tions of the Church. There is a difference, also, between a definition of the infallibility of the Pope and that of any other Christian doctrine. In the latter case, the authority of the Church may be sufficient to overcome any doubt. In the former it is this very authority, the principle and fountain of all certainty in faith, which is in question. Would it not, therefore, be more prudent to spare the weakness of those who are not yet able to bear this definition, which, though many think it to be useful, nobody thinks to be necessary? Would not the example of Our Lord and the Apostles commend to us this mode of proceeding?
10. That it may be feared lest, by a perversion of the true sense of such a decree, some may be induced to ignore and to despise the authority given by our Lord to bishops, especially in the condemnation of rash and pernicious opinions in philosophy and theology.
11. That it may also be feared lest bishops, whom for some years the Apostolic authority has been calling into activity, in order that they should not straightway send to Rome all doubts about books and matters of which it is their office to judge, might, by such a definition, be rendered more backward in exercising their episcopal office of judges of doctrine.
12. That it would soon probably follow from such a definition, by reason of the nature of man, that not only matter of doctrine on which the supreme decision of the Church is desired, but also many other kinds of business would be sent to Rome, there to be judged, decided, and solved; so that everything would crowd in to the centre of unity. And
