Roman Catholic opposition to papal infallibility

Front matter

rhe oe rs J i

4 ire

= rarer an

Preface

THE following pages have been written to show the difficulties experienced by Roman Catholics in assenting to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. No attempt is here made to write a complete account of the Vatican Council. Indeed, many subjects discussed in that Assembly are entirely omitted. Our interest is - with one doctrine alone. What is attempted is, simply to sketch the inner history of Roman opposition to the dogma in different countries and several centuries, until and after the memorable Decree of 18th July 1870. We are simply concerned to show the process by which a very considerable section of Bishops, priests, and laity in the Roman Church were constrained to pass from one belief to its opposite,

The literature of the subject is, of course, immense. A considerable part of the details here recorded have never appeared in English before. They lie buried in enormous German treatises, or in the vast official Acta of the Council; or in the documentary collections of Cecconi, Von Schulte, Friedrich, Friedberg, and many others; or in scattered pamphlets and periodicals to which access is now by no means easily obtained.

The materials for a history of the opposition to the doctrine have of recent years largely increased. All

Vv

Vi PREFACE the principal actors in the Vatican disputes have, by this time, passed away ; and a large series of biographies have placed at our disposal private letters never published while they lived.

But it will be obvious that an Ultramontane biographer of a Bishop who vehemently opposed the doctrine may be gravely perplexed between the conflicting claims of history and of edification. His loyalty to truth, his reverence for the personage of whom he writes, his regard for living authority, with its tremendous powers to revise, cancel, or condemn, his proper disinclination to scandalise the faithful by rigorous records of episcopal unbelief, or to reveal the family disunions before an incredulous world—are elements which, when they coexist, may, even in the sincerest mind possibly blend together in very various proportions. At any rate the biographies of certain great French Bishops of the Vatican struggle manifest marked reluctance and hesitation in recording fully the facts. And even when the facts have been fairly fully recorded, the English translator has—for whatever reasons—condensed them, we had almost said mutilated them, beyond recognition.

The recently published selection of Lord Acton’s letters has increased our knowledge of his attitude toward the Infallibility Decree ; but the entire omission of correspondence during ten most critical years of the struggle suggests, what other considerations endorse, that there is yet considerably more remaining unrevealed.

Still, with whatever drawbacks, the resources at a writer’s disposal to-day are vastly greater than they were some years ago.

PREFACE vil

Accordingly the following pages are written under a strong sense that the material is ample, that the history of the minority has never yet for English people been fully told, and with a desire to supply the omission.

It should be added that the adverse criticisms herein repeated are almost entirely derived from Roman Catholic sources, and are, as far as possible, given in the actual words. Protestant criticism has been - systematically excluded. The object being simply to describe how the doctrine of Pontifical Infallibility appeared ; what difficulties, intellectual, historic, and moral, it created; what fierce and desperate strife its increasing ascendency awakened ; how, and with what results, moral and intellectual, it was finally regarded, not by the outer world, nor by other religious communions, but by clergy and laity within the limits of the Roman Catholic Church.

Since these pages have passed through the press, Turmel’s Azstocre du Dogme de la Papauté has been placed upon the Roman Index of prohibited books (5th July 1909). It is therefore among that lengthy list of modern writings which no member of the Roman Obedience may “dare to read or retain.” The interests of edification are conceived by Authority as incompatible with those of historical research. Such procedure deprives the historian of that freedom to report results without which history cannot be written.

The author desires to express his deep indebtedness to the kindness of the Reverend Darwell Stone, Librarian of the Pusey House, who has read through the proof sheets of this book. He is of course in no

Vili PREFACE way responsible for its contents; but it has been the greatest privilege to have the encouragement and aid of so critical and learned an adviser.

NoTEe.—The number of Bishops who, though resident in Rome, absented themselves from the Vatican Council on the day of the Decree is variously given on page 268 as QI, on page 271 as 70, and on page 281 as more than 80. It will be noticed that these variations are due to the authors quoted; the first being that given by Quirinus; the second by the letter of the Opposition to the Pope; the third by Dr Newman.

