PEOPLE***


E-text prepared by Marcia Brooks, Steven Giacomelli, Graeme Mackreth, and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page
images generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)



Note: Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive. See
      https://archive.org/details/a545521400arthuoft





THE POPE THE KINGS AND THE PEOPLE


    "Take thou the tiara adorned with the triple crown, and know that
    thou art the Father of princes and of kings, and art the Governor
    of The world."--_Coronation Service of the Pontiffs._


THE POPE THE KINGS AND THE PEOPLE

A History of the Movement to Make the Pope Governor of the World by a
Universal Reconstruction of Society from the Issue of the Syllabus to
the Close of the Vatican Council

by the late

WILLIAM ARTHUR A.M

Author of "The Tongue of Fire" etc.

Edited by W. Blair Neatby M.A

Author of "The Programme of the Jesuits" etc.






London Hodder and Stoughton 27 Paternoster Row 1903

Butler & Tanner The Selwood Printing Works Frome and London




EDITOR'S PREFACE


Though I am named as the Editor of the present edition of the late Rev.
Wm. Arthur's _The Pope, the Kings, and the People_, it is right to say
that, by a restriction of my own choosing--for the publishers were
good enough to leave me a considerable discretion,--my editorial care
has been limited to the work of abridgment.[1] It was clear from the
first that in the short time at my disposal no attempt could be made to
verify the multitude of Mr. Arthur's references and quotations, drawn
as they were with a lavish hand from the contemporary literature of
half Europe. Happily, all his readers must recognise how intelligent,
laborious and scrupulous he has been. On the other hand, I had hoped to
add a certain number of footnotes explanatory of allusions to events
and circumstances that are much less fresh in the public memory to-day
than they were twenty-six years ago. I should also greatly have liked
to point out the extent, sometimes remarkable, to which Mr. Arthur's
forecasts have been already verified. But I soon found that if I were
to introduce fresh matter it must be at the expense of portions of
the original edition that were not to be lightly discarded. I have
therefore directed my efforts to adapting the book as far as possible
to the requirements of the present time by the process of simple
retrenchment.

This process I have carried out most scrupulously. Every word in the
abridgment is Mr. Arthur's own, and in Mr. Arthur's order. I have not
even allowed myself to supply insignificant connecting words, however
convenient they might have been, or however plainly they might be
implied in the original work. This rule has entailed extra labour, but
the gain seems to me immense. Every reader of this abridgment may know
that he is reading Mr. Arthur's _ipsissima verba_, and that he may
safely quote them as such. Not one word is mine.

And here I may perhaps be allowed to express my opinion that Mr.
Arthur's words deserve to be very widely read and quoted. It would be
hard to find a book that would shed more light on many of the most
urgent questions of to-day. As an _annus mirabilis_ of history, 1870
may yet take its place with 1453 or 1789. It was the year in which the
Jesuits signalized the triumphant consummation of a struggle, waged
during more than three centuries, for the capture of the Papacy. It
was the year in which the new Vaticanism was formally constituted,
and in which it gave the world notice, plainly and ostentatiously, of
the policy to which it held itself committed. It was also the year of
the Franco-Prussian war, a mighty convulsion which was after all but
an incident in the great drama of Vaticanism, as Mr. Arthur, amongst
others, has clearly shown.

I have said elsewhere that "the Jesuits, who brought France to the
verge of ruin in 1870, seemed on the very point of completing their
work of destruction a year or two since; and [that] he would be a very
bold man who would dare to say that the peril had passed even yet."[2]
The writer who makes such a statement assumes a grave responsibility;
but if any one wishes to know how abundantly the statement can be
justified he has only to turn to Mr. Arthur's pages. Mr. Arthur
demands from us no confiding trustfulness. Even at some expense to
the flow of his narrative, he wisely made his work a repertory of
contemporary documents, either transcribed entire or quoted with great
fulness. Without resort to _ex parte_ representations of adversaries,
we may thus learn from the Vatican's own organs that clerical
education, which has so signally proved itself the bane of modern
France, is the very groundwork of Vaticanism. And from the impressive
picture of the remorse that embittered Montalembert's last hours as
he looked back on the share he had taken long before in shaping the
educational policy of his country, we may perhaps learn the great
lesson of distinguishing between a false liberalism and the true.

Never more than in this instance is the history of the past the key to
the present; and no man, unless his acquaintance with Vaticanism is
of quite exceptional extent, can rise from the perusal of this book
without feeling that he has obtained a momentous and far-reaching
addition to his stock of religious and, perhaps even more, of political
knowledge.

 W. BLAIR NEATBY.

 _November, 1903._




PREFACE


The sources of the information contained in this work are, 1. Official
documents; 2. Histories having the sanction of the Pope or of bishops;
3. Scholastic works of the present pontificate, and of recognized
authority; 4. Periodicals and journals, avowed organs of the Vatican
or of its policy, with books and pamphlets by bishops and other
Ultramontane writers; 5. The writings of Liberal Catholics.

Of the official documents the greater part have been officially
published. The list of authorities, and the references in each
particular case, will sufficiently indicate where these are to be
found. Besides these, the _Documenta ad Illustrandum_ of Professor
Friedrich are a store of documents of special value, both in themselves
and as throwing light upon those officially published. They came into
his hands as an official theologian at the Vatican Council, and he
published them on his own responsibility. The _Sammlung_ of Friedberg
is a vast store, combining the documents of the Vatican with those of
Courts, public bodies, and important individuals.

The official history of Cecconi, now Archbishop of Florence, though
professedly that of the Vatican Council, is really occupied with the
secret history of the five years preceding the Council. That very
curious narrative throws a light back on the foregoing years, and a
light forward upon the Council, by aid of which many things otherwise
indistinct become well defined. I have waited in hope that a second
volume would appear, but in vain. The eight superb folios of Victor
Frond come out with an assurance, under the Pope's own hand, of being
preserved by due oversight from error, and with a guarantee of divine
patronage. They contain a life of the Pope, biographical notices of
the Cardinals and prelates, a full account of ceremonies, authentic
portraits of men and vestments, with pictures of "functions," and so
contribute to enable one to set events in their frames, and to invest
them with their colours. Except military annals, perhaps, no history
ever had more colour than this portion of Papal history, and perhaps
in no history whatever has the action been more deeply affected by
the scenery. The _Civiltá Cattolica_ fulfils the invaluable office
of a serial history, in the pages of which official documents and
the chronicle of events illustrate one another, and at the same time
discussions often prepare the way both for documents and for events,
and always follow and elucidate any that are of consequence. The same
office is in a less degree also fulfilled by the _Stimmen aus Maria
Laach_.

To appreciate the height of authority on which the _Civiltá_ stands,
the reader should bear in mind the fact that in 1866,[3] after it had
already for sixteen years been recognized as the organ, at one and the
same time, of the Pope himself and of the Company of Jesus to which its
editors belonged, his Holiness in a brief and by a declared exercise
of apostolic authority, formally erected _in perpetuity_ the Jesuit
Fathers who composed the editorial staff into a _College of Writers_,
which college should be under the General of the Society of Jesus,
but, it is added, so "as to Us and to Our successors shall seem most
expedient." In this brief the Pontiff recorded, as to the past, the
"exceeding gladness of soul" he had felt in witnessing the labour,
erudition, zeal, and talent with which the _Civiltá_ had "manfully
protected and defended the supreme dignity, authority, power and
rights" of the Apostolic See, and had "set forth and propagated the
_true doctrine_." He also recorded the fact that all this had day by
day more and more merited the "goodwill, esteem and praise," not only
of the hierarchy, but of men of the greatest eminence, and of all the
good. This, coming at a time when the expositions of the Encyclical and
Syllabus given by the _Civiltá_ had awakened among Liberal Catholics
serious opposition and even alarm, was decisive as to what was, at
Rome, held to be the _true doctrine_, and as to who were held to be its
real teachers. As to the future, the Pontiff, adopting the well known
motto of the Company of Jesus, decreed that, _for the greater glory of
God_, the writers should, as we have said, constitute _in perpetuity a
college_ possessing peculiar rights and privileges. As if formally to
claim some share of this glory, the Jesuit editors of the _Stimmen aus
Maria Laach_, when in 1869 commencing a new series, notified on their
title-page the fact that they availed themselves of the labours of
the _Civiltá_--a liberty which no Jesuit durst have taken without the
highest sanction.

All the numbers of the _Civiltá_ and of the _Stimmen_ being under
my hand, they have yielded a steady light by which to examine
opinions relating to the movement of "reconstruction," whether
those opinions were hostile or sympathetic. The Italian journal,
the _Unitá Cattolica_, and the French one, the _Univers_, written
with a consciousness of the highest favour on the one hand and of an
overwhelming influence among the clergy on the other, comment upon
the operative clauses of official documents--generally intelligible
only to the initiated--in forms more popular than those of the two
great magazines. But it is only by the still clearer comment of daily
narratives and polemics that the elucidation becomes complete.

The Roman work of the Marchese Francesco Vitelleschi (Pomponio Leto)
has now appeared in English--_Eight Months at Rome_ (Murray). This is
welcome, as enabling one to refer the English reader to his pages, of
which even Ultramontanes in Rome do not impugn the accuracy. _Quirinus_
is also happily in English. Professor Friedrich's _Tagebuch_ ought to
be, but is not. Those and smaller works by Liberal Catholics, compared
with the sparkling volumes of M. Louis Veuillot and the Ultramontane
serials and pamphlets, and with the Old Catholic writers in the
_Rheinischer Merkur_, the _Literaturblatt_ of Bonn, the _Stimmen aus
der Katholischen Kirche_, and so forth, slowly bring home to our
English understanding the strange principles and wonderful projects
which at first we either fail to apprehend, or else imagine that they
cannot be seriously entertained.

On those principles and projects four distinct controversies have shed
a steadily increasing light--the controversy on, 1. The Syllabus; 2.
The Vatican Council; 3. The Old Catholic Movement; 4. The Falk Laws.
The last two do not come within the scope of this work, but very much
of the light by which we gradually come to understand the preceding
stages of the movement, is due to the keen discussions to which these
two controversies have given rise.

Having subscribed for the _Civiltá Cattolica_ for years before the
Syllabus appeared, I was not wholly unprepared for the controversy
which followed. The _Civiltá_ also enabled me to see how Liberal
Catholics connected the Vatican Council with a movement in the past,
dating from the Pope's restoration, and with a plan of vast changes
for the future. While the hopes of the Ultramontanes seemed visionary,
and the fears of the Liberal Catholics seemed exaggerated, it did
nevertheless appear possible that great events might come out of a
deliberate attempt, made by a large and organized force, to reconstruct
the world. Soon after the close of the Franco-German war, a visit to
Paris, Munich, Vienna, Berlin, Brussels, and other centres, supplied
me with much material, casting light on the enterprise in which the
Vatican Council was the legislative episode, and from which the Old
Catholic movement was the recoil.

It was while engaged in studying such material that I threw off the
translation of the discussion held in Rome on the question whether St.
Peter had ever visited that city. Soon after broke out the controversy
on the Falk Laws. Six weeks spent in a German country town, reading
journals and pamphlets, and also in collecting, added to my light,
and to the means of getting further light. In the course of the time
employed upon the study of growing material was thrown off the review
of the Pope's Speeches, under the title of _The Modern Jove_.

Though conscious that I had not yet the groundwork for a well connected
account of the whole movement, I began to write, not with any intention
of publishing for a long time, should I live, but under the feeling
that, should I be called away, it would be right to leave behind me
information which had not been gained without cost and labour. After
a while appeared the official history of Cecconi. His authentic if
incomplete disclosure of the secret proceedings of five years was a
stem for many hitherto perplexing branches. A plan now began to shape
itself, and I commenced to recast all I had done. Shortly afterwards
came out the great work of Theiner, the _Acta Genuina_ of the Council
of Trent. This settled many points keenly debated between Catholic and
Liberal Catholic, affecting the rights of kings, of bishops, of the
divinity schools, of the lower clergy, of the laity, and affecting the
relations of all these to the Pontiff.

While I was working with these additional helps appeared Mr.
Gladstone's _Expostulation_. The great amount of knowledge it betrayed
contrasted with one's previous idea of the state of information on the
subject among our public men. The controversy which followed might have
brought some temptation to haste, had it not also brought proof that it
was even more necessary than I had supposed to beware of assuming that
phrases, modes of conception, and projects, well understood in Italy or
Germany, were at all understood here. Some of those who reviewed Mr.
Gladstone took for strange what in all countries in the south or centre
of Europe would have been taken as familiar, and for doubtful what in
Rome or Munich was as clear as day. Accredited terms and phrases were
treated as inventions; by some as inventions of genius, by others of
animosity. It was often more than hinted that principles and designs
habitually proclaimed at the Vatican were ascribed to priests only by
opponents. Not unfrequently a gentleman would seem to think it more
generous to attribute his Protestant ideas to Ultramontanes, than to
take it for granted that they preferred their own. It was incredible
how political questions pregnant with future controversies, perhaps
with future wars, were evaded as theology!

The replies to Mr. Gladstone placed the ignorance of the English public
on the subject in a different but a very impressive light. It is
often said abroad, by those who know us, that no nation in Europe is
so liable as we are to treat gravely statements from priests or their
advocates which any reasonable amount of information would render
entertaining. The reviews of these replies showed a growing sense of
the interests involved, but intensified one's feeling that the elements
of clear understanding were wanting. Men did not know the terms, the
facts, the publications, or the political doctrines of the movements
under discussion. Had what has been written in our best journals during
the last twenty years from Italy, or even during the last five from
Rome and Berlin, been well read, it would have led to study, and in
that case Dr. Newman and others would not have had so cheap a laugh
at our ignorance of what is meant because of our false interpretation
of what is said. While this controversy proceeded, a stay of nearly
three months in Rome, employed in seeking material and information,
added considerably to my stores, which were further increased by two
subsequent visits to Munich and one to Bonn.

I have often been reminded of an incident which occurred in Rome. One
of our celebrated scholars, hearing what I was engaged in, exclaimed
"Oh, Theology!" Of course, he was fresh from home. Not many minutes
before, a resident diplomatist, in whose house this took place,
having heard me say "I began the study of this subject as a religious
question, _but_--" smiled and said, "Yes, _but_--you find it is all
politics, and the further you get into it the more purely political
will you find it."

The controversy which had sprung up at home showed that a book written
as this one had been begun would be frequently misunderstood. In that
controversy it was often taken for granted that when an Ultramontane
disclaims Temporal Power, he disclaims power over temporal things;
and that when he writes Spiritual Power, he means only power over
spiritual things; that when he writes Religious Liberty, he means
freedom for every one to worship God according to his conscience; that
when he writes the Divine Law, he means only the Ten Commandments
and the precepts of the Gospel; that when he writes the Kingdom of
God, he means righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; and
that when he writes the Word of God, he simply means the Bible. One
reasoning with false interpretations like these in his mind must reason
in such a fog as Dr. Newman, in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk,
cleverly depicts. Ambiguity similar to that now indicated prevails
over the whole field of phraseology--theological, political, and
educational. English Ultramontanes are doubtless in part responsible
for these misapprehensions, but only in part. If their writings are
_studied_, they will be seen to use such terms differently from their
fellow-countrymen. But certainly the Papal Press of Rome, and even that
of France, is not in any degree responsible for our illusions, but has,
on the contrary, left us without excuse.

The consequence of all this is that in this book, where a mere allusion
would have been made, a fact is now often related; where the sense of
some particular utterance would have been condensed, that utterance is
verbally recited; and where one sentence would have been culled out,
more are given. Very often, where a statement of the principles of the
Papal movement would have been accompanied only by a reference to a
contemporary authority, that authority is made to speak for himself,
and occasionally at some length. Terms and phrases, which might have
been left to the chance of being understood, are either coupled with
narratives or discussions, to bring out their sense, or else they
are explained. When I do give explanations, let me not be trusted,
but watched. Much will be found of the language both of Catholics
and of Liberal Catholics, and with it the reader can confront my
strange-looking explanations. In the end he will be able to do what,
thank God, every Englishman is inclined to do--form an opinion for
himself as to the real sense in which the speakers employed their own
words.

It need not be said that this change of method rendered necessary a
larger book than was at first planned. It was also unfavourable to
the flow and unity of the narrative. Perhaps it compensated for that
disadvantage by more fully showing the grounds on which statements
are made, and by bringing the reader frequently, almost continuously,
into communication with Italian, Frenchman or German, each expressing
his own views, whether those of statesman or priest, of journalist or
magistrate, of Catholic or of Liberal Catholic.

My thanks are due to many who have forwarded my researches. The
kindness of Count Cadorna, then Italian Minister at our Court, procured
for me valuable facilities in Rome. My true gratitude was deserved by
the distinguished Minister of Education, Signor Bonghi, especially for
his personal introduction of me to the great library of the Collegio
Romano, not then open to the public. Our own Ambassador, Sir Augustus
Paget, and the German Ambassador, Baron Keudell, both rendered me
real service, with all possible courtesy. The Marchese Francesco
Nobili-Vitelleschi, himself author of a history on which I must often
draw, took pains to procure for me valuable material. Among many
benefits received from our own countrymen, I must specify that derived
from the vast information on all Italian matters possessed by Mr.
Montgomery Stuart, and also that arising from the constant kindness of
the Rev. H.J. Piggott. Those two gentlemen have kindly read on the spot
certain sheets containing local observations. Two German scholars were
constant and practical friends, Dr. Benrath and Dr. Richter.

In Munich the National Library, with its clear catalogue and good
collection, contrasted with the great libraries of Rome. The kindness
of Dr. Döllinger was great and eminently practical. He had kept all
pamphlets, bearing on the subject, which had come into his hands.
He not only gave me free access to this collection, but, where he
had duplicates, presented me with them. Dr. Reusch, Professor of the
University of Bonn, with a collection at least equal, though without
duplicates, gave me similar facilities. The lists thus procured,
and the energy of the German booksellers, enabled me to get almost
everything contained in either collection, including Italian and Latin
publications which I had in vain sought in Italy, and even French ones
which I could not find in Paris.

The weakness of my own eyesight has increased the obligation which, in
any case, I should have felt to my two valued friends. Dr. Moulton and
Dr. H.W. Williams, who have kindly read the proofs. Dr. Moulton also
compared the translation of the speech of Darboy with the original, and
suggested improvements. Dr. Karl Benrath, of Bonn, whose long residence
in Rome and whose study of the subject lent to his judgment a special
value, has laid me under great obligation by examining every sheet as
it passed through the press.

The very frequent translations rendered necessary by the plan of
letting men speak for themselves are as close as I knew how to make
them. Even where marks of quotation are not used, and yet I profess to
give the sense of some utterance, those who can go to the originals
will find that the language, though condensed, is preserved, and, in
any important matter, closely rendered.

Reversing the ordinary practice as to quotations, where the italics
were in the original, I generally mention that it was so. It would have
been tedious to say that they were my own in every case where they
seemed necessary to direct attention to a phrase or a term having a
meaning different from ours, or to one the full significance of which
might easily escape notice.

Nothing but a conviction that the movement here traced is of an
importance for which ordinary terms are not an adequate expression
would have justified me, in my own view, in giving to the study of
it years of a life now far advanced. If the authors of the movement
are not deceived, the generations that will come up after I am no
more will witness a struggle on the widest scale, and of very long
duration, during which will disappear all that to us is known as modern
liberties, all that to Rome is known as the Modern State, and at the
close of which the ecclesiastical power will stand alone, presiding
over the destinies of a reconstituted world. Not at all believing in
the possibility of this issue, I do not disbelieve in the possibility
of the struggle. To avert any such repetition of past horrors, to turn
the war into a war of thought, a war with the sword of the writer and
of the orator, instead of that of the zouave and the dragoon, is an
object in attempting to serve which, however humbly, a good man might
be content to die. Had I at any time during my preparations seen the
same work undertaken by some one whose position or whose name would
have commanded a degree of attention to which I have no claim, gladly
should I have buried the fruit of my labour. Such as that fruit is,
I now submit it to the public, in humble hope that the very absence
of titles to consideration by which a work on the subject should have
been recommended, will turn to a plea for more indulgence in weighing
the only claims I have to put forth, those of hard work and honest
intention.

May He who has given to our nation the blessings of free prayer, free
preaching, free writing, free speech, and free assembly, with their
wholesome fruit of equal laws, tempered power, and moderated liberty,
grant that this humble labour may in some measure contribute to make
those inestimable boons dearer than ever to the hearts of our people,
and that it may contribute also to place them in a position more
readily to foil every endeavour to snatch those boons or to steal them
away from us and from mankind!

CLAPHAM COMMON, 1877.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Considerably more than a fifth of the original matter has
been omitted. Whenever a quotation has been abridged, the usual marks
have been employed to indicate the hiatus.]

[Footnote 2: _The Programme of the Jesuits_, Preface, p. v.]

[Footnote 3: See _Civiltá_, Serie VI. vol vi. pp. 5-15.]




POSTSCRIPT TO THE PREFACE

_June 6, 1877_

ON CARDINAL MANNING'S "TRUE STORY OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL"


Had not the time occupied in bringing out this work far exceeded my
expectations, it would have appeared as early as the first portion of
Cardinal Manning's "True Story of the Vatican Council," in the pages of
the _Nineteenth Century_. As it is, I have been able to read the fourth
paper, in which the Cardinal concludes his narrative of the Council
itself, though he intimates an intention of hereafter adding comments
on extraneous matters. I cannot but feel that, in more respects than
one, the appearance of the _True Story_ immediately before that of this
book is an advantage. The general reader is thus supplied with means
of checking many of my statements, and of estimating the value of my
authorities. Although this advantage is limited to such ground as is
common to the _True Story_ and to my history, that ground is a portion
of sufficient importance to afford some criterion for judging of the
whole. One of my fears, arising from the way in which, both in recent
controversies and in former ones, authorities have been dealt with
before the English public, was that we might find it soberly intimated
that Cecconi was not a writer of high credit, that the _Civiltá
Cattolica_ was a private magazine, that the _Acta Genuina_ of Theiner
was a publication brought out in an obscure place, and so on through
the list. Now, however, the reliance placed by Cardinal Manning on
authorities which supply essential features of my narrative, and the
importance unwillingly assigned by him to others frequently cited by
me, will act as a restraint on those who might have made light of them.

Another considerable advantage is this. It almost seemed as if it
would prejudice Englishmen against a writer to state what from time to
time it was needful to intimate--how histories issued from official or
semi-official sources systematically withheld information on the points
of chief importance. Such points, so far as the Council was concerned,
were the actual differences of opinion between prelate and prelate, the
tenor of the debates, the arguments employed on one side or the other,
the written memoranda of bishops on the questions disputed, their
printed pamphlets, their speeches, their truly important petitions,
recording complaints against the Rules of Procedure imposed upon them,
and against the disabilities under which the Pope had placed them.
Those petitions recorded, further, their personal disbelief in the new
dogma, with the fact that they had always taught in opposition to it,
and that they anticipated from its adoption grave perils of collision
between Church and State. Other matters kept out of view comprised
interesting facts credibly alleged and circumstantially detailed
relating to personal acts of the Pope, to proceedings of the Curia and
of the Presidents of the Council. Still more interesting, and of graver
import, were the reasons assigned by Ministers of State and others, for
regarding with more than ordinary jealousy the projected changes in
the Papal system. It seemed even more invidious to note the practice
of adopting, in order to cover all these suppressions of facts, and of
alleged facts, an air of giving information by entering into details
of ceremonies, enlarging on unimportant matters, telling, as if it was
of great moment, how many meetings of this sort were held, how many of
that, how many spoke, at what time this Decree was proposed, and how
many votes were taken on another, without in all this allowing a word
to transpire of what was said or thought. I am now relieved of all fear
about those features of my narrative. Any one who has a relish for the
curiosities of literature may match, and perhaps overmatch, what I
have told of French priests and Italian Jesuits, by what an Englishman
has done.

I had never, however, to accuse the Italian Jesuits of keeping out of
sight the political, or, as they generally say, the social aspects of
the movement, and of covering them up in theological disquisitions.
They did, indeed, use wondrous theological phrases with political
meanings, but any one who studied their writings soon penetrated
that veil. They also invariably used theology as the motive power
of all their politics. But from 1850, when the movement which has
characterized the present pontificate began, to 1870, when it reached
its legislative climax, they set forth prominently as their object
the reconstruction of society, on the model of what, in their own
dialect, they call the Christian civilization. They loudly proclaimed,
as the elements of that Christian civilization, the revocation of
constitutions, the abolition of modern liberties, especially those of
the Press and of worship, with the subjection to canon law of civil
law, and, above all, the subjection to the jurisdiction of the Pope
of all nations and their rulers, whatever the title of those rulers
might be. They justly conceived the ills they had to repair, as, having
begun with the bad teaching of John Wyclif, in which his doctrine of
"dominion" was the head and front of all his offending, and of that of
every succeeding age. As he had striven for the emancipation of kings
from the Pope, of legislatures from the ecclesiastical powers, and of
the individual from the priest, so did they set themselves to bring
back again the dominion of the priest over the individual, the dominion
of the ecclesiastical authorities over lawgivers, and above all, the
dominion of the Pope over kings. Of this the reader will meet with
evidence from their own lips, at almost every stage of our narrative.
Those Italian Jesuits did not expound the Syllabus, according to the
new and _naive_ notion of Cardinal Manning, as a code containing very
little to which "any sincere believer in Christian revelation would,
if he understood the Syllabus, object." The Italian Jesuits, ay, and
even the German ones, on the contrary, made a boast of its diametrical
opposition to every form of Liberalism, and in particular to Liberal
Catholicism, of its efficacy as an instrument for overturning the
Modern State, and of its solidity as the foundation-stone on which was
to be reared the fabric of reconstructed society. In all their writings
society was taken as meaning, not families, nor Churches, but nations,
and each one of the nations was to form a province within a Church
ruling over it and over all other nations in every one of their laws
and public institutions.

In speaking of the idea that all believers in revelation would accept
nearly all of the Syllabus, I have assumed that Cardinal Manning,
writing for an English audience, uses the term "Christian revelation"
in the English and not in the Papal sense. To a sincere believer in
Christian revelation in the Papal sense, the Syllabus, if not in
form, yet in substance, is an infallible and "irreformable" portion
of that revelation. And so it would very simply come to pass that a
sincere believer in Christian revelation would admit, not merely most
of it, but all of it so far as it contains any teaching. And to such
a believer the kingdoms of the world will never become the kingdom of
God, and of His Christ, but by ceasing to be kingdoms at all in any
independent and proper sense, and by merging into provinces under the
Priest and King, or, as in phrases still more mystic they style him,
the Shepherd-King of the Vatican.

Now a _True Story_ of the Vatican Council, in which, to the
apprehension of an ordinary reader, all these topics are kept out of
view, though to an adept they are not wholly kept out, seems to me
like a _True Story_ of the civil war in the United States which should
largely dwell upon State rights, forgetting all about slavery, or
speaking of it only in an esoteric dialect.

The _True Story_ affords us some foretaste of what history is to be
after dogma has completed the conquest over it which has been promised.
Had my narrative been written after its appearance, the topics totally
ignored, and those virtually ignored, in the _True Story_, might
easily have been thrown into stronger relief. As it is, however, the
succession of events necessarily brings them again and again into view,
and perhaps the effect of the outline may be rendered more distinct to
the English reader through the contrast with the _True Story_.

Of the prelates on this side of the Alps, Cardinal Manning was not the
one from whom we should have expected that in an account of the five
years preceding the Vatican Council, with a brief retrospect of the
whole of the present pontificate, and a history of the Council itself,
scarcely one clear utterance should be made as to the bearing of the
movement on those governments, liberties and institutions which to the
Vatican are very evil and to us are very dear. It was not so in 1867
and 1869. In both of those years the Cardinal indicated the political
relations of the movement in words of warning which, if only echoes
of those of the Jesuits in Rome, were perhaps more intelligible and
vehement than those of any other prelate on this side of the Alps.

Statements of mine will frequently be found to conflict with statements
made in the _True Story_. In most of those cases--I hope in all--the
materials from known sources furnished to the general reader will
suffice for a not unsatisfactory comparison, while the authorities
indicated will enable the scholar to form a judgment. In very many of
these cases statements of Cardinal Manning, made in previous works and
virtually amounting to the same as the most material of those made in
the _True Story_, will be found side by side with the statements of
other authorities, with official documents, or with facts no longer
disputable. Of these statements, one to which the Cardinal seems to
attach much importance is his assertion that none of the prelates, or
at most a number under five, disbelieved or denied the dogma of Papal
infallibility, and that all their objections turned on questions of
prudence. This is not a slip, nor a hasty assertion, and it is very
far from being peculiar to Cardinal Manning. It is now the harmonious
refrain of all that hierarchy of strange witnesses of which he has made
himself a part. The point is one on which illustrations will occur
again and again, in events, in words, and in those documents which, in
spite of all precautions, have been gained to publicity.

Notwithstanding the method adopted in the _True Story_, the fact
crops out at every turn that the modern strife of the Papacy is not
to make men and women, as such, godly and peaceable, but to bring
kings as kings, and legislatures as legislatures, and nations as
nations, into subjection to the Pope. It crops out sufficiently, at
least, to be obvious to all who know the difference, in the Cardinal's
phraseology, between the two sets of terms employed to indicate those
two distinct objects. For instance, what an excellent description
of that _Catholic Civilization_ which, in the great contest of the
Vatican, is ever signalized as the goal, does the Cardinal give
when, picturing the "public life and laws and living organization of
Christendom" in the times when all these, according to his ideas,
were "Christian," he says, "_Princes and legislatures and society_
professed the Catholic faith, and were _subject to the head_ of the
Catholic Church." Cardinal Manning does not here use the word "society"
in the domestic but in the political sense. He means, not families
or social parties, but nations--as the Jesuit writers almost always
do. Any one may, therefore, possess himself of a key to the true
meaning of many pious phrases which occur in the following pages, if
he will first of all clearly realize in his own thoughts just what
it would involve for England; and for us were the conditions stated
by the Cardinal fulfilled by our princes, our legislature, and our
"society." One seeking to do this must realize the fact that the prince
and the legislature not as individuals, and the "society" not in its
separate members, but the prince as a prince, the legislature as a
legislature, and the nation as a society, shall _profess the Catholic
faith_. Ordinary Englishmen do not realize all that is meant by that
formula. But beyond that, the prince as a prince, the legislature as
a legislature, the nation as a society, are not only to believe in
the Pope, but to be _subject to him_. What fulness of meaning that
formula possesses will gradually open up to the reader as the narrative
unfolds. He will often hear ecclesiastical politicians of the school to
which Cardinal Manning belongs, talking in their native dialect, not
modulating their voice to win the are of Protestants. This national
_profession of the faith_, and this subjection of kings, lawgivers, and
nations to the Pope, constitute in one word the _Civiltá Cattolica_
(the Catholic civilization); or, in plain English, the Catholic civil
system; or, in other terms, the true Catholic constitution, the reign
of Christ over the world, to establish which in all nations the Vatican
is to move heaven and earth.

In his first paper Cardinal Manning seeks to impress us with the belief
that the raising of Papal infallibility to the rank of a dogma was not
a chief object of the Pontiff, much less his only one, in convoking the
Vatican Council. On that point the narrative will often incidentally
present the expressions of prelates, official writers, and others,
so that the reader will be able to form an opinion of his own. In
his second paper the Cardinal shows that throughout the whole of the
present pontificate the dogma has been kept in view as an essential
object. Of that position illustrations will frequently occur. In the
second paper, also, the Cardinal repeats his old allegation that it was
Janus who invented "the fable of an acclamation." The course of the
tale will tell whether it was or was not Janus who originated the talk
of a design to get up an acclamation, and whether that talk was or was
not a fable.

The Cardinal, while attempting to justify, though for the most part
keeping out of sight, the disabilities imposed upon the bishops by
the Pope, disabilities of which they loudly complained, glances at
one out of many of the real ones. He says that the Commission which
was empowered to say whether any proposal emanating from a bishop
was worthy to be recommended to the Pope for consideration, without
which recommendation it could not come before the Council, was "a
representative commission." The fact is that it was a selection of
prelates made by the Pope, who excluded from it all who had avowed
themselves opponents of his infallibility, and included in it creatures
of his own, who had nothing of the bishop but the orders and the pay
which the favour of the Court had given to them.

The Cardinal, after ample time for correction, repeats his old
declaration that in the Vatican Council "the liberty of speech was as
perfectly secured as in our Parliament." That assertion has the merit
of being free from all ambiguity, and moreover is one on which plain
men can judge. As I have told the story, the readers will over and over
again meet with facts, equally free from ambiguity and equally patent
to plain men, which will show whether the assertion is true or not.

On the great question of secrecy the Cardinal risks a statement which
exceeds what Italian Jesuits, if writing for a periodical of the rank
of the _Nineteenth Century_, would be likely to hazard. He says: "At
the beginning of the Council of Trent this precaution (of secrecy) was
omitted; wherefore, on February 17, 1562, the legates were compelled to
impose the secret upon the bishops." The Cardinal would seem to imagine
that there was at least a substantial agreement, if not an actual
identity, between the acts by which silence was enjoined, and also
between the extent of the silence demanded in Trent and at the Vatican;
and that indeed from February 17, 1562, forwards, the Council of Trent
was laid under a bond something like that by which the Vatican Council
was from the beginning fettered. Was it so? Was there a substantial
agreement in the two acts by which silence was enjoined? Was there a
substantial agreement in the extent of silence imposed? Was there at
Trent a formal decree? Was there an oath imposed on the officers? Was
there an exclusion of the theologians from debates, and of the public
from the debates of the theologians? Was there any vow required, any
threat held out? And does even Cardinal Manning fancy that there was at
Trent a new mortal sin made on purpose for the benefit of the bishops?
Of all this there was nothing. The act of the legates was simply what
it is described as having been by Massarellus, the Secretary of the
Council, who says: "The Fathers were admonished not to divulge things
proposed for examination, and in particular Decrees, before they were
published in open session."[4]

The Cardinal is apparently also under an impression that the extent
of silence imposed in the two cases was at least substantially the
same. Was that so? Did the legates censure the admission of laymen
to hear the theologians argue? Did they censure the permission given
to theologians who were not bishops even by the fiction of a see _in
partibus_, to dispute in presence of the Council? Did they censure
any remarks made out of doors on speeches, opinions or projects? Did
they censure anything but the one indiscretion of circulating proposed
Decrees, or other things proposed, while yet the formulae were, "so
to speak, unshaped," but were in their inchoate condition made public
as if they had been passed? Did the legates suggest that the duty of
secrecy extended further than that of not publishing such tentative
formulae, of not sending them out of the city, and of forbidding
persons attached to the households of bishops to commit those
indiscretions? At Trent there were faults and causes of complaint in no
small number. But what Cardinal Manning calls "the secret" which would
shut up every mouth as to all subjects proposed, as to all opinions
expressed, as to all speeches made, as to all designs mooted--"the
secret" which forbade men to print their own speeches, to read the
official reports taken of them, to read those of their brother bishops,
and other extravagances besides, of which the _True Story_ has not one
syllable to tell--that "secret," or any such, is not hinted at in the
a monition of the legates at Trent. The extent of silence imposed at
the Vatican would seem to have been as original as the mortal sin there
invented.

Still further, the Cardinal would appear to be under an impression that
the reason why at Trent certain inconvenient publications occurred was
because that, at the outset, the strict precautions had been there
omitted which at the Vatican were not only taken in time, but, with
manifold forethought, were, before the time, as our story will tell,
tied and bound by edict and by oath. As to disclosures, however, that
occurred at the Vatican, which most Romans would tell any Englishman,
except a priest or a convert, would be certain to occur, namely, that
the "pontifical secret" would be dealt in as a thing to be sold. Did
the precautions omitted at Trent, but adopted at the Vatican, prevent
so much from transpiring as compelled the Pope to loose from the bond
four selected prelates, including the eminent author of the _True
Story_, in order that they might disabuse the outside world? Did it
prevent the famous canons which opened the eyes of Austrian and French
statesmen from making a quick passage to Augsburg and to Printing House
Square?--of which canons, by the way, as of most essential matters, the
_True Story_ tells not a word.

It would be very tempting to select for remark other assertions of
the Cardinal, but this may suffice to do all that I here wish to do;
that is, to set the reader upon intelligently watching and sifting
statements of my own; for what is to be desired on this subject is that
the public shall cease to be easily contented with what is said on one
side or the other. My statements, like those of others, are sure to
contain a fair proportion of mistakes, but when all these are winnowed
away, there will remain a considerable peck of corn.

Not content with formally vouching, in his title, for his own
truthfulness, the Cardinal formally impeaches that of others. Both
of these proceedings would be perfectly natural in a priest in Rome,
and especially in one attached to the Jesuit school. Had I foreseen
the cautious beginning of such habits that was so soon to be made by
high authority, certainly I should not have so far yielded to the
repugnance one feels to put specimens of priestly imputations into our
language--a language which had for ages, up to the date of the _Tracts
for the Times_, been steadily acquiring an antipathy to all the arts
of untruthfulness, and consequently to all the forms in which other
languages habitually insinuate or openly allege it. But I cannot regret
that my story purposely excludes full specimens, and only by force of
frequent necessity admits morsels, of the style in which in Rome every
shade of untruthfulness, from suppression and equivocation to the worst
kinds of perjury and forgery, is on the one hand charged upon heretics,
on Liberal Catholics, on statesmen, and is on the other hand in return,
and with extreme good will, charged upon bishops, cardinals and popes.

The veracity of Pomponio Leto--that is, as all Italy knows, of
the Marchese Francesco Vitelleschi, brother of the late Cardinal
Vitelleschi--is openly impugned by Cardinal Manning. We already know,
on more points than one, the opinion of Vitelleschi as to the eminent
author of the _True Story_; and retaliation would have been natural
had it only been fair. If Vitelleschi wrote English, and if he cared
to compare his truthfulness with that of such a competitor, it would
be interesting to hear him fairly fight out the question, Which of
us two has, to the best of his power, tried just to tell what he
knew, inventing nothing and concealing nothing? It does not seem at
all certain that the Englishman would bear away from the Italian the
palm of straightforwardness. The Cardinal is evidently not aware that
certain alleged particulars of the famous Strossmayer scene, which he
ascribes to Pomponio Leto, are not in his description of it either in
the Italian or in the English version. From where the Cardinal gets
them I do not know. But his picture of Schwarzenberg "carried fainting
from the _ambo_ to his seat," his idea that Pomponio professes on
that day to have been outside the Council door and to have seen "the
servants rushing," and his other idea that at the fourth session
Pomponio professes to have been inside and consequently forgot that
many of those who were outside could see through the great door which
was wide open, are all alike. He certainly did not get any of them from
Vitelleschi. As it is after stating these errors, that his Eminence
cries, "Such melodramatic and mendacious stuff!" we must imagine how
Vitelleschi will smile at this new display of certain qualities which
did not escape his keen eye.

Professor Friedrich is slightingly spoken of by the Cardinal. Here
again retaliation, if fair, would have been natural; for Cardinal
Manning has already felt the steel of Friedrich. Judging from my own
impression that under the slashes of Friedrich what the Cardinal had
employed as if he took it for argument appeared perfectly helpless, I
should expect that it the learned professor should think it worth while
to try his strength on the sort of history, theology, and logic which
the Cardinal thinks may pass in England, they would in his hands, at
almost every debatable point, fly to pieces. As to veracity, however,
Friedrich has already, on that score, as our story will show, crossed
swords with more bishops than one; and whether on that or other
matters, certainly he is not the man to turn his back on Cardinal
Manning, whose measure he has long ago taken, as, even under the eyes
of the Papal police, he did not fear to show.

Cardinal Manning occupies pages with imputations, and with quotations
which he apparently thinks warrant the imputations. Does he, or do the
witnesses he calls, disprove any of the specific facts alleged? Yes,
he does disprove one. Vitelleschi, in describing the great session of
the Council, said that Cardinal Corsi and other discontented Cardinals
pulled down their red hats over their eyes. Now, Cardinal Manning
properly says that on that occasion they had no hats of any colour,
meaning that they wore the mitre. Therefore a real blot is hit. And it
is curious how exactly this is the same kind of blot as the Jesuits
of the _Civiltá_ were able to hit in the early part of Vitelleschi's
book, when, like the _True Story_, it first appeared in a periodical.
They clearly convicted the author, then unknown even to them, of saying
that in certain solemnities the robes were red, whereas in fact they
were white. We must, however, do the Roman Jesuits the justice to say
that from this tremendous error they did not attempt to prove that the
writer was given to "mendacious stuff," though they did argue that he
was wanting in reflection.

But it is a well-known fact that grave matters--very grave
matters--were with sufficient particularity alleged against the Pope,
against the Presidents, against the Rules of Procedure, against
the authorized Press, against the favourites of the Court among
the bishops, against the secret way in which "the Council was made
beforehand," and above all against the political designs which were
entertained; and, one must ask, with what single fact of all these is
any manly attempt made to grapple by the Cardinal, or by the bishops
whom he cites in his support? Besides these facts, of which some were
amusing, some absurd, some discreditable, there were others which
for all good men except <DW7>s, in the proper sense, were seriously
alarming, and these were alleged by Catholic and Liberal Catholic,
by men in opposition and by men in all places of authority up to the
highest--by Vitelleschi, by Friedrich, by Veuillot, by Guérin, by Frond
and his contributors, by _Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_, by Hefele, by
Kenrick, by Darboy, by Rauscher, by Place, by Dupanloup, by the hundred
and thirty bishops who signed the protest against even discussing
infallibility, by the groups of bishops who signed that against the
Rules of Procedure, by those who signed the solemn one against the new
Rules, by those who petitioned for the A B C of deliberative freedom,
by the scores who signed the historical petition of April 10, 1870, by
those who protested against the unfair and arbitrary attempt of July 5,
and by those fifty-five who, the day before the final session, placed
in the hands of the Pope their protest, saying that if they voted in
the public session they could only repeat, and that with stronger
reasons, their previous vote--that is, of _Non placet_; a protest of
which Cardinal Manning has taken a strangely inaccurate and misleading
view. Such facts were alleged by _La Liberté du Concile_, by _La
Dernière Heure du Concile_, by Mamiani, by Bonghi, by Beust, by Daru,
by Arnim, by Acton, by Montalembert, by Döllinger; and still more by
the _Civiltá Cattolica_, the _Stimmen aus Maria Laach_, the _Univers_,
the _Monde_, and the _Unitá Cattolica_; and most of all were they
embodied in the words and official manifestoes of Pope Pius IX. What
one of these alarming or discreditable or equivocal facts is disposed
of by the passages which Cardinal Manning in his need has cited? He
cites Hefele to prove that people who were outside of the Council told
falsehoods as to what passed inside. But with the wonted sequence of
his logic, what he proves out of the mouth of Hefele is that people
who were inside of the Council sold the secret, though in doing so
they incurred the pains of mortal sin. The proof is quite as apposite
as many of those relied upon by Cardinal Manning, and it is no wonder
that such a habit of reasoning should have landed him where he is. He
cites of all men Ketteler. Now supposing that Ketteler was the person
to invalidate serious testimony, what particular fact is disproved by
the passage cited? The only one it affects to touch is the question as
to whether, in substance, the anti-infallibilist doctrine of Döllinger
was not also that of the majority of the German bishops. That question
is not faced in front. Ketteler only raises a side issue. He denies
that on some certain occasion, certain bishops had in a certain way
made a statement to that effect. Cardinal Manning has not lived so long
in Rome, and learned so much there, without knowing something of the
value of such contradictions. But if he means--as, however reluctantly,
one must take him to mean--to use Ketteler to prove to Englishmen that
the majority of the German bishops were not, before July 1870, opposed
to that as a doctrine which is now a dogma of their creed, then let
Ketteler by all means stand on one side, but pamphlets, memoranda,
speeches, petitions, votes, protests stand on the other. Ketteler
is cited against Döllinger, and agreeably to the all but infallible
felicity of the Cardinal's logic, about the most definite thing
Ketteler says against the Provost is that _Janus_, for falsification
of history, can hardly be compared to anything but the Provincial
Letters of Pascal. Had the Cardinal cited the whole body of the German
bishops, he might, indeed, with English Catholics have gained some show
of authority; but how would it have been with the fellow-countrymen of
those prelates? or with any who, like their fellow-countrymen, had,
in the two Fulda manifestoes of 1869 and 1870, and in other words
and deeds of those mitred diplomatists--words and deeds which cannot
be erased--learned at what rate to prize statements signed by their
episcopal crosses? There are in Europe few bodies of functionaries
who stood in sorer need than did these German bishops of something
to rehabilitate the credit of their Yea and Nay; not that even yet
it seems to have fallen quite so low as that of their superiors of
the Curia; at least, not quite so low in matters of purely personal
reputation, when no official obligation exists to make a public
impression which is contrary to the facts, and when dissimulation,
if practised, arises from a habit partly professional, partly
personal, and one sometimes indulged in as an exercise of cleverness.
Cardinals hardly do prudently to raise on English soil questions about
truthfulness; for the English public will not much longer be content
to take information at haphazard or at second-hand, but will go to the
fountains, and learn about things in Rome as things in Rome in reality
have been.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 4: Theiner, _Acta Genuina_, i. 686.]




LIST OF WORKS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO AS AUTHORITIES


_The titles and editions being here given, the references in each
particular instance will be no longer than is sufficient to identify
the work._

Some works cited only once are not here entered, their titles being
given at full in the body of the book. The few English writers quoted
are not inserted here.

Acta et Decreta Sacrosancti OEcumenici Concilii Vaticani. Romæ Impensis
Paulini Lazzarini Typographi Concilii Vaticani: 1872.

Acta et Decreta Sacrosancti et OEcumenici Concilii Vaticani cum
permissione Superiorum. _Friburgi Brisgoviæ_: Herder, 1871. Contains
the Encyclical and Syllabus of December 8, 1864, and some other useful
documents not published in the Roman edition; but does not contain its
brief historical notes of the public sessions.

Acta Genuina SS. OEcumenici Concilii Tridentini, nunc primum integra
edita ab Augustino Theiner. _Zagrabiæ Croatiæ_: 2 vols, small folio,
1874. Always referred to as _Theiner_.

Acta Sanctæ Sedis in Compendium Opportune Redacta. Romæ S.C. De
Propaganda Fide. A volume has appeared annually since 1865.

Actes et Histoire du Concile OEcuménique de Rome, 1869, Publiés sous la
direction de Victor Frond. Paris: Abel Pilou. 8 vols, large folio, with
numerous illustrations. A brief of the Pope warrants to the Editor the
"counsel and approbation of the Holy Apostolical See;" and also gives
him the Apostolic Benediction "as a guarantee of the divine patronage."
The references are always to _Frond_.

Acton, Lord--Zur Geschichte des Vaticanischen Conciles. München:
1871.--Sendschreiben an einen Deutschen Bischof des Vaticanischen
Concils. Nördlingen: September, 1870.

Annuario Pontificio, 1870. Roma Tipografia della Rev. Cam. Apostolica.

Bibliothèque Universelle et Revue Suisse. Lausanne. Montalembert's
L'Espagne et la Liberté is contained in Nos. 217-21, from January to
May, 1876.

Ce Qui se Passe au Concile. Paris: 1870. Condemned by the Council.

Cecconi, Eugenio (now Archbishop of Florence)--Storia del Concilio
Vaticano scritta sui documenti originali. Parte prima Antecedenti
del Concilio, Vol. I. Roma: A Spese di Paulini Lazzarini, _Tipografo
del Concilio Vaticano_, 1873. The official history of the secret
proceedings of five years.

_Civiltá Cattolica_ (_La_), Anno Vigesimottavo. Serie X. vol. i.
Quaderno, 641. Firenze: 3 Marco, 1877. This is the title of the latest
number. It has appeared fortnightly since the year 1850. It is quoted
as _Civiltá_ (e.g.) X. i. 5--the first numeral noting the series, the
second the volume, the third the page.

Concile du Vatican, le, et le Mouvement Anti-infaillibiliste en
Allemagne. 2 vols, octavo. Brussels: 1871.

Concile OEcuménique, le. Par Mgr. l'Evêque de Grenoble. Paris: 1869.

Dernière Heure du Concile. München: 1870. Condemned by the Council;
said by Quirinus to be by a member of the Council, possessing "almost
unique opportunities."

Desanctis, L.--Roma Papale descritta in una serie di Lettere. Firenze:
1871.--Il Papa, osservazioni Dottrinali e Storiche. Firenze: 1864.

Deschamps, Archbishop of Malins (now Cardinal).--Réponse à Mgr.
l'Evêque D'Orléans. Paris: 1870.

Documenta. _See_ Friedrich.

Documenti (i) Citati nel Syllabus edito per ordine del Sommo Pontifico
Pio Papa IX. Preceduti da Analoghe Avvertenze. Firenze: 1865. Like the
French _Recueil_, contains the documents cited in the Syllabus, but
with Italian notes, and without any translation.

Döllinger, D.--Erwägungen für die Bischöfe des Concilium's über die
Frage der päpstlichen Unfehlbarkeit. München: October, 1869.--Die neue
Geschäftsordnung des Concils und ihre theologische Bedeutung. Augsburg:
1870.--Erklärung an den Erzbischof von München-Freising. München: 1871.

Dupanloup--Lettre de Mgr., L'Evêque D'Orléans au clergé de son Diocése
relativement à la définition de l'infaillibilité au prochain Concile.
Paris: 1869. The original is reprinted with the English version of
Vitelleschi. Eight Months at Rome.--Réponse de Mgr. L'Evêque D'Orléans
à Mgr. Deschamps. Paris: Duniol, 1870.--Réponse de Mgr. L'Evêque
D'Orléans à Mgr. Spalding, Archevêque de Baltimore, accompagne d'une
lettre de plusieurs Archevêques et Evêques Américain à Mgr. l'Evêque
d'Orléans. Naples: 1870.

Fessler, Dr. Joseph, Bishop of St. Pölten--Das letzte und das nächste
allgemeine Concil. Freiburg-in-Brisgau: 1869.

Friedberg, Dr. Emil, Professor, Leipsic--Sammlung der Aktenstücke
zum ersten Vaticanischen Concil. Tübingen: 1872. Always quoted as
_Friedberg_.

Friedrich, Dr. J., Professor, Munich--Tagebuch während des
Vaticanischen Concils geführt. Zweite vermehrte Auflage. Nördlingen:
1873.--Documenta ad Illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum, anni 1870. Both
the first and second Abtheilung are of Nördlingen, 1871. Quoted as
_Documenta_.--Der Mechanismus der Vaticanischen Religion. Bonn: 1876.

Fromman, Theodor--Geschichte und Kritik des Vaticanischen Concils.
Gotha: 1872. A Protestant writer, therefore scarcely ever cited.

Frond, Victor--Actes et Histoire, etc. 8 vols. fol. _See_ "Actes," etc.

Gury, P. Joanne Petro--Compendium Theologiæ Moralis, S.I. editio in
Germania Quarta. Ratisbon: 1868.--Casus Conscientiæ in Præcipuas
Quæstiones Theologiæ Moralis editio in Germania prima. Ratisbon: 1865.

Guérin, Mgr. Paul, Chamberlain to Pius IX.--Concile OEcuménique du
Vatican son Histoire ses décisions en Latin et en Francais. Professes
to give all the documents, but gives only a portion even of those
officially published. Bar-le-Duc: 1871. 2nd ed.

Gregorovius, Ferdinand.--_Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Miltelalter vom
V. bis zum XVI. Jahrhundeyt._ Zweite Auflage: 1869. 8 vols, octavo.

Hefele, Carolus Josephus Episcopus Rottenburgensis--Causa Honorii Papæ.
Neapoli: 1870.

Hergenröther, Dr. Joseph, Professor, Würzburg--Katholische Kirche
und Christlicher Staat in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung und
in Bezichung auf die Fragen der Gegenwart. Freiburg-in-Brisgau:
1873.--Kritik der v. Döllingerschen Erklärung vom 28 Marz d.I.
Freiburg-in-Brisgau: 1871.

Holtgreven, Anton, Königl. Preuss. Kreisrichter--Das Verhältniss
Zwischen Staat und Kirche. Berlin: 1875.

Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis in America--Concio Petri Ricardi
Kenrick, Archiepiscopi S. Ludovici in Statibus Foederatis Americæ
Septentrionalis in Concilio Vaticano Habenda at non Habita. Neapoli:
1870. This invaluable pamphlet is reprinted with Friedrich's
_Documenta_, and is always cited as there found, the pamphlet itself
being within the reach of but very few.

Ketteler, von, Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr, Bishop of Mainz--Das
Allgemeine Concil und seine Bedeutung für unsere Zeit. Mainz:
1869.--Die Unwahrheiten der Römischen Briefe vom Concil in der
Allgemeinen Zeitung. Mainz: 1870. Several other pamphlets by Bishop von
Ketteler not referred to are of value.

Langen, Dr. Joseph, Professor, Bonn--Das Vaticanische Dogma in seinem
Verhältniss zum Neuen Testament, etc. Bonn: 1873.

Liverani, Monsignor Francesco, Prelato Domestico e Protonotorio dell
Santa Sede.--Il Papato, L'Impero e Il Regno D'Italia. Firenze: 1861.

Maret, Mgr. H.L.C., Bishop of Sura, Dean of the Theological Faculty of
Paris--Le Concile Générale et la Paix Religieuse. 2 vols, octavo. Paris
1869.

Martin, Conrad, Bishop of Paderborn.--_Omnium Concilii Vaticani Quæ ad
doctrinam et Disciplinam pertinent Documentorum Collectio._ Paderbornæ:
1873. A very incomplete collection, but very useful.--_Katechismus des
Römisch-Katolischen Kirchenrechts._ Zweite Auflage: 1874.

Menzel, Professor--Ueber das Subject der Kirchlichen Unfehlbarkeit (als
Manuscript gedruckt). Braunsberg: 1870.

Menzel, Wolfgang--Geschichte der neuesten Jesuitenumtriebe in
Deutschland. Stuttgart: 1873.--Die Wichtigsten Weltbegebenheiten
vom Prager Frieden bis zum Kriege mit Frankreich (1866-70). 2 vols.
Stuttgart: 1871.

Michaud, L'Abbé--De la Falsification des Catéchismes Francais. Paris,
1872. Many other works of Michaud, not cited, are of great value.

Michelis, Dr. F., Professor, Braunsberg.--_Kurze Geschichte des
Vaticanischen Concils._ Constanz: 1875.--_Der Neue Fuldaer Hirtenbrief
in seinem Verhältniss zur Wahrheit._ Braunsberg: 1870.--_Der häretische
Charakter der Infallibilitä Islehre. Eine Katholische Antwort auf die
Römische Excommunication_, 1872.

Observationes Quædam de Infallibilitatis Ecclesiæ Subjecto. Vindobonæ:
1870. Cardinal Rauscher (_see_ Friedberg, 1111). Also published in
Naples, without name of printer or publisher.

Phillips, George--Kirchenrecht. 7 vols, octavo. Regensburg: 1855-72.

Pope Pius IX--Discorsi del Sommo Pontefice Pius IX Pronunziati in
Vaticano ai fedeli di Roma e dell' Orbe; raccolti e pubblicati dal P.
Don Pasquale de Franciscis. Roma: 1872; and the second volume, 1873. It
is to be regretted that these curious and instructive volumes are not
translated into English.

Recueil des Allocutions Consistoriales Encycliques et Autres Lettres
Apostolique des Souverains Pontifs Clement XII, Benoit XIV, Pie VI,
Pie VII, Léon XII, Grégoire XVI, et Pie IX, citées dans l'Encyclique
et le Syllabus du 8 Décembre, 1864. Octavo, p. 580. Paris: 1865.
Every document cited in the Syllabus is given at full, with a French
translation.

Reform der Römischen Kirche an Haupt and Gliedern. Leipsig: 1869.

Reinkens, Dr. Joseph Hubert. Bishop--Revolution und Kirche Beantwortung
einer Tagesfrage mit Rücksight auf die gegenwärtige Tendenz und Praxis
der Römischen Curie. Bonn: 1876.--Ueber päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit.
München: 1870.

_Rheinischer Merkur._ Erscheint jeden Samstag. Köln. A weekly journal,
organ of the old Catholics. Now published in Munich as the _Deutscher
Merkur_.

Sambin, Le R.P. de la Compagnie de Jesus--Histoire du Concile
OEcuménique et Général du Vatican. Lyon: 1871.

Schrader, P. Clemens, S.I.--Pius IX als Papst und als Koenig. Wien:
1865--Der Papst und die Modernen Ideen. Wien: 1865.

Sepp, Professor Abgeordneter--Deutschland und der Vatikan. München:
1872.

Soglia--Septimii M. Vecchiotti, Institutiones Canonicæ ex operibus
Joannis Card. Soglia excerptæ et ad usum seminariorum accommodatæ.
Editio decimasexta ad meliorem formam redacta et additamentis
focupleta. In 3 vols, octavo. Turin: 1875. Sold at Milan, Venice,
Naples, and Romæ apud Tipographiam de Propaganda Fide.

Stimmen aus der Katholischen Kirche München. A series of pamphlets
containing writings of Döllinger, Friedrich, Huber, Schmitz, Reinkens,
Liano, and others--of great value.

_Stimmen aus Maria Laach, Katholische Bläter_--Freiburg-in-Brisgau. The
first number appeared in 1865, after the publication of the Syllabus;
the Neue Folge, commenced in 1869, has on the title "Unter Benützung
Römischer Mittheilungen und der Arbeiten der Civiltá."

Summi Pontificis Infallibilitate Personali (de). Naples: 1870.
Friedberg (p. 111 says that this tract was distributed by Cardinal
Prince Schwarzenberg, but written by the Cistercian Franz Salesius
Mayer.)

Tarquini, Camillo E., Societate Jesu (Cardinal)--Juris Ecclesiastici
Publici Institutiones. Editio quarta. Roma S.C. de Propaganda Fide.
1875.

Theologisches Literaturblatt. Erscheint alle 14 Toge. Bonn,
herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. F.H. Reusch. A fortnightly publication, of
great value to all who wish to understand the literature of the modern
phases of Romanism, and also of the old Catholic movement.

_Unitá Cattolica_, edited by Don Margotti, appears daily in Turin.
Holds in Italy a position similar to that of the _Univers_ in France.

_Univers_, edited by M. Louis Veuillot, appears daily, Paris. Veuillot
is a layman.

Veuillot, Louis--Rome pendant le Concile. 2 vols, octavo. Paris: 1872.
Contains important matter dating from 1867.

Vitelleschi, Marchese Francesco--Otto Mesi a Roma durante il Concilio
Vaticano per Pomponio Leto. Firenze: 1873. An English translation has
now appeared entitled _Eight Months at Rome_, by Pomponio Leto. Always
referred to as _Vitelleschi_. The real authorship of the work is no
secret in Rome, nor is it treated as such.




CONTENTS


                                                                       PAGE
  BOOK I

  FROM THE ISSUE OF THE SYLLABUS TO ITS SOLEMN CONFIRMATION,
  DECEMBER 1864 TO JUNE 1867

  CHAPTER I

  The First Secret Command to commence Preparations for a General
  Council, December 6, 1864--Meeting of Congregation--All but
  Cardinals sent out--Secret Order--Events of the 8th--Solemn
  Anniversary--A historical _coup de soleil_                              1

  CHAPTER II

  The Encyclical _Quanta Cura_, December 8, 1864--Causes of
  the Ruin of Modern Society: rejection of the "force" of the
  Church--Religious Equality--Pretensions of Civil Law and of
  Parents to Control Education--Laws of Mortmain--Remedies--Restoration
  of the Authority of the Church--Connecting Links between Encyclical
  and Syllabus--Retrospect of Evidences that all Society was in
  Ruins--The Movement for Reconstruction                                  5

  CHAPTER III

  Foundation of a Literature of Reconstruction, Serial and
  Scholastic--The _Civiltá Cattolica_: its Views on Education
  and on Church and State--Tarquini's Political Principles of Pope
  and King--Measures Preparatory to the Syllabus                         14

  CHAPTER IV

  Further Measures Preparatory to the Syllabus--Changes in
  Italy since 1846--Progress of Adverse Events--A Commination
  of Liberties--A Second Assembly of Bishops without Parliamentary
  Functions--The Curse on Italy--Origin of the phrase "A Free
  Church in a Free State"--Projected Universal Monarchy                  28

  CHAPTER V

  The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864--Character of the
  Propositions condemned--Disabilities of the State--Powers of the
  Church                                                                 43

  CHAPTER VI

  The Secret Memoranda of the Cardinals, February 1865                   57

  CHAPTER VII

  A Secret Commission to prepare for a Council, March 1865--First
  Summons--Points determined--Reasons why Princes are not
  consulted--Plan for the Future Council                                 62

  CHAPTER VIII

  Memoranda of Thirty-six chosen Bishops, consulted under Bond of
  Strictest Secrecy, April to August, 1865--Doctrine of Church and
  State--Antagonism of History and the Embryo Dogma--Nuncios
  admitted to the Secret--And Oriental Bishops                           65

  CHAPTER IX

  Interruption of Preparations for Fourteen Months, through the
  consequences of Sadowa--The French evacuate Rome--Alleged
  Double Dealing of Napoleon III--The _Civiltá_ on St.
  Bartholomew's--Change of Plan--Instead of a Council a Great
  Display--Serious Complaints of Liberal Catholics                       70

  CHAPTER X

  Reprimand of Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, for disputing the
  Ordinary and Immediate Jurisdiction of the Pope in his
  Diocese--Sent in 1864 Published in 1869                                76

  CHAPTER XI

  Great Gathering in Rome, June 1867--Impressions and
  Anticipations--Improvements in the City--Louis Veuillot on
  the Great Future                                                       83

  CHAPTER XII

  The Political Lesson of the Gathering, namely, All are
  called upon to recognize in the Papal States the Model State
  of the World--Survey of those States                                   87

  CHAPTER XIII

  Solemn Confirmation of the Syllabus by the Pope before the
  assembled Hierarchy, and their Acquiescence, June 17, 1867            110


  BOOK II

  FROM THE FIRST PUBLIC INTIMATION OF A COUNCIL TO THE EVE
  OF THE OPENING, JUNE 1867 TO DECEMBER 1869

  CHAPTER I

  First Public Intimation of the intention to hold a Council,
  June 26 to July 1, 1867--Consistory--Acquiescence in the
  Syllabus of the assembled Bishops--The Canonized
  Inquisitor--Questions and Returns preparatory to Greater
  Centralization--Manning on the Ceremonies--O'Connell on
  the Doctrines of the <DW7>s--The Doctrine of Direct
  and Indirect Power                                                    113

  CHAPTER II

  Six Secret Commissions preparing--Interrupted by
  Garibaldi--A Code for the Relations of the Church and Civil
  Society--Special Sitting with Pope and Antonelli to decide
  on the Case of Princes--Tales of the Crusaders--English
  Martyrs--Children on the Altar--Autumn of 1867 to June 1868           131

  CHAPTER III

  Bull of Convocation--Doctrine of the Sword--The Crusade of
  St. Peter--Incidents--Mission to the Orientals, and
  Overtures to Protestants in different Countries--June 1868
  to December 1868-69                                                   143

  CHAPTER IV

  Princes, Ministers, and their Confessors--Montalembert's
  part in the Revival--His Posthumous Work on Spain--Indignation
  against the New Assumptions--Debate of Clergy in Paris on
  the Lawfulness of Absolving a Liberal Prince or Minister--Wrath
  at Rome--True Doctrines taught to Darboy and his Clergy               153

  CHAPTER V

  What is to be the Work of the Council--Fears caused by
  Grandiose Projects--_Reform of the Church in Head and
  Members_--Statesmen evince Concern                                    164

  CHAPTER VI

  Agitation in Bavaria and Germany--The Golden Rose--Fall of
  Isabella--The King of Bavaria obtains the opinion of the
  Faculties--Döllinger--Schwarzenberg's Remonstrance                    176

  CHAPTER VII

  Intention of proposing the Dogma of Infallibility
  intimated--Bavarian Note to the Cabinets, February to April,
  1869--Arnim and Bismarck                                              182

  CHAPTER VIII

  Indulgences--Excitement--The Two Brothers Dufournel--Senestrey's
  Speech--Hopes of the Ruin of Germany--What the Council will
  do--Absurdity of Constitutional Kings--The True Saviour of
  Society--Lay Address from Coblenz--Montalembert adheres to
  it--Religious Liberty does not answer--Importance of keeping
  Catholic Children apart from the Nation--War on Liberal
  Catholics--Flags of all Nations doing Homage to that of the Pope      186

  CHAPTER IX

  Publication of _Janus_--Hotter Controversy--Bishop Maret's
  Book--Père Hyacinth--The Saviour of Society again--Dress--True
  Doctrine of Concordats not Contracts but Papal Laws--Every
  Catholic State has Two Heads--_Four National Governments
  condemned in One Day_--What a Free Church means--Fulda
  Manifesto--Meeting of Catholic Notables in Berlin--Political
  Agitation in Bavaria and Austria--Stumpf's Critique of the
  Jesuit Schemes                                                        197

  CHAPTER X

  Conflicting Manifestoes by Bishops--Attacks on
  Bossuet--Darboy--Dupanloup combats Infallibility--His relations
  with Dr. Pusey--Deschamps replies--Manning's Manifesto--Retort
  of Friedrich--Discordant Episcopal Witnesses                          215

  CHAPTER XI

  Diplomatic Feeling and Fencing in Rome, November 1869--Cross
  Policies on Separation of Church and State--Ollivier, Favre,
  De Banneville--Doctrines of French Statesmen ridiculed at
  Rome--Specimens of the Utterances approved at Court--Forecasts
  of War between France and Prussia--Growing Strength of the
  Movement in France for Universities Canonically Instituted            231

  CHAPTER XII

  Mustering, and Preparatory Stimuli--Pope's Hospitality--Alleged
  Political Intent--Friedrich's First Notes--The Nations cited to
  Judgment--New War of the Rosary--Tarquini's Doctrine of the
  Sword--A New Guardian of the Capitol--November and December,
  1869                                                                  239

  CHAPTER XIII

  Great Ceremony of Executive Spectacle, called a Pro-Synodal
  Congregation, to forestall Attempts at Self-Organization on
  the Part of the Council--The Scene--The Allocution--Officers
  appointed by Royal Proclamation--Oath of Secrecy--Papers
  Distributed--How the Nine had foreseen and forestalled all
  Questions of Self-Organization--The Assembly made into a
  Conclave, not a General Council--Cecconi's Apology for the Rules      249

  CHAPTER XIV

  The Eve of the Council--Rejoicings--Rome the Universal
  Fatherland--Veuillot's Joy--Processions--Symbolic
  Sunbeams--The Joy bells--The Vision of St. Ambrose--The
  Disfranchisement of Kings                                             262


  BOOK III

  FROM THE OPENING OF THE COUNCIL TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
  QUESTION OF INFALLIBILITY

  CHAPTER I

  The First Session, December 8, 1869, or Opening
  Ceremony--Mustering--Robing--The Procession--The Anthem and
  Mass--The Sermon--The Act of Obedience--The Allocution--The
  Incensing--Passing Decrees--The _Te Deum_--Appreciations
  of various Witnesses                                                  271

  CHAPTER II

  First Proceedings--Unimportant Committees and All-Important
  Commissions--No Council if Pope dies--Theologians discover
  their Disfranchisement--Father Ambrose--Parties and Party
  Tactics--Were the Bishops Free Legislators?--Plans of
  Reconstruction--Plan of the German Bishops--Segesser's Plan--New
  Bull of Excommunications                                              308

  CHAPTER III

  Further Party Manoeuvres--Election of Permanent
  Committees--Bull of Excommunications--Various opinions of
  it--Position of Antonelli--No serious Discussion
  desired--Perplexities of the Bishops--Reisach's
  Code suppressed--It may reappear--Attitude of Governments             333

  CHAPTER IV

  First open Collisions of Opinion--Pending Debate--Fear of an
  Acclamation--Rauscher opens--Kenrick--Tizzani--General
  discontent with the Draft--Vacant Hats--Speaking by
  Rank--Strossmayer--No permission to read the Reports, even
  of their own Speeches--Conflicting Views--Petitions to Pope
  from Bishops--Homage of Science--Theism                               358

  CHAPTER V

  The Second Public Session--Swearing a Creed never before
  known in a General Council--Really an Oath including
  Feudal Obedience                                                      379

  CHAPTER VI

  Speech of the Pope against the Opposition--Future Policy
  set before France--Count Arnim's Views--Resumed
  Debate--Haynald--A New Mortal Sin--Count Daru and French
  Policy--Address calling for the New Dogma--Counter Petitions
  against the Principle as well as the Opportuneness                    391

  CHAPTER VII

  Matters of Discipline--Remarks of Friedrich on the Morals of the
  Clergy--Also on the War against Modern Constitutions--Morality
  of recent Jesuit Teaching--Darboy's Speech--Melcher's Speech--A
  Dinner Party of Fallibilists--One of Infallibilists--Gratry--Debate
  on the Morals of the Clergy                                           411

  CHAPTER VIII

  Church and State--Draft of Decrees with Canons--Gains
  Publicity--Principles involved--Views of Liberal
  Catholics--The Papal View of the Means of Resistance possessed
  by Governments                                                        431

  CHAPTER IX

  The Courts of Vienna and Paris manifest Anxiety--Disturbances
  in Paris--Daru's Letters--Beust moves--His Despatches--His
  Passage of Arms with Antonelli--Daru's Despatch and
  Antonelli's Reply--Daru's Rejoinder--Beust lays down the
  Course which Austria will follow--Arnim's Despatch--The
  _Unitá_ on the Situation--Veuillot on the
  Situation--Satisfaction of the Ultramontanes                          442

  CHAPTER X

  Personal Attack on Dupanloup--Attempts at a
  Compromise--Impossibility of now retreating--Daru
  Resigns--Ollivier's Policy--Feeling that the Proceedings
  must be Shortened--The Episode of the Patriarch
  of Babylon--Proposal for a New Catechism--Michaud on
  Changes in Catechism--The Rules revised--An Archbishop
  stopped--Protest of One Hundred Bishops--Movement of Sympathy
  with Döllinger--The Pope's Chat--Pope and M. de
  Falloux--Internal Struggle of Friedrich                               457


  BOOK IV

  FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF THE QUESTION OF INFALLIBILITY TO THE
  SUSPENSION OF THE COUNCIL

  CHAPTER I

  Joy of Don Margotti--New Feelers for an Acclamation--Suggested
  Model of the Scene--Its Political Import--A Pause--Case of the
  Jesuit Kleutgen--Schwarzenberg out of Favour--Politics of
  Poland--Döllinger on the New Rules--Last Protest of
  Montalembert--His Death--Consequent Proceedings in Rome               479

  CHAPTER II

  Threat of American Prelates--Acclamation again fails--New
  Protest--Decrees on Dogma--Ingenious connexion of Creation
  with the Curia--Serious Allegations of Unfair and Irregular
  Proceedings of the Officials--Fears at the Opening of the New
  Session--The Three Devotions of Rome--More Hatred of
  Constitutions--Noisy Sitting; Strossmayer put down--The Pope's
  Comments--He compares the Opposition to Pilate and to the
  Freemasons--He is reconciled to Mérode--The Idea of
  Charlemagne--Secret Change of a Formula before the Vote               490

  CHAPTER III

  Important Secret Petition of Rauscher and others--Clear
  Statement of Political Bearings of the Question--A Formal
  Demand that the Question whether Power over Kings and Nations
  was given to Peter shall be argued--Complaints of Manning--Dr.
  Newman's Letter--The _Civiltá_ exorcises Newman--Veuillot's
  Gibes at him--Conflicts with the Orientals--Armenians in Rome
  attacked by the Police--Priests arrested--Broil in the
  Streets--Convent placed under Interdict--Third
  Session--Forms--Decrees unanimously adopted--Their
  Extensive Practical Effects                                           504

  CHAPTER IV

  To the end of the General Debate on the Decrees _De Ecclesia_,
  June 3--Temporal Benefit to the Curia of Spiritual
  Centralization--Spalding's Proposals--Impatience of the Pope
  and Veuillot--Outcry against _Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_--All
  other Subjects to be Postponed, and Infallibility to be brought
  on out of its order--Renewed protest of Minority--Open Change of
  Dispute from one on Opportuneness to one on the Merits of the
  Dogma--Anecdotes of Bishops--Violations of Rules--Private Notes
  of Bishops on the Dogma--Doubts cast on the Authority of the
  Council--Formula of New Decree--How it will Work                      525

  CHAPTER V

  The Great Debate--Bishop Pie--The Virgin Mary on
  Infallibility--Cullen claims Ireland and MacHale--Kenrick's
  Reply, and his Account of the first Introduction of the Doctrine
  into Maynooth--MacHale speaks--Full Report of Darboy's
  Speech--The Pope gives Signs of Pleasure at Saldanha's Assault on
  the King of Portugal--New Date fixed for the Great
  Definition--Manning's Great Speech--Remarkable Reply of
  Kenrick--McEvilly ascribes Catholic Emancipation not to the
  Effect of Oaths, but to that of the Fear of Civil
  War--Kenrick's Retort--Clifford against Manning--Verot's
  Scene--Spalding's Attack on Kenrick--Kenrick's
  Refutation--Speeches of Valerga, Purcell, Conolly, and
  Maret--Sudden Close of the Debate                                     546

  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       573

  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                  597

  CHAPTER VIII

  Grief of M. Veuillot--Final Deputation and Protest                    624

  CHAPTER IX

  From the Great Session to the Suspension of the Council,
  October 20, 1870--The Time now come for the Fulfilment of
  Promises--Position and Prospects--Second Empire and Papacy
  fall together--Style of Address to the Pope--War for the
  Papal Empire Foreshadowed--Latest Act of the Council--Italy
  moves on Rome--Capture of the City--Suspension of the
  Council--Attitude of the Church changed--Last Events of 1870          646

  CHAPTER X

  How far has the Vatican Movement been a Success, and how
  far a Failure?--As to Measures of the Nature of Means a
  Success--As to Measures of the Nature of Ends hitherto a
  Failure--Testimony of Liberal Catholics to the one, and of
  Ultramontanes to the other--Apparatus of Means in Operation
  for the Ultimate End of Universal Dominion--Story of Scherr
  as an Example of the Minority--Different Classes of those who
  "Submit"--Condition and Prospects of the Two Powers in
  Italy--Proximate Ends at present aimed at--Control
  of Elections--Of the Press--Of Schools--Problem of France
  and Italy--Power of the Priests for Disturbance--Comparison
  between Catholic and Non-Catholic Nations for last Sixty
  Years--Are Priests capable of fomenting Anarchical
  Plots?--Hopes of Ultramontanes rest on France and
  England--The Former for Military Service, the Latter for
  Converts--This Hope Illusory                                          671

  APPENDIX A

  The Syllabus with the Counter Propositions of Schrader                713

  APPENDIX B

  Relation of the Church to the Baptized, and especially to Heretics    733

  APPENDIX C

  The Constitutions "_Dei Filius_" and "_Pastor Æternus_"               757

  APPENDIX D

  The Pope personally preparing Children for War                        752

  INDEX                                                                 753




_BOOK I_

_FROM THE ISSUE OF THE SYLLABUS TO ITS SOLEMN CONFIRMATION_

(_December 1864 to June 1867_)




CHAPTER I

The First Secret Command to commence Preparations for a General
Council, December 6, 1864--Meeting of Congregation--All but Cardinals
sent out--Secret Order--Events of the 8th--Solemn Anniversary--A
historical _coup de soleil._


On December 6, 1864, Pope Pius IX held in the Vatican a memorable
meeting of the Congregation of Rites. That body consists of some
eighteen or twenty cardinals, with a few prelates and a number of
consulters. It holds a prominent place among the congregations, or
boards as they would be called at our Court, which, taken collectively,
may be said to constitute the Roman Curia. It determines not only
questions touching the canonization of saints, and the patron saints
of towns and countries, but also questions touching relics, rubrics,
and the title of sacred images to worship. The all-important matters of
robes, adornments, and precedence, are said by different authorities to
be regulated by it, and by the smaller Congregation of Ceremonies. The
pontifical masters of the ceremonies have a seat at both boards.

The day in question fell within three months after the signing of
the convention of September, by which the new kingdom of Italy had
succeeded in binding Napoleon III to withdraw his troops from the
Papal States, at the close of 1866. It was, therefore, at a moment
when thoughts were forcibly directed to the contingencies which might
arise to the Papacy should it be left alone with Italians. It was,
moreover, only two days before the occurrence of an incident which has
already grown into an event, and was designed to mark a new era in
society at large. To that era the proceedings of the six years which we
are about to trace were to form the introductory stage, up to a grand
inauguration both legislative and ceremonial.

We have no information as to the business for which the meeting we
speak of had been convened. It was, however, opened as usual by the
reading of a prayer. After the prayer, the Pontiff commanded all who
were not members of the Sacred College to withdraw, and leave him alone
with the Cardinals. The excluded dignitaries interchanged conjectures
as to what might be the cause of this unusual proceeding, and hoped
that on their readmission they should be informed. But the Pope did not
condescend to their curiosity; they found that the Congregation only
went on with the regular business, and when events cleared up the doubt
it proved that not one of them had guessed the truth.

In the short but eventful interval, Pius IX had formally communicated
to the Cardinals his own persuasion, long cherished, and now quickened
to the point of irrepressible action, that the remedy for the evils of
the time would be found only in a General Council. He commanded them to
study the expediency of convoking one, and to send to him in writing
their opinions upon that question.

The above incident is the first related in the sumptuous volume of
Cecconi, written by command of the Pope, who, after it appeared,
conferred on the author the archbishopric of Florence. That volume
exclusively narrates the secret proceedings of the five years which
intervened between this meeting and the opening of the Vatican
Council. But, while telling us what took place on December 6, the
Court historian passes in dead silence over the eighth. On that day,
however, the Vatican launched manifestoes which had been for years
in preparation, and which have been mentioned every day since. These
summed up all the past policy of Pius IX, and formed a basis for the
future government of the world. They furnished to the Vatican Council,
still five years distant, the kernel of its decrees, both those passed
and those only presented. They are, in fact, printed with the Freiburg
edition of its _Acta_ as preparatory documents.

December is to Pius IX, as it is to the Bonapartes, a month of solemn
anniversaries. On the eighth of that month, ten years previously to the
time of which we are writing, surrounded by two hundred bishops, he
proclaimed the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary as a doctrine
of the Church. In his own imagination, this act formed an epoch of
glory, to the lustre of which three distinct triumphs contributed.
In the first place, a darling bye-belief was lifted from the humble
posture of pious opinion, to that of a dogma binding on all, who must
admit changes into their creed with every change of Rome. In the
second place, a new and mighty advance in the power of the Papacy was
achieved, for a formal addition to the creed was made without the
sanction of a General Council. Those bishops who attended manifestly
acted, not as members of a co-ordinate branch of a legislature, but as
councillors of an autocrat. The absent were placed under the necessity
of accepting the _fait accompli_, or of attempting to undo it in the
face of the Pontiff, the Curia, and the majority of the prelates.
"Gallicanism," said the _Civiltá Cattolica_, "was, in fact, bruised
under the heel of the Immaculate, when Pius IX., by his own authority,
laid down the definition."[5] Thirdly, an impression of the personal
inspiration of Pius IX was conveyed, with embellishments, so as to
prepare the way for the recognition of his infallibility.

When he was in the act of proclaiming the new dogma, the beams of
the sun streamed gloriously upon him; the fact being that his throne
was so fixed that this must take place if the sun shone at the time.
Nevertheless, the visible rays were hailed as evidence of the light
which makes manifest things not seen. The Pope sought, in the great
fresco of Podesti, to popularize and perpetuate his own conception
of this event, which is called, in French guide-books to the Vatican,
the _coup de soleil historique_. That picture, filling an entire side
of a chamber, near to the renowned frescoes of Raffaele, represents
the Virgin looking down from celestial glory upon Pius IX, and, by the
hand of an angel, who holds a cross, pouring a stream of supernal light
on his enraptured eye. Hence may the faithful gather that this is the
light by which he reveals the truth to men.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 5: Serie VII, viii. p. 668.]




CHAPTER II

The Encyclical _Quanta Cura_, December 8, 1864--Causes of Ruin of
Modern Society: rejection of the "force" of the Church--Religious
Equality--Pretensions of Civil Law and of Parents to Control
Education--Laws of Mortmain--Remedies--Restoration of the
Authority of the Church--Connecting Links between Encyclical and
Syllabus--Retrospect of Evidences that all Society was in Ruins--The
Movement for Reconstruction.


The tenth anniversary of the auspicious day of "The Immaculate"
being now at hand, Pius IX had, as we have seen, chosen its fore-eve
for setting in motion the preparations for his General Council. He
reserved for the day itself the great deed of publishing the Encyclical
_Quanta Cura_ and its accompanying Syllabus of Errors. It is said
that the inception of those documents dates back to a point not very
long subsequent to the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, and
that the first Special Congregation named to prepare them spent more
than five years without agreeing, after which it was dissolved by his
Holiness, and a second named, which completed the task.

The keynote of the Encyclical is that of an alarm, in the martial
sense; not a panic cry, accompanied by a throwing away of arms, but a
note of danger, with a call to take them up.

The cause assigned for alarm is the ruinous condition of society--that
word being used in its political, not its domestic sense. The very
bases of society were shaken by evil principles, which had spread on
all sides and raised a "horrible tempest." Before proceeding to the
errors to be now condemned, the Pontiff is careful to connect with them
those other "principal errors of our sad times" which he had already
condemned in previous encyclicals, allocutions, and letters apostolic.
He thus lays the logical foundation for the collection of them in the
Syllabus. He first reminds the bishops how he had stirred them up to
war against these errors, and how he had also commanded the children
of the Church to abhor and shun them. Secondly, he enumerates certain
additional errors, condemns them in turn, and commands his sons to
shun them likewise. Condemnations pronounced in this formal manner are
judicial and sovereign. The Pontiff does not speak as a mere teacher,
but as the supreme tribunal of the Church. The judgments pronounced are
not for the guidance of individuals merely, but are a rule for every
officer of the Church. Every such sentence fixes the state of the law.

After many generalities, the first token of ruin in modern society
particularized is the design manifested to check and set aside the
salutary _force_[6] which ought always to be exercised by the Church,
not only over individuals, but also over nations, both "peoples"
and sovereigns. The second token of ruin is the prevalence of the
error that the State may treat various religions on a footing of
equality--the error that liberty of worship is in fact a personal
right of every man, and that the citizen is entitled to make a free
profession of his belief, orally or by the press, without fear of
either civil or ecclesiastical power. This is condemned as being the
"liberty of damnation." The next token of ruin is hostility to the
religious orders, which were established by their founders only by
the inspiration of God. Another token of ruin is the belief that all
the rights of parents over their children arise out of civil law,
especially the claim to control their education. The Pope would seem to
think that this notion is the ground for denying the right of priests
to take the control of education out of the hand of parents, or the
ground for claiming the protection of civil law for the natural and
Scriptural right of the parent against the alleged right of the priest.
Such denial of the right of the priest is dilated upon as a further
token of ruin. The existence of laws of mortmain is an additional
token. After these civil and ecclesiastical matters, one theological
point is adduced, with formal yet fervent language, as if it were some
new plague, broken out in our own times--the denial of the divinity of
our blessed Lord. This seems to be the only question in theology proper
directly raised in the document. The errors now signalized are all
condemned, and formally added to those previously condemned.

Just as the Emperor Nicholas of Russia, before undertaking the campaign
that led to the Crimean war, found his sick man and pointed out his
symptoms, so had Pius IX done. In the former case, the sick man was
only one wide-spread but despotic empire. In the latter, it included
everything that could be called, in the dialect of the Vatican, the
Modern State.

Proceeding from his enumeration of the evils which mark the ruin of
contemporary society to the remedies by which it is to be repaired, his
Holiness once more wraps up much of what he may mean in generalities.
When he does come to particulars, the hierarchy are directed to teach
that kingdoms rest on the foundations of the faith; that kingly power
is bestowed, not only for the government of the world, but still more
for the protection of the Church; that nothing can be more glorious
for rulers than to permit the Catholic Church to govern according to
her own laws (i.e. canon law), not allowing any one to impede her free
action, and not setting the regal will above that of the priests of
Christ. Here is touched the great question in government. The Modern
State had not only emancipated the throne from the supreme tribunal
of the Church, that is, the Pope, but it had also emancipated the
civil courts from the external tribunal of the Church, that is, the
ecclesiastical court. The latter as well as the former evil must be
redressed. To such prescriptions for the healing of society is added a
proclamation of indulgences, and then follows an exhortation to pray
both to God and to the Blessed Virgin, "who has destroyed all heresies
throughout the world"--whatever that may mean in history, theology, or
rhetoric. "She is gentle and full of mercy; ... and standing at the
right hand of her only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as queen, in gilded
clothing, surrounded with variety, there is nothing which she cannot
obtain from Him."

This curious document was a necessary introduction to the Syllabus.
The external connecting link between the two was formed by a covering
letter of Cardinal Antonelli conveying the Syllabus to the hierarchy by
direct command of the Pope, "that they might have all the errors and
the pernicious doctrines which have been condemned by him under their
eyes."[7] The internal link lay in the title of the Syllabus, which
recited the language of the Encyclical referring to the antecedent
judgments of the Pontiff. It is not a syllabus of errors _in general_,
nor of errors merely disapproved and abhorred by Pius IX in particular,
nor of errors rebuked and denounced by him only in sermons, speeches,
or briefs; but a syllabus of _The Principal Errors of our Times, set
forth by him in Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclicals, and other
Letters Apostolic_.

Before proceeding to consider the Syllabus as the new foundation laid
for the reconstruction of society after its ruin, we may for a moment
glance at the facts which might seem to prove to observers, looking
from the Vatican, that it had been reduced to a ruinous condition.

Coming to the throne in 1846, Pius IX inherited the sovereignty of
States which had long been in a condition of chronic disaffection.
The state of things is described as follows by Monsignor Liverani, a
learned but seemingly disappointed prelate, who wrote hoping to redeem
the glory of the Papacy by the re-establishment of a Holy Roman Empire
with an Italian head, after the example of that interval between
the line of Charlemagne and that of Otho, when Guido of Spoleto,
his brilliant son Lambert, and Berengarius wore the imperial title.
"The people," says Liverani, "have spoken for forty years, groaning,
agitating, shaking off the yoke by frequent revolutions, accompanied by
crimes and continuous misfortunes, by slaughters, wars, bombardments,
banishments, and desolations."[8]

Nevertheless, prelates from the north, coming to pay their homage to
the new Pontiff, on reaching the last spurs of the Alps, might embrace
in the glance of their mind all thence to Ætna, and say, Happy land!
the throne of his Holiness in the centre, the faithful Bourbon on the
south, the Hapsburg on the north, with Tuscany under a branch of the
Hapsburgs, and Piedmont under the House of Savoy--what a spectacle of
Catholic power! Holy land! not a heretic temple; not one teacher but in
communion with Peter: blessed scene of Catholic unity!

A poor representative of the oft-extirpated Waldenses might say in
silence--for such words durst not then disturb the Catholic unity of
Italian air--You forget a few teachers in the valleys behind you, who
never left the word of God to turn lords either of the earth or of the
faith. Before you there is not a pulpit with the Bible, nor a man who
ever drinks the cup of Christ, excepting priests alone; not a temple
with God's commandments on its walls, but many a decalogue altered by
the authority of a man who, making the law of God reformable, claims
that his own shall be irreformable!

Beyond the limits of the Pope's temporal dominions soon arose
commotions which spread over the principal seats of his spiritual
power. In Switzerland the Jesuits provoked the war of the Sonderbund,
and were foiled. Beyond the Atlantic a considerable portion of Mexico
passed into the hands of the Protestant United States. Portugal was
plagued with revolt. A famine thinned and dispersed the Roman Catholic
population of Ireland. France drove away her good king. The Emperor of
Austria was compelled to abdicate, and the empire was not saved from
dismemberment without aid from Russia. The King of Bavaria also had to
lay down his crown. The sovereigns of Tuscany and Naples were compelled
to fly; as was, alas! the Pontiff himself. Spain and her Queen were
seldom heard of, except for an insurrection or a scandal. Only two
Roman Catholic countries were thriving--Belgium, with a Protestant
king, and a constitution which the Church had solemnly and vehemently
condemned; and Piedmont, which, worse than Hannibal, had opened the
passes of the Alps to religious liberty.

This was the first sweep of the hurricane. During its prevalence, those
portions of the world which lay without the Papal circle enjoyed as
much rest as was to be looked for beside such troubled waters. Both
schismatical Russia and heretical England were stable and expanding.
Prussia was for a time seriously disturbed, but, nevertheless, was
manifestly advancing to the first place in Germany. Holland, Denmark,
and Sweden held on their way; and the United States were growing apace.

From his exile the Pope called on the Catholic powers for armed aid.
Austria crushed and held the Emilia. Spain took Fuimicino and the
cities on the Tyrrhenian shore. Naples conquered Frosinone and the
south up to Palestrina, but was driven back at Velletri by Garibaldi.
Finally, France declared herself ready to terminate the war; and, after
failing for weeks before the slight defences of Rome, ultimately took
the city.[9]

Indebted for a welcome restoration to the unwelcome hand of a
Bonaparte, Pius IX, on re-entering his States, found himself
permanently dependent for possession of the capital on the sword of
France, and for that of the provinces on the sword of Austria. Under
their protection he enjoyed some years of struggling sovereignty. This
could hardly be called a restoration of the temporal power, for a power
is not really restored till it can again stand alone. Instead of being
an opponent of the Jesuits, a Liberal, and a Reformer, as he had been,
the Pope was now transformed into a violent reactionary, and had fallen
entirely under the influence of the Jesuits. His admirers proudly point
to his acts from that time forward as evidence that they have been
uniformly aimed at one end. That end, viewed on its negative side,
they call combating the Revolution, and, viewed on its positive side,
the reconstruction of society. In the introduction to his Speeches,
his peculiar mission is said to be that of reconstruction. This
reconstruction was to begin with the restoration of ideas, and was to
proceed to the restoration of facts.

It is this movement that we are about to trace. First, we shall take
a brief retrospect from the time of its inception at Gaeta up to the
appearance of the Syllabus, which, as the ostensible ground-plan of
a cosmopolitan code, was meant to be the charter of reconstruction.
We shall then, from that stage onward, as far as our materials enable
us, detail the progressive steps of the movement up to the end of
the Vatican Council, which was meant to complete the constituent
arrangements of the new theocratic monarchy. We shall see unfolding a
movement for dominion as distinctive as was that of Leo III when he
linked the fortunes of the Papacy to those of a new Western Empire;
as distinctive as was the movement of Hildebrand when from political
dependence he lifted up the Papacy to unheard-of domination; as
distinctive as was the movement of the Popes after the Reformation,
when through war and the Inquisition they restored in several countries
of Europe their spiritual ascendancy. We shall witness the rise of a
curious and powerful literature--scholastic, serial, and popular--which
has steadily swollen in volume, and now acts with ever accelerating
force on the religious antipathies of many nations, pointing to future
wars on a scale unheard of, fixing the aim of those wars, and hinting
at the disappearance of all existing institutions but the Church.
We shall see a well-sustained endeavour, in the name of freedom of
instruction, to take all schools and universities out of the hands of
parents and of States, and to put them into the hands of priests. We
shall see such rights in matters ecclesiastical as in the Church of
Rome had still survived to the laity, the priests, and the bishops,
gradually suppressed in action till the way was prepared for their
abolition in law. We shall see the subordination of the civil law
to the canon law, and the subjection of the civil magistrate to the
"ecclesiastical magistrate" insisted upon as the essence of social
order. We shall see all the inherited rights of kings and rulers,
within their own dominions, to put limits upon the action of the Pope
of Rome, first impugned, then contested, then defied, and finally,
as far as the Church could do it, legislated out of existence. We
shall see all kings and rulers challenged to accept the Pontiff as
their head, and even as their judge in all matters involving moral
responsibility. We shall find it taught and taught again that all
Catholic countries have two rulers--the universal and the national one,
the universal one superior, the national one subordinate; and that
every citizen of those countries is more the subject of the Pope than
of his prince. We shall see the relation between the civil and the
ecclesiastical authorities as existing within the Papal States solemnly
and repeatedly declared to be the normal relation of those two orders
of authority, and to be the only example of their proper relative
position extant in all the earth. We shall see the Papal States
earnestly held up as the model for the new theocracy in the entire
world.

Further, we shall see, for five successive years, secret proceedings
of the Court of Rome sufficiently laid open by official divulgence
to enable us to note the slow, sure steps devised for depriving
kings of all their rights in self-defence against the Pope; for
depriving bishops of all their powers of checking or restraining the
Pope; for depriving theologians of any voice in the councils of the
Church; and for depriving the parochial clergy of their individual
and collective franchises. We shall at almost every turn hear modern
laws and constitutions--liberty of worship, liberty of the press,
liberty of meeting, with representative legislatures and responsible
governments--denounced as the curse of mankind in all the varying
accents of a strange dialect, or a dialect happily strange to us. We
shall witness the preaching of a new crusade, on a cosmopolitan scale,
with considerable art, making the bearing of arms for St. Peter to
appear, pre-eminently, the life of the Cross, and dying in arms for
St. Peter to appear as the martyr's end, the fairest of deaths, and
the most enviable. We shall see how the most jealous and obstinate
oligarchy in the world were led on from step to step of subjugation
till they were made the instruments of reducing their collective body,
when in Council assembled, from a co-ordinate branch of a legislature
to a mere privy council to the Bishop of Rome, and of reducing the
members of their body, when dispersed, from the position of real
diocesan bishops to that of prefects of the Bishop of Rome.

Still further, we shall see evolved under our eyes the process
by which opinions are elevated into doctrines, and doctrines are
erected into irreformable dogma. We shall see how the bishops, while
dispersed, were induced, in order to facilitate the making of a new
dogma, to discredit their acknowledged standard of belief, tradition,
substituting for it the general consent of the Church; and how, when
the passing of the dogma was secured, the assembled bishops were
induced to disavow the consent of the Church as unnecessary. We shall
see ecclesiastical magnates prostrate and petitioning the Bishop of
Rome for the elementary liberties of a legislature, and petitioning in
vain. We shall see how such magnates in secret petitions represented
the principles about to be erected into dogma as contrary to their
traditional belief and constant teaching, as fraught with peril to the
State, and as certain to bring discredit on the loyalty of any sincere
believer in such dogma; and how the same magnates afterwards in public
documents affirmed the opposite in all these respects. We shall see how
renowned champions of the Papacy complained late in life that they had
been used for its glory and deceived as to its principles. Finally, we
shall see set in motion an immense apparatus of means for effecting, in
a course of ages, the complete social, political, and ecclesiastical
reconstruction of all society, which reconstruction will culminate only
when the spiritual and the temporal powers meeting as in an apex in
the Vicar of Christ, he shall be by all men regarded as not only High
Priest, but as King of kings and Lord of lords; when, all authority and
dominion, all principality and power, being put under him, there shall
in the whole earth exist only, as we should express it, one master and
all men slaves, or, as he would express it, one fold and one shepherd.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 6: The word is _vis_, which both the _Civiltá Cattolica_
and the French _Recueil_ translate by "force." But not so the German
_Stimmen aus Maria Laach_, which makes it "influence"--_einfluss_ (Heft
i. p. 10). Such a difference in versions meant for Germans, Englishmen,
and Americans is not rare.]

[Footnote 7: _Recueil_, end of preface.]

[Footnote 8: _Il Papato_, etc., p. 188.]

[Footnote 9: The Pope, in the Allocution of April 20, 1849, says
that Spain first stirred up the other Catholic nations to form a
league among themselves for his restoration (_Recueil_, p. 228).
His description of the Holy City during his absence was, "a thicket
of roaring beasts"--_silvam frementium bestiarum_ (Id. 224). His
description of himself at the same time was "being counted worthy to
suffer shame for the name of Jesus, and being made in some measure
conformable to His passion" (Id. p. 234).]




CHAPTER III

Foundation of a Literature of Reconstruction, Serial and
Scholastic--The _Civiltá Cattolica_: its Views on Education and
on Church and State--Tarquini's Political Principles of Pope and
King--Measures Preparatory to the Syllabus.


With the year 1850 was commenced a magazine, at the instance of
the Jesuits, and under their direction, bearing the title Catholic
Civilization (_Civiltá Cattolica_), in opposition to modern
civilization. We may here say that the daily organ of the same
complexion bears the title of Catholic Unity (_Unitá Cattolica_), in
opposition to Italian unity. Above one hundred volumes of the _Civiltá_
have been published; and it must ever be named in connexion with
Pius IX as the intimate organ of his policy, and the most complete
store of his published records. Perhaps its place in the history of
literature is unique. Considering the number of books, serials, and
journals, in different languages, of which it is the inspiring force,
and considering the modifications it has already succeeded in bringing
about in the ideas and even in the organization of the whole Catholic
society, they can scarcely be charged with vain boasting who call it
the most influential organ in the world. The Jesuit Fathers forming its
editorial staff reside close to the Pope's palace, and work under his
immediate direction. Dr. Friedrich, during the Vatican Council, told
some bishops that if they would understand the Council, they must study
it with the _Civiltá_ in their hands. For our part, before reading that
remark we had applied the same principle to the entire movement.

The leading idea of the _Civiltá_ is expressed, says the article
on the programme, in its title. _Catholic Civilization_ is flag,
device, and profession of faith.[10] The substance is civilization,
the quality Catholic. Civilization is not polish, but organization
in community, under rule. Civilization, after the Catholic ideal,
had continued steadily to grow up to the fifteenth century, but was
broken in the sixteenth by Lutheranism; was again enfeebled in the
seventeenth by Jansenism; yet again was it undermined in the eighteenth
by Voltairianism, and now in the nineteenth it is lacerated by
Socialism. The evil has actually entered Italy, and even heterodoxy
itself threatens to invade the Peninsula. Heresy is, in fact, likely
to become connected with that aspiration after national unity by which
the people are misled. _Almost everything having been overhauled in
heterodox spirit, almost everything must be reconstituted from the
foundation._[11] These words express the mission of the new periodical,
and of the restored Papacy. They are the original announcement of a
policy ever since pursued without flagging.

To reconstitute society according to the Catholic ideal is the single
object set forth. "On the brink of social dissolution," the one
necessity felt, pressed, reiterated, is that of re-establishing on the
Catholic ideal the notion of civilization--that is of the civil system;
and of leading back the movement of civilization to that Catholic ideal
from which it had been departing for three centuries.[12]

The essential point in this fabric is "the idea of authority." But
the idea of authority cannot be restored except by quickening it, and
reinforcing it by the Catholic conception. When the divine authority
was shaken, men would no longer hear of the human (i.e. when the Papacy
was rejected, civil government fell into contempt). The Catholic
ideal is idly reproached with absolutism. But, among Catholics,
pure monarchy, if not limited by certain conventional checks, is
tempered by a higher law, not abstract, but practical, active, and
operative. Absolutism in the sense of despotism is the creation of
Protestantism and Voltairianism, and if it may sit on the throne of
a king, it is more frequently found in constitutional chambers or
democratic assemblies.[13] Therefore the one sufficing remedy is the
restoration in ruler and subject of the notion of authority according
to the Catholic ideal. For this the new organ calls for _a salutary
conspiracy, a holy crusade_;[14] two phrases that mean all that has
since taken place, and all that has yet to come.

The very first article of the _Civiltá_, after that upon the programme,
is on education: "the question which holds all the future destinies of
the European nations struggling within its ballot-boxes." With this
appreciation of its theme, it takes ground which has since become
familiar to Europe, and enunciates principles which have now frequently
been reproduced in our own discussions; so that a slight sketch of its
reasoning will not be without interest to English readers. The interest
is increased by the fact that its aims have steadily gained ground in
France. In England, some of them, if not recognized as principles, have
been, to a considerable extent, practically embodied, as undetected
principles are apt to be.

Beginning with the theme of Freedom of Instruction, it denounces
the tyranny and monopoly of the University of France. Had not the
spirit of Catholicism, it says, broken the chain, it would soon have
become unlawful for one man to tell another the right road, unless
he had a bachelor's degree, for doing so was a sort of instruction.
The line properly limiting freedom of instruction it finds in the
line which divides the truth from falsehood. They who demand liberty
of instruction do so in order to teach the truth. But in excluding
the teaching of lies, it may be even "necessary to protect children
betrayed by the barbarous apathy of their parents."

The writer then asks, But who is to determine what is the lie?
Governments? "Until a government can show itself infallible, it must
renounce all pretensions to regulate instruction and opinion." The
pretension on its part to do so is tyrannical, because interference
here is trespassing on the sanctuary, where the truth alone bears rule.

The position that it belongs to a government to fix the limits
of freedom of opinion is denounced as having originated in the
Reformation, as being Protestant, and, further, as being destitute
of foundation. The Church is the moderator of instruction, precisely
because she is the infallible moderator of opinions in all that relates
to the moral order. Consequently there is in existence a competent,
effectual, and revered tribunal. Then follow taunts at journals which
complain of communal authorities for giving up their educational rights
to the clergy. These are succeeded by jeers at such statesmen as doubt
if the liberty of communal authorities extends so far as to give them
the right of surrendering their liberty.

The objection is then faced, that liberty may be as justly claimed by
the non-Catholic as by the Catholic. Of course, replies the _Civiltá_,
the only case in which that question can become a practical one for
Catholics is where they form the majority. Is it to be supposed that
a majority shall be bound, for the sake of a minority "to pass a law
opening all the pits of hell for its fellow-citizens?... With Catholics
the liberty of dissidents cannot be a natural right."

The position taken by statesmen, that the Church is not infallible in
politics and economy, and that therefore these subjects must be under
the control of the State, is first laughed at. It reminds the writer of
a musketeer who should say to his general, "I see that your artillery
is of no avail against these Alps; let us open upon them with our
rifles." After this comes the principle. The assertion that politics
and economy ought to be under the control of the State rests on one or
other of three errors: (1) Politics and economy do not belong to the
moral sciences; or, (2) The moral sciences are not subject to moral
laws; or, (3) The Church is not the authentic exponent of moral law.
The first of these errors is refuted by every university in Europe, in
all of which politics and economy are classed among the moral sciences.
The second is a contradiction in terms. The third is a heresy in every
Catholic ear.

It will help to a clear understanding of many expressions which must
occur hereafter, if the reader, at this stage, will set before his
mind's eye the scope of the three principles here asserted. Phillips,
a modern lay doctor, quoted by the humblest polemic and the mighty
_Civiltá_, in his seven volumes on ecclesiastical law (_Kirchenrecht_),
discusses the relations of Church and State at great length. He shows
that the Church is supreme and the State subordinate, in all things
that come under the _divine laws_. Holtgreven, a Catholic judge, and an
opponent of the Falk laws, explains this clearly: "To the divine laws,
in this sense, belong, not only the ten commandments, but also the
canons of the Church, as the Council of Trent shows. The things subject
to the divine laws include all such worldly things as are _connected_
with morality."[15]

This much is conceded by the _Civiltá_, that, if danger to the public
interests should arise from false teaching of any _material_ science,
the government may interfere, as it would in a case of adulteration of
food. The Church is not infallible in material instruction.

The article, it will be seen, claims the right to take the teaching of
the child out of the hand of the parent, and that of the subject out of
the hand of the State.[16] The latter may mix itself up in the matter
as to material things, not as to moral. Royal supremacy, in university,
college, seminary, or primary school, must not be allowed. It has
the twofold evil of setting the authority and responsibility of the
parent for his child above that of the priest, and of setting the local
authority of the national ruler above the all-embracing authority of
the universal one. The State is not only welcome to appear in school,
but ought to appear in its subordinate capacity, finding money, secular
status, and instruction in _material_ things. But in all that part
of schooling which may be called education in the higher sense, of a
father, a Christian, or a king, the State is not to have a word to say.

It would seem difficult to ask a community to do an action involving
a more serious disregard of moral considerations than to find money
and power for schools and colleges, and not have a word to say as
to the principles taught in them. We are far from ascribing such a
disregard of moral considerations to a devout Ultramontane. On the
contrary, he is persuaded that the State, in committing its money and
authority to the Church, takes not only the highest human guarantee,
but a truly divine one, for the protection of every moral interest. The
motto of the article is a sentence intimating that, all over Europe,
the question of the future must be the establishment of universities
canonically instituted.[17]

In order to the _restoration of ideas_ now undertaken, as preparing
the way for the _restoration of facts_, it was a practical necessity
to establish an invariable association between the two ideas of the
only Judge of true and false, the only Arbiter of right and wrong, and
the one holy Roman Church. This association could not be established
so well by any arrangement as by making each school an arena on which
every day the authority of both the parent and the State should be--not
pranced upon, not even trampled upon, but serenely and devoutly walked
over, by what M. Veuillot calls the crushing sandals of the monk.

       *       *       *       *       *

Another article in the first volume of the _Civiltá_ gives such
expression to the principles which underlie the whole struggle ever
since conducted, that some account of it will do more to put the reader
in possession of certain of those principles than formal explanations.
It is on the central question of the relations of Church and State;
or, as the _Civiltá_ puts it, of the separation of Church and State--a
phrase which, like almost every other, has a different meaning in its
pages from what it has with us. The following headings give an idea of
the drift of the article: "6. The nation is a part of the Church." "7.
The part ought to be subordinate to the whole." "8. Because the Church
has authority." "9. The authority of jurisdiction."[18]

_I believe in the holy Catholic Church_, in the Apostles' Creed, is
thus interpreted: "I believe that every Catholic individual and nation
forms a part of the Catholic society, and that only by virtue of its
being a part does it partake of the benefit of the whole, through being
subordinated to the laws of the whole."

On the point of jurisdiction, the writer first unearths "the
serpent," which is the notion that the Church may judge about sins,
virtues, doctrines, rites, and such-like, but must not touch temporal
jurisdiction. This serpent he proceeds to kill. First, he solemnly
appeals to the faith of the reader. "Do you believe that the Church
is infallible in dogmatic Bulls, at least, unless they are formally
rejected by the episcopate?" After this, he resorts to pleasantry:
"Come close to me, and I will tell it in your ear. The Bull of John
XXII condemned John Gianduno and Marsilius of Padua as heretics,
because they denied to the Church the right of punishing by corporal
pains, and it declared that she could inflict pains even unto
death.[19] But I tell you this in secret, solely that you may know what
is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which you profess--doctrine
put in practice through very many centuries, down to the last Council
(Trent), which fulminated I know not how many penalties, and material
ones, even against counts, marquises, princes, and emperors. Woe to
us if they should hear us!" Thus jauntily did those who had only just
been reinstated by foreign arms treat the neo-Catholic doctrine, or,
as it has since been called, the Liberal Catholic one. "I tell you
plainly," adds the writer, "that if the Church cannot rule her sons,
even in material things, the Church is lost; at least, the Catholic
Church. She might survive as that invisible Church which was discovered
by Luther among the ruins of the middle ages, and, reconstructed as the
_amphitherium_ and _palæotherium_, were discovered in the geological
strata, and reconstructed by Cuvier."

Addressing kings, the writer solemnly counsels them to bring forth
all their codes, and pass them under a careful examination. But the
light by which such examination is to be conducted must be that "of
pure Catholicism, to which all other legislation must be subordinated.
Restore every article of your code, according to the articles of your
creed, not only in what relates to the duties of subjects, but also in
what would seem to diminish the rights of rulers. And that the Catholic
influence, which modifies codes, may shine in all its fulness, _let it
not be ministers or legists, but bishops and the Pontiff, who shall
minutely search into your legislation for every anti-Catholic element_."

The theocratic Papal polity might have been almost intentionally
framed to contrast with the first principles of the Mosaic theocratic
polity. The latter, put in one word, seems to be this: God as the
general Father is the great right-holder, and He identifies the
rights of every creature with His own, identifying at the same time
their welfare with His own glory. Therefore He leaves no creature to
the care of a Vicar, no province to any departmental divinity. Every
act done for the benefit of our fellow-creatures He reckons as a
tribute to Himself. Every infringement of their rights He treats as an
offence against Himself. Every man was taught to see, not an abstract
principle, but a great Father standing beside the gleaning widow, the
supperless hireling, the pauper forced to pawn, and having no second
coat--was taught to hear this common Father saying for these to happier
neighbours, "I am the Lord." Every man tempted to lie, cheat, steal,
oppress, seduce, or strike, saw the same great Father rising up against
him, and saying, "I am the Lord."

It was of the essence of this theocracy that all who held authority
did so by and under a written law in the vulgar tongue. Of this law
every father in his own house was made the guardian, and in it he was
the responsible instructor of his children. Every prophet professing
that he bore a fresh message was to be brought to the test of this
written law. Those who were to apply the test were the men of the
whole community. Every one who claimed to bear a special commission
was bound first to conform to the law, and secondly, to show signs of
special divine power. It was a theocracy of direct divine government,
not of government by a Vicar; a theocracy of written law, not of
arbitrary will styling itself authority; a theocracy of private
judgment, not of a veda shut up from the low caste, to be read and
interpreted only by the twice-born Brahman. Finally, it was a theocracy
in which whatever came from God became its own witness by benefits to
God's children not to be mistaken, and obvious to all.

The statement made in the _Civiltá_ as to the guidance under which
the reactionary policy in Austria was devised, gives light upon the
duties then engrossing nuncios and confessors at the various Courts
where Papal influence was powerful. All that appeared to the world
was, that at every one of those Courts a cold current of reaction set
in and ran strong. The Jesuits took it for a tide, and the bark of
St. Peter was to sail cheerily over all the shoals. But the Liberal
Catholics were proportionably disquieted as to the prospects of the
Church. The first days of Pius IX had fired them with hope that Rome
might yet be fit to face three things of which she was shy--the Bible,
History, and Freedom. But the advent of the Jesuits to power caused
serious forebodings, which soon began to be realized. To quote the
memorable words of Montalembert, "Who could have thought that the
clergy, after crying out for liberty in Belgium, would turn round as
they did in 1852, till we found them beating down all our liberties and
privileges--in fact, all our ideas--as held in times preceding Napoleon
III?"[20]

We now find that at the time when the Pontiff was using his clergy to
help kings in taking away constitutional rights from their subjects, he
was himself preparing to take from the kings what they indeed looked
upon as rights, but what he regarded in the light of constitutional
concessions, infringing the higher rights of their divinely appointed
suzerain. When the Italian government took possession of the _Collegio
Romano_, it was found that the Jesuits had left in the great library
of the establishment little belonging to the present pontificate. One
pamphlet is of some significance. A manuscript note on the title-page
proudly tells how his Holiness wished to have it circulated as widely
as possible. It also adds that on February 1, 1853, when the fathers
of the _Collegio Romano_ stood before his Holiness, he singled out the
author, Father Camillo Tarquini, in presence of the other Jesuits and
of the Court, and addressed him thus: "Father Tarquini, I am delighted;
bravo! well done! I confirm it, and confirm it with all my heart."[21]
This was an early foretoken of the purple in which Tarquini died. He is
the writer to whom Cardinal Manning appeals, as softening the doctrine
of Bellarmine and Suarez to a temper fitter for our times. The pamphlet
signalized by this display of favour aims at proving the wickedness
of kings in subjecting the bulls, briefs, or any acts whatever of the
Pope, to a _placet_, _exequatur_, or other form of royal assent, before
recognizing them as having the force of law in their States. This is
one form of the error of regalism.

The power of the Pontiff, argues Father Tarquini, is this--What he
binds on earth is bound in heaven. But if the king, stepping in, says,
To bind implies the force of law, and your acts shall not acquire
the force of law without my _placet_, how then? Why, the Pontiff
becomes the one really bound. The king refuses to allow the pontifical
judgments to take effect of themselves. It is not with him "said on
earth and done in heaven." His _placet_ must intervene.

It is competent, indeed, he admits to the Pontiff, to _grant_ a right
of _placet_; but such a right, founded on the grace of a Pope, cannot
be confounded with one inherent in the crown. We quote the following
in full:--"You say that the _placet_ is a real right, demanded by
justice, and essential to political government. The Church condemns
it by a series of judgments, perhaps without parallel in her history,
extending from her foundation down to Pius IX. She expressly defines
it, with Leo X, Clement VII, Clement XI, and Benedict XIV, as opposed
to all justice, as indecent, absurd, rash, scandalous, as insufferable
depravity, and worthy of eternal pain. Therefore she punishes it with
the greatest of penalties, the anathema.

"In this matter there is no middle course. You must either lay aside
the mask of Catholicism, which no longer becomes you, and boldly avow
that the Church has defined good as evil, justice as injustice, an
inherent right of the crown as an absurdity and a wrong, and done so
in a judgment perpetuated from her foundation to our own day; or you
must, on the other hand, confess that you are in an error not to be
tolerated."

Thus it seems that what with a Christian minister would only be a
claim to announce the belief and the moral precepts which he found in
the Holy Scriptures, becomes with the Roman Pontiff a claim to put
his decree on any matter which he deems conducive to the good of "the
Church" into the form of law, and to set it up without, or in spite
of, but anyhow above, the national law, be it republican, royal, or
imperial. This boundless pretension--for boundless it is--will often be
found gently expressed as the right of the Pontiff _to communicate with
the faithful_.

The writer then asks what, from his point of view, would seem to be a
natural question. Would kings like the Pope to demand that his _placet_
should be required before their laws came into force?[22] He replies
that some of them have so far unlearned "Christian doctrine as to say
that, in case the Pope did so, he would usurp sovereign rights in their
States." But such a proposition is heretical, pronounced to be so by
the Holy Office in 1654, with the approbation of Innocent X.[23] By
virtue of this, even our children know that the Church presided over
and governed by the Vicar of Christ is a kingdom which has the ends of
the earth for its bounds. Therefore it belongs to the Vicar of Christ
to make laws in all parts of the world for her welfare and for her
government.

Liberal Catholics trembled for the consequences to Church and State
of Jesuit Court confessors and far-aiming but short-seeing plans.
They knew that the devout Jesuit calls upon all to regard the Papal
government as the model for the whole world; and that if statesmen
and jurists could be replaced by Jesuits at the various Courts, a
combination of plan and an unity of action might be secured everywhere
for a great movement to establish the dominion of Christ in a higher
degree than the Thirty Years' War did in Austria and Bohemia.

There is a point illustrated in this pamphlet which seems to enter into
the English head more slowly than any other. We mean the conscientious
view of a true Ultramontane as to what constitutes religious liberty,
or violates it. Englishmen sometimes not only transfer their own views
on this subject to Ultramontanes, but betray the feeling that they are
generous in doing so. It is never generous, or even just, to ascribe
views to a man which he religiously condemns. If the Englishman will
clearly set before his mind the first postulate of the Ultramontane,
that God has appointed a vicar upon earth, to whom He has committed
all power, surely he will see that religious liberty must principally
consist in the freedom of that vicar to do all which he conceives it to
be in his province to do, and in the freedom of those who receive his
commands to carry them out, exactly according to his intentions. If any
king or nation limits his freedom to act and command, "the Pope becomes
the one really bound." The Englishman may say that, on this principle,
no guarantee is left for any liberty but that of the Pontiff, or of
those who represent authority derived from him. But that is precisely
what the Ultramontane does not believe.

On the contrary, he holds that the highest guarantee for all legitimate
liberty lies in the complete freedom of the Pontiff. No liberty can
be legitimate that consists in exemption, or assumed exemption, from
divine authority. And further, the authority of the Vicar of God, being
exercised under unfailing guidance, is not liable to commit violations
of any right.

We thus see begun the movement for the restoration of ideas, as
preparatory to the restoration of facts. Ranke has traced the course of
the "ecclesiastical restoration," which was rendered necessary by the
damage inflicted on Rome by the Reformation, without being careful to
mark the principles or to track the processes by which "restoration"
was effected in Bohemia, Austria, Spain, Italy, and France. That
restoration, however, had been real and momentous. A second restoration
had taken place after the wreck of the French Revolution, when the
Papacy had been smitten by its own sons. It was the pride of the clergy
to cite the fact that the rulers of England and Prussia had co-operated
in that restoration, as proof that the Papal throne was even in
Protestant eyes the central point of order. Now a third restoration was
to be effected--one which would do all that had been left undone by
the other two. The Pope's throne was not only to be reared up again in
Rome, but was to be gradually elevated to a spiritual supremacy equal
to the highest claimed in former Bulls, and to a temporal supremacy as
complete as when Hildebrand triumphed at Canossa.

The first of these restorations had been fought out with the weapons
of the Inquisition and the war-plots of the Jesuits. The second had
been fought out with the weapons of the Liberal Catholics, borrowed
from the Reformation and the Modern State. When the Jesuits had pushed,
not too far, but untimely far, they were for the day disowned; not,
however, as inimical to the Church, but as hateful to the nations,
and as, therefore, lowering the credit of the Church with the outside
world. Now had come the moment when the Liberal Catholics, having done
their work, were in turn to be disowned; but on other grounds. They
were to be cast out as children of the world, infected with principles
subversive of the "kingdom of God," of that polity in which the priest
of God is the king of men, and the affairs of an erring race are
unerringly guided by consecrated hands.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 10: _Civiltá_, vol. 1. p. 13.]

[Footnote 11: Ibid. p. 15.]

[Footnote 12: Ibid. p. 13.]

[Footnote 13: Ibid. pp. 20, 21.]

[Footnote 14: Ibid. p. 14.]

[Footnote 15: _Holtgreven_, p. 9.]

[Footnote 16: _Civiltá_, vol. i. pp. 25-51.]

[Footnote 17: Ibid.]

[Footnote 18: Vol. i. p. 647.]

[Footnote 19: Cardinal Tarquini (_Institutiones_, p. 35, ed. 4th),
whom Cardinal Manning, in his reply to Mr. Gladstone (p. 94), names
as teaching differently on such points from the earlier Jesuits,
Bellarmine and Suarez, quotes this case, saying that the Bull in
question "more particularly attributes to the Church that which is the
special property of a perfect society, the power of coercion, even to
the use of material force; but Marsilius, who denied this, was on that
account condemned as a heretic." His words are, "_Quod maxime proprium
est societatis perfectæ, jus potestatis coactivæ etiam quoad inferendam
vim materialem; Marsilius autem, qui hæc ipsa negabat damnatur eam ob
rem ut hæreticus_."]

[Footnote 20: Letter quoted in _Unitá Cattolica_, March 10, 1870.
_Friedbergh_, p. 120.]

[Footnote 21: _Del Regio Placet_: Dissertazione del P. Camillo
Tarquini, D.C.D.G. ... Estratto dagli Annali delle Scienze Religiose,
Roma, 1852. Tipografia della Rev. Cam. Apostolica.

The note in manuscript on the title-page is as follows: "S.S. Pio IX
Voile che presente dissertazione si diffondesse quanto più si potea;
e nel di, 1 Febbrajo, 1853, veduto l'autore dissegli alla presenza
della sua corte e degli altri Padri del Collegio Romano. P. Tarquini me
rallegro, bravo, bene. Confermo, e confermo di tutta volonta."]

[Footnote 22: "It would be very natural that the Church which makes
laws from God Himself should demand of the State that it should make
no law for her subjects to which she had not previously given her
approbation."--_Phillips_, ii. 577.]

[Footnote 23: "In 1644, the Holy Office, in a decree approved by
Innocent X, condemned as schismatical and heretical the proposition
which asserts that, when the Pontiffs promulge their decrees in places
subject to the dominion of other temporal princes, they promulge laws
in territories that are not theirs."--_Civiltá_, Serie VII. vol. vi. p.
292. Tarquini says 1654 (_Inst._, p. 159), the _Civiltá_ 1644.]




CHAPTER IV

Measures preparatory to the Syllabus--Changes in Italy since
1846--Progress of Adverse Events--A Commination of Liberties--A Second
Assembly of Bishops without Parliamentary Functions--The Curse on
Italy--Origin of the phrase "A Free Church in a Free State"--Projected
Universal Monarchy.


Being notoriously deficient in theological training, Pius IX was
not unnaturally seized with a desire to reduce the rebel nations by
raising contested doctrines to the rank of dogmas. When the reactionary
movement in politics had attained its full momentum, he called an
assembly of bishops, whose splendour, surrounding his throne, might
restore to it some of the departed _prestige_. At the same time,
summoning the bishops for consultation and for ceremonial purposes, but
not at all for parliamentary ones, would be a secure step of progress
in the absorption of the power of the collective episcopate into the
Papacy. In the midst of two hundred prelates, as we have already seen,
he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception, in 1854. As a display of
absolute authority in the highest realm, that of dogma, this act did
more to advance the proper ideas than an immensity of writing. We have
already quoted the assertion that it crushed Gallicanism. But ideas
were only stepping-stones to facts. Professor Michelis asserts that
even during the gathering of 1854 an attempt was made in some large
assembly of bishops to induce them to proclaim Papal infallibility as a
Catholic dogma.[24]

The prelates, who, on their way to Rome in 1846, had looked with joy on
the spectacle of unity, now found that spectacle slightly blemished.
One heretic temple stood in Turin--a proof that after all the
extirpations of the Waldenses, a root had still lurked in the ground.
This temple had no images, and had the Bible in mother-tongue. It bore
outside, in words that any cowherd might read, if he could read at all,
a verse of Jeremiah: "Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old
paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest
for your souls." And this was not only suffered, but done by the House
of Savoy!

As the prelates went south, whispers might reach some of them that
in Tuscany the police, now and then, discovered secret bands of
Bible-readers, somewhat as in old times the Lollards were unearthed
in England. The historical name of Guicciardini was implicated in the
offence, and a number of vulgar people. Even at Rome, Luigi Desanctis,
parish priest of St. Maria Maddalena, had abandoned as fair prospects
as erudition, character, and favour could well give to an ecclesiastic.
He had quietly withstood flattering and influential efforts to bring
him back. First he had sheltered under the British flag; but, finding
that the flag of Savoy really shed upon Italian soil the all but
inconceivable right of freedom to worship God, he had taken refuge
under it. He was now devoting his clear, keen, learned pen to teaching
Italy the religion of Christ as he found it in the New Testament. Even
in writing for Italians he found it needful to say that it was only
by living in Rome, and by knowing Pope, Cardinals, and Curia, that
they could come to a clear understanding of the religion of the city.
The great cause of this difficulty he found in the three separate
circles of doctrine in which that religion was wont to be taught, which
he called (1) the official, (2) the theological, (3) the real.[25]
The official doctrine was that for use with heretics, the doctrine
presented by Bossuet and Wiseman; the theological doctrine was for use
with men of culture; the real doctrine was for practical use among the
people. The eloquent Barnabite, Gavazzi was now thundering against the
Papacy. Nay, even the threshold of the Inquisition had been crossed by
the force of Protestant unity. A priest, avowing heresy, who once had
held good preferment, had been seized after the French took the city.
At the urgent instance of the Evangelical Alliance, General Baraguay
d'Hilliers put on such hard pressure that even in sacred Rome a
renegade priest walked out of the palace of the Holy Office a ransomed
man.

The confidence that the Virgin would reward her new exaltation by
corresponding exaltation of him who had procured it, was often
expressed in language picturesque and ardent. But scarcely had the
incense of the fresh offering cleared away when premonitory symptoms
appeared of the storm rising again. Meantime, many Catholics became
anxious when they found the Pope's favourite organ treating even such
writers as Bellarmine, Suarez, and St. Thomas Aquinas, as too much
inclined to Liberalism. Liverani, in referring to articles of this
kind, says that Bellarmine had been "the author of the Night of St.
Bartholomew," and he thinks that Italian Catholics in the nineteenth
century might be allowed to be Liberals up to the standard of
Bellarmine and Suarez.

In 1855, Piedmont, sending a force to the Crimea, took her place beside
France and England. The next year, at the Congress of Paris, Cavour
lifted up his voice among the representatives of Europe, and protested
against foreign occupation in Italy. Mexico abolished the external
tribunal of the Church, the ecclesiastical court; abolished tithes,
offered protection to all of either sex who might choose to forsake
their convents, and declared its resolution not to submit its acts to
the supreme authority of the Apostolic See. Other nations of South
America met the aggressive ecclesiastical movement by asserting the
supremacy of civil law, even in matters directly ecclesiastical.[26]
Three years later, the same hand which upheld the Pope in Rome took
Lombardy from Austria, and gave it to Piedmont, in exchange for
Savoy and Nice. Tuscany, Parma, and Modena banished their dukes; the
Romagna cast off the Papal yoke; and all these, uniting themselves to
Piedmont, formed the kingdom of Italy.

These events were met, on the part of the Vatican, by more stringent
denunciations of modern liberties. In the _Civiltá_ these were
inveighed against under the name of the principles of 1789. Liverani
says (p. 160) that the _Civiltá_, in a Catechism of Liberty, hardly
left a man the use of air and water. The article so alluded to gives
what the writer of it calls a Litany, which ought to be repeated with
the refrain, Good Lord, deliver us.[27]

    "Liberty of conscience is a perverse opinion diffused by fraudulent
    endeavours of infidels.

    "It is a corrupt fountain, a folly, a poisonous error.

    "It is an injury to the Church and the State, vaunted with
    shameless impudence as becoming to religion.

    "It is the liberty of error and the death of the soul.

    "It is the abyss, the smoke whereof darkens the sun, and the
    locusts out of which lay waste the earth.

    "The liberty of the press is an evil liberty, never sufficiently
    execrated or abhorred.

    "It is an extravagance of doctrines, and a portentous monstrosity
    of errors, at which we are horrified."

It would be incorrect to suppose that these principles exclude all
possibility of toleration in fact, though not by right. Toleration may
be allowed, but never on principle; never but as the means of avoiding
a greater evil. If more harm to the cause of _religion_ would result,
in any given country, from intolerance, than from toleration, the
latter becomes lawful to the prince of the country. Otherwise it cannot
be so. Even this qualified admission of a mere _de facto_ toleration of
heretics was not left uncontested. Priests of the Appolonare in Rome
about this time, publicly maintained the thesis that "it will never be
possible to imagine reasons which should induce a Catholic prince to
grant liberty of worship to heretics." They maintained other theses, to
the effect that unlimited freedom of worship, and civil rights, granted
to heretics, laid the prince open to suspicion of heresy, apostasy, or
atheism.[28] This doctrine, cries Liverani, would require the Catholic
king of Saxony, with two millions of Protestant subjects, and fifty
thousand Catholics, to exterminate the former by means of the latter.
It is, he says, putting this alternative--the creed or the stake. Yet
this debate was held in presence of the Pope's vicar, Cardinal Patrizi,
and was noticed with commendation by the _Civiltá_.

Montalembert proposed that the voting in the Romagna on the question of
annexation to Italy should take place under the eye of French troops.
Liverani, a native of the Romagna, prelate as he was, replied, "If the
French army left, without being replaced by a strong force to guard the
lives of the clergy, at the end of a week all the priests and friars
would be exterminated, so wild and savage is the public indignation
against the government of these last years" (p. 46).

On March 26, 1860, in the famous and terrible Letters Apostolic _Cum
Catholica_, all the actors and abettors of the territorial changes
were placed under the greater excommunication. The Pope[29] expressly
decreed that no hand but his own, or that of his successors, should
have the power of releasing any one of the countless offenders from
the ban, except in the article of death. He proceeds on what seems
the fair principle that the dominion of the Pontiff, though in its
own nature temporal, takes on a spiritual character because of its
spiritual design, as giving to the Head of the whole Church a position
independent of any one nation. Therefore, robbing him of it becomes a
spiritual offence. If he is the representative of God upon earth, it
is hard to see how rebellion against him can fail of being a spiritual
offence. If he is not the representative of God upon earth, he has
altogether misconceived his own position, and, like any other ruler,
may be judged by his merits, not by his pretensions.

Before the publication of the Pope's speeches we were exposed to
manifold interpretations of the spiritual import of this anathema.
It was even possible that we might find letters in the _Times_
assuring us that the Church never curses. But on June 23, 1871, Pius
IX uttered language which put his view of the spiritual import of his
own action beyond cavil. He had the words afterwards reprinted, with
the explanation that the allusion to Peter referred to the death of
Ananias and Sapphira. "True," said the Pontiff, "I cannot, like St.
Peter, hurl certain thunders which turn bodies to ashes; nevertheless,
I can hurl thunders which turn souls to ashes. And I have done it by
excommunicating all those who perpetrated the sacrilegious spoliation,
or had a hand in it."[30]

But if to the spiritual eye of Pio Nono his curse had strewn Italy with
the ashes of millions of blasted souls, his Bulls were, in a temporal
point of view, as powerless as his dogmas. In the autumn of 1860, the
Pontiff saw Umbria and the Marches wrested from him by the new kingdom,
to which also the whole of the Neapolitan territory was added by
Garibaldi. After this, Europe grew impatient of the French occupation
of Italy, and that last stay of his temporal power became painfully
insecure.

The Parliament in Turin proclaimed that Rome was the capital of Italy;
and now we have to note the birth of one of those phrases which,
becoming watchwards, grow into appreciable forces in history. Cavour,
in a speech, alluding to Montalembert, said great authorities had shown
that liberty might turn to the profit even of the Church. Montalembert
addressed to him a reply, in October, 1860, in which he made use of
the words, "A free Church in a free State." Five months later, when
the Turin Parliament set up the claim to Rome, Cavour used the same
phrase. Montalembert, with literary jealousy, publicly claimed it: "You
have done me the unexpected honour of using the formula I employed in
writing to you a few months ago." And, doubly to secure his patent
right, as late as August, 1863, in a Catholic Congress at Malines, he
declared that it was by the example of Belgium that he had been taught
a formula that had now become famous, "which has been stolen from us
by a great offender." He printed his address under the title, "A Free
Church in a Free State."[31]

The French father of the phrase lived to write what showed that he had
employed it without having defined its terms in his own mind. Had its
Italian foster-father, who repeated it in death, lived to govern with
it, he would have learned, in the school of action, to select some one
of the many interpretations which it invites, or else to discard it as
a formula, applicable, indeed, to a Church proper, and a State proper,
but incapable of application to a mixed institution like Romanism,
which, however much of a Church, is still more of a State.

The loss of Rome, to which political symptoms now pointed as impending,
was a calamity to be warded off by all the weapons of the Papacy,
sacred and profane. A great assembly of prelates was projected, to
surpass in splendour even that of 1854. It was to be equally well
guarded against any parliamentary character. In June, 1862, three
hundred bishops from all parts of the world were actually collected
around their chief. The ceremonies during this assembly displayed
a gorgeous pomp, which even Rome, accustomed since the days of the
Emperors to government by spectacle, was fain to recognize as an
effort, and a success in its kind, worthy of the historical stake in
dispute. The ostensible object was the canonization of certain Japanese
martyrs; but the real anxiety of the moment was so absorbing that the
new constellation in the heavens seemed to rise only to rule and decide
questions pending as to boundary lines on the earth.

In these turbulent and pitiless times, said the Pope, when the Church
is pierced with so many wounds; when her rights, liberties, and
doctrines are so miserably violated, especially in Italy, "we urgently
desire to have new patrons in the presence of God," by whose prevailing
prayers the Church, buffeted with such a horrible tempest, as well as
civil society, may obtain the much-longed-for repose.[32] The aid of
the new patrons was that to which faith and hope pathetically turned,
in the concluding prayer put up on Whit-Sunday by the Pontiff: "Regard
Thy Church, now afflicted with such calamities: take not away Thy
mercy from us; but for the sake of these Thy saints, and through their
merits, cause Thy Church," etc., etc.[33]

Besides the influence to be exerted by the exalted Japanese on behalf
of the temporal sovereignty, valuable results might attend a solemn
declaration from the episcopate of the whole world. This would at all
events silence priests who had dared to think amiss, and would affect
not only the calculations of statesmen, but also the complexion of
public opinion. The faith of Romanists in a display is, to all who
have been trained not to take an impression for a reason, absolutely
incomprehensible. Lamartine, in relating the perplexities of Mirabeau
when the gusts of the Revolution had begun to appal even him, exactly
pictures what is the outcome of their sensuous training. "He would save
the monarchy by a royal proclamation and a ceremony to make the king
popular."

A declaration was made by the assembled bishops with all possible
gravity and force. The language chosen by Pope and prelates was the
strongest to be found. They were not content with pledging themselves
to the temporal dominion as a good, useful, helpful, or urgently
desirable thing. Staking the future for the present, as well as the
spiritual for the temporal, they declared that it was "necessary" in
order to the exercise of the full pontifical authority over the whole
Church. If this is so, there has been no proper exercise of authority
over the whole Church since 1870, nor can there be any till the Pope
again finds some few hundred thousand of Italians calling him king.
If it is not so, the collective hierarchy, and the Pope with them,
erred in setting forth a doctrine, touching the Head of the Church, for
the guidance of all mankind. The Pope himself not only said that the
temporal power was necessary, but that it had been given by a matchless
counsel of Providence. The reason he gives for its necessity is the
stock one, that the Pope may not be a dependent of any prince, as if
he had not been the helpless dependent of Napoleon III. The bishops,
forgetting both this dependence and the sanguinary measures by which
the temporal power was upheld, actually used such words as "noble,
tranquil, and genial liberty."[34]

Besides their testimony to the necessity of the temporal power, the
bishops put on record words well adapted to prepare the way for the
dogma of Papal infallibility--words often afterwards recalled to those
of them who opposed that dogma in 1870. "Thou art to us the teacher of
sound doctrine, thou the centre of unity, thou the quenchless light
of the nations, set up by divine wisdom. Thou art the rock, and the
foundation of the Church herself, against which the gates of hell shall
not prevail. When thou speakest, we hear Peter; when thou dost decree,
we yield obedience to Christ."[35]

But the new saints of 1862 did not turn the tide any more than the
"Immaculate" of 1854 had done. Italy held together, though Cavour
was gone. The effort of the two Catholic emperors to secure Mexico
for the Church, by placing a monarch of approved principles on the
throne, ended in a tragic failure. The grief felt everywhere at the
fate of Maximilian of Hapsburg was intensified for Pius IX, because,
as it is expressed by Professor Massi, the promises made to the
Pope by Maximilian, when he came to Rome before taking the reins of
empire, "were to remain void."[36] Finally, in 1864, the Convention of
September brought home to the Pope the fact that, unless the Virgin
should work a miracle for him, he was to be abandoned by the foreign
auxiliaries whose presence he hated, but the terror of whom was the
only shade in which he could rest. Perhaps he remembered how soon after
the foreign Emperor had held the Pope's bridle, the Italian Lambert
called him "My Lord," as he would have done to any other baron, and
drove him to hard straits.

It was in this position of affairs that the seers of the Vatican beheld
all human institutions as if reduced by a cataclysm to a dark and
roaring chaos. And on their principles chaos it was. Not only had kings
and lawgivers withdrawn themselves from under the authority of the
supreme tribunal, not only had civil courts been withdrawn from under
the authority of the external tribunal, but almost all governments
had ceased to enforce by law the attendance of their subjects on
the internal tribunal of the Church which they thus degraded to the
level of a voluntary confessional. In each of the three circles of
all-embracing authority, therefore, order was now disrupted, and chaos
had broken in. The seer could see but one remedy. Society must be
RECONSTRUCTED, and that upon the basis of one world-wide monarchy.

It is but slowly that minds accustomed to judge by ordinary standards
learn to attach a precise meaning to such expressions as the above, in
the language of the Vatican. Even after having learned how definite
is the meaning, we do not soon begin to associate ideas of deliberate
plan and serious expectation, with what would seem to be only dreams
of the cloister. We therefore give a few clear sentences from _Il
Genio Cattolico_, a publication praised by the authoritative _Unitá
Cattolica_.[37] It describes the true ideal of the Papacy as being
"an immense variety of languages, traditions, legislations, letters,
commerce, institutions, and alliances, under the moral and pacific
empire of a single Father, who, with the sceptre of the word, upholds
the equilibrium of the world. The Papacy is not, as German jurists call
it, a State within the State, but is a cosmopolitan authority, the
moderator of all States, the supreme and universal standard of law and
justice. It is a world-wide monarchy, from which all other monarchies
that would call themselves Christian derive _life_, _order_, and
_equilibrium_."

Coupling this distinct conception of the appointed place of the Papacy
in the human commonwealth with the equally distinct conviction that
modern society is in ruins, the writer proceeds: "What is the remedy?
The recognition of a common father, who shall teach subjects to obey
as sons, and sovereigns to rule as fathers; a _supreme judge, to
declare and give sanctions to the rights_ of the one and the other.
Without this, how can the want of balance in the conflicting forces be
redressed?"

With views thus radical and all-comprehending did the Court of Pius IX
proceed to build up, after a very ancient ideal, an empire over all
peoples, nations, and languages, the test of which should be acceptance
of the religious symbol set up by the autocrat. In the projected
reconstruction the _ultimate end_, the restoration of facts, would
always include these cardinal points. Every man and every woman in
Christendom, and, by a due extension of "the kingdom of God," every man
and every woman living, must be bound by law to appear, at the least
annually, in the internal tribunal of the Church, the confessional. In
order to this, every civil magistrate must be set in obvious and in
practical subordination to the ecclesiastical magistrate or bishop,
by the subjection of the civil court to the external tribunal of the
Church, the ecclesiastical court. In order to this, every king or
lawgiver must be set also in obvious and in practical subordination
to the supreme tribunal of the church, the Pope, by a restored state
of international law, giving to the Pontiff, or, to speak accurately,
recognizing in the Pontiff what God had given to him, full power to
deliver sentence as supreme judge upon the rights of all kings, and
upon the merits of every law.

We for the sake of clearness, say three tribunals, though technically
they are only two, the Pope being in both supreme. Whether the
subject enters by the _foro externo_ or by the _foro interno_, by the
ecclesiastical court or by the confessional, both in the ultimate
instance conduct him to the one bar, that of the Judge of judges.
The supreme tribunal is he, in all causes not purely material, in
all causes whereinto enters any moral or religious consideration.
Protestants would seem generally to imagine that the ecclesiastical
court is a higher tribunal than the confessional. Not so. When a
conflict arises between the sentence of the external tribunal and that
of the internal, the suitor at the bar of God's kingdom is bound by the
judgment of the internal tribunal![38]

In Carleton's _Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry_, where the
only symbol of any tribunal is a rickety chair standing on an earthen
floor full of holes, the priest of God has no sooner put on robe and
stole than "the tribunal" is as truly constituted as when in the palace
of Charles V sat Domenico Soto with the imperial penitent kneeling
before him, and said, "So far you have confessed the sins of Charles,
now confess those of the Emperor." In that tribunal has the peasant
bride to learn, and has the Queen to learn, that not the husband is
the head of the woman, but the priest of God. In that tribunal has the
shoeless Connaught child and has the imperial prince to learn that not
the parents are the head of the children, but the priest of God. In
that tribunal has the debtor and has the creditor, the executor and the
legatee to learn that not the law of the civil bench obliges, but the
law pronounced by the priest of God. In that tribunal have all these to
learn that not even the law which falls from the ecclesiastical judge
in the external tribunal is to be taken, but that which in the internal
tribunal, in holy secrecy, between the conscience alone and the judge
alone, falls with full force of binding and of loosing from the lips of
the priest of God. So in the other, the external tribunal, has every
citizen to learn, and every public servant, that not the magistrate
is the head of the town, and not the chief magistrate is the head of
the city, but that the bishop is head of both one and the other, for
he is the head of the priests of God. Finally, at the supreme bar have
the princes, the governors and captains, the judges, the treasurers,
the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to
learn that not the president, not the grand duke, not the king, not
the emperor, is the head of the nation, but the thrice-crowned King of
kings, the Great High Priest of God.

This kingdom, it is held, with some stretching of the facts, did in the
Ages of Faith prevail, and it is to be restored.

The restoration of facts could not be effected without a foregoing
restoration of the idea of Hildebrand. Constantine had founded a
State Church. Leo III, with Charlemagne, had founded what Mr. Bryce
accurately describes as a Catholic State, with the Pope as spiritual
and the Emperor as temporal head. Cardinal Manning points out that in
this Mr. Bryce makes the holy Roman Empire a two-headed monster.[39]
Nevertheless Mr. Bryce gives the true human history, though doubtless
Cardinal Manning, following Boniface VIII, gives the correct Papal
doctrine. According to that doctrine, the dualism of a double-headed
State amounted to a sort of Manicheism. History, which is guilty of
tainting many with one heresy or another, must bear the fault of Mr.
Bryce's Manicheism. But Hildebrand would abolish all dualism. The whole
world must have one head. Constantine's idea of a State Church had its
merit of unity, but it was unity by perversion of rights. The true idea
was that of a Church State, embracing the whole world, and placing
all mankind as one fold under one shepherd. This true idea was to be
restored.

We shall in its place, be taught how we err in calling power over
temporal affairs temporal power. More accurately, does Cardinal
Manning speak of "the supreme judicial power of the Church in temporal
things."[40] He speaks of "the indirect spiritual power of the Church
over the temporal State,"[41] thus showing the error of the notion that
spiritual power means only power over spiritual affairs. He speaks of
"the Christian jurisprudence in which the Roman Pontiff was recognized
as the Supreme Judge of Princes and People, with a twofold coercion,
spiritual by his own authority, and temporal by the secular arm."[42]

The turn of phraseology in the last sentence is probably not
undesigned. Had it been employed by a Protestant, Ultramontanes, _if
writing in Italy_, would have cried out, Ignorance and inaccuracy!
Does the Cardinal mean that the authority whereby the Pope through the
secular arm applies temporal coercion is not his own authority? No,
assuredly. Yet he leaves us in a position to slip into some such idea.
In such coercion as that of which he speaks it is not that the secular
power acts of its own authority, but that it acts with its own arm,
but with the Pope's authority. The interesting doctrine of the Brahman
as sprung from the Creator's head, and the King-caste as sprung from
his arm, reappears in the Papal system, in which the priest anointed
on the head and the prince anointed on the arm symbolize respectively
the authority that gives law and the force that carries it out.[43]
But Cardinal Manning's definition of _Christian_ jurisprudence as that
wherein the Pope is recognized as supreme Judge of Prince and People is
not only strict, but it also explains a whole set of terms--_Christian_
government, _Christian_ law, _Christian_ order, _Christian_
civilization, and so forth.

It was obvious that to effect in Europe such a restoration as these
claims implied, a lengthened preparation of ideas must go before the
restoration of facts; and that restoration of ideas it was which we now
see undertaken.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 24: _Kurze Geschichte des Vaticanischen Concils_, p. 9.]

[Footnote 25: _Roma Papale_, p. 7.]

[Footnote 26: _Allocution of Dec. 15, 1856._ _Receuil_, p. 382.]

[Footnote 27: _Civiltá_, Serie IV. vol. iv. p. 430.]

[Footnote 28: _Liverani_, p. 163.]

[Footnote 29: _Receuil_, p. 400.]

[Footnote 30: _Discorsi_, vol. i. p. 158.]

[Footnote 31: See the whole narrative in _Unitá Cattolica_, March 17,
1870. Also Mrs. Oliphant's Life of Montalembert.]

[Footnote 32: Schrader, _Pius IX, als Papst und als König_, p. 21.
Idcirco summo pere optamus novos apud Deum habere patronos, qui in
tanto rerum discrimine validissimis suis precibus impetrent ut, tam
horribili discussa malorum procella optatissimam Catholica Ecclesia et
Civilis Societas assequatur pacem.]

[Footnote 33: _Papst und König_, p. 23.]

[Footnote 34: _Civiltá Cattolica_, Serie V, vol. ii. p. 721. Their
words are: "In nobili, tranquilla, et alma libertate catholicam fidem
tueri," etc.

Monsignor Nardi proudly referred Mamiani, in the summer of 1869, to the
folio volumes in which 835 bishops had inscribed their adhesion to the
necessity of the temporal power. (_Stimmen, Neue Folge_, v. p. 153.)]

[Footnote 35: _Civiltá_, Serie V. vol. ii. pp. 719, 723. "Tu populis
lumen indeficiens.... Tu Petra es, et ipsius ecclesiæ fundamentum....
Te loquente, Petrum audimus, Te decernente, Christo obtemperamus." The
text even of the Vulgate is changed in the words, Tu Petra es.]

[Footnote 36: _Life of Pius IX._ Frond, vol. i. p. 102.]

[Footnote 37: Il Genio Cattolico Periodico Religioso--Scientifico,
Litterario, Politico di Reggio Nell' Emilia, 1873.]

[Footnote 38: This is briefly and well put in the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_
(V. 146), where an article of the _Times_ on the bull of convocation of
the Vatican Council is belaboured through twelve pages of double-column
Latin. That journal had the audacity to set up conscience against
Pope, and to name Luther. "What do you understand by conscience?
for it is solemnly held by Catholics that we may not and cannot act
contrary to conscience. Indeed, we confess that, in point of fact,
we may be bound to act even against the sentence pronounced by an
ecclesiastical authority, seeing that the external tribunal, as we
say, does not always concur with the internal tribunal, and whenever
the internal tribunal is in opposition to the external tribunal, we
are bound to follow the internal. On this point consult our Catholic
authors when they treat of moral theology. Immo fatemur, posse in re
facti contingere, ut agere teneamur contra ipsam latam auctoritatis
ecclesiasticæ sententiam; quandoquidem forum externum, ut loqui
solemus, non semper cohæret cum foro interno: et quoties forum internum
in oppositione sit cum foro externo, primum sequi tenemur. De qua re
consulendi sunt auctores nostri Catholici de morali theologia agentes."]

[Footnote 39: _Vatican Decrees_, p. 67.]

[Footnote 40: Ibid. p. 82.]

[Footnote 41: Ibid.]

[Footnote 42: Ibid. 84.]

[Footnote 43: "Since Jesus of Nazareth, ... the anointing of princes
is changed from the head to the _arm_; but the sacramental anointing
is still maintained upon the _head_ of the bishop, because he, in his
episcopal office, represents the person of the Head. There is, however,
a distinction between the anointing of the bishop and of the prince,
because the head of the bishop is anointed with the ointment, but the
arm of the prince is rubbed with oil, that it may be shown what a
difference exists between the authority of the bishop and the power of
the prince."--_Phillips_, ii. 621--quoting Bennetti's _Priv. S. Petri
Vindiciæ_.

"Now, here are two things to be noted. First, that the emperor holds
an office of human creation--the Pontiff an office of divine creation.
Secondly, that the office of divine creation is for a higher end than
the office which is of human origin."--_Cardinal Manning, "Vatican
Decrees_," p. 68.]




CHAPTER V

The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864--Character of the Propositions
condemned--Disabilities of the State--Powers of the Church.


To ordinary readers the Syllabus would rather appear to be a
destructive instrument than a constructive one. Its authorized
expounders, however, with remarkable unanimity, treat it as the
foundation for the enduring fabric of reconstructed society. Its form
accounts for the first impression on the part of the outside world.
It is a series of _condemned_ propositions, drawn from official and
authoritative utterances of Pius IX--a syllabus or collection of
errors, condemned in judgments pronounced by him as supreme judge of
Christendom. These, taken collectively, form a politico-ecclesiastical
system.

The eighty propositions range over most subjects. As all stand under
the head of _condemned errors_, each proposition is, logically,
to be read with the prefix, "We reprove and condemn the following
proposition." Some of these sentences express the beliefs of infidels,
and some those of all Christians but Romanists; some the crudest
notions of socialists, and some the fundamental principles of free
States, or the maxims of all thriving communities; some the crotchets
of obscure theorists in philosophy and ethics, and some the postulates
of all free science. These heterogeneous beliefs and disbeliefs are
strung together and delivered over, before the universe, to eternal
anathema.

Passing from abstract to concrete, embodiments of evil are condemned,
whether the body is a Church, a Bible Society, a Freemasons' lodge, a
pack of communists, or even such clandestine gangs as were known in
Christendom only to the territory of the Pope and his favourite Italian
princes.

Perhaps the eventual importance of this manifesto was, at the time,
exaggerated at the Vatican, and is exaggerated even yet. "In this
century," says the _Genio Cattolico_, already quoted, "rises up the
sublime and gigantic figure of Pius IX, another Hildebrand. He is
charged by divine Providence with the erection in our day of a new
edifice upon the débris of the religious and political revolution, as
in former times Gregory VII was commissioned to reconstruct a similar
edifice upon the scattered remains of tyranny. Gregory had his Dicta;
Pius IX has his Syllabus."

The _Civiltá Cattolica_ has never ceased to glorify the Syllabus. A
periodical, expressly devoted to expounding and commending it to the
Germans, and making it the basis of a new social condition in that
country, was commenced at a Jesuit monastery near Bonn, under the
title of _Stimmen aus Maria Laach_. Catholic journals spoke of the
universal scope and pregnant consequences of the Syllabus in terms
at which men of the world were more inclined to smile than to take
warning. The views taken of the document by learned Catholics not of
the Ultramontane school are briefly put by Michelis: "Constitutional
freedom, equality before the law, liberty of the Press, all the
foundations of modern civilization, were all at once pronounced to be
hostile to the Catholic faith."[44] Hints were not wanting that it
might introduce a conflict which would rage through centuries, and
perhaps leave nothing standing but the Church. Still, for the time,
politicians were rather annoyed than alarmed, and perhaps no Protestant
statesman thought the matter serious enough to feel even annoyance.

Protestant statesmen were still somewhat in the state of mind expressed
by Ranke: "What is there that can now make the history of the Papacy
interesting and important to us? Not its peculiar relation to us,
which can no longer affect us in any material point; nor the anxiety
or dread which it can inspire. The times in which we had anything to
fear are over; we are conscious of our perfect security. The papacy
can inspire us with no other interest than what arises from its
historical development and its former influence." This prognostic,
the shortsightedness of which the Germans have been painfully taught,
obviously sprang out of a confusion of ideas, expressed immediately
afterwards, where Ranke identifies changing professions and claims
diplomatically presented with fixed maxims, with objects and claims
founded on cherished dogma, and felt to be inalienable. As to the
Papacy, Ranke says, "Complete metamorphoses have taken place in its
maxims, objects, and claims."[45]

In contrast with the indifference founded on this supposed change was
the view of the _Civiltá_ in surveying the events of 1864. The year had
been, according to it, one marked by that silent preparation of ideas
which brings around great events. To the unobserving this preparation
was unseen; but the process was going on and the issue certain. Casting
a glance around the world, the _Civiltá_ showed that everywhere what
it calls the revolution, what we call representative government, was
becoming ruinous, and the old Catholic ideal of government regaining
its place in the mind of the thoughtful. In Belgium, it had come to
that pass that an important paper declared that the tyranny of a
majority was worse than that of an autocrat. By a manifest Providence,
that immense Babylon the United States, founded on the principles of
the revolution, was broken up and undone. The new Mexican empire had
all the more promise of stability, as it would retain, at least in
part, Catholic principles.

This historical article proceeded to say that the greatest merit of the
past year lay--

    In the highly important pontifical documents with which it had
    been so solemnly closed. The Encyclical of his Holiness Pius IX of
    December 8, and the Syllabus accompanying it, speak clearly enough
    of themselves, and need not our comments. Those exceedingly grave
    utterances of pontifical wisdom and fortitude are already perused
    in every tongue spoken by Catholics, that is, by the civilized
    world. Nor do Catholics alone read them; even Liberals do so
    too. And already we begin to hear a distant echo of the fear and
    wrath felt by the Liberals. They, who themselves change moment by
    moment, cannot understand that the Church should never change,
    in her principles or in her doctrine. They, who would conciliate
    everything--and, when they can do no more, conciliate fact with
    law--by the stupid word _fait accompli_, cannot be at peace,
    because the Church will not be reconciled to impiety and absurdity.
    They do not believe with divine faith in the potency of the
    pontifical word; but they do believe by an instinct of terror, as
    the devils also believe and tremble. Hence the stream of filth now
    vainly flowing against those documents from the Italian and foreign
    journals. The Liberals tremble at this warning, and cannot restrain
    their vexation, because so many hypocritical efforts to mask their
    Liberalism under Catholicism are at last brought to nought. They
    are now compelled to lay aside the mask more and more. No longer
    can they deceive the simple. They must now declare themselves open
    enemies of the Church and of her definitions.[46]

Though the Syllabus is not even in profession a proclamation of the
glory of Christ, or of the Christian verities, or of the mission of
the Church to turn sinners from their sins to God, but is formally
a charter of ecclesiastical dominion over civil society, the first
fourteen of its eighty propositions are named as if drawn from the
domain of philosophy and theology. They, however, lay the doctrinal
basis for the political claims that follow.

The fifth proposition illustrates the difficulty of judging of the
practice of the Church of Rome by her theory, or vice versa. She
condemns the following: "That divine revelation is imperfect, and
therefore subject to a continuous and indefinite progress, which
corresponds to the progress of human reason." Persons not of her own
communion would say that, except for the last clause, this might
express the ground on which the fabric of Roman doctrine, properly
so called, is built. Believing too much almost always springs from
believing too little. He who believes enough about one God does not
want assistant divinities. He who believes enough about one Mediator
does not want to multiply the number. He who believes enough about one
revelation does not want new revelations. Both the Councils of Trent
and of the Vatican keep up the theory of only developing revelation.
Practically their proceedings are pervaded with this principle, "That
divine revelation is subject to continuous and indefinite progress."
The popular effect of this is that new _quasi_-revelations are of
frequent occurrence.[47]

It is, however, at the fifteenth proposition that the framers of
the Syllabus emerge into their natural element. In it the opinion
condemned is that every man is free to embrace and profess that
religion which he may esteem true, following the light of reason. This,
with the few other propositions under the head of Indifferentism and
Latitudinarianism, prepare the way for a section, in which communism,
clandestine societies, and Bible societies are bound into one bundle.
This again introduces the two great sections, that on the Church, and
that on the State. These together comprise thirty-seven propositions. A
section on ethics and one on marriage follow. Marriage is treated not
at all in respect to the morals of wedded life, or to the sanctities of
the connubial and parental relation, but in respect to those questions
which affect ecclesiastical authority and its relation to the civil.
The concluding sections treat of the temporal sovereignty, and of
modern Liberalism.

Who would look for Liberalism under the improbable heading of
_Naturalism_? yet both the _Civiltá_ and the _Stimmen_, proceeding on
lines laid down by Bishop Pie of Poictiers, elaborately showed how the
_fundamental heresy_ of all those condemned was Naturalism, because,
viewed in the light of the Encyclical, all those errors converged in
the "denial of the supernatural character of the Church."

Under the section treating of the Church, the first proposition affirms
the important principle as to the Church being a perfect society. Yet
this is put into a sentence containing explicitly or implicitly a
number of propositions, some negative, some affirmative, and nearly all
of great ambiguity. The error condemned is, "The Church is not a true
and perfect society completely free, nor is she invested with rights
proper to herself and permanent, conferred by her divine Founder; but
it belongs to the civil power to define the rights of the Church, and
the limits within which those rights are to be exercised" (prop. 19).
This, be it remembered, is the proposition condemned. Keeping in view
the ambiguity of the several predicates, the following points are to be
noted--1. The Church is a perfect society. 2. The Church is completely
free. 3. The Church has the direct authority of Christ for her rights.
4. The State cannot define the rights of the Church. 5. The State
cannot even limit the exercise of those rights.

The broad denial of the right of the State to define or limit the
rights of the Church, without distinction, is meant to cover, and, to
Vaticanists, does cover, the right of the Church to define the limits
of her own authority as to its domain and as to its exercise, and
consequently the right to define the limits of the authority of the
State, both as to its sphere and its exercise.

Yet, what is, at first sight, simpler to superficial readers than
denying the right of the State to define the rights of a Church? It is
a right of a Church to believe, to pray, to worship, and to preach. Is
the State to define such rights? It is a right claimed by one Church
to pray any day to "new patrons," whom, as Moses said, "Thou hast not
known, thou, nor thy fathers"; yet is the State to assume the function
of defining such rights? But one Church also claims the right of
employing mercenaries and foreign auxiliaries to force a few millions
of men of a fine race, in a fine country, to submit to her chief pastor
as their king. She also claims the right to set her priests, in any
country, before the princes of the nation; and the right, not merely
to ask for an alteration of the law of the land, but to declare it
void--the right even to tell subjects when and where they may lawfully
break law.[48] Now, both classes of claims are covered by the one word
"rights," and the State is confidently warned off from a fort, or
from the pamphlet of a seditious bishop, as if that ground was lawful
Church ground; indeed, as if it was holy, like the shrines of faith and
worship sanctified by our Lord and His apostles.

Father Bucceroni may be taken as fairly conveying the whole effect of
the Syllabus on the relations of the State to the Church, when he says
that "Catholic civil society is bound to yield to the Church, even in
temporal affairs, if the advancement of a spiritual end calls for it";
and "religion should be so positively protected that the _judgments of
the Church should never be obstructed_."

In resenting the prohibition of Napoleon III to promulgate the
Syllabus in France, the _Civiltá_ spoke thus of the error which misled
politicians--

    It proceeds from the belief that it is the civil authority
    which permits the Church to exercise within its territory her
    jurisdiction over the faithful. Nothing is more false. The
    faithful, wherever found, are subject to the Church by the will of
    Christ, and not by the will of the State. They must necessarily be
    governed by two authorities, by the civil and the ecclesiastical,
    each freely acting within its proper circle; yet the first in
    subordination to the second, as the interests of the body are
    subordinate to those of the soul. The Christian people, to whatever
    nation they belong, be they Italians, Germans, or French, if
    subjects of the Emperor as to things temporal, are also subjects of
    the Pope as to things spiritual, and more of the Pope than of the
    Emperor.

Laughing at M. Langlais, who in the French Courts argued that the Pope
in treating of the very foundations of political institutions had gone
beyond his proper sphere, that of faith and morals, the _Civiltá_ said--

    According to our weak way of thinking, the legitimate argument
    would have run thus: The Pope has a right to give a decision only
    within the moral order: the Pope has given a decision as to such
    and such propositions; therefore those propositions belong to the
    moral order.[49]

In reading the following abstract it is to be remembered that we aim
not at giving a complete but a summary view of the effect of the
Syllabus on the relations of Church and State, and that we do not
necessarily disapprove of each separate claim specified. Of course
neither the disabilities of the State nor the powers of the Church here
indicated are embodied in the existing institutions of any country.
They are only the disabilities on the one part, and the powers on the
other, which would be embodied in the institutions of every country
did the tribunal of the Pope acquire the supremacy which it claims.
We need hardly remind careful readers that denying a proposition
does not necessarily mean asserting its _contrary_. But it does at
least imply asserting its _contradictory_. Schrader indeed says that
it is the contradictory of the condemned proposition that is to be
maintained. But his own counter-propositions do not adhere to that
rule. What they assert is sometimes the _contrary_ of the condemned
proposition. To explain these technical terms--One asserts that all
Englishmen are shopkeepers. You deny it. That denial does not pledge
you to assert that no Englishman is a shopkeeper; which proposition
is the _contrary_ of the other. But it does pledge you at least to
assert that some Englishmen are not shopkeepers; which proposition
is the _contradictory_. Two contraries may be both false; of two
contradictories one must be false and the other true.


    _SUMMARY OF POINTS ASSUMED IN THE SYLLABUS AS TO THE DISABILITIES
    OF THE STATE, AND THE RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE CHURCH_

    DISABILITIES OF THE STATE

    (N.B.--The numbers attached to the respective propositions indicate
    the Articles of the Syllabus in which they are contained.)

    The State has not the right to leave every man free to profess and
    embrace whatever religion he shall deem true. (15.)

    It has not the right to define the rights of the Church, nor to
    define the limits within which she is to exercise those rights.
    (19.)

    It has not the right to enact that the ecclesiastical power shall
    require the permission of the civil power in order to the exercise
    of its authority. (20.)

    It has not the right to treat as an excess of power, or as usurping
    the rights of princes, anything that the Roman Pontiffs or
    OEcumenical Councils have done. (23.)

    It has not the right to deny to the Church the use of force, or
    to deny to her the possession of either a direct or an indirect
    temporal power. (24.)

    It has not the right to revoke any temporal power found in the
    possession of bishops as if it had been granted to them by the
    State. (25.)

    It has not the right to exclude the Pontiff or clergy from all
    dominion over temporal affairs. (27.)

    It has not the right to prevent bishops from publishing the Letters
    Apostolic of the Pope, without its sanction. (28.)

    It has not the right of treating the immunity of the Church and of
    ecclesiastical persons as if it were a privilege arising out of
    civil law. (30.)

    It has not the right, without consent of the Pope, of abolishing
    ecclesiastical courts for temporal causes, whether civil or
    criminal, to which the clergy are parties. (31.)

    It has not the right of abolishing the personal immunity of the
    clergy and students for the priesthood from military service.[50]
    (32.)

    It has not the right to adopt the conclusions of a National Church
    Council, unless confirmed by the Pope. (36.)

    It has not the right of establishing a National Church separate
    from the Pope. (37.)

    It has not the right of asserting itself to be the fountain of all
    rights; or of asserting a jurisdiction not limited by any other
    jurisdiction, say that of the Pope. (39.) N.B.--_The absence of any
    distinction between legal rights, of which the State alone is the
    fountain, and natural rights, of which the laws that create legal
    rights are but the recognition, is characteristic and pervasive._

    It has not the right even of an indirect or negative power over
    "religious affairs." (41.)

    It has not the right of _exequatur_, nor yet that of allowing an
    appeal from an ecclesiastical court to a civil one. (41.)

    It has not the right of asserting the supremacy of its own laws
    when they come into conflict with ecclesiastical law. (42.)

    It has not the right of rescinding or annulling concordats or
    grants of immunity agreed upon by the Pope, without his consent.
    (43.)

    It has not the right to interfere in "matters pertaining to"
    religion, morals, or spiritual government. (44.)

    It has not the right to judge any instruction which may be issued
    by pastors of the Church for the guidance of consciences. (44.)

    It has not the right to the entire direction of public schools.
    (45.)

    It has not the right of requiring that the plan of studies in
    clerical seminaries shall be submitted to it. (46.)

    It has not the right to present bishops, or to depose them, or to
    found sees. (50, 51.)

    It has not the right to interfere with the taking of monastic vows
    by its subjects of either sex, or to fix any limit to the age at
    which it may be done. (52.)

    It has not the right to assist subjects who wish to abandon
    monasteries or convents. (53.)

    It has not the right to abolish monasteries or convents. (53.)

    It has not the right of determining questions of jurisdiction as
    between itself and the ecclesiastical authority. (54.)

    It has not the right to separate itself from the Church. (55.)

    It has not the right to provide for the study of philosophy, or
    moral science, or civil law eluding the ecclesiastical authority
    (57). N.B.--_Moral science includes politics and economy._

    It has not the right to proclaim or to observe the principle of
    non-intervention. (62.)

    It has not the right to declare the marriage contract separable
    from the sacrament of marriage. (66.)

    It has not the right to sanction divorce in any case. (67.)

    It has not the right to prevent the Church from setting up
    impediments which invalidate marriage. It has no right to set
    up such impediments itself. It has no right to abolish such
    impediments already existing. (67.)

    It has not the right to uphold any marriage solemnized otherwise
    than according to the form prescribed by the Council of Trent, even
    if solemnized according to a form sanctioned by the civil law. (71.)

    It has not the right to recognize any marriage between Christians
    as valid, unless the Sacrament is included. (73.)

    It has not the right to declare that matrimonial causes, or those
    arising out of betrothals, belong by their nature to the civil
    jurisdiction. (74.)


    RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE CHURCH

    N.B.--_In many cases, the propositions under this head show the
    powers of the Church directly corresponding to the disabilities of
    the State expressed under the previous head._

    She has the right to interfere with the study of philosophy, and it
    is not her duty to tolerate errors in it, or to leave it to correct
    itself. (11.)

    She has the right to require the State not to leave every man free
    to profess his own religion. (15.)

    She has the right to be perfectly free. She has the right to define
    her own rights, and to define the limits within which they are to
    be exercised. (19.)

    She has the right to exercise her power without the permission or
    consent of the State. (20.)

    She has the right to bind Catholic teachers and authors, even in
    matters additional to those which may have been decreed as articles
    of belief binding on all. (22.)

