Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

This question is a prelude to the question concerning the primacy of the supreme Pontiff. For since the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, whatever authority Peter had in the Church, the Roman Pontiff has. Hence what I shall say for the primacy of St. Peter proves the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

[A threefold primacy is distinguished : of honor, of excellence, and of jurisdiction. The primacy of honor or dignity is that by which someone holds the first place among others, but without any superior preceptive power; e.g., in a deliberative assembly composed of equals, the president exercises this primacy, directing and moderating the discussions, but issuing no command. The primacy of excellence belongs to one who surpasses others by some gift, and only under this respect; in which sense Cicero is called the prince of orators. The primacy of jurisdiction is that by which someone not only holds the first place in an assembly, or excels others by some gift, but is in fact constituted superior to the rest and wields over them preceptive authority. Such is he who has the use of a threefold power, namely legislative, judicial, and coercive [continuat in p. 243]; and such is the primacy bestowed by Christ on blessed Peter, and to be handed on to his successors.

Schismatics and heretics would readily have granted the Roman Pontiff some primacy of honor, or would even admit that he once had the power of jurisdiction, but only by human law, namely granted to him by the Church, which could by equal right take it away. Thus think the Greeks, who were subject to the Roman Pontiff until the time of the patriarch Photius, around the year 887, who invaded the see of Constantinople and was condemned by the Roman Pontiff. He was the first among the Orientals openly to deny the doctrinal authority of the Pope; in practice all heretics and schismatics separated from the Church have done so. In the West Berengarius was the first to deny the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, in the eleventh century, derisively calling the Pope Pompilicus. He had imitators in impiety in Wycliffe, in the fourteenth century, whom Luther and Calvin followed, all maintaining that the Apostles were equals of Peter, whose companion only, and not lord, they would have him be. Indeed Catholics too did not call him lord, but affirmed with certainty that he was superior to the other Apostles. Since the authority of the Roman Pontiff can be nothing other than that which belonged to Peter himself, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, they spare no effort to wrest from Peter his primacy of jurisdiction over the other Apostles. The Jansenists and the followers of Richer and Febronius so limited the primacy that it almost vanished, had their doctrine prevailed. It was also attacked injuriously by the de ecclesiastica potestate declaration of the Gallican Clergy of 19 March 1682, of which below. The present-day schismatics who impudently adorn themselves with the name of Old Catholics attack the primacy more or less theoretically, but in practice, by their pertinacious rebellion, they utterly undermine it.]

I say : Peter, and he alone, is instituted by Christ the visible head of the whole Church : that is, the primacy was conferred by Christ on Peter alone, not only of honor and dignity, but of power and jurisdiction over the Apostles and the universal Church.

[It is of faith, defined by the Vatican synod, constit. Pastor aeternus, cap. 1, on the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter : « We teach and declare, according to the testimony of the Gospel, that the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised and conferred on blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For to one alone, Simon, to whom he had already said, Ioann., I, 42 : Thou shalt be called Cephas, after he had made his confession, Matth., XVI, 16-19, saying : Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, the Lord addressed solemnly these words : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath 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. And to Simon Peter alone Jesus conferred, after his resurrection, the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and ruler over his whole fold, saying, Ioann., XXI, 15-17 : Feed my lambs : feed my sheep. Hence, against so manifest a doctrine of the sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic Church, are plainly set the perverse opinions of those who, perverting the form of government constituted by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter alone, before the other Apostles, whether taken singly or all together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or who affirm that the same primacy was conferred not immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but on the Church, and through the Church on him, as the minister of the Church herself. » If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ the Lord prince of all the Apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that he received directly and immediately from the same our Lord Jesus Christ only the primacy of honor, but not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction : let him be anathema.]

Proof. 1° from two passages of Scripture. The first is Matth., [continuat in p. 245]

XVI, 17-19, where Christ, to Peter who confessed before the other Apostles that he was the Son of God, straightway repaying the office and reward of that confession, says to him : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath 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. In which words, taken in their obvious sense, it is signified that the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church is conferred on Peter under a twofold metaphor, namely of foundation and of keys; for what is the foundation in a building, that is the head in a body, the ruler in a city, the king in a kingdom, the father of the family in a house; and he to whom the keys are handed over is himself instituted king or governor of the city. — I subjoin. Yet these words can fit no one else among the Apostles except Peter. Therefore. — Proof of min. None besides Peter had confessed the divinity of Christ; none besides him could be called Simon Bar-Jona, that is, son of Jona; none besides him was called Cephas, which is interpreted rock, stone or crag. For Christ did not say, as the latin version has it : Thou art Petrus, but, speaking in Syriac : Thou art Cephas, that is, thou art the Rock or Stone, and upon this stone or this rock — where the pronoun hanc clearly indicates the rock mentioned shortly before, as if he said : « Thou art the Rock upon which I will build my Church. » But the latin interpreter rendered it : Thou art Petrus, and not : Thou art Petra, because he followed the greek codex, which has Petros; yet in greek both petros and petra signify stone, and it seemed to the latin interpreter more fitting to attribute to a man the masculine name Petrus than the feminine Petra. Therefore by these words the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church was granted to Peter alone.

So also nearly all the holy Fathers interpret this passage [continuat in p. 246], especially Augustine, whom the sectaries set against us, namely in Psal. LXIX and serm. 29 de Sanctis¹. The other passage of the Gospel is Ioann., XXI, 15-17, where Christ, what he had promised Peter, in the passage cited from Matth., XVI, on account of the excellent confession of his divinity, confers in fact after the threefold confession of singular love : Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these ?... Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep. It is evident 1° that these words, as before, cannot fit anyone but Peter; for he is designated by his own name and his father's, Simon son of John; three times Christ questions him, so that the threefold confession might answer the threefold denial; questioning him alone, he excludes the others, saying : Lovest thou me more than these; and therefore Peter himself answered in his own name, not in the name of others : Lord, thou knowest that I love thee, since otherwise he could not know whether the others loved him. It is evident 2° that the ruling of the universal Church was entrusted to him. For he does not commit to him these or those sheep or lambs, but indefinitely my sheep, my lambs. Now all the faithful are the sheep of Christ, or lambs : by lambs is signified the people, by sheep the pastors. Hence Bernard., lib. II de Consider., cap. 8 : « To whom, I say, not to bishops only, but even to the Apostles, were all the sheep so absolutely and indistinguishably committed ? If thou lovest me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which ? The peoples of this or that city, region, or particular kingdom ? My sheep, he says. To whom is it not plain that he designated not some, but assigned all ? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished. » And thus the holy Fathers commonly expound this passage, and consequently the conclusion is confirmed by tradition, to which the council of Chalcedon also bears witness, act. 3, where it says of St. Peter : « Who is the rock and foundation of the catholic Church, and the basis of the right faith. »

Proof. 2° by theological reason². Christ instituted in the Church a monarchical regime, in which there exists one supreme prince who administers the sum of affairs with full authority. Therefore he did not institute all the Apostles equally princes and rulers of the whole [continuat in p. 247]

Church, but only one among them. But who is this one, unless Peter, as appears from what has been said ? Nor do the heretics assign another.

The antecedent is proved in several ways. 1° The Church, Daniel, II, 44, is compared to a kingdom; Cantic., VI, 3, to an army in array; I Petr., III, 21, to a ship; Ioann., X, 16, to a sheepfold. Yet all these are governed by one supreme moderator. Therefore.

2° It must be doubted by no one that the regime of the Church is most excellently ordered³ , being disposed by him through whom kings reign and lawgivers decree just things, Prov., VIII, 15. Yet the best regime of a multitude is that it be ruled by one. Therefore. — Proof of min. from the end of the regime, which is peace and unity of subjects. Yet one is a fitter cause of unity and concord than many; because one is per se the cause of unity, while many are so only per accidens, insofar as they are somehow united; for it is evident that many cannot unite and bring into concord unless they themselves first in some way agree and unite. Therefore.

The objections are solved.

You object 1° : From the praised chapter XVI of Matth. nothing can be drawn for the primacy of St. Peter, because by these words : And upon this rock, Peter is not understood, but Christ, as Aug. teaches, tract. ultimo in Ioann., n. 5, saying : « Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. » Therefore.

I answer. Augustine indeed handed down both expositions, and he acknowledges this himself in lib. I Retract., c. 21, n. 1, where he prefers neither to the other but leaves it to the judgment of the reader : « Of these two opinions, he says, let the reader choose which is the more probable, » and he says that ours « is sung by the mouth of many in the verses of most blessed Ambrose; » and since it is far more conformable to the text, as has been proved, and is commonly handed down by the holy Fathers, it is altogether to be preferred.

If you ask why Augustine handed down this other exposition, as here, in several places, [continuat in p. 248]

many answer that it happened through ignorance of the hebrew or syriac language. For the reason which the holy Doctor gives in the cited passage of the Retract. why he referred these words : And upon this rock, to Christ and not to Peter, is because, he says, « it was not said to him (Peter) : Thou art petra, but : Thou art Petrus; now Petra was Christ, » judging that Cephas does not signify rock, but something derived from rock, as if petrine, as stony from stone; and for this reason he judged the latin interpreter to have rendered : Thou art Petrus, and not : Thou art Petra. And because the Church was to be built upon the rock, and not upon something petrine, St. Augustine judged that by that rock Peter was not understood, but Christ, of whom it was said : Petra was Christ. If therefore the holy Doctor had noticed that Cephas signifies nothing other than rock or stone, and that Christ said : Thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, doubtless he would everywhere have followed our exposition.

You object 2° : Christ, Matth., XVIII, 18, conferred on the other Apostles a power equal to Peter's, when he said to them : Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, etc. Therefore.

I answer. Given that the power of binding and loosing is equal to the power of the keys, which Cajetan denies, cap. 5 and 7 de Primatu summi Pontificis — I distinguish the antecedent. That Christ granted to the Apostles a power equal to Peter's, and in the same manner, I deny; and in a different manner, I concede. For he granted it to the Apostles as delegates, to Peter as ordinary shepherd; to the Apostles dependently and subordinately to Peter, to him independently and supremely. For why, as I observed, in Matth. XVI, 19, is it said to Peter alone before the others : To thee will I give the keys, and in Ioann., XXI, 17 : Feed my sheep, and that on account of his singular faith and love, if he received nothing above the rest ?

I insist 1° : Christ, Matth., XXVII, 13, and Ioann., XX, 21, sends all the Apostles equally, and says alike to all : As the living Father hath sent me, I also send you. Going therefore teach all nations, etc. Likewise in Act., VIII, 14, Peter was sent by the Apostles; but a superior is not sent by inferiors.

I answer. to the first, that from the mission of the Apostles it follows that they were [continuat in p. 249] equal to Peter in the character of apostolate, not in that of pastoral office, as has been said, and will be explained more fully presently.

To the second. The Apostles sent Peter, not by command, but by counsel; not ordering, but consulting and persuading : just as chapters sometimes send their superiors, nay the counselors of a king send the king, on account of the gravity and exigency of the affairs to be transacted.

I insist 2° : St. Cyprian, lib. II de Unitate Ecclesiae, says : « Doubtless the other Apostles were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of honor and power. But the beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, that one Church may be shown. » Therefore.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. That St. Cyprian says the other Apostles were equal to Peter in partnership of honor and power in the character of apostolate, I concede; in that of episcopate or pastoral office, I deny. Therefore as to the authority of apostolate the other Apostles were equal to Peter, because they could preach anywhere among the nations, administer the sacraments, bestow the Holy Spirit, work miracles, write the sacred books, found Churches, make laws, and create bishops : but as delegates and by extraordinary law, subordinate to St. Peter. But Peter could do these things as ordinary shepherd, by his own ordinary law, not subordinate to the other Apostles, so that he was not himself bound by their laws, while they were bound by the laws of Peter, if he should enact any for stilling schism, repressing heresy, or otherwise for the common good of the Church : in almost the same way as if the Pope were to send a legate to the East Indies with full power to do everything that should seem necessary or useful for those missions; he himself could do what the Pope can, but under a different law, the former as delegate and by extraordinary law, the Pope as ordinary shepherd and by ordinary law. That such is the mind of Cyprian the very words objected indicate : « But, he says, the beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, that one Church may be shown. » Peter therefore has the primacy for preserving the unity of the Church, which unity could not be preserved if there were no primacy [continuat in p. 250] of authority and power for stilling dissensions, removing schisms, and eliminating the other evils that could wound the unity of the Church. Likewise in the same lib. II de Unit. Ecclesiae, he openly declares that these words of Christ : Upon this rock I will build my Church, are referred personally to Peter, and that « upon one Peter the Church has been built. »

Therefore in three respects the power of Peter excels the power of the other Apostles : 1° Because it was in Peter as in an ordinary shepherd, to be transmitted to his successors; while in the Apostles it was as in delegates, insofar as it was necessary for exercising the apostolate throughout the world, nor could they easily convene Peter in emergent cases on account of the distance of places. 2° Because the power of Peter extended over the other Apostles, not the power of the Apostles over Peter. 3° Because Peter could make general laws for the whole Church, while the Apostles made particular laws for the churches which they founded.

: The Roman Pontiff has the primacy of authority over the whole Church¹ . It is of faith.

Proof. 1° from the preceding article. The whole authority of Peter, that of shepherd and ruler of the whole Church, which was supreme, as has been said, was transmitted to his successor. Yet the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. Therefore. — The major is evident; because, since Christ founded the Church to endure forever, he ought to have instituted in it a permanent form of regime, which would not cease with the death of Peter but would pass to his successors. — The minor also is evident. For all those of the Fathers who compiled the catalogue of the Roman Pontific [continuat in p. 251] runt, as Optatus Milevit., lib. II contr. Parmen.; Aug., Epist. ad Generosam, 53² , etc., derive the origin of the succession from St. Peter. This will be still more evident from the councils and Fathers to be cited shortly. Hence whatever proves the primacy of St. Peter proves at the same time the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

Proof. 2° from the councils. The council of Sardica, in the year 347, in its synodical letter to Pope Julius : « This, it says, will seem best and most exceedingly fitting, if the priests of the Lord refer each matter from every province to the head, that is, the see of the Apostle Peter. »

In the council of Ephesus, in the year 431, the Fathers say they were « constrained » by the letter of Pope Celestine to pass sentence on Nestorius.

In the council of Chalcedon, in the year 451, act. 2, after the letter of St. Leo had been read, the most reverend Bishops cried out : « This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. Thus we all believe, thus believe the orthodox. Anathema to him who does not so believe. PETER HAS THUS SPOKEN THROUGH LEO, so taught the Apostles. »

In action 16 the most glorious judges said : « From what has been done and deposited by each one, we perceive that all primacy and pre-eminent honor is preserved, according to the canons, for the archbishop of ancient Rome, most beloved of God. »

Finally the Fathers of Chalcedon beg St. Leo to deign to confirm by his consent what they had decreed.

In the sixth general council, Constantinople III, in the year 680, the Fathers, in their synodical letters to Pope Agatho, which exist after act. 18, address him among other things as follows : « Having gladly read through the letters of your confession sent by your paternal Beatitude, which we acknowledge to have been divinely written from the supreme summit of the Apostles, by which we repelled the sect of manifold error lately sprung up. » And below : « We have clearly preached with you the resplendent light of orthodox faith; we beseech your paternal Holiness to confirm it again through your honored writings. »

[The fourth council of the Lateran, in the year 1215, decrees that « the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the principate of ordinary power over all others, as the mother and mistress of all the faithful in Christ. »

The second council of Lyons, in the year 1274, defined « that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of the prince of the Apostles, the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church. »]

The council of Constance, in the year 1414, condemns this sentence of Wycliffe : « That the Pope is supreme Pontiff is ridiculous. And Christ approved such dignity neither in Peter nor in anyone else. » Likewise this tenth article of John Hus : « Nor is the Roman Pontiff the head of the Church. » And this twenty-seventh : « There is not a spark of appearance that there ought to be one head ruling the Church in spirituals. »

The council of Florence, in the year 1439, where in several colloquies the question concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff was debated between the Orientals and the Occidentals — which primacy the Orientals denied since the schism of Photius — at length defined, by the common consent of both parties, in the decree of Union : « We define that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff are the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in blessed Peter, full power was handed over by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church, as is contained also in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. »

The council of Trent, sess. XIV, cap. 7 : « Worthily, it says, have the supreme Pontiffs, on account of the supreme power handed over to them in the whole Church, been able by their particular judgment to reserve certain more grievous causes of crimes. »

[This truth the Vatican synod defined more explicitly, constit. Pastor aeternus, cap. 2, On the perpetuity of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs : « But that which in the blessed Apostle Peter the prince of shepherds and the great shep[continuat in p. 253] herd of sheep the Lord Jesus Christ instituted for the perpetual salvation and everlasting good of the Church, must of necessity endure without interruption in the same author in the Church, which, founded upon rock, will stand firm until the end of the ages. To no one indeed is it doubtful, nay it is known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, column of faith, and foundation of the catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind; and that he lives and presides and exercises judgment to this very time and always in his successors the Bishops of the holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood³ . Whence whoever succeeds to this chair obtains by Christ's own institution the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. Therefore the disposition of truth abides, and blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock he received, has not abandoned the governance of the Church he took up⁴ . For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church to come to the Roman Church, on account of her mightier principality, that is, those who are everywhere the faithful, so that, joined together in that See from which the venerable rights of communion flow forth to all, like members in a head, they might coalesce into one compact of body⁵ .

« If anyone therefore shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy : let him be anathema. » ]

Proof. 3° from the Fathers. One may read St. Irenaeus, lib. III adversus Haereses, c. 3; Tertullian, adversus Praxeam; St. Cyprian, epist. 45 and epist. 67.

St. Dionysius of Alexandria, accused of heresy, cleared himself before the Roman Pontiff, as Athanasius relates, lib. de synodis Arimini et Seleuciae. [continuat in p. 254]

Eastern councils were held invalid unless confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, as Socrates testifies, lib. I Hist., c. 5, and Sozomen, lib. III, c. 9.

Pope Julius restored Athanasius, thrust down from his see, and summoned his enemies to the apostolic tribunal. In Athanas., Apolog. II.

St. Chrysostom, Epist. 1 ad Innoc. I, asks him to rescind the sentence of excommunication passed upon him by Theophilus of Alexandria.

St. Jerome, epist. 57, ad Damasum Papam : « With your Beatitude, he says, that is, with the chair of Peter, I am associated in communion. I know the Church built upon that rock. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane; if anyone be not in the ark of Noe, he shall perish while the flood reigns... I know no Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoever gathers not with thee scatters; that is, whoever is not of Christ is of Antichrist. »

St. Aug., epist. 190⁶ , n. 23, and epist. 43⁷ , n. 7, and lib. I ad Bonifac., c. 1, n. 1.

[In epist. 43, n. 7, Aug. says : « The Roman Church, in which the primacy of the Apostolic Chair has ever flourished. » ]

St. Prosper, carmine de Ingratis.

« Sedes Roma Petri, qua pastoralis honoris Facta caput mundo, quidquid non possidet armis, Relligione tenet. »

St. Bernard, lib. II de Considerat., cap. 8, n. 15, to Pope Eugene : « Thou, he says, art Peter by power, Christ by anointing. Indeed there are also others who are gatekeepers of heaven and shepherds of flocks; but thou hast inherited the name so much the more gloriously as more distinctly above the rest. They have their flocks assigned, single ones to each; to thee all were entrusted, to one alone the one flock. Nor now only of sheep, but of all shepherds art thou the one Pas[continuat in p. 255] tor. » And after proving this, just as we did, from Matth., XVI, 17-19, and Ioann., XXI, 15-17, he concludes thus, n. 16 : « Thy privilege therefore stands unshaken, both in the keys given and in the sheep commended. »

The Gallican Clergy, in the assembly held at Paris in the year 1681, speaks thus of the Roman Pontiff : « He is the head of the Church, the center of unity. He holds over us the Primacy of authority and jurisdiction conferred on him by Christ Jesus in the person of Peter. Whoever dissented from this truth would be schismatical, nay even heretical. » The same is taught by Gerson, de Statibus ecclesiasticis, considerat. 1ª.

From these councils, holy Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers therefore we have it, that the Roman See is the Chair of Peter, that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, that the Roman Pontiffs decided causes of faith as supreme judges, received appeals of deposed bishops, restored to their sees those unjustly deprived of them, punished with censures the prelates of other churches, even of the East, or endowed them with communion, approved or rejected councils, and finally declared the law over the other patriarchs and bishops. But that these are invincible arguments of the primacy of jurisdiction no one fails to see.

And hence I form the argument thus. Such has been and always was, constant from the beginning, the faith of the Church, that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, is the supreme shepherd and head of the whole Church. Yet the Church cannot err in acknowledging her supreme shepherd and head; otherwise the gates of hell shall prevail against her. Therefore.

The objections are solved.

