Now if this be so, of what weight or authority is human history in matters of faith?
For instance, the Vatican Council affirms that the doctrine of the immutable stability of Peter and of his successors in the faith, and therefore the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals, in virtue of a Divine assistance promised to St. Peter, and in Peter to his successors, is a revealed truth.
What has human history to say to this declaration? Human history is neither the source nor the channel of revelation.
Scientific history may, however, mean a scientific handling of the Divine tradition and the authoritative documents of the Church. But before these things can be thus scientifically handled, they must be first taken out of the hands of the Church by the hands of the scientific critics. And this simply amounts to saying: 'You are the Catholic Church indeed, and possess these documents and histories of your own past. But either you do not know the meaning of them, because you are not scientific, or you will not declare the real meaning of them, because you are not honest. We are the men; honesty and science is with us, if it will not die with us. Hand over your documents, the forged and the true; the forgeries we will find out; the true we will interpret; and by science we will prove that you have erred and led the world into error; and therefore that your claim to be a Divine tradition, and to have a Divine authority, is an imposture. The case of Honorius alone is enough. You say that Pope Leo and Pope Agatho interpreted the Councils of Constantinople so as to
