Venerable John Henry Newman, (21 February 1801 11
August 1890) was a Roman Catholic priest and cardinal who
converted to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism in October
1845. In early life, he was a major figure in the Oxford
Movement to bring the Church of England back to its Catholic
roots. Eventually his studies in history persuaded him to
become a Roman Catholic. Both before and after becoming a
Roman Catholic, he wrote a number of influential books,
including Via Media, Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine (1845), Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1865-66) and the
Grammar of Assent (1870).
|
ON CONSULTING THE
FAITHFUL ON MATTERS OF DOCTRINE.
By
Cardinal John Henry Newman
[Rambler, July 1859.]
A QUESTION has arisen among persons of theological knowledge
and fair and candid minds, about the wording and the sense
of a passage in the Rambler for May. It admits to my
own mind of so clear and satisfactory an explanation, that I
should think it unnecessary to intrude myself, an anonymous
person, between the conductors and readers of this Magazine,
except that, as in dogmatic works the replies made to
objections often contain the richest matter, so here too,
plain remarks on a plain subject may open to the minds of
others profitable thoughts, which are more due to their own
superior intelligence than to the very words of the writer.
The Rambler, then, has these words at p. 122: "in the
preparation of a dogmatic definition, the faithful are
consulted, as lately in the instance of the Immaculate
Conception." Now {199} two questions bearing upon doctrine
have been raised on this sentence, putting aside the
question of fact as regards the particular instance cited,
which must follow the decision on the doctrinal questions:
viz. first, whether it can, with doctrinal correctness, be
said that an appeal to the faithful is one of the
preliminaries of a definition of doctrine; and secondly,
granting that the faithful are taken into account, still,
whether they can correctly be said to be consulted. I
shall remark on both these points, and I shall begin with
the second.
§ 1.
Now doubtless, if a divine were expressing himself formally,
and in Latin, he would not commonly speak of the laity being
"consulted" among the preliminaries of a dogmatic
definition, because the technical, or even scientific,
meaning of the word "consult" is to "consult with,"
or to "take counsel." But the English word "consult,"
in its popular and ordinary use, is not so precise and
narrow in its meaning; it is doubtless a word expressive of
trust and deference, but not of submission. It includes the
idea of inquiring into a matter of fact, as well as
asking a judgment. Thus we talk of "consulting our
barometer" about the weather:the barometer only attests the
fact of the state of the atmosphere. In like manner,
we may consult a watch or a sun-dial about the time of day.
A physician consults the pulse of his patient; but not in
the same sense in which his patient consults him. It
is but an index of the state of his health. Ecclesiastes
says, "Qui observat ventum, non seminat;" we might
translate it, "he who consults," without meaning that we ask
the wind's opinion. This being considered, it was, I
conceive, quite allowable for a writer, who was not teaching
or treating theology, but, as it were, conversing, to say,
as in the passage in question, "In the preparation of a
dogmatic definition, the faithful are consulted." Doubtless
their advice, their opinion, their judgment on the question
of definition is not asked; but the matter of fact, viz.
their belief, is sought for, as a testimony to that
apostolical tradition, on which alone any doctrine
whatsoever can be defined. In like manner, we may "consult"
the liturgies or the rites of the Church; not that they
speak, not that they can take any part whatever in the
definition, for they are documents or customs; but they are
witnesses to the antiquity or universality of the doctrines
which they contain, and about which they are "consulted."
And, in like manner, I certainly understood the writer in
the Rambler to mean (and I think any lay reader might
so understand him) that the fidelium sensus and
consensus is a branch of evidence {200} which it is
natural or it necessary for the Church to regard and
consult, before she proceeds to any definition, from its
intrinsic cogency; and by consequence, that it ever has been
so regarded and consulted. And the writer's use of the word
"opinion" in the foregoing sentence, and his omission of it
in the sentence in question, seemed to show that, though the
two cases put therein were analogous, they were not
identical.
Having said as much as this, I go further, and maintain that
the word "consulted," used as it was used, was in no respect
unadvisable, except so far as it distressed any learned and
good men, who identified it with the Latin. I might, indeed,
even have defended the word as it was used, in the Latin
sense of it. Regnier both uses it of the laity and explains
it. "Cùm receptam apud populos traditionem consulunt
et sequuntur Episcopi, non illos habent pro magistris
et ducibus, &c." (De Eccles. Christi. p. i. § 1, c. i., ed.
Migne, col. 234.) But in my bountifulness I will give up
this use of the word as untheological; still I will maintain
that the true theological sense is unknown to all but
theologians. Accordingly, the use of it in the Rambler
was in no sense dangerous to any lay reader, who, if he
knows Latin, still is not called upon, in the structure of
his religious ideas, to draw those careful lines and those
fine distinctions, which in theology itself are the very
means of anticipating and repelling heresy. The laity would
not have a truer, or a clearer, or a different view of the
doctrine itself, though the sentence had run, "in the
preparation of a dogmatic decree, regard is had to
the sense of the faithful;" or, "there is an appeal
to the general voice of the faithful;" or, "inquiry
is made into the belief of the Christian people;" or, "the
definition is not made without a previous reference
to what the faithful will think of it and say to it;" or
though any other form of words had been used, stronger or
weaker, expressive of the same general idea, viz. that
the sense of the faithful is not left out of the question
by the Holy See among the preliminary acts of defining a
doctrine.
Now I shall go on presently to remark on the proposition
itself which is conveyed in the words on which I have been
commenting; here, however, I will first observe, that such
misconceptions as I have been setting right will and must
occur, from the nature of the case, whenever we speak on
theological subjects in the vernacular; and if we do not use
the vernacular, I do not see how the bulk of the Catholic
people are to be catechised or taught at all. English has
innovated on the Latin sense of its own Latin words; and if
we are to speak according to the conditions of the language,
{201} and are to make ourselves intelligible to the
multitude, we shall necessarily run the risk of startling
those who are resolved to act as mere critics and
scholastics in the process of popular instruction.
This divergence from a classical or ecclesiastical standard
is a great inconvenience, I grant; but we cannot remodel our
mother-tongue. Crimen does not properly mean crime;
amiable does not yet convey the idea of amabilis;
compassio is not compassion; princeps
is not a prince; disputatio is not a
dispute; prĉvenire is not to prevent.
Cicero imperator is not the Emperor Cicero;
scriptor egregius is not an egregious writer;
virgo singularis is not a singular virgin;
retractare dicta is not to retract what he has said;
and, as we know from the sacred passage, traducere is
not necessarily to traduce.
Now this is not merely sharp writing, for mistakes do in
matter of fact occur not unfrequently from this imperfect
correspondence between theological Latin and English;
showing that readers of English are bound ever to bear in
mind that they are not reading Latin, and that learned
divines must ever exercise charity in their interpretations
of vernacular religious teaching.
For instance, I know of certain English sermons which were
translated into French by some French priests. They, good
and friendly men, were surprised to find in these
compositions such language as "weak evidence and strong
evidence," and "insufficient, probable, demonstrative
evidence;" they read that "some writers had depreciated the
evidences of religion," and that "the last century, when
love was cold, was an age of evidences." Evidentia,
they said, meant that luminousness which attends on
demonstration, conviction, certainty; how can it be more or
less? how can it be unsatisfactory? how can a sane man
disparage it? how can it be connected with religious
coldness? The simple explanation of the difficulty was, that
the writer was writing for his own people, and that in
English "an evidence" is not evidentia.
Another instance. An excellent Italian religious, now gone
to his reward, was reading a work of the same author; and he
came upon a sentence to the effect, I think, that the
doctrine of the Holy Trinity was to be held with "implicit"
faith. He was perplexed and concerned. He thought the writer
held that the Church did not explicitly teach, had not
explicitly defined, the dogma; that is, he confused the
English meaning of the word, according to which it is a sort
of correlative to imperative, meaning simple,
unconditional, absolute, with its sense in theology.
It is not so exactly apposite to refer,yet I will refer,
{202} to another instance, as supplying a general
illustration of the point I am urging. It was in a third
country that a lecturer spoke in terms of disparagement of
"Natural Theology," on the ground of its deciding questions
of revelation by reasonings from physical phenomena. It was
objected to him, that Naturalis Theologia embraced
all truths and arguments from natural reason bearing
upon the Divine Being and Attributes. Certainly he would
have been the last to depreciate what he had ever made the
paramount preliminary science to Christian faith; but he
spoke according to the sense of those to whom his words
might come. He considered that in the Protestant school of
Paley and other popular writers, the idea of Natural
Theology had practically merged in a scientific view of the
argument from Design.
Once more. Supposing a person were to ask me whether a
friend, who has told me the fact in confidence, had written
a certain book, and I were to answer, "Well, if he did, he
certainly would tell me," and the inquirer went away
satisfied that he did not write it,I do not see that
I have done any thing to incur the reproach of the English
word "equivocation;" I have but adopted a mode of
turning-off a difficult question, to which any one may be
obliged any day to have recourse. I am not speaking of
spontaneous and gratuitous assertions, statements on solemn
occasions, or answers to formal authorities. I am speaking
of impertinent or unjustifiable questions; and I should like
to know the man who thinks himself bound to say every thing
to every one. Physicians evade the questions of sick persons
about themselves; friends break bad news gradually, and with
temporary concealments, to those whom it may shock. Parents
shuffle with their children. Statesmen, ministers in
Parliament, baffle adversaries in every possible way short
of a direct infringement of veracity. When St. Athanasius
saw that he was pursued on the Nile by the imperial
officers, he turned round his boat and met them; when they
came up to his party and hailed them, and asked whether they
had seen any thing of Athanasius, Athanasius cried out, "O
yes, he is not far from you;" and off the vessels went in
different directions as swiftly as they could go, each boat
on its own errand, the pursuer and the pursued. I do not see
that there is in any of these instances what is expressed by
the English word "equivocation;" but it is the
ĉquivocatio of a Latin treatise; and when Protestants
hear that ĉquivocamus sine scrupulo, they are shocked
at the notion of our "unscrupulous equivocation."
