p. 61Infallibility

The Divine Plan of the Church Necessarily Contained an Element of Infallibility

Infallibility (covering both active and passive) may be described as the prerogative which the Church enjoys of teaching and believing the true faith with a Divine guarantee of inerrancy.

The foregoing remarks, although directed chiefly to the indefectibility of the Church, are, we hope, sufficient to make clear that the prerogative of infallible teacher was meant to be an essential element in her structure. For since non-Catholics contend that she lapsed in such a way as to become fallible in her teaching at a certain period, and to remain fallible ever after, the refutation of that contention may be looked upon as at least an indirect proof of her permanent or constitutional infallibility.

Nevertheless, as that infallibility is one of the chief stumbling-blocks of our opponents, further elucidation may be needed.

It may be asked, does the Scripture (the New Testament) record any words which give solid proof that the Redeemer intended His Church to be essentially and perpetually infallible, through all the vicissitudes of time, in spite of the large schismatical bodies which would cut themselves off from her, and the numberless heresies which would wage war against her?

We answer, yes. The Gospels give such words, and the words were spoken by the Redeemer Himself: words, too, which, it seems to us, if duly pondered over with earnest prayer, ought to lift the matter entirely out of the region of dispute. We have quoted them before, but we quote them again, so as to bring out more fully their bearing upon this momentous prerogative of the Church. One can hardly read the passages which contain them without feeling that He (the Redeemer) spoke them in anticipation of future error, that is, spoke them with the view of making clear the unreasonableness and folly of those who, He saw, would in the years that were to come deny her infallibility.

The words are: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever. The Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him: but you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you. … These things I have spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”¹1St. John xiv. 16, 17, 25, 26.

“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of Me.” ²2John xv. 26. And further, in chapter xvi., vv. 12 and 13: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when the Spirit of Truth is come, He will teach you all truth”. A little later He said, on the mountain of Galilee: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost … and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”.³3St. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. Now these promises meant what they expressed, or they meant nothing, or they meant something different from or opposite to what they expressed.

To say they meant nothing would be to affirm that He who was God was trifling with His people; to say they meant something different from or opposite to what they enunciated would be to accuse Him who is truth itself of wilfully deceiving His people.

But let us ask en passant, would it not be disingenuous to try to twist that Divine language out of its obvious import, and to do so plainly with the view of making it suit or support one’s own theories?

When He said that the Holy Ghost would come into His Church, did He mean that the Holy Ghost would not come? When He said that that Divine Spirit would remain for ever, did He mean that that Divine Spirit would not remain for ever? When He said that that same Spirit would teach all truth, was it His meaning that that Spirit would not teach all truth? When He said further, that that Paraclete would suggest and bring all things to their minds whatsoever He Himself had taught, did He, at the very moment He spoke, wish it to be understood that that Paraclete would not suggest to them or bring to their minds anything of what He had revealed to them?

When He proclaimed aloud in the hearing of His Apostles that He Himself would be with His Church all days, even to the consummation, did He intend to convey that He would not be with her all days, or that He would be with her only during a certain period?

Can we be asked to believe that when He made promises He meant the opposite of what the promises expressed? There is no metaphor, no figure of speech of any kind concerned. His words form a clear, direct statement. There is nothing whatever to suggest that they are to be taken out of their plain, literal meaning.

Taking them in their narrowest significance they make several things clear:—

I. That He pointed to some teaching institution which was to last to the end of time, and that that Institution was His Church.

II. That He and His Divine Spirit were to dwell by a special presence in that Church, without interruption, for ever.

III. That a faculty of teaching infallibly was given to her at the outset.

IV. That in view of the distinct and emphatic promises which the words expressed, it was impossible that she could be anything else but infallible.

V. That in view of these promises, the prerogative of infallibility was given to her in such a way, was to be so interwoven with her being, that on the day she should lose it, that same day she should cease entirely to be His Church. In other words, that once infallible she was to be for ever infallible.

VI. That in view of these self-same promises no ecclesiastical Institution could, with any show of reason, claim to be His Church, which did not claim to be infallible.

These positions seem to follow so naturally from the words in which the promises are given, that one would think they ought to be looked upon as so many postulates.

However, let us not take anything for granted, except what would be freely conceded. We think the first will be easily granted, that is, that He pointed to some teaching Institution which was to last to the end of time, and that that Institution was His Church. And we do not see how there can be any difficulty in conceding the second, i.e., that He and His Divine Spirit were to dwell, by a special teaching presence, in that Church for ever. If, however, the matter is urged, proof is easily given. It seems plain that the presence which was promised was a special one. It was something different from that Divine immensity by which the Divine Spirit fills all space, the immensity in which we live, move and have our being; something different, too, from the presence or influence of grace indicated by that sufficient grace which is given to the world,⁴4Given even to mankind as actuated by the Spirit of the world and averse to the Spirit of God. given to all human beings towards their salvation; for it was distinctly pronounced by the lips of our Divine Lord Himself to be a presence which the world could not receive; nay, it was different from the presence indicated by the possession of even that sanctifying grace which makes those who have it the friends and children of the Most High, and the heirs in hope of eternal life.

Yes, it was something over and above all these; it was to be above all, and beyond all, a teaching presence. For while the Holy Spirit was to come as prompter, consoler, encourager, advocate (the word or appellation “Paraclete” means all this and more), He was to come particularly and pre-eminently as teacher.

It is clear from the context that teaching was the chief scope of the consoling promises made after the Last Supper, the principal matter about which they were conversant. “The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” And as to the words in which He (our Lord) promised to be with His Church, “all days, even to the consummation,” they were plainly words which meant, not an ordinary, but a special teaching presence. He spoke them on the very occasion on which He gave the great commission to teach, in immediate and direct connection with it, in the very breath, we may say, in which He uttered the words in which that commission was delivered. “Going, teach … and behold I am with you …” Hence, if He did not intend to convey that He would be with His Apostles and their legitimate successors all days, unceasingly, to the end of time, for the purpose of enabling them to discharge continuously and unerringly the function of testifying to His truth, His words would be meaningless.

