_Rome, Feb. 9, 1870._-In commencing the discussion on the Catechism the Council pa.s.sed into the last stage of the peaceful proceedings, which are to precede the battle on the claims of the Roman authority. The speech of Cardinal Rauscher, who is ill, was delivered by the Bishop of Gurk, and made a great impression. He was followed by Cardinal Mathieu, one of the best Latinists in the French episcopate, the Primate of Hungary and the Archbishop of Tours. After them Dupanloup spoke, who was again, as on the former occasion, not well heard. He lashed those who think that the cultivated nations of the Catholic world are to have a Catechism dictated to them by Rome. The Session was not favourable to the propositions, but men can no longer fix their minds on themes of lesser importance. All are thinking of the decisive contest which is imminent. Many indeed on both sides wish that it could be avoided. The threatening att.i.tude of the policy of France has roused serious misgivings. It was known in Rome at the end of January, but the decisive instructions only arrived on Sat.u.r.day, February 5, and produced a deep and unpleasant sensation.

Hitherto the Court of Rome was able to hinder the withdrawal of the French troops, by threatening to take refuge under English protection at Malta; but with the good understanding that now prevails between the French and English Governments this is no longer possible. It is perfectly well known in the Vatican that neither of the two powers will stretch out a hand to uphold Papal absolutism. It is a proof of the strong impression produced by the French note that the Papal Court has kept it secret. No appeal is tried to Catholic public opinion or the loyal episcopate, for it is well ascertained that the Infallibilist doctrine has very different enemies from the temporal power. To Cardinal Antonelli it seems like a denial of the whole work of his life to stake the temporal power of the Pope for the sake of a new dogma. But if this is to be saved, the dogma must be sacrificed. So the Opposition now has the a.s.surance that the neutrality and non-intervention of the Catholic powers is come to an end, and it is encouraged at the same time by the part the learned world has begun to take on its side, since the publication in Germany of the addresses which attest the antagonism of eminent Catholic scholars and professors of theology to the new dogma.

Nevertheless the minority is composed of heterogeneous elements, and it may be safely calculated that they will not all hold out to the last. Some opponents of the definition are friends of the doctrine, and oppose it on grounds not of a purely abstract or theological nature. No one has calculated the numerical proportion of these in inopportunists to the real opponents of Infallibility. Any serious discussion of the question has long been avoided, and many think it ought to be avoided, because therein lies the dangerous weakness of the party. The ground of inopportuneness, which had already been adopted in the Letter to the Pope from Fulda, was taken up from the first, in the hope of paralysing the majority by an imposing number of dissentients. They hoped to be strong by their numbers, and to look strong by a certain kind of unity. The theory of inopportuneness seemed to provide a common ground for the decided opponents of the dogma and for the timid and vacillating or moderate adherents of the doctrine itself. That a really united Opposition has been formed on this basis is mainly due to the Bishop of Orleans. He attacked the opportuneness with such a powerful array of testimonies in his famous Pastoral, that every one saw clearly the doctrine itself was involved, though he never entered in so many words on the theological question. The position he provided has served its purpose for two months, without the party being brought to a declaration for or against the dogma. It has served to bring in adherents to the Opposition, who in the strictest sense of the word belong to the Roman Court party, and to provide waverers with a comparatively innocent method of resistance. It has prevented the victory of the _Curia_ in the days of their greatest ascendancy, but it is untenable for a permanence. The position of the inopportunists has the fatal disadvantage that it can be out-flanked. That would have happened, had the Bishops been separately requested to give their opinions "sub secreto," with a promise that no public declaration in the Council should be desired.

Then, again, it is a position that can easily be mastered by means of the majority. A minority may be invincible on the ground of dogma, but not of expediency. Everything can be ventured to combat a false doctrine, but not to hinder an imprudence or a premature definition. In questions of faith one dare not give in; not so in questions of discretion only. And then the Council must have been sooner or later driven from the ground of inopportuneness, if it was not shipwrecked on the order of business; for it was a point of view the decision could not finally hinge upon, in presence of a preponderating majority.