Now, in saying all this, I must not be supposed to be
forgetful {203} of the sacred and imperative duty of
preserving with religious exactness all those theological
terms which are ecclesiastically recognised as portions of
dogmatic statements, such as Trinity, Person,
Consubstantial, Nature, Transubstantiation,
Sacrament, &c. It would be unpardonable for a
Catholic to teach "justification by faith only," and say
that he meant by "faith" fides formata, or
"justification without works," and say that he meant by
"works" the works of the Jewish ritual; but granting all
this fully, still if our whole religious phraseology is, as
a matter of duty, to be modelled in strict conformity to
theological Latin, neither the poor nor children will
understand us. I have always fancied that to preachers great
license was allowed, not only in the wording, but even in
the matter of their discourses; they exaggerate and are
rhetorical, and they are understood piè as speaking
more prĉdicatorio. I have always fancied that, when
Catholics were accused of hyperbolical language towards the
Blessed Virgin, it was replied that devotion was not the
measure of doctrine; nor surely is the vernacular of a
magazine writer. I do not see that I am wrong in considering
that a periodical, not treating theology ex professo,
but accidentally alluding to an ecclesiastical act, commits
no real offence if it uses an unscientific word, since it
speaks, not more digladiatorio, but colloquialiter.
I shall conclude this head of my subject with allusion to a
passage in the history of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of
Alexandria, though it is beyond my purpose; but I like to
quote a saint whom, multis nominibus (not "with many
names," or " by many nouns"), I have always loved most of
all the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It relates to an attack which
was made on his orthodoxy; a very serious matter. Now I know
every one will be particular on his own special science or
pursuits. I am the last man to find fault with such
particularity. Drill-sergeants think much of deportment;
hard logicians come down with a sledge-hammer even on a
Plato who does not happen to enumerate in his beautiful
sentence all the argumentative considerations which go to
make up his conclusion; scholars are horrified, as if with
sensible pain, at the perpetration of a false quantity. I am
far from ridiculing, despising, or even undervaluing such
precision; it is for the good of every art and science that
it should have vigilant guardians. Nor am I comparing such
precision (far from it) with that true religious zeal which
leads theologians to keep the sacred Ark of the Covenant in
every letter of its dogma, as a tremendous deposit for which
they are responsible. In this curious sceptical world, such
sensitiveness {204} is the only human means by which the
treasure of faith can be kept inviolate. There is a woe in
Scripture against the unfaithful shepherd. We do not blame
the watch-dog because he sometimes flies at the wrong
person. I conceive the force, the peremptoriness, the
sternness, with which the Holy See comes down upon the
vagrant or the robber, trespassing upon the enclosure of
revealed truth, is the only sufficient antagonist to the
power and subtlety of the world, to imperial
comprehensiveness, monarchical selfishness, nationalism, the
liberalism of philosophy, the encroachments and usurpations
of science. I grant, I maintain all this; and after this
avowal, lest I be misunderstood, I venture to introduce my
notice of St. Dionysius. He was accused on a far worse
charge, and before a far more formidable tribunal, than
commonly befalls a Catholic writer; for he was brought up
before the Holy See on a denial of our Lord's divinity. He
had been controverting with the Sabellians; and he was in
consequence accused of the doctrine to which Arius
afterwards gave his name, that is, of considering our Lord a
creature. He says, writing in his defence, that when he
urged his opponents with the argument that "a vine and a
vine-dresser were not the same," neither, therefore, were
the "Father and the Son," these were not the only
illustrations that he made use of, nor those on which he
dwelt, for he also spoke of "a root and a plant," "a fount
and a stream," which are not only distinct from each
other, but of one and the same nature. Then he adds,
"But my accusers have no eyes to see this portion of my
treatise; but they take up two little words detached from
the context, and proceed to discharge them at me as pebbles
from a sling." If even a saint's words are not always
precise enough to allow of being made a dogmatic text, much
less are those of any modern periodical.
The conclusion I would draw from all I have been saying is
this: Without deciding whether or not it is advisable to
introduce points of theology into popular works, and
especially whether it is advisable for laymen to do so,
still, if this actually is done, we are not to expect in
them that perfect accuracy of expression which I demanded in
a Latin treatise or a lecture ex cathedrâ; and if
there be a want of this exactness, we must not at once think
it proceeds from self-will and undutifulness in the writers.
§ 2.
Now I come to the matter of what the writer in the
Rambler really said, putting aside the question of the
wording; {205} and I begin by expressing my belief
that, whatever he may be willing to admit on the score of
theological Latinity in the use of the word "consult" when
applied to the faithful, yet one thing he cannot deny, viz.
that in using it, he implied, from the very force of the
term, that they are treated by the Holy See, on occasions
such as that specified, with attention and consideration.
Then follows the question, Why? and the answer is plain,
viz. because the body of the faithful is one of the
witnesses to the fact of the tradition of revealed doctrine,
and because their consensus through Christendom is
the voice of the Infallible Church.
I think I am right in saying that the tradition of the
Apostles, committed to the whole Church in its various
constituents and functions per modum unius, manifests
itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of
the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the
people, sometimes by liturgies, rites, ceremonies, and
customs, by events, disputes, movements, and all those other
phenomena which are comprised under the name of history. It
follows that none of these channels of tradition may be
treated with disrespect; granting at the same time fully,
that the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining,
promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition
resides solely in the Ecclesia docens.
One man will lay more stress on one aspect of doctrine,
another on another; for myself, I am accustomed to lay great
stress on the consensus fidelium, and I will say how
it has come about.
1. It had long been to me a difficulty, that I could not
find certain portions of the defined doctrine of the Church
in ecclesiastical writers. I was at Rome in the year 1847;
and then I had the great advantage and honour of seeing
Fathers Perrone and Passaglia, and having various
conversations with them on this point. The point of
difficulty was this, that up to the date of the definition
of certain articles of doctrine respectively, there was so
very deficient evidence from existing documents that
Bishops, doctors, theologians, held them. I do not mean to
say that I expressed my difficulty in this formal shape; but
that what passed between us in such interviews as they were
kind enough to give me, ran into or impinged upon this
question. Nor would I ever dream of making them answerable
for the impression which their answers made on me; but,
speaking simply on my own responsibility, I should say that,
while Father Passaglia seemed to maintain that the
Ante-Nicene writers were clear {206} in their testimonies in
behalf (e.g.) of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity
and Justification, expressly praising and making much of the
Anglican Bishop Bull; rather Perrone, on the other hand, not
speaking, indeed, directly upon those particular doctrines,
but rather on such as I will presently introduce in his own
words, seemed to me to say "transeat" to the alleged
fact which constituted the difficulty, and to lay a great
stress on what he considered t be the sensus and
consensus fidelium, as a compensation or whatever
deficiency there might be of patristical testimony in behalf
of various points of the Catholic dogma.
2. I should have been led to fancy, perhaps, that he was
shaping his remarks in the direction in which he considered
he might be especially serviceable to myself, who had been
accustomed to account for the (supposed) phenomena in
another way, had it not been for his work on the Immaculate
Conception, which I read the next year with great interest,
and which was passing through the press when I saw him. I am
glad to have this opportunity of expressing my gratitude and
attachment to a venerable man, who never grudged me his
valuable time.
But now for his treatise, to which I have referred, so far
as it speaks of the sensus fidelium, and of its
bearing upon the doctrine, of which his work treats and upon
its definition.
(1.) He states the historical fact of such sensus.
Speaking of the "Ecclesiĉ sensus" on the subject, he says
that, though the liturgies, of the Feast of the Conception
"satis apertè patefaciant quid Ecelesia antiquitùs de hoc
senserit argumento," yet it may be worth while to add some
direct remarks on the sense itself of the Church. Then he
says, "Ex duplici fonte eum colligi posse arbitramur, turn
scilicet ex pastorum, tum ex fidelium sese gerendi
ratione" (pp. 74, 75). Let it be observed, he not only joins
together the pastores and fideles, but
contrasts them; I mean (for it will bear on what is to
follow), the "faithful" do not include the "pastors."
(2.) Next he goes on to describe the relation of that
sensus fidelium to the sensus Ecclesiĉ. He says,
that to inquire into the sense of the Church on any
question, is nothing else but to investigate towards which
side of it she has more inclined. And the "indicia et
manifestationes hujus propensionis" are her public acts,
liturgies, feasts, prayers, "pastorum ac fidelium in unum
veluti conspiratio" (p. 101). Again, at p. 109, joining
together in one his twofold consent of pastors and people,
he speaks of the "unanimis pastorum ac fidelium
consensio ... per liturgias, per festa, per euchologia, per
fidei controversias, per conciones patefacta." {207}
(3.) These various "indicia" are also the instrumenta
traditionis, and vary one with another in the evidence
which they give in favour of particular doctrines; so that
the strength of one makes up in a particular case for the
deficiency of another, and the strength of the "sensus
communis fidelium" can make up (e.g.) for the silence
of the Fathers. "Istiusmodi instrumenta interdum simul
conjunctè conspirare possunt ad traditionem aliquam
apostolicam atque divinam patefaciendam, interdum vero
seorsum ... Perperam nonnulli solent ad inficiandam
traditionis alicujus existentiam urgere silentium Patrum ...
quid enim si silentium istud alio pacto
compensetur?" (p.
