The late\u00a0<\/span>Steve Hays<\/a> (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called<\/span> Triablogue<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book,<\/span>\u00a0Catholicism<\/em><\/a> \u2014 a collection of articles from his site \u2014 has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite \u2014 almost extraordinarily \u2014 charitable towards me.<\/span> He wrote then<\/a>:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don\u2019t dislike him. . . . I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything malicious about Armstrong\u2014unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it\u2019s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have \u201can evil character,\u201d<\/span> am<\/span> \u201cactually evil,\u201d <\/span>\u201cego-maniac, narcissist,\u201d \u201cidolater,\u201d<\/span> \u201cself-idolater,\u201d \u201chack who pretends to be a professional apologist,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0given to <\/span>\u201cchicanery,\u201d<\/span> one who doesn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cdo any real research,\u201d \u201ca stalwart enemy of the faith . . .\u00a0 no better than [the atheists]<\/span> Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,\u201d<\/span> with an intent to<\/span> \u201cdestroy faith in God\u2019s word,\u201d \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d \u201cemotionally unhinged,\u201d<\/span> one who<\/span> \u201cdoesn\u2019t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,\u201d<\/span> \u201chas no peace of mind,\u201d \u201ca bipolar solipsist,\u201d \u201csplit-personality,\u201d<\/span> and a<\/span> \u201cbad\u201d<\/span> man. He wasn\u2019t one to mince words! See<\/span> more gory details<\/a>.<\/p>\n I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I\u2019ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist<\/a> in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That\u2019s what I\u2019m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It\u2019s a theological discussion. This is one of many<\/em> planned critiques of his book (see<\/span> my reasons why<\/a> I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the \u201cSteve Hays\u201d section of my<\/span> Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a>, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n [Chapter 9: Magisterium]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n How ecumenical are \u201cecumenical councils\u201d?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n So what\u2019s the basis for your confidence in the authority of Rome? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible; Church history; the non-contradictoriness and utter uniqueness of Catholic history and claims.<\/p>\n Is it just an act of blind faith? A leap into the dark? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n No. See my previous answer.<\/p>\n Is your faith in the Roman church independent of how you interpret the documentary evidence? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n Ultimately yes, because faith and reason distinct things; though harmonious.<\/p>\n Put another way, is your faith in Rome conditional or unconditional? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n I would say unconditional (based on the massive evidence already seen), short of a massive and compelling disproof. Paul rhetorically alluded to a hypothetical disproof of Christianity:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:16-20<\/strong> . . . if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. [17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. [20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There might conceivably be some similar compelling disproof of Catholicism, in which case I would seriously reconsider my allegiance (just as I was willing to move from evangelicalism to Catholicism, and before that, from virtual paganism and practical atheism to evangelicalism. It\u2019s the duty of both honesty and being open-minded. That said, I have not come within a billion miles of any such thing in my 32+ years as a Catholic.<\/p>\n You say your study \u201cincreases your confidence\u201d in Rome. [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s been my constant experience for 32 years. Every book and article I write increases my confidence; particularly when I observe how weak and insufficient the opposing argument are (like Steve\u2019s book!).<\/p>\n Does that mean you began by entrusting himself to the church of Rome apart from study? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n I certainly didn\u2019t. I devoted an entire year (1990) to intense comparative study of evangelicalism and Catholicism. Then I followed the path that I sincerely believed to be the fullness of Christian truth.<\/p>\n Do you think the authority of the Roman church provides a level of certainty lacking in your private judgment? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n Of course. That\u2019s where faith comes in, and God must provide the grace for that. Religion and spirituality and theology are not philosophy (though certain forms of the latter are harmonious with them). Hays, in his hyper-rationalism, often acted as if they were<\/em> equivalent, as if faith had little to do with it (quite odd for an adherent of \u201cfaith alone\u201d isn\u2019t it?). And this present line of socratic (but sophistical) reasoning is an example of his constant erroneous thinking and methodology. That\u2019s why I\u2019m replying to it, to expose its intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy.<\/p>\n But isn\u2019t your identification of Rome as the one true church based on your study? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n Initially yes, but not wholly. Reason is consulted and then the thinker determines whether the claims of the Catholic Church are consistent with it, and worthy to be adhered to with faith, led by God\u2019s grace (discernment, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, prayer, and so forth). All Christians must seek to harmonize and understand the relationship of faith and reason. But doing that doesn\u2019t wipe out faith. It\u2019s always central to the religious quest.<\/p>\n When you treat your personal study as uncertain, how can you then pretend that Rome affords certainty? [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not pretense; it\u2019s a rational faith based on reason, by the best determination we can make, using the lights that God gives us. One decides what is worthy to be an object of faith. It can\u2019t be contrary<\/em> to reason, because that would make it untrue before faith even comes into the picture. Catholics have faith enough to believe that God is able to preserve an infallible Church as well as an infallible Bible. Protestants (here\u2019s the sad thing) lack<\/em> that level of faith. They think, seemingly, that God is either unwilling<\/em> or unable<\/em> to provide the desperately needed certainty that a strong teaching Church provides; that God supposedly wants Christians to be flailing around in the dark and believing contradictory things, where one or both parties must<\/em> be wrong. He hasn\u2019t revealed Himself to be<\/em> that way, in His revelation, the Bible, which we all revere.<\/p>\n How can the conclusion be more certain than the source of the conclusion? . . . The conclusion can\u2019t rise higher than the process It can because it\u2019s faith<\/em>: a supernatural thing enabled by God\u2019s grace. Faith always involves a \u201cleap\u201d that goes beyond reason, just as Jesus told Doubting Thomas after He appeared, in His mercy, because of his weakness of faith: \u201cHave you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe\u201d (Jn 20:29). All of this can, of course, be turned around<\/em>. How is the Protestant<\/em> absolutely assured that he was justified and saved once and for all at one moment in time? It involves faith, of course; all the same questions could be asked right back. Even John Calvin conceded that such faith was, in the final analysis, subjective, and that one couldn\u2019t be absolutely<\/em> certain that they were among the elect, or whether anyone else<\/em> was<\/a>. Calvin wrote:<\/p>\n The election of God is hidden and secret in itself . . . men are being fantastic or fanatical if they look for their salvation or for the salvation of others in the labyrinth of predestination . . . (Commentary on John 6:40; in Francis Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought<\/i>, translated by Philip Mairet, New York: Harper & Row, 1963, 270)<\/p>\n [W]e are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect \u2013 that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . . (Institutes of the Christian Religion<\/i>, IV. 1. 3.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What are his criteria for distinguishing an ecumenical council from a local council or robber council? There are no unanimous criteria. [p. 497]<\/span><\/p>\n It has to have representatives from far and wide, it must be presided over by a pope or his legate(s), and it must be orthodox, in terms of what had always been passed down by the apostles in the deposit of faith. Hays mentions the \u201crobber council.\u201d This occurred in Ephesus in 449<\/a>, and attempted to establish the heresy of Monophysitism<\/a> (Christ has one nature) as orthodox. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike all reject Monophysitism as Christological heresy; so clearly this pseudo-council that promulgated it was neither ecumenical nor orthodox, by all subsequent mainstream theological standards. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about this infamous council:<\/p>\n I\u2019m not answerable to Catholic bishops. That\u2019s not the divine standard of judgment. I\u2019m answerable to God via biblical revelation. [p. 498]<\/span><\/p>\n That revelation takes for granted that there is such a thing as a bishop, and that he has authority. In fact, Protestants often make anti-Peter arguments about the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) by arguing that James, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. That\u2019s episcopal authority. If he did<\/em> preside (or if Peter<\/em> did) \u2014 either way \u2014 an authoritative, infallible decree, guided by the Holy Spirit (as the text says) was made, that bound Christians in Asia Minor, many hundreds of miles away, since we know that Paul declared the council\u2019s decision for observance (Acts 16:4).