The home of Plutarch's admirers is, as we have already observed,

France. Like all Latin races, the French delight to revel in pictures

of ancient greatness; their historical imagination is governed by

fantastic ideals of antiquity, especially of ancient Rome, and the

fountain from which they drew, mediately and immediately, their

inspiration, is Plutarch's Lives. Hence the exaggerated estimate of

Plutarch's historical merits, against which modern criticism begins

to protest with much vigor, is greatest in that country. Indeed,

the principle upon which Plutarch has selected his historical

authorities, and the manner in which he has used them, are decidedly

open to objection. They are not chosen according to their scientific

or critical value, but according to their wealth of picturesque

detail and psychologically remarkable characteristics. He follows

a leading author, whose name he usually omits to state, and whose

testimony he only compares with that of other writers when there is

a conflict of authorities. The text is never cited. He reproduces

the sense, but with that latitude which is natural to an imaginative

mind endowed in an unusual degree with the gift of realizing the

past. In the choice of his subject matter he follows the instincts

of a historical portrait-painter. To describe campaigns, to analyze

great political changes, is not his province. His acquaintance with

the political and military systems of the ancient Greeks and Romans

is very superficial, and he seems to care little for a more intimate

knowledge of them. His main purpose is not the study of history, but

that of the personal career of interesting individuals. "It is not

histories we write," Plutarch tells us himself in his introduction to

the life of Alexander the Great; "but life-pictures;" and for these,

he maintains, some small trait, some apt expression, be it only a

witticism, is often more available than the greatest military deeds,

the most bloody victories, or the most splendid conquests.

In making this distinction, which Plutarch repeatedly acknowledges

to be a rule with him, he forgets that he violates the natural

connection, inasmuch as all historical personages are part and

parcel of the time they live in; he forgets also that, thus treated,

historical characters degenerate into ordinary mortals. But Plutarch

does not aspire to the dignity of a historian; he simply claims to

"paint souls;" and those readers who ignore this distinction have

never comprehended him.

Some of the works which Plutarch was still able to consult are lost,

and we depend, therefore, upon him for light on certain important

periods of history. This has led many to regard him as a historical

authority, to consider his biographical narratives as the main

object of his writings, and to skip the moralizing comparisons of

the parallel biographies which show that these portraits are to him

nothing more than a means of illustrating his peculiar ethics by

examples. This point is of great importance; for it proves the only

view from which the literary character of Plutarch can be justly

estimated.

Not only his narratives, but the judgments which he bases upon them,

and the views of the world from which they spring, have left their

mark on posterity, and this to an extent surprising even to the

initiated. And here it behooves us to exercise still greater caution,

a still greater distrust, than we entertain for his statements of

fact. Plutarch stands as far removed from the times of the heroes

upon whom he passes judgment, as we are from the characters of the

Crusades. The full effects of this remoteness can only be estimated

by those who have made Plutarch's age and the moral condition

reflected in his non-historical writings their special study.

"Plutarch's biographies," remarks a French scholar of this class,

"are an explanatory appendix to his _Moralia_; both equally reflected

a Greek provincialist's views of the world under the empire; the

views of one who sought to console himself for the degradation and

emptiness of the present by a romantic idealization of the real and

imaginary grandeur of a former age." Plutarch is an out-and-out

romancist, and to this must be mainly ascribed the influence he

wields over a certain order of minds. The historical errors which

we are so slowly correcting are due to this discovery. To show how

little Plutarch was fit to play the part of interpreter to a period

which had already become remote antiquity in his day, we need only

cast a single glance at the times in which he lived.

From Plutarch's own writings we glean nothing that is authentic

in regard to his life. Rich as they no doubt are in interesting

contributions to the moral and intellectual history of his times,

they are barren as regards every thing relating to the author's

biography. In truth, the biographer of the ancients is himself

without a biography. We know, in the main, that he was born in

Chæronea, about the time of Nero's visit to the Delphic temple; that

he studied at Athens under the philosopher Ammonius; that he visited

Greece, Egypt, and Italy as a peripatetic scholar. After having

taught many years at Rome, he finally returned to his native place

and commenced that prolific literary activity which he displayed

in nearly all departments of ancient knowledge. In these labors

the indefatigable student was rather assisted than retarded by his

various public duties, first on the urban police, then as archon, and

lastly as the high-priest of the Delphic Apollo.

The story that Plutarch was once the teacher of Trajan, and that the

latter appointed him governor of Hellas and Illyricum, first told

by Symkellas and Suidas, then repeated by John of Salisbury and the

scholars of the Renaissance, is a silly Byzantine fable. The latter

portion of Plutarch's life, as we learn from his confessions, passed

in a retirement entirely inconsistent with the Byzantine story. The

world within whose bounds the archon of Chæronea and priest of Apollo

lived was a contracted one, and only romance could gild such an

existence with the halo of departed glory.

Plutarch may be said to have done wonders. At a time when the old

love of country and state had long died out, he, the philosopher,

determinedly opposed the petty, baneless cosmopolitanism of his day.

In a world which had long lost its ancient faith, and in which the

Gospel of Christ had not yet attained the ascendency, the priest of

the Delphic oracle battled undismayed for the old gods and against

the anarchy of the renegade schools of philosophy. In both cases he

is, however, himself, and more than he seems aware or is willing to

concede, tainted by the prevailing scepticism, and it is this, in

consequence, which colors his own views of the world with what we

call romanticism.

Let us follow Plutarch for a moment on those two battle-fields of his

polemics, and observe the distinctive features of the _Moralia_.

The warm appreciation which he displays for every thing that is great

in humanity or history is surprising when we remember the incredible

hollowness of the surroundings amidst which his heroes were drawn,

and the society in which he lived, not as a soured misanthrope, but

as a stirring official. The petty Chæronea was hardly the place to

prepare the mind for the reception of great thoughts. The population

of the municipality, though active and bustling, lived far from the

great world. It had its share of orators, sophists, lecturers; it had

party divisions to quicken the heart to love and hate; it had games

to excite the passions and to stimulate ambition. But what were the

questions which the people quarrelled about with all the readiness

and vehemence proverbial of the Hellenic race? They were mainly where

the best baths might be found; which party was most likely to triumph

at the next dog or cock-fight; what kind of man the new official

from Rome, or the next travelling sophist, would turn out to be; how

such a one had made his fortune, or how Ismenodora, the wealthy

widow, could have espoused an obscure man? These were the principal

topics which the Chæroneans of Plutarch's day discussed when they

went to sleep at night, and resumed again on waking in the morning.

And yet how dearly Plutarch loved this small, petty fatherland! How

happy he appears to be that it should enjoy the golden peace which

at last fell upon the world after the empire had put an end to the

terrible civil wars! Under the iron rule of Rome all provinces once

more breathed freely. Whatever imperialism meant at the capital,

in the provinces it was still popular; and even under Domitian, as

Suetonius assures us, the moderation and justice of the Cæsars was

the theme of general praise. In contemporary Hellas, in the province

of Achaia, the people appreciated these blessings, though they felt

most painfully the loss of their former power and renown. Even the

monuments of their ancient glory, which attracted annually crowds

of strangers, became so many tombstones full of bitter memories,

and the explanations of the garrulous guides must have sounded like

reproaches in the ears of the degenerate race.

The policy which imperial Rome pursued toward the land from which she

had received in the palmy days of her transition to a more refined

culture the most admired models in science and art, and from which

she obtained in the following centuries the best instructors, the

most learned writers, and the most desirable nurses, was a strange

compound of severe brutality and flattering caresses. When the great

Germanicus, accompanied by a single lictor, reverentially entered the

sacred precincts of Athens, and graciously listened to the vaunts

of the rhetoricians on the splendor and glory of Greece, and when

immediately afterward the brutal Piso descended on the city like a

thunderbolt to remind the frightened provincials in a bullying manner

that they were no longer Athenians, but the sweepings of nations,

(_conluvies nationum_, Tac. Annal. iii. 54,) then this people learnt

by abrupt changes how they stood in the regard of the Romans.

When the Greeks became the subjects of Rome, they were but too

speedily taught what she meant by the "liberation of the oppressed."

All the accustomed safeguards of the law were suspended at one sweep.

No marriage contract, no negotiation, no purchase, no sale, between

city and city, village and village, was binding unless ratified by

special act of grace from Rome. All sources of prosperity, all public

and private rights, passed into Roman hands. Nothing remained to the

Greeks save the memory of their former prestige, and the old rivalry

between the tribes and cities, which invariably burst out afresh

whenever the emperor or one of his lieutenants favored one more than

the other. So humiliating and painful were the results of this state

of things, that even such a zealous local patriot as Plutarch advises

the people, in his pocket oracle for embryo statesmen, to forget

the unfortunate words Marathon, Platæa, and Eurymedon. And yet the

same Plutarch is so thoroughly Bœotian, that he cannot prevail on

himself to forgive the "father of history" the malicious candor with

which he relates the bad conduct of the Thebans in the Persian war.

Chæronea, the home of Plutarch, ranked among the most favored

cities of the empire, being a _municipium_, or free city, under the

protectorate of Rome, but governed in accordance with its ancient

laws by officers elected by the people. Plutarch gives us a very

interesting picture of the local administration. His political

precepts, and his treatise on the part which it behooves an old man

to play in the state, thoroughly enlighten us on all these points.

The municipal officers, though merely honorary and unsalaried, were

as much an object of contention as in former days when they were

lucrative. The candidates were often obliged to make extraordinary

exertions for popular support; they erected public edifices; endowed

schools and temples; built libraries, aqueducts, baths; distributed

bread, money, and cakes; got up games and feasts, and many wealthy

men were thus ruined by their ambition. The benefits secured by

public office were exemption from local taxation, precedence at the

theatres and games, the erection of busts, statues, inscriptions, and

pictures; and, after the expiration of office, perhaps promotion in

the imperial service.

In addition to the expenses incident to such a canvass, the

candidates, if not of low extraction and mean spirit, had to give

up many prejudices which must have greatly hurt the pride of every

true Greek. Plutarch fully explains in his political precepts what a

patriot might expect in those days on entering the public service.

"Whatever position," he tells his young countrymen, "you may

attain, never forget that the time is past when a statesman

can say to himself with Pericles on putting on the chlamys,

Remember that thou presidest over a free people, over Hellenes,

or Athenians. Rather remember that though thou hast subjects,

thou thyself art a subject. Thou rulest over a conquered

people, under imperial lieutenants. Thou must therefore wear

thy chlamys modestly; thou must keep an eye on the judgment

seat of the proconsul, and never lose sight of the sandals

above thy crown. Thou must act like the player, who assumes the

attitudes prescribed in his part, and, turning his ear toward

the prompter, makes no mien, motion, or sound but such as he is

ordered."

Even the officials of this free city were therefore only puppets,

whose functions presented no temptation to the ambitious. All that

was left to the local government were the inferior market and street

police, the care of the local security and order, and a partial

participation in the apportionment of the imperial taxes. But while

there was nothing to stimulate the ambition of the Chæroneans,

the system had a tendency to promote sycophancy. The subordinate

officials entirely ceased to think and act independently, and applied

to the emperor in person for directions on the veriest trifles,

especially when the ruler seemed inclined to encourage this spirit

of subserviency. Such an emperor was Trajan, admired by Pliny for

his untiring activity, which led him to meddle with every thing. He

took up his pen to defend the exchange of two soldiers, to decree

the removal of a dead man's ashes, and to assign an athlete's

reward. Pliny, his lieutenant, ruled Bithynia like an automaton. In

Prusa, Nicodemia, Nicea, not a man, not a sesterce, not a stone,

was suffered to change its place without the imperial sanction. The

selection of a surveyor was made a question of state. The emperor

seems finally to have found the work too much for him; for he writes

on one occasion to his lieutenant: "Thou art on the spot, must

know the situation, and shouldst determine accordingly." In the

correspondence of these two men can be traced the corruption which

gradually seized and overwhelmed rulers and ruled in the Roman empire

on the inclined plane of a rapidly spreading super-civilization.

It is greatly to the honor of Plutarch that he condemns this

mischievous tendency. He does not find fault with it for the

political reasons which would lead us to oppose a paralyzing

centralization, but for the sake of the manly dignity, the moral

self-respect, which should never be forgotten. "Let it suffice,"

exclaims he, "that our limbs are fettered; it is unnecessary to place

our necks also in the halter."

