privileged and protected member of a Roman republic. To tell the
truth, the present state of things is preferable to that. Republics,
and particularly a Roman republic, are too liable to commotion, a
mob is too easily excited to violence, a demagogue is too likely to
gain great influence over this city, to make it at all advisable that
the Pontiff should have republicans for his neighbors. A prince has
duties to his people, to his dynasty, and to other nations that check
him, and make him keep order in his realm; whereas the common people
are restrained by no such consideration, and a clamorous hostile
demonstration, with a stoppage of supplies, would very probably be
the answer to any act of the Sovereign Pontiff that did not meet with
their approbation. The vicissitudes of the days of Cola di Rienzi are
there to show how incompatible with the mobile masses of a republic
is the necessarily unbending firmness of a moral ruler. Not much
happier than the foregoing is the idea proposed by the able deputy
of the Italian parliament, Signor Toscanelli, who would have Rome
a free city under the sovereign control of the Sovereign Pontiff
and protected by the Italian government. It would, practically
speaking, be impossible to eliminate all influence on the part of
the government protecting and closely in material contact with the
Roman Curia. Even supposing that the maintenance of the Pope and
his dependents did not come from that government, it would not be
advisable or satisfactory. In this case, the money for the support
of the ecclesiastical authorities would have to come from foreign
nations. Although this would save the Sovereign Pontiff from much
of his subjection to the rulers of Italy, it would still leave him
subject to influence of another kind very undesirable. The point is
a delicate one, but we will treat it with all due consideration for
those concerned. In legislating for mankind, you have no right to
expect heroic actions, and this more particularly if those actions
pertain to the supernatural order. This rule is to be applied to
the Sovereign Pontiffs as to every one else. To their great honor,
the Sovereign Pontiffs have stood nobly firm in the exercise of the
duties of their exalted state; many a one has shed his blood for the
faith, many a one has languished in chains for the good of his flock,
many a one has braved the fury of crowned tyrants for the safety and
well-being of the church of Christ. But above all praise as their
conduct has often been, you have no right to put them in a position
that requires the exercise of such heroic firmness. Now, what is
the condition of a Pope dependent on the precarious contributions
of foreign nations for his support? It is one in which an external
influence is continually at work to check him in the free and
impartial discharge of his duty; it is one in which he is continually
forced to lay aside all human considerations of prudence and throw
himself with fulness of faith on Divine Providence. The position is a
sublime one, but for that very reason no man or body of men have any
right to place him in it. If he sees fit to condemn some cherished
opinion in a nation, the people cool in their devotion to him, and as
the contributions of which we speak are voluntary, the disinclination
to receive his decisions brings with it a disinclination to give
spontaneously what had been so given before, and the direct
consequence of every pontifical act unacceptable is very likely
to be a diminution in the funds that come in for the support of
the Pontiff; in fact, if we may be allowed the expression, these
contributions may be looked on as a kind of spiritual thermometer,
that by their rise or fall indicate the warmth or the coolness of
feeling towards the Pope. In point of fact, it is well known that
not a few prophesied, during the discussions of the question of the
infallibility in the past year, that the passing of the decree would
bring about a decided falling off in the Peter Pence. Notwithstanding
this, the Sovereign Pontiff threw himself upon Providence, and his
hope was not deceived. To the honor of Catholics throughout the world
be it said, the contributions of the Peter Pence of to-day exceed
those of all other epochs, and enable the Holy Father to administer
to the most pressing wants of the flock over which he personally
and directly presides. The hand of Providence is certainly here.
Such manifestations of Providence, however, as we have said, no
one has a right in legislating to look forward to, and therefore
it is absolutely necessary that the Head of the Church should be
the sovereign of a small state, large enough to save him from the
necessity of tutelage, and yielding a yearly revenue sufficient to
maintain him and those he must have around him with the decorum due
to his condition. To this it may be objected, that his subjects will
be deprived of many advantages enjoyed by free nations. We are very
sceptical about these advantages; the progress of Rome under Pius IX.
has been solid and satisfactory; and, on the other hand, the Roman
subjects of the Pontiff will have many advantages to which other
nations are often strangers: the advantage of light taxation, the
advantage of laws repressing immorality, the advantage of peace with
its delightful arts, the advantage of an enlightened protection of
science and of the fine arts, and then the great material advantage
of seeing their city the resort of the cultivated and wealthy classes
of all nations, who flock to Rome to see the successor of St. Peter,
and to enjoy the gorgeous and imposing ceremonial of the church.
For far less advantages than these we deprived the citizens of a
portion of our country of the great privilege of their political
franchise; of all nations we should be the last to find fault with
the infliction of a similar disqualification, of much more apparent
harm than real, and which is compensated for an hundredfold. And this
we say all the more earnestly because, in the case of Rome, it is not
the welfare of a collection of states that is provided for, but the
peace and good order of all nations of the earth.
THE ROSE.
Is there any portion of mankind that has not inhaled the sweet
perfume of this lovely flower? From Borneo to the ruins of the
Parthenon; from Kamschatka to Bengal; from the neighborhood of
Hudson's Bay to the mountains of Mexico; from Cairo to the Cape of
Good Hope, it graces the palace and the chamber, lavishes itself
full-leaved on the processions of Corpus Christi, and serves as a
pretty plaything to the child, who cracks the swollen petals on his
innocent forehead.
Of it the Hebrews made their crowns, and in their solemnities the
high-priest wreathed it around his head.
When the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon, it is said, she tried every
means to assure herself not only of his superior wisdom, but also of
the quickness of his perception. She placed before him one day two
roses, one artificial, but so well made that she defied the king to
distinguish the false one from the real. He sent for a bee, which
naturally alighted on the true one, and thus, without approaching
either, was able to give his decision.
Among the Hebrews, the bridegroom as well as the bride wore a crown
of roses, of myrtle, or of olive.
Mythology assigns to the rose the most illustrious origin. At the
moment when Pallas came out of the brain of Jupiter, the earth
produced the rose, that delight might follow in the wake of wisdom.
White at first, the poets have not quite agreed to what it owed its
many-purpled hues. We are told by some that the exquisite Adonis was
mortally wounded by a boar, and that his flowing blood fell on the
roses, and colored them for ever. According to others, Venus ran to
protect him, and the thorns and briers tore her lovely skin, and
the purple drops fell on a wild rose, dyed it, and consecrated it
for ever in her honor. Such a circumstance was scarcely necessary
to make so perfect a flower sacred to the goddess of beauty. Some
authors say that in the midst of an Olympian fête the goddess Hebe
spilled the embalmed vermilion nectar, and that the white roses
spread their petals to receive the perfume and the color.
Mythology also relates that Love presented to Harpocrates, the god of
silence, the flower that no one had ever seen, and that consequently
had never revealed anything. Hence came the custom of suspending
a rose from the ceiling of the room where families assembled, in
order that discretion, of which it was the symbol, might become the
guarantee of the sacred security of all their conversations. _Sub
rosa_ (under the rose) was a proverb that signified: We can speak
freely, without suspicion.
Venus and Cupid were represented crowned with roses; so, also, Flora,
the goddess of flowers, and Comus, who presided at festivities.
Aglaë, the youngest of the Graces, carried the rosebud in her hand,
the attribute of youth and beauty.
The Graces, the Muses, and Bacchus also received their homage in
crowns of roses; their altars were hung with garlands, and those good
old servants the Penates were sometimes decorated in like manner. Of
all the flowers, the rose was dedicated to the greatest number of
divinities, although nearly all of them had some plant especially
sacred.
The opening hour of day sowed roses in Aurora's path, who at sight
of her father the sun wept tears of joy over her favorite flowers.
So the poets of antiquity explain the drops of dew that tremble and
scintillate on the roses in the morning light. The rose designates
the dawn; and, bathed with dew, it is the emblem of filial piety.
Peace is represented holding a rod of thorns with roses and olive
branches, and the muse Erato, when presiding over lyric poetry, was
always crowned with myrtle and the rose.
The appearance of Christianity gave to the rose another origin,
and we cite the legend. Once, a holy virgin of Bethlehem, falsely
accused and calumniated, was condemned to perish by fire. She prayed
to our Lord, beseeching him to come to her aid, because he knew she
was not guilty of what they reproached her with. The fire went out
immediately; the burning fagots were transformed into red-rose bushes
covered with flowers, and those that were not lit into white ones.
These roses were the first ever seen, and became from that time the
flower of the martyrs.
The rose appeared at a very distant epoch as the emblem of the
Virgin; it was particularly recognized as such by St. Dominic, when
he instituted the devotion of the rosary, in direct allusion to the
life of holy Mary.
Prayer appears always to have been symbolized by roses. There is a
story told of a servant who, having to carry an immense amount of
treasure belonging to his master through a wood, was there awaited
by a band of robbers. On entering the forest, he remembered that he
had that morning omitted his Ave Marias, so he knelt down to say
them. As he prayed, the Virgin placed a beautiful garland on his
head, to which at each Ave she added a rose. The brilliancy around
him became intense, and the whole wood was illuminated. The good man
knew nothing of his beautiful crown of roses, but the robbers saw the
vision and let him pass unharmed.
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
THE DIVINE LITURGY OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. Translated
by H. C. Romanoff. London, Oxford, and Cambridge:
Rivingtons. 1871.
This is a neat little book, translated, by a Russian, from the
original Greek. The catechism contained in the front is so very
ancient and Catholic that it will be a difficult task indeed for
those members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in England and
America who dream of union with the Greek schism, ever to reconcile
it with the catechism that begins, "What is your name? N. or M."
There is a note at the bottom of page 79, to the effect that, when
the priest signs the elements and says the words, "And make this
bread to be thy Holy Body, and what is in this cup to be thy Holy
Blood," it is supposed that the consecration takes place, or, as the
translator says, _transubstantiation_. This is an error invented
by the modern Greeks and introduced by one Nicholas Cabasilas,
contrary to the Council of Florence and to all Catholic tradition.
For it is the universal teaching and belief that the consecration or
transubstantiation takes place when the priest does what Christ did,
and says the very same words that Christ said: "This is my body; this
is my blood." That is the _form_ of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
The ritualists object to the Roman vestments on the ground that they
are not of the ancient shape. We would like them to look at page
18, and answer this question: Which is the more like the ancient
vestment--the Roman or the Greek? Any candid man would answer that
the former is. The Greek chasubles are cut away in front, the Roman
at the sides. However, we hope that the day will soon come when
these good people will learn that the essence of religion does not
consist in the shape of a chasuble or the cut of a cope, but rather
in a childlike obedience to that Infallible Authority which is able
to regulate matters of discipline and worship as well as to define
matters of faith and morals.
THE HOLY COMMUNION, ETC. By Hubert Lebon. Translated
from the French by M. A. Garnett. Baltimore: John
Murphy. New York: The Catholic Publication Society.
1871.
A delicious book for those who are favored with sensible devotion to
the Blessed Sacrament, while, at the same time, it is so solid that
those who are less favored will find much of it very profitable.
THE ILLUSTRATED CATHOLIC SUNDAY-SCHOOL LIBRARY. Fourth
Series. 6 vols. New York: The Catholic Publication
Society. 1871.
The contents of this series are as follows: "Tales of Catholic
Artists;" "Honor O'More's Three Homes;" "Sir Ælfric, and other
Tales;" "Select Tales for the Young;" "Tales for the Many;" and
"Frederic Wilmot."
These are very far removed from those tales, selected at haphazard,
too often to be met with in libraries for the young which are
juvenile but in name, the compilers of which are apparently
ignorant of the fact that as much depends on judicious selection
as careful rejection. In external appearance, paper, typography,
binding, and illustration, we have also displayed, in miniature, the
distinguishing characteristic of the works issued by the Publication
Society, liberality of expenditure limited only by the suggestions of
good taste. But, while thus equal in every respect to the preceding
sets, and coming, too, most opportunely just in time for the annual
distributions, there is to this series one great drawback which the
reviewer may, but our boys and girls certainly cannot, overlook--it
contains six volumes only; each of the preceding sets contained
twelve.