You object 1° : Canon 6 of the first council of Nicaea runs thus : « Let the ancient custom be observed throughout Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria have power over all these; because a like custom belongs to the bishop of the city of Rome. Likewise also at Antioch, etc. » By which words the power of the Roman Pontiff seems to be restricted to certain provinces, just like the power of the bishop of Alexandria.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. By these words the power of the Roman [continuat in p. 256]

Pontiff is restricted, as he is the Roman Pontiff and successor of Peter, I deny; as he is Patriarch of the West, I concede. For the understanding of this it must be observed that there are several prerogatives in the Roman Pontiff : 1° He is the ordinary bishop of the city of Rome and its territory. 2° He is metropolitan of the Roman province. 3° He is primate, or, as it was once called, exarch or greater metropolitan of the provinces of Italy, to which the inferior metropolitans are subordinate. 4° He is Patriarch of the West. 5° He is head of the whole Church and supreme shepherd. The comparison therefore which the council of Nicaea institutes between the Roman bishop and the Alexandrian is not with respect to all the rights of the Roman Pontiff, but only with respect to patriarchal rights, whose chief was the right of ordinations, especially of metropolitans, throughout the whole patriarchy. Melitius gave occasion for this canon. For when Melitius had disturbed the ancient custom, according to which the bishop of Alexandria celebrated sacred ordinations in the dioceses of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, or granted license to celebrate them, by making a schism; the council of Nicaea, issuing the sixth canon, willed to assert the privileges claimed by the bishop of Alexandria and others.

I insist : The patriarchal dignity is posterior to the council of Nicaea, nor does that canon mention patriarchs, but metropolitans only. Therefore the comparison between the Roman bishop and the Alexandrian is not with respect to patriarchal rights.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. The patriarchal dignity is posterior to Nicaea as to the name, I concede; as to the thing, I deny. For before the council the bishop of Alexandria enjoyed patriarchal rights, in which Meletius Lycopolitanus had disturbed him, who attempted to make ordinations in those provinces. Moreover the name metropolitan was used in the canon because at that time it was common, not only to ordinary metropolitans, but also to primates and patriarchs.

You object 2° from the right of appeals denied to the Roman Pontiff. If the Roman Pontiff had the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, appeal could be made to him from the whole christian world. Yet the consequent is false. Therefore they err [continuat in p. 257]. — Proof of min. 1° The Concilium Milevitanum, in Africa, can. 22, forbids overseas appeals, that is, to the Roman See, in these words : « If any should think to appeal, let them appeal only to the African councils, or to the primates of their provinces. But those who should think appeal ought to be made overseas, let them be received into communion by no one within Africa. » Therefore. — 2° The African bishops, among whom Augustine lived, in the sixth council of Carthage, in the year 418, refused to admit appeals to Pope Zosimus, which his legates themselves strove to vindicate, alleging the canons of the council of Nicaea.

I answer. I deny the minor, as appears from the proofs of the conclusion, to which add canons 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the council of Sardica, in the year 347, among which the fourth runs thus : « If any bishop should have been deposed by the judgment of the bishops who are in the neighborhood, and say again that the business of defense belongs to him, let another not first be substituted in his chair until the Roman Pontiff, the cause having been examined, shall have passed sentence. »

Moreover it must be observed that, although the right of appeals is annexed to the primacy of the Apostolic See, nevertheless the Roman Pontiffs have exercised it neither always nor toward all; but, according to the usage introduced in several provinces, they consented that the causes of simple priests and inferior clerics be defined ultimately either by bishops, or by provincial councils, or by primates; lest occasion be given to clerics for wandering about, or lest from the excessive frequency of appeals the authority of bishops be broken down, and those who judged in the first instance be vexed undeservedly, and causes otherwise easy be drawn out to great length. These things premised,

I answer. to the first proof. The council of Milevis does not forbid the appeals of all, but only of priests, deacons and inferior clerics. And this according to the received usage, with the consent of the supreme Pontiff, for the reasons given in the foregoing observation.

To the second proof, I answer that the African Church attacked not the right, but the usage of appeals to the Roman See, deceived indeed for some time by an error of fact; but a usage which, the error being not long after removed, she acknowledged and venerated. It is explained. When Apiarius, an African priest, appealed to the Roman See, and the African bishops took this ill, Pope Zosimus, in the commonitory which he had given to his legates to the council of Carthage, grounded the usage of appeals to the Roman See on the Nicaene canons, which however were not Nicaene but Sardican. But it was customary at the Apostolic See to cite the Sardican canons under the name of the Nicaene, because the council of Sardica was always held as an appendix of the council of Nicaea, since in the Sardican no canon of faith was issued, but only the Nicaene faith confirmed and its defenders vindicated. But the Africans not attending to this searched everywhere the canons of the council of Nicaea, both in the codex which they had among themselves and in the codices preserved at Constantinople and Alexandria, etc.; and when they did not find in them the canons cited by Zosimus, they concluded that the usage of appeals to the Roman See was founded on spurious canons, and therefore they attacked it, yet not defining anything to the contrary, but asking Boniface and Celestine, successors of Zosimus (for he had died after the departure of the legates), various reasons being adduced, that henceforth they not receive the appeals of Africans. But these things availed nothing, since Celestine himself received the repeated appeal of the same Apiarius, and the African bishops themselves, freed from error, carried the appeal of Anthony, bishop of Fussala, to the Holy See, as appears from Augustine himself, then foremost among the Africans, Epist. 209, to the same Celestine.

You object 3°: The authority of bishops is immediately from God, just like the authority of the Pope, according to that saying, Act., xx, 28: The Holy Spirit hath placed bishops to rule the Church of God. And St. Hieron., Epist. ad Evagrium, says : « If authority is sought, the world is greater than the city. Why do you bring me the custom of one city? Wherever there be a bishop, whether at Rome or

⁸

at Constantinople, or at Regium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the same merit and of the same priesthood. » Therefore.

To the first I answer, with Sylvius, lib. IV Controvers., art. 5, Soto, Bannez, Bellarmine, etc. — I distinguish the antecedent. That the authority of bishops is immediately from God, if by authority is understood the power of order, I concede. For just as Christ baptizes principally, so he consecrates principally and confers character. That it is so, if by authority is understood the power of jurisdiction, I deny. For bishops hold this from God through the mediation of the supreme Pontiff; because, since the regime of the Church is monarchical, all jurisdiction resides in one, as in a head, from whom it is derived to others, as St. Leo says, Epist. 89 : « Of this office the sacrament, he says, the Lord willed to belong to all the Apostles' charge in such a way that he placed it principally in most blessed Peter, the summit of all the Apostles, that from him himself, as from a kind of head, he might pour forth his gifts as upon the whole body. »

Hence bishops nominated or elected have no jurisdiction unless they are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. So holds the Author in IV Sentent., dist. 20, art. 4; IV Contra gent., c. 76, where he says that Christ promised to Peter alone : « To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that the power of the keys might be shown to be derived through him to the others, for preserving the unity of the Church. »

Certain others, as Natalis Alexander, saec. I, dissert. 4; Gerson, de Statibus ecclesiasticis, consid. 3, seem to acknowledge that the jurisdiction of bishops is also immediately from God, yet depend as to its exercise upon the supreme Pontiff, which differs little.

Nor does it stand in the way that it is said, Act., xx, 28: Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops, etc. For we do not deny that the Holy Spirit institutes bishops, but through the mediation of the supreme head of the Church, just as those whom the Apostle addressed he instituted through the ministry of the Apostles.

To the second, St. Jerome does not speak there of the authority of the supreme Pontiff, but of the authority of the custom of the city of Rome, which he says is less than the authority of the custom of the whole Church. For he writes against a custom introduced by the deacons of Rome, who, since they were few and had charge of the ecclesiastical treasury, set themselves above the priests against the law and the ancient custom of the whole world. What he adds, that bishops everywhere are « of the same merit », must be understood of the character of order, not of the power of jurisdiction. Compare the text of Jerome in the proofs.

[As to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, it helps to cite what Benedict XIV has in lib. II de Synodo dioec., cap. 1 : « The Roman episcopate and the prefecture of the whole catholic Church, in the present order of things, are not two distinct sees, nor two dignities which perchance are joined in the one person of the Roman Pontiff, although considered in themselves they could have been such. For Peter, named pastor of the universal Church by Christ the Lord, could indeed, retaining that supreme prefecture of the Church, have undertaken the regime of no particular church, just as in fact he assumed the special administration of none during the first few years after the ascension of the Lord Christ into heaven. He could have retained perpetually the church of Antioch, which he afterwards chose and governed as bishop for many years. He could finally have left the Roman Church, to which he afterwards transferred his see, and gone elsewhere, and assumed the peculiar care or episcopate of another city. But since these things, though possible, were not done, but Peter fixed his see at Rome, firmly retained it for twenty-five years, and crowned with martyrdom gloriously died therein — whether this came to pass by divine command or by express revelation made specially by God to Peter, or by the sole will of Peter, though divinely inspired — thence it resulted that the prerogative of supreme pontificate remained so implanted in the Roman see, that whoever succeeds to Peter in this necessarily succeeds to Peter in the primacy of the whole Church, conferred on him and his legitimate successors by Christ, as card. Bellarmine well explains, Controvers. tom. I, de Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 12; Suarez, in Defensione fidei adv. Anglic. sectae error., lib. I, cap. 5, num. 4, and lib. III, cap. 13, num. 12; Petrus de Marca, in dissert. I de singulari Primatu Petri, num. 20; Marcus Antonius Capellus, in disp. 2 de Successione episcopi Romani in pontificatu, cap. 1. Although therefore it may be said in some sense that the supreme monarchy of the Church is annexed by merely human law to the Roman See, because manifestly the union, bond and fastening of both had its origin from the fact of Peter, nevertheless the opinion of those who assert that the aforementioned annexation is so of human law that it can be dissolved by the Church, and the one separated from the other, does not seem able to be sustained. For, supposing that Peter stably established his see at Rome and died ruling the Roman Church, no one who is not the Roman bishop can be called the true successor of Peter, and therefore the words of Christ the Lord can never be referred to him : Feed my sheep, Ioann., XXI, 17, by which he committed the care of the universal Church to Peter and his successors. Wherefore by right and merit Melchior Canus refutes and censures the opinion of such few men, de Locis theol., lib. VI, cap. 4; Gregory of Valencia, in Analysi fidei catholicae, lib. VI, cap. 12, and not a few other theologians. »

It must be noted, nevertheless, that the primacy is not annexed precisely to Rome as to a determinate place physically considered, or to the city of Rome as such, but to the bishop of that city, wherever he may reside; because, wherever he may be, he remains the Roman Pontiff, and there the Roman See and the chair of Peter are held to be. Wherefore during all those seventy years in which the Popes dwelt at Avignon, they remained Roman bishops, and there was Rome or the Roman see, and its primacy endured there likewise.]

[Under this title the Vatican synod determined the nature and extent of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, constit. Pastor aeternus, cap. 3. To this definition nothing seems to need to be added.

« Wherefore, resting on clear testimonies of the sacred letters, and adhering both to the express and perspicuous decrees of our predecessors

the Roman Pontiffs, and of the general councils, we renew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in blessed Peter, full power was handed over by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, rule and govern the universal Church, as is contained also in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. »

« We teach therefore and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the principate of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; toward which shepherds and faithful of whatever rite and dignity, whether taken singly or all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to discipline and the regime of the Church spread throughout the whole world; so that, preserving unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff, the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the doctrine of catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation. »

« So far is this power of the supreme Pontiff from obstructing that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops, who have been placed by the Holy Spirit and succeeded to the place of the Apostles, feed and rule, each one his own, their assigned flocks as true shepherds, that the same is asserted, strengthened and vindicated by the supreme and universal Shepherd, according to that saying of St. Gregory the Great : « My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid vigor of my brethren. Then am I truly honored when due honor is denied to no single one ¹ »

« Moreover, from that supreme power of the Roman Pontiff of governing the whole Church there follows for him the right, in the exercise of this his office, of communicating freely with the shepherds and flocks of the whole Church, that they themselves may be taught and ruled by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore we condemn and reprove the opinions of those who say that this communication of the supreme head with the shepherds and flocks can lawfully be impeded, or render it subject to secular power, so that they contend that what is established by the Apostolic See or by its authority for the regime of the Church has no force or value unless confirmed by the pleasure of the secular power. »

« And since by divine right of the apostolic primacy the Roman Pontiff presides over the universal Church, we teach also and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful², and that in all causes pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment³; but that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is greater than none, is to be retracted by no one, nor is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment⁴. Wherefore they stray from the right path of truth who affirm that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. »

« If anyone therefore shall say that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to discipline and the regime of the Church spread throughout the whole world; or that he has only more considerable parts, but not the whole fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, whether over all and singular churches, or over all and singular shepherds and faithful : let him be anathema. »

Under this censure must be reckoned the following propositions reproved in the Syllabus of the principal errors of our age published by mandate of Pius IX : XIX. « The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free, nor does she possess her own constant rights bestowed on her by her divine Founder; but it belongs to civil power to define what are the rights and limits within which the Church may exercise those same rights. » — XX. « Ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of civil government. » — XXVIII. « It is not lawful for bishops, without the permission of government, even to promulgate the apostolic letters themselves. » — XXXIV. « The doctrine comparing the Roman Pontiff to a free and acting prince in the whole Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle age. » — XXXV. « Nothing forbids that by the sentence of some general council or by the act of all peoples the supreme pontificate be transferred from the Roman Bishop and City to another bishop and another city. » — XXXVII. « National Churches can be instituted withdrawn from the authority of the Roman Pontiff and plainly divided from it. » — XXXVIII. « The excessive arbitrariness of the Roman Pontiffs contributed not a little to the division of the Church into eastern and western. » — XLIX. « Civil authority can prevent the free and mutual communication of sacred prelates and the faithful people with the Roman Pontiff. » — LIV. « Kings and princes are not only exempted from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are also superior to the Church in settling questions of jurisdiction. » — LV. « The Church must be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. » These propositions, and others detracting more or less from the rights of the Roman primacy, already reproved before, were by the foregoing definition of the Vatican synod again pierced through and respectively condemned.]

Note 1° that the man who is Pope can be considered in two ways, by reason of the person and by reason of the office, that is, as a private man and as the supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ; and that, considered in either way, he can speak. He speaks as a private man when, from his own mind, not from the fullness of power, he interprets a book, opens up a private opinion, treats and resolves a question. But he speaks as Pontiff when, as supreme pastor and head of the Church, he proposes something to the whole Church in matters of faith and morals, binding all the faithful, under pain of heresy, to believe it with divine faith : and thus he is said to speak ex cathedra, that is, from the fullness of power, because by the chair is signified the authority of teaching and commanding; whence Matth., XXIII, 12 : Super cathedram Moysi sederunt, etc. Some say this distinction was recently invented; but, besides that it is demanded by the nature of the thing and is found in all who exercise some public office — for a king or praetor or judge does not always act ex officio as king or judge — the French nation, in the year 1305, employed this distinction in a little book given to Clement V against Boniface VIII, as we shall see below.

[Note 2° that for the Pope to be judged to speak ex cathedra, several things are required : that he define freely, and not from fear or violence, with prayers poured out to God, with a mature examination of the matter to be defined premised, and with prior consultation of the Most Eminent Cardinals held; because Christ constituted the Pope infallible as acting in a human manner, according to which it is fitting that men be governed, and as using ordinary means. Others hold that these things, liberty excepted, are not required; because the Holy Spirit did not bind the assistance promised to Peter and his successors to these extrinsic aids.

We do not deny indeed that these means are to be employed more or less according to the gravity of the matter; but we say that the faithful are not to inquire whether they were employed, nor to seek to know it. For by what right would they require this, and from whom would they learn it? Hence, by the very fact that a constitution in matters of faith and morals emanates from the supreme Pontiff as the universal teacher of the Church speaking, and all the faithful are bound to adhere to it with interior assent under pain of heresy, it is not licit for them to suppose that the Pope omitted something necessary; because God, who promised the Pope infallibility, surely provides for the means necessary to obtain this end. For indeed it was defined by the Vatican Synod, as will be seen below, that «the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.» On what foundation could it be asserted that their value depends on the consent of a body which itself is not infallible and whose existence does not pertain by divine right to the constitution of the Church?]

The present question therefore is not about the supreme Pontiff as a private man, whom the more common opinion holds to be able to err as such, but about the Pontiff as Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. Concerning this there is a twofold opinion¹ : The first, that of the Gallicans, who for the most part hold that the supreme Pontiff is not infallible in matters of faith and morals unless the consent of the Church accedes, whether gathered in a general council or at least diffused through the world, from the declaration of the Cleri Gallicani of the year 1682, whose fourth article runs thus : «In questions of faith also the chief parts belong to the supreme Pontiff, and his decrees pertain to each and every Church; yet nevertheless his judgment is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accede.»

The other opinion is that of all the other nations, which steadfastly hold that the supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, in the manner we have explained, independently of the consent of the Church, whether gathered or dispersed, is infallible in deciding questions of faith and morals. Although, however, we judge this common opinion plainly founded on Scripture and tradition, as will appear, we do not propose it as obliging under pain of faith, nor do we assert it; because the Church, whose certain office this is, according to all, to propose revealed truths, has not yet defined it by a special and express solemn decree, nor does merely respective certainty of revelation suffice for faith that binds.

[This indeed was rightly said before the Vatican Synod. Now, however, it must be said that the doctrine which holds that the supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra is infallible independently of the consent of the Church is not only the common opinion, but must be held as of Catholic faith, as revealed : which will become evident from what follows.]

Note 3° that in definitions two things must be distinguished, the intended definition, or conclusion, and the reasons of the conclusion, or other things which Popes say in passing and incidentally. It is of the definition or intended conclusion alone that the common opinion is to be understood, not of the reasons of the definition, or of those things which are said in passing and incidentally.

The true doctrine is asserted and proved by invincible testimonies of Scripture.

I say: The judgment of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals is infallible, independently of the consent of the Church.

Proof. from a threefold place of Scripture. The first is Matth., XVI, 17-19, where Christ says to Peter confessing his divinity :

«Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Iona, because flesh and blood hath 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, etc.» That these words are directed to Peter alone we proved in art. 1°, where we treat of the primacy of St. Peter. Likewise we showed in art. 2°, where we treat of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, that they pertain to the successors of Peter in the Roman See; for since Christ founded a Church to endure forever, its foundation had to abide forever in the successors of Peter. Nor is there here any difficulty about these things; for the adversaries concede them, who prove from this and the following places, together with us, against the sectaries, the primacy of St. Peter and of the Roman Pontiff.

I subsume: But contained in these words is the privilege of infallibility promised to Peter and his successors. Ergo. — Proof of the subsumption. In these words the infallibility of the Church is promised. But the Church, or building, cannot be indefectible if the foundation upon which it rests is defectible. Ergo.

[You will object, 1st : By the rock, according to all the Fathers and Pontiffs, only the faith of Peter is understood. Ergo.

I answer. 1° The antecedent is plainly false. 2° Given the antecedent, nothing is concluded against us. For one interpretation does not exclude another, but they are excellently reconciled by saying that the Fathers and Pontiffs understand the faith of Peter not in the abstract, but in the concrete, namely Peter professing the faith of the divinity, and that this faith was the meritorious cause of the promise, while Peter is the subject to whom the promise was made.

You will object, 2nd : Infallibility was promised not to Peter, but to the Church, to which alone it is necessary. Ergo.

I answer. It was promised to both, yet the Church through Peter, not Peter through the Church; for Peter was not founded upon the Church, but the Church upon Peter.]

The second place is Luc., XXII, 31 and 32, where Christ, with the Passion at hand, thus addresses Peter : Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. 1° In these words Christ promises Peter indefectibility in faith; for he prays for it, and there is no doubt that he was heard out of reverence for him. 2° These words are directed to Peter alone, not to the other Apostles, nor in them to the whole Church. For he makes an open distinction of Peter from the other Apostles and from the whole Church, when he says : And thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren; and when immediately before he had spoken in the plural : Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you, straightway he adds in the singular : But I have prayed for thee, etc. This he would not have said if he had addressed all the Apostles, and in them the Church; but he would have said : «I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not, and you, being once converted, etc.» Nay, he could not even have said that, since the Church consists of the faithful, and besides them there are no others in the Church who are brethren capable of being confirmed. 3° What is most important, he promises Peter indefectibility not as a private person, but as pastor of the Church, such as he was about to constitute him, according to the promise made Matth. XVI, 17-19, consequently to his successors. For he promises him indefectibility in order that he confirm his brethren in faith; which pertains to the office of pastor and head. Hence this copulative proposition : I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren, has the force of a rational, or causal, as though he said : «Therefore I prayed that thy faith fail not, that thou mayest confirm thy brethren;» or : «I prayed that thy faith fail not. Thou therefore, endowed with that indefectible faith, confirm thy brethren.»

And this the holy Fathers testify, who infer from this passage the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff : St. Leo, Serm. 3 on these words of Luke; St. Agatho, Epist. to the Emperor Constantine, which was read and approved in the sixth synod; Leo IX, Epist. to Michael patriarch of Constantinople; St. Bernard, Epist. 190², to Innocent II; Innocent III, Epist. 209, to the patriarch of Constantinople; St. Thomas, 2 2ae, q. 1, a. 10, of whom below.

The adversaries answer that the indefectibility here promised to Peter is transmitted to his successors, not in this sense that each one is indefectible in faith, but in this sense that it will never come to pass that the successors of Peter, that is, their series, succession, and see over which they preside, and the Church which they have undertaken to teach and govern, fall away from the faith. Hence this faith suffers nothing even if several Pontiffs fail in their office and stray from the faith; the Roman faith stands firm, established by their predecessors, to be vindicated by their successors.

Sed contra : 1° The Fathers just now praised prove from these words the indefectibility, not of the Roman See alone or of the Church, but of any Roman Pontiff whatsoever. 2° According to this understanding, the promise of indefectibility was made not to Peter alone, but to the Church, the contrary of which is evident from the proof. 3° Christ prayed, not only that the faith would not simply and absolutely fail, but that it would not fail in Peter. Therefore neither in any one of his successors. 4° If one of the successors of Peter fell away from the faith by teaching, he could not confirm his brethren, which Christ prayed might never come to pass. 5° If one Pontiff speaking ex cathedra could err and errs in the faith, how does the See remain inviolate? How does faith subsist in it? For the See ought to hear the one sitting and obey him. It was, they say, in the predecessors; it will be in the successors. Be it so; but now it is not.

