Front matter (continued 13)

Such were the inhospitable jets spouted out upon Dr. Newman by the floundering creature on the back of which the twice "credulous mariner" had pitched his tent. Englishmen may smile at finding Dr. Newman aspersed with the reproach of Liberalism. His puerile spite at the very name of it, as shown in his writings, thus found its Nemesis. M. Veuillot, by a link of connexion which is not obvious, confesses that he too, in youth and inexperience, indulged in dreams of peace. But his mature ideas were ruled by a manlier spirit. "I dream of a long war—long, hot, inexorable, and one that will change the face of the world."

For some time past the Orientals had been receiving and giving cause for solicitude. The incident already related of the Chaldean Patriarch was but a symptom of general uneasiness. The Pontiff had resolved on abrogating the old right of electing bishops, under which the communities nominated three persons, of whom the Patriarch instituted the one whom he preferred. We have seen how the Chaldean Patriarch was overcome. Jussef, the Melchite Patriarch, refused to surrender his rights, and it is said that, in an audience before other Orientals, the Pope went so far as to seize him by the shoulders.[374] The Syrian Patriarch, on receiving the Pope's command, had taken to his bed, and had not yet answered. The Maronite Patriarch had refused his consent, and had, notwithstanding repeated invitations, stayed in Antioch, instead of coming on to the Council.

The Armenians, however, excited more attention than all the others. Their Patriarch, Hassun, had, some time before, surrendered his rights, and while, in consequence, rising high in favour with the Curia, had incurred ill-will among his own people. Rome, taking advantage of his concessions, had made new and exorbitant claims, on which the yoke of the Papacy was thrown off. Imperative orders to submit were disregarded. A special commissioner was sent from Rome to allay the disturbance, but his success was very limited.

For some time rumours had been floating about the city that two Oriental bishops had been thrown into prison. These changed to rumours of an arrest, and an escape. At last the Univers[375] published an account, stating that the theologian attached to an Armenian bishop had used such language respecting the authorities, that Cardinal Barnabò, Prefect of the Propaganda, had ordered him to the Convent of the Passionists. But he refused to go in such terms that the Cardinal Vicar was obliged to employ force. The theologian was then taken from the residence of the bishop, and put into a vehicle. He was, however, so violent that the "agents" let him escape into the house again, and though they there attempted a second time to take him, they finally gave way before the opposition of the bishop.

At the same time the Univers mentions "a much graver fact." The Pontiff had ordered an apostolic visitation of the convent of the Armenians, which stands just behind the Colonnade of St. Peter's. The twelve who once walked among men with the humble name of apostles would have little thought that an apostolic visitation should come to mean an inspection by an officer of the King and Pontiff of Rome. The Bishop Ksagian (sic) refused to receive the visitor. The Pope ordered the bishop to the Convent of St. Sabina. The bishop, however, refused to go, and appealed to Bishop Place, of Marseilles, to procure French protection for him.

Ce Qui se Passe au Concile (p. 144) says that Bahtiarian, an Armenian Archbishop, had his Vicar-General with him, against whom some one informed, as having spoken with hostility of Hassun, the Romanized Patriarch whom we have just mentioned, and of Valerga, the so-called Patriarch of Jerusalem. Cardinal Barnabò ordered the Vicar-General to a Jesuit convent, but the Archbishop insisted that he would not allow him to go, except upon a written order from the Pope himself. We are not sure whether this represents the first scene in the account of the Univers.

Some days afterwards, proceeds Ce Qui se Passe au Concile, as Bahtiarian was going to say Mass, his Vicar-General followed him, carrying the missal, accompanied by another Armenian priest. In the street the Archbishop passed through a group of police, headed by an officer. They seized the two priests who were walking behind him, and dragged them to a vehicle. The Orientals valiantly defended themselves, and a struggle ensued. Hearing cries, the Archbishop turned back, and saw his Vicar-General down, and the missal on the ground being trampled upon. He rushed forward, pointing to the book, and crying, "It is the Gospel: it is the Gospel of Christ! Do you treat the Gospel like that?" The officer did not dare to do violence to the Archbishop, who managed to carry off his Vicar-General, and that day both of them took refuge in the Armenian Convent. It would seem that now followed the order for a visitation of the convent, which Archbishop Casangian (as this account correctly gives the name and title) resisted; and he, in turn, received an order to go to a convent for "retirement." It is even said that leave to quit Rome was refused by the police to all the Armenians, not excepting a bishop who was furnished with a medical certificate that it was necessary for his health.

