and on the temporal power-a very large number of the bishops desired that the subject of the infallibility of the head of the Church should be added to complete the doctrine, which would otherwise remain in an unfinished state. We have already seen that the Commission of Direction, when it came to this point in preparing the schemata, suspended its work, and left the subject incomplete. The work, therefore, was to be begun over again, for no complete preparation existed.

The legitimate or constitutional course open to the bishops who desired that the doctrine of the infallibility should be introduced, was to present a petition to the Commission of Postulates or Propositions, asking that a chapter on the subject of infallibility should be added to the schema. It was necessary, therefore, to frame such a petition and to obtain the signatures of any members of the Council who desired the addition to be made.

While these things were being done, the bishops who thought the discussion of the infallibility would be, as they said, inopportune, were not inactive. About a hundred bishops signed a petition asking that the subject of the infallibility should not be laid before the Council.

And here it is a duty of justice to those who signed either of these two petitions that we should review the reasons for which some thought it inopportune that any such definition should be made, and others that it was not only opportune, but necessary.

8. A grave injustice has been done to the bishops who opposed the definition. The world outside the Church, not believing in infallibility, claimed them as its own. They were treated as if they denied the truth of the doctrine itself. Their opposition was not to the doctrine, but to the defining of it, and not even absolutely to the defining of it, but to the defining of it at this time. The chief and foremost of those who opposed the defining it in the Vatican Council had signed the Address of the Centenary, in which, as we have seen, were contained the acclamations of Chalcedon and of Constantinople. They were united in declaring that Peter spoke by Pius. How, then, could anyone so far wrong them as to say that they opposed the definition because they denied the doctrine to be true? They who were in the Council may be permitted to bear witness to what they heard and knew. Not five bishops in the Council could be justly thought to have opposed the truth of the doctrine. This is the testimony of one who heard the whole discussion, and never heard an explicit denial of its truth. Arguments were indeed advanced which logically, if pushed to their conclusion, would seem to oppose the doctrine; and representations of history were made which could not be easily squared with the infallibility of the head of the Church. But these were heard in only two or three speeches made by bishops of the Council; and some of them had signed the Address of the

Centenary, and one especially had taught the doctrine as a professor in a seminary.

But as the consistency of many has been involved in this question, it is right and just to treat it more fully.

Once for all let it be said in this place that the question whether the infallibility of the head of the Church be a true doctrine was never discussed in the Council nor proposed to it. The only question was whether it was expedient, prudent, seasonable, and timely, regard being had to the condition of the world, of the nations of Europe, of the Christians in separation from the Church, to put this truth in the form of a definition. The infallibility of the Church had never been defined. Why then, it was asked, define it now? or, at least, why define the infallibility of its head?

Inasmuch as the arguments which were weighing in the minds of the bishops for and against the opportuneness of defining this doctrine were not-as controversialists, politicians, newspapers, and the religious adversaries of the Church would have men believe— arbitrary, factious, contentious, intriguing, servile, or unreasoningit may be well to recite here in full a summary of the reasons on both sides. Those against the opportuneness come from a very high and authentic source, and were drawn up by one of the 102 theologians who prepared the schemata of the Council. He was one who held the doctrine as a divine truth in its amplest sense.

They shall be given here in full because they truly and adequately represent the balancing of motives which at that time caused some to hesitate, but decided the great majority.

9. The reasons against the definition were stated by a very learned and able theologian as follows :—

I. No necessity or urgent reason exists for such a definition, because the whole episcopate and the whole priesthood of the Church, few excepted, and the whole body of the faithful, have always received, and at this present time receive with veneration and docility, the doctrinal decisions of the Pontiffs, and recently those of Pius the Ninth.

II. For the determination of all controversies, and for the solution of all doubts, the decree of the Council of Florence respecting the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff as universal doctor, together with the creed enjoined by Pius the Fourth after the Council of Trent, is sufficient.

III. In order to decide and to determine with exactness the question of the infallibility, it would not be enough simply to declare the Pope to be infallible. It would also be necessary to declare, and that by a decree, the form and the mode in which the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is to be exercised and known; which would be a difficult question, and would involve the authority of the Holy See in many new and grave complications.

IV. The making of such a definition would be exposed to this grave difficulty. Suppose the bishops not to be unanimous, what course should then be taken? Suppose again that they were unanimous in declaring the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff to be a revealed doctrine, would they not, in the very act of defining the dogma, seem to profess that there is no authority in defining the faith inherent in the Episcopate?

