easily squared with the infallibility of the head of the Church. But these were heard in only two or three speeches made by bishops of the Council; and some of these had signed the Address of the Centenary, and one especially had taught the doctrine as a professor in a seminary.
But as the consistency of many has been involved in this question, it is right and just to treat it more fully.
Once for all let it be said in this place that the question whether the infallibility of the head of the Church be a true doctrine or not was never discussed in the Council nor even proposed to it. The only question was whether it was expedient, prudent, seasonable, and timely, regard being had to the condition of the world, of the nations of Europe, of the Christians in separation from the Church, to put this truth in the form of a definition. The infallibility of the Church had never been defined. Why then, it was asked, define it now? or, at least, why define the infallibility of its head?
Inasmuch as the arguments which were weighing in the minds of the bishops for and against the opportuneness of defining this doctrine were not—as controversialists, politicians, newspapers, and the religious adversaries of the Church would have men believe—arbitrary, factious, contentious, intriguing, servile, or unreasoning it may be well to recite here
