to declare the faith announced to men by this Church, coming even to us by the succession of bishops.' His argument is as follows: If the faith of the Roman Church has remained pure, the faith of other Churches must also have remained so. For all Churches universally acknowledge the duty of remaining in harmony with the Church of Rome, and if we know the faith of the Roman Church, we know that of all others. Finally, after enumerating the successors of St. Peter, he says that through this succession the doctrine of the Apostles has reached us, and that we have by it the fullest assurance that the ancient faith will continue unchanged.

The interpretation given by our opponents to this passage is quite untenable. It contradicts those of earlier theologians, of Gallicans even, and those which they once held themselves.10 Its only true interpretation bears weighty testimony in favour of the doctrine of infallibility. For how could it be required of all Churches, that they should in matters of faith conform to the teaching of the Church of Rome (which Church is expressly mentioned), if the Roman Church herself might fall into error? Not without purpose does St. Ignatius the Martyr, the disciple of St. John, call the Church of Rome the president of love or of the league of love; and St. Cyprian, the most eminent of Churches, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise, and in which all should be united in the unity of faith and love.12 She is the mother and mistress of all Churches.13 Sixtus IV. rejected the proposition, the Church of the city of Rome can err (in matters of faith); and Alexander VIII. condemned that which said the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith is untenable. The rejection of the four Gallican articles also was accepted universally in the Church; and this prepared the way for the Church's final decision. But other decisions of the Church had, without defining the infallibility of the Pope as an article of faith, allowed it to be presumed, and contained it, though obscurely.

1 S. Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. iii. c. iii. n. 2: 'Ad hanc [Romanam] enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio.'

VOL. I.

H

་

2 Propter potiorem (al. potentiorem) principalitatem. Salmasius gives the Greek: ἐξαίρετον πρωτεῖον: Massuet, ὑπέρτερον πρωτεῖον: Gieseler, ἱκανῶτεραν πρωτείαν : Armellini (De Philosophum, p. 25), ἱκανῶτεραν αὐθέντιαν.

3 Convenire was clearly the Greek σvpßaívei, as even Salmasius (De potest. Papae, c. v. p. 69, ed. Lugd. Batav. 1645) admits. The translator gives (1. iii. c. xii. n. 14) convenire for ovμpwveîv (Acts xv. 15). He also (1. iv. c. xxxv. n. 3) uses convenire for to harmonise, agree. Cf. also Hagemann, Die Röm. Kirche, p. 614 seq.

4 The Greek expressions οἱ πανταχοῦ and οἱ πανταχόθεν are in ecclesiastical use quite synonymous. St. Irenaeus himself explains the words qui sunt undique fideles by omnis ecclesia.

5 If we here reduce the passive to the active we get more clearly: since in her all the faithful preserve the apostolic tradition; or in Latin: in qua hi qui sunt undique fideles servant eam, quae est ab Apostolis traditionem. By using the passive we are reminded of the words of Optatus (De Schism. Donat. 1. ii. c. iii. Migne, PP. lat. xi. p. 947-949): ‘In qua une cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur;' and of St. Augustine's expression (ep. 43, ad Glorium, Eleus et Fel.): In qua (ecclesia) semper viguit apostolicae cathedrae principatus.' The 'in qua' is to be taken in the ecclesiastical sense of the Greek proposition év, and thus can be taken as ' in her bosom,' in her communion,' or 'through her,' by virtue of her.' Cf. the biblical and patristic expressions, ἐν κυρίῳ, ἐν θεῷ, ἐν τούτῳ κρατύνεται, and others. The translator of St. Irenaeus often uses in' for 'per:' l. iii. c. xii. n. 4: Salutem in eo (Jesu) dedit hominibus:' c. xviii. n. 1.: 'Ut quod perdideramus in Adam, hoc in Christo reciperemus:' 1. iv. c. xxi. n. 3 : In Christo universa benedictio.' Cf. also the famous év TOUT vika. Maret (vol. i. p. 152) omitted the 'in qua,' and rendered qui sunt undique fideles' wrongly, as: de tous les côtes les fidèles.' Vide on this point Guéranger, The Supreme Teaching Office of the Pope, German transl. p. 81. Friedrich, Tagebuch, p. 371. Cf. pp. 3, 4. Döllinger, Erwägungen, p. 89.

'Tertull. de Praescr. c. xxxvii. Bossuet held it to be quite untenable to suppose that potentior principalitas' applied to the city and not to the Church of Rome. Def. Declar. P. iii. 1. x. c. vi. t. ii. p. 198.

Necesse est (àváyên). This is also used by old translators to signify a moral necessity (Schneeman, l.c. p. xxvii.), but it equally expresses the necessity of a law of nature (Hagemann, 1.c. p. 618).

De Marca, de Conc. Sacerd. et Imp. 1. i. c. ii. n. 60: Commune hoc officium communionis cum ecclesia Romana cognoverat ante omnes Quasi diceret,

....

vetustissimus ille Lugdunensium antistes Irenaeus. eam esse vim unitatis, quae principium et originem a Petri sede trahit, ut cum ea sentiendi necessitatem ceteris imponat.' Stephan. Baluz. annot. 63, ad Cypr. Ep. 55. Feuardent et de la Bare in h.l. Iren. et Tert. praescr. c. xxxviii. Bossuet, Orat. in Comit. a. 1682, Instr. past. 2, super promiss. Eccl. Cf. Freppel, St. Irénée et la Primauté du Pape (separate copy from vol. iv. of his larger work, 1870).

10 Friedrich, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, i. p. 409. Döllinger, Gesch. der Christl. Kirche, i. p. 365 ff.