THE following list of books has been compiled, partly to show the editions to which references have been made, and partly as a help to study. It is, of course, needless to say that such a list has no pretensions whatever to completeness.

AcTA. Conctl. Vaticant. Collectio Lacensis. T.vii. 1892. ACTON. Aiistory of Freedom.

= Sendschreitben an einem Deutschen Bischof. 1870. Auzoc. History of the Church.

ANONYMOUS. Pourquoi le Clergé Francais est Ultramoniane.

ARGENTRE, D’. Elementa Theologica. Paris. 1702. AUGUSTINE. Works. Gaume’s Edition.

BARRAL. Defense des Libertés de PE glise Gallicane. 1817. BAUNARD. Aiist. de Card. Pie. 2vols. Paris. 1886. BAUSSET, Card. A/istoirve de Bossuet. 4 vols.

BELLARMINE. De Controversits. Works. 11 vols. Paris. 1874. BERGIER. Dict. de Theologie. 12 vols. Paris. 1876. BERRINGTON & KIRK. Faith of Catholics. 1830.

BILLUART. De Ecclesia.

BONNECHOSE. fist. C. Constance.

BOssuET. Works. Ed. F. Lachat. 30 vols. Paris. 1864. BoTALLa. Jnfallible Authority of the Pope.

BOURGEOIS ET CLERMONT. ome et Napoleon. 3 vols. 1907. Bryce. Biographical Studies.

BUTLER. Altstorical Memorials of the English Catholics.

IX

8 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Cambridge Modern History—French Revolution.

CARSON. Reunion Essays. 1903.

CECCONI. Aistotre du Conctle du Vatican. French transl. 4 vols. 1887.

CHAUVIN. Le Pére Gratry. 1901.

CHOUPIN L. Valeur des Decisions Doctrinale. 1908.

CHRISMANN. Regula Fidei Catholice. 1854.

CHRISTOPHE. A7stoire de la Papaute, pendant le XIV. Siecle.

CLIFFORD, Lord. Letters to the Earl of Winchelsea.

Cops, G. F. Few Words on Reunion. 1869.

CONSALVI, Card. Memoztres. 2 vols. Cretineau-Joly. 1864.

Correspondant. ioth Feb. 1906. Articles by Thureau Dangin.

CYPRIAN. Ed. Hartel. 3 vols.

DecHamps. L’lnfallibilité et le Concile Général. 1869. DENZINGER. Eachiridion. 1854.

DOLLINGER & ReEuSCH. Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin. aN . Declarations and Letters.

DUCHESNE. Beginnings of the Temporal Power of the Pope. 1908, DUPANLOUP. Odservations. 1869. a . Lettre sur le futur Concile Ecuménique addressée par Mer. LEvéque a’ Orléans au clergé de son Diocese. 1868. 5 . SeeChapon. Mgr. Dupanloup etla Liberté. 1889, and Revue du Clergé Francais. ist May 1909, P. 375.

FESSLER. True and False Infallibility. 1871. FLEURY. Sistoire Ecclestastique. Avignon. 1777. FOISSET. C. de Montalembert.

FOLLENAY. Vie de C. Guibert. 2 vols. FouLon. Darboy. 1889.

FRANZELIN. De Traditione.

FRIEDBERG. Aktensticke. 1876.

FRIEDRICH. Documenta ad illustrandum Cone. Vat. 2 vols.

GALLITZIN. Defence of Catholic Principles. GARNIER. Liber Diurnus.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES 4

GASQUET. Lord Acton and his Circle. GERSON. De Auferibilitate Pape ab Ecclesia.

» += Life by Schwab. 1859.

GHILARDI. TZorquemada De Plenitudine Potestatis R. P. 1870. GLADSTONE. Vaticanism.

GOSSELIN. Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages.

Transl. by Kelly of Maynooth. 2 vols. 1853.

Goyau. L’Allemayne religieuse. 5 vols. 1905. GRANDERATH. Vatican Council. 3 vols. GRATRY. Ledééers.

GREGOROVIUS. Roman Journals.

