whole ecclesiastical community, when his bull has, for some time, been affixed to Peter's door and the apostolic chancery. This, which Dupin calls the height of folly, is the concentrated spirit of sublimated nonsense. Maimbourg requires public and solemn prayer, with the consultation of many councils and universities. has distinguished itself, in every age, by its opposition to pontifical usurpation and tyranny. The pontiff's authority, in consequence, never obtained the same prevalence in France as in several other nations of Christendom, his infallibility is one of those claims which the French school never acknowledged. His liability to error, even on questions of faith, has accordingly been maintained by the ablest French divines, such as Launoy, Gerson, Almain, Richerius, Maimbourg, Marca, Bossuet, and Du Pin. These doctors have been supported by many French universities, such as Paris, Angiers, Toulouse, and Orleans, which have been followed by those of Louvain, Herford, Cologne, Cracow, and Vienna. Many pontiffs, also, such as Damasus, Celestine, Felix, Adrian, Gelasius, Leo, Innocent, and Eugenius, admitting their own liability to error, have referred infallibility to a general council.* The certainty or uncertainty of pontifical exemption from error has, in the Romish communion, been a subject of disagreement and disputation. While the Ultramontane contends for its truth, and the Cisalpine for its falsehood, a numerous and influential party maintain its utter uncertainty, and represent it as a question, not of faith, but of opinion. The class-book of Maynooth stoutly advocates the probability of both systems.* The sage writer's penetrating eye could, at a glance, discern the probability of two contradictory propositions. The author must have been a man of genius. The general councils of Pisa, ConAnglade, Slevin, and Kenney, at the stance, and Basil, enacted a similar deMaynooth examination, declared, on cision. These proceeded, without any oath, their indecision on this inquiry, ceremony, to the demolition of pontiThe learned doctors could not tell whether fical supremacy and inerrability. All their visible head be the organ of truth this is contained in the superiority of a or the channel of error, even in his offi- council to the pope, as established by cial decisions and on points of faith. A these synods, as well as by their deposicommunion, which boasts of infallibility, tion of Benedict, Gregory, John, and cannot determine whether the sovereign Eugenius. These pontiffs, the fathers pontiff, the plenipotentiary of heaven, of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, found and the father and teacher of all Chris- guilty of contumacy, incorrigibility, sitians,' be, even when speaking from the mony, perjury, schism, and heresy, and chair, the oracle of catholicism or of founded synodal authority on the ruins heresy. of papal presumption and despotism. The Basilians, in express terms, declared the pope's fallibility, and, in many instances, his actual heresy. 'Some of the supreme pontiffs,' said these legislators, have fallen into heresy and error. The pope may, and often does err. History and experience show, that the pope, though the head and chief, has often been guilty of error.' These quotations are plain and expressive of the council's sentiments on the Roman hierarch's pretended exemption A second faction seat inerrability in the church representative or a general council. An ecumenical synod, according to this class, is the sovereign tribunal, which all ranks of men, even to the Roman pontiff himself, are bound to obey. An assembly of this kind, guided by the Holy Spirit, is superior to the pope, and supreme judge of controversy. The pontiff, in case of disobedience, is subject to deposition by the same authority.t This is the system of the French or Cisalpine school. The Gallican church Anglade, 180, 181; Slevin, 201, 202; Kenney, 37. 1 Du Pin, 3, 283; Gibert, 2, 7; Crabh, 2, 1018; Caranza, 565. VOL. II.-8 * Arsdekin, 1, 117; Dens, 2, 156; Launoy, 1, 145; Du Pin, 362, 364; Maimbourg, c. 15; Caron, c. 18. + Crabb, 3, 12, 146, 148. Bin. 8, 22. Caranza, 580. Du Pin, 361, 404. from the common weakness of humanity. The French, in this manner, are opposed to the Italian school. Theologian is opposed to theologian, pope to pope, university to university, and council to council. The Council of the Lateran, in a particular manner, contradicts the Council of Basil. Leo, in the former assembly, and with its entire approbation, declared his certain knowledge both of right and fact. The latter congress, in the plainest language, admitted the pope's fallibility and actual heresy.