"Following the apostolic doctrine, and anxious to maintain ecclesiastical unity, we are about to frame the present declaration,[91] We receive and acknowledge the four holy synods, ... and all other things that were decreed and written in these same synods by common consent with the legates and representatives of the apostolic see, not only in matters of faith, but every thing that was so defined and enacted in all other causes, judgments, constitutions, and ordinances we promise hereby faithfully and inviolably to observe."[92]
A circumstance which gives greater weight to this whole exposition is, that these councils were chiefly attended by eastern bishops, among them the patriarchs of Constantinople; and that the Roman pontiffs, though not personally present, still by their representatives, who were not all bishops, exercised such high prerogatives. The emperors themselves recognized these rights of the see of Rome both by their laws and public acts.[93]
We have been rather prolix, and have carried our examination further than we intended; but it seemed necessary to sustain our charges against Janus and his admirers by various and most unexceptionable authorities from history, and the canons of the early councils. The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in teaching and governing the universal church, could not be exhibited in a more resplendent light than in connection with general councils, those grand assemblies of the hierarchy of the church. Nothing, therefore, was better calculated than the futile essays of the anonymous authors of Janus to depreciate and obliterate, if possible, these prerogatives of the Roman pontiffs in connection with œcumenical councils, in order to lay the foundation of their hypothesis, that since the ninth century papal usurpation and ambition held high sway in the church, "hindering and decomposing the action of its vital powers." How far Janus has succeeded in finding such a basis for his edifice in history and in ancient canonical collections, how far his statements are supported by "reference to original authorities," the candid and judicious reader of church history will have been able to decide. If Janus asks the verdict of history for his "Ancient Constitution of the Church," that verdict cries aloud against such a miserable caricature, and his appeal to past tradition is an appeal to ignorance or wilful prejudice. We have impeached his orthodoxy on points of the very first importance, and in vain do we look for those "original authorities" which should verify his hypothesis of the "ancient church."
Before summing up our arguments on this head, we will be allowed to point out another serious and most pernicious error of Janus. He says,
"The force and authority of the decisions of councils depended on the consent of the church, and on the fact of being generally received." (Pp. 63, 64.)
Yet we must examine what is meant by this consent of the church; here is his theory:
"When a council passes sentence on doctrine, it thereby gives testimony to its truth. The bishops attest, each for his own portion of the church, that a certain defined doctrine has hitherto been taught and believed there; or they bear witness that the doctrines hitherto believed, involve, as their necessary consequence, some truth which may not yet have been expressly formalized. As to whether this testimony has been rightly given, whether freedom and unbiassed truthfulness have prevailed among the assembled bishops—on that point the church herself is the ultimate judge, by her acceptance or rejection of the council or its decisions." (P. 334.)
What a precious theory indeed of our authors! The teaching body in the church, or the hierarchy, are mere witnesses in giving testimony to the truth. But this testimony may ultimately be rejected; for whether such a testimony has been rightly rendered or not, is left to the decision of the church—consisting of the clergy and laity. Whence by a rigid conclusion it follows that the highest tribunal of "acceptance or rejection" of the decisions of a general council, is with the great mass of the faithful or "thinkers among believing Christians." In view of such plain propositions, we should like to be informed how inerrancy or infallibility can be attributed to an œcumenical council? We may then select any council and doubt, as thinking Christians, "whether freedom and unbiassed truthfulness have prevailed among the assembled bishops." All certainty is excluded by such a theory, where the decisions of a general council are only binding when accepted by the church outside of the council. This is nothing less than a complete negation of traditional and sound Catholic doctrine—it is simply proclaiming the broad Protestant dogma which grants the widest scope to the private judgment of the individual. In one direction have the authors of Janus been consistent; for they purpose by their labors "to contribute to the awakening and direction of public opinion," which is the tribunal charged by Janus to reject in advance the decrees of this council. (P. 345.) He himself makes an extensive use of this great privilege; for, according to him, since the ninth century there were no truly œcumenical councils; the whole church has been forced and cajoled into giving a wrong testimony. All councils since the period just named have proclaimed the views and tenets of a party as the constant belief of all Catholic Christendom. Such an issue Janus would fain declare impossible. Alas! for his beautiful theory, destroying with one hand what he would build up with the other.
"The church in its totality is secured against false doctrine."
There is precisely the dilemma in which Janus has involved himself. The whole work from beginning to end is intended to show that the church has sunk into a labyrinth of errors, that she has radically changed her ancient and divine constitution, that her centre of unity has become disfigured and sickly, that her vital powers are in a state of decomposition. Does all this not imply false doctrine? Has the church not thereby fallen away from Christ and the apostles? Perhaps Janus will say that it is only the hierarchy that erred, not the "thinkers among believing Christians," himself, of course, among the latter.