THE STATE OF THE DEAD. By the Rev. Anson West.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1871.
The only "dead" on whose "state" this work throws any light are those
who, like the author, are dead to the grace of humility. "Fathers,
councils, creeds, and decrees," says he, "are of no account and of no
authority in establishing the doctrines of divine truth"--(Preface,
p. ix.) "We have ignored these," he adds, "and have _deferred to no
one_" (_sic_). And so, forsooth, his own "ipse dixit," the complacent
"we deny" with which he quashes an argument, _are_ "of account and
authority in establishing the doctrines of divine truth." "Divine
truth," indeed! What can he know of that, entombed as he is in his
own self-sufficiency?
LIFE OF THE MOST REV. OLIVER PLUNKET. By the Rev.
Patrick Moran, D.D. 8vo, pp. 396. New York: P. O'Shea.
1871.
This abridged edition of the life, sufferings, and execution of the
celebrated Archbishop of Armagh, taken from the larger work of the
same author published in Ireland some years ago, will be found, from
its intrinsic merits and portable form, to be a favorite and popular
book among the mass of American Catholics. Though relating, in a
concise manner, the leading facts in the life of that persecuted
primate, it is necessarily deficient in many of the features which
made Monsignor Moran's original memoir so valuable an addition to
the historical annals of the reign of the Second Charles of England.
The voluminous correspondence of Dr. Plunket with the Internunzio
at Brussels and the Secretary of the Propaganda; his reports on
the condition of ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland from 1670 till
within a short time of his death; and the decrees of the general
and provincial synods convoked by him, all of which are very fully
reproduced in the original book, are totally or partially omitted
in the compendium before us. Still, we are glad to see an authentic
account of the piety, learning, and heroism of the illustrious
victim of Protestant intolerance placed within the reach of all who
reverence his memory, and especially of those who feel proud in being
able to call him their countryman.
THE TRUCE OF GOD. A Tale of the Eleventh Century. By
George H. Miles. 1 vol., 16mo. Baltimore: John Murphy &
Co. 1871.
The contest between Pope Gregory VII. and Henry IV. of Germany
forms the groundwork of this delightful story, which abounds with
interesting descriptions of feudal times, and gives us, with charming
simplicity, the details of the daily religious life of the people of
those "dark ages," so luminous with the light of faith.
The character of the intrepid, patient Hildebrand is drawn with a
skilful hand, and reminds us that persecution has ever been the lot
of the faithful Vicar of Christ.
The pleasing title of the book brings to our remembrance the fact
that the church of God in those days sanctified to peace a portion
of every week, beginning at sunset on Wednesday and continuing till
Monday morning. All private warfare was forbidden during these days,
under pain of excommunication.
This precept mingles with the thread of the story, which is both
attractive and instructive, leaving upon the mind and heart a most
agreeable impression.
The mechanical portion of the book is beautifully executed, and we
are delighted to see that all the books got out this season by Mr.
Murphy are in the same elegant style.
THE HISTORY OF GREECE. By Professor Dr. Ernst Curtius.
Translated by A. W. Ward, M.A., Fellow of St. Peter's
College, Cambridge, and Professor of History in Owens
College, Manchester. Vol. I. New York: Scribner. 1871.
Every scholar knows how learned Germans write history. Dr. Curtius
ranks with Mommsen as a historian, and his _History of Greece_, of
which this volume is the first instalment, is to be classed with the
_History of Rome_ by the latter author. We believe that it has the
advantage over it of being complete, and, moreover, its subject is
even more interesting to students and men of letters. It is brought
out in a style of excellence similar to that of Mommsen's _History_,
leaving nothing in that respect to be desired. We hope that the
demand for works of this kind may be sufficient to induce some one of
our great publishing-houses to favor the public with a translation
of Leo's _Universal History_, which is the masterpiece of German
historical works.
MARTYRS OMITTED BY FOXE: Being Records of Religious
Persecutions in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Compiled
by a Member of the English Church. With a Preface by
the Rev. Frederick G. Lee, D.C.L., F.S.A., Vicar of All
Saints', Lambeth. London: John Hodges. 1870.
This is a singular and a singularly interesting little volume. It is
Anglican, as the title shows; yet, strange to say, it is made up of
brief but well-written and affectionate memorials of More, Campion,
Arundel, Plunket, and a number of other illustrious martyrs of the
Catholic faith and the supremacy of the Roman Church in England
and Ireland. It is a book which we can unhesitatingly recommend to
Catholics as well as Protestants, and which we should rejoice to see
extensively circulated. We cherish the most unbounded veneration for
these heroic martyrs, and ardently long for the time when they may
be solemnly canonized by the authority of that Holy See for whose
rights they suffered torments and death. The author has our thanks
for his pious tribute to the sacred and holy memory of these blessed
victims of Protestant English cruelty. May it help to bring England
to a penitent recognition of their merits, and bring a blessing from
God to himself.
THE AMERICAN ANNUAL CYCLOPÆDIA AND REGISTER OF
IMPORTANT EVENTS OF THE YEAR 1870. Vol. X. New York: D.
Appleton & Co. 1871.
This volume of _Appleton's Cyclopædia_ is certainly, at least
considered as a register of current events, of unusual interest.
No recent year has witnessed events in Europe of such importance
as have occurred in 1870; and the accounts given of them are
sufficiently full. Of course they have been carefully prepared,
and are interesting from the nature of the case. So far as we have
noticed, the proper scope of such a publication has been well
observed, plain statements of facts being given without comment or
apparent prejudice. The statement of the preface, however, that by
the overthrow of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, "liberalism
and authority have been brought to a final issue before the world,"
is somewhat objectionable; as is also, and in a much higher degree,
the introduction of a portrait of the wretched man who, unfortunately
for himself as well as others, is the nominal head of the Italian
kingdom, for a frontispiece. Portraits are also given of two really
distinguished and remarkable men, Generals Von Moltke and Robert E.
Lee.
The results of the United States census of 1870 are given, and full
information as to the present condition and growth of each state. The
scientific information is on the whole valuable and accurate. In the
present intense activity of research in this field, it is of course
impossible to admit into a work of this kind everything of interest
and importance, and nothing besides, and a better selection could
hardly have been made. The volume is very creditable to its able and
enterprising publishers.
WONDERS OF EUROPEAN ART. By Louis Viardot. Illustrated.
1 vol. 16mo. New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1871.
We have so often spoken in praise of the volumes of this series,
known as "The Library of Wonders," that it is with regret we are
compelled, as in the case of the present volume, to condemn any
of them. But such books as these need careful editing, and in the
volume before us this has evidently been neglected; for on page 88
we find "the idolatries of the Catholic Church," as well as similar
expressions elsewhere, that unfit it for circulation amongst our
Catholic youth. We would most respectfully suggest to the publishers
a little more care in future volumes, if they desire to have these
books placed in Catholic libraries, or given as school and college
premiums, for both of which they are, otherwise, admirably adapted.
The Catholic Publication Society has in press, and will soon publish:
_The Life of Mother Julia_, foundress of the Sisters of Notre Dame.
_Familiar Instructions on Mortal Prayer._ By the Abbé Courbon.
Translated from the French, and edited by Rev. W. T. Gordon, of
the Oratory, London. _Light in Darkness: A Treatise on the Obscure
Night of the Soul._ By Rev. A. F. Hewit. THE ILLUSTRATED CATHOLIC
FAMILY ALMANAC FOR 1872. A _Life of Mother Margaret Mary Hallahan_,
abridged. A new edition of _Mylius's History of England_, continued
down to the present day and adapted for schools. _Gahan's Church
History_, a new edition, continued down to the present time.
The Catholic Publication Society will also soon publish in one
handsome volume _The Pictorial Bible and Church History Stories_,
being a compendious narrative of sacred history, brought down to
the present times of the church, by Rev. Henry Formby. It will be
copiously illustrated from designs by the most eminent artists, and
will be sold at a price so as to place it within the reach of every
Catholic family in the United States.
We have just received from Messrs. Murphy & Co. an advance copy of
_Patron Saints_, by Miss Starr.
BOOKS RECEIVED.
From THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY, New York: A
History of the Christian Councils; from the Original
Documents, to the close of the Council of Nicæa,
A.D. 325. By Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D., Bishop
of Rottenburg, etc. Translated from the German by
W. R. Clark, M.A. Oxon. 1 vol. 8vo.--The Priest on
the Mission: A Course of Lectures on Missionary and
Parochial Duties. By Frederick Canon Oakley, M.A. 1
vol. 12mo.
From P. F. CUNNINGHAM, Philadelphia: The Acts of the
Early Martyrs. By J. A. M. Fastré, S.J. First Series
and Second Series. 2 vols. 12mo.
From J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO., Philadelphia: Hesperia. By
Cora L. V. Tappan.--Thistledown. By Esmeralda Boyle.
From BENZIGER BROS., New York: Euchiridion Sacerdotum
Curam Animarum Agentum. Compilatum a L. B. V. M.
Moczygemba.
From P. O'SHEA, New York: The Catholic Youth's Hymn
Book; containing hymns of the seasons and festivals
of the year, and an extensive collection of sacred
melodies; to which are added an easy Mass, Vespers,
and Mottets for Benediction. Arranged, with a special
view to the wants of Catholic schools, by the Christian
Brothers.
From CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO., New York: Common Sense in
the Household: A Manual of Practical Housewifery. By
Marion Harland.
From P. J. KENEDY, New York: The Life of St. Mary of
Egypt; to which is added The Life of St. Cecilia and
The Life of St. Bridget.
From LEE & SHEPARD, Boston: The Model Prayer: A Course
of Lectures on the Lord's Prayer. By George C. Baldwin,
D.D., author of "Representative Women," etc.
From ROBERTS BROS., Boston: Ad Clerum: Advice to a
Young Preacher. By Jos. Parker, D.D., author of "Ecce
Deus."
From J. MURPHY & CO., Baltimore: The Child's Prayer and
Hymn Book, for the use of Catholic Sunday-schools.
THE CATHOLIC WORLD.
VOL. XIII., No. 77.--AUGUST, 1871.[143]
INFALLIBILITY.
We propose to treat this topic in a manner somewhat different from
the ordinary one, and which may seem indirect and circuitous. We
hope to come to the point more securely in this way than by the more
direct road, and to drive before us the whole body of outlying,
straggling difficulties and objections. In particular, we intend to
place in a clear, intelligible light the nature, purport, and ground
of the recent definition of the Council of the Vatican, which has
made the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff an article of faith.
It is for this purpose that we have taken up the general topic of
infallibility; and the reason for discussing this general topic
rather than the exclusive question of Papal infallibility alone is,
that the latter cannot be properly explained except in its relation
to the former. The infallibility of the church is a more general
and extensive idea than the infallibility of the Pope. In the order
of time, it was prior to it in the minds of the great mass of the
faithful as a certain truth of the divine revelation, and it was
before it as an article of explicit Catholic faith. The precise
point which many persons have not clearly understood has been, how
it could have been less clearly known and less explicitly believed
by a number of good Catholics before the Council of the Vatican than
after it, especially considering its very great practical importance.
They are puzzled to think that it was not an article of universal,
explicit faith always, as much as the infallibility of the church.