We perceive here in the honest archon of Chæronea still something

of the sturdy spirit of ancient Hellas. Not in vain had he read

the history of his ancestors; in spite of the unpropitious

times, he still holds what survives of their virtues worthy of

preservation; and it is gratifying to find a man of this stamp

serving an ungrateful public, while the conceited philosophers of

his day regarded politics a contamination. Nor was it without a

good influence upon the literary labors of Plutarch that he did not

boast, with Lucan, to know "no state or country," but was content

to contribute his share to a better state of things. Yet it is

nevertheless easy to see that in such an atmosphere no state like the

one for which Themistocles, Pericles, and Demosthenes had worked and

striven on the field and the tribune--no country like that for which

heroes had fought and bled at Marathon, Salamis, and Platæa--could

hope to thrive. In this cramped, commonplace sphere, amidst the

provincial gossip and the petty interests of such surroundings,

the fierce passions which had once inspired parties, which in Rome

had fired the hearts of the Gracchi and the other martyrs of the

declining commonwealth, were altogether impossible. Here were only

the citizens of a small provincial town, the descendants of an

ancient and highly renowned nobility but of beggarly presence, the

wards of a subjugated land. The enthusiasm with which the higher

minds of such an era revelled in the reminiscences of departed

greatness was perfectly natural; no less natural was the dim twilight

in which its heroes appeared to eyes so little accustomed to

discriminate. We can understand why such a profound impression should

have been made by all that was foreign in the olden times, especially

when the means to analyze, probe, and comprehend it were wholly

wanting.

Plutarch's keen appreciation of all the qualities in which the

ancients had the advantage over his own contemporaries reflects

much credit upon him. Yet he is incapable of comprehending them

individually, for there was nothing to correspond with them in the

world he lived in. His ideas of state and freedom, of country and

virtue among the ancients, are distorted, because in his time their

meaning had partly been changed, and partly been lost. To Plutarch's

susceptible mind, the heroes of Roman and Grecian history appeared

like the effigies preserved in some ancestral hall. He experienced,

however, something of the thrill of exultation which electrified

Sallust, when he, a warm-hearted youth, first tasted the same

sensation; but when he endeavors to communicate this feeling to the

reader, he succeeds only in demonstrating his unfitness for the task.

An historian, in our sense of the word, Plutarch, we know, does

not aspire to be; he claims merely to "paint souls" and "to teach

virtue," but even herein he fails. His men are no real personages,

no flesh and blood beings, whom he makes step out from the frame of

tradition, but puppets gaudily and incongruously arrayed in all kinds

of odds and ends. He has never produced a single _genre_ portrait,

but merely supplied the raw materials; and these may be even more

valuable than any artistically finished but misdrawn historical

likeness would have been. This is, however, all that can be said in

the behalf of Plutarch's creations, and when we have followed him

to his home and visited his mental laboratory, we perceive that it

could not well have been otherwise. It is in this light that we have

to depict to ourselves Plutarch in the character of the romancist of

the ancient ideal of state and country. And when, in conclusion, we

regard him further as the romancist of the ancient faith, he may be

taken for the predecessor of the apostate Emperor Julian, whom David

Strauss so admirably sketched twenty years ago as the romancist on

the throne of the Cæsars.

And here also the priest of the Pythian Apollo was once more

compelled to accommodate himself to the sad changes of his time. The

priestess still sat on the tripod; the sacred fumes still rose out

of the earth; the seeress was still beset by curious questioners,

and the fountains of the oracle still continued to flow. But how

different was the nature of the questions which the contemporaries of

Plutarch addressed to the deity! Not war or peace between nation and

nation, not rupture or alliance between state and state, as in former

days, now demanded its solution. It was what should be eaten, drunk,

sown, or harvested; what the deity thought of a nuptial, of the

portion set apart for a son or daughter! Such were the things that

tempted the curiosity of the oracle-seekers; and to answer them no

longer in poetry, but in homely prose, had become the trivial duty of

the sanctuary. And yet the magnificence of the gifts and endowments

had of late rather increased than fallen off.

"Like the trees," exultingly exclaims Plutarch, "whose vigorous

sap shoots forth continually new sprouts, so grows the Pylum of

Delphi, and extends day by day in the number of its chapels,

consecrated water-fonts, and assembly halls, which rise in a

splendor unknown for years. Apollo has saved us from neglect

and misery to overwhelm us with wealth, honors, and splendors;

it is impossible that such a revolution should have been caused

by human agencies without divine intervention; it is he who has

come to bestow his blessing on the oracle."

But not even Plutarch could disguise to himself the sad fact that

the worship of the oracle had by no means kept pace with the

progress of superstitious faith. Still, while the heathen deities

had multiplied to an extent which led Pliny to declare that the gods

in Olympus outnumbered the men on earth; while the number of secret

and public sects steadily increased in the east and west; while all

the abominations of a misdirected religious instinct in both worlds

united as in one common sewer at Rome, when Tacitus said that among

the rising sects the one prospered most which proclaimed not only a

new god, but a new license for all who were oppressed and poor; while

all this was going on, the higher classes of society, the flower of

the intellect of the heathen world, had repudiated the superstitions

of the masses, partly to deny the existence of the gods, and partly

to adopt strange and exclusive mysteries.

"This estrangement from the gods," exclaims Plutarch, "may be

divided into two streams: the one seeks a bed in those hearts

which resemble a rocky soil, where every thing of a divine

nature is rejected; the other waters gentle souls like a

porous soil with exactly opposite effects, producing there an

exaggerated and superstitious fear of the gods."

Against both these illusions Plutarch protests in a whole series of

works, and the manner in which he does it exhibits the best side of

his character. "It is so sweet," he assures us, "to believe;" and we

also readily believe him when he describes the feelings with which he

witnesses the solemnities of divine worship.

"The unbeliever," he says, "sees in prayer only an unmeaning

formula, in sacrifices only the slaughter of helpless animals;

but the devout feels his soul elevated, the heart relieved of

sorrow and pain."

He implores a pious and child-like reverence for the faith of his

forefathers; it was these gods who have made Greece great, protected

it in good and evil seasons; and those who will not pray to them from

their inmost hearts, should at least suffer others to enjoy their

peace of mind and happy simplicity. They should imitate the Egyptian

priest, who, when too closely questioned by Herodotus, placed his

finger upon his lips in mysterious silence. He thinks it shows little

delicacy in the Stoics and Epicureans to attempt to represent the

gods as merely another name for the elementary forces. Those who

mistake fire, water, air, etc., for the gods, accept the sails,

ropes, and anchor of a vessel for the pilot, the wholesome drug for

the physician, and the threads of the web for the weaver.

"You destroy," says he to the Epicureans, "the foundations of

society; you murder the holiest instincts of the human soul." To the

Stoics he says,

"Why attack what is universally accepted? why destroy the

religious idea which each people has inherited in the nature

of its gods? You ask, above all things, proofs, reasons, and

explanations? Beware! If you bring the spirit of doubt to every

altar, nothing will be sacred. Every people has its own faith.

That faith, transmitted for centuries, must suffice; its very

age proves its divine origin; our duty is to hand it down to

posterity, without stain or change, pure and unalloyed."

But what of Plutarch's own orthodoxy? It is just what we might have

expected from one who was too intelligent to believe the ancient

myths and too much of an enthusiast calmly to test his religious

heritage. Socrates was not remiss in offering up prayers and

sacrifices; no Athenian goddess could rationally complain of him;

he believed not only in a Daimonion, or Deity, but (if the Apology

be genuine) also in a Son of God; yet he was an atheist. Plutarch's

piety is no doubt more enthusiastic in a ratio to his lack of the

Socratian keenness of intellect, but strictly considered he has no

greater claims to the odor of orthodoxy. With him also the different

gods resolve themselves into demons, and it is only in his heart that

he knows the one true God--a tenet which has nothing in common with

the cheerful anthropomorphism of the Hellenic national creed.

In brief, we discover in Plutarch's character the same

inconsistencies which are peculiar to all men of his kind. He stands

between two eras. He flies from an aged civilization, which holds

him in the iron bonds of custom, to new views of a world which, even

imperfect as they are, involuntarily master his reason, though they

fail to satisfy his imagination and feelings. From the prose of

every-day life he turns to the memory of the glories of his nation,

and becomes their chronicler. Repulsed by the unbelief and degeneracy

of his contemporaries, he seeks consolation in the poetical fables

of the ancient faith, and becomes thus the panegyrist of antiquity.

He is, however, unable to reproduce this antiquity in a pure state.

He cannot entirely divest himself of all sympathy with those among

whom he lives, and remains more than he will admit the child of his

own day. Hence what he transmits to us is veiled in that solemn but

indistinct semi-obscurity which we meet not only in the ancient

temples, but in the heads of the romancists themselves.

THE MIRACLE OF ST. FRANCIS.

FROM THE SPANISH OF FERNAN CABALLERO.

We are not telling a romance, but relating an occurrence exactly as

its details proceeded from the mouth of the responsible narrator, who

is an ox-driver. He who takes offence at the source, the stream, and

the receptacle, that is to say, at the ox-driver, his story, and the

recipient who is going to set it down in black and white, had better

pass this by; for the thought that we were going to be read with

prejudice would change the nimble pen we hold in our hand into an

immovable petrifaction.

In a town of Andalusia that lifts its white walls under the sky that

God created solely to canopy Spain, from the heights of Despeñaperros

to the city that Guzman el Bueno defended, upon an elevation at the

end of a long, solitary street, stands a convent, abandoned, as they

all are, thanks to the _progress_ of ruin. This convent is now, more

properly than ever before, the last house of the place. Its massive

portal faces the town, and its grounds reach back into the country.

In these grounds there were formerly many palm-trees--the old people

remember them--but only two remain, united like brothers. In this

convent there were formerly many religious; now but one remains.

The palms lean upon each other; the religious is supported by the

charity of the faithful. He comes every Tuesday to say mass in the

magnificent deserted church, which no longer possesses a bell to call

worshippers.

No words can express the sentiments that are awakened by the sight

of the venerable man, in this vast temple, offering the august

sacrifice in silence and solitude. One cannot help fancying that

the sacred precinct is filled with celestial spirits, in the midst

of whom the celebrant only is visible. The church is of an immense

height, and so peacefully cheerful that it would seem to have been

built solely to resound to the sublime hymn of the _Te Deum_, and the

no less sublime canticle of the _Gloria_.

The high altar, exquisitely carved in the most elaborate and lavish

style of adornment, astonishes the sight with the multitude of

flowers, fruits, garlands, and gilded heads of angels it displays

with a profusion and lustre which prove that in its execution neither

time nor labor were taken into account. What use is made of gold in

our day? Or of time? Are they better employed? He who can show us

that they are, will console us for the suppression of the convents.

Until it is proved, we shall continue to mourn that noble choir,

those sumptuous chapels, that splendid tabernacle, cold and empty as

the incredulous heart.

Incredulity! Grand triumph of the material over the spiritual, of

earth over heaven; of the apostate angel over the angel of light!

The small square that separates the convent from the street which

leads to it is overgrown with grass, and in it, in their hours of

rest, the drivers let their oxen loose.

Within the inclosure, in place of stairs, a slight terraced ascent,

sustained at the sides by benches of stone mason-work, leads to the

door of the church. On the right is the chapel of the third order;

the path to the left conducts to the principal entrance to the

convent.

Reader, if you love the things of our ancient Spain, come hither.

Here the church still stands; here still flourish, without care, the

two palms; here is still a Franciscan friar who says mass in the

unoccupied temple. Here are still found ox-drivers who tell tales,

in which things humorous and pious are mingled with the good faith

and wholesomeness of heart of the child that plays with the venerated

gray hairs of its parent without a thought that in doing so it is

wanting in filial respect. But hasten! for all these things will soon

disappear, and we shall have to mourn over ruins--ruins to which the

past, in reparation, will lend all its magic.

The third day of the week shone pure and gay, ignorant, doubtless,

of the unlucky quality which men attribute to it, and very far from

suspecting that its enemy--a foolish saying--would fain deprive it of

the happiness of witnessing weddings and embarkations.[304]

On a Tuesday, then, that was as innocent of any hostile disposition

as if it had been a Sunday, the lady who told us that which we are

going to repeat, walked up the long street of San Francisco to the

vacant convent to hear the weekly mass in which God himself would

fill the abandoned temple with his most worthy presence. She arrived

before the priest, and finding the church closed, sat down to wait

upon one of the benches that sustain the terrace. The morning was

cool enough to make the sunshine agreeable. In sight rose the two

palms, like a pair of noble brothers, bearing together persecution

and slight, without yielding or humiliating themselves. The oxen

lying down within the inclosure ruminated measuredly, but with so

little motion that the small birds passing poised themselves upon

their horns. The efts, gazing at all with their intelligent eyes,

glided along the walls in a garden of gilly-flowers and rose-colored

caper-blooms. Light clouds, like smoke from a spotless sacrifice in

honor of the Most High, floated across the enamel of the sky--if it

is permitted to compare that with enamel with which no enamel that

was ever made can compare. It was a morning to sweeten life, so

entirely did it make one forget the narrow circles in which we fret

our lives away, and in which living is a weariness.