Should there be any, however, who are still inclined to question whether the promise, “I am with you all days,” meant a particular presence intended for the guidance of His Church in the sphere of teaching, the following considerations, it is hoped, will be sufficient to remove their doubts.

It will be admitted that He intended the promise for the successors of the Apostles as well as for the Apostles themselves, since the latter were not to live on to the end of time. It will be admitted, too, that when He made it He knew everything which would be taught by the line of the Apostolic succession, or by those who would claim to be of that line down to the consummation. It is clear, however, that He would not and could not have given a promise of being with the successors of the Apostles any more than with the Apostles themselves, if He knew they would teach false doctrine, or the lawfulness of a false worship. But since, as a matter of fact, He did make the promise, and made it unconditionally, it follows He foresaw that they would continue to teach aright.

On the other hand, they could not possibly do so unless there were a special Divine assistance with them, a particular influence from on High to guide them, since the human mind if left to itself is sure to err.

This Divine assistance, this particular influence, is what we mean by His special teaching presence.

This we think is sufficient to make point or statement No. II. abundantly clear. As to the remaining points they are embodied in the remainder of this chapter.

At the moment He promised the Divine indwelling to His Church, He knew the body of doctrine she would announce in the first century, in the second, in the third; the still more detailed doctrines she would define in the fourth, in the sixth, ninth, sixteenth, nineteenth, in fact everything she would teach down to the day of final account. Or, to make the statement meet more explicitly the theories of our separated brethren: the creed she would teach the world throughout the period of primitive purity, as well as the one she would teach from the date of her alleged downfall, was then distinctly clear to His eye. And yet, with this clear foreknowledge of the symbol of faith and of the progressive development of that symbol of faith which she would promulgate to the world as centuries rolled on, He willingly and emphatically, without hesitation, without limitation, without conditions as to time, without putting her on probation with regard to the merits or demerits of her individual members, or even of her visible Head, by His own lips and by explicit pronouncement, declared that He and His Divine Spirit would be with her as long as the world lasted. “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever.” “He will teach you all truth.” … “He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”

Now here is the source and, at the same time, the evidence of the Church’s infallibility. We hold, and we shall show presently, that the indwelling guaranteed by these promises is the secret of her power of teaching infallibly; that a perpetual Divine presence makes her perpetually proof against error; that a Church cannot teach what is wrong in the field of faith and morals, while the Spirit of Truth, by eternal decree, resides in her in order to make her teach what is right.

One would think that this fact alone, that is, the unintermittent inhabitation by a Divine Person, independently of all reasoning, ought to render her immunity from falsehood self-evident; at least in the eyes of those who believe fully in the inspiration of the words of promise. For it reveals her to the eye as the incorporation of the presence of the Holy Spirit, teaching articulately the nations of the world. Indeed, upon this fact, as upon a groundwork, all argument for her infallibility must in the last analysis rest. p. 66Granted—and it cannot be denied—that it was part of our Lord’s plan that the Spirit of Truth should dwell permanently in His Church as Teacher, proof in behalf of her freedom from error must spring either directly or indirectly from that hallowed indwelling. Without it the proof taken from the union of the mystic body with a Divine Head in heaven would be powerless, since it is this indwelling which forms the bond of that union, animates the body, and guides and controls its operations. Without it, too, the proof from Peter, as foundation, would have no force, seeing that, apart from the supernatural assistance which this Divine presence brings with it, the faith of Peter could not be sufficiently reliable to qualify him to be the foundation. And any inference drawn from the figure of the vine and the branches must be regarded in the same light.

The words of the Fathers and Doctors, which are so often used to show that infallibility was a universal belief of the early Church, presuppose this fact, and could have no conclusive power but for it. And the arguments of theologians and theological schools recognise it as the ultimate foundation on which all reasoning in this direction is based. Having in view the Divine arrangement made at the Last Supper, no analogy, comparison, figure or type can avail aught towards establishing this great prerogative of the Church, except on the ground that the Holy Ghost abides in her unfailingly to guide her into all truth. In this unceasing presence we find the fountain from which all the infallibility we can ever have on earth must flow.

We have thought it well to thus explain our position, because our separated brethren fail to apprehend it fully. And we cannot help thinking that if they realised it adequately, they would be more disposed to consider, and even to accept in its largest bearing this great fundamental dogma.

We now proceed to show that our contention is not wider than the premises warrant.

When our Lord gave the solemn assurance that the Paracelete would come into His Church and abide in her for ever, as Teacher, He there and then made Himself responsible for her teaching.

He was committed to her irrevocably. The honour of His Divine name was at stake, if we may so express the idea. He was bound to her “for better,” “for worse,” thenceforward, ever and always, till she had fought the battle of truth throughout, and finished her course.

For while He had chosen her as the authorised teacher and militant witness of His Gospel, He had chosen her also as His Spouse, with espousals which could never be severed by divorce.

We have said by espousals which could not be severed. Because, once that Divine union had been cemented, no power earthly or infernal could rend it asunder. He said: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”. In thus giving security of His own presence, He was but repeating the promise of the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit; for where the Spirit of Jesus is, there must be Jesus Himself.

It is to the indissolubility of this union St. Augustine alludes when he says: “The head and the body are one man: Christ and the Church are one man, a perfect man: He the Bridegroom, she the Bride. And they shall be two in one flesh.” ⁵5St. Aug. in Psalm xviii., tom. iv., pp. 85, 86. He adds: “If there are two in one flesh, how not two in one voice: therefore let Christ speak, because in Christ the Church speaks, and in the Church Christ speaks, both the body in the Head, and the Head in the body?”⁶6St. Aug. in Psalm xxx., tom. iv., p. 147.

The dispensation represented by this union was to be His final one on earth. No other dispensation was to come; no other had been promised; and hence none was to be expected.