They urge that by the very word confirming the supreme and unappealable judgment is not indicated; for confirm, that is, as far as lies in you, strive that they be firm. For we sent Timothy, says the Apostle, I Thess., I, 2, to confirm you. And it was said to each bishop, Apoc., III, 2 : Be vigilant, and confirm the rest, which were ready to die. Ergo.

I answer. We prove from not this single word, confirm, but from the whole period : I have prayed, etc., and thou confirm, etc., that the judgment of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, unappealable and infallible; because in these words Christ promises Peter and each of his successors unfailingness in faith, in order that he confirm the faithful, and thus constitutes him their supreme and infallible judge in matters of faith; which cannot be said of Timothy or of any other bishop.

The third place is Ioann., XXI, 15 and 17, where Christ committed to Peter alone, before the other Apostles, the care of the whole Church : Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. See art. 1° on the primacy of St. Peter for a fuller exposition of this passage applied to our subject. Peter therefore, and any successor of his, must feed the whole Church with the word of doctrine; the Church must hear him and follow his doctrine. But the Church cannot follow false doctrine; for she is indefectible. Therefore neither Peter, nor any successor of his, can propose false doctrine to the Church. And truly it would be absurd that a fallible shepherd be placed over an infallible flock; for then rather the flock ought to feed and rule the shepherd than the shepherd the flock.

They reply that from these words : Feed my sheep, only the office of Peter is indicated, not however that the fulfilling of the commanded office is guaranteed; otherwise it would follow that Peter and his successor would never sin, not only in doctrine, but in no part whatever of the pastoral office, since certainly there is no part which that word does not embrace.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. — To the proof, I deny the consequence. 1° From these words we rightly infer the infallibility of the Pontiff in proposing the faith to the Church; because the Church is indefectible in the faith of her members, and her indefectibility would be infringed if the shepherd proposed to her false doctrine which she ought to follow. But she is not thus indefectible in the morals of her members. Whence it is not likewise necessary that the shepherd be impeccable in the other parts of the pastoral office, as in proposing the faith. 2° Because as long as faith remains, the structure of the Church subsists, and it is the root by which, while it remains, the other virtues can revive. But, once it is taken away, the body of the Church does not subsist, and almost all hope of salvation is taken away. Whence the spiritual pastor must care for this above all and beyond all things, that faith be preserved incorrupt in the flock.

And hence you have why the other bishops, who are also pastors, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility. Since they preside over a private flock only, their error would not infect the universal Church, but the flock only; and moreover, since they are subordinate to the supreme infallible pastor, their error can be corrected by him.

It is confirmed. The conclusion, by an argument ad hominem. The Gallican theologians from these places of Scripture cited prove with us, against the heretics, the primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the universal Church. Why not infallibility, since no more is the primacy expressed in these places than infallibility?

§ III

The conclusion is proved from the Fathers.

Besides the holy Fathers already praised in the preceding §, to be read are St. Irenaeus, lib. II adversus Haereses, c. 3 ; St. Hippolytus Martyr, orat. de Consummatione mundi ; St. Basil, Epist. 74 ; St. Flavian, Epist. to St. Leo ; St. Cyprian, lib. de Unitate Ecclesiae and Epist. 55 ; St. Ambrose, on Psal. XI : «Where Peter is, he says, there is the Church ;» St. Jerome, Epist. 57, to Pope Damasus : «Whoever, he says, gathers not with thee, scatters ;» and in the Exposition of the Symbol, to the same.

Augustine, after the Pelagian heresy condemned by Innocent I, serm. 2 de verbis Apostoli, num. 131, ed. 10, says : «Already on this cause two councils have been sent to the Apostolic See, and from thence rescripts also have come. The cause is finished : would that the error might sometime be finished!» And on the Psal. contra partem Donati, of the Roman Pontiff : «Itself, he says, is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome.»

St. Thomas asks in this second part of the 2ae, q. 1, a. 10 : «Whether it belongs to the supreme Pontiff to order the symbol of faith?» And answers thus : «It must be said that the new promulgation of the symbol is necessary to avoid errors springing up. To his authority therefore belongs the promulgation of the symbol, to whose authority it belongs finally to determine those things that are of faith, that they be held by all with faith unshaken. But this belongs to the authority of the supreme Pontiff, to whom the greater and more difficult questions of the Church are referred, as is said in the Decretal., tit. de Bapt., c. Maiores. Whence also the Lord, Luc., XXII, 32, said to Peter, whom he constituted supreme Pontiff : I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. And the reason of this is, because there ought to be one faith of the whole Church, according to that, I Cor., 1, 10 : That you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you. Which could not be preserved unless, when a question of faith arises, it be determined by him who presides over the whole Church, so that his sentence be firmly held by the whole Church. And therefore to the authority of the supreme Pontiff alone belongs the new promulgation of the symbol, as also all other things that pertain to the whole Church, such as convoking a general synod, and others of this kind.»

Ibid., ad 2um : «It belongs, he says, to the supreme Pontiff [to order a new symbol of faith], by whose authority the synod is gathered, and whose sentence is confirmed.»

Likewise q. 11, a. 2, ad 3 : «The authority of the universal Church resides principally in the supreme Pontiff; for it is said 24, q. 1³ : «As often as the reason of the faith is debated, I judge that all our brethren and fellow-bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, that is, to the authority of his name.»

Against whose authority neither Jerome, nor Augustine, nor any of the sacred doctors defends his own opinion. Whence Jerome says to Pope Damasus : «This is the faith, most blessed Father, which we have learned in the Catholic Church; in which if anything perchance has been set down less skillfully or with too little caution, we desire it corrected by you, who hold both the faith and the see of Peter. But if this confession of ours is approved by the judgment of your apostolate, whoever wishes to blame me will prove himself ignorant, or ill-disposed, or even not Catholic, not me a heretic.» These things are plain and clear, nor do we express our opinion in clearer terms. Nevertheless

The haters of papal infallibility answer, following Gerson, that St. Thomas concedes to the Pontiff supreme and full ecclesiastical power respectively toward the individual faithful and particular churches, not respectively toward the whole Church.

On the contrary. The question now is not about the ecclesiastical power of the Pontiff in general, of which in the following article; although St. Thomas here plainly expresses it to be supreme and full respectively toward the whole Church : «He presides over the whole Church,» he says. But the question is about his infallibility. Most formally, however, the holy Doctor teaches that «to the authority alone» of the supreme Pontiff belongs the publishing of the symbol of faith, that it be held by all with unshaken faith.

But, they say, by «alone» the holy Doctor understands principal.

By the faith of the gods! who ever interpreted τὸ «alone» as principal? If principal, not alone; if alone, not principal. When I say : «To the authority alone of the king belongs the enacting of laws for the whole kingdom,» who will pretend that by «alone» I understand principal? Nor does it help that St. Thomas, in the argument On the contrary, says the symbol was published by the authority of the universal Church. For all know that with D. Thomas the proof taken from the argument Sed contra carries light weight. But neither do we deny that the symbol was published by the authority of the Church — true, according to the holy Doctor, by an authority borrowed from the supreme Pontiff, who «presides over the whole Church,» and to whose «authority alone» belongs the publishing of the symbol, the gathering and confirming of general synods, and the managing of all things that pertain to the whole Church.⁴

But why do we linger over refuting this violent interpretation, when we have St. Thomas expressly excluding it? «Just as the later synod, he says, q. 10 de Potentia, a. 4, ad 13, has the power of interpreting the symbol composed by the earlier synod, and of positing something for its explanation; so also the Roman Pontiff can do this by his authority, by whose authority alone a synod can be convoked, by whom the sentence of the synod is confirmed, and to whom from the synod appeal is made. All which things are evident from the acts of the synod of Chalcedon. Nor is it necessary that a universal council be convoked to make its exposition.» To the authority therefore, to the authority alone, and not merely to the principal authority in a general council, of the supreme Pontiff belongs the ordering of the symbol of faith, and the final determining of those things that are of faith, that they be held by all with unshaken faith.

These things the most perspicacious theologians have scented out. Whence finally they conclude that, if St. Thomas grants the supreme Pontiff absolute infallibility independent of the consent of the Church, it is licit for themselves to rest safely in the doctrine of the Fathers who went before and in the later decrees of the council of Constance.

Does St. Thomas then see dimly in the doctrine of the Fathers, he whose greatest praise is that he was the mouth of the holy Fathers, and poured them all into himself as it were one? St. Thomas, I say, concerning whom the most celebrated Academy of Paris in a decree issued under Stephen bishop of Paris sings these things : «Divine Thomas was the most resplendent light of the universal Church, a gem shining among clerics, a fountain of doctors, the clearest mirror of our university and a distinguished and shining candlestick, through which all who walk in the ways of life and the schools of sound doctrine see light.» I urge no more. Of the council of Constance I shall speak in the following article.

§ IV

It is proved from the councils and Pontiffs.

On the Sardican council see art. 2 preceding.

On the Ephesine council, in the same place, second proof, we saw that the Fathers «compelled by the letter of Pope Celestine,» passed sentence against Nestorius.

On the council of Chalcedon also, in the same article, we said that, act. 2, when the celebrated letter of St. Leo to St. Flavian had been read, the Fathers exclaimed : «This is the faith of the Fathers... Peter has spoken through Leo.» Likewise, the council finished, the Fathers asked St. Leo to confirm what had been sanctioned in the council. He confirmed, however, only those things which concerned the Eutychian heresy, and he disapproved and rescinded those which concerned the privileges of the church of Constantinople.

The adversaries oppose, and urge strongly, the examination of the celebrated letter of St. Leo to Flavian made by the synod; from which they infer that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff in causes of faith is not irreversible.

I answer. that this examination was made not because the synod suspected any error in that letter; for already beforehand — which is well to be noted — the synod had subscribed to it without examination, and often the Fathers had cried out : «As Leo believes, so we believe. Peter has spoken through Leo. We have subscribed to all the letters. Those things suffice for faith which have been set forth; it is not licit that another exposition be made.» That examination was made therefore after the letter had already been received, in order that the Eutychians, who execrated it as Nestorian, might be more thoroughly convicted, and that no ground for retracting it remain to them any longer, since it was strengthened by the consent of the whole Church, as St. Leo himself says, epist. 65, to Theodoret, and the Fathers of the synod in their relation to Marcian the Emperor : «To those who believe, speaking of this letter, they say, the undiscussed contemplation of it suffices for the utility of faith, drawing devout souls to the confession of the pious dogma. But against those who endeavor to pervert right doctrine one must meet each thing which they wickedly bring forth.»

Whence, when the Fathers of the V synod, collat. 6, in order to prepare their way to the condemnation of the letter of Ibas, which had been neither discussed nor approved in the council of Chalcedon, said that the letter of St. Leo had not been received in that same council without inquiry and comparison with the doctrine of the Fathers : either they erred in a matter of fact, as is evident from the acts of the council of Chalcedon; or they understand it of the second reception, which was only a fuller declaration of the first, for a greater and more efficacious confutation of the Eutychians.

Pope Agatho, on the occasion of the VI general council, Constantinople III, in the year 680, wrote two letters to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, the first alone, the second with the Roman council. In the second he pronounces securely that he charged his legates at the council that the things which he himself with his council had defined were not to be examined as doubtful and uncertain, but were to be published as certain and immutable. And he utters threats against those who should contradict the sentence of condemnation. This letter, however, was read in the council, act. 4, and by all, act. 8, approved and subscribed, none contradicting, except one Macarius a monothelite, who was therefore deposed.

In the first letter Agatho says that the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiffs never have failed in the faith nor ever shall fail, but that it is their part to confirm the brethren in the faith, and that his predecessors always performed this.

This letter, like the preceding, the Fathers equally received, act. 18, each one assenting severally in his own order, and in an acclamatory address they said : Through Agatho Peter spoke. And in the letter to Agatho himself : «To thee, as the High Priest of the first See of the universal Church, we leave what is to be done, standing upon the firm rock of faith.»

A certain man replies that the letters of Agatho were not received without a previous examination; from which he infers that they were not held infallible by the council.

I answer. 1° that only one or another of the Fathers mentioned the examination, while all the rest voted simply, no mention of an examination having been made.

I answer. 2°. Given the antecedent, I deny the inference. For whoever examines some doctrine does not doubt its truth. Thus theologians daily examine the sacred Scriptures, the decrees of oecumenical councils, by comparing them with Scripture and tradition : not that they doubt at all of the truth of the Scriptures or of the decrees of faith, but that they may be more and more confirmed in them, may be ready to answer all who inquire of them about them, and be more fit to confute the refractory. Thus the Ephesine Fathers examined the letter of St. Leo, doubting not at all of its truth, as we said above. — Likewise, if, the examination having been made, the synod approved the letters of Agatho : therefore it approved, the examination having been made, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff clearly asserted in them.

In the eighth general council, Constantinople IV, in the year 869, against Photius, no one was admitted unless he had first subscribed the formula of faith sent by Adrian II. But in this formula of faith are contained the following things : «Because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over, saying : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; these things which were said are proved by the events of facts, because in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved immaculate and holy doctrine celebrated. Not wishing at all to be separated from this faith and doctrine, and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers and especially of the holy pontiffs of the Apostolic See, we anathematize all heresies, together with the iconomachs.» Behold in a general council the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff admitted, founded on the words of Christ : Thou art Peter, etc.

In the council of Vienne, Clement V, Clementina de summa Trinit., § Nos igitur, defined that «it pertains to the Apostolic consideration alone to declare» those things that are obscure in the Scriptures.

Clement VI, himself a Gallican and a doctor of Paris, proposed fourteen articles of doctrine to the Armenians newly converted to the Catholic faith, to which they ought to subscribe if they wished to be joined wholly with the Roman Church. The fifth of these ran thus : «If you have believed and believe that so it has been, so also will be the supreme and preeminent authority and juridical power of the Roman Pontiffs, and of those who will be hereafter : so that they have been able to be judged by no one, we could not, nor shall they be able hereafter, but they have been reserved, we are reserved and shall be reserved, to be judged by God alone; and that from our sentences and judgments there could not, nor can, nor will be an appeal to any other judge?» The thirteenth ran thus : «If you have believed and still believe that only the Roman Pontiff, in doubts arising concerning the Catholic faith, can by an authentic determination, which must be inviolably adhered to, put an end; and that whatever he determines by the authority of the keys delivered to him by Christ to be false and heretical is true and Catholic, or that such must be so judged?» These things are found in Odoricus Raynaldus, in the Annals, under the years 1346 and 1351.

[Let the decrees of councils on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff cited in the preceding article be re-read, and especially the Florentine decree by which it is declared that the Pope «exists father and teacher of all Christians.»]

You will say : The supreme Pontiffs whom we have praised up to this point spoke in their own cause. Therefore their testimonies prove nothing.

I answer. 1° I distinguish the antecedent. That the supreme Pontiffs spoke in their own cause openly and with no one contradicting — I concede the antecedent; with others contradicting, I deny the antecedent and the consequence. Thus, while throughout all past antiquity bishops defended the rights of their sees, kings and princes the rights of their thrones, by public acts which no one contradicted, their testimonies were admitted. Why should not those of the Pontiffs be admitted, who testified to and defended the privileges of their See by monuments and public acts which no one in their time contradicted?

2° The Pontiffs praised were distinguished not only for learning but also for probity of life, and many among them are numbered among the saints. There is therefore no reason for suspecting that out of pride and ambition they wished to vindicate to themselves unfounded and unjust privileges.

[The doctrine expressed by the ancient councils and sanctioned by the Pontiffs the Vatican synod defined more explicitly, constitutio Pastor aeternus, cap. 4, on the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. This decree, by which an end was put to the disputes raised about this grave question, we insert here entire.

«By the Apostolic primacy itself, moreover, which the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter prince of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of magisterium also is comprehended — this Holy See has always held, the perpetual usage of the Church approves, and the oecumenical councils themselves have declared, especially those in which the East met the West in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession : The first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over, saying : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, these things which were said are proved by their effects, because in the Apostolic See the catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate and holy doctrine celebrated. Not wishing at all therefore to be separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the complete and true solidity of the Christian religion.⁵ » With the second council of Lyons approving, however, the Greeks professed that «the holy Roman Church obtains the supreme and full primacy and principality over the universal Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges itself to have received from the Lord himself, with the fullness of power, in blessed Peter, prince or head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as beyond the rest it is bound to defend the truth of the faith, so too, if any questions should arise concerning the faith, they ought to be defined by its judgment.» Finally the Florentine council defined that «the Roman Pontiff exists as the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter was handed over by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church.»

«From hence also our predecessors gave unwearied labor that they might satisfy the pastoral office, in order that the saving doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, where it had been received, it might be preserved sincere and pure. Wherefore the bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synods, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the ancient rule and form, referred especially those dangers which emerged in matters of faith to this Apostolic See, that there above all the losses of faith might be repaired, where the faith cannot know failure ⁶. The Roman Pontiffs moreover, as the condition of times and affairs counseled, sometimes convoking oecumenical councils, sometimes exploring the opinion of the Church dispersed through the whole world, recognized, with God's aid, what was consonant with tradition. Nor indeed was the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter in order that, revealing through him, they might make known a new doctrine, but that, assisting them, they might holily guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith. Their apostolic doctrine indeed all venerable Fathers embraced, and orthodox holy Doctors revered and followed, knowing most fully that this See of St. Peter remains always untouched by every error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples : I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

«This gift therefore of truth and of never-failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might fulfill their lofty office for the salvation of all, that the whole flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine, that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting on her foundation, stand firm against the gates of hell.

«But truly, since in this very age, in which the saving efficacy of the Apostolic office is most especially required, not a few are found who disparage its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God deigned to join with the highest pastoral office.

«Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approval of the sacred Council, teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma : that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when fulfilling the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be instructed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and therefore that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

«But if anyone presume to contradict this our definition, which God forbid — let him be anathema.»

Here you have, not only that the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra is infallible, but the reasons, nature and extension of this infallibility.]

The conclusion is proved from Fathers, bishops and Gallican theologians.

1° The Fathers of the council of Arles, in the year 453, in a synodical letter to St. Leo say : «The writing of your Apostolate (doubtless the celebrated letter to St. Flavian) whoever does not neglect the sacraments of Religion has inscribed upon the tablets of his heart as the symbol of faith, and commits to tenacious memory, that he may be the more ready to confound the errors of heretics.»

2° In the year 517, St. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, in the name of the Gallican Church recognizes the supreme Pontiff as supreme judge in causes of faith. For thus he writes epist. to Pope Hormisdas : «We ask therefore, with my service joined, that you instruct me what I ought to answer your sons, my brothers, that is, the Gallicans, if they consult me; because, already secure, I promise, not of Vienna alone do I speak, but of the devotion of all Gaul, that all seek after your judgment concerning the state of the faith. Pray that the counterfeited profession of those aforementioned deceive us not, just as the truth discovered separates us not from the unity which you govern.» The same of the council of Tours, in the year 567, to which nearly the whole Gallican Church had come together.

3° In the year 1324, Stephen, bishop of Paris, on the occasion of the bull of canonization of St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of that same Academy, issued a decree, with the consent of the dean and Chapter of Paris and of the masters of said University, as the edict states, of the following tenor : «We therefore attending to the fact that the most holy Roman Church, MOTHER AND TEACHER OF ALL, founded upon the most firm confession of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, to which, as to the UNIVERSAL RULE OF CATHOLIC TRUTH, belongs the approval and reprobation of doctrines, the declaration of doubts, the determination of things to be held and the confutation of errors, etc.»

A few years later, the same Academy offered to Clement VII, residing at Avignon, whom France acknowledged as the true Pontiff, a theological treatise in which it asserted and proved the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in questions of faith, by the same authorities of Scripture and of the Fathers by which we prove it.

4° Of the same opinion was the whole Gallican nation in the year 1305, when the nobles of the kingdom, in the name of the nation, petitioned, by a little book given to Clement V, that he condemn the memory of Boniface VIII. For they said : «No inquiry is made into the heresy of the former Pope as Pope, but as a private person. FOR HE COULD NOT BE A HERETIC AS POPE, but as a private person. Nor was ever any Pope a heretic IN QUANTUM POPE.»

By this testimony is evinced not only the conclusion according to the mind of the nation, but it is also established that this distinction between the Pope as Pope and as a private man is not recently invented, as some babble forth.

In the year 1579, the Gallican Clergy, in the general assemblies of Melun against the errors of Luther and Calvin, thus commands : «Clerics and laity with open profession pronounce that faith which the holy Roman CHURCH, TEACHER, PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH, professes and cultivates. To this indeed, on account of its principality, EVERY CHURCH MUST NEEDS COME TOGETHER.» And at the end of the articles is subjoined : «All these things we subject to the judgment and authority of the holy Roman Church, by whose precepts the faithful people ought to be instructed and the CERTAIN RULE OF FAITH AND OF CORRECTION OF MORALS established.»

5° In the year 1626, the general assembly of the Gallican Clergy, article 1637, enacts, «that the bishops are to be exhorted to observe the Apostolic See, and the Roman Church founded upon the infallible promise of God... THE INFALLIBILITY OF FAITH given to Peter with the keys, which we see, by the miracle of divine power, to remain IMMOVABLE IN THE SUCCESSORS OF PETER, even to this present day.»

