Ibid. p. 184. The president of the Sardinian ministry, D'Azeglio, declared (5 June and 29 July 1850) that Concordats were not to be placed on the same line as public treaties between two civil governments; that their inviolability was not absolute, if only through the condition to every contract: rebus sic stantibus (which comes at last to Spinoza's blunt statement, Tract. Theol. Polit. c. iii.: ' Foedus tamdiu fixum manet, quamdiu cansa foederis pangendi, nempe metus damni seu lucri spes in medio est ;' Hübler, 1.c. iii. p. 435, n. 97), and that complete changes in the State, as was the case with Piedmont, often demanded a deviation from what had been agreed. See Acta Pii IX. vol. ii. p. 158 seq. 170 seq.

Acta Pii IX. vol. ii. p. 188.

* Cardinal Antonelli, in the answer (26 July 1860) to the Baden memorial of June 1860.

§ 11.

It has been said: "We have the right in judging the Popes and their decrees to apply the modern standard, because Rome has remained unchanged in its doctrines and endeavours."1 In this there is a mixture of truth and falsehood. It is true that as to doctrines of faith and morals Rome has remained unchanged, as well as in her endeavours, corresponding to her duty, to maintain and extend everywhere the Catholic religion. But as to matters of discipline she has paid due regard to changed times and circumstances; she has made no claim to rights that rested, as the deposing power, merely on mediæval law, but rather has expressly recognised their cessation; she has made manifold concessions in Concordats, and has kept to them in spite of frequent breaches of faith by the other party; in opposition to the Revolution she has strengthened the monarchical power and has proclaimed its inviolability; she has exposed herself to the full hatred of the conspirators of Europe, with whom so many governments coquette and make common cause; she has for her part done all she could to repel and to vanquish the dangers that threaten society and civilisation. Are these her titles to be considered a danger to the State?

1 Huber, p. 53.

ESSAY II.

DOCTRINE OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

ON the 18th of July 1870 the Vatican Council defined as revealed dogma, 'That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ—that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church-is, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, unalterable.'

During the Session of the Council the definition met with some opponents, a few of whom, since that time in open rebellion against Church authority, have continued their opposition, resisting the doctrine of infallibility as irrational, novel, and dangerous.

The examination of these three charges will serve at once to explain and confirm the dogma.

PART I. WHAT IS MEANT BY INFALLIBILITY.

§ 1. Its subject: the Pope discharging his office of universal teacher. § 2. Its object: questions of faith or morals. § 3. Its cause: the assistance of the Holy Ghost. § 4. Its connection with the infallibility of the united episcopate. § 5. Tokens and limits of an ex-cathedrâ definition. § 6. Infallibility in no wise irrational.

§ 1.

The definition has been called irrational, and to justify this expression the doctrine has been gravely misrepresented. 'God alone is infallible,' said a writer in the Allgemeine Zeitung at

6

the time of the Council. The Pope by claiming infallibility claims divinity.' Schulte speaks of 'a Pope who has been invested with divinity;' of an incarnate, inspired, absolute, divine infallibility; others again of the oracle on the banks of the Tiber who can always be appealed to, and who pronounces with full inspiration.' God alone of His own nature is infallible and cannot err, but He can by His omnipotence keep whom He will from error. Catholics have always believed in the infallibility of the Church and of General Councils, without supposing them to be deified. Infallibility is not impeccability. The Pope can sin like other men, and is equally bound to penance. Infallibility is not granted to him in his private capacity for his own welfare, but is a grace added to his office for the good of the Church. This distinction between an individual and his office is not new, neither is it unknown in other cases. The priest also acts infallibly when, by pronouncing the words 'This is My Body,' 'This is My Blood,' he consecrates and changes the bread and wine, even although at the time he be in sin. If in the case of a priest we must distinguish between his personal worthiness or unworthiness and the exercise of his holy office, we must in the same way distinguish between the person of the Pope and the discharge of his office as Vicar of Christ and Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful. When we say the Pope (as Pope) is infallible, we speak thus for the sake of brevity; infallibility does not belong to the Pope's person, but to his office as teacher. The phrase 'personal infallibility' is one very liable to be misunderstood. It can properly only be used when it is applied to St. Peter or any of his successors, each individual Pope, in the exercise of the highest functions of his office as universal teacher, and when thus used it means that his definitions are infallible before they have received the sanction of the Church. But at the same time this sanction can never be wanting; the Head of the Church can never be separated from the body; the Pope as Head cannot be imagined without the members. There can be no question of a' separate infallibility.'

