ing, for Protestantism at best is only a bundle of contradictions, absurdities, and puerilities. How a man of an ordinary stomach could undertake its defence would be to us unaccountable, did we not know to what mortifications and humiliations pride compels its subjects to submit. Pride cast the angels, which kept not their first estate, down from heaven to hell, and perhaps we ought not to be surprised that it degrades mortal men to the ignoble task of writing in defence of Protestantism.

The refutation of the professor's thesis gives us the full right to conclude the infallibility of the church with Dr. Lynch from the necessity of the case, and therefore to assert it, whatever objections men may fancy against it; because the argument for it rests on as high authority as it is possible in the nature of things to have for any objection against it. Nevertheless, we will examine in our next Review the professor's moral and historical objections to the church, and dispose of them as well as we can,-we hope to his satisfaction.

ARTICLE III.

IN the articles already devoted to Mr. Thornwell's book, we have vindicated Dr. Lynch's argument drawn from the necessity of the case for the infallibility of the church, and proved, unanswerably, if any thing can be so proved, that without the infallible church, the Protestant is utterly unable to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. Since he concedes that if the infallible church exists at all, it is the Catholic Church, Mr. Thornwell must then, either acknowledge its infallibility, or give up the Christian religion itself. Having done this, which has been wholly gratuitous on our part, we proceed to the consideration of the professor's direct arguments for the fallibility of the church, or his direct attempts to prove that she is not infallible.

We have shown in our first essay, that the nature of the argument the professor is conducting does not permit him, even in case we should fail to prove the infallibility, to conclude the fallibility of the church. He denies that she is infallible, that is, asserts that she is fallible, and it is only by proving her fallible that he can maintain his thesis, that the books which he calls apocryphal are "corrupt additions to the word of God." The question is not now on admitting, but on rejecting, the infallibility of the church, and

the onus probandi, as a matter of course, rests on him. He is the plaintiff in action, and must make out his case by proving the guilt, not by any failure on our own part, if fail we do, to prove the innocence of the accused; for every one is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty.

We have also shown, that in attempting to prove the fallibility of the church, Mr. Thornwell must confine himself to such arguments as an infidel may consistently urge. We have already dislodged him from every position he might be disposed to occupy on Christian ground. He has no magazine from which he can draw proofs against the church, but the reason common to all men. He can prove the church fallible only by proving that she has actually erred; and he can prove that she has actually erred only by proving that she has actually contradicted some principle of reason. It will avail him nothing to prove by reason that she teaches things the truth of which reason cannot affirm; for reason does not know all things, and things may be above reason, and yet not against reason. Nor will it avail him to prove that she contradicts his private convictions, or the teachings of his sect; for neither he nor his sect is infallible. Nothing will avail him but to prove some instance of her contradiction of a truth of reason, infallibly known to be such truth. The simple question for us to determine, then, in regard to what he alleges, is, Has he adduced an instance of such contradiction? If he has, he has succeeded; if he has not, he has failed, and we, since the presumption, as we say in law, is in our favor, may conclude the infallibility of the church against him.

1. Mr. Thornwell's first alleged proof that the church isnot infallible is, that Catholics differ among themselves as to the seat of infallibility. It is uncertain where the infallibility is lodged. Then it is not apparent; and if not apparent, it does not exist; for de non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. But this, supposing it to be true, though a good reason why we cannot assert the infallibility as a fact proved, is not a good reason for asserting that it does not exist. A thing may exist and yet not appear to us. Otherwise the stars would not exist when the sun shines, nor gems in the mine before being discovered. The point to be established is not the non-appearance of the infallibility, but its non-existence; and if the professor does not show that non-existence, he fails, for his own maxim then bears against him,-de non apparentibus et non exis

tentibus eadem est ratio. But what is alleged is not true. Catholics do not disagree as to the seat of infallibility. Mr. Thornwell is mistaken, when he says (p. 76),-"There are no less than three different opinions entertained in your church as to the organ through which its infallibility is exercised or manifested." He confounds the three different modes in which Catholics hold that the infallibility is exercised with three different opinions as to its organ, evidently supposing that they who assert one of them must needs deny the other two. All Catholics agree, and must agree, for it is de fide, that the pastors of the church, that is, the bishops in union with the pope, their visible head, are infallible in what they teach, both when congregated in general council and when dispersed, each bishop in his own diocese; and the great majority hold that the pope alone, when deciding a question of faith or morals for the whole church, is also infallible. The only difference of opinion amongst us is as to the fact, whether the pope is or is not infallible, when so deciding. But as there is no difference of opinion as to the other two modes, whatever difference there may be as to this, it is not true that there are "three different opinions in our church as to the organ through which its infallibility is exercised or manifested."