* A third class ascribe infallibility to a union of the church virtual and representative, or to a general council headed by the Roman pontiff. These, in general, require pontifical convocation, presidency, and confirmation to confer on a council legality and validity. A pope or synod, according to this theory, may, when disconnected, fall into error; but, when united, become unerring. A council, under the direction and superintendence of the pontiff, is, say these speculators, raised above mistake on subjects of faith and morality.t This class is opposed by both the former. The system contradicts the assumption of pontifical and synodal infallibility and the sentiments of the French and Italian schools. Its partisans differ not only from the Cisalpine theologians, Launoy, Gerson, Almain, Bossuet, and Du Pin, but also from the Ultramontane Doctors, Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Caranza, and Cajetan; and are exposed to the fire of the councils of Florence and Lateran, as well as of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. This party, varying from the French and Italian schools, vary from their own theory and from the acknowledged facts of the general councils. The Romish communion admits the authority of several synods, undistinguished by ponti. fical summons and ratification. The eight oriental councils, as Launoy, Du Pin, Gibert, and Caron, have clearly shown, were summoned sometimes *Labb. 19, 968. Crabb, 3, 148. + Maimbourg, c. 6. Bell, IV. 2. Caron, c. 18. Kenney, 398. against the pontiff's will, and always without his authority. The pope, in the first, second, third, and fifth general councils at Nicæa, Ephesus, and Constantinople, presided neither in person nor by representation; while the second Ephesian synod, says Mirandula, having a lawful call and legantine presence of the Roman bishop, prostituted its authority nevertheless to the subversion of the faith. Several general councils were not sanctioned, but, on the contrary, resisted by pontifical power. This was the case with the third canon of the second general council, which declared the Byzantine next in rank and dignity to the Roman see. The twentyeighth canon of the fourth general council at Chalcedon, which raised the Constantinopolitan patriarch to an equality with the Roman pontiff, met with similar opposition. But the Chalcedonian fathers disregarded the Roman bishop's expostulations and hostility. The fifth general council decided against Vigilius, and, in addition, complimented his holiness with an anathema and the imputation of heresy. The sixth ecumenical synod condemned Honorius, and its acts were confirmed by the emperor and afterward by Leo. The Basilian assembly was ridiculed by Leo the tenth, and both cursed and confirmed by Eugenius. His holiness, of course, between malediction and ratification, showed ample attention to the fathers of Basil. The French clergy reject the councils of Lyons, Florence, and the Lateran, though sanctioned by Innocent, Eugenius, and Leo. The Italian clergy, on the contrary, and the partisans of pontifical sovereignty, have proscribed the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, though ratified by Alexander, Martin and Nicholas. A fourth division in the Romish communion, rejecting the other systems, persist in attributing exemption from error only to the church collective or dispersed, embracing the general body of Christian professors. These, disclaiming pontifical and synodal infalli bility as well as both united, patronise ecclesiastical inerrability. The partisans of this theory, however, are few, com pared with the other factions. The be shown from the intellectual weakness system, notwithstanding, can boast of of man, and the moral deformity which several patrons of celebrity, such as Pa- has disfigured the Roman pontiffs, the normitan, Mirandula, and Alliaco.* Pa- general councils, and the papal church. normitan, the famous canonist, was one of the advocates of this theory. Councils, according to this author, may err and have erred. The universal church, he adds, comprehends the assembly of all the faithful; and this is the church which is vested with infallibility.' Mirandula adopted the opinion of Panormitan. He represents the second council of Ephesus as general and lawful, which, nevertheless, betrayed the faith.' Alliaco's statement on this head in the council of Constance, is remarkable. He observed that a general council, according to celebrated doctors, may err, not only in fact, but also in right, and, what is more, in the faith.' He delivered the statement as the opinion of many. The declaration, besides, was made in an assembly containing about a thousand of the clergy, and constituting a representation of the whole church, with general approbation and consent. This party, dissenting from pontifical and synodal infallibility, differ also among themselves, and are subdivided into two sections. One subdivision places illiability to error in the clergy dispersed through Christendom. The laity, according to this speculation, have nothing to do but obey the clergy and be safe. The other subdivision reekons the laity among the participators of infallibility. Clergy and laity, according to this supposition, form one sacred society, which, though dispersed through Christendom, and subject to mistake in an individual capacity, is, in a collective sense, raised above the possibility of error in the faith. Such is the diversity of opinions in the Romish communion, on a theory, which has disgraced man and insulted human reason. These observations shall now be concluded with a digression on the absurdity and on the impossibility of this infallibility. Its absurdity may Panor Panormitan, a. 1, N. 21, P. 140. mitan de Jud. No. 4. Mirandula. Hard. 2, 201. Lenfant, 1. 