The defection of part of the Opposition was thus only a question of time, though it became more difficult for individuals after each act done in union, and many an inopportunist has advanced to theological contradiction of the dogma. But the attempt to make the rejection of the doctrine the principle of the party forced the contrast more and more on the minds of individuals. Among the Germans primarily, and in the groups of leading Bishops from different countries who took counsel together, a more determined spirit gradually developed itself, and it was seen that their adversaries made capital out of every sign of unclearness of view among the Opposition. They were constantly spreading reports that on the main point all were united, and that at most there were not above twenty opponents of the dogma, including only two Germans, who were adherents of Hermes and Gunther; perhaps only five opponents in all, or none at all. In presence of these a.s.sertions a public declaration seemed necessary, less for the faithful at home than for non-Catholics, who ask about the doctrine. The Bishops of the Opposition told themselves that honour and episcopal duty demanded that a Bishop should not withhold his belief on a fundamental question, at a moment when all have to speak, the moment of danger. The very success of the inopportunist policy is no true success.

It is no victory of the truth, when it is not openly proclaimed in the contest. Those who do not fight under the banner of their own convictions are not on equal terms with their adversaries.

Thus the view has been more and more making way, that not only must every definition be avoided as dangerous, but that the doctrine of the Roman theologians and their adherents in the Episcopate must be rejected as false. And this brought men more and more to the scientific ground. It was no longer a mere affair of personal conviction, but of direct evidence, and the moment was come for literary argument to a.s.sert its place in the proceedings of the Council. The position of the mere inopportunists became more difficult, and the band which held the party together was loosened.

Their adversaries at once zealously availed themselves of this favourable crisis; nearly every Bishop of the minority was plied with various intermediate formulas and conciliar proposals. Attempts were made to sow disunion among the leaders; political jealousies at home, and whatever else could be made use of, were seized upon to undermine mutual confidence. Some were to be deceived by the phantom of a middle party, and were told that they might take a position as peacemakers at the head of a mediating section-of course in the antic.i.p.ation that every one who makes concessions and admits the principle of the definition will pa.s.s over to the majority. Against all these attempts the Bishops of the minority have, on the whole, though not without some wavering, kept firm and true. But still the transition to the strictly theological standpoint, where individual conviction on the question of Infallibility must be decisively recognised and represented, cannot be accomplished without an internal conflict and shaking of the party.

TWENTY-FIRST LETTER.

_Rome, Feb. 11, 1870._-When once literature began to be brought to bear actively on the proceedings of the Council, the crisis could not long be delayed, for science, which has to do with truth only, knows nothing of diplomatic considerations, and makes no concessions to the requirements of the moment. It brings back the discussion inevitably from theory to fact, from the sphere of dogma to the sphere of history. In remorselessly exposing the inventions and forgeries which form the basis of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, it necessarily attacks the whole ultramontane system of which that doctrine is the logical consequence. The fundamental refutation of the dogma is fatal to much in the specifically Roman theology and the modern claims of the Popes, which would not otherwise have been a.s.sailed in Council by any Bishop. Those who shrink from collision with the _Curia_, and would desire to spare it a public exposure of error before the whole world, and who have therefore hitherto remained on the defensive, will now be driven further and placed in a position they would never have chosen. They see their adversaries in a light-whether as deceived or deceivers-which seriously disturbs their daily intercourse with them. For it is no longer possible to conceal by any periphrasis the fact that the spirit the Opposition has to combat is no other than the spirit of lying. And so, when the voice of honest science cannot be excluded, no peaceful issue is possible. The contest takes the form of an internecine strife against that absolute Papal system for which the Court had at first confidently expected to gain the almost enthusiastic sanction of the Council. The aid of science can be purchased at no cheaper price.

No wonder then if the Bishops recoil in trembling before the weighty task of winning the victory for that view which specially prevails among learned Germans of this day, first in the Council, and then among the ma.s.s of the clergy and the faithful. There are few among them who are not inwardly conscious that they will themselves come in for some of the heavy blows.