"Ign. ad Rom. init.: πрoкałŋμévn τîs àyáπns. Cf. Möhler's Patrologie, p. 144.

12 Cypr. Ep. 45, ad Cornel.; Ep. 55. Möhler's Patrologie, p. 869 seq. 13 Conc. Trid. Sess. vii. de bapt. can. 3; Sess. xiv. de extr. unct. cap. iii. ; Sess. xxii. de Sacrif. Miss. cap. viii.; Sess. xxv. decr. de delectu cibor. Conc. Later. iv. c. v. (c. xxviii. de Privil. v. 33). Also 1073, Gregory VII. 1. i. Ep. 15, ad fidel. Lomb. p. 297. Nicol. i. 865, Ep. 8 (Mansi, xv. 187). Hinkmar of Rheims, de Divortio Loth. reg. Praef. says: 'De omnibus dubiis vel obscuris, quae ad rectae fidei tenorem vel pietatis dogmata pertinent, S. Romana ecclesia, omnium ecclesiarum mater et magistra, nutrix ac doctrix, est consulenda et ejus salubria monita sunt tenenda.' The later Sorbonne acknowledges it also; for example, Decretal of the 24th May 1664 (Du Plessis d'Argentré, t. iii. p. i. p. 106).

§ 5.

We come now to the formula of Pope Hormisdas in the year 519. Dr. Döllinger, in his Church History, tells us it was subscribed at the time by two thousand five hundred bishops, and was confirmed by the Fathers of the Eighth General Council, A.D. 869. The Vatican Council cites from it these words: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. Now the words of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot pass away, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church" (St. Matt. xvi. 18); moreover these words have been made plain by the event, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and the holy faith held in honour. Desiring therefore not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.'

Many attempts are made to weaken the significance of this confession, which even Gallicans admitted.

a. We hear it said that the copies of the text are at variance with one another, and that the originals are lost.1 These variations, however, do not touch the essential point, and are merely later additions, paraphrases, or abbreviations. All copies contain these words: Therefore3 in all things we follow the Apostolic chair, and preach those things which it has resolved upon.' This presupposes the truth and infallibility of Papal decrees in

matters of faith, for the whole drift of the passage concerns the purity of that faith 'which is always kept intact in the Apostolic See.' In the formula ratified by the Eighth General Council it is further said: 'At the same time we bind ourselves not to permit the names of those to be mentioned in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries who have left the communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say of those who are not in union with the Apostolic See.' To be a Catholic, and to be under obedience to the See of Rome, are here one and the same thing; whosoever does not obey the Holy See is excluded from the Church.

b. This formula is said to treat only of the primacy of the Pope. But the primacy of the Pope is preeminently one of doctrine, and the formula of Hormisdas refers to the dogmatic definitions of the Holy See, and therefore to the teaching office of the Pope.

c. It has been said that this formula treats merely of the Apostolic See; but it is only through him who occupies it that the Holy See is free from error or can promulgate its decrees. Those things determined on by the Holy See are the decisions of the Pope. Whosoever binds himself to obey implicitly the Holy See presupposes that the decisions of every occupant of the Holy See in matters of faith are infallible.

d. If this formula of faith was first prescribed when one dogma, the Incarnation of the Son of God, was being treated of, still the terms used are quite general ones. It was, as Bossuet acknowledged, often repeated, and transmitted to all centuries from the Eighth General Council, at which, though the former question was not being treated of, the formula was proposed and sanctioned in quite general terms, and indeed as a necessary condition of participation in the proceedings. What Christian,' Bossuet inquires, 'could reject this profession of faith '8

e. Finally, it has been objected that this formula must be explained by the words of Pope Gelasius and of St. Irenaeus, and that it possesses not much real weight. But hear Pope Gelasius; he says: "The decretals of the most blessed Popes are to be received with reverence. The Apostolic See must guard

the decrees of the Councils.' Gelasius also says: 'In matters concerning religion the Apostolic See possesses the supreme judicial power; we are especially to learn from the Holy See the things that are of God.' Further, he says that the See of Peter is the safest harbour for the weak, the constant guide of the Universal Church; that no court can reverse its decisions; that it continually guards the true doctrine; and that if it were to be spotted with any heretical perversity, which faith teaches. us never can happen, there would be no power left for reclaiming those who had gone astray.

Our opponents appeal to the ancient oath administered to the Popes, which contained the promise to maintain inviolable everything which had been defined by Councils or by decrees of former Popes, and to permit no change or diminution in the Gospel revelation.10 But this only presupposes what no one denies, that the earlier Papal decrees are inalterable and are binding upon later Popes. The Popes commonly issued their decisions at Councils, but they did not do so invariably, and as Pope Gelasius declares (A.D. 485) it was not necessary they should. In many documents a distinction is made between decisions by Councils and decisions by Popes alone. The Pope, however, as the Roman Synod of 485 declares, always decides everything as universal head by virtue of the promise given to St. Peter. These decrees of Councils issued by the Popes derived their force from the Popes, not from the greater or less number of assembled Italian12 bishops. If the early Popes commonly exercised their teaching office by Councils it was not necessary they should do so, and there is no reason the custom should be retained through succeeding ages. The Pope always will deliberate with bishops and theologians before deciding a disputed question; the form of the deliberation may be conciliar or it may not. It was besides quite understood in those days that the decisions of General Councils were only fully valid when they had received the assent of the Pope.13 After the Council held at Ephesus A.D. 431 the Eastern bishops declared their conviction that the Pope could annul the resolutions there entered into. The Emperor Marcian only recognised