172. Th. 4, The intellectual weakness of man shows, in the clearest light, the absurdity of the claim. Human reason, weak in its operations and deceived by passion, selfishness, ignorance, and prepossession, is open to the inroads of error. Facts testify its fallibility. The annals of the world proclaim, in loud and unequivocal accents, the certainty of this humbling truth. The history of Romanism, and its diversity of opinions notwithstanding its boasted unity, teach the same fact. The man who first claimed or afterward assumed the superhuman attribute, must have possessed an impregnable effrontery. Liability to error, indeed, with respect to each individual in ordinary situations, is universally admitted. But a whole is equal to its parts. Fallible individuals, therefore, though united in one convention or society, can never form an infallible council or an infallible church. The absurdity of this arrogant claim may be shown from the moral deformity, which, from age to age, has disfigured the Roman pontiffs, the general councils, and the papal communion. The moral character of the popes proclaims a loud negation against their infallibility. Many of these hierarchs carried miscreancy to an unenvied perfection, and excelled, in this respect, all men recorded in the annals of time. A John, a Benedict, and an Alexander seem to have been born to show how far human nature could proceed in degeneracy, and, in this department, outshine a Nero, a Domitian, and a Caligula. Several popes in the tenth century owed their dignity to Marozia and Theodora, two celebrated courtezans, who raised their gal lants to the pontifical throne, and vested them with pontifical infallibility. Fifty of these viceroys of heaven, according to Genebrard, degenerated, for one hundred and fifty years, from the integrity of their ancestors, and were apostatical rather than apostolical. Genebrard, Pla * Baron. 912, VIII. Spon. 900, I. Gene. brard, IV. Giannon, VII. 5. An. Eccl. 345. tina, Stella, and even Baronius, call them monsters, portends, thieves, robbers, assassins, magicians, murderers, barbarians and perjurers. No less than seventeen of God's vicars-general were guilty of perjury. Papal ambition, usurpation, persecution, domination, excommunication, interdicts, and deposition of kings have filled the earth with war and desolation. The general councils, like the Roman pontiffs, were a stigma on religion and man. Many of these conventions, in point of respectability, were inferior to a modern cock-fight or bull-baiting. Gregory Nazianzen, who is a Roman saint, has described these scenes with the pencil of truth and with the hand of a master. I never, says the Grecian bishop, saw a synod which had a happy termination. These conventions, instead of diminishing, uniformly augment the evil which they were intended to remedy. Passion, jealousy, envy, prepossession, and the ambition of victory, prevail and surpass all description. Zeal is actuated rather by malignancy to the criminal than aversion to the crime. He compares the dissension and wrangling exhibited in the councils, to the quarrels of geese and cranes, gabbling and contending in confusion, and represents such disputation and vain jangling as calculated to demoralize the spectator, rather than to correct or reform.* This portrait, which is taken from life, exhibits in graphic delineation and in true colors, the genuine features of all the general, infallible, apostolic, holy Roman councils. The general synods of Constantinople, Nicæa, Lyons, Constance, and Basil are, in a particular manner, worthy of observation. These conventions were composed of the lowest rabble, and patronised the vilest abominations. The Byzantine assembly, which was the second general council, has been described by Nazianzen. This convention the saint characterizes as a cabal of wretches fit for the house of correction; fellows newly taken from the plough, the spade, the oar, and the army.' Gregory, 2, 82. Carm. X. Ep. 56. Du Pin, 1. 658. Such is a Roman saint's sketch of a holy, apostolic, unerring council.* The second Nicene council approved of perjury and fornication. The unerring synod, in loud acclamation, approved of a disgusting and filthy tale, taken from the Spiritual Meadow,' and sanctioning these sins. A monk, according to the story, had been haunted with the spirit of fornication from early life till hoary age. The lascivious propensity, which is all that could be meant by the demon of sensuality, had seized the solitary in the fervor of youth, and continued its temptations even in the decline of years. One day, when the spirit, or more probably the flesh, had made an extraordinary attack on the anchoret, he begged the foul fiend to depart, as he was now arrived at the years of longevity, when such allurements, through attendant debility, should cease. The devil, appearing in his proper form, promised a cessation of arms, if the