The question of infallibility had been a good while in the hands of

the committee before the latter gave any sign of being ready with the

formula. Some thought that the committee was not unwilling to let time

pass before forcing matters to an issue. The minority had now become

anxious for delay, in the hope that the dreaded Chapter XI. would not

be brought on before the heats of the Roman summer should disperse the

Council. They had the whole of the Decrees on the Duty of Bishops,

on the Life of the Clergy, on the Catechism, and ten chapters of the

Decree on the General Constitution of the Church, to discuss before

the critical eleventh chapter would come on. But these hopes of delay

on the part of the minority were perfectly understood by the Curia.

It was determined not to let the patience of the majority be worn

out. The impatience of men like Mermillod may be imagined when even

Bishop Martin is quoted by Friedrich as expressing a wish that the

Garibaldians would come and scatter the Council. But most impatient of

all was the Pontiff. Briefs and speeches equally tingled with the same

excitement. M. Veuillot found it necessary to declare that the Pope

was not impatient, but resolute. Still he let it out that something

had been hoped for even at the last public session (ii. 45). The voice

of the people crying, "The Infallible Pope for ever," had sounded

in Veuillot's ears during the Easter festivities, and again on the

anniversary of the return from exile. But when, oh when would the voice

of God sound? Pius IX would know God's moment, and would take it. As

to the cries which nourished the faith of M. Veuillot, the deaf ears

of Quirinus and Friedrich heard only faint ones--two voices or three.

These writers, at least one or other of them, suggested a calculation

as to how many _baiocchi_, or halfpence, the cries cost.

The mission of Pius IX was but half fulfilled. He had secured the

Immaculate Conception, but not yet the Infallibility; and this was to

be, and it must be soon. What Quirinus says (p. 526) of the Pope's two

fixed ideas is in harmony with the general belief; they were, first, a

persuasion of the infallibility of all his predecessors; and, secondly,

a persuasion of his own special inspiration by the Virgin.

Excitement was created in Rome by the appearance of _Ce Qui se Passe au

Concile_. It was believed to be written by the Abbé Gaillard, and said

by M. Veuillot to be at least by a theologian; but he did not hesitate

to insinuate that it was written under the eye of bishops.[384] By all

Liberal Catholics, entitled to be heard, it was and is looked upon as

an undeniable summary of facts. The Council condemned it, the organs

denounced it; but none the less, when you inquire even in Rome for

good information, it is sure to be named, sometimes even by privileged

men. M. Veuillot gives its official character thus: "Lies, calumnies,

defamations, beyond count. Lies double, fourfold, tenfold. The general

lie contains another, and that another, and that yet another, so there

is no end." But many pages of righteous indignation expressed in this

style leave you to ask, what single fact has been disproved by this

gentleman who gives the lie so spiritedly? (ii. 98). Much the same may

be said of the other of "the two modern Fathers," Margotti.

The day previous to the late public session, a deputation of bishops

had been received with great distinction by his Holiness. They said

that they spoke on behalf of four hundred prelates, and requested that

he would be pleased to order the question of infallibility to be

immediately brought before the Council, postponing other subjects which

had precedence. The Council itself was not able to fix even the order

in which questions were to be taken up. There soon was a sign that the

change of plan thus recommended had actually been adopted. The proposed

Decrees touching the duties of bishops and the life of the clergy were

set aside; and the Decree on the shorter catechism was taken first in

order. The former could well wait. The latter was really an important

element of centralization. But, it may be asked, Was not the Council in

possession of a subject after it had once been proposed and discussed?

The reply must be, No, for such subjects could be withdrawn from its

cognizance at any moment without its leave.

No sooner were the minority aware of the intention to take the

discussion on infallibility out of its order, than they resolved

on sending a solemn deputation direct to the Pope to make urgent

representations. Purcell, Archbishop of Cincinnati, was to be the

spokesman.[385] But this movement was forestalled by one from the other

side. The _Synopsis of Notes_, written by the Fathers upon the Dogma,

was suddenly distributed. This not only marked the resolution of the

Curia to press forward, but it accomplished a step in the progress.

Either from discouragement, or from a calculation of the futility

of the step, the bishops allowed their intended deputation to fall

through. They resorted once more to a paper protest, which was signed

by sixty-six prelates.[386] The true spirit of an Oriental Court made

them conscious that a petition and a surrender were the measures of

which they were capable. In fact, as will presently appear, they had

passed the stage even of petitioning, and had come to that of hopeless

complaint.

As if to console themselves by strong words for doing nothing, they

recalled the fact that as soon as the _Civiltá_ hinted that the work

of the Council was to be the proclamation of infallibility, all the

enemies of the Church had exclaimed that the Holy Father, after having

made a pretext of the general good, had really convoked the bishops for

his own exaltation. This they had then treated as a calumny. But if the

weighty matters already laid before the Council were to be put aside,

and nothing was to result from their labours during six or seven months

but the one Decree already adopted, with the second now proposed on

infallibility, they would find on returning home that those calumnies

against the Church would have acquired life and force such as they

could not contemplate without deep sorrow.

The sixty-six bishops formally announce that they do _not make any

request_. They simply state their convictions. Again, to prefer

requests would, they feel, be no longer consistent with their episcopal

dignity, with their position, or their rights, as members of the

Council, since they have already learned sufficiently, and more than

sufficiently, by experience that any prayers of theirs are so far from

being granted that they are not even answered.

Nothing now remains to us but to disclaim for ourselves, as far

as may be, all accountability before men, and before the dreadful

judgment-seat of God, for the ill-omened events which, beyond all

doubt, will soon arise, and indeed are already arising; and of

this our disclaimer the present document will abide the perpetual

witness.

If the Decree to be pronounced _De Ecclesia_, putting aside

controverted points, aimed only at displaying to the eyes of all

men the beauty and majesty of the Spouse of Christ to the greater

glory of God and the salvation of souls, how easily might we set

forth the whole of the doctrine of the Church; and, perhaps, we

might all on the approaching festival of Pentecost, wherein the

foundation of the Church is annually called to mind, celebrate it

together. Then indeed would a right solemn Pentecost shine upon our

Synod, whereof the splendour streaming over the entire world would

fill all Christians with mighty gladness. But, alas! so far is such

gladness from being granted to us, that it would appear that on

the approaching Pentecost we must look forward rather to a day of

mourning than to one of joy. The accountability for this would rest

on those who--no necessity of the Christian commonwealth demanding

it--would, by means of the Council, wave the victor's palm because

certain opinions of the schools had triumphed, not over the enemies

of the Church, but over brothers, and who would thus inflict the

gravest injury upon the Church; injury which, both at the present

time and in view of the circumstances of future times, would give

cause for abiding fear and pain of heart.

May it please the almighty and merciful God to avert so great an

evil from the Vatican Council, and to lead us all by His heavenly

grace to a sense of true concord and unity!

Among those who sign are Prague, Munich, Colocza, Cologne, St. Gall,

Maintz, Halifax, Clifton, St. Louis, Paris, St. Augustine in Florida,

Cincinnati, Chatham, Plymouth, Kerry, Milan, and Sault St. Marie in

Michigan.

For us it is hard to account for the fact that language so strong, from

men representing interests so large, should be deemed not even worthy

of the courtesy of an answer. Why did the bishops not go to the Pope

directly?

"Sad as it is to confess it," says _La Liberté du Concile_, "the

Pope does not easily grant audiences to bishops of the minority.

Many have been expressly solicited, as to which up to this hour no

reply has been received. We know several of the oldest and most

respected bishops of France, who have been six months in Rome, and

have not yet been admitted to the presence of the Pope. Of those

who have been admitted, to none, with two or three exceptions, has

the Pope given any opening for conversation on the concerns of the

Church, or for exchanging a single word with the Holy Father on the

position of affairs."[387]

Quirinus represents the Roman prelates as saying that the German

bishops at Fulda had already showed that they felt how unity was to

be preferred to veracity. Thus the Curia had implicit faith in the

feebleness of conviction, compared with the force of the habit of

submission. Only two things would they have feared--a schism on the

part of the bishops, or a separation of the Church from the State on

the part of the politicians. But they confidently reckoned on the

submission of the one, and on the political calculations of the other.

The pretext that all the objections to infallibility related only to

opportuneness, had been gradually dropped. In fact, neither side could

keep it up, even before the public. It was possible to conceal most of

the speeches, and to deny everything that was reported of them; and

it was hoped that the secret petitions would never see the light, but

tracts and pamphlets could not be so readily hidden. So the Jesuits at

last boldly turned round and accused the opponents of attacking the

doctrine itself. _Observationes Quædem de Infallibilitatis Ecclesiæ

Subjecto_ is the title of one publication, in treating of which the

_Civiltá_ said that opportuneness no longer related to the character of

the times, but to the character of the doctrine. The doctrine itself

was declared to be alien from Catholic tradition,--a new doctrine, and

consequently a false one.[388] Ketteler had brought a pamphlet to Rome,

in Latin, composed under his authority. It was long detained by the

police, but, after vexatious delays, was released. One of the things

which exposed him to the charge of being double-faced was the fact that

he "hawked" this pamphlet about among the bishops, and yet said that it

attacked only the opportuneness of the definition.[389] Hefele said,

"You are a Rhine Frank, and the Rhine Franks are clever people. I am

only a Swabian, and I cannot see it."

As Bishops Krementz and Namszanowski left Friedrich on April 25, they

met Bishop Martin. He told them with delight how the King of Prussia,

their own monarch, had written to his ambassador not to trouble himself

further with the decisions of the Council. Martin extolled the king to

the skies, and declared that he would now make a Prussian Propaganda.

But Namszanowski replied, "If that is your idea, you are greatly

mistaken. The king at first believed that in Rome one had to do with

reasonable and sensible men; but now, seeing that he was misled, he

says, "Do what you like, and we shall let you do it quietly. If you

adopt conclusions which are injurious to us, we shall draw the sword."

That is the language which the consciousness of power inspires."[390]

The Congregation of April 29 was occupied in discussing the Decree on

the Catechism. Hefele read a speech of Rauscher. The Cardinal affirmed

that, according to the Concordat, the Catechism in Austria could not be

changed without the consent of the government. He demanded therefore

that the new Catechism should not be declared obligatory. The majority

burst out into loud laughter. Hefele looked firmly and indignantly

at the disturbers. The noise ceased, and he proceeded. A second time

the laughter occurred. At the conclusion, he went to the Presidents

and complained. One of them observed that as a historian he must know

that even at Trent there had been interruptions. Yes, he said, but he

did not know that interruptions were essential to a Council; and he

would call attention to the fact that such proceedings would cause

the freedom of the Council to be called in question, and possibly its

oecumenicity.[391]

On May 2, as afterwards appeared by a letter found among papers in the

Tuileries, Darboy was writing to Napoleon III stating that the minority

was compact, would do its utmost, and did not despair of victory. On

May 4 the Council came to a vote on the Catechism, when as many as a

hundred voted _Non placet_. Then occurred a recess of several days;

but twenty-four French bishops put in that day a protest against

arbitrary violations of those very Rules which had been imposed upon

the Council by the Pope himself. In the late public session the Rule

that non-members should be excluded during the legislative acts had

been departed from without the Council being consulted. Further, this

day, they add, when the votes on various amendments to the Decree on

the Catechism had been taken, the Rule required that the vote on the

whole should be deferred to another day. But, against the Rule, it was

taken on the spot. Several Fathers, who had counted that the Rule

would be kept, were absent. It is further alleged that no opportunity

of pointing out these irregularities was given; because, say they,

contrary to the rule of all deliberative bodies, it is not allowed in

the Council to speak even to order, unless the name of the speaker

has been inscribed the day before, which of course is impossible in

unforeseen circumstances.[392]

During the recess the Fathers could study the contents of the notes on

infallibility. The Synopsis of them, as we have already mentioned, had

been put into their hands. Some of these notes are printed entire, some

are abridged; but there does not appear to have been much complaint

that this was unfairly done. The two sides were represented by about

an equal number of memoranda. The Synopsis contained two hundred and

forty-two pages, consisting of one hundred and thirty-nine memoranda.