Or, in few and plain words, they do not understand how a council
could define it as an article of faith which must be believed as
a condition of Catholic communion, when it had not been always
proposed as an article of faith, with the obligation of believing
and professing it, to all the faithful everywhere. If it is a new
dogma, how can it be a part of the old Catholic faith handed down
from the apostles, and what authority has a council to create a new
dogma? If it is an old dogma, how could the denial of its certain,
infallible truth have been tolerated, and the judgment of a council
make this denial now, for the first time, to become a heresy, to
which the penalty of an anathema is affixed? The answer to these
questions is plain enough to any one who has a moderate knowledge
of the elements of theology. No council can create a dogma which is
new, in the sense of being a new doctrine, or a new revelation. The
new definitions of the Council of the Vatican are definitions of old
truths, old doctrines, revealed by Jesus Christ and the apostles,
and contained in Scripture and tradition. But some of the truths
proposed by these definitions, although old doctrines, and contained
in the original deposit of faith, are new dogmas in this sense, that
they are more explicit statements of truths implicitly contained in
dogmas previously defined or declared, and that they are now newly
proposed under this more precise and extended form to the faithful,
as revealed doctrines, with the obligation of receiving them as
articles of faith. The dogma of the infallibility of the Roman
Pontiff was contained implicitly in the dogma of the infallibility
of the church, and in the dogma, long since explicitly defined, of
the Papal supremacy; in Scripture and tradition also; and in the
general teaching of the schools of theology, in a more distinct and
express form. Wherefore, as we have said, it is useful and important
to show how it is contained in and related to the general principles
of the essential constitution and infallibility of the church, as
well as to make an exposition of the specific proofs of its truth as
a distinct doctrine from the Scripture, the fathers, and the general
teaching which has prevailed in the church. In this way, a Catholic,
to whom new truths, or truths less clearly and certainly known than
others, have been proposed as a part of the Catholic faith by the
Council of the Vatican, will see that his ideas are not changed but
enlarged, and enlarged not by an addition of extrinsic matter, but by
the growth and development within his own mind of the faith which he
already possessed in its integrity.
Let us begin by defining and clearly comprehending the term
_infallibility_. It is a negative term in its literal meaning.
Fallible means liable to err. Infallible means not liable to err;
and infallibility is the exemption from liability to error. When we
say that the church is infallible, we say, in strictness of meaning,
that the church is not liable to err. Her infallibility is some
kind of immunity from error, which is one of her essential notes.
This immunity from error evidently implies some sort of unerring
possession of truth, and therefore denotes a positive quality or
prerogative, as is frequently the case with terms of a negative
form. What it denotes in Catholic theology we will explain more
fully as we proceed. The positive idea, in which the general notion
of infallibility has its foundation, is one of the first principles
not only of Catholic theology, but of all theology and philosophy.
The unerring and certain possession of some eternal and universal
truths is, and must be, affirmed by all who profess that man has or
can have the knowledge of God and of the relation of his own soul
to him, whether by reason or revelation; that is, by all except
sceptics. With sceptics we wish to have nothing to do, for they are
not entitled to be treated as rational beings. Every rational man
will admit that there is such a thing as wisdom, and that the wise
man possesses it, and therefore knows something in the order of
rational truth. St. Augustine has proved this in a most subtle and
conclusive manner in his short treatise, _Against the Academicians_,
the earliest of his published works, written while he was preparing
for baptism. The wise man, he proves, cannot have the notion of
probability or verisimilitude, unless he has the idea of truth. He
knows, at least, that there is such a thing as truth, otherwise he
could not affirm in a reasonable manner that anything is probably
in conformity with truth, that is, appears to be true, or resembles
truth, which is the meaning of verisimilitude. Moreover, every man
is forced to admit the certain truth of a number of disjunctive
propositions. "I am certain that the world is either one or not, and
if not one, either a finite or an infinite number. Also, that this
world has its order, from a merely physical law of nature, or some
higher power; that it either is without beginning or end, or else
has a beginning and no end, or had no beginning but will have an
end, and numberless other things of the same kind."[144] In the same
manner, we may say: Either the visible world is an illusion or real;
either God exists or he does not exist; Christianity is either true
or false; either Catholicity is genuine or counterfeit Christianity;
either the existence of God, the truth of the Catholic religion, the
infallibility of the Catholic Church, can be proved with certitude,
or they cannot be proved. These disjunctive propositions can be
multiplied indefinitely, and they are only different examples of
that principle of logic called the principle of contradiction,
which it is impossible for any one seriously and intelligently to
deny or even to doubt. Reason, therefore, forces us to affirm that
we know something with unerring certainty, that is, that the human
intellect is at least to this limited extent exempt from liability
to deception or error, and, so far, infallible. The only possible
dispute in philosophy or theology relates to the subject and extent
of infallibility. What truths are known or knowable with infallible
certitude, and where is the infallibility seated which gives this
certitude?
Every man who affirms that God obliges the human conscience to
give a firm and undoubting assent to certain truths, and to obey
certain moral rules, must admit that he also gives the means of
knowing with unerring certainty these truths and moral rules. Even
the probabilist cannot escape this. For he who would act safely on
a probable conscience must have a reflex certainty that he does not
sin in doing so. If we are bound to assent to truth, and to obey
law, of which we have only probable evidence, and this obligation is
certain, we must know with certainty that we are subjectively acting
in a right manner in giving our assent and obedience. A philosopher
who affirms that we have certain knowledge of this truth and this
law is, of course, a more strict infallibilist than the other. Yet
the principle is in common. When a man affirms that God has made a
positive revelation, and that in his revelation he has disclosed
truths and promulgated laws which he binds the conscience of every
one to whom they are proposed to believe and obey, he extends the
principle of infallibility much further. If I am to believe these
truths, especially such as are above reason, with a firm, undoubting
assent, and to be held bound to keep these laws, especially such
as are hard to keep, the revelation must be made to my mind in
such a manner as to give me certainty, without any fear of error.
Whoever admits this must assent also to the following disjunctive
proposition: Either the revelation of God is made known to the
individual mind through the medium of the Catholic Church, or in some
other way. We are not concerned at present to prove the proposition
that the revelation is made known through the church as a medium. Our
argument is immediately directed to those who admit and believe it
already. Therefore, leaving aside all discussion with those who are
not Christians or not Catholics, we merely affirm, as a consequence
from what has been proved, that the principle of infallibility, so
far as Christian faith is concerned, is seated in the church as the
medium of divine revelation. With us Catholics it is unquestioned
that the church is that visible society whose supreme head is the
Pope. Our only object of investigation is the nature, extent, and
more precise seat of that infallibility which the church possesses as
the depository of divine revelation, and the medium of communicating
it to individual minds.
The church is infallible. To make more plain the meaning of this
proposition, let us go back once more to the etymology of the term
infallible. The Latin word from which it is derived is _fallo_,
signifying _deceive_. Infallible signifies incapable of being
deceived or deceiving. The church, as infallible, cannot be deceived
or deceive, respecting that body of truth which has been deposited
in her by the apostles, and which they received from Jesus Christ
and the Holy Spirit. The positive and fundamental truth from which
this negative statement of the inerrancy of the church is derived,
and which it protects, is, that the church, as a visible, organized
society, is the immediate recipient of a certain divine revelation,
and the medium of its transmission and communication. This divine
revelation must be accepted and believed with a firm assent,
excluding all doubt, by each individual. It is a revelation of dogmas
and doctrines, some of which are mysteries above reason, and of laws
which are strictly obligatory. Each individual must receive the
faith and law from the church, of which he is a member by baptism,
with unquestioning submission and obedience of the intellect and
will. But this entire, unreserved faith and obedience could not be
justly exacted, unless the church were divinely enabled to impart
pure, unmixed truth, and to prescribe pure, unmixed holiness to her
members, and divinely secured from imparting or prescribing error
or sin. Authority and obligation are correlative in nature and
extent. As is the obligation, so is the authority. If the obligation
is universal and without reserve, the authority is sovereign and
supreme. If the obligation requires an absolute, undoubting assent
of the mind, and a divine faith, the authority must be infallible.
Whoever is bound to unconditional assent must be secured in immunity
from error in believing. Whoever is authorized to command assent
must be secured in immunity from error in teaching. Supreme and
sovereign authority in teaching, and absolute obedience in receiving
what is taught, require and exact, as a necessary condition,
inerrancy in that society which is constituted on the principle of
this authority and its correlative obedience. The fundamental idea
of the Catholic Church, therefore, contains in it that passive and
active infallibility which belongs to the hierarchy and the faithful
as composing one body under their head, the Roman Pontiff. Wherever
divine and Catholic faith, or certain knowledge derived from faith,
and the obligation of unreserved, complete assent and obedience, are
found, there is the passive infallibility of the church. Wherever
supreme teaching authority is found, commanding this obedience,
declaring or defining this faith, or revealed doctrine, or certain
truth derived from and depending on it, there is the church's active
infallibility in exercise. The influence of those gifts of the Holy
Ghost by which the church is rendered infallible pervades the whole
body of the church, and manifests itself in the most multiform
ways. The church is living and immortal. Her life is divine and
supernatural, and its principle is faith. The faith is, therefore,
the principle of an immortal life, and itself an immortal principle
within the church. Like the principle of animal vitality, it is found
in every part of the organization, but vitalizing each organ and
member in a different way, according to its function. Brain, heart,
lungs, and fingers are vitalized by the same principle, although each
one fulfils a special office. So in the church, the supreme head, the
hierarchy, the laity, are animated by the same divine principle of
faith, and concur in the general functions of the great organic unit,
but each in his own place and in a special office. The result of
their combined and complex action is the perpetuation of the divine
revelation in all times and places until the end of the world. We
have to consider, therefore, a great many other constituent parts,
organs, and members of the body of the church, as well as the head,
in order to understand the relation which the head bears to them and
they to it, and the manner in which its special function influences
and is influenced by the other functions. We can do this only in a
brief and imperfect manner in a short essay, but we will endeavor to
touch upon some of the principal parts of this great and extensive
subject in a manner sufficient for our purpose.
The revelation which proceeded from the Incarnate Word of God was
diffused, in a great variety of ways, by the apostles, and committed
to a great number of various channels for transmission through the
coming ages. They gave it to the faithful by their preaching, they
embodied it in the hierarchy, in the sacraments, in the creed, in the
liturgy, in fasts and festivals, in rites, ceremonies, and worship.
They taught it to their companions and successors in the episcopate
in the most complete and thorough manner. They committed it to
writing, in great part, in their inspired scriptures, and gave their
sanction to other books written under divine inspiration by those who
were not apostles. To use a figure, there are many great rivers by
which the inspired and divine doctrines of the apostles flow through
all parts of the world, and through all the succeeding periods of
time. The great sources of these rivers are, nevertheless, but two:
Scripture and tradition. The Holy Scripture is infallible, as well
the Old Testament, which is proposed anew to Christians by the
church, as the New Testament, in which the clearer and more complete
revelation is contained. Apostolic tradition is infallible, and
therefore Catholic tradition, which is an unerring transmission of
it, is also infallible. The written and oral teaching of the apostles
has come down to us by the numerous great rivers and the smaller
numberless rivulets of Catholic tradition, irrigating the fields and
gardens of the church, and opening the way to intellectual communion
between different countries and centuries. These streams can be
traced back to their sources by the student. The single doctrines
of faith and theology can be traced one by one, and the whole body
of doctrines, as a complete system, can be followed up, through the
expositions, meditations, and commentaries of saints, doctors, and
fathers of the church, to the Holy Scripture. In the same way, the
student can go back to the original tradition. He is not restricted
to one line of argument or evidence, for there are many converging
lines, each one more or less certain and sufficient by itself, and
all, taken together, irresistibly and overwhelmingly conclusive and
convincing. One who is not able to make an investigation of this
kind may, nevertheless, be competent to understand the general and
equally conclusive argument from prescription. He may know enough of
history to be aware that the principal doctrines of the faith were
universally held in the tenth century, still further back in the
fifth, and before that, indefinitely, without any record of a change,
or any adequate cause for such general consent, except the teaching
of the apostles.
