clergy in 1682 would amply suffice to show that the definition would be opportune.
3. And further: the denial of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff has already generated extensive doubt as to the truth of the doctrine. We are asked, if the doctrine be revealed, how is it that you allow it to be denied? If you are not doubtful about it, why not put an end to doubt by declaring it to be true? It is certain that not only Protestants believe the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility to be an open question among Catholics, but some Catholics are tempted to believe it to be theologically doubtful, and therefore not revealed; irreconcilable with history; a modern exaggeration arising from the adulation of courtiers and the ambition of popes. In France, to deny it has become a test of political independence. In England, some Catholics are stunned and frightened by the pretentious assumption of patristic learning and historical criticism of anonymous writers, until they doubt, or shrink in false shame from believing a truth for which their fathers died. The contact of the Catholics of England with the Catholics of France, good and beneficial as it has been, nevertheless introduced among us both books and habits of thought which were of the Gallican school. This has spread among us an opinion that the infallibility of the Pope, if possibly true, is nevertheless doubtful; and this doubt, dormant and harmless as it maybe in pious and simple minds, who are never put to the test about it, and if tested would instinctively go right in spite of intellectual perplexities, is in restless and active minds full of danger, above all in a Pro-
