combined with those revolting blasphemies of 
 infidelity, which were rife during the time of 
 the French Revolution, and subsequently the 
 secularization of the Church in Germany, and 
 the wars that deluged the face of Europe witli 
 blood, all tended to convert into passive tools 
 some of those, whose learning should have raised 
 them above the weakness of vulgar minds. But 
 the mist which hung over the Church, has been 
 rajiidly vanishing, since the day on which Gre- 
 gory XYI rose up in defense of Clement Augus- 
 tus, the captive Archbishop of Cologne. At 
 present there is scarcely a single theological fac- 
 ulty, which would tolerate the opinion that the 
 Pope can err when teaching the faithful in His 
 capacity as the Head of the Church. The pro- 
 fessor may still lay before his scholars the argu- 
 
216 TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIANS 
 
 ments ][)ro and contra; practically all difference 
 of opinion has disappeared, because no theologian 
 would, at this day, dare to teach an opinion con- 
 demned by the Holy See. 
 
 Since the publication of the '^Syllabus," quite 
 a number of eminent Theologians have raised 
 their voices in defense of the Papal Infallibility, 
 as extending to the teachings of the Pope com- 
 municated to the Church, by such decisions as 
 Pius IX and others of his predecessors made in 
 regard to certain doctrinal propositions. Among 
 them, we notice the celebrated Archbishop of 
 AVestminster, Dr. Manning, in his work "The 
 Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost," page 83; 
 Dr. Murray, in his " Dogmatical Treatises ; " Dr. 
 Ward, in his "Controversy with Dr. Ryder," 
 in the Dublin Review of last year and this year; 
 Rev. S. Schrader, "De Unitate Romana;" the 
 series of dissertations on the "Syllabus," pub- 
 lished by Father Rles, and other French Jesu- 
 its; the explanations on the "Syllabus" by Gury, 
 Perrone, and Dr. Torsi; finally, the articles in 
 the " Civilta Catolica,^^ published in Rome itself. 
 Meanwhile not a single theologian rose up to 
 teach that the Pope can err in matters of faith. 
 The controversy among Catholic writers in our 
 times refers only to the sphere of that name, 
 
AND UNIVERSITIES. 217 
 
 which we thought to have indicated sufficiently 
 by the very title of this one book. 
 
 "There is no power against God/' says St. 
 Paul; and we may add: "There is no power 
 against truth, and therefore not against faith.'' 
 A truth of faith may be for a time obscured by 
 a mass of jarring opinions; but, like the suu 
 peering from behind the clouds, it will soon 
 shine with increased luster, and ^vrap the world 
 in a blaze of light. Such has been and is tlie 
 case with the privilege of the Holy See for which 
 we contend. 
 
 19 
 
VII. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND 
 PEOPLES, 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGING THE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN SEE TO BE 
 THE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL ON EARTH, AND THE ROMAN PON- 
 TIFF THE INFALLIBLE JUDGE IN MATTERS OF FAITH. 
 
 The testimony which we here adduce in fur- 
 ther support of our thesis is not lightly to be 
 passed over as of little weight in the balance of 
 argument. The living faith which actuated prin- 
 ces and peoples of all nations, and in all the ages 
 of Christianity, in their veneration of the Su- 
 preme Pontiff, and their recognition of his priv- 
 ilege as Supreme Arbiter in matters of faith, 
 carries along with it a whole world of witnesses. 
 The princes, on their part, had no undue j>er- 
 sonal inducement toward such a recognition, 
 
 (218) 
 
TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES. 219 
 
 insLsmuch as they were taught by experience, 
 that the Po{>e was ever ready on occasion to use 
 his right against themselves, and, if they had 
 consulted a narrow and selfish interest, they 
 would rather have been led to over-exalt the 
 power of bishops who depended purely upon them- 
 selves, than of one who owed them nothing, 
 and had less reason to fear their influence and 
 power. Nevertheless, we shall see how many 
 were found, who, with undiminished reverence 
 and obedience, submitted tliemsolves to the deci- 
 sions of the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of 
 St. Peter, whose faith could not fail, and the 
 Vicar of Christ, the eternal truth. 
 
 The very first instance that we adduce to usher 
 in the long line of princely witnesses, is all the 
 more striking, inasmuch as it is one of the still 
 heathen Emperors of Rome, Aurelius. While 
 he was at Antioch, a Synod assembled to judge 
 the heretical Paulus, whom they deposed, sub- 
 stituting in Ills place a certain Domnus. The 
 condemned but contumacious Paulus refused to 
 submit, and would not give up to Domnus the 
 church and episcopal residence to w^hich he had 
 no longer a right. Aurelius was appealed to, 
 and gave for decision that the church and resi- 
 dence should be made over to him whom the 
 Bishop of Rome should designate. This decision 
 
220 TESTIMONY OF PEIXCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 should suffice to show us how universally the 
 rights of the Roman Pontiff must even then 
 have been known and acknowledged, since a 
 Roman and heathen Emperor was acquainted 
 wdth, and enforced them. Seventy Bishops aj)- 
 peal to him in the same city where the scandal 
 oOfcurs, and yet he does not decide for himself, 
 nor refer the case to them, nor to the Bishops 
 of the country, but orders them to inform the 
 Bishop of Rome and abide by his decision. 
 
 So great and imposing is the weight of this 
 fact, that there were Bishops among the schis- 
 matical Greeks, who endeavored to find therein 
 the first rise of that Primacy which was after- 
 ward recognized throughout the world. Of such 
 was Leo of Acrida, but any one can detect the 
 post hoc ergo proptet- hoc of this inversion.* No, 
 it was not an invention of Aurelius, who would 
 have known that a blunder in this matter would 
 not have settled the difficulty; he evidently 
 wished to terminate the dissensions among the 
 Christians by appealing to an authority which 
 they were bound to acknowledge. As Bossuetf 
 justly observes, he was a true Roman and loved 
 justice, and liked to see Christians, as Christians, 
 judged by their own usages — praxis. It was 
 
 * Lupus. Scholia viii, 103. 
 
 I Diseours sur 1' Histoire Universelle. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 221 
 
 this widely known praxis Christianorum which 
 was the inspirer of his decision. 
 
 When we find a heathen emjieror rendering 
 such a decision, we need not be astonished that 
 Constantine the Great, the first Christian Em- 
 peror, should have called the decision of the 
 Roman Pontiff " a heavenly judgment," " cceleste 
 judicium,'^ and have cried out against the lament- 
 able blindness of heretics apixjaling to him (the 
 Emperor) against a decision, which he himself 
 was obliged to obey as a " cceleste judicium.^^ 
 
 It has been justly remarked that one of the 
 most illustrious testimonies to the superiority and 
 supremacy of the Spiritual Majesty and Authority 
 of the Pope over even imperial dignity, is in the 
 remarkable resolution of the same Constantine, 
 on becoming a Christian, in abandoning Rome to 
 its Pontiff, and building for himself a new impe- 
 rial city, Constantinople. He felt the inconve- 
 nience of living in the same place with one, 
 whose power eclipsed his own, and the impro- 
 priety of the Head of the Church residing in a 
 city, of which he did not possess the sole con- 
 trol. In this, Constantine showed himself a true 
 Christian, and gave a lesson to all princes of the 
 love and respect which they should pay to the 
 Pontiff of Rome. His successors in the West 
 continued to give the same wonderful proof \ji 
 
222 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 Christian sentiment. For, although they con- 
 tinued to claim sovereignty in Rome, where the 
 Senate held its sittings, they themselves resided 
 at Milan, Ravenna, or in other cities, even farther 
 distant, as Trier in Germany. 
 
 Gratian, in the year 383, to maintain the Supre-^ 
 macy of the Popes, in matters of faith, issued a de- 
 cree by which he obliged his people to live in com- 
 munion wdth the Holy See.* The rule by which he 
 judged the orthodoxy of any one was the answer to 
 the question whether he held the same faith with 
 Damasus — cmnplectere doctrinam Damasi. He re- 
 buked the heretical aspirant to the See of Constan- 
 tinople to his face, saying : " I am astonished at thy 
 shamelessness in resisting the truth, since thou 
 knowest the teaching of Damasus.^^ " 3Iiror te 
 tarn impudenter reslstere veritati, nam probe scias 
 Damasum/' etc.f 
 
 The same testimony was given by the Em- 
 peror Theodosius in his treatment of Flavian and 
 Is ectarius. The Emperor Honorius, writing to the 
 Emperor Arcadius, furnishes the same evidence. 
 That of Yalentinian in his letter to Theodosius, 
 the younger, is yet more remarkable : '^ Since the 
 Bishop of the blessed City of Rome, on whom 
 antiquity confers the supremacy of the Priest- 
 hood, has the office and faculty of judging the 
 
 * Cod. Theod. xvi, 1. 1, c. 2. t Butler xviii. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREKOQATIVE. 223 
 
 faith, and the priesthood." ^^Quoienus beatce 
 HomancE eivitatis Episcopus, md principatum Sa- 
 cerdotii super omnes antiquitas coiitulit, locum 
 habeat et facuUatem de fide et sacerdotibus judi- 
 care."^ Therefore, it is, he says, that the Patri- 
 arch of Constantinople has addressed himself to 
 the Pope concerning the controversy that has 
 arisen relating to the faith. ^Propter contention 
 nemy quce orta est de fideJ' He did even more ; 
 he wrote to the Prefect of Gaul, that all the de- 
 cisions of the Bishop of Rome were to be re- 
 garded and obeyed in the Courts of that Province 
 and elsewhere in his dominions, as if they were 
 imjx^rial laws. ^' Sed illisy omnibiisque pro lege 
 sity quidquid dixerit vel sanxerit Apostolicce Sedis 
 Auctoritas.'^ He gives for reason, that since the 
 time of Constantine, all the Christian Emperors 
 had considered themselves the protectors of the 
 Holy See. What a beautiful and striking ex- 
 ample for our own times, and, alas, what a dif- 
 'ference between princes ! He explains, that 
 while he loves to sanction the Apostolical decis- 
 ions, it is not with a view of adding to the 
 authority, which they have in all fullness from 
 the Pope, but only that he may the more effica- 
 ciously bring the refractory to their duty. ^'Sed 
 nostram quoque prceceptionem Jicec ratio prcyvoca- 
 
 * Baron, ad an. 407. 
 
224 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 vitj ne ulterius unquam aUeri liceat prceceptis Ro- 
 mani Pontificis ohviare.^^ Those Emperors of old 
 had not as yet dreamed of a '^ j^^^^^^'^'^ regium ! " 
 Most pertinent and confirmatory is that asser- 
 tion of Valentinian in this same Edict : " Peace 
 would reign throughout the Church, if all would 
 acknowledge bat the one ruler." "J'wnc enim 
 omnium Ecdesiarufh, pax ubique servardur, si reo- 
 torem unum agnoscatJ^ 
 
 Yes, that is the reason why the Eight and Pri- 
 vilege in question was conferred on one, so that 
 unity and peace might be preserved for all. In 
 this the Emperor agrees with St. Cyprian, who 
 had said : " All the trouble of sects and schisms 
 arises from the sole fact, that heretics and schis- 
 matics do not submit to the one Judge, holding 
 the place of Christ." 
 
 How plainly and decidedly this privilege was 
 recognized by Marcian and by the accomplished 
 Empress Pulcheria, we have already pointed out 
 when treating of the (Ecumenical Council of 
 Chalcedon. 
 
 Justin, writing to the Pope by the hand of his 
 Minister and successor Justinian, says : '' This 
 we hold to be the Catholic truth, what, namely, 
 thy answer shall make known to us." ^'Hoc enim 
 credimus esse Catholicum, quod Vestro responso 
 nobis fuerit intimatum,'' 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 225 
 
 This was the faith and the language of Em- 
 perors living before the time of Gregory the 
 Great, in those ages, namely, when Protestants 
 concede the Church to have been free from error. 
 The same sentiments were held by the Eastern 
 Emperors, who stood in no need of tempoml help 
 from the Pope, and who, had they liked, could 
 have used to their advantage the jealousy, more 
 or less prevalent, of the Patriarchs of Constan- 
 tinople, or of the " New Rome," as it was called. 
 Justinian himself, when Emperor, wrote to Hor- 
 midas, Poj>e : *' The unity of the Churches is based 
 upon the doctrine and authority of your Aposto- 
 late." * '* Unitas Ecclesiatmm per doctrinam et 
 auctorUatem Apostolatiis Vestri provenitj^ 
 
 To the Patriarch Mennas he says: ^'All must 
 be referred to the Apostolic See, and the more 
 especially, because, when heresies have arisen, 
 they have been extinguished by the sentence and 
 judgment of that Venerable See.'' f "^ max- 
 ime, quod, quoties hcerdicl pidlularunt, et sententia 
 et judicio ilUus Venerabilis Sedis, coerciti sutit.'^ 
 
 Writing to Pope John II, he says, that he had 
 abandoned to him ever>' thing relating to the 
 Church, and he received in return the praise of 
 the Pope, because in that he had done his didyJ' 
 
 ♦Ballerini de Vi ac Ratione Prim., p. 208. 
 ■}■ Cod. de Summ. Triuit., i. 
 
226 TESTIMONY OP PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 Later, it is true, when giving away to passion, 
 we find him behaving with shameful violence to- 
 ward Pope Vigil, but at the same time, as we 
 before mentioned, we did not believe that he 
 could act validly without his sanction, even 
 though supported as he thought he was by the 
 Bishops of the Fifth (Ecumenical Council. 
 
 The acknowledgment of this Right and Prerog- 
 ative of the Pope, as made by Phocas the Em- 
 peror, was so clear and explicit, that Luther 
 with the Centuriators of Magdeburg, have en- 
 deavored to ascribe to this Emperor the rise of 
 this doctrine in the Church. It was in the same 
 spirit, and with the same lack of judgment, that 
 Leo of Acrida ascribed its origin to the answer 
 of Aurelius. 
 
 King Childebert of France in his embassy to 
 Pope Vigil, and King Athelbert of England in 
 his legation to Poj)e Boniface IV, recognized the 
 Supremacy of the Holy See in matters of faith 
 and discipline. To the latter the Pope answers 
 in the strongest manner : " If any King succeed- 
 ing, or any Bishop, Clergyman, or laic, shall essay 
 to infringe the decrees of the Popes, he should 
 incur the anathema of Peter and of all his suc- 
 cessors." ^^Quce ea dea-eta, si quis successomm 
 regumy sive episGopormrij sive elericorum, sive loi^ 
 corum irrita facere tentaverit, a Principe Aposto- 
 
ACKNOWLEDGIKG THIS PREEOGATIVE. 227 
 
 lomim Petro et a cundis successoribus siiis ana- 
 thematis gladio siibjaceat.'^ * Englishmen of 
 our days may see here, how ancient is the 
 language which Popes use to declare their rights, 
 and on the other hand, how different the obe- 
 dience which is paid to them since the days of 
 Henry VIII. Is it not manifest that their fore- 
 fathers must have professed a far different faith, 
 and tliat it is they themselves, not the Popes who 
 have changed ? A solemn acknowledgment was 
 made of this supremacy by Oswin, of Northum- 
 berland, and Egl)ert, King of Kent, in their de- 
 legation of Wighard, elected by themselves and 
 the whole Episcopacy and Clergy of England, 
 to refer to the Pope the question of the Paschal 
 celebration, in which, although they maintained 
 that their practice was derived from St. John, the 
 Apostle, they submitted themselves to the decrees 
 of Rome. Soon after this date, we find Ceadi- 
 valla, Kenred, and Offa making pilgrimages to 
 Rome to pay personal homage to the Vicar of 
 Christ and receive his immediate instructions. 
 King Knulph, Offa's successor, imitated in his 
 day the example of the royal pilgrim, his pre- 
 decessor. 
 
 When speaking of the Sixth CEcumenical 
 
 * Hard., torn, iii, p, 544. 
 
228 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 Council, we made mention of the testimony of 
 Constantine Pogonatus, and we now join to him 
 the record of Anastasius, who sent his profession 
 of faith to Korae, as to the surest and highest tri- 
 bunal of truth; so, too, the Empress Irene and 
 her son and heir, as we have already observed, 
 when treating of the Seventh General Council. 
 
 Pepin's devotion and submission are so well 
 known that we need only allude to the fact. 
 Scarcely less devoted were the sentiments of Char- 
 lemagne, as exhibited in his " Capitularia,^' and in 
 the so-called " Caroline books,"* where he makes 
 open and explicit profession of his faith in the 
 Holy See as the Supreme Tribunal of faith on 
 earth. 
 
 Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, walked 
 in the footsteps of his illustrious father, as we 
 may easily gather from his Constitution : Ego Lu- 
 donicus et, etc., and from his address to the Bish- 
 ops of Thionville, and from his Capitular of the 
 year 823. He even referred the division of his 
 empire to the Pope's confirmation, and from that 
 time it became the usage and practice that the 
 Franco-Roman and German Emperors became 
 such only with the consent of the Roman Pon- 
 tiff and on being crowned by him. Nor was this 
 
 * L. 66, vii, 364, c. 6. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 229 
 
 the case with the Emperors of the West alone, 
 for the kings of England, Poland, Hungary', 
 Croatia, Sweden, and Denmark loved to receive 
 their crowns at his hands, and to place their do- 
 minions under the especial guarantee and protec- 
 tion of the Holy See. 
 
 We avoid, here, all question of political right, 
 convention, or compromise. We merely point 
 out the historical fact as evidence in what esti- 
 mation the peoples and princes of those days 
 held the Roman Pontiff, and with what venera- 
 tion they looked upon him as the Vicar of Christ 
 and the Supreme Arbiter of all on earth, accord- 
 ing to the saying, " He who is competent to the 
 greater, is also competent to the less." Enlight- 
 ened by faith, they saw an order established on 
 earth by Divine Providence, on such a basis and 
 with such an extent of power, that if peoples 
 and princes were but willing to submit to it, they 
 would find eternal peace and the settlement of 
 every controversy in the decision of the common 
 Father of all the Faithful, the Successor of St. 
 Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Supreme Pastor and 
 Head of the Church. 
 
 This ideal of Christian order, o£ which De 
 Maistre speaks so beautifully in his work, "Du 
 Pape," is so truly attractive that even a Voltaire^ 
 forgetting himself for awhile, can not refrain 
 
230 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES ANbI PEOPLES, 
 
 from paying to it a tribute of praise and homage. 
 In his ^^Essai sur les Moeurs/' he proves by 
 many historical examples, that not only the 
 kings of Denmark, but all other Christian 
 princes, were in common in considering the 
 Pope to be a Judge between them and their 
 people; and in his "Essai sur F Histoire Gene- 
 rale," he has these remarkable words, by which 
 he acknowledges the salutary advantages of such 
 a tribunal : " The interests of mankind demand 
 a bridle by which princes may be restrained, and 
 the people saved. This bridle might by com- 
 mon consent be placed in the hands of the Ro- 
 man Pontiifs. Such a High Priest, mingling in 
 worldly conflicts only to silence them, admonish- 
 ing alike the sovereign and his people of their 
 duties, condemning their crimes, and visiting 
 his excommunication on great wrongs, would be 
 looked upon as the living representative and 
 likeness of God upon the earth." 
 
 How deeply that feeling of submission of princes 
 and peoples in temporal things was rooted in the 
 veneration which, as Christians, they had for the 
 Pontiff in spiritual matters, is made strikingly 
 evident in the letter of David, Emperor of Ethi- 
 opia, converted to the true faith in the sixteenth 
 century. He writes to Pope Clement VII as fol- 
 lows: " Why, O Holy Father, do you not make 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 231 
 
 all Christian princes, who are thy sons, lay down 
 their arms and live in peace, as becomes those 
 who are brethren, since they are thy sheep, and 
 thou art their shepherd ? " Why ? The fault is 
 their own. They listen no more to the voice of 
 Christian feeling. 
 
 As for himself, the Emperor makes the fol- 
 lowing beautiful profession of faith: "As thou 
 art the Head of all the Bishops, and the Teacher 
 of the faith, I obey thee with reverence ; and as 
 thou art the peace of all, it is but just that all 
 should obey thee." " Pat^r Sancte, qui es caput 
 Pontificum omnium, magister fidei, ego tibi r eve- 
 renter obedio, cum sis pax omnium, ita cequum 
 est, ut omnes tibi obedientiam pr(Est€ntJ'^ Is it not 
 lamentable that the princes of our own so-called 
 civilization seem not to perceive the logic of that 
 Christian feeling which made the Ethiopian Em- 
 peror give utterance to such sentiments? 
 
 To return to our chronological series, Basilius, 
 the Emperor, evidently acknowledged this pre- 
 rogative of the Roman Pontiff when he referred 
 to him for decision the case of Photius and the 
 clergy ordained by him. Charles the Bald ex- 
 presses the same belief and sentiments in his 
 Chapters.* So, too, King Ethel wulf and his son 
 Alfred the Great, of England, especially in his 
 
 * Lupus viii, 81. 
 
232 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 letters to the Pope asking the confirmation of his 
 University at Oxford. Otto, King of the Ger- 
 mans, and Louis of France give expression to 
 the same belief at the Synod of Ingelheim. 
 
 Hugh Capet, King of France, with all the 
 Bishops of his kingdom, addressing the Pope in 
 relation to Arnulph of Rheims, says : " Be pleased 
 to order, thou who holdest the place of the Apos- 
 tles, what we have to do with the new Judas, 
 and prescribe to us a form of judgment/' The 
 Bishops joined their supplications to that of the 
 King and wrote: "Help the falling Church; 
 may we experience in thee another Peter, the 
 defender and confirmer of Christian faith/' 
 '^AdestOj Pater, ruenti Ecclesice, sentiamus in vo- 
 bis alterum Petrum, defensorem et corroboratorem 
 ChristiancE fideV^ * 
 
 The same prerogative was acknowledged in 
 the Roman See by his successors Robert and 
 Otto II, as may be seen in the " Memorandum " 
 of the Abbe of Fleury. 
 
 Still more to the point is the document in 
 which Henry II confirmed the right to the ter- 
 ritorial possessions of the Holy See. An inter- 
 esting incident of his life occurs to us in this 
 connection. Being at Rome, he noticed that the 
 Credo was not sung there. On asking the rea- 
 
 * Hard, vi, 730. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 233 
 
 son, he received for answer that the Roman 
 Church had never deviated from the path of 
 truth, but had remained unshaken in the faith 
 of St. Peter.* " Quod Romcuia Ecdesia . . . 
 non fuisset aUquando idla hceresi infeciay sed se- 
 cundum Petri doctrinam in soliditate CcUhoUcce 
 jidei pefi-niianerd inconcussa." 
 
 As regards the Kings of Poland, every histo- 
 rian is aware with what unshaken fidelity, after 
 the deviation of Casimir to the throne, they ad- 
 hered to the Roman See. 
 
 This prerogative was solemnly acknowledged 
 by Henry II of France in the case of Biiino, 
 Bishop of Orleans ; and not less so by Henr}^ III, 
 and by Ferdinand, King of Spain, to Victor II ; 
 as also by Edward, King of England, to Leo 
 IX and Nicolas II. The attestations and let- 
 ters of the Kings Heisa, Salomon, and Ladislas 
 of Hungary, of Suenos and Erich of Denmark, 
 Wratislas of Bohemia, the Czar Demetrius of 
 Russia, King Anzir of Mauritania, Demetrius, 
 Duke of Croatia, Michael, King of Sclavonia, and 
 of Philip of France, we merely mention to refer 
 the reader for fuller detail to the pages of the 
 general historian.f 
 
 Even during the protracted struggle between 
 the Roman Pontiffs and the Emperors of Ger- 
 
 ♦Baronius ad an. 1114. fHard. vi. Baron, in 12 saec. 
 