Not only are the Scriptures and apostolic tradition infallible
sources of doctrine which is unerringly transmitted, but the
general sense and belief of the faithful is also infallible. The
faithful have received from the beginning the teaching of the divine
revelation by a supernatural sense, a divine gift of faith, so that
the revelation has not remained merely extrinsically proposed to
them, but also received and appropriated by them, in a living manner,
through the inward operation of the Holy Spirit in their minds. This
sense of the faithful is even one of the motives of the definitions
made by popes and councils. It was consulted by Pius IX. when he was
preparing to make his decree respecting the Immaculate Conception,
and it was recognized at the Council of the Vatican as expressed in
the numerous petitions for the definition of papal infallibility. The
body of the faithful cannot lose the faith, or any part of it, or
embrace any heresy as belonging to faith. Their unanimous consent in
doctrine is an infallible evidence of the true faith in itself, and a
note of the true religion. The body of the church is immortal in the
life of faith, and indefeasible in its supernatural existence, and
therefore infallible, as well as the head. It cannot separate from
its head in doctrine. The universal recognition of the Pope by the
church makes it infallibly certain that he is the true and legitimate
Pope, and the universal acceptance of a council as œcumenical makes
it infallibly certain that it is a true council, although it be
certain also, on other infallible motives, that Pope and council are
legitimate. The want of this universal recognition caused for many
years the legitimacy of certain popes to be doubtful in a large part
of Christendom, and of course made the authority of their decrees
doubtful, and would have made the authority of any council convoked
by them as a general council also doubtful. It was the unanimous
agreement of the whole church in recognizing Martin V. as the true
successor of St. Peter, which gave to all the faithful certainty that
he was their lawful head. If a Catholic had no other evidence that
the dogmatic decree of Pius IX. declaring the Immaculate Conception
a doctrine of faith, and the decrees of the Vatican Council defining
the infallibility of the Pope, are valid and binding, except the
universal profession of the faithful that they believe these
doctrines with a divine and Catholic faith, that alone would be
sufficient to give him infallible certainty.
The infallibility of the church in this general sense, which is an
attribute of the whole body or visible society, includes and exacts
the infallibility of the teaching and ruling hierarchy in a special
and particular sense, which is also capable of an independent proof
of its own. The faithful are subject to the hierarchy and dependent
on it for the sacraments, for regulation, and for instruction.
All that life which is diffused throughout the body must exist
in a more immediate and intense action in its highest organs.
An infallible church cannot be subject to a fallible teaching
authority. The apostles were infallible witnesses, teachers, and
judges, in respect to the faith and everything connected with it,
as the original founders of the church under the Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom they were immediately commissioned. The church was made
infallible by participation with them, as they were made infallible
by participation with Christ, who was himself infallible as the Son
of God. The authority of officially declaring the testimony of the
church, of teaching authoritatively its doctrine, of judging in all
controversies, and of punishing all delinquents, was left by the
apostles to their successors the bishops; and the special authority
of St. Peter, as the Vicar of Christ, was transmitted by him to his
successors in the See of Rome. In their prophetical office, as the
immediate organs of the revelation of the Holy Spirit, they left no
successors, for when the faith and law of Christ were once fully
revealed, the necessity of this office ceased. But their official
infallibility was, of necessity, perpetuated in that episcopal
order which inherited the hierarchical dignity and authority of
the Apostolic College. The church is infallible in teaching and
judging, as well as in keeping and professing the deposit of faith,
and accepting what is taught by lawful authority. Every Catholic
knows this to be a fundamental doctrine of the faith. But it is the
_Ecclesia Docens_, the church or assembly of prelates, which is meant
in this proposition. There is no infallibility in fathers, doctors,
theologians, priests, or the faithful generally, which is separate
from or independent of the authority of the episcopate. Even bishops
who separate from the unity of their order by revolting against its
supreme chief, lose all their authority. No matter how many bishops,
priests, and laymen separate from this unity, their whole number
is of no more account than if there were but one, since they are
totally cut off from the church. Tertullian, Apollinaris, Cranmer,
Luther, the whole mass of Oriental schismatics and other seceders,
count for nothing. Those who revolt from the unity of the church lose
the grace of faith, and have no longer any share in the church's
infallibility. The consent of fathers, doctors, theologians, and of
the faithful is infallible, because it represents Catholic tradition,
which is itself a reflection or image of the authoritative teaching
of the apostles and their successors. There is no contradiction
or dissension possible in truth, but only in error. In how may
ways soever the truth infallibly manifests itself, these various
manifestations must always agree with each other. In order that the
official teaching and judgments of the episcopate may always agree
with Scripture, tradition, with each other, with the teaching of
fathers, theologians, doctors, and the consent of the faithful, they
must be infallible. All alike being infallible, they must agree. No
individual, or number of individuals, therefore, can be qualified
to cite either Scripture or tradition against the authority of the
church, any more than to cite the authority of one apostle against
that of another apostle. To do this, is merely to oppose private
judgment, individual opinion, to public, official, and authoritative
judgment, which is destructive of the very principle of authority
and organization. The supreme teacher and judge must decide in all
doubtful and disputed cases, without appeal, what is the doctrine and
law, what is the sense of Scripture, the witness of tradition, the
doctrine of the fathers, the common belief of the faithful.
From this final and decisive authority, and the correlative
obligation of obedience, we derive another and most cogent proof,
that wherever sovereignty in the order of ideas or doctrinal
supremacy resides in the church, it must be there that the active
infallibility of the church is principally seated. A supreme and
final judgment or decree must be an infallible judgment. It is
irretractible, irreformable, irreversible. The church is committed to
it, and bound by it for ever, and that by the law of God. It must be,
therefore, the absolute truth, and whatever tribunal is qualified to
pronounce it to be so, and to exact unlimited assent and obedience
from all the faithful, must be infallible.
We must be careful, however, not to limit the authority to teach, and
to require outward obedience or even inward assent, or the obligation
of submission to authority, to the sphere of infallible declarations
and judgments. In the natural order itself, we are frequently bound
in conscience to assent to things which are only probable, and to
act on the supposition that they are true. Probability is the only
and the sufficient guide of life in most things. Self-evident and
demonstrable truths, and indubitable facts, are comparatively few
in number. Without a basis of certitude, there would be no such
thing as real versimilitude or probability. But with that basis we
can construct a great edifice of beliefs, opinions, and practical
rules, which have more or less of the firmness and stability of
their foundation. The probability of these beliefs is to a great
extent extrinsic--that is, derived from authority which in reason
and conscience we are bound to respect. It is reasonable, and it is
a duty, to receive the instruction of parents, teachers, masters,
with docility; to respect the authority of learned and wise men, of
tribunals, and of the common sense of society. In the supernatural
order it is the same. The authority of the Holy Scripture is not
restricted to that portion of its teaching which the mind perceives
with an absolute certitude. There is a moral obligation on every
student of the Scripture to give its probable sense and meaning
that inward assent which corresponds to the degree of probability
which his mind and conscience apprehend, and which may approach
indefinitely near to certainty. It is the same with tradition,
and with other sources of Catholic doctrine, such as the teaching
of standard authors in dogmatic and moral theology, the official
instructions of confessors, preachers, and pastors of the church,
including those of councils and of the Sovereign Pontiff. Under
this head are to be classed the decrees of the Roman Congregations,
excepting those cases in which the Pope gives them a higher sanction
than the one ordinarily given. There is, therefore, a wide sphere
in which an authority is exercised within the order of ideas which
is legitimate, and to which deference and obedience are due, but
which is not guaranteed to have a complete and perpetual immunity
from all error. We cannot say, therefore, that there cannot be any
exercise of teaching authority in the church which is fallible, but
only that the church cannot be left without any authority except that
which is fallible. To a certain extent, Scripture and tradition may
be ambiguous, doubtful, capable of being interpreted differently;
but we cannot be left altogether in doubt or uncertainty about
their meaning. Catholic schools may have their differences about
dogmatic or moral theology, but they cannot be altogether divided
and dissentient. The common belief of the faithful may shade off
insensibly, so that it is difficult or impossible to draw a precise
line between what is in itself pertaining to faith and that which is
only opinion, but it cannot be in all things indistinct and vague.
The confessor, the pastor, the bishop, the theologian, the father
of the church, may teach something which is erroneous, but this
liability to error cannot be universal. The tribunals of the church,
even, may be obliged to decide upon partial and incomplete evidence
and knowledge of the cause, and afterwards to annul their decisions,
as in the case of the heliocentric theory. But these tribunals cannot
be always and altogether without a higher and more certain rule to
guide them. There must be a supreme and sovereign authority in the
church which is infallible, and which can guide, direct, restrain,
and correct all inferior and fallible exercise of authority. This
sovereign authority is only exercised in the declaration and
definition of doctrine in an irreversible and irreformable manner,
and with an obligation annexed of that assent which excludes even
a hypothetical doubt, or a right of ever withdrawing or modifying
assent. It is this authority which we say must be infallible. And,
moreover, it is impossible to conceive of the real existence of an
authority of this kind which is not infallible. The belief of the
infallibility of the church was therefore contained, from the first,
demonstrably, in the belief of the supreme authority of the church.
Moreover, it has always been distinctly believed and taught, as well
as acted on, in all ages, and has been explicitly declared by the
Council of the Vatican, and, so far as the Pope is concerned, defined
in express terms.
This infallible and perpetual magistracy of the church is exercised
in its ordinary way by the official teaching of the Catholic
episcopate, whose supreme head is the Pope, and of the priests
commissioned by them to teach. It began before the New Testament was
written, and continued for nearly three hundred years before any
œcumenical council was held. It is a great mistake to fancy that
either the Scripture, or the decrees of councils, created the faith.
It existed before them, and was apprehended with a vividness and
distinctness perhaps surpassing anything which has been witnessed in
later periods.
The solemn and special exercise of this magistracy is through the
judgments and definitions of the Holy See, either with or without
the concurrence of œcumenical councils. These solemn acts have
had for their first object to express in definite terms what was
always taught and believed as of the Catholic faith, and to condemn
all opposite errors. Their second object has been to declare and
define revealed truths contained in Scripture and tradition, but
not proposed by the church as of Catholic faith before their solemn
definition. Their third object has been to define truths not
revealed, but so connected with or related to revealed truths,
that they are necessary to the protection of the faith and law
of the church. Many of the judgments belonging to the last two
classes, also, are negative in their form, that is, condemnations of
heretical, erroneous, or otherwise censurable tenets and opinions.
The necessity for making these definitions has been so constant
and frequent during the history of the church, that the principal
doctrines of the faith, and a vast body of doctrine pertaining
to or connected with it, are distinctly and explicitly taught in
the collection of the acts of the Holy See and the œcumenical
councils. It would be, however, a most grievous error to suppose
that everything contained in Scripture and tradition, much less
the whole body of truth which is capable of infallible definition,
has been exhausted, or could be expressed in a certain definite
number of propositions, to which no addition could ever be made. The
fountain is inexhaustible. And, no matter how long time may last, the
church can still proceed to make new and more explicit elucidations
and definitions of that complete and Catholic body of truth which
she has held and taught either explicitly or implicitly from the
beginning. The notion that the church is a merely mechanical medium,
for transmitting a definite and precise number of propositions of
faith, is wholly false. It is the notion of a certain number of
Anglicans, but wholly foreign to the true and Catholic idea. It is
not only heterodox, but rationally untenable and ridiculous. Equally
so is the common Protestant notion of a division among revealed
truths into two classes, the fundamental and non-fundamental, in
the sense in which those terms are used by Protestant theologians.