Two drivers seated themselves upon the same bench with the lady.

Your Andalusian is never bashful. The sun may be eclipsed; but, in

the lifetime of God, not the serenity of an Andalusian. Sultan Haroun

Al-raschid might have spared himself the trouble of the disguises he

employed when he mingled among his people without causing them the

least diffidence, if he had ruled in Andalusia. Not that the people

despise or cannot appreciate superiority; but they know how to lift

the hat without dropping the head.

Therefore it happened that, although the lady was one of the

principal persons of the place, and although there were other benches

to sit on, that one appearing to them the pleasantest, on that one

they sat down, without thought or care as to whether their talk

would be overheard. In the northern provinces, where the people are

entirely good, and as stupid as they are good, they think little

and speak less; but in Andalusia thought flies, and words follow in

chase. These people can go two days without eating or sleeping, and

be little the worse for it; but remain two minutes silent, they

cannot. If they have no one to talk with, they sing.

"Man," said one to the other, "I can never see that chapel without

thinking of my father, who was a brother of the third order, and

used to bring me here with him to say the rosary, which the brothers

recited every night at the Angelus."

"Christian! and what sort of man must your father have been? There

are no stones out of that quarry nowadays."

"And how should there be? My father--heaven rest him!--used to say

that the guillotine war of the French upset the cart. Men nowadays

are a pack of idlers, with no more devotion than that of San Korro,

the patron of drunkards. But to come back to what I was telling

you--a thing his worship once told me, that happened in this very

convent.

"All the people of the barrier used to send to the friars for

assistance to enable them to die in a Christian fashion. In these

times the majority go to the other world like dogs or Jews. Every

night, therefore, one of the fathers remained up, so as to be ready

in case his services should be wanted. Each kept watch in his turn.

One night, when it was the turn of a priest named Father Mateo, who

was well known and liked in the town, three men knocked and asked for

a religious to succor a person who was at the point of death. The

porter informed Father Mateo, who came down immediately. Hardly was

the door of the convent closed after him, when they told him that,

whether it pleased him or not, they were going to bandage his eyes.

It pleased him as much as it would have pleased him to have his teeth

pulled. There was nothing for it, however, but to drop his ears; for

although he was young, and as tall as a foremast, with a good pair

of fists to defend himself with, the others were men of brass, all

armed. Besides, neither could his reverence neglect his ministry; and

only God knew the intentions of those who had come for him.

"So he said to himself, 'Rome will have this matter to look after;'

and let them blindfold him.

"No one can know what streets they made him walk; into this and out

of that, till they came to a miserable den, and led him up a flight

of stairs, pushed him into a room, and locked the door.

"He took off the bandage; it was as dark as a wolfs mouth, but in the

direction of one corner of the room he heard a moan.

"'Who is in distress?' asked Father Mateo.

"'I am, sir,' answered the doleful voice of a woman; 'these wicked

men are going to kill me as soon as my peace is made with God.'

"'This is an iniquity!'

"'Father, by the love of the Blessed Mother, by the dear blood of

Christ, by the breasts that fed you, save me!'

"'How can I save thee, daughter? What can I do against three men that

are armed?'

"'Untie me, in the first place,' said the unhappy woman.

"Father Mateo begun to feel about, and, as God vouchsafed him

deftness, to undo the knots of the cords that bound the poor

creature's hands and feet; but they were hard, he could not see, and

time flew as if a bull had been after it.

"The men were knocking at the door. 'Haven't you got through,

father?' asked one of them.

"'Ea! don't be in a hurry!' said the father, who, though his will was

good enough, could hit upon no means of saving the woman, who was

trembling like a drop of quicksilver, and weeping like a fountain.

"'What are we to do?' said the poor, perplexed man.

"A woman will think of an artifice if she has one foot in the

grave, and it entered into this one's head to hide herself under

Father Mateo's cloak. I have told you that the father was a man who

couldn't stand in that door. 'I would prefer another means,' said his

reverence; 'but, as there is no other, we must take this, and let the

sun rise in Antequera.'[305]

"He stationed himself at the door with the woman under his cloak.

"'Have you ended, father?' asked the villains.

"'I have ended,' answered Father Mateo, with as calm a voice as he

could command.

"'Do not forsake me, sir,' moaned the poor woman, more dead than

alive.

"'Hush! Commend yourself to our Lord of the forsaken ones, and his

will be done.'

"'Come,' said the men, 'be quick; we must blindfold you again.' And

they tied on the bandage, locked the door, and all three descended

into the street with the father in custody, for fear that he might

take off the blind and know the place.

"They turned and turned again, as before, till they came to the

street of San Francisco; then the rascals took to their heels, and

disappeared so quickly that you would have thought they had been

spirited away.

"The minute they were out of sight, Father Mateo said to the woman,

'Now, daughter, scatter dust, and find a hiding-place. No; don't

thank me, but God, who has saved you; and don't stop; for when

those brigands find the bird flown, they will come back and perhaps

overtake me.'

"The woman ran, and the father in three strides planted himself

inside of his convent.

"He went right away to the cell of the father guardian and told him

all that had happened, adding that the men would surely come to the

convent in search of him.

"The words were hardly out of his mouth when they heard a knocking at

the door. The guardian went down and presented himself. 'Can I serve

you in any thing, gentlemen?' he asked.

"'We have come,' answered one, 'for Father Mateo, who was out just

now confessing a woman.'

"'That cannot be, for Father Mateo has confessed no woman this night.'

"'How! he has not, when we have proof that he brought her here?'

"'What do you mean, you blackguards? brought a woman into the

convent! So this is the way you take to injure Father Mateo's

reputation, and cast scandal upon our order!'

"'No, sir, we did not say it with that intention; but--'

"'But what?' asked the guardian, very indignant. 'What honorable

motive could he have had in bringing a woman here at night?'

"The men looked at each other.

"'Didn't I tell you,' grumbled one, 'that the thing wasn't natural,

but miraculous?'

"'Yes, yes,' said another; 'this is the doing of God or the

devil--and not of the devil, for he wouldn't interfere to hinder his

own work.'

"'In God's name go, evil tongues!' thundered the guardian; 'and take

heed how you approach convents with bad designs, and lay snares, and

invent calumnies against their peaceful dwellers, who, like Father

Mateo, sleep tranquilly in their cells; for our holy patron watches

over us.'

"'You can't doubt now,' said the most timid of the three, 'that it

was the very St. Francis himself who went with us to save that woman

by a miracle.'

"'Father Mateo,' said the guardian when they had gone, 'they are

terribly frightened, and have taken you for St. Francis. It is better

so; for they are wicked men, and they are furious.'

"'They honor me too much,' answered the good man; 'but give me leave,

your fathership, to depart at daybreak for a seaport, and from thence

to America, before they have time to think better of it, and hang

upon me this miracle of St. Francis.'"

FOOTNOTES:

[304] _Martes ni te cases, ni te embarques._ "Tuesday, neither marry

nor embark."--Spanish saying.

[305] _Y salga el sol por Antequera._ A common saying, equivalent to,

And let the sky fall; let the consequences be what they may.

THE FIRST ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN.

NUMBER EIGHT.

The proceedings of the Vatican Council have reached a stage that

allows us to witness again its external splendor and imposing

presence. Grand and most august as it certainly is, still every thing

that strikes the eye fades away as one thinks of its sublime office,

of its important, unlimited influence and effect. The nature of the

subject it has just treated will necessarily make that influence

overshadow all ages to come, and that effect cease to be felt only

with the last shock of a world passing away.

The question that for more than a year has agitated all circles

of society, that for the past three months has been a subject of

exciting debate among the fathers of the council, could not have

been of greater weight. It is one of those truths essential to the

existence of the church, and had it not been practically acknowledged

among the faithful throughout the world, Christianity, unless

otherwise sustained by its Author, would have been an impossibility.

The vital point examined was the essence of the union of the church,

of the union of faith, to determine dogmatically in what it consists,

who or what is the person or body that can so hold and teach the

faith as to leave no doubt of any kind whatsoever regarding its

absolute divine certainty.

Up to the present day the infallibility of an œcumenical council,

or of the whole church dispersed throughout the world, has been

recognized as the ultimate rule by all who lay claim to orthodoxy;

but with that council, or with that church dispersed throughout the

world, as a requisite--_sine qua non_--was the communion and consent

of the sovereign pontiff. Where he was with the bishops, there was

the faith; no matter how many bishops might meet together and decree,

if Peter was not with them, there was no certainty of belief, no

infallible guidance. Nay, their decrees were received only in so far

as approved by him. _Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia_, was the formula

recognized by tradition. In a word, where Peter was, there was to

be found infallible teaching; where Peter was not, there neither

was the teaching infallible. None in the church ever thought of

gainsaying this. But there came a time when the element all agreed

hitherto to look on as essential began to be a subject of doubt and

of discussion. Writers went so far as to say that the pope could be

judged by the other body of teachers, the bishops; and this followed

naturally from a mistrust in the unfailing orthodoxy of the sovereign

pontiff. The greater phases of this movement are well known. The

Council of Constance had hardly closed when the Council of Basle put

in practice the principles broached by its predecessor, and deposed

the reigning head of the church, putting in his stead Amadeus of

Savoy with the title of Felix V. In the midst of this confusion,

Eugenius IV. held the Council of Florence, in which the remarkable

decree was published that declared the pope the vicar of Christ,

the ruler of the flock, and the doctor of the universal church.

Those of the French clergy who clung with tenacity to the principles

of Basle, refused to receive this decree, under pretence of the

unœcumenical character of the Council of Florence. The Jansenists

availed themselves of the advantage this pretext gave them. Although

eighty-five French bishops wrote in the year 1652 to Innocent X.,

according, they say, to the custom of the church, in order to obtain

the condemnation of these heretics, the latter still held their

ground, and were able to accuse the French assembly of 1682 of

inconsistency, in attempting to force on them a decision of the pope,

whom the assembly itself declared fallible. The celebrated Arnould

taught that the refusal of its approbation to a papal decision on

the part of one individual church was enough to make the truth of

such a decision doubtful.

We shall try to give some idea of the importance of the question

of papal infallibility by a parallel development of two opposite

teachings, in a rapid sketch.

The cardinal principle of Gallicanism is the denial of the inerrancy

of the sovereign pontiff in his solemn ruling in matters of faith and

morals when teaching the whole church. Any one who attentively looks

at the question must see the close connection of the primacy with the

claim to unerring certainty in teaching. The domain of the church is

in faith, in spirituals; temporals being secondary, and the subject

of legislation only in so far as necessarily bound up with the

former. The only reason why a teacher can lay claim to obedience is

because he teaches the truth, and this is especially the case where

faith and conscience are concerned. If the sovereign pontiff have not

this faculty of teaching the truth without danger of error, then he

cannot demand implicit submission. The church dispersed throughout

the world, being infallible, cannot be taught by one who is capable

of falling into error. The ordinances therefore and decrees of

the pontiff, being intimately connected with faith, and issued on

account of it, must follow the nature of the submission to his

teaching. But as this latter, in the Gallican view, is not obligatory

unless recognized as just by the whole church, so neither are the

ordinances and decrees to be looked on as binding except under a

like reservation. It follows from this, clearly and logically, that

the supremacy of the pope can be called supreme only by an abuse of

terms; consequently, 1st, the texts of canon law and of the fathers

that teach a perfect supremacy are erroneous or false, and have no

foundation in tradition, which is the truth always, everywhere,

and by every one held in the same way; 2d, the texts of Scripture

that refer to Peter are to be restricted to him personally, or,

when seeming to regard his successors, are to be interpreted in a

sense not favorable to the idea of a perfect supremacy. The pope

thus becomes amenable to the church; he is a divinely constituted

centre, nothing more; the official representative of the bishops of

the whole church dispersed throughout the world, which alone is the

ultimate criterion of truth. He can, therefore, be judged by the

bishops, be corrected by them, deposed by them, and his asserted

right to reserve powers to himself to the prejudice of ordinaries,

or to legislate for dioceses other than his own, is to be set aside.

