was thus continued. In the second or third century, the bishop in Greece could testify what had been transmitted to him; the Parthian bishop gave his testimony; the Egyptian added his; the Italian told what he had been taught; their agreement could not have been the effect of accident. The prejudices, the national habits, and the thousand accidental differences of each made them sufficiently watchful of each other: their joint and concurrent testimony must have been full proof of the sameness of the testimony of their predecessors, until all met in the Apostles who heard it from Jesus Christ. We say, that when the great majority of the bishops united with their head, the Bishop of Rome, who succeeds to Peter, thus concur in their testimony, it is evidence of truth; we will infallibly come to a certain knowledge of what God has revealed. This is our doctrine of the infallibility of the Church; and thus we believe that we will ascertain what Christ taught, by the testimony of the majority of bishops united to their head, whether assembled or dispersed through their sees all over the world.1

Others may be of opinion that this is an irrational—that this is an incorrect, that this is an insufficient mode. We do not view it in that light; and I may be permitted to say for myself, perhaps it might be deemed prejudice; perhaps a weakness of intellect, or a slavery of mind; to me it appears a much better mode of attaining its great object than to take up the Scriptures and decide solely for myself; better than to depend upon the authority of any individual, however learned, or pious, or inspired with heavenly knowledge, he might be deemed. I am not infallible; but in virtue of my place I give my testimony; I may err, but the majority of my brethren will correct that error. A few others may err; still the testimony of the majority prevails-thus individuals may separate from us,

1 Consult here, for a clear definition and full explanation of the infallibility of the Church and the Pope, Newman's answer to Gladstone, in the second volume of "Difficulties of Anglicans."

us,

but our unity and our testimony remains. We profess to believe our Pope infallible.1 We belie by virtue of the divine appointment, he presides but we are fellow-witnesses with him. But this power of decision is by its own nature e limited. We are witnesses to our brethren, not desp men's minds. Our testimony must be confined to w been revealed; we cannot add, we cannot diminish is the duty of a witness, such is ours. All the Po bishops, all the councils which have ever existed, may exist, have not and cannot have the power manding the humblest individual to believe one more on the subject of revelation than what they tes to have taught. When they exhibit what has bee by heaven, man is bound to believe. Let th "Besides this which God has revealed, we are of that you would do well to believe this, which He taught, but which we think a very good doctrine.' free to act as he may think proper, his belief woul faith, it would be receiving the opinions of men

teaching of heaven; this mode of teaching is ne in our Church. The decisions of our councils exhibition of the original revelation, not the expr adopted opinions. So, too, the whole body of ou cannot omit to teach any revealed truth; she m all; she must be a faithful witness; neither addi ting, nor changing.

In our mode of examining, although we be Founder of our Church made a promise of H guidance to protect our body from erring, we tak natural means which will aid in the discovery of th fact. We not only have known the testimony of th whom we learned, and that of those with whom we but we have the records of our Churches, we

1 It is now, though it was not then, a dogma of the Church tha when speaking ex cathedra, or as the Pastor Eternus, is infallible.

Vi

our

documents of antiquity. We have the writings of ancient, and venerable, and eminent bishops and doctors, coming from every age and from every nation. We have the decisions of former councils, we have the monuments which have been erected, the usages which have prevailed, the customs which continue, and when we take up the sacred volume of the Scriptures, we collate its passages with the results which we gather from these sources. The prelates of our several nations make this examination in every quarter of the globe, each testifies what he has found in conjunction with those of his vicinity who could aid him in his research, and thus we obtain testimony of the whole world respecting facts in which the world is deeply interested. Can it be slavery in me to bow to the decision of this tribunal? Frequently, questions which have been long since decided in this manner are revived. Our answer in those cases is very short: "This has been already determined." We are told this is limiting the operations and chaining down the freedom of the human mind. Perhaps it is. But if the proper use of the faculties be the discovery of truth, and that truth has been already discovered, what more is necessary When investigations have been made, and results arrived at, why investigate still? You go into court to defend your property, you have your titles fully investigated, judgment is given in your favor, it is put upon record; a new litigant calls upon you to go over the same ground; will not the record of the judgment against his father protect you? Or must you, because he choose to trouble you, burn that record, and join issue again? We quote the decisions. of former times as proofs that investigation has been already made, and that a decision has long since been had. And what has once been found to have been revealed by God, cannot by any lapse of time cease to be revelation. If the fact shall have been once fully proved, that proof must be good always; if a record thereof be made, that record is always evidence.

A political difficulty has been sometimes raised here. If

this infallible tribunal, which you profess yourselves bound to obey, should command you to overturn our government, and tell you that it is the will of God to have it new modelled, will you be bound to obey it? And how then can we consider those men to be good citizens who profess to owe obedience to a foreign authority to an authority not recognized in our Constitution--to an authority which has excommunicated and deposed sovereigns, and which has absolved subjects and citizens from their bond of allegiance?

Our answer to this is extremely simple and very plain; it is, that we would not be bound to obey it-that we recognize no such authority. I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our Church, outside this Union, the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant ballot-box. He has no right to such interference. You must, from the view which I have taken, see the plain distinction between spiritual authority and a right to interfere in the regulation of human government or civil concerns. You have in your Constitution wisely kept them distinct and separate. It will be wisdom, and prudence, and safety to continue the separation. Your Constitution says that Congress shall have no power to restrict the free exercise of religion. Suppose your dignified body to-morrow attempted to restrict me in the exercise of that right; though the law, as it would be called, should pass your two houses and obtain the signature of the President, I would not obey it, because it would be no law, it would be an usurpation; for you cannot make a law in violation of your Constitution-you have no power in such a case. So, if that tribunal which is established by the Creator to testify to me what He has revealed, and to make the necessary regulations of discipline for the government of the Church, shall presume to go beyond that boundary which circumscribes its power, its acts are invalid; my rights are not to be destroyed by its usurpation; and there is no principle of my creed which prevents my using my natural right of proper resistance to any tyrannical usurpation. You

have no power to interfere with my religious rights; the tribunal of the Church has no power to interfere with my civil rights. It is a duty which every good man ought to discharge for his own and for the public benefit, to resist any encroachment upon either. We do not believe that God gave to the Church any power to interfere with our civil rights or our civil concerns. Christ our Lord refused

to interfere in the division of the inheritance between two brothers, one of whom requested that interference. The civil tribunals of Judea were vested with sufficient authority for that purpose, and He did not transfer it to His Apostles. It must hence be apparent, that any idea of the Roman Catholics of these republics being in any way under the influence of any foreign ecclesiastical power, or indeed of any Church authority, in the exercise of their civil rights, is a serious mistake. There is no class of our fellowcitizens more free to think and to act for themselves on the subject of our rights than we are; and I believe there is not any portion of the American family more jealous of foreign influence, or more ready to resist it. We have brethren of our Church in every part of the globe, under every form of government; this is a subject upon which each of us is free to act as he thinks proper. We know of no tribunal in our Church which can interfere in Our proceedings as citizens. Our ecclesiastical authority existed before our Constitution, is not affected by it; there is not in the world a constitution which it does not precede, with which it could not co-exist; it has seen nations perish, dynasties decay, empires prostrate; it has co-existed with all, it has survived them all, it is not dependent upon any one of them; they may still change, and it will still continue.

It is again urged, that at least our Church is aristocratic, if not despotic, in its principles, and is not calculated for a republic that its spirit is opposed to that of republicanism. This objection cannot be seriously urged by any person who has studied history, nor by any person who