The one which He came to give, and did give, personally, to the world, was the complete fulfilment of all the types, figures and prophecies of the past; it could never be superseded; it was to retain its identity, and to hold its ground for ever.

From the moment He declared that the Holy Ghost would abide in her for ever, to suggest, to prompt and to teach all revealed truth, He was constrained by the nature of the case to frame her in such fashion, and to guide her on such lines, that as universal herald of His Gospel she should not promulgate anything wrong, anything which He would disclaim, or which would force Him to break the bond by which He had bound Himself to her.

This is but equivalent to saying, that in giving it to be understood that His Paraclete would dwell in her with the already notified intention of teaching, He thereby gave it to be understood that the whole of her doctrine in her capacity of evangelist of the nations was to be His, and not hers; and that she was simply to be the organ of His voice in announcing it. It is clear He could not intend that a part only of what she taught in His name was to be His, and another part that of somebody else—one part Divine, the rest human.

Once the solemn promises had fallen from His lips, that a Divine Person would be with her to guide her into all truth, He could not allow, He was bound not to allow to be passed off as His revelation, doctrines which were not His teaching at all, but which were merely the idle or erroneous speculations of human and therefore plainly fallible minds.

The clearness and strength of the promises not only justify this reasoning but make it conclusive. It would be meaningless and misleading on His part to notify, that the Paraclete should reside in her ostensibly for the purpose of propounding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if He were to permit man’s error to be palmed off upon the world as teaching which had upon it the seal of His sanction. Unless He meant to guide and control her action in such wise that her symbol of faith should be always and everywhere the echo of His voice, and not of the voice of any human teacher, the inhabitation by the Spirit of Truth would be reduced to a nullity.

For these reasons the ultimate inference becomes inevitable, namely, that as soon as He had by His words of solemn asseveration guaranteed a particular and perpetual Divine teaching presence, He was obliged by the ruling of His Providence (even though a special Providence were required for the purpose), to direct and control the events of life—so far as they concerned her sphere of action—in such a way that she should not, in her character of universal teacher, promulgate falsehood either with regard to her confession of faith or her code of moral law. It was His own will to incur this obligation. It was a necessity which He had voluntarily assumed with the perfect knowledge of all that it involved. He was Divinely conscious that if He failed to exert this controlling power over her voice, and permitted her to announce error to the nations, the error would be set down to Himself, would justly in the eyes of all men be interpreted as the deliberate expression of His will;—and that too on account of the assurances so distinctly given and so emphatically repeated.

To claim thus the intervention of such a Providence for such a purpose is not to assert anything unwarrantable, nor to go beyond the stretch of His power, or the range of His foresight. His all-wise, all-ruling supervision has all things under its control. He whose Omnipotence kept the ark of Noe on the surface of the waters during the one hundred and forty days of the deluge, had it surely in His power to make His Church speak with His voice, not only in the lifetime of His Apostles, but throughout the centuries that were to follow. He could influence mind or spirit as easily and effectively as He could influence matter. We mean, of course, He could influence it without doing any violence to the exercise of its free will. It is not ours to place limits to the extent or direction of His power with regard to the New Law any more than with regard to the Old. What He did for the prophets and the holy men whom He raised up at intervals in the days of the Ancient Dispensation, He could do with equal ease for the whole line of the Apostolic succession. And we think our separated brethren, who make their appeal to the Bible, will have no difficulty in granting that, on particular occasions, He extended to those messengers of the olden time a guidance as direct and a providential assistance as notable, as that which we claim to be guaranteed to the Church through the indwelling of the Paraclete.

Let us take two instances out of the many which the Old Testament abounds in. We read in the fourth chapter of Exodus that, when Moses was appointed leader of the chosen people, he showed signs of hesitation in taking up that high and gravely responsible office. God, however, encouraged and reassured Him by promising the requisite help: “I will be in thy mouth,” He said, “and I will teach thee what to say”. This was undoubtedly giving to Moses a certain measure of infallibility—an infallibility commensurate both with the matter which he had to announce and with the time over which the duty of announcing it extended.

The first chapter of the book of Jeremias contains words which are equally to the point: “And the Lord said to me: Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee: and whatsoever I shall command thee, thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their presence: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. … Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak to them all that I command thee. … And they shall fight against thee, and shall not prevail: for I am with thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee.”

Let us ask: Did not these words express a Divine presence of special influence, help, protection, guidance? Is it not clear that the Lord was to be with Jeremias in a way in which He was not to be with those from whom He promised to deliver him, and against whom He promised to protect him; in a way in which He was not to be with the rest of the world; in a way in which He was not to be with the rest even of his own race? Is it not clear that it was a presence that would give him light and power to do adequately what he had been commanded to do, to deliver the whole of the Divine message with unfailing courage and faultless precision? Is it not clear, too, that in view of this supernatural or providential aid, no adverse agency could tie his tongue, or make it falter? And is it not equally clear, that that light and power were not limited to an hour or a day, but were to continue throughout the whole of the time required for the due performance of his task?

Let us apply this. Place the phrase. “I am with thee,” addressed to Jeremias, side by side with the phrase, “I am with you all days,” addressed to the Apostles. Could any one fairly hold that the words meant particular help in the case of Jeremias and did not mean help of a similar kind in the case of the successors of the Apostles?

Why grant it in one instance and deny it in the other? The reasons for allowing it in reference to the Apostolic succession are as strong (to say the least), as those connected with the work which the Hebrew prophet was deputed to do. Their message was immeasurably more important than his. Jeremias was to deliver a particular exhortation to a particular people in a particular region; those who succeeded the Apostles were to preach to and teach all the peoples and all the nations of the earth. The burden of the words of Jeremias was comparatively small: that of the Apostolic commission was nothing less than the whole range of Divine revelation, and a revelation to be taught through all time. And hence, if a special exercise of the Divine power was granted to Jeremias that he might fulfil adequately the mission assigned to him, how can we hold that such was not granted to those to whom was to be entrusted a commission much larger, much more lasting, and one too incomparably higher and holier?