6° In the year 1653, eighty-five bishops, gathered in assembly, ask of Innocent X judgment upon the book of Jansenius, chiefly for this reason, that «to refer greater causes to the Apostolic See is the solemn custom of the Church, in which the faith of Peter NEVER FAILING IS PRESERVED FOREVER.» And in the year 1654, giving thanks to the same Pontiff for the condemnation of the book of Jansenius, in letters given they say : «We perceive, not only from the promise made by Christ to Peter, but from the acts of previous Pontiffs, that judgments laid down by the supreme Pontiffs for establishing the RULE OF FAITH upon the consultation of bishops rest upon DIVINE AND SUPREME authority throughout the universal Church, to which all Christians, from duty, owe obedience even of mind itself, whether the bishops put forward their own opinion in the consultation, or put it not forward;» that is, whether the consent of the consulting bishops accede or accede not. Therefore the judgment of the Roman Pontiff is an infallible rule of faith, independently of the consent of the Church.

[7° To these testimonies of the pristine doctrine of the Gallican Church concerning the inerrancy of the Roman Pontiff are to be added the decrees of more recent provincial councils convoked in France from the year 1849 down to this time. By nearly all of these the Florentine decree was renewed, by which it is taught that «the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and exists father and teacher of all Christians.» By some also it was asserted that his judgments concerning faith and morals are per se irreformable. Among these councils may be cited the councils of Soissons, Sens, Bordeaux and Reims, to say nothing of those whose acts we have not at hand.]

The conclusion is proved by reasons.

Proof. 1°. Thus I argue with our Hyacinthus Serry. That judgment in the matter of faith is irreformable which is supreme and last, after which no higher one is given to which appeal could be made. But such is the judgment of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, in the matter of faith and morals. Ergo. — The major is evident.

Proof of the minor manifoldly. 1° From three Pontiffs, Boniface I, Gelasius I and Nicholas I. He, epist. 8, to Michael the Emperor speaks thus : «It is clear indeed that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority THERE IS NONE GREATER, is to be revoked by no one, NOR IS IT LICIT FOR ANYONE TO JUDGE ITS JUDGMENT.» According to which Pope Boniface, writing to Rufus and the other bishops settled throughout Thessaly, says : «NO ONE EVER boldly laid opposing hands upon the Apostolic summit, concerning whose judgment it is not licit to appeal; NO ONE HAS

APPEARED A REBEL in this, except he who wished himself to be judged. » And B. Pope Gelasius : «They themselves are the canons which willed the appeals of the whole Church to be brought to the examination of this See; THEY SANCTIONED THAT FROM IT ITSELF NOWHERE AT ALL OUGHT AN APPEAL BE MADE : and thereby that it judge THE WHOLE CHURCH, that it itself pass to the judgment of no one. »

Proof. 2° of the same minor from Augustine, who, as we saw, held the judgment of Innocent I against the Pelagians as final and irreformable, when he said : «The rescripts came from Rome, the cause is finished.» This also is established from several other Fathers praised by us before.

Proof. 3° of the same minor. 1° The Appellant in the case of an appeal is exempted from the jurisdiction of him from whom he appeals, and withdraws from his obedience. But no faithful man can be exempted from the jurisdiction of the supreme Pontiff, otherwise he would no longer be his sheep, consequently neither faithful; nor can he withdraw from his obedience, since he is the supreme ruler, pastor and superior of all. Ergo. 2° The judge from whom appeal is made ought not give and designate to the appellant the judge to whom, otherwise he would act against himself. But it belongs to the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke, gather, confirm and give force to oecumenical councils. Ergo the judgment of the Roman Pontiff is last in the Church, consequently infallible and irreformable. — The consequence is evident, because, if there were a tribunal from which one could appeal from the Pope, it would doubtless be a general council.

The conclusion is proved by another reason. In a Church well ordered by Christ there ought to be admitted a judge always abiding and living, who interprets and settles infallibly the Scriptures, traditions and controversies arising concerning faith and morals. But he is none other than the Roman Pontiff. Ergo. —

Proof of the minor. This supreme and infallible judge always living is not the private spirit of anyone, not a secular prince, as we said formerly, not a general council; because, although with the Pontiff presiding it is an infallible rule of faith, yet it suffices not, because general councils are gathered very rarely and with great difficulty, and yet controversies concerning faith and morals arise continually in the Church, for the settling of which a judge must be present at hand. Ergo.

They say that the universal Church is present, with whose consent acceding the judgment of the supreme Pontiff becomes irreformable and infallible. So the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the thirty-four Gallican bishops spoken of above. And this seems to be the epoch of the present-day opinion of the French, which although it remains refuted by all that has been said, it helps nevertheless to attack it specially from the absurdities which follow from it. Whence

§ VII. — The conclusion is proved from the absurdities of the adverse opinion.

If the judgment of the supreme Pontiff be not infallible in questions of faith and morals except by the consent of the Church,

It follows 1° that the Pontiff borrows his infallibility from the Church, and thus that the Church is not founded upon Peter, but Peter upon the Church; that Peter feeds not the sheep, but the sheep feed Peter; that Peter confirms not the brethren in the faith, but the brethren confirm Peter : which things are plainly contrary to the Scriptures.

It follows 2° that the supreme Pontiff enjoys the privilege of infallibility no more than the bishop of the smallest diocese. For let him define something of faith and propose to his diocesans a thing to be believed; if the consent of the other bishops accede, his judgment will be infallible. The same can be said of the judgment of a simple pastor and teacher. But the consequent is absurd and utterly alien to Scripture and the whole tradition. Ergo.

It follows 3° that the faithful would be fluctuating in faith, nor have anything fixed and firm to which, with the assent of faith, adhere. For I ask what kind of assent of the Church is required. Of the whole Church, of the greater part, of the lesser, say of one province or nation? Not the latter; for by what right would this Church of one province or nation confer upon the Pontiff an infallibility which it has not? Not the first; otherwise the dissent of one or another bishop or faithful man would suffice to weaken the judgment of the supreme Pontiff, and thus never will any judgment be infallible. Moreover how and when could the consent of the bishops and faithful who are in the East and West Indies be had? And meanwhile the faithful will waver and heresies will rage. Finally not the second : 1° Because, as I was just saying of the third, whence has a part of the Church, even though greater, and not the whole Church, an infallibility which it confers upon the Pontiff? 2° Who will count the consenting parts, that it be discerned whether the greater part adheres? Who will announce this consent to the faithful? We know this done once from the beginning of the Church on the occasion of the bull Unigenitus, which nevertheless not all obey. What then of the innumerable ones concerning which it has not been done? What of future ones, concerning which it is not credible that it ever will be done? Meanwhile no faithful man will be bound to offer the assent of faith to papal decrees; for no one is bound nor can assent with divine faith unless to an authority which he certainly knows to be infallible, since falsity cannot underlie faith : and thus each one will be left to his own judgment, and, as I was just saying, heresies will rage and gain strength. 3° If the assent of the greater part suffice, there is no reason why the French dispute with such zeal; for since, these excepted, all the other churches, at least three parts of the whole universality, acknowledge the supreme Pontiff infallible, no decree emanates ex cathedra from him which is not received by the greater part of the Church.

But, they say, it must be accepted after previous examination. — I distinguish. After previous examination, that it be understood what it contains — I concede; that it be corrected as though doubtful or erroneous, I deny. Otherwise it could happen that three parts of the Church err in faith together with the Pontiff, and France alone without the supreme Pontiff preserves the true faith. Moreover whence could the faithful certainly know that all the bishops accepted after previous examination? And until they learn this, they will waver, nor will they be bound nor able to offer the assent of faith. Where then will the faith of the Church be? Where the Church?

§ VIII. — The common and principal evasion of the adversaries is cut off.

Whatever we have produced up to this point from Scripture, the Fathers, councils,

Pontiffs, theologians, etc., for the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the adversaries take the sayings, not of the man sitting in the chair of Peter, but of the very chair, of the Roman See, of the Roman Church, and, as some say — which is the same thing — of the series and succession of the Roman Pontiffs; so that the sense is, that the chair of Peter, the Roman See, the Roman Church is infallible, and never to fail in faith : that should it happen that one Pontiff fail, it will be corrected by successors, and thus faith will remain forever in the Roman See, in the chair of Peter, in the Roman Church. And to this end they praise that celebrated saying of St. Leo, epist. 53, to Anatolius : «Other are the sees, other the sitters,» and because otherwise, they say, upon the dying of the Pontiff, the faith of the Church would fail, or be imperiled.

Besides those things by which we have already here and there refuted this understanding — besides the fact that several testimonies which we have produced ascribe infallibility not only to the See or chair of Peter, or the Roman Church, but to the very sitter and to the very Pontiff, even sometimes by his express name; besides these things, I say,

I ask now only, what do they understand by the See and chair of Peter, or the Roman Church. Whether that which is contained within the circuit of the city of Rome? Whether the universal or Catholic Church? For I see some understand the Church of the city of Rome, others the universal Church; nay, the same persons understand now the Church of the city of Rome, now the universal, according as they are pressed by arguments.

If they understand the Church which is contained within the circuit of the city of Rome : the supreme Pontiff never defines anything of faith ex cathedra without having the Church of the city of Rome consenting, both because he consults her in her chief members, and because she herself immediately assents to the things defined by the Pontiff; and thus the Pontiff defining ex cathedra is always infallible.

If they understand the Catholic and universal Church, they plainly contradict Scripture in the three places adduced in the first proof, in which we proved that the dignity of the foundation of the Church, of the pastor of the Church, of the confirmer of the brethren, whence infallibility follows, was handed to Peter alone, and not to the whole Church. They contradict likewise tradition and all past antiquity, the decrees of councils and supreme Pontiffs, the Fathers, theologians, themselves. For the holy Fathers, councils, Pontiffs, theologians whom we have praised, the adversaries themselves, say that the Roman Church, which the proud gate of hell does not overcome, to which perfidy cannot have access, which finally they acknowledge to be infallible, is Mother and Teacher of all the churches, the center of ecclesiastical unity, whence sacerdotal unity arose, to which all churches must needs come together, that the Church is founded upon her, and many like things. Now it is plain that these things cannot be said of the universal Church, since besides her there are no churches. For what is the universal Church other than all the churches taken together? But the whole is not distinguished from the parts taken together. It cannot therefore be said of the universal Church that she is Mother and Teacher of all the churches, just as it cannot be said that someone is father and teacher of himself; nor that she is the center of unity, just as all lines cannot be the center of any line; nor that sacerdotal unity arose from her, since she herself is sacerdotal unity; nor that other churches must needs come together to her, since besides her, as was said, there are no others; nor that the Church is founded upon her, else she would be founded upon herself. Finally let the studious reader deign to attend to the testimonies which we have produced : scarcely one will he find by which that exotic interpretation is not pierced through.

As to the saying of St. Leo, doubtless other are the sees, other the sitters. The see is the name of authority, dignity and office; the sitter is the name of the person obtaining authority, dignity and office : whereby is signified that he who has authority and office does not always act from authority and office; and thus the Roman Pontiff can act not ex officio pontifical, but conduct himself as a private person, which helps the adversaries nothing, nor harms us.

To that which they add of the dead Pontiff answers

Cano, lib. IV de Locis theologicis, last chapter, that, «the supreme Pontiff dead, one without doubt the Church remains, and there remains in her the Spirit of truth; but maimed and diminished, without the Vicar of Christ and the one shepherd of the Church, she is left. Wherefore, although truth then also be in the Church (for it is not in the Pontiff alone passively), yet, if controversies of faith and religion arise, the judgments of the Church without a head on earth will not be so certain.»

They urge. If by the rock and foundation the person of Peter be understood, it follows from thence that Peter was not only infallible, but also ought to have been immortal, since the building of the Church founded upon him was to remain forever. False consequent. Ergo.

I answer. Besides the answer already given above to this instance, I distinguish the consequence. If by the rock and foundation be understood the person of Peter physically and entitatively, it follows, etc. — I concede; if the person of Peter morally, that is, his very dignity, authority, jurisdiction and doctrine, it follows, etc. — I deny the consequence and its proof. For these, upon the dying of Peter, persist in virtue in the Church and pass over to his successors; just as, upon the dying of the king, the kingdom does not perish, because the dignity, authority, jurisdiction remain, which pass over to the successors.

ARTICLE IV

The objections are solved.

You will object, 1° : If the supreme Pontiff is infallible in defining questions of faith and morals, general councils are useless. False consequent. Ergo. — The consequence is evident; because the Pontiff, by this very fact that he is infallible, can by himself alone, without a council, define all controversies of faith and morals with irreformable judgment. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the consequence. — To the proof, I distinguish the antecedent. That the supreme Pontiff can by himself alone, without a council, define all controversies of faith and morals with irreformable judgment — I concede; and that at the same time he can by himself alone, without a council, equally efficaciously repress the insolence of heretics, break their pertinacity, quiet tumults, provide means fit for the execution of the definitions — I deny; and that he cannot do these things equally efficaciously by himself alone — I concede; and I deny the consequence. General councils therefore are not per se absolutely necessary for the certain and infallible definition of truth against heretics. For how many heresies before the first general council of Nicaea, and also in following times, were irretractably condemned by the Roman Pontiffs alone without general councils! Per accidens, however, they are sometimes necessary, or at least highly useful, both to repress the audacity of rioting heretics and to break their pertinacity; for more easily and with less shame is concession made to all than to one; then for the easier and more efficacious execution of the decrees, insofar as all the bishops of all nations subscribe to them, and profess that they will embrace them and commit their execution to their diocesans. Likewise the needs and customs of the individual provinces become better known, and what means are to be employed toward each one for meeting the growing error and promoting the observance of laws and decrees; for what suits Italy or Germany will perhaps profit France or Spain little; for as there is a various complexion of bodies, so also of morals.

Hence an answer is given to the various instances which they seek from the convocation of councils, even after heresies already condemned by the supreme Pontiffs. Thus Celestine had condemned the heresy of Nestorius, but had not extinguished it, on account of the most powerful friends and defenders of Nestorius; and therefore the convocation of the Ephesine synod was necessary, that with opportune remedies the madness of the heretics might be compressed, the progress of the heresy stopped, the faith of Catholics fortified. Thus St. Leo, in the celebrated Epistle to St. Flavian, had condemned the Eutychian heresy; but, because Dioscorus and others in the robbery of Ephesus had rejected it as Nestorian, had beaten Flavian with blows and stripes and cast him out, nay more, had passed sentence against St. Leo himself, it was necessary that the Chalcedonian synod be gathered, that it might quiet these tumults and meet so many evils.

You will object, 2° : St. Cyprian, conspicuous for doctrine and holiness, resisted Pope Stephen defining that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized, together with several African bishops. Therefore he himself did not acknowledge the supreme Pontiff infallible, nor was infallibility then held in the Church.

I answer. I deny both inferences; because Cyprian never apprehended the question about rebaptizing those baptized by heretics to pertain to faith, but only to discipline, nor did Stephen define it ex cathedra as a dogma of faith.

A twofold question therefore is here to be distinguished : the first, whether the baptism of heretics is invalid; the second, whether those baptized by heretics are to be rebaptized. The first is speculative, and pertains to faith; the second is disciplinary, and regards practice. Stephen however, leaving the first question untouched, prohibited the second, and ordered that nothing be innovated, but that the ancient custom be preserved, nothing more; and this, not by a solemn decree directed to the whole Church, but by a rescript in private letters to Cyprian and his colleagues. Which thing Cyprian thus reports, Epist. 74, to Pompey (for we know it from him alone) : «If anyone therefore come from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated, except what has been handed down, that hands be laid upon him for penance.» Whence Aug., lib. II de Bapt. cont. Donat., cap. 9, n. 14 : «By the strength of custom, he says, the whole world was held, and this alone was opposed to those wishing to introduce novelty.» Nor indeed did Cyprian hold that rescript as a decree ex cathedra of the Apostolic See, since, as Augustine testifies, ibid., c. 7, n. 12, «that question of baptism was not yet diligently discussed (in the time of Cyprian), yet nevertheless the Church held the most salutary custom.» But what was not yet sufficiently discussed and examined could not be proposed as a decree of the Apostolic See and an article of faith. Whence the objection bears not against the conclusion, which concerns the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra in controversies of faith. We proved this answer with many arguments in the Digress. hist. to dissert. V de Sacram. in genere, sect. 1, tom. II, where you will find several of the things the adversaries object anticipated and solved.

They insist 1° : Stephen, defining that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized, supposed their baptism to be valid : at least that could be inferred from the definition. Ergo.

I answer. here there is no question of supposition or inference, but of definition ex cathedra. Whatever Stephen had in mind, it is established that he defined nothing else than that «nothing be innovated,» whether he held of faith that this baptism was valid, or only as something he held more certain. Nor, as was said, did he define it ex cathedra.

They insist 2° : Even if Stephen had defined ex cathedra, as a dogma of faith, that the baptism of heretics is valid, and that those baptized by them are not to be rebaptized, Cyprian ought not to have acquiesced to him. Ergo. — Proof of the antecedent from Augustine, lib. II de Bapt. cont. Donat., cap. 4, n. 5, where he says : «Nor would we ourselves dare to assert such a thing, unless strengthened by the most harmonious authority of the universal Church, to which doubtless even he would yield, if already at that time the truth of this question were strained out and declared, and confirmed by a plenary council.» Ergo, according to Augustine, we are bound to acquiesce to the judgment of a plenary council alone, and not to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff.

I answer. I deny the consequence. For the sense of Augustine is that he would not dare to assert — namely as a dogma of faith, as he asserted it then, when he spoke against the Donatists — that the baptism of heretics is valid, and that those baptized by them are not to be rebaptized, unless it had been defined in a general council; because only a general council had defined it as a dogma of faith, and not Stephen, in whose age this question was not yet sufficiently strained out and discussed, and who opposed to novelty only the ancient custom, as Augustine himself says. Whence by these words Augustine does not intend to exclude the infallibility of papal judgment, but to assert the infallibility of the council; just as if, speaking of a proposition defined by the Tridentine council, I were to say : «This proposition I would not dare to assert, if it had not been defined by the council of Trent.» Badly would anyone interpret me from thence to deny infallibility to the supreme Pontiff, and to attribute it to the council of Trent alone. For no comparison is there made between the council and the Pontiff, such that the one is called infallible and the other fallible; but the plain sense is : «I dare to assert this proposition as doctrine of faith, because the council of Trent, which is infallible, defined it, and no other who is infallible defined it.»

You will object, 3° : St. Peter erred twice in faith : 1° when he denied Christ, at the time of the Passion; 2° when at Antioch, after the Ascension, he observed legal observances and compelled the Gentiles to judaize, for which cause he was reproved by Paul.

I answer. To the first, that St. Peter denied Christ orally, not in heart. Thus the holy Fathers commonly interpret. And grant that he denied him in heart; he was not yet constituted Pontiff then, nor was he teaching the universal Church.

To the second, Peter erred by observing legal observances, «not by preaching falsehood, but by imprudent conversation,» says Augustine, Epist. 40⁷ and 82⁸ to Jerome. Of this fact I wrote more at length in the tract. de Relig., Digress. hist. at the end of dissert. IX, in the greater Work.

[Add that even if Peter had not had the privilege of infallibility as Pontiff, he would have had it at least as Apostle; for all the Apostles, by the coming down of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, were so confirmed in the faith that none could fall away from it. Whence under no title can it be supposed that Peter taught falsely as regards the observance of legal ceremonies. If perchance he erred in practice, judging opportune what displeased Paul, his fault was not grave, on account of the reason given by St. Thomas, in cap. 1 epist. ad Gal., lect. 3 : «It must be said that, after the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles in no way sinned mortally, and they had this gift through divine power, which had confirmed them. Psal. LXXIV, 4 : I have confirmed the pillars thereof. They sinned, however, venially, and this befell them from human frailty, I Ioann., I, 8 : If we say that we have no sin, namely venial, we seduce ourselves.»]

You will object, 4° : Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresy and to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, whose cause was joined with the cause of the faith, insofar as he was its strenuous defender, and he communicated with Arian bishops. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the antecedent for the first part; but Liberius subscribed to a formula in itself Catholic, as I proved at sufficient length in the Digress. histor. to the introductory dissertation of the treatise on the Trinity, in the greater Work. See it. — To the second part of the antecedent : Liberius subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, because he judged his cause to be severed from the cause of the faith, and Athanasius to have been condemned for faults concerning discipline and morals, of which he had truly been accused. — To the third part of the antecedent : Liberius communicated with semi-Arian bishops, who simulated that they had condemned Arius and were Catholics.

I answer 2°. Given the antecedent as to all its parts, no one will dream that the Pontiff driven into exile, terrified by threats, overcome by desire of liberty, subscribing orally to the Arian formula and to the condemnation of Athanasius, and communicating with heretics, had spoken ex cathedra, and by the fullness of power bound the universal Church to subscribe to Arianism; which alone however is here brought into question.

You will object, 5° : Zosimus, successor of Innocent I, approved the little book of Celestius the Pelagian, in which original sin was openly denied. Ergo.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. That Zosimus approved the book of Celestius, in which original sin was denied, as Catholic, having regard to the propositions and dogmas which it contained — I deny; having regard to the mind, disposition and manner of speaking of the author, who asserted this error of his not absolutely, but proposed it only in the manner of one doubting, seeking instruction, submitting his own sense to the judgment of the Apostolic See, ready to correct whatever he judged should be corrected; moreover declaring that he consented to the letters of Innocent condemning Pelagius, and that he would condemn all things whatsoever which the Apostolic See should condemn — I concede. But nothing prohibits a book under such consideration, whereby pertinacity is excluded from its author, from being able to be called Catholic. The solution is that of Augustine, lib. II contra duas Epist. Pelagian. ad Bonifac., cap. 3, n. 5.

