XIV.]

REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH.

257

to mankind. Assistentia, at its name implies, stands by him like a guide, and whilst allowing him the exercise of his natural faculties, guards him against error by providentially influencing the setting forth of the evidence before his mind. and causing him to see the propositions under consideration in their true light. The one is an impulse; the other is an aid. Inspiration has the necessary effect of causing the book written, or the judgment delivered, to be the book or judgment of God. Assistentia leaves them in their previous quality of human composition, while it guarantees their declarations against error, by the Divine aid which it administers.'

Now, having received this explanation, I have to declare that I was guilty of no misconception. I never supposed that Roman theory regarded the gift of Papal Infallibility to be of the kind which Mr. Smith ascribes to Inspiration; but the amusing thing is, that it would have been far better for his argument if he had been able to say that my mistake was in ascribing the gift to Assistentia, whereas, according to Roman theory, it was due to Inspiration. For I am amazed that he had not acuteness to perceive that the effect of the distinction on which he insists is simply to abandon an easy answer to my criticisms, and to leave himself completely without defence. If the pronouncing a decision on a controversy was solely the result of a divinely communicated impulse, and a thing in which the Pope's natural powers had no part, it were surely idle to blame him for silence and non-interference. He could say that he could only speak such words as God might be pleased to put into his mouth, and that he was bound to be silent until a Divine inspiration was communicated to him. But if the initiative rests with himself; that is to say, if the order of proceeding is, that he must first use his natural powers and ordinary means of informing his judgment, and then has a guarantee that when he publishes the result of his investigations in an ex cathedra decision, he will be divinely secured from error, what but want of faith in the reality of this guarantee can account for his not so using his natural powers, when a decision is urgently needed for the appeasing of controversies within his Church?

S

Of course I admit (as I have already done, p. 184), that the Pope is bound to exercise so great a trust with caution and deliberation, and that he is justified or rather required, to postpone a decision, until he has taken due means to inform his judgment. But still there ought to be some limit to such delay. It was about 400 years from the time that the disputes about the Immaculate Conception became violent, to the time when the Papal decision was pronounced. This seems carrying deliberation to an extreme. I have heard of Chancery suits which lasted till the whole property in dispute had been dissipated in costs. In this case, a decision on a controversy does not come until the controversy has died a natural death.

The Pope has less excuse for unreasonable delay, because, though it is, no doubt, his duty to use all proper human means to guide his judgment, the guarantee of infallibility does not depend on his having actually done so. It is not merely that his people would not be justified in rejecting his decision, on the plea that he had neglected to consult with learned divines, but the decision would really be infallibly correct, whether or no. Take the most important decisions of all, those made by the Pope in Council, and it is held that, though the parties to the decision may have been misled by bad arguments and deceived by forged documents, infallibility attaches to the decision all the same. Why, then, should the Pope hesitate, when the peace of the Church requires that controversies should be put to rest. It occurs to every one of us to have occasionally to make important and difficult decisions, and though we have no gift of infallibility, we do not abstain from acting. We use all human means to inform our judgment, we implore the Divine guidance, and then act boldly in humble faith that our prayers will not be unanswered. Why, then, should the Pope, if he really believed himself to have a guarantee that his decisions would by special Divine guidance be absolutely secured from error, show more timidity and indecision than has been exhibited by the most hesitating of Lord Chancellors ?

I have already stated one principal reason; it has been be

XIV.]

REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH.

259

cause even if he had faith in his own guaranteed infallibility, he had no confidence that his people had, and so had to consider the dangers of a schism that might result from an unacceptable decision. Mr. Smith owns that distress at an ex cathedra decision, and unwillingness to accept it, is very inconsistent on the part of a 'Catholic,' and very wrong; but he says that 'human nature is weak.' So it is, and in this case belief in the Pope's Infallibility must be weak, very weak, if not non-existent. But, then, Mr. Smith urges that this attitude of mind is not general among Catholics,' as testified by the comparative smallness of the schism caused by permanent non-acceptance of the late Vatican decrees. Yes, but it was because it was anticipated that the schism would be small, even smaller than it actually proved to be, that the Pope ventured to have those decrees passed. But in former days, especially since the precaution had not then been taken of limiting a bishop's powers, so that the Pope might be able, by refusing to renew his faculties, to reduce a refractory bishop to obedience, there is no doubt that a main cause of inducing the Pope to suspend his decisions, was the fear that his decisions would not be accepted. The reason expressly given for not meddling with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception at Trent, was 'lest it should cause a schism among Catholics.'