139). He instances this from St. Irenĉus and Tertullian in
the "Successio Episcoporum," who transmit the doctrines "tum
activi operâ ministerii, tum usu et praxi, tum institutis
ritibus ... adeò ut catholica atque apostolica doctrina
inoculata ... fuerit ... communi Ecclesiĉ ctui" (p. 142).
(4.) He then goes on to speak directly of the force of the
"sensus fidelium," as distinct (not separate) from the
teaching of their pastors. "Prĉstantissimi theologi
maximam probandi vim huic communi sensui inesse
uno ore fatentur. Etenim Canus, 'In quĉstione fidei,'
inquit, 'communis fidelis populi sensus haud levem facit
fidem'" (p. 143). He gives another passage from him in a
note, which he introduces with the words, "Illud prĉclarè
addit;" what Canus adds is, "Quĉro ex te, quando de rebus
Christianĉ fidei inter nos contendimus, non de philosophiĉ
decretis, utrùm potius quĉrendum est, quid philosophi
atque ethnici, an quid homines Christiani, et doctrinâ et
fide instituti, sentiant?" Now certainly "quĉrere quid
sentiant homines doctrinâ et fide instituti," though not
asking advice, is an act implying not a little deference on
the part of the persons addressing towards the parties
addressed.
Father Perrone continues, "Gregorius verò de Valentiâ fusius
vim ejusmodi fidelium consensus evolvit. 'Est enim,' inquit,
'in definitionibus fidei habenda ratio, quoad fieri
potest, consensus fidelium.'" Here, again, "habere
rationem," to have regard to, is an act of respect and
consideration. However, Gregory continues, "Quoniam et ii
sanè, quatenus ex ipsis constat Ecclesia, sic
Spiritu Sancto assistente, divinas revelationes
integrè et purè conservant, ut omnes illi quidem
aberrare non possunt ... Illud solùm contendo: Si quando de
re aliquâ in materie religionis controversia
[controversâ?] constaret fidelium omnium concordem esse
sententiam (solet autem id constare, vel ex ipsâ praxi
alicujus cultûs communiter apud christianos populos receptâ,
vel ex scandalo et {208} offensione communi,
quĉ opinione aliquâ oritur, &c.) meritò posse et debere
Pontificem illâ niti, ut quĉ esset Ecclesiĉ sententia
infallibilis" (p. 144). Thus Gregory says that, in
controversy about a matter of faith, the consent of all the
faithful has such a force in the proof of this side or that,
that the Supreme Pontiff is able and ought to rest
upon it, as being the judgment or sentiment of the
infallible Church. These are surely exceedingly strong
words; not that I take them to mean strictly that
infallibility is in the "consensus fidelium," but
that that "consensus" is an indicium or
instrumentum to us of the judgment of that Church which
is infallible.
Father Perrone proceeds to quote from Petavius, who supplies
us with the following striking admonition from St. Paulinus,
viz. "ut de omnium fidelium ore pendeamus, quia in
omnem fidelem Spiritus Dei spirat."
Petavius speaks thus, as he quotes him (p. 156): "Movet
me, ut in eam [viz. piam] sententiam sim propensior,
communis maximus sensus fidelium omnium." By "movet me"
he means, that he attends to what the ctus
fidelium says: this is certainly not passing over the
fideles, but making much of them.
In a later part of his work (p. 186), Father Perrone speaks
of the "consensus fidelium" under the strong image of a
seal. After mentioning various arguments in favour of
the Immaculate Conception, such as the testimony of so many
universities, religious bodies, theologians, &c., he
continues, "Hĉc demum omnia firmissimo veluti sigillo
obsignat totius christiani populi consensus."
(5.) He proceeds to give several instances, in which the
definition of doctrine was made in consequence of nothing
else but the "sensus fidelium" and the "juge et vivum
magisterium" of the Church.
For his meaning of the "juge et vivum magisterium Ecclesiĉ,"
he refers us to his Prĉlectiones (part ii. § 2, c.
ii.). In that passage I do not see that he defines the sense
of the word; but I understand him to mean that high
authoritative voice or act which is the Infallible Church's
prerogative, inasmuch as she is the teacher of the nations;
and which is a sufficient warrant to all men for a doctrine
being true and being de fide, by the mere fact of its
formally occurring. It is distinct from, and independent of,
tradition, though never in fact separated from it. He says,
"Fit ut traditio dogmatica identificetur cum ipsâ Ecclesiĉ
doctninâ, a quâ separari nequit; qua propter, etsi
documenta deficerent omnia, solum hoc vivum et juge
magisterium satis esset ad cognoscendam doctrinam
divinitus traditam, habito prĉsertim respectu ad solennes
Christi promissiones" (p. 303). {209}
This being understood, he speaks of several points of faith
which have been determined and defined by the "magisterium"
of the Church and, as to tradition, on the "consensus
fidelium," prominently, if not solely.
The most remarkable of these is the "dogma de visione Dei
beatificâ" possessed by souls after purgatory and before the
day of judgment; a point which Protestants, availing
themselves of the comment of the Benedictines of St. Maur
upon St. Ambrose, are accustomed to urge in controversy.
"Nemo est qui nesciat," says Father Perrone, "quot utriusque
Ecclesiĉ, tum Grĉcĉ tum Latinĉ, Patres contrarium sensisse
visi sunt" (p. 147). He quotes in a note the words of the
Benedictine editor, as follows: "Propemodum incredibile
videri potest, quàm in eâ quĉstione sancti Patres ab ipsis
Apostolorum temporibus ad Gregorii XI. [Benedicti XII.]
pontificatum florentinumque concilium, hoc est toto
quatuordecim seculorum spatio, incerti ac parùm constantes
exstiterint." Father Perrone continues: "Certè quidem in
Ecclesiâ non deerat quoad hunc fidei articulum divina
traditio; alioquin nunquam is definiri potuisset: verùm non
omnibus illa erat comperta; divina eloquia haud satis in re
sunt. conspicua; Patres, ut vidimus, in varias
abierunt sententias; liturgiĉ ipsĉ non modicam prĉ se
ferunt difficultatem. His omnibus sucurrit juge
Ecclesiĉ magisterium, communis prĉterea fidelium sensus;
qui altè adeò defixum
habebant mentibus, purgatas animas
statim ad Deum videndum eoque fruendum admitti, ut non
minimum eorum animi vel ex ipsâ controversiâ fuerint
offensi, quĉ sub Joanne XXII. agitabatur, et cujus
definitio diu nimis protrahebatur." Now does not this
imply that the tradition, on which the definition was made,
was manifested in the consensus fidelium with a
luminousness which the succession of Bishops, though many of
them were "Sancti Patres ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus,"
did not furnish? that the definition was delayed till the
fideles would bear the delay no longer? that it was made
because of them and for their sake, because of their strong
feelings? If so, surely, in plain English, most considerable
deference was paid to the "sensus fidelium;" their opinion
and advice indeed was not asked, but their testimony was
taken, their feelings consulted, their impatience, I had
almost said, feared.
In like manner, as regards the doctrine, though not the
definition, of the Immaculate Conception, he says, not
denying, of course, the availableness of the other
"instrumenta traditionis" in this particular case,
"Ratissimum est, Christi fideles omnes circa hunc articulum
unius esse animi, idque ita, ut maximo afficerentur
scandalo, si vel minima {210} de Immaculatâ Virginis
Conceptione quĉstio moveretur" (p. 156).
3. A year had hardly passed from the appearance of Fr.
Perrone's book in England, when the Pope published his
Encyclical Letter. In it he asked the Bishops of the
Catholic world, "ut nobis significare velitis, quâ devotione
vester clerus populusque fidelis erga Immaculatĉ
Virginis conceptionem sit animatus, et quo desiderio
flagret, ut ejusmodi res ab apostolicâ sede decernatur;"
that is, when it came to the point to take measures for the
definition of the doctrine, he did lay a special stress on
this particular preliminary, viz. the ascertainment of the
feeling of the faithful both towards the doctrine and its
definition; as the Rambler stated in the passage out
of which this argument has arisen. It seems to me important
to keep this in view, whatever becomes of the word
"consulted," which, I have already said, is not to be taken
in its ordinary Latin sense.
4. At length, in 1854, the definition took place, and the
Pope's Bull containing it made its appearance. In it the
Holy Father speaks as he had spoken in his Encyclical, viz.
that although he already knew the sentiments of the
Bishops, still he had wished to know the sentiments of the
people also: "Quamvis nobis ex receptis
postulationibus de definiendâ tandem aliquando Immaculatâ
Virginis conceptione perspectus esset plurimorum sociorum
Antistitum sensus, tamen Encyclicas literas, &c. ad
omnes Ven. FF. totius Catholici orbis sacrorum Antistites
misimus, ut, adhibitis ad Deum precibus, nobis scripto
etiam significarent, quĉ esset suorum fidelium
erga Immaculatam Deiparĉ Conceptionem pietas et devotio,"
&c. And when, before the formal definition, he enumerates
the various witnesses to the apostolicity of the doctrine,
he sets down "divina eloquia, veneranda traditio, perpetuus
Ecclesiĉ sensus, singularis catholicorum Antistitum ac
fidelium conspiratio." Conspiratio, the two, the
Church teaching and the Church taught, are put together, as
one twofold testimony, illustrating each other, and never to
be divided.
5. A year or two passed, and the Bishop of Birmingham
published his treatise on the doetrine. I close this portion
of my paper with an extract from his careful view of the
argument. "Nor should the universal conviction of pious
Catholics be passed over, as of small account in the general
argument; for that pious belief, and the devotion which
springs from it, are the faithful reflection of the
pastoral teaching" (p. 172). Reflection; that is, the people
are a mirror, in which the Bishops see themselves.