Father Gratry's first Letter on its arrival at Rome roused serious reflection in many. His skilful handling of a subject familiar to all, and his repeated application of the solemn pa.s.sage, "Numquid indiget Deus mendacio vestro?"(52) together with his unmistakeable allusion in his division of mankind into "viri veraces" and "viri mendaces," contributed to make clear the full significance of the contrast-to many for the first time. Dollinger's printed criticism of the Address was not calculated to quiet the excitement it caused. The Roman party, in the hope of effecting an internal split in the party, seized the handle which Dollinger's statement that he was in harmony on the main question with the majority of the German Bishops seemed to supply, and tried to extract a counter declaration from the Bishops. The first attempt, to induce the Archbishop of Munich to exert his authority, failed. Then the Bishop of Mayence brought the matter before the a.s.sembly of German Opposition Bishops. He angrily disclaimed for himself any solidarity with Dollinger's view, and averred his belief in Papal Infallibility, saying it was only the difficulty and danger of a dogmatic declaration quite unnecessary in itself that made him an opponent of the definition. Had his motion been accepted, and the German Opposition renounced their hostility to the dogma and retired to the ground of mere expediency, the complete victory of the Infallibilists would have been a matter of a few weeks only. But when the German Bishops rejected Ketteler's urgent demand, and decisively refused to give up their a.s.sault on the dogma, the half-and-half character and weakness of their position vanished, and they ceased to subordinate or sacrifice the theological standpoint to the question of expediency. And thus the difficult word has been spoken; they have already p.r.o.nounced against the doctrine itself in the Addresses they have signed. The reproach incurred thereby does not, of course, apply in full force to the Bishop of Mayence, who has always told his colleagues that he is on their side on the question of opportuneness only. The Bishop of Rottenburg (Hefele) has already declared in his speech at Fulda that it is necessary to advance further and a.s.sail the doctrine itself. And he repeated this in reply to Ketteler's proposal. The great majority of the Bishops were unfavourable to that proposal. While in this way they testified their agreement with Dollinger, some of them-especially Strossmayer-declared emphatically for the c.u.menicity of the Council of Florence. They have weighty reasons for this. The more strongly the minority hold to Dollinger's interpretation of the famous Florentine decree, the less can they afford to depreciate the authority of the Synod. For in their opinion it is just that decree which serves to expose the dishonesty of the other party, and to overthrow the extreme doctrine. It will do them good service too in the discussion on the _Schema de Ecclesia_ and the new _Schema de Romano Pontifice_, which is now announced.

But while the German Bishops rejected Ketteler's proposal, and left to the _Civilta Cattolica_ and the Mayence _Katholik_ the war against the Munich School, they did not venture to come to an open breach with the less h.o.m.ogeneous elements of their party, wishing to retain Ketteler on their side-who is as zealous against the Roman principles in Church and State as against German science-as an active ally in the contest against the _Schema_. For this end there have been consultations, especially between the Archbishop of Cologne on one side and the Archbishop of Munich on the other. The commotion produced by Dollinger's essay in the learned world of Germany gives them an opportunity for helping the minority over this discomfiture, and averting for the immediate moment of danger the threatened disruption. It cannot be denied that to a certain extent the latest declarations of German Catholics are very acceptable to the Bishops, for the very reason that they partly emanate from men who belong to the more moderate opponents of Infallibility. It is a piece of good luck for the Bishops staying at Rome that men who are independent, and at a distance from the flatteries and threats of the Vatican, undertake to call things by their right names, that reason makes itself heard by the side of pa.s.sion, and science by the side of authority. It is moreover very convenient that the materials can be used while the writer is disowned.

But although the Bishops know well how to value the importance of the support given to their cause from Germany, yet this new movement is not altogether to their taste; their dignity demands that they should not succ.u.mb to pressure from without, or owe too much to the public press. A Bishop is indeed presumed to be a theologian. And as it is impossible that the considerations which for the moment are decisive in the Council should always be taken into account by writers, there cannot fail to be manifold embarra.s.sments. From the intra-conciliar point of view it is easy to go too far. And then it may be regarded as almost inevitable that many Bishops should receive these manifestations of opinion from Germany with outward coldness, or reply by advising that it should be left in their hands alone to secure the victory of truth. In their eyes silence is in itself a kind of vote of confidence. A too zealous partic.i.p.ation might almost look like a sign of doubt as to the Bishops having strength and perseverance and coherence enough to conquer. To be sure, none feel such doubts more strongly than the Bishops themselves, but nothing can better serve to give them the confidence in themselves which is so much to be desired as showing them that others feel it.