GRISAR. Lainez-Disputationes Tridentince. 2 vols. 1886. GUERANGER. De la Monarchie Pontificate. 1870. GUETTEE. Histoire de ?Eglise de France. 12vols. 1856. GUILLERMIN. Vie de Mgr. Darboy. 1888.

HALIFAX, Lord. In WWineteenth Century. May Igo. HASENCLEVER. Das neue Dogma von der Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes. 1872.

HEFELE. Conciliengeschichie. First Edition. 1855. Second Edition.

French translation. 12 vols. Goschler and Delare. 1859.

English translation. § vols. from 2nd edition. 1872. (By Clark & Oxenham.) Flonorius und das sechste Allgemeine Concil. 1870. HEFELLE’S letters will be found in Schulte. Altkatholicismus and Revue internationale de Theologie (pp. 485-506). 1908. HOHENLOHE. Memoirs. 2 vols.

HURTER. Compendium Theologie Dogmatice. 3 vols. 5th edition. 1885.

HUSENBETH. Life of Miiner. 1862.

IREN#US. Ed. Harvey. 2 vols. 1857.

JANUS. The Pope and the Council. Rivingtons. 1869. JEROME. Ad Rufinium. De Script Eccles. JERVIS. ist. Ch. France. 2vols. 1872.

a The Gallican Church and the Revolution. 1882. JOURDAIN. fist. Univ. Paris.

KEENAN. Controversial Catechism. 17th thousand. 1860.

xl LIST OF AUTHORITIES

KRAUTHEIMER. Catechism of the Catholic Religion. 1845.

LAGRANGE. List. de Dupanloup. 3 vols. LAMENNAIS. CGuvres Completes. 14 vols. Paris. 1836. 4s Correspondance. Ed. Forgues. 2 vols. 1863.

LANGEN. Das Vat. Dogma. 5 vols. 1870, etc.

LAYMAN (Rom. Cath.). Reasons why a Roman Catholic cannot accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Counctl. 1876.

LETO (POMPANIO). ight Months at Rome. 1876.

LIDDON. Life of Pusey. 4 vols.

LIEBERMANN. Jnstitutiones Theologice. 5 vols. 1831.

LUZERNE, DE, Card. Works. Migne. 6 vols.

MAISTRE, J. DE. CGuvres. 8 vols. Bruxelles. 1845. MANNING. Pastoral. 1867. re Petri Privilegium.

MARET. Du Concile Général. 2vols. 1870. MARIN. Del’ Infallibilité Doctrinale. 1870. MARTIN, CONRAD. Dogmatzh.

MELCHIOR, CANO. Ofera. 3 vols. Rome. 1890. MICHELIS. Der hiretische Charakter des Infallibilitatslehre. 1872.

MILNER. xd of Religious Controversy. Ed.2. 1819. MOZLEY. L£ssay on Development.

MURRAY. Tvactatus de Ecclesia Christ. 3 volsin six parts. 1862.

NEWMAN. Letter to Bishop Ullathorne—Standard Newspaper. 7th April 1870. 6 Letter to Duke of Norfolk.

OLLIVIER (EMILE). L’£glise et L’Etat. 2 vols. OrsI. De irreformabili Romani Pontificis in definiendis Fidei controversits judicto. 3vols. Rome. 1739.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES Xili

PALLAVICINI. rst. C. Trent.

Pastor. History of the Popes. English translation. 1891. PERRAUD, A. Le P. Gratry ses Derniers Jours. 1872. PERRON, DU, Card. Les Ambassades et Negotiations. Paris. 1623. PERRONE. De Traditione.

PHILLIPPS, AMBROSE DE LISLE. Union Review. 1866. Pius 1X. Brief to Archbishop of Munich. See ACTA, Conc. Vat. PULLER. Primitive Saints and Roman Church. PURCELL. Lzfe of Manning.

Me Life of Ambrose de Lisle Phillipps. 2 vols. 1900.

QUIRINUS. Letters from Rome on the Council. 1870.

REINKENS. Ueber die Einheit der katholischen Kirche. 1877. Kniefall und Fall des Bischop Ketteler. 1877. REUSCH. Letters in Schulte Altkatholicismus. REVIEW. Dudlin. 1869. 9 Hlome and Foreign. 1863. $5 Rambler. 1862.

