To continue our quotation from Simpson:

"A principle,' echoed Dupanloup; 'even granting that were so, I answer, is it then essential to the life of the Church that this principle should become a dogma of faith? How, then, explain the fact that the Church has lived for eighteen centuries without defining a principle essential to her existence? How explain the fact that she has formulated all her doctrine, produced her teachers, condemned all heresies, without this definition?' (P. 170.)

"Another exposition of the Roman faith for English-speaking people is the famous book called Keenan's Catechism. It is entitled 'Controversial Catechism, or Protestantism Refuted and Catholicism Established.' The edition of 1860 is described as the third edition, and in its seventeenth thousand. It bears the imprimatur of four Roman bishops, two of them being Vicars Apostolic. In these approbations we are assured that the sincere searcher after truth will here find a lucid path opened to conduct him to its sanctuary; while the believer will be hereby instructed and confirmed in his faith.' From 1846 to 1860 it was being largely circulated throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland.

"The book contains the following question and

answer:

66 6

(Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

"(A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no

article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.' (P. III.)

"We are still,' wrote Döllinger to the Archbishop, waiting the explanation how it is that, until 1,830 years had passed, the Church did not formulate into an article of faith doctrine which the Pope, in a letter addressed to your Grace, calls the very foundation principle of Catholic faith and doctrine? How has it been possible that for centuries the Popes have overlooked the denial of this fundamental article of faith by whole countries and in whole theological schools? And was there a unity of the Church when there was a difference in the very fundamentals of belief? And - may I further add-how is it then that your Grace yourself resisted so long and so persistently the proclamation of this dogma? You answer, because it was not opportune. But can it ever be " inopportune" to give believers the key to the whole building of faith, to proclaim the fundamental article on which all others depend? Are we not now all standing before a dizzy abyss which opened itself before our eyes on the 18th July?' Döllinger concluded with a deliberate and emphatic rejection of the new Decree: As a Christian, as a theologian, as a historian, as a citizen, I cannot accept this doctrine.'" (P. 320.)

There are a few other things which it seems

well to note. A good deal of reliance is placed by Roman Catholic controversialists on the assertion that a body must have a head; and if it is replied that Christ is the Head of the Body the answer is that that no doubt is true as concerns the whole Church, but that a visible Church with which we are here concerned must have a visible head, and that that visible head is the successor of S. Peter. The Satis Cognitum says, tainly Christ is a King forever; and though Invisible, He continues unto the end of time to govern and guard His Church from Heaven. But since He willed that His Kingdom should be visible He was obliged when He ascended into Heaven, to designate a vicegerent on earth." On this Denny comments:

"Cer

"Now, this obligation to appoint a vicegerent on earth which is here alleged to be incumbent on Christ as the invisible King of the Church, implies that, according to the will of God, it is essential that there should be a single individual who should be the head of the Church Militant here on earth. To be so essential it would be necessary that the Church on earth should be a separate entity, entire and complete in itself, and which consequently requires to possess a head to itself. But the contrary is the fact. The Church Militant here on earth is but a portion, and that the smallest, of a great whole, made up of the Church Triumphant, the

Church Expectant, together with itself. Hence it is obvious that prima facie the appointment of a visible head for the portion of the one Church here on earth is inconsistent with the unity of the Church, for that is One Body, and can therefore have but one Head, just as the human body can possess but one head. Such a condition of things would involve the consequence that the Church Militant is another Church separate from the divinely constituted Society, and thus a mere human invention." 1

Perhaps no assertion of the Roman controversialist so impresses the unlearned outsider as the assertion that the practical needs of the Church require a Living Voice that can intervene to settle controversies and to direct the perplexed faithful. Doubt and controversy are continual phenomena of human life, and if the plain man is to have a plain way to walk in, if he is to know what to believe amid all the confusion of modern tongues, he needs a guide; and the guide at hand is the successor of Peter.

It would perhaps be well for the plain man to note that the questions which are raised to perplex him in the matter of religion are either questions which have been already answered or ques1 Denny, "Papalism," pp. 10-11.

tions which do not need an answer. The contention of the Anglican Church is that the faith has been already sufficiently declared - there is no need of constant determinations of questions of faith. The explicit statement of the faith which was sufficient for S. Augustine and S. Gregory is still sufficient; there is no need of a living voice to define it further. There are, no doubt, in every generation many perplexing questions which we should like to have answered; but there is no authoritative answer because they are not matters of faith to be received in order to attain salvation. There is rightly in the Church a place for free investigation and enquiry in regard to questions which have not been defined. We would not have it otherwise, for to have it otherwise would be to court intellectual stagnation. The Church which promises certainty without the pain of enquiry becomes more and more the Church of those who do not wish to enquire."

The Living Voice of the Church from the beginning was uttered through free conciliar action. For centuries the assembly of councils of bishops was the normal method by which the Church expressed its mind. As a matter of historic fact all the great dogmatic decisions of the Church