# Petri Privilegium/III/Chapter 5

Layout 2
CHAPTER V.
CONCLUSION. TRADITION OF ENGLAND. GREATER UNITY OF FAITH RESULTING FROM THE DEFINITION.
In an Œcumenical Council, Bishops are witnesses of the Faith of their respective Churches. Not indeed as if they were representatives or delegates of their flocks; a theory strangely advanced by some writers who counted up the population of what they were pleased to call the greater cities, in order to give weight to the testimony of their Bishops as against that of others. In this they simply betrayed the fact that they were resting upon the natural order, and arguing, not on principles of faith, but of the political world.
Bishops are witnesses, primarily and chiefly, not of the subjective faith of their flocks, which may vary or be obscured, but of the objective faith of the Church committed to their trust, when by consecration they became witnesses, doctors, and judges. They were by consecration admitted to the Ecclesia docens, and the Divine Tradition of the Faith was entrusted to their custody. But this is one and the same in the humblest Vicar Apostolic, and in the Bishop of the most populous and imperial city in Christendom.
In the course of the discussions, testimony was given to the unbroken tradition of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in Italy, Spain, Ireland, and many ​other countries. It will not therefore be without its use and interest, if I add briefly a few evidences of the unbroken tradition of England as to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. It would be out of place in this Pastoral to do more than offer to you a few passages; but I would wish to stir up some one, who has time for such research, to collect and publish a complete catena of evidence from the writers before and since the Reformation; which will show that the Gallicanism, or worse than Gallicanism, of Cisalpine Clubs and Political Emancipationists was no more than the momentary aberration of a few minds under the stress of penal laws. They are abnormal instances in the noble fidelity of the Catholics of England.
As to the Bishops and Doctors of the English Church before the Reformation, I may first remind you of the words of St. Anselm, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and Bradwardine, three primates of England, given in the Pastoral of last year. To these may be added St. Ælred of Rivaulx, John of Salisbury, Robert Pullen, Thomas of Evesham, Robert Grosteste, Roger Bacon, Scotus, Bachon, Holcot, Richard Ralph, and Waldensis. In these writers the Primacy of the Pontiff, and the obligation, under ​pain of sin, to obey his judgments and doctrines, is laid down with a perfect unconsciousness that any Catholic could dispute the Divine certainty of his guidance. The Vatican definition has defined the reason of this implicit faith, by declaring that in the primacy there is a charisma which preserves the supreme doctrinal authority of the Pontiff from error in faith or morals.
But I leave to others to complete this part of the subject. I will go on to the period of the Reformation.
The controversy against the authority of Rome drew out more explicit statements from Sir Thomas More and Cardinal Fisher.
More, writing against Luther, says, 'Judge, I pray thee, reader, with what sincerity Father Tippler treats this place of Jerome, when he (Jerome) says it is enough for him if the Pope of Rome approve his faith; that is, openly declaring that it cannot be doubted that he is sound in faith who agrees with that See; than which what could he more splendidly say? Yet Father Tippler Luther and others so dissemble about this as to try to cloud the reader also with darkness, and to lead away the minds of men elsewhere, that they may not remember anything.'
​Cardinal Fisher also, writing against Luther, says: 'One thing I know, that Augustine everywhere makes Peter first and Prince of the Apostles, and Teacher and Head of the rest, in whom also he says the rest are contained, as in the head of any family the multitude (of the family) are all contained.' And further he adds, 'Where else dost thou believe the faith to abide, save in the Church of Christ? "I," said Christ to Peter, "have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." The faith of Peter, do not doubt it, will always abide in the succession of Peter, which is the Church.' This is precisely the Vatican definition, 'Romanum Pontificem ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam instructam esse voluit.'
