Front matter (continued 14)

Let it not be said that this unity would become stricter after the central authority had been rendered stronger, for the consequence does not follow. It is not enough to be one, but we must also have that kind and that degree of unity which are required by the nature and character of the case, and by the law and necessity of life. Nay, it may be that a thing shall wretchedly perish, precisely for the reason that it has been reduced to an overstrained unity; for in that condition its internal forces cannot exercise themselves and discharge their vital functions, being broken and crushed by the bond of an overstrained and exaggerated unity. So in respect of moral force, the unity of men, when acting freely and with vigour under law, is looser yet more comely than is the unity of bondsmen sluggishly existing under tyranny.

Therefore, let us not separate the bishops from the Holy Pontiff, nor the Pontiff from the bishops. Let us faithfully hold the ancient rule of faith and the things ordained of the Fathers, and that all the more because the proposed definition will give rise to many and serious inconveniences.

It can scarcely be doubted that this remedy will be powerless for healing the evils of the day; and indeed it is to be feared that to very many it will be injurious. The matter must be looked at not merely in a theological point of view, but also in its aspects towards civil society; for surely we do not sit here as so many head-sacristans, or superiors of little Congregations, but as men received into a share of his solicitude by the chief Pontiff, who holds the care of the entire Church. Let us, therefore, prudently survey the condition of the world.

Will personal and independent infallibility raise again from the grave the extinct Churches on the African shores? or will it awake out of sleep that East which once bloomed with so many talents and virtues? Will it be easier for our brethren, the Vicars Apostolic, to bring back Pagans, Mohammedans, and Schismatics, to the Catholic faith, if they teach them that the Pope is infallible by himself? Will the definition encourage and animate Protestants, and other heretics, to draw near to the Roman Church, laying aside all their prejudices and animosities? So far for distant regions.

But what of Europe? I say it with grief—the Church is banished from everything. She is banished from those Congresses in which peace and war between nations is determined, and in which, in former times, the authority of the Holy See prevailed; whereas now decisions affecting that See itself are taken, and it may not give its opinion. The Church is banished from the legislative bodies in several kingdoms of the Church; and if here and there some prelates or priests are found in them, it seems a wonder. She is banished from the schools where grave errors stalk with impunity; from the laws which profess to be secular in their nature, and hence are irreligious; from the family where civil marriage taints morals. Almost all those who are at the head of human affairs in Europe either shun us or keep us at a distance.

Again, in these straits of the Church, what remedy is offered to the world in travail? The promoters of the proposed Decree wish us to lay a new and, therefore, heavy and odious load on those who are already shaking from their indocile shoulders burdens imposed of old time and rendered venerable by usage of our Fathers. They almost crush all who are of weak faith, with a new and inopportune dogma, a dogma never heretofore defined, and to some extent damaged by wounds received in this discussion, and one to be pronounced by a Council, of which many assert and declare that its liberty is less evident than it should have been. It is hoped by this definition of a personal and separate infallibility to be able to heal everything, to strengthen faith in all, and to improve morals. But in vain is it hoped. The world is sick or dying, not for want of knowing the truth, or the teachers of it, but because it shuns the truth and will not submit to it. If, therefore, the world rejects the truth, when it is preached by the whole body of the Teaching Church—that is, by eight hundred bishops scattered all over the world and infallible in connexion with the Holy Pontiff—how much more will it reject that truth when it is preached by one Infallible Teacher, and that teacher recently declared to be such! But again: in order that authority may prevail and effectually operate, it is not enough that it be affirmed; it must also be accepted. It does not suffice, therefore, to declare the Pope infallible, personally and separately from the bishops, but he must be received as such by all, if he is not to exercise his office in vain. For instance, what avails an anathema when the authority of him who excommunicates is disregarded? And, most reverend Fathers, pray permit one instance more. The Syllabus went all through Europe, and what evil has it healed, even in those places where it was received as an infallible oracle? At that time two kingdoms remained wherein religion still flourished, ascendant not only in fact, but also by law; I mean Austria and Spain. Yet in those two kingdoms this Catholic order has fallen to the ground, although commended by infallible authority,—ay, perhaps, at least in Austria, exactly for the reason that it was commended by it.

Let us, therefore, look at matters as they stand. The separate and independent infallibility of the most Holy Pontiff, so far from removing the objections and prejudices which turn many away from the faith, is increasing and aggravating them. Very many even of those who are not hostile to the Catholic religion are now meditating what they call separation of the Church from civil society. Not a few of those who lead public affairs lean in this direction, and they will gladly seize the opportunity, given by the proposed definition, to carry this separation into effect. Besides, what will be done in France will soon be imitated more or less throughout Europe, certainly not without serious loss to the Church and the clergy. Whether they mean it or not, the promoters of the proposed Decree are, by their definition, instituting a new order of things full of risks, and that all the more if they do not more exactly determine the matters to which personal infallibility extends; and [if they do not determine] whether it will be possible to assert that the Pope, when defining in matters pertaining to morals, does by that act pronounce as to the civil and political conduct of kings and nations, and as to the laws and rights which are now reputed to belong to the public authority. No one skilled in politics can fail to see what seeds of contention our proposed Decree contains, and to what perils the temporal power of the Holy See itself is exposed. But to enter into this fully would be tedious, perhaps indiscreet; for certainly I could not adduce here all the arguments which come to my hand, without touching upon several things which prudence counsels me to avoid. I have relieved my conscience as far as possible. Accept my words for the worth which your judgment may award to them. I know, indeed, that disadvantages are attached to any course, and that we are not always to abstain from acting because disasters may follow; but I do not ask the venerable Fathers to fall suddenly into my views, but rather ask that they may maturely consider and balance the arguments in favour of the one view and the other. I also know that we are not to make puerile concessions to public opinion, but no more are we pertinaciously to thwart it. It is wiser and more adroit to adjust many things with it, and in any case to take it into account. And, finally, I know that the Church does not need the temporal arm, but neither does she repel the assent and aid of civil society; and, as I take it, she did not, in the days of Constantine, weakly sigh for a renewal of the days of Nero.

Quirinus says that a suppressed murmur running through the ranks of the majority as Darboy spoke, seemed to herald coming storms (p. 553).

On May 23, Ketteler is said to have made a real impression—indeed, Vitelleschi intimates that he made converts (p. 162)—by a strong representation of the effect of the proposed Decrees on what remained of episcopal jurisdiction. On the same day Ginoulhiac, who had been Bishop of Grenoble, but had just been made Archbishop of Lyons, did what was looked upon as a deed of high courage by opposing the definition.

At the same time an incident occurred which caused all Rome to talk of the Pope's personal energy in pushing his policy, and to whisper as to the mysterious connexion of political movements in different countries with the silent will of Rome. Though Portugal no longer occupied, in the eye of the world, the place she once held, her importance to the Papacy was still great. News arrived that the Duke of Saldanha had, by a military pronunciamento, assailed the King in his palace, and compelled him to accept a new Ministry, with himself for its head. He was of the clerical party, and immediately found a pretext for quarrelling with the minister representing Italy. The tidings of these events no sooner reached Rome than the Pope visited the national church of the Portuguese in the city. His organ, the Osservatore Romano, in announcing the fact, said that his Holiness had wished to inspect the restoration of the Church made by the Duke of Saldanha when ambassador in Rome. The impression made was that the Pope wished, before all the bishops and princes, to give the Duke the only mark of approbation in his power. Vitelleschi observes that a pronunciamento is the worst form of revolution, because it disturbs the highest expression of order and violates the faith which holds soldiers to their flag (p. 165). What, however, is revolution when directed against the supernatural order, is restoration and reconstruction when it favours the sacred cause.

The time for the definition was now rather peremptorily fixed by the authoritative organs. The day of Mary, the day of Joseph, the Epiphany, and the Ascension, and other very good days, had all in turn failed; but it was to be on St. Peter's Day, and was not that the fittest day of all?

The Archbishop of Westminster, in the name of the committee, spoke, on May 25, for nearly two hours. Indeed, morning by morning the committee availed itself of the right of reply granted to its members exclusively, by setting up one of them to refute the objections advanced in the previous sitting. Kenrick says that he knew not which to admire most—Manning's diction, his delivery, his power, of command and frankness, or his ardour in urging and almost commanding the new definition.[413]

"I thought," says Kenrick, "of what used to be said of Englishmen living in Ireland, that they were more Irish than the Irish themselves. The Archbishop is certainly more Catholic than all the Catholics I have known hitherto. He himself feels no doubt as to pontifical infallibility, personal, separate, and absolute; and he will not permit others to feel any. He asserts that the doctrine is of faith, and as such he hardly asks the Council to define it, but rather predicts that it will do so—perhaps after the manner of those prophets who strive to bring events to pass by foretelling them. So far as concerns myself—as one whom sixty years that have passed over me since I began to learn the rudiments of the faith, have perhaps left as well instructed on the point in question as one who joined the Church about twenty years ago—I dare to assert that the opinion, as it is found in the proposed Decree, is not a doctrine of faith, and that it cannot become such by any definition whatsoever, even that of a Council. We are custodians of the deposit of faith, not lords of it. We are teachers indeed of the faithful committed to our care, in so far as we are witnesses."