Revue des Deux Mondes, 1858.

RICHERIUS. Vindicie Doctrine Majorum. 1683. ROSIERE. Liber Diurnus. 1869.

Rupis. Petra Romana. 1869.

Rump. Die Unfehlbarkett des P. 1870. RYDER. Jdealism in Theology. 1867.

SALMON. Jnfallibility.

SCHULTE. Der Altkatholicismus. 1887.

SCHWANE. Aitstotre du Dogme. 6 vols. References to the French translation of the Dogmengeschichie.

SICARD. L’ Ancien Clergé de France. 3 vols.

Tablet, the. 1869.

THEINER. Acts of the Council of Trent.

THUREAU DANGIN. La Renaissance Catholique en Angleterre an xix Siécle. 3 vols. 1906.

TURMEL. fist. Théol. Positive. 1906.

3 Histoire du Dogme dela Papauté. Paris. 1908. ULLATHORNE (Bp.). Letter on the Rambler. 1862. ” Autobiography. 2 vols. ” Expostulation.

Dollingerites.

33 L Univers, 1869, xiv LIST OF AUTHORITIES

VERON, FRANCIS. Regula Fide’. Ed. Sebastian Brunner. 1857. VEUILLOT L. Rome pendant le Concile. VINCENT of Lerins. Commonitorium.

WARD (BERNARD). Dawnof the Catholic Revival. 2vols. 1909. » (W.). Life of Wiseman. 2 vols. 1900. » (W.G.). Essays on the Church's Doctrinal Authority. WATERWORTH. Council of Trent. 1848. WORDSWORTH, CH. Miscellanies. 3 vols. 1879.

Contents

THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE

. THE AGE OF THE FATHERS

THE CASE OF HONORTIUS

Chapter I The Evidence Of Scripture

THOSE who do not identify history with heresy will always desire to know how a Christian affirmation of the present compares with the past. Whatever validity faith may attach to the teaching of the Church of to-day, there must be reasons and reasons which demand and justify an enquiry into the doctrine of other ages. If serious discrepancies would cause perplexity, unforeseen harmonies would confirm. In any case the refusal to examine is not the product of a genuine faith. For, after all, history is, if on one side human, on another divine. Moreover, the actual development of human thought must be of profoundest living interest. This enquiry, then, must be undertaken in reference to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. For it is, in a large portion of modern Christian life, an existing affirmation. The question is, What relation does the doctrine bear to the facts of History? And obviously, first of all, what does Scripture say?

The Ultramontane, so far as he founds the doctrine on Scripture language, finds it chiefly in the words of

I A

2 THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE [cuap.

our Lord to St Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”! Now seeing that this dogma of Papal Infallibility would be, if true, no less than fundamental, it is necessary to dwell at length on the asserted scriptural witness to the same. For those who believe that fundamental Christian truth must be traceable to the records of Revelation must test each doctrine by what is told them there. And we are here concerned with the express words of Christ. And the issues which depend on a right understanding of the Redeemer’s words are, as all Christians will acknowledge, momentous.

The Roman interpretation of this passage maintains the following points ;—

1. That Christ here confers on Peter an exclusive prerogative, on the ground of Peter’s superior position ;

2. That this prerogative is infallible insight ;

3. That thereby he was enabled to give infallible instructions to his brethren ;

4. That this prerogative extends to all Peter’s successors and to none but those—the prerogative being as exclusive in its range as it was in its origin.

There is, however, another interpretation which has been in substance and in many details accepted by members of the Roman Church, and which is unable to find any of these doctrines in the words of Christ.

There are clearly four points to be considered : Christ's.-Prayer ;Peter's ‘Taith; Peter's’/Brethren; Peter’s Successors.

i. First, then, Christs Prayer: I have prayed for thee.

I, Certainly it was an excluscve prayer. Satan hath desired to have you, collectively; but I have prayed

1 Luke xxii. 32.

1] PRAYER FOR PETER CONDITIONAL 3 for thee, Peter, individually. Christ here prays for the one: for the others, on this occasion, He does not pray.