Sixty-five of these were adverse to the definition. Of these, again,

only thirteen advanced merely the plea of inopportuneness, and

fifty-two opposed the doctrine itself. Yet Cardinal Manning never heard

of five bishops who denied the doctrine of Papal infallibility![393]

Adepts readily traced many of the anonymous memoranda to their authors,

and, of course, the authors frequently acknowledged their handiwork.

The first memorandum was by Rauscher, the last by Kenrick--two men who

showed as much capacity as any of the minority. In these notes, the

student will find a real source of light on the thoughts and principles

which were then common to all men convened to reconstitute human

society, as well as on those in which they disagreed.[394] They are

almost the only portion of the proceedings which have real interest

for the pure theologian. Attempts have been made since the Council, by

many bishops, to represent the whole amount of difference of opinion

as having been a trifle, touching only the question of opportuneness.

The character of those statements is sealed by these notes. We shall

not attempt to give a general outline of them; but the very first

memorandum, that of Rauscher, is perfectly explicit. He immediately

handles the doctrine, not the prudence or expedience of proclaiming it.

It was fair to treat an objector like Dr. Newman as opposing on grounds

not either theological or moral, but from subtle expediency. Such

men were simply afraid of hurting the credit of their Church, though

admitting that the claims she advanced were warranted. They counselled

a reserve which would have been thought natural for Italians, but

impossible for Englishmen, before the time when Dr. Newman's power of

making the flow of our mother tongue smooth and winning began to be

used, in order to rob it of its good name for straightforwardness. But

Rauscher showed cause. He declared that it had never yet been proved

that the alleged authority which the new claims professed to formulate,

had any existence. He declared that the attempts made to prove it were

partly artifices and partly fallacies. Two positions so distinct as

this simple one of Rauscher and the double one of Newman could not be

confounded, even by men much less apt at splitting hairs than Roman

Catholic bishops.

"The subterfuges," indignantly writes Rauscher in his first paragraph,

after alluding to the necessity, under which he lay in Germany, of

showing reasons, and tacitly contrasting such a position with the

facility of demanding submission in Rome,--"The subterfuges employed

by not a few theologians in the matter of Honorius, would expose me to

derision. To employ sophisms seems to me unworthy both of the dignity

of a bishop and of the nature of the subject, which ought to be treated

in the fear of God; but prudence itself would put me on my guard

against artifices." What a testimony! delivered in the face of Rome at

that moment, it showed the effect of free enquiry in compelling men to

be truthful, as compared with the effect of what Rome calls "authority"

in making them first supple and then deceitful. It is a testimony of

permanent value in the three spheres of history, morals, and theology.

His next blow is at a logical trick, which, however, is one employed

by Roman Catholic theologians at almost every step in their attempt

to prove Romanist as distinguished from Christian doctrine--the trick

of begging the question. It is inferred that the Decrees of the

Pope, in matters of faith and morals, must be infallible, because the

power of legislation in faith and morals for the whole Church having

been conferred on Peter and his successors, it is clear that what

was false could not be allowed to enter into such Decrees. Very good

says Rauscher; but this is calling the thing to be proved to give

evidence for the thing to be proved. The question turns on the very

point whether any such power of universal legislation, in faith or

morals, without appeal or revision, ever was conferred on Peter and his

successors. Even here Rauscher assumes as proved what is altogether

incapable of proof, that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter.

That Peter ever was in Rome is not proven; that he ever was Pontiff is

absurd; that he ever was the Christian bishop of the city admits of

scarcely a show of proof, except on those principles of evidence which

have been naturalized in Romish theology by the necessity of supporting

fables and forgeries.

Not only do men like Rauscher show that they dispute the doctrine

itself, but the memoranda of many who commence by alleging

inopportuneness, end by attacking the substance of the doctrine. For

instance, No. 136 says, "Finally, I cannot find this infallibility in

the acts of the General Councils. On the other hand, it is certain that

three General Councils condemned Honorius for heresy." Yet this prelate

seemed, in his first sentences, only to oppose the opportuneness of

the definition. Kenrick takes the opposite course. He begins by saying

that the doctrine is not so certain that it can be defined as an

article of faith, and then takes up lower ground, that, even if it were

certain, it would not be expedient that it should be defined by the

present Council. We do not wonder at any man who could put upon paper

the last principle, submitting to anything, or concealing anything, or

professing anything, if it is expedient. What, it may be true that, on

earth, God has set up a man as His representative who, whenever he puts

on his full official character, utters the Word of God without error

or possibility of erring, and yet it may not be expedient to tell this

most pregnant of truths by any and every organ possible! How can any

moral foundations exist in men whose whole substance is honeycombed by

principles like these? When they submit, their submission has not the

grace of any real sacrifice. When they affirm, their affirmation has

not the authority of any real conviction.

This moral obscurity does not prevent Kenrick from clearly seeing

theological points. He boldly says that the doctrine expressed in the

proposed definition is wanting in authority both from Scripture and

from ecclesiastical tradition. We shall not enter into his examination

of the alleged scriptural proofs, but it is well worth the attention

of theologians. He clearly puts the retrospective and prospective

aspects of the new dogma, when contrasting it with an ordinary point of

doctrine like that of the Immaculate Conception--

The new dogma not only impairs the rights of bishops, but imposes

on the faithful the necessity of believing that the Roman Pontiffs

never did err in faith, which indubitable monuments of history seem

to disprove; and that they never will err in the future, which we

hope, but are not able to believe with the certitude of divine

faith.[395]

Kenrick says that, in defining the Immaculate Conception the Pope

proposed the greater glory of the Mother of God, and previously to

doing so consulted all the bishops, and acted on their advice. Now,

however, he proposed his own infallibility, to be defined by a Council,

which seems to have been convened for that purpose, although many

bishops, and those representing the principal Churches of the Christian

world, do not approve of it either in itself or in its concomitants.

Kenrick embraces under the head of expediency matter very different

indeed from what one would have anticipated. He barely indicates the

social and political dangers likely to arise out of the contemplated

changes in dogma and polity. Having done this, he at once declares that

the authority and oecumenicity of the Council are liable to be called

in question, and will be called in question, on two separate grounds:

first, the composition of the Council, and, secondly, its defect of

liberty. As to its composition, he divides the members of it into five

classes--

1. Diocesan bishops having Sees and governing them by ordinary

episcopal authority.

2. Bishops of the _Ring_--_episcopi annulares_--who have the orders

of bishops, but have neither Sees nor flocks, and who, with few

exceptions, hold offices in the Court of Rome.

3. Other bishops _in partibus_, who, under the designation of Vicars

Apostolic, preside over missions, and are all of them so immediately

dependent upon the Holy See as to be removable at the discretion of the

Pope.

4. Cardinals who are not bishops, and Cardinals who, having the orders

of bishops, have no Sees.

5. Abbots and Generals of Orders.

Kenrick asserts that out of all the five classes the right of

definition in matters of faith belongs, by a certain and universally

acknowledged title, to diocesan bishops alone. The right of the Bishops

of the Ring to define in matters of faith is a subject of dispute among

theologians. The right of the Vicars Apostolic is disputable, but on

different grounds. They have Sees, yet they are immediately dependent

on the See of Rome, even to the extent of being removable at the will

of the Bishop of Rome. As to Cardinals who are not bishops, with the

Abbots and Generals, there is no doubt. They are confessed by all to

have no right of definition in matters of faith, except as derived from

custom.

Having thus described the composition of the Council, he adds the

following solemn words--

In this Council the subject in hand affects the conflicting claims

of the Pope and the bishops. If the Pope alone is infallible, the

bishops do not exercise the office of judges, and, in a Council,

they are only his councillors. Hence it ought to belong not to the

Pope singly, but to a Council of diocesan bishops presided over by

the Pope, to determine what right properly belongs to the other

four classes; for otherwise the Pope would seem to dominate the

Council.

How that argument to prove that the proper constitution of a Council

was violated at the Vatican is to be met, it is not easy to see. The

point next touched by Kenrick is one that has been less dwelt upon in

public, but which would probably have some weight in a legal argument.

In the Bull of Convocation it was enjoined upon bishops who should

not be able to attend, to send their deputies furnished with proper

credentials. Forty such deputies actually presented themselves; they

were refused admittance, not by the Council, but by the Pope acting

alone! Now, insists Kenrick, diocesan bishops would appear to have a

strict right to send deputies to the Council when themselves unable

to attend, which right was recognised by the ancient Councils. The

exclusion, therefore, of those deputies from the Vatican Council _by

the sole authority of the Pontiff_, would seem to raise a doubt of

its oecumenicity. Had there been any question as to their title, it

belonged to the Council itself to determine, but permission was not

given to take the opinion of the Council on the point!

Kenrick further specifies, as a blot upon the authority and

oecumenicity of the Council, the withdrawal from the bishops of

the right of proposition by a mere Papal constitution. He adds the

important fact that, owing to the privation of this right, many Fathers

who wished to take the opinion of the Council on the admission of the

deputies of absent prelates were unable to do so, although they left

no means untried. Yet one at least who was born an Englishman can say

that this Council was as free as our Parliament--a Council that had

not even the right of verifying the titles of its own members! Kenrick

concludes by expressing his persuasion that if the definition of Papal

infallibility should go out in the name of this Council, it would

rather increase dissension than promote peace, and would lead to a

diminution of the rights of bishops and to the dishonour of the Pontiff

himself.

The Liberal Catholics began, about this time, to notice the frequent

expressions in Curialistic circles anticipating a war, in 1871, between

France and Prussia.[396] The _Univers_ now fixed a new date for the

settlement of the great question--Ascension Day. All that could be

said _pro_ or _con_ had been said, according to this journal, in the

memoranda written by the prelates; and so in the Council there would be

only an exposition of the Decree prepared by the committee, after which

the Fathers would at once proceed to the vote. No doubt the avoidance

of further discussion was a matter of great account with those who were

looking to the future. The effect of the new constitution, at least

its immediate effect, would greatly depend upon the _éclat_ with which

it should be promulged, and on the state of preparation to which the

Catholic populations might be brought. If a tale of Friedrich, at the

expense of Cardinal Capalti, be anything more than a joke, the question

might have been settled by leaving it open. The Cardinal declared

that he should be content with a definition of the infallibility of

the Pope, whether it was infallibility with the bishops or without

them.[397] The circulation of such a tale illustrates an impression

prevailing, that even many of those in high places had not mastered the

bearings of the question in dispute.

It was on May 10 that the proposed Decrees of Infallibility were

distributed. "I shook all over my body," says Friedrich; "my senses

seemed to forsake me as I read on." What was the amazement of the

Professor to find not only all the mediæval pretensions taken up

again, but the cool assertion made in notes, that all monuments of

antiquity showed that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff had been

held as a truth divinely revealed. Another assertion which he noted,

is that infallibility could never be disproved by history; but if

any historical facts did appear to conflict with it, in so far as

they did so they must be taken to be false. Again, the conclusions of

any science, even those of ecclesiastical history, if opposed to the

infallibility of the Pontiff, must be held to be errors. This is a

very practical way of carrying out the principle announced by Cardinal

Manning as to the dogma conquering history.