Undoubtedly, there are mysteries and doctrines which are fundamental
in the sense that they are at the basis of Christianity, and more
necessary to be universally known and explicitly believed than any
others. And, consequently, there are other truths which belong to the
superstructure, to the minor and less principal parts of the system,
or to its finish and ornamentation. But, in the sense to which we
have reference, they are all equal. That is, there is the same
obligation of believing any one revealed truth as any other, because
the authority of God is equally sovereign and majestic in each single
instance. We are bound to believe, implicitly, everything contained
in the written and unwritten word of God. Whatever the church
proposes as a revealed truth we are bound to believe explicitly as a
part of the Catholic faith, as soon as we know it. Whatever else we
know certainly to be contained in the word of God, we are bound to
believe by divine faith. In regard to all that portion of revealed
truth which is not thus clearly made known to us, we are bound to
submit our minds unreservedly to the decisions and judgments which
the church may hereafter make, and in the meantime to adhere to
that which seems to be the truth. A Catholic must not only believe
what the church now proposes to his belief, but be ready to believe
whatever she may hereafter propose. And he must, therefore, be ready
to give up any or all of his probable opinions so soon as they are
condemned and proscribed by a competent authority. Moreover, he must
believe what the church teaches, not simply or chiefly because he
has convinced himself by his own investigations that her doctrines
are really contained in the word of God, but because the infallible
authority of the church proposes them as revealed doctrines. The
latest decisions of the church have, therefore, the same authority as
the earliest. The Council of the Vatican is equally sacred with the
Council of Trent, and the Council of Trent with the First Council of
Nicæa.
It is not necessary to prove to any tolerably instructed Catholic
that this is the only doctrine which has been recognized as
orthodox, or taught with the sanction of the hierarchy, within the
Catholic communion. It is found in all our catechisms and books of
instruction, and preached by all pastors. It is an amazing fact that
some ostensible converts to the church in England, who have lately
renounced their sworn allegiance to her authority, have declared that
they never understood this doctrine. This only shows the depth of
the ignorance of Catholic doctrine which prevails among many of the
most intelligent and educated Protestants, especially those of the
Anglican sect. Priests educated in the faith from their childhood,
cannot easily apprehend such ignorance in persons who apparently hold
Catholic doctrines and are attracted by Catholic ceremonies. They
may, therefore, in some cases presuppose in their catechumens an
understanding of the fundamental Catholic principle which they have
not, and pass them in with a superficial instruction which leaves
them as much Protestants as they were before. It is to be hoped that
greater precaution will be used hereafter in this important matter.
It is also true that a number of nominal Catholics, and, sad to say,
some priests, a few of whom had stood in high repute, have recently
manifested to the world how utterly they had in their secret hearts
thrown off the allegiance due to the authority of the church. But
these examples prove nothing. It is as clear as the sun that the
doctrine we have laid down is the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
It is the doctrine of Bossuet as well as that of Bellarmine, of
Waterworth as well as of Wiseman. No other doctrine has ever been
tolerated in the church, and if any have held or taught any other, at
any time, who have not been personally condemned and excommunicated,
they were still only pretended but not real members of the Catholic
communion. A most signal manifestation of the universal faith of the
church in this doctrine was made in the year 1854. The doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception, which St. Thomas and many other Dominican
writers had opposed without censure, and which the Holy See had
strictly forbidden all theologians to call a dogma of Catholic faith
before the definition, was then proclaimed as a dogma of faith by
Pius IX. with the applause of the whole body of bishops, clergy, and
faithful. Another one has been made within the last year by a number
of bishops, priests, and other Catholics, who have given up their
opinions respecting the infallibility of the Pope, and have received
that doctrine as a doctrine of faith, simply upon the authority of
the Council of the Vatican.
This remark brings us to a part, and a very important part, of our
subject, which we promised at the beginning of this article to treat
of at its close, and thus give a complete view of the doctrine of
infallibility.
The definition of the Council of the Vatican, by virtue of the
foregoing principles, furnishes every one of the faithful with
an infallible motive for believing the infallibility of the Pope
as a dogma of faith, and imposes the obligation of faith on his
conscience. The teaching of the universal episcopate, in accordance
with that definition, furnishes another equally infallible motive.
And so does the universal belief of the faithful, who receive and
submit to that infallible definition of the council. There is,
moreover, such an abundance of proof from the Scripture, and the most
conspicuous monuments of tradition, of the doctrine in question,
that any person of ordinary education is capable of understanding
enough of the evidence in the case to make a reasonable judgment, and
might have done so, even before the case was decided. The fact that
a small number of theologians held a different opinion was really
of no weight at any time, considering the vastly preponderating
weight of the judgment of all the saints, the great majority of
theologians, and almost the entire body of the bishops. Whatever
seeming probability the opinion of this small minority might have had
in the minds of some having been totally destroyed by the judgment of
the council, the reasons from Scripture and tradition gain now their
full force and are seen in their true light. But the purpose we have
had in view, and which we stated at the outset, is not the exhibition
of these specific proofs, but the exposition of the relation of the
new definition to the supremacy itself and the general doctrine
of infallibility; as well as an answer to the question, how the
infallibility of the Pope could have remained so long without an
express definition.
In the first place, as to the supremacy. The Pope is, by divine
right, supreme ruler, supreme teacher, and supreme judge over the
universal church, and over all its priests and members, individually
and collectively. As supreme ruler, he must be infallible; not
indeed in all his particular acts, but in his principles and rules
of government. Otherwise, he might subvert the constitution of the
church, destroy morality, oppress and depose the orthodox prelates,
promote heretics to the highest places, and do in the Catholic
Church what the schismatical Eastern patriarchs have done, and what
Cranmer did in England. By the very supposition, there would be no
authority in the church to control him, and all the prelates and
faithful would be bound to obey him. For, if there is any authority
in the church superior to the Papal authority, the supremacy is in
that authority, and not in the Pope. As supreme teacher, he can
instruct all Christian bishops, as well as laity, in regard to
the doctrine which they must believe, and bind their consciences
to submit to his teaching. It follows from our entire foregoing
argument that infallibility is necessary to the possession and
exercise of such a power. As supreme judge in questions of faith
and morals, his decision must be final and irreversible; for there
is no judge above him except our Lord Jesus Christ himself. But the
final judgments which the whole Catholic Church is bound to accept
must be infallible. Sovereignty, or the possession of the plenitude
of power, when it extends over the realm of mind and conscience,
exacts infallibility. And this has been most lucidly and conclusively
proved, during the recent controversies, by Archbishop Dechamps, Dom
Guéranger, and various other able writers.
The infallibility of the Pope is implicitly contained in and
logically concluded from the infallibility of the church in general,
and of the teaching hierarchy in particular, in substantially the
same way as it is in the supremacy. The church is essentially
constituted by its fundamental principle, which is that of organic
unity under one visible head, the successor of St. Peter. The
vital force of this organic unity is faith, and, as the body is
infallible in faith, and also governed by the head, the head must
be infallible in a higher and more immediate sense; otherwise, the
body of the church would be liable either to become corrupt in faith
by remaining united to a corrupted head, or to cease to be a body
by separating from its head. If we take the church as represented
by another similitude, it is founded, as a building, on the Rock
of Peter; that is, the Roman Church and the succession of Roman
pontiffs. The foundation must be stable and immovable in faith, if
the structure resting upon it has this immovable stability. So,
also, the episcopal hierarchy, whether dispersed or congregated in
a general council, must remain in communion of faith and doctrine
with the Roman Church and Pontiff. The Pope must sanction their
decrees, otherwise they are null and void. Those bishops who separate
from the faith of the Roman Pontiff, no matter how numerous they
may be, fall out of the communion of the church and forfeit their
authority to teach. Evidently, therefore, if the teaching hierarchy
is infallible, the rule and authority which directs and governs it
must be infallible. If a pilot is placed on the flag-ship of a fleet
which has to pass through a dangerous strait, and orders are given to
every ship to follow in his wake, it is evident that the success of
the passage depends on the unerring skill of the pilot. A fallible
head to an infallible hierarchy, a fallible guide to an infallible
church, a fallible supreme teacher, a fallible Vicar of Christ! What
a contradiction in terms! Who can believe that our Lord Jesus Christ
ever constituted his church upon such inconsistent principles? The
supremacy of the Pope and the infallibility of the church plainly
cannot coexist with each other in fact, or be united into a coherent
whole in logic, without the infallibility of the Pope as the term
of union. Yet these two doctrines have always been the constitutive
principles of the Catholic Church.
It is, however, still requisite to answer the question, how any
doctrine different from that defined by the Council of the Vatican
could have existed and been tolerated so long among Catholics, and
how the church could have postponed her definition to this late
period. When we say it is requisite, we mean, merely, requisite in
order to complete the explanation we promised to make. We have no
right to ask reasons of the church, any more than of Almighty God, as
a preliminary to our submission. We are to take with unquestioning
docility whatever instruction the church gives us. Yet, we are
permitted to make investigation of the truths of our religion, in
order to understand them better, to confirm our belief, and to be
ready to answer objections. Therefore, we reply to the question
stated above, first, in general terms, that the infallibility of
the Roman Pontiff has always been held, taught, and acted on by
the supreme authority itself, and practically acknowledged by all
good Catholics; and that its explicit definition was delayed until
the necessity and expediency of such a definition was made clearly
manifest, and the fitting occasion furnished by the providence of God.
The argument will be made more clear if we substitute the term
_irreformable_ in the place of _infallible_. All irreformable
decrees are confessedly infallible, and the question of law and
fact is therefore precisely this: whether the Roman Pontiffs have
ever suffered their dogmatic decrees to be judicially revised by
the bishops, or to remain suspended as to their complete obligatory
force, until the express or tacit assent of the bishops had been
manifested; and whether the church has ever recognized any such right
in the bishops. So far as the Popes are concerned, it is enough to
refer to the unquestionable fact that they have expressly prohibited
appeals from the judgment of the Holy See to an œcumenical council,
from the time of Celestine I. in the fifth century. Martin V. and
Pius II. in the fifteenth century, Julius II. and Paul V. in the
sixteenth century, renewed this prohibition. Clement XI., in the
eighteenth century, condemned the Jansenists, who had appealed from
the Bull _Unigenitus_ to a general council, and pronounced sentence
of excommunication upon all who promoted the appeal, unless they
abandoned it and subscribed to the _Unigenitus_. This sentence was a
general one, including all appeals from the Holy See to an œcumenical
council. It was accepted by the whole church, a small party of
Jansenists only remaining contumacious, and has been incorporated
into the canon law. Moreover, the Holy See has always required the
bishops to receive and promulgate without any judicial examination,
and without delay, all its dogmatic judgments; and they have
submitted to this demand obediently, even those who, like Bossuet,
have held Gallican opinions. The most illustrious and irrefragable
proof of the doctrine of the universal episcopate on this point which
could be given, was really given at the Council of the Vatican. The
monition at the end of the constitution on faith, which plainly
declares the obligation of entire submission to the doctrinal decrees
of the Holy See, was approved by the unanimous vote of all the
fathers, including those belonging to what was called the minority.
The Popes have always claimed and exercised the office of supreme
judges in matters of faith, the episcopate and the whole church
consenting and submitting, and all dissidents being compelled to keep
silence or incur excommunication.
The definition of the Council of the Vatican has not, therefore,
conferred any new rights on the Sovereign Pontiff or enlarged their
exercise. It has only made an explicit statement that the rights
always possessed and exercised by him are declared in the divine
revelation to belong to him _jure divino_, with the guarantee of
infallibility in their exercise, and proposed this statement to all
the faithful with the obligation of receiving it as a part of the
Catholic faith.
It is not very difficult to give satisfactory reasons why this was
not done before. The church does not make definitions without a
positive reason. Ordinarily, she waits until the truth is denied
or disputed. Before the Council of Constance, or rather the period
which immediately preceded that council, the plenary authority of
the Pope had not been called in question except by open schismatics
and heretics. We have the authority of Gerson, the principal author
of Gallicanism, for the assertion that any one who had advanced
his doctrine of the subjection of the Pope to the council before
that time, would have been universally condemned as a heretic. The
Council of Constance was a very irregular, abnormal, and imperfect
council, until the election of Martin V. near its close. It was
rather a congress or states-general of Christendom than a council.