In adducing a series of ill deeds on the part of Popes as an

argument against Papal Infallibility its opponents only show that they do not or will not comprehend in what infallibility really consists. As our Lord Himself with regard to the Scribes and Pharisees distinguished between their doctrine and their lives- All things therefore whatever they shall say unto you observe and do, but according to their works do ye not,' Matt. xxiii. 3—so in all ages a distinction has been made between doctrine and works. Personal holiness and impeccability have never been ascribed to the Pope on the plea of the supernatural assistance promised him by Christ to prevent him in all ages from teaching falsehood instead of truth.

1 Turrecremata, Sum. de Eccl. 1. ii. c. cxii. ad 6: Assistentia Spiritus Sancti promissa a Christo non respicit personam Papae, sed officium sive Sedem. He also (Hard. Conc. ix. 1262 seq.) distinguishes persona Papae from Sedes apostolica and Bellarmine persona quidam particularis.

2 E. W. Westhoff, Praef. in nov. edit. P. Ballerinii, lib. de Potest Ecles. Monast. 1847, p. x.: Scimus utique, salvis Christi promissionibus pro Ecclesiae unitate factis, quae vero aeternum salvae inconcussaeque persistent, fieri non posse, ut vel caput a corpore Ecclesiae vel Ecclesia a capite suo visibili divulsa aliquando atque sibi opposita sint; corpus siquidem sine capite nonnisi membrorum compago acephala ac sine vita, caput vero sine corpora monstrum esset; qua propter sine episcopis ei adhaerentibus Pontifex Romanus non erit, et qui ipsi uniti sunt, cum eo et sub eo Ecclesiam repraesentant; est qui a capite separati sunt quantumvis numerosi, Christi promissiones non amplius sibi habent, quae nonnisi unitis cum capite sunt factae.' Cf. Can. de loc. v. 5 f. 171.

3 Joh. Sarresbur. ep. 185 ad Mag. Gerardum Pucel. p. 195: 'Nec retardet vos, si in Ecclesia Romana videtis aliquid reprehensibile, qui meministis in Evangelio mandatum esse fidelibus, ut non imitentur opera sedentium in cathedra Moysi, sed doctrinam eorum operibus impleant.'

§ 2.

The Pope is infallible when, in discharge of his supreme office as Pastor and Teacher, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals.1 Infallibility does not touch his decisions in temporal affairs, such as the exercise of his authority as ruler of the States of the Church. It is simply ridiculous to bring forward, as an Italian (Baron Ferdinand Malvica) has done, in proof against infallibility, some laws of the Papal Government regulating the exportation of corn. The Pope is not infallible in every speech, conversation, or writing; and Gregory XI. acted with

perfect consistency in retracting in his will whatever he might have said contrary to the Catholic faith.2 If everything the Pope may say or write does not partake of infallibility, much less do the utterances of Roman congregations of Cardinals. The decrees therefore against Galileo and the Copernican system cannot be adduced as arguments against the doctrine of infallibility, and it is little short of ludicrous to speak of the Index, which is merely a list of forbidden writings, as infallible decisions. Not all the solemn publications of the Popes (Bulls and Briefs) lay claim to infallibility, but only those in which a doctrine of faith or morals is determined as binding on the faithful, either prescribed for their acceptance or solemnly marked out for their rejection; and moreover merely the decision itself, not other statements made in the same publication.

Opponents of the dogma often bring forward quite arbitrary sentences from some Papal Brief containing no decision, and use them as objections. In dogmatic decrees of the Popes as well as of Councils it is necessary to distinguish between the definition of a dogma and the reasons, explanations, &c. added to it. Infallibility can only belong to the actual definition.

Infallibility is not without limits, as some have asserted, for it is concerned only with theories which have reference to, and in as far as they have reference to, revealed truth. It does not relate to matters resting upon purely human testimony. A Pope may, for example, be deceived by misinformation or misrepresentations. The Church must teach her doctrine, and she must also teach what her doctrine is not. The end of infallibility—to guard the Church from error-would not be reached if in discharge of her office as teacher she had not the power of delivering an infallible judgment, and of declaring, for instance, that the contents of such a book as Jansen's Augustine were contrary to revealed truth. Again, infallibility cannot refer to merely personal5 matters of fact, for these rest upon human testimony alone; but it can refer to dogmatic facts, that is, it can decide whether a doctrine contained in a book is or is not contrary to Scripture and tradition, an extension of ecclesiastical infallibility especially objected to by some oppo

VOL. I.

G