 20 
 
234 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 many, this privilege in matters of faith was 
 never disputed even by the Pope's most embit- 
 tered enemies. This is made evident by no less 
 testimony than that of Veneri of Vercelli, the 
 fierce partisan of Henry IV. 
 
 When one of the faction of this same Henry 
 attempted to impugn this spiritual prerogative 
 of the Pope, during the Synod of Quedlinburg, 
 he was at once condemned by the Synod. Henry 
 himself, when attending to the voice of his con- 
 science, deprecated before the Pope the crime of 
 his own disobedience. His son Henry V, as 
 we are told by Conrad of Arsberg, condemned 
 the errors of his father and professed unlimited 
 submission to the decisions of the Holy See. 
 
 Objections may be taken, as is sometimes done, 
 from the right of interference, claimed by the 
 Emperors in the Papal election. The only prin- 
 ciple, in such cases, capable of defense, is the pro- 
 priety of a mutual concord and assistance of the 
 two powers, spiritual and temporal, in so univer- 
 sally important an action. When, however, as 
 in the election of Alexander II, we hear the Im- 
 perial Commissioner asserting that, without the 
 consent of the Emperor, no Pope could be le- 
 gitimately elected, we find the assertion rebutted 
 by the question : What part had the Emperor in 
 the election of Pope Stephen, Sixtus, Corne- 
 
ACKNOWLEDGIXG THIS PREROGATIVE. 235 
 
 Lius, Damasus, Colestin, Boniface? etc., 
 and the simple question suffices to silence the 
 Imperial Commissioner. 
 
 The real answer to such an objection is to be 
 found in that of Louis VII, King of France, to 
 the Emperor Frederick. The latter had set up an 
 anti-Pope, and had written to the French mon- 
 arch to solicit his adherence, and to engage him 
 to urge that of the Bishops of his kingdom. 
 Louis answered the Imperial Embassadors that, 
 "he wondered that the Emperor could speak so 
 foolishly. Was he ignorant that Christ had 
 committed his whole flock to Peter? Are Em- 
 perors or Kings excepted in the Gospel, or do 
 my Bishops not belong to the Hock of Peter?'' 
 
 However much Kings and Emperors may 
 have desired for awhile, being led away bv self- 
 ish and political ambition, to set themselves up 
 against the privileged decisions of the Roman 
 Pontiff, they were obliged, soon or late, as in 
 the case of Henry II of England, the murderer 
 of St. Thomas of Canterbury, to confess their 
 error, and, prostrate before his throne, to profess 
 submission to his ordinances.* 
 
 History tells us how even a Frederick Bar- 
 barossa, the incarnation of bold resistance to 
 
 *Berc. xii. Baron, ad an. 1154. 
 
236 TESTIMONY OF PEINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 Papal authority, was finally led, by the heavy 
 hand of God, to bow his head and sue for par- 
 don. The same penitent submission, though 
 doubtless, with greater sincerity, is to be wit- 
 nessed in his son Henry VI. 
 
 In contrast to these last sovereigns, let us 
 consider the Christian example of the Queen 
 mother of Richard the Lion-hearted, who wrote 
 to the Pope: ^' Did not the Lord confer Pleni- 
 tude of Power on Peter, and on you through him? 
 Blessed be the Lord who gave such power to 
 men, that no king, no emperor, no duke can 
 withdraw himself from its jurisdiction. The 
 Prince of the Apostles still governs in his See, 
 and a judicial power is constituted in our midst. 
 Draw, then, the sword of Peter. The Cross of 
 Christ takes precedence of the Imperial Eagles, 
 and the sword of Peter goes before that of Con- 
 stantine. Has not God spoken to you in the per- 
 son of Peter, ^ Whatsoever thou shalt bind f ' " etc. 
 " Nonne Petro Apostolo et in eo vobis a Deo omnis 
 potestas committiturf Benedictus Deus, qui talem 
 dedit hominibus potestatem I non rex, non impera- 
 tor, non dux a jugo vestrcB jurisdidionis eximitur. 
 Princeps Apostolorum adhuc in Apostolica Sede 
 regnat et in medio constitutus est judieiarius rigor. 
 Bested ut exeratis gladium Petri, Giristi ctmx an- 
 tecellU Ccesaris aquilas, gladius Petri gladio Con- 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 237 
 
 stantini. Nomie Dens Deonim locutus est robls in 
 Petro Apostoloy dicens : Quidquid ligaveris/' etc, * 
 Hear ye kings of modern times, the lesson of this 
 Queen, ^'Et nunc reges intelligife,^^ 
 
 The Emperor Baldwin confesses the same 
 rights in his edict, '^ Ad omnes ubique Chris- 
 tianos" as also the King of the Bulgarians in 
 his embassy to the Pope. The Emi^eror Philip, 
 in a letter to the Pope, along with another letter 
 from the other princes of Germany, writes: 
 " As Rome was once the center of superstition, so 
 now, by Divine Providence, it has become the 
 center of salvation." Peter of Arragon, in his 
 coronation oath to King John of England, in a 
 special epistle to the Pope, Philip II of France, 
 and King Henry of Norway, in the year 1241, 
 express the very same doctrine and sentiments.f 
 
 The conscience of Christendom, to which 
 Lanfranc alluded, manifests itself most remark- 
 ably in the celebrat^jd Synopsis of Laws for the 
 Southern States of Germany, called the *^ Schcab- 
 enspiegel," and in that for the Northern States, 
 called the " Sachsempiegeiy In both, mention 
 is made of two swords, the one temporal, in the 
 hands of political power, the other, spiritual, in 
 the hands of the Pope, the Head of the Church. 
 
 * Natal. Alex, xiii, Baron, ad an. 1189, Hard. v. 
 t Spond. ad an. 1213, Berc. xiii. 
 
238 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 Frederick II, himself, in his apology, speaking 
 of the harmony in which these two powers 
 should act for the welfare of the human race, 
 compares them to the sun and moon, which, in 
 perfect harmony, illumine and preserve the life 
 of Nature. In developing this comparison, he 
 points out their mutual relation and subordina- 
 tion, in a way which is not a little remarkable 
 in such a one, as we know him to have been. 
 "/w exordio nascentis mundi Dei providentia in 
 firmamento cceli duo statuit luminaria, majus et 
 minus .... quce duo sic ad offida propria 
 offeruntuTj ut unum alterum nmi offendat; imOy quod 
 super ius est, infer lori suam communicat claritatem. 
 A simili ceterna provisione duo voluit esse i^egimina, 
 sacerdotium, scilicet, et imperiumy unum ad caio- 
 telam; alterum, ut homo duohus retinaculis /roB- 
 naretur et sic jieret pax orbisJ^ 
 
 This prerogative was acknowledged also by St. 
 Louis of France, by his son Philip the Bold, 
 and by the Kings of Sclavonia, Servia, and the 
 Princes of Bosnia, by the Embassies which they 
 sent to Rome in the fourteenth century, as any 
 one may see for himself by reading the Annals 
 of Spondanus. 
 
 The Emperor Paleologus I, personally at 
 Rome, and Paleologus II, personally also at 
 the Council of Florence, made this same con- 
 
ACKNO-^'LEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 23^ 
 
 fession of faith in the prerogatives of the Ro- 
 man Pontiif. Similar to the decision of Aurelian 
 is the testimony offered by the Sultan of Egypt, 
 in the name, which he gives to the Pope of " the 
 tongue of Christians and the Judge of the Chris- 
 tian people.^' " Universalis loquela Ckristianorum, 
 judex j)opuli Christiani.'^^ 
 
 Abul Feda, Prince of Havana, in his Arabian 
 book of history, gives the same te.stimony to the 
 general faith of Christendom, which we have 
 been extracting from its own records. Such tes- 
 timony from men of talent, who are not Catho- 
 lic nor even pretend to be Cliristians, has sin- 
 gular weight, since they can not be suspected of 
 partisanship or prejudice, and speak simply in 
 the character of close and accurate observers. 
 
 It is in our power also to adduce the testi- 
 mony of entire nations, as made known by their 
 delegates to the Apostolic See. 
 
 Thus Abbot Andreas, Delegate of the Chris- 
 tians of Egypt and Ethiopia, addressing the Pope 
 in public audience says, in the name of the na- 
 tions whose representative he was : " Thou art 
 Christ and His Vicar; thou art the successor of 
 St. Peter, the head and teacher of the Universal 
 Church to whom the Keys of Heaven have been 
 intrusted ; thou art the Sovereign of Kings and 
 
 ♦Raynald. ad an. 1307, Natal. Alex, xv, 39. 
 
240 TESTIMONY OF PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 the greatest of all teachers.'' ^'Tu es Christus et 
 ejus Vicarius, Es Petri successor, pater y caput, et 
 doctor Ecclesice Universalis, cui data sunt claves 
 claudendi et reserandi paradisum. Tu princeps 
 regum, et maximus es magistrorumy 
 
 Those Churches which have separated them- 
 selves from their first foundation, their Mother 
 and Teacher, Eome, have become through a just 
 judgment of God, objects of contempt in the 
 eyes of the nations. 
 
 Even Englishmen are obliged to confess the 
 contempt and ridicule into which their Church 
 has fallen. 
 
 Let us listen to the Delegates of the Syrians, 
 Chaldeans, and Maronites in the fifteenth cen- 
 tury. They tell the Pope : " How great the 
 reverence is, which our people preserve for the 
 Holy See, may be seen in the way in which 
 they receive and welcome its Legates. Old and 
 young throw themselves at their feet, kiss them, 
 and strive to obtain relics of their vestments. 
 The whole world knows that they, who separate 
 themselves from Rome, must perish. Therefore 
 the Emperor of Ethiopia has nothing more at 
 heart than to be reconciled with the See of Rome. 
 So great among us is the Roman name and the 
 Latin faith." 
 
 The Abbot Nicodemus, on the occasion of the 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 2 11 
 
 reconciliation of Ethiopia to the Church, ex- 
 pressed his joy in the.se words: ''Therefore/' 
 said he to the Pope, " art thou placed over the 
 See of Peter, that thou may est feed the. sheep of 
 Christ. Strive, then, that all they who are dis- 
 persed may return to unity, and that the faith of 
 all may become one." '' Ut sit omnium fides, una,'' 
 Even from the Japanese, before the breaking 
 out of the last and most cruel persecution, there 
 came delegations to Rome, as in 1585, to testify 
 to the fidelity and submission of that newly con- 
 verted nation towaixl the common Father and 
 Teacher of Christendom. 
 
 In the West, Louis XI, King of France, re- 
 jected and overthrew, at the request of Pius II, 
 the so-called "Pragmatic Sanction," because it 
 contained things not easily reconcilable with the 
 plenitude of the AiK)stolic power of the Holy See. 
 He answers the request of the Holy Father in 
 words becoming a Christian King : "According 
 to your direction we entirely reject, cast away, 
 and annul the pragmatic sanction." ''Itaque si- 
 cut mandxisti, pragmaticum ipsum pellimus, dejici- 
 mus, sfirpltusque abrogamusJ' 
 
 In the year 1474, we find the Christian King 
 
 of Denmark at the feet of the reigning Pontiff, 
 
 paying him the homage and veneration due to 
 
 the Supreme Head of tlie Church. The ,same 
 
 21 
 
242 TESTIMONY OF PEINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 was done by Charles YIII of France, and by 
 Henry YII of England, who derived his royal 
 dignity from a Bull of Innocent VIII. 
 
 God so ordered it, that even Henry YIII of 
 England, who, carried away by lust and passion, 
 together with his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth, 
 seduced England from her allegiance and forced 
 her into heresy and schism, should first give to 
 the princes and peoples a strong and energetic 
 profession of faith. 
 
 Every one knows how, on the rise of Luther, 
 and when Protestantism first threatened to in- 
 vade England, he wrote a book in which he de- 
 nounced the heresiarch, and dedicated it to the 
 Pope, as the supreme judge in matters of faith. 
 This work, for which he gained the title still im- 
 pudently borne by his successors, defensor Jideij 
 he sent to the Emperor of Germany, and to all 
 the Kings and Princes of Europe. In it, in the 
 article on Indulgences, he addresses Luther in 
 these terms : " No enemy of the Pope can deny 
 the submission which has been paid to him, by 
 the Christian world, in all times and places. 
 Now, if the Pope did not acquire this privilege 
 by divine right, let I^uther point out when and 
 how he became possessed of it. The origin of 
 such power can not be lost in obscurity, espe- 
 cially since it is within the reach of human mem- 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREROGATIVE. 243 
 
 ory/' '^Dicat L/uiherus, quando in tantce ditionis 
 irrupit possessionem, Non potest obscurum in'iti- 
 um esse tarn imiiiensce jiotentiiVj prcesertim si intra 
 hominum inemoriam naia est.'*^ He then adjures 
 all Christians to close their ears to the dangerous 
 words of Luther, and to remain faithful to the 
 Holy See. The wretched man, on the day of 
 judgment, must hear addressed to him the words 
 of our Lord : " Ex ore tuo te judico, serve ne- 
 quamj^ " From thy own mouth I judge thee, 
 wicked servant." But if Henry could safely 
 challenge the world to point out the time, when 
 the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope first 
 arose, the world, in return, can easily fix the date, 
 in which the Sovereigns of England first arroga- 
 ted their usurped power over the Church, if that 
 should be called a Church which yields them 
 sjiiritual allegiance. 
 
 A martyr under this same brutal persecutor, 
 Thomas More, confirms by his testimony, what 
 we have proved of the faith of Englishmen up to 
 this period. Cited before the tribunal of his in- 
 iquitous judges, he said : " Having noticed the 
 intention of the King to disobey the Pope, for 
 the last seven years, I have thoroughly examined 
 the question, to ascertain whence the authority 
 of the Pope originated, and I have found it 
 clearly proven to be of divine right.'^ To the 
 
24^4 TESTIMONY OF PEINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 question, how he dared in this to oppose the opin- 
 ion of so many learned clergymen and laity, he 
 answered : " For one Bishop whom you can cite 
 on your side, I can name a hundred in opposi- 
 tion, and against one kingdom I oppose the voice 
 of all Christendom for the space of over one 
 thousand years. If I alone had to stand up 
 against the Parliament, it would be a difficult 
 task ; but with me I have the whole Catholic 
 Church, that great Parliament of Christianity." 
 Mary, Queen of England, and Mary of Scot- 
 land, remained faithful to the truth, and England 
 for a time was able to discern and follow the faith 
 of her fathers, until Elizabeth ascended the 
 throne and forced the nation into the false path 
 in which it has hitherto walked, and where it is 
 kept by disobedience to the voice of him, who is 
 the Head of the true and only Church of Christ. 
 In these our days, we rejoice in the prospect of 
 a better time for that once isle of saints, now that 
 so many of her purest and best, most illustrious 
 and learned, are commencing to search for them- 
 selves, and to listen to the powerful voice of old 
 traditions, and, led by the love of truth, are find- 
 ing their way back to the arras of their Mother — 
 of that Church whose Head welcomes them, as 
 his sstintly. predecessor, Gregory the Great, 
 called them to the faith. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PRErcOGATTV^E. 245 
 
 In the commencement of the Reformation, 
 Maximilian I wrote to the Pope : " Nobody can 
 judge these perilous doctrines but your Holiness, 
 and as you alone can, so you ought to do it.'' 
 " Quo sola ut potest, ita debet J ^ Of Luther, 
 whom he had learned to know intimately, this 
 Emperor said : " AVhen I am dead, this monk 
 will cause much trouble and misery in the Em- 
 pire/' " J/e mortuoj monaclnis iste calamitates et 
 misei^ias gravissimas in imperio excitabU.^'^ 
 
 Charles V acknowledges this privilege of the 
 Holy See in what is called the ^' Interim," and, so 
 soon as Henry IV of France returned to the 
 Church, he sent embassadors to the Poj)e to sig- 
 nify his entire submission to him and to his de- 
 cisions, as, he says, was the practice of French 
 monarchs. The same was done by Louis XIII, 
 his son, and even by Louis XIV. This proud 
 and self-willed Sovereign, notwithstanding his 
 schismatical tendencies, was finally compelled, by 
 conscience, to retract the four articles of Galil- 
 ean ism, which he had extorted from a servile 
 episcopacy, and which he again foreswore in his 
 last will and testament. 
 
 The devotion and submission of the Maximil- 
 ians and Ferdinands who succeeded Charles V 
 on the imperial throne, are too well known to 
 
 *Spond. an. 1517. 
 
246 TESTIMONY OP PRINCES AND PEOPLES, 
 
 need exposition here. Besides these the Kings 
 of Spain, Portugal, Naples, and others continued 
 in the path traced out to them by their predeces- 
 sors. Napoleon the Great was not the man to 
 undervalue or ignore the authority and influence 
 of the Pontiff upon the Universal Church, and 
 hence his persistent effort to make him his will- 
 ing and submissive subject. But his power dis- 
 appeared in the fogs of St. Helena ; that of the 
 Pope remains resplendent on the rock of Peter, 
 in the midst of all the cataclysms that agitate our 
 age. The unrelenting animosity of the enemies 
 of the Church is not so much against Pius IX, 
 as against the faith that he defends and the 
 Church of which he is the Head ; promising 
 themselves that, in spite of its more than thou- 
 sand Bishops, they will easily triumph, if they 
 can but break or weaken the prerogative and 
 privilege of its Puler and Teacher, the Roman 
 Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, Vicar of Christ. 
 Little do they foresee or seem to know that, even 
 though they were to succeed in banishing him 
 from Rome, they would be no nearer to success, 
 since his authority goes with him, and where he 
 is, there is Rome, the rock of Peter. 
 
 No doubt, the ^' conscience '^ of Christianity is 
 yet awake. Wherever the Pope may be, the true 
 sheep of the flock of Christ will listen to his voice 
 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS PREEOGATWE. 247 
 
 as to that of Peter. Even a Renan is conscious 
 of this fiiithfiil sentiment of Christianity, as we 
 may understand from the words of his last work, 
 ''Meditations Contemporaires,'' published last 
 year in Paris, where he says : " The Pope knows 
 better than his adversaries what it means to be a 
 Catholic. He published his Syllabus, well aware 
 that it would not do for a Catholic to brave the 
 teaching of a Pope." Yes, the Catholic world 
 at large, without any difference of nationality, 
 hemisphere, or zone, acknowledges also in our 
 times, by an interior conviction ef faith, the 
 Apostolical See as the highest tribunal on earth 
 in matters of faith, and the Roman Pontiff to be 
 the infallible teacher of the faithful peoples on 
 the globe. 
 
VIII. 
 
 THE "RATIO THEOLOGICA," 
 
 OR THE E7IDE:^CE OF THE TRUTH OF OUR THESIS BY THB 
 FORCE OF LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES. 
 
 By the "Ratio Theologica" we understand 
 the deductions which right reason, logically 
 exercised, acquires by its own light from that 
 which faith has taught. " Ex daiis et concessisj' 
 Tlierefore, though reason can not invent new 
 articles of faith, it has its due weight in argu- 
 ments concerning faith, more particularly when 
 the arguments are approved and sustained by 
 the true sources of faith, the authority of Scrip- 
 ture and tradition, as taught and understood by 
 the Church in her legitimate organs. We have 
 only to look in the works of St. Thomas, in order 
 to perceive how justly and highly the weight of 
 reason, aud the force of logical consequences, 
 (248) 
 
THE RATIO THEOLOGICA. 249 
 
 were always appreciated by the Doctors of the 
 Church. Let us, then, hear what calm and sober 
 reason has to tell us touching our proposition. 
 
 Reason, then, on considering the words of 
 Christ as contained in Holy Writ, holds the fol- 
 lowing language : 
 
 According to what Christ promised to Peter, 
 He had to grant to him and to his successors the 
 privilege of Supreme and Intallible authority in 
 matters of faith. It was certainly in His power 
 to grant it, and the way in which He introduced 
 and established it in the world, made it emi- 
 nently convenient and necessary that He should 
 confer this right and privilege on the Head of 
 the Church — therefore, He did in llict confer it. 
 Prcyinisit, potuit, dedit. He promised it, he 
 could, it was proper that He should, therefore, 
 He did give it. This is briefly what we have to 
 say and to prove, in order that we may perceive 
 the logical strength of this deduction or theologi- 
 cal conclusion. 
 
 First. We remark that Reason dictates, that 
 if any one promises a thing as infallibly certain, 
 and that promise draws with it necessarily the 
 fulfillment of another condition, without which 
 the former promise can not be kept, then if he 
 sincerely promises the first, he as certainly in- 
 cludes the second. Such, in point of fact, were 
 
250 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 the promises made to Peter and to his successors 
 for the good of the Church, necessarily involving 
 the right and privilege of which Ave are treating; 
 hence, as Christ did certainly promise and sin- 
 cerely promise the former, he as certainly con- 
 ferred the latter. As to the words of jjromise we 
 proved them, when treating the testimony of 
 Sacred Writ, and as to the conditional necessity 
 of the prerogative, we hold that no candid man 
 can doubt it ; so, therefore, the consequence neces- 
 sarily follows. Hear the proof of our conse- 
 quence : 
 
 There can be no doubt, Ave repeat, that having 
 constituted Peter and his successors the founda- 
 tion of His Church, and having pt^omised that 
 the gates of hell should never prevail against 
 her, it follows of necessity that he must so 
 strengthen that foundation, that it can never fail. 
 
 Having imposed on Peter and his successors 
 the office of confirming their brethren, it became 
 a necessity that He should so strengthen their 
 faith that they should be able to fulfill the office, 
 that is, that they should never fall into error in 
 that, which they had to confirm. 
 
 Having imposed on Peter and his successors 
 the care of feeding both the lambs and the sheep, 
 and hence upon the flock the obligation of fol- 
 lowing them as leaders, it necessarily follows that 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 251 
 
 he must have rendered it impossible that Peter or 
 his successors should ever lead them astray into 
 the path of error. To deny any of these three 
 premises, with their common consequence, form- 
 ing, as they do, one and the same argument, 
 would be as much as to say that either Christ 
 did not know what He was promising, or could 
 not fulfill what He promised. The former would 
 be blasphemy — the latter no less. 
 
 Second. We say that Christ could do it. 
 To deny the possibility, would be to limit the 
 power of the Almighty, or to deny the Divinity 
 of Christ. Moreover, according to our oppo- 
 nents, He had it in His power to do so for the 
 whole Church, since they claim infiillibility for 
 it, and will they tell us that what He could do 
 for the many. He could not do for one? Each 
 one of the many whom they would collectively 
 invest with this privilege, is after all but one; 
 what incongruity or impossibility is there in the 
 single Head of the Church enjoying what they 
 suppose to have been granted to a body of single 
 individuals ? 
 