It may be objected that the minds of Popes may in some century or in some generation give way or fall into error; or it may be urged that at some particular period those who occupy the highest and most responsible position in the teaching ministry of the Church, while apparently having the faith, may have secretly lost it, may have become Atheists, or Agnostics, or heretics.

Those who raise such objections seem to overlook the force of the promises we have been considering.

The perpetual indwelling of the Divine Spirit in the Church is not a metaphor, it is a reality. His abiding there is positive and concrete. He has it ever present to Him that the world was given to understand that He was there to teach, and that her teaching was to be ascribed to Him. On the other hand, He is God, that God whose Providence “reacheth from end to end mightily, and disposeth all things sweetly”.

Foreseeing the future in all its details, He can choose, or permit to be chosen as His instruments, those men who, whatever their secret faults may be, whatever their personal convictions, whether they have the faith subjectively, or have it not, shall at all events have the power and the will to teach true doctrine in faith and morals, and shall never make His voice give an uncertain sound, much less a false one. But we must go farther into this matter. It has pleased the Redeemer that there should remain on record words of His own, which show that this special providential assisting of the mind to speak the truth is no mere assumption, but is as real, although invisible, as if we saw it in action with our bodily eyes.

The words make it clear that He promised such assistance in a sphere, which, to say the least, was not of greater importance than that of teaching His revelation to the world.

In the twelfth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, and eleventh and twelfth verses, we find Him addressing His disciples in this striking language: “And when they shall bring you into the synagogues, and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say”.

Saint Matthew, in relating the same event, adds: “For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you”.⁷7St. Matt. x. 20.

The privilege here promised may be looked at from a twofold point of view:—

(1) That in that hour the Divine Spirit would enable them to answer aright with regard to anything that pertained to His Gospel.

(2) That they should not give a wrong version of that Gospel, or of any part of it. For the fact of their making a false statement in connection with revealed truth would nullify the effect of the special presence which made them able to give decisions which were infallibly true. But we cannot measure the full significance of this Divine help till we have realised that it was not confined to a limited number of arraignments. Suppose that the Apostles had been brought before the secular tribunals, not merely once or twice or thrice, but every day of the week throughout the whole of their Apostolate, or throughout an Apostolate which would have lasted as long as the life of the oldest of the patriarchs, that Divine promise would have held good. And the same providential help, real, although unapparent, would have been present, enabling them to speak the truth without admixture of falsehood, so long as they appeared there in His name and for His sake.

This being the nature and efficacy of the promised privilege, three things become distinctly clear:—

(1) That in thus aiding them, He would not be curtailing the perfection of their freedom of will. If He did so, He would be reducing them to so many machines, and be depriving them of all opportunity of merit.

(2) That with regard to those who should be brought before the powers of the world for His sake, He would take care to keep their minds right—that is, in the proper use of reason—while they stood before such tribunals.

(3) That He would, in the circumstances named, so illuminate, act upon their mind by a particular influence, that they should not make any statement opposed to His revealed truth.

It must be admitted, that all this was as much within the reach of His Omnipotence with regard to even the most distant successors of the Apostles, as with regard to the Apostles themselves. He who created the human mind and endowed it with reason could have no difficulty in keeping that reason in its normal condition. Nor could He find it difficult to enlighten it, so as to make it grasp adequately, and express with even unerring accuracy, the doctrines which He had come into the world to reveal.

It was as easy to Him, by extending this supernatural help, to have His truth conveyed to the world of the most remote generations with faultless precision as to make it known Himself in person originally; and quite as easy as to give His Apostles the faculty of communicating it without alloy to the nations which they evangelised. Nay, He could, if He chose, make the most illiterate man of the present day enunciate the whole of His revelation with an exactness similar to that with which He Himself would express it, if He appeared on earth visibly and taught it articulately. With Him it could not be a question of power, it was a matter of will. And seeing the nature of the work to be done, and how much depended on the doing of it, the will could not be wanting; if it were, He would be open to the charge of having made promises of the most solemn nature without any intention of fulfilling them.

But surely it will be admitted that it was a matter of quite as great importance, to say the least, that the teaching authority in His Church should have, in every century to the end of time, the prerogative of saying what was right when there was question of teaching the Gospel to the nations of the earth, as that those should have such prerogative who were examined as to the faith that was in them before civil rulers or Jewish synagogues. When it was bestowed in the one case, how could it be consistently withheld in the other?

But we shall see presently that this is not only a legitimate inference but a necessary one. He not only had the will that such assistance should be extended to the Apostolic succession; He imposed upon Himself the necessity of extending it.

Let us call to mind the striking words in which He made it known to Peter that He had prayed that his faith might remain firm: “Simon, Simon, Satan has desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And do thou, in thy turn, confirm thy brethren.”⁸8St. Luke xxii. 31, 32.

This was equivalent to saying that He had foreseen and prearranged that Peter’s faith should never fail, either personally with regard to Himself, or with regard to His function of teaching it, as Supreme Head of the Church.

The words contained a double promise, says À Lapide; one regarded Peter personally, the other was common to him and his successors. The phrase “that thy faith fail not” had reference to Peter himself; the other concerned those who would succeed him as Sovereign Pontiff.

Of course, at the time He spoke, He foresaw Peter’s denial, and He even foretold it. He also foresaw his repentance, and predicted it as well. But He meant that His prayer for the steadfastness and purity of Peter’s faith should have effect from the time he (Peter) would begin to rule as visible Head of His Church, that is, from the day of Pentecost. He wished to have it known and proclaimed everywhere throughout the world, that whatever changes time might bring with it, whatever events might happen, whatever falls or defections might take place here or there, in this way or that, He had decreed and effected, without limiting in any way the exercise of free-will, that he (Peter) should never fall away from the faith, and that he should never, in his capacity of Supreme Pontiff, teach any doctrine contrary thereto. And He wished to convey, moreover, that so far from there being any danger of Peter’s lapsing into false doctrines himself personally, he was to have, and ever to retain, the singular prerogative of rectifying by the fulness, firmness and purity of his faith the mistakes which might creep into the creed of his flock; and thus help to keep, strengthen and confirm them in belief which was thoroughly and genuinely orthodox.