The residence of the popes at Avignon and the subsequent division of
Catholic Christendom into three obediences, had put the pontifical
authority in abeyance and diminished the moral force of the Holy
See. The right and duty of putting an end to this state of things,
and bringing the whole church under the jurisdiction of one certain
and lawful head, had devolved by default upon the bishops, aided
by the influence and authority of the princes, and the counsel of
the principal theologians and priests of the time. Harrassed and
distracted by the difficulties and dangers which beset the church,
a number of leading men whose spirit and intention were good, and
who were devoted to the preservation of Catholic unity, had fallen
into the grievous mistake of seeking a remedy for existing and
threatening disorders in a limitation of the sovereign authority
of the Vicar of Christ. Martin V. obviously did the only thing
prudent or even possible for the moment, in leaving the irregular
and uncanonical decrees which they had passed to die of their own
intrinsic weakness. His successor, Eugenius IV., had too many open
and contumacious rebels and schismatics to deal with, to permit him
to alienate those who had fallen into minor errors, unawares, by a
formal condemnation. At the Council of Florence, the reconciliation
of the Greeks and other Orientals to the Holy See was the object of
paramount importance. At the Fifth Council of Lateran and at the
Council of Trent, the fathers were absorbed by questions of far
greater immediate necessity than that of Gallicanism. Yet the Council
of Lateran came very near defining the Papal infallibility, and the
result of the Council of Trent was to strengthen the pontifical
authority immensely, as may be seen by reading the history of its
final confirmation and promulgation, and examining the bull of
confirmation itself, which effectually sweeps away every vestige
of the irregular legislation of Constance. Between the Council of
Trent and the Council of the Vatican, no other œcumenical council
intervened. The Gallican controversy, as all know, chiefly raged
during the reign of Louis XIV. The Pope refrained from any formal
condemnation of the Gallican tenets, although urged even by that
monarch himself to terminate the controversy by a final judgment;
and, although these opinions were held and advocated by a certain
number of Catholic prelates and theologians from that time until
the Council of the Vatican, they were never branded by any note of
censure by the Holy See. It may seem surprising that such a patient
and cautious method of dealing with errors which have at length been
condemned as heretical should have been pursued; but any one who
knows the whole history of the matter must admire the supernatural
wisdom of this course of conduct. One motive, doubtless, for it, was
respect for Bossuet. But another and more powerful reason was that
the Holy See desired to gain a victory by the means of discussion and
argument, before reverting to the exercise of authority.
And again, it is obvious at first sight that a far greater moral
weight has been given to the final definition, by the fact that the
Sovereign Pontiffs have left the solemn and decisive deliberation
and judgment of a matter which relates to their own highest and most
sublime prerogative, to the bishops of the church assembled in a
general council. It may appear strange to some that the church could
tolerate an error even for a time. But there is a great difference
between those errors which subvert the foundation and rule of
faith, and those which only shake them a little. The errors of the
Jansenists, Febronians, and other rebels against the authority of the
Holy See, were of the first class, and were never tolerated. But the
Gallicans of the school of Bossuet recognized and practised the duty
of obedience to the Holy See. Their error lay rather in an illogical,
indistinct, and imperfect conception of the supreme authority of
the Roman Pontiff, than in a denial of any of its attributes. They
admitted the right of the Pope to issue dogmatic judgments, and the
obligation of bishops and the faithful to receive them with interior
assent and obedience. They acknowledged that these judgments became
judgments of the Catholic Church, and were made irreformable as
soon as the assent of a majority of the bishops was even tacitly
given. As this assent has always been given, not tacitly alone, but
by the most formal and express adhesion, there has never been any
practical divergence in doctrine between orthodox Gallicans and the
more consistent Ultramontanes. St. Augustine himself had said that
it is sometimes the wisest course to tolerate for a time the errors
of those who hold the faith firmly, and err only by an imperfect
knowledge and a confused conception of the truth. The church has not
hesitated or faltered in regard to her own principles, or failed
to act on them with full and distinct consciousness. But it is not
always necessary for her to propose them fully and completely as
articles of divine and Catholic faith to her children. It is for
the church, guided, illuminated, governed, and assisted by the Holy
Spirit, to judge of the time and manner in which she will unfold
and display in all their brilliant majesty the treasures of her
doctrine. She has waited until the nineteenth century to encircle
the brow of the Queen of Heaven with the coronet of her definition
of the Immaculate Conception, and to place in the tiara of the Vicar
of Christ a new jewel by defining his infallibility. From both these
splendid acts, in which her divine authority, her irresistible power,
her infallible wisdom, and her miraculous unity are manifested
with the most radiant lustre, incalculable blessings will flow in
abundance upon her faithful children. Christ is honored in his
Mother and in his Vicar. The serpent's head is crushed anew. Faith
triumphs in her new conquests. The kingdom of God is strengthened and
consolidated, and the kingdom of Satan is shaken to its foundations.
Like the cathedral of Cologne, the superb edifice of theology
approaches to its completion, the new marble rises side by side with
that which is dimmed by the dust of ages, and new pinnacles are
placed upon ancient foundations. This temple is one whose builder
and maker is not man but God, whose designs are formed in eternity,
but realized gradually and successively in time. From the foundation
to the top-stone, the massive solidity, the symmetry and unity of
plan, the harmony of proportions, the perfection of beauty, which
become more clearly evident with every century, disclose the idea
in the infinite mind of the Supreme Architect. The Catholic Church
has been designed and constructed by the same being who designed
and constructed the universe. As the solar system is unerring and
unfailing in its movements, prescribed to it by the immutable law
of its Creator, so is the church unerring and unfailing by the law
of its divine Founder. And as the sun can never cease to be the
unfailing source of light and heat, and the immovable centre of
revolution, while the solar system endures, so the See of Peter must
remain the centre and the source of truth, doctrine, law, unity,
and perpetual movement to the Catholic Church, so long as time
endures. It is this unerring stability of the Catholic Church in
the law prescribed by its founder, Jesus Christ, which is properly
termed infallibility; and, since this stability is communicated to
all the distant and dependent churches under her obedience by the
Roman Church, it is in the Roman Church that infallibility has its
immovable seat and centre.
It is plain from the foregoing argument how false and flimsy is the
pretence of Dr. Döllinger, M. Loyson, and the other rebels against
the Council of the Vatican, that they have been excommunicated for
adhering to the old Catholic faith which they have always held. All
heretics have said the same thing, except those who have openly
averred that they reject the authority of the Catholic Church. This
is what the Arians said, and Arius knew how to play the injured,
persecuted saint and prophet of God, even better than M. Loyson. The
creed of Nice is a new creed, said the Arians and Semi-Arians. So
said the rebels against the Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and
Chalcedon. The little Jansenist sect in Holland calls itself the Old
Catholic Church, and its members take the name of Old Catholics. The
allegation is palpably and ridiculously false. The Gallican opinions
were never a part of the Catholic doctrine. The highest claim that
could ever be made for them by their advocates was, that they were
probable opinions not condemned by the supreme authority. The best
theologians have condemned them as erroneous and proximate to heresy.
The Holy See has never shown them the slightest favor, but, on the
contrary, has used all means, except that of express condemnation,
to drive them out of seminaries, to destroy their credit, and to
inculcate the true and sound doctrine. They were tolerated errors.
While they were tolerated, it was possible for good Catholics, and
even learned men, to hold them in good faith; since good and learned
men, and even prelates, are fallible interpreters of both Scripture
and tradition, and may err in reasoning and judgment. But their
temporary toleration gave them no rights, not even those which belong
to received opinions of Catholic schools of theology. There were
good reasons for a purely passive toleration for a time. But none
for the indefinite continuance of such toleration. The silence of an
œcumenical council, viewing all the events which had occurred during
the past two centuries, would have given the advocates of Gallicanism
a plausible pretext to claim for it a positive toleration, a
recognition of its real and solid probability. Moreover, it was
reviving under a new and more dangerous form; numbers of good and
loyal Catholics were beginning to go astray after a so-called
Catholic liberalism, and a clique of secret traitors was plotting
a revolt against the Holy See, disguised under the ambiguities and
reservations of Gallicanism. Error, though it may lie dormant and
not show its dangerous character for a time, sooner or later works
out the conclusions contained in its premises. Gallicanism was an
illogical doctrine, containing implicitly the denial of the papal
supremacy. It was necessary, therefore, to condemn it, and to define
the truth. Those who gave up their opinions in obedience to the
decree of the Vatican acted like Catholics, and like reasonable and
consistent men. As Catholics, they were bound to obey a divine
authority. As reasonable men, they were bound to abandon an opinion
which they had embraced on merely probable grounds, as soon as the
certain truth was made known to them.
Moreover, the malcontents were taught from their childhood, and
some of them have themselves taught, as authors and professors,
the infallibility of œcumenical councils as a doctrine of the
Catholic faith. They have renounced, abjured, and trampled on that
faith, by rebelling against the Council of the Vatican, and bidding
defiance to the authority of their bishops and of the Pope. They
are justly excommunicated. The anathema of the church has smitten
them, and they are doomed to wither and die, and go into oblivion.
As for the Catholic Church and her docile children, they have made
a great act of faith which has had a most salutary effect already,
in strengthening the habit of divine faith, and in illuminating the
intellect with the knowledge of the truth. Its salutary effects in
the future will be still greater. There was never a time when the
continuous and immediate exercise of the supreme teaching authority
of the Vicar of Christ was so necessary and so easy as the present
critical, momentous period. Never a time when it was so necessary for
all the faithful to place an absolute and boundless confidence in
the chair of Peter. God has made known to all men, as a truth of his
divine revelation, the infallibility of that chair, and of his august
Vicar who sits in it. This truth is equally certain with the greatest
mysteries of the faith, the Trinity and the Incarnation. This chair
of Peter can neither be deceived nor deceive us, for its doctrine
rests on the veracity of the Holy Spirit, the author of truth, and in
believing and obeying it we believe and obey Almighty God.
FOOTNOTES:
[143] Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by
REV. I. T. HECKER, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at
Washington, D. C.
[144] _Contra Academicos_, lib. iii. § 23.
THE TRUE HARP.
Soul of the Bard! stand up, like thy harp's majestical pillar!
Like its golden arch, O heart! in reverence bow thee and bend!
Mind of the Bard, like the strings be manifold, changeful,
responsive:
This is the harp God smites--the harp, man's master and friend!
AUBREY DE VERE.
A PILGRIMAGE TO CAYLA.[145]
CAYLA, August 1, 1867.
MY DEAR FRIEND: In pressing my hand for the last time, when I left
Quebec two months ago, you said, "Do not fail to visit Cayla." I made
you the promise, and to-day I accomplish it. It is from the chamber
itself of Eugénie de Guérin that I write.
You who have such an avowed admiration for the sister of Maurice,
with what rapture you will enjoy the minute details which I have to
communicate! How many times have we asked, after having read the
admirable _Journal_ of Eugénie, after having lived with her the life
at Cayla, what had become of that domestic life which she described
with such exquisite art, and which she caused us to love so much? Who
are now the actual inmates of that antique château? If "Mimi," sweet
"Mimi," is still living? etc. To all these questions I can to-day
reply. On my return to Poitiers from a short visit to the little city
of Airvault, the cradle of my ancestors, I turned my steps toward
Toulouse, where I arrived this morning. The entire city was in a
state of festivity, the streets were all decorated, and filled with
pilgrims, flags waved in every direction, and the façades of the
houses were hung with wreaths of flowers. They were celebrating the
last day of the grand _fêtes_ in honor of St. Germaine Cousin.
The railroad which runs from Toulouse to Alby stops at Gaillac, and
there branches off to the station of Tessounières. Leaving Alby to
the right, I came down to Cahuzac about two o'clock. The terminus
is about half a league from the village. I was obliged to make this
little trip on foot, in company with the mail-carrier, who also took
charge of my valise.
The landscape is hilly and abrupt, and has a savage aspect. The road
winds through the valley, rises and descends between the wooded
mountains, whence peep out here and there some white rocks which
indicate a sterile soil.