    She has the right of requiring it to be believed by all that
    no Pope ever exceeded the bounds of his power; also that no
    OEcumenical Council ever did so, and further, that neither the one
    nor the other ever usurped the rights of princes. (23.)

    She has the right to employ force. (24.)

    She has the right to maintain that whatever temporal power is
    found in the hands of a bishop, is not beyond what is inherent in
    his office, and has not come from the State, and therefore is not
    liable to be resumed by it. (25.)

    She has the right to claim dominion in temporal things for the
    clergy and the Pope. (27.)

    She has the right to make bishops promulge the Pope's decrees
    without consent of their rulers. (28.)

    She has the right to require it to be believed of all, that the
    immunity of the Church, and of ecclesiastical persons, did not
    arise out of civil law. (30.)

    She has the right to require that temporal causes, whether civil
    or criminal, to which clergymen are parties, should be tried by
    ecclesiastical tribunals. (31.)

    She has the right to alter the conclusions of a National Church
    Council, and to reject the claim of the Government of the country
    to have the matter decided in the terms adopted by such National
    Council. (36.)

    She has the right to prevent the foundation of any National Church,
    not subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. (37.)

    She has the right to reject any claim on the part of the State to
    either a direct and positive or an indirect and negative power in
    religious affairs, and more especially when the State is ruled by
    an unbelieving prince. (41.)

    She has the right to reject the claim of the State to exercise a
    power of _exequatur_, or to allow appeals from ecclesiastical to
    civil tribunals. (41.)

    She has the right to exclude the civil power from all interference
    in "matters which appertain to" religion, morals, and spiritual
    government. Hence she has the right of excluding it from
    pronouncing any judgment on instructions which may be issued by any
    pastor of the Church for the guidance of conscience. (44.)

    She has the right to deprive the civil authority of the entire
    government of public schools. (45.)

    She has the right to refuse to show the plan of study in clerical
    seminaries to civil authorities. (46.)

    She has the right to fix the age for taking monastic vows both for
    men and women, irrespective of the civil authority. (52.)

    She has the right to uphold the laws of religious orders against
    the civil authority; the right to deprive the latter of power to
    aid any who, after having taken vows, should seek to escape from
    monasteries or nunneries; and the right to prevent it from taking
    the houses, churches, or funds of religious orders under secular
    management. (53.)

    She has the right of holding kings and princes in subjection to her
    jurisdiction, and of denying that their authority is superior to
    her own in determining questions of jurisdiction. (54.)

    She has the right of perpetuating the union of Church and State.
    (55.)

    She has the right of subjecting the study of philosophy, moral
    science, and civil law, to ecclesiastical authority. (56.)

    She has the right of enjoining a policy of intervention. (62.)

    She has the right to require the sacrament of marriage as essential
    to every contract of marriage. (62.)

    She has the right to deprive the civil authority of power to
    sanction divorce in any case. (67.)

    She has the right to enact impediments which invalidate marriage,
    the right to prevent the State from doing so, also the right to
    prevent it from annulling such impediments when existing. (68.)

    She has the right to require all to receive the Canons of Trent as
    of dogmatical authority, namely, those Canons which anathematize
    such as deny her the power of setting up impediments which
    invalidate marriage. (70.)

    She has the right of treating all marriages which are not
    solemnized according to the form of the Council of Trent as
    invalid, even those solemnized according to a form prescribed by
    the civil law. (71.)

    She has the right of annulling all marriages among Christians
    solemnized only by civil contract. (73.)

    She has the right of judging all matrimonial causes, and those
    arising out of betrothals, in ecclesiastical courts. (74.)

    She has the right to require that the Catholic religion shall be
    the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others.
    (77.)

    She has the right to prevent the State from granting the public
    exercise of their own worship to persons immigrating into it. (78.)

    She has the power of requiring the State not to permit free
    expression of opinion. (79.)

The importance of questions affecting marriage and betrothal is
threefold. (1) Immense revenues accrue to the Court and bureaucracy
of Rome from the system of dispensations for marrying within the
degrees forbidden in any one of the three separate scales of
consanguinity, affinity, or spiritual affinity, i.e., affinity
contracted by sponsorship at baptism or confirmation. (2) The grant,
every five years, of a QUINQUENNIAL FACULTY to the bishop to issue
such dispensations as affect those distant degrees within which
dispensations do not pay a tax, or to the poor who cannot pay, holds
the bishop in perpetual dependence on the Curia. (3) The whole system
of impediments and dispensations subserves the end of extending the
control of the priesthood over domestic life through the reluctance
felt in families at the time of a marriage, as at that of a death, to
cause scandal by a difference with "the clergy."

Phillips says (ii. 639) that in modern times the union of Church and
State is frequently compared to wedlock--not an inapt figure, but one
calling for care lest it be taken in a wrong sense. "That would be the
case if in this union the female partner was taken for the Church, and
the male partner for the State. If we employ this simile, we must think
of the relative positions as just reversed." This seems reasonable. The
legal position of a married woman, a _feme covert_, would appear not
ill to correspond with that of a State bound to the husband, who calls
himself a mother.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 44: _Kurze Geschichte_, p. 10. It will be seen that here, as
in the _Civiltá_, the meaning of civilization is concrete, the civil
system.]

[Footnote 45: _History of Popes_, Engl. tran. 2nd ed., p. 19. The
learned author, forty years after he wrote the above, in publishing his
sixth edition, referring to these words, says that they expressed the
view of the epoch, "but I cannot conceal from myself that a new epoch
of the Papacy has commenced."]

[Footnote 46: _Civiltá_, Serie VI., vol. i. p. 172, 173.]

[Footnote 47: Friedrich, in his _Mechanismus der Vatikanischen
Religion_, p. 12, says that these revelations no longer need to come
from God, but may come from other persons, especially from Mary.]

[Footnote 48: "It is not allowable either that the temporal authorities
should make a law, in reference to an ecclesiastical subject, on which
the Canons have not determined anything; or, that through their law
they should change Canons that are in existence. Every law of the kind
opposed to ecclesiastical rules, or enacted in addition to them, if
not desired by the Church, or expressly recognized by her, is hence in
itself invalid."--_Phillips_, ii. 563.]

[Footnote 49: VI. i. 652-3.]

[Footnote 50: The word is generally translated "clergy" in English. But
it is not _cleri_ but _clerici_, which includes divinity students, and
is commonly translated in Italian by _chierici_. In Italy the class
which would have been exempted under cover of the student's right would
have been very numerous.]




CHAPTER VI

The Secret Memoranda of the Cardinals, February 1865.


The Cardinals who, in the beginning of December, were commanded to
prepare notes on the expediency of holding a Council, did not hurry,
but by the beginning of February fifteen such notes were in the hands
of the Pope. Their Eminences discussed the subject under four heads: 1.
The present condition of the world; 2. The desirableness or otherwise
of resorting to the ultimate remedy of a General Council; 3. The
difficulties in the way of holding one, and the means of overcoming
them; 4. The subjects of which a Council might treat.

The most eminent consulters, or, as our historian loves to call them,
the purpled (_i porporati_), showed how the present age was remarkable
for progress in invention. This formed its favourable side. But then
such progress served only temporal ends. The "Christian government of
the world," as it existed in former ages, had given place to a system
based on the principle that society, as such, had nothing to do with
God. The points in the sad spectacle of this "social apostasy," which
most distressed the Cardinals, were as follows--Education was withdrawn
from the supreme vigilance of the Catholic Church, and consequently ran
into manifold errors; the doctrines of naturalism, rationalism, and
various forms of pantheism prevailed, from which sprang socialism and
communism.

Coming to political affairs, some of the writers mourned over the
prevalence of revolutionary principles in general, some over freedom of
worship and of the Press in particular, and some over the tyranny of
the State, which controlled education and charitable institutions--thus
appropriating to itself all the social forces. Some, again, lamented
the violation of the rights of the Church in regard to laws affecting
marriage, to those on the holding of land, to the temporal sovereignty
of the Pope, to the religious orders, and similar topics.

The practice of magnetism, clairvoyance, and spiritualism is
deplored by their Eminences as one great plague and shame of our
epoch. Freemasonry, viewed "in its true aspect," not as a benevolent
association, but as an institution having for its ultimate aim the
erection of a pretended church universal of humanity on the ruins of
all religion, is said by several of the consulters to be the arm which
carries the modern theories into practice, and therefore is viewed as
one of the most potent enemies of the Church.

The next point noted is the influence exerted even upon Catholic
teaching by the Reformation and by rationalism. It is shown that in
philosophy, as taught in some countries, the ancient system of the
schools had been set aside, and, as all sciences are affected by
philosophy, it not unfrequently occurred that authors and professors
attacked the pure doctrines of the faith. Some of them even evinced
a disposition to regard Rome as being ignorant of the relations of
Catholic science to heretical and rationalistic science, or, at least,
as not appreciating the necessities arising out of such relations. Nay,
they even displayed some unreadiness in submitting to her authority.

On the second point, that of the desirableness of holding a Council,
nearly all the Cardinals were agreed. "In the present confusion
of principles and systems, the whole episcopate assembled in
Council, pointing out the way of eternal salvation to nations and
sovereigns, and also the true relation between the natural order
and the supernatural order, with the rights and duties of governors
and governed, would be a luminous beacon scattering the darkness
that covers the world. Perhaps in the presence of such a spectacle,
heretical and schismatical societies would lay aside old prejudices,
and would be drawn to a reunion."

However, the unanimity of the Cardinals was not complete. One advised
that the calling of a General Council should be reserved for times when
some great difference within the Church demanded a settlement. A second
thought that the delicacy of some of the points to be handled, and the
want of that external support which the Church formerly possessed,
outweighed any prospect of advantage. A third could not pronounce
between advantages and disadvantages, but gladly left the decision with
the Sovereign Pontiff, whom God always assisted with special light.

Cecconi's statement as to the general agreement of the Cardinals
appears to clash with that made by persons in Rome, who ought to be
well informed, and who affirm that, at first nearly all the Cardinals
were opposed to the Pope's desire, and only yielded to his ungovernable
longing to have his own infallibility proclaimed. Lord Acton says
the Cardinals gave their counsel against the project, and that the
Pope proceeded heedless of their opposition.[51] Both statements may
be correct; for even if the Cardinals had opposed the project when
informally talked about, they might yield when the official initiative
taken by their wilful sovereign convinced them that it was to be. One
of the counsellors of Ali, the fourth caliph, when rebuked by Abdullah
Abbas for giving bad advice in contradiction to good, previously
given and rejected, replied, "When a person, either through folly or
obstinacy, is found to reject counsels which are obviously salutary, he
must expect to receive counsels of a complexion precisely the reverse."

On the third point, namely, that of the difficulties in the way of
holding a Council, the Cardinals held that great prudence would
be required. The decrees of the Council would be received with
indifference by the ungodly and the worldly, or would be made the
pretext for new trespasses against the Church. Then, as to governments,
would they permit the bishops to attend? Would they not prohibit
the execution in their territories of decrees not conformed to the
interests of those who held the power of the sword? Again, what would
be the use of new canons if the civil power would not further the
execution of them, or would even thwart it? And besides all this, the
political horizon was clouded, and the Council might be interrupted. So
far for external difficulties.

As to internal ones, points noted were, the long absence of the bishops
from their flocks, the risk of dissensions in the Council, and of
consequent scandal--a risk which appeared the greater as the thorny
character of some of the questions to be treated was considered. The
Cardinals also felt that there was some danger that a desire might
arise on the part of the bishops to extend their own privileges,
already too great, so much so as even to be hurtful to the practical
uniformity of ecclesiastical government, as well as to the firmness of
ecclesiastical discipline, and to the union of the bishops with the
head of the Church.

On the most important point of all, the subjects with which the Council
should deal, the summary of the notes given by Cecconi is so meagre as
to suggest the idea either that the views of their Eminences must have
been crude, or that they did not care to put on paper such views as
were matured; always supposing that the summary really represents the
whole of the contents. After a few generalities, the first particular
subject named for condemnation is the liberty of the Press, after which
are named civil marriages, impediments to marriage, mixed marriages,
and such like, with questions of ecclesiastical property, and the
observance of fasts and feasts.

Only two of the Cardinals mentioned the subject of Papal infallibility.
A third named Gallicanism and the necessity of the temporal
sovereignty. Only one mentioned the Syllabus.

The omission to name the Syllabus in this instance is one of a series
of acts of reticence in respect of that document which are at least
curious. It is not mentioned in the Encyclical which accompanied it. It
is not mentioned by the official historian at the time of its issue;
and when, as we shall hereafter see, the Pope solemnly confirmed it
in the presence of five hundred bishops, the act was not mentioned by
the Court organs. Further, the Syllabus was not mentioned even in the
very document by which the collective hierarchy expressed their solemn
adhesion to it. Nor was the adhesion to it by letter of the prelates
then absent mentioned till, as our tale will show, all this was brought
out by the friction of events.

Points in these notes to be borne in mind, as throwing light on the
future of our history, are, that those who desired a Council hoped it
would be a short one, and were of opinion that the powers of bishops
were too great; and that the relations of the supernatural order and
the natural order must be regulated, i.e. reduced to rule. These two
commonwealths, commonly called the Church and State, had hitherto
adjusted their relations, at least wherever Rome represented the
supernatural order, by the rough method of trials of strength and
skill. The object of reducing their relations to rule would be to
restore that harmony of action which, according to the Curia, formerly
existed in happy ages, but had been lost in the changes of time.
Naturally, this desired harmony could only be restored by each abiding,
according to rule, in its own place--the lower under the higher, and
the higher above the lower.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 51: _Zur Geschichte_, etc., p. 3.]




CHAPTER VII

A Secret Commission to prepare for the Council, March 1865--First
Summons--Points determined--Reasons why Princes are not consulted--Plan
for the Future Council.


In March, 1865, Cardinals Patrizi, Reisach, Panebianco, Bizzari, and
Caterini were appointed a secret commission to make preparations for
the proposed Council. It was in the deepening grey of an evening in
Lent that the red coaches drove down the Via della Scrofa carrying
those Cardinals to their first meeting, in the palace of the Vicariate.
Rome did not know that this represented the first move in the
preparation of one of those world-representing displays which had some
part in bringing on her ancient decay, and a greater one in gilding
it over: displays which, while changing in the accidents of form,
have retained the essential character of a sense-subduing pageant,
and retained also the purpose of binding the city to an autocrat. The
significance of the display now contemplated was to consist in showing
both Quirites and Italians that the world bowed down to the tiara, and
so to bind Rome to the Pope for ever.

At this first meeting of the Commission, Giannelli read a memorandum
intimating his belief that France, Italy, and Portugal would prohibit
their bishops from attending a Council,--more particularly Italy; but
as Germany, England, America, Spain, and others, would not do so,
a considerable number would be able to assemble. This indicates a
consciousness that political distrust of Rome was felt most strongly in
Roman Catholic countries.

After hearing this memorandum the Cardinals proceeded to consider the
following questions, and gave to each the answer indicated--

1. Is the summoning of an OEcumenical Council under the circumstances
necessary, and opportune?

Affirmed.

2. Should Catholic princes be previously consulted?

Negatived. Nevertheless, when the Bull of Convocation has been issued,
it would be well and becoming for the Holy See to adopt suitable
procedures with the princes.

3. Should the Sacred College be consulted before the issuing of the
Bull of Convocation, and if so, how?

Affirmed; but in the manner to be determined by the Most Holy--or, in
common speech, in such manner as the Pope may please.[52]

4. Should a Special Congregation be appointed to direct affairs
relating to the Council?

Affirmed.

5. Should the Directing Congregation, after the publication of the
Bull, consult some bishops in different countries as to the subjects
proper to be treated, both in doctrine and discipline, regard being had
to the variety of countries?

Affirmed.

The reason which led the Cardinals to negative the idea of consulting
the Catholic princes is supposed by Cecconi to have been a fear lest
obstacles to the holding of a Council might be raised, and also lest
the proceeding might be interpreted as a recognition of the supremacy
of the State (p. 29).

On the 13th of March these resolutions of the Commission were reported
to the Pope, by whom they were approved with one slight modification.
Instead of a consultation of certain select bishops after the
convocation of the Council, he appointed that it should take place
before.

The first step in carrying out these resolutions was the appointment
of a Directing Congregation, which was composed of the Cardinals of
the Commission, with a few others, the number eventually being nine.
That body was in existence two years and a half before the hierarchy
generally received an intimation, in a Secret Consistory, of the
intention to hold a Council.

At the meeting of the Directing Congregation on March 19, the sketch
of a plan for the labours of the Council was presented by one of
its members, not named. He proposed that the work should be divided
into four branches, and that each should be assigned to a different
committee.

1. DOCTRINE, to be committed to the Inquisition, presided over by
a Cardinal of the Inquisition, the committee to be enlarged by the
addition of some members not attached to the Holy Office. This
committee could be subdivided into sections.

2. ECCLESIASTICAL-POLITICAL AFFAIRS, to be committed to the
Congregation for ecclesiastical affairs, enlarged by consulters and
others.

3. MISSIONS AND ORIENTAL CHURCHES, to be committed to the Propaganda
and the Congregation of Oriental Rites.

4. DISCIPLINE, to be committed to the congregation for bishops and
regulars, with the addition of consulters, canonists, and theologians.

Each committee was to be presided over by a Cardinal, and all were
to report to the Directing Congregation, with which should rest the
ultimate authority.[53]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 52: "_Juxta modum a Sanctissimo statuendum._"--_Cecconi_, p.
29.]

[Footnote 53: _Cecconi_, p. 322.]




CHAPTER VIII

Memoranda of Thirty-six chosen Bishops, consulted under Bond of
Strictest Secrecy, April to August, 1865--Doctrine of Church and
State--Antagonism of History and the Embryo Dogma--Nuncios admitted to
the Secret--And Oriental Bishops.


On April 10 his Holiness sanctioned a letter to thirty-six select
bishops of different countries, intimating under the most binding
secrecy his intention of holding a Council in the Holy City, at some
time yet undetermined, and requesting them to communicate their views
as to the subjects proper to be treated.[54]

In August, nearly all the answers had arrived. Out of the thirty-six,
only three bishops cast doubts on the wisdom of the project; all the
others were rejoiced.

The letters of the thirty-six, according to Cecconi, expressed views
on the present condition of society coinciding with those of the
purpled in Rome. The thirty-six generally remarked on the absence of
any special heresies. When we come to particulars, the subjects which
our author finds specified are: the right of the Church to hold land;
her independence of the State; her right to control education; her
right to judge what promotes and what hinders religion. Among other
matters noted, the chief are: the obligation of the faithful to adhere
to the decisions of the Church, and in particular to those of the Holy
See, and the necessity of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, with
"similar points."

After Cecconi has apparently concluded his summary of the suggestions
of the thirty-six, a sentence is slipped in, saying, that among the
verities which ought to be propounded by the Council, some mentioned
Papal infallibility--"a doctrine admitted in all Catholic schools,
with a few exceptions." Hereupon departing from his general rule,
and adopting marks of quotation, he gives the words of one particular
bishop, without naming him. These bear directly on the point most
agitated before and during the Council. Such English readers as know
much of the controversy, will probably risk a guess as to the author,
and it may be that persons in Munich will hardly stop at guessing, but
will say they know. It plainly was no Bavarian, not even a German,
neither of whom would fall into such an expression as "Munich in
Bavaria." "At present there are but few who impugn this prerogative
of the Roman Pontiff; and they do so, not from a theological point of
view, but the better to assert and maintain the freedom of science. It
would seem that a school of theologians has sprung up with this object,
at Munich, in Bavaria, in whose writings the principal aim is to lower
the Holy See, its authority and its mode of government, by the aid of
historical dissertations, and to bring it into contempt, and above all
to combat the infallibility of Peter teaching _ex cathedrâ_."

This language intimates that the science for which especially freedom
was claimed at Munich was history, which wants no other freedom than
that of learning the truth and telling it, that of detecting lies
and forgeries and exposing them. Even the Court historian feels the
significance of this announcement of the mutual antipathy existing
between history and the embryo dogma.

Among the "isms" designated for anathema by the chosen thirty-six,
those which have any bearing on divinity proper could be named by
most ordinary readers. One "ism" to be condemned is regalism, or the
doctrine that the king is supreme in his own country; another is
liberty of conscience and of the Press; and of course the bishops
no more forget magnetism, somnambulism, and freemasonry, than their
purpled superiors of the Curia.

Two points brought out under the head of discipline, are, the
mobilization of the clergy, and the educational rights of the Church;
strong condemnation being levelled against mixed schools.

After the secret preparations in Rome had been continued for nearly
twelve months, the circle of confidential advisers was further
extended. On November 17, 1865, the Cardinal President of the Directing
Congregation communicated the intention of his Holiness to the nuncios
in Paris, Vienna, Munich, Madrid, and Brussels; and requested them to
name canonists and theologians of sound principles, exemplary life, and
distinguished learning who might be called up to Rome to serve on the
preparatory committees.

The next extension of the circle was to the Oriental bishops, who
were consulted by Cardinal Barnabò, the Prefect of the Propaganda.
They hailed the prospect of a Council, hoping that it might at length
remove barriers which held the East in separation from Rome. Of these
barriers they name both ancient and modern instances. Among the former
the worst appears to be "national spirit," and among the latter we
find Protestantism and the everlasting Freemasons. "Nationalism" is a
trial to the Papal Church in the west as well as in the east. Cardinal
Manning, in the Pastoral issued just before the Council met, said--

    The definition of the infallibility of the Pontiff, speaking _ex
    cathedrâ_, is needed to exclude from the minds of Catholics the
    exaggerated spirit of national independence and pride, which has,
    in these last centuries, so profoundly afflicted the Church. If
    there be anything which a Catholic Englishman ought to know, it is
    the subtle, stealthy influence by which the national spirit invades
    and assimilates the Church to itself; and the bitter fruits of
    heresy and schism which that assimilation legitimately bears.[55]

The clearest instance of the national spirit invading and assimilating
the Church to itself occurred in decaying Rome. The military and
absolutist spirit of the empire supplanted in the ministry and
organization of the Church the original spirit of humility and
brotherhood. The spirit of the national pomps supplanted the primitive
superiority to sensation and display. The spirit of the governing
classes set up side by side with the simple code of Christ a new code,
meant avowedly to restore the old Roman domination of law, under the
form of a spiritual empire. The spirit of that domination claimed
to impose upon other churches the will of the Church of the capital
and did not scruple to call her the mother-church, and to support
her claims with lie and forgery oft repeated. But after the Pope,
conspiring with the minister of the Frankish king, and rising with him
against their two sovereigns, had erected himself into a petty prince,
the national spirit of the empire began to narrow down to the municipal
one of aboriginal Rome. Ever since that time the municipal spirit has
increasingly become the spirit of the Papacy. Whatever that power has
effected, it has never been able to make itself a nation. Aiming at
a universal empire, the spirit of its rule has become more and more
close, local, bureaucratic as that of any wee Italian republic of the
middle ages. Men must not only act and move, but must also think and
speak, according to rules excogitated by certain guilds within the
Aurelian walls.

There is a curious but striking contrast between this professedly
supernatural institution and one which scarcely claimed a regular place
among natural institutions. Coming up amid the decline and corruption
of an empire older, richer, and more populous than had been the empire
of Rome, the East India Company, in a couple of generations, made a
nation out of some hundreds of States among which had raged yearly
conflicts. That nation still contains many thrones, but within its
circle, and in spite of their jealousies, no less than two hundred
and forty millions of men, a family immensely greater than Rome ever
cursed with war or blessed with law, now live in peace and freedom
such as were unknown to the ages which had aforetime passed over their
country. On the plains around the presidential cities of India, where
a century ago Mahratta, Moslem, and Rajpoot were wont to ravage, now
reigns peace at seed-time and peace at harvest. Security sits and sings
on every tree, and Industry, building her nest in every bush, sends out
broods that, free from fear, busily cover the land. What a contrast
with the endless whirl of war which in what are called the Ages of
Faith--ages when the spells of the chief priest in Rome had power over
semi-barbarous chiefs--ever eddied on the plain around Rome, a glorious
plain, growing waste and more and more waste, while kings came, now
to be crowned, now to put a Pope in prison, and while Italians and
foreigners rose and sank by turn in the alternating surges--foreigners,
however, most frequently coming into the fight at the call of a
self-asserting but mongrel and parasitical government, which claimed to
be the heaven-sent superior, not only of commercial corporations like
the East-India Company, but also of the very kings and emperors whom
it played off against one another, and on whom it had always to rely.
A national spirit indeed! Such a national spirit as we see in reformed
countries, and as was once in an inferior degree seen in the Gallican
nation, is large, tolerant, and magnanimous compared with the tight,
pretentious municipal spirit unconsciously depicted by Liverani when
he enumerates the small men from small towns, puffed up with the name
of cities, who, in the Curia, swelled themselves out with notions of
world-commanding importance--notions rendered possible only by their
own helpless narrowness.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 54: _Cecconi_, p. 324.]

[Footnote 55: _The OEcumenical Council_, p. 52.]




CHAPTER IX

Interruption of Preparations for Fourteen Months, through the
consequences of Sadowa--The French evacuate Rome--Alleged Double
Dealing of Napoleon III--_Civiltá_ on St. Bartholomew's--Change of
Plan--Instead of a Council a Great Display--Serious Complaints of
Liberal Catholics.


It was on May 24, 1866, that the Directing Congregation held its
third meeting, Monsignor Nina acting as secretary in the absence of
Giannelli, who was indisposed. But, soon afterwards, dark clouds
enveloped the Vatican, and ere the Congregation could again meet
fourteen months had passed away.

On July 3, 1866, a shell burst at Sadowa which struck in three
different directions, and in each case the blow was heavy. Austria fell
from the primacy of Germany, and from her place among Italian States.
Italy, acquiring Venice, entered into full possession of herself, Rome
alone excepted. The disjointed members of Germany moved to union under
Prussia, like bone coming to its bone.

These were deplorable reversals of Papal policy, unfriendly both to
the temporal dominion at home and to the spiritual dominion abroad.
By the instrumentality of France and Austria it had been possible,
for ages, to keep Italy and Germany parcelled into small States,
easily played off against one another, inimical to great national
organizations or high national sentiment, and glad of an alliance with
a small State possessing an organization by which it could interfere
almost everywhere, and in almost everything. The long-continued success
of the policy directed to this end seemed to stamp it as almost
miraculous. Had Germany united under the Hapsburgs, ready to keep
Italy disunited, it would have mattered less to Rome. But her uniting
under the Hohenzollerns, and aiding Italy to become one, was doubly
dangerous. Reconstruction as going on in Italy and Germany must be met
by reconstruction on a universal scale.

On November 4, 1866, the people of Venetia carried their suffrages to
the feet of King Victor Emmanuel, while Austria and France sullenly
acquiesced. The king said, "Italy is made if not completed"--a hint
which the Vatican both understood and resented. Five weeks later,
at four o'clock on the morning of December 11, Mr. Gladstone, whose
name had already left a beneficent mark on the history of Italy, was
watching by the gaslight from a window in Rome as the French troops
wound round the corner of a street, and he felt that the seed of great
events lay in that evacuation![56] That day the flag of red, white, and
blue which for seventeen years had cast a light on the Vatican and a
shadow on the Tiber, was lowered at St. Angelo. The Pope felt that it
would soon be succeeded by the red, white, and green. So that as if by
a historical parody on the old furor of the circus, the rage of parties
in Rome was once more lashed up by the blue and the green respectively.

"Do not deceive yourselves," said the Pope to General Montebello, when
he presented himself to take leave; "the revolution will come hither:
it has proclaimed it: you have heard it, you have understood it and
seen it."

The _Civiltá Cattolica_, alluding to the "soporifics" administered at
this irritating moment by French journalists and diplomatists, asked
whether France would hold the same language to Italy, now menacing the
Pope, as she had held to Austria and Spain when preparing to assist
him, namely, that "any departure from the principle of non-intervention
would involve a war with France." She had not so spoken to Italy, and
would not do so, for had not Billault said, "It is not possible to turn
French bayonets against Italy." This being the case, France might hold
her peace and not tease the respectable public with soporifics.[57]

When Napoleon III, in the discourse from the throne, alluding to the
fear of Rome being taken from the Pope, said that Europe would not
permit an event which would throw confusion into the Catholic world,
the _Civiltá_ bitterly exposed his double dealing. Some would take this
language as a pledge to uphold the temporal power, but others would see
that it was only a shuffling of the responsibility off the shoulders of
France on to those of Europe. Had he said France will not stand it? No,
but that Europe will not allow it.

It would be about this time that Viscount Poli and Arthur Guillemin,
a lieutenant of zouaves and a zealous crusader, sitting over a cup of
coffee, saw five gentlemen enter the coffeehouse who were not Romans,
but superintendents of a railway then being constructed. One of them
laid on the table a nosegay, so arranged that the colours formed "the
cockade of a king hostile to the Pontiff"--doubtless red and white
camellias, forming, with their green leaves, the colours of Italy.
Guillemin, who was in uniform, heard remarks which showed that the
gentlemen knew what the flowers signified. He rose, seized the nosegay,
dashed it to the ground, and trampled it to pieces. Then, as the others
grumbled, he drew out his revolver, laid it by his side, and went on
sipping his coffee, and chatting with the Viscount.[58]

The _Civiltá_ was at this time publishing a series of articles on the
massacre of St. Bartholomew's, sometimes calling it "the slaughter" and
sometimes "the executions of Paris"; and calculating that there might
have been some two thousand Protestants put to death in the capital,
and, say, eight thousand in all France!

Among his other crimes, Bismarck stayed the preparations for the
Council by the campaign of Sadowa. The most reverend Court historian
evidently has no sense of any need for giving the world other reasons
for the total interruption of those preparations than the political
troubles. Yet one who learned Christianity at the feet of Christ would
not readily see why the studies of holy men in the mysteries of divine
revelation should depend upon a battle in Bohemia, or on the flitting
of a French garrison. Surely, divines might go on searching into
naturalism, rationalism, pantheism, somnambulism, and freemasonry,
whether Germany was uniting or splitting up again. Nevertheless,
studies in regalism and Caesarism in the regular subordination of
the natural order to the supernatural, and in the best measures for
replacing the political system of Europe on the _divine basis_, or, as
we should say, for subordinating civil and restoring ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, were liable to be influenced by the flights of the
eagles. And the augurs who were tracing the lines for the foundations
of the reconstruction, found in the movements of the eagles of Prussia
and France omens that counselled delay.

According to the original design, the Council was to be opened on the
day observed as the eighteenth centennial anniversary of St. Peter's
martyrdom. But, owing to these sad interruptions, when 1867 approached
the secret preparations were not sufficiently advanced. Such, at least,
is the only reason given by Cecconi why the Council was postponed.

The Pope, however, was resolved to cover St. Peter's day with glory.
So his own thrice sacred anniversary, that of "the Immaculate," and
of the Syllabus, was once more signalized by the issue of letters to
the bishops of the whole world, citing them to Rome for the 29th of
the ensuing June. They were not only to celebrate the centenary of
Peter's martyrdom, but to take part in the canonization of some twenty
additional saints, and also to attend certain consistories. The second
name upon the list of the "new patrons in the presence of God" about
to be created was that of PETER DE ARBUES, "Spanish inquisitor and
martyr,"[59] of whose canonization we shall hear again. This invitation
was dated three days before the French evacuated Rome. As trusty
bayonets were failing, additional celestial powers were to be called
into the firmament.

All this time the Liberal Catholics were becoming increasingly uneasy
at the prospect of the dangers on which the Church was drifting. They
had hoped to see her first embrace and then dominate modern culture
and liberties. This was a dream of O'Connell, of Lammenais, and of
Gioberti. At this aimed the erudite and steadfast German Catholics.
But every new utterance of the Court, whether in official document or
inspired organ, showed that it was determined upon dragging the Church
in an opposite direction. According to the policy to which it had fully
committed itself, the Church was to conquer, not by adopting the modern
age, but by restoring the middle ages. The dominion of the Pontiff over
the whole earth as spiritual despot and temporal suzerain was the ideal
to which everything must give way. Montalembert, who had been flattered
by the opening career of Pius IX, as sailors say they are flattered by
what they call foxy weather, expresses himself as follows: "I began as
early as 1852 to wrestle against the detestable political and religious
aberrations summed up in contemporary Ultramontanism." He showed that
when in 1847 he defended the Jesuits of the Sonderbund against Thiers,
as he did with equal eloquence and want of foresight, he did not utter
one word of the modern doctrines, and that for a good reason, because,
he says, "No one had thought of setting them up when I entered on
public life." Indeed, he affirms that, in 1847, Gallicanism was dead,
but that it had been revived through the encouragement given to extreme
pretensions during the pontificate of Pius IX. He then quotes an
important letter addressed to himself, in 1863, by Sibour, at that time
Archbishop of Paris--

    The new Ultramontane school is conducting us to a twofold
    idolatry--idolatry of the temporal power and idolatry of the
    spiritual power. When you, like myself, made a splendid profession
    of Ultramontanism, you did not understand things in this fashion.
    We defended the independence of the spiritual power against
    the usurpations and pretensions of the temporal power; but we
    respected the constitution of the State and the constitution of the
    Church. We did not sweep away every intermediate power, or every
    gradation of order, nor yet every legitimate resistance, nor all
    individuality and spontaneity. The Pope and the Emperor were not
    then--the former the whole Church, the latter the whole State.

Montalembert goes on to say that the old Ultramontanes had recognized
the right of the Pope, in a great crisis, to rise above all rules;
but they did not confound the exception with the rule. These cares and
apprehensions were for the time concealed, and were only brought to
light by the anguish of that moment when the final leap downward was
about to place a gulf that could never be re-crossed between Rome and
all things free and equal. But when the expression did come, it bore
with it the record of previous irritations.

    "The Ultramontane bishops," said Montalembert,[60] "have pushed
    everything to the extreme, and have argued to the utmost against
    all liberties, those of the State as well as those of the Church."

    "If such a system was not of a nature to compromise the gravest
    interests of religion, in the present, but much more in the future,
    we might content ourselves with despising it; but when one has the
    presentiment of the ills which are being prepared for us, it is
    difficult to be silent and resigned."


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 56: _Quarterly Review_, No. 275, p. 293.]

[Footnote 57: _Civiltá_, Serie VI, vol. ix, p. 126.]

[Footnote 58: _Civiltá_, Serie VII. iv. 418.]

[Footnote 59: _Cecconi_, p. 133.]

[Footnote 60: Letter quoted in the _Unitá Cattolica_, March 10, 1870.
_Friedberg_, pp. 118-121.]




CHAPTER X

Reprimand of Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, for disputing the Ordinary
and Immediate Jurisdiction of the Pope in his Diocese--Sent in 1864,
Published in 1869.


Within a twelvemonth of the issue of the Syllabus, letters of
significance were passing between Paris and Rome. One of those letters
throws light on the steps taken to grind down any bishop who dared to
assert, as bishops used to do, some authority for their own office,
independent of the direct and universal meddling of Rome. That some
prelates were still tempted to this offence we have seen hinted by the
Cardinal consulters, in the original notes upon the question of holding
a Council.

One of the most considerable figures in the hierarchy was Darboy,
Archbishop of Paris, to whose name a historical death has given tragic
immortality. When the preparations for the issue of the Syllabus must
have been far advanced, in 1864, he had drawn upon himself letters
of censure from Rome. To these he had replied both publicly in the
senate, and privately, in a manner which showed that some remnants
of old French doctrines yet survived the modern influence in primary
schools and episcopal seminaries. And wherever any sense of the
ancient office of a bishop did survive, there was constant irritation
in the condition of dependence to which the system of _quinquennial
faculties_ reduced the men who, bearing the old name, held the modern
post under the bureaux in Rome. Only a few weeks before the Magna
Charta of reconstruction was promulged, on October 26, 1864, a letter
was addressed to Darboy which fills no less than ten octavo pages of
small type in the documents of Friedberg.[61] Besides its solid value
as instruction, this epistle has the interest of a sharp lecture.
Furthermore, its very language  the most important of the
Vatican decrees.

The quarrel arises on the old subject of the "exemption" of the
regulars from episcopal control, and the direct action of the Curia in
a diocese, over the head of a bishop and under his feet. Readers of
Church history will be tempted to think lightly of the Pope's candour
when he speaks of Darboy's complaint as a new one, but however this
suspicion may touch those who furnished the materials for the letter,
it does not attach to the Pope personally, for he is not usually
supposed to read history, though he often sets it to rights.

If inaccurate in his facts, Pius IX is orthodox in his policy, for
just as bishops must be independent of the government of the country,
so must the regulars be independent of the bishops, that power to set
wheels in motion may be carried from the engine-house in Rome into the
midst of a nation by two perfectly independent shafts. When the Church
is a national one, a bishop has some stake in the country, though
slight compared with his stake at the Vatican; and he must, at all
events, keep up relations with the authorities. The former circumstance
brings temptations to a "national spirit"--one of the standing evils
cried down by the Curia. The latter circumstance may make it convenient
that the bishop should not always know what is really the course of
action being prepared. In both points of view the regulars can be
utilized. Darius took care to have three separate powers in each
province, all directly dependent on the Imperial Court alone.[62] And
from his days highly organized Asiatic governments have had, besides
the apparently omnipotent lieutenants, confidential agents in every
province, depending directly on the metropolitan authorities.

The Pontiff commences his letter by reminding his venerable brother
that he made professions of devotion to the Holy See on his elevation
to that of Paris. Then he tells him that certain of his letters
replying to animadversions of the Pope, show him to hold views opposed
to the divine primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church.
Darboy had asserted that the power of the Pope, in a diocese other
than his own, was not _ordinary_ and _immediate_, but such as should
be interposed only as a last resource, in cases of manifest necessity.
He had represented the intervention of the Pope, by the exercise of
_ordinary_ and _immediate_ jurisdiction, as turning a diocese into a
mission, and a bishop into a vicar apostolic. Moreover, he had said,
in the French senate, that when such intervention took place at the
private instance of individuals, it rendered the administration of the
diocese all but impossible; and he had added that regulars, Nuncio,
and Curia all aimed at bringing about such intervention as an ordinary
thing, and that he would resist it and call upon the bishops and people
to do so. He had even spoken of submitting letters apostolic to the
government, and of having recourse to the lay power; nay, he had gone
so far as to mention the _Organic articles_, though he could not be
ignorant of how the Holy See had always protested against them.

The Pope could scarcely believe that his venerable brother had uttered
such things, and was moved with wonder and anguish at finding him
avowing the condemned opinions of Febronius, which a bishop ought to
abhor. In denying the "immediate and ordinary" jurisdiction of the
Pope, he had denied the decree of the fourth Lateran Council. The words
"feed My lambs, feed My sheep" mean that believers all and singular
are to be subject to Peter and his successors, as to the Lord Christ
Himself, whose vicar upon earth the Roman Pontiff truly is. Every
Catholic would reply to the charge as to a diocese being turned into
a mission, and a bishop into a vicar apostolic, by saying that it was
as false as it would be to say that prefects, judges, or provincial
magistrates were not ordinary magistrates, because a direct, immediate,
and ordinary power was held by the king or emperor.

St. Thomas Aquinas, continues the letter, had said "the Pope has a
plenitude of pontifical power, as a king in his kingdom, but bishops
are received into a share of the solicitude, like judges set over
particular cities." As a Catholic bishop, Darboy ought to know that
all had a right to appeal to Rome, none to appeal from her. Such a
complaint as that the interference of Rome rendered the administration
of a diocese almost impossible had never been made either in past
ages or in the present one. When Darboy spoke of appealing to bishops
and people, he ought to have known that the same had been done by
Febronius, and that it was an offence against the divine Author of the
constitution of the Church.

The Archbishop had not been informed against, proceeded the Pope,
by the regulars, but, from other quarters the fact came before his
Holiness that the Archbishop had exercised the right of visitation
over them, on which he had been admonished, and of this admonition he
had been pleased to speak, in the senate, as of a sentence delivered
without the cause having been heard. It was hardly to be believed! The
Archbishop knew the Decretals, and knew how, in all ages, the Popes
had written in the same manner to bishops when they became aware of
something in their sees which was not quite right.

As it was a question of the visitation of regulars, it must be
remembered that the right of exemption had long been enjoyed by the
Jesuits and Franciscans in Paris, and that the Apostolic See had
exercised its own special or "privative" jurisdiction. Darboy had
alleged that, by the law of the Council of Trent, regulars could not
have canonical existence in any diocese without consent of the bishop,
which consent had never been received by the monks in question. But,
having been long on the ground, they had acquired a prescriptive right,
by virtual, if not by express, consent of successive bishops. And as
to the fact that the civil law forbade them to possess land, of what
use were such laws in ecclesiastical administration? In these most
turbulent and miserable times of noxious, odious rebellion, civil law
might even deny to bishops their civil standing.

The Pontiff cannot dissemble his extreme surprise and annoyance that
his venerable brother had attended the funeral of Marshal Magnan, the
Grand Orient of the Freemasons, and had given the solemn absolution
while the insignia of freemasonry were on the bier, and brethren of
the condemned sect wearing its orders were present. The sect aimed
at corrupting all minds and manners; at destroying every idea of
honesty, virtue, truth, and justice; at diffusing monstrous opinions
and abominable vices, fostering detestable crimes, and undermining all
legitimate authority; yea, at overturning the Catholic Church and civil
society, and at expelling God from heaven.

His Holiness cannot pass over the fact that it has come to his ears
that an opinion has been expressed to the effect that acts of the Holy
See do not compel obedience unless the civil government has given
authority to carry them out. This opinion is pernicious, erroneous, and
injurious to the authority of the Holy See and to the interests of the
faithful. Furthermore, the Pope's venerable brother had incorrectly
asserted in his speech that Benedict XIV in his Concordat with the
King of Sardinia had agreed that the royal sanction should be required
before pontifical acts were carried into execution; and that according
to the instructions annexed to the Concordat, they were to be submitted
to the senate, except when they dealt with matters of dogma or morals;
which false assertion the venerable brother would not have made had
he weighed the words of the instructions. The letter concludes with
protestations of the Pope's affection for his venerable brother and his
flock.

This epistle, after being long held in reserve, was launched into
publicity at a time when Darboy's influence was threatening to be
inconvenient in the Council, and when the French government had
requested a cardinal's hat for him.[63]

It is, perhaps, not superfluous to remark that the terms "plenitude
of power" as denoting the prerogative of the Pope, and "_received_
to a share of the solicitude," as denoting the origin and nature of
the bishop's authority, are not merely happy phrases, but scientific
terms fitted to express the Papal theory of the Church constitution as
opposed to the Episcopal theory. The Episcopal theory, holding that
the office of all bishops is of divine institution, regards the Pope,
not as the source of episcopal authority, but as supreme and ultimate
arbiter. According to the Papal theory, the authority of the bishop is
an emanation from that of the Pope, who, as monarch, unlimited by any
co-ordinate authority, retains in his own hands not only extraordinary
but ordinary, not only ultimate but immediate jurisdiction over every
subject within the bounds assigned to a bishop. The latter is a
prefect, not only liable to be discharged or imprisoned, but liable
while retained in office to have any matter taken out of his hands and
settled contrary to his views. This is the theory which, like a scourge
of not small cords, is employed to flog Darboy, while the incongruous
epithet "venerable brother," dangles at the handle--a vestige of a
past age and an exploded theory. An emperor does not call his prefect
"venerable brother."

A portion of the letter which will well repay study is that indicating
the attitude of the Curia to all authority not immediately within its
own hands, even if in the hands of its "prefects." Against any such
authority it will receive the reports of its private agents, and treat
those reports as having the status of a legal appeal. It will act, if
need be, without hearing the accused, and maintain that none shall
appeal from it, though all may appeal to it. This is the case even
with the episcopal authority; what, then, is the case with the civil?
It is swept aside as an unclean thing; "of what use are such laws in
ecclesiastical affairs?" If Archbishop Darboy, strong in his character,
strong in his see--the largest in the Roman Catholic world--and strong
in his influence at the Tuileries, is thus treated when complained of
by the Jesuits, what must be the case with small prelates who venture
to provoke their power?

As to the Freemasons, one is tempted to wish to be in their secret, for
then one would possess a rough test of Papal infallibility. If they do
not aim at overturning all government, and expelling God from heaven,
infallibility does not carry far.

The time for the great assembly was now approaching, and, meanwhile,
the Papal organs were enlivened by the prospect of a war between France
and Prussia, on the question of Luxembourg. When this hope was deferred
the readers of the _Civiltá_[64] were informed that nevertheless every
possible preparation for war was being pushed forward by the French on
the largest scale, and with greatly improved arms.

On the 9th of May, 1867, the deputies Angeloni and Crotti were called
up in the Italian Parliament to take the oaths and their seats.
Angeloni did so; but Crotti, a well-known member of the Ultramontane
aristocracy, after pronouncing the words, "I swear to be faithful
to the king and constitution," added, "saving always divine and
ecclesiastical laws." This formula was at once recognized as being
that which had been published in Rome by the _Penetenzieria_, with
the declaration that the repetition of it was the only condition on
which Catholics could accept seats in the Italian chambers. Called
upon to take the oath in the form prescribed by the law of the land,
Count Crotti stood firm by the higher law of the _Penetenzieria_, and
the Chamber disowning his _salvis legibus divinis et ecclesiasticis_,
refused to admit him.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 61: _Aktenstücke_, pp. 257-67.]

[Footnote 62: Rawlinson's _Ancient Monarchies_, vol. iv.]

[Footnote 63: _Ce qui se Passe au Concile_, p. 16.]

[Footnote 64: Serie VI. vol. x. p. 384.]




CHAPTER XI

Great Gathering in Rome, June 1867--Impressions and
Anticipations--Improvements in the City--Louis Veuillot on the Great
Future.


The whole earth had been moved in the hope of not only exhibiting a
pageant outshining former ones, but also of carrying the dogma of Papal
infallibility by an ecclesiastical _coup d'état_, or, as it is called,
by acclamation, without the delays of a discussion.[65] Had this been
accomplished, the legislative form of a General Council would have
been rendered futile for the time to come, or at the most, would have
been but a grander method of working the institution of "consultative
despotism," to adopt the strict definition of Montalembert. The
invitation had been enthusiastically responded to. The spectacle of
the Papacy menaced with the loss of Rome was touching, and the belief
was cherished that a great demonstration of the interest felt by the
Catholic world on its behalf would contribute to ward off the peril.
Besides these motives, another in full activity was the ever powerful
one, especially powerful with Romanists, the desire to see a pageant;
and this sight was to surpass all the former displays of Rome.

The city put on its best, the churches were newly embellished, the
streets decked in festive array. Bishops came from all the ends of the
earth, till the thoroughfares were mottled with the toilets of five
hundred. Priests crowded in till, it is said, twelve thousand breathed
the sacred air of the city, every one of them proud to tread that spot
of our unruly earth, where the priest was king of men.

Besides the clergy, came such multitudes of pilgrims that, according
to Cecconi, the population of the city was almost doubled. The
Romans saw their familiar rite, the worship of the statue of St.
Peter--_l'adorazione della statua di San Pietro_--performed on a
prodigious scale. In modern as in ancient Rome, adoration has its
degrees; all worship does not imply the ascription of supreme, but
only of celestial, honours. No Pontiff in the days of the Republic
ever pretended that Quirinus was creator of the world and father of
eternity. He was the protecting divinity of Rome, but with very limited
powers in comparison with Peter, carrying no sceptre equal to the keys.

Such of the visitors as had seen the city in former times, if not
too much pre-occupied with the sanctity of the place to observe such
matters, would find several improvements. Side pavements had been
allowed in the main streets. Gaslight had, after long and painful
efforts, been admitted.

Railways had entered the walls. The personal liberality of the Pope
had effected several improvements, both in public works and charitable
institutions. The French had done a great deal for the cleansing of the
streets, although the filth of some of them, and the indecency of some
of the bye ones, were still beyond belief to any one from England. The
Pope's army, which as late as 1860 was an odd-looking array, was now a
sightly and active force, composed mainly of foreigners, in large part
French. And, finally, it had become possible to tell the time of day.

Formerly, midday had been one of the mysteries of Rome. It seemed as if
the right of private judgment, banished from the churches, had taken
refuge in the steeples, for each particular clock went off at some
mysterious impulse, and struck twelve at the noon of its own. Thus
for good part of an hour, they do say often longer, the air continued
thrilling with the tidings that it was just noon of day. Naughty Romans
ascribe the change to General Baraguay d'Hilliers, while in command
of the French garrison. Having vainly endeavoured to get a standard
of time established, he presumed, with French audacity, to carry the
case by appeal from the sacristy to the sun. Placing a gun on Fort
St. Angelo, with a burning-glass upon it, he stole the tidings from
another world which were not to be got from the temples at hand.[66]

One of the most powerful of the pilgrims was M. Louis Veuillot, who as
editor of the _Univers_ had for very many years done much to second
in literature the work done in schools, of reviving antipathies and
superstitions which were in danger of dying out in France. His notes of
this visit form part of his two octavos. As soon as he reaches the foot
of the Alps, at Susa, he begins to scold Italy and the Italians, takes
every opportunity of doing so, and goes out of the country scolding
worse than when he came in.

But if Italy and the Italians were exceedingly evil in the eyes of M.
Veuillot, he found compensation in the perfect loveliness of Rome and
the Romans. The very cabmen are loudly praised, and the cabs carry
"ideas;" the Press, especially the _Civiltá_, is of course far above
the French level. But the Pope was the grandest spectacle of all. As he
entered the Basilica, preceded by a train of five hundred prelates, it
made an impression of power greater than if four millions of men had
defiled past, armed with the most perfect artillery.[67]

Naturally, however, the imagination of M. Veuillot was most fired with
the prospect of that historical future which was about to open on the
human species. Darkness still covers the chaos after the cataclysm,
but the breaking of the light draws nigh. The news of a projected
Council has reached the ears of M. Veuillot. His first word is, "Rome
is officially taking the reins of the world into her hand." Other
expressions scattered up and down his animated pages are as follows--

    The day that the Council is convoked the counter-revolution will
    commence.... Pius IX will open his mouth, and the great word, Let
    there be light, will proceed out of his lips.... It will be a
    solemn date in history; it will witness the laying of the immovable
    stone of Re-construction.... At the voice of the Pontiff the bowels
    of the earth will be moved, to give birth to the new civilization
    of the Cross.... Here is the great reservoir whence the future will
    pour out and overflow the human race.... These days in Rome are a
    revelation of the state of the world, and the starting point of a
    renovation.... The pilgrimage of Catholic Europe to Rome in 1867
    will have consequences of which the _Moniteur_ [alluding to remarks
    in that journal] will be informed hereafter, and of which the world
    will become aware when the _Moniteur_ would wish them to be unheard
    of.... For centuries Rome has not seen the Pope in such splendour,
    nor has he so manifestly appeared in his character as head of the
    human race.

M. Veuillot is of course one of those who look on the modern liberty of
the press as a great curse. We may insert here what came to hand long
after these pages were written, as an illustration of the kind of Press
that is to be quenched. The _Times_ of January 26, 1876, in the letter
of its Paris correspondent, gives a morsel from the _Univers_, in the
style of M. Veuillot. The _Times_ had said something about an interview
of the Marquis of Ripon, as a new convert, with the Pope. The _Univers_
devotes to that article "a column and a half of invectives," and thus
winds up: "The _Times_ is now the giant of the Press, and prospers
in both hemispheres. But the day will come when the two worlds will
want no more of its agony column, or of its bad literature; and its
last compositor, inactive before his immense poison machine, suddenly
idle, will wait in vain for copy which will never come." Will the
compositor look out of the top window in Queen Victoria Street to see
if Macaulay's New Zealander has arrived on London Bridge?


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 65: Acton, _Zur. Ges._, p. 14.]

[Footnote 66: This was first told me by a Roman tradesman, in presence,
among others, of a very good-natured canon, who joined in the general
laugh at my innocent surprise. This year (1875) an ex-officer of the
Pope's service added, "Ay, but the priests bribed the artillerymen
to steal half the charge of powder, and to turn the gun toward the
Campagna, so that the report should scarcely be heard." Probably
the last statement is a mere rumour, not representing any actual
transaction, but indicating, really enough, the state of mind of the
people as to what their masters were likely to do. I have heard it said
that Sir James Hudson used to declare that when first appointed to
Turin he could walk all round the city while it struck twelve o'clock.]

[Footnote 67: _Rome pendant le Concile_, vol. i. p. 35.]




CHAPTER XII

The Political Lesson of the Gathering, namely, All are called upon to
recognize in the Papal States the Model State of the World--Survey of
those States.


"_Opportuneness of the Centenary of St. Peter for reviving the True
Idea of the Political Order among States_," is the heading of an
article in the _Civiltá Cattolica_ for 1867. The first words are, "He
who comes to Rome finds St. Peter become a king"; a proposition of
which we should modify the predicate, saying, He who comes to Rome
finds a king, professing to be St. Peter. "He (i.e. Peter) has joined
the tiara of the Pontiff to the crown of the Prince." Why did not the
writer say the "tiara of the Apostle"? That would be too great an
offence against antiquity. It is the tiara of the Pontiff, as if Peter
had taken over that office from Nero.

However, these are but the introductory notes. The writer proceeds to
expound the political effects of baptism. Christianity has not changed
the civil power as to its substance, but as to its relations, by making
a change in the subject of power. That subject is no longer mere man,
but man made Christian by baptism. This doctrine--which frequently
reappears as the theological basis of reconstruction--is more fully
stated by M. Veuillot: "They will not deny that the true human race is
baptized humanity.... It is, then, baptism which constitutes humanity,
and all that has not been introduced into the Church by baptism is, in
reality, only a sort of raw material, which as yet awaits the breath
of life" (p. cxii.). In order to prevent any conflict between baptized
man and the law of the Church, the _civil power must be subject to the
Church_. Suarez is quoted to the effect that as a man would not be
rightly constituted unless the body were subject to the soul, neither
would the Church be rightly established unless the temporal power were
subject to the spiritual. And hence, the political conclusion is firmly
drawn: "The idea of such a subordination is realized in the pontifical
government. Because, owing to the peculiar character of him who here
holds the temporal power, it cannot rebel against the spiritual power,
civil law can never here set itself against evangelical law, nor is any
political act possible which should offend against morals."

The last affirmation will appear boldest to those who best know what
political acts have been done in the Roman States, and in the present
reign. No one of these acts could offend against Christian morals! for
the all-sufficing reason that Peter had become the king, and Peter does
no wrong. Thus we find infallibility, as received in the court creed,
covering measures of taxation and police, as well as lotteries and
monopolies--an abuse of the doctrine made still more obvious by what
follows, in which the infallibility of the Government is grounded on
its immaculate conception, and consequently perfect nature. Since in
the Pontifical States "the laws must be sanctioned by him who holds
the place of God on earth, him whom God has given to us for guide and
teacher, they can never be in conflict with the divine will.[68] The
infallible Depositary of evangelical interests can never sacrifice them
to earthly ones. Though in such a government the two powers [spiritual
and temporal] are distinct in form, they are in complete harmony and
duly co-ordinated one with the other, presenting to lay States the
perfect example of the Christian civil power."

It is granted that lay States can never equal this example, but they
ought to imitate it. By their very conception they can never be free
from the original taint, owing to which it becomes possible for "the
temporal power to rebel against the spiritual power." Not only is
it possible, but, by their nature, they are predisposed to that sin
of sins. But all rulers of lay States are to know that in becoming
subjects of the Church the subjects of civil power have been changed,
though the substance of civil power has not been changed. We do not
stay to inquire what may be the substance of civil power, after its
subjects have been lifted above obedience to it by another human
power, higher than itself in all things wherein the two may come into
collision.

In conclusion, the faithful are told that the centenary of St. Peter,
by bringing together people from all parts of the world, will give to
them the opportunity of beholding "a State in which peace, morality,
and justice reign. It is like an oasis amid the desolation of the
desert; and it is so because the political order is in full harmony
with evangelical law."

The approaching pilgrims, in comparing the oasis into which they were
about to enter, with the deserts from which they had emerged, would
be able to judge by the experience of centuries as to whether, where
Peter reigns, the lifting up of the subject above lay government
into the supernatural order had led to the elevation of the laity to
supernatural goodness, or to the lowering of the clergy to the level of
political officials.

Two writers, as dissimilar as Addison and Edgar Quinet, had, in some
degree, anticipated the comparison here challenged, each speaking
from a point of view suited to his own day and mode of thinking. The
Englishman remarks how great is the difference between Roman Catholic
populations where they touch upon reformed countries and where they are
under the unbroken influence of the Papacy. Ignorance, superstition,
and crime gradually deepen till the Alps and the Pyrenees are passed,
when all these become strikingly worse.

The Frenchman says that there was only one model country in Europe.
This was correct; for France had never cast out the influence of the
Reformation, or made away with all the Protestants; and had, moreover,
been the hotbed of what Quinet calls the philosophers. Italy, again,
had always been a stronghold of the so-called philosophers, although
all the Protestants had been consumed. In Spain, however, as he points
out, the Inquisition had really fulfilled its mission; both Protestants
and philosophers having been annihilated, schools and letters having
been reduced to order, and the whole nation having been made to move
for more than two hundred years on the Papal lines. The consequence
was the total ruin of religion in the country.[69]

The comparison to which strangers were challenged by the Curia had
the great advantage of being a comparison of good, not of evil. If
the Papal States are to lay States as the oasis to the desert, proof
actually lies before us of something more than human superiority--of
something amounting to a higher dispensation. If the Papal States are
but moderately superior to others, proof of any higher dispensation
fails; but proof of human superiority remains. If they are only
equal to lay States even proof of human superiority fails. If they
are inferior, proof fails both of divine commission and of human
superiority, and proof arises of the presence of greater human fault.

The only true book of Positive Philosophy yet (we do not say of
Positive Science) is the blessed old Books of books. It brings
everything to the test of fruits. It puts the extraordinary man to the
test before ordinary men. He who refuses the ordained appeal to the
Word, and to fruits, and to the verdict of every man's conscience,
writes his own description as a false prophet.

We shall not, therefore, set out to compare evil, but good. We shall
not inquire if there are more waste acres in the Papal States, more
filthy huts, more wretched villages, more mean little towns called
cities, more blighted prospects, talents thrown to waste, and families
brought to decay, more liars, thieves, drunkards, blasphemers, and
libertines, more depraved homes, more guilty conspiracies, more
strikers, robbers, and assassins, more beggars in the streets, more
idlers and extortioners in office, more wretches in prison, and more
dead men in graves dug by the law, than, say, in our own far from
immaculate or infallible England. We shall only look for the opposite
of all these, and more of it--so much more as would furnish proof of a
special dispensation of God's loving-kindness to men.

In one particular, such of the pilgrims as had heard of the desolation
of the Roman Campagna would feel surprise, somewhat similar to that
often felt by travellers in the Desert of Sinai. The latter, expecting
to find extended plains of burning sand--a Sahara--find a country
like another, only that it has no vegetation. So when pilgrims on the
Campagna found green plains basking under a lovely sky, they would
wonder how men could call it waste. Only by degrees would they realize
the fact that there were no farm-houses, no labourers' cottages, no
hamlets. In Arabia vegetation has failed, and with it animal existence.
This region is a degree less desert: the herb enjoys life and supports
the beast; only man has failed.

A trained observer seeing the plain forsaken and the villages in
military positions on the heights, would at once say, as he would
in Syria: The land has not learned what rest is! It has not yet
experienced, for any continuance, that lot of conscious security in
which the family suffices to itself, the lonely house is safe, and
the village needs neither wall nor steep. The valleys of Tuscany or
Piedmont tell a better tale of law and government.

When, at wide intervals, an inn or what is called a _Tenuia_ occurs,
perhaps it is announced by a few fine children, ill-clad and begging.
The house has an expression of fear. The windows are few and small, and
the yard, instead of a fence or low wall, is defended by a high one.
There are no stack yards, no farm store and treasure spreading securely
and ornamentally around as if conscious of strong, benign protectors.
There is no grass-plot, no gravelled or flagged walk, no flower-bed
before the door, no flower pot in the window, no garden. The house
has never blossomed into the home. It is, after all these ages, but a
shelter from weather and violence.

Entering, you find dirt to a degree neither easy to believe nor
pleasant to describe, which grows worse and worse the longer and
more minutely you observe. The furniture consists of a few stools,
a rough table or bench, with a sack or two of straw for a bed. The
few utensils, whether of earthenware or metal, are, like the stools
and bench, poor in quality, rude in form, and ill-kept. Scarcely
ever is there against the walls a print or photograph, an engraved
sheet, a clock or plaster bust. You look in vain for book, periodical,
or journal. The idea of children's picture-books, or of a cottage
library, is out of the question; and the Bible is not to be seen.
If there be a picture of the Madonna or the patron saint, it is,
in point of art, far below the pictures which often light up the
cottage of our humblest labourer. If there is a book, it is a wretched
dream-book teaching how to succeed in the lottery. No polished chest of
drawers, no white dresser, no fire range bearing witness of taste and
"elbow-grease," no pretty crockery, no easy-chair. You may perhaps see
a man asleep on the bare bench and another on the floor.

As you let the picture print itself, with all its inevitable comments,
upon your mind, it calls up comparisons with what you have seen in
the unlettered countries of the world--not with the homes that grow
up around a family Bible. Here the arts which bring Art home to the
multitude have found no entrance. Engraving, printing, carving,
ornamental work in metal, wood, or pottery, gardening, or artistic
husbandry, are graces that have not crossed this dirty threshold. The
aesthetics, which have had some part in the government of the country
have never developed the blessed aesthetic of home.

Physically, you find a race of great capacity. The frame, if wanting
the compactness of the French and the solidity of the English, is large
and shapely; such as after a few well-fed and well-housed generations
would probably be one of the finest in the world. There is a certain
sluggishness, which is generally called laziness. Perhaps it is not so
much laziness as a lack of that physical elasticity which comes with
successive generations of hopeful effort and good condition, but sinks
away under hopelessness, or the effects of poor food and bad air. The
natural intelligence is quick, and the manners generally polite, often
winning. The pleasant word and the obliging act are both ready. But
when did these carters and labourers wash? Was anything ever done to
cleanse these garments, partly of goatskin with the hair attached and
partly of heavy cloth? We do not call raids now and then to keep vermin
under, an effort at really cleansing. And the heads of the women and
children! Whatever the prevalent aesthetics have accomplished, they
have never awakened the sacred aesthetic of the human person, which is
not to be confounded with the lower aesthetic of dress.

Turning towards the villages, the observer is again reminded of Syria,
where he may have been led on by the prospect of a beautiful city set
on a hill, and found a squalid village. Self-defending construction, as
in the case of the lone house on the plain, reappears here. No outlying
cottages before the village, no detached ones within it, no gardens
or orchards behind. The backs of the houses form a continuous high
wall, pierced with small windows, constituting an irregular but not
despicable work of defence. Again you find the absence of any bit of
green, or of flower-beds before the house, or of flowers in the window.
The gardens of Nottingham alone would put those of all the Papal States
to shame, excepting such as are attached to palaces.

Before entering the houses one feels as if it would be unfair to
compare them with those of English villages in our more cultured and
sunny counties. But we may take a Yorkshire manufacturing village, near
collieries. There the ground is dirty with coal slack; the air dirty
with coal smoke and heavy with damp vapours; the houses are of the
colour of baked mud, called brick; the sky is low, and more brown than
grey. Nature and art seem to have combined to make the house dirty.
Here, on the contrary, the ground is as dry as a board, the air bright,
the walls of warm- stone, the sky lofty, luminous and blue.
Nature has done everything to suggest cleanliness, and also to reward
it with such brilliant effect as we can only see in the brightest
moments which summer lights up within our English homes. And as to
manufacture, its grimy fingers have never touched the place.

Yet under the unfavourable conditions you find tidy women, with tidy
children, by tidy firesides. The floor, seats, tables, drawers,
dresser, walls, all show that the domestic arts of ornament, in however
humble a style, are represented. The cottage child sits with its book
on its knee, and you are not afraid to look into the corners. The Bible
and hymn-book are probably upon the shelf; and if you do not know that
the scene of the cotter's Saturday night is actually enacted there,
you feel that it might be.

Under the favourable circumstances, on the other hand, floor, stairs,
wall, furniture, utensils, and the persons of the women and children
are kept in such a style that one of the women from the Yorkshire
cottage would not like to pass a night in the place. And you must not
look into the corners. Any stray picture which may be on the walls,
only serves to remind you, by contrast, of the wonderful development
of illustrative art in England, Germany, and America, and of its
penetrating influence in the homes of the remote and poor. Here,
sometimes, you may find, even in the village church, prints and dolls,
the former of which in England would be considered poor, and the latter
tawdry in the village shop. Yet in the same church there may be some
real work of art, which has for generations had every opportunity of
forming the public taste.

The land in these Papal States, like the people, is nobly capable; but
our present inquiries turn, not upon the future, but upon proof of
immaculate and infallible government, for the last thousand years or
more.

Fixing, then, our attention on the works of man, we find cause
repeatedly to wish that we had some measure for exactly determining how
much progress has been made, amid these lovely scenes, by the human
mind since it passed from under the dominion of Pagan Romanism into
that of Papal Romanism. At present we have not the means of accurately
settling this question, and perhaps we never shall have, though honest
research may yet sufficiently elucidate it for a practical judgment.
So long as Christianity worked by its legitimate forces, those of
the Spirit alone, with its legitimate instrument, the Word alone, it
cast out the cruel and obscene spirits of paganism, silently, but not
slowly. In individuals and in families real Christians were made. This
continued so long as the ministers of Christ ministered like their
Master, reading the Word of God, and preaching it, but no more thinking
of performing "functions," like the heathen, than He did; so long as
they had neither place nor name in the posts graded and rewarded by
human powers; so long as they enjoyed no consideration but what was won
through wisdom, goodness, and spiritual fruitfulness; so long as their
whole inheritance was not a profession, but a calling, which renounced
the world, not by cutting God's holiest human ties, but by abandoning,
for life, every hope of title, pomp, or power. So long as this spirit
reigned, and whenever it again reappeared, they could point to numbers,
whom they found vile but left created anew in Christ Jesus unto good
works.

But from the time when Christianity became a public power, the
courtier, the priest, and the crowd began to flow into the Church,
and carried part of their heathenism in with them. When the device
of the Emperors was parodied--and as they had assumed the office of
Pontiff to confirm the civil dictatorship, the Roman Bishop assumed the
temporal supremacy to confirm the spiritual dictatorship--all the three
paganizing forces of statecraft, priestcraft, and popular superstition
came more vigorously into play; with the result stated by Gregorovius:
"So that Church which arose out of the union of Christianity with the
Roman Empire, drew from the latter the system of centralization, and
the stores of ancient language and education; but the people utterly
corrupted, could not yield her the living material for the development
of the Christian ideal. On the contrary, it was just they who in
early times defaced Christianity, and permeated the Church, scarcely
yet established in the Empire, with the old heathenism."[70] It was,
however, on the new system of conversion that the people could not
yield the material for developing Christianity. On the old one they
had done so. When the Church waits for converts till the Spirit of God
brings her penitents, she will always find material (often raw and
foul, but capable) for doing all her work.

But we find the first step in an inquiry as to the progress which has
been accomplished challenged by the Vatican philosophy, which decries
modern improvements like the railway, telegraph, steam engine, and
so on, as "material progress." When we ordinary mortals say "mental
progress" we mean a progress of mind; but when the Pope says "material
progress," does he mean a progress of matter? No; then what does he
mean? Perhaps to suggest some such idea as the progressive ascendancy
of matter over mind; but if so, it is unfortunate for him, as a
philosopher, that the inventions he despises represent the advancing
ascendancy of mind over matter. And very unhappy is it for mankind that
all his influence goes to employ matter in colour, form, and movement,
to make man a creature of sensation, and to stay the operation of
reason and of faith, exchanging reason for sentiment and faith for
sight.

Suppose that an observer before passing from the valley of the Sacco
into that of the Anio looks at a historical place like Palestrina,
situated on one of the noblest heights of the land; a point whence
Pyrrhus and Hannibal, in succession, looked with the longing of
warriors across the Campagna to the distant Rome; and whence the
Temple of Fortune, emulating Egyptian proportions, and overspreading
a whole hillside, dominated the plain, and held forth its lights to
the far off sea. This city has a Cardinal Bishop, and a palace of the
great Papal-princely family of the Barberini, and yet is what a homely
Englishman would call a nasty village. If such a one had to pick his
steps up the alleys that serve for streets, in the afternoon, when
the issue of the cow-houses is flowing down them, he would rather be
at home. The people are civil and apparently industrious, but the
energy of the children goes out in begging. The decay and dirt which
conquer all, furnish to an English eye a plain instance of material
progress--matter gaining upon mind. The palace is neither kept up
nor abandoned as a ruin, but, as if to set the town an example of
thriftless filth, it is used partly for an aesthetic exhibition,
containing as it does one wonderful mosaic, with frescoes and portraits
of the Pope and Cardinals of the family, and is partly given up
to--matter. Just as confidently as a skilled observer would conclude
that Middlesbrough or Cincinnati bore witness against any claim to
great antiquity, would he conclude that Palestrina bore witness
against any claim to supernaturally good government. How much lower was
the place when it was heathen?

From the ridge between the two valleys, by Civitella, the stranger has
one of those prospects of which no previous travel blunts the charm,
and no subsequent travel blunts the memory. Here he finds well-made
men ploughing, and women with busts worthy of Sabine mothers carrying
stones. Looking at the plough, he finds it only a few degrees stronger
and better than that used by the ordinary Hindu ryot. It is very far
behind the improved ones to be seen in northern Italy, and would be a
real curiosity to Bedfordshire or Lincolnshire ploughmen.

If the observation of implements is extended to those of the
handicrafts, it confirms the impression of want of taste made by those
of agriculture. But tools are not things to make a show, and the noble
aesthetic of labour has not been fostered. Labour is not part of the
supernatural order, only of the natural; it serves but temporal ends.
And who made the natural? And who dares to teach man, created in the
image of God, that the daily duty appointed to him--duty to himself,
his family, his country, and his race--serves but temporal ends? If
neglected, are only temporal ends frustrated? When our Father sends us
what fills our hearts with food and gladness, is He working nought but
temporal ends? For what is helpful to sanctification commend us even to
the stones on the head of the female hodman, rather than to the beads
at the waist of the novice nun! Albeit the former is a coarse toil not
to be seen without a blush by man born of a woman, yet is it a real
lift at the load of life--a load natural and therefore divine; whereas
the other is neither work nor play, not tending either to lift the load
of life or to cheer on the labour of lifting it, but tending only to
weaken all the powers by rendering the mind a slave of charms. Least of
all is it spiritual or supernatural. It is simply manipulation applied
by the master with sensational skill, and in the subject suspending
thought on sensational routine.

How far do the villages of the thrice beautiful Sabina exceed those of
our Lake District or of Wales in that poetic property of all villages,
"innocence"? The last thing we should do is to set up our own as a
standard. But if you hear the friars talk of the villagers, and the
villagers of the friars and police, the townsfolk of the countryfolk,
the doctor of his practice, and the priest of the refractory, you will
hear mention made, with incidental ease, of crimes which, if committed
in the Lake Districts of England, or in the tourists' haunts in Wales,
would fill the journals for weeks. And how often here does scandal name
the priest before all others!

Do the towns in Papal territory contrast with those in "lay States" as
the oasis does with the desert? Suppose the observer to stand before
Subiaco, seated amid Sabine peaks in the smiling valley of the Anio--a
favourite haunt of artists, and worthy of their favour. A marble arch
marks the entrance to the town; a summer palace of the Pope crowns it.
A little way off stands the sacred cave where Benedict first taught.
That is the Lupercal of Roman monasticism. There arose the institution
which became the one grand public institution of Papal Italy--arose
out of purposes not only pure, but lofty, though upon plans departing
from those both of Moses and of Christ. These made the love of God in
the individual a spiritual force to leaven the family, and made the
family the basis of all institutions. The monasticism of the further
east made spiritual life a dainty too delicate for the fireside. The
Christian system made each new convert a moral agent acting within the
social fabric. When Christians adopted the Oriental system, each new
convert was abstracted from the social fabric, was taught to turn his
or her back on the family, and to call being in the family being in the
world, and renouncing the family renouncing the world. Out of a life of
three-and-thirty years spent among men, our Lord has left us scarcely
another trace of thirty of those years than this, that He spent them in
the family.[71] This convent of Benedict still preserves its celebrated
gardens, boasted of as a beauty for the whole earth--including the bed
of roses, the lineal descendants of those which were transformed from
thorns by miracle.

On the principles of Christianity, if this place has for ages enjoyed a
spiritual government free from religious error, and a temporal one free
from moral fault, and has, in addition, been blessed with the presence
of the representative of God upon earth, we shall without fail find it
a scene of enlightenment, righteousness, and bliss. It must in these
respects be far before places where frail human nature has been in the
hands of churches liable to err, and of governments which commit faults
every day. If, on the other hand, they who have here been stewards of
the unrighteous mammon have employed it ill, who will entrust to them
the true riches, who will give to them the keeping of his soul?

At the entrance of the city, on a morning in May, the sound of chanting
floats down the street, and a procession of clergy moves along, passes
under the marble arch, and proceeds to a church in the suburbs. Then
the priests bless the fields to secure good crops, as is done by the
priests in India.

The streets of the city paraded by this procession are not beautiful,
and had they been steeped for a few years in a smoky, moist Lancashire
atmosphere they would be exceedingly ugly. They are not clean but
dirty, below the condition of any country town in the Protestant
parts of Ireland. They are not busy, but have a listless air, as if
people had little to do and not much heart in doing it. The signs of
enterprise and of improvement which in towns under good governments
silently tell the tale, are not to be seen--signs which already, in
1867, might be traced in most of the towns of the New Italy. The
well-dressed portion of the people is small, and the proportion of
those poorly but tidily dressed extremely small. A gala costume even
of the poor is fine, for whatever is for effect is studiously done.
Many men and women, evidently not in abject poverty, but capable of
dressing up for a state occasion, are not tidy, but badly the reverse.
The number of ragged adults is great, and that of ragged children very
great; it is hard to estimate that of the beggars, for even young
women employed and not very miserably dressed, will take advantage of
a passing stranger to seek a penny; and as to the children, begging
appears to be a recognized branch of street life.

A young gentleman from Rome, tall and handsome, on the point of getting
into a carriage with his companions, anxiously inquires if the road to
Palestrina is safe. Have there not been attacks of brigands lately?
The fact is not denied, though he is assured that all will be well.
In any talk about quarrelling, the use of the knife--that is, the
dagger-knife--is alluded to as a common incident. When any occurrence
illustrates the amount of confidence felt by the people in the honesty
or truthfulness of one another, it seems generally low on the first
point and almost _nil_ upon the second.

If the working classes show no sign of having been blessed with a
government better than that of all mankind, does any sign of it appear
among the trading classes? Beginning at the upper strata of finance and
commerce, a merely English eye would look in vain for tokens of their
existence. Coming down to the shops, perhaps an episcopal city in the
"oasis" would so impress Roman Catholic shopkeepers from Thurles or
Tuam that they would think a comparison profane. Their evil lot has
been cast in a lamentable portion of the "desert," the misdeeds of
whose rulers, and the wrongs of whose pastors and people, have often
made the hearts of the devout in Italy to bleed. Protestant shopkeepers
of Munster and Connaught would not be so awestruck but that they
could make a comparison. They would not find under the fairer sky,
and the theocratic rule, what they would take for symptoms of divine
superiority. The shopkeepers of Enniskillen and Portadown, not blessed
even with a heretic bishop, would smile at the comparison.

As to the professional classes, they are nearly absorbed in the clergy;
for this is a state in which the only way to "found a family" is to
begin by taking vows of celibacy, and the only way to bequeath coronets
is to begin by renouncing the world. The one unworldly profession
counts, among its prizes, a triple crown, scores of princedoms,
ministries of state, of finance, and even of war, embassies, exceeding
many palaces, honours surpassing those of nobility, gorgeous uniforms,
lofty titles, revenues of enormous amount, with powers and dignities
bearing a double value--one measurable by the standards of the world,
and one immeasurable in the eyes of the faithful. The bulk of the land
has passed into the possession either of corporations of clergy or of
families founded by priests successful in their profession.

The Mosaic economy is generally taken to be more carnal than the
Christian; but Moses, leaving Egypt, where the king and the priests
were the only landowners, enacted that the priests should not hold
land, and though married men, should have only a house and "a cow's
grass." Here, on the contrary, the priest, though renouncing the world
in some spiritual sense, comes a hundredfold more into possession of
it in a material one. If mind shows its dominion over land and sea,
over adamant and wind, over time and space, the feat is labelled for
contempt as "material progress." If ministers of the Gospel become
immersed in the management of manors, provinces, taxes, lotteries, and
even of brigades, the fall is certificated for reverence as "spiritual"
ascendancy. In Israel the royal tribe was one "of which no man gave
attendance at the altar," and the priestly tribe one of which none came
to the throne. Here the priest is king, and the temporal prince kisses
his foot. A favourite image is that of the mystic David, pastor and
king in one. Here is the cure of _political_ NATURALISM.

The clergy of the Pontifical States included the two widest extremes
of professional life to be found in Christendom--that of show and
dressiness beyond what our courtiers or soldiers display, and that
of personal meanness and social degradation to which no professional
class among us approaches. Society seemed to avenge itself for the
humiliations it had to suffer from the court priest, by the contempt
with which it treated the clown priest. We once asked an advocate if
all the priests did not read the _Unitá Cattolica_, and we give his
reply, not as describing what priests are, but as showing what men of
education may say of them--"All?" said the Dottore; "well, nearly all
that can read." "But you do not mean to say that there are priests who
cannot read?" "Well, not precisely; but there are many that could not
read a journal intelligently, so as to enjoy it."

The co-existence of fear with hatred of a dominant priesthood may be
observed in any country where priests have been the governing class,
and perhaps, after the Pontifical States, may be best observed in
India. The Brahmans, however, have not in the popular eye so direct a
command over the lot of the departed as Rome has secured for her own
priests, nor have they any such pecuniary profit out of the faith of
the survivors. On the other hand, no class of Brahmans sinks so far
below the average of respectability, among their countrymen, as do the
lower clergy of the Roman and Neapolitan States.

But the contempt of the Italians for the priesthood is no more thorough
than is their reverence. The man who will not introduce a certain
priest to his daughters, will pay him to save the soul of his mother
out of the pains of purgatory. To the Monsignore Don Juan, to use a
term of Gregorovius, he will manifest profound respect, while in his
heart he scorns him. To the not worse but less successful priest he
will manifest contempt and spend some wit upon his vices, and yet, in
his heart, will fear his occult power over the souls of his departed
kindred.

The worldly professions have no such lot as the sacred one. Except
the show corps for inglorious pomp around the sovereign, the military
sphere for Romans is narrow, foreigners taking the lead. _Letters are
no profession._ The civil service is principally in the hands of the
priests. The law exists, and there are men with the titles of advocates
and judges. But if we drew any idea of the status and "chances"
belonging to such titles, from England, it would be altogether
misleading.

Chief Justice Whiteside has shown how wide the difference is, and he
spoke of the great city. In the little one of which we now speak, two
English gentlemen, who could not find room in the inn, were directed to
the house of an advocate, who played my host with assiduity and good
humour, and charged four francs each for dinner, bed, candles, and
service. The doctors seem most like men with a professional standing;
and if they keep from politics, they have a fair chance of leading a
quiet life in obscure usefulness.

Yet is the whole world called to take this state of things as the model
of the subordination of the layman to the priest. "The idea of that
subordination," we are told, "is realized in the Papal government." The
ideal! This absorption, then, of the State into the so-called Church,
this suppression of king, nobles, and people under the priest, is not
an abnormal and monstrous _lusus ecclesiae_, but is the ideal of the
new "political order." Any one can understand it--the king merged
in the prince-bishop or else a vassal of the priest; the noble the
retainer and jewelled ornament of the priest; the people the helots of
the priest. That is the model. Here is realized for us the ideal of
_the one fold and one shepherd_.

The English labourer knows that his son may, like James Cook, walk the
quarter-deck, or, like Robert Stephenson, sit in the legislature. The
Roman noble knows that the utmost his son, if not a priest, can rise to
is to wear pearls and stars at the court of a priest, and kiss his foot
when he makes a great show.

The kindly monk who, at Subiaco, shows a stranger over the Sacred Cave
of Benedict, glories in far-famed gardens, which any peasant from
Appenzell could tell him might be equalled in some private houses in
such a village as Heiden. Fame sometimes draws out the dying notes of
her trumpet unaccountably long. The monk is careful to enlist your
admiration for several meritorious works in painting and sculpture, but
to Protestants one gem is shown only by request. It is a portrait of
the devil painted on the wall, in dark passages, and not visible except
when a light is flashed upon it. This done, it appears for a moment,
or longer, as the operator pleases, through one opening, fitted with
real iron gratings, athwart of which the demon glares out of the gloom
upon the spectator. Such a picture is capable of being put to uses
that would meet the strongest views of those who call for something to
strike the senses, and through them to affect the feelings.

As long ago as the days of the man of the land of Uz, the monotheistic
way of depicting a spiritual presence was, "I could not discern the
form thereof"; and, surely, even in that remote time, the aesthetic was
higher than that of the Sacred Cave.

Following the smiling valley from Subiaco to Tivoli, one would, in
1867, probably see youths in the uniform of the zouaves, lounging on
a bank, near one or both of the towns. Foreign mercenaries! would the
Italians say. Foreign, certainly, and some of them mercenaries; but
some, even in the dress of a private, would unmistakably show the
gentleman--no mercenary, but a crusader who, in answer to the cry
raised after Castelfidardo, has come from afar to fight for St. Peter,
to "die for religion."

Even in this mountain valley the villages still keep to the heights.
Where is the squire and his generous hall?--no room here for his
magisterial office or commanding influence! Where is the farmstead,
full and cozy, warm nest of fruitful brood sure to store a land with
golden eggs? When the squire was quenched under the mitre of the
abbot, the farmer was smothered in the cowl of the friar. Where are
the parsonages and manses, homes where thought-culture is generally
at the maximum, and external show often at the minimum, Christian
families rooted in nature, blessed by divine ordinance, where woman
is doing what the Mother of our Lord was doing at the head of her
house--families holier a hundred times than the "religious" family,
artificially substituted for nature and gospel? If from the list of
bright names written up in England since the Reformation were blotted
all that were first inscribed in the family Bible of parsonage or
manse, that list would be more shortened than most men would imagine.

From the Villa d'Este at Tivoli, with its grandiose, ill-kept gardens,
the prospect across the Campagna, when the distant city and its unique
dome are limned against the sunset sky, is one of rare enchantment.
Suppose that on these Sabine or on the Alban Hills you ask some
intelligent inhabitant if these are not the Delectable Mountains, the
summits of the true Celestial Empire, where no act of moral wrong has
been done by the authorities for, say, the last ten hundred years.
Perhaps you might hear such a statement as we once heard. It was from
a gentleman in the pay of the government; but he knew that he had
not to speak either to a priest or to that denationalized creature
which Romans soon detect under the English form, a _convertito_. The
statement may not have been correct. But it was such as under our
unblessed lay government is never heard. It was such as under a good
government could never be invented. Such a statement, professing to be
made from a man's own knowledge, one never heard in Europe, except in
Naples under the last two kings; but one might hear such in Egypt, and
one could easily hear such, many years ago, in the Mysore, from old men
talking of the times of Hyder Ali.

The desolation of the Campagna is the true and terrible material
progress. Here physical impediments to health and life have conquered,
not being encountered by moral and mental force. What natural riches
are here! If England has wealth in its coal, how much has Italy in
its sunshine? How much has that saved in the last thousand years in
clothes, bedding, and fuel? How much in the wear and tear of buildings,
and of implements? How much has it given in ripening what we can never
ripen, and in ripening quickly and perfectly what we can ripen but
slowly and in part? How much has it both saved and given in diminishing
the physical temptation to intemperance? This soil, this sun, and in
addition the tribute of nations, poured out here for ages in all the
endless forms of Peter's gain--where is all that wealth gone? Here
we are amid the riches of nature, to which successive centuries have
brought riches of tribute, and yet are we wrapped around by silence,
vacuity, and fear. Sleep not here! whispers every friendly voice.
Wealth of matter, poverty of man! The Papal government is sometimes
accused of bringing the malaria. No; it only let it come and let it
stay. Like many who will not believe in invisible mind, it would not
believe in invisible matter. The miasma was the hand of God, and was
not to be fought against.

The Papal government is also accused of bringing all the foreign hordes
who wasted this once glorious plain. It did not always bring them. It
only brought them so often that had it been done by any faction in
the heart of a country not being priests, mankind would have sunk the
memory of the faction under eternal disgrace. Now, the sickly Campagna
labourer, the thing like a Fijian hut which to him is home, and the
buffalo, seem a meet monument to the memory of Saracen and Lombard
destroying, and of Cardinals plundering, till only the grass was left.
Who would have the heart to ask himself, Is this the proof that the
oasis of priests amid the desert of lay States, is a garden planted of
the Lord?

Roughly speaking, Rome is about the size of Dublin. All the Catholic
world sighs over the woes and desolations inflicted on Ireland by
Protestant cruelty. Where has Rome set up a suburb like Kingstown,
Dalkey, or Bray? Where sown a tract of country with rich smiling homes
like those which spangle the emerald from Dublin to the Wicklow hills?
Where in the oasis could a bishop on returning to Belfast point to a
creation of wealth and beauty made in Papal times equal to Holywood,
or the Antrim shore? And could his colleague of Cork dare to make the
people who look on the lone banks of the stream from Rome to the sea
mourn for those who hang their harps by the "pleasant waters" that
flow within sound of the bells of Shandon? Had the Roman Curia reigned
there, the vale would now be insecure; a wretched village or two, with
skeletons and clouts by way of relics in tawdry churches, would crown
the heights; instead of villas, mansions, and cots, a monastery or two
walled up to heaven would hold the best points on the hills, inviting
artists, but perhaps ill rewarding them, while nursing idlers within
and beggars without. And had Rome less reigned at Cork than she has
done, a scene many degrees livelier and richer than that which now
surrounds the fair city would have noted the response of intelligent
industry to the boons of a very bountiful Providence.

Inside the capital of the oasis!--capital of a region where for a
thousand years, at the very least, no act morally wrong has been done
by authority, true bower of a peerless Eden! Let no Englishman say that
these pretensions are not to be treated seriously. We should all have
said so thirty years ago. But now men from any nation in Europe, some
blaming us, some vaunting over our return, will tell us that of late
years more has been done to accredit these pretensions by a portion of
the English clergy than by any educated class in Europe, and that more
to adorn and sanction these pretensions has been done by a portion of
the English aristocracy than by any privileged class in Europe. This is
one instance more of the fact that not interests but principles are the
safeguards of mankind.

Is the city, then, morally the perfection of beauty? Is it so rich in
the Christian graces as to accredit the claim to be the central seat of
an infallible power, the one spot on earth where it is directly touched
by a divine authority? The priest at once tells you how holy the
city is: there are eight basilicas, more than four hundred churches,
and more than two hundred convents. Yes, but perhaps the "religious
family" fabricated by teaching woman that her holy place is not the
family which God founded, and in which every man has his own wife and
every woman her own husband, may not in operation have proved a better
thing than the Christian family. Poor creatures put into an artificial
family where duties ordained by God are made void, and ties set by
Him as strings in the harp of nature to make holy melody, are rudely
unstrung--a "family" in which many of the things called _good works_
are neither virtues nor graces, but vain repetitions of fantastic
forms--a family where the obedience called for is not obedience to
any natural authority or to any divine law, but to arbitrary will;
communities of poor creatures such as these, we say, may not in the
long run have proved centres of holiness. When we ask if the city is
holy, we mean nothing about basilicas, or churches, or convents; but we
mean, are the people like Jesus Christ, like a people prepared as a fit
population for a sinless heaven?

We shall in reply give nothing but a statement on one side from the
_Civiltá_, and one on the other from the prelate Liverani, so that
neither heretic nor foreigner, nay, not even a layman, shall disturb
the testimony. The _Civiltá_,[72] after the occupation of the city by
Italy, showed that one of its characteristics had been the perfect
subordination of all civil arrangements to evangelical law. _Christ
reigns, Christ governs._ This motto had in Rome a worthy and complete
application. Not only individuals, but the family, the city, laws,
policy, all social institutions, felt the salutary influence. In the
metropolis of Christianity, marriage, education, instruction, the
administration of justice and charity, public and private manners, had
to be regulated by Christian laws and evangelical principles:--

    Such to a nicety was Rome. It was called the holy city, that is,
    the city more than any other consecrated to God and forming the
    expression of the kingdom of God upon earth. And the effect of
    this Christian order was seen in the very virtues of the civil
    population. The Roman people was not second to any other in piety
    towards God, and in propriety of conduct; and not only so, but it
    seemed the most dignified, the gravest, and the furthest removed
    from vulgarity and tumult.

The prelate on the other hand says--and we begin at the Vatican (p.
87):--

    Thus came it to pass that at the Court of Rome, that is, the
    house of the lieutenant of Him of whom it is written, "_The evil
    shall not dwell with Thee, neither shall the unjust remain within
    Thy sight_," turned into a sink of scandal and a sewer of every
    foul iniquity (p. 87).... It was always to me a mystery how the
    Roman clergy, rich in gold and lands till most of the Agro Latino
    is in their hands, with their splendid temples and sumptuous
    ceremonies, with their retainers diffused among all classes,
    with control of the charities, the pulpit, the confessional, the
    confraternities--how it is that with all these elements of power
    in their hands I hear from one end of Rome to the other the cry,
    Death to the priests! (p. 87).... The particulars hitherto related
    disclose [in the Court] an iniquity only too deeply rooted, and
    even turned into blood and nature; they disclose sores both
    inveterate and envenomed, hard to cure and hard to eradicate. It
    was this that made Clement VIII say to Bellarmine, "I have not
    strength to contend with such a flood of bad habits; pray to God to
    release me soon, and to shelter me in His glory." Also the brave
    Marcellus II was accustomed to repeat a sentence of Onofrio, which
    I do not wish to copy (133).

As to the people, we shall give but one word. Liverani, remarking on
objections raised against modern Italian rule by the "good Press,"
because certain houses existed in the cities, says:--

    It reminds me of a pleasantry of the old rector of the parish of
    St. Angelo in _Pescheria_, who one day said to me that when he
    took charge of the parish he found one house bad and one not so,
    turn and turn about; but he soon found that they were all alike.
    This editor is ingenuous and innocent as if he wrote in a land of
    angels, instead of in the place where not long ago a prelate-judge
    abused his office to the point of using violence with arms in his
    hands against the sister and daughter of the convicts, so that he
    was prosecuted before the Vicar and before the Holy Office, and
    removed from the bench; but after a few years, the good nature
    of the prince being overcome by powerful intercession, he was
    reinstated in another judicial office.

We shall not go further into this subject than to add that one of the
bitter reproaches cast upon the Italian senate by the _Unitá_ was that
when the most noted and most respected living man in Italian literature
and politics, Mamiani, said, speaking on the conscription, that at all
events the morals of the barrack-room were better than the morals of
the convent, the senate received the statement with loud applause.

However correct or incorrect may be the views of the several witnesses
from whom we have heard a word, there can be no hesitation in
pronouncing that any attempt to show evidence of divine superiority
utterly fails--so utterly as to be more than ridiculous. But if there
is not divine superiority, there must have been false pretensions. The
one or the other is inevitable. If the States of the Church have not
for the last thousand years been ruled by the representative of God,
they have been ruled by one who was himself deceived and a deceiver of
others.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 68: "I have no need to declare myself ready to repel and
reject that which the Pope cannot do. He cannot do an act contrary to
the Divine law."--_Cardinal Manning_, _Vat. Dec._, p. 41.]

[Footnote 69: _Ultramontanism et la Société Moderne._]

[Footnote 70: Vol. i. p. 14.]

[Footnote 71: The principle here alluded to is elucidated in an
instructive manner in _Nazareth and its Lessons_, by the Rev. G.S.
Drew.]

[Footnote 72: VIII, i. 132.]




CHAPTER XIII

Solemn Confirmation of the Syllabus by the Pope before the assembled
Hierarchy, and their Acquiescence, June 17, 1867.


The twenty-first anniversary of the accession of Pius IX occurred
shortly before the day for which the great assembly of 1867 was
convened. As the Court historian omits all mention of the Syllabus
when first issued, so does he also omit to say a word of its definite
confirmation by the Pontiff on June 17, 1867, and of its formal
acceptance by the episcopate. We are indebted for the details in this
case to an author who published before the events of 1870. Important
as the transaction was, we cannot find that at the time any of the
ordinary organs of the Vatican notified it to the world. Many of the
learned disputants in the controversies which were soon to arise took
ground which showed that they were unaware of this decisive event.

It was Archbishop Manning who related how Mass was celebrated in the
Sistine Chapel, and how the Pope retired, at its close, to robe in
the Pauline Chapel. Here the Cardinal Vicar, Patrizi, followed by the
whole of the Sacred College and the bishops, presented an address of
congratulation, concluding with hopes for many years of additional
life to Pius IX, that he might behold the peace of the Church, and her
triumph.

As recorded by the Archbishop, the terms employed by his Holiness in
reply were of historical importance.[73] It will be remarked that the
watchwords, deprecated by the Pope, are not those of heretics, but of
statesmen--Unity and Progress; and no Italian or German could doubt
what were the unity and progress decried--

    I accept your good wishes from my heart, but I remit their
    verification to the hands of God. We are in a moment of great
    crisis. If we look only to the aspect of human events, there is no
    hope; but we have a higher confidence. Men are intoxicated with
    dreams of unity and progress, but neither is possible without
    justice. Unity and progress based on pride and egotism are
    illusions. God has laid on me the duty to declare the truths on
    which Christian society is based, and to condemn the errors which
    undermine its foundations; and I have not been silent. In the
    Encyclical of 1864, and in what is called the Syllabus, I declared
    to the world the dangers which threaten society, and I condemned
    the falsehoods which assail its life. That act I now confirm in
    your presence, and I lay it again before you as the rule of your
    teaching. To you, venerable brethren, as bishops of the Church, I
    now appeal to assist me in this conflict with error. On you I rely
    for support. When the people of Israel wandered in the wilderness,
    they had a pillar of fire to guide them in the night, and a cloud
    to shield them from the heat by day. You are the pillar and the
    cloud to the people of God.

Here the bishops learned, with the full weight of pontifical authority,
that the Syllabus was "the rule of their teaching." Some explained the
Syllabus as affecting discipline, and therefore liable to alteration.
The _Civiltá_ and the _Slimmen_ had always asserted that it was purely
doctrinal, and therefore above all change. In pronouncing it the "rule
of teaching" the Pope settled that vital point. Some, again, had been
tempted to think that the Syllabus might be laid up, like an ancestral
weapon; they were undeceived, and given to know that it must be tested
in war. Such were placed in the dilemma of having to offer resistance
to the sovereign thus surrounded, or of having to observe a silence
which must ever after carry the effect of consent. Even if they did
not feel with the Pope, that the foundations of universal society were
crumbling in unprecedented decay, they did keenly feel with him that
the foundations of his own temporal power were crumbling. Every doubter
held his peace, and the Pope's act became virtually what, as we shall
see, in a few days it became formally,--the act of the whole episcopate.

The Pope is not fortunate in quoting Scripture, often showing that he
takes glosses for the text. He imagines that the "cloud by day" was not
a pillar before the host, but an extended field of clouds overshadowing
the wide-spread multitudes and not merely the tabernacle.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 73: _Centenary of St. Peter_, p. 6.]




_BOOK II_

_FROM THE FIRST PUBLIC INTIMATION OF A COUNCIL TO THE EVE OF THE
OPENING_

(_June 1867 to December 1869_)




CHAPTER I

First Public Intimation of the intention to hold a Council, June 26 to
July 1, 1867--Consistory--Acquiescence in the Syllabus of the assembled
Bishops--The Canonized Inquisitor--Questions and Returns preparatory
to Greater Centralization--Manning on the Ceremonies--O'Connell on the
<DW7> Doctrines--The Doctrine of Direct and Indirect Power.


June 26, 1867, was the day of the Secret Consistory, to which not
less than five hundred bishops from all regions of the earth lent
their splendours. The Pope in his allocution deplored the evils which
had overtaken the Church, and, as he supposed, in equal measure had
overtaken all society. And now, at length, did he reveal his intention
of convoking such an assembly as had not been witnessed for three
hundred years. He had firm hope that from a General Council the light
of catholic truth would shine forth and scatter the darkness which
enveloped the minds of men; and that the Church, like the battle-array
of an unconquered host, discomfiting her enemies, rolling back their
onset, and triumphing over them, would spread abroad over the earth the
dominion of Christ.

Though journalists and bishops at the time bravely reproduced this
martial figure, the Jesuit historian Sambin (p. 13), writing after the
battles of 1870, makes the Pope say that the Church would gain her
fairest triumphs by converting her enemies.

The very name of an OEcumenical Council, uttered in the tones of
Pius IX, instinct with personal and official hope, caused among the
assembled prelates a movement of effusive joy. They felt that such a
council would prove a "marvellous source of unity, sanctification,
and peace." On July 1, assembling in the great hall over the portico
of St. Peter's, with all possible accessories of form, they presented
to his Holiness what they called a Salutation. This had been drawn
up by Archbishop Haynald of Colocza, assisted by Bishop Dupanloup,
Archbishop Manning, and others. It had been proposed to proclaim Papal
infallibility in the document itself; but this set the French prelates
up in arms.[74] Though stopping short of that goal, the bishops go far
in their approaches to it.

"May the unmeasured benefits assured to society by the Roman
Pontificate," say the bishops, "be, by this deed of Thy providence,
once more displayed to the world, and may the world be convinced of
the powers of the Church, and of her mission as the _mother of civil
humanity_!" They were persuaded that a Council would have the effect
of showing that everything tending to consolidate the foundation of a
community, and to give it permanence, is fortified and consecrated by
the example of authority, and of the obedience due thereto, presented
in the divine institution of the Pontificate. Princes and peoples
would not, "in the face of such a display, allow the highest sanction
of all authority, the august rights of the Pope, to be trampled upon
with impunity, but would see him secured in the enjoyment both of the
liberty of power and the power of liberty."[75]

The words in which the bishops confirm their testimony of 1862, to
the "necessity," of the temporal power are few and firm. They then
proceed to cover the space between that time and the present. "With
grateful feelings do we recall, and with fullest assent do we commend,
the things done by Thee subsequent to that time, for the salvation of
the faithful and the glory of the Church." This is a waymark showing
that the old doctrine still ruled the practice of the Court, though
long banished from its theory. The acquiescence of the bishops was
practically necessary to give the ultimate sanction to the acts of the
Pope.

Then comes the solemn adhesion of the assembled hierarchy to the
condemnations collected together in the Syllabus--"Believing Peter to
have spoken by the lips of Pius the things which have been spoken,
confirmed, and pronounced by Thee, for the safe keeping of the deposit,
we also declare, confirm, and announce; and we reject with one heart
and voice those things which Thou hast adjudged to be reprobated and
rejected, as being contrary to divine faith, the salvation of souls, or
the good of human society."[76]

So it was done. The Pope had called for the express submission of
the episcopate to his own acts, hitherto variously understood and
discussed, and they had given it in round terms. Dr. Manning, in
characterizing their document as "The Address or Response, in which
they united themselves in heart and mind to their supreme Head,"[77]
might well speak of "the gravity and moral grandeur of that act," for
with him vastness always seems to prove grandeur, and an act of vast
moral consequence this surely was. We shall hereafter see the fact
tardily come to light that absent prelates were called upon to give in
their adhesion by letter, and did so.

On either the Papal or the Episcopal theory, the Syllabus had now the
status of Church law, and had become to all the clergy "the rule of
your teaching." On the Papal theory, because it was the formal act of
the Pontiff for the teaching and ruling of the whole Church; and on the
Episcopal theory, because the collective hierarchy had not only tacitly
acquiesced but openly accepted it.

Yet it is worthy of special remark that the Syllabus is not mentioned
in this Salutation. More than two years later, however, the _Civiltá_
said, "There is no doubt that the prelates had the Encyclical and
Syllabus in view, since in these two documents are contained all the
things which the Pope has _spoken_, _confirmed_, _announced_, and
_reproved_ in matters of doctrine."[78] And even as early as one year
from the time, we shall find that the double authority of the Bishop of
Rome, and of all other bishops, was declared to be outraged by Darboy
when he practically disowned the Syllabus.

The next point touched by the prelates was one lying near to the heart
of the Pope. They had been moved with joy on beholding the loyal faith,
love, and reverence of the Roman people for their most indulgent
prince. "Happy people and truly wise"--_Felicem populum ac vere
sapientem_.[79] So, whoever had doubted as to the Model State, it was
not the five hundred. Were they sincerely ready to make the people of
their respective nations "truly wise" by bringing them to look on that
government as the model?

The bishops evidently knew that they were initiating a movement which
would test the combative qualities of both Pope and prelates. Every
discerning man among them must have felt what Archbishop Manning
expressed, "This event may be taken, I believe, to be the opening of a
new period, and to contain a future which may reach over centuries."[80]

Under anticipations so serious do these old men, addressing a very old
one, thus conclude--

    Courage, most Blessed Father! Guide the bark of the Church with a
    firm hand, as has been Thy wont, certain of gaining the port. The
    Mother of divine grace, whom Thou hast saluted with fairest titles
    of honour, will defend Thy course, by the aid of her intercession;
    she will be to Thee the star of the sea.... Thou wilt have the
    celestial choirs of the saints favouring Thee; those whose glory
    Thou hast, with diligence and apostolic toil, sought out, and also
    hast proclaimed to the exulting world, both aforetime and in these
    recent days. May the princes of the Apostles Peter and Paul stand
    by Thee!... At the helm now held by Thee once stood Peter. He will
    intercede with the Lord that the bark which, by the aid of his
    prayers, has for eighteen centuries traversed the deep sea of human
    life, may under Thy command enter the celestial haven, all sail
    set, and laden with richest spoil of souls immortal.[81]

It is to be remarked that in this passage Peter is not honoured, like
his successor, with capitals to all his pronouns. Again, he and Paul
are coupled together as if they might have been somewhat on a level.
Perhaps in both points the bishops made an unconscious concession
to history, but in the state of things now initiated, such jots and
tittles were to become symptomatic.

One allusion in the Address, which would pass with a smile in England,
had great significance for the mind of Pius IX. It is that made to his
claim to peculiar aid from the Blessed Virgin, because of the higher
exaltation which he had procured for her, and also to his claim upon
new saints whose titles he had made out. In the case of the Japanese
saints, we have already seen how practical were his views. He was
fighting for the territory of his predecessors, and, finding that he
had not hosts enough on earth, he reversed the ordinary process of
binding on earth and leaving it to be ratified in heaven, and now bound
in heaven, by creating "new patrons in the presence of God," leaving it
to be ratified on earth by a corresponding increase of forces.

The vision of these new heavenly auxiliaries dazzled the imagination.
Even the professor of history in the university speaks of the awful
moment when the Pope raised them to their thrones as "the sublime rite,
during which heaven and earth hung upon the lips of the Pope."[82] The
expressions of confidence in these new-made powers, as champions in the
thickening struggle for that patrimony which, though costing so much
blood, forgery, and intrigue, so much dependency on foreign arms, so
much slaughter of Italians, had been retained through evil report and
good report, irresistibly remind one of Licinius when menaced by the
advance of Constantine, under the auspices of one God only. Licinius
feels the advantage he has in the numbers of gods on whom he can rely.

    "This present day," he, as reported by Eusebius, says, "will either
    declare us conquerors, and so most justly demonstrate our gods to
    be the saviours and true assistants, or else, if this one God of
    Constantine's, who comes from I know not whence, shall get the
    better of our gods, which are many, and at present do exceed in
    number, nobody in future will be in doubt which God he ought to
    worship, but will betake himself to the more powerful God, and
    attribute to Him the rewards of victory. And if this strange God,
    who is now a _ridicule_ to us, shall appear to be the victor, it
    will behove us also to acknowledge and adore Him, and to bid a
    long farewell to those to whom we light tapers in vain. But if our
    gods shall get the better--which no person can entertain a doubt
    of--after the victory obtained in this place we will proceed to
    bring a war upon those impious contemners of the gods."[83]

Even if this does not describe what Licinius really said, it does
represent the view of the early Christian, as to the heathen mode of
thought, putting confidence in a multiplicity of celestial patrons, in
the lighting of tapers and such like.

The name of Arbues, the Spanish Inquisitor, has been mentioned as being
second on the list of those now to be canonized. Professor Sepp, of
Munich, long known as a Catholic theologian and Oriental traveller,
says in his _Deutschland und der Vatican_ (p. 52)--

    Nothing was more calculated to degrade the Church, and render her
    unpopular, or to bring a flush of shame to the cheek of every
    Catholic, than this revival of the most disagreeable recollections
    of history. Had Arbues contended against the burning of heretics,
    we should have welcomed him, in the name of God, as a saint.
    But history gives us no information about the man except that
    he discharged the odious office of a Torquemada, and that the
    long-persecuted Jews brought him to an untimely end. The most
    that can be said for him is that he died for the idea of the
    Inquisition; and for that he is to be set up on our altars.

Many another Liberal Catholic blushed with Sepp. Baron Weichs, in
Vienna, cried, "A single example will show you the difference between
the spirit which reigns here and that which reigns on the banks of
the Tiber. While here we speak of abolishing the penalty of death,
there they canonize an Inquisitor, covered over with the blood of the
victims whom he had immolated because they worshipped God in their own
way." The _Civiltá_ exclaims, "And men of this sort are to be reputed
Catholics, and to make laws for Catholics. _O tempora! O mores!_"[84]

The Cardinals of the Holy Office had drawn up a list of questions on
points of Church discipline, which was delivered to the bishops while
in Rome, and afterwards sent to many, probably to all, of those who
were absent. Lord Acton points out that these questions do not touch
the depths of existing wants.[85] And Michelis seems to look upon them
as a blind, to cover the real point at which the Council was to aim.
They are, however, clearly framed to elicit facts bearing on uniformity
of discipline, and especially on points of administration in mixed
questions--that is, questions wherein both civil and ecclesiastical
authority are concerned; for instance, schools, mixed marriages, civil
marriages, domestic relations, and the like. The returns which the
answers would supply would be of great value in the study of plans for
reconstruction, and would seem to be of more practical importance than
Lord Acton imagines, for the purpose of governing a mobilized clergy
through bishops turned into prefects, by orders from one bureau, and
of impressing through them a uniform movement on both institutions and
families, in matters affecting national law.

The five hundred bishops soon dispersed to the four corners of the
earth, carrying into their respective spheres enthusiastic descriptions
of the beautiful, the grand, the splendid, the superb, the glorious,
the unutterably majestic ceremonies which they had just witnessed, and
no less enthusiastic hope of "the greatest event of the age," when the
princes of the Church should assemble around her head to overawe her
enemies and build her up anew. We do not use the epithet "divine," but
it is perhaps right to say that the _Civiltá_ described the appearing
of the Pope "upon the portative throne, in all the majesty of his
divine rank ... the Pope-king, the supreme representative of the
two-fold authority which rules the nations in the name of God."[86] It
of course celebrates the "standards which represented the glory of the
Princes of the Apostles," and does not forget the "twenty thousand wax
candles."[87]

Archbishop Manning reminded his clergy that in the solemn adherence
of the bishops to those acts of the Pontiff, they did not confirm
those acts as if needing confirmation, or accept them as if needing
acceptance, or imply that they had been "of imperfect and only
inchoate authority until their acceptance should confirm them." ...
"They did not add certainty to what was already infallible."[88] The
infallibility, he contended, belonged to all the approbations and
condemnations alike--not, as some "blindly say," by virtue derived
from canons, councils, or ecclesiastical institutions, "but from the
direct grant of our Lord Jesus Christ, before as yet a canon was made
or a council assembled." This is a somewhat crude statement of the
doctrine which all the Irish and French Catholics we ever knew in our
younger days resented, when ascribed to themselves by Protestants. They
called it the doctrine of the "<DW7>s," and contended that Protestants
wronged all such Roman Catholics as were not <DW7>s, by calling them
so, indiscriminately. What we call "temporal authority," what the
Jesuits have taught Rome to call "spiritual authority over temporal
affairs," was one point, and the infallibility of the Pope was a second
point, on which the <DW7> was at issue with the Liberal Catholic. In
this sense Montalembert and O'Connell were not <DW7>s. The latter
says--

    I am sincerely a Catholic, but I am not a <DW7>. I deny the
    doctrine that the Pope has any temporal authority directly or
    indirectly in Ireland. We have all denied that authority on oath,
    and we would die to resist it. He cannot, therefore, be any
    party to the Act of Parliament we solicit, nor shall any Act of
    Parliament regulate our faith and conscience. In spiritual matters
    too the authority of the Pope is limited: he cannot, although
    his conclave of Cardinals were to join him, vary our religion
    either in doctrine or essential discipline in any respect. Even in
    non-essential discipline the Pope cannot vary it without the assent
    of the Irish Catholic bishops. Why, to this hour the discipline of
    the General Council of Trent is not received in this diocese.[89]

The utterances of Archbishop Manning, though sweet to the ears of those
who had the dispensing of the purple in Rome, were, nevertheless, hard
on those who, as children, had learned that such doctrine was no part
of their creed. In his day Alban Butler had proudly said, "But Mr.
Bower never found the infallibility of the Pope in our creed, and knows
very well that no such article is proposed [propounded] by the Church,
or required of any one."[90]

Dr. Manning went on to declare that he had received the Syllabus at
the first "as a part of the supreme and infallible teaching of the
Church."[91] In this he proved how far he went before most prelates of
experience on this side of the Alps and Pyrenees, although he coolly
credits them, every one, with having done likewise.[92]

Just as the episcopate had been committed in 1862 to the temporal
power, so was it committed in 1867 to the Syllabus. Whether a bishop
believed that his assent had any constitutional effect or not was
now a matter of comparative indifference, for his future action was
bound; and the Syllabus was to prescribe the decrees and direct the
deliberations of the future Council--in fact, to be its basis and its
guide.

The language of Manning was treated by many Catholics as the menaces
of a zealot; but the zealot knew that he spoke for the Pope and the
Jesuits. During the conflict now on the point of breaking out, many
honest men fought against the supposed design that the Syllabus
should receive "doctrinal authority" from the Council, while in the
mind of those in whose hands lay their future faith, the Council was
under the doctrinal authority of the Syllabus. The Council might
contribute to administration by turning the propositions into canons or
constitutions, but could not add to their authority.

The anticipation of Archbishop Manning as to the political effect of
the doctrinal change then impending was clearly recorded, and in terms
never to be forgotten--

    "Civil governments, so long as their Catholic subjects can be
    dealt with in detail, are strong and often oppressive. When they
    have to deal with the Church throughout the world, the minority
    becomes a majority, and subjects, in all matters spiritual, become
    free. We are approaching a time when civil governments must deal
    with the Church as a whole, and with its head as supreme; and a
    General Council which makes itself felt in every civilized nation
    will powerfully awaken civil rulers to the consciousness that
    the Church is not a school of opinion, nor a mere religion, but
    a spiritual kingdom, having its own legislature, tribunals, and
    executive."[93]

Some seven years after sounding this note, preparatory to a powerful
awakening of civil rulers, the Archbishop, having seen some beginning
of the results of that policy to which he was helping to hurry on his
Church, could say, "I must add that they who are rekindling the old
fires of religious discord in such an equal and tempered commonwealth
as ours, seem to me to be serving neither God nor their country."[94]

The language of O'Connell, as above quoted, was not employed loosely.
He spoke as a Catholic, and as a lawyer; but, above all, as a
politician. Had his declaration with regard to the spiritual power been
less explicit, that upon the temporal power might, though not without
violence, have been open to an Ultramontane interpretation. It might
have been said that he only meant that the Pope had no authority in
Ireland, which either directly or indirectly sprang from a temporal
origin; for, in the language of the Ultramontanes, temporal authority
does not mean authority over temporal affairs, but authority of
temporal origin. His statement on the spiritual authority however,
precludes any such interpretation. Even the spiritual authority
he declares to be limited, both in doctrine and in discipline: it
cannot "vary" doctrine, and cannot even vary the essential points of
discipline, without the consent of the Irish bishops. If spoken to-day,
this reserve in favour of the bishops would involve nationalism; and
O'Connell's denial of the Pope's infallibility, without the consent of
the bishops, would be heresy. Archbishop Manning, with a great many
others, sought to prove, before the Council sat, that the latter
position was proximate to heresy. So O'Connell and Montalembert must
always lie under the brand of having lived and died as proximate
heretics. The elect champion of the Pope's faith to-day may, if he
refuses to change, be the butt of his anathema to-morrow.


NOTE

DR. NEWMAN ON THE SYLLABUS

It was eight years after the Syllabus had been formally confirmed
by the Pope, and after its ratification by the collective hierarchy
had been officially communicated to the Papal clergy in England by
Archbishop Manning, that Dr. Newman treated of it in his letter to the
Duke of Norfolk, in reply to the "Expostulation" of Mr. Gladstone. The
assertions in that reply are among the most unaccountable known to the
history of our literature. Still, such as they are, they have been made
in a pamphlet bearing the name of an English duke on its title-page,
and that of an English gentleman at its end. Moreover, they were
received by our Press--and the fact is known throughout Europe--with
perfect gravity.

Dr. Newman (p. 78) asks and answers an important question as follows--

"Who gathered the propositions out of these Papal documents, and
put them together in one? We do not know." After no more than three
sentences he adds: "The Pope has had the errors, which at one time
or other he therein condemned, brought together into one, and that
for the use of the bishops." On the next page he asks: "Who is its
author? Some select theologian or high official, doubtless; can it be
Cardinal Antonelli himself? No, surely; anyhow, it is not the Pope."
First he tells us that we do not know who put it together, then that
the Pope has done it, or has had it done. Again, in the same manner,
he first tells us that it is not Cardinal Antonelli's, and then more
than once calls it Cardinal Antonelli's (p. 91), as if his authorship
of the document was an established point on which arguments might be
grounded. Dr. Newman in this manner procures for himself a double set
of premises, which he employs throughout, with frequent shifting. His
argument now assumes the affirmative, namely, that the Syllabus is the
work of the Pope; and now it assumes the negative, that the Syllabus is
not the work of the Pope; and this is what the English Press with, so
far as we know, unanimity agrees to call logical.

"But," asserts Dr. Newman, "the Syllabus makes no claim to be
acknowledged as the word of the Pope" (p. 80). The very heading of
the Syllabus sets up the claim to be accounted the word of the Pope;
ay, and his word in official, public, and teaching acts. The heading
is, "The Syllabus of the Principal Errors of our Time set forth in
Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclicals, and other Letters Apostolic, by
our most holy lord, Pope Pius IX." This claim is not incidental, but
formal and capital, incapable of being either overlooked or put aside.
No man's judgments are here introduced but those of Pope Pius IX, and
of his judgments not one here recited is less official than are Letters
Apostolic.

"The Syllabus, then," further asserts Dr. Newman, "has no dogmatic
force. It addresses us not in its separate portions, but as a whole"
(p. 81). The affirmative is true, the Syllabus addresses us as a whole.
The negative is not true, namely, that the Syllabus does not address us
in its separate portions.

Does Dr. Newman mean that there is a single one of the eighty
propositions which does not bear the Papal brand, "error"? It is very
wide of the mark--no man in England better knows _how_ wide of it--to
talk about different brands, some more and some less damnatory, such as
"heretical," "false," "impious," or the like.

"There is not a single word in the Encyclical to show that the Pope
in it is alluding to the Syllabus" (p. 82). This is said to refute
an allegation of Mr. Gladstone, which Dr. Newman calls "marvellously
unfair." That allegation is, that the Encyclical virtually, _though not
expressly_, includes the whole of the errors condemned. It will be seen
by any one who refers to our own remarks upon the Encyclical (pp. 5-7),
that had Mr. Gladstone read it as we do, he would not have written
what he did. He would have written instead of it something to this
effect, that the Encyclical includes the whole of these condemnations,
not by reciting them, but by clearly expressed reference. What he did
say, instead of being unfair, comes short of what is required by the
evidence contained in the documents. The reference in the one to the
other is formal. "In pursuance of our apostolic ministry, and walking
in the illustrious footsteps of our predecessor, we have lifted up our
voice, and in several published Encyclical Consistorial Allocutions,
and other Letters Apostolic, we have condemned the errors of our sad
times." This language proves that Mr. Gladstone in saying that the
whole of the Pope's condemnations were virtually though not expressly
included in the Encyclical, was within the limits of the evidence. They
are expressly referred to, and those additional ones contained in the
Encyclical itself are linked on to the previous ones as a complement,
making them a whole. In itself the point is of no consequence whatever,
but Dr. Newman has chosen to make it important, and for _his_ theory it
may have some importance.

"All we know," says Dr. Newman, "is that by the Pope's command this
collection of errors is sent by his Foreign Minister to the bishops"
(p. 78). That is not all we know. We also know that the Foreign
Minister did not, by the Pope's command, send it as the work of
Cardinal Antonelli. We know that he did send it as the work of Pope
Pius IX. We know that he recited in one and the same note, once for
all, the language common to the two documents. 1. As regards what is
condemned--"the principal errors of our times." 2. As to who it was
that condemned them--the Pope. 3. As to the official acts in which he
did condemn them, namely, Allocutions, and so on.

The next assertion we have to note is made in a strong interrogative
form. "How can a list of errors be a series of pontifical
declarations?" (p. 84). We reply, how can it be otherwise? What does
an error mean in the language of such a document? It means errors
declared to be such by the Pontiff; a list of such "errors," therefore,
is simply a list of pontifical declarations. Dr. Newman knows as well
as he knows his own name, that every clause of the Syllabus is a
pontifical declaration that the words there written express an error.

Alluding to the forty-second of the condemned propositions, namely,
that in the conflict of laws, civil and ecclesiastical, the civil law
should prevail, Dr. Newman says this is a universal, and the Pope does
but deny a universal. A universal may be denied in two ways. First by
its contradictory, which may amount only to saying in popular language
that the rule is not without exceptions. But there is another way of
denying a universal, namely, by its contrary; that is, asserting that
the rule is just the contrary of what some one has stated.

Now if Dr. Newman believes that when the Pope denies that, in case of
conflict, the civil law should prevail, the Pope means no more than
that there are exceptions to that rule, he believes what is in flat
contradiction to the whole tenor of the Pope's language, and that of
his organs year by year--language cast in forms as forcible as the
case admits of. If he does not mean that, his repeated statement about
denying universals is, in a technical sense, incorrect, and, in a
popular sense, misleading.

Dr. Newman's treatment of the Sentence (24) which condemns those
who say that the Church has not the right to employ force, is very
instructive. First, he says (p. 89), "Employing force is not the Pope's
phrase, but Professor Nuytz's." And what then? Is this phrase, "It is
an error to say the Church has not a right to employ force" Professor
Nuytz's or the Pope's? Next Dr. Newman says that what the Pope means
is, "It is an error to say with Professor Nuytz that what he calls
employing force is not allowable to the Church." And what then? What
does Professor Nuytz call force but force? Schrader translates it
"outward force." Dr. Newman does not venture so far as to translate it
"spiritual coercion." The whole sentence is about temporal power and
the use of force--_Vis inferendae--potestatem temporalem_; it never
glances at spiritual censures in the popular sense.

At the next step, Dr. Newman professes to "set down what the received
doctrine of the Church is on ecclesiastical punishments" (p. 89).
Does he do so, or make any straightforward attempt to do it? Not by
any means. "Ecclesiastical punishments" is a term of wide extension,
embracing great varieties of penalty, from the deposition of an Emperor
to the paltry penance of a nun. In all this range of inflictions, the
single point touched by Dr. Newman is that of corporal punishment. The
selection of this one point proves that he was perfectly aware that
both Nuytz and the Pope meant force when they said force; and this fact
reduces the talk about Nuytz's sense of that term to what it is.

But having selected corporal punishment as the whole of ecclesiastical
punishment, how does Dr. Newman set down the received doctrine
regarding it? By quoting a passage which, under the appearance of
surrendering something, really claims something additional, according
to a common usage with Papal writers (p. 89). Cardinal Soglia, as
quoted by Dr. Newman, makes a merit of giving up on behalf of the
Church "the corporal sword by which the body is destroyed, or blood is
shed." This, however, the Church _formerly_ never claimed to hold _in
her hand_, but _only in her power_ and _at her beck_, in the hand of
the temporal ruler. But, in giving up the corporal sword, Soglia is
not contented to claim for the Church in her own hand what the bull
_Unam Sanctam_ claims; that is, the spiritual sword. He does of course
claim that, but he further claims that the same hand should have and
hold also the corporal instalments "of lighter punishments," such as
imprisonment, flogging, and beating with sticks--anything "short of
effusion of blood." The last penalty is the stroke of the corporal
sword, and is left to the temporal arm. The Church did not in past time
claim two swords in her own hand, the spiritual one and the corporal.
She only claimed a spiritual sword according to Boniface VIII; and
according to Dr. Newman she claims also a cat, a cudgel, and a rack.

Neither in what he writes, nor in what he quotes, on this subject does
Dr. Newman allow even an allusion to appear to the question whether the
corporal sword is or is not _in the power_ of the Church. He cannot
be unaware that untrained Englishmen, in reading the statement of his
authority to the effect that the corporal sword is by some writers
withdrawn from the Church, would suppose that they taught that it is
not in her power. Dr. Newman knows that such an impression upon their
minds would be a false one. He knows that Cardinal Soglia does not give
any hint that the corporal sword is a weapon which the Church may not
employ. Dr. Newman himself does not give any such hint. To ordinary
readers, indeed, he seems to resent the assertion that she may employ
it; but even in seeming to resent it he does not venture to affirm
that she may not do so. Much less does he say, in plain English, that
such is the received doctrine. He engages us in chat about flogging
and thrashing, and forgets all about where his Church keeps her
corporal sword--the only one we care about. Not that we like even the
instruments of flogging and thrashing, much less the instruments of
other corporal pains which fall short of the "effusion of blood."

Dr. Newman, at one time, says that the Syllabus does not address us
in its separate portions; and at another, shows that every one of its
portions refers to an original document, in which that portion is to
be found. These documents, he admits, _are_ authoritative; but the
Syllabus, which culls out the really authoritative parts of them,
is not authoritative. We can hardly credit Dr. Newman with making a
distinction of the following sort: that one is to feel bound by the
Pope's judgments when they lie buried in a clumsy document, and not
feel bound by them when they have been culled out by himself, and put
simply before us. If Dr. Newman feels free to teach in opposition to
any one of the eighty sentences as read from the Syllabus, though bound
to teach according to it when read in the original document, what he
has written on the subject may have some kind of serious meaning for
himself, though incomprehensible to other people.

One other point we would notice. "When we turn to these documents which
_are_ authoritative," says Dr. Newman, "we find the Syllabus cannot
even be called an echo of the apostolic voice." We certainly do not
profess to find that it is so. It is an echo of a voice very unlike an
apostolic one. But Dr. Newman means the Pope's voice. Of that voice the
words in the Syllabus are not an echo, because they are its own words.
Dr. Newman says that, as uttered in the Syllabus, they are not an exact
reproduction of the words of the Pope; meaning by that, as found in the
original documents. The words in the Syllabus are the exact words of
the Pope used on a second occasion, and sometimes slightly varied from
those he originally did use.

Dr. Newman has a passage in his own history which is not to be
forgotten, and which ought to have made it difficult for him to stand
on points about a variation of language made by a Pope, objecting that
it impairs the authority of solemn documents.

There was a moment in the life of Dr. Newman when he still retained
the freedom of a Christian man to teach the Catholic faith, ancient,
strong and true. But he was on the point of parting with it--in the
very act of swearing away that blessed birthright of his soul. He had
already recited the form of sound words called the Nicene Creed, and
had come to the point where the plunge must be made from the rock of
Scripture, on which it builds, into the quicksands of tradition. In the
modern form of oath which, at that dark moment, he was venturing to
take upon his conscience, the first sentences, after parting from the
language of the Catholic Church, the first that are the work of Rome,
shift to another foundation from that laid under the old, scriptural,
abiding verities. The true and noble old words, "the life of the world
to come," built on the living Rock, are immediately succeeded by such
preparation for modern inventions as the following: "I most firmly
admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and the
other practices and statutes of the said Church. I do also admit the
Holy Scripture according to that sense which holy Mother Church has
held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge as to the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; nor shall I ever receive or
interpret it except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

This new thing in a creed was said by the Pope to have been ordained by
the Council of Trent. If Dr. Newman had taken the trouble to see how
far the terms to which he had to swear were an "echo" of those of the
Council, he would have found that there was a discrepancy, considerable
in words, but, in practice, monstrous. The Council decreed that no one
should interpret Holy Scripture against the unanimous consent of the
Fathers. That decree was confirmed by the Pope. It had thus acquired
all the warrant of infallibility, and the most solemn guarantee for
being irreformable that Rome had it in her power to give. This decree
was "of faith." How long did it continue to be "of faith"? Only until
the Pope prepared his Bull, collecting the dogmatic decrees into a
novel creed. Then it was altered. The men who, henceforth, were to be
the priests of Rome found themselves called upon to take oath, not as
the Council willed it and worded it, that they would never interpret
Holy Scripture against the unanimous consent of the Fathers, but that
they would never interpret it except according to the unanimous consent
of the Fathers. This was another will and another wording altogether.
The latter amounts to little less than an oath that they would never
interpret it at all, except on very few points.

To make the scope of this alteration clearer, let us suppose the case
of Dr. Newman himself, while yet in the enjoyment of that ministry of
the English Church which he afterwards threw away. Had he then been
required not to preach anything contrary to the unanimous opinion
of the bench of bishops, he might have felt tolerably free. But had
he been required never to preach anything except according to the
unanimous opinion of the bench of bishops, he would have felt--Why, I
can hardly preach at all. Yet this vast change is made in a creed while
its articles are passing through the process of being culled from the
original documents, and presented in a collected form. In this form
it was imposed by oath upon the consciences of men for ever. One and
the same Papal hand signed its infallible certainty and irreformable
permanency in one shape, in a little time afterwards altered its tenor,
destroyed its certainty, reformed its scope, and then signed its
infallibility and its irreformable permanency in the new shape. And an
Englishman who swallows this camel in the creed stands between us and
the light, straining out a gnat that he says has got into the Syllabus.

But what is the real teaching, as to the use of physical force, of
Cardinal Soglia, who is soberly put forward by Dr. Newman before the
English public as justifying him in crying out against Mr. Gladstone
for accusing the Church of claiming the right to use force? Page
216: "The Church, exercising her power in the external tribunal, has
been long accustomed to chastise offenders even with prison, exile,
confinement in monasteries, whipping or flagellation, with fine, and
other similar penalties; which, inasmuch as they affect the body,
are commonly called corporeal." Page 219: "We affirm that in the
inherent authority of the Church, by which she can coerce offenders
with salutary penalties, is certainly contained the right of awarding
such temporal penalties as consist in fine, exile, prison, whipping,
and other things of the same kind." Page 222: "If a case occurs in
which severer punishment appears necessary, the ecclesiastical judge
may not himself resort to it, but he is to hand over the delinquent
to the secular power to be punished according to its will. Besides,
it is evident that the crime of heresy itself was brought under the
cognizance of the ecclesiastical tribunals up to the point when the
heretics, being convicted, and found obstinate, were first punished by
ecclesiastical censures, and afterwards, being subjected by the lay
power to capital penalty, were exterminated." Page 222: "The Church
never pronounced a sentence of blood. Even the Inquisition smote
heretics with the spiritual sword, and prison, but the lay princes
subjected them to the last capital penalty." Page 217: "Perhingius
believes that the Church does possess the right of inflicting capital
punishment, but that she is not accustomed to exercise it, or to
carry it out by ecclesiastical ministers and judges, but through lay
ones, and by means of the temporal power, because the latter is more
becoming, and more appropriate to the claims of the Church." What
follows would, by internal evidence, seem to be added by Vecchiotti,
but no intimation is given to that effect. Page 217: "He [Cardinal
Tarquini] held that there is no kind of penalty with which the Church
may not in her own right punish offenders; and thus temporal goods,
reputation, rights of office and of heritage, and life itself, are
subject to the ecclesiastical power. Otherwise the Church could not
compel disobedient rebels, or avenge herself for their crimes, nor
could she cut off rotten and noxious members from the body." Soglia, or
rather his continuator, speaking of the moderns, Tarquini and "other
doctors," and their doctrine of physical force, says (p. 217), "They
derive it from the character and constitution of the Church herself,
or from the nature of a perfect society and its end. Hence, just as in
a perfect civil society the right of execution _jus necis_ belongs to
the lay power for the good of the commonwealth and of the citizens,
so do they assert that none can deny that by stronger reason the same
right resides in the ecclesiastical power for the spiritual good of the
faithful."


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 74: Acton's _Zur Geschichte_, pp. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 75: _Acta_ (Freiburg edition), p. 35.]

[Footnote 76: _Acta_ (Freiburg edition), p. 33.]

[Footnote 77: _Centenary of St. Peter_, p. 5.]

[Footnote 78: Serie VII. vol. vii. p. 587.]

[Footnote 79: _Acta_ (Freiburg edition), p. 34.]

[Footnote 80: _Centenary of St. Peter_, pp. 12, 13.]

[Footnote 81: _Acta_ (Freiburg edition), p. 36.]

[Footnote 82: _Frond_, i, p. 82.]

[Footnote 83: Eusebius' _Life of Constantine_, lib. ii. c. 5.]

[Footnote 84: Serie VII. vol. vii. p. 23.]

[Footnote 85: _Zur Geschichte_, p. 4.]

[Footnote 86: Serie VI. vol. xi. p. 165.]

[Footnote 87: Ibid. p. 234.]

[Footnote 88: _Centenary of St. Peter_, pp. 33, 34.]

[Footnote 89: _The Select Speeches of O'Connell._ Edited by his son,
1862. P. 447.]

[Footnote 90: Life prefixed to the _Lives of the Saints_, vol. i. p.
14. Ed. of 1836.]

[Footnote 91: _Centenary of St. Peter_, p. 38.]

[Footnote 92: Ibid. p. 34.]

[Footnote 93: _Centenary of St. Peter_, p. 95.]

[Footnote 94: _Vaticanism_, p. 155.]




CHAPTER II

Six Secret Commissions preparing--Interrupted by Garibaldi--A Code
for the Relations of the Church and Civil Society--Special Sitting
with Pope and Antonelli to decide on the Case of Princes--Tales of the
Crusaders--English Martyrs--Children on the Altar--Autumn of 1867 to
June 1868.


While in the provinces the bishops were kindling enthusiasm for the
coming assembly, and for the movement of reconstruction in general, in
Rome six Commissions were at work, under the Directing Congregation,
making secret preparations for the Council. Each of these Commissions
had of course a Cardinal at its head. The first, that for Theology,
was under Cardinal Bilio, a monk, and a native of Piedmont, only
forty years of age, and but lately raised to the purple.[95] Rightly
or wrongly, as Vitelleschi says, he is credited with the principal
share in the preparation of the Syllabus. Others, however, are named
for the same honour. We ourselves heard a member of the original
Congregation for the preparation of the Syllabus assert that it
was Passaglia who first suggested it. Passaglia was a great Jesuit
theologian, who lost position by declaring against the temporal power.
The second Commission, for Ecclesiastico-Political Affairs, was under
Cardinal Reisach, a man of sixty-five, an accomplished Bavarian, but
so denationalized in manner and spirit, that his countrymen sometimes
accused him of affecting to have almost forgotten German. For some
years he left Rome to hold high place in his native country. As
Archbishop of Munich he did much to supplant the old national faith
by the Vatican one, and to unsettle the previously existing relations
of Church and State. Under his eye the popular catechism of Canisius
was changed. The answer, "The Pope by himself is not infallible," had
done good service for centuries; but now it had to make way for a new
one; and eventually the whole book was transformed by the French Jesuit
Deharbe.[96]

The Commission next in importance was that on Ceremonies. If the
theological one had to formulate the principles on which the world
was to be governed, and the ecclesiastico-political one had to draft
the rules and frame the executive machinery by which those principles
were to be carried out, the Commission on ceremonies had to devise
the scenic effects with which the movement should, to use a frequent
expression of Roman, French, and even of German Catholic writers, be
put upon the stage--the _mise en scène_.

Oriental Affairs, the Religious Orders, and Ecclesiastical Discipline,
were the subjects committed to the other three Commissions.

A seventh, of which the official history makes no mention, was,
according to Vitelleschi (p. 26), an object of great public attention.
It was for Biblical matters, and the revision of the Index. Its
President was Cardinal de Luca. But it inclined to a more liberal
procedure in regard to the Index, gave offence, and after a few
meetings, was discontinued. The official organs, as the same author
says, buried it in oblivion, though its labours were of great public
interest.

The renewed preparations had not proceeded long before they were once
more interrupted by political events. From August to December the
Directing Congregation could hold no meeting. General Dumont had been
sent back to Rome, by Napoleon III, to inspect and harangue those
French soldiers who now formed a principal part of the so-called
Pontifical, or OEcumenical army. The national Italian party was excited
by his presence and his speech. France forced them to feel that foreign
occupation was discontinued only in name. Garibaldi, supported only
by feeble forces, moved upon Rome with the reckless valour which had
succeeded in Sicily. The movements of the Italian Government to
restrain him were altogether inefficacious. The efficiency and zeal
of the little army of "Crusaders" had been utterly underrated by the
Italians. The Dutch, English, Swiss, German, and French youths who
fought for the Crown of martyrdom were a different material from the
soldiers of Ferdinand or from those of the old Papal corps. They faced
great odds, and did right daring deeds. But they were too few. The
ready French were once more called in. On November 3 they secured
for Pius IX another respite by the battle of Mentana; but the Pope's
own historian does not even name the French. For all that is said by
Cecconi, not a foreign mercenary might have been in the Pontiff's pay,
not a foreign regiment might have been sent to his relief. Indeed
the word "foreigner," as applied to any baptized person bearing
arms for the Pontiff, is offensive language--another fruit of this
degenerate age. In opposition to certain "ill-advised" Catholics, who
thought it a pity to have recourse to foreign arms, the _Civiltá_
cries: "Foreigners?--the word is a great and odious lie! At Solferino
the French were foreigners; at Mentana they were in their father's
house."[97] So does the one belief that the Pope is the appointed lord
of the world change the lights that fall on every national movement. We
only saw the fact that at Solferino the French killed Teuton invaders
of Italy, and that at Mentana they were the invaders who killed
Italians. We shall find French mothers of "martyred" counts calling him
for whom they fell, "our King."

When the lance of Garibaldi was thus, for the second time, shivered
against the shield of France, who would have said that when next lifted
it would be in her defence, after the armies that had for twenty years
upheld the temporal power had gone into captivity?

The martial value of the religious motives and principles which
animated the Crusaders, as contrasted with the Garibaldians, became
a favourite theme for sacred pens. The Crusaders showed by their
bearing that they were "conscious of serving the majesty of the God of
battles." They lost no passing opportunity of renewing their strength
at the altar.

    The proud lads, in full equipment of war, bowed the knee before
    the altar, offered up their lives to God, and consecrated their
    bayonets to St. Peter; or hastily receiving the Sacrament, they
    arose with joy and seized their pieces, which had been laid down by
    the rails of the sacred table. Happy he who with his eyes beheld
    such elevation of thought, such constancy of purpose, such sanctity
    of Christian war march triumphantly through the Roman territory.[98]

On October 8, the correspondent of the _Times_ at Berlin stated that
Napoleon III had bound himself to leave Victor Emmanuel free as to
Rome, provided the latter would help him in case of war with Prussia.
Earlier than this, in the month of September, the Austrian bishops
found themselves menaced with an abolition of the Concordat, and had to
make a formal appeal to the Emperor against such a step.

    "We have at this time of day," said Baron Weichs, "to decide
    whether we shall be an independent State, or whether, as in Japan,
    we shall have two sovereigns; the one, subordinate, residing at the
    Burg in Vienna; the other, the omnipotent Master, having his throne
    in Rome, at the Vatican, or, more properly speaking, at the Jesuit
    establishment."

The _Revue des deux Mondes_ had spoken of these words as wise, even as
very wise, and the _Civiltá_ replied, "To us they seem to be nothing
but buffoonery."[99]

In November, Napoleon III proposed that the European Powers should meet
in a Congress, to decide upon some solution of the Roman question.
After this proposal had failed, his Minister, M. Rouher, pronounced, in
the Assembly, his celebrated "Never!"--the French would never permit
Rome to be occupied by the Italians. This exclamation is often printed
by the "good Press" in the largest capitals.

A fortnight after the day of Mentana the activity of the Commissions
was resumed, and invitations were sent out to the theologians already
selected in different countries, to come to Rome and enter on their
labours. The Nuncio at Munich had not recommended any one from the
renowned faculty of that city, but had sought his men at Würzburg.
England was represented by Monsignor Weathers, and the United States
by Monsignor Corcoran. On October 2, Cardinal Caterini wrote to
Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, instructing him, in the Pope's name,
to invite "the priest John Newman." Three weeks later the bishop
replied, enclosing Dr. Newman's answer, which, however, is not printed.
According to the bishop, Dr. Newman said that a journey to Rome would
be perilous to his life, and though deeply touched with the kindness of
the Holy Father, he believed that the latter would not desire him to
come at the risk of his life, especially as nothing would be advanced
by his presence in an august solemnity of such moment, unskilled as he
was in matters of the sort.[100]

The language of Dr. Newman, as reported in this correspondence, shows
that he had but faint light on the part which mere divines were to play
in the Council. Probably he was misled by history into supposing that
their part would be public and considerable. His place, had he gone,
would have been upon an unseen commission; his share probably anything
but an important one; and, as likely as not, his opinion might have
been asked only in writing, and upon a question of Oriental affairs,
instead of upon theology, as was that of his famous fellow oratorian
Theiner. Of the very few German scholars invited to Rome who were not
of the Jesuit school, one was Haneberg, who, according to Michelis, was
so little consulted that he was soon back in Munich, to avoid idling
away his time.

In March the Pope intimated his intention of issuing in June the Bull
of Convocation; and then the purpled had to consider who should be
summoned. The most serious doubt arose as to those useful fictions
called _bishops in partibus_. They have much of what goes to make a
bishop--the orders, robes, title, and consequence, everything but the
office. Their want of this is delicately expressed by Cecconi--they
have no determinate flock; which in lay language means no flock at
all. The number of these Court followers have been so increased that
Sepp illustrates the case by that of a government creating a batch of
peers to carry some measure.

But such peers do not depend for their living on the men who want their
votes. Even the Cardinals had not the courage to assert that creatures
like these had a _right_ to sit in the Council. They did raise the
question of right, and left it formally unanswered; but their next
question was, Is it expedient to invite them? They boldly affirmed that
it was expedient.

In May 1868, it was decided that the only proceeding to be observed
with respect to Catholic princes was that of communicating a copy
of the Bull of Convocation to each Court. But should the princes be
invited to attend? This question "was much debated among the purpled
consulters, and was negatived."[101]

The decision thus taken was logical, for no one is a Catholic prince
"as such" who does not place the law of his land under canon law;
or, in proper language, who does not maintain "harmonious laws,"
recognizing politics as lying in the domain of morals, and therefore
as being under the spiritual authority. When the controversy on the
Syllabus began, the _Civiltá_ had enjoyed a triumphant laugh at M.
Langlais, a distinguished French advocate. M. Langlais had argued
that the Encyclical would not have transgressed its proper boundary
had it treated only of faith and morals, but that having touched
the foundations of political institutions, it had transgressed that
boundary. The _Civiltá_ cried--

    There exist then, according to M. Langlais, foundations of
    political institutions outside of the circle of morals! outside,
    consequently, of the circle of manners; or maybe, outside of the
    circle of human actions.... His argument assumes that the political
    order cannot be at the same time moral, or at least founded in the
    moral order, and assumes further that it must be separate from it,
    else he could not say that the Pope, simply by entering upon the
    political order, had gone out of the moral order (VI. i. 652-53).

It is not said that Antonelli in particular took alarm. But it is
said that fears arose lest the "novelty" resolved upon should prove
perilous; therefore the subject had to be reconsidered in the presence
of the Secretary of State. The danger that might follow the brusque
exclusion of princes was so felt that the former decision was on the
point of being reversed. This shows Antonelli's ascendant. But his
colleagues had a resource. Only six days before the date fixed for
publishing the Bull, a special summons, not from Giannelli, but from
Antonelli himself, called together the Commission at a quarter past
eight o'clock in the evening, to a meeting to be held "in presence of
the Most Holy" (_coram sanctissimo_)--i.e. before the Pope.[102]

Before the Most Holy! Thus are we placed in presence of the Eleven,
and the kings are on their trial. The Nine are joined by the two men
so dissimilar and so indissoluble, Pius IX and Antonelli, in whom,
as an official biographer puts it, he early discerned "the man of
God," appointed as his succour and stay in his divine office. At the
head of the Eleven sits the portly, good-looking Pope, the beau-ideal
of an important squire in a remote place--full of will, spirit, and
self-confidence, with more art in governing than he has got credit for,
at least in that domineering and deluding which avails with priests. He
would be as hilarious as a squire who never put to death anything more
precious than a pheasant, and never cursed even a gamekeeper with any
intention that his curse should be bound in heaven.

Pius IX would now feel all the weight of his office. He was sitting
as supreme Judge, to decide upon the claims of the kings of the
earth. Were they worthy or were they not worthy to be received into
the Council which was to lay "the corner-stone of reconstruction,"
the Council in which the prerogatives rightfully claimed by his
predecessors of blessed memory, but from which the Church, slow of
heart to believe, had hitherto withheld her former sanction, were at
last to be openly acknowledged in his person?

No one could doubt what view Pius IX would take. The kings were clearly
guilty. They had consented to the voice of their people against the
voice of the Church. They had abolished harmonious laws. The internal
tribunal was reduced to a voluntary confessional; the external
tribunal, in most places, was removed, and everywhere subordinated.
Even as to the Supreme Tribunal, who hearkened to the words, "Know that
thou art the Father of princes and of kings, and the Governor of the
world?"

When the call for Trent went forth, the only doubtful crowns were two
lying away between civilization and Cimmerian night in England and
Sweden. Now on every hand the word was, There are no Catholic princes.
That old English crown was now represented by two monsters of power,
the British Empire and the United States. Two other monsters had come
up, Prussia and Russia. Spain was fallen, Poland was extinct, Italy was
hostile, Austria was enfeebled, France was strong but not sound--there
were no Catholic States. The social system was indeed in ruins. It was
only by clearing away that the foundations for reconstruction could be
properly laid; but clearing away was attended with danger. The princes
were not to be invited, but they were to be allowed to claim admission.
The Bull was then and there altered in this sense.[103]

Meanwhile symptoms of the coming conflict began to appear. Catholics
of all classes looked forward to great events for the Church and the
nations. Those who did not share the hopes of the hidden Council, or
who recoiled from the dogmas likely to be decreed, felt anxious. The
Press began to pour out pamphlets and reprints, enabling all to read up
on the question of Councils.

"The Crusaders of St. Peter" was the title of historical tales now
regularly appearing in the _Civiltá_, which continued for years. The
object was to make the blood of Mentana the seed of a great oecumenical
army. Every incident was described with vivid conception and boundless
faith in the destiny of the Papacy, with faith too in the duty of all
to rear up sons for the Crusade, and faith that those who fell escaped
purgatorial pains and found direct entrance among the beatified.

The following are passages scattered here and there--

    It was a sight to rejoice the angels in heaven, that of these brave
    men laying down the carabine to perform the little office of the
    Virgin, and then turning from the little office of the Virgin to
    take up the carabine.... On the march fatigue was lightened by
    reciting the prayer which had so often conquered the foes of the
    Church, the rosary.... The masters of war know that on the field
    of battle the last army to deserve ridicule is an army fresh from
    confession and communion.... A young gentlewoman gave birth to her
    first-born. "How long it will be," she said, "ere he can carry a
    musket! But Pius IX can do anything. He can make a zouave even now
    of my Eugenio." Melted by such faith, the Pope wrote a benediction
    on a paper "consecrated to him" by the infant. The venerated word
    was placed in the domestic sanctum, and in return for it "the
    zouave at the breast will do a soldier's service." Some weeks
    later, on receiving from him a first oblation, the Pope again wrote
    a word for "his soldier in swaddling clothes." The family were
    overjoyed at being permitted within five months to kiss two Papal
    autographs. The mother wrote, "Eugenio was asleep. I ran to put the
    Papal benediction on his head and forehead. He immediately broke
    out in a smile, and to me he looked like an angel. I could not
    restrain my tears. He still slept, but bounded for joy as long as I
    kept the blessed letters on his little head.... Should the avengers
    of Mentana try their hand, the zouave will lisp his first word
    crying _Viva Maria_!"

Arthur Guillemin said to his crusaders as he led them to the attack at
Monte Libretti, fresh from absolution, "You are all in the grace of
God; do not count them, they will fall into our hands." They marched
into battle, some with the rosary round their neck, some with the
Carmelite scapular on their breast, and some with the cord of St.
Francis round the loins, just like that model of a crusader St. Louis.
The young Count de Quélen, who fell heroically at Monte Libretti, had
just received a letter from his mother. "If thou art to die, my good
Urban, die like a hero, like a soldier of God." After his death she
writes to a friend in Rome--

    "My beloved son is dead--died for his God. Oh what a comfort
    is that thought amid this desolation! He fell like the brave,
    defending the Church and our venerated Pontiff. Was it not a signal
    favour granted to him by that Lord who is so good that He put it
    into his heart to shed every drop of his blood for Him, and by this
    very means to bring him to paradise, where Urban henceforth--yes,
    I dare believe it--enjoys the vision of his God, and is beatified
    for all eternity, with beatitude unmixed?" [Thus it was plain that
    having fallen in battle he had, as the writer of the story says,
    "seized the palm of martyrdom, as he, following St. Louis, called
    it," and so had escaped the pains of purgatory.] "If," continues
    the mother to her friend, "you go to a reception of our holy and
    venerated Pontiff and King, assure him, I pray you, that I am happy
    that my son has shed his blood for him."

When the body arrived at Quimper, two hundred priests and a crowd
uncounted from the surrounding Breton villages came, "rather to
venerate than to pray for the departed." The houses were draped in
black, the black was decked with the French and the Papal flags; on the
coffin lay his sword, twined with laurels and crowned with vermilion.
The bishop pronounced the panegyric "magnifying him as a martyr for
religion." Mrs. Stone, a volunteer sister of charity, went from Rome to
Nerola to visit the wounded prisoners in the hands of the Garibaldians,
and especially Alfred Collingridge. The dying crusader said, "The Lord
has given me the favour I asked--to die for the Holy Father. Oh, yes,
may God accept of my death and my blood for the triumph of Holy Church
and for the conversion of England!" He complained that his rosary had
been taken away, and Mrs. Stone supplied him with her own. Alfred
Collingridge, from Oxford, "was the first of the English who laid down
his life in the Crusade of St. Peter." The writer prays, "May this
first English blood shed on Roman soil rise up before God, and descend
again in a dew of mercy on the land of Britain!" Of Alfred's countrymen
were present, his own brother George, two Watts-Russells, David Shee,
and Oswald Cary, "all soldiers of St. Peter" (VII. v. 155 ff.). The
father hearing from George of the death of Alfred, had only one regret,
that he could not himself step into his vacant place.

When Arthur Guillemin fell he was unhappily consigned to a grave in
common with Garibaldians; because it "was not then possible to separate
in the grave the friends of God from His enemies." Six months later,
Fathers Wilde and Gerlache, with others, piously sought the body of the
martyr to restore it to his native Aire-sur-la-Lys, by express desire
of Pius IX. Canon Druot had come to Rome to claim it in the name of the
family, the country, and the Church of Guillemin's birth. The seekers
of the relic included an O'Reilly, a Le Dieu, a Bach, a Loonen, and
a Mimmi. "You will find him," said a peasant, "with a Garibaldian at
his feet." The first object recognized was a Carmelite scapular. "It
is like mine," cried an officer; "two both alike were given to him and
me by the Countess Macchi!" Soon was seen the end of the cord of St.
Francis, worn by the deceased in imitation of St. Louis of France.
As the corpse was borne off to Rome, the people pressed around and
cried _Evviva_!--Long life to him! This cry "strange around a bier,"
expressed a "profound sense of the marvellous," and threw "a glittering
light upon the idea formed by Christians of those who fall fighting
in the modern crusade." At Rome, in the great Church of St. Louis of
France, the bier was surrounded by ambassadors, prelates, and officers,
including the Minister of War. At home, the "precious deposit" was
received in an illuminated chapel, decorated, not with symbols of
death, but of glory. "The crowd of pilgrims from the whole of northern
France" thronged the town. The bier was adorned with symbols of
victory, the work of Roman artists. The coffin was borne by the youth
of the town, emulous by changes to come under the coveted burden. A
party of pontifical zouaves in uniform attended. From the corners
of the hearse rose trophies of the pontifical flag "garlanded with
triumphal laurel." While yet the corpse lay in the illuminated chapel,
a new-born nephew of Arthur was borne in by the mother, who "piously
laid him upon the coffin, as used the ancient Christians to lay their
little ones on the sepulchres of the martyrs. A thrill of reverence
went through the assembly." During the funeral procession, the eyes
of the multitude "were fixed with devout curiosity on a piece of his
uniform spread out upon the bier, in which was seen the rent made by
the wound" (VII. iv. 415).

Aire-sur-la-Lys is not very far from our own shores, beyond Calais.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 95: _Cecconi_, p. 62.]

[Footnote 96: An interesting account of this change is given in
Sepp's stirring speech in the Bavarian Parliament on the Mering case,
_Deutschland und der Vatican_, pp. 182-85.]

[Footnote 97: VII. iii. 559.]

[Footnote 98: _Civiltá_, VII. x. 161.]

[Footnote 99: Serie VII. vol. vii. p. 22.]

[Footnote 100: _Cecconi_, pp. 370, 371.]

[Footnote 101: _Cecconi_, p. 122.]

[Footnote 102: _Cecconi_, p. 382.]

[Footnote 103: _Cecconi_, pp. 121-24.]




CHAPTER III

Bull of Convocation--Doctrine of the Sword--The Crusade of St.
Peter--Incidents--Mission to the Orientals, and Overtures to
Protestants in different Countries--June 1868 to December 1868-69.


It was on St. Peter's Day, June 29, 1868, that the Bull of Convocation
was issued. According to the Pope's promise, the Council was to meet on
the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1869.

The language of the Bull was diplomatically vague as to the objects
of the assembly, but awfully explicit as to the authority by which it
was convened. Not in an _obiter dictum_, but in legislative language
jointed to bear the strain of ages, a claim is set up, as Sepp points
out, to exercise the authority of the whole Trinity, and, indeed, we
may add, whatever further authority Peter and Paul can lend. "Confiding
in and supported by the authority of Almighty God Himself, Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, and of His blessed Apostles Peter and Paul,
_which we also exercise upon earth_."[104] It ought to be remembered
that M. Veuillot writes down the date of this Bull as the day on which
the middle ages died. The indication of objects, though vague to us,
sufficed for the initiated. _Ce qui se Passe au Concile_ says (p. 9)--

    The Pope repeatedly intimates that the Church has the right "to
    redress the errors which turn _civil_ society upside down, ...
    to preserve the nations from bad books and pernicious journals,
    and from those teachers of iniquity and error to whom the unhappy
    youth are confided whose education is withdrawn from the clergy;
    ... to defend justice, ... to assure the progress and solidity
    of the human sciences." This somewhat confounds things spiritual
    and temporal; but those political allusions drowned in the usual
    digressions of Pontifical documents, passed unobserved.

If they passed unobserved in Roman Catholic countries, where
journalists did know a little of the modes of pontifical speech, how
much more in countries like England and America, where at that time it
was considered unintelligent to speak or write upon the subject from
knowledge, the proper thing being a serene superiority to study, and a
judicious expression of opinions caught in the air.

To obviate the objection that the assembly would be only a synod of the
Western Church, and not an OEcumenical Council, the Bull was followed
by Letters Apostolic addressed to all prelates of the Oriental Churches
not holding communion with Rome.[105] Until the Vatican Council these
were regarded only as schismatics, not as heretics. Therefore the Pope
invited them to come, and by submitting to the See of Rome to complete
the union. This invitation was dated September 8; and on the 13th of
that month a "paternal letter" went forth, to Protestants and other
non-Catholics. All these, from Anglican Ritualists down to the smallest
sects, were grouped together, not being called to take any part in the
Council, but to seize the occasion of joining the Pope's Church by
renouncing their heresies and submitting to his authority.

Although the approach of the Council excited little attention in
Protestant countries, it began to be discussed in Roman Catholic ones
with an interest which rapidly warmed to excitement. The tremendous
significance attached by Ultramontane authorities to the Bull,
especially to the non-invitation of princes, and to the coming struggle
with the Modern State, was enough to rouse Catholics who did not
sympathize with the aims indicated. The _Civiltá_ put the alternative
as between the end of the world or its salvation by the Council.
"Either, in the inscrutable designs of God, human society is destined
to perish, and we are close upon the supreme cataclysm of the last day,
or the salvation of the world is to be looked for from the Council and
from nothing else."[106] Language like this is not to be smiled at
when it goes to the heart of perhaps half a million of ecclesiastics,
each one of whom transmits the impression through a wide circle. The
following passage in the same article may be laid to heart. A good part
of it is quoted by _Janus_, with the remark that it needs but a step
further to declare the Pontiff an incarnation of God.

    The Pope is not a power among men to be venerated like another.
    But he is a power altogether divine. He is the propounder and
    teacher of the law of the Lord in the whole universe; he is the
    supreme leader of the nations to guide them in the way of eternal
    salvation; he is the common father and universal guardian of
    the whole human species in the name of God.... The treasures of
    revelation, the treasures of truth, the treasures of righteousness,
    the treasures of supernatural graces upon earth, have been
    deposited by God in the hands of one man, who is the sole dispenser
    and keeper of them. The life-giving work of the divine incarnation,
    work of wisdom, of love, of mercy, is ceaselessly continued in
    the ceaseless action of one man, thereto ordained by Providence.
    This man is the Pope. This is evidently implied in his designation
    itself--The Vicar of Christ. For if he holds the place of Christ
    upon earth, that means that he continues the work of Christ in the
    world, and is in respect of us what Christ would be were He here
    below, Himself visibly governing the Church.... It is, then, no
    wonder if the Pope, in his language, shows that the care of the
    whole world is his, and if, forgetting his own peril, he thinks
    only of that of the faithful nations. He sees aberrations of mind,
    passions of the heart, overflowing vices; he sees new wants, new
    aspirations; and holding out to the nations a helping hand, with
    the tranquillity of one securely seated on the throne given him by
    God, he says to them, Draw nigh to me, and I will trace out for you
    the way of truth and charity which alone can lead to the desired
    happiness.[107]

Such divines as held that the proper work of a General Council was to
heal schisms or combat heresies, remarked on the absence of both. Such
as were unwilling to see the Church straining after temporal power, and
placing herself in antagonism to freedom and light, could ill conceal
their anxiety. But the Jesuits everywhere hailed the dawning of a
wonderful day.

On Saturday, October 17, 1868, the Abbé Testa, accompanied by three
other priests, went to the palace of the Patriarch of Constantinople,
bearing the Pope's letter to the Oriental bishops. The Vicar-General
received the four Latin priests, and introduced them to his Holiness
the Patriarch, whose hand they kissed. The Patriarch, on his part,
embraced them, and expressed his pleasure at seeing them. The Abbé
Testa then drew a richly adorned little book from his pocket and
offered it to the Patriarch, while one of his brethren told his
Holiness, in Greek, that they had come to invite him to attend the
OEcumenical Council, and begged him to receive the letter of invitation.

His Holiness motioned to the Abbé Testa to lay the little book down
near him, and said, "Had not the _Giornale di Roma_ published the
letter whereby his Holiness summons us to Rome to a Council, which he
calls oecumenical, and had we not thus learned the object and contents
of the letter, and also the principles of his Holiness, we should have
received a communication from the Patriarch of old Rome with the utmost
pleasure, in hope of finding some change in his mode of thinking. As,
however, this invitation is in the journals, and as his Holiness has
proclaimed views in direct opposition to the principles of the orthodox
Churches of the East, we declare to you, Reverend Fathers, with grief
and at the same time with sincerity, that we cannot receive either such
an invitation or such a letter, which only assert principles opposed
to the spirit of the Gospel and to the declarations of the OEcumenical
Councils and of the Holy Fathers."

The Patriarch proceeded to refer to the Pope's former advances, and
delicately hinted that when they had objected that he held principles
which were to be regretted, his reply showed that he was so much pained
that it was better not to put him to grief a second time. "In short, we
look for the true settlement of the question to history. Ten centuries
ago there was one Church, confessing the same faith in East and West,
in old Rome and new Rome. Let us go back for that period, and let us
see who has added and taken away. Let us suppress innovations, if
such there are, and then shall we imperceptibly find ourselves at that
point of Catholic orthodoxy from which Rome was pleased gradually to
diverge in the earlier centuries, ever widening the gulf of separation
more and more by new dogmas and definitions which depart from the holy
traditions."

The Abbé Testa asked what principles his Holiness spoke of.

"Without entering into minute points," replied the Patriarch, "we
can never admit that wherever the Church of our Saviour extends upon
earth any Chief Bishop exists in the midst of her except our Lord, or
that there is a Patriarch who is infallible whenever he speaks _ex
cathedrâ_, who is exalted above the OEcumenical Councils, to which
alone infallibility attaches, seeing that they always held to holy
scripture and apostolic tradition."

The Abbé referred to the Council of Florence, and received a full and
courteous answer. The Patriarch at last said, "If you would see that
union realized which we all desire, place yourselves on the ground
of history and of the General Councils; or, if that is too hard upon
you, let us all pray to God for peace to the world and prosperity and
union to the Church. For the moment, we declare, with pain, that this
invitation is fruitless and this circular of no effect."

The four Latins urged that prayer alone did not suffice; if one was
sick we not only prayed but employed means of cure. "When the sickness
is spiritual," replied the Patriarch, "the Lord alone knows who is the
sick man, how he suffers, what is the root of the malady, and what the
real cure. I say again there is urgent necessity for ceaseless prayer
to the Lord of the whole earth, that He may guide all to conclusions
well pleasing to God."

The Patriarch then directed the Vicar-General to hand back the little
book, and the four abbés took their leave, accompanied to the stair by
the Vicar-General.[108]

Speaking of this interview, the _Stimmen aus Maria Laach_ said,
"Neither by his words nor his deeds did the Patriarch manifest polish,
theological science, or ecclesiastical education."[109]

The invitation was rejected by the Metropolitan of Ephesus, and the
Bishops of Varna and Thessalonica. The Metropolitan of Chalcedon
wrote upon it _Epistrephete_--"Be converted"--and returned it. The
Patriarch of Antioch sent the letter back, and his ten bishops did
the same. So also the orthodox Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem and his
bishops (_Friedberg_, p. 70). The Bishop of Thessalonica assigned four
reasons, the last of which called forth a laboured reply from the
Jesuits of Laach. "The Pope is a king," said the Oriental, "and wields
the sword, which is contrary to the gospel." The reply was that the
existence of the small but heroic army of the Pope was not due so much
to any will of his as to the nature of his office as chief shepherd
of the universal Church. The army and the temporal power, "without
which this office cannot exist," were manifestly necessary. But then
the "schismatical bishop" asks if bearing the sword is not contrary to
the gospel. No; for in the very words of the gospel Christ allowed the
apostles to bear two swords.

Having reached this practical point in the teaching of Boniface VIII,
the writer goes on to show that Peter was not told to cast his sword
away, but only to put it up into the sheath; which clearly meant that
he was to bear it. If he was reproved for using it, that was because,
though he had asked permission to do so, he had not yet received it;
for, in fact, at that point of time, the supreme power promised to
Peter had not been actually bestowed upon him. But seeing that he was
told to keep the sword, are we to suppose that when he did become
ruler, he and his successors for all time were to keep it hanging
at their sides, as a useless weight? Certainly not; "he beareth not
the sword in vain." The writer would probably have called any one an
infidel who expected a literal fulfilment of the words "all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword."

In reviewing the reception given in the East to the Bull, consolation
was drawn from the fact that the Armenian Patriarch in Constantinople
had raised the brief to his forehead. But the Catholikos of the same
Church in the See of Etschmiazin rejected it with decision. The
ill-success of these overtures displeased the "good Press." Pius IX had
been flattered into the belief that he had in great measure "restored"
the ascendancy of the Pontiff over the East. Even Archbishop Manning
had said enough in print to show that he came back from Rome in 1867
with some such idea, and prelates of more experience had done the same.

Representations as to the readiness of Protestants to submit, had led
to the letter to Protestants. Bishop Martin of Paderborn had strong
hopes of those in Germany, and set store by some odd letters, said
to be from Protestant clergymen, which, however, seem to be either
spurious, or from men not likely to lead anybody.[110] Archbishop
Manning, after several sentences  by a pontifical imagination,
had said, "The Council of Trent fixed the epoch after which
Protestantism never spread. The next General Council will probably date
the period of its dissolution."[111]

Between the date of the Bull of Convocation and that of the invitation
to the Orientals, the Pope performed two journeys to the Alban Hills,
which were celebrated by Court journalists. At Rocca di Papa, where
Hannibal is said to have pitched his tents, the little army of his
Holiness was, after modern usage, encamped. The Pontiff went on purpose
across the Campagna and up the hills, passed through the ranks of his
defenders, and himself celebrated Mass for their benefit. When his next
birthday was celebrated, the zouaves made a special display in the
Piazza of St. Peter's, of which the _Civiltá_ gives a long but lively
description. The last formation mentioned is to us new in military
evolutions. The zouaves "formed so as to make the letters composing the
august name Pius IX."[112]

Ever since 1860 the preaching of "taking up the cross," of the glory
of "dying for religion," and of the pure, bright martyrdom of falling
on the field for St. Peter, had been rather heavy work. Now the gleam
of victory at Mentana lighted up the future. Vistas long and luminous
led the eye of the fighting sons of Loyola away to other scenes,
where John VIII as Admiral, or John X as General, or Pius V rejoicing
over Lepanto, with other martial glories of the Papacy, paled before
what the Virgin and St. Michael were about to bring to pass. Loud and
ringing sounded forth to the faithful the call to the crusade of St.
Peter. The youth of the Catholic world were assured that not the fall
of Richmond nor the capture of Sebastopol, not Solferino nor Sadowa,
had moved human society as did the tidings from Mentana. Stories true
and often very touching were mixed with fables and with ecstasies.

The tales were those of youths from the noblest houses and from the
lowliest cots. The young Duke de Blacas "dedicated his sword to the
tomb of St. Peter, as his forefathers dedicated theirs to the tomb of
Christ." In his death youths are to see the martyr palm for which it
is noble to pant, and mothers are to see a privilege which they might
well seek in prayer. Peter Jong, a poor Dutch lad, only son of his
mother, a widow, who gave him up rejoicing as if God had granted her
great grace, fell, it is said, after having slain fourteen Italians. He
receives this tribute: "For St. Peter he inflicted many just deaths;
for St. Peter he worthily met his own." It is told how the King of
Holland keeps Jong's photograph in his portfolio, and shows it to other
intending crusaders as an encouragement. Another Dutch youth writes:
"Mamma, blessed is he who sheds the last drop of his blood. The martyrs
of all the centuries descend to meet him and to conduct him to heaven."
This, though Protestants may not know it, is spiritual warfare! for
"to defend the Church of Christ is a spiritual object." One proof
constantly alleged that bayonet and ball used for St. Peter are to
re-establish truth and righteousness is, "This is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith."