I answer 2°. Given the antecedent, nothing follows against us. For it is established that Zosimus, approving privately the book of Celestius and writing private letters to the bishops of Africa, had not addressed the universal Church, nor bound her to believe with divine faith that original sin is not given, and thus had not spoken ex cathedra, as afterwards he spoke, when, the fraud detected, he condemned Pelagius and Celestius by a solemn decree, the epistle of condemnation being sent to all the bishops of the whole world, which was commonly called Translatoria.

You will object, 6° : Vigilius now proved, now disapproved the three Chapters, which pertained to the faith; for they were dogmatic facts. Ergo.

I answer. Of the cause of the three Chapters and of Vigilius I have said enough in art. 6 of the preceding dissertation. One instance alone remains against what I said, that Vigilius never proved the three Chapters as regards the obvious sense of the texts, but only forbade that they be condemned under the names of the authors appealed. Therefore

They urge : Vigilius, in his constitution, says of the letter of Ibas : «Itself understood in a most right and most pious sense» remains unreprehended. Ergo.

I answer. That Vigilius said not of Ibas that the «letter» remains unreprehended, but that the «faith» does; because namely in the council of Chalcedon he had opened his mind, and what he had written in this Epistle against Cyril from an error of fact he had retracted, as I said in the place cited.

You will object, 7° : Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the sixth oecumenical synod. Ergo.

I answer 1°. I distinguish the antecedent. That Honorius was condemned as a heretic in his teaching — I deny the antecedent; as a heretic in favor, that is, as a favorer of heretics, insofar as he commanded to be silenced the voices of one or of two wills and operations in Christ — I concede. This answer we have proved with many and most weighty arguments, and the other things concerning Honorius we have expounded in the Digress. hist. to dissert. IV of the tract. on the Incarnation, sect. 4, in the greater Work. Let the reader go there; for there is no leisure here to repeat everything. One instance only we there omitted, which had not then occurred. Whence

They urge Honorius rejected not only the word, but also the sense of the double operation; for in Epist. 2 to Sergius, which was read in the sixth synod, act. 13, he says : «But where the mediator of God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ, either is or was of the operation or of two, to think and to express it is sufficiently inept.» Ergo.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. That Honorius rejected absolutely the sense of the double operation — I deny; that he rejected it in order to its expression — I concede. It is evident both from the adjoining words «to think and to express;» and from the whole series of both his epistles to Sergius, in which he urges nothing else than that the words of one or of a twin will and operation be silenced, for the quieting of tumults and contentions; then because he did not command Sophronius, who defended the double operation keenly, to put off this sense, but only admonished the envoys sent by him not to strive thereafter to usurp the word of two operations, as he himself relates in the same Epist. 2 to Sergius; finally because, if from these words it follows that Honorius rejected the sense of the double operation in Christ, it follows likewise that he rejected the sense of the single operation, because of both he speaks in these words, and thus he recognized neither one nor two operations in Christ, which is plainly absurd.

I answer 2° to the objection. Granting that Honorius was condemned as a heretic, he was doubtless a heretic as a private man, not as Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; for he taught the error, if he taught it, not by a solemn constitution directed to the universal Church, by which he bound her to believe with divine faith the false dogma, but from private opinion, by private letters written in a private name and directed to private persons. Which is evident both from the inscription of the letters, which is to Sergius; and because they were drawn from the archive of Constantinople hardly forty years after the death of Honorius, before which time they were scarcely known, whether in the East or in the West.

They urge Honorius, consulted about the faith by three Patriarchs, namely by Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria, both Monothelites, and Sophronius of Jerusalem an orthodox man, answered, teaching error, and charged them to teach it and that its false dogmas be spread abroad through the whole East. Therefore he spoke ex cathedra. Ergo.

I answer. Setting aside the antecedent, I deny the consequence. For the things adduced in the antecedent do not suffice for the Pope to be said to speak ex cathedra; but it is required that he address the universal Church with a solemn decree by which he commands all the faithful to believe with divine faith what he decrees. These things however are not found in the case of Honorius.

You will object, 8° : Several Pontiffs acknowledged themselves fallible, Leo IV, can. Si incompetenter, cause 2, q. 4; Innocent III, serm. 2 de consecr. Pontif.; Clement VI, in a diploma given the 7 ides of December 1351; Gregory XI, in his testament, and others. Ergo.

I answer. That these Pontiffs acknowledged themselves fallible in dispensations or in the granting of privileges, in particular facts, or even in matters of faith, but as private teachers, not however as pastors of the universal Church speaking ex cathedra. Nor does it stand in the way that Gregory XI says he could err even in Consistory; for the things done in Consistory are not always defined ex cathedra; but often in them the merits of causes are weighed, counsels are proposed, without coming to a solemn sentence.

The question is not about a general council insofar as it comprises the bishops gathered and at the same time the supreme Pontiff; for thus it is certain that no Pontiff is superior to it, otherwise he would be superior to himself; nay, a council so understood is the greater thing, at least extensively. But the question concerns a general council insofar as it comprises only the bishops gathered, with the Pontiff, whether absent or present, not counted. And the question asked is whether the Pontiff is superior in authority and jurisdiction to the council so understood, or the council to the Pontiff.

The French uphold this second part¹, from the time of the Council of Constance, and it is the second proposition of the famous declaration of the French Clergy of the year 1682. But when they are pressed by arguments from Scripture or tradition, by which it is proved that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme head, ruler, pastor of all the faithful, they answer that this must be understood of all the faithful in particular, or taken separately and distributively, not indeed taken collectively and gathered together in a general council; to these, on the contrary, the Pontiff is subject when they are so taken, in nearly the way in which a General is head and rector of an Order, so that all Religious separately and distributively are bound to obey him, yet he himself is subject to the Chapter when assembled and held to its laws; or as the doge of the Venetians takes precedence over the individual members of the republic, yet he himself is inferior and subject to the whole republic.

The theologians of the other nations commonly hold, on the contrary, that the supreme Pontiff is superior in authority, power, and jurisdiction to the whole Church, whether taken distributively or collectively, so that any council whatever, even a general one, is subject to him, not he to the council.

I say: The supreme Pontiff is superior in authority and jurisdiction to every council.

Proof. 1°. It is settled from what has been said hitherto concerning the primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Pontiff, and likewise concerning his infallibility, that he, according to Scripture and tradition, is the head, pastor, father, teacher, and leader of the whole and universal Church. Now the head is above the other members, not only taken separately but also taken together; the shepherd tends and is above not each sheep separately only, but the whole flock; the father, not this or that child, but the whole household; the teacher, not this or that disciple, but the whole school; the leader, not this and that soldier only, but the whole army. Therefore in like manner the Pontiff, not only to the faithful individually taken separately, or to this or that church; not only to the individual bishops of a council distributively: to the council itself he is superior in authority.

Proof. 2°. The supreme Pontiffs exercised, by sovereign right and with no one objecting, supreme power over general councils; for to some they prescribed the rule of defining, the acts of others they rescinded, others they annulled entirely, others they approved and confirmed. Now these are plain marks of superior authority. Therefore.

Proof. first part of the antecedent. Celestine prescribed to the Council of Ephesus the very form and the very sentence to be pronounced against Nestorius; St. Leo, to the Council of Chalcedon against Eutyches; Agatho, to the sixth council against the Monothelites; Adrian I, to the seventh council against the Iconoclasts, and Adrian II, to the eighth council against Photius.

Proof. second part of the antecedent. St. Leo steadfastly refused, however greatly entreated, to confirm canon 28, whereby the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople were decreed, and sent it back void.

Proof. third part of the antecedent. St. Leo annulled the second Council of Ephesus, summoned with his assent and attended by his legates. Therefore.

As to the fourth part of the antecedent, on the confirmation of councils by the Pontiff, we shall prove it in the next dissertation, while treating of councils; nor do the adversaries deny it altogether, but say it is an honorary confirmation of consent and adherence only, such as can be given by equals or even by inferiors, but not authoritative.

On the contrary. That it is authoritative is evident, because it is sought and given in order that general councils may have firmness; for so speak the Fathers of the fourth and sixth councils, and without this confirmation a council is neither valid nor firm, as appears in the case of the second Council of Ephesus, of canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the fifth general council, Constantinople II; and the laws declare it expressly so, dist. 17, cap. Regula, from Pope Julius: « Nor is any council ratified now, nor ever shall be, which has not been upheld by its (the Roman Church's) authority. » And cap. Multis, from Pelagius II. Whence Socrates, lib. II Hist., cap. 5, says: « The ecclesiastical canon forbids that decrees be sanctioned for the churches without the judgment of the Roman Bishop. » Sozomen, lib. III, cap. 9, says « there is a law pertaining to the dignity of the priesthood, which pronounces void those acts that are enacted apart from the judgment of the Roman Bishop. » What we shall presently say about appeals from councils to the supreme Pontiff proves the same, and finally reason itself. For a general council has not firmness and indefectibility in its decrees except insofar as it represents the universal Church. Now it does not represent the universal Church unless it has with it the head, the Roman Pontiff, judging along with it; nor is the Roman Pontiff deemed to judge with the councils unless while he confirms the decrees of the councils. Therefore.

Proof. 3° conclusion. It is not lawful to appeal from the supreme Pontiff to a general council; but it is lawful to appeal from a general council to the supreme Pontiff. Now an appeal is made only from an inferior to a superior. Therefore the Pontiff is superior in authority to a general council.

We proved the first part by authority and reason in art. 3, § 6. Moreover, Pius II, in letters published at the assembly of Princes at Mantua in the year 1460, and Julius II and Gregory XIII, in the bull In Coena Domini, forbid under pain of excommunication an appeal from the Pope to a council.

The adversaries oppose certain appeals made from a Pope to a council. But a fact does not prove a right. Of this more fully in the solution of the objections.

The second part of the antecedent also stands proved from the three Pontiffs Boniface I, Gelasius I, and Nicholas I, cited in the place quoted earlier. Moreover, it is proved thus. St. Flavian appealed from the second Council of Ephesus, with its convocation and the general presence of legates, to St. Leo, as is clear from the letter of the same St. Leo to the Emperor Theodosius, in which he says: To our legates « bishop Flavian gave a libellus of appeal. » Likewise Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, condemned in the same council, appealed, as is clear from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Macarius and others, condemned in the sixth ecumenical synod, appealed to Leo II, as appears from the letters of Constantine Pogonatus to the same Leo.

Finally, reason proves it. It is lawful to appeal from a fallible tribunal to an infallible one. Now the supreme Pontiff is infallible, at least in questions of faith and morals, as was proved in the preceding articles. But a general council, as we take it here, with the supreme Pontiff not counted, is fallible, because thus it does not represent the Church, for the Church is not without her head; but a council is not infallible except insofar as it represents the Church.

Proof. 4° conclusion. The supreme Pontiff cannot be judged by a general council. Therefore he is not inferior to it. — Proof of the antecedent.: 1° In the canon Si Papa, dist. 40, it is said: « He who is to judge all, himself is to be judged by no one, unless he be found deviating from the faith.² » 2° Cap. Aliorum, cause 9, q. 3: « God willed the causes of other men to be brought to an end through men, but the causes of the prelate of this See He reserved to His own arbitrament, without question. » This excludes a council both general and particular. 3° The Roman Council, under Adrian II, cap. 4: « We read that the Roman Pontiff judged the rulers of all the churches, but we do not read that anyone judged him. »

Proof. 5° conclusion, from the ancestral doctrine of the Church of Gaul.

Around the year 503, on the occasion of Pope Symmachus, whom a Roman council, popularly called Palmare, had summoned to trial, although he was consenting willingly, St. Avitus, archbishop of Vienne, writes thus in the name of the Church of Gaul to the Senators of the City: « It is not easily understood by what reason or law one more eminent is to be judged by inferiors... It is not for the Pastor of the flock to terrify what is his own, but for a judge. » Now a general council is the flock.

In the year 800, the Gallican bishops, summoned by command of Charlemagne to the Roman council in the case of Leo III, accused by his rivals of various crimes, refused to obey unless the Pontiff himself should freely submit himself to their judgment, on this ground, that since he was head of all the churches, he could be judged by no one. See Anastasius, in the life of Leo III.

In the twelfth century, St. Ives, bishop of Chartres, epist. 159: « Since, he says, we have learned, with the Roman Church herself teaching, that the judgments of the Roman Church can be retraced by no one from outside, if any ever complain that they have been aggrieved by the authority of that Church, we give them this counsel, that they do not go down into Egypt for help, but from that very Church flee to that very Church, and there await relief from her from whom they complain that they received the grievance. » The same he teaches in epist. 233, to the Abbot of Angeriocense, in the case of Paschal II, who was said to have granted investitures to the Emperor Henry contrary to the rights of the Church.

In the same century, St. Bernard, glory of the Church of Gaul, epist. 213, addressing the Pontiff: « Who, he says, will do me justice against you?... There exists indeed the tribunal of Christ; but far be it that I should appeal to it... And so I have recourse to him to whom in the present it has been given to judge concerning all things, “that is, to you. To you I appeal, to you: you judge between me and you. »

In the year 1305, since the magnates of the kingdom asked Clement V to condemn the memory of Boniface VIII, whom they said had been a heretic, that he had existed as a mere private man and never as a legitimate Pontiff, as we saw in art. 3, § 5, n. 4, they add: « When the heresy of the dead Boniface is in question, a general council ought not to be convened. For you are, most holy Father, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, representing the whole body of the Church, who hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Nor could the whole council, when convened, WITHOUT YOU AND EXCEPT THROUGH YOU take cognizance of the matter spoken of above, according to the decrees of the Fathers and the judgment of the doctors of law and of the holy Church of God. » Blind be he who does not see in these words that the authority of the Pontiff is greater than that of the council.

In the year 1324, the theologians of the faculty of Paris presented to Clement VII, seated at Avignon, a theological treatise in which they acknowledge, assert, and prove his « supreme » authority in the Church, as we saw in art. 3, § 5 cited, n. 3. If truly « supreme, » therefore none is greater.

From the time, then, of the Council of Constance only did the Church of Gaul begin to depart from this ancestral opinion of the forefathers, with John Gerson, chancellor of the academy of Paris, acting and leading.

You will object, 1° and principally. The council of Constance, sess. 4, decrees thus : «This holy synod of Constance, making a general council, for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation of the Church of God to be made in head and members..., lawfully gathered in the Holy Spirit..., ordains, disposes, enacts, decrees and declares as follows. And first, that this synod, gathered in the Holy Spirit, making a lawful general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has power immediately from Christ, to which everyone of whatever state or dignity he may be, even Papal, is bound to obey in those things that pertain to the faith and the extirpation of the said schism and the general reformation of the Church of God in head and members.» And sess. 5 repeats the same decree and adds : «Likewise it declares that whoever of whatsoever condition, state and dignity, even Papal, who shall have contemptuously refused obedience to the mandates, statutes or ordinances or precepts of this holy synod, and of any other general council whatsoever lawfully gathered, concerning the premises, or things done or to be done pertaining to them, unless he repent, be subjected to condign penance and duly punished, having recourse even to the other aids of law, if need be.» Ergo.

To this argument, which they think invincible, a threefold answer is employed.

The first and more common is, that these decrees are to be understood not of general councils outside the time of schism and when there is a certain Pontiff, but only of councils celebrated in the time of schism and of doubtful Pontiffs, such as were then John XXIII, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. In which case, since there is no Pope — for a doubtful Pope is no Pope, because he is not the visible head of the Church — we confess that the council has power immediately from Christ, to which everyone of whatever state or dignity, even Papal, is bound to obey in those things that pertain to the faith and the extirpation of schism, and the general reformation of the Church of God in head and members.

The truth of this answer is established : 1° from the very terms of the decrees. For in the decree of session 4, and in the first part of the decree of session 5, speech is had only of this council of Constance convoked for the extirpation of the present schism. Indeed in the second part of the decree of session 5 it is said : «And of any other general council whatsoever lawfully gathered;» but this saying is straightway restricted by the following words : «Concerning the premises, or things done or to be done pertaining to them.» What moreover are «the premises,» but the schism to be extirpated and the doubtful Pontiffs to be deposed; which was the true and proper cause of celebrating the council of Constance, as is evident from six terms placed at the beginning of the decrees.

2° It is established from the testimony of Cardinal John of Turrecremata, who was present at the council, in the Summa de Ecclesia, c. 99 : «It is plainly clear, he says, that the decree of those Fathers does not speak universally of every synod, but singularly of that one, for whose time there was in the Church no undoubted pastor of the whole Church.»

3° The council itself answers thus to the Cardinals contending that the Roman Church was head of all other churches and of the council itself. «Note upon the word head : let this be granted, yet not for cherishing schism or dissensions. Likewise note upon the word council : a distinction must be subjoined; because this is true in some council, especially when the matter concerns eluding some error against the catholic faith, or extirpating a heresy; where however the matter concerns removing schism in the Roman Church, then it has no place there.» So report the acts of the council in Vanderhard, tom. II, part. 13, pag. 287. From which clearer than light it is plain that the council understood its decrees of the present and like case of schism and doubtful Pontiff only, not of whatever general councils.

4° Martin V, canonically elected and a certain Pontiff, proved himself superior to the council : 1° Because straightway alone he defined, with the clause «with the approval of the sacred council.» 2° He dissolved the council when he wished. And although some took ill that it was dissolved without the reformation being made, none however dared cry out against it. 3° The bull Inter cunctas, given in the council, orders those suspected in the errors of Wyclif to be interrogated : «Whether he believe that the Pope canonically elected, whoever for the time being may be, in his own name expressly expressed, is the successor of Peter, holding supreme authority in the Church of God.» Moreover, if it be supreme, no greater is given.

Second answer. Granting that the decrees of sessions 4 and 5 are to be understood of a certain Pontiff and of councils celebrated even outside the case of schism, it is answered then that the council of Constance was not oecumenical, because the bishops of one obedience only, namely of John XXIII, were then present, nor did they agree among themselves regarding the aforementioned decrees.

So reports Cardinal de Turrecremata, who was present at the council, in the Summa de Ecclesia, lib. II, cap. 99 : «No one, he says, doubts that to assert that the obedience of John alone made a universal council, representing the universal Church, would be rash and scandalous to the other obediences.» And below : «In that determination not only did the universal Church not intervene, but one obedience only, namely that of John XXIII, as was said; but also not integrally that whole obedience, since many most learned Fathers of that obedience did not give their consent to it.» These things said John of Turrecremata, Cardinal most pious and at the same time most learned, and, as he himself wrote, an eyewitness; to deny him faith would be of highest shamelessness, says our Serry.

They infer. Therefore the Fathers of Constance lied, while they said in these two sessions : «This holy synod, making a general council, etc.»

I answer. I deny the inference. For not everyone who says what is false lies : nor is it a wonder if then the Fathers erred in good faith, for they were not infallible, the universal council not yet being gathered.

They urge : Martin V himself acknowledged the general council to be in the first sessions, before the union of the obediences, since in apostolic letters which exist among the acts of the last session he says that «the condemnations of the errors and heresies of John Wyclif, and of John Hus, and of Jerome of Prague, made concerning their persons and books by the sacred general council of Constance, were justly and rightly done.» Likewise in another interrogatory, ibidem, he says «that it is to be believed and approved that in favor of the faith and for the salvation of souls the council of Constance, representing the universal Church, approved and approves, condemned and condemns.» But those condemnations were made in sess. 8, when still only the obedience of John was present. Ergo.

I answer. with Cajetan, Opusc. de Potestate Papae et concilii, cap. 8, that the assembly of Constance began first in the obedience of John XXIII, and then again was renewed in the conjunction of Gregory XII, and thirdly was consummated in the conjunction of the obedience of Benedict XIII, and after the election of Martin V, presiding over the same council, was authorized, and from this more noble and more certain state, nominally in each state, the council is called general by the Pope, using several names without offense to truth. Nay rather, that the Pontiff might intimate that from this last state he called the council general, to the aforesaid interrogatory of faith, with the past tense passed over, he joined the present, saying that «the council approved and approves, condemned and condemns.»

To this second answer, if the first does not stand, those things also avail which we said for the first, numbers 3 and 4.

Third answer. Granted gratis that these decrees are to be understood of whatever general council, even outside the case of schism and doubtful Pontiff, and were uttered by a truly oecumenical council, it remains that they were not approved and confirmed by Martin V : seeing that in the last session he approved and confirmed only «what had been done and defined in conciliar fashion in matters of faith; not otherwise, nor in another manner.» Moreover these decrees were neither uttered «in conciliar fashion,» nor «in a matter of faith.» Not «in conciliar fashion,» not only because the council then was not oecumenical, as was said, but because they were not published in the manner of other councils, questions of such moment previously discussed under mature examination. For they were made on the occasion of the withdrawal of John XXIII from the council; he withdrew however on the evening of March 21, and straightway the decree against him was concluded, and on the 30th of the same month it was pronounced by the four nations, the Cardinals contradicting.

