the clergy live fairly good lives, are disposed to rate their virtue as greater than it actually is; and especially, they believe the Pope, unless the contrary should be plainly evident, to be a man of more than the usual moral excellence which they ascribe to the clergy in general. And they have reason for doing so; for it is clear beforehand that the Church would, if we may say so, be naturally inclined to put its best foot foremost; and also the actual lives of the Popes, as recorded in history, show plainly that they were as a rule most estimable, perhaps even saintly,

men.

But they are very far from thinking that this is necessarily the case. So far from thinking that an action is right simply because the Pope does it, they would be more scandalized at a departure from the moral law in his case than they would in that of any one else; just as it is perfectly obvious that they are more disedified by a sin in any clergyman than by the same one in a layman.

It is of course true, however, that in points about which the conscience of men is more or less uncertain, Catholics, and Protestants as well, are inclined to think it probable that an action is right if they see a clergyman do it; for they know that the clergy give more study to these matters, and believe that they would as a rule act according to their conscience, which

would naturally be better instructed than that of the laity in general. But Catholics do not, any more than Protestants, hold it as certain that any clergyman, or that the Pope any more necessarily than any other clergyman, does uniformly act according to his conscience.

And let me mention here, though it is a little out of our direct line, another foolish error entertained largely about the Pope, which seems to be a sort of corollary, as a geometer would say, or, in other words, an easy conclusion from his supposed impeccability. That is the notion often entertained by those outside the Catholic Church, that the Pope never goes to confession. Some even think that the clergy do not; but more are quite sure that the Pope is exempt.

But so far is this from being the case that the clergy confess much more frequently than the laity in general; and the Pope himself fully as often as, if not oftener than the average of the clergy. And to whom does the Pope confess? Why, he chooses his confessor, as any one else would do; usually he would. select some priest of well-known virtue and learning; probably he would choose a member of some religious order-for example, a Franciscan, a Dominican, or a Jesuit. You see then clearly that the Pope himself does not believe that he is sinless.

This matter of morality of which I have been speaking has, however, a connection with the infallibility which we are discussing, though not the one which is erroneously supposed.

It is this: Catholics do believe the Pope to be able to make infallible decisions with regard to morals as well as faith. That is to say, that he can, when occasion arises, solemnly instruct the faithful with regard to principles of morality, and decide points with regard to it on which good and learned men have differed; and there are plenty of such points, as any one will see who will take the trouble to consult treatises on inorals. One will find even more of them in Catholic works than in Protestant ones; not, however, for the reason that Catholic morality is less precise than Protestant, but because Catholic writers have discussed these matters much more thoroughly and with much more detail, and hence come upon more of these questions; and that the Popes have still left many of them open.

But mind, it by no means follows, any more in morals than in faith, that because the Pope can solemnly instruct the faithful infallibly, he always or on all occasions holds or gives utterance to correct views with regard to right or wrong, unless the matter is one clear to all reasonable men, or that some decision has actually been made in due form with regard to it.

Still less does it follow that he necessarily lives up to the principles which he himself acknowledges as true. There is no essential reason why he should do so, any more than any one else.

Now a few remarks, more explicit than those previously made, with regard to the way in which we suppose the infallibility to attach to the Pope's solemn teaching of the Church with regard to faith and morals. In the first place, it is clear, from what has been said, that he is not habitually raised to any higher plane in these matters than other Christians; for it is only at the time of his formal decisions that he needs to be, and we do not suppose his prerogative to extend any farther than is needed for the good of the Church. Secondly, we do not hold that even at these times he is, properly speaking, inspired; it is simply that God assists him in a special way, preventing him from making any decision at all if the way is not reasonably clear to it; or if He allows him to make the decision, insuring that this decision shall contain nothing contrary to the truth.

As a matter of fact, these formal decisions, or definitions as we call them, are not made carelessly or on the spur of the moment, but after much consideration and prayer, especially in the more important matters, and even in lesser ones where reasonable doubt seems to exist.

And in the greater matters, much advice is also taken, especially of the bishops, who, as has been said, are regarded as judges on these questions together with the Pope; and often this precaution has gone so far as the assembling of a general council, where the subject could be fully discussed.

I trust, then, that this much misunderstood subject ought to be somewhat clearer to those who may read what has been just said than it was before. And let me add now, as a little argument in support of the belief that Almighty God does actually preserve these Papal definitions from error, the historical fact that no two of them have ever been contradictory, and they have all formed with each other, and with the faith as determined and agreed on without recourse to them, a logical and consistent whole. Human reason, memory, research, and learning are no doubt factors which would go far to produce such a result; but human passions are also potent; and it seems very unlikely that such a success would be obtained, covering a period of eighteen hundred years, by human resources alone.

But still it may be said that this Divine interposition is a miracle which we have no right to expect. Let us look into this. It is true that the whole Christian revelation is a blessing to which we have no right; but if God wills to