A species of radicalism is thus introduced into the church. The

bishops themselves are not to be looked on as infallible judges of

the faith of their flocks even, and the faithful themselves, or

the people, become the ultimate judges of what is to be held as of

faith. Instead of being taught, they teach; instead of being a _locus

theologicus_, they become the _ecclesia docens_; and the teachers

and rulers become the ruled and taught. As the people themselves are

liable to be swayed by the influence and teaching of artful men, we

have in consequence a weak and uncertain rule to go by; weak, because

of the moral impossibility of knowing the sense of the whole church,

for even the members of an œcumenical council might not exactly

represent the faith of their individual churches; uncertain, because

of the facility with which in past time the people of many individual

churches have been led astray.

As we write, it seems as if we heard some indignant protest

against what we have just said. We reply that we do not refer to

individual opinions; many Gallicans refused to go the length of their

principles; a sense of danger alarmed their piety and put them on

their guard. For our part, we treat of the principles themselves, and

deem perfectly consequent what we have asserted. It would be an easy

matter to illustrate it with facts of the present as of the past; but

it would be beyond our scope just now. Any student of history will

have no difficulty in recalling the manner in which defections from

the church have been brought about, and the errors of those who once

seemed columns of the temple. The inadequacy of the Gallican rule is

still further shown by its practical inconvenience. It is fortunate

that in the early church it had no place whatsoever. Peter being then

recognized as the head and teacher of the church, all controversies

were referred to him, and by him they were settled. _Petrus per

os Leonis, per os Agathonis locutus est_; so spoke the fathers of

Chalcedon and of the Sixth Council. Suppose for a moment it had

been otherwise; suppose, when the Pelagian heresy arose, it had

been necessary to hear the voice of the whole church scattered over

the earth--this being the rule--the whole church, not any one part,

was to give the doctrine from which it was not lawful to depart.

Zosimus was but one bishop; so, too, was Innocent I.; Augustin was

only one learned man, and Prosper of Aquitaine, a Christian poet and

polished scholar, but only one other father after all. Those who

wrote with them bore witness each for his own particular church.

What had become of the churches of Scythia, of Lybia, of Ethiopia,

of Arabia? Who had penetrated into the Indies, or set sail for the

islands of the sea, or reached the far-off coasts of the Sinenses?

Who was to explain with accuracy to those distant Christians the

cunning dealing of Celestius and Pelagius, that had deceived the

vigilance of the eastern fathers, and lay bare the hypocritical

professions that had misled even Zosimus? Who was to bring back

the opinion or belief of these isolated churches without danger of

misunderstanding or misinterpretation? Those were not days when

communication was easy. Weeks and months amid all kinds of dangers

and uncertainty were required to reach even those places that lay

near the shores of the Mediterranean. It was physically impossible to

ascertain with unerring sureness the belief or condemnation of those

far-off Christians; and as long as their assent was not given there

was no adequate rule of faith. Consequently, there was no prompt or

efficacious means of correcting error; the means at hand were of

probable worth, therefore not sufficient to use against heresy, that

could always appeal to the universal church dispersed throughout

the world, and when condemned by those near, fly to the probable

protection of those at a distance, without the least possibility

of ever knowing the belief of those to whom they appealed. In the

meanwhile, heresy crept into the flock, established itself there; for

there was none to cast it forth; and the fold became tainted. Thus

from age to age Christianity would have been a mass of error, the

truth being obscured or suffocated by the weight of falsity from the

want of a prompt practical means by which heresy could be detected

and crushed at its birth. Happily no such state of things existed;

the chair of Peter was the abode of truth; it was set up against

error, and the quick ear and intuitive eye of Christ's vicar heard

and saw the evil, and met it at the outset.

The doctrine which teaches the opposite of what we have been

describing, and which is now of faith, clears up all difficulties,

and comes to us in all the beauty and consistency that adorns truth.

Jesus Christ has made Peter and his successors the foundation of the

church. He has given to him, and to each of those who succeed him,

of his own firmness, and strengthened his faith that it fail not,

that he may confirm his brethren. In this office of confirming his

brethren, Peter holds the place of Christ, and acts in his name. The

gift he possesses, however, is not one of inspiration; but he is

assisted and kept from erring in his judgment of what is contained

in the revelation made by Christ to man. To arrive at a knowledge of

what that revelation is, he seeks in his own church, and, according

to the need, in the churches every where that he may know their

traditions. The judgment he makes is infallible, and in promulgating

it he lays down the tenets of faith for the whole church. Hence he

becomes the immovable rock upon which the faithful are builded, he is

the centre around which they revolve, the orb from which they receive

the light of faith. Hence he has subject to him the minds of all, and

the character of his primacy becomes more clear and fully evident. It

is no longer a mere point of visible communion, but an active power

placed by God to rule, with unfailing guidance in faith, and with

a consequent spiritual intuitiveness, that makes him discern what

is for the good of the church at large throughout the world. Hence

all are bound to obey him in what regards the faith and teachings

of Christ; who is with him, is with Christ; whosoever is against

him, is against his Master. Hence, too, by a direct consequence,

there can be no power set up against his; all the bishops of the

church depend on him, receive their jurisdiction from him, and can

exercise it only at his word. What a sublime picture of unity, of

order, and of strength! As an army in array the church advances to do

battle against the foes of Christ, never more successful, never more

glorious, than when her children, recognizing their dependence, and

harkening to her voice, with one mind and with one heart follow the

leadership of Peter. No wonder this spectacle struck the unbelieving

mind with astonishment, or made the gifted writer of England burst

forth into the glowing description so familiar to all!

The difference of opinion that existed among the bishops on the

subject of the infallibility is known throughout the four quarters

of the globe. What was the cause of it? If any one imagines that all

who joined in opposing a definition from the outset were actuated by

the same motives, he would certainly be wide of the mark. While the

main point of the controversy was held by the _ultramontanes_ without

exception, and there was but the one question as to the formula to

be used, the opposition, as they were generally called, taken all

together, had no fixed principle of accord, save an agreement to

disagree with the defining the doctrine as of faith. To analyze the

constituent parts of this body we shall class them according to ideas.

First in conviction, in determination, and in influence were the

Gallicans, properly so called, who held and taught the very opposite

of the proposed dogma. They were mostly men who had been bred in this

teaching, and who deeply reverenced the memories of those who held

and taught it in past times. This class was not very numerous, though

it grew larger in the course of the council by the accession of those

whose examination of the question convinced them of the claim of

Gallicanism to their adherence.

The second class comprised those who, believing the doctrine

themselves, or at least, favoring it speculatively, did not think it

capable of definition, not deeming the tradition of the church clear

enough on this point.

A third class, the most numerous, regarded the definition as

possible, but practically fraught with peril to the church, as

impeding conversions, as exasperating to governments. For the sake of

peace, and for the good of souls, they would not see it proclaimed as

of faith.

All of these dissident prelates, we are bound to say, acted with

conscientious conviction of the justice of the cause they defended.

They were bound in conscience to declare their opinions, and to make

them prevail by all lawful influence. If on one side or the other of

this most important and vital question any went beyond the limits of

moderation, or used means not dictated by prudence or charity, it is

nothing more than might have been expected in so large a number of

persons, of such varied character and education. Instead of being

shocked at the little occurrences of this nature, we should rather

be struck with admiration at the self-restraint and affability

which were shown, despite the intensity of feeling and strength of

conviction. In a word, that the Council of the Vatican did not break

up months ago in disorder and irreconcilable enmity, is because

it was God's work, and not man's; it was because charity ruled

in it, in spite of defects, and not the passions that govern the

political debates of men. The earnest desire all had of a mutual good

understanding was evinced on occasion of the speech of a well-known

cardinal, which, though not approved of by all, gave evidence of

a sincere desire for conciliation and agreement. The effect was

remarkable; a thrill of pleasure went through the assembly, for the

moment each one seemed to breathe freely, and to hail his words as

harbingers of peace in the midst of excitement and anxiety.

It was shortly after this incident that the closure of the general

discussion on the four chapters of the present constitution took

place. The regulations provide for this contingency, making it lawful

for ten prelates to petition for the closing of a discussion, the

proposal being then put to the vote of all the fathers, and the

majority deciding. In this case, a desire not to interfere with

remarks which bishops, for conscientious reasons, proposed to make,

kept this regulation in abeyance, and it was only after fifty-five

speeches had been listened to, that one hundred and fifty bishops

sent in a petition for closing, believing there would be ample time

and opportunity for every one to speak and present amendments when

the _schema_ would be examined in detail. An overwhelming majority

voted the closure. It seems difficult to understand how this could be

found fault with. Had there been no further chance to speak, there

would have been reason undoubtedly to claim hearing, or complain

of not being heard. But, as has been seen since, there have been

discussions on each part of the _schema_; and on the last chapter,

regarding the doctrine of infallibility, one hundred and nine names

were inscribed for speaking, of which number sixty-five spoke, the

remainder by mutual consent abstaining from speaking; thus of their

own accord putting a stop to a discussion in which it was morally

impossible to say any thing new. It seems surely to be a strange

assertion to say there has been any real infringement of the liberty

of speech in the council, when there appears to have been so much of

it that the members themselves grew weary of it.

While we are on this subject, we wish to speak a little more fully,

as the freedom of the council has been publicly impugned in two

works, published in Paris, against which the presidents and the

fathers have thought proper formally to protest.

The grounds of the accusation are chiefly three:

1st. The appointment of the congregation, the members of which

were named by the sovereign pontiff, and who received or rejected

the postulata, or propositions, to be presented to the council for

discussion.

2d. The dogmatic deputation having been composed of those in favor of

the definition, and the members having been put on it by management;

moreover, this deputation exercised a controlling influence in the

council.

3d. The interruption of those who were giving expression to their

opinions, in the exercise of their right to speak.

We preface our brief reply to these objections by two quotations.

One is from the letter of an apostate priest, A. Pichler, at present

director of the imperial library at St. Petersburg, which was written

by him in Rome last winter, and was published in the _Presse_ of

Vienna. In it he says, "It seems to us no council has ever been freer

or more independent." The second quotation is from one of the two

works referred to above--_Ce qui se passe au Concile_. At page 131 we

read:

"In truth, if the pope alone is infallible, it is not only his

right, but a duty, and a strict duty, to guide the bishops,

united in council, or dispersed throughout the world, to

encourage them if they be in the right way, to reprove them

if they go out of it, to take an active part in the work of

the assembly, to inspire its deliberations, and dictate its

decrees."

Apart from the spirit that animates the writer of the above, there is

much in what he says, and we take him at his word. The Œcumenical

Council of the Vatican has pronounced its irrevocable and infallible

decree, declaring infallibility to be and to have been a prerogative

of the sovereign pontiff, and that his decisions _ex cathedra_ are

irreformable of themselves, and not by virtue of the consent of

the episcopacy. We therefore draw our deduction, and justify the

sovereign pontiff, by these very words, in nominating the members

of the congregation, and in conferring on it the ample powers it

has. Secondly, we give him the praise of moderation, because he did

not make a full use of the rights accorded him by the author of the

citation we have given. Were we to follow this writer, we should

have to accuse the pope of having in part neglected a grave duty

toward the council, for he did not _dictate_ its decrees. In the

very beginning, he told the bishops he gave them the _schemata_,

unapproved by him, to be studied, altered, or amended as they

saw fit; and, in fact, when the decrees prepared previously by

theologians were proposed by the congregation, they were recast and

amended time and again, and were finally decided by a vote of the

fathers, and approved by the pontiff without alteration. This is

surely not dictation; dictation does not admit of reply or refusal,

it takes away all liberty whatsoever. The sovereign pontiff then did

not _dictate_ the decrees.

Let us return to our triple objection. First, with regard to the

congregation. In the early numbers of THE CATHOLIC WORLD for the

current year, an account of the composition of this body is given,

as well as the reasons for its appointment. We refer our readers to

the March number, in which it may be seen that, although possessed

of sovereign powers over the church, defined as belonging to him, by

the Council of Florence among others, there was no disposition to

exercise coercion on the part of the pope, who, in controlling the

action of the council in this way, was only making use of a right the

whole church acknowledged. Moreover, the composition of this body was

itself a guarantee of justice and zeal for the general welfare. That

there were not named for it those who were known to be hostile to

what has just been declared of faith, was nothing more than natural.

Moreover, when these high ecclesiastics had admitted postulata,

their work was over; the propositions passed into the control of the

fathers, and were decided by vote.