Does not this imply, asks the Ultramontane, the superiority of the individual thus selected and distinguished? Does not Christ here place the security of the many in the security of the one? If the leader and chief is protected, those who follow him and obey him will be secure. This exposition labours under the double defect of assuming a theory of Peter’s supremacy and of ignoring the historical circumstances which prompted Christ’s words. That the prayer was exclusive is true. But exclusive petition does not necessarily imply the greater superiority of the person prayed for; it may equally well imply his greater need. Remembering that Peter alone was on the verge of a triple denial, no wonder he became the object of an exclusive prayer. If his confident self-reliance, together with his impulsive temperament, laid him open to perils from which the Twelve were exempt, what else could his Master do than offer special intercession for him? To build a theory of permanent prerogative as universal teacher on the fact of Christ’s exclusive petition is therefore to forget that the historic circumstances, which elicited our Lord’s concern, suggest a totally different explanation.

2. Moreover, while we are reminded that Christ’s prayer was exclusive, we should also be reminded that it was condztzonal.

It seems at first sight a natural outcome of Christian piety to assume that whatever Christ prayed for was certain to come to pass. Is it not written, “I know that thou hearest me always”? But the effectiveness of Christ’s prayers must take into account our human independence. To say that the prayer of Christ must necessarily realise its design, is really to reduce mankind

4 THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE [cuap.

to a mechanism upon which the Spirit plays. But this is false to Christian teaching and human experience. The prayers of Christ are invariably conditional upon the human response. They demand human co-operation. The prayer for Peter unquestionably implies that the resources needed to discharge his function would be placed at his disposal, provided that he yielded his will to the offered grace. But that Peter would invariably fulfil the essential conditions, Christ’s petition does not affirm and cannot even suggest. It cannot mean unconditional security, exemption from the liabilities of human weakness and imperfection, apart from all considerations of personal effort and moral state.

ii. Zhe second object for our analysts 1s Peters Faith— and here two points arise :— What ts meant by “ faith” and what ts meant by “ fail.”

1, Now when our Lord says “faith,” the meaning is in general not difficult to ascertain. The faith which, if present, could remove mountains, or, if absent, hinders His merciful works, is plainly not so much an intellectual assent to a number of propositions, as a moral relation to a Person ; a devotion to Himself, demanding qualities, not only of the intellect, but also of the affections and of the will. It is a quality inseparable from love. It may exist in many varying degrees.

2. What, then, is meant by “fail”? The Greek term here translated “fail” sometimes describes an eclipse, which to the primitive imagination suggested death, much as we talk of the dying day. “Thou art the same and thy years shall not fail,’* means shall not cease, or come to an end.

3. Accordingly, by “a faith which should not fail,”

1.] PETER’S INWARD FAITH 5 our Lord described a personal devotion to Himself, which should never cease to exist. But we must carefully distinguish between the inward quality of faith and its outward expressions. St Peter, in the subsequent denial, failed ; not in his inward belief, but its outward expression. The failure was not in his thoughts but in his words. As a fact, his outward expressions of faith were not protected from error. He said exactly what his intellect contradicted, what he knew was false. The natural inference is that the prayer of Christ was concerned with Peter’s inward spiritual state, not with the outward phrases. A very able Roman writer saw this plainly enough. Consequently, he says, Christ demanded here for Peter zwo privileges—not merely one: first, that he should never lose his faith; secondly, that as Pope he should never teach anything contrary to the faith. That is what the Ultramontane position would require. But that is exactly what did not happen at the denial. The prayer of Christ did not secure St Peter from false expressions. Nor did it secure Peter’s personal devotion from a temporary eclipse. But even if Peter’s dogmatic insight remained unclouded, that would help his brethren comparatively little if his official utterances could be mistaken. And it was expressly in his utterances that he did fail.

iii. Zhe third theme for analysis ts the Strengthening his Brethren.

