14? II?FALI. IBtLITY. [Boo !r ]?. institutes of the holy fathers."* Here the obligation or non-obligation of an oath depends solely on its utility or non-utility to the interests of the Church of Rome, as those interests shall be understood and ex- plained by the governors of the church for the time being. Accordingly the em rot 8i 'smund, accordin to e -, in breaking his oath to pe g? g pop ry. John Hues, acted in accordance to the decrune of the church. And all who maintain the infallibility of the church stand pledged to vin- dicate Sigismund and the Council of Constance. Indeed, they are bound to act zo, should they ever be placed in similar circumstances. Let the Romanist bind himself by ever so solemn an oath, still, if his spiritu?l leaders pronounce that oath to be contra utilitatem ecelesia?- ?am, centrata to t]?e interests of tJtz cJturc?, he is bound to violate his oath. Should he disclaim such an obligation, he contradicts the Coun- cil of Lateran, and thus, by a necessary consequence, denies the infal- libility of his church. tte is therefore reduced to this dilemma; either to maintain that an oat}l, pronounced to be against ecclez?utieal utility is not binding, or to deny the infallibility of the church. 5. In the year 1?15, the fourth Council of Lateran decreed that the bread ?nd wine in the sacrament of the eucharist underwent a dumge, which they termed transubstantiation.t This council received the full approbation of the reigning pope, Innocent III. But we have positive historical evidence, that during the first five centuries at least the Catholic Church, so far from teacldng the doctrine of a physical change, positively, explicitly, and controversially denied such a change. Thus it is manifest, since the Catholic Church at one Period denim the doctrine of transubstantiation and at another time maintained it, it is impossible that she should be infallible. 6. Besides, how can we believe in the infallibility of assemblies which taught doctrines at once unjust and subversive of society, and in which the adulation of the pope is carried even to blasphemy ! Gould the fourth Council of Lateran be infallible, in which the pope was acknowledged to possess the power of disposing of the temporalities of sovereigns, of depriving them of their crowns, and of delivering their subjects from the oath of allegiance ! Could the fifth Council of Late- ran be infallible, which, in its first session, gave to the pope the appel- lation of pt/nee of t?e universe, and praised Boniface VII. for having taken the kiugdom of France from Philin the Fair ?--which in its second session, called the Roman pontiff a?.st am/?/ag, ? adored by a//i0eop/e, and w?/? verg///? unto God ?--which, in its f?h session, spoke of Leo X. in these terms: "Weep hot, daughter of Zion, for behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David: behold God hath raised thee up a Saidour ?" Thus they applied to sinner the prophetic words which designate the Saytour of the world. Could the Holy Spirit inspire such blasphemies as these ! The thirteenth session of the Council of Trent declares that the bread becomes oa/y the body, and the wine becomes only the blood of Christ: "There becomes a c. onvorsion of the whole substance of tim broad into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of +." Non enim dicenda aunt juramen?, m?! potins perjune, qum contra utilitatmm eeclesiutieam et sanctorum lintrum yenrant instituta.*'-=Csn. L?t. III., can. 16. Coa., vol. x, p. 1?17. ?' Ooa. I?. IV., csn. 1. For several ?utborides see F?r's Di?., p. 4?. I ,Gooc[e
�
