position which offends against reason the whole system must be rejected. Hence much ingenuity is shown in averting the Rationalistic criticism of such thorny dogmas as the Trinity and the Eucharist; it is claimed that the accusation of absurdity is disproved, and therefore reason may confidently take them on authority. And again, when it is said that there is a living infallible magisterium in the Church, that must be accepted in a very narrow sense. The vast majority of bulls, decrees, encyclicals, &c., have only a disciplinary effect: it is piously believed by many that Providence takes a minor interest in them, but most priests take little notice of them, and the doctrine of infallibility has been carefully drawn up not to include them. The great dogma simply amounts to this, that the Pope (or the Church) can teach no new doctrine, but he has special guidance in his solemn declarations (which are few and far between) that certain doctrines are contained in the deposit of revelation. There have only been two such definitions in this century: Leo XIII. has not given any. Hence it will be understood how great an error those Protestants make who go over to Rome for the sake of its infallible voice (as if they were to have an infallible ‘Times’ at breakfast every morning), and also how untrue it is that Rome is the antithesis, the professed opponent, of reason, and only preaches submission.
No, the Church of Rome does not profess to be the refuge of the timid and the sentimental in a subversive