The answer to the second objection is easier even. This deputation

was elected by the fathers themselves; and as the large majority

favored the teachings of Rome, they elected none who was opposed to

them. As for the accusation of management, we must say that persons

who understood well the tendencies of the prominent men of all

parties, naturally, as happens in all such large bodies, directed the

choice of candidates, and the final vote of the fathers settled the

matter. It is hard to see how the rights of any were violated. This

deputation, from the merit of those that composed it, could not be

without great weight in the council; and when we consider that it was

the choice of the large majority, and was in harmony with the views

of the majority, it is not wonderful that it controlled to a great

extent the votes of those composing the council.

The third objection is one that must be treated with great delicacy,

for two reasons--because of the impossibility of knowing all the

circumstances, and because those who are accused are in a position

that prevents them from justifying themselves. The presidents were

named to act for the sovereign pontiff, to preserve due order, to see

that the discussion was limited to the matter in hand, and to prevent

any thing that might tend to disturb good order, or diminish respect

for the authority and person of him they represented. If, in the

discharge of their duty, they displeased those they addressed, this

was to have been expected; if also they in any way did not observe

the due mean, so hard to reach in every thing human, one should

excuse, if needful, the defect, when especially the great merits, the

distinguished services, the known virtue, and high position of these

cardinals are taken into consideration.

And while we are on this subject of objections made against the

council we may notice two others that especially regard the decree

of the infallibility; they are, 1st. This decision destroys the

constitution of the church, doing away with the apostolic college

of bishops, and changing the order established by Christ; 2d. this

decree is a theological conclusion; but theological conclusions are

not of faith, and cannot be so declared.

These objections are formidable only in appearance. No one contends

that each bishop when consecrated succeeds to all the privileges and

powers of one of the apostles. The bishops, then, not having them in

the beginning when consecrated by the apostles, were distinct from

the apostles, the apostolic college remaining. When one apostle died,

his death did not affect the powers of the church, which remained

the same, the other apostles sufficing; so when two, three, or more

died, still one remained. He had the same full powers given to

each, with subordination to Peter as head of the church. Thus with

one apostle and the episcopate the essence of ecclesiastical rule is

preserved. When St. Peter died, he left a successor, being the only

one of the twelve who did; for he was the only one who had a see. His

successor received all his rights, the power of binding and loosing,

of teaching and legislating. He was thus the one apostle living still

in the world, and each successive pontiff has the same character--the

_sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum_ is his--as it was Paul's, John's,

and Peter's. The essence of the hierarchy is in this way preserved;

the apostolic and episcopal elements are there, and the phraseology

of Christianity keeps ever before us this idea; for the see of Peter

is always known as the _Sedes Apostolica_. St. Peter Chrysologus

speaks of St. Peter living and ruling in his successor--Beatus Petrus

qui in successore suo et vivet et præsidet et præstat inquirentibus

eam fidem. So far, then, from this definition destroying the

character of the hierarchy, it asserts and vindicates it by declaring

that the one apostle in the church has never lost his apostolic

privilege of inerrancy, and that he is truly possessed of the full

powers without diminution that belonged to the prince of the apostles.

To the second objection, regarding the nature of the definition, as

being a theological conclusion, we reply, firstly, that what the

Scripture, according to the received and now authentic interpretation

of the church, taught, and what the practical acknowledgment of

the faithful in all ages implied, cannot be called a theological

conclusion; but must be regarded as being what it is--a directly

revealed truth; secondly, a theological conclusion, though not

of faith in itself, as being the deduction of reason, by the

_superadded authoritative decision of the church_ can become of

faith, as often as the denial of such conclusion affects the truth of

that dogma from which it has been deduced. Such questions are fairly

within the range of the church's arbitration; and when there is a

doubt concerning the character of a conclusion, it is her province

to decide whether it be or be not hurtful or beneficial to the truth

of which she alone is the divinely constituted guardian. Examples in

the past history of the councils of the church are not wanting; for

our purpose, take the Sixth Council. The question of the two wills

was a theological conclusion; no one ever spoke of the two wills

before that epoch; the phrase does not occur in all previous theology

or ecclesiastical history. We first hear of it in the east, where

metaphysical studies flourished, and where intellectual pride had

already brought about the Arian, Nestorian, and Eutychian heresies.

We have mentioned the fact of the closure of the discussion on the

fourth chapter, by mutual consent of those whose names were inscribed

to speak. This was immediately followed by voting. The first three

chapters were soon gotten over; the fourth is the one that contains

the doctrine on the infallibility, and it met with more opposition.

On Saturday, July 11th, was held the general congregation in which

the details of this portion of the _schema_ were up for approval or

rejection. On this occasion the voting was by rising simply, and

against the definition there were forty-seven votes.

On the 13th, another general congregation was called to vote,

according to the regulations, on the whole _schema_, by name, with

_placet_, or _placet juxta modum_, or _non placet_. The register, it

appears, stands as follows: 451 _placets_, 62 _placets juxta modum_,

and 88 _non placets_.

Some of these _placets juxta modum_ recommended the insertion of

words that would make the decree clearer and stronger. The _schema_

was accordingly altered, and the amendments were retained in the

general congregation held Saturday, July 16th.

On Sunday morning was distributed a _monitum_, by which the fathers

were notified that the fourth public session would be held on Monday,

July 18th, at nine o'clock.

The 18th of July will henceforth be a memorable day in the history

of the church. It did not dawn, however, with the brilliancy usual

at this season, or almost habitual with the grand _fêtes_ of Pius

IX. It rained much during the preceding night, and up to the time

of the meeting of the session wayfarers were liable any time to be

caught by fitful showers. The thought that, although a great and most

beneficial act was to be done, still there were not a few of the

fathers who thought otherwise than the majority in a matter about

to be made binding on the conscience of all, was not calculated

to heighten the external manifestation of cheerfulness, whatever

feelings of thankfulness to Providence for the event was in the

heart. As the interest was intense, there were not many, who deemed

they could come, who were not present. At nine o'clock precisely,

his eminence Cardinal Barili began a low mass, without chant. At the

end of it, the small throne for the gospels was placed on the altar,

and upon it the copy of the sacred Scriptures. In a few moments the

sovereign pontiff entered, preceded by the senate and by the officers

of his court, and, after kneeling a few moments at the prie-dieu,

went to his throne in the apsis of the aula. The customary prayers

were recited by him; the litany of the saints was chanted, and the

"Veni Creator Spiritus" intoned, the people present taking part;

after which the Bishop of Fabriano ascended the pulpit and read the

_schema_ to be voted on, and finished with asking the fathers whether

it pleased them. Monsignor Jacobini next, from the pulpit, called

the name of each prelate assisting at the council. Five hundred and

thirty-four answered _placet_, two replied _non placet_, and one

hundred and six were absent, some because sick, the far greater

number not wishing to vote favorably. As soon as the result was made

known officially to Pius IX., who awaited it in silence, but with

calmness, he arose and in a clear, distinct, and firm voice announced

the fact of all, with the exception of two, having given a favorable

vote, wherefore, he continued, by virtue of our apostolic authority,

with the approval of the sacred council, we define, confirm, and

approve the decrees and canons just read. Immediately there arose

murmurs of approbation inside and outside the hall, the doors of

which were surrounded by a large crowd, and, increasing from the

impossibility those present experienced of repressing their feeling,

it swelled into a burst of congratulation, and a _Viva Pio Nono Papa

infallibile_. We shall not say any thing regarding the propriety of

such proceedings in a church; but there are times when feeling is so

powerful as to break through all ideas of conventionality. As soon as

all were quiet, with unfaltering voice and excellent intonation the

pope began the Te Deum. It was taken up alternately by the Sistine

choir and those present. By an accident, at the Sanctus, Sanctus,

Sanctus, the people got out, and took up the part of the Sistine

choir, and kept it to the end, alternately with the bishops, and with

a volume of sound that completely drowned the delicate notes of the

papal singers, and which, if not as musical as their chant, was far

more impressive. The session ended with the apostolic benediction

from the holy father, accompanied by an indulgence for all assisting,

in accordance with the custom of the church. Thus passed one of the

most momentous and remarkable occasions the world has ever witnessed,

a day henceforth memorable in the annals of the church and of

mankind, the results of which the human mind is scarce capable of

grasping.

FIRST DOGMATIC DECREE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST,

PUBLISHED IN THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE HOLY ŒCUMENICAL

COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN.

PASSED JULY 18, 1870.

PIVS EPISCOPVS SERVVS SERVORVM PIUS, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE

DEI SACRO APPROBANTE CONCILIO AD SERVANTS OF GOD, WITH THE

PERPETVAM REI MEMORIAM. APPROBATION OF THE HOLY COUNCIL,

FOR A PERPETUAL REMEMBRANCE

HEREOF.

Pastor aeternus et episcopus The eternal Shepherd and Bishop

animarum nostrarum, ut of our souls, in order to render

salutiferum redemptionis opus perpetual the saving work of his

perenne redderet, sanctam redemption, resolved to build

aedificare Ecclesiam decrevit, the holy church, in which, as in

in qua veluti in domo Dei the house of the living God, all

viventis fideles omnes unius the faithful should be united

fidei et charitatis vinculo by the bond of the same faith

continerentur. Quapropter, and charity. For which reason,

priusquam clarificaretur, before he was glorified, he

rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolis prayed the Father, not for the

tantum, sed et pro eis, qui apostles alone, but also for

credituri erant per verbum those who, through their word,

eorum in ipsum, ut omnes unum would believe in him, that they

essent, sicut ipse Filius et all might be one, as the Son

Pater unum sunt. Quemadmodum himself and the Father are one.

igitur Apostolos, quos sibi (John xvii. 1-20.) Wherefore,

de mundo elegerat, misit, even as he sent the apostles,

sicut ipse missus erat a whom he had chosen to himself

Patre; ita in Ecclesia sua from the world as he had been

Pastores et Doctores usque ad sent by the father, so he willed

consummationem saeculi esse that there should be pastors and

voluit. Ut vero episcopatus teachers in his church even to

ipse unus et indivisus esset, the consummation of the world.

et per cohaerentes sibi Moreover, to the end that the

invicem sacerdotes credentium episcopal body itself might be

multitudo universa in fidei one and undivided, and that the

et communionis unitate entire multitude of believers

conservaretur, beatum Petrum might be preserved in oneness

caeteris Apostolis praeponens of faith and of communion,

in ipso instituit perpetuum through priests cleaving

utriusque unitatis principium mutually together, he placed the

ac visibile fundamentum, super blessed Peter before the other

cuius fortitudinem aeternum apostles and established in him

exstrueretur templum, et a perpetual principle of this

Ecclesiae coelo inferenda two-fold unity, and a visible

sublimitas in huius fidei foundation on whose strength

firmitate consurgeret.[306] "the eternal temple might be

Et quoniam portae inferi built, and in whose firm faith

ad evertendam, si fieri the church might rise upward

posset, Ecclesiam contra eius until her summit reach the

fundamentum divinitus positum heavens," (St. Leo the Great,

maiori in dies odio Sermon iv. (or iii.) chapter

undique insurgunt; Nos ad 2, on Christmas.) Now, seeing

catholici gregis custodiam, that in order to overthrow, if

incolumitatem, augmentum, possible, the church, the powers

necessarium esse iudicamus, of hell on every side, and

sacro approbante Concilio, with a hatred which increases

doctrinam de institutione, day by day, are assailing her

perpetuitate, ac natura sacri foundation which was placed

Apostolici primatus, in quo by God, we therefore, for the

totius Ecclesiae vis ac preservation, the safety, and

soliditas consistit, cunctis the increase of the Catholic

fidelibus credendam et tenendam, flock, and with the approbation

secundum antiquam atque of the sacred council, have

constantem universalis Ecclesiae judged it necessary to set forth

fidem, proponere, atque the doctrine which, according to

contrarios, dominico gregi adeo the ancient and constant faith

perniciosos errores proscribere of the universal church, all the

et condemnare. faithful must believe and hold,

touching the institution, the

perpetuity, and the nature of

the sacred apostolic primacy,

in which stands the power and

strength of the entire church;

and to proscribe and condemn the

contrary errors so hurtful to

the flock of the Lord.

CAPUT I. CHAPTER I.

DE APOSTOLICI PRIMATUS IN BEATO OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE

PETRO INSTITUTIONE. APOSTOLIC PRIMACY IN THE BLESSED

PETER.