And thus among the German Bishops in Rome Hefele's view has triumphed over Ketteler's, the logical and decided over the half-and-half policy, and the difficult turning-point has been pa.s.sed without loss or breach in the party. And not a day too soon! Next week a new _Schema_ and a new order of business will bring the disunion and irritation in the Council to a point.

TWENTY-SECOND LETTER.

_Rome, Feb. 15, 1870._-If I wrote a fortnight ago that the situation was essentially improved since the first weeks, this must be taken with important reservations. The most keen-sighted of the North American Bishops then said, "We have done nothing at all, and that is a great deal." He thought it an important gain that of the proposals laid before the Council, the two _Schemata_, nothing had pa.s.sed, and none of the objects for which it had been convoked had, up to that point, been attained. But this has only been the damming up of a stream which eventually bursts through the more violently, and carries away the dam with it. For the majority of 500, who are resolved to indorse everything and vote every measure proposed, holds firmly together, before and behind; while the minority, on the other hand, is in danger of being shivered to pieces on the rock of opportuneness.

The _Schema_ now under discussion, of a common Catechism for the whole Catholic world, is clearly connected with the general programme cut out for the Council; for if the new dogmas are fabricated, they will at once be inserted into this universal Catechism, and thereby inculcated in the simplest and most convenient manner on the youth and the whole body of the faithful. The Jesuits have found the experiment very successful in Germany with their own Catechism, and have thereby naturalized the doctrine of Infallibility gradually, with a precision rendered more explicit in each successive edition in the boys' and girls' schools, especially those conducted by nuns. The Catechism has also proved a great financial success, and thus whole countries have become tributary to the Order. In the same way the new Catechism of the Council will be a source of manifold profit to both the _Curia_ and the Jesuits. The _Curia_ treats the Council with scientific skill, like a patient who has first to be gently physicked, and then has stronger doses given him by degrees. First came the _Schema_ of philosophical and theological doctrine, then of discipline, and now the question of a common Catechism. Behind this looms the deeply-cutting _Schema_ on the Church; and when that is triumphantly pa.s.sed, the _Schema_ on the Pope appears as the crown of the grand legislative work. While the former tractate propounds the _supremum magisterium_ of the Church, as holding sovereign power over lands and seas, souls and bodies, in the last _Schema_ this supreme _magisterium_ crops out in the person of Pius IX., who now enters into the possession of the supreme dominion and powers marked out for him in the dogmatic chart, if we can speak of any marking out when, in principle, everything is laid claim to, and the master himself alone and conclusively draws the line of demarcation where he chooses. He presents himself to the world as infallible teacher and legislator in the realm of science, as supreme judge of the literature of the world, as supreme lord and master in all that pertains to religion, or is related to it, and as infallible judge of right and wrong in all points. Many will say with Polonius, "Though this is madness there is method in it." Let us examine these principles more closely.

_First_, The Pope possesses the supreme and immediate dominion and jurisdiction, not merely over the Church in general, but over every individual Christian. Every baptized person is directly and immediately subject to the Pope, his ordinances, special commands and penalties. His power is "suprema tum in Ecclesiam universalem, tum in omnes et _singulos_ Ecclesiarum pastores et _fideles_ jurisdictio;" or, as the twenty-one Canons say, "ordinaria et immediata potestas." Whoever disbelieves this incurs anathema.(53)

_Secondly_, The Church stands as high above the State as heavenly beat.i.tude above the profits and goods of this earthly life.-(_Can._ 13.)

_Thirdly_, Every one must therefore prefer the advantage of the Church to the welfare of the State, "Si quando videantur utilia regno temporali, quae bonis sublimioribus Ecclesiae et aeternae salutis repugnent, ea nunquam habebunt pro veris bonis, etc."-(_Can._ 13 ad fin.)

_Fourthly_, The supreme _magisterium_ of the Church, _i.e._ the Pope, whether alone or in union with a Council, has to decide what Princes and Governments should do or leave undone in questions of civil society and public affairs. "De ipsa agendi norma judicium, quatenus de morum honestate, _de licito vel illicito_ statuendum est pro civili societate publicisque negotiis, ad supremum Ecclesiae magisterium pertinet."