The Civiltá and the Acta Sanctæ Sedis do not mention the arrests. The one says that Kasangian, as they spell his name, was Abbot-General by arbitrary election, the other that he was so by tolerance of the Pope. The visitation was first attempted by a Passionist Father, delegated by Pluym, a bishop in partibus, who had been by the Pope appointed Visitor-General of the Order. The attempt was resisted. The document which gives to Pluym his powers calmly says that "power divinely conferred resides in the Pope of loosing, by his sentence, the things bound by sentence of any judges whomsoever."[376] The disobedient Archbishop and the local Abbot were both ordered to another convent, for spiritual exercises, as long as the Pope should appoint. They both refused to go. Fresh letters gave the powers of visitor to no less a person than Valenziani, the bishop who in the Council read the Decrees. These letters declared Archbishop Kasangian deposed from the office of Abbot-General of the Order; declared the office of the Abbot of the monastery vacant, and all other offices within it whatsoever; declared that no authority existed in that house but what flowed from Valenziani, and declared that all pains and penalties he might impose should be ratified.

So armed, Valenziani presented himself with consummate address and admirable suavity. Even according to the Acta Sanctæ Sedis, he declared that his visitation had no object but to lead the Armenians to fulfil their duty. But the Orientals knew the double tongue. In his own words, they lent no obedient ear. Others say that they would not allow the Pope's brief to be read. Defied and defeated in the very "street of the Holy Office," Valenziani had the once terrible interdict fastened to the door of the rebellious convent. It was owing, says the Acta Sanctæ Sedis, to the clemency of the Holy See that the severest punishment, such as was due to the offence, was not inflicted.[377] Others told of different causes.

The protection of France being refused to the Armenians, the strange spectacle was seen, as Vitelleschi puts it, of brethren in Christ being forced to seek protection against His Vicar from a Turk (p. 130). Rustum Bey, the Ottoman ambassador, came from Florence, and, it is said, was not well received, by Antonelli, who gave him to understand that, in Rome, all priests were subjects of the Pope. But the ambassador would not waive the rights of the Porte, which, he alleged, was obliged to show favour to the Armenians, to prevent them from throwing themselves into the arms of Russia. The day of unity had not yet dawned. The poor world had still to suffer from more heads than one. Finally, after specious attempts of the authorities to get the Armenians into their power, and wonderful wariness and dexterity on the part of the Orientals, one morning the convent behind the colonnades of St. Peter's was found empty—not the first time that a convent had been left empty in Rome. The monks had somehow managed to take their flight from a spot only a few yards from the Inquisition and within rifle shot of scores of convents—in which "retirement" for "religious exercises" might have been, for them, a very serious matter. It is said that, before the flight, Rustum Bey told the monks, in case of need, to hoist the Turkish flag, and threatened that, if any harm was done to them, reprisals should be taken on Romish convents in Turkey. Indeed, M. Veuillot goes so far as to assert that they actually did hoist the Turkish flag, and also the French. He says that they executed the sentence of excommunication upon themselves (ii. 87). If they did hoist the Turkish flag, it would have been a curious sight to see the two emblems of religion and physical force which still survive in Europe—the crescent, and the keys and tiara—floating side by side, close by the prisons of the Inquisition and the circus where Nero gave to unity by physical force, his pontifical sanction. It was asserted that attempts were made to put the Armenian Archbishop of Tarsis also into "retirement."[378]

The exaggerated rumours afloat regarding espionage would be stimulated by anecdotes like the above. It seems to have been agreed, on all hands, that during the Council the force detailed for that important duty had been increased manifold. Friedrich mentions one Papal officer who said that out of every fifty persons fifteen were spies. He gave examples of people now living handsomely who were known to have nothing. One Marchese had set up his carriage. Why, Friedrich says, even the train-bearer of a Cardinal will give a dinner to the train-bearers of the other Cardinals in order to spy them out. He naturally enough remarks that a historian learns a good deal by finding himself amidst such a state of things. It enables him to understand many things in history. But, strangest of all, reflects the Professor, is it to find people looking on this worn-out system as the model for the whole earth. It is, however, just the fact that such a state of things was looked upon as the model for the whole earth, that gives a deep interest to every trait showing what that state of things really was.

Friedrich, remarking that the Count De Chambord, as a dispossessed prince who expected his throne back from the infallible Pope, very naturally was an Infallibilist, goes on to say that only dispossessed princes are papistically minded. They were nearly all waiting in Rome, and he had reason to know that they expected that the declaration of infallibility, and the things connected therewith, would lead to their restoration, as the Pope certainly expected that it would lead to the recovery of his own States.[379]