Well, I suppose a person may consult his glass, and
in that way may know things {211} about himself which he can
learn in no other way. This is what Fr. Perrone above seems
to say has sometimes actually been the case, as in the
instance of the "beatifica visio" of the saints; at least he
does not mention the "pastorum ac fidelium
conspiratio" in reviewing the grounds of its definition,
but simply the "juge Ecclesiĉ magisterium" and the "communis
fidelium sensus."
His lordship proceeds: "The more devout the faithful grew,
the more devoted they showed themselves towards this
mystery. And it is the devout who have the surest instinct
in discerning the mysteries of which the Holy Spirit
breathes the grace through the Church, and who, with as sure
a tact, reject what is alien from her teaching. The common
accord of the faithful has weighed much as an argument even
with the most learned divines. St. Augustine says, that
amongst many things which most justly held him in the bosom
of the Catholic Church, was the 'accord of populations and
of nations.' In another work he says, 'It seems that I have
believed nothing but the confirmed opinion and the
exceedingly wide-spread report of populations and of
nations.' Elsewhere he says: 'In matters whereupon the
Scripture has not spoken clearly, the custom of the people
of God, or the institutions of our predecessors, are to be
held as law.' In the same spirit St. Jerome argues, whilst
defending the use of relics against Vigilantius: 'So the
people of all the Churches who have gone out to meet holy
relics, and have received them with so much joy, are to be
accounted foolish'" (pp. 172, 173).
And here I might come to an end; but, having got so far, I
am induced, before concluding, to suggest an historical
instance of the same great principle, which Father Perrone
does not draw out.
§ 3.
First, I will set down the various ways in which theologians
put before us the bearing of the Consent of the faithful
upon the manifestation of the tradition of the Church. Its
consensus is to be regarded: 1. as a testimony to the
fact of the apostolical dogma; 2. as a sort of instinct, or
[phronema], deep in the bosom of the mystical
body of Christ; 3. as a direction of the Holy Ghost; 4. as
an answer to its prayer; 5. as a jealousy of error, which it
at once feels as a scandal.
1. The first of these I need not enlarge upon, as it is
illustrated in the foregoing passages from Father Perrone.
2. The second is explained in the well-known passages of
Möhler's Symbolique; e.g. "L'esprit de Dieu, qui
gouverne {212} et vivifie l'Eglise, enfante dans l'homme, en
s'unissant à lui, un instinct, un tact éminemment
chrétien, qui le conduit à toute vraie doctrine ... Ce
sentiment commun, cette conscience de l'Eglise est la
tradition dans le sens subjectif du mot. Qu'est-ce donc que
la tradition considérée sous ce point de vue? C'est le sens
chrétien existant dans l'Eglise, et transmis par l'Eglise;
sens, toutefois, qu'on ne peut séparer des vérités qu'il
contient, puisqu'il est formé de ces vérités et par ces
vérités." Ap. Perrone, p. 142.
3. Cardinal Fisher seems to speak of the third, as he is
quoted by Petavius, De Incarn. xiv. 2; that is, he
speaks of a custom imperceptibly gaining a position, "nullâ
prĉceptorum vi, sed consensu quodam tacito tam populi quàm
cleri, quasi tacitis omnium suffragiis recepta fuit,
priusquàm ullo conciliorum decreto legimus eam fuisse
firmatam." And then he adds, "This custom has its birth
in that people which is ruled by the Holy Ghost," &c.
4. Petavius speaks of a fourth aspect of it. "It is well
said by St. Augustine, that to the minds of individuals
certain things are revealed by God, not only by
extraordinary means, as in visions, &c., but also in those
usual ways, according to which what is unknown to them is
opened in answer to their prayer. After this manner
it to be believed, that God has revealed to Christians the
sinless Conception of the Immaculate Virgin." De Incarn.
xiv. 2, 11.
5. The fifth is "enlarged upon in Dr. Newman's second
Lecture on Anglican Difficulties, from which I quote a
few lines: "We know that it is the property of life to be
impatient of any foreign substance in the body to which it
belongs. It will be sovereign in its o domain, and it
conflicts with what it cannot assimilate into itself, and
is irritated and disordered till it has expelled it.
Such expulsion, then, is emphatically a test of
uncongeniality, for it shows that the substance ejected, not
only is not one with the body that rejects it, but cannot be
made one with it; that its introduction is not only useless
or superfluous, adventitious, but that it is intolerable."
Presently he continues: "The religious life of a people is
of a certain quality and direction, and these are tested by
the mode in which it encounters the various opinions,
customs, and institutions which are submitted to it. Drive a
stake into a river's bed, and you will at once ascertain
which way it is running, and at what speed; throw up even a
straw upon the air, and you will see which way the wind
blows; submit your heretical and Catholic principle to the
action of the multitude, and you will be able to pronounce
at once whether it is imbued with Catholic truth or with
heretical {213} falsehood." And then he proceeds to
exemplify this by a passage in the history of Arianism, the
very history which I intend now to take, as illustrative of
the truth and importance of the thesis on which I am
insisting.
It is not a little remarkable, that, though, historically
speaking, the fourth century is the age of doctors,
illustrated, as it was, by the saints Athanasius, Hilary,
the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and
Augustine, and all of these saints bishops also, except one,
nevertheless in that very day the divine tradition committed
to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far
more by the faithful than by the Episcopate.
Here, of course, I must explain:in saying this, then,
undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the
Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that
there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity, and
acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity
actually received their faith, in the first instance, from
the Bishops and clergy; nor that some portions of the laity
were ignorant, and other portions at length corrupted, by
the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees and
ordained an heretical clergy;but I mean still, that in that
time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord's
divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly
speaking) preserved, far more by the "Ecclesia docta" than
by the "Ecclesia docens;" that the body of the episcopate
was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the
laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the
Pope, at other times the patriarchal, metropolitan, and
other great sees, at other times general councils, said what
they should not have said, or did what obscured and
compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was
the Christian people who, under Providence, were the
ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of
Vercellĉ, and other great solitary confessors, who would
have failed without them.
I see, then, in the Arian history a palmary example of a
state of the Church, during which, in order to know the
tradition of the Apostles, we must have recourse to the
faithful; for I fairly own, that if I go to writers, since I
must adjust the letter of Justin, Clement, and Hippolytus
with the Nicene Doctors, I get confused; and what revives
and re-instates me, as far as history goes, is the faith of
the people. For I argue that, unless they had been
catechised, as St. Hilary says, in the orthodox faith from
the time of their baptism, they never could have had that
horror, which they show, of the heterodox Arian doctrine.
Their voice, then, is the voice of tradition; {214} and the
instance comes to us with still greater emphasis, when we
consider1. that it occurs in the very beginning of the
history of the "Ecclesia docens," for there can scarcely be
said to be any history of her teaching till the age of
martyrs was over; 2. that the doctrine in controversy was so
momentous, being the very foundation of the Christian
system; 3. that the state of controversy and disorder lasted
over the long space of sixty years; and that it involved
serious persecutions, in life, limb, and property, to the
faithful whose loyal perseverance decided it.
It seems, then, as striking an instance as I could take in
fulfilment of Father Perrone's statement, that the voice of
tradition may in certain cases express itself, not by
Councils, nor Fathers, nor Bishops, but the "communis
fidelium sensus."
I shall set down some authorities for the two points
successively, which I have to enforce, viz. that the Nicene
dogma was maintained during the greater part of the 4th
century,
1. not by the unswerving firmness of the Holy See, Councils,
or Bishops, but
2. by the "consensus fidelium."
I. On the one hand, then, I say, that there was a temporary
suspense of the functions of the "Ecclesia docens." The body
of Bishops failed in the confession of the faith. They spoke
variously, one against another; there was nothing, after
Nicĉa, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly
sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful
Bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences,
misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless,
extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic
Church. The comparatively few who remained faithfu1 were
discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either
deceivers or were deceived.
1. A.D. 325. The great council of Nicĉa, of 318 Bishops,
chiefly from the eastern provinces of Christendom, under the
presidency of Hosius of Cordova, as the Pope's Legate. It
was convoked against Arianism, which it once for all
anathematized; and it inserted the formula of the
"Consubstantial" into the Creed, with the view of
establishing the fundamental dogma which Arianism impugned.
It is the first cumenical Council, and recognised at the
time its own authority as the voice of the infallible
Church. It is so received by the orbis terrarum at
this day. The history of the Arian controversy, from its
date, A.D. 325, to the date of the second cumenical
Council, A.D. 381, is the history of the struggle through
Christendom for the universal acceptance or the repudiation
of the formula of the "Consubstantial." {215}
2. A.D. 334, 335. The synods of Cĉsarea and Tyre against
Athanasius, who was therein accused and formally condemned
of rebellion, sedition, and ecclesiastical tyranny; of
murder, sacrilege, and magic; deposed from his see,
forbidden to set foot in Alexandria for life, and banished
to Gaul. Constantine confirmed the sentence.
3. A.D. 341. Council of Rome of fifty Bishops, attended by
the exiles from Thrace, Syria, &c., by Athanasius, &c., in
which Athanasius was pronounced innocent.
4. A.D. 341. Great Council of the Dedication at Antioch,
attended by ninety or a hundred Bishops. The council
ratified the proceedings of the councils of Cĉsarea and
Tyre, and placed an Arian in the see of Athanasius. Then it
proceeded to pass a dogmatic decree in reversal of the
formula of the "Consubstantial." Four or five creeds,
instead of the Nicene, were successively adopted by the
assembled fathers. The first was a creed which they ascribed
to Lucian, a martyr and saint of the preceding century, in
whom the Arians always gloried as their master. The second
was fuller and stronger in its language, and made more
pretension to orthodoxy. The third was more feeble again.