The young Duke de Blacas, not having been in action, seemed in dying to
think that he should not escape purgatory. Care, however, is taken,
in a studiously written biography of a Goldoni who also died before
battle, to show that in point of martyrdom, as to the old crusaders, no
difference was made by St. Bernard and St. Catherine of Siena between
those who died in battle and those who died in the service. Also, that
no difference had been made between these two classes of the crusaders
of St. Peter by Pius IX. He had comforted a father who regretted that
his son had not fallen in battle, by telling him that he had "the
supreme" consolation, because the son had died in the service of the
Holy See. And he had, in his solemn Allocution, compared both classes
alike to the martyred Maccabees. The father of Goldoni, pictured as a
devout and humane physician, is represented as often putting up the
prayer for his only son, "Oh that God would inspire him to take up the
cross!" Young Goldoni was a diligent reader of the _Unitá Cattolica_
and the _Civiltá_, from which "sources of religious and of pure
intellectual culture he drew a generous and daring spirit." Though he
died unhappily before battle, his biographer sees him seated among the
celestial martyrs, between the Duke de Blacas and the Count Zileri de
Verme, with whom do rejoice and glory others who died at a distance
from the fight. When Goldoni received his "call" to the crusade, he
started in haste. "It seemed as if the Spirit of God carried him."
The Archbishop of Modena specially blessed "our young crusader." He
then received the Sacrament, and so "heart to heart with Jesus Christ
consecrated his life to Holy Church." Moreover, in parting, "the young
cavalier of Jesus Christ put upon his bosom, as if a breastplate, an
image of Mary." The night before leaving home he, "in the manner of
the old crusaders," knelt at his father's knee and asked his blessing.
While the father "shed upon him the holy water and the prayer," Antonio
burst into weeping.

Arrived in Rome, Goldoni sought a Jesuit to "govern his soul." The
Jesuit made allusion to the dangers of his new life. "I have made up
my mind to be a martyr for the Holy See," replied Goldoni. "The Holy
Father has declared the temporal power necessary to the spiritual.
Therefore, fighting and dying for the temporal power, I should
indirectly be a martyr for our holy religion." The Jesuit was overcome
at hearing these generous sentiments from a youth so superior. Two days
after, the Jesuit and Goldoni met "in the tribunal of penitence."

Goldoni soon caught a fever, and in the hospital often confessed. On
the Feast of St. John Berchmans[113] he declared that he had obtained
from the saint the grace to be with him in Paradise on the day of the
Assumption of the Virgin. He reiterated that he should on the day of
the Assumption go to heaven to see the Madonna and St. John Berchmans.
His good father, called from Modena, arrived in time to bless and pray
for his departing Antonio. At the last moment he left him, for it
would seem that those around thought that the presence of the earthly
father would come between him and the heavenly Father. So he lay, with
his lustrous eyes fixed on heaven, as if, says the chaplain, "he was
awaiting the appearance of his John Berchmans, who was to present him
at the throne of the great Virgin." At seven o'clock on the morning of
the Assumption he passed away.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 104: _Acta_, p. 6.]

[Footnote 105: Archbishop Manning gave reasons for looking upon the
motive here assigned as "a transparent error."]

[Footnote 106: Serie VII. vol iii. p. 264.]

[Footnote 107: Serie VII. vol. iii. pp. 259, 260.]

[Footnote 108: _Friedberg Aktenstücke_, pp. 250-53.]

[Footnote 109: _Neue Folge, Erstes Heft_, pp. 72, 73.]

[Footnote 110: These productions are published by
Friedrich--_Tagebuch_, p. 453 ff.]

[Footnote 111: _The Centenary of St. Peter, and the General Council_,
p. 90.]

[Footnote 112: _Civiltá_, Serie VII. vol. v. p. 234.]

[Footnote 113: Technically, Berchmans seems to be only a beatified, not
a saint.]




CHAPTER IV

Princes, Ministers, and their Confessors--Montalembert's part in the
Revival--His Posthumous Work on Spain--Indignation against the New
Assumptions--Debate of Clergy in Paris on the Lawfulness of Absolving
a Liberal Prince or Minister--Wrath at Rome--True Doctrines taught to
Darboy and his Clergy.


In proportion as this Popery of physical force came into view, did the
mental stress of Catholics who had put their faith in finer forces
increase.

Chateaubriand, who played a brilliant part in the Catholic reaction
which followed the great French Revolution, especially in that phase of
the movement which aimed at linking together, in the imagination, Rome
and ideas and hopes now dear to mankind, left a work, at his death,
which he called _Memoirs from Beyond the Grave_--_Memoires d'outre
Tombe_. Montalembert, who played a still more brilliant part in the
Catholic reaction which followed the Revolution of 1830, also left
behind him a work, to appear after his death. In that work we can trace
the pains of a representative mind, showing what must have been those
of multitudes at the time of which we now write.

Montalembert saw, in "the absolutist politics, the retrospective
fanaticism, the embittered hostility to all modern ideas and
institutions, flaunted everywhere by the religious press,"[114] not
only a blot on the cause, which had been his life-passion--a passion
of feminine flame but of masculine vigour--but also a personal
wound. It made his past look like a well-played hypocrisy. He had
enthusiastically and victoriously argued for Catholicism under plea
of liberty. "I neither can nor will," he cries, "keep silence, as
to the monstrous articles published this very year (1868) by the
_Civiltá Cattolica_ against liberty in general, and precisely against
those Liberal Catholics who, like me, have had the _naïveté_ in the
Parliamentary tribune to assert the rights of the Jesuits, and cause
them to triumph in the name of liberty."[115]

On the second anniversary of that mysterious Thursday in February
1848, when King Louis Philippe, of the Tuileries, suddenly changed
into Mr. Smith in a street cab on the way to exile, Montalembert and
Thiers pleaded in the National Assembly for "freedom of instruction" on
behalf of the Jesuits. "It was only," says our orator, "in the name of
liberty, of modern constitutions, of modern liberty, of the liberty of
conscience, of the Press, and of the tribune, that we made the claim."
He adds that the victory was won only by Thiers brandishing the text
of the Republican constitution in the face of the furious Mountain, a
constitution proclaiming equal freedom of worship and association to
all. The italics are his own--

    "We were all wrong, it is clear. In sound theology M. Renan alone
    was right--he and the like of him who maintained that Catholicism,
    and above all, the Jesuits, were absolutely incompatible with
    liberty. Only--we ought to have been told it _then_. It was _then_,
    and not now, that they ought to have taught us that liberty was a
    _plague_, instead of taking advantage of it, and that by our help,
    in order, twenty years later, to come insulting and repudiating
    both it and us, at one and the same time.

    I have long passed the age of disappointments and passionate
    emotions, but I declare on reading these bare-faced palinodes
    I have reddened to the white of my eyes, and shivered to the
    ends of my nails. I am no longer child enough to complain of the
    inconsistencies of men in general, or of Jesuits in particular, but
    I loudly say that this tone of the puppy and the pedant (_ce ton de
    faquin et de pédagogue_), employed towards old defenders, all of
    whom are not dead, and in respect of old struggles, which may be
    renewed to-morrow, does not become either monks or reputable men.
    It may be perfectly orthodox. In matters of theology I am no judge,
    but I think I am a judge in a matter of honour and decency; and I
    declare it is perfectly indecent."

We give but one more extract from this unconscious palinode of the
high-souled Montalembert, who could not even then see that the Liberal
Catholicism of his ideal was a generous phantasy, irreconcilable
with the Popery of Rome, as much so as was his beloved parliamentary
system in politics with the Second Empire. No more could he see that
Pope and Jesuit were true to themselves in urging their old and
fixed principles, and had been equally true to themselves in using
instruments like him so long as they struck or stayed their hand at
"the beck of the priest," and in disowning them so soon as they set up
to keep a conscience for themselves, "as if the rod should shake itself
against them that lift it up." He and his friend Lacordaire carried to
Rome the large ideas of a great people, and bathed the quaint figures
of the Curia, and the quaint objects of the city, in the tropical light
of their own genius, just as Lamartine had done with the withered
remnants of the East. After such pictures as Montalembert had drawn in
his books, and his speeches, of his ideal Catholic Church, it must have
been mortifying to have, in age and sickness, to write as follows--

    "Certainly, a strange way has been invented of serving religion, of
    making the modern world accept, comprehend, and love it. One might
    say that they treat the Church like one of those wild beasts that
    are carried about in menageries. Look at her, they seem to say, and
    understand what she means, and what is her real nature! To-day, she
    is in a cage, tamed and broken in, by force of circumstances. She
    can do no harm for the present; but understand that she has paws
    and tusks, and if ever she is let loose you will be made to know
    it" (p. 641).

As he wrote this sad passage, in all probability there would rise
before his imagination one of the most memorable scenes in the life of
any orator. When glorifying the return of the Pope to Rome, restored
by French force, and deprecating any attempt at a conflict with the
Church, he said that from any such conflict only dishonour could
result, as to a strong man would result dishonour from a combat with
a woman. And then, turning upon his audience, he said, "The Church is
more than a woman; the Church is a mother," with a gush and a power
which produced such a scene as perhaps has hardly ever been witnessed
in any parliamentary assembly. And both ideals were quite sincere. The
Church of Montalembert's imagination was a mother; the Church of the
_Civiltá Cattolica_ is a dam, holding to her young while they continue
in sheer dependence, treating them as strangers when they can take
care of themselves. His Church is the dream of an exceptional few, the
Church of the _Civiltá_ is the strong reality.

The articles which called forth this protestation of Montalembert,
were among the most curious even of the _Civiltá_. They dealt with
France--Paris and Darboy. On February 5, 1868, the Archbishop of Paris
held a conference of his clergy in the Church of Saint Rocque, and
there argued the following case of conscience. By some exceptional feat
of the worst of all evil genii, Publicity, the discussion, and its
result, were reported in the _Patrie_; and this indiscretion caused
the world for once to gain a real peep into the consultations in the
judges' chambers, behind the _internal tribunal_.

    "A man engaged in politics," says the case of conscience, "declares
    to his confessor that he has no intention of renouncing the
    doctrines which prevail among modern nations, the principal points
    of which are, liberty of worship, liberty of the Press, and the
    action of the State in mixed affairs. The confessor asks if he is
    to grant absolution to a penitent in this state of mind, or to deny
    it."--_Civiltá_, VII. ii. 151.

The reasoning ascribed to the supposed penitent is the following--

    You, as my confessor, have not the right to lay on me as you
    would on a private man, the duty of devoting a certain day, and
    of adopting certain means for the conversion of this or that
    person. Doubtless, I ought, by word and example, to lay myself out
    for the conversion and edification of my neighbour; but it rests
    with me as a free agent to select the means and to discern the
    opportunity. In like manner, you cannot order me as politician,
    legislator, or prince, to take, this very day, this or that
    measure, against blasphemy for example, or Sunday labour, or the
    licence of the Press. Lay it upon me to attend to the propagation
    of righteousness and truth; but leave it to me to judge of the
    opportunity, and to choose the means. And, I pray you, consider
    the grounds of my opinions. In the first place, whenever we speak
    or act, we have on one side the truth and right, which certainly
    ought to be respected; but on the other side we have fitness and
    opportunity, of which also we must take account, if we would speak
    to good purpose. Now, in this respect, I know better than any other
    what I can do, and what I cannot, in my family, or in a political
    assembly, or in the nation. In the next place, perhaps you do not
    see the absurdity which would follow the opposite opinion. It
    would follow that you had the right to decide and _regulate all
    my actions_, because into every one of them _morality may enter_;
    and every one of them may be connected with religion. You would be
    able to dictate my will, to tell me what vote I ought to give, to
    determine whether I am to declare peace or war. Mere trifles, you
    say. But what, in that case, would temporal power be, but a passive
    instrument of the spiritual power, and a mere machine? These are
    the reasons why I stand to my old notions on this point, and have
    no thought of changing them for others.

In this case, as thus put, and in the ensuing discussion, we see the
confessor of a king or minister preparing to meet his "penitent." In
the language of Montalembert, we see the feeling of a politician in
facing the "tribunal," under an Ultramontane confessor; and in the
papers of the _Civiltá_ we see the glaring eye of Rome searching out
every movement of the one and the other.

The case being thus stated, both as to its substance and as to the
reasoning of the supposed penitent, the discussion began. Abbé
Michaud, of the Madeleine, maintained that the confessor ought to
grant absolution. Abbé G----, a Dominican, maintained that he ought
not to do so. Archbishop Darboy now and then interfered, to moderate
the opposition of the latter. The Abbé Falcimagne interrupted the
Archbishop, declaring that he would deny the absolution, for the
supposed penitent was unworthy of it. Finally, the Abbé Hamon, Curé of
Saint Sulpice, read out four conclusions, which were fully accepted
by the Archbishop, and which allowed the confessor to grant the
absolution. The _Opinion Nationale_ and other journals said that this
conclusion showed to how little the condemnations of the Syllabus
amounted.

Both the conclusion and the grounds on which it was rested gave huge
offence at Rome. The _Civiltá_ was not content with less than five
long articles, making ninety octavo pages. It is in these that the
things are set forth which fired the embers of Montalembert's true
love of liberty, and damped his dying hope of ever seeing his ideal
Catholicism and actual Popery seated on the same throne. We need not
quote the passages which are echoed in his indignant repudiation; but
we give a few others, which show that, strongly as we have seen him put
the case, he was not guilty of any injustice. The Abbé Michaud said
that the liberty condemned was not moderate liberty, but unbounded
liberty.[116] The _Civiltá_ took it for granted that he could not have
been sincere.

    "Similar to liberty of worship, is that worst of liberties,
    never sufficiently execrated or abhorred--liberty of the Press,
    which some dare to invoke and promote with so much clamour." It
    continues--"In respect of religion and the Press, it is idle to
    distinguish between two sorts of liberty, one wise and the other
    unbridled, as the Abbé did. In such matters, all liberty is a
    delirium and a pestilence. There is no healthy man's delirium;
    all delirium is that of a sick man. There is no praiseworthy and
    harmless plague; every plague is deadly.... Hence, it is never a
    decent thing to introduce such liberty into a civil community. It
    is only permissible to tolerate it in certain cases, in the same
    way that a pest is tolerated" (p. 160).

The Abbé Michaud had said that, in mixed questions, the State
interfered by _the same right as the Church_! Such an utterance
savoured of our bad times. It was infected with the idea of the
independence of the civil power in regard to the ecclesiastical. This
idea was born with Protestantism; but it has been received by some
Catholics, sincere, it is true, though not discerning.

    It is true that the temporal prince is invested with supreme power
    and authority, in his order; but from this it follows only that
    he is not subject to any other earthly power. It does not follow
    that his authority, sovereign in its order, cannot be subject and
    is not subject to another authority of a more perfect order; that
    is, the spiritual.... It is necessary that whoever holds power,
    even sovereign, for temporal rule shall be regulated by the Roman
    Pontiff (pp. 161-63).

So far for the independence of the State. Now as to its right of
intervention in mixed questions, and above all, as to the defining of
limits between the two powers--

    The State ought first to learn, from the Church, what are mixed
    questions, that it may not take spiritual matters for mixed ones,
    confounding both the one and the other with those which are called
    temporal ones. Each separate kind of corn must be tied up into a
    separate sheaf. The State ought to arrange with the Church every
    time it puts a hand to what is temporal in these mixed matters, in
    order that it may not violate what is spiritual.

The _Civiltá_ quotes M. Renan, where he shows how the Syllabus has
proved his assertion of 1848. "The Syllabus is a luminous demonstration
of the proposition I maintained, that Catholicism and liberty are two
things incompatible." The _Civiltá_ adds that, in order to know this
fact, M. Renan did not need to be a profound theologian, but only
needed to read the works of any author sincerely Catholic. It points
out that the Liberal Catholics fancy that the Popes, in condemning
liberty of worship and of the Press, only spoke of part of the subject,
that is, of some sorts of liberty; and that it was, therefore, some
liberty, not all, that they called madness, poison, and pestilence. But
the Popes, asserts the _Civiltá_, on the contrary, thought that all
liberty of worship and of the Press bore those characters (p. 314).

The Abbé Falcimagne insisted (p. 316) that the supposed penitent should
be at once treated as a sick man, and as being not of sound reason--

    He comes to submit himself to my tribunal, and at the same time
    rejects my authority. To see how far I can yield to his spiritual
    infirmity I must see how far the authority of the confessor over
    the penitent extends. On this point, I shall cite the words of
    Domenico Soto, who, after hearing the confession of Charles
    V, said, "So far, you have confessed the sins of Charles; now
    confess those of the Emperor." Soto at least thought that the
    actions of his penitent, although they belonged to the political
    order, nevertheless came within the cognizance of his tribunal.
    Our patient is of a diametrically opposite opinion. He will not
    recognize in me the right of judging him in what touches doctrine
    and morals indirectly. But I hold that, as confessor, I have a
    right to judge my penitent, be he a legislator, or even a prelate
    of the Church, in things pertaining to dogmas and morals, and
    to prohibit what is contrary to either, whether directly or
    indirectly. So I can command him to cease from holding presumptuous
    tenets.

The Archbishop then asked the Abbé Falcimagne, requesting him to give
a direct answer, if he had a right to order his penitent to leave a
hundred thousand francs in his will to be distributed among the poor.
To this the Abbé Falcimagne made no reply. He said the point now was
to know whether the penitent, who would not renounce his modern ideas
as to liberty, was or was not guilty of presumption, _temerarius_.
"Guilty of presumption," replied the Archbishop, "is that confessor
who lays his hands on temporal things, assessing what he has no right
to assess." "But," retorted Falcimagne, "I have the right to judge my
penitent as to his disposition; and if he comes to me, and says that he
wishes to maintain his principles, and declares that I have not a right
to judge him, I tell him that his pretensions are illegitimate; that
his reason is disordered by modern principles; and that, if he will not
renounce those principles, I cannot absolve him."

The _Civiltá_ thinks that, at this point, they came to the heart of
the matter. On one side they began to allege that the confessor could
not require his penitent to renounce his opinions unless they were
heretical, or were opinions condemned by the Church. A very false
doctrine! exclaims the oracle; for, in addition to heretical opinions,
a true Catholic must renounce many others--those, for instance, which
are proximate to heresy; those which are presumptuous, scandalous,
and all indeed that are offensive to pious ears. The teaching power
of our Church is not merely infallible, and not only does it define
with infallibility when defining articles of faith, but also when
defining any truth, scientific or practical, political or historical,
which is connected, in any manner whatever, with dogma and morals; and
whoever would be a sincere Catholic must conform not only in respectful
silence, but with interior assent of the intellect (p. 318).

The _Civiltá_ proceeds to quote the opinions of the "good journals"
of Italy, laying stress on the point that the opinions held by the
supposed penitent could not be probable opinions--being in fact those
which were already condemned in the Syllabus. It proceeds with great
vigour to maintain that the Syllabus was the decree, not only of the
Pope, but also of the five hundred bishops who had adhered to it
last year (1867). Of these, the _Civiltá_ correctly says that Darboy
himself was one. It next contributes an important item of information,
which completes the evidence of the perfect and formal ecclesiastical
authority of all the condemnations of the Syllabus, on either theory
of the constitution of the Church, the Papal or the Episcopal. After
the address of the five hundred bishops present in Rome, all the absent
ones, asserts the _Civiltá_, sent in their adhesion by letter, which
they hastened to forward to this Roman chair, where, with the living
Pontiff, resides the "spirit of truth" (p. 324). Hence it draws the
inference, which is a just conclusion, if we may say so, in the face
of a hundred English writers who, following an old tradition, when
reviewing what Dr. Newman put upon paper on this subject, called it
logical.

    "This penitent (says the great organ of the Vatican), openly
    opposes the teaching power of the Church, whether that teaching
    power is considered as being exercised by the Bishop of Rome alone,
    or as being exercised by him in conjunction with all the bishops of
    Christendom. That teaching power has pronounced in the one mode and
    in the other, and has proscribed those opinions. In both ways has
    it condemned opinions, not imaginary or belonging to bygone times,
    but opinions which to-day, and under our eye, are pertinaciously
    maintained and reduced to practice" (p. 324).

Returning with intense earnestness to this point, it says (p. 543)--

    The universal Bishop has spoken alone, and further, he has spoken
    conjointly with the bishops of the particular Churches. To
    contradict after this, is in effect to separate oneself from the
    whole of the pastors, and from him who is supreme among them all.

This is not enough. Some pages later, hesitation, on this question so
vital to practical government, is again censured, in replying to the
plea that the supposed penitent might be worthy of absolution on the
ground of invincible ignorance--

    We shall never tell him that ignorance consists in this, namely,
    that after he has read the Encyclical and the Syllabus, and re-read
    them, he could not understand that the modern opinions, which
    he retained, have been truly condemned, or that they have been
    condemned rightfully. This is not ignorance. It is an error and a
    pertinacity proper to a man not far removed from heresy. In this
    case, we once more repeat, confession is not the thing wanted. The
    first elements of the faith, and of the Catholic profession, have
    to be set straight in this man's head (p. 547).

It would almost seem as if Montalembert was personally pointed at in
the two later articles. It is not a little curious to learn here that
his bosom friend, Lacordaire, long the charm of the French pulpit, was
called to Rome in 1850 to answer for his doctrine. The points on which
he had to set himself right with Rome were anything but, in our sense,
religious ones: (1) The coercive power of the Church; (2) The origin
of sovereignty; and (3) The temporal power of the Pope. He did set
himself right. Father Jandel, the General of the Dominicans, exulting
over his answer on the question touching the coercive power, says,
"It avenges his memory from the suspicion of complicity with certain
opinions which some Catholics would fain shelter under the authority of
his name."[117] Avenges his memory! It proves that whatever Lacordaire
believed, he submitted to write as his own the doctrine of Rome,
that the Church has power to "employ external force," and to inflict
bodily pains. And so France sees the memory of her Bossuet held up
to reproach, and the memory of her Lacordaire yoked by the Dominican
General to his beloved Inquisition. She sees her Montalembert driven
from public life, assailed, yea, reviled, while living, preparatory to
being insulted when dead.

Any one acquainted with the high spirit and immense emotional force of
Montalembert, can imagine his reddening and shivering at finding the
following among the citations from Renan to prove that the sceptic
understood the doctrine of "Catholicism" better than its professed
friends in France--

    The remedy applied by the Church of Rome to the liberty of worship
    and liberty of thought is the Inquisition. The Councils have
    established and approved the Inquisition, the Fathers and bishops
    have counselled and practised it. The Inquisition is the logical
    outgrowth of the whole orthodox system, and the quintessence of the
    spirit of the Church.[118]

Strongly as our sympathies are with Montalembert and Darboy, we feel
that, so long as the Jesuits have to prove that persecution is the
doctrine and has been the practice of the Church, they have it all
their own way against the Liberal Catholics, till they creep up to the
early ages.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 114: _L'Espagne et la Liberté._ Bibliothèque Universelle de
Lausanne, 1876, p. 626.]

[Footnote 115: Ibid. p. 635.]

[Footnote 116: _Civiltá Cattolica_, VII, ii. p. 150 ff.]

[Footnote 117: Serie VII. vol. iii. p. 65.]

[Footnote 118: Serie VII. vol. iii. p. 56.]




CHAPTER V

What is to be the Work of the Council--Fears caused by Grandiose
Projects--_Reform of the Church in Head and Members_--Statesmen evince
Concern.


Curiosity as to what the particular work of the Council was to be
grew all the more rapidly, because no authoritative indication of
it was given. Were the Jesuit tenets of Papal authority and Papal
infallibility to be raised into dogmas? Was the Pope to make another
offering to the Virgin by proclaiming as an article of faith, that her
body had been carried to heaven? By the repetition of such questions,
tens of millions partially awoke to the consciousness that they
belonged to a religion which knew not what might be its standard of
faith next year, much less did it know to what particular tenets it
might be committed.

Then, as to the position of the bishops, were they to be only
councillors, or also judges? If the latter, they would first hear the
doctors, as did their predecessors at Trent; would next deliberate,
and finally would formulate decrees, which decrees without alteration,
would be confirmed by the Pontiff. But if the bishops were no longer
judges of the faith, but simply councillors of the one judge, their
place would be to argue points, as the doctors had done at Trent, while
the decree should be that of the Pope, and they would merely assent.

Again, as to the composition of the Council, were the bishops _in
partibus_ to be members? Was Darboy, whose diocese counted two millions
of souls, to be balanced by some Court creature with a title from
Sardis or Ecbatana? or was Schwarzenberg, with Bohemia at his back,
to be balanced by an instrument of the Curia, who, independently of
his patrons, had not a month's bread to call his own? Were those who
represented ancient and numerous churches, and who were as far free
agents as men under Rome can be, to be voted against, man for man,
by vicars apostolic, without churches, or with only new and ignorant
ones--men depending on the Propaganda even for their travelling
expenses and board?

Finally, as to the mode of procedure, were the bishops, as they did at
Trent, to agree upon their own rules of procedure, to evolve by mutual
consultation the questions demanding solution, and to discuss them till
all were ready to vote? Or could there be truth in the suspicion that
everything was being cut and dried beforehand, and that the Court would
impose ready-made rules of procedure, and allow no one but itself to
introduce any subject for discussion?

As to the burning question of moral unanimity, would projected formulae
be passed from hand to hand, as was done at Trent, examined in meetings
of groups, retouched, and, if need be, remoulded till a form was
arrived at in which all but two or three acquiesced? Or was it possible
that formulae for new articles in a creed prepared behind the backs of
the bishops would be imposed on millions and for ever, by a majority
made up with the help of the bishops _in partibus_?

All this time, the nine determined men forming the secret Directing
Congregation, were coolly looking at the same questions, and, step
by step, as we shall see, when events bring out the secret plans,
were settling those questions in the sense most dreaded, and going
to lengths not, we believe, suggested in any of the anticipatory
expressions of fear.

Earnest theologians who had not been converted by the infallibilist
propaganda of recent years, were thrown into consternation. Some
bishops, able administrators, saw no essential difference between Papal
infallibility as a doctrine taught in many of the schools, and believed
by great numbers if rejected by others perhaps greater, and the same
opinion as an article of faith. In such a view, the men of thought saw
the superficial glance of "practical men," as they call themselves, who
never discover anything but by feeling it, and who live by acting out
to-day what others thought out in time gone by.

Little difference! thought the men of foresight. We are going to
be compelled to alter our catechisms and creed in the face of the
Protestants; going to be compelled to teach the opposite of what we
have always taught; going to part with immemorial safeguards against
altering the conditions of salvation, or further narrowing the terms
of membership in the Church--to part with the necessity before every
such change of the open and formal process of a General Council! The
proposed dogma is unlike any now in the creed, in the all-important
point of being self-multiplying. If it is adopted, we shall be liable
to have eternal obligations laid upon our souls, without a week's
warning.

Beside fears like these, others perhaps more general were those of
quiet Catholics wishing to live in peace and serve their respective
nations loyally, who being conscious that even now they were liable to
suspicion of a divided allegiance, feared that if the Jesuit tenets
became the creed, their political relations would be less comfortable,
and their prospects of office not so good. "At the Vatican," says _Ce
qui se Passe au Concile_, speaking of the mystery and the uneasiness
of this moment; "At the Vatican they spoke in low tones of grandiose
projects that were to transform the world, and by exalting Pius IX were
to confound the enemies of the Church." It was those grandiose projects
which made good citizens fear for their own future political standing.

Even feelings of this sort, as represented by _Holtgreven_, ought to
touch us, being those of silent millions awaiting in the dark the
sentence of their lords in Council. He says--

    When we left the gymnasium, soon after the year 1860, there was no
    pupil who could say that, even by hint, he had been taught there
    that the Pope was infallible by himself, and without the consent
    of the Church. The answer 128 in Martin's _Handbook of Religion_
    is still too fresh in the memory of all; an answer which affirms
    that the grace of infallibility belongs only to the collective body
    of bishops, as successors of the Apostles.... Persons in office
    and out of it, clergy, laity, and exalted Church dignitaries,
    agreed that the pretensions of the Pope to power over kings and
    nations, in matters of allegiance and such like, were not part of
    their religion, but arose out of the state of the civil laws in
    the middle ages.... Thus does the Catholic teacher teach in his
    lectures on Church history, thus does the student learn; and this
    view, which captivates the youth, putting his German heart at rest,
    and rejoicing it, still gives him repose and removes every scruple
    when, as a man, he lifts up the hand to swear allegiance to the
    laws of the fatherland.[119]

Those of the French clergy whose education had been carried beyond the
usual round of Latin, logic, and manners, began to manifest misgivings
as to the effect of the impending change on men of enlarged culture. It
was in March, 1869, that the _Unitá_ published the Pope's famous letter
to the Archbishop of Paris, described in a former chapter. The Paris
correspondent of that journal, commenting upon it, calls the dignitary
who, in the eye of the world, would be his metropolitan and ordinary,
"a pretty fellow"--_bel soggetto_--whom no one would any longer look
upon as a candidate for the rank of Cardinal. In the same letter he
says that war against Prussia must break out, whether the occasion be
the Belgian railways, or complaints that Prussia violates the treaty of
Prague.

Fears as to coming changes, in their effect on men of culture, were
felt still more deeply in Germany, where the general education of
the clergy was higher than elsewhere. Both the German clergy and the
nobler of the French were unprepared for what they began, in secret,
to call Pius-cult, as it appeared in the language employed by the
favoured organs. One word in the prayer for the Pope, recommended by
the _Unitá_, on March 12, grated not on Protestant ears only. The _Ave
Maria_ was for a week to be followed by these petitions: "Eternal
Father, defend Pius IX! Eternal Word, assist Pius IX! Holy Spirit,
glorify Pius IX!"

Perhaps none of the publications now flowing from the Press excited
greater attention than one which was announced as being from the pen
of one of the best known of the Austrian clergy. It was entitled
_The Reform of the Romish Church in Head and Members_. Not only does
this author oppose the attempt to restore laws enforcing unity of
creed, but he actually does so on principle, as well as on the ground
of expediency. The longing of Rome for the subjection of the States
of the world, and for power again to employ the arm of the State in
her service, is, he contends, a delusion which will lead only to her
overthrow. Moreover, he lays down the startling principle that the
Church has nothing to ask but liberty to act in her own sphere _like
any private society_. This last position is utterly irreconcilable with
all the ordinary theories. He holds that anything granted to the Church
by the State beyond what is given to any other private society is an
evil, and also that every case, in the past, wherein Church and State
have joined hands in order to help one another to gain their respective
ends, has turned out ill for both of them. In modern times his ideal of
the normal relation of Church and State is that existing in America,
which he imagines works favourably for Romanism.

The author of _Reform in Head and Members_ looks on the system of
lower seminaries for boys and higher ones for young men, in which the
future clergy pass their youth separated from all society, leading an
unreal life, pursuing narrow studies and without knowledge of men, or
the possibility of acquiring any breadth of mind, as producing only
a race of priests unfit to lead an educated age. He declares that in
France, Italy, and Spain the system of close seminaries has destroyed
theological science among Catholics. He manifests the ordinary
contempt of German scholars for the showy and wordy pupils of the
Roman seminaries, and contends that Catholic theology does not bear
any comparison, as to talent and learning, with Protestant theology
in any country except Germany, where the priests have to study at the
universities. He further believes that the lamentable moral condition
of the Romish clergy is not a little to be ascribed to the seclusion
and unreality in which their youth is passed (p. 161).

    The young priests in whose hands the guidance of the people is
    to be placed, squander the fair and precious years of youth in
    enclosures shut off from the world, and out of them do they go
    forth into life without experience of men or of the world. Then
    does the world, with all its charms, allurements, delights,
    and seductions, rush in upon those narrow, inexperienced young
    clergymen; and alas! only too many of them sink in a sea which to
    them is new, strange, and untried.

He demands a thorough reform of this system, insisting that the
contempt shown by all respectable Italians for the priesthood is not to
be accounted for except on the ground of this wretched system and of
its wretched moral and religious results.

Another demand boldly made by this Austrian priest is for the
abolition of the vows of celibacy, so far as they are either perpetual
or obligatory. He would admit of vows that were both voluntary and
temporary. The corrupting effects of celibacy evidently leave him no
hope that it is capable of being rendered consistent with tolerable
morality. He treats this institution as purely local and Romish,
regarding its imposition upon the Catholic Church as a great public
evil, impossible to be justified. At page 117 he says, "Upon the law
of the Romish Church fall back all those moral abominations, beyond
measure and beyond number, which have arisen out of it, and which will
stain the Church as long as that law remains in force." When the writer
approaches the subject of bureaucratic centralization, the Catholic
rises against the Romanism which has fastened itself on the Churches
of other nations. This system of centralization as carried out by the
Curia is much too narrow legitimately to claim the name of national.
Our author wants to see an end of the system. He wonders what may be
the annual revenue paid into Rome from all quarters of the globe for
indults, dispensations, indulgencies, remissions of sins, and the fees
gained by all the inventions for what he calls selling poor parchment
and bad writing very dear. He does not, like many writers when they
touch this subject, break out into a passion against the huckstering of
their religion, but manifests a cold contempt, feeling that the system
is low and hollow.

The modern contrivance for making a bishop a tenant on a short lease is
calmly exposed. Formerly, as the author points out, a bishop used to
rule his own diocese; now he is no more than a delegate. He is allowed
to distribute such dispensations for the smaller sins against Church
law as do not pay any money tax, but his power to do this, as also his
power to perform several other of the acts essential to his office,
is no longer conveyed to him with the office itself. On the contrary,
for that power he is dependent upon a lease, never given for more than
five years, called the QUINQUENNIAL FACULTIES. If at the expiration of
one of these terms the Faculties are not renewed, he becomes a mere
lay figure in his chair, and would be at once exposed to his clergy
and people as under disgrace. By this means is he kept a perpetual
pensioner on the favour of the Curia, and in addition to the periodical
expiration of the ordinary lease, he is a tenant at will, liable any
day to have his Faculties withdrawn by the Holy Father.

    The centralizing of the government of the Church in the See of
    Rome, to effect which it was necessary to destroy the rights of
    metropolitans and to curtail the jurisdiction of bishops, is a
    state of things so unjustifiable and ruinous, that the well-being
    of the Church urgently demands its removal. This absorption of all
    the powers and rights of Church government is not to be justified
    either by pleading the necessity of preserving the unity of the
    Church, or by pleading the supreme hierarchical power, which
    belongs to the See of Rome. The very necessity of manifesting
    unity presupposes a number of persons entrusted with independent
    functions of government; and if the incumbent of the highest
    power of the Church strips the subordinate functionaries of all
    authority, he makes himself the sole seat of power in the Church.

This writer would restore worship in the mother tongue.

Statesmen began to feel concern, at least such as did not belong to the
class finely laughed at by M. Veuillot, who do not think it necessary
to inform themselves on "the small affairs of the Catholic Church,"
although speaking, legislating, and perhaps writing on matters of which
those affairs form a considerable element.

Naturally such fears were sooner and more seriously felt by Roman
Catholic statesmen than by Protestant ones. Though _Von Lutz_,
Minister of Worship in Bavaria, spoke after the event, he tersely
expressed the apprehensions felt at this time--

    "The Church lays down the principle that the Pope is Prince of
    princes, and Lord Paramount (_Oberherr_) of all States. Do you
    think it possible that States will put up with that? That the State
    will quietly stand by while the bishop orders the parish priest to
    preach against the law of the land, and while he deposes him if he
    will not comply? Or must the State itself drive the parish priest
    out of his home for refusing to misuse the pulpit, against the
    State?"[120]

Bishop Fessler, of St. Pölten,[121] in a lengthy manifesto, gave a
clear intimation that the infallibility of the Pope would probably be
defined by the Council. This set many Catholics in Germany on preparing
to combat the intention announced, and set still more on saying that
as Fessler had been the first to face the German public with this
intimation, his fortune was made at Rome.

Bishop Dupanloup, of Orleans, put forth his best literary power in
what was called, by the _Constitutionnel_, an attempt to bring about a
reconciliation between the Council and the principles of 1789.[122] He
urged that they greatly erred who looked upon the approaching Council
as a menace against modern society, or as a declaration of war with
progress. On the contrary, freedom, fraternity and progress, so far
as they were true and good, had nothing to fear from this "senate of
humanity."

Bishop Von Ketteler, of Mainz, declared that the forthcoming Council
was the greatest event of our age[123]--

    At least (added this doughty pupil of the Jesuits), in the work of
    reconstruction; for as to destruction, certainly, there have been
    greater events. As God provided for the Church and the world in
    the century of the so-called Reformation, by means of the Council
    of Trent, so has He in our century, which, still sadder to say, is
    the century of Revolution, the century of demolition and universal
    destruction, inspired the High Pontiff with the supreme remedy, the
    convocation of the Vatican Council. The work of destruction is
    manifestly hasting to its end. It is time to commence the work of
    reconstruction, on the ancient foundation laid by Christ once for
    all. This is precisely the work to which the Council is called.

These words we quote from the _Civiltá_, to which the whole document
seemed highly laudable.[124] But its translation is strong. Ketteler
did not use the term "reconstruction" for his German audience, but
"construction." He did not say that God had inspired the Pontiff, but
that the Spirit of God again assembled the General Council, the highest
Court of Judgment for the Truth on earth. This last form of words had
the merit of which our English tongue has within the last few years
presented some examples of all but incredible skill--the merit of
suggesting to a Protestant an idea that would not awaken his political
fears, and yet of representing to the Jesuits of the _Civiltá_ the
true doctrine. The Pope himself began to take part in the controversy
now gradually rising. The Abbé Belet had translated into French the
work of the Jesuit Father Weninger, published in New York. The Pope
wrote a brief to thank him, taking occasion at the same time harshly
to censure the great Bossuet, as a bishop who, in order to flatter the
civil power, contradicted his own proper opinions, and contradicted the
original doctrine of the Church.[125]

Pleasant to the military palate of Pius IX were the words of brave
Colonel Allet, in a soldierly order of the day, issued in December, to
his zouaves. After recounting in terse, strong terms, their services
against the Garibaldians, he says--

    Soldiers! all is not over. Great dangers still threaten the Church.
    Remember that in your regiment you stand, not merely as soldiers
    marching side by side; you also represent a principle before the
    world, the principle of the voluntary and disinterested defence
    of the Holy See. You are the nucleus around which will unite in
    the hour of danger the prayers, the succours, and the hopes of the
    Catholic world. Be, then, true soldiers of God. You have not merely
    duties, you have even a mission, and you will not fulfil it without
    union, discipline, moral conduct, and military instruction. A third
    battalion is formed. Your swelling ranks assure to you a larger
    part in future struggles. We shall march together to the cry of
    "Long Live Pius IX!"

Funereal solemnities on behalf of the fallen are proudly recorded as
having been celebrated in France, England, Germany, etc.

To these military consolations were added such as a crown and a nation
once great could now bestow. Queen Isabella strongly recommended from
the throne, and her Cortes almost unanimously voted, that the forces of
the nation, acting in alliance with the Emperor of the French, should
be ready to defend the Holy See.[126] What was more important, the King
of Prussia, in reply to Ledochowsky, spoke clearly in support of the
temporal power. It was also told with satisfaction how, at banquets,
both at Malines and Namur, the health of the Pope was drunk before that
of the King of Belgium, and how pleasantly the Nuncio gave the health
of the local and subordinate sovereign after that of his master, as the
Lord Paramount, had received its meed.[127]

It is not easy for us, whose faith has always rested on the fixed
standard of God's Word, to enter into all the feelings of suspense
which are to be read between the lines of a lecture by Professor
Menzel, then of Braunsberg, now of Bonn, printed for private
circulation among his former pupils.[128] He is teaching them the
doctrine of _Church_ infallibility, but not, as he had hitherto
done, in the twofold confidence of persuasion and personal security.
Persuasion abides, reinforced by fresh study and animated by assault.
But security is gone. The consciousness that he may never more be
allowed to teach this doctrine weighs upon all he utters. Before
another session, should his own faith not change, that of his chair
probably will. The Church which he had served, as permitting the
membership of those who denied the infallibility of the Pope, had been
catholic enough for him. But now, after pausing since the Reformation,
she had actively resumed the process of narrowing the terms of
membership by dogmatizing new shibboleths. One had been already added
in his own day. Another now hung overhead, still more momentous,
because it not only altered the doctrine of the Church, but altered the
standard of doctrine, and was moreover self-propagating--a seed bearing
fruit after its kind.

"This complete subversion of the old Catholic principle, _everywhere,
always, and by all_," cries the poor Professor, "has found its most
doughty champions in the Jesuits of the _Civiltá Cattolica_, with
their branch at _Maria Laach_, and in the Archbishops of Malines and
Westminster, Deschamps and Manning."[129] In the struggling argument of
the Teacher of this year, we cannot help hearing, by anticipation, the
sighs of the excommunicated of next year; excommunicated for holding
fast what he had always taught, with the sanction of the Church, and
from one of her chairs! And as the iron enters into his soul, he
evidently feels it hard that an English hand should be one of the
foremost in driving it home.

Professors looked from the chair on their classes not knowing what
they might have to teach a twelvemonth hence. Preachers looked from
the pulpit on their congregations weighted with the same uncertainty.
Editors wrote that the Catholic faith was thus and thus, feeling
that, perhaps, soon they must write the reverse, or else drop the
pen. Heads of families were perplexed as to what they should say to
their children, if compelled to believe what they and their fathers
had always resented as a false accusation against their religion.
Jurists wondered if they must either break with their clergy or
begin a campaign for reinstating canon law over civil. Kings whose
forefathers had compelled nations, by the sword, to wear the yoke of
Rome, chafed to think that their religion was to be "changed over
their heads." But all this time the silent arbiters of the Catholic's
destiny were patiently framing the decrees. Men moved and combined
to prevent new fetters from being forged for their souls next year;
but link was being already noiselessly added to link, by old,
cool, and resolute masters. The Emperor set to defend the Gallican
liberties for the millions of France, and the Emperor set to uphold
the Josephine safeguards for the millions of Austria, had no access to
the subterranean forge _Antra Ætnaca_ where chains and thunderbolts
were on the anvil, away from the ears of men. Turnus had not less
power over the island cave where the arms by which he was to fall were
being tempered. But, on the other hand, the Vulcan of the Syllabus
had more than one Venus at the Court of each potentate, wooing in his
interests, and pleading for his will. The truth, however, was to dawn
upon their subjects from behind gorgeous clouds of their beloved pomps
and ceremonies.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 119: _Holtgreven_, pp. 4, 5.]

[Footnote 120: Menzel, _Jesuitenumtriebe_, p. 119.]

[Footnote 121: _Das Letzte und das Nächste Concil_, p. 59.]

[Footnote 122: _Lettre sur le futur Concile OEcuménique._]

[Footnote 123: _Das Allgemeine Concil und seine Bedeutung für unsere
Zeit._]

[Footnote 124: Serie VII. vol. vi. p. 93.]

[Footnote 125: _Friedberg_, p. 487.]

[Footnote 126: _Civiltá_, VII. i. pp. 228-30.]

[Footnote 127: Id. 622.]

[Footnote 128: _Ueber das Subject der kirchlichen Unfehlbarheit._ (_Als
Manuscript gedruckt._) Braunsberg: 1870.]

[Footnote 129: P. 7.]




CHAPTER VI

Agitation in Bavaria and Germany--The Golden Rose--Fall of
Isabella--The King of Bavaria obtains the Opinion of the
Faculties--Döllinger--Schwarzenberg's Remonstrance.


The proximity of Bavaria to Italy on the one hand, and to Protestant
Germany and Switzerland on the other, had assisted in giving to the
schools of Munich a juster appreciation of the effect to be expected
in the world at large, from new additions to the dogmatic burden
which Catholics must carry. For a considerable time a conflict had
been silently growing up between the theology of the German schools
and that in recent years imported direct from Rome by the new type
of priests there trained. The catechisms--even those prepared by the
early Jesuits--had been gradually altered, till first the denial of
Papal infallibility disappeared, and secondly the statement of Church
infallibility was so obscured as to prepare the way for further change.

Jesuit establishments had been springing up in defiance of the law. The
Ultramontane Press had raged against the unity of Germany under the
leadership of Prussia, writing so as to lead foreigners to believe that
France had only to invade Germany and she would find the Catholics on
her side. A _littérateur_ named Fischer being arrested at Landeck in
June, 1868, a letter was found from Count Platen, saying, "A league of
the small states with France, for the common end of breaking the power
of Prussia, is the duty of all."[130]

The feelings of the educated classes generally resented such attempts
with indignation. We have seen how Sepp spoke of the canonization
of Arbues. The painter Kaulbach executed a picture of an _auto da
fe_ celebrated under the eye of this new celestial patron. A priest
preached against the sale of the engravings; and Kaulbach wrote a
letter, which was printed in the _Cologne Gazette_, hailing such
reproach as an honour, and appending a sketch of the Roman twins
drinking in the milk of the she-wolf. Of his Romulus and Remus, one
wore the crown of imperial France, and the other the tiara.[131]

German writers assert that Napoleon III induced Queen Isabella of
Spain, in the spring of 1868, to pledge herself to send into Italy
forty thousand men to protect the Pope, in case he should be obliged
to withdraw his troops by entering on a war with Prussia. Other
authorities say that it was to be in case of a war with Italy. At
all events, the most select favour the Pontiff had to confer on the
worthiest lady of his Church, the golden rose, was sent to her most
Catholic Majesty. This distinction placed Isabella on a level with the
Queen of Naples and the Empress Eugènie, the only two lambs in all
his fold hitherto held worthy by Pius IX of this pontifical seal of
stainless whiteness. But to the daughter of Queen Christina the golden
rose proved to be the last rose of her summer. In September 1868 this
elect lady, after outliving more insurrections than any sovereign
in Christendom, was compelled to flee. An expression fell from the
_Catholique_ of Brussels on the news that the crown of Isabella was
threatened, which throws light on the Ultramontane dialect: "Spain
will be lost to Catholicism, lost to the cause of order in Europe,
and _the last Christian government_ will have disappeared from the
Old World."[132] This drew from Montalembert the remark: "To wish
modern society, or any Christian born in that society and destined to
live in it, to esteem the condition of Spain under Isabella II more
highly than that of England under Victoria, and to wish this in the
name of the Catholic Church, in the name of the party of order in
Europe, is to impute to that party and to that Church the saddest of
responsibilities, and the most menacing."[133]

But all Catholic political personages were not as good <DW7>s as Queen
Isabella.

Montalembert, full of thoughts suggested by the questions rising in
the Church, saw in her fall but an incident of the decay of Spain,
which, again, was but the most striking example of the condition of
most Roman Catholic countries. He wrote what, as we have seen, appeared
only after his death. Confessing that the reign of Isabella had lasted
"too long," he traced the ruin of the country to "despotism, spiritual
and temporal, absolute monarchy, and the Inquisition." After showing
that both municipal and parliamentary liberties had been well developed
in Spain in the days when she struggled, rose, and took the lead,
he dates the beginning of her fall from the combination of Church
and State, under Charles V, to work unitedly in quenching civil and
religious liberty. Though no advocate of the separation of Church and
State, he says, "A thousand times better the fullest separation with
all its excesses, than the absorption of the State by the Church, or of
the Church by the State." No better expression could have been chosen
than the former of these phrases to designate the effect of the Jesuit
polity of Church and State just about to be adopted by Rome.

He takes the social and political effects of the Inquisition to have
been disastrous--"That monstrous institution ceased to act only when
it had no more to do, when it had substituted emptiness, death, and
nothingness for the life, the force, and the glory of the first nation
of the middle ages, the one which we may justly call the pearl of the
Catholic world." Aiming a two-edged thrust at Bonapartist legislatures,
and at the character of the coming Council, he says that the
"ill-omened" Charles V was the inventor "of consultative despotism," or
representative absolutism, of which the Napoleons are wrongly accused
of being the originators. For one who had spent his life in battling
for the Papacy, but always with the hope of reconciling it to liberty,
it was bitter, when death was in view, to write: "There is not in the
history of the world a second example of a great country so ruined,
so broken down, so fallen, without foreign conquest or civil war
having materially contributed to the result, but by the sole effect of
institutions of which it was the prey."[134]

Had the Prime Minister of Bavaria at the juncture in question been a
Protestant, he would have been slower in seeing the political bearings
of what was taking place. One of the three brothers of Prince Hohenlohe
was a cardinal, and otherwise his means of information had been good.
Besides, though Bavaria had often served the Papal cause to the hurt of
Germany, it had never, like Prussia, given up its _placet_ and other
guards of the royal supremacy. The Prime Minister submitted questions
for the formal opinion of the two Faculties of Theology and Law, in the
University of Munich, as to the effect which the definition of Papal
infallibility as a dogma would have upon the relations of the civil and
ecclesiastical authorities.

The Faculty of Theology, in its reply, after referring to the work of
Schrader, and quoting some of his propositions, says--

    Should these or similar conclusions be adopted (i.e. the conclusion
    of the Syllabus against freedom of religion, of the Press, etc.),
    it would lead to great confusion. The counter principles are so
    established, both in the theory and practice of all European
    constitutions, that anything contrary to religious equality and
    freedom of opinion can scarcely again obtain a footing. Were
    it laid upon Catholics, as a duty of conscience, to repudiate
    those principles, undeniably collision between their civil
    and ecclesiastical obligations would result, and in certain
    circumstances consequences would ensue, burdensome and hurtful
    both to the individual members of a national Church and to the
    collective body.[135]

The statesmen had asked the divines what was meant by speaking _ex
cathedrâ_. The Faculty replied that among those who asserted the
doctrine of Papal infallibility, there were some twenty theories on
the subject, none of them authoritative or generally received, and
all arbitrary; "because here it is impossible to frame a theory from
Scripture and tradition."[136]

The Faculty of Law said--

    Should the propositions of the Syllabus and the Papal infallibility
    be made dogmas, the relations between State and Church hitherto
    subsisting would be altered in their very principles, and nearly
    all the legislation fixing the legal position of the Catholic
    Church in Bavaria would be called in question.[137]

The chief of the Theological Faculty was Dr. Döllinger, whose aged but
erect head was to every scholar in the University a crown of glory. The
professors were proud of him, and of their attainments made under his
eye. In common with the scholars of other Catholic seats of learning in
Germany, they habitually manifested contempt for the _Doctores Romani_,
the imported pupils of the Jesuits from the _Collegium Germanicum_ or
other seminaries in Rome--a feeling which they extended to the great
bulk of the men of the Curia.

Döllinger had been a firm Tridentine Romanist, devoutly bearing the
burden of the new dogmas which the Council of Trent bound up and laid
upon men's shoulders. But being profoundly versed in antiquity, he was
not disposed for more accretions of the same sort, and he had long been
detested by the Jesuits, as standing in the old paths and resisting
their innovations. Superstitions newly carried over the Alps did not
thrive under his eye. As a historian he had not feared to narrate and
censure the enormities of Popes.

While these agitations were arising in the provinces, the secret
preparations in Rome were being pushed forward. The fact became known
that the six Commissions were at work. The names of those serving upon
them no sooner transpired than a cry arose that only favourites of the
Jesuits were appointed. So few names from Germany appeared that offence
was given, even in a national point of view. This feeling increased
when it appeared that celebrities of whom the Catholic faculties were
proud had been passed over, and that inferior men, known only for
devotion to the Curia, had been selected. These feelings were partly
theological, partly personal, and yet more strongly patriotic. The
Germans knew that a double peril for the Fatherland lurked in the
anti-unionist policy of Rome--peril of disruption from within, and of
invasion from France.

Dissatisfaction must have run tolerably high when Cardinal Prince
Schwarzenberg wrote to Cardinal Antonelli, formally remonstrating as
to the selection made. The fact, he submitted, that all those selected
belonged to one well-defined theological school, was in itself open to
objection. As to the reputation of the favourites, he said, "I have had
fears lest their qualifications should not prove equal to their weighty
responsibilities." He names Munich, Bonn, and Tübingen, as Universities
where fit men were to be found as well as at Würzburg, and goes so far
as to mention names, among them that of Döllinger.

This letter was politely answered by Antonelli, after a couple of
months. He said that Döllinger would have been invited only that his
Holiness had learned that he would not accept the duty.[138]

One of the theologians at whom the innuendo of Cardinal Schwarzenberg
was aimed was Hergenröther. Yet Archbishop Manning wrote to
_Macmillan's Magazine_, and, after speaking of the men of Munich as
if they were of little more account in the esteem of students than in
that of ecclesiastical courtiers, told us that if we wanted to learn
anything of the true relation of Catholics to national law, we must not
go to them, but must study Hergenröther.[139]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 130: Menzel, _Weltbegebenheiten_, Band i. p. 123.]

[Footnote 131: Menzel, _Jesuitenumtriebe_, p. 21.]

[Footnote 132: Quoted by Montalembert, _Bibliothèque Universelle_ 1876,
p. 194.]

[Footnote 133: Ibid. p. 195.]

[Footnote 134: _Bibliothèque Universelle de Lausanne_, 1876, p. 27.]

[Footnote 135: Friedberg, _Aktenstücke_, p. 300.]

[Footnote 136: Ibid. p. 302.]

[Footnote 137: Ibid. pp. 313-23. Archbishop Manning places the time
when these questions were put "about the month of September 1869,"
being "about" half a year too late, as he places the publication of
_Janus_ about a year too early.--_Vatican Decrees_, p. 114.]

[Footnote 138: Both letters are given in _Documenta ad Illustrandum
Concilium Vaticanum_, I. Abtheil, pp. 277-80.]

[Footnote 139: No. 183, p. 259.]




CHAPTER VII

Intention of proposing the Dogma of Infallibility intimated--Bavarian
Note to the Cabinets, February to April, 1869--Arnim and Bismarck.


It was in February, 1869, that the fears and hopes which had long
been more or less distinctly directed to a given point, were both
quickened by fresh light. The _Civiltá Cattolica_, in the letter of
its French correspondent, published suggestions that the Council
should sit for but a short time, that it should proclaim the doctrines
of the Syllabus, and that the infallibility of the Pope should be
adopted by acclamation. It was at once alleged that the finger of Pius
himself gave this sign. The suggestions thus made explain what the
Cardinals consulted in the first instance meant when they hoped that
the Council would not last so long as some might think. They had in
1854 induced the bishops to acclaim a new dogma, and in 1867 to accept
the Syllabus without demur, and surely they could get any portions
of that document which it was necessary, for greater clearness,
to formulate into decrees, passed in the same delightful way; and
this would be still more desirable for the dogma of infallibility.
Archbishop Manning treated the idea of an intended acclamation as a
pleasantry; but he charged the ventilation of it on a wrong time and
on a wrong publication. "_Janus_ first announced the discovery of the
plot."[140] It may have been _Janus_ who first clearly indicated a
certain English prelate as the man chosen by the party of acclamation
to give the signal. But he was long behind the first to announce the
plot. The laity generally were offended and alarmed, at least those
north of the Alps, and many bishops who were ready to vote for the
Curia did not feel flattered at having the whole world informed that
they were not wanted in Rome as judges of the faith, but as adornments
of a grand pageant. The translation or assumption of the body of the
Virgin was also suggested in the same article, as a doctrine which it
was desirable to make into a dogma.

As time wore on, the excitement became more intense. In France, the
action of the government, as in most things under the Second Empire,
was ambiguous. It seemed to dread the impending innovations, and
every now and then what appeared to the world as a menace was half
uttered. Yet it was plain that the Curia was not disturbed. Nothing
can be more tranquil than the letters in the _Civiltá_ from its French
correspondent. There is an apparent sense of solid support, such as
no gusts of the popular winds will seriously shake. M. de Banneville,
the acceptable representative of France in Rome, continued in his
post. When the question of the presence of princes in the Council was
to be faced, Cardinal Antonelli had the comfort of treating it with
this trusty friend. It was comparatively easy to convey to him the
intimation which, in a few words, represented, as M. Veuillot had
showed, a radical revolution in Church and State. _There were no more
Catholic States._ The term "Catholic arms" continued to be applied,
by official writers, to those of France and the other countries which
had reconquered the lost States of the Pope. But arms are perhaps,
like gold and silver to the Brahmans, substances which never contract
pollution. The monarchs were outside the door. Even France, whose flag
at Civitá Vecchia was the only protection of the temporal power, was
told that she was no longer a Catholic State--she, the eldest daughter
of the Church; she whom the Pope, in parting with General Failly, had
for love of her chassepots--the "prodigious chassepots," as they were
called--blessed as the "most Christian nation!" The Curia knew that
the hold of the Pope on the priests and schools was stronger than that
of the Bonapartes on army and nation; and they were rearing up their
champions, while the Empire was wearing out its own.

The same number of the _Civiltá_ which records the death of Antonelli
states the case in the following terms. The Pontiff could not invite
powers "of which one, like Italy, was in open hostility to the Church;
of which another had, like Austria, of her own motion, torn up the
Concordat; and another had, like France, a turncoat and a perfidious
traitor to the Holy See upon the throne."

The Ultramontane priests enjoyed this disfranchisement of kings; but
they were not yet all prepared to find that the Order of Priests was
also to be disfranchised. Not a man of them was to be allowed to plead
in presence of the Council. The Cardinals, in their close and still
Commissions, were preparing to put, not only laymen, but priests and
bishops too, more on the footing of a marching army than ever before.

On April 9, 1869, Prince Hohenlohe addressed a circular to the
European Cabinets in the name of Bavaria. It was not to be believed,
he said, that the Council would confine itself to purely theological
questions, of which, in fact, none were pressing for solution. The
only dogmatic point that Rome wished the Council to decide was that of
Papal infallibility, for which the Jesuits in Germany and elsewhere
were agitating. "This question," added the Prince, "reaches far beyond
the domain of religion, and is in its nature highly political; for the
power of the Pope in temporal things over all princes and nations, even
such as are in separation from Rome, would be defined, and elevated
into an article of faith."

The smooth reply of the German Jesuit organ was that something of the
kind had been said before in the _Augsburg Gazette_. But the circle
of Church authority would remain the same, whether the organ of that
authority should be the Pope singly, or the Pope in conjunction with
the bishops; just as the powers of a national government would be the
same in extent, whether in the hands of a monarch or of a republican
executive.

This is characteristic. The discussion was not about any proposal to
enlarge or contract the theoretic circle of Church power, but about
a proposal to declare that the Pope alone, without the bishops, was
the depositary of that power. If the theory of Rome was correct, no
extension of the circle of power was possible, but the depositary of
power was now to be changed.

If, among ourselves, it was proposed to give the power of life and
death to the Crown, without judge or jury, we might be told that the
power of life and death was the same whether exercised by royal warrant
or through the traditionary courts. The circle of power would not be
extended.

The Bavarian note did not elicit a practical response from other
Cabinets. The reply of Austria was, perhaps, influenced by the fact
that Count Beust, then Prime Minister, was a Protestant. His despatch
bears marks either of non-appreciation of the import of terms and
acts, proceeding from the Vatican, such as would be natural in one
not trained to watch them, or of a desire to evade the gravity of the
question. He thought it best to wait and to be on his guard.[141] On
behalf of Prussia, Bismarck also took up an attitude of observation,
but with more insight into the reasons for the suggestion of Prince
Hohenlohe. The Italian Government had expressed itself in favour of
common action, but practically let things take their course. England
naturally declined to interfere. As to France, she thought herself
protected by the Concordat against all eventualities--another proof
that her statesmen handled affairs without mastering ideas. Perhaps not
one of them had read what Rome had lately been teaching as the true
doctrine of Concordats.

The _Unitá Cattolica_ (June 23), however, put this tranquil attitude of
France in a different light--

    Hohenlohe is sold to Prussia, and torments the Catholics of Bavaria
    to push them to throw themselves into the arms of Prussia, where
    Catholicism enjoys the utmost liberty, thanks to the fox-like
    policy of Bismarck. This is known in Paris, and hence Napoleon
    is said to have looked darkly on the perfidious proposals of the
    Bavarian Minister.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 140: _Priv. Pet._, Part III. p. 37.]

[Footnote 141: _Friedberg_, pp. 325-28.]




CHAPTER VIII

Indulgences--Excitement--The Two Brothers Dufournel--Senestrey's
Speech--Hopes of the Ruin of Germany--What the Council will
do--Absurdity of Constitutional Kings--The True Saviour of Society--Lay
Address from Coblenz--Montalembert adheres to it--Religious Liberty
does not answer--Importance of keeping Catholic Children apart from the
Nation--War on Liberal Catholics--Flags of all Nations doing Homage to
that of the Pope.


On April 11, 1869, was issued another of those Bulls proclaiming
indulgences on which the world has almost ceased to look as one of
the forces of history. Nevertheless each of them is a monument to an
authority obeyed by disciplined millions, as holding executive power
both in this world and the other. Once more were long Latin sentences
filled out to tell the faithful that he who had power to bind and
to loose proclaimed to them, on the occasion of the Council, full
remission of their sins, and indulgence, on condition of their visiting
certain basilicas, and saying certain prayers.[142] "This pardon," says
the Archbishop of Florence, "was to extend not only till the opening of
the Council, but through the whole of its continuance."[143] Millions
were thus put under the necessity of imbibing the conviction, that sin
against our neighbour and our God admits of being cancelled in such a
way, or else of seeming to believe what they did not believe, or of
bowing and not asking themselves whether they believed it or not.

About this time was inaugurated, with great display of dignitaries,
military and spiritual, a monument to two brothers Dufournel, who
lie in S. Lorenzo. The monument bears all the emblems of martyrdom
which the art of the catacombs can supply. Instead of the usual
request to pray for the repose of the soul, into which Romanism
fell from Christianity, stands the word of the early Christians,
"They rest"--here applied because martyrdom had merited what grace
was no longer believed to give. Emmanuel Dufournel, on meeting the
Garibaldians, shouted to his men, "Here, lads, is the spot to die; in
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, forward!" When
expiring, he said, "I am pleased to see my blood flow from fourteen
wounds for the glory of Holy Church." The people of Valentano, where
he died, said to his men, "Let us kiss the bier; we do not come to
pray for his soul, but to commend ourselves to him" (VII. vi. 547).
"Such"--adds the reverend writer--"such is the Christian instinct which
distinguishes between combatants in any other cause, however just, and
the heroes of the Christian religion." To develop instincts of this
sort, it is impossible to conceive writing more skilfully adapted. And
these are the men who, at every breath, call the Italians Mussulmans!

The other brother, Diodato Dufournel--young, handsome, polished,
rich--soon after the death of Alfred, met Father Gerlache at daylight
entering St. Peter's: "I go to say a mass for our dead on the Apostle's
tomb." "I go too," replied the Captain, and they entered the crypt.
The priest asked the zouave what had caused his strange absorption in
prayer. "Father, I was praying to the Virgin for the favour of dying
for Holy Church." Ten days afterwards he fell mortally wounded during
the Garibaldian disturbance in Rome. When the white-headed father
arrived, it was too late to see either son alive, but he was instantly
received by the Pope. The sovereign tried to fasten on his breast the
order of the Piano, but was blinded by his tears. Maria, the sister
of Diodato and Emmanuel, came between the two weeping old men, and,
guiding the hand of the Pope, fastened the decoration on the breast
of her father. The writer concludes by representing the ladies of
the house hereafter as pointing out to their little ones the glove,
the sword, the fatal ball, and other relics, the victor palm and the
exulting angels, and saying, "Their souls are in paradise, lovely and
resplendent, and are interceding for us. Children, kneel down and
pray to God that none of our family may degenerate from the example of
Diodato and Emmanuel Dufournel!"

Bishop Senestrey, of Regensburg, known as a pupil of the Jesuits and
an ardent Ultramontane, made a speech at Schwandorf, which has not yet
been forgotten in Bavaria, and was soon heard of in other parts of
Germany. He said--

    We Ultramontanes cannot yield. The antagonism can have no issue
    but in war and revolution. A peaceable settlement is not possible.
    Who makes your temporal laws? We observe them only because a force
    stands behind which compels us. True laws come from God only.
    Princes themselves reign by the grace of God, and when they have
    no longer a mind to do so, I shall be the first to overturn the
    throne.[144]

To the Germans, who were just rising to a consciousness of their unity,
the threats of breaking them up again were cruel, especially when
coming from within. "The foreigner," said Sepp, "has always counted on
the internal splits in the German oak, to drive in his wedge, and rend
us to pieces."

The scorn with which talk of recognizing Italy was treated at this
proud moment, may be judged from the words of the _Unitá_ for January
27, in an article headed, _Dying with Italy or Living with the Pope_.
The Marquis de Moustier, it remarks, having promised to study a _modus
vivendi_, proposed by Menabrea, was seized by mortal illness. In a
similar way Morny, Wallewsky, Petri, and Billault were struck with
death, by urgent study of means for making revolution live side by side
with the Pope.

Parliamentary government, hateful everywhere, was viewed as monstrous
in Italy. The _Civiltá_ cannot "accurately study" the proceedings in
Florence, because of "the ineffable weariness, the disgust, the disdain
with which the mind is seized, on reading those speeches, often vulgar,
and running over with sophism and effrontery."[145] It proceeds to
say that the famous boons of 1789, _liberty of worship_, _liberty of
meeting_, _liberty of the Press_, and _liberty of instruction_, led in
practice "to the triumph of irreligion, to the tyranny of the State,
to unbridled licence in handling through the Press the most sacred and
inviolable rights, and to the barbarizing of the young by more infamous
ignorance." Yet, at the same time, it records with satisfaction efforts
of its own friends to obtain liberty of instruction, after their ideal;
that is, the State giving up to the priest the control of what is
taught to its subjects with its own money.

The _Civiltá_ gloried in the disappearance of the Liberal Catholic
priests, utterly extinguished, as it held, by the Syllabus and by the
prospect of the Council. There might still linger some slight remnant
of Liberal Catholics among the laity. But Catholics in Italy were now
to be noted for their hope, their joy, and their perfect withdrawal
from political life. They were no more to be found seeking situations
from the government, but were all ardently drawing close to Pius IX.
Since he uttered the "prophetic word," Let us wait upon events, above
all since the Council was summoned, they had betaken themselves to
pious works and to waiting on the hand of the Almighty.[146]

In the same publications which struggled against unity of nations, the
loss of another unity was bitterly deplored. "Catholic unity" in Spain,
hitherto existing by law, alas! exclaims the _Stimmen_, exists in
fact no longer. By religious unity is meant the state of things which
forbids men to worship God except under direction of the Pope. Massimo
D'Azeglio exclaimed as to Italy, Religious unity is the only unity we
have left. We should say, No wonder!

The attempt to place the unity of Christians not in faith in Christ
and manifestation of His spirit, but in subjection to one human being,
has had just the same results as had the attempt to place the unity of
mankind in obedience to one sovereign, treating all who did not yield
as enemies. Human unity is larger and nobler than one throne will ever
shadow, and so is Christian unity. The lust of uniformity that erected
the Inquisition, fettered the Press, sentenced free opinion and free
speech to death, reformed the Decalogue, and laid bonds upon the Bible,
has never given a nation rest, and has only been an endless source of
division and scepticism. Azeglio, in the same breath in which he speaks
of this "unity," calls Italy "the ancient land of doubt," where even at
the time of the Reformation people thought little of Rome and nothing
of Geneva. And the _Stimmen_ says that those Spaniards who had broken
down "religious unity" were "not Protestants but sceptics."[147] So
that in both Italy and Spain the result of that uniformity which is no
unity, was scepticism in religion and decay in politics.

To the race the bond of unity lies in a common Father, and to the
Church in a common Lord. In the one case and in the other the
maintenance of unity consists not in putting down variations, but in
treating them with brotherly regard.

Very great political significance was lent by all the Papal Press to
festivities in honour of the Pope's fiftieth year of priesthood. The
demonstrations of devotion to him at this moment were fervent and
grand, and the supplies of money laid at his feet were immense. Great
care was taken by the _Civiltá_ to ridicule the idea of the _Opinione_
that these manifestations had nothing to do with politics. On the
contrary, cried the leaders of the "good Press," humanity, bewildered
and almost in despair, was hastening to the feet of the only deliverer.
All society needed a saviour, as every rational creature knew. "The
Pontiff is now almost alone in the world, the representative of truth,
justice, and good sense." And hence, the poor world, swimming in error,
fraud and absurdity--"the world sees in Pius IX a true master, a true
judge, a true sovereign, and it cleaves to him as the bulwark of
society." The Syllabus suffices to prove that the Pope alone declares
the truth: "the Syllabus which burst like a thunderbolt out of a serene
sky, both illuminated and blasted." The nations seem to be saying,
To whom _should we go_, but to the Supreme Pastor of the Christian
flock?--_thou hast the words of eternal life_. Pius IX, by rejecting
the counsels of the prudent, "now has become morally the strongest
support of order in the world, so that those who have fallen, and
those who wish not to follow them, lean upon him." And not only so, but
the

    new queen of the world, Public Opinion, is now altogether in favour
    of the Roman Pontiff, and protects and saves him, almost of herself
    alone, against every violence and every intrigue, so that it now
    may almost be said that all those in the world who are not with
    Pius IX from love are with him by force (VII. vi. pp. 310-11).

The writer then goes on to argue that the people can never understand
how one and the same person can have two consciences, one as a
constitutional king and the other as a man. This, however, is a
necessary condition of a constitutional king, but it is not the case in
the Pontifical States, where nobody would ever suppose such a condition
of things possible.

    The Pope has only one conscience, and neither majority nor
    universality of votes and suffrages would ever lead him to sanction
    that which is contrary to morality, to justice, to equity, and to
    the well understood interests of his subjects and of the flock. The
    Pope can say with truth, "Although all, not I"; and on this account
    the eyes and the hearts of all in the world who hate fictions and
    impostures, and who love truth and rectitude, are turned to the
    Pope thus reigning and governing (p. 312).

We make no attempt to inquire how many consciences a Pope may have.
The _Civiltá_ contends that he cannot have more than one. We have
heard Romans contend that one is above the number. Liverani (p. 140),
alluding with much personal respect to Father Mignardi, the Jesuit
confessor of Cardinal Antonelli, who, though not Pope, had much to do
with the perfect model of government above commended, evidently thinks
that a director of Antonelli's conscience held a sinecure. He asserts
that no one knew that his Eminence had a conscience till April 2, 1860,
when he declared the fact in a despatch to Count Cavour! And this is
the language of a prelate!

The more distant prelates were already bidding their flocks farewell.
The Bishop of Montreal, in doing so, cited the example of the valorous
Canadian youths, who had enrolled themselves among the zouaves to
defend the Pope at the cost of their blood, exhorting his clergy with
similar courage to contend against the errors pointed out by the
Pope.[148] From Jerusalem five priests wrote to announce that they
would commence a concert of prayer, on the <DW72>s of Calvary: 1. For
the happy result of the Council; 2. For the union of the Oriental
schismatics; 3. For the conversion of erring priests. At the same time
that it announces this fact, the _Civiltá_, quoting from the _Tablet_,
says that in Russia, "under the appearance of _external unity_, there
is great division of religious sects"; and that there is some desire
for union with Rome.[149]

In June 1869 the Catholics of Coblentz presented an address to the
Bishop of Trêves, protesting against the innovations proposed by the
_Civiltá Cattolica_, and suggesting reforms in a spirit contrary to
that of the Syllabus. Great interest was excited by the warm adhesion
of Count Montalembert to the address. His services, both to the
spiritual and temporal power, had been conspicuous. He was now in the
grip of a mortal disease. France will always respect his piety and his
genius, but she will increasingly have cause to deplore the direction
of his influence, as the slow but sure results of priestly power in
education develop themselves.

"Twice within the last few weeks," he writes, "have I touched the brink
of the grave." So he feels that he may speak of this world as one whose
personal interest in it is as nought.

Speaking of the address, he says: "I cannot express how much I have
been moved and charmed by that glorious manifesto, flowing from the
reason and conscience of Catholics.... At last I seemed to hear a manly
and a Christian tone, amid the declamations and adulations wherewith
we are deafened." He would have signed "every line" of it, but he felt
somewhat humbled that it did not proceed from French Catholics, with
whose antecedents it would have harmonized, as well as with those
convictions which made them, in the early part of this century, the
champions of religious liberty on the Continent.[150]

It was hard for the Jesuits to own that Montalembert stood in their
path, to be pitilessly struck down. For the present they tried to
reason. Like him, many, especially in Belgium, had imbibed the
conviction that civil and religious liberty were good in themselves,
and might be made to work favourably for the Church, which they thought
incurred great danger by setting herself in opposition to both, and
by using her spiritual engines for the overthrow of constitutional
government. Such men argued that the perfect liberty existing in
England, the United States, and Belgium had many advantages for the
Church.

To reasoning of this sort the _Stimmen aus Maria Laach_ replied by
first of all uttering encomiums on religious liberty, and also on
those excellent Catholics who favoured it, thinking it might prove
best for the Church. But though this view of the case had its noble
aspects, there was another side to it. Experience proved that under
such a system the losses of the Church were deplorable. Not to speak
of Europe, the case of the United States would suffice. As much as
thirty years ago, Bishop England, of Charleston, had said that whereas
the Catholics ought to have six millions of the population, they
really had less than two. And this terrible loss was aggravated at the
present day, for considering the enormous immigration of Catholics
and the addition of Mexican territory in the meantime, they ought now
to number fifteen millions; but in fact they did not dare to claim
more than six. A good authority had showed that the Church lost more
souls in the State of Wisconsin in a single year, than she gained in
the whole Union. The loss among the children of the Irish was greater
than among those of the Germans. This the writer attributes to "the
pestiferous air" of non-denominational schools, and complains that the
system prevailing in America deprives children of a well-ordered and
continuous Catholic education, such as would protect them, among other
dangers, from the necessity of learning English.[151]

This anxiety to keep up the German tongue in America illustrates the
cry raised in the German Press against that tongue being put out of
the schools, both in Posen and in the Tyrol. "Liberty of instruction"
had been so used that whole districts, once speaking German, had been
educated into the use of Polish in the one case, and of Italian in the
other. In both these countries the same reason which in America made it
desirable for Rome to keep up German, turned the other way. In America,
the German tongue would enclose a people, in the heart of the country,
walled off and apart from the nation. In the other cases, that tongue
would be a channel connecting the people with the ebb and flow of the
national mind. Even a comparatively small population, kept well in
hand, inaccessible to the common thought, and ready to obey every touch
of the leaders, may be made a formidable political power. Had Wales
been in the hand of Rome![152]

Among the causes of chagrin to Montalembert would be a recent article
in the _Civiltá_, directed against the Liberal Catholics by name,
and plainly meant to thwart any influence with which they might have
hoped to approach the Council. A pamphlet being taken as a text, the
positions of the Liberal Catholics are stated, as--1. That modern
nations deserve more liberty than ancient ones; 2. That liberty of
worship should be conceded, as now inevitable; 3. That "the distinction
between Church and State" is not now to be got rid of, and has its
advantages; 4. That Catholics ought to avail themselves of all
liberties. On the first point it is replied that modern society has
made only material progress, but gone back in faith and morals, and
therefore deserves not more liberty than ancient society, but less.
On the second point, resenting an allusion of the Liberal Catholic
to the fact that Pius IX had himself granted a constitution at the
opening of his reign, the _Civiltá_ alleges, first, that it was
conceded _in circumstances of imperious necessity_; and, secondly,
that it was free from the essential faults which would deservedly
brand it as Liberal--"it lacked the criminal principles of liberty of
worship, of the Press, and of meeting." Moreover, it issued in the
exile of the Prince, "which seems to be the inevitable result of modern
constitutions." So the Pontiff was obliged to revoke it, and to condemn
it to oblivion.

The Liberal Catholic writer had quoted passages, even from Jesuits,
to prove that it was lawful for princes, in given circumstances, to
tolerate liberty of worship. Certainly, replies the _Civiltá_, it is
lawful to tolerate it, if imperious circumstances render it necessary
in order to avoid a greater evil. But that is one thing, and admitting
liberty of worship as a principle is another. "What meaning have
the words of the present Pontiff when he declares that liberty of
conscience and of worship is madness, and the pest of the nations?"
What did he mean when he condemned President Comonfort for admitting
religious liberty into Mexico? Did Gregory XVI and Pius IX talk to the
middle ages? Did they tell the present generation what was suitable or
not suitable for the middle ages? Catholics may not be able to change
the state of things where liberty of worship already exists, but it
is in their power to prevent its entrance where it does not, and to
demonstrate its criminality, and its moral and social balefulness. As
to Catholics availing themselves of all liberties, that idea is no
patent of _Liberal_ Catholics. Of course Catholics avail themselves
of all liberties of which they can make use. But to take part in the
elections of a kingdom like that of Italy, formed by iniquity, and
binding up in itself a perpetual sacrilege, is impossible. The words of
the Bull which hurled an excommunication against king and people, are
paraded, and the unfortunate Liberal Catholic is reminded that those
words apply to _adherents_ of the spoliation.[153]

A London correspondent of the _Civiltá_ told how the journals had at
first affected to ignore the Council, but now began to speak of it.
The Anglo-Catholic party were discussing projects of union, and he
gives an account of a meeting for that purpose, not naming time or
place, but making the Rev. Edward Urquhart prominent. It is said, he
adds, that one bishop will go to the Council; and the Ritualists think
that many of their party will do so. There is much cause for hope.
Some persons of high station have publicly said that they would submit
to the Council, and many say so privately. They do not feel safe in
Anglicanism.

The prelate who replaced the Bishop of Montreal in his absence,
delivered an address, from which the _Civiltá_ repeats these words,
that Pius IX had a mission, and his mission was to recall, to confirm,
and to defend in the world, the law of the "Most High," the essential
principle of authority, and thus to "save at once both the Church and
Society."[154] But as a while ago we heard of toasts in which the Pope,
as universal king, was put before the national king, so now on British
ground is held up to admiration the trophy of banners in the Church
of St. Sulpice as the fairest tribute of "New France," as Canada is
called. The flags of all the societies in Montreal, and also those of
all nations, were gathered together "_in homage to the standard of Pius
IX, to express the obedience of the Catholic nations to the supreme
authority_."[155]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 142: _Acta_, p. 18. Freiburg edition, p. 62.]

[Footnote 143: _Cecconi_, p. 144.]

[Footnote 144: Menzel, _Jesuitenumtriebe_, p. 173.]

[Footnote 145: Serie VII. vol. vi. p. 234-5.]

[Footnote 146: Serie VII. vol. vi. pp. 226-27.]

[Footnote 147: _Neue Folge_, Heft iii. p. 75.]

[Footnote 148: _Civiltá_, Serie VII. vol. vi. p. 229.]

[Footnote 149: Ibid. p. 229.]

[Footnote 150: _Friedberg_, p. 88.]

[Footnote 151: _Stimmen_, _Neue Folge_, Heft iv. pp. 59, 60.]

[Footnote 152: Curious examples of this use of education are given by
Menzel, _Jesuitenumtriebe_.]

[Footnote 153: Serie VII. vol. vi. pp. 445 ff.]

[Footnote 154: Vol. vi. p. 488.]

[Footnote 155: Ibid. p. 488.]




CHAPTER IX

Publication of Janus--Hotter Controversy--Bishop Maret's Book--Père
Hyacinthe--the Saviour of Society again--Dress--True Doctrine of
Concordats not Contracts but Papal Laws--Every Catholic State has
Two Heads--Four National Governments Condemned in One Day--What a
Free Church means--Fulda Manifesto--Meeting of Catholic Notables in
Berlin--Political Agitation in Bavaria and Austria--Stumpf's Critique
of the Jesuit Schemes.


Little more than three months remained before the opening of the
Council, when the intellectual movement respecting it received a new
impulse. A book under the title of _The Pope and the Council_, by
Janus, issued from the German press; and conjecture at once ascribed
the principle authorship to no less a person than Döllinger, although
it was assumed that he had availed himself of aid. The profound
impression made by this work may be accounted for, partly by the
excitement in the midst of which it appeared, and partly by its own
force. It combined a minute knowledge of the inner history of the
Church, with comprehensive views of the questions, both doctrinal and
constitutional, which were now raised.

After a few clear passages from modern utterances of authority. Janus
strikes the keynote rather higher than he is prepared to sustain
it--"So they find themselves under a delusion, who believed that in the
Church, the spirit of the Bible, and of old Christianity, had got the
upper hand of that spirit of the middle ages according to which she was
a penal establishment, able to send men to prison, to the gallows, or
to the stake."

Beginning with the _Magna Charta_ which Innocent III condemned, while
he excommunicated the Barons, Janus cites case after case in which
the establishment of free institutions, and especially of freedom of
worship, brought down the solemn condemnation of the Pope. The case
of Austria in 1868 is the latest. With the quietness of scientific
knowledge, he states what at the time would have required from an
English writer arguments and proofs in detail, namely, the simple but
most important fact that the oft-quoted word of the Apostle, "We must
obey God rather than men," means, in the Jesuit sense, We must obey
the Pope as the representative of God upon earth, and the infallible
interpreter of the Divine will, rather than any civil superior, or any
law of the State (p. 33).

The tone of Janus is calm and scholarly, without being cold; and
the acuteness of his analysis is such as is found only where clear
intellectual insight is united to trained habits of weighing language
with reference to possible interpretations by such casuists as are
formed by the Curia and the Jesuits.

He clearly proved that the Church was on the eve of one of the greatest
constitutional changes ever effected in any commonwealth. If, in the
past, the forged Decretals of the pseudo-Isidore had facilitated
inroads upon the constitution of the Church, how much more would an
authentic article of the creed, containing in itself the power of
making any number of other articles, and assuming as its basis the
unlimited authority of the Pope, pave the way to far-reaching civil and
ecclesiastical encroachments! When Archbishop Manning said of Janus
that by some it was "regarded as the shallowest and most pretentious
book of the day" (_Priv. Pet._, iii. p. 114), he greatly moderated
the tone of his Continental friends. Most bad things that could be
said against a book, or its writers, were said in very bad language.
The Archbishop himself could not let it pass without twice calling it
"infamous," and that in a pastoral.

The excitement in Germany now reached a point at which the bishops
began to be alarmed. The "good Press" undertook to extenuate the
importance of the changes dreaded, and threw doubts on the probability
of their being adopted. The perplexity became greater when, in France,
appeared a book in two volumes from the pen of Monsignor Maret, said
by some to be the most learned prelate in the country, and who, at
all events, was Dean of the Theological Faculty of the Sorbonne. He
combated the proposed innovations with French tact and skill, raising
a voice, if not for the old Gallican doctrines as a whole, at least
for some remains both of them and of the liberties with which are
identified the names of the most renowned Churchmen in France since
the Reformation.[156] The book made a profound but passing impression.
It was called _Religious Peace and the General Council_; but the
Jesuit historian Sambin (p. 47) styles it a brand increasing the
conflagration. The question raised was that between a constitutional
but oligarchical government and a personal one for the Church. Maret
holds that in her constitution a check upon the monarch was provided
by the "aristocracy," that is, the bishops (vol. ii, p. 107). The
democracy is formed by the priests and the laity. But we may point
out that this is very loose language. _Democracy_ means a people with
power, not a populace excluded from all functions of government. The
people in the Papal Church are absolutely stripped of all part in
government. They are a mere populace. The clergy are disfranchised
officials. That Church is a society with a populace, but without
a democracy. Before the Vatican Council, it had a constitutional
aristocracy. Since then, the bishops are nobles without any but
delegated power. Maret clearly states the familiar fact, that in the
earlier centuries both clergy and laity took part in the election of
bishops. But when he comes to speak of the part taken by kings in their
election, the facts glide out of sight, as noiselessly as writers of
his school generally say that they are wont to do in the hands of a
Jesuit. A reader might imagine that kings first got the idea of a right
in the election of bishops by some grant of the Church; whereas even
the Bishops of Rome were for a long time elected on imperial or royal
order, coming from Greek or Goth, from Arian or orthodox prince, as the
case might be.

Maret quotes Cardinal de la Luzerne as saying that a General
Council, in which the order of priests was not represented, would be
illegitimate though not invalid (vol. i. p. 125); and gives it as the
general opinion of theologians that their presence was _necessary_. He
also admits that the presence of laymen in the Councils is attested by
a large number of documents.

Von Schulte reviewed this work in the _Literaturblat_ of Bonn (v.
pp. 2 and 54). Looking at it in a popular sense, Schulte thought it
was a book to mark an epoch. It was likely to produce a great effect
among the clergy, little among the laity. Time has not justified this
anticipation. The fact is, all the younger clergy had been educated
out of French ideas and sympathies, and such of the young laity too as
had been brought up by priests. Men were but beginning to find how the
Christian Brothers, and convent schools, and episcopal seminaries had
changed France.

The _Civiltá_, in reply, objects even to Maret's formula, _the Pope
with the bishops superior to himself alone_. Such an objection implies
that in Council all the bishops add to the Pope nothing at all. So
many mitres without any heads in them would add at least as much. We
believe, indeed, that great thinkers have doubted whether a judge with
his wig is not superior to the same judge without his wig. But the Pope
with all the bishops is not superior to the Pope without any bishop!
The Jesuit writer says that he thinks he expresses the mind of Maret
with exactness when he puts it thus, _The supreme power resides in the
Pope together with the bishops; in the Pope as supreme, whose strict
duty it is nevertheless, to obey; in the bishops as subordinate, who,
nevertheless, have the right to command_ (_Civiltá_, VII. viii. p. 257
ff.).

The choicest auditories of Paris had often crowded noble Notre Dame,
quaffing with delight the sparkling eloquence of the Carmelite preacher
Hyacinthe. Now the ear of the country was thrilled for a moment, by
a cry from that eloquent voice. "By an abrupt change," he wrote to
the General of his order on September 20, 1869, "for which I blame
not your own feelings, but a party in Rome, you now accuse what you
did encourage, and blame what you did approve, commanding me to hold
a language, or to preserve a silence, which would not represent my
conscience."

Placed in this difficulty, he must forsake General, order, and convent.
He continues: "My profound conviction is, that if France in particular,
and the Latin races in general, are delivered over to social,
moral, and religious anarchy, the principal cause is, not assuredly
Catholicism itself, but the manner in which it has been understood and
practised for a long time."[157]

St. Peter's Day, always a great day in Rome, was, of course, of
surpassing importance in the year of the Council. The _Civiltá_
celebrated it in an article very like one of the Pope's Speeches.
This article yields an example of a dualism in the government of
the universe which must glide in as the unconscious but inevitable
complement of the doctrine into which Papal writers fall, in explaining
away what to others seems the blight of Providence on whatever they
rule according to their own principles. They begin by separating the
God of Providence from the God of grace. They end by turning the
bounties of Providence into the bribes of the evil one. It will be seen
that in what follows national prosperity comes from the devil. The
increase of our fields, the blessing in our basket and our store, are
in reality a curse. This, though unseen to the poor Pope who teaches
such things, presents a true and a very hurtful form of Manicheism. It
is another proof that they who readily forge and hurl bad names are not
safe from the errors which those names when correctly used denote.

In June the Curia had to set up a strong resistance to the movement
originated in Austria for the abrogation of the Concordat. That
instrument, which had formed the diplomatic triumph of Cardinal
Rauscher and had crowned the professional reputation of Schulte,
had legally restored to the Papal Church much of what it calls its
liberties; but the clergy complained that they never practically got
all that was promised upon paper; In the _Frond_ biographies of the
Cardinals, that of Rauscher describes the condition of the Church in
Austria, under the Josephine laws, as deplorable! Instead of leaving
her, like Protestant Prussia, to manage her own affairs, without having
defined either what "manage" or "her own" meant, Austria, knowing
how Rome interprets, had taken a different course. There was left,
according to our authority, no canon law, but only such legislation as
was imbued with Febronianism and Caesarism. Bulls, briefs, rescripts,
and even the pastorals of bishops were subject to the royal _placet_.
Marriage was withdrawn from under the control of the Church. The
State pushed into everything, "and the Catholic Church had none of
the liberties claimed by the tolerance of the age for all religions."
Rauscher had succeeded in getting these grievances redressed, but
now the national spirit was rising against his work. His Concordat
bound Austria to concede to the Church "all rights and privileges to
which by the divine order and by canon law she is entitled." Probably
the Emperor but imperfectly comprehended what that implied. Rauscher
comprehended it. He was as honest a man as any Papal priest is likely
to be. He was the adviser of the Emperor, and his sworn personal
friend. Any one may tell what such friends do for princes who will only
master what Rauscher managed to bind his sovereign to. The minister,
Von Hasner, put the plea for the abrogation of the Concordat on ground
exceedingly offensive to the Pope and those around him. When the
Concordat was contracted, said Hasner, Rome was an independent State.
Now, it has ceased to be so, and is sustained only by foreign arms.
The reply from the Vatican was: So long as the Pope is sustained by
Christian arms, he can never be sustained by those of foreigners.
The reply of the politician would have been that in 1855, when the
Concordat was concluded, the Papal State was as much dependent upon
foreign arms as in 1867, the only difference being that at the former
time the arms holding a great portion of it were those of Austria.

On the anniversary of the Pope's accession, his speech, addressed to
the Sacred College, contained the following passage: "The two societies
of which the world consists," said his Holiness, are, first, the Tower
of Pride, i.e. Babel; secondly, the society whose prototype is seen "in
the upper room, on the day of Pentecost, where Peter, the Apostles,
and thousands of the faithful of different nations, heard one and the
same language and understood it." Those who wish to form a clear idea
of what these two organs of two hostile societies are--the Babel tongue
and the Pentecostal tongue--must just keep their eyes open as we go on.
(_Civiltá_, VII. vii. p. 130.)

The Pope, on June 25, calling governments before "his tribunal," and
sitting in judgment, pronounced censure on the governments of Italy,
Austria, Spain, and Russia. Italy was discussing a law to subject
students even for the priesthood to the conscription. Austria was
miserably wronging and injuring the Church. Spain was doing likewise,
or worse. And Russia was persecuting the Polish bishops and sending
them into exile. The high spirits of the Court at this moment appear
in the comments on these sentences. We give a few specimens from the
_Civiltá_ (VII. vii. p. 135, etc.)--

    From no other lips could those words burst forth, save from those
    of him who is set by God as ruler of His Church, with divine power,
    above all human powers.... Only the Pope can thus menace, reprove,
    and instruct, because he only is set in a region above all human
    greatness between heaven and earth.... When science gloried in
    being Catholic, and authority in being derived from God, both were,
    when they spoke, echoes of the word of the Pope. But science and
    authority have become unchristianized. The Pope has remained what
    he was--the herald, the oracle of the Lord.

The article proceeded to show that the Pope had menaced in the same
breath one republic, Spain; two constitutional monarchies, Italy and
Austria; and one absolute monarchy, Russia. This could not be done
unless the Pope was king. Then follows a specimen of history as it
flourishes under Pius IX. The Roman Emperors used to imprison the
Popes, in order to reign in Rome; and Constantine, _not wishing to
imprison_ the Pope, abandoned Rome. But a king not Pope, and a Pope not
king, never were able to live here together, and never will be able to
do so. (_Civiltá_, VII. vii. p. 131 ff.)

Great attention was awakened by the prominence given by the _Civiltá_
(p. 210) to a publication of Bishop Plantier, of _Nimes_. It was
"splendid and profound." Plantier spoke of the suggestion that the
two doctrines of Papal infallibility and the assumption of the Virgin
should be defined by acclamation. He alleged that such a mode of
definition could be conveniently and infallibly adopted, and asked
if the Council should adopt it, what would be the harm? He ridiculed
the idea that the assistance of the Holy Spirit would be given to a
decision by vote and not to one by acclamation. The appearance of this
in the _Civiltá_, after all that had passed, quickened the fears of the
anti-infallibilists and also of the anti-opportunists lest the Pope
should be determined to carry through the definition by acclamation.

Early in September the bishops of Germany met at Fulda, and issued
a collective pastoral. They solemnly deprecated the rumours spread
abroad as to the intentions of the Council. The bishops went on to
asseverate that the Council would never define any new doctrine which
was not contained in holy writ or in tradition, but would define
only principles which were written "on all your hearts by faith and
conscience" (_Friedberg_, p. 276). The Catholics of Germany took this
solemn language in its apparent meaning; and the persuasion that their
bishops would stand fast, and that the Curia would not ride roughshod
over such a body, tranquillized most men. Only ecclesiastics appear
to have suspected that the assurance might amount to little more than
carefully dovetailed words.

The German bishops, in giving the assurance that nothing but what
the faithful believed would be defined, probably hoped that the fact
of their having to give such an assurance would weigh at Rome, as a
hindrance to the plans in contemplation. If so, they only furnished
one more proof of the truth which we in England have been told by Dr.
Newman, that _no pledge from Catholics is of any value to which Rome is
not a party_.[158]

If the German bishops read as little as Dr. Friedrich says they do,
they perhaps do not read the _Unitá Cattolica_. There is no doubt that
it, at least, speaks language agreeable in the highest quarters. In its
number for the preceding 1st of May, it commented on the same assurance
as having been flung before the French people. "If the Council," says
this real echo, "should only define what all believe, the Council would
be useless, for in points which all believe all are agreed." To say,
it proceeds, that an OEcumenical Council should express what all the
faithful think, is to confound the Teaching Church with the Learning
Church. "The pen falls from our hands, and we have not courage to
contend against such nonsense."

After having put this assurance before their nation, certain of the
bishops felt it necessary to address a private appeal to the Pope,
drawn up by Dinkel, Bishop of Augsburg, representing the great danger
to the Church in Germany which the proposed alterations would involve,
and praying him to abandon "the far-reaching projects which were
ascribed to him."[159] A similar appeal was sent to his Holiness by
the prelates of Hungary, in which country a notable commencement had
been made in restoring the laity to a part in the management of Church
affairs.[160]

In June 1869 a remarkable meeting of Catholic notables was held in
Berlin; with an account of which Sepp opens his book. The chair was
filled by Peter Reichensperger, since noted for his Ultramontane zeal,
and Herr Windhorst, now the Ultramontane leader in the Reichstag, was
present, with even Dr. Jörg, of Bavaria, whose allusion, in the winter
of 1874, to the attempt of Kullman on the life of Bismarck called forth
a remarkable speech from that statesman. These gentlemen, thinking, or
professing to think, that their bishops would defeat what the Curia had
planned, adopted an address expressive of confidence in them, and of
their hope that the threatened collision between the Church and their
governments and nation might be averted.

Sepp himself went to Prague to present the document to Cardinal Prince
Schwarzenberg. The latter read it slowly, thought it over, and said,
"It is far too weak. With Rome you must hold very different language
from that." In further conversation Sepp said to the Cardinal, "You
have in Prague the first canonist in Germany (Schulte), the man who
drafted the Austrian Concordat, and surely he can be employed in
similar work for the Council." The reply was: "You have in Munich the
greatest Catholic theologian in Germany, and the gentlemen in Rome will
not hear of his being invited" (_Sepp_, p. 4).

Large numbers of priests had been returned to the Bavarian Parliament,
all burning with zeal against Prussia, and against union under it. In
1868 the clerical agitation had gone so far that, in November of that
year, President Badhauser, when closing the Landsrath, addressed the
members in unwonted language--

    When the government of the country and its organs, the chamber
    which represents the people, and the new laws, are daily held up to
    suspicion, mockery, and contempt, when the peasantry are excited
    against the townspeople, and when men, throwing off all patriotic
    shame, feed themselves with hopes of foreign intervention,
    threatening our German warriors with the chassepots, then must
    every honourable man condemn such proceedings; for the venom daily
    instilled will, in time, poison the honest country people, as
    occurrences in Upper Bavaria already show.[161]

Secret associations for Ultramontane objects were formed even among
children. Those of the clergy who would have warned the authorities
were still kept still by secret terrorism. The meeting of the Council
and the necessity of overthrowing Prince Hohenlohe were closely
connected with this turmoil. And the Liberals plainly said, "The whole
Catholic world is to be fanaticized, to enable the great Catholic
powers, after crushing Prussia, as they hope to do, to carry out a
grand reaction."[162]

The _Vaterland_ went so far, when Napoleon III took his last
_plébiscite_, as to tell its readers that a French intervention in
Germany would soon follow, that it was eagerly looked for, and that
all would join France to break the hated yoke of Prussia. Morally,
Prussia was already at an end, but it was for France to put an end
to her physically. "Who can tell if we shall have any North German
Confederation, Zollverein, or Prussian monarchy in 1871?"[163] Similar
hopes of great events often pointed to the year of the Council, or the
year after. The _Civiltá_ did not scruple to tell Napoleon III that he
owed the new _plébiscite_ to Mentana. So far from concealing the Pope's
direct action in a question affecting the stability of a throne, his
confidential writers exaggerated his influence.

In Austria a struggle had set in against the supernatural order. Laws
on civil marriage, education, and registry of baptism were passed by
the legislature, and tardily assented to by the Emperor. The Bishop of
Linz issued a manifesto saying that he would not acknowledge the new
illegitimate laws--of course under the plea of obeying God rather than
man. Turning on the Emperor, he said that he had pledged his faith
to the Concordat as a man and as a kaiser. Other prelates, in milder
language, set Papal above Austrian law. Finally, as we have already
seen, on June 22, 1868, the Pope himself laid the new laws under his
condemnation.

A Catholic meeting against the school law was being held in the church
at Schlanders, and while the curate was making a speech Count Manzano,
the local authority, declared the meeting closed. Cries of "Down with
him! kill him!" were raised. He was thrown to the ground, beaten on the
breast, and barely escaped to the barracks of the gensdarmes.

When the Council was closely approaching, great excitement broke out
in Austria against the religious orders. The spark which kindled the
blaze was the discovery of a nun confined in the Carmelite convent of
Cracow. She had been kept in one cell for twenty years, with incredible
privations and in bestial filth. The rage of the public forced the
government to go as far as some show of action. Orders were issued for
the inspection of convents. Sentences of bishops condemning priests to
confinement in ecclesiastical prisons were declared invalid unless the
culprit voluntarily consented. The bishops were also required to give
in lists of the voluntary prisoners.

These measures were resented as an "insult to the episcopate." The
Bishop of Brünn won himself an honourable mention in the _Civiltá_ by
a circular in which he repelled the pretensions of the government,
refused the list required, and told the superiors of monasteries to pay
no heed to the orders. While this second government was set up, beside
that of the country, the voice of Rome cheered it on in taking the
upper hand. The same voice railed against the constitutional ministers,
the parliament, and the laws.

The combative Bishop of Linz, in a great meeting, said that he did not
cast any doubt on the religious feeling of the Emperor, but he was now
nothing more than a constitutional sovereign. Instead, therefore, of
merely saying that they had confidence in the Emperor, they must come
to his aid. This was repeated in Rome, with the explanation that it
had been said that the bishop in this appeal for aid to the Emperor
was only uttering the sentiments of his Majesty as expressed to the
bishop. Thus were bishops commended by the organ of the Papal Court for
breaking the laws of their country, and credited with influencing the
mind of the sovereign in a sense hostile to the constitution.[164]

The Ultramontane party had frequently, during the year (1868) been
encouraged by correspondents in Paris to expect a war of France against
Prussia. On March 10, the _Unitá_ contained a letter expressing fears
that Austria and Italy might agree to remain neutral, but quoting a
passage from the _Volksbote_ in favour of French invasion of Germany.
On April 23 it was said that for a year past the Emperor had allowed no
opportunity of rousing the war spirit to pass. A week later a crusading
significance was given to the approaching anniversary of Joan of Arc.
It was announced that more than twelve archbishops and bishops would
attend--among them Cardinal Bonnechose--and that the Empress would
grace the scene. On May 1 the fact that the appearance in Paris of
Benedetti, the French ambassador at Berlin, was officially said to have
no connection with political prospects, was noted for a smile. On
the 13th the display at the festival of Joan of Arc at Orleans, with
a great array of prelates, was described as "one of the noblest ever
connected with war and religion, well adapted to excite a nation which
aims at uniting the cross with the sword." On June 19 it was said that
the mission of General Fleury to Florence was with reason taken as a
sign of approaching war.

Yet, while the Emperor of the French was looked to as leader against
the foe whom the Church had marked out for the first victim, every sign
of discord in France, every outbreak or disorder was eagerly paraded
as proof of the anarchy to which all countries must come under any
régime but that of the Church. At the same time every crime, riot, or
difficulty in Italy was magnified and dwelt upon with the same moral.
"Let the Chamber invoke the authority of the Council, and proclaim its
canons as the laws of the State," was the demand of the _Unitá_ eight
months before the Council met (March 21). Another saying was, There are
three Italys--the Italy of Pius IX, which prays; the Italy of Mazzini,
which conspires; the Italy of Menabrea, which trembles (March 27).
Menabrea was then Premier. Again--

    The Council is drawing near, and Babylon is trembling, hell is
    blaspheming, and before long the world will hear the infallible
    word of truth and righteousness. Hallelujah!... The revolution
    which for nine years has been bent on marching to Rome is
    disgraced, senseless, divided. The traitors are betrayed, the
    robbers plundered, and the rebels plotted against by rebellion.
    Hallelujah! (March 28).

The _Unitá_ found that the threefold opposition of governments,
rationalists, and heretics showed itself most strongly in May, the
month of Mary, which only means that the Immaculate has set her heel on
the three heads of the Hydra. Here the mention of governments as one
head of the Hydra is no slip of the pen, that is, governments which
dwelt in Babylon, as we have just read, or in the tower of Babel, as
it is more frequently expressed. Three days later (May 23) the _Unitá_
cries, "It is time for Catholics to be up in defence of the Council. It
is the only plank of safety for shipwrecked society." The _Memoriale
Diplomatique_ says that "governments are less and less disposed to
interfere in religious questions, unless their rights are infringed;
but such reserve is war against the Council, which _being infallible
cannot infringe any right_." The italics here are our own; and would
that we could print the words on the mind of every rising man in
England. That would save vast waste of words.

The courage of the _Civiltá_ was stimulated by the French elections
in the summer, and its hatred of United Italy boiled over. The ever
faithful _Univers_ had given the watchword to the electors. "The
temporal power, and liberty of higher instruction!" In the cry "liberty
of higher instruction," we have the popular side of the original
call of the _Civiltá_ for universities all over Europe, canonically
instituted. One hundred and twenty deputies were pledged to the
program, and the French electors ought to be proclaimed as having
deserved well of Catholicism. "The illustrious Louis Veuillot," as the
_Civiltá_ styles him, had shown that what the Voltairians wanted was
the separation of Church and State, from which would follow the decay
of Christian worship to such a point that it might be feasible to
annihilate it.

Noble, Catholic, chivalrous France is contrasted, by the _Civiltá_,
with vile Italy. The latter, in a serious catalogue of crimes, is said
to have "reduced the bishops to the extreme of poverty, has at its own
caprice impeded the divine word, and showed more than sixty dioceses
widowed of their pastors." The French voters had said, "We go to the
urn as the delegates of the universal suffrage of Christendom." "The
monstrous edifice of Italian unity must crumble," says this Romanist,
who was no Roman. It is founded on the ruins of the temporal power of
the Pontiff, which cannot perish. (VII. vi. 611 ff.)

The plea of the Liberal Catholics for freedom of conscience became more
and more offensive to the Catholics. The Fathers of Laach, in censuring
the address of the laymen of Coblentz, went so far as to say that the
treatment of the Jews in Rome "showed no want of humanity or civil
tolerance." These educated laymen well knew that the proper condition
of heretics, according to the same principles, ought to be much worse
than that of the Ghetto Jews. The latter, not being baptized, were
theoretically not subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, but the
others, as Bellarmine shows, _though not of the Church, belonged to the
Church_. Stumpf, writing in the Bonn _Literaturblatt_, did not content
himself with questioning the intolerant doctrine of the Jesuits; he
directly attacked it. He took an important step further--one, indeed,
which seems like a new life in the Roman Catholic intellect. He told
the Jesuits plainly that their exclusive principle of one _fold_
rendered religious freedom and unity impossible. Here he touched the
distinction between the grand and the huge, which Romanists carefully
keep out of sight, and which the sincerest advocates of liberty in
their ranks had hitherto overlooked. They took for a grand conception
of the unity of Christians, as consisting in submission to one human
head. That conception is narrow and illusory. It fails of grandeur by
monstrous disproportion. Stumpf goes on to declare that the absolute
dominion of the Church over the State, although the favourite doctrine
as he admits, in Rome, is in contradiction to the fundamental principle
of Christianity. He would no longer be content, as a Liberal Catholic,
to plead for freedom of conscience merely as a compromise. He says, We
now represent a principle. The theocratic principle menaces society,
and that principle will never be satisfied till the acknowledgment of
civil rights is made to depend upon the profession of the Catholic
faith. He adds that a promise to compromise _till we had the power_
would content no one, because the modern world has learned that nothing
is settled till the principle is settled. He says, We are determined to
have the Church a Church, and the State a State. But this a postulate
which demands, as its condition, individual freedom. According to him
it was Christ that introduced among men the idea of independence, and
that of a limit existing to the power of the State, by distinguishing
His own kingdom of love and grace from that of law and compulsion.
"When the Church authorities," says Stumpf, "do admonish the rulers
of the State, their first counsel should be to consider it their
highest duty to protect freedom of conscience. They ought to warn them,
before any other kind of unrighteousness against the use of force,
for or against any form of religion which is not inconsistent with
the maintenance of moral law"; and he adds, what we shall emphasize,
"_privation of civil equality is an employment of force_." Such, he
says, was the counsel given by the early Christian teachers; and though
later teachers reversed it, their course is not to be justified before
the law of Christ.

The _end_ of the State, as viewed by Stumpf, is much loftier than
that assigned to it in the Papal theory. In the great collection of
families called by men a State, he does not see a body politic without
a moral mission, existing, according to the ruinous theology of Rome,
only for temporal ends--a body politic which would be unworthy of God
or man. According to Stumpf, the end of the State is _the maintenance
of general moral order_. This theory does not bind the families of a
country acting in their collective capacity, to prescribe the creed
and cult of individuals. No more does it bind them, on the other hand,
to resign all moral aims, leaving every moral question to be decided
for them without any appeal to the common conscience, to fruits or
to the Bible, by a power which would strip the State of every moral
quality, and would also prescribe the creed and cult of all. The
theory of Stumpf holds that the collective authority of the nation, in
the affairs common to all the families of that nation, is called to
regulate action so far as action affects the common good, but does not
hold that it is called to regulate belief. Claiming for the Church the
full right of asserting and urging moral principles, Stumpf, with great
solemnity, claims for the legislator freedom to frame law according to
his own conscience, and to his belief in what tends to the maintenance
and the perfecting of moral order. This he has to do without the
direction of any ecclesiastic, but knowing that he must give account to
God. _No omnipotent word of Church authorities can or shall deter us
from this work._ Then he interjects, Would it not be pleasant to have
to consult the theologians of the _Civiltá_ and the _Stimmen_? The
Jesuits, he alleges, had no conception of any exercise of moral power
upon one another but in the way of commanding and obeying. The Church
in the middle ages, by her influence in secular affairs secularized
herself, and lost her moral influence, which was never recovered
to Christianity till the States had done what the Jesuits call
apostatizing from Christ, and so opened the way for a return of true
moral Christian influence. The early Church, he truly and nobly points
out, was able, in the face of the omnipotent heathen authorities, to
pervade society with her true moral influences; and he contends that
nothing can give back to the Church her position as the first force in
culture, but the recognition of the independence of the State.

One very curious part of this grave and forceful essay is the protest
of the layman against the twisting of Scripture by the Jesuits. He puts
together a number of the texts upon which they ring the changes, making
them prove their own ideas by the simple process of putting those ideas
into them, and reiterating them again and again. The first of the texts
which he quotes is, "Teach all nations." He, apparently, is not aware
that this is now as handy a weapon with those theologians as "obey God
rather than man." In their lips "teach" means "make laws," and "all
nations" means, not _every creature_, but, collectively, all States.
Therefore the words "_teach all nations_" are, in the lips of the
Jesuits, a commission to the Pope to give laws to all countries, or,
in highflown language, "to exercise the supreme magisterial office."
The Jesuits had saucily told the laymen of Coblentz to ask the nearest
theologian for an explanation of the relations between the natural
order and the supernatural. But this particular layman gave them as
good as they brought. When men write as he does, they have begun to be
Catholics, have ceased to be <DW7>s, and are, however unconsciously,
in process of ceasing to be Romanists.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Allocution of June 22, in which the constitution and new laws of
Austria were condemned, had proved as distasteful to Liberal Catholics
as it had been agreeable to the Jesuits. "The Curialistic notion,"
says the author of _Reform in Head and Members_, "that the law of the
Church must be the inviolable rule for all laws and statutes, and
for all and every kind of activity in the life of the State, runs
through it like a black thread. The Austrian _Magna Charta_ of civil,
political, religious and scientific freedom was called a sacrilegious
law. Moreover, the Pope," he proceeds to say, "had declared that these
laws themselves, together with _all that should arise out of them_, are
and ever will be invalid and of no effect.... Every enlightened person
among the Catholics of Germany and France concealed himself in silence
and in mourning at this rude opposition of Rome to the public law of
the entire Western world." Count Beust, in a despatch dated about ten
days after the Allocution was delivered, said that "the Holy See had
extended its animadversions to subjects 'which we by no means can allow
to be under its authority.'" We shall hereafter see how clearly and
completely Count Beust had now grasped the question as between the
Papacy and the life of nations.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 156: Monsignor Maret boldly quotes Eusebius as saying (Book
II. cap. xiv.) that Peter was not only the greatest and strongest of
the Apostles, which is like what he says, but that he was the prince
and patron of them all, which he does not say. That is said for him by
the Latin translator. The one word προἡγορον, "spokesman," or
champion, of Eusebius is deliberately turned into the two, "prince and
patron"--_Principem et patronum_.--_Maret_, vol. i. p. 97.]

[Footnote 157: See the original, _Vitelleschi_, p. 266.]

[Footnote 158: _Letter to the Duke of Norfolk_, p. 14.]

[Footnote 159: _Friedberg_, p. 19.]

[Footnote 160: See Lord Acton, _Zur Geschichte_.]

[Footnote 161: _Weltbegebenheiten_, 336.]

[Footnote 162: Ibid. i. 327.]

[Footnote 163: Ibid. 340.]

[Footnote 164: _Civiltá_, VII. viii. pp. 209 ff.]




CHAPTER X

Conflicting Manifestoes by Bishops--Attacks on
Bossuet--Darboy--Dupanloup combats Infallibility--His relations
with Dr. Pusey--Deschamps replies--Manning's Manifesto--Retort of
Friedrich--Discordant Episcopal Witnesses.


In November 1869 the Bishop of Versailles, writing of Bossuet, said
that the fame of the Eagle of Meaux was from day to day declining
(_Friedberg_, p. 81). This was but a symptom of the new war against
nationalism. Professor Ceccucci, though writing for a French audience,
did not scruple to say, "If Bossuet escaped excommunication, he owed it
to the benign and paternal indulgence of the Holy See" (_Frond_, iv. p.
112). Bishop Dupanloup soon took occasion to show that Innocent XI sent
Bossuet two briefs congratulating him on having written in a manner
calculated to win back heretics and increase the propagating power of
the Church.[165] If the Church, even before infallibility had been
proclaimed, began to be so conscious of its narrowness that it could
hardly contain Bossuet, what will it be when a few centuries more have
passed over it?

As the opening of the Council drew nearer, feeling grew warmer in
political and religious circles. Archbishop Darboy sketched the
impending dangers in a pastoral--

    "You have been told that articles of faith which hitherto you have
    not been bound to believe, are to be imposed upon you; that points
    affecting civil society and the relations of Church and State are
    to be treated in a spirit opposed to the laws and usages of the
    age; that a certain vote is to be carried by acclamation; that the
    bishops will not be free, and that the minority, even if eloquent,
    will be treated as an opposition, and will soon be put down by the
    majority.... It must be owned that much has been done to spread
    these alarms by writers taking different sides."[166]

Bishop Dupanloup, when about leaving home for the Council, published
a memorable letter. He seemed to regard the desire of the French
clergy for centralization as the origin of the cry for a dogma. The
change, however, from a national to a Papal spirit was natural. Was it
likely that youths from the schools of the Christian Brothers, passed
through an episcopal seminary, would comprehend the national spirit
and episcopal convictions of Darboy or even of Dupanloup?[167] The
lower education of the country had been just long enough in the hands
of Rome to begin to bear fruit. Dupanloup meant no ill to France when
he succeeded in binding Louis Philippe to Gregory XVI, by inducing him
to give the priests their way in schools, in return for forbearance in
baptizing the Comte de Paris, as the son of a mixed marriage, and of a
mother who refused to abjure her Protestantism. But he then did one of
the most hurtful deeds to France, and to the future of European peace,
that man could have done.

    This letter, cries Sambin, gave an episcopal head to the revolt;
    ... the objection was pointed against the opportuneness of
    defining the dogma of infallibility, but it was hardly possible
    to be deceived--the principle of infallibility itself seemed to
    be attacked.... The acts of the sovereign Pontiff were presented
    in a light so far from the truth, that a feeling of profound
    astonishment passed through the ranks of pastors and people. They
    were grieved to see the paling away of the triple halo which had
    hitherto hovered around the author's brow (_Sambin_, p. 49).

This was published in France in 1872, after Dupanloup had "submitted,"
and rendered new and conspicuous service to the Papacy. As Dupanloup's
pamphlet will be hard to find hereafter, and as it is a representative
document, we may give a general idea of the argument it presents.

For two years, says Dupanloup, thousands of printed papers have been
circulated in the streets, containing a vow to believe in the personal
infallibility of the Pope. Agents have got them signed by persons who
did not understand the first word of the question.

He contrasts the confidence and freedom of speech granted to the
_Civiltá_ and the _Univers_ with the secrecy observed toward bishops.
Naming Manning and Deschamps as the leaders in the agitation for the
new dogma, he adds, "I say new, because for eighteen hundred years the
faithful have not, on pain of ceasing to be Catholics, been bound to
believe it." Alluding to the freedom which, it was said, the bishops
would have in the Council, he asks what freedom was left to them even
now, when any who expressed an unwelcome opinion were denounced in the
papers, beforehand, as schismatics or heretics.... "After having taught
for eighteen hundred and seventy years, the Church is now to come and
ask in a Council, Who has the right of teaching with infallibility?...
When the oak is twenty centuries old, digging to find the parent acorn
under the roots is the way to shake the tree."

The Bishop proceeds, with tact and great earnestness, to plead for
the necessity of moral unanimity in defining new dogmas. He relates a
fact of interest, and one very closely affecting the person of Pius
IX. We have seen that, in 1864, the Pope formally initiated official
preparations for the Council; that he had long before 1867 decided
important questions as to its constitution and procedure; that he had
set commissions to work, consulted bishops in different countries, and
ordered nuncios to select theologians; and that it was only political
perplexity which prevented the assembly of 1867 from being the General
Council.

Yet Bishop Dupanloup, whether then aware of these facts or not, makes
the following statement--

    I well remember, and more bishops than one who were present in
    Rome in 1867 can recall, the fact that one of the most serious
    anxieties of Pius IX, before deciding on holding the Vatican
    Council, was, lest questions should arise calculated to provoke
    stormy discussions, and divisions in the episcopate. But the Pope
    remembered the sagacious conduct of the Council of Trent and of
    Pius IV, and proceeded, in the hope that it would not be forgotten
    at the future Council.

One of Dupanloup's solemn sayings is, "I have read and read again the
catechism of the Council of Trent, on purpose to find if it spoke Yes
or No about the infallibility of the Pope; I have ascertained that it
does not say a word about it."

Again, he states that in 1867 one hundred and eighty-eight Anglican
ministers wrote to the Pope asking for the basis of a union. In
his reply, the Pope spoke of the authority of the Church and the
supremacy of the Pope, but he did not speak of his infallibility. Yet
journalists, screening themselves behind his name, tried to shut the
mouths of bishops by attacks full of violence and gall. This was meant
for M. Veuillot, who was not slow to reply.

As to Greeks and Protestants, Dupanloup points out that what is
proposed amounts to telling them, "A ditch now separates us; we are
going to make it an abyss.... Two years ago. Dr. Pusey said to me in
Orleans, 'There are eight thousand of us in England, daily praying for
a union.'" ... When Pitt thought of relaxing laws against Catholics in
England and Ireland, he asked several learned bodies what was the real
doctrine of the Roman Church on the power of the Pope. "I have under my
eyes the replies of the Universities of Paris, Douay, Louvain, Alcala,
Salamanca, and Valladolid." They all "answer expressly that neither the
Pope nor the Cardinals, nor yet any body or individual in the Roman
Church, hold from Jesus Christ any civil authority over England, any
power to release the subjects of his Britannic Majesty from their oath
of fidelity." Such doctrine was calculated to reassure Pitt, as against
the contrary doctrine, professed in celebrated Bulls by more Popes than
one. But what if the Pope be declared infallible?

As to Catholic governments, their standing jealousy of the
ecclesiastical power would be increased. Had not Boniface VIII
taught that the temporal sword also belonged to Peter, and that the
spiritual power had a right to institute and judge the temporal? Had
not Paul III released all the subjects of Henry VIII from their oath
of allegiance, offered England to any one who would conquer it, and
given all the goods of the dissident English, real and personal, to the
conqueror? Was not that Bull a great misfortune to Christendom? "I am
sad--and who would not be sad?--in recalling these great and painful
historical facts; but they force us to it--those whose levity and
rashness have stirred these burning questions." After the dogma shall
have been proclaimed, he contends that from the point of view occupied
by governments, "all civil and political rights, like all religious
belief, will be in the hand of a single man." The journals which claim
to be purest in their Romanism "treat the doctrine, so strongly held by
the Catholic sovereigns, as well as others, that each of the two powers
is independent in its own sphere, as tainted with atheism."

The following passage in the Bishop's argument suffices to show that
there may be more senses of the statement that Catholics do not owe any
divided allegiance, than plain English folk ever dreamed of in their
philosophy--

    We lately read, as quoted with praise in a French paper, the
    following, which compares those to the Manicheans who deny that
    the two swords are in the same hand: "Are there two sources of
    authority and power, two supreme ends for the members of the same
    society, two different objects in the intention of the Being who
    orders all and two distinct destinies in one and the same man, who
    is both member of a Church and of a State? Who does not see the
    absurdity of such a system? It is the dualism of the Manicheans if
    not atheism."

We ought to interject the remark that "the two swords in the same hand"
is not strict but popular language. The two are in the same _power_,
but only one is in the spiritual hand. Again, the taunt of Manicheism
frequently falls from Jesuit pens. Boniface VIII set the example of
calling people something like Manicheans, if they believed in any
supreme power in princes on a level with that of the Pope.

Coming to the crucial question, What is speaking _ex cathedrâ_?
Bishop Dupanloup shows that the diversity of doctrine on this point
is almost endless, and perplexing beyond belief. The lay Professor of
Theology in the seminary of the Archdiocese of Westminster, Dr. Ward,
formerly an Anglican minister, goes beyond the great majority. They
hold that a condition necessary to an infallible utterance is that the
Pope shall address the whole Church, but Dr. Ward thinks that this is
not necessary. The majority think that the intention of binding the
belief of the faithful must be clearly expressed, but Dr. Ward again
thinks that it need not be so. Phillips, the German doctor, holds that
the Pope need not consult a Council, the Roman Church, the Cardinals,
or any one; nor is it necessary that he should maturely deliberate
or carefully study the matter by the light of God's written word and
of tradition, or even that he should put up a prayer to God before
pronouncing sentence. "Without any one of these conditions," says the
Bishop, "his decision would not be less valid, authentic, or obligatory
on the whole Church, than if he had observed every condition dictated
by faith, piety, and good sense." He adds the words of Phillips, that
the definition _ex cathedrâ_ may be verbal or written and with or
without anathema, but must be given by him to all believing Christians
as Vicar of Jesus Christ, in the name of the Apostles Peter and Paul,
or in virtue of the authority of the Holy See, or in other similar
terms. The Church, he says, according to Phillips, has no right to fix
any condition or restriction whatever.

Citing the cases of Popes Stephen VI, Honorius, and Pascal II,
Dupanloup shows that heavy facts obstruct the historical path to the
new dogma.

He proceeds to point out that the difference between the universal
infallibilists and the dogmatical infallibilists is very grave. The
former argue that the dogma, if adopted in the sense of the latter,
would involve a peril. A Pope infallible in some cases and fallible
in others is, they think, a contradiction. If, as a private teacher,
the Pope should err in doctrine, might he not impose his error on the
Church? If this is not possible, you have either a Pope who thinks
one thing and defines another, or a perpetual miracle! And why
distinguish, ask the universal infallibilists, when Christ has not
distinguished? "That thy faith fail not"--that means the faith of Peter
in every sense, personal and pastoral. These theologians contend that a
Pope could not, even if he would, fall into an error, public or private.

As to the effect of the change on the episcopate, Dupanloup contends
that Councils will be rendered superfluous. Hitherto, the bishops
have been judges of the faith, real judges, though in union with the
Pope--co-judges, as was said by Benedict XIV. But if the proposed
change is made, their judgment before or after will be of little
account; as Monsignor Manning has said, the Pope can determine "without
the episcopate, and independently of it." The bishops, he proceeds,
are now Doctors, not mere echoes. With the Pope they constitute the
Teaching Church. After the change they will not be a voice, only an
echo.

Drawing a glowing picture of the services of the French bishops to the
Papacy, he says--

    "Ah! I dare to affirm that so much devotion to Rome and to the
    Catholic world gives to the Church of France the right to be
    trusted, to be heard." He adds, anticipating his arrival in Rome,
    "I shall no sooner touch the sacred ground, no sooner kiss the tomb
    of the Apostles, than I shall feel myself in peace, out of the
    battle, in the midst of an assembly presided over by a father and
    composed of brethren. There the noises will all die away, the rash
    interferences will cease, the indiscretions will disappear, the
    winds and waves will be calmed down."

The statement, frequently repeated, that Bishop Dupanloup in this
letter admitted the doctrine, and contested only the opportuneness of
defining it, is incorrect. This was pointed out at the time by Dr.
Reusch, of Bonn, in the _Literaturblatt_. Dupanloup once or twice
says that he will not touch the question of its truth, one way or the
other. He never, directly or indirectly, indicates belief in it. Many
of his arguments more than indirectly oppose the very substance of the
doctrine. He plainly feels that it is unscriptural, uncatholic, and
unwise; but he knows that it is and has long been gospel in Rome.

Bishop Dupanloup was replied to by Archbishop Deschamps, of Malines.
Monsignor Deschamps was following the straight path to the purple.
He roundly lectured Dupanloup. "Why should not that trouble me which
rejoices the enemies of the faith and of the Church?" "You have
committed an error, Monsignor," he says, repeatedly. He correctly
states that Dupanloup has not confined himself to the question of
opportuneness. "You have handled the principal question, ... your
fears have disturbed your vision."[168] Dupanloup prepared a rejoinder
to Deschamps, but was prevented from publishing it by circumstances
which taught him that in leaving France for Rome he had not passed
from disturbance to tranquillity, but from regulated conflict to
all-triumphant violence, compelling inaction, unless action was on
its own side. In Rome, where any movement of an ecclesiastic is often
accounted for by the prospect of some ribbon, robe, or perquisite, it
was freely said that Napoleon had promised Dupanloup the archbishopric
of Lyons if he would head the Gallicans. An English paper repeated this
Roman scandal, fathering it on well informed circles. Certain circles
are always well informed as to the motives of men who oppose them.

The pastoral from the banks of the Thames forms a contrast to that
from the banks of the Loire. True, Archbishop Manning no longer speaks
of the extinction of Protestantism, or the restoration of the Pope's
dominion over the East, as probable effects of the Council. He even
shows some dawning consciousness that the war which he had announced
in 1867 with a light heart, would not be carried through so lightly.
In the earlier part of his treatise he more than once coolly speaks of
the bishops as being unanimous in the belief of Papal infallibility!
Before the conclusion, Bishop Maret's work extorts the admission that
he must now call that doctrine Ultramontane, which two years before, he
had asserted to be Catholic. He none the less eagerly presses for the
carrying out of the programme. The Church is far too large. She permits
differences of belief, which are not only unseemly, but dangerous.
After an outbreak of questioning thought and conflicting will, such as
had been occasioned by a simple demand for only one or two new dogmas,
tighter and tighter binding up seems to Dr. Manning to be not merely
becoming, but even necessary.

While panting for additional fetters for his own Church, he speaks
of Protestants as sighing for something beyond insular narrowness.
In fact, it would seem as if he had no perception of the difference
between a big sect and a large creed, or of the possible harmony
between a local organization and a universal brotherhood. There is
no insular narrowness, much less Pontine-Marsh narrowness, in the
definition of a Church given by the English Church, whereby she
marks her relation to all other Churches. That definition is large,
catholic, and scriptural. It leaves the English Churchman free from
any obligation to unchurch other Christians, and therefore he may rest
and be thankful, when others feel bound, by the narrowness of their
sect, to unchurch him. The Church of Christ was catholic when she could
number only one hundred and thirty adherents in the whole world. She
will never become more catholic than she was then. No sect can increase
its catholicity by adding millions of ignorant and bigoted people, and
calling them Christians.

Dr. Manning resented, as a sort of rebellion, objections taken
against multiplying terms of membership, and adding new conditions of
salvation. To him every increase of narrowness seemed an increase of
unity. If there are men in the English Church sighing in a similar way
for bonds and anathemas which, thank God! our island does not forge,
they are not the men inspired by the catholic creed of their own
Church, but men infected by the municipal creed of the Popes.

Like Dupanloup, Archbishop Manning made an attack and provoked a
retort. He denounced the historical school of theologians in Germany,
and especially in Munich, and was pitilessly cut up by Friedrich,
in the _Literaturblatt_. The Archbishop, like Auguste Comte, had
reached a point in the development of theory when it was necessary
that it should conquer history. Preparatory to the attack on the
Catholic Faculty of Munich, he writes in mother English matter like
the following (p. 10): "_The day is past for appeals to antiquity._
If Christianity and the Christian Scriptures are to be maintained in
controversy against sceptical criticism, the unbroken, world-wide
witness of the Catholic Church must be invoked."

A number of equally exposed positions are taken up in face of the
Liberal Catholic scholars, and that with all the contempt which
official power often feels for reasoning power--

    "They who, under the pretensions of historical criticism, deny the
    witness of the Catholic Church to be the _maximum_ of evidence,
    even in a historical sense, likewise ruin the foundation of
    moral certainty in respect to Christianity altogether" (p. 125).
    "No historical certainty can be called science except only by
    courtesy. It is time that the pretensions of 'historical science'
    and 'scientific historians' be reduced to their proper sphere
    and limits. And this the Council will do, not by contention or
    anathema, but by the words 'It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost
    and to us'" (_id._).

However confused in his ideas of catholicity and of historical
authority the Archbishop had become, the struggle he had done something
to occasion and to exasperate already began to awake him to the
difference between an ordinary addition to the creed and that change of
base which he was moving heaven and earth to procure--

    There is a difference, also, between a definition of the
    infallibility of the Pope and that of any other Christian doctrine.
    In the latter case the authority of the Church may be sufficient to
    overcome any doubt. In the former _it is this very authority, the
    principle and foundation of all certainty in faith_, which is in
    question (p. 31).

These portentous words tell where Dr. Manning had placed himself--in
pupilage to a power which, having left the divine "fountain of all
certainty in faith," was disputing as to what cistern, of all the
cisterns it had hewn out, was the one into which the true spring
overflowed. Where will the dogma be found to conquer the history made
by the Archbishop's own hand when he wrote those words--history proving
that after he had been for years flourishing before Anglicans his Papal
Society as affording absolute certainty in faith, he himself declared
her to be in the throes of a combat as to "the principle and fountain
of all certainty in faith"? Where will a dogma be found to conquer
the history made at the moment when his Papal Society, in accordance
with his wishes, adopted an unchangeable decree, which, _if true_,
proves that for all the time of her existence, she had not only been
fallible, but had indeed failed, and that right grievously--failed as
to the doctrine of her head, by withholding from him the recognition
of his attributes and rights? If from the beginning the Popes were
infallible, the Church, which never consented to recognize them as such
till 1870, had up to that year failed in the doctrine of her head, and
failed in opposition to her head. If they were not from the beginning
infallible, she in 1870 failed in the doctrine of her head, and failed
in conjunction with her head. The decree of 1870 fixes her in the fork,
and out of it she cannot wrestle: if the decree was true she had been
in a fault of faith up to that day; if it was not true, she committed
that day a fault in faith.

Archbishop Manning did not fail to hold out once more a warning to the
governments. For some months past the tone of the Vatican Press had
been that of men who felt that they now held the internal peace of many
a nation at their mercy; being able to menace almost any government
with serious unrest, and some with overthrow. The habit of insinuating
such threats seems to be native to the bad air which Dr. Newman truly
speaks of as hanging around the foot of the Pope's rock.[169] But the
following is too close a copy of those revolutionary vaticinations for
the banks of the Thames--

    The Catholic Church now stands alone, as in the beginning, in its
    divine isolation and power. "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be
    instructed, ye judges of the earth." There is an abyss before you,
    into which thrones, and rights, and laws, and liberties may sink
    together. You have to choose between the Revolution and the Church
    of God. As you choose, so will your lot be. The General Council
    gives to the world one more witness for the truths, laws, and
    sanctities which include all that is pure, noble, just, venerable
    upon earth. It will be an evil day for any State in Europe if it
    engage in conflict with the Church of God. No weapon formed against
    it ever yet has prospered (p. 130).

The last words might be enough to account for Cardinal Manning's
dislike of history. They flatly contradict it, and it flatly
contradicts them; for by the Church of God is here meant the Church
of the Pope. The weapons which have most prospered from the days of
the Reformation to this day are those that have been turned against
the Pope. The nations that have most prospered have been those that
have declared him a pretender; and in these nations the reigns that
have been distinguished for prosperity have been the most decidedly
Protestant. England was long ago put to the choice between the
Reformation and the Church of the Pope, and happily chose the good
part, and as she chose, so, ever blessed be the God of nations, has
been our lot. We will repeat the choice of our fathers, and the lot
of our children shall be better and better. And they will have to
pity, even more than we are called to pity, those who, having rejected
reformation, have placed themselves under a continual terror and a
liability to a periodical outburst of revolution.

Friedrich, in the _Literaturblatt_ (v. p. 164), replied to the attack
on the historical theologians of Munich. He said that the abuses of
the middle ages had crept in through the total neglect of history. On
the other hand, Protestant theology had risen up and had matured as a
strictly historical theology. Baronius had attempted to win this weapon
back to the service of Rome, and the Munich scholars had followed in
his steps. If archives and original works were to be wrested out of
their hands, it meant nothing more nor less than laying down their arms
in the presence of their antagonists. Friedrich would not allow the
ambiguous expression "the witness of the Church" to cover anything more
than her infallible utterances.

He said that the Archbishop had a false idea of the way in which a
Council should proceed, because he seemed to think that the Church
might speak without first using all human means to ascertain the
truth. If he thought so, he was under a delusion of which a careful
study of the history of the Councils might cure him. The statement of
Manning, "I have already said," that the proofs of Papal infallibility
outweighed those of the infallibility of the Church without the
Pope, provoked the remark that as the Archbishop had adduced only
his own authority, "I have already said," we might still doubt the
infallibility of the proofs until he had produced his credentials as
one inspired. Friedrich says that while blaming others for attempting
to influence the Council, Manning himself tried to impose his authority
upon it, in such a manner that it might be fancied that the Council was
not to utter the words of the Holy Ghost, but those of the Archbishop
of Westminster. Thus he indignantly flings back in the face of the
prelate the assertion that it was an attempt to interfere with the
freedom of the Council when the Theological Faculty of Munich gave an
opinion to the king of the country in answer to questions put by him.
The Archbishop, he protests, has no title to deprive theologians of
their calling, or of their right to investigate historical evidences or
to give their views, so long as the Church has not spoken.

He reminds the Archbishop that, severe as he is against those who do
not go as far as himself, even he does not go far enough, for his
allies now begin to require people to say, that the Church may define
dogmas without having any support in the Bible and tradition, and that
indeed when nothing but apocryphal documents are in favour of the
definition. And, moreover, that the authority of a General Council (as
distinguished from that of the Pope) is only human authority. These
innovations, says the sturdy German, we abhor; and then he leaves the
Englishman to the care of his Jesuit allies with these words: "If what
everybody here says" (he writes in Rome) "is true, that the Archbishop,
at every opportunity, declares we have only one school to fear, the
historical school, I grant to him and grant to his allies that they
have the light of history to fear."

With various feelings the bishops now set forth to bear witness as to
the faith of their respective Churches. This was the most dignified
of the professed duties of a bishop in Councils as they used to be.
It had some show of a foundation so long as the rule of "apostolic"
tradition was adhered to. Of course, however, that became antiquated.
So "ecclesiastical" tradition was set up side by side with apostolic,
as what was so called had been set up side by side with the Word of God.

Darboy set out, from his diocese of two millions of souls, to bear
witness that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was not the faith,
and never had been, on the banks of the Seine. Manning set out to
testify that it was the faith and the tradition on the banks of the
Thames. Clifford set out from Clifton to declare that it was not the
faith on the Avon. Deschamps went to prove that it was the faith in
Malines. Dupanloup went to prove that it was not, and never had been,
the faith in Orleans. Cullen left Dublin to demonstrate that it was,
and ever had been, the true faith of Ireland. MacHale left Connaught,
bracing up his fourscore years, to go and bear witness that it was
not the faith he had learned, no, nor any of his coevals. Spalding
embarked from Baltimore to testify that it was the ancient faith in
America. Kenrick set forth from St. Louis to protest that this was the
reverse of the truth, and to prove that he had never been taught it
in Maynooth, and even to tell of the first time when the doctrine was
broached within the walls of that college. Rauscher left Vienna and
Schwarzenberg Prague; Haynald left Hungary and Strossmayer Croatia; Von
Scherr left Munich, Melchers Cologne, and Förster Breslau, to testify
that the faith and tradition of their Churches had not ignored, but had
withstood, the new doctrine. They had to add that the conscience of the
people was so set against it that it was as much as the authority of
the Church was worth to attempt to impose it upon them. Von Ketteler
left Mainz to testify loudly, but with so uncertain a sound that no
ordinary man could "know what was piped or harped."

On the other hand, the bishops of Spain, Italy, and South America
almost unanimously sallied forth to testify that in their Churches the
new dogma was an old doctrine.

Their testimony was reinforced by some from more ancient sees. Hassun
set out from New Rome, as the Orientals call Constantinople, to bear
witness, as Patriarch of Cilicia, that the City of Paul, and the
Churches planted by him, had always held the faith and tradition of
Papal infallibility. Valerga turned his back on the Mount of Olives, on
Sion, and on Bethlehem, to give evidence, in the sight of God and man,
that the Church of Jerusalem had always held the faith, and conserved
the tradition, that the Roman Pontiff was infallible and his decrees
irreformable.

Darboy, in his farewell pastoral, said to the Catholics of Paris, "In
these matters, bishops are witnesses who prove, not authors who invent."

Had the contest lain between these two forces, the weight of talent,
character, and supporting Churches would have decided it in favour of
the _status quo_. But bishops sailed from Jaffna in Ceylon, and Jaro
in the Philippines, from India, China, and Siam, from Swan River and
New Caledonia, to swamp with their traditions those of Bishops from
Churches which might pretend to have a tradition. The fact that theirs
could not set up any such claim was one objection urged against their
votes, another being that they were dependent on the Propaganda. With
these came also a number of Oriental bishops, in the same financial
position, of whom Vitelleschi says that they brought the finest
wardrobes and the steadiest votes. In aid of these a thick growth of
bishops _in partibus_ sprang out of the well-warmed conserves of Court
patronage.

Roughly stated, the result was, that out of Italy and Spain old and
educated Churches, when represented by prelates trained in their own
bosom, generally declared in opposition to the new dogma. Where they
did otherwise, they were often represented by prelates trained _in
Rome_, and, like Cullen and Manning, specially selected to imbue the
National Church with the municipal theology of Rome, and, in case
of need, to impose it upon the clergy. Those from really ancient
cities, like Jerusalem, who supported the Curia, were dependents of
the Propaganda. With these came the occupants of sees created by Pius
IX, most of which, from Westminster to Oceania, were represented by
witnesses in favour of infallibility.

Many of the bishops had for travelling companion a small pamphlet. It
was called _Considerations_ (_Erwägungen?_), and put the case against
Papal infallibility in a form and compass seldom equalled, in any
composition, for clearness, depth, fulness, and compression. It was no
secret that the author was Döllinger, but he had not chosen to put his
name on the title.

In this manner was prepared for the world a drama of many scenes, which
has left permanently in the eye of history four great spectacles--(1)
How an ancient aristocracy, claiming to be the senate of humanity, was
made the instrument of destroying its own legislative rights; (2) How
masters of ceremony, habituated to employ it for both political and
religious ends, were made its victims, ceremony being brought into
operation to carry away surreptitiously their constitutional forms,
and with them their legal privileges; (3) How they who had declared
"ecclesiastical" tradition to be as good a foundation for doctrine as
the Word of God, went through the process of building on the sand; (4)
How a Head of the human species, a King of kings and Lord of lords, was
erected by priests, and humiliated by Providence.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 165: Letter as printed in _Otto Mesi_, p. 413, and now (but
also in French) in _Eight Months at Rome_, p. 277.]

[Footnote 166: _Friedberg_, p. 287.]

[Footnote 167: The author of _Reform in Head and Members_ says (p.
156): "The theological lecture-rooms of the Sorbonne are empty, and
the fame and splendour of France in theological science, in which
she once took so high a place, have been extinguished, since the
clergy began to receive their education--that is, as much education
as was indispensable--in the smaller episcopal seminaries, and their
theological training in the greater ones. There is no theological
science at all in France now." He supports this broad assertion by
details given by Bouix, a well-known Ultramontane writer.]

[Footnote 168: _Stimmen_, _N.F._, vi. p. 57.]

[Footnote 169: _Letter to the Duke of Norfolk._]




CHAPTER XI

Diplomatic Feeling and Fencing in Rome, November 1869--Cross
Policies on Separation of Church and State--Ollivier, Favre, De
Banneville--Doctrines of French Statesmen ridiculed at Rome--Specimens
of the Utterances approved at Court--Forecasts of War between
France and Prussia--Growing Strength of the Movement in France for
Universities Canonically Instituted.


Those who arrived in the autumn months in Rome, perhaps with the hope
of preventing the dreaded proposals from being brought forward, or with
the intention, if they could not succeed in that, of organizing an
opposition to them, found to their surprise that the tone of the Curia
was very gentle. The Cardinals and Monsignori, for their part, really
did not care about infallibility. Indeed, the subject might have been
passed over in silence had not such false rumours as to the designs of
Rome been set afloat. Lord Acton names Cardinals Antonelli, Berardi,
and De Luca, and also Bishop Fessler, the Secretary of the Council,
as declaring that the utterances of the _Civiltá_ were not to be
relied upon, and that if the idea of proposing infallibility had been
entertained, it was given up. He also quotes a letter written home by
a bishop, afterwards known among the Opposition, saying that there was
no ground for the idea that in Rome they meant to make infallibility
a dogma. That seemed to be an imagination, spread abroad with no good
design. Still, after the agitation which had taken place the Council
could hardly pass the matter over in silence. The Holy See would not
curb the zeal of the bishops if they resolved to give effect to their
persuasion, but would not itself take the initiative. But if anything
was done, it would be some moderate measure, that would satisfy all,
and give no pretext of a party triumph.

Lord Acton further says, what is confirmed from many quarters, that
Cardinal Antonelli feared that the Pope was about to bring upon himself
difficulties similar to those which beset the earlier years of his
pontificate. Some treat Antonelli's apparent coldness as a _ruse_.
But, Englishman-like, Lord Acton takes the hypothesis that requires
least dissimulation, crediting the foresight of Antonelli with real
apprehensions.

Lord Acton expresses a belief that there might have been some idea of
finding a substitute for infallibility in the suppression of freedom
of faith and conscience; with the expectation that the most prominent
hindrance to the new dogma would be removed so soon as the Inquisition
should be recognized as having one and the same legal position with
Catholicism itself. He thinks that a great step in that direction
would have been taken if the proposition of the Syllabus had been
confirmed which condemns the assertion that the Pontiffs and Councils
had ever transgressed the bounds of their power, or usurped the rights
of princes. As to usurping the rights of princes, a writer like Lord
Acton is at a disadvantage, compared with one like Professor Ceccucci,
who wrote the history of General Councils, for the voluminous work of
Frond. Ceccucci settles the point with an ease of which Lord Acton has
no idea. The Church "never did usurp political power; that possessed by
her has always been the most legitimate on earth" (_Frond_, vol. iv. p.
358).

But one point stated by Lord Acton is that infallibility had been
looked upon as a means to an end; and this is the kernel of the matter.
Just as, logically, the doctrine of infallible judgment was developed
out of that of unlimited power, so, practically, unlimited power must
be exercised by an infallible judge. Admit that God has given all power
upon earth to one man, and surely you will not deny that, in mercy to
His creatures, He will make that man infallible. Admit, on the other
hand, that the judgment which bids the secular arm smite this and
shield that is infallible, and surely you will own that the secular arm
should obey. Liberal Catholics were, not unnaturally, incensed at the
writing in the _Civiltá_ at a moment when those in power might have
been expected to set an example of moderation. The Freemasons were told
that the reason why they dreaded the Council was that they would be
condemned, and that no respectable persons would join them after that.
And the Liberal Catholics were told that their reasons for dreading
the Council were much the same. They professed similar principles with
those of the Masons, which were sometimes called Principles of '89,
sometimes Principles of Modern Society, or Toleration, or Liberty of
Conscience and the Press, or Modern Constitutions, or the Rights of
Science, or the Boons of Progress, or Liberalism. No wonder that men
who had championed the Church of Rome as the Catholic Church, should
tremble when they saw her sinking into a sect so strait as to put all
these principles under ban (_Civiltá_, VII. viii. p. 285).

On November 9 the Pope received the Marquis of Banneville, newly
returned to his post as ambassador of France. After many signs of
vacillation, the Emperor had finally decided not to ask for the
admission of an ambassador. This policy met the views both of the
Papal party and of those who desired the entire separation of the
Church and the State. The latter had adopted the notion that they
took a step towards separation by leaving the Church, while still an
establishment of the State, to legislate for the nation over the head
of the State. As early as July 10, 1868, M. Emile Ollivier, in the
_Corps Législatif_, dwelling on the fact that the Pope, in his Bull,
did not name the Emperor, and that he held all those addressed in it
bound by it simply through its being posted up in Rome, said: It is
declared that, by the simple fact of its being issued in Rome, every
bishop in France is bound and must betake himself to Rome, on pain of
disobedience. The Emperor or the civil power is not thought of. It is
the gravest act accomplished since 1789. It is the separation of Church
and State, proclaimed, for the fist time, by the Pope himself.

On April 9, 1869, Ollivier again raised the subject, protesting
that the abstention of the government from the Council amounted to
an abrogation of the organic articles of the Concordat. Jules Favre
said that it was the separation of Church and State, and as such he
gratefully accepted it. These consequences were denied by the minister,
M. Baroche, who asserted, "After the Council, the rights of France will
remain entire."

This boast passed in France, but not so at the Vatican. The _Unitá
Cattolica_ for April 14 showed that the usual ambiguity of the
Bonaparte policy marked the replies of the ministers on this critical
occasion. The bishops were to go to the Council with "their conscience
in full liberty," and yet "after the Council the rights of France
were to remain entire." "What," asks the _Unitá_, "does that mean?
Does France want to be free either to relieve or to oppose what the
Council will define? After having permitted her bishops to take part in
an assembly which every Catholic must believe to be infallible, does
Napoleon III mean to hold himself free to prosecute them if they preach
the doctrines defined, and enforce the discipline enjoined by the
Council?"

This straightforward question shows that M. Picard hit nearer to the
point than either Ollivier or Favre; for he cried, "It means a Church
free in a State not free."[170] Even that is not quite the truth; which
strictly is, A State not free in a Church which is free; for the State
is part, and the Church whole; or, to recall the image from the early
pages of the _Civiltá_, the State is the leg and the Church the man.
We have seen it roundly asserted by the _Civiltá_ that the Church free
means canon law free. That being so, for any man to speak of the State
being free, in any modern sense, is trifling. In its expositions of
the Syllabus the _Civiltá_ had laid down the true doctrine as follows:
_The first condition of an efficient alliance of the laws of the State
with the laws of the Church, is the application in every case wherein
spiritual penalties are insufficient of the means of coercion whereof
the State disposes._ The voice of the pastor has not always efficacy
sufficient to drive away the rapacious wolves from the fold of Christ.
Therefore does it appertain to the prince invested with the authority
of the sword to arm himself with its force, in order to repel and put
to flight all the enemies of the Church (VI. ii. 137). Refusing to
stand in this position is, in the esoteric sense, separating the State
from the Church. To a conscientious Ultramontane it is absurd to say
that a State in this manner subject to the Church is not free, as it
would be to say that a body ruled by its informing mind is not free.
That is the figure of speech which recurs at every turn of discourse on
the subject.

After it had been determined to ratify the policy censured by Picard,
De Banneville had his interview. Most writers describe him as a willing
tool of the Curia, and as doing all he could to lead France in the way
which it might trace out for her. Lord Acton regards him as honestly
hoping to compose a difference between the Italian and German schools
of theology, by the moderating weight of French influence.[171]
Banneville's despatch, on the occasion now in question, would rather
seem to countenance the former opinion than the latter.[172] But the
Pope in the interview did not say a word indicating his personal
opinion as to the questions to be decided. He did, however, say
that all must be left to the wisdom of the Fathers--as if all had
not been prepared, and doubly prepared. He further said that the
rash conjectures of hasty spirits--in manifest allusion to the
_Civiltá_--were to be regretted, as also the premature discussion of
questions which would have been better reserved to the Council itself.

It is not probable that this deceived M. de Banneville as to the
past, for he well knew how the Pope had encouraged the "premature
discussions"; but he might take it as the covering of a retreat from a
position found to be too advanced. But a wary man might have felt that
perhaps the retreat was only a feint.

The despatch of M. de Banneville shows that Pius IX, like every
Italian, knows how to keep his own counsel. Even his renowned saying, I
am tradition--_La tradizione son io_--is no more than what M. Veuillot
had said in proving that the Pope could not be an innovator--"Peter can
no more be an innovator than the Holy Spirit, which reveals tradition
to him."[173]

The tranquillity of the Curia on this occasion was that of perfected
preparation. The dissimulation would not provoke a remark from a
Roman. The effect of both was to prevent the anti-infallibilists from
organizing any opposition.

Some examples of the points kept before readers arriving at the
Holy City at this particular time may be of permanent interest. The
Canadian Bishop of St. Hyacinthe was quoted as writing, "Sublime
assembly, in which the eye of faith contemplates with wonder, poor and
simple mortals who, sitting as judges, do not hesitate _to impose the
responsibility of their decisions and judgments on the Holy Spirit_,
because they know and believe that they form together with Him one
tribunal." The emphases are given as we find them.[174]

A Latin pamphlet on the crisis, by a layman, was ridiculed, and one
point, which seemed most comical to the reviewer, was that the author
proposed two such queer anathemas; first, if any one offends against
charity, let him be anathema; secondly, if any one begins war, let him
be anathema.

The Archbishop of Lima, being ninety-four years of age, was unable to
come in person, but sent his pastoral staff as a present to the Pope.
It was of pure Peruvian gold, and of the value of two thousand pounds.

From the thrice-blessed Republic of Ecuador came the Archbishop of
Quito, presenting a chalice of gold, rich with precious pearls. He bore
valuable gifts in addition. That "illustrious Catholic," the President,
Garcia Moreno, had, on a public occasion, been presenting prizes to
students, when they joyfully laid down their medals to send them as
an offering to the Holy Father. On seeing this, the President took
from his breast a medal of rare value, all studded with gems, which
had been presented to him by the government for distinguished services
to the country. This he added to the tribute of the youths, and the
Archbishop had the joy of laying the united oblation at the feet of the
Pontiff.[175]

From Venezuela the Archbishop brought more than three thousand pounds
in money. His people had also laden him with their valuables, ladies
having taken off earrings, bracelets, necklaces, and rings to send, as
tokens of their devotion to the impoverished Pope.

Had our English journalists devoutly pondered the elaborate description
given at this cheerful juncture of a bell designed by a priest, and
presented for the use of the Presidents in the Council, they would not
have wasted so much criticism as they did on the rhetoric of a speech
reported in the _Daily News_, in 1875, as having been made by the
Pope, censuring Mr. Gladstone. His Holiness spoke of that gentleman as
a viper attacking the bark of St. Peter, or something of that sort.
Now the bell in question was described as being symbolic, within and
without. The clapper of it was the ship of Peter, round the hull of
which was coiled a serpent attempting to board the vessel, but it was
finally precipitated with its head down, and the three-forked tongue
shooting out.

The doubt of our men of letters as to whether the Pope could use a
metaphor describing a snake attacking a bark, illustrates, in general,
what Cardinal Manning said of those gentlemen on the particular
occasion of the Council--"When English Protestants undertake to write
of an OEcumenical Council of the Catholic Church, nothing less than
a miracle can preserve them from making themselves ridiculous."[176]
It would require a miracle to prevent any one from making himself
ridiculous who should criticize the Speeches of Pius IX, assuming that
his metaphors must have been subject to some rule.[177]

We find the revolution called by the _Civiltá_ "the executioner of the
Church"; and it is said that the Pontiff in his distress is rendered
more and more like Christ upon the Cross, whom he represents, and with
whom he can repeat, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Id.
p. 514).

The Word of God is shown to be the source of human redemption, and then
the following applications are made of this principle--[178]

    "The State indeed must be civilized and modernized by separating it
    from the living Word in the Church, that it may die.... The laws
    must be civilized and modernized by putting them in opposition to
    the laws of the Word, that they may be laws of death.... Some would
    wish the Word to reconcile Himself with Satan.... Schools must be
    civilized and modernized by separating them from the schools of the
    Word, that they may be schools of death. Wedlock must be civilized
    and modernized by separating it from the consecration of the
    Word, that it may be the wedlock of death. Public speech must be
    modernized and civilized by separating it from the influence of the
    Word, that it may be the speech of death. Everything, in fine, must
    perish, since everything must be secularized, or torn away from
    that God who _upholdeth all things by the Word of His power_....
    The modern revolution, inspired by Satan, would find that all its
    weapons directed against the Vatican were destined to have no other
    effect than that of multiplying the victories of the Word of God,
    who reigns there in the humble person of His Vicar" (pp. 522-26).

The Court, if we may judge by its organs, was deeply affected at the
want of faith displayed by many Catholics, who expressed fears lest the
Council should define anything that it ought not to define. Did they
not know that the Holy Ghost would preserve it unerring? Why then all
this solicitude? Could they not trust a body so guided to go right,
without their advices and warnings? They treated it "as an ordinary
human assembly." This sounded like mockery to those who had any idea of
how much Rome had done in employing _art and man's device_ to prevent
the Council from going wrong and to forestall all possible impulses in
any direction not predetermined. Had they only known of the long labour
and the jealous precautions which we shall see gradually coming to
light, the retorts they did make would have been much more indignant.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 170: _Friedberg_, pp. 93, 94.]

[Footnote 171: _Zur Geschichte._]

[Footnote 172: _Friedberg_, p. 330.]

[Footnote 173: Vol. i. p. cxxi.]

[Footnote 174: _Civiltá_, VII. viii. 335.]

[Footnote 175: Under Moreno, Ecuador attained the distinction of being
often mentioned, with solemn commendation, as the one and the only
_Catholic State_ in the world; the one in which the principles of the
Syllabus were applied.]

[Footnote 176: _Priv. Pet._, iii, p. 3.]

[Footnote 177: _Civiltá_, VII. viii. 490. The inscription on the bell
in question is as follows--

 Invocata--Immaculata
 Pius Nonus--Pastor bonus
 Per Concilium--Fert auxilium.
 Mundus crebris--tot tenebris
 Implicatus--obcoecatus
 Per hoc Numen--et hoc Lumen
 Extricatur--illustratur.]

[Footnote 178: The term _verbo_ is employed, which in Italian has about
the same effect as _logos_ would have in English writing.]




CHAPTER XII

Mustering, and Preparatory Stimuli--Pope's Hospitality--Alleged
Political Intent--Friedrich's First Notes--The Nations cited to
Judgment--New War of the Rosary--Tarquini's Doctrine of the Sword--A
New Guardian of the Capitol--November and December, 1869.


While the chiefs of the Curia and the leading prelates were testing
their diplomatic skill, and the former were, on that field, meekly
winning the prizes, the rank and file of the hierarchy were flocking in
from all the winds of heaven. The Roman nobles in many cases gave up
their palaces to the Fathers of the Council. With his habitual personal
liberality, the Pope freely offered hospitality to all who would accept
it. This simple act, natural to his station, and still more to his
disposition, was smiled at as a good bid for votes. About three hundred
bishops made themselves, in whole or in part, dependent for their daily
expenses on the bounty of the man upon whose exaltation they were to
decide. The _Civiltá_, as if to emphasize their dependence, told how
they were lodged, supported, and assisted by him in all the necessaries
of life. Hence the mocking name of the "Pope's boarders," which greeted
any manifestations of opinion on their part. It is said that his
expenses for the entertainment of the bishops amounted to one hundred
pounds per day.

A case of history repeating itself is suggested by these allegations
as to the diplomatic value of the Pope's hospitality. Dr. Karl
Benrath has restored to his place among Italian worthies one of the
most picturesque figures of the many-hued life of that nation in the
sixteenth century. This was Frà Bernardino Ochino, the all-eloquent
General of the Capuchins, whom the blot of the Inquisition had covered
from the common eye for three centuries. Ochino, who became a guest
of Cranmer and a prebendary of Canterbury, wrote on the banks of
the Thames, among other works, one called _The Tragedy_. Conceiving
of the Papacy exactly as all modern Italian Protestants do, as the
anti-Christ, and the masterpiece of Satan, he traces the rise of this
dread power. Besides supernatural sources of ascendancy, he alleges the
fact that in early ages the Bishops of Rome entertained bishops out of
the provinces when they fled to the capital from persecution, or came
from other causes, and thus the Roman prelates acquired great influence
over the others. Their object then was "Primacy," out of which
infallibility was in our day to come. Ochino puts into the mouth of the
secretary to the Emperor, after he has discovered the Pope's yearnings,
the following words: "O Lord God, that there can be so much ambition in
the heart of a man! it is no marvel that he entertains in so friendly a
manner all strangers who come to Rome."

Besides bishops came a mixed multitude--the devout Catholic, the
keen politician, the commonplace tourist from every country, the gay
sightseer, the American politician, the artist, the charlatan, the
Indian civilian on furlough, and the learned official theologian.
Few, but intent, came a new class of spectators--Italian Protestants,
watching with eyes as open to all priestly arts as men of the sixteenth
century, but with a readiness to affiliate each part of a Roman show
on its Pagan original, much beyond what was even then common among our
countrymen.

The Count Henri de Riancey, beholding the hierarchy pressing to the
sacred walls, exclaims--

    Open then thy gates, metropolis of the world; open thine
    everlasting gates, that the Queen of glory may come in! And who is
    this Queen of glory? It is the Church.... Make way, then, for the
    angels of the Churches, spoken of by St. John. Make way for the
    divine hierarchy, the ranks of which are moving, with order, force,
    and holiness, terrible as an army with banners (_Frond_, vol. i. p.
    9).

One of the theologians has published a diary (_Tagebuch_), which
will always remain one of the original sources of information on the
Council. Its accuracy, like that of the _Letters of Quirinus_, has been
assailed, and with not dissimilar result. Strong general assertions
and weak proof, except on such minor points as show that the substance
is unassailable, leave its accuracy but slightly impeached, and its
truthfulness not at all discredited. The author states things which,
by our standard, would be held private; but however that may be by the
standard of his own country, the things, when once published, take
their place among the materials of history.

Dr. Friedrich, a professor of Munich, was appointed theologian for
the Council to Cardinal Hohenlohe. He began his diary before leaving
home. He found that it was vain to seek in the palace of Archbishop
Von Scherr for such works in the original as a set of the Fathers,
or a collection of the Acts of the Councils. The Reverend Secretary
said, "You know little of bishops if you think that those people study
anything." This gentleman, who was to be the Archbishop's theologian
at the Council, himself read only pamphlets. When Friedrich was on the
railway platform, observing the two Archbishops of Munich and Bamberg,
taking their departure for the Council, the confidential servant of the
latter came up to the Professor and said, "You are not surely coming to
Rome as a spy?" Answering not the man but the master, he replied: "Let
bishops take care that they do not betray the Church, for just as they
are bound to speak to the best of their knowledge and conscience, so am
I as a theologian."

Thus Friedrich evidently expected to have to speak, as it would seem
that Newman also did. He did not know how the secret plans had put
aside all such possibilities. But if surprises awaited him as to the
new part reserved for the doctors, there were surprises for the bishops
also.

Friedrich remarked that, as he travelled farther south, less and less
respect was shown to the clergy, till in Italy the difference, as
compared with Germany, became painful. At Trent, a scholar warned him
to beware of poison, and said that it was well that Döllinger had not
gone to Rome, as he would never have returned.

The theologian, full of the lore of Munich, standing in the quaint
Alpine city, on the Adige, with the image in his mind of the doctors
who, three hundred years ago, there disputed before the bishops and
before the world, would naturally form an exalted idea of the work
awaiting him in the grander assembly on the banks of the Tiber. The
church of St. Maria Maggiore would swell, in his anticipation, into St.
Peter's; the listening prelates to a threefold or fourfold array. The
struggle itself was to be much more concentrated, turning on one vital
point. It was not now merely a question as to what was to be taught,
but as to who was the divine teacher. It was not a dispute about one
doctrine or more, but about the very fountain of doctrine. It was not
any question between the Church and her enemies, but one between the
Church and her head. It was to be decided whether the oracle was the
whole Church, or the Pope without the Church. The dispute was awkward.
Raising it showed Protestants that Rome, while claiming infallibility,
had not yet settled where it lay.

After a narrow escape of being murdered on the railway near Terni,
Friedrich reached the Holy City. Such was the throng, already, that
he had to pay ten francs for the use of a room for a while in the
afternoon, before going to his home in the Palazzo Valentini with
Cardinal Hohenlohe. That palace stands in the Piazza of the Twelve
Apostles, full of reminiscences of days when Alberich and his
descendants ruled the city, and held the Popes, sometimes in prison,
but always in subjection to the chiefs springing from Theodora and
Marozia.

On November 28, a discourse was delivered in St. Peter's, by Father
Raimondo Bianchi, Procurator-General of the Dominicans, which was
thought sufficiently important to be printed with the Freiburg edition
of the _Acta_ (p. 130). If good preaching lies in saying much and
suggesting more, in the least time, this sermon is perfection; for it
occupies less than four octavo pages. A note which we have already
heard delicately touched by Archbishop Manning, a note at that time
as often sounded as any in the episcopal scale, was given forth with
full power: "Be wise, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the
earth."[179]

On December 4, the Dominicans appeared again. The Pope, departing from
the usual course, had appointed Father Jandel as their general; some
say selecting him that he might amend the theology of the order, the
members of which were known to be weak Immaculatists, and suspected
of not being sound Infallibilists. Father Jandel now broke out in a
circular, which twenty years ago we should have smiled at as at new
_gri-gri_, but which now seems to be more like to the red cross of
the Muster. We shall presently see how scientifically Tarquini had
demonstrated that the right of _directly_ wielding the temporal sword
did, in spite of all denials, belong to the Pope and a General Council,
and we have already seen with what fascination popular pens were
surrounding the life and death of the "soldier of the Cross."

"We hasten," exclaims Jandel, "to announce to you the joyful tidings,
and we make speed to convey to you the pontifical brief which grants
new indulgences for the recitation of the rosary during the whole
continuance of the Vatican Council." The brief thus heralded looks
as if the inspiration of St. Peter Arbues, "first inquisitor of the
kingdom of Aragon," was beginning to operate. The Pontiff informs
the faithful that St. Dominic, armed with this rosary, as with an
invincible sword, crushed the infamous heresy of the Albigenses.
Therefore, in the present crisis, equipped with the same armour, and
_with the authority of the Vatican Council_, they will be enabled to
"overthrow and extirpate the manifold monsters of error that prowl
around." To invite all to arm themselves with this holy weapon,
special indulgences are granted to those who will daily recite ten
rosaries, so long as the Council lasts. We believe a rosary consists
of one Paternoster, ten Ave Marias, and one Gloria; so that each week
seven hundred prayers to the Virgin, seventy to God, with seventy
doxologies, would have to be repeated. The Pope strongly expresses his
simple faith in the efficacy of this expedient.[180]

All who know what has been going on in Europe of late years know that
the time for smiling at rosaries is past. A charm or a _chupattie_
ceases to be a trifle when it becomes the symbol connecting devotion
with deeds of blood. At a time when millions upon millions of children
are in the hands of those who, with gentle manners and profoundly
conscientious views, instil antipathies which time can scarcely
extract, charms become formidable when to such antipathies they are
the symbols of--as the _Civiltá_ puts it--a pure conscience, a sublime
cause, and an immortal hope.

The significance of these demonstrations was greatest for those who
had watched the doctrines which were being elaborated by the Jesuits
and diffused both through periodicals and such scholastic books as
that of Tarquini. The doctrine of Boniface VIII, that the material
sword was not in the hand of the priest, but only at his beck, was
being replaced by a higher one. Boniface accused those of Manichean
dualism who did not confess that both swords were in his _power_. But
it proved that he had himself leaned too much towards dualism, for he
denied the material sword to the priest's own hand. This doctrine would
no longer do. Cardinal Tarquini, who, it must not be forgotten, is set
before us by Cardinal Manning as the modern example of teaching milder
than that of Bellarmine and Suarez, goes beyond the theology of former
times, and claims the _direct_ right of the sword, even in war, for the
_hand of the Pope and a Council_, though still denying it to inferior
ecclesiastical authorities.

    I admit, says Tarquini (p. 39), that the Church is a spiritual
    society as to its end; I deny that it is so as to its
    substance--that is, as to the members composing it, since they are
    not mere spirits but men. I admit that it ought to use spiritual
    means--that is, means _which are adapted to the attainment_ of
    the spiritual end. I deny that it should use only means which are
    spiritual in themselves and in their nature. Every one who is not
    a simpleton knows that men (in whom soul is joined with body) are
    to be moved, corrected, and coerced; hence they cannot be led to
    an end, even a spiritual one, by purely spiritual means. But the
    matter, quality, and proportion of the means is to be determined by
    the requirements of the end.

As to the words of our Lord, that His disciples shall not exercise
lordship as the kings of the Gentiles do, he admits that they bind the
Church to shun dominion _so far as that means a spirit of ambition
whereby any one might subject others to himself for his own glory or
advantage_; but he denies that they require her to shun dominion in so
far as it means the office of ruling, and that of administering means
contributing to the attainment of her end.

He labours to meet the objection against the use of force by the
Church, drawn from her own doctrine, that men are to be called to her
bosom freely and without compulsion. He asserts that liberty here means
freedom from _intrinsic necessity_, but not from _extrinsic necessity_,
or coaction. This coaction or compulsion does not prevent either merit,
or the attainment of the spiritual end; indeed, when applied by the
Church, greatly promotes them. He admits that compulsion is not to be
used towards infidels--that is, unbaptized persons--but denies that it
is not to be used towards baptized persons.

As to the objection founded on 2 Tim. iv. 2-5, that "the weapons of the
Church are altogether confined to exhortations and tears," he simply
says, I deny it. Then he argues that the words of St. Paul in this
place rather weaken than support those who oppose the use of force;
because the terms he employs are both _general and sharp: reprove,
rebuke, be instant in season and out of season_. All means which
necessity may call for are included. He admits that longsuffering and
doctrine are to be employed, if necessity demands no harsher means;
but denies that they are to be employed exclusively. He demands that
the character of the times in which these texts were written shall
not be forgotten, namely, times in which the Church, being under the
unfriendly government of the heathen, _was not able to put forth the
fulness of her power_. But it cannot be proved by any arguments that
this right (_jus gladii_) may not be _immediately_ exercised by the
supreme magistracy of the Church, if necessity call for it; for the
contrary indeed may be demonstrated from natural law, since the Church
is a Perfect Society; and no passage can be cited from positive divine
law in which it is really prohibited, for Matthew xxvi. 52 is quite
inapplicable, where Christ says to Peter, _then a private man_, "Put up
again thy sword into its place"; and 2 Cor. x. 4, where Paul, declaring
the might of his own power, says, "_The weapons of our warfare are not
carnal_ (that is, are not fragile or futile), _but are mighty through
God to the pulling down of strongholds_."