<\/p>\n So bishops are undeniably biblical. Paul casually mentions \u201cthe office of bishop\u201d (1 Tim 3:1; cf. 3:2; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:7). Now, of course, one may wish to argue that Catholic<\/em> bishops aren\u2019t legitimately so, but then there must be plausible alternatives<\/em> and solid arguments ruling out the Catholic bishops. Hays \u2014 the typical \u201clone ranger\u201d-type low church Protestant \u2013, had no bishop himself; and so he was plainly being unbiblical. That being the case, he had to play games and rationalize his unbiblical stance, by trying to wrongly pit the Bible against the episcopacy by saying \u201cI\u2019m answerable to God\u201d<\/span>: as if he was answerable to no man. But this is radically unbiblical and ahistorical as well. It\u2019s completely arbitrary and unworthy of theological allegiance, since it is unattached from biblical teaching.<\/p>\n When people can\u2019t win the argument through rational persuasion, they resort to intimidation tactics. [p. 499]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; I\u2019m well familiar with that from my personal experience with Hays himself (see what he said about me, trying to \u2014 unsuccessfully \u2013 shut me up and persuade everyone to think I was an unhinged and \u201cevil\u201d raving lunatic, in the introduction above). Then shortly after that, I was banned from his blog, Triablogue<\/em>, as I have been ever since (2010 or so). Does that suggest that Hays or his followers over there are confident that they can \u201cwin the argument through rational persuasion\u201d<\/span> with me<\/em>? But here I am, in my 25th critique of his book and many more to go. He almost certainly wouldn\u2019t have replied to me if he were alive (judging by his almost universal behavior), and his followers like Jason Engwer and James Swan won\u2019t do so now<\/em>. None of this is mentioned in their impenetrable \u201cbubble\u201d over there. If a good friend of mine had died, and someone of a different theological persuasion was offering 25+ critiques of his book, I would be right there defending him. I would even welcome<\/em> the opportunity.<\/p>\n Conversely, Protestants like me consider the input of many other Christians when we read commentaries, theologians, &c. [p. 499]<\/span><\/p>\n Right. Well, he wasn\u2019t considering Catholic<\/em> Christians, since he is on record regarding Catholicism as a \u201ccounterfeit religion\u201d and<\/span> \u201cparody of the Christian faith\u201d<\/span> (p. 19; cf. pp. 20; 188-189).<\/p>\n Quest for the pot of gold at the end of the Roman rainbow<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019d say Nicene Christology is actually lower than NT Christology. We could get into that, if you wish. [p. 502]<\/span><\/p>\n I would love<\/em> to! What a conversation that would be (development being my favorite theological topic)! This shows how radically ahistorical Hays was. He seems to have hardly ever met a consistent doctrinal development that he liked. But the man has passed on and it would have been exceedingly unlikely that he would ever have been willing to have such a discussion with me, anyway, since I was of an \u201cevil character,\u201d<\/span> etc., in his opinion. That sort of ruins dialogue from the outset.<\/p>\n How is that worse than one man (the pope) determining the canon of Scripture for everyone, if that one man is actually fallible? [p. 502]<\/span><\/p>\n Technically, it wasn\u2019t Pope Innocent I who did so on his own. He merely recognized the achieved consensus. It was two local councils that determined it: in Carthage and Hippo in the late 5th century, and they were dominated by St. Augustine\u2019s thinking. So, if anyone, Augustine<\/em> was the key figure; and Protestants love<\/em> him. Protestants, in effect, regard St. Jerome as de facto<\/em> infallible concerning the canon, since he disliked the deuterocanon; and they do the same with Athanasius, who first named all 27 NT books in AD 367. So we can be spared the bellyaching about Pope Innocent I, as if he came up with the canon down from heaven and out of the blue, like Mormon founder Joseph Smith and his silly plates, supposedly found on a New York hill.<\/p>\n 1 Tim 3:15 . . . doesn\u2019t say anything about the church\u2019s authority or prerogatives. You imported those categories into your prooftext. [p. 502]<\/span><\/p>\n Really? I already refuted Hays on that score: 1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility<\/a> [5-14-20].<\/p>\n But, of course, Paul didn\u2019t say anything about the pope or papacy or a episcopal council in 1 Tim 3:15. [p. 503]<\/span><\/p>\n There was no intrinsic necessity for him to do so (not everything can or should always be mentioned in any given passage of Scripture; DUH!), but if we\u2019re gonna play that<\/em> game, he also didn\u2019t say a word about Scripture<\/em>, either, in a passage in which he refers to something (guess what<\/em>?!) being \u201cthe pillar and bulwark of the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n Moreover, Paul doesn\u2019t say the church is the source of truth. And he doesn\u2019t say the church has the authority or prerogative to determine the truth. Rather, the church is tasked with the responsibility of upholding the truth. [p. 503]<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s right. But it doesn\u2019t get Hays off the hook. He didn\u2019t ponder the passages deeply enough. One can\u2019t uphold the truth with untruth. As I wrote in my book about sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a \u201cbulwark\u201d of the truth, means to be a \u201csafety net\u201d against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God\u2019s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus\u2019 parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err \u2014 it must be infallible. . . .