2. The church cannot be infallible, because she requires a slavish submission of all her members, bishops, priests, and laity, to the pope. "The system of absolute submission runs unchecked until it terminates in the sovereign pontiff at Rome, whose edicts and decrees none can question, and who is therefore absolute lord of the Papal faith.”—(p. 77.) We can see nothing unreasonable in making the pope, under God, the "absolute lord of the Papal faith." As to the submission, if the pope has authority from God as the supreme visible head of the church, it cannot be a slavish submission; for slavery is not in submission, but in submission to an authority which has no right to exact it. Reason teaches that we are bound to obey God, and to obey him. equally through whatever organ it may please him to command us, or to promulgate his will. If he has commissioned. the pope as his vicar in the government of the church, there is nothing repugnant to reason in submission or obedience to the pope. The professor must prove that the pope is not divinely commissioned, before, from the fact that the church obliges us to obey him, he can conclude that she errs or is liable to err. But this he has not proved.

3. The church makes the pope greater than God,-Il papa è più che Dio per noi altri,-and cannot assert his supremacy without asserting his infallibility. But if she asserts the infallibility of the pope, she denies that she is an infallible church; for, during the first six centuries, there was no pope.-(p. 78.) Where the professor picked up his scrap of Italian, he does not inform us; but if any one has made him believe that Catholics hold the pope to be greater than God, he may be sure he has been imposed upon. How can we hold the pope to be greater than God, when we believe him to be simply the vicar of Jesus Christ, receiving all that he is and has from God? Grant that papal supremacy necessarily carries with it papal infallibility, a doctrine we by no means dispute,-the conclusion is not sustained; for it is not proved that during the first six centuries there was no pope. What the professor alleges as proof is not conclusive. His statements are either false or irrelevant. What he says that is true is not to his purpose; what he says that is to his purpose is not true. He alleges,-1. Till the seventh century, at least, the bishops of the church, not excepting the bishops of Rome, were regarded as officially equal; 2. According to St. Jerome, wherever there is a bishop, he is of the same merit and the same priesthood, and, according to St. Cyprian, the episcopate is one, and every bishop has an undivided portion of it; 3. St. Cyprian says to the African bishops in the great council at Carthage, that none of them makes himself a bishop of bishops, and that it belongs solely to our Lord Jesus Christ to invest them with authority in the government of his church, and to judge them; and, 4. St. Gregory the Great disclaimed the title of "Universal Bishop." (pp. 78, 79.)

To the first we reply, that, not only as late as the seventh century were all the bishops of the church, not excepting the bishops of Rome, regarded as officially equal, but they are, as bishops, so regarded even now; and as the fact that they are now so regarded does not prove that there is now no pope, the fact that they were so regarded during the first six centuries cannot prove that there was no pope then. The equality of all bishops is a doctrine of the church. The pope, as simple bishop, is only the equal of his brethren; he is superior only as bishop of Rome, of which see the primacy is an adjunct, or prerogative. "Thus, a Roman council, in 378, says of Pope Damasus, that he is equal in office

to the other bishops, and surpasses them in the prerogative of his see."*

To the second we give a similar reply. The unity of the episcopate, and that each bishop possesses an undivided portion of it, that is, that the bishops possess or hold it in solido, according to the felicitous expression of St. Cyprian, is held by the church now, and believed as firmly by all Catholics as ever it was. As the belief of this doctrine is not now disconnected with the belief in the papacy, it cannot follow, from its having been entertained in the time of St. Cyprian, that there was then no pope. This reply disposes of the citation from St. Jerome, as well as of that from St. Cyprian. But the professor argues, that, if the episcopate be one, and the bishops possess it in solido, there can be no pope. We do not see that this follows. Unity is inconceivable without a centre of unity, and how conceive the bishops united in one and the same episcopate without the pope as their centre of union?

To the third we reply, that, according to the fair interpretation of the language of St. Cyprian, in reference to its occasion and purpose, it has nothing to do with the subject. But let it be that St. Cyprian intended to deny, and actually does deny, the papal authority, what then? Before the professor can conclude that there was no pope down to St. Cyprian's time, he must prove either that St. Cyprian is a witness whose testimony we as Catholics, are bound to receive, or that he is one who could not err. As Catholics, we are bound to receive the testimony of single fathers or doctors only so far as their teaching is coincident with that of the church. The infallibility attaches to the church, and to single doctors only in so far as they teach her doctrine. Never, then, can we be bound to receive the testimony of any father or doctor which conflicts with her teaching. The testimony of St. Cyprian does thus conflict, if what it is alleged to be. Therefore we are not bound to receive it, and it cannot be urged against us, as an argumentum ad hominem. Then the professor must prove that St. Cyprian did not err. But, from the nature of the case, this he can do only by proving that he could not err. This he does not do, and cannot pretend; for he admits no infallible authority but that of the written word-(p. 84.) Consequently, let the testimony of St. Cyprian be what it may, it is not

*Ep. v. Apud Constant, T. I. col. 528, cited by Kenrick, Primacy - of the Apostolic See, p. 106, 3d edition.