The fact that the meaning of carnal weapons is coolly assumed to be
fragile or futile ones, is not to be overlooked. It would naturally
follow that the chassepots at Mentana, which were neither fragile
nor futile, were not carnal weapons. Of course Tarquini would have
said that though in their proper nature carnal, when serving a purely
spiritual end they took on a spiritual character. But we cannot forget
that the "strongholds" which the weapons of Paul were mighty to
pull down were "imaginations," and the captives they led bound were
"thoughts." That is a sphere in which the proper weapon is not either
shot or fetter, but the word and the works of men whom God makes wise
to teach and holy to charm. There is one symbol which the Vatican never
sees, that of the true and only Head of the Church, with no sword in
His hand, much less two, but one sharp sword with two edges proceeding
_out of His mouth_. That alone is the weapon that is not carnal but
mighty through God.

We now begin to see the grounds cropping out on which Mr. Bryce's
doctrine of two heads to the Catholic State, one civil and one
spiritual, was condemned. The days of dualism and Manicheism in any
form were numbered.

With their complaints that the Jesuits, both in the confessionals and
in their text-books, corrupted Catholic morality, the Liberal Catholics
mingled loud and bitter complaints that they sought to make the people
superstitious and to keep them ignorant. It was often alleged that
even their schools, or those under their virtual if not ostensible
control, were themselves preserves of ignorance and superstition,
keeping the scholars from an education, according to their capacity,
for one "suited to their position," and at the same time preparing
them to receive all kinds of fables and "lying wonders,"--a term not
infrequently quoted by Liberal Catholics. Those fables and wonders
would open a field so large, and one lying on a level so low, that
we have not cared even to glance at them. As found in local clerical
papers, or books of what is called "devotions," they are so gross that
a writer could hardly repeat them without incurring loss, not only in
the respect of others, but in self-respect. Liberal Catholics, however,
know that they are a real power in Jesuit hands, one of the powers in
the future war against science, the Press, and free government, and
through these, against Protestantism. One specimen of the higher order
we may give, from which some opinion may be formed of those vented in
small places, by ignorant men, through low publications.

We speak of the great _Civiltá_,[181] of the "metropolis of the
Christian world," and of a deliverance of the Capitol itself. The plan
of the Garibaldians, insists the _Civiltá_, in October 1867, was to
seize the Capitol and to ring the great bell, at the sound of which
all over Rome their hordes were to rise. But Anna Maria Taigi, who had
died thirty years before, in the odour of sanctity, had seen prophetic
visions of Rome wasted with fire and sword, and dreadful with heaps
of unburied corpses, breeding dire pestilence. Some thought that 1849
might have been the fulfilment of the vision; others that it was
the attempt of 1867. But by the special "devotion" to this saintly
woman, such dread event was to be averted. On the evening when all
felt that the shock was coming, but no one saw whence or how, a priest
of ninety years old, "well known to all in Rome," said to another,
"I feel assured that the venerable Anna Maria will defend the city;
and her image must at once be carried to the Capitol, for that is the
point they will aim at; the Capitol once saved, Rome belongs to the
Pope." The other priest objected that the hour was late and the streets
unsafe. The old man insisted, reassured him, blessed him, and sent him
away with the image, charging him to place it on the highest point.
As the priest, bearing the image, reached the steps of the Capitol, a
friend from a window, perceiving him, earnestly warned him to go home.
Trembling, yet resolute, he pressed up the hill. All was silent as a
desert. Having reached the utmost height under the bell-tower, he was
fixing up the image, when he heard people move, and a door opened. A
woman appeared. "I came," said he, "solely for the purpose of setting
up an image." It would appear that it was a picture, for he had brought
wafers with him to fasten it. Carlotta (for that was the woman's name)
looked at the image, and cried, "Why, that is the venerable Anna Maria
Taigi; I also practise devotion to her." The priest withdrew in silence
and in haste. Meanwhile a priest from Bologna went in to visit the
nonagenarian devotee of Anna Maria. "Don Pedro," cried the old man,
"the Venerable has taken possession of the Capitol in the name of the
Pope, and she will defend it from the Garibaldians." The attempt on the
Capitol was almost immediately made and failed. Those who remember the
tale of the Capitol when Brennus was the Garibaldi will be tempted to
ask how great is the present elevation of faith above that of the days
of the sacred geese.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 179: Bryce (p. 177) quotes from the second excommunication
of Henry IV by Hildebrand as follows: "Come now, I beseech you, O
most holy and blessed Fathers and Princes, Peter and Paul, that all
the world may understand and know that if ye are able to bind and
to loose in heaven, ye are likewise able on earth, according to the
merits of each man, to give and to take away empires, kingdoms,
princedoms, marquisates, duchies, countships, and the possessions of
all men."--_Holy Roman Empire._]

[Footnote 180: _Guérin_, pp. 61, 62; _Friedberg_, p. 82.]

[Footnote 181: VII. vii. 432 ff.]




CHAPTER XIII

Great Ceremony of Executive Spectacle, called a Pro-Synodal
Congregation, to forestall Attempts at Self-Organization on the part
of the Council--The Scene--The Allocution--Officers appointed by
Royal Proclamation--Oath of Secrecy--Papers Distributed--How the Nine
had foreseen and forestalled all Questions of Self-organization--The
Assembly made into a Conclave, not a General Council--Cecconi's Apology
for the Rules.


The event now to be described was called a Pro-Synodal Congregation.
Being designed to give parliamentary effect to secret decisions of
the Court, it was in reality a Ceremony of Executive Spectacle. Such
a description seems obscure, but the official name is misleading.
_Congregation_ is the word used in Councils for deliberative sittings,
in which measures are proposed and debated, in contrast to _Sessions_,
which mean only grand public solemnities, where decrees already voted
are formally adopted. Therefore the word Congregation would suggest
deliberation and some sort of consultative participation, by the
bishops, in the proceedings.

This prelude to the Council was not a vain show, but had been contrived
by the best diplomatic and artistic skill of the Curia. After the
Directing Congregation had spent nine months in elaborating rules
of procedure to bind the bishops neck and foot, the Nine began to
see that, should the Council meet before it was organized, it might
fall into the temptation to organize itself. Some one skilled in
parliamentary forms might move to elect officers, and to have, as in
former times, open discussion, in order to hear questions of theology
argued by the doctors, before they, the judges, began to frame their
sentence. Some one might even suggest that they should agree upon their
own rules of procedure. Now, all these points had been irrevocably
settled beforehand against the episcopate by its superiors, and any
attempt to discuss them might cause the greatest confusion. If some
spirit, perhaps like Darboy, as is gravely said, "excessively enamoured
of liberty," should once stir such questions, the records of Trent were
there to show that it might cause trouble to settle them. Therefore
the Nine were disquieted. Such possibilities must be forestalled.

Moreover it had been resolved that, to take time by the forelock, the
all-important Rules should be printed in advance, and should, before
any possible self-action of the Council, be distributed during the
grand public ceremonial of opening. Doubtless, when first adopted, this
resolution seemed not only satisfactory, but far-seeing. It was not
till as late as the month of August that some one pair of eyes among
the Nine caught sight of the fact that, the opening ceremony being
legally a Session of the Council, some "advanced spirit" might take
advantage of that circumstance to assert that the Rules, being issued
in a sitting of the Council, were an act of the Council, and therefore
were liable to revision by it. That would never do. Therefore, at two
sittings, on August 16 and 22, the former resolution was rescinded,
and the ingenious expedient was devised of the Ceremony of Executive
Spectacle now to be described. The Rules could be issued as part of the
ceremony, and thereby would every pretext for declaring them an act of
the Council be forestalled.

The Sixtine Chapel, connected in the imagination of the Fathers with
all the glories and sanctities of their Church, was specially fitted up
for the event. From every region under heaven gathered prelates richly
attired, each feeling the splendour of the scene, and consciously
augmenting it. Their susceptibilities of spectacle were vividly awake.
As boys, those susceptibilities had been trained and forced. As men,
they had themselves trained and forced the same susceptibilities in
others. Now, in old age, they came to have the art of government by
spectacle practised upon themselves; practised by masters to whom
their consciences, sympathies, and imaginations taught them to look
up. Under the skilled touch of those masters were they now about
to let drop, without a word, and for the most part unconsciously,
privileges of their order, which had been guarded by their predecessors
as carefully as they would themselves guard their episcopal rings. The
place, the men, the scene, the coming displays, and the dawning future,
big with events, were, for the moment, all in all to them. It was the
historic eve of the day of days; and deep feeling fluttered under their
silk and brocade and gold.

Before their eyes spread the wonderful painting of Michael Angelo, in
which, according to M. Frond he "reproduced" the scene of the last
judgement. It is a monument to the power of genius, even when driven
to work on what the true aesthetic of the painter told him should be
left to the imaging of the spirit, and should not be attempted by
the pencil. There, again, stood the vacant throne, waiting for him
who, when he first ascended it, had, as the reader will remember,
these words solemnly impressed upon his ear, in the house and by the
ministers of God: "Know that thou art Father of princes and of kings,
and art Governor of the World." The Cardinal Priests and Cardinal
Bishops were on the right of the throne, the Cardinal Deacons on
the left. Near it stood Patriarchs, Primates, and Archbishops, in
regular gradation, and after them in regular gradation came Bishops,
Abbots, and Generals of Orders. Every brilliant figure in that throng
was standing, except the Cardinals. Through a door, preceded by his
household, was see entering the form of him who holds the place of
God upon earth. The Sacred College stood up, all clad in violet, with
rochette, mantelleta, and mozzetta. Then all cast themselves down upon
their knees. The Pontiff, blessing his prostrate vassals, moved to the
throne, seated himself, and, with beaming visage looked paternally
down on the rulers of docile millions--rulers whose many-tinted
splendour was but the effluence of his own majesty.

Now, in his hale, ringing voice, the Pope read an allocution. It
expressed much affection for his venerable brethren, and solicitude
for the success of their approaching deliberations. To those who had
come up full of confidence in the moderation of the Curia, all that
they heard was reassuring. To those who had been troubled with fears
of hazardous innovation, the bearing and words of the initiated had
been soothing, and so was all that now fell from the throne. Still, the
few who really studied would look in vain for light on the questions
which had been agitated. Those who had such questions in their minds
did not know that from December to the middle of October the Nine had
been engaged in answering them, and had already taken care that every
seam through which any constitutional liberties might leak in should be
tightly caulked.[182] Nor did they know that they were to-day gathered
together for the very purpose of having many of these questions laid
so deep that they should never rise again. Had they known the whole
plan, was there one of them man enough to defeat it? Mighty against
civil authority, were they not weak as water against a higher and more
domineering priest?

Even the few would hardly have time to realize the fact that the
paternal and cordial allocution gave no light upon practical matters,
when lo! Cardinal Antonelli on the right of the throne, and Cardinal
Grassellini on the left! And, presently, Cardinal Clarelli, the
Secretary of Briefs, comes forth and proclaims--

    Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX, Pope, for the good ordering of things
    to be done in this Council, as more largely contained in the
    Letters Apostolic to be forthwith distributed, hath elected and
    named Presidents of the General Congregations, to preside over the
    same in his name and with his authority, the Most Reverend Lords
    Cardinals Charles de Reisach, Bishop of the Sabina, Antony de
    Luca, Joseph Andrew Bizzarri, Aloysius Bilio, and Hannibal Capalti
    (_Acta_, p. 30).

This was immediately followed by the proclamation of the name of Bishop
Fessler as Secretary, and the names of other high officials. Upon this
announcement the Pope solemnly gave the pontifical benediction. Without
the Council, and before the Council, he had bound on earth the question
of presidents, of secretary, of officers, and of rules. But his first
deed was not bound in heaven. Reisach, proclaimed by him as chief
president of the Council, was never to behold it.

As the Fathers took their seats, the master of the ceremonies led in
Prince Orsini in the insignia of Prince-in-Waiting. The temporal prince
kissed the sacred foot, and then took his place on the steps of the
throne.

Now a long line of dignitaries was presented, and going down on the
ground, formed a crescent of beautiful kneeling figures before the
sovereign. Two Cardinal Deacons brought out the volume of the Holy
Gospels, and, standing close to the Pontiff, held it above his knees.
Monsignor Jacobini then read out as follows--

    We, elected by your Holiness officers of the General Vatican
    Council, promise and swear upon the Holy Gospels, faithfully to
    discharge the duties required of us respectively, and moreover not
    to divulge or disclose to any one outside of the bosom of the said
    Council, any of the matters proposed for examination in the said
    Council, nor yet the discussions, nor the speeches of individuals,
    but on all these, as also upon other matters committed to us, to
    observe inviolable secrecy.[183]

Thereupon, each one rising in turn, and advancing in front of the
priest-king, laid his right hand upon the book, held by the two Princes
of the Church, and then said: "I, N.N., promise, vow, and swear,
according to the tenor of the words just read. So help me God and these
God's Holy Gospels!" He then kissed the book and the sacred foot.[184]

About the middle of the long succession rose John Baptist de Dominicis
Tosti, and stood to take the oath as one of the promoters of the
Council. Suppose that a voice had at that moment cried: "Some two years
hence, this de Dominicis Tosti and Prince Chigi shall sit side by side
with two ministers of the Reformed Faith, as joint presidents over a
public discussion, in this city, on the question whether Peter ever
visited Rome, between Catholic priests on the one side, and Evangelical
ministers on the other." What an anathema would have burst from the
disgusted prelates! No such shadow of an impossible shade dimmed the
brilliancy of the scene.

While under the various charms of that scene, the beauty of the
colours, the perfection of the postures, and the grace of the men,
few would remark that the form of oath, binding, as it did, to strict
secrecy on the very subjects discussed, and even on speeches, turned
their forthcoming assembly from a General Council into a Roman
conclave. A few indeed might see, but the overwhelming majority would
not see, that several points which Councils had settled for themselves,
even when they met under Emperors, were now being splendidly settled
for them beforehand--in their presence, indeed, but without their
co-operation, and scarcely with their consciousness. How could they
think of such commonplace affairs in a moment like that? What with
the glorious garments of the Sacred College, the stars and ribbons of
Prince Orsini, the beauty of the enthroned Priest-King, the crescent
of kneeling dignitaries before him, and the touching symbol of the
temporal prince kissing the priestly foot and reverently waiting at the
priestly throne, there was enough to dazzle men less under the spell
of robes. True, the temporal prince was here but a pale reminiscence
of better days--of those days which some of them had called to the
mind of the people since the gathering of 1867; days when kings, ere
they received the crown, lay prostrate before the altar, and swore on
their knees to administer canon law; days when they had, moreover, to
take both sword and sceptre from the hands of the bishop.[185] Still,
this temporal prince served to assert rights which had never been
renounced, and was a comforting token of brighter times after the
Council.

No sooner was the swearing of the officers over, than the Pope took his
departure. Then came the master of the ceremonies, and distributed some
papers to the Fathers.[186]

They proved to be the Allocution just delivered, the Program of
Ceremonies for the opening of the Council, and another document,
Letters Apostolic--longer, and seemingly duller, than the Program.
But this, too, was distributed by the master of ceremonies. At Courts
where government by spectacle is preferred to government by reason,
ceremonies enclose a wide area. What was the right of proposition, or
the right of definition, or the right of public discussion, or the
right of printing, or the right of meeting, in comparison with the
proper places, forms, and postures? Did not Article 136 direct that
the sacred pallium was to be taken off the Holy Father by the Cardinal
Deacon, and to be delivered over to the Sub-Deacon Apostolic? Did not
Article 39 direct that the Sub-Deacon Apostolic, accompanied by two
judges of the High Court of the Signet, should bear the slippers to
the throne; and Article 40 direct that the Pontiff should put them
on?[187] Probably for one bishop who after retiring looked first into
the fateful Rules, ninety would look into the Program.

It was two days after the issue of these documents that Professor
Friedrich arrived in Rome. He found the Archbishops of Munich and
Bamberg and the Bishop of Augsburg with the Program in their hands,
and also the Rules of Procedure. They were full of confidence that
the Curia did not intend to propose anything dangerous. But Friedrich
wanted to learn what were the subjects to be proposed, on which point
the bishops knew nothing. The members of Commissions had all been
bound by oath to conceal, even from their own diocesans, what was
prepared for them to vote. It was to be presented to them with this
alternative: Vote it, or become marked men!

On reaching the Palazzo Valentini, Friedrich found that all that was
known by Cardinal Hohenlohe as to the subjects which he would have
to vote upon amounted to this--a few days previously Cardinal de
Angelis had asserted that nothing would be done beyond condemning the
principles of 1789. This proves that the purple, at least of Cardinal
Hohenlohe, was kept as far aloof from the secrets of the Nine as the
black of Friedrich. Quirinus says (p. 77) that the most distinguished
theologian in Rome, Cardinal Guidi, was not only kept in perfect
ignorance of all that was being prepared, but was never admitted to an
audience with the Pope after he had expressed to him his own views.
Another notability is said by the same author to have been also out
of the circle of the trusted, and many writers share this view; this
was Father Beckx, the General of the Jesuits. Words ascribed to him
by Quirinus are these: "To recover two fractions of the States of the
Church they are pricking on to a war against the world; but they will
lose all."

Friedrich found that the decision of constitutional points of vital
importance was to be wrapped up in a gay gauze of ceremonies. The
very form to be given to the Decrees was slipped in among the items
of the pageant. The conciliar formula used at Trent was replaced by
that of Papal Bulls. The collective hierarchy were not to be permitted
to say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; nor to say, This
Holy Council ordains and decrees. The name of the Pope alone was to
appear as decreeing, and the only words in the decree indicating the
existence of any Council were "The Holy Council approving." Matters
like this, affecting not only the framework of the Church, but the seat
of dogmatic authority, were settled without a note of preparation, in
a program of ceremonies, among directions about faldstools, incense,
and the Pope's slippers. It was as if the Lord Chamberlain, when the
Queen was about to open a new Parliament, should put out a program
of precedence, costumes, and ceremonies, foisting in a few clauses
indicating that Her Majesty would promulge a statute or two, with the
approbation of the assembled Lords and Commons. It would be no trifle
if he did so of his own motion, but would become tremendously serious
if it had been done with full cognizance of the monarch.[188]

No wonder that the keen-eyed Professor was driven from the Program to
the Rules of Procedure. But the fact that the other was the document
first read, even by him--a man in whom the decorative element is
evidently too feeble for a useful priest, and the critical element too
strong--indicates the direction which the studies of gentlemen like
his archbishops and bishops would take; gentlemen, who knowing that
they had been jealously kept in the dark respecting what they were to
be called to vote upon as the faith of their Church for ever, were
nevertheless satisfied, by a few bows and smiles, that it was to be
something of no importance.

Friedrich was deeply moved by what he found in the Rules, coupled with
what he considered the ignorance of the bishops.

    Every adept, he cries, must see that virtually the form here used
    in propounding decrees contains Papal infallibility. It is the
    Pope, and he alone, that defines and decides. Infallibility is
    even now attributed to him, and not to the Council, and then,
    seeing that this formula is to be acted upon in the first session
    (or public ceremony), it is the Pope who formulates the decree
    without having taken even the advice of the Council, and without
    any discussion on its part. It is not so much as known what are to
    be the subjects of the Decrees which the Council will adopt; and
    yet Decrees containing definitions are announced for the 8th. What
    can this mean? Are we really to have Papal infallibility carried
    by acclamation, as the _Civiltá_ suggested, or shall we only have
    a Decree, as they had at Trent, declaring the Council open, and
    regulating the mode of life of its members? Who can tell? For my
    own part I am uncommonly disquieted (p. 10).

This disquietude of Friedrich represented the first shock of collision
against sunk fences, which had cost the Nine long labour. According to
their faithful historian, the "most arduous and thorny of their tasks
was that of settling the procedure."

It was admitted by the Nine that, even in the fifth Lateran Council,
the question was put to the Fathers, whether the Rules drawn up were
acceptable. It was also feared that the bishops might be offended
if the Pope settled the Rules without hearing their opinion. But,
on the other side, there were three arguments: first, the danger of
"interminable" discussions; secondly, the danger of "some spirit
excessively enamoured of liberty, and of too advanced opinions"; and,
thirdly, the history of former Councils (p. 148). So in June it was
finally determined that the Council should not be permitted to have a
word to say to its own rules and forms of procedure. And in August, as
we have seen, the perfect plan of forestalling all attempts to say a
word upon them was contrived.

One possible objection was brought under attention, by the history of
previous Councils, namely, that there might be a danger of the Pope
restraining the rightful liberty of the bishops. This idea, however,
was dispersed by the light logic which passes at Court. "It would be no
less a folly than an insult to think that a pontifical law could aim at
lessening the liberty of the Council" (p. 147). In this happy sentence
the now mitred historian refines on the words of M. Veuillot, who was
content to say that all would be free because the Pope would be free.

The consultations of the Nine must have been serious upon the critical
point of denying to the Council the right of introducing proposals.
The course finally decided upon called for boldness in the deed,
combined with art in the drapery. It was first settled that the right
of proposition _belonged_ to the Pope alone. Then it was argued that
if this right was _granted_ to the bishops, "it would turn the Council
itself into a constitutional assembly"--which was just what, with all
their faults, the earlier Councils had been, and even that of Trent, in
an inferior degree.

The serious question of excluding all members of the Church but those
constituting the Council had to be faced. Cecconi cannot conceal that
at Trent the entrance to the Council Hall, during the discussions of
the Doctors, was free. Massarellus, the indefatigable secretary of
that Council, in his minute of those present at the first session,
gives more names of laymen than of archbishops. The insertion of their
names means more than that they were in the building--they had seats
of honour.[189] The number of the order of priests present at that
first sitting far exceeded that of the bishops. True, they had no vote;
but they had a most important office, that of discussing points of
doctrine, in the presence of the bishops, before the latter themselves
began to do so. They were the Bar, the prelates, the Bench. Massarellus
himself, secretary from the beginning, was only a doctor, till the
Council reached the days of Pius IV, who made him a bishop.[190]

All the dragooning of the middle ages had not taught men that it was
right for millions to sit outside in the dark, while a few priests
consulted, and determined how their creeds, catechisms, ordination
vows, marriage obligations, parental rights, and national duties were
to be altered. The vast changes consummated at Trent had not yet
done their work in reducing the human mind to servility. The Bible
had not been shackled by a General Council. The Press had not been
scientifically gagged. Authors and booksellers had not felt the
scourge of the Index. Schools and colleges had not been shut up against
discussion and free inquiry, in any such degree as was then introduced.
Consequently the Western Catholic of that day, though in a sense Roman,
was by no means that passive creature of priestly authority into which
three centuries of the sway of the Tridentine Decrees, administered
by a monarch never checked by a public legislature, have moulded the
modern layman.

At Trent the people were present to hear what was said. At the Vatican
their political position and religious belief were both to be decided
upon by decrees not reformable, like all that men do; but irreformable,
as if God had made them. Yet the presence of the people was looked
upon as "the interference of persons from without," and this, it was
felt, would be "a deplorable inconvenience," notably aggravated by the
temper of the times because of the enormous diffusion of the Press.
The journals could not be prevented from writing about the Council;
but means were sought to keep the subjects under discussion from the
knowledge of the "democracy," as Maret calls priests and people. They
should learn the tenor of Decrees adopted only when they were ratified
(_Cecconi_, p. 253). To this end, three points were resolved upon:
first, the General Congregations (that is, the deliberative sittings)
should be altogether private; secondly, the public Sessions (that is,
the grand solemnities for adopting and promulgating Decrees already
framed and voted) should be open only in the liturgical part, the
legislative part being strictly close; thirdly, all the Fathers and
officers should be bound to the deepest silence (p. 254).

We are far from saying that the bishops of the time before Trent would
have accepted a Roman conclave like this, in lieu of a General Council
of the Catholic Church; but if they had done so, the laity of that
time, from Emperor to burgher, would not have suffered it. The laity
then did not represent the offspring of ten generations successively
confined in the Tridentine cribs. Their rights, though roughly defined,
were readily asserted, and sturdily maintained.

The Directing Congregation, having now existed for nearly five years,
had preordained all that was to come to pass in the Council. It had
held fifty-nine formal meetings, very many of which were devoted to
the Rules of Procedure. Beyond the purpled Nine, not a soul was ever
admitted, save only Monsignor Giannelli, their secretary. Five of the
Nine were the destined Presidents of the Council. So that, of the
whole College of Cardinals, only four besides the Presidents were in
the secrets of this body. Just at a few of the last meetings, Bishop
Fessler, the secretary of the Council, was called in. It is not needful
to say that the Directing Congregation was in constant official
communication with the Pontiff.[191]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 182: _Cocconi_, p. 161.]

[Footnote 183: _Acta_, p. 32. Also _Civiltá_, December 1869, p. 740.
Cecconi, _Documenta_, lix.]

[Footnote 184: _Frond._]

[Footnote 185: A picture of this scene, full both of regrets and latent
desires, will be found drawn since the Council in Manning's _Four Great
Evils_, p. 87.]

[Footnote 186: _Stimmen aus Maria Laach, Neue Folge_, Heft vi. pp.
154-55. _Civiltá_, Serie VII. vol. viii. pp. 739-40. _Frond_, vol. vii.
pp. 64-71.]

[Footnote 187: _Signaturae Votantes_; see _Frond_, iii. p. 10.]

[Footnote 188: Theiner, speaking of the relation of the three Popes
under whom the Council of Trent sat, to that Council, says: "It is
as clear as the sunlight that these Pontiffs were not Dictators but
Approvers of the laws which the Fathers, in conjunction with the
Legates, framed." In support of this he cites two letters, one from
Paul III and the other from Pius IV. They both faithfully promise to
confirm whatever the Council adopts. The former says, Even though it
may somewhat conflict with the decisions of former Councils, or with
the privileges of the Holy See. When this was read in the Council,
the Bishop of Fiesole cried out: "Let it be without prejudice to the
universal authority of this Council." (_Acta Genuina_, vol. i. pp. xvi
and 154.)]

[Footnote 189: "Post praelatos sedent nobiles, si qui
adsunt."--Massarellus, _Acta Gen._, i. 5.]

[Footnote 190: _Acta Genuina_, vol. i. 29, 30. Licet sub Paulo III, et
Julio III, essem tantum utr. jur. doct. et protonotarius apostolicus,
sub Pio autem IV, eram episcopus Telesinus.--_Acta Gen._, i. p. 5.]

[Footnote 191: _Cecconi_, p. 268.]




CHAPTER XIV

The Eve of the Council--Rejoicings--Rome the Universal
Fatherland--Veuillot's Joy--Processions--Symbolic Sunbeams--the
Joybells--The Vision of St. Ambrose--The Disfranchisement of Kings.


The _Civiltá_ described how, in beholding prelates daily arrive, the
joy of Rome rose higher and higher; joy resembling but surpassing that
of the great events of 1854, 1862, and 1867. Not only prelates came,
but champions of the sword, the pen, and the tribune, ready to face the
world in the cause of the Pope-King. Count Henri de Riancey begs pardon
of Rome for indulging, at such a moment, in a word for France. Yet his
heart does not turn to France, except on account of what she has done
for the Pope.

    Let Rome, the fatherland of all fatherlands, permit to us this
    flash of patriotism. It is France which has the honour of guarding
    the last fragments of the pontifical dominions ... She has loved
    righteousness; and that is the reason why she is anointed with the
    oil of gladness above her fellows (_Frond_, vol. i. p. xix.).

Poor France! that love of righteousness, which had made her slay so
many Italians to keep up the temporal power, was not to avert from her,
"in the year of the Council," a baptism other than that of the oil of
gladness.

Ordinary Christians would not catch the reference in the above
quotation. To them, "loving righteousness," especially when connected
with the person of the Messiah, is not identified with, but in holy
opposition to, the idea of setting Christian ministers in rank before
secular princes, and in power above kings. But "He loved righteousness
and hated iniquity" stands upon the tomb of Hildebrand, who sought to
establish the "dominion of Christ," the "kingdom of God," the "reign
of righteousness," or as many similar expressions as you please, by
subjecting all the kings of the earth to the Priest of God. Pius IX is
frequently spoken of as the founder of the lordship of the Pope over
the whole earth in the future, as Hildebrand was the founder of his
lordship over it in the past. Therefore the sweetness felt by a good
Ultramontane in connecting the two together.

    I am bewildered with joy, cried M. Veuillot. I try to depict that
    joy, to swim in life. There is an unspeakable gladness in men's
    souls. People feel an aurora. I picked up a number of journals,
    and was going to answer a lively article against myself, in the
    _Gazette de France_; but the author has no idea how all his
    eloquence falls short of a man who, in one and the same day, has
    seen Pius IX, Rome, and the Sun.

Pius IX had not admitted M. Veuillot to kiss the sacred foot for merely
literary service. The devoted advocate laid at the feet he kissed
three thousand pounds in money, collected, through his paper, for the
expenses of the Council. M. Veuillot scolds M. Taine grandly, for
having made some comparison between Rome and Paris--Paris, stretching
from the field of Pantin on one side, to the Follies Belleville on the
other; and Rome, which has no limits but those of the world, and does
not accept those--Paris, which gives birth to M. Rochefort; and Rome,
which directs the nineteenth OEcumenical Council! Had M. Taine seen
Rome yesterday, full of processions of all colours, and bishops of all
countries, he would have said it was more lovely than Paris.

The processions of all colours were no fancy stroke. Nine days of
solemn service in honour of the approaching anniversary of the
Immaculate, and at the same time of the Council, gave an opportunity of
showing to strangers all the confraternities of Rome. They marched to
the various basilicas, especially to St. Peter's; the ostensible object
being to worship the sacred relics which, with uncommon magnificence,
were exposed to their veneration.

The clergy of all lands saw and were seen with wonder and delight.
"When therefore," said Eusebius, speaking of Nicaea, "the Emperor's
order was brought into all the provinces, persons set out as if for
some goal, and ran with all imaginable alacrity, for the hope of good
things drew them, and the participation of peace, and lastly a new
miracle, to wit, the sight of so great an Emperor."[192] Dr. Friedrich
does not express himself so prettily as Eusebius on the appearance of
the assembled clergy. The Asiatic cries, "And one city received them
all, as it were some vast garland of priests, made up of a variety of
beautiful flowers." The Bavarian says, "The clergy of every country
have sent a strong contingent, from the proud monsignore to the
dirtiest village priest."

The importance of sunny weather for public events, great everywhere,
is perhaps exaggerated in Rome. Pius IX is believed to be peculiarly
susceptible to sunbeams. Three of his most memorable days are, by his
adorers, connected with a sunburst which shone for him especially.
Professor Massi relates how, on the day of his taking "possession," the
_apostolic cortège_ followed the "brilliant carriage" of the new Pope
from the Via Sacra up the Coelian Hill, the Cardinals being mounted on
"steeds richly adorned"--doubtless worthy to be compared with those
Sicilian steeds which bore Gregory the Great, of whose stud Gregorovius
soberly says, "We scarcely doubt but that Pindar would have thought the
apostolic horses worthy of an ode."[193] The day was overcast--which
omen had a damping effect--but just as the new Pope approached the
Lateran, a glorious rainbow spanned the east, gladdening all with the
certainty of a reign of peace. In like manner, Professor Massi tells
of that proud April evening when the Pontiff, after a long exile, once
more looked down upon the earth from his own Olympus. The clerical
writers do not exactly call it heaven, but content themselves with
speaking of the figure of the Pope so exalted, as "standing between
earth and heaven," or as a spectacle which reminds us of the Divinity
(_Frond_, p. 16). The secularizing of sacred terms, till we come down
to "apostolic cortèges" and "apostolic horses," and the materializing
of spiritual terms, till "the kingdom of Christ," sometimes means the
temporal power, is a process which must go on until the heaven of the
materialized imagination will be levelled to the height of the noblest
dome, and to the beauties of the best decorator. The peerless piazza of
St. Peter's was, on the day in question, filled with French uniforms.
At the foot of the great staircase rose a platform covered with purple,
and decked with flying banners. The heavens, all day covered with
clouds, suddenly turned azure, and the setting sun poured his beams on
the dome of Michael Angelo, on the cross of the Obelisk, and on the
statues which adorn the Colonnade, just as Pius IX "raised his paternal
hand to bless the arms which had avenged his throne." The third day on
which the sun shone expressly for Pius IX has been already mentioned,
that of the Immaculate Conception.

It was not only, as some say, the nuns, but also priests and
_littérateurs_ who took it as both indispensable and certain that
St. Peter's should be bathed in the brightest gold the skies could
send on the day which was to unite three glories--the anniversary of
the Immaculate, the opening of the General Council, and the probable
acclamation of Pius IX as infallible.

On December 7, when the midday gun was fired from St. Angelo's, a
peal of joybells rang out from more than four hundred churches. From
the distant Coelian came the deep note of the Lateran, floating over
Coliseum and Capitol; from the Esquiline came that of Santa Maria
Maggiore, floating over the Quirinal. These two met the boom of St.
Peter's swinging across the Tiber, and, blending with it, formed, in
that sea of sound, a rolling base for the billows, on whose crests
every variety of bell-note clashed and sparkled. Far beyond the gates,
the lone and beautiful St. Paul's lifted up its voice, as if bidding
the untilled plains to tell the unfrequented shore that there was joy
in the cloister capital.

Hints from Jesuit pens lead us to see some of the Order standing on
the Janiculum, by S. Pietro in Montorio, drinking in the view of the
renowned panorama, while the impressions of years would be brought to
a focus by the sensations of a moment. Every thrill would be taken
either for a proof or a promise. Things done by the Order were being
glorified, things to be done were being assured by the voice of many
churches. Before memory would rise the figures of Hildebrand, Dominic,
Ignatius, illuminated by the imagination of the past. Before hope
would rise the figure of the new Hildebrand, with his now unlimited
sceptre, and new Loyolas and Dominics, illuminated by the imagination
of the future. Other German Henrys would be seen standing in penance,
other English Johns signing away their supremacy: and surely if at
Ingolstadt the Order had trained a Ferdinand II, another could now be
trained, and the Virgin and St. Ignatius would not fail to raise up a
more successful Tilly, and a more faithful Wallenstein. "Be wise now
therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth," would
seem ringing with articulate speech from the tongue of every bell.

As the _Ave Maria_ sounded in the sunset, the guns of S. Angelo saluted
the happy eve. The Pope rode in state to the Church of the Twelve
Apostles, and the crowd lined the entire way. The Jesuit writers heard
enthusiastic cheers at every point. Some partial illuminations were
attempted, but the weather was unfavourable. This, however, damped not
the spirits of any one, for there was to be a glorious illumination
on the morrow, when the rain was bound to cease. M. Veuillot, buoyant
as were his spirits, admitted that, with all his love for Rome, he
could not deny that it rains there in winter. But hope was exulting,
enthusiasm unbounded. The preparation of ideas had, it was thought,
done its work; the restoration of facts was now not far off. The
_Civiltá_ asks, Did ever Council meet under such a Pope, with his
graces and his virtues, his rich experience, his burden of palms won
in incessant victories over the enemies of Christ; the restorer of the
hierarchy in two nations, the founder of many dioceses; the conqueror
of the fallacies, hypocrisies, and fraudulence of the politicasters of
our day, the glorifier of the Virgin, who "sensibly" covers him with
her mantle, and takes delight in twining roses with the thorns whereof
the tiara that crowns him is altogether composed?[194] The words of
a French layman equal those of the Italian Jesuit. It is again the
Count Henri de Riancey who cries, "The Father of the Fathers, Sovereign
Pontiff of the Bishops, refuge of the bishops; he is the Universal
Patriarch, the Prefect of the house of God, the Guardian of the
vineyard of the Lord. He it is who confirms the faith of Christians;
he is Abraham in his patriarchate, Melchisedek in order, Moses in
authority, Samuel in jurisdiction, Peter in power, Christ in unction"
(_Frond_, i. p. xxx.).

It was St. Ambrose's day. M. Veuillot, in imagination, saw the saint
"appear on the threshold on which the eyes of the human species are
fixed, full of hope," But M. Veuillot seldom meets with a saint, dead
or living, but a political end soon appears. This was, he cries, a
felicitous rencounter. What made it so? When Ambrose had become bishop,
he excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius for the crime of inhumanity.
His image in this act is to M. Veuillot evidently the prototype of
Pius IX leaving the kings out of the Council. But it is one thing to
refuse the Communion, which was open for the humblest believer, to
the greatest potentate alive, because his word has wantonly handed
his subjects over to death; and it is another thing to refuse to all
believers in existence a place, even as hearers, in the chamber where
new laws binding them and their children for ever are to be decreed.

The scene at Milan, and that at St. Peter's, similar to the ardent
Ultramontane, would strike us rather by contrast. On the former
threshold we see a Christian pastor guarding the Lord's Table. On the
latter, a king, and an aspirant after universal political supremacy,
guarding the secret of his own counsels. Outside the Milan threshold
we see one sinner in purple, while the common Christians are free to
approach. Outside the Vatican are all members of Churches whom the
king in purple and scarlet acknowledges as members of his own Church.
The people are disfranchised with the princes at their head. The
priests had long been losing their franchise in the election of their
bishops. More recently they had been losing their freehold in their
parishes. When the Jesuits obtained possession of Pius IX, the parish
priest had a life interest in his parish subject to good behaviour.
But this formed too much of a tie to the nation. The parochial clergy
had to be mobilized. So, gradually, they had been put into berths
only by temporary appointment, and held the place _ad nutum_, at the
nod of the bishop. They had been glad that the sword _in the hand_ of
the king should not be in his power, but at the nod of the priest. It
was scarcely so pleasant that the parish, in the hand of the priest,
should be at the nod of the bishop. The making of it so had already to
a large extent been accomplished. It was now to be completed; but those
tyrannous kings might attempt to check the move by what they would call
protecting the lower clergy, what the Vatican would call destroying the
liberty of the Church.

The whole spirit of the Jesuit Press at this period indicated that
the Modern State had so wearied out the Vatican that the only chance
for kings to make their peace with it would lie in separating their
cause from that of parliaments and constitutions. If they meant to
be tolerated long after the Council, they must not only reign but
govern--govern Catholic States under the Syllabus. A ruler by divine
right--which among the baptized means one instituted by the Pope and
corrected by him--is the essence of the matter. "THE POPE AND THE
PEOPLE!" is the last exclamation of M. Veuillot, on the eve of the
day when the nations were to come to judgment--on the eve of the day
when the salutary conspiracy recommended by the _Civiltá_ with its
first breath was to hold its crowning conclave, when the holy Crusade,
heralded with the same breath, was to receive both its legal warrant
and its world-wide impulse. A triumphal arch was to mark the completion
of a stage of toil and the entrance upon a stage of transformation.
"THE POPE AND THE PEOPLE. I believe that these words are invisibly
written on the door of this Vatican Council, which door forms the
entrance to a _new world_; rather is it a triumphal arch erected on the
rediscovered highway of the human race."[195]

That triumphal arch and that rediscovered way of the human species
which, to M. Veuillot, made the entrance to the Vatican Council
sublime, invested it, to the eyes of Liberal Catholics, with clouds
of doubtful omen. The triumph vaunted was real and even stupendous,
but it was a triumph over the principles in the name of which
Liberal Catholics had fought and won the battles of the Church. The
rediscovered way was no other than the broad road of clerical dominion
over spiritual and temporal things which, in the ages before the
Reformation, had led the Church down to a degree of corruption now
denied by none--a broad road, which had since then been swept and
mended, but to which had in the meantime been added the countless
sidepaths of Jesuit morals. If all those sidepaths should by authority
be opened for the winding and the straying of human guile and passion,
what would the Catholic nations come to? Studious Liberal Catholics
were aware of the two sides of the Jesuit system of morals, whereof
Protestants generally were cognizant only of one. These knew, indeed,
that a lawful end renders the means to it lawful; but Liberal Catholics
knew that it was also taught that an unlawful end did not infect with
guilt the means by which it had been reached, provided only that in
themselves those means consisted of acts not necessarily unlawful. Thus
on both sides--that of seeking a lawful end by unlawful means, and that
of employing lawful means for an unlawful end--was the gate made wider,
the road broader, and the way more smooth for guile to creep or passion
to roll downward, but attended all along by the comforts of absolution,
and sprinkled with holy water.[196]

And as to the new world to which the Council was to be an entrance,
Liberal Catholics had seen the Pope's special _college of writers_,
in the _Civiltá_, dwell upon the act whereby Alexander VI drew a
line from pole to pole, and gave to Spain all regions that should be
discovered to the west of it, and to Portugal all those that should
be discovered to the east of it; and contend that the Pope, in saying
of those regions, I _give_, _concede_, and _assign_ them to this king
and to that, acted simply as the Vicar of Christ; nay, that by that act
the autonomy of the Indians was not in the least offended; and that,
moreover, what in the jargon of infidel and of heretics was called the
pretensions of Rome, was nothing else but the exercise of a clear and
sublime right, resorted to by the Pope in seeking a solid protection,
in new countries, for the autonomy of nations and of individuals, when
otherwise, to the offence of religion, it might have been violated by
barbarians.[197] But was this supreme power to dispose by sentence of
the lot of nations, even though unknown, without in so doing offending
in the least against their rights, to be exalted into eternal dogma? If
so, and if mankind would endure it, well might the door of the Council
be regarded as the entrance to a new world. But whether future ages
will reckon it as the entrance to a new world or not, we are about to
see that it was indeed the entrance to an arena on which was to be
witnessed a process of revolution from above and a struggle of priest
with priest,--a process as instructive, a struggle as curious, as any
that our age has produced, among its many transformations of polity and
redistributions of power.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 192: _Life of Const._, lib. iii. cap. 6.]

[Footnote 193: _Geschichte der Stadt Rom._ ii. p. 60.]

[Footnote 194: Serie VII. vol. ix. p. 21.]

[Footnote 195: Vol. i. p. 14.]

[Footnote 196: See Gury, especially his _Casus Conscientiæ_. A small
duodecimo _Doctrina Moralis Jesuitarum_ (Celle, 1874), gives copious
extracts from Jesuit authors with a German translation. For the English
reader, Mr. Cartwright's work on the Jesuits supplies a good outline.]

[Footnote 197: VI. i. 662-80.]




_BOOK III_

_FROM THE OPENING OF THE COUNCIL TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE QUESTION OF
INFALLIBILITY_




CHAPTER I

The First Session, December 8, 1869, or Opening
Ceremony--Mustering--Robing--The Procession--The Anthem and Mass--The
Sermon--The Act of Obedience--The Allocution--The Incensing--Passing
Decrees--The _Te Deum_--Appreciations of various Witnesses.


At dawn, on Wednesday, December 8, 1869, the guns of Fort St. Angelo
saluted the long looked for day, while from the other side of the Tiber
those of the Aventine replied. The bellowing of these beasts of war
awoke the city to witness a Council of the ministers of peace. As the
sounds reached the ear of peasant, monk, and nun, already plodding in
the dark from places outside the walls, the sky was low, and pouring
down a truly Roman rain. Unlike towns round which smiling homes are
sown broadcast outside of the bounds, Rome, when approached by most of
the routes, first shows the city walls, and not till a good while later
does it show the beginning of habitations. The poor suburbs which lie
outside a few of the gates are less dreary than the space inside, where
lonely roads, shut in by blank walls, lead amidst crumbling mementoes
of rulers of the world, and marks of the actual reign of drones not
able to master ordinary difficulties. Every now and then comes a
church, or one of the two hundred and more convents and nunneries which
sanctify the place. But scarcely any of these have an outline such as
to yield, in twilight, the effect of either Gothic spires or Moorish
minarets, or even of good Grecian colonnades.

Many a cowled figure struggled under the drenching rain along these
desolate ways. One would pass the spot where Peter was arrested by
his Master, when the Fisherman uttered the famous "Lord, whither
goest Thou?" and was turned back to Rome to die. Another would pass
by the vale of Egeria and he might well wonder if Numa ever had to
seek inspiration there in such dismal gloom. Crossing the open ground
about the Lateran, some of the monks might think of the terrible morn
when Totila, in mercy, halted his troops inside the gates, sending the
clang of his trumpets through the dark, all over the city, to give the
wretched Romans the chance of flight.

Other monks coming from St. Agnese, and entering by the Porta Pia,
would reflect upon the adornment of that gate by the Holy Father, and
upon its happy name which links it both with Pius IX and with its own
founder. Its founder, Pius IV, signed the Creed of the Council of
Trent, and Pius IX was to sign the new Creed of the Council of the
Vatican. This beautiful coincidence would, with the monks, make the
gate an emblem of the Church, against which the gates of hell should
never prevail. If they only happened to recollect that its old name
_Nomentana_ marked it as the Mentana Gate, the encouraging impression
would rise almost to the brightness of a revelation. The day, only two
years before, when the conquering crusaders marched in, and the welkin
rang with shouts of "Long live Pius IX!" "Long live the zouaves!"
"Long live the Crusaders!" "Long live Catholic France!" would return
to memory as the pledge of mightier Mentanas. Had an invisible hand
drawn aside the veil, and shown them that gate, some nine months later,
admitting the Italian troops, followed by the dog Pio drawing a little
cart full of Bibles; and then shown, still later, the residence of a
British Ambassador to the King of Italy inside the gate, and on the
outside the residence of Garibaldi, the monks would have vowed by all
the saints, old and new, that the vision came from a lying spirit.

Some, again, crossing the Tiber by the Milvian Bridge, would, in spite
of the blinding rain, see the figure of Constantine victoriously
dominating the heights, and that of Maxentius being hurled into the
stream. A while afterwards, when passing near the Broken Wall, where
St. Peter himself had kept watch, and with his own hand had blinded and
routed the Goths, they would feel that now when his successor was to
be at last duly exalted, the Apostle would surely keep the city more
jealously than before; and if there was need of a Belisarius to crush
the Italian barbarians, the Lord would raise him up at the intercession
of Peter.

As they came further inwards, the crowds of the city were already in
motion. Down from the Coelian and Esquiline were they pouring past the
Coliseum, reflecting men delighting in the thought that all high things
which exalt themselves against the Church would fall into her power
just as the Coliseum had done; for the "high things" of the Romanized
imagination are naturally material ones. The Arch of Titus, darkly
outlined in the morning grey, would be the prophetic pledge that the
Jews, however stubborn, would yield to the Pontiff at last. But where
was the golden candlestick--where the temple vessels? After Genseric
carried them off, had they ever returned? The ruinous Palatine would
symbolize woes coming to modern Caesars, as sure as those which had
crushed the ancient ones. Indeed, it is not impossible that some would
see visions like those seen by monks of yore, who beheld the soul of
the great Theodoric dragged into the crater of Stromboli.

From the Aventine, where Peter resided with Priscilla and Aquila, and
which is now little but a site for monastic establishments, many would
come, passing by the place where once stood the Circus Maximus. The
thoughtful would there have in their eye the grand spectacles of Pagan
Rome. It was by a spectacle that Romulus allured the Sabines to unity
by violence; and it was by a spectacle that Pius IX was now wooing
the world to wedlock with the Papacy--ready, if only able, to take
short measures with the coy. But what were the shows of the old rude
times to this? What if three hundred thousand pairs of eyes did gleam
together on the spectacles which, with bread, made up the earthly all
of the Roman _plebs_? They never had looked upon such an array of holy
bishops, from the whole earth, as would be seen to-day. The colours for
which they went mad, their idolized blues and greens, were but few, and
ill-combined, compared with the colours now about to be displayed. The
ancient cry, "Bread and Spectacles!" was indeed still kept alive by
Roman authorities, but was to-day to be satisfied in a Christian style
glorious beyond Pagan example.

Along the Via Sacra few foreigners would appear, but from the
Capitoline Germans would set out. It is natural to think of some
student, fresh from the pages of Gregorovius, his imagination vividly
setting face to face the ancient Rome and the actual. He would think of
the exclamation, "Renowned, queenly, immeasurable Rome, a sea of beauty
surpassing all power of speech!" Where were the glory and the beauty
now? Inside the churches and palaces indeed were masses of decoration
and artistic stores of wealth, but the city viewed, on that dismal
December morning, as a city, was poor and ill-kept. The glory which
once compelled men at this central point to call her Golden Rome was
departed. What now represented the Temple of Jupiter--its pillars on
gilded bases with gilded capitals, its gates of gilded bronze, and its
roof of tiles of gilded brass? There stands the Church of the Aracoeli;
Jupiter is succeeded by the Bambino, a doll, carved by St. Luke, which
is driven in a stately carriage round the city to the beds of the dying.

Crossing the Bridge of Sixtus the student might see vividly, as
students do, the scene of that sacrilegious morning when the lone old
stream, with no Horatius now, was swarthy boatmen swinging the oar with
the stroke of the rover, and as each galley shot out of the bend of the
Aventine, the chief, from under his turban, eyed the opening prospect
of plunder with the glance of an Ishmaelite. When they rifled the
grave, would the student say, if they found anything of the Fisherman,
certainly they did not leave anything. If the ashes of Peter ever
did rest there, were they not sent by the Saracens to await those of
Wycliffe in the sea?

A pamphlet, by a Hebrew, with the title of _The Ghetto and Rome's
Great Show_, reminds us that from under the flank of the Capitoline
some would come out of the pen in which the Popes had, for ages, shut
up the children of Israel. No doubt some travelled Rabbi would do so.
Such a man would have mentally dwelt all his life among the ancients,
and personally he would have seen the Pyramids and Thebes, the Tomb
of Abraham, with Jerusalem, Baalbec, and probably the Remains upon
the Euphrates, if not those on the Tigris. To him Roman dates were
modern, and Roman monuments, though great for Europe, were on a scale
comparatively small, not equalling in magnitude those of Asia, not
approaching in grace those of Hellas. In his eye all the princes of the
ancient monarchies laughed at the notion of Gregorovius, that the idea
of a world-empire originated with the Romans--nay, no more than did the
idea of the Trojan War.

Towards Pius IX personally the feeling of the Jew would be rather
kindly, for he, like Sixtus V, had relieved the Hebrews from some of
the severities to which they had long been subjected by preceding
Popes. But this would not prevent the whole tormented past from rising
in memory before the Rabbi and stirring him to hope that he might now
be going to witness the last show ever to be exhibited by one of the
cruel race of the Pope-Kings. The pen in which his people had been shut
up, the distinguishing badge, the differential taxes, the religious
worry, and the manifold enormities committed upon them in the name of
Christ who loved them, of Peter who lived for them, and of Paul who
gave himself repeatedly to death for them, had long helped to set him
and his on hating Christ, and Peter, and Paul. "Hard as their lot was
under the Caesars," says our pamphlet, "it became harder still when the
ecclesiastical Head was crowned by Pepin Le Bref king of the States
of the Church, and actually ruler of the world." The day was now past
when the Corso, in carnival-time, rang with the shouts of so-called
Christians, hailing the spectacle of Jews naked, except a girdle round
the loins and ropes round their necks, forced to run races against
riderless mules, and asses, and buffaloes. For a long time this
service had been performed for the sacred city by riderless horses,
goaded by spiked balls slashing into their sides. Nevertheless, those
former days would rise up before the Rabbi's eye, as would also the
price paid for ransom. As he passed along, between him and the Corso
stood the one pile still entire which to memory represented the Pagan
Romanism under which his first ancestors in the city had suffered, and
to the eye represented the Papal Romanism under which their descendants
had continued for so many ages to groan. Dedicated by Agrippa to Cybele
and all the gods, it had been rededicated by Boniface IV to Mary and
all the martyrs. Though still best known as the Pantheon, its name in
Rome is St. Mary of the Rotunda.

Our Rabbi would naturally, on such an occasion, compare it as it had
been and as it now is; for the associations of the day would suggest to
his mind that gathering of the provincials in the plain of Dura, when
some of his forefathers had to bear witness against the longing natural
to those who imagine themselves heads of the human species, to set up
new idols, and to insist on unity by means more urgent than godly. That
was the first clearly recorded scene in the fiery drama of Catholic
Unity; a unity bending, breaking, or burning all nations, peoples, and
tongues into religious and political submission to one human head.
Probably the Rabbi would admit that there was some ground of justice in
the words of _Joseph de Maistre_, that the Pantheon had been devoted
to all the vices, and now was devoted to all the virtues. Thus far the
Christian element in Papal Romanism had asserted its moral superiority.
But the Rabbi would feel that there was exaggeration upon both sides of
De Maistre's assertion. The gods of the Pagans were not all personified
vices, any more than are now all those of the Hindus. Many of them were
so, and that is enough. On the other hand, not all the saints of the
Papal Pantheon represent personified virtues, judged by any code but
the sad one of the Popes themselves. The Rabbi would hardly recognize
St. Peter Arbues, red with the blood of thousands of the seed of
Abraham, as one of the Virtues, any more than as one of the Graces.
He would, however, recognize the correctness of Joseph De Maistre's
estimate of the kind of change made by the Popes in the Pantheon. He
would also admit the good judgment of M. Fisquet in selecting the
following passage of De Maistre, when describing the ceremonies of Rome
for Frond's history--[198]

    It is in the Pantheon that Paganism is rectified and brought
    back to the primitive system, of which it is only a visible
    corruption. The name of God is exclusive and incommunicable.
    Nevertheless, there are many _gods_, in heaven and in earth.
    There are intelligences, better natures of deified men (_hommes
    divinisés_). The _gods_ of Christianity are the _saints_. Around
    God are assembled ALL THE GODS, to serve Him in the place and order
    assigned to them.

The Rabbi might say, The Law pulls down the word "gods," by applying it
to magistrates, thus making it mean little; but these ignorant priests
lift it up to mean something more than the Pagans ever did mean by it,
as if the latter had imagined that each god was a supreme being, or
something near it. De Maistre, however, had more sense. He knew that
"saints" was another name for gods, only they were not to be vicious,
which was no doubt the original idea.[199]

By this time the dull and dripping air would begin to vibrate with the
roll of carriages. Both in the rain and under cover, the throng was
pouring towards one point. From the poor streets, where once stretched
the glorious Fora of the Caesars, from the old Suburra, from the
regions covered by the gardens of Sallust, from the spot where the
persecuting name of Diocletian and a splendid church are now locally
associated, from all the flanks of the Quirinal, would the stream
come pouring towards the old Field of Mars. Bishops, artists, and the
models of the artists, priests and beggars, quaint peasants, handsome
artisans, well-dressed tradesmen, pressed in slush and silence past the
lone pillar of Trajan, nobly sad, standing amidst memories of might and
signs of impotence.

In the crowd speckled by ecclesiastical and peasant costumes, many an
English figure, both home and colonial, steadily made way, and many an
American one, and a few of the swarthy South Americans. At least one
Scotch bonnet and plaid pushed through the throng.[200] And he who wore
them saw the well-known cap of the German student. Though, in general,
not much addicted to attend solemnities, the Roman shopkeeper would on
this occasion be well represented. His motto had hardly been "Bread and
Shows," but rather "Shows and Bread." The city had, to a considerable
extent, lived upon its exhibitions; and every grand one designed by the
priests raised them in the eyes of shopkeepers, lodging-keepers, and
cabmen.[201]

The grand Piazza of St. Peter's would have been at its grandest that
day had the sky been true to the Papacy. Nothing but the heavens
failed. From every opening into the Piazza flowed the eager crowds.
They passed the two hundred and eighty columns, natives sheltering
under their umbrellas, strangers compelled by admiration to look
up. They passed the Obelisk, those who had history in their memory,
thinking of Nero and of the scenes by him enacted. They passed the
Inquisition, perhaps wondering what priests were imprisoned now, and
if there were any bishops, and who; perhaps thinking how strange it
was that side by side should stand the memorials of Nero and the
chambers of the Inquisition. Then up the steps and across the Portico.
At the same time, the coaches of the great swept to the right into the
Vatican. About three hundred of these were splendidly horsed, gilt
round the top, gilt at all available points, hung high on springs,
with four or five servants, in yellow and blue, red and green,
embroidered, powdered, and in cocked hats. The few pensive monuments
of retrospective royalty that still clave to the skirt of the Pontiff,
formed the first line of this array. Then came the thrice-splendid
princes of the Church. Each rode in his state carriage, followed, says
Frond (vol. vii. p. 91), by a second carriage, "less sumptuous." and
if a prince--we presume by birth--followed by a third. Then came the
nuncios, ambassadors, bishops, and notabilities with starry breasts,
and ribbons like streamers among the stars--stars that dazzle Romans
far more than all the constellations in the sky. The Roman nobles,
always splendid, were that day in their fulness of gold, and pearls,
and costly array; and their equipages are said to have counted several
hundreds. No less than five hundred private ones and some two thousand
street carriages completed the train. Roman ecclesiastics could not
help remarking, even in print, that from a one-horse hackney coach
might be seen alighting a couple of bishops, and four from a two-horse
one; a sight which they contrasted with the princely splendour of
Constance and of Trent. At the bridge of St. Angelo, and at other
important points, rose up in the rain the mounted figures of the
Papal dragoons in their long white cloaks. A plentiful display of
soldiers, said to amount to about six thousand, increased the variety.
Black-clad Barnabite, and brown Franciscan, broad-hatted Jesuit and
white Camaldolese, with all the costumes of the barrack, the convent,
the nunnery, mingled with those of the drawing-room and the village
festival, spangled the thickening crowd.

The clergy of the city had early assembled in sufficient number to
line the whole course of the procession, until it reached the statue
of St. Peter. Within, the crowd is not represented by any writer as
having been excessive. Some say that the church was full, some that
it was not quite so. The people arrived in wet clothing, and as none
of them, least of all the monks, were given to excessive ablutions,
even the correspondent of the _Stimmen aus Maria Laach_ alluded to
the quality of the air. So also did the Special Correspondent of the
_Times_; but he remarked that "incense covers a multitude of perfumes."
In the various side chapels, Masses were being celebrated, each priest,
as he came up to the altar, or retired from it, being preceded by two
soldiers under arms, and followed by one. There were upon duty in that
temple of peace, opened for a great council of peace, one battalion of
zouaves and one of the line.

The soldiers of Diocletian and Galerius, when beginning their work one
February morning, while the two Emperors watched them from their palace
windows in Nicomedia, would not have been so much at a loss had they
entered a temple like St. Peter's, as they found themselves in the
Christian church into which they then broke. "They searched in vain,"
says Gibbon, "for some visible object of worship. They were obliged to
content themselves with committing to the flames the volumes of the
Holy Scriptures." They could have found no Bible in St. Peter's to
burn, unless they had taken to a sumptuous book, in a dead language,
containing portions of the Gospels. But they would not have searched
in vain for visible objects of worship. Just as even Father Abraham
had been turned into chief idol in the Caaba by the heathen Arabs, so
here the chief of the images set up was Peter. But never had he been
so dressed in Galilee or Jerusalem, in Antioch or Babylon, with alb,
girdle, stole, and tiara. The Popes might have ill copied the living
Peter, but the bronze Peter had well copied the Popes. The Fisherman
would have been surprised at his own pluvial. As clerical writers
would blush not to tell, it was of red silk, striped with gold. On his
breast was a golden cross; on his right hand a golden ring, with a
large ruby, and a circle of "flashing brilliants," and the left hand
held a golden key all decked with precious stones. Before him burned
a lamp, and four superb wax candles painted like the illuminations of
books. As all men honour their gods with what they value most, the
Vatican honours Peter by feeding the jeweller and laceman in his soul
with marrow and fatness, and by the sight of men kissing his feet.
Peter had his faults, but he never deserved to be so paganized. True,
he did forget himself when he got into the palace of the Jewish priest,
but not in the same way as the bishop on the Tiber forgot himself
when he got into the palace of the Roman Pontiff. That, however, was
Peter before he was converted. Peter, after he was converted, passed
the threshold of a Roman. Then, he strengthened his brethren, not by
lording it either over their persons or their faith, but by teaching
a lesson in action, to the effect that no human being should ever
degrade his person before a fellow-man, and that the forms of worship,
as well as the spirit of it, are to be reserved for Him whom alone it
is lawful for the offspring of God to adore. Peter would not break the
commandment that said, "Be not ye called rabbi: for one is your Master,
even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon
the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye
called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ" (Matt. xxiii.
8-10).

There in a nutshell lies the whole theory of a direct government as
against one by proxy; of a father's government of adult sons, as
against a master's government of slaves through upper servants; of one
all-watching love, and one all-working care, as against an imperial
reclusion that leaves affairs to departmental divinities. "Our Father
which art in heaven," deeper is Thy love to the least of us, more
tender and closer far than could be that of any patron whom we might
set up! In numbering the hairs of our heads, no Vicar dost Thou employ!
In drawing near to Thee, no interest of Thy freedmen do we require,
for we are no longer slaves, but in Thy love, the love of a Father,
dost thou invite every one of us to the adoption and therefore to the
access of sons!

He, who had once shaken his brethren, did not afterwards strengthen
them by telling them that they must all accept him as rabbi, father,
and master in the absence of their Lord, while to him there was but one
Master, Christ. Just as Peter was ready, in his own person, to keep the
commandment, "Be not ye called masters," so would he have been the very
first to uphold the corresponding commandment, "Call no man master." He
well knew that this applied pointedly and particularly to the ministers
and disciples of the religion of Christ as such; for he was one of
the first to teach both due reverence and due obedience to that civil
authority which the Popes live to make little more than a sword under
their own power.

The Italian Protestant and the Rabbi would both watch the thousands
performing the adoration of St. Peter. The Italian Protestant would
think of rites to Romulus, or perhaps to Hercules, whose local story
was still more mythical. The Rabbi would think with scorn of the
impossibility of such a spectacle in a synagogue over a dressed-up
image of Aaron, for the Jews had never reformed the decalogue. He would
mentally quote Jeremiah: "The stock is a doctrine of vanities. Silver
spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the
work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder; blue and purple
is their clothing, they are all the work of cunning men."[202] Educated
Hindus are now often to be seen in Rome. Any of them who witnessed
this scene, and heard priests complacently point out the distinctions
by which simple Westerns are lulled into the notion that this is
theoretically a different kind of worship from that paid to lesser gods
and to images by Brahmans, would take the distinctions in his supple
fingers and snap them as easily as he would so many threads of the
finest Dacca looms. The Pundits were in this, as in many things, elder
and abler brethren of the priests.

Friedrich, in his Doctor's robes, formed one of the promiscuous crowd;
for mere theologians in Rome did not pass for much. No one has told
us where Quirinus stood, or what was his toilet. It is not even clear
whether his spirit was vested in a German or an English frame, although
probabilities are in favour of the latter. Vitelleschi was there too,
with his Roman familiarity with men, forms, and projects. And there
was Lord Acton, the Roman Marchese, brother to a bishop, soon to be a
Cardinal; the English Baron nephew to a Cardinal. M. Frond would be
in exceedingly great glory. M. Veuillot, frightened, _he says_, by
the rain, was in his rooms by the Piazza di Spagna, describing to the
_Univers_ what he calls "the moral of the ceremony"--a fact which he
states long afterwards (i. p. 73). He acknowledges that he did not
smell the odour of the crowd; but not on that account is he to be told
that he did not see the first session. He went to the top of the Pincio
about noon, saw the dome and the Vatican wrapped in fog and rain, and
the sky laden as if with storms for all time. But he saw the Council
as one ought to see it, and as history will see it; and never on the
sunniest morning did the hill of Peter, the mountain where God dwells,
appear more luminous to him.

Correspondents of the _Civiltá_ published on the spot, of the _Stimmen_
published on the Rhine, of distant journals in America and the East,
were revelling in the Catholicity and brilliancy of the spectacle,
and preparing to transmit across the Alps and across the seas some
vibration of the transports by which every now and then they were
themselves thrilled. The untonsured but inevitable correspondents of
the profane Press were there, odious in forms unknown.

Liberal Catholics from different countries were there in numbers,
striving to hope against hope, now thinking of the courage of their
national bishops, now of the moderation of the Pontiff; and now
exercising faith in the good stars of the Church, but trusting that,
somehow or other, credit to the Catholic cause would result from the
Council, instead of Jesuit fighting, followed by disaster, which they
had too much ground to fear.

On the other hand, the Jesuits were quietly exulting in the knowledge
that the days of the Liberal Catholics were numbered. "Weighed and
found wanting" were words often upon their lips at that time.

The feeling of the Protestants, of all classes, was chiefly that of
curiosity. Such of them as believed that Rome yet retained enough of
the Christian element to be capable of reform wished that the Jesuits
might fail. Those, on the other hand, who believed that at Trent Rome
had written upon herself the doom _irreformable_, thought that the
only thing now before her was to go down deeper into her own errors,
and to make herself formally what she long had been virtually, the
religion simply of the _fait accompli_, a system in which each error
once committed must enter into the blood, and even form abnormal bone.
Perhaps the words "judicial blindness" were never so often quietly
uttered by charitable men as then, and during the months ensuing.

The tomb of Peter shared with his statue in the honours of the morn. In
the ray of its lamps knelt many a figure of "fair women and brave men."
The men hoped to rise braver for the coming struggle. The words of the
Pontiff were vividly in the memories of the devout--words uttered to
five hundred bishops. "We never doubted that a mysterious force and
salutary virtue emanated from the tomb where repose the ashes of Peter,
as a perpetual object of religious veneration to the world; a force
which inspires the pastors of the Lord's flock with bold enterprises,
noble spirit, and magnanimous sentiment."[203] Pius IX would hardly
have seen the force of an inquiry, should any one have dared to make
it, whether there was any known case in which one of the Apostles had
in Jerusalem sent even the most ignorant of Christians to the tomb of
the proto-martyr, ay, or to the tomb of tombs, in order there to seek
some blessing that could not be found by going into his own closet, and
praying to his Father who seeth in secret.

The _Civiltá_, however, gave a more intelligent turn to this Papal
suggestion--

    It is to be hoped (it said) that this Council, announced on the
    centenary of St. Peter, convoked by a Bull dated on the day of St.
    Peter, and assembled round the wonderful tomb of St. Peter, will
    be _par excellence_ the Council of St. Peter. That means the most
    obsequious to the prerogatives of Peter, whose divine authority,
    the centre and foundation of all social authority, is at the same
    time that which is most combated by the spirit of the world,
    according to the words of the Saviour, "The whole world lieth in
    wickedness" (1 John v. 19).

While the people waited, the bishops were robing in the Julian
corridor, and the patriarchs in one of the adjoining apartments. Over
the grand portico of St. Peter's is a hall, well known on Holy Thursday
as the place where the twelve apostles celebrate the Supper--the hall
in which the five hundred presented their salutation in 1867. This
had been converted into a chapel, by the erection of an altar. Here
assembled the members of the procession. Each prelate, on completing
his costume, made for the hall, but was not permitted to have any
attendant. It being the Day of the Immaculate Conception, the colour
of the vestments was white; a rule, however, which did not bind the
Orientals. The cardinals were robing in a room apart. Each of them
having done so, entered the hall followed by his train-bearer. Bishops,
prelates, and cardinals waited while the Pope robed. This he did in
the Pauline Chapel, attended by three cardinals, two bishops, the
sub-deacon apostolic, two protonotaries, and a few minor officials.
They adorned him with amice and with alb, with girdle and with stole.
Then did the cardinal-priest in waiting bring the censer, and the Pope
put the incense on. Then did they further array him in the "formal,"
the pluvial, and the precious mitre. At about half-past nine o'clock,
Pius IX, in all the glory of gems and garments, entered the hall,
where between seven and eight hundred bishops stood before the altar,
awaiting their royal head. He did not wear either the tiara or the
usual golden mitre, but a special _precious mitre_ made for the
occasion, "This" says, Vitelleschi (p. 3), "was to indicate a certain
equality with the other bishops, which, however, is confined to these
little accessories of the ceremonial." The white pluvial was fastened
on his breast by an enamelled clasp, about which clerical writers are
particular. The clasp was set with jewels in the form of a dove, with
outstretched wings, surrounded by a halo of rays, and _representing the
Holy Ghost_. The Pope passed among the Fathers holding out his fingers,
in the usual manner, on this side and on that, giving them what is
grotesquely called the _pontifical_ benediction. Then kneeling at the
faldstool he took off his mitre and prayed. Two cardinals, approaching
the kneeling Pontiff, placed a book before his eyes. He looked upon it,
lifted up his aged but resounding voice, and sang--

 Creator Spirit, come!

This strain was taken up by the choir, and the first verse was sung,
all kneeling. The Pontiff then rose, put on his mitre, and was seated
in his portative throne.

The portative throne is a contrivance for exhibiting a dignitary to the
gaze of a multitude, which does not remind one of anything to be seen
elsewhere in Europe, but does strongly remind one of the way in which
a great Guru is carried in India. It is a gorgeous litter, on which is
placed a gorgeous chair, under a gorgeous canopy, called a Baldachino.
In the chair is seated the Pontiff. Men robed in crimson bear the
litter; others bear the canopy on long gilded decorated poles, and
beside it others bear gigantic fans of peacocks' feathers.

Even in a secular procession, more serious than an election triumph,
this sort of chairing would be of doubtful taste; but in a religious
act, above all an act done in the house of God, it would be impossible,
except where the aesthetic of faith had expired, and the aesthetic of
thought had long surrendered to the aesthetic of sensation. As the
Pontiff was set on high a shot fired from St. Angelo told the waiting
multitude that the procession was formed.

We have said that the clergy of the city lined the whole course of the
procession on either side. This extended from the door of the hall,
through some of the apartments of the Vatican, down the celebrated
Royal Staircase, through the magnificent portico of St. Peter's, up
the nave to the statue of the Apostle, then to the altar at his grave,
and finally, to the right of that altar, into the hall of the Council.
As the head of the procession emerged from the hall, the manifold
costumes of the clergy formed the skirting of the lofty walls, in the
apartments through which it slowly swept. The most noticeable of these
was the Royal Hall, _Sala Regia_, where frescoes, suggestive of more
swords than one, appealed, by Papal memories, to Papal hopes. There
was Gregory VII giving absolution to the penitent emperor Henry IV.
There was the attack upon Tunis in 1553, there the massacre of St.
Bartholomew's, the League against the Turks, and Barbarosas receiving
the benediction of the Pope in the Piazza of St. Mark. From the Royal
Hall descends the Royal Staircase _Scala Regia_. All down its two
flights the reverent clergy lined the way, as the "Church Princes"
swept by. In the lower flight the Ionic capitals of the colonnade
gracefully lengthened out the perspective, while the stately march
of mitres glanced between the shafts. With a supreme sense of the
importance of the act did the train pass down the noble stair; each
prelate no less sustaining the dignity of the moment because just then
the eye of the outer world beheld them not. In the view of a real
Vaticanist a great procession is a good in itself, and a very high
good, apart from its uses; or, perhaps more properly, it is felt that
its effectiveness for use wholly depends upon the sense of discipline
in its members.

Finally the foot of the stair was reached. The portative throne passed
the statue of Constantine, the first who ever drew sword for the
Church. It swept round and faced the statue of Charlemagne, the first
upon whose head the Church ever set imperial crown. Each stood at an
end of the magnificent vista formed by the portico--grand watchers at
the door of the Pontiff, ever telling that the kings whom his Church
wants are not merely nursing fathers but champions in fight. As the
sight of their uplifted monarch burst upon the people, and that of the
people upon their king, the heavy guns from the Aventine were firing
alternately with those of St. Angelo, while all the bells were trying
to exceed the joypeal of the preceding day. Before his Holiness reached
this point, the procession had already entered the nave in slow and
gorgeous order.

In front came chamberlains, chaplains, and officials of sixteen
ascending grades. After these came the Fathers of the Council,--first
the generals of orders, next mitred abbots, and then followed bishops,
archbishops, primates, and patriarchs, in succession of still ascending
rank, every man in appropriate splendour. The Orientals outshone their
western brethren even more than usual; for the robes of the Latins,
being confined to the white of the day, were at a disadvantage beside
the eastern coats of many colours. The Senator, as the incumbent
is called of a quaint old office under the Papal government, which
we might call that of honorary mayor of Rome, marched between the
prelates and the throne in golden robe of rich variety. He was
accompanied by the conservators, whom we might call something like
honorary councilmen, and also by the commandants of the three orders
of guards--the noble, the Palatine, and the Swiss. Finally, sitting
aloft, with the fans and the bearers, and the poles and the canopy,
came the Pontiff. The moving throne was followed by a lengthened rear
procession, formed of sundry officials, and closing with the priests,
who had for some time been practising shorthand, in order to act as
reporters.

The faithful from east and west gazed with enraptured eyes. Many were
proud to recognize their own bishops; some still prouder to see their
own gifts in robe or gem shining among the adornments of the day. Any
Hindu present, looking at priest and soldier, might have exclaimed
in the words of the _Bhagavad Gita_: "Many a wondrous sight, many a
heavenly ornament, many an upraised weapon; adorned with celestial
robes and chaplets; anointed with heavenly essence, covered with every
marvellous thing."[204]

From early morn, "_the holiest_," to use the term of one of the
priestly descriptions, had been exhibited upon the altar; but out
of tenderness to the throng had been veiled till the procession
approached. As it entered the temple, every member of it uncovered
to "_the holiest_." Those who were not members of the Council,
after reaching the high altar, defiled to the left. The Fathers of
the Council approaching the altar, each in his turn bent the knee
before the Host; and then turning to the right, beheld the front of
the Council Hall erected between two of the piers which sustain the
great dome of Michael Angelo. Over the door was a picture, professing
to represent the Eternal Father. The door was kept by the military
figures of the Knights of Malta and the noble guards. Each prelate,
in turn, entered the hall, bowed to the cross erected upon the altar,
and was shown to the place assigned to him, according to his rank
and seniority; for care was taken that the bishops should not group
themselves either according to nation or according to opinion. There,
standing and bareheaded, they awaited the Holy Father (_Frond_, vii. p.
98).

After the procession had been for some time moving up the nave, a
whisper, "The cross, the cross," passed from lip to lip. The cross was
borne immediately in front of the Fathers of the Council. Priest told
priest of its choice beauty and immense costliness. Designed in the
Gothic of the thirteenth century, and rich with gems, it represented
Christ, not in His passion, but crowned, as conquering Lord, in glory.
Among the expressions of delight, the proudest was, "It is a present to
the Pope from the English convert, the Marquis of Bute."

The Pope did not, on this occasion, as he usually does, pass up the
whole of the nave on his portative throne--a process which guide-books
describe as representing the Lord of Glory entering Paradise. He now
alighted at the entrance of the basilica, and, with deliberate step
and thrice radiant smiles, his head alone mitred while all others were
uncovered in presence of the "holiest," he marched among soldiers,
priests, and subjects, a sovereign _in excelsis_. Before him went his
hundreds of lieutenants, in attire which would have dazzled ancient
Pontifex, Flamen, and Augur. Every one of them was prepared to contend
with princes in his cause, to set his name before that of their king,
and to claim, in their respective countries, a supreme sway for his
sceptre. Not a few of them had endured prosecution or prison to uphold
his law against that of their country, and no note of the lyres that
sounded the praises of the day was sweeter than that which commemorated
the name of any martyr-bishop, hero of the kingdom of God, against the
naturalism of the age.

The Cardinals had not followed the bishops into the hall. They now
stood near the high altar. Two bishops were at the faldstool, with book
and candle. At the altar itself stood the officiating Cardinal, with
a priest, a deacon and sub-deacon, a master of the ceremonies, five
acolytes bearing candles, and three clerks of the chapel. On arriving
at the altar the Pontiff bowed upon the faldstool. Then the last
strophe of the _Veni Creator_ was exquisitely sung by the choir. To use
the words of a priest, written, not for Spaniards or Brazilians, but
for Germans: "Every member of the historical procession cast himself
upon his knees before our God and Saviour in the form of bread, before
whom all kings bow."[205]

After the adoration of the Host the Pope, still kneeling, recited
aloud the prayer, "Look upon us, O God our protector!"--_Protector
Noster Aspice Deus_--and for some time he continued reciting prayers
in alternation with the choir. "Rising up," says Monsignor Guérin, "he
recited a prayer to the Holy Sacrament, another to the Holy Spirit, a
third to invoke the aid of the Holy Virgin and that of the Apostles St.
Peter and St. Paul, a fourth to God" (_Guérin_, p. 76).

The Cardinals, with their train-bearers, now turning to the right,
entered the Hall of the Council, where the bishops had been waiting for
some time.

As the Pope advanced to the eventful enclosure, two former comrades
in one lawyer's office held the corners of his pluvial--the Cardinals
Antonelli and Mertel. If these ministers deserved half of the ill that
was said of them by the common voice of Rome, or even by a writer like
Liverani, who shuns private scandal, and only treats of public acts,
Pius IX was not at that moment to be congratulated on the character of
his companions. Confiding in the patronage of her whom he had set on
high, he once more passed among the ornate hundreds of his mighty but
docile servants. Approaching the altar he offered up a prayer; then
passing to the throne at the far end of the Hall, he, in the words of
Sambin, "dominated the whole assembly, and appeared like the teaching
Christ" (p. 55).

The German Jesuit who wrote for the _Stimmen_ said, "The bloodless
offering was being presented on the altar, and soon must the _invisible
Head of the Church be present in form of bread_. Opposite sits His
representative upon a throne; below him, the Cardinals; around, the
Catholic world, represented in its bishops" (_Neue Folge_, vi. p. 162).

This localized presence, not yet actual, but to come at the word of the
priest, was the same as that "divine presence" which Cardinal Manning,
when leaving home, said many in the English Church were sighing for as
having formerly been in their churches. The early Christians saw the
most sublime token of God's presence in that absence of any similitude
which perplexed the heathen soldiery at Nicomedia, which, in India,
first perplexes and then awes the Hindu, and which to spiritual
worshippers says, in the deep tone of silence--

 Lo, God is here, let us adore!

At this point, rather more than twenty of the particulars set down
in the program had been got through, but there were one hundred and
forty-eight of them in all. It would be well worth while for any
merely philosophic politician to follow them one by one, marking the
directions by which every act, posture, and prayer, whether audible or
silent, was prescribed. The science of government by spectacle really
deserves study by men of sense, because the practice of it is so mighty
with all who take an impression for a reason. The program is in the
_Acta_, and those who choose to read it will find a prescription for
each minutest move.

The Archbishop of Iconium, whose real office was that of Vicar of
St. Peter's, approached the throne, holding his mitre in his hands;
he made a profound obeisance, then drawing near, he kissed the
Pope's knee. After this, mounting the pulpit, he preached, in cope
and mitre, a sermon unlike that of Father Bianchi. It was long and
tame, and hardly had the true Infallibilist ring. He felt that they
were entering upon an untried and thorny path. "Tribulation," he
said, "will arise, bitter days and innumerable sorrows" (_Acta_, pp.
204-214). After the sermon the Pope rose and gave the benediction,
during which the cardinals and bishops stood, the abbots and generals
of orders kneeling down. "It is," says Monsignor Guérin, "the Moses
of the new law, with his shining brow." He then offered up a prayer,
with invocation of the Church triumphant and of all saints, "the
formidable army which is drawn up around the Pope and the Council,
and which assures victory to the Church," as Guérin expounds it. The
preacher then published the indulgences from the pulpit. Now came
an interlude preparatory to a transaction of grave importance. To
prescribe the action of the interlude, it required all the articles
of the program from thirty-seven to fifty. To perform that action
took up in a Christian place of worship probably a full half-hour of
the time of seven hundred bishops, of several thousand clergymen, of
Knights of Malta, of noble guards, Palatine guards, Swiss guards, of
some two thousand soldiers, and of probably twenty thousand people.
Two bishops, with book and candle, draw near to the throne. The
Pontiff recites _Quam dilecta_, etc. The sub-deacon apostolic, who is
a judge of the high court of the Rota, called the Supreme Tribunal of
the whole Christian world, advances. He is accompanied by two judges
of the high court of the Signet, to which even the Rota, in spite of
its title, is subordinate.[206] The three judges solemnly bear to the
throne in a scarf of silver cloth the apostolic stockings and slippers
trimmed with gold lace. The Pontiff puts on stockings and slippers.
Monsignor the Sacristan takes his place at the altar ready to give out
the robes. The two judges of the high court of the Signet stand at the
altar ready to take the robes from Monsignor the Sacristan, and to
hand them to the cardinal deacon. Then the cardinal deacon approaches
the throne. The senior cardinal priest ascends the steps of the throne
and takes the ring from off the Pontiff. The judges of the high court
of the Signet bring the robes to the throne. Then the senior cardinal
priest, assisted by the cardinal deacons, takes off from the Pontiff
the mitre, takes off the formal, the pluvial, the stole and the girdle;
after which he puts on the cord, the pectoral cross, the fanon, the
stole, the tunic, the dalmatic, the gloves, and the white chasuble
wrought with gold. The sub-deacon apostolic now bears the pallium to
the throne, and one of the judges of the high court of the Signet
accompanies him, bearing the pins. The cardinal deacon then puts upon
the Pontiff the sacred pallium, takes the mitre and replaces it on the
Pontiff. Finally, the senior cardinal priest again ascends the steps
of the throne and puts on the ring which he had before taken off. And
seven hundred bishops, and several thousand priests, and a couple of
thousand soldiers, and some twenty thousand people, all were agreed
that this was imposing, impressive, divine.

This public toilet was in preparation for what Cecconi calls "the
sublime and moving rite called the Obedience"; the homage of the
vassals to the ruler of the world. First the Cardinals one by one
arose, slowly approached the throne, performed an obeisance, and kissed
the hand of the sovereign. Then patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops,
approaching in their turn, made low reverences before the steps of the
throne, and, slowly drawing nigh, kissed the Pope's right knee. Abbots
and generals of orders knelt before reaching the steps of the throne,
rose, drew nigh, knelt again, and kissed the king's right foot. For an
hour and a quarter this act of homage was continued. From the banks of
the Thames and of the Seine, of the Ganges and the Hudson; from the
Alps and the Andes; from historic lands of Asia, whence the light of
history had long faded; from emerging countries in the New World, on
which its first beams were beginning to strike--came forward lordly
figures of men accustomed to command, and sometimes to domineer. Each,
with chosen and awe-struck movement, drew near to the king of his heart
and conscience, and rendered up his homage, like gold and frankincense
and myrrh.

Vitelleschi, in a vein generally Roman, alluding to these "five
quarters of an hour" spent in bowing, kneeling, and kissing; says,
"What strength of memory is necessary for him who being humbly entitled
the Servant of the Servants of God, had to keep that modest formula in
mind during the whole ceremony!" But if the scene at this particular
point might tax the memory of the Pope, it would surely cheer the hopes
of those "august minds" that, having adapted their code to the views of
confessors, were now idle spectators of the Council, while other kings
were on their thrones. The ex-sovereigns of Naples, Tuscany, and Parma,
looking on that display of widely-extended power, and viewing through
the stained windows of a Catholic imagination the political forces
represented by it, might be both excused and commiserated if they saw
signs of happy days returning.

The Jesuits said, "Surely those non-Catholics who witnessed this action
must have perceived that Catholicity, like unity, is found only where
Christ lives, speaks, and reigns--in Peter; that is, in the Roman
Church, of which Pius IX is now Peter." But we may quietly ask, Could
even those writers fancy Peter, at the only Apostolic Council, seated
upon a throne somewhere on Mount Zion, while John, James, and Paul
came up in the presence of the assembled Church and kissed his knee,
and Philip, Barnabas, and others knelt and kissed his foot? Far as the
aesthetics of those Jesuits had descended, by a long materializing
process, they must surely have read enough of the Holy Scriptures to
feel that the scene enacted in St. Peter's, though a fine edition of
a Durbar, was a sad fall from an Apostolic Council. You promise the
pupils of Plato a higher wisdom than they ever knew in the Academy, and
they find for wisdom the gewgaws of Freemasons. Such a scene was bad
in manners, bad in politics, and bad in religion. In manners, it tended
to make men servile in a lower position and arrogant in a higher; in
politics, it tended to make them either slaves or despots; in religion,
it tended to make them either unbelieving or superstitious. Is it part
of the penalty of Rome that barbaric forms should linger at its Court,
when the spirit of Christianity has banished them from the Courts of
Christian kings? Our own monarch, at the head of her two hundred and
eighty millions, is too good a Christian to make her subject Rajahs,
as a spectacle for her commons and her troops, come and fall down and
kiss her foot. The words which commanded the followers of Christ not
to exercise over one another the kind of lordship which the kings of
the Gentiles exercised over them were, with pompous action, publicly
trampled upon in this scene of "the obedience," and that both in the
spirit and in the letter. He who complacently sat and acted out that
scene in the house of God for an hour and a quarter, might better claim
to represent many known in the history of ambition, than the lowly Lord
of Peter.

Up to this time only sixty-seven articles of the program had been
performed. Thirty more were exhausted by postures, manipulations,
and devotions. The officiating cardinal-priest then came forward,
bearing the reeking censer. He waved it before the enthroned priest,
around whom swelled up the clouds till subject eyes looked up to him
through a sacred haze, and till he looked down on his subject creatures
from a sky of fragrant mist. This ceremony fulfilled, all took their
seats with their mitres on, and the Pontiff, rising, delivered his
allocution. It overflowed with joy and hope. It clearly pointed out
the enemy to be destroyed. "A conspiracy of the wicked, mighty by
combination, rich in resources, fortified with institutions, and using
liberty for a cloak of maliciousness." Obviously this enemy was not a
theological but a political one. Vitelleschi, who naturally heard with
Italian ears, says that the language, though _using a cloak_, was plain
enough to show what enemy was meant.

As the Pontiff drew to the close of his allocution, he, with a burst
of feeling, put up two invocations, one to the Holy Spirit, the
other to the Blessed Virgin. After this, with contagious intensity
of emotion, he threw up both hands to heaven. At a bound, the whole
assembly stood up. Then he poured forth the final invocation with the
fullest resonance of his wonderful tones--tones which might have served
in chanting from Gerizim to Ebal. He invoked angels and archangels,
Peter, Paul, and all the saints, more particularly those whose ashes
were venerated on that spot. This speech from the apostolic throne,
exclaims Monsignor Guérin, beginning with the liveliest joy, afterwards
expressing divine agonies, concluded with firm and tranquil confidence!

Now followed another round of ceremonies, at the close of which the
master of the ceremonies proclaimed, "Let those who are not members of
the Council withdraw." The royal and noble spectators left the scene;
the doors were closed. The Knights of Malta and the noble guard stood
sentry between the faithful, who were to receive the creed as it might
be shaped, and the Fathers, who were to decide for them what their
creed should be. What would take place before those doors should be
opened again? Persistent rumour had said that the extreme party meant
to attempt an acclamation. Therefore many believed it possible that in
one brief sitting the basis of infallibility might be shifted from that
of an infallible Church to that of an infallible man.

Other rumours asserted that some French prelates had let it be known
that if any attempt at getting up an acclamation should be made,
they would leave the Council. But what might take place behind those
charmed walls, who could tell? All that could be said with certainty
was that now, for the first time in the history of man, one hundred
and seventy millions, perhaps two hundred millions, were standing idle
spectators of the process of altering their creed. They had not a
single representative; not one channel of expression, not one possible
resort in appeal. What used to be a general council was now a conclave;
sitting behind a guard of armed men. King and priest, councillor of
state and doctor of divinity, were equally shut out. The Catholic
multitude appeared indifferent. The few who were not indifferent were
powerless. They had all been parties to narrowing the idea of the
Church to that of the clergy. That idea was now, without the consent of
any one being asked, formally narrowed from that of the clergy to that
of the bishops and Court prelates. It might further be narrowed from
that of the Episcopate to that of the Pope. It appears to us not very
easy to call men fanatics who have done so much with mankind, when they
propose and expect to do still more!

The point at which we now stand in the program of the day is the 109th
Article, which is the first of several prescribing a ceremony with
a substance. Bishop Fessler, Secretary of the Council, and Bishop
Valenziani of Fabriano, approached the throne. The Secretary handed a
document to the Pontiff. The Pope handed the document to Valenziani,
who thereupon, ascending the pulpit, turned towards the throne, made a
profound obeisance, took off his mitre, and read out as follows--"Pius,
the Bishop-Servant of the Servants of God, with the approbation of the
Holy Council." Having now pronounced the title of the decree, he again
put on his mitre, seated himself, and proceeded to read the substance
of the Decree. This consisted of one sentence, declaring the Council
opened. In that ill-constructed hall few heard what was read; and many
were wicked enough to hint that, if ill-constructed, the hall was not
ill-contrived. Once more laying aside the mitre, Bishop Valenziani rose
and asked, "Is the Decree now read agreed to?" The bishops were seated
in their mitres, the abbots standing bareheaded. There was no formal
vote. Those who understood what was said, cried _Placet_, and others
repeated the cry. No one dissented. This result was communicated to the
sovereign, and he from the throne proclaimed--"The Decree now read is
agreed to by the Fathers, none dissenting; and we decree, enact, and
sanction it, as read."

These forms were exactly repeated, and a second Decree was passed.
Like the first, it consisted of a single sentence, which fixed the
next public session for January 6. The two Promoters of the Council,
as they were called, now advancing, first knelt on the lowest step of
the throne, and then addressed the notaries, saying, "We pray you,
Protonotaries here present, to draw up an authentic document, recording
all and singular the acts done in this public session of the all-holy
OEcumenical Vatican Council." The senior protonotary then appealing to
the Majordomo and the High Chamberlain, who stood on the right hand of
the throne, said, "We shall draw it up, ye being witnesses" (_Frond_,
vii. p. 119).

The constitutional crisis had come and gone, and very few were aware
of it. Those who had thought of the program as anything more than
the order of a pageant, must have observed that the signification of
those acts amounted to no less than putting aside the conciliar form
of Decree, and adopting in its stead that of the Papal Bulls. We have
already seen that Friedrich, as a Church historian, saw this at a
glance. It need not be said that the ancient Councils, representing
the whole Church, spoke in their own name, themselves _decreeing_
and _enacting_. As to the only Council "over" which Pontiff Peter I
"presided," it would not do to cite it as an example.[207] As late as
Trent, every Decree bore upon the face of it the words, "_This holy
Council enacts and decrees_." All the statutes of the Council of Trent,
without alteration of a word, were immediately confirmed by the Pope,
he having beforehand promised, in writing, to do so. The formula then
used was, of course, liable to the interpretation that it indicated the
superiority of the Council to the Pope. That interpretation had been
actually put upon it by schools in the Church, at one time, including
whole nations.

The Decrees now passed had never been before the Council for
deliberation, but were handed from the throne ready made. The Pope,
according to the formula, did not merely sanction, but _decreed_,
_enacted_, and _sanctioned_--that is, he took the part of both
parliament and crown.

The Council is only mentioned as "approving" of this absorption of
its own powers into those of its head. The part thus allowed to this
so-called OEcumenical Council, this Senate of Humanity, in framing
Decrees, is less than the part allowed to the College of Cardinals in
the framing of Bulls. Take, for instance, the Bull of Convocation. It
expressly says that, in issuing it, the Pope acts not only with the
consent of the Cardinals, but by their counsel.

This expresses more than "with the approbation." All, therefore, that
the collective episcopate did for the College of Cardinals was somewhat
to curtail its relative legislative importance. Alone, both its counsel
and consent were recognized. When united with all the bishops, only
its consent. This looked like telling the bishops that their counsel
was superfluous. In the Bull history conquered dogma. The counsel and
consent of the Cardinals was the memento of the historical fact that
the Bishop of Rome originally spoke with authority only when he spoke
as the mouthpiece of the local clergy. In the Decree dogma conquered
history. The Bishop of Rome alone was to appear as speaking with
authority, and all other bishops were to appear only as approving,
but neither as counselling nor confirming; as for the clergy, they
were no longer of the Teaching Church. The substance of the Decrees
passed was perfectly innocent. They had, moreover, the advantage of
exactly copying the acts done in the first session at Trent, while
destroying the forms there employed. In the _Acta_ of that Council two
resolutions, declaring the Council opened, and fixing the day for the
second public session, were entered as constituent acts, before the
heading given to Decrees of the constituted body began to be used. The
two constituent resolutions were not even headed by the name of the
Council, while the name of the Pope does not occur in the heading of
any of the Decrees, much less does it stand as the sole legislative
authority.

At Trent it was not a private member of the Council, like Bishop
Valenziani, but the first presiding legate, Cardinal De Monte, who read
out the draft of a resolution, in the form of a question declaring
the Council opened. To this question the Fathers "all with one consent
answered, _Placet_." The second resolution was put in the same form.
Both, as we have intimated, were entered without the heading of
Decrees, and stand as the acts of a body organizing itself, but not as
legislative acts of that body when organized. Every subsequent Decree
is a real legislative act, and therefore bears the formal heading, "The
All-Holy Council of Trent, in the Holy Ghost lawfully assembled ...
ordains and decrees."[208]

The formula adopted in the Vatican Council had the advantage of
determining, once for all, what that Council was to be, namely,
a secret consistory of bishops, to give an approval to Papal
Constitutions. Its Presidents were Cardinals, an office unknown to the
Christian Church--princes simply of the Court of Rome, though most
of them bear the orders of priest. Of the members of the Council a
vast number, though called bishops, were really no more than mitred
equerries and chamberlains. In the means it took to deprive the
diocesan bishops of their inherited powers in Council, the Curia knew
its men. Brought up in the sentiment that an effective "function" is
the sublimest stroke of civil or ecclesiastical government, it would
have been a revolt against all their instincts to disturb a pageant
so unrivalled as the one in which they that day had the felicity of
bearing a part. The Curia placed them in this dilemma: Either they
must rise up amidst that blaze of splendour and resist the act of the
sovereign at whose feet they had just bowed, or they must learn at a
later stage, if they should then challenge the Rules of Procedure,
that the moment for objection was past. The success of the Curia was
complete. The general drew out his men for a review, and turned the
Thermopylæ of the opposition without having ever seen a Spartan. Those
who had come up resolved to oppose changes in their creed soon found
that the one pass that might have been held against overwhelming odds
was already in the enemy's rear. The Nine had not spent nearly ten
months on the Rules of Procedure for nothing.

When this brief episode in the drama of the day had passed over, the
doors were thrown open, and the spectators who had been excluded
resumed their places. Many of the priests outside would feel
disappointed that they had not heard the hall resound with the voices
of an acclamation. That would have told that Papal infallibility was
adopted without discussion. Friedrich lets it appear that he felt
relieved at the opening of the doors before there had been any exulting
sound, and doubtless many shared his feeling.

Rumours, persistently kept up, declared that Archbishop Manning
would propose the dogma, and that the majority, breaking out into
acclamation, would bear down all opposition. If such a design was ever
entertained, it had been thought--some say it had been found--that
it would prove wiser not to proceed so hastily. The passing of two
Decrees in the form of Papal Constitutions was enough to carry "the
forms of the house," while the issuing of the Rules of Procedure as a
Bull, before the Council was opened, had taken away every pretext for
alleging that they were open to revision by the Council itself, as
being its own acts.

Archbishop Manning, on his return to England, in a pastoral, treated
the rumour of an intended acclamation as if it was only laughable.
A reason which he assigns for this is that Rome had had enough of
acclamations, seeing that many who acclaimed infallibility in 1867 had
openly turned against it. The rumours, however, were too consistent,
and too well supported by the hints of the _Civiltá_ and by the plain
words of Monsignor Plantier and others, to be prudently dismissed
with a smile--at least, anywhere but in England. They were not what
Dr. Manning represents them, rumours of an acclamation without a
definition, but of a definition carried by acclamation, as in the case
of the Immaculate Conception. On the other hand, Archbishop Manning's
thrust at those who had in 1867 signed language that might seem to mean
everything included in infallibility, without themselves intending to
express that doctrine, is natural in one who had not wholly unlearned
the Protestant worth of words. Nevertheless, of all grounds on which
the prefects of the Pope should begin to trip one another up, the
ground to be selected by preference is scarcely that of finesse in the
interpretations they put on what they say. As to the part assigned to
Dr. Manning personally, it is possible that the rumour represented no
more than the fact that both they who hoped for an acclamation, and
they who feared it, mentioned the name which occurred to them as that
of the most likely instrument of such a procedure, and both happened to
pronounce the same name. As if to justify this instinctive selection of
both parties, Dr. Manning, on his return home, said that if the Council
"had defined the infallibility at its outset, it would not have been an
hour too soon; and perhaps it would have averted many a scandal we now
deplore."[209]

A Roman noble thus notes the zeal of Dr. Manning--

    No one is so devoted as a convert. Having himself erred for half
    his lifetime did not restrain him from becoming the most ardent
    champion of infallibility. This circumstance raised a presumption
    of a deficiency, on his part, in that traditional ecclesiastical
    spirit which is never fully acquired but by being early grounded
    and by long continued usage--a presumption which was justified by
    his excessive and intemperate restlessness. This seemed a cause
    sufficient to lessen his authority with the Conservative portion
    of the ecclesiastical world, which judges with more calmness and
    serenity.[210]--(_Vitelleschi_, p. 35.)

The real work of the day was now done. It was time to sing the _Te
Deum_. The Pontiff sounded the first note, and was followed by the
Fathers of the Council, by the choir, by the thousands outside in the
Basilica. The strain was caught up in nave and aisles, in every chapel
and every gallery; it mounted aloft into vaults and dome, till all who
were beneath the gorgeous roof thrilled under that returning swell of
exulting sound; and many felt as if the world was falling, overwhelmed
with harmony, at the feet of Pio Nono.

The eighteen articles of the program still remaining contained little
beyond unrobing, re-robing, and dissolving.

The people had been for seven hours in the Cathedral. It still
rained in torrents. The clerical organs said the providential
rain had prevented mobs in different places from making hostile
demonstrations. During the time spent in the Cathedral, the people had
not heard--except so far as some of them could make out the Latin--a
sentence of the Word of God or of the words of man. The seven hours
of the twenty thousand had been spent in an intermitting gaze. All
went away, not only praising the pageant of the day, but extolling
it. Friedrich quotes a diplomatist who said it was "superb." The
correspondent of the _Times_ said: "It has been my fortune to see many
pageants in Rome, but none of them equalled, in majestic solemnity, the
scene presented by the procession of bishops from all countries in the
world."[211] Monsignor Guérin cried: "It offered the most majestic and
enchanting spectacle which it was ever given to mortals to behold here
below." M. Veuillot said that bishops were there from the rising to the
setting of the sun--men who would invade regions as yet closed against
them--the light-bearers and the God-bearers.[212] These old men, he
added, would overthrow darkness and death, and the day would break
(vol. i. p. 12). Vitelleschi remarked that there was indeed a bishop
from Chaldea and one from Chicago, but the former did not represent a
Catholic Chaldea, nor the latter a Catholic Chicago. Even, he added, in
countries called Catholic, what proportion of the population are really
of their flocks? He might have further added, And if their teaching
is true, what proportion of their flocks are really Catholics?--for
they teach that a doubt on any single article of faith propounded by
their Church, or a doubt on one of her interpretations of a text of
Scripture, taints one with heresy. How many Italians were, on the day
of the opening of the Council, free from that taint?

We are reminded of an Englishman whose name, when he was only thirty
years of age, gained for him distinguished attention at the Vatican.
His Protestantism was much influenced by his early study of the
corruptions of Christianity at the centre of them. Had John Milton
witnessed that pageant we know exactly what he would have said. First
he would have shown that when the filial spirit of Christianity had
been lost, the servile spirit of Paganism supervened. When men ceased
to come to God as children to a father, they sought circuitous access
through upper servants. Then followed what he describes in a sentence
with a strong flavour of the Phædrus--

    They began to draw down all the divine intercourse betwixt God and
    the soul, yea, the very shape of God Himself, into an exterior and
    bodily form, urgently pretending a necessity and obligement of
    joining the body in a formal reverence, and worship circumscribed;
    they hallowed it, they fumed it, they sprinkled it, they bedecked
    it, not in robes of pure innocency, but of pure linen, with other
    deformed and fantastic dresses, in palls and mitres, gold and
    gewgaws fetched from Aaron's old wardrobe, or the flamin's vestry:
    then was the priest set to con his motions and his postures,
    his liturgies and his lurries, till the soul, by this means
    of over-bodying herself, given up justly to fleshly delights,
    bated her wing apace downward: and finding the ease she had from
    her visible and sensuous colleague the body, in performance of
    religious duties, her pinions now broken and flagging, shifted
    off from herself the labour of high soaring any more, forgot her
    heavenly flight, and left the dull and droiling carcase to plod on
    in the old road, and drudging trade of outward conformity.... They
    knew not how to hide their slavish approach to God's behests, by
    them not understood, nor worthily received, but by cloaking their
    servile crouching to all religious presentments, sometimes lawful,
    sometimes idolatrous, under the name of humility, and terming the
    piebald frippery and ostentation of ceremonies, decency.--_Of
    Reformation in England, first book._

A writer in the _Stimmen_ thought that if those who were separated from
the Church had only been present they might have been won back. It
would be an easy way to settle the merits of a religion, if it could be
done by the simple experiment of what body had the grandest building
for a display, or the greatest number of richly dressed men to perform.
We do not presume to say whether Peter ever did visit Rome or not;
but, supposing that he did, the question between him and the sovereign
Pontiff of the day, as to the value of their respective religions,
would soon have been settled in favour of Nero, if it had gone by
buildings, statues, robes, and retinues. Probably the poor itinerant
preacher was so conscious that, as Milton would say, his religion "to
the gorgeous solemnities of paganism, and the sense of the world's
children, seemed but a homely and yeomanly religion," that he would not
have challenged comparison with the purpled Pontiff on that ground. Any
writer who could imagine that the tendency of a "function" performed in
the manner of the one we have described is to convince Protestants that
the Church of Rome has in her forms much likeness left to the Church
of Christ, must be unaware of the first elements of a comparison. When
we search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so, the
estrangement of the Papacy from the Christianity of Christ, and its
affinity to the Romanism of the Pagan Pontiffs, become more and more
impressive.

The feeling in St. Peter's did not permit guards to be dispensed with.
It transpired that extreme precaution had been taken to prevent the
Basilica from being blown up. At the time, the general impression
appeared to be that some of the National party had played upon the
fears of the priests, hoaxing them with hints of such a design. But
after what occurred in Paris during the reign of the Commune, one can
hardly think it impossible that some of the violent and ignorant may
have entertained wild plans. In 1867, a startling example of what might
be done had been shown in the blowing up of a barrack of the zouaves.
When populations which have long been governed by spectacle, set out
for a political sensation, they sometimes go dreadful lengths to find a
stirring one.

The city was to have been grandly illuminated, but the drenching rain
would have mocked all effort to keep in the tender life of the lamps.
Let us hope, said the clerical writers, that the blue sky of Rome will
smile on the close of the Council, and that then the eternal city will
glow brighter even than Ephesus in 431 (_Stimmen_, N.F., p. 166).

In addition to human helps to faith, it was announced that divine
helps had been vouchsafed. On this ever-memorable day the bones of the
martyrs at Concordia had distilled water, which in that part of Venetia
was a recognized presage of a joyful future. This is announced in the
organ of that Court which was soberly undertaking to inaugurate a new
era for all the societies of men (_Civiltá_, VII. ix. 104).

The same periodical in the very next sentence gave samples of
_fanatical_ English Protestants. Citing the _Pall Mall Gazette_, it
told how a series of meetings had been held in Freemasons' Hall, at the
suggestion of Dr. Merle d'Aubigné, to pray for the Council. It went on
to say that the Chairman, Mr. Arthur Kinnaird, had told how similar
meetings for prayer were to be held all over the world, and even among
the Protestants of Italy. It quoted two of the petitions said to have
been offered up. Canon Auriol prayed _that all the machinations of Rome
might be turned to confusion_, and Dr. Cumming that the _day of her
imagined triumph might prove to be that of her prophesied ruin_.

It was much pleasanter work to tell of the Anti-Council of the
Freethinkers at Naples. Praying Protestants are to be hated and
extinguished. But vaunting infidels are to the Jesuits what fires
are to insurance offices--their apparent foes, but their only real
supports. That assembly spent a couple of days in vague and sometimes
vast talk. It abused the Pope, and the Jesuits say it blasphemed God.
It proposed to find a code of morals without religion, those flowers
without any stems which are the holy grail of such knights errant.
Finally, it attacked the French Emperor and the Italian monarchy, and
was dissolved by the police. Demonstrations of a somewhat similar
kind were attempted in a few other cities of Italy. In France, on
the contrary, the following cities were illuminated, and were
lauded not only in their local clerical journals, but in the great
_Civiltá_: Lyons, Bordeaux, Marseilles, Toulouse, Limoges, Clermont,
Saint-Etienne, Laval, Moulins, Nismes, Auch, "and others." Even in
Paris many convents illuminated their facades. (_Guérin_, p. 78.)

At Vienna a meeting of the nobility, gentry, clergy, and officials
composing the Catholic Societies, and numbering, it is said, four
thousand, was held to celebrate the day. The only Italian city
specified as having made any favourable demonstration was Brescia;
and the account amounted to no more than that of an attendance of
some Society of young men at Mass, and of the sending of a promise of
adhesion to the Council.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 198: _Frond_, iii., p. 254. M. Fisquet is author of the work
_Gallia Christiana_, in fifty volumes.]

[Footnote 199: The Hindu _Bhagavad Gita_ thus represents the
distinction between God and the gods. "I behold, O God! within Thy
heart the _dews_ (gods) assembled, and every specific tribe of beings.
I see Brahma (the creator, only a god) sitting on his lotus throne, all
the Reeshees, and heavenly Ooragas.... I see Thee without beginning,
without middle, and without end.... The space between the heavens and
the earth is possessed by Thee alone, and every point around.... Of
the celestial bands, some fly to Thee for refuge; whilst some, afraid
with joined hands sing forth Thy praise. The Maharshees holy bands hail
Thee"; and then follows an enumeration of various orders of celestials,
who "all stand gazing on Thee, all alike amazed."(a)

(a: Wilkins' translation, Garrett's ed., pp. 34, 55.)

While thus Hinduism long anticipated either Pagan or Papal Romanism,
in a system of inferior worship to inferior powers, it more logically
attached inferior paradises to such worship. "Those who worship the
_Devatas_ (gods) go unto the Devatas; those who worship the Patriarchs
go unto the Patriarchs; the servants of the spirits go to the spirits;
and they who worship me go unto me."(b) That is sensible as a polity,
if fallen as a religion. But it may be doubtful whether those who
worship the Inquisitors would like to go to the Inquisitors.

(b: Ibid., p. 46.)]

[Footnote 200: Dr. Philip, author of _The Ghetto and Rome's Great
Show_.]

[Footnote 201: _See_ Liverani at full.]

[Footnote 202: Chap. x. 8, 0.]

[Footnote 203: _Allocution_ of June 26, 1867.]

[Footnote 204: Wilkins' translation, Garrett's triglot edition,
Bangalore, p. 53.]

[Footnote 205: _Stimmen_, _Neue Folge_, vi. p. 116.]

[Footnote 206: _Frond_, iii, p. 10.]

[Footnote 207: In the list of Popes, the name Peter is repeated only in
the case of one, and he was an anti-pope.]

[Footnote 208: The form of the opening resolutions and of the Decrees
is found in any edition of the Canons and Decrees of the Council; the
full account of the proceedings, taken down at the time by Massarellus,
the Secretary of the Council, in Theiner's _Acta Genuina_, vol. i. 28,
29.]

[Footnote 209: _Priv. Petri_, Part III. p. 36.]

[Footnote 210: This version, made before the publication of the English
translation, differs from it only in immaterial points. (See _Eight
Months_, p, 22.)]

[Footnote 211: _Times_, Dec. 14, 1869.]

[Footnote 212: "_Les portes-lumiéres et les portes-Dieu._"]




CHAPTER II

First Proceedings--Unimportant Committees and All-Important
Commissions--No Council if Pope dies--Theologians discover their
Disfranchisement--Father Ambrose--Parties and Party Tactics--Were the
Bishops Free Legislators?--Plans of Reconstruction--Plan of the German
Bishops--Segesser's Plan--New Bull of Excommunications.


The day following the wonderful Wednesday, of which the proceedings
filled up the last chapter, was not too much for rest, and probably,
indeed, was too little for the bishops to tell how effective the
function had been. On the Friday, however, they had again to meet
for the first General Congregation, or deliberative sitting. This
was presided over by the Cardinals appointed, whereas the Pope
in person presided over the Public Sessions, or solemnities, for
formally promulging Decrees. Cardinal De Reisach, Chief President,
was not in his chair, but upon his death-bed. As we have seen, he had
superintended the drawing up (it is believed that with his own hand he
had drawn up) the first code of laws to regulate the relations of the
Church to civil society; but his code has never met the public eye.

From this first General Congregation, writes Friedrich, even the
theologians were shut out.

The occupation of the day for nearly eight hundred bishops was to elect
two committees of five each: one to examine applications for leave of
absence; and the other to settle contests as to precedence, and similar
matters, which contests at Trent often proved to be serious, indeed
ere now the streets of Rome have witnessed bloodshed arising out of
disputes of this sort between bishops. The members of these committees
were called respectively Judges of Excuses and Judges of Complaints and
Disputes. The mode of election was simple; every one wrote five names
on a card. It proved that Fallibilists must not expect the smallest
share of office. Cardinal De Luca took the chief place, and opened
the Congregation with a few simple sentences. These were translated
by interpreters for the Orientals who did not understand Latin. The
prelate who on this occasion celebrated Mass at the opening of the
sitting was the Bishop of Osimo, afterwards Cardinal Vitelleschi, to
whom some have ascribed the authorship of the work of his brother,
which we often quote.[213]

The real business of the day, too important to be left to the
episcopate, had been done without them. It consisted in appointing the
Commission of Proposals. Twelve Cardinals, twelve archbishops, and two
bishops were announced as the men whom the Pontiff had put in charge
of the rights of their brethren. Prelates with titles from Antioch,
Jerusalem, Thessalonica, and Sardis; one from Chili and one from
Baltimore; one from Spain, one from Westminster, two Italians, and a
few others, were empowered to say whether the men who ruled the sees
of Paris, Lyons, Munich, Cologne, and Milan, and those of Hungary and
Portugal, were or were not to be recommended to the Pope for permission
to bring forward any proposal. The Commission could not grant them
leave to do so, but it could report to the Pontiff, who alone could
determine.

As some seven hundred and fifty bishops found all their hopes of
proposing anything placed at the discretion of these twenty-six men,
it was not for them to reason why: it was for them simply to read in
the names now announced the record of past services and the fate of
future suggestions.[214] They had not stayed the proceedings when they
found that the Pro-synodal Congregation had been used to fasten upon
them an edict which took away their right of self-organization, and it
was now hopeless to attempt to recover that right. The three youngest
archbishops on the list were Giannelli, Manning, and Deschamps; the
secretary of the Nine, and the two hottest Infallibilists--all three
on the way to the purple, which they have since received at one and the
same time.

But the sensation of the day, perhaps brought about at this moment
to divert attention from the painful inroad just made upon episcopal
rights, was a Bull determining the course to be taken should the death
of the Pontiff occur during the Council. This edict determined that
the bishops must not, in that case, elect a successor or transact
any business, but that the Council must be held as suspended till
another Pope should be duly elected by the Cardinals alone, and till
it should be again called together by him. Pius IX ordained that this
law should endure for ever, as the rule in all similar cases. This
measure made the Council an appendage to the person of the Pope, not
capable of sustaining its existence without him, and consequently
having no imaginable power over him. It also made it inferior to the
College of Cardinals--an abnormal body, composed of "creatures" of the
crown, without any pretence to a constitutional place in the Christian
Church--"Princes," and some of them, like Antonelli, not even priests.
"Pivots," as their name imports, true "pivots"[215] of the Court, which
has turned a religion into a school of costume, policy, and arms, they
have, we repeat, as Cardinals, neither name nor place, neither order
nor office, in the known constitution of the Catholic Church. When
men who held that bishops were successors of the Apostles allowed the
right of all the bishops in the world to choose their own head to be
confiscated by an edict in favour of these Court officers, they were
not likely afterwards to be strong supports of any true authority, only
of that arbitrary will which finds all the sanction of its acts in
itself. The Cardinals may well denounce nationalism, since to uphold
their pretensions the mitres of all nations must bow to the hat of a
prince in the suite of one little king. It would be unreasonable to
think less of a man for wearing a scarlet hat and scarlet stockings,
if his position in life calls him to it; almost as unreasonable as
to think more of him for it. But to put a prince into that grotesque
Court dress, and then turn him, by virtue of his Court position, into
a titular bishop, or archbishop, and to expect his irregular office to
be recommended by his incongruous attire, is a proof of the unlimited
faith of the Curia in costume.

The experience of the day taught two lessons. First, the hall proved to
be utterly unfit for deliberation, as every architect or public speaker
must have known that it would prove, though about twenty-four thousand
pounds had been spent in adapting a space within the Cathedral. But the
second lesson of the day's experience was of a different kind. It had
become plain that Fallibilists and Infallibilists were to be parted off
from one another by a hard official line, and that no distinction would
be made between Fallibilists and Inopportunists. The Curia, instead of
showing any fear of the minority, was evidently resolved on letting it
be known that Rome was not the place to form an opposition. The Rules
had in fact already disposed of the minority.

We have intimated that possibly theologians came up to the Council
with no more knowledge of what awaited them than the bishops. This
was at least the case with Friedrich. On the Monday after the opening
ceremony, accompanied by Kagarer, theologian to his Grace of Munich,
he waited on the Secretary of the Council. I knew, says the Professor,
that at Trent every theologian was not entitled only, but bound, to
take part in the labours of the Council, by preparing papers and
publicly discussing questions. But, he adds, "we were undeceived with
a witness." The Secretary told them that the duty of theologians in
connexion with the Council was "nothing." They were only to give
information or advice to their respective bishops, as it might be asked
for.

The decision thus announced to the doctors had been taken eleven
months previously. The Nine, at their meetings of January 24 and
31, (_Cecconi_, p. 205) had determined that there should be no
congregation of inferior theologians, as the doctors were called,
in opposition to the bishops, the superior theologians. The open
discussions which had given light to the people on the one side and
to the prelates on the other were thus quenched. The people were no
more to have any means of ascertaining what was being done with their
creed, nor even, when something had been done, were they to have means
of ascertaining what were the processes by which the new dogmas had
been established. All that they were now to learn was to be the _fait
accompli_, henceforth to become the standard of faith for all and
in all. The order of priests was to be shorn of its last vestige of
representation in the Councils of the Church. The bishops, on the other
hand, were not to be allowed to know what could be said for or against
a proposed dogma, before they were called upon to close it up for ever.
This one turn of the screw wrung even from Cecconi a mild but distinct
expression of doubt. He feels (p. 205) that "the Fathers generally
lost a mighty assistance in the discharge of their high office." He
ventures to quote Pallavicino, the Jesuit historian of Trent, whose
language shows that the old Jesuits had broad views compared with
those now ruling. Pallavicino's words remind us of the cry of poor
Monsignor Liverani: "We might be allowed to be Liberals up to the mark
of Bellarmine"--

    Many of the bishops were learned in the science of theology, but
    the most eminent, as is the case in all sciences, were the private
    theologians, since they had not been diverted by public cares from
    regular study, without which eminent prudence is often acquired,
    but not eminent erudition.

But Pius IX had no intention of allowing bishops to satisfy their
consciences by hearing all that could be said on both sides before they
gave a judgment.

It would be hard to find a neater specimen of the terms in which the
abolition of a venerable franchise may be couched than in the words
of Cecconi. He lets us know that on the 4th of July, 1869, the Nine
resolved to "confer on the theologians of bishops the right of being
eligible to be called to serve the committees of the Council." It would
be only in keeping with a system of quotation regularly practised if
this statement of Cecconi should be, hereafter, used to prove that
the theologians at the Vatican Council did not suffer any curtailment
of their rights, but received an increase of them. But exclusion from
the right of pleading before "my lords" was not all the degradation
awaiting the unfortunate doctors. Bishop Fessler told them that they
were free to give information or advice each to his own bishop, but,
adds Friedrich, _only to him_. We wonder what man was not free to
give private advice if asked for it. They were not to be allowed _to
attend meetings of the bishops; not even to meet among themselves to
consult in common upon questions affecting the Council_.[216] Friedrich
was not the most to be pitied of the theologians. Father Ambrose, a
Carmelite, had been brought up from Germany by his general, a Spaniard.
At the first interview the general told him that the all-important
question was that of Papal infallibility. Father Ambrose declared
himself a Fallibilist, and produced a work which he had prepared on
the subject. He at once lost his post; and the general wished to send
him off to Malta. Cardinal Hohenlohe pleaded for his restoration, but
in vain. The general feared that the order would be utterly put to
shame if in addition to the scandal of the Cracow nun, and that of
Father Hyacinthe's defection, a theologian of the Order brought up to
the Council should be known as a Fallibilist. The poor man had even to
go to Cardinal Hohenlohe, and to beg of him to give him back a copy
of his little work which he had presented to his Eminence. This the
Cardinal refused to do, saying that even if the general had ordered
it, he had nothing to say to a Cardinal. Ambrose was permitted to
return to Würzburg, and before he started a prelate said to him, "I
should rejoice if any one recalled me or sent me home. We bishops have
been ordered here to the Council without being told what we were to
deliberate upon, and now that I know it, I could gladly turn my back
upon the Council and Rome."

Another minute touch of Friedrich at this moment shows how he heard a
devoted Roman adherent of the Papacy say that an officer had sent him
twenty scudi (about four pounds) as an offering to Peter's Pence; but
he had returned the money, telling his friend he would do better to
spend it on his family. "His conscience had dictated this course," for
he knew how Peter's Pence were spent.

The correspondent of the _Stimmen_ must have been under the triumphal
influence of the opening, when he informed his German readers that
wonderful unanimity reigned, and that what might be called the
Opposition was daily shrinking up into nothing, and would soon reward
only microscopical research.[217] The _Unitá Cattolica_ of January 1
alleged that the _Français_, in using the expression, "A fraction of
malcontents," might possibly be right, if it meant an almost impalpable
fraction; but if it meant anything more, it was false. The alleged
discontent, it went on to say, was spoken of as if it related to the
Commission of Proposals appointed by the Pope. Some were said to wish
that the Council itself should have had the selection of a committee.
It was false; no one complained. It could not be disputed that the
Pontiff, having the right to convoke, rule, and guide the Council,
had also the right to determine what questions should be submitted
to it. Pius IX had, indeed, himself confirmed this in the Bull by
which he settled the Rules of Procedure. This is not conscious but
unconscious irony. It reflects the course of the Papacy, displaying
its administrative force and its logical infirmity in one word. A
right is first desired, then secretly assumed, next insinuated in
indirect forms, and finally embodied in an act assuming it as already
ascertained; after which, this very act is taken as proof that it was
previously established. When the Nine met, they confessed that it was
questionable if the right existed to lay down rules for a General
Council of the Catholic Church by a sub-committee of the Cardinals.
But they assumed the right as unchallenged, embodied the assumption in
an edict, and now turned to that edict as proof of the pre-existing
right. A few days later, the correspondent of the _Stimmen_ again said
that, while the intelligence furnished to the ordinary journals was
absurd, one thing might be relied upon, namely, that what was called an
Opposition was daily diminishing.[218]

Another Jesuit, writing after the Council, did not confirm these
statements of the inspired organs, but followed the profane journals,
whose intelligence was at the time decried--

    Behold, says Sambin, two camps face to face! On one side, Rome
    and her Sovereign Pontiff, surrounded by a vast majority of the
    bishops, displaying the banner of the Church as set up by her
    divine Redeemer. On the other side, an uncertain number of men
    belonging to all ranks of the hierarchy, seduced by illusory
    appearances or frightened by the danger of attacking modern ideas
    in front--men who fancy that the Church ought to parley with the
    notions of the age.[219]

The orthodox view on this point was expressed by the _Civiltá_ in
its first number after the Council was opened. "The Press and public
meetings are the two mainsprings by which the spirit of the age, or
Masonry, or, to give things their proper names, Satan, moves public
opinion for his own ends."[220] At that moment Satan was busy not only
with the Italian and German Press, but with the _Standard_, _Saturday
Review_, and other English papers.

Another aspect of the Council was exhibited, not in the secular
newspapers, but in the clerical periodicals. Eight days after the
opening session, the _Stimmen_ was informed how, on an afternoon as
mild as summer, the grounds of the Villa Borghese were enlivened by
a review in honour of the Fathers of the Council. The troops were
much commended, not omitting the _Squadriglieri_, whom the Italians
profanely charged with having been recruited from the brigands but
whom the Jesuits described as excellent Catholics. The _Civiltá_ was
really edified by this display. In the military review, it says--and
we repeat word for word--the profane spectacle was dominated by the
thought of the _new crusaders_ defiling before so many bishops,
spectators and a spectacle no longer witnessed at a military review. It
was well and truly said that this _review_ looked like a _function_ in
St. Peters'.[221]

A few days later, the faithful, whose supply of news never related
to either doctrine or discipline, were edified by an account of a
performance in a military casino, in honour of the Austrian and Swiss
bishops. It is inferred that the Pope's foreign troops must be highly
educated, because the beautiful scenery had been entirely painted
by the soldiers. The curtain represented St. Michael the Archangel
overcoming the _first great rebel_. The first great rebel, by some
wonderful prolepsis, was clad in a red shirt, and wore the features of
Garibaldi. No writers so well know as the Jesuits how to make fun of
Garibaldi's bit of ritualism, with his red shirt and poncho. A German
war-song of the middle ages, addressed to St. Michael, was sung with
loud applause, and sung _encore_. Cardinal Prince Schwarzenberg, the
Archbishops of Salsburg and Cologne, the Bishop of Mainz, and the
Prussian Military Bishop, with a retinue of counts and one prince,
hallowed and graced the performance.[222]

In spite of these diversions, and the protests and assertions of
perfect unanimity made by the clerical writers, the indications which
had for some time been making themselves obscurely felt of a Court
party and an Opposition party, had at last emerged into painful
consciousness on both sides. The idea of a sovereign above any party
was too lofty for the place. One party, as we have seen stated by
Sambin, was Rome and her Pontiff, while the other was an opposition,
not against the opinions of Infallibilists, or the plans of a Cabinet,
but against the Sovereign. Both sides had been very reluctant to
acknowledge the reality of such antagonism, even long after its
existence began to be tolerably evident. The Curia had nursed the hope,
as we shall see, of all but unanimous adhesion to its preconcerted
plans. It reckoned on the ascendant of the Pope when in presence, on
that of the Sacred College, on the sympathy of numbers, the witcheries
of ceremony, the baits of promotion, and, if need should arise, on
wholesome fear.

On the other hand, even the prelates who most feared what was about
to be done, disliked the idea of being in opposition, not only to
the Curia, but to the Pontiff, and that on a personal question. They
flattered themselves, moreover, that the good feeling of the Pope would
lead him to moderate his prompters, and would not allow him to expose
bishops to difficulties with their flocks and their governments, which
they clearly foresaw. The men hoped that the general would modify his
plans, and would win the campaign by strategy, without forcing them
against stone walls.

Even before the opening, a painful feeling, according to Friedrich, had
seized upon some of the bishops, when studying the Rules of Procedure.
Fessler, he states, had told Dinkel, of Augsburg, that some dogmatic
Decrees would be forthcoming on the opening day. Yet not a hint had
been given as to what these Decrees might be; and such secrecy on
matters so solemn was taken ill.[223] So far as the Curia was preparing
a counter revolution, it acted only like any other political body in
keeping its plans hidden. But it was a different matter to make secret
preparations for effecting changes in a creed that men had taught until
they were grey-headed, and then to expect them to face the alternative
of either accepting the change or ruining their official prospects.

Scarcely had the opening session passed, when an address was signed by
fourteen French prelates and the powerful Croatian Bishop Strossmayer,
representing to the Pope in humble yet clear terms the danger of any
restraint on the liberty of the Council. They did not rise in their
places and move that the Council itself should frame its Rules of
Procedure; they did not even move to accept the Rules laid before it
in the Bull _Multiplices Inter_, with certain specified amendments.
Nothing short of this would have asserted the freedom of their
Assembly. On the contrary, like all men trained under absolutism,
they did not know how to maintain their inherited rights against
encroachment and at the same time to abide loyal and true; but
submitted, grumbling at their wrongs, and groping for some opening in
the wall which shut them in. Had they attempted to bring forward such
a motion as we have supposed, it would soon have been seen whether
the assertions were or were not true which were made by English and
American bishops about the Council being as free as the Senates of
their own nations. Any one attempting to make such a proposal would
have been informed that in the Pro-Synodal Congregation the Rules had
been issued as a Papal Bull, and that in the first session the forms
therein prescribed had been acted upon; so that those Rules, not being
an act of the Council, but of the Pope, were not subject to revision by
the Council; and, furthermore, that the Council had already practically
adopted them. In fine, the prelates stood to some ideal Council in some
such relation as we stand in to the Parliament; we cannot propose a
motion, but we can send in a petition. Yet our petition would go to the
House itself, not to the Cabinet. It would be named in the hearing of
the House, and noted on its records. The petition of the poor bishops
could not be presented in the Assembly, no trace of it is in the
_Acta_; its only open way was to the steps of the throne. It was never
answered, never mentioned in the official documents, and the faithful
who sought information in the accredited organs that rang with charges
of misrepresentation against worldly ones, never received a hint of any
such transaction.

"Unless the thoroughness of examination and the perfect freedom of
discussion are as clear as day," say the fifteen prelates, it is to be
feared that the effect will be to lower religion in public esteem and
to aggravate the troubles of the Church.[224] The first point on which
the petitioners fastened was the right of proposition. Yet, simple as
this right was, they had not the courage to claim it. Perhaps even they
were deceived, as Quirinus and many other writers evidently were,[225]
at the first glance, by the way in which the denial of that right was
veiled over in the Rules of Procedure. The mode of putting it is one
often employed in the documents of the Roman Court. When some serious
restriction is to be announced, you may find at first a sentence or
paragraph which conveys an impression of something different, perhaps
opposite to what is to be the conclusion. Indeed, practised Liberal
Catholics sometimes write as if with them it was a tacit canon of
interpretation that when in Jesuit teaching you find a principle
affirmed in the opening of a paragraph, that is the principle which
is to be rendered nugatory by qualifications ere you reach the close;
and when you find a principle disclaimed, that is the principle which,
under veils and covers, is to be set up.

In the Rules of Procedure the section on proposals did not say that
no Bishop should be permitted to propose anything in the Council,
which was the thing meant. To plainly say what was meant, would be to
copy the Tower of Babel, the wicked modern Parliament. The section
said that though the right of bringing forward proposals belonged to
the Pope alone, he wished the bishops freely to exercise it. This
sufficed to set many writing good news home. They did not wait to weigh
the following words. These showed that the right of proposition,
handsomely announced to the Fathers of the Council, was just the right
which everybody in the world possessed, that, namely, of forwarding a
suggestion to the Pope. Curiously enough, even that common right was
granted here only in a circuitous way, for the Pope himself named a
Commission to receive propositions from the bishops, to consider them,
and to report to him. If, after such report, he should wish any of
them to come before the Council, he would send them forward. Most of
the bishops, being unused to Parliamentary forms, began only by slow
degrees to realize the fact that thus they had no right of proposition
whatever. It was a good while before they became aware that they were
simply in the position of private people. Anybody in Rome, or in
Calcutta, could forward a suggestion to the Pope without going to a
Royal Commission.

The address of the fifteen bishops requests that authors of proposals
shall be admitted to a hearing before the Commission, and also that
the latter shall be required to assign reasons when it reports against
any proposal. But the bishops do not even ask leave to put their
suggestions upon the books. That would, at least, have given members
the right of letting their fellow members know what they wished to see
done. The idea of entering a notice of motion would of course have been
in that atmosphere not liberty but licence. They do, however, venture
to suggest that some members of the Commission might be elected by the
Council. They also point out that secrecy cannot be really maintained.
The address, as we have said, was not even answered.

Hergenröther, the writer on whose authority Cardinal Manning requires
us to rely, devotes some strength to this question. He begins by
affirming that in Trent there was no fixed order. His proof for that
assertion is that there is no written Code of Procedure, the record
showing only the course actually followed from time to time. He also
asserts that the bishops in the Vatican Council _had perfect liberty_
of proposition. He moreover informs those who learn from such as he,
that in all great assemblies the right of the President includes that
of proposition, at least so far as to give him the decision, as to the
order in which the proposals are taken.[226] Hergenröther, moreover,
affirms that Friedrich wished to deny the right of proposition
to the Pope--a blunder arising from not distinguishing between a
right and an exclusive right. The Directing Congregation made a
distinction as singular as was this failure to distinguish on the
part of Hergenröther. It held that the Pope had the direct right of
proposition, and the bishops the indirect right. But the fact was that
they had no right of proposing to the Council whatever. They had no
right beyond that of making a suggestion to the Pope, which, we repeat,
anybody in the world could do; the only difference being that the one
suggestion went before a Royal Commission, while the other did not.

The Directing Congregation had been first of all inclined to let
the Fathers choose a committee of their own, but finally determined
that the Pope himself should appoint a commission. This was an
arrangement open to objections which even they did not wholly fail
to see; but the Court historian finds a perfect answer by saying
that if a good proposal should rest unheeded the author of it would
have the satisfaction of having done his duty, and he must trust to
divine Providence, which would never fail the Church.[227] Clouds of
words were raised about this simple matter. The Catholics made solemn
asseverations that the bishops had as perfect liberty of proposition as
the members of any public body. The Liberal Catholics protested that
they had not. They were cried down as slanderers.

Hefele, a learned German, gave confused and even contradictory advice
as a consulter; first contending that the bishops should have a right
of proposition, and then suggesting the very arrangements finally
adopted. Sanguineti, a Roman consulter, plainly stated what was to be
aimed at, namely, that the Pope alone should have the right of public
proposition, leaving to the bishops what he calls the right of private
proposition; as the directing Congregation calls it, of indirect
proposition, or, as we call it, of suggestion.[228]

The result, then, was that the bishops could not bring in any
substantive motion, could not move for a subject to be taken into
consideration, could not put a notice of motion on the books, could
not move an amendment on what the President proposed, could not move
the previous question, could not move to decline taking the matter
into consideration, could not move to postpone it. All that they could
do was to speak to what the President proposed, to send suggested
amendments before a committee, and finally to vote Yea or Nay upon the
question, in the form into which that committee ultimately put it.
No minutes of proceedings were printed, or even read day by day. No
knowledge was allowed to speakers even of the reports taken of their
own speeches; no sight of the reported speeches of others.

Notwithstanding all this, bishop after bishop returned from the Council
to denounce in pastorals those who had said that they had not the
liberty of proposition. Even our English tongue had to make itself the
vehicle of such statements for two mighty nations. Bishop bore witness
to bishop, and they were true and all men were liars. Archbishop
Manning told how bishops "of the freest country in the world" had _said
truly_, "The liberty of our Congress is not greater than the liberty
of the Council."[229] We fear that American bishops might have quoted
similar declarations from English ones. It is for members of Congress
and of Parliament to judge.

_La Liberté du Concile_ is a tract which, Friedrich says, if not
written by Darboy, was inspired by him.[230] Only fifty copies were
printed during the Council, for distribution exclusively among the
Cardinals, and with the strictest injunctions of secrecy. The whole
is given in the _Documenta ad Illustrandum_.[231] It is introduced by
an article from the _Moniteur_ of the 14th February, 1870. One of its
earliest sentences compresses the secret history of Cecconi into a few
words. "The first unhappy thought, and that from which the Council now
suffers, was the wish, so to speak, to make the Council beforehand,
and to make it without the bishops." It is right to mention that M.
Veuillot says that this writer recounts ill, reasons worse, and draws
inferences worst of all.[232]

For two years, complains this writer, the bishops had been refused
any programme. They had not been afforded any possibility of studying
questions about to be raised, or of preparing themselves to discuss
them.[233] It would seem that the writer did not know that the
preparations had extended over five years instead of two. He says
that the Council had not made its Rules of Procedure; the Pope had
imposed them. It had not chosen one of its officers, not even a
scrutineer; the Pope had selected them all beforehand. The reason
for the restraints imposed on the liberty of the bishops was stated
by M. Veuillot as being to take away the liberty of evil, which the
writer considers an insult to the bishops. We may remark that this
is a principle which, had it been acted upon by the great government
above us all, would have precluded every question as to the origin of
evil. This tract affirms that the Commission for Proposals was composed
exclusively of declared partisans of the Court. That statement is not
quite accurate. Rauscher was a mighty instrument of the Curia in its
ordinary aggressions on the civil power, but too sensible to approve
of its present projects. Cardinal Corsi also, though at last he voted
with the majority, was all along reputed as averse to the definition
of infallibility. The next complaint is that the Committees for the
important subjects of Dogma, Discipline, the Religious Orders, and
Oriental affairs, are permanent, chosen once for all, and chosen by a
strictly party vote, excluding every Fallibilist. Thus, is it urged,
only ninety-six bishops out of nearly eight hundred would ever know
anything of those real deliberations which principally determine the
results of the Council. These Committees would have to decide upon all
alterations to be made in Drafts of Decrees after the first Drafts
had been discussed by the bishops generally. They would have the sole
responsibility of bringing them forward in the definitive shape in
which they must be voted upon, Yea or Nay. Thus, he repeats, seven
hundred out of eight hundred are absolutely excluded from a share, at
any time whatever, in the most important operations of the Council. The
indignation of the author would not have been lessened had he known
that this particular point had been carefully weighed by the Nine.
They at first resolved to allow the Council to elect, as had been done
at Trent, committees for each particular matter as it arose. It was,
however, subsequently foreseen that this regulation might open the way
to the election of men who were not safe. After a discussion, a man
who had displayed ability in treating the matter in hand might be
elected on the committee for that reason alone! If, on the other hand,
committees were chosen once for all, it would be easy to secure the
exclusion of wrong names in that one election, and no opportunity of
changing them would ever arise.[234]

The writer of _La Liberté du Concile_ proceeds to say that a number
of bishops urgently requested the Pope, in order to ensure a wise
selection of these all-controlling committees, to direct that the
Fathers should be divided into groups, and should in these discuss
pending questions separately, on the plan adopted in the _Bureaux_ of
the French and Italian Chambers. Thus the Fathers, who for the most
part were perfect strangers to one another, would in a little time
learn who were the capable men, and would be in a position to make
a proper selection. This appeal, probably the one we have already
mentioned, was not even answered.

The lords of wide dioceses, accustomed to rule their clergy with
military authority and to face statesmen with considerable pretensions,
were now reduced to struggle for very small liberties. They attempted
to form themselves into groups, by nation or by language. So far as
the French were concerned, this arrangement failed. Each of their two
Cardinals, De Bonnechose and Matthieu, received a group in his own
house. Cardinal De Bonnechose would not consent that all the French
bishops should meet together. Even when they divided, he went for
advice to Antonelli, who intimated that they ought not to meet in
_larger groups than fifteen or twenty_. The effect of all this was,
that when the time for making arrangements for the election of the
committees came, they had no concert among themselves; and the writer
states that after that election, the annoyances confronting Cardinal
Matthieu were so great, that he felt obliged for a time to leave Rome.
Hereupon the bishops who had previously met at his house resolved to go
to that of Cardinal De Bonnechose, who had, for once, to receive them;
but he again consulted Antonelli, and declared that this first general
meeting should also be the last.

The bishops desired to select the best men of their own nation to be
nominated as members of the permanent committees. The Curia, however,
had provided for all that. The "ticket" of Cardinal De Angelis, as
it would be called in America, was the counter move. The German and
Hungarian bishops had shown more cohesion than the French. They met
together, and made a selection of the principal men from their own
number; but that resulted in nothing. The Curia had selected those
whom it preferred, setting aside the men who stood high with their
fellow-countrymen, and putting forward those who with them would
have had no chance. An official list was prepared bearing the name
of Cardinal De Angelis. Of course the bishops _in partibus_, the
missionary bishops, and all the mere dependents of the Court, voted
for the official list; and thus the whole of the four permanent
committees were composed, as the secret preparatory commission had
been, exclusively of the nominees of the Curia. The Jesuit Press
gloried over this result. M. Veuillot said that the Committee on Faith
was an echo of the great commission appointed by the Pope. Sambin
recorded the triumph, with satisfaction, for permanent history. The
result showed that the Court could count on about 550 votes.[235] De
Angelis was appointed to the vacant post of Chief President, in room
of Reisach. Cardinal Schwarzenberg was not on any committee, Hohenlohe
was out of the question. Even the Archbishop of Cologne was only on a
petty committee for granting leave of absence. But Bishop Senestrey,
of Regensburg, the author of the throne-upsetting speech, was on the
all-important committee for dogma.

This manoeuvre excited strong indignation amongst all shades of
the marked men. They found themselves shut off from such a part in
deliberations as would have been granted by any worldly cabinet to an
honourable Opposition. Then, the mode of securing the result by the
expedients of a political election caused bitter recollections of
frequent admonitions, given both verbally and in the Press, not to
reason about the Council as an ordinary human assembly, but to evince
a worthy confidence in the all-guiding power of the Holy Ghost. The
_Rheinischer Merkur_ remarked that the Romans had a saying, that at
the beginning of a conclave the devil reigns, then the world carries
all before it, and only at the last does the Holy Ghost turn both out
and regulate things according to His own will. This genuine specimen
of Roman mockery is applied to the Council by the _Merkur_ saying that
as yet the third stage had certainly not set in.[236] The selection,
said the _Merkur_, of committees was one-sided and narrow-minded.
The Archbishop of Paris and the Bishop of Orleans saw themselves
thrown aside, and nominal bishops put in the places they ought to
have occupied. The German bishops, who had strongly confided in the
moderation of the Curia, found that no amount of trimming would avail;
nothing short of a sound profession on the question of infallibility.
Vitelleschi says that the clearest, most sincere and disinterested
opposition was that of the German bishops. They knew what they meant,
and also knew that they expressed the collective sense of their people;
besides, they always acted with moderation. He ascribes this moderation
to two causes, namely, the fact that they consciously did express the
views of their people, and that they were, more or less, influenced
by Protestant modes of thinking. We confess that we see little proof
that any German bishops but the Curialistic ones were clear. We should
rather have said that they were at sea. As to the moderation, however,
Vitelleschi adds that no such moderating influence of Protestant
opinion appeared in the case of the English prelates. "Several bishops,
with Manning at their head, more Catholic than the Pope, are noted for
their Ultramontanism" (p. 45). He adds, that even the Irish bishops
were less uniformly Infallibilists than the English. Of the Belgians,
he says that some naturally took the more liberal direction. De Mérode,
well known in Rome as a Court prelate, placeman, and speculator,
like Dupanloup, had been a champion of the temporal power, but now
proved to be an anti-infallibilist. _Et tu, Brute, fili mi!_ exclaims
the Roman. As to the Spaniards, Vitelleschi says that they had been
trained in the school of Torquemada; and if they were content with
being only Ultramontanes, that was something gained. These are the
divines of whom Quirinus says that if ordered by the Pope to vote that
there were four persons in the Trinity, they would do it. Vitelleschi
remarks that the prelates of the United States were simpler than their
brethren, and less practised in ecclesiastical politics. Their want of
any political importance at home, he believes, had predisposed them to
warmer sympathy with Curialistic views than might have been expected
from them. Nevertheless, it proved in time that, under the forms of
ecclesiastical discipline, the spirit of citizens of a free country did
now and then make its appearance among them. Another of his remarks is,
that, with the exception of Portugal, most of the bishops from small
countries were in the interest of the Curia. Speaking of Mermillod,
from Geneva, Quirinus says that he "rivals Manning in his fanatical
zeal for the new dogma." Of course the Italian bishops, with very few
exceptions, were Infallibilists, and those from South America were all
upon the same side. The bulk of the Opposition bishops were German,
Hungarian, and French, reinforced by some of the older ones from
Ireland, a few of the English, a good many of the North American, and
only about twenty of the entire body of the Italian.

The various groups had now everything to stimulate them to put their
proposals into shape. Those of the Curia were in shape already. They
naturally took the old direction of conforming the creed to innovations
in practice. At Trent this was done with many innovations, which must
either fall into discredit or be lifted above dispute. In this way was
the demand for a reform of the Church to raise her to the level of the
creed, met by a determination to bring down the creed to the level of
the Church. The two movements were confronted. Reformation, on the
one side, renovating the condition of the Church; and Conformity, on
the other side, adulterating the creed. Both together resulted in the
wide separation which has been witnessed ever since. The necessity now
pressing sprang from different causes. No party had arisen to challenge
the primacy of the Pope, even in the form of all but unlimited
monarchy, into which, under cover of the gentle word "primacy," it had
been monstrously developed. On the contrary, indeed, of late years
the faithful had shown increasing submissiveness, proportioned to the
dangers surrounding the Pope. But the Papacy itself was moving for
constitutional powers which demanded a new dogmatic basis.

In comparison with the magnificence of the scheme of one fold and one
shepherd, the notions of the German bishops, as disclosed by Friedrich,
are an illustration of how administrators putter when immense issues
press for solution. While the architects were designing a new coliseum,
the joiners and stone-cutters were great upon cusps and corbels. In
answer to the seventeen questions issued in Rome at the centenary of
St. Peter, the German bishops had deliberated at Fulda for five days.
Marriage, as a mine yielding richly to the local authorities in fees,
and to the Curia in dispensation taxes, and also as a means of power
over females, and over the education of children, was naturally one of
the main points. Another point included the offences for which parish
priests should be liable to deposition. On this the bishops advised the
addition of two offences to the list--notorious fornication and open
concubinage.

Hints were thrown out about abolishing all benefices, as they were
said to be feudal. The clergy could not be fully mobilized but by the
abolition of permanent appointments. The whole effect of the questions
was to bring out the existence in Germany of too great toleration of
intercourse with Protestants; intercourse to a degree not consistent
with the militant footing on which things were to be put. This applied
to christenings, weddings, burials, and other events of life, where
the milk of human kindness sometimes will overflow, and men will
forget that they belong to a society which scarcely regards those who
are not of it as morally entitled to existence. The bishops naturally
desired that the number of _causae majores_, or reserved cases, should
be curtailed, as that would increase their own freedom and power. They
also expressed a wish that censures should not be enforced against
Catholic judges who found themselves obliged to pronounce sentences
adverse to the canon law. This they advised in order to avoid the
exclusion of Catholics from the judicial bench. They moreover suggested
that unreasonably contracting debts and habitual drunkenness should be
added to the list of causes warranting the removal of a priest. They
did touch a few minute points of a properly religious kind, connected
with the forgiveness of sins, ordination, and other questions.

Friedrich remarks that these ideas tended to the omnipotence of the
bishops by sacrificing the parish priests. This object, however, was
a natural complement of the sacrifice of the bishops to the Curia.
If the bishop is himself an absolute dependent on the Court, all his
subordinates must be left to his mercy. The Curia knew how to lure on
the bishops to the forfeiting of their own franchises, by using their
love of power against the franchises of the priests.

Friedrich gravely says that the movableness of the parish priests would
not cure the moral evils complained of. It is not by outward correction
that a man becomes morally better, but by the ennobling of the inner
man, which, alas! is so little aimed at among the clergy. When a French
bishop can say in the Senate, "My clergy are a regiment; they are bound
to march, and they do march," he only shows how the Christian spirit
has evaporated from among the hierarchy. A few weeks before Friedrich
left home he had conversed with Döllinger upon the seventeen questions,
and he says that they were the only points respecting the Council
on which they did converse together. What the aged provost said,
observes Friedrich, will always remain in my memory. "On one occasion,
Windischmann remarked in my presence and that of others, 'If I was
compelled to answer according to the contents of the ordinary's book,
whether celibacy should be abolished or not, I should have to speak
unconditionally for its abolition.'"

We have seen, in a previous chapter, that some of the lower clergy had
indicated plans of considerable range, but they pointed in a direction
in which Rome was incapable of going. Great attention was attracted by
a project, appearing with the name of a learned layman in Switzerland,
Dr. Segesser.[237] His charter had no less than twelve points, which
are well worth a moment's notice.

1. He held that the Church, in having, for the first time in her
history, declined to invite the co-operation of governments with the
Council, must now declare for the separation of Church and State.

2. The Council must be a Reform Council in the fullest sense of the
word.

3. It must certify the freedom of its members to the world.

4. It must be declared that all who believe in the redeeming work of
Christ belong to the Christian communion.

5. No dogma must be added unless urgently called for, not only by
theologians, but by the faithful.

6. The primacy being divine, but the Papacy being only a joint product
of Roman jurisprudence and theology, the dogma of the pontifical
infallibility of the Pope, which would lead back to theocratic ideas,
would set the Church and State on a war of mutual annihilation.
Therefore it is the absolute duty of the Church to declare herself
completely released from the theocratic ideas of the great Popes of the
middle ages.

7. The question of infallibility must not be passed over in silence,
but must be solemnly declared to be in opposition to the right idea of
the constitution of the Church.

8. In mixed questions, such as those of the Church and State, laymen
should have some voice.

9. The temporal power must be treated as a local Roman institution,
and not confounded with the affairs of the universal Church.

10. Freedom of teaching, of organization, and of worship, and equality
with all other communions, must be proclaimed; and the Church would
do well if she gave up all claim to the immunity of her property, and
placed it entirely under the control of the common law.

11. The Index to be given up.

12. We give this in full: "The Christian State was a great ideal, but a
yet greater is a State of Christians. To attain to the last the Church
must not domineer, but must possess freedom, and give it."

The language of this Liberal Catholic, brought up among German
Protestants on the one hand and Swiss ones on the other, would sound
altogether alien to the ears of the Cardinals, and would only deepen
their painful impression of the evil influences of Protestant teaching
upon the children of the Church. Enough occurred at the Council to show
that, even among the bishops, there were one or two who would have
dared to propose some of the points in Dr. Segesser's scheme, had the
members of the Council been permitted to make proposals.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 213: _Acta Sanctae Sedis_, vol. v. p. 279.]

[Footnote 214: Ibid. p. 18.]

[Footnote 215: The popular explanation "hinge" is quite correct; the
ancient hinge was a pivot inserted in a mortise, on which the door
turned.]

[Footnote 216: Compare _Quirinus_, 86, and _Tagebuch_, 25.]

[Footnote 217: _Stimmen_, N.F., vi. p. 170.]

[Footnote 218: Id., p. 172.]

[Footnote 219: _Sambin_, p. 41.]

[Footnote 220: VII. ix. 6.]

[Footnote 221: _Civiltá_, VII. ix. 103.]

[Footnote 222: The first number of the _Civiltá_ for 1876 (p. 104)
contains an account of an audience in which the Pope made a speech to
pilgrims from Brittany. Among other things, calling to mind how, on
the day of Pentecost, the mockers said that the disciples were full of
new wine, he went on to say that there were not wanting leaders of the
revolution shameless enough to call by such names as a gang of topers
the "respectable and truly Christian youths who, forsaking domestic
comfort, came to expose themselves even to blood in defence of this
holy see." Liverani, as Canon of Santa Maria Maggiore, lamented his
good opportunity, as living near barracks, of estimating the Christian
virtues of the "OEcumenical Army." He says very hard things of them;
and as to drunkenness makes no scruple of describing the Irish members
of the force, in particular, as being not unmindful of home traditions
that are no rule of faith, and a bad rule of practice.]

[Footnote 223: _Tagebuch_, pp. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 224: _Documenta ad Ill._, Ab. II, p. 380. The exact date is
not given, but only as "before the 10th of December."]

[Footnote 225: See _Quirinus_, p. 62.]

[Footnote 226: The statement of this writer is no worse than that
of many bishops made in pastorals. It is this: _Den Bischöfen war
vollständig ein Propositionsrecht zugestanden, welches nur der Controle
der dafür be stimmten Deputation unterlag, ähnlich wie das auch zu
Trient geschehen war_.--_Katholische Kirche und Christlicher Staat_, p.
50.]

[Footnote 227: _Cecconi_, p. 162.]

[Footnote 228: _Cecconi_, p. 160. Hefele, when recommending that the
bishops should have the right of proposition, quotes what occurred at
the Council of Trent, when the Archbishop of Capaccio-Vallo, on May
10, 1546, repelled the claim of the Legate, Cardinal De Monte, to the
exclusive right of proposition. The Archbishop cried, "What am I to
do if anything occurs to me which ought to be proposed in this holy
Council?" To this De Monte replied, that if either his Grace or any
other prelate wished to propose anything, they must submit it to the
Legates, who would bring it forward, if they thought well. But should
the latter unjustly, or without cause, refuse to bring it forward,
then the author, whoever he was, should himself do so. But Hefele does
not point to the fact that De Monte made this concession only after
being driven to it by force of opposition. Earlier in the very same
day, he had asserted the exclusive right of the Legates to propose,
and had been confronted by the Cardinal Archbishop of Trent with the
plump declaration that he did not want to take the right of proposition
from the Legates, but he thought he also might propose what seemed to
him right. Then the Legate and the Cardinal, who had been for some
time engaged in a passage of arms, apologised to one another. That,
however, did not prevent De Monte from again attempting to establish
the claim of the chair to the exclusive right of proposition, by once
more asserting it. It was on this second attempt that the Archbishop of
Capaccio-Vallo reclaimed, and then the Legate had, with ill grace, to
give way. (See _Acta Genuina_, vol. i. pp. 100, 101.)]

[Footnote 229: _Priv. Pet._, Part III. p. 32.]

[Footnote 230: _Doc. ad Ill._ ii. p. vi.]

[Footnote 231: I. 129.]

[Footnote 232: I. p. 275.]

[Footnote 233: This complaint is ably put in the _Rheinischer Merkur_,
first number.]

[Footnote 234: _Cecconi_, pp. 181, 182.]

[Footnote 235: _Acton_, 68.]

[Footnote 236: Vol. I. p. 2.]

[Footnote 237: Reviewed in the _Literaturblatt_, vol. v. p. 157.]




CHAPTER III

Further Party Manoeuvres--Election of Permanent Committees--Bull of
Excommunications--Various Opinions of it--Position of Antonelli--No
serious Discussion desired--Perplexities of the Bishops--Reisach's Code
suppressed--It may reappear--Attitude of Governments.


Authors differ as to the actors in an incident which marked the second
General Congregation, on December 14. Quirinus and Fromman say that
Darboy and Strossmayer (Friedrich says that Dupanloup and Strossmayer)
attempted to speak on the Rules of Procedure, but were stopped by
Cardinal De Luca, on the ground that what the Holy Father had decreed
could not be discussed. The official writers at the time said not a
word of the incident, nor is it named in the _Acta Sanctae Sedis_, nor
in _Frond_.

Thus the bishops had now ascertained their position, but too late.
Quirinus naturally says that had the assembly been, in some measure,
prepared for the Rules, there would have been opposition; but good care
had been taken that the assembly should not be prepared, and should
not have any chance of offering opposition. The first gleam of hope,
adds this author, excited by the announcement that the bishops would
be allowed to propose measures, had speedily vanished. Lord Acton says
(p. 63): "The bishops felt themselves in an entangled position. Some
began to speak of going home. Some complained that the Rules foreclosed
questions involving divine rights, and said that they felt bound to put
even the existence of the Council to stake."

The election of the Permanent Committee on Dogma was the great work of
the day. Archbishop Kenrick's Latin note[238] states that lithographed
lists were distributed some days before the election, with the
inscription, _To the honour of Mary, conceived Immaculate_; and that
these lists were recommended by the name of Cardinal De Angelis. Four
hundred of the votes sent in gave the list entire. It was by these
tactics that every Fallibilist, without exception, was excluded from
the committees. But Canon Pelletier, who wrote what in _Frond_ passes
for the history of the Council and is a good history of the ceremonies
and the dresses, declares that the election proved the perfect freedom
of the Fathers, for though all the names on the official list were
chosen, they were not brought in according to the order in which they
stood on that list. The French prelates of the minority were especially
incensed, both against their leaders and against those whose superior
tactics had frustrated their unskilful attempts to unite. Every
Frenchman felt that all who represented the traditions and the spirit
of the Roman Catholic Church in France were now, in Rome, placed under
a species of ostracism. The Fathers left this exciting sitting with
another Bull in their hands. Again Letters Apostolic to the present!
The _Acta Sanctae Sedis_ affirm that the work of preparing this Bull
could not be got through in time to send it to the Fathers before the
Council. Its title was gentle. It was a Bull to Limit the Censures of
the Church. Quirinus mentions a mission undertaken by Cardinal Pitra,
a Frenchman, with the intention of bringing the prelates of his own
country into accord with the Curia. This he followed up by a similar
attempt with the German bishops. Pitra began by describing Dupanloup to
the latter as "a mischievous teacher of error," but he was stopped, and
told that the Germans agreed with Dupanloup.

A favourite topic of conversation now was the chance of disorganizing
the Opposition. The first checks appeared to have had the effect of
consolidating it, but the resources of the Court were generally assumed
to be efficacious. Over and over again was it asserted that the hope
of a robe of some distinguishing hue, or of a title on the list of
domestic prelates of the Pope, would win over almost any bishop, an
assertion which proved not to be correct.[239] Quirinus, in common with
German writers generally, speaks of the honour of being on that list
as one that ought to be coveted rather by menials than by dignitaries;
and Italians may often be heard saying much the same thing. Again,
faculties enabling a bishop to give absolution, or dispensations, in
certain reserved cases, yield to him both power and fees. "Nine bishops
out of ten want favours"--an assertion of Quirinus--seems bold, but it
was written in Rome.

The Bull professing to limit the censures of the Church, was found
to be another case of a winning title to a dreadful document. The
censures with which it dealt were only a portion out of Rome's store,
those, namely, under which one falls by the very act of committing
the offence, without any need of trial or sentence. They are called
offences _Latae Sententiae_, or judged already. He that confesses to
one such act is, _ipso facto_, excommunicate, or, in the less heinous
cases "suspended." The Bull, as we have said, professed to limit the
number of these cases; many of which represent multitudes in all Roman
Catholic countries, who must either shun the confessional, knowing that
in that tribunal they are judged already, or must go to it to find
themselves pronounced outside of the kingdom of grace, and incapable of
restoration except by special powers granted from Rome, which always
imply special fees.

It was freely said, This is a re-issue of the Bull _In Coena Domini_,
the terrible syllabus of excommunications, at one time annually
published; a custom which had ceased since the days of Clement XIV.
This cessation was often cited as indicating greater mildness in
the spirit of the Roman Court. In the new Bull _Apostolicae Sedis_
these excommunications reappeared. They were under different heads.
Three classes were reserved to bishops, so that no ordinary priest
could release from them. Twenty-nine classes were reserved to the
Pontiff, so that no bishop could release from them. Four classes were
not reserved to any one.[240] Some bishops declared that they found
excommunications here of which they had never been aware up to that
moment. Vitelleschi said that if some found in old books were omitted,
the Bull re-enacted all of the penal code of the Church that was
in force. According as men looked at this document, from a fiscal,
hierarchical, or monarchical point of view, their appreciation of
it varied. Beyond excommunicating all heretics and heretical books,
with the readers, abettors, and so forth, it dealt with few matters
which any true theologian would not gladly banish from his bounds, as
trespassers.

The hierarchical aspect of the Bull was striking. More than one of its
sections pronounced excommunication upon the sin of appealing from
any act of the Pope to a future General Council. This was the mortal
blow to the doctrine that a Council could judge, and even depose, the
Pope, as Councils had done. Being issued in the face of a General
Council actually sitting, no alternative remained but that of conflict
between the Council and the Pope, or else final abandonment of this
once vigorous doctrine. The defiant crowings of the Gallican cock were
for ever hushed by this one grip in the claws of the Vatican eagle.
This Bull, as compared with the action of the Council of Constance,
which deposed two Popes and itself elected one, served to measure the
decline of the episcopal and the growth of the pontifical power in the
Church. Many of the bishops were old enough to have maintained the
doctrine that the Council was above the Pope, against Protestants,
who innocently accused all Roman Catholics of being <DW7>s. If any
one of them thought of standing by the old flag, what was he to do?
To put a notice of motion on the books? That was not permitted. To
send a suggestion to the Twenty-six? It might as well go into his own
wastepaper basket as into theirs. To speak upon the point? That would
be out of order, for bishops were to speak only on matters proposed,
and nothing was to be proposed but what the Pope proposed. Moreover,
even if in speeches irrelevant matter should be allowed, such matter as
that now contemplated would be at once pronounced rebellion. It would
be an attempt to discuss what the Holy Father had already decreed.
Thus the question of the relative judicial powers of the single Bishop
of Rome, and of all the other bishops of the world collectively, was
settled by an arbitrary sentence, uttered in the face of all the
bishops assembled in conclave; and their assembly, though called a
General Council, had no liberty to canvass the decision!

It was a hard dilemma for a man to be placed in who had a sense either
of human rights or of a divine office to defend. But the hand of power
was over the bishops. No man who opposed even embryo Decrees could
ever reasonably hope for a hat; and he who should venture to attack a
Bull actually issued must expect to see his mitre reduced to an empty
dignity by the withdrawal of his faculties. So the bishops saw a Bull
which "thrust the souls entrusted to them by thousands out of the
Church"; and what could they do? "The more excommunications, the more
perplexed and tormented consciences," cries Quirinus--reminding us
of what might often be heard in the old times from thoughtful men in
Rome. The whole effort of the priests, they would say, is to keep the
conscience in agony, or at least in unrest; for this drives people to
the confessor, and hence no end of gains.

A diplomatist regarded the political aspects of the Bull as
serious.[241] Excommunicating men for an appeal to a General Council
was, as he took it, both the forerunner and the application of the
dogma of infallibility. Excommunicating all who should punish bishops,
or higher officers of the Church, without making an exception for
any breach whatever of law, and, moreover, excommunicating any who,
directly or indirectly, should obstruct the execution of Papal
mandates, were not only blows but stabs at all civil authority. The
diplomatist argued that the way in which the Pope abolished privileges
granted by his predecessors was a poor pledge of the value of any
engagements into which the Papacy might enter. The diplomatist ought to
have known that the immunity of the clergy from lay jurisdiction was an
essential part of the restoration to be accomplished. He ought also to
have known that "the free communication" of the Pope with the faithful,
or his right to promulge in all countries his decrees as their highest
law, was equally essential. The excommunication, not only of heretics,
but of all who should harbour or defend them, ay, or should even read
their books, led Vitelleschi to raise a question for young theologians,
whether the Pope has not excommunicated himself and his own government,
seeing he had done more than harbour heretics in an inn, by allowing
them a church outside the _Porta del Popolo_.

The Bull, said some, is only one of a series of measures to be framed,
assuming the infallibility of preceding Popes. The dispute as to Bulls
which taught any dogma in theology or morals must for ever end. The
very points which Liberal Catholics had alleged to be without binding
force must be beyond appeal bound on earth, and of course ratified in
heaven. A little circumstance not without significance was the fact
that, in publishing this document, the _Civiltá_ did not, as it usually
does with official documents, furnish a translation of the Latin; and
the _Stimmen_, for Germany, followed the example.

In Germany or other Protestant countries an unfavourable impression
might be taken of the means to be resorted to for restoring Papal
ascendancy when, in the terrible category of offences judged already,
without power to remit the sentence being _reserved to any one_,
even to the Vicar of God, were found the following deeds, which many
Christians would do with as cool a sense of duty as that with which
under slavelaws they would have befriended a fugitive slave: "Injuring
or intimidating Inquisitors, informers, witnesses, or other ministers
of the Holy Office; tearing up or burning the papers of its sacred
tribunal; or giving to any of the aforesaid aid, counsel, or favour."
If the day ever comes for attempting to put this law in force on the
now happy soil of England, blessed among her sons or daughters will
that one be who first has grace to endure the torments of the Holy
Office rather than not break the wicked law!

The fiscal bearing of the Bull would be the one first to strike and
most to occupy the Romans. Among men of the different orders, it
would occasion many a chat over questions of sin, sacraments, crime,
communion, dispensation, remission, and redemption from purgatory, and
of the fees flowing from each respectively. Quirinus represents the
Jesuits as beholding both the present and the future in rosy hues. The
bishops would not be able to give absolution in the reserved cases, but
the Jesuits, in very many of them, would have _plenary power_. Hence
the bishops and the parochial clergy would suffer both in fees and
influence, while the confessionals of their powerful rivals would be
thronged. "So, each of those multiplied excommunications is worth its
weight in gold to the Order, and helps to build colleges and professed
houses."[242] Against the complaints which greeted the Bull, the
_Civiltá_ alleged that it contained nothing new, and above all that it
had been posted up in the customary places in Rome, and was therefore
already the law of the Church universal. It was, on the other hand,
boldly alleged that there were many new cases of suspension, interdict,
or excommunication. Cardinal Antonelli, however, said that there were
three hundred excommunications which were not included in the Bull.
Lord Acton (p. 70) quotes a passage from the organ of the Archbishop of
Cologne, which shows that a good many more will have to be added before
all actions are placed under perfect control. The Bull, it is said,
does not prohibit "the works of Jews, since Jews are not heretics; nor
does it prohibit heretical pamphlets and journals, for these are not
books; nor is the hearing of heretical books when read aloud forbidden,
since hearing is not reading."

Some doubt hangs round the feeling of Cardinal Antonelli as to the
Council. It was often asserted that he had been opposed to it from
the first, and was still decidedly so. This seems very probable. A
worldly-wise man, capable of amassing a colossal fortune amid the ruins
of a petty State, was hardly likely to believe that the _à priori_
fabric of Tarquini and the other Jesuits, and the hot-headed schemes
of the Pope, were solid enough to bear what was to be built upon them,
or would lead to anything but defeat of the Papacy, and misery to
the nations. But in contradiction to this view, Quirinus says that
Antonelli was too good a statesman and financier not to see the gain
that would flow from the new dogma in power and revenue. The new dogma
would doubtless enormously increase the power of the Curia within the
Church and over all her organizations. It would thus increase the
facility of bringing pressure to bear on a government by threats of
disaffection and agitation; but it would at the same time arouse all
statesmen, and eventually all intelligent men, except real disciples,
against this sacerdotal empire. The most likely explanation of any zeal
Antonelli may have shown for the new order of things would perhaps be
that while retaining his own view of the risks about to be run, he knew
that what was to be was to be, and determined to make the best of it.

Papers immediately preceding the Bull in the pages of the
_Civiltá_[243] seemed to indicate steadiness in the purpose either to
bend the States or to break them. One article rang the changes on the
old theme of the royal _placet_ or _exequatur_, "the crime whereby
ecclesiastical judgments are submitted to lay examination." "The
Church," it adds, "is not a foreign power, and hence concludes that the
State has no right of precaution _jus cavendi_, in respect of her." The
internal power on which the Curia counts, in any country, being that of
threatening political agitation, the denial to the State of all right
of precaution is essential to the full application of the principle
of the Pope's "free communication" with all his subjects. A physical
impediment to the promulging of a Bull was, in old times, not more a
precaution than is, in our day, the principle that the law of the land
is supreme. Just as the physical impediment was unlawful, so is the
legislative one; both stay the free course of "the divine word." The
old dukes, kings, and emperors, knowing that in the popular conscience
the law of the Pope ranked above all civil law, put a check upon the
promulgation of his Bulls. We say, Promulge what you please, but the
law of the land is the only law in the land. "Here is the ground on
which the future battle is to be fought out."

Just between this article and the catalogue of excommunications came a
discussion on unfulfilled prophecy. The Jesuit Father, Soprano, had,
by comments on the prophecies of Balaam, Daniel, and the Apocalypse,
clearly proved (according to his reviewer) that the city of Rome was
destined of God to be in perpetuity the centre of the Catholic Church.
The war against the kingdom of Christ was to fail, because "she" could
not lose her empire. But certain points as to the issue of the war now
raging between the innovators and the kingdom of Christ, were open to
inquiry--"What dynasties will survive, what forms of government will
prevail, what end will such and such kingdoms come to? Finally, we
may ask whether the Holy City, the mount of God, the capital of the
Catholic world, Rome, may _for a time_ fall under the power of sinners
and parricides, to be outraged by fire and sword, and defaced with
crimes." But, on the other hand, as to Rome being the stable domicile
of catholicity, we might doubt of that only if the mount which cannot
be moved could be levelled with the ground.