After reading this sort of matter, the indignant Professor cries,

"Will our bishops dare to return home with such a verdict against

all science, and against all sound reason? Does not this amount to

saying--I believe it because it is absurd?" The Archbishop of Bamberg

gave Friedrich some light on the way in which history was to be kept

right. He said that the Pope was irritated at Hefele's pamphlet on the

case of Honorius, and said, "There must be falsification of documents.

The documents must be in the archives. Let them seek and they will find

them; I am persuaded of it." It was publicly announced that the Pope

had appointed two men to perform this duty. The Archbishop thought that

the Curia would shrink from facing the judgment of the world. He placed

his finger on his forehead, and said, "I cannot understand how a man in

his senses can think of a personal infallible Pope." Archbishop Scherr

having joined them, Deinlein added, "The world must rescue us. Had it

not rescued us, we were already lost, and the Council over."[398] To

this Friedrich adds that Bishops Krementz and Namszanowski are already

thinking of the coming excommunication; and that Hefele had said gladly

would he lay down the mitre and crozier, but what would become of his

diocese?

Friedrich, wearied out in spirit, now spoke of going home. "You must

stay," said Bishop Namszanowski, "for the historians must sit in

judgment over this perfidious proceeding. It is impossible any longer

to speak of a General Council. I only wonder that the German bishops

have not already jumped out of their skin."[399]

One of Friedrich's notes is to the effect that the Nuncio in Munich

having reported that Archbishop Scherr in opposing infallibility

commanded no sympathy among his people, the Pope sent for the

Archbishop, and asked him why he took the side of the minority when

he was isolated in his own diocese. The Archbishop asked Friedrich to

tell Döllinger that even at this peculiar audience he had stood by

him. Still he wished Döllinger not to do anything more; it would only

increase the difficulties.[400]

The proposed Decrees on the Church were wonderfully changed. The

celebrated twenty-one Canons were now omitted. The whole Draft was

compressed into four chapters, with three Canons. Vitelleschi, as

we have seen, cannot understand how governments, especially the

government of France, should attach so much importance to the Canons,

and so little to the dogma of infallibility. The latter, as he well

says, virtually includes them all, and as many more besides as may

spring from the sole and irresponsible will of an individual. John

Lemoinne had hastily said that Infallibility affected France no more

than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; but Prévost Paradol

had, with better insight, shown that, on the contrary, it gave the

Pope everything in theory, and left him in the position, step by

step, first to assume and next to acquire everything in practice. The

Immaculate Conception seriously affected France; not the doctrine, but

the proceeding which set up a single master over the faith of France.

That proceeding paved the way for Infallibility, which in its turn was

to confirm for ever and render ordinary a despotic procedure which

otherwise might have been treated as exceptional.

The _Univers_ of April 29, after asking whether objectors meant to

remain Catholics after the definition, and saying that if they answered

No they were judged already, went on to remark, If they answer Yes they

are preparing themselves for a kind of faith and obedience that is

hardly reasonable; preparing to believe that what was black has become

white through a Council invested with power to make true that which was

false. Poor Montalembert did not live to read that taunt and menace

both in one. Mrs. Oliphant mentions someone who said that the Count had

expressed his intention to submit at last, for he must do so. That is

one thing, and expressing an intention to believe is another. But those

who know how such statements as that quoted by Mrs. Oliphant are made,

would not give much for it if it came only from a female or a priest.

Bishop Martin related how Friedrich, as he walked on the Pincian the

evening before leaving Rome, said, pointing to St. Peter's, "If only

the lightning fell from heaven and annihilated St. Peter's with all its

glories!" "No," retorted Friedrich, "I never said anything so silly.

What I once did say on the Pincian was, referring to the superstition

of the Pope, 'Nothing can restrain the Pope from the definition,

unless, indeed, at the critical moment, the well-known sunbeam fails,

and some other natural phenomenon comes in its stead.'"[401]

To understand the line of thought by which calculating men connected

the dogma with the prospect of universal dominion over the world, it is

necessary to recall the primary elements of Church jurisdiction. As a

kingdom appointed to govern the world, which is the ineradicable Papal

conception, the Church rules through three tribunals--the internal,

the external, and the supreme. Technically they are two, internal and

external; the Pope being supreme in both. In the _internal tribunal_

the Church cites; the cited are all the faithful. The person appearing

is himself accuser and witness; the confessor is judge and jury. This

tribunal, popularly called the Confessional, rules the conscience,

the board, the bed, the purse, the family life, and the action of

the individual in public life. In the _external tribunal_ it is the

ecclesiastical law which cites. Those cited are persons against whom

any one either secretly or publicly complains. The witnesses may

be either secret informer or open witness. The judge and jury are

the ecclesiastical magistrate. This tribunal, popularly called the

Ecclesiastical Court, rules all social questions whatever that have

any moral interest or any colourable connexion with religion. Finally,

in the supreme tribunal the Curia cites. The parties cited are all

against whom any appeal or any information has been laid. The witnesses

are those whom the Curia chooses to call, or its informers. The Pope

is judge and jury. This tribunal, popularly called the Pope, acting

through some Roman congregation or court, settles all points as between

confessor and penitent, as between priest and bishop, as between

magistrates and parties to a process, as between rulers and subjects,

as between State and State, and above all, as between any State with

its ruler and the supreme tribunal.

These three tribunals between them give a complete control of the

tangled web called the world, excepting only that ill-defined if not

invisible selvage of it which consists of affairs not included within

the domain of morals. And that web, with its cunning shots and all but

invisible devices, is that "large and variegated web," which, when

unfolding its program, the _Civiltá_ showed, would, after lustres had

come and gone, appear as the fabric woven with the simple threads of

its title, _Catholic Civilization_; or the Catholic Civil System.

Now, in the chaotic condition of recent times, President Moreno

and Queen Isabella were the only two rulers that even seemed to be

dutifully disposed to the Church in her tribunals; and poor Queen

Isabella had already fallen.

In most countries, one who never entered the internal tribunal, might

conduct a business, indeed he might even write a newspaper, or fill a

professor's chair, ay, might make laws, or occupy a throne. Hence the

crying need of a central authority so strong as to give to the external

tribunal control over every bench, and to make the internal bear rule

in every home, especially in every home wherein dwelt a ruler.

The proclamation of infallibility would be a complete restoration of

the supreme tribunal, not indeed as to all the facts, but complete

as to the ideas. This would bring about the restoration of facts in

time. It is plain that the great majority of the bishops calculated

hew the supreme judge, when once enthroned and acknowledged, would awe

wayward kings and politicians; how, waiting for favourable political

conjunctures, Nuncios would be able to move the bishops, and the

bishops the clergy, and the clergy the people, till the patient power

of the Church would bow all to her own laws. The hold already acquired

upon schools, especially in France, was the most solid element in the

entire calculation. The progress made within the last thirty years held

out flattering hopes as to the future. The architects forgot that they

had climbed up by a ladder which they had now kicked away. The voice

to which concessions had been made was that of the Liberal Catholics

pleading in the name of liberty, and they and their plea had now been

unblushingly disowned.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 382: _Quirinus_, p. 482.]

[Footnote 383: _Quirinus_, p. 253.]

[Footnote 384: "What stupefaction to think that perhaps serious men

have been engaged in getting these things written about themselves!"

(vol. ii. 125).]

[Footnote 385: _Quirinus_, p. 508.]

[Footnote 386: _Quirinus_ says by seventy-seven; but we give the

numbers as we count them at the foot of the document in the _Documenta

ad Illustrandum_, ii. p. 392.]

[Footnote 387: _Doc. ad Ill._, i. 178.]

[Footnote 388: Serie VII. x. p. 291.]

[Footnote 389: Printed in _Documenta ad Ill._, i. p. 1-129.]

[Footnote 390: _Tagebuch_, p. 365. Friedrich adds a note to his

second edition:--"Bishop Namszanowski had this statement denied in

the _Germania_ of 1872, No. 132. This is really disgusting. I declare

here, as I have done already in the _Cologne Gazette_, that the Bishop

himself told me in his own house immediately after the meeting with

Martin. I was so struck with the expression that I entered it under the

heading, 'Certain Notes touching Rome and the Council.'"]

[Footnote 391: _Ibid._, p. 380; _La Liberté du Concile_, Doc. i. p.

173.]

[Footnote 392: _Documenta_, ii. p. 391.]

[Footnote 393: _Pet. Priv._, iii. p. 27.]

[Footnote 394: _Documenta_, ii. 212-89.]

[Footnote 395: _Documenta_, ii. 287.]

[Footnote 396: _Tagebuch_, p. 375.]

[Footnote 397: _Ibid._ p. 391.]

[Footnote 398: _Tagebuch_, p. 398. Friedrich in a note says that when

he made this statement in Nuremberg the Vicar-General of Archbishop

Deinlein published invectives against him, but could only say that

such language does not come out of the mouth of the Archbishop--which

Friedrich calls ridiculous absurdity.]

[Footnote 399: "_Noch nicht aus der Haut gefahren sei._"--_Tagebuch._]

[Footnote 400: _Ibid._, p., 400.]

[Footnote 401: _Tagebuch_, p. 423.]

CHAPTER V

The Great Debate--Bishop Pie--The Virgin Mary on Infallibility--Cullen

claims Ireland and MacHale--Kenrick's Reply, and his Account of the

First Introduction of the Doctrine into Maynooth--MacHale speaks--Full

Report of Darboy's Speech--The Pope gives Signs of Pleasure at

Saldanha's Assault on the King of Portugal--New Date fixed for

the Great Definition--Manning's Great Speech--Remarkable Reply of

Kenrick--McEvilly ascribes Catholic Emancipation not to the Effect of

Oaths, but to that of the Fear of Civil War--Kenrick's Retort--Clifford

against Manning--Verot's Scene--Spalding's Attack on Kenrick--Kenrick's

Refutation--Speeches of Valerga, Purcell, Conolly, and Maret--Sudden

Close of the Debate.

On May 13, began the great debate, if anything that took place in the

Vatican Council may be called by that name. This conflict was to be

the death of real parliamentary debating in all countries. It ranged

over the whole Draft of the proposed Decrees. The scope of them is well

indicated by M. Veuillot, when he calls the Draft the _Schema_ of the

Pontiff. It treats only of primacy and infallibility. The first chapter

treats of the institution of primacy in the person of Peter; the second

treats of its descent through the Roman Pontiffs; the third, of its

nature and scope; the fourth, of Papal infallibility.

Bishop Pie, of Poitiers, opened this famous field by a discourse

much praised and much ridiculed. He argued for infallibility on the

ground that Providence permitted St. Paul to be beheaded, and not St.

Peter,[402] and on the further ground that Peter was crucified with the

head downwards, to show that the body was to be supported by the head;

but he who supports is infallible, and not he who is supported.[403]

This truly Romish argument evoked, as Vitelleschi intimates, from the

majority enthusiasm, and from the Opposition sarcastic smiles. We do

not know whether any divine put before Bishop Pie the difficulty thrown

in the way of his argument, by the fact that Providence must have

permitted Peter to be beheaded after death, seeing that his head was

with that of Paul in the Lateran, and only his trunk in St. Peter's.