Cardinal Pole, after describing the conduct of Peter in the Council at Jerusalem, goes on to say, 'The same also the successors of Peter, following his faith, have done in all other Councils; in which is found much more signally than in Peter's lifetime, of what kind are the efforts of Satan, who desires to sift the Church of God, and how great is the efficacy of this special remedy in repressing them; namely, that which Christ declared when he turned to Peter, in these ​words, "And thou, being once converted, strengthen thy brethren." For let all remedies be found which at any time the Church has tried against the malice of Satan, who at all times assails it with all kinds of temptations; none certainly will be ever found to be compared with this, which is wont to be used in General Councils; namely, that all the Bishops of all the Churches, as the brethren of Peter, be confirmed by his successors, professors of the same faith.'
In like manner, Harding, Jewel's antagonist, writes: 'The Pope succeedeth Peter in authority and power. For whereas the sheep of Christ continue to the world's end, he is not wise that thinketh Christ to have made a shepherd temporary or for a time over His perpetual flock. To Peter He gave that He obtained by His prayer made to the Father, that his faith should not fail. Again, to him He gave grace thus to perform, the performance whereof at him He required, to wit, that he confirmed and strengthened his brethren, wherefore the grace of stedfastness of faith, and of confirming the wavering and doubtful ​in faith, every Pope obtaineth of the Holy Ghost for the benefit of the Church. And so the Pope, although he may err by personal error in his own private judgment as a man, and as a particular doctor in his own opinion, yet as he is Pope, the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ in earth, the shepherd of the Universal Church, in public judgment, in deliberation and definitive sentence, he never erreth, nor never erred. For whensoever he ordaineth or determineth anything by his high bishoply authority, intending to bind Christian men to perform or believe the same, he is always governed and holpen with the grace and favour of the Holy Ghost. This is to Catholic doctors a very certainty, though to such doughty clerks as ye are it is but a matter of nothing and a very trifling tale.'
Campian, answering Whitaker, says, 'Nor, as you slander us, do we depend on the voice of one man, but rather on the Divine promise of Christ made to Peter and his successors, for the stability of whose faith He prayed to the Father. … "I have prayed for thee, Peter," He said, "that thy faith fail not." The fruit of which prayer, what follows plainly enough shows, belongs not to Peter alone, but to his successors also. … For since the Church was not to become extinct with Peter, but to endure unto the end of the world, the same stability in faith was even more necessary to Peter's successors, the Roman Pontiffs, in proportion as they were weaker than he, ​and were to be assailed with mightier engines by tyrants, heretics, and other impious men. As, therefore, Peter when converted, confirmed the Apostles his brethren, the Pontiffs also must confirm their brethren the rest of the Bishops.' Afterwards, he says, 'Under his guidance they cannot err from the right path of the faith.'
These evidences are more than enough to show what was the faith of the Church in England in the sixteenth century, that is, in the controversies of the Reformation. They show what was the faith, for which the Catholics of England at that day stood, and suffered.
In the seventeenth century, we may take Nicholas Sanders as our first witness. He writes in his work 'De Clavi David': 'But we freely declare, and what in words we declare we prove by fact, that the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, in expounding to the Bishops the faith of Christ, has never erred, nor has ever either been the author of any heresy, or has lent his authority to any heretic for the promulgation of heresy.'
Kellison, President of the College at Douai in 1605, writes as follows: 'For in two senses Peter may be sayd to be the rocke of the Church: first, as he is a particular man, and so if the Church had been ​built upon him, it must have fallen with him; secondly, as upon a publique person and supreme Pastor, who is to have successors, to whom constancie in faith is promised, by which they shal uphold the Church: and so the Church dyeth not with Peter, but keepeth her standing upon successors. And because Peter and his successors, by their indeficient faith, in which as supreme pastors they shal never erre, do uphold the Church, therefore the Fathers alleaged sometimes say that the Church is builded on Peter, sometimes on his faith, as it is the faith of the supreme head: which in effect is al one. For if Peter upholde the Church by his indeficient faith which he teacheth, then Peter upholdeth the Church, as he hath assured faith, and his faith upholdeth the Church, not howsoever but as it is the faith of Peter, and the supreme head, whose faith especially which he teacheth out of his chaire (that is, not as a particular man only, proposing his opinion; but as a publique Doctor and chiefs Pastor) defineth and commandeth what al Christians ought to beleeve, shal never faile; and consequently the Church which relyeth on his definition, though she may be shaken, yet shal never be overthrowne.'