_Fifthly_, As the Pope possesses not only the supreme office of teacher, but also the supreme right of coercion and punishment, he not only distinguishes as teacher what is and what is not permissible for States and nations, but he can enforce his decision on political matters by penalties upon every one-be he monarch or minister or private citizen. He has the right "devios contumacesque exteriori judicio et salubribus pnis coercendi atque cogendi."-(_Can._ 12.)

_Sixthly_, Whenever a law of the Church conflicts with a law of the State, the latter must give way; and whoever maintains that anything forbidden by the law of the Church is allowed by the law of the State incurs anathema.-(_Can._ 20.)

These ecclesiastical maxims, which deprive the laws of the land of all force and of all obligation for the conscience, are partly those already in existence, partly those any Pope may issue hereafter whenever it pleases him.

Thus marriage, primary instruction and education, the toleration or suppression of dissenting communions, the jurisdiction and privileges of the clergy, the acquisition and control of ecclesiastical property, oaths, wills, and the whole of the unlimited domain taken into her hands and legislated for by the mediaeval Church, and in short whatever comes under the head of permissible or forbidden-this, _en ma.s.se_, forms the sphere of the Pope's jurisdiction, wherein he rules with absolute and sovereign power, and puts down all opposition by coercion and punishments. Truly this reminds one of the Prophet's words, "The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamores are fallen, and we will plant cedars in their place." Since Paul _iv._'s time, 260 years ago, no Pope has so openly and undisguisedly spoken out the thoughts and wishes of his heart. The kernel of the doctrine, then, is this: there is on earth one sole lord and master over kings and subjects alike, over nations as over families and individuals, against whom no right or privilege avails, and whose slaves all are. The only difference is that some, viz., the Bishops, can on their side rule and lord it in their dioceses as upper servants in the name of the Church or the Pope, so far as their master does not interfere to stop them, while all others are mere slaves and nothing more. This obviously goes far beyond the Syllabus. This is the Bull _Unam Sanctam_ modernized and, so to speak, translated out of military language (about the two swords) into political and juristic terms. Innocent III., Innocent IV., and Boniface VIII., said that, "ratione peccati," they could interfere anywhere, and bring any affair or process before their Court, for it belongs to the Pope to decide what is sin and to punish it. What is said here comes to the same thing, that the Pope determines what is or is not allowable, and acts accordingly.

It is a stately edifice of universal Papal dominion whereon the keystone of Infallibility, which bears and upholds the whole, is to be placed, so that every command and ordinance of the Pope, even in political matters, is infallible, as the Jesuit Schrader has so clearly and forcibly pointed out. And to this must be added further (according to Canon 9) a vast and infinite domain for infallible decisions, viz., "all that is requisite for preserving the revealed deposit in its integrity." Who can specify what is included here, or fix any limits to it?

Two other links in this world-embracing chain are not visible, which are yet necessary for its coherence. The Interdict, which robbed whole populations of divine service and sacraments, must be restored in its ancient splendour, and the Pope's right to dispense from oaths must be distinctly a.s.serted.

The Fathers of the Council have daily opportunities of feeling how useful the temporal power is for the plenary jurisdiction of the Papacy. Were they a.s.sembled anywhere else than in Rome, there would be the possibility of holding a real Synod in the sense and manner of the Ancient Church, while the so-called Synod in Rome is in fact the mere painted corpse of a Council laid out on a bed of state.

Soul and freedom are wanting. On any other soil than that of the States of the Church, the Bishops could a.s.semble in a room where they could debate and understand one another, while they are now forcibly detained in the Council Hall. They could come to a mutual understanding by means of the press, by printed proposals or statements of opinion, weekly reports and the like. Anywhere else such treatment as the Patriarch of Babylon experienced would have been impossible; he has now taken refuge under the protection of the French Emba.s.sy. But here the King of Rome lends to the Pontiff the means of enforcing unreserved submission, and it is like the lion's den, "vestigia nulla retrorsum."