 Third. We said it was convenient or proper, 
 that He should do it. We would not be under- 
 stood to determine a priori what Christ must or 
 must not do, in order to make His Church in- 
 fallible ; a thousand ways were open to Him, no 
 
i 
 252 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 doubt, of which we can know nothing. For in- 
 stance, He could have sent for every fresh emer- 
 gency an Angel from heaven to teach or direct 
 the faithful. We do not attempt, therefore, to 
 prescribe or dictate what He had to choose or do ; 
 but we have a right to use the reason which He 
 himself gave us, and say if the manner in which 
 He established His Church, is such, as of itself to 
 require that He should have invested its head 
 with such a prerogative in matters of faith, then 
 His own infinite wisdom compelled Him to have 
 done so. Now such is precisely the case, and 
 thus it is that we say that it was convenient and 
 proper that He should do so. 
 
 Does the manner in which He constituted His 
 Church so compel Him? This is all that we 
 have to prove, for that once granted, it is plain 
 that our consequence must follow. 
 
 He constituted that Church, the kingdom of 
 truth, a visible Church, to be set on the top of a 
 mountain, and to be acknowledged as such by 
 all who are of good will. Now, how can that 
 Church be a kingdom of truth of which the 
 Head may be the mouthpiece of error, or how 
 can it be visible to all, that is, be a beacon for 
 their wandering steps, if its summit be ^ost in 
 the mists of ignorance or willful falsehood, and 
 thus cease to direct them? Where, and how 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 253 
 
 should the children of men look for the truth, 
 save in the visible head of the one true Church, 
 the kingdom of truth? When there is only 
 one to attend to, the search is possible, but not 
 in the supposition of our adversaries, when it 
 Avould be necessary to consult the majority of the 
 Bishops, dispersed throughout the world or as- 
 sembled in Council. Both these suppositions, 
 considering the manner in which the Church ex- 
 ists, can be easily shown to be impracticable ^ as 
 means to arrive at the object of man's search, 
 the true faith. Not Ihe General or CEcumenical 
 Council can be the common and ordinary tribunal 
 of faith, and so established by Christ, since, by 
 the ordinary circumstances of time and place, it 
 is subjected to so many impediments that its use 
 is for centuries made impossible. 
 
 History has proved this beyond the possi- 
 bility of contradiction. 
 
 Three hundred years elapsed after the birth 
 of Christianity^ many heresies had arisen, and 
 no General Council had been possible on account 
 of the exterior difficulties. In the meantime 
 the Papal decisions were found sufficient to 
 grapple with and destroy the growing errors. 
 Moreover, since the Council of Nice, in sixteen 
 ' hundred years, only seventeen General Councils 
 have been held; and from the celebration of the 
 
254 
 
 last to our own time, three hundred years have 
 elapsed. Alas for the Church, if, during the 
 intervals, all that agitated her had to remain 
 in susjiense, and undecided until the convoca- 
 tion of a future Council, of which no one could 
 be certain that it would ever be held ! Espe- 
 cially is this verified in the case of the last 
 Council, that of Trent, held three hundred years 
 ago. Can any one pretend that it was more 
 convenient and proper that Christ should have 
 instituted for His Church, that might any day 
 stand in need of most important decisions con- 
 cerning the faith, a tribunal that could only 
 meet in spite of great difficulties and at only 
 long intervals of time? His infinite wisdom 
 forbids the supposition. But even so, nothing 
 would have been gained in the supposition 
 of our adversaries, since the decisions of the 
 Council would still have needed the confirma- 
 tion of the Supreme Pontifi^ before they could 
 carry with them a binding obligation, and then 
 how could it be styled the last and highest 
 tribunal of faith ? In confirming its decrees, the 
 Pope, as w^e already asserted, is either infallible 
 or not; if the latter, he may be wrong in rejecting 
 or affirming its decisions; if the former,^ he is 
 what we claim for him, personally infallible in 
 teaching the Church concerning matters of faith. 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 255 
 
 Finally, as we have already seen, the Coun- 
 cils themselves, although they have not detini- 
 tively passed upon the question, have, in their 
 acts, decrees, and general language, made a suffi- 
 ciently clear i)rofession of their belief in the pre- 
 rogative of the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 RcL^ardino; therefore as established the inad- 
 niissibility of a General Council as the ordinary 
 and regular tribunal in matters of faith estab- 
 lished by Christ, the only alternative now left 
 for consideration, as distinct from our thesis, is 
 that of the assent of the Church dispersed 
 throughout the world. 
 
 Of this we have to prove, as in the other 
 case, that, considering the manner in which 
 Christ was pleased to establish His Church on 
 earth, it was not convenient or proper that 
 Christ should have established it as the ordi- 
 nary and regular tribunal for the decision of 
 questions concerning the faith. 
 
 Of course, ^ve admit that the Church so con- 
 sidered, and taken as a body, can never err in 
 matters of faith, we only deny that she was in- 
 tended, when so taken, to be the tribunal or- 
 dained by Christ for the settling of controver- 
 sies d^ncerning doctrine. 
 
 And this follows, because such a supposition 
 would be contradictory to the words of Christ, 
 
256 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 as contained in Holy Writ; to the declarations 
 of the Holy Fathers; to the testimony of his- 
 tory, and fails to present the qualities necessary 
 to such a tribunal. 
 
 I. It contradicts those words of Christ in 
 which he imposed upon St. Peter the office of 
 confirming his brethren. For, if we suppose 
 that the assent of the Church dispersed is the 
 last and highest test of inflillible teaching or 
 authority, then it is not Peter who confirms his 
 brethren, but it is rather his brethren who con- 
 firm him. Until that consent arrive, the Pope 
 could not be certain that he had spoken infalli- 
 bly, and must necessarily remain in suspense, if 
 not in doubt, and consequently we do not exag- 
 gerate in saying that when it arrived it would 
 rather confirm him, than receive confirmation 
 from him. At least, it would be a mutual con- 
 firmation, and not such as our Lord imposed 
 upon Peter, when he prayed that his faith should 
 not fiiil, that he being once confirmed should 
 confirm his brethren. In our thesis no such dif- 
 ficulty is met, and there is a beautiful fulfillment 
 of the text. When the Pope, as Head of the 
 Church, is teaching the faithful, or pronounces a 
 definition, or confirms those of a General Coun- 
 cil, pointing out infallibly what all must hold or 
 reject, his decision is a rule of faith, and he as- 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 257 
 
 suredly does fulfill the commands of Christ and 
 confirm his brethren, and thus, and thus only, 
 can the words of our Lord be literally and glo- 
 riously verified. When arguing against Prot- 
 estants, who say that to obtain the pardon of 
 sin, it is always and entirely sufficient to repent 
 and ask pardon of God, we ask them, what then 
 becomes of the words, "Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost : whose sins you shall forgive, are forgiven 
 them?" St. Augustin asks the same question 
 in his day when heretics said that any and every 
 Christian had that power of forgiving their 
 neighbor's sin. "Ergofrustabitur vcrbum ChrM f^ 
 " Shall the word of Christ be brought to naught? 
 It was to the Apostles, and to them only, that 
 He said," etc. ^yith like force do we urge 
 the words of our Lord in this instance. They 
 must be verified, and can be verified only in our 
 supposition. ''Confirm thy brethren," can not 
 mean he mutually confirmed, still less, he confirmed 
 by thy brethren. OtherAvise these His words 
 would remain void of meaning. 
 
 II. It contradicts the declarations of the Holy 
 Fathers, whose testimony we have before cited. 
 They do not predicate the orthodoxy of the Ro- 
 man See on its agreement with the teaching of the 
 other Churches, but just the contrar}^ Their 
 Canon of Orthodoxy for the other Churches is 
 22 
 
258 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 the agreement of their teaching with the faith of 
 Rome, and this, too, as a final and absohite con- 
 dition, absolving them from any further proof of 
 their agreeing with the faith or teaching of any 
 other Apostolic Church. To agree with Rome 
 is to be orthodox, nothing more is needed. To 
 agree with other Churches would be nothing 
 for or against, since they too must conform to 
 the same rule, and agree with Rome, with which, 
 in the words of St. Irenseus, '^necesse est eonvenire 
 omnem aliam Ecclesiam" because it was founded 
 on Peter and inherits his faith through its Bishop, 
 the successor of Peter. 
 
 In the same way the most learned St. Jerome 
 exclaimed: "Let others think and say what 
 they please ; I say, he that holds with you, agrees 
 with me." ^'Slquis Cathedrce Petri jungitur, meus 
 estJ^ And why ? ^' Because on this rock the 
 Church was built." That, and not the consent 
 previously obtained from the dispersed Church, 
 is the reason of the unconditional submission 
 paid by the Fathers to the Roman See. They 
 urge it upon others, because, with St. Augustin, 
 they hold it a crime to contradict the decisions 
 of Rome ; with the Fathers of Chalcedon, and 
 others, that it is not the Church dispersed, but 
 Peter who speaks through the mouth of the 
 
OE EVIDENCE OF REASON. 259 
 
 Bishop of Rome. Per os Leonis et Agathonis, 
 Pdrus locidus est. 
 
 In reasoning thus, as we must do in view of 
 the declarations of the Holy Fathers and of our 
 Lord Himself, we do not, of course, pretend that 
 the universal teaching of the Church on any 
 point is not also an infallible sign of truth, ac- 
 cording to the widely celebrated canon of St. 
 Vincent Lerens, " that which was, ever, every- 
 where and by all believed." ^'Quod semper, 
 ubique et ab omnibus creditum est.'^ However 
 great the weight justly due to this canon, it can 
 not be laid down as a principle whereby to es- 
 tablish a tribunal of faith, that is, a rule where- 
 by a truth known of faith is definitively promul- 
 gated by the Church of Christ, and which so 
 entails the obligation of belief, that any one re- 
 fusing to give it interior and exterior consent, 
 becomes a heretic and ceases to be a member of 
 the Church. 
 
 In this respect we affirm that the canon of 
 orthodoxy is that given by St. Jerome : " I hold 
 with him who adheres to the Church of Rome; 
 that is Catholic which is Roman. '^ ''Hoc Catho- 
 licumj quod BomanumJ^ The consent of the 
 Church, disperstty can never be substituted for 
 such an ultimate tribunal, because : 
 
260 THE EATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 III. Such consent is destitute of the qualities 
 necessary to form the tribunal in question. 
 
 Those qualities are visibility, distinctiveness, and 
 apj^Ucability. 
 
 By the first, visibility, we mean the moral fa- 
 cility and possibility of arriving at a knowledge 
 of the fact of its decision. Now this is not the 
 case in regard to the consent of the Church dis- 
 persed throughout the world. To arrive at the 
 knowledge of such consent, an amount of learn- 
 ing is required which few persons possess, to- 
 gether with opportunities of scrutinizing various 
 documents, historical, critical, and scientific, be- 
 yond the reach of the vast majority of the faithful. 
 No one who does not live in an imaginary world, 
 instead of tlie world as it is, can question the truth 
 of this assertion. 
 
 In respect to a decision by the Roman Pontiff 
 there is no such difficulty, and if any one doubted 
 the nature of that decision he could at least con- 
 sult the Holy Father himself. This, as we have 
 seen, was done in all ages. Persons traveled 
 from the far East, from the South of Africa and 
 the North of Europe, as from the extreme isles 
 of the West, for the sake of a personal audience 
 with the Holy Father, and to receive from his 
 own lips an answer to their doubts or difficulties. 
 We have seen it done even by peasants, as in the 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 261 
 
 case of some Tyrolian pietists. And now, more 
 than ever before, is such access open to all, 
 whether by visit or by word of writing. 
 
 By distinctiveness, we mean its excluding all 
 want of precision and doubt as to its meaning, 
 and every possibility of misinterpretation. This 
 quality is necessary to a tribunal which compels 
 an act of faith, and, we need hardly add, is not 
 attached to a consent of the Church disj^ersed 
 throughout the workl, since it presupposes an 
 infdlible certainty in judging of the existence 
 of that consent. A moral conviction that some 
 truth is universally or generally held throughout 
 the Church, can justify it as a Catliolic opinion, 
 but can not impose the obligation of exciting an 
 act of faith, under the penalty of being other- 
 wise accounted a heretic. Such a consent of the 
 Church can never claim the prerogative of being 
 a tribunal of faith, or rule of faith, even though 
 it were a Thomas of Aquinas who applied him- 
 self to the task of verifying the fact of its ex- 
 istence. 
 
 This we witnessed at the time of the definition 
 of the Immaculate Conception. Six hundred 
 Bishops had already given their answers by let- 
 ter; two hundred were assembled together at 
 Rome, and yet had not Pirs IX raised his 
 voice, and proclaimed that truth to be an ar- 
 
262 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 tide of faith, no one could to-day assert with the 
 infallible certainty of faith, the Immaculate Con- 
 ception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But from 
 the moment that Pius IX proclaimed his defini- 
 tion, not only every Catholic could, but was 
 obliged to believe it to be an article of faith, 
 whether he had ascertained the general consent 
 of the Church or not. Take the very subject of 
 our present discussion. What a number of doc- 
 uments have we not cited in its favor, and yet 
 the truth which we defend is not held as an 
 article of faith, and will not be, until it has been 
 made the subject of a precise definition. 
 
 Moreover, what if a great part of the Church 
 dispersed, amounting apparently to a majority, 
 should seem to favor error, as in the time when 
 St. Jerome exclaimed, ^^The whole world was 
 astonished to find itself Arian?" Such occasions 
 might possibly occur again. At least, it will 
 always be in the power of obstinate heretics to 
 pretend that the consent of the Church has not 
 been expressed with sufficient unanimity or clear- 
 ness, with the advantage on their side of count- 
 ing themselves among the judges of the common 
 tribunal, and thus lessening, in a very obvious 
 way, the distinctiveness or preciseness of the 
 judgment. 
 
 The third quality which we denied to this 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 263 
 
 method, and which is also necessary to such a 
 tribunal of faith, is applicability, or its general 
 fitness for use. For the most part of men, we 
 may say that it is simply impossible to consult 
 or to decide upon the general consent of the 
 Church in reference to any question; and as 
 nobody, not even the most learned, can hope 
 to arrive ^at absolute certainty in this matter, 
 it would follow that Christ, if He had consti- 
 tuted this the regular and ordinary tribunal 
 of faith, would, in fact, considering the state of 
 mankind and tlie Church's position in its midst, 
 have provided no tribunal at all, and have thus 
 left His children no distinctive and decided help 
 or certainty in matters of faith. We say, there- 
 fore: 
 
 ly. The assertion that the consent of the 
 Church dispersed must be considered the last 
 and highest tribunal in matters of faith, is about 
 on a par with that which Protestants make with 
 regard to the Bible alone as interpreted by indi- 
 viduals. What Catholics answer to their pre- 
 tensions might equally well be brought forward 
 against this theoiy of the ''Ecdesia clispersa.'^ 
 
 Indeed, what are the principal Catholic argu- 
 ments on this point? Are they not : 
 
 1. That the question of the canonicity of each 
 and all the parts of that sacred volume is a fact 
 
264 THE EATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 that has to be settled elsewhere and not from the 
 book itself. 
 
 2. The Bible is not sufficiently clear and de- 
 cisive in itself alone, to be considered as the rule 
 of faith or its highest tribunal. 
 
 3. The Bible itself contradicts the supposition, 
 and points out another and different rule of faith. 
 
 4. If, indeed, the Bible be the sole rule of 
 faith, then, taking it as it is, it can only be such 
 for a few very learned men ; but Christ came for 
 all, and all need the rule of faith, especially the 
 poor and ignorant, the many. 
 
 5. The private interpretation of the Bible, in 
 the actual order of God's Providence, necessarily 
 remains private and human, whereas the rule of 
 faith must be divine, and be the same for all. 
 
 Now these same reasons obtain, and with even 
 greater weight, against the theory that we are re- 
 futing. 
 
 1. The existence of a consent of the Church 
 dispersed, is a fact which has to be proved else- 
 where than from the consent itself, that is, by the 
 evidences of the consent. To ascertain this fact 
 is a yet more difficult task than to establish, that 
 one or other book of Sacred Scripture has been 
 authoritatively accepted in the Church as canon- 
 ical. Strictly and severely speaking, the fact it- 
 self of the consent would, in that case, be the ob- 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 265 
 
 ject of another approved consent of the Church — 
 and, so far, an endless round. 
 
 The objection can not be retorted against us, 
 where there is but one question to be asked and 
 answered : " Did the Pope, addressing the faith- 
 ful, teach or define it or not ? '^ If there should 
 be place for doubt, that doubt cao be easily solved 
 by recurring to the Pope himself. 
 
 2. The consent, as we have shown, is not and 
 can not be sufficiently dear and rlefinitive to be a 
 rule of faith. The Pope's definitions, on the 
 other hand, are in precise and positive terms and 
 immediate answers, word for w^ord, to the ques- 
 tions proposed, 
 
 3. The general consent of the Church, as we 
 have seen, is, as far as it can be ascertained, ad- 
 verse to the supposition, and points very signifi- 
 cantly to our own as the correct thesis. 
 
 4. The investigation necessary to prove the 
 existence of this consent, would be for the few and 
 the learned J not for the poor and the multitude. 
 The same reasons, therefore, founded on histori- 
 cal, critical, and scientific, not to mention literary 
 difficulties, militate against this investigation 
 equally, as against the fair and correct interpre- 
 tation of Holy Writ. 
 
 5. Finally, as in Biblical interpretation so 
 in this case, the judgment could not ascend higher 
 
 23 
 
266 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 than its premises, and would remain private and 
 human, not divine, and therefore not free from 
 liability to error. Have we not, time and again, 
 seen the most learned Theologians of the Church 
 bringing up authorities, which, no doubt, they 
 believed to settle the question, and, after all was 
 said on both sides, it remained still at variance 
 with the general consent of the Church concerning 
 the point in dispute ? Do not St. Thomas Aqui- 
 nas 'and St. Bonaventure sometimes disagree, 
 though both would have l^een unwilling to differ 
 from what they knew to be the general consent 
 of the Church ? Not only individual Doctors, but 
 whole Universities, Religious Orders, Provincial 
 Churches, have been found to disagree in their 
 inter})retation of what was the doctrine on certain 
 points of the Eeclesia dispersa. Now, this can 
 not be said of any decision by the Roman Pon- 
 tiff; it has always been sufficiently explicit to 
 carry its meaning with it, and the only dispute 
 was the unwillingness on the part of some to 
 acknowledge, that they had held the error which 
 he condemned. The consent of the Church dis- 
 persed, would be of little avail to silence a dis- 
 cussion or controversy, whilst, to use the language 
 of the Fathers, a Papal decision is a sword in the 
 hands of the Pastors, with wliicli to cleave away 
 the hydra-heads of heresy. 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF EEASON. 267 
 
 But let us here say a few words concerning the 
 chief reason which influences our opponents in 
 their resistance to our thesis. They are loath to 
 acknowledge that a single individual, in other 
 things liable to error, should be even in any way 
 held infallible. They fail to grasp the distinction 
 between the personal and the official action, and 
 to understand, how this infallibility is restricted 
 to the Pope defining or teaching the universal 
 Church, in which there is no such cause of ap- 
 prehension, as they seem to entertain, and no 
 contradiction or repugnance to the Providence of 
 our Lord over His Church. 
 
 It is not for himself or for his personal ad- 
 vantage that such a claim is made, but for the 
 good of the Churcli, when he addresses it as its 
 Head and Cliief Pastor. 
 
 The prerogative, if it has been granted at all, as 
 we claim, has been granted by One who can as 
 easily confer it on a single individual as on the 
 whole Church. 
 
 Reason, moreover, jcan recognize in such a pro- 
 vision of Almighty God, that which commends 
 itself as becoming and adapted to the circum- 
 stances of the Church, which He designs to pro- 
 tect, and the usual method pursued by Him in 
 the supernatural sphere. For, as we have said 
 before, so here we repeat, that it is fit that the 
 
268 
 
 Churcli, as a visible kingdom, should have a vis- 
 ible head, and that the head of it should possess 
 the great privilege which characterizes and sets 
 apart that Kingdom of Truth from every possi- 
 bility of being subverted by error. 
 
 Reason expects that since Christ has promised 
 the end — the preservation of His Church from 
 error — so, too, He has promised and provided 
 the means to the end; and among all those that 
 are discussed, we can not find any better adapted 
 in itself, more consonant to His promises and 
 more easily recognizable in actual history than 
 that which our thesis defends. 
 
 Reason discerns no advantage, which is gained 
 by attributing infallibility to many, taken col- 
 lectively, rather than to one placed at their 
 head. The influencing of the many by Divine 
 Power would seem, humanly speaking, a greater 
 exercise of Omnipotence than the direction of 
 a single individual. Observation of the ways 
 of Divine Providence shows what we may 
 call a divine parsimony of force, in equaling 
 the means to the end, but not in wasting it 
 or eifecting in a complex and circuitous man- 
 ner what is as well done by a simpler way. 
 The analogy of nature to grace leads reason, then, 
 to expect a similar disposition in the higher or- 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 269 
 
 cler, and prepares her to hear that one person 
 has been invested with infallibility, when, as she 
 must acknowledge, the investing of that one is 
 just as effective and useful, to say the least, as 
 would be the endowment of the many. It is 
 such a train of argument as the scholastics em- 
 body in their axioms : ^^Dei Sapientia noti opera- 
 tur superflua " — God^s wisdom acts not uselessly ; 
 and, ^'Entia non simt muUipUcanda '^— being-s or 
 agents are not to be multiplied without neces- 
 sity. Now, the infallibility of the many, in our 
 opponents' theories, always involves the infalli- 
 bility of the one confirming or rejecting; to what 
 purpose, then, was their infallibility? 
 
 There is still another analogy to which we 
 may appeal. God, in His divine Providence, 
 loves to make use of creatures as He made them, 
 and to allow the cooperation of human endeav- 
 ors and efforts even in the order of grace. He 
 employs human prudence, exertion, and ability, 
 and comes in to complete and carry to perfection 
 the work which they fail of themselves, when alone, 
 to accomplish. He connects even His miraculous 
 operations with human action. Thus He appoints 
 Moses, educated as an Egyptian prince, the 
 leader and lawgiver of His chosen people ; He 
 selects a St. Paul, versed in the science of his age, 
 as an Apostle to the Gentiles, and a teacher in 
 
270 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 the Areopagus. So, too, the position of the E,o- 
 man Pontiff, according to our adversaries' admis- 
 sion, as Primate, the center of communication, 
 surrounded by the chief Doctors and Theologians 
 of the Church, preeminently suggests the design 
 of making him the investigator of doctrine, the 
 expounder of truth, and the judge of contro- 
 versy. In thus making him the final arbiter 
 in matters of faith, Divine Providence actually 
 makes another and beautiful application of the 
 words : ^' Pertingens a fine usque infinem, et dispo^ 
 nens otimia fortiter, suaviterqueJ^ How much 
 more powerfully and sweetly, through one the 
 end is obtained, than in a collective infalli- 
 bility, which is hardly compatible with human 
 frailty, as is shown by the common proverb: 
 ^'Quot capita tot sententioe ;'' — ^^So many minds, 
 so many opinions.'^ This power and gentle 
 force of action we have had occasion to witness 
 in our historical evidence, where we have seen 
 it repeatedly victorious, as in the case of Beren- 
 garius, Fenelon, and others of our own times, 
 while on the other hand we have found the 
 massive strength and momentum of a Council 
 for the most only efficient to crush or destroy 
 error, not to save the erring, and the silent and 
 passive protest of the Church dispersed alto- 
 gether inefficient and unheeded. Therefore, we 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF EEASON. 271 
 
 may say in the words of St. Paul, '^Invisibilia 
 ipsius i^r m, qua^ facta sunt, intelkda oonspi- 
 Giuntur,""^ " His invisible things are seen, being 
 understoood by the things that are created." The 
 acknowledgment of this one Power, Right, or 
 Privilege of the Holy See averts all possibility 
 of disunion in faith. Here especially to err in 
 one is to fail in all ; to mistake the organ of in- 
 fallibility is to expose one^s self to the danger of 
 a lapse in the faith. The Greek schismatical 
 Church is a noted and lamentable case in point. 
 They believe in the infallibility of the Univer- 
 sal Church, but having refused to hearken to 
 the voice of Peter, and having refused to recog- 
 nize his prerogative, they are a withered, dying 
 remnant, instead of enjoying the strong and ac- 
 tive life of the Spouse of Christ. " Thence," to 
 apply the words of St. Cyprian, "come all heresy 
 and schism, because the one Judge in the place 
 of Christ, the judgment of the High Priest, the 
 Head of the Church is not respected as it ought 
 to be." Let all acknowledge to-day this one Pre- 
 rogative, there would be to-morrow but the one 
 united Church, in Xorth, South, East, and West. 
 For a philosophical and theological mind the 
 last reflection should have great weight, since 
 
 * Ep. Rom. i, 20. 
 