Not «in a matter of faith ;» for in session 5 these things are read : «There arose at the command of the whole holy synod, the Reverend Father Lord Andrew, bishop-elect of Posen, and read out and published certain chapters in the manner of SYNODICAL CONSTITUTIONS, previously concluded and deliberated by each of the four nations singly. Of which the tenors follow and are such.» Among these synodical constitutions however the decrees about which we treat here are enumerated in the first and second place. When however these and other synodical constitutions had been read, it is subjoined : «These things accomplished, the aforesaid Reverend Father Lord Andrew, bishop-elect of Posen, IN THE MATTER OF FAITH and concerning the matter of John Hus read out certain advisements, which follow and are such.» It is plain that the council distinguishes between synodical constitutions and matters of faith, places the decrees about which we treat among the synodical constitutions, and excludes them from the matter of faith; consequently Martin V, who confirmed the decrees of this council only «in the matter of faith, not otherwise, nor in another manner,» did not confirm the aforesaid decrees, about which the question is.

Likewise these decrees were not issued as decrees of faith are wont to be issued, under pain of anathema or heresy, but only under pain of penance or punishment against contumacious transgressors, unless they repented. Ergo the same as before.

What has been said up to this point in the three answers is confirmed. If the praised decrees were decrees of faith sanctioned by a truly oecumenical council for any council and Pontiff whatsoever, even outside the case of schism and doubtful Pontiff, and approved and confirmed by Martin V; no Catholic of whatsoever state, condition, or dignity, even Papal, would have dared contradict them without stain of heresy. But not only did Martin himself in the council contradict them, as we saw, but a little after the council several theologians distinguished for learning and holiness taught the contrary. Among them Turrecremata, in the Summa de Ecclesia; the Ferrariensis, in lib. IV Cont. gentes, cap. 75; St. Antoninus, in his Summa, part. 3, tit. 23, c. 3, § 3, where he says : «But neither can appeal be made from the Pope to a general council, because the Pope is superior to every council. Nor does anything that is done have force, unless it be ratified and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff. To think therefore that appeal can be made from the Pope to a council is heretical.» The following Pontiffs Pius II and Julius II prohibited appealing from the Pope to the council under pain of excommunication. The same thing every year is solemnly prohibited under the same pain in the publication of the bull Coenae, renewed by Gregory XIII. Nearly all the theologians of all the other nations, France excepted, of whatsoever state, condition and dignity, teach plainly the contrary, and some as of faith. Let us conclude therefore that the praised decrees are not decrees of faith, to be held certainly by all and for every case, either because they regard only the case of schism and doubtful Pontiff, or because they were not published by a truly oecumenical council, or finally because they were not confirmed by the supreme Pontiff.

And so judged the very chief defenders of these decrees themselves. Gerson, in the tract Quomodo et an liceat, after he had said much for the superiority of the council above the Pontiff, concludes thus : «These things however have been spoken or argued more for the inquiry into truth than for the reproach of anyone (especially of the most holy Lord Pope Martin).» Would Gerson have spoken thus if he had held the decrees of Constance for decrees of faith to be held certainly by all in every case? Is truth inquired into when it is held certainly? Cardinal Peter d'Ailly, master of Gerson, another depressor of papal dignity below the council, though nevertheless more moderate than Gerson, in the treatise de Potestate Ecclesiastica, which he composed after session 5, in the year 1417, according to the new edition of the works of Gerson, tom. II, pag. 926, and which was read in the council on the first of October of the same year, after many things said and alleged for the authority of the council above the Pontiff, concludes thus : «These things therefore toward the ten chapters proposed in the prologue of this work seem to me sufficient for my answer. Which however are posited, not determining definitively, but persuading doctrinally. For I submit the definition of this matter to the determination of the sacred council.» He judged therefore that the ultimate definition on this matter had not yet been issued by the council.

They urge : The council of Basel, sess. 2, renewed and confirmed the decree of Constance, there existing a certain and undoubted Pontiff; and this Eugenius IV approved and confirmed by the bull Dudum read in sess. 16 of the same council of Basel, in which he also recalls other bulls previously given by him against the same council. Ergo.

I answer. That Eugenius IV never approved this decree of session 2 of the council of Basel. Indeed, fearing the imminent schism, arising from the fact that he had translated the council from Basel to Ferrara, the Fathers of Basel resisting, and all the princes urging that he recall this translation, he assented to the continuation of the council at Basel, recalled the bulls by which he had ordered its translation and dissolution, and declared that he intended to pursue the council with every favor. These things and nothing more Eugenius said in the said bull Dudum. From the fact however that he recognized the council as lawful, permitted its continuation, and intended to pursue it with every favor, it does not follow that he approved and confirmed all its decrees. Martin V recognized the council of Constance as lawful, pursued it with every favor, yet did not confirm all its decrees, but those only which had been done in conciliar fashion in the matter of faith, not otherwise, nor in another manner, as we saw. St. Leo recognized the Chalcedonian council as lawful, and equally pursued it likewise with every favor, yet did not approve all its decrees, as is evident from what was said above. The same of Eugenius IV with respect to the council of Basel. This Turrecremata cited testifies, writing that he heard Eugenius say publicly at Florence in disputation : «We indeed approved the progress of the council willingly, yet we did not approve its decrees.» This also Eugenius himself indicates, writing to the Bishop of Liege and Bologna, and other legates through Germany, in Raynaldus, ad annum 1446, n. 3, and in the bull Moyses vir Dei, given in the Florentine council, and reported among its acts, part. 3, pag. 1186. Whence Nicholas V, who succeeded Eugenius, and with whom the Basilians, who had transferred the council to Lausanne, made peace, of all the decrees of the council of Basel approved only those which had been done concerning censures and benefice causes.

They urge : Whoever knows the decrees of a synod, and does not disapprove them, and adheres to the bull published by the synod, is judged to approve those decrees, especially if those decrees, previously condemned by him, gain strength by him also as author. Ergo.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. Whoever knows the decrees of a synod and does not disapprove them is judged to approve them if the time be suitable and the obligation of approving or disapproving urge — let this pass; otherwise, I deny. But the time was not suitable, a schism impending from the obstinacy of the Basilians, for the supreme Pontiff to open his mind concerning these decrees; nor did the obligation of approving or disapproving then urge, since Pontiffs are not wont to approve or annul decrees except when the council is concluded. Nor by the revocation of the former bulls did the decrees formerly condemned thus gain strength, as though they were approved, but they were recalled to that state in which they were before condemnation.

You will object, 2° : Often, especially in France, appeal has been made from the supreme Pontiff to a general council : in the year 1302, from the bulls of Boniface VIII; in the year 1491, from the bull of Innocent VIII, on the occasion of extraordinary tithes; in the year 1517, from the concordat of Leo X with Francis I, on account of the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction; in the year 1682, from the decrees of Innocent XI, in the cause of the Regale. But appeal is made only from an inferior to a superior. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the consequence. 1° Because right is neither proved nor acquired from fact, especially if positive laws exist contrary to the fact, as here occurs and is evident from the proofs of the conclusion. 2° Because those appeals were not made to a general council excluding the Pontiff, but to a council which the Pontiff would convoke, and over which he would preside per se or through his legates; and thus they are not so much appeals as new cognitions of the same cause before the same judge, other judges subordinate to the Pontiff merely assisting. Besides, the appeal from the concordat was not properly an appeal to a general council, but to the Pontiff himself and a fuller council; because the French did not reckon the Lateran council general. Similarly they did not hold Boniface VIII for a legitimate Pontiff, and therefore deemed it licit for themselves to appeal from him. In other kingdoms grievances are ordinarily met by supplications, representations, legates, and thus matters are for the most part settled peacefully.

You will object, 3rd, from the inconveniences. It is not credible that God left the Church destitute of every remedy in extremities. But this would come to pass, if the Pontiff were subject to the council : 1° if the Pontiff were harmful to the Church and wished to subvert her; 2° if he were a captive; 3° if he were insane. For in these cases no remedy seems to remain except in a council which could depose the Pope. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the minor. To the first case. If he strives to subvert the Church in the faith, since then he is manifestly a heretic, by that very fact he falls from the pontificate, and only the declaration of the Church is required, that obedience be denied to him, as we said before. But if he be otherwise harmful to the Church, some answer¹ that the faithful can resist him with force of arms, without his thereby losing superiority. Thus, while unjustly invaded by his superior, the inferior resists him, yet the invader does not therefore lose superiority. Thus again, if the king of France, who acknowledges no superior in temporal things, should wish to subvert the kingdom, subjects could not resist him with force; nor yet must it be said on that account that «recourse must be had to God, who will correct him or remove him out of the way;» or it must be said that, since God rules and preserves his Church by special providence, he will not permit, as he has not permitted hitherto, this case to happen, or if he permit it, he will not fail in supplying opportune means and helps.

To the second case, of the captive Pontiff. Prayers are made by the Church to God, as they were made for Peter, while he was held captive by Herod; nor meanwhile does he cease to be Pontiff, nor can he be deposed by a council, just as the captive king of France does not on that account cease to be king, nor can he be deposed by the peoples.

To the third case. If the Pontiff be perpetually insane, he will be judged dead : for the insane man is truly dead as regards rational life, and thus the Church could provide herself with another Pontiff. Meanwhile truly in this and the preceding case the Church will not fail, but she will preserve the passive infallibility of faith. Should controversies arise concerning faith or morals, the bishops or a council will be able to define; but the definition will not have ultimate and absolute firmness until it is confirmed by the following Pontiff, as we have already said and shall say.

[Three opinions have been published on this question.

The first is that the supreme Pontiff has by divine law most plenary power over the whole world, in matters both ecclesiastical and political. Indeed Ostiensis even holds that the empire was transferred from the Greeks, as it were from princes of infidels, to the Church, and resides in the supreme Pontiff, as the Vicar of the supreme and true King Christ; and therefore that the Pope can give the kingdoms of infidels of his own right to whichever faithful men he wills.

The second, which Bellarmine¹ calls not so much an opinion as a heresy, is placed at the other extreme. It teaches that the Pope, as Pope and by divine law, has no temporal power whatever, nor can he in any way command secular princes, much less deprive them of their kingdoms and principality, even if they otherwise deserve to be deprived of them. This opinion, as regards temporal things, was professed by the authors of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of the year 1682.

The third opinion, placed in the middle, and common to Catholic theologians, holds that the Pope as Pope has directly and immediately no temporal power at all, but only spiritual; yet that, by reason of his spiritual power, he has at least indirectly a certain power in temporal things, and that a supreme one. Thus Hugh of St. Victor, lib. II de Sacramentis, p. 2, c. 4, whom Alexander Alensis follows, 3rd part of the Summa, q. 40; likewise St. Bonaventure, De origine iurisdictionis, q. 3, at the end, and many others after them. It is reported that the Roman theologians prepared a censorial judgment against Bellarmine, because he had asserted only an indirect power, and that the supreme Pontiff did not sanction this judgment, on account of the outstanding merits of the author. Hence

I say: Supreme temporal power, at least indirect, belongs to the Roman Pontiff.

The proposition is first explained. Although the Pope as such has no power that is merely temporal, he nevertheless has, in order to the spiritual good, supreme power of disposing of the temporal goods of Christians, so that thus he may be able to attain the spiritual end set before him, that is, to procure the eternal salvation of souls, which excels every temporal end.

This is illustrated by a similitude. For as spirit and flesh stand related in man, so do the two powers stand related in the Church, namely the spiritual and the temporal. Flesh is without spirit in brutes, spirit without flesh in angels. From which it appears that neither exists precisely for the sake of the other. But since the flesh is united to the spirit in man, because one person results from their conjunction, they necessarily have subordination, without which connection would be impossible. For the flesh is subject, the spirit is present; and although the spirit does not mingle itself in the actions of the flesh, but allows it to act as befits it, whenever actions of this kind hinder the end of the spirit himself, the spirit commands the flesh and chastises it, so that it may be held in the necessary dependence and subjection.

"So entirely does the political power have its own princes, its own laws, its own judgments, etc., and similarly the ecclesiastical its own bishops, its own canons, its own judgments. The former has for its end temporal peace, the latter eternal salvation. They are found sometimes separated, as formerly in the time of the Apostles, when princes of infidels were not of the bosom of the Church; sometimes joined, as now. When, however, they are joined, they make one body, and therefore, that they may be truly connected, the inferior ought to be subjected to and subordinated to the superior. And so the spiritual power does not mingle itself in temporal affairs, but allows all things to proceed in the same manner in which they were done before the union, provided they do not harm the spiritual end, or are not necessary for attaining this end. If, however, something of this kind occurs, the spiritual power can and must coerce the temporal in every manner and way that seems necessary for that purpose.

Proof. 1st, by reason. 1° Civil power is subject to spiritual power, when both parts belong to the same Christian commonwealth. Therefore the spiritual prince can command the temporal prince, and dispose of temporal things in order to the superior good which he is bound to procure for his subjects; for every superior commands his inferior. — It is proved from the ends of each power. Temporal felicity, which is the end of civil power, is not the last end of man, whose last end, namely eternal felicity, is the proper and necessary end of spiritual power. But all things depend on the last end and ought to be referred to it. Therefore.

2° Kings and Popes, clerics and laity do not make spiritually two commonwealths, but one, that is, one Church, which excels the civil commonwealth. For the Apostle says, Rom., XII, 5: We who are many are one body in Christ; and 1 Cor., XII, 13: In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. But in every body the members are connected and dependent one upon another; yet it would not rightly be asserted that spiritual things depend on temporal things. Therefore temporal things depend on spiritual things and are subjected to them.

3° If temporal administration impedes the spiritual good, by the judgment of all the temporal prince is bound to change that manner of administering, even with detriment to the temporal good. Whence it follows that temporal power is subject to spiritual.

4° Any commonwealth whatsoever, because it is perfect in itself and ought to suffice for itself, can command any other commonwealth, even one not subject to it, and compel it to change its administration, indeed even depose its prince and install another, when it cannot otherwise defend itself from his injuries. Therefore much more will the spiritual commonwealth be able to command the temporal commonwealth subject to it, and compel it to change its administration, and depose princes and install others, if it cannot otherwise protect the spiritual good. This Boniface VIII expresses, after Bernard, lib. IV de Consideratione, in the extravg. Unam sanctam: « Both therefore are in the power of the Church, that is, the spiritual sword and the material one. But the latter is to be exercised for the Church, the former indeed by the Church. The former by the hand of priests, the latter by kings and soldiers, but at the nod and with the patience of the priest. Now it behooves the sword to be under the sword, and temporal authority to be subject to spiritual power. For, since the Apostle says: There is no power but of God; and those things that are of God are ordered; they would not be ordered unless sword were under sword, and, as inferior, were reduced through another to the supreme. »

5° It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate an infidel or heretical king attempting to drag his subjects into his heresy or infidelity. But it pertains to the Pope to judge whether a king drags them into heresy or not, because the care of religion is committed to no other. Therefore it is for the Pope to judge whether the king is to be deposed or not deposed. — The major is proved. When human law and divine law are opposed, divine law ought to be observed, human law being set aside. But it is of divine law to preserve the true faith and religion, which is only one and absolutely necessary; but it is of human law that we have this or that king. Therefore.

This argument greatly pleased the Angelic Doctor, saying, IIa IIae, q. 10, a. 10, c: « It must be considered that dominion and prelacy were introduced by human law [namely as regards the persons possessing them]; but the distinction between the faithful and infidels is by divine law. Now divine law, which is from grace, does not take away human law, which is from natural reason. Therefore the distinction between faithful and infidels, considered in itself, does not take away the dominion and prelacy of infidels over the faithful. Nevertheless it can justly be taken away by the sentence or ordination of the Church having authority from God for such a right of dominion or prelacy; because infidels by merit of their unbelief deserve to lose power over the faithful, who are transferred into the sons of God. But this indeed the Church sometimes does, sometimes does not... » Nor does St. Thomas understand by infidels the pagans alone, as Barclay and certain others seem to have thought; for ibid., a. 6, c, comparing infidels of different kinds in respect to the faith, he says: « According to this, the unbelief of heretics, who profess the faith of the Gospel and resist it, corrupting it, sin more gravely than the Jews, who never received the faith of the Gospel. But because [the Jews] received its figure in the old law, which, interpreting it badly, they corrupt, therefore also their unbelief is a graver sin than the unbelief of the pagans, who in no way received the faith of the Gospel. » Therefore, under this respect, heretics are infidels of a worse species, as the holy Doctor concludes: « Whence, speaking simply, the unbelief of heretics is the worst. » Not only toward Christian princes does the holy Doctor attribute this right to the Church, but also toward infidels properly so called. For he says in the same art. 10: « But among those infidels who do not temporally subject themselves to the Church or its members, the said right of the Church does not obtain, although it could establish it by law. And it does this to avoid scandal. » He repeats the same ibid., q. 12, a. 2, c: « The distinction between faithful and infidels is according to divine law, by which human law is not taken away. But someone sinning through unbelief can by sentence forfeit the right of dominion, as also sometimes on account of other faults... And therefore, as soon as anyone is denounced as excommunicated by sentence on account of apostasy from the faith, ipso facto his subjects are absolved from his dominion and from the oath of fidelity by which they were bound to him. » Likewise q. 60, a. 6, ad 3: « Secular power is subjected to spiritual, as body to soul, as Gregory Nazianzen says, Orat. 17. And therefore it is not a usurped judgment if a spiritual prelate meddles in temporal things, as regards those things in which secular power is subjected to him, or those which are left to him by secular power.² Moreover, in II Sentent., dist. 44, at the end, the same Doctor says that in the Pope is the apex of both powers, namely spiritual and temporal; whence it is rightly concluded that temporal power, in those who exercise it in a lower degree, is subordinate to him. The same is read in lib. III de Regimine principum, cap. 10 et 19, which we omit, because its authenticity is not sufficiently established.

Proof. 2nd, from the authority and practice of the Church. For in several ecumenical councils the Church decreed that laymen, should they be found to be heretics, were to be deprived of their temporal goods, and absolved subjects from the sacrament of fidelity toward princes who professed heresy, or neglected to purge their territories of this stain, or injured ecclesiastical rights. This appears from the acts of the councils of Lateran III and IV, and the council of Lyons I. As an example take the sentence pronounced by Innocent IV in this last council against the emperor Frederick II, in these words: « We therefore, concerning the premises and very many other of his nefarious excesses, with our brothers and the sacred council, after diligent deliberation had beforehand, since we unworthily hold the vicarship of Jesus Christ on earth, and it was said to us in the person of the blessed apostle Peter: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, etc., the said prince, who rendered himself most unworthy of the empire and kingdoms and every honor and dignity, and who on account of his impieties is rejected by God from reigning or commanding, bound by his own sins and cast off, deprived of every honor and dignity by the Lord, we declare, denounce, and nevertheless by sentencing deprive, forever absolving all who are bound to him by oath of fidelity from an oath of this kind, etc. » In the preceding council of Lateran IV, Innocent III had similarly deposed Raymond from the county of Toulouse.

Here it must be noted, 1° that the Pope acted in this case as the Vicar of Christ, in virtue of the general power conferred by Christ on Peter and his successors, and emitted not merely a bare declaration, but authoritatively pronounced a true sentence. It must be said besides that the Pope did not receive from the council the power he then exercised; for, as proved above, the council is not above the Pope, but the Pope is above the council, and whatsoever he does «with the approbation of the sacred council» the same he can do outside the council and alone. 2° The facts praised above must be held as dogmatic, that is, as Catholic doctrine concerning the law by virtue of which the acts are implicatory. For attention must be paid not merely to the bare fact, but also and chiefly to the foundation on which the right asserted by the Pope and council rests. But in the sentence premised it is taught that this power proceeds from the institution of Christ and pertains to the nature of the supreme pontificate. Therefore by divine law this power belongs to the Roman Pontiff.

The same reasoning must be applied to the deposition of Henry IV emperor, father of Frederick II, made by St. Gregory VII in the Roman council. For it matters little that that council was not ecumenical, since it has been said that this power was by no means conferred on the Pope by the council.

Of this Pope the following eulogy is found in the Roman Breviary: « Against the impious attempts of the emperor Henry, a strong athlete in all things remained undismayed, and feared not to place himself as a wall for the house of Israel, and deprived the same Henry, fallen into the depth of evils, of communion with the faithful and of his kingdom, and freed the subject peoples from the fidelity given to him. »

« But that all these things may be explained more particularly, says Bellarmine, de Summo Pontifice, lib. V, cap. 6, the spiritual power of the Pope must be compared with the persons of judges or secular princes, with their civil laws, and with their forum and judgments.

« As regards persons, the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily depose temporal princes, even for a just cause, in the manner in which he deposes bishops, that is, as ordinary judge. Yet he can change kingdoms, and take away from one and confer on another, as supreme spiritual prince, if this be necessary for the salvation of souls, as has been proved.

« As regards laws, the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily enact a civil law, or confirm or invalidate the laws of princes, because he is not himself the political prince of the Church. Yet he can do all those things, if some civil law be necessary for the salvation of souls, and yet the kings are unwilling to enact it; or if another be harmful to the salvation of souls, and yet the kings are unwilling to abrogate it.

« Therefore best is the rule handed down by the Gloss on cap. Possessor, de Regulis iuris in Sexto, which is such: « When imperial and pontifical laws contrary to each other are found concerning the same matter, if the matter of the law is a thing involving peril to souls, the imperial law is abrogated by the pontifical. » And in this way the law found in cap. Si qui, de Praescriptionibus abrogated the imperial law found in the Code, de praescriptione of thirty or forty years, even with bad faith, which could not be observed without mortal sin. But when the matter of the law is a temporal thing not involving peril to souls, a pontifical law cannot abrogate an imperial law, but both are to be observed, the one in the ecclesiastical forum, the other in the civil forum.