Manning resented, graviter illud tulit, the attempt which had been made to raise a case of conscience in the mind of the bishops by asserting that any bishop would incur the guilt of a mortal sin who gave a vote in favour of infallibility without having duly investigated the question for himself; because his act would contribute to impose a new yoke on the faithful. This Manning held to be injurious to the dignity and the honour of the bishops; as if, says Kenrick, he denied that bishops could sin, or denied that they would be guilty of mortal sin if through negligence or idleness they failed rightly to inform their judgments.

Manning contended that infallibility was a supernatural grace—charisma—and, therefore, that it properly attached to a person. He would not hear of conditions being connected with the exercise of infallibility. He asserted that he who had bestowed this supernatural grace would also give the means for its due exercise.[414] Moreover, he took the ground that the Council had already, in the conclusion of the Decree which had been passed, committed itself to the doctrine of infallibility, and that it could not now recede. Kenrick replied that the assertion of Manning was one of several things which he had heard with stupefaction. They had been assured, he stated, as we have already seen, in the clearest terms by the reporter of the committee, that the clause referred to contained no doctrine, and that it was only a fitting conclusion to the four chapters of the Decree. Then follows the statement that the reporter had either himself been deceived or had knowingly deceived the minority.

In the sitting of May 25, MacEvilly, Bishop of Galway, also referred to Kenrick's argument, drawn from the fact that the Catholics of England and Ireland had been admitted to equal civil rights on the faith of repeated declarations, and even of oaths, to the effect that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was not binding on Catholics, and that consequently such edicts of Pontiffs as the Bull Unam Sanctam had not doctrinal authority. To this MacEvilly replied that the Catholics in England had been admitted to equal civil rights, not because of their declarations, but because the English government feared a civil war. The reply of Kenrick to this straightforward utterance is worthy of being given word for word—

The doctrine of Papal infallibility was always odious to the English government, and had it been really a doctrine of the faith, Protestants would have understood Papal doctrine better than English and Irish Catholics; for they knew that Roman Pontiffs had claimed the highest power in temporal things for themselves, and had attempted to drive several English kings from the throne by absolving their subjects from the oath of allegiance.

Catholics, by public oath repeatedly made, denied that such power belonged to the Roman Pontiff in the realm of England, and had they not done so, they never would have been or ought to have been admitted to equal civil rights.[415] How the faith thus pledged to the British government is to be reconciled with the definition of Papal infallibility may be looked to by those of the Irish prelate who have taken that oath as I myself did I cannot solve the difficulty as yet. I am Davus, not Ædipus. Nevertheless those civil rights were conceded to Catholics by men who through a long life had strongly opposed that course. They did indeed apprehend civil war; but they did not dread it in this sense, that a war of that kind could not be otherwise hurtful to the power of the government than by causing a disturbance of the peace for a certain time.

They feared the occurrence of a war, not the result of it, as to which no sensible man could have been uncertain. Those great men preferred to yield rather than to conquer by the slaughter of a brilliant nation, and of a people worthy of a better fate, even in what seemed to them its errors. Oh that here the same spirit of moderation which they exhibited may be displayed by the majority of the bishops who are listening to these words, and that by a prevision of the calamities which may arise to us from this hapless controversy, they may, in circumstances calling for consummate moderation, ward off from us, who are fewer, but who represent a greater number of Catholics than those who are opposed to us, evils which it is not possible to anticipate without horror, and which it would be impossible to repair by a late repentance.

On the one hand, we cannot but regret that these words, fitly written, were not actually spoken in the deaf ears of the resolved majority. On the other hand, we remember that had they been spoken, they would have sunk into the Vatican archives, and would never have been heard of more till those graves give up their dead. They now belong to history, and furnish a living link in a chain of memorable professions and performances. The denationalizing influence of the Papacy had still left something of the citizen alive in the soul of Kenrick. During his stay in Rome, when witnessing the paltry tyrannies that flounced about under the dependent banner of the Pope, all of the citizen that was left in him must have turned with fresh respect to the two flags of the free under which he had spent his days—the flags of England and America. And yet there were those sitting there, each with all the rights of a free man in his hands, planning to reconstruct the society of England and America on the degraded and fettered model of the States of the Roman Bishop. There is a crime which no code has defined—the crime, not of breaking one specific law of one's country, but of contriving, with a foreign pretender, how to overturn everything vital in a venerable and generous legislation.

It was not merely by a pupil of Maynooth that the eager ex-Anglican was considered extreme in his views. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, spoke on the same day, refuting the notions of Manning about the favourable effects to be produced by his beloved dogma in England, and appealing to him as a witness that an eminent statesman had represented the influence of the recent course of the Curia upon public opinion in England as being much to the disadvantage of their own cause, and greatly to the encouragement of extreme Protestants.[416]

In the next Congregation, on the 28th, it was Senestrey who took the post occupied on the last morning by Manning, that of official respondent against attacks. On that day, a scene was raised by Verot, of Florida. He declared that they were making innovations in the Church, and that such an innovation as the personal infallibility of the Pope was sacrilege. That horrid word applied in the sacred place to an object so dear to the Pope, touched indeed the apple of the eye. Sacrilege! The Cardinals de Angelis and Capalti, says Vitelleschi, quite lost their temper; and a scene ensued which for anger and excitement is said to have fallen but little short of Strossmayer's scene in March.[417] The odious, and to well-tuned Curialistic ears the inconceivable, task of hearing the infallibility of the Pope denied, and of seeing his pleasure daily thwarted under the roof of St. Peter's, was not to be endured any longer. The word passed that the power given by the new Rules to close the debate must be called into requisition.

A trusty American was set up in the next meeting, by the committee, to repair the mischief done by Verot—Spalding, of Baltimore. Here, again, we are indebted for light to Kenrick's unspoken speech. Referring to the moral question which had been raised by Kenrick, to which we have already seen allusions, Spalding said that it called for as much investigation to justify one in giving a negative as in giving an affirmative vote on the question of Papal infallibility, and that in withholding an affirmative vote one would confirm the celebrated Gallican articles.

On May 31, Valerga, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, made a vigorous attack on the minority, speaking cleverly, and hitting hard. Spirited, piquant, and insolent, is the description of Quirinus. Soon afterwards, another American was in the desk, Purcell, of Cincinnati. Quirinus says that he affirmed that the Americans abhorred every doctrine opposed to civil and spiritual freedom; and that the American sons of the Church loved her, because she was the freest society in the world. He also took the position that, as kings existed for the good of the people, so the Pope existed for the good of the Church. On the same day spoke Conolly, Archbishop of Halifax. He seems to be the only one in the Council who really related a theological experience, declaring that he had formerly believed in the personal infallibility of the Pope, and had come to Rome believing that the Augsburg Gazette had circulated a calumny in representing the dogmatizing of this opinion as the real object of the Council. He went on to say that, on finding what was expected of him, he determined to sift the arguments of the Roman theologians and the proofs by which they supported them. He now bore witness to the result upon his own views. All antiquity, he declared, explained the passages harped upon by those theologians, in a sense different from theirs. All antiquity bore witness against the notion that the Pope alone, and separate from the bishops, was infallible. He further took the ground that to found a dogma on the rejection of the traditional interpretation of Scripture was pure Protestantism. I will have nothing, he said, turned into dogma but the indubitable Word of God. Ten thousand theologians do not suffice for me, and on the present subject no theologian should be quoted who lived subsequent to the Isidorean forgeries. To define the dogma would be to bring the Vatican Council into contradiction with the three General Councils which had condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic, to narrow the gates of heaven, to repel the East, and to proclaim, not peace, but war. In reply to Manning, he protested that no one was justified in calling an opinion proximate heresy when it had not been condemned as such by the Church.[418]

