selves in earnestly petitioning for a definition; because that by such petition they in fact dictate to the Council. Now undoubtedly, if a dictatorial tone towards the Council had been assumed by any Catholic,-if any one had implied by his language that he should consider the assembled bishops to fail in their duty did they not publish the definition he desired-for such a Catholic we should have no defence to offer. But nothing of the kind can reasonably be alleged. Catholics have supplicated the Council, but they have not affected to dictate its course. The whole argument therefore, if it means anything, means this; that by the mere fact of earnestly supplicating the Council to take a particular course, a Catholic by implication represents his own opinion to be more trustworthy than the judgment of the Council. But surely such an argument will not hold for a moment. No one objects (quite the contrary) against men supplicating God for what they believe to be a great spiritual blessing; how then can any one reasonably object against men supplicating a Council in the same sense? Catholics do not in the latter case, any more than in the former, presume to place their own judgment in competition with that of the Authority to which they appeal: they do but humbly represent their existing earnest desire.

And surely there is every reason in the present case, why those however humble, who desire the definition, should loudly express their feeling. The very issue now debated at Rome turns on opportuneness; and the question of opportuneness indubitably depends in greater or less degree on the desire of the faithful. No doubt it might very easily happen, that Catholics should dislike the remedy which alone is suitable to their disease; and that the Church therefore should disregard their wishes, in her jealous anxiety for their interests. Still a strong additional argument for opportuneness is presented, in proportion as that course which is otherwise the more salutary should also happen to be the more popular. So far from considering this fact of little account, Pius IX., when deliberating on the definition of 1854, expressly charged the bishops to inform him as to the desire of such definition entertained by the faithful. And yet there is much more reason now than there was then, for the pious laity speaking out. Malcontents are not slow in threatening the Council with all sorts of opposition from civil governments; and in holding up "in terrorem" the alleged unpopularity, which "extreme measures "" are forsooth to carry in their train. "When bad men conspire, good men must combine"; and when lovers of the world proclaim themselves in force, lovers of the truth are called on to exhibit their numbers and their strength. It is of much importance that the bishops should know on whom

they can thoroughly depend; and we are most grateful therefore to such admirable journals as the "Tablet," the "Unita," the "Bien Public," the "Univers," the "Monde," for their emphatic and repeated testimony to the strong wishes of that portion of the Catholic flock which they respectively represent. "The Messenger of the Sacred Heart" in its February number speaks still more emphatically in the same sense.

But will not the definition of Papal Infallibility sow division among the faithful, and lead them to think that hitherto the Church has been defectively and imperfectly constituted? Strange is it that men who have such opportunities of knowing the actual tendencies of Catholics should be subject to such fears! Surely, if ever the common persuasion of the faithful, the consensus fidelium, be an index to the mind and tradition of the Church, and Pius IX. in solemnly promulgating the dogma of the Immaculate Conception disdained not to allege this universal consent as one of the great proofs of this doctrine, we find the same mark stamped no less plainly on the truth we are defending. Universal suffrage has never been used in the Church as a means of settling questions of belief; but should the Council choose to appeal to an immense "plébiscite" of the Christian people and to put to the vote the question of Papal Infallibility, there is scarcely one in a thousand Catholics, faithful to their baptismal engagements, that would not give an affirmative vote. Besides, the hundreds of thousands of handbills containing the vow of believing in the Pope's Infallibility which we are blamed for having circulated, could they have been so easily and speedily spread abroad throughout Christendom, if this belief were not in unison with the deepest and most universal instincts of "the pious faithful"? Let the gainsayers of Infallibility try to circulate a vow in the opposite sense, and how many Catholics will be found ready to bind themselves to defend, even to the shedding of their blood, the belief in the Pope's fallibility? *

We have not written this for the purpose of defending ourselves; because our readers may perhaps have noticed the great reserve with which we have throughout spoken on the subject. See e.g. our last number, pp. 222-224. Indeed our previous reserve

F. Newman regards certain persons, who have earnestly solicited a definition, as constituting "an insolent and aggressive faction." We have the profoundest personal respect for F. Newman; and we feel moreover keenly, how imperishable is the gratitude which is due to him from all Catholics for his signal services to the Church: but we must protest with our whole spirit against this description, as utterly unfounded and in the highest degree unjust. If such a phrase is to be used at all, it is applicable to the supporters of F. Gratry, and much more to those of Dr. Döllinger and Janus, rather than to those who have defended the truth against such factious and turbulent assailants.

In fairness however to F. Newman, we must entreat our readers to bear in mind that the expression occurs in a strictly confidential letter. Writers of all parties speak much more unguardedly in private communications than in public disquisitions.

may be used as an objection to our present argument; and we may be asked-if open speaking be indeed so great a dutywhy we did not ourselves practise it. We shall be able to make our general meaning clearer, if we reply to this supposed objection.

The humblest Catholic, we have urged, may without any appearance of presumption supplicate the Council, as he may supplicate God, for what he accounts a great spiritual blessing. He may most laudably do this, so long as his prayer implies a condition; so long as he holds entirely "under correction" his judgment on the reality of that blessing. But if the humblest Catholic expresses what purports to be merely his private judgment, before all things it is necessary that what he expresses should be his private judgment. Now, to speak frankly, our own private judgment did not altogether coincide with what we understood to be the general drift of the "Tablet "; and as the very last thing we wished was to promote any disunion among advocates of the good cause, our only refuge was comparative silence. At present however, for reasons which we shall give, we do not see that there is any danger of disunion from our explicitly stating what we mean. We will say therefore, that while we most heartily agree with the writers of the "Tablet" in earnestly supplicating the Council to perform thoroughly its great work of doctrinal "pacification and illumination,”. -we have never been able to understand how such a work would be accomplished by a mere assent to their petition. We have never been able to understand, we say, how the necessary work would be sufficiently accomplished by a definition, which should merely speak on the subject" of infallibility; which should merely declare that, so far as the Church possesses infallibility, that infallibility resides in the Pope speaking ex cathedrâ. We will proceed to explain our meaning.