These three creeds were circulated in the neighbourhood;
but, as they wished to send one to Rome, they directed a
fourth to be drawn up. This, too, apparently failed. So
little was known at the time of the real history of this
synod and its creeds, that St. Hilary calls it "sanctorum
synodus."
5. A.D. 345. Council of the creed called Macrostich. This
creed suppresses, as did the third, the word "substance."
The eastern Bishops sent this to the Bishops of the West,
who rejected it.
6. A.D. 347. The great council of Sardica, attended by 380
Bishops. Before it commenced, the division between its
members broke out on the question whether or not Athanasius
should have a seat in it. In consequence, seventy-six
retired to Philippopolis, on the Thracian side of Mount
Hĉmus, and there excommunicated the Pope and the Sardican
fathers. These seceders published a sixth confession of
faith. The synod of Sardica, including Bishops from Italy,
Gaul, Africa, Egypt, Cyprus, and Palestine, confirmed the
act of the Roman council, and restored Athanasius and the
other exiles to their sees. The synod of Philippopolis, on
the contrary, sent letters to the civil magistrates of those
cities, forbidding them to admit the exiles into them. The
imperial power took part with the Sardican fathers, and
Athanasius went back to Alexandria.
7. A.D. 351. Before many years had run out, the great
eastern party was up again. Under pretence of putting down a
kind of Sabellianism, they drew up a new creed, into which
they introduced certain inadvisable expressions of some of
the ante-Nicene writers, on the subject of our Lord's
divinity, and dropped the word "substance." St. Hilary
thought this creed also Catholic; and other Catholic writers
style its fathers "holy Bishops."
8. There is considerable confusion of dates here. Anyhow,
there {216} was a second Sirmian creed, in which the eastern
party first came to a division among themselves. St. Hilary
at length gives up these creeds as indefensible, and calls
this one a "blasphemy." It is the first creed which
criticises the words "substance," &c., as unscriptural. Some
years afterwards this "blasphemia" seems to have been
interpolated, and sent into the East in the name of Hosius.
At a later date, there was a third Sirmian Creed; and a
second edition of it, with alterations, was published at
Nice in Thrace.
9. A.D. 353. The council of Arles. I cannot find how many
Bishops attended it. As the Pope sent several Bishops as
legates, it must have been one of great importance. The
Bishop of Arles was an Arian, and managed to seduce, or to
force, a number of orthodox Bishops, including the Pope's
legate, Vincent, to subscribe the condemnation of
Athanasius. Paulinus, Bishop of Trêves, was nearly the only
champion of the Nicene faith and of Athanasius. He was
accordingly banished into Phrygia, where he died.
10. A.D. 355. The council of Milan, of more than 300 Bishops
of the West. Nearly all of them subscribed the condemnation
of Athanasius; whether they generally subscribed the
heretical creed, which was brought forward, does not appear.
The Pope's four legates remained firm, and St. Dionysius of
Milan, who died an exile in Asia Minor. An Arian was put
into his see. Saturninus, the Bishop of Arles, proceeded to
hold a council at Beziers; and its fathers banished St.
Hilary to Phrygia.
11. A.D. 357. Hosius falls. Constantius used such violence
towards the old man, and confined him so straitly, that at
last, broken by suffering, he was brought, though hardly, to
hold communion with Valens and Ursacius [the Arian leader],
though he would not subscribe against Athanasius." Athan.
Arian. Hist. 45.
12. Liberius. A.D. 357. "The tragedy was not ended in the
lapse of Hosius, but in the evil which befell Liberius, the
Roman Pontiff, it became far more dreadful and mournful,
considering that he was Bishop of so great a city, and of
the whole Catholic Church, and that he had so bravely
resisted Constantine two years previously. There is nothing,
whether in the historians and holy fathers, or in his own
letters, to prevent our coming to the conclusion, that
Liberius communicated with the Arians, and confirmed the
sentence passed against Athanasius; but he is not at all on
that account to be called a heretic." Baron. Ann. 357,
40-45. Athanasius says: "Liberius, after he had been in
banishment two years, gave way, and from fear of threatened
death was induced to subscribe." Arian. Hist. § 41.
St. Jerome says: "Liberius, tĉdio victus exilii, in
hĉreticam pravitatem subscribens, Romam quasi victor
intravit." Chron.
13. A.D. 359. The great councils of Seleucia and Ariminum,
being one bi-partite council, representing the East and West
respectively. At Seleucia there were 150 Bishops, of which
only the twelve or thirteen from Egypt were champion of the
Nicene "Consubstantial." At Ariminum there were as ma y as
400 Bishops, who, worn {217} out by the artifice of long
delay on the part of the Arians, abandoned the
"Consubstantial," and subscribed the ambiguous formula which
the heretics had substituted for it.
14. A.D. 361. The death of Constantius; the Catholic Bishops
breathe again, and begin at once to remedy the miseries of
the Church, though troubles were soon to break out anew.
15. A.D. 362. State of the Church of Antioch at this time.
There were four Bishops or communions of Antioch; first, the
old succession and communion, which had possession before
the Arian troubles; secondly, the Arian succession, which
had lately conformed to orthodoxy in the person of Meletius;
thirdly, the new Latin succession, lately created by
Lucifer, whom some have thought the Pope's legate there;
and, fourthly, the new Arian succession, which was begun
upon the recantation of Meletius. At length, as Arianism was
brought under, the evil reduced itself to two successions,
that of Meletius and the Latin, which went on for many
years, the West and Egypt holding communion with the latter,
and the East with the former.
16. A.D. 370-379. St. Basil was Bishop of Cĉsarea in
Cappadocia through these years. The judgments formed about
this great doctor in his lifetime show us vividly the
extreme confusion which prevailed. He was accused by one
party of being a follower of Apollinaris, and lost in
consequence some of the sees over which he was metropolitan.
He was accused by the monks in his friend Gregory's diocese
of favouring the semi-Arians. He was accused by the
Neocĉsareans of inclining towards Arianism. And he was
treated with suspicion and coldness by Pope Damasus.
17. About A.D. 360, St. Hilary says: "I am not speaking of
things foreign to my knowledge; I am not writing about what
I am ignorant of; I have heard and I have seen the
shortcomings of persons who are present to me, not of laymen
merely, but of Bishops. For, excepting the Bishop Eleusius
and a few with him, for the most part the ten Asian
provinces, within whose boundaries I am situate, are truly
ignorant of God." It is observable, that even Eleusius, who
is here spoken of as somewhat better than the rest, was a
semi-Arian, according to Socrates, and even a persecutor of
Catholics at Constantinople; and, according to Sozomen, one
of those who urged Pope Liberius to give up the Nicene
formula of the "Consubstantial." By the ten Asian provinces
is meant the east and south provinces of Asia Minor, pretty
nearly as cut off by a line passing from Cyzicus to Seleucia
through Synnada.
18. A.D. 360. St. Gregory Nazianzen says, about this date:
"Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a
very few, who, either on account of their insignificance
were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted,
and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing
up again and revival of Israel by the influences of the
Spirit, all temporised, only differing from each other in
this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some
were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and
others joined {218} the second rank of the battle, being
overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what
was the most excusable, by their own ignorance." Orat.
xxi. 24.
19. A.D. 363. About this time, St. Jerome says: "Nearly all
the churches in the whole world, under the pretence of peace
and the emperor, are polluted with the communion of the
Arians." Chron. Of the same date, that is, upon the
Council of Ariminum, are his famous words, "Ingemuit totus
orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est." In Lucif. That
is, the Catholics of Christendom were surprised indeed to
find that their rulers had made Arians of them.
20. A.D. 364. And St. Hilary: "Up to this date, the only
cause why Christ's people is not murdered by the priests of
Anti-christ, with this deceit of impiety, is, that they take
the words, which the heretics use, to denote the faith which
they themselves hold. Sanctiores aures plebis quàm corda
sunt sacerdotum." In Aux. 6.
21. St. Hilary speaks of the series of ecclesiastical
councils of that time in the following well-known passage:
"It is most dangerous to us, and it is lamentable, that
there are at present as many creeds as there are sentiments,
and as many doctrines among us as dispositions, while we
write creeds and explain them according to our fancy. Since
the Nicene council, we have done nothing but write the
creed. While we fight about words, inquire about novelties,
take advantage of ambiguities, criticise authors, fight on
party questions, have difficulties in agreeing, and prepare
to anathematise each other, there is scarce a man who
belongs to Christ. Take, for instance, last year's creed,
what alteration is there not in it already? First, we have
the creed, which bids us not to use the Nicene
'consubstantial;' then comes another, which decrees and
preaches it; next, the third, excuses the word 'substance,'
as adopted by the fathers in their simplicity; lastly, the
fourth, instead of excusing, condemns. We impose creeds by
the year or by the month, we change our minds about our own
imposition of them, then we prohibit our changes, then we
anathematise our prohibitions. Thus, we either condemn
others in our own persons, or ourselves in the instance of
others, and while we bite and devour one another, are like
to be consumed one of another."
22. A.D. 382. St. Gregory writes: "If I must speak the
truth, I feel disposed to shun every conference of Bishops;
for never saw I synod brought to a happy issue, and
remedying, and not rather aggravating, existing evils. For
rivalry and ambition are stronger than reason,do not think
me extravagant for saying so,and a mediator is more likely
to incur some imputation himself than to clear up the
imputations which others lie under." Ep. 129. It must
ever be kept in mind that a passage like this only relates,
and is here quoted as only relating, to that miserable time
of which it is spoken. Nothing more can be argued from it
than that the "Ecclesia docens" is not at every time the
active instrument of the Church's infallibility. {219}
II. Now we come secondly to the proofs of the fidelity of
the laity, and the effectiveness of that fidelity, during
that domination of imperial heresy to which the foregoing
passages have related. I have abridged the extracts which
follow, but not, I hope, to the injury of their sense.