On June 3, Gilooly, Bishop of Elphin, replying to some observation of Purcell as to the oaths and declarations, said[419] that Catholics had not denied that they held the infallibility of the Pope as a doctrine of the faith, but as a dogma of the faith; that is as a dogma defined by a General Council. To this, Kenrick's unspoken speech replies, "If that is what was meant, which I do not believe, we might be reproached, and that rightfully and deservedly, with not shrinking, in a very grave matter, from the concealment of our meaning by scholastic distinctions."[420] According to Quirinus (p. 661), Cardinal Bonnechose prevailed upon Cardinal de Angelis to ask the Pope, directly, if he would not consent to a prorogation of the Council on account of the heat, now intolerable to all but Romans, or men from the southward of Rome. The reply was stern and, according to many, savage. Whatever were the terms of it, the substance was indubitable—no adjournment was to be allowed till the Decree of Infallibility was passed. It is said that when Bishop Domenec, of Pittsburg, in America, began his discourse, he was greeted with laughter by the majority, and when he made the very plain and simple statement—one which he might have picked up from any intelligent or travelled Italian any day in the year—that American Catholics were not merely nominal ones, as the Italians were, Cardinal Capalti imperiously commanded silence.[421] Strossmayer had spoken at length on June 2, and with such moderation as to escape even a call to order, yet, it is said, with very great force. On the 3rd, Moriarty, of Kerry, took the side of Purcell, Kenrick, and MacHale, but we have no particulars of his speech.[422] That day Maret was in the desk speaking in the loud and labouring tone of a deaf man, arguing, not only against the convictions and feelings of the majority, but against their personal detestation of himself. He made a point that either the Council was to give infallibility to the Pontiff, in which case the Council must be a higher authority than he, or else the Pontiff was to give to himself an infallibility which he had not previously possessed, in which case he would change the constitution of the Church by his own power alone. Then Cardinal Bilio interrupted, and cried, "The Council does not give anything, nor can it give anything. It gives its suffrage, and the Holy Father decides what he pleases."[423] The representative of all that was left of the once courageous Gallican liberties asked if he might be allowed to proceed, and did so. The minority had a long list of speakers still inscribed. Kenrick was waiting for his turn, and so were Haynald, Dupanloup, and many others; but a fresh surprise was at this point sprung upon them. The Presidents produced a requisition for the close of the general debate, signed by above one hundred and fifty bishops.[424] De Angelis at once called on those who were for the closing of the debate to stand up. He then declared, "A large majority have stood up, and by the power conferred upon us by Our Most Holy Lord (the capitals are official), we close the debate on the general question." The Acta Sanctæ Sedis say that about fifty remained sitting. No wonder that, after hearing sixty-five speakers, the Fathers were weary. Yet, no wonder, on the other hand, that the minority should allege that, while it was perfectly reasonable to close a debate in this manner when the object was that of making temporal laws liable to be unmade, or re-made, a year later, it was neither reasonable nor fair, and above all, it was not agreeable to any precedent, to past professions, or to any ecclesiastical principle, to close a debate upon a dogma while yet there were prelates wanting to bear witness to the tradition of their respective Churches. According to all their theologians, dogma was not to be made by mere opinion, but by evidence of the fact that the opinion in question had been believed from the beginning. Protestants would naturally say that it was time to bury this pretence under any heap; but men whose life had been spent under the illusion of the pretence naturally felt otherwise. They had not seen that when the Church adopted the principle of tradition instead of that of Scripture, the Spouse, while professing only to supplement the word of her Lord, really entered on a course which must lead to setting it aside in favour of her own word, and that when she had adopted the principle of general consent, instead of that of clear apostolical tradition, she had set aside the principle of antiquity for that of a majority amounting to a moral whole, and that now she was only proceeding a step further in substituting the principle of a numerical majority for that of moral unanimity. But one step more remained, and that was not far off. The Spouse who had put aside the authority of her Lord to exalt her own, was to find, not only her authority, but even her consent, formally repudiated before all men by the master whom she had, in the house of her Lord, set up in His place. In that house the talk was evermore of her authority, her wisdom, her infallibility, her glory, her stores of merit and her streams of blessing, and but rarely was her Lord heard of, except as having conferred the regency on her. Now drew nigh the day when the self-asserting Spouse was, before all men whom her loud vauntings had aroused, to receive on her brow such a stigma from her self-chosen Master as has seldom in set terms been affixed to a society by its head. Meantime the blow which had just been dealt seemed fatal to all the hopes of the minority. So once more they dragged their robes down the marble way of St. Peter's with defeat behind them, but this time with annihilation close before, though not till after further strange experiences.

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VI

To the Close of the Special Debate on Infallibility, July 4—Proposal of the Minority to resist—They yield once more—Another Protest—Efforts to procure Unanimity—Hope of the Minority in Delay—Pope disregards the Heat—Disgrace of Theiner—Decree giving to Pope ordinary Jurisdiction everywhere—His Superiority to Law—Debate on Infallibility—Speech of Guidi—Great Emotion—Scene with the Pope—Close of the Debate—Present view of the Civiltá as to Politics—Specimens of the Official Histories—Exultation.

Any one who had observed the course of the minority in emergencies would have probably foretold that, under the new trial, they would feel indignant, would speak of doing something, and would end with a protest. So it proved. The very day of the forcible conclusion of the general debate, the French bishops met, and were favourable to some determined action.[425] But the next day, eighty congregated in the rooms of Cardinal Rauscher. The Hungarians, French, and Americans, with Strossmayer, Clifford, and Conolly, are named by Quirinus as recommending that the Fathers of the Opposition should cease to take any part in the Council, reserving themselves for the final vote, and should then give their Non placet. The Germans, however, always marplots, urged that the better course would be to adopt a protest, and continue to take part in the proceedings. This counsel prevailed. Rauscher drew up a form of protest, which was signed by some eighty prelates, and many of the bishops took a trip to Naples or elsewhere.

Among the things represented by Quirinus as having been said on this occasion, one was to the effect that in a Parliament speeches were of some use, for if they did not influence votes, they did enlighten public opinion; but in this Council, most of the hearers were, from their degree of culture, quite incapable of apprehending theological arguments, not to add that, in a moral point of view, many of them stood so low that even if convinced they would not act on their convictions. The ground taken in the protest is clear, namely, that the right of supporting their votes by a statement of reasons, is one which, by the very nature of a Council, belongs not only to some of its members, but to them all, and that such a right could not be taken away by any vote of a majority.[426]

The Hungarians now declared that they would take no further part in the debates. On the other hand, the Unitá Cattolica foretold how those who had written or spoken as Gallicans would be converted by a miracle of the Holy Ghost, even in the Council Hall; and as the Galileans had been constrained to speak in other tongues, so would the Gallicans be constrained to proclaim in that Hall before the astonished multitudes the doctrine they had gainsaid.

The absorbing care of the Curia and its instruments was now directed to the one end of constraining all to vote placet. The victory was no longer doubtful, but to procure unanimity was of great practical moment. The Pope himself was indefatigable. His admirers resented such epithets as "unscrupulous" when applied to his conduct. But they took good care not to grapple with the details of alleged facts which, if they could be credibly told about the conduct of one of our sovereigns in respect to his nobles or to Parliament, would be described in much stronger epithets than unscrupulous. His tongue was evermore scattering rebukes or blandishments, and enlivening the city with crackling sparks of gossip. There were but few bishops of note among the minority whose portraits, etched by the infallible acid, were not handed round the salons, lay and clerical. His letters were bitter and undignified. Quirinus quotes the words of a French bishop (p. 627): "There is no longer any scruple as to what is done to gain votes. It is a horror. There has never been anything like it in the Church." These words recall to us a scene in Rome. A remarkable head—one of those heads which bear on the brow a diploma of gifts and letters—was stooping in the light of a lamp by which pages had been penned that had been heard of beyond Italy. The stoop was pensive, and the thinker said, "I saw so much of what was done during that Council, that it has destroyed all my faith in anything that ever was done in the Church before."

It would seem as if, at the last, argument and appeal had begun to tell on some of those who were of a milder mood among the Curialists. It is said that even of the chosen three champions, Manning, Deschamps, and Pie, the last wished to find some formula less offensive than the one projected. Martin of Paderborn even proposed a note which contained a recognition of the teaching authority of bishops, though in an indirect way. On the other hand, the members of the Opposition tried to discover some turn of expression which would save the Church from the shame of being publicly disavowed by her wilful lord. Conolly spoke of proposing, as a formula which would still give her a recognised voice, words declaring the Pope infallible when he spoke, "as head of the Church teaching with him." Others again wished to reinstate the formula of St. Antoninus, of Florence, declaring the Pope infallible when he acts with the counsel of the universal Church.[427]

Men now began to realize the full effect of the proposed dogma, both in its executive and in its retrospective aspects. Many must have remembered how happy they had been in argument, or in diplomacy, when the ambiguous state of the case, as it had hitherto existed, enabled them to evade the charge that such and such were the principles of the Church. It was so convenient to be able to say No, they have never been sanctioned by a Council; they are only the words of a Papal Decree. Now, however, all these words were to have fresh life breathed into them, and whatever they contained affecting a general principle of belief, or practice, was to be taken for divine,—was, in fact, to rank as the word of God.

Delay now became the forlorn hope of the minority, and expedition the watchword of the majority. The minority were sure that the Pope would not be so cruel as to force them to continue in Rome during the summer heats. Hence, they thought that by delay they were certain of a prorogation before the fatal deed was done. They forgot the history of the Pope's prisons and executions. Perhaps they had never read it, or had used their fatal facility of calling an unpleasant statement a lie. Antonelli had generally carried away the chief part of the blame for the blood of the political victims. However, he seems completely to have escaped reproach for the broiling of the bishops. Whether the fierce language ascribed to the Pope was correct or not, nobody doubted its aptness.[428] When even the faithful M. Veuillot said, Since they have put the Council upon the gridiron, they shall broil (ii. p. 352), everyone treated him as only echoing the language of his idol. When once the heats had begun to tell, the feelings of majority and minority, as Vitelleschi points out, changed. Men from the north, accustomed to the bracing air and pure streams of Germany, could ill bear up against the miasma from the Roman marshes and the torrid heats that were withering the city and making even natives look pale. They therefore began to long for an escape, and not a few of them took their way homewards. They received not only ready but glad permission. Thus every day was diminishing the strength of the Opposition. The majority, on the other hand, consisting of Italians, South Americans, and Spaniards, were inured to the heats, if not to the malaria, and felt that the sun and the marshes were conspiring with them. Apollo had come to camp shooting over the heads of the natives, but laying low the men from beyond the sea.