In a work published by S. N., Doctor of Divinity, 1634, we read: 'The same is proved by all such texts as convince that the head or chief Bishop of the Church cannot err in defining matters of faith. "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you that he might winnow you as wheat, but I have prayed for ​thee that thy faith may not fail." Here Christ prayed not for all the Church, but in particular for Peter, as all the words show: Simon—for thee thy faith—thy brethren: also, whereas our Saviour began to speak in the plural number, "Satan hath desired to have you," &c., forthwith He changeth His manner of speaking and saith, "but I have prayed for thee." Further, He prayeth for him to whom He saith, "and thou sometimes converted," which cannot agree to the whole Church, except we will say the whole Church to have been first perverted, which is many ways untrue. But now that which Christ prayed for is expressly that his faith should not fail, and then seeing this prayer for Peter was for the good of the Church, the Devil still desiring to winnow the faithful, it thereof followeth that she never wanteth one whose faith may not fail, by whom she may be confirmed.'
Southwell, or Bacon, who wrote in 1638, affirms: 'That the Roman Pontiff, out of Council, is infallible in his definitions.' He adds: 'It is clearly proved from what is already said, he who is the foundation-stone of the Church, actually and always infusing into it firmness against the gates of hell and heresies: he who is Pastor not of this or that place, but of the whole fold: and therefore in all things necessary to salvation is bound to feed, govern, and direct, cannot err in judgment of faith. … But the Supreme Pontiff is such a Rock and Pastor, as has been manifestly proved; therefore he cannot err in judgment of faith.' This he proves, among other evidence, by ​the promise of our Lord: 'I have prayed for thee,' &c., and adds, 'What was said to Peter as pastor was said also to the Roman Pontiffs, as has been abundantly proved.'
Nor was this tradition broken, though the depression which followed the Revolution of 1688 reduced the Catholics to silence. In the eighteenth century, the following testimonies will suffice. More might, no doubt, with ease be found; but for our present purpose no more are needed. First, of Alban Butler, who assuredly represents the English Catholics of his times, we read as follows: 'It is evident from his Epitome de sex prioribus conciliis œcumenicis in calce tractatus de Incarnatione, that he had the highest veneration for the Holy See, and for him who sits in the chair of St. Peter; that he constantly held and maintained the rights and singular prerogatives of St. Peter and his successors in calling, presiding over, and confirming, general or œcumenical councils; the Pope's superiority over the whole church and over the whole college of bishops, and over a general council; the irreformability of his doctrinal decisions in point of faith and morals; his supreme power to dispense (when there is cause) in the canons of general councils; in short, the plenitude of his authority over the whole Church without exception or limitation. Nihil excipitur ubi distinguitur nihil. S. Bernard, l. ii. de Consid. c. 8.' What gives additional force to this is, that Alban Butler not only held but ​taught these doctrines in his theological treatises: and that we receive this testimony from the pen of Charles Butler, who of all men is least to be suspected of ultramontanism.