V. Such a definition would not only be of doubtful utility. It would probably hinder the hope of reuniting the Eastern Churches to the Holy See, for the Greeks and Orientals recoil from every new word. It is well known what serious and endless controversies the single phrase 'Filioque' has stirred up. For which reason, in the profession of faith enjoined by Gregory the Thirteenth for the Greeks, and by Urban the Eighth and Benedict the Fourteenth for the other Orientals, the very words of the Florentine decree, without any change or addition, were retained. VI. Such a definition might retard also the return, which we so much desire, of Protestants to the unity of the Church, inasmuch as the new dogma would excite and increase in large numbers a prejudice against the Catholic Church, and especially against the Roman Pontiff, thereby rendering it more difficult for them to understand and to embrace the faith, by raising a suspicion that the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility is a novelty unknown in earlier ages.

VII. This question might possibly raise divergences among the bishops, who now are of one mind and heart in their reverence and obedience to the Holy See; a result which would be most disastrous.

VIII. The defining of the Pope's infallibility might also cause doubts, or, what is worse, dissensions, among Catholics who are otherwise sound, and willingly submissive, from conviction, to the authority of the Church; and that because certain historical facts and documents are not as yet sufficiently explained, so that in many countries the minds of men are not yet prepared for such a definition.

IX. Such a new decree would be no remedy for the perversity of the few persons who reject the decisions of the Supreme Pontiff and appeal from them to a General Council, as to a higher judge of controversies, forasmuch as their error comes not from the intellect, but from perversity of will. There is a difference, also, between a definition of the infallibility of the Pope and that of any other Christian doctrine. In the latter case, the authority of the Church may be sufficient to overcome any doubt. In the former it is the authority itself, the principle of all certainty in faith, which is in question. Would it not, therefore, be more prudent to spare the weakness of those who are not yet able to bear this definition ?

X. It may be feared also lest, by a perversion of the true sense of such a decree, some may be induced to despise the authority given by our Lord to bishops, especially in the condemnation of rash and pernicious opinions in philosophy and theology.

XI. Again it may be feared lest bishops, whom for some years the Holy See has been calling into activity, by discouraging them from sending to Rome in the first instance all doubts about books and matters of which it is their office to judge, might by such a definition be rendered more slack and backward in exercising their episcopal office of judges of doctrine.

XII. It soon, probably, would follow from such a definition, by reason of the nature of man, that not only matter of doctrine on which the supreme decision of the Church is desired, but other kinds of business also, would be sent to Rome for decision, so that everything would crowd in upon the centre of unity. And great as are the experience, prudence, and authority of the Roman congregations, . such a course would not be for the prosperity of the Universal Church; for the Church, as the Holy Ghost teaches, is a body, but the health of a body depends on the force and motion of all and each of the members. If all were one member, where were the body?' (1 Cor. xii. 19). Nobody doubts that the chief member of the body is the head, and that in it, as in its centre and seat, the vital force and guidance reside; and yet no one will say that the soul resides in the head alone,, which is rather diffused as its form throughout the members of the whole body.

These, then, were some of the reasons for believing that a definition of the infallibility of the Pope would not be opportune. They who held these opinions said:

Let that suffice which has been already declared and has been believed by allnamely, that the Church, whether congregated in Council or dispersed throughout the world, is always infallible, and the Supreme Pontiff, according to the words of the Council of Florence, is 'the teacher of the whole Church and of all Christians.' But as to the mysterious gift of infallibility, which by God is bestowed upon the Episcopate united to the Pope, and at the same time is bestowed in a special manner on the Supreme Pontiff, it may be left as it is. The Church, as all Catholics believe, whether in an Ecumenical Council, or, by the Pope alone, without a Council, guards and explains the truths of revelation. It is not expedient or opportune to make further declarations unless a proved necessity demand it, which necessity at present does not appear to exist.

10. On the other hand, it was urged by those to whom these reasons appeared to be insufficient:

I. That if the Episcopate, priesthood, and people, are, with so few exceptions, unanimous in receiving with submission and assent the Pontifical acts, there would not only be no risk in promulgating such a definition, but they would rejoice to see their submission justified by an authoritative definition; or, if the number of those who refuse submission be greater, a necessity would thereby be proved for the declaration of the truth.

II. That the decree of the Council of Florence ought indeed to be sufficient, and would be so if it were not misinterpreted by those who deny the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. The existence of this misinterpretation by Gallicans and by Anglicans shows that the decree is not sufficient.

III. That the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, held, as it is alleged, by all but a small number, may indeed be exposed now to the questions as to the form and mode of its exercise. These questions will not become less clear by being defined—that is, by being made more clear. The complications which now arise from want of a clear declaration would then be avoided. Erroneous or doubtful opinions give rise to complications; but truth excludes doubt and obscurity in proportion as it is precisely defined.