On the next day, no less a person than the Cardinal Vicar ascended the

tribune to plead for the glory of his chief. By a leap from centre to

circumference, he was followed by the Archbishop of St. Francisco. The

Archbishop of Messina relieved the gravity of the debate by relating

how Peter had preached in Sicily; but when he told the people that he

was infallible they doubted. They, however, sent an embassy to the

Virgin Mary, to ask if she had heard of the infallibility of Peter. The

Virgin replied that she certainly remembered being present when her Son

conferred this prerogative upon him.[404] This speech has caused some

correspondence in the Italian papers, especially touching the letter of

the Virgin, which is still in existence, and has an annual feast all

to itself. Somehow we are not ourselves clear as to the history of the

embassy and of the letter. It is said that the letter was let down from

heaven by the Virgin; but if that be so, where did the ambassadors go

to with their message? But as the events took place before the age of

reconstruction, we shall not digress further.

The discussion proceeded from day to day, a long and increasing

list of names promising endless speeches. Three Cardinals spoke on

May 18--Schwarzenberg, Rauscher, and Donnet, Vitelleschi reports

Schwarzenberg as having said (p. 159), "It is said that you really

believe in this dogma; but, if that be true, you cannot insist that I

and my companions ought to acknowledge what seems to us absurd; and if

you do insist, be sure that schisms will arise, and abjurations will

follow within the Church of Rome." On May 19 the pulpit was ascended by

Cardinal Cullen, carrying with him the confidence of power in Ireland,

and of favour with the Curia. Coming of "a right noble Irish family,"

as the official history says,[405] and trained after the heart of the

Curia, he had well justified their expectations in carrying out the

centralizing system, to which he owed his mitre. He addressed himself

particularly to the task of refuting Hefele's pamphlet on the heresy

of Pope Honorius, contending that it could not be reconciled with what

that prelate had written in his history of Councils.[406] But he also

attacked Kenrick for his memorandum already spoken of. He charged the

latter with impairing the argument for the primacy of the Pope, by

asserting that the other apostles were also called foundations as well

as Peter. Furthermore, Kenrick had asserted that the words "lambs" and

"sheep" in the Vulgate (John xxi. 16, 17) both stood for one and the

same Greek word, and hence he had contended that the stock Curialistic

argument, that the bishops, "sheep," are placed under the Pope as well

as the people, "lambs," had actually not even the show of a foundation

in the passage. This was a sore point, for what would the Papal system

have done before infallibility was proclaimed without this passage?

It was as important as "Obey God rather than man," or as "Teach all

nations." _It is not true_, asserted Cullen, that the two Latin words

in those verses represent one and the same Greek word in the original.

He quoted Oriental versions. _It is not true_, he repeated, with

emphasis.

As to the word "faith," a word which Rome has, like so many others,

killed, disembowelled, and embalmed, Kenrick had asserted that our Lord

never employed it as meaning a _body of doctrine_, and that He employed

it not more than once or twice as meaning the act by which we believe

in God as revealing Himself; but that He generally employed it as

meaning trust or confidence. This, Kenrick had asserted, was the sense

of the word in the passage on which the attempt was made to build the

infallibility of all dogmas found in the Decrees of the Roman Pontiff.

The words are, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." That

is, our Lord had prayed that the trust and confidence of Peter should

not entirely fail; and Rome argued that He thereby promised that

everything in the Decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, affecting doctrine or

morals, should be for evermore free from error. Kenrick's exposition

of what our Lord really did say made this argument appear not only

futile but unfair. Cullen met him by declaring that his views savoured

of the Calvinian heresy. The Cardinal proceeded to deny that bishops,

as successors of the apostles, possessed that universal jurisdiction

in the Church which the apostles themselves had received from Christ.

He quoted a work of a deceased brother of Kenrick, formerly Archbishop

of Baltimore, on the Primacy of the Apostolic See. Cullen, moreover,

claimed Ireland and the Irish for infallibility in the teeth of

oaths, catechisms, records, and living memories. In doing so, he was

indiscreet enough to name, as on his side, MacHale, the lion of St.

Jarlath, who had sat silent under the weight of his nearly fourscore

years.

Kenrick, feeling that Cullen had said things which touched his

honour,[407] prayed for leave to reply, either at once or at the end

of the sitting. This was refused. Archbishops must wait till all the

Cardinals who chose to speak had spoken, and Kenrick must wait till all

archbishops senior to himself had been heard. He prepared a speech, but

the debate was cut short before he had the opportunity of delivering

it. Thereupon he resorted to the expedient of printing. To this

document we are indebted for some of our most trustworthy information

as to the real position taken up by different speakers.[408]

Kenrick said that Cullen had, in very severe language, charged him with

impairing the argument for the primacy of the Pontiff, by alleging

that the other apostles were called foundations as well as Peter.

That, however, was not his language, but must be laid at the door

of the "divine" Paul and John. Kenrick admitted primacy, but denied

infallibility. He also denied that Christ had made the stability of

the Church dependent on Peter as the foundation. He had provided

for her stability otherwise, by saying. "Lo, I am with you always,

even unto the end of the world." Cullen had further said, and that

repeatedly and with much energy of expression, It is false, because

Kenrick asserted that one and the same Greek word was translated both

"sheep" and "lambs" in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses of John

xxi. But, in so doing, replied Kenrick, the Cardinal had betrayed a

little infirmity.[409] The fact remained, that in those two verses the

Vulgate did translate one and the same Greek word by two Latin ones.

Moreover, in the reading adopted by Tischendorf, there was no word in

any of the three utterances of our Lord which properly represented the

word "sheep"; and the reading adopted by Tischendorf was confirmed by

that which they might see inscribed on the arch of the Vatican Church,

over the throne of the Pontiff.[410] In answer to the assertion of

the Cardinal, that his exposition of the meaning of the word "faith"

savoured of the Calvinian heresy, Kenrick said that perhaps his

Eminence had not weighed the full significance of such language. He

showed that out of twenty-nine places in the Gospels where the word

occurred, in all but two it clearly meant confidence, or else the faith

that works miracles; and that in only two could it be taken for the

theological virtue of believing in God's revelation of Himself. He was

still fully persuaded that its real meaning, in the words addressed by

our Lord to Peter, was that of trust or confidence.

But Kenrick contended that Cullen had, by his own method of reasoning,

taken away all the force usually ascribed by theologians to the words,

"Thou art Peter." He had said that the privileges given to the other

apostles by our Lord did not descend to their successors. If that was

the case with the other apostles, surely it would be also the case with

Peter. Kenrick, however, firmly contended that apostolic authority did

not emanate from the Pontiff, but was given to the bishops by Christ

Himself, and that the restriction of it to certain localities was

merely by appointment of the Church.

After showing that the interpretation of the words "Upon this rock,"

which was supported by the greatest number of the Fathers, was that

which regards the faith declared in the Confession of Peter as the

foundation on which the Church was to be built, he pointed out that

the word "foundation" has two clearly distinguished and well-defined

meanings. First, the natural foundation, or that to which a wise

builder clears his way before laying a stone--the living rock.

Secondly, the architectural foundation, namely, the first course of

stones laid on this rock. He contended that attention to this simple

fact made the language of both classes of passages perfectly clear;

those in which our Lord alone is called the Foundation, and those in

which the apostles are so called. At the same time it cut away all the

ground on which an argument in favour of the infallibility of the Roman

Pontiff is built, because he is the foundation of the Church.

As to the testimony of the Church with regard to the proposed dogma,

Kenrick states it thus--

The dogma is not contained in the creeds; it is not given in the

Catechisms as an article of faith; it is not found as such in any

monument of public worship. Therefore the Church has not heretofore

taught it as being of the faith; and had it been a doctrine of

faith, she ought to have taught it, and to have handed it down.

Not only has the Church not taught it in any public standard, but

she has permitted it to be impugned, and not in one place alone,

but in almost all the world, Italy excepted, and that throughout

a great length of time.... To speak of the nations which use the

English tongue, in no one standard or catechetical book of theirs

is this opinion enumerated among the verities that are of faith. In

the United States, as in Ireland, all books of piety and doctrine

were drawn from England till the opening of this century, and

later. In the greater part of those books, the opposite opinion is

contained. In none is this opinion found as being of faith (p. 212).

He shows that recently a few books had appeared as if to prepare the

people for the new dogma. Alluding evidently to the work of the Jesuit

Weninger, which the Pope had praised, he calls the author a zealous but

unlearned man, and says his work was more calculated to excite ridicule

than anger, and that when the author had applied to himself for some

commendation, he had incautiously promised him the charity of silence.

As to the use made by Cullen of his brother's work, he said he had

felt as if the dead had been commended in order to rebuke the living.

As to the faith of the Irish, he remarked that a smile had been raised

when Verot, of Augustine, in Florida, said that the Irish believed

even their priests to be infallible. But it was true, for believing

the Church to be infallible, and the priest to be in harmony with the

Church, they believed him to be infallible, and with the difference of

his more exalted rank, it was precisely in the same sense that they

believed the Pope to be infallible. But as to their understanding the

question now agitated, or being able to form an opinion concerning it,

that was too ridiculous to need confutation (p. 216). He even doubted

if a meeting in Cork, over which the bishop of the see was said to have

presided, had understood the question; and indeed it was apparent, from

what had passed in that Hall, that there were bishops there who were

not clear as to what Papal infallibility meant.

Turning from the populace of Ireland to the prelates and doctors, he

was ready to grant that now, influenced by some distinguished names,

the preponderating opinion might be in favour of Papal infallibility;

on that point, however, he knew nothing more than what he had been

able to learn since coming to Rome. But in the beginning it was not

so. His proof of this was the almost universal applause with which the

writings of Dr. Doyle had been received, and those of the Rev. Arthur

O'Leary. Further, he cited answers given to a committee of the British

Parliament in 1825 by the Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam, Murray and

O'Kelly, as well as by Bishop Doyle. These answers he printed with his

speech, both in the original English and in a Latin translation. He

further cited a manifesto of all the Irish bishops in the year 1815,

addressed directly to the Holy See, which clearly shows that they did

not hold the views embodied in the proposed Decrees. He prints this

document also.

Next, passing from the Irish prelates to the priests, Kenrick

confidently affirms that they in former times did not differ from

the prelates. Long after the establishment of Maynooth College, the

professors, he declares, came from France, and their treatises were in

the hands of the pupils long subsequently to their own death. He calls

the Archbishop of Cashel as a witness, while he relates how the change

of teaching was first introduced in that college. They were there

at the time as fellow-students. Forty years ago, says Kenrick, John

O'Hanlon was Tutor in Theology, as he is now Moderator of the higher

theological sciences in the college. The text-book _De Ecclesia_ at

that time was _Delahogue_. It contained nothing, says Kenrick, about

Papal infallibility, except a proposition in these or similar words,

"It is not of faith that the Pope is infallible" (p. 218).

In the year 1831, O'Hanlon gave his pupils, as a theme, the following

proposition: "The Pope, speaking _ex cathedrâ_, is infallible."

O'Hanlon did not indicate any opinion of his own, and did not urge

the pupils in discussing the thesis to take either one side or the

other, but left them to argue for the negative or affirmative at their

discretion. Kenrick was one of those who took the affirmative; but he

adds, Language _so new, and hitherto unheard_ of, did not please all

the professors. One of them, who subsequently became President of the

college, strongly expressed his dissatisfaction to my fellow-student,

now the Bishop of Clonfert, from whom I had the statement. Kenrick

then makes a confident appeal to MacHale, to whom Cullen had made a

presumptuous one--

There sits here a venerable man, who many years ere I entered

that college expounded theology within its walls, who is by good

right looked upon as the Nestor of the Irish bishops, for he has

lived with almost three generations of men; one who with eminent

theological learning combined a glory of classic lore, and also

had intimate acquaintance with the prelates whom I have cited, and

with other men of learning whose bright and venerable names are

inscribed on the hearts of the Irish, and among their glories....