In the year 1790, when a certain number of Catholics, weary of penal laws, fascinated by Parliament, and perhaps intimidated by the Protestant ascendency, began to explain away Catholic doctrines, and to describe themselves by a nomenclature which I will not here repeat, the Rev. Charles Plowden published a work, the very title of which is a witness and an argument. It is called 'Considerations on the Modern Opinion of the Fallibility of the Holy See in the Decision of Dogmatical Questions.' He opens his first chapter with these words: 'Before the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy in 1682, it was the general persuasion of Roman Catholics that the solemn decisions of the Holy See on matters of dogmatical and moral import are infallible. Since that epoch the contrary opinion is asserted in many schools in France, it has been imported with other French rarities into this kingdom, and it now appears to be the prevailing system, especially among those members of our Catholic clergy and laity who have studied little of either.' He then most solidly proves what in these Pastorals has been so often asserted, that, with the exception of the modern opinion of the local and transient Gallican School, the universal and traditionary faith of the Church in the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff has never been obscured. Plowden then proceeds to censure the ​oath which certain Catholics were at that time proposing to themselves and others. He says:—
'The clause which regards Papal Infallibility is a demonstration that the oath was not calculated to accommodate the bulk of Roman Catholics, since the very respectable number who believe the solemn and canonical decrees of the Pope on matters of faith to be irreformable can never conscientiously pronounce it. If the interpreters of the oath tell us that the framers of it did not intend to exclude the belief of infallibility in dogmatical decisions, we must answer them that the admission of such a tacit distinction would justly lay us open to swearing to what we do not believe. No infallibility and some infallibility will always be contradictories. The Catholic public may already know that I think the modern opinion of papal fallibility in decisions of faith to be ill grounded and dangerous, and it appears to me that the doctrine of infallibility in these matters, though not decided, might easily be proved to be that of the Catholic Church and therefore true. It must not then be renounced. The addition of personal in the address does not remove the difficulty. For if the Supreme Head of the Church be infallible in his solemn dogmatical decisions, this infallibility attaches to his person. It was promised and given to St. Peter, and it subsists in his lawful successors. It does not belong in solidum to the particular Church of Rome as an aggregate of many individuals; it does not belong to the chair or see of Rome as a thing distinct from the Pope. The distinction between the sedes and the sedens is a modern subterfuge of the Jan​senists, unknown to antiquity, which always understood the person of the chief Bishop, whether in words they attribute inerrancy directly to him or metaphorically to his see. If the Pope be then infallible, he is personally infallible.'
I will now add only two more witnesses who bore their testimony in the last century, but lived on into the present, Bishop Hay, who died in 1811, and Bishop Milner, who died in 1826.
Bishop Hay, in his 'Sincere Christian,' writes as follows:
'Q. 27. On what grounds do these divines found their opinion, who believe that the Pope himself, when he speaks to all the faithful as head of the Church, is infallible in what he teaches?
'A. On several very strong reasons, both from scripture, tradition, and reason.'
He then draws out these three fully and abundantly; and this done, he asks:
'Q. 31. But what proofs do the others bring for their opinion that the head of the Church is not infallible?
'A. They bring not one text of Scripture to prove it,' &c.
Lastly, Bishop Milner in his book called, 'Ecclesiastical Democracy detected,' published in 1793, after saying in the text, 'The controversy of the Pope's inerrancy is here entirely out of the question,' adds the following note: 'It is true I was educated in the belief of this inerrancy; nor have I yet seen ​sufficient argument to change my opinion. … But if the layman, who never fails to ridicule the doctrine in question, is willing fairly to contest it, he knows where to meet with an antagonist ready to engage with him. Against one assertion however of this writer, which insinuates the political danger resulting from the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, I will hurl defiance at him; nothing being more easy to show, than that no greater danger can result to the State from admitting the inerrancy of the Pope than from admitting that of the Church itself.'
I only hope we shall now hear no more that the Catholics of England have not believed, or have not been taught, this doctrine; nor that the 'Old Catholics' of England refuse to believe the new opinions, and the like. We have heard too much of this: and the honoured name of those who through three hundred years of persecution have kept the faith, has been too much dishonoured by imputing to them that they are not faithful to the Martyrs, Confessors, and Doctors of England. The faith of St. Anselm and St. Thomas, of Thomas More and Cardinal Fisher, of Hay and Milner, is the faith of the Catholics of England. Whoso departs from it forfeits his share in the inheritance of fidelity they have handed down.
I will now add a few words on the disastrous consequences predicted from the Definition.
