of the Pope speaking alone, but of the Pope united with a council, which is very different." 1

The assertion of the modern papacy is that it is no new thing, gradually developed, but that with all its powers it has existed, not in germ, but explicitly from the beginning. We have shown that the Fathers of the Church did not know of the existence of the papacy in the modern meaning of it. We now propose to show that it was not known by members of the Roman Church itself up to 1870. If development were not explicitly denied by the authoritative statements of the Roman Church it might be conceivable that, as Sertillanges argues, the germ of the papal doctrine should have grown until it reached the stage of definition; but if it be true that a doctrine when it is presented either for theological discussion or as a practical claim of government is widely denied by wholly orthodox teachers to be any part of the Christian faith, its claim. to be either primitive or Catholic falls. I propose to demonstrate that the papal infallibility has been constantly denied and repudiated as a doctrine of the Church by Roman Catholics of unimpeachable orthodoxy. The following pas

1 Tixeront, vol. II, p. 390. On Tixeront's treatment of the Pope's denial of transsubstantiation see volume III, page 378.

sages are taken from Sparrow Simpson's "Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility":

"Bossuet's survey of history from the Apostolic Age to his own time, Scripture, Fathers, Councils, Theologians, confirmed him in the truth of the principles of the Church of France. The ultimate and therefore irreversible decision in faith depended on the Collective Episcopate, and on that only; as voicing the belief of the Universal Church.

"What benefit to the Church,' he exclaims in a striking passage, 'can exist in that doubtful authority, which the Church has not yet affirmed, of a Pope's ex cathedra decisions? We live in the seventeenth century of the Catholic Church, and not yet are orthodox and saintly men agreed about that infallibility. To say nothing of the Councils of Constance and of Basle, saintly and learned men are opposed to it. And if many private individuals clamor greatly, and pour forth imprudent censures against them, yet neither the Catholic Church nor Rome itself passes any condemnation upon them. Three hundred years we have controverted it with impunity. Has the Church waited for peace and security down to this our age, until the seventeenth century is almost at an end? Plainly, then, the security of pious souls must rest in the consent of the Universal Church. It cannot be that they should acquiesce in the doubtful Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. . . . A doubtful Infallibility is not that Infallibility which Christ bestowed. If He

...

had granted it at all He would have revealed it to His Church from the very beginning. He would not have left it doubtful, inadequately revealed, nor useless for want of an indisputable tradition.' (P. 95-6.)

66

When in the year 1788 a Committee of English Romanists was formed to appeal to Parliament for the removal of Roman disabilities, the petitioners declared that it was a duty which they owed to their country, as well as themselves, to protest in a formal and solemn manner against doctrines which constituted no part of their principles, religion or belief. Among these they rejected the theory that excommunicated princes may be deposed or murdered by their subjects. They declared that no ecclesiastical power whatever can absolve subjects from allegiance to lawful temporal authority. They wrote: 'We believe that no act that is in itself immoral or dishonest can ever be justified by or under colour that it is done either for the good of the Church or in obedience to any ecclesiastical power whatever.' And what now particularly concerns us here- they said: 'We acknowledge no Infallibility in the Pope.' (P. 99– 100.)

"This protestation of the Roman Catholics of England brought about the passing of the Relief Act of 1791. The representative character of the document may be realized from the fact that it was signed by all the four Vicars Apostolic; that is by

all the highest Roman authorities in England, by 240 priests; and in all by 1,523 members of the Anglo-Roman body, among whom most of the educated and influential laity were included. It would be interesting to ascertain what proportion the 240 priests bore to the total number of Roman clergy in this land. Accurate statistics are not easily obtained. The Committee of English Romanists claimed that the total number of Roman priests in England did not exceed 260. Berington, in 1780, estimated the number as nearer 360, of whom 110 were ex-Jesuits. From these figures it would appear that, if the Jesuits are left out, nearly the whole body of Roman clergy in England, including their four bishops, committed themselves frankly to rejection of Papal Infallibility. (P. 100.)

"The history of Irish Roman belief is similar. An Act for their relief was passed in 1793. It contains an oath which states that it is not an article of the Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible.'

"No less unmistakable is the language of a Roman Catholic Bishop in England in 1822:

"Bellarmine and some other divines, chiefly Italians, have believed the Pope infallible, when proposing ex cathedra an article of faith. But in England or Ireland I do not believe that any Catholic maintains the Infallibility of the Pope."" (P. IOI.)

:

An interesting echo of these statement appears later, in a letter from Lord Acton to Mr Gladstone, written from Rome during the Vatican Council:

"My dear Mr. Gladstone,

"A protest on the question of Papal Infallibility was presented to-day by certain bishops of the United Kingdom.

"They exhort the Legates to pause before they put that doctrine to vote. They state that the English and Irish Catholics obtained their Emancipation, and the full privileges of citizenship by solemn and repeated declarations, that their religion did not teach the dogma now proposed; that these declarations made by the bishops and permitted by Rome, are in fact the condition under which Catholics are allowed to sit in Parliament and to hold offices of trust and responsibility under the Crown; and that they cannot be overlooked or forgotten by us without dishonour.

66 I have reason to believe that one at least of the prelates who have signed this most significant paper would not be among the theological opponents of the Definition, but that he regards this consideration of morality and public integrity as an insuperable barrier for men enjoying the benefit of the Act of Emancipation." 1

1 "Lord Acton's Correspondence," vol. I, p. III.