272 THE EATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 the unity of the Church, its greatest, most glo- 
 rious mark is thus best shown and guarded in 
 the unfailing faith and authority of Peter and 
 his successors. 
 
 Finally, the essential Charac^' of the Church 
 on earth, and the very Name consecrated by 
 Catholic tradition to the See of St. Peter in 
 Rome, serve to corroborate our thesis. 
 
 We say, first, the essential character of the 
 Church on earth corroborates it; because the 
 Church on earth is called the "militant Church.^' 
 This is her essential character ; because, according 
 to Christ's own words, she is exposed at every 
 moment, at every time in every place on the 
 globe, to the attacks of the powers of hell. Now, 
 the common sense of all nations, at all times, 
 barbarous or civilized, finds it wise and best, at 
 the time of an impending battle, to place at the 
 head of the army one leading General invested 
 with absolute power. Even in our own strug- 
 gle, in the civil w^ar, it was proclaimed by the 
 highest authority of the Republic, "Better to 
 have one bad general in command, than two good 
 ones.'' If men generally understand the con- 
 venience of such an arrangement in time of war, 
 and agree to the principle of concentrating all 
 power in the hands of one Commander-in-chief, 
 why should not reason find it ex]^)edient that 
 
OTl EVIDENCE OF REASON. 273 
 
 Christ having left His Church on the bat- 
 tle-field, exposed day and night, and over the 
 ^vhole world to the attacks of its enemies, should 
 place at the head of it one individual in com- 
 mand — the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of St. 
 Peter — endowed with absolute and unerring au- 
 thority in matters of faith, to guarantee forever 
 in the simplest and most efficacious way the vic- 
 tory to this His Church. 
 
 Considering the character of the Church, also, 
 out of the battle-field, in her normal state, in re- 
 gard to her own constitution and spiritual life, 
 St. Paul compares her to the constitution of the 
 human body.* The Church is a visible, but 
 mystical body. St. Paul does not hesitate to 
 follow this comparison in its consequences. 
 Now, the body, in its actions in regard to 
 rational life, depends on the influence of the 
 head. The light by which man is guided, in the 
 actions of rational life, is reason, which resides 
 in the head, and even in a single and individual 
 head. 
 
 What reason is for man as to his rational life, 
 faith is in regard to his supernatural life. AVell 
 then, following closely the analogical parallel 
 given by St. Paul, reason finds it very appro- 
 priate that the strength and influence of faith 
 
 * 1 Cor. c. 6 et 10 ; ad Eph. c. 4; ad Col. 2. 
 
274 THE RATIO THEOLOGICA, 
 
 should have been placed by Christ in the visible 
 Head of the Church, which is the Roman Pon- 
 tiff, as the successor of St. Peter, for whose faith 
 alone He prayed. And reason approves the fact, 
 that this Head of the mystical body of the 
 Church is a single and individual one ; because, 
 pursuing the parallel given by St. Paul, a collec- 
 tive Head would appear rather to be a monstro- 
 sity. 
 
 We said, second, that the very Name conse- 
 crated by Catholic tradition to the See of Rome 
 likewise corroborates our thesis. The See of 
 Rome is preeminently called the Apostolic See, 
 and what else could that mean than Apostolic 
 Right, Power, and, therefore. Authority; but 
 this is Infallibility in matters of faith. Or, are 
 you prepared to say, that the Apostles, when 
 teaching the faithful in matters of faith and 
 morals, could have erred? Suppose St. Paul 
 had written the "Syllabus," and had sent it to 
 the churches, would you then doubt of its infal- 
 lible character? Therefore, were the Apostles 
 called Apostles because specially selected and 
 sent to preach infallibly the Gospel of Christ, 
 inspired in this and enlightened by the Holy 
 Ghost. " Go teach all nations^ whatsoever I have 
 said unto youJ^ This was the mission, the au- 
 thority that justified their dispersing themselves 
 
OR EVIDENCE OF REASON. 275 
 
 throughout the world without apprehendiog a 
 diversity of teacliing or a severance of unit}^. 
 AVhat was extraordinary in the others remained 
 in Peter and his successors as the ordinary foun- 
 dation of unity and divinit}^ of faith. Hence 
 his See remains the Apostolic See, involving in 
 the name, unless, it be mere irony, the same 
 Apostolic Infallibility. Our thesis is true, or 
 the whole Church, in giving this name, but re- 
 peats a falsehood, or inflicts a sneer. We would 
 not so blaspheme the Spouse of Christ; and, ac- 
 cepting the name she gives, we acknowledge its 
 significance and truth, and confess that Peter 
 still lives and speaks in Rome when Rome's 
 Bishop, his successor, warns, exhorts, controls, 
 directs the flock of Christ which He intrusted to 
 Simon Bar-Jona, who was Peter, the Rock. 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED 
 
 There is no trutli, however evident, which 
 has not been the subject of objections, arising 
 either from misunderstanding, prejudice, igno- 
 rance, or the intentional malice of men whose 
 interest it was to impugn the truth. This is 
 especially the case in matters of faith. This as- 
 sertion is amply proved by the history of heresy. 
 Were it not a matter of record, we could scarcely 
 credit with what a mass of misrepresentation, 
 sophis-try, and distortion, heretics in different 
 ages have attacked the several articles of divine- 
 ly-revealed truth. It is not precisely with such 
 antagonists that we now pretend to treat, since it 
 would be almost useless to contend with those 
 who willfully close their eyes that they may not 
 see. We prefer to address ourselves to those 
 who sincerely believe their objections to be well 
 
 1277J 
 
278 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 founded and destructive of our thesis. We pro- 
 pose to consider their difficulties, and, in our 
 answers, to give them entire satisfaction. 
 
 OBJECTION I. 
 
 " There would he no use for a General Coun- 
 cil, if the Pope can define the truth by. 
 himself alone. But General Councils 
 have been convoked by the Popes them- 
 selves, for the suppression of heresy ; 
 consequently they themselves did not con- 
 sider their own decisions infallible, and 
 did not think others possessed of that 
 belief'' 
 
 Answer. — The convocation and action of 
 General Councils in latter times are no more in 
 contradiction with our thesis than the convocation 
 and action of the first Council at Jerusalem, 
 where there was question of matters of faith, and 
 in which St. Peter, St. Paul, and the other Apos- 
 tles took part. Such Councils have been convoked 
 for the purpose of acting more powerfully in the 
 suppression of heresy, and more completely depriv- 
 ing it of its mask of orthodoxy ; and especially 
 in order that, by the departure of their Bishops, 
 the several flocks may have their attention more 
 vividly excited, and, on their return, they may 
 
OBJECTIOXS EEFUTED. 279 
 
 be more easily and efficaciously instructed con- 
 cerning the decision and the sentence there passed 
 upon the heresy or its originator. Moreover, it 
 has happened more than once, that, in such 
 Councils, others were found to have participated 
 in the error who were, till then, undiscovered, 
 and who, had they not been unmasked and re- 
 moved from their Sees, might have continued to 
 prove wolves for the destruction of tlie flock 
 committed to their care. 
 
 General Councils offer this additional advan- 
 tage, that they unite the talents, zeal, and expe- 
 rience of so many illustrious pastors of the 
 Church, for the preservation of the faith and the 
 extirpation of the cancer, which, by spreading, 
 would endanger its purity and its very existence, 
 and, in addition, to offer an opportunity, by coun- 
 sel, advice, and wise regulations, to contribute to 
 the better discipline of the faithful, and enable 
 them to advance more easily and securely in the 
 j^ath of Christian perfection. 
 
 What we have said in a preceding chapter, on 
 the history and proceedings of General Councils, 
 confirms our present reasoning, so clearly illus- 
 trated by the action of the Apostolical Council 
 at Jerusalem. 
 
 St. Paul had condemned Cerinth for attempt- 
 ing to Judaise the Gentile converts, and so cer- 
 
280 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 tain was he of the truth of his decision, that he 
 dared to say that even an angel from Heaven, 
 preaching another Gospel from his owd, should 
 be anathematized. Nevertheless, seeing the ob- 
 stinacy of his opponent and the virulence of the 
 converts from Judaism, he went to Jerusalem. 
 The Council assembled, St. Peter spoke and de- 
 cided the question, and St. James, after having 
 assented to his decision, proposed an ordinance to 
 enforce the proper discipline, and so the error was 
 fully suppressed, more quickly and efficaciously 
 tlian it could have been by the authority of St. 
 Paul, infallible as it surely was in matter of faith. 
 This reenforcement of infallible authority by 
 a Council is pointed out by St. Leo the Great, 
 when speaking of the (Ecumenical Council of 
 Chalcedon : " Truth is more vividly seen, and 
 more tenaciously held, when that which God 
 has defined by our ministry has been confirmed 
 by the consent of our brethren.'^* How far 
 Leo considered this consent as a necessary 
 condition of the truths of the faith there in- 
 culcated, is manifest from the previous expres- 
 sions, in which he says that faith had already 
 spoken through the Pope, and that God Himself 
 had defined it through his ministry. This rela- 
 tion between a Papal definition and the judg- 
 
 * See his Epist. ad Theod. 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 281 
 
 ment of a General Connoil is made still more 
 evident by what Leo did, agreeing in this with 
 all his predecessors and successors, in positively 
 prohibiting discussion, in the Council, as to 
 matters of faith pre\4ously defined by the Su- 
 preme Pontiff.* And, as we have proved when 
 treating of the General Councils, this was always 
 the case when, as in this instance, a Papal defi- 
 nition had preceded the Council. Moreover, as 
 we have previously shown, there never was an 
 CEcumenical Council which would have ventured 
 to dispute this right, to disregard his veto, or to 
 give the slightest sign of overturning his decis- 
 ion. Nay, so conscious have these great Popes 
 shown themselves of tliis right, t^at, in the pres- 
 ence of the whole Episcopacy united in General 
 Council, they would not tolerate decrees or dec- 
 larations which embodied the same doctrine, but 
 in words different from those by which they 
 themselves had defined the truth. Such was the 
 course of Popes like Leo, whom the Greeks have 
 held in honor even to our own times. ^^ Either 
 use the icords of Leo, or we return to Rome/' said 
 the Legates, in accordance with the instructions 
 which they had received from that Pontiff. 
 Such, too, was the course pursued on all other 
 occasions when the Pontiff had once delivered 
 
 ♦Leo, Ep. 82, c. 1, 2; Ep. 90, c. 2; Ep. 93 et 94. 
 
282 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 liis decision, whether he had to do with the 
 Church at large or in Council assembled. 
 
 In later times, especially for the Councils held 
 at the Lateran, when there were no errors of 
 sufficient importance or prominence to be con- 
 demned, the Bulls of Convocation assigned, as 
 the principal reason of their being convoked, the 
 wish to promote fervor by the enactment and ex- 
 ecution of disciplinary regulations. The utility 
 of a General Council in such cases is beyond a 
 doubt — affording the many Bishops and Prelates 
 the advantage of mutual counsel and communi- 
 cation, without, however, impairing or question- 
 ing the authority of the Pontiff in matters of 
 faith. In the ^3articular instance of the Third 
 Lateran Council, the Prelates occupied them- 
 selves exclusively with matters of discipline, 
 leaving all questions concerning the faith to the 
 action of the Supreme Pontiff, then Alexander 
 III, in case he deemed proper to act, as in fact he 
 did, by condemning the errors of Peter the Lom- 
 bard, Bishop of Paris, and this, too, independent- 
 ly, without consulting the members of the Council 
 then assembled around him. Moreover, as we 
 have previously remarked, it is idle to argue 
 against the infallibility of the Pope, from the con- 
 vocation and authority of a General Council, since 
 all Catholics ao:ree in the admission that the lat- 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 283 
 
 ter has no binding authority when not confirmed. 
 The logical conclusion of such admission is, the 
 personal infallibility of the Pope, for, in confirm- 
 ing a definition of a General Council, or in re- 
 fusing to do so, he is either fallible or he is not. 
 If he be fallible, then he can never, even by his 
 adlicsion, impart infallibility to the definition ; 
 if not fallible, our thesis is proved. We can see 
 no logical escape from this dijemma. The di- 
 lemma is as fiital as that which we urge against 
 the Protestant. Either Christ spoke the truth 
 when He said " that tlie gates of hell sliould 
 never prevail against His Church," or he did 
 not. If the latter, He was not the Son of God ; 
 if the former, then His Church has never changed 
 and shall never change in matters of faith ; and, 
 hence, there never was, and never can be justifi- 
 cation for any separation or secession from the 
 Church ; and no other reasoning is needed to de- 
 termine that Protestantism is unjustifiable. 
 
 The sun, indeed, is not afraid of clouds, the 
 power of its light dissolves them, and it then 
 shines with more brilliancy than ever. Such is 
 the effect of truth iu regard to objections. 
 
284 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 OBJECTION n. 
 
 "i/" these things he true, the Bishops of the 
 Council are not sitting or acting as 
 Judges, but simply as the Heralds of the 
 Pope's definition. Now, not the latter, 
 but the former is the case, since tliey de- 
 fine, as is proven by the usual sub- 
 scriptions, ^.definiens subscripsi/" 
 
 Answer. — It is true that the Bishops do ex- 
 amine, as Judges, the matter brought before 
 them in Council, and their subscription is rightly- 
 called a definition, but neither their judicial char- 
 acter, nor their subscription, can be proved to 
 be in conflict or contradiction with the supreme 
 rights and privileges oC the Pope, or the infalli- 
 bility of his decisions. 
 
 A definition is rightly called such, even 
 though it do not pretend to infallibility, and a 
 Judge may be really a judge, without being the 
 last and supreme expounder of the law. Doc- 
 tors of divinity make many a definition, for 
 which they would be the first to disclaim in- 
 fallibility. In all governments there are judges, 
 in the strictest sense of the term, who pronounce 
 judgments in accordance with their interpreta- 
 tion of the law, but without pretending that 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 285 
 
 their decision is final, and without disputing the 
 right of the Supreme Justice to review, confirm, 
 amend, or revoke their sentence. 
 
 A Judge has a rule before him, the law of the 
 country, and he must strive to decide according 
 to its dictates. For the Bishops, that rule is 
 the teaching of the Church grounded on the 
 authority of the Holy Scripture and tradition. 
 By their ^^definiens subscripsl'^ the Bishops de- 
 clare, that the definition of the Council to which 
 they subscribe, in their conviction, is in accord- 
 ance with the faith based upon tlie Holy Scrip- 
 ture and tradition. When it is confirmed by the 
 Papal approbation, the Divine Law is more 
 clearly expressed by the definition, and the 
 Bishops, acting as Judges, declare it to be their 
 faith also, and by their subscription, announce 
 its accordance with the normal rule of faith. 
 We would recall in this connection what we be- 
 fore mentioned concerning the subscription of 
 the Bishops to the acts of the Eighth General 
 Council: '^I, N. K, Bishop of N., have sub- 
 scribed the profession of faith made by me in 
 the person of his Holiness, Pope Adrian, Su- 
 preme Pontiff." 
 
 By such a declaration, they affirm w^ith St. 
 Jerome, that they believe with the faith of the 
 Head of the Church; that his faith is their 
 
286 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 faith ; that that is an article of faith which he, 
 as the Head of the Church, pronounces to be 
 such, and their ^'dejiniens subscripsi " is to show 
 that they were aware of what they did, and in- 
 tended it, and it was to be the evidence that such 
 faith was the faith of the whole Church. In 
 farther illustration of this explanation, we would 
 allude to that jurisdiction which each Bishop cer- 
 tainly has and exercises in his own diocese. This 
 jurisdiction, with the sentences which he pro- 
 nounces in exercising it, does not detract from, 
 still less deny that general and superior jurisdic- 
 tion which the Head of the Church possesses over 
 him and the whole Church. The Bishops are 
 Judges established by Christ over their respective 
 dioceses, to guard the faith and discipline, but still 
 they are subordinate judges. 
 
 Has not Christ assured us that the Apostles 
 will judge the world on the last day? But 
 surely their judicial dignity will not impair that 
 of Christ, who is to judge them and the whole 
 world. Neither then does a subordinate judi- 
 cial authority impair that of the Supreme Pon- 
 tiff judging in the last resort. If it were pre- 
 tended that the definition of a Bishop in a Gen- 
 eral Council had any other than this subordinate 
 value, it would follow that such a subscription 
 would be valid by itself alone, and would not 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 287 
 
 need the confirmation of the Head of the Church. 
 But this is clear nonsense; because it would, if 
 it proves any thing, prove the infallibility of each 
 Bishop; an absurdity which never yet entered 
 the head of any body. Once more, then, Bishops 
 in General Council assembled, have a judicial 
 character, but their "definiens subscripsi^' does 
 not finally settle a matter of faith. 
 
 ' OBJECTION III. 
 
 *^The Popes theimehes have declared that they 
 could not depart from the decmons of 
 General Councils. If they had thought 
 themselves superior to the Council, they 
 could not have made such a declara- 
 tion.^' 
 
 Answer. — When the decisions of such Councils 
 set forth matters of faith, it is evident that the 
 Pope can not depart from them ; for, confirmed, as 
 is supposed, by the Pope, they give us the truth, 
 the Divine law, and no Pope claims or can claim 
 to be superior to that. The supposition that he 
 could, or would do so, is simply absurd, since he 
 would thereby deny the infallible authority of 
 the Church, and debar himself from asserting it 
 for his own decisions, with the consequent obli- 
 gation of the flock's assenting thereunto. The 
 
288 OBJECTIONS EEPUTED. 
 
 logical consequence of the Pope's infallibility pre- 
 supposes that he will not, and can not reverse 
 i;he decision of his predecessors in matters of 
 faith. 
 
 As regards disciplinary decrees and ordina- 
 tions of General Councils confirmed by the Pope, 
 the case is different. But even so, the Pontiff, 
 notwithstanding his power to modify or abro- 
 gate such ecclesiastical provisions, might still use 
 such a form of words, in view of his conscien- 
 tious obligation, not to act in such things in an 
 arbitrary manner. Such resolutions and decrees 
 of General Councils are made w^ith the utmost 
 care, prudence, and wisdom, by the advice, and 
 with the counsel of learned and pious prelates of 
 the Church. They are not then to be lightly 
 disregarded, changed, or revoked, otherwise there 
 would be a manifest abuse of power to which 
 jnight be justly applied the reproach of St. Ber- 
 nard : " You do it, because you have the power 
 to do so ; but whether you should do it, is an- 
 other question." "Facitis quia potestis, sed utrum 
 etiam debeatisj qucestio est.'' 
 
 The power which the Pope has received to 
 rule the Church is not given for destruction, 
 but for edification, as St. Paul affirmed of the 
 Apostolical power given to himself — " non in 
 destructlonemj sed in cedifieationemj' This is the 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 289 
 
 "reason of the Pontiffs regarding with so much 
 respect the decrees of Oecumenical Councils, con- 
 firmed by his predecessors. And for the same 
 reason they have always looked with reverence 
 and respect upon the ordinances of the Popes, 
 their predecessors. They have often declared 
 that they intended in nowise to recede from 
 such ordinances, and have even called them un- 
 changeable and irreformable, as did Adrian II, in 
 regard to the decrees and ordinances of Nicholas. 
 Could any one thence infer that the Papal au- 
 thority of Nicholas was superior to that of Adrian 
 II, or that of Pius VI to that of Pius VII, or 
 of Gregory XVI to that of Pius IX ? 
 
 But notwithstanding this reverence for the dis- 
 ciplinary enactments of Councils and of their 
 predecessors, the Popes have ever been conscious 
 of that plenitude of Apostolic power attached to 
 their office and dignity as Head of the Church, 
 whereby they could, and, on occasion, would re- 
 strict, change, or abolish ecclesiastical regulations, 
 no matter by what ecclesiastical authority intro- 
 duced, just so soon as they thought it better for 
 the Church in their age. No Catholic will ever 
 dispute this power to the Supreme Pontiff, as 
 Pope Benedict justly asserts in his work, "Z)6 
 Synodo Diocesana,'' where he says : " That the 
 Pope has received from Christ our Lord the 
 25 
 
290 OBJECTIONS REFITTED. 
 
 power of his own authority, to relax or abrogate 
 any merely ecclesiastical law, no Catholic doubts." 
 ^' Pontijicem habere a Christo Domino concessam 
 potestatem omnem legem ecdesiastieam propina auc- 
 toritate relaxandi, vet penitus abrogandi, a nemine 
 Catholicorum in dubium avocatur,'^ * Of this we 
 have evident proof, and that, too, in a Pontiff 
 especially distinguished for his modesty, Gregory 
 the Great. He, who had declared that he ac- 
 cepted the first four General Councils of the 
 Church as he did the Gospels, nevertheless, in 
 favor of the English nation, abrogated the law 
 of the Church, in respect to marriages among 
 kindred of the seventh degree." 
 
 There was an axiom among the scholastic 
 Doctors, affirming: "He that distinguishes 
 well, can teach well." '^Qui bene distinguit, 
 bene doceV^ In regard to the present objection, 
 and all those to which we shall yet reply, it 
 will be seen that the difficulties are only ap- 
 parent, originating from mistatement, confusion 
 of ideas, and want of careful discrimination. 
 
 * De Synod Dioces., 1. 2, c. s. num. 3. 
 
OBJECTIONS REFXJTED. 291 
 
 ORJECTION IV. 
 