This expositor is true to the old interpretation that the Babylon of
the Apocalypse is Rome, but that was the Pagan Rome, which "fell with
the victory of Constantine." It will be observed that he takes the
possibility of a temporary fall of the sacred Rome into the hand of the
enemy as but an episode in a war that is to continue through a long
series of years.

Since 1870, such forecasts as the above, when uttered, have not the
same triumphant tone. Nevertheless, they are now as clearly expressed
as ever. But at the time of which we speak, if the bishops only read
what was written for their learning they could not doubt as to the
kind of service which was expected of them in the future. Friedrich
intimates that they did not read it, when he relates that, in trying
to enlighten one of them, he told him that the only way to understand
the Council was to study it with the _Civiltá Cattolica_ in one's hand.
But some of them showed a solicitude that could not be explained on
any ground short of a perception of the dangers on which the Pope was
running the hierarchy. They evidently did not take the view either of
those who thought that the Pope, erected into a vice-God, was about
to become the real as well as the titular governor of the world, or
the view of those who looked on such dreams as matter to laugh at. The
calculations which produced the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War,
were dreams; but could the Church afford the indemnity which mankind
would exact for the miseries of such another struggle?

December 16 marked the second failure in the organization of the
Council. The first was the irremediable one of the absence of
Cardinal Reisach, and now, before serious discussion had begun, the
third General Congregation had to be postponed from the 16th to the
20th,[244] because nobody could be heard in the hall. So six days
passed without a sitting. Debates were actually to take place--a thing
which had neither been desired nor expected. The hall was a good place
for spectacle, but a bad place for a parliament. In vain do bishops
frown and editors sneer at the writers who said that the Curia had not
expected much discussion. Cecconi comes to the support of the "liars,"
as in official indignation they were called who told just what there
was to tell (p. 180)--

    It was a deeply-rooted belief of the Directing Congregation that
    but rarely would anything have to be referred to the committees
    of the Council, because the Directing Congregation so well knew
    how profound had been the attention given by the Preparatory
    Commissions, that it seemed extremely difficult to believe that the
    Drafts so prepared should not be received with general favour by
    the Fathers.

This, in fact, is the excuse put forward by the Nine for not having
given the bishops a word to say to the Drafts of Decrees before they
were confronted with them, as being already in a form to be voted upon.
The practice at Trent had been to state the question as a question.
Then it was first discussed by the doctors in the presence of the
bishops, who after that appointed a small committee of their own number
to put resolutions into shape. The Council proceeded to discuss the
Drafts so prepared, amending and again amending them, until they were
in a form on which (if the subject was doctrine) almost every one could
agree.

It was now, however, coolly assumed that so complete had been the
work of the secret commissions that the bishops would not raise any
difficulties.

    Great variety of opinion, say the Nine, would probably be rare,
    seeing that the matters to be treated would be already prepared,
    with great accuracy, by the special Commission, formed by
    his Holiness, in conjunction with the Directing Congregation
    (_Cecconi_, p. 180).

Cecconi repeats that the great confidence felt in the excellence of the
work of the theologians had generated in the majority of the members
of the Directing Congregation this conviction. He is candid enough to
give the reason for bringing the Drafts ready made into full assembly,
which was to prevent them from being exposed to the influences which
a restricted number of prelates might exert. That amounts to saying
that the able men whom a free assembly would have chosen to consider
and digest its forms of resolution, were not to be allowed any chance
of unitedly studying the forms prepared in secret for them. The Court
would bring its own plans, with all their details and complex notes,
before the full assembly, which could never thoroughly sift them, and
in which the majority was assured.

While in almost everything else the rejection of parliamentary forms
was commended, as becoming an assembly which had to contend against
both the principles and results of parliamentary government, the
practice of our own Houses in bringing in Bills ready drawn was pleaded
in favour of the course taken in preparing extended drafts of dogmatic
decrees. But our Parliament has never yet been called together to vote
that laws are as good if issued by the Crown, without the advice of
Lords and Commons, as with it. Nor has it ever been asked to pass a
measure which neither it nor any succeeding Parliament could recall.
Our Parliament is never asked to discuss a Bill without first having
the right to say whether it shall or shall not be brought in. It
never finds a Bill before it which, if it pleases, it may not refer
to a special committee. Any member can move the rejection or the
postponement of the whole, can move the omission or amendment of any
part, and can take the sense of the House. None of these things could
be done at the Vatican Council. The bishops could make Latin speeches
in a row, first on the Draft as a whole, and then, in a second row,
on the parts. But only twenty-four of their number could ever put a
hand to the amending of the proposed statute. With those twenty-four
were associated irresponsible persons, non-members. As that mixed body
finally shaped the propositions, must the Fathers vote upon them, with
a Yea or Nay that sealed the creed of their churches for ever.

It was not wonderful that the Curia should believe in the perfection of
the Roman theology, since they took their own government for perfect,
and the capital for a model city of the saints. The German estimate of
the Court theology is indicated by Quirinus when he says that "though
the Pope had four hundred theologians, theology is now rare, very rare,
in Rome." He goes on to assert that if one should say that ability to
read the Greek Testament and the Greek Fathers in the original was a
necessary qualification of a theologian, "he would be ridiculed." As to
the divinity even of the bishops, the evidence of Quirinus is little
more flattering than that of Friedrich; but the discussions yet to
come will show that men of real power were not wanting.

The first Scheme or Draft of Decrees on dogma now appeared. It was
nothing less than a book of one hundred and forty quarto pages,
containing eighteen chapters and fifty-four paragraphs. Frond makes it
folio and of 131 pages.

The _Rheinischer Merkur_ quotes a Catholic journal which in admiration
of this masterpiece says that when adopted by the Council it would form
a text-book. Yet this mass of divinity, any phrase, almost any word
of which might affect the vital truths of religion, was put before
the bishops with only a few days to study it, and they were expected
to vote it as an irreformable creed, to be ready for promulgation, as
bound on earth and bound in heaven, on January 6, the day decreed in
the first session! Friedrich, looking at this bulky pamphlet, cries,
All through we have the language of the schools; any one familiar with
the Jesuit writings sees at once by whom it has been prepared.

Graf W., a Roman prelate, paid Friedrich a visit arrayed in all his
vestments and decorations. Surprised at such a display by a stranger,
Friedrich asked himself, Does he want to make an impression upon me,
or to excite a longing for similar clothes? The conversation turned
upon infallibility, and the Count Monsignore said that it would be
carried through; for when the Curia had committed itself to anything,
it was not to be balked. Friedrich, saying that for his part he had
nothing to do but to speak according to his conscience, and that as a
priest he knew well what must be his course when once the point was
decided, went on to state that, not having his eye on a canonry or a
bishopric, and being happy in his independent position as a professor
in the university, he felt free. This surprised the Curialist, but
Friedrich in turn was still more surprised when the man in soft raiment
and living in kings' houses said that it was otherwise with him. He
belonged to the Roman prelacy, and if he meant to continue in it, he
must do what he was bid.

The German doctor was struck by hearing people assure him that life
was tolerably safe in Rome if you were sure of your cook, your doctor,
and your chemist (p. 30).

The German bishops had not, like the French, asked permission to meet
among themselves, but their place of meeting had been cared for.
Monsignor Nardi, a slashing writer, and a conspicuous member of the
Curia, spared no pains to secure them for his own house. Cardinal
Hohenlohe offered his for the purpose, but he scarcely received a civil
answer. Even German bishops said as much as that they should compromise
themselves by being identified with him. They began to feel their
position very delicate. As they were assembled on December 22, with
Cardinal Schwarzenberg in the chair, they were joined for the first
time by three favourites of the Curia--Senestrey, Martin, and Leonrod.
But when Senestrey found that they were discussing the propriety of
petitioning the Pope for a relaxation of the Rules, he remembered that
business required his presence elsewhere. We may be ready to smile at
men, holding professedly the position of members of a Council, who
durst not rise in their places and insist on having liberty to propose
what their consciences dictated; and who, when refused that liberty,
instead of declining to take part in the mock Council, went into a
caucus, and drew up a petition to the autocrat who had snatched away
their rights.

But their position was very difficult. If they attempted in their
places to speak on the matter, the fatal sentence fell upon them that
what the Holy Father had decreed could not be discussed. What then
could they do but decline to take part in the Council? This would
be coming into direct collision with the Pope. The moral education
of their lives had aimed at fixing in their own minds, and they, in
their action upon others, had aimed at fixing in their minds, one
conviction--that the crime exceeding and comprehending all others was
to break with the Pope. They were so placed as to have no alternative
but either "disobedience" or the surrender of their individual and
collective rights. They seem, indeed, to have thought that it was
rather a spirited proceeding to send in a petition.

Archbishop Haynald of Hungary proposed that they should request the
Pope to divide the Fathers into eight national groups. This was
suggested with some idea of counter-balancing the fictitious majority
made up by titular bishops and vicars apostolic. Had one nation been
allowed to balance another, the effect no doubt would have been
considerable; but how these venerable men could imagine that this
scheme had any chance with the Pope, we cannot tell. The bishops _in
partibus_, and the missionary bishops, being mostly Italians, would
have been well nigh lost in such an arrangement. The Curia well knew
that it had been tried at Constance, and was not to be caught.

What Friedrich heard of the opinions of the prelates as to the Draft
Decrees, was unfavourable. Cardinal Rauscher was reported to have
said that he would allow the paper to be read in his seminaries as
the work of a student, but that to propose it to a German Council
was too bad (p. 35). Many of the bishops said that its condemnations
were untimely, and that it was unworthy of the dignity of a General
Council. It was said to be the work of the Jesuit Fathers Schrader and
Franzelin; but instead of the latter, Kleutgen was often named. The
Dominicans spoke slightingly of it. The Bishop of Ascoli, a Carmelite,
said he had only patience to get through half of it, and then he threw
it away. Strossmayer said to Friedrich, Why must the Council at this
time of day pronounce condemnations as to squabbles heard of only in
the schools, and worn out even there? (p. 37). Kagerer told Friedrich
that the bishops had agreed not to tell their theologians what passed
at their private meetings; on which Friedrich remarks that the bishops
were right, for the chaplains and secretaries by whom they were served
could not be properly described as theologians. He then gave a sigh
for Hefele. Meanwhile, he said, it was hard to listen to the talk of
men, like Kagerer, who had come up without preparation, who were not
furnished with books, and who drove a trade in theology by guesswork.

Monsignor Nardi's hospitality to the German bishops had not a smooth
course. After having met at his house for the greater part of December,
when they alighted one night in the Piazza Campitelli, they found the
servant of Cardinal Schwarzenberg posted there to send them back again.
The Cardinal had received from Nardi a request to be relieved of their
further presence, giving so short notice that there was no means of
meeting the case but that of setting the servant to turn the bishops
away from the door. Thenceforth they found a German host, Cardinal
Rauscher.[245]

The General Congregation of December 20, after learning the names
chosen for the Permanent Committee on Faith, had been occupied with the
election of the Permanent Committee on Discipline; but as the _Acta_
contain no records of any transactions of the Congregations, beyond the
bare lists of the committees elected by them, the strictly official
means of ascertaining what passed are all but _nil_. The _Acta Sanctae
Sedis_ may be fairly considered as official in a looser sense; and it
is strange how the brief but clear occasional notes of particulars
which they contain, almost invariably confirm the profane writers
in statements denied, or apparently denied, at the time by faithful
ones. Deputations, including among others Strossmayer, went hither and
thither in search of a hall to meet in. Quirinus thought that the one
in the Vatican by the Sistine Chapel would not be of good omen, on
account of the picture of St. Bartholomew's massacre. Had any real wish
existed to find a place in which seven hundred gentlemen might sit and
speak, it could easily have been done; but the wholesome exhalations
from the tomb of St. Peter would not have been so potent anywhere else,
even in Rome, as in the Vatican. One-third of the space in the hall was
now curtained off. The debates were to open on December 28, that is,
after twenty days had been lost.

News of the death of Cardinal Reisach destroyed the hope that his
influence might prevent the Germans from standing with the Opposition.
The preparations for a code regulating civil and ecclesiastical
relations, on which he had spent years, were not to see the light.
It had already been resolved not to present to the Council the Drafts
prepared by his Commission on Ecclesiastico-Political Affairs. Cecconi
(p. 266) thinks that probably the absence of the Cardinal "contributed
to the shipwreck" of his proposals. The subject was "thorny"; and
again, it was not decorous to make inoperative laws, or expedient
to make combative ones. It would seem that the supreme cause of
the shipwreck was the practical consideration that nowadays civil
governments, "which form an essential element in such matters," oppose
ecclesiastical laws, instead of taking charge of their execution. The
official historian, however, is of opinion that the failure of this
first attempt to indite a code of ecclesiastico-political law is not
final. A time, he thinks, may come when it can be renewed, with hope of
success--a declaration full of instruction as to the future. The time
for renewing the attempt to prepare such a code will, according to the
Archbishop of Florence,

    arrive when this rapid and ceaseless movement, political and
    social, going on under our eyes, and making us daily spectators
    of great and often of unlooked-for events, shall have reached its
    ultimate period, to which will certainly succeed (unless the last
    days succeed) an entirely new era in the history of the human
    species. When that day comes, I know not what portion of the old
    institutions will remain standing; but sure I am that one of
    them will have survived, though peradventure externally bruised
    and lacerated. She alone will be mistress of the field that day,
    and the princes (if indeed the sound of that name will still be
    heard), but certainly the nations, having then, after long and
    cruel experience, made up their minds that out of her there is no
    well-being, either in this life or beyond the tomb, will demand
    from her the laws of tranquil repose, together with the earnest of
    eternal happiness (p. 301).

This language is the more significant as having been written since
the war in 1870, and even since the outbreak in Germany of imperial
resistance to the movement for priestly domination. With regard to
princes, it seems to breathe the threat which was screeched out by the
Jesuit organs in 1869 and 1870, that if they were not to sink in the
coming struggle, they must make peace with the Church.

As to the nations and the laws of the Church, it adroitly represents
the nations, not as submitting to receive the law at her dictation, but
as demanding from her the laws which give repose. The ever-recurring
alternative of submission or disturbance, if not destruction, is
smoothly but gravely put. Still, the historian seems as if he wrote
thus rather by official duty than by personal impulse. But, like all
the "inspired" writers, he takes it for granted that the Church holds
the "repose" of nations in her power. Cardinals count on the effect
of thorns planted in the pillows of statesmen. They know how to teach
principles that form a people within the nation ready to obey a foreign
word of command, and they know how and when to give the word. They
always--so say men in Italy--know how to find an Ahithophel, and how a
Delilah!

Fears were often expressed lest an attempt should be made on December
28 to carry Papal infallibility by acclamation. The bishops, however,
seem to have had backbone enough to determine upon a formal protest
should this occur. Friedrich tells how those dignitaries who make
little of denouncing the laws of their respective countries were
very anxious in Rome to find some mode of giving expression to their
complaints and desires without printing, which in the Model State they
durst not do.

He also states that on the day before the opening of the discussion the
Pope was greatly depressed. It may have been a diplomatic depression.
What bishop could be so heartless as to make speeches that would weigh
on the spirit of the Holy Father, and in fact to call in question
Draft Decrees prepared by his authority and proposed in his name?
What bishop, by obstructing their adoption, could occasion a risk
that the day fixed by Decree for the second session should arrive
without any Decree being ready? One of Friedrich's statements, which,
before Cecconi published, seemed the most improbable of all, was that
Cardinal Bilio, the President of the Preparatory Commission on Dogma,
had reckoned on the Draft being carried with scarcely any discussion.
Much as we knew of the displacement of the idea of conviction by that
of submission, this statement seemed too monstrous. But the Archbishop
of Florence appears unconscious of anything strange in the case. If
Italian novelists and journalists, with whom the indifference of the
national mind to religion is a favourite idea, had combined to give
an illustration of that indifference, they could hardly have invented
anything so expressive. A Cardinal taking it for granted that seven
hundred bishops could hastily adopt for ever as doctrine binding upon
themselves, their successors, and their Churches, a considerable
work, every single phrase of which any serious man would weigh before
he accepted it for his own creed, but would weigh ten times more
carefully before he imposed it upon others--before he took it upon
his soul to curse all who did not accept it, and to declare them cut
off from the kingdom of God! Yet it is plain that not only Bilio, but
the Curia generally, expected the passing of the Draft as almost a
matter of course. In their minds the idea of submission to the Papal
authority had first displaced, and then completely replaced, the idea
of religious conviction.

The first Vatican Decree passed after the Council had been declared
open, fixed the feast of Epiphany (January 6) as the day of the
second session, in the expectation that this Draft, or a portion of
it, would by that time have been adopted. But, like the first Vatican
appointment, the first Vatican Decree had been not ratified in heaven.
The _Civiltá_ said (VII. ix. 227), "As the discussion on the Draft
proposed is not terminated, no Decrees will be published in the second
session." The _Acta Sanctae Sedis_ curtly wrote, "No Decree was
published because none was ready."[246]

Meantime the relative attitudes of the Council and of the Catholic
governments had become more clearly defined. Following France, and
rejecting the view of Bavaria and Portugal, the governments had
determined not to interfere. Portugal had sent to her minister his
credentials as ambassador to the Council, but finding that he should be
alone, Count Lavradio did not present them. France, which for the last
ten years had been abused by the Papal organs, was now loudly praised.
Even M. Veuillot said that she was more liberal and more Christian than
the other nations, for her bayonets were at Civitá Vecchia to restrain
the violence of the Italians, and God would not forget it to her. True,
French statesmen every now and then did show some apprehension as to
what might come to pass if every child in France should learn in his
catechism that the Pope was infallible, and if most of them should grow
up under teachers who would gently show how the Modern State rebelled
against the divine constitution of the world as implied in that
fundamental truth, for the government of the nations. It was even said
that Darboy plainly declared that should infallibility be proclaimed,
the French troops would no longer remain in the Papal States. However
that might have been, all that fell from the inspired pens was pervaded
with quiet reliance on France. It seemed as if the writers believed
that, just then, events depended more on one Spanish lady, in the
Tuileries, than on all the Frenchmen in Paris and the departments.

It cannot be said that the compliance with the wishes of the Curia
shown by politicians, was repaid by a milder attitude. The new Bull,
technically called _Apostolicae Sedis_, popularly called the new _In
Coena Domini_, was menacing. The grave _Civiltá_ (VII. ix. 134) said--

    Whom would the people obey? God and the Church, or the State?... As
    it is evident that the Church assembled in Council can only repeat,
    and that more strongly than ever, that as between God and men,
    as between the Church and the State, obedience is to be rendered
    to God and the Church instead of to man and the State, and as it
    is evident that in Catholic and civilized countries, in spite of
    all the efforts of sects, respect for the Church endures, and
    increases, while all respect for States and governments diminishes,
    it is clear that the Liberals, who are dominant almost everywhere,
    tremble at the Council, which is bound to proclaim more loudly than
    ever, We must obey God rather than men.

Even the little review at the Villa Borghese set M. Veuillot reflecting
on the restoration of that "Christian order" which consists in the due
submission of the natural to the supernatural order--

    If we only think that the Council has to re-establish the Christian
    order without restoring the ancient aristocracy, irremediably
    fallen, and has to replace the social laws in a position where
    property and liberty shall be freed from the grasp of democracy,
    which is no more than an administrative aristocracy, we shall
    conclude that the task is not a trifle, and that the seed to be
    sown is not of a kind to ripen in a day.

In most Papal countries, indeed, the ancient aristocracy has fallen,
and, much as priests like titles and stars in their train, they like
broad acres still better, and legislative power even better still. Even
when barons held lands in fief under prince-bishops and abbots, they
were frequently tempted to insubordination. And in the Model State,
the career open to a lord was as nearly as possible that which in our
chaotic state is open to a lady. So, the aristocracy were not to be
restored. But in the new Christian order both freedom and property
were to be taken out of the hands of the democracy. This had been well
done in the states of the Church, and partly done elsewhere, in the
middle ages. In the formula, "The Pope and the People," people does
not, we repeat, mean democracy, but subject populace, with a ruling
priesthood and nobody to come between priest and mob. Matters would
be greatly simplified if both an aristocracy and an administrative
democracy were removed out of the way. But, true to the far-aiming
plans of the school, M. Veuillot was thinking of the seed-time, knowing
that the harvest was as yet far off. When the prize is no less than the
supremacy of the world, a year may well be counted for a day.

M. Veuillot, alluding to those profane creatures the correspondents
of worldly newspapers, said he had had to do with government spies,
but Press spies made him respect the former. The Press spies detested
respectable men, seeming to think that they spoiled the profession, and
prevented it from enjoying all the hatred and contempt it merited (i.
33). M. Veuillot could afford to assume this attitude. The _Univers_
was sanctified by the Pope's blessing, and certified by his brief. This
high-caste scribe had not, however, said a word about the device by
which the election of committees had been carried, though he gloried
in the choice of men. He had not mentioned the electoral tickets,
nor alluded to the prohibition of collective meetings of the French
bishops, nor to the petition sent in by some of their number for a few
morsels of liberty. He had, however, told the faithful that none of the
bishops had any desire to be put on the committees, and that a prelate
from South America, on finding himself elected, wept and said, "What do
you mean? I am not fit. I know nothing." Writing on January 20, after
the division of parties had become clearly defined, M. Veuillot said
that should an Opposition group be formed, as some feared would be
the case, it would only be small, and would be rather outside of the
Council than in it. "Outside," said a bishop to me yesterday, "there
is some room for the spirit of man; inside there will be no room for
anything but the Spirit of God; and though unanimity is by no means
necessary, it will nevertheless seldom fail." It was, at this time,
still hoped that the "pontifical secret" would leave no chink by which
the tenor of the debates could leak out. "How," exclaims M. Veuillot,
"will this assembly be able to distribute its incalculable labours, and
carry them to an end? Immense questions arise on all sides. It is the
human species that has to be set in march. Nature feels its infirmity."
Still, it will prove, he asserts, that the Council can more easily make
decrees for centuries, than modern governments can make constitutions
to last a few months.

An address to the Holy Father, from the Society of Catholic Italian
youth having its headquarters in Bologna, declared that in answer
to the infernal fury of the enemies of the sacred Council, they
protested their resolution to obey its Decrees as the holy gospel,
as the decrees of God Himself, and to defend its disciplinary acts
as the acts of God Himself. In conclusion, they call the Pope, among
other titles, the living Peter, the infallible mouth of the Church
and of Christ Himself, the Vicar of God, "whose word for us and the
Catholic universe is the truth of God which endureth for ever."[247]
A strong force of equally well-trained youths in every country would
do something to give substance to the dream of universal empire, by a
Crusade of St. Peter.

To say that the _Civiltá_ and the _Unitá Cattolica_ contradicted nearly
all the facts reported by the journals of Europe, would be a tame
statement of the case. They not only gave the lie, but did so with all
sorts of aggravating epithets. The Italian papers were most belied,
because they, feeling no respect for the men of the Curia, did not
care to put on any, but tore off false covers relentlessly, and even
with mockery. According to an ordinary Italian saying, respect for the
Curia begins outside the walls of Rome, and increases in proportion
to distance. Still, the French, German, and English papers, though
more respectful--the last, in comparison, deferential--were denounced
as lying and lying again. This went smoothly till the lie-givers
descended to particulars. Even then it answered, to some extent,
till time brought facts to the test. Now, it is sad to look at these
contradictions, and compare them with documents registered in the
same pages, or with facts which even there are no longer disputed.
Any one who wants a lesson in the art of giving the lie may go to an
article in the _Civiltá_ (VII. ix. p. 327), and succeeding ones. After
studying them an Englishman would be more charitable to Romans when
they say that if the Jesuits contradict a thing well, they begin to
think it must be true. But he would discover that, under an apparent
contradiction, there is often preserved a possibility of saying that
there was no real one. A statement has been made containing one main
fact, which was perfectly true, but with two or three accidental
appendages, some one of which was not true, and the whole is treated
as false. For instance, the whole tale of Nardi dismissing the German
prelates is to appearance ridiculed, because one journal says that
Nardi had made a secret door, at which he played the eavesdropper. Of
course it was an Italian journal--_La Nazione_--which thought that a
probable action for a monsignore of the Curia.

The _Nuova Antologia_, a review of high standing in Italy, published
articles on the Council, which formed the basis of Vitelleschi's book.
The _Civiltá_ assigned them to Salvatore de Renzi, spoke of them as
being not more inaccurate than others, and after general charges came
to particulars. The author's "want of reflection" appeared in his
supposing that though abbots and generals of orders both had seats,
only the former had votes. Moreover, he had said that in the sessions
the Fathers always wore the read pluvial and mitre; whereas in the
first two sessions they had worn the white ones, and the statement as
to the mitre was _falsissimo_, as false as could be, for in Rome, and
in the presence of the Pope, they always wore one of white silk or
cloth. When all Catholics were in serious excitement, when they knew
that hands were laid on their creed to alter it for them and their
children, it was such matters as the above which weighed upon the minds
of the Jesuits, and justified outcry against men who strove to get and
give some little information.

The first article of professed intelligence in the _Civiltá_ after the
Council had really got to work, spoke of giving only the _external_
news, which was what all the "good Press" professed to give. What it
gave was indeed external. A person turning to these official pages
in hope of learning what he would have to believe by-and-by, found
paragraphs about "clothes" (VII. ix. 99). "We have told our readers
of the vestments worn by the Fathers in the public session. They
will be pleased to have a translation of the notice appointing the
ceremony to be observed in the Congregations"--the ceremony meaning the
ceremonial garments. The men who were undertaking to change for the
priests and people the conditions of their membership in the Church, to
revolutionize their relations with their neighbours and even with their
nations, were yet persuaded that while all this was going on, priests
and people must be thinking of how the gowns of the Fates were dyed,
and not of what threads they were spinning. So, with conscientious
exactness, the faithful were informed that the Most Reverend and Most
Eminent Lords the Cardinals would wear the red and violet mozzetta
and mantelletta over the rochet; and the Most Reverend Patriarchs the
violet mozzetta and rochet, etc., etc., etc.

A touching incident of private life came to soften the feelings of
the Fathers on the eve of the struggle. The son of De Maistre, the
champion of the pen, and the daughter of Lamoricière, the champion of
the sword, had, four months previously, been married. "Two such fair
names," exclaims M. Veuillot--yes, two stately figures, bending in vain
to stay a falling oak. The young wife was smitten with death, and the
widow of the hero could only reach Rome in time to close her daughter's
eyes. The whole city united in sorrowing over the mingled tears of the
houses of De Maistre and Lamoricière. Noble Lamoricière! During the
four dreadful days of June, 1848, in Paris, his chivalrous sword formed
a shield behind which thousands sat in safety. None who were of the
number, as we were, can ever without gratitude think of him, or of the
stainless Cavaignac.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 238: _Documenta ad Illustrandum_, i. 245.]

[Footnote 239: Of those domestic prelates the _Annuario Pontificio_ for
1870 gives above two hundred and thirty names; the list in 1875 is over
four hundred, in the _Gerarchia Cattolica e la Famiglia Pontificia_.]

[Footnote 240: Though issued during the Council, this Bull is not, like
the others, printed in the _Acta_. It is in the Freiburg edition, p.
77; and also in _Acta Sanctae Sedis_, v. p. 287.]

[Footnote 241: _Tagebuch_, p. 32.]

[Footnote 242: _Quirinus_, p. 106.]

[Footnote 243: VII. ix. p. 189.]

[Footnote 244: _Tagebuch_, p. 27]

[Footnote 245: _Tagebuch_, 47.]

[Footnote 246: V. 323]

[Footnote 247: _Civiltá_, VII. ix. 238.]




CHAPTER IV

First open Collisions of Opinion--Pending Debate--Fear of an
Acclamation--Rauscher opens--Kenrick--Tizzani--General discontent
with the Draft--Vacant Hats--Speaking by Rank--Strossmayer--No
permission to read the Reports, even of their own Speeches--Conflicting
Views--Petitions to Pope from Bishops--Homage of Science--Theism.


The moment had come at last when it was to be seen whether the
parliamentary proceedings of a discussion suspended in the Catholic
society for three hundred years, was actually to be revived; or whether
the bishops, justifying the confidence in their gravity and wisdom
which the Curia would fain have cherished, would now set the world an
example of magnifying authority, by adopting the all-comprehensive
dogma of Papal infallibility by acclamation, without running the risk
of any debate. That once done, minor points would settle themselves,
whether in the Council or out of it. The fears of a scheme to organize
an acclamation were strong, not to say feverish. Cardinal Schwarzenberg
wrote, "In case a demonstration is attempted for an acclamation, a
formal counter demonstration is already provided for."[248] Before the
commencement of the sitting, Cardinal De Luca, now Senior President,
gave an assurance that no acclamation would be attempted; adding,
however, that he could only give the pledge for that one sitting.
Strossmayer, relating this fact the next day, in the house of Cardinal
Hohenlohe, added that, should it be attempted hereafter, the bishops
of the minority would put in a protest, in the name of Christ, of the
Church, of their rights, of their people, and of sound reason.[249]

Lord Acton's picture of the scene before the sitting is more distinct
than that of the other writers. It is Darboy whom he describes as
demanding an assurance that there would be no acclamation. When the
promise for the first sitting was coupled with a statement that there
could be no guarantee for the future, he said a hundred bishops were
resolved, in case that proceeding was resorted to, that they would
leave Rome, and "carry the Council away in their shoes."[250]

The uncertainty which had hung over everything but dress was so great
that some prelates had prepared their votes, thinking that, owing
to the determination to have some Decree ready for promulgation at
Epiphany, a division would be pressed on that day.[251]

In print, the tribune, or desk, prepared for the Council, is a
laudable specimen of Roman art. To look at, it is what we must call a
commonplace pulpit. It was carried from place to place--more than one
writer says, carried all round the hall--to try to find a spot in which
it would be possible for a speaker to be heard. When the desk was at
last fixed, two priests, as reporters, took their place in front of
it.[252] Cardinal Rauscher, Archbishop of Vienna, was the first who
ascended. Behind him he saw his own achievement--that Concordat by
which he had secured for Rome the abolition in Austria of the Josephine
Laws. Before him lay the Draft of Decrees, for the most part, as it was
believed, the handiwork of Schrader, whom he had himself installed as a
professor in the University of Vienna, and who was doubtless a fit man
to make it what it was--a dogmatic reflection of the earliest portions
of the Syllabus. The sagacity of Rauscher told him that the success of
these proposed Decrees would be the doom of the Concordat. Hence, he
rose, not to support the theology of his nominee, but to save his own
diplomatic achievement.

So the discussion opened with a brilliant address, as Friedrich calls
it, delivered in the round, rough Latin pronunciation of the Germans.
Darboy soon left the hall, saying that it was undignified to sit
professedly listening to speeches which one could not make out. What
with the mocking of the echoes and what with the pronunciation foreign
to all but Germans, none could understand but the few in whose favour
combined all the advantages of keen ears, a good position, and some
familiarity with German intonation.

All that we know of the discourse of Cardinal Rauscher has become known
in spite of the silence of every official organ; and it amounts to no
more than the fact that he opposed the Draft Decrees with firmness and
ability. The strict Church régime assured by his Concordat to Austria
had not been followed by the halcyon days which such a régime was said
to guarantee. Loud complaints were made that the moral statistics
of Vienna, previously very bad, had, under the new law of marriage,
become worse. However that might be, there was no doubt that under the
Concordat Austria had undergone both Solferino and Sadowa. If, after
all this, new fetters were to be forged, Rauscher was well aware that
the chain would snap.

After Cardinals, Archbishops! So the Irish-Latin of Archbishop Kenrick,
of St. Louis, succeeded to the German-Latin of Rauscher. The voice from
the Mississippi joined that from the Danube in making light of the
theological performance of Rome. The next who followed was Tizzani,
nominally Archbishop of Nisibis, really Chaplain-General of the Papal
army. A blind old man, he did not mount the desk, but, speaking from
his place, he was the first who gave forth the Latin in the clear,
full pronunciation, which must be nearer to the natural one than the
others. He said that the Draft was words, words, and nothing but words.
Three other Italians followed on the same side. It was still the turn
of the Archbishops; and Connolly, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, closed
the discussion of the day. There are two versions of his concluding
innuendo. One is, that the Draft was to be honourably interred; and
the other, that it was not to be amended but erased. _Cum honore esse
sepeliendum ... non esse reformandum censeo sed delendum._ Fourteen
names had been entered, but when seven had spoken, it was one o'clock,
and the weary work of attempting to hear was brought to an end. The
old men had been already four hours in the hall.

The _Giornale di Roma_ and the _Civiltá_ gave the names of the
speakers, but not a syllable of information as to what they said. The
same course was taken by all the "good Press." It professed to give
information only of the exterior of the Council. Even the _Acta Sanctæ
Sedis_, in its Latin veil, does not utter a hint of what view any
speaker took. It does, indeed, say that no one replied to observations
for, against, or beside the proposals of the Decree, thus confirming
the common remark that there was no real debate.[253] Among all the
charges of lying, shameless lying, lurid lying, and so on, brought
against the lay Press, we do not remember any attempt to contradict
the particulars circulated as to this day's proceedings, unless indeed
it be Cardinal Manning's general treatment of all that had been said
respecting an intention to get up an acclamation, as ridiculous rumours.

Cardinal Bilio, as President of the Commission on Dogma, from which
the Draft had emanated, would naturally be, as Friedrich says he was,
downcast; and we may well believe the same witness, that the Cardinals
generally were disconcerted. On the other hand, Cardinal Schwarzenberg
said, "It has gone excellently"; and Archbishop Scherr, of Munich,
thought that it was as if one had heard "the rushing of the wings of
the Holy Ghost"--one of the expressions in which that sacred name was
often lightly taken during the Council, and which, from hints found
elsewhere, seems to have fallen on this occasion also from other lips.
Strossmayer was by no means so elated, knowing that the Curia was in a
position to hold its own.

This discussion raised the spirits of the minority, and filled them
for a while with illusory hopes. It seemed as if the one liberty left,
that of making Latin speeches, might turn to great account. Meanwhile,
according to Lord Acton, speculation ran on the possible effects of
fifteen vacant hats, which were supposed to have the power of doing
wonders, and which the genuine Romans would certainly expect to turn
episcopal heads in whatever direction they might happen to be held.
Darboy said, "I have not a cold in the head: I do not want a hat."

Quirinus points out the bearing of such multiplication of anathemas
as was aimed at in the Draft on the ascendancy of the Jesuits. These
anathemas would supply abundant matter for accusation, and so enable
the Jesuits to keep men belonging to other orders in constant fear of
being charged with heresy. This would tend to make other theologians
dependent upon their order. He adds, moreover, that if the Draft
Decrees should be passed, scarcely any professors of Old Testament
exegesis would escape the charge of heresy.

Two days later the debate was resumed. The archbishops were still in
possession; but after one more of them had spoken came the turn of
the bishops. Rank carried it against the rule that in council all are
equal. Athanasius the deacon, and Constantine the layman, were both
outside the door. And outside the door were also the "presbyters"
who alone at Nicæa represented Rome. Unity had come to mean a sharp
separation of the Church into the _Teaching Church_ and the _Learning
Church_. The _Teaching Church_ consisted of the Pope and bishops; the
_Learning Church_ consisted of priests and people.

Those who desired to speak entered their names at least one day
beforehand; and of those so entered Cardinals spoke first, Patriarchs
next, then Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Generals, according to
their grade.

The first bishop who rose was Strossmayer. As he had before attempted
to speak upon the Rules, so did he now attack the heading of the
Decree, namely, the formula "Pius IX., with the approbation of the
Council," instead of the Tridentine formula, "This Sacred Council
decrees." He was called to order by Cardinal De Luca. That point, he
ruled, was not to be discussed, for it had been settled in the Rules
of Procedure, and also in the form used in the opening session. No
one supported Strossmayer in his objection, and, in point of form,
the President was doubtless right. The bishops had allowed their
birthright to be taken away, and it was now too late to reclaim it.
True, if they had been united, they might have alleged that the taking
of it away had been done both violently and stealthily; but still, it
had been done before their eyes.

Strossmayer's speech gave to modern Rome a sensation strange to her,
though familiar to ancient Rome--the feeling caused by the echoes
of impassioned reasoning in favour of freedom. And this time it was
freedom commended by the voice of a bishop! The degree of freedom
advocated was, indeed, only such as anywhere else would have been
a minimum. The reports given of the eloquence of the speaker were
exciting, and it would appear that even those of opponents were often
laudatory. Lord Acton gives the following passage--

    What do we gain by condemning what has been already condemned?
    What end is promoted by proscribing errors which we know to have
    been already proscribed? The false doctrines of sophists have
    vanished like ashes before the wind. They have corrupted many, I
    confess, and infected the spirit of the age. But can we believe
    that the contagion of corruption would not have taken effect had
    errors of this sort been smitten down with anathema, by Decree?
    We have no means given to us beyond cries and prayers to God,
    whereby to defend and conserve the Catholic religion, but those
    of Catholic science in complete agreement with the faith. The
    heretics assiduously cultivate science unfriendly to the faith, and
    therefore true science friendly to it should be cultivated among
    Catholics, and advanced by every effort. Let us stop the mouth of
    opponents, who cease not falsely to impute to us that the Catholic
    Church represses science, and restrains all free thought, so that
    within her bounds neither science nor any liberty of intellect
    can flourish or exist. Further, it has to be shown, and that both
    by words and deeds, that in the Catholic Church there exist true
    liberty for the nations, true progress, true light, and true
    prosperity.[254]

This proposal to fight thought only with thought, and to allow
institutions to be tested by their fruits, was well fitted for any soil
where the Bible was the statute-book, but was untenable ground in Rome.
The excitement was great.

Ketteler embraced Strossmayer as he came down. Senestrey, on the other
hand, stated that he had said things for which he must have been called
to order in any assembly. Dinkle said he had spoken on his own account,
and showed no inclination to share risks with him.

The first French prelate who came to the desk was Ginoulhiac, of
Grenoble, who also spoke against the Draft. What he then said we know
not. What he had just previously published under his own hand we do
know. Resisting the idea of an acclamation, he said--

    To insist upon dispensing with previous examination, because of the
    immense importance of the question, or because the subject of the
    question was that which in the Church is greatest, would be not
    merely to depart from the practice of all ages, but it would also
    be to commit a most serious error, and to awaken in all grave minds
    just suspicions of the decision which might be arrived at. In past
    times nothing was so feared as the appearance of not devoting to
    important decisions sufficient time, and of not giving sufficient
    satisfaction even to the minds of the prejudiced (p. 43).

Speaking of the liberty essential to a real Council, he had said (p.
46)--

    Little does it matter whether the liberty of deliberation and of
    vote be violated in one way or another, whether by fear or by
    guile, whether the violence exerted is physical or moral; so soon
    as liberty is gravely hampered, the Church no longer recognizes
    herself as truly represented.

Friedrich tells how Strossmayer, the day before, had said that he
would write out his speech and send it in; for the reporters were so
unskilful that their manuscripts were of little use. But we do not see
how he could do more than guess what their reports were. At the same
time (it was in the house of Cardinal Hohenlohe), he said that now,
since he had been in Rome, he could understand how both the Reformation
and the Greek Schism had originated. It was in his view a real crime
for the Pope to claim to be the successor of Christ instead of the
successor of Peter; the way in which bishops were driven was, he
added, inconceivable, when one remembered that it was they that kept
up the dignity of the Pope, and prepared the minds of the people to
acknowledge it.

A prelate of different views was he to whom Friedrich had said that,
in order to understand the events of the Council, one must read
the _Civiltá_, further adding that had he been Prince Hohenlohe
in Bavaria, he would have answered the _Civiltá_ by expelling the
Jesuits from Regensburg. "They are innocent people," said the Bishop.
"Individually," replied the Professor, "they may be innocent people,
but they represent an order which propagates doctrine dangerous
to the State." He tells also how it was found that the French,
German, Austro-Hungarian, and American bishops had an International
Committee of three; but that the Pope, regarding this as savouring of
Nationalism, and of a revolutionary spirit, forbade it. Lord Acton (p.
52) mentions another prohibition scarcely less significant, namely,
that the printed Rules of Procedure of the Council of Trent were,
with the utmost strictness, withheld from the members of the Vatican
Council. These rules, and the real minutes of that Council, had at
that time never been published, and only saw the light in 1874, by
the private efforts of Theiner. Of course, the Decrees and Canons had
long been before the world. Among the many denials we do not remember
any attempt to deny this specific allegation. An argument could be
easily constructed, on the principle now accepted, to prove that it was
no interference with liberty to deprive the bishops of the physical
possibility of informing themselves of the extent of rights which they
had inherited from their predecessors at the latest General Council.

Lord Acton says that one effect of the determination to keep the
discussions secret was that it led the bishops to express themselves
more strongly than they would have done had they expected their
words to be read at home and conned over by Protestants. At the same
time, much leaked out. All agree that the inhabitants of Rome took
little interest in the discussions, while, in the religious aspect
of the question, the Italians generally took scarcely any; and this
indifference reacted on the interest they might have taken in its
political aspects. They committed the error of despising their enemy.
Knowing the men and their communications, they allowed their own
estimate of the worth of priests to affect their calculation as to
their influence.

There is a well accredited story of Lord Acton going to Florence, full
of the burning questions which were to affect the future of every Roman
Catholic. Dining with a relation in the very centre of the political
circle, and meeting several members of the Cabinet, he naturally
expected to find them taking some interest in the cosmopolitan politics
then under treatment by the Senate of Humanity, the Supreme Legislature
of the Human Species. But the Italians were buried in some passing
question of grist, or the like, and had no ear for the principles
which were to shape the future of nations. They saw little in the
proceedings more than that the Pundits of an expiring caste were
passing resolutions to adjourn the nineteenth century and to conserve
the eleventh.

German and English Catholics were not capable of thus treating
principles as husks. Whether Fallibilists or Infallibilists, they
knew that the destiny of that Society, which both agreed to call "The
Church," was now at stake, and that, at least, the repose of nations,
if not their destiny, was also implicated. The Liberal Catholics,
holding that the attempt to restore a theocracy would only lead to
wars, and that humanity would avenge itself on the Papacy for again
fomenting bloodshed, hoped that somehow God would save the Church from
the blindness of the Curia. The Catholics, on the other hand, equally
aiming at _ultimate_ peace, and even regaling their imaginations
with a vision of millennial repose, so soon as all nations should
have accepted the Vicegerent of God as the representative of Christ
Himself, were in the meantime profoundly convinced that the only way
to obtain that repose was through the very conflict from which their
faint-hearted brethren shrank.

The Infallibilists could not harbour the idea of the Church failing in
the struggle. That was to them like supposing that the gates of hell
should prevail. To the Liberal Catholics the Jesuits were conspiring
against humanity and all its franchises. To the Jesuits, on the other
hand, the Liberal Catholics seemed to be risking the loss of such an
opportunity as might never recur, of putting the Church in a position
to constrain governments to accept the principles by which alone
nations could be saved. Therefore did they look upon any shrinking from
the struggle as indicating worldly fear rather than foreseeing care for
the Church. If Liberal Catholics looked upon the Jesuits as conspiring
against humanity, the Jesuits looked upon the Liberal Catholics as
agitators against divine authority. No wonder that in such a state of
feeling, what Lord Acton describes took place, "The word-war of the
hall was always fought over and over again outside, with the addition
of anecdotes, epigrams, and inventions."

It was on Sunday, January 2, that two petitions were sent in to the
Pope. The first was signed by forty-three prelates, headed by Cardinals
Schwarzenberg and Rauscher, and the Primate of Hungary.[255] This was
no Bill of Rights, not containing even a challenge of that exercise
of prerogative which it sought partially to relax. The privileges for
which two princes and forty-one magnates petitioned, "prostrate at thy
feet," were--

    (1) That the Fathers might be distributed into, say, six groups,
    in which Draft Decrees could be considered in the principal living
    languages before being brought on for discussion in Latin, in the
    General Congregation. (2) That speeches delivered in the General
    Congregation might be printed for the exclusive use of the members
    of the Council, and under the same bond of secrecy as that under
    which the Draft Decrees were communicated to them. (3) That the
    Draft Decrees on faith and discipline might all as soon as possible
    be laid in a connected form before the Fathers, and should not
    any longer be presented, as hitherto, piecemeal. (4) That the
    Fathers, after having in the vernacular meetings considered the
    Draft Decrees, might be allowed to send a couple of delegates from
    each group to the committee to represent their views. (5) That
    the Fathers might be allowed to print, in addition to speeches
    delivered in the General Congregation, writings in which questions
    could be treated more thoroughly; these however to be printed
    subject to the same bond of secrecy as the Draft Decrees. (6)
    "Prostrate at thy feet, we crave the apostolic benediction for
    ourselves and the faithful committed to us."

We do not know that even the last of the six things here prayed
for was granted, for the petition never received an answer. These
dignitaries clearly state to their royal master the grounds on which
they petitioned for some of the elementary rights of human creatures.
They say that Decrees cannot be really sifted by speaking a dead
language in an assembly of seven hundred persons from all parts of
the world, unless, first, in companies speaking living languages, the
Fathers have had the opportunity of examining their contents. And
further, that however well acquainted with Latin all might be, there
were many prelates who did not speak it. Moreover, the petitioners,
admitting that the Council Hall was admirable as being so near the tomb
of St. Peter, state that in the first General Congregation, though
some of the speakers had excellent voices, not one of them could
make himself heard by all. Even since changes had been effected, the
greater part of the members could not hear all the speakers. Another
of their points is this: Although men well worthy of confidence--_viri
fide dignissimi_--had assured them that the reports of the speeches
should be distributed to the Fathers in print, so that they might
read what they had not been able to hear, "in this hope we have been
disappointed."

They appeal thus to their master, "Most Blessed Father, by thine
excelling wisdom, wilt thou perceive that, as the Fathers can
neither hear what is spoken, nor read it, proper consultation is not
possible."[256] They go on to urge that even if the discussions were
held in a place where men with the weakest voices could be heard, it
would still be desirable that the members should be in a position to
look over what had been advanced in successive sittings. "Matters of
weightiest moment," they add, "are being treated, and frequently the
addition, omission, or change of a single word may adulterate the
sense." If, say they, the Fathers had the opportunity of explaining
their views in writing, they could lay many things before their fellow
members which could not be brought into speeches. As to obtaining an
understanding of the proposals, they urged that, in questions of
doctrine, one thing so connects itself with another, and discipline
is so much affected by doctrine, that they are not in any position
to give a judgment on Draft Decrees, obviously forming but part of a
scheme, while as yet other parts of it are kept from their knowledge.
The relation between the unknown parts and the parts before them is an
element in any judgment to be formed.

The second petition, dated on the same Sunday,[257] was signed by
twenty-six prelates, including several of those who had signed the
other, and a few additional ones, such as Kenrick of St. Louis.
Cardinal Rauscher did not sign it, but Cardinal Schwarzenberg did.
It set out by indirectly asserting more in principle than the other;
but it ended by asking less in practice. It seemed both to assume the
right of proposition on the part of the prelates, and to imply that
the taking of it away would deserve blame; but it had not the courage
to say that it had been taken away. Those are not wanting, say the
petitioners, who interpret the Rules as not recognizing the right of
the Fathers to propose in the Council what they may think conducive to
the public good, but as conceding it only exceptionally and as a matter
of grace. This may be a diplomatic way of indicating what the Rules
said without confessing the fact that they did say it. But what they
did say was too plain for any such finesse. The prayer of the petition
is confined to two points: that some members of the Commission on
Proposals should be elected by the Committee, and that the authors of
proposals should have access to the committees, and thus have some part
in the treatment of the particular matter in which they were interested.

These petitions say more than all the assertions of the much
contradicted Liberal Catholics about the want of freedom in the
Council, and the want of the old spirit of bishops in the men who
composed it. According to Friedberg, the first of the two was drawn
up by Cardinal Rauscher (xli.). No name of an English, Irish, or
Colonial prelate is attached to either petition. Nearly all the names
are those of Germans and Hungarians, the only American one being
that of Kenrick. His signature proves that the English-speaking group
knew of the petitions, and the absence of all other names belonging
to that group would seem to indicate that members of the hierarchy
from America, the British Isles, and our Colonies did not approve of
bishops of their Church being entrusted with such extensive liberties
as those for which their brethren petitioned. It is pretty certain that
the American archbishop who signed this petition was not one of the
prelates who told the Archbishop of Westminster that their Congress
was not freer than the Council. Do senators and members of the House
prostrate themselves at the feet of the President, petitioning for
leave to meet in a place where they can hear and be heard, for leave
to read reports of one another's speeches, and for leave to print
memoranda--for leave even to elect a few members of a committee which
decides what may and what may not be recommended to the President,
to be proposed should he approve of it? If they do not, we must only
believe that America sends some citizens to Europe whose information
as to the institutions of their country is not to be relied upon. Did
Ginoulhiac, whose observations on the necessity of perfect freedom
in a Council we have lately seen, consider legislators free who had
to petition for such things? Outside of the number of Cardinals
resident in Rome, could even a Cardinal have been found beforehand to
assert that liberty would not be gravely hampered, in any legislative
assembly, whenever those who were called legislators were compelled to
indite petitions such as we have described? We doubt if even a resident
Cardinal would beforehand have dared in terms to deny that when, in a
professed Council, liberty is gravely hampered, the Church does not
recognize herself as represented. Now, it is easy to turn the point of
all such arguments. Peter the Infallible has only to say what rights
James and John, Thomas and Paul shall enjoy, and in exercising them
they possess all the freedom that God has been pleased to grant to them.

The allusion in the petition to the ease with which the sense of a
speech may be altered seems like a remark of Strossmayer, quoted by
Friedrich, that reports which were under no check but that of the
Curia, and which even the speakers themselves were not allowed to
inspect, could not be of any use. To this Friedrich adds, How much
would the weight of the remark have been increased after an incident
on July 9, "when the majority of the Council, and a committee of the
Council, did not scruple formally to deceive the minority."

The prayer of the petitioners for a sight of the whole scheme, as
prepared, before they should be called upon to erect part of it into
irreformable Decrees, was doubtless caused in part by the obvious
relation between the Drafts already brought to light and the Syllabus.
That compendium was not mentioned any more than it had been in many
other public instruments, but the first Draft fitted to its first
sections, just as the Encyclical which accompanied its issue had done
to the whole document. Notwithstanding its authority, its form made it
of doubtful interpretation, and these Decrees aimed at giving statutory
form to its sentences. An _Index Schematum_, or List of Drafts, had
come to light,[258] which let the bishops see that what had hitherto
been produced was but the first instalment of projected legislation
covering all the ground occupied by the Syllabus. The first Draft
treated only the philosophical and theological portion of the subjects;
but how were the principles enunciated to be applied, when the sections
on Church and State should be arrived at? The somewhat obscure teaching
in the Draft on the elevation of man into the supernatural order,
would, to mere politicians, look like theological nebulae, and, to mere
theologians, like ill-digested divinity. To men versed in the esoteric
dialect, it was clearly intended to prepare the way for the doctrine of
the elevation of man by baptism above the control of civil law, in all
that affects his loyalty to the supernatural order of the Church, whose
Decrees had, by that regeneration, become his supreme statutes, her
courts his supreme tribunals, and her priests his supreme magistrates.
It was the dogmatizing of the principle which has already passed under
our eye, that in baptism the subjects of the civil power are changed.
Another principle now habitually underlies that one, namely, that man
by redemption through Christ is raised above the government of the
natural order, and placed under that of Christ, through His Vicar.
The studious among the Liberal Catholics knew that under the name of
Naturalism their principles were condemned.

On the Monday following the day of the petitions, when the Congregation
opened, after the prayers had been read, Cardinal De Luca rang the
bell, and solemnly addressed the Fathers. Here, for once, we are able
to give the very words that sounded in that hall of concealment, and
this time not from an unofficial publication of official documents. It
is the _Acta Sanctae Sedis_ that now actually give us a speech. But
it is a speech about the dead. The Cardinal is not so confident as
to their happiness as were the writers of the Crusaders of St. Peter
respecting that of those who fell in the Crusade. But he presents the
two forms of the Papal worship of and for the dead, which differs from
both the Chinese and the Brahminical. We see the two sides of it--the
patronage of the living by the dead, and the patronage of the dead by
the living. The Cardinal said--

    MOST REVEREND FATHERS,--It is known to you that since the opening
    of the OEcumenical Vatican Council four Fathers have passed away
    by a death precious in the sight of the Lord, namely, the Most
    Eminent Charles Augustus de Reisach, Bishop of the Sabina and First
    President of the General Congregations; the Most Eminent Francis
    Pentini, Deacon of St. Mary _in Portico;_ the Most Reverend Anthony
    Manastyrski, Bishop of Przémysl of the Latin rite; and the Most
    Reverend Bernardin Frascolla, Bishop of Foggia. The Christian
    virtues and the shining merits towards the holy Church of God and
    this Apostolic See, wherewith they were most largely adorned,
    inspire us with a sure and pleasant hope that their souls already
    enjoy rest eternal in the embrace of the Lord, and that in the
    presence of God they patronize our labours by their intercession.
    Since, however, human frailty is such that they may even now stand
    in need of our suffrages, let us not neglect earnestly to commend
    them to the divine mercy.

After this De Luca announced that in place of Reisach had been
appointed Cardinal De Angelis. Thus one who, just before the Council
opened, knew, or professed to know, so little that he told Cardinal
Hohenlohe that nothing was to be done beyond condemning the principles
of 1789, but who had served the Curia by the device of an election
ticket, took the first seat, in which elevation the Opposition saw the
reward of service in the elections. Next was announced the appointment
by the Pope of Cardinal Bilio as President of the Committee on
Faith, and that of Cardinal Caterini as President of the Committee
on Discipline. The committees were not allowed to choose their own
chairmen, nor yet was the Council allowed to name the chairmen of
its committees.[259] The next day, after Mass had been celebrated by
Archbishop Manning, again had Cardinal De Luca to announce a death.
It was that of the Bishop of Panama, a Dominican. The statement as to
his sufferings here is plain. But as to his happiness hereafter, the
full confidence felt in the case of the Crusaders, and the qualified
confidence felt in the case of the two Cardinals, and of the two
bishops whose deaths were reported with that of Cardinals, are both
wanting. We have not here the "in peace" which in Rome, before priests
learned to make a commerce of the dead, the poorest Christian wrote,
it might be in the roughest scrawl, over the head of his wife or
child; nor have we here the life and immortality whereof the light
makes the happy believer "rejoice for a brother deceased." Eduardo
Vasques was not a Crusader, and was not a Cardinal, and had not even
the happiness of being reported dead in company with a Cardinal. He
was but a bishop, and, without doubt, in the pains of purgatory; so
De Luca just said that he had died last night, after great suffering,
borne with exemplary patience. "Proper mortuary services will, as soon
as possible, be performed. In the meantime, let us commend him to the
mercy of God, both by the sacrifice of the Mass, and by other works of
Christian charity."[260]

The day before the second session, a procession moved to the Vatican,
of seventeen carriages, carrying seventeen deputations, each bearing an
address, with signatures, in a richly bound volume, for presentation
to the Holy Father. These addresses conveyed that homage of science
to the Pontiff the appeal for which has been already mentioned. _The
cultivators of science at the feet of Pius IX_, and, _The cultivators
of science at the throne of the Holy Father_, were the titles of
articles in Catholic journals. The way was led by the deputation from
the pontifical academy of the Immaculate, which had initiated this
movement.

They were received in the Throne Room. A long address to the Pontiff
was read. He sat, unmoved, to hear it. Then, "he lifted his eyes to
heaven with an ineffable expression," and uttered a prayer that the
sentiments conveyed in the address might spread among the multitudes
of scientific men whose false science was ruining society. The Pope
would quote Scripture, as he often tries to do; and his text was
_Captivantes intellectum vestrum in obsequium fidei_--Taking your
intellect captive to the obedience of the faith. Probably he was
thinking of 2 Corinthians x. 5, "Bringing every thought into captivity
to the obedience of Christ," where the Vulgate translates, "Every
thought (νὁημα), every intellect." He then assured them that
pride was the sin of the day, and that it was all a repetition of the
original "_I will not serve_"--alluding to Satan's "Better reign in
hell than serve in heaven." Cold men of science hearing this language
from him who was striving to put all human honours, titles, and powers
below his own, might think that some scientific test of his humility
would not be amiss. The Pope rose, the _savans_ knelt down, and he gave
them the benediction.

Having then resumed his seat on the Throne, "Here I am," he said,
familiarly; "here I am, to receive your gifts." There was a scientific
test of their professions! The President of the Academy of the
Immaculate advanced, presented his volume containing the address and
signatures, and with it an elegant purse full of gold. The head of
the next deputation followed, presented his volume and his purse of
gold, and so on, until the seventeen had completed their offering.
The Pope had a pleasant word for each. Then saying, "God grant that
your example may be followed by many," he closed the audience.[261]
How different was it now from what it was when "science was the echo
of the Pontiff," or even from what it was when Galileo had to face the
Inquisition, and to argue with Bellarmine![262] At the latter moment,
the two revolted tongues, German and English, with their smaller
kinsmen, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, were unknown in the schools. Their
libraries were yet to be. They had but lately received into them the
source of their literary life--the Bible. But into them had the Bible
come, not lapped in the languor of the cloister, but instinct with the
life of a great revival.

Except a few northern schools, which had made themselves a name in
the strife of the Reformation, all seats of learning on the Continent
were on the side of the Pope. Now, how changed! Out of his own Model
State, where were the universities canonically instituted? They had
ceased to be. Meantime, the nations which at the Reformation were but
emerging out of barbarism, had become learned in all the learning
of the ancients and moderns. The two revolted tongues, German and
English, had filled the world with a literature such as the Latin,
even when Augurs and Pontiffs were called Cicero and Aurelius, had
never known. The Portuguese, which had at one time promised to be the
_lingua franca_ of all the ports from Morocco to Japan, had given
place, first, largely to the Dutch, then universally to the English.
The Spanish and French, which had promised to divide between them
North and South America, were sundered, and were both overshadowed by
a dominating growth of English. That north-western tongue, cradled
amid stern winds, was found by the Reformation as the rude but hardy
dialect of some six or seven unlettered millions. Now it had become
the wealthy and flexible, the noble and all-expressing speech of at
least eighty millions. Thirty millions in Europe, with between forty
and fifty millions in America, called it, with a common family pride
and a common family joy, their mother-tongue. In Australasia, a future
Europe promised to call it her mother-tongue. In India it was teaching
the pundit, in China the mandarin, in Japan the daimio, in Africa the
Kaffir chief, the <DW64> freedman, and the merchant of the Nile. That
single language had now more schools and colleges, more laboratories
and institutes of research, more books and journals, more patronage
and discussion of Art, than all the Papal languages put together. And
as to the German, if the lack of equal liberty had reined the people
in, while the effects of the Thirty Years' War, joined to those of the
chronic splitting up into small States, had prevented their growth and
expansion in a similar measure, they had, nevertheless, with huge and
patient power, piled up a Titanic literature, and in many a movement
in the higher march of intellect their banner led the van. Men of
the Catholic schools of Germany so felt their own superiority to the
science and literature of actual Rome, that the strokes of their
contempt not unfrequently fell even on the reputed sages of the Curia,
sometimes laid on in a fashion more scholastic than scholarly.

In the General Congregation of January 4, the Curia had the
satisfaction of hearing, not only a diocesan bishop, but a German one,
defend the Draft.[263] It was Bishop Martin, of Paderborn, to whose
eminent qualities official writers bear loud testimony, though in the
eyes of the Liberal Catholics he does not seem to be a prodigy. He
blamed the manner in which the bishops had treated a document proposed
by the Pontiff, which ought to have been handled with reverence, and
rebuked such language as "to be erased." He desired the adoption of the
Syllabus just as it stood. As the way to bring back the stray sheep
to the Holy Father, he enjoined the recognition of his infallibility,
which would reclaim Protestants. Both the expectation of Martin
and Manning that the new dogma would facilitate the conversion of
Protestants, and that of all the Ultramontane leaders that it would
hasten the submission of governments to the Lord Paramount of the
world, lose part of their marvellousness when we find bishops like
Bonjean proclaiming it as of great importance for the conversion of
Hindus. Bishop David, of St. Brieuc, alluding to Martin's warning, said
if he must not say that the Draft was to be erased, he would say that
if it was dead let it rise again; but some bishop must breathe new life
into it. Friedrich says that Cardinal Bilio was particularly hurt by
this speech.

Bernardou, Archbishop of Sens, read a speech for Audu, the Patriarch
of Babylon. The Chaldean solemnly pleaded against the levelling
proceedings of Rome, maintained the ancient immunities of his Church,
and ventured to throw out a warning against innovations, lest the
Orientals should be altogether alienated. He afterwards received a
message to repair to the Vatican, and to come unattended. About seven
o'clock on that January night, the man of seventy-eight passed the
Swiss guards, in their stripes and slashes of yellow, black, and red,
with their halberds and their helmets, and while lonelily pacing the
corridors, had time to remember how the house of the Inquisition stood
over the way, and how utterly he was in the power of the King of the
Vatican. It will be some time before what befell him comes to light.

Theiner, the celebrated Prefect of the Vatican Archives, had been long
engaged, as was universally known, in preparing for publication the
_Acta_ of the Council of Trent. He had been arrested in this project.
This was attributed to the instigation of the Jesuits. On January 4
Friedrich went to Theiner to beg permission to consult the _Acta_
of Trent. "Theiner told me that he was now forbidden to let any one
even see the _Acta_. All I could obtain from him was this--he showed
me the piles of the copied documents in the distance" (p. 65). There
is a picture for the days of an OEcumenical Council![264] The day
following, another German on the banks of the Spree, was busy with
the Council. To Bismarck the state of things so far was chaotic. "I
should not think it wise," he says to Arnim, "for us to intermeddle in
this misty chaos, where we do not yet see clearly enough to choose the
right basis of operations." He sees that Rome may make aggressions,
but rests in proud repose in the power of the nation to throw her
back within her proper bounds. The continuance of peaceful relations
is greatly to be desired, but it is not for the government to attempt
to give a direction to the events of the Council. It can only cherish
sympathy with the efforts of the German bishops, and, _if they desire
it_, give them its support. Bismarck expressly declines to support
by any diplomatic step the proposal for vote by nations. Such a step
would involve a serious recognition of the pretensions of the Curia. We
must, he says, hold ourselves aloof from the Council, and free to bring
its conclusions to the bar of our laws. He, therefore, does not deem
it wise to attempt a permanent united meeting of diplomatists, with a
view to influence the Council. All that can be done is to encourage the
German bishops, and to assure them that their rights will be maintained
in their own country. But they must be made fully to understand that
serious changes in the organization of the Church would compel the
government to alter its relation to her, both in legislation and in
administration.[265] Had Bismarck known all the plans of the five
preceding years, and all the events that were to follow, it is doubtful
if he could have taken a better course. And had his main object been
to live at peace with Rome, and not merely to do the wisest thing for
Germany, he could hardly have guarded more jealously against undue or
premature interference.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 248: _Tagebuch_, p. 44.]

[Footnote 249: _Tagebuch_, p. 45.]

[Footnote 250: _Acton_, p. 73.]

[Footnote 251: _Tagebuch_, p. 44.]

[Footnote 252: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, v. 316. i.]

[Footnote 253: Vol. v. p. 316.]

[Footnote 254: _Acton_, pp. 74, 75, both in German and Latin.]

[Footnote 255: _Documenta_, i. 247.]

[Footnote 256: "Consultationem sicut decet haberi non posse."]

[Footnote 257: _Documenta_, ii. 383; also _Friedberg_, 410-14.]

[Footnote 258: _Friedberg_, xlv.; _Cecconi_, 483-89; and _Frond_, vii.
p. 263.]

[Footnote 259: _Acta Sanctae Sedis_. v. 317-18.]

[Footnote 260: _Ibid._ 319.]

[Footnote 261: _Civiltá_, VII. ix. 358-9.]

[Footnote 262: Valuable light has lately been thrown on the two trials
of Galileo by Dr. Reusch, of Bonn; and Signor Berti, ex-Minister of
Instruction in Italy, has published the original record of the trial.
The last I have not seen.]

[Footnote 263: _Tagebuch_, p. 63.]

[Footnote 264: This tale of Friedrich may form a pendant to one of
Theiner's own. He relates how, in seeking for Tridentine documents
which ought to have been in the Vatican, but were not, and some of
which were in the library of Lord Guildford, he proposed to make a
journey all the way to England. His brother oratorian, Dr. Newman,
applied to Lord Guildford requesting that Theiner might have access to
them. This was refused. That nobleman could not see why the Prefect
of the Vatican Archives should come so far to examine documents of
which there must be abundance there! Poor Theiner had found poverty,
not abundance. There had been removal, as well as concealment. His ill
success in England did not prevent him from saying that the honour of
first publishing the minutes of Paleotti was due to the Rev. Joseph
Mendham, an Anglican presbyter,--"which, certainly, is not to our
honour or glory" (vol. i. pp. vi. vii.).]

[Footnote 265: _Cologne Gazette_, April 1, 1874.]




CHAPTER V

The Second Public Session--Swearing a Creed never before known in a
General Council--Really an Oath including Feudal Obedience.


The same tone of disappointment in which the _Civiltá_ had said that
as the discussion of the Draft was not concluded, no Decree would
be promulged in the second session, pervaded the additional remark
that the world would describe as a vain ceremony the recital of the
creed with which it had been resolved to fill up the day. Writers of
different shades, as if by concert, did describe it as a religious
ceremony,--a mere ceremony, an empty ceremony, a vain ceremony, and a
tedious ceremony.

So far from taking this session as a vain show, we take it for one
of the most distinctive footmarks left in the deposits of history
by the mammoth which we call the Papacy. Without contrivance of
man--in contravention, indeed, of arrangements made with patient
forethought--the Vatican Council was compelled, under guise of reciting
a creed, to exhibit its bishops as if barons swearing allegiance to a
prince in peril of losing his estates. The creed recited was one never
before seen or heard of in any General Council. An apparent accident
set the faith of the early Church, and the modern composite oath and
creed, before the eye of history in a contrast sharper than any artist
could have devised.

A cause similar to that which led to this day being employed in setting
face to face the old creed and the new, had at Trent led to the act
that formed the reverse of the medal. At Trent, on the day fixed for
the third session, no Decree was ready for promulgation, just as none
was ready at the Vatican on that fixed for the second.

Consequently, at Trent, after much reluctance, the Fathers, rather
than let the day appointed pass without a session, consented to fill
up the time in doing what many of them felt would expose them to
ridicule--in reciting the creed. Thus did they create an example which
the Curia now followed. Two unforeseen accidents, linked together only
by the association of precedent, led to the placing of the Catholic
creed as it existed up to the Council of Trent, and the Romish creed
as framed after Trent, side by side in a framework so impressive as to
ensure the exhibition of the two in contrast to all ages.

At Trent the Fathers said that they would set forth as the firm and
sole foundation, against which the gates of hell should not prevail,
the creed used by the Roman Church, which was the _principium_, wherein
"all who confessed Christ" of necessity concurred,--an expression which
seems as if it was the last breath of catholicity on the lips of the
Papal society. Another slight reminiscence of catholicity appears when
it is said that the creed is given in the exact words in which it is
read "in all churches,"--a terminology proper to apostolic pens, or
to the lips of our glorified Lord, speaking to His servant John, when
the word "churches" was the Christian vernacular, and "church" as a
collective was rarely used, and only in the very largest sense possible.

Led by a way which they knew not, the Fathers at Trent set up a
memorial of the faith of the Christian Churches as they found it in
the creed. Led also by a way which they knew not, the Fathers at the
Vatican set up an everlasting remembrance of what their predecessors at
Trent had done with the faith.

The Cardinals arrived on the morning of the Epiphany, dressed in red;
but they changed to the white proper to the day. Patriarchs, primates,
archbishops, bishops, abbots and generals of orders, were all in white,
except the Orientals, who had never surrendered to the primacy of Rome
on the sacred subject of vestments. The Pope entered the hall, as he
had done at the first session, between Antonelli and Mertel.

After Mass, Dominicis-Tosti and Philip Ralli, the two Promoters of
the Council; reverently drew nigh to the throne, and addressing the
Pontiff, said:--

    Inasmuch as, by ancient appointment of the Fathers, the sacred
    Councils of the Church have been wont to set the Confession of the
    Faith in the forefront of all their doings, as a buckler against
    every heresy, we, therefore, the Promoters of this Vatican Council,
    do humbly pray that profession of the Catholic faith in the form
    prescribed by thy predecessor of sacred memory, Pius IV, be made
    this day, in public session by all the Fathers of this Vatican
    Council.

The Pontiff replied, "We enjoin and command accordingly."

Then arose the sovereign from his throne, took off the sacred mitre,
and, with loud and clear voice, recited for the first time in the
history of man, as the belief of a General Council, the creed of Pius
IV. Near the end of it, he came to the clause which swears obedience to
the Roman Pontiff. This he omitted. The conclusion swears to maintain
the faith just recited, and, as much as in the confessor lies, to
enforce it "on all those committed to him." The Pope simply said to
enforce it "upon all," and then he closed according to the regular
form,--"I, Pius, promise, vow, and swear, so help me God, and these
God's Holy Gospels."

Bishop Fessler, Secretary of the Council, and Bishop Valenziani, now
came to the throne. The Pontiff handed to them the creed of Pius IV,
just as he had handed his own Decrees at the first session. Valenziani,
ascending the pulpit, recited it, in his own name and in that of all
the Fathers. When he came to the portentous obedience clause, omitted
by him who owes no account to man, tribunal, or nation, the bishop,
read, "To the Roman Pontiff, successor of the blessed Peter, prince
of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, I promise and swear true
obedience,"--as if it was an installation in a feudal order. No wonder
that Canon Pelletier, writing in Frond (vol. vii. p. 170), should say
that this act of homage, "in the circumstances of which all are aware,
had an immense importance." Valenziani then concluded the form as the
Pope had done, only, instead of enforcing obedience "upon all," it was
"on all committed to him."

Patrizi, the Senior Cardinal present,[266] now rose, came to the
throne, knelt, laid his hand on the volume of the Gospels, and lifting
up his voice, said, "I, Constantine, Bishop of Porto and Rufina,
promise, vow, and swear according to the form now read, so help me God,
and these God's Holy Gospels"; and he kissed the book.

Then Cardinals and Patriarchs, one by one, after them Primates,
Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Generals of Orders, in regular
gradation of rank, first two and two, and, later, four and four,[267]
came successively to the throne, and during the space of two hours,
knelt down, laid the hand on the book, repeated the above words, each
inserting his own name, kissed the book, and so swore allegiance to the
King of the Vatican, under the form of a profession of the simple and
loving faith of Christ. The two creeds, recited at Trent and in St.
Peter's, are below, in parallel columns--the one representing what the
Council of Trent found, and the other representing what it left. Future
epochs will have to mark subsequent innovations. We put _the clause
forming the basis of the new dogmas in_ italics. The other italics are
those given in Dr. Challoner's recension[268]:--

 THE CATHOLIC CREED BEFORE              THE ROMISH CREED AFTER THE
 THE REFORMATION                        REFORMATION

 "I, N., with a firm faith,             "I, N., with a firm faith,
 believe and profess all and             believe and profess all and
 every one of the things which           every one of the things which
 are contained in that creed             are contained in that creed
 which the holy Roman Church             which the holy Roman Church
 maketh use of; namely--                 maketh use of; namely--

 "I believe in one God, the             "I believe in one God, the
 Father Almighty, Maker of               Father Almighty, Maker of
 heaven and earth, and of all            heaven and earth, and of all
 things visible and invisible:           things visible and invisible:
 and in one Lord Jesus Christ,           and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
 the only-begotten Son of God,           the only-begotten Son of God,
 _born of the Father before all ages_:   _born of the Father before all
 God of God; Light of light;             ages_: God of God; Light of light;
 true God of true God; begotten,         true God of true God; begotten,
 not made; consubstantial                not made; consubstantial to
 to the Father, by whom                  the Father, by whom all things
 all things were made; who,              were made; who, for us men,
 for us men, and for our salvation,      and for our salvation, came down
 came down from heaven,                  from heaven, and was incarnate
 and was incarnate by the Holy           by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin
 Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and           Mary, and was made man.
 was made man. Was crucified             Was crucified also for us under
 also for us under Pontius Pilate;       Pontius Pilate; He suffered
 He suffered and was buried,             and was buried, and the third
 and the third day He rose again,        day He rose again, according
 according to the Scriptures;            to the Scriptures; He ascended
 He ascended into heaven, sits           into heaven, sits at the right
 at the right hand of the Father,        hand of the Father, and is to
 and is to come again with glory         come again with glory to judge
 to judge the living and the dead;       the living and the dead; of
 of whose kingdom there shall            whose kingdom there shall be
 be no end. And in the Holy              no end. And in the Holy
 Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver,         Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver,
 who proceeds from the Father            who proceeds from the Father
 and the Son, who together with          and the Son, who together with
 the Father and the Son is               the Father and the Son is
 adored and glorified, who spoke         adored and glorified, who spoke
 by the Prophets; and (I believe)        by the Prophets; and (I believe)
 one holy catholic and                   one holy catholic and apostolic
 apostolic Church, I confess one         Church, I confess one baptism
 baptism for the remission of            for the remission of sins, and
 sins, and I look for the resurrection   I look for the resurrection of
 of the dead, and the life of            the dead, and the life of the
 the world to come. Amen."               world to come. Amen.

                                         "_I most steadfastly admit and
                                         embrace apostolical and
                                         ecclesiastical traditions, and all
                                         other observances and
                                         constitutions of the same Church._

                                         "I also admit the holy
                                         _Scriptures_, according to that
                                         sense which our holy Mother, the
                                         Church, has held, and does hold,
                                         to whom it belongs to _judge_ of
                                         the true sense and interpretation
                                         of the Scriptures; neither
                                         will I ever take and interpret
                                         them otherwise than according
                                         to the unanimous consent of the
                                         Fathers.

                                         "I also profess that there are
                                         truly and properly _seven
                                         sacraments_ of the new law,
                                         instituted by Jesus Christ our
                                         Lord, and necessary for the
                                         salvation of mankind, though not
                                         all for every one; to wit,
                                         _baptism_, _confirmation,
                                         eucharist, penance_, _extreme
                                         unction, orders_, and
                                         _matrimony_; and that they confer
                                         grace; and that of these,
                                         _baptism confirmation_, and
                                         _orders_ cannot be reiterated
                                         without sacrilege.

                                         "I also receive and admit the
                                         received and approved _ceremonies_
                                         of the _Catholic Church_,
                                         used in the solemn administration
                                         of all the aforesaid sacraments.

                                         "I embrace and receive all
                                         and every one of the things
                                         which have been defined and
                                         declared in the holy Council of
                                         _Trent_, concerning _original sin_
                                         and _justification_.

                                         "I profess, likewise, that in
                                         the Mass there is offered to God
                                         a true, proper, and propitiatory
                                         sacrifice for the living and the
                                         dead. And that in the most
                                         holy sacrament of the _eucharist_
                                         there is truly, really, and
                                         substantially, the _body_ and
                                         _blood_, together with the _soul_
                                         and _divinity_, of our Lord Jesus
                                         Christ; and that there is made
                                         a conversion of the whole
                                         substance of the bread into the
                                         body, and of the whole substance
                                         of the wine into the
                                         blood; which conversion the
                                         Catholic Church calls
                                         transubstantiation.

                                         "I confess, also, that under
                                         _either kind_ alone, Christ is
                                         received whole and entire, and a
                                         true sacrament.

                                         "I constantly hold that there
                                         is a _purgatory_, and that the
                                         souls detained therein are helped
                                         by the suffrages of the faithful.

                                         "Likewise, that the _saints_
                                         reigning together with Christ
                                         are to be honoured and invocated,
                                         and that they offer
                                         prayers to God for us; and that
                                         their _relics_ are to be held in
                                         veneration.

                                         "I most firmly assert that
                                         the _images_ of Christ, and of the
                                         Mother of God, ever Virgin,
                                         and also of the other saints,
                                         are to be had and retained, and
                                         that due honour and veneration
                                         are to be given to them.

                                         "I also affirm that the power
                                         of _indulgences_ was left by
                                         Christ in the Church, and that
                                         the use of them is most wholesome
                                         to _Christian_ people.

                                         "I acknowledge the holy
                                         catholic and apostolical Roman
                                         Church, _The Mother and Mistress
                                         of all Churches; And I Promise
                                         [and Swear] True Obedience to
                                         the Bishop of Rome_, successor
                                         to St. Peter, Prince of the
                                         Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus
                                         Christ.

                                         "I likewise undoubtedly receive
                                         and profess all other things
                                         delivered, defined, and declared
                                         by the sacred Canons and
                                         General Councils, and particularly
                                         by the holy Council of
                                         Trent. And I condemn, reject,
                                         and anathematise all things
                                         contrary thereto, and all heresies
                                         which the Church has condemned,
                                         _rejected_, and anathematised.

                                         "This true Catholic faith, _Out
                                         of Which None Can Be Saved_,
                                         which I now freely profess, and
                                         truly hold, I, N., promise, vow,
                                         and swear most constantly to
                                         hold and profess the same whole
                                         and entire, with God's assistance,
                                         to the end of my life; _and
                                         to procure, as far as lies in my
                                         power, that the same shall be
                                         held, taught, and preached by all
                                         who are under me, or are entrusted
                                         to my care by virtue of my
                                         office. So help me God and these
                                         Holy Gospels of God_."

Among the seven hundred men who repeated this set of propositions,
unknown to Holy Scripture, we may feel assured that there were not
wanting some who as they approached the end of the old, thought, That
was the faith as it was professed before Luther; and as they entered
upon the new, thought Where was this religion before Luther?

What a contrast between the old and the new! If ever it was true, it is
here true, that the old is better. Under the old creed, the conscience
is not hampered by any question about the authority of traditions,
either apostolic so-called, or such as were confessedly ecclesiastical.
The conscience is not perplexed with a fear of interpreting Holy
Scripture differently from the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. It
is not weighted with seven sacraments, not contracted with scruples
about mere rites and modes of administration, not burdened by having
to take for gospel every word which some past Council has said on
some specified doctrine; not bewildered by a professed repetition
ofttimes of the sacrifice once offered up forever, full, perfect, and
sufficient; not materialized by transubstantiation of the substance
of the bread and wine, not mystified by taking half a sacrament for a
whole one, and by asserting that the deliberate evasion of Christ's
sacramental command was a true performance of it; not secularized
by the mercantile reckonings of purgatory; not let down from filial
Christianity towards servile polytheism by the worship of saints,
relics, and images; not demoralized by the traffic in indulgences; not
narrowed by the domination of one municipal Church over all others;
not cramped and degraded by identification with the sins and follies
of one human head, much less by an allegiance to that head, as a lord
of the faith and a sovereign of the conscience; not envenomed by
anathematizing all who do not accept every article that we ourselves
accept.

Trent diminished the comprehensiveness of the Papal Society by many
new and some grotesque conditions. The present Pontiff has added
others, and so far has the shrinking process been now carried that
a _reductio ad absurdum_ cannot be logically far off. Believing too
much, which comes to believing too little, ends in believing nothing.
All these successive submissions of conscience to "authority," of
spiritual inquiry and private judgment to priestly dictation, end in
the paralysis of the believing faculty. They render a man capable of
nothing but submitting.

The ordinary oath of the Papal bishops has often been shown to be in
substance the oath of a feudal vassal to his liege lord. It has but a
flavour of any evangelical office or work of the soul-winning ministry
of Christ. The Emperor Joseph II clearly saw that any man bound to the
Pope by that oath could not be reckoned as the subject of any other
prince, except by one of those generous fictions which on behalf of
the Pope, by way of exception, governments have admitted. But even that
oath was not enough; the confession of faith in God must, for all the
clergy, be turned into an oath of loyalty to the Bishop of Rome--an
oath to a human head in a creed!

The process of taking the oath lasted, as we have said, two hours.
The crowd was not great. The session did not raise enthusiasm in any
one. Friedrich, who viewed the act of homage from the gallery for
theologians, said that nothing could be more tedious. He did not feel
flattered with his company in that gallery. Formerly, only doctors were
known at Councils as theologians, and, as we have seen, they had real
work to do. Now, he says, the chaplains and secretaries of bishops,
and even the men who carry the red caps of the Cardinals, figure as
theologians--"an edifying company." Even the _Stimmen_ had only a few
sentences for this session; and the _Civiltá_, though read principally
by persons who may be supposed to have already seen the creed of
Pius IV, filled up room by printing it at full. Quirinus wondered
whether this "profusion of superfluous oaths was reconcilable with the
scriptural prohibition of needless oaths." They had seven hundred and
forty-seven oaths taken.

Only the genius of M. Veuillot sufficed, so far as we remember, to
cheer the gloom of the day. It was the Epiphany, and in the portions of
Scripture included in the offices of the day, he saw the interpretation
of the ceremony. The royally robed potentates who bowed before the
enthroned priest-king were _the kings of the Gentiles_ prostrating
themselves and worshipping the Church, presenting their gold, and
frankincense and, myrrh. The words of Isaiah, "The nations shall come
to Thy light, and the kings to the brightness of Thy rising," had the
same grand meaning. So he cries (i. 79):--

    Behold St. Peter's! The throne of the Pontiff and the Cardinal at
    the altar, and between throne and altar eight hundred bishops!
    Behold the prophecy and behold the fact!

M. Veuillot remarks that in the galleries were present diplomatists
and princes who had fallen; but the Church abides! In the crowd, he
says, was an Italian "revolutionist, Signor Minghetti, once a subject
and minister of the Pope. He bowed with propriety under the benediction
of his Father and his master, who was betrayed by him; but he abides!"
The fallen princes represented those who, having supported the Papacy,
both temporal and spiritual, had been brought to ruin by its bad
teaching and worse example. Signor Minghetti and his bow represented
those who, rejecting the temporal Papacy, wished to conserve at least
the show of the spiritual Papacy. It is for future time to tell whether
they to whom he will bequeath the tangled undertaking, will take their
place with ex-kings, ex-dukes, ex-princes, and so forth, in the gallery
of failures, or whether they will take their place among the wise men
who, rejecting the spiritual as worse than the temporal Papacy, and
risking all to found States on the principles of the Word of God, have
built up great and happy realms. Italy not does think a principle worth
running any risk for. She thinks it practical to say to the Papacy, We
have found thee unfaithful in the unrighteous mammon, and therefore do
we take it from thee, but we commit to thy trust the true riches.

The _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ say that no date was fixed for the next
session. The confidence in the readiness of the Fathers to swallow
a large pamphlet of creed in a few days was shaken. "No one,"
is it pensively added, "could foresee when Decrees would be in
readiness, because many Fathers might probably be lengthy in their
discourses."[269] The learned editor seems as if he would fain emulate
the flight of M. Veuillot, but he soars with weighted wing. In a long
apostrophe to Rome, he styles Pius IX "the captain who gloriously
fills the place of thine ancient Caesars."[270] In one of his speeches
made to Roman professors, Pius IX calls himself "the Cæsar who now
addresses you,[271] and to whom alone are obedience and fidelity due."

It is evident that the Curia left this session under the damping
effects of a disappointment. It is also evident that some of the
bishops felt that they had now performed two sessions, with a month
between them, and that the only distinct impression left upon the mind
was that they had been twice exhibited, before the whole world, at the
feet of a man more richly robed than themselves, seated on a throne
in the house of God, and calling himself Father of kings and princes,
and Governor of the world. Canon Pelletier points out the great
advantage which the Church had obtained by having the Creed of Pius IV
"consecrated" in a General Council.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 266: The Dean of the Sacred College, Cardinal Mattei, was
unable to attend the sittings.]

[Footnote 267: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis._]

[Footnote 268: _The Grounds of the Catholic Faith_, p. 3. The obedience
clause in Challoner, not being meant for the clergy, does not contain
the word _swear_. For the same reason is the final clause, which
implies authority, omitted. The translation of that clause given here
is from Mr. Butler's version.]

[Footnote 269: _Acta S.S._, v. 327.]

[Footnote 270: "Sub co duce qui locum veturum tuorum Cæsarum gloriose
occupat."--_Ibid._ 324.]

[Footnote 271: _Discorsi_, i. p. 255.]




CHAPTER VI

Speech of the Pope against the Opposition--Future Policy set
before France--Count Arnim's Views--Resumed Debate--Haynald--A New
Mortal Sin--Count Daru and French Policy--Address calling for the
New Dogma--Counter Petitions against the Principle as well as the
Opportuneness.


On the Sunday following this disappointing session, the Pope received
fifteen hundred persons in a public audience. Even the language of
M. Veuillot does not exaggerate the effect of his speech upon that
occasion. "What he said on the Council will loudly resound through the
Catholic universe." What he said cut the bishops of the Opposition, and
Liberal Catholics generally, to the heart. We quote from the version of
M. Veuillot:--

    Would-be wise men would have us treat certain questions charily,
    and not march against the ideas of the age, but I say that we must
    speak the truth, in order to establish liberty. We must never fear
    to proclaim the truth or to condemn error. I want to be free, and
    want the truth to be free. Pray then, weep, force the Holy Spirit,
    by your supplications, to support and enlighten the Fathers of the
    Council, that the truth may triumph and error may be condemned.

After his first version of the speech, M. Veuillot said that a word had
been "unfortunately omitted." The Pope had said that those who opposed
certain measures were

    blind leaders of the blind. Well, if the leaders want not to
    lead any but the blind, and cannot see their game, the Church,
    preserving her own liberty, will know how to win without them or
    against them, the game which they obstinately set themselves to
    lose (i. pp. 86 and 100).

This was treated, not as a mere gust of temper, but as a calculated
appeal through the press to the clergy, and to the devout generally,
against the bishops of the Opposition. Yet the longing of the Pope
for his liberty was natural. He had always believed himself to be
infallible. The Jesuits told him that the full recognition of that
attribute, and the free use of it, were the only remedies for the
misfortunes of the Papacy, and for the troubles of mankind. He read in
the _Civiltá_ how all nations were at this moment looking to him as
the one saviour, capable of lifting them out of the Slough of Despond
into which the Reformation first and the Revolution next had plunged
them. He heard of faithful bishops, learned authors, able journalists,
one after another, intimating in prophetic strains an era of glory to
follow the recognition of his rights. All asked, how could the world
do otherwise than stumble and fall so long as the divinely appointed
guide was not recognized? All asserted that nothing could prevent the
world from rising up, healed and created anew, when the Vicar of God,
acknowledged by the Church, in the plentitude of this authority, should
speak the word, Let there be light, at which chaos would flee away,
and when he should follow it up with the supreme word to kings and
nations alike, which all must learn to obey. Heretics would resist, but
the faithful, under the banner of the Vicar of God, would certainly
prevail. Nothing stood in the way of all this blessing and glory but a
few bishops.

These bishops were represented as being partly calculating men,
unwilling to get into trouble with their governments; partly cowards,
who actually feared that the standard of his Holiness might fall in the
struggle. Some were represented as jealous priests, paltering about
the little prerogatives of their Sees, instead of merging all in the
glories of the Holy See. If, in a matter so great, the Pope chafed at
delay caused by such inconsiderable men, it was not more than might
be expected from human nature so incensed, and so persuaded, even in
the case of one less vehemently suspected of vanity and self-will than
is Pius IX. He said that some thought that the Council was to set
everything to rights, and some that it would accomplish nothing. "I
am but a poor man, a poor feeble man, but I am Pope, Vicar of Jesus
Christ, and head of the Catholic Church, and I have assembled the
Council, which will do its work."[272]

M. Veuillot also was becoming a little impatient. He apparently wanted
to see the beginning of the "clearing away" of which he had spoken in
1867. The following passage, tracing out the policy that might save the
Second Empire, is a specimen of skilled writing, clear to his clerical
readers, dim to heedless Parisians. The new minister (Ollivier) must
accept this program:--

    To break with the Gallican, revolutionary, and Cæsarian prejudice
    (which are all one) by frankly recognizing the liberty of the
    Church; to assure all liberty by and through the assertion of
    this liberty, as mother and mistress; to prepare the accessions
    necessary to the honour and the conservation of peace; to permit
    men to be made against this perpetual plague of revolution which
    exudes only courtiers of the mob, or courtiers of Cæsar; this is
    the grand game he has to play. In the interest of the Emperor and
    the dynasty, I wish he may win it. Alas! during the last twenty
    years the game has been lost, more than once, by the fault of the
    chief player! But Providence is pleased to be obstinate, and to
    leave the game open, with favourable cards in the same hands (vol.
    i. p. 98).

In the gloaming of these January evenings, two men, might be seen
walking somewhere between the Ripetta and the Via Condotti, and the
tall figure of one of them was that of Count Harry von Arnim. A letter
which he on one such occasion handed to the other was published,
in 1874, by the _Presse_, of Vienna,[273] and bore the date of the
day before the impatient speech of the Pope. To whom the letter was
addressed is not stated. Alluding to the petition of the bishops,
Count Arnim says: "You see they are modest, and organization is as
defective as courage." He feels the want of practical tact in the
bishops. If they had meant to succeed in their opposition, they ought
to have impugned the composition of the Council, and the Rules imposed
upon it. Had they first of all rent the net which the Vatican and the
Gesu [the Jesuit establishment] had cast over the wise but timid heads
of the bishops, infallibility would have fallen through the meshes.
The Count is not sure that the Curia will persevere with the dogma of
infallibility; and does not see of what advantage it would be to them,
when they can at any time call a Council and prescribe to it how and
what it is to speak. Some of the Fathers feel as if they were in some
sort the Pope's prisoners since they have entered on the course into
which they had been drawn. They had allowed themselves to be led so
far in a certain direction during the last twenty years, that it was
only when they saw that it was to be turned to earnest, that they began
to ask how they could make black white at home, and how the Catholic
people would take it. That was the feeling that produced "Fulda."
People belonging to the Curia say that the bishops need a couple of
months in the air of Rome to inspire them with the grand conceptions of
the place; and after that all will be of one mind. He cannot understand
how the German Catholics are going to let five hundred Italians, and
among them three hundred boarders of the Pope, dictate laws to them
in spite of their own bishops. Under the pretence of Catholicity,
exclusive Romish-Italian formulæ are imposed on the Catholic mind of
all nations.

If Rome resented the obstinacy of the provincials, some of the
provincials began to open their eyes at what they found in Rome.
Friedrich quotes one well acquainted with the Curia, whose words may
be matched out of Liverani. "The Cardinals," said this authority,
"are red-stockinged ... not fit, with the exception of four or five,
to be curates in a village church." Friedrich himself had begun to
think that their principal function was "parading." But at that Court
did not everything depend upon parading? Many of the Cardinals might
be no better men than the tongue of Rome (not a scrupulous one) made
them, and no greater theologians than Liverani and Friedrich said that
they were, but some of them assuredly had great abilities, and all
had shown themselves to be blessed with the faculty of getting on,
which is generally some qualification for ruling. Disgusted by the low
appearance of the monks and their mendicity, Friedrich yet confessed
that, in present circumstances, such swarms of them had an advantage,
as keeping a certain sort of population out of mischief. How different
the view of M. Veuillot! To him the monks were the ideal of Christ's
benefit to mankind. Free from the world, from the care even of a name
or a tomb, the world "must allow their crushing sandals to pass over
the poisons which its pride has sown" (i. p. 223). It remains to be
seen whether the plants springing from seeds that quickly fall from
a free Bible, a free soul, a free pulpit, and a free press, will die
crushed as poison plants under the sandals of the monk, or whether they
will yet flourish like grass of the earth, and the fruit of them shall
shake like Lebanon, when _fakir_ and monk shall together be remembered
among the things that fatally decay in the shade of a growth which,
though at first the least of herbs, becomes afterwards the greatest of
all trees.

In the street Friedrich met Graf A., doubtless one who then proudly
filled a proud post, but who now unhappily lies under a heavy cloud.
The Count told him that a petition in favour of bringing forward the
question of infallibility, drawn up in Manning's sense was already
signed by five hundred bishops. Another of Friedrich's touches is, that
_Janus_ always lay on Darboy's table, and Hergenröther's _Anti-Janus_
on that of Ketteler. After calling the latter work very dishonest, he
says "The upshot of this book is, that the Pope alone is invested with
divine authority, and before this Baal of the Jesuits, the majority of
the Council means to bow the knee. Will not that amount to decreeing
the death of the Church? She may lay herself down crying, 'Jesuits,
you have conquered me.'" As a specimen of what bishops even in Council
assembled had come to, he quotes the memorable words of Hergenröther,
"_The bishops have nothing to do but to set the conciliar seal to a
work which the Jesuit Schrader has prepared._"

"Happy bishops," cries the poor theologian, himself tormented by
opinions, and unable to let others believe for him. "Happy bishops!
you may give dinners, see works of art, take your siestas, parade in
pluvial and mitre, for the Jesuit Father has taken care of all the
rest; and, then, setting to the conciliar seal is not hard work! There
is nothing to do but to say _Placet_, and all is over." Much depended
on the interpretation men gave to their oath. Canon Pelletier (_Frond_,
vii. p. 170) says, not unnaturally, that at the moment when the Fathers
prostrated themselves at the feet of the Pope, the majority was formed.
All who understood "obey" in the sense of the Court, would vote what
the Pope told them to vote. But Ginoulhiac, of Grenoble, soon to be
Primate of France, had taken care, beforehand, to protest against such
an interpretation. Though expressing some fear in citing it, he did
cite the language of Bellarmine, to the effect that so free must a
Council be that the bishops, their oath notwithstanding, must not only
say what they think, but must even proceed against the Pope should he
be convicted of heresy.[274] Such language, in the mouth of Bellarmine,
as contrasted with that of Deschamps, Manning, and the other zealots of
infallibility, marks the progress made by the Papal claims in our day.

The General Congregations were resumed on January 8, when two new
Drafts on discipline were distributed. The Congregation of the 10th
was remarkable for striking speeches, and for an unforeseen turn of
the debate. Haynald, Archbishop of Colocza, replied to the few who
had defended the Draft, especially to Martin, and Räss of Strasburg.
He charged them with having attempted to deprive the Fathers even of
the liberty left to them by the Rules, for they had reproached them
for discussing what was laid before them. Did not even the formula at
the head of the Decree, for speaking on which Strossmayer had been
called to order, say, "the Council approving"? which surely implied
that it was open to it to disapprove. Martin had said, We shall say
"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;" But, rejoined Haynald,
though Martin may know that we are to say so, _we_ do not know it.
This speech was described as one of remarkable power, second in that
respect only to the speech of Strossmayer. Cardinal Capalti, one of
the Presidents, listened with outstretched neck, and both hands behind
his ears; but so skilfully was the discourse constructed, that Haynald
escaped being called to order. He was often applauded, especially at
the conclusion. It is said that Cardinal Bilio, who was responsible for
the Draft, being, for a Cardinal, strong in German, knew three words of
it,--_Deutsche_ (German), and _freie Wissenschaft_ (free science). He
leaned back, often repeating, with an inward shudder, _Deutsche, freie
Wissenschaft_.

Bishop Maignan, of Chalons, who followed Haynald, did not mount the
pulpit, but stood before the Presidents. His speech was also spoken of
as having been very striking. He attacked the Draft, especially its
phraseology. What, he asked, was meant by _anima est forma corporis_
(the soul is the _form_ of the body)? The Greek Bishop of Grosswardein
defended the Draft, saying that at first he had doubts, but that the
more he studied it the more he was satisfied. As he had previously
said, in the meeting of German and Hungarian prelates, "I do not like
many dogmas,"[275] when he next appeared among them some one said,
"Greek faith is no faith," and he appeared among them no more. A
Chaldean prelate, Kajat, speaking with a fine, clear voice, said,
"It was scarcely becoming for a General Council to be occupied with
matters so local as the opinions of this or that German professor";
and repeated the unwelcome words, "Free science," as Haynald and
Maignan had done. The debate now seemed as if it might prove very
searching. The minority had strong, if ill-grounded, hopes, but a
new proof of the way in which the Rules played with deliberation was
now sprung upon them. If a free assembly can close a discussion when
it deems it already ample, it can also continue it so long as the
conscience of its members cries out for a hearing. After the speech of
the Bishop of Grosswardein, up rose the President, and said that, in
pursuance of power given in the Rules, of Withdrawing a Draft Decree
when disputed, the Draft should now be withdrawn from the Council,
and should be remitted to the Committee, to be moulded by it. What!
could not the Council go on with its investigation? Had it not control
over a proposition once laid before it? No; the Twenty-four, with the
theologians of the Court, were now in sole possession of the proposed
measure!

Had the Council been free to form itself into a committee, or to
select one from among its own members after this discussion, doubtless
some of the men who had shown that they were capable of sifting the
clauses would have been put upon the committee, beside the few who had
defended the Draft. But that was the very danger which the Nine had
foreseen, and against which they had provided by a permanent committee,
elected before the question was argued. This provision was effective
for its end, reducing the part left to the bishops to that of making
Latin speeches in rows, according to rank and seniority. One other
liberty they had--the momentous one of saying Ay or No. Had not the
Council been weighted with creatures of the Court, that single liberty
might have sufficed to stay the great organic change necessary to the
scheme of reconstruction. We do not know whether the sitting we have
just described[276] is the one of which Quirinus stated that Cardinal
Antonelli withdrew from it much disgusted, saying to a diplomatist that
if the Council went on so it would never have done.

While, therefore, the Curia, disgusted with the bishops, had seen their
perfect work torn to pieces day by day, now the bishops, astounded at
the Curia, saw the future creed shut up in secret even from them!
In its absence, they began on the fourteenth to discuss discipline.
That was a notable day. It witnessed the creation of a new mortal sin.
The _Acta_ do not contain the document by which this was done.[277]
In Councils that were really general, a Christian bishop would have
considered it a duty to tell his clergy and people what he said, and
what he heard others say, about the faith of Christ. But on this day,
Pope Pius IX turned this sacred duty of the bishop into a mortal sin.
Secrecy, the genius of the Papacy, and publicity, the child of light,
now closed for a life and death grapple. Any man of that assembly who
should hereafter tell out of it what passed within it was to be guilty
of mortal sin. The oath imposed before the opening upon the officers,
and the injunctions of secrecy upon the bishops, had not availed.
The step taken by the Pope was a loud acknowledgment that truth had
leaked out. In a surly way this is admitted by the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_.
Shameless journals--_effrontes ephemerides_--had reported, as having
been spoken and done in the Council, things partly true and partly
false. "This had probably arisen from some one or another, who lightly
held the _pontifical secret_, having given information, so taking
upon himself to ignore the dignity of the Apostolic See in treating
ecclesiastical questions."[278] Vitelleschi, Roman as he is, asks,--If
the Council is a supreme assembly, who is entitled to impose this
penalty of mortal sin? Men of the Curia, accustomed to the making of
innocent acts into sins, and of sins into licensed actions, would
not scruple to read such a document in the face of such an assembly.
Such is their state of conscience, that, far from feeling any shame,
probably they would enjoy the idea of the shame and confusion of
conscience which they were inflicting on the bishops. But men brought
up in England and America could sit there, while this new yoke was
fastened upon them, and say not a word! The bishops were really to be
pitied. They were entangled in the creed. Their oath had shut them
in. There is no hint of a protest having been raised by any one. To
speak of these gentlemen in one aspect as citizens of free nations,
and in another aspect as prefects of the Pope, is scarcely any longer
accurate. It is but by a fiction of the frailest sort that men so
tied and bound by the chain of the foreign potentate can be called
citizens. We have seen that the _Civiltá_ holds it as-beneath their
dignity as ambassadors to the citizens elsewhere than in Rome. Still,
professing to be citizens, they were to be pitied. And if they were to
be pitied, still more was human society to be pitied that had to bear
the influence of seven hundred masters of a multitude whose consciences
had come to such a pass. "A bishop," says Quirinus, "who should show a
theologian, whose advice he wanted, a passage from the _schema_ under
discussion, or who should repeat an expression used in one of the
speeches, incurs everlasting damnation.... A Papal theologian whom I
questioned on the subject appealed simply to the statement of Boniface
VIII, that the Pope holds all rights in the shrine of his breast" (p.
164).

Count Daru, who now appears on the political stage in Paris, afforded
some entertainment to Don Margotti, who is to Italy what M. Veuillot
is to France, the leading Papal journalist, having, according to a
saying of the _Français_, more power than all the bishops. According to
Quirinus the redoubtable pair are "the two modern Fathers." Count Daru
said, on January 11, that "our national maxims in matters of religion,
the independence of the civil power, and liberty of conscience, cannot
be menaced." This was child's play to Don Margotti. In his view,
France needed the new Pope-Suzerain almost as much as Italy needed
the restoration of the old Pope-King. Don Margotti[279] contends
that the doctrine of modern parliaments is that they are themselves
infallible. This he proves by a text from Emile Ollivier. That oracle
on one occasion had said "We are justice!" but Don Margotti prefers an
infallible Pope to an infallible people. Menabrea, Sella Minghetti, and
such as they in Italy, according to him, represented God, the State.
Margotti, therefore, looks on the _mot_ of Ollivier as

    providential, for it proves the necessity of an infallible Pope The
    world absolutely needs a permanent and infallible authority; if the
    authority is not the Pope, up starts Ollivier, and ascribes it to
    himself. It is time that infallibility should be defined, that we
    may have no more such absurdities as Ollivier proclaiming "We are
    justice!" Oh, let the dogmatic definition of infallibility speedily
    sound from the heights of the Vatican, and free us from modern
    justice, which calls itself now Baroche, now Ollivier!

Freeing us from modern justice and from M. Emile Ollivier are two
different matters, though it is natural for Don Margotti to hail as
providential an opportunity of treating them as one. The assumption
of infallibility by parliaments is rather a favourite notion of
Jesuit writers. They seem to mean that any authority which will not
acknowledge its subordination to the Vicar of God must claim to be
itself infallible. Yet, we might deem our own Parliament wiser than
the Pope and his Curia, and morally superior, and still not think them
anything more than erring mortals, with infallibility some way off. An
English member of Parliament, repeating the Jesuit oracles, says that
our Parliament claims to be infallible.[280] It would seem that no
assertion of the Jesuits is too ridiculous to be seriously repeated by
their Oxford converts, though many are kept back, but for other reasons
than their absurdity. The decree in which the Parliament does declare
its acts irreformable would be a great curiosity. So would even such an
expression as the following, quoted by Don Margotti (January 18) from
the archbishops and bishops of the province of Vercelli:--

    Most Blessed Father, now and always shall we be found, in obedience
    and reverence to your Holiness, approving, and disapproving,
    whatever you, from your apostolic chair, do approve and disapprove;
    from which chair Jesus Christ Himself speaks in the Holy Spirit to
    the bishops and people of the whole world.

The meeting of the Italian Parliament having been postponed, to give
time to a new ministry to prepare measures, Don Margotti, viewing the
paralysis of the Parliament as a moral effect of the presence of the
Council, said (January 22):--

    The word of Rome imposes silence at Florence, and the Council of
    the Vatican does just as our Lord once did when He closed the mouth
    of the Sadducees. Gentlemen, you have talked enough. Now stand
    still, and hear the great word of God. Your day is past, the day of
    the powers of darkness; and now the days of the Lord will dawn, the
    days of truth and light.

The Address in favour of a definition of the dogma of infallibility
had now become the talk of all. Vitelleschi (p. 85) states that it
was carried round by the Archbishop of Westminster, and the Fathers
of the _Civiltá Cattolica_, as the Jesuits are called who form the
editorial college of the great magazine. A letter, inviting adhesions,
and signed by several bishops, chiefly belonging to the class who had
not any national ties, was circulated with the address. The signatures
to that document itself were headed by the names of Manning, Spalding
of Baltimore, and Senestry. What had been felt from the first was now
openly declared on all hands, although the utterance of it had often
been charged as a great sin upon the Liberal Catholics. We mean, that
the object of the Council was the definition of Papal infallibility,
and that all the rest was manoeuvring. Brief as are the historical
notes in the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ they state that we may almost say that
the whole Council was convened for the sake of the fourth session.[281]

Vitelleschi notes the fact that the citations given in the Address to
prove that earlier Councils had propounded Papal infallibility, were
not apposite. Quirinus says that the Address "bristles with falsehood."
Veuillot, on the other hand, finds its arguments cogent,--indeed,
unanswerable. Vitelleschi remarks that the writers speak with
indifference or contempt of schisms which might arise from the
measures they demanded. Friedrich calls it a compound of untruth and
slander. Veuillot urges that the contradictions to the doctrine had now
reached such a head as rendered its definition absolutely necessary.
Yet all this contradiction had arisen since the personal organ of the
Pope gave the signal for an acclamation.

That liberty of the Church which existed nowhere else upon this sinful
earth, except in Ecuador, did exist in Rome; and, therefore, all other
liberties were secured; that is, the liberty of doing everything not
forbidden by divine authority. But printing in Rome, except by licence,
was forbidden by the authority that never can be in contradiction
to evangelical law. The Address for making that authority into an
infallible one was, however, circulated in print, without _imprimatur_
of any sort. This sign was understood on all hands. It was not to be
mistaken. The divine authority asked for signatures. The canvass for
them was keen.

Vitelleschi relates that the promotors of the Address were charged with
dragging a question forward prematurely, which in the natural course
of things, would have come on for discussion when the prerogatives of
the See of Rome should be considered. To defend themselves, they said
that the step they had taken was sanctioned by the Cardinal Presidents.
This "indiscretion," he proceeds to say, "exposed the Roman Curia
to the reproach of itself begging for its own apotheosis, devoid of
feelings of the simplest propriety." Even the clergy, he thinks, were
disconcerted at this proceeding, except the Jesuits. These were urged
on by a fatality to proclaim "the infallibility of Clement XIV, who
abolished them, and that of Pius IX, who had almost done so too, while
they must find a formula to interpret the judgment of the next Pope who
shall abolish them once more."

This Roman noble accounts for the strange vehemence of Manning on the
ground that he had been a Protestant:--

    He had seen his own religion from within, and not from without;
    and had seen the Catholic religion from without, and not from
    within. In Protestantism he had seen only the infinite internal
    divisions and subdivisions; and in Catholicism he had admired only
    the magnificent effect of its unity. He had not appreciated the
    good results produced by the former, through moderate liberty and
    the constant exercise of private reason and conscience; and he had
    not felt the dangers which, in the latter, flow from excessive
    authority. He is enamoured of authority, as much as the slave is of
    liberty. This want of equilibrium, and of a just Catholic feeling
    in his dealings respecting the Council, was charged against him,
    even by the most faithful and devoted of the clergy in Rome (p. 89;
    Eng. ver., 60).

A counter Address was sent in from German and Hungarian prelates;
one from French, one from Italians, one from Americans, and one from
Orientals. But these, not being in the interest of the Court could not
be printed without a licence, and could not hope to obtain one. Even
Cardinal Rauscher had failed to attain leave to print a short treatise
on the Papal infallibility in Latin, and had to send it to Vienna.[282]
So the Opposition had to dispense with type. Then, what were they to do
with their Address, when complete? The course of their opponents was
clear--they had only to send in theirs to the Commission on Proposals;
and some, in their bitterness, said that that Commission had been
formed for no other purpose than that of receiving and forwarding it.
But these Opposition addresses did not propose anything to be done, but
simply requested the Pope not to have a certain thing proposed. The
bishops had no power to move in the House that the subject should not
be considered, or to move that it should be deferred till the meeting
of the next General Council. Care had been taken that they should not
have "the negative right of proposition" any more than the positive.
Then, what could they do? Nothing whatever, but what they had done
already, namely, petition the Pope. Their former petition, indeed,
had received no answer. Still, that was a request for the recalling
of a _fait accompli_, or, at least, for its modification. This, on
the other hand, was only a request that a thing suggested should not
be done. "Can any more singular relative position be imagined," says
Vitelleschi,[283] "than that of a man who receives a number of people
into his house, with a design of proclaiming his apotheosis, and at the
same time receives from them a pressing supplication to renounce that
honour?"

None of these various Addresses stated that the signers opposed the new
dogma only on the ground of opportuneness. This ought to be carefully
noted. The opposite is now almost always either asserted or assumed;
but the documents have not perished.[284] Such a position was skilfully
avoided. It is quite true that the only grounds, formally stated in all
the Addresses _but one_, are grounds which might be concurred in by men
who objected to making the opinion of Papal infallibility into a dogma,
though they did not object to it as an opinion. But the German Address
was clearly distinguished from the others. It plainly and forcibly
demurred to the principle, though couching its objections in terms
of great courtesy. After alluding to questions of opportuneness, the
German and Hungarian bishops proceed:--

    We cannot pass in silence over the fact that other grave
    difficulties exist, arising out of the _dicta_ and the acts of the
    Fathers of the Church, out of genuine historical documents, and out
    of Catholic doctrine itself, which, unless they can be entirely
    removed, it would be impossible that the doctrine commended in the
    above named address should be propounded to the Christian people as
    being revealed of God. Our spirit recoils from the discussion of
    these difficulties; and, confiding in Thy benevolence, we implore
    that the necessity of such deliberations may not be imposed upon us.

This is signed by men who speak of themselves as "prostrate at thy
feet." This passage, however, stood in the German Address alone. The
others wished to get as many signatures as they could, and perhaps
fancied that they gained ground with the Curia by omitting plain
objections to the principle. The American Address indicated the
existence of differences on the point of principle, by alleging as its
first reason against raising a discussion on infallibility, that such
a discussion would "clearly show a want of union, and especially of
unanimity among the bishops." The German, French, and Italian Addresses
put forward another point, namely, that the dignitaries belonging as
they did to _the most important Catholic nations_, and knowing the
probable effects of the proposed measures, felt that those effects,
even with the best men, would be damaging to the cause of the Church,
and would supply unfriendly ones with occasion for new invasions of
her rights.[285] The German address, as printed in the _Documenta_,
has forty-six signatures, including two Cardinals and the Primate of
Hungary; one American prelate Mrak, of Sault Sainte Marie, in Michigan,
closed the list. The French Address has thirty-eight names, and among
these are three Portuguese prelates and four Orientals. The Italian
Address has seven names, the American twenty-seven--among which two
Irish Sees, Kerry and Dromore, are represented, and a single English
one, Clifton. The Oriental Address has seventeen.[286]

M. Veuillot, speaking of the Opposition Addresses as one whole, said
that of all who had signed it, not two, perhaps not one, was opposed
to infallibility in principle (i. p. 149). Later he had the candour
to attack the bishops for having impugned not only the opportuneness
of the definition, but the doctrine itself (i. p. 180). Archbishop
Manning, however, even after the close of the Council, said, "I have
never been able to hear of five bishops who denied the doctrine of
Papal infallibility."[287] This particular statement is advanced as
evidence of a general one, that the question raised among the bishops
"was a question of prudence, policy, expediency; not of doctrine or
truth." A question not of doctrine or of truth! Forty-six prelates in
a petition expressly directed against Dr. Manning's own Address had
put the question as one not only of prudence, but of revealed truth,
alleging against any attempt to define the dogma three classes of
obstacles--those arising out of Catholic doctrine, out of the _dicta_
and acts of the Fathers, and out of historical documents. Perhaps
we ought, with the forty-six prelates, to say _genuine_ historical
documents. But Englishmen must be forgiven if in their limited
intercourse with the Papacy they have not yet found it necessary to put
labels on such words. The Donations of Constantine, and the Decretals
of the Pseudo-Isidore, are historical documents, and also genuine as
specimens of forgeries.

The fate of the Opposition petition is wrapped in mystery. Who
presented it? how was it received? what became of it? are questions
to which the satisfactory answer must be left to time. Some asserted
that the Pope refused to receive it. Quirinus says that he returned it
(p. 174). M. Veuillot told how it was delivered at the Vatican by an
ordinary messenger, and that a monsignore received it with ordinary
papers. This public affront to two Cardinals and nearly a hundred
and forty bishops was aggravated a few days later by the remark that
it was not yet known whether the monsignore had ever thought well
to deliver the Address. Still later it was said that the Pope being
consulted as to what was to be done with it, said that it might go to
the Commission on Proposals, he intending, personally, to ignore it
(i. p. 202). At a yet later date, January 28, Friedrich learned that
every one being afraid to present it. Cardinal Schwarzenberg sent it
by his chamberlain, who delivered it to Monsignor Ricci, the Pope's
chamberlain. The Pope was excessively angry, and ordered it to be sent
to the Commission.

When M. Veuillot trumpeted forth this example of how to deal with
cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, did he mean to suggest that other
Courts might treat them with like neglect,--Courts to which these
officials hold themselves related as citizens only in an inferior
order, an order which "obliges" them only when the higher order does
not contravene? The documents in question bore the signatures of the
Sees of Prague, Vienna, Munich, Cologne, Mainz; those of Milan and
Turin; those of Paris, Rheims, Orleans, and the principal Sees of
Portugal; those of New York, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Halifax, and St.
John; those of Kerry and Dromore, and of Clifton; and from ancient
countries the signatures of Antioch, Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, and
Seleucia. Not often in the history of manners have titles representing
so many ancient claims and such considerable modern station been
treated with equal discourtesy.

The _Univers_ of January 30[288] said that when the minority thought
that the majority were about to come to a decisive vote, they sent
Bishop Freppel, or some one else, to propose conciliation; but when
reassured, they began their opposition afresh. It further said that
Cardinal Hohenlohe acted in Rome in the interests of his brother, the
Minister, and that his theologian, Friedrich, who had been chosen by
Döllinger, was the writer of the letters in the _Augsburg Gazette_;
that Cardinal Hohenlohe, with Schwarzenberg and Haynald, had succeeded
in making an impression at certain embassies; and that the Austrian
ambassador put the petition against infallibility before bishops, and
asked if they had signed it.

Not content with the far-reaching policy which aimed ultimately at a
cosmopolitan counter-revolution, the party of movement desired to begin
forthwith by a local counter-revolution. Italy was to be reconstituted
as a confederation of four States--the Papal States, Naples, Tuscany,
and Piedmont. This, cries Friedrich, is a new task for a Council,--a
Council called to make a revolution![289] But the bishops knew more of
the world than the Curia.

Party spirit now ran high. Those who had adopted the tactics of
opposing infallibility only on the ground of opportuneness, while
they really objected on principle, found that they had gained nothing
in point of conciliation, and had lost almost everything in point
of moral power. How could ordinary consciences understand a man
who admitted, or seemed to admit, that a doctrine, affecting the
representative of God on earth, was true, and yet denied that it
ought to be proclaimed? Compared with this position, that of the Pope
was bold sensible and Christian. "We must never fear to proclaim the
truth or to condemn error." Many, as well as Dupanloup, who first
departed from the false line that he had seemed to mark out, found that
they must object to the principle. Even if they had not previously
studied the question at all, the glaring attempts now made to palm off
admissions of primacy for assertions of infallibility opened their
eyes. An ex-Anglican like Manning might easily accept that or grosser
fallacies, but others had been taught to distinguish. The party of
movement, on the other hand, raised a cry for action, which swelled
higher at every sign of opposition. Their allegations are briefly
expressed by Sambin (p. 105):--

    Pontifical infallibility is the sign to be spoken against. If it
    is defined, the question is near to its settlement. The Catholic
    social Liberalism of France, and the scientific Liberalism of
    Germany, are indeed menaced. It is, therefore, a question of life
    or death for Liberalism, as for Gallicanism and Febronianism.

The opposition to "the divine prerogatives of the Pontiff," says this
author,[290] "had now become so pronounced that it was necessary to
act."[291] Saviours of society always come to that point on the eve of
the _coup d'état_.

M. Veuillot, who had long endeavoured to smother the opposition by
asserting that no opposition existed, now declared that the opposition
was so grave that it made the proposed definition a necessity. Quirinus
says that the Address in favour of infallibility owes its preponderance
of signatures principally to the three hundred _boarders_ and the South
Americans, while the counter-address represents "the overwhelming
predominance in numbers of souls, in intelligence, and in national
importance" (p. 173). One topic of constant complaint on the part of
the Opposition was the disproportionate number of bishops to people in
Italy as compared with other nations. For the seven hundred thousand
people then in the Papal States there were sixty-two bishops, while
for the twelve million Catholics of Germany there were fourteen. One
million seven hundred thousand in the diocese of Breslau had but a
single prelate, and he was not placed on any committee whatever. The
nine millions of ignorant and superstitious people in Naples and
Sicily had no less than sixty-eight bishops. On the other side of this
question, M. Veuillot played off the name of London. If Paris and
Vienna, Munich and Lyons, Milan and Turin, were on the wrong side, the
Archbishop of London was on the right one.

Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore, issued a project for a decree which,
without formally defining the dogma of infallibility, should bind all
to an interior assent to the infallibility of Papal decrees in faith
or morals. He pointed out the evils attendant on a formal definition,
and that in a manner which afterwards enlivened the controversy between
Dupanloup, Deschamps, and himself. The work wherewith Deschamps
regaled his Christmas Day was that of proposing no less than ten
_anathemas_;[292] for if the Fathers could not propose things in
Council, they could send a suggestion to the committee. Ten new
anathemas dated expressly on the Nativity of our Lord by a Christian
bishop! That day Reisach died.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 272: "A French prelate, commenting upon the text of this
discourse, sneered at the simpletons who allowed themselves to be led
by a one-eyed man (_un borgne_). It is well known that the Bishop of
Orleans has lost an eye by study."--_Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_,
quoting the _Moniteur_ of March 24.]

[Footnote 273: We quote from the _Cologne Gazette_, April 4, 1874,
which, quoting the _Presse_, says, "The Count will remember the walks
in the gloaming, and another by the baths of Diocletian, and so will be
able to tell where the letters come from."]

[Footnote 274: _Le Concile, etc._, par Mgr. L'Evêque de Grenoble.
Paris, 1869.]

[Footnote 275: How strong this language was considered in Rome may
be judged from what the _Civiltá_ said of the Minister of Public
Instruction, Signor Bonghi: "In the sitting of May 14, 1873, Bonghi,
then a private member, dared to say, blaspheming like a true son of
Lucifer, 'The Catholic Church has multiplied her dogmas too much'" (IX
ix. 242).]

[Footnote 276: We have taken the outline of this sitting from the _Acta
Sanctæ Sedis_, and in the filling up we have principally followed
Friedrich.]

[Footnote 277: The Freiburg edition does, p. 162; also _Guérin_, p.
113; _Friedberg_, p. 461; and the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, v. p. 337.]

[Footnote 278: V. p. 337.]

[Footnote 279: _Unitá Cattolica_, January 16.]

[Footnote 280: _Contemporary Review_, February 1876.]

[Footnote 281: Vol. vi. p. 3: "Cujus causa quasi diceres concilium
ipsum, tanta episcoporum frequentia, fuisse convocatum."]

[Footnote 282: _Tagebuch_, p. 108.]

[Footnote 283: P. 91; Eng. ver. 61.]

[Footnote 284: _Documenta_, i. 250 ff.; _Friedberg_, 473 ff.]

[Footnote 285: _Documenta ad Illustrandum_, i. p. 251.]

[Footnote 286: Bishop Martin's _Collectio Documentorum_ gives nearly
the same numbers, but seems to omit the American Address. It give
Schwarzenberg's note fixing the sum at 136. Dupanloup frequently calls
it 140. See his reply to Deschamps.]

[Footnote 287: _Priv. Pet._, iii. p. 27.]

[Footnote 288: Quoted _Tagebuch_, p. 155.]

[Footnote 289: _Tagebuch_, p. 155.]

[Footnote 290: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 291: P. 112.]

[Footnote 292: _Martin's Collection_, p. 91.]




CHAPTER VII

Matters of Discipline--Remarks of Friedrich on the Morals of the
Clergy--Also on the War against Modern Constitutions--Morality of
recent Jesuit Teaching--Darboy's Speech--Melcher's Speech--A Dinner
Party of Fallibilists--One of Infallibilists--Gratry--Debate on the
Morals of the Clergy.


The Draft Decrees on discipline now in the hands of the bishops
affected their remaining rights. It had taken three hundred years to
develop the practical effects of the legislation of Trent in curtailing
those rights. Paolo Sarpi may say that the prelates entered Trent as
bishops and left it as parsons; but it was long before new regulations
had worn down old procedure so far that an Archbishop of Paris, for
instance, could be treated in the manner in which we have seen Darboy
treated. The bishops, however, now feared, says Vitelleschi, lest their
office should be further mutilated.

According to Friedrich (p. 88), when, at one of the first meetings of
the German and Hungarian prelates, Strossmayer said that the matter
before them was the resignation of their collective rights and the
centring of the whole in the hands of the Pope, he was ridiculed;
but when he repeated that statement, on Saturday, January 8, it was
received with universal assent. On the other hand, Roman ecclesiastics
were alarmed at the pretensions of the bishops. Two Dominicans begged
Cardinal Hohenlohe to use his influence to prevent the Germans from
speaking as extravagantly as the French. "It is really frightful,"
they said; "what is to become of Rome? These bishops want spiritual
decentralization." Friedrich now thinks that he begins to see what is
the religious principle of the Roman clergy--domination, as a means of
existence. The bearing of this remark on spiritual decentralization
rests on the fact that spiritual causes referred to Rome bring money
to the bureaux, and the bureaucracy are the clergy.

The professional observations of Friedrich on the Drafts touching
discipline give insight into certain interior aspects of Romanism,
which affect not only its own condition, but, through it, affect all
society. We therefore let him speak directly (p. 89 ff.)--

    The first chapter on the Office of a Bishop closes so abruptly
    that only at the end is it said that bishops must be examples for
    the flock. It is, however, praiseworthy that they are told to
    take the lead of the faithful even in knowledge. Alas for this
    pious wish: It will be as it has been! Further on, the words "let
    ecclesiastical discipline be maintained" strike the eye, and that
    in respect of the _mulieres subintroductæ_, or γυναἱκες σονεἱσακτοι, in
    which character the parsonage cooks appear. This
    regulation is the most insulting imaginable; the most degrading
    for the parish priest, the most lowering and humiliating for the
    curates; altogether a dark spot in Church life. No regulation
    stands in such glaring contrast with Canons and Councils. It is a
    great offence against Christian morality, by which it is forbidden
    that any one should be placed in proximate occasion of sin; but
    in this manner the independence of a clergyman, and the placing
    of him in proximate occasion of sin, are connected together. The
    Fathers of the Council must themselves say whether this is or is
    not the greatest of cankers in the life of the clergy. They can
    tell whether it is necessary to direct the attention of the Council
    to this sore spot. One of the Fathers of the Council himself told
    me that he once spent a night in a parsonage where the rural dean
    (Dechant) and the cook were parents of both curates. It is said
    in the Draft, _De vita et honestate clericorum_: "If a clergyman,
    unmindful of his own dignity, is given to immodest defilements or
    to impure concubinage, or dares either in his house or elsewhere
    to have a woman of whom suspicion may be entertained, or to seek
    her company, let him be proceeded against, with the penalties
    prescribed by the sacred Canons, especially by the Council of
    Trent, and that without noise or the forms of a trial, only by
    simple inquiry into the truth of the facts." But what will this
    avail? Those directions have long existed, yet things go on as of
    old, and any such directions must necessarily be insufficient. Why
    is not the regulation of the ancient Church once more taken up, and
    carried through with a firm hand, according to which every woman,
    except nearest relations, was suspected, and was not to be admitted
    to the house of a clergyman? If our Church-princes of to-day
    will not return to the old regulation, which indeed sufficed not
    to hinder all excesses, and if they are incapable of finding new
    and better ones, it would be preferable, at all events, and would
    involve less responsibility for them, if they allowed their clergy
    to marry outright rather than give them up to arrangements which
    place their reputation in so ambiguous a light. The fact that this
    subject had to be brought forward here in its regular place is sad
    enough, and should be taken as proof that we cannot go on in the
    present way. Has it not already come to this, in certain dioceses,
    that the bishops find themselves obliged to hush up, rather than to
    punish?

    Further on, in the same chapter, it is said, "While they preach
    to the people due reverence and obedience towards the powers of
    this world, let them all with one mind and heart, taking counsel
    together and uniting their deliberations and strength, earnestly
    maintain the rights of the Church and of this Holy See, so that
    their common guard and defence may more perfectly assure the
    interests of the common cause; but let them admit of nothing
    which will lower the honour and dignity of their rank, and let
    them keep the admonitions of the Council of Trent on this point
    under their eye." These sentences are doubtless well meant; but,
    practically, will be without result. Nothing is gained by such
    general propositions. This being self-evident, nothing should be
    said in Decrees of a Council beyond the laying down of positive
    directions. The conclusion of the chapter is vague, but, perhaps,
    very dangerous. "We require princes and magistrates to cover and
    protect the sacred chief pastors (antistites) and ministers of
    the Church, and their most excellent work, with their powerful
    patronage and defence, _that due honour, respect, and obedience
    may be paid by all to the ecclesiastical authority_. Knowing that
    bishops promote not only the cause of the Church, but also that
    of their nations, and that above all the boldness and wickedness
    of men who perversely seek to mislead minds and corrupt manners
    may be restrained and constrained by them in the exercise of their
    pastoral office."

    First of all, what is meant here by most excellent or highest work
    (_optimum operant_)? who are included in _by all_ (_ab omnibus_)?
    Not only is honour to be paid to the spiritual authority by all,
    but obedience. According to the notes, _by all_ includes princes
    and nations; that by the Council princes and nations may be moved
    to venerate the sacred pastors, and to render them obedience
    and reverence. Are we to understand that the unbelievers and
    misbelievers in a State are to pay obedience to the bishops? Does
    this wrap up the mediæval notion that heretics after all are under
    the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, as Bishop Martin lately
    gave himself out as the bishop of the heretics in his diocese?
    Also that unbelievers have no moral right of existence, and so on?
    And what is meant by the concluding words? Do they imply that the
    bishops have a right of interfering with the freedom of the press,
    of belief, and of conscience as granted by modern constitutions? A
    General Council should speak clearly and definitely.[293]

    But who would have believed that in the second chapter on the
    Residence of Bishops a condemnation of the constitutional usages
    of modern times should be attempted, even indirectly? It provides
    that bishops must not be absent from their sees more than two,
    or at the utmost three, months in a year, whether continuously
    or at intervals. Such absence cannot be allowed even for causes
    otherwise admitted as lawful--_alias jure admissis_--except by
    express permission of the Pope, or, in the United Greek Churches
    without the permission of the Patriarch. One is here compelled
    to ask, Could not those cases have been foreseen in which seats
    in Upper Houses are permanently connected with many bishoprics.
    Why this needless increase of requests for dispensation? But,
    according to the _Civiltá Cattolica_, it is only as compelled by
    existing circumstances that bishops can properly take part in the
    objectionable constitutional life. It is said in the notes that the
    necessity of an express apostolic permission is to be remembered
    as being even now required by the constitution of Boniface
    VIII--_Sancta synodus_--even if there exists one of the four
    grounds of absence admitted as legitimate by the Council of Trent
    in its twenty-third session. These four grounds were, visiting the
    thresholds of the apostles (_i.e._ Rome), attending provincial
    synods, attending a General Assembly in which ecclesiastics
    are wont to sit, or discharging an office or duty to the State
    connected with the Churches themselves. But (says the note) because
    the Decrees of Urban VIII contemplate assemblies of a kind which do
    not at present exist, mention of this as a just cause of absence
    was omitted in the Decree, in which also was omitted, for a similar
    reason, mention of discharging an office or duty to the State.
    Thus the Chambers which have taken the place of those ancient
    assemblies do not exist for the Curia, or it feels bound to ignore
    them--quite in harmony with Jesuit fantasies. Should the session of
    the Chamber last more than three months, those Bavarian bishops who
    are members of the Reichsrath would require an express permission
    from the Pope to fulfil their duty to the State. They might receive
    from the Pope a prohibition against staying any longer at the
    Reichsrath and fulfilling their obligations as citizens. Very
    edifying for our governments and States! They, however, would know
    how to help themselves, and would simply withdraw such a seat from
    the bishop.

Friedrich then dwells on the new contrivance of centralization by
which every metropolitan is ordered, before publishing the acts of a
Provincial Synod, to send them to Rome. The Curia is not to give them
any formal approbation, but to _correct them_, should anything seem
to call for correction. After this they are to be issued as the acts
of the Provincial Synod. To execute this feat of shaping provincial
decrees within the chambers of the Curia, Pius IX had appointed a
new Board or Congregation. Friedrich calls this a new censorship.
That would appear to mean that whereas formerly only private authors
required an _imprimatur_, now even the collective episcopate of a
province requires one. It would, however, seem to involve more than a
censorship, because the new matter inserted in Rome has to go before
the world under the provincial names. Authors were not compelled
to father the corrections of the censor. They could leave the work
unpublished.

That sense of impending danger to the Church which, of late years,
had weighed on many Catholics, arose not a little from the moral
teaching of the Jesuits, whose influence, under the smile of the
Pope, they saw gradually rising. Out of regard for the honour of the
Church, many Roman Catholics suppressed the horror they felt at what
they discovered in the books of the Jesuits. Only those who have read
some books--those which reflect the modern phases of their moral
teaching--can appreciate the weight that must have lain on the hearts
of some good men when striving to uphold before their imagination the
Church as the perfection of beauty. Among the disciples of the Church
of Rome are many who hold close to the Christian side of her theology,
and seem to forget its Pagan side; many who avoid what is material in
her cult, and, by aid of that same theology, cherish spiritual worship;
many who turn to the noble morals of the Gospel, from the lower and
ever deteriorating morals of the schools; and many to whom the secular
spirit of the Papacy and the earthly empire aimed at by the Jesuits are
repugnant.

Friedrich learned, in Rome, that those who confess to the Jesuits are
not to be trusted. Any one who will read even one hundred pages out
of the seven hundred of Gury's _Casus Conscientiæ_ would not think of
trusting--would only think of pitying any creature into whose head
the principles of that bad book had been put. Friedrich evidently
does not repeat any light talk when he says that he heard it stated,
upon good authority, that the Jesuits in Rome were in the habit of
employing women as lures to procure the overthrow of men who stood in
their way, which women would then return to the Jesuit confessionals as
penitent Magdalenes; and this, he adds, the Pope knows right well. When
Vitelleschi speaks of the evils arising from severity against errors of
the intellect, and indulgence to errors of the will, he means what we
should describe as strictness as to Papal principles, and laxity as to
moral practices.

According to Vitelleschi, Darboy had only to stretch out his hand to
take a Cardinal's hat. The impression that this was the case, and
the terms on which he was known to stand with the Curia, gave great
interest to his first appearance in the desk, which took place on
January 19. How gladly would the Curia have seen him stretch forth his
hand in the direction where the hat hung; but no, he reached it out in
that direction where he had only reproaches to gather.[294]

    We are told that we are not to make long speeches, but I have a
    great deal to say. We are told again not to repeat what has been
    said by others; but at the same time we are kept shut up in this
    Hall, where for the most part we cannot understand one another;
    we are not allowed to examine the stenographic reports of our
    speeches, and the only answer made to our representations is always
    the same, "The Pope wills it." I do not know, therefore, what has
    been said by the speakers who have preceded me.

He then went on to speak of the rights of the bishops, of their
degradation by the Roman centralizing system, of "the caves wherein the
Roman doctors have buried themselves from the light of day," etc. Two
sayings are ascribed to him after this speech. The first, "Like Condé,
I have thrown my marshal's baton into the midst of the enemy;" and the
second, "This Hall is deaf, dumb, and blind." Hard as it was for the
Curia to listen to Darboy, with his diocese of two millions of nominal
Catholics, it is said that they were even more pained by the language
of Melchers of Cologne, whose diocese counted one million, and from
whom animadversions were not expected. The fear of the French troops
forsaking Rome saved the Archbishop of Paris from the tinkling of the
mystic bell; but it arrested the metropolitan of the Rhine Province.

Melchers strongly objected to the increase of centralization in
Rome, and advocated decentralization. He declared that, as now
employed, dispensations from Rome were not necessary. Cardinal De Luca
interrupted him, and told him that he was not speaking to the point,
and that he must send his proposals to the Commission. He replied that
he had sent his proposals to Rome long ago, and had received no answer;
and then proceeded with his speech. An attack on centralization and on
dispensations, from such a prelate, was a practical matter in Rome, as
much as in Manchester would be a movement to cut off all the customers
in some great county.

On January 23 and 24, Cardinal Hohenlohe gave two dinner parties--the
first to Fallibilists, and the second to Infallibilists. At the former,
Hefele, who now reappears on the scene, no longer as theologian, but as
Bishop of Rottenburg, complained that he had lost the important sitting
of that morning through an order from Cardinal Antonelli to attend
the baptism of a child of the ex-Duke of Parma, which eleven other
prelates who like him had apartments in the Quirinal were also obliged
to attend, and at which six Cardinals gave their presence.

Archbishop Melchers of Cologne did not flatter Friedrich by telling
him, what he already knew, that his Grace had forbidden his theological
students to go to the faculty at Munich. His Grace, says Friedrich,
did know the name of Döllinger, but not that of Reithmayer; and as to
those of the younger professors, not the name of one. The Archbishop of
Munich was not able to resist the temptation of telling Friedrich, as
a good story, that when the bishops at Fulda, in the previous autumn,
spoke of recommending Friedrich's Church History to the clergy, as a
work which they ought to procure, his Grace of Cologne confessed that
he did not know the name of the book. The pendant which the author
archly hangs to this tale is, that when the copy of that work which he
had presented to his Grace of Munich fell, after some years, again into
his hands, it had never been opened.

Bishop Förster of Breslau mentioned how Ketteler was going to propose,
in the meeting of German and Hungarian prelates, that they should
disavow the letters in the _Augsburg Gazette_; but, said Förster, we
stand too high, and besides, the letters contain too many truths. Some
one at table threw out the idea that the best thing to be done would
be to give the Drafts of Decrees to the bishops, and let them go home
and study them for a year or two, and then return and discuss them.
They had come to Rome without books. Points of the greatest gravity in
doctrine and discipline were laid before them for decision, and, as
every one knew, it was difficult to find help in the libraries of Rome.
Even that of the Vatican was closed, not only upon every holy day, but
also on all those days on which General Congregations were held. The
bishops were not allowed to take either books or manuscripts out of
the libraries; still more, both in the Vatican library and the Vatican
archives, the order had been given that nothing bearing on the Council
should be delivered to them. Their regret at this was lessened by the
discovery that the libraries contained scarcely any modern theological
works, especially German ones. In his day, Addison remarked that
books were not the attractions you went to see in an Italian library.
But, of recent years, a real library of books, in addition to the old
celebrated one of manuscripts, had been added at the Vatican. It was
not catalogued, and was not open to the public. Some one in the company
stated that it was now understood that theologians were to be brought
into the Council in order to defend the Drafts of Decrees. So far as
the _Theologi Minores_, or doctors, were concerned, Friedrich thought
this improbable; and as to the higher theologians, or bishops, he
wondered who they were to be. Can any one fancy, he said, such a man as
Senestrey being treated as a theologian? At Trent, with the ideas then
prevailing of what constituted a theologian, he would not have been
dreamed of; but he passes in Rome as learned because he is a pupil and
a favourite of the Jesuits; and by their standard, indeed, adds his
countryman, he may even pass as holy, understanding so well as he does
the principle that the end sanctifies the means.

As to what Friedrich next relates, we can only say that the ascertained
fact for history, in her present stage, is that the following are
things which a learned professor, with a position and character to take
care of, deliberately publishes, things which the gravest men receive.
Friedrich relates how when Senestrey was seeking the bishopric, King
Maximilian II was in Rome, and often visited Theiner, whose fame all
Germans prized. His rooms in the Vatican, off the _Via dei Giardini
Pontificali_, well known to scholars, are often pointed out to visitors
going up towards the sculpture gallery by the present circuitous
approach. Here the royal visitor would chat with the learned Prefect
of the Archives, and enjoy the landscape. At that time Theiner had no
better friend than Senestrey, who, knowing that Theiner was in bad
odour with the Jesuits, showed himself very hostile to them, so that
even his experienced friend confessed to Friedrich that he had allowed
himself to be deceived. This Roman tale is followed by a Bavarian one.
A person well acquainted with official circles told Friedrich that
Senestrey actually offered his services to the government, saying
that if appointed bishop, in case the other prelates ever entertained
anything disagreeable to the government, he would give information and
do everything to counterwork them. In January, 1872, Friedrich heard
Senestrey named in a company where one was present who had been a
companion of King Maximilian II on his journey to Rome, and who broke
out saying--

    Yes, that man talked so much in Rome to King Maximilian II and his
    suite against the Jesuits and against the misgovernment of Rome,
    that the King said, That is the right man! He must be the bishop!

No sooner was he in the bishopric than it proved that the king had lost
his subject, the government its supporter, Theiner his friend, and that
the whole of Senestrey belonged to the Jesuits.

The company of the second day, January 24, consisted of Infallibilists.
Before dinner Friedrich was introduced to Senestrey, who looking at
him, said roughly, "So you are Professor Friedrich," and turned his
back. At table Ketteler broke out in loud denunciation of the letters
of Quirinus. This Friedrich knew was meant for him, for although the
bishop has since then laid the sin at the door of Lord Acton, he
seems at that time to have suspected Friedrich. He blamed a statement
that a certain piece of distinctive attire, not worn by any other
bishop in the West, had been granted to Bishop Lavigerie of Algiers
to adorn his shoulders, as a means of winning his vote; as if, said
Ketteler, the whole episcopate was to be bought by a bit of dress! We
do not remember that Quirinus said that they were all to be bought
by it. Our impression is that he only said something to the effect
that it was incredible how far that sort of thing did go with them.
Considering their training and habits, with us the thing incredible
would be that things of that sort should not go far with them. And
their constant study is to make things of that sort go far with all
mankind. But the sally of Ketteler was responded to by the Military
Bishop of Prussia, Namszanowski, who might be supposed to be even more
than others susceptible of colour and decoration. He, evidently not
being well read in Quirinus, missed the point of Ketteler's protest,
and said, "Quite right, brother of Mainz. The same offer was made
to me just at the outset, but I repelled such an imputation with
contempt." This luckless reply probably made Friedrich think of his own
visit from the much-vested Count Prelate W----. The eye of Ketteler
flashed. Friedrich, who sat next to Namszanowski, hinted that he had
missed the point of Bishop Ketteler, who ranted on--_tobte weiter_.
When he had finished his tirade he looked Friedrich in the eye, as
if to see whether he was not well abashed. "But I had no occasion
to fear Ketteler, and looked him in the eye quite as sharply." Just
after coffee the voice of Ketteler made the room ring,--"The chief
advantage of the Council so far is, that the bishops learn to know one
another, and to compare experience. For in his own diocese, of course,
a bishop never hears the truth from his clergy, in consequence of his
immeasurably higher jurisdiction." Friedrich, being the only priest
present, said to Namszanowski, "Ketteler must lead a pretty regiment,
when his clergy dare not tell him the truth. Any one who wants to
hear the truth, and can bear to hear it, will hear it." He added that
were it not for the impropriety of provoking a scene in the house of
Cardinal Hohenlohe, he would indignantly repel this insult to the whole
of the lower clergy. None of the bishops intimated any dissent from the
view of Ketteler, while Senestrey, and Leonrod of Eichstädt, simpered
approbation. But here Friedrich inserts a note saying, Time has shown
that Ketteler knew the lower clergy better than I did.

Just at this time came another token that the content or indifference
with which the Roman Catholic world watched the impending change in
its Church and creed was broken in exceptional cases. An accomplished
French oratorian, a member of the Academy, Father Gratry, published a
letter on January 18, which in almost any other country than France,
coming from such a man on such a subject, at such a moment, would have
caused, not a passing talk, but a profound impression. All the abuse
was no longer for Döllinger and Montalembert. Father Gratry had a
share allotted to him, sufficient to prove his importance. "Does God
need your lies?" was a question he repeated with solemnity, as he
dwelt on the false decretals and on the falsifications even of the
breviary. His French clearness and point sent these reproaches home so
as to be extremely cutting. It seemed as if accusing "the Church" of
lying and forgery was a sin not to be forgiven. Few things were more
discouraging for those who hoped that moral ground still remained for
a reformation within the Church of Rome, than the perfect ease with
which the benefits of the lying and the forgery were accepted, and the
fury with which the crime of mentioning those incidents was denounced.
"False decretals as much as you like," said Veuillot, "but the sense of
the false decretals is the faith of the Church";[295] so, if God had
not needed the lies the Church had assimilated them. Father Gratry,
said the _Civiltá_, never tires of calling the school which teaches
pontifical infallibility, a school of error. Does he know where that
school has fixed its abode, and holds its chair? If he does not know,
we shall tell him. "Its home is Rome, its chair is that of the Roman
Pontiff, is that of St. Peter."[296] Father Hyacinth said, at a later
time, "God never has need of lies, but lies often have need of God,
and they are never so powerful as when they present themselves in His
name."[297]

Still, the weight of wrath continued to fall upon the original
offender. The _Unitá Cattolica_ of January 25, in the letter of its
Munich correspondent, called Döllinger a bag of wind and a whited
sepulchre, and suggested that the Archbishop of Munich should prohibit
theological students from attending his classes. The _Unitá_ shows that
Dr. Döllinger in his works "has always hidden a rebellious spirit under
a learning which was often that of a charlatan."

In the General Congregation of the 21st, as the Cyprian Archbishop who
said Mass used the Oriental rite, the Fathers would have been unable
to follow, but the Master of the Ceremonies, lifting up his voice,
gave a signal for each important movement.[298] In the Congregation of
the Monday, Strossmayer spoke for an hour and a quarter (_Tagebuch_,
p. 133). He insisted that reform was called for, and reform from the
Pope downwards, and moreover that the whole of the canon law should
be reformed. On the following Tuesday, this last proposition was
supported by the Bishop of Saluzzo. On the same day, a speaker not
named regretted that the word "concubinage" should have been used,
as it gave occasion to the world to say that celibacy was a failure.
Friedrich, while vehemently sharing this regret, admits that no means
were suggested for doing away with concubinage or immorality. The
Curia, however, could not be blamed for the scandal caused by the
discussion on this matter of discipline. No one of the official organs
ever breathed a word on the subject. Monsignor Guérin, whose history,
says the preface to the second edition, reproduces the Council entire,
might never have heard of this subject, and the same is the case with
Sambin. The _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, even in Latin, are equally reserved.
The title of the Draft Decree on the general subject of the life of the
clergy is mentioned in _Frond_. Henceforth we cease to be able to check
the statements of the unauthorized writers by those of the _Acta Sanctæ
Sedis_ as to the names of those who spoke on given days. That amount
of information was no more afforded. One day the record was that five
spoke, another seven, and so forth. Who the speakers were, what they
spoke upon, what they said about it, were matters swallowed up in the
pontifical secret.

On the same day, the challenge to the College of Cardinals to reform
itself was taken up by Cardinal Di Pietro, who admitted that such a
demand might have been reasonable at Trent, at which time the Cardinals
held many pluralities, but at the present day it was groundless. The
only reform now called for was a financial one, as the revenue of the
Cardinals was not adequate. He told the Fathers that if they only knew
all, the Cardinals were not to be envied. This even Friedrich admits,
saying that not once during the Council had the Pope summoned them to
hear their opinions.

On January 27, Simor, Primate of Hungary, spoke on the life of the
clergy, and recommended the "common life." Martin of Paderborn also
advised that the cooks[299] should be superseded, and that "common
life" should be resorted to. Martin had appealed to Cardinal Hohenlohe
to support him in a proposal that Protestant clergymen who wanted to
join the Church of Rome should have both marriage and the cup in the
Lord's Supper conceded to them. Verot, Bishop of Savannah, spoke on
the breviary. He urged revision, stating that he durst not, without
subjecting himself to condemnation, say what was in the breviary from
Augustine. Hereupon the bell of Cardinal De Angelis rang loudly, and
Verot was told that the Fathers could not be spoken of in that manner.
As we understand Verot, he had not found fault with the Fathers. The
sons would not allow one another to say what the fathers had said. The
American waited a moment, went on, and said the same thing of Gregory
the Great. Now came a second call to order, and he was told that if
he would not speak on another subject, he must leave the desk. So,
after a few words more, he did leave it (_Tagebuch_, p. 138). The
Prince Archbishop of Olmütz asked if the Primate of Hungary was ready
to lead the "common life" with the canons of his chapter, adding that
he should not object to lead it with his own chapter, but he feared
that the canons of Olmütz would object. The following day, Melchers of
Cologne supported the views of Verot as to the breviary. He censured
the proposal to introduce lay brothers into the parsonages instead of
the cooks. It would be better it the latter could be altogether got
rid of; but as that was scarcely to be expected, it would be well to
require that they should be fifty years of age, or at least forty. On
January 31, Bishop Dinkel of Augsburg is said to have spoken against
concubinage in the strict sense, but allowing it to the clergy in a
wider sense.[300]

Perhaps, as, about the middle of January, men in the _Englisher
Garten_, or Park, of Munich, lifted their hats to the Provost as he
took his afternoon walks, they might fancy that the spare figure
was weighted with rather more than a scholar's gravity. Neither the
passing carriages, nor the race _of Isar rolling rapidly_; neither the
fine effects of the westering sun behind the steeples of the city,
nor the pleasant view from the brow beyond the river, could fix the
old man's well-lighted eye. That eye was then watching the process
which was putting the faith and labour of seventy years to a cruel
test. The Church he had toiled to rehabilitate before the intellect
of the Fatherland, striving, by letters, to connect her more firmly
with the past, and to equip her more nobly for the future, had been
cast into the cauldron. The very basis of dogma was to be changed. A
new standard was to be set up. The adoption of that standard would
change the relation of the Church to the Bible and to the Fathers, to
General Councils and to the Episcopate, to the people and the king, to
letters and all lights, to liberties, constitutions, and every human
hope. Principles which had been charged upon them by Protestants, and
which they had resented, saying that the accusers confounded opinion
with dogma, were now lifting their heads in a General Council. He had
striven in silence to avert the evil without raising a conflict of
persons or names. But now the Infallibilists felt their conscience
oppressed by having to recognize him, and those like-minded with him,
as Catholics. They could not enjoy the fulness of their own belief as
long as the Church tolerated his creed. And the Infallibilists were the
Pope, the Curia, the Jesuits, and the majority of the bishops, at least
of the nominal ones. If there was yet a hope, it rested in the strong
help which God often gives to the effort of one self-risking man. The
moment was come either to run all hazards and trust to that blessing,
or to float down the stream like one of those winter leaves on the Isar.

It was on January 19, just when Gratry was issuing the first of his
letters, and when Darboy threw his marshal's baton into the midst
of the enemy, that in the quiet house in Von der Tann Street, the
formidable name of Döllinger was signed to a protest against the
Infallibilist Address. Through the _Augsburg Gazette_, this presently
rang all over Germany, and a little later echoed in every corner of
Europe. "One hundred and eighty millions of human beings are to be
compelled by threats of exclusion from the Church, of privation of
the sacraments, and of eternal damnation, to believe and profess
what hitherto the Church has never believed or taught." So began an
appeal destined to elicit proof that large numbers of educated Roman
Catholics, under all their external quiet, were agitated; and that at
the same time the masses, whatever little opinions they might have,
were as to action completely under the dominion of the priests.[301]

It was now that Dupanloup wrote a letter to Deschamps, Archbishop of
Malines. Two days after the opening session, Deschamps had published
a reply to the famous pastoral of Dupanloup. It was at once inserted
in the journals of Belgium, France, and Italy. Dupanloup, who had in
France professed to expect in Rome profound tranquillity, found himself
sharply attacked. He had warily reserved the merits of the question for
argument in the secret ear of the Council, treating before the public
only its accidents. But, cried Deschamps, you have pointed out the
difficulties of a definition: how could you have the courage to do so?

When the brilliant Bishop of Orleans was ready for the press, he found
that the press was in good keeping.

    Father Spada [the censor] told me that an _imprimatur_ was
    necessary, and at the same time said that such an _imprimatur_
    would be refused to me. Perhaps, Monsignor, you probably will think
    with me that, in these circumstances, all discussion between us is
    impossible; and you will feel it natural that I should preserve
    the silence befitting the position in which we are placed.[302]

The French thus saw their own prelates, under their own flag, deprived
of the right to defend opinions identified with their national history.
This fired Gratry, and added fresh bitters to the cup of the dying
Montalembert.

Quirinus says (p. 201)--

    The word "freedom" has nowhere so ill a sound as at Rome. Only one
    kind of freedom can be spoken of here--freedom of the Church; and,
    in their favourite and accustomed manner of speech, by the Church
    is intended the Pope; and by freedom, dominion over the State,
    according to the Decretals.

Some weeks later, Dupanloup did print his reply in Paris.[303] You, he
said to Deschamps, ask how I could have the courage to point to the
historical difficulties of a definition of infallibility; but, my dear
Lord, I ask you, how you can have the courage to close your eyes to
them? Repelling the idea of acclamation, and insisting on a thorough
sifting of the matter, he says, and the emphases are his own--

    The Church in an act so solemn, one which she never recalls, ONE
    WHICH PLEDGES HER FOR EVER, ONE WHICH, UNDER PAIN OF ANATHEMA AND
    OF DAMNATION ETERNAL, IS LAID UPON THE FAITH OF ALL SOULS FOR
    ALL AGES, does not proceed inconsiderately, or without having
    elucidated all obscurities and difficulties (p. 8).... As to the
    truth of the doctrine, I reserve the discussion of that for the
    Council itself, in case the question is brought on (p. 9).... You
    belong not to that deplorable school of apologists who fancy that
    they are defending religion when they make history lie (p. 15).

He shows how even Spalding and his associates in their proposal for
a method of establishing belief in infallibility different from an
express definition, said that such a definition would

    extend its effects to all past centuries, would revive all the
    disputes heretofore allayed, would afford to Protestant and to
    rationalistic science a new battle-field, and would open up to
    the enemies, of the Church a discussion upon the whole field of
    history, and the whole of the collection of Papal Bulls (p. 14).
    Quoting Melchior Canus, he says: Peter has not need of your lies,
    or of your adulations.... To no one, my Lord, will it be agreeable
    in Rome, and amid the difficult circumstances wherein we stand, to
    engage in a discussion as to the common Father, in an investigation
    of the most delicate facts of history, and in a dissection of texts
    of Scripture before Europe and before the world which are observing
    us (p. 16).... The Fathers at Nicæa did not proceed by way of a
    summary discussion, much less by way of acclamation written or oral
    (p. 17).

A few other expressions of Dupanloup may be recited--

    Far from putting an end to the discussions in the press, it
    will cause them to break out more terrible than ever.... If the
    difficulties, theological and historical, of a definition are
    such that simply exhibiting them as I did involves by inevitable
    consequence a grave attack on infallibility itself, how could you
    say that the difficulties are nothing?... You had the confident
    idea that nearly all the Fathers were with you, and were going
    enthusiastically to vote the definition off-hand (p. 18)....
    Certainly in the Church there must be an infallible doctrinal
    authority; but is it necessary that this authority should be the
    Pope ALONE? Would it not suffice if it was the authority of the
    Pope and the bishops united? (p. 20).... I asked why Pitt thought
    it well before taking a step towards Catholic emancipation to
    consult the most famous Catholic universities of Europe on the
    question of the pontifical power. You have deemed it well to
    answer not a word (p. 23).... In the ninth century we lost about
    one-half of the Church; in the sixteenth at least a third of the
    other half. At the present moment perhaps a half of what remains is
    more or less broken in upon (_entamée_). We have to reconquer....
    Would you all at once, as several bishops from America said to
    me yesterday, change for the whole of the Catholic clergy who
    live in the midst of Protestant populations the entire ground of
    religious controversy? (p. 24).... In France, the Parliament, the
    Senate, the Legislative Corps, the Councils of State, the public
    officers, the bench, the bar, the young collegians, the army, the
    navy, commerce, finance, the arts, the liberal professions, the
    workmen of the cities, the electors in the country districts, the
    great mass of those who with us and elsewhere determine the course
    of affairs,--in a word, the nation, assuredly is not with you (p.
    25).... Have you not heard the cry of the bishops of Germany,
    Hungary, Bohemia, and of so many others? (p. 25).... Three
    centuries ago a wave passed over Germany, a wave over England,
    Holland, Switzerland; and at this hour the wave has not subsided,
    but is still encroaching on the shore (p. 26).... Brazil is sick,
    Mexico is sick, the old Spanish colonies proceed from revolution
    to revolution, and it is my mournful conviction that what you, my
    Lord, are preparing, will give to the Church in all those countries
    a new and terrible shaking (p. 26).... Some say the great evil of
    our day is that the principle of authority is laid low. Let us
    exalt it in the Church, and we shall save society.... To think that
    by proclaiming the infallibility of the Pope you will roll back the
    revolution is, to my view, one of those illusions which sometimes,
    in human societies, desperate parties make for themselves on the
    eve of a supreme crisis (p. 27).

His statement of the condition of things before he first wrote would
appear to be meant to depict what existed in Rome as he was now
writing--

    No, it was not unanimity as to the question debated among us which
    reigned ere I spoke. It was on the one side violence, and on the
    other side astonishment, silent and downcast. If any voice was
    raised, speedily was it covered with clamours and insults (p. 31).

This reply called down from Veuillot many pages of taunts, gibes, and
sneers.

Means of humiliating the bishops of the Opposition were found by the
sovereign, which seem new in both kingly and parliamentary warfare.
Priests wrote against them, and the Pope sent to those priests
for publication letters of approval, containing sharp cuts at the
unfortunate prelates. To the Jesuit Ramière, the Pope said that he had
set Maret "in contradiction with himself, so that you have constrained
him to demolish the edifice with his own hands" (_Friedberg_, p. 490).
The Vicar-General of Nimes had written against Dupanloup, and forth
comes an epistle of Pius IX praising him for his elegant refutation of
the empty sophisms which had caused a disturbance of minds deplored by
all (_Friedberg_, p. 488).

Continental Catholic writers generally put Dr. Pusey as one of the
most important promoters of the Church of Rome. Yet they were aware
that he did not belong to it. In his second pamphlet Dupanloup spoke
with feeling of the value of the Ritualistic party, both in England
and America, as pointing to Rome. _Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_ says
(p. iii., troisième éd.),--"In England Dr. Pusey, the originator of
the Ritualistic movement, which has led so many persons, eminent for
intellect to the Catholic religion--Pusey, whose loyal sincerity no one
ever suspected," had written that nothing would be more fatal to the
prospect of reunion than a declaration of Papal infallibility. This
was not likely to make much impression upon the Curia. They knew that
what for England was called reunion, for Rome was called submission;
which Manning told them would be facilitated by definition; and Manning
served them so punctiliously that they were fain to believe him.
Moreover, what Desanctis in that remarkable book _Roma Papale_, had
many years previously described as the plan of the Curia for operations
in England, would be little affected by a doctrine or two more or
less. His account, in one word, was that they would mission England
through the senses, leaving doctrines and arguments in the background.
It was a question of spectacle, not of reason or Scripture. And love
of spectacle was adorned with the name of aesthetics, and sensible
Englishmen were to be led captive by the power of clothes. In this
point of view, one who promoted the use of the chosen means might
better serve the end from the very fact that he did not himself aim so
low.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 293: We should be curious to know if the writer would now
comment on these terms so doubtfully. Further study would probably
have given greater decision. The meaning of the obedience of princes
and nations was as distinct as possible from that of the obedience
of private persons, whether Catholics or heretics. The Church is all
through the movement proceeding, as _mother of civil humanity_, to
secure the obedience of rulers and States.]

[Footnote 294: _Quirinus_, p. 195.]

[Footnote 295: Vol. i. p. 235.]

[Footnote 296: Serie VII. vol. ix. p. 685.]

[Footnote 297: Letter to the _Débats_, printed in _Le Concile du
Vatican, et le Mouvement Anti-infallibiliste_, vol. ii. p. 63.]

[Footnote 298: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, v. p. 341.]

[Footnote 299: We use Friedrich's word. Housekeeper is the one
generally employed in languages other than the German.]

[Footnote 300: _Fromman_, p. 96. As a Protestant author, Fromman is
hardly ever quoted by us; but he is so careful, and in this case so
specific as to date and person, that we do not feel at liberty to
suppress his statement.]

[Footnote 301: _Friedberg_, p. 495. Also reprinted separately in
_Stimmen aus der Katholischen Kirche_.]

[Footnote 302: _Friedberg_, p. 87.]

[Footnote 303: _Réponse de Mgr. L'Evêque d'Orléans à Mgr. Deschamps._
Duniol, 1870.]




CHAPTER VIII

Church and State--Draft of Decrees with Canons--Gains
Publicity--Principles involved--Views of Liberal Catholics--The Papal
View of the Means of Resistance possessed by Governments.


"Informers against the Church," was, in a word, the name now hurled
against the _Augsburg Gazette_ and the _Times_. "Conspirators against
human society" was the retort of the general press of Europe upon the
Curia. The secret labour of five years was ruthlessly exposed by two
unconsecrated offenders. How the "breach of the pontifical secret" had
occurred, of which Cardinal Antonelli complained in despatch after
despatch, may perhaps be known some other day. What we now know is that
publicity took possession of the results, though secrecy had presided
over all the processes. Even the bond of mortal sin had proved too weak
for what Curran might have called the irresistible genius of universal
illumination. The decrees, canons, and anathemas proposed on the
subject of Church and State were now before the world.

On January 21, the Schema, or Draft of Decrees on the Church, was
distributed to the bishops. Hefele told how a diplomatist laughingly
boasted that he had received one at the same time.[304] This Draft was
to that on faith what the application is to the sermon. It laid down
principles in fifteen chapters, and reduced them to operative shape in
twenty-one canons. Vitelleschi says (p. 85)--

    Now, on summing up these Canons, what do they amount to? Sole
    religion, the Catholic; sole head, the Pope, "who has full and
    supreme power"; his laws superior to those of the State, on which
    he exercises his judgment "concerning the lawful and the unlawful,"
    and disposes of permissions and punishments. Dante has imagined an
    Emperor and a Pope, who between them shall direct the world; but
    if the idea of these Canons were fully carried out with regard to
    civil society, there would remain the Pope only.

This object, the Pope only, which rests in the logical view of
Vitelleschi, as the result of his examination of the Canons, is the
same object which long previously stood before the illuminated vision
of M. Veuillot, whose means of reaching conclusions were not so
circuitous. The Pope only is the object which Archbishop Cecconi even
now sets out as the paramount figure of the future, albeit with no
extatic confidence. And the Pope only is precisely that crowning beauty
in the image of the world-empire which Cardinal Manning reproached
Mr. Bryce with missing in his conception of the Catholic universe.
Mr. Bryce, like Dante, was a dualist. Dualism, however, was to be
done away with, except in the wholesome form of light and darkness,
the two opposed forces. All the labour and the silence of the recent
years had been employed in preparing an inauguration which vulgar eye
was not to disturb till the King should burst forth in his plenitude
of supreme authority with unerring judgment, so arrayed that all the
tribes of Israel would hail the mystic David the one King-shepherd and
Shepherd-king of a world at last unified.

The description of the effect of these canons given by Quirinus (p.
203) was not so elegant as that of Vitelleschi. He wrote for Germans
menaced with a change; while the Romans to whom the Marchese spoke,
had for ages been themselves delivered from dualism, and could see
in the new measures only an effort to extend to all the human race
that perfect Catholic unity, religious and political, of which their
States had been the sole blameless example. They well knew who was the
_spiritual David_, the one shepherd of the one fold,--shepherd with
sling as well as pipe, shepherd with sword as well as crook,--on whose
future reign over one kingdom the eye of the Jesuit, gazing through the
glass of Ezekiel, dwelt with rapture, expounding: "I will make them one
nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall
be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither
shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.... And
David my servant shall be king over them, and they all shall have one
shepherd."[305]

Quirinus, writing as one to whom this unity had been perhaps gorgeous
in the distance, but who saw it now in a new aspect, cried: "These
transparent Decrees and anathemas may be thus summed up: the Christian
world consists simply of masters and slaves. The masters are the
Italians, the Pope, and his Court; and the slaves are all bishops
(including the Italians themselves), all priests, and all the laity."
Whether Quirinus had studied Tarquini's _à priori_ system of the
Perfect Society, we do not know; but any one referring to our analysis
of it will see how closely it corresponds with the following, in which
Quirinus sums up the doctrine of these Draft Decrees--

    Three main ideas run through the Schema, and are formulated
    into dogmatic Decrees guarded with anathemas. _Firstly_, to the
    Pope belongs absolute dominion over the whole Church, whether
    dispersed or assembled in Council. _Secondly_, the Pope's temporal
    sovereignty over a portion of the Peninsula must be maintained as
    pertaining to dogma. _Thirdly_, Church and State are immutably
    connected; but in the sense that the Church's laws always hold
    good before and against the civil law, and therefore every Papal
    ordinance that is opposed to the constitution and law of the land,
    binds the faithful, under pain of mortal sin, to disobey the
    constitution and law of their country (p. 204).

One incidental notice of the Draft by Quirinus is, "regulating all
relations between Church and State, and restoring the Papal supremacy
over the bodies and souls of men" (p. 209).

The _Rheinischer Merkur_ (p. 22) quotes the Ultramontane _Hausblätter_
as asserting that the twenty-one Canons had all been long recognised as
part of the Catholic faith. No, says the _Merkur_, some of them were
repudiated as calumnious by the Catholic bishops of England and Ireland
in 1826. On the same page it says:

    We do not want a centralized power of a theocratic complexion,
    claiming the right of interfering at will, and disturbing
    our political and social relations, and of reducing princes
    to vassals--a centralized power claiming that its Decrees
    shall bind the conscience as divine.... We do not want this
    apparatus of coercion for the Church--_contumaces salubribus
    poenis coercendi_--for compelling the contumacious by wholesome
    penalties;--we know what that means!... We do not want
    under-satraps armed with whips; we do not want despotism, which, as
    well as heresy, is one of the gates of hell. Ready to render to God
    what is God's, we also wish to render to Cæsar what is Cæsar's, and
    we count it a precious birthright to be reckoned as good subjects
    by our lawful sovereigns; but just on this account do we regard
    Drafts of Decrees, the execution of which would cause us to appear
    as enemies of public safety and of dynastic order, in the light
    of attacks on our civil existence, and as calculated to bring us
    into the same position as that in which our fellow Catholics in the
    Russian Empire groan.

What would these Liberal Catholics have said had Reisach's Drafts
not been "shipwrecked"? The twenty-one Canons place the affairs of
this world so much at the discretion of the Pontiff, that proposals
which alarmed the same men who brought these forward, must have been
startling. In principle, they could hardly have claimed more than is
claimed here; but possibly they contained formulæ for the application
of principle, which might have attracted the attention even of those
politicians who think it wise and practical to ignore principles. In
nothing is Rome stronger than in her consciousness that when once
she has succeeded in getting a principle recognized, she can afford
to temporize as to its application, and for a while to temporize as
to its application, and for a while to compromise as to details. As
the preparations of Reisach had been kept back, and the Canons which
carried the principles were presented, so we shall find that the Canons
were eventually sacrificed, as too much entering into detail, in order
to carry what embraced all.

The Decrees in question were clearly intended as a vehicle to carry
over the doctrines of the Syllabus respecting Church and State from the
domain of ideas into that of facts. The _Chapters_ would furnish text
for professors and preachers. The _Canons_ would bind the conscience of
every Catholic, on pain of anathema. Nothing further could be wanting
than executive contrivances, such as probably the Drafts of Reisach
were intended to provide.

The following is an abridged view of the _substance and effect_ of the
twenty-one Canons (_Documenta_, ii. p. 101):--

    1. If any man say that the religion of Christ is not made manifest
    in a society, let him be anathema.

    2. If any man say that the Church has no certain and immutable
    form, let him be anathema.

    3. If any man say that she is not external and visible, let him be
    anathema.

    4. If any man say that she is not one body, let him be anathema.

    5. If any man say that she is not a society necessary to the
    obtaining of eternal salvation, let him be anathema.

    6. If any man say that her intolerance in the condemnation of all
    sects is not divinely commanded, or that such sects ought to be
    tolerated, let him be anathema.

    7. If any man say that she may err in doctrine, depart from her
    original institution, or cease to exist, let him be anathema.

