period of definition. This is certain to come. It is merely a question of time.
Thus, according to Manning, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is no more of an innovation than the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity at Nicaea. It is true that he is conscious of a possible objection lurking in suspicious minds.
"If any one shall answer that these evidences do not prove the Infallibility of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, they will lose their labour.
"I adduce them," he continues, "to prove the immemorial and universal practice of the Church in having recourse to the Apostolic See as the last and certain witness and judge of the Divine tradition of faith."
But Manning's real interests were not in endeavours to ascertain what history declares. The sole duty of the believer was absolute submission to the authority of the existing Church, irrespective of past teachings. The assumption that what is taught to-day corresponds with what always has been, was made, and must not be challenged. Hence the famous identification of history with heresy, for which Manning made himself responsible. His assurance of the doctrine is so unassailable that he can scarcely tolerate the enquiry, Is it true?
"The question is not," he writes, "whether the doctrine be true, which cannot be doubted; or definable, which is not open to doubt; but whether such a definition be opportune, that is, timely and prudent."[1]
Or again, more emphatically still if possible—
- ↑ Pastoral (1867), p. 119.