April 24 was the day fixed for the third public session. The first had been devoted to the opening ceremony, the second to the swearing of the Creed; but this was one for the promulgation of Decrees. Up to the last it was doubtful whether all the bishops of the minority would adopt the policy recommended by the leaders, not to cause any division into majority and minority till the struggle on infallibility itself came on. Some say that Kenrick and Strossmayer held out so far as to stay away. But Kenrick voted, although, as we have seen, he expressed regret at having yielded to others instead of following his own judgment. The robes for the day were red. The doors of the house were thrown open, and non-members who had a place in the galleries were not required to withdraw at the time when the Rules prescribed that they should do so. When the Decrees were handed from the throne, Valenziani read them out from the pulpit. Jacobini, the Sub-Secretary, then ascended it, and called out the name of Cardinal Mattei. "Absent!" cried a voice from near the throne. "Absent!" cried a voice from near the door, at the other end of the Hall. Jacobini then called out, "Constantine, Bishop of Porto"; and Patrizi, rising, said "Placet." "Placet," cried the voice from near the throne. "Placet," cried the voice from near the door, and the scrutineers and officers registered the vote. It was not long before a test name was called—that of Schwarzenberg, one of the few Cardinals older than the present pontificate. He had already advised the policy of concession for to-day, saying, "We must not blow our powder away." But this was not known to all the majority, and when the magnificent prince pronounced his Placet, there was a manifest expression of relief. When the Cardinals had all been called the names were no longer repeated—only the title of the See.

Cardinal Manning relates how diplomatists, who had hoped to see division, were struck as they looked from their galleries, and saw the leaders of the Opposition, one after another, stand up and pronounce their Placet. Friedrich says that the countenances of the Jesuits changed from gloom to delight, when Schwarzenberg, Hohenlohe, Darboy, and others, gave in their votes, and that they manifested a particular interest in that of Hefele. He also says that the gentlemen who were with him in the tribune figuring as theologians, but whom he calls train-bearers, were intensely anxious about the indispensable sunbeams, which, however, he adds, were for that day cut off from the Hall. Just as the Pope entered the assembly, the sunbeams did pass the threshold; and the gentlemen around him cried out, "The sun, the sun!" their eyes dancing for joy. After the Decrees had been passed, the Pope pronounced a short allocution, rejoicing in their unity, and saying, "Our Lord Jesus Christ gave peace to His apostles, and I also, who am His unworthy Vicar, in His name give peace to you." Friedrich says that some French bishops hailed this with clapping of hands, but that, instead of this being general, there were signs of dissatisfaction, and particularly from the galleries. The first statement is confirmed by the Acta Sanctæ Sedis.

Friedrich could hardly catch the formula in which the Pope announced his passing of the Decrees; but it struck him that it was not the same as that prescribed in the Rules; and on receiving the text as passed, he found that a change had been made without any intimation whatever having been given of it. To him the change was nothing, as the new form only said what he knew the previous one meant, although bishops had seriously differed with him for saying so. The Rules prescribe the formula, "We decree, enact, and sanction"; and this was now changed to the more compact and expressive Papistical formula, "We define, and, by apostolic authority confirm." The word "sanction" had a flavour of historic dualism.

The Curialists boasted, after this session, that they had gained three points, and the statement of them shows a clear conception of their own strategy and of the positions to be won:[380] first, the Pope had, for the first time in three hundred and fifty years, proclaimed Decrees in a Council in his own name only, merely mentioning the Council as approving; secondly, the new Rules had been accepted; thirdly, the final clause of the Decrees carried the conclusion that the former dogmatic Decrees of the Popes were accepted as of authority. This last point alone was of prodigious consequence, and vindicates Friedrich's discernment in tracing the Curial system at first sight in these apparently elementary and rather feeble chapters. Only one fortnight earlier, as we have seen, Cardinals and prelates declared that they and the majority of bishops in great nations had taught in direct contradiction to the Bull Unam Sanctam. But from to-day both that Bull and, among others, the Ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV, the father of the Roman Inquisition, were of Divine authority! Or, as Quirinus puts it, "Rules of faith for the whole Catholic world, and thus it will be taught universally in Europe and America, henceforth, that the Pope is absolute master in temporal affairs also; that he can order war or peace, and that every monarch or bishop who does not submit to him, or helps any one separated from him, ought to be deprived of his throne, if not of his life" (p. 471).

The Decrees contain eighteen anathemas! Vitelleschi says, that of those in the cathedral who paid any attention to the proceedings, none seemed ever to reflect that, as Catholics, they would lie down that night with new articles of faith and new declarations (anathemas) weighing on their intellect and conscience. "Authority" teaches men to admit new creeds with awful facility, and to utter anathemas almost as readily as a primitive Christian would have said, God bless you! The Curialists did not exaggerate the substantial victory which had been won, or the practical importance of the three points already specified. The legislative effect of those points upon what little of constitutional arrangements had still been left in the Romish communion was very great. They linked all the past dogmatic Decrees of the Popes to the authority of the Creator of the world. The unfailing interpreter of the view taken by the Court of the position of affairs, M. Veuillot, says (i. 472), "The last paragraph confirms all the Constitutions, and apostolical Decrees, which condemn the errors of the times. Thus have the condemnations pronounced in the Syllabus received the official stamp."[381]

Even the anathemas were pleasant to M. Veuillot's cultured taste. "You have read the eighteen anathemas against errors pronounced in the old form of the sovereignty of the Church." Some had said that there would be no more anathemas, some that they did not want any more. "But there they are, and there they are for eternity. In my view, the work of revolt accomplished during a hundred years falls smitten with old age" (ii. 45, 46).