    8. If any man say that she is not a final dispensation, let him be
    anathema.

    9. If any man say that her infallibility extends only to things
    contained in revelation, let him be anathema.

    10. If any man say that she is not a Perfect Society, but an
    association (_collegium_) which may be subjected to secular rule,
    let him be anathema.

    11. If any man say that bishops have not by divine appointment a
    proper power of ruling, which they are freely to exercise, let him
    be anathema.

    12. If any man say that the power of the Church lies only in
    counsel or persuasion, but not in legal commands, in coercion and
    compulsion by external jurisdiction, and in wholesome pains, let
    him be anathema.

    13. If any man say that the true Church, out of which none can be
    saved, is any other than the Roman, let him be anathema.

    14. If any man say that Peter was not prince of the apostles and
    head of the whole Church, or that he received only a primacy of
    honour and not of jurisdiction, let him be anathema.

    15. If any man say that he had not successors, or that the Roman
    Pontiff was not his successor in the primacy, let him be anathema.

    16. If any man say that the Roman Pontiff has only a right of
    supervision or direction over the Universal Church, and not a full
    and supreme power of jurisdiction, or that his power over the
    Churches, taken separately, is not immediate and ordinary, let him
    be anathema.

    17. If any man say that the power of the Church is not compatible
    with that of supreme civil power, let him be anathema.

    18. If any man say that the power necessary to rule civil society
    is not from God, let him be anathema.

    19. If any man say that all rights among men and all authority are
    derived from the State, let him be anathema.

    20. If any man say that the supreme rule of conscience lies in the
    law of the State, or in public opinion, and that the judicial power
    of the Church does not extend to pronouncing them legitimate or
    illegitimate, or that by civil law that can become legitimate which
    by divine law is illegitimate, let him be anathema.

    21. If any man say that the laws of the Church have not binding
    force unless confirmed by the civil power, and that it is competent
    to the civil power to judge or decree in causes where religion is
    implicated, let him be anathema.

The logical succession of ideas was manifest. The first five Canons
established the principle that the Christian Church is a society
which has Form, Visibility, Unity, and is necessary to salvation. The
next series pronounced this Church to be Intolerant (6), Infallible
(7), Final as a dispensation (8), Infallible in matters not contained
in revelation (9), a Perfect Society not subject to the civil power
(10), ruling by bishops (11) and possessing legislative, judicial, and
compulsory power (12), because none can be saved out of her (13). The
fourteenth Canon, and the two following ones, establish the unlimited
dominion of the Pope over all bishops; while the eleventh establishes
the ruling power of bishops, but leaves the sphere of it undefined, not
even saying that it is over the Church. And this undefined ruling power
of bishops is placed between the independence of the Church in relation
to the civil power on the one hand, and her own compulsory power and
the absolute authority of the Pope over the bishops on the other.

The seventeenth Canon affirms that the power of the Church is
compatible with civil authority,--which without a doubt it is, so
long as the civil authority abides within the limits traced for it by
the Church. That authority may also, in the sense of Rome, be, in its
order, supreme,--that is, not subject to any other civil authority,
but always subject to the Pope, who is an authority of a higher order
than the civil. The eighteenth Canon bases all civil authority on
divine right. This is capable of more than one interpretation. First,
it may mean that all existing authority is to be viewed as from God,
whether it originated in conquest, prescription, or vote; or, secondly,
it may mean that no civil authority is legitimate which has not divine
sanction; and as among the baptized that sanction cannot be received
except through the Pope, the consequence of such an interpretation
would be obvious. The nineteenth Canon deliberately confounds natural
and legal rights, as if the laws that create and protect legal rights
were not themselves the outgrowth of natural rights. In the same way it
confounds natural authority and legal authority. The twentieth seems
to put civil law and mere public opinion on the same level, and places
both one and the other under the judgment of the Church, and that as
to their legitimacy or illegitimacy. _Judgment_, of course, does not
mean criticism, instruction, remonstrance, or warning. It means what
the word would mean anywhere, in such solemn legislative language,
namely, judicial sentence. _Legitimacy_ or _illegitimacy_, again, does
not mean wisdom or folly, goodness or badness, but means what it says.
Divine law includes Church law, and what it forbids no civil law can
warrant. Therefore the power claimed in this fundamental proposition
is that with which we are already acquainted in the literature of the
movement for reconstruction, that, namely, of declaring what laws of
a particular State are or are not legitimate; every such State being
considered as a province of the universal theocratic monarchy.

Perhaps no principle embodied in these Canons lies so deep under the
whole movement against free government in religious and civil society
as the principle that confounds civil rights with natural ones, and,
by denying that the State is the source of all rights, covers the
denial of the fact that it is the source of legal rights. As to legal
rights, we, sitting free and thankful amid our books, our friends, and
our blessings, no more know of any source of such rights except that
benign ordinance of our Father in heaven, the civil law, than did the
teacher of Plato, when by law deprived of his natural rights, he sat in
his cell while the deadly cup was being prepared.[306] No, the State is
not the author of rights, but it is the guardian of them. Practically
all our natural rights are but a common for any beast to trample and
to browse upon till the State surrounds them with the sacred fence of
law; then do they turn into garden sward, and well-watched flowers and
fruits exceeding fair. But these principles, which strip the State of
all moral mission, which empty law of all moral character, which rob
society itself, and all the institutions of society, of any aim moral
and eternal, of any but a temporary, material end, and which transfer
all that is noble to the priesthood alone, cover one of the darkest
attempts that art could direct against all the foundations of public
life. The moral mission of the State is written on every page of the
Bible, and the political mission of Christian priests not on a single
one.

The State in renouncing for itself the right to dictate to men their
faith and worship, does not empty itself of a moral character, but,
on the contrary, takes the highest possible moral ground. In that
renunciation it does not disavow the faith and fear of God, but, on
the contrary, avows its persuasion that the rights which affect the
conscience of His creatures are so sacred as not to be sufficiently
guarded except in His hand alone. Of shallow pretexts for oppression,
none was ever shallower than the assumption that because society as
such says that it dares not to come between God and the soul, therefore
does it say that as society it has nothing to do with God.

The Court was evidently not disposed to leave politicians under
any delusion. The _Civiltá_ wrote on the politicasters and the
Council,[307] as if to make statesmen feel that they had either to
submit or else to bear the brunt of the revolutionary forces, from
below and from above. A principal object of the Council, says the
article, had avowedly been "the restoration of peace in the orders,
even the political ones, of Christendom." Confessing that statesmen,
or _politicasters_, as it called them, evinced anxiety, the _Civiltá_
named measures to which they might be tempted to resort. These were
threefold--first, making new preventive laws; secondly, restoring
obsolete ones; thirdly, separating the Church and the State. By
preventive laws must be understood any legal bar set up to impede the
Pope in any exercise of his legislative, judicial, or coercive power in
a given realm. Preventive laws, old or new, it pronounces to be weapons
which would infallibly "burst or break in the hands of governments, if
they attempted to use them."

The method by which this result would be brought about is indicated in
a way which shows how _divine_ law can loose what civil law binds.

    There are two cases in which a subordinate is not obliged to obey
    a superior; the first, when a contrary precept exists of greater
    authority; the second, when the superior gives commands in things
    in respect of which the subordinate is not placed under him....
    An inferior authority is not to be disobeyed when a superior one
    prohibits. Now, the authority of the Church, assembled in Council,
    is superior to the authority of the State.... It is superior in
    the sense in which the reasoning faculty in man is superior to the
    sentient and vegetative faculties.... Since the ecclesiastical
    authority is superior to the civil in such wise that, in matters
    affecting both, the acts of the civil must be subject to those
    of the ecclesiastical, it is manifest that if a collision arose
    between the definitions of the OEcumenical Council and the laws of
    the State, the latter would cease, by that fact alone, to have any
    binding force whatever.

    The same conclusion may be deduced from the words in which the
    divine Founder of the Church gave authority to His disciples to
    teach His doctrine to all nations. _All power is given to Me in
    heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations._ From the fact
    that, in virtue of His divine generation, the Father had conferred
    on Him all power, celestial and terrestrial, Christ argued thus,
    Therefore, go ye and teach all nations my doctrine; and thus He
    clearly demonstrated that His Church was invested by Him with _such
    a right of teaching that it would never be lawful for any power
    to offer to her opposition_. Therefore, should the State require
    obedience to laws contrary to the definitions of the Council, it
    would do so without a true legal right. And if, notwithstanding, it
    employed force to procure obedience, it would fall into tyranny,
    odious to the conscience and ruinous to itself.... By no means
    does the authority of governments extend to commanding what the
    OEcumenical Council may prohibit, or to prohibiting what it may
    command; and if governments should arrogate to themselves the right
    of doing so, in vain would they presume upon being able to oblige
    Catholics subject to submit; and should they have recourse to
    force, they would plunge themselves into tyranny which would not
    long serve the interests of those who displayed it.

The principles are very simple and firmly fixed. While submission to
_legitimate_ authority is a duty, resistance to "tyranny" is a right.
Any authority used in contravention of the decrees of the Church
ceases to be legitimate, runs into tyranny, and is to be disobeyed.
Hence the duty of obedience to civil rulers is taught in the term
"_due_ obedience," and only the Pope can judge when obedience ceases
to be due; but it is judged already that due it never can be, in any
possible case, wherein the civil law contravenes the directions of
the ecclesiastical authority. How States which profess to accept the
corporation which insists on these principles as a true and worthy
teacher, or which look on it as anything but an erring and dangerous
caste, are to escape dissolution, it is not easy to see.

It is not hard to call the hopes of victory in the impending struggle
monkish dreams, nor easy to dispel the show of probability in the
following argument. Hundreds of examples in the past, where persistent
ecclesiastical agitation triumphed over political instability,
would rise up to the memory of well read Jesuits, as making their
calculations seem like those of positive philosophers, and the hopes of
journalists and members of Parliament like those of enthusiasts, in the
sense of men who look for ends without using means.

    "What would such laws come to in case they were enacted? They
    would come to be laws of no validity and no effect in what touches
    belief: of no validity because essentially null as to binding
    force; of no effect because unable to prevent Catholics from a
    full adhesion of mind and heart to the dogmatic definitions of the
    Church. And as to external acts and matters of discipline, such
    laws would become a dead letter, or a criminal oppression. A dead
    letter if the governments did not feel that they had nerve to put
    forth the strong hand and enforce the execution of them, in which
    case the laws would become a _ridiculous comedy_. Or a criminal
    oppression if, feeling themselves possessed of force, they should
    employ it to execute laws tyrannical, as being opposed to public
    liberty, public religion, and public faith."

As to separating the Church from the State, the _Civiltá_ proudly
quotes the _Monde_ of Paris:--

    The Catholics have number and force on their side ... before
    apostatising the French government would think twice ... the
    government surely would not give the signal for its own fall, and
    for a long revolution.

The separation of Church and State is here spoken of evidently in the
ordinary sense; but the charge of having already separated the State
from the Church was one frequently brought against the government
of France, when the language employed was that of the initiated. In
that language the Draft of Decrees now under consideration described
separation of the State from the Church as the denial of the right or
duty of the State to coerce by the appointed penalties, except so far
as may be demanded in the interests of public peace, those who violate
the Catholic religion.[308]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 304: _Unitá Cattolica_, March 4, quoting _Volksblatt_.]

[Footnote 305: See exposition of Ezek. xxxvii. 21-24, _Civiltá_, VII.
vi. 293.]

[Footnote 306: Compare the _Crito_ and the _Phædo_.]

[Footnote 307: Serie VII. ix. 257 ff.]

[Footnote 308: Cap. xii. _Doc. ad. Ill._ ii., p. 96]




CHAPTER IX

The Courts of Vienna and Paris manifest anxiety--Disturbances in
Paris--Daru's Letters--Beust moves--His Despatches--His Passage of
Arms with Antonelli--Daru's Despatch and Antonelli's Reply--Daru's
Rejoinder--Beust lays down the Course which Austria will
follow--Arnim's Despatch--The _Unitá_ on the Situation--Veuillot on the
Situation--Satisfaction of the Ultramontanes.


The fire of small arms from the press only irritated the Curia; but
presently the sound of heavy guns began to be heard, and ended in a
boom, first from the Burg and next from the Tuileries. The two Emperors
who, with the Pope, held a share in the sovereignty of Austria and
France respectively, began to be aware of the fact that they might find
themselves left by their senior partner exactly in the legal position
which we have seen Phillips describe as that of the State in relation
to the Church--the position in law of a married woman as compared with
her husband. It will be remembered that, according to the doctrine
of the _Civiltá_, every Catholic State must have two kings. It will
further be remembered that all the Pope's subjects are bound to observe
his law before that of the nation. If, therefore, the universal ruler
could promulge what laws he pleased, and all these laws were to take
the foreway of any competing laws of the State, it was plain that of
the two kings in each State, the local one was at the mercy of the
universal one.

On January 18, the very day on which Gratry dated his famous letter,
and on which, probably, Döllinger penned his protest dated one day
later, Count Daru wrote a letter, of which the press got hold: "They
cannot be so blind," said the Foreign Minister of France, "as to
suppose that it would be possible for us to keep our troops there a
day after infallibility was proclaimed." He hoped that the Holy Father
would yield to the counsel of the most illustrious of the French
bishops. A fortnight later (Feb. 5), in a second letter, he expressed
fears that the majority would take advantage of its powers, and said
that he had caused Cardinal Antonelli to be apprised of the truth
through M. de Banneville; but he adds: "It is clear that everything may
be thrown into uncertainty by the conduct of the Italian, Spanish, and
missionary bishops, who seem to live in a world apart." He again speaks
of the impossibility of keeping up a French garrison, and declares
that the Propaganda seems to take no account of the Concordat, and
that perhaps violence may be done to the pact which unites France with
Rome. The revolutionary party, he affirms, is not only conspiring, but
actually moving, and Rome must be blind to put weapons in their hands
by breaking the force of the Conservatives, and compelling rebellion by
the Syllabus.

This language betrays the weakness of statesmen who rely on Rome, as
if it was a Conservative agency, but it would cause little anxiety
to the Curia. They had forty thousand drilled men in France holding
important places under the State. At this very time the movements of
the revolutionary party in Paris were dwelt upon by Don Margotti in the
tone of an enthusiastic bone-setter, who, hearing of accidents, felt
sure that he must be called in. On February 11 the _Unitá Cattolica_
said that--

    "Bonaparte had cause to fear barricades in Paris. He and his
    minister had been setting up barricades against the Council, and
    so the revolutionists were setting up barricades against him.
    The Church always conquered the barricades of Gallicanism, but
    Bonaparte may not conquer those of Paris. Some morning we may find
    that he has fled. The Emperor would have set his house in order in
    a better manner, if, instead of launching into the parliamentary
    system, he had declared from the day the Council was announced that
    he would submit himself and France in everything and for everything
    to its decision...."

The very next day it is added--

    "The troubles in Paris are a vengeance of divine justice on
    Napoleon for his misconduct in Italy. Had he not prevented the Pope
    from sending his cousin, Count Pepoli of Bologna, to the galleys,
    he would not have had to imprison Rochefort."

If the same men who thus detested Napoleon threatened the Italians
with French arms, it was simply from the belief that the Papacy had a
stronger hold upon France than the empire. After saying (February 8)
that modern society is to the Church what the world was to Christ, and
that the first Syllabus against the world was compiled by Christ, Don
Margotti says on the next day to the Italians--

    You will not go to Rome, because France will always oppose you;
    and she does so because, if she did not, the world would. If
    the free-thinkers do not believe in miracles, let them see one
    in this--that Rome will never be taken from the Pope. Even a
    government with Rochefort at its head would defend the temporal
    dominion of the Pope-king.

There is a solemn passage in Vitelleschi where he speaks of the
frequency with which governments find that they have to face some
revolutionary movement at one and at the same time as that in which the
claims of the Church are being pressed upon them. He does not pronounce
that the two facts are in individual cases connected, but he does say
that the frequent recurrence of the two simultaneously is "an organic
phenomenon worthy of the deepest attention" (p. 235). Rechtbaur in
Vienna said, "They threaten revolution if the State does not renounce
its rights"; and a couple of days after it had quoted this remark, the
_Unitá Cattolica_ said--

    Diocletian left a long tail behind him. His tail consists of those
    politicians who protest against the Syllabus as a declaration of
    war against modern society. Beust in Vienna, Hohenlohe in Munich,
    Ollivier in Paris, were not tranquil like the priest in Rome.
    Sooner or later they would all be engulfed in the stormy sea of
    revolution--all but the Church and the Pope. The Syllabus would
    abide for ever, and with it the Canons of the Vatican Council....
    The Pope has proved by facts that he knows how to govern better
    than any other sovereign. We defy any emperor whatever to govern a
    country fourteen years as Pope Pius IX has governed Rome.

The letters of Count Daru, quoted above, caused inquiry in Rome.
Quirinus asserted that the only existing copy of them was in the hands
of the English government. It was known that Lord Acton was a near
relation of the English Minister for Foreign Affairs. Putting this
and that together, the Curia was inclined to say that Quirinus must
be Lord Acton; and it is confidently affirmed that Monsignor Randi,
whose spiritual duties were those of Director of Police, was taken
into consultation with the Pope as to whether it would or would not be
expedient to banish the suspected English nobleman.[309] The _Unitá_
tried to make capital against Dupanloup out of these letters. It could
not believe that the Bishop of Orleans would write to Daru and tell him
what passed in the Council (March 8).

The anxiety felt at Courts in Catholic nations had now penetrated the
mind of Count Beust. On February 10 he penned a remarkable despatch,
in which he recited his pacific intentions and his innocent hopes, as
indicated in his treatment of the Council hitherto, and especially
in his rejection of the overtures of Bavaria. He was now, however,
obliged to confess that, in Rome, there was a manifest determination
not to acknowledge, nay, more, not to tolerate, that liberty which
Austria claimed for the State in civil legislation. He now confesses
to "alarm," and affirms that the Decrees of the Church "would dig an
impassable gulf between the laws of the Church and those which govern
the greater part of modern societies." He plainly declares that Austria
would reserve to herself the right of interdicting the publication of
any Act infringing the majesty of the law, and that every person who
should disregard such prohibition must bear the legal consequences.
This despatch was followed by one to Berlin,[310] pointing out how
delicate had been the position of Austria in the present transaction.
The empire was passing through an internal transformation. Hence
arose a special necessity of maintaining the supremacy of law, and a
corresponding expediency of avoiding internal conflict. In addition
to reasons of State for not identifying his policy with that of the
minority of the bishops of the Council, Count Beust alleged that
those prelates found that any interference on the part of governments
turned to an embarrassment for themselves, because they were accused
of being the instruments of the political rulers, and he felt that it
was not the bishops but the Cabinets that must defend the rights of
States. A third despatch was directed to Munich.[311] In this, Count
Beust intimated that Prince Hohenlohe might naturally think that it
would have been better had the Count in time seen the force of his
recommendations. Parrying this objection, he strongly urged united
action, and stated that Austria was now ready to co-operate in a matter
that evidently affected the common interests of all governments. The
effect of all this was a formal visit of Count Trauttmansdorff, the
Austrian ambassador, to Cardinal Antonelli. According to the report
of the Count, the Cardinal had really nothing to say beyond the most
commonplace evasions. The Decrees were still subject to discussion,
and, on the other hand, interdicting the publication of Decrees in a
certain country did not deprive them of their validity. Besides, he
could not see how prohibiting the publication of the laws of the Church
could be consistent with the policy which consisted in giving liberty
to the publication of anything. Moreover, all the world knew that,
while Rome affirmed principles, she would be very reasonable and gentle
in the application of them, and none need to take the least alarm.
Count Trauttmansdorff expresses his satisfaction with the attitude of
the German bishops, but thinks that Austria has lost her influence by
her recent changes of policy, and especially by her attacks upon the
Concordat. He expects, on the contrary, great effect from the exercise
of French influence.

The reply of Count Beust to this despatch was prompt and clear. True,
he said, Decrees of the Church retain their validity though rejected
by the government; but this was the very circumstance that showed the
gravity of the position. It would become a serious matter, both for the
Church and for Catholic governments, if laws which were valid for the
one, were repudiated by the other. Again, as to the Cardinal's remark
that refusing the Church liberty to promulge her laws was scarcely
consistent with professions of giving liberty to publish anything,
Count Beust thought that this remark could hardly be serious. "Respect
for the law is the basis of all liberty," said the Count, "and liberty
which passes that boundary, becomes licence." But this arrow would fall
blunted from a conscience covered by the buckler of the Vatican. Any
Vaticanist would simply say, Respect for a higher law is not disregard
of law; and whenever Rome has spoken, her word is the higher law,
respect for which is the real basis of order.

The reply of Antonelli to the despatch of Beust is a singular document.
He is so generally credited with ability as a diplomatist that one
would fear to say, even if one thought, that it is anything but an
able paper, whether viewed in an intellectual or a diplomatic aspect.
He states that the remonstrances of Beust were expressed in "not
very delicate terms," and in weaker and much less courteous forms
puts forward the arguments which we shall presently find employed
in his reply to Daru. So far from accepting the reproach of want of
delicacy, Beust instantly and formally repelled it, and said that
the Pope's Nuncio, when appealed to, could hardly find an expression
in his despatch on which to attempt to sustain the allegation of the
Cardinal. He demanded a copy of the despatch, and, as soon as he had
obtained it, instructed the ambassador at Rome to thank Antonelli for
granting it, and to tell him that he had immediately laid it before the
Emperor.[312] Whether the Emperor thought the despatch respectful to a
power such as his we cannot say.

The day after that on which Count Trauttmansdorff reported his
interview with Cardinal Antonelli, Count Daru, in Paris, despatched
an important document to the Vatican. According to an analysis of it,
contained in the reply of Antonelli,[313] the Count summed up the
effect of the Canons in two propositions. First, the infallibility
of the Church extends, not only to the deposit of faith, but also
to all that is necessary to its preservation. Secondly, the Church
is a divine and perfect society, and exercises its powers in two
tribunals, the interior and the exterior. She is absolute in the
domain of legislation, judicial procedure, and coercive force; and
moreover exercises her power with full liberty, and in independence
of any civil power whatever. The Count points out that the claims of
the Church are now extended to authority over history, philosophy,
and science, and involve an absolute subordination to the authority
of the Church of the very principles of a national constitution, the
rights and duties of governments, with the political rights and duties
of citizens, both electoral and municipal. They are extended even to
everything included in judicature and in legislation, in respect both
of persons and things; to the rules of public administration, to the
rights and duties of corporations, and in general to all the rights of
the State, not excepting the right of conquest, and that of peace and
war. Is it to be imagined, asks Count Daru, that princes will bow their
sovereignty before the supremacy of the Court of Rome? Considering the
protection granted by France to the Holy See for twenty years past,
she has special duties before the world, and he, therefore, claims
that projects of laws which are to be laid before the Council shall be
communicated to the French government, and that time shall be allowed
to forward the observations that may be deemed desirable before they
are pressed for decision.

The reply of Antonelli to Daru has been generally looked upon as one of
the ablest specimens of his skill. Unless at the moment the greatest
daring was the greatest skill, we must think the impression of skill
is made chiefly on the minds of those who have not carefully studied
the Vatican dialect. It would seem that Count Daru, or his advisers,
were perfectly aware of the meaning of the document; and to any one
who was so, a more absolute statement of Papal suzerainty can scarcely
be conceived. The technical term "direct" plays an important part in
the various assertions. The Cardinal does not deny the extension of
the Papal authority to any one of the matters pointed out by Daru. He
never denies that that authority is absolute, but always takes care to
couple with the world "absolute" the word "direct"--it is not "direct
and absolute"; and the real meaning of much of the despatch would be
brought out by the simple question, which any ecclesiastical adviser
of the French Foreign Office _who was true to the government_ would
ask, Is it indirect and absolute? Moreover, the blank statement that
the kingly power depends upon the priestly, is, in the form in which
Antonelli puts it, an extension even of the ordinary Jesuit doctrine,
which couples the dependence of the kingly power upon the priestly
with several qualifications, practically not amounting to much, but
theoretically necessary to be kept in view, because they enable men to
seem to deny what they mean to maintain. Commencing by a complimentary
paragraph as to the protection of France and the gratitude of the
Pope, Antonelli goes on to express great surprise that the Canons
should cause so much uneasiness. They only expressed the maxims and
fundamental principles of the Church, published in all forms, taught
in the schools, maintained for ages, and often approved of even by
civil governments. The Church, continues Antonelli, never claims to
exercise a "direct and absolute" power over the political rights of the
State. Having received the mission to lead men, whether as individuals
or as constituted into societies, to a supernatural end, the Church
had received the corresponding authority to judge the morality of all
acts interior or exterior, in respect of their conformity to laws
natural and _divine_. "As no action, whether commanded by a supreme
power or freely performed by a person, can be divested of a quality of
morality or justice, it follows that the judgment of the Church, though
directly turning upon the morality of actions, indirectly extends
_to all matters with which morality is connected_." But this is not
the same as direct interference in political affairs, which, by the
order established by God, and by the teaching indeed of the Church,
belong to the temporal power without any dependence on any authority.
The subordination of the civil power to the religious one is in the
sense[314] of the superiority of the priesthood. Hence the authority
of sovereignty depends on that of priesthood, as human things depend
on divine, and temporal on spiritual. And if temporal felicity, which
is the end of civil power, is subordinate to eternal felicity, which
is the spiritual end of the priesthood, it follows that to attain
the end towards which God would have them respectively tend, the one
power is subordinate to the other; and thus, as between them, there
exists in one of the two a subordination of functions as there exists a
subordination of ends.

Therefore, proceeds the despatch, if infallibility does extend to all
that is necessary to conserve the faith, no prejudice will, on that
account, arise to science, history, or politics. Of course (we may
interject) the reasoning is, that any subordination arising from a
divinely-appointed order cannot be the cause of prejudice, but only
of advantage. Infallibility, he proceeds, has been exercised in times
past, and princes have had no occasion to disquiet themselves. If the
Church has been constituted by her divine founder a true and perfect
Society distinct from the civil power and independent of it, with a
plenary threefold authority, legislative, judicial, and coercive, no
confusion will arise in the movements of human society, or in the
exercise of the rights of the two powers. The Church does not exercise,
in virtue of her authority, "a direct and absolute" interference in
the principles and constitutions, in the forms of civil power, in the
political rights of citizens, in the duties of the State, and in the
other matters enumerated in the despatch of the minister.

Almost the only thing not clear in the remarkable State paper in which
Daru replied to this despatch,[315] is the way in which he understood
the last remarks we have quoted from the Cardinal. He speaks of them
as being important, but in what sense? As showing a wish to allay the
impressions made by the Draft of Decrees, which is all the Cardinal
really professes? or as containing any statement properly calculated to
allay those apprehensions? Count Daru had evidently not read hastily,
and had not been without clear-headed interpreters. He could not, for a
moment, think that Antonelli had said that the Church had no authority
to interfere in political matters, when he really had said no more
than that she did not _exercise_ a "direct and absolute" interference,
by virtue of her authority. No more could Count Daru suppose that
saying that she did not do so was a promise that she would not do so,
although, even had such a promise been made, couched in the terms
employed by Antonelli, the word "direct" would have deprived it of any
practical value. Every other portion of Count Daru's Memorandum must
have made the Pope, to whom it was submitted, feel that the Minister of
France understood the intentions of the Vatican.

    The more one examines the doctrine of this document, the more
    impossible does it become to overlook the fact that, in the
    main, it amounts to the complete subordination of civil power
    to the religious society.... Unless we refuse to words their
    true and natural meaning, we cannot escape the conviction that
    the Draft Decree on the Church has, for its object and end, the
    re-establishment, in the entire world, of doctrines which would
    place civil society under the empire of the clergy.... Under
    the formidable sanction of the anathema, the infallibility and
    authority of the Church are to be extended, not only to truths
    handed down by revelation, but to all things that may appear
    necessary for preserving the deposit of tradition. In other words,
    her infallibility and authority have no other limits than those
    which the Church may herself assign to them; and all principles of
    civil order, politics, and science, fall, directly or indirectly,
    within their range. It is on this almost boundless field that
    the Church is to exert the right of pronouncing decisions and
    promulgating laws, binding the conscience of the faithful,
    independently of any confirmation on the part of the political
    authority, and even in direct opposition to laws emanating from it.
    It is on this domain, the bounds of which, it appears, the Church
    alone may fix, that the Canons ascribe to her a complete power,
    which is at once legislative, judicial, and coercive, and is to be
    put forth in the external tribunal as well as in the internal,--a
    power the exercise of which the Church may assure by material
    penalties, and Christian princes and governments would be bound
    to lend their assistance by chastising all who should attempt to
    withdraw themselves from under her authority.

No wonder that Count Daru draws the inference that "governments would
retain no power, and civil society would retain no liberty, but the
power and the liberty which it might please the Church to leave to
them." The dearest rights of States, their political constitution,
their legislation on property, on the family, and on instruction,
"might any day be called in question by the ecclesiastical authority."
Moreover, it is now proposed that to all this shall be added Papal
infallibility. "_That is to say, after having concentrated all
political and religious powers in the hand of the Church, they will
concentrate all the power of the Church in the hand of her head._"

As to the artifice, that only principles were to be carried, but that
the application of them would not be enforced, Daru says, No such
statement suffices to reassure us. What, he asks, Are people in the
forty thousand parishes of France to be taught that they are free to
do that which they are not free to believe? He will not even treat
this representation as grave. He gives the Church credit for intending
a serious work, and, therefore, when once she has inscribed a maxim
among the immutable truths, she will try to bring it into practice. The
Pontiff has not assembled the bishops of the whole world to promulgate
sterile laws.

Antonelli had alleged that the principles in dispute were not new.
That, replied Count Daru, he knew too well, but kings and nations had
never accepted those principles, and the attempt to establish them had
always, even in the middle ages, caused bloody conflict. He concluded
by declaring that if the propositions were adopted, they would have the
inevitable consequence of bringing about grievous troubles.

The French government declared its intention of demanding that a
special ambassador should be admitted to the Council. This Don
Margotti hailed, first as a victory of the Council, and then as one of
the most splendid victories of Pius IX. The ground of this professed
exultation was that abstinence from the Council meant the separation
of Church and State. "The Lord be praised, who is preparing greater
triumphs for His spouse!" France trembles for her revolution and her
Gallicanism.[316] So can voice and face be changed in a moment.

Beust, in further despatches, declined any proposal for sending
ambassadors to the Council, on the ground that governments would,
by such an act, make themselves, in some sort, parties to its
proceedings. He had laid down and firmly adhered to the principle of
abiding within the line of purely political action. That principle, he
declared, fully covered the two steps of interdicting all publications
exciting to contempt of the law, and punishing all persons guilty of
any contempt of it.[317] But he instructed Count Trauttmansdorff to
support the French with all cordiality, in the demand that matters
touching political interests, which were submitted to the Council,
should be communicated to France before being enacted. But, on the
part of the State, he could not take up theological arguments or plead
the interests of the Catholic Church. He would take his stand on the
interests of the State only, and tell the Court of Rome that, if it
provoked a conflict, Austria would not give way to its decisions. For
similar reasons, he must abstain from identifying the government with
the bishops of the minority. Approving and sympathizing with their
position, he nevertheless felt that they might come to change their
ground, and accept what the government could not accept.

The French government applied, also, to the North German Confederation
to support its representatives. Bismarck was deliberate but firm. On
April 23,[318] Arnim sent in a despatch, cordially supporting the
claims put forward by Daru. He said, that the Decrees, so far from
being any vague menace for the future, were rather calculated to
revive, and surround with a new dogmatic sanction, certain pontifical
Decrees sufficiently known, and constantly combated by civil society
in every age, and of every nation. An earnest wish to shun a collision
pervaded the despatch.

The impression made upon the Curia by these appeals may perhaps
be better gathered from Don Margotti and M. Veuillot than from
Antonelli's despatches. On March 3 the _Unitá Cattolica_ says, France
and Austria have really remonstrated against the proposed definition
of infallibility. They are afraid of the doctrine of Christ. If they
would only adopt the Council and its doctrine, it would restore even
their finances. "Do make an experiment. You have tried a thousand
constitutions in France and Austria: why should you disdain to try
the true Catholic constitution?" Let those two countries faithfully
proclaim the doctrine, accept and spread it among the people, "and in
less than a year you will confess that it is a great salvation for
the French and Austrian empires." This is followed by a letter from a
professor of theology on the opportuneness of defining the dogma of the
personal infallibility of the Pope. He contends first that it would--

    give a blow to Liberalism, which is the doctrine of human
    infallibility; for representative assemblies claim a true
    infallibility, because the decrees of such assemblies _are not
    reformable by the Church_; but if a single man alone is declared
    infallible, they all, whether individually or collectively, become
    fallible, and must receive from him their rules in jurisprudence
    and legislation, and every institution or ordinance declared by
    the Pontiff not to be good is, without appeal, rejected as false
    and corrupt. Liberalism, wherever it prevails, converts rulers
    into tyrants and subjects into slaves! The spectacle of seven
    hundred bishops giving up all to the Pope will restore the idea of
    legitimate authority.

Anticipating the _final_ struggle against the Church, he says, "It is
of the utmost importance that the Church bind up her people in the
firmest unity; for the battle will be sore, and she will escape only by
divine intervention." On March 4, the _Unitá_ says that the Council is
assailed by traitors. The devil always has a foot in good things, but
he has two in the Council. Satan entered into the deputies of Italy,
then into the body of Prince Hohenlohe, then he passed on to Döllinger,
to Père Hyacinth, and to Père Gratry. The devil had entered into the
cabinets of Beust and Daru, and into the palace at Munich, where
Döllinger had been admitted to the same honours as formerly had been
granted to Lola Montez.

M. Veuillot[319] imagines a conversation between a Catholic and a
Liberal Catholic, of which the following is a condensation. It shows
the kind of information which was granted, and the kind of argument
which was welcome, to the forty thousand educated men on whom largely
depends the fate of all French governments _which attempt to govern
through them_:--

    The governments are displeased.---- Why?---- Because!---- What
    of that?---- You offend common sense. The cause is the dogma of
    infallibility.---- But the Holy Spirit?---- It was not the Holy
    Spirit that signed the petition for infallibility.---- Did He sign
    the other?---- The other is inspired by the highest wisdom.---- So
    be it. Both call upon the Holy Spirit and He will come.---- He will
    not come.----Why?---- The Rules of the Council are bad, the Hall is
    defective, discussion is impossible, the Council is not free.----
    What? the Fathers can read, study, pray, speak, and the Council is
    not free!---- No, discussion is physically impossible, and it is
    from the shock of discussion that light breaks out just as from
    the concussion of flints.---- The Council has no need of that kind
    of light which fires powder.---- The governments are up against
    infallibility.---- Let them come down.---- They'll make you come
    down yourself.---- Allow me, if you speak to me, upon my word of
    honour, I am not the Council; and if you speak to the Council, it
    will answer, as it always has done to good advisers of your sort.

    I fear God, dear Abner.

After this comes what with M. Veuillot's readers passes for argument,
In the present state of law in regard to religious liberty, governments
have nothing to do with infallibility but to study the new situation
which it will create, and to conform their conduct to it, as liberty
requires of them. Either they will voluntarily respect liberty, or they
will encounter its defenders and sustain the combat. The governments
ought to know that Catholics mean not to give up anything of their
right, and of the fulness of their life. As to the Church, continues
M. Veuillot, she manages her affairs as it suits her. She looks
beyond governments, beyond generations. She sows for the future, she
constructs for centuries. Although she desires not to put governments
to inconvenience, _it must be allowed that her compassion and her
complaisance towards these foreigners must have their limits_. She
bears the heavy burden of freedom of worship, and she takes the light
advantages of it.

Further on we find the same sinister reference to disturbances as in
Don Margotti (p. 246):--

    A letter is talked of from one of our ministers, who, it would
    appear, says that the difficulty of the government is not in Paris
    but in Rome. While this letter of the statesman is being read in
    Rome, barricades are springing up under his feet in Paris, and
    barricades are difficulties.... The head of the Church is always a
    great statesman, and ends by solving the difficulty. When statesmen
    will go to school to the Pope they will do marvels; but the world
    must not look for that just yet.

It is well known, says M. Veuillot, returning to the sore point of
the hints thrown out by Daru about withdrawing the troops, that if
Daru withdraws the French sentinel from the door of the Council, many
sentinels would be withdrawn from other doors in France (vol. i. p.
328). No wonder that Italians speak of the _Univers_ and the _Rappel_
as kindred, if hostile. Rochefort and Veuillot are the two poles of the
same violent hatred of ordered liberties and moderated power.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 309: _Fromman_, p. 91.]

[Footnote 310: _Friedberg_, p. 547.]

[Footnote 311: _Friedberg_, p. 549.]

[Footnote 312: _Friedberg_, p. 563.]

[Footnote 313: _Friedberg_, p. 533.]

[Footnote 314: The expression is peculiar. It is, _E nel senso della
precellenza del Sacerdozio sull' Impero_ a motive della superiorità del
fine dell' uno sopra quello dell' altro; quindi l'autorità dell' Impero
da quella del Sacerdozio dipende, come le cose umane dalle divine, le
temporali dalle spirituali.]

[Footnote 315: _Friedberg_, 538 ff.]

[Footnote 316: _Unitá_, March 8 and 9.]

[Footnote 317: _Friedberg_, p. 557.]

[Footnote 318: _Ibid._, p. 567.]

[Footnote 319: Vol. i. p. 239.]




CHAPTER X

Personal Attack on Dupanloup--Attempts at a Compromise--Impossibility
of now retreating--Daru Resigns--Ollivier's Policy--Feeling that
the Proceedings must be Shortened--The Episode of the Patriarch
of Babylon--Proposal for a New Catechism--Michaud on Changes in
Catechism--The Rules revised--An Archbishop stopped--Protest of One
Hundred Bishops--Movement of Sympathy with Döllinger--The Pope's
Chat--Pope and M. de Falloux--Internal Struggle with Friedrich.


The Villa Grazioli was one of the houses angrily pointed at by the
zealots of infallibility. There resided Dupanloup, too much courted
for the pride of those who thought that any man in Rome who opposed
the Curia ought to be ostracised. We do not remember any public hint
given to the police to watch the villa, such as the _Unitá Cattolica_
broadly gave as to the Palazzo Valentini, the residence of Cardinal
Hohenlohe (February 26). But the amiabilities of the "good press" were
not denied to the Villa Grazioli. Bishop Wicart, of Laval, wrote to his
local organ, insisting that every word of his letter should be printed,
and saying that the talk about Monseigneur Dupanloup in the diocese of
Laval must be put an end to. "I declare, before God, and in readiness
to appear at His judgment-seat, that I had rather die--fall dead on
the spot--than follow the Bishop of Orleans in the course he is now
taking."[320]

It was not to this attack exclusively that Dupanloup referred in a
letter to the chapter of his cathedral:--

    The spectacle will have been exhibited of a bishop who had, during
    a life already long, given strong proofs of devotion to the Church
    and to the Papacy, becoming all at once the butt for insult and for
    those indignities against which you protest, because on a capital
    question he said what he believed, and still believes, to be for
    the true interests of religion and of the Papacy.[321]

Ebullitions like this were but a sample of the increasing irritation
on both sides. The majority naturally wanted to have done with the
strife, the result of which was already certain. Vitelleschi says that
the Curia desired that the Council should be merely a great ceremony
for the solemn fulfilment of a pre-arranged program (p. 76). They
bitterly accused the minority of egging on the governments to oppose
the Council, to menace the Church, to insult the Holy Father, or even
to dictate to the Holy Ghost. Every objection to the new dogma was
denounced as rebellion against the Pontiff, hostility to the Council,
disloyalty to Peter, and so forth. Documents such as those of Beust
and Daru were a complete reversal of all that was right. At the moment
when Rome was "officially taking the affairs of the world in hand,"
it was insufferable for people representing provinces such as Austria
or France, to attempt to control the Mistress of the world. Strictly
speaking, Beust and Daru did not represent those two provinces any
more than Menabrea represented Italy. They represented only the carnal
and inordinate jealousy of the supernatural order entertained by the
natural order in those provinces. They must be made to learn the
meaning of the commission, "Teach all nations."

The members of the minority, trained by Rome to rush to statesmen and
importune them for everything that could serve the Church, now that
they believed her to be drifting to a terrible peril, did as they had
been accustomed to do. Personally they were stung by hard words, not
only from the Pope, but from all officials down to small diocesan
editors, emulous of Don Margotti and M. Veuillot. Even priests in their
own dioceses were set against them. As a party, the minority were
irritated by restraint, suspicion, manoeuvres, affronts, offers, and
even by _espionage_. Their one solace was, they felt, a vain one. They
could indeed speak, but they could not really debate. Their one refuge
was vainer still. They could draw up petitions, but they might as well
address them to Julius Cæsar for any answer that was ever vouchsafed.
The air was full of complaints of long speeches. Some proposed that
no more should be read, some that no more should be delivered in any
form; but that they should be written, printed, and distributed among
the Fathers. Some combined the two propositions, suggesting that only
_they_ should deliver speeches who could do so _extempore_, and that
the others should print theirs for those who liked to read them. The
_Unitá Cattolica_ hailed the proposal to have no more speeches; it
would shorten the Council.

Others, again, tried to form a third party, on the basis of some
compromise which would satisfy the Court by giving it in substance all
the concentration of power it wanted, and yet would save the minority
from the difficulty of accepting Papal infallibility in express terms.
Bishop Vitelleschi was named in connexion with this attempt. They who
made it did not fully realize either the political or the theological
bearing of the points at issue. The whole conduct of future operations
must depend on the ability of the central authority to act at any
moment and in any place, without the remotest fear of hesitation
or delay on the part of the instruments; above all, without any
possibility of that old bugbear, an appeal to a General Council, being
raised up again.

The pretensions which Pius IX had set up under the veil of secrecy now
began, through publicity, to drag Rome on to her doom. She would not
have dared, at first, to face governments with her present claims. She
had silently spread them in her schools, had excited her fancy with the
echoes of them coming back mysteriously from provincial synods and from
episcopal thrones, had shaped them into formulæ, one part of which her
fears had cast away, and another part of which publicity had put to
shame. Some now asked her to stop when the coach was at full swing down
hill! The attempt to do so would be attended with extreme danger. She
would lose, not only the new authority at which she had been grasping,
but also a considerable part of the old authority, out of which that
was to have been developed.

The Canons which had been the occasion of the protest from governments
could indeed well be spared, if the supreme authority and infallible
judgement of the sovereign were proclaimed but without that the Canons
would be paper laws in the hand of a discredited administration
The Syllabus, cried M. Veuillot, had lighted a torch, five years
beforehand, by which to study the objects of the Council (vol. i.
p. 55). The Curia had studied the objects during the five years by
that light. For it retreat on the main point was now an absolute
impossibility. Had France really withdrawn her troops, the Curia could
have broken up the Council under the justification of physical fear,
and so would have escaped the dilemma by an intervention of Providence.
But it was not to be. And we may as well here slightly anticipate our
narrative, in order to complete the incident of the French note. Daru
was one of the ministers who resigned on finding out that the Emperor's
professions of setting up a responsible ministry were such as to remind
one of the _mot_ attributed to Dupin, at the very height Napoleon's
power: "It is really too bad: one cannot now believe even the opposite
of what he says."

It was reported in Rome that, within twenty-four hours, two telegrams
had arrived from Paris. The first read: "Decidedly Daru will not have
infallibility. He announces that there will be a rupture." The second
read: "Daru retires. Ollivier replaces him. The Council free." If
it is true, cried M. Veuillot, it is glorious for M. Ollivier (vol.
i. p. 462). The despatch of Ollivier, on taking over the office of
Foreign Affairs from Daru, would have been thought straightforward
if proceeding from any Court but such a one as that of the Tuileries
then was. After stating that the Emperor had not sent an ambassador to
the Council, and had scrupulously abstained from interfering with its
proceedings, but that recently, when warned by the rumours in Europe of
dangers menacing the cause of religion, he had for a moment stepped out
of his reserve and offered counsel, Ollivier proceeds:--

    The Holy Father has not seen it right to listen to our counsels,
    nor to accept our observations. We do not insist, and we resume our
    attitude of reserve and expectation.

    You will not seek or accept, henceforth, any conversation, either
    with the Pope or with Cardinal Antonelli, on the affairs of the
    Council.

    You will confine yourself to gaining information, and keeping
    yourself acquainted with facts, with the sentiments which have
    prepared them, and with the impressions which have followed
    them.[322]

So terminated an incident that caused, for a time, a considerable
flutter, and seems to have offered to the Curia the only fair escape
from the dilemma into which it had got. It was now felt that the
legislation necessary to put the new constitution into working order,
must be pressed into as small a space of time as possible. The
restoration of ideas had not advanced satisfactorily since the meeting
of the Council and the restoration of facts had made no progress at
all. The voluminous Drafts had already brought Court theology into
contempt.

Friedrich had spent an evening and morning in writing to Lord Acton
on the Papal system as developed in the Draft Decree on the Church,
and in expressing his fears that the bishops would not see through
it, when a piece of news reached him, which though at ordinary times
it would scarcely have been talked of in Rome, just then caused some
excitement (p. 143). It was, as he relates, to the effect that Audu,
Patriarch of Babylon, after having spoken in opposition to the Curia,
had, as we have seen (page 107 of _this_ edition), been sent for at
night by the Pope, who allowed no witness of the interview but Valerga,
the so-called Patriarch of Jerusalem, who, however, as Vitelleschi
says, was, previous to his elevation, simply a Roman ecclesiastic.
Valerga acted as interpreter. The Pope raged, commanded the weak
old man to resign his patriarchate, forced a pen into his hand, and
ceased not storming till it was done. Then, to give practical effect
to the resignation, two bishops, not chosen by Audu, were appointed,
and he must consecrate them.[323] Such was the tale. Friedrich took
it as a sample of infallibility in practice even before the Council
had sanctioned it in theory. In itself, the story would seem very
improbable in London, but not at all so in Constantinople or Rome. In
the latter city the reputation of Pius IX is high for fits of rage,
in which his best friends are treated like lackeys. Liverani, who over
and over again calls him an angel, tells nevertheless several stories
of conduct to those about him which, if they could be told of an
English squire, would not get him the name of angel from his stewards
and bailiffs. Even the all but adoring editor of the _Speeches_ gives
a specimen which evidently hammered a deep dint into his Neapolitan
sensibilities. If the tales are true, the rage passes away, giving
place to habitual jocoseness.

Vitelleschi says that an alternative was set before the Chaldean
Patriarch--either he must submit to the Pope's authority as to certain
appointments, or resign. Being reduced to this extremity by his
imperious brother, the poor old man did resign, and the event "created
a great sensation." To the Roman nobleman the scene presented no
improbability. He does not even hint that it is a rare specimen of the
tranquil waters which lie behind St. Peter's Rock. The noise made by
the rumours forced even so great a person as M. Veuillot to take notice
of them. His usual style of contradiction is very striking, and perhaps
instructive. He will spend, it may be, pages in making somebody, who
has said something, look extremely ridiculous; but, at the end, you
wonder what he has contradicted. On the present occasion, however, M.
Veuillot did stoop to particulars. First, he says that the Patriarch
had himself chosen two bishops, but after the Pope had approved of
them, he refused to consecrate them. This is in direct contradiction of
a statement, on the other side, that the Propaganda had chosen the two
bishops in question and that the Patriarch refused to consecrate them.
The latter version gives a clear cause of dispute, whereas that of M.
Veuillot leaves the resistance of the Patriarch, as he himself says,
inexplicable. But as to what took place, his account is this:--

    The Pope called the Patriarch into his cabinet, and told him to
    consecrate the two suffragans in twenty-four hours, or to sign
    his resignation. The Patriarch asked for a delay of three days,
    then of two days. The Pope was inflexible; he required that the
    Patriarch should forthwith sign the engagement to obey. The
    Patriarch took a pen, and began to write; but he stopped, saying
    that the pen would not go. The Pope presented him with a penknife.
    The Patriarch of Jerusalem, who acted as interpreter, mended
    the pen. The Chaldean Patriarch resisted no further. He wrote
    the engagement to consecrate the two bishops, or to abdicate in
    twenty-four hours, and pushed his precision so far as to affix the
    date--half-past seven in the evening. The next morning he performed
    the consecration.

M. Veuillot vehemently denies that the Pope was in a rage, or that he
broke pens with his fist, or that he played the part of a tyrant. He
seems to take it for granted that good Catholics ought to be edified
with his own account of this rehearsal of a scene in the forthcoming
drama of "ordinary and immediate jurisdiction" in all dioceses of the
world.

We have hinted that Vitelleschi expresses no feeling of improbability
as to the tale of the Chaldean Patriarch. On the contrary, he
immediately follows it up by alluding to rumours of proceedings
contemplated by the Propaganda against certain bishops under its
jurisdiction, who had manifested a want of docility in seconding
its projects (p. 82). These rumours, he says, revived uncomfortable
recollections of the Inquisition, adding that events of this nature
are of common occurrence, and might happen a thousand times without
attracting much notice. But the moment was exceptional.

The interest of the General Congregations, from the time when the
movement for the definition of infallibility declared itself, centred
in that impending question, and but faintly, and intermittently, swayed
towards any other. The particular matter now on hand was a proposal
to do away with the diocesan Catechisms throughout the world, and to
adopt a uniform one for all. Outside the Church of Rome this would
probably have seemed a natural point of uniformity, but, inside of it,
the determination of the municipal _coterie_ to drive roughshod over
all that was homely or ancient, all that was national or local, roused
the spirit of opposition. It was clearly felt that taking away from the
bishops the right of approving their own Catechisms was a further blow
at their authority. For many years past the Jesuits had been altering
Catechisms, and so gradually naturalizing the doctrine of infallibility
on soil hostile to it, especially through schools conducted by
nuns.[324] They had made the Catechism a great financial success. A new
one for the whole world would be an estate for the Curia.

The book of the Abbé Michaud, _De la Falsification du Catéchism_, is
a curious study. He expresses the sum of his researches by saying
that Catholicism has been replaced by Popery. The old Paris Catechism
did not use the expression "the _Roman_ Church." It always said,
"the Catholic Church"; and in some Catechisms, in France, the word
"Roman" first came in as late as 1839, and that only in a profession
of faith at the end: "I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic and
Roman Church." Noting the progressive change in definitions of the
Church, Michaud gives examples, showing that the earliest do not even
mention the Pope, and that the latest speak of nothing but the Pope (p.
23). The early Catechisms call Christ the Foundation of the Church;
succeeding ones give this title to the Confession of St. Peter; next
to the Apostles, then to Peter, and, finally, to the Pope; and some
recent ones even say that the Church is founded on the Papacy (p.
34). The designation the "Head of the Church," is gradually withdrawn
from Christ, to be bestowed upon the Pope. One Catechism, as early
as 1756, said that the visible Head of the Church, being subordinate
to the Invisible one, made only one Head with Him. On the question
of the seat of authority in the Church, a precisely similar process
has taken place; and infallibility has followed in the same track.
Formerly, says the Abbé it was believed that the Pope had no authority
or infallibility but through the Church. Now, it is declared that the
Church has no authority or infallibility but through the Pope. We may
remark that the terms of the Vatican Decrees do not go so far as the
last assertion. The framers meant to do so, but their logic failed
them, and they have left a dualism full of future perplexity. The Abbé
shows that the Catechisms of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
and many down to the year 1843, always speak of the infallibility
of the Church. Later, the term, "the infallibility of the Teaching
Church," is introduced. That means, of the Pope and the bishops.
Michaud does not quote any with this terminology earlier than 1786. But
that could not suffice for the Romanists. The Abbé says that, at the
present time they teach, not only that the Pope is infallible, but that
he is the source of infallibility. "As the Church was replaced by the
Teaching Church, the Teaching Church has been replaced by the Pope." A
religious and political system shifting in this fashion does not well
bear even that kind of check which is afforded by the existence of
different Catechisms in neighbouring dioceses. It was not quite so easy
to teach at Rouen that the Pope singly is infallible, when at Paris the
Catechism said that the Church was infallible, and at Cologne it said
plainly that the Pope was not infallible. And the fact of this tendency
to change doctrine downward, and further downward, was a reason for a
feeling against one Catechism stronger than could be understood in any
community with a fixed rule of faith.

The changes made in the application to the Church of the word
"believe," are equally curious. The old form of words as to believing
in one Catholic Church was first changed into believing in the Teaching
Church. Then "respect and obedience to the Pope" began to be inserted,
from the end of the seventeenth century onward. In 1819 an Arras
Catechism claimed "sovereign respect"; but so far there is no mention
of belief in decisions of the Pope. It was in 1834 that the Catechisms
of Avignon and Amiens prepared for the transition from "respect" to
"belief," by teaching the necessity of inviolable attachment to all
that the Pope teaches. The consummation so prepared for was not far
off The St. Brieuc Catechism of 1835, and that of the Abbé Guillois of
1851, taught that it is necessary and Catholic to believe in the Pope
as well as in the Church.

The transition from "belief" to "the faith" is very easy. Originally,
the _dépôt_ of the faith, which the Church had to guard, and to which
no man could add, and from which no man could take away, was called
The Doctrine of Christ. Then it began to be called The Doctrine of
the Apostles; later, The Doctrine of the Successors of the Apostles;
and, after that, The Doctrine of the Prince of the Successors of the
Apostles; and, finally, of course, The Doctrine of the Pope (p. 76).
The new and uniform shorter Catechism (_De Parvo Catechismo_) was to
be modelled on that of Bellarmine, others being consulted. No hint was
given as to how it was to be prepared, and the bishops raised many
doubts. Should it not be submitted to the Council? Or, if that was not
done, surely it would not be made obligatory, but only recommended.
Others would have twelve bishops elected by the Council itself to
prepare it. Some wished that, when prepared, three years should be
given for the bishops to examine and test it; and then that only after
having been approved by them should it be made binding. None of these
guards against centralization found any favour.

The complaints about the Rules, and the desire of the majority for
something to expedite business, were to produce some effect at last.
When between two and three months had passed without a single one of
the much-prepared Drafts being homologated, as the Scotch would say, by
the Council, it was time to do something. The plan of shaping Rules for
the Council without the bishops was resorted to once more. New Rules
were given out as an edict, just as the original ones had been, and
were headed _A Decree_, as if the Council itself had framed them. To
allow the conclave to make rules for itself, or to amend those imposed
upon it, would have been a dangerous approximation to ancient conciliar
forms. It had become even clearer than had been foreseen, that a free
Council would be a less docile instrument than the sort of Secret
Consistory which had been so cleverly devised.

The statement of Vitelleschi, that the Rules provided for the printing
of the speeches and their distribution among the Fathers, is not
correct; and his further statement, that they gave the Presidents
the right of cutting short any speaker, is inexact. All they give is
the ordinary right of calling a speaker back to the question, _ad
propositam quæstionem ipsum revocare_.[325] But it is a different
question, whether the Presidents did not take this as containing the
power of cutting a speaker short. Immediately after its promulgation,
Haynald made a quotation to prove that a Pope had, at the time when the
Breviary was being revised, expressed an opinion contrary to that now
held by the majority, and the President immediately requested him, says
Vitelleschi, to come down from the pulpit. That certainly is much more
than calling him back to the question. Friedrich relates this scene
as one in which signs of impatience, given both by voice and feet,
were general among the majority, even Cardinals making demonstrations.
So Cardinal Capalti seized the bell and called the speaker to the
question. The Archbishop insisted that it was the duty of the majority
to hear him; but Capalti told him that they evidently would not hear
him, and he must stop.[326]

_La Liberté du Concile_ adds an important particular.[327] Haynald had
been attacked by a Belgian bishop for an opinion expressed by him in a
speech. He immediately asked leave to reply; and, in order to observe
the Rules to the letter, he went to the _bureau_ of the Presidents, and
requested leave to speak on a personal point--the false interpretation
put upon his speech. Leave was refused, but the Presidents told him
that he could take the opportunity of explaining when he should speak
in another debate. He waited for weeks. On the day now in question,
before commencing to speak, he told the President that, after his
speech, he meant to reply to the attack which had long before been
made upon him. He was authorized to do so. But no sooner had he begun
to present his personal defence, than the majority interrupted him
with violent clamour. Instead of enforcing respect for the dignity of
the Council and the liberty of speech, one of the Presidents cried to
the speaker, "You see that they will not hear you." And when Haynald
represented that he had been authorized to defend himself, "Hold your
peace and come down" (_Taceas et descendas_), cried Cardinal Capalti,
who thus took the place of Cardinal De Angelis, the Senior President.

It was on February 22 that the new Rules were delivered, and on March
1 more than one hundred prelates, of all nations, sent in a solemn
protest to the Presiding Cardinals. This was all they could do, short
of leaving the Council. They begin by pointing out that the new Rules
professed to preserve the liberty due to bishops of the Catholic
Church; but that, in most respects, it seemed as if their liberty was
diminished by them, and even exposed to abolition.[328] The Rules said
that, when new Drafts of Decrees were distributed, the Fathers were to
send in their remarks and suggestions in writing, and the Presidents
would allow a suitable time for so doing. The petitioners represent
that this might do for ordinary matters, but when grave questions of
dogma were to be discussed, the time allowed should be very ample, and
the wishes of those who wanted an extension of it should be met.

The Rules said that, after the committee had considered such remarks
and suggestions as might have been sent in, they should present the
Draft to the Council amended, and with it a summary report containing
a _mention_ of the remarks and suggestions which had been made. The
hundred bishops say that a mention is not enough. That would leave the
committee free to omit what it pleased. The remarks and suggestions
ought to be given at full, else the committee would become the entire
Council, and, in most things, the only judge.[329] Moreover, the
reasons assigned by authors of remarks and suggestions should also
be given. They request, further, that authors of suggestions should
have the right of explaining them, and, if need be, of defending them
before the committee. The idea of a right of reply, which the original
Rules had completely ignored, had been, after a fashion, introduced
into the new ones. That is, the members of the committee were to have
the right of reply, either at once or on a later day, to any one
speaker, or to a number of them. The hundred bishops do not challenge
this immense power granted to the committee, but they demand that the
speaker so replied to shall have his right of rejoinder.

The hundred strongly reclaim against a provision for closing a
discussion by a rising and sitting vote. This, they say, is a mode of
voting unknown in Councils, and is liable to haste, to error, and to
the contagion of momentary feeling. It might be quite allowable in
parliamentary proceedings, where a thing done this year may be undone
the next. But it is not admissible in a case where the matters in hand
are so awful and irrevocable as Decrees, which once adopted are never
to be amended or discussed again. They demand that no question should
be closed so long as any one who had not spoken claimed his right to
do so as a witness and a judge of the faith. They demand also that
speakers should be heard alternately, one for and one against any
proposal under consideration; and, moreover, in matters affecting the
faith, that no discussion should be closed so long as fifty Fathers
objected. They strongly urge that, in a General Council, neither
precedent nor propriety requires that many Decrees rashly adopted shall
be preferred to a few thoroughly sifted.

They then come to the solemn point, as to how many votes suffice to
make a dogma? The new Rules did not require a majority of two-thirds,
as many political constitutions provide in a case of importance.
They left the decision open to a simple majority. This the hundred
bishops treat as a total and astounding novelty. In General Councils,
moral unanimity in matters of dogma had been the rule. It was a rule
accepted, and avowedly acted upon, at Trent, by Pius IV. No other rule
would be consistent with the principle of Vincent of Lerins, "What has
been believed always, everywhere, and by all." Catholic dogmas being
formed by consent of the Churches, it followed that they could not be
defined in a Council except by the consent, morally unanimous, of the
bishops who represent those Churches. They assert that this condition
is the pivot on which the whole Council turns. This condition, they
proceed to say, seems to be the more urgent in the Vatican Council,
because so many Fathers were admitted to vote, as to whom it was not
clear whether they held their title to do so by ecclesiastical or by
divine right.

Thus indicating the fact that, first, a majority had been made up
largely of men who represented nothing, and that now that majority was
to be used to change, not only the dogmas of the Church, but the very
source and criterion of dogma, they proceed to a sorrowful declaration,
that unless the point as to the numbers voting was conceded, their
consciences would be burdened with an intolerable weight. They should
have fears that the oecumenical character of the Council would be
called in question; that a handle would be given to enemies for attacks
on the Holy See and on the Council; and that thus the authority of
the Council would be undermined among the Christian people, as though
it had been lacking in truth and liberty; and in these troublous
times that would be a calamity so great that a worse could not be
imagined.[330]

    "Thus," cries _La Liberté du Concile_, "you have a hundred bishops
    who say, Oppression is couched in these Rules. We have liberty
    indeed, but liberty restrained, garrotted; which can be choked
    whenever they like. _Imo etiam tolli posse videatur._ They say
    more. They say that these Rules contain a grave menace, a flagrant
    violation of Catholic tradition, an intolerable oppression of their
    conscience, pregnant with the greatest perils for the future,
    capable of striking the Council to the heart and of inducing
    incalculable misfortunes. That is said by one hundred bishops."

The foundation formed by such a rule of faith as the consent of the
Churches seemed solid as long as streams were shut off, but now that
the waters were rising the bishops began to feel symptoms of a shaking.
They did not, however, yet know that one rush from a sluice, to be
suddenly opened by the Pope himself, was, ere they rose, to bear that
sand clean away, and to drop them down on to a rotten rock of Roman
infallibility. Even the consent of the Church was to be dispensed with.

In the meantime, learned bodies in Germany had hastened to support
Döllinger. Public addresses came to him from the universities of Bonn,
Prague, and Breslau, and from colleges in other places, bearing the
best names of German Catholics in letters and science. The towns,
emulating the colleges, joined in the movement; Cologne, Kempten,
Freiburg-in-Brisgau, and other places sending in addresses. Munich
voted to the venerable scholar an honorary citizenship, which he
modestly declined. It was evident that the German people would have
followed in large numbers in the movement thus begun, but the bishops
who, in Rome seemed to be earnest in opposing the Curia, suppressed
all attempts to discourage it on the part of their clergy or people.
They had woven a tangled web at Fulda, and were getting deeper and
deeper into its meshes. On the other side, the Pope, the Curia, and
the Infallibilist bishops did everything possible to bring pressure to
bear upon the bishops of the Opposition, both from the clergy and from
the people. As with Hildebrand, so now, all authority which did not
move at the beck of "Peter," was overturned or overmatched by raising
subordinates at the call of the higher power. Döllinger had said, in
reply to an address, that he had done no more than maintain views in
which, as to the substance, he was at one with the majority of the
German prelates. This was in Rome skilfully turned into a reason for
demands upon those prelates. Signor Aloysi, evidently by commission of
the Pope, proposed to the Archbishop of Munich to disavow Döllinger,
and to procure a collective disavowal from the German bishops. This the
Archbishop declined to do.

It is hardly fair to conclude that the German bishops made a show of
opposition merely to be able to say to the people, We resisted till
the word was spoken, as you did; but now that it is spoken, we submit,
and so must you. In addition to calculations of this kind there was
probably a consciousness that a mortal struggle was rising between
Rome and all the religion, freedom and light in the outside world,
and that it would go hard with Rome. The only possible counterpoise
to their fear of the Pope would have been a movement on the part of
governments to separate the Church from the State. But the politicians
were as little prepared for that as the bishops were for schism. So,
both the one and the other, however involuntarily, concurred in helping
Rome on towards the catastrophe. Ketteler proposed that the German
bishops should disavow Döllinger, but could not carry his point.[331]
He disavowed him on his own account. Senestrey forbade theological
students of his diocese to attend the classes of Döllinger; but Scherr,
Archbishop of Munich, refused to do even this. The press, however,
made amends for the slackness of the Ordinary. M. Veuillot told how
Döllinger's father had said that the devil of a boy had two heads
and no heart, and how, in his Cathedral stall, he did not know how
to handle his breviary, and sometimes read, instead of it, proofs of
his books. Quirinus might, indeed, say, "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" (p. 260). But the
writers of the Curia charged upon all Opposition writers, not only
hatred, malice and all uncharitableness, but especially lying, with the
loving and making of lies.

The Pope, whose jokes and outbursts alternately supplied gossip, is
reported by Friedrich as saying that Döllinger was a heretic, or very
near it, and that Günther was much more respectable, as he had been
quiet for a long time (dead). Some one observing to him that Döllinger
was a harmless old man, he replied, Pretty kind of old man that
receives addresses from every quarter. He made no secret that he took
the Opposition bishops generally for "softheads," but thought they
must have some one behind them. He knew who nodded approval while
Strossmayer spoke, and who pressed his hand when he came down. He said
that Cardinal Schwarzenberg played the part of the sub-deacon in the
manger; that is, the part of the ass in the scene of the Nativity.
Schwarzenberg, he said, had been the only person who declared that the
definition of the Immaculate Conception would draw bad consequences
after it. But "the definition took place on a morning when the sun
shone so wonderfully that I recognized in it the confirmation of my
design." Much more chat of the same quality is given.

Friedrich has one short paragraph to the effect that it was confidently
asserted that Veuillot had a seat behind the scenes in the Council
Hall. A man deeply initiated in the secrets of the Council did not deny
it (p. 165). If this was the case, it would be curious to compare it
with M. Veuillot's account of his being on the Pincio, instead of in
the Cathedral, on the opening day. That meditation in the rain seemed
rather eccentric.

The Pope had arranged for an exhibition of Catholic art, and opened it
in person with a speech. The passage which made the greatest impression
was that in which he alluded to a recent saying of M. de Falloux,
a zealous French Catholic politician, and the actual author of the
Education Bill which embodied Montalembert's policy, to the effect
that the Church had never had her '89, and she needed one. The Pope
declared, "I say that is blasphemy." There were many versions of the
utterance, but M. Veuillot, evidently by authority, stuck to this one.
M. de Falloux, after a considerable time, wrote to Bishop Freppel,
saying that he had not used the phrase alleged. Bishop Freppel told
the Pope that M. de Falloux wrote that he had not used it. The Pope
replied that if M. de Falloux had not used it, he had not condemned M.
de Falloux. There the tale is left by Veuillot (i. p. 360).[332]

A case like this indicates the struggles between old opinion and the
new light of unforeseen circumstances, through which many must, at
this time, have been passing. In the case of Hyacinth and Gratry, the
struggle had come to the surface; in that of Döllinger, it put on the
solemnity of age; in that of Montalembert, the awe of death. From the
oratory at Birmingham to the chambers of the Quirinal, from under the
roof of the Vatican to lone stations in some mission wild, were men
moaning with a conscience-ache. The coming on of an eclipse could
hardly be more awful to a meditative Magus than the advancing shadow of
heresy on the Church herself to one who had believed her infallible.
The dread images of doubt and uncertainty not only haunted, but
threatened many a brave spirit. If the infallibility of the Church was
to be reduced to the level of that of the Popes, in the doctrines and
morals they had solemnly taught; to the level, for instance, of Pius IX
and his Syllabus--alas, alas for the great ideas of the past! And was
it so clear that it had been innocent to lay those under anathema who,
looking away from man to Christ, from Councils to the Bible, had meekly
said, The only infallible guide over life's broad sea is not the church
steeples, but the stars.

The veil is partly lifted off from one such struggle. Friedrich's stay
in Rome had been harassing. Suspected of being the correspondent of
the _Augsburg Gazette_, he had been denounced in the papers, treated
rudely by bishops, jeered at by the Pope, reported as being banished,
and dogged by police spies even in the house of Cardinal Hohenlohe.
All this would intensify his perception of the moral corruption of
the city, of which many a priest before him had spoken, from Luther
to Liverani, or Lammenais. It would also give a keener edge to the
theological debates which were going on in his own mind. After an
interval of five days in his diary, he writes, under date of February
25 (p. 195)--

    At last I must once more take up the pen. If the last few days have
    been important for the history of the Council, still more important
    have they been for my own life-history. A mental struggle within
    me has reached its close, one which was hard to undergo, and which
    shook my entire mental and physical being. Now all stands clear
    before my eyes. I know the end toward which I am to steer. The Lord
    has once more led me a stage further in my life-path. It was truly
    a melancholy thought for me when, finding for a moment a point of
    rest in the midst of this struggle, I looked back upon my peculiar
    course. From that decision to become a Jesuit, onwards to this
    journey to Rome, an unseen hand has so perceptibly led me, almost
    always without design of mine, that even here, in the midst of the
    new storms, I have been able to take fresh courage. I stand here in
    Rome only through the unseen guidance of the Lord; for it was not
    I that ever took a step to come here; indeed, all was done without
    me. But I see clearly that even that dispensation was to purify my
    views and intentions, and to lead me on towards the sole prescribed
    end of my life.

    At one time, how much was Rome for me! How did I, in a sense,
    worship all that came from it! Now I see that here reign not only
    the most horrid ignorance, but, still more, pride, lies, and sin.
    Henceforth my life has its task marked out for two ends. Henceforth
    it is devoted to the struggle against the Curia (not primacy), and
    to that against the Jesuits. If I fall in it, I shall believe that
    the Lord has so willed, and that there can be, and that there is,
    a martyrdom for Christ, and for His Church, among the faithful.
    If I have had to learn here that the Curialists and the Jesuits
    are enemies not less furious than the heathen, I shall openly show
    the world that they do not scruple to devise the death of their
    enemies. The _Univers_ may erroneously write, "The scandal in Rome
    is great," because I am here and am betraying the secrets of Rome;
    but one may say with full right, "The scandal in Christendom is
    great."

The bishops of the minority still declared their determination to
resist every attempt to concentrate infallibility in the Pope; but
Darboy said to a diplomatist, What use is it to send in protests that
never receive an answer?[333] The last protest, however, contained
the grave matter in which a hundred bishops pledged themselves to
language casting doubt upon the oecumenicity of the Council. Of no
use for its immediate purpose, that document will always be of real
use in judging of the value of much that has been said by its signers
since the Council. Prominent Infallibilists intimated that the dogma
would not be so defined as to declare the opposite opinion a heresy.
Yes, says Friedrich, they would leave it as Trent left the Immaculate
Conception--in such a position that some day, when the sun shines fair
upon a Pope, it may be promulged as a dogma. Then he adds, what many
may have heard stated in Rome, It is strongly asserted that the very
reason why the Council Hall has been placed where it stands, is that
there at a certain hour the sunbeams fall upon the Papal throne (p.
219).

Vitelleschi says that the visitors to the Exhibition of Church Art
did not generally exceed the number of the _gendarmes_, and expresses
an opinion that the real Christian arts are better represented in
such international exhibitions as might be seen elsewhere. Anything
less like Christianity than many of the objects which in Rome are
called objects of Christian art, is hard to conceive, or anything
more fitted to turn men into triflers, if once they give themselves
up to such baubles as the great concern of life, either social or
religious. In this exhibition, Friedrich was struck with a statue of
the Pope defining the Immaculate Conception, and with pictures of the
same event, "with the inevitable sunbeams." He was also arrested by a
group of the Risen Christ, with Pius standing before Him in a flowing
pluvial. He says that when one looks at the humble figure of our
Lord, and then at the self-conscious Pius, one is inclined to surmise
that the latter is thinking, "I am not only what Thou art, but much
more. I command all; Thou didst serve all" (p. 220). Quirinus quotes,
without translating it, a saying of an Italian noble, which might
have suggested the very thought: "Other Popes believed that they were
Vicars of Christ; but this Pope believes that our Lord is his Vicar
in heaven" (p. 326). These are the things which the worshippers of
Pius IX call blasphemy, while most Italians smile if you doubt their
legitimacy. Friedrich tells how the auditor of Cardinal Hohenlohe,
an ecclesiastic, expressed the horror that had been caused in Rome
by Friedrich's articles on Manning in the _Literaturblatt_. He added
that Hohenlohe would have been a great Cardinal but for two blunders,
that of visiting Cardinal Andrea when he returned to Rome, and that of
bringing Professor Friedrich to the Council (p. 220).

The ministry of Prince Hohenlohe, in Bavaria, had fallen under the
hostile influences of the Church party. On the other hand, the recent
action of France and Austria had shown that possibly the Curia, if not
prompt, might meet with more formidable checks than any that could
arise from Bavaria. As to France, the Curia would seem, rightly or
wrongly, to have felt that if Napoleon dared them to the worst, they
could shake him out of his place, if not as easily, yet as surely as
the bearers of the Pope's portative throne could upset a Pontiff.
Daru's demands were officially made known by the reluctant, indeed the
all but recalcitrant M. de Banneville, no earlier than March 1. At
this very time Dupanloup was drawing up, and the French bishops were
preparing to sign, the protest against the new Rules. The adhesion of
the German and Hungarian bishops to this protest was to be foreseen.
The Curia, therefore, took the decision to face both Bonapartes and
bishops, and to throw down the gauntlet.

The meetings of General Congregations had been suspended to give the
Fathers time for study. On the evening of March 7 a short notice was
sent round to their houses, saying that an additional chapter, to be
called the Eleventh, would be inserted in the Draft of Decrees on
the Church. This new chapter was simply that declaration of Papal
infallibility which had been asked for by the famous Address. So the
die was cast. All uncertainty as to the designs of the Curia was at
an end. Not only was the dogma to be defined, but all who should deny
it were to be excluded from the unity of the Church. Quirinus says
that the Pope gave his sanction to this critical act under great
personal excitement. For four-and-twenty years had he sought the crown
of infallibility, believing himself to be wrongfully deprived of it
by the error and unbelief of mankind. In 1848, when Count Mamiani,
after ceasing to be the Prime Minister of the new Pontiff, met his
friends in Florence, he said, "It is utterly impossible to act as the
constitutional minister of a Pope who is stark mad on the subject of
his own personal infallibility."[334]

The bishops found that they had only ten days allowed them to send in
their written comments upon the fundamental change now impending in
the constitution of the Church, in their creed, and in their standard
of faith. Vitelleschi remarks that the brevity of the time given
will remain as a testimony to the pressure exercised, and will lower
the impression of the wisdom of men who hurried the Church through
such a transformation.[335] The _Civiltá_ states that the time was
afterwards extended by a week.[336] If it was proposed to give to
Orders of the Queen in Council all the scope and effect of Acts of
Parliament, our Lords and Commons would expect at least one week beyond
ten days' notice before meeting the Court party in the lists, and more
particularly if the right of moving that the Bill should be read that
day six months had been for ever snatched away from them.

A visit of the ex-Grand Duke of Tuscany, or, as the _Civiltá_ takes
care to call him, the Grand Duke, is formally recorded, as if to show
the proper relations between princes and the Pontiff. On his arrival,
the Grand Duke was waited upon by the majordomo and chamberlain of
the Pope; and next day by Antonelli, as Secretary of State. The day
following, the Grand Duke "went to the apostolic palace to do homage
to the Holy Father." This is the true language of vassalage. To make
it plainer, the Pope, on the same day, "admitted the Archduke Charles
of Tuscany to an audience."[337] It was, however, not encouraging for
the projectors of "a new world" that the only princes who came with
suitable reverence to the door which formed the entrance to it were
princes who represented a world that had waxed old, had decayed, and
indeed had vanished away.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 320: _Friedberg_, p. 112.]

[Footnote 321: _Friedberg_, p. 114.]

[Footnote 322: _Friedberg_, p. 138.]

[Footnote 323: _Vitelleschi_, p. 81.]

[Footnote 324: _Quirinus_, p. 267.]

[Footnote 325: _Friedberg_, p. 415; _Acta_, p. 18; Freiburg ed., p.
163.]

[Footnote 326: _Friedrich_, p. 198.]

[Footnote 327: _Doc. ad Ill._, i. 164.]

[Footnote 328: "_In pluribus Patrum libertas inde minui, imo etiam
tolli posse videatur._"]

[Footnote 329: _Alioquin jam deputatio esset totum concilium et in
pluribus solus judex._]

[Footnote 330: _Documenta_, i. p. 263. Here _veritas_ seems to mean
reality "quasi veritate et libertate caruerit."]

[Footnote 331: _Quirinus_, p. 261.]

[Footnote 332: Strangely enough, in April 1876, the papers spoke of
the excitement caused in France by the fact that Bishop Freppel had
positively excommunicated the zealous M. de Falloux for some breach of
the ecclesiastical law, in a matter connected with Church property.]

[Footnote 333: _Tagebuch_, p. 219.]

[Footnote 334: See a very life-like sketch of Pio Nono in the
_Manchester Examiner and Times_ of December 17, 1874, which, in Rome,
is ascribed to the pen of Mr. Montgomery Stuart.]

[Footnote 335: _Vitelleschi_, p. 177.]

[Footnote 336: Srrie II. x. 112.]

[Footnote 337: _Civiltá_, VII. x. 118.]




_BOOK IV_

_FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF THE QUESTION OF INFALLIBILITY TO THE
SUSPENSION OF THE COUNCIL_




CHAPTER I

Joy of Don Margotti--New Feelers for an Acclamation--Suggested Model
of the Scene--Its Political Import--A Pause--Case of the Jesuit
Kleutgen--Schwarzenberg out of Favour--Politics of Poland--Döllinger
on the New Rules--Last Protest of Montalembert--His Death--Consequent
Proceedings in Rome.


"The Vicar of Jesus Christ for ever" was the title of the article in
which Don Margotti announced the fact that the Pope had sent in the
proposal of infallibility. Ollivier, said Don Margotti, once stated
that he loved strong powers with confidence in themselves, and as the
Pope always wished to be loved by ministers of Napoleon III, he had
showed them that he was strong.[338] "It is a great spectacle, but it
will be a still greater one when infallibility is proclaimed, and the
Syllabus is proclaimed, in spite of the opposition of governments, of
revolutions, and of all hell."

But the speedy closing of the question, now formally opened, was
indispensable. The suggestion of an acclamation on the day of Mary in
December had proved vain; but the day of Joseph was now approaching.
The term allowed for sending in written observations on the Draft would
expire on March 17, and the _Unitá_, in its number of the 11th, put up
the following prayer: "O Blessed St. Joseph, grant us the grace that
on the 18th of March may be discussed, and on the 19th, the day of thy
Festival, may be proclaimed, the most pleasant and most wise doctrine
of the infallibility of the Vicar of Jesus Christ." The correspondent
of the _Unitá_ from Rome said, "We hope for the definition on the 19th,
St. Joseph's Day"; and its correspondent at Paris stated that no doubt
existed that the dogma would be proclaimed on that day. Two days before
the one so anticipated, the _Unitá_ published suggestive accounts of
the scenes in 1854, when the Immaculate Conception was acclaimed. It
quoted Canon Audisio, a well-known writer, and one sometimes called a
Liberal Catholic. Just after the noontide bell, when the two hundred
bishops had knelt to repeat the Angelus, as soon as they resumed their
seats, a cry speedily broke out from among them, _Petre, doce nos:
confirma fratres tuos_: (Peter, teach us! strengthen thy brethren!) The
teaching desired was a definition of the Immaculate Conception. The
whole assembly wept. "It was a weeping so cordial and sublime that you
cannot imagine it, and pen cannot describe it."

After this hint, as to what the scene--always a chief point--on the
19th should be, the principles of polity involved in the scene are
indicated; for in Rome all acting is for the purpose of ruling. Some
prelates, said the _Araldo di Lucca_, as quoted by the _Unitá_, had
thought that the Bull announcing the dogma of the Immaculate Conception
should make mention of the assembly of the bishops; but a prelate from
France, rising _in the spirit of Athanasius_, said, "No; the episcopate
should not decide, but only the chief Pontiff; he alone must speak."
He went on to argue that, by showing obedience to the Pontiff, they
would secure the obedience of the people, and strengthen the principle
of authority. The _Unitá_ significantly adds, "It appears to us, and
it will appear to all, that not only the dogma of the Immaculate was
defined on that memorable sitting of the 24th of November, 1854, but
also that of Papal infallibility."

While the party of movement was full of hope, the minority were in
dismay. Their chosen ground of inopportuneness had been cut from under
their feet. The Pope and five hundred bishops had decided that the
question was opportune. They now felt that if the dogma should be
suddenly defined, they must either submit or be outside of the Church.
The new Rules permitted the discussion to be closed at the will of
the majority. It was notorious that any discussion whatever, on a
point so immediately affecting the authority of the Pope, not only in
the Church, but also in the world, was hateful to every right-minded
Curialist, and, in fact, that as taking place hard by the tomb of St.
Peter, such a discussion was regarded as a thing all but intolerable.
The suggestions in the _Unitá_ from Rome, Paris, and Turin had not been
put out without high sanction. Was it possible that, on St. Joseph's
Day, all would be ended by an irresistible acclamation?

Some think that so deep a feeling was now produced in the minority,
and that so clear did they make it that they would not acquiesce in
an acclamation, that they impressed the Vatican for a time. Friedrich
repeats, on the authority of one who was intimate with the Pope, a
saying of the latter, "The Jesuits have set me on this road, and now I
shall go on in it, and they must bear the responsibility." The personal
position of members of the minority became more and more trying, owing
to the increasingly active part taken by the Pontiff in the discussion.
A second brief to the Jesuit Ramière[339] followed the one which
ridiculed Maret, commending another publication of the same author,
in which, alluding to the possibility that some now opposing the
infallibility of the Pope would secede from the Church, Ramière said,
"These form the secret enemy who impedes our march, and, in driving him
from our ranks, the sacred army will obtain the most precious guarantee
of its future success."[340] Friedrich adds, what agrees with much that
is said, or hinted, by other Liberal Catholics, strange as it sounds in
our ears, "Any one who knows the Jesuits can explain the closing words
of the pamphlet, 'Then, truly will the Council have realized the most
ardent desire of the Saviour, and established the conditions on which
this divine Master makes the submission of the entire world to the yoke
of the faith depend.'"

    "That is," explains Friedrich, "the yoke of the Society of Jesus;
    for even under the name Jesus, 'we are only to understand the
    Society of Jesu.' At the Festival of St. Ignatius Loyola, priests
    must repeat the words, with great emphasis, 'At the name of Jesu
    every knee shall bow.' The former Confessor of the Pope, now
    replaced by a Jesuit, always felt scandalized by this, on the eve
    of the Festival, and earnestly wished to have those words removed
    from the Mass for Loyola's Day."

Archbishop Cardoni, being asked what had become of the Draft Decrees
on Faith, said that the committee first examined them, after which
Deschamps, Pie, and Martin, as a sub-committee, partly prepared
a revised form, and finally the recasting of them was completed
by Kleutgen, the Jesuit. What, it was asked, the Kleutgen who was
condemned by the Inquisition? Yes, replied the Archbishop faintly.
This Kleutgen had been a German political refugee, but joined the
Jesuits, and became confessor to a nunnery. One of the nuns, a
German princess, was dying. Her relations, through interest with the
Pope, succeeded in procuring her release. It proved to be a case of
poisoning. The Inquisitors took proceedings, and Kleutgen was somehow
incriminated. The convent was closed, the nuns were dispersed into
other establishments, and the confessor was sentenced to prison for six
years. The imprisonment was changed into reclusion in one of the Jesuit
houses, in a delightful neighbourhood near Rome. Kleutgen found means
to regain favour, and was now remoulding the faith for the benefit of
reconstituted society.[341]

Cardoni told how he, an Archbishop, had been received the preceding day
by the Pope before Schwarzenberg, a Cardinal and a prince, and it was
added that Schwarzenberg had been obliged to wait a fortnight for his
audience, whereas a Cardinal was entitled to have one after two days.
Cardinal De Angelis alleged that the Pope had seen Schwarzenberg behind
the Vatican smoking a cigar, with a "small hat" on his head. To this
the Germans replied that it was well known that Schwarzenberg did not
smoke.[342] We cannot state what would be the penalty for a Cardinal
convicted of wearing a small hat, but they are a class of "creatures"
whose eternal salvation may, by the will of their lord, be declared to
depend on matters the connexion of which with the Christian religion
it takes a Pontiff to find out. Sixtus V decreed the penalty of
excommunication against any Cardinal who should open a letter bearing
the plain address "Cardinal," without the title "Most Illustrious and
Most Reverend." They were to burn such letters. (_Frond_, ii., p. xiii.)

Archbishop Ledochowski, whose name has frequently been heard of since
the Council, had been made Primate of Poland by the Pope. This office,
in olden time, carried with it the regency of the country, in the
interregnum between the death of one king and the election of another.
As primate, the Archbishop put on the colours of a Cardinal. Count
L---- told Friedrich that Ledochowski had said that he was right glad
that he had so early joined the Infallibilists, for Rome was certain
to carry through what she had taken in hand, and therefore the bishops
of the Opposition would gradually come over to the right side, and
would cut a poor figure at the last. Count L---- expressed himself as
indignant at this morality. But, said Friedrich, scarcely had the Count
ended, when I read in the _Univers_ that Ledochowski was mentioned
for promotion as a Cardinal. We may here, as illustrating the bearing
of titles and colours on very serious affairs, interject a statement
of what happened later.[343] Ledochowski, after the Council, at once
took up a new position. When the German bishops next met at Fulda, he
would not join them. As Primate of Poland, he said, he belonged to the
tomb of St. Adelbert rather than to that of St. Boniface. He would
no longer admit Germans to his seminary for priests. In places where
preaching had existed alternately in German and Polish, he suppressed
the German. His organ, the _Tyotnick_, related how, during the Council,
the Pope had given him the title of Primate of Poland, but denied that
he _used_ the political powers attached to the title. Nevertheless, the
_Catholic Calendar_ for 1872, published in Thorn, placed the name of
Ledochowski in the list of reigning princes, as Primate of Poland and
representative of the King of Poland. So that, if the powers attached
to the title were not used, the reasons were not far to seek.[344]

While early converts were joyful, Ketteler continued to be mysterious.
In a meeting of German prelates he declared that, though all his life
he had worked for infallibility, he could not do so now. This Draft
Decree was a crime. But what was to be done? Send in another protest?
All cried out at once, No! no! they have treated us like domestics, and
not even given us an answer.[345]

On February 27 Don Margotti had said that even a Protestant or a
Mohammedan, a Schismatic or a Jew, would see from the new Rules that no
assembly could be freer. Döllinger, on the other hand, had published a
letter on the new Rules. He took the ground indicated in the protest
of the one hundred bishops. In matters of faith, as he contended, the
Rules shifted the source of authority from tradition to majority. This
he showed to be a direct departure from the doctrine of the Catholic
Church.

The days which some had fixed upon for the triumph of an acclamation
were passed in excitement of a different kind. A letter appeared in
the _Gazette de France_ and the _Times_, from Montalembert, addressed
to some gentleman who had challenged his present opposition as
inconsistent with his former championship of the Church. The dying
man then delivered his last public utterance. He protested that, in
his early days, the pretensions now put forth were unheard of. In
language already cited he described the incredible change of the clergy
after 1850, and their present shortsighted prostration before the idol
they had set up. He showed that in his speech of 1847 there was not a
word of the doctrine of Papal infallibility. He might have indicated
also the still more celebrated speech on the restoration of Pius IX.
He quoted that remarkable letter of Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, in
which he depicted the difference between the old Ultramontanism and
the new. Montalembert then declared that his whole regret was that
illness prevented him from descending into the arena to join Dupanloup
and Gratry, to contend on his own ground, that of history and of
social consequences. "Then should I merit--and it is my sole remaining
ambition--a share in the _litanies of insult_ daily launched against
my illustrious friends by a portion, too numerous, of the clergy--that
poor clergy which is preparing for itself so sad a destiny, and which
formerly I loved, defended, and honoured, as no one in modern France
had done." The _Unitá_ cried, "Better for Montalembert had he died
a year ago; better indeed had he never been born."[346] While these
words were ringing in the ears of all, came a telegram announcing
that Montalembert was no more. That evening the Pope had one of those
audiences in which he delights; a kind of public meeting, with three
hundred persons present. Of course every one expected that the little
member which in the days of Pius IX has done much to make the Pope an
entertainment for Italians, would not be able to keep off the exciting
topic. "A Catholic has just died," said his Holiness, "who rendered
services to the Church. He wrote a letter which I have read. I know not
what he said at the moment of death; but I know one thing--that man
had a great enemy, pride. He was a Liberal Catholic--that is to say, a
half-Catholic.... Yes, Liberal Catholics are half-Catholics."[347]

About the time when the Pope was thus speaking of him whose eloquence
had been worth regiments to him, Father Combalot was crying from the
pulpit of Notre Dame Della Valle--

    "Satan has entered into Judas! There are men who were Christians,
    and who on the brink of the grave become enemies of the Pope, and
    speak of torrents of adulation, and accuse us of erecting him into
    an idol. To speak so is Satanic work. There are three academicians
    who do it" [Montalembert, Gratry, and Dupanloup].[348]

Archbishop De Mérode, brother-in-law of Montalembert, and almoner
to the Pope, arranged that a High Mass should be celebrated in the
Aracoeli on the height of the Capitoline, that is, the church of the
Roman municipality, in which Montalembert was entitled to the honour
of such a solemnity because of the dignity of Roman citizen which had
been conferred upon him for his distinguished services to the Church.
On the 16th a notice was circulated, announcing the intended Mass, in
publishing which the _Univers_ stated that it was known that there
would be no oration--a record which spoiled subsequent fables. Late
that evening, in the great church of the French, a preacher dwelt upon
the memory of Montalembert, inviting the audience to the solemn service
at the Capitoline the next morning. At the same time the rooms of
Archbishop Darboy were crowded. French prelates related what remarks
they had written on the proposal for infallibility. Each one beheld
in his own a great and heroic act. Landriot, Archbishop of Rheims,
had employed a quotation from Bessarion against the curial system,
and expected to be called Jansenist, Gallican, Febronian, and such
like. Friedrich, we suspect, was making prelates understand that if
once they allowed themselves to recommence deliberation under the new
Rules, all hope of successful opposition would be idle, and hinting his
belief that under such Rules the Council had no proper oecumenicity.
Suddenly news came from Mérode. Something was wrong. It proved that
the High Mass for Montalembert had been forbidden by the Pontiff.
What! the departed spirit of the foremost Frenchman in the chivalry
of the Church to be insulted on the Capitoline by the Pope in person!
Among all those Frenchmen, many were old enough to remember the most
brilliant of Montalembert's sallies, and all were old enough to have
witnessed the public disgust when a Court chamberlain turned him out at
the election of 1857, half of the clergy voting against him, and the
other half staying at home. But this beat all. A Cardinal present could
not restrain the confession, "Now I am well ashamed of being a Roman
Cardinal."[349]

The announcement was too late to reach all, and when the hour for
the service came, some twenty bishops and many French notables
assembled. Father Beckx, the General of the Jesuits, had come from the
neighbouring _Gesù_, thinking, doubtless, of the splendid services to
the Order which had been rendered by the confiding genius of the man
for whose soul he was now to pray. Even Louis Veuillot came, trying
to forget the irritations of recent years, perhaps hoping in part to
make reparation for ingratitude and insolence, and unable now to see
the opponent, seeing only as in old days the "son of the Crusaders,"
facing, provoking, and dominating a hostile Parliament, with his
head back and his blue eye flashing, till at some turning-point in
his theme the fountains of a great deep broke up, the deep of his
mighty emotions, and then gushed out a flood which carried all before
it. When they reached the steps of the Aracoeli, an official, who
was one of the subordinates of Mérode, cried out in a French phrase
which he had learned on purpose, that they must go away, that the
Mass was forbidden. It is evident that they were all overcome with
mortification, not to use stronger language. Even M. Veuillot pushed by
and said, "It can do no harm to repeat some paternosters for him."[350]

Quirinus says that probably it was De Banneville who represented to
the Pope the serious effects that would be produced in France by this
proceeding. So, on the evening of the 17th, instead of arranging
for the acclamation of infallibility, the Pope was making the small
amends of sending a private message to have a Mass celebrated, on
the following morning, on behalf of a certain deceased Charles, in
the Church of Santa Maria Traspontina. No public notice whatever was
given of this service. The bishops were all shut up in a General
Congregation. The Pope went privately, without any suite, sat hidden
in a latticed "tribune," and then had it announced to the world that
he had personally attended a Mass on behalf of Montalembert. When the
exceedingly painful feeling he had caused began to appear, an attempt
was made to turn the occasion to account by throwing the blame on
Dupanloup. It was declared that it had been announced that he would
deliver an oration, and indeed that the proposed function had been got
up by him as a party demonstration. This gave Dupanloup the opportunity
of writing[351]:--

    This is an outrage at once upon the Holy Father, Monsignor De
    Mérode, the bishops, and myself. This entire tale, Sir, is false
    from the first word to the last. I did not appoint the service.
    I was not to officiate. I have had nothing whatever to do in
    distributing cards of invitation. Whatever may have been my
    profound and inviolable affection for M. De Montalembert, it
    belonged to the members of his family present in Rome, Monsignor
    De Mérode and the Count De Mérode, and not to me, to arrange the
    details of this religious ceremony. It is within my knowledge that
    in doing so they conformed to all the laws and formalities usual in
    Rome in similar cases.

The last statement was made to upset one of the excuses, that proper
leave had not been asked for the service. So those false stories, at
least, were stayed.

As the news spread in succession from place to place, the imaginations
of Liberal Catholics all over Europe would restlessly wander up and
down the Capitoline, seeing on that historical <DW72> the signal given
for their eternal disgrace in the Holy City. It was given too by an
arrow shot from the Pontiff's own bow, and aimed at the shade of
Montalembert. We do not profess to know what injury the imagination
of such men might picture as having been done to the spirit that was
gone, but those Christians who believe in a God who, not even in this
world, much less in the great hereafter, trusts any child of man,
though the least of all the little ones, to a Vicar--those who believe
in a sacrifice which no man can repeat, prohibit, or buy, when they
heard what had occurred, saw the spirit pass into the true temple,
_and outfly all the arrows of death_. Oh, how benign is that light of
immortality which shows us the spirits of the departed resting in the
hands of their Father, altogether above dependence on the malice or the
compassion, on the liberality or the avarice, on the devotion or the
unbelief of living men; and which, with the same blessed beam, shows us
the living protected from all possible malice, raised into independence
of all possible goodwill of the dead, by a near and solicitous paternal
Watcher. All the traffic of the markets of Purgatory, a traffic as low
and demoralizing as any traffic can be, scarcely exposes the system
which has sprung up around that invention so much as one broil like
that which the traffickers raised around the soul of Montalembert--no,
not around his soul, that was beyond their reach, only around his
memory.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 338: _Unitá Cattolica_, March 10.]

[Footnote 339: _Friedberg_, p. 491.]

[Footnote 340: _Tagebuch_, p. 221.]

[Footnote 341: _Tagebuch_, p. 230.]

[Footnote 342: _Ibid._, p. 231.]

[Footnote 343: Menzel, _Jesuitenumtriebe_, p. 297.]

[Footnote 344: The following passage in the speech made to the Pope
by Ledochowski on his elevation to the purple, is taken from the
_Emancipatore Cattolico_, April 22, 1876:--"And as the persecution
was most bitter in that part of Poland which is now under Prussian
occupation ... the honour of this sacred purple falls like a celestial
dew upon my oppressed and agonised country, and seems silently to say
to her, that if forgotten and abandoned of the world, she is still
loved and blessed by God, of whom your Holiness is the Vicar." The very
next paragraph in the same paper is headed, _The Heresy of Love of
Country_.]

[Footnote 345: _Tagebuch_, p. 236.]

[Footnote 346: March 11.]

[Footnote 347: This is the version quoted from the _Moniteur Universel_
in _Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_, p. 154. M. Veuillot acknowledged that
the "hard word" was in the speech, and the above version has not been
denied.]

[Footnote 348: _Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_, p. 155, quoting _Gazette
de France_, March 20. In the _Univers_ of April 4, quoted on the same
page, Combalot acknowledged the words, and said that he was preaching
at the time "by the grace and the mission of the infallible Pontiff."]

[Footnote 349: _Tagebuch_, p. 259.]

[Footnote 350: This trait of kindly feeling is given by Friedrich.]

[Footnote 351: The fullest account of the whole transaction is that in
_Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_. But Friedrich, Quirinus, Veuillot, and
Fromman have all been consulted, and show that the main particulars
admit of no doubt. Dupanloup's letter is both in _Ce Qui se Passe au
Concile_, and in German, in _Friedberg_, p. 110.]




CHAPTER II

Threat of American Prelates--Acclamation again fails--New
Protest--Decrees on Dogma--Ingenious connexion of Creation with the
Curia--Serious Allegations of Unfair and Irregular Proceedings of the
Officials--Fears at the Opening of the New Session--The Three Devotions
of Rome--More Hatred of Constitutions--Noisy Sitting; Strossmayer
put down--The Pope's Comments--He compares the Opposition to Pilate
and to the Freemasons--He is reconciled to Mérode--The Idea of
Charlemagne--Secret Change of a Formula before the Vote.


"That took effect," wrote Quirinus, for once, in noting a step of
members of the minority. The step so spoken of was a simple one. Four
American prelates sent in a declaration that if any attempt was made to
carry infallibility by acclamation, as had been suggested, they would
leave the Council, go home, and publish their reasons for so doing.

Whether this proceeding alone, or this together with other indications,
influenced the majority, certain it is that when the General
Congregations were resumed, on March 18, there was no acclamation. St.
Joseph did not avail more for his day than the Immaculate had done for
hers. All that we hear of any attempt to provoke an acclamation is the
statement of Vitelleschi that one prelate tried to get infallibility
carried "by chance," but received countenance only from very few. The
minority gave in their protest against the new Rules to the Presiding
Cardinals. We need not say that neither then nor at any later time did
they receive an answer. The business now placed before the Fathers was
the Draft of Decrees on Dogma as revised. The eighteen chapters had,
under the hands of the committee, the sub-committee, and Kleutgen,
shrunk to four. Even as they now stood, the chapters had to undergo
considerable alteration before taking the shape in which they appear
upon the _Acta_. As they stand there, they are not at first sight
capable of interesting the theologian for their theology, or the
politician for their bearing on politics. At the time, they led many to
wonder why grave men should have spent years in formulating rudimentary
principles, and that not very successfully. The alleged reason was
that everything being wrong in the ideas of the age, the Church must
commence by asserting the existence of a God, and the fact that He had
created the world. An attempt was made to throw some dignity about
this proceeding by quoting a prophecy of some saint, to the effect
that an age would come when a General Council would have to do this.
On the other hand, as Vitelleschi shows, Roman wit said that really,
after sitting four months and a half, the Vatican Council would vote
almost unanimously that God created the world. Friedrich, however, saw
that the Curial system was insinuated in these Decrees, but it took a
theologian to discern it, and one who was not a mere theologian. Yet
when it was pointed out there could be no doubt of the fact. The simple
headings, "God, the Creator of the World," "Revelation," "Faith,"
and "Faith and Reason," would to Protestant eyes seem very unlikely
to cover any such purpose. Nevertheless, they are made to serve the
purpose of laying a foundation for the dominion of the Church, over
all science and knowledge, for the dominion of the Pope, ay, even that
of the Roman Congregations, over the Church, and for the lifting of
men out of civil control into the higher sphere of Christian liberty,
or, as the world would call it, for placing them under the dominion
of ecclesiastical law. The process by which this is done is simple,
and had been clearly indicated in the officious expositions of those
judgments of the Syllabus which condemned "naturalism." First, God,
as a personal Being, exists, has created the world, and rules it.
Secondly, He gives a revelation by which man is raised above natural
knowledge and perfection to a higher knowledge and perfection. Thirdly,
this revelation is a deposit committed to the Church, which holds in
charge the Word of God, _written and traditional_; and all things
are to be believed which she propounds as divinely revealed, whether
they are propounded by solemn judgment, or by the ordinary teaching
authority. Hence, naturally, all science must be held subject to this
faith, and therefore subject to this Church; and _all things condemned
in the Decrees of the Holy See_ are to be held as anathema, even though
not specified in the present Decrees.

The four chapters containing these principles would not fix the
attention of any student if he took them up in a village of the
Campagna or of Connaught as the work of the priest of the parish. He
would be tempted to doubt whether the worthy man who faced Atheism and
Pantheism with these weapons had ever really met with them face to
face in either their ancient or modern forms. He might even be tempted
to think that the intellectual life of the author had been passed
within walls, and that so far as concerns the books and the minds
which really sway contemporary thought in either of the directions
indicated, he had scarcely ever felt their grip. But when we look at
this document as the work of a great society, on the preparation of
which had been employed the leisure of years by a few, and then the
united counsels of a large yet elect number, it certainly does not
exalt our idea of human gifts. But it is not well to let the critical
contempt which German scholars especially have displayed for the Drafts
while under discussion, and for the Decrees when ultimately framed,
blind us to the practical success of this late but adroit creed. For
the purpose of laying a colourable theological basis under a municipal
arrangement for governing mind and knowledge, belief and morals, laws
and institutions all over the world, by a college of Augurs called
Christian priests, it was not a mere superfluity of the professors,
as many seemed to think. Sambin, Guérin, and other writers, not to
mention prelates in abundance, struck a note, which is now taken up in
colleges, seminaries, and schools. These compact chapters, being once
exalted to the level of the Word of God, formed a short and easy method
for connecting the Creator and the creation of the world with the last
edict of the Vatican.

One of the startling statements in the secret memorandum, _La Liberté
du Concile_, touches this Decree. A conclusion to it was proposed which
to many appeared to include infallibility. This was strongly opposed.
The committee withdrew it, saying that it would be reserved to the end
of the final chapter on Faith. This step was applauded. The next day,
or the next but one, however, the reporter announced that the vote upon
it would be taken then and there. Eighty-three, in voting, demanded
modifications; which, according to the Rules, compelled a consideration
by the committee of the amendments they proposed. The committee finally
resolved, with one dissentient, to substitute a new wording which would
satisfy all. But when the moment came to vote, before the reporter
mounted the pulpit, a communication was put into his hands. This
attracted the attention of the Fathers. He mounted the pulpit, but did
not report what the committee had adopted! He did report what it had
set aside! The vote was instantly called for--no one could speak, the
Rules did not allow it. The majority did its duty; and the wording,
surreptitiously reported, was made "of Faith."[352]

Strong and circumstantial confirmation of this incredible statement is
given in Kenrick's unspoken speech.[353] Incidentally he says, "The
reporter, while we wondered what was the matter, suddenly recommended
this conclusion, which had been first submitted and then withdrawn."
This he says only on his way to tell Archbishop Manning that if the
sense put by him upon this famous conclusion was the true one, the
reporter was either himself deceived or had, knowingly, deceived the
bishops. Deceiver or deceived, his declaration had won many votes.
To get the clause passed, the reporter said it taught no doctrine,
and was only a conclusion to round off the chapters. But when once
passed, Manning cited it as concluding the question of infallibility,
and making it improper for the bishops to discuss that question any
longer.[354] Kenrick confesses that at the time he feared a trap.
The writer of _La Liberté du Concile_ declares that if the liberty
of the Council was doubtful, this incident proved the liberty of the
committees to be more doubtful still.

The sitting was opened with evident anxiety on both sides. The minority
feared the threatened attempt at acclamation; the majority feared that
the minority would formally refuse to enter on deliberation under
the new Rules. When, however, instead of action, the paper protest
was given in, and the reporter for the committee, Simor, Primate of
Hungary, had mounted the pulpit, and things had resumed their course,
the majority were evidently relieved. They knew that the minority had
now committed themselves to the new Rules; and that, however they
might recalcitrate hereafter, they would no more be able to shake off
the meshes of the net than they had been in the past to shake off
those of the old Rules. Five speakers had inscribed their names. They
were supporters of the committee. It proved that the acoustics of the
Hall had really been improved by a boarded partition which had been
substituted for the curtain. When three had spoken the bell of the
President rang, and the speaker then in possession was stopped. The
Pope was descending to view the sacred relics, and the Fathers had to
break up to form a procession in his train. Not one of them had been
called to swell that train in the morning when he went, not to see and
to be seen, but to the mass for "a certain Charles." At the close of
this anxious sitting Bishop Pie congratulated Cardinal Bilio, "It has
gone off well." So it had; the minority were now fairly enclosed in the
net.

M. Veuillot cries, "There are three great devotions in Rome: the Holy
Sacrament, the Holy Virgin, and the Pope. Rome is the city of the Real
Presence, and the city of the Mother of God, and the city of the Vicar
of Jesus Christ."[355] That saying sheds a clear light on the effect
of materializing and localizing the idea of the _divine presence_ by
such notions as that of transubstantiation. The show of constitutional
reforms just then being made in Paris by Napoleon III, contrasting
as it did with what was being done in Rome, naturally disgusted M.
Veuillot. He said that the title of Emperor now seemed grotesque. It
was sad to witness the crown turned into a curiosity of the museum,
or an accessory of the theatre. This was his idea of a constitutional
crown. He consoled himself, however, by the thought that the tiara
remained to us. Happily it was more solid than the crown. Pius IX.,
he said, would bequeath it to his successor more brilliant and more
indestructible. Scandal of the world! kingdoms everywhere and no kings!
Here is a king, but no kingdom! Let Liberals come to the Vatican and
attempt to take liberties with the constitution. Let even universal
suffrage attempt it; let it try to make any change here in which the
guardian of the constitution does not concur.[356]

The noisy sitting of March 22 has had its echoes all over the world.
The contradictions given by inspired writers to the uninspired ones
appear to be even less definite than usual. We may content ourselves
with giving that of Cardinal Manning as the sum of them all:--

    Having from my earliest remembrance been a witness of public
    assemblies of all kinds, and especially of those among ourselves,
    which for gravity and dignity are supposed to exceed all others,
    I am able and bound to say that I have never seen such calmness,
    self-respect, mutual forbearance, courtesy, and self-control, as
    in the eighty-nine sessions of the Vatican Council. In a period
    of nine months the Cardinal President was compelled to recall
    the speakers to order perhaps twelve or fourteen times. In any
    other assembly they would have been inexorably recalled to the
    question sevenfold oftener and sooner. Nothing could exceed the
    consideration and respect with which this duty was discharged.
    Occasionally murmurs of dissent were audible; now and then a
    comment may have been made aloud. In a very few instances, and
    those happily of an exceptional kind, expressions of strong
    disapproval and of exhausted patience at length escaped. But the
    descriptions of violence, outcries, menace, denunciation, and even
    of personal collisions, with which certain newspapers deceived the
    world, I can affirm to be calumnious falsehoods, fabricated to
    bring the Council into odium and contempt.[357]

_La Liberté du Concile_ confirms that portion of this statement which
says that the speakers were often allowed to deliver irrelevant matter,
when, in other assemblies, they would have been called back to the
question. It says that no bishop of the majority could be named who was
ever interrupted, although some of them strayed from the question so
far that, in the first stages of the proceedings, they rushed into the
question of infallibility.[358]

The first speaker in the celebrated sitting of March 22, was
Schwarzenberg. He was not favourable to the Curia, their proceedings,
or their plans. He had not felt an impression in the Congregations
as if a Council was being held. At last the terrible bell was heard.
It was faint, but it was certainly sounding. What! a Cardinal rung
down?--and Schwarzenberg, with his princely rank, his historical name,
his age, and his majestic presence! Even among the Cardinals, it is
said, there was a slight murmur--a greater one among the bishops.
But Schwarzenberg himself heard bravos for the President.[359] But
the stately old man held his own.[360] After two other prelates had
succeeded to the precarious honour in which the Prince Cardinal had
been challenged, Strossmayer mounted the pulpit.

He attacked the statement contained in the Draft Decrees, that
Protestantism was the source of the several forms of unbelief specified
in that Draft. Strossmayer showed that the worst revolutions and the
worst outbursts of infidelity had not been in Protestant countries,
and that Catholics had not produced better refutations of atheism,
pantheism, and materialism than had Protestants, while all were
indebted to such men as Leibnitz and Guizot. The Senior President,
Cardinal De Angelis, cried, "This is not a place to praise the
Protestants"; and having got so far in Latin, he declined into some
other tongue.[361] No, says Quirinus, it was not the place, being
within some few hundred paces of the Inquisition. The excitement had
now become great. Strossmayer proceeded, amid partial clapping of
hands and general murmurs of disapproval, to demand how they meant to
apply the principles embodied in the new Rules, of making a dogma by
a majority. When he cried "That alone can be imposed on the faithful
which has in its favour a moral unanimity of bishops," up rose Cardinal
Capalti, rang the bell, and, in a voice anything but courteous, as
Vitelleschi says, ordered the speaker to stop. Strossmayer replied that
he was tired of being called to order, and of being thwarted at every
point; that such proceedings were incompatible with freedom of debate,
and that he protested.[362] Then burst out an uproar that alarmed all
who were outside in the church. Strossmayer stood, lifted up his hands,
and thrice cried solemnly, "I protest! I protest! I protest!" Some one
shouted, "You protest against us, and we protest against you." As the
Archbishops of Rheims afterwards related, one of the majority stood up
and shouted to Strossmayer, "We all condemn thee!" Bishop Place, of
Marseilles, cried, "I do not condemn thee." Some one called Strossmayer
a cursed heretic. Some shook their fists, some crowded round the
pulpit, some cried "Pius IX. for ever!" some cried, "The Cardinal
Legates for ever!" and others, as Vitelleschi adds, made noises equally
serious and serene. _La Liberté du Concile_ speaks of the unheard of
violence, of the cries which rang through the basilica outside, and of
the menaces of a large number who rushed to the tribunal and surrounded
it.[363] Friedrich speaks of clenched fists, and of fears lest the
prelates should tear one another's hair.

The people in the church interpreted the commotion each man according
to his own mind. Some--and that wild interpretation is laid to the door
of the English--thought the Garibaldians had attacked the Fathers;
some, that the long looked for dogma had at last sprung, full armed,
out of the head of the assembly, and that all the uproar was caused by
alarm at the portent. These raised cries of "Long live the Infallible
Pope!" The crowd pressed round the door of the Hall, and there was
danger of a tumult in the church. The servants of the bishops tried to
enter the Council Chamber, fearing that their masters were being harmed
in the disturbance. But the _gendarme_, whom Vitelleschi calls the most
effective instrument of every sort of infallibility, cleared off the
throng, resisted only by the servants, who clung to the door in the
hope of rescuing their masters.

An American bishop said, with some patriotic pride, "Now I know of an
assembly rougher than our own Congress."[364] Archbishop Landriot, of
Rheims, said he was quite in despair.[365] Even Ketteler said, "It is
too bad, the way they handle us here. I do not know how we shall go
back to our dioceses and exist there."[366] Namszanowski, the Prussian
military bishop, said to Friedrich that he had told an Italian prelate,
"Things are more respectably done with us in a meeting of shoemakers,
than here in the Council." Going on to express his impression that the
only hope for the Church was in the fall of the temporal power, and the
assumption of control over patronage and Church affairs by a temporal
government, which would get rid of the excessive number of clergy, he
continued, "The most humiliating thing for us German bishops is, that
here we are forced to learn that it is the Freemason and Liberal papers
that are correct, and that our Catholic ones, if we must call them
Catholic, _lie_, LIE."

The Pontiff soon made his voice heard as to the scene of this loud
resounding Tuesday. On the following Friday he had the missionary
bishops, numbering a hundred, assembled in the Sala Regia. There the
pictures of St. Bartholomew, of Barbarossa, and of the League against
the Turks, had time to suggest hopes of future triumph before the
Pontiff made his appearance. No sooner had he done so, than all fell on
their knees. He had gathered them for a practical purpose. The Dorcases
of the Church had been making, not coats and aprons for the widows,
but raiment rich and rare for the prelates, and costly attire for
altars and images. It was to distribute these goodly garments that his
Holiness had now convoked them, but, of course, the great thing was the
speech. Pointing clearly to the Opposition, he said, "We are surrounded
by great difficulties, for some, like Pilate when terrified by the
Jews, are afraid to do right. They fear the revolution. Though knowing
the truth, they sacrifice all to Cæsar, even the rights of the Holy
See, and their attachment to the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Wretches! what
a fault they commit! The warfare of bishops," he went on to say, "is to
defend the truth with the Vicar of Christ. My children, do not forsake
me. Attach yourselves to me. Be with me. Unite yourselves to the Vicar
of Jesus Christ."

We follow the version of M. Veuillot (vol. i. p. 372). Vitelleschi
reports one of the Pope's expressions as "Be united to me, and not
with the revolution" (p. 129), and asks, Who could have imagined that
the good bishops who had been all their lives fighting the revolution
should now be accused of revolution? He adds, "Rulers who endeavour
to degrade Strossmayer to the level of a Rochefort, not unfrequently
reverse the intended result, and raise a Rochefort to the height of a
Strossmayer" (p. 130).

"And you, my dear Orientals," said the Pope, "I have ornaments also
for you, but not enough of them. I give you what I have." Then he
tried to calm their fears, excited by recent collisions. He concluded
by the supreme disclosure, "We have in the Council the organs of the
Liberal party, whose word of command is to gain time by opposing
everything, and to wear out the patience of the majority." The allusion
of the Pope was understood. Bitter, indeed, was it for the bishops
of the minority to find themselves thus stigmatized before all men by
the sovereign. But the effect was practical. The day following, ten
Orientals announced their adhesion to the denunciation of Gratry by
the Archbishop of Strasburg. Presently, forty-three missionary bishops
published their concurrence in the profound discovery of Bonjean, of
Ceylon, that the dogma of infallibility would conduce to the conversion
of Buddhists, Brahmans, Protestants, _and other difficult religionists
of the East_.[367]

As the Pope went to St. Cross of Jerusalem for the _Agnus Dei_, M.
Veuillot heard cries of "The Infallible Pope for ever!" and said that
this was a reply to the objections raised about the heresy of Pope
Honorius. Hefele had unpleasantly brought this heresy into notice
in a Latin pamphlet, which he had been obliged to print at Naples.
Of inopportune things, few had been more inopportune of late than
the appearance in Paris of a new edition of the _Liber Diurnus_, by
Rozière. This ancient monument, with its simple formula? and infallible
evidence, enabled every one to lay his finger on the fact that for
centuries Popes had on oath abjured the heresy of Pope Honorius. But M.
Veuillot heard an answer to all this in the cries of "The Infallible
Pope for ever!"

But of all that the Pope passed on his route to Holy Cross, that
which most excited the imagination of M. Veuillot was the Holy Stair
and the _triclinium_, where Charlemagne received the sword kneeling.
Charlemagne, he says, ruled only long enough to indicate the place and
form which he wished to give to his throne; but now, after a thousand
years, his conception is one of the victorious apparitions.

    When the world merits to re-enter on the path of unity, God will
    raise up a man, or a people, which will be Charlemagne. This
    Charlemagne, man or nation, will be seen here, at the Lateran,
    kneeling before the Pope, returned from dungeons or from exile; and
    the Pope will take the sceptre of the world off the altar, and put
    it into his hands.[368]

M. Veuillot knows better than he here seems to know. Charlemagne's
conception was that of Constantine over again--a State Church; and over
a State Church Charlemagne reigned. The conception of Hildebrand, now
to be acted out, was that of a Church State, for which any Charlemagne
might conquer, but over which no second head should reign. Unity, as
M. Veuillot well knew, was now to comprehend not only one _fold_, but
also one _shepherd_. No more dualism! no more two-headed monsters! We
had come to the dispensation of the spiritual David, Shepherd and King
in one. It is, however, clear that the vision revealed to M. Veuillot,
as in 1867, still disclosed a struggle to come before the victory;
for his Pope, on taking his place as disposing of the sceptre of the
world, comes back from dungeons or from exile. Moreover, Veuillot still
smothers the poor kings in ambiguity. The new and final Charlemagne is
to be a man _or a nation_.

The sittings which followed the stormy one were remarkably still; and
it is said that Haynald and Whelan from Wheeling were allowed to say
very strong things without interruption. It might be supposed that
a short chapter on God the Creator of the World, could hardly give
rise to a discussion on the Curial system; but when Rome set out to
speak about the Creator, she first of all made mention of herself. The
opening words of the chapter were, "The Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic
Church." To this form exception was taken. One proposed that the word
"Roman" should be omitted, which was, of course, offensive to the
Curia, the municipal spirit always forcing into view the shibboleth,
quite unconscious that it marred the show of universality. Indeed,
it is asserted by many that the extreme Curialists wanted the words
"Roman Church" alone, without Catholic. Others proposed that the word
"Catholic" should stand before "Roman," or at least that a comma should
be inserted between the two. It is a singular fact that a vote of the
Council was actually taken on this question of the comma. On this
great question of the comma the committee for once did not tell the
majority how to vote. _La Liberté du Concile_ thinks that the majority
voted for the comma. The numbers, however, were not reported in that
sitting; and when the next one was opened, and all waited to hear on
which side was the majority, lo! the reporter gets up, and, contrary
to all rule, usage, and decency, quietly sets aside the vote as if it
had never taken place; does not, indeed, mention it! He simply says
that the committee has rejected the comma! Now the majority, knowing
how it ought to vote, did its duty faithfully. So even about a tittle,
in the literal sense, the writer of _La Liberté du Concile_ was highly
incensed, contending that the rights of deliberation were ridden over
roughshod. Finally, the phrase came out as "The Holy Catholic Apostolic
Roman Church." Friedrich thinks that this phraseology compromises the
claim to represent the Universal Church, and must be taken as only
professing to represent the Roman Patriarchate.

Meantime the minority held anxious deliberations. They doubted whether
they should not require a positive promise that no Decree touching
faith should be carried by a majority, and whether if this was denied
they should not refuse to take part in voting. They finally resolved
that they would reserve their opposition, as completely as possible,
for the all-important question of infallibility. They hoped by this
means to secure the double end of showing a conciliatory disposition in
everything in which they could give way with a good conscience, and of
preventing a precedent from being established for carrying articles of
faith by majorities. The last piece of strategy seemed specious. It,
however, obviously laboured under the infirmity that they were all the
time giving strength to the Rules which established the principle of
majorities.

The preamble to the revised Draft of Decrees on Dogma contained not
only the passage about Protestantism which Strossmayer had criticized,
but also a clause suggested by the Bishop of Moulins, which virtually
contained the doctrine of infallibility. This was strongly resisted by
the minority, but all attempts to get it withdrawn had proved vain.
In the sitting of the 26th, the order and method of voting, which was
now for the first time to be put in practice, was fully read out.
But before the vote was taken, a paper was sent in to the Presiding
Cardinals, said to proceed from Bishop Clifford of Clifton. The
Presidents left the Hall, and on their return to the surprise of all,
the preamble, instead of being put to the vote, was withdrawn. When it
reappeared, the objectionable passage about infallibility was removed,
and the phrase as to Protestantism was moderated; and so the impending
collision was averted. But the way of doing this showed that majority
and minority were equally far from possessing the guarantees of
legislative freedom. What would a powerful majority in our Parliament
say if, after the clauses in a Bill had been settled in Committee, the
Ministers should retire and decide on altering them, and without a word
present them in a new form to the House for the final vote when no one
could speak?


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 352: _Doc._, i. 176.]

[Footnote 353: _Ibid._ i. 225.]

[Footnote 354: Kenrick's words are: Dixit verbis clarioribus, per
illud nullam omnino doctrinam edoceri; sed eam quatuor capitibus ex
quibus istud decretum compositum est imponi tanquam cis coronidem
convenientem; eamque disciplinarem magis quam doctrinalem charactererem
habere. Aut deceptus est ipse, si vera dixit Westmonasteriensis;
aut nos sciens in errorem induxit, quod de viro tam ingenuo minime
supponere licet. Utcumque fuerit ejus declarationi fidentes, plures
suffragia sua isti decreto haud deneganda censuerunt ob istam
clausulam; aliis, inter quos egomet, dolos parari metuentibus et
aliorum voluntati hac in re ægre cedentibus.]

[Footnote 355: Vol. i. 389.]

[Footnote 356: Vol. i. p. 398 ff.]

[Footnote 357: _Pet. Priv._, iii. 27, 28.]

[Footnote 358: _Doc._, i. p. 172.]

[Footnote 359: _Tagebuch_, 277.]

[Footnote 360: _Lib. du Con._, Doc. i., p. 172.]

[Footnote 361: _Tagebuch_, 278.]

[Footnote 362: _Vitelleschi_, 128.]

[Footnote 363: _Doc._, i. p. 172.]

[Footnote 364: _Quirinus_, 388.]

[Footnote 365: _Tagebuch_, 278.]

[Footnote 366: _Ibid._ 278.]

[Footnote 367: _Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_, 163.]

[Footnote 368: Vol. i. p. 443.]




CHAPTER III

Important Secret Petition of Rauscher and others--Clear Statement
of Political Bearings of the Question--A Formal Demand that the
Question whether Power over Kings and Nations was given to Peter
shall be argued--Complaints of Manning--Dr. Newman's Letter--The
_Civiltá_ exorcises Newman--Veuillot's Gibes at him--Conflicts with
the Orientals--Armenians in Rome attacked by the Police--Priests
arrested--Broil in the Streets--Convent placed under Interdict--Third
Session--Forms--Decrees unanimously adopted--Their Extensive Practical
Effects.


The dangers opening in the future defined themselves more and more
clearly to the eyes of the bishops as the import of the constitutional
changes now in progress was more fully apprehended. Reflection,
conversation, and reading had done much since they came to Rome to
clear their views. Even if they read as little of Church history, or
of the current Curial literature, as is intimated in the oft-repeated
laments of Friedrich, and in the less frequent but equally strong
hints of Quirinus and others, they must surely have read something
of the _Unitá_ if not of the _Civiltá_, or at least of the sprightly
_Univers_. Any one of the three, in spite of that pious style of
mystery which Vitelleschi speaks of, would soon have made a very dull
bishop indeed conscious that the world was going to be transformed.

The sagacious Rauscher put the forecast of the time into the form
of a petition, dated April 10, which states the case of the future
position of Roman Catholic citizens more strongly than some statements
of it in our country, which have been treated as the invention either
of Mr. Gladstone, or at best of Lord Acton, or of some other Liberal
Catholic.[369] The petition is headed as being from several prelates of
France, Austria, Hungary, Italy, England, Ireland, and America. The
editor of the _Documenta_ says that Germany should have been added.
Among the prelates from that country who signed it he specifies the
Archbishops of Munich and Bamberg, the Bishops of Augsburg, Trêves,
Ermland, Breslau, Rottenburg, Maintz, Osnabrück, and the Prussian
Military Bishop. According to this statement, the name of Ketteler was
to this document. When the German bishops met again at Fulda, after
the Council, they put forth the very interpretation of the Bull _Unam
Sanctam_ which is here solemnly treated as both false and absurd. Of
course they were confronted with their own words. Friedrich says, in a
note (p. 349), that Ketteler in the _Reichstag_, and in the well-known
_Germania_ No. 146, for 1872, asserted that no German bishop had signed
the petition, and that, therefore, the word "Germany" was not found in
the superscription:--

    But all this is vain lying and cheating, such as we are well
    accustomed to in the Ultramontane press and its episcopal
    inspirers. In No. 242 of the _Germania_ Ketteler himself owns that
    two German bishops, not Prussian, signed it. In reference to this,
    a theologian, deeply initiated in the secrets of the minority,
    writes to me under date June 20, 1871, that there are many Germans
    among the signatories.

Rauscher, and those who signed with him, alleged that the point about
to be decided bore directly on the instruction to be given to the
people, and on the relations of civil society to Catholic teaching.
Disclaiming any thought of accusing the Popes of the middle ages of
ambition, or of having disturbed civil society, and asserting their
belief that what the Pontiffs then did was done by virtue of an
existing state of international law, they go on to say that those Popes
held that our Lord had committed two swords to the successors of Peter;
one, spiritual, which they themselves wielded; the other material,
which princes and soldiers ought to wield at their command. Then
dealing with the attempt to represent this Bull as requiring only that
all shall acknowledge the Pope as the head of the Church, they declare
that gloss to be irreconcilable with love of the truth on the part of
any one who is acquainted with the circumstances as between Boniface
VIII and Philip le Bel; and that, moreover, it is a mode of treating
the subject which puts weapons into the hands of the enemies of the
Church to calumniate her. They add, "Popes, down to the seventeenth
century, taught that power over temporal things was committed to them
by God, and they condemn the opposite opinion." Mark, they do not say
temporal authority, but power over temporal things. With them temporal
authority is authority of temporal origin.

Now follows a historical statement of great importance. "We, with
nearly all the bishops of the Catholic world, propound another doctrine
to the Christian people as to the relation of the ecclesiastical power
to the civil." They then make the stock comparison of the heavens and
the earth, as indicating the relative dignity of the spiritual and
temporal power, and say that each is supreme in its own sphere. The
ambiguous phrase "supreme in its own sphere," means, in Ultramontane
language, as we have seen, only that the temporal prince is not subject
to any other temporal power. But these bishops evidently meant at
the time to be clear of ambiguities. They added an explanation of
immense significance--"Neither power in its office is dependent upon
the other." This is a formal and total denial of what the _Civiltá_
had long been preaching, of what Phillips and Tarquini and all the
accredited modern writers taught. The utmost they ever admit is,
that in its _nature_, and in its _origin_, temporal power is, or may
be, independent of the spiritual. But in office all impersonated
authorities must be dependent on the impersonated authority of the
Vicar of God. The next stroke of the petitioners was still bolder.
Admitting that princes, as members of the Church, are subordinate to
her discipline, they affirm that she does not in any way hold a power
of deposing them, or of releasing their subjects from their allegiance.
Still more incisive was the stroke that followed, for it was aimed at
the whole principle of Papal authority over the State. They declared
that the power of judging things, which the Popes of the middle ages
had exercised, came to them by a certain state of public law; and that,
as the public institutions and even the private circumstances which
then existed had changed, the power itself has with the foundation of
it passed away. This was the language which might be used before the
Bull _Unam Sanctam_ had received the stamp of infallibility. It was
language in which the claims founded on the text "Teach all nations,"
or "I have set thee this day over the nations, and over the kingdoms,"
are met with a downright denial. The fact that the Popes had at one
time acted as supreme judges was accounted for by a state of political
relations, not by a divine right, just, we may say, as the fact would
have been accounted for that the kings of Persia were appealed to as
arbiters by Greeks. Still further, the change which had taken place
was not only admitted, but it was held to have annulled the former
relation between the power of the Papacy and civil society. A careful
consideration of the positions thus stated, and a comparison of them
with matter in the Curial writings of the present pontificate with
which we are already familiar, afford some measure of the distance
separating the Ultramontanes north of the Alps, of the old type, like
Rauscher among the clergy and Montalembert among the laity, from the
new school formed by the development of the Jesuits into what had now
become the Catholic party. We do not say that the old Ultramontanes did
not give the Pope authority irreconcilable with Holy Scripture, and
power dangerous to civil society. All we can say is that the authority
and power which they did give to him was bounded by a frontier
tolerably defined, and therefore capable of being defended.

The remark of the Pope, carried away from the Vatican by numbers of
bishops and not a few laymen, and repeated in every form of gossip
printed or spoken, to the effect that the bishops of the Opposition
were only time-servers and Court ecclesiastics, is, in Rauscher's
petition, repelled with dignity and force. Their opinions, as just
stated, they declare are not new but ancient. They were those of
all the Fathers, and of all the Pontiffs down to Gregory VII. They
believed them to be the true doctrines of the Catholic Church; for
God forbid that, under stress of the times, they should adulterate
revealed truth. But they must point out the dangers which would arise
to the Church from a Decree irreconcilable with the doctrines that they
have hitherto taught. No one, they affirm, can help seeing that it is
impossible to reform (they do not say reconstruct) society according to
the rule laid down in the Bull _Unam Sanctam_. But any right which God
has indeed given, and any obligation corresponding to such right, is
incapable of being destroyed by the vicissitudes of human institutions
and opinions. If then the Roman Pontiff had received the power of the
two swords, as it is asserted in the Bull _Ex Apostolatus Officio_,
he would, by divine right, hold plenary power over nations and kings;
and it would not be allowable for the Church to conceal this from
the faithful. But if this was the real form of Christianity as an
institution, little would it avail for Catholics to assert that, as
to the power of the Holy See over temporal things, that power would
be restrained within the bounds of theory, and that it was of no
importance in relation to actual affairs and events, seeing that Pius
IX was far from thinking of deposing civil rulers.

This last statement was directly aimed at Antonelli's habitual mode of
putting the case in conversation with diplomatists, and also as we have
seen in his despatches. But our prelates contend that, in reply to such
assertions,

    "opponents would scornfully say, We do not fear the sentences of
    the Pontiffs; but after many and various dissimulations, it has
    become evident at last that"--(the italics are our own)--"_every
    Catholic, whose actions are ruled by the faith he professes, is a
    born enemy of the State, since he finds himself bound in conscience
    to contribute, as far as in him lies, to the subjection of all
    nations and kings to the Roman Pontiff_".

On these solemn grounds they formally demand that the question whether
our Lord did or did not commit power over kings and nations to Peter
and to his successors shall be directly proposed to the Council and
examined in every aspect. In order that the Fathers may not be called
without adequate preparation to decide a question the consequences of
which must profoundly affect the relations of the Church and civil
society, they demand further that this point shall be brought on for
discussion before that infallibility. Their petition was not addressed
to the Pontiff in person, but to the Presiding Cardinals.

No efforts made since, or which may be made hereafter, can erase this
record of the views of the bishops at the time in question. Their
conduct since the Council proves that for themselves, as individuals,
conviction is lost in submission. For the dogma has conquered history.
With the German bishops submission passed beyond silence, and proceeded
as far as deliberately certifying to the public as ancient views
and sincere ones the very views which they had secretly shown to be
innovations and pretences, alien to ancient teaching and to their own
belief. God's two priceless jewels, conscience and conviction, are
here sent to the bottom of the stagnant pool of submission to a human
king. It is by contemplating such a course of conduct in men with a
position to hold in the eye of the sun, that we learn the force of such
words as those of Vitelleschi, when he says that the frequent collision
in Catholic countries between a man's civil conscience and his
ecclesiastical one is the reason why so often there is no conscience
at all. And men such as these German bishops are the moral guides of
millions! and out of millions so guided States have to be built up,
and men have to be fitted for the judgment of Him who requireth truth
in the inward parts! And Vitelleschi evidently thinks that, in a moral
point of view, the German bishops were the best!

Gossip in Rome spoke of Dr. Manning as burning with impatience at
the delays which had been interposed in the way of the forthcoming
dogma. Baron Arnim told Freidrich how it was said that the Archbishop
prophesied that the governments would be annihilated for their
resistance to it.[370] Quirinus speaks of the Archbishop as expecting
a wonderful dispensation of the Holy Ghost to follow the promulgation
of the dogma, and to smooth the way of the Church in her regeneration
of the nations. Whatever may have been the amount of correctness in
these details, the fact remains that at that moment a mind which had
attracted notice to itself as urging Englishmen to Rome for unity, was
bitterly complained of by Liberal Catholics as being the very genius of
contraction and division, urging their Church either to beat them down
or to cast them out--to make herself too narrow for them, and to tell
them that they should be endured only on new conditions.

At the same time a cry came from our own shores. It was the voice of
one who had made himself conspicuous by alluring Englishmen towards
Rome for certainty, and on whose spirit the shadow of a new and dark
uncertainty was now settling down--uncertainty as to the future source
of doctrinal truth; uncertainty as to the doctrinal authority of
existing documents; uncertainty, in fine, as to what had been, and as
to what was to be, the oracle; uncertainty as to the future work of
God. At the same moment when Dr. Manning was accused by Roman Catholics
of violating the old terms of unity, Dr. Newman was turned into a
warning to Protestants as a victim of uncertainty. When describing how
he and his party fared when first, after shifting from the rock of
Holy Scripture, they settled on another foundation, which they called
Anglicanism or the _Via Media_, Dr. Newman had said:--

    There they found a haven of rest; thence they looked out on the
    troubled surge of human opinion and upon the crazy vessels which
    were labouring without chart or compass upon it. Judge, then, of
    their dismay when, according to the Arabian tale, on their striking
    their anchor into the supposed soil, lighting their fires on it,
    and fixing in it the poles of their tents, suddenly the island
    began to move, to heave, to splash, to frisk to and fro, to dive,
    and at the last to swim away, spouting out inhospitable jets of
    water upon the credulous mariners who had made it their home.[371]

We can hardly doubt that some English parson who in his youth had for
a moment felt attracted by the notion of unity and certainty, by
the charm of vestments, processions, and banners, thanked God on the
morning after he had read the following letter, when he looked at the
family Bible, that he had not left the solid ground and set up a tent
on what Dr. Newman and his Anglicans told people was solid ground, but
which proved to be the sporting and frisking monster that he himself
described. Ay, and perhaps some Cornish miner, as he went down into his
darkness, happy in his Saviour--a Saviour who seemed to come nearer to
him as day and man, as home and the fair sky, went farther away--so
happy that he hummed--

 In darkest shades, if Thou appear,
   My dawning is begun:
 Thou art my soul's bright morning star,
   And Thou my rising sun--

perhaps this miner put up a prayer for the poor gentleman in Birmingham
who was in such uncertainty about what might be his creed by next
Christmas, and yet knew no better than to beg of Augustine and Ambrose
to prevail upon the Almighty not to let His Church tell out all the
truth about the Vicar whom the gentleman fancied that He had set over
her, but to cause her to practise reserve, or to speak in non-natural
senses.

To avoid contamination by impure authorities we shall follow only the
_Civiltá_ in its narrative of the Newman incident.[372] The _Standard_
stated that Dr. Newman, in a letter to his bishop, then absent in
Rome, had called the promoters of infallibility an insolent and
aggressive faction, and had prayed to God to avert from His Church the
threatening danger. The _Weekly Register_ declared itself authorized
by a personal friend of Dr. Newman to give the most absolute denial to
this deliberate fiction. Dr. Newman himself wrote to the _Standard_
to deny that he had written to his bishop and called the promoters
of infallibility an insolent and aggressive faction. Yet, after Dr.
Newman's method, there were words and words about it. Soon appeared in
the _Standard_ a second letter from him, confessing that he had been
informed from London that several copies of his letter existed in that
city, containing the affirmation which he had denied. He now said
that, before sending his contradiction, he had looked at the notes of
the letter to his bishop, and had not found the words "insolent and
aggressive faction." But he confessed that since learning that several
people in London had those words in their possession, he had looked
again and found them. He added that by the faction he did not mean that
large number of bishops who had declared in favour of infallibility,
nor yet the Jesuits. He meant a collection of persons of different
countries, ranks, and conditions in the Church.

The _Civiltá_ was careful to remark that Dr. Newman had not withdrawn
his offensive words. Others no less remarked that he had never
confessed to a single point in his own statement till compelled to do
so. He had published a contradiction which to ordinary Englishmen would
seem to carry an almost complete denial of the whole allegation. But
the _Standard_ on April 7 published the following letter, showing that
not only the substance of the allegation was correct, but also its
details:--

    Rome ought to be a name to lighten the heart at all times, and a
    Council's proper office is, when some great heresy or other evil
    impends, to inspire hope and confidence in the faithful; but now
    we have the greatest meeting which ever has been, and that at
    Rome, infusing into us by the accredited organs of Rome and of its
    partisans (such as the _Civiltá_, [the _Armonia_], the _Univers_,
    and the _Tablet_) little else than fear and dismay. When we are all
    at rest, and have no doubts, and--at least practically, not to say
    doctrinally--hold the Holy Father to be infallible, suddenly there
    is thunder in the clearest sky, and we are told to prepare for
    something, we know not what, to try our faith, we know not how. No
    impending danger is to be averted, but a great difficulty is to be
    created. Is this the proper work of an OEumenical Council?

    As to myself personally, please God, I do not expect any trial
    at all; but I cannot help suffering with the many souls who are
    suffering, and I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to
    defend decisions which may not be difficult to my own private
    judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the
    face of historical facts.

    What have we done to be treated as the faithful never were treated
    before? When has a definition _de fide_ been a luxury of devotion
    and not a stern, painful necessity? Why should an aggressive,
    insolent faction be allowed to "make the heart of the just sad,
    whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful"? Why cannot we be let alone
    when we have pursued peace and thought no evil?

    I assure you, my lord, some of the truest minds are driven one way
    and another, and do not know where to rest their feet--one day
    determining "to give up all theology as a bad job," and recklessly
    to believe henceforth almost that the Pope is impeccable, at
    another tempted to "believe all the worst which a book like _Janus_
    says," others doubting about "the capacity possessed by bishops
    drawn from all corners of the earth to judge what is fitting for
    European society," and then, again, angry with the Holy See for
    listening to "the flattery of a clique of Jesuits, Redemptorists,
    and converts."

    Then, again, think of the store of pontifical scandals in the
    history of eighteen centuries, which have partly been poured
    forth and partly are still to come. What Murphy inflicted upon us
    in one way M. Veuillot is indirectly bringing on us in another.
    And then again the blight which is falling upon the multitude
    of Anglican Ritualists, etc., who themselves perhaps--at least
    their leaders--may never become Catholics, but who are leavening
    the various English denominations and parties (far beyond their
    own range) with principles and sentiments tending towards their
    ultimate absorption into the Catholic Church.

    With these thoughts ever before me, I am continually asking myself
    whether I ought not to make my feelings public; but all I do is to
    pray those early doctors of the Church, whose intercession would
    decide the matter (Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, Athanasius,
    Chrysostom, and Basil), to avert this great calamity.

    If it is God's will that the Pope's infallibility be defined, then
    is it God's will to throw back "the times and moments" of that
    triumph which He has destined for His kingdom, and I shall feel I
    have but to bow my head to His adorable, inscrutable providence.

    You have not touched upon the subject yourself, but I think you
    will allow me to express to you feelings which, for the most part,
    I keep to myself....

This letter could not, because of Dr. Newman's reputation, be
passed over in silence. The _Civiltá_ well knew how to utilize that
reputation, yet it indicates by its mode of dealing with him that it
does not set Dr. Newman so high, either intellectually or morally, as
his own countrymen do. It treated the whole affair as a temptation of
one of a pious imagination but a sickly judgment. The temptation was
one peculiar to Englishmen--it was low spirits. An Englishman labouring
under that temptation would read the _Civiltá_, the _Armonia_, the
_Univers_, etc., with sombre- spectacles. It was a disease in
the eyes. Those affected by it looked upon the definition of a verity
as a scourge of God, an affliction not merited! Still, as Dr. Newman
did not for himself fear it, he would be able to explain it to others.
But the definition of a truth was to prove a blight for the poor
Anglican Ritualists:--

    Do you not perceive that it is only temptation that makes you see
    everything black?... If the holy doctors whom you invoke, Ambrose,
    Jerome, etc., do not decide the controversy in your way, it is not,
    as the Protestant _Pall Mall Gazette_ fancies, because they will
    not or cannot interpose, but because they agree with St. Peter
    and with the petition of the majority.... Would you have us make
    processions in sackcloth and ashes to avert this scourge of the
    definition of a verity? And if it is defined, when the Fathers
    chant _Te Deum_ will some of you intone the _Miserere_? On the
    contrary, you too will applaud it.... Dupanloup will not merely be
    resigned, he will be a champion of infallibility, and we shall all
    together say, Amen, hallelujah! and it also will be a hymn like
    the song in the Apocalypse.... Get rid of this ugly melancholy
    temptation. It makes you lose your logic and your English good
    sense. Even the Protestant journals teach you better, and as one
    devil cast out another, a Protestant article may serve to cast out
    a temptation.

The compassionate Jesuits of the _Civiltá_ then proceed to cast the
one devil out of Dr. Newman by the aid of two others, which are
respectively the _Pall Mall Gazette_ and the _Manchester Examiner
and Times_--the former in an appearance of April 8, the latter in
an appearance of April 9. Lest this exorcism should not suffice, it
calls to its aid seven other spirits equally evil--the _Times_, the
_Saturday Review_, the _Telegraph_, the _Daily News_, the _Spectator_,
the _Standard_, and the _Echo_. All these, fallen angels though they
were, had agreed in the opinion that a religious truth had better be
told than hidden, and that a Church which had an infallible head ought
to know it. Though on this one point right, these Protestant journals
had, however, held up the letter of Dr. Newman as a proof of internal
division underlying a vaunted unity. But in this they were illogical.
With this boast the _Civiltá_ fitly couples a declaration of Dr.
Newman, in which the tortured spirit, whose piercing cry had reached
the ear of the world through thick walls, and had been identified
in spite of artful windings, puts on, in presence of Protestants,
another voice, wishing them to become partakers of its satisfaction
and repose! M. Veuillot was not the man tamely to find himself coupled
with Mr. Murphy by one like Dr. Newman, whom, if repute in England set
extravagantly high, certainly he did not. He told how the _Univers_
had begged four thousand pounds for Dr. Newman and sent it to him, on
the occasion when he was cast in damages for a libel on Achilli, an
ex-censor of the press, at Viterbo, who had become a Protestant:--

    "The respectable convict," says Veuillot, "received it and was
    pleased, but he gave no thanks and showed no courtesy. Father
    Newman ought to be more careful in what he says; everything that is
    comely demands it of him. But, at any rate, if his Liberal passion
    carries him away till he forgets what he owes to us and to himself,
    what answer must one give him, but that he had better go on as he
    set out, silently ungrateful?"[373]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 369: _Documenta_, ii. 388.]

[Footnote 370: _Tagebuch_, p. 283.]

[Footnote 371: _The Tractarian Movement._]

[Footnote 372: VII. x. 348 ff.]

[Footnote 373: Vol. ii. pp. 31-34.]

[Footnote 374: _Tagebuch_, p. 344.]

[Footnote 375: _Ibid._ p. 304.]

[Footnote 376: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, v. 447.]

[Footnote 377: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, vol. v. 501-7.]

[Footnote 378: Compare _Tagebuch_ (pp. 304, 324, 325, and 344) with
_Quirinus_ (p. 432) and _Vitelleschi_ (p. 130).]

[Footnote 379: _Tagebuch_, p. 358.]

[Footnote 380: _Quirinus_, p. 477.]

[Footnote 381: The _Civiltá_, without naming the Syllabus, asserts that
by this paragraph the Council itself has put a new seal on all the
acts of the Pontiff condemning erroneous opinions. It says the mouths
are shut of those sowers of tares who would pretend that opinions
not branded as heresies were left free by the Council, because not
separately named (VII. x. 524).]




CHAPTER IV

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


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

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

The question of infallibility had been a good while in the hands of
the committee before the latter gave any sign of being ready with the
formula. Some thought that the committee was not unwilling to let time
pass before forcing matters to an issue. The minority had now become
anxious for delay, in the hope that the dreaded Chapter XI. would not
be brought on before the heats of the Roman summer should disperse the
Council. They had the whole of the Decrees on the Duty of Bishops,
on the Life of the Clergy, on the Catechism, and ten chapters of the
Decree on the General Constitution of the Church, to discuss before
the critical eleventh chapter would come on. But these hopes of delay
on the part of the minority were perfectly understood by the Curia.
It was determined not to let the patience of the majority be worn
out. The impatience of men like Mermillod may be imagined when even
Bishop Martin is quoted by Friedrich as expressing a wish that the
Garibaldians would come and scatter the Council. But most impatient of
all was the Pontiff. Briefs and speeches equally tingled with the same
excitement. M. Veuillot found it necessary to declare that the Pope
was not impatient, but resolute. Still he let it out that something
had been hoped for even at the last public session (ii. 45). The voice
of the people crying, "The Infallible Pope for ever," had sounded
in Veuillot's ears during the Easter festivities, and again on the
anniversary of the return from exile. But when, oh when would the voice
of God sound? Pius IX would know God's moment, and would take it. As
to the cries which nourished the faith of M. Veuillot, the deaf ears
of Quirinus and Friedrich heard only faint ones--two voices or three.
These writers, at least one or other of them, suggested a calculation
as to how many _baiocchi_, or halfpence, the cries cost.

The mission of Pius IX was but half fulfilled. He had secured the
Immaculate Conception, but not yet the Infallibility; and this was to
be, and it must be soon. What Quirinus says (p. 526) of the Pope's two
fixed ideas is in harmony with the general belief; they were, first, a
persuasion of the infallibility of all his predecessors; and, secondly,
a persuasion of his own special inspiration by the Virgin.

Excitement was created in Rome by the appearance of _Ce Qui se Passe au
Concile_. It was believed to be written by the Abbé Gaillard, and said
by M. Veuillot to be at least by a theologian; but he did not hesitate
to insinuate that it was written under the eye of bishops.[384] By all
Liberal Catholics, entitled to be heard, it was and is looked upon as
an undeniable summary of facts. The Council condemned it, the organs
denounced it; but none the less, when you inquire even in Rome for
good information, it is sure to be named, sometimes even by privileged
men. M. Veuillot gives its official character thus: "Lies, calumnies,
defamations, beyond count. Lies double, fourfold, tenfold. The general
lie contains another, and that another, and that yet another, so there
is no end." But many pages of righteous indignation expressed in this
style leave you to ask, what single fact has been disproved by this
gentleman who gives the lie so spiritedly? (ii. 98). Much the same may
be said of the other of "the two modern Fathers," Margotti.

The day previous to the late public session, a deputation of bishops
had been received with great distinction by his Holiness. They said
that they spoke on behalf of four hundred prelates, and requested that
he would be pleased to order the question of infallibility to be
immediately brought before the Council, postponing other subjects which
had precedence. The Council itself was not able to fix even the order
in which questions were to be taken up. There soon was a sign that the
change of plan thus recommended had actually been adopted. The proposed
Decrees touching the duties of bishops and the life of the clergy were
set aside; and the Decree on the shorter catechism was taken first in
order. The former could well wait. The latter was really an important
element of centralization. But, it may be asked, Was not the Council in
possession of a subject after it had once been proposed and discussed?
The reply must be, No, for such subjects could be withdrawn from its
cognizance at any moment without its leave.

No sooner were the minority aware of the intention to take the
discussion on infallibility out of its order, than they resolved
on sending a solemn deputation direct to the Pope to make urgent
representations. Purcell, Archbishop of Cincinnati, was to be the
spokesman.[385] But this movement was forestalled by one from the other
side. The _Synopsis of Notes_, written by the Fathers upon the Dogma,
was suddenly distributed. This not only marked the resolution of the
Curia to press forward, but it accomplished a step in the progress.
Either from discouragement, or from a calculation of the futility
of the step, the bishops allowed their intended deputation to fall
through. They resorted once more to a paper protest, which was signed
by sixty-six prelates.[386] The true spirit of an Oriental Court made
them conscious that a petition and a surrender were the measures of
which they were capable. In fact, as will presently appear, they had
passed the stage even of petitioning, and had come to that of hopeless
complaint.

As if to console themselves by strong words for doing nothing, they
recalled the fact that as soon as the _Civiltá_ hinted that the work
of the Council was to be the proclamation of infallibility, all the
enemies of the Church had exclaimed that the Holy Father, after having
made a pretext of the general good, had really convoked the bishops for
his own exaltation. This they had then treated as a calumny. But if the
weighty matters already laid before the Council were to be put aside,
and nothing was to result from their labours during six or seven months
but the one Decree already adopted, with the second now proposed on
infallibility, they would find on returning home that those calumnies
against the Church would have acquired life and force such as they
could not contemplate without deep sorrow.

The sixty-six bishops formally announce that they do _not make any
request_. They simply state their convictions. Again, to prefer
requests would, they feel, be no longer consistent with their episcopal
dignity, with their position, or their rights, as members of the
Council, since they have already learned sufficiently, and more than
sufficiently, by experience that any prayers of theirs are so far from
being granted that they are not even answered.

    Nothing now remains to us but to disclaim for ourselves, as far
    as may be, all accountability before men, and before the dreadful
    judgment-seat of God, for the ill-omened events which, beyond all
    doubt, will soon arise, and indeed are already arising; and of
    this our disclaimer the present document will abide the perpetual
    witness.

    If the Decree to be pronounced _De Ecclesia_, putting aside
    controverted points, aimed only at displaying to the eyes of all
    men the beauty and majesty of the Spouse of Christ to the greater
    glory of God and the salvation of souls, how easily might we set
    forth the whole of the doctrine of the Church; and, perhaps, we
    might all on the approaching festival of Pentecost, wherein the
    foundation of the Church is annually called to mind, celebrate it
    together. Then indeed would a right solemn Pentecost shine upon our
    Synod, whereof the splendour streaming over the entire world would
    fill all Christians with mighty gladness. But, alas! so far is such
    gladness from being granted to us, that it would appear that on
    the approaching Pentecost we must look forward rather to a day of
    mourning than to one of joy. The accountability for this would rest
    on those who--no necessity of the Christian commonwealth demanding
    it--would, by means of the Council, wave the victor's palm because
    certain opinions of the schools had triumphed, not over the enemies
    of the Church, but over brothers, and who would thus inflict the
    gravest injury upon the Church; injury which, both at the present
    time and in view of the circumstances of future times, would give
    cause for abiding fear and pain of heart.

    May it please the almighty and merciful God to avert so great an
    evil from the Vatican Council, and to lead us all by His heavenly
    grace to a sense of true concord and unity!

Among those who sign are Prague, Munich, Colocza, Cologne, St. Gall,
Maintz, Halifax, Clifton, St. Louis, Paris, St. Augustine in Florida,
Cincinnati, Chatham, Plymouth, Kerry, Milan, and Sault St. Marie in
Michigan.

For us it is hard to account for the fact that language so strong, from
men representing interests so large, should be deemed not even worthy
of the courtesy of an answer. Why did the bishops not go to the Pope
directly?

    "Sad as it is to confess it," says _La Liberté du Concile_, "the
    Pope does not easily grant audiences to bishops of the minority.
    Many have been expressly solicited, as to which up to this hour no
    reply has been received. We know several of the oldest and most
    respected bishops of France, who have been six months in Rome, and
    have not yet been admitted to the presence of the Pope. Of those
    who have been admitted, to none, with two or three exceptions, has
    the Pope given any opening for conversation on the concerns of the
    Church, or for exchanging a single word with the Holy Father on the
    position of affairs."[387]

Quirinus represents the Roman prelates as saying that the German
bishops at Fulda had already showed that they felt how unity was to
be preferred to veracity. Thus the Curia had implicit faith in the
feebleness of conviction, compared with the force of the habit of
submission. Only two things would they have feared--a schism on the
part of the bishops, or a separation of the Church from the State on
the part of the politicians. But they confidently reckoned on the
submission of the one, and on the political calculations of the other.

The pretext that all the objections to infallibility related only to
opportuneness, had been gradually dropped. In fact, neither side could
keep it up, even before the public. It was possible to conceal most of
the speeches, and to deny everything that was reported of them; and
it was hoped that the secret petitions would never see the light, but
tracts and pamphlets could not be so readily hidden. So the Jesuits at
last boldly turned round and accused the opponents of attacking the
doctrine itself. _Observationes Quædem de Infallibilitatis Ecclesiæ
Subjecto_ is the title of one publication, in treating of which the
_Civiltá_ said that opportuneness no longer related to the character of
the times, but to the character of the doctrine. The doctrine itself
was declared to be alien from Catholic tradition,--a new doctrine, and
consequently a false one.[388] Ketteler had brought a pamphlet to Rome,
in Latin, composed under his authority. It was long detained by the
police, but, after vexatious delays, was released. One of the things
which exposed him to the charge of being double-faced was the fact that
he "hawked" this pamphlet about among the bishops, and yet said that it
attacked only the opportuneness of the definition.[389] Hefele said,
"You are a Rhine Frank, and the Rhine Franks are clever people. I am
only a Swabian, and I cannot see it."

As Bishops Krementz and Namszanowski left Friedrich on April 25, they
met Bishop Martin. He told them with delight how the King of Prussia,
their own monarch, had written to his ambassador not to trouble himself
further with the decisions of the Council. Martin extolled the king to
the skies, and declared that he would now make a Prussian Propaganda.
But Namszanowski replied, "If that is your idea, you are greatly
mistaken. The king at first believed that in Rome one had to do with
reasonable and sensible men; but now, seeing that he was misled, he
says, "Do what you like, and we shall let you do it quietly. If you
adopt conclusions which are injurious to us, we shall draw the sword."
That is the language which the consciousness of power inspires."[390]

The Congregation of April 29 was occupied in discussing the Decree on
the Catechism. Hefele read a speech of Rauscher. The Cardinal affirmed
that, according to the Concordat, the Catechism in Austria could not be
changed without the consent of the government. He demanded therefore
that the new Catechism should not be declared obligatory. The majority
burst out into loud laughter. Hefele looked firmly and indignantly
at the disturbers. The noise ceased, and he proceeded. A second time
the laughter occurred. At the conclusion, he went to the Presidents
and complained. One of them observed that as a historian he must know
that even at Trent there had been interruptions. Yes, he said, but he
did not know that interruptions were essential to a Council; and he
would call attention to the fact that such proceedings would cause
the freedom of the Council to be called in question, and possibly its
oecumenicity.[391]

On May 2, as afterwards appeared by a letter found among papers in the
Tuileries, Darboy was writing to Napoleon III stating that the minority
was compact, would do its utmost, and did not despair of victory. On
May 4 the Council came to a vote on the Catechism, when as many as a
hundred voted _Non placet_. Then occurred a recess of several days;
but twenty-four French bishops put in that day a protest against
arbitrary violations of those very Rules which had been imposed upon
the Council by the Pope himself. In the late public session the Rule
that non-members should be excluded during the legislative acts had
been departed from without the Council being consulted. Further, this
day, they add, when the votes on various amendments to the Decree on
the Catechism had been taken, the Rule required that the vote on the
whole should be deferred to another day. But, against the Rule, it was
taken on the spot. Several Fathers, who had counted that the Rule
would be kept, were absent. It is further alleged that no opportunity
of pointing out these irregularities was given; because, say they,
contrary to the rule of all deliberative bodies, it is not allowed in
the Council to speak even to order, unless the name of the speaker
has been inscribed the day before, which of course is impossible in
unforeseen circumstances.[392]

During the recess the Fathers could study the contents of the notes on
infallibility. The Synopsis of them, as we have already mentioned, had
been put into their hands. Some of these notes are printed entire, some
are abridged; but there does not appear to have been much complaint
that this was unfairly done. The two sides were represented by about
an equal number of memoranda. The Synopsis contained two hundred and
forty-two pages, consisting of one hundred and thirty-nine memoranda.
Sixty-five of these were adverse to the definition. Of these, again,
only thirteen advanced merely the plea of inopportuneness, and
fifty-two opposed the doctrine itself. Yet Cardinal Manning never heard
of five bishops who denied the doctrine of Papal infallibility![393]

Adepts readily traced many of the anonymous memoranda to their authors,
and, of course, the authors frequently acknowledged their handiwork.
The first memorandum was by Rauscher, the last by Kenrick--two men who
showed as much capacity as any of the minority. In these notes, the
student will find a real source of light on the thoughts and principles
which were then common to all men convened to reconstitute human
society, as well as on those in which they disagreed.[394] They are
almost the only portion of the proceedings which have real interest
for the pure theologian. Attempts have been made since the Council, by
many bishops, to represent the whole amount of difference of opinion
as having been a trifle, touching only the question of opportuneness.
The character of those statements is sealed by these notes. We shall
not attempt to give a general outline of them; but the very first
memorandum, that of Rauscher, is perfectly explicit. He immediately
handles the doctrine, not the prudence or expedience of proclaiming it.
It was fair to treat an objector like Dr. Newman as opposing on grounds
not either theological or moral, but from subtle expediency. Such
men were simply afraid of hurting the credit of their Church, though
admitting that the claims she advanced were warranted. They counselled
a reserve which would have been thought natural for Italians, but
impossible for Englishmen, before the time when Dr. Newman's power of
making the flow of our mother tongue smooth and winning began to be
used, in order to rob it of its good name for straightforwardness. But
Rauscher showed cause. He declared that it had never yet been proved
that the alleged authority which the new claims professed to formulate,
had any existence. He declared that the attempts made to prove it were
partly artifices and partly fallacies. Two positions so distinct as
this simple one of Rauscher and the double one of Newman could not be
confounded, even by men much less apt at splitting hairs than Roman
Catholic bishops.

"The subterfuges," indignantly writes Rauscher in his first paragraph,
after alluding to the necessity, under which he lay in Germany, of
showing reasons, and tacitly contrasting such a position with the
facility of demanding submission in Rome,--"The subterfuges employed
by not a few theologians in the matter of Honorius, would expose me to
derision. To employ sophisms seems to me unworthy both of the dignity
of a bishop and of the nature of the subject, which ought to be treated
in the fear of God; but prudence itself would put me on my guard
against artifices." What a testimony! delivered in the face of Rome at
that moment, it showed the effect of free enquiry in compelling men to
be truthful, as compared with the effect of what Rome calls "authority"
in making them first supple and then deceitful. It is a testimony of
permanent value in the three spheres of history, morals, and theology.

His next blow is at a logical trick, which, however, is one employed
by Roman Catholic theologians at almost every step in their attempt
to prove Romanist as distinguished from Christian doctrine--the trick
of begging the question. It is inferred that the Decrees of the
Pope, in matters of faith and morals, must be infallible, because the
power of legislation in faith and morals for the whole Church having
been conferred on Peter and his successors, it is clear that what
was false could not be allowed to enter into such Decrees. Very good
says Rauscher; but this is calling the thing to be proved to give
evidence for the thing to be proved. The question turns on the very
point whether any such power of universal legislation, in faith or
morals, without appeal or revision, ever was conferred on Peter and his
successors. Even here Rauscher assumes as proved what is altogether
incapable of proof, that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter.
That Peter ever was in Rome is not proven; that he ever was Pontiff is
absurd; that he ever was the Christian bishop of the city admits of
scarcely a show of proof, except on those principles of evidence which
have been naturalized in Romish theology by the necessity of supporting
fables and forgeries.

Not only do men like Rauscher show that they dispute the doctrine
itself, but the memoranda of many who commence by alleging
inopportuneness, end by attacking the substance of the doctrine. For
instance, No. 136 says, "Finally, I cannot find this infallibility in
the acts of the General Councils. On the other hand, it is certain that
three General Councils condemned Honorius for heresy." Yet this prelate
seemed, in his first sentences, only to oppose the opportuneness of
the definition. Kenrick takes the opposite course. He begins by saying
that the doctrine is not so certain that it can be defined as an
article of faith, and then takes up lower ground, that, even if it were
certain, it would not be expedient that it should be defined by the
present Council. We do not wonder at any man who could put upon paper
the last principle, submitting to anything, or concealing anything, or
professing anything, if it is expedient. What, it may be true that, on
earth, God has set up a man as His representative who, whenever he puts
on his full official character, utters the Word of God without error
or possibility of erring, and yet it may not be expedient to tell this
most pregnant of truths by any and every organ possible! How can any
moral foundations exist in men whose whole substance is honeycombed by
principles like these? When they submit, their submission has not the
grace of any real sacrifice. When they affirm, their affirmation has
not the authority of any real conviction.

This moral obscurity does not prevent Kenrick from clearly seeing
theological points. He boldly says that the doctrine expressed in the
proposed definition is wanting in authority both from Scripture and
from ecclesiastical tradition. We shall not enter into his examination
of the alleged scriptural proofs, but it is well worth the attention
of theologians. He clearly puts the retrospective and prospective
aspects of the new dogma, when contrasting it with an ordinary point of
doctrine like that of the Immaculate Conception--

    The new dogma not only impairs the rights of bishops, but imposes
    on the faithful the necessity of believing that the Roman Pontiffs
    never did err in faith, which indubitable monuments of history seem
    to disprove; and that they never will err in the future, which we
    hope, but are not able to believe with the certitude of divine
    faith.[395]

Kenrick says that, in defining the Immaculate Conception the Pope
proposed the greater glory of the Mother of God, and previously to
doing so consulted all the bishops, and acted on their advice. Now,
however, he proposed his own infallibility, to be defined by a Council,
which seems to have been convened for that purpose, although many
bishops, and those representing the principal Churches of the Christian
world, do not approve of it either in itself or in its concomitants.

Kenrick embraces under the head of expediency matter very different
indeed from what one would have anticipated. He barely indicates the
social and political dangers likely to arise out of the contemplated
changes in dogma and polity. Having done this, he at once declares that
the authority and oecumenicity of the Council are liable to be called
in question, and will be called in question, on two separate grounds:
first, the composition of the Council, and, secondly, its defect of
liberty. As to its composition, he divides the members of it into five
classes--

1. Diocesan bishops having Sees and governing them by ordinary
episcopal authority.

2. Bishops of the _Ring_--_episcopi annulares_--who have the orders
of bishops, but have neither Sees nor flocks, and who, with few
exceptions, hold offices in the Court of Rome.

3. Other bishops _in partibus_, who, under the designation of Vicars
Apostolic, preside over missions, and are all of them so immediately
dependent upon the Holy See as to be removable at the discretion of the
Pope.

4. Cardinals who are not bishops, and Cardinals who, having the orders
of bishops, have no Sees.

5. Abbots and Generals of Orders.

Kenrick asserts that out of all the five classes the right of
definition in matters of faith belongs, by a certain and universally
acknowledged title, to diocesan bishops alone. The right of the Bishops
of the Ring to define in matters of faith is a subject of dispute among
theologians. The right of the Vicars Apostolic is disputable, but on
different grounds. They have Sees, yet they are immediately dependent
on the See of Rome, even to the extent of being removable at the will
of the Bishop of Rome. As to Cardinals who are not bishops, with the
Abbots and Generals, there is no doubt. They are confessed by all to
have no right of definition in matters of faith, except as derived from
custom.

Having thus described the composition of the Council, he adds the
following solemn words--

    In this Council the subject in hand affects the conflicting claims
    of the Pope and the bishops. If the Pope alone is infallible, the
    bishops do not exercise the office of judges, and, in a Council,
    they are only his councillors. Hence it ought to belong not to the
    Pope singly, but to a Council of diocesan bishops presided over by
    the Pope, to determine what right properly belongs to the other
    four classes; for otherwise the Pope would seem to dominate the
    Council.

How that argument to prove that the proper constitution of a Council
was violated at the Vatican is to be met, it is not easy to see. The
point next touched by Kenrick is one that has been less dwelt upon in
public, but which would probably have some weight in a legal argument.
In the Bull of Convocation it was enjoined upon bishops who should
not be able to attend, to send their deputies furnished with proper
credentials. Forty such deputies actually presented themselves; they
were refused admittance, not by the Council, but by the Pope acting
alone! Now, insists Kenrick, diocesan bishops would appear to have a
strict right to send deputies to the Council when themselves unable
to attend, which right was recognised by the ancient Councils. The
exclusion, therefore, of those deputies from the Vatican Council _by
the sole authority of the Pontiff_, would seem to raise a doubt of
its oecumenicity. Had there been any question as to their title, it
belonged to the Council itself to determine, but permission was not
given to take the opinion of the Council on the point!

Kenrick further specifies, as a blot upon the authority and
oecumenicity of the Council, the withdrawal from the bishops of
the right of proposition by a mere Papal constitution. He adds the
important fact that, owing to the privation of this right, many Fathers
who wished to take the opinion of the Council on the admission of the
deputies of absent prelates were unable to do so, although they left
no means untried. Yet one at least who was born an Englishman can say
that this Council was as free as our Parliament--a Council that had
not even the right of verifying the titles of its own members! Kenrick
concludes by expressing his persuasion that if the definition of Papal
infallibility should go out in the name of this Council, it would
rather increase dissension than promote peace, and would lead to a
diminution of the rights of bishops and to the dishonour of the Pontiff
himself.

The Liberal Catholics began, about this time, to notice the frequent
expressions in Curialistic circles anticipating a war, in 1871, between
France and Prussia.[396] The _Univers_ now fixed a new date for the
settlement of the great question--Ascension Day. All that could be
said _pro_ or _con_ had been said, according to this journal, in the
memoranda written by the prelates; and so in the Council there would be
only an exposition of the Decree prepared by the committee, after which
the Fathers would at once proceed to the vote. No doubt the avoidance
of further discussion was a matter of great account with those who were
looking to the future. The effect of the new constitution, at least
its immediate effect, would greatly depend upon the _éclat_ with which
it should be promulged, and on the state of preparation to which the
Catholic populations might be brought. If a tale of Friedrich, at the
expense of Cardinal Capalti, be anything more than a joke, the question
might have been settled by leaving it open. The Cardinal declared
that he should be content with a definition of the infallibility of
the Pope, whether it was infallibility with the bishops or without
them.[397] The circulation of such a tale illustrates an impression
prevailing, that even many of those in high places had not mastered the
bearings of the question in dispute.

