Page images
PDF
EPUB

LECTURE VI.

THE RT. REV. ARTHUR C. A. HALL, D.D.,

Bishop of Vermont.

THE SYLLABUS AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.*

The subject assigned to me, Papal Infallibility, naturally falls under two chief heads. It may be viewed in two aspects: I., Historical, and II., Theological.

I. First, we examine the claim of infallibility in the light of history, and ask, a posteriori, how far it is justified by facts. Have the popes been

*The Lecturer would refer for his authorities in this discourse to the following books, which can be found in libraries :

The Infallibility of the Church, by George Salmon, D.D., Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. (Murray, 1890.) Pope Honorius and the New Roman Dogma, by E. F. Willis. (Rivingtons, 1879.)

Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion: three tracts, The

Vatican Decrees in their bearing on Civil Allegiance, a

infallible, and have they been regarded by the Church as endowed with this gift?

II. Secondly, we examine the claim in the light of Scripture promises, and ask, a priori, whether such a gift was to be expected. Is there any warrant for supposing they would be infallible?

III. So far as time allows, the application of the claim to political and other subjects suggested by the syllabus will be a third point for consideration.

That we may be clear, and fair, in apprehending the position controverted, let me quote the assertion of the claim to Papal Infallibility formally made by the Roman Catholic Church. The Constitution, or doctrinal decree, called the Pastor æternus, promulgated by Pius IX, "with the approbation of the Sacred Vatican Council," on July 18, 1870, after making other claims for the Roman Bishops, as that in St. Peter Christ pro

Political Remonstrance; Vaticanism; Speeches of the Pope. By W. E. Gladstone. (Tauchnitz Edition, No. 1,524, 1875.)

A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation, by John H. Newman. In Vol. II. of The Difficulties of Anglicans. (Pickering. 1876.)

The Roman Claims Tested by Antiquity, by Wm. Bright, D.D., Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Ox ford. (English Church Union Office, 1877.)

vided a primacy of proper jurisdiction over the whole Church, which was to continue with St. Peter's successors, the Bishops of Rome, in its 4th chapter also claims for the pope a supreme teaching office. "We teach and define it to be a dogma divinely revealed that, when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines that a doctrine regarding faith or morals is to be held by the Universal Church, he enjoys, by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable."*

I. In the historical consideration of the subject we will pass over earlier times, with pertinent questions that might well be raised with reference to Zephyrinus and Callistus and Hippolytus, and come at once to the great Arian controversy that shook Christendom and tried the faith of the Church to the uttermost. Then, if ever, an infal

* Constitutio de Ecclesia, cap. iv., de Romani Pontificis Infallivili Magisterio.

lible guide was needed; for the question in dispute was nothing less than the Divine Person, the true Godhead, of our Lord. And then, we may be quite sure, had he known of the existence of such an easy method of settling the controversy, the Roman emperor, anxious above all things for peace, would have been eager to employ it. The Church was torn with schisms and racked with doubt. Council after council met. The question was thrashed out in protracted debates, and innumerable treatises. The attempt to settle the matter by papal authority was not thought of. On the contrary, when the Roman Bishop was appealed to, not as supreme teacher to determine the question by his authority, but as head of a most important see, and foremost Bishop of the West, to side with the orthodox contenders for the Homoousion, Pope Liberius went wrong, repudiated Athanasius, and signed an Arian formula..

At first nobly resisting the pressure put on him by the Arian Emperor Constantius, and submitting to banishment rather than side with the Arians, yet in his isolation, after two years' exile, he gave way, and wrote to the Arians as his most beloved brethren, apologizing for ever having defended Athanasius, on the ground that Bishop Julius, his predecessor, had so done; but "having learned" (he says), "when it pleased God, that

« PreviousContinue »