IV. That if the bishops were not unanimous as to the making of a definition, no doubt the Council would know in its prudence what course to take. The Council of Trent made no definition of the Immaculate Conception. It went to the very verge of defining it, but no further. If the bishops were unanimous in declaring the prerogatives of the head of the Church, they would not thereby abdicate or divest themselves of any privileges or endowments divinely conferred upon the Episcopate. The divine endowments of the Church are not at war with each other. The apostles did not cease to be infallible because their Head was so. The infallibility of the Church does not diminish the infallibility of councils. The endowments of the body are the prerogatives of the head. Both have their proper sphere and their full and legitimate exercise. No bishop alone is infallible, nor is the whole Episcopate infallible without its head. Of what, then, could they divest themselves by declaring their head to be infallible?

V. That all hope of reunion with the East is alone to be found in an explicit recognition of the divine prerogatives of the Church. Reunion on anything short of this, on any principle, obscure, ambiguous, or equivocal, could not endure for a day. The rent would be made worse. The decree of the Council of Florence, which is alleged to be sufficient, was not sufficient for the Greeks. They accepted it for a moment, but no sooner were they again at Constantinople than they threw it to the winds. Reunion is not to be gained or to be sought by reducing its conditions, like a bargain, to the minimum, but by an explicit and precise acceptance of the truth. Gregory the Thirteenth, Urban the Eighth, Benedict the Fourteenth kept strictly to the Florentine decree, because no other existed then.

No other exists at this day; and the question is, whether the events of the last three centuries do not demand a more precise declaration of the truth.

VI. That the return of Protestants also to the Church is more retarded now by the apparent contradiction among Catholics on the subject of infallibility, than it could be by the definition of the infallibility of the Pope. They now reject the infallibility of the Church altogether, because they believe that we are divided, if not about the infallibility of the Church, at least about the infallibility of its head. So long as the infallibility of the Pope is not authoritatively declared, they cover themselves under the shelter of those Catholics who deny it. And, to our shame, they borrow their belief that the opinion is a novelty from some among us. The Gallicans put weapons into their hands which they use against all infallibility whatsoever.

VII. That no divergence among the bishops is to be feared, the unanimity alleged above may assure us. But if it were to exist, would it be of greater moment than the want of unanimity on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception at the Council of Trent? The prudence of the Council, both natural and supernatural, would know how to deal with such a contingency; and if divergence in anything should arise, no diminution of filial and cordial obedience to the Holy See could follow in those things where all are unanimous.

VIII. That, if the pastors of the Church be unanimous, there is no fear of dissensions or doubts among the faithful. Rather, the dissensions and doubts, if any now exist, arise from the allegation that the pastors are not unanimous as to the infallibility of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. It is of the highest moment to put an end to this false allegation, so boldly and plausibly made by non-Catholics of every name. For this reason alone the sooner the unanimity of the pastors of the Church can be manifested the better, both for the truth's sake and for the salvation of souls. The same reason holds as to the supposed historical difficulties. They have been examined and exposed over and over again; but they will be perpetually brought up again, and with increased confidence, so long as the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff shall be left undefined. Where the Church has spoken, the faithful are not open to seduction. While the Church is silent, the spirits of error are clamorous and plausible. A definition would silence all voices, the voice of the Church alone excepted.

IX. That any decree would satisfy those who, out of perversity, oppose the faith, by appealing from the Supreme Pontiff to a General Council, and excommunicate themselves, is not to be expected. But if there be a hope for them, it is to be found in rendering clear beyond all possibility of doubt the divine certainty of faith. But this is closely connected with the divine authority of the head of the Church. The example of our Lord in sparing the infirmities of the weak, who were as yet unable to bear mysteries not yet revealed, is no warrant for keeping back any revealed truth because men will not believe the revelation already made. This would tacitly assume that the infallibility of the head of the Church is not a revealed truth. If it be a revealed truth, our Lord's example is not in point; still less that of the apostles, who 'kept back nothing,' and declared to the faithful' all the counsel of God' (Acts xx. 20, 27).

X. That the perverse interpretation of a decree could only be partial, and could never be either widespread or permanent. Such perversion, therefore, can be no reason against the definition being made, if the proper reasons exist for making it. The definition of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff can in no way lessen the authority of bishops as judges of doctrine in their own flocks, but on the contrary it would give great support to all their legitimate acts. It does not appear how bishops should be more authoritative because their head is believed to be less so.

XI. That, for the same reason, it does not appear probable that bishops would be less active as pastors and judges in their own Churches because the doctrine