We were told that the Definition of the Infallibility would alienate the fairest provinces of the Catholic Church, divide the Church into parties, drive the ​scientific and independent into separation, and set the reason of mankind against the superstitions of Rome. We were told of learned professors, theological faculties, entire universities, multitudes of laity, hundreds of clergy, the flower of the episcopate, who were prepared to protest as a body, and to secede. There was to be a secession in France, in Germany, in Austria, in Hungary. The 'Old Catholics' of England would never hear of this new dogma, and with difficulty could be made to hold their peace. Day by day, these illusions have been sharply dispelled; but not a word of acknowledgment is to be heard. A professor is suspended a divinis in Germany; a score or two of lay professors, led by a handful whose names are already notorious, and a hundred or so of laymen who, before the Council met, began to protest against its acts, convoke a congress, which ends in a gathering of some twenty persons. These, with the alleged opposition of one Bishop, whose name out of respect I do not write, as the allegation has never yet been confirmed by his own word or act, these are hitherto the adverse consequences of the Definition.
On the other hand, the Bishops who, because they opposed the Definition as inopportune, were calumniously paraded as opposed to the doctrine of Infallibility, at once began to publish their submission to the acts of the Council. The greater part of the French Bishops who were once in opposition, have explicitly declared their adhesion. The German Bishops, meeting again at Fulda, issued a Pastoral Letter, so valuable in itself, that I have reprinted it in the Appendix. It ​was signed by seventeen, including all the chief Bishops of Germany. The others, if silent, cannot be doubted. The leading Bishops of Austria and Hungary, who may be taken as representing the Episcopates of these countries, have in like manner declared themselves. The Clergy and the faithful of these kingdoms, with the rarest exceptions of an individual here and there, are, as they have always been, of one mind in accepting the definition with joy. Ireland has spoken for itself, not only in many dioceses, and by its Bishops, but by the Triduum, or Thanksgiving of three days, held in Dublin with great solemnity and with a concourse, as I am informed by direct correspondence, such as was never seen before. Of England I need say little. The Clergy of this diocese have twice spoken for themselves; and the Clergy of England and Scotland have given unequivocal witness to their faith. As we hear so much and so often of those among us who are called 'the old Catholics,' that is, the sons of our martyrs and confessors; and as their name is so lightly and officiously taken in vain by those who desire to find or to make divisions among us, you. will not need, but will nevertheless be glad, to know, that both by word and by letter I have received from the chief and foremost among them, express assurance that what the Council has defined they have always believed. It is but their old faith in an explicit formula. Among the disappointments to which our adversaries, I regret so to call them, but truth must be spoken, have doomed themselves, none is greater than this. They have laboured to believe and to make others believe that the Catholic Church is ​internally divided; that the Council has revealed this division; and that it is nowhere more patent than in England. It is, I know, useless to contradict this illusion. It is not founded in reason, and cannot by reason be corrected. Prejudice and passion are deaf and blind. Time and facts will dispel illusions, and expose falsehoods. And to this slow but inexorable cure we must leave them. It is no evidence of division among us, if here and there a few individuals should fall away. I said before, the Council will be in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum. It is a time of spiritual danger to many; especially to those who live perpetually among adversaries, hearing diatribes all day long against the Church, the Council, and the Holy Father, reading anti-Catholic accounts and comments upon Catholic doctrines, and upon the words and acts of Catholic Bishops, and always breathing, till they are unconscious of it, an anti-Catholic atmosphere.
St. Paul has foretold that 'In the last days shall come dangerous times,' and 'in the last times some shall depart from the faith.' Those days seem now to be upon us; and individuals perhaps may fall. But the fall of leaves and sprays and boughs does not divide the Tree. You will know how to deal with them in charity, patience, and firmness, before you act on the Apostolic precept, 'A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.' You will use all the patience of charity, but you will use also, if need be so, its ​just severity. In these clays, laxity is mistaken for charity, and indifference to truth for love of souls. This is not the spirit of the Apostle, who in the excess of charity declared that he could desire ' to be anathema from Christ' for his brethren according to the flesh, and yet for the love of souls could say, 'I would they were even cut off, who trouble you;' because the purity of the faith is vital to the salvation of souls, and the salvation of the flock must be preferred to the salvation of a few.
