THE NEW NCHAFF-HERZOG
by him (" the pillar and ground of truth," I Tim. iii. 15) " always even unto the end of the world." Furthermore, the recognition of the principle of infallibility seems absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the unity of faith in the Church, a contention which is amply borne out by the history and doctrinal disintegration of Protestantism. The infallibility of the Church being thus assumed, the further question arises as to the subject of this prerogative. If it be considered to reside indiscriminately in the Church as a whole, it can clearly be of little practical benefit. Nor is it sufficient for the required end that it reside simply in the Ecclesia docens, viz., in the hierarchical body of the bishops with the pope at their head, who are considered as the legitimate successors of the Apostles to whom the promises of Christ were made. For it is obviously difficult to ascertain just what the teaching of all the bishops scattered over the world may be on a given point and at a given moment; and ecumenical councils from their very nature can be convened only for more solemn and momentous occasions. Hence the affirmed need of a central authority to which appeal can be readily made, whose ex cathedra decisions will enjoy the same immunity from error as those vouched for by the Ecclesia docens. This authority Roman Catholics recognize in the bishop of Rome, the traditional successor of St. Peter, and inheritor of his prerogatives; and in the various texts which are adduced to prove the primacy of Peter it is claimed that the gift of infallibility is implied. In this connection stress is laid on the passage of Matthew (xvi. 18) : " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Here the lasting security of the edifice (including doubtless doctrinal inerrancy) is derived from Peter the foundation-stone, and similar deductions are made from other passages, e.g., Luke xxii. 31 sqq. and John xxi. 15 sqq. Texts are also brought forward from a number of the Church Fathers, e.g., Irensus, showing that at an early date the see of Rome was widely recognized to be the center of doctrinal as well as disciplinary unity for the whole Church, and that her decisions in that regard should be taken as final.
Bibliography: In favor of the doctrine may be cited: G. Cardoni, Elucubratio de dogmatica Romani pontiflcis infallibilitate, Rome, 1870 (semi-official); H. E. Manning, Petri privilegium, London, 1871; idem, The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, ib. 1875, and cf. E. S. Purcell, Life of Cardinal Manning, ib. 1896; V. Dechamps, L' I nfaillibilite et le concile general, Paris, 1869; F. X. Leitner, Thomas von Aquino iiber das unfehlbare Lehramt des Papstes, Frankfort, 1872 (important, opposes Dollinger); J. H. Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, London, 1874 (a qualified defense in reply to Gladstone's Vatican Decrees); T. Granderath, Geschichte des vatikanischen Konzils, 3 vols., Freiburg, 1903-06 (the authoritative Ultramontane hist, of the council); cf. J. Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, chap, xi., New York, 1874.
Against the doctrine (1), by members of the council: H. L. C. Maret, Du concile general et de la paix religieuse, 2 vols., Paris, 1869; J. Friedrich, Documenta ad illustrandum concilium Vaticanum, Nordlingen, 1871 (contains a number of important documents, among them Darboy's La Liberie du concile et Vinfaillibilite, and Kenrick's Concio in concilia Vaticano habenda et non habita); C. J. Hefele, Causa Honorii papas, Naples, 1870; idem, Honorius und das sechste allgemeine Condi, Tubingen, 1870, Eng. transl. in Presbyterian Quarterly Review, April, 1872. (2) by Catholics not members of the council: J. J. I. von Dol-
linger, Der Papst und das Concil, Leipsic, 1869, Eng. transl., London, new ed. by J. Friedrich, Das Papsttum, Munich, 1892; idem, Ueber die Unfehlbarkeits-Adresse, ib. 1870' J. Langen, Das vatikanische Dogma von dem Universalepiskopat und der Vnfehlbarkeit des Papstes, 4 vols., Bonn, 1871-76; J. Friedrich, Das vatikanische Concil, 3 vols., ib. 1877-87; idem, Ignaz von Dollinger, 3 vols Munich, 1898-1901. (3) by Protestants: W. E. Gladstone, The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, London, 1774, ed., with a hist, of the council and the text of the decrees, by P. Schaff, New York, 1875; idem Vaticanism, an Answer to Reproofs and Replies, London 1875; Schaff, Creeds, i. 147-189, ii. 234-271.
INFANCY, ARABIC GOSPEL OF THE. See Apocrypha, B, I., 6.
INFANT BAPTISM. See Baptism.
INFANT COMMUNION. See Lord's Supper, V., § 1.
INFANT SALVATION: The doctrines of infant
damnation and of non-elect infants were unknown to
the early Church. That the baptism of
Primitive infants was often postponed to Easter and week (see Baptism, III., 5) proves that
Roman it was not considered a loss to the
Catholic child to die unbaptized. But as sacer-
Doctrine. dotal and ecclesiastical ideas spread in the Church, baptism was more and more emphasized, until in the fourth century Gregory Nazianzen and Ambrose could say that unbaptized children could not be saved. It was Augustine who first taught the damnation of infants (see Baptism, II., 1, § 3); but their sufferings, though eternal, are of the mildest character (De peccatorum mentis, i. 16) ; indeed, it seemed to him doubtful whether they were punished at all. The Roman Church, accepting Augustine's conceptions of the necessity of baptism to salvation and of the mildness of the punishment of those infants who died unbaptized, agreed with him that they were sent to hell and assigned to them a distinct place in it, the limbus infantium or puerorum (see Limbus; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III., qusest. lxviii. 2, Sup. qua?st. lxxi. 7). The Council of Trent refused to commit itself to a decision, though affirming the necessity of baptism (Session v. 4) ; and, since then, some theologians have followed Peter Lombard in the supposition that infants suffer some sort of misery in punishment of original sin (Bellarmine, De amissione gratia, vi. 6); others, like Cardinal Celestino Sfondrati (Nodus pradestinationis dissolutus, Rome, 1697, I., i. 23), have maintained that they enjoy as much happiness as they are capable of. Perrone represents, probably, the prevalent view when he says (v. 275) that they suffer only the lack of the beatific vision; they are in " a condition of pure nature." And, further, Roman Catholic theologians teach that the desire for baptism, even on the part of unborn children, is accepted for the baptism itself; therefore, there need be no fears for children of Christians who die in infancy.
The first to enter the lists against the theory of
the necessity of baptism to infant salvation was
Zwingli. He taught that all elect
Protestant children who die in infancy are saved,