 ''Did not the General Council of Constance 
 and that of Basel solemnly declare that 
 all persons, even though of Papal dig- 
 nity, had to submit to its ordinances? 
 How is this consistent with the Apostolic 
 plenitude of the Papal power f " 
 
 Answer. — This objection we have already 
 partially answered, when speaking of the Council 
 of Constance in a preceding chapter. The Coun- 
 cil was not treating of the authority of one wlio 
 was undoubtedly Pope, but of aspirants who were 
 doubtful claimants of the Papacy. The very ex- 
 pression, " etiamsi Papalis dignitatis existat,^^ is 
 a proof of the intention of the Council. This is 
 evident from the motive of its convocation, viz. : 
 to suppress the then existing and deplorable 
 Papal schism, when there was more than one 
 claimant to the Papacy — each one strenuously 
 urging the validity of his election and denying 
 that of the others. And this, too, the Council 
 itself declared, by a decree in its fortieth session, 
 in these words : ''Papa rite et canonice electus, a 
 Coneilio ligari non potest.'' "A Pope, rightly 
 and canonically elected, can not be fettered by a 
 Council.^' 
 
202 OBJECTIONS EEFUTEB. 
 
 This is the only sense in which the decree cited 
 against us can be interpreted, since otherwise it 
 would be plainly heretical in fixing the Primacy, 
 not on the successor of Peter, but on the Episco- 
 pacy separated from its Head, and declaring the 
 decrees of such Councils valid without the appro- 
 bation and confirmation of the Pope, since the 
 decree speaks of obedience to the Council being 
 the duty of the Pope, " debitam ohedientiam?^ It 
 would, therefore, establish the whole source of 
 Infallibility in the Episcopacy separated from 
 their Head, thus serving only the cause of our 
 common adversaries, " nimis probans,^^ and would 
 fall under the condemnation of the many Coun- 
 cils that preceded or followed the Council of 
 Constance, and more especially the Council of 
 Florence. 
 
 Let it be taken, however, in whatever sense it 
 may, it can not be urged against us as a decree 
 of a General Council, since it was never approved 
 by Martin V or by any other Pope, and has, 
 consequently, no Ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 Martin confirmed only those decrees of the 
 Council of Constance, which were canonically 
 made and promulgated, which was by no means 
 the case with this decree. It was made by a 
 part only of the Fathers of the Council, not by 
 all, by those alone, who supported John XXIII, 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 293 
 
 and against his protest. Those also who sup 
 ported Gregory XII and Benedict XIII pro- 
 tested against it 
 
 Moreover, it was not carried in a regular ses- 
 sion, but in a meeting of those Bishops of the 
 clergy in general, and even by the laity, in what 
 might be almost called a tumultuous assembly, 
 as appears from the protest of the French Em- 
 bassador, read in the Twenty-Eighth Session, 
 and from the letters of John XXIII to Ladis- 
 las. King of Poland, and to tlie Duke of Bourges, 
 read in the Sorbonne. Peter of Ailly, one of the 
 Fathers of the Council, gives this testimony, and 
 he was an eye-witness, and all the historians con- 
 firm it, especially Spondanus, Mansi, and Em- 
 manuel Schelstrade.* 
 
 Finally, the decree, taken in the sense of our 
 adversaries, would be in direct opposition to the 
 decree of Martin V, who, in a Bull addressed 
 to the King of Poland, condemned, as heretical, 
 the opinion that an appeal could be taken from 
 the Pope to a General Council. It would like- 
 wise be in direct opposition to the declaration 
 made by the Fathers of that same Council, in 
 
 * Ailly : de Auctoritate Eccles. et Cardin. Mansi : In Anim- 
 advers. in Deer. s. 4 et 5 Con. Const. Tom. II Natalis. Spon- 
 danus : ad ann. 1418. Emm- Schelstrade Dissert, de Seas. 4 ot 
 5 Cone. Const. 
 
294 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 tlie Eighth Session, against the Wickliffites, in 
 which they deny the possibility of the Roman 
 See falling into error in matters of faith, since 
 such a supposition would be in open contradic- 
 tion to the character of that See, and to the 
 power and rights with which it has been divinely 
 invested, "to be the Mother, the Teacher, the 
 head of all the Churches, which judges all, and 
 can not be judged by any body, so that every 
 one contradicting its teaching, is to be considered 
 heretical.'^ 
 
 So speak the Fathers of this Council in a De- 
 cree solemnly published against the followers of 
 Wickliife, and it becomes manifest, therefore, 
 how vain it is to attach any other meaning to 
 the Decree cited above, wherewith to justify any 
 attack upon the privileges and rights of the 
 Apostolic See in matters of faith. 
 
 As for the Council of Basel, we would not 
 need to make any answer, were it not that our 
 adversaries still persist in quoting it, as though 
 they were not aware that there is really no weight 
 to be attached to its decrees opposing the su- 
 premacy of the Pontiff over the Council, and his 
 infallibility as Supreme Judge in matters of 
 faith. They should know that all the proposi- 
 tions of that Council which favor their opinion 
 were explicitly condemned, in the Council of 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 295 
 
 Florence, by Eugene lY, with the consent of 
 the General Council then assembled, and in these 
 words: "All these propositions, taken in the 
 perverse sense of the Council of Basel, we con- 
 demn and reject as contrary to the Holy Scrip- 
 ture, to the Holy Fathei's, and even to the Fa- 
 thers of the Council of Constance, and as scan- 
 dalous and godless." 
 
 Besides, every real theologian should know 
 with what scorn and contempt the decrees of that 
 Council are considered by men such as St. An- 
 toninus and St. Capistran, inasmuch as, shortly 
 after its convocation, it betrayed a schismatical 
 tendency by opposing the transference of the 
 Council to Florence. By their obstinacy, the 
 Bishops remaining at Basel had no longer a 
 claim to be considered a Council, much less a 
 General Council. It was not a Council, but a 
 cabal, or, according to St. Antoninus, "a syna- 
 gogue of the Devil." * " Conciliabulum viribus 
 casswiij et synagogam Satance/' and, according to 
 St. John of Capistran, "a profane and excom- 
 municated Synod, and a den of serpents."! 
 ^^Synodum profanam et excommunicafanh et Bci- 
 siliscorum speluncamj^ Our adversaries should 
 seek for better authorities than this so-called 
 Council of Basel. 
 
 *"St. Antoninus, p. 3, tit. 22. f De Papae et Com. auct., p. 3. 
 
296 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 OBJECTION VL 
 
 To the authority of the Holy Fathers and the 
 practice of the Chu7'ch, our adversaries 
 would oppose the authority and example 
 of St. Cyprian, in his resistance to the 
 ordinances and decisions of Pope Ste- 
 phen, 
 
 Answer. — It is curious how frequently the 
 good St. Cyprian is brought forward to help the 
 enemies of the Holy See in their attacks upon 
 its supremacy. We would pity him, but that we 
 remember how St. Augustin is made to preach 
 Jansenism, and how St. Paul is wrested to the 
 defense of Protestantism. 
 
 Let us review the argument which our adver- 
 saries essay to build upon the authority of this 
 Holy Father. It is this: St. Stephen decided 
 that baptism should not be re-administered to 
 heretics on their conversion and admission into 
 communion with the Church. St. Cyprian, nev- 
 ertheless, insisted on the contrary practice, and 
 would not yield to the authority of a Pa})al de- 
 cision, and therefore did not believe that the 
 Popes were invested with that Supremacy in 
 matters of Faith which we claim for them. 
 
 We answer: First — Supposing, for the sake 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 297 
 
 of argument, that St. Cyprian was not of our 
 opinion, can the authority- of one Father out- 
 weigh that of 80 many others whose testimony 
 we have already quoted ? 
 
 If, instead of St. Q^prian only, we had ar- 
 rayed against us the testimony of a whole pro- 
 vince, it would not diminish the authority which 
 follows the teaching of the universal Church. 
 Individual Fathers and provincial Churches can 
 err, and have erred, without impairing that au- 
 thority, as has been witnessed in the Eastern 
 schisms. Therefore we should still say with St. 
 Augustin, " I do not, by any means, regard the 
 letters of Cyprian as canonical; but I rather judge 
 them according to the canons; and what I find in 
 them in accordance with the teaching of the Holy 
 Scripture, I receive with praise, and what does 
 not so agree, I, in peace with him, reject." 
 
 Second — We say with St. Augustin, what St. 
 Cyprian believed and held concerning the Papal 
 authority in matters of faith, is not to be deter- 
 mined from that, which he said or did in excite- 
 ment or passion, but from those assertions which 
 he penned when calm and disinterested. At least 
 the harshness of some expressions should be com- 
 pared and reconciled with other declarations, given 
 at other times and in different circumstances, 
 since no author of reputation and honor Ls to 
 
298 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 be held willing to stand in contradiction with 
 himself. 
 
 Now no sincere adversary can deny that St. 
 Cyprian^ on other occasions, most publicly and 
 solemnly recognized and asserted the same Papal 
 prerogative and rights which we have been de- 
 fending, as we have shown when quoting his tes- 
 timony among those of the other Holy Fathers. 
 He positively declares and confesses that the Ro- 
 man Pontiff is the Supreme Judge, in the place 
 of Christ; that is, as His representative — that all 
 have to obey him — and that if all would but do 
 as they should do, submit to his decisions, there 
 would be no room for heresy or schism. He 
 most explicitly calls the Roman Church the root 
 and mold of the other Churches." ^^ Ecdesiam 
 radicem et matricemJ' 
 
 In his book on the ^' Unity of the Church," he 
 strongly asserts: that every one who separates 
 himself from the See of St. Peter, on which the 
 Church is built, separates himself from the 
 Church. He laughs at those who traveled to 
 Rome to essay an impossible justification of them- 
 selves, forgetful, as he says, " that Rome can not 
 err.^^ How can a man, who writes in this 
 manner, be supposed to be in contradiction with 
 our thesis ? 
 
 Do we not act more prudently and fairly with 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 299 
 
 this Father, when we interpret declarations made 
 in a moment of excitement, not in themselves, 
 but by the light obtained from declarations made 
 and principles laid down in sober judgment? 
 And did not Tertullian also resist the authority 
 of Apostolical tradition, although he had written 
 a work in its defense? We have in him another 
 sad instance how far one may be misled by preju- 
 dice and self-love. 
 
 Third — Supposing, again, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that Cyprian persevered in this particular 
 instance of resistance, it would not disprove our 
 thesis. He did not resist a decision in matters 
 of faith, since St. Stephen had not delivered one, 
 and was not addressing the universal Church. 
 He was, at most, urging that what he regarded as 
 the ancient practice of the Roman Churcli should 
 be retained. Had there been question of a dog- 
 matic decision, and St. Cyprian had then resisted, 
 St. Stephen, as Pontiff, would at once have ex- 
 cluded him from his ecclesiastical communion. 
 This, certainly, was not done, St. Cyprian re- 
 maining united with St. Stephen in ecclesiastical 
 peace and union, as St. Augustin testifies in his 
 book on Baptism.* St. Stephen did, indeed, 
 hold out a menace of excommunication, but 
 
 *St. AugustiD, Lib. de Bap., c. 25. 
 
300 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 wisely and prudently forbore to urge matters 
 by a summary decision in regard to such a dis- 
 tinguished prelate of the Church, then laboring 
 under undue excitement. Rome knows how to 
 wait and to refrain from severity so long as there 
 may be hope of prevailing by milder means, as 
 Pope Zosimus acted in the case of Coelestius. 
 Admonitions usually precede a recourse to more 
 stringent measures. St. Cyprian did all he could 
 to avert such a definitive sentence, but if St. 
 Stephen had pronounced one, no doubt he would 
 have submitted. Stephen had the more reason, 
 then, to proceed with the utmost patience and 
 moderation, dealing, as he did, with men who 
 stood high in the Church — Firmilian and others 
 being involved with Cyprian — and knowing the 
 excitable temperament of the race to which they 
 belonged. 
 
 Moreover, it is very probable that Cyprian 
 finally submitted, even without a formal con- 
 demnation. There is no historical document to 
 the contrary, while on the other hand, there are 
 some, and of the highest authority, which make 
 such submission more than probable. Those who 
 wish to consult them, will find them in the 
 works of Cabasutius, Baroniiis, Thomasinus, Lu- 
 dovicus Bail, and other Canonists. Among other 
 testimonies to this effect, we find those of St. Je- 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 301 
 
 rome* and St. Aiigiistin. The latter says that 
 it seems to him very probable, notwithstanding 
 the absence of direct and incontrovertible proof; 
 for, he adds : " Not every thing, which then oc- 
 curred, has been written, nor has all that was 
 written descended to us.'' 
 
 We must not judge those times, with their 
 difficulties of transcription, and communication, 
 by the standard of modern ages, with their facili- 
 ties of the press, and their annihilation of time 
 and space. 
 
 We may now go one step farther, and say, that 
 even in the supposition that Cyprian did not 
 submit, and really entertained the belief that the 
 Pope was not infallible in his decisions, it is not 
 clear with what hope of success our adversaries 
 could appeal to his authority. Did Cyprian not 
 evidently err in matters of laith, when he con- 
 tended for the invalidity of baptism by heretics, 
 though otherwise rightly administered? If he 
 explicitly erred in one point of faith, may he not 
 have done so in another, which was only implic- 
 itly denied? Undoubtedly, Stephen was right, 
 and Cyprian, as every one must grant, was 
 wrong, and this circumstance needs must consid- 
 erably weaken the authority derived from the 
 
 * St. Jerome. Dialog. 
 
302 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 * 
 
 latter^s resistance. We should rather see in this 
 whole case a splendid confirmation of the pre- 
 rogatives and rights of the Holy See, and a beau- 
 tiful instance of the prudence, moderation, and 
 firmness with which they are exercised. Besides, 
 our adversaries appear lo forget that to make 
 sure their standing against the grave and weighty 
 mass of testimony, which we have adduced in 
 support of our thesis, they must oppose testi- 
 mony from the Holy Fathers at least as certain 
 and as clear as ours. In this instance it is surely 
 not the case. On the contrary, historical criti- 
 cism points out doubts so manifold and serious, 
 that there have been theologians, who have not 
 hesitated to deny entirely the fact of Cyprian's 
 resistance. St. Augustin, living but a short time 
 subsequent, after weighing the arguments j)?'o and 
 contra, could not arrive at a final and definite 
 decision. We are content with saying that there 
 is good ground for suspecting that Cyprian's 
 writings have been tampered with by Donatist 
 interpolators.* 
 
 If our adversaries are learned in Patristic 
 science, they must be aware of the difference in 
 this respect between our own times and those in 
 which manuscripts first began to be multiplied. 
 
 * Aug. 1. 2, de Bap. S. Hieronymus. Dialog, contra Lueiferum. 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 303 
 
 Now, that works are so easily and so widely dis- 
 seminated by the press with its iron hands moved 
 by steam, an interpolation in a recent work is 
 almost impossible, and is easily detected, but in 
 those days of slow and patient scribes it was not 
 so difficult, and especially in a particular prov- 
 ince or locality, where the original copies were 
 few and easily altered. 
 
 Every theologian can recall analogous exam- 
 ples, as in the works of St. Jerome, and more 
 especially in those of Origen. Nay, men, who 
 are versed in the history of those earlier ages can 
 tell you that the heretical Greeks dared even to 
 change the lists of CEcumenical Synods, and that 
 Photius ventured so fur as to send to the Pro- 
 vincial Churches the pretended Acts of a Coun- 
 cil of Constantinople, which had never Ix-en held. 
 
 If then, our adversaries can not clear these 
 letters of Cyprian of suspicions, so weighty and 
 reasonable, that St. Augustin was unable there- 
 by to come to a positive decision, with what face 
 do they oppose them to us as the testimony of 
 this Father, and an argument, omni exceptione 
 major, counterbalancing all the Patristic authori- 
 ties which we have brought forward in proof of 
 our propositiou, free from all shadow of uncer- 
 tainty, and which we could still increase ad in- 
 dejinitam. 
 
304 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 One' more saying of St. Augustin we here 
 give, to show how little Cyprian's error in this 
 matter, if admitted, availed against the truth 
 in the mind of that great Doctor and Father 
 of the Church. In answer to the Donatists, 
 he says ; " Cyprian received the palm of mar- 
 tyrdom, that, by the glory of his blood, he 
 might dispel the mist occasioned by human 
 weakness and passion. Cyprian sinned and 
 expiated that sin with the blood of martyr- 
 dom."* This is no allusion to the original 
 error of Cyprian condemned by St. Stephen, but 
 to the resistance which he gave to an ordinance 
 emanating from so high an authority. 
 
 We may now conclude our answer to this ob- 
 jection with another passage from the same holy 
 Doctor, in his forty-eighth letter. ^^Oyprianus 
 aut non sensit omnino, quod eum sensisse recitatiSf 
 aut hoec postea correxit in regula veritatisj aut 
 hunc noevum cobperuit ubere charitatis; quoniam 
 scriptum est: charitas operit muUitudinem p>eccatO' 
 rumJ^ " Either Cyprian did not hold Avhat you 
 charge him with, or afterward corrected it by 
 the rule of truth, or also covered the wrong 
 with his exuberant charity, according as it is 
 written, ' Charity covereth a multitude of sins.' " 
 
 *St. Aug. de Bapt. Cont. Don. 1. 1, c. 8. 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 305 
 
 So far, then, from being embarrassed by the 
 sayings and actions of St. Cyprian, as urged 
 against us by our adversaries, our conviction, 
 must be the more strengthened on finding that 
 objections herakled with such vaunting of vic- 
 tory, on close examination, have proved rather 
 in favor than against our thesis. The like result 
 will be found to attend the discussion of the suc- 
 ceeding objection. 
 
 OBJECTION VI. 
 
 " Tliis Objection is derived from the four 
 articles of the so-called Gallican Lib- 
 erties, laid down by the French Clergy in 
 1682, and is founded on the authority of 
 the Churchy as dispersed throughout the 
 world, that is, not acting in conjunc- 
 tion with its Head, It is as follows : 
 If the authority of the Apostolic See in 
 its doctrinal decisions were infallible, the 
 French Clergy could not have denied it, 
 as they did in the four articles of tJie so- 
 named Gallican Liberties. This prim- 
 lege or prerogative is not, then, univer- 
 sally acknowledged by the Church.^' 
 
 Answer. — First, Were the Bishops assem- 
 bled in the year 1682, the Church of France, 
 the Eglise Gallicane, in the strict sense of the 
 26 
 
306 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 term ? We answer, by no means. They were 
 representatives, if you will, but not legitimate 
 exponents of the sense of the Galilean Church. 
 Every one who has read ever so little of French 
 history, knows the influence which Louis XIV 
 exercised over the Bishops of that Assembly. 
 Louis XIV, so wedded to absolutism in gov- 
 ernment, who said ^^ Vetat c'est moi,'' was equally 
 anxious to gain a similar control over the Church 
 in France. He was desirous of establishing a 
 National Church, to be governed by himself 
 rather than by the Pope, that his above-cited sen- 
 tence might have its fellow, " VEglise en France, 
 c^est moi." That subtle king endeavored to secure 
 the appointing of Bishops, whose courtly servility 
 he might trust ; and believing himself assured of 
 their connivance or co5peration in his schismat- 
 ical tendencies, he caused them to assemble in 
 1682, and proclaim the so-called Liberties of the 
 Galilean Church. But these Bishops did not 
 faithfully represent the sentiment and belief of 
 the Church of France, and even though they 
 had, what then ? Would that have been to us a 
 law? Then, with the defection of England, a 
 great part of Germany, Sweden, Prussia, Russia, 
 and many provinces in the East, we would have 
 been equally bound not only to abandon our 
 faith in the Infallibility of the Holy See, but in 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 307 
 
 many other doctrines, which, with us, our adver- 
 saries claim as necessary articles of the faith of 
 Christ, held by their fathers before them, and 
 positively defined. 
 
 Second, The very name given to these four 
 propositions stigmatizes them as ambitious and 
 heterodox assertions, tending to a national schism, 
 thereby showing them in their true nature. The 
 //6e?-/?€^of theGallican Church — what a self-con- 
 demning name ! Were the framers of these ar- 
 ticles blind to the fact, that their very title con- 
 demned tliem as deviations from the otherwise 
 universal faith and sentiment of Cliristianity, 
 concerning the authority of the Holy See. Gallic 
 can only, they would be, and therefore not Catho- 
 lic; liberties, and therefore anomalies and con- 
 tradictions, as regards the faith and obligations 
 of the rest of the Catholic world. Can there be 
 " liberties^^ as opposed to truth ? If it be a truth, 
 and of faith, is it not equally so for all ? What 
 liberties can a National Church claim for itself 
 in revealed truth, and because revealed, is im- 
 posed on all mankind ? The very name is 
 more than insolent — it is absurd. If the four 
 articles asserted truths appertaining to faith, 
 were they not the property of all the faithful ; 
 and then what special claim did the Church of 
 France possess oyer them? 
 
308 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 Third, But let us consider these declarations 
 of the Bishops assembled in 1682. AYe shall find 
 them in flagrant contradiction to the teaching 
 and tradition of the Church of France up to 
 their time, and we shall find also that they re- 
 tracted what they had so rashly advanced. 
 
 We have said that they are contradictory to 
 the traditional teaching of the Galilean Church, 
 from the first introduction of Christianity until 
 the holding of the assembly of 1682. To prove 
 this, we have but to recall the long series of 
 quotations given in our pages, from the Fathers, 
 Councils, Theologians, Universities, and even 
 the Princes living in France, and members of 
 its Church, commencing from the Apostolic age. 
 These testimonies are headed by Irenseus, fol- 
 lowed by all those who lived after him through 
 the centuries of the Christian era. Were not 
 Hilary of Poictiers, Priccius of Tours, Cassian 
 of Marseilles, Eucharius of Lyons, Avitus of 
 Vienne, of the five first centuries, witnesses to 
 the faith of the Galilean Church of that time? 
 Is not the testimony of Coesarius of Aries, of 
 the Fathers of the Synod of Orleans, in the sixth 
 century, of Rhegino of Prum, of Lupus of Ferri- 
 eres, of the Synods of Soissons, Douzzi Pontigny, 
 Troyes, and Limes, a luminous witness of the 
 faith of the Galilean Church up to the ninth 
 
OBJECTIOXS REFUTED. 309 
 
 cefntnry, followed by the forcible testimony of 
 an Ocldo of Clugny, of an Abbo of Fleury, a 
 Fulbert of Charters, of the Fathers of the Synod 
 of Limoges up to the time of St. Bernard, whose 
 grand and solemn profession of faith we gave, clos- 
 ing with him the tradition of the patristic period? 
 On this path, following the footsteps of their 
 fathers, the Bishops and Theologians continued 
 to walk, and gave the most illustrious proofs of 
 their submission to the Ajx)stolical authority of 
 the Holy See in matters of faith. So thought 
 and spoke the Bishops of France in the Synods 
 Bezieres, Valence and Albi. At times, as with 
 William of Dijon, they even gave the Pope to 
 undei-stand that he might make a more vigorous 
 and energetic use of his power, Rome seeming 
 sometimes too slow to act, because prudent and 
 merciful, patient and forbearing. 
 
 At the time of the great schism, brought about 
 by the uncertainty of the legitimacy of the Papal 
 elections, French Theologians began, it is true, 
 to speak with Gerson, of the superiority of a 
 General Council over the Pope, but, on a close 
 examination, it becomes evident that they are 
 speaking of those Pretenders to the Papacy, and 
 not of the authority of an undoubtedly elected 
 Pope, Head of the Church, as we have shown 
 when discussing the Council of Constance. 
 
310 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 Gerson himself, whose authority our adversa- 
 ries are so fond of urging, positively asserts 
 that before the Council of Constance, any theo- 
 logian contending for the superiority of a Coun- 
 cil over the Pope, would have been accounted a 
 heretic* That, after the Council, he himself ad- 
 hered in this to the primitive traditions of the 
 Church, is proven by the arguments he used in 
 a sermon delivered before Pope Alexander Y, 
 when accounting for the privilege of immunity 
 from error in matters of faith existing in the 
 Western Church. He deduced it from the fact, 
 that Peter erected his See in that part of the 
 Church, for whose immutability in the faith He 
 had prayed who was always heard because of His 
 dignity. And even though Gerson had not held 
 to the tradition of the Church of France, our 
 opponents are no better off with his support than 
 when they pretended to shield themselves with 
 that of St. Cyprian. How insignificant are the 
 authority and opinion of one theologian like 
 Gerson, when compared to the testimony result- 
 ing from the consent of so many others of far 
 greater reputation in the Church, who preceded 
 or followed the Council of Constance, as Rijinald, 
 Milante Duval, Claudius Florins, together with 
 
 * Gerson, De Potest. Ecclesiae, Consid. ii. 
 