<\/p>\n Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even\u00a0identified with Jesus himself<\/em>, by being called his \u201cBody\u201d (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error. . . .<\/p>\n Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be\u00a0greater<\/em>\u00a0than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.<\/p>\n If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.<\/p>\n Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the\u00a0foundation\u00a0<\/em>of truth, the Church\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0be\u00a0infallible<\/em>, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser\u00a0than that which is built upon it. And since\u00a0there is another infallible authorityapart from Scripture,\u00a0sola scriptura<\/em>\u00a0must be false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n By the way, the church fathers themselves were often members of the upper class. . . . So it\u2019s not surprising that they view ecclesiology in autocratic terms. [p. 504]<\/span><\/p>\n Was the Jerusalem council \u201cautocratic\u201d<\/span>? That was led by St. Peter, who was a fisherman; hardly an aristocratic background.<\/p>\n The people calling the shots in Acts 15 are apostles, plus a stepbrother of Jesus. [p. 505]<\/span><\/p>\n This is incorrect. It\u2019s stated six times that the council was comprised of \u201cthe apostles and the elders\u201d (15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4): which is yet another proof of apostolic succession, insofar as apostles and elders were working jointly and coming up with a decree that was agreed-to by the Holy Spirit. That strongly implies that elders \/ bishops were carry on as successors of the apostles after the era of the latter ended.<\/p>\n There wasn\u2019t such a thing as Roman Catholics who believed what Vatican II says about non-Christian religions in Nostra Aetate<\/em> until the mid-20C. [p. 505]<\/span><\/p>\n Really? Jesus (though not a Christian) said in the early 1st century about (as far as we know) a pagan Roman centurion: I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith\u201d (Lk 7:9). Fr. Alfredo M. Morselli wrote:<\/p>\n I call up here a distinction by St. Thomas [Aquinas]: a) \u201cUnbelief by way of pure negation\u201d (infidelitas secundum negationem puram<\/em>) in case a man may \u201cbe called an unbeliever merely because he has not the faith\u201d \u201cin those who have heard nothing about the faith\u201d; this Unbelief is not a sin -and b) \u201cUnbelief by way of opposition to the faith\u201d (infidelitas secundum contrarietatem ad fidem<\/em>) when \u201ca man refuses to hear the faith\u201d (S.Th II II, 10,1 c); this Unbelief is a sin.<\/p>\n The fact that \u201cunbelief by way of pure negation\u201d is not a sin, is not only a Thomist concept, but it\u2019s also a verity of faith: St. Pius V [r. 1566-1572] condemned the proposition \u201cInfidelitas pure negativa in his quibus Christus non est predicatus peccatum est<\/em>\u201d (D +1068) (= Purely negative unbelief, in those whom Christ was not preached to, is a sin). . . .<\/p>\n In fact St. Thomas teaches that \u201cNobody would believe if he doesn\u2019t see he must believe\u201d (non enim crederet nisi videret ea esse credenda<\/em> \u2013 S.Th., II II, q. 1, a. 4 ad 2). Only God knows the degree of innocence or culpability in the heart of unbelievers. . . .<\/p>\n According to St. Thomas, the exercise of religion by an unbeliever may be a sort of\u00a0natural preparation<\/i> to receive grace: In IV Sent., II, d. 28 q. 1, a. 4 ad 4:<\/p>\n It\u2019s possible, by natural reason, getting ready to have faith\u2026 If anyone, among pagan people, does as much he can (quod in se est faciat<\/em>), God will reveal to him what is necessary for salvation, or by an inspiration that he will give him or by a savant whom He will send to him. (Ecumenical Gatherings at Assisi: A Defense<\/a>; see much more related material in this article)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Moral of the story: when Steve Hays lectures about what Catholics through the centuries have believed or supposedly would not<\/em> believe, don\u2019t listen to him. He nearly always hadn\u2019t prepared or researched the topic enough to be credible as any sort of self-proclaimed \u201cexpert.\u201d<\/p>\n There wasn\u2019t such a thing as Roman Catholic theistic evolutionists until Darwin. [p. 505]<\/span><\/p>\n Technically incorrect. There were thinkers who believed in some sort of biological process of creation<\/em>, directed by God (as opposed to instant special creation all at once). One was St. Augustine, as John F. McCarthy noted:<\/p>\n This theory of primordial packages of forms later to emerge (often referred to by commentators as \u201cseminal reasons\u201d) is certainly developmental, but\u00a0does not correspond with Darwinian evolution. Essential to Augustine\u2019s theory is the idea that the order later to emerge was instilled by God in the beginning. Augustine also requires subsequent interventions by God to \u201cplant\u201d the forms whose \u201cnumbers\u201d had already been instilled. Thus, as St. Thomas [Aquinas] points out, the ability of the earth to produce living forms was visualized by Augustine as a passive potency which disposed the matter to receive the forms but did not create the forms themselves. Augustine\u2019s theory of primordial packages deserves more ample meditation and analysis in another place, especially with reference to theories of the development of living things, . . . Genesis 1:6-8 witnesses in several ways to the creative action of God. As the divine Fashioner of the universe, God guided the energies that He had invested in the primal matter by his creative intervention on the first day to bring the cosmos to its structured state. This is the unfolding of the active potency contained in St. Augustine\u2019s \u201cprimordial packages.