There was now only one consideration that would make the Pope anxious for despatch, and that was the daily pressure upon his finances caused by supporting his three hundred boarders. This certainly had proved a useful ground of appeal for funds. The sums collected everywhere had been great. The Civiltá reproaches the Liberal Catholics with not sending money any more than they had sent men to fight for the Holy Father, and sets in contrast with their stinginess and want of military spirit the fact that the Univers alone had sent in more than nine thousand pounds (234,410 francs).[429] The Holy Father said, "They fear making the Pope infallible, but they do not fear making him fail."[430] But M. Veuillot, on the contrary, did not fear making him infallible, and did everything possible to prevent him from failing. Hence it was no wonder that he should have briefs to publish which would perform a service for the exchequer of the Univers similar to what the Univers performed for the exchequer of the author of the briefs. The words of the Pope spoken to the deputation of scientific men were representative words, "Here I am to receive your offerings."

Theiner, the celebrated Prefect of the Vatican archives, now fell publicly under displeasure. He had allowed Hefele and Strossmayer, and perhaps others, to see the order of procedure of the Council of Trent, and probably had in other ways shown leanings not acceptable to the Jesuits. He was ordered to give up his keys to Cardoni, who had been the first chosen secretly to prepare Drafts of Decrees on Infallibility before intentions were disclosed, and had kept his counsel well. The archives were actually closed against Theiner. It is said that the passage into them from his own rooms was walled up. The disgrace of Theiner, and the honour of Cardoni, sharply symbolized the favourite saying that the dogma must conquer history. Here again Antonelli escaped all reproach of a share in the blundering injustice. Cardoni was one singled out by name in a celebrated letter of Döllinger as having largely employed falsified authorities. But that charge, to us so revolting, is a familiar sound wherever the shadow of the Curia extends.[431] We ourselves once heard a member of the Congregation of the Index claim, unmindful of the presence of a Protestant, "You must never trust any edition of any work whatever that has passed through the hands of the Jesuits."

The exciting matters now remaining to be treated in the Council were the all-important particulars of those Drafts which had already been under a general review. The two chapters teaching the institution of the primacy in the person of Peter, and the transmission of that primacy through the Roman Pontiffs as his successors, were speedily disposed of. Had all the fathers attempted to answer the arguments of Desanctis on these points, arguments familiar to many Italians, they would not have found it light work. But the third chapter was one of immense importance. It defined the scope and nature of primacy, distending that term till it was made to cover absolute, immediate, and ordinary control in the whole domain of the Church—control over bishops and people, control over not only all matters ordinarily included under the expression "faith and morals," but over all things held to be necessary for the government or discipline of the Church. This last expression, as any one acquainted with the views of those in authority, even so far as they are recorded in our preceding pages, must know, covers almost every possible question that can arise. The words of Vitelleschi (p. 174) are well considered. He speaks of the "supreme jurisdiction, ordinary and universal, of the Pope over all Churches, singly and collectively, over pastors as well as flocks; from which doctrine it follows that bishops in exercising any jurisdiction or authority, only do so as official delegates of the Pope." Dr. Langen puts it thus: "Seeing that there can be only one bishop in a diocese, as soon as the Pope is declared to have ordinary jurisdiction in that diocese, he becomes its Ordinary, and the other person called a bishop is nothing more than his delegate and representative."[432] Men who cover a dominion of this sort under the pretext of primacy, and who advance a claim of primacy in order to deduce from it an absolute dictatorship, never do anything more sensible than when they decry reason and relegate Scripture to the tradition-heap; when they call for pictures instead of books, and processions and fireworks instead of a free press and free discussion. There was political philosophy in M. Veuillot's exclamation on witnessing the Easter rejoicings in Rome, especially the fireworks representing "the heavenly Jerusalem," that it was impossible not to respect a people for whom such entertainments were provided.

The first assertion in the Decree of ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over all Churches, oddly does not describe that jurisdiction as belonging to the Pope, but as belonging to the Roman Church (par. 2). No sooner, however, has principality been ascribed to the Roman Church than it is instantly transferred to the Pontiff, and is again instantly affirmed to be a truly episcopal power. This confusion, in such a document, would be amusing if the matter were not so serious. That a Church should be a bishop is certainly new; and that a truly episcopal power should reside in a Church which is not a bishop, is one of the many mysteries created by the Vatican Council. But that the source of the Pontiff's authority should in this very Decree be sought in the Church, is a proof how hard a task is theirs who determine to make dogma conquer history. In the very language of the Decree, history conquers the dogma.

If the document contains this one taint of dualism as between Church and Pope, it is clear of all reproach of dualism as between the Pope and Princes. The latter are legislated out of all rights that could possibly conflict with those of their Lord Paramount. Notwithstanding the slight dualism as between Pope and Church, the latter is also legislated out of all her ancient claims; but incidentally she appears in clauses which, if she was only infallible without the consent of the Pope, as he is infallible without her consent, might in time prove very awkward. He has only as much infallibility as she has: that is a clumsy admission just before the assertion that he is infallible without her consent. However, wherever the power resides, or springs from, it is a power over all pastors and all believers, and extends, as we have said, not only to faith and morals, but to all things which affect the government of the Church. Thus it includes every mixed question whatsoever, and all things of any kind which in the estimation of the Pope of Rome may relate to the interests of that kingdom of which he is the king. This power, moreover, is immediate, and as such can act without being legally restricted to any processes, any agencies, or any forms. Being ordinary, it can never be obliged to wait until the ordinary jurisdiction has been tried and failed. Being immediate, it can never be told that it must take this, that, or the other line of procedure. This language for ever settles the point which had been contested in the famous passage of letters with Darboy.

How it could be necessary to add another word after these affirmations we can hardly see. Even Councils, or the pastors collectively, had but one office assigned to them—the office of obeying. After this the abstract proclamation of Infallibility, or Irreformability, or Inerrancy, could add nothing to a power that was universal, ordinary, and immediate, and towards which the people or bishops, singly or collectively, stood in one relation only—that of subjects in presence of an authority which they were bound absolutely to obey. It naturally follows that it is in this obedience that Rome finds unity. That is, in fact, her ideal of unity. Christians are Churchmen, not by being Christians, but by obeying the Roman Pontiff. Under the Papacy a Christian is outside the family of God if he does not obey the Cæsar of the Church.

Absolute authority over bishops and people having been asserted, next comes the assertion of authority over princes. This is done in a paragraph in which only students would see anything of the kind. The fourth paragraph of the third chapter begins by speaking of the Pope's right to free communication with the pastors and flocks of the whole Church. What could appear more natural, or less dangerous? Had we not seen how much the communications of the Pope amount to, we should have taken that as a meek and harmless claim. But the close of the paragraph shows that what the Pope means is the right of giving to his own edicts the binding force of a higher law in every country, whether the government consents or does not consent. As primacy means dictatorship, so communication means promulging laws in regard to which no human being has the right of reply, inquiry, complaint, or appeal; has, we repeat, no office whatever except that of obedience. We have seen that "teach" in our Lord's commission to the apostles means so to give law to the nations that they can never be justified in resisting. No prince can have any title to exercise an exequatur, placet, or any other form of check upon an edict of the Pope. Every man who denies the validity of a Papal law, because it is prohibited by the government of the country, is solemnly condemned; he interrupts the communication between the authority of the Pontiff and the conscience of his subjects. Indeed, the condemnation extends to all who even say that his decrees may be lawfully impeded in their execution. The reason of this appears in the next paragraph. The Pope is there formally declared the Supreme Judge of the faithful. Therefore all may justly resort to his judgment in all matters subject to ecclesiastical inquiry, and none may appeal from his judgment, for there is no authority greater than his. Matters subject to ecclesiastical inquiry must always include all those wherein the interests of the Papacy are in anywise involved. Next, even the old appeal to a General Council is formally condemned. Yet even that condemnation is bungled. None may appeal from the judgment of the Pope to a General Council "as an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff." Then, will lawyers say, we can only appeal to a General Council as an authority equal to the Roman Pontiff.

If these fourth and fifth paragraphs of the third chapter of the Decree on Primacy were read by a dozen educated Englishmen unused to Roman Catholic interpretations of Papal laws, nearly all of them would put aside clause after clause as not being of importance. They would take the damnamus and reprobamus as so much sulphur, and let it pass. Far otherwise Vitelleschi. "From a practical point of view," he says, "the declarations of infallibility could add nothing to the weight of this paragraph" (p. 177). Vitelleschi looks upon the express declaration of infallibility, in the next chapter, as no more than "indulgence in the luxury of self-assertion, to which absolute principles are prone." Yet when Mr. Gladstone pointed out the true range of the authority here set up, many of our politicians treated him as a statesman who had strayed out of his domain into theology. Since then, specimens of minimizing interpretation have been put into our own tongue, as curious as any furnished by the history of finesse. If there be one Canon expressing a rule absolute that needs no exception to prove it, we have it in the words, Rome never minimises. She always interprets her own documents as a legatee interprets a will, that is, in her own favour.

