cessors. 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 sucAnd 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 chiefe 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 * A Survey of the New Religion, set forth by Matthew Kellison, first book, chap. vi. p. 74. Doway, 1605. 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,' etc., 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 *The Triple Cord. p. 72. 1634. 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," etc., 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 æcumenicis 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, 1. ii. de Consid. c. 8."+ What gives additional * Regula viva, seu Analysis Fidei, p. 41. Antwerpiæ, 1638. † An Account of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Alban Butler, p. 18. London, 1799. 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 Parliment, and perhaps intimidated by the Protestant ascendancy, 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 Ques tions." 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: to "The clause which regards Papal Infallibility is a demonstration that the oath was not calculated to 4.ccommodate 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 swearing to what we do not believe. No infallibilbility 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 Jansenists, unknown to antiquity, which always understood |