\u201d But there is also implied in these verses an upward progress in the order of inorganic being which seems to have required additional creative divine interventions. (A Neo-Patristic Return to the First Four Days of Creation, Part IV<\/span><\/a>; see also Parts\u00a0One<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0Two<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0Three<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0Five<\/span><\/a>, and\u00a0Six<\/span><\/a>; see also, \u201dHow Augustine Reined in Science,\u201d<\/span><\/a> Kenneth J. Howell [This Rock<\/em>, March 1998]; Davis A. Young, \u201dThe Contemporary Relevance of Augustine\u2019s View of Creation,\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and Andrew J. Brown,\u00a0\u201dThe Relevance of Augustine\u2019s View of Creation Re-Evaluated\u201d<\/span><\/a> [PDF] )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n St. Thomas Aquinas also held to some extent to natural biological creative process guided by God in the 13th century, in a way remarkably similar to evolution:<\/p>\n In the first creation of things, however, the active principle was the Word of God, producing animals from elemental matter, either in act, according to some Fathers [e.g., Basil and Ambrose], or in potency (virtute<\/i>) according to St. Augustine. Not that water or earth has in itself the power of producing all the animals, as Avicenna proposed, but the fact that animals can be produced from elemental matter by the power of seed or of the stars comes from the power originally given to the elements. (S. Th.<\/i>, I, q. 71, art. 1, ad 1.; see secondary source<\/a>), and Part V<\/a> and Part VI<\/a> of McCarthy\u2019s series, cited above, for more on St. Thomas Aquinas\u2019 views)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Needless to say, we wouldn\u2019t expect Hays, who was a young earth creationist, who believed that the earth was 6-10,000 years old (as I documented in my first reply), to have known this, nor to even care to do any research on it at all. And so \u2014 in his ignorance and bias \u2014 he once again lied about whether Catholics believed anything approximating biological evolution before Darwin.<\/p>\n There wasn\u2019t such a thing as Catholics who redefined tradition as development until Newman. [p. 505]<\/span><\/p>\n Absolute horse manure! It\u2019s not \u201credefining\u201d tradition in the first place. It\u2019s an interpretation of how tradition consistently proceeds through time. St. Augustine and especially St. Vincent Lerins were writing about it in the fifth century. St. Vincent was quite explicit in his Commonitorium<\/em>, which was Newman\u2019s starting-point when he was thinking through his theory of development.<\/p>\n Not only that, Hays is also ignorant regarding the immediate historical precursors of Newman, such as\u00a0Johann Adam M\u00f6hler<\/a> (1796-1838), the German priest and Church historian, who was writing vigorously and influentially about development of doctrine in his work, The Unity in the Church, or the Principle of Catholicism, Presented in the Spirit of the Church Fathers of the First Three Centuries<\/em><\/a>, published in 1825, twenty years before Newman\u2019s famous Essay<\/em>. Entire books<\/a> have been written about his<\/em> theory of development.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\nof reasoning that underwrites the conclusion. [p. 496]<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe Council seems to have been unanimous, with the exception of the Pope\u2019s legates, in the restoration of Eutyches; a more complete decision can hardly be imagined. . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n[W]hen we look through the names subscribed to the Synodal decision, we find that the misbelief, or misapprehension, or weakness, to which this great offence must be attributed, was no local phenomenon, but the unanimous sin of Bishops in every patriarchate and of every school of the East. Three out of the four patriarchs were in favour of the heresiarch, the fourth being on his trial. Of these Domnus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem acquitted him, on the ground of his confessing the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus . . . Dioscorus . . . was on this occasion supported by those Churches which had so nobly stood by their patriarch Athanasius in the great Arian conflict. These three Patriarchs were supported by the Exarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea in Cappadocia; and both of these as well as Domnus and Juvenal, were supported in turn by their subordinate Metropolitans. Even the Sees under the influence of Constantinople, which was the remaining sixth division of the East, took part with Eutyches . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n