On June 15 the Council disposed of all the matters that stood in the way of the great question. Seventy-five speakers had entered their names. Two speeches were actually made on that day by Cardinals Mathieu and Rauscher.[433] The latter said that he could never assent to the doctrine of the Draft without mortal sin. "We knew all that from your pamphlet," cried Deschamps, interrupting. "But you have never refuted it," replied the Austrian.[434] The following day was the grand procession of the Corpus Christi. If the "good press" was parsimonious in information regarding debates and decrees, it was profuse in description of the spectacles. On the 17th, Pius IX entered on the twenty-fifth year of his pontificate. This year, according to Roman tradition, is fatal to the Pontiffs, it being held that Peter reigned twenty-five years, and that none of his successors was to reign longer. Vitelleschi declares that the twenty-fifth year proved fatal to Pius IX, as well as to the rest, because in the course of it he ceased to be a mere mortal. This phrase from a Liberal Catholic will seem natural when set beside one of M. Veuillot, on the day on which Pius IX completed the twenty-fifth year of his pontificate: "We are reminded of the radiance of Jordan and of Tabor, of the thunders of the Temple, 'This is my beloved Son, hear ye him'" (vol. ii. p. 468). On the next page he says, "God has left us His priest, His angel, the sacred interpreter of His law, the anointed intercessor between Him and the world ... a second Peter, a second Moses on the threshold of a new world." It remains to be seen whether the twenty-fifth year of Pius IX was or was not that of the final fall of the temporal power. If the speeches on the doctrine and polity of the Church were concealed, the Pope's speech this day, in reply to the Sacred College, was blazed abroad. He divided the bishops into three classes—the ignorant, the time-serving, and the good. So flowed abroad fresh streams from that fountain which, all the time, was sending forth both sweet waters and bitter.

On June 18, the debate on the fourth chapter, that is, on infallibility, really began. It was a day of Cardinals. Pitra, Guidi, Bonnechose, and Cullen were the sole orators. Hitherto, what with the heat and what with the feeling that all was over, no interest had attached to the renewed debates after the violent close of the general discussion. But the torpor was suddenly shaken. A speech by a Roman, a Dominican and a Cardinal (Guidi), came upon the city, says Vitelleschi, like a sudden thunderclap in a cloudless sky. The Cardinal, like nearly all the members of the Sacred College, was a "creature" of Pius IX. According to Vitelleschi, he began his speech as a Cardinal should, but, according to Quirinus, he offended at the very first. Unhappily, in a matter of difference of this kind, the writers who enjoyed "the radiance of infallibility" give us no light. So we are left at the mercy of those whose assertions were all lies in general, but somehow, when attacked in detail, generally proved to be truths in particular. In the present case, we do not remember that even M. Veuillot attempts to impugn any of the facts stated. However Guidi may have begun, he affirmed that the doctrine of Papal infallibility, as contained in the proposed Decree, was unknown to the Church up to the close of the fourteenth century. Proofs of this doctrine were to be sought in vain in either Scripture or tradition. As a practical question, when had the Pope ever defined one dogma alone, and without the Church? An act, he continued, might be infallible, but a person never. Hitherto infallible acts had proceeded from the Church, either by counsel of the Church dispersed, or by a Council. Inquiry was indispensable to ascertain "what was believed everywhere, and whether all Churches were in agreement with the Roman Church." After such inquiry, the Pope sanctioned "finally," as St. Thomas says; and thus only could it be said that "all taught through the Pope." Quoting Bellarmine, and even the modern Jesuit Perrone, he showed that "the Popes had never acted by themselves alone in defining doctrine, or by themselves alone in condemning heresies." At these words, Spaccapietra, an Italian, but Bishop of Smyrna, led in a disturbance. One bishop cried "Scoundrel!" another cried "Brigand!" Vitelleschi even speaks of violent gestures (p. 189). Guidi said he had the right to be heard, and that no one had given the right of the Presidents to the bishops; but he added, "You will have the opportunity of saying Placet or Non placet." Hereupon, from all ranks of the Opposition burst out a cry of "Optime! optime!"—excellent! excellent! "Do you agree with us?" asked a bishop of Manning. "The Cardinal's head is bewildered," was the reply. On this, says Quirinus, a bishop could not refrain from saying to the powerful Archbishop of Westminster, "It is your own head, Monsignor, that is bewildered, and more than half Protestant." If this language was really used, we must doubt whether it was infallible.

Guidi went on to advocate a change in the wording of the Decree, to the effect that the Pope acted with the concurrence of the bishops, and that after having, at their request, occasioned by prevalent errors, made inquiry in other Churches, he acted with the consent of his brethren, or with that of a collective Council. He contended that this was the doctrine of St. Thomas; that the word "final" implied something to precede, and that "supreme teacher and judge" presupposed "other teachers and tribunals." He concluded by proposing two Canons, the first of which declared Papal Decrees or Constitutions to be entitled to cordial faith and reverence, and not to be reformable; but the second said, If any one shall say that, in issuing such Decrees, the Pope can act arbitrarily without the counsel of the bishops as testifying to the tradition of the Church, let him be anathema.[435] On finishing his discourse, he at once handed his manuscript to the secretaries.

Quirinus relates that Valerga audibly said, in reply to some question, "Guidi is misguided." But his neighbour replied that Guidi's speech contained nothing but the truth. "Yes," rejoined the Patriarch of Jerusalem, "but it is not always expedient to speak the truth." The excitement was great. Groups of prelates who had left the Hall might be seen standing about everywhere in earnest conversation, while within doors Bonnechose and Cullen were discoursing to a thin audience with absent minds. It was related that Guidi did not speak as a solitary individual, but represented fifteen bishops belonging to the Order of Dominicans. He had gathered them together in the central convent of the Minerva, where he himself resided. They had considered the question, and accepted the views which he had now presented to the Council. This was much against the feeling of Father Jandel, their general, who was perfectly free from any taint of the episcopal system, a thoroughly right-minded Papist. Guidi asked how the Cardinals had taken his speech, and Cardinal Mathieu replied, "With serious and silent approval."

Rumours were soon afloat in Rome as to what followed between Guidi and his royal master. What we now give is traced by Quirinus to the authority of the Pope himself, who is notoriously fond of telling the people with whom he chats how he has lectured this or that dignitary.[436]

The "creature" was summoned to the presence of his master soon after the sitting, and was greeted with the words, "You are my enemy. You are the coryphæus of my opponents. Ungrateful towards my person, you have propounded heretical doctrine." "My speech is in the hands of your Presidents, if your Holiness will read it and detect what is supposed to be heretical in it. I gave it at once to the Under-Secretary, that people might not be able to say that anything had been interpolated into it."[437] "You have given great offence to the majority of the Council. All five Presidents are against you, and are displeased." "Some material error may have escaped me, but certainly not a formal one. I have simply stated the doctrine of tradition, and of St. Thomas." "I am tradition. I will require you to make the profession of faith anew. La tradizione son' io, vi faro far nuovamente la professione di fide." "I am and remain subject to the authority of the Holy See, but I venture to discuss a question not yet made an article of faith. If your Holiness decides to be such in a Constitution, I certainly shall not dare to oppose it." "The value of your speech may be measured by those whom it has pleased. Who has been eager to testify to you his joy? That Bishop Strossmayer, who is my personal enemy, has embraced you. You are in collusion with him." "I do not know him, and have never before spoken to him." "It is clear you have spoken so as to please the world, the Liberals, the Revolution, and the government of Florence." "Holy Father, have the goodness to have my speech given to you."

It was said that the Pope stated afterwards that he had not sent for Guidi as a Cardinal, but as Brother Guidi, whom he had himself lifted out of the dust. The saying, "I am tradition," made an impression in Rome much like the celebrated one of the French monarch, "I am the State." It simply packed up and labelled the thought that had been more or less confusedly before the minds of all. Quirinus speaks of having often had the words "I am the Church" in his thoughts—l'Eglise c'est moi. We do not see that the Pope could have said anything more sensible or more exactly representing the theology and history which the favourite champions had put before the world. Quirinus very properly thinks that this formula fits well with the pregnant saying of Boniface VIII, "The Pope holds all rights locked up in his breast." Truths and rights go together. Tradition consists of truths, and the Pope is all truth. Rights are based upon the truths, and the Pope holds them all in his own breast. And if the poor old man himself at last uttered these sad words, it was only after the incense had smoked around him thousands and thousands of times, hiding the realities of heaven from him by clouds that were only fumes. For this others were responsible, at least in part. Under the influence of it, what wonder if his senses had become confused? Mankind will have reason to be thankful that one Pope lived long enough to be thoroughly overcome by the smoke of the sacrifices. The ordinary reason assigned in Rome for Popes being short-lived is, that it is necessary to prevent the effects of their power upon themselves.

The gravamen of Guidi's offence could not be removed by any subsequent submission. Seeing that the Canon he proposed had emerged into the light, the record could not be got out of the book of history that a Dominican, a divine of repute, a Cardinal in high credit, did up to that last hour of liberty hold that it was a heresy worthy of anathema to affirm the very doctrine which was soon to be part of "the faith." The record could not be prevented from going down to future ages that what was, on June 18, and under the dome of St. Peter's, liable to be called a heresy, was on July 18 under the same dome, promulged by the voice of the Pope as truth, and as binding on every human being who would be saved. Nor can craft ever blot out from the history of the eccentricities of intellect the instance offered by the fact that after this had been done, grave and learned men, even of advanced age and high office, went throughout the civilized world soberly affirming that the only reason why the dogma was then proclaimed, was that it had been clearly revealed by our Lord and His apostles, and had in every age been held as revealed truth by all Catholics, in all places.