OBjEcrnoNs refitted. 311 
 
 the clearest professions of the faith, which ^\e 
 have quoted from the Sorbonne of Paris. 
 
 More interesting yet are the solemn declara- 
 tions of the Clergy of France, in the beginning 
 of that very century, toward the close of which 
 were issued the schismatical propositions which 
 astonished the world. That these last were not 
 grounded on the previous teaching and tradition 
 of the French Church, is evident from the Syn- 
 odical letters addressed to the Clergy in the year 
 1626. The Bishops teach and ordain, "That all 
 should venerate the Pope as the visible Head of 
 the Universal Church, as the successor of St. Peter 
 upon whom Christ founded the Church, to whom 
 He gave the Keys of Heaven, with that infalU- 
 hUity of faith, which we see miraculously pre- 
 served in his successors even to our own day." 
 "Super hunc Christus fundavit Ecclesiamj illi 
 claves cceli tradens, cum infallibilitate fidei, quam 
 non sine miraculo immotam in ejiLS successoribus 
 per sever are usque in hodiemam diem cernimiisJ' 
 In the year 1653, the Bishops of France wrote 
 the congratulatory letter to Innocent X, which 
 we have previously quoted, and in which they 
 say, that a Papal decision in matters of faith has 
 a diinne authority, to which eveiy body has to 
 submit, not only exteriorly but interiorly, with a 
 sincere assent before God. 
 
312 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 More pressing and comprehensive yet, is an- 
 other declaration and ordinance of the French 
 Episcopate, delivered in the same century. In 
 a circular addressed to the whole Clergy, in 1663, 
 they say : " The submission which we manifest 
 for the Holy Father is, so to say, the heirloom 
 of the French Episcopacy. This is the firm 
 ground on which our honor is established; this 
 is what imparts to our faith invincibility, and to 
 our authority infallibility." ^'Quod el nostram 
 Jldeni invincibilem reddit et nostram audoritatem, 
 infaUibilemJ^ 
 
 If, then, the Bishops of France hold a different 
 language in 1682, is it not plain that they thereby 
 deviate from the teaching and tradition of the 
 Church of France? And does not the fact of such 
 a sudden change, after the lapse of only twenty 
 years, warrant the suspicion that it was induced 
 by some exterior influence? And so it was. It 
 was the influence of Louis XIV, that led them 
 to contradict what their predecessors had uni- 
 formly taught, and they themselves, but a few 
 years previous, had solemnly declared. They 
 lived at that time in a feeble subserviency to 
 the desires of his Majesty, the King ; a ser^dlity 
 which was but too general then in the higher 
 Clergy of France. They had too much of the 
 Frenchman and the courtier. ^^Humanij sen po- 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 313 
 
 tiuSj Gallicani quid passi sunt^ Finally, how- 
 ever, they returned to their duty by retracting 
 their eror, notwithstanding that they had a 
 Bossuet among them. 
 
 It pleased Divine Providence to permit that 
 so great a Theologian should try, but try in 
 vain, to undermine the solid rock of argument 
 on which the truth of our thesis is founded, and 
 be compelled to retract. We read in his life that 
 he never ceased, until the hour of his death, to 
 feel remorse for his weakness and his servility 
 to human respect. 
 
 On the other hand, it is gi'atifying to have 
 such a powerful opponent, as Bossuet confessedly 
 is; for, if all his efforts proved to be like throw- 
 ing pebbles against the iron gates of a fortress, 
 it is very certain that no other antagonist need 
 anticipate a better fate. 
 
 And, first, we may say that Bossuet, in his 
 defense of the four articles, was in contradiction 
 with himself, and through human respect was 
 trying to satisfy both parties by distinctions that 
 proved to be vain. That he was contradicting 
 himself, is proved from his previous assertions 
 on other occasions. In his " Meditations on St. 
 Luke,^' ch. xxii and xxiii, he professed his belief 
 in the infallibility of the Apostolic See in matters 
 of faith. He does the same in his Catechism, when 
 27 
 
314 OBJECTIONS EEFCJTED. 
 
 treating of the Festival of St. Peter and Paul; 
 in the two first Pastorals which he addressed to 
 the Clergy of his Diocese ; in his refutation of 
 the Catechism of the Huguenots; and, finally, 
 in his ^'Expositio Doctrince Catholiece.'' And 
 even, as he was addressing the Bishops as- 
 sembled in 1682, his conviction again transpires, 
 for he reminded them that the Eoman faith 
 must always be the faith of the Church ; that 
 St. Paul, returning from the third heavens, went 
 to St. Peter to give an account of his faith, setting 
 in this an example to all future generations; and 
 that, in fact, the entire Cliurch, extending from 
 the rising to the setting of the sun, was of the 
 same belief. 
 
 Bossuet tried, it is true, to restrain the Bishops, 
 seduced by the flatteries of Louis XIV, from a 
 schismatic servility, but being himself too much 
 under the influence of human respect, he sQm- 
 moned all his powers and took refuge in vain 
 distinctions when writing his "Defense of the 
 Declarations of the Bishops." 
 
 Even in that " Defense'^ his intimate and pre- 
 viously expressed convictions are still apparent. 
 He rejects with horror the least suspicion that 
 by these four articles the Clergy of France de- 
 tracted from the strength and dignity of the Head 
 of the Church. ^^Neque vero velimus, quod Ca- 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 315 
 
 tholici omneSy Summique Pontifices perhorrescant, 
 Eccksicej tanti corporis ^ imhecille esse caput J^ 
 He states the reason of tliis horror to be, " That 
 if that Chair should fall into error, the whole 
 Church would be dissolved/^ " Quce cathedra si 
 coneidere posset, fieref que cathedra non verUatis sed 
 erroriSy Ecclesia ipsa Catholica esset dissohUaJ^ 
 
 Speaking of the formula of Adrian II, and 
 of its subscription as the test of orthodoxy, he 
 says: "By this subscription all the Churches 
 professed their belief in the immutability of the 
 Apostolic See in matters of faith, according to 
 the promise of Christ.'' To reconcile such asser- 
 tions with the tenor of the four articles he had 
 recourse to subtle distinctions and explanations. 
 
 We must consider, he tells us, all the Popes 
 collectively, not individually, as constituting one 
 with Peter ; it is this collective personality 
 which can not err, and whose faith never fails. 
 In other words, faith may waver and even fail 
 in any one Pontiff, but the error can not take 
 root in the Apostolic See. ^^ Accipiendi sunt Bo- 
 mani Pontifices tanquam una persona Petri, in 
 qua nunquam fides defidat, atque ut in aliquibus 
 vacillet aut concidat, non tamen deficit in totitmj^ 
 Is it not strange that so great a mind should fall 
 into so poor a sophism ? 
 
 No doubt all the Roman Pontiffs represent 
 
316 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 Peter, whose authority they inherit ; but for that 
 very reason none of them can err, because, as all 
 are one and the same person — Peter — the failure 
 of one would affect that person — Peter. Or, in 
 other words, because the individual who fails be- 
 longs to this mystical personage, therefore in him 
 Peter fails. 
 
 Moreover, Bossuet is well aware that by the 
 formula of Adrian II, which he holds himself 
 bound to defend, whosoever subscribes it is 
 obliged to obey the decisions of the Pope actually 
 occupying the Apostolic See, as ^' a rule of faith ;^' 
 neither could he be ignorant that the Fathers of the 
 CEcumenical Councils recognized in every individ- 
 ual Pope, the rock upon which the Church is built, 
 the divinely commissioned teacher of the faith, 
 the Vicar of Christ in whom Peter always lives. 
 
 In trying to confirm this distinction, the Bishop 
 of Meaux makes use of an illustration, which 
 serves but to exhibit its shallowness. He says, 
 that Peter himself denied Christ in the court- 
 yard of the High Priest, and in the same way 
 every individual Pope may be supposed to err. 
 Who will not be surprised at such a reason, from 
 such a man ! Surely he does not mean that Pe- 
 ter was teaching, or giving a decision or definition 
 of faith to the whole Church, and yet he knew 
 that it is only in this sense that we proclaim 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 317 
 
 Peter and his successors infallible. He sinned as 
 a man, and so, too, is every one of his successors 
 subject to sin ; neither he nor they were infallible 
 in their manner of living, but only in matters of 
 faith, when instructing the whole Church. 
 
 Moreover, had Bossuet forgotten that when 
 Peter denied Christ, he had not yet become Head 
 of the Church, Yicar of Clirist. The promises 
 of Christ were for the future, when " he should 
 be once confirmed, '^ and enter on his office as 
 Visible Head of the Church. Christ said: 
 ^^JEdificnho, . . . daho, , , , et tu aliquando." " I 
 shall build, ... I shall give, . . . and thou be- 
 ing once confirmed." He certainly can not have 
 meant that after the Ascension of our Lord, and 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost, Peter could have 
 erred in matters of faith ; such a supposition he 
 could not have made, and yet such a supposition 
 is needed to give any strength to his illustration. 
 The argument bears witness to the desperate na- 
 ture of the position which Bossuet had under- 
 taken to defend. 
 
 This distinction between the individual and col- 
 lective personality of Peter, logically involves the 
 most striking inconsequences. For, on the sup- 
 position that one individual Universal Teacher 
 can err, we may rightly infer that every one 
 could do so, and then where is the collectively 
 
318 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 infallible person? If not all, then wliicli is to 
 be the infallible one, redeeming the others ; is it 
 to be the third, fifth, or tenth? And how many 
 infallible Pontiffs are needed to prevent the col- 
 lective personality from being affected by the fal- 
 libility of the individuals ? 
 
 Feeling how untenable this position was. Bos- 
 suet in his " Defense '' is forced to admit the In- 
 fallibility of the Head of the Church, when teach- 
 ing, or defining an Article of Faith for the whole 
 Church, or, as the theologians say, when speaking 
 " ex cathedra,'^ but,, for this is our thesis, he adds 
 that we can not know that he so speaks, until his 
 decision has received the assent of the Church, 
 as dispersed throughout the world, or united in 
 CEcumenical Council. 
 
 This explanation has been already disproved 
 by what we have said, when urging that neither 
 the decision of an CEcumenical Council nor the 
 assent of the Ecdesia dispersa was the tribunal 
 constituted by Christ in matters of faith. The 
 reasons which we then gave are equally applica- 
 ble to this point. 
 
 Bossuet strives to justify his assertion by anal- 
 ogy. He says that a General Council, notwith- 
 standing its infallibility, has to wait for its ac- 
 knowledgment by the Ecdesia dispersa, before it 
 is recognized as a General Council; and so, too, 
 
OBJECTIOXS REFUTEl). 319 
 
 the sentence of a Pope, speaking ex cathedra, may 
 be infallible, but its reception by the whole 
 Church is required before we can know that he 
 speaks ex cathedra. 
 
 In this justification, instead of bettering his 
 argument, he abandons it, since he admits the in- 
 fallibility of the Poi)e's decision, provided it be 
 certain that he speaks ex cathedra. Now, how- 
 ever it may be with a General Council in resj^ect 
 to historical reality, it is certain that the simple 
 fact of the Pope's speaking ex. cathedra can 
 be certainly ascertained Gy his teaching, or pro- 
 nouncing a definition in matters of faith to be 
 believed by all. This fiict can l>e made evident 
 and as historically certain as that the light 
 comes from the sun, by the very terms of the 
 sentence and the declarations of the Holy Fa- 
 ther. We will give an instance. When Pius 
 IX pronounced u^n the dogma of the Im- 
 maculate Conception, at that very moment every 
 Catholic there present was obHged to believe it, 
 without needing or even being permitted to ask 
 what any Bishop present or absent believed, and, 
 still less, without consulting or awaiting the as- 
 sent of the Eccle^ia dispersa. It was a decision 
 addressed to the whole Church, and, as a fact, 
 was spread far and wide by steam and electricity, 
 that Pius IX had so spoken, and ex cathedra 
 
320 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 could not be the subject of a doubt to any rea- 
 sonable man. Now, in regard to General Coun- 
 cils — as, for instance, those of the East — all re- 
 mained in suspense until it was ascertained that 
 they had been confirmed by the Head of the 
 Church; when this was made known, nothing 
 was more needed to make their decrees and de- 
 cisions binding. By parity of reasoning, accord- 
 ing to Bossuet^s own admission, the same holds 
 good as to the Papal definition, with the diifer- 
 ence that the latter, if its genuineness be certain, 
 carries along with it the obligation of sub- 
 mission. 
 
 We can not but repeat that it is pitiful to see 
 how far human motives, working on the heart, 
 can influence the mind even of such a man as 
 we know Bossuet to have been. 
 
 Fenelon was of another stamp, and though he 
 had been the preceptor of two Princes, belonging 
 to the family of Louis XIV, he refused his assent 
 to the four articles, which he contemptuously 
 characterized, " Liberties against the Pope and 
 servility to the King." In a Pastoral to his Clergy 
 subsequent to their promulgation, he says : " We 
 must attend to the promises of Christ as daily 
 proved by facts, for Peter continues to speak from 
 his chair, and whosoever joins in faith with Rome 
 is preserved from danger. This is proved by the 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 321 
 
 formula of faith sent by Pope Hormisdas to the 
 Eighth Council, in which every Bishop was obhged 
 forever to follow in matters of faith the decisions 
 sent forth by the Apostolic See. This was the 
 price by which they gained admission among 
 Catholics." ^^ Hoc pretio inter Catholicos recen- 
 slti." 
 
 We may hereby understand Avhat Fenelon 
 meant when he gave expression to his feelings in 
 these beautiful words : " Eglise Romuine, 
 cite sainte, chere et commune patrie de tons lea 
 Chretiens ! II n^y a en Jesus Christ, ni Qrec, ni 
 Scythe, ni Barhare, ni Juif; tous sont un seal 
 peuple dans votre sein; tous sont concitoyens de 
 Rome, et tout Catholiqne est Romain.^' "O 
 Church of Rome ! O holy city ! O dear and com- 
 mon country of Christians ! In Jesus Christ 
 there is neither Greek, Scythian, barbarian, nor 
 Jew; all together form but one people in thy 
 bosom ; all are fellow-citizens of Rome, and 
 every Catholic is a Roman." 
 
 How deeply these convictions were grounded, 
 was proved to his personal honor and glory in the 
 prompt and entire submission which he paid to the 
 decision of Rome against himself. He had writ- 
 ten a book entitled, " Maximes des Saints.^^ In 
 this book there were certain errors concerning the 
 ascetical life, which Bossuet denounced to Rome. 
 
322 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 The errors were condemned, and Fenelon gave a 
 heroic example of humility, faith and submission, 
 which shall forever redound to his greater fame 
 and veneration. He, an Archbishop, and once 
 preceptor at the Court, ascended the pulpit, read 
 aloud the condemnation of the errors contained 
 in his book, and forbade it to be read any longer ^ 
 by the members of his flock, adding that he 
 availed himself of that occasion for paying that 
 obedience to the Holy See which was its due, 
 and which he wished to pay even to his last 
 sigh: " Dont nous vouloiis vous donner un exem- 
 plejusqu ^au dernier soupir de la vie.'' A distin- 
 guished French author exclaims, in reference to 
 this act of Fenelon : " Heraux les hommes, si les 
 h^resiarques sttaient soumis avec autant de moder- 
 ation, que le grand ev^que de Camhrai, qui n'avait 
 nulle envie, d'etre heretiqueJ^ "■ How happy for 
 mankind if the heresiarchs had always submitted 
 with the moderation displayed by the great 
 Bishop of Cambrai, who, indeed, had no inclina- 
 tion to be a heretic/' 
 
 Finally, our adversaries, if they be theologians, 
 must be aware that the Bishops who devised 
 these ''Galilean liberties'' revoked them, sued for 
 pardon, and sent a letter of recantation to Inno- 
 cent XI. In that letter they say: '^ Prostrate 
 at thy feet, we confess and declare that, from our 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 323 
 
 hearts, and more than we can express, we deplore 
 what we did in that assembly." " VeJiemenfer 
 quidemy et supra orane id quod did potM, ex am- 
 ino dolere de rebus gestis in canciliis prcrdidis.^' 
 And, therefore, all that was said in regard to the 
 Papal authority, we will and declare should be 
 considered as not said. "Fro non deer do habe- 
 musj et habaiduni dcdararnus.'^ De Pradt, in 
 his book, ^'Quatre Concordats," Paris, 1826, IV, 
 136, gives us the words of Bossuet, when he heard 
 of the condemnation of the four articles at Rome : 
 " Abeat ergo quocumque voluerit ista declaratio." 
 " May the declai-ations then be gone where they 
 will." 
 
 But apart from these retractations, the articles 
 were defeated on their own ground, and with 
 their own weapons. They claimed for the con- 
 sent of the Church *' dispersed" an undue au- 
 thority as a tribunal in matters of faith, and that 
 very " Ecdesia dispersa'^ no sooner heard of the 
 four articles, than it lifted up its voice and de- 
 nounced them, by the voices of the Episcopacy 
 of Spain, Belgium, and Italy. In the year 1684, 
 the Primate of Hungary also assembled a Na- 
 tional Synod, in which the four articles were 
 unanimously condemned as absurd, detestable, 
 and productive of schism. " Daninanius has — 
 propositiones absurdas, detestabiles et ad schisma 
 
324 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 tendentes.^' Even Voltaire observes that the idea 
 of a National Churchy originating in an exag- 
 gerated love of nationality, came near being then 
 realized, and what else would it have been, but 
 a Western schism? But the Catholic feeling of 
 France, suppressed for a time, soon awakened, 
 and has remained steadfast to the Apostolic See. 
 We know very well that Gallicanism, fostered 
 by Jansenism, has never been entirely extin- 
 guished in France, and from time to time gives 
 faint sparks of life, counting even yet its adher- 
 ents, but then, too, we find that the old Eastern 
 heresies, Monothelism, Eutychianism, and Nes- 
 torianism, though condemned and crushed by the 
 Catholic faith, have left some faint and lingering 
 traces. We should not wonder at the same fact 
 in regard to the four articles, more noticeable 
 than now, up to the time of De Maistre and La- 
 mennais. Since that period, however, Gallican- 
 ism has become well-nigh extinct, disappearing 
 with the few adherents of what is styled " la petite 
 EgliseJ^ The great body of the French Episco- 
 pacy and Clergy, with scarcely an exception, is 
 eminently Roman. Thus, in 1819, eighty Bish- 
 ops signed an address to Pius VII, in which 
 they profess it impossible that he should not be 
 the protector of the true faith, Avho occupies the 
 place of Christ on earth, as the first leader, 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 325 
 
 teacher, and doctor of the faithful. " Christi 
 Jidem non posse non tueriy qui Christi vices in ter- 
 ris suppletj primus duXj magister, et doctor Jideli- 
 um." More positive and peremptory is the 
 declaration of the French clergy to the king, 
 in 1826, in which their faith is thus expressed : 
 "With the whole Catholic Church we condemn 
 those who, under the pretext of preserving the 
 liberties of the Gallican Church, lessen the obe- 
 dience due by all Christians to the throne estab- 
 lished by Jesus Christ, the Primacy of Peter and 
 of the Roman Pontiffs, liis successors, and who 
 injure, in the eyes of all nations, the venerable 
 majesty of the Apostolic See, where the faith is 
 taught, and the unity of the Church preserved.'^ 
 " Ubi fides docetur, et Ecdesice unitas conservaiur, 
 detrahere non verenturJ^ * 
 
 OBJECTION \^. 
 
 "TTe must distinguish between the Apostoli- 
 cal See and those j who occupy it. The 
 See is Infallible^ not the Pope. 
 
 Answer. — This distinction is neither reason- 
 able in itself considered, nor sanctioned by the 
 
 *See Ziegler Proleg. de Eccle., p. 291, and De Maistre, on 
 tho Liberties of the Gallic Church. 
 
326 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 Holy Fathers, who have expressly taught the 
 contrary. 
 
 Reason does not recognize it, since it were 
 absurd to imagine any other meaning for the 
 Apostolical See than the Apostolic power and 
 authority of St. Peter transmitted to his suc- 
 cessors. But how can an Apostolic See, apart 
 from the person who legally occupies it, be said 
 to succeed St. Peter? The expression is mean- 
 ingless, unless we understand thereby the power 
 and authority of St. Peter invested in the per- 
 son of his successor, the Primate and Head of 
 the Church. It is, apart from him, a non-ens, 
 that can do nothing, and define nothing. Mel- 
 cliior Canus is certainly right in saying "reason 
 despises and rejects this distinction.^^ "Dis- 
 tinctionem hanc ratio aspernitur — rejicitJ^^ 
 
 The distinction was unknown to the Holy 
 Fathers, who, on the contrary, identified the in- 
 dividual, with the authority of the See he occu- 
 pied. Thus St. Jerome exclaims : " I am in 
 communion with thee, that is, the See of Peter.'' 
 ^'JEgo Beatitudini tuce, id est, Cathedrce Petri, com- 
 munione consentior.'^ St. Augustin expresses him- 
 self in the same manner, using the expressions as 
 being identical ^vith each other, when referring 
 
 »Meleh. Canus de loo. Theolog. Ep. 6, c. 8. 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 327 
 
 to the condemnation of Pelagianism at Rome. 
 "Now/' he says, '^that Innocent condemned it, 
 and now that the Apostolic See condemned it." 
 Our readers will remember how the General 
 Councils, and generally all the authorities of ec- 
 clesiastical antiquity, in all ages of Christiauity, 
 when addressing the Supreme Pontiff, adopted 
 the same expressions as were used by the Fathers 
 of the Sixth General Council : '' Peter lives in 
 his See, and through Agatho, Peter has spoken." 
 The very words by which Josus declared Peter 
 Head of the Church, identify the authority of 
 his office with that of his person, then when he ad- 
 dressed to him the Chaldaic word : ''Tu es Petra'' 
 — not Petrus. Bossuet, in this point, certainly a 
 disinterested authority, says : ** We do not pre- 
 tend that this See can exercise any act of power 
 or jurisdiction, except through its occupant, and 
 neither can we distinguish between the faith of 
 the Roman Church and that of its Pontiff, be- 
 cause the Romans learned their faith first from 
 Peter, and then from the successors of Peter." 
 ^^Neque propterea dicimiis ipsam sedem aliquid 
 exercere posse potestatis aut Jurisdicfionis alitcr, 
 quam per ipsum iwccsidentem ; neque distinguimus 
 a Romanorum Pontificum fide, Romance Ecdesice 
 fidem, quam scilicet moraliter a Petro prirno, atque 
 Petri successoribus Romatii didiceru7it." By the 
 
328 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 latter part of this assertion, Bossuet indicates 
 another distinction sometimes advanced. 
 
 OBJECTION Vin. 
 