It was on May 10 that the proposed Decrees of Infallibility were
distributed. "I shook all over my body," says Friedrich; "my senses
seemed to forsake me as I read on." What was the amazement of the
Professor to find not only all the mediæval pretensions taken up
again, but the cool assertion made in notes, that all monuments of
antiquity showed that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff had been
held as a truth divinely revealed. Another assertion which he noted,
is that infallibility could never be disproved by history; but if
any historical facts did appear to conflict with it, in so far as
they did so they must be taken to be false. Again, the conclusions of
any science, even those of ecclesiastical history, if opposed to the
infallibility of the Pontiff, must be held to be errors. This is a
very practical way of carrying out the principle announced by Cardinal
Manning as to the dogma conquering history.

After reading this sort of matter, the indignant Professor cries,
"Will our bishops dare to return home with such a verdict against
all science, and against all sound reason? Does not this amount to
saying--I believe it because it is absurd?" The Archbishop of Bamberg
gave Friedrich some light on the way in which history was to be kept
right. He said that the Pope was irritated at Hefele's pamphlet on the
case of Honorius, and said, "There must be falsification of documents.
The documents must be in the archives. Let them seek and they will find
them; I am persuaded of it." It was publicly announced that the Pope
had appointed two men to perform this duty. The Archbishop thought that
the Curia would shrink from facing the judgment of the world. He placed
his finger on his forehead, and said, "I cannot understand how a man in
his senses can think of a personal infallible Pope." Archbishop Scherr
having joined them, Deinlein added, "The world must rescue us. Had it
not rescued us, we were already lost, and the Council over."[398] To
this Friedrich adds that Bishops Krementz and Namszanowski are already
thinking of the coming excommunication; and that Hefele had said gladly
would he lay down the mitre and crozier, but what would become of his
diocese?

Friedrich, wearied out in spirit, now spoke of going home. "You must
stay," said Bishop Namszanowski, "for the historians must sit in
judgment over this perfidious proceeding. It is impossible any longer
to speak of a General Council. I only wonder that the German bishops
have not already jumped out of their skin."[399]

One of Friedrich's notes is to the effect that the Nuncio in Munich
having reported that Archbishop Scherr in opposing infallibility
commanded no sympathy among his people, the Pope sent for the
Archbishop, and asked him why he took the side of the minority when
he was isolated in his own diocese. The Archbishop asked Friedrich to
tell Döllinger that even at this peculiar audience he had stood by
him. Still he wished Döllinger not to do anything more; it would only
increase the difficulties.[400]

The proposed Decrees on the Church were wonderfully changed. The
celebrated twenty-one Canons were now omitted. The whole Draft was
compressed into four chapters, with three Canons. Vitelleschi, as
we have seen, cannot understand how governments, especially the
government of France, should attach so much importance to the Canons,
and so little to the dogma of infallibility. The latter, as he well
says, virtually includes them all, and as many more besides as may
spring from the sole and irresponsible will of an individual. John
Lemoinne had hastily said that Infallibility affected France no more
than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; but Prévost Paradol
had, with better insight, shown that, on the contrary, it gave the
Pope everything in theory, and left him in the position, step by
step, first to assume and next to acquire everything in practice. The
Immaculate Conception seriously affected France; not the doctrine, but
the proceeding which set up a single master over the faith of France.
That proceeding paved the way for Infallibility, which in its turn was
to confirm for ever and render ordinary a despotic procedure which
otherwise might have been treated as exceptional.

The _Univers_ of April 29, after asking whether objectors meant to
remain Catholics after the definition, and saying that if they answered
No they were judged already, went on to remark, If they answer Yes they
are preparing themselves for a kind of faith and obedience that is
hardly reasonable; preparing to believe that what was black has become
white through a Council invested with power to make true that which was
false. Poor Montalembert did not live to read that taunt and menace
both in one. Mrs. Oliphant mentions someone who said that the Count had
expressed his intention to submit at last, for he must do so. That is
one thing, and expressing an intention to believe is another. But those
who know how such statements as that quoted by Mrs. Oliphant are made,
would not give much for it if it came only from a female or a priest.

Bishop Martin related how Friedrich, as he walked on the Pincian the
evening before leaving Rome, said, pointing to St. Peter's, "If only
the lightning fell from heaven and annihilated St. Peter's with all its
glories!" "No," retorted Friedrich, "I never said anything so silly.
What I once did say on the Pincian was, referring to the superstition
of the Pope, 'Nothing can restrain the Pope from the definition,
unless, indeed, at the critical moment, the well-known sunbeam fails,
and some other natural phenomenon comes in its stead.'"[401]

To understand the line of thought by which calculating men connected
the dogma with the prospect of universal dominion over the world, it is
necessary to recall the primary elements of Church jurisdiction. As a
kingdom appointed to govern the world, which is the ineradicable Papal
conception, the Church rules through three tribunals--the internal,
the external, and the supreme. Technically they are two, internal and
external; the Pope being supreme in both. In the _internal tribunal_
the Church cites; the cited are all the faithful. The person appearing
is himself accuser and witness; the confessor is judge and jury. This
tribunal, popularly called the Confessional, rules the conscience,
the board, the bed, the purse, the family life, and the action of
the individual in public life. In the _external tribunal_ it is the
ecclesiastical law which cites. Those cited are persons against whom
any one either secretly or publicly complains. The witnesses may
be either secret informer or open witness. The judge and jury are
the ecclesiastical magistrate. This tribunal, popularly called the
Ecclesiastical Court, rules all social questions whatever that have
any moral interest or any colourable connexion with religion. Finally,
in the supreme tribunal the Curia cites. The parties cited are all
against whom any appeal or any information has been laid. The witnesses
are those whom the Curia chooses to call, or its informers. The Pope
is judge and jury. This tribunal, popularly called the Pope, acting
through some Roman congregation or court, settles all points as between
confessor and penitent, as between priest and bishop, as between
magistrates and parties to a process, as between rulers and subjects,
as between State and State, and above all, as between any State with
its ruler and the supreme tribunal.

These three tribunals between them give a complete control of the
tangled web called the world, excepting only that ill-defined if not
invisible selvage of it which consists of affairs not included within
the domain of morals. And that web, with its cunning shots and all but
invisible devices, is that "large and variegated web," which, when
unfolding its program, the _Civiltá_ showed, would, after lustres had
come and gone, appear as the fabric woven with the simple threads of
its title, _Catholic Civilization_; or the Catholic Civil System.

Now, in the chaotic condition of recent times, President Moreno
and Queen Isabella were the only two rulers that even seemed to be
dutifully disposed to the Church in her tribunals; and poor Queen
Isabella had already fallen.

In most countries, one who never entered the internal tribunal, might
conduct a business, indeed he might even write a newspaper, or fill a
professor's chair, ay, might make laws, or occupy a throne. Hence the
crying need of a central authority so strong as to give to the external
tribunal control over every bench, and to make the internal bear rule
in every home, especially in every home wherein dwelt a ruler.

The proclamation of infallibility would be a complete restoration of
the supreme tribunal, not indeed as to all the facts, but complete
as to the ideas. This would bring about the restoration of facts in
time. It is plain that the great majority of the bishops calculated
hew the supreme judge, when once enthroned and acknowledged, would awe
wayward kings and politicians; how, waiting for favourable political
conjunctures, Nuncios would be able to move the bishops, and the
bishops the clergy, and the clergy the people, till the patient power
of the Church would bow all to her own laws. The hold already acquired
upon schools, especially in France, was the most solid element in the
entire calculation. The progress made within the last thirty years held
out flattering hopes as to the future. The architects forgot that they
had climbed up by a ladder which they had now kicked away. The voice
to which concessions had been made was that of the Liberal Catholics
pleading in the name of liberty, and they and their plea had now been
unblushingly disowned.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 382: _Quirinus_, p. 482.]

[Footnote 383: _Quirinus_, p. 253.]

[Footnote 384: "What stupefaction to think that perhaps serious men
have been engaged in getting these things written about themselves!"
(vol. ii. 125).]

[Footnote 385: _Quirinus_, p. 508.]

[Footnote 386: _Quirinus_ says by seventy-seven; but we give the
numbers as we count them at the foot of the document in the _Documenta
ad Illustrandum_, ii. p. 392.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 390: _Tagebuch_, p. 365. Friedrich adds a note to his
second edition:--"Bishop Namszanowski had this statement denied in
the _Germania_ of 1872, No. 132. This is really disgusting. I declare
here, as I have done already in the _Cologne Gazette_, that the Bishop
himself told me in his own house immediately after the meeting with
Martin. I was so struck with the expression that I entered it under the
heading, 'Certain Notes touching Rome and the Council.'"]

[Footnote 391: _Ibid._, p. 380; _La Liberté du Concile_, Doc. i. p.
173.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 395: _Documenta_, ii. 287.]

[Footnote 396: _Tagebuch_, p. 375.]

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

[Footnote 398: _Tagebuch_, p. 398. Friedrich in a note says that when
he made this statement in Nuremberg the Vicar-General of Archbishop
Deinlein published invectives against him, but could only say that
such language does not come out of the mouth of the Archbishop--which
Friedrich calls ridiculous absurdity.]

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

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

[Footnote 401: _Tagebuch_, p. 423.]




CHAPTER V

The Great Debate--Bishop Pie--The Virgin Mary on Infallibility--Cullen
claims Ireland and MacHale--Kenrick's Reply, and his Account of the
First Introduction of the Doctrine into Maynooth--MacHale speaks--Full
Report of Darboy's Speech--The Pope gives Signs of Pleasure at
Saldanha's Assault on the King of Portugal--New Date fixed for
the Great Definition--Manning's Great Speech--Remarkable Reply of
Kenrick--McEvilly ascribes Catholic Emancipation not to the Effect of
Oaths, but to that of the Fear of Civil War--Kenrick's Retort--Clifford
against Manning--Verot's Scene--Spalding's Attack on Kenrick--Kenrick's
Refutation--Speeches of Valerga, Purcell, Conolly, and Maret--Sudden
Close of the Debate.


On May 13, began the great debate, if anything that took place in the
Vatican Council may be called by that name. This conflict was to be
the death of real parliamentary debating in all countries. It ranged
over the whole Draft of the proposed Decrees. The scope of them is well
indicated by M. Veuillot, when he calls the Draft the _Schema_ of the
Pontiff. It treats only of primacy and infallibility. The first chapter
treats of the institution of primacy in the person of Peter; the second
treats of its descent through the Roman Pontiffs; the third, of its
nature and scope; the fourth, of Papal infallibility.

Bishop Pie, of Poitiers, opened this famous field by a discourse
much praised and much ridiculed. He argued for infallibility on the
ground that Providence permitted St. Paul to be beheaded, and not St.
Peter,[402] and on the further ground that Peter was crucified with the
head downwards, to show that the body was to be supported by the head;
but he who supports is infallible, and not he who is supported.[403]
This truly Romish argument evoked, as Vitelleschi intimates, from the
majority enthusiasm, and from the Opposition sarcastic smiles. We do
not know whether any divine put before Bishop Pie the difficulty thrown
in the way of his argument, by the fact that Providence must have
permitted Peter to be beheaded after death, seeing that his head was
with that of Paul in the Lateran, and only his trunk in St. Peter's.

On the next day, no less a person than the Cardinal Vicar ascended the
tribune to plead for the glory of his chief. By a leap from centre to
circumference, he was followed by the Archbishop of St. Francisco. The
Archbishop of Messina relieved the gravity of the debate by relating
how Peter had preached in Sicily; but when he told the people that he
was infallible they doubted. They, however, sent an embassy to the
Virgin Mary, to ask if she had heard of the infallibility of Peter. The
Virgin replied that she certainly remembered being present when her Son
conferred this prerogative upon him.[404] This speech has caused some
correspondence in the Italian papers, especially touching the letter of
the Virgin, which is still in existence, and has an annual feast all
to itself. Somehow we are not ourselves clear as to the history of the
embassy and of the letter. It is said that the letter was let down from
heaven by the Virgin; but if that be so, where did the ambassadors go
to with their message? But as the events took place before the age of
reconstruction, we shall not digress further.

The discussion proceeded from day to day, a long and increasing
list of names promising endless speeches. Three Cardinals spoke on
May 18--Schwarzenberg, Rauscher, and Donnet, Vitelleschi reports
Schwarzenberg as having said (p. 159), "It is said that you really
believe in this dogma; but, if that be true, you cannot insist that I
and my companions ought to acknowledge what seems to us absurd; and if
you do insist, be sure that schisms will arise, and abjurations will
follow within the Church of Rome." On May 19 the pulpit was ascended by
Cardinal Cullen, carrying with him the confidence of power in Ireland,
and of favour with the Curia. Coming of "a right noble Irish family,"
as the official history says,[405] and trained after the heart of the
Curia, he had well justified their expectations in carrying out the
centralizing system, to which he owed his mitre. He addressed himself
particularly to the task of refuting Hefele's pamphlet on the heresy
of Pope Honorius, contending that it could not be reconciled with what
that prelate had written in his history of Councils.[406] But he also
attacked Kenrick for his memorandum already spoken of. He charged the
latter with impairing the argument for the primacy of the Pope, by
asserting that the other apostles were also called foundations as well
as Peter. Furthermore, Kenrick had asserted that the words "lambs" and
"sheep" in the Vulgate (John xxi. 16, 17) both stood for one and the
same Greek word, and hence he had contended that the stock Curialistic
argument, that the bishops, "sheep," are placed under the Pope as well
as the people, "lambs," had actually not even the show of a foundation
in the passage. This was a sore point, for what would the Papal system
have done before infallibility was proclaimed without this passage?
It was as important as "Obey God rather than man," or as "Teach all
nations." _It is not true_, asserted Cullen, that the two Latin words
in those verses represent one and the same Greek word in the original.
He quoted Oriental versions. _It is not true_, he repeated, with
emphasis.

As to the word "faith," a word which Rome has, like so many others,
killed, disembowelled, and embalmed, Kenrick had asserted that our Lord
never employed it as meaning a _body of doctrine_, and that He employed
it not more than once or twice as meaning the act by which we believe
in God as revealing Himself; but that He generally employed it as
meaning trust or confidence. This, Kenrick had asserted, was the sense
of the word in the passage on which the attempt was made to build the
infallibility of all dogmas found in the Decrees of the Roman Pontiff.
The words are, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." That
is, our Lord had prayed that the trust and confidence of Peter should
not entirely fail; and Rome argued that He thereby promised that
everything in the Decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, affecting doctrine or
morals, should be for evermore free from error. Kenrick's exposition
of what our Lord really did say made this argument appear not only
futile but unfair. Cullen met him by declaring that his views savoured
of the Calvinian heresy. The Cardinal proceeded to deny that bishops,
as successors of the apostles, possessed that universal jurisdiction
in the Church which the apostles themselves had received from Christ.
He quoted a work of a deceased brother of Kenrick, formerly Archbishop
of Baltimore, on the Primacy of the Apostolic See. Cullen, moreover,
claimed Ireland and the Irish for infallibility in the teeth of
oaths, catechisms, records, and living memories. In doing so, he was
indiscreet enough to name, as on his side, MacHale, the lion of St.
Jarlath, who had sat silent under the weight of his nearly fourscore
years.

Kenrick, feeling that Cullen had said things which touched his
honour,[407] prayed for leave to reply, either at once or at the end
of the sitting. This was refused. Archbishops must wait till all the
Cardinals who chose to speak had spoken, and Kenrick must wait till all
archbishops senior to himself had been heard. He prepared a speech, but
the debate was cut short before he had the opportunity of delivering
it. Thereupon he resorted to the expedient of printing. To this
document we are indebted for some of our most trustworthy information
as to the real position taken up by different speakers.[408]

Kenrick said that Cullen had, in very severe language, charged him with
impairing the argument for the primacy of the Pontiff, by alleging
that the other apostles were called foundations as well as Peter.
That, however, was not his language, but must be laid at the door
of the "divine" Paul and John. Kenrick admitted primacy, but denied
infallibility. He also denied that Christ had made the stability of
the Church dependent on Peter as the foundation. He had provided
for her stability otherwise, by saying. "Lo, I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world." Cullen had further said, and that
repeatedly and with much energy of expression, It is false, because
Kenrick asserted that one and the same Greek word was translated both
"sheep" and "lambs" in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses of John
xxi. But, in so doing, replied Kenrick, the Cardinal had betrayed a
little infirmity.[409] The fact remained, that in those two verses the
Vulgate did translate one and the same Greek word by two Latin ones.
Moreover, in the reading adopted by Tischendorf, there was no word in
any of the three utterances of our Lord which properly represented the
word "sheep"; and the reading adopted by Tischendorf was confirmed by
that which they might see inscribed on the arch of the Vatican Church,
over the throne of the Pontiff.[410] In answer to the assertion of
the Cardinal, that his exposition of the meaning of the word "faith"
savoured of the Calvinian heresy, Kenrick said that perhaps his
Eminence had not weighed the full significance of such language. He
showed that out of twenty-nine places in the Gospels where the word
occurred, in all but two it clearly meant confidence, or else the faith
that works miracles; and that in only two could it be taken for the
theological virtue of believing in God's revelation of Himself. He was
still fully persuaded that its real meaning, in the words addressed by
our Lord to Peter, was that of trust or confidence.

But Kenrick contended that Cullen had, by his own method of reasoning,
taken away all the force usually ascribed by theologians to the words,
"Thou art Peter." He had said that the privileges given to the other
apostles by our Lord did not descend to their successors. If that was
the case with the other apostles, surely it would be also the case with
Peter. Kenrick, however, firmly contended that apostolic authority did
not emanate from the Pontiff, but was given to the bishops by Christ
Himself, and that the restriction of it to certain localities was
merely by appointment of the Church.

After showing that the interpretation of the words "Upon this rock,"
which was supported by the greatest number of the Fathers, was that
which regards the faith declared in the Confession of Peter as the
foundation on which the Church was to be built, he pointed out that
the word "foundation" has two clearly distinguished and well-defined
meanings. First, the natural foundation, or that to which a wise
builder clears his way before laying a stone--the living rock.
Secondly, the architectural foundation, namely, the first course of
stones laid on this rock. He contended that attention to this simple
fact made the language of both classes of passages perfectly clear;
those in which our Lord alone is called the Foundation, and those in
which the apostles are so called. At the same time it cut away all the
ground on which an argument in favour of the infallibility of the Roman
Pontiff is built, because he is the foundation of the Church.

As to the testimony of the Church with regard to the proposed dogma,
Kenrick states it thus--

    The dogma is not contained in the creeds; it is not given in the
    Catechisms as an article of faith; it is not found as such in any
    monument of public worship. Therefore the Church has not heretofore
    taught it as being of the faith; and had it been a doctrine of
    faith, she ought to have taught it, and to have handed it down.

    Not only has the Church not taught it in any public standard, but
    she has permitted it to be impugned, and not in one place alone,
    but in almost all the world, Italy excepted, and that throughout
    a great length of time.... To speak of the nations which use the
    English tongue, in no one standard or catechetical book of theirs
    is this opinion enumerated among the verities that are of faith. In
    the United States, as in Ireland, all books of piety and doctrine
    were drawn from England till the opening of this century, and
    later. In the greater part of those books, the opposite opinion is
    contained. In none is this opinion found as being of faith (p. 212).

He shows that recently a few books had appeared as if to prepare the
people for the new dogma. Alluding evidently to the work of the Jesuit
Weninger, which the Pope had praised, he calls the author a zealous but
unlearned man, and says his work was more calculated to excite ridicule
than anger, and that when the author had applied to himself for some
commendation, he had incautiously promised him the charity of silence.

As to the use made by Cullen of his brother's work, he said he had
felt as if the dead had been commended in order to rebuke the living.
As to the faith of the Irish, he remarked that a smile had been raised
when Verot, of Augustine, in Florida, said that the Irish believed
even their priests to be infallible. But it was true, for believing
the Church to be infallible, and the priest to be in harmony with the
Church, they believed him to be infallible, and with the difference of
his more exalted rank, it was precisely in the same sense that they
believed the Pope to be infallible. But as to their understanding the
question now agitated, or being able to form an opinion concerning it,
that was too ridiculous to need confutation (p. 216). He even doubted
if a meeting in Cork, over which the bishop of the see was said to have
presided, had understood the question; and indeed it was apparent, from
what had passed in that Hall, that there were bishops there who were
not clear as to what Papal infallibility meant.

Turning from the populace of Ireland to the prelates and doctors, he
was ready to grant that now, influenced by some distinguished names,
the preponderating opinion might be in favour of Papal infallibility;
on that point, however, he knew nothing more than what he had been
able to learn since coming to Rome. But in the beginning it was not
so. His proof of this was the almost universal applause with which the
writings of Dr. Doyle had been received, and those of the Rev. Arthur
O'Leary. Further, he cited answers given to a committee of the British
Parliament in 1825 by the Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam, Murray and
O'Kelly, as well as by Bishop Doyle. These answers he printed with his
speech, both in the original English and in a Latin translation. He
further cited a manifesto of all the Irish bishops in the year 1815,
addressed directly to the Holy See, which clearly shows that they did
not hold the views embodied in the proposed Decrees. He prints this
document also.

Next, passing from the Irish prelates to the priests, Kenrick
confidently affirms that they in former times did not differ from
the prelates. Long after the establishment of Maynooth College, the
professors, he declares, came from France, and their treatises were in
the hands of the pupils long subsequently to their own death. He calls
the Archbishop of Cashel as a witness, while he relates how the change
of teaching was first introduced in that college. They were there
at the time as fellow-students. Forty years ago, says Kenrick, John
O'Hanlon was Tutor in Theology, as he is now Moderator of the higher
theological sciences in the college. The text-book _De Ecclesia_ at
that time was _Delahogue_. It contained nothing, says Kenrick, about
Papal infallibility, except a proposition in these or similar words,
"It is not of faith that the Pope is infallible" (p. 218).

In the year 1831, O'Hanlon gave his pupils, as a theme, the following
proposition: "The Pope, speaking _ex cathedrâ_, is infallible."
O'Hanlon did not indicate any opinion of his own, and did not urge
the pupils in discussing the thesis to take either one side or the
other, but left them to argue for the negative or affirmative at their
discretion. Kenrick was one of those who took the affirmative; but he
adds, Language _so new, and hitherto unheard_ of, did not please all
the professors. One of them, who subsequently became President of the
college, strongly expressed his dissatisfaction to my fellow-student,
now the Bishop of Clonfert, from whom I had the statement. Kenrick
then makes a confident appeal to MacHale, to whom Cullen had made a
presumptuous one--

    There sits here a venerable man, who many years ere I entered
    that college expounded theology within its walls, who is by good
    right looked upon as the Nestor of the Irish bishops, for he has
    lived with almost three generations of men; one who with eminent
    theological learning combined a glory of classic lore, and also
    had intimate acquaintance with the prelates whom I have cited, and
    with other men of learning whose bright and venerable names are
    inscribed on the hearts of the Irish, and among their glories....
    He, with rare moderation, had not given expression to his views on
    the matter now under discussion. So that his Eminence of Dublin
    did not hesitate to speak for him, and to claim him as being upon
    his own side. Those who feel with me, and who had known him,
    desiring to see him contending by our side, were grieved to behold
    him sitting apart like another Achilles. I was filled, therefore,
    with an unlooked-for joy when I heard him say that in judgments on
    matters of faith the head ought to be conjoined with the body; not,
    as his Grace of Westminster would have it, that the head of itself,
    communicating infallibility to itself, should draw the body along
    with it, but that head and body, conjointly bearing witness to the
    faith delivered to the saints, should declare it with one mind. As
    the Archbishop of Tuam descended from this pulpit, I congratulated
    him in these words: 'You have vindicated Ireland--_Vindicasti
    Hiberniam_.' If witnesses of the faith of the Irish are to be, as
    they ought to be, weighed and not counted, the Archbishop of Tuam,
    at least in the capacity of a witness, will easily surpass the
    other Irish bishops, not even excepting his Eminence of Dublin (p.
    218).

The above important statement of Archbishop Kenrick shows that the new
dogma, according to which the Bull _Unam Sanctam_ becomes of divine
authority in doctrine, was not kept out of Maynooth very long after the
oaths and denials of preceding years had served their purpose. It was
introduced as early as 1831.

The day following the speech of Cardinal Cullen--for our light on
which we are indebted to Kenrick's important contribution--the Primate
of Hungary appeared in the pulpit. His position as a member of the
Committee on Faith, his doubtful bearing, and, above all, rumours of a
hat, had made an impression that he had gone over to the side of the
Infallibilists. On the contrary, he now spoke with decision and force
against them. It was after the courage of the minority had been for a
moment revived by this speech, that one ascended the desk, who to most
present was only a feeble old man, but to Irish prelates, and to some
of Irish origin, he represented one who, in the thundering days of
the Liberator, was spoken of, at every wake and "patron," as a mighty
son of hail and storm. It was he to whom Cullen had appealed, on the
previous day, as a witness to the ancient faith of the Irish in Papal
infallibility. But Kenrick has already shown us that John MacHale
stood as a hoary monument of departed principles; and it was when he
came down that Kenrick cried, "Thou hast vindicated Ireland." Leahy,
Archbishop of Cashel, was the next called up; but after the speech of
MacHale he declined to speak.[411]

The archbishops were still on the roll, so the same day the Archbishop
of Paris had his turn. Here again we get an indisputable glimpse into
the arcana. Like Kenrick's speech, that of Darboy is printed; but
unlike Kenrick's, it was actually delivered.[412] We shall, therefore,
give the principal portions of it, wishing that we were in a position
to do so with a speech from the other side--

    Most eminent, most reverend Fathers,--I approach the consideration
    of the First Dogmatic Constitution, _De Ecclesia_, submitted to
    your examination,--a task which would be ungrateful did not love of
    the truth and affection and reverence towards the brethren render
    it easy and not unwelcome. I will treat the proposed Decree with a
    mind, as I trust, free from all party spirit, wishing not to offend
    any one, and fervently hoping that you will ingenuously receive
    what I am about to say, as I shall ingenuously present it.

    It seems to me that there are three things to be looked at: first,
    the origin of this proposed Decree; secondly, its scope and nature;
    thirdly, its practical consequences.

    As to the origin of this proposed Decree, and its introduction at
    the present time into the Council, I shall state a few self-evident
    propositions without discussing them, or rather shall recall to
    mind a few facts, from which the reverend Fathers will be able to
    judge whether the whole matter has been conducted according to
    order, and whether the dignity of an assembly so venerable has been
    sufficiently consulted:--

    1. It is certain that the pivot on which our proposed Decree
    altogether turns is the fourth chapter--that which treats of the
    infallibility of the Pontiff.

    2. It is certain that this question of infallibility has been the
    principal object of the Vatican Council--so much so indeed that it
    has been indiscreetly said by many that, in a certain sense, it was
    the sole object of it.

    3. It is certain that this principal question of infallibility was
    not intimated in the Bull of Convocation, nor in the documents
    relating to the convocation of the Council.

    4. It is certain that this question has been urged forward from
    without, that is, by writers lay and clerical, in a way contrary
    to ecclesiastical and traditional methods, adopted against all
    rules of subordination and decorum; an agitation got up by means
    of demagogues, so to speak, in order that the consciences of the
    bishops sitting here might be placed under pressure, and that they
    might be subjected to fear that, if they resisted they should
    not be able to return to their dioceses and govern them without
    difficulty.

    5. It is certain that thus the matter has been brought to such
    a pass that the Vatican Fathers, albeit piously and generously
    following their own conscience, have been said, nevertheless, to
    have conceded more than was meet to these violent manifestations,
    and to factitious opinions, when they petitioned for the
    introduction of the question of infallibility; and because of
    this tumult, which has been raised at the doors of the Council
    Hall, the liberty and the dignity of us all have evidently been
    somewhat lowered. This is unbecoming, and opens the way to grave
    inconvenience; indeed, it is not to be tolerated without injury and
    opprobrium to this venerable assembly, which ought to act from its
    own impulse, and ought to be not only free, but manifestly free.

    6. It is certain that the question, as this day proposed, comes
    on out of the natural and logical order; and thus occasions some
    prejudice which will damage the cause itself.

    7. It is certain that the premature introduction of the question,
    especially with the present inversion of proper order, is of
    little service to the Holy See--nay, is detrimental to its
    honour; for since, according to the Rules of Procedure, contained
    in _Multiplices Inter_, petitions are remitted to a Special
    Congregation, which reports upon them to the Pontiff, and since
    the Pontiff can freely accept or reject the conclusions of that
    Congregation, it follows that the promoters of the petition for
    introducing the question of infallibility, and for placing it
    first in order, publicly led the Holy Father into the position
    of enacting and deciding in his own case, and for his personal
    privilege; in doing which--certainly without intention on their
    part--they have ill consulted his high dignity, if they may not be
    said to have even detracted from it.

    If these seven positions be true--and they seem to be most true--we
    cannot approach and determine this question of infallibility,
    raised under such circumstances, and introduced in such a manner,
    without preparing the way for the cavils of the impious, and for
    objections lowering to the moral authority of this Council. This
    is the more to be guarded against, because already writings and
    documents are in circulation which aim at shaking its strength
    and title; so that, far from calming the minds of the people, and
    securing the things which make for peace, it would seem, on the
    contrary, to be sowing the seeds of new disputations and discords
    among Christians.

    If, therefore, I may give a practical conclusion to this portion of
    my speech, I would say: (1) They did well who held this question to
    be inopportune; (2) They will do well who shall judge it opportune
    to abstain from a definition.

    Now, as to the second portion of my speech,--the scope and nature
    of this proposed Decree,--I shall indicate a few points, but not
    develop them.

    1. The object of the proposed Decree is not to frame a doctrine
    on infallibility, for all know and with Catholic faith believe in
    the infallibility of the Church, which has held that tenet for
    nearly twenty centuries. Its object is to define, and to propound
    as an article of faith, that the chief Pontiff is infallible by
    himself alone, and that indeed this privilege of inerrancy extends
    as widely as the infallibility of the Church itself. It is to be
    noted that the proposed Decree does not treat of the former kind of
    infallibility, admitted by all, according to which the invincible
    and irrefragable force of Decrees or dogmatic decisions commanding
    the faith of all the faithful, as of all pastors, lies solely in
    the common consent of the bishops conjoined with the Pontiff. But
    this proposed Decree treats of the separate and absolute personal
    infallibility of the Pontiff, though it is not openly called so.

    2. The proposed Decree does not treat of personal infallibility
    as a mere opinion, or as recommending a point of doctrine, but as
    declaring a dogma of the faith. Heretofore, indeed, there was some
    discussion as to the opportuneness and expediency of introducing
    this question in the present Council; but that discussion was
    closed from the time that the chief Pontiff decreed that the
    subject could no longer be passed over in silence. But now the
    other part of the question has come to be discussed, namely,
    whether or not the personal infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff
    can opportunely and expediently now be declared an article of the
    faith, and ought to be so declared? This is precisely the matter
    and object of the present discussion.

    3. Further, in order that the object may be rightly carried
    through, and may have a successful issue, these three things are
    necessary: (1) A formula, or definition of the doctrine; (2) Proofs
    of it, both solid and excluding all doubt; (3) Its acceptance by
    all with moral unanimity.

    _The first necessity_:--It is necessary to compose a formula or
    definition of the doctrine. That this is most difficult is apparent
    from the case of those who first drafted the proposed Decree, as
    well as of those who revised it. Terms are used which are vague,
    and fitted to give rise to endless discussion. What is meant by
    exercising the office of supreme teacher of all Christians? What
    are the complete external conditions which mark the exercise of
    this office? When will it be known that the Holy Pontiff has spoken
    in such a character? The promoters of the proposed Decree say that
    this will be obvious, as for instance the meaning of the term
    "oecumenical" is obvious; but they inflict a wound on themselves.
    For a Council is not held to be oecumenical by the faithful
    dispersed throughout the world, unless it is received as such by
    them perhaps with what amounts to moral unanimity. Hence if the
    nature, character, and force of Decrees emanating from the Pontiff
    are to be declared and known by the same method, the promoters of
    the Decree have accomplished nothing, since the ultimate reason
    for admitting infallibility will be the universal consent of the
    bishops. Do they or do they not regard the consent of the bishops
    as unnecessary in laying down definitions of the faith? If they do
    regard it as unnecessary, they do a thing that is new, unheard of,
    and intolerable. If they do not regard it as unnecessary, they say
    a thing that is old, and received by all, and draw up their battle
    array against a foe that is not in the field. In either case they
    neither can nor ought to be silent as to the necessity or inutility
    of the concurrence of the bishops. Silence on their part in such a
    matter, and in such circumstances, would drive the faithful to new
    doubts, and would prepare the way for new difficulties. They do
    not define the matters to which infallibility extends, otherwise
    than by saying that it extends to those to which the infallibility
    of the Church extends; but such an indication is altogether
    insufficient till the holy Council shall have defined the matters
    to which the infallibility of the Church does extend. Hence, again
    appears the logical vice from which this proposed Decree on the
    primacy suffers through being brought forward before the Decree on
    the Church in general. Moreover, when dealing with the Church, we
    know that her infallibility is always exercised within the limits
    of matters to which it extends, both because we are advised that it
    is so by the common consent of the bishops, and also because the
    Church is holy and cannot sin. But, on the contrary, when dealing
    with the Holy Pontiff, the promoters of the proposed Decree,
    whatever they may say, exclude on the one hand the consent of the
    bishops, and on the other hand they have not yet attempted to prove
    that every Pontiff is holy and impeccable. So far for what relates
    to the discovery of a formula.

    _The second necessity_:--A formula of definition having been
    found, it is necessary to prove it by solid arguments, excluding
    all doubt. Let it then be proved:--(1) That this doctrine of
    personal infallibility is contained in Holy Scripture interpreted
    always in one sense, as well as in the tradition of all ages;--(2)
    That it has always been received by consent of the Fathers, the
    doctors, the bishops, and theologians; not only by some of them,
    but by so many as amounts to a moral whole;--(3) That it perfectly
    accords with all the Decrees and authoritative acts of OEcumenical
    Councils, or even with the Decrees passed in the fourth and fifth
    sessions of the Council of Constance. Even were the oecumenicity
    of those sessions to be denied--which I do not admit--they still
    show what was the common opinion of theologians and bishops;--(4)
    That this doctrine is not gravely impugned by historical facts,
    and that other acts of the Holy Pontiffs are not in conflict with
    it;--(5) And, finally, that this is one of those truths which
    can be defined by General Councils in union with the Pontiff, as
    being demonstrably one of those which had been received by all,
    everywhere, and always as revealed truth.

    The proposed Decree does not supply such arguments, and the
    Fathers, as you well know, have not had time to weigh it;
    therefore we ought to refrain from defining it. In a matter of
    this kind, which involves the laying of an irrevocable burden on
    the conscience of the faithful, there is grave peril if you act
    prematurely, without absolute certainty. But there is no risk to be
    run in deciding it to be a matter that requires to be more fully
    discussed, and then afterwards determining it with all safety of
    conscience.

    _The third necessity_:--It is necessary that this doctrine of
    personal and independent infallibility, clearly stated, as we have
    said, and solidly proved, should be received by the Fathers with
    moral unanimity; else it is to be feared that this declaration
    of doctrine will seem to many to be a pontifical Constitution
    indeed but not a Decree of a Council. To impose a truth upon all
    Christians, to be held as an article of faith, is a duty and a
    right so grave that a bishop must not exercise it without great
    circumspection.

    Hence, as you well know, the Tridentine Fathers, whatever sophists
    may say to the contrary, did not arrive at their decisions in
    matters of dogma by majority, but with moral unanimity.

    As to the practical consequences of the proposed Decree, I would
    particularly note two points; for this personal infallibility
    is not required and proposed as a matter of faith, except in
    order that unity in the Church may become closer and that the
    central authority may be stronger, and that thus a remedy may be
    more effectually applied to every evil. As to unity and central
    authority, they ought to exist and to be maintained, not as we may
    fancy them, or as our reason may persuade us, but just as our Lord
    Jesus Christ instituted them, and as our Fathers hitherto have held
    them. For it is not for us to constitute the Church arbitrarily,
    and to change the conditions of a divine work. The necessary unity,
    that namely of faith and communion under the paternal rule of a
    central authority, exists and always has existed among Catholics;
    and that unity of doctrine and communion, and that central
    authority of the Holy Pontiffs, which flourished without a dogmatic
    definition of infallibility, abides unimpaired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 402: _Vitelleschi_, p. 158.]

[Footnote 403: _Quirinus_, p. 532.]

[Footnote 404: _Quirinus_, p. 533.]

[Footnote 405: _Frond_, vol. ii.]

[Footnote 406: _Documenta ad Illustrandum_, ii. 209.]

[Footnote 407: "_Meum honorem graviter læserunt._"--_Documenta ad
Illustrandum_, i. 189.]

[Footnote 408: _Documenta ad Illustrandum_, pp. 187-224.]

[Footnote 409: _Aliquid humani passum esse._]

[Footnote 410: He showed that Tischendorf read προβἁτια
in both cases, and that other editors had read πρὁβατα in
both. Of course, in the fifteenth verse, the word "lambs"--ἁρνἱα--is
the proper translation.]

[Footnote 411: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis._ As to MacHale, Kenrick omits what
_Frond_ states, that he was of a "very ancient" family.]

[Footnote 412: _Documenta_, ii. pp. 415-24.]

[Footnote 413: _Documenta_, i. 209.]

[Footnote 414: _Documenta_, i. 223.]

[Footnote 415: "Quod si non fecissent nunquam ad libertatis civilis
consortium admissi fuissent aut debuissent" (p. 219).]

[Footnote 416: _Quirinus_, 584.]

[Footnote 417: _Vitelleschi_, p. 168.]

[Footnote 418: _Quirinus_, p. 597.]

[Footnote 419: _Documenta_, i. 215.]

[Footnote 420: _Ibid._, 215.]

[Footnote 421: _Quirinus_, p. 661.]

[Footnote 422: His name does not occur in the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ for
the third.]

[Footnote 423: _Quirinus_, p. 608.]

[Footnote 424: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis._ _Friedberg_, p. 47, says there were
two hundred and fifty signatures, but this is evidently a mistake.]




CHAPTER VI

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 <DW7>. 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:

[Footnote 425: It seems that the Bishop of Orleans, and most of the
French prelates in opposition, wished to make a solemn protest against
the treatment they had met with; against the advantage taken of the hot
season to weary them; against the want of fairness shown towards them
by the Presidents all through the discussion; and, lastly, against the
excesses, insults, and affronts of which the majority had been guilty
with regard to them. Having made this protest, they proposed to leave
Rome immediately.--_Vitelleschi_, p. 200.]

[Footnote 426: _Quirinus_, p. 624.]

[Footnote 427: We have avoided noting the charges of misquotation and
falsification of authorities made on the one side and the other. It
would be endless.]

[Footnote 428: Quirinus says that he should think it a sin to print it,
but that the Romans freely credited and repeated it.]

[Footnote 429: Serie VII. xi. p. 94.]

[Footnote 430: _Veuillot_, ii. p. 389.]

[Footnote 431: _Friedberg_, 688; or a French translation in _Le Concile
du Vat. et le Mouvement Anti-infallibiliste_, p. 212.]

[Footnote 432: _Das Vatikanische Dogma_, p. 5.]

[Footnote 433: _Stimmen_ and _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_.]

[Footnote 434: _Quirinus_, p. 684.]

[Footnote 435: _Friedberg_, p. 144.]

[Footnote 436: _Quirinus_, p. 714.]

[Footnote 437: The _Difficultés de la Situation_ says that Guidi
replied, "Holy Father, I have spoken to-day what I taught for many
years, in broad daylight, in your College of the Minerva, without
any one ever having found my doctrine blameable. The orthodoxy of my
teaching must have been certified to your Holiness when you selected me
to go to Vienna to combat certain German doctors whose principles were
shaking the foundations of the Catholic faith." Printed in French in
the Appendix III. to _Quirinus_ (p. 848).]

[Footnote 438: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 424-5.]

[Footnote 439: VII. xi. 37.]

[Footnote 440: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. p. 129.]

[Footnote 441: E.g. pp. 224, 226, 228.]




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                      THE CANON AS IT WAS READ
 PRINT                                       AND ATTEMPTED TO BE PUT
                                             TO THE VOTE

 If any shall say that the                 If any one shall say that the
 Primacy of the Roman Pontiff              Roman Pontiff has only an
 is only an office of supervision          office of supervision or
 and direction, and that his               direction, but not plenary and
 supreme jurisdiction over the             supreme power over the whole
 universal Church is not plenary,          Church, both in things
 but only extraordinary and                pertaining to faith and morals,
 mediate, let him be anathema.             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 oecumenicity 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]

Many writers mention what is clearly stated in a letter of Hefele,
under date of July 9:--[447]

    The intention of the Pope is, in spite of the minority, to proceed
    at once to the publication of the new dogma, and forthwith to hand
    to every bishop two documents for his signature: (1) A profession
    of faith containing the article of infallibility; (2) A solemn
    declaration that the Council has been a free one. So you see into
    what a position we are brought, and that it does not depend on our
    own will whether we shall remain in our places or not. He that
    will not sign will instantly be placed under censure.

According to Vitelleschi, this threat terrified the poor bishops of the
Opposition. If they refused to acknowledge the validity of the Council,
nothing, as he says, was before them but to resign their Sees. If they
meant to impugn the validity of the Council, Rome was not the place in
which to do it, and, what is still more significant, they themselves
"were not the men to do it."

It proved on the next day that the candidature of a Hohenzollern prince
for the vacant crown of Spain, which had given to France the occasion
for a quarrel, had been withdrawn. But it also appeared that Lord Lyons
had to reproach the Duke De Gramont with a breach of promise, inasmuch
as the Duke had authorized him to assure her Majesty's Government that
if the withdrawal of the prince could only be procured the affair would
be at an end. It was plain that the long-prophesied attack of France
was resolved upon at last. What with the impatience of the majority for
the fruits of their victory and the disgust and discouragement of the
minority, the sufferings from the heat and the solicitude occasioned by
approaching war, the assembly had ceased to be, in any serious sense
of the word, deliberative. Amendments literally by the score were now
produced and disposed of with a haste which was in shocking contrast
with the gravity of the subjects. _La Liberté du Concile_ says that on
the all-important chapters on faith there were proposed two hundred
and eighty-one amendments. The Fathers were called on to vote them by
standing and sitting, and this was done in such haste that they had
not even time to re-read them. The Under-Secretary did not read them
out. He cried, "Number ten, number fifty, or number seventy-seven,"
as the case might be, "the committee rejects: those who are in favour
of its rejection stand up." The solid majority stood up, and all was
over. So in another case he cried out, "Number five or fifteen," adding
"The committee accepts: those who are in favour of accepting stand
up"; and the same result. "I do not vote," said one bishop, "because
not only am I unable to form a conviction, but I am unable even to
form a clear idea of what is the point" (_Documenta_, i. 174). And
each minutest point was to be irreformably fixed! We had, says this
writer, four hundred quarto pages on the subject of infallibility,
including notes, remarks, and all, while only a few days were allowed
to study it. So when the Draft Decrees on Faith were for the second
time brought out new cast, with a preamble, four chapters, and eighteen
canons, twenty-four hours were allowed to prepare to discuss them; and
the preparation must be in Latin. Twenty-four hours for an accountable
creature of God to prepare himself to say whether he would take a side
for or against laying upon himself the obligation to pronounce eighteen
curses more against his fellow creatures!

The hope had been flattered all along that no anathema would be
attached to the dogma of infallibility. But at the very last Bishop
Gasser, of Brixen, one of the keen Curialists, produced the formula
enriched with an anathema against any one who should presume to
contradict it. Quirinus says that Gasser was unwilling to be left
behind by Manning, Deschamps, Dreux-Brézé, and the Spaniards. Finally
the whole was submitted to the solemn decision on that very day on
which the French Chamber, that had so long voted money for the forces
to support the Papacy in Rome, voted five hundred and fifteen millions
of francs to break up united Germany once more.

On the morning of July 13 the hour had come. Up to the last it had been
asserted that no bishops but two or three would say _Non placet_. Every
form of assurance had been spoken and printed that this would prove
to be the case. The Virgin, the Saints, ay, and even the Holy Spirit,
had been over and over again pledged to procure this result. At last,
Ketteler and Landriot of Rheims made a clever attempt to bring it about
by proposing to the Opposition, with which they had seemed to be at
one, that they should all vote _Placet juxta modum_ (content on certain
conditions).[448] This would have enabled the Court to say that there
were no votes of "non-content." The Archbishop of Milan said, "The
only befitting course for us who are convinced of the falsehood of the
doctrine is to say, No."[449] The Pope, it is said, told Darboy that
not above ten would vote _Non placet_.[450] Certain it is that bets
would have been freely taken in Rome the night before that not a dozen
would do so. The devout were confident because the Virgin would order
it otherwise, and the worldly were confident because they thought the
bishops would not be unmindful of their own interests.

The Hall once more received its aged senators. Eighteen centuries
called to them to remember what a Church Christ had set up; how pure in
principle, how free in regulations, how plain in forms, how simple in
organization, how far from pomp or dreams of domination, from cursing,
or from use of physical force; how little of a body, how much of a
spirit, was that real Church. It was a leaven moving by the force of
an inward and self-propagating life to leaven the whole lump, in which
for itself it only asked to lie hidden, and by its innate force to
determine the quality of the meal, not stooping to design a mould for
the shape of the loaves, on a model as irreformable as the patterns of
a Hindu artisan. Many bishops had said that they had found themselves
called together to gratify one self-asserting man of ordinary gifts,
and less than ordinary acquirements, by giving him a diploma as the
titular Lord of the world, which would have no practical effect except
that of making him dictator of the Church, and bringing them and
their people into collision with everything bright and noble, which
he, in his infatuation, had set himself to put down. Many of them, at
considerable risk to their own interests, were determined to register
their solemn No! In spite of all hopes previously entertained, the
feeling that the minority were resolved had spread among the majority.
Quirinus tells how Deschamps, who had drafted a set of supererogatory
anathemas, and had only withdrawn them in face of serious threats
from Maret, and who was therefore known as having sought to place
every man of the minority in the dilemma between giving an instant
affirmative vote, or being immediately outside the Church by anathema,
now approached the leaders of the Opposition. "With humble gestures
and whining voice," he entreated them to do as Ketteler and Landriot,
profesedly belonging to them, had proposed, namely, to vote "Content on
certain conditions," and said that really there was a disposition on
the part of the authorities to insert qualifications. "The trick was
too bare-faced to succeed." Darboy called the attention of the three
Cardinals to this attempt to divide the Opposition at the last, and the
bishops said to the new Primate of Belgium, on whose head the gifted
already saw the mitre kindling into the flame-colour of a hat, "It is
unexampled impudence." We shall find hereafter, in the _Acta Sanctæ
Sedis_, what would appear to be an allusion to this scene.

The voting then began. It appeared that there were six hundred and
one bishops present, showing that many of those who were in the city
had stayed away. Antonelli was not there. Of course all the men
belonging to Rome and the patrimony of St. Peter were for the Pope. So
were nearly all those of the Neapolitan States, and the overwhelming
majority from the other portions of Italy; Spain, South America, and
the missionary bishops, might be said to be as one man. But to the
surprise of every one, several of the Orientals, under the Propaganda
as they were, and terrorized as they had been, had the heart to say No.
Even poor old Audu, Patriarch of Chaldea, dared to say _Non placet_,
knowing, from his experience by night in the Vatican, to what he might
be exposed. Of course Ballerini and Valerga, and other Romans, whose
Orientalism went no deeper than their vestments, were Roman still. When
the important preliminary votes had been taken by rising and sitting,
the Sub-Secretary ascended the pulpit. He called out name after name,
each one replying by the words, _Placet, Non placet_, or _Placet juxta
modum_; that is, Content, Not Content, or Conditionally Content. The
vast majority said _Placet_; but the stateliest of Cardinals, Prince
Schwarzenberg, said No. Milan said No; Paris, No; Munich, No; Vienna,
No; Gran, the Primatial See of Hungary, No; Lyons, the Primatial See
of France, No. In all, no less than eighty-eight living witnesses that
day lifted up their testimony, and sent it on to all after-time, that,
so far as they knew, the doctrine of Papal infallibility had not been,
and was not then, the faith of the Churches which they represented.
Nearly all these did represent Churches, many of them the oldest, the
most educated, and the most numerous in the Papal world. Maret, who was
a bishop _in partibus_, being among the minority, was like a bird in
the wrong flock.

Strange to say, no less than seven Cardinals then present in Rome
abstained from voting. The abstentions altogether numbered eighty.
Poor Cardinal Guidi, who had been sadly belaboured for his fault, had
been forbidden to receive visitors, and had been made miserable by all
the arts which priests can practise, and to which priests are exposed,
now voted _Juxta modum_; that is, conditionally content. The number
who did the same were sixty-two. A false impression was spread among
the Liberal Catholics that these were all adverse to the definition.
Not so. Some of them did not think the formula now before them strong
enough, and had notable additions to propose. The Contents were, 451;
the Non-contents, 88; and the Conditional Contents, 62.[451] The _Acta_
of the Council contain not a syllable of this sitting, any more than of
all the others of the General Congregations.

The effect of this vote in Rome was immense. No class of men had
counted upon it. Even ardent supporters of the minority had shown a
want of any confidence that they would stand fast up to this point. The
impression got abroad, for the moment, that not even Pius IX, little
delicate as he was, would accept an apotheosis, as it was called,
which had been publicly discredited by nearly all the bishops of
great Sees, who were in any sense independent of the Bishop of Rome.
"According to general belief, especially in Rome," says Vitelleschi
(p. 206), "the Church never creates a dogma new in itself; but in
defining a dogma, simply attests some belief which has been always and
universally professed." The Romans saw that both the "always" and
the "universally" were for ever disproved by the vote. They knew how
speedily black could be made white, but they did not see how the device
could this time succeed. There was the vote, saying what had been the
belief of the bishops up to that hour. But probably the Romans soon
corrected their first impression by their habitual estimate of Pius
IX. They never accuse him of pride, although they always accuse him of
vanity and vainglory. A case in which the common voice so sharply draws
the distinction is exceedingly rare in public life. He is not above
accepting anything that is agreeable. Quirinus will have it that he
still declared that the vote of the Opposition would be reversed, and
that these misguided men would be so enlightened by the Holy Spirit,
that they would publicly vote for the right.

From Munich a telegram was sent to Hefele bearing many names, among
them that of Reithmayer, announcing universal "joyful sensation" at the
vote, and calling for "immovable perseverance," otherwise "incalculable
mischief."[452]

Nothing further now remained but the great solemnity for promulging
the Decree, and gathering the fruits of nearly eight months' toil.
Only five days' delay was taken--days of intense excitement, and
of incidents striking at the time, and important for all time. The
minority saw how their hopes that the Pope would recoil before a vote
so solemn as that recorded had been vain. The war-horse was prancing
outside the door of the Council, and the fighting sons of Loyola
could already tell what tidings he would bring. Louis Napoleon might
have doubts, but the Fathers of the _Civiltá_ had none. "Everything
is always directed and turned by Providence for the good and the
triumph of the Church." (VII. xi. 379). The crisis, they knew, would
give the Vicar of God an opportunity of intervening, with his newly
certified authority and infallibility, as mediator. This office once
accepted would easily be turned to that of supreme judge. So would
his new reign be grandly commenced. The _Monde_, of Paris, said to
be the organ of the Nuncio, already called the war a religious war
against Protestantism. France had been assured in every form that she
had only to attack Prussia, and all the Catholics of Southern Germany
would join her. Without the miscalculation at the Tuileries caused by
these statements, it is not probable that the French would have been
hurled into the ditch of Sedan. Both the precepts and the prophecies
of the reconstructionists failed. The cry, "The Church," raised by the
Bavarian priests was not so strong as that of "The Fatherland," raised
by the patriots. This fact was still unknown at the Vatican. Though the
inflation manifest before the Council was somewhat reduced, too much
remained.

The prospect was not so bright to the bishops. They had not been always
cooped up within the walls of Rome. Hints of how thoughts were turning
reached them from home. They knew that men of study and of wisdom were
either hostile to the new Constitution, or painfully solicitous. Some
of the bishops had deep personal convictions, which experience during
the Council had intensified; convictions that the whole proceeding was
neither more nor less than the adoption of a false doctrine to sanction
a fatal policy, and that the error was so fundamental as to involve the
acceptance of a purely human fountain of doctrine for all time to come.
They met and debated whether they should vote in the open session. Only
twenty, according to Archbishop Scherr, were in favour of this course,
and these did not insist on their own views, lest they should divide
the eighty-eight.

On the evening of July 15, about eight o'clock, a deputation entered
the Vatican, composed of the Primates of France and Hungary, with the
Archbishops of Paris and Munich, and the Bishops of Mainz and Dijon.
They had to wait an hour--a time doubtless filled up with meditations
more ecclesiastical than those which sometimes occupy the moments lost
in the ante-rooms of the Vatican; rooms full of traditional tales of
the pomps and vanities of this wicked world, and the sinful lusts of
the flesh; such tales as good men, who had been forced to hear them,
would not easily be forced to repeat.[453]

They were admitted about nine o'clock. They came from the minority to
urge that the Pope should withdraw the additions made to the third
canon of the third chapter, that canon the attempt to snatch an
unconscious vote upon which had caused so profound an impression. They
also wished the addition of a limiting clause to the definition of
infallibility in the fourth chapter. Quirinus seems afraid to report
the answer given by the Pope, and that for a reason which we suspect
has often prevented English correspondents writing in Italy from
telling true tales. They know that we judge of Popes and Cardinals by
some such standard as that of our own public men, and that therefore
to us the true tale would look like an invention. In the present case
the answer was, "I shall do all I can, my dear sons; but I have not yet
read the proposed Decree, and I do not know what it contains."[454] His
Holiness requested to have the petition in writing. The spokesman,
Darboy, replied, with French tact, that he would have it sent to His
Holiness, and would take the liberty of forwarding at the same time
the proposed Decree, which the Commission and the Presiding Cardinals
had omitted to lay before his Holiness, though it wanted only two
days of the public session, and thus had exposed him to the danger of
promulging a Decree of which he was ignorant. Darboy not only did this,
but also took care that others should know what the Pope had actually
said. He wrote to the Committee on Faith, strongly censuring them for
their neglect in not laying the proposed Decrees before the Pontiff!

It is curious to observe how all the Liberal Catholic writers who had
come to Rome began by speaking of the Pope with the deference usual on
this side of the Alps, but finally slipped into the habit of calling
him "Pius." They evidently often had difficulty between their sense of
the conventional respect due to a personage whom so many own as their
head, and their feelings as honest men. The latter would have often
prompted them to speak of Pius IX as Italians do, and not as Englishmen
or Germans are wont to do.[455]

"Pius," continues Quirinus, added that if they would increase their
eighty-eight votes to a hundred he would see what could be done.
Only those who know the opinions entertained by that writer of the
Pope's personal ignorance, and of his habit of speaking as if he knew
everything, can appreciate the statement that his Holiness concluded by
assuring the deputation that it was notorious that the whole Church had
always taught the unconditional infallibility of the Popes.

Bishop Ketteler now threw himself on his knees before the Pontiff. For
some time he remained in that position, entreating his sovereign to
make some concession, and thus to restore peace and unity to the Church
and to the Episcopate. This was the very scene to please one like Pius
IX. And so the deputation left him with some hopes of concession--"full
of the best hopes," said the Archbishop of Munich.[456]

Two men speedily sought to undo any impression that might have been
made. Many a Roman Catholic has, in imagination, hovered over that
scene, returning again and again to watch the figures of the agents
of the Committee on Faith as they glided into the presence-chamber.
Such Catholics in their imaginings have scowled at, ay, have cursed
Senestrey the pupil of the Jesuit College _Germanicum_, and Manning
the pupil of Oxford, as the instruments of the Jesuits going at this
moment to harden the heart of the Pontiff, which some hoped had begun
to relent. It is said that this remarkable pair urged that all was now
ripe, that the majority were enthusiastic, and that moreover if the
Pontiff made concessions he would be dishonoured in history as a second
Honorius.[457] This "frightened the Pope," said Archbishop Von Scherr.

The hopes brought back by the deputation to the minority were speedily
dispelled. In the course of the morning Cardinal Rauscher waited on
his Holiness to thank him in the name of the minority for the gracious
reception of their deputation. The shrewd Austrian pointed out to
his royal master the effects which would flow from the definition as
framed by the majority. "It is too late," said the Pope; "the formula
is already distributed to the bishops and has been discussed. Besides,
the public session is convened. It is now impossible to yield to the
wishes of the minority."[458] On Friday night the Pope said that he
had not seen the formula; on Saturday morning the Pope said that the
formula was already distributed and discussed. And this formula was
unchangeably to determine the fountain of doctrine, of ministerial
authority, and of all power in a so-called Church. Friedrich, on
writing down these words from the lips of his Archbishop, adds in a
parenthesis, "One is ready to go crazed at the measureless frivolity
with which the holiest questions are handled in Rome."

That same morning a Congregation was held to consider the suggestions
made by those who had given conditional votes. Two Spaniards, according
to Quirinus (p. 804), had made two propositions tending to complete
the repudiation of the collective authority of the universal Church
by the Bishop of Rome. The proposed Decree, as it stood, limited his
definitions to "matters which the Holy See had held from ancient times
in common with other Churches."[459]

This language, however vaguely, did recognize both antiquity and
catholicity. The worthy Spaniard doubtless felt that the Vicar of God
ought not to be limited by any such things; that he should be left free
to define what he felt called to define. The committee had been of
the same mind, and had adopted the proposal of the Spaniard that the
above-quoted clause should be struck out. The Sub-Secretary cried, "The
amendment proposed to 76 is accepted by the committee: those who are in
favour of accepting it, stand up." Nearly all stood up. Ten or twelve
stood up against it, and away went the antiquity and catholicity as
expeditiously as any Cardinal could desire.[460]

The inner lights of the Pontiff were thus freed from any restraint
arising out of ancient views, and the local creed of Rome was freed
from any restraint arising out of a common Christianity as between that
city and other Churches.

Now, however, came to pass a marvel, if anything could be marvellous
there and then. The venerable men seated all around had spent
their long lives in hearing and telling of one thing--the glory,
the authority, the divinity of the Church, and the overwhelming
conclusiveness of her consent. All who did not hear the Church were,
according to them, lost. Even when, in preparing the way for the change
of base which they had foreseen before leaving home, some of them had
appeared to throw tradition altogether overboard, it was only in order
to substitute for it the general consent of the Church. Which of us
would have dared to tell devout Roman Catholics that their own bishops,
when once in Rome under the terror of the Pontiff and the Jesuits,
would disavow the consent of the Catholic Church, and say that without
it the word of a single man was quite as good? They may now attempt to
explain the words "not by consent of the Church," as meaning something
small; or even to say that Popes ever and always formally disclaimed
the necessity of her consent. The world must leave them to do so; but
they know, as well as we do, that had we said that their bishops would
of a sudden put words like these into the creed, they would have called
us calumniators. Yet what came to pass?

That came to pass which had often been hinted as necessary by the
zealots during the Council, but had always been looked upon as
impossible by most men of the minority, although a few had openly said
that in such a Council nothing was impossible. Another Spaniard, when
he gave his conditional vote, had proposed that the words of the Decree
which said, "The definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves
irreformable," should be amended so as to read, "The definitions of the
Roman Pontiff are of themselves, _and not by consent of the Church_,
irreformable." Vitelleschi says that no information was given as to the
authority at whose suggestion these metamorphic words were approved by
the committee, but approved by the committee they were. So, without
any opportunity of debate, the Under Secretary cried, "The amendment
under number 152, having been modified, is accepted by the committee";
and reading it, he added, "Let those who are in favour of accepting
it stand up." The great majority stood up. "Let those who are against
accepting it stand up." "About thirty" stood up.[461] Thus were those
ancient men called upon in their episcopal robes to extinguish the
light of that lamp to which they had ministered oil all the days of
their lives. They obeyed like soldiers, and the old, old light of a
catholic consent was quenched for ever. Many of the eighty-eight were
absent, and knew not of this new, swift, and crowning victory of the
guild over the hierarchy.

Done in a moment! the Romish bishops had effaced from their law, and
from their rule of faith, the consent of the Catholic Church! Talk
of revolutions, of hasty parliamentary votes, of the sudden impulse
of a mob; but where in history is there an instance of breaking with
a long and loud resounding past, in such haste, and so irrevocably;
irrevocably, not by the ordinary law which entails the consequences
of an act upon the future, but irrevocably by the form and intent of
the action itself? We know, alas! what these bishops are capable of
representing; but it is for the unborn to judge the men who did that
act and then faced round, saying that they changed nothing. And these
men are to teach the human species the art of conserving all that
they have "inherited and proved"! The Church of the Popes had long
ceased, in the eye of Protestants, to have a claim to catholicity.
Now, however, in the eye of Liberal Catholics she explicitly rejected
catholicity by statutory and irreformable law. They saw her contract
herself to the sect of one man and his retainers, to a religion made up
of faith in one man, his inner light, and his _faits accomplis_.

The slow but irresistible operation of principles had at last worked
out its ultimate issue. Liberal Catholics were the first to see that
the religion of the Pope had now really ceased to be Catholic, or
even national, or indeed municipal--that it had in fact become only
palatial. They at once named it the religion of the Vatican. They
did not so soon admit that the principle of one city church--not
the mother, and not a model--being the mistress of all others, and
practically the fountain of their faith, contained in itself the germ
of all that had now come to fruit.

The sitting which began with deeds so very solemn ended in another
way. For once the poor Pope had been exposed to the plague of
pamphlets in the Holy City. It is pathetic to read the wailing over
the destiny that subjected so holy a being to this in addition to
his other "martyrdoms," "Calvaries," "crucifixions," and such like
words, to win a tear. Many of the vexatious writings were in Latin.
Thus if they had the additional bitterness of being the work often
of bishops, always of priests, they still had the veil of a dead
language. Not a few, however, had been written in living tongues.
Two of the latter, which cut dreadfully deep, were in French--_What
is going on in the Council?_ and _The Last Hour of the Council_. We
are now to see how these are dealt with. It is announced by the First
President that a certain protest will be distributed. So papers are
handed round. During this process the Under-Secretary calls out, Let
the Fathers take notice that the sitting is not over! Then from the
pulpit, in the name of the Presidents, he reads a protest against
false reports in general, and the two pamphlets in particular. They
were stinking calumnies and shameful lies--_putidissimæ calumniæ ...
probosa mendacia_. The Italians and Spaniards, who could not have
read them, cried, "We condemn them." The minority cried, "We do not
condemn them." The President called upon those who did condemn them
to stand up. Sambin says that so few remained seated that, to avoid
exposing them to humiliation, the contrary was not put. Among these
men Friedrich names Rauscher and Schwarzenberg. Two copies of the
condemnation had been handed to every one of the bishops. The President
now read a request that each would return one of them signed with his
own name. This trap, however, was not successful. Haynald said that
if the Presidents would translate _La Dernière Heure_ into Latin, he
and the rest of the Hungarians would be able to see if it was as bad as
their Eminences had said it was.[462] The _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ make no
mention of any demur, but notes that many prelates said, "Willingly,
with all my heart, yes, even to blood!" But why giving bad names to two
pamphleteers should call forth such heroic resolutions is not obvious.
Thus did an OEcumenical Council spend its last legislative moment in
recording a condemnation of two pamphlets which obviously the bulk of
those who gave sentence could not have read. The presentation to every
man personally of the two papers, and the call to sign, coming from
the chair, was a symptom not calculated to dissipate certain fears
that had got abroad among the minority. It was reported that if they
dared to give an adverse vote in the public session, two papers would
be immediately presented to them, the one being a subscription to the
dogma, the other being the resignation of their sees. If they did not
sign the first, they must sign the second. They knew that in case they
refused to sign both, they were within the walls of Rome. And suppose a
bishop to have signed his resignation and then to find himself in the
hands of the Papal police! And men liable even to the suspicion of such
menaces were free "judges and legislators!"

So ended the last of the General Congregations, being the eighty-sixth
since the beginning. It will be ever memorable--a monument of despatch
and versatility. It renounced, as lights in doctrine, antiquity,
catholicity, and the consent of the Church, and it denounced two French
pamphlets, and gave to _Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_ and _La Dernière
Heure du Concile_ an immortality in the formal Acts of that assembly
denied to all the petitions, suggestions, deliberations, and votes of
the whole hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in their fourscore and
six anxious and pregnant sittings in General Congregation.

For awhile the protest against these pamphlets, of which the wording
is named by Vitelleschi as a sample of the violent language common in
the Roman _bureaux_ at the time, is actually printed among the Acts of
the Council, those Acts contain not a word of the votes, proposals,
or discussions of the General Congregations; not a hint of all the
protests put in by the minority, not a hint of the voting in the great
Congregation on July 13, or, in fact, of anything that could give a
knowledge of the processes, or of any other results than the lists of
committees and the formulated Decrees. By processes we do not mean the
ceremonial ones, for they are briefly described, but the legislative
and deliberative ones, which are entirely omitted. The Bulls of the
Pope and the Decrees of the Presidents as to procedure are printed; but
no action of the bishops. When what has passed through the hands of the
bishops becomes a Papal constitution, it of course appears. As to the
historians, they indeed do give the voting on July 13; but we believe
that not one of those who wrote by or under authority gives one of the
documents of the protesting bishops, from the beginning of the Council
to the end, or any indication of where they may be found. Vitelleschi
tells how, on this same day, Cardinal Rauscher himself made a last
desperate effort to impress the immovable Pope, and was received with
scant courtesy.

That Saturday night a number of downcast old men, each with more or
less of a retinue, took leave of Rome. Some went by the desolate way
to Civitá Vecchia. On reaching that city, and beginning to breathe the
free air of the sea, they might well wonder how long the red, white,
and blue flag would warn away the red, white, and green; how long the
eldest daughter of the Church would help the autocrat to impose his
obscure tyranny on this threadbare patch of land,--a land whereof the
natural lot was neither poverty nor dependence upon the foreigner.
Some of them took the less desolate way towards the North. In the
clear July night they passed by Monte Rotondo, with Mentana not far
off. When would Garibaldi be heard of anew? Or would the next dash at
Rome be left to Garibaldi? Spoleto, Terni, and other places lost in
1860, would suggest the question: Will Ireland and Belgium find men for
new crusades, and if so, will they be more successful? The lamps of
Perugia, high on the hill, would recall tales of slaughter under Pius
IX. Perhaps the prelates had not heard them, or had said that they were
all lies. All of the Frenchman, or of the German, in their hearts would
be drawn in one direction; all of the <DW7> in another. The Frenchman
would naturally say, He who has repaid the restoration of twenty years
ago, and the support given since then, by deliberate insult of the
greatest names of the Gallican dead, by coarse offences against every
man of mark among the French living that dared to speak a dissentient
word, and by the ostentatious abrogation of all the Gallican liberties,
deserves not that the flag of France should longer shelter his policy.
The German would naturally say, The attempt to undo the unity of
the Fatherland, and once more to expose us through division to the
incursions, the burnings, and the plunderings of the French, is no
less than diabolical; and he that aims at breaking up Germany for the
sake of weakening Italy, should be left to his deserts. But in such
men, after all, the Frenchman or the German represented but the human
instincts, not the drilled, trained thoughts, and the unchangeably
moulded habits. The German, or the Frenchman, represented the boy, but
the <DW7> represented the man. "The weakening of the individual will
in the priest," of which Vitelleschi speaks, as one of the secrets
of that mysterious zeal to-day for things which were esteemed untrue
yesterday, is scarcely more striking than is the weakening of national
sympathy, except when the interests of the Papacy are supposed to be
connected with those of the nation.

We may close this chapter with one specimen more of the practical
preaching for the establishment of the new moral order, of the real
Christian civilization, which the scribes of the Court had kept under
the eyes of all who sought, in their pages, for tidings of the great
things which the Council was doing. Our last specimen was that of an
English youth: this is that of a French one. Bravely fighting his gun
at Monte Rotondo, fell young Bernard Quatrebarbes, the son of a Breton
marquis, mortally wounded. When the victors of Mentana delivered the
prisoners, no less than four cousins gathered around the pallet of the
wounded Bernard. At Rome he was joined by his father, his sister, and
other female relations. The day after his arrival in the city, his
humble room in the hospital having been entered by Pius IX, "radiant
with sovereign sweetness," as the writer expresses it, Bernard was
naturally in ecstasy at such an august apparition. The Pope desiring
to see the wound of his crusader, and making the sign of the cross
over it, said, "God will bless thee, my friend, as I bless thee." The
Marquis announced to his wife the departure of her boy in three words,
"Bernard in Paradise." "Words," exclaims the author, unconsciously
signalizing the fall of Rome from Christian hope--"Words worthy of the
primitive Christians." Ay, but, thank God, primitive Christians before
saying over their dead "in Paradise" instead of "in Purgatory," did
not wait till one fell fighting for the royalty of a bishop! Over the
fisher drowned with his nets, over the mother who died in childbirth,
they rejoiced with the joy of hope eternal. It was for later, darker
ages to drag them back again into a dim region where a crowd of
intervening patrons and all manner of priestly spells came between them
and the bosom of a Father, between them and the home where all the
brothers meet.

Maria Sophia, ex-Queen of Naples, came so often to the bedside of the
dying Bernard, that our narrator says she almost seemed to have taken
up her abode in the hospital, and sometimes she was moved to tears. By
that bedside also did her husband say to the Marquis, "How noble is
your son!" To the Marquis also wrote another expectant exile, the Count
of Chambord, saying that he admired "the short but bright career of
Bernard, and his marvellous end." It was the Colonel of Bernard that
told the father of his departure, and in these words: "I have another
patron in heaven." But above all when the news was conveyed to the
Pope, he said: "Bernard Quatrebarbes is a saint in heaven." At home in
Brittany, while the corpse lay in the chapel of the château, the people
flocked around the bier; but it was "more to invoke the departed than
to pray for him." The new Hermit who preaches the new crusade thus
concludes his memoir:--

    The death of Bernard Quatrebarbes, who sacrificed to God youth,
    fortune, and pleasure, a tranquil life and the joys of home,
    in order to march in the defence of the truth, of virtue,
    of the Church, will awaken the drowsy soul of more than one
    young cavalier. Bernard is already a martyr, and he will be an
    apostle.[463]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 442: _Friedberg_, 145; _Quirinus_, 788.]

[Footnote 443: See Protest with signatures. _Doc._, ii. 400-403.]

[Footnote 444: _Apologia_, p. 327.]

[Footnote 445: _Quirinus_, p. 792. The _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ does not
think it worth while to count;--"fifty or thereabouts," "quinquaginta
circiter patribus dissentientibus" (vi. p. 31).]

[Footnote 446: _Le Con. du Vat. et le Mouvement Anti-Infallibiliste_,
pp. 6-10.]

[Footnote 447: _Friedrich_, p. 405.]

[Footnote 448: _Quirinus_, p. 771.]

[Footnote 449: _Ibid._, p. 772.]

[Footnote 450: _Ibid._, p. 773.]

[Footnote 451: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 362. _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ has the
same numbers.]

[Footnote 452: _Friedrich_, 406.]

[Footnote 453: When, in 1860, writing _Italy in Transition_, I read,
on the recommendation of an Italian gentleman, a book by a well-known
writer professing to describe the interior life of the Vatican; but
found it too low to allow me even to allude to it, much less to
quote it. What was my surprise when, a year or so later, appeared
the work of Liverani, to find this very book--which even now I do
not care to name--cited with that of About and of others, as a work
the _substantial_ accuracy of which the learned Domestic Prelate and
Protonotary of the Holy See could not deny.]

[Footnote 454: _Quirinus_, p. 801. This astounding assertion does not
rest upon the sole authority of Quirinus. Friedrich, in reporting the
sayings of the Archbishop of Munich to the Faculty of Theology in that
city on his return, gives the same assertion as repeated by his Grace.
It had been a favourite theory with official writers that Quirinus was
Friedrich, but as the latter left Rome in May, and Quirinus continued
to write to the last, that theory had dropped out of sight. It is a
curious coincidence in the present case that nearly all the incidents
of this interview, mentioned by Quirinus writing in Rome on July 19,
were repeated by Archbishop Scherr in Munich to the Faculty two days
later. The substantial agreement of the two accounts is quite as great
as that in several other cases which have induced men like Hergenröther
to argue that Friedrich and Quirinus were one. The agreement is such as
would be found between two practised writers hearing an account from
the same eyewitness, or from two or three eyewitnesses, and immediately
writing down what they had heard. _Friedrich_, p. 408 ff.]

[Footnote 455: An instance of the effect of perfect knowledge of Rome
by personal residence, on the style of expression and description, may
be seen in Mr. T.A. Trollope's interesting book, _The Papal Conclaves_,
as compared with the unreal and conventional forms kept up by
Englishmen who know neither the language nor the spirit of the people.
Some of the latter, ever since the days of the _Tracts for the Times_,
provoke smiles, and have gradually been acquiring for our country a
reputation very unlike the old reputation of England for strong common
sense, love of reality, and contempt for shows and fables.]

[Footnote 456: _Friedrich_, p. 409.]

[Footnote 457: _Quirinus_, p. 803; also the words of Archbishop Scherr,
as quoted in _Tagebuch_, p. 409.]

[Footnote 458: Related by Archbishop Scherr to the Theological Faculty
at Munich. _Friedrich_, pp. 409, 410.]

[Footnote 459: _Quirinus_, p, 804. See the Draft in _Doc. ad Illus._,
ii. pp. 317, 318,--"Quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes et Romana cum
cæteris tenet perseveranter ecclesia."]

[Footnote 460: _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, p. 33.]

[Footnote 461: The _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_ does not even profess to count
exactly,--"about thirty" (_triginta circiter_).]

[Footnote 462: _Quirinus_, pp. 806-7.]

[Footnote 463: _Civiltá_, VII. ix. 542-48 and 664-70.]




CHAPTER VIII

Grief of M. Veuillot--Final Deputation and Protest.


Sunday, July 17, was rather more of a fast than of a feast for M.
Veuillot. He says, "War and oppositions are cruel clouds." Bad as
were the rumours of war, those of "rebellion" among the bishops were
still worse. It had evidently become known that the minority were not
to be cowed into gracing the public solemnity with their compulsory
_Placet_. It was even rumoured that the bishops would go into the
open session and disturb the solemnity by saying _Non placet_--ay,
M. Veuillot had heard, by shouting it and outrageously repeating it
in the face of the Pope.[464] While nothing was more desirable than
that, to prove the freedom of the Council, two or three should say
_Non placet_, any serious number doing so would be detestable. The
refusal of the non-contents to vote at all would be only one degree
less bad. M. Veuillot, however, discovered that many whose departure,
"or rather desertion," had been reported were still really in Rome.
But, on the other hand, he saw carriages at the doors of leaders of the
"tormenting and tormented" Opposition; at those of the Archbishops of
Paris and Lyons, and of Cardinals Rauscher and Matthieu. Even the Via
Frattina was visited to note the symptoms at the door of Maret. After
night-fall, Veuillot cries, "Many are gone, and many more are going in
the morning. They will really absent themselves. I cannot help thinking
of a caricature. It represented some seditious fellows in a scare, who
said, 'Now is the moment to show ourselves; let us hide!'"

As the noontide of that July Sunday blazed upon the Vatican, a
deputation had entered the presence chamber, headed by Darboy and
Simor, Primate of Hungary. They came to make one last attempt to
procure the prorogation of the Council without the promulgation of
the dogma. Their only answer was the old _Non possumus_. Then the
last of the luckless series of protests was solemnly delivered. They
had not heart enough to fight, and had too much conscience to submit.
So they took the middle course, and spoiled for ever the pretext of
moral unanimity except the dead unanimity of form. Their fears, or
their views of unity and reverence would not allow them in public to
withstand the Pope. He had justly calculated the effect upon them of
throne and tiara, with the fear of possible degradation. They had not,
perhaps, sufficiently calculated what might have been the effect on him
of honest men standing up one after another in their appointed place,
and saying before all the Churches, as a wiser than they had done of
a better than he, that he was to be blamed. They would have exposed,
it is true, Pope Pius IX to a temporary check, yet they might have
saved the Papacy from an irrevocable error. But in proportion as the
Papacy had become weak in producing conviction, it had concentrated
its strength on the means of producing submission. Its success in
that art was now to be its own punishment. No Protestant had expected
any effectual resistance from men trained as Romish bishops. Any real
tenacity of conscience shown during the Council, was due to nobler
influences spread abroad in countries where the ascendancy of Rome is
not complete. There is, to our mode of thinking, something not merely
incongruous and grotesque, but a great deal worse, in putting forward
the paltry plea of personal offence, or personal consideration, when
the matter in hand is a dogma that is to mould the religion of millions
for ever. The fact that these prelates do put forward such a notion
countenances the statements often made about men giving as the reason
for their votes that they could not refuse the Holy Father or hurt
his feelings. Vitelleschi thinks that the fear of being required to
resign their Sees or subscribe the dogma was one of the elements in
determining the minority to leave Rome before the definition (p. 212).
If so, seeing them escape from that dilemma would be one of the causes
of the mortification shown by the majority, as expressed by Veuillot.
We give the last of the protests in full[465]:--

    Most Blessed Father, in the Congregation held on the 13th of this
    month we gave our votes upon the proposed Decree of the first
    dogmatic constitution of the Church of Christ.

    It is known to your Holiness that there were eighty-eight Fathers,
    who, pressed by conscience and moved by love of the Holy Church,
    gave their votes in the words _Non placet_, that sixty-two others
    voted in the words _Placet juxta modum_, and that, moreover, about
    seventy were absent from the Council and abstained from voting. To
    these are to be added a number who, from infirmity or other serious
    reasons, have returned to their dioceses.

    In this manner, our votes have been made known to your Holiness
    and to the whole world, and it has been made evident by how many
    bishops our opinion is approved; and thus have we discharged our
    office and duty.

    From the time above stated, nothing has occurred to change our
    judgment; but, on the contrary, several things have been added,
    and those exceedingly serious, which have strengthened us in our
    purpose.

    Confirming, then, by this document our votes, we have determined to
    abstain from the public session to be held on the 18th. That filial
    piety and reverence, which lately brought our deputies to the feet
    of your Holiness do not permit us openly, and in the Father's face,
    to say _Non placet_ in a case so closely concerning the person of
    your Holiness.

    And, indeed, the votes that would be given in the public session
    could only repeat those already given in the Congregation.

    We, therefore, return to our flocks without delay, for after so
    long an absence we are much needed on account of the rumours
    of war, and especially on account of the great spiritual
    necessities. We return grieving that, because of the sad juncture
    of circumstances, even peace and tranquillity of conscience is
    disturbed among the faithful.

    Meanwhile, commending with all our hearts the Church of God, and
    your Holiness, to the grace and protection of our Lord Jesus
    Christ, we are of your Holiness the most devoted and most obedient
    sons.

Leaving, then, in the hands of the Pope this solemn confirmation of a
belief registered by a formidable array of bishops, that he ought not
to be proclaimed as the infallible representative of God, they turned
their backs on the palace which had witnessed their many humiliations.
Their allusion to the things which had been added since the 13th as
being "exceedingly serious," is another of the many witnesses out of
their own mouths against their subsequent statements. Their clear
statement that did they vote in the session it could only be to repeat
their former vote, seals with the seal of deliberate misrepresentation
many solemn assertions since that day made under mitres.

It was a grief to the soul of M. Veuillot to learn that the Ambassador
of France had graced with his presence the departure of Darboy. De
Banneville had accompanied the Archbishop to the station, escorted by
Mérode, with Monsignor Vecchiotti, and Father Trullet. The recalcitrant
Archbishop was even placed in "a kind of carriage of honour"; a fact
which reminded the Argus of the _Univers_ that a certain bishop had
said, We go away conquerors, but we leave some wounded on the field.
"This fine carriage seemed to me an ambulance."[466] Thus, poor Darboy
took his way towards the storm-cloud, blackening behind the hills, in
the after clap of which he alone of all the host was to find a bloody
grave.

The Monday morning dawned heavily over Rome. As the eyes of the last
portion of the fleeing minority were sadly tracing the outlines of
the hills on the upper course of the Tiber, while those of the first
portion were tracing the forms of the outlying Alps and a few were
watching morn as it spread over the waves of the Mediterranean, a
Pope for the first time rose in Rome with the consciousness that ere
sunset he would be infallible, not only in fact, but also in law.
His less happy prececessors had claimed that crown, but never had
received it. Now he was about, with the consent of the Church, to put
on the power to be infallible for ever, "without the consent of the
Church." Had ever diplomacy won such a victory? had ever an oligarchy
so completely signed itself away? Tell him that the temporal power was
of no spiritual value! But could all that have been accomplished except
within the walls of a strong city? As Pius IX looked from the Papal
apartments across the Tiber, the Pincian was gloomy, and the Sabine
Hills were hid in clouds under a threatening sun. But he would remember
the day of his taking possession, and how gloom had turned to rainbow;
the day of the return from Gaeta, and how the sun had opened from the
west at the right moment; above all, the day of "The Immaculate," and
how the sun had seemed glad of the sight. True, the dutiful luminary
had failed on the opening day of the Council, but the Jesuit Fathers
had written that the solemnity would be brilliant at its close, and
that the city would blaze with triumph, as Ephesus had done in the
year 431. And was not the throne so placed in the Council Hall, that,
all being propitious, the beams would fall as they had done on the day
of the Immaculate; and surely the Virgin would not fail to send them.
At all events, it was certain that he would lie down that night not
only the Pope of the Immaculate, but the Pope of the Infallible--the
first human being in the records of the world to whom a number of the
creatures of God had deliberately given the right of telling to them
and to their succeeding generations what they were to believe for ever
and ever. The deifying of an emperor, either in the plains of Babylon
or in the temples of Rome, was a little thing as compared with the
apotheosis now about to be performed. The dogmas of the emperor were
not to be eternal on earth, though he might cause himself to be decreed
immortal in heaven. The word "apotheosis" was perfectly natural to the
pen of Vitelleschi, or of any other Liberal Catholic who dared to speak
what he thought. But it is nevertheless true that deification among
the heathen, whether ancient or modern, involved little exaltation
compared with that now to be given to the Bishop of Rome. A Theseus or
a Rama, an Antinous or an Augustus, had a lowly part in ruling eternal
destinies compared with that to be now assigned to the Count and Priest
Mastai-Ferretti.

The monasteries and nunneries sent forth a contingent, as on the
opening day; but where were the proud vehicles and the pressing
throngs? Vitelleschi says that two or three houses in the city were
decorated. How dead was the indifference denoted by such language on an
occasion absolutely unprecedented, cannot be conveyed to the minds of
those who do not know what the people of a southern city can do when
they really mean to decorate. As the places for spectators in the Hall
filled up, it was whispered from one to another, "No crowned heads." An
Infanta of Portugal was the lone flower of royalty

   "Where once a garden smiled."

Even ambassadors failed. France, the eldest daughter, was not there.
Spain, the Catholic, was not there. Portugal, the faithful, was not
there. Austria, the apostolic, was not there. Bavaria was not there.
Poland was dead. Italy was alive again, but her heart and hope were
elsewhere. Belgium and Holland had each sent a consul, the one to
welcome infallibility, with its constitution condemned by the Church,
the other with its heresy. Vitelleschi mentions a representative of the
Principality of Monaco. The _Giornale di Roma_ is not so worldly minded
as to specify any state, but says that members of the diplomatic corps
were present.[467]

About nine o'clock the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops,
Abbots, and Generals, all in red, began to stream in. Five hundred and
thirty-five seats were soon occupied. It thus appeared that there were
some two hundred less than at the opening. About twenty had died.[468]
Several were ill. Some, in Rome, were absent from disclination to
attend.[469] Of the minority only two now changed sides. Of these,
one was a demonstrative Oppositionist--Landriot, of Rheims.
This conspicuous absence of the minority was a disappointment and a
humiliation, though it was nothing more. Even the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_
says that its effect was traceable on the countenances of the Fathers.
They grieved for the obstinacy of their brethren. Indeed, in the
Congregation where the vote was taken, some, with clasped hands, had
implored their friends to give up their false opinion at last. Still
the conqueror had his triumph, though he had not the satisfaction
of seeing the captives follow in his train. It was Cæsar without
Vercingetorix. It would have been a proud moment for the resident
Cardinals had Rauscher and Schwarzenberg made Vienna and Prague bow
down to Rome. Had the sturdy Darboy done homage for Paris, it would
have been a sign to the Curia that the new world of the Jesuit seers
was at last actually above the horizon. The readers of M. Veuillot
can well imagine into what ecstasies he would have fallen, and with
what dithyrambs his pages would have detonated, had his ears been
permitted to hear Dupanloup pronounce his _Placet_. This was not to
be. Those bishops were not the men to stand up in their places and
contend; yet were they not so thoroughly beaten as ostentatiously to
submit. Their paper confirmation of their legislative vote came like
an impertinent parley to tease the conquerors. What ought to have been
either a combat or a _fête?_ was neither. It was a ceremonial of which
even the _Civiltá_ quotes its description from the _Giornale di Roma_,
while M. Veuillot himself is too much affected to write more than a few
lines--as if silence was the vestment which his strong emotions were
wont to put on. In his after touches he often speaks of the glory of
the dogma, but we do not remember that he ever alludes to the glory of
that day. The Protestant _Fromman_, whom we have not been accustomed to
quote, though very glad to consult, called the ceremony tedious; but
that was unpardonable.

The Pope did not enter on this occasion, as on former ones,
between Antonelli and Mertel, but between Grassellini and Mertel.
Had Antonelli, because of having failed to give his vote in the
Congregation, lost his wonted place on the day when the fruit was to be
plucked? The hall and city, according to Vitelleschi, "wore a cold and
severe aspect." December 8 seemed to have dropped its mantle on July
18. Perhaps, however, ere the moment of promulgation arrived, the Roman
azure would be in the ascendant, and hearts would be gladdened at the
right time. Indeed, the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, in contradiction to all
profane authors, states that just before the Pope uttered his sentence
the gloom somewhat cleared up. It does not attempt to say that the sun
shone.

After the preparatory ceremonies, Fessler and Valenziani approached the
throne. The Secretary handed the constitution _Pastor Eternus_ to the
Pontiff, with its chapters and its canons making a new Church, if ever
a new constitution made a new corps, and making, as Pius IX hoped, the
commencement of a new era for the kingdoms of this world, all of which,
with the glory of them, had been by some one promised to him after
this day. That constitution professed to give to him, or rather to
recognize as inhering in him, authority over all territories on earth,
and over all those actions of man that possessed any moral character.
Over the entire sphere of human accountability henceforth and for
ever it was for him to reign as should seem to him right. Valenziani
ascended the desk, and read out the title of the Decree. He then sat
down, and while the sky grew blacker, the house darker, and the hearts
of men more heavy with an impression of something terrible, he read
chapter after chapter, until at last he reached the close, and the
house echoed back his cadence, with the word of the Pope's self-written
doom, _Irreformable_,--"The definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of
themselves, and not by consent of the Church, _irreformable_."

After a moment's pause came the sealing Canon, "If any shall presume to
contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."

The reader ceased. The storm alone was speaking. For a moment no human
tone disturbed the air. But memory was repeating two terrific words,
and imagination kept saying that the winds were whispering.

Irreformable! Anathema!

Valenziani rose, and sending his voice athwart the gloom, said,
"Most Reverend Fathers, are the Decrees and Canons contained in this
Constitution agreed to?"

Upon this he left the desk, and Jacobini, the Sub-Secretary, ascending
it, called out the name of Cardinal Mattei, who was absent from old
age. He then called "Constantine, Bishop of Porto"; and Cardinal
Patrizi, rising, and taking off his mitre, said, _Placet_. The voice
near the throne made the darkening hall to echo _Placet_, and the
voice near the door repeated the echo, _Placet_. Then the scrutineers
recorded the vote. Cardinal Amat was next called, and his _Placet_ and
some five or six others sounded harmoniously in the deepening gloom.
Jacobini then called Frederick Joseph, Archbishop of Prague. The
princely priest who from the age of thirty-three had worn the purple,
and who was to represent the house of Schwarzenberg and the Church of
Bohemia,--that Church imposed by burnings and by blood,--responded not.
There was a moment's pause and a sense of a want. _Absent_, cried the
voice near the throne. _Absent_, replied the voice near the door; and
the influences from without were seconded by a damping influence from
within. The next name was that of Cardinal Corsi, a man of repute for
piety, who was well known to be averse to the definition. According to
Vitelleschi, he and the other dissentient Cardinals drew their scarlet
hats over their eyes and remained silent. But they wore mitres, not
hats. Of the rest, Quirinus asserts that, besides the Cardinal Vicar,
Patrizi, only two put into their _Placet_ spirit enough to stand up,
and they were Bonaparte and Panebianco. Fourth after Corsi came the
name of the senior French Cardinal. "James, Archbishop of Besançon,"
cried Jacobini; but Cardinal Mathieu did not respond. _Absent_, cried
the official voice. _Absent_, echoed the fellow official. Even France
seemed failing. Thrice had the tranquillizing _Placet_ cheered the
still deepening shadows, when Jacobini came to the notable name of
"Joseph Othmar, Archbishop of Vienna." But Rauscher was far away, and
once more did the thunderous air thrill with the depressing sound,
_Absent_. Now followed a successive roll of more than twelve _Placets_,
and then came the name of Philip, Archbishop of Bologna. All watched
Cardinal Guidi, who pronounced a _Placet_. The Pope closely eyed him,
and when the creature delivered his judgment before earth and heaven in
favour of the dogma which just one month previously he had, in the same
place, solemnly proposed to lay under an anathema, his royal master
said, "Poor man!" or, as others report it, "Good man!" but Vitelleschi
remarks that in Italian they might both mean the same thing. To Guidi
succeeded two staunch _Placets_, from Bonnechose and Cullen, but next
was called Gustavus of Santa Maria Traspontina. Eyes looked for another
prince-priest who represented the house of Hohenlohe and the feelings
of Bavaria, but there was no response. Hohenlohe, like Rauscher and
Schwarzenberg, was _absent_.

After the list of Cardinals was exhausted, the patriarchal Sees were
called. Two Sees were especially connected with the tradition of Peter.
After men of genuine Italian name, Antici-Mattei and Ballerini, had,
for Constantinople and for Alexandria, answered _Placet_, was called
the name of Antioch. Its Patriarch was named Jusseff, and the call
evoked no response; so Antioch, the See of Peter, and _absent_, the
sign of disapprobation, were set in men's minds together. Of course
the Roman Valerga said _Placet_ for Jerusalem. Then came the other
city connected with the life of Peter, and when Audu, whose secret
experience after his first audacity in venturing to differ from Pius
IX was known to all, was called to answer for Babylon, all expected
that he would have been overcome like Guidi. But no. Oriental servility
did not equal Rome, and so the reply made for Babylon was _Absent_.
_La Dernière Heure du Concile_ asserts that as Audu had been sent for
by the Pope, so had Jusseff been sent for by the authorities of the
Propaganda, "to know by what right he dared to bear testimony to the
belief of the East without having previously submitted his speech to
revision" (p. 4). Next came the primatial Sees. Where was the Primate
of France? Where the Primate of Hungary? They, too, among the _absent_.
And of the Archbishops, where were those of Paris, of Milan, and of
Munich? Where the Nestor of the English-speaking group, John of Tuam?
These were painful deficiencies. Still, in numbers if not in influence
the roll of _Placets_ from among the Archbishops presented a very
large majority. Among the bishops, the first name called was that of
the very aged Losanna, of Biella, one of the staunchest opponents. So
the first reply, though for an Italian bishop, was _Absent_. Then a
flow of _Placets_, frequently chequered by an _Absent_. In all, says
Vitelleschi, nearly one hundred and fifty bishops were absent, many
of them men who held the most illustrious Sees.[470] The _Acta Sanctæ
Sedis_ confesses to one hundred and twelve absentees from among those
called; which number did not, of course, include men who had already
obtained leave of absence. The number who were present was five
hundred and thirty-five. In this whole list the uniform responses were
either _Placet_ or _Absent_ till the name of the Bishop of Caizzo, a
Neapolitan, was called. The official reported his vote as _Placet_.
Caizzo raised his voice and loudly uttered _Non placet_. Then, again,
to the end, _Placet_ followed _Placet_, alternating with the voice of
the rolling thunder. Finally was called Fitzgerald of little Rock in
America. Thinking that he alone of the Fallibilists was present, he
had begged not to be brought forward; but now that another bishop had
given a negative vote he responded, _Non placet_.[471] This set tongues
agoing. It was roundly asserted that the appearance of the Neapolitan
and the American had been arranged for, in order to give an air of
freedom. Vitelleschi naturally thinks that it is needless to search so
far for motives. Yet, the _Civiltá_ makes a display of these two votes,
saying that without them it would have been alleged that the Fathers
were not free. It tells of a correspondent of some of the "bad" papers
who on hearing the first _Non placet_ was evidently annoyed, and being
asked by a friend the cause of that annoyance said, "This negative vote
spoils all for us."[472] The _Civiltá_ quotes a description of how
Riccio, the Neapolitan, after the definition, went down on his knees
and said, _Credo_, I believe; and how Fitzgerald pressed his episcopal
cross to his breast and said, "Now I believe. Now do I also firmly
believe."[473] When all the votes had been delivered, the scrutineers
and notaries brought to the Secretary of the Council a statement of
the result. The Secretary, followed by the scrutineers and notaries,
advanced to the steps of the throne. There they all knelt down. The
Secretary ascended the steps and read, "Blessed Father, the Decrees and
Canons are agreed to by all the Fathers, two excepted."

All this time the gloom was deep. "The voice of the Lord" again and
again pealed over the city. Thunderbolts more than once struck close to
the Cathedral. Some glass in the windows of the apse just behind the
throne was broken. Some, according to Jesuit writers, said, Providence
is proclaiming the downfall of Gallicanism. Some, according to the
_Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, said, The demon is disturbed, the storm shows
that this does not please him. This interpretation would seem to have
been that of the learned editor, for he adds, "The thunderbolts which
Jupiter of the Pagans forged did the city no harm." Many said, God is
installing the new Moses upon the new Sinai. This, at least with those
who wrote, was evidently the prevailing interpretation.

The moment had come. Now was to be spoken the word so oft invoked in
apostrophe, apologue, and prayer,--the word for which many had pictured
a universe in chaos as waiting in blind but agonizing throes,--the word
which so-called Christian journals and Christian ministers had, times
unnumbered, described as the voice of God pronouncing the creative
fiat, Let there be light. But where was the sun? According to many
promises and to careful arrangements, he was at this moment to pour
down upon the Lawgiver while announcing to all people, nations, and
languages, the new law that changeth not, a radiance which would be as
if angels were unfolding their wings above him and around. But the sun
would not! The priest, in his conflict with chaos, was, at the supreme
moment, left to the light of his own beloved wax candles. That light
which his taste tells him adorns the house of God in the eye of day,
and teaches celestial truths to immortal men, became at last of real
use.

The High Priest arose from his throne. All hearts stood still. He
thought, and they thought, that he was about to proclaim himself
unerring. But had not the wine been spirited away between the cup and
the lip? The faults incident to composing in a committee, and those
incident to amending in a hurry, were both embedded in the Decree. All
it said of the infallibility of the Pope was derived and comparative;
he is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer
willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding
faith and morals. History had conquered dogma here as it had done in
the chapter on authority. The declaration was not that the Church was
as infallible as the Pope, which would have been the order had the
historical consciousness traced the infallibility of the Church as
derived from that of the Pope. The declaration was that the Pope was as
infallible as the Church,--a proof that his infallibility was derived
from hers, and that historical consciousness dictated that order. This
comparative infallibility was all that was ascribed to the Pope in this
artful but unskilful composition. But to what, according to the same
article, did the infallibility of the Church amount? This was rendered
by the wording the point all essential, and the standard beyond which
infallibility could not extend. The Church was in the same article,
and in words the most positive, dealt with as a body the consent of
which was not to be taken into account. All, therefore, which the
great Word had brought forth, was a declaration that the Pope was as
infallible as a body whose consent was not to be taken into account.
The world may be well content. The crafty were caught in their own gin
when they renounced the consent of the Church. When men have long and
successfully argued in a circle, it is a delicate thing all at once, in
the heat of a July day, to break one half of the circle, and then to
declare that the other half is perfectly round, quite as round as the
whole. Historically, the infallibility of the Church was first of all
made the base and measure of that of the Pope. Then, diplomatically,
the infallibility of the Church was reduced to a nullity. This nullity,
by inexorable logic, falls back on all the infallibilities grown out
of it, or measured by it. So the Decree is chaos in spite of all the
candles. But on one point it speaks not comparatively but positively.
Without comparison with anything on earth or above the earth, the
Decrees of the Pope are pronounced irreformable. That is the one and
the only indisputable result.

The aspirant after infallibility stood, about, as he imagined, to
pronounce the word. He opened his lips, and by the candlelight read:
"The Decrees and Canons contained in the constitution just read are
agreed to by all the Fathers, two excepted. We, therefore, with the
approval of the Sacred Council, confirm these and those as now read,
and define them by apostolic authority."

The anathema attached to the definition of infallibility strikes below
the feet of Protestants. It only anathematizes those who contradict
the definition. Protestants do not stoop to do so. They may freely
admit that the Pope is as infallible as the Church which made him
irreformable, and for once they may believe more than the Pope, by
admitting that the Church is as infallible as he. They certainly are
not tempted to deny that the Pope, whether in his Decrees or out of
them, is irreformable. Here, again, they believe more than the Pope.

The _Civiltá_ states that now burst out a loud acclamation among the
Fathers, accompanied with salvos of artillery. The small crowd of
priests and nuns, and such like, as Vitelleschi says, about the door
of the Hall raised a shout. Quirinus says that the nuns cried "_Papa
mio_"--My Pope. According to the _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_, St. Peter's was
very full of people, who broke forth in such applause that you would
scarcely have believed that you were in the temple of the Prince of the
Apostles, hearing it echo again and again with these unwonted sounds.

The Irreformable then addressed his Bishops in the following
allocution. In order to do so, according to the _Stimmen_, he had to
make several vain attempts, owing to the repeated applause of the
Fathers; an applause which recalls a sad word of Vitelleschi, that some
are never so jubilant as when they have placed a new yoke on their
necks. At length the thunders of applause were still, and the waiting
world was ready to hear the first utterance of the first human being
ever set up on a throne in a temple, by hundreds of men of full age and
of sound reason, to utter to all the earth words never to be questioned
or amended, much less recalled. Hush! _The Infallible_ gives forth the
first oracle in his now acknowledged plenitude of power. Does it sound
like "the word of God," at whose potent spell a disordered world will
rise to new order and repose, or like that of an old man chiding the
absent bishops who had not adorned the triumph of the day?

    This exalted authority of the Roman Pontiff, venerable brethren,
    does not oppress, but assists; does not destroy, but builds up and
    often confirms in dignity, unites in affection, and strengthens
    and protects the rights of brethren--that is, of the bishops. Let
    those who now judge in the earthquake know that the Lord is not in
    the earthquake. Let them remember that, a few years ago, holding
    different views, they copiously expressed themselves as of our own
    opinion, and that of the majority of this great assembly; but they
    then judged in the calm. In judging of the same case, can we have
    two opposing consciences? God forbid! May God, therefore, enlighten
    their minds and their hearts; and as He alone works great marvels,
    may He illuminate their minds and hearts, so that all may come to
    the breast of their Father, that of the unworthy Vicar of Jesus
    Christ on earth, who loves them, who esteems them, and who longs to
    be one with them. And so, bound together in the bond of charity,
    may we be able to fight the battle of the Lord, so that our enemies
    may not deride us, but may rather fear us, and may in time lay down
    the weapons of wickedness before the truth; and may we all be
    enabled to say with St. Augustine, "Thou hast called me into Thy
    wonderful light, and lo, I see!"[474]

The bishops applauded, and the journals found the allocution divine.
The Liberal Catholics, however, felt that when the Pope said, "I
desire to be one with them," he meant, "I desire to see them submit
to me." The grave point was, that this being the first utterance from
the chair after he had been solemnly declared to be as infallible
as the Church, an utterance made--if ever one could be made--in the
exercise of his office as pastor of the universal Church, it contained
a misstatement of fact and a misconception of doctrine. The Pope,
occupied with the absentees, ventured roundly to assert that they who
now opposed had been a few years ago fully of his opinion and of that
of the majority. If ever a public misstatement deserved to be called
by a strong short name, this one did. Had the language of the Decree,
now lifted to the level of the law that changeth not, been put by a
Protestant, as the doctrine of their Church, before Schwarzenberg and
Rauscher, before Darboy and Dupanloup, before Strossmayer, Kenrick,
Clifford, and MacHale, any day previous to the year 1870, they would
have railed at the Protestant as a slanderer, and perhaps would not
have let him escape without an episcopal curse. Would not Spalding have
sneered at D'Aubigné as a fool and a false witness had he said that the
Pope could make a dogma without either the counsel of bishops or the
consent of the Church? No, the ears of the Pope were full of words of
witness; the bureaux of the Council contained document after document
in evidence that the statement which he now dared to make when none
dared to contradict, was not true, and was known not to be true. Those
bishops, in order to please the Pope, had unwisely, as they now felt,
stretched the doctrine of primacy, which they did hold, till it looked
to unpractised eyes very like Papal infallibility. True, they had done
this in what seemed rather to be addresses of ceremony than formularies
of doctrine; for whenever infallibility itself had been nakedly
presented to them, even without the adjunct of ordinary jurisdiction
in every diocese, and without any repudiation of the consent of the
Church, they had mustered the manhood to oppose it. The Pope neither
stated the facts nor discriminated between opinion and opinion. He did
state as fact what was not fact, and confounded opinions that differed.
Friedrich, with the acute author of the _Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum_,
and not a few others, thinks that he is personally incapable of
understanding theological distinctions, and that he could not explain
what the doctrine of Papal infallibility means. This seems to be
impossible, and yet there is very much to prevent one from pronouncing
it ridiculous. But whether he is capable of distinguishing in such a
case or not is a very slight matter. The fact that remains for us is,
that his first utterance from the acknowledged seat of infallibility
was wholly occupied with the absent bishops, that he insinuated that
they had a double conscience, and that the grounds on which he made
that insinuation were incorrect in fact and inaccurate in thought. Had
the question whether the Papacy was a divine organ of truth, or merely
a contrivance of clever old men, liable to be overseen, like other
mortals, in their words and deeds, been designedly subjected to a fair
test, we can with difficulty conceive of one fairer or more conclusive,
than that first utterance from the recognized seat of inerrancy. There
is nothing divine in it, and the human elements do not rise above a
very ordinary level.

The city was silent and chill. We can form but a faint idea of how
much, in such a case, mere external impressions sway a community
trained like the one of which we speak. It was as if the salvos from
St. Angelo, the feeble voice of the Irreformable, had been swallowed
up in the salvos of the skies, the voice of the Sole Infallible. The
_Giornale di Roma_ and the _Civiltá_, the _Univers_ and the _Unitá_,
would have spared no epithets in denouncing the man who three months
before should have said that, on the night when the creative word, the
fiat, Let there be light, should be uttered; on the night when the
patient voice of the people and of the priests should be hushed under
"the voice of God" proclaiming infallibility, a noble Roman would
pen what Vitelleschi that night quietly wrote down: "The government
offices, the religious establishments, and a few private houses, were
illuminated; but the rest of the city remained in perfect silence and
profound darkness."

The concluding words of the Roman writer, in narrating the triumph of
the day, are not wholly indifferent to us in England (p. 221)--

    History is bound to award to the author and originator of every
    work the praise or blame which is due to him. All must remember the
    part taken by the Fathers of the _Civiltá Cattolica_, and Monsignor
    Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, in promoting the dogma of the
    personal infallibility of the Pope, and all know that it was their
    mind and their will that carried it. On the day of the promulgation
    of the dogma, Monsignor Manning received as a gift from the Society
    of the Jesuits, a portrait of Bellarmine, with the following
    inscription--

 Henrico Edwardo Manning,
    Archiep. Westmonast.
     Sodales Soc. Jesu;
 Collegii Civilitatis Catholicæ,
 Sessionis IV Concilii Vaticani
        Mnemosynon.

It is said that the portrait was really that of St. Charles Borromeo.

One other note was often made as to this memorable day. It was the same
day on which was done the deed that irrevocably sealed the fall of the
Second Empire, and consequently the fall of its pendant and _protégé_,
the Papal throne. The declaration of war was delivered in Berlin on the
day following, and must have left Paris that day!

The reader having already had several specimens, and fair ones, of
_Ce Qui se Passe au Concile_, is in a position, so far as relates to
it, to form his own opinion of its "stinking calumnies," to adopt
the characteristic language of the Most Eminent, Most Reverend, and
Right Reverend Fathers of the Council. But as to _La Dernière Heure du
Concile_ (The last hour of the Council), we may at this point fitly
give a few examples. It speaks of "Rules imposed in violation of the
most manifest rights of the Council, of Commission chosen beforehand,
of illusory votes, of an oppressive tutelage, of discussions without
order and without aim, of modifications of the Rules as arbitrary
as they were multiplied." It asserts that as to the minority public
calumnies were not spared them; that their speakers were more than
once forced to leave the desk without being able to explain, much less
to defend their views; while the majority from the beginning took the
reasons of the minority for insults, and rendered back insults for
reasons; and that the petitions of the minority were not only left
without effect, but without answer. It pictures the Jesuits as meeting
the bishops after three centuries of feigned truce on the ground where
their General Laynez, defeated at Trent, had left them; but as now
coming perfectly prepared for the battle, while the bishops had not
foreseen anything--

    To-day it is not the episcopate that refuses to hear Father
    Laynez, but it is Father Laynez who, master of the field, does
    not even deign to listen to the episcopate, and announces to it
    that the question has been long decided.... The day that Pius
    IX said, There shall be a Council, the Company of Jesus said, I
    shall be the Council. We have seen three of its doctors absorb
    both the doctrinal power of the august assembly, and its right
    of initiative. The bishops have been called to sanction what the
    Jesuits have written, and there is the whole history of the Council.

Speaking of the Propaganda, the writer declares that it holds in its
hands all the Vicars Apostolic, and most of the Oriental bishops.
Taking advantage of its annual grants, it gives week by week to the
prelates who are supported by them that special impulse which shapes
the Council. In winter it set watch before the doors of the poor
Oriental bishops and obliged them to shut their cells against brethren
who came to visit them. Thus it comes to pass

    that the word of two hundred Fathers of the oecumenical assembly
    always remains the word of the Pope alone. In fact, hitherto it is
    a thing unheard of that a single one of these prelates, sons of the
    Propaganda, should have the courage to speak before the Council or
    to vote otherwise than it would have them do. This single proof is
    of incomparable and demonstrative force, as against the reality of
    their freedom; for while all the other Churches, without exception,
    have had some independent voices, the Church which I shall call
    that of the Propaganda has not hitherto produced one.

Proceeding to the most tender point of all, the writer says--

    Above this _surveillance_ of an institution the Jesuits have
    contrived another, which is shown more rarely, and is reserved for
    great events. This reaches the heads that are loftiest, even when
    they are held up, and it makes those who might feel a movement of
    independence tremble in spite of themselves. I mean the authority
    of Pius IX. Too long it has been sought to keep his action in the
    background, in the private history of the Council, by casting into
    the shade a figure which is entitled to stand in a strong light.
    Hitherto the writers of history have, at each new incident in the
    Council, been content to say, It is the work of the Roman Court.
    Well, the Roman Court is Pius IX, and history, when the hour comes,
    rending the covering of mystery, must let every one bear the
    responsibility which belongs to him. It will have to say that it is
    Pius IX who would have the Council in spite of the Cardinals, and
    who now will have, in spite of them, his personal infallibility.
    It is he who required for the Council this hall where one cannot
    hear; it is he who became irritated with Audu and tore from him
    the abdication of his rights; it is he who refused to receive the
    petition of the minority requesting that unhappy debates should be
    averted; it is he who violated all rule in bringing on the burning
    question; it is he who suddenly smothered discussion when it
    became menacing for his pretensions; it is he who from the clergy
    of Rome required an address which they had at first refused; it
    is he who dismissed Theiner to reward Cardoni; it is he who by a
    classification to be much regretted distressed the prelates who on
    the anniversary day of his election came to congratulate him; it
    is he who called Guidi after his speech to subdue his independent
    spirit; is it he who from the Council demands either his personal
    infallibility or else the courage to die from the heat of the
    sun and of the fever; it is he who will be everything, both the
    universal faith and tradition--_La tradizione son io!_ Never was
    absolutism seen so near at hand, in an institution which Jesus
    Christ had founded free and independent in spite of its monarchical
    and indivisible unity.

The aspect of the case which most distressed the writer seemed to
be that studied humiliation of the bishops which marked the whole
procedure of the Pope, and especially that raising against them of
their own subordinates which bishops probably thought was a measure
reserved only for employment against civil rulers, not against
"Venerable Brethren." Contrasting the present excesses with those of
the Popes of the middle ages the writer proceeds--

    At present we stand in presence of the Papacy struggling, not
    against princes, but against the episcopacy; as if Pius IX could
    find on the ruin of his brethren a more elevated throne, or in
    their annihilation a more impregnable fortress. O misfortune of
    the times and abuse of the most holy institutions! They want to
    have only a single real bishop in the world--the Pope; a single
    infallible and authorized doctor--the Pope! Let every voice be
    silent unless to say what he has said; let no action be performed
    but under his episcopal jurisdiction--universal, immediate; let
    those who have been appointed by God to govern, renounce their
    imprescriptible rights; let them tear the pages of the gospel on
    which those rights are graven; we do not any longer want more than
    one mouth, one hand, an absolute monarch; then, say they, only
    then, shall we have universal order.... At present the Caesars
    disappear everywhere and visibly; in vain do I look for a Louis XIV
    or a Joseph II; governments are essentially transformed and are
    confounded with the country which at least has no courtiers. There
    now remains in reality but one Caesar, who is himself everything
    both in spiritual matters and in temporal, dispensing his favours
    to those who defend him, and making those who contradict him feel
    his wrath; and this Caesar is not called either Francis Joseph or
    Napoleon III.

    And while this time all temporal powers have scrupulously respected
    the liberty of the Council, a single one has hampered it in every
    way, has dreaded and destroyed it. I need not name the one. Thus
    the Church which had furnished to modern civil societies the model
    of a monarchy, in which the aristocratic and popular elements
    effectually tempered the excess of the supreme power, the Church
    which had first of all given to the modern world the example of
    its great assemblies, discussing in freedom the rights of truth
    and justice--this Church presents to us to-day the spectacle of a
    Council without liberty and the menace of an absolutism without
    control.

This will suffice to account for the displeasure of the Pope and the
Jesuits; but whether it sufficed to warrant the action of the Council
and its language, posterity will judge. In our climate the allusion to
the cruelty of keeping the old men in Rome in what is there called "the
severest season," would seem overstrained. But the danger of attending
a conclave in that season will be found described by Mr. T.A. Trollope
as greater than that of a soldier on the field of battle. And his
details of a conclave held in July to elect the Barberini Pope, gives
frightful corroboration of that serious statement.[475] As M. Veuillot,
looking from the point of view of the initiated, had at once leaped to
the conclusion of the Pope only; and as Vitelleschi, reasoning from
the data furnished by the Canons presented to the Council, inferred
that all that would remain of earthly authority would be the Pope
only; so this writer, starting from the episcopal point of view, and
with difficulty rising above it, at last stands face to face with the
sole figure of authority left, the Pope only; and he finds that while
the spirit of Christianity has been changing Caesars into mild and
patriotic princes, another spirit has changed the Bishop of Rome into a
Caesar, claiming all supremacy in things temporal and spiritual.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 464: Vol. ii. 427.]

[Footnote 465: _Friedberg_, p. 622; _Quirinus_, 797.]

[Footnote 466: Vol. ii. p. 436.]

[Footnote 467: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 367.]

[Footnote 468: The names are given in _Friedberg_, p. 149.]

[Footnote 469: _Vitelleschi_ says that of 157 absent only 38 were
accounted for. The rest represented the Non-contents.]

[Footnote 470: P. 216.]

[Footnote 471: _Vitell._ and _Acta Sanctæ Sedis_.]

[Footnote 472: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 347.]

[Footnote 473: _Ibid._, VII. xi. pp. 479, 480.]

[Footnote 474: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 366.]

[Footnote 475: _Papal Conclaves_, p. 312.]




CHAPTER IX.

From the Great Session to the Suspension of the Council, October 20,
1870--The Time now come for the Fulfilment of Promises--Position and
Prospects--Second Empire and Papacy fall together--Style of Address
to the Pope--War for the Papal Empire foreshadowed--Latest Act of the
Council--Italy moves on Rome--Capture of the City--Suspension of the
Council--Attitude of the Church changed--Last Events of 1870.


The reader may perhaps feel that we have now reached a point at which
many prophecies await their fulfilment, and many calculations their
test. The enthusiasts had, on religious grounds, foretold that the
utterance of the "creative word," would be attended with portentous
religious effects. A Baptism of Fire, a New Pentecost, a rapidly
diffused reign of righteousness all the earth over, and other such
expressions, intimated the marvels that were to inaugurate the fresh
era. The calculating men had counted on the display of power and union,
whereof the Papacy was made the centre, to produce a great impression
upon princes and politicians; an impression to which they would, on the
other hand, be predisposed by the fear of revolution.

Thus, when the consummation should be reached, and a ruler should be
solemnly set up by the bishops of the whole Church before the kings
of the earth, like, to use the favourite simile of the time, the Lord
setting His King upon His holy hill of Sion; and when this king should
be officially declared to have the government upon his shoulders, to be
invested with all authority for the moral regulation of human affairs,
they expected that the princes, bowing down, would accept him as their
supreme judge and arbiter. Indeed, at one time, the confident talk, not
merely of men among themselves, but of the publications most in the
confidence of the guiding men, had been about laying down conditions
to kings and governments on which they might hope to rule in peace.
Hints had not been spared, that only two alternatives could be allowed
to them--the acceptance of the new moral order on the one hand, or the
loss of their places on the other.

The restoration of society to what was called the Catholic ideal,
its reconstruction on the new divine basis, its deliverance from the
chronic plagues which in modern times had wasted it, were at once to
begin, and moral order was to smile where of late chaos had lowered.
Already these theorists beheld society crying for the Pope as its
saviour. Furthermore, during the days of preparation for the Council,
and during its deliberations, only one among all the nations had been
singled out for solemn blessing and glowing assurances that God would
not forget her services to the Church. Italy had been warned and
cursed. Austria and her new constitution had been formally condemned.
Russia had been laid under every possible anathema. Spain, ever since
her change of government, had shared the same condemnation. As to
the heretical countries, they were generally left, without separate
mention, in the depths to which their sins had sunk them. But the
Ultramontane organs in Germany and France had marked Prussia out for
signal detestation, and denounced the union of Germany under the
leadership of Prussia for the relentless opposition of the Church of
God. France alone was blessed with the withering benediction of the
priest.

The hour had come that was to show how far the seers had read the
future, and how far the calculators had reckoned well. So far as
related to the great dogma, and the definition of it, all that had been
designed was happily accomplished; indeed, more completely accomplished
than had been proposed in any design avowed up to the eleventh hour.
So far, therefore, both seers and calculators were justified. They had
not seen a false vision, so long as they contemplated the dogmatic
issue; nor had they reckoned without their host, so long as they had
reckoned upon bishops, priests, and friars. Events were now to tell how
far the transformation of Society into the accepted model, how far the
homage of kings, how far the self-surrender of Parliaments, how far the
submission of codes to be remodelled by the Church, and how far the
general consent of the human race to be guided by him who claimed to
hold the place of God among men, were to pass from the realm of hope
into that of experience.

The progress of the Council, and of opinion contemporary with its
sittings, had dissipated many illusions. Even the bishops had to be
conquered, and were not won. Europe had been awakened and had not been
attached, but alienated. Great as the glories of the spectacles had
confessedly been, and much as they dazzled spectators, they had not
carried legislative effect, except where the artistic legerdemain had
admitted of immediate application. The vote of the minority on July
13 was one symptom of failure. Their final record of dissent, put
into the Pope's own hand, was a more serious symptom. Their flight
from the last public session was more serious still. The absence of
the representatives of the governments from that session was yet far
more depressing. All, therefore, that was now to be hoped for from the
Church was submission; and the very utmost that any calculating man
dared to hope for from governments was endurance. The worst was that
statesmen had learned much more than they were ever meant to learn,
and had seen into matters a deal further than laymen ought to see. And
so the first night of the new dispensation closed in under dull skies,
both physically and morally.

When the Romans, always curious to see how facts can be dressed for
appearance outside of the walls, looked to the _Giornale di Roma_ for
an account of the session, they found there that all the bishops who
had not appeared--upwards of two hundred--were placed in one class,
"absent from different legitimate and recognized reasons." This was
followed by the assertion that "the great majority of them held the
same doctrine as that which had been defined." Accustomed as the Romans
are to this method of putting facts in vestments, the occasion was
solemn before God and exposed to the eye of man. Vitelleschi wrote
that in these representations the minority might find "a foretaste of
the false statements and judgments they must in future expect." Some
readily account for such assertions by saying that it was hoped that
the documents which proved the contrary would never come to light.
But much is due to the habit of reckoning on the power of a great
organ to set officials upon repeating what it says, till the facts are
forgotten. The _Civiltá_ copied these statements, and yet at a later
date gave a truer account of the absentions.

It said: Cardinals, 42 _pro_ and 4 _contra_; Patriarchs, 6 _pro_ and 2
_contra_; Primates, 6 _pro_ and 2 _contra_; Archbishops, 80 _pro_ and
18 _contra_; Bishops, 349 _pro_ and 47 _contra_; Abbots and Generals,
40 _pro_ and only 1, a Chaldean, _contra_. The same article, however,
does not shrink from asserting that "many" of the minority voted
_Placet_ in the public session.

The heaviest solicitudes of the Curia were now to begin. Events had
been so guided that so long as they were dealing with their own
instruments, the bishops and the clergy, they were left completely
to effect their purpose. Now came the point where they were to
operate upon mankind. That society which they had meant completely to
subjugate, flattering themselves that they were about to restore it,
was now placed face to face with them in an awful aspect, one which
neither priests nor kings could fully interpret. Certain it was,
however, that neither kings nor "peoples" were upon their knees before
the Vicar of God, or were inclined to go down upon them. Some feared
that instead of kings and nations appealing to him to save them, he
would soon be found appealing to some one to save him. The fortunes
of the restored empire of the Bonapartes, and those of the restored
Papacy, had been bound up together. Men now watched and whispered,
saying that as they had been strangely united in their lives, perhaps
they would not be divided in their fall. The 13th of July, the day
of the voting which gave the Pope his fatal majority, was the day of
the incident at Ems. It was the day also on which the Duc de Gramont
informed the French Chambers that, although the Hohenzollern candidate
for the throne of Spain had been withdrawn, that did not close the
dispute. The 18th of July, the day on which the Pope read out by
candlelight the Decree upon his own infallibility, was the day on which
Napoleon despatched his fatal declaration of war to Berlin. A baptism
of fire had been often and pompously foretold as the result of the
great dogma. After its promulgation all that the world ever heard of a
baptism of fire was when Napoleon telegraphed to the Empress, whom the
devout regarded as the true author of the war, telling her, in loud
brag before the nations, how her boy had received his baptism of fire.
That again was but two days before simultaneous sorrows sounded the
knell of the empire and of the throne which sheltered under the shadow
of its wing--the two embodiments of arbitrary will calling itself
authority.

On August 4, the Pope was chafing at the news that the French troops
at Civitá Vecchia had actually commenced embarkation. On the same day
Bonaparte read the telegram from Wissenberg. On August 6, Count Arnim
on the Capitoline was writing to Berlin to tell his government that
Napoleon had declined an offer of the Pope to mediate between the
belligerents, assigning as the ground that after the declaration of war
negotiations were too late. That same day came upon Napoleon the double
disasters of Wörth and Spichern. The reply of the King of Prussia to
the same offer of mediation on the part of the Pope was to the effect
that if the Pontiff would procure for him assurances of the pacific
intentions of Napoleon, and guarantees against similar violations of
the peace in the future, he would not refuse to receive them from the
hands of his Holiness.[476] The total result then of the first attempt
at political action abroad, in the new character, was a simple failure.
At the same time political embarrassments at home were thickening, as
they had done every day since the fatal July 13.

It was after Rome had learned that the sun of Austerlitz had not shone
on the fields of Wörth and Spichern, that the first formal act occurred
showing that the Council had neither been dissolved nor prorogued. All
that the Pope had done was to give the bishops a general leave until
November 11. Had everything gone smoothly, this arrangement would
have enabled the men of the Curia to go on as if they were a General
Council. The step to which we allude was merely the formal addition of
certain names to the Committee on Church Discipline, to replace those
who had left Rome. And this is registered on August 13.

Meantime an intimation was given of the style of adhesion to the Papacy
in its renewed glory which would be acceptable at the Vatican. The
_Civiltá_ selected for publication, "by preference," as it expresses
it, an address from the Society of Catholic Youth in Bologna. It stated
that, as if in recompense of the new and lofty honour to the Virgin
Mary procured by the word of Pius IX, Divine Providence had exalted in
his person the divine dignity of the successor of Peter to the summit
of glory and power--

    We shall ever keep our eyes fixed on Thee, the mirror of eternal
    Truth. We shall ever keep them directed to this Apostolical Chair,
    whence the waters of true wisdom and of eternal life perennially
    flow. Speak, then, O Infallible Teacher, and we, the youthful
    sons of the Catholic Church, will hear Your words as the words
    of eternal wisdom; Your judgment shall be for us the judgment of
    God; Your definition shall be as the definitions of God; Your
    instruction as the instruction of God. In your authority as Vicar
    of Christ we venerate the authority of God, and submitting our
    mind and our heart to that authority, we have faith to sustain
    the dignity of human nature in face of the pretentious tyranny of
    haughty intellect spoiled and blinded by guilty passions.[477]

The historical tales which had for years been carried on in the pages
of the _Civiltá_ under the title _The Crusaders of St. Peter_, from
which we have occasionally given scenes, rather strangely happened,
in the number of the _Civiltá_ for August 24, to come to an end. It
concluded with the list of the immortal dead, as recorded for the world
in a monument which Italy may well preserve. The Pope did not know what
a record of the exotic character of his own power he was putting up.
The ideal of this monument, and of the methods by which the world was
to be made Catholic, is given by the _Civiltá_ in a very few words--

    It was the conception of Pius IX that, in the Agro Verano, on soil
    consecrated by the tombs of the ancient martyrs, should arise the
    memorial of the crusaders of the nineteenth century. And another
    conception of Pius IX was the colossal group in marble which
    represents St. Peter in the attitude of committing the sword to
    a warrior in armour, who with the cross bears a flag, with the
    legend, _The Catholic World_. Peter is Pius; the warrior is the
    Christian army. The idea of the mission of that army glows in the
    authoritative action of him who gives the commission, and in the
    humble and generous action of him who receives the commission, and
    is admirably expressed in two texts of Scripture beneath, drawn
    from the Book of the Maccabees: "Take this holy sword, a gift from
    God, wherewith thou shalt overthrow the adversaries of my people
    Israel.... For victory standeth not in the multitude of the army,
    but strength cometh from heaven."

The names of the martyrs of this crusade are given, and among those
who fell in the Battle of Mentana is only one Italian. France,
Belgium, Holland, England, Ireland, and Germany are all represented,
and Switzerland still more strongly. In the other most considerable
engagement, that of Monte Libretti, there is again but a single
Italian. Among those who perished by being blown up in barracks in
Rome were several Italians, in large part musicians. That record is
certainly worth the keeping of Italy at any cost, and the setting of it
up is only one of the manifold evidences of how blinded the Papacy was
in the last days of its temporal power.[478] Well might the Pope in the
Syllabus condemn the doctrine of non-intervention.

On August 15, a great "function" was celebrated at Rome, in the Church
of St. Louis of the French, in commemoration of the name-day of the
Emperor Napoleon--that modern Charlemagne who restored the Roman
Catholic Church in France, and whose nephew restored the Pope to his
holy city. Cardinal Bonaparte, the Marquis de Banneville, and all
the French notables attended in state. About the same time a sorely
smitten man, accompanied by his boy, was crossing the drawbridges of
Metz, turning their faces to the rear, amid gibes and nicknames from
the French soldiery. While winding up the heights of orchard and of
vineyard which overhang the beauteous dale of the Moselle, and when
looking on the fair uplands of Lorraine, upon which were sleeping,
in happy obscurity, villages like St. Privat and Gravelotte, like
Rezonville and Mars La Tour, the withered Emperor and his yet unripe
son might see French soldiers marching in retreat, but could not see
the Germans by whom they were being already outmarched. Meanwhile
in Paris the two elect ladies of the Golden Rose--Isabella and
Eugénie--were spectators, the first sighing after a crown already lost,
the second trembling for a regency attained as if only to expedite
the breaking of the sceptre of her husband. Had either of them faith
enough to believe that the Virgin could reward them for services done
to the Holy Father by giving them the necks of their enemies? Our Lady
of Victories, "terrible as an army with banners," to quote a favourite
text with Jesuit writers, was propitiated at least by the Empress
Regent.

So far the political calculations of the Curia had all been turned to
vanity. Bavaria had not fraternized with the French, much less carried
Würtemburg and Baden with her. The blast of invasion which was to sound
the death-knell of German unity had proved to be its mustering-cry.
Italy up to the present moment had stood in awe of France, but if the
latter should receive another blow or two, matters might reach a pass
at which the Italian government would have more cause to fear Garibaldi
than Napoleon--and then?

News soon arrived that the Germans, out-marching the French, had met
them in the villages which we have lately mentioned, the names of
which were by that meeting written large on the memory of nations.
The poor Pope saw that Bonaparte, whom he had used and hated, was not
likely to retain power any longer to guard his temporal throne. He knew
that Italy was wiser than the first Bonaparte, who taught the French
that the Pope was to be treated as if he had two hundred thousand
bayonets--a lesson that has cost them dear. Italy adopted the principle
that, in respect of bayonets, the Pope was to be counted as worth just
as many as he could command. Italy would also treat him more wisely as
a teacher. She would not incarcerate, exile, or personally insult him,
but would leave him free to bless or curse as he felt moved, and to be
heeded or disregarded according as every man felt persuaded in his own
mind.

It was with hearts weighted with the heavy news from the banks of the
Moselle that the Fathers of the Council met in their Congregation on
August 23. How changed that gathering from the proud assembly of last
December, which challenged the homage of all kings, and at the sight
of which the Margottis and the Veuillots spoke of our Parliaments as
puppet-shows! Those whose organs of the Press a few months before wrote
as if neither kings nor presidents had any long tenure of power, except
as they might make their peace with the Church, felt themselves to
sit amid the indifference of mankind, and under the menacing strokes
of Providence. The bishops who had warned them of their ignorance and
folly, but had been crushed, were now far away. In the Congregation,
the Fathers discussed some matters of Church discipline, but as the
shadow of Sadowa had arrested all preparations for the Council during
fourteen months, and that of Garibaldi for three or four, now a darker
shadow, projected from Wörth and Gravelotte, was falling upon the
remaining ecclesiastics, as the evening gloom of the Aventine falls
on late gamblers in what was once the Circus Maximus. They had played
for the certainty of the temporal power, and for the reversion of
the lordship of the world. They had boldly staked all episcopal and
clerical rights. The upshot was that the losers had lost, and that the
one winner was to be a loser too. The next news showed them that, on
the very day when they thus met, was completed the investment of Metz.
Thus did they see the thrice beaten but still coherent army of Bazaine
altogether cut off from the routed and disorganised army of MacMahon.
They had fixed to meet again on September 1.

The Fathers probably felt that it was doubtful whether the Congregation
fixed for September 1 would meet; but it was highly politic to keep up
the airs of a General Council, because it increased the sanctity of the
city, and made it morally more difficult for Italy to attack. Ere they
met, it became known that at Beaumont, Failly--the faithful General
Failly, the leader of the expedition of Mentana, lauded and blessed for
his "prodigious chassepots"--had met the Bavarians, soldiers of that
king whom the _Unitá_ never wearied of insulting, and that at their
hands Failly had lost his guns, his baggage, and his camp, a large
part of his men, and all his reputation. The Congregation of September
1, did meet, and it was the last. While Bishop Quinn, of Brisbane, in
Australia, was offering up the Mass, the undulating plateaux around
Sedan were reeking with an incense which had, within the last few
years, been invoked with lamentable frequency by the organs of the
Vatican. As the Fathers were rising from their afternoon siesta, tens
of thousands of blue and grey eyes, from all the heights commanding
the city of Turenne, began to dance for joy at seeing the white flag
waving from the old castle lying low down in the hollow--ay, the white
flag waving over the Imperial head of him who to them represented the
traditional devastators of the German Fatherland, but who was, to the
bishops of the Council, the prince who for twenty years had been the
stay of the temporal power.

No sooner had the news from Sedan reached the Agro Romano, than Curia
and peasant alike knew all that was to follow. One week after that day
the Fathers gathered, on September 8, for the last great ceremony, or,
as it was called, "the last extra conciliar act."[479] The remains of
the world-transforming host of December now speckled the noble Piazza
del Popolo, pressing to the great church of Santa Maria. It was the
Festival of the Nativity of the Virgin. All that the _Civiltá_ tells
of the day is that there were great expectations, and that the Feast
of the Immaculate Conception, then three months distant, would witness
a splendid session. We should say that there was no expectation of the
sort, except indeed among the few who really counted on the Virgin as
being certain at last to work for the Pope the miracles which it had
been so often suggested that she was in gratitude bound to perform.
The majority calculated that she had acquitted all her debts to him by
making him infallible. Desirable as it was to keep up the appearance
that Rome was just then the seat of a General Council, they knew that
though for us and other remote people beyond the mountains that might
have a sacred sound, for the Italians it was not a name to conjure with.

On the very day when the Fathers were cheerlessly performing this final
ceremony, a notification was sent forward by Victor Emmanuel that he
was unable longer to stay the impetus of the nation, which panted to
take possession of its capital. The letter of the king was weak and
disingenuous. It was more like the work of a priest than of a soldier.
He affected to be a good Catholic, while deliberately dethroning the
Vicar of God. He affected to hope that the Pope would acquiesce in
his own dethronement. The reply of the Pontiff was more worthy of his
position, and more becoming his professions.

This hostile movement called out a quality in which Popes are surely
infallible, that of appealing to foreigners for armed intervention
against their own countrymen. Of all men, to whom should the Pope now
turn but to the King of Prussia--as if the King of Prussia did not
know at what the Pope and his instruments had been aiming! The date of
the reply of King William was in itself a history. He wrote from the
capital of fair Champagne. Already had the tide of war closed round
the hot infallibilist Räss in his stately Cathedral of Strasburg;
and, rolling on, it had, under the shadow of St. Remy, enveloped the
deserter from the Opposition, Landriot, in his thrice beautiful fane at
Rheims.

St. Remy sent no sufficing homage by the hand of King William. The
soldier-king quietly declined to undertake any such political
intervention as the priest-king desired. In one word, he dispelled
the idea of the venerable applicant, that the cause of Prussia was
implicated. The matter, said King William, is one "which does not, as
your Holiness appears to think, in any way affect the interests of
Prussia." That calm word would provoke many a vow to make the heretic
feel that the Pope could affect the temper of millions of his subjects,
and therefore the interests of his government.

Yet one week from the notification of Victor Emmanuel, and on September
15, rode up an Italian staff officer, with all the forms of war, to
the Milvian Bridge--that _Pons Milvius_ ever memorable for the victory
of Constantine and the death of Maxentius. The latest addition to
its history of military incidents, which began with the conspiracy
of Catiline, had been made one-and-twenty years previously, when the
insurgent Romans defeated an attempt to carry the bridge made by the
French under Oudinot. The point of meeting did not, therefore, seem
to be one of good omen for Pius IX. The Italian officer was Colonel
Count Caccialupi, or Chase-the-Wolves. He came from General Cadorna to
demand, in the name of the King of Italy, the surrender of the city.
On behalf of his Holiness, General Kanzler at once gave his reply. The
place was to be defended. General Bixio on that day closed in upon
Civitá Vecchia.

Meanwhile, Count Arnim, in the hope of averting bloodshed, plied
between the city and the Italian camp. The Pope, however, was resolved
upon resistance. He did, indeed, give orders that it should be
continued only so long as to compel the Italians to open a breach,
in order, as he said, to attest the fact that his capital fell by
violence. That end, we might have thought, would have been equally
well answered, without bloodshed, by surrendering after the first gun.
The forces of the Pope numbered eight thousand, and those of Cadorna
fifty thousand. Rapidly as the temporal power and the Second Empire
were both rushing downhill, it appeared as if they were constantly to
keep step. So did it fall out that on that very September 19, when
the Prussians, defeating Vinoy, closed round Paris, Cadorna, coming
up from the north, sat down before gates of Rome. His lines stretched
from the Salara Gate to the Gate of San Giovanni, thus enclosing that
cemetery of St. Lorenzo, where stood the monument to the Crusaders,
with so many foreign and so few Italian names. Coming up from the
south, General Angiolotti stretched from the Gate of St. Giovanni to
that of St. Sebastiano. Early the next morning Bixio, coming up from
Civitá Vecchia, which he had captured, took post before the Gate of San
Pancrazio, remembered for the contest between Garibaldi and the French.

With the first light of September 20 did the chambers of the Vatican
begin to rattle with the sound of other artillery than the joy-guns of
St. Angelo. The last time that sound had disturbed those vaults was
when it came as the voice of a French republic, commanding a Roman
republic to make way for the most despotic rule in Europe. Now France
was learning for herself what it is to hear the guns of the stranger
before the gates of the capital; and Rome was feeling what it is to
hear the voice of the Fatherland bidding the stranger depart. Of the
two potentates who in 1849 thundered at the weak walls of poor old
Rome, he who then acted the restorer was now an exile and a captive,
while he who was then an exile panting for return, now sat in the halls
to which he was then restored, but sat feeling in the thud of every gun
that even within those halls he too would soon call himself a captive.

While the din pained the spirit of the aged Pio Nono, forty of the
Italians attacking and twenty of the foreigners defending were killed,
and a hundred and fifty of the assailants and fifty of the garrison
were wounded. Reports came that the heaviest fire was directed against
the Porta Pia, the gate particularly connected by name with his own
name, adorned and restored by his liberality, and endeared to his
military recollections by the triumphal entrance of his crusaders from
Mentana less than three years before. A letter is published in which
the Pope ordered General Kanzler to surrender as soon as a breach
should be made. But it would not appear that he had really granted him
power to do so; for the _Civiltá_ expressly says that the order to
hoist the white flag was given by the Pope himself, and accounts for
needless bloodshed by the delay which occurred ere that order could
reach the gate that was beleaguered.[480]

Some five hours had passed since the horrid din began. No Michael
with his legions of angels, no Madonna terrible as an army with
banners, smote the host of the aliens. No Peter struck the barbarians
with blindness. No Dominic, with a cohort of sainted Inquisitors; no
Ignatius, with a celestial "Company," flashed death upon the worse
than Moslems who fought for uprisen Italy. All these things had been
expected. They came not, but instead of them came the news that a
breach at the Porta Pia invited the Italians in. At last the poor old
priest-king made up his mind to stay the futile flow of blood. He
knew the temper of his zouaves. They would have stood and died like
crusaders; but at last the word was given. There on the dome of proud
St. Peter's was the white flag, and there did it float out upon the
September breeze, and waved in the forenoon sun--waved over Pontiff and
Cardinal, over the Circus of Nero and the Inquisition of the Popes.
Was it real? Eyes would be wiped to see if they did not deceive. Eyes,
ay, the eyes of soldiers, would be wiped from thick, hot tears. Could
it be--could it ever be? Come at last! The hour for which ages had
impatiently waited, for which myriads of Italians had died. Italy
one! her arms outstretched from Etna and from Monte Rosa, clasping at
last every one of her children, and even availing by their returning
strength to lift up her poor old Rome from under the load of the priest
and the stranger.

He who two brief months before had, amid deep darkness at noonday,
read out, by artificial light, the Decree of his own unlimited power
and irreformable law, lay down that night amid a rude and intrusive
glare streaming from across the Tiber into the multitudinous windows
of the Vatican. It came from the lights of Rome all ablaze with
illuminations for the fall of the temporal power. In the piazza below
lay the Pope's little army of foreigners, passing their last night in
the Holy City under shade of the basilica in which they had consecrated
their bayonets to St. Peter, and within embrace of the two arms of
the glorious crescent colonnade. For true it is that stone cupolas,
and stone columns, put up by the distant dead, may be of real avail
as stays of a power after the hearts and hands of willing men have
ceased to hold it up. The soldiers passed the next morning in confused
preparations for a departure. At noon a cannon was fired, and the Pope
appeared on his balcony. He could not conceal his overpowering emotion.
With the retreating steps of these prisoners of war, were about to
vanish mystic visions of martial feats crowned by divine miracle. The
soldiers raised their old cry, _Viva Pio Nono_, in loud and ringing
tones; which, smiting against the basilica and the palace, were from
thence rolled back, and flew across the stream, till the sound of _Viva
Pio Nono_ once more floated along the neighbouring streets of the
capital. Uprisen Italy, quietly sustaining her uplifted Rome, hearkened
in silence to the foreign cheer. Then, for the last time, did the Pope
give to his beloved soldiers what they had so often received, his
benediction. As he withdrew, when the corridors opened lone and long
before him, when the doors closed behind, cutting him off from the only
bayonets on which he could rely, no wonder if he felt that the palace
of the Pontiffs had become a prison.

The crusaders, turning to the left, passed out of the Gate Angelica;
then winding round under the windows of the Vatican, close by the
garden walls, and along the Janiculum, they finally reached the Gate
of San Pancrazio, where Cadorna and his staff awaited them to receive
the formal surrender. Proud were the men under the red, white, and
green, with the cross of Savoy, as they saw the head of the approaching
column. As the first men of the French legion came up they insulted the
Italian staff. According to the _Civiltá_, Bixio was so incensed that
he reproached Cadorna for having conceded to such troops the honours of
war. The friendly writer extenuates their misconduct by alleging the
irritation cause by affronts received from the rabble in the streets
on the previous day. But when the zouaves came up led by the brave
Colonel Charette, they behaved like soldiers (_Civiltá_, VIII. i. 212).

When the crusaders of Pio Nono passed away from the Gate of San
Pancrazio, who would have dared to say that the sixty dead and the two
hundred wounded of the day before were to be the last victims of war
provoked by Popes abusing the name of the Prince of Peace? And who
would not feel for the French crusaders, who, led by their priests, and
thinking that they did God service, had for twenty years inflicted upon
Italy, at the behest of the Pope, the miseries of foreign occupation,
and now, in facing their own fair land, were to behold the foreigner
seated in her proudest palaces.

From that day forth, when the Roman met the priest on the street, he
felt that he was no longer bound, except at the dictate of his own
conscience, to confess to him his sins; that, indeed, he was not even
bound to purchase an Easter ticket, to be produced as evidence that
he had duly presented himself in a tribunal in which, in fact, he had
never set foot. From that day forth, when the friar entered the church
of St. Ignatius, neither the great picture of the torments of the
heretics, nor what, in his dialect, he might call the "divine" _lapis
lazuli_, retained all its old brilliancy; for within those sacred walls
the internal tribunal of the kingdom of God was no longer anything
more than a voluntary confessional. From that day forth disappeared
from the seats of justice on the Seven Hills the ecclesiastical
magistrate, and with him the external tribunal of the Church. From
that day forth appeared for the first time for long and weary ages,
the civil magistrates, sitting in open court under the eye of all,
to administer, with whatever shortcomings, a law which accepted the
Christian principle of even-handed justice to Jew and Gentile; to those
who said, We are of Cephas, and to those who only said, We are of
Christ. In the eye of the Vatican this was the fall of the supernatural
order, the godless triumph of naturalism; but in other eyes it was
the substitution of God's good ordinance for the contrivance of
priestcraft, which, conscious that it was not natural, called itself
supernatural. From that day forth the Roman noble ceased to be a mere
title-bearer and jewel-stand, for now a career in the government of his
country opened before him. From that time forth the people ceased to
be a mere populace, and entered on the dignities of a democracy. Law,
letters, science, politics, diplomacy, and oratory now called upon the
bright-browed child of the working man to come and grace them with his
gifts, and not to sit doomed to the destiny of the incapable, unless he
would put on the frock of the priest. From that day forth the double
office of Despot-Pontiff, answering to the ideal of later Pagan Rome,
was replaced by the mild office of the monarch, reigning at the head of
an aristocracy and a democracy. The priest as a teacher of doctrines,
as a celebrant of rites, or as a practitioner of charms, remained as
free as ever he had been before; but as a power to impose himself upon
all, and as exclusive king of men, his reign had passed away. Italy
said, "For ever"; the priest replied, "Only for a very little time"!

On October 2 the Italian government took a plébiscite in the Roman
States, to enable the people by a vote to record their own desire as to
whether they would belong to the kingdom of Italy or to the Spiritual
State. According to the _Civiltá_, the voting in the Holy City was
40,835 in favour of Italy, and 46 against. It must not be imagined that
the total amount of dissent was represented by the 46. The partisans
of the supernatural order generally abstained; but probably they would
have done otherwise had they not known that, even if they all mustered,
the majority would be overwhelming. They, as usual, cried out against
bribery, coercion, and similar wrongs. Indeed, to read the Papal
organs at this day, one might believe that ever since the national
movement began, every vote and every battle has been carried against
the preponderating mass of Italians by some few Freemasons, Jews, and
invisible conspirators.

The Council which was to restore all things still sat. Not even a
prorogation had taken place. Now, however, the Pontiff, though not
intending to dissolve it, determined to suspend it until a happier
time. Exactly a month after Rome had passed into the hands of Italy,
appeared on October 20 the Act by which the Council was suspended.
In the Bull of Convocation the Pope had spoken of his intentions for
the general benefit of society. In the Bull of Suspension it appeared
that the particular society which best knew him and his remedies had
spewed them out of her mouth. After having for many centuries had
experience of his spiritual supremacy and temporal power, Italy had
mournful proofs that they were socially evil. No land in Europe could
produce a record of any dynasty which had so often brought into it
foreign armies, to beat its people down, and to keep them under. No
land in Europe could, from times within the memory of living men,
produce such lists of the executed, the exiled, the imprisoned, and
of those submitted to torture. No land in Europe had a ruling class
among members of which public justice, when once free, had, week after
week, to deal with such vile immoralities as the Courts of Italy had
to punish in members of the priesthood. Italy had made the last trial
of priestly rule with a prince personally free from the social blots
which in the case of many of his predecessors had complicated questions
of the public weal with questions of personal vice. Under Pius IX the
system stood out more fairly to be judged by its principles and by its
fruits. And under Pius IX Italy had rung with accounts of moral wrongs,
of crimes of power, of curses uttered by the subject, such as had long
since ceased to be heard of in other countries of Europe free from
Turkish rule. The monstrosity that called itself a Spiritual State,
and sneered at Lay States, was carnal, and vile to the core. The wave
which, as soon as the breakwater of the Second Empire had been removed,
rolled in at the Porta Pia, was even more a wave of moral scorn and of
social execration than of political hostility.

The Council met amid florid promises that princes generally, at least
Catholic ones, would accept the Vicar of God as their supreme judge,
mingled with terrible citations of them all to appear before him,
in order to find at one and the same time their correction and their
deliverance in his infallible sentence. All this was uttered with the
haughty spirit that goes before a fall. The fall after the haughtiness
did not tarry, and was strikingly indicated by a phrase under the hand
of the High Priest himself, in the Bull of Suspension: "We have been
brought into such a position as to be entirely under a hostile dominion
and power, God in His inscrutable judgments having so permitted it."
Society had already beheld its self-proffered saviour clinging to the
skirts of Napoleon III, and then crying to King William to save him
from his fellow-countrymen. Now the kings heard their self-proffered
judge himself declare that by a judgment truly supreme the temporal
power had fallen--that power which he and all his bishops had
separately and unitedly assured the Church was altogether necessary to
the proper exercise of his office of universal bishop.

We heard the _Civiltá_, in September, foretell that when December 8
should come it would witness a splendid session. Now at last it came,
a waymark noting the end of a very eventful year--eventful in the life
of France, in the life of Italy, in the life of the German nation, and
in that of the Papal Church. But the anniversary of the Immaculate,
of the Syllabus, and of the opening of the Vatican Council, brought
with it no splendid session. They who twelve months ago had met to
sit in judgment on the nations were scattered, and were in various
languages making strange explanations and dexterous appeals to allay
the general disquiet relating to their political plans; and in doing
so were creating in the minds of all who understood what they said,
and who knew what they had done, an impossibility of ever hereafter
trusting to representations of theirs. Meantime, without his seven
hundred bishops, without his adoring crowds, without the glitter of
fallen royalties and of quasi-civic dignitaries, without his beloved
zouaves, yet still guarded by his stalwart and fantastic Swiss--for at
that Court it is ever foreign steel that is true--the Pope, sitting
in a palace of eleven thousand apartments, rich as any king, and free
as any bishop in the world, yet felt and called himself a prisoner.
Therefore when the day of exciting memories came, it was, says the
_Civiltá_, spent in mourning and desolation. But a new offering to the
Virgin was to raise the sacredness of December 8, even in this year
of sorrow, to a higher pitch than ever. Hitherto the patron of the
Holy Church had been St. Michael the Archangel, under whose spear the
first rebel fell--which rebel, as some time ago we saw, prefigured the
latest rebel, Garibaldi. Indeed, after Mentana, St. Michael was, as
military men say, "mentioned" in the Court journal. For the _Civiltá_,
in relating the overthrow of the Garibaldians, did not fail to note
the fact that "it was on the day consecrated to the Prince of the
Angelic Host, to the Patron of the Holy Church, St. Michael," that
the invaders crossed the border. But now the Immaculate, who alone is
terrible as an army with banners, who alone destroys all heresies, was
to be further exalted, by the raising of her husband to that celestial
dignity which had hitherto been borne by the great archangel. It was,
say the reverend college of writers in the ruling periodical, a grand
consolation that amid the mourning and desolation wherein December 8
was passed, the Decree proclaiming St. Joseph as the Patron of the
Catholic Church was promulged. They add that this Decree was issued to
satisfy the Fathers of the Council, and that it might be considered
as a firstfruit of devotion and piety reaped from the Council. The
Italians said that St. Michael, as captain of the Lord's host, had not
in late years wielded the sword to the satisfaction of the authorities.
Others said that the reason of the slight put upon him was simply
that St. Joseph was the patron of the Company of Jesus. Others again
looked no further for an explanation than to the fact that a form of
religion which now--whatever was imagined and in theory professed--had
in reality no standard of faith left but that of the _fait accompli_,
would naturally seek change for the sake of rest.

Certain it is that from centre to circumference of the Papal orb, the
devout were besieging the altars of those powers among whom Modern
Rome distributes the affairs of that department which was by Ancient
Rome assigned to Mars. In England, as the _Civiltá_ proudly tells,
was formed "The Prayer League of our Lady of Victories, entirely
composed of innocent children." In Vienna the arch-confraternity of
St. Michael called the citizens to a solemn novena; Belgium moved
in a similar manner, and Spain on December 8 beheld the faithful
thronging to the altars of Mary. "Processions and pilgrimages" added
a "splendid" demonstration, in which Belgium, Germany, and the Tyrol
merited particular mention. The tomb of St. Boniface was besieged with
pilgrims, praying that the tomb of Peter might be redeemed from the
hands of the Italian Islamite. And the tomb of Henry the Emperor Saint,
"fierce defender of the rights of the Holy See," was so beset with
pilgrims on the day two months after the commencement of the captivity,
that the streets of Bamberg resounded with the suppliant song of
_eighty-two_ processions seeking to move the warrior saint. In Munich,
after exhibiting in "functions" within the Churches "all that is grand
in the Catholic cult," the clergy, the archbishop, and the devout,
in crowds said to comprise all Munich, paraded the streets chanting
prayers for the ransom of the Pontiff.

If St. Michael had not retained his militant position, his
confraternity in Vienna, conscious of where lay the sinews of war, sent
loads of Peter's Pence. So in point after point of Europe the vows
and bonds assumed in favour of Peter's Pence by fresh associations
from Holland to Portugal, and from England to Hungary, are recorded.
In England it was to the ladies that the "work" of raising Peter's
Pence was assigned. The ladies of Vienna claimed it, the ladies of
Madrid followed the example. And a valiant meeting in Belfast, and a
meeting in Galway, resolved largely to swell the tide of Peter's Pence.
The Catholic clubs joined in the movement, not only to console the
Holy Father, but to condemn "the guilty policy of spoliation." Italy
was grievously complained of for having dealt, by law, with certain
Catholic Associations as political bodies, committing offences against
the nation. But the great and splendid "work" of the Pence of Peter
is not enough. The meetings and manifestoes are equally necessary, and
of the manifestoes the spirit is breathed in these words, addressed
to governments: "Do us justice; or if not, to shake you out of your
indifference, we shall avail ourselves of every means which the law
allows."

One brave claim of German Catholics is this: "As loyal subjects we
demand that our rights and our interests shall be protected even in the
territories of the Church." And politicians, _knowing these things_,
will say and write that men moved from a foreign centre to make such
claims of intervention on their governments are as good subjects as
other men! They well know that such an agitation raised in the midst
of a mortal struggle, if it succeeds, plunges the nation into a second
war; and even if it does not succeed, diverts the nation from its own
defence, and tends to divide it. But these German patriots say that
they will embrace every opportunity that arises of pressing such rights
as those above indicated upon their governments, by the Press, by
"councils," by meetings, and especially by sending men to Parliament
who will have courage to take up the Catholic cause. The _Civiltá_
characterizes this language as the proclamation "of a vigorous, a
continued, and a legal struggle against all governments which do not
care for the cause of the Pontiff." "What the law allows," would, in
the mind of many an honest Catholic, mean the law of the land; but
on how many of such men could reliance be placed when, after all had
been done which the law of the land allowed, they were instructed by
sacred lips that when it contradicted the "divine" law it ceased to be
binding, and that then the law in the case was God's law, which was
whatever the Church declared it to be?

Geneva was made a chosen centre of activity, and the names of great
and famous personages were paraded. While the ultimate ends to be
aimed at were fitly expressed as "reinstating the Holy Father in his
temporal sovereignty, and re-establishing the social reign of the
gospel," the proximate ends were, to move the heart of Christ to mercy
by pilgrimages and prayers, to act upon governments, to excite opinion
by the Press, and to procure for the Pope means. Fifty meetings in the
middle of December in the diocese of Fulda alone, while Germany was in
the crisis of the war; the object of those meetings being to plunge her
into a war with Italy! Indeed, it seemed to the _Civiltá_ as if, awoke
from the slumber of ages by the prayers of the Catholics around his
tomb, St. Boniface had gone out anew upon his apostolic pilgrimage, to
rouse up the ancient devotion of the people to the Holy See.[481]

One new society, which has not its name specified, is said to be
already a great one. It is composed of all who had borne arms in the
crusade of Pius IX. From Holland to Marseilles, from Canada to the
Tyrol, they had bound themselves together in a common bond. We are
not left in doubt as to what that bond might be. Indeed, we are told
that "what it is cannot be obscure; their former enterprise makes it
clear." To us the former enterprise would make the means clear--namely,
war; but not so clear the end. They formerly warred to avert the fall
of the temporal power. Were they now to go to war for the immediate
and local object of "reinstating the Holy Father," and at the same
time for the ulterior and world-conquering object of "re-establishing
the social reign of the gospel"; that is, of forming the world into
Spiritual States, or at least into States under the spiritual reign
of the clergy? The object is prudently veiled in vague language, but
language clear enough for the instructed; "full of warlike ardour in
a meeting of Dutch and Belgians at Lovaine, they said that the aim of
their union was to meet the future wants of the Church, was to conquer
all the forces of impiety."[482] But even in the language put into the
lips of soldiers, and into the resolutions of public meetings, the
object is never defined so as to limit it to restoring the temporal
power, and generally a wide object beyond that narrow one is allowed
to transpire. When old crusaders undertake with "warlike ardour" to
meet the future wants of the Church, we may divine of what kind her
future wants are to be; and when such men undertake to conquer all
the forces of impiety, we may expect a social reign of the gospel,
ushered in by the zouaves--such a social reign of it as some of the
spiritual princes of the Continent re-established when, after their
Spiritual States had been shaken by the Reformation, Catholic leagues
reinstated the prince-bishops in power. As to England, the _Civiltá_,
at a date subsequent to notices already alluded to, names the Duke of
Norfolk as heading a protest against the occupation of Rome from the
noblest of the nation; Lord Campden and "Giorgio Clifford" as leading a
universal subscription of English youth; the ladies as conducting the
"work" of Peter's Pence; R. Martin as forming a league of prayer for
persons of all grades; and Warteton (_sic_) as instituting "the crusade
for Pius IX, a league of our Lady of Victories entirely composed
of children."[483] How many British children are learning in this
much-mentioned league by the inspirations of our Lady of Victories, to
covet their baptism of fire in the projected crusade, we do not know,
nor yet how they are to be taught to select the particular branch
of the "forces of impiety" against which their first arms are to be
proved. But, says the _Civiltá_--

    there will be a struggle, there will be travails, there will be
    sorrows. But the victory is in their [the Catholics'] hands: of
    this the proof more than manifest is found in eighteen centuries
    of continuous combats and victories of Catholicism. As the great
    Matthias, indignant because before his eyes an officer of the king
    dared to burn incense to an idol, rose up crying, "Let him that is
    true to the law follow me," and commenced those grand struggles
    and grand victories of the Maccabees which are known to all, so
    the most fervent Catholics, indignant and horrified at the capture
    of Rome, pointing out the Revolution, in the meetings at Fulda and
    at Malines, at Ghent and at Geneva, as the cause of so much evil,
    as the enemy of Christ and of His Vicar, cried, "Let all that are
    Catholics at heart rise up and follow us in the fight." Their cry
    has been heard, and the general crusade is already begun.[484]

The development of the _general crusade_ has been slower than the
seers in their many Maccabean visions saw; but at the end of six years
all the preparations for it are in progress, and the two-fold end is
steadily kept in view: first, Rome is to receive back the Pope at the
point of the bayonet; and secondly, the whole world is to accept "the
social reign of the gospel" at the point of the bayonet too, unless
nations, being timely wise, bow the neck and lick the dust where
marches the Vicar of God. So man proposes. But since the day in 1850
when, as we heard at the beginning, a "salutary conspiracy and a holy
crusade" were formally announced as the two things needful, much that
man astutely planned and firmly proposed has not come to pass according
to man's design, but has been strangely turned to the purposes of a
clearer wisdom, and a kinder will. Even the monument in the cemetery of
St. Lorenzo to the Crusaders, which exhibits Peter, under the effigy
of Pio Nono, giving the sword to the Christian army, and commanding it
to make a Catholic world, now bears, in addition to its texts from the
Maccabees, a fresh inscription: "Ransomed Rome leaves to posterity,
as a lasting sign of calamitous times, this monument, erected by the
theocratic government to foreign mercenaries."

On the last day of 1870--that year of which the echoes will sound
all down the vale of time, repeating the cry, "Man proposes but God
disposes"--a strange sound was heard in Rome. Floods had brought sorrow
into the city. Victor Emmanuel left Florence, and at four o'clock in
the morning of December 31, for the first time, as king in his capital,
set foot in Rome. In its sovereigns the city was familiar with titles
of Saints, of Great, of Holiness, and of Blessedness, and with ancient
titles noting many a shade of skill and power. But there was a title
which was not only unknown, but seemed alien to all the traditions that
had gathered around the place from the days of Sulla and of Catiline
till now. As the burly king, amid the frantic joy which had marked his
brief visit, was about to enter the carriage to return, a little girl
approached with a nosegay of fair flowers, and said: "Take this, KING
HONEST MAN!"

If with the expiring hours of 1870 the reign of Craft died in Rome, and
that of Honesty began, it would mark the mightiest of all the modern
revolutions.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 476: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 760.]

[Footnote 477: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 481-2.]

[Footnote 478: _Civiltá_, VII. xi. 559 ff.]

[Footnote 479: _Civiltá_, VIII. i. 66.]

[Footnote 480: VIII. i. 108.]

[Footnote 481: VIII. i. pp. i. 155-69.]

[Footnote 482: _Civiltá_, VIII. i. 293.]

[Footnote 483: VIII. i. p. 288.]

[Footnote 484: VIII. i. pp. 421-22.]




CHAPTER X

How far has the Vatican Movement been a Success, and how far a
Failure?--As to Measures of the Nature of Means a Success--As to
Measures of the Nature of Ends hitherto a Failure--Testimony of Liberal
Catholics to the one, and of Ultramontanes to the other--Apparatus of
Means in Operation for the Ultimate End of Universal Dominion--Story
of Scherr as an Example of the Minority--Different Classes of
those who "Submit"--Condition and Prospects of the Two Powers in
Italy--Proximate Ends at present aimed at--Control of Elections--Of the
Press--Of Schools--Problem of France and Italy--Power of the Priests
for Disturbance--Comparison between Catholic and Non-Catholic Nations
for last Sixty Years--Are Priests capable of fomenting Anarchical
Plots?--Hopes of Ultramontanes rest on France and England--The Former
for Military Service, the Latter for Converts--This hope Illusory.


Before allowing ourselves to form any opinion on the question how
far the attempt to place all authorities under the Pontiff has been
a failure and how far a success, it is necessary that, in our own
thoughts, two classes of measures should be set well apart. If we look
only at measures which the leaders of the movement regarded in the
light of ends, it is easy to pronounce it an utter failure, as most
Italians and many of other nations have done. If, on the other hand,
we look only at measures which the leaders regarded in the light of
means, it is easy to proclaim, as all the voices of the Vatican have
proclaimed, that so far the movement has been a success, wondrous even
to the point of being manifestly divine.

We think it impossible to deny the complete success of the Vatican
movement in perfecting the measures devised as means. Those Liberal
Catholics who at present loudly pronounce the movement a failure, have
only to read their own writings of 1869 and of the earlier months of
1870, to find that at that time certain advances in the policy of
the Curia were described as unattainable. Those advances have been
accomplished. As to certain measures, it was said that governments,
bishops, clergy, people, would unite to make them impossible. Those
measures are now statutes and ordinances. The Liberal Catholics,
indeed, may pensively say that the gains of the Curia are the losses of
the Church. That may be. Time will tell. The fact now to be registered
is simply this: Certain changes were declared necessary, and at the
same time sufficient for the attainment of the great end of universal
domination. Those changes were pronounced to be revolutionary in the
Church, dangerous to society, and, in fine, impossible. They were
resisted, were urged on, and were triumphantly carried.

We also think it impossible to deny that up to the present time (1876)
the movement, viewed in relation to ultimate ends, has been a complete
failure. We do not say as much of proximate ends. As we have used the
writings of Liberal Catholics to measure the success in regard to
means, so would we use the writings of the Court party to measure the
failure in regard to ends. It is already familiar to us that in those
writings the moral renovations which were to attend the dawn of the new
era, could not be indicated by any metaphor short of the primal burst
of light on the horror of chaos. It was to be! So soon as the Lord
should manifestly set His king upon His holy hill of Sion, all kings
were to fall down before him, and his enemies were to lick the dust.
Parliaments were to recognize their impotence and expire. Populations,
suddenly illuminated, were to behold the saviour of society, and were
lovingly to bow to his law. As to any possible opposition, it was
described as the heathen raging--as the people imagining a vain thing.
It was only the kings of the earth setting themselves and the rulers
taking counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed.

Now, in fulfilment of these promises, what has come to pass? The Pope
has fallen from his temporal throne. A long and bloody war, carried on
with a view to place Don Carlos on the throne of Spain, has failed.
Contrary to the fairest promise, hopes of placing the Count of Chambord
on the throne of France have faded away. The tentative federation of
Germany has been consolidated by an imperial crown, hereditary in the
reigning house of Prussia. Austria has persisted in her anti-Catholic
legislation, as it was called, and has extended it by abrogating the
Concordat. Switzerland and Germany have both returned the attacks of
the ecclesiastical power upon the civil power, by laws reasserting
the national supremacy in every sphere of public life. Italy, in the
act of overturning the temporal power, has completed her own unity.
In the act of completing her own unity, she has, in the city of Rome,
violated what the Pope calls Catholic unity, by admitting religious
liberty within the sacred walls. In America no great State has modified
its law in favour of the new theocracy. Several of the Catholic States
have shown a consciousness of its aims, and jealousy of its accredited
agents. In Canada, leading Liberal statesmen have clearly evinced a
rising consciousness of what the Papacy is, and of what it aims at. The
one ideal ruler of the Curia, the one set before the youth of nations
as their model, Garcia Moreno, President of Ecuador, has fallen, openly
assassinated in broad daylight. Thus, at the time when, according to
his seers, the Pontiff was to survey a new cosmos rising out of the
chaos of the Modern State, he, all round the horizon, beholds only
confusion worse confounded. Not one nation has submitted its code
to his revision. Not in one kingdom of the earth has a ruler been
installed to reign under the laws of the Syllabus.

Does not this statement concede all that is claimed by those who say
that the movement is a failure not redeemed by one success? What it
does really concede is, that of the two ways, in one of which the
ends aimed at were to be accomplished, the first has disappointed all
hope. The ends proposed were so grand that only in one of two ways
could they be realized; and whatever may be said of the enthusiasm of
the projectors, it is not to be denied that they never lost sight of
this fact, and never concealed it. The two ways were either such an
intervention of Providence as would amount to a cosmopolitan miracle,
or else the slow operation of means extending over ages. While the
Pope and his more superstitious followers seemed to expect that the
Virgin and the new-made saints would obtain miraculous transformations,
the more calculating, even at moments when the flow of money and of
friends seemed not only to exhilarate the Vatican, but to intoxicate
it, did not fail to keep in view the fact that centuries might
intervene--centuries marked by many a partial success and many a
temporary discomfiture--between the day when the perfected machinery of
means should be set in motion, and the day when the crowning victory
should lead the head of the human species in triumph to the goal. The
Jesuits are now entitled to point to that fact in bar of any premature
exultation over their disappointment. At the same time, with all their
power of simulating the joy of victory in defeat, they have been unable
to prevent chagrin from tinging much of their later language. The
great spectacle did not operate as a charm. The sublime revelation of
a central authority for all human affairs did not subdue any wayward
institutions. Providence put no seal on the deeds done. The replacing
of St. Michael in his office of patron of the Church, was symptomatic
of considerable dissatisfaction with the departmental divinities in
general.

On the other hand, this complete failure of supernatural aid, or of
any favouring current in public events, does not alter the fact that
a system of means, contemplated and desired for ages, has at last
been perfected, and that it is now over all the world being gradually
brought into operation. The magnitude of the means indicates the
universality of the ends. The fact that centuries upon centuries have
elapsed since Popes began to claim what Pius IX has now acquired,
that more than three centuries have passed even since, at Trent, the
Jesuit General set up the pretensions which have now, at last, become
the law of one hundred and seventy millions, is a consideration not
lightly to be set aside, particularly when we contemplate the strife
for universal dominion now openly inaugurated as a continuing struggle,
to be handed down from generation to generation of men trained and
consecrated to this very thing.

The stupendous scope of the ends might well demand as means measures
exceptionally great, and the magnitude of the measures already carried
as means may now well excuse, if not justify, confidence that the
ends after they shall have been steadily pursued for ages will also
be attained. Those ends were not less, when united into one, than the
dominion of the world.

The Internal Tribunal, seated in every church, in every palace, in
every castle, and at need in every private chamber, would always in
point of authority take precedence of any local law, and would rule
bed, board, purse, family, and all action which conscience determines.

The External Tribunal, seated in every city, would maintain the
headship of the bishop over the civil magistrate, and the supremacy
of spiritual over civil law and authority, as sacredly as we should
maintain the supremacy of our civil law and authority over military law
and authority.

The External Tribunal would make the Internal an establishment of the
law. Every man, every woman, ay, every child of a certain age, who
should not appear at least once in the year in that tribunal, would run
into a punishable offence.