Docemus itaque et declaramus, We teach, therefore, and

iuxta Evangelii testimonia declare that, according to the

primatum iurisdictionis in testimonies of the Gospel, the

universam Dei Ecclesiam primacy of jurisdiction over

immediate et directe beato the whole church of God was

Petro Apostolo promissum atque promised and given immediately

collatum a Christo Domino and directly to blessed Peter,

fuisse. Unum enim Simonem, cui the apostle, by Christ our Lord.

iam pridem dixerat: Tu vocaberis For it was to Simon alone, to

Cephas,[307] postquam ille suam whom he had already said, "Thou

edidit confessionem inquiens: shalt be called Cephas,"[309]

Tu es Christus, Filius Dei that, after he had professed

vivi, solemnibus hic verbis his faith, "Thou art Christ,

locutus est Dominus: Beatus es the Son of the living God," our

Simon Bar-Iona, quia caro et Lord said, "Blessed art thou,

sanguis non revelavit tibi, Simon Bar-Jona; because flesh

sed Pater meus, qui in coelis and blood hath not revealed it

est: et ego dico tibi, quia to thee, but my Father who is in

tu es Petrus, et super hanc heaven; and I say to thee, that

petram aedificabo Ecclesiam thou art Peter, and upon this

meam, et portae inferi non rock I will build my church,

praevalebunt adversus eam: et and the gates of hell shall

tibi dabo claves regni coelorum: not prevail against it; and

et quodcumque ligaveris super I will give to thee the keys

terram, erit ligatum et in of the kingdom of heaven; and

coelis: et quodcumque solveris whatsoever thou shalt bind upon

super terram, erit solutum et in earth, it shall be bound also

coelis.[308] Atque uni Simoni in heaven; and whatsoever

Petro contulit Iesus post suam thou shalt loose upon earth,

resurrectionem summi pastoris it shall be loosed also in

et rectoris iurisdictionem heaven."[311] And it was to

in totum suum ovile, dicens: Simon Peter alone that Jesus,

Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves after his resurrection, gave the

meas.[310] Huic tam manifestae jurisdiction of supreme shepherd

sacrarum Scripturarum doctrinae, and ruler over the whole of his

ut ab Ecclesia catholica fold, saying, "Feed my lambs;"

semper intellecta est, aperte "Feed my sheep."[312] To this

opponuntur pravae eorum doctrine so clearly set forth

sententiae, qui constitutam a in the sacred Scriptures, as

Christo Domino in sua Ecclesia the Catholic Church has always

regiminis formam pervertentes understood it, are plainly

negant, solum Petrum prae opposed the perverse opinions of

caeteris Apostolis, sive seorsum those who, distorting the form

singulis sive omnibus simul, of government established in

vero proprioque iurisdictionis his church by Christ our Lord,

primatu fuisse a Christo deny that Peter alone above the

instructum: aut qui affirmant other apostles, whether taken

eumdem primatum non immediate, separately one by one or all

directeque ipsi beato Petro, sed together, was endowed by Christ

Ecclesiae, et per hanc illi, with a true and real primacy

ut ipsius Ecclesiae ministro, of jurisdiction; or who assert

delatum fuisse. that this primacy was not

given immediately and directly

Si quis igitur dixerit, beatum to blessed Peter, but to the

Petrum Apostolum non esse a church, and through her to him,

Christo Domino constitutum as to the agent of the church.

Apostolorum omnium principem

et totius Ecclesiae militantis If, therefore, any one shall

visibile caput; vel eumdem say, that blessed Peter the

honoris tantum, non autem verae Apostle was not appointed by

propriaeque iurisdictionis Christ our Lord, the prince

primatum ab eodem Domino of all the apostles, and the

nostro Iesu Christo directe et visible head of the whole church

immediate accepisse; anathema militant; or, that he received

sit. directly and immediately from

our Lord Jesus Christ only the

primacy of honor, and not that

of true and real jurisdiction;

let him be anathema.

CAPUT II. CHAPTER II.

DE PERPETUITATE PRIMATUS BEATI OF THE PERPETUITY OF THE PRIMACY

PETRI IN ROMANIS PONTIFICIBUS. OF PETER IN THE ROMAN PONTIFFS.

Quod autem in beato Apostolo What the prince of pastors

Petro princeps pastorum et and the great shepherd of the

pastor magnus ovium Dominus sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ,

Christus Iesus in perpetuam established in the person of the

salutem ac perenne bonum blessed apostle Peter for the

Ecclesiae instituit, id eodem perpetual welfare and lasting

auctore in Ecclesia, quae good of the church, the same

fundata super petram ad finem through his power must needs

saeculorum usque firma stabit, last for ever in that church,

iugiter durare necesse est. which is founded upon the rock,

Nulli sane dubium, imo saeculis and will stand firm till the

omnibus notum est, quod end of time. And indeed it is

sanctus beatissimusque Petrus, well known, as it has been in

Apostolorum princeps et caput, all ages, that the holy and

fideique columna et Ecclesiae most blessed Peter, prince and

catholicae fundamentum, a Domino head of the apostles, pillar of

nostro Iesu Christo, Salvatore the faith and foundation of the

humani generis ac Redemptore, Catholic Church, who received

claves regni accepit: qui ad from our Lord Jesus Christ, the

hoc usque tempus et semper in Saviour and Redeemer of mankind,

suis successoribus, episcopis the keys of the kingdom of

sanctae Romanae Sedis, ab ipso heaven, to this present time and

fundatae, eiusque consecratae at all times lives and presides

sanguine, vivit et praesidet and pronounces judgment in the

et iudicium exercet.[313] Unde person of his successors, the

quicumque in hac Cathedra Petro bishops of the holy Roman see,

succedit, is secundum Christi which was founded by him, and

ipsius institutionem primatum consecrated by his blood.[316]

Petri in universam Ecclesiam So that whoever succeeds Peter

obtinet. Manet ergo dispositio in this chair, holds, according

veritatis, et beatus Petrus to Christ's own institution, the

in accepta fortitudine petrae primacy of Peter over the whole

perseverans suscepta Ecclesiae church. What, therefore, was

gubernacula non reliquit.[314] once established by him who is

Hac de causa ad Romanam the truth, still remains, and

Ecclesiam propter potentiorem blessed Peter, retaining the

principalitatem necesse semper strength of the rock, which has

fuit omnem convenire Ecclesiam, been given to him, has never

hoc est, eos, qui sunt undique left the helm of the church

fideles, ut in ea Sede, e qua originally intrusted to him.[317]

venerandae communionis iura

in omnes dimanant, tamquam For this reason it was always

membra in capite consociata, necessary for every other

in unam corporis compagem church, that is, the faithful of

coalescerent.[315] all countries, to have recourse

to the Roman Church on account

Si quis ergo dixerit, non of its superior headship, in

esse ex ipsius Christi Domini order that being joined, as

institutione seu iure divino, members to their head, with this

ut beatus Petrus in primatu see, from which the rights of

super universam Ecclesiam religious communion flow unto

habeat perpetuos successores; all, they might be knitted into

aut Romanum Pontificem non esse the unity of one body.[318]

beati Petri in eodem primatu

successorem; anathema sit. If, therefore, any one shall

say, that it is not by the

institution of Christ our Lord

himself, or by divine right,

that blessed Peter has perpetual

successors in the primacy over

the whole church; or, that

the Roman pontiff is not the

successor of blessed Peter

in this primacy; let him be

anathema.

CAPUT III. CHAPTER III.

DE VI ET RATIONE PRIMATUS ROMANI OF THE POWER AND NATURE OF THE

PONTIFICIS. PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF.

Quapropter apertis innixi Wherefore, resting upon the

sacrarum litterarum clear testimonies of holy

testimoniis et inhaerentes writ, and following the full

tum Praedecessorum Nostrorum and explicit decrees of our

Romanorum Pontificum, tum predecessors the Roman pontiffs,

Conciliorum generalium disertis, and of general councils, we

perspicuisque decretis, renew the definition of the

innovamus oecumenici Concilii œcumenical council of

Florentini definitionem, qua Florence, according to which

credendum ab omnibus Christi all the faithful of Christ

fidelibus est, sanctam must believe that the holy

Apostolicam Sedem, et Romanum apostolic see and the Roman

Pontificem in universum orbem pontiff hold the primacy over

tenere primatum, et ipsum the whole world, and that the

Pontificem Romanum successorem Roman pontiff is the successor

esse beati Petri principis of blessed Peter the prince of

Apostolorum, et verum Christi the apostles, and the true vicar

Vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae of Christ, and is the head of

caput, et omnium Christianorum the whole church, and the father

patrem ac doctorem existere; and teacher of all Christians;

et ipsi in beato Petro and that to him, in the blessed

pascendi, regendi et gubernandi Peter, was given by our Lord

universalem Ecclesiam a Domino Jesus Christ full power of

nostro Iesu Christo plenam feeding, ruling, and governing

potestatem traditam esse; the universal church; as is also

quemadmodum etiam in gestis set forth in the acts of the

oecumenicorum Conciliorum et œcumenical councils, and in

sacris canonibus continetur. the sacred canons.

Docemus proinde et declaramus, Wherefore, we teach and declare

Ecclesiam Romanam disponente that the Roman Church, under

Domino super omnes alias divine providence, possesses

ordinariae potestatis obtinere a headship of ordinary power

principatum, et hanc Romani over all other churches, and

Pontificis iurisdictionis that this power of jurisdiction

potestatem, quae vere of the Roman pontiff, which is

episcopalis est, immediatam truly episcopal, is immediate,

esse: erga quam cuiuscumque toward which the pastors and

ritus et dignitatis, faithful of whatever rite and

pastores atque fideles, tam dignity, whether singly or all

seorsum singuli quam simul together, are bound by the duty

omnes, officio hierarchicae of hierarchical subordination

subordinationis, veraeque and of true obedience, not only

obedientiae obstringuntur, non in things which appertain to

solum in rebus, quae ad fidem faith and morals, but likewise

et mores, sed etiam in iis, in those things which concern

quae ad disciplinam et regimen the discipline and government

Ecclesiae, per totum orbem of the church spread throughout

diffusae pertinent; ita, ut the world, so that being united

custodita cum Romano Pontifice with the Roman pontiff, both in

tam communionis, quam eiusdem communion and in profession of

fidei professionis unitate, the same faith, the church of

Ecclesia Christi sit unus grex Christ may be one fold under

sub uno summo pastore. Haec est one chief shepherd. This is the

catholicae veritatis doctrina, doctrine of Catholic truth, from

a qua deviare salva fide atque which no one can depart without

salute nemo potest. loss of faith and salvation.

Tantum autem abest, ut haec So far, nevertheless, is this

Summi Pontificis potestas power of the supreme pontiff

officiat ordinariae ac from trenching on that ordinary

immediatae illi episcopali power of episcopal jurisdiction

iurisdictionis potestati, qua by which the bishops, who have

Episcopi, qui positi a Spiritu been instituted by the Holy

Sancto in Apostolorum locum Ghost and have succeeded in the

successerunt, tamquam veri place of the apostles, like

Pastores assignatos sibi greges, true shepherds, feed and rule

singuli singulos, pascunt et the flocks assigned to them,

regunt, ut eadem a supremo et each one his own; that, on the

universali Pastore asseratur, contrary, this their power is

roboretur ac vindicetur, asserted, strengthened, and

secundum illud sancti Gregorii vindicated by the supreme and

Magni: Meus honor est honor universal pastor; as St. Gregory

universalis Ecclesiae. Meus the Great saith: My honor is the

honor est fratrum meorum solidus honor of the universal church;

vigor. Tum ego vere honoratus my honor is the solid strength

sum, cum singulis quibusque of my brethren; then am I truly

honor debitus non negatur.[319] honored when to each one of them

the honor due is not denied.

(St. Gregory Great ad Eulogius,

Epist. 30.)

Porro ex suprema ilia Romani Moreover, from that supreme

Pontificis potestate gubernandi authority of the Roman pontiff

universam Ecclesiam ius eidem to govern the universal church,

esse consequitur, in huius there follows to him the right,

sui muneris exercitio libere in the exercise of this his

communicandi cum pastoribus et office, of freely communicating

gregibus totius Ecclesiae, ut with the pastors and flocks of

iidem ab ipso in via salutis the whole church, that they may

doceri ac regi possint. Quare be taught and guided by him in

damnamus ac reprobamus illorum the way of salvation.

sententias, qui hanc supremi

capitis cum pastoribus et Wherefore, we condemn and

gregibus communicationem reprobate the opinions of those,

licite impediri posse dicunt, who say that this communication

aut eamdem reddunt saeculari of the supreme head with the

potestati obnoxiam, ita ut pastors and flocks can be

contendant, quae ab Apostolica lawfully hindered, or who make

Sede vel eius auctoritate ad it subject to the secular

regimen Ecclesiae constituuntur, power, maintaining that the

vim ac valorem non habere, nisi things which are decreed by

potestatis saecularis placito the apostolic see or under its

confirmentur. authority for the government of

the church, have no force or

Et quoniam divino Apostolici value unless they are confirmed

primatus iure Romanus Pontifex by the approval of the secular

universae Ecclesiae praeest, power. And since, by the divine

docemus etiam et declaramus, right of apostolic primacy,

eum esse iudicem supremum the Roman pontiff presides

fidelium,[320] et in omnibus over the universal churches,

causis ad examen ecclesiasticum we also teach and declare

spectantibus ad ipsius posse that he is the supreme judge

iudicium recurri;[321] of the faithful, (Pius VI.