I will touch but one other topic, and then make an end. The same prophets who foretold disastrous consequences from the definition, are now foretelling the downfall of the Temporal Power. Day by day, we hear and read contemptuous censures of the obstinacy of Pius the Ninth, who has ruined himself by his Non possumus, and sealed his downfall by the definition of his own infallibility. I do not hesitate to say, that if what is now happening had been caused by the definition, which is not the fact, yet any external trials would be better than an internal conflict arising from a contradiction of revealed truth. Gold may be bought too dear: but truth cannot.
Perhaps we ought not to wonder that the Protestant and anti-Catholic world should persist in declaring that Rome, by the definition of the Infallibility, has altered its relations to the world; or, as I have lately read, 'disgusted all the civil governments of Europe.' They do not know, or are willingly ignorant, that the doctrine of the Infallibility was as as much the doctrine of the Church before as after the definition. The ​definition only declares it to be revealed by God. The relations of Rome to the Civil Powers are therefore precisely what they were before. If the Civil Powers are disgusted, it is only because the Œcumenical Council declined to swerve from its duty in compliance to their dictation; or because they can no longer affect to disbelieve that the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is the true and traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church. We are called superstitious, because we do not believe in the downfall of the Temporal Power; and obstinate, because we will not recognise the right of Italy to invade the Patrimony of the Church. Our superstition consists in this. In the history of the Church the Temporal Power has been suppressed, as the phrase is, over and over again. The first Napoleon suppressed it twice. The Triumvirate suppressed it in 1848. There is nothing new under the sun. The thing that has been, is the thing that shall be. We do not believe in the perpetuity of anything but the Church; nor in the finality of anything but justice. Sacrilege carries the seeds of its own dissolution. A robbery so unjust cannot endure. When or how it shall be chastised we know not: but the day of reckoning is not less sure for that. Of one thing there can be no doubt; the nations which have conspired to dethrone the Vicar of Christ will, for that sin, be scourged. They will, moreover, scourge one another and themselves. The people that has the chief share in the sin, will have the heaviest share in the punishment. We are therefore in no way moved. If it be God's will that His Church should suffer persecution, it will be thereby ​purified; but the persecutors will fall one by one. Rome has seen the map of Europe made over and over again; but Rome remains changeless. It will see out the present dynasties of conquered and conqueror: suffering, it may be, but indefectible.
I have already said, that the definition was made on the eighteenth of July, and war on the nineteenth. Since that date, a crowd of events have hurried to their fulfilment. The French Empire has passed away. Rome is occupied by the armies of Italy. The peace of Europe is broken: never again, it may be, to be restored, till the scourges of war have gone their circuit among the nations. A period of storm has set in, and the rising waters of a flood may be seen approaching. If a time of trial for the Church is at hand, a time of ruin and desolation to all countries in Europe will come with it. The Church may suffer, but cannot die; the dynasties and civil societies of Europe may not only suffer but be swept away. The Head of the Church, be he where he may, in Rome or in exile, free or in bondage, will be all that the Council of the Vatican has defined, supreme in jurisdiction, infallible in faith. Go where he may, the faithful throughout the world will see in him the likeness of His Divine Master, both in authority and in doctrine. The Council has thus made provision for the Church in its time of trial, when, it may be, not only Œcumenical Councils cannot be held, but even the ordinary administration of ecclesiastical government and consultation may be hardly possible.