Vitelleschi is not quite clear as to whether all the incidents reported of the interview between the Pope and the Cardinal were correct. To him that is of no importance; Roman-like, he did not want anything to illustrate the relation of the Pope to his courtiers or to the Church. A few such scenes, more or less, would to him make no difference whatever.

As if to prepare for the deeds directly tending to the restoration of facts when the Council should have completed the restoration of ideas, the tales of the Crusaders of St. Peter continued to appear side by side with the notices of the legislative proceedings in the successive numbers of the Civiltá. To us one episode comes near home. It was on an April day that a company leaving Rome bore across the Campagna, with all the solemnity of a relic of the saints, the heart of one whose body, in the Agro Verano, the cemetery of St. Lorenzo, slept close by the tombs of the ancient martyrs, and amid those of the martyrs of Mentana. As the party reached a point on the hill within a few steps of the village,—a point from which St. Peter's appeared in the distance,—they saw a block of white marble, surrounded by four little columns, hung round by an iron chain. "Here," cried some zouaves who were of the party,—"Here is the spot to which Julian pushed on, chasing the enemies of God with fire and sword, passing through a thousand bullets, of which one carried away his cap; and here he fell shot down at point blank." Above the marble block rose "the cross of Mentana," and on it was cut the inscription, "Here fell, fighting for the See of St. Peter, Julian Watts-Russell, pontifical zouave, a young Englishman of 17 years and 10 months old, the most youthful who fell on the field of victory, and the nearest to Mentana." In this "angelic sepulchre," as the courtly historian calls it, the solemn party deposited their holy relic. Around were grouped the villagers, with a few zouaves, among whom were Mr. Vansittart, who had come to take up the arms of his fallen friend, and Wilfred Watts-Russell, the brother and the fellow-crusader of Julian. The rites were celebrated by a venerable old man, yet, says the narrator, a new priest, who now, perhaps, for the first time performed the funeral service. It was the father of Julian and Wilfred. "As we returned," moralizes the zealous historian, "we felt that we had committed to the ground the seed of martyrs."[438]

After the Guidi incident the debate dragged on. The heats were growing worse and worse. At length, on July 2, the weary wheels seemed as if they would go no longer. The list of speakers still inscribed threatened very considerable detention. Hefele had entered his name among the earliest, and when he applied for his turn found he was somewhere "in the fifties," and when he next applied, that he was in "the seventies." Had the minority foreseen what was hidden behind clouds, but ready to thunder forth, they would perhaps have kept the debate open; and so the Papacy would have been saved from the last fatal step. Just now, by a strange coincidence, appeared in the Civiltá the tale describing the march of the newly landed French troops for Mentana in 1867, with their sisters of mercy. "O France!" cried the literary crusader, "may the angels of God who to a field of just but terrible vengeance accompanied that host, warring only for celestial charity, evermore protect the land of generous hearts."[439] But, not knowing what was so near at hand, the minority at last reached the point at which men are ready to say, We are fighting in vain, and therefore fighting without justification. They agreed among themselves that they might as well give up their right to speak, and let matters be brought to a crisis. On July 4, when the Council met, Schwarzenberg and others gave up their right. The formidable name of Darboy was called. No Darboy was there. So that instead of a final argument in opposition, there was his conspicuous example in favour of withdrawing. For a long time every one who had done so had received marks of approbation both from the Council and from the Presidents, and every expedient had been used to induce men to abridge the discussion. It was soon apparent that the leaders of the Opposition had adopted a common policy. One after another waived his right. A couple of inconsiderable men claimed their turn, but said little. The bulk of the men on both sides entered into the general movement, and to the relief of all, and the delight of the triumphant majority, Cardinal De Luca announced that the list of the speakers was exhausted, and that the debate was closed. So, as early as half-past nine o'clock, people saw the Fathers gliding down the cathedral and dispersing over the city. They wondered what had released them so early, and, as Vitelleschi says, little realized the importance of their decisions, either to the Church or to the world.

Dated on the very day on which the discussion closed, the Civiltá issued an article on the Decline of Liberalism, which shows how the political aspects of the legislation, now nearly completed, were kept in view.[440] A Catholic gale, says the writer, seems to be passing over the world, vivifying and gladdening society, corrupted and worm-eaten by Liberalism.

A single people, the Roman, finds itself, by the special providence of God, free from this universal Liberal domination; and this Roman people alone, still happily governed according to the laws of God, in contradiction to the great principles of modern society, enjoys the sweet fruits of true progress, and is the object of admiration and envy; for of it alone can it be said, Happy is the people whose God is the Lord. As a drunken slave used to be exhibited to the Spartans to inspire them with hatred of intemperance, so Providence in almost every part of Europe has allowed slaves drunk and mad with Liberalism, slaves of tyrants sprung out of the dung-hill, to be exhibited till Europe, now weary of Liberalism, could only look to Rome and to her civil and religious head, not merely the sole guardian and faithful depositary, but the infallible herald of the principles of universal religion and truth, civilization and prosperity, even natural and social, among nations as well as among individuals. We may say that from the first stage of the movement to the last, it is nations and not individuals that are kept in view.

In Bavaria, Belgium, and Portugal, the writer asserts, the Catholics are escaping from the trammels of the Masons. In Austria the same process is in preparation. In France they are more resolved than ever to sustain Rome. In Italy Liberalism is exhausted, despised, divided, and falling. "Even in Protestant and heterodox countries, Rome, with her civil and religious prince, stands in much higher credit than Italy and other Liberal governments apparently stronger."

Sneering at an allusion of the Journal des Débats to the vaunted hopes of the Catholics, accompanied by the remark that in spite of their absurdity it was nevertheless prudent to keep an eye on the clock which was to sound the return of the hour for great things the Civiltá says it will not deny that Liberalism has some "bad quarters of an hour" before it. It equally thinks that now it is neither imprudent nor rash "to hope, and that within a time not remote, for the victory of Rome and its Pontiff-king, so far as Italy is concerned, and for the victory of the social, civil, and religious principles which that king represents and preclaims."

The triumph over intellect it holds to be patent and ascertained, and therefore this hope of a triumph in facts is reasonable.

Providence, continues the soothsayer, cannot permit the Church to be long the victim of the devices of the gates of hell, particularly of those devices with which the States of the Church are now beset. After making allusion to hopes which had been entertained of the Pope's death, and asserting his florid health and his prospect of living many years, he proceeds: "The Pontiff lives and reigns in Rome more secure, more glorious, more influential, more beloved than his enemies." Not only is the fact that this potentate was defended by the arms of France entirely absent from the consciousness of the writer, but he indulges in jibes clearly addressed to the very Emperor who had restored the Pontiff and kept him up. "Sound Catholic principles now seem to politicians the only support of material order and of economical interests." The writer goes on to show that all the implements of Liberalism have been employed on behalf of the Papacy, and that with success—meetings, addresses, collections, votes, illuminations.

Writing with an expectation that before its words came under the eye of his readers (p. 174) they would have already learned that the great word had been spoken, and that Papal infallibility had taken its place among revealed truths, the writer proceeds to indicate the range of the new attribute:—

The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ. Therefore is he the continuator of the work of Christ in the world. He, standing in His stead, is the witness to the truth in the midst of us. Christ is the voice of the Father, and the Pontiff is the voice of Christ. The Father, in the fulness of time, spake unto us by His Son. The Son, after His return to the Father, continues to speak to us by His Vicar. Now, is it conceivable that a lie can ever be found in such a mouth, in such a word?—and if it could be found, would not the mission of Christ and the duration of His reign have vanished ipso facto? Affirming the infallibility of the Pontiff, therefore, means no less than affirming the duration of the reign of Christ upon earth.

Many who, on beginning to read this work, would have shrunk from interpreting language as to the Kingdom of Christ or the reign of Christ in the Jesuit sense, will by this time be prepared to see how a fallen faith which in effect brings down our Lord to the level of the Pope, must impress itself on the language of those who hold it. Any thoughtful man who will spend a few minutes in calmly setting out before his mind the ideas here shown to rule the mind of a Jesuit, will ever after attach a more definite meaning to the language of Ultramontanes when they speak of the Word of God, the Kingdom of God, the Christian civil system, or use any other terms, affecting the relative positions of the Pope and of the rest of the human race.