He, with rare moderation, had not given expression to his views on

the matter now under discussion. So that his Eminence of Dublin

did not hesitate to speak for him, and to claim him as being upon

his own side. Those who feel with me, and who had known him,

desiring to see him contending by our side, were grieved to behold

him sitting apart like another Achilles. I was filled, therefore,

with an unlooked-for joy when I heard him say that in judgments on

matters of faith the head ought to be conjoined with the body; not,

as his Grace of Westminster would have it, that the head of itself,

communicating infallibility to itself, should draw the body along

with it, but that head and body, conjointly bearing witness to the

faith delivered to the saints, should declare it with one mind. As

the Archbishop of Tuam descended from this pulpit, I congratulated

him in these words: 'You have vindicated Ireland--_Vindicasti

Hiberniam_.' If witnesses of the faith of the Irish are to be, as

they ought to be, weighed and not counted, the Archbishop of Tuam,

at least in the capacity of a witness, will easily surpass the

other Irish bishops, not even excepting his Eminence of Dublin (p.

218).

The above important statement of Archbishop Kenrick shows that the new

dogma, according to which the Bull _Unam Sanctam_ becomes of divine

authority in doctrine, was not kept out of Maynooth very long after the

oaths and denials of preceding years had served their purpose. It was

introduced as early as 1831.

The day following the speech of Cardinal Cullen--for our light on

which we are indebted to Kenrick's important contribution--the Primate

of Hungary appeared in the pulpit. His position as a member of the

Committee on Faith, his doubtful bearing, and, above all, rumours of a

hat, had made an impression that he had gone over to the side of the

Infallibilists. On the contrary, he now spoke with decision and force

against them. It was after the courage of the minority had been for a

moment revived by this speech, that one ascended the desk, who to most

present was only a feeble old man, but to Irish prelates, and to some

of Irish origin, he represented one who, in the thundering days of

the Liberator, was spoken of, at every wake and "patron," as a mighty

son of hail and storm. It was he to whom Cullen had appealed, on the

previous day, as a witness to the ancient faith of the Irish in Papal

infallibility. But Kenrick has already shown us that John MacHale

stood as a hoary monument of departed principles; and it was when he

came down that Kenrick cried, "Thou hast vindicated Ireland." Leahy,

Archbishop of Cashel, was the next called up; but after the speech of

MacHale he declined to speak.[411]

The archbishops were still on the roll, so the same day the Archbishop

of Paris had his turn. Here again we get an indisputable glimpse into

the arcana. Like Kenrick's speech, that of Darboy is printed; but

unlike Kenrick's, it was actually delivered.[412] We shall, therefore,

give the principal portions of it, wishing that we were in a position

to do so with a speech from the other side--

Most eminent, most reverend Fathers,--I approach the consideration

of the First Dogmatic Constitution, _De Ecclesia_, submitted to

your examination,--a task which would be ungrateful did not love of

the truth and affection and reverence towards the brethren render

it easy and not unwelcome. I will treat the proposed Decree with a

mind, as I trust, free from all party spirit, wishing not to offend

any one, and fervently hoping that you will ingenuously receive

what I am about to say, as I shall ingenuously present it.

It seems to me that there are three things to be looked at: first,

the origin of this proposed Decree; secondly, its scope and nature;

thirdly, its practical consequences.

As to the origin of this proposed Decree, and its introduction at

the present time into the Council, I shall state a few self-evident

propositions without discussing them, or rather shall recall to

mind a few facts, from which the reverend Fathers will be able to

judge whether the whole matter has been conducted according to

order, and whether the dignity of an assembly so venerable has been

sufficiently consulted:--

1. It is certain that the pivot on which our proposed Decree

altogether turns is the fourth chapter--that which treats of the

infallibility of the Pontiff.

2. It is certain that this question of infallibility has been the

principal object of the Vatican Council--so much so indeed that it

has been indiscreetly said by many that, in a certain sense, it was

the sole object of it.

3. It is certain that this principal question of infallibility was

not intimated in the Bull of Convocation, nor in the documents

relating to the convocation of the Council.

4. It is certain that this question has been urged forward from

without, that is, by writers lay and clerical, in a way contrary

to ecclesiastical and traditional methods, adopted against all

rules of subordination and decorum; an agitation got up by means

of demagogues, so to speak, in order that the consciences of the

bishops sitting here might be placed under pressure, and that they

might be subjected to fear that, if they resisted they should

not be able to return to their dioceses and govern them without

difficulty.

5. It is certain that thus the matter has been brought to such

a pass that the Vatican Fathers, albeit piously and generously

following their own conscience, have been said, nevertheless, to

have conceded more than was meet to these violent manifestations,

and to factitious opinions, when they petitioned for the

introduction of the question of infallibility; and because of

this tumult, which has been raised at the doors of the Council

Hall, the liberty and the dignity of us all have evidently been

somewhat lowered. This is unbecoming, and opens the way to grave

inconvenience; indeed, it is not to be tolerated without injury and

opprobrium to this venerable assembly, which ought to act from its

own impulse, and ought to be not only free, but manifestly free.

6. It is certain that the question, as this day proposed, comes

on out of the natural and logical order; and thus occasions some

prejudice which will damage the cause itself.

7. It is certain that the premature introduction of the question,

especially with the present inversion of proper order, is of

little service to the Holy See--nay, is detrimental to its

honour; for since, according to the Rules of Procedure, contained

in _Multiplices Inter_, petitions are remitted to a Special

Congregation, which reports upon them to the Pontiff, and since

the Pontiff can freely accept or reject the conclusions of that

Congregation, it follows that the promoters of the petition for

introducing the question of infallibility, and for placing it

first in order, publicly led the Holy Father into the position

of enacting and deciding in his own case, and for his personal

privilege; in doing which--certainly without intention on their

part--they have ill consulted his high dignity, if they may not be

said to have even detracted from it.

If these seven positions be true--and they seem to be most true--we

cannot approach and determine this question of infallibility,

raised under such circumstances, and introduced in such a manner,

without preparing the way for the cavils of the impious, and for

objections lowering to the moral authority of this Council. This

is the more to be guarded against, because already writings and

documents are in circulation which aim at shaking its strength

and title; so that, far from calming the minds of the people, and

securing the things which make for peace, it would seem, on the

contrary, to be sowing the seeds of new disputations and discords

among Christians.

If, therefore, I may give a practical conclusion to this portion of

my speech, I would say: (1) They did well who held this question to

be inopportune; (2) They will do well who shall judge it opportune

to abstain from a definition.

Now, as to the second portion of my speech,--the scope and nature

of this proposed Decree,--I shall indicate a few points, but not

develop them.

1. The object of the proposed Decree is not to frame a doctrine

on infallibility, for all know and with Catholic faith believe in

the infallibility of the Church, which has held that tenet for

nearly twenty centuries. Its object is to define, and to propound

as an article of faith, that the chief Pontiff is infallible by

himself alone, and that indeed this privilege of inerrancy extends

as widely as the infallibility of the Church itself. It is to be

noted that the proposed Decree does not treat of the former kind of

infallibility, admitted by all, according to which the invincible

and irrefragable force of Decrees or dogmatic decisions commanding

the faith of all the faithful, as of all pastors, lies solely in

the common consent of the bishops conjoined with the Pontiff. But

this proposed Decree treats of the separate and absolute personal

infallibility of the Pontiff, though it is not openly called so.

2. The proposed Decree does not treat of personal infallibility

as a mere opinion, or as recommending a point of doctrine, but as

declaring a dogma of the faith. Heretofore, indeed, there was some

discussion as to the opportuneness and expediency of introducing

this question in the present Council; but that discussion was

closed from the time that the chief Pontiff decreed that the

subject could no longer be passed over in silence. But now the

other part of the question has come to be discussed, namely,

whether or not the personal infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff

can opportunely and expediently now be declared an article of the

faith, and ought to be so declared? This is precisely the matter

and object of the present discussion.

3. Further, in order that the object may be rightly carried

through, and may have a successful issue, these three things are

necessary: (1) A formula, or definition of the doctrine; (2) Proofs

of it, both solid and excluding all doubt; (3) Its acceptance by

all with moral unanimity.

_The first necessity_:--It is necessary to compose a formula or

definition of the doctrine. That this is most difficult is apparent

from the case of those who first drafted the proposed Decree, as

well as of those who revised it. Terms are used which are vague,

and fitted to give rise to endless discussion. What is meant by

exercising the office of supreme teacher of all Christians? What

are the complete external conditions which mark the exercise of

this office? When will it be known that the Holy Pontiff has spoken

in such a character? The promoters of the proposed Decree say that

this will be obvious, as for instance the meaning of the term

"oecumenical" is obvious; but they inflict a wound on themselves.

For a Council is not held to be oecumenical by the faithful

dispersed throughout the world, unless it is received as such by

them perhaps with what amounts to moral unanimity. Hence if the

nature, character, and force of Decrees emanating from the Pontiff

are to be declared and known by the same method, the promoters of

the Decree have accomplished nothing, since the ultimate reason

for admitting infallibility will be the universal consent of the

bishops. Do they or do they not regard the consent of the bishops

as unnecessary in laying down definitions of the faith? If they do

regard it as unnecessary, they do a thing that is new, unheard of,

and intolerable. If they do not regard it as unnecessary, they say

a thing that is old, and received by all, and draw up their battle

array against a foe that is not in the field. In either case they

neither can nor ought to be silent as to the necessity or inutility

of the concurrence of the bishops. Silence on their part in such a

matter, and in such circumstances, would drive the faithful to new

doubts, and would prepare the way for new difficulties. They do

not define the matters to which infallibility extends, otherwise

than by saying that it extends to those to which the infallibility

of the Church extends; but such an indication is altogether

insufficient till the holy Council shall have defined the matters

to which the infallibility of the Church does extend. Hence, again

appears the logical vice from which this proposed Decree on the

primacy suffers through being brought forward before the Decree on

the Church in general. Moreover, when dealing with the Church, we

know that her infallibility is always exercised within the limits

of matters to which it extends, both because we are advised that it

is so by the common consent of the bishops, and also because the

Church is holy and cannot sin. But, on the contrary, when dealing

with the Holy Pontiff, the promoters of the proposed Decree,

whatever they may say, exclude on the one hand the consent of the

bishops, and on the other hand they have not yet attempted to prove

that every Pontiff is holy and impeccable. So far for what relates

to the discovery of a formula.

_The second necessity_:--A formula of definition having been

found, it is necessary to prove it by solid arguments, excluding

all doubt. Let it then be proved:--(1) That this doctrine of

personal infallibility is contained in Holy Scripture interpreted

always in one sense, as well as in the tradition of all ages;--(2)

That it has always been received by consent of the Fathers, the

doctors, the bishops, and theologians; not only by some of them,

but by so many as amounts to a moral whole;--(3) That it perfectly

accords with all the Decrees and authoritative acts of OEcumenical

Councils, or even with the Decrees passed in the fourth and fifth

sessions of the Council of Constance. Even were the oecumenicity

of those sessions to be denied--which I do not admit--they still

show what was the common opinion of theologians and bishops;--(4)

That this doctrine is not gravely impugned by historical facts,

and that other acts of the Holy Pontiffs are not in conflict with

it;--(5) And, finally, that this is one of those truths which

can be defined by General Councils in union with the Pontiff, as

being demonstrably one of those which had been received by all,

everywhere, and always as revealed truth.