Many a French Bishop has shared the experiences of the famous Lamennais thirty-eight years ago, who came to the Eternal City full of ardent devotion to the Chair of Peter and firm faith in its infallibility, and on his departure, after a long stay there, wrote to a friend, "Restait Rome; j'y suis alle et j'ai vu la la plus infame cloaque qui ait jamais souille les regards humains." I will not transcribe what follows, though it was lately read to me by a Bishop. It may be seen in his Letters.(54) But this I can testify: there are men in the French Episcopate who used to be zealous champions of the temporal power, but who would now bear its loss with great equanimity, if only the calamity of the decrees chartered for the Council could be thereby warded off.

Yesterday, February 14, the ice was broken at last. The Bishop of Belley for the first time mentioned the Infallibility doctrine in the General Congregation, observing that the Council should at once proclaim it and go home, as that was the only object they had been summoned to Rome for.

Meanwhile an instructive calculation has been made of the proportion in which the different nations and Catholic populations are represented in the Council. It appears from them that the Catholics of North Germany have _one_ vote in Council for every 810,000 souls, and those of the States of the Church for every 1200, so that one Roman outweighs 60 Germans. It has been further ascertained that the 512 Infallibilists in the Council represent a population of 73,011,000 souls, while only 94 opponents of the dogma represent 46,278,000. With the Infallibilists one vote represents 142,570, with the Opposition, 492,320 souls.

Austria has now announced by her amba.s.sador, Count Trautmansdorff, that the Government will not allow decrees in contradiction with the Const.i.tution to be promulgated in the country. This threat will produce little effect, for all the doctrinal decrees have full force throughout the whole Church from the mere fact of being promulgated at the Council; only the disciplinary regulations require to be promulgated in the various countries and dioceses. Thus the Council of Trent has never been promulgated in France, notwithstanding all the endeavours of the _Curia_, but the dogmatic decrees have always been in full force there as elsewhere.

TWENTY-THIRD LETTER.

_Rome, Feb. 16, 1870._-The order of business is now to be altered, which means that an end is to be put to the speeches. The Bishops are to hand in their views, scruples and suggestions in writing to the Commission for revising motions, which will use its own discretion as to noticing or leaving unnoticed the proposals made with a view to their being submitted to the Council. There will then, in place of a discussion, be a mere voting, which individuals may give their reasons for, if they have previously stated the particular point they wish to speak on and obtained leave for it. And in the new order of business, the Pope's right to make and promulgate decrees on faith with a mere majority is said to be emphatically laid down. When this and the antic.i.p.ated and dreaded _Schema_ "On the Pope" are promulgated, we shall see what att.i.tude the Bishops will a.s.sume towards them. Both are now suspended like two swords over the heads of the Fathers. All at last depends on whether the Opposition remains compact, or crumbles to pieces under the efforts of the curialists.

If the general war required by the principles of the new _Schema_ against modern systems and governments, which conflict in numberless cases with the laws of the Church, is to be undertaken, the question arises, Where is the army to carry it on, and what weapons are to be employed? No doubt the trumpeters of the army are ready at hand, viz., the Jesuits of the _Civilta_ and the monastery of Laach, but it seems a doubtful look-out about soldiers. The Jesuits, indeed, command at present a considerable number of distinguished and wealthy females, but that will not go far in the great contest against laws, parliaments and governments. The Pope himself must princ.i.p.ally supply the arms, which can only be the old ones of excommunication, interdict and processes of the Inquisition.

Excommunication was formerly very effective, when the excommunicated could be proceeded against as heretics after a twelve-month, but that is no longer feasible. Interdict, too, is become a blunted instrument, which no Pope has ventured to make use of since Paul V. succ.u.mbed in his battle with Venice. The Inquisition only survives now for the 700,000 souls of the present States of the Church. That drastic means of giving up refractory populations _en ma.s.se_ to slavery and spoliation, as applied by Clement V., Nicolas V., Julius II., and Paul III., cannot easily be adopted now. So they will be content for the time with establishing the principle, and must await more favourable circ.u.mstances for realizing it.

But the Bishops are between two fires: they are discredited with Rome, because they must continue to acknowledge the civil laws, which are in fact condemned; they are exposed with their Governments and people to the constant suspicion of being on the watch for some political complication to secure the triumph, at least in particular cases, of the ecclesiastical principles recognised as valid at Rome-in other words, the Decretals-over the laws of the State.