1. Now to strengthen is to give support. It is employed several times by St Paul. As when he says: “T long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established.”1 He says he sent Timothy “to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith.”2 He speaks of “stablishing your hearts unblameable in holiness” ;# prays that

1 Rom. i. 11, oy BESS, lit, 2, 3 1 Thess. iii. 13.

6 THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE [cuap.

God will “comfort your hearts and stablish you in every good word and work”;! and says “the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.”2 So St Peter desires that God would “stablish, strengthen, settle”? the Christian; and says that Christians are “established in the present truth.” 4 The Revelation of St John again says: “Be watchful and strengthen the things which remain, which are ready to die.”

This scriptural use of the term “strengthen,” or . “stablish,” shows conclusively that any kind of moral _ support may be intended. The strengthening may be _ that which Divine Grace supplies ; or that which comes from the knowledge of the Truth; or that which comes from the encouragement of Christian ministers. But in no solitary instance is there any suggestion of infallibility as essential to enable one to be a strengthener. Thus, “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” would naturally mean, When thou hast by repentance recovered from thine own moral infirmity, do thou become a moral support to the impulsive and the weak. It is a merciful promise to St Peter before his sin, of restoration to Apostleship after the sin had been committed. It suggests that even through the denial he may gain a humility and self-knowledge which may enlarge his sympathies and increase his strength. It is all in the moral rather than in the purely intellectual sphere.

2. But further: The utterance, “strengthen thy brethren,” is a command and not a promise. We cannot infer, from a duty enjoined, its invariable fulfilment. Otherwise, we are all perfect: For this command is laid upon us all. Moreover, whatever Peter

1 2 Thess. ii. 17. 3 2 Thess. iii. 3. 3 1 Peter v. 10. 4 3 Peter 1. 12. PUADOC, Ike ae

1] CHRIST’S PRAYER PURELY PERSONAL 7 may have done, what is certain is that at Antioch he did not strengthen his brethren. All human analogy would suggest a more or less imperfect human endeavour to fulfil a divinely appointed ideal.

iv. Lhe fourth and last point for consideration zs Peter's Successors.

1. Now, first, our Lord does not mentionthem. They are not mentioned even by implication. There is no necessary implication, unless we assume, @ przorz, as some Roman writers do, that such a prerogative could not be restricted to a single generation, nor to the Apostolic Age;! and therefore that the function of Peter in strengthening his brethren must be continued to his successors to the end of time. But by no process of interpretation can this be derived from the words of Christ. It can be read into them: it cannot be read out of them. Whether false or true, it is certainly not what our Lord has said.

Moreover, since the prerogative here conferred on Peter was the prerogative of sympathy learnt by the humiliations of failure, not the gift of Infallibility, its perpetuation among his successors could not confer upon them what it did not confer on him. If our exposition of this prayer of Christ be correct, the extension of the prerogative over a series of successors would be doubtless morally valuable but of no dogmatic use.

2. Moreover, if the words, “strengthen thy brethren,” apply to Peter’s successors, so do the words “ when thou art converted.” Bellarmine himself saw this, and was disturbed by it. He suggested that “ converted ” must not be understood as moral renovation and repentance, but as an adverb equivalent to, “in turn,” as if the passage

1 So Vat. C., cf. Anabenbauer in Luc,

8 THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE [cuar.i.

ran—I have strengthened thee, do thou in thy turn strengthen thy brethren. Or else it might mean—so it was suggested—Having turned your attention to them, exercise your Infallibility. But even if the sentence, “when thou art converted,” bore no allusion to Peter’s denial, still no possible exegesis can justly elicit the Infallibility of his successors out of the injunction “strengthen thy brethren.” Peter’s successors would be thereby ordered to bestow moral support upon their weaker brethren. But whether they would obey this command and fulfil it with more invariable exactitude than he to whom it was spoken, is a question of historical investigation and not of 4 priori theory.

The preceding exposition has been very largely derived from Roman Catholic sources; from the writings of Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, opposing, in behalf of the Church of France, the Ultramontanism of the seventeenth century; of Barral, Archbishop of Tours, in the early nineteenth century; of Bishop Maret, and of Gratry, just before the Vatican Council of 1870; of Ddollinger, prior to the rupture with Rome ; of Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis, in the speech which he intended to deliver in the Vatican Council, in exercise of his divine right as a Bishop, but whose delivery was prevented by the closure of the discussion.