1. ALEXANDRIA. "We suppose," says Athanasius, "you are not
ignorant what outrages they [the Arian Bishops] committed at
Alexandria, for they are reported every where. They attacked
the holy virgins and brethren with naked swords; they
beat with scourges their persons, esteemed honourable in
God's sight, so that their feet were lamed by the stripes,
whose souls were whole and sound in purity and all good
works." Athan. Op. c. Arian. 15, Oxf. tr.
"Accordingly Constantius writes letters, and commences a
persecution against all. Gathering together a multitude
of herdsmen and shepherds, and dissolute youths belonging to
the town, armed with swords and clubs, they attacked in a
body the Church of
Quirinus: and some they slew, some they
trampled under foot, others they beat with stripes
and cast into prison or banished. They haled away many
women also, and dragged them openly into the court, and
insulted them, dragging them by the hair. Some they
proscribed; from some they took away their bread, for
no other reason but that they might be induced to join the
Arians, and receive Gregory [the Arian Bishop], who had been
sent by the Emperor." Athan. Hist. Arian. § 10.
"On the week that succeeded the holy Pentecost, when the
people, after their fast, had gone out to the cemetery
to pray, because that all refused communion with
George [the Arian Bishop], the commander, Sebastian,
straightway with a multitude of soldiers proceeded to
attack the people, though it was the Lord's day; and
finding a few praying, (for the greater part had already
retired on account of the lateness of the hour,) having
lighted a pile, he placed certain virgins near the
fire, and endeavoured to force them to say that they were of
the Arian faith. And having seized on forty men, he
cut some fresh twigs of the palm-tree, with the thorns upon
them, and scourged them on the back so severely that some of
them were for a long time under medical treatment, on
account of the thorns which had entered their flesh, and
others, unable to bear up under their sufferings, died. All
those whom they had taken, both the men and the virgins,
they sent away into banishment to the great oasis. Moreover,
they immediately banished out of Egypt and Libya the
following Bishops [sixteen], and the presbyters, Hierax and
Dioscorus: some of them died on the way, others in the place
of their banishment. They caused also more than thirty
Bishops to take to flight." Apol. de Fug. 7.
2. EGYPT. "The Emperor Valens having issued an edict
commanding that the orthodox should be expelled both from
Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, depopulation and ruin
to am immense extent immediately followed; some were
dragged before the tribunals, {220} others cast into prison,
and many tortured in various ways; all sorts of punishment
being inflicted upon persons who aimed only at peace and
quiet." Socr. Hist. iv. 24, Bohn.
3. THE MONKS OF EGYPT. "Antony left the solitude of
the desert to go about every part of the city [Alexandria],
warning the inhabitants that the Arians were opposing the
truth, and that the doctrines of the Apostles were preached
only by Athanasius." Theod. Hist. iv. 27, Bohn.
"Lucius, the Arian, with a considerable body of troops,
proceeded to the monasteries of Egypt, where he in
person assailed the assemblage of holy men with greater fury
than the ruthless soldiery. When these excellent persons
remained unmoved by all the violence, in despair he advised
the military chief to send the fathers of the monks, the
Egyptian Macarius and his namesake of Alexandria, into
exile." Socr. iv. 24.
OF CONSTANTINOPLE. "Isaac, on seeing the emperor
depart at the head of his army, exclaimed, 'You who have
declared war against God cannot gain His aid. Cease from
fighting against Him, and He will terminate the war. Restore
the pastors to their flocks, and then you will obtain a
bloodless victory." Ibid. 34.
OF SYRIA, &c. "That these heretical doctrines [Apollinarian
and Eunomian] did not finally become predominant is
mainly to be attributed to the zeal of the monks of this
period; for all the monks of Syria, Cappadocia, and
the neighboring provinces were sincerely attached to the
Nicene faith. The same fate awaited them which had been
experienced by the Arians; for they incurred the full weight
of the popular odium and aversion, when it was observed that
their sentiments were regarded with suspicion by the monks."
Sozom. Hist. vii. 27, Bohn.
OF CAPPADOCIA. "Gregory, the father of Gregory Theologus,
otherwise a most excellent man and a zealous defender of the
true and Catholic religion, not being on his guard against
the artifices of the Arians, such was his simplicity,
received with kindness certain men who were contaminated
with the poison, and subscribed an impious proposition of
theirs. This moved the monks to such indignation, that they
withdrew forthwith from his communion, and took with
them, after their example, a considerable part of his
flock." Ed. Bened. Monit. in Greg. Naz. Orat. 6.
4. SYRIA. "Syria and the neighbouring provinces were plunged
into confusion and disorder, for the Arians were very
numerous in these parts, and had possession of the churches.
The members of the Catholic Church were not, however,
few in numbers. It was through their instrumentality
that the Church of Antioch was preserved from the
encroachments of the Arians, and enabled to resist the power
of Valens. Indeed, it appears that all the Churches which
were governed by men who were firmly attached to the faith
did not deviate from the form of doctrine which they had
originally embraced." Sozom. vi. 21.
5. ANTIOCH. "Whereas he (the Bishop Leontius) took part in
{221} the blasphemy of Arius, he made a point of concealing
this disease, partly for fear of the multitude,
partly for the menaces of Constantius; so those who followed
the apostolical dogmas gained from him neither patronage nor
ordination, but these who held Arianism were allowed the
fullest liberty of speech, and were placed in the ranks of
the sacred ministry. But Flavian and Diodorus, who had
embraced the ascetical life, and maintained the apostolical
dogmas, openly withstood Leontius's machinations
against religious doctrine. They threatened that they would
retire from the communion of his Church, and would go to the
West, and reveal his intrigues. Though they were not as yet
in the sacred ministry, but were in the ranks of the
laity, night and day they used to excite all the people
to zeal for religion. They were the first to divide the
singers into two choirs, and to teach them to sing
alternately the strains of David. They too, assembling the
devout at the shrines of the martyrs, passed the whole night
there in hymns to God. These things Leontius seeing, did not
think it safe to hinder them, for he saw that the
multitude was especially well affected towards those
excellent persons. Nothing, however, could persuade Leontius
to correct his wickedness. It follows, that among the clergy
were many who were infected with the heresy: but the mass
of the people were champions of orthodoxy." Theodor.
Hist. ii. 24.
6. EDESSA. "There is in that city a magnificent church,
dedicated to St. Thomas the Apostle, wherein, on account of
the sanctity of the place, religious assemblies are
continually held. The Emperor Valens wished to inspect this
edifice; when, having learned that all who usually
congregated there were opposed to the heresy which he
favoured, he is said to have struck the prefect with his own
hand, because he had neglected to expel them thence. The
prefect, to prevent the slaughter of so great a number
of persons, privately warned them against resorting thither.
But his admonitions and menaces were alike unheeded; for on
the following day they all crowded to the church.
When the prefect was going towards it with a large military
force, a poor woman, leading her own little child by the
hand, hurried hastily by on her way to the church, breaking
through the ranks of the soldiery. The prefect, irritated at
this, ordered her to be brought to him, and thus addressed
her: 'Wretched woman, whither are you running in so
disorderly a manner?' She replied, 'To the same place that
others are hastening.' 'Have you not heard,' said he, 'that
the prefect is about to put to death all that shall be found
there?' 'Yes,' said the woman, 'and therefore I hasten, that
I may be found there.' 'And whither are you dragging that
little child?' said the prefect. The woman answered, 'That
he also may be vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom.' The
prefect went back and informed the emperor that all were
ready to die in behalf of their own faith; and added
that it would be preposterous to destroy so many persons at
one time, and thus succeeded in restraining the emperor's
wrath." Socr. iv. 18. "Thus was the Christian faith
confessed by the whole city of Edessa." Sozom. vi.
18. {222}
7. SAMOSATA. "The Arians, having deprived this exemplary
flock of their shepherd, elected in his place an individual
with whom none of the inhabitants of the city,
whether poor or rich, servants or mechanics, husbandmen or
gardeners, men or women, young or old, would hold communion.
He was left quite alone; no one even calling to see
him, or exchanging a word with him. It is, however, said
that his disposition was extremely gentle; and this is
proved by what I am about to relate. One day, when he went
to bathe in the public baths, the attendants closed the
doors; but he ordered the doors to be thrown open, that the
people might be admitted to bathe with himself. Perceiving
that they remained in a standing posture before him,
imagining that great deference towards himself was the cause
of this conduct, he arose and left the bath. These people
believed that the water had been contaminated by his heresy,
and ordered it to be let out and fresh water to be supplied.
When he heard of this circumstance, he left the city,
thinking that he ought no longer to remain in a place
where he was the object of public aversion and hatred.
Upon this retirement of Eunonius, Lucius was elected as his
successor by the Arians. Some young persons were amusing
themselves with playing at ball in the market-place; Lucius
was passing by at the time, and the ball happened to fall
beneath the feet of the ass on which he was mounted. The
youths uttered loud exclamations, believing that the bait
was contaminated. They lighted a fire, and hurled the
ball through it, believing that by this process the ball
would be purified. Although this was only a childish deed,
and although it exhibits the remains of ancient
superstition, yet it is sufficient to show the odium
which the Arian faction had incurred in this city.
Lucius was far from imitating the mildness of Eunonius, and
he persuaded the heads of government to exile most of the
clergy." Theodor. iv. 15.