The writer of this article gratefully recognizes the surpassing zeal of France and her title to the first place among nations devoted to the Church. Those who form exceptions to the general devotion of France do not belong to her. The Opposition in the Council are called the new Arians, a clear analogy being discerned between denying to our Lord His divinity and denying to the Pope his place as the infallible representative of the Lord. The dogma, continues the Civiltá, would now come forth with the double advantage of an acclamation and a discussion. The famous petition for the definition, by a vast majority of the bishops, was indeed an acclamation, and to this had been added an ample discussion. It asserts that there never had been in the history of the world so full and exhaustive an examination of any question. The writer is unconscious of the fact that before changing a principle of law, or even a fiscal arrangement like a duty on corn, we slow English sometimes employ as many years as they had employed months in settling the source of all principles for ever. Not only so, but with us each new thread shot into the progressive web of the discussion is laid bare to every eye and to every magnifying glass that nature and art can lend. The Civiltá puts in even the word "ventilated" among the epithets denoting the unparalleled winnowing of this great question. Why, the Civiltá itself, during the progress of the discussion, readily told, indeed, who celebrated mass, who died, who received a title, a distinction, or a place, who got leave to stay away; but it did not even tell who spoke, much less anything about what was said. It gave not a word of information to the whole Catholic Church of what was proposed to be done with its creed, or of what the assembled bishops thought of the proposal. In the very same volume where these fine words are written, we have this specimen of the Civiltá's history, with which we connect one from Monsignor Guérin, as showing what free air will blow around the chairs of history in our colleges and around the tables of our editors when once dogma has achieved its Sedan (VII. xi. 237). "Our readers will be gratified"—a blundering English journalist would have commenced such a paragraph with apologies for not being able to tell his readers anything worth knowing, but the accomplished Jesuit begins with congratulating them on the amount of information he is about to give—"Our readers will be gratified to have under their eyes a view of how many spoke, or gave up the right of speaking, in the discussion on the 4th chapter,"—that is, on the great chapter containing the express statement of infallibility.

June 15, 1 Reporter and 2 Speakers. June 18, 3 Speakers. June 20, 1 Reporter and 4 Speakers. June 22, 7 Speakers. June 23, 5 Speakers. June 25, 6 Speakers and 2 gave up their right. June 28, 6 Speakers. June 30, 6 Speakers and 2 gave up their right. July 1, 6 Speakers. July 2, 9 Speakers and 14 gave up their right. July 4, 2 Speakers and 42 gave up their right.

The excellent Monsignor says (p. 113),—and it is for thoughtful men to spend a little time in forming a clear idea of what would be the condition of the world if its information on its supreme affairs was supplied in this fashion:—

There were General Congregations on the 8th of January, the 10th, the 14th, the 15th, the 18th, the 19th, the 21st, the 22nd, the 24th, the 25th, the 27th, the 31st, on the 3rd of February, the 4th, the 7th, the 8th, the 10th, the 14th, the 15th, the 18th, the 21st, the 22nd. An interruption of the General Congregations for a month; a resumption of the Congregation on the 18th of March, (thirtieth Congregation), the 22nd, the 23rd, the 25th, the 26th, the 28th, the 29th, the 30th, the 31st, the 1st of April, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 7th, the 8th, the 12th, the 19th.

We do not know why this instructive method of writing the most important of histories, that of the process of making laws for the whole world, is not continued through and through. Vestments and processions, bulls or Papal briefs, are not in the same manner hidden behind Arabic numerals. Any one may, at the British Museum, feast his own eyes on a specimen of such luminous history. The seventh volume of Frond is the History of the Council. The student will find it a folio in sumptuous Morocco, with gilt edges, and paper thicker than vellum. He will find it faultless and very full in matters of rank, precedence, forms and ceremonies; each cope and favour, each lappet, and each heave of the censer is well and duly noted. But as to questions respecting what men thought, said, proposed, deprecated, or took delight in, the poor student may open three leaves in succession and find both sides filled with mere numerals, names, and titles.[441] One grave historical error is confessed in the corrigenda. On a certain occasion even the pen guided by the "radiance of infallibility" slipped so far as to say that their Eminences the Cardinals were to be in black stockings. The correction shows that "black slippers" were the proper words.

It would for a time have seemed as if the glories once foretold to follow the dogma had considerably faded from the eyes of the seers during the wearying months of debate. Now, however, that the goal was in sight, the vistas reopened, and if translucent clouds rendered the distant view indistinct, they greatly enhanced its splendour. Still there was no weak expectation that the great results would be instantly attained. As centuries were required to bring the Anti-Papal movement in society to the present pass, so was it calculated that centuries would be required to bring the counter-movement to its full development.

It is not to be believed that an event so glorious, and one brought about by God with dispensations so singular, is to remain confined within itself. It will be prolific of prodigious effects in every social sphere for the salvation of the nations. God does not work by accident, or set in motion great means for small ends. We do not hesitate to affirm that just as the subversive negations of authority which prevailed at the Council of Basle indicated the principles of the great politico-religious revolution of modern times, so the reparative affirmation of all the privileges of the See of Peter now so solemnly made by the Vatican Council will indicate the principles of restoration in every public and private sphere of Christendom. Hence in the series of the centuries this of ours will be a day blest and magnified as that in which, thanks to the Council held under Pio Nono, the light again dawned on an oppressed world wrapped up in the darkness of the Revolution (pp. 178-9).

The writer does not overlook us non-Catholics. For us also the great event was pregnant with blessing, showing us, above all things, "the divine organization of the Church," and in it showing us the "remedy for the unbridled excesses of private judgment, the parent of that Babel confusion in which we are involved." Therefore,

to Mary, sweet Lady and Queen of this kingdom of Christ, be loving thanksgivings rendered, for after God to her favour do we trace the benefit obtained. Scarcely had we read in the Bull of Convocation that the Council would open its sittings on the day sacred to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, before we felt a firm and immovable hope of the definition of pontifical infallibility. It was fitting that the Pontiff who, amid the applause of the Christian world, had dogmatically asserted the highest prerogatives of her holiness, should himself behold the highest prerogatives of his apostolic ministry dogmatically affirmed (p. 180).

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VII

To the Eve of the Great Session, July 18—A Fresh Shock for the Opposition—Serious Trick of the Presidents and Committee—Outcry of the French Bishops—Proposal to Quit the Council—They send in another Protest—What is Protestantism?—Immediate War not foreseen—Contested Canon adopted—The Bishops threatened—Hasty Proceedings—Final Vote on the Dogma—Unexpected Firmness of the Minority—Effect of the Vote—Deputation to the Pope—His incredible Prevarication—Ketteler's Scene—Counter Deputation of Manning and Senestrey—Vast Changes in the Decrees made in a Moment—Petty Condemnations—The Minority flies.

It might have been thought that incidents of public interest had now terminated. On the very next day, however, after the close of the great discussion, occurred a collision which, had the opposition been morally capable of saving anything, would have given it the opportunity of saving the Roman Catholic Church from falling into the condition of a body without any constitution, except the "inner light" of one man. It opened their eyes, perhaps not more widely, but once more. It smote their feelings, excited a momentary effort at action, and ended in a protest drawn up by Bishop Dinkel.

One Sunday the Fathers were studying sixty-two amendments proposed on the second chapter of the great Decree. It seemed awful work to decide so many points affecting the faith on a single Monday morning! But behold, in the evening come in one hundred and twenty-two amendments on the fourth chapter, to be voted upon on the Tuesday!

The procedure was on this wise. Amendments suggested, after being in the hands of the Committee, were reported in print, and then put to the vote. The Sub-Secretary said, The committee oppose the amendment: let those who oppose it stand up. Or, The Committee accept the amendment: let those who accept it stand up. So by scores at a time were questions settled on which men had had no chance of reflecting. Only once, says La Liberté du Concile, did the Fathers succeed in obtaining from the Presidents a delay. It was on the very occasion just mentioned, when they showed that the only time permitted to them to read over the hundred and twenty-two amendments to be despatched on the Tuesday, would be what would be left of the Monday after they had despatched no less than sixty-two. They did obtain twenty-four hours' extension of the time. "You are convoked on purpose to vote," says the writer, who, be it remembered, printed only fifty copies, for Cardinals alone, "and you have not time to study not even to read it over again" (Doc. i. p. 175).

If ever an important act was passed by an assembly it was the Canon which closes the third chapter of the great Vatican Decree. Quirinus hardly exaggerates its importance when he speaks of it, if interpreted by the rules of Canon law, as handing over the bodies and souls of all men to one. On July 5, the Fathers had in print before them a formula for this Canon, and three proposed amendments. The Bishop of Rovigo, as reporter for the committee, broke all rule first by saying that amendments No. 70 and 71 should not be voted upon, as the committee had adopted No. 72, with a modification. It would appear that, utter as was the disregard here manifested even of the Pope's own Rules as well as of the rights of the proposers of the amendments and of those of the Council, this was allowed to pass. But soon even that broken-spirited Opposition was roused. It was plain to some that what the Bishop read as No. 72 was not what was in print as 72. The Presidents wanted to put what had been read, but then, according to the Acta Sanctæ Sedis, arose Haynald and protested. Though the Council itself had no right to shape the amendments, the Rules required that all amendments should be put before it as they had been shaped by the committee, and it was for the Council to say Yea or Nay. Darboy also rose, and more fully entered his protest. The protest could not at the moment be brushed aside. Here was obviously a proposal differing from that of the committee, foisted in against all rule, and without notice. For once the prohibition against speaking to order had been defied. The Presidents, thrown into confusion, could not conceal the attempted trick; yet they durst not abandon the spurious Canon. They therefore said something about inadvertence, and withdrew it for the present, to be submitted to the committee, then to be printed and voted upon at another time.