It seemed to me important to ascertain more precisely the att.i.tude of the Dominicans-who are still a powerful corporation, through their possessing such influential offices as the Inquisition, Index, Mastership of the Sacred Palace, etc.-towards Infallibilism. They have always been the standing rivals and opponents of the Jesuits, and before 1773 were often able to resist them successfully. Now, of course, everywhere out of Rome, they are out-flanked and repressed by the Jesuits, while in Rome they have no influence with the Pope. Yet they too are all decided Infallibilists, and that because of their great theologian, Thomas Aquinas. That he himself became implicated in this notion only through means of the forgeries in Gratian, and of another great fabrication, with spurious pa.s.sages of the Fathers, specially devised for his own benefit, they neither know, nor are willing to believe when told of it. They say they have once sworn to the doctrine of St. Thomas, and must therefore adhere to the Infallibilist doctrine introduced by him into the schools, to avoid perjury.(55)

A certain feeling of discouragement betrays itself among many Infallibilists, and there is much in the occurrences of the last few weeks to account for it. Thus the Archbishop of Milan, whose diocese nearly equals in extent the whole States of the Church, has received an address from his clergy and people expressing agreement with his work against the dogma, which has greatly rejoiced him. And the news of the state of feeling in Germany is disheartening. Golden results had been reckoned on from the efforts of the Jesuits and their pupils there for the last twenty years. It was supposed here that a very considerable number of people beyond the Alps must be inspired with zeal for Papal Infallibility. When the impulse given by Dollinger evoked so many and such weighty expressions of opinion on the other side, it was confidently expected in Rome that a strong popular demonstration in favour of the dogma would burst out, like a mighty hurricane, from every district in Germany, as the 800 Jesuits at work there would easily be able to bring that to pa.s.s. But now it is evident that no single man of influence in the whole country will make himself responsible by name for this opinion, and that all who are eminent for authority and knowledge-especially historians and theologians-protest against the proposed new dogma. Even the Jesuit Catechism has not been able to effect everything in this respect. Can a new dogma be fabricated for Spaniards, Italians and South Americans exclusively? And even in North Italy an opposition is being manifested. It is a questionable policy to show to the German people so openly the gulf between their religious thoughts and desires and those of the Latin nations, and even to widen that gulf. And in what position would the episcopal signataries of the Fulda Pastoral find themselves, after giving such an explicit a.s.surance to Catholic Germany, "that the Council would establish no new or different dogmas from those already written by faith on the hearts and consciences of all German Catholics"? The faith and conscience of the German Catholics, both theologians and laity, have now spoken loudly and unequivocally enough. And it is utterly impossible for a German Bishop to return home from the Council with the new dogma ready-made in his hand, and say to his flock, like St. Paul, "Ye foolish Germans, who hath bewitched you?" "You don't know yourselves what you have hitherto held in your faith and conscience. See, here is the true bread for your souls, just brought fresh from the bake-house of the Council. This is what you ought long ago to have believed; be converted, and confess that to be white which you have thought was black, and that to be a divine truth which you have taken for an invention of man." It cannot be presumed that a Bishop would willingly contemplate exposing himself to the ridicule of all Germany.

The rumour of a speedy prorogation of the Council is constantly growing more definite. As this depends on one capricious will, it is quite possible in itself. But some striking result would have first to be attained, some conspicuous act accomplished by the Council; or else the fraud would be too glaring, the nakedness of the land too strikingly exhibited to the whole world. To the question, why ten precious weeks had been idly wasted without a single decree being achieved, the only answer would be, that the desire to deprive the Council of all independent action had led to the machine being cramped and fettered till it was brought to a standstill altogether. In accordance with the advice of the Jesuits the whole Council had in fact been pre-arranged, and nothing was to be left to the Fathers on their arrival at Rome but to affirm the thoughts and formulate the decrees suggested by others. The _Schemata_ prepared shall be read one after the other, and the Fathers shall say _Placet_, and to prevent their having any temptation to criticise and mangle and curiously dissect and combat the motions laid before them, the Sessions shall be held in a Hall where the speeches cannot be heard, and all discussion is impossible. That was the programme; the result has proved that the Court had judged rightly of about 500 out of the 700 members, but had deceived itself as to the remaining 200. Veuillot, who communicates the correct views about the Council daily to the French, has declared that it was right to deprive the Bishops of the freedom of evil (_qu'il ne fallait pas laisser aux eveques la liberte du mal_). This beneficent care for the health of the Bishops' souls has however been extended a little too far.

