"'854

so universal, that we can openly assert that no one attempted to reject it. And thus the French Clergy in a body, and the University of Paris, in which the most learned men of that age held Chairs, on many an occasion during the fourteenth century bore public and solemn witness to the doctrine. In an address of the French Bishops to Clement IV., when Philip the Fair compelled that Pope to declare Boniface VIII. to have been a heretic, we read the following words: "It is no question here of the heresy of a Pope. For as Pope he (Boniface) could not be heretical, but only as a private person: for never was any Pope a heretic as Pope.' Moreover, in 1324, Stephen, Bishop of Paris, with the greatest and the best part of the Professors and Doctors in Theology, confessed that to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, as to the universal rule of Catholic truth, it belongs to approve doctrines, to resolve doubts, to determine what is to be believed, and to reject errors. 855 But towards the end of that century, the whole University, through Peter d'Ailly, in a declaration of faith presented to the supposed legitimate Pope Clement VII., professed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as an article of Catholic faith. "Of this See," they say, "in the person of Peter, the Apostle, whose See it is, it was said, 'Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not."" It is then to this See that the determination of faith, and the approbation of Catholic truth, and the condemnation of heretical impiety, above all, belong. 856

After these evidences, how can any one entertain a doubt that the French Church, from the very beginning up to the Council of Constance, always professed as

854 Hist du Differ., pp. 399 and 413. In Muzzarelli, Il buon uso della Logica, t. i., Opuscolo iii., p. 192, seq. Firenze, 1821. 855 In D'Argentré, Coll. Judiciorum, t. i., p. 222. 856 Penes Sfondrati, Gallia Vindicata, diss. iv., sec. ii., p. 776 (Edit. S. Galli, 1702), and Petit Didier, Op. cit., 1. c., p. 339.

Paris, 1728.

a dogma of faith the doctrine of Papal Infallibility? Even if any doubt could be still held on this subject, it ought certainly to be dispelled by the testimony of Gerson himself. He expressly asserted that before the celebration of the Council of Constance the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope, and of his superiority to the Synod, was so universally maintained, that those who upheld the contrary were suspected of heresy, or were considered guilty of it.857 Now if it be true-as it isthat the persuasion of Papal Infallibility was universal in the Church in the fifteenth century, not only among laymen, but also among the Clergy, and if it was proclaimed by the Universities, by the Episcopate, and by the Popes themselves, without any contradiction or any protest whatever, how can it be said that it was not an article of Catholic faith? If it was an error, then the Universal Church was in error in the fourteenth century: but to say this would destroy the infallibility of the Universal Church. Consequently, either we must admit the dogma of Papal Infallibility, or we are forced to renounce our belief in the infallibility of the Church.

857 De Potestate Ecclesiastica, consid. xii., p. 135 (Op., pt. i. Parisiis, 1606).

SECTION XIV.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AT THE TIME OF THE COUNCILS OF CONSTANCE AND FLORENCE. GALLICANISM.

THE great schism of the West, and the two Councils of Constance and Basle, may be regarded as the immediate cause of the erroneous opinion which exists, denying the Infallibility of the Pope and his superiority over General Councils. We know well that since the thirteenth century, Pagan maxims opposed to ecclesiastical independence had begun to spread all over Europe; Cæsarism and Ghibellinism, with their schismatical principles, were everywhere effectually propagated by the new jurisprudence and its supporters. The first effect of these maxims was to overthrow the idea of the civil preponderance of the Church and of the Popes, and to dispose the people to curtail or totally to reject their spiritual authority, upon false pretexts of liberty, independence, and nationality. The Western schism contributed in two ways to the propagation of these fatal principles: first by letting the majesty of the Roman Pontiff fall into contempt; and secondly, by depriving the nations of the protection of his influence, constantly directed to checking the new and dangerous system of licentious freedom which was spreading far and wide. The desire of putting an end to the long and ruinous schism unfortunately gave rise to two distinct factions, which, though differing in their systematical views, still agreed in the principle of putting some restraint on the Supreme Ruler of the

Church, and of limiting his authority. Of the two factions, that which was the more moderate, although no less hostile to the Papacy than the other, was the party which, represented and headed by Gerson and D'Ailly, was so influential in the Council of Constance.858 One of the fundamental errors of this faction was, that they applied to the normal state of the Church a theory which was only adapted to the particular and transitory state of schism. But in another part of this work we have already set forth the origin and true aspect of this important series of events; we will therefore avoid repeating here what was there exhibited at length, and we refer our readers to the former discussion.859

As to the Council of Constance, Mgr. Maret devotes no less than three chapters to an unwise attempt to prove not only the Ecumenical character of the Sessions which preceded the election of the new Pope Martin V., but also the authority of the decrees of the Fourth and Fifth Sessions, regarding the superiority of the General Council to the Pope.860 In the place referred to above, we have proved that the Council of Pisa and that of Constance were not, properly speaking, Ecumenical Synods, but General Assemblies of the governing portion of the Church, which had no other authority than that of ascertaining and declaring the legitimate Pope, whom all were to obey, and of reinstating the Church in its normal position. When they had fulfilled this duty, they ceased to have any legal authority, unless so far as they might be sanctioned by the new Pontiff, and presided over by him or his Legates. Now the Council of Constance did not elect the new Pope before the Forty-first Session. Consequently, up to this

858 See Supreme Authority of the Pope, sec. vii., p. 160, seq.

859 L. C.

860 Du Concile Général, 1. iii., chs. v., vi., vii., t. i., pp. 386, 406, 427, seq.

time (1.) the Council of Constance was not properly a Council, either general or particular. Because a General Council, empowered to exercise its ruling authority over the whole Church, must represent the governing part of the Church in its normal state, and in its intimate conjunction with its visible Head; (2.) any decree whatever enacted by that Synod concerning faith and discipline made before the Forty-first Session had no other authority except that of mere schemes representing the wish of a large number of Bishops, which became laws only when made valid and sanctioned by the new Pope. The only decrees then, in which the Council exercised its power, were such as concerned the fittest means of restoring personal unity in the headship of the Church. Again, it is idle to insist upon the convocation and confirmation of the Council by Pope John XXIII., as is done by Mgr. Maret.861 A Pope whose authority is openly disputed, and in time of schism, cannot give authority to an Ecumenical Council, and enable it to act according to its normal institution. In such a case of uncertainty and schism, the Bishops are first to meet, with or without convocation, in order to dispel the doubts which hinder the recognition of the true Pope by the true Church; but when discharging this task they need no sanction or confirmation from any of the doubtful Popes. Hence regarding the Council of Constance, the only question which can be mooted is, whether Martin V. confirmed all the acts of that Synod, and gave them final validity.

Now it is clear that Martin V., in the Bull Inter cunctas,862 sanctioned only the condemnation of the heresies of Wycliffe and Huss. But, it is urged, he mentioned that the General Council of Constance had pronounced against these heretics a sentence of condem-

861 Du Concile Général, ch. v., n. v., p. 395, seq.

862 In Act. Conc. Constant. (Labbe, t. xvi., p. 751, seq.).