From this it becomes apparent, that by His forethought and supervision—in plain words, by His Providence—He was able to make, and did make His Church speak His mind unerringly during the lifetime of the Apostles. And it becomes apparent also that, by the same all-seeing and all-ruling Providence, He could, if He chose, make her express His truth as unerringly in every century down to the consummation of the world, as in the days when she was presided over by the man whom He had chosen to be her first visible Head. To accomplish this He did not need to work miracles. Neither did He need to render the successors of Peter infallible by directly inspiring them. He could make them quite as infallible by an assisting presence of His Divine Spirit, as if He bestowed upon them the endowment of immediate inspiration. And as He had it in His power to do this, He was, so to speak, bound to do it—that is, to invest them with infallibility in the sphere and within the lines already indicated. For, as we have shown, He had made Himself answerable for the teaching of His Church. He had taken charge of it. He had notified to the world that the doctrine she would put forth was not a thing of her own invention, but was His explicit and definite revelation; that she was nothing more than its channel, while He Himself was its source; and He made it clear, by laying upon His words all the emphasis which His Divine authority could bring to them, that this arrangement was to hold not merely for a period but for ever. “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”⁹9Matt. xxviii. 20. “And I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever.”¹⁰10John xiv. 16.

But the full extent, to which His promises oblige Him to guide the voice of His Church, will appear in still stronger light by putting forward an extreme case, a case which will test the justness and consistency of our reasoning. Let us suppose that the teaching faculty in the Church—that is, an Œcumenical Council, or the successor of Peter in his character of universal teacher—were preparing and resolving to promulgate to the world, either through ignorance or malice, or through Atheistic or Agnostic tendencies, as a Divine truth to be believed with implicit faith, some absolute, atrocious error; and suppose they actually did so, what, it is asked, would be the consequence then? Might not that happen? And if it did happen, what would become of the doctrine of infallibility? We answer: A supposition of this kind may exist in the mind, but such promulgation could never take place. The reasons why it is impossible have been already assigned; however, to meet this plausible hypothesis, we will refer to them briefly again. The Holy Ghost, who resides in the Church, does not forget that He is responsible for her teaching. He knows that on account of His indwelling, which was promised with such emphasis at the Last Supper, her doctrine will be attributed to Him. But He is God, the same who in the beginning moved over the waters. He has infinite resources at His disposal. He holds the earth in the hollow of His hand. He has full control over the events of time. Nothing can happen without His decree or at least permission. And hence, we assert: if He saw that those, who voice the doctrine of His Church, seriously meant to be guilty of the sacrilege of profaning His truth by teaching falsehood to the world in His name, He would be bound to prevent it by a special Providence, or, if need be, by miraculous interposition. But He can obviate such occurrences without having recourse to intervention of a miraculous kind. He need not permit, and as He has all power in His own Hands, He is bound not to permit to represent Him, those who would teach anything wrong in reference to the deposit of faith.

Our dissenting brethren may say: Look at the multitudes of Christian (non-Catholic) religions in the world. According to you, all these are teaching much error daily, and teaching it in His name, and still no thunderbolts of vengeance from on high fall upon them. Yes, but according to us these sectarian religions were not instituted by Him. We hold that He never sanctioned their origin, never meant any of them to be His mouthpiece, or to be the receptacle of His truth. He is not responsible for their creed, and hence is in no way bound to vindicate and protect it, since He cannot be bound to vindicate and protect falsehood or insurrection.

What we hold is: Whichever Church is the continuation of the one to which He made the original promises, He is bound, in virtue of those promises, to guide and safeguard her symbol of faith in the way we have explained.

From the beginning He has tolerated error. He allowed pagan falsehood to live side by side continuously with Jewish truth. And He still permits idolatry to be practised in various parts of the world concurrently with true Christian worship. He is no more responsible, however, for the false doctrines of heresy or schism than He is for the more revolting errors of paganism. But He is responsible for the teaching of the Church which He Himself established, the one which He recognises as His own; so much so, that if He permitted her to promulgate falsehood to the world, her whom He made the “pillar and ground of the truth,” it would be like extinguishing the lighthouse on the dangerous coast in the darkness of the night, with certain knowledge that wrecks would take place and lives be lost; nay, rather, it would be like deliberately setting there a false and deceptive signal light to lure unhappy mariners upon those shoals where wreck and death were inevitable.

It may be urged: errors crept into the Dispensation from Noe to Abraham, and from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses to the dawn of Redemption, and yet no miracles were wrought to prevent such errors from being originated and propagated.

Why should not the Christian Dispensation be subject to the same law of declension? We answer: (1) All these pre-Incarnation Dispensations were to last only for a period.

(2) There had been no promise that a Divine Person should abide permanently, by a special indwelling in any of them, for the purpose of teaching truth. It is to this point Cardinal Manning alludes so effectively in his book on The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost. He says: “The fifth and last distinction I will note between the presence and manner of operation of the Holy Ghost before the Incarnation and His own Temporal Mission in the world, is this—whereas, before that epoch of the Divine economy the Holy Spirit taught and sanctified individuals, and spoke by the Prophets, by virtue of His light and power, but with an intermittent exercise of His visitations, now He is present personally and substantially in the body of Christ, and both teaches and sanctifies, without intermission, with a perpetual Divine voice and a perpetual sanctifying power; or, in other words, the Divine action of the day of Pentecost is permanent, and pervades the world as far as the Church is diffused, and pervades all ages, the present, as fully as the past, today as fully as in the beginning.”¹¹11Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, pp. 75 and 76 (4th edition).

But some will dispute His obligation to prevent, if necessary, by special Providence, or by a miraculous manifestation of His power, the promulgation by His Church of falsehood, on the ground that He cannot be expected to intervene with vigilance so minute and constant as our contention implies.

