This, then, clearly and explicitly was my "Path to Paradise." "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, with thy whole soul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself."

Here was no system, no power, no throne, but that of all-conquering love. Then I cried out-"How dare any man, or any system of men, take me beyond this assured means of salvation, assured by the Saviour of souls Himself?" "This do and thou shalt live."

On the day that the crowd and many of His disciples left Him and would walk no longer with Him, Christ turned to Peter and asked-"Wilt thou also go away?" In reply Peter questioned and declared"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of Eternal Life." What need, I then thought, to worry myself about this doctrine, or that, this system or that, this teacher or that? None whatsoever, if they have not indelibly engraven upon their charter, the pure, the simple, soul-easing declaration of Christ-"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, with thy whole soul, with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself. This do and thou shalt live," none whatsover if they have not this as their fundamental teaching; none whatsoever I again thought, if they try to coerce men's consciences by merely human laws into belief in their merely human behests. If this be their procedure, I felt that such a Church had lost its claim to the pure spirituality and gentle guidances of the Christ of whom the prefigurative language has been used that "The bruised reed he would not crush, nor the smoking flax extinguish," and "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'

When I coupled the above answer of the Master"This do and thou shalt live" with His express.command to His Apostles, "Go you therefore and make

disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."-Matthew xxviii.: 19, 20. "I will send you another Paraclete, etc." I failed to discover even the barest allusion to the doctrine in question. I was compelled to admit the untenability of "Infallibility."

In the text I have just quoted (that of Matthew xxviii.) there occur the words "All things whatsoever I have commanded you," and Rome has never succeeded yet in proving that Christ ever commanded the Apostles to teach the Infallibility of Peter, Paul, or of any Pope.

99

Comforting His disciples one day the Master said "I will send you another Paraclete, the spirit of Truth, and He will abide with you for ever." Here is indeed infallibility promised, but it is the infallibility of Him to whom alone belongs the infallibility-Divine infallibility, guiding and ruling the destines of His Church-but not human infallibility.

Very few can see the necessity of two infallible sources ruling the Christian Church-God and Man. The pity of it is that so many pretend to see the necessity of that assumption of it by man. This is a dogma that demands too much; a dogma which, if abolished to-morrow, would not affect the Catholicity or the Christianity of many millions of Roman Catholics in an adverse manner. For many millions who hardly ever give it a thought would be merely conscious that the chain of belief was a little lighter, and they would be just as near and just as dear to "Our Father which art in Heaven" as are those who accept the doctrine in toto.

"On the principle that "no man can be judge in his own cause" I hold this doctrine to be erroneous, for

here, certainly the Pope is judge in his own cause. He bears witness of himself, because even in Council assembled the Bishops are fallible without him, fallible individually; with him present they are able to confer infallibility upon him. How curious it all is, and must seem to outsiders. This is their doctrine; now, what does it amount to? Simply that he is the motive power. He is the possessor already of the gift. In his absence they are incapable of this particular bestowal or decretal, but when he is at their head, they can bestow it upon him and they can decree him infallible, thereby plainly indicating that he either already possessed this gift which he has not proved, or that he is "Judge in his own cause," which is contrary to every canon of strictly legal procedure.

I argued, "Either the Pope or the Bishops confer the Infallibility. We have seen it is not the latter by themselves, as they are fallible and could not even claim it; therefore it must be the former who possesses it and confers it, and if so, he acts in direct opposition to reason, to custom, and the bedrock belief of all civilised peoples that "No man can be judge in his own cause," and in thus attempting to invest himself with this prerogative the Pope certainly acts as judge in his own cause, for he, with his bishops, confers it upon himself. Without him they are fallible, liable to err, and have not the power to confer it, but he, coming to them and presiding over them, evidently is in possession of it, therefore he brings it with him and allows them, with himself, to confer it upon himself. In very plain words, he himself confers it upon himself, and of himself, and he gives them the power and privilege to join with him in conferring upon himself that which he himself admits he did not possess antil he came among them, and with them, conferred

it upon himself. According to this, then, he is the

determining factor, and the Council of Cardinals but a negligible quantity.

'Every power has the right and faculty to bear witness of itself."

Is it any wonder I was very dissatisfied with the old Church when I came to examine her claim from this point of view? I had thought her theologians and jurists had made more sure of her position and protected this very weak spot in her armour more effectually. I did not imagine that so quickly would the sword of my inquiry have penetrated the steel. And I fearfully, for Rome's sake, hold the view that there are many thousands of her subjects who are not satisfied with the strength, or weakness rather, of the proofs of the Papal claim to infallibility.

Again, the Infallibilists urge, "Every power has the right and faculty of bearing witness of itself, and of vindicating itself."

This I conceded at once, yet so that the witness or testimony and "vindication" are in accordance with right, reason, and sacred Scriptures.

But this claim, day by day, was proving itself to be, and was being proved, to be unreasonable, and unsupported by Sacred Scriptures.

They urge that God vindicates Himself, and quote tritely enough, "I am who I am;" they quote Christ, "I am the Alpha and the Omega; the beginning and the end; no one cometh to the Father except through me."

All this is very true, I thought, but how does it establish "Papal Infallibility?" The texts quoted show Divinity proclaiming itself in truth and in justice. But there is nothing in them to support man's pretension that he, too, is infallible, even under the most safeguarded conditions, and enforced by dire human needs and laws.

They also urge that "An Emperor vindicates him

self, and justly punishes those who offend him," and claim similar power for the Pope, who is Supreme King and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

They instance "The Sultan's Firman and the Czar's Ukase."

I conceded this, too, but only to those who choose to accept and to acknowledge him as their King and Vicar, who believed and were convinced of his infallibility. But where is that for which I am looking, I enquired, viz., a proof clear and positive that he is infallible as the successor of St. Peter?

How my head did ache with the worry of these researches, and with the effects of the revelation that was slowly dawning upon me. Often in arguing this dogma quietly with some of my very old and dear companions, they would say, in support of the dogma "He can declare his powers and privileges spiritual and temporal with authority and under anathema." I would reply, "Yes, by all means his tempora! powers and privileges, such as they now are; the spiritual, too, to a certain extent, but not the Divine. Where are his proofs for that?" I claimed always that infallibility is a Divine prerogative. Had they but shown me these, the secret unrest at the bottom of my heart of hearts was dispelled for ever.

I considered that the Sultan and the Czar go as far as man may in this direction, when issuing their "Firmans" and "Ukases," but they halt outside the gates of the Divine Preserves. Thus far, no farther. They at least behold the Great Angel of the Flaming Sword on Guard. Though they may gaze upon the golden apple of Infallibility and desire it, they dare not claim it, nor touch it, and certainly they do not attempt to exercise it over their people. I honestly believe to-day that the Mother Church requires reconstruction on this point.