The Supreme Tribunal in the person of the Pope, acting either directly
or through any Court or Congregation he might appoint, would be the
final bar at which would appear contending kings, contending nations,
or other appellants whatever, as also all whom he might, for any cause,
be pleased to cite. From that judgment-seat would fall the sentence
that only the Almighty could challenge. According to the well-known
formula, the Supreme Judge would carry all rights in the shrine of his
own breast.

Such a universal dominion was the end, the ultimate end in view. The
end was hallowed to the mind of those proposing it by the persuasion
that this dominion of the priest of God is the veritable kingdom of
Christ. It is only by realizing how conscientious is this view of the
spiritual empire, or the Roman Empire in a spiritual form--a view
which, founded on a historic ideal, fascinates the imagination of
Romanists--that we can either be just and charitable to the men who
move for these ends, or can arrive at any reasonable estimate of the
amount of future force in their movement. Mere politicians, say some,
who have no religious feeling! Yes, many such; but these politicians
well know that their power is proportioned to the amount of religious
feeling which they can create and make ready to be acted upon. It is
by putting together the political skill of the one set of men and the
religious feeling of the other, that we obtain means of judging as to
the quality of the directing and the amount of the impelling forces to
be developed in the future struggle.

After all that they have recently accomplished within the Church,
what can be too hard, they ask, to accomplish outside? They wanted
to make the entire Church an instrument in which every joint, to the
remotest limb, should infallibly respond to the will of the central
director, so that at any given moment, and on any one point, the whole
of its force could be brought to bear wherever resistance might be
encountered, or wherever an advance might promise success. To make it
such an instrument required changes which were pronounced unattainable,
but they laughed the discouragement to scorn. Those changes affected
all the three spheres of organization, constitution, and dogma. In
_organization_ every clergyman had to be made movable at the will of
the bishop, and every bishop had to be made dependent on the will of
the Pope. The franchises of both the parish and the diocese had to be
revoked. It is done. But it could not be done without a constitutional
change. In the _constitution_ the Bishop of Rome had to be made by law
the Ordinary of every diocese in the world, and every other bishop
in the world had to be made by law a mere surrogate of the Bishop of
Rome. That one bishop had to be made by law the sole lawgiver even
when the entire episcopate meets in a General Council, and the whole
episcopate in General Council assembled had to be by law reduced from a
co-ordinate branch of a legislature to what is, in effect, a mere privy
council to the Bishop of Rome. It is all done. But it could not be done
without a dogmatic change. In _dogma_ it had to be determined that the
edicts of the Bishop of Rome embodied in themselves all the alleged
infallibility of the Church; ay, and even the consent of the Church, as
a necessary sanction, had to be in dogma disavowed. We blame not any
Liberal Catholic who said that these things were impossible. But the
impossible is done. The new organization is not a mere administrative
change, but rests firmly on a new legislative constitution. The new
constitution is not a mere legislative change liable to legislative
revision--it rests irreformable on adamantine dogma.

Thus, then, are the hundred and seventy millions, or two hundred
millions, as they are called, bound into one very compact bundle, to
be thrown into this scale or that by a single hand. Within the Church,
says Vitelleschi, resistance is impossible. No obstruction can now
arrest the current of command from Pope to nuncio, from nuncio to
bishop and regulars, from bishop to canons and parish priests, from
regulars to all manner of confraternities, from parish priests to
unions and to voters. Where governments have one officer the Church
has many. Where the government officer has no time to shape public
opinion, the Church officer has little else to do. Where the lackeys in
government service wear fine liveries, and the lords walk about like
our fellow-creatures, the lackeys of the Church have fine liveries too,
but the lords outshine even the theatre. Where, in Catholic countries,
the officer of government comes into his seat of authority, or returns
into it quietly, care is taken that the bishop shall, at his coming,
appear exalted above all principality and power. In proportion as
States, becoming more Christianized, have risen above show, the Papal
Church, becoming more paganized and materialized, has sunk deeper into
the craft and the love of display. While the officers of government
see that the young are taught the material processes necessary to
future power, the officers of the Church see that they are taught
for what ends it will be good, noble, and martyr-like to employ power
when they shall take their future share in governing the world. Bishop
Reinkens, in a little work that ought to be read by every man who
means to understand the questions that are to come up--_Revolution und
Kirche_--declares that the policy of the Papacy is now revolution.
Certain it is that for effecting a world-wide revolution, never did
instrument exist so generally outspread and so perfectly centralized,
so elaborately ramified and yet so pliant, as will be the society ruled
over at the Vatican when once all the old men who resisted the changes
have died off, and the new generation instructed in the spirit of the
Syllabus has slowly grown up, as the generations formed by Trent grew
up wherever the canons of that Council were received.

Such a growth is too slow to be waited for before partial results are
secured; and every partial result it is hoped will be a stepping-stone
towards the complete one. Therefore is every agency already named
employed in promoting the organization of forces to bear a part in the
grand struggle when it comes; but meantime in every local struggle.
Associations of children, associations of peasants, associations of
artizans, associations of old soldiers, called veteran associations,
and numerous associations besides, are formed in various countries
and on several models. On the social side clubs and "circles"
contribute the convivial element, and on the devotional side orders
and confraternities contribute the ascetic element to the common
organization. New "devotions," new visions, new places of pilgrimage,
new images, new prayers, new relics, new charms, new waters of virtue,
new shrines, new patrons, new miracles, and new wonders feed the flame.
By tens of thousands, and by hundreds of thousands, men take an oath
of obedience to the Pope. By tens of thousands volunteers pledged to
shed their blood for him are enrolled--"On paper," say the Italians,
mocking; but 1867 showed that the crusaders meant crusading; and if
tens of thousands of such volunteers under leaders such as Charette
are enrolled they are not to be laughed at. The schools have not been
in operation during the last ten years for nothing. Associations
in France bear the portentous names of Jesu-Workman and Jesu-King
(_Jésu-Ouvrier_ and _Jésu-Roi_)--the one aiming at organizing workmen,
the other at organizing courts. The name of Jésu set up on these
associations clearly points to the central organizing Company which
Liberal Catholics with reverent indignation charge with daring to give
a double meaning even to the all-blessed Name, not excepting its use in
the solemn words, "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow."

Even after July 18 the Liberal Catholics did not give up the Church
as irrevocably sunk into the hands of the Jesuits. They counted on
the eighty-eight bishops who had voted Nay, and on their promise one
to another not to act separately. Had that promise been kept, it was
just possible that, under favouring circumstances, the fatal steps of
July might have been modified or even recalled, for by all tradition
the acts of any Council were supposed to remain within its power,
and to be open to its revision till it was legally dissolved. The
Curia put this tradition under its heel. It posted up the Decrees on
the doors of the Lateran and in other public places in the city, and
certified the whole world that by this act they had become its supreme
and irreformable law. How did the eighty-eight deport themselves?
They had tamely allowed all manner of revolutionary acts, when done
from above, and they allowed this last one as tamely as the rest. The
erring Peter of the Vatican was not at the head of a community capable
of producing a man who could withstand him to the face, and could
tell him, as one told the erring Peter of Antioch, that he was to be
blamed. Indeed, logically, the bishops seemed to have no ground of
objection. The Decrees did not profess to be those of a Council, but
those of the Pope, a Council having approved of them. If, then, the
Pope by promulging any doctrinal Bull without citing the approbation
of a Council, could give to it the force of irreformable law, unless
it should be rejected by the bishops, how much more was he entitled
to give that force to these Decrees. Even had their tenets afforded
them ground for resistance, the eighty-eight were not the men to avail
themselves of it. From one we may learn the complexion of them all.

At midnight on July 19, Von Scherr, Archbishop of Munich, who had
throughout the Council acted with the Opposition, re-entered his
city. He came, as the Germans say, without song or chime--that is, in
strict privacy. At first many thought--and Friedrich was one of the
number--that this demeanour was adopted, on the part of his Grace,
to shun any public demonstration which the people might have made in
honour of his attitude in Rome. But the whisper soon crept round,
"Gregory has submitted."

Presently the Faculty of Theology, with Döllinger at its head, came in
all form to present the Archbishop with an address of congratulation
on his happy return. After the formal reply to the address, his Grace
said, "Rome has spoken: you gentlemen know the rest. We could do
nothing but give in." Friedrich says that he saw how Döllinger was
boiling, while the rest were also moved. "We struggled long," continued
the Archbishop, "and gained much, and we also averted a deal of evil."
This remark, says Friedrich, evidently encountered general incredulity.
The Archbishop then told of the deputation to the Pope--of which he was
a member--on July 15; of the hopes raised by the reply it received; of
how those hopes were dashed by the influence of Senestrey--for he does
not seem to have named Manning; and finally, of the sad disappointment
of Cardinal Rauscher on going the next day to thank his Holiness for
yielding, and on hearing from those lips which to the "Catholic"
world are the fount of truth, that the formula which, on the previous
evening, the Pope denied having seen, was actually distributed among
the prelates, and was declared to be irrevocable.

At the close of the conversation, Scherr, turning to Döllinger, said,
"Shall we start afresh to work for the Holy Church?" The aged _Probst_
replied, "Yes, for the OLD one." It was evident that, if Scherr had
just then had any other man before him, his anger would have waxed
hot. He suppressed it, however, and replied, "There is only one Church,
not a new one and an old." Then were the words pronounced by Döllinger,
"They have MADE a new one." The note was sounded. The Archbishop could
only say, "There have always been alterations in the Church and in the
doctrines." This speech played upon the countenances of the Professors,
calling up in each case a look characteristic of the man. "Never shall
I forget," says Friedrich, "the respective bearing of Döllinger and
Haneberg." Döllinger was soon excommunicated; Haneberg was soon in a
bishop's palace, but ere long he died. No one took up the conversation,
and as the Archbishop turned from Döllinger to address some one else,
Friedrich saw tears in his eyes.

In the hall of the university where the Professors had robed, and where
they now unrobed, they spent a quarter of an hour in talking over
the scene. Döllinger, however, did not stay. Rather early the next
morning, the Archbishop deigned to visit the plain house in Von der
Tann Street. Döllinger plainly told him that he could not receive the
dogma of July 18, being, as it was, in open contradiction to the past
teaching and history of the Church. In that dogma the worst thing of
all was the addition made after the discussion, "not by the consent of
the Church." Here was a surprise for the Archbishop. He knew nothing of
that addition. He had left the field before the last gun was fired. He
had now to learn the shape which his new faith had actually taken, and
to learn it from the lips of Döllinger. The venerable Provost who was
to be excommunicated had to tell the Archbishop who was to do the deed
what the change of creed actually was for not conforming to which he
was to be given over to Satan. That scene might have afforded Kaulbach
another picture.

Von Scherr at first spoke in Munich of the promise made by the bishops
of the minority to one another not to act separately. By the end of
August he had forgotten all about it. A "highly placed" layman was
informed by the Archbishop that he need not trouble himself with
infallibility, as the Decree would not be promulged in the diocese,
and what was not promulged was not binding. Almost immediately
afterwards it was printed in his own paper. Ere long, Scherr was as
hot for infallibility as if his object had been to make the Curia
forget in his present zeal any unpleasant impressions made by his
former opposition. He was exemplary in protesting, threatening, and
excommunicating. Friedrich gives particulars to prove, in the case of
Scherr, that disregard of truth which is so freely alleged against the
bishops generally, into which we will not enter.

As we have said, from one of the minority we may judge of all. Neither
Hefele nor Kenrick, neither Dupanloup nor Strossmayer, displayed any
Christian fortitude sufficient to arrest their Church in her downward
course, or indeed displayed anything to give the Curia aught but food
for scorn of the Opposition. Their convictions had been solemnly stated
and ably argued. Those convictions did suffice to cause hesitation.
But the force of conviction only tested the force of habit, and did
not break it. The new submission made them tenfold more than ever the
creatures of that overweening power which they had spent their lives
in exalting, which for a moment they had attempted to moderate, but to
which they now succumbed in its most heinous assumptions.

The lower clergy have followed the bishops in submission. At one time
it seemed as if many of them would withstand. Except, however, in the
two countries nearest to Italy--Switzerland and Germany--no appreciable
resistance has been offered. In Germany the men in whom the force of
belief overcame the habit of submission were almost exclusively those
whom the elevating influence of university life had lifted above the
ordinary level of the clergy. Their number is not large; but the
valuable writings which they have already produced show that they
have no mean power of influencing the future currents of theological
thought. Spirited France, in spite of its Gallican traditions, was a
pattern of tameness. The striking examples of Loyson and Michaud found
exceedingly few to follow. Gratry "submitted." Throughout the rest of
the world the exceptions have been isolated and without influence.

Among the laity, again, it is only in Switzerland and Germany that
success has been even chequered. The otherwise uniform submission has
there been broken by numbers considerable to-day, but more considerable
for the future. Yet compared with the mass in submission, those numbers
are soon told. But, on the other hand, that mass in submission is not
of uniform value to the future theocracy. It contains the cordial
adherents who already believed; the dutiful adherents who doubted, but
at the word of the Council said, It is decided, and I now, as in duty
bound, believe; the reckless adherents, who, like most in Italy and
many in France, would as cheerfully have submitted to a dogma declaring
the Popes imponderable, as to one declaring them infallible, and who do
really believe that they are irreformable. Differing from all these are
men who had an intelligent conviction against the new dogma, or against
the new constitution, or against both. These, brought face to face with
the alternative--submit, or bear the curse of the Church; submit, or
survive the rending in twain of every life-tie--did sadly and slowly
submit--submit without attempting to reconcile things to their reason,
as it is said that Montalembert declared he would do. These men may
never make apt instruments of the priests, but they do make their
proud trophies. One strong man silently submitting is a statuesque
monition to many others not to think. A still further element of
unknown extent mingles with the mass. It consists of those who,
without either formal submission or open breach, do not believe the
new dogma, and do not approve of the new constitution. This now inert
bulk may turn to a force bearing in either direction, or may divide
into two portions; one giving the priests control over profession and
appearance, without any corresponding control over belief--which is,
perhaps, of all their triumphs the most practical; and another in which
conviction, growing at last too strong for the habit of submission,
breaks by its divine force the human bond, and throws men upon their
conscience, their Bible, and their God. But when men have once really
believed in a God who leaves the rule over His redeemed offspring
to a Vicar, and have believed in man as a creature whose conscience
another man is to keep, it is hard to find in them foothold for solid
Christian convictions. They are kneaded to the hand of the priest.
If they leave him, they become infidels, who though in feeling his
opponents, perhaps his persecutors, become in argument and action his
practical allies. Joining him in rooting out faith in the Bible and in
primitive Christianity, they urge men to his two extremes of doctrine,
the authority of the Church or Atheism, and consequently to his two
extremes of government, the Papacy or the International. One Auguste
Comte is worth many a monastery.

It is this "sublime" spectacle of success with hierarchy, clergy, and
laity, which makes the recent past, to the augurs of reconstruction,
a certain presage of a triumph, perhaps distant, but complete, in
the future. No recalcitrating bishop now; or if a few worn-out men
are still secretly of the old inclining, they are rapidly dying off.
The list of the eighty-eight is already a short one. No bishop is
now installed who to the old oath which already made him a vassal of
the Pope does not add the new articles of the Vatican Decrees. No
seminaries are now training priests to deny the infallibility of the
Pope, or his ordinary, immediate, and omnipresent authority. In most
the Jesuit text-books are adopted. No catechisms are now teaching
against Papal infallibility, or teaching ambiguously. The new doctrine
will be couched in terms clearer or less clear, according to political
and theological necessities; but, whether in Prague or Sydney, in
Florence or Liverpool, in Boston or Warsaw, in Berlin or Lima, the
catechism will contain a text from which the friar or priest will put
the same principles of social reconstruction into the minds of boys and
girls. To the view of the Jesuits, the future unfolds like a peacock's
tail, all sparkling with the eyes of the young. The outward loss to
the Church which has been sustained was reckoned upon before hand.
They hold that it is more than compensated by the perfect internal
compactness gained. When once the preparations are complete--and a few
score years are of no account--a generation well trained will be ready
at the call of him who holds among men the place of God, to take up the
cross of St. Peter, to cry, "God wills it," and to march till all high
things that exalt themselves against Christ shall be pulled down, and
the Church alone shall stand, the one all-perfect society embracing the
human species.

The loss of the temporal power affected all the calculations of the
foregoing period. It came with appalling suddenness. It startled all
men to see the Emperor who had been the sole prop of the temporal
power fall, not like a prince put to the worst amid a loyal people,
but with an unheard-of crash like a log upon ice, while his empire
instantly went under; and to see in another moment the Italian sentries
standing round the Vatican. All efforts had first to be turned to a
restoration. As if to illustrate the weakness which the subjects of the
Pope form for any State, while yet the war was raging King William had
to negotiate with Ledochowsky,[485] and ere yet the blood was dry, a
petition signed by fifty-six members of the Prussian Parliament prayed
the new Emperor of Germany to restore the Pope--which meant to declare
war on Italy. While the Emperor still lay at Versailles a deputation,
headed by three counts, passed through bleeding France to pray the
victor to flesh his sword anew. Emperor William well knew that if all
the powers of the Papacy sufficed for the task, the new empire would
be rent to shivers in a day. The army which had taken Paris did not
march on Rome. France had next to exhibit herself as a suppliant at
the feet of the Holy Father--a Holy Father who wanted her with her
right arm broken to draw with her left and cut down the Italians. She
met this wicked suggestion with humble requests that the Holy Father
would show forbearance and not demand services for which she was not
prepared. Incredible as it may seem, Father Hyacinth Loyson stated, in
the _Journal des Débats_, that French bishops, before thus attempting
to entangle their own government, had actually applied to the invading
Germans.[486] Refused by the invader, refused by their country, they
hated where they could not smite. Germany was marked for destruction;
and France was held to future service when the time should come.
Meantime, every effort was put forth to check and disunite Italy, but
in vain. She has strained the religious toleration which the Pope
abhors so as even to cover overt political hostilities. She has allowed
him to issue all manner of incentives to undo the Italian kingdom by
either domestic revolt or foreign intervention, or if possible by both.
She has allowed him to gather together crowds of hostile foreigners and
to excite them to affront and revile the nation. She has grown stronger
and more solid during the process, laughing equally at the Napoleonic
idea that the Pope was to be treated as if he had two hundred thousand
bayonets, and at the Bonaparte violence which inflicted personal
insult, prison, and exile. At this moment, after six years have passed,
the Vatican as unblushingly asserts that Italy--the real Italy--is
on its side as it did in the years preceding Solferino.[487] Victor
Emmanuel has tried the experiment of letting the Pope play the prisoner
or the freeman, the prophet, priest, or Caesar, the tribune or the
medicine-man, just at his wayward will. The enmity of the Pope has been
good for Italy as for England, Germany, America, and all countries
favoured with it; but if the day comes when the Pope meets the bow of
any future Prime Minister of Italy with a responsive bow, then may we
begin to look for fresh cycles of conspiracy and convulsion.

The future must be its own interpreter. Meantime in the Vatican sits
a king calling himself a prisoner, though he is free to go where he
will; and in the Quirinal, a king calling himself a good Catholic,
though he is a rebel against the Vicar of God. If the wisdom of Italy
in allowing to the Pope unlimited personal freedom has been great, the
want of wisdom in professing to exalt his spiritual authority, and in
giving in to his sole hand the ancient powers of both the crown and
the people in the election of bishops and clergy, amounts perhaps to
the grossest political folly of our age. When Bonaparte dealt with the
Pope as sole arbiter of the bishoprics of France, he opened a mine
against the national authority whether seated on a throne or on a
president's chair, over which it has never sat securely, and in which
it will one day sink if France goes on as she has done of late, giving
the priests increasing power in education. But when Victor Emmanuel
repeats this blunder in a form more completely providing for future
Papal power, he digs a grave under the feet of his own dynasty. To
Italians, unhappily, a great hypocrisy may be a great triumph of skill;
they smile at principles, admire shifts, and are wondrously clever at
them. In politics, till they found the principle of constitutional
monarchy, they, in spite of all their shifts, floundered between
fruitless conspiracy and repression--never ending, still beginning. In
religion they want what in politics they have found, a principle and a
basis. Ancient scriptural Christianity, the Christianity of the Epistle
to the Romans, would give them the firm rock between the quicksands of
sacerdotalism and the floods of infidelity; a rock on which a nation
might securely rise to take its place with realms which own no other
foundation. But hitherto scarcely a glimmer of light on this matter has
appeared among Italian statesmen. They sadly underrate the power of the
Curia. The Curia know their weakness, and count upon their fall. To
bring it to pass may, they think, take time; but the Pope well knows
how to play upon the king for the undoing of the nation. Any ruler who
does not in his conscience believe the Pope to be a pretender in his
claims to represent God and to rule the universal Church, and who does
not believe him to be the worst and greatest corrupter of the Christian
religion ever brought to light by time, is in constant danger of
risking all by some act of compliance induced perhaps by his religious
sentiments, by the remorse of his vices, by the intrigues of the women
about him, or by the guile of the ecclesiastics who lie in wait.

For the time being the Vatican is placed at the disadvantage of
complicating the general struggle for supremacy with the particular
one for the restoration of the temporal power. The ultimate end being
now manifestly distant, the whole power of the perfected mechanism is
turned to the gaining in detail of the proximate ends which will lead
to it. These, roughly stated, are, control over elections, control over
the Press, and control over schools. If we take Bavaria and Belgium as
favourable specimens of Roman Catholic countries, the priestly power in
elections has already become a source of bloodshed, and threatens to be
so in continuance. The Catholic and the Liberal parties stand arrayed
as two forces, not representing, like our Conservatives and Liberals,
two tendencies necessary to balance one another, but two hostile
principles one or other of which must perish. In Germany the power of
the Pope in elections has proved to be a real not to say a terrible
one. In France it was found such at the first election after the war as
to be all but sufficient to place the destinies of the country at his
disposal for a time. The last general election showed a decided recoil
from this danger. In Italy it had come to that point that in municipal
elections the moderate party, in several instances, made common cause
with the Papal one. But there, again, the last general election has
given a result in the opposite direction. The terror which the priests
can turn to account in elections is threefold--dread of civil hurt or
loss, for which contrivances are manifold; dread of personal violence,
which of course supposes a strong Catholic party; and dread of eternal
ruin, which the priest of God can inflict for voting against the
interests of the Church. Even on Roman Catholics not brought up in
the schools of priests, these influences are powerful. What will they
become with generations brought up in schools under the new inspiration
of the Syllabus?

"In every mode and by every means that is not contrary to our
conscience" is the formula expressing the solemn pledges of all
Catholics to war against the revolution, or the Modern State. Not
merely as to the occupation of Rome, but in its very principles, says
the _Civiltá_, will we oppose it--

    We shall fight it with Catholic associations, we shall fight it
    with the Press, we shall fight it in parliament. We shall confront
    theory with theory, morality with morality, school with school, the
    flag of Christ with the flag of Satan, raised by the revolution.
    Catholic societies where they existed are being multiplied, where
    they did not exist they are being planted. The number of Catholic
    members in the Prussian Parliament has increased beyond hope, and
    in Belgium they have drawn closer together. The struggle against
    the Austrian ministry which favoured the revolution has grown
    hotter, and _obligations in defence of Catholic principles will
    be imposed upon the future Members of Parliament of England and
    Ireland_. With whom will be the final victory?--there can be no
    doubt.[488]

As to the Press, the "work of the 'good Press'" is one of the most
meritorious of the many "works" in operation for the new celestial
empire. From the great _Civiltá_, the mainspring of the whole, to
the episcopal organ in the remotest diocese, it moves for one end,
whether in the form of review, magazine, journal, pamphlet, or book.
It represents a literature really prodigious, and is in its own eyes
on the high road to supremacy. Of journals it is said that in Germany
alone hundreds are subsidized.[489] How far the assertions are true or
false we know not, which are frequently made, that the most rabid and
blaspheming organs of low and anarchical demagogues are in Jesuit pay;
but those assertions in themselves are a serious symptom. In Italy it
is often popularly said that there are one hundred and eighty thousand
nuns, friars, and priests, all counted. In France of priests alone
there are forty thousand. In Germany, as Schulte has shown, in certain
cities the ecclesiastical persons, male and female, number from ten
per cent. upwards of the _adult_ population. If we extend to the whole
Roman Catholic population of the world calculations of an organization
on a scale somewhat similar, we cannot do otherwise than regard a Press
which controls such a cosmopolitan force as a serious power.

At the same time a twofold weakness of the "_good Press_" is obvious.
First, it does not carry with it the Press which really leads nations,
though it runs strong in by-channels of its own. And, again, it tends
to change the ignorance of the general Press into knowledge. In Germany
this is already done. There the pious and mystic style of the Vatican
dialect has ceased to be an unknown tongue. Men of letters and jurists
who twenty years ago would have passed over the ecclesiastico-political
phrases of a bishop or cardinal as unwittingly as an English Member of
Parliament, now read them with luminous and searching insight. Even
in England and America a process of self-instruction is rapidly going
on in the best journals. Lord Beaconsfield, in _Lothair_, has shown
that he is awake to the social and scenic aspects of the Ultramontane
movement, and has displayed more insight into the genealogy of its
cult than have the men in this nation to whom the country has a right
to look for something better than slipshod arguments, and well-played
parodies. Mr. Gladstone has shown himself awake to the national and
international, to the moral and political aspects of Ultramontanism.
Mr. Cartwright's work on the Jesuits shows that younger politicians
are beginning to do the best thing they can do, that is, to study at
original sources, and to give solid information. Mr. T.A. Trollope's
work on Papal Conclaves shows that all Englishmen are not able in Rome
to resist the rational tendency to see the place with unveiled eyes,
and to speak of it and its ways in plain English, and that some of
those who thoroughly know it are not disposed to enhance the reputation
which the English of late years have been earning for love of monkish
finery and open-mouthed credence of monkish fables. Perhaps in time
some ecclesiastic of a rank, in the religious world, corresponding to
that of Lord Beaconsfield and Mr. Gladstone in the political world,
may show some grasp of the subject. The relation of our jurists to
the movement is hardly so close as to warrant the hope that they will
be led to such a study of it as is now manifest among the jurists of
Germany. Yet no result is so much to be desired. In fact the whole
question belongs much more to the jurist and the politician than to
the theologian; although theological ideas are throughout employed as
the motive power.

Desirable as is the control of elections and of the Press, still
more desirable is that of universities, colleges, and schools, for
they now bear within their bosoms the electors and lawgivers, the
writers and readers who will hereafter mould statutes and determine
the temper of armies as well as their destination. The establishment
throughout Europe of universities canonically instituted was, at the
commencement of its career, pointed out by the _Civiltá_ as a leading
object in the movement it projected. When we trace with Ranke the Papal
restoration which in part repaired the great revolt of the sixteenth
century, we find that the greatest results of that movement were not
won till after a generation or two had passed away. It was only south
of the Pyrenees and the Alps that the arms of Charles V and Philip II
effectually stayed the Reformation. In central Europe and in France
the Bible, the school, and the Reformed Churches continued to spread
long after the Council of Trent. When the two princely youths Ferdinand
of Austria and Maximilian of Bavaria were still imbibing the Jesuit
lessons of Ingolstadt, the memory of Alva had long been execrated in
the Low Countries, and the songs of England had long thanked God for
the overthrow of the Armada. At the same time imperial cities on the
Danube, and castles in Austria, Styria, and Bohemia, were becoming
more and more centres of the Reformed doctrine. The decisive check
to the spread of that doctrine was not given till education had
done its work. Education did not supply the check otherwise than by
ensuring the command of the sword. The schoolmaster made the Thirty
Years' War. It was the teaching of Ingolstadt that trained Ferdinand
to the cool, conscientious, adroit, and unrelenting use of physical
force for the greater glory of God. No sooner had the young Archduke
begun to rule, than week after week, in one town or another, Styria
beheld the repression of the Reformed worship, till with quiet but
dreadful strength Ferdinand had shut up every heretical temple, "to
the astonishment of all Germany," as Schiller naïvely says. In this
manner did he kindle the flame; and at the end of thirty years the
Protestantism of Austria, Bohemia, Styria, and other states was no
more. This work went on till the revocation of the Edict of Nantes well
nigh accomplished for France what had been completely accomplished for
Austria by Ferdinand, and for Bavaria by Maximilian.

The fighting Company of Jesus now looks to a similar process for
results similar in nature, but on a wider scale. Colleges and high
schools are preparing young princes, nobles, and gentlemen to bear
the part of leaders, one at the Court, another in the parliament and
a third in the camp. Elementary schools are training the followers.
All round the Catholic horizon, in the literature of the new dominion,
one object looms up out of clouds of hazy words, dilates before the
imagination of the devout, and towers till others are dwarfed; and this
object is the Crusade of St. Peter. Lads with old blood in their veins
are learning how glorious it will be to lead a charge or to command a
division in the greatest of all Crusades, for the most glorious of all
restorations; and poor lads are learning how they that smite like Peter
Jong will win in death the palm of the martyr.

M. Veuillot's description of the duty of governments in respect of
education was terse: "To allow men to be made against this perpetual
plague of revolution." To do this, governments must set aside all
other moral authorities but one. The authority of parents may, indeed,
determine for their children questions of diet and of dress, of calling
or of fortune, but the priest is the father of the child's soul, and
must determine the whole of its moral regimen. In keeping with this,
the authorities of a parish or a commune, as representing the parents
of a neighbourhood; a corporation, as representing the parents of a
city; a legislature, as representing the parents of the whole land, can
nowhere else be so effectually shut out from the realm of morals as in
the school. Not, we would once more say, that the devout Ultramontane
believes that by shutting them out he is loosening moral ties, for
he thinks that by ensuring full scope to the sole authority, of the
priest, he best defends every moral right. The object of training
that union of families which we call a State, to regard itself as a
union without any higher end than a material one, having in it neither
divine office nor divine authority, is an object which cannot be so
impressively advanced by any other means as when, at the bidding of
priests, a government by law renounces control over the moral portion
of the training of its own citizens, conducted under its own direction
and paid for out of its own funds. The object of training the laity to
own that it is not for them to have any opinion as to what, in morals
or in faith, is true or false, or for them to assume any responsibility
as to what is right or wrong, saving always the responsibility of
fulfilling the directions of their spiritual guides, can never be more
effectually promoted than when the representatives of the households
of an entire community, having set up schools and provided for their
maintenance, hand over to priests the power to determine whether any
moral training shall be given in those schools or not, and, if any,
what. When all this can be carried out in the normal manner, matters
are so arranged that throughout the days of impressible youth, no
authority shall be heard of, as deciding any moral question, but
that of the priest of God. When circumstances prevent the normal
arrangements from being carried out, the way for them will be best
prepared by whatever compromise leads the State furthest away from
principles opposed to those of the Pontiff, and entangles it in what
is called a practical solution wherein his principles are, if only
virtually, conceded. In preparing such a solution, dangers to be
shunned by his agents are anything that would practically recognize the
right of parents, singly or collectively, to decide moral questions
for their children independently of the priests; anything that would
recognize in the laity a right of moral or religious self-direction;
anything that would, in practice, show that others than Romanists have
the power of uniting for moral and religious purposes; anything that
would allow the Bible to be honoured as a public standard without a
priest; anything that would embody the hateful and condemned principle
of the equality of different denominations before the law.

Bishop Reinkens has described what is the practical effect of the
training now being given to very large portions of the children in
Europe. It is, he says, to fix in the mind the conviction "that
Roman Catholics have a divinely guaranteed right, under certain
circumstances, violently to overturn existing authorities, and the
chiefs of those authorities, if they have only the power to do so,
and that it is an exercise of virtue to employ all means for that
end." Bishop Reinkens[490] asserts that what formerly was regarded as
a mere theory of the Curia is now its practice, namely, that, in the
language of John Capestrano, the Pope "can abrogate all human rights,"
and that "what has the force of law is just what is pleasing to him."
Even already, according to Bishop Reinkens, does the denominational
instruction given in schools in Germany justify the prediction of
Hefele to the effect that, for scholastic purposes, the new exaltation
of the Papal power would be made the primary dogma. The bishop solemnly
adds: "The divine power of the Pope over all human beings perplexes the
children in the schools; they early learn to obey the Vicegerent of God
against the empire and the emperor. In the superior schools, the higher
scholastic clergy attend to the same thing" (p. 8).

The most urgent question appears to be, How far will the control of
schools in France ultimately enable the priests to determine the
destination of French armies, and how far will their partial control
of schools in other countries enable them to support any movements
of France, so as to sway Roman Catholic governments, and to paralyse
even Protestant ones? The enthusiastic priest strangely exaggerates
the power of his order. The superficial politician no less strangely
underrates it. What we at present know is, not what the clerical party
will be able to accomplish, but the simple fact that the hold which it
now has upon schools in France, Spain, Germany, England, and elsewhere,
assures to it, in the next generation, a vast number of men trained
in the doctrine of the Syllabus, and imbued with the antipathies and
the hopes which, in the eye of a Jesuit, form the cardinal virtues of
a soldier of God. Jesuits are often very unsuccessful in training the
convictions, turning as they do many of their pupils into deadly foes.
But they seldom fail to train the antipathies. Hatred of scriptural
Christianity is almost invariably a ruling passion with both classes of
their pupils, the <DW7>s and the infidels. To all true disciples of
the new school, the holiest of public ends will be the reconstruction
of society in every country under the sky, according to the outline of
the Syllabus. In pursuit of that end all means will to them be not only
fair but meritorious, if adopted with a real intention to the greater
glory of God. And the States of Europe have put it into the power of
priests to train millions for the new school. And England has given
to the effort very considerable encouragement, though doubtless that
encouragement is praiseworthy in such eyes as those of the Marquis of
Ripon and Lord Robert Montagu, both of whom have held high place in our
department of education.

The _Stimmen aus Maria Laach_ met the first mutterings of discontent
with the Syllabus by saying that when those who, in pride of power,
were resisting its authority, had passed away, those judgments of the
Pontiff would be taught from every chair in the Catholic world. That
forecast is already fulfilled. The politics of the Syllabus and the
morals of teachers like Gury are now everywhere forming the clergy of
the future. And very carefully are the laity being trained in the same
principles, less expanded. To them the ideal of the one commonwealth,
with its one pastor-king, its unity of faith, its glory of ceremonial,
its divine law, and its supernatural magistracy, is made to appear as
the fairest of ideals, as one, indeed, truly divine. Many brave English
boys--heirs, some of them, to what once were noted Protestant names;
boys whose fathers or grandfathers our great schools and noblest
colleges trained up in gross ignorance of the principles that are
contending for the government of the world--are now imbibing from
continental priests principles and passions that will one day appear in
our mess-rooms and our legislature. And what are our great schools and
colleges even now doing to prepare our youth generally to understand
what the pupils of priests approve, what they condemn, and what they
mean when, to innocent Englishmen, they appear to assert one thing and
to deny another? Has the Papal cry for the exclusion of modern history
from national universities been met by any sensible attempt to teach
anything as to the elements struggling in contemporaneous history,
especially the most potent ones?

In that strange literature to which the Prefects of the Pope give the
name of pastorals, it is in mystic phrases often indicated that the
flocks of the bellicose shepherds are to be prepared for a terrific
combat. Sometimes the veil is dropped and in plain language war is
spoken of as the only means of avenging the Church for her wrongs. Men
called bishops in the vineyard of Jesus Christ speak of the mustering
of the opposed hosts, and of the inevitable collision, covering the
design of raising nation against nation, and of raising the people
against their own rulers, by allusions to the fact that in the
beginning the Church had to act without the kings, and that once more
she will be obliged to throw herself upon the people. In Protestant
countries, or in mixed ones, aged men in sacred vestments will say,
without a blush, that the Pope himself would not make war. But let only
a glimmer of political hope invite, and then kings and queens, ay,
ex-kings and ex-queens, are applied to; and could the Pope only find
bayonets, the same aged men in the same sacred vestments, and again
without a blush, would be heard proving that in making war the Pope was
only fulfilling a painful duty imposed upon him by his office as the
Vicar of Christ! At this day Europe witnesses a stage of the movement
of reconstruction, at which every cope and mitre in the Papal hierarchy
covers a centre of force impelling to a general war. Every grey-headed
bishop is an official promoter of a cataclysm that shall engulf all
that opposes the Syllabus. Every friar schoolmaster and every quiet
nun who teaches school is a trainer for future bloodshed. Even at his
audiences the man of more than fourscore years old fans the flame in
little children dressed as soldiers, sometimes the boys of English
converts; and convert fathers flatter him by hoping that their sons
will yet bear his banner, so are womanhood, childhood, and old age all
fascinated by the war passion of the priest.[491]

We do not pretend to know how it is calculated that the great struggle
is to be brought on. We should think that, confidently as its approach
is foretold, it must be doubtful to all but those whose faith rests
only on the divine destiny of the Papacy. Yet many who may not believe
that the Pope is about to recover Rome, and then to make Rome the
capital of the world, and who do not even believe that he will succeed
in bringing about a general struggle with a view to those ends, do
nevertheless fully believe that he will succeed in leading forth France
once more against the Italians, and that he will, in some general
complication, be able to find means of unsettling other interests so
as to advance his own. To this it is replied that the Jesuits who
foster these hopes are poor politicians; and that is perfectly true.
Yet they are skilled in intrigue, and versed in the ways of courts
and of cliques. They proudly note their hold upon schools in France,
their growing hold upon colleges, the zeal of General Charette and
his ex-pontifical zouaves, the military preaching of Count Mun, the
adhesion to the dominion of the Syllabus publicly signified by many
French generals whose names are trumpeted with a joyful noise; and with
special pride do they note such an incident as that which occurred at
a recent examination in the great military college of St. Cyr, when,
out of twenty-eight candidates for admission, no less than twenty-two
came from one Jesuit college. They note the clubs and associations
everywhere spreading; that of the Sacred Heart, said to number a
million of members; that of Jesu-Workmen and that of Jesu-King, meant
to organize in factory, workshop, and palace a company of soldiers as
true to the chair of St. Peter as the central Company of Jesus. They
note the numbers of the official class who believe that "moral order"
is to be promoted by the priests. They note the zeal of ladies, and of
the aristocracy.

Beyond those encouragements openly proclaimed, lies that mystery which,
in Roman Catholic countries, envelopes all Courts. At the time when
Thiers was taking counsel with Louis Philippe for the fortification of
Paris, or even when Guizot was making himself the tool of the court for
compassing the Spanish marriages, who would have dared to tell those
statesmen that both of them would survive to see the day when the fate
of France for peace or war, slipping out of the hands of an exhausted
Bonaparte, would virtually fall into those of one who was then a
Spanish girl in a private station, one whose very name was unknown to
the people of France? To this Court element of strange uncertainty--and
women and priests can weave webs around presidents as well as around
emperors--is to be added the solid fact that even Frenchmen, who hate
the priests and dread their politics, are not healed of the idea that
it is well to have weak neighbours, so divided that, at any time, an
invasion of their territory is more a matter of excitement than of
serious peril. Against all this what have we to set? Humanly speaking,
only the fund of good sense and good feeling which, in spite of all
appearances to the contrary, does exist among the French people to a
degree far greater than they who do not know them well can realize.
And beyond this, the good providence of God; for surely France is not
to become a second Spain, or else to be partitioned, one or other of
which lots would seem to be before her if the priests can drive her as
they hope to do.

The "good Press" gloats over every prospect of a general broil of
nations. The failure in 1870 of calculations as to what would occur in
the Catholic portions of Germany on the breaking out of a war between
France and Prussia, did not change the current of Ultramontane hope.
Any great conflict, it seems to be assumed, must somehow lead to a
restoration of the Pope. The poor old man has himself all along fed
a belief in the certainty of that restoration. At first he seemed to
emit tentative prophecies giving mystic hints of dates. Time blotted
out the dates hinted at. Then came declarations more general but
perhaps more impressive to the conscience of his disciples. On the
second anniversary of the Roman _plébiscite_, after many promises of
restoration had been long overdue, the aged high priest said to the
nobles of Rome--

    Yes, this change, this triumph is to come: and IT IS OF FAITH.
    Whether it is to come while I am living, while this poor Vicar of
    Jesus Christ is living, I know not. I know that it is to come. _The
    resurrection is to take place_, and this great impiety is to have
    an end (_Discorsi_, ii. p. 82).

When from the lips of the Pontiff speaking as Vicar of Jesus Christ
fall the words "It is of faith," it is hard to see how the body which
has now bound itself to take the faith from his lips can help accepting
them as a prophecy which that body is bound to see fulfilled. And it
is no insignificant proof of the portentous contents of that one dogma
called Papal infallibility that so soon after it had been adopted,
the creature invested by his fellow-creatures with such control over
them should, in the name of the meek Prince of Peace, commit what they
consider their faith to a temporal throne for a minister of the gospel.

On the very day on which the nobles received the above prophecy,
the same lips told the youths of the Catholic Association that the
faithful, now passing through the deep, would soon reach the further
shore of the Red Sea, and would cry with Moses, "We will sing unto
the Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider
hath He thrown into the sea." So were the Italians to fall, for as the
_Civiltá_ expresses it, "Which is of more account, the greatness of one
human kingdom, or the independence and the liberty of the kingdom of
God?" (X. ii. 143).

When the Pope said, The resurrection is to take place, he reflected
language used in an address presented to him a few days previously, on
the sad anniversary of the commencement of the "captivity," as it is
called, the second time it came round. The _Piana Federation_ said--

    Similar in your passion to the God-man of whom You are the Vicar on
    earth, the second day of Your mystic burial is fulfilled, amid the
    confusion of society and of Your impious guards, destined, in spite
    of themselves, and in the day which God shall appoint, to bear
    testimony to Your resurrection. In the august sepulchre wherein
    those whom You had laden with benefits have confined You, wrapped
    in the sweet spices of the lamentation and the love of Your sons,
    You also descend into the abyss of society as now existing, and
    there does Your voice resound, casting down the demons of sect, and
    consoling those who anxious and trembling await the blessed hour
    when with You they are to rise again. And the third day is already
    commencing; but, as it was not completed for the Divine Saviour,
    so have we confidence that no more will it be completed for You,
    O Holy Father: the prayers of the blessed Virgin whom You have so
    greatly honoured, the prayers of the Saints, Patrons of the Church
    and of Rome, with those of so many souls who suffer and who weep
    to obtain Your liberation, your triumph, will shorten this day of
    utmost anguish, and God, God whom your enemies do with Satanic
    impiety unceasingly defy, will not permit the day to close without
    having witnessed the fulfilment of the devout desires of Your
    sons.[492]

Notwithstanding these promises, not only did the third "day" run its
course but the sixth has set, with the Satanic guards still standing
around the august sepulchre. For six years Italy has held Rome as
her capital, and Pius IX has confined himself to the Vatican, making
speeches. But at this moment the hope of a general complication, and
of a restoration as the effect of it, is very likely. The present
obscuration of the Papacy is treated as if it were passing and light
as the shadow of an April cloud on the Alban Hills. The shadow will
pass and the hills will abide. Rome, for a moment the mere capital of
a kingdom, is to be the capital of the world. Let but the temporal
power be once restored, and then the steps to the universal theocratic
monarchy can be taken both with deeper secrecy and with greater force.

Even those who most despise the political influence of the priests must
own that for disturbance their power is great. Taking the sixty years
which have elapsed since the peace of 1815, let us, for a moment, look
at the Roman Catholic countries of Christendom, and at the non-Catholic
ones, in respect of the one blessing of public repose. In those
sixty years the three great Protestant powers--England, Prussia, and
America--have not drawn the sword one against the other. The smaller
Protestant powers have not fought among themselves. No Protestant
capital has undergone a foreign occupation. With the exception of
America, no Protestant State has been desolated by civil war. No
Protestant army has been given to military insurrection, or has, in the
day of trial, proved untrue. No Protestant sovereign has been expelled
by his own people. No Protestant President of a Republic has been
executed, or exiled, or condemned as a traitor. No Protestant monarchy
has been changed by violence into a republic; no Protestant republic
into a monarchy. If we set off as one against the other, the war of
German unity which partly occurred in the one group of States, and that
of Italian unity which occurred in the other group, the only case of
war between Protestant States, in the two generations, has been that of
Prussia and Denmark, and the only case of war between two great powers
non-Catholic has been that of Russia and England, in the Crimea. But
how has it been on the Papal side of the line?

No leading Catholic power can be named which has not within the sixty
years made war on other Catholic powers as well as on non-Catholic
ones. France has fought with Spain, with the Italians, with Austria,
as well as with Russia, with Prussia, with Holland, and has even gone
away to Mexico to seek a war of which the Vatican spoke as if it were
a campaign of the Church. Austria has fought with Italy and with
France, as well as with Prussia and with Denmark. As to the wars of
Catholic States in America with one another, they have been numerous.
Rome has undergone twenty years of foreign occupation; France has
undergone two; and Austria has had recourse to foreign intervention.
Civil war in Portugal, civil wars in Spain, civil war in Austria, civil
war repeatedly in Italy apart from the great war of unity, civil war
chronically in the American Catholic States, have made that plague
familiar in Roman Catholic countries. The foremost, and the least
priest-ridden of them, France, has had her three days of July, her
three days of February, her four darker days of June, her bloody days
of December, her awful weeks of the Commune. Military insurrections
properly so-called have not occurred in the great Catholic nations
that refused to submit to the disciplinary decrees of the Council of
Trent. But in Spain, Portugal, and the nations of America, military
insurrection, that worst of anarchies, seems to have acquired a sort
of prescriptive place in the Constitution. In Italy, till 1860, the
armies of the princes faithful to the Papacy were largely foreign.
As to conspiracies and risings, it is strange that where they have
occurred out of Roman Catholic States they have often been among the
Roman Catholic portion of the population; and in Roman Catholic States
they have been much more frequent within the circle of countries where
the decrees of Trent had been fully accepted, than in those which,
by Gallican liberties, Josephine laws, or in some other form, uphold
national supremacy. As to thrones in Roman Catholic countries, the
difficulty is to name those which during the sixty years have not been
emptied by violence; Austria and Sardinia, perhaps, exhaust the list,
in both of which, however, an abdication, compelled by misfortune,
has taken place. Twice has a limited monarchy, once an empire, and
once a republic, been overthrown in France by revolution. As to Spain
and South America, it were weary work to count up catastrophes.
The discrowned princes who, like ghosts, haunt Europe, and the
ex-presidents under ban who prowl in America, are nearly all Roman
Catholics.

Perhaps the entire course of history does not afford an example of any
contemporaneous development of four great Powers, bringing with it in
the aggregate such an increase of territory, population, and strength,
as that which within the sixty years since the peace of Vienna has
occurred in the case of the four non-Catholic Powers, Russia, Prussia,
America, and England. No corresponding development has taken place in
Roman Catholic or in Moslem nations. Italy, indeed, has risen up, but
only by breaking the yoke of the Papacy, and by swimming against a
sulphurous stream of anathemas.

It would be a curious and not altogether an idle speculation did some
clear-headed and calm economist carefully work out the question, What
would be the effect in the course of three hundred years, upon the
peace of Europe, on the bulk of standing armies, on the stability of
thrones, on the development of arts, sciences, laws, and morals, on the
security of life and property, and on the general spread of charity,
brotherhood, and virtue among men, supposing that by some unseen power
the hundreds of thousands of priests, now working to bring about the
dominion of the Pope over our species, could be instantly changed into
simple ministers of the gospel, without a political head or a political
aim, but each one seeking only to bring the wicked to repentance and to
lead the godly onward, adding virtue unto virtue and grace to grace?
Would the change bring France more wars and more revolutions? Would
the change make the new career opened to Italy more obscure or thorny?
Would the change make Austria feebler, or make Spain less united and
prosperous? Would it bring a blight upon Mexico? and in South America
would it make the rulers less tranquil, the people less obedient to
law, and less attached to order? Would the south and west of Ireland
less strongly attract capital and residence? Would Croatia be less
refined? Would the island of Sardinia be less highly civilized? Would
Sicily be less secure? Would the dominion of Canada be more difficult
to govern? Would the city of New York and other cities of the United
States in which the political power of priests is now formidable be
worse ordered and more corrupt? In Hayti and St. Domingo, would public
affairs be more unstable, would family life be more blameworthy?

Or conversely: What would be the effect of a change in the opposite
direction? Suppose that at once every Protestant minister could be
changed into a zealous priest, and that the Headship of the Pope
could exert its full influence unshackled by those restraints which
have hampered him ever since the Reformation--partly, indeed, ever
since the large-eyed man of Lutterworth brought into existence that
terrible thing the English Bible--and suppose that with all the
liberty of power and all the power of liberty he could rule over the
whole of Christendom as completely as he formerly ruled over his own
States, what would be the practical effect? Would Scotland produce
more authors, heroes, and worthies, fewer beggars, thieves, rioters,
and assassins, than she does to-day? Would England produce more good
landlords, more comfortable tenants, more honest merchants, more bright
men of letters and science, more deeds of Christian charity, and fewer
civil wars, fewer conspiracies, fewer insurrections, fewer military
revolts, fewer beggared nobles, and fewer ill-cultivated estates than
she does to-day? Would Germany be more united? Would Holland, Denmark,
and Sweden be more stable? Would the United States be more prosperous,
more free, and more peaceable? Would the British Colonies be increasing
tranquil and enlightened?

With the facts of the past, and the principles of the present which
are to be the plastic forces of the future, before him, a calm
and wide-minded observer, taking long stretches of time and great
varieties of circumstance to illustrate any hypothesis and to test
any conclusion, might form an estimate which would not be without a
properly scientific value. We are often told by one class of writers
that Roman Catholics are as good subjects as Protestants, and by
another that in proportion to their numbers they yield a much greater
amount of illiteracy, of turbulence, of pauperism, and of offences
against the law. These are points which statesmen have no right to
leave to theologians, and on which they have no right to remain
themselves in doubt. Above all, they have no right if not in doubt
about them, but if they have on sufficient grounds a clear opinion,
to keep that opinion back, or to cloud it by ambiguities. Both in
England and in America there are intelligent and loyal men who believe
that they are more burdened and that public law and order are less
well observed in proportion as priests have power over any section of
the population. These are questions of fact capable of a scientific
solution, and it is the duty of statesmen scientifically to solve them.
If the authorities, which are clearly natural and Christian, clearly
both divine and human, are undermined where priests do not rule and
are built up where they do, let statesmen tell mankind that it is so.
If the unnatural, the merely artificial authority of the priest is
proved, on a test of ages, of various races, and of various polities,
to be unfriendly rather than helpful to the stability and vigour of
lawful authority, then let all incumbents of that authority--kings,
presidents, nobles, lawgivers, magistrates, parents, and husbands--lift
up a clear voice, the voice of intelligent conviction, and tell all men
how the matter stands. "The sword of the mouth" is the only sword which
ought to be drawn in this war; and if they to whom God has given real
authority draw that sword against the spurious authority of the priest,
it will prevent the call which otherwise will surely come to draw a
feebler sword but a bloody one. Priestcraft, mighty against artifice,
subtle against force, invincible against compromise and subterfuge, is
strangely weak against a calm and Christian denial of its authority.

Long since this chapter was written, we find that the Italian journals
while noting the base immorality which week by week is brought to
light among the priests, and pointing to their multitude and the low
repute of many of them as a moral plague, now (1877) fasten upon them
even more than of wont charges of exciting anarchical conspiracies.
The _Emancipatore Cattolico_, the organ of what is called the Italian
National Catholic Church, formed by the priests who belonged to the
Society for the Emancipation and Mutual Aid of the Clergy, writes as
follows--

    The _red_ International, in appearance with a different end and
    program, but in reality in full accord with its _black_ sister,
    after the stimulus from the Vatican sets itself in motion, and
    lifts up its head.... We ask, Has the alliance of this double
    International a probability of success in a future nearer or more
    remote? We do not hesitate to reply affirmatively if the powers and
    States in the two hemispheres do not agree rather to overthrow the
    _black_ international which is the true and efficient cause of the
    other, than the _red_ which is the effect.... Christian governments
    of Europe, open your eyes! the international that truly menaces
    you, and that will undo you if you are not wise, is that of the
    Vatican. You accept it and smile upon it because you suppose it to
    be the conservator and champion of order and authority; but the
    order and the authority which it represents and champions are those
    of the absorption of all the social powers into the despotic and
    arbitrary will of a miserable mortal who believes himself to be
    God, and who as such imposes himself upon the entire universe.[493]

While these last sheets have been passing through the press, events
have occurred which illustrate many of the hints contained in this
chapter. Many who, when we first began to write this work, would have
seen nothing "practical" in that solemn hint of Vitelleschi when,
speaking of the frequent occurrence of disturbances at the same time
when the Church is pressing some point upon a government, he says that
the circumstance is an organic phenomenon deserving of the most serious
attention, now begin to feel that it is scarcely rational any longer to
be insensible to facts which day after day rise into the view of Europe.

In March 1877, Pius IX delivered a carefully-prepared Allocution, full
of bitter attacks on Italy, and manifestly intended to raise once more
the Roman Question. A feverish agitation becoming speedily discernible
in different countries, none could help noting the coincidence of the
two events. In Italy broke out an attempt at insurrection in Benevento,
professedly by socialists, but as the Italian papers believed fomented
and directed by priests. This was speedily followed by a vote of the
Italian Senate, by which that body threw out a Bill, that had been
passed by the Lower House, for restraining ministers of religion,
of all denominations, from certain abuses of their office. Italian
journals of different shades intimated their impression that this event
was solely due to the direct action of the Pope upon the king, and of
the king upon a number of courtier senators.

Shortly afterwards the Prime Minister of France, M. Jules Simon,
explained in debate, with all propriety of language, that the popular
idea about the Pope being a prisoner was unfounded. The Pope, in
that characteristic style which has never risen to the level even of
municipal, much less of national public life, stated that a certain
government had said that the Pope was a liar; and as if to rehabilitate
any one who might have been so impertinent, he added that he did not
know what government it was! Soon afterwards, on May 16, 1877, M. Simon
was abruptly dismissed by Marshal MacMahon, and the Assembly, of which
a majority supported M. Simon, was silenced by an enforced adjournment.
This pale edition of a _coup d'état_ was hailed and claimed by the
clerical papers as a direct result of the interference of the Pope. Its
ill effects in France forced upon many the reflection, how enviable is
the lot of nations in which the influence of the Pontiff is feeble, and
how well would it be with any nation in which that influence should be
_nil_!

Strange does it seem that the prophets of reconstruction should for
encouragement point more frequently to France and England than to
any other countries. To France they look for military service, to
England for religious converts. The one is to glorify the Church by
a sacred war, the other by an edifying submission. In France they
count upon the schoolmasters, the army, the ancient aristocracy, and
many of the politicians. In England they count upon that portion of
the clergy which they call the Puseyite party, upon a portion of the
aristocracy, upon the ceremonies in the churches, and the teaching
in the denominational schools. Grossly exaggerating, as they do, the
position and the influence of Cardinal Manning, and speaking at times
as if the whole English hierarchy, unable to face him, were trembling
and falling down before him, they also exaggerate the strides actually
made by the Ritualistic party in carrying the whole nation towards
submission to Rome. They boast, in the language of Dr. Newman, that
the English Church is, through that party, "doing our work;"[494] and
they always seem to have taken to heart the principle which he taught
them as long ago as 1841: "Only through the English Church can you act
upon the English nation."[495] They are not much read in our political
literature, and when they meddle with it, often make strange blunders.
But some of them are shrewdly aware of the services done to their cause
by writers who treat Ritualism as a matter of aesthetics, and treat
each particular ceremony as a trifle.

Looking back on the turns and windings of the movement for
reconstruction, and remembering how little human foresight would have
availed to predict either their successive phases or the results up to
the present hour, it is natural to feel that as to those further turns
and windings which as yet lie out of ken, hidden behind the veil of
an inscrutable Providence, it is not for us presumptuously to divine.
Rather would we, in humble hope, await the future, so far as to us it
may be permitted to witness its unfolding. In the sixty years since
the peace of Vienna the Papacy has passed through two distinct stages,
of thirty years each; the one up to the beginning of the present
pontificate, the other during the course of it. In the first thirty
years the flag displayed was that of Liberal Catholicism. During that
time the Papacy gained emancipation in England and Ireland, a footing
in the schools of France and Belgium, a repute of liberality and other
great advantages; while on the whole it held its ground in Italy,
Spain, Austria, and the minor States. But a true instinct taught the
Curia that temporary gain was preparing final ruin. Since 1849 the
policy has been reversed, and the external results to the Papacy so far
have been disadvantageous. "Catholic unity" has been lost in Italy,
Spain, Portugal, Austria, Mexico, Brazil, and elsewhere. In Poland the
losses to the Church have been immense, whether they may be due to the
persecuting policy of Russia, as the Catholic party alleges, or to the
rebellious excitements of the Pope and the priests, as others allege,
or to both these causes united, as seems most probable. In Switzerland
and Germany the Papacy has had heavy loss, and its future is gloomy.
In France it has made immense gains; in Ireland heavy loss; in England
gain, and that of the kind it values most--gain by the help of the
clergy, of the aristocracy, and of a great university. But still,
while the population of the United Kingdom has much increased, Pius
IX cannot count among the thirty millions now inhabiting it so many
Roman Catholics as he found among, say, five millions less. He has to
note a decrease in Poland concurrently with persecution, and one in
the British Isles concurrently with extended political privileges. The
Curia, if not unconscious of these losses, never confesses to them,
and avers that the increased compactness gained by recent changes
far more than compensates for any increased opposition, and in fact
insures the overthrow of all resisting forces; while the submission of
England--Queen, bishops, lords, and people--is spoken of as a thing
nigh at hand to the eye of faith. Firmly, however, do we believe that
in mercy to this great empire, within which dwells in peace and with
ample privileges a portion of mankind larger than ever before under one
sceptre enjoyed the blessings of free government, and in mercy also
to the whole redeemed race in the midst of which this empire holds a
place so influential and on the whole so beneficent, never will England
justify the promises of submission to the Pope wherewith continental
priests are wont to cheer the courage of their partisans, albeit they
proudly point to men in important places, and boast how the triumph of
the Vatican is being prepared under the patronage of both Church and
State.

All this notwithstanding, we do not believe that the English
commons are to be reduced into a populace without constitutional
representation; or that the English aristocracy is to be reduced
into an order of nobles without constitutional powers; or that our
magistracy, from squire up to chancellor, is to be put under the
bishops' courts; or that our chairs of philosophy, science, and
literature are to be placed under the tutelage of chairs of theology
filled by Jesuits, or by men of whom Jesuits approve; or that our
universities are to be placed under Romish canon law; or that the
priest, to the exclusion of the State and of the laity, is to be made
as completely moral lord of all the schools in England as he is now of
his denominational schools; or that the works of our authors are to
wait till a Dominican has cut out what he deems amiss, and has written
on the remainder _Imprimatur_; or that our printers are to wait for a
licence from the friars; or that our journals and periodicals are to
be cut down to the proportions which were allowed to the Press in the
Model State; or that our armies are to be composed of men so schooled
that to them the word of the priest shall take the lawful command
out of the lips of the king. No more do we believe that from these
English shores the dear old English Bible is to be driven away as a
forbidden book. Neither do we believe that for these fair fields of
Britain that dark Saturday night is to come after which will no more
dawn the English Sunday morning--a morning when streets thronged and
country lanes enlivened with families wending their way to worship
God, each as led by the voice of conscience, and each jealous for the
religious liberty of its neighbours as well as for its own, present a
more Christian-like and more solid display of unity in variety, and of
catholicity in charity, than ever can be gained by any preciseness of
constrained uniformity. Never will our own happy Sunday morning cease
to shine; never instead of it will a dismal day come when the sound
of the church-going bell shall be the signal of physical force, and
when every one whose conscience will not let him obey the official call
shall be spied out by the familiars of the Inquisition.

When priests tell Englishmen that such things as are here indicated
are not really embraced within the ultimate objects of their movement,
they well know that they can deceive only those who have not sought
out their principles at the fountain. And under all their illusions,
they must surely have some consciousness that such as have done so can
feel but shame and pity when they see any man, born to the blessings
of English citizenship, sinking to a moral level at which he becomes
capable of attempting to move the noble power of Britain to abet the
crime of once more imposing by fire and sword upon Italy the domination
of the Pontiff; and who, indeed, even to that can add the second crime
of endeavouring to throw back the families of this goodly realm to the
same condition as that in which the people of the Papal States lay
before their yoke was broken. These things would be mournful, but no
more than mournful, did the guilt of them rest only upon one English
soul in which still survived a clear consciousness of how repugnant
they were to religion and to morals, how offensive to humanity, how
subversive of good order; for when conscience still spoke, repentance
might be at hand. But such things become more than sad, they become
really formidable, when conscience itself is so warped that it learns
to acquit them of all guilt--learns even to regard them as actions
in which the violence and bloodshed proposed are sanctioned by
religion, and become works of Christian merit; and in which the changes
contemplated would, if indeed hurtful to nations in things temporal, be
for their eternal weal.

In this land of manifold privilege hereafter, as in the time gone by,
yea, more than in the time gone by, will the people fear God, honour
the king, and prize the family Bible. They will hereafter, more than
heretofore, send forth into every region under heaven their happy
sons, bearing the glorious gospel of the blessed God, and with swift
feet running to tell to all men the way of salvation. In England, in
Ireland, and in Scotland; in every place where our own blood flows
in the veins of kinsmen; in every broad State of the Transatlantic
Union; in every thriving colony that boasts the British name--may the
Churches dwell together in unity--may the people grow in wisdom, in
virtue, and in faith! May this realm hereafter afford an example of
laws being evermore ameliorated under the leavening influence of the
kingdom which cannot be moved, of manners ever becoming purer, and of
blest contentment growing, year after year, in households over every
one of which shall hover the more than earthly charm of domestic
bliss, hallowed at the family altar! And may the remote descendants of
Victoria and Albert reign, in the love of God and in the love of man,
as Christian princes over a happy Christian people, and age after age
may the throne be established in righteousness!


GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 485: See _Civiltá_ VIII. i. 46.]

[Footnote 486: Quoted in _Le Concile du Vat. et le Mouvement
Infaillibiliste_, p. 62.]

[Footnote 487: _Civiltá Cattolica_, passim, especially the number of
December 16, 1876.]

[Footnote 488: VIII. i. 421.]

[Footnote 489: Italian papers sometimes give the total number of
journals on the Continent pledged to the Pope as 580, and of these 258
as published in Germany alone.]

[Footnote 490: _Revolution und Kirche_, p. 5.]

[Footnote 491: At the last moment of reviewing this chapter, before
sending it to press, months after it was written, we find Italian
and French journals ringing with language ascribed to a Bishop in a
pastoral, which may pass as an example of the work which the officials
styled bishops are preparing for Europe. He describes his entrance
into the Vatican, his finding the Swiss guards and the manners of
another age, and proceeds: "Pius IX is still a king, even in the eyes
of his enemies and of his spoilers. They are obliged to admit that
the unity of Italy is not effected, that the temporal power is to be
re-established, and that after some _profound commotions which, it may
be, will entomb many an army and many a crown_, there will be heard
among the nations, from one end of Europe to the other, a single cry,
Restore Rome to its ancient lords; Rome belongs to the Pope, Rome
belongs to God."]

[Footnote 492: _Discorsi_, ii. p. 70. The capitals to the "divine
pronouns" are not ours.]

[Footnote 493: _L'Emancipatore Cattolico_: Napoli, Anno XVI, No. 14.]

[Footnote 494: _Apologia_, Appendix, p. 27.]

[Footnote 495: Ibid., p. 313.]




APPENDIX A

THE SYLLABUS WITH THE COUNTER PROPOSITIONS OF SCHRADER

_By reading the latter in the right-hand column the view which the
Church asserts is at once obtained_


 SYLLABUS OF THE PRINCIPAL                PROPOSITIONS OF FATHER SCHRADER,
 ERRORS OF OUR TIME, WHICH                being in each case the
 ARE STIGMATIZED IN THE CONSISTORIAL      logical _contrary_ or
 ALLOCUTIONS, ENCYCLICAL                  _contradictory_ of the
 AND OTHER APOSTOLICAL                    propositions condemned; and
 LETTERS OF OUR MOST                      therefore, being those which
 HOLY LORD, POPE PIUS IX.[496]            the Church would assert as
                                          opposed to those denied. Schrader
                                          says, "The _contradictory_,
                                          and not the _contrary_, is to be
                                          taken by the Catholic as the rule
                                          to guide his thoughts, words,
                                          and actions, as to the sense in
                                          which the several errors must
                                          be considered as being rejected,
                                          forbidden, and condemned
                                          according to the will and command
                                          of the Pope." Schrader
                                          himself, however, sometimes
                                          gives what is clearly not the
                                          _contradictory_ but the
                                          _contrary_.


 SECT. I.--_Pantheism, Naturalism,        SECT. I.--_Pantheism, Naturalism,
 and Rationalism Absolute._               Absolute Rationalism._

                                          (_Note of Schrader_.--Absolute
                                          rationalism is that error which
                                          holds that revelation is
                                          impossible.)

 1. There exists no Divine                1. There is one most high,
 Power, Supreme Being, Wisdom             all-wise, all-provident, and
 and Providence distinct from the         divine Being, distinct from this
 universe, and God is none other          universe of things; and God is
 than nature, and is therefore            not the same as nature, and
 mutable. In effect, God is produced      therefore not subject to change.
 in man and in the world,                 God does not actually come into
 and all things are God and have          existence in men and in the
 the very substance of God. God           world. All is not God and has not
 is, therefore, one and the same          the proper essence of God. God is
 thing with the world, and thence         not one and the same with the
 mind is the same thing with              world, and hence mind is not the
 matter, necessity with liberty,          same as matter, necessity not the
 true with false, good with evil,         same as freedom, truth not the
 justice with injustice.                  same as falsehood, good not the
                                          same as evil, nor righteousness
                                          the same as unrighteousness.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But God
                                          is in man and in the world,
                                          because He is omnipresent.)

 2. All action of God upon man            2. All operation of God upon
 and the world is to be denied.--(All.    the world and upon man is not to
 _Maxima quidem_, June 9,                 be denied.
 1862.)

 3. Human reason, without any             3. Human reason is not to be
 regard to God, is the sole arbiter       the arbiter of truth and
 of truth and falsehood, of good          falsehood, of good and evil,
 and evil; it is its own law to itself,   without any regard to God. It is
 and suffices by its natural force to     not a law to itself; and it is
 secure the welfare of men and of         not sufficient, by its native
 nations.                                 powers, to provide forthe welfare
                                          of man and of nations.

 4. All the truths of religion are        4. All the truths of religion do
 derived from the innate strength         not flow from the natural force
 of human reason, whence reason           of human reason; therefore reason
 is the master rule by which man          is not the highest rule by which
 can and ought to arrive at the           men may arrive at the knowledge
 knowledge of all truths of every         of truths of every kind.
 kind.

 5. Divine revelation is imperfect,       5. Divine revelation is not
 and, therefore, subject to a             imperfect, and therefore is
 continual and indefinite progress        not subject to a continual and
 which corresponds with the progress      unlimited progress which would
 of human reason.                         respond to the progress of human
                                          reason.

 6. Christian faith is in opposition      6. The Christian faith is not
 to human reason, and                     contradictory to human reason;
 divine revelation not only does not      and the divine revelation not
 benefit, but even injures the            only is no hindrance to human
 perfection of man.                       perfection, but is serviceable
                                          to it.

 7. The prophecies and miracles           7. The prophecies and miracles
 told and narrated in the Sacred          reported and related in Holy
 Scriptures are the fictions of poets,    Scripture are no inventions of
 and the mysteries of the Christian       poets; and the mysteries of faith
 faith are the result of philosophical    are not the sum of philosophical
 investigations. In the books of          research. In the books of the two
 the two Testaments there are contained   Testaments there are no mythical
 mythical inventions, and                 inventions, and Jesus Christ
 Jesus Christ is Himself a mythical       Himself is not a mythical
 fiction.                                 fiction.


 SECT. II.--_Rationalism moderate._       SECT. II.--_Moderate
                                          Rationalism._

                                          (_Note of Schrader._--Moderate
                                          rationalism is the error of those
                                          who do not hold revelation to be
                                          impossible, but would have it
                                          subjected to reason.)

 8. As human reason is placed             8. As human reason may not be
 on a level with religion, so             placed on a level with religion,
 theological systems must be treated      theological studies are not to be
 in the same manner as philosophical      treated exactly as philosophical
 ones.                                    ones.

 9. All the dogmas of the Christian       9. All doctrines of the Christian
 religion are, without exception,         religion are not, without
 the object of natural science            distinction, subjects for
 or philosophy; and human reason,         natural science or for
 instructed solely by history, is         philosophy, and human reason
 able by its own natural strength         cannot from its natural powers
 and principles to arrive at the          and principles arrive at the
 true knowledge of even the most          knowledge of all, even the most
 abstruse dogmas, such dogmas             obscure, dogmas, if such dogmas
 being proposed as subject-matter         be only proposed to reason as its
 for the reason.                          object.

                                          (_Note of Author of the present
                                          work._--In this proposition
                                          Schrader omits one clause of the
                                          original--_Historice tantum
                                          exculta_. This is evidently a
                                          mere oversight. These words
                                          should come after "human
                                          reason.")

 10. As the philosopher is one            10. Although the philosopher is
 thing and philosophy is another,         one thing and philosophy another,
 so it is the right and duty of the       the former has not only the right
 philosopher to submit himself to         and the duty to subject himself
 the authority which he shall have        to the authority which he
 recognized as true; but philosophy       recognizes as true, but also
 neither can nor ought to submit          philosophy itself can and must
 to any authority.                        submit to authority.

 11. The Church not only ought            11. The Church must not only
 never to animadvert upon philosophy,     sometimes proceed against
 but ought to tolerate the                philosophy, but she must not
 errors of philosophy, leaving to         tolerate the errors of philosophy
 philosophy the care of their             itself, and must not leave it to
 correction.                              correct itself.

 (_Remark of Author of the present_       (_Remark of Schrader._--The
 _work._--"Animadvert" is the             Church has the right and the
 reproduction of the original word,       duty of proceeding against false
 not the English of it. The French        philosophy. She must not tolerate
 renders it _sévir_, to act rigorously    the errors of his philosophy, but
 towards; the German, _vorgehen           must expose them to it, and
 gegen_, to proceed against; the          demand from it that it put itself
 Italian,_corregere_, to correct,         into harmony with revealed
 making it synonymous with "correct" in   truth.)
 the last clause. Even the maddest
 theorist would hardly deny to the
 Church the right to"animadvert upon
 philosophy" to her heart's content.)

 12. The decrees of the Apostolic         12. Decrees of the Apostolic
 See and of the Roman Congregations       See, and of the Roman
 fetter the free progress                 Congregations, do not hinder the
 of science.                              free progress of science.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Because
                                          the Apostolic See is appointed by
                                          God Himself as the teacher and
                                          defender of the truth.)

 13. The method and principles            13. The method and the principles
 by which the old scholastic doctors      according to which the old
 cultivated theology are no longer        scholastic doctors pursued the
 suitable to the demands of the age       study of theology completely
 and the progress of science.             correspond with the wants of our
                                          time and with the progress of
                                          science.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--They have
                                          been frequently quoted by the
                                          Church with the highest
                                          expressions of praise, and have
                                          been earnestly recommended as the
                                          strongest shield of faith, and
                                          as formidable armour against its
                                          enemies, and have been
                                          productive of great utility and
                                          splendour to science, and
                                          perfectly correspond with the
                                          wants of all time and the
                                          progress of science.)

 14. Philosophy must be treated           14. Philosophy must not be
 of without any account being             pursued without regard to
 taken of supernatural                    supernatural revelation.
 revelation.--(Id., ibid.)

 N.B.--To the rationalistic system        N.B.--The errors of Antony
 belong in great part the errors          Günther for the most part were
 of Antony Günther, condemned in          connected with a system of
 the letter to the Cardinal Archbishop    rationalism, which errors were
 of Cologne, _Eximiam tuam_,              rejected in a brief to the
 June 15, 1847; and in that to the        Archbishop of Cologne, and
 Bishop of Breslau, _Dolore haud_         _Eximiam tuam,_ June 15, 1847;
 _mediocri_, April 30, 1860.              in the brief to the Bishop of
                                          Breslau, _Dolore_ _haud
                                          mediocri_, April 30, 1860.

 SECT. III.--_Indifferentism              SECT III.--_Indifferentism and
 --Toleration._                           Latitudinarianism._

 (_Note of Author of the present_         (_Note of Schrader._--
 _work._--The original word is not        Latitudinarianism is that error
 _toleration_, but, as Schrader gives     which although it does not
 it, _latitudinarianism_.)                declare all religions to be alike
                                          good, yet does not hold the
                                          Catholic Churcht to be the only
                                          one which brings salvation.)

 15. Every man is free to embrace         15. Every man is not entitled
 and profess the religion he              to embrace and to profess that
 shall believe true, guided by the        religion which he may hold for
 light of reason.                         the true one, led by the light
                                          of reason.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But he
                                          must embrace the revealed truth
                                          in the Catholic religion.)

 16. Men may in any religion              16. Men cannot find the way of
 find the way of eternal salvation,       eternal salvation, and obtain
 and obtain eternal salvation.            eternal blessedness, in the
                                          practice of every kind of
                                          religion.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--For it
                                          is to be held as of faith that
                                          out of the Apostolic Romish
                                          Church no one can be saved.)

 17. The eternal salvation may            17. The eternal salvation of all
 at least be hoped for of all those       those who do not live in any way
 who are not at all in the true           in the true Church of Christ is
 Church of Christ.                        not to be hoped for.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But only
                                          are we to admit that they who
                                          suffer from ignorance of the
                                          true religion are not held
                                          guilty on that account
                                          before God if their ignorance be
                                          invincible.)

 18. Protestantism is nothing             18. Protestantism is not merely
 more than another form of the            a different form of the same
 same true Christian religion, in         Christian faith; and it is not
 which it is possible to please God       given to be equally well pleasing
 equally as in the Catholic Church.       to God as in the Catholic Church.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But it
                                          is a falling away from the full
                                          revealed truth.)


 SECT. IV.--_Socialism, Communism,        SECT. IV.--_Socialism, Communism,
 Secret Societies, Biblical               Secret Societies, Bible Societies
 Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies._   Liberal Clerical Associations._

 Pests of this description are            (_Note of Schrader._--Liberal
 frequently rebuked in the severest       Catholic associations mean
 terms in the Encyc. _Qui pluribus_,      associations of Italian priests
 November 9, 1846; All. _Quibus           who are enthusiastic for a free
 quantisque_, April 20, 1849; _Encyc.     Church in a free State. Such
 Noscitis et nobiscum_, December 8        pests have often, and in the
 1849; All. _Singulari quadam_,           severest words, been condemned,
 December 9, 1854; Encyc. _Quanto_        as in the Epist. Encycl.
 _conficiamur mærore_, August 10,         _Qui pluribus_, Nov. 9, 1846;
 1863.                                    in Alloc. _Quibus quantisque_,
                                          April 20, 1849; in Epist. Encycl.
                                          _Noscitis et nobiscum_, Dec. 8,
                                          1849; in Alloc. _Singulari
                                          quadam_, Dec. 9, 1854; in Epist.
                                          Encycl. _Quanto   conficiamur
                                          mærore_, Aug. 10, 1863.)


 SECT. V.--_Errors concerning the         SECT. V.--_Errors respecting the
 Church and her Rights._                  Church and her Rights._

 19. The Church is not a true             19. The Church is a true and
 and perfect and entirely free            perfect society, entirely free,
 association: she does not enjoy          and possesses her proper and
 peculiar and perpetual rights            permanent rights granted to her
 conferred upon her by her Divine         by her divine Founder, and it
 Founder, but it appertains to the        does not belong to the State to
 civil power to define what are the       define what are the rights of the
 rights and limits within which the       Church, and what are the limits
 Church may exercise authority.           within which she can exercise
                                          them.

 20. The ecclesiastical power             20. The Church may use her
 must not exercise its authority          authority without the permission
 without the toleration and assent        or consent of the State.
 of the civil government.

 21. The Church has not the               21. The Church has the power
 power of defining dogmatically           dogmatically to decide that the
 that the religion of the Catholic        religion of the Catholic Church
 Church is the only true religion.        is the only true religion.

 22. The obligation which binds           22. The obligation which
 Catholic teachers and authors            completely binds Catholic
 applies only to those things which       teachers and authors must not be
 are proposed for universal belief        limited only to subjects which
 as dogmas of the faith by the            are propounded to all, to be
 infallible judgment of the Church.       believed as articles of faith by
                                          an infallible utterance of the
                                          Church.

 23. The Roman Pontiffs and               23. The Pope of Rome and the
 OEcumenical Councils have exceeded       General Councils have not
 the limits of their power,               exceeded the limits of their
 have usurped the rights of princes,      power. They have not usurped
 and have even committed errors in        the rights of princes, and in
 defining matters of faith and            defining doctrines of faith and
 morals.                                  morals they have not erred.

 24. The Church has not the               24. The Church has the power
 power of availing herself of force       to use external force. She has
 or of any direct or indirect             also a direct and an indirect
 temporal power.                          temporal power.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Not minds
                                          merely are subject to the power
                                          of the Church.)

 25. In addition to the authority         25. Beyond the power inherent
 inherent in the Episcopate, further      in the Episcopate no other
 temporal power is granted to it by       temporal power has been conceded
 the civil authority either expressly     to it by the State either
 or tacitly, which power is on that       expressly or tacitly, and
 account also revocable by the civil      therefore not any power which
 authority whenever it pleases.           the government of the State can
                                          at its pleasure withdraw.

 26. The Church has not the               26. The Church has an innate
 natural and legitimate right of          and legitimate right of
 acquisition and possession.              acquisition and possession.

 27. The ministers of the Church          27. The ordained servants of
 and the Roman Pontiff ought to           the Church and the Roman Pontiff
 be absolutely excluded from all          are by no means to be excluded
 charge and dominion over temporal        from all control and dominion
 affairs.                                 over temporal affairs.

 28. Bishops have not the right           28. Bishops themselves may
 of promulgating even their apostolical   publish apostolical letters
 letters without the sanction             without permission of the
 of the government.                       government of the State.

 (_Remark of Author of the present
 work._--Apostolic Letters mean Papal
 not episcopal manifestoes; therefore
 the expression "their apostolic
 letters" is not clear, and is not in the
 Latin.)

 29. Dispensations granted by             29. Graces granted by the Pope
 the Roman Pontiff must be considered     are not to be regarded as invalid
 null, unless they have been              if they are not requested by the
 requested by the civil government.       government of the State.

 30. The immunity of the                  30. The immunity of the
 Church and of ecclesiastical persons     Church and of ecclesiastical
 derives its origin from civil            persons has not its origin in
 law.                                     civil law.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But has
                                          its root in the proper rights
                                          of the Church granted her by
                                          God.)

 31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for      31. Spiritual jurisdiction for
 the temporal causes, whether civil       temporal causes of the clergy,
 or criminal, of the clergy, ought        both civil and criminal, is not,
 by all means to be abolished even        by any means, to be abolished,
 without the concurrence and against      and not without consulting the
 the protest of the Holy See.             Apostolic See or against its
                                          protest.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--For it
                                          is founded in the proper right
                                          of the Church, and can be handed
                                          over to the temporal tribunals
                                          only through the express consent
                                          of the Pope.)

 32. The personal immunity exonerating    32. The abolition of the
 the clergy from military                 exemption of the clergy and
 service may be abolished without         students for the priesthood from
 violation either of natural right or     military service cannot take
 of equity. Its abolition is called       place without a violation of
 for by civil progress, especially in     natural right and of justice;
 a community constituted upon             and the progress of the State
 principles of liberal government.        does not demand its abolition,
                                          especially in a State which
                                          is constituted with a free
                                          government.

 (_Note of Author of the present          (_Remark of Schrader._--The
 work._--Most English translations        abolition of the personal
 make this apply not to students for      exemption of from military
 the priesthood, but only to the          service violates not only
 clergy. The word in the original is      natural right and justice,
 not _clerus_, but _clericus_,            but also the rights of the
 which certainly in Rome means not        Church. The progress of the State
 only a clergyman, but also one           does not only not demand it, but
 in training for the clerical             is opposed to it; and the more
 office.)                                 freely a society is constituted,
                                          so much the more must it respect
                                          the personal exemption of the
                                          clergy and the student for the
                                          priesthood from the military
                                          service.)

 33. It does not appertain exclusively    33. It belongs exclusively to the
 to ecclesiastical jurisdiction           power of ecclesiastical
 by any right proper and                  jurisdiction, and that of proper
 inherent, to direct the teaching of      and innate right, to control
 theological subjects.                    theological studies.

 34. The doctrine of those who            34. The doctrine which compares
 compare the Sovereign Pontiff to         the Roman Pontiff to a free
 a free sovereignty acting in the         prince employing his own power
 Universal Church in the middle           in the Church, is not a doctrine
 which prevailed in the middle            which prevailed only in the
 ages only.                               middle ages.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But is
                                          one which corresponds with the
                                          constitution of the Church,
                                          and therefore must prevail in
                                          all times.)

 35. There would be no obstacle           35. There are grounds which
 to the sentence of a General             forbid that either through the
 Council or the act of all the            decisions of a General Council
 universal peoples transferring the       or the act of all nations the
 pontifical sovereignty from the          pontificate should be withdrawn
 Bishop and city of Rome to some          from the Bishop of Rome, and
 other bishopric and some other           handed over to another bishop
 city.                                    or another city.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Neither
                                          through the decision of a
                                          General Council, nor through the
                                          deed of all nations, can it be
                                          over thrown that the pontificate
                                          is given to the Bishop of Rome
                                          and to the city of Rome.)

 36. The definition of a National         36. The decision of a National
 Council does not admit of any            Council does admit of further
 subsequent discussion, and the           discussion; and the government
 civil power can settle an affair as      of a State cannot submit any
 decided by such National Council.        matter to this decision.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--The
                                          decision of a National Council
                                          requires in order to its
                                          validity the consent and
                                          confirmation of the Holy See;
                                          and the government of the State
                                          cannot appeal to the decision
                                          of a National Council as the
                                          ultimate tribunal, but must
                                          appeal to that of the See of
                                          Rome.)

 37. National Churches can be             37. No National Churches can
 established after being withdrawn        be erected which are withdrawn
 and separated from the authority         from the authority of the Pope of
 of the Roman Pontiff.                    Rome, and fully separated from
                                          him.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--National
                                          Churches which are withdrawn
                                          from the authority of the Pope
                                          of Rome, and fully separated
                                          from him, cannot be set up;
                                          because that is no less
                                          than rending and breaking up the
                                          unity of the Catholic Church, and
                                          because the power and manner of
                                          this unity imperatively require
                                          that as the members are connected
                                          with the head, so all believers
                                          upon earth must be united with,
                                          and joined to, the Roman
                                          Pontiff, who is the viceregent of
                                          Christ upon earth.)

 38. Many Roman Pontiffs have,            38. The excessive and arbitrary
 by their too arbitrary conduct,          acts of the Roman Pontiffs have
 contributed to the division of the       had no part in bringing about the
 Church into Eastern and                  division of the Church into
 Western.                                 Eastern and Western.


 SECT. VI.--_Errors about Civil           SECT. VI.--_Errors relating to
 Society, considered both in itself       Civil Society, both in itself and
 and in its relation to the Church._      in itsrelations with the Church._

 39. The State is the origin and          39. The State does not possess
 source of all rights, and possesses      as the origin and fountain of all
 rights which are not circumscribed       rights an unbounded right.
 by any limits.
                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--The
                                          State is not the origin and
                                          fountain of all rights, and
                                          hence does not possess
                                          any unbounded right.)

 40. The teaching of the Catholic         40. The doctrine of the Catholic
 Church is opposed to the wellbeing       Church is not contrary to the
 and interests of society.                welfare and advantage of human
                                          society.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But even
                                          helpful to it.)

 41. The civil government, even           41. The State has not a direct
 when exercised by an infidel             and positive nor an indirect and
 sovereign, possesses an indirect         negative right in religious
 and negative power over religious        things, and still less when its
 affairs. It therefore possesses not      power is wielded by an
 only the right called that of            unbelieving prince. It has
 _exequatur_, but also that of the        neither the right of _exequatur_
 (so-called) _appellatio ab abusu_.       nor the right of _appellatio_
 ["_Appel comme d'abus_."]                which is called _ab abusu_.

 42. In the case of conflicting           42. In case of conflict between
 laws between the two powers, the         the laws of the two powers, the
 civil law ought to prevail.              temporal law does not prevail.

 43. The lay power has the authority      43. The temporal authority has
 to rescind, declare, and                 not the power to revoke solemn
 render null solemn conventions or        treaties commonly called
 _concordats_ relating to the use of      concordats, which have been made
 rights appertaining to ecclesiastical    with the Holy See in respect to
 immunity, without the consent            the exercise of the rights of
 of the Apostolic See, and                immunity without its consent
 even in spite of its protests.           ecclesiastical or against its
                                          opposition, nor the right to
                                          declare or make them void.

 (_Note of Author of the present work._
 --It is noteworthy that while in
 Rome the doctrine of concordats, as
 taught by Tarquini and in the pages
 of the _Civiltá_, was that they were not
 bipartite treaties, but laws issued by
 the Pontiff at the instance of the
 temporal prince, in Austria and
 Germany, Schrader and Bishop Martin
 (see his _Katechismus des Kirchenrechts_),
 in order to uphold concordats,
 taught that they were solemn
 treaties.)

 44. The civil authority may              44. The authority of the State
 interfere in matters related to          cannot interfere in matters of
 religion, morality, and spiritual        religion or morals, or of
 government, whence it has control        spiritual government. It cannot
 over the instructions for the            therefore judge of the
 guidance of consciences issued,          admonitions which chief pastors
 conformably with their mission,          of the Church in pursuance of
 by the pastors of the Church.            their office issue as a rule for
 Further, it possesses power to           the guidance of consciences.
 decree in the matter of administering    Also it cannot decide upon the
 the Divine Sacraments and                administration of the Holy
 as to the dispositions necessary for     Sacraments nor the dispositions
 their reception.                         necessary to their reception of
                                           them.

 45. The entire direction of public       45. The entire direction of
 schools in which the youth of            public schools in which the
 Christian States are educated,           youth of a Christian State are
 except (to a certain extent) in the      educated, excepting episcopal
 case of episcopal seminaries, may        seminaries in some particulars,
 and must appertain to the civil          cannot and must not be given to
 power, and belong to it so far that      the State, even so that no right
 no other authority whatsoever            of any other authority to
 shall be recognized as having any        interfere in the discipline of
 right to interfere in the discipline     the school, in the arrangement
 of the schools, the arrangement of       of studies, in the conferring of
 the studies, the taking of degrees,      degrees, or in the choice and
 or the choice and approval of the        approval of teachers can be
 teachers.                                recognized.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--The
                                          supreme direction of public
                                          schools in which the youth of
                                          a Christian State are educated
                                          _pertains to the Church_. It is
                                          her duty to watch over all public
                                          and private schools, so that in
                                          the entire school system, but
                                          especially in what relates to
                                          religion, teachers may be
                                          appointed and books may be
                                          employed which shall be free
                                          from every suspicion of error;
                                          and that thus masters and
                                          mistresses of the most
                                          approved rectitude may behosen
                                          for the schools of the children
                                          and youth in the earliest years.
                                          The Church would act against the
                                          commands of her Divine Founder,
                                          and would be unfaithful to her
                                          most important duty committed
                                          to her by God, to care for the
                                          salvation of the souls of all
                                          men, if she gave up or
                                          interrupted her wholesome
                                          ruling influence over the
                                          primary schools, and she would
                                          be compelled to warn all
                                          believers and to declare
                                          to them that schools out of which
                                          the authority of the Church is
                                          driven, are schools hostile to
                                          the Church, and cannot be
                                          attended with good conscience.)

 46. Further, even in clerical             46. The direction of studies in
 seminaries, the mode of study to          clerical seminaries is in no
 be adopted must be submitted to           way in the hands of the State
 the civil authority.                      authority.

 47. The best theory of civil society     47. The best mode of regulating
 requires that popular schools            a State does not demand that the
 open to the children of all classes,     national schools, which are open
 and, generally, all public institutes    to all classes of the community,
 intended for the instruction in          and generally public institutions
 letters and philosophy and for           destined for the higher
 conducting the education of the          scientific instruction, and the
 young, should be freed from all          education of youth, should be
 ecclesiastical authority, government,    withdrawn from all ecclesiastical
 and interference, and should             authority, and completely handed
 be completely subjected to the           over to the direction of the
 civil and political power in             temporal and political authority,
 conformity with the will of rulers       and should be conducted according
 and the prevalent opinions of the        to the pleasure of the government
 age.                                     and the standard of current
                                          opinion.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Such a
                                          corrupting method of instruction
                                          separated from the Catholic faith
                                          and the influence of the Church
                                          already exists, is of great
                                          disadvantage to individuals and
                                          society in respect to learned and
                                          scientific instruction, and to
                                          the education of youth in public
                                          schools and institutions destined
                                          for the higher classes of
                                          society. But still greater evils
                                          and disadvantages spring out of
                                          this method if it is
                                          introduced into the national
                                          schools; and all efforts and
                                          attempts to exclude the influence
                                          of the Church from national
                                          schools emanate from a spirit
                                          extremely hostile to the Church,
                                          as from all the efforts to
                                          extinguish the light of our most
                                          holy faith among the people.)

 48. This system of instructing           48. Catholic men cannot put up
 youth, which consists in separating      with a kind of education of youth
 it from the Catholic faith and           which is entirely separated from
 from the power of the Church, and        the Catholic faith and the
 in teaching it exclusively the           authority of the Church, and
 knowledge of natural things and          which keeps exclusively in view
 the earthly ends of social life          the knowledge of natural things
 alone, may be perfectly approved         and the ends of earthly social
 by Catholics.                            life as the great object.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--An
                                          instruction of youth which
                                          imparts only the knowledge of
                                          natural things, and keeps in
                                          view only the ends of earthly
                                          social life, cannot lead youths
                                          to necessary salvation,
                                          but must draw them away from it.)

 49. The civil power is entitled          49. The State authority is not
 to prevent ministers of religion         allowed to hinder bishops and
 and the faithful from communicating      believers from holding free
 freely and mutually with                 communication with the See of
 each other and with the Roman            Rome.
 Pontiff.

 50. The lay authority possesses          50. The temporal authority has
 as inherent in itself the right of       not the right of itself to
 presenting bishops, and may require      present bishops, and cannot
 of them that they take                   demand of them that they shall
 possession of their dioceses before      enter upon the administration of
 having received canonical institution    their dioceses before they have
 and the apostolical letters of           received canonical institution
 the Holy See.                            and the apostolic letters from
                                          the Holy See.

 51. And, further, the lay                51. The temporal government
 government has the right of deposing     has not the right to withdraw
 bishops from their pastoral              from bishops the exercise of
 functions, and is not bound to           their pastoral office, and it
 obey the Roman Pontiff in those          is bound in whatever relates to
 things which relate to bishops'          the episcopate and the
 sees and the institution of bishops.     appointment of bishops to obey
                                          the Pope of Rome.

 52. The government has of itself         52. The government cannot of
 the right to alter the age prescribed    its own right alter the age
 by the Church for the                    prescribed by the Church for the
 religious profession both of men         taking of vows, whether by men
 and women; and may enjoin upon           or by women. Nor can it forbid
 all religious establishments to admit    religious orders to admit any one
 no person to take solemn vows            to the taking of vows without its
 without its permission.                  permission.

 53. The laws for the protection          53. Those laws may not be
 of religious establishments and          abolished which relate to the
 securing their rights and duties         protection of religious orders,
 ought to be abolished; nay, more,        and to their rights and duties;
 the civil government may lend            and the government of the State
 its assistance to all who desire to      cannot grant support to all who
 quit the religious life which they       forsake their chosen condition
 have undertaken, and to break            in any order, and wish to break
 their vows. The government may           their solemn vows. Also it cannot
 also extinguish religious orders,        abolish houses belonging to the
 collegiate churches, and simple          orders, the collegiate churches,
 benefices, even those belonging to       or their endowments, even when
 private patronage, and submit            they are subject to a right of
 their goods and revenues to the          patronage, and cannot hand over
 administration and disposal of the       their property to the
 civil power.                             administration and discretion of
                                           the State.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Those
                                          laws which relate to the
                                          protection of religious orders,
                                          to their rights and to their
                                          duties, must not be abolished,
                                          but every government must
                                          far rather grant protection to
                                          the religious orders. If the
                                          government of the State grants
                                          support to those who forsake
                                          their chosen condition in any
                                          order, and wish to break their
                                          solemn vows, it acts against the
                                          spirit and the will of the
                                          Church. If they do away with
                                          the houses of the orders, their
                                          collegiate churches, or private
                                          endowments, even though they are
                                          subject to rights of
                                          patronage, and if they hand over
                                          their property to the
                                          administration and discretion
                                          of the State, they thereby rob
                                          the Church of her legitimate
                                          property, and they fall under
                                          the greater excommunication,
                                          as also under the other censures
                                          and pains which have been
                                          established by the Apostolic
                                          Constitutions, the Holy Canons,
                                          and the Decrees of General
                                          Councils, in particular of
                                          the Council of Trent. Sec. 22,
                                          cap, ii., against the violators
                                          and desecrators, and against the
                                          usurpers of the rights of the
                                          Apostolic See.)

 54. Kings and princes are not            54. Kings and princes are neither
 only exempt from the jurisdiction        excluded from the jurisdiction
 of the Church, but are superior to       of the Church, nor do they
 the Church in litigated questions        stand higher than the Church
 of jurisdiction.                         in determining questions of
                                          jurisdiction.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But as
                                          members of the Church they are
                                          subject to the decision of the
                                          pastors, and especially of the
                                          chief pastors. Princes should
                                          much rather remember that the
                                          kingly power has not been
                                          delivered to them only for
                                          the government of the world, but
                                          especially for the protection
                                          of the Church, and what is done
                                          by them for the welfare of the
                                          Church is done for their kingdom
                                          and for its peace.)

 55. The Church ought to be               55. The Church is neither to be
 separated from the State, and the        separated from the State, nor the
 State from the Church.                   State from the Church.


 SECT. VII.--_Errors concerning           SECT. VII.--_Errors relating to
 Natural and Christian Ethics._           Natural and Christian Ethics._

 56. Moral laws do not stand in           56. Moral laws need a divine
 need of the divine sanction, and         sanction, and it is necessary
 there is no necessity that human         that human laws should be brought
 laws should be conformable to the        into accord with natural right,
 law of nature and receive their          and should receive their binding
 sanction from God.                       force from God.

 57. Knowledge of philosophical           57. Philosophy and philosophical
 things, and morals, and civil laws,      ethics, as well as civil
 may, and must be, independent of         laws, should not and must not
 divine and ecclesiastical authority.     deviate from divine revelation,
                                          and from the authority of the
                                          Church.

 58. No other forces are to be            58. Other powers are to be
 recognized except those which reside     acknowledged besides those
 in matter, and all moral teaching        found in matter, and the
 and moral excellence ought to            discipline and comeliness of
 be made to consist in the accumulation   manners should not be placed in
 and increase of riches by                the accumulation and
 every possible means, and in the         multiplication of riches of every
 enjoyment of pleasure.                   kind, and in the enjoyment of
                                          pleasures.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--There are
                                          other powers to acknowledge,
                                          belonging to a higher mental
                                          order than those which are found
                                          in matter, and also morality and
                                          propriety is destroyed
                                          in the mere accumulation and
                                          multiplication of riches, and the
                                          indulgence of evil lusts
                                          according to the words of the
                                          Scripture--"If ye live after the
                                          flesh ye shall die, but if ye
                                          through the spirit do mortify
                                          the deeds of the body ye shall
                                          live.")

 59. Right consists in the                59. Right does not consist in
 material fact. All human duties          the material fact. The duties of
 are vain words, and all human acts       men are no empty name, and all
 have the force of right.                 human facts have not the force of
                                          right.

 60. Authority is nothing else            60. Authority is something
 but the result of numerical              more than numbers and the sum of
 superiority and material force.          material forces.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Otherwise
                                          fools would form the highest
                                          authority, for it is said of them
                                          in the Scripture that their
                                          number is infinite.)

 61. An unjust act being successful       61. Unrighteousness, even when
 inflicts no injury upon the              attended by good fortune,
 sanctity of right.                       tarnishes the sacredness of
                                          right.

 62. The principle of non-intervention    62. The so-called principle of
 ought to be proclaimed                   non-intervention is not to be
 and adhered to.                          proclaimed and not to be
                                          observed.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--For it
                                          is a fatal principle, and
                                          opposed to the spirit of love
                                          and order.)

 63. It is allowable to refuse            63. Obedience must not be
 obedience to legitimate princes;         denied to legitimate princes,
 nay more, to rise in insurrection        much less must they be rebelled
 against them.                            against.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--For it is
                                          written, "Be subject to every
                                          human creature for God's sake;
                                          whether to the king, who is the
                                          highest, or to his lieutenants as
                                          such, who are appointed by him;"
                                          and he who sets himself against
                                          the ruler with force, he resists
                                          the ordinance of God, and
                                          they that resist shall receive
                                          condemnation.)

 64. The violation of a solemn            64. The breach of every oath
 oath, nay, any wicked and flagitious     and every godless and shameful
 action repugnant to the                  action in contradiction to the
 eternal law, is not only not             eternal laws are not only worthy
 blameable, but quite lawful, and         of condemnation, but also are
 worthy of the highest praise when        eternally to be reprobated, and
 done for the love of one's country.      are not praiseworthy even when
                                          they are done out of love to
                                          one's native country.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--But by
                                          such criminal and perverted
                                          reasonings all propriety, virtue,
                                          and righteousness are entirely
                                          destroyed, and the evil
                                          conduct of the thief and
                                          assassin is defended and
                                          recommended with unheard-of
                                          impudence.)


 SECT. VIII.--_Errors concerning          SECT. VIII.--_Errors relating to
 Christian Marriage._                     Christian Marriage._

 65. It cannot be by any means            65. It is not to be in any way
 tolerated to maintain that Christ        denied that Christ has elevated
 has raised marriage to the dignity       marriage to the dignity of a
 of a sacrament.                          sacrament.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Many
                                          proofs can be brought forward
                                          that Christ did elevate marriage
                                          to the dignity of a sacrament.)

 66. The sacrament of marriage            66. The sacrament of marriage
 is only an adjunct of the contract       is not something simply accessory
 and separable from it, and               to the contract, and to be
 the sacrament itself only consists       separated from it, and the
 in the nuptial benediction.              sacrament does not lie simply and
                                          only in the benediction of the
                                          marriage.

 67. By the law of nature the             67. By natural law the marriage
 marriage tie is not indissoluble,        bond is indissoluble, and in no
 and in many cases divorce, properly      case can divorce in the proper
 so called, may be pronounced             sense be legally pronounced by
 by the civil authority.                  the temporal authority.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Christian
                                          marriage is truly and properly
                                          one of the seven sacraments of
                                          the evangelical law, instituted
                                          by Christ the Lord. Therefore it
                                          belongs altogether to the
                                          ecclesiastical authority
                                          to decide upon anything which in
                                           ny way regards marriage.)

 68. The Church has not the               68. The Church has the authority
 power of laying down what are            to set up impediments
 diriment impediments to marriage.        invalidating marriage, but this
 The civil authority does possess         does not belong to the temporal
 such a power, and can abolish            power, neither does it belong to
 impediments that may exist to            the latter to annul impediments
 marriage.                                already existing.

 69. In the later ages, the               69. The Church has not only
 Church, when she laid down certain       in later centuries begun to set
 impediments as diriment to               up impediments invalidating
 marriage, did so not of her own          marriage, and she has done so
 uthority, but by a right borrowed       out of her own rights, and not
  from the civil power.                    out of rights lent to her by the
                                           temporal authority.

 70. The canons of the Council of         70. The canons of the Council
 Trent, which pronounce censure of        of Trent which pronounce an
 anathema against those who deny          anathema upon those who dare to
 the Church the right of laying           deny the right of the Church to
 down what are diriment impediments,      set up impediments invalidating
 either are not dogmatic, or              marriage are dogmatic in their
 must be understood as referring to       nature, and are not to be
 such borrowed power.                     understood as of a borrowed
                                          power.

 71. The form of solemnizing              71. The Tridentine form is
 marriage prescribed by the said          binding under penalty of
 Council, under penalty of nullity,       invalidity, even where the
 does not bind in cases where the         law of the State has prescribed
 civil law has appointed another          another form and makes the
 form, and decrees that this new          validity of marriage dependent
 form shall effectuate a valid            upon it.
  marriage.
                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--The State
                                          law is invalid.)

 72. Boniface VIII. is the first          72. Boniface VIII. has not been
 who declared that the vow of             the first to declare that a vow
 chastity pronounced at Ordination        of chastity taken in ordination
 annuls marriage.                         renders marriage null.

 73. A merely civil contract              73. No true marriage can exist
 may among Christians constitute          between Christians by force of a
 a true marriage, and it is false         civil contract, and it is true
 either that the marriage contract        that either the contract of
 between Christians must always be        marriage between Christians is
 a sacrament, or that the contract        always a sacrament, or that the
 is null if the sacrament be              contract is null if the sacrament
 excluded.                                has been excluded.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--And
                                          thus, therefore, every
                                          connection entered upon between
                                          man and woman among Christians,
                                          by virtue of a civil law, and
                                          without the sacrament, is
                                          nothing else than a shameful and
                                          corrupt concubinage condemned by
                                          the Church. Therefore the
                                          marriage tie can never be
                                          separated from the sacrament.)

 74. Matrimonial causes and espousals     74. Matrimonial causes and
 belong by their nature to                causes arising from betrothals,
 civil jurisdiction.                      from their nature do not belong
                                          to the temporal jurisdiction.
 N.B.--Two other errors may tend
 in this direction upon the abolition
 of the celibacy of priests and
 the preference due to the state of
 marriage over that of virginity.
 These have been refuted; the first
 in the Encyclical _Qui pluribus_,
 November 9, 1846; the second in
 the Letters Apostolical _Multiplices
 inter_, June 10, 1851.


 SECT. IX.--_Errors regarding the         SECT. IX.--_Errors relating to
 Civil Power of the Sovereign._           the Temporal Principality of the
                                          Roman Pontiff._

 75. The children of the Christian        75. There is no contention
 and Catholic Church are not              among the sons of the Christian
 agreed upon the compatibility of         and Catholic Church in regard to
 the temporal with the spiritual          the compatibility of the temporal
 power.                                   dominion with the spiritual.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Because
                                          they are persuaded of it.)

 76. The abolition of the temporal        76. The abolition of the temporal
 power of which the Apostolic             dominion possessed by the
 See is possessed would contribute        Apostolic See would not at all
 in the greatest degree to the liberty    contribute to the freedom and to
 and prosperity of the Church.            the happiness of the Church.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--The
                                          happiness and the welfare of the
                                          Church will be much more
                                          compromised, if not annihilated,
                                          since it is through a special
                                          decree of Divine Providence that
                                          after the division of the Roman
                                          Empire into several kingdoms and
                                          various territories, the Roman
                                          Pontiff, to whom the government
                                          and care of the whole Church is
                                          entrusted by the Lord Christ,
                                          received the temporal power,
                                          certainly for this reason, that
                                          he might possess that entire
                                          freedom for the government of
                                          the Church, and the preservation
                                          of her unity which is demanded
                                          for the fulfilment of his high
                                          apostolic functions.)

 N.B.--Besides these errors,              N.B.--Besides these expressly
 explicitly noted, very many others       stated errors, many are
 are rebuked by the certain doctrine      implicitly rejected, through the
 which all Catholics are bound            statement and assertion of the
 most firmly to hold touching the         doctrine which Catholics must
 temporal sovereignty of the Roman        hold with respect to the temporal
 Pontiff. These doctrines are             dominion of the Pope of Rome.
 clearly stated in the Allocutions        This doctrine is clearly set
 _Quantis quantumque_, April 20,          forth in the Allocutions of April
 1849, and "_Si semper antea_,"           20, 1849; May 20, 1850; in the
 May 20, 1850; Letters Apost.             Letters Apostolic of September
 _Quam Cattolica Ecclesia_, March 26,     28, 1860; March 18, 1861; and
 1860; Allocutions _Novos_, September     June 9, 1862.
 28, 1860; _Jamdudum_,
 March 18, 1861, and _Maxima
 quidem_, June 9, 1862.


 SECT. X.--_Errors having reference       SECT. X.--_Errors relating to
 to Modern Liberalism._                   Modern Liberalism._

 77. In the present day it is no          77. In our time, it is still
 longer necessary that the Catholic       essential that the Catholic
 religion shall be held as the only       religion should be held as the
 religion of the State, to the            only State religion, to the
 exclusion of all other modes of          exclusion of all other forms of
 worship.                                 religion.

                                          (_Remarks of Schrader._--The Pope
                                          also demands in those States in
                                          which only Catholics reside, the
                                          domination of the Catholic
                                          religion alone, to the exclusion
                                          of every other form of religion,
                                          and therefore has he in the
                                          Allocution of July 26, 1856,
                                          reclaimed against the violation
                                          of the first article of the
                                          Spanish Concordat; in which the
                                          exclusive dominion of the
                                          Catholic religion in Spain had
                                          been stipulated; and he rejected
                                          the law by which freedom
                                          of worship had been introduced,
                                          and declared it for null and
                                          void.)

 78. Whence it has been wisely            78. Therefore it was not well
 provided by the law, in some             that in certain Catholic lands
 countries called Catholic, that          immigrants should be guaranteed
 persons coming to reside therein         the free exercise of their
 shall enjoy the free exercise of         religion.
 their own worship.

 79. Moreover it is false that the        79. It is true that freedom of
 civil liberty of every mode of           worship granted by the States,
 worship and the full power given         and permission given to every one
 to all of overtly and publicly           to publish all manner of opinions
 manifesting their opinions and their     and views, leads easily to the
 ideas conduce more easily to corrupt     corruption of manners and of
 the morals and minds of the              sentiments among the nations, and
 people, and to the propagation of        to the diffusion of the bane of
 the pest of indifferentism.              indifference.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--Through
                                          the unbridled freedom of
                                          thought, speech and writing
                                          morals are deeply sunken,
                                          says Pius IX in his Encyclical of
                                          November 9, 1864. The holy
                                          religion has fallen into
                                          contempt, and the majesty of
                                          divine worship is despised;
                                          the authority of the
                                          Apostolic See attacked, and the
                                          authority of the Church contested
                                          and laden with shameful fetters.
                                          The rights of bishops are
                                          trampled under foot, the
                                          holiness of marriage
                                          is violated, every authority of
                                          government is shaken, and thus
                                          many other damages arise both to
                                          Church and State.)

 80. The Roman Pontiff can and            80. The Roman Pontiff cannot
 ought to reconcile himself to, and       be reconciled to modern
 agree with, progress, liberalism,        civilization and progress, or
 and modern civilization.                 compromise with them.

                                          (_Remark of Schrader._--For those
                                          who defend the righteousness and
                                          the rights of our holy religion
                                          do rightfully demand that the
                                          unchangeable and immovable
                                          principles of eternal
                                          righteousness shall be observed
                                          entire and unimpaired, and that
                                          the power of our salutary and
                                          divine religion shall be upheld.
                                          The faithful shall be led in the
                                          sure way of salvation, and not
                                          upon the downward road of
                                          destruction. The Holy
                                          See is the highest support,
                                          protector, and pastor of the
                                          faithful. Therefore
                                          it cannot connect itself with
                                          liberalism, and with modern
                                          civilization, without the most
                                          serious violation of conscience,
                                          and without the greatest
                                          universal scandal.)


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 496: To give a translation from a Catholic source we use one
issued at the office of the _Weekly Register_.]




APPENDIX B

RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO THE BAPTIZED, AND ESPECIALLY TO HERETICS


The following passages from the standard work of Phillips indicate
the tenets of Rome on this subject, in the more moderate aspect of
their recent phases. They are all found in the _second_ volume of the
_Kirchenrecht_, and we give the page with each separate citation--

P. 435. "By virtue of the supreme powers given to her, the Church has
indeed a dominion over those who are without [not baptized]; but over
these she does not give sentence in the same sense as over those who
through the door of baptism have entered into the Church, and who
through this sacrament have received the indelible token of membership
in the kingdom of Christ. These latter have in baptism sworn the oath
of allegiance; they have sworn _Fidelitas_ and _Homagium_, the oath
of personal believing fidelity [_fidelitas_] and that of the vassal
(_Lehnseid_), of true and active service with the talents which have
been granted to them in fee (_Zu Lehen_)."

P. 436. "No one is exempt from this obedience--all are confided to the
Church to be guided and brought up for heaven; for all, therefore,
without exception, is the Church an authority instituted by God. The
possibility of attaining to his highest end, that of glorifying God,
which man through disobedience had lost, Christ has given back to him
again; but this end can be attained only in the way of obedience.
Disobedience against the divine Word, the _rejecting or doubting even
of a single one of the divine truths announced by the Church_, puts
the individual human being again in the way of perdition, on which our
first parents entered to their own ruin and that of their posterity,
when they, instead of believing the simply and clearly announced Word,
chose another exposition of the same, which was more agreeable to them."

P. 438. "Hence in particular must they grievously offend God who
either directly put away from them the faith of the Church, or else
accept it only in so far as it appears to them correct according to
the selection [out of her tenets] which they have made; or, again, who
so break the bond of the unity of the Church as to declare themselves
loose from obedience to the lawful authority which in her has been set
over them by God. Thus are we led to speak of the three ecclesiastical
crimes--apostasy, heresy, and schism."

P. 440. "As to apostasy, which is the total rejection of the Christian
faith, and the falling away into Judaism, or heathenism, or Islamism,
it is here only to be remarked that in the view of the Church it is
as the crime of insulting the majesty of God. The apostate must be
compelled to return to the Church by force, and a milder judgment may
be pronounced upon him only in the case of one who was compelled to
deny his faith by the unbelievers."

P. 441. "In opposition to the entire rejection of the Christian
faith, heresy implies the wilful selection of a number from out of
the dogmas of the Church which are to be believed by men in all their
fulness, and the restricting of faith to such selected doctrines as
the man still adheres to; in general to this is added the acceptance
of false articles of faith. In this wider sense, all those are called
heretics who accept only particular doctrines of the Church; but we
must distinguish between such. We must part off error from heresy.
Any man may fall into error, with regard to one or another doctrine
of the Church, against his own will, out of simplicity, or from want
of instruction, or because he has received wrong instruction. Such an
error of the understanding is called 'material heresy'; but proper
heresy, which is called 'formal heresy,' has its seat in the will. The
latter consists in this, that to error is added obstinacy of the will,
which is disinclined to depart from it. If any one announces a doctrine
and then learns that the Church teaches otherwise, thus discovering
that he was in error, he does not fall into heresy if he only ceases
to defend the doctrine which he has set forth, and submits himself to
the teaching of the Church. On the other hand, one who does know that
the Church teaches otherwise, and still affirms that something is an
article of belief which is not so, or, contrariwise, that something
is not an article of belief which is so, doing this in spite of the
fact that the Church has delivered the truth upon the subject, he by
so doing haughtily prefers his own judgment to that of the Church; and
through this obstinacy, the characteristic mark of heresy, he becomes a
heretic in the strict sense of the word.

"It is not necessary to heresy that the person shall, as a heresiarch,
found a new sect, or that, by free choice, he shall go over to a sect
condemned by the Church; but heresy is already present whenever any
one in the bosom of the Catholic Church departs from only one single
point of the faith, or understands one single passage of Holy Scripture
otherwise than as the Church, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost,
expounds them. For so great is the importance of heresy that through
want of faith even on one point, the proper foundation of faith itself
is destroyed, so that he that makes himself guilty with regard to one
dogma, becomes at the same time guilty as to every dogma of the Church.
Thus not only is he who rejects one of the articles defined by the
Church a heretic, but also he who after such a definition maintains
that the point is still doubtful."

P. 445. "The Church prays for the return of her separated members, and
she is entitled to proceed to compulsion by virtue of the jurisdiction
over heretics as baptized persons which belongs to her; but she uses,
by prayer and by the instruction which is permitted to all, the only
means by which she can now enter into communication with them, at
least as relations at present stand.

"She may, indeed, tolerate the heathen, because they err through
ignorance; she may tolerate the Jews as witnesses for the truth; but
she cannot tolerate heresy, because this shakes the foundation of the
entire faith. The synagogue makes way for the Church as a dutiful
handmaid, bringing her the Holy Scriptures. Heresy, however, lifts
itself up as a mistress above the Church, discredits her utterly, sets
itself to judge over her, and would condemn her out of Holy Scripture
according to its self-chosen exposition, closing her mouth like that of
Christ. It commences with the divine Word, but it treats that word like
a lyre, from which every one at pleasure, may draw whatever note will
suit him.

"The Church pardons error, but she cannot subject herself to the
obstinately erring will, but must destroy its dominion and its tyranny.
She, as the teacher of the truth, cannot conclude a peace with such a
will. She cannot lift it up to the throne beside her, she cannot share
her dominion with it. Understood in its proper and true signification,
heresy is a frightful crime. Do the heathen blaspheme God out of
ignorance? Heresy tears truth to pieces consciously. Did the Jews
crucify Christ according to the flesh? Heresy fastens the Church,
His mystical body, to the cross. Therefore the Church cannot at all
tolerate heresy, because the greatest danger of seduction is attached
to it. The Christian can easily shun the heathen and the Jew, but not
the Christian who by the baptismal vow is connected with him, but by
heresy is separated from him.

"On these grounds is explained the complete intolerance which
the Church, in all her laws, and especially in the _Bulla Cæna_,
has manifested against heresy. Hence are explained the certainly
hard-sounding expressions with which she speaks of heresy. Hence the
punishments against heretics, the delivering up of the same to the
temporal arm, and the calling upon temporal princes by law and by arms
to come to her help in rooting out heresy. When the Church pronounces
_excommunication_ upon heretics, it is nothing more than a declaratory
sentence of that which had already been announced by the heretics
themselves; for, all the more because these are Christians, must she
separate them from herself, that they may not be accounted as of her,
and that she may not appear as chargeable for their obstinacy.

"Hence it will be understood that the Church employs all means
to keep her members from being infected with heretical teaching.
She has therefore, with the apostle, forbidden _intercourse_ with
heretics; yet she makes this apply, according to the Bull of Martin
V, _Ad evitandos_, only to those who are personally, and by name,
_excommunicated_ on account of their obstinacy. To a like end the
Church forbids to the faithful the reading of heretical writings, which
still retain that character even when the author perhaps erred only
out of ignorance, and has given his books to the fire. So according
to the diversities of times and circumstances does she require from
her members the assurance of fidelity in making the confession of
faith, causing those who return into her bosom to abjure heresy, and
prohibiting all to preach who have not thereto an express mission, and
forbidding the laity to dispute as to the faith, except in cases in
which especial exceptions are justified."

P. 451. "_Schism_, in its proper meaning, consists in this, that the
baptized person, while not doubting as to the faith, and while not
intending to separate himself from it, declares himself free from the
authority which God has set over him in the Church. In a looser sense
of the word, schism may refer to one's own bishop, as well as to the
Pope; properly, however, it requires separation from the centre of
Church unity, from the Pope, to constitute a schism, although revolt
against the proper bishop, recognized by the head of the Church,
comprehends in itself separation from the entire Church. And how will
the schismatic, separated from ecclesiastical unity, preserve himself
in purity of doctrine? Does heresy lead to schism? So infallibly does
schism lead to heresy, inasmuch as only through false doctrine can
it be justified. Therefore does the Church regard schism as a crime
just as great as heresy, and in general has dealt with it in the same
manner."




APPENDIX C

THE CONSTITUTIONS "_DEI FILIUS_" AND "_PASTOR ÆTERNUS_"

(_From the "Catholic Directory" for 1871, pp. 55 ff._)

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH


Pius Bishop, Servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the
Sacred Council, for perpetual remembrance.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and Redeemer of mankind, before
returning to His Heavenly Father, promised that He would be with the
Church Militant on earth all days, even to the consummation of the
world. Therefore He has never ceased to be present with His beloved
Spouse, to assist her when teaching, to bless her when at work, and
to aid her when in danger. And this His salutary providence, which
has been constantly displayed by other innumerable benefits, has been
most manifestly proved by the abundant good results which Christendom
has derived from OEcumenical Councils, and particularly from that of
Trent, although it was held in evil times. For, as a consequence,
the sacred doctrines of the faith have been defined more closely and
set forth more fully; errors have been condemned and restrained;
ecclesiastical discipline has been restored and more firmly secured;
the love of learning and of piety has been promoted among the clergy;
colleges have been established to educate youth for the sacred warfare;
and the morals of the Christian world have been renewed by the more
accurate training of the faithful, and by the more frequent use of the
sacraments. Moreover, there has resulted a closer communion of the
members with the visible head, and an increase of vigour in the whole
mystical body of Christ; the multiplication of religious congregations
and of other institutions of Christian piety, and such ardour in
extending the kingdom of Christ throughout the world, as constantly
endures, even to the sacrifice of life itself.

But while we recall with due thankfulness these and other signal
benefits which the divine mercy has bestowed on the Church, especially
by the last OEcumenical Council, we cannot restrain our bitter sorrow
for the grave evils which are due principally to the fact, that the
authority of that sacred Synod has been contemned, or its wise decrees
neglected, by many.

No one is ignorant that the heresies proscribed by the Fathers of
Trent, by which the divine teaching (_magisterium_) of the Church was
rejected, and all matters regarding religion were surrendered to the
judgment of each individual, gradually became dissolved into many
sects, which disagreed and contended with one another, until at length
not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even the Holy Scriptures, which had
previously been declared sole source and judge of Christian doctrine,
began to be held no longer as divine, but to be ranked among the
fictions of mythology.

Then there arose, and too widely overspread the world, that doctrine of
rationalism, or naturalism, which opposes itself in every way to the
Christian religion as a supernatural institution, and works with the
utmost zeal in order that, after Christ, our sole Lord and Saviour, has
been excluded from the minds of men, and from the life and moral acts
of nations, the reign of what they call pure reason or nature may be
established. And after forsaking and rejecting the Christian religion,
and denying the true God and His Christ, the minds of many have sunk
into the abyss of Pantheism, Materialism, and Atheism, until, denying
rational nature itself and every sound rule of right, they labour to
destroy the deepest foundations of human society.

Unhappily, it has yet farther come to pass that, while this impiety
prevailed on every side, many even of the children of the Catholic
Church have strayed from the path of true piety; and by the gradual
diminution of the truths they held, the Catholic sense has become
weakened in them. For, led away by various and strange doctrines,
wrongly confusing nature and grace, human science and divine faith,
they are found to deprave the true sense of the doctrines which our
Holy Mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and
the soundness of the faith.

Considering these things, how can the Church fail to be deeply stirred?
For, even as God wills all men to be saved, and to arrive at the
knowledge of the truth; even as Christ came to save what had perished,
and to gather together the children of God who had been dispersed;
so the Church, constituted by God the mother and teacher of nations,
knows its own office as debtor to all, and is ever ready and watchful
to raise the fallen, to support those who are falling, to embrace
those who return, to confirm the good and to carry them on to better
things. Hence, it can never forbear from witnessing to and proclaiming
the truth of God, which heals all things, knowing the words addressed
to it: My Spirit that is in thee, and My words that I have put in thy
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, from henceforth and for ever
(Isaias lix. 21).

We, therefore, following the footsteps of our predecessors, have never
ceased, as becomes our supreme Apostolic office, from teaching and
defending Catholic truth, and condemning doctrines of error. And now,
with the Bishops of the whole world assembled round us and judging
with us, congregated by our authority and in the Holy Spirit in this
OEcumenical Council, we, supported by the word of God written and
handed down, as we have received it from the Catholic Church, preserved
with sacredness and set forth according to truth--have determined to
profess and declare the salutary teaching of Christ from this chair of
Peter, and in sight of all, proscribing and condemning, by the power
given to us of God, all errors contrary thereto.


Chap. I. _Of God the Creator of all things._

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that
there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth,
Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence,
in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely
simple, and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really
and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and
from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things beside Himself
which exist or are conceivable.

This one only true God, of His own goodness and almighty power, not
for the increase or acquirement of His own happiness, but to manifest
His perfection by the blessing which He bestows on creatures, and with
absolute freedom of counsel, created out of nothing, from the beginning
of time, both the spiritual and the corporeal creature, to wit, the
angelical and the mundane; and afterwards the human creature, as
partaking, in a sense, of both, consisting of spirit and of body.[497]

God protects and governs by His Providence all things which He hath
made, "reaching from end to end mightily, and ordering all things
sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). For "all things are bare and open to His
eyes" (Heb. iv. 13), even those which are yet to be by the free action
of creatures.


Chap. II. _Of Revelation._

The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning
and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of
human reason, by means of created things; "for the invisible things of
Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made" (Romans i. 20): but that it pleased His
wisdom and bounty to reveal Himself, and the eternal decrees of His
will, to mankind by another and supernatural way, as the Apostle says:
"God, having spoken on divers occasions, and many ways, in times past,
to the fathers by the prophets; last of all, in these days, hath spoken
to us by His Son" (Hebrews i. 1, 2).

It is to be ascribed to this divine revelation, that such truths among
things divine as of themselves are not beyond human reason can, even in
the present condition of mankind, be known by every one with facility,
with firm assurance, and with no admixture of error. This, however, is
not the reason why revelation is to be called absolutely necessary; but
because God of His infinite goodness has ordained man to a supernatural
end, viz. to be a sharer of divine blessings which utterly exceed the
intelligence of the human mind: for "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath
prepared for them that love Him" (1 Cor. ii. 2).

Further, this supernatural revelation, according to the universal
belief of the Church, declared by the Sacred Synod of Trent, is
contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which, received
by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or by the Apostles
themselves, from the dictation of the Holy Spirit, transmitted, as
it were, from hand to hand, have come down even unto us.[498] And
these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred
and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are
enumerated in the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the
ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be
sacred and canonical: not because, having been carefully composed by
mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority;
nor merely because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error;
but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the
Church herself.

And as the things which, in order to curb rebellious spirits, the
Holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the
interpretation of Divine Scripture, have been wrongly explained by
some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be its meaning:
that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up
of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy
Scripture which our Holy Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom
it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy
Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret
the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, or, likewise, contrary to
the unanimous consent of the Fathers.


Chap. III. _On Faith._

Man being wholly dependent upon God, as upon his Creator and Lord, and
created reason being absolutely subject to uncreated truth, we are
bound to yield to God, by faith in His revelation, the full obedience
of our intelligence and will. And the Catholic Church teaches that this
faith, which is the beginning of man's salvation, is a supernatural
virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted by the grace of God, we believe
that the things which He has revealed are true: not because the
intrinsic truth of the things is plainly perceived by the natural
light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who
reveals them, and who can neither be deceived nor deceive. For faith,
as the Apostle testifies, is "the substance of things hoped for, the
conviction of things that appear not" (Hebrews xi. 1).

Nevertheless, in order that the obedience of our faith might be in
harmony with reason, God willed that to the interior help of the Holy
Spirit there should be joined exterior proofs of His revelation: to
wit, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies, which, as
they manifestly display the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of
God, are most certain proofs of His divine revelation, adapted to the
intelligence of all men. Wherefore, both Moses and the Prophets, and
most especially Christ our Lord Himself, showed forth many and most
evident miracles and prophecies; and of the Apostles we read: "But
they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and
confirming the word with signs that followed" (Mark xvi. 20). And again
it is written: "We have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you
do well to attend, as to a light shining in a dark place" (2 St. Peter
i. 19).

But though the assent of faith is by no means a blind action of the
mind, still no man can assent to the Gospel teaching, as is necessary
to obtain salvation, without the illumination and inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, who gives to all men sweetness in assenting to and
believing in the truth.[499] Wherefore faith itself, even when it does
not work by charity, is in itself a gift of God, and the act of faith
is a work appertaining to salvation, by which man yields voluntary
obedience to God Himself, by assenting to and co-operating with His
grace, which he is able to resist.

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic
faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down,
and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary
and universal teaching (_magisterium_), proposes for belief as having
been divinely revealed.

And since without faith it is impossible to please God, and to attain
to the fellowship of His children, therefore without faith no one has
ever attained justification; nor will any one obtain eternal life,
unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end. And, that we
may be able to satisfy the obligation of embracing the true faith and
of constantly persevering in it, God has instituted the Church through
His only-begotten Son, and has bestowed on it manifest notes of that
institution, that it may be recognized by all men as the guardian
and teacher of the revealed Word; for to the Catholic Church alone
belong all those many and admirable tokens which have been divinely
established for the evident credibility of the Christian Faith. Nay,
more, the Church by itself, by reason of its marvellous extension, its
eminent holiness, and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good
thing, its Catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a great and
perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable witness of its own
divine mission.

And thus, like a standard set up unto the nations (Isaias xi. 12),
it both invites to itself those who do not yet believe, and assures
its children that the faith which they profess rests on the most firm
foundation. And its testimony is efficaciously supported by a power
from on high. For our most merciful Lord gives His grace to stir up and
to aid those who are astray, that they may come to a knowledge of the
truth; and to those whom He has brought out of darkness into His own
admirable light, He gives His grace to strengthen them to persevere in
that light, deserting none who desert not Him. Therefore there is no
parity between the condition of those who have adhered to the Catholic
truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and of those who, led by human
opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have received the
faith under the teaching (_magisterio_) of the Church can never have
any just cause for changing or doubting that faith. Therefore, giving
thanks to God the Father who has made us worthy to be partakers of the
lot of the Saints in light, let us not neglect so great salvation, but
with our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and finisher of our Faith, let
us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering (Hebrews xii.
2; and x. 23).


Chap. IV. _Of Faith and Reason._

The Catholic Church with one consent has also ever held and does hold
that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct both in principle
and in object: in principle, because our knowledge in the one is by
natural reason, and in the other by divine faith; in object, because,
besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are
proposed to our belief mysteries hidden in God, which, unless divinely
revealed, cannot be known. Wherefore the Apostle, who testifies that
God is known by the Gentiles through created things, still, when
discoursing of the grace and truth which come by Jesus Christ (John i.
17), says: "We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which
is hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which
none of the princes of this world knew; ... but to us God hath revealed
them by His Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God" (1 Cor. ii. 7-9). And the only-begotten Son Himself
gives thanks to the Father, because He has hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and has revealed them to little ones (Matt. xi. 25).

Reason, indeed, enlightened by faith, when it seeks earnestly, piously,
and calmly, attains by a gift from God some, and that a very fruitful,
understanding of mysteries; partly from the analogy of those things
which it naturally knows, partly from the relations which the mysteries
bear to one another and to the last end of man: but reason never
becomes capable of apprehending mysteries as it does those truths
which constitute its proper object. For the divine mysteries by their
own nature so far transcend the created intelligence that, even when
delivered by revelation and received by faith, they remain covered with
the veil of faith itself, and shrouded in a certain degree of darkness,
so long as we are pilgrims in this mortal life, not yet with God; "for
we walk by faith and not by sight" (2 Cor. v. 7).

But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real
discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God who reveals
mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the
human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict
truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly
due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and
expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions
of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define,
therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened
faith is utterly false.[500] Further, the Church, which, together
with the Apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard
the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of
proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy
and vain fallacy (Col. ii. 8). Therefore all faithful Christians are
not only forbidden to defend, as legitimate conclusions of science,
such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith,
especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are
altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious
appearance of truth.

And not only can faith and reason never be opposed to one another, but
they are of mutual aid one to the other: for right reason demonstrates
the foundations of faith, and, enlightened by its light, cultivates
the science of things divine; while faith frees and guards reason from
errors, and furnishes it with manifold knowledge. So far, therefore, is
the Church from opposing the cultivation of human arts and sciences,
that it in many ways helps and promotes it. For the Church neither
ignores nor despises the benefits to human life which result from the
arts and sciences, but confesses that, as they came from God, the
Lord of all science, so, if they be rightly used, they lead to God by
the help of His grace. Nor does the Church forbid that each of these
sciences in its sphere should make use of its own principles and
its own method; but, while recognizing this just liberty, it stands
watchfully on guard, lest sciences, setting themselves against the
divine teaching, or transgressing their own limits, should invade and
disturb the domain of faith.

For the doctrine of faith which God hath revealed has not been
proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human
ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse
of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence also,
that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which
our Holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning
ever to be departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper
comprehension of them. Let, then, the intelligence, science, and wisdom
of each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages
and all times, increase and flourish in abundance and vigour; but
simply in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same
doctrine, one and the same sense, one and the same judgment (Vincent of
Lerins, _Common_. n. 28).


CANONS.

I. _Of God the Creator of all things._

1. If any one shall deny One true God, Creator and Lord of things
visible and invisible; let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter,
nothing exists; let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that the substance and essence of God and of
all things is one and the same; let him be anathema.

4. If any one shall say that finite things, both corporeal and
spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the divine
substance; or that the divine essence by the manifestation and
evolution of itself becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is
universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes
the universality of things, distinct according to kinds (_genera_),
species, and individuals; let him be anathema.

5. If any one confess not that the world, and all things which are
contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their
whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God
created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity
equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the
world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema.


II. _Of Revelation._

1. If anyone shall say that the One true God, our Creator and Lord,
cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, through
created things; let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that it is impossible, or inexpedient, that man
should be taught by divine revelation concerning God and the worship to
be paid to Him; let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that man cannot be raised by divine power to a
higher than natural knowledge and perfection, but can and ought, by a
continuous progress, to arrive at length, of himself, to the possession
of all that is true and good; let him be anathema.

4. If any one shall not receive as sacred and canonical the Books of
Holy Scripture, entire with all their parts, as the Holy Synod of
Trent has enumerated them, or shall deny that they have been divinely
inspired; let him be anathema.


III. _Of Faith._

1. If any one shall say that human reason is so independent that faith
cannot be enjoined upon it by God; let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that divine faith is not distinguished from
natural knowledge of God and of moral truths, and therefore that it is
not requisite for divine faith that revealed truth be believed because
of the authority of God who reveals it; let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that divine revelation cannot be made credible
by outward signs, and therefore that men ought to be moved to faith
solely by the internal experience of each, or by private inspiration;
let him be anathema.

4. If any one shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore
that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy
Scripture, are to be dismissed as fabulous or mythical; or that
miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin
of Christianity is not rightly proved by them; let him be anathema.

5. If any one shall say that the assent of Christian faith is not a
free act, but necessarily produced by the arguments of human reason;
or that the grace of God is necessary for that living faith only which
worketh by charity; let him be anathema.

6. If any one shall say that the condition of the faithful, and of
those who have not yet attained to the only true faith, is on a par,
so that Catholics may have just cause for doubting, with suspended
assent, the faith which they have already received under the teaching
(_magisterio_) of the Church, until they shall have obtained a
scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith;
let him be anathema.


IV. _Of Faith and Reason._

1. If any one shall say that in divine revelation there are no
mysteries, truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of
faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles by
properly cultivated reason; let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that human sciences are to be so freely
treated, that their assertions, although opposed to revealed doctrine,
can be held as true, and cannot be condemned by the Church; let him be
anathema.

3. If any one shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according
to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines
propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has
understood and understands; let him be anathema.

Therefore We, fulfilling the duty of our supreme pastoral office,
entreat by the mercies of Jesus Christ, and, by the authority of the
same our God and Saviour, We command, all the faithful of Christ, and
especially those who are set over others or are charged with the office
of instruction, that they earnestly and diligently apply themselves to
ward off and eliminate these errors from Holy Church, and to spread the
light of pure faith.

And since it is not sufficient to shun heretical pravity, unless
those errors also be diligently avoided which more or less nearly
approach it. We admonish all men of the further duty of observing the
Constitutions and Decrees by which such erroneous opinions as are not
here expressly enumerated have been proscribed and condemned by this
Holy See.

Given at Rome in Public Session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on
the twenty-fourth day of April, in the twenty-fourth year of our
Pontificate.

 _In conformity with the original_,

 JOSEPH, _Bishop of St. Polten_,

 _Secretary of the Vatican Council._


FIRST DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

Pius Bishop, Servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the
Sacred Council, for perpetual remembrance.

The Eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, in order to continue for
all time the life-giving work of His Redemption, determined to build
up the Holy Church, wherein, as in the House of the living God, all
who believe might be united in the bond of one faith and one charity.
Wherefore, before He entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,
not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through their
preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might be one, even
as He the Son and the Father are one (St. John xvii. 21). As then He
sent the Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world, as He
Himself had been sent by the Father; so He willed that there should
ever be pastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the world.
And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and
that by means of a closely united priesthood the multitude of the
faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion,
He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in
him the abiding principle of this two-fold unity and its visible
foundation, in the strength of which the everlasting temple should
arise, and the Church in the firmness of that faith should lift her
majestic front to heaven.[501] And seeing that the gates of hell with
daily increase of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to
upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that might
be, to overthrow the Church: We, therefore, for the preservation, safe
keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the
Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief
and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient
and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the
institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in
which is found the strength and solidity of the entire Church; and at
the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, so hurtful
to the flock of Christ.


Chap. I. _Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter._

We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the
Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God
was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the
Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom He had
already said, "Thou shalt be called Cephas" (St. John i. 42), that the
Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God," addressed these solemn words: "Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to
thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall
be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it
shall be loosed in heaven" (St. Matthew xvi. 16-19). And it was upon
Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction
of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words: "Feed My
lambs; feed My sheep" (St. John xxi. 15-17). At open variance with
this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has been ever understood
by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while
they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in
His Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the
other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who
assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly
upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church
on Peter as her minister.

If any one, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was
not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of
the whole Church Militant; or that the same directly and immediately
received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honour only,
and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.


Chap. II. _On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the
Roman Pontiffs._

That which the Prince of Shepherds and Great Shepherd of the sheep,
Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle
Peter, to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church,
must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the
Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end
of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that
the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the
pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received
the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and
Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges, to this day
and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome,
which was founded by him, and consecrated by his blood.[502] Whence,
whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See does by the institution of
Christ Himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church.
This disposition made by Incarnate Truth (_dispositio veritatis_)
therefore remains, and Blessed Peter abiding in the rock strength which
he received (_in acceptâ fortitudine petræâ perseverans_), has not
abandoned the direction of the Church.[503] Wherefore it has at all
times been necessary that every particular Church--that is to say, the
faithful throughout the world--should come to the Church of Rome, on
account of the greater princedom it has received; so that in this See,
whence the rights of venerable communion spread to all, they might, as
members joined together in their head, grow closely into one body.[504]

If, then, one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the
Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has a perpetual line of
successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman
Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him
be anathema.


Chap. III. _On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman
Pontiff._

Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred Writings, and
adhering to the plain and express decrees both of our predecessors the
Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, We renew the definition
of the OEcumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of
Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff
possesses the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman Pontiff
is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is
true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church, and Father and
Teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in
Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to rule, feed, and govern the
Universal Church: as is also contained in the Acts of the OEcumenical
Councils and in the Sacred Canons.

Hence we teach and declare, that by the appointment of our Lord the
Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other
Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff,
which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever
rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and
collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination
and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to
faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline
and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church
of Christ may be one flock under one supreme Pastor, through the
preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same
faith, with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth,
from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.

But so far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any
prejudice to that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal
jurisdiction, by which Bishops, who have been set by the Holy Ghost to
succeed and hold the place of the Apostles,[505] feed and govern each
his own flock as true pastors, that this same power is really asserted,
strengthened, and protected by the supreme and universal Pastor; in
accordance with the words of St. Gregory the Great: "My honour is
the honour of the whole Church. My honour is the firm strength of my
brethren. Then am I truly honoured, when the honour due to each and
all is not withheld."[506]

Further, from this supreme power possessed by the Roman Pontiff of
governing the universal Church, it follows that, in the exercise of
this office, he has the right of free communication with the pastors
of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that they may be taught
and ruled by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore We condemn and
reprobate the opinions of those who hold that the communication between
the supreme Head and the pastors and their flocks can lawfully be
impeded; or who make this communication subject to the will of the
secular power, so as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic
See, or by its authority, for the government of the Church, cannot have
force or value unless it be confirmed by the assent of the secular
power. And since, by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman
Pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and
declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful,[507] and that in
all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be
had to his tribunal;[508] but that none may re-open the judgment of the
Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any
lawfully review its judgment.[509] Wherefore they err from the right
path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments
of the Roman Pontiffs to an OEcumenical Council, as to an authority
higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of
inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction
over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith
and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and
government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he
possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fulness of this
supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and
immediate, both over each and all the Churches, and over each and all
the pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.


Chap. IV. _Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff._

Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching (_magisterii_) is also
included in the Apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as the
successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses over the whole
Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of
the Church confirms, and OEcumenical Councils also have declared,
especially those in which the East with the West met in the union
of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council of
Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave
forth this solemn profession: The first condition of salvation is to
keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord
Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon
this Rock I will build My Church" (St. Matthew xvi. 18), these things
which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See
the Catholic religion has always been kept undefined and her well-known
doctrine has been kept holy. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the
least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope
that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See
preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian
religion.[510] And with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons,
the Greeks professed: That the Holy Roman Church enjoys supreme and
full Primacy and princedom over the whole Catholic Church, which it
truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the plenitude
of power from our Lord Himself in the person of Blessed Peter, Prince
or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as
the Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of
faith, so also, if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they
must be defined by its judgment.[511] Finally, the Council of Florence
defined:[512] That the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ,
and the Head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all
Christians; and that to him in Blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord
Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole
Church (John xxi. 15-17).

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors ever made unwearied
efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among
all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might
be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore
the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod,
following the long-established custom of Churches[513] and the form of
the ancient rule,[514] sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers
especially which sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses
of faith might be most effectually repaired where the faith cannot
fail.[515] And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times
and circumstances, sometimes assembling OEcumenical Councils, or asking
for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence
supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help of
God they had recognized as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and
Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new
doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and
faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through
the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and
the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their Apostolic
doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever
free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of the
Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: "I have prayed
for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted, confirm
thy brethren" (St. Luke xxii. 32).[516]

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith, was conferred by
Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might
perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole
flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error,
might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the
occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one,
and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of
hell.

But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the
Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take
away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to
assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to
join with the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the
beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the
exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian
people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, We teach and define
that it is a dogma divinely revealed: That the Roman Pontiff, when
he speaks _ex cathedrâ_, that is, when in discharge of the office
of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme
Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to
be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised
to Him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the
divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining
doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions
of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the
Church, irreformable.[517]

But if any one, which may God avert! presume to contradict this our
Definition; let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in Public Session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the
eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontificate.

 _In conformity with the original_,

 JOSEPH, _Bishop of St. Polten_,

 _Secretary to the Vatican Council_.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 497: Fourth Lateran Council, cap. i. de fide Catholica.]

[Footnote 498: Council of Trent, sess. iv. de Can. Script.]

[Footnote 499: Second Council of Orange, confirmed by Pope Boniface
II, A.D. 529, against the Semipelagians, can. vii. See Denzinger's
_Enchiridion Symbolorum_, p. 50. Würzburg, 1854.]

[Footnote 500: From the Bull of Pope Leo X, _Apostolici regiminis_,
read in the viii. session of the Fifth Lateran Council, A.D. 1513. See
Labbé's _Councils_, vol. xix. p. 842. Venice, 1732.]

[Footnote 501: From Sermon IV. chap. ii. of St. Leo the Great, A.D.
440, vol. i. p. 17, of edition of Ballerini, Venice, 1753: read in the
eighth lection on the Feast of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch, February
22.]

[Footnote 502: From the Acts (session third) of the Third General
Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. Labbé's _Councils_, vol. iii. p. 1154.
Venice edition of 1728. See also letter of St. Peter Chrysologus to
Eutyches, in life prefixed to his works, p. 13. Venice, 1750.]

[Footnote 503: From Sermon III. chap. iii. of St. Leo the Great, vol.
i. p. xii.]

[Footnote 504: From St. Irenæus _against Heresies_, Book III. cap.
iii. p. 175, Benedictine edition, Venice, 1734; and Acts of Synod of
Aquileia, A.D. 381, Labbé's _Councils_, vol. ii. p. 1185, Venice, 1728.]

[Footnote 505: From chap. iv. of xxiii. session of Council of Trent,
"Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy."]

[Footnote 506: From the Letters of St. Gregory the Great, Book VIII.
30. vol. ii. p. 919. Benedictine edition. Paris. 1705.]

[Footnote 507: From a Brief of Pius VI. _Super soliditate_, of November
28, 1786.]

[Footnote 508: From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council of
Lyons, A.D. 1274. Labbé's _Councils_, vol. xiv. p. 512.]

[Footnote 509: From Letter VIII. of Pope Nicholas I. A.D. 858, to the
Emperor Michael, in Labbé's _Councils_, vol. ix. pp. 1339 and 1570.]

[Footnote 510: From the Formula of St. Hormisdas, subscribed by the
Fathers of the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople) A.D.
869. Labbé's _Councils_, vol. v. pp. 583, 622.]

[Footnote 511: From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council (Second
of Lyons), A.D. 1274, Labbé, vol. xiv. p. 512.]

[Footnote 512: From the Acts of the Seventeenth General Council of
Florence, A.D. 1438. Labbé, vol. xviii. p. 526.]

[Footnote 513: From a Letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Pope St.
Celestine I. A.D. 422, vol. vi. part ii. p. 36, Paris edition OF 1638.]

[Footnote 514: From a Rescript of St. Innocent I. to the Council of
Milevis, A.D. 402. Labbé, vol. iii. p. 47.]

[Footnote 515: From a Letter of St. Bernard to Pope Innocent II, A.D.
1130. Epist. 191, vol. iv. p. 433, Paris edition of 1742.]

[Footnote 516: See also the Acts of the Sixth General Council, A.D.
680. Labbé, vol. vii. 659.]

[Footnote 517: That is, in the words used by Pope Nicholas I. Note 13.
and in the Synod of Quedlinburg, A.D. 1085, "it is allowed to none to
revise its judgment, and to sit in judgment upon what it has judged."
Labbé, vol. xii. p. 679.]




APPENDIX D

THE POPE PERSONALLY PREPARING CHILDREN FOR WAR


The _Times_ of Tuesday, February 29, 1876, has the following--

    "The Vatican _Voce della Veritá_ gives an account of a reception by
    the Pope of foreign families, recent converts to the Church, and
    mostly English and Americans. The Pope took particular notice of a
    little boy, six years old, the child of Mr. William Hutchinson, a
    graduate of Oxford. The child was dressed as a Pontifical Switzer,
    and offered the military salute. The Pope smilingly took hold of
    his _baton_, and said, 'Where is your halberd, Switzer?' To which
    the child spiritedly said, 'Holy Father, I hope if God gives me
    health when I grow up to carry your Holiness's banner.' The Pope,
    stooping down, and imitating the beating of a drum with his hand,
    said it was necessary to begin by beating the drum, and added, 'God
    bless you, Switzer, and preserve you to defend the Holy See in His
    own good time.' He addressed some affectionate words to the parents
    and all present."




INDEX


  Acclamation, Acton on, 83;
    Plantier on, 204;
    fears of, at first session, 296;
    Manning on, 302;
    De Luca on, 358;
    again suggested, 480, 481;
    checked by American bishops, 490.

  Acton, Lord, on counsel given by cardinals, 59;
    on the seventeen questions, 119;
    view of Antonelli, 231;
    on the views of the Curia, 232, 233;
    on secrecy, 365;
    on how information leaked out, 367.

  Antonelli, Cardinal, Newman's notion of as to Syllabus, 123;
    answers Schwarzenberg, 181;
    his position towards the Council, 340;
    reply to Beust, 447;
    reply to Daru, 448.

  Aristocracy, in Papal States; old not to be restored in new
  theocracy, 353.

  Armenians, in Rome, arrests, interdict, and flight from
  monastery, 516-520.

  Arnim, Count, to Bismarck; acts as mediator, 657.

  Audu, Patriarch of Babylon, speech of, 377;
    ordered alone to the Vatican, 377;
    night scene with the Pope, 461-464.

  Austrian bishops refuse to keep the law, 207.


  Babylon, Patriarch of, _see_ AUDU.

  Baptism, political effects of, 87, 371, 372.

  Bell, for Presidents, mystic symbols on, snake assailing bark of
  St. Peter, 237.

  Bellarmine, on bishops opposing Pope, 396.

  Beust, Count, Austrian minister, reply to Hohenlohe, 185;
    despatch to Rome, 445;
    reply to Antonelli, 447;
    defines the position of the State, 453.

  Bianchi, Procurator-General of the Dominicans, sermon in St. Peter's
  preceding the Council, 242.

  Bishops, relation of, to the Pope, 77;
    his prefects, 78;
    bearing discordant testimony to the faith, i., 227;
    disabilities of, in the Council, 322, 325, 333, 344, 367, 398, 399,
    400, 404, 418, 468, 470;
    memoranda of, on proposed decrees, 534;
    their oath, 604.

  Bismarck, to Arnim on relations of Vatican and Germany, 378.

  Blacas, Duke of, the Crusader, his death and exemption from
  purgatory, 150.

  Bull, convoking Council, 143;
    limiting censures (_Apostolicae Sedis_), 335;
    hierarchical, fiscal, and political aspects of this Bull, 336-339;
    suspending Council, 663.


  Campagna, the, 90.

  Canon Law, the common law of a country with or without consent of its
  Parliament, 48;
    ought to be the law of the State, 209.

  Canons, the famous twenty-one published, and consequent alarm, 431 ff.;
    new and all-important one, first proposed by guile and next forced
    through, 244.

  Cardinals ordered to write secret notes as to the question of a
  future Council, 2;
    contents of notes, 57-59.

  Catechism, changes in, 463 ff.;
    vote upon the new, 533.

  Cecconi, Archbishop of Florence, subject of his history, 2.

  Church and State, subordination of State, 19 ff., 41, 42, 245,
  340, 439, 451, 580;
    ideal of such subordination realized in Papal States, 88.

  Church, right of, to inflict pains and penalties, 20, 41, 50, 29;
    Montalembert on, 155;
    Lacordaire forced to profess, 162;
    embodied in the Inquisition, 234;
    consent of, to dogmas declared unnecessary, 615.

  Civilization means the civil system, 15;
    Christian civilization means Pope over all princes, 41.

  _Civiltá Cattolica_, commencement of, 14;
    its mission, 15;
    first manifesto, 15 ff.;
    on Syllabus, 43;
    quoted, _passim_.

  Clergy, morals and training of, 168, 412, 423, 424 ff.

  Collingridge, Arthur, English Crusader, 140.

  Comma, vote upon, 494.

  Commissions, six secret ones at work, 180.

  Communication of Pope with the faithful, what is meant by, 24, 340, 581.

  Concordats, 201.

  Council, Vatican, first formal preparations, 2;
    notes of cardinals upon, 57-59;
    of selected bishops upon, 65 ff.;
    preparations for, interrupted by Sadowa, 72;
    postponed in 1867, 73;
    publicly intimated, 113;
    objects and composition of, 483;
    fears of political effects, 170;
    manifestoes preparatory to, 171, 192, 196;
    first session, 271-307;
    second session, 379;
    third session, 520;
    fourth session of, 629;
    _see_ PROCEDURE, Rules of.

  Creed, that of Pius IV. altered the decrees of Trent, 128;
    a new one read at Vatican Council, 381;
    old and new together, 382.

  Crotti, Count, refuses to take the oaths to Italy, 82.

  Crusade of St. Peter, efficiency of Crusaders, 132;
    religious incitements to, 133;
    tales of, 138;
    the Pope in camp, 149;
    preaching the Crusade, 150;
    Crusaders exempt from purgatory, 151;
    Allet's order, 172;
    France commended for, 588;
    to subdue the world, 653;
    Crusaders leave Rome, 660.


  Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, reprimand of, 78;
    discusses whether a Liberal prince may or may not be absolved, 156;
    refuted at Rome, 156;
    his forecast of Perils in the Council, 215;
    speaks, 416;
    a speech of, in full, 555.

  Daru, Count, minister of France, opinions of, 400;
    threatens to withdraw French garrison, 442;
    important despatch, 447;
    reply to Antonelli, 450 ff.;
    suddenly retires, 460.

  Death, good hope in, for Cardinals, 372;
    less hope for bishops, 373.

  Decrees, purport of those of Vatican Council, 491;
    conclusion to first imposed, 493;
    Canon in second imposed, 597;
    text of, Appendix C.

  Directing Congregation, secret proceedings of, 165;
    deprives bishops of right of proposing measures, enforces secrecy,
    holds fifty meetings, 385.

  Direct power and indirect, doctrine of, 449.

  Discussion not anticipated by the Curia, 342-350.

  Döllinger, his position and reputation, 180;
    abused by Ultramontanes, 422, 472;
    his first open manifesto, 425;
    addresses to, 471;
    declares that majorities cannot make dogmas, 484.

  Dufournel, two brothers, Crusaders, their martyrdom and honours, 186 ff.

  Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, his manifesto, 215-222;
    lectured by Deschamps, 222;
    reply to Deschamps, 427;
    refused the _imprimatur_ in Rome, 426;
    personal attacks upon, 457.


  Encyclical of December 8, 1864, 5.

  Excommunication blasts the soul, according to Pius IX, 32.


  Faculties, Quinquennial, 55, 77, 169.

  Falcimagne, Abbé, contends that a Liberal prince may not be
  absolved, 159.

  Florence abused by Veuillot, 85.

  Free Church in a Free State, origin of the phrase, 33;
    what Free Church means, 48.

  Freemasons denounced, 79.

  Friedrich, Professor, replies to Manning, 226;
    his _Tagebuch_, 240;
    his journey, 241, 242;
    on program, 317;
    on decrees on faith, 347;
    on Jesuits, 365;
    on Roman monks, 394;
    on morals of the clergy, 412 ff.;
    his internal conflict, 474;
    on decree on infallibility, 476;
    on the inevitable sunbeam, 547.


  German bishops, ambiguous manifesto of, at Fulda, 204;
    dismissed by Nardi, 346, 348;
    on infallibility, 405.

  German language, put out of priests' schools, 194.

  German notables (Catholic), meeting of, in Berlin, 205.

  Goldoni, the Crusader, his death and exemption from purgatory, 151.

  Governments, proper place of, in education, 16;
    warned by Manning, 225;
    by _Civiltá_, 352;
    their duty as to infallibility, 455.

  Gratry, Father, letters of, 422.

  Guidi, Cardinal, speech of, 583;
    excitement caused by, 584;
    scene with the Pope, 585;
    votes _Placet_, 632.

  Guillemin, the Crusader, anecdote of, 72;
    death and posthumous honours, 139-141.


  Hefele, Bishop of Rottenburg, gives confused advice, 321;
    on Pope Honorius, 500;
    states the dilemma prepared by the Pope for the bishops of the
    minority, 604.

  Hergenröther, among the men whom Schwarzenberg deemed weak, 181;
    held up in England as an authority. _id._;
    asserts that bishops in Vatican Council had freedom of
    proposition, 320;
    his Anti-Janus, 395.

  History, official, how written, 592, 593.

  Hohenlohe, Cardinal, his dinner parties, 417 ff.

  Hohenlohe, Prince, minister of Bavaria, his circular to cabinets, 184.


  Italians, excommunicated, 31;
    abused, 188, 211, 402.

  Italy in 1846, 8;
    again in 1848, 9;
    in 1854, 28;
    in 1862, 34;
    in 1867, 84, 85.

  Immaculate Conception, effects of the proclamation upon polity, 3.

  Immunity, purport of, 39, 48.

  Indulgences, 186.

  Infallibility, foreshadowed, 182;
    address in favour of, 402;
    counter address, 404;
    opposed on principle, 405;
    decision to bring it forward, 477;
    new doctrine in many sees, 505;
    danger of, to States, hinted by bishops, 508;
    to be brought on out of order, 529;
    responsibility for, disowned by many bishops, 530.

  Inquisitor, a canonised, 73, 171.

  Instruction, freedom of, illustrated, 16 ff.

  Isabella, Queen of Spain, promises to Pope armed aid, 173;
    receives the golden rose, 177.


  _Janus_, 182, 197.

  Jesuits, morals of, 415.

  Jong, Peter, the Crusader, his martyrdom, 150.


  Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis, on the committees, 334;
    speaks, 360;
    shows how the conclusion to the first decree was passed, 493;
    on infallibility, 536;
    questions catholicity of the Council, 538;
    refutes Cullen, 549;
    on why British government conceded Catholic emancipation, 566;
    on oaths and declarations, 569;
    describes first teaching of infallibility in Maynooth, 554.

  Ketteler, Bishop of Mainz, his table talk, 420.

  Kings, subordinate to ecclesiastical authority, 20, 21, 23, 39, 41,
  42, 46, 48, 136, 191.

  Kings, subordinate to ecclesiastical authority, 20, 21, 23, 39, 41,
  42, 46, 48, 136, 191;
    not to be tolerated after Council, if they do not rightly govern,
    268, 439;
    two in every Catholic country, 48, 133, 191;
    not to be convoked to the Council, 135, 183.

  Kleutgen, the Jesuit, story of, 482.


  Lay States deprecated, 88.

  Ledochowski made Primate of Poland and representative of King
  of Poland, 483.

  Liberal Catholics, first used and then cast off, 154;
    policy of, 74;
    denounced, 46, 47, 194, 210, 322;
    condemned under the head of naturalism, 47.

  Liberalism condemned, 43, 46, 47, 189, 590.

  Liberty of the Press condemned, 30, 86, 158.

  Liberty, religious, the Ultramontane view of, 25;
    is a plague, 30, 160.

  Liverani, Prelate and Protonotary of the Holy See, on Papal States, 9;
    on morals of the Court, 108;
    and of the City, 109.


  Majority, as a rule of faith new, 469.

  Manning, Cardinal, his account of the confirmation of the Syllabus, 108;
    on the consequences to civil authorities, 121, 122;
    his manifesto, 222;
    he finds the Papal Church not narrow enough, 223;
    replied to by Friedrich, 226;
    Vitelleschi on, 302, 308, 403;
    his testimony to the decorum and freedom of the Council, 495;
    his speech on infallibility, 564;
    confuted by Kenrick, _id._;
    on deputation to Pope to harden his heart, 613;
    present from his fellow labourers the Jesuits, 641.

  Maret, Bishop of Sora, his work, 198;
    reviewed by Schulte, 200.

  Margotti, Don, editor of _Unitá Cattolica_, on Ollivier, 400.

  Marriage, a source of revenues and power, 55.

  Menzel, Professor, forecasts of doctrinal change, 173.

  Menzel, Wolfgang, cited in two or three places.

  Michaud, Abbé, takes part in the debate on the lawfulness of absolving
  a Liberal prince, 158;
    on changes of catechism, 464.

  Military spectacle for bishops, 316.

  Milton on Romish ceremonies, 304.

  Minority, annoyances of, 458;
    proposal that they should quit the Council after guile practised
    on July 5th, 599;
    flight of, 389;
    represented more Catholics than majority, 620.

  Montalembert, on the reaction of 1852 and years following, 22, 74;
    opposes Italy, 32;
    on new Ultramontanism, 74;
    his posthumous work, 153;
    traces ruin of Spain to absolutism and the Inquisition, 178;
    his strong opposition to infallibility, 192;
    his dying manifesto, 484;
    Pope forbids a high mass for him, 487.

  Moreno Garcia, President of Ecuador, a model ruler, 236.

  Mortal sin, a new one, 399.

  Munich, replies of Faculties of Theology and Law to the questions of
  the king, 180.


  Napoleon III, policy of, 233.

  Nationalism a fault, 77.

  Naturalism a heresy which includes two degrees of Liberal Catholicism,
  47, 87.

  Natural order and supernatural order, illustration of the terms, 58, 59.

  Newman, Dr., on the Syllabus, 123 ff.;
    declines invitation to Rome, 135;
    his alarm at the prospect of the new dogma, 510;
    rallied and exorcised by the _Civiltá_, 514;
    retort of Veuillot upon, 515.


  O'Connell on the doctrine of <DW7>s properly so called, 122.

  Ollivier, Emile, Prime Minister of France, policy of, 233, 234;
    his proper course prescribed by Veuillot, 393;
    changes the policy inaugurated by Daru, 460.

  Opposition, the existence of, denied, 314;
    its existence confessed, 315;
    efforts to disorganize, 334;
    found so grave that it must be put down, 409.

  Orientals invited to Council, 144;
    their response, 145-148.


  Papacy a universal monarchy, and over all princes, 37, 39, 41, 42, 119,
  145, 192, 451, 452;
    crimes of, against Italy, 662.

  Papal States, the model state for the whole world, 87, 189, 589 ff.;
    no wrong act can be done in them by authority, 88;
    plains of, 91;
    dwellings of, 91;
    people of, 92;
    villages of, 93;
    implements, cattle, and towns, 93-100;
    classes, 101-103;
    moral character of capital, 106.

  Parliamentary government decried, 188, 191, 210, 266, 401, 454.

  Parliament, English and Irish members of, are to have obligations
  imposed, 689.

  Perfect Society, the Church a, 39.

  Petitions and protests of bishops of the minority, 317, 367, 369,
  407, 408, 468, 504.

  Pius IX., his States disturbed, 9;
    witnesses general commotions, 9;
    calls for armed aid, 10;
    undertakes to reconstruct society, 11, 37, 38;
    his first dogma, 31;
    his jubilee of priesthood, 190;
    his sayings previous to the Council, 231, 232;
    his liberality, 239;
    speech against the Opposition, 391;
    refuses to receive address of 130 bishops, 406;
    writes against bishops, 429;
    excites their clergy against them, 458;
    his chat, 472;
    self-importance, 476;
    further letters, 481;
    forbids a High Mass for Montalembert, 487;
    gives no access to the minority, 530;
    approves of Saldanha for rebelling against his king, 564;
    severity to bishops as to health, 576;
    his tergiversation, 612;
    offers to mediate between France and Prussia, 650;
    how he likes to be addressed, 651;
    appeals to King William for help, 656;
    hoists white flag, 659;
    foretells his restoration, 699;
    re-opens the Roman question, 706.

  Placet, royal, Tarquini's doctrine of, 24 ff.

  Plantier, Bishop of Nimea; favours an acclamation and dogmatising
  of the Assumption of the Virgin, 204.

  Politics included in morals, 17.

  Pope, sitting as supreme judge of princes and of laws, 38, 41,
  203, 298;
    the Word of God, 238;
    Abraham, Moses, and Christ, 266;
    Cæsar, 389, 644;
    head of statesmen, 456;
    intercessor between God and the world, 582;
    continues the work of Christ on earth, 591;
    head of both spiritual and temporal power, 41, 42;
    head of the human species, 86;
    fountain of water of life, 651;
    has the authority of God, 651.

  Press, is Satan, 315;
    correspondents of, lampooned, 352;
    contradictions of, 355.

  Priests, disfranchised, 184.

  Procedure, Method of, in the Vatican Council, 344, 362, 363, 398, 467,
  596, 605, 615, 629.

  Pro-synodal congregations, 249.

  Protestantism not a negation, 602.

  Protestants, letters of invitation to, 149.

  Pusey, Dr., valued as an ally by continental priests, 218, 430.


  Quatrebarbes, Bernard, the Crusader, 622.

  Quélen, Count, the Crusader, 139.


  Rauscher, Cardinal, opens discussion, 359;
    laughed at by the majority, 533;
    his argument on infallibility, 534-536, 582.

  Reconstruction of Society, 37, 249.

  _Reform of Church in Head and Members_, 171.

  Regulars, uses of, to Papacy, 77, 78.

  Reisach, Cardinal, head of commission, for ecclesiastico-political
  affairs, 131;
    his proposed code, 132;
    appointed President of Council, 250;
    death, 348.

  Renan, his view of intolerance as essential to the Church approved
  at Rome, as against that of the Liberal Catholics, 153, 159, 163.

  Rome, changes in, 84;
    street lighting a ceremony, 84;
    midday in, 84;
    as seen by Veuillot, 85;
    city of the saints, 106;
    moral condition of, 107;
    is modern to Orientals, 149;
    is the city of three devotions, 494.

  Rosary, its military virtues, 243;
    it destroyed the Albigenses, 243.


  Saints, new, 117.

  Segesser, his plan of reform, 331.

  Senestrey, Bishop of Regensburg, speech of, at Schwandorf, 188;
    tales of, 420;
    Manning's comrade on the deputation to harden the Pope's heart, 614.

  Schoolmen, their methods for all time, 44.

  Schrader, Father, the Jesuit, his propositions, 713.

  Schwarzenberg complains of the theologians selected, 181;
    his reception of Sepp, 205;
    interrupted while speaking, 496;
    on infallibility, 547.

  Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, on new Ultramontanism, 74.

  Society, the Pope the saviour of, 145, 190, 456, 647.

  Soglia, his doctrine according to Newman, 126;
    his real doctrine, 129.

  State, subordinate to Church, 40, 41, 42, 46, 88, 340, 439, 451.

  _Stimmen aus Maria Laach_ on religious liberty, 193.

  Strossmayer, attempts to speak on the Rules, 333;
    called to order, 362;
    extract of speech, 363;
    on the official reports, 364.

  Stumpf on religious liberty and on the freedom of the lawgiver from
  the command of the priest, 210-213.

  Subjects more the subjects of the Pope than of their own sovereign, 191.

  Sunbeams, doctrinal value of, 3, 264.

  Sword, doctrine of, 244;
    _see_ also CRUSADE OF ST. PETER.

  Syllabus, issue of, 8;
    contents of 43 ff.;
    summary of its effects, 51;
    confirmed by Pope, 110;
    accepted by collective episcopate, 114;
    Manning's account of its confirmation, 121;
    cited by _Civiltá_, 101;
    not the work of the Pope according to Dr. Newman, 124.


  Table-talk, during the Council, 417.

  Taigi, Anna Maria, the new guardian of the Capitol, 247.

  Tarquini, Cardinal, a Jesuit, when a Professor hailed by Pius IX., 22;
    his doctrine of king and Pope, 23 ff;
    his doctrine of the sword, 244 ff.

  Temporal power of Pope necessary to his spiritual office, 35, 115.

  Theiner, Augustine, Prefect of the Vatican Archives, forbidden to show
  documents to bishops or theologians, 377;
    his unsuccessful attempt to see Lord Guildford's MSS., _id._;
    his dismissal, 340.

  Theocracy, contrast between the Mosaic and the Papal, 21.

  Theologians, excluded from Vatican Council, 311;
    forbidden to meet or consult together, 313;
    attainments of Roman, 344.

  Third party, attempt to form, 459.

  Toleration, when to be allowed, 31.

  Tribunals, the internal, external, and supreme, 38, 544, 675.


  Ultramontanism, difference between old and new, 74, 75.

  _Unitá Cattolica_, abuse of Italy, 188.

  Unity, Romish notion of, 189.


  Veuillot, Louis, editor of _Univers_, a layman, on the grand results
  to be expected, 85, 86;
    on the press, 86;
    wants bishops for Prefects of Provinces, 267;
    sees in the future only 'the Pope and the People,' 268;
    would not have ancient aristocracy restored, 352, 353;
    abuses correspondents of papers, 353;
    lays down a policy for France, 393;
    gives glory to M. Ollivier, 460;
    his _true_ account of the scene between the Pope and the
    Patriarch of Babylon, 462;
    watches the minority, 625.

  Vicar of Christ, the office described, 591.

  Virgin, the letter of, on infallibility, 547.

  Vitelleschi, origin of his book, 356;
    attacked in vain by the _Civiltá_, 356;
    his view of the practical scope of infallibility, 509.


  War, anticipations or threats of, 82, 208, 210, 341, 349, 389, 445, 454,
  500, 539, 610, 669.

  Watts-Russell, the Crusader, 588.


  Youth, Catholic, manifestoes of, 354, 441.


_Butler and Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London_




      *      *      *      *      *      *




Transcribers note:

Original spelling has been retained.



***