We reply: (1) Such objections must proceed from a false idea of the attributes of Him who sees and takes notice of everything that is going on, and whose ceaseless care extends even to the hairs of our head.

(2) No professing Christian will deny, that it was a matter of as much importance in His eyes to make His Church continue to promulgate true revelation to the nations at large, as to have that revelation conveyed by a particular interposition to a single individual or a single family. It would look like striking at the foundation of Christianity, to hold, that He would be less willing to work miracles to save the world from being taught by His Church what was false, than to have even one man taught what was true. The welfare of the whole body of the faithful cannot occupy a smaller place in His designs than that of an isolated member.

Yet more than once has He manifested an exceptional exercise of His power in bringing the Gospel of truth to the soul of an individual, even though that individual was not destined to be either Apostle, Evangelist or Prophet, but merely to remain one of the rank and file of the faithful. In illustration of this reasoning we will point to the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where we find a special, and we may call it, a miraculous Providence at work in leading Cornelius the Centurion to the altar of the true faith. In this striking instance of love of truth and hatred of falsehood, we see the Almighty sending an angel, and sending also the visible Head of the Church, on a miraculous mission; we see Him multiplying visions; we see Him having recourse to a series of supernatural interventions,—and all for the same purpose, that is, of removing error from the mind of even one person, and of replacing it by the knowledge of His true and undefiled revelation. And the circumstances of this remarkable case are given in the inspired narrative in such suggestive detail, as to leave no doubt, that this wonderful display of omnipotence would have continued beyond the two or three days in question if the enlightenment of Cornelius had required its prolongation.

In the light of this example, who can have any difficulty in realising that there is a Divine eye ever watching, and a Divine ear ever listening, lest falsehood should be promulgated by the voice of His Church as a truth to be received with implicit belief by the faithful throughout the world. The Divine Founder may seem asleep, but His Heart is ever watching.

But perhaps it will be urged here that in the present instance the Centurion is not to be considered in his individual, but rather in his representative capacity, i.e., as “the first fruits of the Gentiles”. Be it so. The objection, if it be meant as such, seems to us to bring the strength of the reasoning into still stronger light.

The care the Almighty took to have the faith brought to Cornelius as a man who represented many, He would surely take in having it preserved integral and incorrupt in the aggregate of the faithful of whom he was the representative.

The exceptional influence He exercised in behalf of the part, He could not be unwilling to employ in favour of the whole. In evincing this watchful interest in the case of the individual, He was but giving an indication of the universal and unceasing attention with which He watches over the illumination and illuminative power of the Church to which the gentile world was aggregated.

He might not work miracles to attest the presence of this unremitting care. His promises were evidence sufficient that it was unremitting. External manifestations of omnipotent power would add nothing to its reality. The gift or assistance which enabled the Apostles to speak languages they had never learned was as real, although invisible and perhaps intermittent, throughout their Apostolate up to the day of their death, as it was in the brief interval during which the tongues of fire appeared in the upper room.

If, however, we are asked to furnish an example where a special Providence is made visible in having the Gospel announced to an individual, who was not privileged with any representative capacity, there is one at hand. It is found in the eighth chapter of the same inspired record—the Acts of the Apostles.

We point to the meeting of Philip the Deacon with the Eunuch of Ethiopia. This was a marvellous evidence of minute Divine vigilance in the direction we have been noticing. Philip, who was in Samaria at the time, was directed by an angel to go towards the south to a road which was called a “deserted” road—that is, deserted except principally for chariots. It had been prearranged in the Divine designs he was to be there exactly at the time the chariot of the Eunuch should pass, and also at the time the latter should be engaged in reading the very prophecy which foretold the passion and death of the Redeemer. He was commanded by the Spirit to join the chariot. He did so. And at the request of the Eunuch himself he instructed and baptised him into the communion of the faithful.

Nothing could illustrate better than these evidences of Divine supervision the sleepless care with which God watches over the faith of His Church. Nor could anything reveal more clearly (we say this merely en passant) the noteworthy fact, that it is His ordinary Providence that His people should learn His truth by the living, articulate voice of that Church, and not by immediate illumination from Himself. For to our thinking it would have been more direct and convenient to enlighten this Ethiopian Jew by special inspiration, than to give a variety of instructions, and employ intermediate agents for the purpose. The whole passage is an additional vindication of the method of oral teaching, which has been the practice of the Church Catholic from the beginning—teaching, too, which we maintain was meant to be infallible throughout.

Philip would not have been deputed to instruct that privileged man had not the Divine Spirit foreseen and taken care he should impart the instructions with unerring accuracy.

Objections, however, may be raised from another point of view. It may be asked: If Christ’s watchfulness over the Church is so minute as is represented, why did He allow to be chosen as His vicars men like Alexander the Sixth? And could such men discharge duly the functions of infallible teacher? The objection is a reasonable one, and we do not mean to shirk it.

Let it be remembered, we do not hold that He is bound by His promises to exclude an unrighteous man from the visible Headship of His Church; but we do hold that He is bound to exclude from it any man, who, in the capacity of supreme teacher, would promulgate to the world heresy or error in the field of faith and morals; or at least to make such promulgation impossible. As a matter of fact, He took care that Alexander taught nothing wrong in the sphere here indicated. Had He foreseen that he would have done so, He would have been bound to prevent his election or to overrule his action. It is true Alexander personally was totally unworthy to hold that exalted position; he was guilty of many scandalous sins, and he may have added the sin of secret heresy to the number; but in his official capacity of Head of the Church he erred not so far as teaching anything contrary to the deposit of faith was concerned. Hence his case does not affect our position in any way; and what we say of him can be shown to be true of the other few Popes (relatively few)¹²12Some eight out of 258. whose lives like his were sinful. Our Lord did not make stainlessness or freedom from grave sin a necessary qualification for appointment to even this highest of all earthly offices, or for the safe and valid performance of the duties belonging to it. And we think it will be conceded that it is an additional manifestation of His wisdom that He abstained from doing so. For since besides the Divine element in the Church there is also a human one, secret sinfulness may sometimes be successfully concealed under the garb of apparent sanctity.