The proposed Decree does not supply such arguments, and the

Fathers, as you well know, have not had time to weigh it;

therefore we ought to refrain from defining it. In a matter of

this kind, which involves the laying of an irrevocable burden on

the conscience of the faithful, there is grave peril if you act

prematurely, without absolute certainty. But there is no risk to be

run in deciding it to be a matter that requires to be more fully

discussed, and then afterwards determining it with all safety of

conscience.

_The third necessity_:--It is necessary that this doctrine of

personal and independent infallibility, clearly stated, as we have

said, and solidly proved, should be received by the Fathers with

moral unanimity; else it is to be feared that this declaration

of doctrine will seem to many to be a pontifical Constitution

indeed but not a Decree of a Council. To impose a truth upon all

Christians, to be held as an article of faith, is a duty and a

right so grave that a bishop must not exercise it without great

circumspection.

Hence, as you well know, the Tridentine Fathers, whatever sophists

may say to the contrary, did not arrive at their decisions in

matters of dogma by majority, but with moral unanimity.

As to the practical consequences of the proposed Decree, I would

particularly note two points; for this personal infallibility

is not required and proposed as a matter of faith, except in

order that unity in the Church may become closer and that the

central authority may be stronger, and that thus a remedy may be

more effectually applied to every evil. As to unity and central

authority, they ought to exist and to be maintained, not as we may

fancy them, or as our reason may persuade us, but just as our Lord

Jesus Christ instituted them, and as our Fathers hitherto have held

them. For it is not for us to constitute the Church arbitrarily,

and to change the conditions of a divine work. The necessary unity,

that namely of faith and communion under the paternal rule of a

central authority, exists and always has existed among Catholics;

and that unity of doctrine and communion, and that central

authority of the Holy Pontiffs, which flourished without a dogmatic

definition of infallibility, abides unimpaired.

Let it not be said that this unity would become stricter after the

central authority had been rendered stronger, for the consequence

does not follow. It is not enough to be one, but we must also have

that kind and that degree of unity which are required by the nature

and character of the case, and by the law and necessity of life.

Nay, it may be that a thing shall wretchedly perish, precisely for

the reason that it has been reduced to an overstrained unity; for

in that condition its internal forces cannot exercise themselves

and discharge their vital functions, being broken and crushed by

the bond of an overstrained and exaggerated unity. So in respect of

moral force, the unity of men, when acting freely and with vigour

under law, is looser yet more comely than is the unity of bondsmen

sluggishly existing under tyranny.

Therefore, let us not separate the bishops from the Holy Pontiff,

nor the Pontiff from the bishops. Let us faithfully hold the

ancient rule of faith and the things ordained of the Fathers, and

that all the more because the proposed definition will give rise to

many and serious inconveniences.

It can scarcely be doubted that this remedy will be powerless for

healing the evils of the day; and indeed it is to be feared that to

very many it will be injurious. The matter must be looked at not

merely in a theological point of view, but also in its aspects

towards civil society; for surely we do not sit here as so many

head-sacristans, or superiors of little Congregations, but as men

received into a share of his solicitude by the chief Pontiff, who

holds the care of the entire Church. Let us, therefore, prudently

survey the condition of the world.

Will personal and independent infallibility raise again from the

grave the extinct Churches on the African shores? or will it awake

out of sleep that East which once bloomed with so many talents and

virtues? Will it be easier for our brethren, the Vicars Apostolic,

to bring back Pagans, Mohammedans, and Schismatics, to the Catholic

faith, if they teach them that the Pope is infallible by himself?

Will the definition encourage and animate Protestants, and other

heretics, to draw near to the Roman Church, laying aside all their

prejudices and animosities? So far for distant regions.

But what of Europe? I say it with grief--the Church is banished

from everything. She is banished from those Congresses in which

peace and war between nations is determined, and in which, in

former times, the authority of the Holy See prevailed; whereas now

decisions affecting that See itself are taken, and it may not give

its opinion. The Church is banished from the legislative bodies in

several kingdoms of the Church; and if here and there some prelates

or priests are found in them, it seems a wonder. She is banished

from the schools where grave errors stalk with impunity; from the

laws which profess to be secular in their nature, and hence are

irreligious; from the family where civil marriage taints morals.

Almost all those who are at the head of human affairs in Europe

either shun us or keep us at a distance.

Again, in these straits of the Church, what remedy is offered to

the world in travail? The promoters of the proposed Decree wish us

to lay a new and, therefore, heavy and odious load on those who

are already shaking from their indocile shoulders burdens imposed

of old time and rendered venerable by usage of our Fathers. They

almost crush all who are of weak faith, with a new and inopportune

dogma, a dogma never heretofore defined, and to some extent damaged

by wounds received in this discussion, and one to be pronounced

by a Council, of which many assert and declare that its liberty

is less evident than it should have been. It is hoped by this

definition of a personal and separate infallibility to be able

to heal everything, to strengthen faith in all, and to improve

morals. But in vain is it hoped. The world is sick or dying, not

for want of knowing the truth, or the teachers of it, but because

it shuns the truth and will not submit to it. If, therefore,

the world rejects the truth, when it is preached by the whole

body of the Teaching Church--that is, by eight hundred bishops

scattered all over the world and infallible in connexion with the

Holy Pontiff--how much more will it reject that truth when it is

preached by one Infallible Teacher, and that teacher recently

declared to be such! But again: in order that authority may prevail

and effectually operate, it is not enough that it be affirmed; it

must also be accepted. It does not suffice, therefore, to declare

the Pope infallible, personally and separately from the bishops,

but he must be received as such by all, if he is not to exercise

his office in vain. For instance, what avails an anathema when

the authority of him who excommunicates is disregarded? And, most

reverend Fathers, pray permit one instance more. The Syllabus went

all through Europe, and what evil has it healed, even in those

places where it was received as an infallible oracle? At that time

two kingdoms remained wherein religion still flourished, ascendant

not only in fact, but also by law; I mean Austria and Spain. Yet in

those two kingdoms this Catholic order has fallen to the ground,

although commended by infallible authority,--ay, perhaps, at least

in Austria, exactly for the reason that it was commended by it.

Let us, therefore, look at matters as they stand. The separate

and independent infallibility of the most Holy Pontiff, so far

from removing the objections and prejudices which turn many away

from the faith, is increasing and aggravating them. Very many

even of those who are not hostile to the Catholic religion are

now meditating what they call separation of the Church from civil

society. Not a few of those who lead public affairs lean in this

direction, and they will gladly seize the opportunity, given by

the proposed definition, to carry this separation into effect.

Besides, what will be done in France will soon be imitated more or

less throughout Europe, certainly not without serious loss to the

Church and the clergy. Whether they mean it or not, the promoters

of the proposed Decree are, by their definition, instituting a new

order of things full of risks, and that all the more if they do not

more exactly determine the matters to which personal infallibility

extends; and [if they do not determine] whether it will be possible

to assert that the Pope, when defining in matters pertaining to

morals, does by that act pronounce as to the civil and political

conduct of kings and nations, and as to the laws and rights which

are now reputed to belong to the public authority. No one skilled

in politics can fail to see what seeds of contention our proposed

Decree contains, and to what perils the temporal power of the

Holy See itself is exposed. But to enter into this fully would

be tedious, perhaps indiscreet; for certainly I could not adduce

here all the arguments which come to my hand, without touching

upon several things which prudence counsels me to avoid. I have

relieved my conscience as far as possible. Accept my words for

the worth which your judgment may award to them. I know, indeed,

that disadvantages are attached to any course, and that we are

not always to abstain from acting because disasters may follow;

but I do not ask the venerable Fathers to fall suddenly into my

views, but rather ask that they may maturely consider and balance

the arguments in favour of the one view and the other. I also know

that we are not to make puerile concessions to public opinion, but

no more are we pertinaciously to thwart it. It is wiser and more

adroit to adjust many things with it, and in any case to take it

into account. And, finally, I know that the Church does not need

the temporal arm, but neither does she repel the assent and aid

of civil society; and, as I take it, she did not, in the days of

Constantine, weakly sigh for a renewal of the days of Nero.

Quirinus says that a suppressed murmur running through the ranks of the

majority as Darboy spoke, seemed to herald coming storms (p. 553).

On May 23, Ketteler is said to have made a real impression--indeed,

Vitelleschi intimates that he made converts (p. 162)--by a strong

representation of the effect of the proposed Decrees on what remained

of episcopal jurisdiction. On the same day Ginoulhiac, who had been

Bishop of Grenoble, but had just been made Archbishop of Lyons,

did what was looked upon as a deed of high courage by opposing the

definition.

At the same time an incident occurred which caused all Rome to talk of

the Pope's personal energy in pushing his policy, and to whisper as to

the mysterious connexion of political movements in different countries

with the silent will of Rome. Though Portugal no longer occupied, in

the eye of the world, the place she once held, her importance to the

Papacy was still great. News arrived that the Duke of Saldanha had,

by a military _pronunciamento_, assailed the King in his palace, and

compelled him to accept a new Ministry, with himself for its head.

He was of the clerical party, and immediately found a pretext for

quarrelling with the minister representing Italy. The tidings of these

events no sooner reached Rome than the Pope visited the national church

of the Portuguese in the city. His organ, the _Osservatore Romano_, in

announcing the fact, said that his Holiness had wished to inspect the

restoration of the Church made by the Duke of Saldanha when ambassador

in Rome. The impression made was that the Pope wished, before all the

bishops and princes, to give the Duke the only mark of approbation in

his power. Vitelleschi observes that a _pronunciamento_ is the worst

form of revolution, because it disturbs the highest expression of order

and violates the faith which holds soldiers to their flag (p. 165).

What, however, is revolution when directed against the supernatural

order, is restoration and reconstruction when it favours the sacred

cause.

The time for the definition was now rather peremptorily fixed by the

authoritative organs. The day of Mary, the day of Joseph, the Epiphany,

and the Ascension, and other very good days, had all in turn failed;

but it was to be on St. Peter's Day, and was not that the fittest day

of all?

The Archbishop of Westminster, in the name of the committee, spoke,

on May 25, for nearly two hours. Indeed, morning by morning the

committee availed itself of the right of reply granted to its members

exclusively, by setting up one of them to refute the objections

advanced in the previous sitting. Kenrick says that he knew not which

to admire most--Manning's diction, his delivery, his power, of command

and frankness, or his ardour in urging and almost commanding the new

definition.[413]

"I thought," says Kenrick, "of what used to be said of Englishmen

living in Ireland, that they were more Irish than the Irish

themselves. The Archbishop is certainly more Catholic than all the

Catholics I have known hitherto. He himself feels no doubt as to

pontifical infallibility, personal, separate, and absolute; and he

will not permit others to feel any. He asserts that the doctrine

is of faith, and as such he hardly asks the Council to define it,

but rather predicts that it will do so--perhaps after the manner of

those prophets who strive to bring events to pass by foretelling

them. So far as concerns myself--as one whom sixty years that have

passed over me since I began to learn the rudiments of the faith,

have perhaps left as well instructed on the point in question as

one who joined the Church about twenty years ago--I dare to assert

that the opinion, as it is found in the proposed Decree, is not a

doctrine of faith, and that it cannot become such by any definition

whatsoever, even that of a Council. We are custodians of the

deposit of faith, not lords of it. We are teachers indeed of the

faithful committed to our care, in so far as we are witnesses."

