of his day. We rest in the great things, the grand impression of the whole, the broad and elevated teaching, the original thought, the commanding, yet gentle and balanced, personality.

It follows from the doctrine which has been laid down that, in the construction of Christian theology, we must look upon the Bible, and especially the New Testament, as a primary source; for it is there that we find the earliest expression of Christian faith, and the richest treasure of spiritual thought; and if we have to use discrimination and criticism, it must be the discrimination of the spiritual mind, which approaches these subjects with a tender reverence, and with a pure devotion to the Lord of truth.

H

CHAPTER IV

THE CHURCH

IN this chapter we have to consider the Church solely as a source of doctrine, reserving other questions affecting it for future discussion.

The Greek Church, which claims, since the Latin schism, to be alone orthodox and genuine, derives the authority of its dogmas not only from Scripture, but also from tradition. and the teaching of the councils and fathers.1 The Church of Rome recognizes the same twofold source, and its doctrine of an infallible tradition has been more fully elaborated, and more directly concerns us in Western Christendom. We may therefore limit our attention to the latter.

The Roman Catholic Church has always claimed the possession of dogmatic infallibility, supernaturally conferred; and in recent times it has been decided that this infallibility resides in the Roman Pontiff. The latest definition of this prerogative was pronounced by the Vatican Council in 1870. It is as follows :—' We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, the Sacred Council approving, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed; that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, discharging the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme

1 Mogilas, Ορθόδοξος ὁμολογία, ἀπόκρισις 4.

apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, the same is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, the definitions, of this sort, of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves irreformable, and not dependent upon the consent of the Church."1

We must observe carefully the limited range of the infallibility claimed for the Pope, the limitations applying in substance to the decisions of councils. He is infallible only in questions of faith or morals, and in them only when he speaks as the official teacher of all Christians, when he is exercising his apostolic authority, and when he is laying down a proposition to be held by the entire Church. It is clear that the infallibility may be very rarely exercised, and that there is ample room for papal error without affecting the faith of Catholics. We must add that the Church does not claim inspiration, such as belonged to the Apostles, but what is technically known as assistentia, by which under certain conditions it is preserved from error. It therefore does not pretend to reveal any new truths, but only to guard the original deposit, the revealed truth which was given once for all by Christ and his Apostles, and to define with

1 It may be convenient to have the original words: 'Nos traditioni a fidei Christianae exordio perceptae fideliter inhaerendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis Catholicae exaltationem et Christianorum populorum salutem, sacro approbante Concilio, docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque ejusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse.' The usual anathema is appended.

absolute accuracy the contents of that deposit, when any particular article is challenged by heresy or is felt to be obscure by churchmen themselves. Thus, according to the Catholic view, papal infallibility existed, and was known to exist, on the authority of Christ himself, from the days of St. Peter, though it has received its formal definition only within living memory.

This dogma rests logically upon certain beliefs, which may be thus stated: (1) that Christ made an infallible dogmatic revelation; (2) that this was communicated by him to the Apostles, to be delivered by them to the Church1; (3) that, in order to secure the correct transmission of what was revealed, he delegated his dogmatic infallibility, within defined

1 The Catholic view of tradition was thus defined by the Council of Trent (Sessio quarta): 'Hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt.' This statement was reaffirmed by the Vatican Council (Sessio tertia, Cap. ii). The following statement, justifying the decree of infallibility, is taken from the proceedings of the Vatican Council (Sessio quarta, Cap. iv). 'Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam summum et plenum primatum et principatum super universam Ecclesiam catholicam obtinere, quem se ab ipso Domino in beato Petro, Apostolorum principe sive vertice, cujus Romanus Pontifex est successor, cum potestatis plenitudine recepisse veraciter et humiliter recognoscit. . . . Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut, eo assistente, traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.' The texts appealed to in support of this position are, 'Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church,' and 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou, when converted, strengthen thy brethren.' In accordance with this view, the recent Decree condemns the following propositions :-' Revelatio, objectum fidei catholicae constituens, non fuit cum Apostolis completa '; I Christus determinatum doctrinae corpus omnibus temporibus cunctisque hominibus applicabile non docuit, sed potius inchoavit motum quemdam religiosum diversis temporibus ac locis adaptatum vel adaptandum.' Thus, whatever development there may be in the statement of dogmas, there can be none in their substance.

limits, to Peter; (4) that this passed from Peter to his episcopal successors; and (5) that these successors are the Bishops of Rome. These statements are believed to be proved by adequate historical evidence. They are all open to objection.

1. The Gospels nowhere imply that Jesus made a dogmatic revelation. He undoubtedly taught great religious truths; but he did so in a broad and prophetic way, not in the manner of a theologian. His teachings bear no resemblance to a catechism or a creed. Indeed it is this obvious defect in his teaching that has rendered necessary the doctrine of tradition. If it had been Christ's purpose to communicate a dogmatic revelation, he would have followed (we must suppose) a different plan, and have written down his dogmas once for all, and handed them in this imperishable form to his Apostles. And again, with reverence be it said, the conviction is growing that Jesus himself was not infallible; and many candid and pious men are now able to save their orthodoxy only through the doctrine of kenosis.1 Disciples are finding themselves obliged to admit that in some references to the Old Testament, in the acceptance of demoniacal possession, perhaps in some utterances regarding his second advent-things not unconnected with faith and morals-he was influenced by the mistaken opinions belonging to his time. 2. The different types of thought in the New Testament, though I think the differences have been a good deal exaggerated, are hardly consistent with the idea that the Apostles had gone through a dogmatic drill, and each possessed and taught the same complete body of dogma. The unity which we observe is that of great spiritual and ethical principles (though there were controversies even about some of these); and there is no reason to doubt that the same broad outlines of doctrine were taught everywhere, and handed down in the churches, but not without additions and fluctuations. But there is nothing in the New Testament to sanction the belief in an esoteric tradition committed by Jesus to his Apostles.

1 This doctrine will be discussed further on.