8. OSROENE. "Arianism met with similar opposition at the
same period in Osroëne and Cappadocia. Basil Bishop of
Cĉsarea, and Gregory Bishop of Nazianzus, were held in high
admiration and esteem throughout these regions."
Sozom. vi. 21.
9. CAPPADOCIA. "Valens, in passing through Cappadocia, did
all in his power to injure the orthodox, and to deliver up
the churches to the Arians. He thought to accomplish his
designs more easily on account of a dispute which was then
pending between Basil and Eusebius, who governed the Church
of Cĉsarea. This dissension had been the cause of Basil's
departing to Pontus. The people, and some of the most
powerful and wisest men of the city, began to regard
Eusebius with suspicion, and to meditate a secession from
his communion. The emperor and the Arian Bishops regarded
the absence of Basil, and the hatred of the people towards
Eusebius, as circumstances that would tend greatly to the
success of their designs. But their expectations were
utterly frustrated. On the first intelligence of the
intention of the emperor to pass through Cappadocia, Basil
returned to Cĉsarea, where he effected a reconciliation with
Eusebius. {223} The projects of Valens were thus defeated,
and he returned with his Bishops." Sozom. vi. 19.
10. PONTUS. "It is said that when Eulalius, Bishop of Amasia
in Pontus, returned from exile, he found that his Church had
passed into the hands of an Arian, and that scarcely
fifty inhabitants of the city had submitted to the
control of their new Bishop." Sozom. vii. 2.
11. ARMENIA. "That company of Arians who came with
Eustathius to Nicopolis had promised that they would bring
over this city to compliance with the commands of the
imperial vicar. This city had great ecclesiastical
importance, both because it was the metropolis of Armenia,
and because it had been ennobled by the blood of martyrs,
and governed hitherto by Bishops of great reputation, and
thus, as Basil calls it, was the nurse of religion and the
metropolis of sound doctrine. Fronto, one of the city
presbyters, who had hitherto shown himself as a champion of
the truth, through ambition gave himself up to the enemies
of Christ, and purchased the bishopric of the Arians at the
price of renouncing the Catholic faith. This wicked
proceeding of Eustathius and the Arians brought a new glory
instead of evil to the Nicopolitans, since it gave them an
opportunity of defending the faith. Fronto, indeed, the
Arians consecrated, but there was a remarkable unanimity
of clergy and people in rejecting him. Scarcely one or
two clerks sided with him; on the contrary, he became the
execration of all Armenia." Vita S. Basil. Maurin.
pp. clvii. clviii.
12. NICOMEDIA. "Eighty pious clergy proceeded to Nicomedia,
and there presented to the emperor a supplicatory petition
complaining of the ill-usage to which they had been
subjected. Valens, dissembling his displeasure in their
presence, gave Modestus, the prefect, a secret order to
apprehend these persons and put them to death. The prefect,
fearing that he should excite the populace to a seditious
movement against himself, if he attempted the public
execution of so many, pretended to send them away into
exile," &c. Socr. iv. 16.
13. ASIA MINOR. St. Basil says, about the year 372:
"Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue
is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the
laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of
worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in
solitude, with groans and tears, to the Lord in heaven."
Ep. 93. Four years after he writes: "Matters have come
to this pass; the people have left their houses of prayer,
and assemble in deserts: a pitiable sight; women and
children, old men, and others infirm, wretchedly faring
in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and
snow-storms, and winds, and frost of winter; and again in
summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because
they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven."
Ep. 342. Again: "Only one offence is now vigorously
punished, an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions.
For this cause the pious are driven from their countries,
and transported into deserts. The {224} people are in
lamentations, in continual tears at home and abroad.
There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the
roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no
more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of
prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual
worship." Ep. 343.
14. SCYTHIA. "There are in this country a great number of
cities, of towns, and of fortresses. According to an ancient
custom which still prevails, all the churches of the whole
country are under the sway of one Bishop. Valens [the
emperor] repaired to the church, and strove to gain over the
Bishop to the heresy of Arius; but this latter manfully
opposed his arguments, and, after a courageous defence of
the Nicene doctrines, quitted the emperor, and proceeded to
another church, whither he was followed by the people.
Valens was extremely offended at being left alone in a
church with his attendants, and, in resentment, condemned
Vetranio [the Bishop] to banishment. Not long after,
however, he recalled him, because, I believe, he
apprehended an insurrection." Sozom. vi. 21.
15. CONSTANTINOPLE. "Those who acknowledged the doctrine of
consubstantiality were not only expelled from the churches,
but also from the cities. But although expulsion at first
satisfied them [the Arians], they soon proceeded to the
worse extremity of inducing compulsory communion with them,
caring little for such a desecration of the churches. They
resorted to all kinds of scourgings, a variety of tortures,
and confiscation of property. Many were punished with exile,
some died under the torture, and others were put to death
while being driven from their country. These atrocities
were exercised throughout all the eastern cities, but
especially at Constantinople." Socr. ii. 27.
The following passage is quoted for the substantial fact
which it contains, viz. the testimony of popular tradition
to the Catholic doctrine: "At this period a union was nearly
effected between the Novatian and Catholic Churches; for, as
they both held the same sentiments concerning the
Divinity, and were subjected to a common persecution,
the members of both Churches assembled and prayed together.
The Catholics then possessed no houses of prayer, for the
Arians had wrested them from them." Sozom. iv. 20.
16. ILLYRIA. "The parents of Theodosius were Christians, and
were attached to the Nicene doctrine, hence he took pleasure
in the ministration of Ascholius [Bishop of Thessalonica].
He also rejoiced at finding that the Arian heresy had not
been received in Illyria." Sozom. vii. 4.
17. NEIGHBOURHOOD OF MACEDONIA. "Theodosius inquired
concerning the religious sentiments which were prevalent in
the other provinces, and ascertained that, as far as
Macedonia, one form of belief was universally predominant,"
&c. Ibid.
18. ROME. "With respect to doctrine no dissension arose
either at Rome or in any other of the Western Churches.
The people unanimously adhered to the form of belief
established at Nicĉa." Sozom. vi. 23. {225}
"Not long after, Liberius (the Pope) was recalled and
re-instated in his see; for the people of Rome, having
raised a sedition, and expelled Felix [whom the Arian
party had intruded] from their Church, Constantius deemed it
inexpedient to provoke the popular fury." Socr. ii.
37.
"Liberius, returning to Rome, found the mind of the mass of
men alienated front him, because he had so shamefully
yielded to Constantius. And thus it came to pass, that those
persons who had hitherto kept aloof from Felix [the rival
Pope], and had avoided his communion in favour of Liberius,
on hearing what had happened, left him for Felix, who
raised the Catholic standard. Among others, Damasus
[afterwards Pope] took the side of Felix. Such had been,
even from the times of the Apostles, the love of Catholic
discipline in the Roman people." Baron. ann. 357. He
tells us besides, that the people would not even go to the
public baths, lest they should bathe with the party of
Liberius.
19. MILAN. "At the council of Milan, Eusebius of Vercellĉ,
when it was proposed to draw up a declaration against
Athanasius, said that the council ought first to be sure of
the faith of the Bishops attending it, for he had found out
that some of them were polluted with heresy. Accordingly he
brought before the Fathers the Nicene creed, and said he was
willing to comply with all their demands, after they had
subscribed that confession. Dionysius, Bishop of Milan, at
once took up the paper and began to write his assent; but
Valens [the Arian] violently pulled pen and paper out of his
hands, crying out that such a course of proceeding was
impossible. Whereupon, after much tumult, the question
came before the people, and great was the distress of all of
them; the faith of the Church was impugned by the
Bishops. They then, dreading the judgment of the people,
transfer their meeting from the church to the imperial
palace." Hilar. in Const. i.
"As the feast of Easter approached, the empress sent to St.
Ambrose to ask a church of him, where the Arians who
attended her might meet together. He replied, that a Bishop
could not give up the temple of God. The pretorian prefect
came into the church, where St. Ambrose was, attended by
the people, and endeavoured to persuade him to yield up
at least the Portian Basilica. The people were clamorous
against the proposal; and the prefect retired to report
how matters stood to the emperor. The Sunday following, St.
Ambrose was explaining the creed, when he was informed that
the officers were hanging up the imperial hangings in the
Portian Basilica, and that upon this news the people were
repairing thither. While he was offering up the holy
sacrifice, a second message came that the people had
seized an Arian priest as he was passing through the
street. He despatched a number of his clergy to the spot to
rescue the Arian from his danger. The court looked on
this resistance of the people as seditious, and immediately
laid considerable fines upon the whole body of the
tradesmen of the city. Several were thrown into prison.
In three days' time these tradesmen were fined {226} two
hundred pounds weight of gold, and they said that they
were ready to give as much again, on condition that they
might retain their faith. The prisons were filled with
tradesmen: all the officers of the household,
secretaries, agents of the emperor, and dependent officers
who served under various counts, were kept within doors, and
were forbidden to appear in public under pretence that they
should bear no part in the sedition. Men of higher rank
were menaced with severe consequences, unless the
Basilica were surrendered
"Next morning the Basilica was surrounded by soldiers; but
it was reported, that these soldiers had sent to the
emperor to tell him that if he wished to come abroad he
might, and that they would attend him, if he was going to
the assembly of the Catholics; otherwise, that they would
go to that which would be held by St. Ambrose. Indeed,
the solders were all Catholics, as well as the citizens of
Milan; there were no heretics there, except a few officers
of the emperor and. some Goths
"St. Ambrose was continuing his discourse when he was told
that the emperor had withdrawn the soldiers from the
Basilica, and that he had restored to the tradesmen the
fines which he had exacted from them. This news gave joy
to the people, who expressed their delight with
applauses and thanksgivings; the soldiers themselves were
eager to bring the news, throwing themselves on the
altars, and kissing them in token of peace." Fleury's
Hist. xviii. 41, 42, Oxf. trans.