Manning resented, _graviter illud tulit_, the attempt which had been

made to raise a case of conscience in the mind of the bishops by

asserting that any bishop would incur the guilt of a mortal sin who

gave a vote in favour of infallibility without having duly investigated

the question for himself; because his act would contribute to impose

a new yoke on the faithful. This Manning held to be injurious to the

dignity and the honour of the bishops; as if, says Kenrick, he denied

that bishops could sin, or denied that they would be guilty of mortal

sin if through negligence or idleness they failed rightly to inform

their judgments.

Manning contended that infallibility was a supernatural

grace--_charisma_--and, therefore, that it properly attached to a

person. He would not hear of conditions being connected with the

exercise of infallibility. He asserted that he who had bestowed this

supernatural grace would also give the means for its due exercise.[414]

Moreover, he took the ground that the Council had already, in the

conclusion of the Decree which had been passed, committed itself to the

doctrine of infallibility, and that it could not now recede. Kenrick

replied that the assertion of Manning was one of several things which

he had heard with stupefaction. They had been assured, he stated, as

we have already seen, in the clearest terms by the reporter of the

committee, that the clause referred to contained no doctrine, and that

it was only a fitting conclusion to the four chapters of the Decree.

Then follows the statement that the reporter had either himself been

deceived or had knowingly deceived the minority.

In the sitting of May 25, MacEvilly, Bishop of Galway, also referred to

Kenrick's argument, drawn from the fact that the Catholics of England

and Ireland had been admitted to equal civil rights on the faith of

repeated declarations, and even of oaths, to the effect that the

doctrine of Papal infallibility was not binding on Catholics, and that

consequently such edicts of Pontiffs as the Bull _Unam Sanctam_ had not

doctrinal authority. To this MacEvilly replied that the Catholics in

England had been admitted to equal civil rights, not because of their

declarations, but because the English government feared a civil war.

The reply of Kenrick to this straightforward utterance is worthy of

being given word for word--

The doctrine of Papal infallibility was always odious to the

English government, and had it been really a doctrine of the faith,

Protestants would have understood Papal doctrine better than

English and Irish Catholics; for they knew that Roman Pontiffs had

claimed the highest power in temporal things for themselves, and

had attempted to drive several English kings from the throne by

absolving their subjects from the oath of allegiance.

Catholics, by public oath repeatedly made, denied that such power

belonged to the Roman Pontiff in the realm of England, and had

they not done so, they never would have been or ought to have been

admitted to equal civil rights.[415] How the faith thus pledged

to the British government is to be reconciled with the definition

of Papal infallibility may be looked to by those of the Irish

prelate who have taken that oath as I myself did I cannot solve the

difficulty as yet. I am Davus, not Ædipus. Nevertheless those civil

rights were conceded to Catholics by men who through a long life

had strongly opposed that course. They did indeed apprehend civil

war; but they did not dread it in this sense, that a war of that

kind could not be otherwise hurtful to the power of the government

than by causing a disturbance of the peace for a certain time.

They feared the occurrence of a war, not the result of it, as to

which no sensible man could have been uncertain. Those great men

preferred to yield rather than to conquer by the slaughter of a

brilliant nation, and of a people worthy of a better fate, even in

what seemed to them its errors. Oh that here the same spirit of

moderation which they exhibited may be displayed by the majority

of the bishops who are listening to these words, and that by a

prevision of the calamities which may arise to us from this hapless

controversy, they may, in circumstances calling for consummate

moderation, ward off from us, who are fewer, but who represent a

greater number of Catholics than those who are opposed to us, evils

which it is not possible to anticipate without horror, and which it

would be impossible to repair by a late repentance.

On the one hand, we cannot but regret that these words, fitly written,

were not actually spoken in the deaf ears of the resolved majority.

On the other hand, we remember that had they been spoken, they would

have sunk into the Vatican archives, and would never have been heard of

more till those graves give up their dead. They now belong to history,

and furnish a living link in a chain of memorable professions and

performances. The denationalizing influence of the Papacy had still

left something of the citizen alive in the soul of Kenrick. During

his stay in Rome, when witnessing the paltry tyrannies that flounced

about under the dependent banner of the Pope, all of the citizen that

was left in him must have turned with fresh respect to the two flags

of the free under which he had spent his days--the flags of England

and America. And yet there were those sitting there, each with all the

rights of a free man in his hands, planning to reconstruct the society

of England and America on the degraded and fettered model of the States

of the Roman Bishop. There is a crime which no code has defined--the

crime, not of breaking one specific law of one's country, but of

contriving, with a foreign pretender, how to overturn everything vital

in a venerable and generous legislation.

It was not merely by a pupil of Maynooth that the eager ex-Anglican was

considered extreme in his views. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, spoke

on the same day, refuting the notions of Manning about the favourable

effects to be produced by his beloved dogma in England, and appealing

to him as a witness that an eminent statesman had represented the

influence of the recent course of the Curia upon public opinion in

England as being much to the disadvantage of their own cause, and

greatly to the encouragement of extreme Protestants.[416]

In the next Congregation, on the 28th, it was Senestrey who took

the post occupied on the last morning by Manning, that of official

respondent against attacks. On that day, a scene was raised by Verot,

of Florida. He declared that they were making innovations in the

Church, and that such an innovation as the personal infallibility of

the Pope was sacrilege. That horrid word applied in the sacred place

to an object so dear to the Pope, touched indeed the apple of the eye.

Sacrilege! The Cardinals de Angelis and Capalti, says Vitelleschi,

quite lost their temper; and a scene ensued which for anger and

excitement is said to have fallen but little short of Strossmayer's

scene in March.[417] The odious, and to well-tuned Curialistic ears

the inconceivable, task of hearing the infallibility of the Pope

denied, and of seeing his pleasure daily thwarted under the roof of St.

Peter's, was not to be endured any longer. The word passed that the

power given by the new Rules to close the debate must be called into

requisition.

A trusty American was set up in the next meeting, by the committee, to

repair the mischief done by Verot--Spalding, of Baltimore. Here, again,

we are indebted for light to Kenrick's unspoken speech. Referring

to the moral question which had been raised by Kenrick, to which we

have already seen allusions, Spalding said that it called for as

much investigation to justify one in giving a negative as in giving

an affirmative vote on the question of Papal infallibility, and that

in withholding an affirmative vote one would confirm the celebrated

Gallican articles.

On May 31, Valerga, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, made a vigorous attack

on the minority, speaking cleverly, and hitting hard. Spirited,

_piquant_, and insolent, is the description of Quirinus. Soon

afterwards, another American was in the desk, Purcell, of Cincinnati.

Quirinus says that he affirmed that the Americans abhorred every

doctrine opposed to civil and spiritual freedom; and that the American

sons of the Church loved her, because she was the freest society in

the world. He also took the position that, as kings existed for the

good of the people, so the Pope existed for the good of the Church. On

the same day spoke Conolly, Archbishop of Halifax. He seems to be the

only one in the Council who really related a theological experience,

declaring that he had formerly believed in the personal infallibility

of the Pope, and had come to Rome believing that the _Augsburg Gazette_

had circulated a calumny in representing the dogmatizing of this

opinion as the real object of the Council. He went on to say that, on

finding what was expected of him, he determined to sift the arguments

of the Roman theologians and the proofs by which they supported them.

He now bore witness to the result upon his own views. All antiquity,

he declared, explained the passages harped upon by those theologians,

in a sense different from theirs. All antiquity bore witness against

the notion that the Pope alone, and separate from the bishops, was

infallible. He further took the ground that to found a dogma on the

rejection of the traditional interpretation of Scripture was pure

Protestantism. I will have nothing, he said, turned into dogma but the

indubitable Word of God. Ten thousand theologians do not suffice for

me, and on the present subject no theologian should be quoted who lived

subsequent to the Isidorean forgeries. To define the dogma would be to

bring the Vatican Council into contradiction with the three General

Councils which had condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic, to narrow the

gates of heaven, to repel the East, and to proclaim, not peace, but

war. In reply to Manning, he protested that no one was justified in

calling an opinion proximate heresy when it had not been condemned as

such by the Church.[418]

On June 3, Gilooly, Bishop of Elphin, replying to some observation of

Purcell as to the oaths and declarations, said[419] that Catholics had

not denied that they held the infallibility of the Pope as a doctrine

of the faith, but as a dogma of the faith; that is as a dogma defined

by a General Council. To this, Kenrick's unspoken speech replies,

"If that is what was meant, which I do not believe, we might be

reproached, and that rightfully and deservedly, with not shrinking, in

a very grave matter, from the concealment of our meaning by scholastic

distinctions."[420] According to Quirinus (p. 661), Cardinal Bonnechose

prevailed upon Cardinal de Angelis to ask the Pope, directly, if he

would not consent to a prorogation of the Council on account of the

heat, now intolerable to all but Romans, or men from the southward of

Rome. The reply was stern and, according to many, savage. Whatever were

the terms of it, the substance was indubitable--no adjournment was to

be allowed till the Decree of Infallibility was passed. It is said that

when Bishop Domenec, of Pittsburg, in America, began his discourse, he

was greeted with laughter by the majority, and when he made the very

plain and simple statement--one which he might have picked up from any

intelligent or travelled Italian any day in the year--that American

Catholics were not merely nominal ones, as the Italians were, Cardinal

Capalti imperiously commanded silence.[421] Strossmayer had spoken at

length on June 2, and with such moderation as to escape even a call to

order, yet, it is said, with very great force. On the 3rd, Moriarty,

of Kerry, took the side of Purcell, Kenrick, and MacHale, but we have

no particulars of his speech.[422] That day Maret was in the desk

speaking in the loud and labouring tone of a deaf man, arguing, not

only against the convictions and feelings of the majority, but against

their personal detestation of himself. He made a point that either

the Council was to give infallibility to the Pontiff, in which case

the Council must be a higher authority than he, or else the Pontiff

was to give to himself an infallibility which he had not previously

possessed, in which case he would change the constitution of the Church

by his own power alone. Then Cardinal Bilio interrupted, and cried,

"The Council does not give anything, nor can it give anything. It gives

its suffrage, and the Holy Father decides what he pleases."[423] The

representative of all that was left of the once courageous Gallican

liberties asked if he might be allowed to proceed, and did so. The

minority had a long list of speakers still inscribed. Kenrick was

waiting for his turn, and so were Haynald, Dupanloup, and many others;

but a fresh surprise was at this point sprung upon them. The Presidents

produced a requisition for the close of the general debate, signed by

above one hundred and fifty bishops.[424] De Angelis at once called

on those who were for the closing of the debate to stand up. He then

declared, "A large majority have stood up, and by the power conferred

upon us by Our Most Holy Lord (the capitals are official), we close

the debate on the general question." The _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ say that

about fifty remained sitting. No wonder that, after hearing sixty-five

speakers, the Fathers were weary. Yet, no wonder, on the other hand,

that the minority should allege that, while it was perfectly reasonable

to close a debate in this manner when the object was that of making

temporal laws liable to be unmade, or re-made, a year later, it was

neither reasonable nor fair, and above all, it was not agreeable to any

precedent, to past professions, or to any ecclesiastical principle, to

close a debate upon a dogma while yet there were prelates wanting to

bear witness to the tradition of their respective Churches. According

to all their theologians, dogma was not to be made by mere opinion, but

by evidence of the fact that the opinion in question had been believed

from the beginning. Protestants would naturally say that it was time to

bury this pretence under any heap; but men whose life had been spent

under the illusion of the pretence naturally felt otherwise. They

had not seen that when the Church adopted the principle of tradition

instead of that of Scripture, the Spouse, while professing only to

supplement the word of her Lord, really entered on a course which

must lead to setting it aside in favour of her own word, and that

when she had adopted the principle of general consent, instead of

that of clear apostolical tradition, she had set aside the principle

of antiquity for that of a majority amounting to a moral whole, and

that now she was only proceeding a step further in substituting the

principle of a numerical majority for that of moral unanimity. But one

step more remained, and that was not far off. The Spouse who had put

aside the authority of her Lord to exalt her own, was to find, not

only her authority, but even her consent, formally repudiated before

all men by the master whom she had, in the house of her Lord, set up

in His place. In that house the talk was evermore of her authority,

her wisdom, her infallibility, her glory, her stores of merit and her

streams of blessing, and but rarely was her Lord heard of, except as

having conferred the regency on her. Now drew nigh the day when the

self-asserting Spouse was, before all men whom her loud vauntings had

aroused, to receive on her brow such a stigma from her self-chosen

Master as has seldom in set terms been affixed to a society by its

head. Meantime the blow which had just been dealt seemed fatal to all

the hopes of the minority. So once more they dragged their robes down

the marble way of St. Peter's with defeat behind them, but this time

with annihilation close before, though not till after further strange

experiences.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 402: _Vitelleschi_, p. 158.]