 *' We must distinguish between the faith of the 
 Roman Churchy that is, tlie Clergy of 
 Rome and that of the Pope individ%mlly; 
 so that the Roman Church can never err, 
 hut the Pope canJ' 
 
 Answer. — This distinction, equally with the 
 preceding, is vain and arbitrary, repugnant alike 
 to Scripture and Tradition. To Scripture, be- 
 cause Christ addressed Peter, and not the assem- 
 bled Clergy of Rome, when He promised and 
 confirmed to him the privileges which constituted 
 him the irremovable foundation-stone of the 
 Church, and its infallible teacher. This author- 
 ity, conferred by Christ, is transferred to his 
 successor; but that succeessor is the Bishop of 
 Rome, and not the synodical assembly of the 
 Roman clergy. 
 
 Tradition ignores and rejects this distinction, 
 deducing the privileges of the Roman Church 
 from the one fact that its Pontiff is the successor 
 of St. Peter. Apart from this the Roman Church 
 and clergy would be on the same footing with 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 329 
 
 those of Constantinople and other places. The 
 Holy Fathers and the General Councils have 
 yielded submission to the Roman Church, for no 
 other reason than that they acknowledged its 
 Pontiff as the rightful successor of St. Peter, 
 who still lives and speaks in his See, by the au- 
 thority transmitted through the institution of 
 Christ to his successors, and which was to endure 
 until the consummation of the world. St. Jerome 
 says : " I agree with the successor of Peter, who 
 occupies the chair of Peter, on which I know 
 the Church to be founded." " Cum successore 
 Petri loquor, qui oaihedmm Petri tenet, supra 
 quam Ecdesiam cedijicatam sclo.'^ ''And, there- 
 fore," adds he, " whosoever gathers not with thee, 
 dissipates; whoso is not with thee, belongs to 
 Antichrist." ^' Ideo, quicumque tecum non coUigit, 
 spargit, qui tecum non est, Antichristi est.'' And 
 Peter Chrysologus, when urging Eutyches to 
 submit, does not give for reason the faith of the 
 Roman Church or of its Clergy, but simply says : 
 " Peter, who lives in his own See, communicates 
 the true faith to those who seek it of him." 
 ^'Quia Petrus in propria sede viveus, ptrcestat 
 qucerentibus fidei veritatemj' The Councils have 
 spoken to the same effect. The Fathers of the 
 Third Council of Constantinople do not rejoice 
 because their faith has been approved by the 
 28 
 
330 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 Church or Clergy of Rome, but because the 
 " Chief Prince of the Apostles is fighting with 
 us; because we have for Patron his successor. 
 Paper and ink it appeared, but through Agatho, 
 Peter has spoken.'^ ^^Summus nobiscum certat 
 Apostolorum PrincepSj eo quod ipsim successorem 
 habuimus fautorem. Charta et atr amentum vide- 
 batur, et per Agathonem Petrus loquebatur." 
 
 In the same sense speak the Fathers of the 
 Fourth and Eighth General Councils. They all 
 allege, as the reason of their submission, the 
 promise of Christ, which can never be frustrated : 
 " Thou art Peter, and on that rock I shall build 
 my Church." 
 
 What other reason can they allege who hold 
 the Roman Church, as constituted by its assem- 
 bled Clergy alone, exempt from every possibility 
 of error? Is it that in Rome there are always 
 so many Prelates and highly-instructed theolo- 
 gians, with such facilities of communication with 
 the other Churches, that the faith of the Uni- 
 versal Church may justly be deemed concentered 
 and concentrated in the Sy nodical ly-assembled 
 Clergy of Rome ? 
 
 But if this reason were sufficient, it would also 
 suffice, and even more, to make the decision of a 
 General Council infallible without the confirma- 
 tion of the Pope • for there the faith of the Uni- 
 
OBJECrriONS REFITTED. 331 
 
 versal Church is even more concentrated, and 
 there is a much larger assembly of illustrious 
 theologians ; and yet the history and decrees of 
 these same Councils (in our opponents' theorj^, 
 infallible) tell us that, without the confirmation 
 of the Pontiff, their decisions are not binding on 
 any Christian conscience or intellect. 
 
 Again, as the Church of Rome never teaches 
 by definitions sent to the whole Church, except 
 tlirough the Roman Pontiff, and can not be, and 
 never was consulted except by addressing him, it 
 would follow that a belief in the faith of the Ro- 
 man Church, in the sense of this distinction, as 
 being the faith of the Universal Church, would 
 remain a mere presumption, more or less prob- 
 able, but would not, and could not, be a rule of 
 faith, a Supreme Tribunal. There is no one to 
 be addressed, to be consulted, to decide, unless it 
 be the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 Finally, it is these very Clergy of Rome that 
 specially defends our thesis, and which derives 
 all their distinction in the Church from the pres- 
 ence and dignity of its Primate, the Head of the 
 Church. If there be any disputed truth more 
 strenuously held and defended than another by 
 the Clergy of Rome, it is this very thesis con- 
 cerning the rights and privileges of the Roman 
 Pontiff, which we are now sustaining ; and, con- 
 
3S2 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 sequently, the favorers of this last objection 
 would be obliged, if it have any weight at all, 
 to accept our thesis. 
 
 OBJECTION IX. 
 
 '' But Popes have actually erred in matters of 
 faithy and, by the fact itself have there- 
 fore proved themselves fallible. 
 
 Answer. — The consequence would be logic- 
 ally correct were the premises true, but we deny 
 the supposition. No Pope has erred in matters 
 of faith. 
 
 Bossuet himself concedes that, of all the pre- 
 tended cases brought forward to prove the sup- 
 posed fact, there are only two that merit an 
 answer, the others being generally abandoned 
 even by our adversaries. These two cases, to 
 which our adversaries constantly appeal when 
 there is question of the fallibility of the Pope, 
 are those of Liberius and Honorius. The for- 
 mer is charged with Arianism, the latter with 
 Monothelism. We shall presently see how little 
 reason there is in either charge. 
 
 Before answering the accusation, we must once 
 more remind our opponents that, in order to over- 
 turn our thesis, they must prove not merely that 
 Liberius or Honorius has spoken or written what 
 
OBjEcrrioxs refuted. 333 
 
 is contrary to faith, or denied it, but that he did 
 so as Pope, teaching in matters of faith or morals, 
 and thereby binding the Universal Church. If 
 they can not prove this, they prove nothing, for 
 the fallibility would then be only personal and 
 private, and would no more affect the infallibility 
 of the Po})e as Universal Teacher, than the de- 
 nial of Peter in the Court of the High Priest 
 injured his infallibility as Prince of the Apostles. 
 They must, then, first produce good, historical 
 evidence of the fact ; secondly, they must prove 
 that it w^as a definition or teaching contrary to 
 truth in matters of faith ; and, thirdly, that the 
 Pope intended, by his teaching, to bind the 
 Universal Church to believe it. This, so long 
 as history is history, they never will succeed in 
 doing. It is an impossibility, as we shall dem- 
 onstrate to our readers. 
 
 They tell us that Liberius taught Arianism. 
 We answer that they can never produce historical 
 evidence of such a fact ; and, even though they 
 could, they would not be able to prove that he 
 did so, defining it as a matter of faith to the 
 Universal Church. 
 
 As to the fact itself, sound historical criticism 
 tends directly to the contrary conclusion, namely, 
 that Liberius did not do what they suppose him 
 to have done. The historical documents to which 
 
334 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 they appeal are, some of them, of very doubtful 
 authority, whilst the others are evidently false or 
 corrupted. Their first authority is that of the 
 so-called " Fragments,'^ ascribed to Hilarius, 
 which critics generally acknowledge not to have 
 been written by him, but by some unknown au- 
 thor. They also appeal to two letters of Athan- 
 asius, which are spurious. 
 
 Two passages are quoted from the works of 
 St. Jerome — the one from his book, "De 
 Sci^ptoribas Ecclesiasticis/' the other from his 
 " Chronicon.'^ Now, St. Jerome has himself 
 complained of the interpolations made in his 
 works, a thing, as we have mentioned, very easily 
 done in the days of manuscripts; and critics 
 prove that this actually occurred with regard to 
 these two works. 
 
 They also bring forward four letters ascribed 
 to Liberius himself, which are mere fabrications 
 by the Lucifirians and Arians. Finally, they 
 giv^ a poorly-manufactured account, to the 
 effect that, after his pretended fall, Liberius, on 
 returning to Rome, was contemptuously driven 
 out by the Roman people. This fiction is bor- 
 rowed from a spurious work of Eusebius the 
 Priest. 
 
 It would be too long and tedious to discuss 
 fully the defectiveness of these pretended authori- 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 335 
 
 ties, and we are obliged, therefore, to refer those 
 of our readers, who would desire to review the 
 whole controversy on this point, to such celebra- 
 ted critics as the famous Bollandist, Hettingus,"^ 
 Cardinal Orsi, f to Antonio Zaccharia,^: in his 
 learned dissertation on the " Fall of Liberius,'' 
 and Tilleraont/^ § 
 
 Against all their corrupted historical sources 
 are arrayed most trustworthy historical docu- 
 ments, clearly showing that Liberius not only 
 never betrayed the truth, but that he was its 
 consistent, energetic champion. 
 
 Nobody pretends to call in question the fact, 
 that it was he who withstood the one thousand 
 Bishops, assembled at Rimini, who had suffered 
 themselves to be entrapped by the Arian into 
 subscribing an heretical formula, of which St. 
 Jerome exclaims : ** The Christian world was 
 astonished to find itself become Arian." This 
 was the most numerous Council ever celebrated 
 in the first thousand years of the existence of the 
 Church. Opposed to it, great as it was in num- 
 ber and Episcopal dignity, we find the majesty 
 and resplendent authority of the Apostolic See, 
 
 * Act. Sanct, Tom iv, Sept. 23 c. 9 et 10. 
 
 f Hist. Eccles., Saee. iv. 
 
 X Thesaur. Theolog., Tom ii. 
 
 i Tillm. Nat. 59 in Arian. 
 
336 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 and we find Liberius, the occupier of the Chair 
 of Peter, using his power and privileges as Su- 
 preme Pontiff to condemn and cancel the errone- 
 ous professions of one thousand Bishops, or, 
 rather, in the words of our Lord, to confirm his 
 brethren, whom Satan had tried to sift as wheat. 
 
 It was for this heroic resistance that the en- 
 raged Emperor Constantine sent Liberius into 
 exile, and harassed him with vexations and per- 
 secutions, to escape which, as they pretend, the 
 defender of the faith finally subscribed an Arian 
 formula, and, on his return to Rome, was driven 
 forth again by the Clergy and people. That 
 such a man, after so heroic a resistance, should 
 have fallen so low as to subscribe what he had 
 denounced and condemned in others, is difiicult 
 of belief. History tells a different tale. 
 
 The oldest and most esteemed historians of 
 the Church, such as Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, 
 Sozomenus, Theodoretus, Menea, Theophanes, 
 Nicephorus, and Calistus, have not a word con- 
 cerning the pretended fall of Liberius. Even 
 Photius does not speak of it, and he certainly 
 should have known it, and would have used it, 
 had there been any hope of success. On the 
 contrary, all these historians speak quite differ- 
 ently of Liberius, and ascribe his return to 
 Rome to another reason, and describe his recep- 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 337 
 
 tion in a very different way. Theodoretus, who, 
 in his history of Ariauism, made use of the writ- 
 ings of Athanasius, calls Liberius an illustrious 
 and glorious champion of the faith. ^^Celeberri- 
 mum Liberium, gloriosum verUatis athletamJ^ He 
 ascribes his return to Rome, not to a heretical 
 acquiescence, but to the petition forwarded to the 
 Emperor from the noble ladies of Rome, and to 
 the acclamation of the people at the amphithe- 
 ater, urging his recall. ^'Post has Christiancs 
 plebis aeelojmatio7ies Liberium ab Imperatore pos- 
 tidantis in circOj reversus est admirohilis ilU 
 Liberius.^' 
 
 Sulpicius Severus also account* for his return 
 by the commotions and revolts of the Roman 
 people, clamorous for his recall, and says that 
 the Emperor did it against his will, ^'licd invi- 
 tasJ^ If Liberius had professed Arianism, Con- 
 stautine would have let him return, but not un- 
 willingly, " mvitus,^^ since it would have been for 
 himself a victory and triumph. That this return, 
 however, may have become in time a matter of 
 suspicion and a ground of the accusation. Is pos- 
 sible, if not probable. Communications were 
 then difficult and tardy, and the Arians, hearing 
 of his recall, may have spread the rumor that it 
 could only be accounted for by his recantation 
 and his subscription of the Arian formula. 
 29 
 
338 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 No, the Pontiff who had withstood one thou- 
 sand Bishops, and had braved exile and persecu- 
 tion, could not have accepted such ignominy as 
 finally to subscribe what he himself had so lately 
 denominated a blasphemy, *' bldsphemam.^^ 
 
 But should we, for the sake of argument, 
 abandon this point, our thesis would not, there- 
 fore, be overturned. 
 
 There are two things objected to Liber i us: 
 first, that he cut off from communion with him- 
 self that hero of Orthodoxy, Athanasius; and, 
 second, that he subscribed the formula of Syr- 
 mia, called by Hilarius, ^'perfidiam ArianamJ' 
 
 Could both these assertions be proved, we re- 
 peat, they would not affect our thesis. 
 
 Not the first, because, to exclude another from 
 ecclesiastical communion is not a definition in 
 matters of faith, still less is it one addressed to 
 the whole Church. Even though such an ex- 
 clusion should be groundless and unlawful, it 
 would only prove the peccability of the Pope, 
 not his fallibility as Pope. But the fact itself 
 we emphatically deny. It is in evident contra- 
 diction with his enthusiastic reception at Rome, 
 where the people and clergy sympathized so en- 
 tirely with him, and revolted against the false 
 Pope, Felix, intruded into the See during the 
 exile of Liberius, because he communicated with 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 339 
 
 the Arians, the mortal enemies of Liberius and 
 Athanasius. 
 
 Not the .second, namely, the pretended sub- 
 scription to the heretical formula of Syrmia, for 
 all critics, even our opponents, are obliged to 
 admit that if Liberius subscribed at all, it was 
 to the first formula of Syrmia, which Hilarius 
 himself admitted, finding fault with it only in 
 this, that it was a ^^perfidia," the word conmob- 
 siantialis having been purposely omitted. This 
 would not, however, render it heretical, as the 
 same fault could be brought against the Apostles^ 
 Creed. This omission in the formula of Syrmia 
 was a perfidy in its framers, because it was done 
 for the purpose of suppressing the truth, but not 
 necessarily such in its subscribers. In the sub- 
 scription there might be matter for scandal, in 
 appearing to agree in matters of faith with the 
 framers, but there can not be a well-grounded 
 charge of heresy. And had Liberius actually 
 subscribed, it would have been through a mis- 
 taken judgment, that in thus securing his free- 
 dom, through a subscription which bound him 
 to nothing, he was l>etter enabled to aid and de- 
 fend the Church. This, however, could never be 
 cited as a definition in faith to the Universal 
 Church. 
 
 But even a subscription of this kind can not 
 
340 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 be proved against Liberius, since, as we have 
 seen, the most reliable historians of those times 
 attribute his return from exile to a different 
 cause. He can not, then, be stigmatized as a 
 traitor to the faith, but must rather be accounted 
 worthy of all those eulogies conferred upon him 
 by the Holy Fathers. St. Ambrose calls him 
 ^^ Smietce niemorice mrum/' a man of holy mem- 
 ory; St. Basil, " beatissimum/^ most blessed; 
 Epiphanius and Pope Siricius, the latter in his 
 letter to Himeric, call him " blessed.^' His name 
 is found in different Martyrologies, as in that of 
 Beda, of Wandalbert, and even in those of the 
 East, the Synaxarii and Menaeis, where his feast 
 is marked for the 27 th of August. 
 
 We turn now to the case of Honorius, first 
 premising, as in that of Liberius, that the docu- 
 ments from which our opponents borrow their 
 accusations, are very open to more than suspicion 
 of fraud and fiction. This was a common occur- 
 rence among the Greeks in those days of manu- 
 scripts, of slow and uncertain communication, 
 and in a time, moreover, of constantly renewed, 
 though often baffled attempts at schism. From 
 the earliest times, even to our own days, critics 
 have agreed as to the difficulty of verifying such 
 documents. But this we may safely pass over, 
 since our position is too strong to need urging the 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 341 
 
 point. Granting all that our opponents would 
 ask as to the genuineness of their historical 
 sources, and allowing for true all that they ob- 
 ject against Honorius, even then the truth of 
 our thesis remains unimpaired. A close exam- 
 ination of the texts, which they advance in sup- 
 port of the charge, suffices to place the truth of 
 our propositions in a clearer light. 
 
 The facts are as follows : At the time of his 
 Pontificate, a violent dispute arose in the East 
 concerning the two wills in Christ and their 
 operations. Sergius, the Patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, was the originator of the controversy; he 
 contended that in Christ there was but one will, 
 that of the Second Person of the Trinity, the 
 Divine will, which wholly absorbed the human 
 will of Christ, even as the ocean absorbs a drop 
 of wine allowed to fall into its waters. 
 
 Our adversaries assert that Honorius partici- 
 pated in this error. We shall see with what right 
 they make the assertion. 
 
 In his second letter to Sergius, Honorius says : 
 " In regard to the dogma of the Church, we must 
 confess that in Christ there were two natures 
 joined together iu natural unity, working and 
 cooperating in mutual communion, so that the 
 divine does what belongs to God, and the human 
 affects what belongs to the flesh, not diversely, 
 
342 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 nor confusedly, not saying that the Divine nature 
 is changed into man, nor the human nature into 
 God/' " Quantum ad dogma ecdesiasticum per- 
 tinet, TJTEASQUE NATURAS m uno Christo unitate 
 naturali copulatas cum alterius eommunione ope- 
 ranteSj atque operafrices conjiteri debemus^ et divi- 
 nam quidem quae Dei sunt operantem^ et humanam, 
 quce carnis sunt exequentem; non divise, nee con- 
 fuse, aut inconvertibiliter Dei naturam in homi- 
 nem, aut humanam in Deum conversam, dicentes.^' 
 And immediately after, he says : " That the two 
 natures, of the Divinity and of the assumed flesh, 
 in the one Person of the Only-begotten Son of 
 God the Father, exercise their appropriate acts, 
 without confusion, without division, and without 
 possibility of conversion/' ^^Duas naturas, id 
 est, divinitatis et carnis assumptoe in una Persona 
 Unigeniti Dei Patris, inconfuse, indivise, incon- 
 vertibiliter PROPRIA operariJ' 
 
 Is not this, we ask, a sufficiently explicit 
 declaration and confession of the true Catholic 
 dogma? Consequently, when in his first letter 
 to Sergius, Honorius spoke of the one will, he 
 did not mean the one Divine will; he was 
 speaking of the human will, which he said was 
 not divided by the movements of passion, such 
 as we find it in ourselves through the fall of 
 Adam, and of which St. Paul speaks, when he 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 343 
 
 says: '^I see another law in my members, war- 
 ring against the law of my mind;"* and again, 
 *'for the good which I will, I do not, but the 
 evil which I will not, that I do," f 
 
 Honorius intended to say that Christ had as- 
 sumed the human nature, subject to human suf- 
 ferings, indeed, but not with that division of the 
 will that exists in us as a consequence of the 
 fall of our first parents, and which subjects us 
 to the movements of inordinate passions, and to 
 disorders leading to sin by our rebellious concu- 
 piscence. That this was the meaning of Hono- 
 rius is confirmed by his quotation of the teach- 
 ing of Leo the Great in his letter to Flavian : 
 ^^Agit cnivi ntraqne forma cum alterius communione 
 quod proprium cM." ** Each nature acts accord- 
 ing to its kind, in communion with the other." 
 Nobody will dare to say that Leo was infected 
 by Monothelism. If, then, his faith be sound and 
 his words correct, as the Council of Chalcedon 
 acknowledged, why is not the same doctrine, in 
 the same form, when employed by Honorius also 
 correct? But it does not rest on mere conjecture, 
 since the meaning of Honorius is attested by his 
 contemporaries, by his successors in the Apos- 
 tolic See, and by the most illustrious writers of 
 the age. John IV, the second successor of this 
 
 * Ad Rom. e. vii, p. 23. f Ibid, 19 
 
344 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 Pope, asserts it in the apology which he wrote 
 of his maligned predecessor. St. Maximus, 
 martyr, gives us the testimony of the Secretary 
 of Honorius, the inditer of the first letter, and 
 still living when his words were cited, to this 
 effect: "When Sergius wrote that thei^ were 
 persons who asserted that in Christ there were 
 two conflicting wills, Honorius answered, Christ 
 had only one will, not two conflicting wills, that 
 of the flesh and that of the spirit, as we have 
 since the fall, but one alone which was natural 
 to His humanity. One only, we said, existed in 
 our Lord, not of the divinity and humanity to- 
 gether, but of the humanity alone.'^ " Qitum 
 enim Sergius scripsisset, esse, qui dicerent in 
 Christi duos contrarias voluntates, re^ondit 
 Honw^ius, unam voluntatem Oiristum habuisse, 
 71071 duos contrarias camiis el spiritus, sicut nos 
 habemus post j^eccatumj sed unam tanfum, quas 
 
 naturaliter ejiis humanitateni insigniret 
 
 Unam vohmtatefin diximus in Domino, non divini- 
 tatis et humanitatis, sed humanitatis dumtaxat.^^ 
 
 Now, it is St. Maximus, a martyr,* who attests 
 this declamtion of the Secretary, and says of him 
 that he was renowned throughout the West, for 
 holiness. We could desire no better testimony 
 in favor of Honorius. 
 
 * Dial, acl Pyrrhum ap. Harduin, Tom. iii. 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 345 
 
 But if we inspect the letters by themselves, 
 there are expressions that no interpretation can 
 so distort, as to prevent us from finding these 
 the true Catholic dogma. We find him saying : 
 " Because certainly the Divinity assumed our 
 nature, not our fault; that nature which was 
 created before sin, not that which was vitiated 
 by prevarication.'' " Quia profecto a Dimnitate 
 assumjjta est nostra natura, non culpa : ilia pro- 
 feotOy quce ante peccaium creata est, non guce post 
 jjra^varicationem vitiata.^^ Is not this a plain 
 profession of Catholic doctrine as against Mon- 
 othelism? That it was not uncalled for is 
 proved by the fact that even in our own days 
 there are found some, as the followers of Dr. 
 Guenther, who suppose such contradicting wills 
 to have existed in Christ, and even the possi- 
 bility of sin.* 
 
 But they ask us whether Honorius was not 
 condemned by the Sixth CEcumenical Synod, 
 and by Leo II, in his letters to the Bishops of 
 Spain and to the Emperor Pogonatus? We 
 answer, that in the first place, learned and trust- 
 worthy authors have proved that these acts of 
 the Council, as well as the letters of Leo, are 
 open to the gravest suspicions of having been 
 fraudulently changed by the Greeks. We might 
 
 * See Dr. Pabst, Temptations of Christ. 
 