Peter's bark is ready for the storm. All that is ​needful is already on board. Past ages were wild and perilous, but the future bids fair to exceed them in violence, as a hurricane exceeds an ordinary storm. The times of the Council of Trent were tempestuous: but for these three hundred years the licence and the violence of free thought, free speech, and a free press which spares nothing human or divine, have been accumulating in volume and intensity. All this burst upon the Council of the Vatican. And in the midst of this, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, abandoned by all powers of the once Christian world, stands alone, weak but invincible, the supreme judge and infallible teacher of men. The Church has therefore its provision for faith and truth, unity and order. The floods may come, the rain descend, and the winds blow and beat upon it, but it cannot fall, because it is founded upon Peter. But what security has the Christian world? Without helm, chart, or light, it has launched itself into the falls of revolution. There is not a monarchy that is not threatened. In Spain and France, monarchy is already overthrown. The hated Syllabus will have its justification. The Syllabus which condemned Atheism and revolution would have saved society. But men would not. They are dissolving the temporal power of the Vicar of Christ. And why do they dissolve it? Because governments are no longer Christian. The temporal power had no sphere, and therefore no manifestation, before the world was Christian. What matter will it have for its temporal power, when the world has ceased to be Christian? For what is the temporal power, but the condition of peaceful ​independence and supreme direction over all Christians, and all Christian societies, inherent in the office of Vicar of Christ, and head of the Christian Church? When the Civil powers became Christian, faith and obedience restrained them from casting so much as a shadow of human sovereignty over the Vicar of the Son of God. They who attempt it now will do it at their peril.
The Church of God cannot be bound, and its liberty is in its head. The liberty of conscience and of faith, since the Church entered into peace, have been secured in his independence.
For a thousand years his independence, which is sovereignty, has been secured by the providence of God in the temporal power over Rome: the narrow sphere of his exemption from all civil subjection. But men are nowadays wiser than God, and would unmake and mend His works. They are therefore dissolving the temporal power as He has fashioned it; and in so doing, they are striking out the keystone of the arch which hangs over their own heads. This done, the natural society of the world will still subsist, but the Christian world will be no more. One thing is certain; let all the Civil powers of this world in turn, or all together, claim the Vicar of Jesus Christ as their subject, a subject he will never be. The Non possumus is not only immutable, but invincible. The infallible head of an infallible Church cannot depend on the sovereignty of man. The Council of the Vatican has brought out this truth with the evidence of light. The world may despise and fight against it, but the Church of God will believe and act upon this law of divine faith.
​The peoples of the world will hear him gladly; but the rulers see in him a superior, and will not brook it. They cannot subdue him, and they will not be subject to his voice. They are therefore in perpetual conflict with him. But who ever fought against him, and has prospered? Kings have carried him captive, and princes have betrayed him; but, one by one, they have passed away, and he still abides. Their end has been so tragically explicit that all men may read its meaning. And yet kings and princes will not learn, nor be wise. They rush against the rock, and perish. The world sees their ruin, but will not see the reason. The faithful read in the ruin of all who lay hands on the Vicar of Christ the warning of the Psalmist, 'Nolite tangere Christos meos;' and of our Lord Himself, 'Whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.'
I remain, reverend and dear Brethren,
Your affectionate Servant in Christ,
✠ Henry Edward, Archbishop of Westminster.
Feast of S. Edward the Confessor.
* ↑ Bibl. Max. Patrum, tom. xxiii. pp. 57, 58. Ed. Lugd. 1677.
* ↑ Polycrates, lib. vi. c. 24, p. 61. Ed. Giles.
* ↑ In Sentent. b. viii. c. iii.
* ↑ In Vita Sti. Egwini, sect. vi.
* ↑ Epp. 72 and 127.
* ↑ Opus. c. xiv.
* ↑ In Sent. iv. dist. vi. 9, 8.
* ↑ Proleg. in Lib. iv. Sentent.
* ↑ In Lib. iv. Sentent.
* ↑ Summa in quæstionibus Armenorum, lib. vii. c. 5.
* ↑ Doctrina Fidei, lib. ii. capp. 47, 48.