The great doctrinal evil-so it seems to us-which now afflicts the Church, is this. In the normal state of things, certain questions are admitted by all Catholics to be closed, and the rest are admitted by all Catholics to be open: or in other words all Catholics are agreed as to what those doctrines are, which Catholics as such are certainly obliged to embrace. This is now very far from being the case. Very many-we ourselves are among the number-are confident that all Catholics are bound (materially at least) under pain of mortal sin to hold various doctrines, which other sincere and piously disposed Catholics overtly reject. Nor can it possibly be said that these doctrines are of subordinate importance: for among them several are included, the contradictories of which have been

enumerated by the Ecclesia Docens as among "the principal errors of our most unhappy age." It is sometimes argued indeed, that here is no great practical evil, because "lex dubia non obligat." But this is to misapprehend our allegation. Very many Catholics account various doctrinal "leges as not "dubiæ " but "certæ", which other well-intentioned Catholics deny to be "leges" at all. Take e.g. the obligation of avoiding all the errors condemned in the Syllabus: is this or is it not a "lex certa"? If it is not, then no certain obligation is imposed on Catholics of avoiding "the chief errors of our age." On the other hand if this obligation is a "lex certa," then you have the indubitable fact, that various loyally intentioned Catholics think themselves at liberty to set at nought a "lex certa." Or (to put the same thing otherwise) various loyally intentioned Catholics think themselves at liberty to embrace and advocate certain tenets, which the Ecclesia Docens has declared to be pregnant with danger to faith and morals. Surely this is so serious an evil, that nothing except its actual presence among us could blind us to its grievous results.

But how would this gravest doctrinal calamity of our time be remedied, by a mere definition that the Pope is infallible apart from the Episcopate? On the one hand the Syllabus has been as fully sanctioned by the bishops as by the Pope himself: on the other hand several of those who deny its infallibility, admit nevertheless, that whatever infallibility the Church possesses at all, is possessed by the Pope. Archbishop Manning testifies as we quoted in our last number (p. 215)-that among "some" who "hold the infallibility of the Pope" in definitions of faith, there is nevertheless "an animus of opposition to the Acts of the Holy See in matters outside the Faith."

So far as circumstances enable us to judge, we are in all this but following the mind of the large majority among the assembled Fathers. No signs whatever would lead one to suppose that the very idea has occurred to them, of declaring indeed the Pope's infallibility in definitions of faith, but of being silent as to any further infallibility. Mgr. Dechamps e.g. in his letter to Mgr. Dupanloup, quotes incidentally (p. 18) the inaccurate expression of a previous theologian, who seems (so far as his words go) to limit the Pope's infallibility within the narrow sphere of testifying revealed dogmata. But the Archbishop at once appends a note, reminding his readers of those "divine truths" definable by a Pope, which are not contained in the Deposit explicitly or implicitly, but which are "essentially and inseparably bound up" therewith. Then further, two principal

proposals (to mention no others) for the definition of Pontifical infallibility have been made public; and we print them both in our present number. Now it is observable that both these documents adduce, in behalf of the doctrine which their writers desire to be defined, the address signed by so many bishops at Rome in the year 1867. But this address declares in effect, that Pius IX. has frequently spoken ex cathedrâ when he has spoken, not for the purpose of testifying the Deposit, but for the purpose of protecting it. It declares moreover that he has spoken ex cathedrâ often since their former address to him; nay, that his "mouth has never been silent" in condemning ex cathedrâ successive errors.*. We would entreat our readers to look back at the comments we made on this address in Oct. 1867, pp. 528-532.†

If then we might be allowed in conclusion to address our own humble supplication to the Council, we should heartily indeed join with the "Tablet" in entreating the assembled Fathers to define unmistakably the revealed dogma of Pontifical infallibility. But we should entreat them with no less earnestness, to declare fully and precisely the Church's doctrine on those various questions as to the mutual relation of Church and State, which are raised in France by such Catholics as Falloux and Cochin; to explain what view Catholics are obliged to hold on the inspiration of Scripture; to make quite clear what are the philosophical errors which a Catholic thinker is required to avoid, and within what limits philosophical opinion is free; to define the extent of the Church's infallibility; to throw some general light on the tests of an ex cathedrâ Pontifical Act; and lastly to lay down expressly the kind and degree of interior assent, due to those Roman doctrinal utterances which are not strictly ex cathedrâ, whether they issue from the Holy Father or from Pontifical Congregations. At the same time, in all sincerity, we add this protestation. If, when the Council shall freely and without external pressure have gone through its

* Yet a distinguished French Catholic has recently said that ex cathedrâ judgments are rare!

The alleged schemata, which have found their way into the newspapers, are most express on the extent of the Church's and of the Pope's infallibility. But there can be no certainty that they are genuine; and if they are, they must have been obtained by some gross breach of trust. We have therefore thought it best not to build any argument on them in the text.

While our Number is passing through the press, "the "Civiltà" for April 2 has arrived before its time. We observe (p. 85) that the writers wish more had been said in the present controversy concerning the "object" of infallibility. The "Civiltà" considers that certain Ultramontane authors "speak inaccurately" on the matter and make "excessive restrictions and polemical concessions" on the extent of Pontifical infallibility.