At a turn in the road, I perceived on an acclivity Cahuzac, whose
name vibrates so pleasantly on the ears of Eugénie. From there a
carriage conducted me in a few moments to Andillac, a village more
than modest, which appeared on my left, with its poor little church,
where repose the tombs of Maurice and Eugénie, where she came so
often to pray, to weep, to hope, to implore with many tears the
salvation of her brother.
Here the road turns off and climbs a hillside. The guide pointed
with his finger across the trees on the other side of the ravine to
the Château of Cayla, which rises isolated on a graceful eminence.
'Tis a spacious mansion of severe aspect. Nothing distinguishes it
from ordinary structures, except a little tower built on one of its
angles, which gives it a slightly feudal tinge. Notwithstanding the
unobtrusiveness of this manor when seen in its landscape-framing,
the effect is laughing and picturesque, thanks to the prestige of
poetry, that fairy enchantress who has touched every object in this
domain with her golden ring. Here, though the fairy is an angel, it
is Eugénie.
The carriage crossed the ravine, and followed the banks of the St.
Usson, a little stream which turns the parish mill. It then began
the steep ascent to Cayla, and finally stopped before the farm, in
the midst of a crowd of chickens, who were cackling and disporting
themselves, in the sun, on a litter of straw. A servant came up at
that moment from the rabbit-warren on the north side, and politely
invited me into the _salon_, a pretty enough room, opening on the
terrace. Some furniture in modern style, white curtains, some wax
fruit and flowers, a few paintings on the walls, a little picture of
Cayla and its surroundings, on the table a handsome edition of the
works of Eugénie and Maurice; this last the most beautiful ornament
of this home.
The door opened, and a young lady with a distinguished air and dreamy
expression entered. It was Caroline de Guérin, Eugénie's niece, that
dear little "Caro" whom she used to rock on her knees, now married to
M. Melchior Mâzuc, of a noble and wealthy family of Montpellier. She
was soon followed by another person, much older but still sprightly,
dressed very humbly, with an expression of extreme sweetness in her
countenance, and a modesty yet more lovely, with marked features,
lit up by her bright eyes, and a smile uniting extreme delicacy and
benevolence.
I introduced myself as coming from America, from Canada, attracted to
this remote corner of France by the fame of Eugénie.
"Has the reputation of our Eugénie reached that far?" exclaimed Marie
de Guérin, for it was she.
From this moment the conversation did not languish, fed, as it was,
by the thousand nothings around which the halo of poetry has been
thrown by the author of the _Journal_.
Just as I rose to take my leave, M. Mâzuc entered, followed by Madame
de Guérin, the widow of Erembert. They had summoned M. Mâzuc from the
fields, where he had been superintending his vinedressers. He is a
man in the strength of age, an old officer in the army of Algiers,
with a manly face, energetic look, amiable and impulsive character.
"What!" exclaimed he. "You come all the way from America and as
far as our mountains to visit us, and already talk of leaving? No,
no; you must not think of such a thing. You have not seen anything
yet; you must stay and visit the neighborhood, and we will give you
Eugénie's room, and you will find it just as it was at the time
of the _Journal_. Then, here is my brother Nérestan, who has just
returned from Africa, where he filled the office of officer of
colonization; he will entertain you about Algiers, and you can talk
to him of Canada."
"Oh! very well," said M. Nérestan, shaking me cordially by the hand;
"and I will begin at once by telling you that the best system of
colonization that I know of, I found in a book printed in Canada
which accidentally fell into my hands."
They all then urged me with so much politeness to stay that,
conquered by their kind persuasions, I yielded to the pleasure of
remaining.
While awaiting tea, Marie equipped herself without any ceremony in
an old straw hat with a broad brim, and invited me to take a walk
and visit the environs. We were already old acquaintances. We went
out by the door that opens on the terrace, which rests on the crest
of the ravine. Along the wall grew several pomegranate-trees, and
some jasmine in bloom, from which Maurice gathered a bouquet the day
before his death. He walked down here, leaning on the arm of Eugénie,
to warm in the bright sun his limbs already struck with the chill of
death, to bathe his panting breast in the pure warm morning air, and
to contemplate for the last time the beautiful sky of Cayla.
Some stone steps lead to the bottom of the ravine, where the
little stream runs along, shaded by willows, whose rippling has so
often caused that amiable recluse to dream and sing in her little
chamber. Here is the fountain of Téoulé, that is to say, of the
Tile, so-called from the huge tile which serves as a reservoir
for the water from the rock. We crossed the Pontet which leads to
the laundry, where, like the beautiful Nausicaa of old, Eugénie
came sometimes to wash her robes; and which inspired these pretty
reflections:
"A day passed in drying one's linen leaves but little to say. It
is, however, pretty enough to spread out a nice white wash on the
grass, or to see it waving from the lines. You can be, if you wish,
either the Nausicaa of Homer, or one of the princesses of the Bible
who washed the tunics of their brothers. We have a laundry that you
have not seen, at the Moulinasse, large enough and full of water,
which embellishes this recess, and attracts the birds, who love
the coolness to sing in. I write you with clean hands, having just
returned from washing a dress in the stream. 'Tis delightful to wash,
and see the fish pass, the little waves, bits of grass, and fallen
flowers, to follow this, that, and I know not what in the thread of
the stream! So many things are seen by the laundress who knows how
to look in the course of the stream! 'Tis the bathing-place of the
birds, the mirror of heaven, the image of life, a hidden path, a
baptismal reservoir."
A few steps in the meadow, a superb chestnut-tree, three or four
centuries old, spreads its vast shade; old sentinel of the château,
which has seen born and die the generations of De Guérins. The ridge
of Sept-Fonds winds through the trees as far as the top of the hill;
on the neighboring declivity is the little coppice of Buis, with its
pretty little pathway, full of shade and mystery, and where Eugénie
had her little dog buried.
"_July 1st._--He is dead, my poor little dog. I am so sad, I have but
little inclination to write.
"_July 2d._--I have just put Bijou in the warren of the coppice,
among the flowers and birds. I am going to plant a rose-bush there,
and call it the _dog-rose_. I have kept his two little front paws,
which so often rested on my hands, on my feet, on my knees. He was
so nice, so graceful when he lay down, and in his caresses! In the
morning he used to come to the foot of my bed, to lick my feet as I
was getting up; then went to give papa the same greeting. We were his
two favorites. All this comes back to me now. Past objects go to the
heart. Papa regrets him as much as I do; he said he would have given
ten sheep for this poor little dog. Alas! everything must leave us,
or we must leave everything.
"A letter just received has caused me another pang. The affections of
the heart differ like their objects. What a difference the grief for
Bijou, and that for a soul being lost, or at least in danger of it! O
my God! how frightful that is in the eyes of faith!"
Passing before the farm, we cast a glance at the other side of the
valley. Facing us, this mass of green is the Bois du Pigimbert, with
the hamlet of Pausadon, where Vialarette lived, that poor woman whom
Marie and her sister used to visit. More to the left, on the heights,
is the village of Mérix, and below, toward the north, Leutin, where
Eugénie went so frequently to hear Mass.
The road from the warren of the north skirts the base of the hill,
which extends itself in the rear of the old castle. Here, as
elsewhere, all is full of souvenirs.
"Every tree has its history, every stone a name."
Here Maurice played with his sisters among the branches of the
Treilhon, that old vine-stalk which twines itself round the trunk of
an oak-tree. "Mimi" smiled at the recollection of the slides they
used to take down the side of the ravine. She pointed out a little
underwood of maples; they were small trees about the thickness of
one's arm, and which have nothing in common with the king of our
forests.
A sudden storm coming up obliged us to seek shelter in the mansion. A
few moments before, the sky was serene and blue; now all was obscured
by clouds, the rain came down in torrents, and it began to thunder
and lighten. This southern sky always reminds me of a great child,
changing from smiles to tears with a wonderful facility.
At half-past seven, supper was announced, at which was served the
excellent wine of Cayla. At the side of its father, was little Mâzuc
de Guérin, a child of eighteen months. Oh! that Eugénie could have
caressed this child of "Caro's."
The evening passed delightfully; anecdotes were told, reminiscences
of Cayla, of America, of Algeria, and episodes related by M. Mâzuc of
the wars in Africa, in the mountains of Kabylia. "Mimi" then brought
us back to our present surroundings by relating some interesting
details of the widow of Maurice. She returned from India after the
death of her husband, and died at Bordeaux in 1861.
And the good M. Bories is still living, but struck with a cruel
malady, and is but a mere wreck.
At bedtime I was conducted to my room. A spiral staircase ascends
to the principal story, and leads into the great hall. This is the
stately and solemn apartment of the manor. In it a vast fireplace,
whose mantel is sustained by caryatides in stone; on either side are
the figures of two cavaliers in their armor, rudely sketched. In
former days these walls were covered with the armor of the seignors
of this house; this inlaid floor, to-day so silent, resounded to
the footsteps of armed knights, carrying on the points of their
lances standards and pennons on which the ladies of the castle
had embroidered the proud device of the sires of De Guérin. _Omni
exceptione majores._ It was in this saloon, now so deserted, that
they armed themselves to fight against the Moors and the ferocious
Albigenses, or where they donned their richest armor, their brilliant
helmets of finest steel, and their gilded breast-plates, to cross
their lances in the tournament. At the time of Eugénie, all this
antique splendor had long since passed away. Here as elsewhere,
the Revolution had reaped its harvest of destruction, and the rich
Seignors de Guérin "were now," said she, "only poor squires, striving
to keep the wolf from the door."
On the right side of the hall is a door opening into the chamber of
"Mimi;" on the left, one opening into that of Maurice. At the extreme
end, away back, retired like a cell, hidden like the nest of a bird,
is the little room of Eugénie. It is in this room, and on her table,
that I am now writing to you, surrounded by the same silence, and
lit by the same modest light of her lamp. Before me is her little
chapel in miniature, her crucifix, her _étagère_ of books. Nothing
besides this, neither ornaments nor luxury; nothing except the most
commonplace. But these valueless nothings have become relics; this
little room a chapel, this table an altar. 'Twas from this white and
peaceful cage that the dove of Cayla flew away to the land of dreams,
gathered the celestial flowers of poetry, conversed with the angels,
and sang with her heart. It is here that she prayed, read, wrote her
_Journal_, and those admirable letters to Louise de Bayne, Madame de
Maistre, and Maurice; 'tis here that she wrote her heart's history,
that she lived, that she died; from here that she went to rejoin
Maurice.
I turned over the leaves of the _Journal_, and gave myself up to
its fascinations, where the least object, an insect that flies, a
bird that sings, a ray of light penetrating the blinds, inspired her
with those charming thoughts, those poetical pages, like a harmony
of Lamartine, fine and profound as a passage of La Rochefoucauld.
Her thoughts take at times the most unexpected flights, sublime
transports, like an elevation of Bossuet's.
Never perhaps has there been a more delicate organization, a more
susceptible imagination. Her soul was like an Æolian harp which
vibrates to the slightest breath.
Mlle. de Guérin wrote with a golden pen. I would compare her to
Madame Sévigné, if Madame Sévigné was less frivolous. The latter
amuses and dazzles, the former captivates and touches; the one is as
bright as a lark, the other dreamy as a dove. The first has more
genius, the second more soul. There is more sentimentality in Madame
de Sévigné, in Eugénie de Guérin more sentiment. The writings of one
skim over the surface of the soul, those of the other penetrate it.
We can admire Madame de Sévigné, we love Eugénie de Guérin.
Before me, hanging to the framework of her library, is a picture
of St. Thérèse de Gérard, a present to her from the Baroness de
Rivières. I re-read the passage suggested by this little engraving,
those aspirations toward contemplative life, which reveal such tender
piety, such deep and true devotion. This pure heart turned naturally
toward heaven, like the mariner's needle, which always points to
the north. "She was of those souls," said Mgr. Mermillod, "who in
the midst of our material cares hear the _Sursum Corda_ of the Holy
Church, and who delight in these noble and holy aspirations." "We can
make a church everywhere," says she in some of her writings.
