July 1, 1886.] 



♦ KNO^A^LEDGE ♦ 



273 



teaching of the Catholic Church on such matters is not 

 authoritative, and cites the case of Galileo to show that 

 when the Pope has dealt with scientific matters he has not 

 been infallible, wherefore " men of science should in no wise 

 allow their efforts after truth to be checked by ecclesiastical 

 declarations." To which Mr. Murphy makes rejoinder that 

 the case of Galileo is quite unlike the case of Darwin, and, 

 moreover, that the Pope never did pronounce on Galileo's 

 teachings after the manner which is essential for all deci- 

 sions to which the Catholic Church attributes infallibility. 



Now, it may perhaps be asked by a large proportion of 

 my readers what possible interest this particular controversy 

 can have for those who neither hold Mr. Mivart's somewhat 

 artificial theory nor take any interest in questions of Catholic 

 theology. In reality, however, a much wider question is 

 seen to be at issue, so soon as the nature of the doctrine of 

 Papal infallibility is understood. So few non- Catholics 

 know what this doctrine is, and so many Citholics mis- 

 understand it (Mr. Mivart manifestly does) that a few 

 remarks on this point (where Mr. Murphy has all the 

 best of the argument) may be necessary. 



I premise that, though I am neither a theologian nor a 

 Catholic, I have given more attention to this special matter 

 than most non-theological persons. Nay, many who are by 

 way of being theologians have not had the opportunities I 

 have had, and have availed myself of in large degree, for 

 learning how the matter really stands. I most carefully 

 studied this particular question as dealt with by that pillar 

 of orthodoxy, that champion of convocation, the late Dr. 

 Jelf, Principal of King's College, London, and so for to 

 his satisfaction, at least, that he sent for me to receive his 

 special congratulations on my treatment of the matter. It 

 was almost the last of all tha subjects I studied when 

 preparing to join the ministry of the Established Churcli. 

 It was a subject which I specially studied and (" which i.s 

 el.se") it'ei<//(t(/, during more than eight years, as taught by 

 Catholic theologians. And finally, the associated minor 

 subject, the special doctrine which Mr. Mivart is able 

 to hold while still remaining in the bosom of the Catholic 

 Church, chances to be one which has been again and again 

 described to me by Catholic theologians as umjuestionably 

 heretical, and not to be held by any loyal Catholic, their 

 remarks being very specially and personally pertinent. I 

 doubt if any man living, not excepting Mr. Mivart himself, 

 has had so much occasion to consider this special point as I 

 have. This will be understood when I note that there was 

 a time in my life when Mr. Mivart and I stood side by side, 

 he as a student and teacher of biology, I as a student and 

 teacher of astronomy, each, however, with this matter of 

 the evolution of man as a factor in determining his course. 

 He went one way, or rather continued on his course un- 

 changed ; I went another. His controversy with Mr. 

 Murphy shows me that had he had the same theological 

 training I had had as to the general principles of Catholic 

 orthodoxy, he could hardly have continued on his course — • 

 to one side or to the other he must have diverged ; to 

 follow the middle course would have seemed to him, as it 

 did to me, no less impossible than — 



— to o'er walk a current* roaring loud, 

 On the unstable footing of a spear. 



Mr. Murphy is assuredly right in his interpretation of 

 Papal infallibility — in fact there can be, or at least ought to 

 be, no possible mistake on this point. In my opinion, and, 

 so far as I can judge, in the opinion of nearly all Catholic 



* The printers are earnestly requested >wt to insert a comma 

 after " current," as in most editions of Shakespeare, since Shake- 

 speare assuredly did not mean that the o'er-walker was loudly 

 roaring, but the current. 



priests, Mr. Murphy is also right in asserting that Mr. 

 Mivart's doctriae of the evolution of man is emphatically 

 heretical. 



Papal infiillibility, which many fondly imagine to bs 

 the weak point of Catholicity, is, rightly understood, its 

 strongest support. The Catholic Church may for ages have 

 been unwilling to emphasize this doctrine by a decree of 

 council ; and in this she may have been wise in her genera- 

 tion ; for, however strong the doctrine may be in regard to 

 Catholicity, it is unquestionably a weakness in regard to 

 Christianity. It needs no defence against Protestantism, 

 but it needs to be very shrewdly defended against freedom 

 of research if the defence is to be maintained at all. 



The doctrine as commonly misunderstood, is, of course, 

 preposterous on the face of it. But the common mistakes 

 about the doctrine are themselves preposterous. One hears 

 an ignorant but most zealous Protestant talk such nonsense 

 as this : How can the Pope be infallible when such and 

 such a Pope was notoriously unwise, and such another a man 

 of evil life? It would be just as reasonable to say. How 

 can we believe David to have been inspired when we find 

 that he behaved not only villainously but most foolishly in 

 regard to Uriah the Hittite and his wife t Not quite so 

 absurd, though quite as incorrect, is the idea that Papal 

 infallibility is disproved by the decision (suppo.sing for the 

 moment it received Papal sanction) against Galileo; it is 

 fairly matched by the mistake of supposing that a reasonable 

 doctrine as to Bible inspiration would be shaken by the 

 mistake of Matthew in asserting that all the kingdoms of 

 the earth could be seen from some exceeding high moun- 

 tain. 



The fact really is that the doctrine of Papal infallibility 

 as it is really taught by the Catholic Cliurch is almost a 

 corollary on the doctrine of Bible inspiration. According 

 to the latter doctrine, in its only reasonable form, men like 

 Moses, David, Solomon, Ezra, Isaiah, and the like, in no 

 sense to be regarded as perfect either in wisdom or in conduct, 

 were inspired as respects certain matters which they addressed 

 to men in regard to religion. The former doctrine, in the 

 only form ever adopted by the Catholic Church, asserts that 

 Popes, though in no sense to be regarded as perfect either 

 in wisdom or in conduct, have always been and always 

 will be so far guided or restrained (as the case may be) 

 that if, or ^vheii, they address the whole Church ex 

 calhedrA on matters relating to morals or doctrine their 

 teaching will lie true. In conduct a Pope may be imperfect 

 or even wicked ; in regard to science, art, or literature he 

 may be ignorant or unwise; in theological matters, even 

 dealt with as by a priest or doctor of the Church, a Pope 

 may make serio'us mistakes ; hut no Pope, let his personal 

 qualities be what they may (let him even be overbearing as 

 Moses, as unscrupulous as David, as .selfish as Solomon, as 

 ignorant as ^Matthew, or as contentious as Paul), will ever 

 address to the whole Church ex cathedrd false teaching as to 

 morals or as to doctrine. Those who have swallowed so 

 large a camel as the belief that ]Moses could teach nought 

 unjust, David nothing evil, Solomon nothing loose, Matthew 

 nothing unsound, and Paul nothing false in reasoning, need 

 hardly scoff at those who decline to strain out so small a 

 gnat as the doctrine that a Pope will be prevented from 

 doing, what indeed a Pope would scarcely have a chance of 

 doiuT — addressing questionable teaching, ex cathedrd, to the 

 whole Church about matters which Catholic theologians 

 have long since settled in nearly every detail. 



Be this as it may, the Catholic doctrine on the subject is 

 perfectly definite ; and it is absolutely certain that the de- 

 cision in regard to Galileo's teaching, .shown now to have 

 been unsound, does not in the slightest degree aflect the doc- 

 trine of the infallibility either of the Pope or of the Church. 