Many of them are so ungrateful as to think they are treated too much like automatons, and that with the "liberte du mal" they have also been deprived of the "liberte du bien." The Roman lists of names from which the Commissions had to be chosen are not forgotten. The right of proposing motions has been made illusory by the composition of the Commission appointed for examining them, and the arrangement for making the permission to bring them forward dependent on the pleasure of the Pope.

And thus great uneasiness, not to say exasperation, prevails among the 200 Bishops. And on the other hand, the Pope has been for several weeks past in a chronic state of mingled indignation and astonishment at finding so many Bishops-even at Rome, in his own immediate neighbourhood-daring to think and say the contrary to what he, Pius IX., thinks and says.

This rebellion of thought has not indeed yet been directly and openly manifested in the Council Hall. But when the _Schema de Ecclesia_, and with it Infallibility, really come to be discussed, then even within the sacred precincts of St. Peter's, and close to the Tomb of the Apostles-which the Pope had a.s.sured himself would inspire very different thoughts into the Bishops' heads-bold utterances of contradiction will be heard, and will resound throughout Europe, for "publicity discloses the Acheron of the Council." The expected and decisive sealing up of 3000 mouths is at an end once for all, and even that most correct and devoted of Romanists, Veuillot, has declared in his _Univers_ that such a silence of the grave is impossible, especially for the French, and has accordingly blurted out such of the secrets of the Hall as seemed to him desirable without scruple. Nor have the authorities taken it at all ill of him. But to hear Bishops publicly in Council, and in the hearing of the Papal Legates, proclaiming views diametrically opposed to those of the Pope-and that, too, in a question so fundamental and so completely dominating the whole future life of the Church-would be a scandal which must be averted even at the heaviest cost. Some time before the Indiction of the Council, in 1866, Pius himself formally a.s.serted, in the most significant terms, and in presence of a numerous a.s.semblage of foreigners who had come to offer him their homage, his true att.i.tude towards the world and the Bishops, whether a.s.sembled or dispersed. He spoke in French, and in words carefully prepared beforehand, and I give the speech precisely as it was reported, with the reporters' names subscribed, in the _Monde_, the _Union_, and the _Observateur Catholique_ of April 1, 1866, p.

357:-"_Seul_, malgre mon indignite, _je suis le successeur des apotres_, le vicaire de Jesus Christ; _seul_, j'ai _la mission de conduire et de diriger la barque de Pierre, je suis la voie, la verite, et la vie._ Il faut bien qu'on le sache, afin de ne pas se laisser tromper et aventurer par la parole de gens qui se disent Catholiques, mais qui veulent et enseignent tout autre chose que ce que veut et enseigne l'eglise."

Whether he really intended thereby to deny the office of the Bishops as successors of the Apostles, which has always. .h.i.therto been recognised in theology, I cannot say. But this much is clear, that every Bishop who in any important question of faith differs from the views of Pius, departs from "the way," swerves from "the truth," excludes himself from "the life." Nothing of the sort has ever been suffered at Rome; no dissent has ventured into the light of day. The censorship and the Inquisition have taken care of that. It would be a supremely dangerous precedent if that were now to happen for the first time, and with many Bishops of different nations for the dissidents. The contradiction between the Liberal Bishops and the Pope would be the more glaring, as Pius has only in the last few days addressed a very categorical letter to the Liguorian Jules Jacques on his own infallibility. He praises this man for having collected from the writings of Liguori his statements about Papal Infallibility, and thus exhibited the "sound doctrine." The "unsound" doctrine cannot be freely proclaimed in St. Peter's, and besides it has such a peculiar power of infection, that for centuries Rome has surrounded herself with a threefold _cordon_ and all sorts of disinfecting remedies against this epidemic. And accordingly, from the Roman standpoint, the adjournment of the Council must obviously appear to be in any case the lesser evil in comparison with so unheard-of a scandal. Just think of a philippic in the Council Hall against the infallibility of the Pope, an exposure of the errors of Popes-there in St. Peter's, close to the Vatican, and before 700 Prelates!