Sedis vero Apostolicae, Brief Super Soliditate,) and

cuius auctoritate maior non that in all causes calling for

est, iudicium a nemine fore ecclesiastical trial, recourse

retractandum, neque cuiquam may be had to his judgment,

de eius licere iudicare (Second Council of Lyons;) but

iudicio.[322] Quare a recto the decision of the apostolic

veritatis tramite aberrant, see, above which there is no

qui affirmant, licere ab higher authority, cannot be

iudiciis Romanorum Pontificum ad reconsidered by any one, nor

oecumenicum Concilium tamquam ad is it lawful to any one to sit

auctoritatem Romano Pontifice in judgment on his judgment.

superiorem appellare. (Nicholas I. epist. ad Michaelem

Imperatorem.)

Wherefore, they wander away

from the right path of truth

who assert that it is lawful

to appeal from the judgments

of the Roman pontiffs to an

œcumenical council, as if to

an authority superior to the

Roman pontiff.

Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Therefore, if any one shall say

Pontificem habere tantummodo that the Roman pontiff holds

officium inspectionis vel only the charge of inspection

directionis, non autem plenam or direction, and not full and

et supremam potestatem supreme power of jurisdiction

iurisdictionis in universam over the entire church, not only

Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, in things which pertain to faith

quae ad fidem et mores, and morals, but also in those

sed etiam in iis, quae ad which pertain to the discipline

disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae and government of the church

per totum orbem diffusae spread throughout the whole

pertinent; aut eum habere tantum world; or, that he possesses

potiores partes, non vero totam only the chief part and not the

plenitudinem huius supremae entire plenitude of this supreme

potestatis; aut hanc eius power; or, that this his power

potestatem non esse ordinariam is not ordinary and immediate,

et immediatam sive in omnes ac both as regards all and each of

singulas ecclesias sive in omnes the churches, and all and each

et singulos pastores et fideles; of the pastors and faithful; let

anathema sit. him be anathema.

CAPUT IV. CHAPTER IV.

DE ROMANI PONTIFICIS INFALLIBILI OF THE INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF

MAGISTERIO. THE ROMAN PONTIFF IN TEACHING.

Ipso autem Apostolico primatu, This holy see has ever

quem Romanus Pontifex tamquam held--the unbroken custom of

Petri principis Apostolorum the church doth prove--and the

successor in universam œcumenical councils, those

Ecclesiam obtinet, supremam especially in which the east

quoque magisterii potestatem joined with the west, in union

comprehendi, haec Sancta Sedes of faith and of charity, have

semper tenuit, perpetuus declared that in this apostolic

Ecclesiae usus comprobat, primacy, which the Roman pontiff

ipsaque oecumenica Concilia, ea holds over the universal church,

imprimis, in quibus Oriens cum as successor of Peter the prince

Occidente in fidei charitatisque of the apostles, there is also

unionem conveniebat, contained the supreme power of

declaraverunt. Patres enim authoritative teaching. Thus the

Concilii Constantinopolitani fathers of the fourth council of

quarti, maiorum vestigiis Constantinople, following in the

inhaerentes, hanc solemnem footsteps of their predecessors,

ediderunt professionem: Prima put forth this solemn profession:

salus est, rectae fidei regulam

custodire. Et quia non potest "The first law of salvation is

Domini nostri Iesu Christi to keep the rule of true faith.

praetermitti sententia dicentis: And whereas the words of our

Tu es Petrus, et super hanc Lord Jesus Christ cannot be

petram aedificabo Ecclesiam passed by, who said: Thou art

meam, haec, quae dicta sunt, Peter, and upon this rock I

rerum probantur effectibus, quia will build my church, (Matt.

in Sede Apostolica immaculata xvi. 18,) these words, which

est semper catholica reservata he spake, are proved true by

religio, et sancta celebrata facts; for in the apostolic

doctrina. Ab huius ergo fide see, the Catholic religion has

et doctrina separari minime ever been preserved unspotted,

cupientes, speramus, ut in and the holy doctrine has been

una communione, quam Sedes announced. Therefore wishing

Apostolica praedicat, esse never to be separated from the

mereamur, in qua est integra faith and teaching of this see,

et vera Christianae religionis we hope to be worthy to abide

soliditas.[323] Approbante vero in that one communion which the

Lugdunenis Concilio secundo, apostolic see preaches, in which

Graeci professi sunt: Sanctam is the full and true firmness

Romanam Ecclesiam summum et of the Christian religion."

plenum primatum et principatum [Formula of St. Hormisdas Pope,

super universam Ecclesiam as proposed by Hadrian II.

catholicam obtinere, quem se to the fathers of the eighth

ab ipso Domino in beato Petro general Council, (Constantinop.

Apostolorum principe sive IV.,) and subscribed by them.]

vertice, cuius Romanus Pontifex

est successor, cum potestatis So too, the Greeks, with the

plenitudine recepisse veraciter approval of the second council

et humiliter recognoscit; et of Lyons, professed, that the

sicut prae caeteris tenetur holy Roman Church holds over

fidei veritatem defendere, sic the universal Catholic Church,

et, si quae de fide subortae a supreme and full primacy and

fuerint quaestiones, suo debent headship, which she truthfully

iudicio definiri. Florentinum and humbly acknowledges that

denique Concilium definivit: she received, with fulness of

Pontificem Romanum, verum power, from the Lord himself

Christi Vicarium, totiusque in blessed Peter, the prince

Ecclesiae caput et omnium or head of the apostles, of

Christianorum patrem ac doctorem whom the Roman pontiff is the

existere; et ipsi in beato Petro successor; and as she, beyond

pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi the others, is bound to defend

universalem Ecclesiam a Domino the truth of the faith, so, if

nostro Iesu Christo plenam any questions arise concerning

potestatem traditam esse. faith, they should be decided

by her judgment. And finally,

the council of Florence defined

that the Roman pontiff is true

vicar of Christ, and the head of

the whole church, and the father

and teacher of all Christians,

and that to him, in the blessed

Peter, was given by our Lord

Jesus Christ full power of

feeding and ruling and governing

the universal church. (John xxi.

15-17.)

Huic pastorali muneri ut In order to fulfil this pastoral

satisfacerent, Praedecessores charge, our predecessors have

Nostri indefessam semper operam ever labored unweariedly to

dederunt, ut salutaris Christi spread the saving doctrine of

doctrina apud omnes terrae Christ among all the nations

populos propagaretur, parique of the earth, and with equal

cura vigilarunt, ut, ubi care have watched to preserve

recepta esset, sincera et pura it pure and unchanged where it

conservaretur. Quocirca totius had been received. Wherefore

orbis Antistites, nunc singuli, the bishops of the whole world,

nunc in Synodis congregati, sometimes singly, sometimes

longam ecclesiarum consuetudinem assembled in synods, following

et antiquae regulae formam the long established custom

sequentes, ea praesertim of the churches, (S. Cyril,

pericula, quae in negotiis Alex. ad S. Cœlest. Pap.,)

fidei emergebant, ad hanc Sedem and the form of ancient rule,

Apostolicam retulerunt, ut ibi (St. Innocent I. to councils of

potissimum resarcirentur damna Carthage and Milevi,) referred

fidei, ubi fides non potest to this apostolic see those

sentire defectum.[324] Romani dangers especially which arose

autem Pontifices, prout temporum in matters of faith, in order

et rerum conditio suadebat, nunc that injuries to faith might

convocatis oecumenicis Conciliis best be healed there where the

aut explorata Ecclesiae per faith could never fail. (St.

orbem dispersae sententia, nunc Bernard ep. 190.) And the Roman

per Synodos particulares, nunc pontiffs, weighing the condition

aliis, quae divina suppeditabat of times and circumstances,

providentia, adhibitis auxiliis, sometimes calling together

ea tenenda definiverunt, quae general councils, or asking

sacris Scripturis et apostolicis the judgment of the church

Traditionibus consentanea, scattered through the world,

Deo adiutore, cognoverant. sometimes consulting particular

Neque enim Petri successoribus synods, sometimes using such

Spiritus Sanctus promissus other aids as divine providence

est, ut eo revelante novam supplied, defined that those

doctrinam patefacerent, sed doctrines should be held, which,

ut eo assistente traditam per by the aid of God, they knew

Apostolos revelationem seu fidei to be conformable to the holy

depositum sancte custodirent et Scriptures, and the apostolic

fideliter exponerent. Quorum traditions. For the Holy

quidem apostolicam doctrinam Ghost is not promised to the

omnes venerabiles Patres amplexi successors of Peter, that they

et sancti Doctores orthodoxi may make known a new doctrine

venerati atque secuti sunt; revealed by him, but that,

plenissime scientes, hanc sancti through his assistance, they may

Petri Sedem ab omni semper sacredly guard, and faithfully

errore illibatam permanere, set forth the revelation

secundum Domini Salvatoris delivered by the apostles, that

nostri divinam pollicitationem is, the deposit of faith. And

discipulorum suorum principi this their apostolic teaching,

factam: Ego rogavi pro te, ut all the venerable fathers have

non deficiat fides tua, et tu embraced, and the holy orthodox

aliquando conversus confirma doctors have revered and

fratres tuos. followed, knowing most certainly

that this see of St. Peter ever

remains free from all error,

according to the divine promise

of our Lord and Saviour made

to the prince of the apostles:

I have prayed for thee, that

thy faith fail not, and thou,

being once converted, confirm

thy brethren. (Conf. St. Agatho,

Ep. ad Imp. a Conc. Œcum. VI.

approbat.)

Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei Therefore, this gift of truth,

numquam deficientis charisma and of faith which fails not,

Petro eiusque in hac Cathedra was divinely bestowed on Peter

successoribus divinitus collatum and his successors in this

est, ut excelso suo munere in chair, that they should exercise

omnium salutem fungerentur, their high office for the

ut universus Christi grex per salvation of all, that through

eos ab erroris venenosa esca them the universal flock of

aversus, coelestis doctrinae Christ should be turned away

pabulo nutriretur, ut sublata from the poisonous food of

schismatis occasione Ecclesia error, and should be nourished

tota una conservaretur atque suo with the food of heavenly

fundamento innixa firma adversus doctrine, and that, the occasion

inferi portas consisteret. of schism being removed,

the entire church should be

preserved one, and, planted on

her foundation, should stand

firm against the gates of hell.

At vero cum hac ipsa aetate, qua Nevertheless, since in this

salutifera Apostolici muneris present age, when the saving

efficacia vel maxime requiritur, efficacy of the apostolic

non pauci inveniantur, qui office is exceedingly needed,

illius auctoritati obtrectant; there are not a few who carp

necessarium omnino esse at its authority; we judge it

censemus, praerogativam, quam altogether necessary to solemnly

unigenitus Dei Filius cum summo declare the prerogative, which

pastorali officio coniungere the only begotten Son of God has

dignatus est, solemniter deigned to unite to the supreme

asserere. pastoral office.

Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei Wherefore, faithfully adhering

Christianae exordio perceptae to the tradition handed down

fideliter inhaerendo, ad Dei from the commencement of the

Salvatoris nostri gloriam Christian faith, for the

religionis Catholicae glory of God our Saviour, the

exaltationem et Christianorum exaltation of the Catholic

populorum salutem, sacro religion, and the salvation

approbante Concilio, docemus et of Christian peoples, with

divinitus revelatum dogma esse the approbation of the sacred

definimus: Romanum Pontificem, council, we teach and define

cum ex Cathedra loquitur, id it to be a doctrine divinely

est, cum omnium Christianorum revealed: that when the Roman

Pastoris et Doctoris munere pontiff speaks _ex cathedra_,

fungens, pro suprema sua that is, when in the exercise of

Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam his office of pastor and teacher

de fide vel moribus ab universa of all Christians, and in virtue

Ecclesia tenendam definit, per of his supreme apostolical

assistentiam divinam, ipsi authority, he defines that a

in beato Petro promissam, ea doctrine of faith or morals is

infallibilitate pollere, qua to be held by the universal

divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam church, he possesses, through

in definienda doctrina de fide the divine assistance promised

vel moribus instructam esse to him in the blessed Peter,

voluit; ideoque eiusmodi Romani that infallibility with which

Pontificis definitiones ex sese, the divine Redeemer willed

non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, his church to be endowed, in

irreformabiles esse. defining a doctrine of faith or

morals; and therefore that such

definitions of the Roman pontiff

are irreformable of themselves,

and not by force of the consent

of the church thereto.