Mr. Smith argues that it was quite justifiable to inspire this fear in the mind of the Holy Father. No doubt, the moment an ex cathedra judgment is pronounced, a good 'Catholic' is bound to accept it, and thenceforth, ex animo, to believe that the doctrine defined in it is true. But until the judgment has been pronounced, he is quite free to believe, with equal firmness, that the doctrine proposed to be defined is false. He will then naturally persuade himself that a doctrine which he thinks he knows to be false can never receive the seal of Papal sanction. Providence will in some way interfere to prevent the judgment from being pronounced. If he can succeed (by such bullying, for example, as Bellarmine practised towards Pope Clement VIII.) in producing in the Pope's mind a belief that the pronouncing of a judgment would cause great evils to the Church, he may regard him

self as an agent whom Providence is employing to prevent the Church from committing herself to an erroneous decision. Thus, while it is owned that actually to reject an ex cathedra decision is inconsistent with belief in the Pope's Infallibility, it is contended that it is compatible with that belief to try to inspire the Pope with fear that his decision will not be accepted. Perhaps, now that the theory has been explained, it will not be so easy as formerly to inspire such fear; but certainly the attempt has often been successfully made, and those who were able to persuade the Pope that they had no real faith in his Infallibility have no right to complain if other people think so too.

He

Mr. Smith barely glances at the case of Galileo. denies that what he calls 'the Pythagorean doctrine* concerning the movement of the sun round the earth' was believed by the Church to be an article of faith. The absolute insistency was throughout on the irrefragable authority of Holy Scripture, and only extended to the Pythagorean theory on the supposition that this was necessarily involved in the biblical statements.' This is an excellent illustration of the controversial artifice which I described (p. 63), of escaping the defence of an untenable position by substituting the defence of something that is not disputed. No one quarrelled with the Pope for insisting on 'the irrefragable authority of Scripture.' But what Mr. Smith had got to explain was, how infallibility can be claimed for authority which made the gross mistake of teaching that the doctrine of the earth's immobility was 'necessarily involved in the biblical statements.' If it be the province of Holy Mother Church (as the Council of Trent declared) to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture, how was it that in this case, what Mr. Smith now owns to be the true interpretation of Scripture, was taught, not by the Pope or his Cardinals, not by any one entitled to speak on behalf of Holy Mother Church, but by a layman; and how was it that the ecclesiastical authorities instead of gratefully adopting the right method of interpreta

Though Mr. Smith does not mention Galileo by name, he got this phrase from an imperfect recollection of the decree of the Congregation of the Index in his case, where it is used in the opposite sense.

XIV.]

REV. SYDNEY F. SMITH.

261

tion, rebuked their instructor for his presumption, ordered him to be silent, and condemned him to imprisonment for as long a period as the Pope might choose to detain him?

One word more in conclusion. Suppose that Mr. Smith had completely established his case, and had proved that Infallibility such as it exhibits itself in the actual working of the Church of Rome, is the only kind of infallibility that she claims in theory; and we should only have an instance of a phenomenon that often presents itself, namely, the contrast between Roman doctrine as exhibited to those within the fold, or to those whom it is hoped to induce to enter it, and the doctrine as reduced to modest dimensions when it has to be defended against opponents. If there is any inducement which more than another has been successful in gaining converts to Romanism, it is the promise of a judge who shall be able authoritatively to determine controversies. Modern thought is constantly raising new difficulties, and presenting new problems for solution. To these a number of contradictory answers are given, each supported by persons with some claims to respect. Men impatient of doubt are eager for some guide who can tell them with absolute certainty which is in the right; and when such a guide is offered them in the Church of Rome, they gladly accept the offer without too rigid enquiry as to her power to fulfil her promises. what must be their disappointment when they discover that she has no rule for determining controversies save that by which non-theological disputes are terminated; namely, she lets the disputants fight it out: if owing to the number, or ability of its advocates, one side gets the predominance she will give it encouragement; and if within 400 years, more or less, its opponents are reduced to absolute insignificance, then she will pronounce their opinion false. Such an authority as this no more deserves to be called a guide than, to use an illustration employed by Professor Huxley on a different subject, a coach dog deserves to be called a guide, who watches which way the machine is about to turn, and then runs on loudly barking before it.