In practice that is not so. There is not one of us that can point to any mind of his acquaintance, or to any mind appearing through the pages of a book which occupies such a position. All without exception betray an ethical theory of some kind, that is, doctrines which, though the holder of them may refuse to formulate them, appear in his actions. Every man is a theologian. Every man has his philosophy of the world. And viewing man thus as he is, always a member of some group, we do not discover as an historical phenomenon any group save that of the Catholic Church which possesses the unique character of authority. Conversely, we find in all other groups the well-known marks attached to men in all forms of worship--rites, doctrines, disciplines: we find in Catholicism similar phenomena; but we do _not_ find in any of the other groups, into which men’s attempts at satisfying this religious sense may fall, that particular mark in which Catholicism is quite different from all the rest. Let us turn to the historical evidence on the matter and see how true this is, prefacing that examination by the reiterated remark that such unique quality does not of itself and unsupported by other considerations determine the mind to accept the authority of the Faith, but remarking that it does provide a presumption stronger than our modern world, even its small educated part, is generally aware of. In the first place, is it true that there are a mass of religions bearing for their chief characteristic that which is the chief characteristic of the Catholic Church--a secure, unfailing and constant affirmation of Infallible Authority?