[Footnote 403: _Quirinus_, p. 532.]

[Footnote 404: _Quirinus_, p. 533.]

[Footnote 405: _Frond_, vol. ii.]

[Footnote 406: _Documenta ad Illustrandum_, ii. 209.]

[Footnote 407: "_Meum honorem graviter læserunt._"--_Documenta ad

Illustrandum_, i. 189.]

[Footnote 408: _Documenta ad Illustrandum_, pp. 187-224.]

[Footnote 409: _Aliquid humani passum esse._]

[Footnote 410: He showed that Tischendorf read προβἁτια

in both cases, and that other editors had read πρὁβατα in

both. Of course, in the fifteenth verse, the word "lambs"--ἁρνἱα--is

the proper translation.]

[Footnote 411: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis._ As to MacHale, Kenrick omits what

_Frond_ states, that he was of a "very ancient" family.]

[Footnote 412: _Documenta_, ii. pp. 415-24.]

[Footnote 413: _Documenta_, i. 209.]

[Footnote 414: _Documenta_, i. 223.]

[Footnote 415: "Quod si non fecissent nunquam ad libertatis civilis

consortium admissi fuissent aut debuissent" (p. 219).]

[Footnote 416: _Quirinus_, 584.]

[Footnote 417: _Vitelleschi_, p. 168.]

[Footnote 418: _Quirinus_, p. 597.]

[Footnote 419: _Documenta_, i. 215.]

[Footnote 420: _Ibid._, 215.]

[Footnote 421: _Quirinus_, p. 661.]

[Footnote 422: His name does not occur in the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ for

the third.]

[Footnote 423: _Quirinus_, p. 608.]

[Footnote 424: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis._ _Friedberg_, p. 47, says there were

two hundred and fifty signatures, but this is evidently a mistake.]

CHAPTER VI

To the Close of the Special Debate on Infallibility, July

4--Proposal of the Minority to resist--They yield once more--Another

Protest--Efforts to procure Unanimity--Hope of the Minority in

Delay--Pope disregards the Heat--Disgrace of Theiner--Decree giving to

Pope ordinary Jurisdiction everywhere--His Superiority to Law--Debate

on Infallibility--Speech of Guidi--Great Emotion--Scene with the

Pope--Close of the Debate--Present view of the _Civiltá_ as to

Politics--Specimens of the Official Histories--Exultation.

Any one who had observed the course of the minority in emergencies

would have probably foretold that, under the new trial, they would

feel indignant, would speak of doing something, and would end with a

protest. So it proved. The very day of the forcible conclusion of the

general debate, the French bishops met, and were favourable to some

determined action.[425] But the next day, eighty congregated in the

rooms of Cardinal Rauscher. The Hungarians, French, and Americans,

with Strossmayer, Clifford, and Conolly, are named by Quirinus as

recommending that the Fathers of the Opposition should cease to take

any part in the Council, reserving themselves for the final vote, and

should then give their _Non placet_. The Germans, however, always

marplots, urged that the better course would be to adopt a protest,

and continue to take part in the proceedings. This counsel prevailed.

Rauscher drew up a form of protest, which was signed by some eighty

prelates, and many of the bishops took a trip to Naples or elsewhere.

Among the things represented by Quirinus as having been said on this

occasion, one was to the effect that in a Parliament speeches were

of some use, for if they did not influence votes, they did enlighten

public opinion; but in this Council, most of the hearers were, from

their degree of culture, quite incapable of apprehending theological

arguments, not to add that, in a moral point of view, many of them

stood so low that even if convinced they would not act on their

convictions. The ground taken in the protest is clear, namely, that

the right of supporting their votes by a statement of reasons, is one

which, by the very nature of a Council, belongs not only to some of its

members, but to them all, and that such a right could not be taken away

by any vote of a majority.[426]

The Hungarians now declared that they would take no further part in the

debates. On the other hand, the _Unitá Cattolica_ foretold how those

who had written or spoken as Gallicans would be converted by a miracle

of the Holy Ghost, even in the Council Hall; and as the Galileans had

been constrained to speak in other tongues, so would the Gallicans be

constrained to proclaim in that Hall before the astonished multitudes

the doctrine they had gainsaid.

The absorbing care of the Curia and its instruments was now directed

to the one end of constraining all to vote _placet_. The victory was

no longer doubtful, but to procure unanimity was of great practical

moment. The Pope himself was indefatigable. His admirers resented such

epithets as "unscrupulous" when applied to his conduct. But they took

good care not to grapple with the details of alleged facts which, if

they could be credibly told about the conduct of one of our sovereigns

in respect to his nobles or to Parliament, would be described in much

stronger epithets than unscrupulous. His tongue was evermore scattering

rebukes or blandishments, and enlivening the city with crackling sparks

of gossip. There were but few bishops of note among the minority whose

portraits, etched by the infallible acid, were not handed round the

_salons_, lay and clerical. His letters were bitter and undignified.

Quirinus quotes the words of a French bishop (p. 627): "There is no

longer any scruple as to what is done to gain votes. It is a horror.

There has never been anything like it in the Church." These words

recall to us a scene in Rome. A remarkable head--one of those heads

which bear on the brow a diploma of gifts and letters--was stooping in

the light of a lamp by which pages had been penned that had been heard

of beyond Italy. The stoop was pensive, and the thinker said, "I saw so

much of what was done during that Council, that it has destroyed all my

faith in anything that ever was done in the Church before."

It would seem as if, at the last, argument and appeal had begun to tell

on some of those who were of a milder mood among the Curialists. It is

said that even of the chosen three champions, Manning, Deschamps, and

Pie, the last wished to find some formula less offensive than the one

projected. Martin of Paderborn even proposed a note which contained

a recognition of the teaching authority of bishops, though in an

indirect way. On the other hand, the members of the Opposition tried to

discover some turn of expression which would save the Church from the

shame of being publicly disavowed by her wilful lord. Conolly spoke of

proposing, as a formula which would still give her a recognised voice,

words declaring the Pope infallible when he spoke, "as head of the

Church teaching with him." Others again wished to reinstate the formula

of St. Antoninus, of Florence, declaring the Pope infallible when he

acts with the counsel of the universal Church.[427]

Men now began to realize the full effect of the proposed dogma, both

in its executive and in its retrospective aspects. Many must have

remembered how happy they had been in argument, or in diplomacy, when

the ambiguous state of the case, as it had hitherto existed, enabled

them to evade the charge that such and such were the principles of the

Church. It was so convenient to be able to say No, they have never been

sanctioned by a Council; they are only the words of a Papal Decree.

Now, however, all these words were to have fresh life breathed into

them, and whatever they contained affecting a general principle of

belief, or practice, was to be taken for divine,--was, in fact, to rank

as the word of God.

Delay now became the forlorn hope of the minority, and expedition

the watchword of the majority. The minority were sure that the Pope

would not be so cruel as to force them to continue in Rome during the

summer heats. Hence, they thought that by delay they were certain of

a prorogation before the fatal deed was done. They forgot the history

of the Pope's prisons and executions. Perhaps they had never read it,

or had used their fatal facility of calling an unpleasant statement a

lie. Antonelli had generally carried away the chief part of the blame

for the blood of the political victims. However, he seems completely

to have escaped reproach for the broiling of the bishops. Whether

the fierce language ascribed to the Pope was correct or not, nobody

doubted its aptness.[428] When even the faithful M. Veuillot said,

Since they have put the Council upon the gridiron, they shall broil

(ii. p. 352), everyone treated him as only echoing the language of his

idol. When once the heats had begun to tell, the feelings of majority

and minority, as Vitelleschi points out, changed. Men from the north,

accustomed to the bracing air and pure streams of Germany, could ill

bear up against the miasma from the Roman marshes and the torrid heats

that were withering the city and making even natives look pale. They

therefore began to long for an escape, and not a few of them took

their way homewards. They received not only ready but glad permission.

Thus every day was diminishing the strength of the Opposition. The

majority, on the other hand, consisting of Italians, South Americans,

and Spaniards, were inured to the heats, if not to the malaria, and

felt that the sun and the marshes were conspiring with them. Apollo

had come to camp shooting over the heads of the natives, but laying low

the men from beyond the sea.

There was now only one consideration that would make the Pope anxious

for despatch, and that was the daily pressure upon his finances caused

by supporting his three hundred boarders. This certainly had proved a

useful ground of appeal for funds. The sums collected everywhere had

been great. The _Civiltá_ reproaches the Liberal Catholics with not

sending money any more than they had sent men to fight for the Holy

Father, and sets in contrast with their stinginess and want of military

spirit the fact that the _Univers_ alone had sent in more than nine

thousand pounds (234,410 francs).[429] The Holy Father said, "They fear

making the Pope infallible, but they do not fear making him fail."[430]

But M. Veuillot, on the contrary, did not fear making him infallible,

and did everything possible to prevent him from failing. Hence it was

no wonder that he should have briefs to publish which would perform

a service for the exchequer of the _Univers_ similar to what the

_Univers_ performed for the exchequer of the author of the briefs.

The words of the Pope spoken to the deputation of scientific men were

representative words, "Here I am to receive your offerings."

Theiner, the celebrated Prefect of the Vatican archives, now fell

publicly under displeasure. He had allowed Hefele and Strossmayer, and

perhaps others, to see the order of procedure of the Council of Trent,

and probably had in other ways shown leanings not acceptable to the

Jesuits. He was ordered to give up his keys to Cardoni, who had been

the first chosen secretly to prepare Drafts of Decrees on Infallibility

before intentions were disclosed, and had kept his counsel well. The

archives were actually closed against Theiner. It is said that the

passage into them from his own rooms was walled up. The disgrace of

Theiner, and the honour of Cardoni, sharply symbolized the favourite

saying that the dogma must conquer history. Here again Antonelli

escaped all reproach of a share in the blundering injustice. Cardoni

was one singled out by name in a celebrated letter of Döllinger as

having largely employed falsified authorities. But that charge, to us

so revolting, is a familiar sound wherever the shadow of the Curia

extends.[431] We ourselves once heard a member of the Congregation of

the Index claim, unmindful of the presence of a Protestant, "You must

never trust any edition of any work whatever that has passed through

the hands of the Jesuits."