Not long afterwards, chiding the Figaro, the Gaulois, and other journals, for asking what the Council was doing, he replied, "The Council is making a wide and deep furrow like the grave of a world. You will go down into that furrow, and you will not spring up" (ii. 58). As to the plébiscite then about to be taken in France, he said that he could not vote Yes, because that would be permanently handing oneself over to princes who would not take any engagement to the Church; and he would not say No, for he did not wish to precipitate disasters (ii. 66).

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER IV

To the End of the General Debate on the Decrees De Ecclesia, June 3—Temporal Benefit to the Curia of Spiritual Centralization—Spalding's Proposals—Impatience of the Pope and Veuillot—Outcry against Ce Qui se Passe au Concile—All other Subjects to be Postponed, and Infallibility to be brought on out of its order—Renewed protest of Minority—Open Change of Dispute from one on Opportuneness to one on the Merits of the Dogma—Anecdotes of Bishops—Violations of Rules—Private Notes of Bishops on the Dogma—Doubts cast on the Authority of the Council—Formula of New Decree—How it will Work.

"Who would not gladly pay a handsome sum to be armed with an infallible decision which will at once crush all opposition and put down all adversaries?"[382] This was the practical question suggested by the speculations of Romans. Increased resort to the oracle would certainly follow the lifting of its Decrees above all dispute. What, indeed, they might well ask, would not a party in some hot dispute pay for a Decree that could never be disturbed? and in high affairs of State, when some Crœsus had set his heart on a great enterprise, would he not make offerings to the oracle, which even a Herodotus might rejoice to immortalize? Moreover, as Quirinus adds, almost every Roman had a brother, an uncle, or a cousin, in the clerical circle around which the profits would be distributed. If bishops, with countries to call their own, feared the result of the attempt to set up clerical authority above civil, Roman prelates who had no country, but were only the political dependents of foreigners, openly declared that they looked upon the restoration of spiritual authority over temporal affairs as the one thing called for by the times. So long as this notion was confined to the Roman prelates proper, one could comprehend it. They had lived apart from men and affairs, except their own affairs, and were absolute strangers to the actual age and world. But that bishops from free countries or great ones should entertain such dreams, or while not themselves sharing in the illusions, should adopt the religious expedients by which it was hoped to give them effect, is marvellous. Perhaps it may be partly explained by that weakening of the individual conscience and will, through the principle of authority, to which Vitelleschi so instructively refers; by that complete personal dependence of bishops on the Curia for consideration, and even for means, which is noted on all hands; by the unbroken habit of yielding to Rome, or of being beaten in every attempt at resistance; by old age, and by the incurable isolation of the men themselves from humanity. They were men bound, as we view it, only by artificial ties, to a guild bent upon ruling the world, while they themselves received gold rings and goodly apparel for bearing their share in the enterprise. Or, as they viewed it, they were men separated from the world, identified only with the Church and the clergy, and utterly dependent upon the Vicar of God. What could they do? A quarrel with a government had hitherto always brought a bishop glory, but not so a quarrel with the Curia. In the former case, the Pope took care to make up to the bishop in professional advantage more than he could lose by political collision. In the latter case, no government could or would make up to him for disgrace or ruin. A martyr bishop was one of the most effective figures in every Church display. A great occasion would be comparatively dull without one. Governments could make no such use of bishops who might suffer for loyalty.

It is curious to find in the Archbishop of Baltimore one of the keenest partisans of infallibility. Formerly, Dr. Spalding had foretold that the dogma would only occasion difficulties, and had advised resistance. The causes of his new zeal were of course discussed in Rome, where changes of opinion are liable to be assigned to personal rather than to public motives. Spalding prepared a formula of infallibility to the effect that all Papal decisions must be received with internal assent. It is even said that he took this for a mild form compared with the direct declaration of the doctrine. Two of his American colleagues, on the other hand, the Archbishops of St. Lewis and of Cincinnati, bore a distinguished part among the prelates of the minority, as did also the Archbishop of Halifax.[383] Kenrick, of St. Lewis, left an impression of force equalled only by few prelates in the assembly.

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 œcumenicity.[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 œcumenicity 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 œcumenicity. 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 œcumenicity 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:

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 "œcumenical" is obvious; but they inflict a wound on themselves. For a Council is not held to be œcumenical 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 Œcumenical Councils, or even with the Decrees passed in the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance. Even were the œcumenicity 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.