« As regards judgments, the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily judge of temporal things. Rightly indeed Bernard says to Eugenius, lib. I de Consideratione, cap. 6: « These low and earthly things have their own judges, the kings and princes of the earth. Why do you invade others' boundaries? Why do you extend your sickle into another's harvest? » Likewise: « Your power is in crimes, not in possessions. » Yet nevertheless, in the case in which this is necessary for the salvation of souls, the Pontiff can assume also temporal judgments, namely when there is no one who can judge, as when two supreme kings contend, or when those who can and ought to judge are unwilling to pronounce sentence. Whence Bernard, ibid., cap. 7: « But it is one thing, he says, to run incidentally into these matters, a cause indeed urging it; another thing again to devote oneself to these, as to great and worthy matters of such and such intention. » And Innocent III, cap. Per venerabilem, Qui filii sint legitimi, says that the Pope exercises temporal jurisdiction only incidentally. »

[ I answer 1°. What this celebrated declaration is will be sufficiently understood from the text itself, which we here append :

«The decrees and liberties of the Gallican Church, so zealously defended by our forefathers, many strive to destroy, together with their foundations resting upon the sacred canons and the tradition of the Fathers; nor are wanting those who under their pretense do not fear to diminish the primacy of blessed Peter and of his successors the Roman Pontiffs instituted by Christ, and the obedience owed to them by all Christians, and the reverend majesty of the Apostolic See, the Church in which faith is preached and unity preserved, owed by all nations. Heretics also omit nothing whereby they may set forth as odious and burdensome to kings and peoples that power in which the peace of the Church is contained, and by such frauds may dissociate simple souls so far from the communion of mother Church and of Christ.

«That we may ward off these inconveniences, we archbishops and bishops gathered at Paris by royal mandate, representing the Gallican Church, together with the other ecclesiastical men deputed along with us, having held a diligent deliberation, have judged these things to be sanctioned and declared.

I. — «First, that to blessed Peter, and to his successors the vicars of Christ, and to the Church itself, power over spiritual things and those pertaining to eternal salvation, not however over civil and temporal things, was handed over by God, the Lord saying :

My kingdom is not of this world, and again : Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's ; and consequently stands that apostolic saying : Let every soul be subject to higher powers; for there is no power but from God; and those that are, are ordained by God. Whoever therefore resists the power resists the ordinance of God. Kings therefore and princes in temporal things are by the ordination of God subject to no ecclesiastical power, nor can the Church by authority of the keys depose them directly or indirectly, or absolve their subjects from faith and obedience, or release them from the sacrament of fidelity sworn, and this sentence is necessary to public tranquillity, no less useful to the Church than to the empire, consonant with the word of God, the tradition of the Fathers and the examples of the saints, and must be wholly retained.

II. — «Thus however full power over spiritual things is inherent in the Apostolic See and in the successors of Peter, the vicars of Christ, so that there stand at once firm and unmoved the decrees of the holy oecumenical council of Constance, approved by the Apostolic See, confirmed by the very usage of the Roman Pontiffs and of the whole Church, and guarded with perpetual devotion by the Gallican Church, concerning the authority of general councils, which are contained in sessions IV and V thereof; nor is he approved by the Gallican Church who weaken the force of their decrees, as though of doubtful authority and less approved, or twist the sayings of the council to the time of schism alone.

III. — «Hence the use of apostolic power is to be moderated by the canons composed by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the reverence of the whole world; the rules, customs and institutes received by the kingdom and the Gallican Church also avail, and the boundaries of the Fathers remain unshaken; and it pertains to the greatness of the Apostolic See that the statutes and customs confirmed by the common consent of so great a See and of the churches obtain their own stability.

IV. — «In questions of faith also the chief parts belong to the supreme Pontiff, and his decrees pertain to all and each of the churches, yet nevertheless his judgment is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accede.

«Which thing, accepted by the Fathers, we have decided to send to all Gallican churches and to the bishops presiding over them, the Holy Spirit authoring it, that we may all say the same thing, and be in the same sense and in the same opinion.»

I answer 2°. What is to be thought of the aforesaid declaration will be found by weighing each article singly, especially by comparing it with the constitution Pastor aeternus, on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, edited and promulgated in the Vatican synod.

1° The doctrine of the first article of the Declaration was abundantly refuted in our preceding article, where the temporal power which belongs to the Roman Pontiff is treated.

It must be observed that in this article the word of Christ is invoked amiss, Ioann., XVIII, 36 : My kingdom is not of this world, as though it signified that the kingdom or the power and authority of Christ, and of his Vicar, nowise and under any respect whatever regard the things of this world or temporal things. The context invincibly proves that the sense of this passage was boldly twisted into a prop of erroneous doctrine. For Pilate asking : Art thou king of the Jews? Jesus answers : My kingdom is not of this world... But now my kingdom is not from hence. To the question repeated, he answers again : Thou sayest that I am king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth. From these things it is plain that Christ was constituted king by the Father, from whom he heard it, Psal. II, 8 : Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with an iron rod, etc. By the aforesaid words he asserted only that his power arises not from human will, but from divine institution. Of what kind it is, and unto what it extends, in the person of the Roman Pontiff, was determined above. Here let it suffice to show that the usurped words are altogether beside the matter.

2° In the second article it is affirmed that the full power of the Roman Pontiff, even in spiritual things, is not full, seeing that it is inferior to the authority of a general council, according to the decrees published in sessions IV and V of the general council

of Constance. That this is false was demonstrated in the preceding article. As to what specially touches the decrees of Constance, it was said and proved that this council was not oecumenical at the time when it published these decrees, nor could it even then have had oecumenicity, and moreover that Martin V, elected legitimate Pontiff, did not hold them ratified. Seek these things there, in the answer to the first objection.

3° The third article injuriously assigns arbitrary limits to the monarchical power of the Roman Pontiff. For it supposes that Christ, when he constituted his Church, committed her governance to Peter and his successors, as pastors and rectors supreme, in such wise that it were licit for any particular church to bend this authority at its pleasure in disciplinary matters and render it powerless. And the papal majesty is so much the more offended as to royal power is attributed the right of sanctioning thus the canons of that particular church, that they remain unshaken, obtain their own stability and prevail over the ordinances of the Holy See; whence the Roman Pontiff, whom the first article excludes altogether from secular affairs, even when spiritual questions arise out of them, is subordinated in spiritual matters to royal authority by this third article. Most gravely therefore is the primacy of the Roman Pontiff injured, and the unity of governance in the Church destroyed.

4° As to the fourth article, since there is denied to the Roman Pontiff the prerogative of infallibility which above was asserted of him from Scripture and tradition, and especially from the solemn definition published in the Vatican synod, he must now be held formally a heretic.

From the premises it is plain that the Gallican Declaration is to be rejected in all its parts. As soon as it was published, it was reproved and condemned by the Holy See. The Roman censors, in the congregation of Cardinals and theologians to whose judgment it had been specially committed by Innocent XI, pronounced that the Gallican propositions could not be proscribed more mildly than by abstaining at most from the note of heresy; namely, that the other inferior notes were to be inflicted upon them. Whence Innocent XI, by letters given in the form of a brief on April 11 of the same year 1682, disapproved, rescinded and annulled what had been done in the said assemblies, and declared them perpetually null and void. Alexander VIII, his successor, by a more solemn constitution, which begins Inter multiplices, given August 4, 1690, decrees thus : «Of our own motion and with certain knowledge and mature deliberation of ours, and from the plenitude of apostolic power, all and singular which, as well regarding the extension of the law of the regalia, as regarding the declaration on ecclesiastical power, and the four propositions contained therein, were done and transacted in the aforesaid councils of the Gallican Clergy held in the year 1682, together with all and singular mandates, arrests, confirmations, declarations, epistles, edicts and decrees, issued or published by any persons whatsoever, whether ecclesiastical or lay, qualified in any manner whatever, exercising whatever authority and power ¹,... are by the law itself null, void, invalid, empty, utterly and altogether devoid of force and effect from the very beginning, and are and shall forever be, and no one is bound to observe them or any one of them, though they be fortified by oath,... we declare and decree by the tenor of these presents. And nevertheless, for the greater caution, and insofar as may be needful, the acts and transactions aforesaid and all the other premises, with equal motion, knowledge, deliberation and plenitude of power, we disapprove, annul, make void and abolish, and utterly and altogether empty them of force and effect, and protest against them and concerning their nullity before God.» To the ecclesiastical men who had been present at these assemblies, and whom afterwards the king designated to episcopal sees either new or higher, Innocent XII refused to grant bulls of canonical institution, unless by suppliant letters they besought him that they grieved «indeed vehemently and above what can be said, from the heart,» concerning deeds of this sort. Finally Louis XIV, who had commanded that the Declaration be delivered to all and held by all, himself testified to the same Innocent XII that he had ordered that no one be bound to observe the edict given on this matter.

Omitting several other condemnations of the Holy See upon this unfortunate Declaration, there must be added the judgment passed upon it by Pius VI, in the constit. Auctorem fidei, given August 28, 1794, by which the acts and decrees of the synod of Pistoia held in the year 1786 are reproved and rescinded : «Nor must there be passed over in silence, he says, the notable rashness of that synod full of fraud, which dared, not only to adorn with most ample praises the declaration of the Gallican assembly of the year 1682 long since disapproved by the Apostolic See, but, that it might win greater authority for it, insidiously to mock it in a decree inscribed On Faith, openly to adopt the articles contained therein, and to seal with a public and solemn profession of those articles the things delivered scattered through that very decree. Whereby indeed, far graver ground for demanding satisfaction of the synod offers itself to us than was offered to our predecessors concerning those assemblies, but no slight injury is inflicted also on the Gallican Church herself, which the synod judged worthy that its authority be called in as patronage of the errors with which that decree was contaminated. Wherefore, whereas our venerable predecessor Innocent XI, as soon as the acts of the Gallican assembly appeared, by letters in the form of a brief on April 11 of the year 1682, and afterwards more expressly Alexander VIII, by the constitution Inter multiplices, on August 4 of the year 1690, by reason of his apostolic office, disapproved, rescinded, and declared null and void them; much more strongly does pastoral solicitude exact of us to reprove and condemn the recent adoption of these things made in the synod, affected by so many vices, as rash, scandalous, and especially, after the publication of the decrees of our predecessors, most gravely injurious to this Apostolic See, as we reprove and condemn it by this present constitution of ours, and will it to be held as reproved and condemned.»

This Declaration, as unfortunate as celebrated, most hostile to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, pierced by the last shaft by the constit. Eterni Patris of the Vatican synod, lies quite slain [and lifeless, upon whom, if it were again formally brought to trial, the note of heresy would certainly be branded.]

[I answer. No. It is proved from historical facts.

1° Before the Council of Constance, that is, before the year 1413, the doctrine expressed in the Declaration of 1682 was utterly unheard of, in Gaul as well as in all other regions. Everyone admitted the definition of the Second Council of Lyons, of the year 1274, namely: « The Holy Roman Church herself also obtains the supreme and full primacy over the whole Church, which she truly and humbly acknowledges herself to have received with the fullness of power from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles, of whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and just as she is held before all others to defend the truth of faith, so too, if any questions should arise concerning faith, they must be defined by her judgment... And all Churches are subject to her, and their prelates give her obedience and reverence. »

It has been proved above, from certain and unshaken monuments, that the doctrine consigned so clearly in the acts of this council flourished everywhere. It flourished also in the University of Paris, as appears from the testimonies adduced of St. Thomas, who on this point agreed with his master Albert the Great¹. In the year 1387 this whole university, in a consistory before Clement VII, to whom it adhered as to the legitimate Pope, professed through master Peter of Alliaco the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in these words: « The Holy Apostolic See, as that chair of Peter upon which, Jerome being witness, the Church is founded, as is had in the same question (cause 24, q. 1, c. 25), chapter Quoniam vetusto, and as Cyprian says, dist. 93, canon Qui cathedram. Concerning which See there was said, in the person of Peter the Apostle sitting in it: Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, Luke, XXII, 32. This, therefore, is the see to which the determination of faith and the approval of truth and the detestation of heretical impiety especially pertain. »

When the king of France was pressing Clement V to declare that his predecessor Boniface VIII had been a heretic — not indeed as Pope, but as a private doctor — the nobles of France, in a supplicatory libel offered to this Pontiff for that purpose, expressed the common doctrine thus: « The question is not about the heresy of a former Pope as Pope, but as a private person. For he could not be a heretic as Pope, but as a private person. Nor was ever any Pope, insofar as he was Pope, a heretic. »

Catholic writers beyond number could be heaped up who, before the Council of Constance, held the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and above all his inerrancy, as undoubted, and none who adhered to the contrary opinion can even now be detected. Which fact Theophilus Raynaud notes, among other learned men, in his little work Autòn eça, punct. xi, tom. xx of his Works: « It would be vain for me to hunt out many theologians, since all without exception who flourished before the Council of Constance could be brought forward. For this truth was not called into question among Catholics except from the time of the Councils of Constance and Basel. But all who went before taught unanimously that papal definitions, published even without a general council, make a thing de fide, and that every judgment concerning faith belongs finally to the Apostolic See. Thus Ruard Tapper states expressly, in his third theological oration, num. 7. » The same is asserted by Bannez, on 2a 2ae of St. Thomas, quest. 1, art. 10, concl. 3; Cardinal de Aguirre, Defensio cathedrae Petri, disput. VII, sect. 2, num. 13.

2° Ballerini, De potestate ecclesiastica, appendix, § 12, affirms that the authors of the opinion called Gallican, which had previously been unheard of among Catholics, were Peter of Alliaco and John Gerson, his disciple. Yet he thinks that these two doctors also sometimes stood for the contrary doctrine, and declined into the error about the Pope's fallibility in decrees of faith only by contradicting themselves. And indeed Peter of Alliaco, in the legation he conducted at Avignon before Clement VII in the name of the University of Paris, following the ancient tradition and resting on the promises of Christ, affirmed: « Of which See (the Roman) there was said, in the person of Peter sitting in it: Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. »

Similarly, in the treatise he offered to the same Clement and the cardinals, after praising the same promise of Christ, he approves what is said by Jerome about the Roman See in the chapter Haec est fides, cause 22, q. 1, c. 3, namely: « She has always remained immaculate, and will remain so in the future. » And he immediately infers: « From all which it is sufficiently clear that her faith never fails, » as Christ had promised.

Not otherwise John Gerson, in a sermon delivered before Alexander V on the feast of the Ascension of the Lord, giving the reason why the Greek Church had been corrupted by errors concerning faith, but not the Latin one, deduces thence the indefectibility of the Roman faith, because « Latinity itself has a purer and immaculate seat in Peter, for whose faith, lest it fail, he specially prayed who in all things was heard for his reverence. »

And although he attributes the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Roman Pontiff to flattery, he nevertheless testifies that it was commonly received before the Council of Constance in these words, most worthy of attention, De potestate ecclesiastica, consideration 12: « I am mistaken if, before the celebration of this most sacred Synod of Constance, that tradition had not so taken possession of the minds of very many — more the lettered than the learned — that its opposer would have been noted or condemned as a dogmatizer of heretical pravity. » He retracts the same in many places.

The novelty of the doctrine, therefore, is established. It was first marked out in a session of the assemblies of the clergy of Gaul held on November 26, 1681, by the Jansenist Coquelin, chancellor of the church and university of Paris, who was himself the promoter of the celebrated assembly of 1682.

3° Although the doctrine professed by Peter of Alliaco and John Gerson was admitted after the Council of Constance by many canonists and theologians in France, while the other nations rejected it, it would be falsely asserted that the Gallican Church had embraced it. The definition of the Council of Florence concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, of the year 1439, by which the doctrine of the Council of Constance was utterly overturned, was everywhere accepted in the Latin Church, and prevailed altogether in the Gallican Church. For we read in the acts of the Assembly of the Clergy of Gaul held at Melun in the year 1579, title I, constitution, which concerns the profession of faith: « Those on whom this care has been laid, namely the bishops and their vicars, shall take care that in all synods, both diocesan and provincial, each and all, both clerics and laity, embrace and profess with open profession that faith which the holy Roman Church, the mistress, the pillar and firmament of the truth, professes and cultivates. For to her, on account of her principality, all Churches must needs come together. »

That this doctrine was held by the University of Paris is witnessed by Mauclerc, a Sorbonne doctor, who in his famous work de Monarchia, published in the year 1622, title I, wrote: « We ought to carry this before us in conscience as true and Catholic, and to attest it by firmly asserting it with constant mind and truly Christian spirit: that the Roman Pontiff cannot define anything in matters pertaining to faith, inasmuch as he is the supreme doctor of the universal Church, that is stained with any error. » In support of this opinion he invokes the authority of St. Thomas, teaching the same in many places, whose testimonies were adduced above. The Assembly of the Clergy of Gaul of the year 1625 had openly professed the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Its acts were suppressed by the subsequent assembly, not in order to erase this profession, as some asserted, but because complaints against bishops raised there were referred to provincial synods alone, and there was danger lest this attribution be disapproved and condemned by the Apostolic See, whose rights such a decision curtailed².

In the letter sent in the year 1651 to Innocent X, by which five Jansenist propositions were referred to the judgment of the Holy See, eighty-five French bishops write: « To refer greater causes to the Apostolic See is the solemn custom of the Church, which the never-failing faith of Peter demands to be retained perpetually as her own right. Obeying this most equitable law, we have judged that we must write to Your Holiness about a matter of gravest moment concerning religion. »

After Innocent X had condemned the five propositions referred to him by his constitution Cum occasione, June 9, 1653, the bishops of France again wrote to him on July 15 of the same year in this manner: « That constitution at last reached us, so long desired, in which what must be thought concerning the five propositions is... plainly decided... It restored to its pristine luster the light of this (Catholic) doctrine, obscured by the disputations of that more recent author (Jansenius), according to the ancient rule of faith,... the decree set forth by Your Holiness at the request of many bishops of the Gauls... For indeed the Catholic Church of that ancient age... clearly perceived, not only from the promise made by Christ our Lord to Peter, but also from the acts of previous Popes, and from the anathemas hurled shortly before by Damasus against Apollinaris and Macedonius, not yet condemned by any synod, that judgments laid down by the Supreme Pontiffs for establishing the rule of faith, upon the consultation of bishops — whether they state their opinion in their acts and relations or omit it, as it pleases them — rest upon authority equally divine and supreme throughout the whole Church: to which all Christians are bound to render obedience also of mind itself by office. imbued with this opinion and faith, we also, etc. » Nothing more explicit could be declared. The prelates gathered at Paris on the same day directed letters to the remaining archbishops and bishops of France, in which they professed the same doctrine.

In their letters to Alexander, of September 2, 1656, the French bishops again open their mind concerning the aforesaid constitution of Innocent X in these words: « We have received it (the Brief) with the same alacrity of mind indeed, with which the Fathers of the African council embraced the letter of Zosimus sought from them by themselves, by which with a peremptory decree he cast down the errors of Pelagius and Celestius, which they were secretly spreading... The cause was ended by apostolic rescripts: would that the error too might end! if I may conceive our wishes in the words of Augustine. » After the same Alexander VII had ordered the Formula to be subscribed, the bishops of the Gauls wrote to him in the year 1660, among other things: « And because in it (the Apostolic mount) the Lord teaches, we establish there, according to the words of Tertullian, an end of seeking, a station for believing, a completion of finding... But in you, as in the successor of Peter, our strength, that of us all, is made firm. » In the encyclical letter of the assembly of the clergy of Gaul of October 2, 1663, are reported the words of Avitus of Vienne written to Pope Hormisdas, that not only his own church but all the churches of the Gauls most firmly wished to follow him in everything that pleased him to decide concerning faith, and it is added that the faith of the bishops is invincible, and their authority infallible by reason of their unbreakable union with the center of religion, that is, with the see of Peter, in things that regard both dogma and discipline.

Having deliberately passed over the testimonies of many distinguished writers, partly for brevity, partly because they express only the opinion of private men, we have related only the acts and declarations from which the true doctrine of the Clergy of Gaul concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is recognized, both before and after the Council of Constance, down to the time contiguous with the celebrated Declaration of 1682. Many indeed adhered to the opinion of Peter of Alliaco and John Gerson, which the Jansenists embraced most fervently, whose greatest interest it was to undermine the authority of the Apostolic See; but, the heretics removed — whose vote brands this doctrine with a mark of falsity — the dissent of certain men, fewer in number, though elsewhere notable for virtue and learning, nowise harms the moral unanimity of the Gallican Church, which thereafter could be obscured, but not destroyed.

4° Now it must be shown that the Declaration of 1682 was not freely drawn up by the Clergy of Gaul as expressing their own doctrine, but that the secular power extorted it and imposed it by force, in order to wear out the Roman Pontiff contending for the defense of the rights of the Church and to throw him off course from what he had undertaken.

Under Louis XIV reigning, the question of the regale was keenly agitated in France.

The Second General Council of Lyons had sanctioned the regale, by force of which, when an episcopal see fell vacant, the king attributed its revenues to himself and conferred benefices directly, as able to be observed in those dioceses in which it flourished by title of foundation or by ancient custom, and had forbidden, under the gravest penalties, that it be extended to other dioceses.

Notwithstanding this prohibition, his counselors persuading the king to it, two royal declarations were promulgated in the years 1673 and 1675, by which all the dioceses of the Gauls, not excepting those which were immune from this servitude, were subjected to the regale, this false principle being invoked, that this right belonged essentially to royal power, and that churches enjoyed their temporal goods only from its grant and good pleasure. Innocent XI, in his letters expedited to the king in the form of a brief, condemned this manifest usurpation three times most freely. In order to protect the prerogative which they attributed to the king by title of his own right, the ministers, officials, and parliament, with Louis XIV assenting to them, judged that the spiritual authority of the Pope must be weakened.