I open the window, and, like her, I contemplate the beautiful
night--the country half-buried in shadows, the myriads of stars,
which, like golden nails, sustain the blue tapestry of heaven. All is
silence, meditation, mystery; a single murmur, that of the stream.
It sings for me, as it formerly did for Eugénie. In looking back
into the past, I ask myself if I have ever spent a sweeter hour or
experienced more vivid emotions.
Adieu, it is midnight. Expect soon a sequel to this letter.
To M. L'ABBÉ L., Quebec.
PARIS, August 9, 1867.
... At five o'clock in the morning, I heard a knock at my door. I
was already up. The previous evening I had made an arrangement with
Mlle. de Guérin to go to Andillac, where I wished to say Mass, and
visit the graves of Maurice and Eugénie.
The cheerful aspect of nature seemed to echo the brightness of my
thoughts. The heights of Mérix were bathed in the rosy hues of
morning; in the sky appeared the first golden threads of the sun; in
the plain the slight fragrance of the dew, perfumed breezes, and the
warbling of the birds.
We saluted in passing the little cross where the brother and sister
took such a tender adieu of each other, where Eugénie preserved so
long the impression that the horse's foot made in the plastic soil.
One Christmas Eve, going to midnight Mass, she gathered, in her
simple piety, some branches covered with hoar-frost from the bushes
which grow along this road, which she wished to place before the
Blessed Sacrament--a scene which she described with so much freshness
and charming grace:
"We all went to midnight Mass, papa in advance--the night was
superb. Never had there been a more beautiful midnight, so much so
that papa put his head out from his mantle several times to look
at the firmament. The ground was covered with hoar-frost, but we
did not feel the cold, and then the air was warmed in front of us
by the torches which our servants carried to light the way. It was
charming, I assure you, and I only wish you could have been with us,
going to church along these roads bordered with little bushes, as
white as if they were all in bloom. The hoar-frost makes beautiful
flowers. We saw a branch so lovely that we wished to make a bouquet
for the Blessed Sacrament, but it melted in our hand. All flowers are
short-lived. I regretted my bouquet: it was sad to see it melt, and
dissolve drop by drop."
Going along, Mlle. de Guérin told me of the last sickness and
death of her sister. Two years before, her health became seriously
affected; it was in vain that the physician sent her to the waters of
Cauterets, to seek the strength which would never more return.
She felt her end approaching; but she did not tremble; in her
complete resignation, there was no place for fear. As she watched
the span of life gradually diminish, she seemed to fold within
herself, like the sensitive plant; wrapped around her the mantle
of holy recollection, in which great souls envelope themselves at
the approach of that supreme contemplation which she foresaw. She
talked but little, prayed much, and smiled rarely. Her little room
had become the cell of a religious; she lived there cloistered, only
leaving it to go to church. Prayer was her recreation, the Holy
Eucharist her food.
"I wish to die after having received the holy communion," said she
a short time before her death. They noticed that she looked often
toward Andillac, where she was going so soon to dwell. The swallow is
compelled to fly away on the eve of winter; the winter of death was
approaching.
She took cold going to Mass on the Epiphany, and returned home
with a fever, which increased rapidly. Inflammation of the lungs
supervened, which hurried her to the portal of death in a few days.
After having received the holy Viaticum, "I can die now," sighed she
with a celestial smile. "Adieu, my dear Marie!" And as she felt the
tears tremble in her eyes, at seeing her so overcome with grief,
she embraced her, and said, while turning her head away to conceal
her emotion, "Ah! do not let us be sad!" as if she was afraid of
weakening the generosity of her sacrifice.
Such was the appointed end of Mlle. Eugénie de Guérin. She died like
a saint, "as the angels would die, if they were not immortals," said
one of her friends.
We arrived at Andillac.
"_Mosou Ritou_"--M. le Curé--"is he in the rectory?" asked Mlle.
de Guérin in patois of the old servant, as she entered with the
familiarity of an habituée.
M. l'Abbé Massol welcomed us cordially, and conversed with me about
a project which he had had in view for some time of rebuilding the
church of Andillac with the offerings of the admirers of Eugénie
de Guérin. The encouraging sympathy which he had received led him
to hope that he would very soon be able to accomplish his purpose,
which will be the honor of the tomb of this pious young girl, and
her aureola by choice: this was indeed the only glory that she
desired.[146]
The actual church of Andillac is really nothing more than a ruin. Its
tottering belfry, roof falling in from age, cracked and crumbling
walls, present the picture of desolation. It is necessary to descend
several steps in order to enter this other Bethlehem, whose sombre,
decayed, and humid aspect sends a chill to the heart. Nothing less
than the most ardent faith, or Eugénie's happy imagination, could
enable a person to breathe in what seems more like a charnel-house
than a church, or cause a ray of brightness and poetry to enter there.
I whispered to Mlle. Guérin that I was going to say Mass for the
illustrious dead of her family; and I had the happiness of giving the
holy communion to the sister of Eugénie. A quarter of an hour passed
in thanksgiving on the prie-dieu where she used to kneel left an
impression never to be forgotten; angel, she conversed here with the
angels, with the Spouse of virgins; she unfolded here to the wind of
eternity those wings of light which detached her every day more and
more from the earth, and which have finally transported her to the
bosom of our Lord.
On leaving the church, Mlle. de Guérin silently opened the gate of
the cemetery. I was face to face with the beloved graves. The morning
sunlight flooded this garden of the dead, as if to remind me of
that other invisible light which illumines the other shore of life
that never fades. A shaft of white marble, the only monument in the
cemetery, marks the grave of Maurice. We read distinctly the mournful
date, _July 19, 1839_. At the side to the right is a simple wooden
cross, one of its arms supporting a crown of immortelles, with this
inscription enclosed in a medallion: _Eugénie de Guérin_, May 31,
1848. In the rear were two iron crosses, one of them marking the
grave of M. Joseph de Guérin, Eugénie's father, and the other that of
Erembert. They died a year apart, 1850 and 1851.
I remained a long time on my knees beside the grave of Eugénie, in
the same place where, overwhelmed by a nameless grief, she wept
torrents of tears, where she probed that terrible mystery of death,
fathomless as her sorrow; and whence she rose at last, crushed for
ever, but resigned, with this sublime cry of a Christian, "Let us
throw our hearts into eternity!" She sleeps now by the side of that
dear Maurice for whom she often wept, until the day when they will
rise together never more to be separated.
Before leaving, Mlle. de Guérin gathered a bouquet of roses and
immortelles from her sister's grave, placed it in my hands, and went
out, without uttering a word.
Adieu, sweet and _blessed Eugénie_! The glory which you did not seek
has sought you, but the aureola which shines over your mausoleum need
not alarm your modesty or your humility. It is pure as your soul,
sweet as your nature, religious as your thoughts, benevolent as your
life. Already it has illumined more than one soul, and strengthened
more than one heart. It will do more: it will rebuild this temple,
whence will arise in your honor the hymn of gratitude. _Pertransiit
benefaciendo!_
On my return to Cayla, I thanked my kind hosts for their gracious
hospitality, commended myself to the prayers of Marie, _the holy_,
and resumed the route to Toulouse.
I have brought you several souvenirs from Cayla, some drawings, one
of Eugénie's autographs, a few flowers, and a bunch of immortelles,
which will be relics for you.
To M. L'ABBÉ L., Quebec.
DATES.
"M. Joseph de Guérin died in 1851, age 70 years.
"Madame Joseph de Guérin, née Gertrude de Fontenilles,
died in 1819.
"Erembert, born January, 1803, died December 16, 1850.
"Eugénie, born January 25, 1805, died May 21, 1848.
"Marie, born August 30, 1806.
"Maurice, born August 10, 1818, died July 19, 1839."
LATER.
December 20, 1869.
Since my return to Canada, several pleasant little parcels have been
sent me from Cayla, among them three different views of the château,
a map of the parish of Andillac, a photograph of the church, and of
the cemetery in which are the graves of Maurice and Eugénie, the
likenesses of Maurice, Marie, and Caroline de Guérin.
The only picture which exists of Eugénie is a simple pen-and-ink
sketch, scarcely outlined, which was sent me by the editor of
Eugénie's works, M. Trébutien.
Among these precious souvenirs from Cayla, I must also mention an
unpublished letter from Henry V., Count de Chambord, and another
from Cardinal de Villecourt, without counting those addressed to me
by Marie de Guérin, several of which would not do discredit to the
collection of Eugénie's. I will only cite from one of them a short
passage in which she alludes to our young Canadian Zouaves:
"I am so edified to see the devotion of the Canadians to our Holy
Father the Pope. Your young men leave for Rome, as did the crusaders
of old, for Palestine, at this word, _God wills it_. Let us hope that
this plenitude of generosity will not be without a happy result.
Already they have given an example at Mentana; if necessary they will
repeat it...."--_Letter dated January 30, 1868._
LETTER FROM HENRY V., COUNT DE CHAMBORD.
FROHSDORF, June 19, 1864.
I recollect, mademoiselle, having read several years ago, with much
interest, some remarkable extracts from the works of M. Maurice de
Guérin, a young writer cut down in the flower of his age and talents.
I could not, then, fail to welcome with a peculiar satisfaction the
book of Mlle. Eugénie de Guérin, faithful mirror in which is so
constantly reflected the twofold affection that filled her life--the
love of God and her tenderness for her brother, sweet lesson and
touching example of that ardent, lively, and resigned faith which,
in the midst of the sorrows of this world, only finds consolation
in looking toward heaven, where those whom we love here below,
separated from us in an instant by death, are united again never more
to be parted. I must not defer any longer saying to you how much I
appreciate this gift, and, above all, the pious motive which prompted
it--as well as the expressions of devotion and attachment with
which it was accompanied, in your name, as well as in that of your
sister-in-law. To M. Trébutien and his daughter I beg you will also
express my gratitude.
Accept for yourself, with many thanks, the assurance of my very
sincere sentiments.
HENRI.
TO MLLE. MARIE DE GUÉRIN.
FOOTNOTES:
[145] These letters, from the pen of the well-known Canadian writer,
M. l'Abbé Casgrain, have been translated for THE CATHOLIC WORLD, with
the permission of the author.--TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.
[146] On my return to Canada, a small collection was taken up among
the admirers of Eugénie, which amounted to five hundred francs, and
which has been sent to Mlle. de Guérin.
His Holiness Pius IX., whom we count among the admirers of the
virgin of Cayla, and designated by him in a letter as the _blessed
Eugénie_, has deigned to accord his apostolic benediction, and a
plenary indulgence, to all the benefactors of Andillac. Their names
are inscribed in the archives of the parish, and the holy sacrifice
of the Mass is offered for them four times a year.
SONNET.
ITALIAN "UNIFICATION" IN 1861.
The land which Improvisatore's throng
With one light bound would "freedom" improvise,
Freedom by England dragged from raging seas
Through centuries of wrestling right and wrong.
The gamesters crowned, their loaded dice downflung,
Divide their gains;[147] while--shamelessly at ease--
Gold-spangled fortune, tinselled to the knees,
Runs on the tight rope of the state new-strung!
O liberty, stern goddess, sad and grave,
To whom are dear the hearts that watch and wait,
The hand laborious, strenuous as the glaive,
The strong, staid head, the soul supreme o'er fate,
With what slow scorn thou turn'st, incensed of mien,
From mimic freedom's operatic scene!
AUBREY DE VERE.
FOOTNOTE:
[147] Napoleon got Nice and Savoy; Victor Emanuel, the Papal States.
Every wise and religious man must desire that Italy should be free.
The greatest enemy to true and _permanent_ freedom is that false
freedom which divorces itself from justice that it may wed itself to
fortune.
THE HOUSE OF YORKE.