20. THE SOLDIERY. Soldiers having been mentioned in the
foregoing extract, I add the following passage. "Terentius,
a general distinguished by his valour and by his piety, was
able, on his return from Armenia, to erect trophies of
victory. Valens promised to give him every thing that he
might desire. But he asked not for gold or silver, for
lands, power, or honours; he requested that a church
might be given to those who preached the apostolical
doctrines." Theodor. iv. 32.
"Valens sent Trajan, the general, against the barbarians.
Trajan was defeated, and, on his return, the emperor
reproached him severely, and accused him of weakness and
cowardice. But Trajan replied with great boldness, "It is
not I, O emperor, who have been defeated; for you, by
fighting against God, have thrown the barbarians upon His
protection. Do you not know who those are whom you have
driven from the churches, and who are those to whom you have
given them up? Arintheus and Victor, the other commanders,
accorded in what he had said, and brought the emperor
to reflect on the truth of their remonstrances." Ibid. 33.
21. CHRISTENDOM GENERALLY. St. Hilary to Constantius: "Not
only in words, but in tears, we beseech you to save the
Catholic Churches from any longer continuance of these most
grievous injuries, and of their present intolerable
persecutions and insults, which moreover they are enduring,
which is monstrous, from our brethren. Surely your clemency
should listen to the voice of those who cry out so loudly,
'I am a Catholic, I have no wish to be a heretic.' It {227}
should seem equitable to your sanctity, most glorious
Augustus, that they who fear the Lord God and His judgment
should not be polluted and contaminated with execrable
blasphemies, but should have liberty to follow those
Bishops and prelates who observe inviolate the laws of
charity, and who desire a perpetual and sincere peace. It is
impossible, it is unreasonable, to mix true and false, to
confuse light and darkness, and bring into a union, of
whatever kind, night and day. Give permission to the
populations to hear the teaching of the pastors whom they
have wished, whom they fixed on, whom they have chosen,
to attend their celebration of the divine mysteries, to
offer prayers through them for your safety and prosperity."
In Const. i.
Now I know quite well what will be said to so elaborate a
collection of instances as I have been making. The "lector
benevolus" will quote against me the words of Cicero;
"Utitur in re non dubiâ testibus non necessariis." This is
sure to befall a man, when he directs the attention of a
friend to any truth which hitherto he has thought little of.
At first, he seems to be hazarding a paradox, and at length
to be committing a truism. The hearer is first of all
startled, and then disappointed; he ends by asking, "Is this
all?" It is a curious phenomenon in the philosophy of the
human mind, that we often do not know whether we hold a
point or not, though we hold it; but when our attention is
once drawn to it, then forthwith we find it so much part of
ourselves, that we cannot recollect when we began to hold
it, and we conclude (with truth), and we declare, that it
has always been our belief. Now it strikes me as worth
noticing, that, though Father Perrone is so clear upon the
point of doctrine which I have been urging in 1847, yet in
1842, which is the date of my own copy of his
Prĉlectiones, he has not given the consensus fidelium
any distinct place in his Loci Theologici, though he
has even given "heretici" a place there. Among the Media
Traditionis, he enumerates the magisterium of the
Church, the Acts of the Martyrs, the Liturgy, usages and
rites of worship, the Fathers, heretics, Church history; but
not a word, that I can find, directly and separately, about
the sensus fidelium. This is the more remarkable,
because, speaking of the Acta Martyrum, he gives a
reason for the force of the testimony of the martyrs which
belongs quite as fully to the faithful generally; viz. that,
as not being theologians, they can only repeat that
objective truth, which, on the other hand, Fathers and
theologians do but present subjectively, and thereby
coloured with their own mental peculiarities. "We learn from
them," he says, "what was the traditionary doctrine in both
domestic and public assemblies of {228} the Church, without
any admixture of private and (so to say) subjective
explanation, such as at times creates a difficulty in
ascertaining the real meaning of the Fathers; and so much
the more, because many of them were either women or ordinary
and untaught laymen, who brought out and avowed just what
they believed in a straightforward inartificial way." May we
not conjecture that the argument from the Consent of the
Faithful was but dimly written among the Loci on the
tablets of his intellect, till the necessities, or rather
the requirements, of the contemplated definition of the
Immaculate Conception brought the argument before him with
great force? Yet who will therefore for an instant suppose
that he did not always hold it? Perhaps I have overlooked
some passage of his treatises, and am in consequence
interpreting his course of thought wrongly; but, at any
rate, what I seem to see in him, is what actually does occur
from time to time in myself and others. A man holds an
opinion or a truth, yet without holding it with a simple
consciousness and a direct recognition; and thus, though he
has never denied, he has never gone so far as to profess it.
As to the particular doctrine to which I have here been
directing my view, and the passage in history by which I
have been illustrating it, I am not supposing that such
times as the Arian will ever come again. As to the present,
certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense
with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the
maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is
the age in which we live. Never was the Episcopate of
Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so
earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little
disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of
theological sophistry. And perhaps this is the reason why
the "consensus fidelium" has, in the minds of many, fallen
into the background. Yet each constituent portion of the
Church has its proper functions, and no portion can safely
be neglected. Though the laity be but the reflection or echo
of the clergy in matters of faith, yet there is something in
the "pastorum et fidelium conspiratio," which is not
in the pastors alone. The history of the definition of the
Immaculate Conception shows us this; and it will be one
among the blessings which the Holy Mother, who is the
subject of it, will gain for us, in repayment of the
definition, that by that very definition we are all reminded
of the part which the laity have had in the preliminaries of
its promulgation. Pope Pius has given us a pattern, in his
manner of defining, of the duty of considering the
sentiments of the laity upon a point of tradition, in spite
of whatever {229} fullness of evidence the Bishops had
already thrown upon it.
In most cases when a definition is contemplated, the laity
will have a testimony to give; but if ever there be an
instance when they ought to be consulted, it is in the case
of doctrines which bear directly upon devotional sentiments.
Such is the Immaculate Conception, of which the Rambler
was speaking in the sentence which has occasioned these
remarks. The faithful people have ever a special function in
regard to those doctrinal truths which relate to the Objects
of worship. Hence it is, that, while the Councils of the
fourth century were traitors to our Lord's divinity, the
laity vehemently protested against its impugners. Hence it
is, that, in a later age, when the learned Benedictines of
Germany and France were perplexed in their enunciation of
the doctrine of the Real Presence, Paschasius was supported
by the faithful in his maintenance of it. The saints, again,
are the object of a religious cultus; and therefore
it was the faithful, again, who urged on the Holy See, in
the time of John XXII., to declare their beatitude in
heaven, though so many Fathers spoke variously. And the
Blessed Virgin is preeminently an object of devotion; and
therefore it is, I repeat, that though Bishops had already
spoken in favour of her absolute sinlessness, the Pope was
not content without knowing the feelings of the faithful.
Father Dalgairns gives us another case in point; and with
his words I conclude: "While devotion in the shape of a
dogma issues from the high places of the Church, in the
shape of devotion ... it starts from below ... Place
yourselves, in imagination, in a vast city of the East in
the fifth century. Ephesus, the capital of Asia Minor, is
all in commotion; for a council is to be held there, and
Bishops are flocking in from all parts of the world. There
is anxiety painted on every face; so that you may easily see
that the question is one of general interest ... Ask the
very children in the streets what is the matter; they will
tell you that wicked men are coming to make out that their
own mother is not the Mother of God. And so, during a
live-long day of June, they crowd around the gates of the
old cathedral-church of St. Mary, and watch with anxious
faces each Bishop as he goes in. Well might they be anxious;
for it is well known that Nestorius has won the court over
to his side. It was only the other day that he entered the
town, with banners displayed and trumpets sounding,
surrounded by the glittering files of the emperor's
body-guard, with Count Candidianus, their general and his
own partisan, at {230} their head. Besides which, it is
known for certain, that at least eighty-four Bishops are
ready to vote with him; and who knows how many more? He is
himself the patriarch of Constantinople, the rival of Rome,
the imperial city of the East; and then John of Antioch is
hourly expected with his quota of votes; and he, the
patriarch of the see next in influence to that of Nestorius,
is, if not a heretic, at least of that wretched party which,
in ecclesiastical disputes, ever hovers between the two
camps of the devil and of God. The day wears on, and still
nothing issues from the church; it proves, at least, that
there is a difference of opinion; and as the shades of
evening close around them, the weary watchers grow more
anxious still. At length the great gates of the Basilica are
thrown open; and oh, w hat a cry of joy bursts from the
assembled crowd, as it is announced to them that Mary has
been proclaimed to be, what every one with a Catholic heart
knew that she was before, the Mother of God!
Men, women,
and children, the noble and the low-born, the stately matron
and the modest maiden, all crowd round the Bishops with
acclamations. They will not leave them; they accompany them
to their homes with long procession of lighted torches; they
burn incense before them, after the eastern fashion, to do
them honour. There was but little sleep in Ephesus that
night; for very joy they remained awake: the whole town was
one blaze of light, for each window was illuminated."
My own drift is somewhat different from that which has
dictated this glowing description; but the substance of the
argument of each of us is one and the same. I think
certainly that the Ecclesia docens is more happy when
she has such enthusiastic partisans about her as are here
represented, than when she cuts off the faithful from the
study of her divine doctrines and the sympathy of her divine
contemplations, and requires from them fides implicita
in her word, which in the educated classes will terminate in
indifference, and in the poorer in superstition.
|