of our Lord in sparing the infirmities of the weak, who were as yet unable to bear mysteries not yet revealed, is no warrant for keeping back any revealed truth because men will not believe the revelation already made. This would tacitly assume that the infallibility of the Vicar of Jesus Christ is not a revealed truth. If it be a revealed truth, our Lord's example is not in point; still less that of the Apostles, who 'kept back nothing,' and declared to the faithful 'all the counsel of God.'[1]
10. That the perverse interpretation or abuse of a decree must always be only partial, and can never be either widespread or permanent in the Church, and can therefore afford no reason against its being made, if the proper reasons exist for making it; and that the definition of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff can in no way lessen the authority of bishops as judges of doctrine in their own flocks, but on the contrary give great support to all their legitimate acts. It does not appear how bishops should be more authoritative because their Head is less so.
11. That, for the same reason, it does not appear probable that bishops would be less active as pastors and judges in their own churches because the doctrine which they already unanimously believe had received its formal definition. If the belief of its truth does not now produce these consequences, it does not yet appear why the definition of that truth should do so.
12. That, lastly, no centralisation of the ordinary administration of the Universal Church could legiti-
- ↑ Acts xx. 20, 27.