* ↑ 'Quæso lector judica quam sincere pater Potator hunc locum Hieronymi tractet: cum ille dicat, satis esse sibi si suam fidem comprobaret papa Romanus: nimirum aperte significans, non dubitandum esse illum recte sentire de fide, qui cum illa sede consen tiat: quo quid potuisset dicere magnificentius? istud adeo dissimulat pater Potator Lutherus ut etiam tenebras lectori conetur offundere et animos hominum verbis alio, ne quid recordentur, abducere.'—Morus, In Lutherum, lib. ii. cap. iv. p. 87. Louvain, 1566.
* ↑ Unum scio, quod Augustinus ubique Petrum facit Primum et Principem Apostolorum ac Magistrum et Caput cæterorum, in quo et cæteros contineri dicit, sicut in capite cujusvis familiæ reliqua comprehenditur multitudo.'—Joannis Roffensis Confutatio Errorum Lutheri, art. xxv. ad finem, in Rocaberti Biblioth. Pontif. tom. xiv. p. 582.
* ↑ 'Ubi credis alibi manere fidem quam in Ecclesia Christi? Ego, inquit Christus ad Petrum, rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua. Petri fides ne dubita semper in successione Petri manebit, quæ est Ecclesia.'—Id. art. xxvii. ad fin. in Rocaberto, tom. xiv. p. 587.
* ↑ Idem etiam Petri successores, fidem ejus secuti, fecere in reliquis omnibus conciliis, in quibus multo illustrius quam vivo Petro compertum est, et cujusmodi esset Satanæ conatus Ecclesiam Dei cribrare expetentis, et quanta ad eos reprimendos extiterit vis hujus singularis remedii, quod Christus ad Petrum sermonem convertens verbis illis indicavit: Et tu aliquando con versus confirma fratres tuos. Ut enim omnia remedia quærantur quæ ullo tempore Ecclesia est experta contra Satanæ malitiam nunquam non omni tentationis genere earn aggredientis: nullum certe reperietur quod cum hac comparari possit, quod in conciliis generalibus adhiberi est solitum, ut singuli singularum Ecclesiarum episcopi, tanquam Petri fratres, confirmarentur per ejus successores eandem fidem profitentes.'—Card. Polus, De Summo Pontifice, cap. iv. (Roccaberti, Biblioth. Pontif. tom. xviii. p. 146.)
* ↑ Confutation of a Book entitled 'An Apology of the Church of England,' by Thomas Harding, D.D., p. 335 a. Dedicated to the Queen. Antwerp, 1565.
* ↑ Confutatio Responsionis G. Whitakeri, p. 44. Parisus 1582.
* ↑ 'At vero nos libere dicimus, et quod verbo dicimus re ipsa comprobamus, Petri successorem Episcopum Romanum in exponenda Episcopis fide Christi nunquam errasse, nunquam aut ullius hæresis auctorem fuisse, aut alii hæretico ad promulgandum hæresim suam præbuisse auctoritatem.'—Nicolas Sanderus, de Clavi David, lib. v. cap. iv.
* ↑ A Survey of the New Religion, set forth by Matthew Kellison, first book, chap. vi. p. 74. Doway, 1605.
* ↑ The Triple Cord, p. 72. 1634
* ↑ Regula viva, seu Analysis Fidei, p. 41. Antwerpiæ, 1638.
* ↑ An Account of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Alban Butler, p. 16. London, 1799.
* ↑ Observations on the Oath proposed to the English Roman Catholics, by Charles Plowden, p. 43. London, 1790.
* ↑ Ecclesiastical Democracy detected, p. 98. London, 1793.
* ↑ See Appendix, p. 225.
* ↑ 2 Tim. iii. 1.
* ↑ 1 Tim. iv. 1.
* ↑ Tit. iii. 10.
* ↑ Gal. v. 12.
* ↑ St. Matth. xxi. 44.