CHAPTER TT THE AGE OF THE FATHERS

ROMAN writers have differed greatly in their view of the Patristic evidence for Papal Infallibility. Some have found very little definite statement in the Fathers, upon which they thought it wise, at any rate in controversy, to rely.

Cardinal Bellarmine+ makes but scanty appeal for this doctrine to the Age of the Fathers. He contents himself with asserting first that the Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch have been presided over by heretics, whereas Rome has been exempt from this calamity ;? and secondly, he observes that Popes have passed judgment on heresies apart from any Council, and that their decisions have been accepted. This asserted exemption of the Roman Church from heresy he claims as identical with impossibility of heresy ; and this acceptance of decisions as an acknowledgment of Infallibility. Bellarmine’s meagre use of the Patristic period to prove the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is strikingly contrasted with his ample use of the same to prove the primacy or the authority of the Roman See. And this difference of appeal in the two cases means a capacity to distinguish between authority and Infallibility.

Other writers have seen Infallibility implied in every

1 See Controv. 2 Cf, Turmel, Azst. Theol. Posttive, p. 303. 9 recognition of authority or primacy ; in every judicial sentence of the Roman See.

A third section of Roman theologians has been definitely unable to discover the doctrine anywhere in the Patristic period. Among the more critical and historically-minded of recent Roman writers there is a belief in the doctrine, independent of any evidence for it in the Age of the Fathers; indeed often coupled with an acknowledgment that the period does not yield to their scrutiny instances either of its recognition as a principle, or of its exercise as a fact. Advancing to the Patristic times with the definition of Infallibility as given in the Vatican Decree, they affirm that one essential condition of its exercise is deliberate intention to instruct the Universal Church. All instruction not given with that express intention is entirely outside the range of Infallibility. Evidently the great mass of judicial decisions, appeals to Rome, recognitions of its authority, praises of its impartiality and rectitude, assertions of the danger of disobedience to its words, have nothing to do with the doctrine of Infallibility; and are acknowledged by this school of Roman writers to be no proof of the doctrine’s existence. This recent Roman attitude involves an entirely different estimate of Patristic evidence from that formerly prevalent among the Ultramontanes. It brings the Ultramontane curiously round to agreement with the opposite school as to the actual contents of the Patristic period. There is far less readiness to-day than formerly to assume that inferences which appear to a modern Ultramontane necessarily obviously involved in a statement or a claim, were really actually seen and understood and accepted among the primitive writers by whom the statement or claim was made. This is a sign of a more historic spirit, and therefore exceedingly hopeful.

11.] ST IRENAEUS 11

Of course the doctrine’s recognition as a theory is separable from its exercise as a fact. Many Roman Catholic writers have not only maintained that during the Age of the Fathers no case occurs of its exercise ; but that the principles advocated demonstrate that it was not even recognised as a theory, since by those very principles it is actually excluded. Roman opponents of the doctrine have also pointed out that no profession of belief in the infallibility of the Church can be adduced to prove belief in the infallibility of the Pope for the simple reason that many Roman theologians who believed the former have rejected the latter.

All that can be done in a limited space is to select the chief examples of the Patristic teaching; and then to show how the Ultramontanes and their opponents employed them.

1. A crucial instance is the famous language of St Irenzeus :—

“It is within the power of all, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the world in every Church; and we are able to enumerate those whom the Apostles appointed to be Bishops in the churches, and their successors, quite down to our time, who neither taught nor knew anything like what these [heretics] rave about. Yet surely if the Apostles had known any hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of teaching to the perfect apart and _ privily from the rest, they would have taken special care to deliver them to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. . . . But because it would be too long in such a volume as this, to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of the very great and very ancient and universally known Church which was founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul ;—we point, I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to man, which comes down to our time through the succession of her Bishops. .. . For to this Church, on account of its more influential pre-eminence, it is necessary that every church should resort—that is to say, the faithful who are from all quarters ; and in this Church the tradition, which comes from the Apostles, has ever been preserved by those who are from all quarters,” }