If personal integrity were made a necessary condition of the valid discharge of the functions of the Supreme Pontificate, or of the Episcopate, or of the Priesthood, none of the faithful could ever be sure of possessing the right creed or of having received a Sacrament validly. Who could be certain that he had been properly baptised, if it were indispensable that the person, who administered the baptismal rite, should be in the state of sanctifying grace at the time of such ministration? What priest could feel confident that he had been duly ordained, if such conditions were required on the part of the bishop who gave him orders? And what bishop could have any security that he possessed genuine Episcopal powers if the Pope, in whose reign he was raised to the Episcopal chair, required to be in the state of grace at the time he ratified the election? But it is difficult to see how such an objection can be consistently raised by those who belong to a Church whose twenty-sixth Article of belief is the following: “Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet, forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the Word of God and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them: which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.”

No doubt it is meet and just and most intensely to be desired that the man who holds the place of Christ should be upright, holy and stainless; and quite revolting to the Christian sense that such a one should be a sinner. Yet virtue was never laid down as a condition for the Supreme Pontificate any more than eminent learning.

The visible head of the Church did not need to be the most learned man of his time, neither did he need to be the holiest.

Looking at things from our standpoint, we should have thought it likely that Christ would have chosen as His first Vicar Saint John the Evangelist, His beloved disciple, who had been blameless in the past, and who was to be faultless throughout, in preference to Saint Peter, who He knew would deny Him during His passion. Similar considerations would have led us to believe that the same Saint John, who, in addition to transcendent holiness, possessed the inspiration of an Apostle and Evangelist, would have been selected to succeed Saint Peter in the Primacy in preference to Saint Linus, Cletus or Clement. Yet during his lifetime, which lasted to the end of the first century, these were chosen, one after the other, and not he.

God’s ways are not our ways. It looks strange that He chose Judas to be an Apostle, although He knew Judas would betray Him, and would never live to exercise Apostolic functions. Does it not seem as if He meant His Church to draw from the treason of the unfaithful Apostle a warning for future generations against reasonings like those against which we are now arguing? Caiphas was High Priest; and though not holy, he prophesied, on account of the gift inherent in his office.

God chose David to be King, although He foreknew that David would be guilty of the sins of adultery and murder, and chose him, too, in preference to others who, had they been raised to the throne, might have kept clear of crime of every kind.

We must not forget that the Church is earthly as well as heavenly; and that as earthly, she has ever been, is now, and ever will be liable in her members to be full of the weaknesses and imperfections incidental to man’s nature. Her Founder saw this from the beginning; He foreknew that He would be forced from time to time to tolerate unworthiness to occupy the place where sanctity alone could be worthy to enter. p. 80And He may not employ a special Providence, or resort to miraculous expedients to debar a man who is in sin from the office of Supreme High Priest; but He has, by His promises, imposed upon Himself the obligation of suspending the laws of nature, if need be, to preclude from it any one, however learned, enlightened or influential, who would teach error in His name to the universal Church in anything that pertained to the deposit of faith; or—what is the equivalent—to deprive the man, who might attempt to do so, of the power of carrying out the intention.

Such then being the source of the Church’s infallible teaching, and such being the walls of defence by which He is bound to protect that teaching, it is clear that He can centre as safely the prerogative of infallibility, if it so please Him, in one individual bishop as in a general Council consisting of 500 bishops.

It is quite as easy to Him to make the declaration of one prelate infallible as a declaration repeated or signed by a thousand, for the simple reason that the Divine Spirit has no greater difficulty in assisting one than in assisting a multitude to speak unerringly.

It is not a question of the number of bishops; nor is it a question of the place, the way or the circumstances in which they meet: it is a question, we repeat, of those guarantees which He has freely given—guarantees which bind Him to see that His Church speaks with His voice, whether articulated by one man or by many united.

Now this element of infallibility is one which cannot be dismissed with cursory thought. It demands not only earnest attention but deep and serious reflection.

It is the pivot on which the whole question of religion turns. On its decision depends the solution of the momentous problem as to whether the true Church of Christ is, or is not to be found anywhere on earth at present. Affirm it, and everything that we claim for that Church, as we shall see, follows as a natural and necessary consequence—true doctrine, right worship, apostolic hierarchy. Deny it, and at once Christian Faith sinks into the dead sea of Agnosticism. Nothing remains but a “congeries” of probabilities. For no teacher but an unerring one can give in any century or generation trustworthy witness to the truth.

It is for this reason we have been trying to compel the reader, so far as we might, to give to it the largest and highest place in his thoughts for the moment.

And the point which beyond all others we wish him to keep prominently in view is this: Since the Redeemer guaranteed the Divine indwelling to His Church for ever, in her character of universal teacher, He was bound in justice, as well as in honour, to arrange by a providential controlling of events, that she would not and could not make herself unworthy of the continuance of that indwelling by teaching error.

This is but equivalent to saying:—

(1) That the Church of Christ once infallible was to be infallible for ever.

(2) That no institution could, with any show of reason, claim to be His Church if it did not claim to be infallible.

(3) That from the day on which she should cease to be infallible, she could no longer be recognised by Him as His.

Such cessation would mean that the Divine Spirit had withdrawn His assisting presence from her. In the hour she became fallible, in that same hour a Divine teaching presence within her became impossible. The continuance of it, under these circumstances, would amount to the intention of sanctioning whatever erroneous doctrine she might be blind or weak enough to put forward. On the other hand, an institution which was liable to err was sure to err. Such liability in this case could spring only from the fact that there was not an all-knowing and all-seeing influence from on high, sufficiently direct and effective, to keep it right. Without a Divine influence it could not rise above the level of institutions purely human. Like all institutions of human origin, error would sooner or later find its way into it, remain in it, increase and multiply. And if the Holy Spirit condescended to dwell by a particular presence in an institution of this kind, He would be approving the errors, however grave, of which, if not immediately, at all events in the course of time, it would certainly and inevitably be the organ.