348 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 therefore first require our adversaries to estab- 
 lish their historical sources on a more evident 
 and substantial basis. As they can not do it, we 
 shall pass over the difficulty, and admit, for dis- 
 cussion's sake, the objection as it is proposed by 
 them. Our answer is positive. The Fathers 
 of the Council, and St. Leo, did not condemn 
 Honorius for having promulgated an erroneous 
 definition of faith to the whole Church, nor yet 
 for having professed Monothelism, but simply 
 blamed him for not having used more vigorous 
 means for its suppression, and by imposing si- 
 lence on the disputants, having rather favored 
 and increased the spread of that heresy. This 
 is the very expression used by Leo in his letters 
 to the Spanish Bishops; "Who has not extin- 
 guished the flame of heresy in its very commence- 
 ment, as in his Apostolical dignity he should 
 have done, but by his negligence favored it." 
 " §m flammam hoeretici dogmatis, non ut decuerit 
 Apostolicam dignitatem extinxit^ sed negligentia 
 confovU f " 
 
 In this light, and in no other, did the Fathers 
 of the Council regard the fault of Honorius. 
 That they did not look upon him as an adherent 
 to Monothelism, is evident from the acts of the 
 Council, which we have agreed to admit as gen- 
 uine. How, otherwise, could Agatho, in the face 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 347 
 
 of the Council, assert that the Roman See had 
 never deviated from the path of truth? '' Hccg 
 ApostoUca Ecclesia nunquam a via veritatis in 
 quxilibet erroris parte dejiexa estJ^ How, other- 
 wise, could he insert, in his instructions to his 
 Legates, that, after the decision contained in hi3 
 dogmatical letter to the Council, the Fathers could 
 not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe 
 it as a rule of faith ? *' Non tamquam de incer- 
 tis contendere y sed ut certa et immutabilia com- 
 pendiosa definitione pro/erre." We have seen 
 with what joy the Fathers obeyed his decree. 
 If the Fathers of the Council had asserted or be- 
 lieved that Honorius had erred, they certainly 
 would have acted in another manner, and would 
 rather have invited a discussion of the decree, 
 since, if Honorius had erred, the same might 
 happen to Agatho. Nobody suggested such a 
 course — not even the defenders of Monothelism — 
 knowing too well that, when Rome had defini- 
 tively spoken, all hesitation and doubt had to 
 cease. 
 
 There is not, in any act of the Council, any 
 thing that leads us to believe that the Fathers 
 condemned Honorius for having held the Mo- 
 nothelistic error, but only that they blamed him 
 for having temporized with Sergius, and for hav- 
 ing listened to his advisers, imposing silence on 
 
348 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 the discussion, instead of speaking definitively, 
 and teaching the East and the whole Church 
 what they had to believe. 
 
 If the Greeks themselves believed that Hono- 
 rius had taught Monothelism, the Fathers of the 
 Seventh and Eighth General Councils in the East 
 would have acted differently from what they did. 
 And how otherwise, could the Papal Legates, in 
 the presence of the assembled Council, call upon 
 the Fathers to subscribe, for no other reason than 
 that neither reason nor faith permitted the dis- 
 cussion of an irrevocable decision. " Quoniam 
 de irreformabili judido quceriy nee ratio nee fides 
 permittiV 
 
 It is only under the same supposition that we 
 can account for the action of Adrian II toward 
 the Eighth General Council, in the time of Pho- 
 tius, in sending them a letter for their subscrip- 
 tion, which contained the following declarations : 
 " First of all, true salvation is found in keeping 
 the right rule of faith, which is to submit to the 
 decisions of the Apostolic See, according to the 
 promises of Christ to Peter, ' Thou art a rock,' '' 
 etc. That this is true is proved by the fact that 
 the Apostolic See has always preserved the Cath- 
 olic religion immaculate, and professed its holy 
 doctrine. '^Quia in Sede Apostolica immacidafa 
 est semper Catholica servata religio et sanda cele- 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 349 
 
 brata dodrina.^^ Photius certainly was not the 
 man to have been ignorant of the fall of Houo- 
 rius into Monothelism, and, knowing it, to have 
 foregone the advantage of objecting it against an 
 assertion that silenced him. Yet neither he nor 
 the Fathers of the Council had one word to say 
 of his case, nor objected to the " rule of faith ^' as 
 proposed by Adrian, but subscribed in the mem- 
 orable way that history has made known to us. 
 
 The Orientals, seeing their Patriarchs from 
 time to time passing under censure for heresy — 
 as well the Patriarch of Constantinople as those 
 of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, would 
 have been very glad to make use of such an op- 
 portunity, as our adversaries think was presented 
 in Honorius, to reproach the See of Rome with 
 the same fault, especially at the time of the great 
 schism. It may very well be, too, that this was 
 the secret source of whatever blame they at- 
 tached to Honorius in the Sixth Council. 
 
 We believe that we have made it as clear as 
 any historical fact can be, that, whatever our 
 adversaries may object, they can not, at least, 
 adduce Honorius as an instance of a Pope 
 *' teaching an error or giving an erroneous def- 
 initiony to the whole Church, in matters of faith, ''^ 
 The most they can show is a negligence, on his 
 part, in making use of his Apostolic power, 
 
350 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 under the circumstances in which he found him- 
 self. But this does not affect our thesis, which 
 was simply the infallibility of the Head of the 
 Church when teaching or defining a matter of 
 faith as taught by the Church, and explicitly 
 proposed as such to the faithful. That Honorius 
 did nothing to impugn this, is manifest from the 
 very charge which is made against him, the si- 
 lencing of discussion, and the refusal to define. 
 
 We might go even farther and say, that, had 
 the Fathers of the Council called him heretic, it 
 would not have been sufficient to disprove our 
 thesis, because, in those days, that name was 
 given not alone to those who held heretical opin- 
 ions, but even to such as seemed to favor here- 
 tics ; and because so long as they attacked Hon- 
 orius the man, not Honorius teaching or defin- 
 ing ex cathedra, it would have been still insuffi- 
 cient. 
 
 And, now, we propose to close our discussion 
 of this case, the most difficult and the strongest 
 that our adversaries could have selected from Ec- 
 clesiastical History, with these few reflections. 
 So far from having disturbed our thesis, it rather 
 strengthens it by sliowing how important and 
 necessary such a privilege in the Holy See be- 
 comes in times of dangerous heresy, and that the 
 Fathers of the Council looked upon it in this 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 351 
 
 light, and blamed Honorius for not exercising it. 
 And this blame becomes, then, considered in the 
 light of Divine Providence, a warning to his 
 successors to be vigilant in the exercise of the 
 powers intrusted to them. And, should we give 
 full license to suppositions, admitting that Hon- 
 orius was at heart a Monotheh'te, though this is 
 impossible, after a consideration of our quota- 
 tions, it would then show the overjx>wering di- 
 rection of the Holy Spirit in the Church, which, 
 in such a case, prevented a definition which 
 would have trenched upon the dogma of Catholic 
 faith. One thing more we would wish to say. 
 Even as the lives of some Popes have been such 
 as were unworthy of the Vicar of Christ, and 
 have thus proved that the veneration and hom- 
 age, which the Catholic world continued to pay 
 them, were awarded not to the man, but to the 
 office ; so, too, the submission and obedience uni- 
 formly given to the decisions of the Roman Pon- 
 tiff, apart from all question of whom he was that 
 occupied the Holy See, should convince us that 
 it is the office, and the prerogatives of that office, 
 that ask for and obtain the acquiescence of Cath- 
 olic faith to its Apostolic definitions and teachings. 
 It would be superfluous for us to consider 
 other cases sometimes insisted upon, since our 
 adversaries should be content with Bossuet's 
 
352 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 opinion, as found in his ^^ Defense," that they 
 are not worth discussing. 
 
 OBJECTION X. 
 
 " Why has not the Church defined this thesis 
 to be an article of faith f 
 
 Answer. — " Sigjia Gentibus " — " definitiones 
 hcereticis,'' that is, as St. Paul tells us, wonders 
 are for the heathen, who, in the beginning of the 
 conversion of the world, needed visible proofs 
 of the Divinity of the Gospel ; the faithful do 
 not need wonders, since they possess the gift of 
 faith, they do not need definitions, except on oc- 
 casions of doubt or discussion ; as a general rule, 
 the ordinary teaching of the Church suffices for 
 them. When, however, new errors are spring- 
 ing up, questions never before discussed are agi- 
 tated, or an obstiyate and dangerous denial of 
 truth in matters of faith is prevailing, then the 
 Church defines what is to be believed or rejected 
 by the faithful. But, even then, directed by the 
 Holy Ghost, her counsels are moderate, and her 
 Avays are wise and prudent, lest hasty and ill- 
 judged measures should convert erring souls 
 into obstinate heretics. In matters almost self- 
 evident, or so easily deducible from her ordinary 
 teaching, that the least reflecting mind can discern 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 353 
 
 the truth, the Church imitates the examples of the 
 Apostles. In the very outset they defined very 
 few articles — those contained in the ApostW 
 Creed, and the question agitated in the Council 
 of Jerusalem. 
 
 Now, in regard to the Infallibility of the 
 Pope, the Church has not yet met an occasion in 
 which such definition seemed practically neces- 
 sary, since they who refused obedience to a Papal 
 decision refused it likewise to the teaching of the 
 Universal Church; and they who obeyed the 
 Church have not refused assent to the voice of 
 the Holy See. It has never desired by an un- 
 called-for decision to provoke an untimely and 
 dangerous controversy, such as threatened, for 
 awhile, to arise in the midst of the Clergy of 
 France. 
 
 In the Council of Florence, w^hen there was a 
 fresh attempt to reconcile the schismatical East, 
 the wisest precautions were taken so to express 
 the truth, that while it should not be denied or 
 silenced, it would not be couched in such terms 
 as needlessly to excite the susceptibilities of the 
 Greeks. But even there the definition was such 
 as implicitly to embrace our thesis, since it was 
 declared one of the rights and privileges of the 
 Roman Pontiff, that he should be the Supreme 
 Judge in matters of faith. It says : '' That the 
 30 
 
354 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 Roman Pontiff is the Teacher of all the faithful, 
 and that on him, in the person of the blessed Pe- 
 ter, has been conferred full power, to feed, direct, 
 and govern the Universal Church/' ^' Definimus 
 Romanum PontiJiceTii omnium Christianorum Dog- 
 torem existere, et ipsi, in beato Petro, pascendi, 
 regendi, gubernandi universalem JEcclesiam ple~ 
 nam potestatem traditam esseJ^ 
 
 We ask whether this definition does not at 
 least implicitly contain our thesis, when it affirms 
 that the Roman Pontiff is the divinely-commis- 
 sioned Teacher of all Christians, of every one, 
 and therefore of the Bishops, who are preemi- 
 nently Christian. Just as Christ, addressing 
 Peter, said, " Feed my sheep — feed my lambs,'^ 
 He made him pastor of the pastors ; words which 
 our readers will remember that we quoted from 
 Eucherius. 
 
 The Council, defining, says, that Christ gave 
 to the Pope full power, "plenam potestatem/^ to 
 feed, to direct, and to govern the Universal 
 Church. If so, then He imposed lipon the Uni- 
 versal Church the obligation of following his 
 directions, teaching, and orders, and to the Uni- 
 versal Church, the Hierarchy certainly belongs. 
 Now, if with this obligation on the Church, 
 Christ had not conferred upon the Pope an in- 
 fallible freedom from error when teaching the 
 
OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 355 
 
 Universal Church, it would follow that He had 
 obliged the Church to obey that Roman Pon- 
 tiff' even though he led it into errors. If He 
 conferred the privilege, subject to the assent of 
 the Church dispersed or assembled, then He did 
 not confer, as the Council says, full power, "ple- 
 nam potestaiemJ^ 
 
 We may very well conclude, then, that if tlie 
 Church has not explicitly defined our thesis As 
 an article of faith, it has at least laid it down 
 j)lainly enough to satisfy any Catholic of clear, 
 logical mind, and of good will. 
 
 Well then, they may say, ever)' one who con- 
 tradicts your thesis should be accounted a here- 
 tic? This consequence, in common with all the- 
 ologians, we deny, because, to become a heretic, 
 the doctrine denied, must have been expressly 
 and explicitly defined to be an article of faith. 
 The Church most wisely and prudently refrains, 
 as we have said before, from some explicit decla- 
 rations, which might perhaps provoke an evil 
 which she always prefers rather to avert than to 
 repress. 
 
 If up to this time the Church, enlightened and 
 directed by the Holy Ghost, has not deemed it 
 expedient to define this Right and Privilege of 
 the Roman Pontiff, it does not follow that that 
 time will never come, and that the present may 
 
356 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 not be the very one that will induce her to do 
 so. And, indeed, some circumstances might lead 
 us to supix)se so, when we consider that the ene- 
 mies of the Church, now, more than ever, direct 
 their principal fury against the Authority of the 
 Pope. In trying to deprive him of his Tempo- 
 ral Sovereignty they really aspire to weaken his 
 spiritual authority. It would seem, therefore, that 
 every thing should be done to strengthen his posi- 
 tion, especially in his Spiritual dominion. And 
 then, even in the supposition which we made in 
 our Introduction, of his losing his temjwral sov- 
 ereignty, the faithful, remaining nnited to him as 
 their Spiritual Head, with increased devotion, 
 obedience, and love, with all the strength of liv- 
 ing faith, nothing could happen in the way of 
 salvation, which could endanger their souls, and 
 prevent their final triumph over all the visible 
 and invisible enemies of the Church. Persecution 
 itself would then prove a spiritual advantage, 
 and strenocthen them to fio-ht as true soldiers of 
 Christ, members of the Church militant, that 
 glorious battle, the reward of which is the crown 
 of heavenly victory and eternal bliss. 
 
 In the pressing danger of a fearful battle, no 
 one doubts the necessity of listening to the 
 command of a supreme chief, w4ien every help 
 and direction is required in the varied and 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 357 
 
 shifting scenes of doubtful struggle ; how much 
 more so, where the warfare is for an eternal 
 stake, and the commander is one of whom we 
 know that he can not err. 
 
 We, at least, therefore, should not be surprised, 
 if, in a General Council of all the Bishops assem- 
 bled around him, in oixler to consider the grievous 
 wants of our age, and the means to meet them, 
 the present Supreme Pontiff should make use of 
 their practical influence to promulgate this his 
 right and privilege in matters of faith. And, 
 we repeat it, the reverence and obedience which 
 we owe to the rest of the Episcopacy, would be 
 thereby not diminished, but increased; because, 
 however great the luster that surrounds the Ro- 
 man Ponfiff, it is reflected upon the entire Epis- 
 copacy, since he is invested with supernatural 
 dignity and power, because he is a Bishop — the 
 Bishop of Rome. As the personal dignity of 
 any one Bishop is not diminished but increased, 
 when standing in the assembly of hundreds of 
 his brethren, so neither is it lessened by the 
 power and the majesty of the Head of the 
 Church, which comes to him through his con- 
 secration to the Episcopacy, of which any one, 
 and every Bishop, is a partaker. So far from di- 
 minishing, it increases the.authority of the other 
 Bishops, as we have already observed, since it is 
 
358 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 evidently more glorious and independent to be 
 subject to 07ie than to many. And, in the sup- 
 position of the infallibility being invested in a 
 General Council, he would have to submit his 
 judgment in matters of faith to hundreds or 
 thousands of his equals^ and thereby proclaim 
 himself their inferior or subject. Whereas, in 
 our supposition, he could, as at the Council of 
 Rimini, stand up in judgment against a thousand 
 of his equals and refuse to submit, except to one 
 who is invested with the character of represent- 
 ing the Master and Founder of the Faith. 
 
 Moreover, it must be a satisfaction to every 
 Bishop, that the world sees, and must see, the 
 reason of his submitting, reasonably and per- 
 force, to the Supreme Pontiff when defining an 
 article of faith; that it is not through human 
 respect or servility, but through a simple sense 
 of duty, based upon a foundation, solid and 
 illustrious, such as we have endeavored to lay 
 bare in this our treatise. 
 
 So we think that we have placed the truth of 
 our thesis in the light of evidence so strong, that 
 no logical thinker, who believes in the infallibility 
 of the Church, can ever deny it without throwing 
 himself into the darkness of self-contradiction. 
 
 In publishing this treatise, our primary aim 
 was to address the Kev. Clergy; as it is a dog- 
 
OBJEcrriONS refuted. 359 
 
 matic flisciission. Nevertheless, the book has an 
 universal interest for all Catholics ; because it is 
 so closely connected with the interest and the 
 welfare of the Church, that they call their 
 mother. 
 
 Nay, even for the non-Catholics this discus- 
 sion may be of no little importance and useful- 
 ness; because all that we said in defense of our 
 thesis, refers to the great principle of a sufficient, 
 leading, and teaching authority. 
 
 This principle, thoroughly understood, settles 
 at once the right of a Divine Church to claim 
 an inflillible teaching authority, and, at the same 
 time, shows evidently the obligation on all to be- 
 long to this Divine Church. 
 
 In proof of this, we have only to call the 
 attention of every logical thinker to the analogy 
 existing between the natural and supernatural 
 order. 
 
 Now, even in the natural order, man could 
 not believe, as a rational being, without the 
 guidance of a leading teaching authority, which 
 is reason. Every one denying this would con- 
 demn himself to the lunatic asylum. 
 
 Therefore, by the force of his own reason, 
 man, " a priori,'^ should infer and expect, that if 
 God pleased to communicate, through Revelation 
 to mankind, truths belonging to the supernat- 
 
360 OBJECTIONS EEFUTED. 
 
 ural order, that He would have provided also 
 a sufficient leading and teaching authority for 
 his guidance. 
 
 But this sufficient teaching authority, in re- 
 gard to truths belonging to the supernatural 
 order, must be of an infallible character; be- 
 cause, as the supernatural order surpasses the 
 sphere of his reason, in order to believe reason- 
 ably he must have an infallible guide, whom 
 he can trust entirely, as he, for himself, abso- 
 lutely can not decide on the tenets of revealed 
 truth. An uncertain and fallible authority in 
 this regard would be no authority at all; be- 
 cause, as it could err in one tenet, it could err 
 in another, and so in all. 
 
 Therefore, any logical mind must, " a j^riori/' 
 expect that a Divine Church, teaching truths 
 belonging to the supernatural order, must bring 
 with it the claims of an infallible teaching au- 
 thority; and that any Church not claiming such 
 authority gives up at once all right to be con- 
 sidered a Divine Church. 
 
 This logical inference, rightly appreciated, 
 may become, for a sincere inquirer after truth, 
 a powerful motive for a serious examination, and 
 bring him finally to the recognition of the Di- 
 vine character of the Catholic Church, claiming 
 that privilege of infallible authority. 
 
OBJECTIONS REPUTED. 361 
 
 But this result, in favor of the Catholic 
 Church would at once be paralyzed and stopped 
 for a logical mind, if he would be required to 
 adopt the opinion of our adversaries, placing 
 the prerogative of infallibility in the authority 
 of a General Council, or in the consent of the 
 " Church dispersed.'^ 
 
 According to what we said, he would have 
 the right to sneer at an Infallible Judge who 
 has no tribunal to which, at all times, the faith- 
 ful could address themselves, and who has no 
 organ to answer distinctly and with infallible 
 certainty; and hence would have the right to 
 say, that God had provided for man in the 
 natural order far better than in the supernatural. 
 A stringently logical mind would look to such 
 an infallible guidance as mockery ; because, the 
 bearer of that infallibility would be, in many 
 cases, without ears to hear, and would never 
 have a tongue to give a final answer. 
 
 Moreover, as the Church, claiming to be infal- 
 lible, has, in the Council of Florence, defined 
 the Pope to be her teacher, in case he could 
 err, we would have an infallible Church with a 
 fallible teacher, and the disciple would know 
 more than the teacher, which kind of contradic- 
 tions and absurdities a logical mind can never 
 admit. 
 
362 OBJECTIOKS REFUTED. 
 
 On the contrary, by adopting our thesis, rea- 
 son admires the wisdom of the Divine founder 
 of the Holy Church, who adapted the means so 
 well and efficiently to reach the end, giving to 
 the Church a visible and accessible tribunal in 
 matters of faith, and an unerriug, visible, and 
 accessible Jud^e. 
 
 •The reflecting reader will easily perceive, that 
 this our last remark, is an additional argument 
 to the preceding chapter on the "Ratio Theo- 
 logica," or, ''Evidence from Reason,'^ and com- 
 pletes its logical and invincible strength. 
 
 All that our opponents object, or can object to 
 our thesis, are but as shooting stars or baleful me- 
 teors, gleaming or glaring for a moment in the 
 firmament of truth, then disappearing in the 
 darkness, w^hile the fixed and glowing stars of 
 solid reason and argument, which they seemed 
 for awhile to equal or outshine, remain in all 
 their cloudless brilliancv. And crowning: all 
 the glories in that firmament of truth is the 
 steady, brilliant light of tradition — that com- 
 mon living conscience of the Church, of all na- 
 tions and peoples, succeeding from generation to 
 generation. Nineteen hundred years have almost 
 elapsed, and yet, echoing through the centuries, 
 we hear the hallowed voice of Christ : 
 
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 363 
 
 " Peter, thou art a rock, and on this 
 
 ROCK I WILL BUILD MY ChURCH, AND THE 
 GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST 
 IT. To THEE SHALL I COMMIT THE KEYS OF 
 
 HEAVEN. Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." 
 And those gates of hell have never prevailed, 
 and still that rock endures, in the time of Pius 
 IX, as in the days of Peter. The keys of 
 Heaven are still held on earth, and now, as then, 
 the faithful turn listening ears and wistful looks 
 to the voice and sign of Pius IX as they would 
 to those of Peter, when he warns them of im- 
 pending evils or directs them to wholesome pas- 
 turage. Still, now as then, Peter confirms his 
 brethren, as when the assembled Bishops raised* 
 their acclaim to Pius IX, on the occasion of the 
 proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate 
 Conception, and used the self-same words; 
 ^' Speak, Peter; confirm thy brethren.^' 
 
 Now, as nineteen hundred years ago, the 
 Church remains the same, and the reason is found 
 in the words of St. Augustin, of which our thesis 
 is the practical development. Number the Su- 
 preme Pontiifs on the Chair of Peter — ipsa est 
 petra — that is, the rock on which the Church is 
 built. Thus, and thus only, does the Church 
 remain infallible. Deprive her of her Head, 
 with all its powers and privileges, and all 
 
364 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 
 
 her majesty and intrepid firmness depart with 
 them. 
 
 And so long as the Church is permitted to 
 pray, as on the Parasceve, "Almighty and 
 Eternal God, in whose judgment all things are 
 founded, mercifully receive our prayers, that the 
 Christian people who are governed by Thee, their 
 Author, under so great 'a Pontiff— su6 tanto 
 Fontifice — may reap the reward of their fidelity " — 
 so long as that prayer is heard, as heard it will 
 be, and the Church enjoys the protection of such 
 a Leader and Teacher, she has nothing to fear — 
 not even in the gloom that shall herald and ac- 
 company the great persecutor. Antichrist. 
 » The children of the Church will always look 
 calmly to the future, knowing that the end shall 
 surely come, when all the sons of men shall be- 
 hold, with the same reverence, the Supreme Pon- 
 tiff; when there shall be only one fold and one 
 Shepherd, the Representative on earth of the 
 One, Incarnate, Infallible, Eternal 
 Truth. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, 
 or on the date to which renewed. Renewals only: 
 
 Tel. No. 642-3405 
 Renewals may be made 4 days prior to date due. 
 Renewed books are subjea to immediate recall. 
 
 \ ? a ;> 
 
 ^^~ ^jn-m^ 
 
 R£C'D U 
 
 mi m 4 
 
 m.at FEBi 7r 
 
 T 7)91 A-^nm 9 '71 General Library