The fact was that the difference between the two forms involved the whole question of jurisdiction between bishops and Pope. One form had been withdrawn by the committee, and an amendment had been accepted. The Pope was incensed. He ordered the third Canon to be altered back to the form which had been objected to, and even this was greatly strengthened. He never submitted the alteration to the committee, but sent it direct to the reporter to be then and there put to the vote instead of the Canon which stood on the printed Order of the Day. How great was the difference in the wording of what the Fathers had before them in print, and what was attempted to be palmed upon them, is obvious on reading the two—

The Canon as it was in Print The Canon as it was read and attempted to be put to the Vote

If any shall say that the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff is only an office of supervision and direction, and that his supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church is not plenary, but only extraordinary and mediate, let him be anathema. If any one shall say that the Roman Pontiff has only an office of supervision or direction, but not plenary and supreme power over the whole Church, both in things pertaining to faith and morals, and also in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church dispersed through all the earth, or that he has only the chief portion but not the entire fulness of this supreme power, or that this his power is not ordinary and immediate, whether over the Churches all and singular, or over pastors and believers all and singular, let him be anathema.

Meditation on what was involved in these claims to all-absorbing power was not likely to relieve the bishops of the pain caused by the stealthy attempt upon their vote. What the Presiding Cardinals and the Bishop of Rovigo had tried to steal from them, was not trash. It was all that ancient bishops, even when acknowledging the primacy of Rome, would have fought for with at least ecclesiastical weapons. Of the Committee not a man spoke his scorn, and the steady majority was not shaken. The world accused it of conspiring against the rights and liberties of mankind. It might full as well have been accused of conspiring against the rights and liberties of bishops. If the official organs had often, during the Council, used such language as "lying" and so forth, they were quiet now, while words like "lying," "cheating," "deceiving," etc., flew freely about, and, if Quirinus be correct, were repeatedly used in the meetings of the bishops of the minority.

But if the majority was not disturbed, a note rang out from the French minority which might remind any one who has lived in their country through a revolution, of the Prend ton sac—Take thy sack!—the three sudden taps which at such a time make timid hearts in a house beat as if they had been hit by the drumstick.

"1. The hour of Providence has struck," cries this voice, with the true French ring. "The decisive moment for saving the Church has arrived. 2. By the additions made to the third Canon of the third chapter, the committee, de fide, has violated the Rules, which permit not the introduction of any amendment without discussion by the Council. 3. The addition surreptitiously made is of importance beyond calculation. It changes the constitution of the Church. It enacts the monarchy of the Pope pure, absolute, and indivisible. It carries the abolition of the judicial rights and the co-sovereignty of the bishops, and with it the affirmation and anticipatory definition of separate and personal infallibility. 4. Duty and honour permit us not to vote this Canon without discussion, as it contains an immense revolution. The discussion can and may last six months, for it affects the capital question, the very constitution of the sovereign power in the Church. 5. This discussion is impossible, because of the pressure of the season and the disposition of the majority. 6. One thing alone, worthy and honourable, remains to be done—to demand the immediate prorogation of the Council till the month of October, and to present a declaration, in which all the protests already sent in shall be enumerated, and the last violation of the Rules shall be set forth, as well as the contempt shown to the dignity and liberty of the bishops. At the same time, we must give notice of our intended departure, which can no longer be deferred. 7. By the departure, on such grounds, of a considerable number of bishops of all nations, the œcumenicity of the Council would be at an end, and all acts which it might subsequently adopt would be null in point of authority. 8. The courage and devotedness of the minority would produce an immense effect in the world. The Council would meet in the month of October in circumstances vastly more favourable. All the questions now only broached would be taken up again and treated with dignity and liberty. The Church would be saved, and the moral order of the world."[442]

Had this energetic advice been adopted, the Roman Catholic Church would for the time have been saved from the last step in a downward series; but whether the moral order of the world would have been the better is another question. Those who seek a moral order higher than could be given by the men who attempted to palm the new Canon upon the Council, may well be content to have the lines drawn and the forces defined. The Council has given to all men an opportunity of knowing, if they will, what are the morals of the Pope and his officers, and what is order in their vocabulary. The moral order of the world must now be secured either under the absolute dominion of the Pontiff, or, as it has been best secured before, over the remains of his pretensions.

But the bishops of the minority were not the men to give the Church a further chance of continuing that confusion of all moral order which resulted from her old ambiguities. They did now as they had done before—let her take her way, and sent in a protest stating the main facts of the deception and breach of Rules.[443] One can almost see the smiles of the men in power at the sight of one piece of paper more.

If ever there was a case to justify the hasty saying ascribed to Burke, that Protestantism is a mere negation, it was that of the Vatican minority always protesting and never maintaining its ground. Of course, every protest has its negative side, but that is the side turned towards him who is protested against. It always has its positive side; that is, the side of him who makes the protest. He asserts a right. Dr. Newman, in a moment of sound sense, said, "What is the very meaning of the word 'Protestantism,' but that there is a call to speak out?"[444] So, when in a day of mercy, nations, hearing from heaven a call to speak out, protested against the sins and follies of the Pontiff, their protest was indeed a mere negation to him whose pretensions were rolled back; but to those who made the protest good, it was a positive upholding of existing rights, a positive recovery of lapsed rights, a positive deliverance from great evils, and a positive entrance into possession of great and heritable good. They protested against the doctrinal authority of the Pontiff, and maintained the doctrinal authority of the Bible. They protested against the authority of ecclesiastical courts or Councils to fetter the press, the pulpit, or the private conscience. In doing so, they maintained a duty imposed, and a right given, by God. The negative result was to the Inquisition and the Curia. The positive result was to the Press, the Pulpit, the Civil Court, and the silent tribunal of the Soul, with its reinstated jury of accusing and excusing thoughts. They protested against indulgences, purgatory, and all the commerce of the mass, and maintained the free gift of God's unpurchaseable grace, the sovereignty of His judgment, the finished and all-perfect sacrifice of His Son. They protested against sensuous and idolatrous spectacle, and upheld scriptural worship; protested against colours, scents, and gorgeous dress, and upheld sound teaching, borrowing all its glory from spiritual elements, none from physical; they protested against priestly caste, and upheld a brotherhood, a royal nation of priests; they protested against progressive conformity to newly-invented superstitions, against the service of local and subordinate divinities, and at the same time upheld progressive conformity to the standard of our Lord and His apostles. They protested against the idea of one fold or one pen, but upheld that of one flock diversified in its members, various in its folds, but one in love to the common Lord and in likeness to the common Father.

When Darboy and Dupanloup, on July 4, gave up the attempt of averting the definition by delay, how little did they know that a couple of days later and the whole prospect of the Papacy would be changed. When the Pope on the morrow of that day followed up his victory by the additional blow which the surreptitious Canon dealt at the very semblance of liberty or rule in the Council, how little did he suspect that the visions of restoration long floating before his fancy were to give place to real scenes of fresh disaster. It was only on June 10 that Ollivier, in the Chamber of Deputies, gave confident assurances of peace, while on July 6, in the same Chamber, Gramont sounded an unmistakable blast of war. Even now, human foresight did not measure the rapidity with which events were to rush to a collision, and then to a catastrophe. Napoleon III had so often seemed bent on measuring himself with Prussia, and had so often drawn back, that it was not unreasonable to hope that, even after bellicose words, he might be prudent once more.

The next week following that day which placed in hazard the fortunes of the restorer of the Papacy and those of the Papacy itself, was spent in the Council in voting the chapters in their final shape. The Canon which had been brought surreptitiously forward on the fifth was produced in the regular manner on the thirteenth, and after all the outcry it was passed; "the most pregnant article," says Quirinus, "that had been laid before any Council for six hundred years." It was now voted by rising and sitting,—which is not to be wondered at when originally the Presidents had wanted it to be voted without being even known. We must not blame the minority for not now debating it. The Rules did not allow of this. It had been adopted by the committee and must be met with a Yea or Nay. How many voted against this pregnant act is uncertain. Some say fifty or sixty, some ninety or a hundred.[445] In that act every shred and tatter of the Gallican liberties, or any other liberties, except that of doing the Pope's will, passed from the Papal officers, whom, as Quirinus says, the Roman Chancery still calls bishops. The chapter to which this Canon was attached annulled all national rights whatever, whether Gallican, Josephine, or parliamentary, which might conflict with the supreme authority. Vitelleschi (p. 202) says that the Secretary of State appeared very uneasy as to the opinion of governments on this fresh declaration. The bishops naturally would have similar apprehensions, but as to them, fear cast out fear. They had good reason to believe in the gentleness of Liberal governments, and they had no reason to believe in the gentleness of the Pope. They trusted, says Vitelleschi, to the tolerance and freedom of thought which has everywhere triumphed in modern days. With the Papal government, on the other hand, they had neither tolerance nor freedom to trust to. They knew that if they dared to provoke it, the stroke of Pius IX would come down hot and heavy. The oath of a bishop to the Pope, which obviously aims more at feudal vassalage than at spiritual works, had made the Emperor Joseph II feel that men bound by it were not citizens in the sense of free men. "It does not accord with the fidelity or obedience due by a bishop, as a subject, to his sovereign.... A bishop who feels himself bound by that oath must become perjured."[446]