The Invitation Heeded. Reasons for a Return to Catholic Unity. By James Kent Stone, late President of Kenyon College, Grambier, Ohio; and of Hobart College, Geneva, New York; and S. T. D. Fourth Edition. How the Rev. Dr. Stone Battered his Situation: An Examination of the Assurance of Salvation and Certainty of Belief to which we are affectionately invited by his Holiness the Pope. By Leonard Woolsey Bacon. Lecture on the Vatican Council. By Archbishop Purcell. [pp. 640-649]

STO.~ T1~6 l~Oj)C~8 fn~i~qtioii. (317
Pf()tCStflflt5 their aiJeged persecations iI~ foi'rner ~ges. Sup~~ose til~y ~~ere at fault ~n tite iiiatter, does this justify Papal
pers~ctition? Or does it neutralize tlie coneinsive evidence
tIiQy fl~rnish of Papai fallibility?
Let us next see lio~ our author deals ~vith another great
case ~~hich aitnili lates Papal in fallibility.
"Pope ITonorius was condemned by the Fathers of the Sixth General Council,
tegetl~er with Sercius, Cyrus, Pyrthus, and other ~1onotliehte heretics. ~Vlien
we have said this, we have exhausted all that history can furiiish against the
iufii~ibility of St. Peter~s chair. Does it prove any thing egainst that infi~llihillty?
Let os see. Tlie head of the Cl~urcli is infallible when, speaking as flie ~ead
of tise Church he gives a deci~ion upon a matter of faith. ~Vell, Sergius, with
true ureek subtlety, endeavored to entrap flonarius iii to a heretical definition.
Honoriiis The1i~~~~1 [`i ~i~e ooy depoUioe at all. Here are his words: NON NOS
OPORTNT UNAN VEL nUAS OPERATtONES aEFtxtEN~rEs pn~ntcAaE. It is not noces5OQV to i~r~e that the letters of Honorius were of a private and. as we should
say. eonfldential character; that they were never made public until after his
deoth tl~ot they show, to any one N4~o will take the trouble of reading tl~em,
that their author was no Monothelite, but was deceived by the adroit sentences
of his Et~stern correspondent, supposing him to speak, not of a Divine and a
lionion will. but of two contrary wills of the spirit and of the flesh-all these
are in~portant considerations; but they are superfluous. It is enough flint fl~e
Pope refused to exercise liis apostolic prerogative. He gave no erroneous docision. for he decided nothing. But the Council eondeniiied liim. Certainly;
and why? f~J)0!5 qe eos [~S~iJ(ieos eb rel.l 5% isis [(~rosi1usl sequsitus eat. Xot
because he defined error but because lie allowed the errors of others. But
this coiistruetion of the intention of the Council might be disputed. Let it pass,
then: it also is superfluous. Tite Coenrit is ecenienirot eafy ia so far as it 51)0.5
coofti~ioed fq tise lie1 p See. It is by Pope Leo's letter of confirmation, therefore,
that we must judge of the character of the condemnation passed upon his predecessor. Here. then. we have the famous Papal censure upon a Pope:`~~e
anathematize the inventors of the new dogma' (then follow the names),`and
also llonorins. who did not strive wi4~ energy to maintain the purity of this
apostolic ehureb. by the teaching of tlse tradition of the Apoafles, but who
permitted that this church without spot (ioiissacolataoi) should become stained
by profane treason.' Or, as it is expressed in the letter to the bishops of Spain,
Ilonorius who. failing in the diity of his apostolical anfi~onty, instead of
extinguishing the flame of heresy. foniented it by neglect.' Honorins was
frightened at the bare thought of a new Eastern heresy, and instead of investigating and condemning. he strove to arrest fl~e evil by hushing it. In a word,
he erred, not in faitl~, but in judgment; lie was condemned, not for heresy, but
for negligence; nois esracit eteflisisosto, scsI taceocto, et osisitteado quod ctefioieosIa~a
fuerot.' (Pp. 333-4-5.)
According to this, Papal infallibility consists: 1. ~~ith
dcclai4ng it not needful or obligatory to define il~e ti~utli