hermit would swear to tell no person what he was going to say. The monk, without hesitation, obeyed the devil, and bound himself by oath to secrecy. The devil administered and the monk swore. He swore by the Most High never to divulge what Belial would tell. The solitary, it appears, was sufficiently complaisant with Beelzebub, who, in return, promised to withdraw his temptations, if the monk would quit worshipping a statue of Lady Mary carrying her son in her arms. The tempted, it seems, did not reject the temptation with becoming resolution. He requested time for consideration; and next day, notwithstanding his oath, discovered all to the abbot Theodorus, who lived in Pharan. The holy abbot indeed called the oath a delusion; but notwithstanding his sanctity, approved of the confession, and, in consequence, of the perjury. The devil, perhaps, in the popish divinity, is a heretic, which would warrant the violation of faith with his infernal majesty. The abbot's approbation, however, some may think, was a sufficient stretch of politeness in the holy Theodorus, and not very flattering to veracity. The following is as little flattering to chastity. You should rather visit all the brothels in the city,' said the holy abbot to the holy monk, than omit worshipping Immanuel and his mother in their images." Theodorus was an excellent casuist, and knew how to solve a case of conscience. Satan afterward appeared to the monk, accused him of perjury, and pronounced his doom at the day of judgment. The devil seems to have felt a greater horror of perjury than the monk; and preached better morality than Theodorus or the holy general council. The anchoret, in his reply to the fiend, admitted that he had perjured himself; but declared that he had not abjured his God. Such is the tale, as related in the sacred synod, from the Spiritual Meadow.' The holy fathers, with unanimous consent, approved; and by their approbation, showed the refinement of their taste, and sanctioned perjury and debauchery. John, the oriental vicar, declared perjury better than the destruc. tion of images. John must have been an excellent moral philosopher and Christian divine, and a worthy member of an unerring council. The monk's oath, however, did not imply the alternative of forswearing himself or re-, nouncing image worship. He might have kept the solemn obligation and, at the same time, enjoyed his orthodox idolatry. He was only sworn to secrecy with respect to the demon's communication. The engagement was so lemn. The officer indeed, who administered the oath, was the devil. But the solitary swore by the Highest; and the validity of an oath, all agree, arises not from the administrator, but from the deity in whose name it is taken. His discovery to Theodorus, therefore, though applauded by the infallible synod, was a flagrant violation of the ninth precept of the moral law. The approval of debauchery was, in this case, accompanied with that of perjury. Theodorus' sermon, recommended by the sacred synod, encou* Labb. 8. 902. raged the monk, rather than dismiss his idol, which in all probability was a parcel of fusty baggage, to launch into. the troubled waters of prostitution, and, with crowded canvass and swelling sail, to sweep the wide ocean of licentiousness. The picture of sensuality, presented in the abbot's holy advice, seems to have tickled the fancy and feeling of the holy fathers, who appear to have been actuated by the same spirit in the council as the monk in the cell. The old sensualists gloated over the scene of voluptuousness, which the Theodorian theology had presented to the view. The aged libertines, enamored of the tale, caused it to be repeated in the fifth session, for the laudable purpose of once more glutting their libidinous appetite, and prompting their imagination with its filthiness. The Caroline books, the production of the French king and prelacy, deprecated the story as an unprecedented absurdity and a pestilential evil. Du Pin, actuated with the sentiments of a man and a Christian, condemns the synod, deprecates the whole transaction, and even refuses to translate the abbot of Pharan's holy homily. The infallible council sanctioned a breach of the seventh commandment, at least in comparison with the abandonment of emblematic adoration. The Nicæans, nevertheless, boasted of their inspiration. The sacred synod, amid all its atrocity, pretended to the immediate influence of Heaven. The divine afflatus, forsooth, passed through these sinks of pollution, and made the consecrated ruffians the channels of supernatural communications to man. The source of their inspiration, if the holy fathers felt such an impulse, is easy to tell. The spirit which influenced the secluded monk seems to have been busy with the worthy bishops, and to have stimulated their imaginations to the enjoyment of the dirty story, and the approbation of its foul criminality. The holy infallible council of Lyons has been delineated in a portrait taken from life, by Matthew Paris, a cotemporary historian. Pope Innocent, retiring from the general council of Lyons in which he had presided, cardinal Hugo |