Although at that time still, that is, at the beginning of the year 1663, the doctors of the Paris faculty adhered, few excepted, to the Roman doctrine of papal infallibility, when this infallibility had shortly before been openly defended in the college of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus called Clermont, the parliament raging against the faculty, the syndic attempted to still the persecution by drawing up, with the minister Le Tellier, a declaration containing the doctrine of the articles of the year 1682. It will help to insert here the text of this composition, known to few:

« Declarations of the sacred Faculty of theology of Paris made before the king concerning certain propositions which some have wished to attribute to the said Faculty: I. That it is not the doctrine of the Faculty that the supreme Pontiff has any authority over the temporalities of the most Christian king. Nay rather, the Faculty has always opposed even those who wished that authority to be merely indirect. — II. That it is the doctrine of the same Faculty that the most Christian king recognizes no superior whatever in temporal things nor has any except God, and that this is his ancient doctrine, from which he will never depart. — III. That the doctrine of the Faculty is that subjects owe faith and obedience to the most Christian king in such a way that they can by no pretext be dispensed from them. — IV. That the doctrine of the Faculty is not to approve, nor ever to have approved, any propositions contrary to the authority of the most Christian king or to the genuine liberties of the Gallican Church and the canons received in the kingdom, for example, that the supreme Pontiff can depose bishops contrary to those same canons. — V. That the doctrine of the Faculty is not that the supreme Pontiff is above an ecumenical council. — VI. That it is not the doctrine or dogma of the Faculty that the supreme Pontiff, with no consent of the Church intervening, is infallible. »

Let the reader observe that the negative form was deliberately employed in the articles of greater moment, so that it would be affirmed only that the Faculty did not teach those things which displeased the civil authority more, abstaining from pronouncing a definitive sentence on these points, lest the same Faculty seem formally to depart from its former and constant doctrine. The ambiguity appears especially in the sixth article, where it is said that the Faculty does not teach that the Pope is infallible with no consent of the Church intervening. Certainly this can be interpreted catholically, if the Church be understood, which is itself infallible passively, that is, in believing, necessarily to consent in every definition concerning faith and morals to the Roman Pontiff teaching ex cathedra what she herself has always believed and professed. Therefore the assembly of 1682, in order not equivocally to deny the Pope's prerogative of personal infallibility, decreed expressly that « his judgment is not irreformable unless the consent

of the Church has intervened, » that is, unless his definition, once promulgated, has been confirmed by the express or tacit consent of the Church. This is observed by Fr. Rapin, in the account of the discussion from which the six aforesaid articles arose, in which we read that the syndic of the Faculty exclaimed that affairs would go wholly to ruin if infallibility were overthrown root and branch. Between the royal deputies and the Sorbonne doctors there was contention, on the one hand that pontifical authority be pressed down more and more, on the other that it be saved as far as circumstances allowed.

Although the six aforementioned propositions were suspected by the royal minister Colbert on account of their negative form, the parliament of Paris determined that they were to be held firm and that in the schools the contrary doctrine was to be rejected, which was sanctioned by a royal edict, under extraordinary penalties, on August 4, 1663. Nevertheless deliberation had never been had upon these articles by the Faculty, nor were they handed to the king by its mandate. Therefore many doctors protested against them, and the syndic himself who, compelled by the royal minister, had been present at the meeting in which they were drawn up and had even lent the chiefest hand to their composition. It is established moreover that the Faculty never deliberated on these, and that they were mendaciously designated by the archbishop of Paris appointed Harduin de Péréfixe and by some doctors only, and offered to the king in the name of the whole Faculty, to whom it would be impious to attribute them as extorted by force and fear.

Not abandoning the struggle begun against the authority of the Holy See, with the parliament urging the matter, the royal officials tried to break the resistance of the Faculty and the clergy. Obedient to their command, in the year 1664 the Faculty struck with its censures the book of James Vernant and the little work of Amadeus Guimene, in which it was openly taught that the Roman Pontiff is infallible and superior to councils, and that his authority, as monarchic, extends itself to the universal Church. In the following year, by the brief beginning Cum ad aures, Alexander VII condemned these censures « as presumptuous, rash, and scandalous. » The parliament boldly condemned and suppressed the pontifical brief, decreeing that the censures rejected in it should be inserted in its registers. But that the doctrine imposed by the civil power might prevail more surely in the Faculty, it had been sanctioned by mandate of the royal minister that only two doctors from each religious order were to be admitted to the deliberations of the Faculty. Now the number of regular doctors in this Faculty was one hundred seventy-three, and all of these, except only two or three, adhered most firmly to papal infallibility and the other Roman doctrinal heads. Obeying the same tyrannical commands, the assembly of the Clergy of Gaul, in the ordinary assemblies of the year 1663, deliberated on the same affair. Several attacked the decree of Alexander VII. It does not appear, however, that any conclusion was adopted. Thus gradually the royal power, that it might press down the authority of the Roman Pontiff more and more, paved the way for the infamous Declaration of 1682 per fas et nefas.

From many and certain documents³ it is established that the general assemblies of this year were convoked by mandate of the king, that in them the doctrine concerning papal power, or rather against this power, which he had decreed to be accepted and held by all in his kingdom, might be confirmed more expressly. In the letters of convocation it was openly announced that the affairs to be treated in this assembly pertained chiefly to the spiritual order. That resistance might be broken the more easily, should anyone perhaps wish to disregard the royal will, it was established that not six deputies, as used to be done before, but only two were to be elected in each ecclesiastical province; those to be deputized were designated by name by the minister Colbert himself, and since in several places some not pleasing to the same minister had been co-opted, he commanded that others more compliant be substituted for them. Moreover, for greater caution, it was declared by the king that the deputies of the second order, that is, those not adorned with episcopal dignity, would not use in the next ensuing assemblies the decisive voice which they had formerly enjoyed.

Thus the elections completed, and the liberty of the electors utterly destroyed, of the one hundred thirty bishops of the Gallican Church only thirty-four were present at these assemblies, with thirty-eight deputies of the second order, and no sane man will contend that such an assembly, even if freely constituted, had the authority of judging and defining doctrine, which belongs only to regularly assembled councils.

From the deliberations of this assembly arose the four articles of the celebrated and ill-starred Declaration, the most illustrious Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, first resisting, then moderating the adversaries more obstinate for pontifical authority, finally composing these articles himself, lest the assembly, with excessive eagerness to please the king, should undermine the power of the Roman Pontiff beyond all measure. Who will ever grieve enough that so great a man was not so constant as to overthrow invincibly a doctrine then certainly erroneous, but today to be reckoned among heretical dogmas?

Scarcely had the Declaration been subscribed by the deputies when the parliament ordered it to be inserted in the register of the Faculty of Paris, without allowing the doctors to examine it and deliberate on its acceptance. Since several protested against this tyrannical command, they were punished with exile, the royal procurator obtained the inscription with menacing words, and the Faculty was forbidden to be convoked any longer to its usual sessions, because, as the same procurator confessed, the doctors who had subscribed the Declaration seemed likely to change their opinion immediately and gladly, if this were permitted to them. At length, on March 23, 1682, a royal edict came forth, whereby it was ordered that the Declaration be held firm and observed by all.

It was said above that Louis XIV, at the instance of Innocent XII, testified that no one was bound to observe the edict given on this matter. Nevertheless, although from the year 1682 very many had always defended papal infallibility, gradually, with the secular power favoring and even pressing, the contrary error prevailed, which was held as a pagan doctrine, as if the opinion opposed to the doctrine of the Holy

See and of the universal Church were to be judged true, for this very reason, that the civil authority, usurping the magisterium which belongs divinely and exclusively to the spiritual authority, decreed it to be taught and held by all.

What Louis XIV had not feared to attempt, blinded by his power and the servility of his jurists, Napoleon dared to repeat, first consul of the French Republic, when in the Organic Articles, added by himself alone against right and law to the concordat concluded with Pius VII, he ordered, art. 24, that all professors of theology co-opted in the seminaries were bound to subscribe to the aforementioned Declaration and to teach it.

Notwithstanding this law reproved repeatedly by the Holy See, the genuine doctrine began to prevail, certain distinguished writers vindicating the rights of the Roman Pontiff, among whom Joseph de Maistre stands out, who in his books written in French, De Papa and De l'Église gallicane, asserted and demonstrated invincibly the Roman primacy and notably papal infallibility. But when the doctrine of the Declaration had been slain by the Vatican synod and condemned under anathema, few were found in France who adhered to it, and the whole Gallican Church, exulting, acclaimed the definitions of the sacred council and embraced them as sanctioning the ancestral faith.

From the foregoing it follows that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff was understood catholically by the Gallican Church from the most ancient times. If indeed for one hundred years, with only some added, the doctrine of the Council of Constance, imposed by force by the secular power for political reasons, seemed to prevail, it never obtained unanimity, and when this illustrious Church began to breathe freely again, the bonds by which she was pressed having been gradually loosened, she immediately returned to the tradition of her fathers.]

[The civil principality of the Roman Pontiff has been attacked under a twofold respect, namely with regard to the fact and with regard to the right.

Against the historical fact Protestants have raged in general, among whom Basnage, Mosheim, and Sismondi hold the chief place, who contend that the beginning of this principality is not immune from every stain of injustice, asserting that the Supreme Pontiffs fraudulently used various circumstances of things to create their temporal power and gradually to extend its limits. Nor have there been lacking even among Catholics those who, not attending sufficiently to the historical monuments, have consented to these men more than is fair.

Others have condemned this principality absolutely, as repugnant to evangelical doctrine and by its nature incompatible with spiritual power. Such were Wycliffe, condemned by the Council of Constance, Calvin, and most enemies of the Catholic Church, who, understanding that by this power the authority of the Holy See was buttressed, tried to make it odious and persecuted the Roman Pontiffs as subverters of the Gospel. Some also boasting of the title of Catholics have favored this opinion more or less, alleging that for fulfilling the spiritual ministry spiritual means suffice, and that it is hindered by the care of temporal things; whose system is contained in that celebrated formula: « A free Church in a free State. »

Against whom.

I say 1°: The civil principality of the Roman Pontiff is a legitimate fact.

It is proved. 1° It was constituted legitimately. Neither by force nor by fraud did the Pontiffs obtain their civil principality. For how could they have reduced those regions under their dominion, when no means lay ready to them for protecting themselves and keeping themselves unharmed? No more did they seize this power by fraud, which rather was offered to them spontaneously by peoples and princes. For many cities abandoned by the emperors for two hundred years and attacked by the Lombards implored the Pope's help and gave themselves to him. If therefore the consent of peoples is required — which today is vaunted as the preferable and indeed only way of acquiring dominion — this title did not fail the Roman Pontiffs. To the consent of citizens were added the confirmation and express grant of the emperors. Pepin handed over to the Supreme Pontiff the dominion of the exarchate of Ravenna, and Charlemagne confirmed this donation, other possessions being added, to whom Louis the Pious and his successors consented. Finally the countess Matilda left her own territory to the Holy See in a solemn act.

2° It was ratified by legitimate prescription. From the times of Pepin and Charlemagne more than a thousand years are counted, and if the Supreme Pontiffs several times were driven from their possessions by princes whose vices they ought to rebuke and whose excesses to repress, from the age of Charles V emperor and Francis I king of the French, that is, for three centuries, they exercised their principality peacefully. Moreover, all confess that so long an expanse of time amply suffices for legitimate prescription. And this was sanctioned in public law; for hardly any pact of peace was concluded between princes in which the temporal power of the Holy See was not recognized and placed under common protection, as was done especially and solemnly in the congress held at Vienna in Austria in the year 1815, in which the boundaries of many kingdoms of Europe were changed and determined.

3° Its legitimacy is demonstrated also from its effects, even temporal ones. Let us hear Leo XIII expounding this argument lucidly and eloquently in the Encyclical Inscrutabili, promulgated on the occasion of his assumption to the supreme pontificate:

« But what, if the works of the Roman Pontiff are considered, can be more unjust than to deny how greatly the Roman Bishops have deserved well of civil society as a whole, and how nobly? Truly our predecessors, that they might provide for the good of peoples, never hesitated to undertake struggles of every kind, to drain grave labors, and to expose themselves to harsh difficulties; and with eyes fixed on heaven, they neither bowed their forehead to the threats of the wicked, nor suffered themselves to be led away from duty by flatteries or promises with degenerate assent. This was the Apostolic See which gathered together and joined the remnants of the old society that had slipped away; this same was the friendly torch by which the humanity of Christian times shone forth; this was the anchor of salvation amid the fiercest storms by which the human race was tossed; it was the sacred bond of concord which joined nations remote and diverse in manners to one another; finally it was the common center whither were sought, together with the doctrine of faith and religion, the auspices and counsels of peace and of the conduct of affairs. Why say more? It is the praise of the Supreme Pontiffs that most steadfastly they threw themselves forward as wall and bulwark, lest human society relapse into superstition and ancient barbarism.

« But would that this salutary authority had never been neglected or repudiated! Certainly neither would civil principality have lost that august and sacred dignity which it bears implanted by religion, and which makes one condition of obedience noble and worthy of man; nor would so many seditions and wars have blazed up, which defiled the earth with calamities and slaughters; nor would kingdoms once most flourishing, cast down from the summit of prosperity, be pressed by the weight of all miseries. An example of this thing are also the eastern peoples, who, having broken the sweetest bonds by which they were joined to this Apostolic See, lost the splendor of their pristine nobility, the praise of sciences and arts, and the dignity of their empire.

« But the illustrious monuments of all ages declare the outstanding benefits which have gone forth from the Apostolic See into whatever region of land; this Italian region has perceived them above all, and the nearer it stood to the same See, the more abundant fruits it received from it. Certainly Italy owes to the Roman Pontiffs solid glory and amplitude, whereby she stood out among the remaining nations. Their authority and paternal care more than once shielded her from the onset of enemies, and brought relief and aid to her, that the Catholic faith might at no time fail to be kept whole in the hearts of Italians.

« The merits of predecessors of this kind, to pass over the rest, the memory of the times of St. Leo the Great, Alexander III, Innocent III, St. Pius V, Leo X, and other Pontiffs attests above all, through whose works or auspices Italy escaped safe from extreme destruction, which impended from the barbarians, retained the ancient faith incorrupt, and nourished amid the darkness and squalor of a ruder age the light of learning and the splendor of arts, and kept them flourishing. This our own nourishing city, the seat of the Pontiffs, attests, which took from these the greatest fruit, namely that it was not only a most fortified citadel of faith, but was made an asylum of good arts and a dwelling of wisdom, and won toward itself the admiration and observance of the whole world. Since the magnitude of these things has been handed down to everlasting memory in the monuments of history, it is understood with ease that only by hostile will and unworthy calumny, for the deception of men, could there be thrust upon them by voice and writings that this Apostolic See was a hindrance to the civil culture of peoples and the happiness of Italy.

« If therefore all the hopes of Italy and of the universal world are placed in that force common utility and healthful good — wherein the authority with which the Apostolic See is endowed — and in the tightest bond, which binds all the faithful of Christ with the Roman Pontiff, we recognize that nothing rather ought to belong to us than that we keep the Roman Chair's dignity safe and sound, and ever more and more preserve the union of members with head, of sons with father. »

It is confirmed by this peremptory argument. It cannot be admitted that an illegitimate fact should be perpetuated in the Church of Christ and by her, as legitimate, not only tolerated but even steadfastly vindicated; because, affirming this legitimacy and reproving the contrary doctrine, the Church would err and teach falsehood. Yet no Catholic will think thus. Therefore.

I say 2°: The civil principality of the Roman Pontiff is necessary.

This necessity is understood not absolutely, but conditionally and hypothetically. For if it had pleased Christ to attach a civil principality to the primacy of his Vicar as something essential, Peter himself ought to have obtained and exercised it. Moreover, through the first centuries the Roman Pontiffs were destitute of it; nay, they were adorned with no other purple than their own blood, through martyrdom; nor did they begin to enjoy such power except when, with a wondrous propagation of the Gospel, secular princes themselves became Christian with their peoples, and it was necessary that the supreme leader and shepherd of all be nowise subject to them, that he might freely fulfill his office toward them.

Proof. of the necessity of this principality: from the nature of the office committed by Christ to his Vicar. For

In order that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff may be exercised in a more efficacious manner, it is necessarily required that the Pope enjoy full liberty. Yet civil principality is the condition of this perfect liberty. Therefore this principality is necessary.

Proof. of the minor: by the solemn declaration made by Pius IX, driven out from his civil power, in the consistory held at Gaeta on April 28, 1849:

« The reason of our office, he said, demands that, in defending the civil principality of the Apostolic See, we defend with all our strength the rights and possessions of the holy Roman Church and the liberty of the same See, which is joined with the liberty and utility of the whole Church. And indeed men who, applauding the recalled decree (of spoliation), affirm things so false and absurd, either ignore or pretend to ignore that it was done by a quite singular counsel of divine providence that, the Roman empire having been divided into many kingdoms and various nations, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the government and care of the whole Church was committed by Christ the Lord, should have a civil principality for this very cause, that unto the very governing of the Church itself and the defending of its unity he might possess that full liberty which is required for discharging the office of the supreme apostolic ministry. For it is known to all that faithful peoples, nations, and kingdoms will never render full confidence and observance to the Roman Pontiff if they see him subjected to the dominion of some prince or government and not free. Indeed faithful peoples and kingdoms would never cease vehemently to suspect and fear lest the Pontiff conform his acts to the will of that prince or government within whose dominion he dwelt, and therefore would often not hesitate on that pretext to resist those acts. And indeed let even the enemies of the civil principality of the Apostolic See who now dominate Rome say with what confidence and observance they themselves would receive the exhortations, admonitions, mandates, constitutions of the Supreme Pontiff, when they recognized him to be subject to the command of any prince or government, and especially if he were subject to such a prince between whom and the Roman dominion some lasting war was being waged. » From these things the necessity asserted above is demonstrated invincibly.

The same Pontiff, in the Encyclical of June 18, 1859, affirms the same necessity decisively, saying: « We plainly proclaim it necessary that this See have a civil principality, that it may exercise its sacred power for the good of religion without any impediment. » Many times afterwards he protested in divers allocutions against the invaders of the pontifical territory, declaring them entangled in ecclesiastical censures.

Leo XIII, as soon as he was raised to the dignity of the supreme pontificate, did not fail to renew these protestations and reclamations, in the aforementioned Encyclical Inscrutabili: « That, first of all, we may assert and strive by every means we can for the rights and liberty of this Holy See, we shall never cease, that due obedience stand to our authority, that obstacles be removed which impede the full liberty of our ministry and power, and that we be restored to that condition of things which the counsel of divine wisdom had long since assigned to the Roman Bishops. In demanding this restoration we act not from zeal of ambition or desire of dominion, but from the reason of our office and the bonds of the oath of religion by which we are bound; and moreover not only because this principality is necessary for defending and preserving the full liberty of spiritual power, but also, what is most certain, when the temporal principality of the Apostolic See is in question, the cause also of public good and of the salvation of the whole human society is at stake. Hence we cannot pass over, in virtue of the duty of our office, by which we are held to defend the rights of holy Church, but must renew and confirm entirely in these our letters all the declarations and protestations which Pius IX of holy memory, our predecessor, several times issued and repeated against the violation of the rights pertaining to the Roman Church. » And this declaration Leo XIII himself afterwards repeated more than once, occasions being given.

Therefore it is licit for no Catholic to contradict these declarations, nor to hold that the civil principality of the Roman Church was indeed useful in past times, but no longer accords with present manners and the new law. For in the Syllabus, by mandate of Pius IX, two following propositions were inserted among the condemned: LXXV. « That the children of the Christian and Catholic Church dispute among themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual kingdom. » Which proposition is reproved as understood in this sense, that it is lawful for Catholics with safe conscience to embrace either opinion. — LXXVI. « That the abolition of the civil empire which the Apostolic See enjoys would conduce most greatly to the liberty and felicity of the Church. » Whence by the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, of October 12, 1869, they are punished with excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff: « invaders, destroyers, detainers, by themselves or through others, of cities, lands, places or rights pertaining to the Roman Church; or usurpers, disturbers, retainers of the supreme jurisdiction in them; as well as those offering aid, counsel, favor to each of the aforesaid. » This censure is renewed from the bull Cone, § 20.

These things the declarations of very many provincial councils convened in these later times confirm, of which several invoked these words of Bossuet:

« We beseech you all that the sacred principality be safe and unharmed in every way. » There must be noted especially the councils of the provinces of Tours, Reims, Rouen, Toulouse, Albi, Bourges. The Fourth Council of the province of Bordeaux celebrated at Poitiers, in the year 1859, firmly adhered to the declaration of Pius IX related above, and its decree was amply approved and praised by the same Pontiff.

From all which it follows that the civil principality was established by the ordination of divine providence as necessary for the Roman Pontiff in the sense said above.

It is confirmed the proposition by this fact: that, when the pontifical territory was subtracted by force of arms to the legitimate dominion, the usurper, the Catholic nations and even certain heterodox ones vindicating full liberty for the Roman Pontiff in fulfilling his ministry, tried to still the protestations rising everywhere, by obtaining from the legislative power the law which they called of security, whereby it was sanctioned that royal honors were to be rendered to the Pontiff, and that a new government would watch over his liberty to be defended. How this obligation was fulfilled, or rather despised, all know; but from this fact is deduced that the necessity of the full liberty and independence of the Supreme Pontiff was commonly acknowledged. Moreover he will never be wholly independent of any secular power unless the civil principality shall have made him equal to all kings and princes. Therefore.