A Church which is fallible can render nothing stronger than testimony which is doubtful, since the stream cannot rise higher than its source. But we take it that all reasonable Christians will admit that doubtful testimony in reference to revealed religion would be worthless, unworthy of Him who came to be the light of the world, who was and is and ever must be the fountain of all truth. Such testimony being obscured by doubt could bring no reliable light with it. It would but leave men in, or force them back into, the dense darkness in which the unbelieving world was enveloped before the advent of the Messias. There would be nothing in such case for the intellect to grasp, nothing for the will to obey. Revelation would become as unreal as a dream. Yet doubtful all round and in the last degree would her testimony be, if she were to be fallible either in the first century or in any century of her course.

But might not this be proved in fewer words and shorter arguments? Let us appeal to illuminated reason. A Church which was Divinely destined to be the teacher of the nations to the world’s end, and which at the same time was liable to stray off the path of truth, could not be a thing of Divine authorship. Would not such an institution be unworthy of a Divine Founder, belie its origin, and be a stain on the truth and wisdom of the all-true and all-wise Creator? That a Divine Being should establish an institution which He meant to be His final and unchangeable dispensation in the sphere of religion, that He should establish it to be the pillar and ground of truth, that He should commission it to teach His revelation to all nations to the end of time, and that, while intending it for these high and heavenly purposes, He should nevertheless fashion it in such form that it should teach that revelation correctly only for one hundred years, or, at most, for six hundred years, that it should then fall away, cease to teach it correctly, and teach falsehood instead, or teach falsehood side by side with it—would not this be an anomaly, a contradiction? Would it not be a kind of blasphemy against the Providence of Him who was born and came into the world to give testimony to the truth? And that anomaly would be none the less if it erred only in one generation, or with regard to one item of the deposit of faith. For if it fell into error at one period, it could never be trusted at any subsequent one; and if it taught falsehood in reference to one point, it could never be relied upon with implicit confidence with regard to the rest.

But was it not as much within the reach of His omniscience and omnipotence to make it teach His Gospel unerringly throughout all time, as to make it do so for one century or for six? Could He, whose Providence extended to all things, find it more difficult to choose, or permit to be chosen for His teaching authority, those who He foresaw would have the faith, keep it and announce it with unerring accuracy, than to allow to be chosen those who should have it not, or should lose it, or should attempt to promulgate falsehood instead of truth.

Our reasoning then may be reduced to this: The Divine Spirit came into the world to teach. He could not, in the natural order of things, teach human beings without using an articulate human voice. He had the choice of the voice in His own hands. He would not use a doubtful when He had a certain one at His disposal: would not employ a fallible one while He had it in His power to choose one that was infallible. To do so would be to deliberately incur the risk of having the nations taught the opposite of what He intended to convey.

In the plainest words therefore we can use, we draw the following inference, and we challenge contradiction: Granted that Christ intended to establish a Church which was to last for ever; and granted that He intended her to teach His truth for ever, He was bound, strictly bound to make her infallible for ever. To have made her fallible would be to defeat His own ends, to render utterly impossible the attainment of the object He had in view. It would mean that He made her liable to teach falsehood as well as truth. And if that were the case, His people could never be certain how much of her teaching was wrong and how much right.

These considerations—considerations which must occur to the minds of all who with any measure of serious and earnest attention reflect on the matter—combine to make apparent the insuperable difficulties which stare us in the face if the infallibility of the Church is denied, and to make apparent also, that it is only when it is admitted, that everything in the field of revelation is plain, intelligible, consistent and harmonious.

Such, then, is what Catholics maintain now, and have ever maintained, namely, that the Church Christ instituted, whichever, or wherever she is, was invested at the outset with an infallibility which was essential, and therefore perpetual; that the promises He made to her sealed her with the seal of His Divine sanction as the sole authorised teacher of the universe, and chartered her as the one witness which, through the course of ages, was to render unerring testimony to the truth.

Firm in the knowledge that these Divine guarantees could not fail of fulfilment, they believe with unchanging faith that she was infallible not merely in the “upper room” which shook with the impulse of the Divine Spirit, and which witnessed the descent of the tongues of fire, but infallible from then till now; as infallible to-day as in the days of the Apostles; as infallible during the ages of pretended darkness as in the years of primitive purity. No break. Never any intermission from the hour the Divine Spirit was first given. Infallible always and everywhere. Infallible in the catacombs whilst struggling against the rage of savage tyrants; infallible when, having emerged from those caverns, she covered East and West and extended from sunrise to sunset; infallible when East and West separated; infallible in sunshine and darkness, in prosperity and adversity, when all things favoured her, and when all things seemingly went against her; infallible in spite of the weakness, errors, crimes and impenitent perversity of many, of multitudes of her members; infallible amid the fierce struggle of anti-popes as well as amid the flagrant scandals of a few amongst the number who were duly elected; infallible in spite of the perpetual recurrence of heresies and schisms; infallible with a Divine and therefore unerring precision which no lapse of ages and no events of earth could influence, change or impair down to the consummation.

Once it is established that there exists on earth a Church which is infallible in her teaching, all controversy may cease. Argument is no longer required. That in itself is sufficient. For it then follows naturally and necessarily that she is right, not merely in her doctrine, but in everything which she declares to belong to her as an essential element—sacraments, government, worship.

The reason is apparent. It is because the perpetual presence of the Divine Spirit makes her perpetually infallible. And while that presence is a guarantee that her teaching must be true, it is also a guarantee that her sacramental system, her essential worship, and her hierarchy must be right. If they were wrong, it would follow that she taught one thing by voice or writing, and taught the opposite by ritual and constitution.

And the Holy Ghost could not remain by a particular presence in a Church which taught one doctrine by word and the “contradictory” by signs or symbols.