Si quis autem huic Nostrae And if any one shall presume,

definitioni contradicere, quod which God forbid, to contradict

Deus avertat, praesumpserit; this our definition; let him be

anathema sit. anathema.

Datum Romae, in publica Sessione Given in Rome, in the Public

in Vaticana Basilica solemniter Session, solemnly celebrated in

celebrata, anno Incarnationis the Vatican Basilica, in the

Dominicae millesimo year of the Incarnation of our

octingentesimo septuagesimo, die Lord one thousand eight hundred

decima octava Iulii. and seventy, on the eighteenth

day of July; in the twenty-fifth

Pontificatus Nostri anno year of our Pontificate.

vigesimo quinto

Ita est Ita est.

IOSEPHUS JOSEPH, BISHOP OF ST. POLTEN,

_Episcopus S. Hippolyti_ _Secretary of the Council of

_Secretarius Concilii Vaticani_. the Vatican_.

FOOTNOTES:

[306] S. Leo M. serm. iv. (al. iii.) cap. 2. in diem Natalis sui.

[307] Joan. i. 42.

[308] Matth. xvi. 16-19.

[309] John i. 42.

[310] Joan. xxi. 15-17.

[311] Matthew xvi. 16-19.

[312] John xxi. 15-17.

[313] Cf. Ephesini Concilii Act. iii.

[314] S. Leo M. Serm. iii. (al. ii.) cap. 3.

[315] S. Iren. Adv. Hær. I. iii. c. 3. Ep. Conc. Aquilei 2. 381,

inter epp. S. Ambros. ep. xi.

[316] Council of Eph. sess. iii. St. Peter Chrys. Ep. ad Eutych.

[317] S. Leo, Serm. iii. chap. iii.

[318] St. Irenæus against Heresies, book iii. chap. 3. Epist. of

Council of Aquileia, 381, to Gratian, chap. 4. of Pius VI. Brief

Super Soliditate.

[319] Ep. ad Eulog. Alexandrin. I. viii. ep. xxx.

[320] Pii P. VI. Breve Super Soliditate, d. 28. Nov. 1786.

[321] Concil. Œcum. Lugdun. II.

[322] Ep. Nicolai I. ad Michaelem Imperatorem.

[323] Ex formula S. Hormisdae Papae, prout ab Hadriano II. Patribus

Concilii Oecumenici VIII., Constantinopolitani IV., proposita et ab

iisdem subscripta est.

[324] Cf. S. Bern. Epist. 190.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

LIFE OF T. THÉOPHANE VÉNARD, MARTYR IN TONQUIN. Translated from

the French by Lady Herbert. London: Burns, Oates & Co. 1870.

Pp. 215. For sale by the Catholic Publication Society, 9 Warren

Street, New York.

China is the land of modern martyrdom. She continues the work of

Nero and Diocletian. Within a few days the newspapers have contained

a brief account of the latest massacre. These persecutions have

been constant since her soil first drank the blood of a Catholic

missionary. Incited by their pagan priests, secretly encouraged

by government officials, and sustained by the approbation of the

mandarins, the ignorant and barbarous mobs of China are only too

ready for the murder of those whom they term "Foreign Devils."

Throughout the world there is at least partial toleration for the

teacher of the Christian religion; in China there is only certain

death. Father Vénard, then, went to China with the hope and

expectation of martyrdom. This was tempered, indeed, by the thought

that he was unworthy of this singular grace, but still it was the

constant thought of his life. In early childhood it was his delight

to read the "Annals of the Propagation of the Faith" with his dear

sister Mélanie; and once, when he had scarcely reached his ninth

year, he was heard to exclaim, "And I too will go to Tonquin; and I

too will be a martyr!" Those childish lips were speaking a prophecy.

Let twenty-two years pass away, and the little French lad will be

found in a wooden cage, the prisoner of barbarians, and awaiting

sentence of death. Sweet bird of paradise that he was, it is not

strange that even a pagan mob should be touched by his misfortunes.

He hears the crowd about his prison saying, "What a pretty boy

that European is!" "He is gay and bright, as if he were going to a

feast!" "He is come to our country to do us good." "Certainly he

can't have done any thing wrong." But in China, as in more civilized

nations, popular sympathy has little influence over the authorities

who administer the government. Doubtless there was some law to be

vindicated, and so, on February 3d, 1860, at the age of thirty-one,

Father Vénard was beheaded. His execution was not remarkable for

any great tortures, though it was cruel enough. But this was due to

an unskilful headsman and a dull sword; and as these accidents are

frequent in the execution of our criminals, it would be unjust to

make it a reproach to those who caused the death of the young martyr.

But his life does not require the heroic endurance of tortures to

make it interesting. He wins our love simply because he was so full

of love himself. He was a tender and affectionate son, a warm and

devoted brother, an unfailing friend. Perhaps the greatest of his

sacrifices was made when he left the sister to whom he was so warmly

attached that he might labor among the heathen. It may have been

a more glorious triumph for the martyr to renounce his idolized

relatives than to meet death bravely. We cannot, therefore, see

the appropriateness of Lady Herbert's remark, that Vénard "was no

ascetic saint, trembling at every manifestation of human or natural

feeling." If he did not tremble at human affections, at least he knew

how to renounce them; indeed, he saw that perfection could only be

gained by their renunciation. But as Lady Herbert's sentence reads,

it conveys a reproach to the ascetics. We might imagine that "an

ascetic saint trembling at every manifestation of human or natural

feeling" was something greatly to be deplored. But when we remember

that St. Aloysius was so careful in this matter that he would not

raise his eyes to look upon his own mother, we may very fairly

question the wisdom of Lady Herbert's insinuation. She has evidently

used the word ascetic in a Protestant sense; deriving it from the

word similar in sound, but totally different in meaning--_acetic_.

It would be very difficult to assign exactly the part which human

affections play in Christian perfection. Perhaps there is no rule

which will apply to all. The lives of the saints show that they have

looked upon it in very different lights. Some have completely broken

all family ties; others have cherished and sanctified the love borne

to their relations. It is only fair, then, to conclude that God has

directed these souls in different ways. If F. Vénard yields up his

life for Christ and the Catholic faith, we will not quarrel with him

when he calls his sister "part of his very life," or tells her that

she is his "second self." Yet such language could not come from St.

Aloysius, or St. Francis Borgia, or St. Ignatius. Their piety was

cast in a more austere mould. But coming from this dear martyr of

Tonquin, these words do not seem inappropriate. No one would wish

them changed. They are the expression of his innocent and childish

disposition. They prove our hero, though a priest and a man of

thirty, to be the worthy companion of gentle St. Agnes. Of all the

martyrs none have resembled her more closely than this heroic priest;

all that imagination has painted her will be found in the reality of

Father Vénard's life.

* * * * *

NOTES ON THE PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM.

With reference to Clinical Medicine. By Meredith Clymer, M.D.,

University Pennsylvania; Fellow of the College of Physicians,

Philadelphia. D. Appleton & Co. Pp. 53.

This brochure fulfils the promise of its learned author in the

introduction, in which he "proposes to summarize the recent

investigations into the physiology and pathology of the nervous

system which have a bearing on clinical medicine."

The labor has been faithfully and skilfully performed, and the

history of the scleroses of the brain and spinal cord is carefully

collected from the English, German, and French--collated, compared,

and analyzed. The summary is one of the utmost importance to

physicians, and is interesting to men of general knowledge capable of

appreciating this class of subjects.

It is difficult to over-estimate the value to science and society

of the investigations and studies into the physiology and pathology

of the nervous centres which are being conducted all over the

world. Among the students of these interesting subjects Dr. Clymer

ranks high as an observer, and chief in this country as annalist

and critic. He holds a position in the world of medicine analogous

to that held by Brownson in the domain of philosophy and theology,

and his services are of inestimable value in correcting the hasty,

crude, and ill-advised speculations of men who have neither acquired

knowledge nor powers of original observation and reflection.

It is obviously out of place to pursue the subject in its medical

aspects in this place, but we commend the pamphlet to physicians,

scientists, and jurists, and also to theologians.

From this class of works they can learn the basis on which medicine

rests as a science, and the essential immorality of all forms of

quackery.

* * * * *

OUT OF THE PAST. (Critical and Literary Papers.) By Parke

Godwin. New York: G. P. Putnam & Sons. 1870.

This is a collection of nineteen articles written for different

magazines--principally for the _Democratic Review_ and _Putnam's

Monthly_--at various periods from 1839 to 1856. The experiment

of publishing in book form an author's fugitive essays is seldom

successful. True, it was so in the cases of Carlyle and Macaulay. How

far Mr. Godwin may resemble them in this respect remains to be seen.

Should any reviewer come to the treatment of this book strong in the

Vicar of Wakefield's celebrated canon of criticism--that the picture

would have been better if the painter had taken more pains--he will

find himself disarmed by Mr. Godwin's prefatory apology, that these

essays "are more imperfect than they would have been with a larger

leisure at my command." The subjects are generally interesting, and

their treatment instructive. The style of these essays is excellent,

and their author's opinions and criticisms on literature and art

generally of a healthy tone. We cannot precisely agree with Mr.

Godwin when he credits a certain work of Dutch art (p. 375) with the

inspiration of patriotism, but are glad to see with his eyes that

Thackeray

"Took no satyr's delight in offensive scenes and graceless

characters; that he was even sadder than the reader could be

at the horrible prospect before him; that his task was one

conscientiously undertaken, with some deep, great, generous

purpose; and that, beneath his seeming scoff and mockeries,

was to be discovered a more searching wisdom and a sweeter,

tenderer pathos than we found in any other living writer. We

saw that he chastised in no ill-natured or malicious vein,

but in love; that he cauterized only to cure; and that, if he

wandered through the dreary circles of Inferno, it was because

the spirit of Beatrice, the spirit of immortal beauty, beckoned

him to the more glorious paradise."

* * * * *

A COMPENDIUM OF THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Rev.

Theodore Noethen. Baltimore: John Murphy & Co. 1870. Pp. 587.

A hasty glance through the contents of this work seems to justify

these conclusions: The chief merit of the book is its numerous

anecdotes. These illustrate the particular customs and dangers of

Christians in different nations and centuries. Compendiums usually

fatigue the mind with dates and uninteresting details. Father Noethen

has carefully avoided this fault. He leads us into the homes and by

the hearth-side of the Catholics of former times. Nothing can be

more useful than this. History cannot be learned until we imagine

ourselves living at that very time and taking our part in the scenes

which are described. So the words of a martyr, or a sentence from a

letter, or a pious custom will often throw more light upon history

than whole pages of detailed facts and speculations. In regard to

those more delicate questions which every writer of a church history

must solve in some way, Father Noethen appears to have acted with

great discretion. We were particularly pleased with the remarks

concerning Origen. In this work that illustrious hero of the early

church is given the praise which he has so long deserved, but which

has been so long denied him. By an oversight, however, there is

one unfortunate sentence in this book. It speaks of Constantine as

"convening a general council." Without doubt this expression is

incorrect; the Christian emperors aided the meeting of œcumenical

councils; they never convened them. That power was always reserved to

the sovereign pontiff alone. But apart from this clerical error the

book is very praiseworthy, and will do good both to Catholics and to

Protestants.

* * * * *

Transcriber's Note:

Obvious typographical errors have been repaired.

In the two dogmatic decrees, the original Latin consistently

displayed ae ligatures as separate letters, this has been retained.

P. 49: Stabat Mater. Original centered each Latin stanza, followed

by English and Greek stanza translations side by side below it. For

ease of display in multiple formats, the English and Greek stanzas

have been changed to increasing indents below the Latin. "English

Translation" and "Greek Translation" headings, originally under the

poem title, were moved to the first stanza of each translation.

P. 71: multiple words beginning "sciol-", though unable to verify,

were retained since that spelling occurred consistently.

P. 299: "informs us triumphantly, three separate times"--original

reads "three several times."