not be required to affirm the propositions; they declared that they and all the faithful 'detested the doctrine in respect to ecclesiastical power contained in the declaration of the Gallican clergy;' they affirmed these opinions, which are destructive of the absolute primacy and infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, to be erroneous; and that they should believe themselves to be numbered among schismatics if they were to derogate from the supreme authority of the Vicar instituted by Jesus Christ, in defining what doctrine is sound and true, and what is false and evil. 'We have consulted,' they add, 'the most learned theologians, both regular and secular; and we have not as yet been able to find even one solid ground to form a conscience which would dictate the lawfulness of teaching these propositions.' In Spain, the Inquisition issued a decree in which each proposition was branded with a particular censure. In Hungary, in the year 1686, the propositions were condemned in the following words. After
Fenelon, in refuting Bossuet's opinion, says:
'The great use of the controversy between the Bishops of Tournai and Meaux is as follows: that out of their propositions may be constructed an invincible argument for the Apostolic See. The major is laid down by the Bishop of Tournai, the minor is defended by the Bishop of Meaux; the conclusion is mine, and is inevitable. The indefectibility in faith of the Apostolic See, … said the Bishop of Tournai, is identical with the doctrine which the moderate school of Transalpines labour to prove, under the less mild name of infallibility. But the indefectibility of faith in this See, answered the Bishop of Meaux, can be denied by no instructed Catholic.
'Therefore, I say, this gift promised by God, which Cisalpines call indefectibility, and Transalpines call infallibility, can be denied by no instructed Catholic.'—Ibid. c. 8.
