Page:William John Sparrow-Simpson - Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909).djvu/134

 114 was not. Explicit denial of the Divinity of our Lord must indisputably ipso facto exclude from Catholicity, and must have had this effect at any stage in the development of Christendom. Consequently the parallel between the course which these two doctrines have historically pursued is simply misleading and untrue. Indeed the assertion grievously misrepresents the evidence. A real parallel would require that as the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was disputed by Roman Catholics for many hundreds of years, and openly described as a mere opinion of the Schools which might be taken or left without detriment to Catholicity—indeed controversially deprecated as an invention of opponents, ungenerously and uncandidly ascribed to the Catholic Church, while its acceptance and rejection were both tolerated by the Church itself—similar experience awaited the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. But not one iota of this holds good with the Divinity of Christ. Our Lord's Divinity was never disputed by Catholics, never openly described as a mere opinion of the schools; its rejection never was or could be tolerated by the Church for a single hour. No doubt there were imperfect expressions in the ante-Nicene period, but there was no silence on this doctrine in the primitive Church. The Arian was not an implicit Catholic, inwardly prepared to accept what he outwardly denied. Nor would he have been grateful for this explanation of his attitude. He never was a Catholic at all. Moreover, if the character of the two doctrines be considered, it is inevitable to ask whether the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is fundamental in the Christian Faith. If it be fundamental after the Church has defined it, it was fundamental before the definition. A doctrine does not become fundamental through the Church's definition, but through its own intrinsic char-